BIB: Ah, the naivety of youth.

As for the rest of the post, the Trek universe lends itself to potentially infinite reboots given that parallel timelines are already well established in Star Trek. But that in itself is no reason to reboot, there's equaly valid arguments for and against. Ultimately what matters are things like the writing, the characters etc, regardless of which timeline it's set in.

BIB: I agree with this. It's the writing and characterization that matter most. It's what makes the show entertaining. A "reboot" was probably necessary for the franchise as a movie. But another reboot, just so the writers do not have to pay any attention to some aspects of lore for the sake of convenience of the writers, is going too far for me. There's plenty of room in the ST 'verse for many more entertaining stories to be set within it. I just don't see the need to reboot again. To me, that would be a sign of potential poor quality (lazy writing) though I'd still watch the show before making my mind up.

I happened to have thoroughly enjoyed the rebooted BSG, but then I'm not as fond of the original as I am of Star Trek.

My own preference is to keep reboots to a minimum. Reboots would make each series easily disposable, cheapening Star Trek as a whole, just as much as Voyager did with its uninspired conveyer belt output.

But then, why even call it Star Trek? If you're going to change so much then it's just cashing in on a name. Make something new instead.

How so?


Well, as I've offered a bunch of reasons for (a reboot), perhaps you could offer a couple against?

You are right, in that a new show/reboot wont go anywhere without good writing, cast and characters, but they don't need to stick to the prime timeline do enable that, and a reboot enables for more of a story, because they aren't tied down to existing events.


Because it's already an established franchise? I'm not suggesting it's completely overhauled, but if any new show wishes to use the name Klingon, or USS Enterprise, then it's going to have to be a Trek show. Doesn't mean changes can't occur. The Klingon's changed several times in prime Trek, and again for JJ's films; in my opinion, for the better, but that doesn't mean to say that a new universe need not tweak them a little more so they can be their own thing,

Special effects are always improving, to say they aren't going to get much better than they are now reflects the limits of your imagination, rather than the limits of the technology.


One reason, as stated a couple of posts before this one is that reboots would make Trek too disposable. In an increasingly throw away culture, one of the attractions of Star Trek is its legacy and history. As far as acessability, some newcomers may find 50 years of Star Trek a barrier, others may see it as a brand new universe for them to get immersed in.

I have no problem with ST moving with the times, and in fact neither did Gene Roddenberry, however that doesn't have to mean reboots. The danger of overhauls is that you can alienate fans of what has gone before. Look at the silly squabbles that have broken out since the latest films came out. If that's going to happen every time there's a reboot then ST and its fans are going to become the laughing stock.

That being said, I can't bring myself to get invested in a debate for or against, as I wrote earlier, what's more important to me are things like the writing and characters more than the setting.

All of those could be achieved without a reboot if they just kept the show advancing by setting it in a period ahead of Voyager whether that be a few years or centuries. It is the decision to position the show between Enterprise and TOS that simply baffles me. It's like swimming the Atlantic with a lead weight on both ankles. Why pile all that baggage on your head? It really should have been a piece of cake. Bring Seven back as an Admiral or something for the launch then let it all unfold as a totally new adventure. Really, how hard can that be?

Short of going full CGI, I don't actually think special effects can improve that much. How much more realistic are you expecting things to get? How is the current level of special effects not realistic enough?


But the don't need to change all of that; we can still have the Earth-Romulus war, we can still have the (early) tension with the Klingon Empire, we can still have our Dominion war. All I'm suggesting is a fresh take on what we already have. You speak of my naivety of youth, and I don't know your age, but it seems you're maybe one of those old timers that doesn't like/doesn't want change because you're stuck in the past.


So you can agree then, that assuming these demands are met, you'd be happy either way?


If it were a case of setting a new show in the future, then sure, stick with the current (prime) timeline, though I'd do away with Seven of Nine. It's the fact that they're going back to a prequel that makes me crave a reboot.

I personally wouldn't want to see a reboot; i've invested quite a lot of time in the existing ST universe and it would be a shame to start again. I reckon it's been proven over the last few years that prequels can work extremely well if you do them properly and I understand why the show creators want to exploit existing trek rather than take the risk of doing something completely new.

I hope that we do eventually get a post Voyager show; maybe that will be next if this one works out well.

You mean explore, right?

Speaking of prequels, which ones do you know of that have been more successful than their originals? ST: Enterprise was a prequel that failed (even though I thought it was a great show, especially the later seasons). I can't specifically think of many other sci-fi shows that have done prequels, though I'm sure there are some out there.

There is a long way to go before we get to a point where FX cease to improve.


I'm actually one of those who is generally positive about the new films, and enjoy them for what they are. I'm also usually the one telling the "this isn't real ST" brigade to get a grip.


I believe I have been consistent with my views. I always hope for good writing etc, I don't demand anything.

I wasn't thinking of sci-fi in particular - more 'Better Call Saul'. Also I understand that 'Gotham' has been pretty successful. Ok, that's only two but it's evidence nevertheless

Actually i'm a bit odd in that ST is one of my favourite all time shows but I don't like many other sci-fi programmes. Babylon 5 was great, I dipped in and out of the X Files and i've enjoyed the recent one 'The Expanse', but not many others.

I'm on the more negative side on this one. I thought that the first one was a reasonably decent film in itself but that Into Darkness was awful and Beyond was only a slight improvement (though I know I'm in a very small minority with that one). Bear in mind though that I could probably count on one hand the number of 21st century franchise action films that i've enjoyed (the original Taken was fun, The Dark Knight, um. . . .can't think of another off the top of my head). I tend to zone out of anything with explosions, car chases and gun battles.

