If the new show is set in the Prime universe...
- Thread starter Terok Nor
- Start date
This idea that TOS - Enterprise is as one bloc of identical storytellying isn't true.
TNG is quite different from TOS and DS9 is a radical departure from TOS. TOS and DS9 are unrecognisable compared to each other. It's Voyager and to a point Enterprise that eventuality gets bogged down.
You could go with the original universe and turn the storytelling on it's head if you wanted. It won't happen but you could do that.
Again, I prefer a reimagining from scratch as my preference and I certainly hope that happens. Whether it will or not is a different debate.
TNG is quite different from TOS and DS9 is a radical departure from TOS. TOS and DS9 are unrecognisable compared to each other. It's Voyager and to a point Enterprise that eventuality gets bogged down.
You could go with the original universe and turn the storytelling on it's head if you wanted. It won't happen but you could do that.
Again, I prefer a reimagining from scratch as my preference and I certainly hope that happens. Whether it will or not is a different debate.
I'm sure this could be done in a sociological context fairly easy (even much without a reboot), but from a technological standpoint, it would be a pretty heavy reboot. Enough to the point that a lot of what makes Star Trek might be lost or too unfamiliar. At that point, if we're looking at a realistic portrayal of our future, Star Trek isn't going to be the property that does that. Something else has to take its place. I think I'd argue that it was never really all that realistic to begin with anyways.
And I don't think there's any indication that we would get such a reboot honestly. A reboot in itself, perhaps, but not a huge one. In a way, a reboot doesn't make much sense if they're not focusing on Kirk and crew (or even Picard, et al). If it's a mostly new set of characters, what's the point?
While I argue it would make sense to do such a reboot, I'm confused as to why you would believe that technologically it would be so unfamiliar? I mean, we don't have warp drive. We don't have transporters. Phasers, tricorders and communicators don't seem to exist. Yeah, we have our own version of PADDs now and touchscreens but why do those things make a difference when the show could easily show virtual displays? I mean, I don't think that's far off base. Sure, medical technology has advanced but what they could show in Star Trek would be leaps and bounds above. So what do you mean by that statement? I don't get it.
Extrapolating the future from what we know now, in the next one to two hundred years we will probably have :
Beaten most diseases.
Beaten the ageing process.
Downladed conciousness to computers.
Failed to break the speed of light.
Failed to generate gravity.
Failed to transport any significant quantity of matter.
Doesn't sound much like Trek does it ?
Most sci-fi is still working on a 1960's worldview. It's already way off from reality. In another decade or so, our best guess at the future will be different again.
The galaxy almost certainly isn't littered with aliens that we could ever relate to. A UFP ain't happening and even a "Mr. Spock" is wholly implausible.
Star Trek is interesting in that it articulates some general principles as to how man can overcome certain intrinsic problems but as a methodology to predict the future in its particulars, very little of it is workable bar a few gizmos here and there.
Star Trek is interesting in that it articulates some general principles as to how man can overcome certain intrinsic problems but as a methodology to predict the future in its particulars, very little of it is workable bar a few gizmos here and there.
Ehh, not really I think we have enough of looking back on old characters. Spock and Picard maybe though.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion.
Personally, I worry that setting it in Prime will do exactly the same thing you suggest Abrams has been doing -- a fresh coat of paint on an old idea.
I'm pleased that I'm having a discussion with someone where we don't agree but speak in a respectful manner towards one another. Regardless, I think this is an agree to disagree moment.
I concur
Why not? The mere fact Star Trek is being brought back to tv at all is going over old ground so it might as well be set in the same universe so we're not faced with remakes of City On The Edge Of Forever, Mirror Mirror, The Best Of Both Worlds, etc. every other week. Where Voyager and Enterprise went wrong is the fact they recycled a lot of previous Trek storylines. I remember an Enterprise episode that was a straight up remake of a DS9 episode. Rene Auberjonois even guest starred. That was the point I knew Enterprise would be canned.
