Star Trek XI will be a re-boot

[DarkAngel]

Well, as I was hoping, the next movie will be a re-imaging. I'm very relieved.

Told you guys not to read too much into that "respects Trek canon" quote. :p

Check out the article at TrekWeb here (http://trekweb.com/articles/2007/03/08/Roberto-Orci-and-Alex-Kurtzman-Reveal.shtml).

[James]

Figured it rationally would have to be given current market trends. My concern was the slight arrogance behind the franchise and it's fan fixation. This is a good, good move. I genuinely like the idea of seeing a new version of Kirk and co. No pigeon holing, no canon grumbles, no having to justify the change in actors... just a fresh reboot that could kick start a more contemporary Star Trek which begins to genuinely voyaging into unknown frontiers, rather than up it's backside - a place it seems to have ventured countless times in the last decade.

[Hanshotfirst113]

I though it was a prequel! Restarting a 40-year franchise and shafting several decades worth of Trekkers is a really, really, really, really bad idea.

[James]

I though it was a prequel! Restarting a 40-year franchise and shafting several decades worth of Trekkers is a really, really, really, really bad idea.

Why?

The movie franchise was crashing. The profits were dropping. The Trek series' were put on perm hiatus. And TOS is now 40 years old - how do they pull in a new generation of fans - those with the disposable incomes to spend at cinemas - into a prequel of a TV show that's 4 decades old?

It's not fans who will make the movie a success, it's the mainstream, and the mainstream - public and media have not had a good Trek relationship of late.

And the old series' don't get "shafted" - quite the opposite. Their integrity is maintained. No one is locking them up forever, and all the series had a finale, so it's not like there are any true loose ends. It's not even like the TV series' were even in the running to be a part of this new film.

With the success of reimagineering old series' into successful new formats, Paramount would have been MAD to have tried to shoehorn this into a franchise that the mainstream film and TV audience have lost interest with, particularly part of a canon which is 40 years out of date.

[JohnCrichton]

I though it was a prequel! Restarting a 40-year franchise and shafting several decades worth of Trekkers is a really, really, really, really bad idea.

I totally agree with this. No long time lifer fans will enjoy knowing that all they've built their imaginations and speculations around... suddenly just don't matter anymore.

Star Trek is a solid mythology to some people.


Why?

The movie franchise was crashing. The profits were dropping. The Trek series' were put on perm hiatus. And TOS is now 40 years old - how do they pull in a new generation of fans - those with the disposable incomes to spend at cinemas - into a prequel of a TV show that's 4 decades old?

By sitting down and making a good compelling movie that forwards the world and a franchise that does the same.

People always say franchises need to die if they haven't been doing well lately. But while I haven't really enjoyed the show in a number of years, Power Rangers is the best example of what happens when a show doesn't die.

Eventually you get someone who really understands the product and project... someone who really puts their love and imagination behind it for the fans and eventually you get a year that gives fans and new fans more than they've dreamed possible or their dreams do come true.

Star Trek has a rich history and background... chucking it all for a reboot... just sounds like a pretty insulting idea to do with a project like this.

But... then again I said the same about Battlestar Galactica.

Personally... sounds like a bad and insulting idea.

[Wounded_Dragon]

People always say franchises need to die if they haven't been doing well lately. But while I haven't really enjoyed the show in a number of years, Power Rangers is the best example of what happens when a show doesn't die.

Eventually you get someone who really understands the product and project... someone who really puts their love and imagination behind it for the fans and eventually you get a year that gives fans and new fans more than they've dreamed possible or their dreams do come true.


Except PR has become over the years only loosely connected season to season, while Star Trek almost seemed to contract in on itself trying to maintain the connections.

I've always felt "Star Trek" was more of an ideal than any particular story. Granted, I liked it when they started adding some substance to the skeletal ideal, but the pendulum has swung too far, for many fans, even though they might not realize how they feel about it.

[Hanshotfirst113]

Why?

The movie franchise was crashing. The profits were dropping. The Trek series' were put on perm hiatus. And TOS is now 40 years old - how do they pull in a new generation of fans - those with the disposable incomes to spend at cinemas - into a prequel of a TV show that's 4 decades old?

It's not fans who will make the movie a success, it's the mainstream, and the mainstream - public and media have not had a good Trek relationship of late.

The mainstream are too busy with Pirates of the Carribean or whatever else Jerry Bruckheimer is releasing with Michael Bay this month. Sure, they could make the franchise some money, but in the long run, when the next big thing hits, they're gone. Here's how: don't tie down to continuity, but don't ignore it. It's completely possible to make something old new again without jettisoning everything that's come before.


The previous Trek movies also had extremely diminishing audiences -- Trek 5 peed in everyone's eyes, and the Next Gen movies were like wrongheaded, amped up TV movies of the week that basically had no one in theater seats after the first weekend of release.

This is a good way to go after a mass audience; boil Trek down to its essence, the chemistry between Kirk, Spock and McCoy and the theme of exploration. "Everything old is new again" worked for Bond and Batman.

That would because V sucked, and VII was mediocre, IX was absysmal, and X was by the numbers. They weren't good movies. I don't really give a care what genre or continuity, if a movie sucks then a movie sucks. And sometime people don't like movies that suck (in spite of what the box office recipits for Titanic and Bad Boys II show) Boiling it down doesn't mean that they have to spit in the eyes of 40 years worth of fandom. They could go with that-which is a good idea-and not simply restart everything so that the hot comodity of the week Lost man J.J. Abrams can try to draw in people who don't caree about Star Trek from the get-go.


I don’t know if J.J. Abrams can pull this off or not; I don't know anything about the screenwriters so I'm skeptical there as well (one of the best things about the original Trek series was the fact that so many of its stories were based on work of or written by actual sci fi writers). But the rebooting idea makes more sense to me than the alternative.

"The alternative" doesn't have to be more tied-up-in-continuity stories; it can just as easily be very entertaining while not jettison everything that's made the franchise a phenomenon for


People always say franchises need to die if they haven't been doing well lately. But while I haven't really enjoyed the show in a number of years, Power Rangers is the best example of what happens when a show doesn't die.

Power Rangers is a toy commerical. It's a toy commercial that I enjoy very much and that in the right hands can be extremely entertaining, but it's tied to it's origins. Star Trek isn't.


I've always felt "Star Trek" was more of an ideal than any particular story. Granted, I liked it when they started adding some substance to the skeletal ideal, but the pendulum has swung too far, for many fans, even though they might not realize how they feel about it.

Not really. It's just gone in so many different directions that it's become a DC Comics multiverse type of thing. May Chriton is right and this will be BSG. But I doubt it.


I think I like this idea just because it kisses off the retarded fans.

Thanks :(.


They have the intricate overwrought "continuity" of all the Trek spinoffs (which I personally don't even consider canon with the original show) to keep them warm at night, and Paramount can try for a new generation of fans.

Well, if you don't consider them canon and don't like them, lets just forget what it means to the millions of people who've been putting their money where their mouth is on the show for years. I mean, what difference do the fans make as long as PeterFries is staisfied, because the world revolves around him ;).


And the old series' don't get "shafted" - quite the opposite. Their integrity is maintained. No one is locking them up forever, and all the series had a finale, so it's not like there are any true loose ends. It's not even like the TV series' were even in the running to be a part of this new film.

True. At least the existence of the originals isn't being denied and there are high quality releases of them on the market valid point. Very good argument indeed.


With the success of reimagineering old series' into successful new formats, Paramount would have been MAD to have tried to shoehorn this into a franchise that the mainstream film and TV audience have lost interest with, particularly part of a canon which is 40 years out of date.

So that means that they should just throw the baby out with the bathwater? There's a happy medium here.

Maybe you;re right. Maybe I'm too tied down to nostalgia. But if you'd committed as much to the franchise as some people had, you'd be to'ed too. Anyone remember The Batman vs. BTAS?

[DisneyBoy]

Is it a good idea in terms of making money and getting new people interested in it? Absolutely.

But Star Trek has been about continuity since the beginning. They built one voyage ontop of the last one, creating characters and situations that generations have come to love and recognize.

I would have leaned in favor of cherry-picking characters and scenarios for the next film from the 40 year history. Sort of "best of"-ing it.

But it always comes down to money. So this makes sense, whether we like it or not. The big question is, can the immediate money this relaunch will bring in be enough should the writing, characters and take not prove popular?

[James]

Is it a good idea in terms of making money and getting new people interested in it? Absolutely.

and..



But Star Trek has been about continuity since the beginning. They built one voyage ontop of the last one, creating characters and situations that generations have come to love and recognize.


... are one and the same. Star Trek was not about continuity from the beginning. Continuity has come from money and market responses for more Star Trek. The show has been carried heavily by fans and has reward fans, but there is only so far before the show becomes too convoluted. Star Trek needs a revamp and quite honestly, I think it's about time Star Trek looked at finding new frontiers than exploring the old ones.

Given Star Trek is about discovering new worlds, surely the best way to do this to explore NEW worlds and not simply build around the old ones.


But it always comes down to money. So this makes sense, whether we like it or not. The big question is, can the immediate money this relaunch will bring in be enough should the writing, characters and take not prove popular?

Absolutely. There is no guarantee it will be good, but this gives Star Trek the best chance for survival. Quite honestly, a duff attempt to shoe horn a canon movie about Young Kirk and Spock would have seemed so awkward - I wouldn't have been surprised if it nailed the franchise for good.

[Michael24]

I'd say "boo" (I don't think we need a reboot), but it's nice to know this will be unrelated to the previous 40 years of Star Trek that I like.