Same

Maybe, but I'm still interested to know (from your point of view) how they can get better than they presently are?


I didn't mean it like that!


I haven't (yet) seen Better Call Saul, though have heard it's good, and loved Breaking Bad. Gotham isn't really a prequel though; it's more... It's a DC show, set in a DC city, based upon a DC city and DC characters. It's pretty much a Batman show ... without Batman. It's an odd one to try and explain, but it's not a prequel cause [that universe] doesn't directly connect to anything.


No Stargate?


I've been kind of indifferent with them all; I've enjoyed them all, but none have really jumped out at me. The first was a good reboot if you can get away from the inconsistencies (Spock able to see the destruction of Vulcan from Vega Colony), Into Darkness I liked until they introduced the Vengeance, and there was the further inconsistencies with the Enterprises' proximity to Qo'nos.

The third film, I always hoped would continue the "we'll be at war with the Klingon's before long" element of Trek. It would have been nice to see a Federation - Klingon skirmish that required Kirk to negotiate the first accords with them, reminiscing from ST:VI.

Maybe not technically a prequel but it's set in a universe where lots of things are already fixed in advance. I I think it's basically the approach that the new Star Trek show will take - it won't spend time worrying 100% about continuity or references obscure trek stuff, it will simply use the era as a general setting for a new ST story.


I watched some of it as a teenager and found it really cheesy. I have a very low tolerance for that kind of stuff.



I remember leaving the cinema after the first one and saying to my friend that it felt like one of those recent Hollywood WWII epics where they take an existing story and make a good film out of it but end up ditching most of what actually happened. It was a good action film but it didn't come close to replicating what I enjoy about ST. Then Into Darkness felt like a Transformers film . . . . .

To be fair - none of the TNG films did a very good job of replicating the TV shows either. First Contact was fun and exciting to watch as a 13 year old but having rewatched more recently it's a pretty stupid film. Insurrection came the closest to copying the feel of TNG but it's story was also ridiculous.

I remain unconvinced. Gotham already has a lot of the characters that should by younger at this stage, but they're not; obviously a show about a bunch of evil kids wouldn't quite take off as well as Gotham has). Wherever Gotham goes, it'll never become a Batman film as we know the Batman films to be. Trek (a prequel show) is different in the sense that to follow consistency, they have to keep within certain confinements. The DC universe (especially Batman) has been rebooted so many times, that they can afford to run with it. The same can't quite be said with Trek.


Have you stopped to consider that maybe we're just getting old?

I used to really enjoy the films - all of them, back to the Wrath of Khan, right up to Nemesis, but I can barely maintain any interest in many of them anymore.

As impressive as current FX are, and taking Beyond as an example, you still know you are watching CGI. When watching Beyond, did you question how they managed to build such a massive set for the Starbase Yorktown or did you stare in wonder at what your brain recognised as CGI? Until the audience is forced to ask the former, CGI will continue to improve.

You're joking, right?

Until we can actually build a starbase (for real), we're always going to have to rely on CGI, and anyone watching a film is going to know that regardless. Nobody is going to watch a film like this and question whether said starbase is real or not, not unless they're stupidly naïve.

Even if/when we get to the stage where we do create an actual starbase, we'll still have to rely on special effects for stunts, otherwise we'd have actors and actresses actually shooting each other or falling to their deaths etc. The whole point of special effects/CGI is to enhance the feature; to make it seem as real as possible. The day such becomes without the use of any special effects/cgi is the day that there's no need for feature films - because people will be experiencing all of this themselves (to some degree).

I didn't say anything about building an actual space station, I said building a set and the audience asking how they built such a massive set. Ok, I'll make it simpler for you to understand the point; replace the space station with a chair in a room, a person walks into the room and sits on the chair. Basic stuff. We have two versions of the same scene, a real life version and a fully CGI version. Have CGI reached a point where the audience can't tell the difference between the two?

I would say yes, depending on budget, but then most people go into a vast variety of films knowing that they're going to watch something with CGI elements, I'd have thought very few people go into a film with the sole intention of picking apart what is CGI and what isn't.

Recognising we haven't reached the limits of our CGI capabilities isn't picking anything apart, nor does take any of the enjoyment away, it's just being objective. I think even those doing the FX would admit there's a long way to go before we're in a position to not be able to tell the difference between the two in such a scene. Anyway now hopefully you understand the point I was making about the starbase, i.e. that CGI still have a way to go before the audience wonders if it was an actual set (not an actual base, in space), rather than recognise it as impressive CGI.

I see that Wikipedia says production was supposed to start in November. Perhaps there's another delay coming up?

I beginning to think the shows been cancelled!

Maybe the starbase isn't the best example, because creating a set for that would never be financially feasible, and nobody is going to ever wonder if something like that is CGI or set.

The only thing I can see as an advancement as far as CGI goes is the budget needed to implement it; it'll become cheaper and cheaper the more developed the programs are that tie it all together.

In most (if not all) films, people generally know what's likely CGI, and what isn't. There are scenes in some of the MCU films that look as though they're taking place in the street (so a set?) but they're actually done using CGI - I couldn't tell the difference, so I'd certainly say we are already there.

I think at this stage we can still tell the difference, that's based on my own experience and also people I know IRL. Your own experience may be different.

But let's not lose track that this thread is about a TV show. The very latest FX aren't going to be applied here. TV FX are generally a few steps behind the latest cinematic advances - so even from that perspective there will be plenty ongoing room for improvement.