How not to reboot Star Trek

[almostwitty]

I went to see the new Star Trek film at the London Imax, and alongside pretty much everyone else, I was awed and wowed by the action, laughed at the character interplay, and suffused with nostalgic feelings for the actions of Kirk, Spock, Sulu and everyone else. And acknowledged that even if green skin does not go with red hair, it still looks darned good.

However, there are a couple of things that are annoying me about new Trek (spoilers dead ahead, captain!)

Did they really have to change the rules? By breaking the one inviolable rule in time-travel fiction that people from the future trying to change the past cannot change the present? Aside from throwing away 30+ years of stories - no more Khaaaaaaaannn, for instance - it means you’ve broken the internal workings of the box, and it just won’t work as well any more.

Plus, Doctor Who is a 40-year story about a time-travelling person, for goodness’ sake - and if they didn’t feel the need to throw all the old stories away when they re-started the storylines - why should Star Trek have done the same thing?

It can also be argued that Doctor Who had a far more successful reboot than Star Trek. British kids are now pretending to be Daleks in the playground. Whereas most of the people I know who saw Star Trek and loved it were … Star Trek fans. Non-Star Trek fans don’t seem as interested - and that was with an action-packed 120 minutes with barely a mention of multi-phasic shielding.

Supplemental: Star Trek appears to have six different theories of time travel. So I guess it doesn’t matter!

Originally published at almost witty. You can comment here or there.

Comments

[sentience.livejournal.com]

I just enjoyed it and that was that. I think some people are over analysing it, instead of just admitting it was awesome.

[almostwitty]

It's the media. It's what I do.

Although I tend not to analyse Russ Meyer movies, oddly...

[sentience.livejournal.com]

Hahahahaha

[actionreplay.livejournal.com]

I was a little puzzled, Vulcan has been destroyed? I bet the sequel un-destroys it.

[hellmutt.livejournal.com]

I think it was to give Quinto's character More Angst™. A few years ago destroying his village would have been enough, but thanks to Hollywood oneupmanspaceship, nowadays if you don't have genocide in your past, the audience can't relate to you. Trufax.

What bothered me was people using transporters when shields were up, and then someone else beaming aboard something moving at warp. It felt like they broke those two rules just for the hell of it.

But it's a reboot, after all, so I kinda just went with it.

[actionreplay.livejournal.com]

I thought they specifically said Scotty invented being able to beam on to something moving at warp though?

The transporters with shields up was probably a plot device/oversight/only the hardcore trekkies will notice. I didn't notice actually.... but you're right, you have to make a hole in the shield to beam in or out?

[almostwitty]

Well, if you know the frequency of the shields, you can fire torpedoes through it (c.f. Generations) so I guess the same thing with transporters. And as Captain of the ship, I imagine Kirk would know the frequencies.

Although of course, why would the shields be up if the Enterprise is meeting up with the rest of the fleet?

Egads, I am a Star Trek nerd.

[amante-donne.livejournal.com]

I thought it was awesome, best star trek movie that has been made, I wouldnt consider myself a trekkie.

[anivair.livejournal.com]

I was going to comment on the different types of time travel. If you look to, for example, the guardian of forever stuff, time flips and flops a lot.

And I think I recall very briefly that there was a strong indication that what was created was an alternate universe. So it might not have screwed with Original Spock's present at all.

But I did has issues with the movie. Not so much science (though the black hole use irritated me) but just bad movie logic. There was a lot of it and it felt a bit lazy.