View Single Post
Old August 19 2013, 03:55 AM   #150
Timewalker
Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady
 
Timewalker's Avatar
 
Location: In many different universes, simultaneously.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post

Clearly, the much older Spock had revised his thinking after reviewing the latest theoretical studies from the Vulcan Science Academy.

Seriously, given that over a century had passed between "Yesteryear" and the Narada incident, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that a better understanding of time-travel and parallel universes had developed over the previous hundred-plus years!

It's not like Einstein knew about string theory back in the day, and that was less than a century ago.
He WITNESSED how everything disappeared in CotEoF.

Had Einstein witnessed a spaceship going faster than light, he would have re-thought his relativity theory.
He witnessed it, but he may not have interpreted it correctly. I doubt his tricorder was capable of registering the existence of co-existing parallel universes.

Remember, time-travel itself had only been discovered a few months earlier--in "The Naked Time." It's not like anyone was an expert on the topic back then. They were still learning the ropes.

By the time Romulus blew up, there'd been over a century of additional thought and study on the subject.
Einstein first published his theories in 1905, if I remember correctly. 1905 + 100 = 2005. Your math is off a little bit, Mr. Cox.

(unless you're talking about his later published work... in which case, I have no problem with your calculations )

As for time travel only being discovered in "The Naked Time"... has it been established that this was the VERY FIRST instance of time travel in the prime universe? Considering the Enterprise and Borg's visit to Earth, I think not. That episode was just the first time anyone on the Enterprise had done it.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post

He WITNESSED how everything disappeared in CotEoF.

Had Einstein witnessed a spaceship going faster than light, he would have re-thought his relativity theory.
He witnessed it, but he may not have interpreted it correctly. I doubt his tricorder was capable of registering the existence of co-existing parallel universes.

Remember, time-travel itself had only been discovered a few months earlier--in "The Naked Time." It's not like anyone was an expert on the topic back then. They were still learning the ropes.

By the time Romulus blew up, there'd been over a century of additional thought and study on the subject.
Didn't the Guardian himself explain that the timeline was altered and needed to be restored?
The Guardian said the timeline was changed. It didn't say the timeline needed to be restored. It just provided the means for Kirk to do so, if he chose.

The Guardian had to be capable of storing data about multiple timelines, or Spock would never have been able to discover what would have happened if Edith had survived.

The Emissary wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
My problem with the idea is that, aside from longtime fans, no one would care and it could serve to just confuse people.

Personally, I wouldn't mind, but since we've made the switch already, I'd rather just stick to the new timeline. Besides, we can still watch the older stuff !
No one would care? You say that with such absolute certainty. Do you really think that with a good story and a good cast, that it'd be pointless to try it?

Who would it confuse exactly? People who don't pay attention. Does Trek really need to continue to dumb itself down to reach out to modern audiences that find old Trek boring? I agree that jumping back and forth between time lines can get a bit cumbersome, but Abrams' Trek is only two movies (and then one more). It is not equal to the 40 years plus that's been on before it.

And honestly, my questions to the people that say we should stick with Abramsverse...are... How and why? Because it is the latest Trek? Because Trek is "really about Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise. No one cares about the other crews." What nonsense. If Trek was only about them, Roddenberry wouldn't have made TNG. The other Treks, despite the criticism they got, wouldn't have lasted so long. Trek is not about Kirk, etc.
This is a huge reason why I loathe the nuTrek stuff. It is dumbed down. The characters, their motivations, their actions, even the acting... are just too much like a cartoon meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator. And TAS, which technically was a cartoon, was far superior to nuTrek.

Roddenberry, et. al had their faults, but they never assumed the audience was basically stupid. Abrams does. I find that insulting, no matter if it's nuTrek, nuBSG, or nu-anything else (ie. Dune; KJA/BH started out assuming their reading audience was stupid, and dumbed down their books so people wouldn't have to actually think to enjoy them).

I'd rather think in conjunction with my SF viewing/reading. Consider all the university courses and papers and discussions that have been held over the decades about Star Trek philosophy, ethics, economics, etc. Anybody here think this nuTrek crap will generate that level of thought? I sure don't.

Hound of UIster wrote: View Post
Shikarnov wrote: View Post
I'm a fan of the prime universe for multiple reasons -- the main one of which is that it gave us something to aspire to. The new universe is designed to appeal for the drooling mass audiences who care nothing of big ideas, plausible (albethey fictional) technologies, or characters that actually work to earn their status, etc.

I understood that on ST09's opening day; in the bathroom of the movie theater, listening to two teenage street thugs who could hardly construct a coherent sentence, talk about how surprising it was that this new Star Trek was actually good. "And yo, man, that was hot when they was blowin up the black hole." I remember thinking in exactly that moment that Trek was truly and completely doomed.

That said, I think that NuTrek is well suited for the big screen. It's hard to derive 100s of millions of dollars in sales from Trekkies alone. But on television, I don't think this universe can carry its own weight. Real fans looking for more than a fun moviegoing experience will never tune in long term. For a long-running series, it will need to appeal to folks that enjoy a rich history and a wealth of ideas that produce many stories. And, sorry to say so, that's not going to happen with the new low-brow Trek universe.
Not really. Like you said it's so successful, because it's not intelligent and instead appeals to the lowest common denominator. Voyager and Enterprise did that, but the fandom ultimately rejected both. But Abrams managed to sell this version and most of the critics and fans ate it up, which goes to show how lots of special effects, good directing and explosions can hide all that superficiality and bad writing. I think you just need to come to a greater appreciation what he did.

