It seems there is a reason for the visual reboot and the producers aren't being honest about it.

[Rahul]

Worse, because now you have to hold up to 750 hours of what came before, as opposed to 150ish (ENT and TOS).

They have to assess those entire 750 hours anyway - to not be in direct contrast to what appears in them.
That's the drawback of working in an established franchise. You have to do that in any case.

Prequel-ing is actually even harder, because now you don't have to not only know the basics about all the 750+ hours as well, but you have to actively avoid many of those topics - like holodecks, the Borg, sentinent androids in Starfleet and stuff.

 

[Vger23]

They have to assess those entire 750 hours anyway - to not be in direct contrast to what appears in them.
That's the drawback of working in an established franchise. You have to do that in any case.

Prequel-ing is actually even harder, because now you don't have to not only know the basics about all the 750+ hours as well, but you have to actively avoid many of those topics - like holodecks, the Borg, sentinent androids in Starfleet and stuff.

Excellent point

 

[Lord Garth]

Exactly. The complaints we would hear would almost wound like something out of the Shatner SNL skit. "In voyager season 4 episode 39, voyager was able to do xyz without any trouble. this new show is 100 years after that so they should have been able to do the same thing and should have had it in their data banks that it was possible so this whole episode never should have even been a conflict or problem for the crew". type stuff.

It is almost a lose-lose for the writers.

I think if it were 100 years after VOY, then it wouldn't matter as much. How often in 2018 do most people talk about 1918? Stuff from TNG/DS9/VOY wouldn't be referenced as much, if at all.

If it were immediately after VOY, that might be different. But most episodes of TNG and VOY were self-contained. On the other hand, since DSC is more like DS9, it wouldn't be self-contained.

 

[fireproof78]

Worse, because now you have to hold up to 750 hours of what came before, as opposed to 150ish (ENT and TOS).

And now the "fan expectations" would be that everything is LCARS aesthetics, and that we need to hear about what happened with every single Berman-era character (for all those complaining that it's fanwanky that we see Sarek and hear about Spock, etc).

So, there would be just as much hatred and venom....just from different people and for different reasons.

That's why I'm at the point now where I just want them to do their thing. You're going to piss people off no matter what, because the fanbase is what it is. So just do it and let the chips fall where they may.

It seems to be that way. I'd rather they try something new and fail than not try at all.

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

Worse, because now you have to hold up to 750 hours of what came before, as opposed to 150ish

For some people, that would be a privilege, and a genuine pleasure to do.

A lot is made of how Star Trek's history is a burden to write for, but it isn't a burden to people who love the material. Unlike say Marvel's Cinematic Universe, run by Kevin Feige (who you just know is probably the kind of guy who can cite references to an issue of Thor from 1970s), Star Trek has sometimes had to settle for people with a somewhat less fanatical love for the material, who see it as more of an interest and job (i.e. Abrams).

 

[eschaton]

Worse, because now you have to hold up to 750 hours of what came before, as opposed to 150ish (ENT and TOS).

And now the "fan expectations" would be that everything is LCARS aesthetics, and that we need to hear about what happened with every single Berman-era character (for all those complaining that it's fanwanky that we see Sarek and hear about Spock, etc).

So, there would be just as much hatred and venom....just from different people and for different reasons.

One of the biggest pitfalls of going post-VOY is the producers (and likely the modern showrunners) would still want the show to be edgy, grimdark, show flawed characters, etc. This would feel even more out of place post-VOY, because it would be either implying that everything we saw before was a lie, or the Federation went to shit (basically, the same thing that people are complaining about with Disney Star Wars crapping all over the "happy ending" of the original trilogy.

Of course, the easy way around it would be to have a show which doesn't focus on a Starfleet vessel for once. Like, focus on a Starfleet Intelligence operative working to bust up a major cell of the Orion Syndicate or something. But no, the one aspect of Trek we're stuck with is "the format."

 

[cultcross]

For some people, that would be a privilege, and a genuine pleasure to do.