At least it makes sense now why Kirk and Spock will be featured during their Academy days, since Trek continuity previously had them not meeting (I believe) until Kirk first became Captain of Enterprise. I was wondering how they'd skirt around that issue.

[James]

The mainstream are too busy with Pirates of the Carribean or whatever else Jerry Bruckheimer is releasing with Michael Bay this month. Sure, they could make the franchise some money, but in the long run, when the next big thing hits, they're gone. Here's how: don't tie down to continuity, but don't ignore it. It's completely possible to make something old new again without jettisoning everything that's come before.

I'm not sure I see the logic here. The way to make sure they don't make another "Batman & Robin" is to revitalize the franchise so this ISN'T the last movie.

One of the reasons reboots work (provided they are done well - an expectation of any product) is because it wipes the slate clean. Like Mel Gibson going into rehab - the process gives you a new lease of life.

If Batman Begins had tried to be a good film in canon with the old franchise, no matter how fantastic it was, it would be stained by the previous memory. Saying "NEW" Star Trek, rather than "another GOOD Star Trek" makes a difference to the audience - and the mainstream market cannot be sneered at for it is they who make films for fans: if the mainstream weren't drawn in, the fans couldn't get their film.


That would because V sucked, and VII was mediocre, IX was absysmal, and X was by the numbers. They weren't good movies. I don't really give a care what genre or continuity, if a movie sucks then a movie sucks. And sometime people don't like movies that suck (in spite of what the box office recipits for Titanic and Bad Boys II show) Boiling it down doesn't mean that they have to spit in the eyes of 40 years worth of fandom. They could go with that-which is a good idea-and not simply restart everything so that the hot comodity of the week Lost man J.J. Abrams can try to draw in people who don't caree about Star Trek from the get-go.

I disagree. With any product, there is longevity. Look at a TV show - you can have seven consistent seasons, but season seven lacks the novelty; the audience have come to understand the formula to the concept. Invariably, no matter how good season seven is, it now has the baggage of being a known commodity.


"The alternative" doesn't have to be more tied-up-in-continuity stories; it can just as easily be very entertaining while not jettison everything that's made the franchise a phenomenon for

... then given that the rebooting is a very powerful and currently successful marketing tool, which is bound to tickle the mainstream than a revisit to the old universe with it's hokey, geeky image; which is bound to bring in a new audience who will feel this film is made much more for than the "older folk"... what difference does it make?

If you think that the alternative doesn't have to be tied into continuity.. why tie it into continuity? If it doesn't have to relate to the past films and shows, why have it relate to the past films and shows?

What I find quite surprising is how the fans seem unable to appreciate that this is possibly the most likely (and logical) approach of bringing Star Trek 21st Century and to an new audience who will sustain it.

Logic, I say! Logic!

[Hanshotfirst113]

Fans upset about this reimagining still have the box sets of all the original series to obsess over

True. And as long as there's that, in high quality, there's always a certain pax.


I disagree. With any product, there is longevity. Look at a TV show - you can have seven consistent seasons, but season seven lacks the novelty; the audience have come to understand the formula to the concept. Invariably, no matter how good season seven is, it now has the baggage of being a known commodity.

I'd rather have a good season of an old show than a new season of something that sucks; reinventing the wheel, so to speak.

[Gatomon41]

I'm rather tired of these reboots. It's fadish and becoming tiresome. Sure, it wipes the slate, but it also an excuse for creative laziness. Its a convient way for writers to ingore the orginal continunity.

[rggkjg1]

maybe this movie will follow "vague continuity" like superman returns.

i'm kind of looking at the movie this way: this movie/movie series will be by it's own seperate trek universe/continuity. but if someone wanted to do some kind of loose timeline or try to tie it into the current trek continuity, they would be able to do it.

[DarkAngel]

It's fadish and becoming tiresome. Sure, it wipes the slate, but it also an excuse for creative laziness.
If you want to see creative laziness, watch "Voyager," "Enterprise," or "Nemesis." Those were tiresome. On the other hand, "Battlestar Galactica," a recent re-imagining, represents work that is quite far from creatively lazy. Don't call these writers lazy before you've had a chance to see what they come up with.


Its a convient way for writers to ingore the orginal continunity.
There are good reasons for not sticking this movie with original continuity, and they've been mentioned above.

I'm not sure what everyone's issue is since past Trek isn't going anywhere. It'll always be there for us to enjoy. A re-imagining doesn't somehow wipe the other Trek shows and movies from existence. We'll have both, people.

[Gatomon41]

If you want to see creative laziness, watch "Voyager," "Enterprise," or "Nemesis." Those were tiresome.
At least they weren't tacky.

ENT Season 4 was the best Star Trek season ever, however.


On the other hand, "Battlestar Galactica," a recent re-imagining, represents work that is quite far from creatively lazy.
The problem with nBSG, is that it isn't anything remotly like Battlestar Galatica. It could have been named anything else, and you probably wouldn't see the simlartities. It's far better than the orginal, and at the same time, it might as well not been connected to anything Battlestar Galatica.

That, and stealing the Replicants and Gaft from Blade Runner.


There are good reasons for not sticking this movie with original continuity, and they've been mentioned above.
Still dosn't exclude it from being part of a rather disappointing fad of remakes.


I'm not sure what everyone's issue is since past Trek isn't going anywhere. It'll always be there for us to enjoy. A re-imagining doesn't somehow wipe the other Trek shows and movies from existence. We'll have both, people.
Probably only for the producers to make new mistakes.

[Michael24]

At least they weren't tacky.

ENT Season 4 was the best Star Trek season ever, however.

That was a great season, though too short at only 22 episodes. Personally, Enterprise is what brought Star Trek back for me, after the decline of DS9 and the awfulness that was Voyager. Enterprise was the first since TNG that I thought felt like Star Trek and that I watched all the way.

I still don't really like the notion of "we're trying to bring in the audience who's never seen Star Trek before." Why bother? After 40 years, people pretty much already know whether they like Trek or don't. Saying this movie is for "non-Trek fans" (as well as longtime fans) seems kind of stupid. They'll hear it's Star Trek and continue to not watch just as they've always had. In that case, you might as well just make a typical sci-fi movie that has no relation to Trek. It just seems stupid to me to try and appeal to an audience who clearly doesn't have an interest.

The only reason, IMO, Nemesis failed was because they brought in outsiders (screenwriter John Logan and director Stuart Baird) who seemed to have no major interest in Star Trek per se, but instead just wanted to make a "sci-fi flick." If they'd had a script by Berman, Braga, Ronald Moore and/or Michael Piller (or anyone with an interest in Trek), like they had for First Contact and Insurrection, and had also let Jonathan Frakes direct again, I think Nemesis would have been a much better movie and could have easily lead the way for another big-screen outing with the TNG cast, whom I felt should have had at least a couple more films.

[James]

At least they weren't tacky.

ENT Season 4 was the best Star Trek season ever, however.


That's a matter of opinion - I found it just as lazy and tired - just that it stole it's ideas and plots from its own franchise rather than just milling around in "safe" science fiction concepts.


The problem with nBSG, is that it isn't anything remotly like Battlestar Galatica. It could have been named anything else, and you probably wouldn't see the simlartities. It's far better than the orginal, and at the same time, it might as well not been connected to anything Battlestar Galatica.

That's not true in any way. BSG takes the inital concept offered by the original series; the wagon train of a group of survivors of a genocidal attack, along with the basic character hierarchy and visual identity of the first show (Vipers, Cyclons, Galactica) - and then takes those foundations and explores a new route that works around a more contemporary storyline. Hell, many of the episodes borrow from the original series too. The only difference is that the new Galactica learned from the old, creating a more interesting, formidable opponent, a far more realistic environment and a great dynamic of characters.

Don't get me wrong, I love the old Galactica, but the new one did the right things for a new audience.


That, and stealing the Replicants and Gaft from Blade Runner.

Olmos has done more than Gaff from Blade Runner - and if they were so interested in stealing from Blade Runner, they'd hardly pick a cult icon from that show to spotlight their production.

As for the Replicants, listen to Moore's commentary - he openly admits the Replicant strand - and the questions posed by the film are very relevant to Galactica. There's no hiding from it. Let's remember that the idea of robots with souls is not exclusive to Scott's or Dick's vision either. Let's also not forget the original Galactica was hardly an original show being heavily influenced (to the point of lawsuit) by Star Wars.

Nothing is original.



Still dosn't exclude it from being part of a rather disappointing fad of remakes.

Was Batman Begins a faddish remake? Battlestar's success seems to imply otherwise too.

I don't understand why people seem to think that the argument against reboot is a measure of quality. Whether the new film - reboot or not - is any good, is open to speculation. I don't think we can say that the film would be definitively better or worse for a reboot in terms of the quality of the production. All we can say is a reboot opens the boundaries for the writers, gives the franchise a clean start, makes a better marketing platform to the younger generation and prevents the film being trapped by a forty year old fictional universe.

Afterall, This new Star Trek has a fresh and talented crew at the helm - it seems silly to burden them with the bulk of show lore when they have an opportunity to try and push the show onto new exciting grounds.

Trek has to truly move to a new generation, it has to meet the standards of todays sci-fi which I feel it's been lacking since DS9. Here is a chance to allow writers and production craft a show based on the core elements of the original that respects the roots, but isn't tangled up in them. That has to be good for all.



Probably only for the producers to make new mistakes.

