Ultimately I think if they make the type of show I'm looking for (which is to say, TOS/TNG/VGR style standalone adventures), the setting is largely cosmetic, since it's all just a deliberately-vague wrapper for sci-fi adventure stories.
The 23rd century's main appeal is that it's got somewhat more defined aesthetics than the 24th - the vivid uniforms, bright orange doors, planets that look like they're from pulp magazine covers, etc. For a franchise looking to reaffirm its identity after a period of arguably-failed experimentation, it's the obvious place to go to, since it's what most of the public will recognise - you get a captain in a gold uniform standing alongside two redshirts on a weird planet with a violet sky and people think "yep, that's Star Trek".
I'm guessing this is what Skydance might be thinking, given some of what they've said so far.
You mean SNW?
I've never understood the idea of reset, which always seems to mean contriving up some nonsense to "de-canonize" whatever it is someone doesn't like. That's both silly and pointless. It's a big universe, if you want to have a show that doesn't carry the baggage of other Trek shows - just do one. Not everything has to slot together like puzzle pieces.
I like the idea of a show a century after the Dominion War. No USS Enterprise F or G as we knew them, but instead, there is a Century where the "Enterprise" wasn't a thing, as the Federation was focused on rebuilding from the war, and supporting the Cardassians and Klingons. Everyone was tired from the war and it took decades to recover. There would be a sort of aversion to exploration due to that, but the USS Enterprise F (or G, or whatever) would challenge the norm and seek to go into the Delta Quadrant, or a place in the galaxy where no man has gone before, sort of like Voyager but with an Enterprise crew with an all new cast.
I'd watch that show!
New Star Trek, which is current Star Trek, is not aimed at MAGA at all. Yet they're dropping like flies.
Even before Ellisons took over Pee Plus was announcing show cancellations before the seasons even aired.
First with DSC final season, then PRO was offloaded to Netflix, SNW still has two seasons to go yet they announced cancellation years ahead, and now with SFA.
Trek's mismanagement started with Beyond.
They don't have to make a reboot, they just have to adopt an attitude of "if a decades-old script conflicts with a new story we want to tell, the current story wins", same as TNG did.
What a lot of people really want I think is just for something new to exist without the weight of history dragging it down, especially since a lot of that history doesn't even line up in any meaningful way (TOS and TNG aren't consistent within themselves, let alone with each other).
Because initially they didn't like TOS and held it at a distance.
A new show would do well to do the same and not indulge in "where are they now?" fantasies.
Oh, I don't care about canon. Absolutely a good story should win out over some ancient bit of dialogue.
Not how canon works. But thanks for playing.
I feel like the problem with that is that if the new stories are about something interesting, then the line in the decades-old script was probably interesting as well.
Like, Balance of Terror is one of TOS's best episodes, one of the ones I'd recommend to anyone, but it's also the one perhaps most contradicted because of how much it inspired other writers. And chances are that Balance of Terror will remain a better episode than any new story they make.
That said, Trek should feel free to carry on contradicting Unnatural Selection and The Host. And especially The Counter-Clock Incident.
Am I? It's entirely possible the new Paramout regime will want to make a Trek that conforms to today's anti-trans, anti-immigrant American ideals.
That's the worst case scenario. I hope whoever is next in charge maintains Trek's inclusive ideals but it's far from a sure thing.
Remember that one episode that was a literal redo of a TOS episode? the characters even say hey isn't this the same thing that happened to Kirk's ship?
That wasn't constant and it was organic.
It gets tiring to hear this constant "Trump Bad" kind of talk every time I go online and discuss shows, media, etc with people. If thats the opinion you have of this, then you do you, I don't follow with that line of thinking. I much prefer the older versions of Trek and their more unique storylines rather than constantly trying to reference and rehash whatever issue is occurring in the modern day in Trek.
Perhaps you're too young to understand how The Original Series "referenced and rehashed" the issues of it's day?
I'll just leave it at that if this is the way conversing with you on this topic is going to go. I can already see where this is leading, so it is best that we just agree to disagree.
The way the Original Series handled the issues of its day was fairly nuanced, rather than forced through bad writing.
I'll agree to disagree here. I wonder how opinions would differ if Twitter and YouTube existed in the 1960's, after Kirk kissed Uhura...
