will star trek ever return to prime universe?

[Greg Cox]

Bullshit. Trek is an optimistic sci-fi franchise in which humankind has defeated hunger, poverty, war and united to explore space, meet new people and encounter new challenges ... and no, there wasn't any paradigm shift between TOS and TNG. You cannot play the postmodern game of "Trek is whatever you want it to be" unless you confuse preferences with facts. There aren't any famines on Earth or any Imperial Federation warships cruising the Klingon border.

But TOS wasn't set on Earth. It was set out on the rugged final frontier, where, yes, there were famines and epidemics and massacres and border skirmishes. Heck, every other episode in Season 3 had the Enterprise rushing to deliver vital medical supplies to some endangered colony or planet that was being devastated by Denebian neural fever or something. Earth may or may not have been a utopia back then, but Star Trek wasn't about Earth. There wasn't a single episode set on Earth that didn't involve time-travel to the Great Depression or the Cold War. We never saw 23rd century Earth--ever.

And what about all those episodes I mentioned by name before? Are you denying those aren't part of Trek--or typical of TOS?

And I was referring to the fact that different fans can have very different ideas of what the "core" of Trek is. Some people watch it for the characters. Some people watch it for the science and hardware. Some people think it's all about a set of principles. All of them are right . . . and no two Trekkies are going to have the same priorities--as this board proves every day!

 

[F. King Daniel]

Bullshit. Trek is an optimistic sci-fi franchise in which humankind has defeated hunger, poverty, war and united to explore space, meet new people and encounter new challenges ... and no, there wasn't any paradigm shift between TOS and TNG. You cannot play the postmodern game of "Trek is whatever you want it to be" unless you confuse preferences with facts. There aren't any famines on Earth or any Imperial Federation warships cruising the Klingon border.

Gene Rodenberry himself admitted he was a revisionist. He altered the premises of Star Trek when it suited him. No money/no poverty/no war, all of that came later, when TOS became huge in syndication.

Here's what Star Trek is, from the first draft pitch in 1964...

STAR TREK is...

A one-hour dramatic television series.

Action - Adventure - Science Fiction.

The first such concept with strong central lead characters plus other continuing regulars.

...

STAR TREK is a "Wagon Train" concept -- built around characters who travel to worlds "similar" to our own, and meet the action-adventure-drama which becomes our stories.

Click here for the full pitch.

 

[Greg Cox]

To be fair, TOS certainly presented a notably optimistic view of the future, as opposed to the usual alien invasions, post-apocalyptic wastelands, or sterile dystopias. You had a future that largely worked, for the most part, but it was by no means utopian, especially out on the frontier. And the people (including aliens) were still recognizably human, driven by the same volatile emotions that have powered theater and drama since the days of "Oedipus Rex."

There's a difference between "optimistic" and "utopian" that Trek revisionists sometimes forget. All I know is that the show I grew up on was not afraid of letting its characters wrestle with anger, jealousy, etcetera, on occasion, like the half-civilized "child race" we were. And the final frontier was not always as squeaky-clean as some people want to pretend it was . . . .

 

[USS Intrepid]

I honestly can't think of a single movie or tv franchise that reverted back to a previous continuity after being rebooted.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes sort of does (though it sort of reboots it too). It's certainly closer to the original movie continuity than the Burton remake. Then again, I'll happily forget any of the original Apes sequel movies.

 

[Greg Cox]

I honestly can't think of a single movie or tv franchise that reverted back to a previous continuity after being rebooted.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes sort of does (though it sort of reboots it too). It's certainly closer to the original movie continuity than the Burton remake. Then again, I'll happily forget any of the original Apes sequel movies.

I think RISE is basically a second attempt at a reboot, with some fun "easter egg" homages to the original series. I don't remember any mention of experimental brain medications in the original films, plus there's the fact that CONQUEST had the apes revolting in the "futuristic" 1990s!

(Hmm. The apes revolted around the same time as the Eugenics Wars. Boy, that sounds like a fanfic waiting to be written!)

 

[Temis the Vorta]

But TOS wasn't set on Earth. It was set out on the rugged final frontier, where, yes, there were famines and epidemics and massacres and border skirmishes.

That's the key to understanding Trek, that it blithely declares Earth and the Federation to be a paradise and then procedes to largely ignore both and focus on the fun, dramatic part of the galaxy, the frontier of the Federation and beyond. Paradise is boring and doesn't make for good drama, but it does make for a good rationale to root for Our Heroes shooting aliens because they're defending paradise, dontcha know?

And that's something all the series have in common, even to some extent ENT, which really missed an opportunity to show a pre-enlightened Earth.

 

[Greg Cox]

But TOS wasn't set on Earth. It was set out on the rugged final frontier, where, yes, there were famines and epidemics and massacres and border skirmishes.

