Sorry, I've see that since TOS aired so I'm not someone going to be offended (as if a TV show could offend me) because they dare to *checks notes* make money.
Would remaking TOS episodes make you upset?
- Thread starter eschaton
- Start date
Sorry, I've see that since TOS aired so I'm not someone going to be offended (as if a TV show could offend me) because they dare to *checks notes* make money.
Seeing Trek turn into soulless trash would make me upset.
I've already been there, done that, and gotten several T-shirts. I will be perturbed and move on. There is nothing in Trek that demands my attention or loyalty to ever single iteration. Maybe that's the difference for me. I already experienced that disappointment with several other Trek installments so stepping away is a nonissue.
I did it with TNG, I did it with VOY and I did it with Enterprise.
It's been soulless with the IDIC badge, and at times with other aspects. It's really ok.
If they did this, they would lose me before I even started.
Now, THIS, I would absolutely LOVE to see. Of course, I am imagining it with the original voices, over some sort of deep faked or cgi'd rendition of the sets. lol.
It's 100% impossible for them to give me a series about adventures taking place between TOS episodes that I would find accurate enough, so nothing about that idea would interest me. A faithful post-TMP series is more plausible as those were movie-quality sets, but I seriously doubt it'll ever happen so I don't care about that idea either.
I can't think of a single remake I've ever enjoyed as much as the original and I'm at the point now where I pretty much skip all of them, so a TOS remake has basically no appeal to me. Would it make me upset though? If they said that time travel had erased the old continuity and this is what actually happened, then yeah I wouldn't like that at all. I give Trials and Tribble-ations a pass, but that's the limit. DON'T TAPE OVER MY TOS. If it's explicitly stated to be a Kelvin-style parallel timeline however, then fine, whatever. Maybe it'll get new viewers into Star Trek, maybe some good could come out of it. Either way I'll probably skip it.
To summarise:
New TOS adventures -
TOS remake -
TOS parallel universe -
Something new that builds on existing continuity -
Leave TOS to the novels and comics etc. in my opinion.
I don't care what they do. I haven't gotten anything that I have truly wanted since the fanfilm crackdown. I came to terms a long time ago with the fact that they taped over my TOS, and at this point, I just want the final proof of it. So I guess, go ahead and contradict it in every single way possible, so that we can finally put to rest that things were rebooted about 30 years ago.
And how many remakes of Beau Geste?
I don't know where Trek fans get the idea that Star Trek continuity is 100% consistent post TOS.
It wasn't that way in TOS, TAS, or the TOS feature films...
Nor TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT...or the TNG feature films.
(And anyone who says "They tried more/paid more attention to it in the 90s 'Berman Era' I'd delusional as no, the didn't. If continuity interfered with the story they were telling, the still changed or ignored existing continuity.)
STD, LDS, PIC, and SNW are no different in that regard either.
STAR TREK continuity has never been 100% consistent throughout the franchise run, and no; no one set of Producers has been 'better at continuity consistency' than another. They all have ignored or changed parts of existing continuity when they felt doing so served a story they were telling better.
Many Trek fans love to try and rationalize certain elements of this to try and make Trek continuity more internally consistent; but the fact is:
Trek continuity has always been constantly inconsistent.
If you want to tie yourself in knots and promote your internally consistent head canon as the 'one true version' of consistent Trek continuity, knock yourself out. But you're then just being delusional.
It wasn't that way in TOS, TAS, or the TOS feature films...
Nor TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT...or the TNG feature films.
(And anyone who says "They tried more/paid more attention to it in the 90s 'Berman Era' I'd delusional as no, the didn't. If continuity interfered with the story they were telling, the still changed or ignored existing continuity.)
STD, LDS, PIC, and SNW are no different in that regard either.
STAR TREK continuity has never been 100% consistent throughout the franchise run, and no; no one set of Producers has been 'better at continuity consistency' than another. They all have ignored or changed parts of existing continuity when they felt doing so served a story they were telling better.
