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
    But TOS wasn't set on Earth. It was set out on the rugged final frontier, where, yes, there were famines and epidemics and massacres and border skirmishes. Heck, every other episode in Season 3 had the Enterprise rushing to deliver vital medical supplies to some endangered colony or planet that was being devastated by Denebian neural fever or something. Earth may or may not have been a utopia back then, but Star Trek wasn't about Earth. There wasn't a single episode set on Earth that didn't involve time-travel to the Great Depression or the Cold War. We never saw 23rd century Earth--ever.

    And what about all those episodes I mentioned by name before? Are you denying those aren't part of Trek--or typical of TOS?

    And I was referring to the fact that different fans can have very different ideas of what the "core" of Trek is. Some people watch it for the characters. Some people watch it for the science and hardware. Some people think it's all about a set of principles. All of them are right . . . and no two Trekkies are going to have the same priorities--as this board proves every day! :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  2. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    England
    Gene Rodenberry himself admitted he was a revisionist. He altered the premises of Star Trek when it suited him. No money/no poverty/no war, all of that came later, when TOS became huge in syndication.

    Here's what Star Trek is, from the first draft pitch in 1964...
    Click here for the full pitch.
     
  3. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    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 . . . .
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2012
  4. USS Intrepid

    USS Intrepid Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 1999
    Location:
    Dundee, Scotland, UK
    Rise of the Planet of the Apes sort of does (though it sort of reboots it too). It's certainly closer to the original movie continuity than the Burton remake. Then again, I'll happily forget any of the original Apes sequel movies. :)
     
  5. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    I think RISE is basically a second attempt at a reboot, with some fun "easter egg" homages to the original series. I don't remember any mention of experimental brain medications in the original films, plus there's the fact that CONQUEST had the apes revolting in the "futuristic" 1990s!

    (Hmm. The apes revolted around the same time as the Eugenics Wars. Boy, that sounds like a fanfic waiting to be written!)
     
  6. Temis the Vorta

    Temis the Vorta Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1999
    Location:
    Tatoinne
    That's the key to understanding Trek, that it blithely declares Earth and the Federation to be a paradise and then procedes to largely ignore both and focus on the fun, dramatic part of the galaxy, the frontier of the Federation and beyond. Paradise is boring and doesn't make for good drama, but it does make for a good rationale to root for Our Heroes shooting aliens because they're defending paradise, dontcha know? ;)

    And that's something all the series have in common, even to some extent ENT, which really missed an opportunity to show a pre-enlightened Earth.
     
  7. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    And, of course, DS9 took that notion and ran with it . . . .
     
  8. USS Intrepid

    USS Intrepid Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 1999
    Location:
    Dundee, Scotland, UK
    Possibly, though I think it's open to interpretation. It certainly ignores the sequels, and I'm more than happy for it to do so, but Rise could still be in loose continuity with the first film.

    Whether that's the intention or not, I have no idea. :)

    Ape Khan? I'm there!
     
  9. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    I don't think it counts as returning to original continuity if you have to ignore 4/5th's of the series! :)

    (I'm trying to imagine the Trekkie response if they announced that they were going back to the original timeline--but only up to Star Trek: The Motion Picture.)

    As for Ape Khan . . . hey, there was already an authorized Apes/Alien Nation crossover. Remember Ape Nation?
     
  10. Hartzilla2007

    Hartzilla2007 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Location:
    Star Trekkin Across the universe.
    I have to agree with this

    Meh, I'm 24 and grew up during the TNG/DS9 era and I tend to perfer TOS.

    This right here is why I tend to perfer TOS

    Considering I perfer TWOK and the movies that came after and think TMP was kind of boring I would be annoyed.
     
  11. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    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.
     
  12. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    ^ Not sure how we got on to Kirk's "whoring," but . . . okay.

    I like FIRST CONTACT and UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY, too..
     
  13. Ian Keldon

    Ian Keldon Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    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.

    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.

    See above.

    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.
     
  14. Ian Keldon

    Ian Keldon Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2011
    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.
     
  15. Therin of Andor

    Therin of Andor Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Location:
    New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
    "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?
     
  16. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    England
    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.
     
  17. Tracer Bullet

    Tracer Bullet Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2005
    Location:
    IND Crosstown
    Absolutely. I've argued for years that DS9 is the closest in spirit to TOS of any of the spin-offs.
     
  18. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2012
  19. Temis the Vorta

    Temis the Vorta Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1999
    Location:
    Tatoinne
    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.