In which timeline should the new series take place?

[-Brett-]

I'd like to see them put Star Trek out of its misery and start fresh with a new show. Similar premise but with a slate wiped clean of previous existing characters, species, technology, organizations etc etc.

But if this zombie has to shuffle around for a while longer, the smart move would be the Abrams timeline, shared universe with the movies.

 

[Dac]

Can I have an option which says "It doesn't matter"?

I mean, if it IS JJverse, it won't be about Kirk and the rest and it wont be on the Enterprise and it won't have any bearing on the events of Star Trek Beyond. That leaves us with a universe with no Vulcan and Apple styled spaceships. That's it. That's the difference which, with no story or characters to go on is the most miniscule thing ever to get in a huff about. It's literally the canvas on which a story is told - no one should bitch about a canvas.

Likewise, if its a continuation of the original universe? Great, Woop. No Romulus and the ships look like they used too. That's it. The show still lives or dies on its story. Which, again - has not been announced and in all likelihood has not even been written yet.

 

[Dukhat]

To predict what Star Trek: 2017 will be like, one only has to see the history of Doctor Who.

The original Doctor Who TV show was on for 26 years. By the time it got cancelled, the show had gotten old and stale, the writing sucked, people were losing interest and the BBC outright hated it. Even with Andrew Cartmel's ideas to make the Doctor more mysterious by implying he was a lot older and something else entirely than what we knew, and Sylvester McCoy's excellent take on this idea, it ultimately didn't save the show.

Fast forward to 1996. Someone has the idea to "restart" Who by making a TV movie as a backdoor pilot for a new series. And here's where they fucked up. They essentially made a fanwank film for fans only, with things only a fan would understand. They brought in the Daleks without explaining who they were. They brought in the Master without explaining who he was. They brought in the Tardis without explaining why it was bigger on the inside than the outside. They had the Doctor regenerate from an old man into a young guy without explaining just what the hell was going on. McCoy even said that the worst thing they did was have him in it. And guess what happened? No new Who from 1996 to 2005.

(Disclaimer: I loved the 1996 movie, but that's because I'm a Who fan and knew what was going on.)

Fast forward again to 2005. Russell Davies resurrects Who, but while it was always meant to take place in the original series canon, they went out of their way to make any references to the original minimal at best, and nonexistent at worst. It was based on Rose's point of view, someone who is just learning all this for the first time, so we the casual audience who never saw Doctor Who before could follow along with Rose and learn what she learns. Of course, many years later the references to the old show started peaking out more and more, but by them the show had a dedicated fanbase that could follow along and (gasp) even watch the old show to understand the references even more. It was essentially a complete reboot while at the same time still faithful to the original in just enough ways that both new viewers and old could appreciate it.

My point? A successful show must both bring in new viewers without alienating them by showing stuff from 20 years ago that they wouldn't understand, but also keep from alienating their core fanbase by radically changing what made them fans to begin with. Picking back up with the Prime timeline after all this time isn't really the answer, because unlike Who, you can't just be vague about what happened before, and new viewers most likely won't care about the Dominion War, etc. It's just unnecessary. IMHO, a full, complete reboot is the answer. Something entirely new, but still with the ideals of the original series at heart.

 

[Squiggy]

I've always that the 2160s was a good choice. A Daedalus Class Enterprise, zipping around with her Warp 7 engine at the birth of the Federation. Admiral Archer Archer in an Admiral Forrest role and compatible with either timeline.

"Hey, remember that Enterprise show that no one watched? More of that!"

 

[.:: TSN ::.]

My point? A successful show must both bring in new viewers without alienating them by showing stuff from 20 years ago that they wouldn't understand, but also keep from alienating their core fanbase by radically changing what made them fans to begin with. Picking back up with the Prime timeline after all this time isn't really the answer, because unlike Who, you can't just be vague about what happened before, and new viewers most likely won't care about the Dominion War, etc. It's just unnecessary. IMHO, a full, complete reboot is the answer. Something entirely new, but still with the ideals of the original series at heart.

No, a complete reboot is not necessary. Especially since Trek was just rebooted with JJ movies. Trek can definately follow Doctor Who's path and do a soft "reboot/reimagining" without ditching whole past away. And maybe pick and choose best aspects of JJ-verse and Prime.

Why cant you be vague about stuff? Life goes on, people dont need to be talking about old wars or legendary captains all the time. Just have a new crew with a new ship and a new mission. Nothing else is needed at the start. Maybe in the second season they may visit some old abandoned space station that just happens to look like DS9 on completely unrelated journey. No need to reference old series.

