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

[Takeru]

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.

He doesn't get to feel good for being vindicated! The statement "The series will not be set in the JJ universe" has a 50% chance of being true, predicting something like this correctly is not an achievement and nothing to be proud of.

If someone flips a coin and you call heads, do you go "fuck yeah, I knew it, I was right and you were WRONG!!!" if you get it right? Probably not because it's nothing!

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

On the other hand, you have the people who seem to think it's all-important that the show takes place in the previous universe--and that it has nothing to do with the reboot. Which is partly why I'm suspicious of any rumors that smack of wishful thinking on the part of the fans who really, really want the "real" STAR TREK back.

But we'll see. Like I said, I can go either way.

 

[Mr Awe]

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.

That's a great point. I think a lot of times "confirmed" is used instead of "agrees with". One rumor may agree with another rumor, but, as you point out, that's a very different thing than confirmation.

Mr Awe

 

[Rahul]

To be fair: This thread was an opinion piece, from a time waay before we had any information about the series, based purely on speculation from OP about how "logical" it would be the series will not be set in the JJverse.

An opinion I tend to agree with, and have made multiple posts explaining my reasoning for this. I believe it being set in "prime" or a "new" continuity would make most sense from oth business and storytelling point of view. That being said, this is far from confirmed, and Hollywood has a long history of producers forcing stupid decision on creative people, so basically all is open.

I agree it would make sense to move this whole discussion to a thread with a title called something like "Do you believe the show won't be set in the JJverse?" or "My 2 cents why I don't believe the show will be set in the JJverse". Or even "Which universe do you prefer the new show to be set in?"

But this thread, even though it started out as an opinion piece, has basically become the "go-to" threat to talk about the preferred continuity setting of the new show. I don't have a problem with that, although I agree that the title has turned somewhat misleading over time.

 

[Mr Awe]

I don't know the origins of this thread. But, there was a point in time on this board where a few extremely vocal posters suggested they had inside knowledge, or at least a familiarity with how the business works, and that it would be set in the JJverse and you'd be stupid to think otherwise. I suspect that the title of this thread was possibly trolling those posters, or at the very least, a reaction to them.

I have a preference that the new series takes place in the Prime universe. I'd prefer it if it took place at some point post Dominion War so the writers could use the previous universe but not be overly constrained into fitting the future history of the Prime universe if it were to be set prior to the Dominion War. Plus, some crossovers with previous series would be cool

However, that's just a preference of mine. The execution of the series is far more important and I'll watch and like it as long as it has the spirit of ST and a good execution.

By the way, Rahul, I've always thought you've had particularly cogent arguments!

Mr Awe

 

[Greg Cox]

He doesn't get to feel good for being vindicated! The statement "The series will not be set in the JJ universe" has a 50% chance of being true, predicting something like this correctly is not an achievement and nothing to be proud of.

More like 33%. There's always the possibility that the new show will be set in its own, brand-new continuity. (Probably a long shot, but you never know.)

 

[Kor]

Trek is really unique among media franchises for keeping everything in the same universe/continuity (or ostensibly branching off from the main universe in the case of JJ Trek), and I think we have really been spoiled in this regard.

Consider DC, for example. Even barring the disparate continuities in the comic book source materials and the various animated depictions... from 1989 to 2012, we got two completely unrelated series of batman movies. And now we have yet another cinematic Batman who is not connected to the previous one, but is in a universe with yet another rebooted version of Superman, after the failure of the previous Superman who appeared in a movie that was a loose sequel to the first two Christopher Reeves Superman movies but totally disregarded the third and fourth ones. And in the last few years we have had a handful of DC TV shows going at once, some of which are trying to be in continuity with each other, but some of which are in their own little worlds, and none of which are in continuity with any of the movies! And, of course, the Batman and Superman movie serials from the 1940s, the Superman TV show from the 1950s, the Batman TV show from the 1960s, the Wonder Woman TV show from the 1970s, the Superboy TV show from the 1980s, "The Flash" and "Lois and Clark" from the 1990s, and "Birds of Prey" and "Smallville" from the 2000s have nothing to do with any of the other shows or movies or with each other!

Creating one more little separate continuity for a new Trek series is nothing in comparison.

Kor

 

[Greg Cox]

Trek is really unique among media franchises for keeping everything in the same universe/continuity (or ostensibly branching off from the main universe in the case of JJ Trek), and I think we have really been spoiled in this regard.
Kor

DOCTOR WHO can arguably make the same claim, aside from the Peter Cushing movies, and that's mostly true of STAR WARS, too. (We'll forget about the Holiday Special, okay?)

But, yes, the idea that every durable pop-culture phenomenon needs to maintain some sort of seamless continuity is a relatively new one. Those of us who grew up on multiple versions of Tarzan or the Mummy or Godzilla or whatever are not exactly fazed by the idea of multiple STAR TREK continuities as well. Heck, I've lived through at least four different versions of DARK SHADOWS, and that's not counting the comics, tie-in novels and what-not.

