Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?

[Paul Weaver]

The key at this point - for me, anyway, obviously others will disagree - is a return to the TOS anthology-esque format and a return to the setting being a blank canvas for any type of high-concept story a writer wants to tell. Nothing from TOS (or the spinoffs) need ever be included, nor should any story feel constrained by what's come before it. It's a model of storytelling that's more or less vanished at this point, but it's where I feel Star Trek's at its best.

OK, so call it something else, use new characters, new aliens etc.

The *only* creative reason to use "Star Trek" is because you want to use the same races, characters and universe that has been shaped over 60 years by 1000 episodes and 14 films.

If you want to start with a blank canvas, that's great. Orville did this, with similar Trek features (warp drive - err sorry "quantum drive", photon plasma torpedos, holodeck/Environmental Simulator etc), and it was brilliant. Reality of modern sci-fi TV is that you don't get 20+ episodes a year though.

you can make something tonally the same as TOS (won't be popular), or TNG, or DS9, or whatever, without using the word "Klingon" or "Enterprise".

 

[fireproof78]

Because there are still fundamental elements of what makes the franchise tick that I'd include.

Honestly, I would just set it 3 centuries from our current date like TOS did (roughly) and go from there.

*only* creative reason to use "Star Trek" is because you want to use the same races, characters and universe that has been shaped over 60 years by 1000 episodes and 14 films.

Hardly.

 

[Starflight]

What can we do that the movies, TOS, Disco, the Kelvin films, and SNW hasn't already covered?

In an episodic series, anything! The setting is just a container for any type of story. Any individual script can treat the setting however it likes, as was the case in TOS.

The 23rd century makes sense because it gives you the aesthetics that audiences recognise - the Constitution-class ship (obviously could be redesigned as the creators wish, but the nacelles and saucer structure is iconic), the brightly-coloured uniforms, the vibrant orange doors, that kind of thing.

For a franchise looking to refresh itself and draw in new viewers, it's perhaps the best way to go, since it instantly signals "Star Trek".

The *only* creative reason to use "Star Trek" is because you want to use the same races, characters and universe that has been shaped over 60 years by 1000 episodes and 14 films.

I'm not sure about that; TOS had only a vague sense of the setting by design, very rarely reused concepts, and TNG and Voyager both quickly set about doing their own things, with only occasional references to TOS.

Most of those 1000 episodes are entirely standalone sci-fi stories with concepts that never come up again, and many of them perceive common elements like the Federation in entirely different ways (the UFP doesn't really feel like the same entity in TOS, TNG, DS9, or Voyager - or even between individual episodes of TOS/TNG).

The storytelling engine in a good reboot would also be the same - we have phasers that we typically set to stun, we have transporters, we work for an organisation called the Federation who are largely morally good, we have a diverse crew, etc.

 

[FredH]

Unfortunately I don't think the change of setting/timeframe is going to be anything more than cosmetic, nor will it refresh things any more than Enterprise being set in the 22nd century did.

See, as I see it, it already has been. Things do feel different. There’s a have-to-build urgency undercurrent; it’s very much not a haughty “we have evolved and are superior now” culture; almost everybody’s a mix of something. I’m not crazy about modern dance music somehow being the norm 1100 years from now, but that’s not the point here.

And honestly, while ENT had (a lot) more TNG in it than I’d have wanted, it felt pretty different too — often in exactly what a lot of people criticized about it: a sense of inexperience; a certain amount of cautious floundering as Archer and co figured things out for the future; relations between future fast allies as wary and uncomfortable in the extreme (and them being different from what they’d be in a later century — just like the humans); characters acting American because they actually were, rather than it being a default.

No, the 22nd, 23rd, 24th & 32nd centuries all feel pretty distinct from each other.

 

[Vger23]

It's just been done to.death.

What can we do that the movies, TOS, Disco, the Kelvin films, and SNW hasn't already covered.

How does any of that "coverage" change based on what century the show is set in? It's a universe that has been fleshed out for 60 years. 22nd Century? 25th Century? 31st Century? It's all generally the same.

