New Star Trek Series

User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
SQUEE!

It isn't until January 2017, but still!
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 34692
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:
sweet! Wonder if Jay will re-consider getting cable
User avatar
Deepfreeze32
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7041
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: On the run from Johnny Law; ain't no trip to Cleveland
Contact:
Well, it looks like it will in some form or fashion be available on CBS' streaming service, so no need to get cable unless it's cheaper than $6 a month.

I'm excited for this, but also wary. It's not clear which timeline it will be set in, or when in the timeline it will be.


Personally, I'm hoping for "prime" universe, set some hundred years after Voyager ended. That way there is minimal continuity to uphold, and it won't matter quite as much which universe it will be set in if it ends up being in the rebooted continuity.

I'd also be ok with TNG-era in the rebooted universe. Maybe have new versions of old characters, but new characters in a familiar-but-not-quite setting would be equally awesome.


Either way...I don't want the rebooted movie-era setting. Maybe I'm making a minority opinion here, but I think it will cause too many problems. It's either going to stick to the somewhat-obnoxious and prohibitively-expesnive visual style (I never really cared for the ship designs and the over-the-top lens flare), or it's going to cause continuity gaps with the movies (because CBS owns the TV rights, the "new" Viacom owns the movie rights, and they're no longer under the same parent company) and make obsessive fans like me mad because they step on each others toes.

Still super pumped.
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
It looks like it's being put together by some of the same people who were involved with the newer movies, so it does seem like a safe bet that it'll be set in the Abramsverse.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Chozon1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 22806
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:00 am
Location: In the shadows. Waiting for an oppurtune moment to create a dramatic entrance.
Contact:
Gross. I hate that. I'm not actually a huge fan of the new movies. It doesn't feel like like Star Trek should, at least to me. Plus, they killed Thor in the first ten minutes. That's unforgivable.

Still, I'm pretty excited. The world needs another Star Trek. ^_^

I think I'd be OK with most any era, but I'm personally hoping for a DS9 flavor, rather than TNG or Voyager flavor. More about living in the Star Trek universe then running around said universe.

And perhaps a bit less "U R Federation, or U R wrong".
Image
User avatar
Deepfreeze32
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7041
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: On the run from Johnny Law; ain't no trip to Cleveland
Contact:
Chozon1 wrote:I think I'd be OK with most any era, but I'm personally hoping for a DS9 flavor, rather than TNG or Voyager flavor. More about living in the Star Trek universe then running around said universe.

And perhaps a bit less "U R Federation, or U R wrong".
I'd agree with both of these statements. I think the pro-Federation stuff mostly comes from Rodenberry, who thankfully (Or unthankfully, depending on your opinion) will not have a say in any future shows. Plus he was apparently opposed to DS9, which hits me in the soul since it's far and away my favorite Trek show.

I'd be ok with a "Running around the universe" show, as long as they make consistent episodes about, well, living in it. Maybe be attached to a research post so that every few episodes they have to resupply at a common staging ground. I think the one problem DS9 had was that it's weekly run-of-the-mill episodes (in Season 1 and 2 mostly) were more often misses than hits, because the "living on a station" aspect wasn't properly accounted for. Just my opinion, but once they got the Defiant in season 3, I think it started having better weekly episodes. The meat of the show is still the life on the station, but it's also possible to go to new places time and again.
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
I'd like to see it set in the TOS time frame, and to be honest, I don't much care whether it's in the Abramsverse or the original continuity, since I doubt it would make much difference in the stories.

If they set it in the Abramsverse, they will have to be careful not to interfere with the movies, in terms of continuity, so I would doubt it would focus on the Enterprise.

They could go with the original continuity, but the problem there would be they'd run into a lot of the same problems that popped up in Star Trek:Enterprise with retroactive continuity problems.

Now that I think of it, the best bet might be to do an entirely separate continuity of their own. It wouldn't necessarily have to go out of its way to establish a separate timeline, but rather just give itself the creative freedom to tell whatever story they want and not sweat it. That's what Star Trek is all about anyway.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Chozon1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 22806
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:00 am
Location: In the shadows. Waiting for an oppurtune moment to create a dramatic entrance.
Contact:
They could always go far future too, like Deep said. I'm not bothered by continuity issues personally. :D I enjoyed Enterprise.

I just really, really hope it's not in the redone universe. The best thing about that for me was the re-imagining of the Star Trek technology. Len's flare aside, it actually looked like tech you'd see in the future. And I loved that.

I hated the story and feel of it though, as well as Vulcan getting blown up. I haven't seen Into Darkness (which should say a lot about how I feel about that series in general) but there's no way they can fix that where I would be happy about it.

So I'll probably watch it either way, but if it's the "new" universe I won't go out of my way to see it.

Essentially, I think it a cruelty for them to say "New Star Trek January 2017", but give no details. XD
Image
User avatar
Superstars111
Noob
Noob
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 8:05 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
What I'm most looking for is some sort of connection between the episodes. I liked DS9 best and Voyager second because of this aspect. TOS and TNG both had a style where the episodes had very little connection between them. The next week, everything is back to normal. (I've only seen about half of season one of Enterprise, and didn't want to watch any more than that, so I don't know how much it had this aspect or not.) Voyager did have this a little bit, and I suppose DS9 would have as well, but not as much. When a series has an overarching goal, it ties it all together.
I am kind of wondering what vice the series will have. I've noticed that TNG, DS9, and Voyager each had a consistent vice throughout the series (as it relates to Christianity, specifically). With TNG, it was that they treated humanity as basically good, with no sin nature. With DS9, it was sexism. My dad and I always thought it was hilarious how a very pregnant and empty handed Major Kira was able to fight her way through an entire hall of armed guards and overpower them. We also got a bit annoyed at the Klingon wedding ritual, where they treat women as being superior to men in every way. With Voyager, they pressed evolution quite a bit.
In each series, they had a bit of vice from the others, but they had a main one as well. (I got the impression that Enterprise's vice revolved around sexuality, but I didn't watch enough to be certain.) So I'm wondering if the new series will find something new to mess up, or if they'll use one of the old vices. Personally, I think it's likely that they'll go back to evolution, though it's possible that they'll get into homosexuality- both hot topics in our world today.
User avatar
Chozon1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 22806
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 12:00 am
Location: In the shadows. Waiting for an oppurtune moment to create a dramatic entrance.
Contact:
I do appreciate an overarching plot...and I understand what you're getting at, even if I don't agree.

To take TNG as an example, they did always push science at the forefront, and preached blind evolution as the only logical way, and set forth their Federation superiority almost fanatically. But they also constantly encountered things which broke their understanding of the universe, and usually disproved evolution, to say nothing of their understanding of physics, at least once a month. :P

That was part of my enjoyment of it. The Enterprise crew would champion their understanding of the universe, waving a flag with "SCIENCE" on it...and then trip over their own feet when their explorations encountered something they couldn't explain. I'm not even sure it was a deliberate choice on the part of the writers, but they managed to point out how little we actually understand of the universe, and how putting your faith solely in science just don't work.

DS9 delved more thoroughly into that arena, and that's one of the reasons it's my favorite Trek. As for it's sexism...well, that's the 90's. It was in most shows made back then. I can't fault them for it. :P
Image
User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 34692
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
I saw a reaction video on YouTube for that teaser and I'm baffled. There's nothing to react to. No pictures from the show, no details on the setting, nothing at all really. I'm pleased that it'll apparently be on broadcast TV as well though.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Deepfreeze32
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 7041
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: On the run from Johnny Law; ain't no trip to Cleveland
Contact:
ArcticFox wrote:I saw a reaction video on YouTube for that teaser and I'm baffled. There's nothing to react to. No pictures from the show, no details on the setting, nothing at all really. I'm pleased that it'll apparently be on broadcast TV as well though.
Well, I'll admit, I got giddy when I heard those familiar notes over the "New Crews, New Villains, etc" text. Some chills, man. I'm optimistic about this.
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
Deepfreeze32 wrote:
ArcticFox wrote:I saw a reaction video on YouTube for that teaser and I'm baffled. There's nothing to react to. No pictures from the show, no details on the setting, nothing at all really. I'm pleased that it'll apparently be on broadcast TV as well though.
Well, I'll admit, I got giddy when I heard those familiar notes over the "New Crews, New Villains, etc" text. Some chills, man. I'm optimistic about this.
I suspect it'll be set in the rebooted universe, which I'm okay with.

However, I'll bet you a week's pay against a jelly doughnut that there will be the first openly gay regular character in Star Trek. That isn't a deal breaker for me unless the show uses that character to get all preachy.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 34692
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:
I wouldn't bet against you...
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests