Bryan Fuller is Showrunner on New Trek Series

[hux]

I think we're getting Prime Trek because CBS won't have to pay Paramount to use it unlike with NuTrek

The idea that you would create a TV show that ignores the very thing that gave the franchise a shot in the arm just seems bizarre to me. Is the first episode gonna start with a character coming out of the shower and saying that NuTrek was all just a dream?

Again, I repeat... Why do so many people think the different timeline even matters? NuTrek is different because of new people, new aestetics, new ideas, new influences. Not because it was a different timeline.

Set it in the Dagobah system for all I care. Just make sure it's well written and brilliantly entertaining.

 

[Mudd]

Oh yes, the highly complex and elaborate NuTrek universe that only an expert like Alex Kurtzman could truly understand.

You do understand that no one cares about oldTrek, right?

Well, not enough people to keep a TV series on the air, anyway.

For this to last more than ten episodes people who have at most a passing familiarity with Star Trek need to turn it on for a week or two and get hooked. Since the only success Trek has had in the last decade consists of the two nuTrek movies, something like those are what many people will be expecting.

 

[Shalashaska]

The idea that you would create a TV show that ignores the very thing that gave the franchise a shot in the arm just seems bizarre to me. Is the first episode gonna start with a character coming out of the shower and saying that NuTrek was all just a dream?

Again, I repeat... Why do so many people think the different timeline even matters? NuTrek is different because of new people, new aestetics, new ideas, new influences. Not because it was a different timeline.

Set it in the Dagobah system for all I care. Just make sure it's well written and brilliantly entertaining.

You're saying Trek fell in popularity because of its timeline and not its decline in quality?

Set it 100 years after Voyager, problem solved, you're essentially setting it in a new timeline except you have the benefits of the possibility of former cast member cameos. Casual fans will watch the new Trek series because they liked the Abrams films, not because they heard its going to be in the NuTrek timeline, which would mean nothing to them.

 

[Mudd]

You're saying Trek fell in popularity because of its timeline and not its decline in quality?

The ratings started falling with the premiere of DS9 and trended downward from that point on. What do you think of DS9's quality?

Star Trek fans mistook the unexpected mainstream popularity of TNG for a growing interest in Star Trek in general. It was not, and when TNG went off the air a significant portion of the Trek tv audience went away.

You know who cares about the oldTrek continuity? The three or four million trekkies who hung in until near the bitter end. They cared ten or twelve years ago. Fewer do now.

 

[Tai]

First of all, the only time "Berman and Braga" really existed as a partnership was on Enterprise. I'll never understand why people assume they were joined at the hip, unless they just can't resist the alliteration.

The perception that Berman and Braga were determining the creative direction of the Star Trek franchise is not a contemptuous fan-made creation. From 2000-2005, nearly every news article about production of the next film or television series, "what's going on next season on Voyager, what's Series V going to be about" etc... quoted these two guys. B&B became a shorthand for the people running the show, sure... but Brannon Braga was definitely out there talking about it. Whether that was self-promotion or a studio decision to make him the face of Star Trek, I have no idea.

Second, continuity is not the overriding preoccupation for producers the way it is for fans. They're too busy worrying about actual reality -- the practicalities of producing and marketing an expensive television series and earning enough profit from it to justify its continuation -- to be all that concerned with the niceties of the imaginary reality within the shows. [...] Third, it's not unprecedented for the same creator to work on multiple different incarnations/continuities of a fictional franchise. Look at Alan Burnett, the veteran producer of DC animated series. [...] Different continuities are just variations on a theme. [...] Since Kurtzman is already an executive producer on three other successful CBS series, it's no surprise they went with him on this one, even aside from his own Trek experience.

You're right on all of these points. But when news of the All-Access series broke, the media reaction was not "Oh yay! New Star Trek on TV, we're so happy to see a fresh version." Everyone asked, "Which timeline is it set in?" It's a legitimate question. If CBS is deaf to fan reaction, and it really is simply hiring producers for business track records, that's fine. But this hiring looks like a message to fans, plain and simply. If you're saying too much is being read into it, I'll acknowledge it sure. But I'm sure gonna scratch my head if you tell me Bryan Fuller is going to come back to Star Trek to create a "different variation on a theme." and deliver for us another reboot.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If they're smart, they won't mention any timeline at all and just go with it...