Just think of those two hoods as new fans to ST and two more warm bodies that will help keep ST alive for another generation.

The franchise ultimately has to adapt to changing conditions. What Abrams did was for the good of the franchise.
Abrams deliberately dumbing down the stories, characters, motivations, and science is for the "good" of the franchise?

thumbtack wrote: View Post
The elephant in the room, the great big whopping fib, the bluff the bean counters are going to call again and again, is that Star Trek can only be smart if it is set in the prime universe.

No one in Hollywood is buying that.
No one in Hollywood ever will.

Star Trek can be smart anytime and anywhere it decides to be. What does 40 years of canon have to do with being smart?

A far more believable approach is needed if the canon fans are to be taken seriously. I can't think of one offhand and I've certainly never seen one posted on the internet, but it would have to be an approach that appeals to both logic and profitability.

It seems quite a daunting task. A precedent has now been set (twice) that it simply isn't necessary. How do you convince the creative types that they should be beholden to the canon fans? How do you convince the suits, who are well aware that the prime universe hasn't posted decent numbers since the mid 90s?

Maybe someone will come up with an argument that doesn't provoke the giggles. "Because that's how I want it" isn't going to cut it. In the meantime, I would advise saying "These movies are dumb." instead of "This universe is dumb."
Okay. The movies are dumb. The movies were dumb, so I'm convinced that the universe Abrams created is also dumb. He's done nothing to convince me otherwise.

Belz... wrote: View Post
The Emissary wrote: View Post
No one would care? You say that with such absolute certainty. Do you really think that with a good story and a good cast, that it'd be pointless to try it?
Pay attention: not one would care in which timeline this is, except die-hard fans.

Who would it confuse exactly? People who don't pay attention.
Don't project. If a character dies in one timeline and suddenly reappears, or the reverse, casual viewers who are NOT obsessed with reading and knowing everything Trek might get a bit confused, and confused viewers lowers ratings.
Yep, can't have viewers who might possibly have to exercise a couple of brain cells, at least enough to ask someone else a question or look up the answer online. I do that with some of the shows I've followed off and on over the years and am confused about. Hell, I've spent this whole summer watching 3 YEARS' worth of General Hospital because the current storyline keeps referring back to events that happened in a time when I wasn't watching. I got tired of being confused and decided to educate myself with YouTube and other sources. Are you suggesting that STAR TREK fans would be too lazy to do likewise?

Dumb down ? What are you talking about ?
Dumb down. To make smarter things more stupid, so they're not so difficult to understand or think about.

I am honestly curious about those that want to stay in this nutimeline, what will it be about? What can be done in this universe that can't be done by going back to the original?
How about we reverse the question: now that we're in the new timeline, why bother going back ? What can we do in the prime timeline that we can't do on this one (aside from having dinner on Vulcan, that is) ?
We could have more intelligent stories, and less character assassination.

BillJ wrote: View Post
The general population still knows the characters fifty-years after they debuted and the two newest movies have done about three times the revenue of the four TNG films would seem to suggest that Kirk and Spock (they are part of Time Magazines "100 Greatest People Who Never Lived") are still the most viable characters the franchise has.
They're only viable as long as there are actors capable of portraying them. These new guys can't act (in my opinion of course).

BillJ wrote: View Post
They are the strongest characters, almost every other character has been a variation of those two. They are also the most popular. Which makes it a no-brainer that if Trek comes back to TV, it will feature Kirk and Spock.
Uh-huh. TNG, as bland and PC as it was, survived for 7 seasons without Kirk. Spock was occasionally mentioned and was featured in a few episodes. He didn't walk in and eat the show, like Worf did to DS9. Star Trek does not require Kirk and Spock to be successful. It just requires the same universe, presented intelligently, respectfully, and without the character assassination that Abrams perpetrated.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
The famous characters have an appeal. That's why reboots and prequels are so successful.
They may have an appeal, but they need to follow through in a way that's respectful to the audience, the source material, and have a story that makes sense. Take the Star Wars prequels, for example. They're dumb. Sure, the guy who played adult Anakin could do a hair commercial, but his acting is subpar, and that's the kindest thing I could say about it. The story doesn't make sense to me, and from what I've gathered from SW fans who are a lot more hardcore than me, the story made no sense to them, either. And I have yet to see all 3 prequels from start to finish. They're so boring, I literally fell asleep partway through the first one. I've heard that Harrison Ford may be in the upcoming sequel; if so, I'll give it a chance. But if the story is stupid, or retcons too much in a way that doesn't make sense, that's it. I'll confine my personal SW universe to the first 3 (in production order, obviously) and ignore the rest.
__________________
"Let's give it to Riker. He'll eat anything!"

For some great Original Series fanfic, check out the Valjiir Continuum!
Timewalker is offline   Reply With Quote