This seems an irrational point. Regardless of whether the production was forced into canon or not, mistakes can happen. Being a reboot is no more dangerous in terms of making a flawless film than trying to make one that fits into the established universe.

[James]

I still don't really like the notion of "we're trying to bring in the audience who's never seen Star Trek before." Why bother? After 40 years, people pretty much already know whether they like Trek or don't. Saying this movie is for "non-Trek fans" (as well as longtime fans) seems kind of stupid.

Those new faces will be the ones that make or break the franchise. The people with disposable income are the teens. That market is crucial. You can't ignore them and given that Kirk and Spock are - at best - 15 years out of date, 40 at worst, to reboot the show makes a lot of sense.

These non-trek fans could be the future trek fans. They are the franchises future - don't dismiss their relevance.


They'll hear it's Star Trek and continue to not watch just as they've always had. In that case, you might as well just make a typical sci-fi movie that has no relation to Trek. It just seems stupid to me to try and appeal to an audience who clearly doesn't have an interest.


That's silly - because "Star Trek" as it was originally created wasn't meant to be simply a focus for Captain Kirk. Nor Captain Picard. In the original show, a third of it was played out when there was no real established universe - the show was still evolving - so how was that Trek if it too didn't live in the construct that was later consolidated?

Star Trek isn't about a certain Captain, nor even a certain Federation of Planets. It's about the voyages of a Starship on an exploritory mission to meet new races and encounter strange tales on the final frontier. That's the basic element of Star Trek and as Battlestar has done something very different under Moore yet still retained the basic ethos and scenario of the original series (the premise remains unchanged and the focus on characters is as central to the new show as it is to the old).

I'm confident that there is potential in the production as well as enough freedom AND history, to build and exciting new chapter to the Trek ethos.


The only reason, IMO, Nemesis failed was because they brought in outsiders (screenwriter John Logan and director Stuart Baird) who seemed to have no major interest in Star Trek per se, but instead just wanted to make a "sci-fi flick." If they'd had a script by Berman, Braga, Ronald Moore and/or Michael Piller (or anyone with an interest in Trek), like they had for First Contact and Insurrection, and had also let Jonathan Frakes direct again, I think Nemesis would have been a much better movie and could have easily lead the way for another big-screen outing with the TNG cast, whom I felt should have had at least a couple more films.

I disagree. I found Nemesis suffered on several fronts. First and foremost, you had two of the lead actors fighting for the central arc and the show becoming awkward because of it. There was just too much going on and none of it was fresh science fiction. I agree that the script was no good, but I think there were forces hitting the production beyond that.

And I for one was not impressed with Enterprise season 4 as a fan of Trek or as a casual viewer. I found the crew utterly uncharismatic still, the characters still lacking any honest dynamic, the stories were pillaging old concepts to draw the fans in and quite frankly the show proved that there was little fresh for the franchise to draw on.

I would suggest we can't just blame the film franchise for Trek's downfall, the series was - dull. I'm a trek fan, but not in a nerdy way. To me Enterprise was just treading old ground in a slightly more anal way. I'm not surprised it lost the mainstream vote.

Personally, I'd like to have seen Enterprise be the reboot - I think it would have then had chance to grow in it's own way, rather than been laboured with trying to build an already preconceived history. The concept was sound, but the producers just made it into the same that had gone before. A set of new producers and writers - as we have here - IMO would have pushed Enterprise into the forefront of TV science fiction, a place I think it's pretty much lost since Babylon 5 and DS9 days.

[Ragebot]

ENT Season 4 was the best Star Trek season ever, however.

:eek:

Right.

Heck, I'll go so far and say that ENT Season 3 and a couple of seasons of VOY were better than ENT Season 4. And this isn't even taking "...These Are The Voyages" into consideration. (Now there's an episode that drowns in its attempt to be "faithful" to continuity whilst not providing a morsel of interesting drama.)


I would suggest we can't just blame the film franchise for Trek's downfall, the series was - dull. I'm a trek fan, but not in a nerdy way. To me Enterprise was just treading old ground in a slightly more anal way. I'm not surprised it lost the mainstream vote.

Exactly. Say what you will about J.J Abrams, but at least he knows how to make entertaining television! Enterprise was a series that really had nothing to say and nothing to show us.

[Dogbert]

I am not a happy Trekkie. I don't understand the reboot thing for this series. There's no central character that has progressed and needs to be built from scratch like comic book heroes. They can just get a new crew and start that crew from scratch without changing history. The only reason to do this is so they can reuse the Kirk and Spock characters. In other words, they're going back to the beginning so they can use well known characters, yet they want it to be fresh. That makes no sense to me. As someone who owns every episode of Star Trek on DVD (sans TAS, which I'll get when the price is right), I plan to see the movie at some point. However, with a complete reboot it will be much easier to reject it.

The Star Trek Wars are upon us. Soon references to the original franchise will be made illegal and all traditionalists will be thrown into volcanoes. The original universe is dead, Jim.

[Gatomon41]

That's a matter of opinion - I found it just as lazy and tired - just that it stole it's ideas and plots from its own franchise rather than just milling around in "safe" science fiction concepts.
Ironic, considering what you say in the next part of your post.



That's not true in any way. BSG takes the inital concept offered by the original series; the wagon train of a group of survivors of a genocidal attack, along with the basic character hierarchy and visual identity of the first show (Vipers, Cyclons, Galactica) - and then takes those foundations and explores a new route that works around a more contemporary storyline. Hell, many of the episodes borrow from the original series too. The only difference is that the new Galactica learned from the old, creating a more interesting, formidable opponent, a far more realistic environment and a great dynamic of characters.
And I find it lazy and tired. I guess it does depends on taste.



Don't get me wrong, I love the old Galactica, but the new one did the right things for a new audience.

Olmos has done more than Gaff from Blade Runner - and if they were so interested in stealing from Blade Runner, they'd hardly pick a cult icon from that show to spotlight their production.

As for the Replicants, listen to Moore's commentary - he openly admits the Replicant strand - and the questions posed by the film are very relevant to Galactica. There's no hiding from it. Let's remember that the idea of robots with souls is not exclusive to Scott's or Dick's vision either.
No, but they did it much better.


Let's also not forget the original Galactica was hardly an original show being heavily influenced (to the point of lawsuit) by Star Wars.
I didn't watch BSG because of its seriousness, but because it was fun. nBSG takes the ball and runs into the other side of the spectrum.


Nothing is original.
The motto of lazy writers.



Was Batman Begins a faddish remake? Battlestar's success seems to imply otherwise too.
Unlike others, Batman Begins actually succeeds.


I don't understand why people seem to think that the argument against reboot is a measure of quality. Whether the new film - reboot or not - is any good, is open to speculation. I don't think we can say that the film would be definitively better or worse for a reboot in terms of the quality of the production. All we can say is a reboot opens the boundaries for the writers, gives the franchise a clean start, makes a better marketing platform to the younger generation and prevents the film being trapped by a forty year old fictional universe.

Afterall, This new Star Trek has a fresh and talented crew at the helm - it seems silly to burden them with the bulk of show lore when they have an opportunity to try and push the show onto new exciting grounds.
Sort of like in the new Docotor Who and the Cybermen. I have no patience for writers who don't take the time to research their fictional melius, or make a dramatic attempt to try to fit it into the established canon.


Trek has to truly move to a new generation, it has to meet the standards of todays sci-fi which I feel it's been lacking since DS9. Here is a chance to allow writers and production craft a show based on the core elements of the original that respects the roots, but isn't tangled up in them. That has to be good for all.
The problem with Star Trek was a bunch of talented and hackeyned producers who didn't realize that they ran out of ideas. What they needed was new talent, but not a total reboot.

[Discloner]

As a non-Trek guy who's only casually interested in the franchise as is, I have got to say I'm actually rather interested in what this reboot will result in. A nice contemporary retelling of the franchise could do wonders for it - bringing a whole new audience aside it really just opens itself up to more stories without losing the Star Trek feel.

As for this being an act of "Crapping on the fans", I don't see it. You guys have still got your Star Trek stories and continuity - this film is not destroying those. Rather, it's creating a new verse or vein from which tell stories. Leaving your verse completely unphased and untouched.

[SirLemming]

Here's my problem: Given that Star Trek is a gigantic realm of continuity (the future) centered around a gigantic federation, why do they need to use Kirk and Spock but "reboot" them? Why not just make new characters? They might not even have to reboot that way, and even if they did, it wouldn't seem so... destructive.

Rebooting Batman makes sense, because you can't just make a new Gotham City superhero. It's gotta be Batman. The reboots are necessary whenever someone wants to present a different vision of the story. With this, though, I don't see the need. If they want to present a different interpretation of the Romulans, they might as well just choose a different race, otherwise it might not really even be the Romulans anymore. And if they want to, say, change the way the federation was founded and the way it works... well why not make a whole different sci-fi series then? Are they just afraid of being called copycats?


I guess what I'm getting at with those various disjointed thoughts is, Star Trek is so big that I'm not really sure how to reboot it. How can they avoid making reference to what's been established? They can't talk about the Prime Directive or any of that stuff. This is a daunting task that I don't think any movie can accomplish... unless they ignore the past altogether, in which case... it's pointless.


In summary, how can any truly new sci-fi franchise, requiring no knowledge of the existing Trek franchise, still be Star Trek? The basic premise of Star Trek is: this is the future. The various decisions the creators made in exploring that are what ultimately comprised Star Trek.

[HellCat]

So...Star Trek SEED?

