Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse

[theREVENGEofKAHN]

To think people watch the new films just to see some "JJ verse" is absurd. People watch them because they're fun action flicks and nothing more.

The new series can easily be set 100-200 years after Voyager, therefore separating itself from the rest of the Prime shows/films, while still having more action than old Trek.

This whole thread and argument is based on two sides' extreme views

Your right the new movies are popular because they are fun action flicks. They are fun movies but they fail to capture all of what makes 50 years of Star Trek special. Calling the bulk of a franchise obsolete is insulting to the fans that grew up with it. If your going to call something Star Trek then make it like the franchise that rose to popularity in the first place.

Since their making a TV show now I'm actually okay with the movies being fun action flicks but the show needs to be more. If you pay attention to the more popular TV shows they are more than just action, they have great characters and an interesting story. Ultimately no matter what "verse" the new show takes place in the foretelling has to be the reason to watch. That's what made the old series falter.

I do agree that the best setting would be 100-200 years after the prime franchise ended. Star Trek needs to get back to the basics while still moving forward. It's a similar reboot to what New Doctor Who did and what TNG did back in the 80's. A reboot without dismissing the long history that made the franchise popular to begin with.

 

[theREVENGEofKAHN]

*storytelling
Not *foretelling*

Sorry, I don't know how. To edit my posts

 

[Shalashaska]

Your right the new movies are popular because they are fun action flicks. They are fun movies but they fail to capture all of what makes 50 years of Star Trek special. Calling the bulk of a franchise obsolete is insulting to the fans that grew up with it. If your going to call something Star Trek then make it like the franchise that rose to popularity in the first place.

Since their making a TV show now I'm actually okay with the movies being fun action flicks but the show needs to be more. If you pay attention to the more popular TV shows they are more than just action, they have great characters and an interesting story. Ultimately no matter what "verse" the new show takes place in the foretelling has to be the reason to watch. That's what made the old series falter.

I do agree that the best setting would be 100-200 years after the prime franchise ended. Star Trek needs to get back to the basics while still moving forward. It's a similar reboot to what New Doctor Who did and what TNG did back in the 80's. A reboot without dismissing the long history that made the franchise popular to begin with.

Of course, I agree with you. I'm just looking at it from an executive's standpoint.

They won't be saying J. J.'s movie is successful because it's set in an alternate universe, it's because it has action, and if they want to capture that audience, they'll include a lot of action, whether we like it or not.

 

[theREVENGEofKAHN]

Of course, I agree with you. I'm just looking at it from an executive's standpoint.

They won't be saying J. J.'s movie is successful because it's set in an alternate universe, it's because it has action, and if they want to capture that audience, they'll include a lot of action, whether we like it or not.

you might be right but I think what makes a successful movie is different than what makes a successful t show. Good writing makes a successful TV show. We shouldn't give up hope just yet.

 

[fireproof78]

To think people watch the new films just to see some "JJ verse" is absurd. People watch them because they're fun action flicks and nothing more.

The new series can easily be set 100-200 years after Voyager, therefore separating itself from the rest of the Prime shows/films, while still having more action than old Trek.

This whole thread and argument is based on two sides' extreme views

Well, I agree about the extremist arguments, but the idea that Abrams films are "action flicks" and nothing more is also a bit extreme.

I mean, I watch them because they feel like TOS, action and adventure with some social commentary. Now, TOS doesn't embody all of Star Trek but there are certainly elements there that I love and find enjoyment in the new films.

As for setting it further in to the future, for me, that makes the show less interesting. I mean, it gets so far removed from the future that I feel like I can't identify with any elements of the society any more. But, I know that's just me.

 

[ADz83]

I agree. Franchise is the problem. Roddenberry set out to tell a good story with developed and interesting characters. JJ did the same, and attempted to make Trek appeal to a wider audience and to free Trek from all the whining and weird obsession about making a fantasy setting "real" by pointing out writing and production detail mistakes. The books are by far the best for this reason. Be thankful we are getting a series based on a 50 year old story and that our heroes are being kept alive, regardless of how.

It has nothing to do with that. It's simply that Paramount needed to reboot because they wanted to carry on making movies but CBS had taken a break from the TV series so wouldn't let them carry on using most recent characters/storyline as they thought the franchise had been watered down to some extent in late 90's.

Rebooting in the way they did allowed them to start over and create a new sub franchise based on new universe. Now they have more or less full creative control for movies they produce. This is one of the biggest reasons that could keep CBS with their Prime timeline/universe because it would separate the franchises.

 

[eyeresist]

I do agree that the best setting would be 100-200 years after the prime franchise ended.

I've seen this suggestion a lot, but I don't see how it's feasible. Unless technology somehow stands still, far future humans would be unrelatable.

 

[theREVENGEofKAHN]

I've seen this suggestion a lot, but I don't see how it's feasible. Unless technology somehow stands still, far future humans would be unrelatable.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. So 24th century humans are repayable but 25th and 26th century humans aren't? That's like saying a show about 17th century humans is unrelatable but a show about 18th century humans is. So does that mean you cannot relate to the "Three Musketeers" or when you watch the "Tudors" that's unrelatable?

