Why the Prime Universe makes sense for new Trek series

[Magellan]

Enterprise's failure had everything to do with it being part of the production process that had been used to create all the modern Trek shows - including the increasingly involved and restrictive continuity - and represented the final bottoming out of a ten year-long downward curve in viewership.

I agree like 99% with you here. Enterprise failure was because it was the same exact people who had been making Trek for over a decade. They had no new ideas and decided recycling TNG and Voyager but in a new century would reverse ratings decline. I don't get why you single out the restrictive canon. Enterprise is notorious for totally ignoring previously established facts to tell the stories they wanted to tell. The stories just weren't very good. Do you actually think if I renamed Scott Bakula's character Kirk and called it a reboot the show would have been any better, or any more popular?

Not directly. But it was held back because they had to write stories that made sense given the previous 24 seasons of television that told them what already happen.

A good writer wouldn't be restricted by writing a prequel that doesn't involve ANY established characters. They had literally the entire universe to play with still and all they could do was bring back things we'd already seen. Writers write stories set in the past allllllllll the time. it's not that restrictive. If you write a story in WWII you can't have the Germans win the Battle of Britain, but it doesn't mean it can't be exciting and interesting.......

 

[fireproof78]

Enterprise's failure had nothing to do with it being set in the Prime Universe. 0%

Not directly. But it was held back because they had to write stories that made sense given the previous 24 seasons of television that told them what already happen.

That's because it was a prequel. Had it been set after those shows those problems would not have been an issue for the most part. Prequels are notoriously unpopular in science firction. Just ask Star Wars fans.

I would argue if the new show is set in the Prime timeline and after the TNG era if it is so bankrupt of ideas that it needs to retcon established continuity then it's not going to last very long anyway. Doing a reboot (in my opinion) is the lazy option so old ideas can be jazzed up and made to look new. And yes, I am referring to the JJ Abrams movies

I've only seen a few episodes of it but as far as I know Dr. Who came back after years off the air and continued in the same universe. It allowed for the passage of time and presumably wasn't crippled by continuity since it's still going strong.

Doctor Who cares little about its own continuity, though. Continuity matters when it does and doesn't matter when it doesn't.

Doctor Who also trades in many modern fairy tale tropes at the moment, with the Doctor being almost a magician or wizard in terms of his attitude and behavior. Not exactly my model for Trek.

Also, prequels can work, if constructed properly with a plan. I loved Brian Herbert's "House Atredis" and sequels as a prequels for Dune. I've enjoyed many X-Men prequels as well.

Structure is really to key. A prequel should really inform about a situation in a way that makes the viewer go "Oh, I never thought of it that way before." It adds a twist to previously established material.

Which is why Enterprise worked for me on more an aesthetic level, feeling liked it was bridging the gap between NASA and TOS. I take exception with much of the other tech, but the ship itself made sense to me. Also, I enjoyed the Kelvn sequence in ST 09 for the same reasons.

 

[Takeru]

I like the fact all the shows and movies take place in the same universe. You don't see Star Wars fans saying the old universe had its day and it's time for a reboot so I don't see why Star Trek has to.

But Star Wars did get a sort of half reboot, the entirety of the old expanded universe was thrown out, that means decades of stories previously considered canon and unlike Star Trek there was no in story explanation shifting the action to a different universe, those Star Wars stories were simply tossed aside.

 

[Trekkin]

And oh my god, did you see people whine about it. We even had a thread about it.

Funny enough, today I saw a professional (as in they get paid) critic complaining about Moffat's current Doctor Who run. With no exaggeration by me, he said its biggest problem was that 'he (Moffat) was mostly concerned with telling a good story. This means he doesn't pay as much attention to continuity as he should.'

He then went on to complain about the episode lacking explanations that actually were there, blasted Moffat for 'breaking continuity' by contradicting something that the reviewer himself identified as an assumption on his part, and complained about previously established characters being completely forgotten by the writers... even though the footage he was speaking over showed that said characters appeared in what he was reviewing.

So yeah, Star Wars and Doctor Who were terrible examples. Their fans are too much like us.

 

[Belz...]

only the hardcore "fanboys" care overmuch about canon. Regular fans care about canon in that we liked the past episodes, the characters, and the universe (i.e. the setting) and would dislike it if it was "thrown out".

Hardcore fan here: I've been wanting a reboot since before the new Trek movies were announced.

Enterprise's failure had nothing to do with it being set in the Prime Universe. 0%.

No one claimed that it did.

You don't see Star Wars fans saying the old universe had its day and it's time for a reboot so I don't see why Star Trek has to.

