But CW only wants to teenage girls and creates shows filled with teen angst to attract them. In a lot of ways that's a bigger change for Trek than what Showtime or CBS would require.
Where does the Star Trek go from here?
- Thread starter Jim Kirk
- Start date
But CW only wants to teenage girls and creates shows filled with teen angst to attract them. In a lot of ways that's a bigger change for Trek than what Showtime or CBS would require.
Here's the difference between Star Wars canon and Star Trek Canon.
Star Trek canon is everything on-screen. If it's in a book or a video game, it's not canon, and Paramount makes it clear that any of that material could be contradicted in the future.
Star Wars canon is everything on-screen plus pretty much everything else that's licenced. I've seen everything from the EU novels to the back of toy boxes be used to argue things in the SW universe. However, Lucas has no issue overriding Star Wars canon outside the movies.
Basically, SW material outside of what is on-screen is handled in exactly the same manner by Lucas as ST material outside of what is on-screen is handled by Paramount, but they label EU SW material canon anyway.
Re: "canon"
This is technically a 100% true statement, but needs clarification (see below).
Ooopsy. Lucas did not use "many" of Timothy Zahn's concepts and ideas in the prequels or remastered classic trilogy. He used the name of the capitol planet, Coruscant. That's it. Zahn is one of the most notoriously movie canon-contradicting authors, but that is partially because his initial trilogy of novels were early in the efforts to maintain continuity in the EU. In Zahn's continuity, the Clone Wars ended around 16 years before Luke and Leia were born. The Republic's enemy in the wars were clonemasters who had the clone armies, the clones were insane, and cloning technology worked very differently. Palpatine had a personal Jedi advisor. Just to name a few discrepencies.
Regarding Star Wars canon, this is not true. Lucas originally modelled Star Wars continuity concerns on Trek canon (except demoting TV canon), but Star Wars canon has become immensly more complex. Star Wars canon has multiple levels or tiers, as opposed to Trek's simple TV series + movies vs. everything else.
The highest tier of SW canon is film canon, which is a mere 6 films. When just using the term "canon," without specifying the level and if it is not clear by context then by default you are referring to the highest tier of films only. Yes, George Lucas owns Star Wars and thus his highest tier of films-only is often referred to as "G-canon".
Underneath the film canon is the EU canon, which is most (but not all) of the TV series, novels, comic books, games, etc. These stories are supposed to not contradict films or itself (although they often still do both). Since the EU was going strong before the prequels, some things in the EU had to be retconned to conform to the higher-tiered prequel films (but not nearly enough IMO).
Star Wars has some "what if?" stories. Those stories as well as some early EU (like parts of the 70s-80s Marvel comic book) are declared as non-canon. Sometimes aspects of these non-canon stories are used in the modern EU which then elevates those aspects only to EU canon.
In recent years, a new level of canon has been inserted into the canon tier structure. "TV Canon" does not mean all TV series, but refers specifically to the previous and current Clone Wars series, as well as the future live-action TV series. Like everything else, this tier was of course placed below the film canon, but this level is above the EU canon, which gives it the creative freedom to contradict previous EU stories (which would then require a retcon to the EU to conform to the modern TV canon).
This is technically a 100% true statement, but needs clarification (see below).
Ooopsy. Lucas did not use "many" of Timothy Zahn's concepts and ideas in the prequels or remastered classic trilogy. He used the name of the capitol planet, Coruscant. That's it. Zahn is one of the most notoriously movie canon-contradicting authors, but that is partially because his initial trilogy of novels were early in the efforts to maintain continuity in the EU. In Zahn's continuity, the Clone Wars ended around 16 years before Luke and Leia were born. The Republic's enemy in the wars were clonemasters who had the clone armies, the clones were insane, and cloning technology worked very differently. Palpatine had a personal Jedi advisor. Just to name a few discrepencies.
Regarding Star Wars canon, this is not true. Lucas originally modelled Star Wars continuity concerns on Trek canon (except demoting TV canon), but Star Wars canon has become immensly more complex. Star Wars canon has multiple levels or tiers, as opposed to Trek's simple TV series + movies vs. everything else.
