Bryan Fuller showrunner for new trek...consequences?

[Greg Cox]

That "explanation" is an incidental story point, a stylistic choice. There have been countless prior reinventions that haven't had any such "explanation," and audiences haven't had a problem understanding it. Because most people are smart enough to know the difference between fiction and reality and thus don't need an "explanation" for how there can be two or more different versions of an imaginary concept..

Agreed. It's possible to overthink this and, aside from THE FLASH, none of the various superhero reboots have felt obliged to actually "explain" themselves via abstruse multiversal conceits from the comics--because there's never been any real need to do so. Most moviegoers understand the concept of remakes and reboots well enough--and don't require any sort of "in-universe" justification for it.

"Is this supposed to be the same Joker that fought Michael Keaton in that other BATMAN movie? You know, the one played by Jack Nicholson?"

"Nah, they started the series over in the last movie, the one with Katie Holmes."

"Got it."

I seriously doubt whether many moviegoers came out of THE DARK KNIGHT wondering whether it was set on Earth-1 or Earth-2 or groping for multiversal theories to explain why Heath Ledger was playing the Joker differently than Nicholson or Cesar Romero.

Sometimes a reboot is just a reboot.

 

[Christopher]

Most moviegoers understand the concept of remakes and reboots well enough--and don't require any sort of "in-universe" justification for it.

Yup. Some fans get too invested in the pretense that this represents "reality" of any kind, and forget that it's just people telling stories. Give the same story subject to different people, and they'll think up different ways of telling it. They'll make it their own. And that's the only explanation necessary.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The idea of "I am being deprived if other people are allowed to have something of their own" is the worst kind of entitlement and egocentrism.

Even worse is when they demand that the new version should be shut down, because life without ANY new product in a franchise is supposedly better (for all) than letting new fans see a revised/refreshed version that might even create interest in the past.

 

[20fridge]

The one advantage to multiverse explanation is that it allows for crossovers. I suspect that the Flash/Supergirl crossover will involve the Flash traveling to Supergirl's universe. And if this new Star Trek is a reboot set explicitly an alternate universe, that opens the door for characters from the prime universe (and Abramsverse) to crossover. I don't think such crossover would be essential for the success of the show but it would be fun.

 

[TheAlmanac]

It's possible to overthink this and, aside from THE FLASH, none of the various superhero reboots have felt obliged to actually "explain" themselves via abstruse multiversal conceits from the comics--because there's never been any real need to do so. Most moviegoers understand the concept of remakes and reboots well enough--and don't require any sort of "in-universe" justification for it.

You're taking the opposite meaning from what I'm trying to say--I think The Flash is playing into fans' understandings of reboots and "abstruse multiversal conceits from the comics" because the audience is more into that now than it used to be. The fact that The Flash is doing it where older superhero stories didn't is a demonstration of the new trend I'm referring to (and its very newness).

Again, I'm not really talking about creative choices qua creative choices, but creative decisions that are being made for business reasons. I'm seeing a trend where audiences want all their favourite franchises (not just comic-based or even genre fiction in general) to continue their stories indefinitely rather than achieving closure or being remade, and studios (who could choose to do otherwise) are playing to that market.

I seriously doubt whether many moviegoers came out of THE DARK KNIGHT wondering whether it was set on Earth-1 or Earth-2 or groping for multiversal theories to explain why Heath Ledger was playing the Joker differently than Nicholson or Cesar Romero.

At no point did I claim there was any confusion over different continuities (though my conversations with people about Highlander show that it can happen ). The general unspoken rule is that as long as a particular actor (or group of actors) is playing the same character (or set of characters, barring the odd individual recast here and there), those stories are in the same continuity, and people get that.

What I am claiming is that the preferences of audiences/studios are changing. To extend your example, where even ten years ago the instinct would've been to reboot another version of Batman, I don't see that happening for some time going forward--I imagine studios have gotten tired of having to set up new versions when continuing previous versions is possible. (Do you really think Sony wouldn't've rather had one Spider-Man film franchise that kept working out instead of three versions of Spider-Man in ten years? When their second go at it didn't work out, they signed onto the big continuing storyline instead...)

Besides, your Cesar Romero reference allows me to point out that the Batman '66 comic did allow people to get a continuation of that version of Batman anyway. I tend to think the recent DC and Marvel event series which told new stories in old continuities are also examples of what I'm talking about.

The one advantage to multiverse explanation is that it allows for crossovers. I suspect that the Flash/Supergirl crossover will involve the Flash traveling to Supergirl's universe.

