Was it ever really possible to do a pure prime prequel in the "TOS" era?
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
You can't just keep rebooting the franchise, because in another few decades you will just have to reboot it again because it will look dated (assuming it stays as popular as it has).
If you want my opinion, for a non-Kelvin Timeline series, Star Trek would be better off continuing the Prime universe where Nemesis left off, or after the catastrophic events of 2387. This is, I think, the best option where preserving canon is concerned. It would be easier to make the show look flashy and modern without having to dance around TOS. This way, the more time goes on in the real world, the later and more advanced Trek gets accordingly, giving us a nice progression. If TOS is the 60s of the Federation, then maybe today we could cover the late 24th-early 25th century or later. Time goes on! Why stay in the "past?"
This assumes, of course, that Paramount/CBS/whoever cares about canon, and we all know they really don't, at least not near as much as the average Trek fan.
If you want my opinion, for a non-Kelvin Timeline series, Star Trek would be better off continuing the Prime universe where Nemesis left off, or after the catastrophic events of 2387. This is, I think, the best option where preserving canon is concerned. It would be easier to make the show look flashy and modern without having to dance around TOS. This way, the more time goes on in the real world, the later and more advanced Trek gets accordingly, giving us a nice progression. If TOS is the 60s of the Federation, then maybe today we could cover the late 24th-early 25th century or later. Time goes on! Why stay in the "past?"
This assumes, of course, that Paramount/CBS/whoever cares about canon, and we all know they really don't, at least not near as much as the average Trek fan.
Why can't they keep rebooting from time to time? I mean if "Discovery" is a hit it would make sense to milk that popularity and do more in that universe but their would be nothing wrong in doing yet another reboot in the future once the well has run dry and the canon starts to feel more like a burden than a strength?
Jason
I agree they can reboot but it's actually impossible to have 2 continuities running at the same time because each would contradict each other unless you were creating the most meta Trek show ever. Imagine a Trek show that does a episode were Vulcan has been destroyed and then one were it wasn't.
On some level that would be kind of fun to see a Trek show that had a "Twin Peeks" or "Legion" type of vibe were the whole show was just kind of weird and hard to follow but is still lots of fun.
Jason
DC currently has (at least) three separate live-action continuities going on at once. And viewers understand that they are separate. The same is possible with Trek.
Kor
Enterprise I think when viewed fairly isn't "more advanced" than TOS but it is still apart of the DS9/VOY/TNG zeitgeist. As the creative people were the same for the most part.
I just read the Destiny trilogy and was quite amazed by how well Enterprise "fits" in with 24th century trek.
TOS is really a standout because not only is it the first Trek show but it had no spinoffs. Aesthetically it is just so different from all other Treks. To the point I can honestly understand why people would say it is set in its own universe or reinterpret it along the lines of Kirk's retellings or something to that effect.
I just read the Destiny trilogy and was quite amazed by how well Enterprise "fits" in with 24th century trek.
TOS is really a standout because not only is it the first Trek show but it had no spinoffs. Aesthetically it is just so different from all other Treks. To the point I can honestly understand why people would say it is set in its own universe or reinterpret it along the lines of Kirk's retellings or something to that effect.
That's how I also feel. I do think "TOS" works somewhat better in trying to connect it to the later shows do than "Discovery" might because we have seen character crossover's with the orginal actors plus the movie's are a little more advanced looking and were happening around the same time when "TNG" got started. Add that with episodes like "Relics", "Trials and Tribblations" and the mirror universe stories on "Enterprise" were you get to see the classic sets and combine that with a 80 year time gap and it feels easier to kind of buy into.
I don't think you can replicate any of that on "Discovery" because every old character will no doubt be recasted and the gap between "Discovery" and "TOS" is way to short at just 10 years. In theory having Fuller in charge might have helped because he also wrote for "Voyager" but with him gone you don't even have that.
Jason
I don't think you can replicate any of that on "Discovery" because every old character will no doubt be recasted and the gap between "Discovery" and "TOS" is way to short at just 10 years. In theory having Fuller in charge might have helped because he also wrote for "Voyager" but with him gone you don't even have that.
Jason
Fuller wrote some good Voyager eps.
The project already has received a tepid to negative reaction among fans on the Internet.
Also the era this show is being made in is going to affect it. I'm not honestly sure if they will be able to replicate the TOS feel at all-cosmetically they can as did the JJ Verse. But it's going to be very different and hard to do.
Yeah recasting old characters, reinterpreting the Klingons and what not will make it even more difficult for the show.
Also what does this show want to do? I mean story and theme wise? Does it want to provide a plot centred lead up to TOS? Well obviously not since Chris Pine isn't the main star. Does it want to be a story set in the 23rd century Trekverse? I'm not sure since it's too tied to TOS by timespan.
Apart of me is honestly suspicious the show won't last more than three seasons. If the fan reaction is hostile and the general public disinterested it might not even get two.
For me the best way to do a prequel in the "TOS" time frame and make it feel like part of the prime universe is to kind of combine the more modern sense of fun of the Kelvin Universe along with it's nod's to "TOS" look like the uniforms and things like communicators but also combine it with the social allegory of "TOS" with some of the character depth of "DS9" along with it's ability to do loose arc's. Episodes can stand on their own but you do have threads that run through the shows and "event" episodes from time to time that are all about the arc.
As for using familiar character's I would stay away from series regulars except maybe a CGI cameo from time to time. I think it's easier to recast old guest characters but I wouldn't overdo it.
Jason
I wouldn't mind a Kelvinverse cameo of say that Orion girl, or Christopher Pike, or some other obscure TOS character.
And I agree it shouldn't be so serialized let episodes stand on their own merits.
And I agree it shouldn't be so serialized let episodes stand on their own merits.
Evolution doesn't work that fast.
[Sticks head in thread]
I just wanted to wish you good luck. We're all counting on you.
[Closes door]
I just wanted to wish you good luck. We're all counting on you.
[Closes door]
Surely you can't be serious!
To answer the OP; Yes. Absolutely. But it would require work and creativity. Rebooting is actually easier than integrating new stories into an existing continuity.
By the time Jim Kirk takes command, Enterprise was already 20 years old. That's a lot of time spent "Boldly Going". That also means that there are at least 20 years of adventure to exploit for a prequel series. Not with the crew of the Enterprise (since we know that ship survives until ST:III). But there are 11 other Constitution-class ships, and hundreds of other smaller vessels. We could have seen what happened to the Constellation before Matt Decker took command.
As I said, it could work, but it would be difficult. If done right, it would be really great. If done almost right - it would be a wreck.
By the time Jim Kirk takes command, Enterprise was already 20 years old. That's a lot of time spent "Boldly Going". That also means that there are at least 20 years of adventure to exploit for a prequel series. Not with the crew of the Enterprise (since we know that ship survives until ST:III). But there are 11 other Constitution-class ships, and hundreds of other smaller vessels. We could have seen what happened to the Constellation before Matt Decker took command.
As I said, it could work, but it would be difficult. If done right, it would be really great. If done almost right - it would be a wreck.
I am serious! And don't call me Shirley.
Star Wars is not based on Earth's fictional future, so no one should expect a Star Trek prequel to look like its still 1966. Even present day movies set in the past look like a 21st century production.
Last edited:
Or we could just get rid of the tired old "the ship's going to be destroyed" thingy.
Similar threads
