As a follow-up to this, I would agree that the term "soft reboot" fits TAS, as it also fits both TNG and ENT.
Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse
- Thread starter fyre
- Start date
As a follow-up to this, I would agree that the term "soft reboot" fits TAS, as it also fits both TNG and ENT.
Intent - what the creators intended to create when they set out to do with the series. For eg. TNG was intended to be a reboot of TOS, because it was primarily meant to be an 'update' that had expressly had creative decisions made in effort to shape the franchise into fitting Gene's new (somewhat contradicting) 'vision.'
Effect- that the details of what we see on screen determines if it's a reboot. For eg. Regardless of what Abrams said or intended, it's a reboot because the continuity of the 'Prime' TOS didn't happen to NuKirk (Well, outside of a bigger and more destructive version of 'Space Seed' anyway.)
Maybe 'end user' based approach is a better term than 'effect.' Oh, and I agree CorporalCaptain when it came to the spinoffs. I see 'em as soft or 'sorta' reboots
Last edited:
So the '66 Batman series is in the same universe as the '89 movie because they didn't say anything about being in another setting?
This bickering about clear terminology is ridiculous.
Which is the say: different universe. This is nitpicking at its worst.
Now, Lord Vader will provide us with the location of the thesaurus by the time--- oops... sorry.
1. Nope, not claiming that. What I'm claiming is that they're different movies with the same characters and a lot of plot similarities. These things we're talking about aren't actually 'universes' outside of their narrative, they're just words, images and sound. Outside of theoretical science, 'AU's' don't exist until some writer says it does.
2. 'Alternate' universe implies there's some 'core' original one. Would you claim that's the case with Batman '66 and '89?
3. The wider Batman franchise (ie. the comics and cartoons) did contain AU's, and they were established as not necessarily being interchangeable with relaunches in that franchise.
Of course, 'Convergence' might have retconned every incarnation of Bat's into being AU stories. Anyone read any recent Batman comics?
Last edited:
I would classify TAS as a "soft" reboot. It was clearly meant to be a continuation of TOS, but they took the liberty of trying to address certain things they hadn't been able to do in TOS.
We got more exotic aliens in TAS whereas those kind were generally just verbally referenced in TOS. This was a plus because none of what they did contradicted what we saw in TOS. As for Arex and M'ress they either just came aboard sometime during the 5-year voyage or they had already been there but we simply never saw them.
A bigger issue might be taken with the depiction of Star Trek tech in TAS. Granted the hangar facilities in TOS, as well as the shuttlecraft exterior, were depicted onscreen as out of proportion. The hangar was shown too large and the shuttlecraft exterior was too small (and the shuttlecraft interior was actually a bit too large as shown). We accepted it for visually dramatic purposes. But in TAS they carried this idea to extremes. The hangar bay and shuttlecraft were grossly oversized to the point the Enterprise would have had to have been at least twice as large as believed to accommodate what we saw onscreen.
TMP was also (in some respects) a "soft" reboot. It suggested that things were more detailed in the Trek universe than what we saw in TOS. The Klingons are one obvious example, but the tech as depicted is another unavoidable example. This one gets a bit harder to rationalize because TMP is meant to be a continuation of what we saw in TOS, but it can be a challenge to accept that the Star Trek universe could change so drastically as it appeared to in a few short years between TOS and TMP. It might have been a bit better if TMP had been set about a decade after the 5-year mission to more easily rationalize the visual changes we saw as well as the obvious aging of the cast.
For me it's the visual insconsistencies of TAS and TMP that are the most apparent departures because I can't think of anything else that really argues for TOS/TAS/TMP to be of different continuities.
The following Trek films pretty much follow in the steps of TMP. TWOK is set several years after TMP and the only major departure is the change in uniforms, something that could be rationalized during of time the passage between the two events. That said there are occasional references made in TWOK-TUC that don't gel with what we know from TOS and one could argue those films are of a different continuity from TOS.
TNG is in many respects another "soft" reboot, but one that is daring to go a little further. The real inconsistencies with TNG (from TOS) are occasional historical references that don't seem to gel with what we learned before. One might be able to retcon/rationalize those references or one might simply accept that (like TMP) something like TOS happened in the past only it wasn't quite like what we saw. DS9 and VOY pretty much follow TNG's lead in this respect--except for the one instance where DS9 goes back to the TOS era in "Trials And Tribble-ations" and depicts it exactly like what we saw back in the day. The other instance is when DS9 opts to bring back Kor, Kang and Koloth from TOS only shows them as ridged Klingons.
