2160s or 2390s or?

[Overgeeked]

I am proposing doing what JJ actually did and what B&B actually did, and for the same reasons they give. You know, actual show runners and producers. Do they not get storytelling, or do you not understand storytellers?

Ha. JJ rebooted the universe and blew up Vulcan because he hates Star Trek. He thinks it's too cerebral and turned it into Star Wars. And what's more cerebral in Trek than the Vulcans. Besides, Star Wars blew up a planet, and since JJ loves Star Wars so much, well... bye bye Vulcan. And don't give me that "he grew to love it" nonsense apology he pulled after the fans called him on it. Besides, by that point, the damage was already done and he'd got the job he really wanted. Let's not forget the fact that JJ tore the heart out of the franchise and spat on it to make a Star Wars demo reel.

What B&B did? You mean set a prequel 100+ years before TOS? Remember, ENT is the only one they developed together. The both worked on other shows to varying degrees, but ENT was theirs. So were Insurrection and Nemesis. You ever notice how the early seasons of ENT are generally reviled, the 3rd and 4th seasons are considered much better, while the finale is widely despised? It's not just coincidental that this coincides with B&B backing away, Manny Coto's arrival and quick ascension, not to mention other writers like the Reeves-Stevens. Then wham, B&B are back for that... finale. Sorry, that's not good evidence in support of them knowing WTF they're doing.

 

[Nerys Myk]

2315. Dead center between tos and TNg.

In reality if a show is good the time line shouldn't matter in the least.

If you have to rely that much from drawing on established canon the show likely doesn't have that much going for it****cough cough enterpirse*******

Poor Enterprise can't win. When it was on the air it was slammed for not being canonny enough. And it was better when it went full canon in the fourth season. Now its being accused of being too canonny!!!!

 

[Tarek71]

Ha. JJ rebooted the universe and blew up Vulcan because he hates Star Trek.

Hahaha. IDK man, I think JJ understands storytelling though. B&B too. (they oversaw hundreds of hours of pretty good stuff too. it wasnt all garbage.) JJ didnt want Kirk, Spock, Sulu, Scotty, etc to have an already determined destiny. Sulu can never die because he has to command Excelsior 20 years later, etc. It does open up story telling to have open ended personal destinies.

Now maybe Sulu get command at a younger age, instead of piloting the Enterprise till hes friggin 50. Or maybe Scotty can die heroically saving the Enterprise. And die without a reset button or a Search for Scotty. Of course it opens things up. For the Federation too. All the same threats can still exist, like Khan, but they can have different endings and new things can be done on top.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

1. Daedalus Era, 2160's: Wreckage of the Jellyfish and Narada appears just outside the frontier of the still new Federation. Struggle between Romulan ship and Daedalus Class Enterprise over the wreckage. Reconstruction of the wrecked ships and analysis of their designs changes the course of history. An even newer NuTrek! ;-)

Quick question: how does a ship in the 2160s find wreckage of ship's lost in the Nu2250s? Personally, I'd say drop all reference to NuTrek and have a series on a Daedalus-Class ship, where the focus is on: the recovery from the war, previously antagonistic races now having to work together in close quarters, and furthering exploration into the unknown.

2. 2390's, TNG-DS9-VOY: The Supernova that destroyed Romulus was no accident. A dark species from outside the Galaxy used a superweapon to destabilize subspace, strand this Galaxies Fleets and militarys without warp drive or sub space communication. Thus leaving them open to be attacked one by one, by the Alien ships, which can accomplish FTL travel and communication without subspace.

An interesting idea--might also explain how a single supernova threatened the entire galaxy

But with subspace destroyed how is any ship supposed to venture out to figure out the cause and find a cure?

 

[Autistoid]

2315. Dead center between tos and TNg.

In reality if a show is good the time line shouldn't matter in the least.

If you have to rely that much from drawing on established canon the show likely doesn't have that much going for it****cough cough enterpirse*******

Poor Enterprise can't win. When it was on the air it was slammed for not being canonny enough. And it was better when it went full canon in the fourth season. Now its being accused of being too canonny!!!!

my point is it couldn't do anything, without going back to canon.

 

[Nerys Myk]

2315. Dead center between tos and TNg.

In reality if a show is good the time line shouldn't matter in the least.

