Trek died in 00s. Nemesis killed the movie side in 2002 after 23 years of uninterrupted production. Enterprise killed the television side in 2005 after 18 years of uninterrupted production. Saying the franchise was fine because of the 40th anniversary is like saying Doctor Who was fine in the 90s because it hit 30 years.
The importance of Star Trek 2009 isn't just its box office success, but its crossover appeal. It brought in a new generation of fans. That's what led to the new shows and that's why those shows—particularly Discovery—cater to those fans. There's a reason CBS tapped Kurtzman to helm the franchise. Whether or not you like the Kelvinverse movies is personal taste, but they had clear impact on the franchise as a whole.
I've seen it. I stumbled upon it while channel surfing at my in-laws and had nothing better to do. It was ok. It had a coherent story, which does put it head and shoulders above the other two. But I wasn't blown away. It had some interesting concepts that, given to better writers and directors who actually understood and cared about the material they were working on, would have made a good movie.
And that's the thing that I hate the most about JJAbrahms, both in Star Trek and in Star Wars. He doesn't know and doesn't care about the material he's working with. Through his movies, he actively tells viewers he doesn't care about their fandom and passions. His movies virtually drip with his loathing for the source material and for anyone who enjoys it.
Trek died in 00s. Nemesis killed the movie side in 2002 after 23 years of uninterrupted production. Enterprise killed the television side in 2005 after 18 years of uninterrupted production. Saying the franchise was fine because of the 40th anniversary is like saying Doctor Who was fine in the 90s because it hit 30 years.
The importance of Star Trek 2009 isn't just its box office success, but its crossover appeal. It brought in a new generation of fans. That's what led to the new shows and that's why those shows—particularly Discovery—cater to those fans. There's a reason CBS tapped Kurtzman to helm the franchise. Whether or not you like the Kelvinverse movies is personal taste, but they had clear impact on the franchise as a whole.
What led to new show was the streaming service war. Every network wants its own streaming service and needs to compete with the others, and the only way to compete, to draw subscribers to your service and away from others, is to offer new content from brands viewers know and recognize. That's why Netflix is creating original series out of every IP they can get their hands on, that's why Prime bought the rights to Lord of the Rings and Wheel of Time and other big name franchises, that's why HBO is still trying to get people excited about new Game of Thrones series. For CBS, they were sitting on Star Trek, one of the biggest and most recognizable TV franchises there are. It would be absolutely insane for them not to propose new Trek shows to draw viewers to their service. In fact, the correct strategy for them is exactly what they're doing now: to propose a variety of new Trek shows aimed at different markets and demographics, in order to get a maximum of people to sign up and give them money. That's not JJ's doing. It's simply market forces.
It's never just one simple cause and effect chain.
To put it into an easy parallel, look at TNGs Tapestry. The Kelvin movies had an influence, if you Wonderful Lifed them away, we wouldn't get what we have now. We certainly might get something. It might be better, it might be worse.
It's never just one simple cause and effect chain.
To put it into an easy parallel, look at TNGs Tapestry. The Kelvin movies had an influence, if you Wonderful Lifed them away, we wouldn't get what we have now. We certainly might get something. It might be better, it might be worse.
Well yeah, obviously. I'm not saying the JJ movies didn't have an influence, that would be a silly thing to say. I took umbrage at the idea that Trek was "dead" and that JJ's movies brought it back to life, which implies Trek would still be dead today without them. That idea is both hyperbole on the state of the franchise in 2005-2009 and greatly exaggerates JJ's influence on it.
Without JJ's movies, we would still have a set of Trek shows made for streaming today. Different shows, as you said maybe better or maybe worse, but it would be alive regardless.
Trek died in 00s. Nemesis killed the movie side in 2002 after 23 years of uninterrupted production. Enterprise killed the television side in 2005 after 18 years of uninterrupted production. Saying the franchise was fine because of the 40th anniversary is like saying Doctor Who was fine in the 90s because it hit 30 years.
The importance of Star Trek 2009 isn't just its box office success, but its crossover appeal. It brought in a new generation of fans. That's what led to the new shows and that's why those shows—particularly Discovery—cater to those fans. There's a reason CBS tapped Kurtzman to helm the franchise. Whether or not you like the Kelvinverse movies is personal taste, but they had clear impact on the franchise as a whole.
