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

[Kor]

Except for a while it wasn't part of the official live-action continuity.

Who did originally try to dictate that anyway? Was it Roddenberry?

By certain accounts, it was really Roddenberry's lawyer, and this directive was only put into place when TNG was being produced.

TAS was not a "reboot," in the sense that it did not scrap previous continuity and start over. TAS continued onward from TOS, even having episodes that were direct sequels to TOS episodes.

Kor

 

[JTShanks]

Except for a while it wasn't part of the official live-action continuity.

Who did originally try to dictate that anyway? Was it Roddenberry?

Gene Roddenberry dictated in 1972 after the first 12 episodes that the Animated Series not take place in live action continuity.

As far as my knowledge on TAS is concerned, it has not been renegotiated as canon and to this day remains the only Non-Canon Star Trek TV Show to date and that fact remains truth as the rest of Star Trek's works after TOS/TAS do not seem to follow the canon presented in TAS, somethings have been borrowed but as far as it goes; it has not been canon since 1972.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Except for a while it wasn't part of the official live-action continuity.

Who did originally try to dictate that anyway? Was it Roddenberry?

Gene Roddenberry dictated in 1972 after the first 12 episodes that the Animated Series not take place in live action continuity.

As far as my knowledge on TAS is concerned, it has not been renegotiated as canon and to this day remains the only Non-Canon Star Trek TV Show to date and that fact remains truth as the rest of Star Trek's works after TOS/TAS do not seem to follow the canon presented in TAS, somethings have been borrowed but as far as it goes; it has not been canon since 1972.

That's nonsense.

First of all, TAS was released in 1973, not 1972. Voice recording didn't begin until 1973.

Second of all, the "decanonization" of TAS didn't occur until after the first season of TNG. Here is a quote from Wikipedia, with citation.

At the end of the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, all licenses for Star Trek spin-off fiction were renegotiated, and the animated series was essentially "decanonized" by Gene Roddenberry's office. Writers of the novels, comics and role-playing games were prohibited from using concepts from the animated series in their works.[6]

[...]

6. ^ Ayers, Jeff (2006). Voyages of the Imagination: The Star Trek Fiction Companion. Pocket Books. ISBN 1-4165-0349-8.

Third, do you have a link to Roddenberry saying what you claim he said in 1972 (or even 1973)?

 

[Mr Awe]

^ Of course he doesn't have that citation!

 

[Trekkin]

Had Star Trek ended and then restarted with very noteable changes to make it work? Coz of we're counting Abrams films as reboots, than TAS fits the 'threshold' waaay more than they do.

Nope. You can't reconcile the differences between TOS and nuTrek. Further, the viewer is not meant to assume that TOS and nuTrek take place in the same timeline. You don't watch the nu movies and assume that the events of TOS also took place in the nu movie timeline. That's the relevant threshold.

TAS is clearly meant to be in the same timeline as TOS. You can watch TAS and assume that the events of TOS also took place in that timeline. Again, that's the relevant threshold.

Mr Awe

Again - it's on you to prove that 'timelines' have anything to do with the definition of 'reboot'.

Because I can easily 'assume' that the events of TOS happened in the NuTrek continuity - Leonard Nimoys Spock is in NuTrek, and references the events of TWOK in both movies. Regardless of congruity snarls or retcons, he's there to establish that TOS is still part of NuTrek's continuity. It's just the change in the setting means that continuity doesn't really impact on anything.

Meanwhile, there's plenty of stuff in TAS, TNG, within TOS itself, etc that is completely irreconcilable with what we've seen before.

You're getting hung up on the diegetic. A creator decides to reboot, and that can (but doesn't have to) define the content. They don't write their story and then go 'Oh, this doesn't fit with atory element a, b and c. I guess this is a reboot!' The story you see on screen is just the product of a series of decisions, and whether a continuity issue will be:
a) a retcon
b) a blooper that's is hoped not to be noticed
c) evidence of a reboot
Is just another one of those creative decisions.

 

[Mr Awe]

^ It's clearly an alternate universe. You can't have ships be 2 very different sizes. Vulcan existing and destroyed in the same timeline. And they very specifically show that Space Seed did not happen as it did in TOS! D'oh, no freaking way is it all part of the same timeline. Clearly a reboot in the form of an alternate universe.

