Bryan Fuller showrunner for new trek...consequences?
- Thread starter Jarvisimo
- Start date
Why are there "problems" with a show in the Prime universe? Plenty of unknown territory to cover.
More creative freedom. Don't see to worry about continuity that much.
If, as I suspect, Fuller never tells us which timeline the new series is set in - and if it's never revealed on the actual show either - would that be better or worse (for novelists) than if they actually did reveal the new show's timeline?
I will start a Secret Wars against everyone who tries to bring closure to the Voyager Relaunch.
One good reason for returning the VOY Relaunch to the Delta Quadrant was to keep it protected against possible canonical changes, I would suggest.
I always hate that justification for reboots.
The most creative freedom is gained by making something totally new. If you are using an existing fictional universe, its for a reason, and comes with certain things in place. That's why an audience likes that universe and logically why someone would want to tell stories in it. Very rarely do reboots ever work in terms of popularity with fans or even as creative works, I can only think of two exceptions to that in recent history, neither of them were trek and both took somewhat radical approaches to the source and were chosen to be reboots for fairly specific reasons. Even then, one didn't exactly keep its shine to the bitter end.
A reboot is a sign of creative bankruptcy, especially in Trek that has already shown it is broad enough to not need a reboot to be updated. The fact we got one anyway, and the fact it leans so hard on the very thing its supposed to be a reboot of, kind of proves the point. Have a thirty year jump. You get to keep all the advantages the original Tng had (cameos from past characters to bring in fans and boost viewers, a sense of history and continuity and the feeling that these events matter within its own universe.) with all the advantages and creative freedoms of doing your own thing a bit differently. A reboot only draws constant comparisons and will never step out of the shadow of the original.
any actually creative person could do that.
It takes a lack creativity to just reboot something as a cash grab.
I have a feeling its going to be prime anyway. If its one thing the new star wars and Jurassic world have shown, its that theres big money in not rebooting or prequeling things.
How did the fact that Trek got a reboot anyway prove your point? That seems like it points towards the exact opposite of your point. I honestly can't follow that argument at all, can you spell out how the fact that Trek got an onscreen reboot in recent history and not a continuation proves that Trek is broad enough to not need a reboot?
There is no such thing. All creativity entails taking existing ideas and adjusting them in new ways. It doesn't matter if you come up with a new title and new character names and so forth; you're still working with pre-existing tropes and character types, reacting to elements of the fiction that inspired you, etc. Star Trek, to begin with, was inspired by Forbidden Planet. Which was inspired in turn by Shakespeare's The Tempest, which was inspired in turn by various sources. Original creation doesn't mean pulling something out of the ether that never existed before; it means taking existing ingredients and preparing them according to a new recipe.
Audiences like the general ideas and the characters. It's only a minority of fans who care that much about the precise details of continuity -- and it's only a very, very misguided minority of those who react to a reinvention of a fictional continuity as if that were somehow a bad thing. If it's all made up to begin with, what's so horrible about making up another version of it? That just gives you more to enjoy.
That's certainly not true. Throughout human history, most works of fiction have been retellings of pre-existing stories. It's only in the past few centuries that inventing new stories has become the norm. That's why novels were called that -- because the fact that they were new (novel) works was unusual enough to warrant naming them after it. Reinvention of existing works is fundamental to human creativity. Before widespread literacy, it was the only way that stories could be kept alive from generation to generation. So it's ridiculous to think there's something wrong with it.
And plenty of new takes on old ideas have been hugely popular -- Batman '66, Batman: The Animated Series, Burton Batman, Nolan Batman, Sherlock, Elementary, Moore's Galactica, the past couple of Ninja Turtles animated series (all three, really, since the first was loosely based on the comic book), nearly every Marvel movie and show (some of which follow up on less successful earlier screen adaptations of characters like Captain America, the Hulk, Thor, etc.), the current James Bond films, the current Planet of the Apes films (and the originals of both, which were adapted from books in turn), and countless others.
No, it isn't. It is absurd to make blanket generalizations about entire categories. It's lazy thinking -- or rather, an excuse to avoid thinking -- because if you actually make the effort to gather and observe the facts, it's easy to recognize that every category of storytelling has both good and bad instances and everything in between. Plenty of direct continuations are creatively bankrupt -- countless horror sequels that just rehash earlier films, for instance -- and plenty of reinventions are creatively inspired in the fresh perspective they bring, like Galactica or Sherlock. Originality is not about where the ingredients come from -- it's about what you do with them.