Can you imagine, fans arguing about which timeline it is until the show ends and never get an answer?

You know, they may do exactly that. They just might NEVER tell us which timeline it is.

Why should they?

 

[hux]

You're saying Trek fell in popularity because of its timeline and not its decline in quality?

Set it 100 years after Voyager, problem solved, you're essentially setting it in a new timeline except you have the benefits of the possibility of former cast member cameos. Casual fans will watch the new Trek series because they liked the Abrams films, not because they heard its going to be in the NuTrek timeline, which would mean nothing to them.

I'm saying the new timeline is a red herring for both pro and anti NuTrek. The new show could be set in the new timeline and be derivative TNG level stuff or it could be set in the prime timeline and be new, fresh and innovative or vice verse. The timeline thing is irrelevant.

That being said, a new, fresh and innovative show that is built on the success of the films probably would want to continue what they started and have some association to that success. Just plain ignoring it would be very very odd. I can't see it happening.

Would cameo characters be alive 100 after Voyager?

You know, they may do exactly that. They just might NEVER tell us which timeline it is.

Why should they?

As I've said before... If you edit out any reference of Vulcan from Voyager (an hour or so of material at most) then re-relase the show, there's no reason for it not to be viewed as part of the NuTrek timeline.

 

[Michael]

Everyone asked, "Which timeline is it set in?"

Really, everyone? I don't recall anyone outside of fan sites and this board asking this. I'd say the general viewing audience doesn't give a damn.

 

[Christopher]

The perception that Berman and Braga were determining the creative direction of the Star Trek franchise is not a contemptuous fan-made creation.

Of course not. My point is simply that it was only the case for a finite amount of time. There are people who assume they were partners for the entire duration of Voyager, or that Braga was responsible for things (like Insurrection and Nemesis) that he actually had no involvement in whatsoever. As I said, Braga was only the showrunner on Voyager for two seasons, and the only time Berman worked as his writing partner and co-showrunner was on Enterprise (since Berman did hardly any screenwriting prior to ENT, except for "Brothers" and "A Matter of Time" -- his role as executive producer was mainly on the logistical/business side). So yes, obviously their partnership did exist, and I acknowledged that it did. But it was only for those few years, and it was specific to VGR and ENT.

From 2000-2005, nearly every news article about production of the next film or television series, "what's going on next season on Voyager, what's Series V going to be about" etc... quoted these two guys. B&B became a shorthand for the people running the show, sure... but Brannon Braga was definitely out there talking about it. Whether that was self-promotion or a studio decision to make him the face of Star Trek, I have no idea.

It was because, for that finite period, he was the showrunner -- just as Jeri Taylor and Ira Behr and Michael Piller etc. had been before him on their respective shows. I already said this.

You're right on all of these points. But when news of the All-Access series broke, the media reaction was not "Oh yay! New Star Trek on TV, we're so happy to see a fresh version." Everyone asked, "Which timeline is it set in?"

Define "everyone." Most people getting their news from the Internet don't hear from "everyone" -- just from their own self-selected echo chamber of opinions that tend to align with theirs.

I haven't heard "everyone" obsessing on what timeline it's set in. I've heard "everyone" expressing how cool it is that Bryan Fuller is going to create the next Trek show. Any talk about timelines is peripheral to that.

It's a legitimate question. If CBS is deaf to fan reaction, and it really is simply hiring producers for business track records, that's fine.

They're not "deaf to fan reaction." You're just making the arrogant assumption of too many fans that the entirety of fandom shares your own personal priorities. Fandom is nowhere near that monolithic. Different fans value widely different things. I think the number of fans who think "Wow, a Trek series from the guy behind Hannibal and Pushing Daisies and Wonderfalls and the only good season of Heroes is bound to be interesting no matter what reality it's set in" greatly outnumber the fans who think "The only thing that matters is what reality it's in."

I mean, over in DC-land, there are plenty of fans who are interested in the question of how the TV and movie universes might relate and excited at the prospect of Supergirl and The Flash crossing over, but none of them reject Supergirl's right to exist just because it's in a different reality than Man of Steel and Batman v Superman. Because they recognize that continuity is simply one of many factors that go into a show, not the single, overriding, deal-breaking consideration.

But this hiring looks like a message to fans, plain and simply.