[DarkAngel]

And I find it lazy and tired. I guess it does depends on taste.
Yes, but personal taste on subject matter or tone is separate from the quality of writing. If you don't like BSG, fine, but there's nothing lazy about their writing.


The problem with Star Trek was a bunch of talented and hackeyned producers who didn't realize that they ran out of ideas. What they needed was new talent, but not a total reboot.
And they've got new talent with this one. A re-imagining wasn't the only way to go, but its what they chose. I think its a great choice.


Here's my problem: Given that Star Trek is a gigantic realm of continuity (the future) centered around a gigantic federation, why do they need to use Kirk and Spock but "reboot" them? Why not just make new characters?
They could have done that. But, IMO, that wouldn't pull general audiences in. We've gotten new crews over the years (Voyager, Enterprise), but the shows have stunk. Non-fans would likely see a new set of characters as yet another generic crew. With so much bad Trek in recent years, it's a tough hurdle for people to get over to give it another try.

I think of Bruce in "Batman Begins" talking to Alfred about needing a dramatic example to shake the people from apathy. That's what I see Star Trek needing. And I think a re-imaging accomplishes tthat. It removes the obstacles that would keep audiences from wanting to see this. There's no sense of having to wade through a lot of history non-fans might not be familiar with. It sends the strong message that this isn't just another generic Trek product that's doing the exact same thing. People will see that Kirk and Spock are in it, telling them this is starting at ground level and providing a great point at which to jump in as a viewer, and the re-casting says pretty strongly that this is a new take, something more modern.

I have nothing against a movie tying into past continuity. But I feel like Berman and company dug such a deep hole for Trek to climb out of. I'd be afraid that even if a great post-Voyager movie was put out, many would avoid it assuming its just another "Voyager" or "Enterprise" going through the motions and doing the same old. I'd be afraid of non-fans feeling there's too much history to wade through that they're not familiar with and deciding its not worth the effort.

With a re-imagining, I feel that we'll get to benefit not only from new talent, but also from the simplicity of just having great storytelling (or at least the potential for it) without anything else to cloud it and potentially overshadow it. No excess baggage, but just the heart and essence of what Star Trek is. Like it or not, the Berman era did serious damage, so I think its great (and necessary) to have distance between this movie and recent Trek efforts, much like "Batman Begins" and its separation from the crap that was "Batman & Robin."

[SirLemming]

Because most of the world, provided they even recognize the name "Star Trek", think "Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the U.S.S. Enterprise". The chemistry between the Fiery Warrior, the Stoical Philosopher and the Cynical Healer on their voyage of exploration is the heart of the whole concept.
I disagree. I think the Federation is the heart of the whole concept. Human progress and all that. And I guess as someone who doesn't think the original series is anywhere near being the best series of the franchise, I take issue with the idea that they're crucial to it. Perhaps you're saying that that formula is used in the other series too, but I think there's plenty of room for deviation.

[Discloner]

I disagree. I think the Federation is the heart of the whole concept. Human progress and all that. And I guess as someone who doesn't think the original series is anywhere near being the best series of the franchise, I take issue with the idea that they're crucial to it. Perhaps you're saying that that formula is used in the other series too, but I think there's plenty of room for deviation. Eh...when I personally think Star Trek - my instant association isn't "Federation and Human progress", it's really the iconic characters of Kirk and Spock that really define the franchise as a whole. At least to joe-everyman who really has no idea what the franchise is all about.

It's intent might be about exploration and the like - but I don't think those who are not involved in the franchise would be particularly knowledgeable to that.

[Bones Justice]

I'll go with the other posters that this doesn't make a lot of sense. You won't bring people in that already don't like Star Trek with the name Star Trek even if it's all fresh and new. The only people that would really care about young Kirk and Spock anyways are the fans.

I think Battlestar Galactica got away with the re-boot because the first series was never as popular as Star Trek. It only had one season (or two if you count Galactica 1980) so it was easy to re-make for new fans. Star Trek is too well known, even to people that don't like it.

I'd say that if they want new fans or mainstream popularity, they should make a new franchise. I don't think it will work with the name Star Trek on it. If they want to revitalize Star Trek, they need to get new writers.

[DarkAngel]

If they want to revitalize Star Trek, they need to get new writers.
And they have.

Now with those not interested in Star Trek, there are going to be reasons. Address those reasons, and people will be willing to give it a chance. With Star Trek, the big problem in recent years has been presentation and the quality of writing. With changes to the presentation, improvement in the writing, and no elaborate history to wade through, yeah, it'll catch some interest and people will check it out.

Movie goers see trailers when they head to the theater. They watch television and see the tv spots. If this new movie has a different look and feel, it's going to catch attention and people will be curious.

[Gatomon41]

So...Star Trek SEED?

Staring
Kira Yamato as Captian Kirk
Athrun Zala as Spock
Yzak as Doctor McCoy
and
Rusty as the Redshirt

Great, more fanfic fodder for fangirls :p

[Hanshotfirst113]

I'm not sure what everyone's issue is since past Trek isn't going anywhere. It'll always be there for us to enjoy. A re-imagining doesn't somehow wipe the other Trek shows and movies from existence. We'll have both, people.

Very true. In crisp high quality on DVD :D.


Nothing is original.


The motto of lazy writers.

"There's nothing new under the sun."
William Shakespeare. And no hack was he. Romeo and Juliet? The love story. Hamlet? The revenge yarn, to a T. Yet it's one of the greatest works in the English language. Why do you suppose that is? Ever heard the expression "it's the telling, not the tale?"

"Setting informs detail."
Guillermo del Toro.

There's a reason M*A*S*H* and Seinfeld and Friends ran as long as they did.


Yes, but personal taste on subject matter or tone is separate from the quality of writing. If you don't like BSG, fine, but there's nothing lazy about their writing.

That's an extremely loaded statement.

[James]

That's an extremely loaded statement.

No it wasn't. He's saying can like or loathe a show from personal preference, but you can't deny when someone has succeeded in doing what they've done though all the peramaters the studio, the crew - and of course, the audience wanted. The testament in the audience is the critical success the show has been.

I think you'd be VERY hard pushed to argue that Galactica is lazy and tired when it continues to push new dramatic and narrative boundaries in science fiction. Maybe for another thread, but you'd be very hard pushed to convince me that objectively, that Galactica is a lazy retread of a show, when it has done everything to take the show into a new direction worthy of a reboot while remaining integral to the roots of the old show.

This is no worthy debate if you are going to declare than there is no quantifiable objectivity when studying a show. If it's just down to opinion, we should just leave this forum now, because otherwise debate is pretty futile. You don't have to love Galactica, but if you do your homework, you'll see a great deal of inovative and hard work is put into the show and I personally think that shows in it's production quality, diversity and success.

Back on Star Trek, again we have two issues here. There is a financial one, and there is an ideological one. I think this debate is a confusion of both.

The financial one is how to make a profit on the new film worthy to continue the franchise beyond. First off, the point made that there is no point going back to Kirk and Spock and they should use new characters: on a marketing perspective, the re-use of established icons generates media interest, it also gives a certain testament to quality (though obviously no guarantees). If people know there is going to be a Kirk and Spock, they know what sort of dynamic to expect - even if they end up preferring the original over the remake. It makes for associated marketing - people have an idea what to expect, even if the film offers something different. Secondly, the reboot as I said before, offers a clear slate to a franchise - just as Batman Begins gave a clean slate from Batman and Robin as a marketed reboot, this should give a clean slate away from Nemesis. Thirdly, and most importantly, for a franchise to truly survive, it has to "belong" to the generation that fund it - and Star Trek really exists for those in their twenties and beyond. It needs to offered to the teens and their pocket money as well. To do that, you offer them something that they can enjoy fresh, rather than something stapled onto a previous canon.

Ideologically I appreciate the frustration for some. I am glad that Doctor Who managed to keep a certain amount of canon, so I won't pretend to have some superiority on how some of you guys feel - however if Doctor Who was said to be set before the original show, I think I would prefer a reboot than stories that have to somehow be wedged into lore. I enjoy continuity as much as the next guy, but I think when you have a show that's really in a bad state, and the continuity isn't simply a 40 year run of the same characters, but a set of scenarios that are linked together, there isn't the canon necessity to carry on.

I think ideologically I see the arguments here - I'm not suggesting that people are ideologically wrong to want it in canon. Personally, I feel Nemesis and Enterprise made such a mess of Star Trek, I actually want this reboot to exist to PROTECT the original canon from any further failures. If this Kirk and Spock film has the potential to be bad, it could sour the original history even further than STX and Enterprise has. So I think ideologically there is an argument that rebooting is actually favourable to the show.

Finally, ideologically, I think the fact we have a new production gives the show a new lease of life, and it's better for writers to be able to mold a new show rather than have to become part of an older quagmire.

Overall, I genuinely believe this is Treks best interest as a market strategy, in respect to the old series and ideologically as a way forward with Trek's new attempt to continue the franchise into the 21st Century. I appreciate the frustration for some fans, but if you consider that objectively, this is certainly the most sure likely way to keep Trek alive, then it's in the best interest of us all.

Darkangel said the rest - so you will be relived to hear I've stopped writing.. now. :)

[Young Justice]

I'm rather tired of these reboots. It's fadish and becoming tiresome. Sure, it wipes the slate, but it also an excuse for creative laziness. Its a convient way for writers to ingore the orginal continunity.

When I think of reboots I think of Crisis On Infinite Earths. The Superman's, Batman's and WW's reimagined origins were one of the best comics I've ever read.