But at least the "Lost Era" has a solid foundational world to build off of (as I listed off of) and is still enough of an unknown so as to have unique adventures in.

25th Century? Still same problem, just a different time frame. Captain Seven and the kids of the TNG crew having adventures. Ok. But restrictive and derivative for completely different reasons.

31st Century? Nah. They've pushed the technology into the "magic / fantasy" realm, even for Star Trek. It's TOO far removed.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're not going to do a complete reboot, then show us stories set between the two most popular eras, where there is plenty of space for new and unique story telling, but also enough pre-existing world building to have a solid foundation to work with. And, it helps show the bridge between those to popular and beloved eras, which is an immediate fan grab for multiple generations.

All I care about is that the show is set in a space and time where the best storytelling, in the best traditions of Star Trek, can be done. I think, aside from a total reboot, the "Lost Era" has a much better chance of this than some other non-defined undertaking.

 

[Starflight]

There’s a have-to-build urgency undercurrent; it’s very much not a haughty “we have evolved and are superior now” culture; almost everybody’s a mix of something.

This was also the case in the Kurtzman era's interpretation of the 23rd and 24th/25th centuries though, surely. Picard in the series Picard doesn't go around preaching the early TNG "we have enlightened ourselves beyond ever saying or doing anything interesting" stuff, he's just a generic guy. There's no real cultural difference between, say, Jack Crusher and Caleb Mir. Thok, too, is already basically a 24th-century "ahahaaa, violence!!" space-Vikng type Klingon.

 

[fireproof78]

I think of it like this: Star Trek used to be like the Classic Space themes of Lego. Yes, you had some well defined elements that shaped the there's but you felt a lot of artistry and creativity to build within those ideas.

But, now, Lego is far more defined by "the brand." It has to have a set way of doing things, the instructions are followed, and you engage in more structure rather than creativity within the setting.

That's what I think Trek is missing is creativity. And not just on the part of the writers but also the fans who want the touchstones, the familiarity and references to the past Trek's that it creates too many limits going forward.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

OK, so call it something else, use new characters, new aliens etc.

The *only* creative reason to use "Star Trek" is because you want to use the same races, characters and universe that has been shaped over 60 years by 1000 episodes and 14 films.

This is exactly how I feel. If they want to wipe the slate clean they should wipe the name too and make it a new IP. They can tell a new story about space heroes exploring the unknown without having to end Star Trek first.

 

[Danja]

31st Century? Nah. They've pushed the technology into the "magic / fantasy" realm, even for Star Trek. It's TOO far removed.

We've barely even scratched the surface of the 32nd century (especially post-Burn).

25th Century? Still same problem, just a different time frame. Captain Seven and the kids of the TNG crew having adventures. Ok. But restrictive and derivative for completely different reasons.

There's a seven-century gap between the 25th and the 32nd centuries.

There's still plenty of uncharted ground to cover. (How do we get from the 25th century to the programmable matter era of the 32nd century?)

 

[fireproof78]

This is exactly how I feel. If they want to wipe the slate clean they should wipe the name too and make it a new IP. They can tell a new story about space heroes exploring the unknown without having to end Star Trek first.

Reboots don't end the past.

Look at Batman for pity sake. Wizard of Oz, Superman, King Arthur, Robin Hood, Three Musketeers, and on and on.

We've barely even scratched the surface of the 32nd century (especially post-Burn).

There's a seven-century gap between the 25th and the 32nd centuries. There's still plenty of ground to cover.

But that's not what will happen. The touchstones and references are too tempting and practically demanded now by fans. It's an untenable position to be wild and wooly like TOS and early TNG.

 

[Danja]

Reboots don't end the past.

Look at Batman for pity sake. Wizard of Oz, Superman, King Arthur, Robin Hood, Three Musketeers, and on and on.

The Bond films reboot almost every time a new actor takes on the role of 007 (There's a significant difference between Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig's Bonds).

Batman has veered back and forth between the campiness of the Adam West 60's era and the dark, gritty Tim Burton/Christopher Nolan films.

 

[Set Harth]

Burton might be darker than the Adam West era but I wouldn't exactly call the Burton films gritty. He's still a bit camp.

