This is where I stand on the issue too. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
If the new show is set in the Prime universe...
- Thread starter Terok Nor
- Start date
This is where I stand on the issue too. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
And new diseases will be encountered and old ones will evolve. Just like in Prime Trek.
Like a 137 year old Admiral McCoy?
Wasn't that the main point of "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" and "Return to Tomorrow" and "The Schizoid Man?"
Star Trek is about optimism. Extrapolating from today does not mean that things aren't possible. It's about dreaming about the future and the things that may be possible. No one has DEFINITIVELY proven that those things are impossible, and one could argue in 1966, the same things could be said. Back then, did we really think that breaking the speed of light was possible? That creating artificial gravity was possible? That transporting objects was possible?
Actually, much of it, yes.
There's no such thing as an oldTrek or nuTrek universe. There are just old and new ways of doing business, and old and new approaches to producing a TV series.
If this thing looks and plays like the Trek of the 20th century, it'll be deservedly mocked and ignored by the people that CBS needs in order for Trek to be more than just a license to sell tee-shirts. Maybe they can go ahead and try that, though, and see how many fewer viewers they can satisfy this time than they did with Enterprise.
Out with the old.
If this thing looks and plays like the Trek of the 20th century, it'll be deservedly mocked and ignored by the people that CBS needs in order for Trek to be more than just a license to sell tee-shirts. Maybe they can go ahead and try that, though, and see how many fewer viewers they can satisfy this time than they did with Enterprise.
Out with the old.
Hey I don't deny you might be right. But I haven't seen any evidence to really convince me I'm wrong here. Still I realise that I'm playing to my own prejudice and wishes here.
People here must be creative to argue over it then haha!
Actually there is.
The JJ Abrams movies take place in a different universe to the previous 700 episodes and 10 movies.
This is true but Trek has already proved it can approach new ways of doing business while remaining in the same continuity. Deep Space Nine was a radical departure from what came before.
That much is obvious. Just as tv had evolved from the 1960's to the 1980's it has evolved again into what we're used to in 2015. There is no reason to suspect the new series will be old fashioned no matter where its set.
Enterprise was a piece of garbage. That's why it didn't satisfy the masses.
Are you aware the decision to produce a new show was spurred on by the streaming numbers of the previous Trek shows on Netflix, Amazon and CBS? If there was no demand for this form of Star Trek then there would be no new series and that's a fact. CBS itself had offers from more than one entity about creating a new show and declined in favour of profiting from their own brand. That indicates there's a profit to be made and a demand for what they'll be supplying
Yep! And at risk of spamming the forum with my thoughts I'd also say that setting it in the Prime Universe means people have more incentive to rewatch the old shows which will also bring in more viewers for CBS and CBS All Access rather than it being a quaint 60s/90s throwback, which is what it could become.
Let's look at the numbers One More Time, shall we?
Enterprise may or may not have been great television, YMMV. The actual facts, however, don't support the claim that quality is why Star Trek ended.
Boredom with a decade of repetition is why Star Trek ended. People started dropping it the week after DS9 premiered and it just kept dropping. DS9 didn't "satisfy the masses." Neither did Voyager.
Sure, let's go back to that.
Here's the most you're going to get:
They may say "it's in the Prime Universe." Then maybe they'll do a flyby of Vulcan. And then they'll ignore all that and do whatever the fuck seems to them like a good idea in 2016.
Or they will fail.
Last edited:
TNG goes up after 7 years.
TNG goes up after 7 years.
TNG was the only show that bucked the trend. Regardless, after that, you will see that the trend from DS9 to Voyager to Enterprise continues to spiral in a downwards direction.
What I don’t think a lot of the “Give Me Prime or Give Me Death!” crowd seem to get is that Star Trek, at the end of the day, is a business. Back in 1979, 10 years after Star Trek had been cancelled, the only logical business decision was to bring back the original cast and put them in new adventures. It paid off. In 1987, the original cast was starting to get a little older and were off doing movies so they basically rebooted the series, it took awhile but eventually it paid off.
But as Paramount started exploiting Star Trek (yes, exploiting), with three more series and four movies in a twelve year period, people started getting bored. They tuned out. The business was no longer making money and in 2005, they stopped Star Trek dead in its tracks. They cancelled it. They stopped work on Brent Spiner’s Justice League Trek (even though I’m not sure they ever really started it) and rejected the Star Trek: The Beginning movie. Star Trek was, for all intents and purposes, dead.
Four years later, we had a fresh spin on Star Trek with JJ’s first movie. And it paid off. Far more than anything else before. A few years later, we had a sequel and while many fans did not accept it, the general public did, as did the critics. Far more than anything else before.
If you were CBS, who are you going to cater to? The 2 million core fans who will find something to whine about at every turn? Or the general public and the critics? Who’s going to make money for you?
Star Trek is not about elitism. It is about inclusion. I know who I’d cater to if I were CBS.
But as Paramount started exploiting Star Trek (yes, exploiting), with three more series and four movies in a twelve year period, people started getting bored. They tuned out. The business was no longer making money and in 2005, they stopped Star Trek dead in its tracks. They cancelled it. They stopped work on Brent Spiner’s Justice League Trek (even though I’m not sure they ever really started it) and rejected the Star Trek: The Beginning movie. Star Trek was, for all intents and purposes, dead.
