It's not that you toss it. You reboot it and then mooch off whatever you feel the best goodies are from the old.
Goodbye Prime?
- Thread starter NeroShrimp
- Start date
- Status
It's not that you toss it. You reboot it and then mooch off whatever you feel the best goodies are from the old.
I heard it got way better as it went along!
I didn't stop because I didn't like it. I just got sidetracked. I mean, it's pretty clear that Season 1 was "playing it safe", but I was still enjoying it.
But it was still nowhere near as good or as exciting or as groundbreaking or as alive as it should've been.
But nuBSG was damned exciting and powerful from very early on.
I didn't stop because I didn't like it. I just got sidetracked. I mean, it's pretty clear that Season 1 was "playing it safe", but I was still enjoying it.
But it was still nowhere near as good or as exciting or as groundbreaking or as alive as it should've been.
But nuBSG was damned exciting and powerful from very early on.
Works for me.
And if the next STAR TREK series does not acknowledge "Spock's Brain" or "Turnabout Intruder" as canon . . . well, we'll just have to live with that.
To add, the end of Season 4 had the Space Tea Party led by Peter Weller. Hell, they predate the real world xenophobic/racist Tea Party by a few years, as both were born out of terrorist attacks, foreign policy fears, confused nation, and extremism while trying to use seemingly neutral and benevolent language to achieve their propaganda. And it turns out that they, and not some outside alien race, are the true threat to Earth's progress. If that's not topical, I don't know what is.
---
Orange is the New Black has attitude, danger, and unpredictability. I'm really not hearing anyone saying that Trek should be a Prison Dramedy in Space, though. Because, again, any show can have attitude, danger, and unpredictability -- BSG is great, but it doesn't corner the market there. And because any show can have those traits, those aren't BSG trademarks or even its primary bread and butter. It has its own characteristics and excels on its own terms, not on something generic like "attitude."
Last edited:
The Tea Party's aim is reduction of government debt/deficits, and a increase in government fiscal responsibility. Enterprise never had a episode featuring that Cyke101.
The party is neither xenophobic, nor racist.
To add, the end of Season 4 had the Space Tea Party led by Peter Weller. Hell, they predate the real world xenophobic/racist Tea Party by a few years, as both were born out of terrorist attacks, foreign policy fears, confused nation, and extremism while trying to use seemingly neutral and benevolent language to achieve their propaganda. And it turns out that they, and not some outside alien race, are the true threat to Earth's progress. If that's not topical, I don't know what is.
---
Orange is the New Black has attitude, danger, and unpredictability. I'm really not hearing anyone saying that Trek should be a Prison Dramedy in Space, though. Because, again, any show can have attitude, danger, and unpredictability -- BSG is great, but it doesn't corner the market there. And because any show can have those traits, those aren't BSG trademarks or even its primary bread and butter. It has its own characteristics and excels on its own terms, not on something generic like "attitude."
What exactly are you trying to say?
I'm simply stating that as *I* was watching nuBSG, it occurred to me that Enterprise should've had some of these characteristics because the show, at least early on, was devoid of those characteristics.
I didn't say those characteristics were exclusive to nuBSG, which is what you seem to be implying.
All I'm trying to say is that Star Trek needed a fresh approach, which is exactly what JJ Abrams gave it and was successful at doing.
I'm not an Enterprise expert or anything, but one of the characteristics of Enterprise that kinda turned me off was that there were "no shields", but didn't they "polarize the hull plating", which is basically a wordier version of "raise shields"?
They were trying to do something new, but didn't, or didn't know how to after---God bless them---creating thousands of hours of Trek.
Am I wrong?
Yes I know, my Vulcan character had an impressive progression. Of course, it's a bit odd to see a Vice-Admiral walking on Deep Space Nine for a dangerous infiltration...
Strangely, my Klingon and my Romulan had a similar progression...and they both walked on Deep Space Nine...despite my Vulcan already won this new Dominon War.
Seriously, I agree with Mr Laser Beam, STO can only exist for itself. It's a pleasant game, but the story can't be "exported on another format. It's a mix of continuity porn and war porn with other conveniences that allows the franchise to be exploited for that type of game (exemple: the Klingonized Gorns).
The Tea Party's aim is reduction of government debt/deficits, and a increase in government fiscal responsibility. Enterprise never had a episode featuring that Cyke101.
The party is neither xenophobic, nor racist.
QFE
Well said.
