Trek Returning to TV in 2017!

[Greg Cox]

Notice, especially in the prime universes, noone reacts much to things like time travel anymore. It's almost commonly accepted. Remember when characters (and fans) were fascinated and stunned by things like that----

My problem now with stories about time travel is that they almost always depend on the cliché of propagational effects. By that I mean of the sort Back to the Future uses, Star Trek uses in abundance to hit the reset button, and the kill-your-grandfather paradox where things done to the past propagate to alter the future. I'd like to see more done with the Many-worlds interpretation instead. The Abramsverse sort of does this, but how it was done for Star Trek is unsatisfying to me. Greg Cox, I don't know your work, but how about it?

Not sure I have a consistent approach to time-travel, especially if you count my non-Trek stories as well. More often than not, I simply use it as a "magic doorway" to fun and interesting settings: to thrust people from the past into the future or vise versa, so Seven of Nine can meet Captain Kirk, or Roberta Lincoln and Gary Seven can drop in on the 23rd century, or whatever.

Sort of a Rod Serling/Richard Matheson approach to time-travel, as opposed to anything based on hard science or modern theories.

Trivia: As it happens, my very first published novel was a young-adult time-travel book titled THE PIRATE PARADOX, which was about teenagers from the future who end up stuck in the Golden Age of Piracy. I threw in the obligatory paradox or two, but, to be honest, it was mostly an excuse for swashbuckling adventure of the Errol Flynn variety.

I also recently sold a story about a struggling true-crime author who goes back in time to Victorian England in order to discover the true identity of Jack the Ripper--so she can boost herself back onto the bestseller lists.

'Cause what else would a smart author do if they had access to a time machine?

 

[Rahul]

Notice, especially in the prime universes, noone reacts much to things like time travel anymore. It's almost commonly accepted. Remember when characters (and fans) were fascinated and stunned by things like that----

My problem now with stories about time travel is that they almost always depend on the cliché of propagational effects. By that I mean of the sort Back to the Future uses, Star Trek uses in abundance to hit the reset button, and the kill-your-grandfather paradox where things done to the past propagate to alter the future. I'd like to see more done with the Many-worlds interpretation instead. The Abramsverse sort of does this, but how it was done for Star Trek is unsatisfying to me. Greg Cox, I don't know your work, but how about it?

Well, I would love Stargate's approach to time-travel and such: "Well, that's weird. I mean, we had weirder, remember the last few time one of us got stuck in a time loop? Maybe we can try to use the same solution as last time? What? It didn't work? Okay, this situation is suddenly much more serious than what we ever had before!"

 

[Mudd]

A story breaking some beloved piece of continuity is not the same as a plot that doesn't work. It's just annoying to trufans.

On the surface, that doesn't appear to address the story problem that transwarp beaming short circuits any need for starships, making Star Trek a degenerative case.

Transporters themselves obviate virtually every way in which the Trek future otherwise functions - they always have. Prose sf authors were criticizing this as a flaw in the series premise back in the 60s. Why has this never bothered trekkies?

BTW, humanity has possessed the technology to time travel with precision and reliability since at least the second year of TOS. Why does this have no effect on the Federation whatever?

("uh...um, the government passed a rule about it. Yeah, so there! Problem solved!")

Star Trek fans accept crap non-explanations for the logical foolishness with which Trek abounds except when they don't feel like it...and then call that "having standards."

 

[Nerys Myk]

Forget about time travel.

How about the many human like androids did TOS encounter? You'd think there'd be scientists swarming over Exo III, Mudd's World and Flint's Planetoid. Or reviewing the blueprints for Sargon's new body. Seems that should have been one of those "short circuiting" moments. But 100 years later its like none of those episodes happened.

Point is the characters encounter paradigm shifting tech on a regular basis and its promptly forgotten if it doesn't fit "the format". Transwarp beaming is one of those.

 

[drt]

A story breaking some beloved piece of continuity is not the same as a plot that doesn't work. It's just annoying to trufans.

On the surface, that doesn't appear to address the story problem that transwarp beaming short circuits any need for starships, making Star Trek a degenerative case.

Well, other than it seems to only work in one direction. It's unclear from Into Darkness what sort of infrastructure is required to make the "portable transwarp beaming device" work (the novelization required several different transports using additional assets Khan had already set up), so we don't know if taking a portable device allows a round trip or not.

 

[BillJ]

I really don't get the transwarp beaming either? We currently have more than one way to move people and goods around the globe. The airplane didn't replace the boat, car or train.

 

[eyeresist]

How about the title of the new show? Will is simply be Star Trek (again)? Or something more vague but with the franchise recognition like Enterprise? Somehow I doubt they will call it Star Trek: [Ship Name], like they did in the 90s with Deep Space Nine and Voyager.

Star Trek: Excelsior!



(Unless Stan Lee has trademarked the word.)

I'd watch Shatner, Nimoy and Kelly take turns reading from a phone book.

I would buy the DVD of that (provided they were doing it in-character).

I got the impression watching JJ's film that I was being mocked

You are a sensitive flower.

OTT FX that would cripple anyone with even mild epilepsy

Tasteful.