If you have to rely that much from drawing on established canon the show likely doesn't have that much going for it****cough cough enterpirse*******

Poor Enterprise can't win. When it was on the air it was slammed for not being canonny enough. And it was better when it went full canon in the fourth season. Now its being accused of being too canonny!!!!

my point is it couldn't do anything, without going back to canon.

It did a lot of new things and established a lot of canon. It used canon sparingly for three seasons and then went all fanwanky in season four. The 22nd Century was pretty much a blank slate.

 

[Mage]

There is nothing limiting about a prequel. It's a HUGE galaxy, with so many people, locations and events around that you could tell a limitless amount of stories without it having an effect on TNG. Hell, the Lost Era novels did it, so why not a tv show?
The only limitation is the one set on oneself.

 

[T'Girl]

^ This, a prequel is wide open. If you can't "blow up" Romulas, how about this, blow up another planet, there now was that so hard?

If you can't plausibly threaten the Federation with destruction because we know already that it does survive, here's an idea, stop threatening the Federation with destruction. It a used and tired concept. You can still have war and the results of it, the Federation can be damaged and changed, just not "destroyed."

If the previous TPTB established something in canon for the Romulans and you want to do something different with them, create a new (and hopefully more interesting) species. The team at Enterprise showed that new interesting species can be created in a prequel. What they did with the Andorians was basically created a entirely new species out of a previously species that existed from passing references. I liked the Sulaban, a lot of people liked the Xindi, both created in a prequel.

As Mage mentioned, it's a huge galaxy, simply have the hero ship travel through a different portion of the Federation that we (the viewer) haven't seen before, new races, new civilizations. New enemies, new allies.

If it's a different time period that mean that Starfleet can be depicted as different, so can the Federation as a whole.

 

[BillJ]

The both worked on other shows to varying degrees, but ENT was theirs. So were Insurrection and Nemesis.

Brannon Braga didn't work on either Insurrection or Nemesis. Michael Piller (with input from Berman, Stewart and Spiner) came back for the former and John Logan did the latter (with input from Berman, Stewart and Spiner).

 

[BeatleJWOL]

Ha. JJ rebooted the universe and blew up Vulcan because he hates Star Trek. He thinks it's too cerebral and turned it into Star Wars. And what's more cerebral in Trek than the Vulcans. Besides, Star Wars blew up a planet, and since JJ loves Star Wars so much, well... bye bye Vulcan. And don't give me that "he grew to love it" nonsense apology he pulled after the fans called him on it. Besides, by that point, the damage was already done and he'd got the job he really wanted. Let's not forget the fact that JJ tore the heart out of the franchise and spat on it to make a Star Wars demo reel.

So, the argument here is that J.J. Abrams either
a) took a job as creative lead on a Star Trek project simply out of spite to shape it in his image, or
b) was so starved for opportunities after Felicity, Alias, and Lost that taking on this lame ol' franchise called Star Trek was his only shot at getting the big chair on the Star Wars sequel trilogy, which hadn't even been planned (according to King George) even as late as when Into Darkness was underway?

Go here and read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)#Development
Plenty of citable links there too.

JJ may have had the final word on things but quite frankly, NuTrek is the baby of Orci, Lindelof and to a lesser extent Kurtzman.

 

[Tarek71]

Quick question: how does a ship in the 2160s find wreckage of ship's lost in the Nu2250s?

Presumably, the same way ships from the 2380's ended up in the 2230's. Another time displacement sends them back further. This time to the 2160's.
And the 2160s should be the same in both Nu and Prime timelines.

The goal is to introduce a more open ended future.

But with subspace destroyed

Not sure what Spock did. Fly through the outer edge of this warp speed supernova and suck it all back with the Red Goop?

Hahaha! IDK. I think the idea here is to say that an Alien force used the guise of some form of supernova for a weapon that sens out waves that progressively damages subspace throughout the Galaxy. Their own ships being adapted to it to still function. Somehow the Goop collapsed and destroyed the phenomenon.

Various analyses of the obviously non-naturally occurring phenomenon leads to discovery, initially by a Cardassian analyst/codebreaker, of very cleverly concealed signals immediately before and during the phenomenon. Similar signals later discovered to be passing between the First Minister of Cardassia and some Alien source.

 

[Dukhat]

Neither. Go back to the Prime Universe and do a Founding of the Federation show in the 2160s...

They already tried that. It was called Enterprise. It flopped.

...or jump ahead to 2464 and explore what the Prime Universe looks like 100 years in the future of the TNG/DS9/VOY era.

Based on what we've already seen, it will probably be no different than 2364. I mean, what exactly do you think will be so different in 100 years?

Ha. JJ rebooted the universe and blew up Vulcan because he hates Star Trek. He thinks it's too cerebral and turned it into Star Wars.

I'm pretty sure that even you know that's not in the least bit true.

 

[Overgeeked]

An oldie but a goodie, since it seems to keep coming up...

http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/50514989060/jenniferdeguzman-he-said-star-trek-is-too

JJ: When I was a kid--I never liked Star Trek as a kid. My friends loved it, and I would, like, try, and I would watch episodes... it always felt too... philosophical for me. Some of the writers loved Star Trek, I was not really a fan, and my producing partner never saw it. So when we were all happy, it felt like that was the way to go. And this movie that we did, the goal was to make a movie for movie-goers, not just Star Trek fans.

Stewart: The interesting thing to me was, I stopped listening when you said you didn't like Star Trek. I saw your mouth was moving after that, so I'm assuming you apologized.

Wheaton's comment: Sigh. The whole point of Star Trek is that it’s philosophical. If you don’t want philosophical Science Fiction, there’s plenty of that for you to enjoy, but Star Trek is philosophical. Philosophy is part of Star Trek’s DNA, and if you’re given the captain’s chair, you’d better damn well respect that.

I'm with Jon Stewart and Wil Wheaton on that one.

 

[Dukhat]

Oh please. Way to take a quote out of context. Jon Stewart was being Jon Stewart. And Wheaton is the last person to argue that Star Trek should be philosophical.

And as for JJ: Here's what's telling: "And this movie that we did, the goal was to make a movie for movie-goers, not just Star Trek fans." (Emphasis mine.)

Notice he added the "just" in there? Regardless of his personal opinion when he was a kid (which is meaningless now), JJ (and his writers, don't forget them) understood that he had to cater to the casual viewers in order to have his films make any kind of money. But he also catered to the fans as well with the premise of an alternate universe instead of a total reboot, which he totally didn't have to do.

But since the content of your posts reveals that you've already made up your mind about JJ and his movies, this is probably a pointless conversation.

 

[Overgeeked]

Oh please. Way to take a quote out of context.

If you think me block quoting JJ from this interview is somehow "taking the quote out of context", then you clearly don't understand what "out of context" actually means.

Jon Stewart was being Jon Stewart. And Wheaton is the last person to argue that Star Trek should be philosophical.

I disagree, but fine, JJ is damning himself enough without the need for Stewart's or Wheaton's comments.

JJ: When I was a kid--I never liked Star Trek as a kid. My friends loved it, and I would, like, try, and I would watch episodes... it always felt too... philosophical for me. Some of the writers loved Star Trek, I was not really a fan, and my producing partner never saw it. So when we were all happy, it felt like that was the way to go. And this movie that we did, the goal was to make a movie for movie-goers, not just Star Trek fans.

Here's what's telling. Abrams didn't like Star Trek as a kid. Tastes change, so possible benefit of the doubt, but he confirms this later is still his position as an adult while in charge of the franchise, so... strike one. Abrams felt it was too philosophical. Considering that's part of the whole freaking point of Star Trek... strike two. Some of the writers loved Star Trek... the implication being not all of the writers did. Strike three. Abrams was still not a fan as an adult while in charge of the franchise. Strike four. Abrams' producing partner had never even seen Trek. Strike five. "When we were all happy", meaning when the Trek-fans had conceded enough of what made Trek unique to please the writers who didn't love it, to please the director who wasn't a fan and thought it was too philosophical, and to please the co-producer who'd never even seen any Trek... then, then they'd reached a good place. Strike six.

Here's the rub. You have to be enough of a fan to care about getting the property right, without being so over-the-moon that you're an apologist. Abrams circumvented that by simply tearing out everything that made Trek unique. You know, all the bits that a lot of fans actually liked about Star Trek.

