So by that logic, having the show in a different universe accomplishes the same thing.
New Fuller Interview; Season 1 = 13 (Serialized) Episodes
- Thread starter Frontier
- Start date
So by that logic, having the show in a different universe accomplishes the same thing.
Or even a third, all-new timeline.
All right, I will concede the point that I am ultimately myself responsible for which discussions I follow and partake in. I guess my real reason was that if it was in the same continuity I would myself sit and go "but in episode X..." to the TV!
I would prefer this or the Abrams Trek.
People watch the show for the characters and stories, not the technology. Every show set in the modern world is the same, but people aren't bored because of that. If the characters and stories are compelling people will watch and enjoy the show.
Agreed.
Obviously, but all they said was that they'd be less interested in a TNG era show. I would too. There's only so many stories you can tell in that time period, and unless it's set in the Beta Quadrant, it'd either end up being more Dominion War and therefore a DS9 ripoff, or a Voyager ripoff in the Delta Quadrant.
I think we're all tired of the TNG/DS9/VOY look. Character and stories, yes, they are most important, but I don't see what the point of doing another TNG era show is when you can mold your own future by setting it 50-100+ years past Nemesis.
If they want to set it 50-100 years past Nemesis then they can, but the Simpsons have 596 episodes all in the same time period, Law and Order had 456, CSI 335, ER 331, etc...You can tell as many stories as you want in the same time period, setting, and universe. Not every story needs to be universe altering such that it limits what you can do.
The Simpsons is also the most stale show on television. It stopped being good years ago. Law and Order, CSI and ER were never anything special either.
Then I have good news - you'll never see it again. A new show set in the DS9 period will look as much like DS9 as the JJprise looks like the TOS ship.
The new show could easily be set in a time/place where it is never obvious as to what universe it is set in...where will that leave all the people who say they'll be less interested if X happens?
In other words, it makes absolutely no difference when or where it is set so long as it is well written.
In other words, it makes absolutely no difference when or where it is set so long as it is well written.
Mileage obviously varies because Law & Order (specifically SVU) always felt very unique to me, largely because of the characters. I also cried a lot during some of those episodes.
For the most part. I would say, for me, that's 90% of it. The setting matters to me as well, but that's more a matter of suspension of disbelief.
You're right, I shouldn't have been so concrete with that statement. It does matter to some people.
I would prefer farther in the future, but it could still be great even if it's set in a familiar era. I just think it would be more interesting if it was in a era where they still able to use the built up history of the other shows, but we don't know what to expect. I think the problem with setting it in a familiar era, is we will have a pretty good idea of what to expect in the different eras. If it's in the post-Undiscovered Country era then we know they will be working on maintaining peace with the Klingons and things will probably get bad with Romulans, but if it's farther in the future there is really way to predict what the political landscape could be.
1. Star Trek ship designs have been influenced by cars, planes, and navy ships since the inception of the whole thing. Doesn't worry me or intrigue me in the least. I am hoping we get an "Enterprise" and she has some reflections of the past designs in her without being too lodged in nostalgia.
2. By all means, have a character who happens to be gay. I see no issue there. I do however think a number of people mistook the posters remarks from a few pages back the wrong way. I do not want to see "THE GAY CHARACTER" become the "thing" we talk about for four episodes out of the series. Not because I have any issue with gays, but because I think that would be a very big disservice to the entire point. That was honestly the failing of the two previous attempts at a gay or trans character in Trek's history. It became a preachy focal point instead of what it should be to the series: A literal non-issue.
Uhura was progressive because she was just there. That was actually one of the things Dr. King loved about her presence on the show. She wasn't the maid, she wasn't "THE BLACK COMIC RELIEF" she was just a person doing her job. Just a part of the group, unjudged, unremarked upon. Her skin color was referenced in a roundabout way, what... once in the whole series?
