Strange New Worlds' showrunners advise fans to write to Skydance and Paramount if they're interested in a "Year One" Kirk sequel series

[DigificWriter]

If Goldsman were to straight-up say that he wants to do a wholesale Prime Timeline Reboot of TOS, the Trek fandom would come for his head.

But if he can convince the fandom to support this Kirk: Year One thing, it's not that far of a step to backdooring it into a full-on multi-season series that covers the same Canonical time period of TOS but that overrides the events of TOS.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If Goldsman were to straight-up say that he wants to do a wholesale Prime Timeline Reboot of TOS, the Trek fandom would come for his head.

But if he can convince the fandom to support this Kirk: Year One thing, it's not that far of a step to backdooring it into a full-on multi-season series that covers the same Canonical time period of TOS but that overrides the events of TOS.

Some big ifs there. More than likely the new episodes will exist within the established framework of TOS.

 

[DigificWriter]

Some big ifs there. More than likely the new episodes will exist within the established framework of TOS.

You've got more faith in Goldsman than I do.

And I say that as someone who doesn't really have a 'dog in this fight' and who actually likes Goldsman's works generally.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You've got more faith in Goldsman than I do.

And I say that as someone who doesn't really have a 'dog in this fight' and who actually likes Goldsman's works generally.

I've been fine with his tweaks. Even his "remix" of BOT was respectful to the original.

You seem very much as someone with a dog.

 

[DigificWriter]

I've been fine with his tweaks. Even his "remix" of BOT was respectful to the original.

You seem very much as someone with a dog.

I guess it could seem like I'm against Goldsman and the idea of a Prime Timeline Reboot of TOS given the contents of my posts, but I really don't care one way or another, and wanted to say that explicitly.

 

[Christopher]

That's what I meant by "rebooted." There will be tweaks, but not wholesale deletion.

That's a confusing word choice, then, since laypeople generally use that word to mean a completely reinvented continuity. Maybe "revisionist" is better?

I think it's probably best to look at Star Trek less as a fictional future history and more as a mythology or a legendarium. The myths and legends of old are rife with contradictions and alternate takes on the same tale, why should modern myths be any different? Truth be told, Star Trek as a whole is far more consistent than those ancient myths are.

Roddenberry's own view, apparently, was that ST was a dramatic recreation of Kirk's logs, like how Dragnet, the show where he got his start as a screenwriter, was a dramatic recreation of real police cases (allegedly). In his foreword to the ST:TMP novelization, he pretended to be a 23rd-century producer who'd made an "inaccurately larger-than-life" series based on the Enterprise's missions, and that this time it would be more accurate since Admiral Kirk had approval. He advised fans to accept that Klingons had always had ridges and TOS just hadn't depicted them correctly.

 

[Mudd]

I've been fine with his tweaks. Even his "remix" of BOT was respectful to the original.

You seem very much as someone with a dog.

The pooch who's losing?

 

[Turtletrekker]

That's a confusing word choice, then, since laypeople generally use that word to mean a completely reinvented continuity. Maybe "revisionist" is better?

Roddenberry's own view, apparently, was that ST was a dramatic recreation of Kirk's logs, like how Dragnet, the show where he got his start as a screenwriter, was a dramatic recreation of real police cases (allegedly). In his foreword to the ST:TMP novelization, he pretended to be a 23rd-century producer who'd made an "inaccurately larger-than-life" series based on the Enterprise's missions, and that this time it would be more accurate since Admiral Kirk had approval. He advised fans to accept that Klingons had always had ridges and TOS just hadn't depicted them correctly.

That tracks with his attitude about the original series during the early TNG days according to an interview with Paula Block. Indeed, he admitted to her that his thinking Happy come "revisionist", but "so be it". It also helps reconcile little things like Kirk's line in Arena that implied that he didn't know what a Gorn was. Perhaps the party or parties behind the "dramatic recreation" included that line for Kirk just in case the in-universe (and real world) audience of the piece were the ones who didn't know what a Gorn was.

 

[Tuskin38]

Voyager did state Kirk's 5 year mission ended in 2270. So 2265 is the first year.

Nothing in the lore says Kirk's first year in command was also the first year of his 5YM.

 

[Christopher]

Indeed, he admitted to her that his thinking Happy come "revisionist", but "so be it".

Voice recognition error for "his thinking had become"?

But yeah, I gather that Roddenberry considered TNG a soft reboot of sorts, keeping only those parts of the continuity that he liked. If he'd stayed in charge longer, it might have evolved into a more unambiguous reboot and we'd be thinking of it today as a separate continuity from TOS/TAS.