Why do they keep going back to the Kirk era?

[The Wormhole]

Compare the JJ Trek movies to Nemesis and you can see the huge difference in visual style. Nemesis looks like a made for TV movie whereas JJ's Star Trek looks epic and modern.

To be fair, part of that has to do with Paramount allowing Abrams a much larger budget for his movies than they ever allowed Berman for his. Make of that what you will.

Canon is important though-I'm sorry I just can't excited if everything contradicts everything.

Star Trek's been contradicting itself almost from the very beginning. Remember, when TOS started, the Enterprise belonged to an organization called UESPA, Spock was a Vulcanian who only had human ancestry. And his homeworld was conquered by humans.

Hey, why doesn't that ever get brought up in the Starfleet military discussions? Everyone always says "Gene's Vision" is about humanity exploring space, but an early TOS episode clearly has them admitting to being conquerors.

 

[Vger23]

Hey, why doesn't that ever get brought up in the Starfleet military discussions? Everyone always says "Gene's Vision" is about humanity exploring space, but an early TOS episode clearly has them admitting to being conquerors.

I'm sorry gentlemen...I'm a soldier...not a diplomat.

-James T. Kirk "Errand of Mercy"

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm sorry gentlemen...I'm a soldier...not a diplomat.

-James T. Kirk "Errand of Mercy"

Yeah, but you'd be surprised how quickly that gets dismissed by the "not a military" gang.

 

[Romulan_spy]

To be fair, part of that has to do with Paramount allowing Abrams a much larger budget for his movies than they ever allowed Berman for his. Make of that what you will.

True but the two things are interconnected. Berman's TNG movies got less money because they were not very good. And it is a nasty vicious cycle. More money might have helped the movies but their poor performance pretty much guaranteed that they would never get it. And without more money, they would be less successful, in turn continuing the cycle of not getting more money. JJ is a big name and he was starting fresh so he was able to break that cycle. But there was zero chance of Berman ever getting the kind of budget that JJ got.

 

[The Wormhole]

Paramount has had a tight leash on Trek movie budgets ever since the TMP fiasco, which ironically TMP was one of the higher-grossing Trek films anyway. It took a name like JJ Abrams to convince the studio to throw money at the franchise again.

 

[Vger23]

Why do they keep going back to Kirk era?

1) Brand recognition. Kirk and Spock are iconic characters that have become synonymous with Star Trek. They have broad public appeal which means it is easier to market the movies and shows to the general public. I think a big reason why the Marvel and DC movies do so well is name recognition. Everybody knows Captain America, Wonder Woman or Superman. You can take superheroes with huge public appeal and put them in a cool looking movie and it's instant box office gold. Nowadays, with the huge competition from big franchises, name recognition becomes even more important. You are simply not going to attract a big enough audience if you lack name recognition.

2) Writer fatigue. I think writers were getting tired by the end of Voyager. They had forgotten how to write compelling character stories and were just relying on technobabble to save the day. Voyager's bat-armor anyone? So, I think TPTB wanted to go back to a more primitive era in order to get away from the uber tech of the post-Voyager era.

3) The aesthetic and visuals were looking "old fashioned". Compare the JJ Trek movies to Nemesis and you can see the huge difference in visual style. Nemesis looks like a made for TV movie whereas JJ's Star Trek looks epic and modern. Let's face it: Nemesis was a box office bomb back when it came out, it would totally bomb now in the face of movies like Wonder Woman and Guardians of the Galaxy. TPTB saw the writing on the wall and realized they needed a big refresh. And yes, TPTB could have just refreshed the Voyager look to look more modern, but I think they preferred to go back to the Kirk era since they could combine a fresh look with iconic characters. 2 for 1!

Having said all that, I personally love the post-Voyager era in terms of tech and I so wish we could get a movie or TV show set in that era. I think with good writers and good producers, it would be possible to make it fresh again. But I can understand why they go with the Kirk era, although at this point, it is starting to get repetitive. There is more to the Star Trek universe than what Kirk and Spock did!

I agree with a lot of what you said here, and have for some considerable time.

I think there's another, largely overlooked reason, that you did not bring up however.

It is that the writers and show-runners really painted themselves into a corner with the way humanity and the Federation were portrayed in the 24th century. "The utopian, no-conflict, evolved humanity approach" that this era embraced so pompously unfortunately does not lend itself to ease of storytelling. In fact, they were so entrenched in that approach that Janeway at one point gives that speech to someone (can't remember the character or the context) about how the 23rd Century Starfleet was filled with a bunch of cavalier loose cannons and cowboys and how that would never be acceptable now (similar to Picard's pompous lecture to Spock about "cowboy diplomacy" in Unification).