They were creative. They took on classical elements of the heroes myths and bring them to a more nowadays world. It was a shame that Superman Returns was not Superman Begins.

I think it's interesting to reboot Star Trek. If it is done right could be an incredible opportunity to continuous things right.

A reboot can't occur in short spaces of time. If you do a reboot now, you can't do another in like 10 years. But after 20, 30 or 40 years I think a reboot is a good thing to happen.

The world has changed a lot since the 60's. It would be interesting how a sci fi story like Star Trek would be if it was created today and not back there in the 60's.

[Hanshotfirst113]

No it wasn't. He's saying can like or loathe a show from personal preference, but you can't deny when someone has succeeded in doing what they've done though all the peramaters the studio, the crew - and of course, the audience wanted. The testament in the audience is the critical success the show has been.

I think you'd be VERY hard pushed to argue that Galactica is lazy and tired when it continues to push new dramatic and narrative boundaries in science fiction. Maybe for another thread, but you'd be very hard pushed to convince me that objectively, that Galactica is a lazy retread of a show, when it has done everything to take the show into a new direction worthy of a reboot while remaining integral to the roots of the old show.

This is no worthy debate if you are going to declare than there is no quantifiable objectivity when studying a show. If it's just down to opinion, we should just leave this forum now, because otherwise debate is pretty futile. You don't have to love Galactica, but if you do your homework, you'll see a great deal of inovative and hard work is put into the show and I personally think that shows in it's production quality, diversity and success.

Ah, so basically, my opinion of a work is immaterial? I'm not saying that about Galactica. I've never watched it. I'm just saying that I hear that a lot and tire of it. What if I said that I thought that Invasion of the Body Snatchers related to McCartyism and you so no it didn't, and that's all that there flipping is to it ;). I agree that one can be very reaching and opinions on such things can be polarizing, but really, there's lot of wiggle room too. If there was only objectivity, these forums needn't exist.

[Matt Hazuda]

I see this as a good thing. Bond and Batman both got full reboots and those did miracles for their franchises. In spite of people spelling doom for bond as a result of a choice for the lead and so on.

Another way to look at it is as what Marvel did with their Ultimate line of books. They took Spider-Man and basically boiled it down to what work, skimming off the crap that surfaces to the top. Sure it has had its problems recently, but the book was all about going in a new direction from the original, which they couldn't do if it was the main title.

I really hope the new movie allows them to do stuff they could never get away with had this been just another sequel. It's a great opportunity to fix what is wrong, even though the fanboys refuse to take off their rose-colored glasses.

[DarkAngel]

Ah, so basically, my opinion of a work is immaterial?
No. It's about separating objectivity from subjectivity. If someone says, "The Backstreet Boys are my favorite group ever," I wouldn't bat an eye. I mean, that's perfectly fine. It's an opinion, and everyone's obviously entitled to one. But if that person instead said "The Backstreet Boys are the greatest group ever," then there's a problem. Objectively, that just doesn't make any sense when considering all the factors and ways in which a group impacts music history and listeners.

So its an issue of separating our personal likes/dislikes from assessments over the quality of a particular work.

[James]

No. It's about separating objectivity from subjectivity. If someone says, "The Backstreet Boys are my favorite group ever," I wouldn't bat an eye. I mean, that's perfectly fine. It's an opinion, and everyone's obviously entitled to one. But if that person instead said "The Backstreet Boys are the greatest group ever," then there's a problem. Objectively, that just doesn't make any sense when considering all the factors and ways in which a group impacts music history and listeners.

So its an issue of separating our personal likes/dislikes from assessments over the quality of a particular work.

Absolutely. I'm not trying to imply your feelings on whether you enjoy BSG are wrong, simply that objectively, when assessed against it's own intent, it's a success. It does what it intended to do and it pulls that off consistently.

I personally LOATHE Brazil with a passion, but if I was pressed on it I would have to say objectively it's a good film because it does what it intended to do and simply what I like in films is not present.

That's not the films fault.

Everything artistic is quantifiable because it has rules, laws and structure to quantify it against - as well as the creations own mandate.

This is of course moot, and really you shouldn't be making claims of opinion and expect people to treat them substantially if you've not even watched the show you are challenging to be "lazy" and "tired". Dear me, that IS naughty!

[DarkAngel]

He had the idea of re-telling the entire five year mission in a series, with an overall story arc delving into why exactly the Federation would have given their youngest captain one of their finest starships and sent him out on a seemingly open-ended exploratory voyage, with the suggestion that there was a mystery at the heart of the five year mission...
I had been really hoping to see JMS get a shot at it. Recently, I've been wondering if there might still be a chance. If the movie's a success, it may not be a bad idea to put out a tv series also involving Kirk and crew. That might pull in some of the movie's audience, and vice versa.

[Hanshotfirst113]

No. It's about separating objectivity from subjectivity. If someone says, "The Backstreet Boys are my favorite group ever," I wouldn't bat an eye. I mean, that's perfectly fine. It's an opinion, and everyone's obviously entitled to one. But if that person instead said "The Backstreet Boys are the greatest group ever," then there's a problem. Objectively, that just doesn't make any sense when considering all the factors and ways in which a group impacts music history and listeners.

So its an issue of separating our personal likes/dislikes from assessments over the quality of a particular work.

Fine, I agree, but what I'm saying is that there are places where the lines blur.


I personally LOATHE Brazil with a passion, but if I was pressed on it I would have to say objectively it's a good film because it does what it intended to do and simply what I like in films is not present.

Valid. But, I mean, this is again where the lines blur. I would not say that I "enjoyed" Savving Private Ryan or the Night and the Fog. They are extremely unplesant in many ways. But they are also exceptions films. What've you got against Brazil, by the way? What exactly do you "like?" I mean, the movie is a dark dystopian social commentary. Feel good it ain't.


Heh; the TV series M*A*S*H* was a sort of watered down, recast version of Robert Altman's fantastic movie from the 70s. Not sure it could be called a reboot, necessarily, though it did run longer than the actual Korean War it was based on.

I wasn't saying that it was a reboot of anything (though obviously it is, as you pointed out). I'm just saying that it wasn't new. People didn't get bored with Friends after 10 seasons, yet it kep running instead of something "new." I'm not much for Friends, so that's probably a bad example, I'm just saying.

[HellCat]

I am wondering if an AU concept could work for Star Trek as it has for Gundam and Marvel. That way you can reboot but still keep what the franchise was built on.

[James]

What've you got against Brazil, by the way? What exactly do you "like?" I mean, the movie is a dark dystopian social commentary. Feel good it ain't.

I just found it dull and predictable. I felt the social commentary was nothing I hadn't considered, so two hours of being slowly lead through a landscape which inspired not questions, provocations or thoughts was simply tedious. I disliked all the characters and didn't care what happened to the protagonist. I felt the ending was suitable but unrewarding. I feel it did a good job at creating the vision it intended, I just wasn't interested in the vision. It's not about it being "feel good", though I will admit I do like a certain amount of satisfaction from watching a film, but if the film doesn't challenge you, then it has nothing to reward you with. I have enjoyed many films with a distinctly downbeat ending - but I've felt they've rewarded me in other ways. So yes, Brazil I hated - passionately. I never felt I had wasted so much time and I was angry it was so highly rated to encourage me to watch. All a personal taint - as I said - I recognize it succeeded in its intent, it just didn't grab me in any way.



I wasn't saying that it was a reboot of anything (though obviously it is, as you pointed out). I'm just saying that it wasn't new. People didn't get bored with Friends after 10 seasons, yet it kep running instead of something "new." I'm not much for Friends, so that's probably a bad example, I'm just saying.

10 seasons of Friends was showing on the demographs - as far as I recall. It wasn't as popular as in it's heyday. I think if we consider Star Trek has had around 28 odd seasons, 10 movies and a whole load of spin offs, we can suggest that it's done a little more than Friends has. ;)

Again, if Star Trek had been 10 consistently good seasons, even though I think it would suffer a natural audience entropy (nothing is as fresh, exciting and absorbing after 10 seasons by the nature of the human condition: our brains adapt and the construction eventually becomes predictable), there would be less reason to stop or reboot. The main issue here is that the franchise has lost mainstream - and to some extent - fan credibility. I think that factor has to be engaged, and trends suggest a reboot will repair more damage than a canonical telling with new actors.

[Gatomon41]

I had been really hoping to see JMS get a shot at it. Recently, I've been wondering if there might still be a chance. If the movie's a success, it may not be a bad idea to put out a tv series also involving Kirk and crew. That might pull in some of the movie's audience, and vice versa.
I hope not. After "Legend of the Rangers" fell apart, I don't think JMS is going to get another shot a making sf flims.



I am wondering if an AU concept could work for Star Trek as it has for Gundam and Marvel. That way you can reboot but still keep what the franchise was built on.

I wouldn't mind an Star Trek AU myself. If they're going to reset Star Trek, then use different characters and new settings, but with familar elements.

[Ykwia]

I'm sorry, But a reboot would not work well for this series.

One is that it's well too known and change can annoy some Star Trek fans.
Two is that a reboot is only nessecary when a series has "jumped the shark".
Three is that I don't think this will even work.

Personally, I don't like Star Trek myself, But that's my opinion.

[Chiptooth]

I'm sorry, But a reboot would not work well for this series.

One is that it's well too known and change can annoy some Star Trek fans.
Two is that a reboot is only nessecary when a series has "jumped the shark".
Three is that I don't think this will even work.

Personally, I don't like Star Trek myself, But that's my opinion.

...um...O.K. :confused:

I would have just said that the whole reboot/reimagining/prequel thing is getting old.