 

[Galileo7]

JJuniverse on NG reboot 1701-D.

 

[Wingsley]

It's neat; this thread is about people voicing their preferences and loyalties of what they want to see the new STAR TREK show become, with very little interest in what it will actually be. Details are very few now, but the initial publicity gives just enough detail to suggest that this prime-universe-versus-JJ-universe rivalry will likely be completely irrelevant. It seems that the new series will have new characters and not be set in either established setting from previous TREKs.

The "great taste" / "less filling" way of thinking (the old beer TV ads from the 1990s, if memory serves) is amusing, but will seem silly when the new show comes out. The new show will either thrive or not based on its own merits (or lack thereof).

 

[Squiggy]

Did none of you actually read the press release?

 

[Ryan8bit]

I think it depends on when they set it. If it's set in the 23rd century around after the Abrams movies, then I say the Abrams universe. If it's set before the Kelvin is destroyed, it doesn't really matter. If it's set in the 24th century after Voyager returns, then I suppose the prime timeline. But with the prime timeline, I would add the caveat that it's at least a partial reboot, at least in the way that TNG was a reboot of TOS. They should only selectively use continuity.

I think a total reboot is the only thing that doesn't much interest me. At that point, I'd rather be watching a new space sci-fi show with less baggage.

 

[Tarek71]

I've always that the 2160s was a good choice. A Daedalus Class Enterprise, zipping around with her Warp 7 engine at the birth of the Federation. Admiral Archer Archer in an Admiral Forrest role and compatible with either timeline.

"Hey, remember that Enterprise show that no one watched? More of that!"

That assumes that the show failed because it was set in the 22nd century. No show succeeds or fails for that reason. Nothing about the setting prevents a very popular, successful show. I don't know what Enterprise would have been like if had been JJ production instead of Berman and Braga, but the idea that setting caused the failure is nonsense. The JJ 2150s might have been a ratings bonanza for all I know.

If had I asked for more of Berman and Braga led Enterprise, you might have a point. But I'm not.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I've always that the 2160s was a good choice. A Daedalus Class Enterprise, zipping around with her Warp 7 engine at the birth of the Federation. Admiral Archer Archer in an Admiral Forrest role and compatible with either timeline.

"Hey, remember that Enterprise show that no one watched? More of that!"

That assumes that the show failed because it was set in the 22nd century. No show succeeds or fails for that reason. Nothing about the setting prevents a very popular, successful show. I don't know what Enterprise would have been like if had been JJ production instead of Berman and Braga, but the idea that setting caused the failure is nonsense. The JJ 2150s might have been a ratings bonanza for all I know.

If had I asked for more of Berman and Braga led Enterprise, you might have a point. But I'm not.

Exactly this. So many people will use any bit of ammunition they can to try and support their own opinion of why things failed, but they are usually wrong. The time frame of the show is irrelevant. A show in 2300 isn't going to somehow perform 10x better than a show in 2200. Most viewers don't care that much.

 

[timtonruben359]

I remember a few months back there was an article in Forbes I think about the complicated rights surround Star Trek, particularly between TV Star Trek and movie Star Trek. Viacom owns the movie rights (particularly the JJ Abrams version) while CBS Television retains the TV rights. So there is a question about whether CBS could actually do an JJ version of Star Trek on TV.

My guess is the show will take place in another reality that is not connected to anything Trek has done before. This allows writers a fresh start where they could reference some events but not have to be bound by the franchises' continuity.

 

[Squiggy]

No, there's no question.

CBS allows Paramount to use the Star Trek name and other IP, but then CBS is free to do whatever they want because they own it.

 

[Seven of Five]

"Hey, remember that Enterprise show that no one watched? More of that!"

That assumes that the show failed because it was set in the 22nd century. No show succeeds or fails for that reason. Nothing about the setting prevents a very popular, successful show. I don't know what Enterprise would have been like if had been JJ production instead of Berman and Braga, but the idea that setting caused the failure is nonsense. The JJ 2150s might have been a ratings bonanza for all I know.

If had I asked for more of Berman and Braga led Enterprise, you might have a point. But I'm not.

Exactly this. So many people will use any bit of ammunition they can to try and support their own opinion of why things failed, but they are usually wrong. The time frame of the show is irrelevant. A show in 2300 isn't going to somehow perform 10x better than a show in 2200. Most viewers don't care that much.