No, it looks like a decision to hire the most qualified candidate for the job. Fuller is a veteran TV producer with a number of critically acclaimed shows under his belt, and he has both experience with and passion for the franchise in question. No doubt he actively campaigned for the job -- we know from past reports that he's been seeking it for years. The fact that he previously worked on Voyager is probably a minor factor, because that was just the barest beginnings of his lengthy career. It would be absurd to think that CBS considered only the first four years of his two-decade career in television when it came to making this decision. Sure, his experience with Trek was a consideration, but there's no way CBS considered his Voyager experience back in the '90s to be a more important consideration than Hannibal.

But I'm sure gonna scratch my head if you tell me Bryan Fuller is going to come back to Star Trek to create a "different variation on a theme." and deliver for us another reboot.

Why wouldn't he? As I said, it's not unprecedented for the same creator to create or participate in multiple different versions of a franchise. I mentioned Alan Burnett in DC animation. There's also David Goyer working on both the Nolan Batman films and Man of Steel, Alvin Sargent writing both the last two Sam Raimi Spider-Man films and the first Marc Webb one, etc. Heck, Gene Roddenberry himself considered The Next Generation to be a soft reboot and tried to distance it from TOS as much as possible; he saw it as a chance to make a fresh start, to improve on his past ideas and get it right this time. Fans tend to see the original version of a work as immutable gospel, but creators usually look back on their earlier works with dissatisfaction and welcome the chance to rethink and improve on them. I'd lay good odds that Bryan Fuller is unhappy with a lot of the decisions his younger, more inexperienced self made on VGR, the compromises he was forced to make as a junior member of the staff, etc. Now that he's older, wiser, and in charge of the whole thing, he'll probably embrace the chance to apply his greater skill and insight and improve on what he did before. Any creator in that situation would do the same. Sure, that can be done within the context of a continuation of the old universe, but it can also be done by making a clean break. Either will do, and there's nothing wrong with either choice.

 

[davejames]

Even if they do set it in the Prime timeline, I'd be very surprised if we actually saw many nods or continuity references to the previous TV series. It seems likely CBS and Fuller would want the show to be as self-contained-- and accessible to new viewers-- as possible.

 

[I am not Spock]

Bryan Fuller? Great news. In fact, probably the best pop culture news I've heard so far this year. I am excited about this new Trek series. Doesn't matter what universe it's in, as long as it is good. I've been a member of this BBS since Ent premiered, and I haven't seen this much goodwill towards a Trek project announcement since...ever, really.

There's no reason he can't give us a third, completely new Trek universe. As said above, we have Supergirl , which is nothing to do with either Man of Steel , or Smallville's universes. Or Judi Dench appearing in both Brosnan and Craig era Bonds. I think audiences are smart enough to follow two or three alternate universes of their fandom. In fact, most fans probably couldn't care less about timelines.

 

[ItIsGreen]

I admit, when it was first announced I wondered what timeline it would be in, and only considered the Prime/Abrams universes, but as time has gone on I've become less interested in that question and begun to wonder only "will it be good?" - and the announcement that Bryan Fuller will be running it has made me more hopeful that yes, it will be.

And the idea of a third timeline actually makes sense to me, it simultaneously frees it of both 50 years of continuity and lore, and some of the sillier aspects of the Abramsverse. At the end of the day, all that matters is that it's good Trek.

Would cameo characters be alive 100 after Voyager?

Well, we saw Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Bones, Kor, Koloth, Kang and Arne Darvin (as well as Sulu via flashback) from TOS in the TNG-era, so who knows? It's a sci-fi show

 

[Christopher]

In fact, most fans probably couldn't care less about timelines.

And many of us who do care about them see a multiplicity of them as a good thing. It's fun to explore different takes on a universe. Lots of franchises have a wealth of different versions. There are dozens of separate Batman continuities by this point, hundreds of versions of Sherlock Holmes, etc. There are seven canonical Godzilla universes in the Japanese films alone, with an eighth on the way. It boggles my mind that there are Star Trek fans who hate the idea of having more than one version of the universe. Heck, we're missing out! We're stuck with just two -- we're deprived compared to those other franchises that have so many different versions to play with.

I mean, come on, whatever happened to Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations? Whatever happened to the sense of wonder in the discovery of new things? It makes me so sad to see Star Trek fans being insular and hateful toward the new and different, because that's missing the whole point of the franchise.

