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.

Check out the article at TrekWeb here.

[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that the mainstream film and TV audience have lost interest with, particularly part of a canon which is 40 years out of date.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.

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.