Evidence of SNW being a possible alternate timeline from TOS

[BillJ]

That's the exact same argument I heard back in the 80s.

Then The Next Generation came along which paved the way for more series and new movies. Thank goodness the TNG creative team didn't have such a limited imagination or the franchise would have ended after TUC.

Limiting the entire Star Trek Universe to Kirk, Spock and McCoy would be like limiting the entire Marvel Universe to the Fantastic Four.

There’s a difference between 79 episodes and a thousand. The material becomes dense and contradicting. I do wonder if there’s any numbers on how many fans Star Trek has picked up in the last decade of deep nostalgia.

 

[ichab]

How many James Bond’s have there been?
How many Sherlock Holmes?

Those shows were based on novels about one character. Neither are science fiction series about an entire universe.

You mentioned Marvel above. How man times have both Marvel and DC comic series been rebooted?

So I respectfully disagree.

None of which stopped making new characters after a few successes. Good thing Stan Lee didnt say," Well, Fantastic Four was a hit so let's not worry about making anything new.

Nobody had heard of Guardians of the Galaxy until the James Gunn film. So dont tell me that new cant be done . We have an entire MCU that says you're wrong.

 

[BillJ]

None which stopped making new characters after a few successes. Good thing Stan Lee didnt say," Well, Fantastic Four was a hit so let's not worry about making anything new.

I see this and wonder how you can’t see the difference between the two? There aren’t just four characters in Trek. There are 11 TV series and 14 movies.

 

[fireproof78]

Thank goodness the TNG creative team didn't have such a limited imagination or the franchise would have ended after TUC.

More's the pity.

 

[ichab]

I see this and wonder how you can’t see the difference between the two? There aren’t just four characters in Trek. There are 11 TV series and 14 movies.

No kidding. So why reboot the same characters a second time? Why is it so difficult to create a new ship with a new crew written by competent people?

I seriously hope whomever takes this over has better imagination than another alternate reality or a reboot.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

I do wonder if there’s any numbers on how many fans Star Trek has picked up in the last decade of deep nostalgia.

I can only say for sure the answer to that question is at least 1. My housemate had a very meh opinion of star trek and could take it or leave it. But has been subjected to the streaming era shows and really likes SNW and Academy and absolutely loved Lower Decks.

 

[Campe]

None of which stopped making new characters after a few successes. Good thing Stan Lee didnt say," Well, Fantastic Four was a hit so let's not worry about making anything new.

Nobody had heard of Guardians of the Galaxy until the James Gunn film. So dont tell me that new cant be done . We have an entire MCU that says you're wrong.

I never said it CAN’T be done. Like I said, there needs to be a balance. Modern Trek, like it or not, has had a balance. 23rd century in seasons 1 and 2 of Disco and SNW. 24th/25th century with Picard, Lower Decks and Prodigy. Both eras very much steeped in past Trek trying to keep the levels of fanbase happy. And seasons 3-5 of Disco and SFA pushing into the future and sure, having tendrils into the past, but also trying to do new things. But none of it has worked as well as I think they’ve wanted it to. But does that say more about the content itself? Or the franchise as a whole? I think you could make the argument either way and probably at least be partially right.

As for the MCU, particularly post-Endgame, there have been far more misses than hits. Even that winning formula (and I do mean formula) got stale after awhile. So much so it’s more than likely post-Secret Wars, there’s going to be some level of reboot.

At the end of the day, everything gets stale given time and exposure.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Those shows were based on novels about one character. Neither are science fiction series about an entire universe.

Holmes has his own "universe" with various characters coming in and out. Even spinoffs based on those character and ones based on brand new characters with ties to Holmes.

 

[fireproof78]

Holmes has his own "universe" with various characters coming in and out. Even spinoffs based on those character and ones based on brand new characters with ties to Holmes.

Same thing with the Dresden Files and the interweaving of mythology and fantasy in the real world.

 

[Mudd]

DS9 and the rest never got an oppertunity on the big screen. Berman TV style got old and lost viewers because it didnt stay fresh. . The Kelvin films did fine, but if you reboot that cast again its only going to lead to diminishing returns. You cant keep recycling the same characters and concepts over and over and expect different results. All characters and stoylines have a shelf life and the Kirk crew passed its shelf life a very long time ago.

Nope.

Every new creative team they bring in has circled back to the Enterprise and some close variation of the original characters.

Not the same producers repeating themselves. Every new team.

Because to new people, what works and what matters to non-Trekkies is obvious.

Trek doesn't "explore a universe." It repeats a few skiffy tropes dating back at least to the 1940s, within a familiar and reassuring context constructed using a few formulas that work for them.

It's become a comforting narrative. And nothing's likely going to make it new again - at least, nothing that won't alienate the audience it has.

 

[Dukhat]

No kidding. So why reboot the same characters a second time? Why is it so difficult to create a new ship with a new crew written by competent people?

Because they would rather take a known quantity like Kirk, Spock, and the NCC-1701 and jump off from there. That's why they keep rebooting Superman and Batman movies instead of making a movie about a guy kinda like Superman or Batman but isn't.

