will star trek ever return to prime universe?

[horatio83]

Nothing wrong with that. All I tried to point out was that what distinguishes Trek, its core, is not tied to particular characters or settings. Which is why I'd welcome any new Trek series that is truthful to these few axioms and totally free in any other respect instead of, like the last movie, going through the familiar moves, putting some fanwank glitter on top of it but not caring one iota about Trek's general principles.
If this sounds dogmatic it probably is. I wouldn't want some cyberpunkish sc-fi franchise to stop being cyberpunk. Arbitrariness is wrong in every area of life.

[Ryan8bit]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

I don't really see the upside to going back to the old continuity at some later date, especially as time goes by and the previous cycle of Trek shows fades into the misty recesses of memory, at least as far as the general public is concerned.

Yeah, in that regard it's not really the same as Terminator. They wanted to ignore T3 because it wasn't well received. But that same reasoning couldn't really exist for Star Trek. I suppose if the creators of a new series themselves didn't care for it, it'd be possible, but that's probably unlikely. It doesn't really need a "deboot."

If anything, I think it could possibly happen as a result of wanting to go back to see the next gen crews, or paying tribute to the hundreds of hours of established Trek history from before. I'm sure that the latest movie increased the sales of other Star Trek DVDs, but I wonder if a series that is unaffected by those old shows would have that same effect. If what happened in those series is inconsequential to the new one, what reason would there be to follow it?

I'm sort of torn on the issue. While I'd love for them to keep on going with the old continuity, it was getting bloated with each iteration. But most reboots aren't really going to fix that problem either. It's like defragging a hard drive because it's just going to get cluttered up again.

[Greg Cox]

That's the thing. I suspect people have different ideas about what is essentially "Star Trek." As a storyteller, I always find it little off-putting when people put abstract "principles" ahead of the basics of story, character, emotion, and drama. And as an old-school TOS partisan, I tend to object when people try to apply TNG-era standards to classic TOS, which really doesn't fit that mold at all.

Me, I grew up on TOS so that's still my touchstone where Trek is concerned, although I enjoyed the later series to various degrees--and have even written for most of them!

[horatio83]

Bullshit. Trek is an optimistic sci-fi franchise in which humankind has defeated hunger, poverty, war and united to explore space, meet new people and encounter new challenges ... and no, there wasn't any paradigm shift between TOS and TNG. You cannot play the postmodern game of "Trek is whatever you want it to be" unless you confuse preferences with facts. There aren't any famines on Earth or any Imperial Federation warships cruising the Klingon border.

[BillJ]

Funny, I don't remember any one ever calling Earth a paradise in TOS. And I'm sure that the Klingons and Romulans saw those ships on there borders as warships. Perspective is a bitch.

[Greg Cox]

horatio83 wrote:

---

Bullshit. Trek is an optimistic sci-fi franchise in which humankind has defeated hunger, poverty, war and united to explore space, meet new people and encounter new challenges ... and no, there wasn't any paradigm shift between TOS and TNG. You cannot play the postmodern game of "Trek is whatever you want it to be" unless you confuse preferences with facts. There aren't any famines on Earth or any Imperial Federation warships cruising the Klingon border.

But TOS wasn't set on Earth. It was set out on the rugged final frontier, where, yes, there were famines and epidemics and massacres and border skirmishes. Heck, every other episode in Season 3 had the Enterprise rushing to deliver vital medical supplies to some endangered colony or planet that was being devastated by Denebian neural fever or something. Earth may or may not have been a utopia back then, but Star Trek wasn't about Earth. There wasn't a single episode set on Earth that didn't involve time-travel to the Great Depression or the Cold War. We never saw 23rd century Earth--ever.

And what about all those episodes I mentioned by name before? Are you denying those aren't part of Trek--or typical of TOS?

And I was referring to the fact that different fans can have very different ideas of what the "core" of Trek is. Some people watch it for the characters. Some people watch it for the science and hardware. Some people think it's all about a set of principles. All of them are right . . . and no two Trekkies are going to have the same priorities--as this board proves every day!

[King Daniel]

horatio83 wrote:

---

Bullshit. Trek is an optimistic sci-fi franchise in which humankind has defeated hunger, poverty, war and united to explore space, meet new people and encounter new challenges ... and no, there wasn't any paradigm shift between TOS and TNG. You cannot play the postmodern game of "Trek is whatever you want it to be" unless you confuse preferences with facts. There aren't any famines on Earth or any Imperial Federation warships cruising the Klingon border.

Gene Rodenberry himself admitted he was a revisionist. He altered the premises of Star Trek when it suited him. No money/no poverty/no war, all of that came later, when TOS became huge in syndication.

Here's what Star Trek is, from the first draft pitch in 1964...

Gene Rodenberry wrote:

---

STAR TREK is...

A one-hour dramatic television series.

Action - Adventure - Science Fiction.

The first such concept with strong central lead characters plus other continuing regulars.

...

STAR TREK is a "Wagon Train" concept -- built around characters who travel to worlds "similar" to our own, and meet the action-adventure-drama which becomes our stories.

Click here for the full pitch.

[Greg Cox]

To be fair, TOS certainly presented a notably optimistic view of the future, as opposed to the usual alien invasions, post-apocalyptic wastelands, or sterile dystopias. You had a future that largely worked, for the most part, but it was by no means utopian, especially out on the frontier. And the people (including aliens) were still recognizably human, driven by the same volatile emotions that have powered theater and drama since the days of "Oedipus Rex."

There's a difference between "optimistic" and "utopian" that Trek revisionists sometimes forget. All I know is that the show I grew up on was not afraid of letting its characters wrestle with anger, jealousy, etcetera, on occasion, like the half-civilized "child race" we were. And the final frontier was not always as squeaky-clean as some people want to pretend it was . . . .

[USS Intrepid]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

I honestly can't think of a single movie or tv franchise that reverted back to a previous continuity after being rebooted.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes sort of does (though it sort of reboots it too). It's certainly closer to the original movie continuity than the Burton remake. Then again, I'll happily forget any of the original Apes sequel movies.

[Greg Cox]

USS Intrepid wrote:

---

Rise of the Planet of the Apes sort of does (though it sort of reboots it too). It's certainly closer to the original movie continuity than the Burton remake. Then again, I'll happily forget any of the original Apes sequel movies.

I think RISE is basically a second attempt at a reboot, with some fun "easter egg" homages to the original series. I don't remember any mention of experimental brain medications in the original films, plus there's the fact that CONQUEST had the apes revolting in the "futuristic" 1990s!

(Hmm. The apes revolted around the same time as the Eugenics Wars. Boy, that sounds like a fanfic waiting to be written!)

[Temis the Vorta]

But TOS wasn't set on Earth. It was set out on the rugged final frontier, where, yes, there were famines and epidemics and massacres and border skirmishes.

That's the key to understanding Trek, that it blithely declares Earth and the Federation to be a paradise and then procedes to largely ignore both and focus on the fun, dramatic part of the galaxy, the frontier of the Federation and beyond. Paradise is boring and doesn't make for good drama, but it does make for a good rationale to root for Our Heroes shooting aliens because they're defending paradise, dontcha know?

And that's something all the series have in common, even to some extent ENT, which really missed an opportunity to show a pre-enlightened Earth.

[Greg Cox]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

That's the key to understanding Trek, that it blithely declares Earth and the Federation to be a paradise and then procedes to largely ignore both and focus on the fun, dramatic part of the galaxy, the frontier of the Federation and beyond. Paradise is boring and doesn't make for good drama, but it does make for a good rationale to root for Our Heroes shooting aliens because they're defending paradise, dontcha know?

And that's something all the series have in common, even to some extent ENT, which really missed an opportunity to show a pre-enlightened Earth.

And, of course, DS9 took that notion and ran with it . . . .

[USS Intrepid]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

I think RISE is basically a second attempt at a reboot, with some fun "easter egg" homages to the original series. I don't remember any mention of experimental brain medications in the original films, plus there's the fact that CONQUEST had the apes revolting in the "futuristic" 1990s!

(Hmm. The apes revolted around the same time as the Eugenics Wars. Boy, that sounds like a fanfic waiting to be written!)

Possibly, though I think it's open to interpretation. It certainly ignores the sequels, and I'm more than happy for it to do so, but Rise could still be in loose continuity with the first film.

Whether that's the intention or not, I have no idea.

Ape Khan? I'm there!

[Greg Cox]

USS Intrepid wrote:

---

Possibly, though I think it's open to interpretation. It certainly ignores the sequels, and I'm more than happy for it to do so, but Rise could still be in loose continuity with the first film.

Whether that's the intention or not, I have no idea.

Ape Khan? I'm there!

I don't think it counts as returning to original continuity if you have to ignore 4/5th's of the series!

(I'm trying to imagine the Trekkie response if they announced that they were going back to the original timeline--but only up to Star Trek: The Motion Picture.)

As for Ape Khan . . . hey, there was already an authorized Apes/Alien Nation crossover. Remember Ape Nation?

[Hartzilla2007]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

That's the thing. I suspect people have different ideas about what is essentially "Star Trek." As a storyteller, I always find it little off-putting when people put abstract "principles" ahead of the basics of story, character, emotion, and drama. And as an old-school TOS partisan, I tend to object when people try to apply TNG-era standards to classic TOS, which really doesn't fit that mold at all.

I have to agree with this

Me, I grew up on TOS so that's still my touchstone where Trek is concerned, although I enjoyed the later series to various degrees--and have even written for most of them!

Meh, I'm 24 and grew up during the TNG/DS9 era and I tend to perfer TOS.

Greg Cox wrote:

---

All I know is that the show I grew up on was not afraid of letting its characters wrestle with anger, jealousy, etcetera, on occasion, like the half-civilized "child race" we were. And the final frontier was not always as squeaky-clean as some people want to pretend it was . . . .

This right here is why I tend to perfer TOS

Greg Cox wrote:

---

(I'm trying to imagine the Trekkie response if they announced that they were going back to the original timeline--but only up to Star Trek: The Motion Picture.)

Considering I perfer TWOK and the movies that came after and think TMP was kind of boring I would be annoyed.