Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse
- Thread starter fyre
- Start date
In fact, the TOS and TNG universes were pretty far removed from each other really. Genuine points of intersection barely reach double figures and were usually stunts which could have been left out without materially affecting anything. I suspect they'll do the same for the new show.
Changes happen sometimes. I can accept that.
But do they have to kill off the characters?
People die, television is ridiculous in how much it bubblewraps characters to the point where they have to be magically protected or lucky to a degree that defies all logic.
It's time to just accept people don't survive a lot of that kind of crap and expect the audience to show some emotional maturity over it.
It's time to just accept people don't survive a lot of that kind of crap and expect the audience to show some emotional maturity over it.
Well, TNG was basically just Gene's version of TOS for the 80's. So Kurtmans'/Fuller's ST2017 will hopefully be TOS for the '10's.
Yeah, they sort of do. Star trek had long presented its characters in hugely dangerous situations week after week, without so much as a psychological scratch. There are deaths, but they're off screen and given in dialogue or they're Ensign Whoever introduced 3 minutes earlier. You are 98% certain anyone in the main titles will be there next week. Hardly anyone significant is killed in 700+ episodes of Trek and when they are it almost never served the drama but was just a contractual release.
Not only is it unrealistic but it undermines the drama and the jeopardy and conflict that generates the drama. When the reset button can't be guaranteed, shows get more interesting.
Ultimately whether one agrees with that perspective or not, it is in vogue. In this age of Games of Thrones, The Walking Dead and Breaking Bad, you can't just reset everything before the credits roll and expect to retain an audience.
Starfleet is talked about as being more dangerous than any military serving force on Earth now, and look what happens to them after long periods at the front lines of any situation.
Serving on a Starfleet ship actually looks like one of the safest professions in the future, look how many more people die on planets than Federation ships in most of the shows.
Serving on a Starfleet ship actually looks like one of the safest professions in the future, look how many more people die on planets than Federation ships in most of the shows.
In the contemporary military, the higher ranks haven't nearly the casualty rate as the lower ranks. Our captains and commanders are less likely to die as the enlisted and ensigns. The exceptions are catastrophes, when an entire ship or sub is lost. That would be a level of uncertainty no show would take on.
Trek's larger problem is that it wants its leads to also be action stars. Having a more rounded cast would probably resolve the whole issue.
Trek's larger problem is that it wants its leads to also be action stars. Having a more rounded cast would probably resolve the whole issue.
It would certainly be interesting if the new show included some regulars from among the ship's enlisted company, a bit of Lower Decks thrown in in the manner of Tyrols deck gang in BSG. A character like O'Brien but with a more fleshed out team.
I would argue that this is something of a myth. Killing off a character especially a main one, while it can be powerful, should as a general rule be kept rare. Otherwise it loses its impact. Starting in the late 80's and 90's comic books became huge offenders of the same trend we are seeing in television today. Randomly killing anyone and everyone for short term shock value. It got eyes at first, but quickly lost its appeal. The "anyone can die" gimmick works great for Game of Thrones and Walking Dead. But attempts to spread it cheapen the whole concept of cinematic death. Something the fans do quickly pick up on. Every character you kill off in a throwaway story is or was somebodies favorite character. So it needs to be done carefully with great planning and forethought. Otherwise you get series killing shark jumping "elevator shaft" moments.
I don't mind minor changes, but don't like them when writers make changes just for the sake of changing the character. I could never imagine Jadzia with Worf; a character who's 1 foot note of person, whatever dynamic with Worf rested on 1701 - D. She's a sophisticated woman and had sophisticated relationships but settles for Worf. Ugh. Sisko, or even Kira would've been a better match than that idiot.
I don't mind Jadzia or any character dying if it's done heroically or honorably; this f^cking death was a slap in the face of the character to me. I don't care what the DS9er's believe her sh*tty death was because of a contract and not because the writing.
As long as you're not a red-shirt.
As was presented quite poignantly in Skin of Evil, military deaths are often not honourable or heroic, but instead are sudden and brutal because someone was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and while I would certainly agree character deaths should serve the story (and neither Yar nor Dax did as they were contact driven) they don't necessarily need to be heroic or glorious and sometimes resonate more when they're not.
You're overstating things.
- Right in the opening credits, TNG stole its main theme from ST:TMP.
- The design of TNG-era ships is really just the movie-era ships with more smoothed off lines and saucers going from circles to increasingly oval-shaped.
- The interior sets also recycled movie-era sets.
- Entire movie-era models (Miranda class, bird of prey) were recycled.
- The klingon designs and costumes were carried over from the movies.
- Flat-screen panels got their start with the late-movie-era.
