Pitfalls the new series should avoid
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
And I don't think anyone was saying that couldn't enjoy such a story, only that Star Trek as a possible optimistic future for our world only really works if it is a vaguely logical progression from real history up to the point that we know it. As the show passes 50 years old this means we have to accept some wiggle room in the continuity for events which didn't play out in reality how Trek said they would.
Right.
I'll watch and enjoy the new Star Trek series (on DVD - I'm not paying to watch commercials) and enjoy it, I'm sure. It simply won't have the same meaning to me if it's representing some other universe and some other history. And just to add in case someone really thinks about this: Yes, I enjoyed "Mirror, Mirror," etc.
Finally, all this grief and they'll probably end up setting the show prior to Nero so the whole thing is moot and the new movies can continue without fan strife. It'll be set in prehistoric days when the crew of the "USS Jurassic" goes back in time and is stranded: "Star Trek: B.C."
I'll watch and enjoy the new Star Trek series (on DVD - I'm not paying to watch commercials) and enjoy it, I'm sure. It simply won't have the same meaning to me if it's representing some other universe and some other history. And just to add in case someone really thinks about this: Yes, I enjoyed "Mirror, Mirror," etc.
Finally, all this grief and they'll probably end up setting the show prior to Nero so the whole thing is moot and the new movies can continue without fan strife. It'll be set in prehistoric days when the crew of the "USS Jurassic" goes back in time and is stranded: "Star Trek: B.C."
As for events in canon, I would limit references to the past. Something particularly prominent-the Eugenics Wars, for example-might be mentioned without specifying the exact dates.
Because one character might assume that another character would know the when in question. Just as today many people have heard of World War II, and already know when it occurred.
So without being too specific, it can be implied that the Trek universe has a rich back story.
(Occasionally, a specific even might be referenced by Star Date).
Locations might be mentioned occasionally, such a planets, implying a richly diverse galaxy.
Because one character might assume that another character would know the when in question. Just as today many people have heard of World War II, and already know when it occurred.
So without being too specific, it can be implied that the Trek universe has a rich back story.
(Occasionally, a specific even might be referenced by Star Date).
Locations might be mentioned occasionally, such a planets, implying a richly diverse galaxy.
Last edited:
Fair enough. Star Trek is more than entertainment to me as well, though I will grant not in the same way as you, it sounds.
For me, I don't need Star Trek, or any other show or franchise, to give me optimism about the future. Maybe Star Trek makes it easier to visualize, but then I feel like everyone gets hung up on the details, like how transporters work, or warp drive or whatever tech. For me, the important part of a story is the characters and what I can take away as meaningful from their story and impart it to my life.
As a quick example, I don't think that "Starship Troopers" (the book) and its history line up with our current day, but I can derive so many lessons from it on leadership. It means a lot more to me because I can take it and apply in daily living.
And it's only in the prehistory of the Trek universe, so changing dates/details of pre first contact events is a minor change to continuity indeed.
Star Trek has been around for so long it's unavoidable to contradict real world predictions or fictions created by the writers long ago. I think it's enough to know the Eugenics Wars happened and informed the series without ever again referencing when they took place.
Personally I don't need Trek to be "our" universe to enjoy it but I will say that the majority of it doesn't exclude itself from being the future of our universe. It's just a few episodes here and there that contradicts actual history and we can't begrudge 60's or 90's writers for not being psychic so it's easy to let it slide.
Personally I don't need Trek to be "our" universe to enjoy it but I will say that the majority of it doesn't exclude itself from being the future of our universe. It's just a few episodes here and there that contradicts actual history and we can't begrudge 60's or 90's writers for not being psychic so it's easy to let it slide.
I disagree. Part of the fundamental appeal of Star Trek, as opposed to fantasy like Star Wars and superhero stories, is it is about us, in the future.
Telling compelling stories about the future of humanity doesn't require a world that perfectly lines up with our history. I don't need the show to be built on the world I see around me in order for it to feel like my (fantasy) future.
That has traditionally been one of the pillars of Trek, that it was about us, that in the future we got our shit together at some point & fixed most of the big problems. Obviously a scifi story doesn't need to be set in our universe to be good, but that was one of Trek's central appeals, taking it away is a loss.
Personally, I'm not so sure how much it was ever a pillar of Trek that it was about 'us' specifically. It was about humanity, which is us whether the history lines up perfectly or not.
