NuTrek spinoff series: you're the producer - Page 4

Dix · February 4 2013, 07:22 PM

DalekJim wrote:

New show, new ship, new crew, original timeline.

Yep. Boldly going forward, yet staying true to traditional values of Trek.

The Mirrorball Man · February 4 2013, 07:25 PM

Dix wrote:

It's not "old" continuity, it's the continuity. The one and only in Trek.

I'm sorry, I don't want to hurt your feelings, since you sound quite attached to that idea, but that's factually wrong. And stating it won't make it true.

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.

Hollywood doesn't work that way, therefore in my opinion anyone who thinks that way is delusional, but I don't have to convince you, I'll just have to wait.

Dix · February 4 2013, 07:46 PM

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

I'm sorry, I don't want to hurt your feelings, since you sound quite attached to that idea, but that's factually wrong. And stating it won't make it true.

No, you're not hurting my feelings, it's just ridiculous what you are saying. You are implying as if all Trek prior to AbramsTreck was sucked into a black hole or something and as if the "old ways", whatever that means, don't work anymore. I know that's what you probably wish, but wishing it doesn't make it so.

The Mirrorball Man wrote:

Hollywood doesn't work that way, therefore in my opinion anyone who thinks that way is delusional, but I don't have to convince you, I'll just have to wait.

As I said, there's a difference between summer action blockbusters and a TV show. I'd say it's delusional to expect from a TV series the same as from a big screen movie.

Hartzilla2007 · February 4 2013, 09:05 PM

Dix wrote:

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.

No one cares

The one and only in Trek.

Again No one cares.

One cancelled Trek show doesn't mean the end of that original continuity,

How about one cancelled Trek show, one flopped Trek film, and ratings that show the people stopped giving a crap about Star Trek gradually since after TNG to the point said Trek show was cancelled.

which, after all, is where Star Trek shows and films were set during their 40+ years existence.

Again, No one cares.

AbramsTrek does not represent any norm or standard for Trek.

watch more TOS

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.

Not if you want to actually make money off of it, which is what old Trek stopped doing.

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.

Doubtful.

But first we have to say au revoir to Abr-Kur-Orc.

At which point we probably get a new reboot [BECUASE NO ONE CARES ABOUT MEANINGLESS MINUTIA!

Which is exactly what this canon crap people keep going on about is meaningless minutia.

Dix · February 4 2013, 11:05 PM

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

No one cares

Again No one cares.

Again, No one cares.

Speak for yourself.

By the way, you sound like a broken record.

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

How about one cancelled Trek show, one flopped Trek film, and ratings that show the people stopped giving a crap about Star Trek gradually since after TNG to the point said Trek show was cancelled.

Well, the studio bosses are to blame. Trek definitely needed a pause after Voyager, and none of that would have happened. And we probably wouldn't have this crappy sort-of-reboot now.

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

watch more TOS

FYI, AbramzTrek is not TOS.

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

Not if you want to actually make money off of it, which is what old Trek stopped doing.

Why, it's possible to make a good quality sci-fi Trek show and make money off of it. The right people need to be hired.

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

At which point we probably get a new reboot

Unlikely.

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

Which is exactly what this canon crap people keep going on about is meaningless minutia.

Yawn.

King Daniel Into Darkness · February 5 2013, 12:23 AM

Dix wrote:

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.

It was more than one cancelled series - it was a steady decline in ratings and intrest since The Next Generation ended. There are ratings charts on wikipedia, movie box office details etc.

As Star Trek (as well as all the other reboots out there) have proved is that people care more about characters than continuity. Seeing Kirk and Spock in their prime once again, out saving the galaxy, is far more awesome than the adventures of Captain Nobody in the 25th century.

Besides - who says Trek has been one continuity these past 45 years? Even discounting many excellent novels and comics that went in different directions to the movies and TV series', every incarnation of Trek has been declared uncanon by righteous fans at one time or another. The animated Trek, STV and Enterprise get it the worst. But take a look at the videos in my sig, and then try to explain how The Original Series and Voyager can be part of the same Trek universe. Or Deep Space Nine and TNG. They all imagine the Trek universe slightly differently, and it's only a huge dollop of willing suspension of disbelief that keeps it together.

BillJ · February 5 2013, 06:00 PM

Dix wrote:

It's not "old" continuity, it's the continuity. The one and only in Trek.

Been a fan since 1975, it is the old continuity from a TV/film standpoint. It's over.

When the series of films produced by Bad Robot ends, another production company will come in and do their own spin on the Trek universe. No major writers/directors/producers want to be attached to seven-hundred hours of minutiae when writing a new series/film. Who would? The old continuity is a creative straight-jacket.