The highest tier of SW canon is film canon, which is a mere 6 films. When just using the term "canon," without specifying the level and if it is not clear by context then by default you are referring to the highest tier of films only. Yes, George Lucas owns Star Wars and thus his highest tier of films-only is often referred to as "G-canon".
Underneath the film canon is the EU canon, which is most (but not all) of the TV series, novels, comic books, games, etc. These stories are supposed to not contradict films or itself (although they often still do both). Since the EU was going strong before the prequels, some things in the EU had to be retconned to conform to the higher-tiered prequel films (but not nearly enough IMO).
Star Wars has some "what if?" stories. Those stories as well as some early EU (like parts of the 70s-80s Marvel comic book) are declared as non-canon. Sometimes aspects of these non-canon stories are used in the modern EU which then elevates those aspects only to EU canon.
In recent years, a new level of canon has been inserted into the canon tier structure. "TV Canon" does not mean all TV series, but refers specifically to the previous and current Clone Wars series, as well as the future live-action TV series. Like everything else, this tier was of course placed below the film canon, but this level is above the EU canon, which gives it the creative freedom to contradict previous EU stories (which would then require a retcon to the EU to conform to the modern TV canon).
The main obstacle to Star Trek on Showtime is that it doesn't fit Showtime's strategy. Both HBO and Showtime follow the mantra that "we're not TV" (HBO pioneered it, Showtime is copying), that they're a place people can go to find stuff they'd never find elsewhere on TV. This is what justifies charging people a monthly fee. So the one thing they wouldn't want to do is bring in a brand name like Star Trek associated with free TV. Then their subscribers wonder "why am I paying for this?"
Even if the series is terrific and fully worth paying for, it undermines the Showtime brand of exclusive content. Corporations always put brand first, product second, because they see their brand as their single most valuable property and no single show is worth undermining your brand image for.
They might do it anyway, but if so, it would be a departure from what a corporation in their place would generally be inclined to do.
As far as content goes, there doesn't need to be a problem. Why would they throw in sleaze and violence just for the heck of it? Sleaze and violence isn't actually what HBO and Showtime sell (that's the Starz approach). They've matured past the shock-value days of Oz and now generally sell quality shows that appeal to grownups with more rarified tastes than the bottom-feeders of broadcast can satisfy. Star Trek on Showtime could be the best Star Trek ever.
CW might start to add the 18-34 male audience to their demographic, in which case Star Trek becomes very attractive to them. And again, the content doesn't need to suffer - both Supernatural and Reaper have shown that not all CW shows are junk. Granted, it would be a dangerous situation for Star Trek and the default approach would be to go for teen-angst nonsense.
I gotta read those books. Sounds like Zahn had the right idea. For the good guys to be breeding clone armies of cannon fodder just never set right with me.
I think in honesty, another series in the short term is not likely:
- Abrams' reboot is needed to succeed. Trek was a failing business unit for Paramount, especially since Voyager was critically not as well received as TNG and DS9, and Enterprise tanked. Paramount need assuring that investing in a new Trek series would not pan.
- Paramount has to blame itself for this. Voyager could have been a top-class show, had it been managed properly. Insurrection and Nemesis had bad concepts, and were IMO doomed to fail. Paramount then couldn't blame another factor other than itself.
- Abrams' reboot is needed to succeed. Trek was a failing business unit for Paramount, especially since Voyager was critically not as well received as TNG and DS9, and Enterprise tanked. Paramount need assuring that investing in a new Trek series would not pan.
- Paramount has to blame itself for this. Voyager could have been a top-class show, had it been managed properly. Insurrection and Nemesis had bad concepts, and were IMO doomed to fail. Paramount then couldn't blame another factor other than itself.
Paramount wouldn't have anything to do with a proposed new series. Things simply aren't the same as they once were. For further explanation, I reference Temis; the Vorta knows her stuff.
Films
Well after the J.J verse trilogy I would like to se TNG re-booted, can you imagine a Borg "BOBW" type movie on the big screen. TNG could do two trilogies, one with the D and one with the E. Star Trek Voyager and DS9 probably are undoable on the big screen so your left with no much left of the old stories to reboot.
