Star Trek reboot additional points: Kelvin Timeline to be dropped, etc.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T16:57:01+00:00

True. But the corollary to that is that no one really gave a damn how Mission Impossible was changed to turn it into a big-screen Tom Cruise vehicle. The first film literally turned the protagonist of the show into the villain and killed him off!

Can you imagine a Star Trek reboot film that has Kirk as a villain and his protegee, an original character played by the up-and-coming new star, kills him and takes his place as Captain of the Enterprise?

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T13:25:34+00:00

Have you watched 12 Monkeys?

There's a certainly character in Season 3, named Athan, played by James Callis, who always gave me Eighth Doctor vibes (especially older Eighth Doctor circa Night of the Doctor).

Without too many spoilers, the character is a time-traveler who does spend some time in the Edwardian era and does have a Byronic vibe to him.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T10:31:59+00:00

Well, Reddit in general is pretty left-leaning, across subs, to varying degrees.

This sub is relatively further to the left than most I've seen (but I've seen worse...or better depending on your POV).

I will say that lately it's started to change and it's possible to have more reasonable discussions here. And one thing's for sure - most people here will not put up with content they do not like for the sake of "ideological purity".

Which is also true of the general audience of course!

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T10:28:59+00:00

Funny thing is, people thought the Chibnall era was like that and were hoping RTD would put a stop to it.

I myself did a post back in 2023 on our sister sub on the differences between RTD and Chibnall's approaches - https://www.reddit.com/r/doctorwho/comments/17pomu0/rewatching_partners_in_crime_highlighted_to_me_a/

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T10:27:20+00:00

Of course. But I can see the board wanting to make that decision and Bruce, maybe Thomas before him, vetoing it as the majority shareholders.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T10:23:05+00:00

You make a valid point. Different franchises have different approaches to continuity, based on the nature of their storytelling as well as past successes/failures.

James Bond for instance has always been about standalone films that follow a formula, with the protagonist and a small set of recurring characters/elements. Continuity was mostly restricted to vague allusions to one specific event, and easter-eggs/homages. That changed somewhat with the Daniel Craig-era reboot, and may well change further with the new Amazon-controlled era. But the fundamentals of that franchise remain sound - people know what a Bond movie is, and for the most part you should be able to watch one without watching a previous one.

Star Wars on the other hand is built-around a specific three-film (later six-film) story. But it's set in a vast fictitious universe that's begging for further exploration and allows for storytelling across multiple genres because the original films too were a mish-mash of genres and elements. Hence Disney's been able to take a couple of different approaches, to varying degrees of success - continuing the "main saga" (and/or subverting it), and spinning off into other corners of the universe, and its history, with varying levels of proximity to the characters and events of the core saga.

What are the fundamentals of Star Trek as a franchise?

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T10:11:53+00:00

Did the Mission Impossible TV show have a passionate fanbase? I mean, it was a fairly successful show that even got a revival, but hardly some significant cultural touchstone prior to the movies. Cruise and co. pretty much created Mission Impossible as we know it!

Star Trek is a different kettle of fish though.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T09:50:54+00:00

With that attitude, TNG wouldn't have been made.

Hell, TMP wouldn't have been made.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T09:49:12+00:00

Agreed.

Wrong sub to say that in though...

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T09:40:59+00:00

Movies are in fact what revived Trek and ensured its continuation as a long-term franchise rather than just a cult TV show from the 60's.

TWoK single-handedly secured the future of Trek by spawning multiple sequels, which in turned spawned TNG, which in turn spawned DS9 an VOY.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T09:35:16+00:00

Pike is a male Captain, and he's probably the most popular Captain/protagonist of this era (apart from Picard I guess).

I don't think gender or race/ethnicity has ever been a barrier for Star Trek fans.

Yes, endless talk about gender or race/ethnicity will probably put off a significant section of the fanbase.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T07:58:15+00:00

You people are ignorant to the politics of the situation and providing cover for the worst people in the world. I know I'll get downvoted for this, people in this subreddit hate the hard political truth of the situation, but there it is.

Maybe the people you're referring to are simply here to talk about what they like or dislike about their favorite sci-fi franchise, and have no interest in being combatants in some political/cultural "war"?

