How desperate are you for a new Trek TV series?

[JarodRussell]

Well, people didn't like the idea of established canon being cast aside in favor of new information. My friend had a fit when the Borg made an appearance.

Star Trek has been doing that since the beginning. Very little continuity or canon is written in stone. James R Kirk, UESPA, Vulcanians, the conquest of Vulcan (by humans?), the 23rd Century setting, Data's Academy graduation date, Spot's sex and breed, the look of the Trill, the A's deck count, Saavik's appearance, the Klingon's appearance, the Romulan's appearance and the Hansen's discovery of the Borg are all changes in or from continuity. ( "Canon" just being the collected works currently accepted by TBTB)

Exactly. Star Trek is not an encyclopedia. It's a story being made up as it goes along. And sometimes the writers change their minds when a better idea comes along.

That's just how it works.

Those are examples for uneccessary detailed minutiae.

Kirk had a son with Carol Marcus, his son was killed by Klingons, he was later accused of assassinating the Klingon chancelor, then was a key figure in the peace treaty with the Klingons. And then he time traveled 80 years into the future and died after helping Captain Picard.

Those are examples for important continuity bits.

 

[Greg Cox]

Star Trek has been doing that since the beginning. Very little continuity or canon is written in stone. James R Kirk, UESPA, Vulcanians, the conquest of Vulcan (by humans?), the 23rd Century setting, Data's Academy graduation date, Spot's sex and breed, the look of the Trill, the A's deck count, Saavik's appearance, the Klingon's appearance, the Romulan's appearance and the Hansen's discovery of the Borg are all changes in or from continuity. ( "Canon" just being the collected works currently accepted by TBTB)

Exactly. Star Trek is not an encyclopedia. It's a story being made up as it goes along. And sometimes the writers change their minds when a better idea comes along.

That's just how it works.

Those are examples for uneccessary detailed minutiae.

Kirk had a son with Carol Marcus, his son was killed by Klingons, he was later accused of assassinating the Klingon chancelor, then was a key figure in the peace treaty with the Klingons. And then he time traveled 80 years into the future and died after helping Captain Picard.

Those are examples for important continuity bits.

In one timeline, sure, but it's worth noting that Star Trek was around for over fifteen years before we even knew that David Marcus existed. It's not like David is an intrinsic part of Kirk's character from Kirk's conception. We all knew who Kirk was long before he picked up a hitherto-unmentioned son (who died one movie later). In the grand scheme of things, David is basically a footnote.

Sure, David is now solidly established in the Prime Timeline, but it's certainly possible to imagine a new version of STAR TREK in which you do without David. Just because something happened in one version doesn't mean that it has to happen in a new production--or that the new production got it "wrong" if they go another way.

Again, these are theatrical productions, not history books. You're allowed to revise and update them.

 

[BillJ]

Again, these are theatrical productions, not history books. You're allowed to revise and update them.

Heretic!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek has been doing that since the beginning. Very little continuity or canon is written in stone. James R Kirk, UESPA, Vulcanians, the conquest of Vulcan (by humans?), the 23rd Century setting, Data's Academy graduation date, Spot's sex and breed, the look of the Trill, the A's deck count, Saavik's appearance, the Klingon's appearance, the Romulan's appearance and the Hansen's discovery of the Borg are all changes in or from continuity. ( "Canon" just being the collected works currently accepted by TBTB)

Exactly. Star Trek is not an encyclopedia. It's a story being made up as it goes along. And sometimes the writers change their minds when a better idea comes along.

That's just how it works.

Those are examples for uneccessary detailed minutiae.

Kirk had a son with Carol Marcus, his son was killed by Klingons, he was later accused of assassinating the Klingon chancelor, then was a key figure in the peace treaty with the Klingons. And then he time traveled 80 years into the future and died after helping Captain Picard.

Those are examples for important continuity bits.

Those are just as unnecessary. None of them are needed to tell a story.

 

[BigJake]

Exactly. Star Trek is not an encyclopedia. It's a story being made up as it goes along. And sometimes the writers change their minds when a better idea comes along.

That's just how it works.

It is probably useful, however, to remember that canon is not just a straitjacket -- which is how some people seem persistently to think of it. It's also a resource, one that used right can be rewarding and that ignored can be distracting.