So DS9 revisited the past and took two different routes to depict it. In TAT they chose to be faithful to what was shown before and with the TOS Klingons they chose to be revisionist.
No wonder Trek fans get confused.
Whether ENT was a "soft" or "hard" reboot is left to indivudual interpretation. Some are able to accept and rationilze what ENT depicted and referenced as compatible with TOS and others (like myself) can't). So it's left to the individual to decide whether ENT is of the same continuity as TOS as well as the other series and films.
Now we come to the JJverse and it's the same questions again. Some accept it and others don't. How divergent the new continuity is from the original is left to the individual to decide. I say this because it's pointless to rehash the arguments yet again just as it was with ENT and TNG/DS9/VOY before that (and the films as well).
So now we arrive to ST2017. In one sense it is inescapably a reboot because it is relaunching Trek on television (and then online). In terms of continuity it remains an open question (at this point) until we hear more details. A smart way to approach this could be to follow TNG's example by being a "soft" reboot that doesn't much reference the past and has enough passage of time evident to rationalize more obvious changes--such as setting the series a century or two beyond the TNG era. Keeping historical references vague and fuzzy would be a good way to settle the issue of continuity.
However, if ST2017 is set in the TOS or TMP or TNG era (or even before that) then it becomes more problematical. This is the issue ENT faced as well as JJtrek.
Going forward is potentially an easier ride. Going backward is playing with a can of worms unless they make it clear they are remaking what came before and the new is in no way meant to be connected with the old.
We got more exotic aliens in TAS whereas those kind were generally just verbally referenced in TOS. This was a plus because none of what they did contradicted what we saw in TOS. As for Arex and M'ress they either just came aboard sometime during the 5-year voyage or they had already been there but we simply never saw them.
A bigger issue might be taken with the depiction of Star Trek tech in TAS. Granted the hangar facilities in TOS, as well as the shuttlecraft exterior, were depicted onscreen as out of proportion. The hangar was shown too large and the shuttlecraft exterior was too small (and the shuttlecraft interior was actually a bit too large as shown). We accepted it for visually dramatic purposes. But in TAS they carried this idea to extremes. The hangar bay and shuttlecraft were grossly oversized to the point the Enterprise would have had to have been at least twice as large as believed to accommodate what we saw onscreen.
TMP was also (in some respects) a "soft" reboot. It suggested that things were more detailed in the Trek universe than what we saw in TOS. The Klingons are one obvious example, but the tech as depicted is another unavoidable example. This one gets a bit harder to rationalize because TMP is meant to be a continuation of what we saw in TOS, but it can be a challenge to accept that the Star Trek universe could change so drastically as it appeared to in a few short years between TOS and TMP. It might have been a bit better if TMP had been set about a decade after the 5-year mission to more easily rationalize the visual changes we saw as well as the obvious aging of the cast.
For me it's the visual insconsistencies of TAS and TMP that are the most apparent departures because I can't think of anything else that really argues for TOS/TAS/TMP to be of different continuities.
The following Trek films pretty much follow in the steps of TMP. TWOK is set several years after TMP and the only major departure is the change in uniforms, something that could be rationalized during of time the passage between the two events. That said there are occasional references made in TWOK-TUC that don't gel with what we know from TOS and one could argue those films are of a different continuity from TOS.
TNG is in many respects another "soft" reboot, but one that is daring to go a little further. The real inconsistencies with TNG (from TOS) are occasional historical references that don't seem to gel with what we learned before. One might be able to retcon/rationalize those references or one might simply accept that (like TMP) something like TOS happened in the past only it wasn't quite like what we saw. DS9 and VOY pretty much follow TNG's lead in this respect--except for the one instance where DS9 goes back to the TOS era in "Trials And Tribble-ations" and depicts it exactly like what we saw back in the day. The other instance is when DS9 opts to bring back Kor, Kang and Koloth from TOS only shows them as ridged Klingons.
