It's an interesting way to expand the universe by updating to include stuff that was, in a way, always there. Something like what Vanguard did, telling a very '00s story inside a '60s-influenced milieu and, in a way, showing the 2260s don't have to be held captive by the 1960s. I expect "Rogue One" is going to do something similar with the world of Star Wars, being redonkulously faithful to the production design of the '77 original, but also building on it so that the setting of the original Star Wars can include it's '70s influence while also growing beyond it...
Yeah, but in both the
Star Wars movies and the tie-in novels, those revisits and prequels are alongside other works that move the timeline forward. Now we have two coexisting Trek series, one in movies and one on TV, that are both revisiting the 2250s/60s.
Then again, I've had the thought before that it's hard to move the Trek universe too far forward and still keep it accessible to a mainstream audience, because there are too many 24th-century technologies whose ramifications would make fundamental changes to the nature of existence if they were carried forward to their logical conclusion. For instance, there are multiple potential paths to immortality -- brain downloads into androids or holograms or "A Man Alone"-style clones, nanites that heal all injury, fountain-of-youth radiation, etc. (I tried to give a hint of this in
DTI: The Collectors.) Advance the tech too far and civilization becomes too unfamiliar for the casual viewer -- as opposed to the prose science fiction audience, which is generally open to more radical depictions of future or alternate civilizations.
but this is an interesting era to be entering where older SFF content is being treated as if they were period pieces instead of imaginary worlds that can be retconned and reimagined without much trouble.
But that's what concerns me about the future of Trek. It was created to be forward-looking, to be a vision of the future and to be on the cutting edge of television SF and television drama. True, there was a certain element of nostalgia built into it -- the evocation of Western tropes, the use of Earth-duplicate worlds as an excuse to save money by recycling historical costumes and props -- but it was mainly about looking forward. I don't want it to become seen as just some retro thing, some nostalgic relic of an earlier time.
Again, I'm sure that with Fuller at the helm and with its diverse writing staff, it will be pushing forward in terms of its style of writing and characterization. It'll finally include a gay character, it'll be more serialized than ever, it'll be more adult and uncensored, etc. So it's not like it'll be some fan film slavishly trying to copy TOS. Still, I feel it'd have more freedom if it were doing something completely new rather than trying to mesh modern storytelling with a nostalgic setting.
I'm still trying to figure out what that unexplored TOS backstory is. Also, I know it probably won't happen, but I'd love a guest spot by Bruce Greenwood as Pike-Prime.
I doubt they'd have anything more extensive than something like McCoy's "Farpoint" cameo. Spinoff shows in their debut seasons generally try to establish their own independent identity and avoid riding too heavily on prior characters or continuity -- note how
Supergirl avoided having Superman appear in season 1, though he's now showing up in person in season 2. TNG had a brief, anonymous McCoy cameo in its pilot, then a rehash of "The Naked Time" which was widely criticized for being too imitative, but otherwise strove to be as disconnected from TOS as possible. With only 13 episodes, I'm sure this debut season will be focused on its own original characters. And that's how it should be. Honestly, if I were in Fuller's shoes, I'd be frustrated if I announced something new of my own and the only thing anyone seemed to care about was whether I'd rehash pre-existing characters from other shows.
He's also said for years that he wanted Angela Bassett for the lead. It'll be interesting to see if his wish comes true. He wanted Rosario Dawson to play a role too, but I think she might be too busy with the Marvel Television/Netflix projects.
I'm hoping for Nicole Beharie. She's free now...
I will keep my comments simply to this...
So long as CBS and Pocket agree...
The Litverse is saved. Long live the Litverse!
Doesn't work that way. Pocket's job is to follow CBS's lead. Tie-ins are merely a supplement to the main work. They are not on an equal footing. The show will be free to establish whatever it wants, and the books will simply have to adapt to that new reality. This is how it has always been. Canon is "history," and tie-ins are just "historical fiction." They're conjectures about what might have happened between the events we know. New canon is like newly uncovered history, and the historical fiction simply has to adapt to those new findings.
After all, the "Litverse" is just one of several mutually contradictory tie-in lines, alongside IDW's comics and
Star Trek Online. Why should CBS give privileged treatment to one of its tie-in lines over the others?