Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek shouldn't be about continuity and minutia. It's about ideas and characters. There can be 1000 versions of Star Trek as long as the writers and actors get the ideas and characters right. They don't all have to fit perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.

To me they do. You need a consistent universe otherwise it doesn't make sense. On one movie, have Kirk tell everyone his father had no other children because he died shortly after he was born, then oh, wait, Kirk has two younger siblings, from his birth father and mother, because dad was on Earth. Show Bajorans as allergic to peanuts, and next movie, Kira Nerys eating a peanut butter sandwich. Let's throw out consistency whenever we feel like it! Or let's have Chekov, who was born in 2245, be at the academy when Kirk is at the academy! (when Chekov would've been in elementary school).

Consistency is important. Continuity is important.

This tells me that you haven't actually paid attention when watching Star Trek, as it is rife with contradictions. From the Century it takes place in to the organization the Enterprise operates under. From Data's Academy graduation date to Kirk's middle initial.

Continuity is important, but it should not be so important that it takes over the storytelling in such a way that it becomes collection of self referential trivia.

 

[F. King Daniel]

 

[martok2112]

OMG, the last barrage of posts have been uproariously and insightfully entertaining!
Bless you all!

To agree with BillJ....yes, broad strokes. Writers do not need to be slavish to minutiae.

To add my two quatloos: If a writer, or worse, a fan, is that slavish to minutiae and continuity and canon, they are doing a far greater disservice to the show and to fandom than the most renegade writer or care-free fan.

 

[Makarov]

If you guys love broad strokes and loose continuity, you're going to love Star Trek Voyager ;-)

 

[BillJ]

If you guys love broad strokes and loose continuity, you're going to love Star Trek Voyager ;-)

Problem being it lacks likable characters and good drama.

 

[RandyS]

If you guys love broad strokes and loose continuity, you're going to love Star Trek Voyager ;-)

Problem being it lacks likable characters and good drama.

I dunno, given a choice, I'd rather watch Voyager than Ron Moore's putrid Galactia remake.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Do we knock points off of The Wrath of Khan for changing Khan's origins from selective breeding to genetic engineering? Of course not.

I think sometimes retcons like that are a good thing. Selective breeding doesn't really make any sense given the time involved. It just makes more sense. And going back to watch Space Seed, it doesn't really make that much difference or impact on the episode.

Just the same, I think things like TNG/Voyager taking a long time to cross the galaxy when Kirk's Enterprise could make it to the center or the rim in very short amounts of time, is a better decision too. Although it does somewhat change some of the details of some TOS episodes (or any other show that had convenient fast travel), it still doesn't gut the story.

But something like Enterprise having humans being exposed to various types of cloaking devices guts several episodes that come later in the timeline. It especially isn't worth it when those episodes of Enterprise weren't that great.

 

[Malaika]

With a whole new reality to explore, why go back to prime trek? They could reboot other trek series or even create a whole new ship with a story set far in the future of this reality. Imo they haven't even fully used the potential of this new reality and I doubt that they will be able to do everything in the last movie.

If it were for me, I'd end the trilogy introducing new characters to use for a spin off (in case these actors don't want to do more movies) or, heck, I'd end it with Uhura pregnant and leave it like that with the possibility of new movies or series set in the future having a new crew and captain and at least one of them is half alien and has a strong connection with the fab 7.
After Nimoy's death I even more feel like it would be nice to honour his work and character by making it so that at least in this reality created by the reboot he has a son or daughter continuing his legacy.
I can't think about a new actor playing Spock and seeing yet again another version of him trapped in the confines of an already written and iconic character. Quinto is a great successor of Nimoy but you just know he can't (and so do the rest of the casdt) play this character forever. So why not put the future in the hands of their offspring? These characters could always make quest appearances without the actors being forced to be still regulars.

If they want to save trek being stuck in the prime/tos reality only is not the way. You have to create new things and keep them, somehow, connected to the old.

 

[Relayer1]

If you guys love broad strokes and loose continuity, you're going to love Star Trek Voyager ;-)

Problem being it lacks likable characters and good drama.

I dunno, given a choice, I'd rather watch Voyager than Ron Moore's putrid Galactia remake.

For me, I loved Galactica.

Voyager ? Not so much...

 

[martok2112]

Problem being it lacks likable characters and good drama.

I dunno, given a choice, I'd rather watch Voyager than Ron Moore's putrid Galactia remake.

For me, I loved Galactica.

Voyager ? Not so much...

Me too, I loved the new Galactica as much as I loved the old show.

And many of the characters in that show did have redeeming qualities.