Besides, I don't see a problem with a depiction of the future of humanity. Isn't that the point of Star Trek? To show an ideal culture that we can aspire to become. The whole premise of the franchise is based around this and as they explore the universe their futuristic ideals are challenged and in doing so our contemporary ideals are challenged as well.

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I just don't see the logic in your statement.

 

[eyeresist]

The tech will have to have advanced from the Berman era. If they have basically the same gadgets, bridge layout, social problems, how is it an advance?

 

[ADz83]

The tech will have to have advanced from the Berman era. If they have basically the same gadgets, bridge layout, social problems, how is it an advance?

It worked when TNG was produced. They changed a hell of a lot.
I wouldn't like to see the jump in years though. I would prefer 20 years max.

 

[-Brett-]

The tech will have to have advanced from the Berman era. If they have basically the same gadgets, bridge layout, social problems, how is it an advance?

The point wouldn't be to show technological advancement, it would be distance from TNG/DS9/VOY, and relief from the rigid continuity less distance would impose. At the same time, they'd still be close enough for references and callbacks that nerds seem to love.

Of course that assumes anyone actually wants to call back to those shows, which they probably don't. Just playing the devils advocate here.

 

[fireproof78]

If the characters are interesting, and the stories are engaging, then that is more important than the technology.

But, there is a concern, at least for me, that the technology can only advance so far before it becomes essentially magic. I know, there are arguments that we are already there, as we got replicators and transporters, but there was an aspect that semi made sense to me. And that might be due to growing up with Star Trek tech and accepting it.

What changes could be done to the technology that would still feel consistent in the course of the world?

One of the reasons why I like the idea of a new continuity is that conceptions of technological advancement can build upon contemporary developments that could be more interesting. But, as I stated at the beginning, the characters should be the focus point, not the technology. The technology should be trappings not always the focus.

 

[ADz83]

If the characters are interesting, and the stories are engaging, then that is more important than the technology.

But, there is a concern, at least for me, that the technology can only advance so far before it becomes essentially magic. I know, there are arguments that we are already there, as we got replicators and transporters, but there was an aspect that semi made sense to me. And that might be due to growing up with Star Trek tech and accepting it.

What changes could be done to the technology that would still feel consistent in the course of the world?

One of the reasons why I like the idea of a new continuity is that conceptions of technological advancement can build upon contemporary developments that could be more interesting. But, as I stated at the beginning, the characters should be the focus point, not the technology. The technology should be trappings not always the focus.

Magic? lol

How is a transporter or replicator magic?

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

If the characters are interesting, and the stories are engaging, then that is more important than the technology.

Yep. And that's why I also don't care what continuity the new show is set in. Give me good stories and characters, and I'll be good. It would be interesting to see a clean slate with technology so that the writers are not beholden to what was futuristic and technologically advanced in the 1960s.

 

[urbandefault]

With a new Trek series, three things are certain:

1. Fans will love it.
2. Fans will hate it.
3. Fans will pay to watch it.

#3 guarantees that CBS wins.

 

[eyeresist]

1. Star Trek
2. ???
3. Profit!

 

[T'Girl]

With a new Trek series, three things are certain:

1. Fans will love it.
2. Fans will hate it.
3. Fans will pay to watch ii

4. Fans will wait a few years and catch it on TBS, inbetween old episodes of The Big Bang Theory and Two Broke Girls..
.

 

[fireproof78]

Magic? lol

How is a transporter or replicator magic?

How do they work? What components or technology do we have understanding to build it?
The current theory on transporters from some studies is that a transporter would likely kill the original person and build a perfect copy from the information to recreate the person.

Here's an article from NASA that talks about different Trek tech

Here's the brief section on transporters:

We don't have a clue about how to really build a device like the transporter. It uses a beam that is radiated from point A to point B where it STOPS at just the right precise place -- even passing through some barriers along the way -- and reconstructs the person it carries on the spot. Or it captures a person's pattern, dematerializing him or her, and brings the person to some other point. All of the rematerialized atoms and mol ecules are somehow in the precisely correct positions, with the right temperatures and adhering together just as if the transportee had not been dematerialized. Rematerializing, why doesn't everything fall to pieces if a gust of wind or just normal gravity disturb the reappearing atoms? Nothing in the physics of today gives a hint about how that might be possible. Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd Law says, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." But we can't assume every magical feat could be accomplished, given sufficiently advanced technology.

Today, small numbers of atoms and photons have been teleported. The principal use of this trick will be in quantum computer development, which has the potential to solve extremely complex mathematical problems extremely fast.

The Star Trek transporter wasn't used much for one of its greatest powers: space battles, when the transporter would be devastatingly effective at removing patches of the hull of an enemy starship. Maybe that's too easy to fit the show's plots.

 

[ADz83]

How do they work? What components or technology do we have understanding to build it?
The current theory on transporters from some studies is that a transporter would likely kill the original person and build a perfect copy from the information to recreate the person.

Here's an article from NASA that talks about different Trek tech

Here's the brief section on transporters:

Still doesn't mean they're "magic", Just means you do not understand them.

 

[fireproof78]

Still doesn't mean they're "magic", Just means you do not understand them.

Semantics. If it is indistinguishable from magic then what's the point?

Again, please explain to me the science behind it so that I can understand it.