JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Together

[stardream]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

^It was very likely in reaction to the movie version being released, in that case to spite it rather than promote or be promoted by it.

Fantastic Four was one of the worst selling comics. I believe it was grossing around 30k annually when it was cancelled. Even if that number is wrong, it's still a fact that F4 was not selling. Nobody continues to publish something that doesn't sell. And comics are always discontinued, and recontinued at later dates. Characters are killed off, and resurrected all the time.

That is why Marvel cancelled F4. It has nothing to do with the movies. And furthermore, some kind of petty childish gesture is not what I mean by canon in the comics having any bearing on the cinematic universe and vice versa.

JJ wanted to retcon Star Trek to make every medium work within the same canon just like they're doing with Star Wars. The comic universes are not retconning their trades, or their video games to to one unified canon spread across several mediums.

Comics is not at all a comparison to what JJ wanted to do with Star Trek, or what Disney is currently doing with Star Wars.

In case you are unaware what canon means. Canon in fiction is what is accepted as official story points in its respective universe. For example, Star Wars original trilogy, prequel trilogy, and clone wars tv show, along with everything released by Disney/Lucasfilm since September 2014 is official storyline in the Star Wars universe. Grand Admiral Thrawn, KotoR, and fan fiction is not official story in the Star Wars universe.

How that doesn't apply in comics, is that there is a crap ton of stuff, super crazy stuff that is put out every year int he comic world, that does not effect, and is not effected by movie universes. They will never force the comics to mirror, or correlate to the movies/tv shows, and vice versa. Hell DC doesn't even do unified canon in their tv/movie universes, let alone comics.

To be honest, i think pouting that CBS wouldn't retcon prime universe so they could develop a single unified canon is a bit childish. Disney wanting to do it is fine, but being a baby about someone not wanting to do it is unnecessary. Marvel/DC prove that we can enjoy new stories, make other new stories that have nothing to do with each other, and still keep our old ones. Having that "official canon" stamp doesn't make going forward any easier or legitimate.

There are times when I think that Star Trek should take a page out of the Doctor Who book and just declare that there is no canon. Apart from the very basic "a Time Lord in a Blue Box travelling through space and time' the BBC has not issued any statement about what is or what is not 'authentic' (as far as I know at the moment anyway.) Some might say that results in things being a mess but the show is still going strong despite that having such an unwieldy past. Star Trek could have a similar 'basic premise'. Canon is not necessary.

Sometimes I think that way.....usually when discussions like this come up which causes me to actually have to think out what the 'basic' premise of Star Trek could be condensed into one sentence.

 

[BillJ]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

And yet it arguably worked for Harry Potter. Maybe because it hooked its audience much younger?

(Says the guy who was six or seven when TOS debuted.)

Maybe it has to do with it being one continuous story that was completed in a decade?

 

[BigJake]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

I tend to agree that Lucas thought his audience wanted the universe to grow up with them.

Lucas wanted the opposite of the universe growing up with his fans. The prequel movies were originally pitched toward his kids, that's where Jar-Jar Binks and the general slapstick and plotlessness of Ep. 1 came from. He only (ineptly) tried to "grow them up" and get "darker" when the hype machine faded and people started outright calling Ep. 1 the terrible movie that it was. He sure as shinola was not taking inspiration from Star Trek or from anybody but George Lucas, which was precisely the problem.

Of course it would have been possible to make an exciting, action-packed kids' focused movie that still treated all the serious themes he wanted to tackle deftly and in a satisfying way for an adult audience. But that isn't easy and Pixar wasn't making the films.

 

[Amaris]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

There are times when I think that Star Trek should take a page out of the Doctor Who book and just declare that there is no canon. Apart from the very basic "a Time Lord in a Blue Box travelling through space and time' the BBC has not issued any statement about what is or what is not 'authentic' (as far as I know at the moment anyway.) Some might say that results in things being a mess but the show is still going strong despite that having such an unwieldy past. Star Trek could have a similar 'basic premise'. Canon is not necessary.