Personally, and this was discussed in the Trek XI+ board, I am fine with either a reboot or an Abrams continuation. I would prefer a continuation, and a chance to see Starfleet grow and change based upon the new direction, bigger, louder, etc. that has been introduced.
That said, there is nothing wrong with sticking with Prime Trek either. But, since you have the new continuity and the ability to make it more socially relevant, while appealing to a modern audience, I see no problem with continuing on in that vein.
Personally, I would like to see a more active colonization storyline, where we see UPF expanding its boarders, which would create conflict and drama, both internal and external. There is a lot more that could be done and many of the common themes from TOS onward, could be retold but in an expanded way, both visually and thematically.
Also, would be nice to see a Abrams Excelsior
Oh please oh please oh PLEASE let this happen!!
Last edited:
If one considers the fan films and show, a lot of them go to extreme lengths to get the look of TOS as correct as they can while also using current technolgy and ideals to get the stories across.
Be it Phase II, Continues, or even Axanar, the TOS model progesses. And for Axanar, you even have something that is between ENT and TOS with hints of NuTrek styling to get the flavor of the era across. The turning points for those types of shows is the writing quality, the directing + stagehand skills for lighting and camera work, and the level of acting the actors can handle.
One thing about fan films is that with them, Starfleet looks less like a large group of Hollywood actors (beautiful people in the background) and more like regular people (variable widths). Though I imagine Starfleet would still have military like health and fitness regulations.
Be it Phase II, Continues, or even Axanar, the TOS model progesses. And for Axanar, you even have something that is between ENT and TOS with hints of NuTrek styling to get the flavor of the era across. The turning points for those types of shows is the writing quality, the directing + stagehand skills for lighting and camera work, and the level of acting the actors can handle.
One thing about fan films is that with them, Starfleet looks less like a large group of Hollywood actors (beautiful people in the background) and more like regular people (variable widths). Though I imagine Starfleet would still have military like health and fitness regulations.
The progression from Cadet to Vice Admiral will definitely be a stretch - since I didn't care for the Cadet Kirk suddenly becoming Captain in the 2009 film - but I do like many of the ideas that STO puts out. For example, the mix of various uniforms, ships, weapons throughout the eras being used. The sense that all of Trek is acknowledged, rather than and the various story ideas.
It's interesting seeing Tholians going against Borg cubes.....then coming after you after they ambushed said cubes...(something that happened to me yesterday...haha)
Similar to the way there were nods to TAS' 'Yesteryear,' I definitely don't mind nods to STO in a future Trek production or productions.
Last edited:
As I said, I like this game, but I prefer to don't see nods in a Future Canon Trek. It doesn't make sense into actual Trek universe to have the Federation at war with the Klingon Empire while they're partner against the Borg, the Voths, the Undines, etc. STO's universe is permanent war.
I can agree with you in regards to the war. Although, it's not surprising to me that the Feds are in a war with the Klingons, again. Nor, that the Gorn would be allied with the Klingons; they are warlike species. Similar to the Zentraedi, from another franchise, the Klingons and Gorn need to fight.
Moreover, the Borg have always been a threat. So, it's not surprising to see them in the mix as well. Their 'project' is trying to take over their enemies, the Undine. And, it wouldn't be surprising to seem them against the Tholians who don't like anyone in their space, or anyone different than they.
The idea of New Romulus being threatened by the Tal Shiar makes a lot of sense, given what we've seen in the television series and movies.
STO seems to be a culmination of a lot of events from the previous eras. It gives us a bigger picture than what we might see on a television show with only a few characters.
It's barely worth mentioning, but ID did use STO's "sector block" system on barely visible background graphics.
First off, never say never. Not to anything. Especially not in Hollywood.
Most importantly though? The rights are divided.
Star Trek has always existed as one. Now it does not.
Paramount Pictures owns the rights to Trek in Films. CBS owns the rights to Trek on TV.
The legalities of who-would-pay-whom-what for using the others properties is murky as hell.
If CBS did an Abramsverse show, would they owe Paramount? If Paramount did a prime show, would they owe CBS? Would neither owe either? CBS does seem to have the dominant hand.
At the end of the day, Star Trek as a franchise has been the definition of breaking and remaking the rules. Go back to the 70s and tell people Star Trek would be the 2nd largest franchise in history, with 5 series, 3 of them lasting 7 seasons, and no one would believe you.