And the idea of a third timeline actually makes sense to me, it simultaneously frees it of both 50 years of continuity and lore, and some of the sillier aspects of the Abramsverse. At the end of the day, all that matters is that it's good Trek.

To me, the limitation on the Abramsverse is that it's cast as an alternate timeline that branched off from the Prime universe. Which means it's still bound by a lot of the core assumptions and premises of the original universe and has inherited some of its flaws. For instance, having such a heavily male-dominated cast in the Enterprise crew, when most of J.J. Abrams's body of work has revolved around strong female leads. If they'd been free to reinvent the characters from scratch, they could've gender-swapped one or two of Kirk's crew and added some more ethnic diversity as well.

Not to mention that the Trek universe is building on assumptions laid down in the 1960s and is thus way behind the times in a lot of its futurism. We're still being asked to buy into a 23rd or 24th century that barely uses robots or nanotech, that outlaws genetic engineering, that's limited to planetary colonies instead of space-based megastructures, that's overwhelmingly Anglo-Saxon in population and Euro-American in culture, and so forth. There are ways to put patches on some of that, but it just keeps getting more and more dated as time goes on. And what about the historical inconsistencies? We're already decades past when the Eugenics Wars should've happened or Voyager 6 should've been launched, and it's probably too late for the first manned Saturn probe with Shaun Geoffrey Christopher. We don't have interplanetary sleeper ships yet, even though "Space Seed" said they become obsolete just two years from now. The Millennium Gate was supposed to be finished in 2012. The Bell Riots are supposed to be 8 years from now. The Ares IV is supposed to go to Mars 16 years from now. It's getting harder and harder to pretend that the Trek universe is in our future. We already have to overlook or overwrite a lot of details, and it's only going to get worse over the lifespan of this new series and any spinoffs or sequels it has. A totally rebooted universe could reset the clock, not have to worry about its history being rendered obsolete.

 

[Tai]

Define "everyone." Most people getting their news from the Internet don't hear from "everyone" -- just from their own self-selected echo chamber of opinions that tend to align with theirs. I haven't heard "everyone" obsessing on what timeline it's set in. I've heard "everyone" expressing how cool it is that Bryan Fuller is going to create the next Trek show. Any talk about timelines is peripheral to that. [...]

They're not "deaf to fan reaction." You're just making the arrogant assumption of too many fans that the entirety of fandom shares your own personal priorities. Fandom is nowhere near that monolithic. Different fans value widely different things.

This has gotten a little acrimonious, and I'm not quite sure why.

I agree, I made a generalization by stating that "everyone asked about which timeline the show would be set in", but it's not without merit. Let me elaborate. I periodically do a simple Google News search for the term "Star Trek" just to see if there's any rumors or information on the new film or a potential new television series. Of course in November of last year, that search blew up. The vast majority of these articles were entertainment websites that had a generic article that parroted the CBS press release. But even these articles posted something similar to what Access Hollywood wrote: "The world of the new series will not be connected to the upcoming film, 'Star Trek Beyond'."

Sifting through these articles, I came across several that delved a little bit deeper, and expressed opinions on the creative direction of the show. I've had to do a little bit of digging through google again to find a few:

"Weirdly, the New Star Trek Series Isn’t Tied to the Movies" - Wired.com. 11/02/2015
"Why CBS would be smart to set the new ‘Star Trek’ series in the 2150s" -The Washington Post. 11/02/15
"3 Reasons the New Star Trek Series Will Be in the Prime Universe" - Moviepilot.com. 11/11/2015
5 Big Questions About The All-New Star Trek TV Series - The Nerdist, 11/03/2015
"Will The New STAR TREK Show Have Anything To Do With The Movies?" BirthMoviesDeath, 11/03/2015
"When Should The New Star Trek Series Take Place" - i09 11/02/2015.
"7 Things We Want In The New Star Trek TV Show" -i09 11/04/2015
"3 Questions About The New Star Trek TV Series For CBS" - AceofGeeks.com 11/02/2015
"Trek's back! New Star Trek TV series to premiere in January 2017, New Characters, new adventures -- but which timeline?" TechRadar.com 11/02/2015

The list goes on and I have to say after about an hour of going back and reading, nearly EVERY article in some way poses the question about which timeline the show takes place in. I did not make that up. I remember scrolling through and thinking, 'wow, everyone's asking what I'm asking!'.

A lot of the mainstream media sites like empire.com didn't even fully read the press release and said something like "No doubt this new show will be set in the JJ Abrams created timeline".

Is this evidence of an echo chamber? Maybe... but that's a pretty diverse set of websites with some blogs and some mainstream media. I feel bolstered by my initial claim that yeah, "Everyone" was talking about the timeline. Of course this was on the internet.

As far as what people are talking about outside of the internet? The truth is, there are only two times that friends or acquaintances EVER talk to me about Star Trek.

The first is, "Hey, I'm thinking of watching Star Trek on Netflix, how should I start?" I tell them to start with TNG and then if they like it, go back and watch maybe the 10-15 best episodes of the original series and see if they like those. Their follow up question is, "Are they related?" My answer is always, "Yes, TNG is a direct sequel to TOS."

The second question I invariably get asked is, "What do you think about the new movies? Do you consider them 'Real' Star Trek?" and I tell people I liked them, and that there's some weird alternate timeline stuff that happens with Spock.

No real life friend, family member or co-worker has even heard of the new Star Trek series yet, unless I was the one to tell them. That's not surprising... there hasn't even been casting news yet much less a trailer.

So this diverse and vibrant fandom that exists outside of the internet that widely value different things you speak of? Where are they? If literally ALL I want to do is go to a weekly viewing party at a bar with a bunch of other fans in Washington D.C... so we can live tweet our reactions to the episode and nerd out together, where do I go? I would LOVE to know where the fandom outside of the internet is. Seriously.

Anyway, What does all of this have to do with Bryan Fuller?

...creators usually look back on their earlier works with dissatisfaction and welcome the chance to rethink and improve on them. I'd lay good odds that Bryan Fuller is unhappy with a lot of the decisions his younger, more inexperienced self made on VGR, the compromises he was forced to make as a junior member of the staff, etc. Now that he's older, wiser, and in charge of the whole thing, he'll probably embrace the chance to apply his greater skill and insight and improve on what he did before. Any creator in that situation would do the same. Sure, that can be done within the context of a continuation of the old universe, but it can also be done by making a clean break. Either will do, and there's nothing wrong with either choice.

I looked back on Bryan Fuller's IMDB. I can't remember what most of his Voyager episodes were about. A few however, stand out as memorable. "Course:Oblivion" in particular was one of the strongest episodes of Voyager. I remember the holodeck episode about the Irish village being pretty lame. So yeah, I'm sure he's proud of a lot, I'm sure he regrets some.

I'm not trying to be disparaging here. But I don't think a casual TV viewer even remembers Wonderfalls. Pushing Daisies has a cult following but a casual TV viewer would remember it mostly as being brightly colored and odd. I've heard GREAT things about Hannibal creatively, but it hasn't been a hit and was cancelled due to low ratings. I am being honest. I don't think a casual TV viewer has any idea who Bryan Fuller is. He does not have the name recognition of Dick Wolf or JJ Abrams for example.

All-Access will receive a subscription boost when Star Trek premieres not because "This is a brand new Bryan Fuller production!" but because there will be Star Trek fans since 1966, since the 1990's or since 2009 that will want to see it. The series premiere will have high ratings/subscriptions for the curiosity factor from Star Trek fans and to a lesser degree, the general public, and whether the show keeps the audience, grows it or shrinks it depends on the quality of the television. Whether the show is viable business wise in the long term will depend on whatever CBS's metrics are for a minimum threshold. I believe the model benefits diehard Star Trek fans because if it ever comes to a "save our show" scenario we can show our love for the show with direct subscriptions and it's a very easy metric to measure.

Bryan Fuller being announced as the showrunner of Star Trek was viewed on the internet by Star Trek fans in a generally positive way, because of his association to Star Trek in the past. They hired a Star Trek veteran... and he's done some really good work since. I think that is the general sentiment regarding Bryan Fuller.

Having no skin in the game, having no business or creative pressure on me, and no experience producing, I'll say the first question he should ask when he writes his series bible is what timeline do I want to set the new series in? 1. Prime Timeline. 2. JJ-Timeline 3. Brand new, unrelated timeline 4. Some quasi-related multiverse combination of everything.

I'll watch whatever he puts out. Weekly. For $5.99 a month. But if I could whisper in his ear, I'd say "Bryan, please pick option #1. It's the simplest. Set it some time after Star Trek: Online... it will piss literally nobody off if you do that. Tell all the stories you want to tell. Expand what you want to expand. Ignore what you wish to ignore. Set it on the Enterprise or set it on the USS Lollipop. Doesn't matter. Use your own visual and narrative style. I support you.