 

[ichab]

Because they would rather take a known quantity like Kirk, Spock, and the NCC-1701 and jump off from there. That's why they keep rebooting Superman and Batman movies instead of making a movie about a guy kinda like Superman or Batman but isn't.

Except Superman was always about Superman and Batman stories were always about Batman. If the name of the show was Captain Kirk then your reference would make more sense and I would get the James Bond type recycling. But the name of the franchise is Star Trek which is not just about one character or one crew. It never has been. That's why the new series was always about different crews and ships. Or DS9 case, not even a ship but a crew on a space station.

And who is they? As far as I know, there has been no official announcement about Star Trek's future.

 

[Quinton]

Except Superman was always about Superman and Batman stories were always about Batman. If the name of the show was Captain Kirk then your reference would make more sense and I would get the James Bond type recycling. But the name of the franchise is Star Trek which is not just about one character or one crew. It never has been. That's why the new series was always about different crews and ships. Or DS9 case, not even a ship but a crew on a space station.

And who is they? As far as I know, there has been no official announcement about Star Trek's future.

The point about the franchise's name only goes so far, IMO. People hear "Batman" and they think Batman, of course. Unquestionable. You don't reboot Batman and not feature Batman. But the general public, they hear "Star Trek," and "Kirk and Spock" are the likeliest ones to enter their heads—even today.

That's anecdotal, and I always take care to point this out, but sometimes anecdotes really are demonstrative of broader situations. I firmly believe this is one of them.

I'm not even too hot on the TOS era, personally. I'm one of those Millennial-aged bastards who'd take another few shows in the 24th/25th centuries if I could have them. Or something else in the 22nd. Or just about anywhere that isn't yet another mid-23rd "remember Kirk and Spock?" moment. But here we are. My favorite media IP's greatest degree of cultural zeitgeist continues to surround my least favorite era; I've long accepted that, and I simply treasure those rarer moments when I'll ask non-fans to name characters and they'll at least say "Picard" (or, sometimes, "Patrick Stewart") before blanking out on the rest.

So... yeah. Putting on my strictly-business hat, it will not surprise me in the least if TOS/TOS-adjacent is once again where we're headed in the years to come.

 

[HotRod]

But the name of the franchise is Star Trek which is not just about one character or one crew. It never has been.

I take it you missed that whole period between 1966 and 1987.

 

[TRON JA307020]

That might be true but at the end of the day, a series has to make money. To the masses, Star Trek is the Enterprise, Kirk, Spock and McCoy. The further you get away from that, the masses aren’t going to be interested. There has to be a balance between appeasing old fans and bringing in new fans.

We cant keep rebooting the original crew with new Kirk, Spock and McCoys. TNG was a completely new crew. Huge success back in the 80s. Spawned 4 movies. Their crew became nearly as iconic as kirks. People will accept a new crew if its written well.

 

[HotRod]

Their crew became nearly as iconic as kirks.

 

[Quinton]

Yeahhh... I dunno... there's no denying TNG was a success (thank goodness!), but...

 

[cooleddie74]

Picard and Data become pretty iconic. Riker seems mostly known for sex jokes and his legendary leg lifting capacity. Worf is probably THE best known and most famous Klingon around the world. But yes, TNG was a runaway hit that got numbers TOS never dreamed of.

 

[fireproof78]

Their crew became nearly as iconic as kirks

No.

Sorry, but no. Kirk, Spock and Scotty and McCoy were fairly recognizable, with Sulu and Uhura standing out a little too. Picard, maybe Data and Worf, were the popular ones of TNG, and even then they were not as popular as Kirk.

Picard and Data become pretty iconic. Riker seems mostly known for sex jokes and his legendary leg lifting capacity. Worf is probably THE best known and most famous Klingon around the world. But yes, TNG was a runaway hit that got numbers TOS never dreamed of.

This is more accurate, that it got more eyes on it than TOS. Which is an achievement in of itself.

We cant keep rebooting the original crew.wuth new Kirk, Spock abd McCoys.

Yes, we can!

Except Superman was always about Superman and Batman stories were always about Batman. If the name of the show was Captain Kirk then your reference would make more sense and I would get the James Bond type recycling. But the name of the franchise is Star Trek which is not just about one character or one crew. It never has been. That's why the new series was always about different crews and ships. Or DS9 case, not even a ship but a crew on a space station.

Honestly, the series should have stopped with TNG and TUC. Better state all around.

 

[Campe]

TNG was a completely new crew. Huge success back in the 80s.

Yes. And if you asked people today who would Patrick Stewart be known for? Picard or Professor X?

Spawned 4 movies.

Three of which were shit. The other that is good but overrated.

Their crew became nearly as iconic as kirks.

Eh. That’s an opinion.

People will accept a new crew if its written well.

TNG’s early years were certainly not written well. They had much more runway than most series nowadays have before audiences and content providers give up on them.

I cannot deny TNG’s success. But it was the exception. Not the rule.