"Star Trek: Rebooting a Classic" article from Entertainment Weekly

[stonester1]

I think Moore is correct that canon made things difficult, but hardly impossible, as the novel writers demonstrate continually.

Those novels are written specifically for fans, who are not only familiar with the Star Trek canon, but are actually fascinated by it. If you're aiming for a wider audience, you can't expect them to be mesmerized by arcane references to Trek's byzantine continuity.

Not the point. Posters here said that RDM asserted that good stories could no longer be told in Trek, because the canon had gottend too deep and convoluted.

The novels show otherwise. And adherence to canon isn't just "arcane references to byzantine continuity". It's using the established past to help inform the future, just like real life, just like your own life, rather than wanting to rewrite it because one finds it inconvenient.

BTW, the new film includes, by all accounts, loads of "arcane references to said byzantine continuity" as well.

Trek works partially because of established characters and beats that we recognize, because it feels like home.

By all accounts, despite the Abramsverse being in effect a "reboot", they didn't just abandon the Trek universe and rewrite it. To do so would have been a bad idea. From the sound of it, he's created a clean slate that at the same time holds onto the essentials of the characters and the spirit of the Trek universe, yet creates flexibility to be it's own entity. This takes true skill, and what I hear, he pulled it off.

But there was NOT room for a complete do-over, nor was it a necessity. Unlike Battlestar Galactica, it wasn't a flawed creation offering ideas to mine. It was a generations successful franchise that had run into problems NOT because of deep established continuity, but rather, due to uninspired latter year creativity and franchise fatigue.

It would have been the deepest of mistakes to shitcan established Trek altogether. And Abrams did not do this.

If he had elected to stay completely within established continuity, there is nothing that would have kept them from telling a great story there, either, because, as the novels prove, this can be done.

 

[Therin of Andor]

as the novels prove, this can be done.

To the satisfaction of less than 5% of the viewing audience.

 

[stonester1]

Prove it. Prove that a "mass appeal" story can't be told within established Trek continuity.

I say a good story is a good story.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Prove it. Prove that a "mass appeal" story can't be told within established Trek continuity.

I can prove that the general public is no longer interested in stories told strictly within established Trek continuity. In fact, it's self-evident.

 

[pookha]

Prove it. Prove that a "mass appeal" story can't be told within established Trek continuity.

I say a good story is a good story.

most people dont have a clue about a vast amount of continuity.
heck a lot of serious trek fans have issues keeping it all straight.

beyond some basic stuff like certain aspects of the character personalities and the basic theme of the series of exlporation, peaceful co existance among species with many differences..
the whole boldy go and seek out new civilations ect..
i doubt if most people really care.

a lot of the people who will be going to this movie beyond the hard core trek fan dosnt care about the nacelles, the ship being built in space ect..


yeah i would have also had like to seen a movie made within the existing tos universe but i can see the reasons for the direction they are going in.

stonester1
"If he had elected to stay completely within established continuity, there is nothing that would have kept them from telling a great story there, either, because, as the novels prove, this can be done. "


i still think you are missing the big picture.
a novel can appeal to only say a 100,000 people and be a big hit.

for a movie like the new star trek film that would be one of the biggest flops of all time.

one is talking about what about 15 million people seeing it to just to make back some of the money the movie cost.

 

[stonester1]

Prove it. Prove that a "mass appeal" story can't be told within established Trek continuity.

I can prove that the general public is no longer interested in stories told strictly within established Trek continuity. In fact, it's self-evident.

The point isn't the "continuity" making the story. The point is that a good story can still be told within continuity.

I think Abram's film is going to be great, but I don't contend that it was absolutely necessary to break from continuity to do it.

Novels prove it, etc etc.

A well done film wouldn't be well done BECAUSE of in-continuity status, it would be well done because it was WELL DONE.

And I contend that it is still possible within continuity, as, again, the novels prove. Again, it's not the continuity that makes them good, they are just good stories, regardless.

But if continuity simply didn't matter, Abrams wouldn't have put all the touchstones that he did in the new film.

But it DOES matter.

 

[stonester1]

Prove it. Prove that a "mass appeal" story can't be told within established Trek continuity.

I say a good story is a good story.

most people dont have a clue about a vast amount of continuity.
heck a lot of serious trek fans have issues keeping it all straight.

beyond some basic stuff like certain aspects of the character personalities and the basic theme of the series of exlporation, peaceful co existance among species with many differences..
the whole boldy go and seek out new civilations ect..
i doubt if most people really care.

a lot of the people who will be going to this movie beyond the hard core trek fan dosnt care about the nacelles, the ship being built in space ect..


yeah i would have also had like to seen a movie made within the existing tos universe but i can see the reasons for the direction they are going in.

Yes, and I agree with you. I've long been a supporter of this project.

However, I just take issue with the idea that in-continuity stories are now impossible.

It wasn't continuity that turned people off. A story shouldn't absolutely hinge on continuity minutia anyway. If it's minor, it should be Easter eggs for those who know to get, and for those who don't, it shouldn't matter. IF it's major, there should be essential getting up to speed that still works within the story.

And again, what I hear, that's just what Abrams did.

You could do the same for an "in continuity" story.

But it's not continuity that brought this franchise to it's low. We know what it is, a combo of oversaturation and some really lackluster Trek in the latter years diminishing it's public profile.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Prove it. Prove that a "mass appeal" story can't be told within established Trek continuity.

I say a good story is a good story.

Of course it is, but even the ST novels dropped their numbering system. Pocket realised, as they neared a landmark of Book #100 (they were planning a trilogy to get there), that many new potential readers were hesitant to buy novel #96, no matter how wonderful it was, because they thought they had to read the first 95 books.

This new movie sends a clear message - to everyone - that it is a brand new Adventure #1.

 

[stonester1]

And I thoroughly look forward to it.

 

[davejames]

The point isn't the "continuity" making the story. The point is that a good story can still be told within continuity.

I think Abram's film is going to be great, but I don't contend that it was absolutely necessary to break from continuity to do it.

Novels prove it, etc etc.

A well done film wouldn't be well done BECAUSE of in-continuity status, it would be well done because it was WELL DONE.

And I contend that it is still possible within continuity, as, again, the novels prove. Again, it's not the continuity that makes them good, they are just good stories, regardless.

But if continuity simply didn't matter, Abrams wouldn't have put all the touchstones that he did in the new film.

But it DOES matter.

I agree a good story can still be told within continuity... but that's different from getting the general public truly EXCITED about Star Trek again.

A within-contuinty TOS movie would have meant having the same bridge, the same ship, and telling a story in the same basic style as before-- all things which would have had most people going "ho hum, looks like just another nerdy Star Trek movie again."

But the thing that's gotten people truly excited this time is the fact it looks and feels like something COMPLETELY fresh and new. Despite the little nods to contuinty, the overall impression is still that this is something really bold and different that you don't have to be a hardcore nerd to enjoy.

Hell, even as a hardcore nerd and Trekkie myself, I was hungry for a new look and style. More than the story, that's the thing I've been most excited to see in this movie-- and I'm sure that's what everyone else is responding to also.