And plenty of things that are reboots have also made big money, as above. You're just cherrypicking the evidence to fit your prejudice.
While I agree that at this point we don't known enough about the new show to know if the novel continuity is in any danger, I would like to remind everyone that should the new show be set in the Prime Universe and does negate the novel continuity, then that is something we all should have known could theoretically happen someday anyway. Tie-in material is always being superseded by the parent show/film franchise and such things have happened in Trek before. So should this scenario happen, I hope Trek fandom at least takes it with a bit more dignity than Star Wars fandom did when the Expanded Universe was nullified.
... Dare I ask what happened in the SW fandom?
One day they all woke up and found although all their books still existed oddly the person making the new films didn't want to be handcuff by 40 years worth of backstory written by multiple people over two decades.
So they shitcanned it... Em... Said they would now be termed legends and started again with the books in line with the new films.
There is a radical difference between something using the same 'tropes' etc, and a reboot. While Trek is a space opera, it is not 'forbidden planet the TV show' nor is forbidden planet 'voyage of the space beagle the movie'. So I stand by what I said.
Of the reboots you mention, I did make a point of saying 'recently', and the galactica reboot is one of the few exceptions. I am also one of the few who considers elementary a better homes redux than sherlock, if only because it does totally fresh stories, rather than those that you can logically work out their plot of you have enough familiarity with the originals.
And I think the level of continuity and details fans like from their continuing series is a personal thing, with one group not minding reboots, and the other minding it possibly quite a bit. The safest thing to do to keep your fanbase is to not reboot, as both groups are generally OK with that. Or an approach like the modern who series, which was vague enough to look like a reboot to a general audience, and then when it settled in revealed it really really wasn't.
Different versions in different media are not exactly reboots, especially if they are adaptations of a work to begin with. Sherlock is not a reboot of the jeremy Brett Grenada holmes, it's a different adaptation or style of adaption from the same source.
Reboots were big money a few years back, or big ish at least, however, the stupendously big money has gone to two films that very consciously avoided being reboots, which suggests something I would say.
Every other reboot does alienate fans of the original, even something that some people would consider minor like Thunderbirds or La Femme Nikita.
The time passing between original and reboot can mollify that enough that it won't effect a franchise (kids today like their thunderbirds and may not like the originals, bit those kids are totally the target audience and the old fans essentially don't really matter to the bottom line from a certain perspective) but that isn't really accurate for Trek (14 years since last TV show is a smaller gap than who or trek) nd tends not to work for reboots of adult orientated properties (Nikita died a death with fans of the original TV series as far as I can tell, itself an adaptation of course.)
It also tends to make a mockery of big anniversary events if the 'now' version of a show is patently not a continuation of the original but a reboot, it becomes a thing you can easily cheat, especially if you count films in there....what's the time between dragnet starting on TV and the 80s comedy film? Does that mean it was the longest running police show?
No.
Look at the X files, Twin Peaks, Heroes....this is the year of my generations shows coming back. And trek is as much an 80s/90s show as it is a sixties one.
No, there is a superficial difference between them. At root, all creativity entails modifying pre-existing material, not manufacturing new material out of the aether. There are countless works of fiction that give new names to the work and the characters and the places but just rehash a plot that's been done a million times before. And there are plenty of works that take existing characters and tales and reinvent them in wildly original ways.
And you miss the point. It's not about exact duplication. It's about the fact that all fiction is a response to earlier fiction. All creators draw on earlier ideas and engage with them, comment on them, explore new variations on them. Sometimes that's done in a more abstract or indirect way, by creating your own characters and premise that are a reaction to earlier works, and sometimes it's done in a more literal way, by creating a new version of a pre-existing story or character. Yes, they're different ways of doing it -- but different does not mean wrong or inferior. That's kind of the whole message of Star Trek, that differences should be respected, not condemned. Diversity is a good thing. Just because you don't prefer one thing, that doesn't entitle you to tell other people that they're wrong for doing it.
Which is precisely why your argument is illegitimate: Because you cherry-picked a narrow selection of examples that fit your preconceived conclusion.
What a ridiculously contradictory and self-serving argument. You acknowledge that other people disagree with your bias, but still insist that it somehow proves your own bias should be favored. How tediously egocentric and inconsiderate of others.
As I've written umpteen times before, "canon" and "continuity" are not the be-all and end-all where STAR TREK (or any long-running fictional universe) are concerned. The new series is not going to rise or fall on whether the new series in set in the Prime Universe or not, and the vast majority of the viewing audience isn't going to care, so why worry about it? Popular characters and series tended to get updated and reinvented every generation or so. Why should STAR TREK be treated any differently?
