Trek Returning to TV in 2017!
- Thread starter Squiggy
- Start date
I don't know what the usage of "franchise" entirely denotes in the US, but before TNG, Star Trek certainly wasn't one, and neither was Star Wars before all the spin off Clone Wars and whatever stuff of the last few years, which I admit I have no interest in so know little about.
Now someone has mentioned Star Wars it reminds me why I find people's need to do away with all Trek history so odd. No one suggests that Star Wars needs to have a totally new timeline to stay fresh or a reboot or indeed anything of the sort. Star Wars also has thematic elements that are easily separated from the narrative we have come to know. However the narrative adds richness, just as the Prime Universe does. Passing references to the Eugenics Wars are meaningless, for one thing because we know nothing about them really. Nothing has to be mentioned directly at all, you'll know it's there if done properly however.
From Wikipedia:
Star Trek had the Original Series, an animated show, comics and books AND four (!) movies before The Next Generation even came along. I can't understand how that isn't a franchise!
I think you are hurting your own argument with this example, as both the prequel trilogy and the new movie are actively breaking with the established "canon" of the Star Wars universe created in the books, comics and video games that have come out since the original trilogy. So they actually are doing away with the old timeline. At least that's how I'm understanding it. Not the biggest Star Wars fan here.
Well, in that case, are you saying six feature-length movies are bringing in the same baggage as 30 seasons worth of television episodes plus 10 movies?
The thing is, for me personally, I don't much care whether the new series is set in the old timeline or not. I just want it to be good first and foremost. The rest is just window dressing to me.
The thing is, for me personally, I don't much care whether the new series is set in the old timeline or not. I just want it to be good first and foremost. The rest is just window dressing to me.
I wish those guys nothing but good thoughts, and there has been some fun moments and good material out of it, but in terms of being ready for broadcast in all aspects of production, only Axanar would make the cut for a CBS executive.
RAMA
Yes, this is exactly it.
Because you're creating a barrier to entry for both writers and viewers that spans fifty years.
The slate has needed to be wiped clean for a while.
I don't think that has to be the case to keep things easily understood. There's still flexibility, no need to focus on the minutiae. 'Needed' is questionable.
I don't think it's that big an issue to keep it in the original timeline. Surely there will be writers who are familiar with Trek's history. For those who aren't they can just read up on it. Writers are supposed to know what they're writing about aren't they? As long as they give themselves a long gap between the end of the TNG era and the start of the new series everything will be fine. How many plot strands from TOS were relevant to TNG apart from the basics anyway? The Klingons weren't the enemy anymore, the Romulans had only appeared twice in TOS, the Vulcans were used sparingly and the Federation/Starfleet were explained easily enough with a few lines. The same can be done again. The TNG era wrapped up most of the main conflicts by the time it ended so it's a clean slate already.
"Canon" is simply what has appeared on the screen. It's not the same as "continuity." And it certainly is irrelevant in regards to how a franchise is defined.
Bingo.From Wikipedia:
Star Trek had the Original Series, an animated show, comics and books AND four (!) movies before The Next Generation even came along. I can't understand how that isn't a franchise!
You know where you are, right?!?
And some of the people you are dealing with?!?
Certain Star Trek fans really, really want everything to adhere to canon even if it is a simple throwaway line in an episode...
I would argue that all Star Trek before TNG, in whatever media it appeared, was a continuation of the orginal series and thus not derivative of it. All pre-TNG Star Trek was Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al aboard the Enterprise, continuing its ongoing mission from TOS to explore new life and new civilisations.
A new series under the banner of Star Trek, with a new ship and new characters, new show synopsis, as TNG, and later DS9 and VOY were, is when Trek became a franchise.
Nope. James Bond is a franchise, because its a successful series of books and films, all featuring the same character. It doesn't need a James Bond: The Moneypenny Adventures spinoff to be called a franchise. Planet of the Apes is a franchise and would be if there was never a TV series or reboot films. A franchise can have sequels, spin offs, TV adaptations or film adaptations. Its not limited to spin offs
I would argue that all Star Trek before TNG, in whatever media it appeared, was a continuation of the orginal series and thus not derivative of it. All pre-TNG Star Trek was Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al aboard the Enterprise, continuing its ongoing mission from TOS to explore new life and new civilisations.
A new series under the banner of Star Trek, with a new ship and new characters, new show synopsis, as TNG, and later DS9 and VOY were, is when Trek became a franchise.
Last edited:
Haha true, but I'd refer you to my previous point about the differences between TOS and TNG Klingons as an example of canon flexibility (albeit one that did in fact spawn a rather silly explanation, an unrequired one at that).
Similar threads
