I don't think you understand the difference between "plot" and "setting".
Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse
- Thread starter fyre
- Start date
Kurtzman: OK CBS money people, you have two choices: A. Do you want a series based on a bunch of shows that continuously declined in ratings for 10 years and ultimately was cancelled that hasn't been on the air in a decade, or B. Do you want a series based on a hot movie franchise that has made almost a billion dollars worldwide in the last 6 years?
Regardless of what anyone thinks, this is pretty much how the argument will look in the corporate offices of CBS All Access. The only reason they are making a series is because of how successful the current movies are. To not base the series on them would be like deciding right now to make a Star Wars movies based solely on the prequels. You strike while the iron is hot.
Regardless of what anyone thinks, this is pretty much how the argument will look in the corporate offices of CBS All Access. The only reason they are making a series is because of how successful the current movies are. To not base the series on them would be like deciding right now to make a Star Wars movies based solely on the prequels. You strike while the iron is hot.
THIS - the last Star Trek show that had mainstream popularity finished 22 years ago and peaked in the ratings 25 years ago.
Absolutely nobody at CBS is saying "man how can we tap into the voyager audience" and as Squiggy points out, they have hired one of the creators of nuTrek for a reason...
BermanTrek doesn't feature on the radar as a "choice" in the first place. No more than duplicating the 60s TOS formula would.
Yeah, they'll try to crowbar the FX blitz that was JJTrek onto the small screen to impress the adolescents. Fitting that style into episodic format will be like thumping a square peg into a round hole. Episodic format traditionally has had limitations that the big screen does not, which will probably give us some "third style" with this series. Or at least I hope they do.
I believe you are confusing style with setting. It will be set in the new timeline. That doesn't necessarily mean they will have the same style as the movies. For example, Limitless the TV series is set in the same universe as the Limitless movie, but has a much different style. It has a more comedic tone than the movie. One is not necessarily tied to the other.
Thinking about it there is a lot of different ways/angles they could go with this.
If it is set in JJverse it doesn't necessarily have to be in Kirk era, it could also possibly be set in Picard era?
I've made my preference clear in that I would want a Prime sequel but if it was set in JJverse I think I would probably enjoy a JJverse/TNG reboot.
I think my aversion to the JJverse as a TV series is that I don't like it going backwards with tech. I did like the movies but just can't see it working as a TV series again.
If it is set in JJverse it doesn't necessarily have to be in Kirk era, it could also possibly be set in Picard era?
I've made my preference clear in that I would want a Prime sequel but if it was set in JJverse I think I would probably enjoy a JJverse/TNG reboot.
I think my aversion to the JJverse as a TV series is that I don't like it going backwards with tech. I did like the movies but just can't see it working as a TV series again.
It could be set in any time period - but what would be the point? TNG happened because seeing a crew of 50 and 60 somethings cruising about the galaxy wasn't appointment viewing. They set it ahead 70 years so they could have something familiar (Enterprise) with something new (crew).
There's zero reason to set it in the nu2360s except to pander to an irrelevant minority of current fans who would watch it no matter what decade it was set. We've had Trek set on different ships and in different centuries. Having another ship in the same timeframe as nuKirk isn't too much to swallow.
Again, the series isn't going to be connected to the movies. What little we know of the series, at least we know that much. It's not going to be Pine's Kirk or the JJPrise except maybe as a cameo.
The only difference in having a Prime Series and a nuSeries is going to be the existence of Vulcan and the bulbousness of the nacelles.
Regardless of that, it's going to look like something produced in 2017 with all the fx that comes with it.
Why can't it work as a series? Yes the movies were more action oreintated than the tv shows, but so were all the movies. It's not like the show would be a non stop action fest. It will be Star Trek, probably with all the baggage that comes with it too.
This. I agree with this point.
CBS is aware of what makes money for them, and their merchandising programs have proven successful with more TOS variety items than many other series. Despite the interest by different groups, Kirk and Spock have the more popular name recognition.
I think, with the recent films and their success, there is an interest in capitalizing on that interest, and grow it from there. The show, as mentioned, will likely not be an action fest in the way that many of the films have been, including many of the TNG films.TV formatting can allow more exploration and commentary that has become associate with Star Trek, even if the shows were not always that way.
I'm confusing nothing as I've made the point myself that it could share the universe and be of a different style. See TOS and TNG for details. And I wouldn't be so cockily confident about what "timeline" it will be in. They could easily choose to restart it from a clean slate alá nuBSG.
Yeah they could "easily" set it in a new universe, but why do that when they have a shiny new popular one to play with? If I were a betting man, I would wager the odds it being set in the jjverse to be pretty high.
And no, ADz83, that's not an invitation for your silly bet.
And no, ADz83, that's not an invitation for your silly bet.
Last edited:
This. This is why it won't be a new universe. That's not cocky, that's an understanding that corporations want to maximize profits, and the easiest way is to attach it to an already popular property.
My current bet: serial series, reboot or mash-up of some existing Trek material OR sequel/reboot like Force Awakens, nuBSG storytelling style, nuTrek-esque "look," and there will be guest star/cameo roles portrayed by previous Trek actors - not necessarily playing their previous characters, and not necessarily ongoing roles.
I agree. Corporations, especially Hollywood ones, want a sure thing.They don't want to risk too much money and face an unsympathetic audience when they produce bomb after bomb. That's not a good business model in a time when studios are already reducing the number of films produced and audiences are more reluctant to spend hard earned money.
A question occurred to me based upon this discussion earlier and I'm curious to other people's perspectives. Why is Abrams films less worthy to be produced as a TV series than other properties? I mean, Marvel did "Agents of Shield" and Star Wars has provided several different television series. Even Chronicles of Riddick universe is getting a possible TV show, according to Vin Disel. So, why not Abrams Trek?
I don't think it's not necessarily unworthy or even unlikely (Alex Kurtzman producing and the success of the JJverse are strong data points) but it does seem less appealing to me. I'm frankly tired of all the reboots and general unoriginality in today's pop culture. I feel like a Star Trek set in an alternate timeline but still in the past compared to where we left the previous timeline is just a rehash of what I've already seen. It's the same feeling I got watching Into Darkness. Am I supposed to get excited because your making references to a movie I already saw; a better, more successful movie?
Yes, I consider Wrath of Khan more successful because it helped revitalize the franchise, had at least 4 sequels, has been imitated by multiple other movies, is on many "best sci-fi movies of all time" lists, and we are still talking about it today.
But I digress, the point is I don't want to see a different version of something I've already seen. Especially Star Trek which is about looking to the future and new possibilities. The reason I support the 100 years after TNG setting is that it can appeal to both sets of fans. It sets itself apart from everything before but doesn't erase it either. Doctor Who did this when they rebooted in 2005. It was set far enough ahead to separate itself from the show that was canceled in '89 (in part due to the popularity of TNG) but it didn't erase the long history of the show either. Thus keeping its old fans while creating new ones.
I think many of you are focusing on two data points and ignoring everything else. Paramount and CBS are two different companies and don't necessarily get along. The short term success of two movies doesn't necessarily erase the success of a 50 year franchise that has created more content than any other sci-fi franchise. Not to mention part of the success of those movies is the Star Trek brand recognition, not just the fact that the new movies were directed by JJ. So the hardcore fans saw those movies as well. The new fans, the ones that say "I don't like Star Trek but I like the new movies", those guys don't give a damn what universe this show takes place in. The show won't have any of the stars from the movies, so that aspect of the movies wont appeal to them and draw them in. All they are going to see is a show called Star Trek and if it's well written,has interesting characters, and has some action/adventure mixed in, they will watch it.
I don't know if the CBS execs are using the same train of thought as me. I hope they are but I don't think that either universe is a given. It's up in the air right now an no one can say till we hear more in a few months.
Simple. Because some people are in denial that this is the future of Star Trek now. Most fans tend not to think like corporate executives or TV producers; they think like fans. And as we all know, every fan is going to think completely differently about what "true" Star Trek should be. Which is why no fan should ever be in charge of an official production.
In 1987 after four successful Star Trek movies why didn't Paramount produce a series based on the original crew? Why did they opt to create a TV show based on a new crew 70 years after the movies were set? It seems pretty dumb to me considering they were making so much money on those movies.
CBS and Paramount may be different companies but Hollywood studios are still driven by a desire for predictable income. Regardless of my personal feelings on Abrams Trek, it is hard to ignore the financial impact that Kirk and Spock and their era has on the larger public perception of Star Trek. I mean, I can't walk in to my favorite entertainment store and look at Star Trek merchandise without their being a large majority being from the TOS era. CBS has recognized that merchandising is a large part of their Star Trek profits, and have kept TOS as part of the front runner in that effort.
I don't think that looking at Abrams Trek is the same as looking back, as there are definitely more stories that could be told in the TOS era, and in the nuTrek era due to the larger implications of Vulcan's destruction and various aliens being shown in the films.
That's my larger point-Abrams Trek means you can explore those implications, those species, those new facets, with already set limitations on the technology from the films. Limitations can actually create more opportunities for drama and development.
Well, it is a business, no matter what. TV and film production are a business and that still has to be recognized. Despite GR's own ideas with Star Trek, he still was very much aware of the financial side of things.
Similar threads