Please tell me that you don't honestly thinking that Vulcan can both exist and be destroyed in the same timeline! That Space Seed can happen two entirely different ways?! Wow, the mind boggles!

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Because I can easily 'assume' that the events of TOS happened in the NuTrek continuity - Leonard Nimoys Spock is in NuTrek, and references the events of TWOK in both movies. Regardless of congruity snarls or retcons, he's there to establish that TOS is still part of NuTrek's continuity.

Right.

I believe that Hela's making the point that nuTrek has it both ways (actually reiterating it, since others have made the same point numerous times before).

To the degree it matters, I agree that the alternate reality in which the nu-characters exist is still in continuity with oldTrek. Leonard Nimoy's presence --and the flashback scenes during Spock Prime's mind meld with nuKirk-- establish that unambiguously. We've had time travel episodes before in which previous events, even those in which main characters participated, were changed by time travel. That's the premise here in STXI.

But on the other hand, the alternate reality in which events in the main take place unfolds anew essentially as if TOS were being rebooted.

And people shouldn't kid themselves: the Prime Universe in all likelihood will not be visited again in nuTrek. It would be self-defeating by having no commercial value. That is to say, ENT is still in continuity in the new timeline, but we can't expect anything but the most Easter egg-like of references even to it, such as the NX-01 model in Marcus' office in STID.

As Dennis might say, the time travel device is just a fig leaf for the fact that in every significant way, nuTrek is in fact a reboot.

 

[eyeresist]

^ It's clearly an alternate universe. You can't have ships be 2 very different sizes. Vulcan existing and destroyed in the same timeline. And they very specifically show that Space Seed did not happen as it did in TOS! D'oh, no freaking way is it all part of the same timeline. Clearly a reboot in the form of an alternate universe.

Same universe - different timeline.

 

[Nerys Myk]

^ It's clearly an alternate universe. You can't have ships be 2 very different sizes. Vulcan existing and destroyed in the same timeline. And they very specifically show that Space Seed did not happen as it did in TOS! D'oh, no freaking way is it all part of the same timeline. Clearly a reboot in the form of an alternate universe.

Please tell me that you don't honestly thinking that Vulcan can both exist and be destroyed in the same timeline! That Space Seed can happen two entirely different ways?! Wow, the mind boggles!

It's fiction. The Enterprise managed to exist in three different centuries. Kirk has two different middle initials. Vulcan does and doesn't have a moon.

 

[Trekkin]

I think Vulcan can both exist and not exist in the same continuity. That's what reboots are usually concerned with overhauling (sometimes), not the plot's various time-travel universe-hopping shaninigans

Why is the idea of the same continuity having two different Enterprise's so mind-blowing? TOS at the very least had two different versions of both it and the crew, and everybody on the second one was sexier!





Well, except Chekov. Business as usual there.

 

[eyeresist]

There have even been multiple Enterprises on screen at the same time.

 

[martok2112]

There have even been multiple Enterprises on screen at the same time.

Yeah...and more than just one, too.

 

[Mr Awe]

Because I can easily 'assume' that the events of TOS happened in the NuTrek continuity - Leonard Nimoys Spock is in NuTrek, and references the events of TWOK in both movies. Regardless of congruity snarls or retcons, he's there to establish that TOS is still part of NuTrek's continuity.

Right.

I believe that Hela's making the point that nuTrek has it both ways (actually reiterating it, since others have made the same point numerous times before).

To the degree it matters, I agree that the alternate reality in which the nu-characters exist is still in continuity with oldTrek. Leonard Nimoy's presence --and the flashback scenes during Spock Prime's mind meld with nuKirk-- establish that unambiguously. We've had time travel episodes before in which previous events, even those in which main characters participated, were changed by time travel. That's the premise here in STXI.

Alright, I can see that. It's an alternate universe that was created by the prime universe. However, within the movie universe, the intention is that the viewer is not supposed to assume that the events of TOS occurred in the Abrams universe. Therefore, it's really still a reboot, but with enough window dressing so viewers know that the intention was not to overwrite the prime universe. CBS wants to preserve that income after all!

So, whatever word you want to use to describe an alternate universe created by the prime universe, sure, use whichever one floats your boat!

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

I think Vulcan can both exist and not exist in the same continuity. That's what reboots are usually concerned with overhauling (sometimes), not the plot's various time-travel universe-hopping shaninigans

Why is the idea of the same continuity having two different Enterprise's so mind-blowing? TOS at the very least had two different versions of both it and the crew, and everybody on the second one was sexier!

That was yet another alternate universe, but with a different splitting point than the movies. Within the Mirror universe, you're not supposed to assume that the events in the TOS prime universe occurred as we saw them.

Mr Awe

 

[Trekkin]

No, you're not meant to assume the Mirror Verse characters have the same adventures as the 'normal' crew (though there's some overlap. No matter what universe they're in, that same group of people always seems to end up together). But are you going to claim those eps and its sequels are reboots?

I know I sound like I'm bullheaded-lady nitpicking you're arguments, but I do get where you're coming from. Dennis drew the 'what's a reboot' line at what he saw as intent, whereas you see 'reboot' as mostly being defined through the in-story 'effect' (for lack of a better word). Most of the subsequent discussion has just spun off from that difference in views, and the extent some of us think said 'effect' has to be evident before it reaches 'reboot' status.

While I do disagree with you, I'm just trying to say that I'm not really trying to say that you're 'wrong' or anything.

 

[dub]

I think we all know what each other means, it's just that some of you are wrong and the rest of us are correct.

Can I get an "amen" or a "+1" or an "exactly so" or a "NOPE?"

 

[Trekkin]

One of those words specifically?

 

[Kor]

We should define what exactly we mean by "reboot."
I think it can mean a couple of different things when it comes to media franchises.

One is in more of a business sense, of starting up a franchise that has been quiet for a while. I've seen the word used in that manner in industry-related articles. In this sense, "reboot" doesn't directly relate to the in-story continuity or lack thereof. For example, people have been using the word "reboot" in connection with the new X-Files miniseries, which is a continuation of the existing continuity.

The other meaning of "reboot", which seems to take precedence with Trek fans, is the sense of ignoring existing in-universe continuity and starting the story over from scratch. There's lots of room for variety with this; it could be a complete reboot (NuBSG, Batman Begins, Man of Steel, The Amazing Spider-Man) or partial to various degrees (Superman Returns, various Godzilla movies, probably every manga/anime that's ever existed). Trek fans are somehow averse to having this happen with their precious universe, even though it happens all the time with other media franchises.

Whether ST17 is set in the JJ-verse or not, totally ignores any previous continuity, or slavishly adheres to it, I just hope it is a quality production. That's what really matters in the end.

Kor

 

[Tim Walker]

I agree with Kor, a good story/quality production is the most important thing.

 

[Mr Awe]

No, you're not meant to assume the Mirror Verse characters have the same adventures as the 'normal' crew (though there's some overlap. No matter what universe they're in, that same group of people always seems to end up together). But are you going to claim those eps and its sequels are reboots?

I know I sound like I'm bullheaded-lady nitpicking you're arguments, but I do get where you're coming from. Dennis drew the 'what's a reboot' line at what he saw as intent, whereas you see 'reboot' as mostly being defined through the in-story 'effect' (for lack of a better word). Most of the subsequent discussion has just spun off from that difference in views, and the extent some of us think said 'effect' has to be evident before it reaches 'reboot' status.

While I do disagree with you, I'm just trying to say that I'm not really trying to say that you're 'wrong' or anything.

I don't know what Dennis wrote, but my "what's a reboot" line is also based on intent. I also don't what you mean exactly by "effect".

Is the intention that the viewer is supposed to assume while watching TNG that the events we saw in TOS occurred pretty much as we saw them in the series? If yes, it's a continuation/sequel and not a reboot.

If no, it's a reboot, like the nuMovies. You're clearly not meant to assume they're in the same timeline.

So, for me, it's the intention. And, yes, there are inconsistencies both within each series in the Prime universe as well as between series. You can have Klingon's that look different. However, the intention is that TOS and TNG are in the same timeline/universe.

We can agree to disagree. I don't even have a strong inclination for the upcoming series. If they tell good stories, I won't be complaining.

Mr Awe