Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by albion432, May 4, 2014.

  1. albion432

    albion432 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    If Abrams has proven anything it's that Star Trek is here to stay. Now that Paramount knows Star Trek will sell tickets regardless of the cast, and once this reboot runs its course, we should expect to see other reboots in the future.

    Just as 1980's British series Robin of Sherwood effectively added new elements to the Robin Hood legend which have endured in every version of Robin Hood since, so too has Abrams' movies introduced new elements to TOS's lore.

    Anyone care to speculate on which changes they think are likely to survive into future versions of Star Trek, and which are likely to go the way of the dodo bird? For example, the Spock/Uhura relationship, should it stay or should it go?

    (I wasn't sure if I should post this thread here or over in the Star Trek Movies XI+ section. I decided to post it here because the topic seemed to me to be more about TOS lore in general than about the new movies.)
     
  2. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, Missouri, USA
    The changes are really in regards to the Abrams movies. As far as TOS is concerned, all that stuff happened in another reality.
     
  3. albion432

    albion432 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    True, however, future reboots may not be set in Abrams alternate universe. The next reboot may be billed as "a return to Star Trek's roots". However, since we cannot undo what has been done by Abrams, no matter how much we may want to, the next version will undoubtedly be, to one degree or another, a synthesis of of the original series and Abrams reboot, that's just how things go. You know, Hegel's triad and all that; thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

    I figured we TOS fans would be more likely to have a working knowledge of both Star Trek's, where those who are into the new ones probably don't know too much about the original. So I posted the thread here.
     
  4. Kevman7987

    Kevman7987 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Location:
    Erie, PA, USA
    I just hope that the next reboot is a 100% reboot that just starts by saying; "IN A COMPLETELY ALTERNATE UNIVERSE TO PRE-ESTABLISHED CANON..."
     
  5. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Interesting question. I think it's natural for ideas from various iterations of a series to accrete onto the mythos over time. For instance, the '40s Batman serials introduced the Batcave and skinny Alfred (replacing the chubby, comic-relief Alfred of previous comics); the '60s TV series introduced Mr. Freeze (he'd been Mr. Zero before) and sort of introduced the Barbara Gordon Batgirl (in that the show's producers asked the comic's makers to create the character so she could be adapted to the screen); the Burton films introduced a retro/Gothic aesthetic; Batman: The Animated Series introduced Harley Quinn and Renee Montoya; and the Nolan films elevated Lucius Fox to a more central role that's been emulated by other adaptations.

    And we've already seen such an accretion with TOS over time. Kirk's middle name Tiberius and Amanda's surname Grayson weren't established until the animated series. The modern image of Jim Kirk as a hotheaded renegade who routinely ignores orders has very little precedent in TOS (the only time he openly defied direct orders was in "Amok Time"), and comes mainly from The Search for Spock. And Scotty was never called a "miracle worker" until that same movie, but he's been called that in subsequent screen appearances, and multiple tie-in books and comics have retconned its use into the TOS era. And of course there are things like the Klingon makeup and language that were introduced in the original movies and have been adopted in all subsequent Trek productions including the Abramsverse.

    So I'm sure that some of the most memorable or iconic elements from the Abrams films will resonate in people's minds in decades to come and influence later reboots/reinventions. I think it's a reasonable conjecture that the movies' characterization of Uhura (including but not limited to her relationship with Spock) will influence future adaptations of the character, if only because she was given so little personality before. By the same token, the movies' portrayals of Sulu and Chekov, and maybe its more comedic Scotty, might have an impact on future adaptations. Their elevation of Pike to a mentor role for Kirk might be echoed later as well. I think Bruce Greenwood's Pike was more likeable and memorable than Jeffrey Hunter's, so I'd expect him to resonate with future generations of fans and creators.

    Possibly the tattooed appearance of the movie Romulans will carry forward into later adaptations. I certainly like it better than the TNG-style forehead ridges, which were rather ugly and never really made sense given that the Romulans only diverged from the Vulcans 2000 years ago, a blink of an eye in evolutionary terms.

    Otherwise, it's hard to say. Most of the stuff in these movies is itself adapted from earlier works, so it's hard to think of that many things that count as original. The Kelvin? Robau? Keenser? Transwarp beaming?


    That phrase would be utterly meaningless to the vast majority of moviegoers who are just there to be entertained. And those few of us who care about words like "canon" would surely already know what universe the film was in months before we went to see it.