TV
I think you could possibly do a TOS era show with a new ship and crew during their 5 year mission. I doubt it would be a wise idea to reboot any of the old shows in the TV format so you need something original. If you want to go past 24th century you could make a 25th or 26th one and open up a whole new galaxy for the setting but not lost just sing new TECH - a new 5 year mission fleet of deep space ships in esq.
The problem with the future of TREK is B&B made the stupid idea of stating the Federation explore time by at the last the29th century but I can't remember if any on screen evidence points to the tech being around earlier. A time travel STAR TREK show would fail BIG TIME and the more you go into the future the more you have to face that era of the Federation...
Not too mention Voyagers Tech in ENDGAME makes any show after the late 24th century a problem.
Well after the J.J verse trilogy I would like to se TNG re-booted, can you imagine a Borg "BOBW" type movie on the big screen. TNG could do two trilogies, one with the D and one with the E. Star Trek Voyager and DS9 probably are undoable on the big screen so your left with no much left of the old stories to reboot.
TV
I think you could possibly do a TOS era show with a new ship and crew during their 5 year mission. I doubt it would be a wise idea to reboot any of the old shows in the TV format so you need something original. If you want to go past 24th century you could make a 25th or 26th one and open up a whole new galaxy for the setting but not lost just sing new TECH - a new 5 year mission fleet of deep space ships in esq.
The problem with the future of TREK is B&B made the stupid idea of stating the Federation explore time by at the last the29th century but I can't remember if any on screen evidence points to the tech being around earlier. A time travel STAR TREK show would fail BIG TIME and the more you go into the future the more you have to face that era of the Federation...
Not too mention Voyagers Tech in ENDGAME makes any show after the late 24th century a problem.
I've always held to the opinion that well beyond explored space yet still within the galaxy, there's a cluster of alien worlds with technology that would royally decimate the Federation and even the Dominion. If we take the shows and only the shows as a guidepost, this sounds somewhat ridiculous, but if we look at "Star Charts" (which I'm more than willing -- more than willing, given its discrepancies --to accept as non-canon) it becomes a much more believable statement.
I've only glanced at various images from that book's interesting pages via the internet, but going by what I've seen, there seems to be an interpretation from its author that there is plenty of space still waiting to be explored in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants, nevermind Gamma and Delta.
I think.
I've only glanced at various images from that book's interesting pages via the internet, but going by what I've seen, there seems to be an interpretation from its author that there is plenty of space still waiting to be explored in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants, nevermind Gamma and Delta.
I think.
Re: "canon"
The issue is more that Zahn's Thrawn trilogy was written well before the prequel trilogy was created. So he created his own version of the clone wars before anything else had been established. Lucas then went and changed whatever he wants. But Zahn's work is much better than later EU novels primarily because he wasn't constantly referencing PT events.
The issue is more that Zahn's Thrawn trilogy was written well before the prequel trilogy was created. So he created his own version of the clone wars before anything else had been established. Lucas then went and changed whatever he wants. But Zahn's work is much better than later EU novels primarily because he wasn't constantly referencing PT events.
I'm not much of a Star Wars fan. Even the films, even the original trilogy, don't do it for me like they did when I was a kid and young teen. I just find a lot more depth and social relevance in Star Trek, and anyone who knows anything about me knows I like those sorts of things.
That said, I have read (and still own) the Thrawn Trilogy, as it's so often referred to. I read these books when I was around eight or nine and loved them to pieces. I was disheartened when, as the prequel trilogy was released, I began to realize that George Lucas decided to go his own route with things. It's funny how he decided 'Coruscant' was going to work for that world but changed the entirety of the Clone Wars.
I have neither read nor have any desire to read any other books in the franchise, but Timothy Zahn did a great job with that trilogy.
That said, I have read (and still own) the Thrawn Trilogy, as it's so often referred to. I read these books when I was around eight or nine and loved them to pieces. I was disheartened when, as the prequel trilogy was released, I began to realize that George Lucas decided to go his own route with things. It's funny how he decided 'Coruscant' was going to work for that world but changed the entirety of the Clone Wars.