A lot is made of how Star Trek's history is a burden to write for, but it isn't a burden to people who love the material. Unlike say Marvel's Cinematic Universe, run by Kevin Feige (who you just know is probably the kind of guy who can cite references to an issue of Thor from 1970s), Star Trek has sometimes had to settle for people with a somewhat less fanatical love for the material, who see it as more of an interest and job (i.e. Abrams).

Generally those who have a "fanatical love" for a property are not the ones you want writing it because you just end up with small universe syndrome and self referential fanwank. You need people with a willingness to take risks, do new things and expand what exists, not fan film makers with a budget. If anything, Discovery needs a lot less Trek fanaticism in the writers' room.

 

[Rahul]

One of the biggest pitfalls of going post-VOY is the producers (and likely the modern showrunners) would still want the show to be edgy, grimdark, show flawed characters, etc. This would feel even more out of place post-VOY, because it would be either implying that everything we saw before was a lie, or the Federation went to shit (basically, the same thing that people are complaining about with Disney Star Wars crapping all over the "happy ending" of the original trilogy.

Of course, the easy way around it would be to have a show which doesn't focus on a Starfleet vessel for once. Like, focus on a Starfleet Intelligence operative working to bust up a major cell of the Orion Syndicate or something. But no, the one aspect of Trek we're stuck with is "the format."

IMO the solution is pretty easy: There have been two large scale conflicts - the Borg invasion(s), and the Dominion War. Shit like that brings the worst out of people.

You usually don't ever have Utopian peace as a direct result of war (as DIS' klingon war arc tries to imply) - ut's usually the other way 'round: One conflict pretty much immediately fuels the next. The only way to cool that down, is if it already is cooling down. The slow end of the Cold War is a great example: There was a fragile peace for so long, people actually got accustomed to peace.

It would be very easy for a post-NEM show to jus tell: Some colonies have fallen out of their post-scarcity conditions during those conflicts. Now everything is already repaired, but the emotional wounds are still healing. People have - for a short period of time - again been confronted with the worst of humanity, and some have lost their unchallenged faith in humans always doing the right thing.

It would be a time of reconstruction. Still Utopian. But with it's own history and delusions.

 

[Rahul]

Generally those who have a "fanatical love" for a property are not the ones you want writing it because you just end up with small universe syndrome and self referential fanwank. You need people with a willingness to take risks, do new things and expand what exists, not fan film makers with a budget. If anything, Discovery needs a lot less Trek fanaticism in the writers' room.

Star Trek needs a "story group" like Star Wars (and surely Marvel) have: A bunch of nerds whose sole jobs is to keep an eye on continuity. Those people would incidentally be great in coming up with new ideas ("this stoy thread is still open" "This would be a topic for this time") and change already existing ones to fit better ("Why not use this sepcies instead? They are already established and the story works the same").

But who would still be different from the actual writers - fans there allowed of course as well - but their main job would be the development of new ideas and bringing them into an enjoable form.

 

[Ralphis]

Just retroactively set the show in its own timeline... it's own alternate universe... separate from Prime, Kelvin, Mirror, Antimatter, etc. That way they can do whatever they want (within reason) and the fans don't have to get angry when it doesn't completely line up with canon. The seeds have already been planted to do something like that as it was made clear that the Spore Drive could theoretically take you anywhere in the Multiverse.

 

[Jedman67]

I think most casual viewers just consider it a reboot.
The 25% is a directive from CBS Legal. Maybe due to the Axanar lawsuit?

 

[Noname Given]

OK, how do we know the round nacelles issue wasn't also to do with copyright - or the radical klingon redesign? In fact it seems that DSC cannot legally use any TOS designs!! Bonkers, I know, but there it is....

Also, there are a ton of comments in the thread, where they clarify that its legal reasons and not creative ones that prevent them using TOS designs. Below are quotes from Facebook.