I still love the series that take place in the Prime timeline, owning TOS and currently purchasing TNG on Blu-ray as well as the films. But there's room in my head and my heart for more than one version of the Trek universe.

Ovation · February 6 2013, 06:56 PM

R. Star wrote:

This would be the pilot:

Followed by

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

Amusing, but…no.

My Name Is Legion wrote:

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.

Pretty much sums it up.

Fist McStrongpunch · February 19 2013, 03:10 AM

I submit that in a multiverse, it is all a single continuity, but separate universes.

DalekJim · February 19 2013, 02:09 PM

Well, for those of us that are fans of the Star Trek universe rather than the JJ Abrams universe... we'd like to see a show set in that one.

A show set in the same era as the current remake series would feel like Star Trek has been set back almost 50 years. I preferred Trek as an evolving linear continuity. So many different people and ideas have been added to Trek since its inception that it is fun to analyse how the galaxy develops from The Cage until the end of DS9. And to then think where it can go from there.

It's kinda boring erasing all that evolution with a giant reset button shaped like JJ Abrams' face.

BillJ · February 19 2013, 02:40 PM

Fist McStrongpunch wrote:

I submit that in a multiverse, it is all a single continuity, but separate universes.

Yup. Why some people can't wrap their minds around this? I'll never know.

Hartzilla2007 · February 19 2013, 03:17 PM

DalekJim wrote:

I preferred Trek as an evolving linear continuity. So many different people and ideas have been added to Trek since its inception that it is fun to analyse how the galaxy develops from The Cage until the end of DS9. And to then think where it can go from there.

And I perfer interesting characters going on fun adventures and couldn't give a rat's ass about "analyzing how the galaxy develops from The Cage until the end of DS9".

I pick good stories over obsession with continuity.

yousirname · February 19 2013, 04:13 PM

I don't get the continuity thing, either. It's like demanding that in every scene, a man eating a peach is off-screen just out of shot. It has no bearing on the story or the journey of the characters.

And that's ignoring the fact that Prime canon is a patchwork quilt riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.

AviTrek · February 19 2013, 04:59 PM

DalekJim wrote:

Well, for those of us that are fans of the Star Trek universe rather than the JJ Abrams universe... we'd like to see a show set in that one.

A show set in the same era as the current remake series would feel like Star Trek has been set back almost 50 years. I preferred Trek as an evolving linear continuity. So many different people and ideas have been added to Trek since its inception that it is fun to analyse how the galaxy develops from The Cage until the end of DS9. And to then think where it can go from there.

It's kinda boring erasing all that evolution with a giant reset button shaped like JJ Abrams' face.

And since you already excluded the final 6 years in your own personal continuity(VOY, ENT, NEM), I imagine you won't have a problem excluding everything else too. The rest of us are glad someone has found a way to attract Star Trek to the larger audience that isn't interested in fanwank continuity porn.

BillJ · February 19 2013, 10:03 PM

Hartzilla2007 wrote:

I pick good stories over obsession with continuity.

February 19 2013, 03:10 AM	#54
Fist McStrongpunch Rear Admiral Location: Milwaukeeish	Re: NuTrek spinoff series: you're the producer I submit that in a multiverse, it is all a single continuity, but separate universes. __________________ You all laugh when I look at boxes and talk about robot costumes. Robots, my friends, are no laughing matter.

February 19 2013, 02:09 PM	#55
DalekJim Fleet Captain Location: Great Britain	Re: NuTrek spinoff series: you're the producer Well, for those of us that are fans of the Star Trek universe rather than the JJ Abrams universe... we'd like to see a show set in that one. A show set in the same era as the current remake series would feel like Star Trek has been set back almost 50 years. I preferred Trek as an evolving linear continuity. So many different people and ideas have been added to Trek since its inception that it is fun to analyse how the galaxy develops from The Cage until the end of DS9. And to then think where it can go from there. It's kinda boring erasing all that evolution with a giant reset button shaped like JJ Abrams' face. __________________ The Paradox Machine - My blog "A harp can be as dangerous as a sword, in the right hands." - A Storm of Swords by George R.R. Martin

February 19 2013, 04:13 PM	#58
yousirname Commander	Re: NuTrek spinoff series: you're the producer I don't get the continuity thing, either. It's like demanding that in every scene, a man eating a peach is off-screen just out of shot. It has no bearing on the story or the journey of the characters. And that's ignoring the fact that Prime canon is a patchwork quilt riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US