• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forward?

Are you ok with change?

  • I don't mind this movie rebooting Star Trek, I'm ok with change

    Votes: 88 58.3%
  • I want strict continuity following this movie, no changes to the known ST universe

    Votes: 35 23.2%
  • I don't care either way, I am just going to watch the movie for entertainment

    Votes: 28 18.5%

  • Total voters
    151
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Rebooting "Battlestar Galactica" worked and improved the vapid original beyond all expectations - so there's no reason a reboot won't be a good idea for "Star Trek" too. :techman:

And did the GINO "creator" claim his was in the same continuity, or from the start did he admit it was a "re-imagining"?

Even with Galactica, I still say, if you want to do your own thing, have the guts to do it.

Don't go hitching your wagon to a known name so's to have an easier time of it.
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

...
If you can't tell the difference, I suggest getting professional help.

Says the guy who has heated discussions about the rotation of the bridge.

Since I actually know and understand a great deal more about every aspect of "Star Trek" (or the Hugo Awards, for that matter) than CRA does, I'm not stressing about it.
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Irregardless, I was RIGHT.......It really is "Doogy Howser in Space!", just like I said it would be. Comments on other BBS' seem to echo my sentiments as well.

Other posters echoing your opinions doesn't constitute meaningful evidence to support them, and you most assuredly are not right.
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Rebooting "Battlestar Galactica" worked and improved the vapid original beyond all expectations - so there's no reason a reboot won't be a good idea for "Star Trek" too. :techman:

Are you seriously comparing one mediocre season of Battlestar Galactica and an even worse follow up (Galactica 1980) to over forty years of Hugo award winning Star Trek material?

If you can't tell the difference, I suggest getting professional help.
And I'd suggest you leave personal jabs like that well alone. As I indicated before, (on your behalf, wasn't it?) that cake is not on the menu here, to be had or eaten.
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Thank You! I too don't want to erase everything that has came before and the way i understood it to be was a we will be seeing how the crew came together and some academy day's plus some sort of time travel involving Spock then I dont mind small changes like the bridge display or " oh my god Kirk saw a Romulan" as long as it's the same charachters and the same basic mission. That being said, an alternate timeline would be eceptable and a TOS era show would definately be cool

The bridge looking so different IS a pretty big change. It DOES violate the continuity we knew...

IF that's what's happening. (Again, wait and see.)

If the uniforms represented the degree of visual changes we'd see, I'd be on board. (Said that before.) It's making things look SO different NEEDLESSLY that bugs me. It makes it something OTHER than the original Star Trek. It ends what we knew, and uses the Trek name to do something else.

I'd like what was promised. Stories that take place within existing continuity.

Oh, by the way...

A Starfleet officer, especially Kirk, wouldn't have kept quiet about "The Romulans look like Vulcans". I think that'd be something he'd at least report in secret. Can't let that go by, but at the same time can't start a Federation-wide panic. All we need is Vulcan getting nuked by a shipful of renegades with Styles' sentiments.
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

If Abrams' Star Trek is successful, then I'm happy to have the franchise re-boot its continuity and start over. I don't care about canon at this point. I just want good, compelling stories. Ditching over 40 years of baggage is okay with me. I can learn to adapt to two different universes.
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

If the old universe isn't being added to, then it's been shifted off to second class status. They'll add nothing to it. They'll just be glad to take money from people for new releases of old recordings...

Recordings depicting a continuity that's been abandoned and won't be added to any more.

In the meantime they may well be adding to the new. That puts the original in second class status, and you know that as well as I do.

Yes, it will not be added to anymore. That's called "ending". Is Casablanca "second class" because it has an ending and there will never be further adventures of Rick and Ilsa? Or if need something that is more of a series - is The Lord of the Rings "second class" because it has an ending and there will never be further adventures of Frodo? Is the Silver Age of DC Comics "second class" because there will never be further adventures of Superman in that particular continuity and there have been 22 years of a new continuity? Do these stories disappear? Do people lose the ability to appreciate them?

No.

Your claim that by something being ended it is somehow denigrated either needs more explanation, or is simply a gut reaction on your part.

"All good things..."? Then why are they still using the title "Star Trek"? Why would the visual aspect have to be changed to tell an interesting story? Hmmm?