It will all come down to money in the end with Hollywood, anyway. The nuTrek films have been a better commercial success than the prior films; but they've not been mega blockbusters either. Both nuFilms only made 225-250 million domestic. STID pulled up a better share globally, but it'll come down to cost-benefit eventually. Not to mention after this 3rd one, everyone's up for new contracts and that could make things messy.
CBS chair Les Moonves is also notoriously anti-Trek on TV, if I remember right. And considering he's a power-house whose done very well, I doubt his tenure as head honcho there will end sooner than a decade or so from now.
Right now, it's impossible to say what the future will hold.
Do I expect to see a 25th century Trek series that follows the mold TNG+DS9+VGR laid out any time soon? No. But I don't rule it out. I don't rule out an Abramsverse show. Or a TNG reboot in films. Or anything, for that matter. Nothing is clear anymore. Hell, we could have a total reboot of Trek as a whole, like how Battlestar was done in 2003/2004, sometime in the next few years.
Most importantly though? The rights are divided.
Star Trek has always existed as one. Now it does not.
Paramount Pictures owns the rights to Trek in Films. CBS owns the rights to Trek on TV.
The legalities of who-would-pay-whom-what for using the others properties is murky as hell.
If CBS did an Abramsverse show, would they owe Paramount? If Paramount did a prime show, would they owe CBS? Would neither owe either? CBS does seem to have the dominant hand.
At the end of the day, Star Trek as a franchise has been the definition of breaking and remaking the rules. Go back to the 70s and tell people Star Trek would be the 2nd largest franchise in history, with 5 series, 3 of them lasting 7 seasons, and no one would believe you.
It will all come down to money in the end with Hollywood, anyway. The nuTrek films have been a better commercial success than the prior films; but they've not been mega blockbusters either. Both nuFilms only made 225-250 million domestic. STID pulled up a better share globally, but it'll come down to cost-benefit eventually. Not to mention after this 3rd one, everyone's up for new contracts and that could make things messy.
CBS chair Les Moonves is also notoriously anti-Trek on TV, if I remember right. And considering he's a power-house whose done very well, I doubt his tenure as head honcho there will end sooner than a decade or so from now.
Right now, it's impossible to say what the future will hold.
Do I expect to see a 25th century Trek series that follows the mold TNG+DS9+VGR laid out any time soon? No. But I don't rule it out. I don't rule out an Abramsverse show. Or a TNG reboot in films. Or anything, for that matter. Nothing is clear anymore. Hell, we could have a total reboot of Trek as a whole, like how Battlestar was done in 2003/2004, sometime in the next few years.
CBS is definitely in the driver's seat. It really owns all of Trek--both Prime and Abramsverse--as far as an IP is concerned.
http://www.cbsconsumerproducts.com/startrek/star_trek_into_darkness.html
Paramount's ownership of Trek is limited mostly to the production and distribution of the presently twelve films. Anyone wishing to show those movies (in part or in entirety) deals with Paramount. Anyone wishing to do a TV series (in either the Prime or Abramsverse) has to deal with CBS as Paramount no longer owns the actual IP, but a license to make movies based off it.
Moonves isn't notoriously anti-Trek on TV at all. He's notoriously anti-expensive shows that don't bring in big audiences or ratings. If Trek could deliver 15 million+ viewers a week, Trek would still be on TV today, IMO.
You know, considering how remake or reboot-happy Hollywood has gotten in the past decade, particularly with superhero movies (IE Hulk, Superman, Spiderman, Batman), it would not surprise me at all that if Abrams drops Star Trek completely in favor of pursuing Star Wars movies (we know he is doing Eps 7-9, possibly spinoffs as well), I could see Paramount just scrapping the Abramsverse and doing a cold reboot of the whole franchise. Studios do it for lesser reasons as it is.
The question then becomes this: will it be another film franchise, or will they return to the small screen? My bet would be on movies, because that's where the money is at.
Which is sad, because unless it is animated or CGI, internet fan films aside, I don't think we will ever see another Star Trek TV series.
Abrams is only doing Episode VII (for now, anyway). Rian Johnson will be taking over for Episode VIII. Gareth Edwards has been tapped to direct a yet-to-be-named spinoff movie.
I think it's more a question of when than if, IMO. I think the days of any Trek continuity lasting more than 10 or 15 years are over.
I think the only reason why we had additional Trek shows after TOS was because Paramount at the time needed shows for first-run syndication (TNG and DS9) and for UPN (VOY and ENT). CBS doesn't really have those needs.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
- Poll