As far as my original point about his hiring being evidence of the show being in the Prime timeline,

This is from: "We're Geeking Out over this Star Trek News" Buzzfeed News. 02/09/2016, which talks about Bryan Fuller's hiring. “Bringing Star Trek back to television means returning it to its roots, and for years those roots flourished under Bryan’s devoted care,” Kurtzman said in a statement. “His encyclopedic knowledge of Trek canon is surpassed only by his love for Gene Roddenberry’s optimistic future, a vision that continues to guide us as we explore strange new worlds.”

I mean, what the hell are we supposed to take from this statement?

 

[ItIsGreen]

And what about the historical inconsistencies? We're already decades past when the Eugenics Wars should've happened or Voyager 6 should've been launched, and it's probably too late for the first manned Saturn probe with Shaun Geoffrey Christopher. We don't have interplanetary sleeper ships yet, even though "Space Seed" said they become obsolete just two years from now. The Millennium Gate was supposed to be finished in 2012. The Bell Riots are supposed to be 8 years from now. The Ares IV is supposed to go to Mars 16 years from now. It's getting harder and harder to pretend that the Trek universe is in our future.

...maybe WE'RE the ones in the alternate timeline

 

[Christopher]

I'm not trying to be disparaging here. But I don't think a casual TV viewer even remembers Wonderfalls. Pushing Daisies has a cult following but a casual TV viewer would remember it mostly as being brightly colored and odd. I've heard GREAT things about Hannibal creatively, but it hasn't been a hit and was cancelled due to low ratings. I am being honest. I don't think a casual TV viewer has any idea who Bryan Fuller is.

But you were the one that said picking Bryan Fuller was "a message to the fans." Aren't you now refuting your own claim? My point was that CBS and Kurtzman picked him because they thought he was the best candidate based on his experience as a showrunner with multiple series under his belt, rather than as some sort of grab at popularity. It seems to me that your argument here reinforces my point.

But if I could whisper in his ear, I'd say "Bryan, please pick option #1. It's the simplest. Set it some time after Star Trek: Online... it will piss literally nobody off if you do that.

Except those of us who don't much care for Star Trek Online's version of the universe. What works in a game -- particularly a game that, for whatever reason, they chose to base primarily around combat -- isn't the same as what works in a dramatic series. The choices STO has made to adjust the universe into something more suitable for a fighting game are not things that I would like to see imposed on the canonical Trek universe. So I think I would, in fact, be "pissed off" if they went that way.

As far as my original point about his hiring being evidence of the show being in the Prime timeline,

This is from: "We're Geeking Out over this Star Trek News" Buzzfeed News. 02/09/2016, which talks about Bryan Fuller's hiring. “Bringing Star Trek back to television means returning it to its roots, and for years those roots flourished under Bryan’s devoted care,” Kurtzman said in a statement. “His encyclopedic knowledge of Trek canon is surpassed only by his love for Gene Roddenberry’s optimistic future, a vision that continues to guide us as we explore strange new worlds.”

I mean, what the hell are we supposed to take from this statement?

Oh, come on. Knowing a continuity does not require setting your story in it. Look at the Arrowverse shows and Supergirl. The folks at Berlanti Productions clearly have an obsessively detailed knowledge of DC Comics lore and continuity, but that does not mean that their shows take place in any pre-existing version of that continuity. Rather, it means they've done what most creators of new versions of a work have always done -- they've taken its elements and put them together in new ways. Ditto for the Marvel Cinematic Universe -- made by people who are thoroughly versed in the existing lore and use its elements in respectful and fan-satisfying ways, but still in an entirely new and separate reality. Both Sherlock and Elementary are constantly quoting lines from the Holmes canon or basing plots on elements of its stories, but obviously neither one is set in the same continuity as Conan Doyle's original 60 tales. It is, to coin a phrase, elementary that one can employ encyclopedic knowledge of a canon in the creation of a new and distinct version of its characters and premise. That's actually the rule, not the exception. Star Trek is very unusual as fictional franchises go, in that it's had so many sequels and revivals that have not been in distinct continuities from the original. In most other franchises, the original series and the animated series and the movie series and the decades-later revival and the rebooted movie series decades-after-that revival would be in half a dozen separate continuities. It's bizarre to me that you've somehow forgotten how commonplace that is.

