Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse
- Thread starter fyre
- Start date
I'm sure your approval of the post's sentiment is the source of his mild amusement.
Exactly. And I don't recall ever nailing anyone to a cross for being a JJ hater. Or were you exaggerating just a teeny bit there, mos?
If I like this post, do I get a T-shirt?It's my new T-shirt.
Rahul said:
That movie was a retelling of an older story, not a resumption of an older one, and it was a combination of Space Seed and The Wrath Of Khan. Why don't people get that?
How ever you try to spin it: the fact remains. It's a story that heavily relies on the viewers knowledge of specific plot points from 30 years ago. Wether it's a "variation", a "retelling" or a "comment on".
It is deeply derivative.
And that's the biggest problem. TWOK was tecnically a continuation af a story, but it was itself an original story that could easily be viewed without prior knowledge. As was for example Trek09 (aka "the good" JJTrek movie). STID would have fared much better had it have an original story or an original villain.
I guess you answered my rhetorical question. JJ fans ARE on that much of a hair-trigger.
How so? With the possible exception of the full impact of the line "My name is... Khan" I can't see how you a new viewer would be lost watching Into Darkness. The references like Carol Marcus and the separated by glass death scene don't carry the plot, to a new viewer they're just things that happened in the movie. It's not a complex plot to understand really, and it's fully explained for the new viewer. My wife's lifetime exposure to Trek was the 2009 movie and she understood Into Darkness just fine.
Well, let me put it this way: The plot is not hard to understand. But nothing of significance happens besides what we have already seen before (and, frankly, better). It's like seeing Spiderman bitten by a radioactive spider again. Or Bruce Wayne's parents getting shot in an alley. Again. Or Kirk and Spock having a dramatic death scene physically seperated by glass in an engine room by the daring attempt to save the ship from destruction by repairing the warp core in a radioactive chamber (wow. I'm even again amazed how specific that was).
We have seen that before. We have seen references to it. We have seen parodies of it. The first time we saw it, it was great (as probably for someone who hasen't seen it before). But now move on! Show us something new! I don't really care if movies show a specific plot point again. But it's only acceptable if the movie has something else to offer as well. A good example would be Batmans parents getting shot in Batman Begins. It was quite effective, and the movie quickly moved on and showed us other important scenes.
Into Darkness recycled the emotional conclusion to a movie. As it's own emotional conclusion. Beat. F.or. Beat. That was as exciting as seing Peter Parkers uncle shot again in Amazing Spiderman...
BTW I hate that we are always talking about the quality of the JJmovies in this thread. Because, frankly, they aren't bad movies. They just aren't very good ones either. So it always boils down to wether someone likes them or not. And we have a ton of threads for that.
The only thing that makes them stand out is the "reboot" part of them, the "alternate" universe, which makes thme quite dicisive. If it weren't for that, they would inconspicuously join the ranks of the TNG movies and the odd numbered Tos movies. Not being really remarkable, but quite enjoyable. And we could all move on.
That's why I hope that the new series is not in the jjverse. So that we can leave all that behind, leave the prequel-sequel-reboots fro what they be, and move onward.
The only thing that makes them stand out is the "reboot" part of them, the "alternate" universe, which makes thme quite dicisive. If it weren't for that, they would inconspicuously join the ranks of the TNG movies and the odd numbered Tos movies. Not being really remarkable, but quite enjoyable. And we could all move on.
That's why I hope that the new series is not in the jjverse. So that we can leave all that behind, leave the prequel-sequel-reboots fro what they be, and move onward.
Last edited:
But, move onward to what, though? Prime? A new reboot?
I keep hearing the arguments to move on but then see looking back at things like at (insert favorite Trek moment here). Don't get me wrong-knowing the franchise's history can certainly bring some important information, but I wonder how they move the franchise forward? Because, I see the same old arguments come up if is set in the Abrams universe, Prime universe or its own universe.
I keep hearing the arguments to move on but then see looking back at things like at (insert favorite Trek moment here). Don't get me wrong-knowing the franchise's history can certainly bring some important information, but I wonder how they move the franchise forward? Because, I see the same old arguments come up if is set in the Abrams universe, Prime universe or its own universe.
Well, for example by being set in the future. Not some "in-between-quel half re-imagination".
Either post-TNG timeframe in the JJverse, post-TNG era in the prime verse, or post-TNG in a new, third continuity that cherry-picks it' canon from the previous both.
Now granted, I would prefer one of the latter two. But whichever universe it's set in, that's mostly semantics anyway. It will not affect the look/feel/production value of the show (in the same way Enterprise looked like a series from 2001-2004 and not one from "2143"), nor hopefully the plots (because it will need to attract new viewers without prior knowledge).
Generally speaking, the connections to past continuity (whether prime or JJ) shouldn't be more than a "oh, look, klingons!", or "hey, they referenced Picard when they were talking about great leaders of the past". Small snippets to keep us fans happy, but don't really affect the overall story. Why post-TNG? Because I think the holodeck, replicators, tractor beams and the Borg have become not only Trek-, but pop-cultural staples the new series should be able to use...
Last edited:
Not really. For the timeframe exist zwo possibilities:
1. Post-TNG: have everything Star Trek freely at your disposal, do change what you want, introduce new threats, new technologies, use the old ones as you wish, introduce new races, re-introduce old ones, etc.
2. Anywhere in the existing timeline (Movie-era, parallel to another series, prequel, etc...): Be seriously limited in your material. Don't introduce new things of significance that should have been mentioned in the already existing series (Xindi-plot), and be bound by continuity for each and every event/technology/character/race you want to introduce and need to try to fit it in the previous timeframe.
1. Post-TNG: have everything Star Trek freely at your disposal, do change what you want, introduce new threats, new technologies, use the old ones as you wish, introduce new races, re-introduce old ones, etc.
2. Anywhere in the existing timeline (Movie-era, parallel to another series, prequel, etc...): Be seriously limited in your material. Don't introduce new things of significance that should have been mentioned in the already existing series (Xindi-plot), and be bound by continuity for each and every event/technology/character/race you want to introduce and need to try to fit it in the previous timeframe.
I do agree though, post TNG setting is in my eyes the most sensible. It gives almost total freedom from fan whinging. Well actually, I'm not that naïve, but it's certainly easier than running the continuity gauntlet by doing a prequel or an in between show. That's not just a Star Trek thing, prequels in general are shackled by knowing how they end.
Do you really think any new people tuning in to this show will care about ANY of that? There's no need to be slavishly beholden to what came before, especially if you really want to create something new for a new audience.
No new people won't care. But this series needs to attract the existing fans to succeed and many of them will care. The whole business model relies on people paying to see new Star Trek series; I'm not sure that there are that many people willing to do that who already are not fans.
No, it really doesn't. "True fans" at their height could not come close to meaning enough to the studio to keep Star Trek on the air and it was rebooted to take it away from them. And wham, major money making, large audience success.
Fuck the fans honestly.
Similar threads