Because it's a reboot, which, as I explained, means recombining material that has been created in that universe. The visual aspect may or may not have anything to do with telling an interesting story, but I would assume eventually having updated tech that allows for technological advances made since 1966 will open up some story possibilities, either in this story or in a following one.

And will they also do more stories in the same universe? It seems they may not. THAT is what we're losing, and I plainly said so. Either you're deliberately pretending to not have read what I said, or you didn't bother to really read what I said.

My dear, dial back the condescension. I read what you wrote and I responded to your assumptions. Your assumption - no more stories in this continuity means losing something. My response - no it doesn't because you still have all those stories. 42 years worth. I don't understand the greediness that requires yet more in that continuity.


Never did [hamper creativity] before.

Did you see Voyager? Enterprise? Generations?

It has been hampering their creativity for about 15 years now, which is why Star Trek during that time has been as compelling as Harry Potter fan fiction written by 12 year olds.

Why should it now?

They claimed this was a story in the exsiting continuity, but now seem to have done something very different.

If this is so, they not only LIED, they also failed to do something many writers do all the time.

Oh, and that doesn't even address the matter of the changed visual aspect...IF indeed it does get permanently changed.

Creative freedom? Then why use the name "Star Trek" if it's not the Trek universe they want to write about?

They're free to create their own title and universe.

It is the Star Trek universe they want to write about. And they want to do it by being able to freely recombine elements from across its 42 years worth of material. Something they cannot do if they are beholden to every line of dialogue thrown out by writers working quickly to produce a weekly tv series who weren't even trying to write things that were consistent.

Why? Because YOU say so?

I'm giving opinions, just like you are. I assume we can have a civil, intelligent discussion, though your attitude in this response is accusatory, and rather nasty.

If you're doing Trek, accept that there's an existing continuity.

Apparently, following this story, there won't be.

Did every writer of every episode of TOS redesign the bridge? If this is Kirk and Spock, fine. If the actors have to be changed to achieve that, fine, but why change other things? Can't you tell interesting stories on the same bridge of the same ship?

Not when the bridge design looks like a tv set from the 1960s with a tech design which makes no sense given contemporary technology. That is relegating Star Trek to a bygone era. If it is to have life and continue into the future as a science fiction series, it needs an update.

Untrue, as the example of Gary Seven proves. Why are you contradicting plain simple facts?

I'm not. I said Star Trek assumed its history and actual history remained the same up until 1966. "Assignment:Earth" took place in 1968. If you're going to be anal about continuity it is helpful to actually know it.


Why do YOU feel it HAS to be changed? Why not just be happy with more stories in the same setting we had before?

Because the same setting we had before produced 15 years of crappy stories.


If it's REALLY "Star Trek" that you enjoy, why would you need a visual difference to keep you happy? You didn't need it before.

I have no attachment to the visuals one way or the other. As I explained in my first post I generally reimagine them in my head anyway. Why are you so completely attached to a particular design that you can't stomach a change - especially when there's been design changes between TOS and S:TMP, between S:TMP and TWOK, between all of that and TNG, DS9 and so on and so forth?


Yes it does, BY beginning it anew. The former version is thereby called "non-existant" as far as the new stories are concerned. This is called "ignoring and denying".

How can you claim the original is still considered as valid when it's being simultaneously overwritten?

As I explained, it's being recombined. There will be plenty of familiar material, but put together in new patterns. I don't find this to be denying the original material, but using it in a more freely creative way.

Your claims are empty and invalid.

You've even contradicted yourself.

You've failed to prove your point.

Totally.

I'm sorry you feel that way. No, I didn't contradict myself. And I didn't really expect to convince you of anything - that is not my purpose in posting here. Rather I am looking to have interesting discussions with other Star Trek fans.
 
Last edited:
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

If Abrams' Star Trek is successful, then I'm happy to have the franchise re-boot its continuity and start over. I don't care about canon at this point. I just want good, compelling stories. Ditching over 40 years of baggage is okay with me. I can learn to adapt to two different universes.


Absolutely Right(TM).

Although I'd say "two different versions of the story" rather than "two different universes" - but that would, I suppose, be unnecessarily wordy nitpicking. ;)
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

...
If you can't tell the difference, I suggest getting professional help.

Says the guy who has heated discussions about the rotation of the bridge.

Since I actually know and understand a great deal more about every aspect of "Star Trek" (or the Hugo Awards, for that matter) than CRA does, I'm not stressing about it.