What led to new show was the streaming service war. Every network wants its own streaming service and needs to compete with the others, and the only way to compete, to draw subscribers to your service and away from others, is to offer new content from brands viewers know and recognize. That's why Netflix is creating original series out of every IP they can get their hands on, that's why Prime bought the rights to Lord of the Rings and Wheel of Time and other big name franchises, that's why HBO is still trying to get people excited about new Game of Thrones series. For CBS, they were sitting on Star Trek, one of the biggest and most recognizable TV franchises there are. It would be absolutely insane for them not to propose new Trek shows to draw viewers to their service. In fact, the correct strategy for them is exactly what they're doing now: to propose a variety of new Trek shows aimed at different markets and demographics, in order to get a maximum of people to sign up and give them money. That's not JJ's doing. It's simply market forces.
If the first two Kelvinverse movies hadn't been successful, do you think CBS would've considered Trek a good bet for their streaming service? Voyager and Enterprise weren't enough to save UPN. Franchise ratings steadily declined from 1994, to the point that Enterprise couldn't even finish its run. Without the movies, what makes Trek look like a good bet in 2017?
Do you think it's a coincidence that Alex Kurtzman, executive producer on Trek 2009 and Into Darkness, now helms the franchise? They could've tapped Ronald D. Moore, who started his career at the height of the television franchise and led one of the most critically-acclaimed sci-fi shows of the last 30 years. They could've accepted Seth MacFarlane's pitch, who's consistently made popular shows for 20 years. Instead, CBS went with Kurtzman because they wanted to replicate the success of those first two Kelvinverse movies.
Yes, CBS is now making Trek shows aimed at a variety of audiences. Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds are specifically meant to cater to old school fans. None of those shows would exist if Discovery, based on the Kelvinverse model, hadn't been a success.
They absolutely would have still brought back Star Trek if the Kelvinverse tanked. They really didn't have much else to promote when they launched their streaming service, and going for a Star Trek revival was easily the biggest noise they could make in that space.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure we would have gotten any Star Trek shows if CBS wasn't desperate to have something on their service, Kelvin films or no.
Abrams is a hack and I don't take anything he does seriously or with any interest. So I'll wait and see if reviews are good and get it as a digital rental.
They absolutely would have still brought back Star Trek if the Kelvinverse tanked. They really didn't have much else to promote when they launched their streaming service, and going for a Star Trek revival was easily the biggest noise they could make in that space.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure we would have gotten any Star Trek shows if CBS wasn't desperate to have something on their service, Kelvin films or no.
NCIS and its spinoffs have been among of the most watched shows in the country for nearly 20 years. That franchise alone dwarfs Trek in modern popularity. The Big Bang Theory was the most-watched television show in the U.S. for the 2017-18 season. CBS has plenty of shows to anchor a streaming service.
But only one has a billion-dollar movie franchise attached.
They absolutely would have still brought back Star Trek if the Kelvinverse tanked. They really didn't have much else to promote when they launched their streaming service, and going for a Star Trek revival was easily the biggest noise they could make in that space.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure we would have gotten any Star Trek shows if CBS wasn't desperate to have something on their service, Kelvin films or no.
NCIS and its spinoffs have been among of the most watched shows in the country for nearly 20 years. That franchise alone dwarfs Trek in modern popularity. The Big Bang Theory was the most-watched television show in the U.S. for the 2017-18 season. CBS has plenty of shows to anchor a streaming service.
But only one has a billion-dollar movie franchise attached.
That was their existing TV content though, isn't it? Were any of those shows or spinoffs made specifically to promote their streaming service? Like Star Trek was?
They absolutely would have still brought back Star Trek if the Kelvinverse tanked. They really didn't have much else to promote when they launched their streaming service, and going for a Star Trek revival was easily the biggest noise they could make in that space.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure we would have gotten any Star Trek shows if CBS wasn't desperate to have something on their service, Kelvin films or no.
NCIS and its spinoffs have been among of the most watched shows in the country for nearly 20 years. That franchise alone dwarfs Trek in modern popularity. The Big Bang Theory was the most-watched television show in the U.S. for the 2017-18 season. CBS has plenty of shows to anchor a streaming service.
