|
||||||||
New Star Trek Series Coming in January 2017 |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#301 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
There's loads of female captains (and admirals) throughout Trek, the Captain of the NX-02 was female, as was Admiral Nechayev. I think this original discussion wasn't doubting that, but rather the lack of prominent command positions held by women in the earlier shows. There were (to my knowledge) no female TOS captains for example.
Janeway aside, Kira quite often took command of he Defiant and/or was in a command position of DS9. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#302 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
This new show isn't being set in the same universe as he new movies. It's being set in the same one that has been established with ENT/TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY.
My point is, for the purpose of a new Trek show, they should either have placed it in the new universe created by the new films, or they should have started a second reboot. As for having another reboot? Nope. Too confusing and inconsistent. You'd end up with the situation we have in the MCU with Spiderman and the Hulk. One of the pleasures for me of Star Trek is the level of consistency they've managed to achieve over the years in its various incarnations. Not that it's perfectly consistent mind...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#303 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
BIB: I disagree. Original timeline is best as far as I'm concerned. Much as I enjoy the new films set in their timeline (and I do enjoy them a lot), I don't think that style is suited to TV and TV budgets.
Star Trek as we knew it, that ship has sailed. The two/three new films were likely reboots because someone, somewhere knew this. They needed to attract a new generation. If they jump back to a time before, and continue a similar format, I just don't think it would result in a lasting show. I may yet be proven wrong, but I want this new Trek show to be a success, and I think it needs to be it's own thing, in it's own timeline, to be that success. |
|
|
|
|
|
#304 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
The budget would obviously be a concern of some sort, but I don't personally think that the original timeline will be enough of a draw to keep people tuning in.
Star Trek as we knew it, that ship has sailed. The two/three new films were likely reboots because someone, somewhere knew this. They needed to attract a new generation. If they jump back to a time before, and continue a similar format, I just don't think it would result in a lasting show. I may yet be proven wrong, but I want this new Trek show to be a success, and I think it needs to be it's own thing, in it's own timeline, to be that success. It doesn't have to be a reboot in order to attract a new audience. It just has to be done right, and in a modern style. |
|
|
|
|
|
#305 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
It doesn't have to be a reboot in order to attract a new audience. It just has to be done right, and in a modern style.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#306 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
I hope you're right, I am not as optimistic, but we shall see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#307 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,847
|
The latest edition of 'Total Film' magazine has an article about the new Star Trek film, including a basic chronology of Trek on the small and big screen.
Interestingly, it says (paraphrasing): "A new CBS series will be airing in 2017. It will be set in the same universe as the recent films." I'm guessing that this is a mistake rather then them having any knowledge about it? |
|
|
|
|
|
#308 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
I'm guessing that this is a mistake rather then them having any knowledge about it?
...even though I'd rather they set it in a new one. ![]() Edit: Considering how much we (don') know about this show, and considering it's suppose to air in January 2017, I'm not convinced it'll be wrapped up in time. 6 months to cast a crew, write the script, act out the scenes and then deliver to the special effects team? Seems a tad much. |
|
|
|
|
|
#309 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,847
|
Quote:
You guess correct. Bryan Fuller has stated on many occasions that the new show will be set in the prime (Roddenberry) Universe.
...even though I'd rather they set it in a new one. ![]() Edit: Considering how much we (don') know about this show, and considering it's suppose to air in January 2017, I'm not convinced it'll be wrapped up in time. 6 months to cast a crew, write the script, act out the scenes and then deliver to the special effects team? Seems a tad much. (Joke - probably an easy mistake for an overworked journo to make).With regards to timing - you would assume they know what they are doing. Shooting begins in September. |
|
|
|
|
|
#310 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
With regards to timing - you would assume they know what they are doing. Shooting begins in September.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#311 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Edgware, Middlesex
Posts: 8,277
|
Quote:
You guess correct. Bryan Fuller has stated on many occasions that the new show will be set in the prime (Roddenberry) Universe.
Changes to the timeline don't necessarily change what Universe we're in. |
|
|
|
|
#312 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Anyone know if it's going to be made/available in 4K with HDR?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#313 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
Devil's Advocate here but are we sure that's not just referring to being the main rather than Mirror Universe? Changes to the timeline don't necessarily change what Universe we're in.
Quote:
Anyone know if it's going to be made/available in 4K with HDR?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#314 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Edgware, Middlesex
Posts: 8,277
|
Quote:
What? The prime universe is the one in which TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT have taken place in. This is the universe the lead of he new show has said it's taking place in.
If he'd said they're in the same timeline as the original shows then that's a different thing altogether. |
|
|
|
|
#315 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,847
|
Quote:
Sure but in those universes there was time travel and time-changing events so I don't see why that rules out continuity with the movies. The movies are part of the same universe as we have had the cross over with Nimoy's Spock to tie them together.
If he'd said they're in the same timeline as the original shows then that's a different thing altogether. |
|
|
|
|
|
#316 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Quote:
Sure but in those universes there was time travel and time-changing events so I don't see why that rules out continuity with the movies. The movies are part of the same universe as we have had the cross over with Nimoy's Spock to tie them together.
If he'd said they're in the same timeline as the original shows then that's a different thing altogether. Assuming Prime Universe means Prime Timeline... I think it would be interesting for the new series to encounter something of/from the new movie universe. Even a story which visits it. It would anchor and connect the New Movie Universe in the Star Trek canon, much as Archer's Gorn, Borg and Romulan encounters, and New Movie reference to Archer's dog, connected Enterprise to the other TV series. |
|
|
|
|
|
#317 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
Sure but in those universes there was time travel and time-changing events so I don't see why that rules out continuity with the movies. The movies are part of the same universe as we have had the cross over with Nimoy's Spock to tie them together.