Precisely. People should just be happy that we are getting another Star Trek show at all. I honestly thought after 700+ episodes we were done. And to be fair I was fine with that - that's a hell of a lot to go back to, especially in comparison to so many other series I've enjoyed over the years.

We should be more concerned with the series being entertaining. A labour of love from all involved.

 

[Tarek71]

"Hey, remember that Enterprise show that no one watched? More of that!"

That assumes that the show failed because it was set in the 22nd century. No show succeeds or fails for that reason. Nothing about the setting prevents a very popular, successful show. I don't know what Enterprise would have been like if had been JJ production instead of Berman and Braga, but the idea that setting caused the failure is nonsense. The JJ 2150s might have been a ratings bonanza for all I know.

If had I asked for more of Berman and Braga led Enterprise, you might have a point. But I'm not.

Exactly this. So many people will use any bit of ammunition they can to try and support their own opinion of why things failed, but they are usually wrong. The time frame of the show is irrelevant. A show in 2300 isn't going to somehow perform 10x better than a show in 2200. Most viewers don't care that much.

Of course. A great show with outatanding production values, excellent scripts and compelling characters has a great shot no matter what decade, century or timeline it is set in. Not one movie goer or viewer anywhere on Earth is going to not watch a show because its set in the Prime universe.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Precisely. People should just be happy that we are getting another Star Trek show at all. I honestly thought after 700+ episodes we were done. And to be fair I was fine with that - that's a hell of a lot to go back to, especially in comparison to so many other series I've enjoyed over the years.

I am definitely happy, regardless of what we know or will come to know. I'm one of those rare people who likes all the shows to some degree, and I'm sure I'll be interested in this new show with modern TV sensibilities. Yeah, I could've been content with all the hours of stuff too, but I still have the desire for new stuff, whether it's movies or TV.

Not one movie goer or viewer anywhere on Earth is going to not watch a show because its set in the Prime universe.

Well, I would never say never. People will come up with the strangest reasons not to watch things.

Plus, I do believe I've seen a certain number of people here chime in and say if it's the old universe, they're out. Personally, I don't understand that. Give me either universe and I'm in.

 

[somebuddyX]

I think something could be done with either timeline but I personally like the idea of a clean slate in respect to storyline, but distilling the universe back to it's most familiar basic elements in order to tell the best story it could unencumbered by continuity. I really enjoyed how Transformers:Animated created a fully realised new continuity with elements sprinkled in from older shows or comics, but at it's core was still just a bunch of Autobots defending Earth from Decepticons.
On the other hand, I also liked how Series 1 of Doctor Who was a continuation to the older show but brought back elements slowly, with just a single Dalek showing up at first. I would love to see just one single Borg show up but be a nightmare for some crew.
Even if I don't watch this show or don't like it myself, I'm just glad that Trek is getting a chance to come back. It could turn out disappointing but it could also turn out really great.

 

[Spart0n]

Remember "Futures End I & II" and "Relativity" from Voyager?

I'd like to see a series that takes place in the future where they fix the past, protect the future, and fight the bad guys trying to change history.

OR

Let's have a section 31 series!

 

[.:: TSN ::.]

I think something could be done with either timeline but I personally like the idea of a clean slate in respect to storyline, but distilling the universe back to it's most familiar basic elements in order to tell the best story it could unencumbered by continuity. I really enjoyed how Transformers:Animated created a fully realised new continuity with elements sprinkled in from older shows or comics, but at it's core was still just a bunch of Autobots defending Earth from Decepticons.
On the other hand, I also liked how Series 1 of Doctor Who was a continuation to the older show but brought back elements slowly, with just a single Dalek showing up at first. I would love to see just one single Borg show up but be a nightmare for some crew.
Even if I don't watch this show or don't like it myself, I'm just glad that Trek is getting a chance to come back. It could turn out disappointing but it could also turn out really great.

I agree.

And I want that the series is set after all the previous installments. To compare to latest Star Wars. Its refreshing after all the prequels and everything to not know anything about whats coming. I want same feeling for Star Trek. I dont want to see Picard in high school or alternate universe/timeline grandparents of Worf. I want to see what happens next.

 

[LtChange]

I really don't care. I'm a sci-fi fan I can accept a changed timeline. Also, if they use the prime time line or the alternate one or a third one, the most important thing is for me to see the spirit of Star Trek in the series, with some good character episodes, parallels with our current problems, and some great stories.