That is why I completely respect your opinion over many others who post here.
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

I don't think a reboot has to be all or nothing. Sure, I'd like to see original Star Trek again with the original designs, but that's just not a real possibility. The closest we can get is non-profit things like NV which, of course, have new actors anyway.

Is Abrams's version of Trek looking to be my 'ideal' revival? No way, but that's true of pretty much every show & movie I didn't personally create. Which, come to think of it, is all shows and movies...

As long as it's a pretty entertaining 2 hours I'm not going to sweat it.
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

There has been a lot of discussion lately about "rebooting" Star Trek. There are many rumors that this next film may indeed do so, it may leave us with an entirely 'new' Star Trek. This is my poll to find out if the majority are ok with change, or if they want strict continuity post Star Trek XI.

I wouldn't want to throw away 40 years of Star Trek history for every reboot to come out, so yes, I would care if Star Trek kept getting a reboot. Then Star Trek will become something stupid and retarted. It was fun before, because you knew the characters and the history of the franchise. Now, as long as the same basic principals are adhered to in this new "universe", then I'd say it'd be welcome. But I don't want it to "reboot" every other movie-- it wouldn't be Star Trek anymore.
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

If Abrams' Star Trek is successful, then I'm happy to have the franchise re-boot its continuity and start over. I don't care about canon at this point. I just want good, compelling stories. Ditching over 40 years of baggage is okay with me. I can learn to adapt to two different universes.


Absolutely Right(TM).

Although I'd say "two different versions of the story" rather than "two different universes" - but that would, I suppose, be unnecessarily wordy nitpicking. ;)

:techman:

You see, I don't understand why people don't want to see all the old stories retold. I've love to see new versions of BoT, The Doomsday machine etc. I simply don't understand how this would detract from the original versions which still on my shelf, and which I will still be watching.

Hollywood has been remaking stuff for years, the only real question is :

Will the next reboot (in 2052) be any good? :D
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Do we begrudge people putting on yet another production of Hamlet? Only if it is bad, I should think. Even Hitchcock remade his own work, on occasion (and it succeeded). Not all remakes are as good, much less better than, the original (even if they are not bad in and of themselves) but some are better. Yes, some are also worse (The Vanishing is an egregious example of a bad remake). But Ben-Hur is better as a remake than as an original. There is no inherent reason NOT to try--and this is not even a remake. Again, it's entertainment, not a religion.
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

If Abrams' Star Trek is successful, then I'm happy to have the franchise re-boot its continuity and start over. I don't care about canon at this point. I just want good, compelling stories. Ditching over 40 years of baggage is okay with me. I can learn to adapt to two different universes.


Absolutely Right(TM).

Although I'd say "two different versions of the story" rather than "two different universes" - but that would, I suppose, be unnecessarily wordy nitpicking. ;)

:techman:

You see, I don't understand why people don't want to see all the old stories retold. I've love to see new versions of BoT, The Doomsday machine etc. I simply don't understand how this would detract from the original versions which still on my shelf, and which I will still be watching.

Hollywood has been remaking stuff for years, the only real question is :

Will the next reboot (in 2052) be any good? :D

If I want to see "Balance of Terror" again, I'll just watch the rerun.
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Absolutely Right(TM).

Although I'd say "two different versions of the story" rather than "two different universes" - but that would, I suppose, be unnecessarily wordy nitpicking. ;)

:techman:

You see, I don't understand why people don't want to see all the old stories retold. I've love to see new versions of BoT, The Doomsday machine etc. I simply don't understand how this would detract from the original versions which still on my shelf, and which I will still be watching.

Hollywood has been remaking stuff for years, the only real question is :

Will the next reboot (in 2052) be any good? :D

If I want to see "Balance of Terror" again, I'll just watch the rerun.

You go do that.
;)
 
Re: Would you really care if Star Trek was rebooted anew from now forw

Do we begrudge people putting on yet another production of Hamlet? Only if it is bad, I should think. Even Hitchcock remade his own work, on occasion (and it succeeded). Not all remakes are as good, much less better than, the original (even if they are not bad in and of themselves) but some are better. Yes, some are also worse (The Vanishing is an egregious example of a bad remake). But Ben-Hur is better as a remake than as an original. There is no inherent reason NOT to try--and this is not even a remake.

No, it's whatever buzzword Abrams wants to use in order to con as many people into the theatre as he can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top