4 ms·

Unless they put it in the alternate timeline, which it doesn't sound like they will given this quote: >The new television series is not related to the upcoming

by Aqwis 11y ago

Unless they put it in the alternate timeline, which it doesn't sound like they will given this quote: >The new television series is not related to the upcoming feature film Star Trek Beyond which is scheduled to be distributed by Paramount Pictures in summer 2016. ...they'd have to some serious retconning to place it anywhere before Voyager. Too much existing canon to take into account when writing the scripts.

cmiles74 11y ago
Given they have the head writer from the last two movies, I can't see them sticking with the old, tired canon. It could be that they need to be clear that they aren't associated with the next film. Different characters, etc.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  > Given they have the head writer from the last two movies, I can't see them sticking with the old, tired canon What is "tired" about existing canon? What stops people from writing new stories with new characters in the "old" canon? How, for example, was Voyager burdened by the old, tired canon in TNG or DS9? As best I can tell, the only reason they don't do it is because they would prefer to cash in on the popularity of the pre-existing characters and the pre-existing stories without actually having to write as though they exist. Star Trek is a series based on exploration. There are plenty of new worlds and new peoples to see, without throwing away the old canon, while at the same time not relying on it very much. I honestly can't understand why people like the idea of resets and reboots. To me, it just feels lazy and unsatisfying.
  - cmiles74 11y ago
    I can see where you are coming from and I acknowledge that my comment was cleary meant to denigrate "the canon" of older Star Trek works. You may be right, a new team of writers may be able to author a new show that adheres to these stories and still comes off as fresh and exciting. To my mind, the Voyager series (which I did enjoy) was meant to do what you recommend: use exploration of new worlds as a way to introduce new storylines and, to some degree, to distance the show from the storylines of the past. While I enjoyed that show, I don't think it was entirely successful. Specifically, it didn't appear to generate enough interest to warrrant more films, which seem to be what keeps this series alive. The last series, Enterprise, seemed to be trying to accomplish the same goal by going back into the past, before many of these storylines took place. To my mind, it was wholly unsuccessful. I watched every episode and felt unsatisfied after the majority of them. In my opinion, the failure of the last two series to generate enough interest for more films was a big reason why the "reboot" idea is more attractive.
    - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
      Enterprise was just badly written for much of it's run. Season 4 was an excellent example of how Enterprise could've been done very well, but unfortunately it was way too late to save the show.
ZanyProgrammer 11y ago
That quote really doesn't explain anything, since they could put it in the 24th or 25th century in the new timeline, and not have it impact the upcoming movie.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

by Aqwis 11y ago

cmiles74 11y ago

Given they have the head writer from the last two movies, I can't see them sticking with the old, tired canon. It could be that they need to be clear that they aren't associated with the next film. Different characters, etc.

Amezarak 11y ago
> Given they have the head writer from the last two movies, I can't see them sticking with the old, tired canon What is "tired" about existing canon? What stops people from writing new stories with new characters in the "old" canon? How, for example, was Voyager burdened by the old, tired canon in TNG or DS9? As best I can tell, the only reason they don't do it is because they would prefer to cash in on the popularity of the pre-existing characters and the pre-existing stories without actually having to write as though they exist. Star Trek is a series based on exploration. There are plenty of new worlds and new peoples to see, without throwing away the old canon, while at the same time not relying on it very much. I honestly can't understand why people like the idea of resets and reboots. To me, it just feels lazy and unsatisfying.
- cmiles74 11y ago
  I can see where you are coming from and I acknowledge that my comment was cleary meant to denigrate "the canon" of older Star Trek works. You may be right, a new team of writers may be able to author a new show that adheres to these stories and still comes off as fresh and exciting. To my mind, the Voyager series (which I did enjoy) was meant to do what you recommend: use exploration of new worlds as a way to introduce new storylines and, to some degree, to distance the show from the storylines of the past. While I enjoyed that show, I don't think it was entirely successful. Specifically, it didn't appear to generate enough interest to warrrant more films, which seem to be what keeps this series alive. The last series, Enterprise, seemed to be trying to accomplish the same goal by going back into the past, before many of these storylines took place. To my mind, it was wholly unsuccessful. I watched every episode and felt unsatisfied after the majority of them. In my opinion, the failure of the last two series to generate enough interest for more films was a big reason why the "reboot" idea is more attractive.
  - ocdtrekkie 11y ago
    Enterprise was just badly written for much of it's run. Season 4 was an excellent example of how Enterprise could've been done very well, but unfortunately it was way too late to save the show.

ZanyProgrammer 11y ago

That quote really doesn't explain anything, since they could put it in the 24th or 25th century in the new timeline, and not have it impact the upcoming movie.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]