If he'd said they're in the same timeline as the original shows then that's a different thing altogether. The only thing we don't know is the era. One would imagine post-VOY, but there's been unconfirmed reports that it'll be set between The Motion Picture and The Next Generation, so between the time of the Enterprise-B and Enterprise-C, maybe a little earlier. I'd rather them establish a show set after known events if they're sticking within the prime timeline, but at the same time, if the venture too far into the future, the Klingons and Romulans (and even Cardassians to some extent) become less prominent, and they're the main other factions within Trek. It would be a shame to lose them after all this time. |
|
|
|
|
|
#318 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,847
|
Quote:
I get what you're saying now, but no. I think you're looking too much into it. The new show is supposedly set in the same universe (and for all intense purposes, same timeline) as all the current shows.
The only thing we don't know is the era. One would imagine post-VOY, but there's been unconfirmed reports that it'll be set between The Motion Picture and The Next Generation, so between the time of the Enterprise-B and Enterprise-C, maybe a little earlier. I'd rather them establish a show set after known events if they're sticking within the prime timeline, but at the same time, if the venture too far into the future, the Klingons and Romulans (and even Cardassians to some extent) become less prominent, and they're the main other factions within Trek. It would be a shame to lose them after all this time. |
|
|
|
|
|
#319 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
It seems to me that the producers of Trek shows (and films) tend to be less concerned about the restriction of the existing universe then fans are.
Quote:
As long as they pick a time period that hasn't already been dealt with they usually take a bit of artist licence with what's already been established.
They can still tell whatever story they want then, and with zero ramifications. They don't need to involve time travel or alternate realities, just a plain simple reboot (like BSG). It's slapping them in the face, and they're ignoring it in favour of something already established. It's almost as moronic as DC not allowing Batman in their tv series. |
|
|
|
|
|
#320 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,847
|
Quote:
Annoyingly so.
This is what I don't get though, if they wanted, they could create a show from a blank canvas here. Either reboot Trek for a third time, or set the tv series a decade or two after the JJ version of Trek. Regardless, they wont have to worry about annoying fans with their continuity. They can still tell whatever story they want then, and with zero ramifications. They don't need to involve time travel or alternate realities, just a plain simple reboot (like BSG). It's slapping them in the face, and they're ignoring it in favour of something already established. It's almost as moronic as DC not allowing Batman in their tv series. I suppose a straight forward third reboot would make sense but I guess it would just be too confusing for fans. |
|
|
|
|
|
#321 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Like it or lump it, all the Star Trek series and movies (with the exception of the 1970s animated series) are part of one established continuity. Star Trek has never been rebooted. Because of the link via Leonard Nimoy's Spock, even the JJ'verse is part of that established canon, even though it played fast and loose with the science and the technology.
Perhaps the laws of physics are subtly different in that universe! ![]() And Battlestar Galactica wasn't exactly a reboot. The original series was supposed to be an earlier Cylon War. It was never a convincing link to me. It felt like a reboot. I beleive the maker's preferred the term "re-imagining". |
|
|
|
|
|
#322 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
The problem with doing things in the 'Abramsverse' is that it then potentially limits what the films can do. I appreciate that there's probably some clever way of avoiding continuity issues but to be frank it would be pointless them resetting everything only to have to tie themselves in knots again.
Quote:
I suppose a straight forward third reboot would make sense but I guess it would just be too confusing for fans.
Again though, for the most part, CBS (or whoever) should be looking for a fresh audience, so a reboot (another one) wouldn't affect them.Quote:
And Battlestar Galactica wasn't exactly a reboot. The original series was supposed to be an earlier Cylon War. It was never a convincing link to me. It felt like a reboot. I beleive the maker's preferred the term "re-imagining".
As far as Trek goes though, they should follow the DC approach; have one timeline on the big screen, and a second timeline on the small screen; completely unrelated except for some characters (Kirk, Spock, Picard etc). Maybe I should apply to be a writer. I'll give viewers what they want, that being a proper war between Starfleet and them Klingons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#323 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Wigan
Posts: 4,881
|
Mainstream audiences don't care at all about detailed continuity. They probably don't even care much about broad stroke continuity. They're attracted (or repelled) by the reputation of the established brand name. The name Star Trek, in this case.
The problem for fans is that getting a large mainstream audiences is necessary for commercial success and if you don't get that, you won't get more made of the product you crave as fan. There's a balance to be struck, While fans might enjoy a reboot, many probably won't, as fans typically enjoy continuity. The feeling that you're in a coherent, credible fictional universe. If enough fans badmouth a new version and that would damage the chances of getting a large mainstream audience and commercial success. So, the makers of the new series just need to pay enough attention to continuity to please most of the fans, while bringing something new and current to the party to attract a mainstream audience. Basically, it just needs to be good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#324 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 4,798
|
Quote:
There's a balance to be struck, While fans might enjoy a reboot, many probably won't, as fans typically enjoy continuity. The feeling that you're in a coherent, credible fictional universe. If enough fans badmouth a new version and that would damage the chances of getting a large mainstream audience and commercial success.
![]() Quote:
Basically, it just needs to be good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#325 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Chester-le-Street Co Durham UK
Posts: 835
|
The problem is that you can't please everyone and it annoys me as I have probably been a fan much longer than some of the wingers that don't get that they aren't the only fans out there and they keep claiming that there's more than there is moaning about the new movies and they seem to forget that even the original shows had a few continuity problems in them because it went on for years and you can't remember everything that has gone on before as there is 50 years of material to go through.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:21.





(Joke - probably an easy mistake for an overworked journo to make).
