Sfdebris.net

http://thehumanarkle.tumblr.com/post/16 ... arding-why

It does get a bit rambly, I admit, but I haven't been a regular essay writer since college so my skills in that department are a tad rusty.

Some thoughts:
-> It has been a while since Trek has been on the air, true, but Star Wars went even longer. The 1983-2015 dry spell for SW is significantly longer than the 2001-???? dry spell that's currently going on for ST. True, we are in a new era for licensed works, but length is the most important factor.
-> Star Wars had less material going into it to begin with, while Star Trek has well over ten times the material. Eviscerating out a beta canon many times the size of the alpha canon practically kills a fictional universe; if they are roughly the same size, it's more OK.
-> This has happened before for Trek. Franz Joseph's Technical Manual and Star Fleet Battles were thrown out entirely when the movies started coming out. Some of the books came out before the series were over, and I am pretty certain that destroyed Romulus was a blindsiding factor. Death by contradiction is something Beta canon has to deal with.

I disagree. Canon is what's been on screen, and that's always largely been true for Trek. Star Wars' problem was much broader and their system of canonicity was... complicated. I don't think CBS or Paramount care about the novel continuity(s), and personally I wouldn't expect or want them to (and I love the novels). I'd pray they don't include the comic-book timeline from STO as well.

I think the real reason we aren't seeing anything post-Nemesis is a problem that extends well beyond Star Trek: nostalgia as a salve against a lack of optimism.

I feel that the constant return to TOS-era prequels betrays a popular belief that utopia cannot be found through moving forward into our future, but only in nostalgia for the past.

It is an admission of defeat at the very core of the franchise's purpose by those in charge. By refusing to imagine any utopia that isn't embedded in "how things used to be" we're stuck getting reboots, remakes, and prequels (or in the case of poor Star Trek, all three at once). We're frozen.

I don't think the vast trove of "expanded universe" material really has any effect on this issue; they'd still be grasping desperately for the imaginary perfect yesterday even without it.

While the EU, and the whining of certain fans, may be a factor (indeed it almost certainly is), I doubt that is a decisive one.

If the PTBs for Star Trek gave a damn about the opinion of every whiny fan, they would never have made three Abrams-continuity films, they would never have shut down Axanar, and they would have either never made Discovery, or handled it very differently.

Note that I am not condemning them for any of those choices. If films written by executive committee tend to be bad, films written by a vast fandom committee would likely be far worse. It is impossible to please that many people, particularly when so many of them have long-standing pet ideas/ships, axes to grind, and nostalgia filters.

I think what it comes down to is that, to put it bluntly, Enterprise and Nemesis sucked, and they flopped.

That, and whoever's in charge seems to have a fixation with trying to cash in on TOS nostalgia without being able to effectively evoke TOS consistently (Abrams Trek managed it on occasion). And frankly, its pointless to try. TOS was magnificent on occasion, but it was also a product of its era, and in some respects extremely dated. You couldn't make a show like that today no matter how hard you tried, and I wouldn't recommend trying.

I'd rather either a continuation of the original timeline (perhaps exploring some aspect of it that hasn't been done much before, like not focussing on a Starfleet crew for a change), or a hard reboot, at this point.

Deledrius wrote:I disagree. Canon is what's been on screen, and that's always largely been true for Trek. Star Wars' problem was much broader and their system of canonicity was... complicated. I don't think CBS or Paramount care about the novel continuity(s), and personally I wouldn't expect or want them to (and I love the novels). I'd pray they don't include the comic-book timeline from STO as well.

I'd actually be open to a (loose) adaptation of Star Trek Online. There is some good in their alone with the bad, although obviously the priorities and needs of a game are somewhat different than those of a film or TV show. But the idea of bringing back old characters/actors, seeing how they've progressed, and continuing old plots/retconning mistakes has a lot of appeal, and I think STO would be a potentially effective vehicle for all of that.

Maybe animated, to deal with casting issues mainly.

I think the real reason we aren't seeing anything post-Nemesis is a problem that extends well beyond Star Trek: nostalgia as a salve against a lack of optimism.

I feel that the constant return to TOS-era prequels betrays a popular belief that utopia cannot be found through moving forward into our future, but only in nostalgia for the past.

It is an admission of defeat at the very core of the franchise's purpose by those in charge. By refusing to imagine any utopia that isn't embedded in "how things used to be" we're stuck getting reboots, remakes, and prequels (or in the case of poor Star Trek, all three at once). We're frozen.

An interesting theory. "a popular belief that utopia cannot be found through moving forward into our future, but only in nostalgia for the past." (or rather, an imagined past) is at the root of a lot of conservative ideology.

On the Left, cynicism tends to lean more towards "The past sucked, the present sucked, and the future will suck too."

I don't think the vast trove of "expanded universe" material really has any effect on this issue; they'd still be grasping desperately for the imaginary perfect yesterday even without it.

Quite likely.

I'm somewhat inclined at this point to say "lLt it rest for twenty years or so, then hard reboot it."

Star Trek EU Spoilers wrote:Janeway is alive as of Beyer's The Eternal Tide.

I agree that it's untenable to do a TNG-era series and maintain continuity with the EU. I do think a middle ground between tossing it all and validating it could be found, like doing Kelvin universe TNG or going further into the future (and maybe even occasionally referencing EU events).