Four years later, we had a fresh spin on Star Trek with JJ’s first movie. And it paid off. Far more than anything else before. A few years later, we had a sequel and while many fans did not accept it, the general public did, as did the critics. Far more than anything else before.
If you were CBS, who are you going to cater to? The 2 million core fans who will find something to whine about at every turn? Or the general public and the critics? Who’s going to make money for you?
Star Trek is not about elitism. It is about inclusion. I know who I’d cater to if I were CBS.
TNG goes up after 7 years.
Isn't that interesting?
Many successful shows have spinoffs, and rarely do the spinoffs do as well as the originals (I think we can all come up with exceptions).
This is because people generally like a show because they like that show - usually they're invested in the characters. Some will follow a spinoff. Many won't.
In retrospect it's clear that ST:TNG didn't actually create as many new Star Trek fans as it simply created Star Trek: The Next Generation fans. And they sampled the spinoffs and then didn't follow them.
You can see that every time a new Trek series was launched, the publicity around it (most likely) caused the general audience to sample it - happens with DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. Then most of those folks drifted off week after week and the decline continued along a curve that could be charted. Projected, even.
You know what you don't see? Attempts to increase ratings for each of the spinoffs when the studio saw that they were sinking hardly register on the curves. If you had a more granular chart on the x-axis you might be able to find the addition of Worf to DS9, Seven-of-Nine to Voyager and FanWank to the fourth season of Enterprise. But whatever help the shows got from rearranging the deck chairs couldn't reverse the trends long enough to show here.
Last edited:
I think I've made a pretty good case for the business side. But you are right it is an emotional thing too. I'd never say this anywhere else, but Star Trek means a lot to me.
I think Star Trek means a lot to all of us. Otherwise, why would we be here?
Not only is Star Trek a business. Not only is it inclusive. But it also should move forward. In my mind, going back to Prime, going back to the writers and producers of old is just a step backwards.
Not only is Star Trek a business. Not only is it inclusive. But it also should move forward. In my mind, going back to Prime, going back to the writers and producers of old is just a step backwards.
Well...I'm more an anti-JJ guy than a pro-prime guy. I hope they draw a line under both and create something calibrated for a contemporary TV audience that speaks to people as some of the celebrated dramas of the past decade or so have done. Frankly, I doubt this Alex Whateverhisnameis has the stuffin' to do that but maybe he'll surprise..
As for Star Trek being a 'business' and 'ratings' and stuff of this sort, it's not that I don't get the point, it's more that I just don't care.
The only thing I care about is whether Star Trek output speaks to me and if the new stuff doesn't, I'll note my reaction and step aside from it.
I can slap "misconception" in front of everything the Anti-JJers say without refuting any of it too. Sorta lazy way to post though.
TNG goes up after 7 years.
Look at Season Two. It was trending down before the mini-reboot between 2 and 3
1-2: Down
2-3: Flat
3-4: Up
4-5: Way Up
5-6: Flat
6-7: Way down
I can refute everything I say with a logic that would dizzy a Vulcan, confuse a human, pacify a Romulan, and provoke the living hell out of a Klingon. 
It's interesting to me the emotions that Trek brings up, especially as it relates to continuity. As much as I enjoy the Prime timeline, it feels so large and continuity driven to be accessible to new fans.
Personally, I think a new series has more potential to draw in viewers, but familiar and unfamiliar, because that is often how science fiction literature works. I can't tell you how many books I have written where I know nothing about the world, and in the end, I I want to learn more about it, but some details are left a mystery. Some details are left to the viewers imagination, or later works, or may never be answered. Some of my favorite SF works are stand alones that create an interesting world, but don't answer every question.
I'm not saying Trek doesn't have a rich history, but the new show does not have to be connected to the old in order to create rich history. Fiction writers have been doing that for years, without the benefit of the Internet.
Prime, Abrams, or new, I'll give the new series a try. I just don't feel like it must be attached to the Prime continuity for there to be world building or its own continuity.
Also, as a brief aside, interest in Star Trek and its spin offs, continue on to this day. Even if a new show isn't set in the Prime continuity, people are still going to watch it or discover it anew.
Personally, I think a new series has more potential to draw in viewers, but familiar and unfamiliar, because that is often how science fiction literature works. I can't tell you how many books I have written where I know nothing about the world, and in the end, I I want to learn more about it, but some details are left a mystery. Some details are left to the viewers imagination, or later works, or may never be answered. Some of my favorite SF works are stand alones that create an interesting world, but don't answer every question.
I'm not saying Trek doesn't have a rich history, but the new show does not have to be connected to the old in order to create rich history. Fiction writers have been doing that for years, without the benefit of the Internet.
Prime, Abrams, or new, I'll give the new series a try. I just don't feel like it must be attached to the Prime continuity for there to be world building or its own continuity.
Also, as a brief aside, interest in Star Trek and its spin offs, continue on to this day. Even if a new show isn't set in the Prime continuity, people are still going to watch it or discover it anew.
I think that's a wonderful response.
Similar threads
- Poll