I have neither read nor have any desire to read any other books in the franchise, but Timothy Zahn did a great job with that trilogy.
Re: "canon"
I'm aware of that, and I dismiss it as the hair-splitting bullshit that it is. It's no different whatsoever from Star Trek, they just label it differently.
I'm aware of that, and I dismiss it as the hair-splitting bullshit that it is. It's no different whatsoever from Star Trek, they just label it differently.
Nah, they'd just need to fill the cast with hot twenty-somethings and ramp up the action and sexual tension.
Not that different from Trek XI.
Actually, Roddenberry loved boobs. Most of the females in TOS demonstrate that.
I gotta read those books. Sounds like Zahn had the right idea. For the good guys to be breeding clone armies of cannon fodder just never set right with me.
A lot of people have lost sight of the fact that the Clone Wars didn't have a good guy side and a bad guy side (like the Rebellion against the Empire).
There weren't any good guys breeding clone armies. The armies had already been bred when a good guy (Obi-Wan) first discovered them, and then another good guy (Yoda) showed up to take command of them. The Jedi didn't know it, but the armies were bred in accordance with the plots of Darth Sidious, the Dark Lord of the Sith who was really calling all the shots of the Seperatist movement. Darth Sidious was another identity of Supreme Chancellor Palpatine who lead the Republic. Sidious/Palpatine was contolling both sides of the Clone Wars, so there was no "good guy" side in the war. Both sides were the "bad guy" side. The good guys (the Jedi), the clones, and the all the rest of the bad guys were all just pawns of the main bad guy.
If there were no clones, then there would be no army to fight all the droids. Since clones were superior to droids, they had to be on the side that was supposed to win the manufactured war. And there had to be clones in the war because Obi-Wan referrred to the Clone Wars in the original movie. See, it all makes perfect sense.
At the very least, they could have avoided using the clones as cannon fodder. There was no moral justification for what they did, yet the Jedi posture and preen like they're morally unassailable no matter what they do. Reminds me of Starfleet!
The fact that there were no good or bad guys in that fight, and they were all being manipulated by Palps, is one of the chief reasons the PT was dramatically inert. Ordinarily, audiences need someone to root for. Maybe there's a way to make a story like that work, but it was beyond Lucas' ability.
I defy anyone to make a story work where the people we're supposed to identify with and root for are pawns. It makes them look like schmucks, and the audience look like fools for spending good money to watch a movie about schmucks.
It's not difficult to take some convoluted bullshit story that Lucas pulled out of his ass, and twist it around so it "makes sense." It's another thing entirely to come up with a story that works as satisfying drama, which the PT wasn't within 12 parsecs of being.
In the 1998 cult classic video game Xenogears, most of the playable characters are destined to be 'pieces of God', the resurrection of a machine built by humanity many thousands of years ago which crashed onto the planet's surface and enabled a complex, sentient program to rebuild itself by recreating its creators. Thus, you are playing as pawns for almost the entire game, until in the last, heroic act you defy your fate and fight for the rights to the world you've known as home... no matter who or what made that so.
The point is: pawns work, but you need to be able to have those pawns break the 'chains of fate', as they say, in the finale. Otherwise, yeah.
The point is: pawns work, but you need to be able to have those pawns break the 'chains of fate', as they say, in the finale. Otherwise, yeah.
The prequels were always meant to be a backstory to another story. I don't enjoy them as stand-alone episodes or a stand-alone trilogy as much as they are a part of an overall story that ends in Episode VI. Well, TPM is about as stand-alone as the original Star Wars. (conclusive heroic stories except that the Sith menace is still out there in TMP, and Vader survives ANH.)
Like the prequels or not, tragedy is valid form of drama. And for some fans, the tragedy of the prequel trilogy serves to intensify the drama of the original story. My wife had never seen the originals when we first met in late 2005, so I showed the movies to her in chronological order to contrast her experience to mine.