 

[Tai]

But you were the one that said picking Bryan Fuller was "a message to the fans." Aren't you now refuting your own claim? My point was that CBS and Kurtzman picked him because they thought he was the best candidate based on his experience as a showrunner with multiple series under his belt, rather than as some sort of grab at popularity. It seems to me that your argument here reinforces my point.

I was pointing out the difference that the news of Bryan Fuller's hiring has to Star Trek fans versus casual TV viewers. The General TV audience doesn't know much about Bryan Fuller. Star Trek fans know of him, not to the extent of Berman, Braga and Ronald Moore but they can read his IMDB, see the episodes he was responsible for and what he's done since and take it as a good sign that the franchise is in able hands. Casual tv viewers couldn't care less about who's producing this show, and most of the general public doesn't even know there will be a new show next year.

Except those of us who don't much care for Star Trek Online's version of the universe. [...] The choices STO has made to adjust the universe into something more suitable for a fighting game are not things that I would like to see imposed on the canonical Trek universe. So I think I would, in fact, be "pissed off" if they went that way.

I get that. I've only played casually a few days here and there so it's not a huge deal for me, but I admire the cohesiveness of their story. I've seen some Youtube clips of their cut-scenes and I believe it's been a good-faith effort to continue the story of the TNG era. I wholeheartedly agree that it's too militaristic and combat oriented for what a Star Trek television show should be about. Still, the point that I'm making is that it has a remarkably loyal base that make sense for the TV show to target as an audience. I'm not saying all the events in the video game should be made canon, I'm just saying set the show in sometime around 2420, about 10 years after the "current" TNG timeline which is the timeline of the game (the year 2410) and allow the video game its own space to breathe. Ignore what you want to ignore, embrace what you want to embrace... just give it its space.

Truthfully it could be 2490 or 2590 or 1000 years after TNG, but the farther ahead in time you go it'll look less like a near-future version of Earth with some plausible technologies with real-world inspirations (and vice-versa) and become science fantasy.

Star Trek is very unusual as fictional franchises go, in that it's had so many sequels and revivals that have not been in distinct continuities from the original.

And I believe this is PRECISELY why it has a unique and rabid fan-base. Fans are so protective (and yes, often overprotective) of its integrity because its stewards have been protective over the integrity of the universe. (say what you want about Enterprise, its various continuity violations and ret-cons were pretty minor and its place in the Star Trek saga is rather modest and incumbent. Its greatest crime is that it was often dull early on. Though to read these boards during its run, one would think it was tearing apart the integrity of the Star Trek universe on a weekly basis)

I believe there's a small but passionate rift in the fandom about how Star Trek should go forward. There's one side that has made continuity and canon sacred to the expense of everything else that makes a great saga worthwhile. Another side has gotten so fed up with mediocrity that they'll say, "Slap Star Trek on the title and do whatever you want as long as it's fun and exciting". What I find so bizarre is how, what I consider a fairly consensus and common-sense approach seems to be eviscerated on these boards.

I maintain, "Be cautious. This IS a different animal. There are some ground rules, some parameters... there's PLENTY of room therein to do what's never been done before. There's plenty of room to put your mark on it and make an epic adventure... but build on what's come before, don't tear it down."

Certainly I love all the different incarnations of Batman. I grew up watching the Adam West reruns as a child and it wasn't campy to me. I maintain The Animated Series is the definitive version of the character. I loved the Burton movies, the Nolan movies and am looking forward to this DCCU. I know they're wholly different interpretations of the same beast. And what I also believe is that Star Trek HAS been different, as you say and it IS special and there's no great reason to do a hard remake when the opportunity is there to pick up where we left off.

Follow the Doctor Who model rather than the Superman model.

 

[Christopher]

And I believe this is PRECISELY why it has a unique and rabid fan-base. Fans are so protective (and yes, often overprotective) of its integrity because its stewards have been protective over the integrity of the universe.

Nonsense. Plenty of other franchises have equally devoted fanbases. You can't realistically define limits on what people are able to love and be passionate about. People are too diverse for that.

