That period lasted 3 years the last time. (ENT ended in 2005 and JJ Abrams STAR TREK debuted in 2009 and got us to where we are today...)
IF you include TAS from 1969 to today there has never been more than a 4 year gap between Paramount saying TV and Movie Trek is dead and then bringing a new Trek TV or Feature Film project to the masses.
now with starfleet academy being axed because it was set way into the future which was away from the past star trek shows
i do not think the future star trek shows will ever move on to the shows set in the future and most likely be stuck with future shows that will be set between enterprise and voyeger via picard
i do not think the future star trek shows will ever move on to the shows set in the future and most likely be stuck with future shows that will be set between enterprise and voyeger via picard
yup
As a total, unapologetic reboot. Not a whisper about the Prime or Kelvin timelines. No alternate timeline claptrap.
Absolute reset across the board.
Last edited:
i expect that is exactly what they'll do. They will likely do a total reset. Back to TOS era again
Just put a crew on a ship and have them go on adventures. The general public won't even know if it's been reset or not.
The original proposed post-2005 movie was going to be an Earth-Romulan War film that would have been set at the same time as the NX-01 but we'd have never seen Archer or Enterprise, and Shran would have been the only crossover character between the series and that movie. They could do that. Set at the same time as TOS but you never, ever see a TOS character or just one shows up the entire time.
Isn't that basically Discovery?
Discovery had at least six TOS characters show up in the first two seasons.
Thus the qualifier of basically
Why do people assume a total reset/reboot would have to go back to the 23rd century? If you give some new showrunner carte blanche to rebuild Star Trek from the ground up, why assume they're doing a show about familiar characters in a familiar time? For that matter, if they don't want to do something radically different, why bother with a reset or a reboot?
There’s only two reasons to do a reboot.
1. You want to tell the same basic story with the same basic characters, but without needing to worry about 60 years of continuity getting in the way.
2. You want to turn it into something completely different.
I personally don’t see some future producer wanting to make Star Trek completely unrecognizable. At the same time, I also don’t see them rebooting Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise for the fourth time. Then again, what is the incentive for creating yet another new ship and new crew, which has already been done in TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC, PIC, LSD, PRO, SNW and SFA?
1. You want to tell the same basic story with the same basic characters, but without needing to worry about 60 years of continuity getting in the way.
2. You want to turn it into something completely different.
I personally don’t see some future producer wanting to make Star Trek completely unrecognizable. At the same time, I also don’t see them rebooting Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise for the fourth time. Then again, what is the incentive for creating yet another new ship and new crew, which has already been done in TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC, PIC, LSD, PRO, SNW and SFA?
The best approach would be a new starship, with no ENTERPRISE, and a new crew.
"Captain's log, stardate 54321.0. Captain Phil N. LeBlanc in command of the Starship Generica."
I'm already bored.