[HellCat]

I wouldn't mind an Star Trek AU myself. If they're going to reset Star Trek, then use different characters and new settings, but with familar elements.

One thing I think it could address is certain issues with the existing timeline eg by ST's timeline, Earth by this point has gone to hell (though maybe that's not too far off...). I think creating a new version of Trek which avoids the existing's pitfalls, like how humans are oh so perfect, could bring fresh blood. Heck, they could even do what Marvel did at some point and have the two AU's become aware of one another.

[Hanshotfirst113]

I just found it dull and predictable.

PREDICATABLE? Depressing and bizzare, yes, but I certainly don't think that i's predictable. It's hard to understand, to my mind.


I felt the social commentary was nothing I hadn't considered, so two hours of being slowly lead through a landscape which inspired not questions, provocations or thoughts was simply tedious.

Maybe we saw a different movie; I though that it was very provactive. Frustrating, sure, but far from "been there, done that;" Gilliam's themes are those of true SF. I was reminded in some ways of 2001.


I disliked all the characters

You're supposed to.


and didn't care what happened to the protagonist.

YOU are the protagonist; that's the point.


I felt the ending was suitable but unrewarding.

Define "rewarding;" confusing and depressing, yes, but I wasn't a payoff. Think of it like Mulhollad Drive. Parts of the movie are real and parts of it aren't; the whole theme of illusion and reality is interwoven with the overall arc of the movie. I was confused by it, but really, I think that it's brilliantly structured.


It's not about it being "feel good", though I will admit I do like a certain amount of satisfaction from watching a film, but if the film doesn't challenge you, then it has nothing to reward you with.

If Brazil didn't challenge you, I suspect that you a genius level I.Q. :D.


I have enjoyed many films with a distinctly downbeat ending - but I've felt they've rewarded me in other ways.

Like? See, you're think of YOU and I. I don't think Gilliam had anyone but himself in mind for Brazil. Certainly, you could call that self-indulgent, and in many ways it is, much like, say, End of Evangelion of. But don't see how you don't find more that its face value (and you're certainly a smart enough fellow to have seen past that). I had the opposite problem. I thought that the movie was confusing and had too many ideas that I couldn't entirely wrap my head around.


All a personal taint - as I said - I recognize it succeeded in its intent, it just didn't grab me in any way.

That's prettty big of you, I must say.

[The Guitar Slayer]

Hmmmmm. More Kirk and Spock and McCoy? Sounds good to me. New Spock sounds very good to me in particular. Rawr.

New, young actors? Also a good idea, considering that DeForrest Kelly has left us. If they are going to use the Original Three, then it had best be a reboot or a prequel idea -- I would go on the warpath if they tried to continue down the current timeline without McCoy's original actor.

Fans have wanted another Original Series film for awhile. Simply put, the DS9/Voyager/Enterprise series have never have had the cult following or the absolute runaway success of the OS or TNG. Just isn't enough gas to run the car in an efficient manner.

Nemesis was Wrath of Khan without the good, character-based stuff. Plain and simple. It's a revenge story without the good catches -- Kirk's kid, Saavik, Spock's sacrifice, Khan's own lyric approach....list goes on.

Voyager and DS9 lost out for me since in part there wasn't a ship named Enterprise involved. The ship is a character in all of this. I think I'm one of those people who need "her." Sort of like the Doctor without the Tardis. Add that with characters that suddenly developed a sex drive midflight -- no thanks. While making characters have more depth is fine, having characters act as if there's something in the water is another thing entirely.

Enterprise just failed to grab me after the first season. I spoiled myself on the last season, and I found it to be corruptive in the Trek canon. Particularly with T'Pol's kid. First off, the whole "experimental" idea that started the relationship -- no! Bad Vulcan! Then the kid -- Spock is the first viable Vulcan-human hybrid. Period. That's why there aren't more like him running around. They aren't easy to pop out.

So here we have two series that were absolutely liked -- TNG and TOS. TNG people want to move away some and do new things. Understandable -- they've been wearing the same uniform since the 80s (not really, but you know what I mean). Ok, so let's go back to a property that's been more or less untouched for 16 years. How do we touch it without some of the main actors?

Reboot it. Redo it. Use everything you have to make something that is already very marketable even more marketable, less camp, and visually stunning. Continuity doesn't allow enough flexibility? Then toss it over the side or set it in the past. Ties and bounds that constrict creativity prevent a universe from growing. That's not good. Because the Trek timeline has grown convoluted, it is going to die by choking on itself. So let's start new before it gets to that point (though I think it already did with Nemesis).

[James]

PREDICATABLE? Depressing and bizzare, yes, but I certainly don't think that i's predictable. It's hard to understand, to my mind.

Good for you.


Maybe we saw a different movie; I though that it was very provactive. Frustrating, sure, but far from "been there, done that;" Gilliam's themes are those of true SF. I was reminded in some ways of 2001.And found in many places previous. What can I say? It didn't grab me. It didn't motivate my cockles. It didn't wine and dine my spirit. I'm sure it's an issue we can both live with.


YOU are the protagonist; that's the point.If you don't find the concept particularly interesting, if you find the black humour amusing and you don't find any of the characters dramatically stimulating, what's left? Nothing. My point was that if there idea doesn't ignite you, then you are left with the drama. If the drama doesn't reward you, then you are left with very little indeed.


If Brazil didn't challenge you, I suspect that you a genius level I.Q.
That's prettty big of you, I must say.What more do you want me to say? I don't like it, doesn't mean I don't respect the film. When the two extremes are equally high, the levels of frustration will naturally be high too. You know that the majority got something out of the film, and you don't. I'd rather have spent 2 hours loving the film, rather than hating it. I felt I'd wasted two hours of my life in a film that rolled out concepts and ideas I'd seen many times before in a production that smelt like Python without the humour.


Define "rewarding;" Define "on topic".

Moving on to Star Trek again please peeps.


I'm sorry, But a reboot would not work well for this series.

One is that it's well too known and change can annoy some Star Trek fans.
Two is that a reboot is only nessecary when a series has "jumped the shark".
Three is that I don't think this will even work.

Personally, I don't like Star Trek myself, But that's my opinion.

It's not being rebooted for Star Trek fans. Star Trek fans will go anyway. They may talk the talk, but they'll walk the walk into the cinema.

The reboots goal is a mainstream catchment - and that can only benefit the fans as it will mean profits and a continued franchise.

[RayChuang]

One is that it's well too known and change can annoy some Star Trek fans.
Two is that a reboot is only nessecary when a series has "jumped the shark".
Three is that I don't think this will even work.


Look, if the comics companies like DC and Marvel can retcon their continuity successfully, I think if the writing and concept works well then an all-new continuity based on the time frame of TOS will work. :) The Star Trek continuity "jumped the shark" long time ago and a "reboot" might be just the thing to totally reinvigorate the franchise.

[Hanshotfirst113]

Good for you.

And found in many places previous. What can I say? It didn't grab me. It didn't motivate my cockles. It didn't wine and dine my spirit. I'm sure it's an issue we can both live with.

If you don't find the concept particularly interesting, if you find the black humour amusing and you don't find any of the characters dramatically stimulating, what's left? Nothing. My point was that if there idea doesn't ignite you, then you are left with the drama. If the drama doesn't reward you, then you are left with very little indeed.

What more do you want me to say? I don't like it, doesn't mean I don't respect the film. When the two extremes are equally high, the levels of frustration will naturally be high too. You know that the majority got something out of the film, and you don't. I'd rather have spent 2 hours loving the film, rather than hating it. I felt I'd wasted two hours of my life in a film that rolled out concepts and ideas I'd seen many times before in a production that smelt like Python without the humour.

Fair enough. A mature discussion on the internet is such a rare thing that I'll take what I can get. It's been nice talking with you.

[James]

Fair enough. A mature discussion on the internet is such a rare thing that I'll take what I can get. It's been nice talking with you.

And so it is. But inevitably all conversations can't veer too much off topic and this is way too irrelevant to get bogged down in. Focus should be the reboot and I'm sure there is enough mature discussion to be had about that.

[Shredder565]

I though it was a prequel! Restarting a 40-year franchise and shafting several decades worth of Trekkers is a really, really, really, really bad idea.

Why? Trek has never really been big on continuity. The only series that really gave it worth a damn was DS9.

Enterprise was practically a reboot in training itself.

[Shredder565]

Look, if the comics companies like DC and Marvel can retcon their continuity successfully, I think if the writing and concept works well then an all-new continuity based on the time frame of TOS will work. :) The Star Trek continuity "jumped the shark" long time ago and a "reboot" might be just the thing to totally reinvigorate the franchise.

So long as the Trek heads at Paramount don't get greedy and treat it as a serious franchise. No more decontamination scenes, or Jeri Ryan take over actress types for their beauty this time around, OK? :evil:

What would be great is if they hired real scientists to put practicing theories into the stories..

[Rasputin]

Though I may well consider myself one of the multitude of anal-retentive Trek fans out there, I have a decent enough grasp of reality to realise that a reboot would do the franchise a world of good.

But I can't say I agree with what seems to be the decision to bring back Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Now you can argue that "that's what most people think when they hear the word 'Star Trek'", but I'm not sure I agree with that. Sure, that's probably what the Paramount honchos thought whenever Star Trek was mentioned, but that's not what I tend to think when Star Trek is mentioned.