(say what you want about Enterprise, its various continuity violations and ret-cons were pretty minor and its place in the Star Trek saga is rather modest and incumbent. Its greatest crime is that it was often dull early on. Though to read these boards during its run, one would think it was tearing apart the integrity of the Star Trek universe on a weekly basis)

Which was a symptom of the same intolerance for the new that drives the fear of a reinvention of a franchise. Every time a new incarnation of ST has come along, a segment of the fanbase has refused to accept it as "real" Trek, despite its being set in the same continuity. The outrage at the Abramsverse being a new continuity is no worse -- it's just the exact same tired arguments that have cropped up with every new take on Trek, as early as the animated series. There were people who hated TMP and TWOK when they came out and denounced them as "not real Trek." It took years for TNG to be accepted as a legitimate continuation. Even if this new series is in the Prime timeline, the haters are going to hate it and deny its validity just as much, because they always do. Every new creator interprets the Trek universe in a new way regardless of the nominal continuity of their series, and there are always going to be fans who can't accept those reinterpretations. And their arguments are never going to be valid, because they're just going to be rooted in the same mindless fear of the new and different that Star Trek is about transcending.

I believe there's a small but passionate rift in the fandom about how Star Trek should go forward. There's one side that has made continuity and canon sacred to the expense of everything else that makes a great saga worthwhile. Another side has gotten so fed up with mediocrity that they'll say, "Slap Star Trek on the title and do whatever you want as long as it's fun and exciting". What I find so bizarre is how, what I consider a fairly consensus and common-sense approach seems to be eviscerated on these boards.

That's because what you've just said is a straw man. There's plenty of middle ground between those extremes. It's possible to honor the core ideas and values and concepts and characters of Star Trek without the pretense of continuing the same continuity -- just as Supergirl, for instance, does a great job of capturing the essence and characters of that series while still reinventing it in a new way.

And yes, the "shared continuity" of the prior Trek series is largely a pretense. There are huge inconsistencies between different series' and films' interpretations of the universe, which is why every new incarnation has been rejected by some fans. Eventually, over time, we find ways to gloss over the inconsistencies and rewrite them in our heads to make them seem more compatible, because that's how the human brain works. But they've all been different, because that's how fiction works. No two artists rendering the same subject will render it in the same way. In that respect, it hardly matters what continuity it's nominally set in. It'll still be a new version.

I maintain, "Be cautious. This IS a different animal. There are some ground rules, some parameters... there's PLENTY of room therein to do what's never been done before. There's plenty of room to put your mark on it and make an epic adventure... but build on what's come before, don't tear it down."

Another straw man. Starting a new continuity doesn't "tear down" a damn thing -- it just builds something else alongside it. Supergirl doesn't tear down the DC Universe. Elementary doesn't tear down Sherlock Holmes. Batman: The Brave and the Bold didn't tear down Batman: The Animated Series. Creating a fresh take on an old concept isn't destruction, it's expansion. The original is still there, but now it has a tributary branching off from it. Or an offspring following in its footsteps.

And what I also believe is that Star Trek HAS been different, as you say and it IS special and there's no great reason to do a hard remake when the opportunity is there to pick up where we left off.

I get so sick of people talking about whether a given creative choice is "needed" or if there's a "reason" for it. The only need or reason is what is right for a particular project, and it's naive to think it's possible to know in advance what that can or can't be. That kind of restrictive thinking is toxic to creativity.

Follow the Doctor Who model rather than the Superman model.

Star Trek already has done so for half a century. Why not try something different now? If Star Trek is such a "special" franchise, why can't it do both?

Frankly, the worst thing this series can do is pander to old-guard traditionalist fans. That's not what's going to keep Star Trek vital as a going concern for decades to come. Star Trek, when it began, was on the cutting edge. It was new and forward-looking and risk-taking. But in the TNG era it became this stalwart, conservative, establishment entity, and now it's become an exercise in nostalgia. And that's death for it in the long run. It's because I love what ST used to be that I want it to reinvent itself completely, to become fresh and new and futuristic again, as it was meant to be.

 

[Tosk]

Eh, we'll find out one way or another eventually.

 

[Christopher]

Eh, we'll find out one way or another eventually.

Yeah, you're right. I should stop getting into these debates. It's just rehashing the same arguments that happened when the Abrams movies were first announced, and probably before that when ENT was announced. And whatever we say here won't have any effect on what actually happens. It'll be what it'll be, and a lot of people will probably love it and some people will surely hate it.