If the new show is set in the Prime universe...

[IronMaiden]

To me i wish it would just be after Voyager, i do have a idea for a series that is based in the time of Voyager season 6 and 7 but i won't say it as someone might steal my idea.

But if i get the money maybe i will make a fan film.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Even if the show is set in the Prime Universe (and very much I doubt they hired one of the people behind the new movies to make a series set in the old continuity), it'll only fit in very broad strokes, like how Enterprise fitted into the world of TOS. There will be much nitpicky butthurt.

 

[Trekkin]

To me i wish it would just be after Voyager, i do have a idea for a series that is based in the time of Voyager season 6 and 7 but i won't say it as someone might steal my idea.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I really don't think you'd have to worry.

And the phrase 'nitpicky butthurt' is giving me the grossest mental images.

 

[Mudd]

The oldTrek universe is not a place. It's a style of television production, performance, and storytelling that's dead and isn't coming back.

 

[Terok Nor]

It seems quite a few people in this thread actively hate the old shows and movies. I admit I hate Enterprise but in general I love Trek and all it stands for. I think it's amazing that Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, Behr, Moore, Taylor and all the others created this huge shared universe. I, for one, don't consider Star Trek a dead corpse in need of a reboot. That's fine for the movies as a way to bring Kirk and crew back and pull in the casual cinema goers but there was nothing wrong with the Prime Universe all these talented people created (apart from the slap in the face known as Enterprise).

Some other stuff I've watched that came back from a period of being dormant includes The X Files, Dallas and Twin Peaks. Without taking into consideration the success or failure of these properties (2 of them haven't even aired yet) the fanbases were excited to see old characters and settings return as long as something fresh was brought to the table. I never saw fans of these shows stating they are dead and buried and their continuations should ignore them in favour of a clean slate. Half the fun of being a fan of something long running is the expanded world it creates over time. For me anyway.

I just don't see the value of taking something already in existence and steam rolling over it to make a new show. I guess writers and producers have to take the jobs that come to them to make a living but if I was interested in creating a brand new show from scratch I wouldn't hitch my wagon to something like Star Trek that's already built up its universe. Instead of rebooting an existing property I'd sooner create a new one. It's an honour to be asked to take part in Star Trek. Not a chore. 700 episodes and 12 movies is a blessing, not a curse.

 

[Terok Nor]

The oldTrek universe is not a place. It's a style of television production, performance, and storytelling that's dead and isn't coming back.

Can you describe this dead style?

If you're referring to episodic tv then I can assure you its very much alive.

 

[Campe]

It seems quite a few people in this thread actively hate the old shows and movies. I admit I hate Enterprise but in general I love Trek and all it stands for. I think it's amazing that Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, Behr, Moore, Taylor and all the others created this huge shared universe. I, for one, don't consider Star Trek a dead corpse in need of a reboot. That's fine for the movies as a way to bring Kirk and crew back and pull in the casual cinema goers but there was nothing wrong with the Prime Universe all these talented people created (apart from the slap in the face known as Enterprise).

Some other stuff I've watched that came back from a period of being dormant includes The X Files, Dallas and Twin Peaks. Without taking into consideration the success or failure of these properties (2 of them haven't even aired yet) the fanbases were excited to see old characters and settings return as long as something fresh was brought to the table. I never saw fans of these shows stating they are dead and buried and their continuations should ignore them in favour of a clean slate. Half the fun of being a fan of something long running is the expanded world it creates over time. For me anyway.

I just don't see the value of taking something already in existence and steam rolling over it to make a new show. I guess writers and producers have to take the jobs that come to them to make a living but if I was interested in creating a brand new show from scratch I wouldn't hitch my wagon to something like Star Trek that's already built up its universe. Instead of rebooting an existing property I'd sooner create a new one. It's an honour to be asked to take part in Star Trek. Not a chore. 700 episodes and 12 movies is a blessing, not a curse.

I don't think any of us actively hate all of the old movies and TV shows. But they have had their day in the sun.