I generally agree with this statement. I will add that if I can identify with the characters and their struggles and goals then I can get more invested with them, regardless of the setting.
This is hyperbole based upon the word 'perfectly.' I, for one, have expressed tolerance on the historical alignment in my message about the importance of it being in our universe and not some other universe less relevant to ours. Others have read it and agreed, even with 'perfectly' completely missing from my posts. If perfection is the requirement for your disapproval, the implication is that you could then agree with me. Thanks for the support.
Last edited:
Star Trek cannot be our future since Star Trek is already in it. Everyone in the 60's would have recognised Kirk and Spock in the Gary7 episode.
And since Khan did not rule a portion of the globe in the late 80's to early 90's in a genetic superarms race to be exiled using cryogenic subslight starships in 1996, chasing after the at least 6 Voyager probes we put out there, it's not *our* universe already.
And since Khan did not rule a portion of the globe in the late 80's to early 90's in a genetic superarms race to be exiled using cryogenic subslight starships in 1996, chasing after the at least 6 Voyager probes we put out there, it's not *our* universe already.
That is a very silly interpretation about a vision of our future. But yeah, I can see how Chekov's dialogue on CVN-65 Enterprise could cause a problem with anyone who confuses fiction with reality:
The Voyage Home said:
The FBI agent never asked, "Are you some kind of lunatic Trekkie?" He just thought Chekov was a "Russkie." I can see how that would trouble some people.
I do think on some level it is important that Trek is reflecting "us" in the future.
But that's why I say to Hell with continuity. It's time to let that stuff go. Refresh all that back story for this new vision of Star Trek. What if it wasn't a nuclear war that lead to the post-atomic horrors and then lead up to the Vulcans seeing our first warp ship? What if it was something more contemporary in nature? Hell, what if it was something not horrible that happened to us. What if we simply started to grow up as a species because a couple generations did a lot of the things that needed to be done to get us to the "Star Trek" world. A few brilliant people and a few visionary types and a lot of hard workers strove to create a better tomorrow. The future that scientists hypothesis about in shows like Cosmos.
I mean, if you need something bad/dramatic to happen in the renewed Trek backstory, how about an environmental disaster? Super-volcano, meteor, something... And somehow the space program saved us from total extinction, and that lead to us creating a fleet of ships to protect Earth, and then it grew and grew after we colonized the solar system. It really should not follow on from what came before in that sense.
Even Enterprise couldn't avoid that time had moved past the original Trek continuity, and to a certain extent that does compromise the dramatic integrity of the show, because part of the conceit, at least as far as I read Roddenberry's own words, was that this was about US as a species reaching some enlightenment and doing great things in the future. US. I would call back to that letter that Patrick Stewart read from a police officer who said his life basically was Hell on Earth except when he got home and put in Star Trek, because it gave him hope for the future.
But that's why I say to Hell with continuity. It's time to let that stuff go. Refresh all that back story for this new vision of Star Trek. What if it wasn't a nuclear war that lead to the post-atomic horrors and then lead up to the Vulcans seeing our first warp ship? What if it was something more contemporary in nature? Hell, what if it was something not horrible that happened to us. What if we simply started to grow up as a species because a couple generations did a lot of the things that needed to be done to get us to the "Star Trek" world. A few brilliant people and a few visionary types and a lot of hard workers strove to create a better tomorrow. The future that scientists hypothesis about in shows like Cosmos.
I mean, if you need something bad/dramatic to happen in the renewed Trek backstory, how about an environmental disaster? Super-volcano, meteor, something... And somehow the space program saved us from total extinction, and that lead to us creating a fleet of ships to protect Earth, and then it grew and grew after we colonized the solar system. It really should not follow on from what came before in that sense.
Even Enterprise couldn't avoid that time had moved past the original Trek continuity, and to a certain extent that does compromise the dramatic integrity of the show, because part of the conceit, at least as far as I read Roddenberry's own words, was that this was about US as a species reaching some enlightenment and doing great things in the future. US. I would call back to that letter that Patrick Stewart read from a police officer who said his life basically was Hell on Earth except when he got home and put in Star Trek, because it gave him hope for the future.
In reality, that has little to do with Star Trek or its success.
Less a "point made" than a pointless bit of petulance that's been repeated over and over ad nauseam . Given the real evidence of the Abrams reboot, that route has been a good and successful one for Trek already. Doubtless there will be further reboots in Trek's future, and the TV producers could do much worse than give it a try (they won't, though).