But only one has a billion-dollar movie franchise attached.
That was their existing TV content though, isn't it? Were any of those shows or spinoffs made specifically to promote their streaming service? Like Star Trek was?
No. My whole point is that Trek looked like a good bet because of the success of the Kelvinverse movies.
If you take them out of the equation, then Trek's last successful movie was in 1998 and its last successful show ended in 2001. If you were a television executive trying to stand up a new streaming service, does that look like a good risk?
Trek 2009 and Into Darkness made $852 million. Beyond, while the least successful, still made $158 million and was the 16th highest-grossing film of 2016. That looks like a much safer bet, doesn't it?
Hence why they picked the executive producer of those movies to lead the franchise and the flagship show for the new slate is directly modeled on them.
They absolutely would have still brought back Star Trek if the Kelvinverse tanked. They really didn't have much else to promote when they launched their streaming service, and going for a Star Trek revival was easily the biggest noise they could make in that space.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure we would have gotten any Star Trek shows if CBS wasn't desperate to have something on their service, Kelvin films or no.
NCIS and its spinoffs have been among of the most watched shows in the country for nearly 20 years. That franchise alone dwarfs Trek in modern popularity. The Big Bang Theory was the most-watched television show in the U.S. for the 2017-18 season. CBS has plenty of shows to anchor a streaming service.
But only one has a billion-dollar movie franchise attached.
That was their existing TV content though, isn't it? Were any of those shows or spinoffs made specifically to promote their streaming service? Like Star Trek was?
No. My whole point is that Trek looked like a good bet because of the success of the Kelvinverse movies.
If you take them out of the equation, then Trek's last successful movie was in 1998 and its last successful show ended in 2001. If you were a television executive trying to stand up a new streaming service, does that look like a good risk?
Given the alternatives, yes.
EDIT: Especially given the nostalgia wave that Hollywood is going through. Had the Kelvin films not happened, it would be shocking if they hadn't tried a revival by now.
Even if the Kelvin timeline failed, Voyager and Enterprise only failed in that they couldn't float a network.
The whole appeal of streaming exclusives is that you get way more money and way better data tracking per viewer. So you take Exitprise with X budget and Y viewers failing on a network and take the same thing to streaming. Now you could have a budget of (ass numbers incoming) 2-4X while keeping Y viewers and be profitable. Or keep the budget and be profitable on 0.25-0.5Y viewers.
Premium cable used to be the closest thing. HBO could spend way more on a show that got far fewer viewers and do financially better. Streaming cuts the service middle man's cut out entirely and widens that gap more.
Prior failures or successes will play a part in the final form the new content takes, and you can definitely see the influence of the Kelvin movies, but the existence is down to the numbers game and the fact that CBS needs its own MCU to carry a service and stave off the inevitable Disney takeover.
Hevach on
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Hate them all you want, but you have to acknowledge that if they hadn't been made they wouldn't have reignited interest in Trek. When they came out the franchise was dead as hell, and no-one else seemed interested in bringing it back.
I have to disagree. Enterprise ended in 2005 and the JJ movie started production in 2007 to be released in 2009. Calling a then-40-year-old franchise "dead as hell" because of a two-year hiatus is a bit of an overstatement IMO. Moreover, while the 2005-2009 period was indeed the first since 1987 not to have any new Trek TV/movie content, the franchise was far from dead. That period also had Star Trek's 40th Anniversary commemoration, the remastered TOS began selling and airing, dozens of Trek novels were published, merchandise sales went on, pop culture presence was still felt (for instance, Big Bang Theory premiered during that period and made liberal Trek references), and hundreds of fans cosplayed their favourite characters at various conventions. The franchise lived on, just not on screen, and it was only a matter of time before network/studio execs smelled the latinum and started producing new content. JJ didn't "save" or "resurrect" Trek, he just profited from it.
The unevenness of Voyager and the overall blandness of Enterprise had exhausted the core audience, though. And Enterprise did not bring in new fans of the franchise. 2009 Star Trek did.
Resurrected is perhaps inaccurate, but revived is not.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Y'all are gonna make me dig up my old post about how Beyond is briliant commentary on how the prior two movies sucked shit aren't y'all?