Take a commonly-cited example, ENT's treatment of first contact with the Klingons in Broken Bow. First contact with the iconic Klingons is one of those pieces of Trek lore that one is presumably doing a prequel in order to tell. And existing canon provides a "seed" narrative -- Picard's reference to the disastrous first contact with the Klingons -- that could lead to any number of compelling stories.

Now, does Broken Bow have to use that seed or risk violating Holy Writ? No. OTOH, does it particularly benefit from ignoring it? No. Would a story using that seed potentially have been more engaging than what we got with Broken Bow? Quite possibly yes, although it wasn't that bad as ENT episodes went.

This is where I'm sympathetic to continuity complaints. If the existing continuity is being ignored or retconned in favour of something that is actually a better idea, that's one thing. But if it's being ignored or retconned in favour of something blander and less entertaining, or dumber, or out of sheer mulish refusal to use canon as a resource, that's something else. That's refusing to play to the strengths of working within an established franchise with a vast backstory to draw from. And yes, ENT did suffer from that and it was at times distracting, though it had many even worse problems.

Trek's "Prime" continuity became snarled eventually by the accumulation of such refusals until it's become less of a resource and more of a hindrance. But it didn't have to be that way, and that's not a necessary approach to continuity, Trek or otherwise.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Greg's pretty adept at using continuity in his novels and has even managed to turn a few sow's ears into silk purses.

 

[Greg Cox]

Greg's pretty adept at using continuity in his novels and has even managed to turn a few sow's ears into silk purses.

Thanks! Wait until you see the next one . . .

 

[BigJake]

Greg's pretty adept at using continuity in his novels and has even managed to turn a few sow's ears into silk purses.

I really do need to acquaint myself with his books one of these days.

 

[tomalak301]

I want a new series, but I don't think I want it to be on HBO. I don't want Nudity on Trek, nor do I want it to be dark and depressing and make me want to slit my wrists like the new Battlestar Galactica. Other than that, I'm excited for one, but there is plenty of Trek out there to keep me entertained, even if the last Abrams movie was disappointing.

 

[Clark Terrell]

Greg's pretty adept at using continuity in his novels and has even managed to turn a few sow's ears into silk purses.

Yes, he is. Having recently read To Reign in Hell, I can attest to his ability to explain seeming continuity errors in ways that not only make sense but also make things more interesting.

Thanks! Wait until you see the next one . . .

Can't wait.

I really do need to acquaint myself with his books one of these days.

I'd recommend it.

 

[Greg Cox]

We should probably mention that there's a difference between shrugging off continuity in the same continuity and not being strictly beholden to the past when you're rebooting something. I'm very careful about trying to be faithful to TOS if I'm writing a book with William Shatner or Ricardo Montalban on the cover. But if I was to write another nuTrek book, I wouldn't worry about contradicting what went on before. That's a whole different ballpark.

Earlier, I was mostly objecting to the notion that any new production wouldn't be STAR TREK unless it respected the continuity of the previous versions. Which is never how reboots work . . . and kinda flies in the face of the entire history of revamping and updating old stories.

To get personal again, when I adapted MAN OF STEEL, I didn't try to sneak in references to Krypto or the Legion of Superheroes or red kryptonite, even though I've used all those elements in some of my other SUPERMAN novels. This was a new version, with a new continuity, so I deliberately ignored all that cool old stuff and treated it as a new story without any baggage.

No reason you can't do the same with STAR TREK.

 

[BigJake]

^ NuTrek was however quite specific about tying itself to the original universe and telling us that it's an alternate version of that canonical universe, which as has been pointed out (and correctly, too) is really not the same thing as a clean reboot. We're no doubt meant to give it the same latitude we would a clean reboot anyway, but it has been specified not to be that*.

(* And the alternate universe idea opens up a number of cool possibilities and ways to play with canon, which suggests they wanted to keep canon as a resource without being absolutely bound by its specifics. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that; as it stands some may think it's a good idea largely wasted on cartoony pseudo-parodies, but it is a perfectly good idea.)

I personally think a total reboot and the freedom to build an entirely new continuity would be great.

 

[Clark Terrell]

No reason you can't do the same with STAR TREK.