And no one is saying ignore Trek in its broadest strokes, but how many fans are going to complain if it is set in the Prime universe and they get ONE thing "wrong?" 700 episodes can definitely stifle creativity in that regard. It's taking the idea that there is a Federation, Starfleet, Klingons, Romulans, Kirk, Spock, Khan, a Romulan War, a Neutral Zone, ongoing conflict between those sides, and just using broad strokes around them. Not taking it from the perspective of "Well, McCoy said the Vulcanians were conquered in "The Conscience of the King" so CANON!" That's an extreme example because its been ignored but the difference I think the majority of us see in being chained to those 700 episodes doesn't allow a fresh take. It causes problems with some fans that the NX-01 looks more advanced than the 1701 but in reality, even the NX-01 bridge is dated now.

Why shouldn't we want a fresh take on the 23rd century from 2017 eyes?

 

[Terok Nor]

It seems quite a few people in this thread actively hate the old shows and movies. I admit I hate Enterprise but in general I love Trek and all it stands for. I think it's amazing that Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, Behr, Moore, Taylor and all the others created this huge shared universe. I, for one, don't consider Star Trek a dead corpse in need of a reboot. That's fine for the movies as a way to bring Kirk and crew back and pull in the casual cinema goers but there was nothing wrong with the Prime Universe all these talented people created (apart from the slap in the face known as Enterprise).

Some other stuff I've watched that came back from a period of being dormant includes The X Files, Dallas and Twin Peaks. Without taking into consideration the success or failure of these properties (2 of them haven't even aired yet) the fanbases were excited to see old characters and settings return as long as something fresh was brought to the table. I never saw fans of these shows stating they are dead and buried and their continuations should ignore them in favour of a clean slate. Half the fun of being a fan of something long running is the expanded world it creates over time. For me anyway.

I just don't see the value of taking something already in existence and steam rolling over it to make a new show. I guess writers and producers have to take the jobs that come to them to make a living but if I was interested in creating a brand new show from scratch I wouldn't hitch my wagon to something like Star Trek that's already built up its universe. Instead of rebooting an existing property I'd sooner create a new one. It's an honour to be asked to take part in Star Trek. Not a chore. 700 episodes and 12 movies is a blessing, not a curse.

I don't think any of us actively hate all of the old movies and TV shows. But they have had their day in the sun.

And no one is saying ignore Trek in its broadest strokes, but how many fans are going to complain if it is set in the Prime universe and they get ONE thing "wrong?" 700 episodes can definitely stifle creativity in that regard. It's taking the idea that there is a Federation, Starfleet, Klingons, Romulans, Kirk, Spock, Khan, a Romulan War, a Neutral Zone, ongoing conflict between those sides, and just using broad strokes around them. Not taking it from the perspective of "Well, McCoy said the Vulcanians were conquered in "The Conscience of the King" so CANON!" That's an extreme example because its been ignored but the difference I think the majority of us see in being chained to those 700 episodes doesn't allow a fresh take. It causes problems with some fans that the NX-01 looks more advanced than the 1701 but in reality, even the NX-01 bridge is dated now.

Why shouldn't we want a fresh take on the 23rd century from 2017 eyes?

Great reply.

I singled out Enterprise for a very good reason. It was a prequel to the other shows. It was always going to be a slave to continuity because of that. In my opinion it failed on pretty much every level. That doesn't have to happen to a show set after the TNG era. It's already a clean slate just as it was for TNG, DS9 and Voyager. Why can't the same happen for another spin off set in the same universe? Enterprise screwed up because it was a prequel and didn't act like it until the last season. And even then the writers resorted to the desperate measure of roping in Riker and Troi to directly reference Enterprise as a way to validate it and reconcile it with the rest of the shows in the finale episode.

I see what you're saying about minor continuity errors but those are rampant in Trek anyway. People will always complain about them but they're not universe shattering like some of the stuff they got up to on Enterprise like the Xindi and Temporal Cold War as well as this legendary ship crossing paths with races like the Ferengi and Borg who managed to stay off the Federation's radar for the next 200 years.

