Why do they keep going back to the Kirk era?

[Mattadd]

Let's see, since Voyager ended, there have been three new iterations of Star Trek (once discovery premieres) and none of them will have taken place any later than the 23rd century.

Considering that all of Star Trek's best stuff was in the 24th century shows, why do producers keep insisting on going back to Star Trek's original time frame or earlier? It's so frustrating when I just want to see a continuation of what happened after DS9 and VOY. What happened after the DW? We'll never know because we've only gotten a show set in the delta quadrant, a show in the 22nd century, a show in the 23rd century and a movie series in an alternate dimension 23rd century, literally Trek's worst era. Why doesn't anybody give Michael Dorn his Captain Worf show for example? I would be much more eager to watch that than Discovery.

 

[Phil123]

Though I am hugely excited for Discovery, and getting new Trek generally, I have to admit that I too am quietly frustrated by this. I feel prequels have been overdone in genre TV and film recently.

Don't agree on the worst era part though. It's a great era, but one we already know.

 

[Relayer1]

Oh, I agree - there's a whole untouched 'forever' after DS9 and Voyager. Backing themselves (repeatedly) into corners with ill fitting prequels seems crazy.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Let's see, since Voyager ended, there have been three new iterations of Star Trek (once discovery premieres) and none of them will have taken place any later than the 23rd century.

Considering that all of Star Trek's best stuff was in the 24th century shows,

Disagree.

why do producers keep insisting on going back to Star Trek's original time frame or earlier?

Because it's what makes them the most money, and it's the era most people associate with Star Trek - Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise.

It's so frustrating when I just want to see a continuation of what happened after DS9 and VOY. What happened after the DW? We'll never know because we've only gotten a show set in the delta quadrant, a show in the 22nd century, a show in the 23rd century and a movie series in an alternate dimension 23rd century, literally Trek's worst era.

Take up reading. The Star Trek novelverse has been continuing on from the 24th century series' for almost 20 years now. Hundreds of novels, all a part of a huge intertwined continuity extending from the end of DS9, Voyager and Nemesis (along with a host of original crews and series) all the way up to 2386.

Why doesn't anybody give Michael Dorn his Captain Worf show for example? I would be much more eager to watch that than Discovery.

Check out Michael Dorn dressed as Worf in Ted 2. No offence, but I think his time has passed.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Cuz itz kewl

 

[Lonely Horse]

I agree with you completely on this. TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY (Voyager and DS9 overlapped but I liked the premise of a starship 75,000 light years away from federation space. Plus, they didn't go back in time.) I don't mind one prequel or so showing Garth of Izar (a former Starfleet hero who eventually descended into madness seen in TOS), Tryla Scott (the youngest Starfleet officer to take command of a ship seen in TNG) or someone else who seemed to be a significant figure but was never really looked into. But to me, re-using the original characters just comes across as bad and lazy writing. Enterprise, though I do think they did a good job of creating a bridge which wasn't too dissimilar to that of TOS as well as giving us some nice information on species such as the Andorians, I felt a lot of the main cast were pretty forgettable and so were many of the episodes. It's as if Paramount and CBS are too afraid to create new characters that live up to the standards of Picard, Seven of Nine, Spock, Odo and the rest that they've ended up going back to Gene Roddenberry's creations. To add to that, I think they've spent too long without a series set after the TNG movies, all the hardcore fans have come up with their own head canon.

 

[Mattadd]

What makes you think most people associate Star Trek with the original crew? Before the NuTrek movies they had only been in 3 seasons and 6 movies. That's a lot less screen time than literally every 24th century cast. I would guess Patrick Stewart comes to mind for a lot more people when they think of Star Trek than anyone who has played Kirk.

 

[The Wormhole]

TOS is the most popular. Pocket Books has confirmed their TOS novels set in the TV series era are the best selling Trek novels, and back in 2009 the fact that Trek XI was bring back Kirk Spock and the gang was a big deal and the movie's selling point, regardless if they were played by different actors. TOS is the Star Trek that continues to generate money even fifty years after its premiere, so it's the one that's going to be revisited. It really is that simple.

 

[Voth commando1]

Indeed it is the most financially successful and the only part of Trek that has burned into popular consciousness.

 

[The Old Mixer]

It's worth keeping in mind that Trek has been around for 50 years, and for the first 20, TOS was the one and only Star Trek...no subtitle.

 

[Shawnster]

It is felt by some that 50 years of Trek has brought about much bloat and baggage to the franchise. To set a series post-Voyager means having to deal with the bloat and baggage.. Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians, Dominion, Borg, etc... Rabid or not so rabid fans demanding the show adhere to canon. Feeling that creativity is stifled by the structure in place. My wife refuses to consider watching any original Trek because she feels she must catch up on 50 years of history before she understands what is going on.

A reboot is just that. A clean slate. No need to know what happened before.