I'm not a fan of the whole "this is our take on [insert franchise]". I don't need a new take on stuff I already love. Try doing something original with it instead like DS9 did. I've yet to be convinced the 700 episodes and 10 movies are an anvil around the neck of a new series. As above, I'm willing to agree to disagree on this matter.
Agreed. TOS, TNG and DS9 are very different to each other. It was only Voyager and Enterprise that heavily riffed on the previous shows to the point of being lazy.
I still think we can have a contemporary Star Trek show for 2017 set in the Prime Universe. TOS reflected the 1960's, TNG reflected the 1980's, DS9 and Voyager the 1990's and Enterprise also happened
One extrapolation from 2015 are the exoplanets discovered. Some real scientific background that could appear in a new series.
There's little reason I see for him to be wedded to it, after all it was created to make money, not out of love. You're presuming he feels strongly one way or the other, I doubt it.
Misconception 1
A show set in the prime universe will be too weighed down by canon for writers to be creative.
Misconception 2
A prime universe show would be somehow old fashioned/out of date.
Misconception 3
A prime universe show would require knowledge of previous trek.
Misconception 4
A prime universe show will have to explain in depth what happened to galactic politics after the events leading up to the 2380s.
Misconception 5
Fans will be really pedantic about canon in the Prime Universe, and producers will care about this a great deal.
Misconception 6
Starting fresh will bring in more viewers.
Dunno just some of my thoughts. I would explain further but I don't want to look too swivel eyed here haha.
A show set in the prime universe will be too weighed down by canon for writers to be creative.
Misconception 2
A prime universe show would be somehow old fashioned/out of date.
Misconception 3
A prime universe show would require knowledge of previous trek.
Misconception 4
A prime universe show will have to explain in depth what happened to galactic politics after the events leading up to the 2380s.
Misconception 5
Fans will be really pedantic about canon in the Prime Universe, and producers will care about this a great deal.
Misconception 6
Starting fresh will bring in more viewers.
Dunno just some of my thoughts. I would explain further but I don't want to look too swivel eyed here haha.
Also I'll add this
http://trekcore.com/blog/2015/11/new...cess-decision/
Now if demand for old trek on streaming is so high CBS based their decision on how to air the new show then I fail to see how moving totally away from a winning formula is good business sense.
http://trekcore.com/blog/2015/11/new...cess-decision/
Now if demand for old trek on streaming is so high CBS based their decision on how to air the new show then I fail to see how moving totally away from a winning formula is good business sense.
I agree with this, yeah.
I think there was stagnation simply because most of the staff were rehired for subsequent series and it all got bogged down with Voyager. DS9 Dominion War arc though is radically different from anything TNG produced. Radically different.
I was under the impression he and Orci were the ones who initially put it to Paramount that they wanted to do a Star Trek film, and then they brought in Abrams. It was their baby.
In 2009 I'm sure there were much more reliable franchises to cash in on, if it was all about a quick buck.
Most of the writers for Trek didn't write continuously for it for years. A lot just came in, did one or two eps, and then left. Doesn't mean they weren't passionate about it.
Maybe Kurtzman is really invested in the world he created, maybe he isn't. In the end we just have his word, and fan extrapolation based on not much at all. I just tend to give the side-eye when people start making claims about others lack of 'fannishness', because we call it the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy for a reason. On this thread alone we had people labeled as 'haters' of TNG, merely because they were slightly critical of it/less than enthused about it possibly coming back. People are terrible at judging the behaviour of others. It nearly always ends up being filtered through the lens of 'What would this action/decision be motivated by if I had done it?'
Maybe Kurtzman is really invested in the world he created, maybe he isn't. In the end we just have his word, and fan extrapolation based on not much at all. I just tend to give the side-eye when people start making claims about others lack of 'fannishness', because we call it the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy for a reason. On this thread alone we had people labeled as 'haters' of TNG, merely because they were slightly critical of it/less than enthused about it possibly coming back. People are terrible at judging the behaviour of others. It nearly always ends up being filtered through the lens of 'What would this action/decision be motivated by if I had done it?'
Similar threads
- Poll
