Star Trek Movie Thoughts

[ShannonA]

So I continue to hear discussion of the new Star Trek movie, and the reports continue to state that the powers-that-be are planning to reboot the whole franchise. The latest suggests that it will be part of the actual plot of the movie, with time-travelling Romulans screwing up continuity, or some such, rebooting the whole universe.

And everytime I see the newest news, I think what the heck are they thinking!?

Sure, BSG did a great job of a reboot, but BSG was generally a failed franchise. You had a season and a half of TV show (with the half being generous), some books, some old board games, and that was it.

Conversely fans of Star Trek have a lot invested in the current continuity, including hundreds of books, almost 30 seasons of television, 9 movies, numerous comics, and role-playing games.

And Paramount is planning to toss all that out?

I shake my head at IPs ending up in uncaring corporate hands and continue to hope that the stories are overblown, though I'd guess not.

[Fritzef]

Any reboot that would nerf the existing material would be a very bad idea, as you say. Of course, some amount of rewriting of past material is probably inevitable--like the revision of Klingons between the original series and the first Trek movie. But a total reboot seems like a waste of intellectual assets.

IMO new Trek movies aren't really the right way to go, anyway. The franchise works best as a TV series.

If the owners really want to reboot Trek, it would make more sense to accept the Trek universe and all the material it gives you to play with, but shift the focus of the series. It does not need to be about the captain and crew of a large Federation starship exploring the galaxy. Why not give us a show about Ferengi traders, either towards the comic side (like the Quark episodes in DS9) or handled more seriously (the Sopranos-in-Space). Or about Star Fleet intelligence thwarting threats to Federation security (Ensign Flandry or George Smiley in Space, depending on tone). Or a private exploration venture, which has to deal with the Federation, Ferengi and Orion competitors, Klingon and Nausican mercenaries, etc. (Traveller the Trek series).

[Divine Hammer]

It's hard to dismiss a reboot outright.

If it's a -good- movie, audiences and fans can be very tolerant. Both Batman Begins and Casino Royale come to mind as good examples of franchise reboots. The original cast of Star Trek, beloved though they might be, are just parodies of their former selves. In some respects, it might be better if the Producers did re-cast all the original characters and start from the beginning... But they should never attempt it unless they are committed to the perfect cast and the perfect script. It can't be about pandering to the tastes of the wider audience, you have to capture the "feeling". You can't put Justin Timberlake in the Kirk role and expect a warm reception.

[ShannonA]

The biggest difference for me is that neither the James Bond movies nor the Batman movies have a lot of additional material. If Star Trek were just the movies, you could shrug your shoulders and say, "OK, we'll look at a new continuity".

Instead with Star Trek you have a mass of books and comics all set in (roughly) the same universe, so they're not just kicking out 30 years of TV, but also ongoing series in books ... unless they decide to separate the movie continuity from everything else, which is effectively what Batman does.

[Ineti]

The Star Trek books have never been part of the official Star Trek canon anyway. Any reboot they do with the movie franchise probably won't affect what's going on in most of the books.

The novels aren't always consistent with each other anyway, so it's pretty much all good.

Unless they really screw with the established species and so on. I mean, if they turn Vulcans into clannish blood-thirsty pirates and Klingons into the voice of reason, then you'll have blood in the streets.

[ShannonA]

Here's the latest news on the upcoming Star Trek movie, though mainly it discusses the fact that they needed Nimoy and is pretty full of hot air beyond that:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=46451

Here's an excerpt:

The crux of the screenplay involves the appearance of Nimoy in his iconic role as Spock. "I think a lot of people were speculating that we must have had multiple ideas [for the script]," Orci said. "The truth is that we took a gigantic gamble in terms of the movie we wanted to do, and it was essential that we had Nimoy. Frankly, I didn't understand any other way to do it. We didn't have a Plan B. I think that would have shown that we didn't have a true, singular vision of what we wanted to do, so it was essential for us to get Nimoy. It was a gigantic gamble, and I can't even believe that J.J. supported that kind of a gamble, but I think he understood it was the way to do it and a way to get the blessing for Star Trek, to show there is continuity for the spirit of what it was before. So when Nimoy said yes, not only as a fan was it a relief--if that didn't work, I don't know where we would be!"


And in case you missed it over in another thread, Star Trek XI is being filmed, without writer input, which is probably every bit as dreadful as it sounds.

[peteramthor]

Well they may be going for folks other than the base fans of the show with a reboot, if there is a reboot. After the beatings the studios have taken on the last few movies from Trekkers they may be just trying to make a more mass appeal movie than before.

I'm not a big fan of the show. Can't stand the original series, liked the next generation and Deep Space Nine and the rest never really caught me all that much. But even then I could tell with the last couple of movies that you had to know quite a bit of the ongoing storylines to really get everything.

