Still nothing definite there either.
Does anybody have any idea when we should expect to start getting real official news? I've seen a lot of theories that we'll get something at the Vegas con, and that does seem like good place to me.
Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-Verse
- Thread starter fyre
- Start date
Does anybody have any idea when we should expect to start getting real official news? I've seen a lot of theories that we'll get something at the Vegas con, and that does seem like good place to me.
Ah . . . right.
The problem with the JJuniverse is that it's not new anymore. It's 7 years old by now. The JJverse won't attract many new fans anymore, and it isn't a "clean sheet" anymore either. But it has produced much too little content during it's existence.
If you have seen the JJmovies and became a Star Trek fan, chances are you have seen (at least SOME) prime Trek. Which means your major source for Trek knowledge is still the prime universe, even if you are a "new" fan.
On the other hand, if you are a fan of the JJmovies but have NEVER seen any of the prime Trek series, chances are you aren't that interested in a new Trek television series either.
Most of the "casual" fans don't even know, or care, about the timeline split. Just don't mention Vulcan, and the universes are almost identical. The only differences are cosmetical. And the new show needs to absolutely steal some of the JJverse aesthetics (and it does, as the trailer suggests), to reach out to casual viewers. But it still should be part of the larger Trek universe that has influenced popculture in the last 50 years, and is the reason why the JJmovies were successful in the first place. But who is more of a household name in genre fandom: William Shatner? Patrick Stewart? Or Chris Pine? The JJverse will get rebooted as soon as those movies have run their course, like Spider-Man get's rebooted every decade. And that's fine by me. Kirk and Spock are the only ones to have proven consistently successfull in movies ('First Contact' being the exception). But on television, Star Trek has proven itself to be more than just Kirk and Spock. It has proven itself to be a rich universe, allowing for almost unlimited characters, styles and stories. And that should be expanded on.
And either universe allows for that expansion. I just like the Abramsverse conceit because it explores many of the familiar technologies but different developments and changes. I mean, I'm ok with either universe but, as stated above, Abramsverse has not been explored all that much, but offers some different ways to go.
And, for me, setting it 100 years after the Dominion War does not interested me. I'm sure I'm alone in that opinion.
And, for me, setting it 100 years after the Dominion War does not interested me. I'm sure I'm alone in that opinion.
And, for me, setting it 100 years after the Dominion War does not interested me. I'm sure I'm alone in that opinion.
No, you're not.
A 100 years after DW could be majestic or it could be garbage. Set in the TOS era, it could majestic or it could be garbage. Same for any other era.
It's not what era it's set in, it's what they do with that era, what characters they populate that era with, what stories they tell.
That said, a 100 years after the DW would give writers more scope to play with, given that in eras we are more familiar with already have their histories mapped out to a greater or lesser degree. A 100 years after the DW could see seismic shifts in the galaxy perhaps even due to some galactic disaster or something of that nature. You'd have full scope to have fun if it's set another century away.
It's not what era it's set in, it's what they do with that era, what characters they populate that era with, what stories they tell.
That said, a 100 years after the DW would give writers more scope to play with, given that in eras we are more familiar with already have their histories mapped out to a greater or lesser degree. A 100 years after the DW could see seismic shifts in the galaxy perhaps even due to some galactic disaster or something of that nature. You'd have full scope to have fun if it's set another century away.
Whatever happens, we will never have any follow-up to the Dominion war. It's just too obscure an event (I mean, it was the centerpoint of DS9. But DS9 is hardly the centerpoint of Star Trek). At best somebody would mention it in dialogue when listing the last few big conflicts the Federation had (aka how it was referred to in the TNG-movies).
I don't see much difference between the two universes (except Vulcan). For me it's kind of what Marvel had done with their Ultimate line in comics. Where they retold the origins and most important events, but in another universe, and slowly introduced changes. This "alternate timeline" is for me the Star Trek equivalent of the "ultimate" timeline, in that it's much more streamlined, and if I want to get somebody else into Star Trek I would first recommend him those movies, because they're a good introduction.
As somebody who has already been introduced into Star Trek, I want to continue the original. And I'm frankly excited to see more "modern" stuff like holodecks (all these "lost in holodeck"-episodes were crap, but whenever else they used it, it was amazing). And I would love to see the Borg again, or hell, even Cardassians and Ferengi, without needing another first contact and new introduction to each of those, or setting their whole "species" back to where they started....
I don't see much difference between the two universes (except Vulcan). For me it's kind of what Marvel had done with their Ultimate line in comics. Where they retold the origins and most important events, but in another universe, and slowly introduced changes. This "alternate timeline" is for me the Star Trek equivalent of the "ultimate" timeline, in that it's much more streamlined, and if I want to get somebody else into Star Trek I would first recommend him those movies, because they're a good introduction.
As somebody who has already been introduced into Star Trek, I want to continue the original. And I'm frankly excited to see more "modern" stuff like holodecks (all these "lost in holodeck"-episodes were crap, but whenever else they used it, it was amazing). And I would love to see the Borg again, or hell, even Cardassians and Ferengi, without needing another first contact and new introduction to each of those, or setting their whole "species" back to where they started....
Your exactly right. The rebooted universe is not this big money maker everyone is making it out to be. It's been successful to a point but hasn't created enough of a following of fans who only like those two movies (soon to be three) and have never seen any other Trek. Most of the people I know that like those movies and not the prime universe stuff could care less about this new show. I think if they keep the movie universe its own thing for the mainstream and have the show for the hardcore fans they could have the best of both worlds.
