will star trek ever return to prime universe?

Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by tmosler, Sep 29, 2012.

  1. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Perhaps, but 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.

    Better to stick to the modern continuity or start over again . . . .
     
  2. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    It was successful, but I don't think the characters have become iconic.
     
  3. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, MO, USA
    Characters really only need to be likable and interesting enough for a good-sized audience to tune in every week (it's how most successful shows operate). They generally don't reach iconic status until many years later anyway, and then only very few of them.
     
  4. EmperorTiberius

    EmperorTiberius Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Connory wasn't Bond. Bond was a book character. Anyone could interpret it however they wanted, so anyone who slightly resembles the character could pull it off. Besides, it's not a serious movie, it's just a bunch of gimmicks, who would want that for Trek? I don't think Trek characters are in the same vane as these comic book characters. Star Trek is about the future of humanity, not different people portraying Picard during the 2360's and 2370's over and over and over again. Picard is Stewart, anyone else would be a poor pale immitation.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  5. EmperorTiberius

    EmperorTiberius Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009

    It looks like I stepped on some fanboy's toes. I'm not going to go off topic and discuss how pathetic your favorite movie is.

    About characters, Star Trek is not about characters as much as setting and general themes. Yeah Kirk, Spock and McCoy were great and certainly played their part, but only to further the theme that Rodenberry had in mind. Gene didnt' want emotions like hatred, jelaousy, lust, infighting etc in Trek, which removes your options of too many character driven stories. He rewrote most of TNG season one. If Kirk and Spock were in some western, nobody would be talking about them today, it was the setting that made them famous.
     
  6. EmperorTiberius

    EmperorTiberius Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    Yeah, apparantly new series with original ideas would be immitations, but a faux Kirk and Picard wouldn't.:lol:
     
  7. Dukhat

    Dukhat Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Baltimore, MD
    I wasn't discussing the movie. I was discussing your poor choice of words.
     
  8. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    This. Recasting old characters has little to do with boldly going where no one has gone before.

    Precisely. It is understandable (yet of course not excusable, at least Trek fans should know better) though that the new movie has made people forget that the foundation of Trek are not three characters but its general principles.
     
  9. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    England
    Whether the original intent or not, it's those characters who inspired the Star Trek boom of the 70's - without which, Trek would have faded away as just another cancelled TV series.

    We got "more Trek 'verse with new characters" four times, with diminishing returns.
     
  10. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    This is a childish comment.

    For me, Star Trek 2009 is not my favorite movie by a wide margin. But if I'm a studio exec betting studio money and my job on Trek, I'm going to go with the iconic characters.

    You do realize for twenty plus years that Kirk, Spock and McCoy were Star Trek. TNG may have been watched by more people in its original run, but they simply didn't have the staying power of the original characters. And the spin-offs are barely a footnote in TV history.

    Oh yeah, Roddenberry's final credited story for TNG was Datalore (which was the 12th episode) and there's some disagreement on who was actually rewriting the episodes, Gene or his attorney.

    If I'm a studio head and I see the diminishing returns that each successive series brought, I'm going to go with recognizable characters when attempting to sell the series to the public.
     
  11. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    The foundation of Trek was Forbidden Planet, American westerns and police procedurals.
     
  12. Deathlok

    Deathlok Ensign Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Location:
    Hertfordshire, UK
    I'd love to see Star Trek come back to where it shines best, television. But given the nature of how shows now seem to come and go with monotonous regularity, I can't see a new Star Trek show lasting seven seasons ever again.

    Would love to be proven wrong though!
     
  13. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    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 . . . . :)

    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.

    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 . . . .

    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.
     
  14. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Nothing about these stupid three characters or "raw emotions" is quintessential Trek. Its principles, created by Roddenberry, sticked to even by anti-Roddenberryians like Meyers and maintained throughout the MAJORITY (there are twenty-eighty seasons, not merely three) of Trek by Berman, are.
     
  15. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Well, one can argue that Roddenberry's own approach varied over the years--and, of course, he had nothing to do with DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, and most of the movies.

    Me, I confess I prefer the more rough-and-tumble attitude of TOS, and like the way the new movie has brought some of that rambunctious spirit back . . . .

    Think of it as getting back in touch with Trek's roots.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  16. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    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.
     
  17. Ryan8bit

    Ryan8bit Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Location:
    St. Paul, MN
    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.
     
  18. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    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! :)
     
  19. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    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.
     
  20. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    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.