Either way they go I'll watch the movie. Wether it's at the theater or on DVD depends on how good it looks.

[Tom B]

Frankly, I'd be glad for a thorough re-boot. I've watched all of them, but never really enjoyed them as much as the originals. It always seemed like they took a wrong direction with TNG and just never really recovered or lived up to the potential of the original series. There were a handfull of excellent episodes in nearly all of the series, but I kept feeling that they were just missing the mark.

Of course, there's every expectation that a full re-boot would miss at least as badly, but screwing with existing continuity doesn't bother me at all. It needs screwing with.

[ShannonA]

It always seemed like they took a wrong direction with TNG and just never really recovered or lived up to the potential of the original series.

I'm curious, what wrong direction do you think TNG took? I was never a big fan of the series, but it always struck me as just being TOS, twenty years later. How do you think they differentiated, particularly wrongly so?

Of course, there's every expectation that a full re-boot would miss at least as badly, but screwing with existing continuity doesn't bother me at all. It needs screwing with.

I just don't see that, primarily because I've never felt like existing continuity was that big a driving force. It's usually struck me as a backdrop, and little more.

(I just happen to like my backdrops to be consistent, to allow all the stories, past and future, to fit into the same universe.)

I suppose if I were going to muddle it out, I'd say that the Prime Directive has always been a problem in Star Trek, because it's both illogical and inconsistently applied.

There are probably too many all-powerful beings floating around.

It'd be nice to resolve those.

But looking at the core ideals: a federation of planets; Romulans, Klingons, Vulcans, Cardassians, and numerous other races; a few (but only few) notable continuity elements such as the Borg attack on earth (pick one) and the Dominion War ... it all strikes me as fine, and also the sort of stuff that you could largely ignore if you wanted to produce a more user-friendly new series.

Thinking further, the only place I'd see continuity as troublesome would be if I thought that the only way to make Star Trek more successful again was to continually retread the voyages of the TOS, and it looks like that's exactly what the original producers are doing, which is a shame, because I think the universe got a lot richer as it expanded beyond the original series.

[Tom B]

I'm curious, what wrong direction do you think TNG took? I was never a big fan of the series, but it always struck me as just being TOS, twenty years later. How do you think they differentiated, particularly wrongly so?

To me they were very different. TOS was more exploratory...more of a feeling of being on the frontier. Risks were expected, and order were open to interpretation. The emphasis was not on how superior mankind was, but on how it was still learning and progressing. TNG seemed very conservative. The ship looked like a hotel, and had families and children running around. That by itself lent to a very different outlook and feel. It was emphasized over and over that you should always follow orders, that you took risks only as a last resort. Over and over you hear Picard crowing about how advanced Mankind is, and no longer suffers from the petty prejudices and failures of mankind's past. Exactly the opposite of TOS.

I just don't see that, primarily because I've never felt like existing continuity was that big a driving force. It's usually struck me as a backdrop, and little more.

(I just happen to like my backdrops to be consistent, to allow all the stories, past and future, to fit into the same universe.)

That's fine, until it starts getting in the way. I feel that Star Trek, as it stands now after five series and ten movies, has really painted further exploration of the franchise into a corner. Primarily because I don't care for the majority of that continuity after TOS is why I have no problem with it being massively rebooted.

I suppose if I were going to muddle it out, I'd say that the Prime Directive has always been a problem in Star Trek, because it's both illogical and inconsistently applied.

Actually, it was never really a problem in TOS. It took TNG and VOY to really screw it up. In TOS, it was explained that the Prime Directive was primarily meant to apply to growing, thriving cultures. Kirk messed around in the grey areas of that definition, but always in defensible ways. TNG seemed to thoroughly miss the whole point of the Prime Directive. Picard refused on at least one occasion to go to relatively minor effort to save a people about to be wiped out by a natural disaster...in the name of the Prime Directive. It was interpreted in many confusing and contradictory means...but really only in TNG and later.

There are probably too many all-powerful beings floating around.

It'd be nice to resolve those.

I prefer the approach taken by Babylon 5. They're there...they're unknown...their motives are mysterious and unknown. They don't usually mess with the less developed species because they have no reason to.

But looking at the core ideals: a federation of planets; Romulans, Klingons, Vulcans, Cardassians, and numerous other races; a few (but only few) notable continuity elements such as the Borg attack on earth (pick one) and the Dominion War ... it all strikes me as fine, and also the sort of stuff that you could largely ignore if you wanted to produce a more user-friendly new series.

Agree.

Thinking further, the only place I'd see continuity as troublesome would be if I thought that the only way to make Star Trek more successful again was to continually retread the voyages of the TOS, and it looks like that's exactly what the original producers are doing, which is a shame, because I think the universe got a lot richer as it expanded beyond the original series.

