I know. I believe he said he wanted to do a show in a whole new universe. But that is quite unlikely, and with Kurtzman onboard JJverse seems most likely.
Bryan Fuller is Showrunner on New Trek Series
- Thread starter SilentBen
- Start date
I would find this very disappointing. Star Trek has a rich lore. To throw 50 years away and start fresh would suck. It's not baggage to casually throw away. It's the reason people still want to see new Trek after all these years. A good showrunner can find a way to use what came before, expand on it, and still have his own voice.
The "rich lore" is an albatross that too often is simply fan service - see the reach-around that was the last year of "Enterprise."
Yeah, forgetting the canon and keeping the ties to oldTrek loose for a season or two is the way to go. JJTREK succeeded on a scale that Trek hadn't managed in a decade.
Yeah, forgetting the canon and keeping the ties to oldTrek loose for a season or two is the way to go. JJTREK succeeded on a scale that Trek hadn't managed in a decade.
Nobody's throwing anything away. The original works will still be there.
It's the reason some people want to see new Trek. Any argument that assumes all people have the same tastes and interests is ridiculous on the face of it. It's been over a decade since Star Trek was last on TV. There's a whole generation of viewers in the target demographic who are unfamiliar with the previous shows. Creating a new show is about introducing the franchise to that new generation. Which is the only way to keep it alive in the long term. Because if you only target people who were already fans a decade or two or five ago, then the brutal truth is that your target audience is just going to get smaller and smaller and eventually few people will remember or care about your franchise.
Which doesn't require being in the same continuity. Supergirl and the Arrowverse shows do a great job of using what came before in the comics and expanding on it, but they're still in their own separate universe(s) from it.
Does it? The admiral tells Picard they are meeting the Borg at the Typhon sector. They are fighting some sort of running battle all the way to Earth, which is where Picard rendezvous with them. There could have been days between "Set a course for Earth: maximum warp" and Worf ordering ramming speed.
Sure, there could have been, but that's not what's implied by the editing and dialogue. After all, if the battle were taking place way out in the Typhon Sector, wouldn't Picard have said "Set a course for the Typhon Sector" instead of "for Earth?" After all, Data said it'd take them 3 hours, 25 minutes to get to that sector, whereas Earth should logically be days away at least. But Picard orders the course for Earth -- which comes off as pretty negligent if you assume the battle's taking place far away from Earth. The filmmakers knew that 98% of the audience couldn't care less about interstellar geography or travel times, at least not while they were in the theater absorbing the experience -- they just wanted to get the story moving as fast as possible. So the attack begins and then, bam, moments later we're at Earth.
The point is not about what fans can rationalize years after the fact. The point is about the impression the filmmakers chose to convey through the editing and pacing of the film. First Contact used the same trick as ST '09 -- presenting an interstellar journey in such a way that you could assume a fair amount of time passed in between scenes, but cutting it in such a way that it felt nearly instantaneous. I was agreeing with mswood's point that the Abrams films were not the first Trek films to play around with the perceived passage of time in that way.
There was no canon in 1966 and people still watched. Every time there's been a new version of Star Trek it's rebooted things in some way. Whether it's changing the look in TMP (because even in 1979 the old look was outdated) or setting TNG a century later. Like Doctor Who, continual change is an essential element in Star Trek's survival.
At this point, I don't care whether it's Prime or Abramsverse.
It'd be nice to revisit the Primeverse, but an Abramsverse show can be just as good, if not better. If Fuller wants to do Abramsverse, then it probably means Abramsverse is the best option.
Very excited, I think this has the potential to be the best Trek series yet.
It'd be nice to revisit the Primeverse, but an Abramsverse show can be just as good, if not better. If Fuller wants to do Abramsverse, then it probably means Abramsverse is the best option.
Very excited, I think this has the potential to be the best Trek series yet.
I'm so sick of canon that I could vomit.
All this whining and moaning over whether it'll be in "Prime" or "JJverse" is dumb. Quite frankly, I hope they have the balls to just create their own universe — another reboot.
But all that doesn't matter. What really matters are good stories, told well.
All this whining and moaning over whether it'll be in "Prime" or "JJverse" is dumb. Quite frankly, I hope they have the balls to just create their own universe — another reboot.
But all that doesn't matter. What really matters are good stories, told well.
