Comments on: Abrams: Star Trek Not Classic Reboot Or Prequel

By: Whill

Whill — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:08:39 +0000

If the movie starts in the 24th century after Nemesis, then this movie is a sequel, even if the sequel has time travel. If so it’s a sequel with a “prequel” inside of it. Like the Back to the Future 2 and 3, and Star Trek IV and First Contact.

It’s NOT necessarily a reboot, because a reboot does not even need time travel to explain why things are different. For example, Batmin Begins And Casino Royale are reboots, and there was no time travel involved.

Maybe the time travellers from the future do some change some things, but maybe most of the plots of TOS will remain canon and unchanged. Maybe all that will different this time around is that the costumes look cooler, everything looks more futuristic with good special effects, and Kirk is played by a better actor. :-)

I saw the trailer at Bond and I am really looking forward to this new vision of classic Star Trek. I’m happy that they are bringing the 24th century Star Trek narrative to a close, because I feel they just ran Trek into the ground in the 24th century (I think Nemesis was almost as bad as Trek I, V, DS 9 and Voyager). And the’ve already made a prequel series taking place in the 22nd century, so now it’s time to do the only things left by bringing Trek full circle. Go back to the classic 23rd century Trek when the characters were young and dynamic, instead of old and fat. I don’t want to get my hopes up too much but I think this may be the best Trek of them all.

By: DonDonP1

DonDonP1 — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:30:08 +0000

If it’s neither a prequel nor a reboot, then let’s say it’s like a revival of the “Star Trek” film series, just like 2006’s “Superman Returns” being a revival of the “Superman” film series that began with the 1978 movie. I thought the new “Trek” flick should be either an interquel between the two pilot episodes of “The Original Series” or otherwise a big-screen prequel to “The Man Trap”. Oh, well.

By: dalek

dalek — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 18:52:12 +0000

#116 Kirk is the main character in the franchise again. He’s dead.

Not only does it seem like he is going to remain dead. But part of the plot involves Kirk being dead AGAIN, killing him before he’s born.

Star Trek seems to be about one thing again: Killing Kirk!

Kirk may ride off into the sunset at the end of the movie. But in the mythology, and the back of the characters fans mind, he is always going to have a horribly written and filmed accident, which is about as optimistic as the black death. There is no happy end for Captain Kirk.

By: Closettrekker

Closettrekker — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:55:58 +0000

#119—And, in the end (as is so often the case), that really didn’t matter. Did it? I’m willing to bet that (if that ever happened) 99% of those guys aren’t even a quarter as successful as he is.

By: Closettrekker

Closettrekker — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:53:13 +0000

#114—-That’s easy. Spock is presumably still on Romulus, helping to facilitate the changing of the political climate there and throughout the RSE.

Through some of his contacts and allies there, he learns of a plot on the part of a rogue faction of the Romulan military and/or Tal-Shiar who are unhappy with the movement towards peaceful relations with the Federation or even reunification with Vulcan. Since he gets advanced notice, he may even be able to act pre-emptively, or at the very least, simultaneously. That’s conjecture, of course, but something along those lines would be ample explanation. Just as has always been the case in Star Trek time travel stories, those who travel back prior to events which influence the future are unaffected by those changes in the timeline. That would be consistent.

By: The sweet and sour sauce package from mcdonalds

The sweet and sour sauce package from mcdonalds — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 12:41:55 +0000

God that picture above of abrams is so blah, I bet he got his lunch money stolen alot in high school…poor dude.

By: Holger

Holger — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:46:52 +0000

113: The Voyage Home and First Contact involved time travel, and so did a score of TV episodes. Every time travel story creates an alternate timeline (if it didn’t, nothing worth telling would have happened in the story). None of these installments needed any of the fuzz we have now. So I don’t think it’s as plain as you suggest.

By: AJ

AJ — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:54:04 +0000

112/Closet:

How about a “requel?” Bad term for marketing the film to the punters, but kinda handles that ‘new timeline’ idea.

Hopefully, Main Street won’t get too bogged down in the question.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:30:35 +0000

109. Dalek,
It’s easy to see the Star Trek universe as optimistic even with Shatner’s Kirk dead, because Star Trek isn’t the James Kirk story, and thus Trek does not hang on his every action or thought. Trek is about something bigger than any one character no matter how important they may be, the idea that humankind could get itself pulled together for a better future. The character of Kirk helps exemplify that ideal while showing that people still have some growing to do. That said, Trek isn’t Kirk’s life story, his is just one of many.

By: aries127

aries127 — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:21:33 +0000

#111 – Yar, didn’t see it there. What an apt comparison, no?

You could also cast McCain and Obama as Kirk vs. Picard and have a similar debate, especially on foreign policy.

Glad to see that our beloved Star Trek characters are still wholly relevant! That’s the definition of a classic, is it not?