RAR wrote:The topic of this thread is about Movies : namely What is it YOU want from a Remake, Reboot or Sequel?
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
lets see if i can agree with you on that at the end of this postRAR wrote:Those terms apply differently especially in franchises.
Re-imagining is for example often but not exclusively applied to something that changes significant parts, you could say that New Battlestar Galactica was this, but a better example would be to take a premise of a set of characters and then more them to another location.
Example of that might be in the comic world where Super-heroes change race or era or even gender.
It is possible to be a re-imagining without being a remake though. (i.e. Thor as a girl) or Howard the Duck having a slight design change - that is a re-imagining of the character but it's still in continuity with the previous comics.
Sometimes something is called a Sequel but isn't even the same continuity (i.e. James Bond).
A example of a reboot can be something as simple as starting the story over in a newer time period.
Heck know what classification you'd give to the Stargate movie that is getting made.
Anyway yes you can usually get away with using the terms interchangeably but that does not mean they infer the exact same meaning or context to them.
Besides when Movie get sequel decades later often so much changes they may as well be a reboot.
For example Tron Legacy of The Force Awakens. Some movies are not even that easy to put into a slot (yet) such as the new Ghostbusters Movie - I don't think anyone can say what that is until they see it.
Also prometheus. - That one is especially tricky as "Technically" All the Alien Movies were one story even the AVP ones - but Prometheus being a partial reset (as Superman returns is too) is a whole other area to add another layer of viewer confusion.
please doI will come back to this thread when I have time to get into what I want to say more fully - but I want to give it a chance for t least a few answers before I do that so if anyone reading this can say 'what they want' please contribute.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
RAR wrote:also Reboot implies a franchise rather than a one off.
Soft-reboot is often used for Star Trek 2009 as it's technically a sequel and reboot at the same time.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
RAR wrote:Some consider Star Trek 2009 a reboot of a sort even before the time alteration as the technology and Uniforms on display are no consistent with the prior material..
though I suppose if you consider it a sequel to 'Enterprise' and not Star Trek : The Original Series then that makes a lot more sense.
-----
Anyway speaking of sequels...
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
please please please try to explain how that makes MORE SENSE?
RAR wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:
please please please try to explain how that makes MORE SENSE?
There is the long explanation and the short one - if you want me to write 1000 words on it I can...
But in short.
Enterprise when the show started was described by the production staff as an alternative "Daughter Universe" created by the Events in Star Trek : First Contact
Star Trek 2009 thus isn't a sequel to Star Trek The Original series it is a sequel to Enterprise even before Nero pops up this is the case.
The postulation is that Earth was not attacked during Archers time in the original timeline as that happened as a result of temporal interference.
So even if you like to try to crowbar Enterprise into the TOS timeline the varied and extensive temporal alterations made between Archer and Janeways time mean that when one loops back around to the beginning - it's a different beginning.
The only question is where the branching points are... I'd say they are a few years after World War II not long after that something resembling "Our Universe" splits from the Star Trek Universe (in terms of the context of Star Trek itself).
Or to put it in another way The past that Kirk had isn't the same one Janeway had and that is even before the Temporal Cold War got a lot hotter.
thats trueHowever since there are issues "wrong" with the last two Star Trek Movies that are a lot worse than The Kelvin - one tends to decide to over look them like one does the various "errors" in the preceding Star Trek Movies as another error derived from the likelyhood that the production just couldn't be bothered to keep their facts straight in relation to previously established material.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
RAR wrote:Technical inconsistencies.
Taking such liberties with the laws of physics so that even Voyager would blush.
There is a brewery in the engine room
There is an core in the middle of the ship's saucer like some sort of Mall.
Sets doors and such moving in relationship to each other
Kirk's unexplained illness
Why does the Vengeance have such a small cargo door ?
They blew up Vulcan and yet no one seems to especially care in the sequel.
Why are the Snr. Captains so Humancentric - but the crews are more diverse than ever before ?to vague a statement every trek series has had Technical inconsistencies....you need to be a bit more specific
again, too vague a statement,each series is guilty of that.
no, the engine room was filmed at a brewery
i saw nothing that looked like a mall, can you refresh my memory
i dont understand your issue with Sets doors and such moving in relationship to each other
what unexplained silkiness of Kirks are you talking about?
the radiation that killed him?
i didnt think that the cargo door was that small, or the only such door.
anyway you can call it a bad design, not a new thing
course they cared, vulcans destruction, and making sure it doesnt happen to earth or other federation worlds was the its the key motivation admiral marcus had for doing everything he did.
thats a good question
Why are the Snr. Captains so Humancentric - but the crews are more diverse than ever before ?You get the idea you can go on like that for ages...
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
RAR wrote:You asked me what my issue was - I told you some examples - I don't think I ever implied that any criticisms are anything other than personal taste -
. however in some cases that "Personal taste" is shared by multiple individuals - just as was the case with how Black Widow was handled in Age of Ultron or how Powerful Rey is in Force Awakens... those things really bug some people - others may not even notice. it does not mean that some don't see those issues as problems.
