OK, I understand a re-imagination to be something like the new Battlestar Galactica, i.e. something where basically everything is allowed, like turning Starbuck into a woman.
Sure, the term re-imagination does not have a strict definition, but since the term is often applied to the new BSG, I take it to imply breaking with canon.

The thing is, I find the intellectual aspects of Trek – the philosophical and ideological stuff – interesting. But I don’t consider the pseudo-scientific stuff made up to get our characters out of fixes – the technobabble and continuity – to be on the same level as that.

I’m cool with this movie being a reboot too. No sweat either way , to be honest. If they need an in-universe reason for the reboot, then they can have that. If Leonard Nimoy is simply playing ‘Older Spock’ from that universe in the new Trek, then I’m fine with that too!

I dispute it as well. In fact, that’s the point I’ve been trying to make here. That Nimoy was cast as Spock is of no use when determining if this new Trek movie is a true reboot or not. However, I do believe that had they cast someone else as elder Spock, no one would doubt it’s a true reboot. After all, it’s a different guy playing the “real” Spock, so therefore he can’t be the “real” Spock and therefore this entire thing is outside “real” continuity.

But while I believe people would think that, I think that’s a fallacy, hence my use of Dench, Alley, and Curtis as examples above. I think people are hung up on Nimoy as Spock and are using that as an example of why it’s impossible for this to be a true reboot.

All I’m saying is that it’s not impossible for this to be a true reboot and still have Nimoy playing Spock. I don’t believe the writers intend for it to be interpreted this way. I’m quite sure Roberto Orci sees Nimoy’s Spock as the same guy from the original series.

“It would only be contradictory then, if the creative team was satisfied with the notion of audiences receiving their story in two very different ways. Furthermore, Nimoy’s presence in the film is reportedly one very much of sentiment as well as substance, and what you are suggesting would seem to remove the basis for that sentiment.”

What’s the problem with the notion of audiences receiving their story in two different ways? Trek has always had two audiences. There are the ones who get into the minutea of continuity detail and obsess over alien languages and the ones who like to see big spaceships and funky aliens and watch Data not get being human. You can be a member of both audiences, of course, but there’s definitely that cultural distinction within Trekdom.

The sentiment of Nimoy’s presence wouldn’t be diminished at all if someone chose to interpret it the way I’ve suggested and that he’s not really the “true” Spock. If you like Nimoy, you like Nimoy.

“For example, he reportedly says to young Kirk (in response to the accusation of cheating) that he “learned it from an old friend”. It is supposedly a wonderfully ironic and even sentimental moment in the film. What is that, if not a reference to the original timeline (and the favorite ST film of the two writers)?”

It’s a reference to the FUTURE friendship of Kirk and Spock, of course. But what’s the big deal? If the movie is capable of being interpreted differently by two different people, wouldn’t it actually serve the movie that lines such as that can be interpreted differently for each of those two people? It’s like a joke having two meanings — that makes it a BETTER joke.

“Based upon what? Upon what are you basing the notion that Nimoy is portraying a different Spock than the one we last saw on Romulus?”

My imagination and the fact that nothing in the movie contradicts this — if indeed nothing does. Haven’t seen it yet, of course.

“Moreover, how would that “respect canon”, as the creative team has repeatedly indicated that the film would?”

By leaving it untouched (or “unsullied,” for those who get emotional about such things).

“I’m afraid I don’t see the point in any of this. Your argument is based upon pure conjecture, without any support whatsoever.”

My argument is essentially that one COULD view this movie as a true reboot and that — so far as I’ve seen, anyway — there’s nothing that prevents it from being one. In fact, this is pretty much how I intend to view it. I have no use for worrying over continuity details and I’m more than happy to assume no connection to prior Trek.

I don’t think you actually believe that either. I think you are taking ’speculation’ and ‘conjecture’ to new levels, my friend.

“Imagine that Abrams couldn’t get Nimoy to play Spock and had to recast the character for his appearance in this movie. If, say, Hugh Laurie played Spock, I think you’d have a hard time finding anyone who would say his native timeline in the movie was the “real” TOS timeline. Clearly, Laurie-Spock isn’t Nimoy-Spock and therefore originates in some kind of different continuity. So no matter how “accurate” Laurie-Spock’s timeline seems (in the sense that it replicates the “real” TOS reality), we’d all be comfortable pegging it as a different timeline, and thus this new Star Trek movie would be, without significant doubt, a true reboot with no in-film connection to the “real” TOS timeline.”