 

[Kor]

I think Star Wars is a little easier, as there is a lot less material than Star Trek if you only count the movies, the Clone Wars series, and Rebels. But what about the Ewok movies and the Ewoks and Droids cartoons? And then there was the debacle with the entire Expanded Universe, which was regarded as basically canon by the fandom, being wiped away to make room for TFA and brand new tie-in material.

I thought of Doctor Who as well. As I recall, when "modern" Who started, it seemed almost like a soft reboot, but later they made it more clear that it was a direct continuation of classic Who. I could be remembering wrong, though.

Kor

 

[SolarisOne]

if it has the spirit of Star Trek

Something, in my humble opinion, the Abramsverse movies have seriously lacked (which is why I'm not a fan.) Whether that same storytelling style would translate to a TV series set in the Abramsverse, I have no idea. I certainly hope not. There has always been a difference between the TV show and movies, even in the Prime universe, though.

I will say this: generic action films hold no appeal for me, (especially if they waste the acting talent of people like Benedict Cumberbatch. ) If I want to see action, I'll go watch Kamen Rider.

DOCTOR WHO can arguably make the same claim

Doctor Who has the advantage of time travel and other "timey-wimey stuff" being an integral part of the series, though. Just about anything can be retconned at will. :P

 

[SolarisOne]

I thought of Doctor Who as well. As I recall, when "modern" Who started, it seemed almost like a soft reboot, but later they made it more clear that it was a direct continuation of classic Who. I could be remembering wrong, though.

It's a direct continuation, though both Russel T. Davies and Steven Moffat have both retconned some stuff from the original run, the biggest one so far being the 13 regenerations limit.

 

[Greg Cox]

I think Star Wars is a little easier, as there is a lot less material than Star Trek if you only count the movies, the Clone Wars series, and Rebels. But what about the Ewok movies and the Ewoks and Droids cartoons? And then there was the debacle with the entire Expanded Universe, which was regarded as basically canon by the fandom, being wiped away to make room for TFA and brand new tie-in material.

I don't see the EU thing as a "debacle" as much as a reality check. Tie-in novels are never "canon," no matter what people might want to think. That's just the nature of the beast.

 

[Mr Awe]

I wouldn't say they retconned the regeneration limit. The Time Lords gave the Doctor new regenerations, a possibility that was established back in the classic episode, The Five Doctors.

 

[Karp666]

More like 33%. There's always the possibility that the new show will be set in its own, brand-new continuity. (Probably a long shot, but you never know.)

It can still be 50% if we run the possibilities down to either YES or NO

 

[fireproof78]

I think Star Wars is a little easier, as there is a lot less material than Star Trek if you only count the movies, the Clone Wars series, and Rebels. But what about the Ewok movies and the Ewoks and Droids cartoons? And then there was the debacle with the entire Expanded Universe, which was regarded as basically canon by the fandom, being wiped away to make room for TFA and brand new tie-in material.

I thought of Doctor Who as well. As I recall, when "modern" Who started, it seemed almost like a soft reboot, but later they made it more clear that it was a direct continuation of classic Who. I could be remembering wrong, though.

Kor

No, you are more or less accurate with "modern" Who. In fact, one aspect of the most recent incarnation is revisiting some of the past Doctor's actions and their consequences, which i rather interesting way to take it.

Star Wars is interesting because while you only have the films and TV series, the EU debacle was huge, primarily because of the iconic characters that so many people liked. Thrawn, Mara Jade, Cade Skywalker, Darth Bane, etc. Hence the outcry over Disney's decision.

 

[Dukhat]

Star Wars is interesting because while you only have the films and TV series, the EU debacle was huge, primarily because of the iconic characters that so many people liked. Thrawn, Mara Jade, Cade Skywalker, Darth Bane, etc. Hence the outcry over Disney's decision.

And yet that didn't stop TFA from making a billion dollars

 

[Greg Cox]

And yet that didn't stop TFA from making a billion dollars

Because the cold, cruel fact is that only about 2% of the movie audience had even heard of those "iconic" EU characters.

No disrespect intended to the books and their authors and editors, many of whom are friends of mine; that's just the world we live in. The movie audience is larger--by several orders of magnitude--than the book audience. The flap over the EU was only "huge" among a tiny fraction of potential moviegoers. It was a big deal in a small pond.

 

[fireproof78]

And yet that didn't stop TFA from making a billion dollars

You'll get no argument from me. Dumping the EU was the best decision Disney could have made, in my opinion. There was too much miring the EU that needed to be scrapped.

Also, I agree with Greg's point. Those details and books, no matter how enjoyable, are THAT important.

 

[drt]

It's a direct continuation, though both Russel T. Davies and Steven Moffat have both retconned some stuff from the original run, the biggest one so far being the 13 regenerations limit.

The Davies years were more of a soft reboot, it was really the Moffatt era where it established itself as a continuation.

 

[EnderAKH]

The Davies years were more of a soft reboot, it was really the Moffatt era where it established itself as a continuation.

Wow, really? School Reunion in season 2 with Sarah Jane and K9, Season 3s Human Nature with the Journal of Impossible Things with the drawings of all the previous doctors, the Macra in Gridlock, then full on pictures of the other Doctors in The Next Doctor. I think you could make that argument for Season 1, but once Season 2 started there were plenty of links back to the classic series.