That's the key to understanding Trek, that it blithely declares Earth and the Federation to be a paradise and then procedes to largely ignore both and focus on the fun, dramatic part of the galaxy, the frontier of the Federation and beyond. Paradise is boring and doesn't make for good drama, but it does make for a good rationale to root for Our Heroes shooting aliens because they're defending paradise, dontcha know?

And that's something all the series have in common, even to some extent ENT, which really missed an opportunity to show a pre-enlightened Earth.

And, of course, DS9 took that notion and ran with it . . . .

 

[USS Intrepid]

I think RISE is basically a second attempt at a reboot, with some fun "easter egg" homages to the original series. I don't remember any mention of experimental brain medications in the original films, plus there's the fact that CONQUEST had the apes revolting in the "futuristic" 1990s!

(Hmm. The apes revolted around the same time as the Eugenics Wars. Boy, that sounds like a fanfic waiting to be written!)

Possibly, though I think it's open to interpretation. It certainly ignores the sequels, and I'm more than happy for it to do so, but Rise could still be in loose continuity with the first film.

Whether that's the intention or not, I have no idea.

Ape Khan? I'm there!

 

[Greg Cox]

I think RISE is basically a second attempt at a reboot, with some fun "easter egg" homages to the original series. I don't remember any mention of experimental brain medications in the original films, plus there's the fact that CONQUEST had the apes revolting in the "futuristic" 1990s!

(Hmm. The apes revolted around the same time as the Eugenics Wars. Boy, that sounds like a fanfic waiting to be written!)

Possibly, though I think it's open to interpretation. It certainly ignores the sequels, and I'm more than happy for it to do so, but Rise could still be in loose continuity with the first film.

Whether that's the intention or not, I have no idea.

Ape Khan? I'm there!

I don't think it counts as returning to original continuity if you have to ignore 4/5th's of the series!

(I'm trying to imagine the Trekkie response if they announced that they were going back to the original timeline--but only up to Star Trek: The Motion Picture.)

As for Ape Khan . . . hey, there was already an authorized Apes/Alien Nation crossover. Remember Ape Nation?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

That's the thing. I suspect people have different ideas about what is essentially "Star Trek." As a storyteller, I always find it little off-putting when people put abstract "principles" ahead of the basics of story, character, emotion, and drama. And as an old-school TOS partisan, I tend to object when people try to apply TNG-era standards to classic TOS, which really doesn't fit that mold at all.

I have to agree with this

Me, I grew up on TOS so that's still my touchstone where Trek is concerned, although I enjoyed the later series to various degrees--and have even written for most of them!

Meh, I'm 24 and grew up during the TNG/DS9 era and I tend to perfer TOS.

All I know is that the show I grew up on was not afraid of letting its characters wrestle with anger, jealousy, etcetera, on occasion, like the half-civilized "child race" we were. And the final frontier was not always as squeaky-clean as some people want to pretend it was . . . .

This right here is why I tend to perfer TOS

(I'm trying to imagine the Trekkie response if they announced that they were going back to the original timeline--but only up to Star Trek: The Motion Picture.)

Considering I perfer TWOK and the movies that came after and think TMP was kind of boring I would be annoyed.

 

[horatio83]

To be fair, TOS certainly presented a notably optimistic view of the future, as opposed to the usual alien invasions, post-apocalyptic wastelands, or sterile dystopias. You had a future that largely worked, for the most part, but it was by no means utopian, especially out on the frontier. And the people (including aliens) were still recognizably human, driven by the same volatile emotions that have powered theater and drama since the days of "Oedipus Rex."

There's a difference between "optimistic" and "utopian" that Trek revisionists sometimes forget. All I know is that the show I grew up on was not afraid of letting its characters wrestle with anger, jealousy, etcetera, on occasion, like the half-civilized "child race" we were. And the final frontier was not always as squeaky-clean as some people want to pretend it was . . . .

TUC and FC illustrate best what Trek is about. It is not about perfect people but rather about people who err yet realize a mistake before it is too late because they strive to improve themselves. Reactionary fans like to ignore in particular the last part which begs the question of why they watch an optimistic sci-franchise in the first place.
There is nothing revisionist about pointing out that Kirk did not want to command a starship because of fame and money but because it is his "first, best destiny" and there is nothing revisionist about pointing out that Kirk's whoring or McCoy grumpy bickering are anything but arbitrary character traits and not the core of Trek. Roddenberry's vision is and all the TNG bashing in the world will not convert some minor changes between the sixties and the eighties into a giant paradigm shift.

 

[Greg Cox]

^ Not sure how we got on to Kirk's "whoring," but . . . okay.

I like FIRST CONTACT and UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY, too..

 

[Ian Keldon]

Gene didnt' want emotions like hatred, jelaousy, lust, infighting etc in Trek, which removes your options of too many character driven stories. .