I don't know when we will get more official news but I'm hoping it will be at the NYC convention in September. Beyond will probably monopolize the press up until its release in July and then after that we might start to hear more official news.
I'm betting we will get a confirmation that the new show will be prime universe and when that happens I reserve the right to come back to this thread and join the OP in saying "I told you so"
^The thing is, if the show indeed takes place in the prime universe, then...it takes place in the prime universe. Why the OP or anyone else feels the need to be validated in their opinion about this or the need to tell everyone else that "I told you so" is a mystery to me. Especially since the OP has already done so while not actually giving a shred of evidence for his remarks.
I'm thinking the Las Vegas Star Trek Convention would be more likely. If they were smart they'd make at least some of the announcements at Trek specific events to try to sell it to the preexising fanbase. I would also expect to at least know which universe it is taking place in before October.
Exactly. The new series may well be set in the prime timeline or it may not, but that's not the point. It's not about the content of the rumors; I just object to treating rumors and speculation as fact before anything official has been announced.
(For the record, I have no clue when or where the show will be set, and don't particularly care as long as it's well executed.)
And is it just me or has the internet developed a strange new definition of "confirmed"? I keep seeing posts and even headlines proclaiming that some new tidbit of information "confirms" one rumor or another. Or even that some new unsubstantiated rumor "confirms" an older, unsubstantiated rumor.
Um, no. "Confirmed" means confirmed, not "hints at" or "possibly suggests" or even "lends credence to." It's like how someone cannot be kinda pregnant. A report is either confirmed or it's not. Otherwise, it's still just a rumor.
Last edited:
Because the OP named the thread "Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-verse" and gave his reasoning for making that statement. In response many posters on this thread have said that anything other than the JJ-verse was never going to happen.
If you don't care what universe the show takes place in, fine. I hope it's in the prime universe and think it probably will be.
The condescending attitude towards anyone who thinks it could be in the prime universe along with the "who cares" comments makes us want to feel vindicated in the case we are proven right. Is it a little petty? You betcha. So sue me, I'm human. I have the right to feel vindicated over trivial issues on the internet. If you truly don't care then there is no reason you need to visit this thread.
Slow down there, hothead. First of all, I wasn't referring to the OP's opening post. I was referring to his later statement, which was this:
Now that's being condescending. Never mind that he had no proof to support that condescending statement.
Second, the thread title, "Star Trek 2017 will not be set in the JJ-verse," is a pretty definitive statement. Like, he knows this for a fact. When in fact that wasn't the case. He just stated a hypothesis. And if that was all he did, it wouldn't have been a big deal. But his later condescending remarks kinda made him lose whatever credibility he had. So instead of bitching at me, why don't you bitch at him?
And lastly, please don't tell me what threads I can visit.
I realize you were referring to his latest post but you were also referring to my latest post and I felt the need to explain myself. I was trying to explain why it would feel good to be vindicated when proven right. I agree there is nothing to confirm it either way at this point and that using rumor as fact is presumptuous. However, I can relate to the OP's need to feel vindicated after all the naysaying from other people on this thread.
I'm sorry if my post seemed hostile but you did say that anyone who felt the need for their opinion to be validated was beyond you, so I attempted to remedy that.
To your last point, my intent wasn't to tell you what thread to visit but to point out that if you don't care to talk about this topic, then there is no purpose for you to visit this thread to talk about this topic. If I misinterpreted your comments as ambivalence, I apologize. But if you truly don't care what universe the new series is set in, what other reason do you have to visit this thread other than to troll?
There's a word for a thread title like this: "clickbait".
And I fell for it.
And I fell for it.
I can't speak for Dukhat, but I can attempt to explain why I keep harping on the rumor vs. fact business.
The thing is, the title of the thread is not "Should the new show be set in the prime universe?" That might be an interesting debate, if one has a strong opinion on the subject, or it's a thread you can skip if you don't.
But instead the OP keeps stating definitively that the show is "100%" going to take place in the prime universe as though this is a matter of fact. And, I'm sorry, that's not a difference of opinion, that's misinformation. So, yes, I'm going to try to correct that if I can--because I keep seeing the same damn rumors being cited as fact all over the internet, sometimes from people who really should know better.
This isn't about the prime universe versus the reboot universe. It's not even about STAR TREK as far as I'm concerned. Trust me, I'm just as much a stickler for accuracy when it comes to "confirming" rumors about superhero movies, Godzilla, Planet of the Apes, or the latest Mummy movie.
That's why I'm "trolling" this thread. Just because I have this crazy idea that we should actually make an effort to distinguish between unsubstantiated rumors and actual news. Period. Not because I have anything against the prime universe or whatever. (I'll watch the new show regardless of what timeline they use.)
Last edited:
That's fair, I too am annoyed by rumor being stated as fact. The OP is a little overzealous on that front. I guess I see this thread as debating the possibility of the new series taking place in prime or reboot universe. I think they are equally possible but I clearly have a preference. That's not to say I won't watch it either way and ultimately if it has the spirit of Star Trek, I will like it. I mostly get frustrated when people assume that the JJ movies are infinitely more successful than classic Trek and the reboot universe is the only universe Star Trek can take place in now. If the show is an anthology show it could reasonably switch universes from season to season.
Similar threads
