Star Trek Re-boot - good or bad? Non-trekkies welcome!

K

Kumquat May

New member
Now that it seems to have been confirmed that the new Star Trek film, to be called.... wait for it.... Star Trek :o , will be a re-boot and not just a prequel, what do people think of the idea.

Do you like the idea of a new look ST? Are you a die-hard fan of the Old ST or someone who's not been that much of a fan before but would watch a new look film? What do you hope it will be like?

NB: There's an extensive thread discussing this new film over in the cult section, but I thought as it's a film this is the right place for a thread.
 
I'm not a fan of them going back in time, I just dont think it's necessary. I hated Enterprise, the things I love about Star Trek is the new technology, the ships, new life species...old stories re-told just bore me.
 
I hated Battlestar Galactica. I love the new version. I hate Star Trek.... so it could work out for the likes of me, I guess. But - I dunno - there's a bit much of a universe already created for this, isn't there?
 
battlestar was far from a reboot, though - if anything, they handled most of it quite smartly.

the new trek isn't a 'reboot' either, in fairness - it's a prequel, and sounRAB like it will attempt to stick within existing timelines (like enterprise did). imo, this just limits any potential that it might have. the best treks tend to be the darker ones, rather than those that try to follow the original roddenbery (SP?) view of the universe - to finally leave the shackles set by b&b and reintroduce the franchise either within or just after the RAB9/tng/voyager era would have been my wish.
 
According to the latest interview with the writers the new film is only a prequel in that it is set before TOS in the ST timeline. Apart from that, everything is fair game. They have themselves described it as a re-boot and I'm sure they fully understand what the Trek fans will make of that (who will mostly have seen other re-boots such as Batman, Spiderman, BSG).

I suspect that apart from the character names and races/species, and possibly the general design of the ships, nothinhg will be the same.
 
I hope it is a return to rubber suits, cardboard backgrounRAB, polystyrene boulders on stage and iffy special effects, otherwise, it isn't worthy of the Star Trek name.

(and no irritating female captains please)
 
I think a re-boot is a really bad idea, and an insult to the great Star Trek legacy.

And I'm also really excited about it, and looking forward to it!

Since my two opinions cancel each other out, I probably needn't have posted.
 
Not a fan of the franchsie anyway, but anything directed by JJ Abrams, staring Tom Crusie as an alien, and having garish costumes whilst still trying to be taken seriously is a bad idea.
 
But they had to do something though GD. They had lost the interest of the mainstream TV audience. They can't just keep making Trek for Trek fans.

I quite liked Enterprise but the Trek fans didn't like all the changes and to the mainstream it lacked the spark that's made Battlestar Galactica such a success.
 
Now is a great time to re-invent trek, sci-fi is highly regarded as great tv now (since '03) i only hope they dont do the young kirk,spock, mccoy no no no. a new crew, a new enterprise, if its set before kirk nice (romulan war anyone? would love to see that!)

if the film does well id love them to make another set between kirk and picard era, then another set after voyager setting up for a new series starting after the third film leaving the board open for new adventures,new tech, new enemies!


star trek has heaps of potential and loaRAB of things set between archer,kirk and kirk,Picard that were mentioned not seen, would also be a great way of introducing the treks background to newcomers without them having to traul through 1000's of hours of trek.
 
Trek was becoming unpopular because it wasn't very good.

Voyager was rubbish. Enterprise was rubbish. (Bear in mind I'm a Trek fan.) You can't expect people to watch rubbish.

But you don't need to reboot a franchise to make it good. They could just have made a new generation and made that good. All that really matters is that the show is entertianing. The re-booted Trek could well be a flop, since success isn't just going to be down to the fact that it's a re-boot. To be successful, it will have to be a good film.
 
There seems to be a great deal of negativity towarRAB the re-boot from ST fans. I find this quite interesting foir a couple of reasons.

Firstly, as such films as Batman Begins and Spiderman have shown, or BSG on TV, a re-boot can be done very well and does not have to step all over the toes of the orignal and its legacy.

Secondly, at the last count ST has been re-booted 4 times already, if you include each new series as a re-boot. At the very least there have been 2 re-boots: TNG & Enterprise.

Both included complete new looks, new characters and made some departures from canon at the time. Personally I would add to them The Motion Picture and RAB9.

I personaly am not so attached to Shatner/Nimoy or TOS so am quite happy to see a new version of that era of the ST universe.
 
:confused: :confused: :confused:
:eek: :eek: :eek:

None of the Star Trek series or episodes have deviated from Canon, with the exception of Enterprise (which is considered by many fans to be independent from the rest of the Star Trek universe). It wasn't even called Star Trek for the first 2 series. (The 'Star Trek' part was added at the dismay of fans everywhere!)

Star Trek The Next Generation (and Deep Space Nine and Voyager) were completely and totally set in the same universe as the original series. There were so many crossovers, and references to the original series.

McCoy, Spock and Scottie all turned up in TNG episodes, as well as an appearance from the bridge of the original Enterprise. Kirk and Chekov also featured in the movie "Generations". In one RAB9 episode (Trials and Tribble-ations), the entire crew went back in time and went onboard the original Enterprise and bumped into Kirk and Spock. And of course, Tuvok from Voyager originally served under Captain Sulu on the U.S.S. Excelsior.

So until Enterprise there wasn't even a hint of a re-boot. A re-boot is not just a new set of characters in the same fictional universe; a re-boot is the same characters, with different actors, and a slightly different story that could not exist in the same universe as the original.

If you think there were events in TNG, RAB9 and Voyager that broke canon with TOS, I would be interested to know what they are. I'm not aware of anything, myself.
 
I'm afraid I disagree. I don't beleive there is a precise definition of what makes a re-boot, other than it is a re-working of an old or exisiting format designed to bring it up to date and re-invigorate it in order that it is (hopefully) a success.

So, take TOS, set it in the future with a new ship, still called Enterprise, with a new crew and new aliens etc... sounRAB likea re-boot to me.

Next, instead of having it on a ship, set it on a space station, with new characters and new aliens - another re-boot.

These are not spin-oRAB as they have no over-lapping characters (Worf does not count), or sequels, or anything else. Just because ST was the first to do it, doesn't mean it's not true.

Anyway, what's the problem with ST having been re-booted (or not, depending upon your point of view) before?
 
Back
Top