I guess I tended to see it more as a series of missed opportunities. I mean, they expanded the Klingons ad nauseum...added Cardassians, Bajorans and Borg...Q...none of which I'd really miss, or that would be trivial to keep in a new continuity. What would really be lost that couldn't be included if it was felt to be worthwhile?

[The23SidedDie]

The biggest difference for me is that neither the James Bond movies nor the Batman movies have a lot of additional material. If Star Trek were just the movies, you could shrug your shoulders and say, "OK, we'll look at a new continuity".

You're possibly right with James Bond, but...Batman? Seriously. I think there's probably a lot more additional material. Television shows. Comic books. Outright books. Re-imaginings. Movies...

[ShannonA]

You're possibly right with James Bond, but...Batman? Seriously. I think there's probably a lot more additional material. Television shows. Comic books. Outright books. Re-imaginings. Movies...

But the Batman movies were outside of all that continuity, so when they rebooted the series with Batman Begins, they only affected the 4 movies before it, not all the rest.

Contrariwise, all of the Star Trek TV shows, movies, novels, etc. have been connected, though some are considered less canon than others.

[ShannonA]

To me they were very different. TOS was more exploratory...more of a feeling of being on the frontier. Risks were expected, and order were open to interpretation. The emphasis was not on how superior mankind was, but on how it was still learning and progressing. TNG seemed very conservative.

So you basically think it went from a progressive show of the 1960s to a conservative show of the Reagan era? Interesting, and I can see it.

Actually, it was never really a problem in TOS. It took TNG and VOY to really screw it up.

I've actually been really bugged by its usage in Enterprise. I guess I'd have to go back and watch some TOS to see how it differed.

I guess I tended to see it more as a series of missed opportunities. I mean, they expanded the Klingons ad nauseum...added Cardassians, Bajorans and Borg...Q...none of which I'd really miss, or that would be trivial to keep in a new continuity. What would really be lost that couldn't be included if it was felt to be worthwhile?

An ability to refer to old stories, to build on and expand characters, people, and places that we've seen before. A knowledge that all the stories fit into a huge tapestry, each bit of which illuminates other bits.

Take Doctor Who as a fine example of how you can continue forth even with a very old and complex continuity. They didn't reboot the continuity, but they did create a totally new show with new dynamics that minimizes connections to the old. And if there's something from the old continuity that they don't like, they prety much ignore it.

With the Star Trek reboot, it'll ultimately depend upon what they do. They could take the <i>Crisis on Infinite Earths</i> path and say, "Everything you know is right, until we say it isn't." But if they instead take the path more common of the modern reboot, of just starting over, I think that's a real loss.

[Tom B]

So you basically think it went from a progressive show of the 1960s to a conservative show of the Reagan era? Interesting, and I can see it.

I hadn't really thought about it in those terms...but that's certainly an interesting way to summarize it. Sounds about right.

I've actually been really bugged by its usage in Enterprise. I guess I'd have to go back and watch some TOS to see how it differed.

I can excuse Enterprise, if only because the Prime Directive was only a concept rather than doctrine. At least as an "in show" concept. On another level, the producers were still trying to steer it toward the TNG and VOY interpretations.

An ability to refer to old stories, to build on and expand characters, people, and places that we've seen before. A knowledge that all the stories fit into a huge tapestry, each bit of which illuminates other bits.

I guess for me the baggage of TNG and VOY outweighs their value as "old stories" to mine. But you do bring up a good point...

Take Doctor Who as a fine example of how you can continue forth even with a very old and complex continuity. They didn't reboot the continuity, but they did create a totally new show with new dynamics that minimizes connections to the old. And if there's something from the old continuity that they don't like, they prety much ignore it.

...here. They'd have to put enough distance between VOY and a new 're-booted' series, though. Enough to justify a new philosophy and approach. Unfortunately, I don't think that would happen with the current producers. They really need a whole new creative team with a fresh outlook. (Well, Ron Moore could do it. Just keep B&B away from it.)

With the Star Trek reboot, it'll ultimately depend upon what they do. They could take the <i>Crisis on Infinite Earths</i> path and say, "Everything you know is right, until we say it isn't." But if they instead take the path more common of the modern reboot, of just starting over, I think that's a real loss.

Apparently the appearance of Nimoy's Spock in the new movie is pivotal along these lines. Some implication of altered timelines or some such...

[cfc]

I'd welcome a Star Trek reboot, but "time travelling Romulans" is going about it in such an ass-backwards way that, if true, shows the writers are completely missing the point.

