Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Mirror Sulu, Feb 24, 2013.
No reason why they can't introduce Data into the new Trek continuity.
Data is the one TNG character that is iconic in the way Kirk and Spock are, and could be brought back, but his iconic-ness is really from an earlier source. He's Pinocchio. So why bother with having him be Data, per se? Come up with a different Pinocchio. Or come up with an android who has something else driving him/her.
And if you want more iconic characters, go back to earlier sources of mythology and fairy tales, and start transferring them into a Star Trek context.
For example, Picard is a variant on the elder/mentor character type, he could be Gandalf or Obi-Wan. Why not just go direct to the source and have a character who truly is a mentor (Admiral, ship's counselor, holographic sidekick, etc) to a younger character?
Worf is the fish-out-of-water, and also an exile from his people. You could assemble two different characters from that, or merge them but come up with someone very different from Worf.
Maybe assemble the characters different ways. The young character on a quest is the Pinocchio. The mentor character is exiled from his/her society. And on and on.
There are any number of archetypes to draw on. Limiting it to TNG is such a waste - those characters are not the strongest that we should hope for, given the range of possibilities.
If they reboot again they need to go nuts with the casting. I want Donald Glover and Aubrey Plaza for Kirk and Spock!
With all the paradigm shifts within the franchise it is a difficult concept.
I don't know if I read you correctly, but what I missed a lot ever since Trek movies went down the wrath / revenge / conflict / war path is the original concept that Star Trek is about to go where no one has gone before (and not to go where George Lucas or JMS went, it's derivative), explore space, meet different cultures and how to handle human and interspecies relationships and conflicts.
That's what I always assumed to be Roddenberry's Star Trek Vision, that's what used to be Star Trek's trademark and - I have to put it bluntly - the animated series had more of these Star Trek characteristics than the same amount of "Star Trek" movie screen time I had to endure in previous years.
Unless, as you put it, a "traditionalist" puts Star Trek back onto its original tracks to create a noticable distinction from "Star Wars" or "Star...Ship Troopers" I don't see a promising future for the franchise.
If its makes money and gets people interested it's future is very promising.
they should make a pure traditional trek film that would tank at the box office and kill trek forever just to shut up future demands for pure trek.
Wasn't that called Insurrection?
I'm inclined to think that after Star Trek XIII, there will be several years of inactivity and then Paramount will announce a total reboot with new actors playing Kirk and Spock & the gang. This one will be a clean restart, as if no previous version of Trek had ever existed and it was being created for the first time, with everything being completely reimagined from the Enterprise to the uniforms (goodbye both prime and Ambramsverse continuities).
And CBS will just continue to sit back and continue what they've been doing with Trek on the TV front for the past eight years.
Honestly, I just use the words "tradition" and "pure" simply to get a rise out of people. And it works much better than I usually intend. I'm really not that picky about Star Trek and honestly don't care about what is or isn't "true to Roddenberry's vision." But really, being an "anythign goes" kind of guy doesn't really make for an entertainng online persona.
There is technical term that describes this particular approach.
This is actually true. I remember the Ex Astris Scientia website trashing Enterprise quite completely - the ship and technology, the continuity, the characters and storylines - and then when JJ Abrams came along I read "...at least Enterprise was pure Trek..." and laughed by ass off.
And by extension, Voyager was constantly ridiculed and criticized during its run, but as soon as Enterprise came around everyone online became "at least Voyager was pure Star Trek." Trekkies - we only like what came before.
I don't agree. IMHO, what we've seen in recent Star Trek is a steady "expectation erosion". If you think it can't get "worse" you better think again. If you feel the latest incarnation really isn't good, the contrast can at least help to discover more positive things in the previous one. Thus, attitudes can change which I think is only natural and last but not least human.
Trek lives on, but its soul is dead.
In 10-15 years the studio should consider making a new live action Trek series. In the meantime I think an animated series wouldn't be a bad idea.
Nah, but its katra has been placed in Karl Urban's brain.
I just hope there is new Trek after Abrams
There will be, it's just a question of when.
Paramount will continually produce Star Trek movies for the foreseeable future. The movie biz has become centered around tentpole franchises, and thanks to Abrams, Star Trek is securely situated as a success in that category.
There really aren't a lot of franchises out there, and it's an expensive risk to try to create a new one (ie, John Carter), so nobody is going to discard one wantonly. Some franchises like Harry Potter and LOTR have an end date (they are going to stop after they stretch The Hobbit till it squeaks, right?) So an open-ended franchise is the best kind of all. Star Trek, Star Wars, James Bond and The Avengers are all golden names in Hollywood.
Whether it's on film or TV there will be more Trek. It will be in the JJverse (no going back to prime continuity folks) and may well feature new ships, cast and crew.
And it won't jump forward to the 24th century - they won't reboot TNG.
I agree with half of that. I can't imagine that they'll ever go back to the earlier continuity, but I can see somebody rebooting TNG one of these days. TNG nostalgia is bound to kick in at some point, especially as the generation that grew up on that show ends up in charge . . . . .
Separate names with a comma.