- The TNG uniforms are effectively redesigned/updated TMP uniforms. In fact, much of the tone of TNG seems to carry over the "calm deliberation" approach of TMP.
- The continued use of omnipotent beings (like Q) is a trope from TOS and the movies.
Evidence is evidence.
Well, duh, it was still Star Trek.
But especially in their first seasons they actively tried to avoid everything related to TOS. We got, how many, one, two(?) klingon episodes? Basically everytime they reused stuff from the movies, it was money-related (reusing expensive sets, vfx-shots, music and spaceship models, even though the same models often were meant to be totally new starship designs, like their 'new' Bird of Prey)
After 1969, not so much.
You mean, like McCoy taking a tour?
How about when they brought back a familiar actress from TOS in a lead role?
How about repeating a TOS episode over again with the TNG crew with The Naked Now?
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. In fact I think the general opinion is that the first few seasons of TNG were TOO TOS like and it was only with the introduction of the Borg that it started to pave new ground.
Yes, TNG had a very 80s aesthetic, as well as a higher degree of political correctness, and less pew-pew and melodrama, but beyond that, it was very TOS-like, which makes sense, since it was brought back by Gene and had several people behind the scenes from TOS (like Bill Theiss) and/or the movie-era (Okuda, Sternbach).
It might be interesting if, a couple of episodes into ST2017, the ship we thought was going to be the central location of the show was destroyed. This would show space as a dangerous place to be, but we wouldn't know the ship well-enough to be pissed off at the showrunners. It would give powerful backstory and a strong bond to the surviving characters, when they wind up on their new ship.
So, I really hate it when I go to work and come back and y'all are writing great posts to respond to. 
Now, before anyone tells me "Well, why watch anything because anybody could die?" it's not that I mind character deaths, but I want it to serve the story. Not be arbitrary.
Her death, on the other hand, was a mixed bag. On the one had, yeah, I get it, contracts change and the character was suddenly out. I don't think that mandates a rather random death at the hand of a villain we didn't need any more proof of his villainy. "Dukhat's evil? No way!"
But, on the other hand, her death definitely had a resonance to it because we see the impact upon the rest of the characters. That, to me, made her death almost worth it, in that we see Sisko impacted, Bashier, Worf, and the rest have to go through a grieving process. That is the more poignant part, and, in my opinion, is when character's death can really shine through is when they are actually viewed through the lens of another.
I could get behind this idea. One of Gerrold's Star Wolf books opens in a similar manner, though the captain is killed by his own incompetence and the ship is dubbed a curse by the Fleet. I think the destruction of the Kelvin in ST09 could serve as a similar template. You show the crew, going about their business, and things seem routine enough, and then *boom* ship is destroyed and the crew have to pick up the pieces.
It would be tough if they want to syndicate it though.
This was along the lines of one of my thoughst (cultcross shared a similar one, which I'll touch on below) in that the GoT idea of "anyone is fair game" is rather frustrating for me, mostly due to a lack of connection with the characters. If anyone can die, then I'm more inclined to hold them at arms length and not get invested because they are probably going to die.
Now, before anyone tells me "Well, why watch anything because anybody could die?" it's not that I mind character deaths, but I want it to serve the story. Not be arbitrary.
I didn't mind the Worf-Jadzia thing, but that's a different topic. Personally, it made as much sense as most of the relationships on DS9, in that it kind of came out of nowhere, but also served a larger character plot. Dumb in some places, but understandable in others.
Her death, on the other hand, was a mixed bag. On the one had, yeah, I get it, contracts change and the character was suddenly out. I don't think that mandates a rather random death at the hand of a villain we didn't need any more proof of his villainy. "Dukhat's evil? No way!"
But, on the other hand, her death definitely had a resonance to it because we see the impact upon the rest of the characters. That, to me, made her death almost worth it, in that we see Sisko impacted, Bashier, Worf, and the rest have to go through a grieving process. That is the more poignant part, and, in my opinion, is when character's death can really shine through is when they are actually viewed through the lens of another.
I agree with this statement, pretty much whole-heartedly. Death happens, but in a fiction driven world, I think it needs to serve the story. If it is a brutal and pointless death let the characters reflect upon that. Worf did that in "The Bonding" with a one off character (who got offed), but Yar just has nothing, in my opinion. Again, this might be owed to both contract ending, as well as GR's box that people don't mourn in the future.
I could get behind this idea. One of Gerrold's Star Wolf books opens in a similar manner, though the captain is killed by his own incompetence and the ship is dubbed a curse by the Fleet. I think the destruction of the Kelvin in ST09 could serve as a similar template. You show the crew, going about their business, and things seem routine enough, and then *boom* ship is destroyed and the crew have to pick up the pieces.
It would be tough if they want to syndicate it though.
Similar threads
