Question: did the "reboot" *have* to so radically change things?

[Cyke101]

Go back to 1980 and blow up all of Europe. Many of you would still be born, still have the same parents but your life would be quite different because of the changed political and social landscape. It's like that (only cooler).

In an alternate timeline, Europe blew up and we barely escaped, but Mom never made it onto the transport pad

 

[FordSVT]

If you crave post-Nemesis, Prime Universe stories, check out the recent book series. By recent I mean everything published in the last decade or so. A lot of them are great, and to tell you the truth they portray a much more detailed, "realistic", and interesting version of the 24th C than we got to see on TV or in the movies. Check out the Trek Lit forum here for more. Even the big books are quick reads.

We're likely never going to get Prime Universe, 24th Century stories on TV again, so it's your only bet. They're never likely to be contradicted on-screen and they're authored for continuity (unlike a lot of the books published in the 70s-90s).

 

[Cmdr Straker]

...

3. Set the story in a whole new canon, without any reference or connection to past history besides window dressing elements and proper names...

I thought that was exactly what they did...

 

[F. King Daniel]

^Spock Prime is meant to be the guy from TOS, the old movies and TNG's "Unification", going back in time and altering history with Nero.

 

[Cepstrum]

If you crave post-Nemesis, Prime Universe stories, check out the recent book series. By recent I mean everything published in the last decade or so. A lot of them are great, and to tell you the truth they portray a much more detailed, "realistic", and interesting version of the 24th C than we got to see on TV or in the movies. Check out the Trek Lit forum here for more. Even the big books are quick reads.

We're likely never going to get Prime Universe, 24th Century stories on TV again, so it's your only bet. They're never likely to be contradicted on-screen and they're authored for continuity (unlike a lot of the books published in the 70s-90s).

A series of books set in the 24th century that exist in and respect an established continuity sounds great. I've only read two books, and neither was as you described. I've been afraid to look into the books because they're so many: it appears daunting and difficult to know how to select one.

I'll have to get involved with the literature sub-forum and attempt to solicit advice.

Do you have any experience with this new type of books? Are they any good? I mean that, even though they use the right material, it doesn't necesarily follow that their content is worthwhile. But I can probably get advice on quality from the Trek Lit forum.

Thanks for pointing this out. I was unaware there existed such a type of continuity-following book series. I agree it will be the only way to get a continuation of TNG-era Trek, but if it's as you describe, great!

 

[Cepstrum]

Yes, the new movie did have to change things in just the way it did. Here are the other options and why they would not have worked:

1. Don't use the TOS characters. To the average person, Trek = Kirk, Spock, Enterprise. By far the best chance of success was to use the TOS characters and general setting.

2. Use the remaining TOS actors in the movies. Leaving aside that this approach has a finite lifespan and the reboot happened under the assumption of many, many years of profits, we all know that audiences won't go to see the adventures of senior citizens, unless it's being played for laughs.

3. Set the story in a whole new canon, without any reference or connection to past history besides window dressing elements and proper names. The movie could have made tons of money with this approach. The average viewer understands the basic recognizable elements like "Spock has pointed ears" but doesn't know or care about the minutae Trek canon. I suspect the reason that this option wasn't pursued was because Abrams & the gang didn't feel comfortable using the Trek name while being so utterly disrespectful of Trek lore. The fan rebellion wouldn't have counted for much, but Robert Orci is a Trekkie and it would have been pretty crass of them to cynically make money off the Trek brand name as a mere marketing device.

4. Adhere zealously to Trek canon. That would have put the writers in a creative straightjacket and I don't blame them for refusing to do that. Nobody wants to feel that they're limited in the stories they can tell and that for instance, McCoy's life can never be threatened because we all know he lives to be 120.

So, they chose to set the story in a new universe for the purpose of being free to tell the stories they want. So why not blow up Vulcan? That's not the Prime Universe Vulcan, so if it bugs you that it's been blown up, just remember that the one we've seen in all TV shows and movies other than Trek XI is doing just fine back in its own universe.

I was just hoping (obviously against all reason) that eventually they'd do another show set after the events of Voyager, say in the early 25th century. I'm sad to agree that that is a pipe dream that would never occur.

Any Trek series on TV is unfortunately a pipe dream right now, but that's because CBS has no motive to take the risk on a space opera series - CBS doesn't show sci fi of any sort - and Trek XI has not made it more or less likely that a TV series would exist.

The reason we won't see a 25th C series is because Trek on TV tanked, and nothing has changed in the TV biz to make it more likely that Trek would do better on TV. Space opera on TV as a genre has died. The movie didn't do that, either.

^ Thanks for the detailed reasoning/explanation. I can accept your points.

And again, I'm glad the movie did well and was well-received by many Trek fans. I was merely curious about why it needed to be altered such, especially given that some Trek fans were put-off by it. I get it now.

Finally, I wouldn't have been satisfied with any movie: I just don't like going to movie theaters or watching (most) films. I just prefer the 45-minute TV drama format (with a few exceptions; there are a few movies I like.) But please don't think I've come to bash STXI or bash those who love it. I feel neutral about it — except that I'm glad it gave Trek a lot of cash and cachet! And of course I will see the next one, even though that means going to the dreaded theater again.

 

[F. King Daniel]

There are plenty of threads for beginners in the Treklit forum. I say start with Titan: Taking Wing, the first Captain Riker book, then move on to the epic Destiny trilogy. If you like those, go back and fill in the blanks (and there are a lot of blanks).

 

[Cepstrum]

Go back to 1980 and blow up all of Europe. Many of you would still be born, still have the same parents but your life would be quite different because of the changed political and social landscape. It's like that (only cooler).

Now that's something I would have a hard believing, even though I live in the US (and not Europe). An event as drastic as that surely would've altered worldwide people's schedules and activities. It would be highly unlikely that the conditions that were necessary involved in most people's post-1980 conceptions would be identical. Even the slightest change would result in a completely different child born.

Of course, there's a finite chance that some conceptions would have matched up the same components for creating the same person, but that chance is very small. It certainly wouldn't happen for most people. And as time went on, the chances of second-generation people existing the same would be practically non-existent, I'd think.

Probably the only people whose existence would be preserved would be people living in isolated areas (such as Amazon tribal folk, separatist Luddites living in the remote regions of say Idaho, and the Amish.

Please explain how you think an event such as the destruction of Europe wouldn't completely change the makeup of those born after 1980 (and of course, outside of Europe).