Rumor: the show takes place between TOS movies and TNG

[cultcross]

If you mean Gotham, they dont conflict with one another, one is set during his childhood, one as a adult

Are you seriously suggesting that the Selina Kyle character in Gotham and Dark Knight Rises are the same continuity and don't conflict? Or that James Gordon's background in the films sits perfectly well with the TV show? They're set in different continuities with the same characters, and yet people can work that out just fine and enjoy both. Ditto Batman video games, or the animated series, or any other presentation of the character that has run alongside the movie series since 1989. Not to mention the era of DVD, Blu Ray and streaming mean all the previous interpretations are still everywhere in the public eye. It is perfectly common for the same fictional universe to have several simultaneous interpretations running at once, and there's nothing to suggest it harms the projects involved. Star Trek 2017 could be set in either previous continuity or a third different one and not confuse anyone. The question is which would provide the best backdrop for the writers to do the story that want to do.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Are you seriously suggesting that the Selina Kyle character in Gotham and Dark Knight Rises are the same continuity and don't conflict? Or that James Gordon's background in the films sits perfectly well with the TV show? They're set in different continuities with the same characters, and yet people can work that out just fine and enjoy both. Ditto Batman video games, or the animated series, or any other presentation of the character that has run alongside the movie series since 1989. Not to mention the era of DVD, Blu Ray and streaming mean all the previous interpretations are still everywhere in the public eye. It is perfectly common for the same fictional universe to have several simultaneous interpretations running at once, and there's nothing to suggest it harms the projects involved. Star Trek 2017 could be set in either previous continuity or a third different one and not confuse anyone. The question is which would provide the best backdrop for the writers to do the story that want to do.

Ok you have a point :-P but Im suggesting that in the main it doesnt matter, Star Trek has always had continuity though, it has NEVER been rebooted. Batman on the other hand is rebooted all the time so most people dont give continuity much thought.

I think it _could_ confuse but I also I did say Its not like people couldnt figure it out, but why bother?

I agree with your last point, which provides the best backdrop. I dont see either continuity offers such tight contraints as people seem to think. I dont think you have to reboot or use the JJverse to get creative freedom.

 

[OpenMaw]

That's debatable Jack. TMP is seen by many to be a soft reboot. Yes they talk of the history a little, but in terms of sheer creative direction TMP is whole-cloth different from TOS. To my knowledge, not one bit of TMP has any real ties to TOS outside of the director's cut remaster where they put in a TOS shuttle in one scene.

TNG is also, in certain respects, a soft reboot. Yes it has some teriary ties and it has a cameo or two early on that makes it obvious they exist in the same universe... But you could honestly cut those out and TNG would basically be "Star Trek 2.0".

You may not see it, but a table of writers who basically has to pour over the fictional, sometimes contradictory history, of 50 years of television and films to ensure their stories fit in, might disagree with you, and I won't be surprise if they "shuffle the deck" at the very least. If not start whole-cloth from scratch.

 

[Oso Blanco]

Star Trek has always had continuity though, it has NEVER been rebooted. Batman on the other hand is rebooted all the time so most people dont give continuity much thought.

That's it exactly! You can't compare Star Trek to Batman ... that's like apples and oranges. Batman got so many reboots that I don't give a fuck about the character ... I know that if he dies in this movie, he'll be back in the next one. Star Trek is something COMPLETELY different!

 

[cultcross]

That's debatable Jack. TMP is seen by many to be a soft reboot. Yes they talk of the history a little, but in terms of sheer creative direction TMP is whole-cloth different from TOS. To my knowledge, not one bit of TMP has any real ties to TOS outside of the director's cut remaster where they put in a TOS shuttle in one scene.

TNG is also, in certain respects, a soft reboot. Yes it has some teriary ties and it has a cameo or two early on that makes it obvious they exist in the same universe... But you could honestly cut those out and TNG would basically be "Star Trek 2.0".

You may not see it, but a table of writers who basically has to pour over the fictional, sometimes contradictory history, of 50 years of television and films to ensure their stories fit in, might disagree with you, and I won't be surprise if they "shuffle the deck" at the very least. If not start whole-cloth from scratch.

This is one of the reasons I support a post Nemesis show (prime), or a post TOS show (reboot) - a time jump to an era not seen before allows for exactly this, a 'soft reboot'. What went before can largely be ignored unless they want to use it, and changes can be explained by the passage of time. And crucially for reaching a new audience, there's little sense that you have to have watched what came before. Setting a show before or between any previously made material builds in problems and limitations from day one. Even if the prequel is radically different in tone to the original, such as Caprica was, you know the ending and where you're heading from the off. And you're limited by the status quo of not only the original show, but the show's pilot. All the good ideas they came up with later are off limits, or need an awkward explanation for why they appear in your prequel. In the case of a lost era Trek series, you're writing, in essence, a prequel to Encounter at Farpoint. The Road to Spandex.

 

[Rollar]

So why would they take a step back instead of embracing the new?

Why, well there's attracting the initial audience. Large numbers of new viewers will know nothing about the different universes, and those who are only familiar with the Abrams movies probably wouldn't be able to tell if the new show is set there or not. So setting the new show in the prime universe wouldn't be a "step back" as far as that portion of the audience is concerned.

Star Trek does have a large fan base, so setting the new show in a certain universe would be one way of attracting them.

That said, I thing the new show will basically be set in it's own "third universe. However if the choice were mine (which it isn't) I would prefer the Prime over the Abrams.

Of course I would prefer the "Borg are everywhere" universe over the Abrams.

 

[Dukhat]

Let me ask a question that no one's really thought to ask. Let's say that Faraci's sources are legit. Why would someone who has intimate knowledge of CBS's new series, which not even CBS itself has even made public, share that knowledge with someone like Faraci? I mean, what exactly would they get out of it? Why would Devin Faraci be viewed as such an important source of Trek news that the source would reveal anything to him? I didn't even know who the hell he was until this "news." Wouldn't it have made more sense for these sources to reveal their knowledge to someone like an actual news reporter?

So what sounds more logical: Multiple people with actual sources going to Devin Faraci with their information, or Devin Faraci is just making up the information?

 

[Greg Cox]

That's it exactly! You can't compare Star Trek to Batman ... that's like apples and oranges. Batman got so many reboots that I don't give a fuck about the character ... I know that if he dies in this movie, he'll be back in the next one. Star Trek is something COMPLETELY different!

I don't know. STAR TREK does not exist in a bubble outside the rest of pop culture. If audiences are not "confused" by multiple versions of Batman or Planet of the Apes or Godzilla or whatever, why should they be unable to to wrap their brains around multiple incarnations of STAR TREK?

I don't recall anyone storming out of the 2014 GODZILLA reboot demanding to know where Matthew Broderick was, or fretting about whether the new movie was set in the same continuity as GODZILLA VS. THE SMOG MONSTER.

History suggests that audiences are not so easily confused as some might suggest, and tend to take multiple versions of the same franchise and characters in stride.

 

[Shalashaska]

Hannibal limped along for 39 episodes before NBC cancelled it for low ratings.

The fact that you just used a terribly outdated ratings system to judge the quality of a show tells me you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Tim Walker]

A soft reboot worked well enough for TNG. If I were to do another soft reboot of Trek, I would set it some years after the last Trek show. This would be the least problematic option.

 

[Dukhat]

The fact that you just used a terribly outdated ratings system to judge the quality of a show tells me you don't know what you're talking about.

http://tvline.com/2015/06/22/hannibal-cancelled-nbc-season-4/

It's not Dennis's rating system; It's NBC's.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

You people are so touchy. It doesn't matter when or where this will be set, all that matters is how good the writing and execution is and that it connects with audiences. Just because it could be set between TUC and TNG doesn't mean it will get less audiences than one that could be set in Abramsverse. A lot of audiences and general don't care about such nerdy trivial matters, they just want to watch something that's ultimately engaging.