 

[Paradise City]

You are a sensitive flower.

Well, I'm "sensitive" to watching sloppy garbage, that's certainly true. Other people have different thresholds and will watch anythin'

Tasteful.

Satirical. And unfortunately satire isn't without a residue of truth. The FX completely overshadowed these films.

 

[BillJ]

Well, I'm "sensitive" to watching sloppy garbage, that's certainly true.

Then how did you end up a Star Trek fan to begin with?

 

[Quinton O'Connor]

This stands a decent chance at eventually dethroning threads like "Why is Janeway sexy?" for longest-running topic, but I sincerely hope it doesn't earn those wings under the notion that it's hundreds of pages of Paradise City versus People Who Like nuTrek.

 

[JWPlatt]

I really don't get the transwarp beaming either? We currently have more than one way to move people and goods around the globe. The airplane didn't replace the boat, car or train.

Transwarp beaming, making starships mostly unnecessary for the Trek universe, would be like something for us that disrupts every transportation and shipping industry on Earth (such as the invention of a rudimentary transporter with global reach).

The airplane didn't replace the boat, car or train because there are efficiencies of cost per mode, logistics of the quantity to ship, and large physical constraints for each mode. Airplanes require vast resources of property and support and so forth. Transwarp beaming, or transporters in general, appear to need no support on the receiving end, no special medium (water, air of adequate density, rails, roads), and can be directly targeted to any specific location appropriate to the person or package with no additional secondary modes of transport involved.

 

[Mudd]

Forget about time travel.

How about the many human like androids did TOS encounter? You'd think there'd be scientists swarming over Exo III, Mudd's World and Flint's Planetoid. Or reviewing the blueprints for Sargon's new body. Seems that should have been one of those "short circuiting" moments. But 100 years later its like none of those episodes happened.

Point is the characters encounter paradigm shifting tech on a regular basis and its promptly forgotten if it doesn't fit "the format". Transwarp beaming is one of those.

Yep. These pissing contests boil down to "my continuity is crap, but it was FIRST!"

 

[fireproof78]

I really don't get the transwarp beaming either? We currently have more than one way to move people and goods around the globe. The airplane didn't replace the boat, car or train.

Transwarp beaming, making starships mostly unnecessary for the Trek universe, would be like something for us that disrupts every transportation and shipping industry on Earth (such as the invention of a rudimentary transporter with global reach).

The airplane didn't replace the boat, car or train because there are efficiencies of cost per mode, logistics of the quantity to ship, and large physical constraints for each mode. Airplanes require vast resources of property and support and so forth. Transwarp beaming, or transporters in general, appear to need no support on the receiving end, no special medium (water, air of adequate density, rails, roads), and can be directly targeted to any specific location appropriate to the person or package with no additional secondary modes of transport involved.

Simple: it does permanent damage to the user.

That was easy (all of that without single drop of rum).

 

[E-DUB]

One possible concept occurs to me. Aside from Voyager, all the other Trek series dealt with pretty much one area of the Federation, the area that bumps up against Klingon, Romulan, Cardassian, and Ferengi space.

Well, the Federation is supposed to be pretty big, what's going on at the other end of it? Are there alien species or empires that we've never even heard of? What's the status of their relations with the Feds?

 

[Drone]

You tin-plated dictators with delusions of godhood!

I know where you got that, but I can't decide if it would also have been as well said by Dr. Smith or C3PO.

Dr. Smith wouldn't say it because he did have delusions of godhood!!!

 

[dub]

You are a sensitive flower.

Well, I'm "sensitive" to watching sloppy garbage, that's certainly true. Other people have different thresholds...

Did you say...THRESHOLD?

E..e...excuse me...

Sorry. I know. I'm a sensitive flower.

 

[Drone]

Transporters themselves obviate virtually every way in which the Trek future otherwise functions - they always have. Prose sf authors were criticizing this as a flaw in the series premise back in the 60s. Why has this never bothered trekkies?

No doubt this has been discussed ad nauseam in these parts over the years and as you say, in the trade from the time of TOS. I've either missed this proposition or it went right over my head if I have encountered it. Would you kindly supply the explanation of this seeming contradiction, either in the elaborated or Cliffs version, as you prefer?

 

[Nerys Myk]

One possible concept occurs to me. Aside from Voyager, all the other Trek series dealt with pretty much one area of the Federation, the area that bumps up against Klingon, Romulan, Cardassian, and Ferengi space.

Well, the Federation is supposed to be pretty big, what's going on at the other end of it? Are there alien species or empires that we've never even heard of? What's the status of their relations with the Feds?

Probably, unless they fall into the trap the other shows did of revisiting the same races over and over.

 

[Trekkin]

For a show that was meant to be about a big mission to head toward the final frontier, all three Enterprise's did spend a lot of time visiting star bases and federation colonies, rendezvousing with other ships, and carting the politicians and top brass around.

Archer probably did it the least, funnily enough. At least in the first few seasons.

 

[Goji]

Pretty much the whole last season of Enterprise took place a stone's throw away from Earth. But at least it was consistent in that regard. It seemed intentional that way.