Gotta disagree with you there. Have you watched TOS lately? It's full of raw human emotions and conflict. Look at "Conscience of the King," which is all about guilt, murder, insanity, and revenge. Or "The Galileo Seven," with people losing their tempers under stress. Or "And Is there in Truth No Beauty?" which is an emotional drama full of lust and murder and jealousy. Or "The Enemy Within" in which Kirk realizes that he needs his primitive, animalistic side to be a whole human being. Or pretty much any scene with McCoy .

That was "TOS Gene". Younger, not burned out on drugs, and not having spent years reading his own press clippings and basking in the adoration of the "Trekkies".

Remember, according to the behind-the-scenes books and interviews that have come out over the years, "TNG Gene" was looking to do a "soft reboot" of Trek with TNG. That's why we got the "perfect people rule", why Fontanna and Gerald had to fight to get Worf in the show, etc.

Not sure where people got the idea that TOS was this purely cerebral, utopian exercise in science and rationality. It was full of flawed, passionate, very human characters who were frequently at odds with each other. Ultimately, drama is about character and emotion, the human heart in conflict with itself, not science and sociology.

Agreed, but all that was in short supply in the early TNG years as writers constantly had to deal with the "perfect people rule".

While Berman may still think that was the greatest thing since sliced bread (according to his interviews), TNG never got REALLY good in general until GR was basically edged out of the picture.

And the serieses that Berman took the most interest in going forward (late TNG, Voyager, and ENT Season 1-3 [+TATV]) were the weakest Treks in terms of drama and story development, while DS9 and ENT S4 (which suffered the least attention from Berman) were the strongest.

There's a reason everybody remembers "City on the Edge of Forever"--and that's because it's a tragic love story in which Kirk gets torn up inside . . . .

See above.

And I don't think lumping Kirk and Spock in with Bond or Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes or whomever is doing them a disservice. That's pretty good company to be in.

Honestly, Trek and Bond frankly deserve to be in one group by themselves and Tarzan, SH, etc in another, as they really aren't the same. Trek and Bond have been more consistent in being in the public eye and in public approval.

 

[Ian Keldon]

To be fair, TOS certainly presented a notably optimistic view of the future, as opposed to the usual alien invasions, post-apocalyptic wastelands, or sterile dystopias. You had a future that largely worked, for the most part, but it was by no means utopian, especially out on the frontier. And the people (including aliens) were still recognizably human, driven by the same volatile emotions that have powered theater and drama since the days of "Oedipus Rex."

There's a difference between "optimistic" and "utopian" that Trek revisionists sometimes forget. All I know is that the show I grew up on was not afraid of letting its characters wrestle with anger, jealousy, etcetera, on occasion, like the half-civilized "child race" we were. And the final frontier was not always as squeaky-clean as some people want to pretend it was . . . .

To be fair, looking at what GR said starting around the time Phase II was in development, he was changing those things to a great degree.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I honestly can't think of a single movie or tv franchise that reverted back to a previous continuity after being rebooted.

"Superman Returns" ignored "Superman III", "Supergirl" and "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" and was a sequel to "Superman II".

And, while not quite a reboot, would you count "Dallas" ignoring a whole season of post-Bobby death while "Knot's Landing" did not do a similar retraction?

 

[F. King Daniel]

I've read about Superman Returns ignoring the later Superman films, but I never saw anything in it that explicitly precludes them from having "happened". In fact, before I saw the alternate opening, I'd assumed the part of Krypon that Superman had gone off to explore for five years was Arco city from Supergirl.

 

[Tracer Bullet]

And, of course, DS9 took that notion and ran with it . . . .

Absolutely. I've argued for years that DS9 is the closest in spirit to TOS of any of the spin-offs.

 

[Greg Cox]

I honestly can't think of a single movie or tv franchise that reverted back to a previous continuity after being rebooted.

"Superman Returns" ignored "Superman III", "Supergirl" and "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" and was a sequel to "Superman II".

And, while not quite a reboot, would you count "Dallas" ignoring a whole season of post-Bobby death while "Knot's Landing" did not do a similar retraction?

Hmm. The Superman business comes close, but the Superman series had not been rebooted by the later films. It's more like Returns was a semi-reboot that chose to ignore the later sequels.

It's not like Superman IV had rebooted the old Christopher Reeve continuity, which the franchise then returned to. It just got excised from the ongoing continuity!

More of a retcon than a reboot, which probably applies to "Dallas" as well.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

And, of course, DS9 took that notion and ran with it . . . .

Absolutely. I've argued for years that DS9 is the closest in spirit to TOS of any of the spin-offs.

Yes, DS9 is the true successor to TOS. The DS9 characters don't have the awareness levels that make them worth recasting and bringing back, but when the franchise comes back to TV, they need to carry forward the TOS/DS9 attitude and phlosophy, with all new characters.