And I'm pretty sure Gene Roddenberry had no problem with TNG contradicting TOS, I remember a quote that if TNG contradicted TOS that TNG would be right.
Why the Prime Universe makes sense for new Trek series
- Thread starter intrinsical
- Start date
Exactly so. The "century later" thing was a fig leaf for recreating and changing the original format.
It was a continuation of the timeline. That's why it took place in the same timeline but at a later point. A reboot would have, well, rebooted the timeline. Words mean things people.
Mr Awe
Exactly so.
They don't necessarily mean what you'd like them to, though, nor are they unambiguous.
"Reboot" in the literal sense doesn't have a thing to do with entertainment.
In any event, there is no essential difference in the settings or premise of TOS and TNG; the 24th century is in no way a realistic project of TOS's world a century later - it is the same world, with a few of the edges filed down and the furniture moved a bit.
The producers were just doing Star Trek over again, the same way they tried to do 13 years later with Enterprise.
"Reboot" in the literal sense doesn't have a thing to do with entertainment.
In any event, there is no essential difference in the settings or premise of TOS and TNG; the 24th century is in no way a realistic project of TOS's world a century later - it is the same world, with a few of the edges filed down and the furniture moved a bit.
The producers were just doing Star Trek over again, the same way they tried to do 13 years later with Enterprise.
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
The point is not that you can't still write TREK stories set in the Prime timeline. I've been doing it for over twenty years now and have no intention of stopping anytime soon.
But it's a trade-off, particularly when you're producing an expensive TV program that needs millions of viewers to thrive. You have to weigh the benefits of all that accumulated world-building versus any cost in ratings, accessibility, anachronisms, and the ability to update and reinvent things for a new generation of viewers.
If CBS decides at some point that all that old "canon" has become more of hindrance than a help, then they may well decide that a fresh start is the best way to re-launch TREK on TV.
Or not.
But it's a judgment call, not a deal-breaker, and it's not really going to determine whether the new show is worth watching or not. First and foremost, the new show has to capture and keep the audience's attention, not make sure it fits into the old continuity at all costs.
Last edited:
Here are some quotes from people who worked with Roddenberry on Star Trek.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon#TV_series
Here is a particularly good one:
Kurtzman will likely deal with the new show the same way, take what he likes, ignore what he doesn't. If you have a problem with that, write your own show.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon#TV_series
Here is a particularly good one:
Kurtzman will likely deal with the new show the same way, take what he likes, ignore what he doesn't. If you have a problem with that, write your own show.
Ding, ding, ding...
I think though that there is a consensus on what it means and the origins of the term. It's pretty basic in that reboot is equated with starting over. Your computer is the same, the hardware is the same, the software is the same, but the memory has been wiped. In that analogy, memory is continuity or "canon," and that's how it has often been applied. Of course, this usage does become ambiguous like you say, but only because people misuse it or draw the analogy to something other than continuity. Or they don't quite understand the computer terminology, which is understandable.
There are plenty of things which often accompany a continuity reboot that don't necessarily make it one in itself, like making changes to designs to be contemporary. There aren't very many continuity reboots that don't do this, but there are plenty of continuations that do. If we were to go back to the analogy of computers, that would probably be like updating an operating system or even just changing the computer's appearance theme. A reboot in itself would not do these things.
From a computing standpoint, there really isn't such a thing as a partial reboot or "reboot to an extent." The term used in these situations is typically just retroactive or selective continuity, trying to maintain the illusion of one coherent continuity. That's what all of the Trek spin-offs used. It's probably what a new show would do too if it doesn't indeed reboot.
I assume 'reboot' merely means overhauling it and it may or may not mean 'reimagining' it.
'Reimagining' or just a simple remake is the term we're looking for starting again. TNG is a "sequel", so to speak, of TOS not a remake of TOS.
That's what I assume anyway.
'Reimagining' or just a simple remake is the term we're looking for starting again. TNG is a "sequel", so to speak, of TOS not a remake of TOS.
That's what I assume anyway.
Rebooting a show and rebooting a timeline are different things.
Rebooting a timeline is something only some fans really care about. Producers are more practical. In the case of TNG, the producers said "We want Trek back on TV, but the old actors are too old and the 60s sets look dated. We'll use younger actors and a modern set, and we'll say it takes place some time after TOS, to explain why its different from the old show."
Yeah, this is the way I always saw it, ever since "Farpoint" with its display of tropes that screamed it was all but a reboot, really.
On the origins? Yes. On what it means? Not really.
Except that reboots usually ignore the entire previous continuity. TNG did not. It specifically refered to events in the original series.
Aside from the The Naked Now and McCoy's cameo I can't think of any early ones. Once TNG was running on it's own they brought in Spock and Scotty for a "very special episode".
Well, I suppose it's like people arguing over the usage of the word "literally." There are people who use it incorrectly and don't know any better, people who use it incorrectly as hyperbole, and people who get upset when people don't use it as originally intended. Words change over time and start to grow new meanings. That's kinda how I saw it here anyways.
Last edited:
We shouldn't take the computer analogy too literally. In computing there may be no such thing as a semi-reboot, but we're talking Hollywood here, not programming.
It was a direct continuation with multiple characters from TOS crossing over to TNG (and movies) who were played by the same actors. Specific story lines were referenced (Naked Time in Naked Now). And, in DS9, the crew actually appear in a TOS episode! Visual references in TNG tie back to the ships of TOS with no variation.
I don't see how it's not a direct continuation of the timeline. There was no intent among Roddenberry or the others that the events in TOS either didn't happen or happened differently, which is a very different approach than the reboot Trek movies.
By your definition, TNG season two was a reboot of TNG season 1. After all, they were just trying to do the same thing over again!
Mr Awe
Last edited:
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
The point is not that you can't still write TREK stories set in the Prime timeline. I've been doing it for over twenty years now and have no intention of stopping anytime soon.
But it's a trade-off, particularly when you're producing an expensive TV program that needs millions of viewers to thrive. You have to weigh the benefits of all that accumulated world-building versus any cost in ratings, accessibility, anachronisms, and the ability to update and reinvent things for a new generation of viewers.
If CBS decides at some point that all that old "canon" has become more of hindrance than a help, then they may well decide that a fresh start is the best way to re-launch TREK on TV.
Or not.
But it's a judgment call, not a deal-breaker, and it's not really going to determine whether the new show is worth watching or not. First and foremost, the new show has to capture and keep the audience's attention, not make sure it fits into the old continuity at all costs.
I was being facetious, as I'm sure you realized. But, my point was that it is possible to write in an established, detailed, lengthy history and still tell amazing stories.
I love, love the novel The Scarlet Pimpernel. Clearly, that novel had to fit in with a very detailed historical context of the Reign of Terror, and it was fantastic.
And, yes, you do it very well! I don't read many Trek novels but I have enjoyed several of yours.
I don't have a strong opinion either way about the new Trek series. I have to admit, it would be nice to return to the more simple sense of of wonder and exploration in TOS without the overarching timeline.
On the other hand, I did very much enjoy the extended ENT/TOS/TNG/DS9 timeline. I certainly wouldn't mind more episodes set in it. I wonder if they set the new series say 100 years post Voyager if they could have their cake and eat it too? Enjoy the benefits of that timeline but yet enough time has past to change things up?
Either way, I hope to enjoy it! The main thing, of course, is that they tell good stories. If they do that, most people won't be complaining.
Mr Awe
