NuTrek spinoff series: you're the producer

[Bry_Sinclair]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

There's a single English word that covers this: "denial."

I'd call it hope, as I would much rather see a Trek series return to the real universe as well.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

I'd call it hope, as I would much rather see a Trek series return to the real universe as well.

Then you're lucky, because a new Star Trek movie will be released in the real universe in a couple of months.

[Nerys Myk]

"Real".

[Bry_Sinclair]

"Real" universe as opposed to "alternate" universe. I see Real and Prime as interchangable, since they are both one and the same.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

"Real" universe as opposed to "alternate" universe. I see Real and Prime as interchangable, since they are both one and the same.

I'm sure you understand that the word "real" is intrinsically problematic when talking about fictional universes. The old Trek universe is exactly as "real" as the current Trek universe, i.e. not at all.

[Bry_Sinclair]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

I'm sure you understand that the word "real" is intrinsically problematic when talking about fictional universes. The old Trek universe is exactly as "real" as the current Trek universe, i.e. not at all.

True. But I'm sure everyone knows its fictional (sorry to break the news if you didn't ), so to me the Prime Universe is the "real" one--within the context of Star Trek being a fictional TV/film franchise.

Anyways, this could make in interestic topic of its own but not here, so lets get back on topic.

[R. Star]

This would be the pilot:



Followed by



All rights to the great General Grin who is my co-producer.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

"Real" universe as opposed to "alternate" universe. I see Real and Prime as interchangable, since they are both one and the same.

Neither is more real than the other.

Abrams and Paramount call the old continuity "Prime" pretty much to flatter the old fans.

It's simpler and more accurate to call the two versions "old" and "new."

They're not going back to the old. That defeats their purpose in restarting Star Trek.

[Enterprise is Great]

Whether it's an alternate timeline, alternater universe or whatever you want to call it the Abrams Star Trek exists in the ST universe. Where else would it be...the Babylon 5 'verse? Duh. it's still Star Trek.

[Dix]

Bry_Sinclair wrote:

---

I would much rather see a Trek series return to the real universe as well.

I think the great of majority of viewers as well as Trek fans would want that. I don't think people would be interested in following the adventures of a crew in some fake "alternate" universe.

Enterprise is Great wrote:

---

Whether it's an alternate timeline, alternater universe or whatever you want to call it the Abrams Star Trek exists in the ST universe. Where else would it be...the Babylon 5 'verse? Duh. it's still Star Trek.

Actually, it's an alternate timeline in an alternate universe. They also call it Abramsverse.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Dix wrote:

---

I think the great of majority of viewers as well as Trek fans would want that. I don't think people would be interested in following the adventures of a crew in some fake "alternate" universe.

I can prove that you're wrong. With, you know, graphs.

[Dix]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

I can prove that you're wrong. With, you know, graphs.

I'm sure you can, with some fake graph. But people generally agree, as far as I'm aware, that a new Trek series should be set in the original continuity future. I also think that would be the best way for a new Trek show to proceed. Star Trek's about the future, after all.

[DalekJim]

New show, new ship, new crew, original timeline. It's the best way to go, as long as we have writers with original voices that think outside the well worn out Berman/Braga formula.

Not setting a Star Trek show in the Star Trek universe is just fucking stupid.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Dix wrote:

---

I'm sure you can, with some fake graph. But people generally agree, as far as I'm aware, that a new Trek series should be set in the original continuity future. I also think that would be the best way for a new Trek show to proceed. Star Trek's about the future, after all.

Damn. My fake graphs plot has been unraveled.

Alright. No graphs. The old Star Trek continuity lives on in books, and that's all. It's never ever going back on television. From now on it's either the current continuity, the one which originated in Star Trek, or another reboot. Hollywood will not abandon something that works (back-to-basics Trek) in favor of something which has run its course and has been cancelled (old Trek).

Star Trek is, after all, about the future.

[Dix]

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

---

The old Star Trek continuity lives on in books, and that's all. It's never ever going back on television. From now on it's either the current continuity, the one which originated in Star Trek, or another reboot. Hollywood will not abandon something that works (back-to-basics Trek) in favor of something which has run its course and has been cancelled (old Trek).

It's not "old" continuity, it's the continuity. The one and only in Trek. One cancelled Trek show doesn't mean the end of that original continuity, which, after all, is where Star Trek shows and films were set during their 40+ years existence. AbramsTrek does not represent any norm or standard for Trek. It's one thing to make a summer popcorn flick for the masses, and it's a completely another thing to make a permanent TV show. Yes, the original Trek continuity also lives on in books etc., but it will certainly continue in a new Trek show once it's made in the future. But first we have to say au revoir to Abr-Kur-Orc.