Hober Mallow wrote:
The "Prime Timeline" doesn't actually exist.
I think fans are making a distinction that exists nowhere except inside their own heads.
There is no a single cohesive overarching "prime" universe. Whether fans want to admit it or not, TMP was the first Trek reboot. The next film, TWOK, was another reboot. There is almost no reconciling Nick Meyer's Trek with Gene Roddenberry's. In Nick Meyer's Trek, Starfleet is unapologetically full military and Klingons have pink blood. TNG was Roddenberry rebooting himself, and the other spinoffs are derivative works created by other people. Fans consider all of this one vast universe only by ignoring the myriad contradictions between the various visions of the various creators and producers.
Abrams vision of Trek is no more or less valid than Nick Meyers'. And I say that as one who is not a fan of the Abrams movies. Let's just stop pretending that every derivative work of Trek to ever hit the airwaves or movie theater is all one unified whole. It ain't. It's no more one unified whole than the original Sherlock Holmes stories, the movies with Basil Rathbone, the new Sherlock with Cumberbatch, and the animated series SHERLOCK HOLMES IN THE 22ND CENTURY represent a unified whole.
I think the problem is -- and no insult is intended to anyone -- that some fans who call themselves Star Trek fans are really "Rick Berman Trek spinoff" fans. That was merely one vision of Star Trek; it had its day mostly in the 1990s, but that day is done. Star Trek needs to move on.
Again, I don't like the Abrams films, but I'm hopeful someday for a good reboot, with no baggage at all from any 1990s derivative TV series.
I understand what you're saying, but, regardless of having Klingons with pink blood etc. they all (for the most part) kept in line with what we knew about the characters and continued to build on them, on screen. All of them had a back story and again (for the most part) were well written and had a depth to them.
Nick Meyer's movies were all, pretty much, based in the middle of a war between Starfleet and the Klingon empire so it made sense that they were 'unapologetically military' in their approach.
It also made sense with new technology etc. that things would look differently than they did in the 60's and 70's so things like Klingon forehead ridges/blood colour was more an evolution than a reboot.
Abrams Trek, as others have mentioned, was meant to be a 'clean slate' reboot. For example The destruction of Vulcan, having Chekov from the start of the adventure, Scotty's sidekick etc. etc. Also his insistence that his movie would be called Star Trek and Star Trek: Into Darkness would be Star Trek 2 and not Star Trek 11/12 etc. He didn't want it to continue down that line as the others were.
I did enjoy Star Trek 2009. But why, after doing all of the hardwork, did he decide to almost just remake TWOK with a few bits added in. It just seemed such a lazy way to continue his version of Trek IMO.