3. 13 episodes is healthy for a show like this that is going to demand very high levels of creativity. Trek always stretched itself too thin in the longer seasons. It demanded too much of the writers. This plus having a central arc in the season will keep things relatively focused and on point. Also, for those despairing about this meaning a lack of diversity in episode to episode plots. We don't actually know as-yet what the nature of the arc will be. This could be primarily character driven arcs, and as such episode to episode plots could be as varied as they were back in TOS. So that's a bit of a "wait and see" type of thing.
4. "Returning characters" may be another example of taking things too literally. "returning characters" could easily refer to something as general as "Klingons" "Romulans" "Borg"
2. By all means, have a character who happens to be gay. I see no issue there. I do however think a number of people mistook the posters remarks from a few pages back the wrong way. I do not want to see "THE GAY CHARACTER" become the "thing" we talk about for four episodes out of the series. Not because I have any issue with gays, but because I think that would be a very big disservice to the entire point. That was honestly the failing of the two previous attempts at a gay or trans character in Trek's history. It became a preachy focal point instead of what it should be to the series: A literal non-issue.
Uhura was progressive because she was just there. That was actually one of the things Dr. King loved about her presence on the show. She wasn't the maid, she wasn't "THE BLACK COMIC RELIEF" she was just a person doing her job. Just a part of the group, unjudged, unremarked upon. Her skin color was referenced in a roundabout way, what... once in the whole series?
3. 13 episodes is healthy for a show like this that is going to demand very high levels of creativity. Trek always stretched itself too thin in the longer seasons. It demanded too much of the writers. This plus having a central arc in the season will keep things relatively focused and on point. Also, for those despairing about this meaning a lack of diversity in episode to episode plots. We don't actually know as-yet what the nature of the arc will be. This could be primarily character driven arcs, and as such episode to episode plots could be as varied as they were back in TOS. So that's a bit of a "wait and see" type of thing.
4. "Returning characters" may be another example of taking things too literally. "returning characters" could easily refer to something as general as "Klingons" "Romulans" "Borg"
I'm still hoping they pull a Doctor Who:
-The new series was a completely new type of television and storytelling
-It's main focus was to introduce the show to people that have never seen it before, and only having small "nods" to the past for the old fans
-It still was "officially" set in the same continuity as the rest of the franchise
-There were even small cameos (Sarah Jane, K9) and returning monsters (Daleks, Cybermen) from the old series
-They completely ignored the "reboot"-movie that was made inbetween (the one with McGann, where the doctor was half-human). At least continuity wise. They still aknowledged parts of it in retrospect. Ignoring the changes and the plot of that movie, but accepting McGann as one of the doctors, and even giving him a small cameo in an Internet special later on.
How would that work in Star Trek? Be set in the prime universe. Ignore what happened in the JJ-reboot movies. But accept Pine, Quinto and the rest of the actors as part of the franchise. Ignore the plot and timeline split, ignore the destruction of Vulcan and/or Romulus, ignore the worst parts of JJ-Treknology (like transwarp beaming, curing death, way-too big starships, most of which Beyond already ignores). But pretend Chris Pine and Shatner were the same person, that lived in the same universe with Picard and Sisko. If that should ever be mentioned. Which it should only in small doses. Very small ones.
-The new series was a completely new type of television and storytelling
-It's main focus was to introduce the show to people that have never seen it before, and only having small "nods" to the past for the old fans
-It still was "officially" set in the same continuity as the rest of the franchise
-There were even small cameos (Sarah Jane, K9) and returning monsters (Daleks, Cybermen) from the old series
-They completely ignored the "reboot"-movie that was made inbetween (the one with McGann, where the doctor was half-human). At least continuity wise. They still aknowledged parts of it in retrospect. Ignoring the changes and the plot of that movie, but accepting McGann as one of the doctors, and even giving him a small cameo in an Internet special later on.
How would that work in Star Trek? Be set in the prime universe. Ignore what happened in the JJ-reboot movies. But accept Pine, Quinto and the rest of the actors as part of the franchise. Ignore the plot and timeline split, ignore the destruction of Vulcan and/or Romulus, ignore the worst parts of JJ-Treknology (like transwarp beaming, curing death, way-too big starships, most of which Beyond already ignores). But pretend Chris Pine and Shatner were the same person, that lived in the same universe with Picard and Sisko. If that should ever be mentioned. Which it should only in small doses. Very small ones.
Last edited:
Star Trek does not need that kind of a continuity mess. You can have good stories that. Why wouldn't be good for the series if it is set in the prime timeline and Romulus is destroyed? It opens up so many stories that I think it is worth keeping Romulus destroyed (if it is set post TNG era of course). As for Dr Who, the changes for the Doctor is explained and no similar kind of explanation is possible in Star Trek. Anyhow I can imagine the rage if they will mess up everything as you suggest.
The explanation is pretty easy: ALL of the JJverse-movies take place in alternate realities. Even the part that we thought were in the "prime". This is a universe where humans built a "USS Kelvin" that is clearly much bigger and more advanced than the "prime" Enterprise later, where Khan always was a white Cumberbatch terrorist and not an asien world conquerer, where "Praxis" exploded already before the Narada arrived, and where the Federation had already built a "Yorktown" starbase for millions(!) of inhabitants,. Where human starships always had windows in the bridge instead of viewscreens, where the USS Franklin was the first starship to reach warp 4 and not the NX-project, where Romulan Mining vessels in the future are hundreds of kilometers long, where "Red matter" is a known substance, where Romulans like tattoos and have bigger nose-bones but no "forehead ridges", and where our conventional rules of physics don't apply and "a supernova" can "threaten the galaxy".
The events in Trek09 thereby only changed the future of the JJverse, not of the "prime" universe. That even explains why the JJverse and the prime verse can coexist, even though in traditional timetravel always changed the past and didn't create an alternate timeline. And Nimoy and Quinto look similar enough that you can say he morphs onto them after hundreds of years. Also, alien alternate universe biology. Pretty simple, right?
Of course that would be a retcon. But a retcon, that retcons a previous (bad) retcons away again. So a "reverse-retcon"?
Anyway, I'm much more concerned about blatant disregard of actual science, than about fictional history. Real 1996 didn't have an Augment war, and when Voyager traveled back in time to the 90s, there wasn't one. Even though it was still supposed to be the same timeline with Kirk. So there's precedent.
All it would be would simply be ignoring the JJmovies continuity wise. A feat hardly anybody would have bigger problems with it, since the real-world movies would still exist (that was the argument of the reboot fans, right?), and it would even allow the filmmakers to reboot again after tose movies have run their course.
I would simply aknowledge the cast and the style of those movies because they are popular and successfull. But continuity-wise they have already proven to be a bigger clusterf*ck than Trek ever was, which is no small feat. Simply declaring all of Trek09 as an alternate reality would actually smoothen continuity a lot and help restore some sort of logic into the Trek universe.
The events in Trek09 thereby only changed the future of the JJverse, not of the "prime" universe. That even explains why the JJverse and the prime verse can coexist, even though in traditional timetravel always changed the past and didn't create an alternate timeline. And Nimoy and Quinto look similar enough that you can say he morphs onto them after hundreds of years. Also, alien alternate universe biology. Pretty simple, right?
Of course that would be a retcon. But a retcon, that retcons a previous (bad) retcons away again. So a "reverse-retcon"?
Anyway, I'm much more concerned about blatant disregard of actual science, than about fictional history. Real 1996 didn't have an Augment war, and when Voyager traveled back in time to the 90s, there wasn't one. Even though it was still supposed to be the same timeline with Kirk. So there's precedent.
All it would be would simply be ignoring the JJmovies continuity wise. A feat hardly anybody would have bigger problems with it, since the real-world movies would still exist (that was the argument of the reboot fans, right?), and it would even allow the filmmakers to reboot again after tose movies have run their course.
I would simply aknowledge the cast and the style of those movies because they are popular and successfull. But continuity-wise they have already proven to be a bigger clusterf*ck than Trek ever was, which is no small feat. Simply declaring all of Trek09 as an alternate reality would actually smoothen continuity a lot and help restore some sort of logic into the Trek universe.
Last edited: