will star trek ever return to prime universe?

[horatio83]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

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 . . . .

TUC and FC illustrate best what Trek is about. It is not about perfect people but rather about people who err yet realize a mistake before it is too late because they strive to improve themselves. Reactionary fans like to ignore in particular the last part which begs the question of why they watch an optimistic sci-franchise in the first place.
There is nothing revisionist about pointing out that Kirk did not want to command a starship because of fame and money but because it is his "first, best destiny" and there is nothing revisionist about pointing out that Kirk's whoring or McCoy grumpy bickering are anything but arbitrary character traits and not the core of Trek. Roddenberry's vision is and all the TNG bashing in the world will not convert some minor changes between the sixties and the eighties into a giant paradigm shift.

[Greg Cox]

^ Not sure how we got on to Kirk's "whoring," but . . . okay.

I like FIRST CONTACT and UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY, too..

[Ian Keldon]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Gotta disagree with you there. Have you watched TOS lately? It's full of raw human emotions and conflict. Look at "Conscience of the King," which is all about guilt, murder, insanity, and revenge. Or "The Galileo Seven," with people losing their tempers under stress. Or "And Is there in Truth No Beauty?" which is an emotional drama full of lust and murder and jealousy. Or "The Enemy Within" in which Kirk realizes that he needs his primitive, animalistic side to be a whole human being. Or pretty much any scene with McCoy .

That was "TOS Gene". Younger, not burned out on drugs, and not having spent years reading his own press clippings and basking in the adoration of the "Trekkies".

Remember, according to the behind-the-scenes books and interviews that have come out over the years, "TNG Gene" was looking to do a "soft reboot" of Trek with TNG. That's why we got the "perfect people rule", why Fontanna and Gerald had to fight to get Worf in the show, etc.

Not sure where people got the idea that TOS was this purely cerebral, utopian exercise in science and rationality. It was full of flawed, passionate, very human characters who were frequently at odds with each other. Ultimately, drama is about character and emotion, the human heart in conflict with itself, not science and sociology.

Agreed, but all that was in short supply in the early TNG years as writers constantly had to deal with the "perfect people rule".

While Berman may still think that was the greatest thing since sliced bread (according to his interviews), TNG never got REALLY good in general until GR was basically edged out of the picture.

And the serieses that Berman took the most interest in going forward (late TNG, Voyager, and ENT Season 1-3 [+TATV]) were the weakest Treks in terms of drama and story development, while DS9 and ENT S4 (which suffered the least attention from Berman) were the strongest.

There's a reason everybody remembers "City on the Edge of Forever"--and that's because it's a tragic love story in which Kirk gets torn up inside . . . .

See above.

And I don't think lumping Kirk and Spock in with Bond or Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes or whomever is doing them a disservice. That's pretty good company to be in.

Honestly, Trek and Bond frankly deserve to be in one group by themselves and Tarzan, SH, etc in another, as they really aren't the same. Trek and Bond have been more consistent in being in the public eye and in public approval.

[Ian Keldon]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

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 . . . .

To be fair, looking at what GR said starting around the time Phase II was in development, he was changing those things to a great degree.

[Therin of Andor]

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.

"Superman Returns" ignored "Superman III", "Supergirl" and "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" and was a sequel to "Superman II".

And, while not quite a reboot, would you count "Dallas" ignoring a whole season of post-Bobby death while "Knot's Landing" did not do a similar retraction?

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

I've read about Superman Returns ignoring the later Superman films, but I never saw anything in it that explicitly precludes them from having "happened". In fact, before I saw the alternate opening, I'd assumed the part of Krypon that Superman had gone off to explore for five years was Arco city from Supergirl.

[Tracer Bullet]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

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

Absolutely. I've argued for years that DS9 is the closest in spirit to TOS of any of the spin-offs.

[Greg Cox]

Therin of Andor wrote:

---

"Superman Returns" ignored "Superman III", "Supergirl" and "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" and was a sequel to "Superman II".

And, while not quite a reboot, would you count "Dallas" ignoring a whole season of post-Bobby death while "Knot's Landing" did not do a similar retraction?

Hmm. The Superman business comes close, but the Superman series had not been rebooted by the later films. It's more like Returns was a semi-reboot that chose to ignore the later sequels.

It's not like Superman IV had rebooted the old Christopher Reeve continuity, which the franchise then returned to. It just got excised from the ongoing continuity!

More of a retcon than a reboot, which probably applies to "Dallas" as well.

[Temis the Vorta]

Tracer Bullet wrote:

---

Absolutely. I've argued for years that DS9 is the closest in spirit to TOS of any of the spin-offs.

Yes, DS9 is the true successor to TOS. The DS9 characters don't have the awareness levels that make them worth recasting and bringing back, but when the franchise comes back to TV, they need to carry forward the TOS/DS9 attitude and phlosophy, with all new characters.