With Fuller and Meyer involved, I'm not expecting anything other than some very good stuff ahead. Whether it's set in one period or the other, doesn't matter. ENT didn't fail because it was a prequel, it failed because the writing was God awful for a long period of time and by the time it actually did get good it was unfortunately far too late to recover the audiences it lost. I should know, I gave up after 8 episodes and didn't get to see what as amazing about that fourth season until after it was cancelled.

 

[Goji]

I don't recall anyone storming out of the 2014 GODZILLA reboot demanding to know where Matthew Broderick was, or fretting about whether the new movie was set in the same continuity as GODZILLA VS. THE SMOG MONSTER.

Godzilla is an especially interesting example because the Japanese series of films has reset itself so many times. The most recent series (1999-2004) used different, incompatible continuities for 5 of the 6 films, even though two of the completely unrelated entries used the exact same Godzilla suit (Godzilla 2000 and Godzilla vs. MegaGuirus). Godzilla definitely had no love of sprawling continuity.

 

[Greg Cox]

Godzilla is an especially interesting example because the Japanese series of films has reset itself so many times. The most recent series (1999-2004) used different, incompatible continuities for 5 of the 6 films, even though two of the completely unrelated entries used the exact same Godzilla suit (Godzilla 2000 and Godzilla vs. MegaGuirus). Godzilla definitely had no love of sprawling continuity.

And yet I'm assuming nobody exited the theaters confused, nor lost sleep over the fact that the movies were not set in the "Prime" Godzilla-verse.

 

[justaredshirt]

Honestly what is really left post Nemesis. the Fed, Klingons, Cardassians are rebuilding from the war. Romulans rebuilding after the war and destruction of Romulus? And technically anything after the departure of Spock and Romulus destruction is a divergent timeline

 

[cultcross]

Honestly what is really left post

Hmm. All of time.

 

[mos6507]

That's debatable Jack. TMP is seen by many to be a soft reboot.
...
TNG is also, in certain respects, a soft reboot.

They were stylistic reboots, not continuity reboots.

Reboot today usually means running over the same stories again with a new cast. That didn't happen in either of these cases. nuTrek is more of what one would expect from a reboot, only with the thin connecting thread of "alternate reality" and prime-spock cameos.

The paradox of reboots is that by running over the original's greatest-hit story beats, it can actually be MORE derivative than simply building on top of the same continuity. The promise of the reboots being a blank slate is rarely realized because the temptation is too great to just repeat what you know worked the first time. But you don't need a reboot to fall prey to repetition, of course (witness The Force Awakens).

The best reboot candidates are for properties that were highly flawed and could benefit from a do-over. For instance, if Disney were to follow-through on remaking The Black Hole.

Honestly what is really left post Nemesis. the Fed, Klingons, Cardassians are rebuilding from the war. Romulans rebuilding after the war and destruction of Romulus? And technically anything after the departure of Spock and Romulus destruction is a divergent timeline

The larger galactic/political situation post-Nemesis is only the most superficial backdrop for a story. There's more to Trek than feuding Galactic powers.

 

[DigificWriter]

The basic concept of Star Trek, to me, is incompatible with the concept of an "anthology series".

If I can't follow the adventures of a particular crew for a sustained period of time, it's not Star Trek.

 

[nx1701g]

Are you seriously suggesting that the Selina Kyle character in Gotham and Dark Knight Rises are the same continuity and don't conflict? Or that James Gordon's background in the films sits perfectly well with the TV show? They're set in different continuities with the same characters, and yet people can work that out just fine and enjoy both.

They did just confirm the multiverse.

 

[nx1701g]

The basic concept of Star Trek, to me, is incompatible with the concept of an "anthology series".

If I can't follow the adventures of a particular crew for a sustained period of time, it's not Star Trek.

Actually this is a very old idea for Trek.

In between season 3 and 4 it was considered to keep a Riker Captaincy going with the return of Captain Picard. Picard would resume command of Enterprise with Data as XO. Riker would have commanded a different ship with Shelby as his XO. They would alternate weekly between the two ships and crews.

The idea was shelved of course, but shows a precedent.