Heh, I remember there was a fanon idea in the 70s-80s that Number One and Chapel were sisters.
What I don't understand about the show being a reboot.
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
Idea for a new book?
The Lenard Equation.
(For an even higher degree of difficulty, you also work in General Urko from PLANET OF THE APES.)
Don't forget Aaron Stemple from the novel Ishmael.
Now, i haven't watched all the series but why wouldn't Paramount want to do 25th century series? Its been a long enough gap, technolgy for TV has increased, this way you can move the story forward without worrying about tying it to TOS... if DSC is set in the prime timeline, then we're not going to see cameos from recent movies... The die is already cast, but i don't see the downside of making a new trek show even post 24th century. It's still Trek. People will watch.
Because they story they want to tell is one set in the 23rd century, therefore it will be set there. It's that simple.
No, i understand that... I just don't believe there's some wall to not go forward in time... like they're not setting this before TOS because of the recent movies or to have TOS guest stars..and I don't think its because they think it will draw more of an audience.
I think the series is set when it is because that is the era most associated with Star Trek in the public conscious. When they sat down and decided to do a new series they must have had this discussion; whilst most existing fans would love to see a post-DS9 show, the public knows of Kirk and Spock the best, especially with the new movies set in a similar era. It's the new fans that CBS is targeting as they are the ones they need to entice to watch and then hopefully become new fans. Most existing fans will be 'low-hanging fruit' and will probably tune in no matter what...
But you're not getting Kirk and Spock...you're getting a whole new cast in that era, true.. but anyone on these forums are the people concerned with the era.. Any new fans that like the Trek movies will see Trek on it and go "i'll try that" or they won't... based on how the promos are, how it looks..
That theory holds more weight imo if we got some of the same characters.
That theory holds more weight imo if we got some of the same characters.
The date is ultimately arbitrary. And, the further away the story drifts from real time, the more abstract and transcendental it becomes.
So go with what people know.
So go with what people know.
We are getting Sarek and Harry Mudd.
No doubt, after the show debuts, the creators will be able to discuss their reasoning for picking this time reason. Right now all we can do is speculate.
One of these days somebody may indeed do a post-VOYAGER series, and there will be pros and cons to that, but apparently they chose to go another way this time . . . for reasons that may or may not become evident once we actually watch it.
One of these days somebody may indeed do a post-VOYAGER series, and there will be pros and cons to that, but apparently they chose to go another way this time . . . for reasons that may or may not become evident once we actually watch it.
Serious question: Is Discovery a hard reboot, that ignores previous shows?
Not that we know of. Allegedly, it takes place about a decade before the Original Series, more or less.
Definitions of what constitutes a "reboot" vary.
The last I heard was that it was a prequel to TOS, too, but lately I have been reading different.
I guess my definitions are:
hard reboot= similar to BSG
soft reboot= similar to Star Trek 2009
I guess my definitions are:
hard reboot= similar to BSG
soft reboot= similar to Star Trek 2009
LIke I said, people's definitions vary. At one extreme, some will argue that it's a "reboot" if it doesn't look exactly like "The Cage" or isn't 100% percent consistent with every last bit of previously established continuity. At the other end of the spectrum, some of us will argue that it's not really a reboot if it's more or less consistent with the old shows, allowing for some reasonable tweaks and updates. ("Reasonable," of course, being a highly subjective standard.)
There are degrees of "reboot-iness."
There are degrees of "reboot-iness."