    But yeah, I agree that a wholesale restart would be better. There are a lot of concepts in Trek that are mired in the '60s, if not the '40s pulps that inspired TOS, and that are increasingly outdated in this day and age, let alone the years ahead. Our smartphones make Kirk's commuicator look like a joke. And it's no longer realistic to expect things like nanotechnology and transhumanism to be limited to bad-guy groups like Borg and Augments. Plus it would be nice to see the Federation portrayed in a way that wasn't so overwhelmingly Eurocentric, or to see the TOS cast reworked with a bit more diversity (say, a black McCoy and a female Sulu, perhaps -- or, heck, why not a female Kirk?).
     
  6. C.E. Evans

    C.E. Evans Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2001
    Location:
    Ferguson, Missouri, USA
    In that sense, any potential future reboot of TOS will be dependent on whoever is in charge of it and what particular spin they want to put on it. It's conceivable that someone else may ditch the whole Spock and Uhura thing and go Spock and Chapel, or perhaps make Kirk and Uhura a couple instead (just as a few examples--it's even possible that someone else may decide not to have any 'shipping' going on among the big 7 at all).

    I think it's more likely that stuff from the Abrams films will be incorporated into the next reboot if whoever comes next wants to build on it rather than go another route.
     
  7. F. King Daniel

    F. King Daniel Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    A type 13 planet in it's final stage
    Probably the idea that the Enterprise crew came together in a time of crisis. And Uhura having a much more prominent role than in TOS.

    I'd mention the idea that the crew attended the academy together, but that almost came to light in the early 90's with Star Trek: The Academy Years and isn't an invention of the '09 reboot.

    EDIT: And probably the idea that Khan is Star Trek's version of The Joker or Moriarty, an arch nemesis for Kirk and crew.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2014
  8. CrazyMatt

    CrazyMatt Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Location:
    Sitting in Kirk's command chair
    No way. For me, canon matters and I consider Star Trek canon ended with the end of "Enterprise."

    I don't watch the Abrams version and I never will. I know it exists, but I choose to ignore it. Star Trek in it's original incarnation was just fine. If it's good for you, great. Enjoy it. But to me, it as meaningless as urinating up in the air and then saying "it's raining."
     
  9. albion432

    albion432 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    My initial reaction to Abrams version was, and I quote, "I hated every fucking frame of that movie." Upon leaving the theater one of my friends commented, "You look like someone just shot your dog!" Oh I was pissed. Since then I've mellowed towards it. What helped me to put things into perspective was the review Mr. Plinkett's gave it. I would really recommend watching it, if for nothing more than the fact you will laugh your ass off, guaranteed. This is some funny stuff. I found once I was able to have a good laugh about the whole mess, I felt better about it. I even enjoyed the second movie, in a way, and to a certain extent. I just saw it as a filmed version of one of those bad Star Trek Key comics from the early 70's. Anyway, here's a link to the review:
    http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09/
    I couldn't find it on youtube for some reason, but this is from the video's official site. Enjoy!
     
  10. HIjol

    HIjol Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2014
    Location:
    Midwest, USA
    ...here are my thoughts regarding Albion's post question:

    ...I cannot see a Star Trek without an Enterprise

    ...neither could I imagine a Star Trek
    without a Kirk/McCoy/Spock/Scotty team

    ...long missions, not day trips or one-out-one-in flights

    ...no bizzare departures from the original music

    ...tell DeLancie to stop aging NOW!...we are going
    to need him for the next 5 or 6 iterations

    ...NO Spock/Uhura romances...ever...neverever

    :techman:
     
  11. albion432

    albion432 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    I like the idea of the crew coming together in a time of crisis, that would definitely up the tension level. Speaking of Uhura's prominence, it's interesting how she's already risen in importance in the new movies. She has effectively replaced McCoy as the third main character. She's replaced him in all the movie posters too.

    I have always had several problem with the Star Trek: The Academy Years concept that had the main crew members attending the Academy together. Here are the main ones:
    1) The ages of the main characters range over more than twenty years. During the original series, McCoy and Scotty were the oldest, both around 45 and Chekov was the youngest, around 22, with the others all somewhere in between. Does it really make sense they'd all be in the Academy together?
    2) If they did all go to the Academy together, then why are their ranks so widely varied too? It makes Chekov seem like a slacker if he's only managed to rise to the level of Ensign while some of his classmates have risen to the rank of Captain in the same amount of time.
    3) Spock said he had served with Pike some 13 years prior to Kirk's command of the Enterprise. Even if Spock was assigned to the Enterprise right out of the Academy, and his 13 year statement was made at the beginning of Kirk's command, that would still put his classmates Uhura and Sulu somewhere in their mid-teens, and Chekov at age 9 at the time of graduation if they all attended the Academy together. While at the same time, Scott and McCoy would be in their early 30's at graduation.