My wife had no clue that Anakin became Vader, and she had no idea who would live or die because she didn't know that any prequel characters were necessarily in the classic trilogy. She still sympathized with Anakin after his mother died in his arms and he reacted in a murderous rage, killing his mother's torturers. But my wife was still totally shocked when Anakin chose to help Palpatine, and Mace Windu got killed. And then she thoroughly despised him when he killed Jedi children. Not knowing the dramatic structure of the saga, she assumed that RotS would end with Yoda defeated Palpatine and Obi-Wan killing Anakin so the Jedi and Republic could be rebuilt. When Yoda was defeated, Anakin was transformed into an armored cyborg, and Padme died, she finally realized she was watching a tragedy. And of course seeing the babies made her realize that the prequel trilogy is about one tragic generation and the classic trilogy is about the next generation. She still had hope for the saga to have a happy ending.
She felt that the drama when Leia was captured on the Death Star and Luke was in the Death Star trench run was intensified by knowing that Vader the child-killer was Leia and Luke's father despite the fact none of them knew it. Yoda is my wife's favorite SW character and she loves muppets, so she was delighted by Yoda's mischevious testing of Luke's patience despite already knowing who he was before Luke did. And she still felt Luke's pain when Vader revealed the truth about Anakin Skywalker to him despite already knowing it herself.
And when Luke faced the two Sith lords on the second Death Star, she assumed that Luke would somehow kill his father and good would triumph over evil in a more conventional way that she had been expecting. When Luke cut off Vader's hand, she thought of Anakin and Mace Windu. When Luke passed his trial of not becoming like his father and giving in to evil, my wife was still pissed off when Luke threw away his saber. My wife was on the edge of her seat. When Palpatine was electrocuting Luke with the Dark Side, she noticed that Anakin seemed to be considering something, and it dawned on her what he was thinking right before he made the choice to save his son. She realized at that moment that the overall story of the saga had been about the fall and redemption of Anakin. She had hated Anakin/Vader, but was thrilled that he finally made the right choice to save his son and sacrifice himself to destroy the Sith. Qui-Gon Jinn had been right - Anakin was the chosen one afterall.
Good triumphed over evil. But it happened within the characters instead of just the good guys killed the bad guys. Luke and Anakin beat the Dark Side in themselves. My wife does like the classic trilogy more, but she said she feels that the prequel trilogy made her appreciate it more than if she hadn't watched it. And the classic movie that was spoiled the most by the prequels, TESB, is still her favorite movie of them all anyway. She said it has the most Yoda.
I had a better appreciation for the classic trilogy after seeing the prequels, but I enjoy them as tragedy and backstory. But to each his or her own.
Like the prequels or not, tragedy is valid form of drama. And for some fans, the tragedy of the prequel trilogy serves to intensify the drama of the original story. My wife had never seen the originals when we first met in late 2005, so I showed the movies to her in chronological order to contrast her experience to mine.
My wife had no clue that Anakin became Vader, and she had no idea who would live or die because she didn't know that any prequel characters were necessarily in the classic trilogy. She still sympathized with Anakin after his mother died in his arms and he reacted in a murderous rage, killing his mother's torturers. But my wife was still totally shocked when Anakin chose to help Palpatine, and Mace Windu got killed. And then she thoroughly despised him when he killed Jedi children. Not knowing the dramatic structure of the saga, she assumed that RotS would end with Yoda defeated Palpatine and Obi-Wan killing Anakin so the Jedi and Republic could be rebuilt. When Yoda was defeated, Anakin was transformed into an armored cyborg, and Padme died, she finally realized she was watching a tragedy. And of course seeing the babies made her realize that the prequel trilogy is about one tragic generation and the classic trilogy is about the next generation. She still had hope for the saga to have a happy ending.
She felt that the drama when Leia was captured on the Death Star and Luke was in the Death Star trench run was intensified by knowing that Vader the child-killer was Leia and Luke's father despite the fact none of them knew it. Yoda is my wife's favorite SW character and she loves muppets, so she was delighted by Yoda's mischevious testing of Luke's patience despite already knowing who he was before Luke did. And she still felt Luke's pain when Vader revealed the truth about Anakin Skywalker to him despite already knowing it herself.