So DS9 revisited the past and took two different routes to depict it. In TAT they chose to be faithful to what was shown before and with the TOS Klingons they chose to be revisionist.
No wonder Trek fans get confused.
Whether ENT was a "soft" or "hard" reboot is left to indivudual interpretation. Some are able to accept and rationilze what ENT depicted and referenced as compatible with TOS and others (like myself) can't). So it's left to the individual to decide whether ENT is of the same continuity as TOS as well as the other series and films.
Now we come to the JJverse and it's the same questions again. Some accept it and others don't. How divergent the new continuity is from the original is left to the individual to decide. I say this because it's pointless to rehash the arguments yet again just as it was with ENT and TNG/DS9/VOY before that (and the films as well).
So now we arrive to ST2017. In one sense it is inescapably a reboot because it is relaunching Trek on television (and then online). In terms of continuity it remains an open question (at this point) until we hear more details. A smart way to approach this could be to follow TNG's example by being a "soft" reboot that doesn't much reference the past and has enough passage of time evident to rationalize more obvious changes--such as setting the series a century or two beyond the TNG era. Keeping historical references vague and fuzzy would be a good way to settle the issue of continuity.
However, if ST2017 is set in the TOS or TMP or TNG era (or even before that) then it becomes more problematical. This is the issue ENT faced as well as JJtrek.
Going forward is potentially an easier ride. Going backward is playing with a can of worms unless they make it clear they are remaking what came before and the new is in no way meant to be connected with the old.
Wow, talk about nitpicking...
The events of the Prime universe involving Nero and Prime Spock directly caused NuTrek.
So Prime Trek and NuTrek are in the same story universe.
I have no idea what you're talking about. _I_ am talking about fictional settings. The two are clearly set in different ones. You may be over-analysing this.
"Story universe"? What does that even mean?
Sorry but:
This goes for all of you going on about reboots...
This goes for all of you going on about reboots...
Presumably it means the same thing as 'fictional setting.'
'Alternate universes' in DC properties are connected within the narrative, and share the same setting. If you're calling the various Batman reboots 'AU's', where is your evidence for said connection?
I'm backing out of this topic now. I'm starting to feel like I've looped back to the begining of the 'define reboot' argument, and that's probably a good indicator that I should take a break.
'Alternate universes' in DC properties are connected within the narrative, and share the same setting. If you're calling the various Batman reboots 'AU's', where is your evidence for said connection?
I'm backing out of this topic now. I'm starting to feel like I've looped back to the begining of the 'define reboot' argument, and that's probably a good indicator that I should take a break.
Last edited:
No it doesn't. Unicentrism would be a mistake made by many in our own past. Each universe is an alternate of all the others. So to identify an alternate, you simply put a name to it. Like "Prime" (the one originally known from our perspective - not to be confused with "Core" or some master copy universe) and "Abramsverse."
Heinlein wrote a story, The Cat Who Walks Through Walls, of parallel universes or timelines that were identified by the first person to walk on the moon, which seemed to be different in each. So ours was the "Armstrong" universe. It doesn't make ours any more special or "core" than the others.
I was talking about how the writers perspective when they're creating the the DC AU's. In universe they're all parallel, but their creation lay in 'what if we changed 'this' from our usual back story.'
I was just saying the no one involved in the DC movies has ever indicated that's the approach they were taking with the movies (and in fact, they clarified that the Tv shows and various movies aren't currently part of the same multiverse). There's differences between them yeah, but not for the purpose of going 'Look what happens if Bones had saved Edith Keeler!'
That's a clarifying statement, not an argument. It was really bloody late when I wrote that original post and it's a bit...jumbled.
I was just saying the no one involved in the DC movies has ever indicated that's the approach they were taking with the movies (and in fact, they clarified that the Tv shows and various movies aren't currently part of the same multiverse). There's differences between them yeah, but not for the purpose of going 'Look what happens if Bones had saved Edith Keeler!'
That's a clarifying statement, not an argument. It was really bloody late when I wrote that original post and it's a bit...jumbled.
For the record, I caught a matinee of SPECTRE for $6 last week, and that was a first-run blockbuster movie in an upscale theater in Seattle. And I paid $9 for an evening showing of THE VISIT a few months back, which was also a first-run movie at a nice theater.
