View Single Post
Old August 19 2013, 10:33 PM   #172
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

bbjeg wrote: View Post
Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
I'm not taunting you or saying 'neener-neener-neener!' anymore than anybody else here on this board is... all of the video games based on the previous continuity as much as you want until you're blue in the face or your eyes bleed,

Not alot of us are saying that. Timewalker, if your eyes bleed seek medical attention.'ll all have to face facts; the old continuity is dead, gone, finished (except for fan fiction, novels and Star Trek Online) and that's it. Your dealing with this, or not, is up to you and those others.
Did you know they said the same thing about Kirk's Trek? If you believe 40 some years down the line, after the reboot craze (and that horrible 2030 fashion statement) ends, that a next gen reboot or throwback tv series is not even a possibility then try to open your mind a bit.
I'm not saying I'm against one with the Next Generation gang, or am closed to the possibility of one happening, I'm just saying to Timewalker that for now at this point in time and for the foreseeable future, this version of Star Trek is it, and he (as well as you) have to deal with it. For all we know, they might do a version of Star Trek set in the 23rd century, but focusing on a group of Starfleet Academy cadets, or one about a civilian spacer and their friend/first mate, that has adventures similar to the standalone Han Solo novels set before the events of Episode V.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post

Are you sure they reverted back to Victorian times? Granted, some of the later movies are less obviously concerned with the War and are more generic Holmes mysteries, but I don't believe they ever literally switched back to the gaslight era. (A foggy English estate, or dockside warehouse, looks much the same regardless if it's 1889 or 1945.)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia states explicitly that "the writers of the Universal series never reverted to the Victorian setting." Even if Holmes stopped fighting Nazis.

So no return to the "prime timeline" in that case either!
The last two movies produced did not mention a war, nazies, or anything past the 1900 mark. The first opens with Watson mentioning Irene Adler, implying the adventure with her occured between the last specifically war themed movie and that one.

They were based off of the books again, not new war themed stories, so even if Universal doesn't state it explicitly, it's the intention of the penultimate and final movies.
But Irene Adler never appeared in the Rathbone movies, so we have no idea when that timeline's version of her story took place. If Moriarity and Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson are all running around in the forties, there's no reason Irene Adler couldn't have been as well. Maybe Rathbone's Holmes stopped Irene Adler from blackmailing Winston Churchill.

And just because they didn't mention Nazis, and referenced characters from the books, doesn't mean that, hey, they're back in the 1880s again! Granted, it's been a few years since I've seen Terror by Night or Dressed to Kill, but are they really catching horse-drawn cabs and eschewing electricity in those films? And why would Universal, which had NEVER set their Holmes films in anything but the present-day (as opposed to the first two films from Fox) change course at that late date? My understanding is that they kept the movies set in the present but gradually segued away from wartime themes.

Universal often took a laissez-faire approach to settings back in that era. Just try to pin down exactly when their Frankenstein or Wolf Man movies took place; they're mostly set in some foggy, timeless, mythical Eastern Europe that has modern-day phones and trains--and superstitious peasants and roving bands of gypsies.

And don't get me started on the chronology of the Mummy series, in which decades pass between the movies ("Twenty years ago, your father uncovered an Egyptian tomb . . . ") and yet it always seems to be the present-day 1940s!

Clearly, there was no internet back then. Can you imagine modern-day fans trying to make sense of those "timelines"?

("But wait! How can Moriarity be working with the Nazis in the forties when we clearly saw him stealing the crown jewels back in Victorian times? Canon violation!")
Mysterion wrote: View Post
ComicGuy89 wrote: View Post
Some of the mudslinging towards newer fans that came in through the JJ movies really irks me. Star Trek is not the pinnacle of intelligent sci-fi. There are so many superior examples of that, and it is embarrassing that to hold Trek up high at a level that it is not meant to be at.

What Trek is is entertainment: adventures with phasers, starships, alien planets and all, and the characters that go through those adventures together.

So as to which universe Future Trek should be set in, I don't mind either way, but I do think the alternate reality is the way to go. It's already been set up and a series set in the same universe has the potential to go anywhere in terms of world-building.

At this point I think I'll be happy with whatever new Trek we get.

I like Trek, and have for over 40 years now. But I realize that it is (for the most part) just space opera.

The main bitch against JJ Abrams and his version of Trek seem to boil down to: "They're not liking Star Trek the right way!"

To one degree or another the same basic crap has come everytime there has been a new version of Star Trek. TAS, TMP, TNG, DSN, VGR, ENT, ad nauseum. There were all met with the cries of panic and derision that they were "ruining ST", and how dare they, and we want the "real" Star Trek back. A lot of Trek fans really do not handle change in their world too well at all.

It really gets tiresome. There's a lot of Star Trek I personally don't care for, so I tend to not pay too much attention to it. Star Trek: Voyager, for example. there are big chunks of it I've not seen to this day. Might get around to it someday, maybe not. But I got nothing against folks who think it's the alpha and omega of all things Star Trek.

Get over it already. No matter what happens on-screen (or in print), Star Trek is still whatever Star Trek is to you. No nobody is gonna come take away your DVD's or the stack of books over there on the shelf. Or erase your memory. So just knock it off and go enjoy whatever flavor of Star Trek you happen to like, and don't worry about the people that like other flavors of Trek.

And to answer the OP: No, because the "prime timeline" hasn't gone anywhere. Folks need to stop trying to stir up controversy where there ain't any to begin with.

Last edited by Shaka Zulu; August 19 2013 at 11:14 PM.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote