To Hell with the continuity.
Strange New Worlds' showrunners advise fans to write to Skydance and Paramount if they're interested in a "Year One" Kirk sequel series
- Thread starter Quinton
- Start date
Year One.
There are plenty of Constitution-class ships in the fleet, yes.
Speaking of which... how about using the New Jersey, then?
Perhaps the final episode of such a series could show how succeeding generations interacted with the ship and its legacy, once it was added to the Fleet Museum.
I was also thinking how nice that would be. Just give us a fresh new crew on a different Constitution-class ship, off at the other end of the Federation. Occasionally, we can run into one of our old friends from the Enterprise, but mostly it's a new crew handling their own stuff. Give their mission a slightly different premise but keep it mostly episodic, in a VOY-ish way.
I think we're unlikely to get it, because culturally everyone still seems obsessed with resurrecting classic characters in everything (and I certainly like that too). But it would be nice to have a fully new slate of characters.
Honestly, with as precarious as Trek's position feels right now, I'm prepared to be thrilled about any Trek show greenlit post-merger, regardless of the topic.
So you're onboard with my 'don't set it in the prime timeline' idea then? The idea of giving the series its own continuity.
You completely missed Mudd’s point.
I don't understand Mudd's point. Why does he care so much about something he doesn't care about?
Why is it so important that this be Prime Timeline if he doesn't give a damn about the Prime Timeline?
Why is it so important that this be Prime Timeline if he doesn't give a damn about the Prime Timeline?
Go sign the Star Trek: Legacy petition.
So, much like Terry Matalas and his Star Trek: Legacy series pitch then
I know you're joking, but I'm really not keen on this Star Trek: SNW fans vs Star Trek: Picard fans thing that's going on where it has to be one thing or the other. I'm on team Star Trek.
It's TOS vs TNG all over again. Literally, since one is a TNG sequel and the other one is a TOS remake/prequel. You know, I don't think there is actually a name for what "Year One" is if it overlaps the original episodes. A revisit?
That's just how fans are.
I wouldn't care to watch Star Trek: Legacy as Terry Matalas and some fans have pitched it; but I've mostly voiced that opinion in response to comments made in the SNW forum or SNW threads where others express their disdain for more 23rd century TOS era stuff.
I'm still on the fence as to whether I'll take a look at the Star Fleet Academy series as the 32nd century era really doesn't interest me.
And you're perfectly entitled to express the opinions you have on the various Star Trek projects and productions past and present - there are no 'wrong' opinions.
But yeah, I'll continue to express mine in replies too.
Sadly, that's been built in for a long time, since TNG.
It’s called a retcon. In comics (and other franchises), it happens all the time. (“They were lying when they revealed you’re the Antichrist! Actually, you’re an alien cyborg with implanted false memories!”)
EDIT: Or more simply, “Yeah, the audience decided Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet. So? WE never said so. Not our problem.” And they’re right. (Though I guess it’s not really a retcon when the continuity never said something in the first place.)
(P.S. I like midi-chlorians.
)
Last edited:
I would like to express my disinterest in any further retcons.
Actually it is. People have this idea that a retcon is something that contradicts older continuity, but that's missing the point entirely. "Retroactive continuity" means something that was introduced later but fits in with the old continuity as if it had been true all along. It may contradict our assumptions about the continuity, but if it's done right, it's entirely reconcilable with the letter of the original text, which is why it's called retroactive continuity instead of discontinuity.
A retcon is something like DS9 establishing that Dax had a secret host she'd had erased from her memory, or that Sisko was conceived by the Prophets, or that Bashir was genetically engineered (although there a couple of earlier episodes that are a bit hard to reconcile with that idea). TWOK revealing that Kirk had a son is a retcon too. It's a new revelation, but it doesn't contradict the facts we have, just recontextualizes them.
I gotta be honest, this is why I stopped reading DC comics. The reality is so fluid and keeps getting reset so much that it feels like absolutely nothing matters and I got sick of it. I just stick to the cartoons and movies now, because at least they can keep their continuity straight within their own universe.
Edit: I'm talking about the 'literally changing history' definition of retcon mostly, though 'everything you know is wrong' is something I've lost all patience with as well.
No, you were talking about revealing that something we thought was actually untrue. I'm saying that the term "retcon" is more general than that -- it's any new information meant to fit in with past continuity, whether that's revealing that something we thought was false (e.g. Dax having one more host than we thought) or simply revealing something that was never brought up before (e.g. Kirk having a son). So you statement "I guess it’s not really a retcon when the continuity never said something in the first place" is incorrect. If it's retroactive and it fits into the continuity, then it's a retcon.
Surely the examples you provide are simply revelations in an ongoing story. Or else every piece of information revealed from before the plot's present is a retcon. Assumptions can be challenged by surprising plot twists that is simply narrative progression, no?
I would argue the only real definition of a retcon would be an alteration to pre-established facts.