Not everybody routinely springs for 3D, IMAX, etc. And it requires no effort at all to buy a ticket to an ordinary 2D version.
Maybe it's different overseas, but seeing a blockbuster action movie doesn't not automatically equate to 3D, IMAX, etc. The average multiplex still shows 2D movies to large lines and audiences, even for stuff like AGE OF ULTRON or STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, etc.
Personally, I've never paid to see a STAR TREK movie in 3D.
Last edited:
This is where you get into trouble when you use a new but vague term like "reboot". The intent of the creators is that TNG is a sequel series to TOS. That's the intent. There are clear connections between the two series.
TNG takes place in the same timeline as TOS but at a later point. That's why you get characters crossing over, but they're older in TNG. They refer to events in Naked Now that occurred in Naked Time. Picard's lineup of ships shows the original Enterprise as it appeared in TOS and all of the others up to and including the D. Etc.
In my view, there's no need to make up a new term that's more vague to try to describe this when the term "sequel" describes it just fine.
Mr Awe
I'm backing out of this topic now. I'm starting to feel like I've looped back to the begining of the 'define reboot' argument, and that's probably a good indicator that I should take a break.
Actually, it's a good indicator that you shouldn't be using such a vague term as "reboot" just because it's the hot new term.
Mr Awe
And all the various inconsistencies and changes in technology between TNG, TOS and the movies can be considered to be 'retcons' (warp speeds, galactic differences, etc) or production error (Spock wearing an ensign's rank in TMP).
I'm backing out of this topic now. I'm starting to feel like I've looped back to the begining of the 'define reboot' argument, and that's probably a good indicator that I should take a break.
Actually, it's a good indicator that you shouldn't be using such a vague term as "reboot" just because it's the hot new term.
Mr Awe
I've been hearing and using the term "reboot" for over 15 years in the context of fiction; as far as I'm aware, it's always been short for "continuity reboot" --- e.g. ignoring what came before and starting anew. Outside of that, I've very rarely heard it used to describe other types of revivals or other types of continuations outside of continuity resets.
Fortunately, alternate timelines (an in-unverse phenomenon) were part of the existing Star Trek continuity, so the JJVerse (should be called NeroVerse IMO) gets to have its cake and eat it too because it gets to be a reboot without having to reboot the continuity.
^ So, basically NOT a sequel, which goes contrary to what some on this BBS think.
I don't really care myself, although I tend to agree with you. So, TNG is no form of reboot, hard, soft, medium, or whatever of TOS. It's a sequel, or continuation.
It seems that it's a vague term just based on the opinions expressed here. Sequel for TNG and prequel for ENT seem much more straightforward to me, but each to their own!
I don't really care myself, although I tend to agree with you. So, TNG is no form of reboot, hard, soft, medium, or whatever of TOS. It's a sequel, or continuation.
It seems that it's a vague term just based on the opinions expressed here. Sequel for TNG and prequel for ENT seem much more straightforward to me, but each to their own!
It does reboot the continuity. The main characters backstories are different, the ships and settings look different, the way the stories progress are different. In a nutshell, Nero was the vehicle for being able to state that ST:09 was a reboot by creating this "alternate timeline" - in any regular episode the timeline would be restored and the continuity "reset" back to the way it was before.I'm backing out of this topic now. I'm starting to feel like I've looped back to the begining of the 'define reboot' argument, and that's probably a good indicator that I should take a break.
Actually, it's a good indicator that you shouldn't be using such a vague term as "reboot" just because it's the hot new term.
Mr Awe
I've been hearing and using the term "reboot" for over 15 years in the context of fiction; as far as I'm aware, it's always been short for "continuity reboot" --- e.g. ignoring what came before and starting anew. Outside of that, I've very rarely heard it used to describe other types of revivals or other types of continuations outside of continuity resets.
Fortunately, alternate timelines (an in-unverse phenomenon) were part of the existing Star Trek continuity, so the JJVerse (should be called NeroVerse IMO) gets to have its cake and eat it too because it gets to be a reboot without having to reboot the continuity.
JJ Abrams goal was to create a new iteration of Star Trek, using what came before as little more than reference material to build a new continuity.
And now I'm hungry, can someone pass the cake?
Similar threads