It also allows the DCW to have it both ways--setting up multiple universes while also being the "same" franchise, while also appealing to corners of fandom like fans of Constantine and people who want to see John Wesley Shipp as The Flash one last time.

 

[JD]

It's the Arrowverse, not the DCW.

 

[Avro Arrow]

We're concerned for the same reason that we'd have been concerned about, say, the cancellation of Journeyman, that's all: that a good narrative is going to be forced to end early without a proper conclusion for reasons not related to its popularity or quality but for reasons completely outside of its control.

I tried to give you an extra like on this post for specifically mentioning Journeyman, but no, XenForo has some crazy "one like per post" rule...

So should this scenario happen, I hope Trek fandom at least takes it with a bit more dignity than Star Wars fandom did when the Expanded Universe was nullified.

... Dare I ask what happened in the SW fandom?

A bunch of bitter angry rants about Disney "betraying fandom" after they invested over 20 years into the EU, even though there was never a real possibility Disney was going to follow the EU's continuity anyway.

Ah, I see. A reasonable hope, then; Trekkies are renowned for their lack of bitterness and anger, and for never ranting about anything, ever.

 

[Idran]

I tried to give you an extra like on this post for specifically mentioning Journeyman, but no, XenForo has some crazy "one like per post" rule...

I'll admit, I might still be a little bitter over that one.

 

[jaime]

I'm not sure what you are saying about Nikita here, the show ran for 4 seasons with 73 episodes and the majority of reactions I saw to it over those 4 years was pretty positive. I honestly have no idea how the hardcore La Femme Nikita fans felt about it, but there don't seem to be the same number of people complaining about it compared to the original as there are for things like BSG.

But there is no reason you can't do that kind of stuff with a reboot, the conversations might not play out in exactly the same manner, but there would still be conversations about how the versions relate.

Really? Almost all of the reactions I've seen to the comic have been positive. Did you actually read it, or did you just not like the art style?

Execution is all I care about, I don't care if it's reboot or continuation as long as it's done well.

I don't mind reboots at all. I think it can often be really fun to take a different look at a concept. Sometimes reboots just don't work, but sometimes the changing times can cause people to bring an interesting new perspective to the concept. I think BSG and Planet of the Apes are perfect examples of that. I don't think either of those destroyed or hurt the originals in any way, but they still managed to take things in different direction that works at least as well as the original.

I have said everything I am likely to on reboots.

I will answer the jem question though: hated the art style.
I read a lot of comics in the 90s, strangers in paradise springs to mind as a good example to show that it wasn't just x men, and spent some time going to indie comic events with a mate of mine who writes and draws one, and am a bit of an artist myself, so it's not coming from some odd place.
I have fond memories of watching the cartoon in the 80s, I liked it more than my sister.....
I saw the comic and....Man. It look horrible. I can't comment on the writing or anything like that, but the art made me practically recoil.
Still tried to buy an issue but comixology was having a transatlantic hissy fit for me long enough for me to come to my senses.
Just horrible.

 

[jaime]

You're taking the opposite meaning from what I'm trying to say--I think The Flash is playing into fans' understandings of reboots and "abstruse multiversal conceits from the comics" because the audience is more into that now than it used to be. The fact that The Flash is doing it where older superhero stories didn't is a demonstration of the new trend I'm referring to (and its very newness).

Again, I'm not really talking about creative choices qua creative choices, but creative decisions that are being made for business reasons. I'm seeing a trend where audiences want all their favourite franchises (not just comic-based or even genre fiction in general) to continue their stories indefinitely rather than achieving closure or being remade, and studios (who could choose to do otherwise) are playing to that market.



At no point did I claim there was any confusion over different continuities (though my conversations with people about Highlander show that it can happen ). The general unspoken rule is that as long as a particular actor (or group of actors) is playing the same character (or set of characters, barring the odd individual recast here and there), those stories are in the same continuity, and people get that.

What I am claiming is that the preferences of audiences/studios are changing. To extend your example, where even ten years ago the instinct would've been to reboot another version of Batman, I don't see that happening for some time going forward--I imagine studios have gotten tired of having to set up new versions when continuing previous versions is possible. (Do you really think Sony wouldn't've rather had one Spider-Man film franchise that kept working out instead of three versions of Spider-Man in ten years? When their second go at it didn't work out, they signed onto the big continuing storyline instead...)

Besides, your Cesar Romero reference allows me to point out that the Batman '66 comic did allow people to get a continuation of that version of Batman anyway. I tend to think the recent DC and Marvel event series which told new stories in old continuities are also examples of what I'm talking about.