Speaking on behalf of my Generation Y demographic here, ie: the demographic with the greatest likelihood of going down to the cinema, I grew up around TNG and DS9. My idea of Star Trek isn't tied to three characters played by William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy and DeForrest Kelley, and their adventures on-board the Constitution-Class Starship U.S.S. Enterprise. It was years before I even saw the Original Series, and my appreciation of the characters had already been formed by the movies.

I'm not too sure what conclusions can be gleamed from this, but as far as 'the general public' goes I don't think they even know any details of Star Trek beyond 'that thing that nerds like'. It's been nearly a generation since the original crew appeared on the big screen, let alone the small one, and the fandom's moved on since then. The general public with them, since I doubt most of them know who William Shatner is.

I think a rebooted Trek would work better as a fully-fledged AU, rather than bringing back older characters. If there's going to be a break with continuity, I'd rather it be a neat incision.

Heh, irony of ironies. I seem to want it to be rebooted even more. But it's a good idea, to strip it down to its essentials and bring it back to its sixties-inspired 'the future is bright' philosophy that could make a welcome return to the public consciousness. I like bleakness as much as the next sci-fi fan, but there needs to be a balance.

[James]

I think you've raised the most interesting question so far. I would suggest Kirk, Spock and McCoy are a little more relevant to even today's Trek than you suggest. The cultural significance of Trek is still heavily tied into that original series. Spock is still the Vulcan icon, not Tuvok or T'pol. "Beam me up Scotty" is more media prolific than "Make it so". You'll still see people sending up Kirk than they do Picard (Family Guy, Futurama, Simpsons are three spoofers of the original series that spring to mind).

I think the other reason is the original "trinity" of McCoy Kirk and Spock is very sound character dynamic, and while I think Picard, Data and Riker are good characters, I've not seen any of the other series create such a strong lead dynamic that functions on such a strong character basis. I suspect that's partially because the following shows went for a larger spotlight base; all the heroes would get far more showcasing that TOS, which was pretty much Kirk, Spock and McCoy with the rest as occasional window dressing. So invariably, the show was far more centered on three characters rather than a seven or eight. With TOS, you knew the story would be a Kirk, or Spock one - maybe a McCoy.. but really, Kirk or Spock. With TNG for example, it was more like roulette to who would get the story focus and I think that meant that diversity overtook a far more lead character vehicle.

So I think there are logical reasons why to pursue the original characters. I think also given it began with TOS, a reboot would logically begin there too (Enterprise is too recent, too underwatched and not as unquantifiably popular.)

But yes, I think it's an interesting point. Certainly TOS never had the amount of episodes or coverage that the other syndicated shows got given it's heyday of novelty and promotion was 40 years prior! Until now, that is!

[Lutochris]

The problem with bringing back the old cast is that, if this is supposed to be a re-imagining, we'll inevitably end up getting more of the same, and people will get bored with it just as they did with the newer Trek shows and movies, only not quite as fast maybe. If they're so insistent on bringing back the original characters, there's plenty of room in the original timeline/universe for them to do stuff we've never seen without upsetting the canon.

And if you're concerned about maintaining the original character dynamic, your Batman analogy falls apart since Dark Knight =/= Caped Crusader. They shared similar background elements (wealthy, parents killed, facinated with bats) and that's about it.

If they want a whole new character dynamic, they should have a new cast. If they want the same character dynamic, they should keep the timeline, since the mainstream audience isn't gonna care one way or the other if it's the young Kirk & Spock prior to the "five year mission" or a whole "new" Kirk & Spock - acting the same as usual.


ENT Season 4 DS9 Season 5 was the best Star Trek season ever, however.

Went ahead and fixed that for you.

[Rasputin]

I've been thinking about this question, actually, and I have to say that despite the excellent dynamics in DS9, as far as actual characters go Kirk, Spock and McCoy are still stuck in the popular consciousness. You're right that it is a sound dynamic, and since any Star Trek reboot is probably going to centre around these three archetypes anyway, there isn't much reason not to keep the names.

But I've also been thinking about how a reboot would help to seriously stream-line the rest of the series. Let's face it, by the time it came to end it was a broadcast cliche: the pointy ears, pasty foreheads, warp drives and teleporters. It's just a consequence of being based on a show from the 1960s on a limited budget. It would be refreshing to have a sci-fi show that took into account modern understandings of physics and a sizeable budget...except from the viewpoint of a John F. Kennedy acolyte.

Let's get things really back to basics. For starters, and probably most importantly, the aliens: back in the 1960s, putting people in make-up was practically the cutting edge of prosthetics. The Klingons were identikit 'foreigners' with asiatic names. The idea that sentient species that had developed on worlds with completely different evolutionary structures being so similar to humans that they'd not only look like them, but be able to interbreed, is more than a little silly...it's retarded. It was embarrassing to go into the '90s with this supposedly progressive show reforming the universe in man's image. So, with this reboot, we have the chance to put things right. When faced with Klingons and Vulcans, we should think less 'pasty heads and pointy ears' and more 'Zerg and Protoss'. Spock's whole 'half-human' deal could be because he was genetically altered to be able to associate with humans, being given things like...you know...legs, and vocal chords.

And then there's the general physics of the Star Trek universe. Despite Michael Okuda's arguments to the contrary, Trek physics are an absolute joke. Inertial Dampeners, Warp Drives, the infamous 'Heisenberg Compensator'...such things were easy cheats in the 1960s, but they've long out-lived their relevance. Physics has moved on. The Trek universe was always hideously overpowered, but the original idea, the military exploration of space aboard lonesome, self-contained starships...it still makes sense, if it was just executed better.

Those are just two of the things in the inconvenient way of a ripping good yarn. I'm sure they're discussing them back-to-front. Leave no stone unturned! It'd better be unrecognizable next time I see it!

[Lutochris]

That's fine. I'm all for that, or something else like fast-forwarding the current timeline by about 100,000 years and going back to pure, imaginative sci-fi where anything goes. But in that case, why do we need Kirk & Spock? If you try to fit them into a whole new timeline, you'll eventually end up reverting the whole thing back to more of the same old timeline.

[DarkAngel]

But in that case, why do we need Kirk & Spock? If you try to fit them into a whole new timeline, you'll eventually end up reverting the whole thing back to more of the same old timeline.
I'll bring up the BSG re-imagining again. It uses some of the same characters, but it hasn't reverted back to anything that feels like more of the same of the old BSG.

[Rasputin]

That's the thing. It's not just the characters that made Star Trek unique. It was the ambience of the thing. Its entire premise could be boiled down to "JFK! In Space!" If you're going to have the youngest Captain in Starfleet history, you've got to have James Tiberius Kirk.

[Megalon]

One thing I think it could address is certain issues with the existing timeline eg by ST's timeline, Earth by this point has gone to hell (though maybe that's not too far off...). I think creating a new version of Trek which avoids the existing's pitfalls, like how humans are oh so perfect, could bring fresh blood. Heck, they could even do what Marvel did at some point and have the two AU's become aware of one another.

I like the Idea of a Star Trek AU actually. I think that would be a better idea from an artistic standpoint than a reboot, but I guess they want the name recognition of Kirk and co. I'm pretty annoyed with the current fad of remakes and sequels, but this reboot just might be pretty good if they do something new with it, while at the same time keeping it true to Trek. Just as long as it's not to preachy (which was always a big Trek annoyance), and at the same time not to cynical (which would go against the point of the franchise), and of course an long as it's intelligent sci-fi it could be the best thing to happen to the franchise in along time.

[James]

As a general point, given that the ambiance of the Trek shows has not been entirely consistent (the ideology behind DS9 and TOS are very different), it's surprising that fans feel uncertain about whether a new direction will retain the ideals of Star Trek in any form of reboot. On reflection of this issue, the film can't win; if it remains faithful to the initial "positive" future in a wild west driven atmosphere, it will be derided as simply just copying the original show; if it reimagines like BSG did, it will be derided as not understanding what the show was about.

In otherwords, it's damned if it's faithful for being unimaginative, and it's damned for not "understanding" what Trek's about if it's too different. We know this because BSG suffered the same backlash.. and again the backlash began before the show had even a chance to preview...

It's a shame, because while there is no certainties it will be great (I shudder with fear that it will end up being a clone of another show's style like for instance, BSG, as Paramount looks for what's "in vogue"), but that would be the case reboot or not. This way the film has more scope when it has less restrictions. Which is good.

I just don't feel that Trek has been anyway consistent to it's initially ideology and style for fans to be able to pigeon hole whether this new reboot will or will not be "like" Trek.

[Megalon]

In otherwords, it's damned if it's faithful for being unimaginative, and it's damned for not "understanding" what Trek's about if it's too different. We know this because BSG suffered the same backlash.. and again the backlash began before the show had even a chance to preview...


Yea, well you have a point. Its just that, if its too different whats the point of making a Trek reboot in the first place? I'm just saying that since it takes place in the TOS era, with the three most important TOS characters, it should have something to do with TOS. Like maybe retain some of that early 60's "we SHALL put a man on the moon!" optimism. But your certainly right that the only thing any one should reasonably demand is that it's a good film. Which is all I really want I guess.

[James]

Yea, well you have a point. Its just that, if its too different whats the point of making a Trek reboot in the first place? I'm just saying that since it takes place in the TOS era, with the three most important TOS characters, it should have something to do with TOS. Like maybe retain some of that early 60's "we SHALL put a man on the moon!" optimism. But your certainly right that the only thing any one should reasonably demand is that it's a good film. Which is all I really want I guess.

Well it still can. Science fiction is - more often than not - reflective of contemporary issues. TOS was reflective of cultural values and topic issues of the 60s. Star Trek - TOS or otherwise shouldn't be expected to follow the themes of a show built in a culture of 40 years past; it should be reflective of it's audience, and it's audience is 40 years ahead now.

So Kirk Spock and TOS can live again, albeit built for a new generation, which essentially, is what BSG did; it built BSG's premise around a new market that has shifted with new expectations. In the end, the core values and characters remain largely the same, what's shifted is the cultural angle in both the production's perspective and the issues it reflects. Both are BSG down to the core; both are shows about a rag tag fleet of survivors of mass genocide, and the character dynamic of those survivors. Both share much of the visual identity and characters, what differs is how the reflect the cultural expectation.

I expect something similar with this reboot (whether I'll get it, remains to be seen); that Star Trek will carry on the original ethos (exploration of the stars with Kirk, Spock and McCoy with a peaceful intent) that will play the scenario and character types against new challenges that reflect our cultural and topical values.

In the end, no one has a grievance as to how TOS and the TOS movies offer very different perspectives and environments to the universe. We have a more character driven angle in the movies, set in a far more military visualised Federation. The characters are the same, but are played out in more realistic and dramatic manner than the 60s version would allow; they challenge issues that 60s scifi media wasn't able to tackle; in particular, age, sacrifice and the repercussions of our actions. Females were no longer hanging off the heroes - they introduced strong female characters (Savvik, Valeris, Gillian Taylor).. the TOS beast adapted to a new format and new challenges that a new decade offered.

So again, this is no different in this sense. We've seen TOS change styles with the movies, now it will change again, more reflective of where we are now than 1966.

[HaagenDas]

Being away for a while has had me have to read through all of this. Many people make points on both sides, but there are points of contention for restarting this series.

First, to clarify, Gene Roddenberry's vision was not just to explore, but rather to show how humanity can come together and achieve something great LIKE space exploration. It was durin the late 60s when the Civil Rights movement was taking hold in the United States. Racial tensions were high and Roddenberry thought the future was like Dr. Martin Luther King's, where ALL types of "people" can co-exist peacefully and learn from one another.

Second, I would argue that though Kirk/Spock et al from TOS are well known, we have had over 40 years of development now. Being in my late 20s, I grew up around TNG and then later DS9. I personally never was a fan of Star Trek UNTIL it got to the point where I saw Worf go to DS9 because I loved crossovers. That's when I started researching more into Star Trek and loved the continuity of it all. A casual fan before Worf went to DS9, an interested fan since, but a devoted fan after Star Treck: First Contact.

Sure we see pop culture references to TOS, but we also see enough references to post TOS as well. See the South Park episode that had Worf driving the truck.

I have not seen BSG, but people are arguing for a reboot because there have been other reboots namely with Bond and Batman. We are forgetting one VERY important element to those franchises. The movie base of those franchises has ALWAYS been the general public. The movie base of the Star Trek franchise has ALWAYS been the Trekkies. Therefore, it makes no sense marketing to a new base. The general public will just write it off as "dorky"

There is only one strong argument for a reboot storywise. Khan supposedly overthrew Earth's govts in the 1990s with the Eugenics Wars in the original continuity. Obviously that has not happened (or did it?:p ) so a reboot could obviously go around this.

[HaagenDas]

What attracted me to become a fan was the continuity. I used to watch the TNG show growing up time to time, but didnt care for it too much. When DS9 came out, I didnt really watch it. When Worf went on the show, THAT was what got me watching DS9. Then when First Contact came out, it became my most favorite movie of all time and I understood Roddenberry's vision of people being able to come together to achieve in peace what they could never do in war.

Although TOS sayings and mannerisms have left their mark on pop culture, the post TOS series have also done their share. As seen by South Park having Worf drive the truck in one episode.

There is only one good reason for rebooting the franchise, and that is to take into consideration historical events that have happened since Gene Roddenberry first created the show. Most notably, the Eugenics Wars of the 1990s in Trek continuity and also the upcoming World War III in the middle of this century.

However, comparing it to Bond and Batman is not a good idea. Both Bond and Batman have had the general public as their movie franchise base. Star Trek's movie franchise base has not been the general public but Trekkies themselves. By moving away from the base they are alienating it, and at the same time they wont attract the general public because they will think it is "just another dorky Star Trek thing"

[Jacob T. Paschal]

Truthfully, I'm excicted about seeing this unfold athough there is a part of me that would love to see Shatner and Nimoy get the treatment that Magneto and Professor X got in the begining of X3.

[Wounded_Dragon]

However, comparing it to Bond and Batman is not a good idea. Both Bond and Batman have had the general public as their movie franchise base. Star Trek's movie franchise base has not been the general public but Trekkies themselves.

That wasn't always the case and the hope is that a reboot will at least be a step towards getting back to that, as Star Trek has become too...insular, as it were.

[James]

I have not seen BSG, but people are arguing for a reboot because there have been other reboots namely with Bond and Batman. We are forgetting one VERY important element to those franchises. The movie base of those franchises has ALWAYS been the general public. The movie base of the Star Trek franchise has ALWAYS been the Trekkies. Therefore, it makes no sense marketing to a new base. The general public will just write it off as "dorky"

That's not accurate. Look at the box office: it's not Trekkies that support Star Trek. If it was, it wouldn't get enough money to profit. It's the mainstream who have a casual interest in Star Trek as they do in James Bond or Batman. Yes, Star Trek has a solid hardcore audience, but any film that's to make an international release cannot rely on a fanbase alone - it has to peek curiosity to others.

Unless you count "Trekkie" as someone who likes to watch Star Trek films (in which case, it's an erroneous presumption), then you are missing all the casual scifi, action and "lets go out and see a fun movie" crowd. I know a hell of a load of people who will watch a Star Trek movie as they would watch an episode on TV if it was on, but are by no means a Trekkie or a follower of the franchise and those people make up a FAR larger market than the hardcore fanbase.

If it was the case, then as Trekdom grew, so should the box office for the films at a relative rate, and that's not strictly accurate.

What you have to remember is the cinema is populated by teens and the ilk. Disposable income is a major cinema puller as it is to music. With the Trek generation - pretty firmly moving out of that bracket, studios will be looking at a new generation to fund their movies - and that's the popcorn guzzling kids of today. They are the franchise's future as much - if not more - than the stable nerd base, who as they grow older, finally find a girl, get a job and deal with kids, are possibly going to wait till a DVD release or a TV air than hit the cinemas with the same enthusiasm as when they were kiddies.

[Jacob T. Paschal]

That's not accurate. Look at the box office: it's not Trekkies that support Star Trek. If it was, it wouldn't get enough money to profit. It's the mainstream who have a casual interest in Star Trek as they do in James Bond or Batman. Yes, Star Trek has a solid hardcore audience, but any film that's to make an international release cannot rely on a fanbase alone - it has to peek curiosity to others.

Unless you count "Trekkie" as someone who likes to watch Star Trek films (in which case, it's an erroneous presumption), then you are missing all the casual scifi, action and "lets go out and see a fun movie" crowd. I know a hell of a load of people who will watch a Star Trek movie as they would watch an episode on TV if it was on, but are by no means a Trekkie or a follower of the franchise and those people make up a FAR larger market than the hardcore fanbase.

If it was the case, then as Trekdom grew, so should the box office for the films at a relative rate, and that's not strictly accurate.

What you have to remember is the cinema is populated by teens and the ilk. Disposable income is a major cinema puller as it is to music. With the Trek generation - pretty firmly moving out of that bracket, studios will be looking at a new generation to fund their movies - and that's the popcorn guzzling kids of today. They are the franchise's future as much - if not more - than the stable nerd base, who as they grow older, finally find a girl, get a job and deal with kids, are possibly going to wait till a DVD release or a TV air than hit the cinemas with the same enthusiasm as when they were kiddies.

I wouldn't call myself a Trekkie but I have as of late, deticated 3-6PM of my weekdays to watch ST on Spike and just recently bought the novelizations of II, III, IV, and VI (those are my favorite films).

I can't tell you specifics about the franchise--like a ships model number (outside of NCC-117 or whatever) but I recite quotes like "I'm a doctor, not a [insert job title here]", "Live long and prosper", "He's dead, Jim" etc.

Does this make me a Trekkie, or just a casual fan...whose also a nerd?

[j32885]

This upcoming movie is definately a another relaunch of the franchise. They originally want to go with the Top Gun idea for trek for STVI, but instead made that the movie as the final farewell to the Original ST cast. I'm not too thrilled about his coming movie. Currently, right now I'm rewatching STNG/DS9/VOY on SpikeTv.

[James]

You're a Trekkie. Sadly, there is no cure. :(

It's an interesting question. Is a Trekkie a conscious choice?

My knowledge of Star Trek is fairly thorough, but I would never describe myself as a Trekkie, simply because I just get comprehensive enjoyment of the original show, not the ideology. I don't have any greater love of Star Trek than any other sci-fi show (in fact, I enjoy a great deal of shows a whole lot more). I do have a soft spot for the original crew.. and yes, I do somehow know the names of most TOS episodes and a roughish episode order, but that's to do with my vast brain rather than any desire to worship the show's existence. You wouldn't find me lining up for any merchandise or first up for a screening of the show - I'll watch it when I have time.

So Trekkie is a tough one to nail down. You can have an in depth knowledge of cars and not be a mechanic. I guess I know too much about Star Trek but hold no allegiance or fanatical interest to the shows ideology or general concept. It's just something I've grown up with, read about and watched in my spare time too much.