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

[mos6507]

*Rubs hands together in glee' I call that there will be a sudden upswing in threads about the writers 'political agendas'!

I'm surprised nobody has really thought this through. It's not hard to speculate, really. TUC was about chernobyl, yes, but it was also about the fall of the iron curtain and the waning of soviet influence. What most people are talking about these days is the waning power of the US. In sci-fi terms, this is, basically, what Andromeda was, right? And Renegades is also in that vein, showing a federation that is past its prime.

This wouldn't jive that well with Trek's original utopian vision, although it could still have idealistic heroes within the core.

If they went this route, it would probably be post-Nemesis prime continuity like Renegades.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think that is necessarily the case. I can certainly see the darker political views that the new series could take on given different possibilities, depending on when the show is based.

However, one thing that is at the core of Trek (Yes, even Abrams) is optimism. That despite the bad stuff that is going on there are ways out, ways to solve the problem, especially if everyone works together. It was counter to the grain when GR first started it in the era of nuclear annihilation, and it's something that could seriously work again. In an era of Game of Thrones, and The Walking Dead and all the superheroes getting their gritty street fighter look on, the new series could show the main cast working towards a better future, not just surviving but actually bettering themselves and those around them.

No, it doesn't have to be 60s era sitcom with a laugh track at the end of the episode, but it doesn't have to be Commander Adama's "low on food" speech, pistol swallowing, depressing either. How about some optimism?

 

[Rahul]

I don't see how anything I said "perfectly described Enterprise". When I said "back to basics", I meant back to TOS.

And weighing all the pros and cons, on balance I'd say holodeck episodes are something Star Trek should be ashamed of.

Well, you said:

Back to basics. More likely the period will be just before or after the TOS period, to keep that frontier feeling, and the antagonistic relationship with the Klingons.

My guess is they will want to avoid the temptation of holodeck episodes, so if there is some holographic tech it will be different to what we've seen so far on the show; probably augmented reality.

That's exactly what they tried for in Enterprise. And failed. And what they basically tried to do with the reboot movies. With mixed results.

As I see it: The usual "back to the roots" "more excitement, adventure, action", "more realism, less holodecks and beaming" has NEVER worked before!

A new show shouldn't be ashamed to be Star Trek. That means also the more outlandish aspects. Money- and crimeless future, holodecks, beaming and all the weird stuff included. Because that's the only way to do really interesting sci-fi concept stories. Otherwise you end up with "Archer gets captured by evil aliens" each week...

 

[Rahul]

The only thing where I really want the new show to go "back to basics" is : More strange alien creatures. The last time we had interesting alien monsters in Star Trek was back in the sixties, with Horta, the Gorn, Mugatu and, well, the tribbles.

Since then somehow Star Wars has taken over the whole "creature encounter" corner in Sci-fi. That was really refreshing to see in Trek09. Gimme' more of that!

 

[Hutchy01]

The only thing where I really want the new show to go "back to basics" is : More strange alien creatures. The last time we had interesting alien monsters in Star Trek was back in the sixties, with Horta, the Gorn, Mugatu and, well, the tribbles.

I really agree with that thought, the show had a lower budget in '66 but looked some much more futuristic and interesting than later series that may have had greater story and plot direction.

 

[Terok Nor]

I hope it literally goes back to Basics. As in the Voyager episode "Basics". "Star Trek : Cave Men" has a nice ring to it.

 

[ThunderAeroI]

Why not just follow sulu on the Excelsior after TUC. I like that approach and it allows for future sulu to meet young sulu, etc.

 

[Lynx]

I would like to have a series which takes place a few years after Voyager ended.

I like the 24th century with all the different planets, races, plots and loose ends worth following up.

But no more "alternate timelines" in which they screw up established Trek history. Move forward with caution.

 

[eyeresist]

Back to basics. More likely the period will be just before or after the TOS period, to keep that frontier feeling, and the antagonistic relationship with the Klingons.

My guess is they will want to avoid the temptation of holodeck episodes, so if there is some holographic tech it will be different to what we've seen so far on the show; probably augmented reality.

That's exactly what they tried for in Enterprise. And failed. And what they basically tried to do with the reboot movies. With mixed results.

