Well, too, I'm thinking broadly.
Even if they do have their own continuity, they still may use voices from people in the Abrams cast, and so forth.
That would be surprising. Even animated shows that
do purport to be in the same reality as the movies they're based on usually don't get the original actors. That sort of thing is the exception to the rule, like Tony Shalhoub and Vincent D'Onofrio reprising their
Men in Black characters (for one season) or Kevin Dunn and Malcolm Danare reprising their
Godzilla characters. (
MiB: The Series was only approximately in the movie continuity, with some major changes.
Godzilla: The Series, however, could easily be treated as a direct, consistent continuation of the Devlin/Emmerich
Godzilla film.)
Most of the Abrams Trek cast have pretty active, upward-trending careers, and it would probably be expensive to get them. (Filmation was able to afford the original TOS cast because they
weren't particularly successful or expensive actors at that time -- and even so, Filmation didn't want to hire the entire cast at first, and even though Nimoy convinced them to bring most of them aboard, they still had to leave Walter Koenig out for budget reasons.)
Besides, we don't know a new Trek TV series would be about Kirk and the
Enterprise. In fact, I doubt it very much. Pocket was going to publish a series of tie-in novels following up on the movie (I wrote one of them), but Bad Robot decided at the eleventh hour that they didn't want anyone else advancing the story past the first film until they could do it, so the books were shelved. Apparently their policy is to maintain a rather tight control on their continuity and any tie-ins to it, in order to ensure consistency. The only book and comic tie-ins that are being published are prequels, stories set before the film or during Kirk's three years in the Academy. Now, maybe a new animated show could be set in those same Academy years, or maybe if it came out after the second film it could be set between the films. But CBS might prefer to avoid setting a show in the Abramsverse, since they'd have more creative freedom that way.
People who watch Trek on the small screen will want to see something from the Abrams Trek, particularly those who enjoyed the film...and expect something from the film to be in the series. (Especially if there are those who are only familiar with Trek from the nufilm series).
It would be common sense and bad marketing to not do so.
Theoretically, yeah. But sometimes the connections are only approximate. Marvel tied into the
Iron Man films, featuring Tony Stark as a dissolute, hard-partying corporate titan in his 40s, by creating the animated
Iron Man: Armored Adventures, featuring Tony Stark as a 16-year-old prodigy trying to cope with high school. Its only real resemblance to the first movie is that it features Tony, Rhodey, and Pepper as the main leads and Obadiah Stane as the primary villain. Similarly, they tied into
X-Men by creating
X-Men Evolution, again in a totally separate continuity from the films. The only borrowed elements were a few details: Xavier having an English accent, Rogue having the limited powers of the movie version rather than the full Ms. Marvel power set of the comics version, Wolverine eventually adopting a costume like his movie version, things like that.
TAS is a good example of that; although, animation today is given a little more respect than it did years ago.
True. Filmation's shows could be incredibly hokey in a lot of ways, but in some respects they were smarter than most cartoons of the day, or at least I felt so when I watched them as a kid. And TAS was one of their best.
'The Incredibles' was kicked around as a series on the small screen; and that scared me because I knew we would get a 'sanitized' version of the big screen film.
If that meant not having the heroes kill anyone, I would've actually preferred that. I think it diminishes superheroes when they kill. And if they had done a TV series, it would've presumably been on the Disney Channel, and they've done some pretty good work with shows like
Kim Possible, a terrific superhero/spy parody in its own right. As long as they got the characters and the attitude right, there'd be no need for excessive violence.
Then again, as I think I mentioned above, the standards for violence in animated programming seem to be loosening lately, at least on Cartoon Network in prime time.
Maybe by recycling air from the body heat? Or maybe the field automatically adapts depending on atmosphere, toxins, what have you.
That's where the imagination comes from.
I resent the implication that my dislike for forcefield belts is due to a failure of imagination. On the contrary, I dislike them because I can easily imagine all the things that can threaten an astronaut in space that skintight forcefields would be inadequate to protect against. I can easily imagine a less ridiculous design.
Even if you can accept that a skintight forcefield can adequately recycle air and maintain pressure, a transparent field just can't defend against some of the most basic hazards of space. Astronauts wear helmets with tinted visors for a very good reason: without atmospheric filtering, sunlight is dangerously intense. When I used the word "blinding," I was speaking in the most literal, permanent sense of the word. To be out in space without some kind of eye protection is simply insane.
Besides, it's just plain bad engineering to entrust your life to a "suit" that will only protect you so long as its batteries last. What if something drains or damages the power cells? At least in a physical spacesuit, you have backup protection in case of a power failure. In a forcefield belt, one cosmic ray disrupting a power circuit will kill you. Using powered forcefields instead of walls, doors, or spacesuits may seem all futuristic and fancy, but it's totally implausible from an engineering and safety perspective, because there's no backup. (I mean, really, how many people have escaped from starship brigs because the ship's power failed and the forcefield went down? Would it really hurt them to have some bars across the doorway as a backup? For that matter, why waste energy using a forcefield at all when a good solid door will work even better?)
Neither forcefields nor suits are perfectly safe on their own, so why not use both? If you're going to incorporate forcefields into a spacesuit, have them in addition to a physical layer, so they complement each other. That's practical engineering. A car has seatbelts, airbags, crumple zones, multiple complementary systems to protect the occupants. An elevator has emergency brakes if something goes wrong with the cable. So why should a spacesuit, of all things, rely on only one source of protection?