And when Luke faced the two Sith lords on the second Death Star, she assumed that Luke would somehow kill his father and good would triumph over evil in a more conventional way that she had been expecting. When Luke cut off Vader's hand, she thought of Anakin and Mace Windu. When Luke passed his trial of not becoming like his father and giving in to evil, my wife was still pissed off when Luke threw away his saber. My wife was on the edge of her seat. When Palpatine was electrocuting Luke with the Dark Side, she noticed that Anakin seemed to be considering something, and it dawned on her what he was thinking right before he made the choice to save his son. She realized at that moment that the overall story of the saga had been about the fall and redemption of Anakin. She had hated Anakin/Vader, but was thrilled that he finally made the right choice to save his son and sacrifice himself to destroy the Sith. Qui-Gon Jinn had been right - Anakin was the chosen one afterall.
Good triumphed over evil. But it happened within the characters instead of just the good guys killed the bad guys. Luke and Anakin beat the Dark Side in themselves. My wife does like the classic trilogy more, but she said she feels that the prequel trilogy made her appreciate it more than if she hadn't watched it. And the classic movie that was spoiled the most by the prequels, TESB, is still her favorite movie of them all anyway. She said it has the most Yoda.
I had a better appreciation for the classic trilogy after seeing the prequels, but I enjoy them as tragedy and backstory. But to each his or her own.
Backstory is for novels and fanfic. The movies could have been so much more. The story of Anakin's fall could and should have been amazing and tragic rather than stupid and annoying.
Oh well, no sense bitching about it. I've heard that the Thrawn trilogy and Clone Wars are much more "what Star Wars should be," so I'll concentrate on enjoying those, as long as they're as good as advertised. Since they're written by people other than Lucas, I have high hopes.
AHEM. I hate doing this but.... This is me. I'm not the prettiest person alive but I'm far from ugly either. And I've been a fan since I was 10 years old and have always been open about it (I think all my action figures/posters gave it away) I'm 25 now. I'm not anti-social or lacking friends. I am studying physics. The point of this? There's actually lots of fans of Trek that aren't falling into that stereotype. People who are pretty attractive. I organize Trek nights with some of my friends and there's a variety of people from campus who stop by and it's the coolest mix of people. I never associated Trekkies with unattractiveness.
I agree that this movie attracted more people in general but that's the general public, young and old, fans and non-fans, blondes and brunettes - you pick. The quantity is bigger, but appearance wise, I haven't seen much change in the general moviegoers as far as appearances go. Hell I met my ex-girlfriend at a Wrath of Khan viewing at one of the local theaters. She was all dressed up as nurse Chapel. Gorgeous as hell and knew her Trek really well.
Sorry it just bugs me that people still make those stereotypes. I recently met up with an old friend I haven't seen in years and I told him I was going to a Trek mini party later and he laughed and said "Oh god, I can imagine you being the only skinny person there. Watch out for those 40-year-old virgins." - urghhh I literally walked away. These people are my friends. And they live happy, healthy lives as far as I know. The variety in ages, races, shapes & sizes when it comes to fans is what makes it great. I don't even know if you get what I mean here. I just dislike the reaction I get from non-Trekkies when I mention that I am a fan or when I say I'm going to a Trek event because they always act surprised and they always joke about how the other fans must look like.
As for this subject. I do like JJ's Trek reboot but I prefer TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voy to it (I haven't really given Enterprise a proper shot because of school). Maybe it's nostalgia but as much as I loved the new movie, and I truly did, I was missing something from the old Trek. I can't quite put my finger on it either. Though I highly doubt they'll ever do a show that follows the old formula, they'll undoubtedly do whatever they can to follow NuTrek's formula to a T.
Last edited:
Fellow BBSers, I believe we have a new Queen. Someone get her an advisory position and a speaking role in XII stat!
Judging from the photo post, I believe there's far more Kings and Queens than you think (everyone in my opinion but that's just me). You missed my point though ... well of course you did, what was I thinking trying to argue that way pfft cheap move sir. Cheap move.
Similar threads
- Locked