Star Wars has six movies and one short series and a half. That's hardly comparable.

 

[Terok Nor]

That's because it was a prequel. Had it been set after those shows those problems would not have been an issue for the most part. Prequels are notoriously unpopular in science firction. Just ask Star Wars fans.

Wanna ask some X-Men fans while we're at it? How about some Batman fans?

Bad examples. All of the Batman movies take place in different continuities. Batman Begins is not a prequel. It's the first part of a trilogy set in a brand new continuity. It has nothing to do with any other Batman movie before it.

X-Men is also a poor example because First Class started out as a straight reboot then was altered into a prequel at the last minute causing multiple continuity errors that many fans and Bryan Singer complained about. This caused the entire timeline to be reset in Days Of Future Past. As for the Wolverine movies, sure they've made a lot of money but they're hardly cherished in the X-Men fandom.

What you seem to be arguing for is multiple versions of the same property. That's your prerogative and I respect it but I'm in favour of sticking to the established continuity. All it is is a difference of opinion

I like the fact all the shows and movies take place in the same universe. You don't see Star Wars fans saying the old universe had its day and it's time for a reboot so I don't see why Star Trek has to.

But Star Wars did get a sort of half reboot, the entirety of the old expanded universe was thrown out, that means decades of stories previously considered canon and unlike Star Trek there was no in story explanation shifting the action to a different universe, those Star Wars stories were simply tossed aside.

No offence to the expanded universe but it's irrelevant to me unless it occurred on screen. I used to read the Star Trek novels and many of them were fantastic stories from brilliant and talented writers but I never took any of it as canon and I never will unless it gets adapted to the screen in some way. Each to their own.

Star Wars has six movies and one short series and a half. That's hardly comparable.

Point taken.

The X-Files is back soon with the same actors and set in the same universe. It ended at roughly the same time as Star Trek on tv. Are you going to tell me The X Files doesn't have a complicated and expansive continuity? And yet it's coming back. Star Trek Prime can too.

 

[Trekkin]

How can we compare the rebooted X Files success when it hasn't come out yet? For all we know, it will crash and burn like the last film, which would prove the opposite point to what you're trying to make (not that I want to, of course.)

Plus, you know - unlike Trek, X-Files ended on an unresolved cliffhanger. Something to make the shows casual viewers and most of its fans want to see it directly continued, and also made them express their annoyance via their wallets when the last reboot failed to address it at all (and coz that movie just wasn't good enough to snag any other buzz).

Compare that to Trekkies, most of whom were perfectly fine with rebooting and moving on. From the studios POV, the audience is apparently more keen for the new setting than they were for 98% of the Trek movies that came before.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Enterprise's failure had nothing to do with it being set in the Prime Universe. 0%

Not directly. But it was held back because they had to write stories that made sense given the previous 24 seasons of television that told them what already happen.

Nothing was held back at all. If you read what a lot of writers of the show thought about continuity, they didn't say it was a hindrance or a hurdle to overcome. The Reeves-Stevens duo said that each series was kind of in its own bubble and could for the most part contradict things, and they were right. Manny Coto said that the continuity, while not perfect, was a rich tapestry that could have many more added layers.

These writers didn't sit down and say, "Oh bother, there's 24 prior seasons of continuity, I feel so hindered!" They had fun flipping things on their ear and making fans wonder how things could get from where they were to the time of TOS. They were creative using the confines of their continuity.

And yeah, some fans were pissed off, but none of that has any significance. The show didn't fail because they had cloaks or because there was a prior starship named Enterprise or because it looked like the Akira. Nobody gives a shit about that except for the more hardcores, and that group really had nothing to do with why the show(s) failed.

 

[Paradise City]

The only (major) thing imposed by canon on Enterprise with was that Earth had to have some kind of relationship with Vulcan.

And that's it.

The writers had a whole new universe to work with as they pleased and a fresh squad of writers would've made hay...

....if the captain had of been well cast and it began a numbers of years after the last series, so audiences would have a chance to recover from their extreme bout of Trek exhaustion.

 

[T'Girl]

The only (major) thing imposed by canon on Enterprise with was that Earth had to have some kind of relationship with Vulcan.

And even that was a variable, after first contact Humanity and the Vulcan could have remained essentially strangers until the Axanar peace mission made Humans and Vulcans "brothers."

There didn't have to be a single Vulcan seen on Enterprise.

 

[Mudd]

only the hardcore "fanboys" care overmuch about canon. Regular fans care about canon in that we liked the past episodes, the characters, and the universe (i.e. the setting) and would dislike it if it was "thrown out".