We should be able to have a fresh take on the 23rd or 24th century from 2017 eyes but I'm not interested in remakes of old episodes which is what a reboot invites.

 

[Campe]

And personally, I'm not certain I'm interested in adding on another 100-200 years or so and just continuing in the Prime universe. I just don't feel that's the best use of this opportunity to refresh the franchise. And CBS needs to make a profit on this show. This, at the end of the day, is a business.

Let me ask you an honest question: if you were Les Moonves, and your responsibility was to make money for your shareholders, when it comes to Star Trek, how would you give your marching orders to Kurtzman?

 

[Terok Nor]

And personally, I'm not certain I'm interested in adding on another 100-200 years or so and just continuing in the Prime universe. I just don't feel that's the best use of this opportunity to refresh the franchise. And CBS needs to make a profit on this show. This, at the end of the day, is a business.

Let me ask you an honest question: if you were Les Moonves, and your responsibility was to make money for your shareholders, when it comes to Star Trek, how would you give your marching orders to Kurtzman?

Giving Kurtzman his marching orders is exactly what I'd do

I'd bring in someone like Ron Moore, Ira Behr, Bryan Fuller or Manny Coto. People who really understand Star Trek and are are better writers than Kurtzman in my opinion. If those guys thought a total reboot was the way to go I'd trust them. Kurtzman's track record with Trek so far has me worried about the new series.

I will state here and now I am not honestly interested in a remake of Star Trek. I'll watch it to see what's its like and maybe I'll love it but my preference is a return to the universe I'm familiar with. When I heard there were going to be new Star Wars movies I was not hoping for a reboot but a continuation of the previous movies. A remake of classic Trek characters, episodes and alien races might look better but it's still going over old ground to me. Like the Abrams movies its a fresh coat of paint on an old idea.

 

[Campe]

Everyone's entitled to their opinion.

Personally, I worry that setting it in Prime will do exactly the same thing you suggest Abrams has been doing -- a fresh coat of paint on an old idea.

I'm pleased that I'm having a discussion with someone where we don't agree but speak in a respectful manner towards one another. Regardless, I think this is an agree to disagree moment.

 

[Squiggy]

A remake of classic Trek characters, episodes and alien races might look better but it's still going over old ground to me.

So your solution is to go back to the old ground?

 

[Jedman67]

And personally, I'm not certain I'm interested in adding on another 100-200 years or so and just continuing in the Prime universe. I just don't feel that's the best use of this opportunity to refresh the franchise. And CBS needs to make a profit on this show. This, at the end of the day, is a business.

Let me ask you an honest question: if you were Les Moonves, and your responsibility was to make money for your shareholders, when it comes to Star Trek, how would you give your marching orders to Kurtzman?

Giving Kurtzman his marching orders is exactly what I'd do

I'd bring in someone like Ron Moore, Ira Behr, Bryan Fuller or Manny Coto. People who really understand Star Trek and are are better writers than Kurtzman in my opinion. If those guys thought a total reboot was the way to go I'd trust them. Kurtzman's track record with Trek so far has me worried about the new series.

I think that bringing in Ron Moore as a creative consultant and asking the others for spec scripts or production suggestions would be smart; hiring them all full time on the new show would not be. The point is, the old star trek that we all grew up with (TNG and DS9 for me, TOS and TWOK for many of us) is dead. It had a long, fruitful life, spanning 5 distinct TV shows and 10 features (some good, some bad) over 40 years. As was stated upthread, it had it's day in the sun.

In 2015 we have viewers of many modern scifi shows which have stretched the genre where the original Star Trek was a pioneer. Shows like BSG, Defiance, Firefly, Stargate, SHIELD, etc have brought commercial SciFi to 21st century TV (Century of the Fruitbat, for Discworld fans); it's no longer a niche market, scifi needs to compete with hundreds - if not thousands - of other mainstream shows across all platforms. In order for the new star trek tv show to be successful, it needs to draw in a new audience; which means charting a new course that will have wide appeal. It should respect the Trek that came before, perhaps be influenced by it, but it must otherwise be an entirely new thing.