Also thankfully JJ isn't directing the fourth movie either
I mean, you can if you want. But it won’t make me stop thinking that Trek (09) was a top notch, fun film that did what it set out to do, and reinvigorated the source material.
Hell, it’s the film that made my wife start watching Star Trek.
You do you I guess. I liked it, and it made a shit ton of money, so I guess a bunch of other people did too.
Y'all are gonna make me dig up my old post about how Beyond is briliant commentary on how the prior two movies sucked shit aren't y'all?
Also thankfully JJ isn't directing the fourth movie either
I mean, you can if you want. But it won’t make me stop thinking that Trek (09) was a top notch, fun film that did what it set out to do, and reinvigorated the source material.
Hell, it’s the film that made my wife start watching Star Trek.
You do you I guess. I liked it, and it made a shit ton of money, so I guess a bunch of other people did too.
OK? I'm sorry your feelings are so hurt over me thinking 09 and Into Darkness are garbage, lol.
0
Options
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
I remember really liking 09 when it first came out but upon rewatching it recently, boy is it dumb. It practically devolves into Jerry Spinger in space. If Karl Urban wasn't possessed by the ghost of DeForest Kelley there would be no reason to watch it.
09 is in the same box as Insurrection for me—fun movies that missed the mark on their best ideas.
They ended up making Kirk a frat boy instead of a charming rogue, and putting him in the captain's chair within 1 movie was a huge waste of potential. If they had to make Kirk the main character, then:
Movie 1:
-Skip the Academy stuff. It's just an artifact from older scripts that doesn't add anything. Go from the Kelvin's destruction to Lieutenant Kirk, skilled but reckless tactical officer. Focus on the friendship with Spock—it'll play like a buddy cop movie while still affording good character development. Play up the revenge angle for Kirk, that way Nero's a better foil when Kirk is able to let go of his obsession and he can't. End with Kirk as Pike's first officer.
Movie 2:
-Adapt the Doomsday Machine but structure it more like an old-school diaster movie than Moby Dick. Center it on leadership, with Kirk ultimately having to choose between Pike and the rest of the crew. End with Kirk as captain and unsure if he really wants it.
Movie 3:
-Adapt Errand of Mercy but replace Kor with Gorkon. The primary theme is idealism vs cynicism, focused on the question of whether the Federation is a colonizing force—something they wanted to do in Beyond but dropped the ball. Kirk is torn between his duty and his morality, with Gorkon as the sympathetic anti-villain. Throw in Cartwright and Section 31 to embody the danger of a Federation without principle.
I'm around for another adventure of the JJ Crew. The cast is impeccable but that's basically true for all JJ Abrams things. The movies always look pretty. Maybe they'll have a good script this time. Fourth time's the charm!
I will admit I am a simple fan who enjoyed '09 Trek. I found it a blast even if kind of silly. And I think one thing they did was an amazing job with the crew casting.
Trek 09 only seems dumb to me because I know more about Star Trek now and am a way bigger fan... and I'm a way bigger fan now because I loved Trek 09 and got interested in Trek again. I actually liked Trek a lot as a kid because I watched it with my dad, but I had pretty much stopped thinking about it before the movie came out and TOS specifically was too old and corny for me to really relate to strongly. 09 made Kirk and Spock feel like what I *thought* Kirk and Spock were like, based on a general cultural osmosis. They dialed into those archetypes well. Honestly it's probably one of Abram's best movies, it just worked well and was fun, simple and straightforward and was, very roughly, pretty true to Star Trek's overall ethos.
After Trek 09 I eventually came back and watched DS9 on streaming, which I had never seen, and that pretty much sealed the deal on Trek being awesome. I didn't really like the next Kelvin movies much but 09 really brought things back to life, for sure. It's one of the best entry points to the overall universe you could ask for. I don't think I would like it now... my relationship to Trek is different and I'd probably be upset they destroyed Vulcan, for instance. But in 2009 I had no personal attachment to Vulcan, I could give less of a fuck what that meant to the overall worldbuilding or whatever, that shit doesn't actually matter until you're already hooked.
It's probably fair to say that Discovery or some sort of Trek revival would have always happened, but probably with a much lower budget if Trek had really been dormant for that long.
Given everyone has their own streaming service these days, whoever owned the rights to Star Trek was gonna launch a streaming service and put a new Star Trek show on their, guarenteed.
Posts
The importance of Star Trek 2009 isn't just its box office success, but its crossover appeal. It brought in a new generation of fans. That's what led to the new shows and that's why those shows—particularly Discovery—cater to those fans. There's a reason CBS tapped Kurtzman to helm the franchise. Whether or not you like the Kelvinverse movies is personal taste, but they had clear impact on the franchise as a whole.
EDIT: Page 101! Woo! Wait...I feel something. It's strange...oh no!
I appreciate them just embracing how much of the Abrahms movies were about loud noises and shouting.
Plus Simon Pegg wrote it and I'll forever be amused that it was Scotty that got to hang out with the cool alien babe in his movie.
I've seen it. I stumbled upon it while channel surfing at my in-laws and had nothing better to do. It was ok. It had a coherent story, which does put it head and shoulders above the other two. But I wasn't blown away. It had some interesting concepts that, given to better writers and directors who actually understood and cared about the material they were working on, would have made a good movie.
And that's the thing that I hate the most about JJAbrahms, both in Star Trek and in Star Wars. He doesn't know and doesn't care about the material he's working with. Through his movies, he actively tells viewers he doesn't care about their fandom and passions. His movies virtually drip with his loathing for the source material and for anyone who enjoys it.
What led to new show was the streaming service war. Every network wants its own streaming service and needs to compete with the others, and the only way to compete, to draw subscribers to your service and away from others, is to offer new content from brands viewers know and recognize. That's why Netflix is creating original series out of every IP they can get their hands on, that's why Prime bought the rights to Lord of the Rings and Wheel of Time and other big name franchises, that's why HBO is still trying to get people excited about new Game of Thrones series. For CBS, they were sitting on Star Trek, one of the biggest and most recognizable TV franchises there are. It would be absolutely insane for them not to propose new Trek shows to draw viewers to their service. In fact, the correct strategy for them is exactly what they're doing now: to propose a variety of new Trek shows aimed at different markets and demographics, in order to get a maximum of people to sign up and give them money. That's not JJ's doing. It's simply market forces.
To put it into an easy parallel, look at TNGs Tapestry. The Kelvin movies had an influence, if you Wonderful Lifed them away, we wouldn't get what we have now. We certainly might get something. It might be better, it might be worse.
Well yeah, obviously. I'm not saying the JJ movies didn't have an influence, that would be a silly thing to say. I took umbrage at the idea that Trek was "dead" and that JJ's movies brought it back to life, which implies Trek would still be dead today without them. That idea is both hyperbole on the state of the franchise in 2005-2009 and greatly exaggerates JJ's influence on it.
Without JJ's movies, we would still have a set of Trek shows made for streaming today. Different shows, as you said maybe better or maybe worse, but it would be alive regardless.
If the first two Kelvinverse movies hadn't been successful, do you think CBS would've considered Trek a good bet for their streaming service? Voyager and Enterprise weren't enough to save UPN. Franchise ratings steadily declined from 1994, to the point that Enterprise couldn't even finish its run. Without the movies, what makes Trek look like a good bet in 2017?
Do you think it's a coincidence that Alex Kurtzman, executive producer on Trek 2009 and Into Darkness, now helms the franchise? They could've tapped Ronald D. Moore, who started his career at the height of the television franchise and led one of the most critically-acclaimed sci-fi shows of the last 30 years. They could've accepted Seth MacFarlane's pitch, who's consistently made popular shows for 20 years. Instead, CBS went with Kurtzman because they wanted to replicate the success of those first two Kelvinverse movies.
Yes, CBS is now making Trek shows aimed at a variety of audiences. Lower Decks and Strange New Worlds are specifically meant to cater to old school fans. None of those shows would exist if Discovery, based on the Kelvinverse model, hadn't been a success.
Meanwhile, I'm not sure we would have gotten any Star Trek shows if CBS wasn't desperate to have something on their service, Kelvin films or no.
NCIS and its spinoffs have been among of the most watched shows in the country for nearly 20 years. That franchise alone dwarfs Trek in modern popularity. The Big Bang Theory was the most-watched television show in the U.S. for the 2017-18 season. CBS has plenty of shows to anchor a streaming service.
