Originally Posted by qwertyplop
IMO- Trek was done and it was undone by Berman and his systematic approach to breaking down the basic laws of the Trek universe. This has been debated over and over and I feel he peaked with DS9 and dived with subsequent incarnations. Enterprise had glimpses of where Trek could have gone if the production team had the bravery and backing to do it but we know where that ended up.
BSG showed that a re-boot/re-imagine was possible if done well - so why would this not work for Trek?
Here's the heresy part of my hypothesis - this movie will be a genesis moment for Trek - it's a chance to bury the baggage that Trek carries and invigorate the fan base while bringing in new friends. If it means losing a few fans who can't cope then fair enough but this is going to be a massive mainstream cinema event and the success this could bring will re-invent the franchise.
Is JJ the 'Great Bird of the Galaxy' for the 21st century?
He could just be......
Ya know, B & B are responsible for Trek to be sure... but lets not forget the writers
who actually wrote the crap. Yes, those guys in teh picket lines right now wanting more compensation.
As for BSG's popularity and success... BSG isn't good because
it was a re-boot, it's good in spite of
being a re-boot.
Regardless of the concept, it all starts at the word processor, or the pen and paper. If BSG was poorly written then it would have tanked- again, not because it was a reboot but regardless of its re-invention.
Nemesis would have been better if it was written better.
Same goes for Insurrection.
If the other titles had of been done well, then there would be no cause for re-invention... especially if the re-invention was as poorly done as the cancelled original.