    There are several other issues I have with the concept, but I don't feel the need to beat a dead horse here.

    EDIT: And probably the idea that Khan is Star Trek's version of The Joker or Moriarty, an arch nemesis for Kirk and crew.[/QUOTE]

    That would be interesting. Would you have Khan roaming around using the Relient as a pirate ship of sorts?
     
  12. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Lancaster, PA
    Nah. That particular "canon" ended, but there's no rule that says you can't start another "canon" . . . and another one a generation later. There's always room for a new variation on an old favorite. None of this stuff is set in stone.

    You might just as well pretend that no more Tarzan movies were made after the Johnny Weismuller series ended . . . or that no Frankenstein movie made after 1948 is "canon."

    Getting back OT, the Khan/Moriarity thing sounds plausible. Moriarity only made one or two appearances in the original Conan Doyle "canon." It was subsequent retellings that built him up into a major recurring character. (Ditto Irene Adler.)

    I can see Khan going the same route . . . and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Borg turn up in some future iteration of TOS. They're too popular to leave on the shelf for long.
     
  13. AustNerevar

    AustNerevar Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 4, 2014
    Location:
    Talos IV
     
  14. Dukhat

    Dukhat Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    The cast was contracted for three movies, so there will be another film after STID. Once that movie debuts, several things can happen. The cast can be given another contract for more films, CBS may decide they want to produce a TV series (and with all of the sets, props, costumes, models, etc. from the Abrams films, it's highly likely the new show will be set in the same universe), they may produce an animated series, or they may make a webseries. It's entirely up to CBS what they want to do. But I'll tell you this: Star Trek makes money, and they're not going to let it die, so I wouldn't worry about that.
     
  15. Skywalker

    Skywalker Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    CBS has nothing to do with the Abrams films. Paramount owns the Star Trek movie rights and CBS owns the TV rights. If CBS decided to do a new Trek series, they'd have to do their own thing (or maybe work out some sort of licensing agreement with Paramount if they want to set it in the Abramsverse).
     
  16. Botany Bay

    Botany Bay Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Location:
    shores of Australia
    Welcome to the forum.

    I thought both of them were great fun, and I'd be happy to see more, but I've been wondering the same thing.

    You got the feeling the studio was a little disappointed with the returns from the last one. There have been a few stories going around concerning Chris Pine's ability to carry a big film.

    We shall see I guess.
     
  17. F. King Daniel

    F. King Daniel Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    A type 13 planet in it's final stage
    People attend higher education at a wide variety of ages. I think there is a lot of wiggle room to put many of the characters together if writers want to. In the case of ST'09, Spock had graduated four years earlier and was serving as an instructor which kept him around to meet Kirk. It's a bit more questionable when trying to keep to TOS continuity (as The Academy Years tried to do), but in new versions of the TOS mythos, it would be fine IMO.

    What I meant is that he'll keep coming back to menace every version of Kirk, just like Moriarty does each incarnation of Sherock or Zod does every Superman.
    Isn't it technically an alternate timeline in the same canon? Same universe (with a new lick of paint) but different events post-2233.
    There's a third movie coming in 2016. Abrams will produce but not direct.
     
  18. Dukhat

    Dukhat Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Er, no, that's not true. CBS owns Star Trek in its entirety. They have given Paramount a license to produce Trek films, but they still own everything: movie rights, TV rights, DVD/Bluray and other merchandise rights.
     
  19. Noname Given

    Noname Given Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Location:
    Noname Given
    Um, no, CBS doesn't have rights to everything. The new JJ Abrams reboot films are 100% owned by Paramount.

    CBS owns rights to all TV series (TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT) AND the Star Trek feature films from TMP through NEM.

    Now BOTH CBS and Paramount are still tied to Viacom; but they are considered separate entities and thus have their own agendas. They have cross promoted stuff related to Star Trek, and probably will continue to do so, but again the IP rights are in fact split between the two.
     
  20. Dukhat

    Dukhat Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    CBS owns the rights to all the Star Trek TV shows, and it owns the rights to the characters in those shows. In order to make a Star Trek movie, Paramount must license the characters from CBS. Yes, the Abrams films are owned by Paramount, but CBS is making money off of them.
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2014