Look at TOS, look at Enterprise, and then look out your window at the world we live in today. My cell phone looks more futuristic than their communicators. Even in TNG, when someone gets a message an ensign will CARRY A DATAPAD to them. When a character wants to hear music, he'll say something incredibly awkward like "Play Personal File Index #7734568". Until it got retconned onto the Borg in First Contact, nanotech didn't exist at all. Star Trek started out as a vision of the future from the 1960's, and it's never been able to move fully past that because it's hog-tied to that continuity. And the "progressive" multi-racial cast of the 60's is behind the curve when today's shows often feature characters that are gay/lesbian, of mixed racial heritage, disabled or even polygamous (props to Dr. Phlox, though). Do you realize that in its ENTIRE history, Star Trek has only even approached mentioning homosexuality twice? The first time subtly and indirectly with a race of asexuals, and the second time they completely ignored the issue of homosexuality itself while arbitrarily making the relationship taboo for other reasons.

I also agree with another poster that with TOS, the show was very much focused on discovery and exploration, the whole "final frontier" thing, where the diplomacy was usually of the cowboy variety; the later shows seem to be mostly stuck in civilized space, losing the "cowboy" frontier exploration in favor of lots of diplomatic missions.

While the show may have shaped many of the tropes of the sci-fi genre, many more recent shows have really surpassed it in the imaginative sci-fi department -- Aliens being one of the most obvious examples.

The show needs a reboot, not to throw away the history and continuity it has, but to re-think and re-envision it for a modern era. I would love to see a new Trek set in the same era of exploration as TOS -- But with technology that still looks futuristic (and, if I had my druthers, behaved a little more consistently), aliens that look like aliens, humans that act like humans and show the full range of human diversity, and edgy, original stories instead of trying to rehash the same old plots over and over.

They've certainly made attempts at doing some of those things -- primarily with Deep Space Nine and Enterprise -- but never all of them at the same time, and the attempts they have made often end up straitjacketed by existing continuity or just serve to draw attention to the problem they're supposed to address (like that one time in that one movie where the Captain remembers that they're in space and the ship can move in THREE dimensions, not just two like the seafaring vessels they usually pretend to be; or the introduction of the borg-hunting alien space mantises in Voyager, a one time exception to the "all aliens look like humans in make-up" rule).

Until they're willing to break free from what's come before and explore their universe in truely original ways, I just don't see them successfully addressing any of those problems.

[Humaren]

I have been a huge fan of Star Trek in almost all of it's forms for as long as I can remember. (As I write this I glance to my Tri-Dimentional chess set.) and as much as it pains me to say...but I must....if they can't do better...enough is enough and let Kirk rest in peace.

[ShannonA]

cfc's suggestion is one of the few good ones I've seen as to *why* to reboot the franchise. Updating the technology is a worthy goal, but I'll be pretty surprised if that's what they're going for.

[ShannonA]

Latest word is that the movie is delayed until May, 2009, allegedly because it "has so much box-office potential".

[*hork hork hork HOOOOARK*]

I'm looking for it. Just the fact that they shattered fan perception so hard and so completely by showing the ship under construction on the ground makes me want to see what other silly perceptions and canon assumptions they are tossing out the door.

[randar23rhenn]

I think that the reboot is a terrible idea

I wouldnt mind them injecting some LIFE into the franchise, making another show after Voyager, etc... but not restarting it all

[Mikey Boy]

I think that the reboot is a terrible idea

Why? What's so terrible about it?

Mike

[Humaren]

I feel that Star Trek, as it stands now after five series and ten movies, has really painted further exploration of the franchise into a corner. Primarily because I don't care for the majority of that continuity after TOS is why I have no problem with it being massively rebooted.

I can't agree. Yes the franchise went down hill with Enterprise, and possibly started to with Voyager, but it had it's up sides as well. To me TNG was probably the best thing to happen to the franchise, and gave it a more realistic feel. The characters were great, as were 97% of the story lines, and it had the best run of any of the Trek series. It also kept it’s continuity with TOS. Sure TOS was awesome and fun, and will standout in all our hearts, but it wasn’t the best Trek.

[ShannonA]

Here's a neat tidbit:
http://syfyportal.com/news425493.html

It talks about a prelude comic linked to the new movie which will be set in TNG era. It looks like someone is going to try and link old continuity together to keep the re-boot from being a big re-gret.

[Humaren]

If they felt they needed a link, they couldn't have picked a better series to link too. It could be interesting to check out when it's released.

[MargeSith]

I've been not following this movie on purpose. I want to be totally surprised when it airs. So far, the pics are underwhelming, but I've made up my mind to wait until I see it before I speculate.

I've invested a lot in Star Trek over the years, and in a way I am willing to concede that there is Star Trek Mark I and Mark II. Like versions of Deep Purple.