Orci & Kurtzman Q&A: lots of interesting tidbits

[Stark]

Not being an obsessed fan who reads terrible novels and comics, the series are ALREADY static for me and the canon. So what? Who cares? How does this affect my enjoyment of them?

Red herrings about why you like Star Trek are irrelevant and actually rather embarrassing. 'Franchise lost forever'? Lost how you fucking cretin?

Oh, I get it. It's the football team/audience ownership thing. You felt A PART OF THE STARTREK MOVEMENT and now they made a new one. Poor you.

[tim31]

lol 'we're moving it to Arizona!' Didn't I already say this before?

[Patrick Degan]

Even if this reboot was a proper clean start (which it clearly isn't according to the producers and they're going to keep jamming old content into it from the old series) it would NOT AFFECT THE OLD SHOWS IN ANY FUCKING WAY WHATSOEVER.

It would mean that there's no chance of them being made any more, at least not in official canon. Sure, the old episodes will still be there but their stories and characters will never be developed past what's already on DVD. Personally I'm not very attached to any of the TNG-onward Trek characters and stories but I can imagine how others would feel differently.

Plus, while Star Trek in all its incarnations has had more than its share of cheese, when it's at its best it can put out some pretty well-done, thought-provoking science fiction. Now with the first, defining movie of the new version of the franchise being nothing but a string of plot holes tied together by explosions, and with it being financially successful enough that there's no incentive to do things differently in future instalments it's reasonable to think that that part of the franchise is now lost forever.

No, it does not necessarily mean that. It is not automatically a given that the new version reboot is a forever fixed commodity or that there can't be a second reboot in future, as has been done successfully with the Batman franchise.

[Drooling Iguana]

Hell, TNG could also be considered a reboot, as it was only loosely related to the series that preceded it. However, after TNG became a success it took nearly 20 years for Paramount to try another take on the franchise. Likewise, it was more than a decade and a half between Burtonman and Batman Begins (just as more than two decades passed between the Adam West version of Batman and Michael Keaton's.) "Forever" was, of course, hyperbole but it's likely that Abramstrek will define the franchise for a good long while to come.

[Enigma]

A question that I am wondering about - does Star Trek use paralell timelines or does this mean that all of my beloved TOS and DS9 never happened?

Parallel timelines. At the very least in this instance. The original universe as it existed before this movie is still happily chugging along (in real life, too; there are still TOS comics and TNG-era novels getting published).

So the OTL has Romulus go kablooie? I wonder how this would affect the balance of power amongst the big three? Would the Klingons and the Feds ake advantage of this or would this be an excuse for the Feds to be even more lazier than they already are?

[Patrick Degan]

Hell, TNG could also be considered a reboot, as it was only loosely related to the series that preceded it. However, after TNG became a success it took nearly 20 years for Paramount to try another take on the franchise. Likewise, it was more than a decade and a half between Burtonman and Batman Begins (just as more than two decades passed between the Adam West version of Batman and Michael Keaton's.) "Forever" was, of course, hyperbole but it's likely that Abramstrek will define the franchise for a good long while to come.

Or it may spiral into a death dive after three or four films and second reboot is attempted after a ten year hiatus. Or it may improve with succeeding films. At this point, any conclusion is premature.