 

[Danja]

Burton might be darker than the Adam West era but I wouldn't exactly call the Burton films gritty. He's still a bit camp.

OK, Nicholson notwithstanding, the Burton films are still darker than the Adam West era.

Schumacher was campier than Burton (Jim Carrey! Bat-nipples! Uma Thurman!)

 

[fireproof78]

OK, Nicholson notwithstanding, the Burton films are still darker than the Adam West era.

Especially Batman Returns

 

[FredH]

This was also the case in the Kurtzman era's interpretation of the 23rd and 24th/25th centuries though, surely. Picard in the series Picard doesn't go around preaching the early TNG "we have enlightened ourselves beyond ever saying or doing anything interesting" stuff, he's just a generic guy. There's no real cultural difference between, say, Jack Crusher and Caleb Mir. Thok, too, is already basically a 24th-century "ahahaaa, violence!!" space-Vikng type Klingon.

Not at all in the 23rd — like TOS, SNW is frontier marshals with a side order of the cavalry, just in 2020s style instead of 1960s style. (Early DISCO, being wartime, naturally feels different — and also very different from TNG thereby.)

And Picard’s certainly not generic! But in PIC, he’s a bitterly disillusioned idealist who’s lived to see his idealized 24th century evolved society turn all post-9/11 (again, very different from TOS or TNG).

Neither Jack nor Caleb are my favorite characters, because they kind of are generic, but that’s hardly their eras’ doing…

And there’s definitely more to Thok than that. Remember, she’s the drill sergeant—it’s her job to be that way, and would be in any time.

 

[FredH]

The Bond films reboot almost every time a new actor takes on the role of 007 (There's a significant difference between Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig's Bonds).

Certainly with Craig, but before that it was always kinda-sorta, the way the DC Universe can have a reality-altering Crisis but still have ongoing plots continue from before to after it. Tracey is remembered by Connery (DAF), Moore (FYEO) and Dalton (LTK); General Gogol from Moore’s era was still there in Dalton’s; Die Another Day sure makes it seem like everybody up through Brosnan happened. All while Monneypenny mysteriously regenerates, etc. Surface details change, but it’s not until Craig that we have an unambiguous hard break.

 

[FredH]

The touchstones and references are too tempting and practically demanded now by fans. It's an untenable position to be wild and wooly like TOS and early TNG.

It’d be interesting if they’d just do it anyway. Would anybody really stop watching if they stopped making callbacks?

 

[Danja]

Certainly with Craig, but before that it was always kinda-sorta, the way the DC Universe can have a reality-altering Crisis but still have ongoing plots continue from before to after it. Tracey is remembered by Connery (DAF), Moore (FYEO) and Dalton (LTK); General Gogol from Moore’s era was still there in Dalton’s; Die Another Day sure makes it seem like everybody up through Brosnan happened. All while Monneypenny mysteriously regenerates, etc. Surface details change, but it’s not until Craig that we have an unambiguous hard break.

Blofeld showed up in Spectre and No Time to Die.

 

[Set Harth]

Certainly with Craig, but before that it was always kinda-sorta, the way the DC Universe can have a reality-altering Crisis but still have ongoing plots continue from before to after it. Tracey is remembered by Connery (DAF), Moore (FYEO) and Dalton (LTK); General Gogol from Moore’s era was still there in Dalton’s; Die Another Day sure makes it seem like everybody up through Brosnan happened. All while Monneypenny mysteriously regenerates, etc. Surface details change, but it’s not until Craig that we have an unambiguous hard break.

Meanwhile we had the same Q through Connery, Lazenby, Moore, Dalton and Brosnan. ( But then the same M for Brosnan and Craig! Oy vey! )

 

[FredH]

Blofeld showed up in Spectre and No Time to Die.

But very much not the same Blofeld. The Blofeld of all the previous films was the cat-stroking mastermind of S.P.E.C.T.R.E., the SPecial Executive for Counterintelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion. The Craig era’s Blofeld was the head of Spectre, the organization dedicated to making his brother sad. I vastly prefer the former.