Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse

[Dukhat]

In 1987 after four successful Star Trek movies why didn't Paramount produce a series based on the original crew? Why did they opt to create a TV show based on a new crew 70 years after the movies were set? It seems pretty dumb to me considering they were making so much money on those movies.

If I understand correctly, once Paramount made Roddenberry executive producer, it was Gene's own idea to set the show that far in the future, because he wanted to get away from TOS and the films as much as possible, because he didn't like where they were going and wanted a clean slate, which to him meant setting the show at a point in time where nothing from the past would interfere with it.

He was able to get away with that because this was the first time Trek had ever come back to the small screen, and fans would have been fine with literally anything that was shown to them. They were just happy to get a new Star Trek television series since the original. And between that and the show being syndicated, it was able to survive even though it probably would have been cancelled after the first or second season had it been shown on a network.

Of course, nothing like that would fly today.

 

[hux]

Point the first: setting the show in a reality where none of the events depicted in the new films have occurred would be bizarre.

Point the second: why do people relentlessly keep talking about JJverse as though it wildly diverges from prime Trek? Other than Kirk's dad and Vulcan, there is no difference... except in style. Will the new show embrace a lot of that style? Probably. Does that mean it will be unrecognisable as Trek? No.

My guess is that it will have its cake and eat it. Set after Voyager in the new timeline but referencing the Picard, Janeway and Sisko characters and events that we're familiar with. They all happened (so don't worry fandom) it's just that they happened slightly differently in this reality (just like Kirk, Spock etc all happened slightly differently in the new timeline).

 

[Dukhat]

Set after Voyager in the new timeline but referencing the Picard, Janeway and Sisko characters and events that we're familiar with. They all happened (so don't worry fandom) it's just that they happened slightly differently in this reality (just like Kirk, Spock etc all happened slightly differently in the new timeline).

But, logically, by the time the nuUniverse gets to its own 2380's, the timeline would have diverged so much that Picard, Janeway and Sisko probably wouldn't exist, or at least exist in any way that we were familiar with before.

Of course, since this is all fake, who knows what they'll do with that, if anything.

 

[Kemaiku]

The Wormhole god/alien/wtf-e people do not understand the concept of time and would generate 'the sisko' regardless, and Cardassians are in this universe so DS9 is still possible.

Enterprise happened, Caretaker is older than the divergence and is still dying, so he would still steal any ship close enough at the time.

TNG is the only series that won't happen now, since we've seen androids on the bridge of Starships, no reason for Soong to run off and create Data, the Klingons and likely Kithomer are in very different states, no Worf. The Picard family would make sure none of them ever left the solar system or all joined after Nero. etc

 

[hux]

But, logically, by the time the nuUniverse gets to its own 2380's, the timeline would have diverged so much that Picard, Janeway and Sisko probably wouldn't exist, or at least exist in any way that we were familiar with before.

Of course, since this is all fake, who knows what they'll do with that, if anything.

I'm using mirror universe logic. Where everybody has sex with the same people despite whatever changes might occur.

Plus, you could make the same argument about anything resembling the prime timeline being unealistic. Nero changes the timeline and yet decades later, all the same people who ended up on the enterprise in the prime universe (Sulu, Chekov, Scotty etc) just happen to still end up on the enterprise.

Meh.

 

[EnderAKH]

In 1987 after four successful Star Trek movies why didn't Paramount produce a series based on the original crew? Why did they opt to create a TV show based on a new crew 70 years after the movies were set? It seems pretty dumb to me considering they were making so much money on those movies.

Well, for one thing Roddenberry didn't want it. For another, two of the big three had moved on at that point. Shatner was on TJ Hooker when casting was happening, and Nimoy was becoming a successful director, having directed Trek's 3 & 4, and would have been in pre-production on Three Men and a Baby. Thus a continuation with a different crew was probably the most feasible option.

 

[eyeresist]

TNG is the only series that won't happen now, since we've seen androids on the bridge of Starships, no reason for Soong to run off and create Data

Surely that was a cyborg, not an android?

Yeah, they'll try to crowbar the FX blitz that was JJTrek onto the small screen to impress the adolescents. Fitting that style into episodic format will be like thumping a square peg into a round hole. Episodic format traditionally has had limitations that the big screen does not, which will probably give us some "third style" with this series. Or at least I hope they do.

I'm glad you were able to talk yourself out of your initial proposition! There's no way they could put an equivalent of the movies on the small screen. They couldn't afford it. But I think they might try to maintain a higher level of plot tension than the TV version is traditionally known for.

