Don't expect any Star Trek TV until after 'Trek 2'

[StarFuryG7]

Over at Blastr:

Don't expect any Star Trek TV until after big-screen sequel opens

We've been waiting ever since Enterprise went off the air in 2005 for another Star Trek TV series, and it looks like we could get it courtesy of Pushing Daisies creator Bryan Fuller and X-Men director Bryan Singer. Not so fast, though. Fuller warns that while he's still aiming for a Trek TV revival, J. J. Abrams' work comes first.

blastr.com/2012/04/dont-expect-any-star-trek.php

[CRAMBAM]

The problem is that I feel that at this point, the only Trek that should be on TV should involve Kirk and crew. I don't care about some other crew.

Star Trek hasn't been done by people that get it in a long time, and I think that includes JJ as well.

Not that it can't be done well, and I do have high hopes for the next movie, but Star Trek without Kirk and crew just isn't as good.

Because of that, I would only recast the characters for a TV run, OR just do an animated series.

[TrekBeatTK]

If Abrams just puts his name on it and stays out of it this could be okay. And if this follows Singer's original plan of doing a series further in the future, I'd be fine with it because that would effectively canonize the "alternate timeline" idea.

-TK

[CRAMBAM]

Not necessarily. If you think of time as one big line, then all of history has happened--past, present and future.

So if Kirk and crew are traveling back saving Edith Keeler, Picard's life existed before then.

But when in that time period where Keeler is saved, the original timeline is wiped, and Picard does NOT exist.

That basically means that even a new series set in the prime universe wouldn't mean that the prime universe still isn't wiped out by Nero.

[StarFuryG7]

Apr 20, 2012 10:24:07 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

Not necessarily. If you think of time as one big line, then all of history has happened--past, present and future.

It's also possible that the future doesn't happen until it actually happens. We can look through a telescope and see into the past, but we can't look through a telescope and see into the future. We can only postulate about what it might look like based on available data, but that would be a projection using computer models, whereas gazing into the past through a telescope leaves it staring right back at us.

Apr 20, 2012 10:24:07 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

That basically means that even a new series set in the prime universe wouldn't mean that the prime universe still isn't wiped out by Nero.

The thickheads who don't care to acknowledge what was actually in Abrams' movie would say you're talking fanon, not canon.

[CRAMBAM]

If your theory was accurate, then how could you travel into the future, which you can? If you travel back in time, wouldn't that automatically make it impossible to return to the future?

It's unfortunate that JJ's movie erases canon, but it does, despite their refusal to acknowledge it.

[StarFuryG7]

Apr 24, 2012 7:29:02 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

If your theory was accurate, then how could you travel into the future, which you can? If you travel back in time, wouldn't that automatically make it impossible to return to the future?

Traveling to the future relies on manipulating physics. Circling a black hole at just the right distance while travelling at the speed of light would do it, although it's an unproven theory. Physicists believe it can be done, but technologically we're not in a position to actually test the theory and either prove or disprove it presently. Ironically, however, many physicists believe that travelling to the past is what's impossible, so while it may seem contradictory, it's not; putting all of the conditions in place that would make a trip to the past a possibility simply can't be done because it's already occurred, whereas just because we may be in a position to manipulate physics so that we can move ahead in time doesn't in and of itself mean that the future has in any way already been written, or that we would have anything to do with writing it by creating conditions that would enable us to move forward in time.

Apr 24, 2012 7:29:02 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

It's unfortunate that JJ's movie erases canon, but it does, despite their refusal to acknowledge it.

Quite arguably it does, and what's so irritating about that is that it can be addressed with a simple line of dialogue if that wasn't really their intent, but they're not interested in doing that because they want to be able have their cake and eat it too.

Schmucks --unless they somehow surprise us in the sequel, which I wouldn't hold my breath on.

[CRAMBAM]

I agree completely. ONE LINE OF DIALOGUE, CLEARLY WRITTEN, and the whole thing goes away.

Yes, that would mean that this Kirk and crew aren't the Kirk and crew we followed, but isn't that better than erasing the entire 40 plus year run?

[StarFuryG7]

Apr 24, 2012 13:44:18 GMT -5 CRAMBAM said:

I agree completely. ONE LINE OF DIALOGUE, CLEARLY WRITTEN, and the whole thing goes away.

Yes, that would mean that this Kirk and crew aren't the Kirk and crew we followed, but isn't that better than erasing the entire 40 plus year run?

Yes, but they don't see it that way. If they make any kind of declarative statement affirming that it's an alternate universe crew rather than the same people with their universe having been rewritten, then they are committed, which they don't want. It also seems to be a matter of spite that they don't want to take a clear-cut definitive position on the matter. So they talk out of both sides of their mouths, as though that's better when it isn't. It just confuses matters, makes things worse, and makes them look utterly stupid even though they think in their own minds that they look slick for how they've handled it.

Another problem is that the groupies willingly buy into that nonsense and carry their water for them, making it look as though they were slick, even though their actions were duplicitous at best.

[CRAMBAM]

That's the biggest problem. It also happened in the Berman era, where I referred to them as MT Apologists. They swallowed any crap. When you do that, the writers don't even have to try.