The people in charge of Star Trek want to make the most money they can. That means appealing to the largest audience possible. That means not catering to a much smaller niche of fans. A Captain Worf series would be a niche series. Any series featuring a predominantly non human crew would not appeal to the casual viewer.

Anyone who participates on this board is definitely not a casual viewer.

 

[Vger23]

It's really naive to assume that the marketing/research folks don't know PRECISELY what has the most appeal. You don't make a $150-190M movie or a very expensive television show without having a very good idea of what will be popular.

Bottom line, the TOS era and attitude are obviously what sells. The TNG era is not thought to be of interest.

People need to let it go. I'm sorry that it's "not YOUR Trek era" or whatever your problem is. The writing has been on the wall since Nemesis tanked and Voyager was a disappointment. That stuff is kaput for now. It's not where the franchise is headed.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's worth keeping in mind that Trek has been around for 50 years, and for the first 20, TOS was the one and only Star Trek...no subtitle.

You beat me to the punch. It's not just about screen time. TOS had decades to burn itself into the general public's consciousness before the various.sequels and spin-offs came along.

 

[The Wormhole]

Also, what better gauge is there of fan wants/desires when all the fan-made productions on the internet are TOS based, with very little (if any?) based on the other shows. IIRC, I think the closest the fan productions have come to the 24th century is in ones that feature TOS characters living in the TNG era, which IMO still counts as TOS based.

 

[Forbin]

Personally, I'd like to see some production tackle the years between the TOS movie era and TNG. There's what, 80 years of Starfleet history to invent there. And you don't have to worry about anachronisms slipping in like they did with Enterprise.

 

[Nightdiamond]

I think its because while TOS is iconic, it does have its limitations. It was a product of the 60's so you can see it in how people talked, looked, the special effects. The show mainly focused on The Big Three and characters like Uhura and Rand were limited to 2 dimensional lives. So now it's stuck like that in reruns and we'll never get to see anything different.

The limitations, and not being able to see anything else may make fans crave something different.

I get a "meh" feeling too about the era, but I have feeling Discovery might surprise us, if they make it more exciting and leave out the mistakes of the past shows that made them boring and tired.

On the other hand-- the TNG/post TNG era got boring, to be honest. So many concepts and plots have been redone again and again. It looks now like the franchise is just figuring out where to go next (and which is more profitable).

And since the Nutrek movies have made money, the studio heads are going to stay in this era. It's also all going to depend on how the next NuTrek movie does and Discovery too.

 

[FormerLurker]

Voyager and DS9 overlapped but I liked the premise of a starship 75,000 light years away from federation space. Plus, they didn't go back in time.

Really? What show was it that Sarah Silverman guested in a two-part episode set in modern day San Francisco, then? Along with Ed Begley jr. as the main antagonist, a guy that was exploiting technology brought back to this time by someone from even further in the future than our heroes, who were seen buzzing San Francisco with their starship?

 

[Paul Weaver]

No idea. Rain Robinson was in LA (at what looked like the Grithiss observatory), Braxton was a hobo in Santa Monica, and LA (or at least the beach) was flattened in the 2020s.

 

[Prax]

I will tell you why this is.

The modern day film and television industry is desperately competitive. For big studio productions, profitability seems to depend on Brand Recognition. What is the most recognizable when it comes to Star Trek? Kirk, Spock, etc.

The Discovery Trailer opened with "TEN YEARS BEFORE KIRK, SPOCK, AND THE ENTERPRISE"(read in trailer guy voice)
There are so many movies out there(and shows) that are depending on Brand Recognition. We finally got that 2nd Ghostbusters sequel I always wanted as a child...great..., or all these superhero movies. I was a big marvel fan growing up. All I got was 1990 Captain America.
Or the new Star Wars movies: A Han Solo movie? Boba Fett? A movie about the death Star? Both Force Awakens and Rogue One are completely saturated with brand recognition. X-WINGS vs TIE Fighters! Planet destroying SUPERWEAPONS!

TV is making reboots and belated sequels up the wazoo also. Fuller House? Girl Meets World?

When Rick Berman was asked to make another Star Trek show, him and Braga decided to do ENT, but this was not for brand recognition. This was for creative reasons. They wanted to do something new. Berman said in an interview once "Make a show in the 25th century? What would that mean? Tighter pants and smaller tricorders?" Enterprise itself is a sequel to First Contact, but it takes place 100 years later; and a prequel to the other shows, but it is set 100-200 years earlier.

So I will finish with this. The way things are going, once the TOS well is dried up, you will get your future show. It may just be a long, long time.

It's not their fault...it's ours.

 

[Hey Missy]

Because when normal people think about Star Trek they think about Kirk, Spock, Klingons, Khan, Tribbles, and "The One With The Whales".
Why do you think the NuTrek movies shoved each of those in? (Space whales will be saved for Trek 14)