As for the effect on the books . . . well, we'll roll with the punches, the same way we always have. ("What? They killed Yar? Okay, let's write her out of the books from now on . . . .")
As for the effect on the books . . . well, we'll roll with the punches, the same way we always have. ("What? They killed Yar? Okay, let's write her out of the books from now on . . . .")
Because, for myself and for many other fans, we want to see what's going to happen next. We don't want novel lines to end without a sense of closure, we want to know what's going to happen to the new DS9 or the Full Circle project or the Typhon Pact or Bashir with Section 31.
The concern isn't that books suddenly "won't count", Greg, it's that storylines won't get a chance to have a proper ending, like I said earlier in the thread. I don't think anyone in this thread has said anything about worrying that books suddenly will be out of continuity as the sole reason why, I'm not sure what exactly you're responding to by pointing that out. We're concerned for the same reason that we'd have been concerned about, say, the cancellation of Journeyman, that's all: that a good narrative is going to be forced to end early without a proper conclusion for reasons not related to its popularity or quality but for reasons completely outside of its control.
Well, would be concerned, because the new show likely won't be in the Prime universe anyway so I'm not really concerned on that front personally anymore.
Edit: Annnnnnd I just realized you were probably responding to Jaime's perspective, not the "we'd rather not see Treklit end" posters. Bleh, sorry about that. :/
The concern isn't that books suddenly "won't count", Greg, it's that storylines won't get a chance to have a proper ending, like I said earlier in the thread. I don't think anyone in this thread has said anything about worrying that books suddenly will be out of continuity as the sole reason why, I'm not sure what exactly you're responding to by pointing that out. We're concerned for the same reason that we'd have been concerned about, say, the cancellation of Journeyman, that's all: that a good narrative is going to be forced to end early without a proper conclusion for reasons not related to its popularity or quality but for reasons completely outside of its control.
Well, would be concerned, because the new show likely won't be in the Prime universe anyway so I'm not really concerned on that front personally anymore.
Edit: Annnnnnd I just realized you were probably responding to Jaime's perspective, not the "we'd rather not see Treklit end" posters. Bleh, sorry about that. :/
Last edited:
I suggest not rebooting keeps a larger share of the fanbase on board, not that fits my bias. This is not an ego eccentric statement, it's just one that seems logical looking at fans and their reactions.
I respect diversity, I do not, however, think that really applies in the case of discussing this subject.
In terms of creativity, using another creators work can be a crutch, using it and then rebooting it is practically a pair of crutches. (I am going to reuse most of the setting nd characters, and most of the story too....but Change it a bit.) It's saying painting by numbers is the same as the sistine chapel ceiling.
Short alternate world stories are one thing that works, but they work by sitting as a contrast to the original and require the original to work.
All works are built of influences from other works, but the reboot brings the Dna too close. It's the thing that scuppers Into Darkness for some people. It has the dependencies on an original that something like an alternate world story has, but ultimately depends on that original too much. But I digress.
Working on continuing a universe, while staying true to established lore is hard. But not impossible, and shows commitment to that universe and working hard to create within its rules.
How much easier to take something surface, file off bits under the concept of reboot, and leave yourself the leeway to say....remake best of both worlds a few years down the line, when you need a boost and a quick concept that saves time coming up with one of your own.
Galactica is an amazing reboot, because it works, nd because sometimes you don't notice how much is borrowed from the original because it's been made into something new. This is rare with reboots.
I have no recollection of any reboot of an ongoing story ever besting the original, and very rarely matching it, certainly for popularity with a fanbase. Galactica is probably the exception, and even then it annoyed a set of people with its last series or so.
To make something whole cloth, even featuring your elements of other things, is creative.
To continue another's work, showing a mixture of your own creativity and working within given constraints that you cannot change, shows another kind of creativity.
The reboot is the fan fiction training wheels of creativity. It's playground 'wouldnt it be cool if' but without any evolution beyond that.
You see that in people liking say....Q-who over The Naked Now. One is whole cloth, one is so obviously a retread in concept. And the Naked Now would still be better than a reboot, because it's a story happening to totally different characters in a different place and time.
Now, try not to insult me this time please, I am not making personal attacks on anyone, just expressing an opinion, with my reasoning, because of a phrase I often hear nd take exception to.
Similar threads