With that said, I don't think the EU is a big factor in why they won't go post-Nemesis. I think it has much more to do with TOS being the most iconic series that is recognizable by casual fans and mainstream audiences. I think it also has to do with TOS selling (by far, from what I've heard) the most merchandise year in and year out. Plenty of diehard Trek fans prefer TNG or DS9, a certain subset might even prefer Voyager, but I don't think that the powers that be see a lot of money in that era. JJ-Trek going back to the TOS era (albeit in an alternate timeline) only reinforces that.

In short, I don't think that the fans that read the EU are high on the priority list. The powers that be believe that classic era Trek is the money maker.

Deledrius wrote:I disagree. Canon is what's been on screen, and that's always largely been true for Trek. Star Wars' problem was much broader and their system of canonicity was... complicated. I don't think CBS or Paramount care about the novel continuity(s), and personally I wouldn't expect or want them to (and I love the novels). I'd pray they don't include the comic-book timeline from STO as well.

I think the real reason we aren't seeing anything post-Nemesis is a problem that extends well beyond Star Trek: nostalgia as a salve against a lack of optimism.

I feel that the constant return to TOS-era prequels betrays a popular belief that utopia cannot be found through moving forward into our future, but only in nostalgia for the past.

It is an admission of defeat at the very core of the franchise's purpose by those in charge. By refusing to imagine any utopia that isn't embedded in "how things used to be" we're stuck getting reboots, remakes, and prequels (or in the case of poor Star Trek, all three at once). We're frozen.

I don't think the vast trove of "expanded universe" material really has any effect on this issue; they'd still be grasping desperately for the imaginary perfect yesterday even without it.

Utopia was always irrelevant for Trek's popularity. Starfleet needs to be tolerant and somewhat competent. People will be happy.

The core of Star Trek's message, I think (or at least how its perceived in popular culture) are:

1. Respect and tolerance for diversity (well, more racial diversity and maybe religious diversity, and even that is mixed- they've been kind of shit towards LGBT and women, historically).

2. Science/technology as a means of solving problems, not just a threat.

I feel like this hasn't really factored into their decision. Yes the EU is a thing but even a lot of hardcore Trekkies aren't that into it. I'm just now getting my feet wet with it and that's mostly because I was just so hungry for new Trek stuff, and to be honest I usually sate that with fanfiction (if I can find decent stuff ...) My friend is as much a Trekkie as I am and he's only ever read one novel. When reading fanfiction (and remember, fanfiction tends to be written by the most devoted fans who have consumed a great deal of the material) you come across someone writing in compliance with the novels or mentioning them in comments MAYBE one in fifty times. My evidence is entirely anecdotal but I'm inclined to think that only a small percentage of the fanbase, even the hardcore fanbase, is invested enough in the EU they would care if it were disregarded.

Of course I'd have to see more definitive numbers before making that assumption - does anyone have any idea how we'd go about getting more definitive numbers on that? Like obviously these things sell enough to make money and they keep turning them out, but novels are far cheaper to produce than films or television shows therefore you have to reach fewer people to turn a buck.

Further, you mentioned the comics. So far as I can tell the comics don't really fall the stories of the novels, yet many fans enjoy them. I'd make a decent bet some fans enjoy both. I think (or maybe just hope) Trek fans have enough maturity and meta awareness to understand the concept of canon and different continuities (somewhat cast into doubt by the massive overreaction to the Abrams films, admittedly). The novels have always been explicitly non-canon and some of the novels written during TNG's run were contradicted by DS9 and Voyager without much fuss, unlike the Star Wars EU where there was always some confusion over what was canon, what wasn't, and what existed in a gray area in between.

Personally, even though I enjoyed some of the post DS9 era novels, I would not be at all upset if they were completely scrapped in order to make a new series. The novels have never been canon anyway. I wouldn't even be that upset if STO were rendered moot by a new series. I enjoy the hell out of that game, but not so much I'd let it get in the way of a new series.

Plus, a post TNG series could have a nice passing of the torch moment, with an Admiral Riker or Admiral Janeway interacting with the new crew.

I've also had ideas of late for a new series loosely based on STO. War with the Klingons. Young, inexperienced crew suddenly needing to step up with the Captain dead. Have them not let all of this go to their heads like with Red Squad in Valiant. They'd actually make an effort to get back to Federation controlled space, rather than try to be heroes. Yet, still act like heroes when it matters, such as maybe rescuing a damage civilian transport. And when they do make it back, the brass decides to take a chance to let this young crew keep running this ship, they've been doing it for a while already, and they've had to scrabble to mobilize more ships, reassigning people left and right as is.

I've even had an idea to do something no Trek series had done before. Around season 3 or so, have the Captain get kicked out of Starfleet for a Prime Directive violation. Challenge the old PD in ways I know a lot of fans have wanted for a while, but have their be consequences. Spend a season or so out of Starfleet, see the underbelly of the galaxy for a while. Restore the status quo eventually, but have some fun with it in the mean time.

Just some random ideas I've had of late, as I've dreamed apparently in vain, for some post TNG era Trek.

And something I have to wonder. Just how much actual nostalgia is there out there for the TOS era? I grew up on TNG. I like some of the TOS era, but it's really before my time. And I haven't really spoken to anyone who actually wants more of that era. Everyone I know wants what I do, continue the story, don't retcon it with another prequel.

I'd do a time skip to the late 25th Century. Set it 100 years after TNG was set so you get the fresh start without dragging in the baggage of the TNG-era material. Frankly that's what Discovery should have been.