TOS was set "just before or after the TOS period". TOS had that frontier feeling. TOS showed an antagonistic relationship with the Klingons. TOS didn't have holodecks. I can only conclude from your arguments that you are one of those TNG fans who looks down on TOS.

As I see it: The usual "back to the roots" "more excitement, adventure, action", "more realism, less holodecks and beaming" has NEVER worked before!

Well, ST09 is regarded as working pretty well. ENT's greatest fans will admit the show has some undeniable flaws, but "adventure" and "less holodecks" are not among them - unless you are of the opinion that TNG is tru Trek, and any deviation is a betrayal of Roddenberry's Vision™.

EDIT: And TWOK, of course, is the archetypal example of the back-to-basics adventure approach getting positive results.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

For me, it doesn't matter which universe this will take place. It could be a third universe for all I care. What matters to me is the writing and execution. If they could pull that off and make some of the strongest material to ever come out of the Star Trek brand name, I'll be pleased.

 

[Andru]

Every time a Trek movie or episode tanked, it wasn't the setting, the universe, the era, the special effects, the uniforms, or the actors. Every single time it was the story that was found lacking. So as long as the stories are good, the new show will succeed.

 

[Lynx]

What I hope is that we won't have the constant character destruction we have seen in the other series.

Yar and Dax were killed off, Kes was humiliated and totally ruined, Lt. Carey was dumped for several seasons before being killed off, Data was killed off (probably), Trip was killed off.

With Fuller in charge, I expect the worst.

Maybe I can turn it into something positive this time by setting up a bet on which character will be destroyed and in what season. I could probably earn some money there.

 

[T'Girl]

While I wouldn't want main characters killed off haphazardly, Starfleet is a dangerous occupation and it gets down right ridiculous that the main characters are protected by "the hero shield" while Ensign Ricky bites it at the end of the teaser.

So I think that a main character should die (and stay dead) if it serves the needs of the series.

=

 

[Yanks]

What I hope is that we won't have the constant character destruction we have seen in the other series.

Yar and Dax were killed off, Kes was humiliated and totally ruined, Lt. Carey was dumped for several seasons before being killed off, Data was killed off (probably), Trip was killed off.

With Fuller in charge, I expect the worst.

Maybe I can turn it into something positive this time by setting up a bet on which character will be destroyed and in what season. I could probably earn some money there.

Hey Lynx!!

To their credit, the decision to get rid of those characters was not theirs in all cases.

Denise Crosby decided to go for the big screen.

Terry decided to leave for 'Baxter'.

Kes wasn't humiliated until Fury and I'm sure her return wasn't the writers fault nor was her departure.

Same with Data... his "death" was a good one and they did it because Brent said he wasn't going to play the part anymore.

I think Fuller's work on Voyager was pretty darn good aside from Fury.

 

[Rahul]

TOS was set "just before or after the TOS period". TOS had that frontier feeling. TOS showed an antagonistic relationship with the Klingons. TOS didn't have holodecks. I can only conclude from your arguments that you are one of those TNG fans who looks down on TOS.

Oh boy, completely wrong! TOS is my absolute favourite Trek show (as you can see from my avatar picture). With TNG as aclose second

Well, ST09 is regarded as working pretty well. ENT's greatest fans will admit the show has some undeniable flaws, but "adventure" and "less holodecks" are not among them - unless you are of the opinion that TNG is tru Trek, and any deviation is a betrayal of Roddenberry's Vision™.

Well, I'm actually also a big fan of Enterprise (I would rank the 3rd and 4th season as my third favourite Trek show - the first two sadly as my least favourite Trek show).

EDIT: And TWOK, of course, is the archetypal example of the back-to-basics adventure approach getting positive results.

Here is what I really liked about TWOK and ENT : They feel real. The have realistic set design (that doesn't look like a living room). Their uniforms and equipment all have a practical feeling to them. What had nothing to do with their respective successes/failures: The timeframe. Or lack of holodecks.

So yeah, I think TOS and TNG are unmatched in both their quality and pop-cultural influence, and I severley hope the new series will at least come close to that.