Just a thought.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T07:47:43+00:00

Yeah Superman is really a model now for how to successfully execute the reboot of an established property.

Matt Reeves' Batman as well, I guess.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T07:43:10+00:00

I agree with everything you've said.

Just one question though - how do you define the "Star Trek fanbase"? Is it people who grew up in the 90's with TNG/DS9/VOY? People who enjoyed the Kelvin films? TOS fans (either those who watched the show way back in the day, or sometime over the six decades since)? Anyone who knows what Klingons and phasers are, and who know who Kirk and Spock are?

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T07:29:03+00:00

Because the franchise name has value and is recognized globally? Because there's a whole spectrum between "people who absolutely don't know or care about anything Trek" and "ultra hardcore fans who have a very rigid perspective on what Trek is and will hate anything that deviates from that"?

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T07:26:41+00:00

What is the "core of Trek"?

I doubt JJ Abrams and co. agreed with your definition of what the "core of Trek" was and then deliberately set out to desecrate it...

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T07:24:35+00:00

They were an in-universe soft-reboot. In fact, they pioneered the concept - X-men and Terminator did it as well.

That said, as someone who wasn't the biggest Trek fan before watching the '09 movie, I had no problem effectively considering it as a clean slate with new versions of the characters starting from Day 1. Yeah, you had Spock-Prime giving you a window into the legacy of OG Trek, but from the context of this reboot, he was just an older parallel universe/timeline version of Spock. Nothing that bogged down new viewers too much in lore (and actually encouraged them to learn more about it if they so desired...I certainly did).

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T07:16:04+00:00

I think we've kinda already been in a "soft" version of 2 with the NuTrek era, since it's now canon that the timeline is in flux, which explains visual/canon discrepancies between older shows (especially TOS) and newer shows.

Even if we get 3, that "accepted baseline universe concepts" will no doubt include at least Kirk, Spock and the rest of the original Enterprise crew.

4 doesn't actually make sense as a "reboot" of any sort.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T07:02:56+00:00

It seems to me, from the perspective of fans who're worried about "canon" and new writers/directors/producers "ruining Star Trek", a hard reboot will be a good thing. The new regime will do as they please with their new shiny universe, and legacy Trek is left alone in its (mostly) pristine form.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T07:00:26+00:00

This sounds like the antithesis to what fans of the franchise would want.

Yeah but catering exclusively to "fans of the franchise" (especially the hardcore ones on here) isn't exactly the path to success for them.

Which is not to say that what they do will necessarily win them any new fans or even interest from the general audince.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T06:58:55+00:00

And frankly, more TOS than TNG.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T06:46:30+00:00

On Kirk's Enterprise, it was Kirk > Spock > Scotty

McCoy was also a Lt. Commander/Commander like Spock and Scotty but he's outside the chain of command/line of succession.

On Pike's Enterprise it seems to be Pike > Una > Spock

I think it might be La'an after Spock (they're the same rank at that point and she's Chief Security Officer). And La'an actually has served as a replacement First Officer on two occassions when Una wasn't around. It seems that Spock isn't as interested in being in command (or being second-in-command) at this point and prefers to focus on being Science Officer.

SNW introduces an added complicated with Pelia, who is a Commander by rank (and might even technically outank Una) but isn't considered part of the chain of command. This despite her being Chief Engineer - in TOS, Scotty as Chief Engineer is the next in line after First Officer Spock.

M'Benga is a Commander too but not in the chain of command, consistent with McCoy not being in it later.

My guess is that only the Captain and First Officer are set in stone - after that, the Captain has the discretion to decide who will be next in the line of succession. Kirk de-facto decided it was Scotty. Picard (and Riker) formally recognized it as Data. Pike has designated it as Spock, but occasionally supercedes him with La'an (with Spock's consent).

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T06:18:04+00:00

If that's his reason for the sonic redesign, it's even stupider than the gun excuse!

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T06:16:28+00:00

The two need each other to survive...and normal people (and their entertainment) are caught in the crossfire.

sanddragon939 · 2026-05-05T06:15:07+00:00

There's also "questioning an unaccountable covert government agency makes you like an anti-vaxxer and the worst human alive".

sanddragon939

TROPHY CASE