But what I really loved about that show was that, unlike the show that sired it, the new series didn't have a space battle each and every week.....the space battles in the newer series were often the result of a series of events over a few episodes coming to a head....and then, when that space battle happened, the payoff was huge. Those battles were frakking spectacular.

 

[Greg Cox]

Problem being it lacks likable characters and good drama.

I dunno, given a choice, I'd rather watch Voyager than Ron Moore's putrid Galactia remake.

For me, I loved Galactica.

Voyager ? Not so much...

The new BSG was infinitely better than the original version, which, to be fair, I was never a fan of . . . even when it first aired back in the seventies.

I remember back in the day about how the old BSG was proof that SF on television had gone downhill since the glory days of Star Trek, Twilight Zone, and The Outer Limits . . .

(Granted, I was a college freshman at the time, which meant I took myself much more seriously back then.)

 

[Squiggy]

The late 70s in general was proof that everything had gone downhill since the glory days.

 

[RandyS]

The late 70s in general was proof that everything had gone downhill since the glory days.

I was eight years old when the first Galactica show aired. For me, those WERE the glory days.

In fact, the glory days went on for the next twenty years, then, the 21st century hit, and.....well......

Ah, never mind, it's not important.

 

[Mudd]

Moving from era to era in oldTrek was itself a way of rebooting the details of the setting without ever really changing the formula. There's nothing actually resembling a "future history" in Trek continuity in that every time period features variations of the same technology, politics, world-view and character types.

Given that, there's no reason that they have to go from one era to another in nuTrek in order to vary the characters and storylines; that's just the particular solution Roddenberry settled on with TNG. You can get just as much variety in nuTrek by going to another ship or place in Kirk's time.

 

[robcypher]

to hell with that! just go with the timeline (and treat the incident where spock was warped into the past as what is is, an anomaly) and go from there! With a ruined Romulus empire and all that. 25th century style!

 

[Amaris]

I don't like the idea of pushing into the 25th century. One of the things I love about TOS is that the people are relatable. They're funny, silly, angry, hateful, obsessed, lustful, happy, forgiving, petty, and so on, just like real humans. I think the nuTrek films nailed those traits. Humanity supposedly evolved in TNG, DS9, VOY, etc., but it made for so much filler material that had to draw drama from the outside (I say this as a fan of TNG, too), and I couldn't really relate to any of the people in those series.

Going into the 25th century, all we're going to see is shinier obscure technology discussions, more finely crafted human pedestal warmers, and a further step away from relatability, at least for me. For me, the "prime" universe is over. If they do go back, fine, I may love the film, but for now, I love what we're getting in the nuTrek universe.

 

[JWPlatt]

Moving from era to era in oldTrek was itself a way of rebooting the details of the setting without ever really changing the formula. There's nothing actually resembling a "future history" in Trek continuity in that every time period features variations of the same technology, politics, world-view and character types.

Given that, there's no reason that they have to go from one era to another in nuTrek in order to vary the characters and storylines; that's just the particular solution Roddenberry settled on with TNG. You can get just as much variety in nuTrek by going to another ship or place in Kirk's time.

I always just figured that if things changed from episode to episode, episodes to movies, or production to production (until Abram's overt reboot) that it was simply a matter of writers not knowing or not feeling bound by previously established canon; not particularly designed.

 

[urbandefault]

It would be really cool if someone with skills took the JJ movie characters and put them on the TMP-TUC era Enterprise. I'd give real money to see that.

 

[Smellmet]

It would be really cool if someone with skills took the JJ movie characters and put them on the TMP-TUC era Enterprise. I'd give real money to see that.

Not what you've asked for but pretty damn cool nonetheless...

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/10/8185787/star-trek-original-enterprise-new-movies

 

[TRON JA307020]

I don't like the idea of pushing into the 25th century. One of the things I love about TOS is that the people are relatable. They're funny, silly, angry, hateful, obsessed, lustful, happy, forgiving, petty, and so on, just like real humans. I think the nuTrek films nailed those traits. Humanity supposedly evolved in TNG, DS9, VOY, etc., but it made for so much filler material that had to draw drama from the outside (I say this as a fan of TNG, too), and I couldn't really relate to any of the people in those series.

Going into the 25th century, all we're going to see is shinier obscure technology discussions, more finely crafted human pedestal warmers, and a further step away from relatability, at least for me. For me, the "prime" universe is over. If they do go back, fine, I may love the film, but for now, I love what we're getting in the nuTrek universe.

I think if they go to far in the future you might be right. I would like to see a continuance in real time of the TNG universe. The year would be 2392 right about now. So if they get back to the Prime Trek universe it would be cool to see the advancements about 12-15 years after the TNG characters were last seen. Basically I wouldn't want them to jump 80 years since TNG started.