The New Era of the Reboot

Don't Think Battlestar Galactica is All Alone

I think the beginning of the 21st century can now be officially known, at least in Hollywood, as the era of the reboot. Don't think so? Then let's take a look.

- Although it was hardly the first reboot ever done, Ronald D. Moore took a cult favorite science-fiction show of the 1970s and turned it into a mainstream favorite of the 2000s, keeping the "Battlestar Galactica" name despite completely rebooting the series.

- Christopher Nolan had to face a Batman universe that either continued from the disaster that was George Clooney or that would start the franchise all over again less than 15 years after the last time that was done, but successfully did it with "Batman Begins."

- MGM, looking at audiences considering James Bond to be too much a product of his time, decides to reboot one of the most famous film franchises of all time, bringing in a shorter (and more blond) hero, and starting right from the Ian Fleming beginning with "Casino Royale," which comes out later this month in theaters everywhere.

So why would anyone be surprised if J.J. Abrams, the man now charged with bringing Star Trek back to life, feels the best way to do it would be through a reboot? Now, don't start sending me e-mails telling me that that's just pure speculation. It is, and I won't deny that. But it's been talked about so heavily, and to me, it makes so much sense, why not do that?

Despite Star Trek's continuous life over the last 40 years, the fact remains that Star Trek, as a canonical body, remains a product of its time - a 1960s utopian dream of Gene Roddenberry. I am not talking about its sociological messages or even its stories. But the overall concept of having a starship with a perfect crew of mostly humans, sitting in a room with a big-screen television in front of them showing them stars, and using future science to solve the day's problem involving bumpy head aliens are quite passe here in 2006. To be honest, it was really becoming passe in 2001.