I'm not against a retooling, after all it is 2016, but to just take everything and toss it I think is a mistake. (Which I don't think they will do anyway.) Doctor Who uses it's lore and updates it for a new generation all of the time with nods back to the original shows. This is what I'm hoping for with the new Trek.
Doctor Who is an odd example, the first seasons of the new show were more vague about continuity (probably not to scare new viewers with needing to know what happened before, and to distance themselves from the low-budget kids show of the past), they sort of eased their way into it being a full-on continuation (which happened much more under Moffett).
Nobody can say in advance what will be a mistake. Every single time any new project is proposed, there are people who think it sounds like a terrible idea. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. If it were possible for any random schmo on the Internet to predict what ideas would work, then making successful TV shows would be far easier. But it's not. It takes skilled, experienced people to know the difference between a good idea and a bad idea. Bryan Fuller got to where he is today because he was able to prove that he could come up with good ideas -- even bizarre ideas that most people shook their heads at -- and pull them off with quality. He's more qualified to judge what will work than a bunch of people bloviating on the Internet.
Besides, who says a reboot would require "tossing" anything? Usually reboots do use ideas from the source material, just remixed and approached in a new way. The DC Animated Universe, the Arrowverse and Supergirl, the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the X-Men film universe, even the Galactica reboot and Sherlock and Elementary -- they've all taken familiar characters and plotlines and concepts from their source material and reused them in fresh ways. Sometimes they take the best aspects of a storyline or character and distill them down while casting off the parts that didn't work so well, or doing it without the unfortunate sexism and racial biases of an earlier era. Sometimes they take a familiar idea and put a twist on it that makes it fresh and new. Rebooting doesn't mean ignoring past continuity, it means using the best parts of it in a new way.
Great point. Star Trek's last TV revival did the same thing. For the first few seasons, TNG strove to be its own thing and not be dependent on TOS elements. Eventually, over time, it and the later shows (mainly DS9, to start) brought in more elements from TOS, in part because the new producers were devoted TOS fans. Then there's the Arrowverse. The first season of Arrow was a fairly grounded crime drama that was designed to be entry-level for new viewers, keeping the comics continuity and weirdness to a minimum so as not to scare them off. But now, a few years into the universe, it's become a full-fledged comics-style fantasy universe where nothing is off the table.
It's safe to say that Fuller's show will start out the same way -- self-contained, continuity-light, designed to be accessible to new viewers. The Variety article said as much -- that it will feature new characters and civilizations outside the Trek mythology we already know. Even if it is in the Prime universe or the Abramsverse, it will stake out its own separate territory and establish its own identity before it starts to bring in any heavy continuity from previous works. So really, this debate over what reality it's in probably won't have much bearing on the series we get, not to start with, anyway.
Last edited:
At the end of the day I think most people will come to the same conclusion. When the show finally airs no one is going to pay for a sub par show on CBS all access just because its in the Prime universe. They might pay for a great show regardless if its in their preferred universe.
Instead of being tied down to continuity from 1966 through 2005; it would be wiser to start fresh in a new universe in the Abramsverse. It all depends on what the CBS executives want on the screen to sell their new pay-per view network. All I can hope for is the show is true to what Gene Roddenberry envisioned for Star Trek. Also the Starships must not look like anything from Voyager, ST: Enterprise, and TNG films: 1st Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis; the ship has to have a mid-section between the saucer section, and the engineering section of the ship.
It's not pay-per-view, which means you have to pay a fee for each individual program you watch. CBS All-Access is a subscription service like Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime -- you pay a flat monthly fee and get access to the service's entire range of programming, including all current CBS shows, a lot of older shows, and live CBS programming in many markets.
I know what it is, I would be paying a fee to view programming.
Bingo.
I know what it is, I would be paying a fee to view programming.
But that leaves out the key word, which is "per" -- meaning "for each." Pay-per-view means, literally, that you have to pay for each individual viewing. I'm not being pedantic, because there's an important difference in how much you get for your money. In pay-per-view, one payment gets you only one viewing of one program. If you want to see a different program, or see the same one a second time, then you have to pay again. But in a subscription service, one payment gets you a whole month's freedom to watch as many programs as you want. Which can be a lot more economical if you use it enough.
Similar threads
