Why the Prime Universe makes sense for new Trek series

[ancient]

I'm torn a bit between my creative side & fanboy side.

Obviously, I love all the canon stuff & obsessing over how this great book of future history all fits together. I think that's one of the main things fans like. I think it's a lot of fun to fill in the blanks & there's a big urge to want the new series to be continuity porn that fills in more of the canon. I would probably watch a show that was a documentary of Starfleet minutiae. This is why there are about 300 fan made Enterprise blueprints. This is why there are star trek books that are essentially just there to explain away continuity problems.

On the other hand, "making it fit" is an annoyance that grows every time more canon is added. Just looking at the ship itself for the new show, if they put it in prime there will be one of two big problems:

1. The show is in the TNG/TOS/ENT era so the ship will have to conform to one of those preexisting designs - It will have to use similar nacelles, saucer, etc.

2. The show is in the future of TNG - it will have to look like a super sleek dauntless type ship. It's design will still have to be informed by the existing ships.

Either one of those restrictions is a huge annoyance for a designer. As much as I love the TOS era & making fan designs, the 1000th time I'm essentially copy-pasting the TOS warp nacelle onto a new ship I start to wish I could make something totally new. I think they ran into this problem a bit with the JJ Enterprise. It's just a weird looking ship that screams compromise. The Vengeance on the other hand was a totally new ship & it looked way better.

That's just one issue, now multiply that to every aspect of the production.

So what I'm saying is, I think the canon is fun, but it's homework for the creative heads on the new show. Homework they can choose not to do.

 

[Mudd]

And if they are worried about hate mail for contradicting prime canon, you think they are going to get less hate mail for ignoring that DS9 exists at all and only working off of the Abrams films?

No.

I think they'll at least have the satisfaction of trying to do the best, most inventive work they can do without looking over their shoulders at whether or not they're pleasing a very limited group of obsessively picky viewers.

Just jettison that shit, and don't even bother with letters and emails that demand explanations for it.

 

[Maurice]

We live in the era of the reboot. People are used to alternate versions of stories and characters. The majority of the TV audience only cares if the show if good/entertaining. Certain subsets of fandom can try to speak for the masses all day long, but in the end they aren't a big enough part of the potential audience to bother catering to. Fresh start, I say. RIP Old Universe. You had a good run, but you're done.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

If we can have different Batmans and Supermans within years of each other (or concurrently), we can have different versions of Kirk and Spock. Hell, I'd be impressed if the new CBS show just did their own reboot of the original and not tie it to the new movies.

 

[Greg Cox]

We live in the era of the reboot. People are used to alternate versions of stories and characters. The majority of the TV audience only cares if the show if good/entertaining. Certain subsets of fandom can try to speak for the masses all day long, but in the end they aren't a big enough part of the potential audience to bother catering to. Fresh start, I say. RIP Old Universe. You had a good run, but you're done.

And it's not even a new trend. As I've mentioned before, to the point of monotony, I grew up with multiple versions of Tarzan, Zorro, Dracula, The Shadow, and so on--in various different book, movie, TV and comics series, and I never found this particularly confusing or irritating. So why not yet another new STAR TREK, with its own continuity?

That's just how movies and TV work--and always have.

You can still enjoy a revival of a beloved character or series--even if that "character" is Starfleet or the Federation--without expecting it to be set in the exact same continuity as the last few versions.

STAR TREK is more than just "the canon." It's a concept, not just an encyclopedia of imaginary facts.

 

[Mudd]

Right now there are two television versions of Sherlock Holmes that are entirely different - no confusion that matters there, despite the remarkable coincidence that they're both set in the present day.

And there have been, so recently as to be current, two big-screen versions of Holmes featuring high-profile actors in the lead that have nothing to do with one another or with either television version.

 

[Terok Nor]

I like the fact all the shows and movies take place in the same universe. You don't see Star Wars fans saying the old universe had its day and it's time for a reboot so I don't see why Star Trek has to. As pointed out earlier in the thread the Marvel Universe has multiple shows and movies sharing the same universe at this very moment, far more than Star Trek ever had at one time, and it's causing no problems at all. People are lapping it all up in their droves.

By all means do something completely divorced from what came before if that's what CBS thinks is the best idea. But don't bother with remakes of old episodes and reimaginings of old species and characters. Been there, done that, bought the DVDs. For all the talk of JJ Abrams rebooting Star Trek it's still Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise taking on the Romulans and Khan. At least the other spin offs created new characters and races to add to the canon.

 

[Squiggy]

Enterprise's failure had nothing to do with it being set in the Prime Universe. 0%

Not directly. But it was held back because they had to write stories that made sense given the previous 24 seasons of television that told them what already happen.

Klingons had ridges in TMP but not in TOS? Have to write a clunky story for that. Wink.

We need villains, so we can either pick recognizable villains but they can't ever come face to face because there are already established backstories (Romulans, Ferengi, Borg). Or create new villains and come up with some excuse as to why such bad people were never mentioned post-Enterprise.

Not to mention the near constant bitching about the NX-01 looking more advanced than NCC-1701. Of course it would look more advanced - but it shouldn't.

 

[Paradise City]

The difference between Star Trek and Superman. What is it.

With Star Trek you got the TV show. You got the novels.

But you have the third dimension. The encyclopedias. The blueprints. The fictional history.

And Star Trek created and profited from the encyclopedias, the history..etc

So they've only themselves to blame for people who see and value the axis between the show and the encyclopedia. They profited from it, they got to live with "the letters"

I would never buy an "encyclopedia" or any literature except perhaps some behind the scenes books.

But if people want to see and value the axis between the show and the encyclopedia, they can crack on and do that.

It's as legitimate as any other perspective on Star Trek.

The makers of this new series aren't going to pay attention to any of us - so if a guy wants to value his canon, he can go and do that.

 

[Terok Nor]

Enterprise's failure had nothing to do with it being set in the Prime Universe. 0%

Not directly. But it was held back because they had to write stories that made sense given the previous 24 seasons of television that told them what already happen.

That's because it was a prequel. Had it been set after those shows those problems would not have been an issue for the most part. Prequels are notoriously unpopular in science firction. Just ask Star Wars fans.

I would argue if the new show is set in the Prime timeline and after the TNG era if it is so bankrupt of ideas that it needs to retcon established continuity then it's not going to last very long anyway. Doing a reboot (in my opinion) is the lazy option so old ideas can be jazzed up and made to look new. And yes, I am referring to the JJ Abrams movies

I've only seen a few episodes of it but as far as I know Dr. Who came back after years off the air and continued in the same universe. It allowed for the passage of time and presumably wasn't crippled by continuity since it's still going strong.

 

[Terok Nor]

I think it should be noted that no one had a problem with any of the new species showing up in TNG, DS9 and Voyager. The Borg, the Ferengi, the Cardassians and others were never seen nor mentioned in TOS but have gone on to become staples of the Star Trek universe. The problem with the races and events introduced in Enteprise is that it was set before every other show and showcased races who were neither seen nor mentioned 200 years later. It's all very well saying they just weren't relevant to the plot but that's a weak excuse. The Cardassians and Romulans weren't relevant to the plot until they appeared but they weren't just dropped and forgotten about the minute their arc ended. TNG gave us the Ferengi and the Borg and also gave them an entrance to the Star Trek universe with a first contact situation. The problem with the Xindi and the other races Enterprise brought in is that a prequel is supposed to have relevance to the property it spun from. The Xindi, the Suliban, the Denobulans, hell the NX-01 itself had absolutely no relevance to the other shows. Roping in the Ferengi and the Borg for a "real" first contact was a desperate attempt for ratings and not something that needed to be explored in a prequel since we'd seen it already in TNG. When Enterprise concentrated on the Andorians, a race from TOS that had received little attention, the reaction was a lot more positive.

 

[Tim Thomason]

No one (outside of us) knows what the "prime universe" even is. The writers will know, hopefully, but they won't be writing for us, they'll be writing for the majority of fans and the casual viewers. We only call it the "prime universe" because Leonard Nimoy was credited as Spock Prime in Star Trek 2009.

Star Trek 2017 will benefit best by not even getting involved in the conversation. There will have to be a decision, and if it's not apparent by the setting, it will be made in background material (books, comics, notes from the producers) that will be unknown to the majority of viewers and fans.

Setting a show within the Prime Universe will not saddle the producers with loads of canon and continuity problems. Anymore than setting it in the JJverse or the mirror universe or the Star Fleet Universe. They can write whatever they feel is compelling, with callbacks to whatever they feel is necessary. And when the Gorn-Federation War starts in 2205 and when the Romulan Ambassador meets with President Mayweather in 2174 and when old-age makeup Admiral Chekov (Anton Yelchin) serves alongside Captain Jadzia Dax in 2392, we'll just make a few grumbles on this and similar websites and no one will notice.

The show could be the new critical darling, and still have cute callbacks that make perfect sense, and we'd still be making grumbles that no one will notice.

So, to bring back Dennis' list, here are my thoughts:

A show set in the prime universe will be too weighed down by canon for writers to be creative

I disagree. The creators might not care about canon at all, regardless of the setting.

A prime universe show would be somehow old fashioned/out of date.

As I don't think "prime universe" makes any sense outside of specialized insider knowledge, I disagree here. Anymore than a "Star Trek" show would be old-fashioned/out-of-date.

A prime universe show would require knowledge of previous trek.

Ideally every piece of artwork should stand on its own merit. Any TV show, especially one created in a franchise after a 12-year break, should be standalone to a very large degree. If Klingons or Romulans or Suliban or Talarians show up on the series, then they will need to be introduced just like any new species or culture.

A prime universe show will have to explain in depth what happened to galactic politics after the events leading up to the 2380s.

Only if it was centered around galactic politics after the events leading up to the 2380s. Any other point and this type of worldbuilding would not be necessary.

Fans will be really pedantic about canon in the Prime Universe, and producers will care about this a great deal.

(Some) fans will be really pedantic about anything and everything. Producers won't notice or care.

Starting fresh will bring in more viewers.

Making a good show will bring in viewers.

 

[Paradise City]

Enterprise's failure had nothing to do with it being set in the Prime Universe. 0%

Not directly. But it was held back because they had to write stories that made sense given the previous 24 seasons of television that told them what already happen.

Klingons had ridges in TMP but not in TOS? Have to write a clunky story for that. Wink.

We need villains, so we can either pick recognizable villains but they can't ever come face to face because there are already established backstories (Romulans, Ferengi, Borg). Or create new villains and come up with some excuse as to why such bad people were never mentioned post-Enterprise.

Not to mention the near constant bitching about the NX-01 looking more advanced than NCC-1701. Of course it would look more advanced - but it shouldn't.

In terms of the Enterprise I would've thought a submarine aesthetic for the interior like the Hunt for Red October or Crimson Tide with the officers wearing naval uniforms with ties..etc. The work stations dominated by lights with monitors kept at a premium. That would've created a gulf between TOS and Enterprise .

Problem solved. That's just a simple creative calculation I made of the cuff and I'm no creative genius.

Canon provided some structure stipulated by basic canon but Enterprise was not held back by canon in any meaningful way. Canon was its trampoline. You could do anything introducing the various species. You can tear these heroes apart and really test them in many harrowing predicaments. There's a whole spectrum for any theme of high politics or some very gritty war and peace storylines. They did fantastic mutinies in BSG! You could go to town with Enterprise. You could create new aliens. Why not? They aren't mentioned in other series? Audience will skip over stuff like that. For the canon guys, powers rise n' fall. A big power two hundred years ago is a minor, insignificant and nuthin' power today. Look at a political map throughout the ages -- vast, sweeping differences. Heck even the Andorians become pussy-cats.

DS9 went over the Klingon ridge stuff. The ridge stuff doesn't matter. You can give them ridges and not deal with ridges in any of the episodes.

You could go to town with the prime universe with a prequel. Of course, that's all in the past now. Excuse me.

Today's landscape has changed, the prequel is done for better or for worse and the prime universe is quite crowded now and doing something with it carries some unnecessary risk. Reimagining it or/and doing a JJ job on it is what is on the cards.

 

[Squiggy]

That's because it was a prequel. Had it been set after those shows those problems would not have been an issue for the most part. Prequels are notoriously unpopular in science firction. Just ask Star Wars fans.

Wanna ask some X-Men fans while we're at it? How about some Batman fans?

I think it should be noted that no one had a problem with any of the new species showing up in TNG, DS9 and Voyager. The Borg, the Ferengi, the Cardassians and others were never seen nor mentioned in TOS but have gone on to become staples of the Star Trek universe.

Well, yeah...they were never seen nor mentioned because they hadn't been written nor discovered yet; neither in the 1960s nor the 2360s.

Enterprise took popular aliens and crammed them into the 2150s simply because they were popular.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And if they didn't, you'd have fans asking why they're never mentioned.

 

[Mudd]

Enterprise's failure had nothing to do with it being set in the Prime Universe. 0%

Not directly. But it was held back because they had to write stories that made sense given the previous 24 seasons of television that told them what already happen.

Enterprise's failure had everything to do with it being part of the production process that had been used to create all the modern Trek shows - including the increasingly involved and restrictive continuity - and represented the final bottoming out of a ten year-long downward curve in viewership.

There is no "Prime Universe" for a tv series to be set in. There's a production style and continuity that belongs largely to the Trek productions of the 1980s and 90s because that was when the vast majority of oldTrek was created. Trying to backtrack to it would be a disaster.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Right now there are two television versions of Sherlock Holmes that are entirely different - no confusion that matters there, despite the remarkable coincidence that they're both set in the present day.

Also the British version is doing a special where the lead actors from Sherlock will being playing their characters in the typical 19th century Sherlock Holmes setting.

Plus there was the 1960s Dark Shadows and the film House of Dark Shadows which both used the same casts playing the same characters in two different continuities.

 

[Maurice]

Then there was that other alternate Holmes show: House. Seriously. Medical Sherlock.

 

[sojourner]

Then there was that other alternate Holmes show: House. Seriously. Medical Sherlock.

He even lived at 221B Baker st.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Right now there are two television versions of Sherlock Holmes that are entirely different - no confusion that matters there, despite the remarkable coincidence that they're both set in the present day.

Also the British version is doing a special where the lead actors from Sherlock will being playing their characters in the typical 19th century Sherlock Holmes setting.

Plus there was the 1960s Dark Shadows and the film House of Dark Shadows which both used the same casts playing the same characters in two different continuities.

And there's a science-fiction antecedent as well. In 1965 and 66, there was DOCTOR WHO on the BBC while Peter Cushing played "Dr. Who" (not the Doctor) on the big screen.