Sometimes I think that way.....usually when discussions like this come up which causes me to actually have to think out what the 'basic' premise of Star Trek could be condensed into one sentence.

Sometimes I have that same feeling. The push to keep canon at the heart of the franchise makes it so top heavy, that good stories get crushed under the weight. Then there are the arguments over canon this and canon that, Mr. Spock hit me with a wiffle ball bat, and so on. Don't get me wrong, I do believe there should be a foundation, but at a certain point the thing just becomes so complex that it's nearly impossible to keep track of everything, and so as a writer, you're terrified to take risks.

 

[shapeshifter]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

I thought the policy for DW was that everything is canon.

Got a conflict between stories? Timey-Wimey!

 

[stardream]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

I thought the policy for DW was that everything is canon.

Got a conflict between stories? Timey-Wimey!

It could go either way I suppose. NOTHING is canon or EVERYTHING is canon.

 

[eyeresist]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

Sometimes I have that same feeling. The push to keep canon at the heart of the franchise makes it so top heavy, that good stories get crushed under the weight. Then there are the arguments over canon this and canon that, Mr. Spock hit me with a wiffle ball bat, and so on. Don't get me wrong, I do believe there should be a foundation, but at a certain point the thing just becomes so complex that it's nearly impossible to keep track of everything, and so as a writer, you're terrified to take risks.

I agree that canon may end up strangling Star Trek. In the 60s the writers could do almost anything, in the 80s they could do some things, in the 90s they could do only a few things. It's good in terms of creating a believably complex background, but it's a problem when any bold idea is in danger of being declared "invalid" (which can happen to virtually anything thanks to the contradictions in the existing canon, e.g. the craziness in TNG's "Conspiracy" that was never mentioned again).

I think, in the long run, either canon becomes so venerated that no-one dares make any more Star Trek, or fans accept a periodic re-set, as used in superhero comics and anime franchises, that sees a fresh world built up from the basic elements, and old stories told with new variations.

 

[wulfio]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

Yes being beholden to canon is limiting creatively. But diverging from canon doesn't require a retcon. it is possible to create new stories without needing to erase the old ones. That absolutist mentality is silly to me. Comics do elseworlds, and they still publish popular trades despite resets.

 

[eyeresist]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

Would this lead to a Crisis in Infinite Treks?

 

[stardream]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

Would this lead to a Crisis in Infinite Treks?

I suppose the inmates could take over the asylum and declare a revolution. We the fans have decided to no longer be bound by the constraints of canon. We will decide individually for ourselves what parts of the overall story we will accept and what we will discard.

I can see it now. Demonstrations at premiers, people marching with placards, riots at conventions.....

 

[eyeresist]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

Would this lead to a Crisis in Infinite Treks?

It would be cool in a wild kind of way. I imagine it as Classic Picard vs. Nu Picard vs. Ms. Picard vs. 1940s Picard vs. Vampire Picard vs. Pirate Picard.... Just dozens of warped mirror images trying to punch each other! (Or at least I assume that's what the comic books were about, based on the cover art.)

 

[The Wormhole]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

I agree that canon may end up strangling Star Trek. In the 60s the writers could do almost anything, in the 80s they could do some things, in the 90s they could do only a few things. It's good in terms of creating a believably complex background, but it's a problem when any bold idea is in danger of being declared "invalid" (which can happen to virtually anything thanks to the contradictions in the existing canon, e.g. the craziness in TNG's "Conspiracy" that was never mentioned again).

That has less to do with canon and more to do with "Roddenberry's Vision." A concept which has become such a roadblock to any sort of real interesting storytelling in the modern era. Even after the franchise got rebooted and set up in an alternate timeline "Roddenberry's Vision" is still strictly adhered to, as evidenced by the Abramsverse sticking to the party line that Starfleet isn't a military despite the fact they function and operate like one.

Ironically, Roddenberry himself didn't really adhere to his so called vision and I don't think most fans even truly understand what his vision really was anyway.

 

[stardream]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

I agree that canon may end up strangling Star Trek. In the 60s the writers could do almost anything, in the 80s they could do some things, in the 90s they could do only a few things. It's good in terms of creating a believably complex background, but it's a problem when any bold idea is in danger of being declared "invalid" (which can happen to virtually anything thanks to the contradictions in the existing canon, e.g. the craziness in TNG's "Conspiracy" that was never mentioned again).

That has less to do with canon and more to do with "Roddenberry's Vision." A concept which has become such a roadblock to any sort of real interesting storytelling in the modern era. Even after the franchise got rebooted and set up in an alternate timeline "Roddenberry's Vision" is still strictly adhered to, as evidenced by the Abramsverse sticking to the party line that Starfleet isn't a military despite the fact they function and operate like one.

Ironically, Roddenberry himself didn't really adhere to his so called vision and I don't think most fans even truly understand what his vision really was anyway.

The Roddenberry Prime Directive. In the future...things will be better.

 

[fireproof78]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

To be honest, i think pouting that CBS wouldn't retcon prime universe so they could develop a single unified canon is a bit childish. Disney wanting to do it is fine, but being a baby about someone not wanting to do it is unnecessary. Marvel/DC prove that we can enjoy new stories, make other new stories that have nothing to do with each other, and still keep our old ones. Having that "official canon" stamp doesn't make going forward any easier or legitimate.

It's my canon and I'll pout if I want to

In all honesty, I think Abrams has a point to a certain degree but I don't think it's a matter of retconning. I think its a matter of focus and resources that invariably end up emphasizing one aspect of the franchise, and diminishing another part.

Of course, that doesn't always sit well with whichever group was a fan of which part. So, I don't fault CBS for their choice, but I would have preferred more than what we got with Abrams.

Also, curious as to why it is ok for Disney to do something but not CBS I've been seeing this weird double standard for Disney and Star Wars around the Web that just strikes me as odd.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

Perhaps Mr. Abrams should concentrate his attentions on his alternate reality Star Trek movies, and allow the other aspect of Trek to progress as they will without his input.

From my standpoint as someone who didn't care for Abrams' vision I'm glad he was frustrated, because a unified switch of the property over to NuTrek would have essentially ended even the vestigial forms of the Trek I was interested in, and we probably wouldn't even have the possibility of fan projects based on other visions now. From a marketing and franchise-building point of view he might well be right, but I'm glad that it's Star Wars and not Star Trek where we'll probably see that actually happen, because he's better suited to it.

Said other versions will never be revived again due to unpopularity, being outdated, and Paramount/CBS Studios wanting Star Trek to be relevant, so I don't know where the two of you get the bullshit you're both spewing. Also, said fan productions are comparatively a drop in the bucket popularity-wise of the global popularity of the Abrams Star Trek movies, so if you (Big Jake) think that a fan film (or any of the fan films) that isn't/aren't that different from the movies that you're bashing is going to get a global audience similar to the Abrams films, you're smoking some potent stuff (and no, I don't want any of it.) Time to start using your mentality, and wake up to reality; as another board member here said, I don't wan to see any fans like you dictating to the rest of us (or to CBS Studios) what Star Trek should be. Abrams was right, and it is indeed time for CBS Studios and Paramount Pictures to get their shit together and figure out what he stated in his statement.

 

[suarezguy]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

^It's true the old shows and formats became (relatively) unpopular but I don't see how they're outdated or why what's newer is necessarily better than older things.

I agree that canon may end up strangling Star Trek. In the 60s the writers could do almost anything, in the 80s they could do some things, in the 90s they could do only a few things. It's good in terms of creating a believably complex background, but it's a problem when any bold idea is in danger of being declared "invalid" (which can happen to virtually anything thanks to the contradictions in the existing canon, e.g. the craziness in TNG's "Conspiracy" that was never mentioned again).

That has less to do with canon and more to do with "Roddenberry's Vision." A concept which has become such a roadblock to any sort of real interesting storytelling in the modern era.

Without the characters being at least pretty idealistic/idealized I think a lot of what makes Trek different from other science fiction series is lost and I don't see how the characters having those traits prevents interesting storytelling.

 

[fireproof78]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

^It's true the old shows and formats became (relatively) unpopular but I don't see how they're outdated or why what's newer is necessarily better than older things.

I agree that canon may end up strangling Star Trek. In the 60s the writers could do almost anything, in the 80s they could do some things, in the 90s they could do only a few things. It's good in terms of creating a believably complex background, but it's a problem when any bold idea is in danger of being declared "invalid" (which can happen to virtually anything thanks to the contradictions in the existing canon, e.g. the craziness in TNG's "Conspiracy" that was never mentioned again).

That has less to do with canon and more to do with "Roddenberry's Vision." A concept which has become such a roadblock to any sort of real interesting storytelling in the modern era.

Without the characters being at least pretty idealistic/idealized I think a lot of what makes Trek different from other science fiction series is lost and I don't see how the characters having those traits prevents interesting storytelling.

It depends on which version of the vision is being applied. Originally, with TOS the vision was the humanity survived in to the future and was working together in a fairly unified manner.

Once TMP and TNG emerged and GR had his "vision" and Star Trek was more of a message carrier, it became about how humanity has "evolved" with things that concerned 20th century folk. Well, this also involved personal conflict among the crew, which (as many writers will tell you) creates drama. Michael Pillar writes in "Fade In" (just click on the first link in the search and go to page 14) about the "Roddenberry box" that limited his dramatic interactions with the crew.

As I said, it depends on what vision is employed, but, yes, it can be limiting.

 

[The Wormhole]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

I agree that canon may end up strangling Star Trek. In the 60s the writers could do almost anything, in the 80s they could do some things, in the 90s they could do only a few things. It's good in terms of creating a believably complex background, but it's a problem when any bold idea is in danger of being declared "invalid" (which can happen to virtually anything thanks to the contradictions in the existing canon, e.g. the craziness in TNG's "Conspiracy" that was never mentioned again).

That has less to do with canon and more to do with "Roddenberry's Vision." A concept which has become such a roadblock to any sort of real interesting storytelling in the modern era.

Without the characters being at least pretty idealistic/idealized I think a lot of what makes Trek different from other science fiction series is lost and I don't see how the characters having those traits prevents interesting storytelling.

Idealistic characters isn't even what TOS was about. Sure, yes, humanity was a unified species co-operating with other races, but on an individual level humans were more or less the same as today. They still had arguments, disagreements and so on. Hell, one of the more popular TOS episodes has our heroes essentially starting a bar fight.

The idealistic utopia where everyone is an upstanding definition of nobility didn't start until TNG and was too rigidly enforced, to the point that DS9 and Voyager had to introduce separate non-Starfleet components to their crews in order to create drama. Despite the fact that when Roddenberry was running TNG we still had renegade captains and evil admirals anyway, just like in TOS.

 

[ALF]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

I like how the phrase "the old shows are unpopular" is being thrown around with such conviction when we're getting brand new films every five years with Kirk, Spock and Bones!

Dinsey's long term plan for Star Wars will ultimately put them in a place where they've got all their legacy characters' torches passed on. In 15 years or so there will be an entirely new generation (across different points in time of the SW saga) once eps 7-9 are finished and all the anthology films are out. The new regime consists of (will consist of) Finn, Rey, Kylo Ren and the like. Some day they will be the new legacy characters. That's something that if Trek aspired to, it would take a decade to formulate and another to execute.

Now could that really happen with Star Trek?

 

[Hound of UIster]

Re: JJ Abrams Was Kinda Right About Trek Needing To Get Its Act Togeth

The question will be: how successful with this SW TNG cast be with a movie audience. It remains to be seen imo. At least one of the strongpoints in the movies' favor is the transition between generations was built into the movies from the beginning.