Given that the creative team insited upon having Nimoy on board before even going forward with this project, that seems rather irrelevant. Without Nimoy involved, they would have done something else, or nothing at all.

They have already indicated as much.

I dispute the notion, however, that the actor involved has anything to do with it being a “reboot” or not. Your use of “Saavik”, as an example, is a clear contradiction to that notion.

Whether portrayed by Kirstie Alley or Robin Curtis, it was still the same character, in the same continuity. Moreover, Saavik is not a “throwaway” character in either TWOK or TSFS (although perhaps in TVH). She is, in fact, the most significant (particularly in screentime) secondary character in Starfleet uniform in either film. It did not matter. A different actor portraying the same character did not disturb the continuity of the two stories (but I would argue that both films present other challenges to the maintenance of continuity within the Star Trek Universe).

The characters are fictional, as is the continuity in the equally fictional stories. It is the discarding of that fictional continuity which defines it as a “reboot”, or the adherence to that fictional continuity which prevents it from being a “reboot”.

The actors involved are always replaceable—at least as far as maintaining fictional continuity (which says nothing, of course, about maintaining quality or audience interest).

STXI is, by definition, not a “reboot”…nor is it a prequel, since the origin story is being told ( and quite canonically) in an alternate timeline.

“These positions seem contradictory. If the average moviegoer isn’t going to be bothered to look below the surface, then the idea that the timeline that Nimoy-Spock comes from isn’t the actual TOS timeline we’ve all seen for 40 years won’t even catch their attention.”

It would only be contradictory then, if the creative team was satisfied with the notion of audiences receiving their story in two very different ways. Furthermore, Nimoy’s presence in the film is reportedly one very much of sentiment as well as substance, and what you are suggesting would seem to remove the basis for that sentiment.

For example, he reportedly says to young Kirk (in response to the accusation of cheating) that he “learned it from an old friend”. It is supposedly a wonderfully ironic and even sentimental moment in the film. What is that, if not a reference to the original timeline (and the favorite ST film of the two writers)?

“But anyone who’s caught up in continuity details (i.e. not the casual viewer), the elder Spock in this forthcoming movie is just as “extracontinuity” as Quinto’s Spock. He just happens to be played by the same actor, which is irrelevant.”

Based upon what? Upon what are you basing the notion that Nimoy is portraying a different Spock than the one we last saw on Romulus?

Moreover, how would that “respect canon”, as the creative team has repeatedly indicated that the film would?

I’m afraid I don’t see the point in any of this. Your argument is based upon pure conjecture, without any support whatsoever.

I remain convinced—-without even a shred of doubt—-that Nimoy is portraying the Spock I know from the original timeline, and I am convinced that Nero comes from that timeline as well.

So far, it doesn’t seem like anyone gives a gum wrapper about A&D.

The TS trailer just leaked out of Japan looks like REIGN OF FIRE— WWEEEEAAAK!

And at least the first image of Liev as Sabretooth is kind of kickass.

“While the comic book prequel series intends to explain Nero’s backstory, it apparently does so within the TNG-era (or, more precisely, the post-Nemesis era) we know. While thousands of fanboys/girls may indeed go out of their way to read those, I think that the creative team behind the film would most likely assume that the overwhelming majority of moviegoers will not.”

And..

“I think it is rather safe to assume that both Nero and Spock come from the original timeline, otherwise things would be much too confusing for the average moviegoer.”

These positions seem contradictory. If the average moviegoer isn’t going to be bothered to look below the surface, then the idea that the timeline that Nimoy-Spock comes from isn’t the actual TOS timeline we’ve all seen for 40 years won’t even catch their attention.

Here’s a way to see what I mean. Imagine that Abrams couldn’t get Nimoy to play Spock and had to recast the character for his appearance in this movie. If, say, Hugh Laurie played Spock, I think you’d have a hard time finding anyone who would say his native timeline in the movie was the “real” TOS timeline. Clearly, Laurie-Spock isn’t Nimoy-Spock and therefore originates in some kind of different continuity. So no matter how “accurate” Laurie-Spock’s timeline seems (in the sense that it replicates the “real” TOS reality), we’d all be comfortable pegging it as a different timeline, and thus this new Star Trek movie would be, without significant doubt, a true reboot with no in-film connection to the “real” TOS timeline.

So it’s the casting of Nimoy that causes people to insist that there’s an in-film connection to the original continuity. But as I pointed out with Judi Dench, the recasting of an actor to the same role doesn’t mean the character is literally the same from one continuity to the next. M in Casino Royale has no recollection of Bond looking like Pierce Brosnan.