So, not only did 24th century Trek not have the pioneering / adventure spirit that the 23rd was build on...but they went so far as to explicitly laugh in the face of that kind of attitude.

Again, painted themselves into a corner.

So...I think the retreat to the 22nd (Enterprise) and 23rd (JJVerse, Discovery) centuries is an attempt to re-capture the cowboy spirit that was written out of characters in the 24th century versions. It's a tangible way of leaving that philosophy behind to open up the possibility of still having a future filled with hope and aspiration...but having the intrigue and drama of flawed people in a flawed world working toward those ideals.

In short, it's simply a more interesting environment to create stories.

 

[Romulan_spy]

I think there's another, largely overlooked reason, that you did not bring up however.

It is that the writers and show-runners really painted themselves into a corner with the way humanity and the Federation were portrayed in the 24th century. "The utopian, no-conflict, evolved humanity approach" that this era embraced so pompously unfortunately does not lend itself to ease of storytelling. In fact, they were so entrenched in that approach that Janeway at one point gives that speech to someone (can't remember the character or the context) about how the 23rd Century Starfleet was filled with a bunch of cavalier loose cannons and cowboys and how that would never be acceptable now (similar to Picard's pompous lecture to Spock about "cowboy diplomacy" in Unification).

So, not only did 24th century Trek not have the pioneering / adventure spirit that the 23rd was build on...but they went so far as to explicitly laugh in the face of that kind of attitude.

Again, painted themselves into a corner.

So...I think the retreat to the 22nd (Enterprise) and 23rd (JJVerse, Discovery) centuries is an attempt to re-capture the cowboy spirit that was written out of characters in the 24th century versions. It's a tangible way of leaving that philosophy behind to open up the possibility of still having a future filled with hope and aspiration...but having the intrigue and drama of flawed people in a flawed world working toward those ideals.

In short, it's simply a more interesting environment to create stories.

Great point. You nailed it! I think the JJ Trek movie really illustrates your point perfectly as the movie indeed mixed both the pioneering, cowboy adventure with a sense of optimism and hope.

Although I do think the writers could have put the pioneering adventure back into post-Voyager Star Trek with the right vision. For example, they could have done a Trek series where a slipstream capable ship, like the Aventine, explores a whole new galaxy for the first time. And the writers could have just decided to ignore the self-righteous aspect of TNG and made their characters more adventurous since they are exploring a new galaxy.

 

[BillJ]

My only issue with Discovery, is them trying to sell it as the "Prime" timeline. Too many things are changing visually and the world around us has changed too much for it to fit with the "Star Trek" I grew up with.

It would be like trying to sell The Dark Knight trilogy as a prequel to the 60's Batman TV series.

 

[Vger23]

Great point. You nailed it! I think the JJ Trek movie really illustrates your point perfectly as the movie indeed mixed both the pioneering, cowboy adventure with a sense of optimism and hope.

Although I do think the writers could have put the pioneering adventure back into post-Voyager Star Trek with the right vision. For example, they could have done a Trek series where a slipstream capable ship, like the Aventine, explores a whole new galaxy for the first time. And the writers could have just decided to ignore the self-righteous aspect of TNG and made their characters more adventurous since they are exploring a new galaxy.

I do agree with this 100%. You could actually claim that it is "laziness" that they didn't find a way to infuse that attitude back into a more "go-forward" setting. That said, my guess is that it was not just "ease of implementation" that drove it, but also general perception (ie: What does the public relate to these various eras? Picard / Janeway being viewed as thoughtful and evolved vs. Kirk / Spock being viewed as people of action and taking charge even when they are wrong). So, that comes back to the marketing / public perception campaign as well.

This is not to insult any of the Berman-era Trek (I am re-watching TNG right now and watched every episode during the first-run...and DS9 is one of my favorite shows of all time), but it is really hard to see it any other way!

 

[Vger23]

Yeah, but you'd be surprised how quickly that gets dismissed by the "not a military" gang.

No...I know!

I can call a Snickers bar a "quick, high-calorie blood sugar enhancer" because I want to feel better about the food I'm eating...but it's a @#$% Snickers. The "not a military" group is very much the same. You can use whatever examples you want...but it's content and behavior that matter. Starfleet has content and behavior that establish it as a future military organization. Regardless of what we (or even the characters who are fooling themselves) say...it is what it is.

 

[Nyotarules]

Starfleet has content and behavior that establish it as a future military organization.

Red alert, red alert! Resurrection of 'same ole debate' ahead at warp factor 10 Captain!

 

[Prax]

Why do they keep going back to Kirk era?

1) Brand recognition. Kirk and Spock are iconic characters that have become synonymous with Star Trek. They have broad public appeal which means it is easier to market the movies and shows to the general public. I think a big reason why the Marvel and DC movies do so well is name recognition. Everybody knows Captain America, Wonder Woman or Superman. You can take superheroes with huge public appeal and put them in a cool looking movie and it's instant box office gold. Nowadays, with the huge competition from big franchises, name recognition becomes even more important. You are simply not going to attract a big enough audience if you lack name recognition.

2) Writer fatigue. I think writers were getting tired by the end of Voyager. They had forgotten how to write compelling character stories and were just relying on technobabble to save the day. Voyager's bat-armor anyone? So, I think TPTB wanted to go back to a more primitive era in order to get away from the uber tech of the post-Voyager era.

3) The aesthetic and visuals were looking "old fashioned". Compare the JJ Trek movies to Nemesis and you can see the huge difference in visual style. Nemesis looks like a made for TV movie whereas JJ's Star Trek looks epic and modern. Let's face it: Nemesis was a box office bomb back when it came out, it would totally bomb now in the face of movies like Wonder Woman and Guardians of the Galaxy. TPTB saw the writing on the wall and realized they needed a big refresh. And yes, TPTB could have just refreshed the Voyager look to look more modern, but I think they preferred to go back to the Kirk era since they could combine a fresh look with iconic characters. 2 for 1!

Having said all that, I personally love the post-Voyager era in terms of tech and I so wish we could get a movie or TV show set in that era. I think with good writers and good producers, it would be possible to make it fresh again. But I can understand why they go with the Kirk era, although at this point, it is starting to get repetitive. There is more to the Star Trek universe than what Kirk and Spock did!

I agree with a lot of this, but I thought technobabble was a product of "Piller Filler." Once he left, it substantially diminished.

The 2nd thing I disagree with is Nemesis. I've never seen the entire film and can't comment on the story quality; but visually it looks quite "up to date." First Contact looks great too. Star Trek doesn't need to look uber flashy, or have 800+ lense flairs in a movie to be "current."

And the third and (most important) thing worth pointing out:
It was Berman who wanted to get away from the 24th century and do something more original.
And it was Paramount that wanted the opposite. When Voyager was soon to be ending, they wanted a 24th/25th century show to begin immediately. Berman wanted to wait a few years. If he had quit, they would have brought on a new EP and a sequel series would have been created.

You guys can thank him later, though.

 

[Prax]

Red alert, red alert! Resurrection of 'same ole debate' ahead at warp factor 10 Captain!

And it was resting so peacefully...

 

[fireproof78]

And it was resting so peacefully...

We forgot to shoot it in the head.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek's been contradicting itself almost from the very beginning. Remember, when TOS started, the Enterprise belonged to an organization called UESPA, Spock was a Vulcanian who only had human ancestry. And his homeworld was conquered by humans.

You forgot that Vulcan never lie either.

My only issue with Discovery, is them trying to sell it as the "Prime" timeline. Too many things are changing visually and the world around us has changed too much for it to fit with the "Star Trek" I grew up with.

It would be like trying to sell The Dark Knight trilogy as a prequel to the 60's Batman TV series.

I feel like that's a false equivalency, The Dark Knight trilogy never claimed to be, and presented itself in a much different way than the 60s series.

DSC claims, of course, will be measured by how the episodes they present the issue. At least to my mind. I'm more than will to make up convoluted explanations in my head

 

[BillJ]

I feel like that's a false equivalency, The Dark Knight trilogy never claimed to be, and presented itself in a much different way than the 60s series.

You mean like how Discovery will be presented in a much different way than the 60's series?

 

[fireproof78]

You mean like how Discovery will be presented in a much different way than the 60's series?

I was more talking how the fictional history and how it will fit within the timeline, but your point is fair.

I just won't see it as a discrepancy until I see the show.

 

[Kor]

Batman '66 was deliberately satirical pop art. Trek TOS wasn't.

Kor

 

[BillJ]

Batman '66 was deliberately satirical pop art. Trek TOS wasn't.

Kor

Then do Mission: Impossible. If the studio told you the Cruise movies were prequels, would you agree with that statement?

 

[fireproof78]

Then do Mission: Impossible. If the studio told you the Cruise movies were prequels, would you agree with that statement?

The first one, maybe.