I agree, and to be honest with you, I don't know why Star Trek is treated differently than other TV or movie series. I don't know of too many people who complained that Christopher Nolan's Batman was different than the Tim Burton films from the late eighties and early-to-mid nineties. But I suppose part of that is due to Batman having been rebooted several times in various comic book and cartoon adaptations, something that hadn't happened to Star Trek until the Abrams films came out.

I never saw Man of Steel and can't comment on whether I like it better than the Christopher Reeve films or the Smallville series, which I've only seen bits and pieces of. I've also yet to see the new Robocop, so I don't know if I'll like it better than the original, of which I'm a big fan.

 

[BigJake]

But I suppose part of that is due to Batman having been rebooted several times in various comic book and cartoon adaptations, something that hadn't happened to Star Trek until the Abrams films came out.

At risk of repetitiveness: still hasn't happened. NuTrek specifically ties itself in with the established continuity, it's not really a reboot. (Something more like Elseworlds is what they might have had in mind.)

 

[Warped9]

But I suppose part of that is due to Batman having been rebooted several times in various comic book and cartoon adaptations, something that hadn't happened to Star Trek until the Abrams films came out.

At risk of repetitiveness: still hasn't happened. NuTrek specifically ties itself in with the established continuity, it's not really a reboot. (Something more like Elseworlds is what they might have had in mind.)

For all intents and purposes, yes, it has. The whole way they treat the subject matter is indicative of it being a reboot. Yeah, they try to connect it to what came before, but it's a dishonest gimmick. They change the look of everything including the background and try to pretend it's alsways been that way.

 

[BigJake]

For all intents and purposes, yes, it has. The whole way they treat the subject matter is indicative of it being a reboot.

Well, quite. And I do think they would been better off just coming out and saying that if that's how they wanted to proceed.

 

[Greg Cox]

But I suppose part of that is due to Batman having been rebooted several times in various comic book and cartoon adaptations, something that hadn't happened to Star Trek until the Abrams films came out.

At risk of repetitiveness: still hasn't happened. NuTrek specifically ties itself in with the established continuity, it's not really a reboot. (Something more like Elseworlds is what they might have had in mind.)

It's a reboot with a spiffy sci-fi fig leaf. And, yeah, this means that there are limits to how much they can tweak things. They can't make Spock a woman or whatever without tearing the fig leaf to shreds.

But it does mean that, going forward, we don't have to worry about where Gary Mitchell is or expect Kirk and crew to have the same exact adventures for the next umpteen years. Kirk doesn't have to have a son or get killed by Soran or promoted to Admiral or whatever. Spock and Uhura can get married or break up or have a baby without violating "canon." Vulcan can blow up. Amanda can die. The future history of the Federation is not set in stone unto the next generation and beyond. You don't have to worry about contradicting TNG or DS9 or Voyager. It's a wide-open future.

I've used this metaphor before. It's like ripping off the continuity band-aid in one swift movement, and getting it over with, rather than suffering endless nitpicking over whether the next movie or TV series is 100 percent consistent with three lines of dialogue in "Journey to Babel" or whatever.

As for changes in art direction . . . well, those are just changes in art direction, like the new Klingon makeups in TMP. They don't necessarily require an in-universe explanation; just a little suspension of disbelief and remembering that you're watching a fictional drama, not a documentary.

 

[Warped9]

For all intents and purposes, yes, it has. The whole way they treat the subject matter is indicative of it being a reboot.

Well, quite. And I do think they would been better off just coming out and saying that if that's how they wanted to proceed.

It certainly would have allowed them more creative freedom. But here, again, they simply set about miring themselves in the past. And they do it again in the second film.

There are few essential elements to stick with and then you can build from that. But instead they chose to tie themselves to a lot of familiar references and simply rearrange them.

 

[BigJake]

But it does mean that, going forward, we don't have to worry about [series of examples] It's a wide-open future.

Strictly speaking, you don't have to worry about continuity at all, or about thinking through how one is borrowing from continuity an alternate timeline. Any more than you have to worry about writing good dialogue or characters (Star Wars stacks Benjamins without need of either), or than you have to worry about a coherent, believable plot (ST09 made money without one), or than you have to worry about any number of other niggling little details of craft.

Like I said, it's just a resource, potentially enriching if used well, potentially distracting if ignored or flubbed. If you tie into it, it will then be noticeable if you then go on use it badly (cf. some people's issues with John Harrison / Khan), or discard it in favor of ideas that aren't an improvement.