That being said: While I understand the appeal of "going back" to "a simpler time", it rarely works out well. I want to look forward, accept how the franchise has changed (and what additions had come since Tos), accept them, and move on.

One thing that baffles many people: how talk-y TOS really is. People have this weird misconception of a shirtless Kirk and constant action. But in reality, TOS and TNG have a lot in common, in that the characters always first try to solve a problem through simple talking, diplomacy, and thinking. When THEN tha action happened, it was memorable, because it was so rare! Unlike ENT, where every single episode was obligated to have at least one phaser battle in it...

And I would really enjoy more of the adventure feeling that TOS managed, with strange aliens, dangerous creatures, undiscovered planets and weird civilisations, and being generally a bit more colourfull. But I also want Trek to move on, and not forever try and fail to remake what people through popcultural osmosis think the formula of TOS was. And the addition of TNG-era Trek staples like the holodeck are interesting additions, that shouldn't be ignored in the future.

So yeah, I want intelligent scifi, with intelligent people that seek out intelligent solutions to interesting problems. Nothing of that implies I don't like me some action and adventure in there.

 

[Rahul]

Talking about the general tone of a Trek series:

What actually matters much more than the fictional timeframe the series is set in, is the actual timeframe it was made in:

TOS was made in the 60s, an exciting time, where both danger of nuclear war and an unmatched positive outlook on future, technology, social progression and the real life space race painted a colourfull and exciting picture.

The TOS MOVIES showed a bit more of the disillusionment of the 80s, a more realistic outlook of the world, with ambitious goals, but a realisation that those goals aren't as easy to reach as one previously thought.

TNG was a pure 90s Utopia. The great conflicts all but resolved, social progression unstoppable, and the general feeling af having done everything right in the past, with the general victory of western values seemingly unstoppable.

DS9 falls a bit out of the line, as it's a bit of a nostalgic look on the rightfull battles of the past (an analogy to the second world war), together with...
...VOY and the...
TNG MOVIES, they all fail a bit to move an, realise the changes in the world, and clinge too much on achievements of the past and failing to progress in the present.

ENT was in a post-9/11 world, and the series first realized its full potential when it handled current events, the war on terror and a generally more complex world, while still adhering to it's humanistic core values.

the JJ-MOVIES showed a division amongst fans and society, a general mistrust regarding authority and military, to even including some strange conspiracy theories, and primarily focusing on quarrels with themselves, while outright accepting (and almost ignoring) horrible disasters in other parts of the world (or the galaxy, with the destruciton of Vulcan being merely one plot point among others), being more accepting to morally questionable behaviour and not realising the consequences such actions have.

I hope TREK17 finds an interesting view of the current world, a complex and conflict ridden world. While still remaining (or better re-gaining) a positive outlook of the future, show and accept further social progression, and a re-evaluation of the old, humanistic values that once made us strong in the first place.

 

[Nyotarules]

If Trek wants to reflect whats going on around us now, I like the idea of Bajor joining the Federation but the Bajoran religious fanaticism making the rest of the Federation uncomfortable. I'm reading some of the relaunch DS9 novels (Mission Gamma) and I am surprised they let the Bajorans join. The writers have turned them into a bunch of religious extremists.

 

[thumbtack]

With Fuller in charge, I expect the worst.

There may be one or two cannibals on the ship, but we've already been warned this will be a "different Star Trek".

 

[T'Girl]

Following WYLB I can't see why the federation would want Bajor anymore as a member. Initially Bajor would be a strong outpost near the Cardassians, a people who had been a thorn in the federation's side for decades, at the end of the the series the Cardassians were a shattered wreak. While there is the wormhole, other than that the Bajorian bring nothing of value to the Federation. And the Federation could likely negociate passage (through the passage) without making Bajor a member.

=

 

[STEPhon IT]

I really agree with that thought, the show had a lower budget in '66 but looked some much more futuristic and interesting than later series that may have had greater story and plot direction.

What does that mean, the show had a lower budget in '66? Compared to other show's budgets in that year of 1966? Do you know the budgets of the following shows in 1966 in comparison to Star Trek?
Why would anyone think Star Trek in 1966 was low budget? For it's time in 1966 the series was state of the art.