"Gabriel Charles Koerner John Eaves, was the "25 percent difference" mandate creative or legal?"
Scott Schneider Legal.
"Gabriel Charles Koerner Scott, fascinating. I'd heard this before. Which seems very odd to me, as I would assume CBS owned all legacy Trek assets carte blanche, except the Kelvin timeline films, whose merch still goes through CBS..."
John Eaves after Enterprise properties of Star Trek, ownership changed hands and was devided so what was able to cross show VS tV up to that point changed and a lot of the cross over was no longer allowed. That is why when JJ's movie came along everything had to be different. the alternate universe concept was what really made that movie happen in a way as to not cross the new boundries and give Trek a new footing to continue.



"Scott Schneider Alex Rosenzweig and the 25% is typically the number used when making one product similar to another. It must be at least 25% different in order to avoid copyright infringement. This is common with many products. Ive also come up against this in the past when using inspiration from other ideas that were copyrighted. In fact back on coneheads we used Libbius woods designs for Remulak and production was threatened with a lawsuit because it was too close and we had to change the models "20-25% " to avoid a lawsuit. This is nothing new or exclusive to trek."

"Gabriel Charles Koerner Man, its just baffling, considering that CBS can sell the original Constitution Class design in form of toys, model kits, all manners of licensed merch... but it can't be included in new Trek TV productions?"

"John Eaves Samuel Cockings your asking the wrong guy. I only know there is a division of property and when the task at hand asks for 25% changes or a whole new design I know that what ever it is is not allowed to be used"

"John Eaves after Enterprise properties of Star Trek, ownership changed hands and was devided so what was able to cross show VS tV up to that point changed and a lot of the cross over was no longer allowed. That is why when JJ's movie came along everything had to be different. the alternate universe concept was what really made that movie happen in a way as to not cross the new boundries and give Trek a new footing to continue."

I will never understand why they didn't just make that more publicly known up front? I really npow have to wonder if it's because of the rights deal they made with Franz Joseph (and now his estate) over the Star Trek Technical Manual and Blueprints first released in the Mid-1970ies; and the fact that GR pissed off FJ in the run up to ST:TMP (GR was upset FJ was going to charge royalties if material (diagrams and such) were lifted and used in the film; plus the fact those same FJ designs and technical manual background was again licensed by FJ to the company nthat made the "Star Fleet Battles" series of tabletop games.
^^^
Thnat could be why the designs are no longer available (although it doesn't explain how they were able to be used for DS9 - "Trials and Tribble-ations" OR TOS Remastered (done in 2004) or ENT - "In A Mirror Darkly" (2005) unless Paramount paid royalties back then and decided they didn't want to go through that again for ST: D.

And although I'm loath to bring it up (because Alec Peters is a crook, IMO) - it makes CBS/Paramount'a assertions that they did own the IP and its designs lock-stock-and barrel in that case interesting; if the above is the situation in any way shape or form. (IE - that the original TOS TV series era ship designs are no longer the sole property of CBS or Paramount.)

 

[Lord Garth]

Antimatter

The Anti-Matter Universe. I see what you did there. "The Alternative Factor"!

 

[Vger23]

It seems to be that way. I'd rather they try something new and fail than not try at all.

TOTALLY agree! The "play it safe" era was far worse than anything we've seen in the post 2009 era, at least according to my personal tastes.

 

[Vger23]

One of the biggest pitfalls of going post-VOY is the producers (and likely the modern showrunners) would still want the show to be edgy, grimdark, show flawed characters, etc. This would feel even more out of place post-VOY, because it would be either implying that everything we saw before was a lie, or the Federation went to shit (basically, the same thing that people are complaining about with Disney Star Wars crapping all over the "happy ending" of the original trilogy.

Of course, the easy way around it would be to have a show which doesn't focus on a Starfleet vessel for once. Like, focus on a Starfleet Intelligence operative working to bust up a major cell of the Orion Syndicate or something. But no, the one aspect of Trek we're stuck with is "the format."

I think one of the reasons you see Trek with an "edgier, more grim dark" approach (it's all relative, BTW...as DCS and the JJ movies are still very optimistic compared to about 85% of what's out there now) is that the fanbase has shown time and time again that this is what they WANT.

The most popular movies amongst general fan polls?