That was one of the mistakes of Enterprise (and SGU); they tried to make it a new show (effectively "rebooting" the series with a prequel) but it strayed too far into the Trek universe trying to appeal to trekkies who were angered at "lame attempts to draw them in" and mainstream viewers who just couldn't care and dropped the show.
It needs a new direction and fresh perspective, essentially what "JJ Trek" tried to do but a little more intelligently.

 

[Karzak]

You guys must be high as a kite if you think Kurtzman is going to go anywhere near the Prime universe. Spoiler: he's not.

 

[BillJ]

I don't care where he goes. This show won't be recognizable compared to what aired from 1966-2005, even if they hired Patrick Stewart to play Jean-Luc Picard.

Wherever they go, I hope they look to things like Star Wars, Mass Effect and Halo for inspiration. The designs and action have left Star Trek in the dust.

 

[LLAP]

You guys must be high as a kite if you think Kurtzman is going to go anywhere near the Prime universe. Spoiler: he's not.

Why wouldn't they? It's not like they'll feel the need to timewarp the show to the 90s it'll be more or less unrecognisable anyway?

 

[Squiggy]

You guys must be high as a kite if you think Kurtzman is going to go anywhere near the Prime universe. Spoiler: he's not.

Why wouldn't they?

Because he's the EP and writer of the movie that blew up the Prime timeline.

You could ask the guy who designed of the Ford Mustang what his favorite car is and if he could drive cross country, what car would it be in. I betcha isn't not a Corvette.

 

[drt]

Why shouldn't we want a fresh take on the 23rd century from 2017 eyes?

I concur, and this parallels something Dennis brought up in a different thread (lol, it's getting a little hard to follow 15 different threads about the new series), about the Prime and JJverses being based on a 1960s view of the future. Really, I think the entire backstory and setting needs to be reworked, since there obviously wasn't a Eugenics War in the mid-90s nor is there any chance an FTL drive will be invented 50 years from now, but more than that, science-fiction is supposed to speculate on how technology could change our lives, so a new show needs to explore a future that originates from now, and the sorts of concerns and issues that will actually face humanity moving forward.

 

[Ryan8bit]

how many fans are going to complain if it is set in the Prime universe and they get ONE thing "wrong?"

Surely a number that no one who produces the show really cares about. And regardless of what universe its set in, probably that same group of people is going to complain. If not them, then somebody will. Catering to complaints just can't be done.

 

[Campe]

Why shouldn't we want a fresh take on the 23rd century from 2017 eyes?

I concur, and this parallels something Dennis brought up in a different thread (lol, it's getting a little hard to follow 15 different threads about the new series), about the Prime and JJverses being based on a 1960s view of the future. Really, I think the entire backstory and setting needs to be reworked, since there obviously wasn't a Eugenics War in the mid-90s nor is there any chance an FTL drive will be invented 50 years from now, but more than that, science-fiction is supposed to speculate on how technology could change our lives, so a new show needs to explore a future that originates from now, and the sorts of concerns and issues that will actually face humanity moving forward.

Exactly right. When you're coming from something that's 50 years old and the fanbase is expecting or at least hoping that they conform to the old ideas? Well, I'm not sure that's showing progress. And I think that was a big problem with Trek from 1987-2005 is that while it updated the 1966-1969 viewpoints, it still relied on them and were, for all intents and purposes stuck in 1987. Or at least 1991. Because Berman just wanted to keep doing what Gene wanted. And that's fine. But Gene would probably also have liked to move forward and see the future from a different perspective.

I admit, I go back and forth on whether or not I want something in the JJverse or a complete reboot. Today, I think I want a reboot. Like drt suggests, we need to extrapolate from 2017 not 1966.

how many fans are going to complain if it is set in the Prime universe and they get ONE thing "wrong?"

Surely a number that no one who produces the show really cares about. And regardless of what universe its set in, probably that same group of people is going to complain. If not them, then somebody will. Catering to complaints just can't be done.

Of course people will complain! We're Star Trek fans!