But since the content of your posts reveals that you've already made up your mind about JJ and his movies, this is probably a pointless conversation.

Yes, I have made up my mind... because I've watched Star Trek all my life and I've seen both of Abrams' heartless action-adventure anti-Trek movies and I find them lacking. I championed Abrams before I saw the first one. I love the first fifteen minutes of it (the Kelvin sequence). It was some of the best Trek-like stuff ever put to film. Emotional, engaging, giving nods to the silly tropes that Trek is famous for (noise in space) and all that. The rest of the film failed to live up to that high watermark so utterly it crushed any hope I had that anything they did in the "Abrams-verse" would be worthwhile. The first fifteen minutes was the closest to being "Trek" either of the films got. After than they were mindless, heartless action-adventure films and what little message was there was basically the antithesis of what all other Trek has been about since day one.

But you're right. It's pointless. You're going to bend over backwards praising those piece of shit films till you're blue in the face despite all the evidence they're crap. Good luck with that.

 

[Dukhat]

You're going to bend over backwards praising those piece of shit films till you're blue in the face despite all the evidence they're crap. Good luck with that.

The only "evidence" you're referring to here is your own opinion of the films, which contradict all known logical bases for determining whether a film is "crap" or not. And while you have a right to your own opinion, don't for one second think it's shared by anyone other than yourself, or that you speak for all of fandom with your opinion, because you don't.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Nick Meyer interview

But I think it probably helped at the time that I didn’t know anything about Star Trek. And so, I could sort of reinvent it, in my own image. And my own image was that it was a story about the Navy. And I think coming to it from that perspective may have given the whole thing a shot in the arm, and just sort of another way of going about it.

I had made Time After Time, and I was looking for my next project. And I wanted to make a film of the Robertson Davies novel, Fifth Business. And I had written the screenplay. And nobody was interested in doing this. And I was just kind of sulking in my house, waiting for someone to write me a check. And it was a Sunday, and I was flipping burgers with two friends of mine in the backyard. And one of these was a woman named Karen Moore, who was, at the time, an executive at Paramount. I’d known her since we were both kids. And she sort of gave me a stern talking to, and said, “You know, Nicky, if you want to learn how to direct, you should be directing, and not sitting up here sort of holding your breath, because no one is putting you on the team,” or whatever. And she said, “You know, they’re gonna make another Star Trek movie. And a man named Harve Bennett, whom I think you would enjoy, is in charge of it.” And I said, “Is that the one with the guy with pointy ears and they all wear pajamas?” And she said, “You’re such a snob. Why don't you go meet Harve Bennett? I bet you guys would get along.” And we did.

They Boldly Went

Bennett had another consideration: despite making a ton of money, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was not viewed as very Trek by many fans and Paramount staffers and he was under instruction bring back some of the magic of the original series to the films.
The only problem with that was that he’d never seen an episode of Star Trek and his first exposure to the franchise had been the first movie, which he thought was ponderous and boring. He made up for this by getting a screening room on the Paramount lot and working his way through the series. That’s where he was introduced to Khan Noonien Singh and found something he felt the first movie had lacked and needed desperately: a villain.

Maybe not being a fan is plus and Abrams "not a fan status" is counter balanced by Orci and others who were big fans.

 

[BillJ]

But you're right. It's pointless. You're going to bend over backwards praising those piece of shit films till you're blue in the face despite all the evidence they're crap. Good luck with that.

Did I enjoy watching the Abrams films? Yes, I did. I saw both multiple times at the theater and have bought both twice on Blu-ray. So what about something that entertains me makes it crap?

For the record, my favorite Star Trek movie is The Motion Picture, I see the Marvel movies as mostly forgettable and liked Mad Max: Fury Road.

Instead of trying so hard to impose your will on everyone, maybe understand that people simply have different tastes than you do and move on.

 

[BillJ]

Maybe not being a fan is plus and Abrams "not a fan status" is counter balanced by Orci and others who were big fans.

I don't believe Rick Berman or Michael Piller were fans of Trek either before working on/creating multiple series.

 

[T'Girl]

Yes, I have made up my mind...

But Overgeeked, don't you realize that it made lots of box office money, and therefor it's the most philosophical true Star Trek that ever existed.

You know, because it made lots of box office money.

")