Hardcore fan here: I've been wanting a reboot since before the new Trek movies were announced.

Same here. It was my hope that Enterprise would be essentially and successfully this, as TNG had been to some extent.

 

[eyeresist]

The new producers will use as much Prime universe content as is convenient.

To do more would be foolish.

 

[Mudd]

Take a look at a very well-known, long-running character and franchise based in another medium - Superman.

John Byrne completely rebooted Superman in 1986. Up until then, the comic's writers maintained the conceit that the character's history was an unbroken "biography" stretching back to his first appearance. All the details changed over time but there was never a declared restart.*

That initial reboot has been revised and overwritten gods know how many times since 1986. Many elements and bits of character history, supporting cast and continuity that Byrne jettisoned have been reintroduced...and revised...and reintroduced again.

At no point, however, have TPTB declared that the latest and greatest (heh) version takes place "in the Silver Age Superman Universe."

*Addendum for the hopelessly nitpicky: I'm entirely aware that Supes' earliest "Golden Age" adventures were eventually ascribed to the "Earth II Superman," but - although this character existed on a parallel Earth - that Earth and all the Infinite Others were introduced as part and parcel of the single official continuity that was intended to unify without restarting or overwriting a single incident in DC/National Comics' superhero publishing history. It was all a confused and headache-inducing avoidance of a reboot, and one that TPTB finally decided was more trouble than it was worth. If you want to argue the details, go ahead; I'll ignore it.

 

[AviTrek]

The new producers will use as much Prime universe content as is convenient.

To do more would be foolish.

They'll use as much of the prime content as is convenient. They will also use as much of the jj content as is convenient. And they'll ignore the inconvenient content of both. Some would call that a reboot. Others may claim it's really the prime universe and then complain about differences. But the only people it will matter to will be some fans on internet message boards. For everyone else, they will just enjoy the story.

 

[poundpuppy29]

The new producers will use as much Prime universe content as is convenient.

To do more would be foolish.

and that is correct way to go I really don't understand this jj hate I know this is a big thing in the fandom but have any of you seen Alias it was a really great show with really good complex characters. It is all about the characters and story for me the new Trek show

 

[Greg Cox]

The new producers will use as much Prime universe content as is convenient.

To do more would be foolish.

and that is correct way to go I really don't understand this jj hate I know this is a big thing in the fandom but have any of you seen Alias it was a really great show with really good complex characters. It is all about the characters and story for me the new Trek show

I didn't just watch ALIAS. I wrote three of the novels.

And, yes, that was a great show . . . which also featured a floating ball of Red Matter.

 

[Mr Awe]

Not directly. But it was held back because they had to write stories that made sense given the previous 24 seasons of television that told them what already happen.

A good writer wouldn't be restricted by writing a prequel that doesn't involve ANY established characters. They had literally the entire universe to play with still and all they could do was bring back things we'd already seen. Writers write stories set in the past allllllllll the time. it's not that restrictive. If you write a story in WWII you can't have the Germans win the Battle of Britain, but it doesn't mean it can't be exciting and interesting.......

I don't know. I think the real world is just too restrictive of a canon to write within. Obviously writers won't be able to write good stories that are set in the real world.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

only the hardcore "fanboys" care overmuch about canon. Regular fans care about canon in that we liked the past episodes, the characters, and the universe (i.e. the setting) and would dislike it if it was "thrown out".

Hardcore fan here: I've been wanting a reboot since before the new Trek movies were announced.

Same here. It was my hope that Enterprise would be essentially and successfully this, as TNG had been to some extent.

TNG was a reboot to zero extent. It was a continuation that was set 70 or so years later.

Mr Awe

 

[AviTrek]

Hardcore fan here: I've been wanting a reboot since before the new Trek movies were announced.

Same here. It was my hope that Enterprise would be essentially and successfully this, as TNG had been to some extent.

TNG was a reboot to zero extent. It was a continuation that was set 70 or so years later.

Mr Awe

TNG was a soft reboot/retcon. Roddenberry kept what he liked and ignored what he didn't. If you don't realize that it's because you've read too many ex post facto attempts to shoehorn the differences in together.

 

[Squiggy]

Hardcore fan here: I've been wanting a reboot since before the new Trek movies were announced.

Same here. It was my hope that Enterprise would be essentially and successfully this, as TNG had been to some extent.

TNG was a reboot to zero extent. It was a continuation that was set 70 or so years later.

Mr Awe

It was a different ship, crew, uniform, bad guys, good guys, century, mission, tone, and method of delivery. It was a reboot in everything but a name.