But only one has a billion-dollar movie franchise attached.
That was their existing TV content though, isn't it? Were any of those shows or spinoffs made specifically to promote their streaming service? Like Star Trek was?
No. My whole point is that Trek looked like a good bet because of the success of the Kelvinverse movies.
If you take them out of the equation, then Trek's last successful movie was in 1998 and its last successful show ended in 2001. If you were a television executive trying to stand up a new streaming service, does that look like a good risk?
Trek 2009 and Into Darkness made $852 million. Beyond, while the least successful, still made $158 million and was the 16th highest-grossing film of 2016. That looks like a much safer bet, doesn't it?
Hence why they picked the executive producer of those movies to lead the franchise and the flagship show for the new slate is directly modeled on them.
Given the alternatives, yes.
EDIT: Especially given the nostalgia wave that Hollywood is going through. Had the Kelvin films not happened, it would be shocking if they hadn't tried a revival by now.
That said, it’s never a guarantee. Just look at The Man From U.N.C.L.E. movie and the Charmed remake.
The whole appeal of streaming exclusives is that you get way more money and way better data tracking per viewer. So you take Exitprise with X budget and Y viewers failing on a network and take the same thing to streaming. Now you could have a budget of (ass numbers incoming) 2-4X while keeping Y viewers and be profitable. Or keep the budget and be profitable on 0.25-0.5Y viewers.
Premium cable used to be the closest thing. HBO could spend way more on a show that got far fewer viewers and do financially better. Streaming cuts the service middle man's cut out entirely and widens that gap more.
Prior failures or successes will play a part in the final form the new content takes, and you can definitely see the influence of the Kelvin movies, but the existence is down to the numbers game and the fact that CBS needs its own MCU to carry a service and stave off the inevitable Disney takeover.
The unevenness of Voyager and the overall blandness of Enterprise had exhausted the core audience, though. And Enterprise did not bring in new fans of the franchise. 2009 Star Trek did.
Resurrected is perhaps inaccurate, but revived is not.
Also thankfully JJ isn't directing the fourth movie either
I mean, you can if you want. But it won’t make me stop thinking that Trek (09) was a top notch, fun film that did what it set out to do, and reinvigorated the source material.
Hell, it’s the film that made my wife start watching Star Trek.
You do you I guess. I liked it, and it made a shit ton of money, so I guess a bunch of other people did too.
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
OK? I'm sorry your feelings are so hurt over me thinking 09 and Into Darkness are garbage, lol.
They ended up making Kirk a frat boy instead of a charming rogue, and putting him in the captain's chair within 1 movie was a huge waste of potential. If they had to make Kirk the main character, then:
-Skip the Academy stuff. It's just an artifact from older scripts that doesn't add anything. Go from the Kelvin's destruction to Lieutenant Kirk, skilled but reckless tactical officer. Focus on the friendship with Spock—it'll play like a buddy cop movie while still affording good character development. Play up the revenge angle for Kirk, that way Nero's a better foil when Kirk is able to let go of his obsession and he can't. End with Kirk as Pike's first officer.
Movie 2:
-Adapt the Doomsday Machine but structure it more like an old-school diaster movie than Moby Dick. Center it on leadership, with Kirk ultimately having to choose between Pike and the rest of the crew. End with Kirk as captain and unsure if he really wants it.
Movie 3:
-Adapt Errand of Mercy but replace Kor with Gorkon. The primary theme is idealism vs cynicism, focused on the question of whether the Federation is a colonizing force—something they wanted to do in Beyond but dropped the ball. Kirk is torn between his duty and his morality, with Gorkon as the sympathetic anti-villain. Throw in Cartwright and Section 31 to embody the danger of a Federation without principle.
After Trek 09 I eventually came back and watched DS9 on streaming, which I had never seen, and that pretty much sealed the deal on Trek being awesome. I didn't really like the next Kelvin movies much but 09 really brought things back to life, for sure. It's one of the best entry points to the overall universe you could ask for. I don't think I would like it now... my relationship to Trek is different and I'd probably be upset they destroyed Vulcan, for instance. But in 2009 I had no personal attachment to Vulcan, I could give less of a fuck what that meant to the overall worldbuilding or whatever, that shit doesn't actually matter until you're already hooked.