It also allows the DCW to have it both ways--setting up multiple universes while also being the "same" franchise, while also appealing to corners of fandom like fans of Constantine and people who want to see John Wesley Shipp as The Flash one last time.

Man. Highlander. The only time I have had to leave the room and pretend something didn't exist in a franchise when it obviously did. The source. So awfully made.
I was lucky. I had always managed to totally miss highlander 2, and roughly everything else can be sort of made to fit.

 

[Csalem]

I know people are worried about the new TV series and what it means for the novels but two things strike me:

1). I love the novels, and buy about 90% of them but ultimately for me Trek is a TV show and I want to see a good Trek TV series again. And if that means the novel continuity has to be dropped, so be it. It is a price I am willing to pay for great TV Trek again. And anyway, the novels will still be there. It won't be a case of us having to burn them all and pretend they never existed.

2). Is it not also the case that Pocket could appoint a new editor tomorrow who may decide to only do novels set during the seven seasons of TNG and nothing else? We never know what could happen so better to go with the flow and wait and see what actually does happen and not get worried over possibilities.

 

[Christopher]

2). Is it not also the case that Pocket could appoint a new editor tomorrow who may decide to only do novels set during the seven seasons of TNG and nothing else? We never know what could happen so better to go with the flow and wait and see what actually does happen and not get worried over possibilities.

Possible but unlikely, since presumably the emphasis on post-series novels reflects the reading audience's preference for such books, and an editor who was so deaf to audience preference wouldn't last long. But that's the reading audience. The TV audience is far vaster, so if there's a new series in the mix, then the TV audience's preference carries the most weight.

 

[TheAlmanac]

It's the Arrowverse, not the DCW.

You knew what I meant, right?

I'm aware that "Arrowverse" is the commonly-used term, but I've preferred "DCW" ever since I first encountered it, so I'll stick to the term I like that's an easy-to-understand pun on "DCU" and takes less time to type.

 

[Greg Cox]

Possible but unlikely, since presumably the emphasis on post-series novels reflects the reading audience's preference for such books,.

I don't know. Seems to me that the standalone TOS books are doing quite well these days as well.

Not that I'm biased or anything . . .

 

[Christopher]

I don't know. Seems to me that the standalone TOS books are doing quite well these days as well.

Sure, but TOS is kind of a different animal, since it didn't have the same kind of ongoing storylines as the other series.

Although, as you know, there seems to be a bit of a renewed interest in the TOS movie era lately...

 

[Greg Cox]

Sure, but TOS is kind of a different animal, since it didn't have the same kind of ongoing storylines as the other series.

Although, as you know, there seems to be a bit of a renewed interest in the TOS movie era lately...

You don't say.

 

[Leto_II]

Although, as you know, there seems to be a bit of a renewed interest in the TOS movie era lately...

Indeed...

 

[JD]

You knew what I meant, right?

I'm aware that "Arrowverse" is the commonly-used term, but I've preferred "DCW" ever since I first encountered it, so I'll stick to the term I like that's an easy-to-understand pun on "DCU" and takes less time to type.

But it doesn't really fit anymore since 2 of the 6 shows aren't CW shows. It's also the term used by the producers and people involved with the shows, so it just seems weird to me not to use it.

 

[Christopher]

But it doesn't really fit anymore since 2 of the 6 shows aren't CW shows.

On the other hand, 5 of the 6 shows aren't Arrow, so you could make a case either way...

(If anyone's confused, the six shows are Arrow, The Flash, and DC's Legends of Tomorrow on The CW itself; the animated Vixen on the CW Seed online service; NBC's Constantine, which was retroactively folded in post-cancellation when John Constantine appeared on Arrow; and CBS's Supergirl, which is set in a different universe but is about to be visited by the Flash through multiversal hijinks. And depending on how you interpret an image in last week's Flash episode, there might be a seventh series included in the multiverse, the 1990 CBS version of The Flash.)

It's also the term used by the producers and people involved with the shows, so it just seems weird to me not to use it.

Yep, it seems to have been settled on as the official (or at least pseudo-official) label.

 

[trampledamage]

(If anyone's confused, the six shows are Arrow, The Flash, and DC's Legends of Tomorrow on The CW itself; the animated Vixen on the CW Seed online service; NBC's Constantine, which was retroactively folded in post-cancellation when John Constantine appeared on Arrow; and CBS's Supergirl, which is set in a different universe but is about to be visited by the Flash through multiversal hijinks. And depending on how you interpret an image in last week's Flash episode, there might be a seventh series included in the multiverse, the 1990 CBS version of The Flash.)

Thank you! (And I mean that genuinely - I don't know the DC tv shows at all)