TWOK (revenge, violent, body horror, pew pew, explosions, death themes)
TUC (brinksmanship, war, assassination/murder, conspiracy, pew pew, explosions, prejudice/bigotry/fear)
FC (revenge, pew pew, explosions, horror, manipulation, darkness, fear)

Commonly very popular series episodes?

"Yesterday's Enterprise"
"In The Pale Moonlight" (hell, the entire DS9 war arc is a huge fan favorite!!)
"Conspiracy"
"The Best of Both Worlds"

This is stuff the fans have been asking for. I think it's sometimes wrong that we attribute the modern entertainment landscape to the desire to make Star Trek a certain way tonally....when really it's what we've shown we want time and time again.

It will be interesting to see what S2 of DSC brings. Seems like the journey is intended to be sort of a "from the darkness into the light" thing...but the including of Section 31 gives me pause to that point.

We shall see!!!

But- to the point...I agree with your assessment entirely.

 

[Vger23]

For some people, that would be a privilege, and a genuine pleasure to do.

A lot is made of how Star Trek's history is a burden to write for, but it isn't a burden to people who love the material. Unlike say Marvel's Cinematic Universe, run by Kevin Feige (who you just know is probably the kind of guy who can cite references to an issue of Thor from 1970s), Star Trek has sometimes had to settle for people with a somewhat less fanatical love for the material, who see it as more of an interest and job (i.e. Abrams).

I don't think "a burden to write for" is nearly as much a factor these days as the desire to engage new fans without the baggage of all that crapola. And- it's FAR more perception than reality.

 

[Mudd]

There's no way to know, at this point, if any of this is true.

 

[Krandor]

And although I'm loath to bring it up (because Alec Peters is a crook, IMO) - it makes CBS/Paramount'a assertions that they did own the IP and its designs lock-stock-and barrel in that case interesting; if the above is the situation in any way shape or form. (IE - that the original TOS TV series era ship designs are no longer the sole property of CBS or Paramount.)

The judge indicated they own the rights period. No speculation on other people having rights.

From the judge's order.
"CBS owns the copyrights in the Star Trek Television Series, while Paramount owns the copyrights in the Star Trek Motion Pictures. Plaintiffs also jointly own United States copyrights in numerous other Star Trek works including novels in which Garth of Izar and Star Trek starships appear (collectively with Star Trek Television Series and Star Trek Motion Pictures, “Star Trek Copyrighted Works”)."

 

[eschaton]

The most popular movies amongst general fan polls?

TWOK (revenge, violent, body horror, pew pew, explosions, death themes)
TUC (brinksmanship, war, assassination/murder, conspiracy, pew pew, explosions, prejudice/bigotry/fear)
FC (revenge, pew pew, explosions, horror, manipulation, darkness, fear)

I understand what you're getting at here, but at the same time Trek movies have historically had a much more limited palette than the shows as a whole. That is to say over 3/4ths of Trek movies fall on the "good action movie" to "shitty action movie" spectrum. The only ones which do not are TMP (which was a boring mess), STIV (which was a lighthearted comedy) and arguably STIII (the Klingon scenes always seemed perfunctory to me - not really needed for the emotional core of the movie).

Commonly very popular series episodes?

"Yesterday's Enterprise"
"In The Pale Moonlight" (hell, the entire DS9 war arc is a huge fan favorite!!)
"Conspiracy"
"The Best of Both Worlds"

There are just as many critically acclaimed episodes which are basically focused on pathos however. The Visitor, The City on the Edge of Forever, The Inner Light, Far Beyond the Stars, etc. Plenty of darkness, but not grimdark by any means.

 

[Jadeb]

Conspiracy is a popular episode??

There's a danger to reducing these things to shared components, then assuming those components are why people like them. It's how the bean-counters do business, and it explains a lot about much of modern movie-making. That's how you get Batman Vs. Superman.

I'd argue both Trek II and VI work because they tell very personal stories on a grand scale, not because of how bright or dim the lights are.

You can look at Trek II as grimdark, if you want to put it in a box, but it's also almost joyous. And that's why it's great.