Will they tie the series to the movies, a la Marvel's Agents of SHIELD? They may well decide it's too much trouble, but it would be cool if they tried.

 

[Kemaiku]

That thing on the bridge is mentioned as an android in the comics and BTS material. When they show the back of his head, there's a big indent or opening like a cooling vent to some mechanical brain, his eyes and vocal system are synthetic. If he's a cyborg, there's little left of the person they hollowed out and shoved all that inside.

 

[T'Girl]

Nero changes the timeline and yet decades later, all the same people who ended up on the enterprise in the prime universe (Sulu, Chekov, Scotty etc) just happen to still end up on the enterprise.

Been a while since I've seen the first Abrams movie, but didn't Spock say something about the universe trying to correct itself? This would account for the crew coming together, Scotty joining the ship especially was a absolute fluke.
.

 

[eyeresist]

Been a while since I've seen the first Abrams movie, but didn't Spock say something about the universe trying to correct itself? This would account for the crew coming together,

I was just hunting through the transcript of ST09, trying to find that, and couldn't find it. If anyone can locate the quote, I'd be grateful.

 

[hux]

Wasn't that line deleted? Deleted Time Line Quote Thread

 

[eyeresist]

^ Thanks. A real shame it's not in the actual movie.

 

[Mudd]

In 1987 after four successful Star Trek movies why didn't Paramount produce a series based on the original crew? Why did they opt to create a TV show based on a new crew 70 years after the movies were set? It seems pretty dumb to me considering they were making so much money on those movies.

Supposedly the version of a new series that was discussed with Fox involved some of the supporting cast cast from the movies as well as characters like Saavik. Even if that's true, though, those talks ended well before anything like that would have been settled; it was all blue-sky.

 

[T'Girl]

Wasn't that line deleted?

Must of been where I saw it.

 

[Corran Horn]

If I understand correctly, once Paramount made Roddenberry executive producer, it was Gene's own idea to set the show that far in the future, because he wanted to get away from TOS and the films as much as possible, because he didn't like where they were going and wanted a clean slate, which to him meant setting the show at a point in time where nothing from the past would interfere with it.

They tried to reboot the movies too - Star Trek VI was very nearly the "Starfleet Academy" movie. Younger/cheaper cast.

 

[Shalashaska]

This thread is ridiculous.

Yes, guys, EVERYONE went to see the NuTrek films because they were set in an alternate universe.

Nope, not because of the fun action, the big explosions, the young cast, and the Kirk and Spock characters, the two NuTrek films made $1 billion because the masses adore alternate universes.

The new show can be as geeky, philosophical and technobabbley as you want, complete fucking nerd junk, but to think it could be set in the rich Prime universe a century after TNG when the galaxy would look a lot different!? YOU MUST BE OUT OF YOUR DAMN MIND!

*sigh*

 

[Mudd]

The prime universe died in 2005. Deal with it.

 

[RAMA]

According to what I've seen from the Fuller announcement, the show will be in the JJ-verse but on a new ship and independent of the movies.

 

[hux]

I'm bored of saying it at this point but why do people keep insisting that the JJ-verse is somehow wildly divergent to the prime universe? Are you confusing the new timeline with the new style and aesthetic of the films?

The new timeline simply means no Kirk's dad and no Vulcan. That is litterally the extent to the differences.

In other words, the new show could be set in the new timeline and be identical in tone and style to TNG. A pleasure cruise to visit bumpy headed aliens who need to learn about the human emotion called... love.

But, if you're arguing - as I think you probably are - that the old look and feel of the 90's shows is over and the new show will embrace a new style and aesthetic then I'd agree. But that's got absolutely nothing to do with timelines (you just think it does).

 

[Nyotarules]

If I understand correctly, once Paramount made Roddenberry executive producer, it was Gene's own idea to set the show that far in the future, because he wanted to get away from TOS and the films as much as possible, because he didn't like where they were going and wanted a clean slate, which to him meant setting the show at a point in time where nothing from the past would interfere with it.

He was able to get away with that because this was the first time Trek had ever come back to the small screen, and fans would have been fine with literally anything that was shown to them. They were just happy to get a new Star Trek television series since the original. And between that and the show being syndicated, it was able to survive even though it probably would have been cancelled after the first or second season had it been shown on a network.

Of course, nothing like that would fly today.

Plus the original crew were getting on a bit and due to retire even in the star trek universe. It would be pathetic IMO for the gang to still be following Kirk around; Uhura, Scotty and Chekov deserved their own ships a loooong time ago.