Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse
- Thread starter fyre
- Start date
Khan never went to the bridge in "Space Seed," but he probably studied it when he was looking at specs on the computer monitor in sick bay.
With that cut line of dialog, he could have been referring to technical functions and capabilities (which, despite superficial cosmetic interface differences, haven't changed a whole lot in the history of Trek).
Kor
With that cut line of dialog, he could have been referring to technical functions and capabilities (which, despite superficial cosmetic interface differences, haven't changed a whole lot in the history of Trek).
Kor
But never in the same time period as before.
A ship cannot be two sizes at once.
How does that make a difference? By definition, reboots take place in alternate universes.
To recap the past 6 pages of this thread:
-Debate over whether ST09 an STID were large box office successes and drew in new audiences.
-Discussion over whether the prime and alternate timelines could co-exist/merge/otherwise reconcile
-Was Wrath of Khan going to recon the visual language of the original series.
Earlier in the thread after my rant someone mentioned that no matter what happens it's unlikely that we'll ever get to see on-screen the aftermath of the dominion war and the post Nemesis next-Gen crew. I think that poster is correct. That makes me sad.
I had a talk with a friend about the new Star Wars movie and she said I didn't seem too excited about it. I told her I felt bad for some friends of mine who were really into the EU and all of their stories were now pushed aside.
I personally read a few X-Wing novels but doesn't really have any investment in the story. I was a casual fan who liked the movies just like a billion other fans, but still I understood their disappointment due to my feelings
Of how Abrams handled Star Trek.
I told her that in order for it to be worth it for them to really cast aside the EU to tell this new story, the one thing was that it had to be better.
That's really my sticking point. For all my gripes I did enjoy Into Darkness and loved the performances in '09. But I wouldn't rate them as the best Star Trek I've ever seen. And even as someone who has always rooted for Star Trek, I wouldn't rate them as the best sci-fi films of recent memory.
Where would you put Star Trek: Into Darkness against The Matrix, Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy?
My nephews go crazy over Avengers and Star Lord. They'll be going crazy over the new Jedi too I'm sure. I took them to see both Star Trek movies and while they enjoyed them, neither one role plays Captain Kirk or wears a Starfleet costume for Halloween.
These movies don't have the permeating cultural impact that they're capable of having. Of course this was an issue before JJ ever showed up.
If Paramount wants a billion dollar blockbuster like Avengers from the Star Trek franchise, they have the right centerpieces... James T. Kirk and the Starship Enterprise, but something from the formula is missing. The movies are good, not amazing. At that budget, with this talent they should be amazing.
If you want synergy between the show and the movies fine. If you want to continue the new timeline, fine. But make it better. Make it great.
When my nephews call me and say "Uncle Tai I want an Enterprise toy for my birthday." That'll be my number one sign that it's worked.
-Debate over whether ST09 an STID were large box office successes and drew in new audiences.
-Discussion over whether the prime and alternate timelines could co-exist/merge/otherwise reconcile
-Was Wrath of Khan going to recon the visual language of the original series.
Earlier in the thread after my rant someone mentioned that no matter what happens it's unlikely that we'll ever get to see on-screen the aftermath of the dominion war and the post Nemesis next-Gen crew. I think that poster is correct. That makes me sad.
I had a talk with a friend about the new Star Wars movie and she said I didn't seem too excited about it. I told her I felt bad for some friends of mine who were really into the EU and all of their stories were now pushed aside.
I personally read a few X-Wing novels but doesn't really have any investment in the story. I was a casual fan who liked the movies just like a billion other fans, but still I understood their disappointment due to my feelings
Of how Abrams handled Star Trek.
I told her that in order for it to be worth it for them to really cast aside the EU to tell this new story, the one thing was that it had to be better.
That's really my sticking point. For all my gripes I did enjoy Into Darkness and loved the performances in '09. But I wouldn't rate them as the best Star Trek I've ever seen. And even as someone who has always rooted for Star Trek, I wouldn't rate them as the best sci-fi films of recent memory.
Where would you put Star Trek: Into Darkness against The Matrix, Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy?
My nephews go crazy over Avengers and Star Lord. They'll be going crazy over the new Jedi too I'm sure. I took them to see both Star Trek movies and while they enjoyed them, neither one role plays Captain Kirk or wears a Starfleet costume for Halloween.
These movies don't have the permeating cultural impact that they're capable of having. Of course this was an issue before JJ ever showed up.