It certainly would have allowed them more creative freedom. But here, again, they simply set about miring themselves in the past. And they do it again in the second film.

Mining for nostalgia nuggets seems essentially to be the core of the current reboot project.

 

[Warped9]

A reboot can take two basic approaches.

When TNG premiered we had something of an arms length reboot, at least in the beginning. Essentially the idea was to supposedly be set within the same continuity as what came before, but avoiding a lot of overt references to what came before. Any references to the past were usually tangental and vague. Note in TNG's "The Naked Now" the crew of the E-D discover that the TOS Enterprise crew dealt with a similar situation. But they refer to the previous event and who is associated with it as if it could have been just anybody. There's no, "OMG, the great Kirk dealt with this, too?" kind of thing. It was just another ship in another time. Of course, this would change as the series progressed (in fits-and-starts) and throughout the other spin-off series. It happens again in DS9 during their first Mirror Universe encounter where Bashir has heard of Kirk but Kira hasn't.

This actually would be one way to approach a future series reboot set in a post TNG period or even one concurrent with TOS, TMP or TNG (and DS9 and VOY are essentially TNG era). If you're not doing the familiar characters then set your stories off somewhere else and keep the references few and vague.

The other option is to cut the umbilical cord. Keep some core familiar elements and fashion everything else from a clean sheet. This would work whether you want to reboot the original characters and setting or if you want to do something completely unrelated. From this point one could have the Enterprise, Kirk and company, and everything else could be completely different and the period set in the 23rd, 26th or 30th century. You could do it as if you were building Star Trek from scratch. And you wouldn't be burdened by anachronisms of the past.

I love TOS and the current Star Trek Continues project, but even in enjoying those you have to shrug off some things that you simply wouldn't do today. This is one area where JJ missed the an opportunity because he wanted to keep a lot that was familiar and just move it around a bit.

I can easily envision rebooting TOS where you could recognize familiar elemnts and yet so much else would be different. The Enterprise could still be essentially a saucer with a support hull and nacelles, but the tech and hardware would be far in advance of anything seen in any Trek series or film or most anything else in SF in the visual medium. Communicators wouldn't be handheld or badges, but implants. Datapads would be even more multipupose than what current smartphones and tablets can do. A datapad could actually be merged with the tricorder. While I wouldn't copy the TMP uniforms to me they do indicate a general idea of looking more futuristic.

There are nuggets of ideas within all of Trek that were never really explored properly. Of course, there's also a lot outside of Trek that could be mined and adapted into a new Trek. TOS took a lot of already existing ideas and repackaged them into a new form that was daring and exciting for its time. Since TOS it has largely been mildly redressing those ideas. A new Star Trek could really push it forward. Depending how it's done I could see myself having my original Star Trek to cherish while still interested and excited about a new take on it. The beauty of this is it could draw existing fans as well as new ones and all the while not seem threatening to existing fans.

This is actually part of the issue some fans have with the current reboot. Instead of doing a complete clean restart they sought to tie it to what came before. Some fans are okay with that while others can feel it's disrespectful to the original materiel. In Abrams' version the original continuity has been wiped away and its not hard to see how that could piss off some people. But with a completely new restart that doesn't happen. It's like doing Star Trek set in a parallel universe not at all connected to the original even though some of it is familiar.

Think about this if you're willing to really let your imagination wander. Imagine, for a moment, what could have been done with ENT if it had been a complete reboot. You have a Kirk and Spock (and the rest) instead of Archer and T'Pol (and the rest) and the Enterprise (looking somewhat more advanced than what we can do today) being one of the very first to really head out there. It's the mid 22nd century and other than Vulcans no one familar at all has been encountered yet. You can completely rewrite everything. Or maybe the Enterprise is a fast reletavistic ship with a voyage that will last hundreds of years even as it will only be a few years to the crew (and the human lifespan can be 150 years). And again you can completely rewrite everything going forward. There really are a lot of possibilities.

A lot of fans can yearn for part of what came before to be revived, but in all honesty I don't think you can really do that anymore, at least not for anything beyond a web based fan production. If you want this to work for a primetime audience you have to push it forward. If you don't then you risk a lot of potential viewers possibly shrugging it off as same-old-same-old...again.