Many Trek fans love to try and rationalize certain elements of this to try and make Trek continuity more internally consistent; but the fact is:
Trek continuity has always been constantly inconsistent.
If you want to tie yourself in knots and promote your internally consistent head canon as the 'one true version' of consistent Trek continuity, knock yourself out. But you're then just being delusional.
I think it comes down to wanting that world to be consistent and frustrated the apparent apathy by creative people.
The simpler truth is that these creative people are not fans, are not driven like fans, and do not treat continuity as a holy writ that cannot be changed. The creatives never really have. What we got was some wonderful fans who attempted to paper over the disparities and that got taken as gospel. But, revisiting TOS, or even early TNG and VOY there was inconsistencies.
It's why TOS always stands apart for me. It's not connected in the visual sense to TNG, to TMP, to TWOK in any way that matters. if TOS doesn't occur as portrayed in dramatic form that doesn't mean the events didn't happen; only that the sets changed.
Nice how you respond to one sentence because the rest of the post speaks to the fact its NOT apparent apathy; it's often a conscious decision based on story and even possibly budget.
And TNG is only visually connected to TMP because they reused many of the exact same set pieces to SAVE MONEY - and it really had always thrown me because they want you to believe internal ship design hasn't changed in 80 years, or that a lot of the ships last 100 years (or they never changed external designs either.)
You see the 24th century still populated with 23c Mirandas and Excelciors only because they were good already existing filming models that were already paid for.
And who are you to say "These Producers aren't fans..."
That WAS true for Berman and Braga (and they said as much when asked); but a good majority of the people working on the shows in this Kurtzman era are fans *and yes, they know when they are ignoring continuity <-- But like Trek producers before them, they have what they consider a good reason.
It's not due to apathy.
Exactly. It's never the apathy that fans declare it as such or even hatred. It's creative people operating inside limitations and wanting to create inside of those.
Their attitude will not be like our fan attitude. They can be fans all they want. Fans can afford all the time in the world to nitpick, go over frame by frame, and redo projects again and again.
Regardless if they are fans, there is a different level of engagement.
I was actually agreeing with your point.
IDK - I honestly don't feel there's any apathy towards Trek continuity on the Producers part.
Also, it's not a 'different level of engagement' per se; as when it's a big noticeable change they may truly feel like 'we' (IE fans not directly involved in the production) do - BUT in the end they have a job to produce an episode within certain budget and other constraints - and that's a situation only those who HAVE actually produced something (including fan film producers, anyone who's made something out to the public to watch/listen to) can honestly understand.
Of course not. It's a fan perception, especially with things that are done counter to fans wishes. Sour grames, in other words.
I have not felt a change in a production because I thought a producer might be a fan.
Yes, this.
And yet they'll be judged, castigated, and maligned by those who do not understand.
If SNW catches up to Kirk taking command, I think a better approach is to make episodes that take place "between" existing TOS episodes. If they want to remake some of the more popular episodes just for the fun of it, I'm down for that so long as this doesn't take over the show.
How many years take place between SNW S2 and TOS S1?
How many years take place between SNW S2 and TOS S1?
SNW S2 is apparently 2259 and TOS S1 is 2266, so about 7 years. But SNW S1 was also 2259, so at this rate it'll take another 14 seasons to catch up.
I'm not that big on SNW in general. I don't think I'd watch remakes of original episodes when I could just... watch the originals. And even so, if I was a SNW fan I'd probably prefer to see new stories instead of ones that have already been done.
I like rewatching the original series. A new Kirk / Spock original series would be okay. I just don't want Skydance to do it. I actually think the idea of doing stories that happened every other week might work. I remember they did this with a Spider-man comic (Untold Tales of Spider-man).
I think remaking things is stupid, but in between episodes maybe, ie SNW should definitely do parts of "The Menagerie" for its season finale. I'd just do Season 4 but call it Boldly Go or The New Frontier or something.
I'd love to see certain classics remade. However, I don't think the current writers are courageous or talented enough to do it right, nor do I believe the fanbase adult enough to cope with the concept of a remade story.
Similar threads