And in Trek, we’ve seen the recasting of the SAME character in the SAME continuity — Saavik. No one had a problem comprehending that Saavik in ST3 was the same person as Saavik in ST2 (well, I’m sure it confused some casual viewers at first, but I doubt anyone was confused by the end of the movie).

So where does this leave us? The casting of an ACTOR is not an example of in-film continuity. Dench is a different M in two different continuities, and Saavik is shared by Kirstie Alley and Robin Curtis a single continuity.

The casting of Nimoy as Spock is, as you imply, a method of suggesting to the casual view that when all is said and done, the new Star Trek movie IS Star Trek. The familiar face comforts the audience. But anyone who’s caught up in continuity details (i.e. not the casual viewer), the elder Spock in this forthcoming movie is just as “extracontinuity” as Quinto’s Spock. He just happens to be played by the same actor, which is irrelevant.

I think you just answered your own question.

“Batman Begins relies HEAVILY on the prior existence of Batman in the cultural consciousness.”

Absolutely, but the criteria to which I am refferring is the discarding of “fictional” continuity.

Surely, the prior existence of Batman as part of the ‘cultural consciousness’ is not fictional. It is fact. The existence of several prior successful incarnations (comics, television series, movies, etc.) is evidence enough of that.

Its storyline material, however, is fictional.

The disregard for much of the previous backstory and storyline material (its continuity) is what defines ‘Batman Begins’ as a “reboot”, and it was very much intended as such.

“Is Dench playing M like Nimoy playing Spock? Who says the “original” timeline Spock comes from in this new Trek movie is the ACTUAL timeline we’ve been watching all along? Couldn’t it just be another alternate timeline that this new Trek move called the “original” one but is just as much a different timeline as the one we’ll end up with by the end of the movie? Again, Nimoy’s presence as Spock is no indicator; it could just be Nimoy playing what is in effect a cameo. He’s playing faux-original Spock, not actually the original Spock. I mean, if Dench as M doesn’t mean alternate timelines were being invoked in Casino Royale, Nimoy as Spock doesn’t mean the same in Trek.”

For the purposes of this discussion, you may assume that all of my thoughts on the film are based upon what we know of it now, and the assumption that both Nero and Spock come from the timeline with which we are all familiar.

While the comic book prequel series intends to explain Nero’s backstory, it apparently does so within the TNG-era (or, more precisely, the post-Nemesis era) we know. While thousands of fanboys/girls may indeed go out of their way to read those, I think that the creative team behind the film would most likely assume that the overwhelming majority of moviegoers will not.

I find that possibility extremely unlikely, particularly given the filmmakers’ stated objective of making a film that the average moviegoer will not need to have prior knowledge of Star Trek to enjoy or fully appreciate.

I think it is rather safe to assume that both Nero and Spock come from the original timeline, otherwise things would be much too confusing for the average moviegoer.

I risk becoming pedantic here, but I’m curious if Batman Begins would have been even a blip on the cultural radar if there had been no Batman in any form prior to it. It might have survived as a cult film in the vein of the original Highlander, perhaps, but not be anything like a major blockbuster.

Batman Begins relies HEAVILY on the prior existence of Batman in the cultural consciousness.

So is it that a true reboot’s reliance on prior continuity can’t happen in-film, but only as a larger cultural context? And it must have at least that, otherwise what is being rebooted?

John Williams’ theme to the 1978 Superman was mostly original, but he dropped in touches of the 1950s Superman TV show theme as well. Is that an example of prior form appearing in-film? Or am I relying to much on reductio ad absurdum?

Something a little more appropriate, and that I brought up earlier in this thread. Judi Dench plays M in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, but this is a clear reboot of Bond. It starts his career over without any in-story explanation why he looks different or that the setting of the movie is contemporary or anything like that. We accept that it’s an unequivocal reboot despite Dench’s presence.

Is Dench playing M like Nimoy playing Spock? Who says the “original” timeline Spock comes from in this new Trek movie is the ACTUAL timeline we’ve been watching all along? Couldn’t it just be another alternate timeline that this new Trek move called the “original” one but is just as much a different timeline as the one we’ll end up with by the end of the movie? Again, Nimoy’s presence as Spock is no indicator; it could just be Nimoy playing what is in effect a cameo. He’s playing faux-original Spock, not actually the original Spock. I mean, if Dench as M doesn’t mean alternate timelines were being invoked in Casino Royale, Nimoy as Spock doesn’t mean the same in Trek.

Gah, I’m starting to sound like a Voyager episode…