Besides if you want more examples - go watch those videos I linked to they are going to make the points quicker in video form than I can type them or you can read them. (just put the vids on 1.5 speed).
I may get into Technical inconsistencies at a later date and perhaps that is better suited to the Star Trek Thread - but the short version is that the arguments are similar to the ones made against Enterprise as a show.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
RAR wrote:The premise is not unlike Terminator and how Judgement day keeps getting pushed forward and Skynet keeps getting more powerful.
Some people are a bit thick and think a single Skynet sent dozens of T-800 Model 101 Terminators - when actually it's a whole bunch of different skynets.
That is one of the things they actually got right in Terminator Genisys as it's essentially a very slightly tweaked version of the primary timeline (all be with other actors)
As I said before Into Darkeness & Star Trek 2009 have to take place in a Universe that has a number of perameters - HOWEVER certain things make it impossible for it to be the same Universe....as the Prime timeline you have to get crazy specific though to say why.
But in essence Spock Prime and Nero travelled both back in time & into a parallel dimension.
How do I know that - simple if they'd created a Daughter Universe (which is the common interpretation) then any changes would have to be ones that ONLY take place after Nero's arrival up to that point the time line has to be mostly consistent with a timeline that had Kahn in it.
The problem there is the history of Kahn varies if you could hypothetically ask Kirk Prime what the history of the Eugenics war was - you'd get a totally different answer from what Janeway would say.
Likewise things like the Horizon Class / or Deadalus don't fit especially well with Enterprise's timeline.
The explanation of arguments for why I am contesting that the Star Trek 2009 Universe is a daughter Universe before Nero shows up are a bit complex and they sort of rely on some assumptions (some of which may be disprovable).
The place the Klingons chase Kirk around is actually a province that was entirely agricultural in the 24th Century and had always been so (mentioned in DS9) so that they had turned it into an industrial zone is a big red flag that is a change..
You can argue that nero showing up is such a big even it changes Klingon History too - but it does seem a tiny bit unlikely that it's arrival would change Klingon armour styles, Space craft designs and industrial development - (not impossible no) but at least it's reasonable to say it's a stretch.
But the Kelvin herself isn't a great fit in that time the only reason some people can buy it is it is a time before Human met the Klingons so they might have decided to built something not unlike the Galaxy Class concept of long voyages with families on board.
But other people object to how huge it is, the general design cues, even it's weapons all seem a less than ideal fit and any sort of fit at all really only works in anyway as some sort of mid point between the NX & 2009 Enterprise.
The real fun and games start though if you subscribe to the idea that the Enterprise Kirk sees being built isn't the only one - and the Constitution class one also existed in that Universe prior to the 2009 version - but technology wise I think that would cause some serious problems.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
Burn wrote:We have a Star Trek thread, just saying.
RAR wrote:Yeah I know.... It just happens to be what sto_vo_kor_2000 keeps asking me about.
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
Stuartmaximus wrote:not really a movie as such...but Captain EO i'd loved to see made into a proper movie, Captain EO is a scifi short film that you can find on YouTube....which starred Michael Jackson & was directed by Francis Ford Coppola & George Lucas, now granted by today's standards...the movie looks pish! & Michael Jackson is no longer with us! but....if the movie were done right! & they somehow got the right cast! then it may stand a chance of being a fun movie! but i seriously doubt Coppola & Lucas would wanna again direct it! lol
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Stuartmaximus wrote:not really a movie as such...but Captain EO i'd loved to see made into a proper movie, Captain EO is a scifi short film that you can find on YouTube....which starred Michael Jackson & was directed by Francis Ford Coppola & George Lucas, now granted by today's standards...the movie looks pish! & Michael Jackson is no longer with us! but....if the movie were done right! & they somehow got the right cast! then it may stand a chance of being a fun movie! but i seriously doubt Coppola & Lucas would wanna again direct it! lol
ive never seen this
Stuartmaximus wrote:sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Stuartmaximus wrote:not really a movie as such...but Captain EO i'd loved to see made into a proper movie, Captain EO is a scifi short film that you can find on YouTube....which starred Michael Jackson & was directed by Francis Ford Coppola & George Lucas, now granted by today's standards...the movie looks pish! & Michael Jackson is no longer with us! but....if the movie were done right! & they somehow got the right cast! then it may stand a chance of being a fun movie! but i seriously doubt Coppola & Lucas would wanna again direct it! lol
ive never seen this
well now you have
Predaprince wrote:I am very thankful to have posters like sto_vo_kor_2000 who is so energetic about improving others' understanding and enjoyment of the TF universe
Stormrider wrote:You often add interesting insights to conversations that makes the fledglings think and challenges even the sharpest minds
T-Macksimus wrote:I consider you and editor to be amongst the most "scholarly" in terms of your knowledge, demeanor and general approach
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Bumblevivisector, Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Sabrblade, SF-Prime, william-james88