If Paramount wants a billion dollar blockbuster like Avengers from the Star Trek franchise, they have the right centerpieces... James T. Kirk and the Starship Enterprise, but something from the formula is missing. The movies are good, not amazing. At that budget, with this talent they should be amazing.
If you want synergy between the show and the movies fine. If you want to continue the new timeline, fine. But make it better. Make it great.
When my nephews call me and say "Uncle Tai I want an Enterprise toy for my birthday." That'll be my number one sign that it's worked.
The way I'm referring to alternate universe is one that stems from an existing universe. For instance, in the prime continuity, it's still part of the canon that an alternate Enterprise-C went back with an alternate Tasha Yar. That universe wasn't a reboot, it was a part of the continuity.
A reboot isn't really alternate in that sense. In reboots, details are changed without regard to the original.
So that means the producers of the new Trek could still say that the movies are part of the original continuity if they wanted to. Ages of the crew, sizes of the ships, or whatever other detail be damned.
People can define and label things as they wish, but that's exactly how I interpreted the new films from a universe perspective. I'm not talking about analysis after the fact, or the perceived intention on the part of the writers/producers to start fresh - I'm talking about how I interpreted what I saw on the screen, which was (I thought very clearly) an alternate universe of the existing one. They went through great pains to make that part of the plot. Therefore, not a true "reboot" in my mind. But others can label it however they wish. I'm not going to debate that. It's not important to me. But I am going to agree with the post quoted above!
Bingo! We have a winner!
Nope - reboots are usually just new stories with some similar 'ingredients.' 'Alternate universe' is purely an 'in-story' thing, and even there they don't exist until someone writes them into existence.
For eg. TAS was a reboot, but not an alternate universe. 'Mirror, Mirror' is an alternate universe, but not a reboot. At any time some clever writer could retcon TAS as an AU tale, but at the moment it's not.
For eg. TAS was a reboot, but not an alternate universe. 'Mirror, Mirror' is an alternate universe, but not a reboot. At any time some clever writer could retcon TAS as an AU tale, but at the moment it's not.
Last edited:
That's not EXACTLY a fair comparison. A more apt comparison would be how does Into Darkness stack up against The Matrix Reloaded or Avengers Age of Ultron, and to that I would argue they are all similar. Slightly flawed, mildly disappointing but otherwise entertaining sequels to superior first efforts.
No. It was a spin-off continuation.
I wouldn't say TAS was a reboot. TAS is TOS in cartoon form. A way of keeping the same thing going but at rock bottom prices. It wasn't sufficiently overhauled to met the threshold that would make TAS a reboot.
A format change might qualify as a reboot.
I suppose it could in general. But in this case, the TAS writers guide was just the TOS writers guide with a little extra material, key writers were TOS alumni, in some cases writing direct sequels to TOS episodes and in others revisiting TOS planets as they had been conceived in TOS or continuing the adventures of guest characters from TOS, TOS guest stars returned playing the same guest characters, not to mention the main cast was almost all the same. Even the life-support belts, one of the more visible differences with TOS, were a concept originally developed for TOS but rejected because they couldn't pull it off. TAS just doesn't qualify as a "reboot" in the sense of jettisoning continuity and going back to basics. You might call it an upgrade in a sense (and a downgrade in others), but the premise and continuity of TOS remained intact when it was inherited into TAS.
That came later. For all anyone knew while TAS was being made, there wasn't going to be any more filmed Trek, ever.
Then technically so is nuTrek.
A reboot is effectively an alternate universe even if it's not stated as such in the story. Like an alternative universe, it has similar ingredients, but also differences, usually very large differences in which you can't reconcile them (e.g. the same ship can't be 2 drastically difference sizes. Vulcan can't exist and be destroyed.)
TAS was not a reboot. Technically it's a continuation. It's meant to be in the same universe as TOS. You can watch TAS and assume that all the events of TOS occurred as we was them. Consequently, it cannot be an alternate universe.
Mr Awe
Nope. You can't reconcile the differences between TOS and nuTrek. Further, the viewer is not meant to assume that TOS and nuTrek take place in the same timeline. You don't watch the nu movies and assume that the events of TOS also took place in the nu movie timeline. That's the relevant threshold.
TAS is clearly meant to be in the same timeline as TOS. You can watch TAS and assume that the events of TOS also took place in that timeline. Again, that's the relevant threshold.
Mr Awe
Similar threads
