View Single Post
Old October 24 2013, 11:53 AM   #450
Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady
Timewalker's Avatar
Location: In many different universes, simultaneously.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
Your Batman references have no meaning to me, since I've never seen the original TV series, never read the comics, never seen any of the movies, or anything else about Batman. I have a vague idea of the themes and characters, based on all the references I've seen and heard over the years, but I'm not going to discuss Batman with you (or Sherlock Holmes, for the same reason).
You're missing the point. It isn't about Batman or Sherlock Holmes or any other particular character or series. Feel free to substitute Tarzan or Dracula or Robin Hood or The Three Musketeers or the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew or the Arthurian mythos or whatever perennially popular works of fiction you are familiar with. My point is that the basic idea-- a human child raised by apes to be king of the jungle or whatever--is not dependent on the specific "continuity" of whatever the last theatrical version was. Tarzan is Tarzan, regardless if some new versions picks up where the previous movies or TV series left off. And there's no reason to invent a "new" ape-man every time you want to revive the series.

Ditto for Star Trek. It's a concept, not a history book.
I vaguely remember seeing Tarzan movies as a child. As a teenager, I collected and read the novels, along with some other Edgar Rice Burroughs books. As I recall, the comics I read were quite faithful to the books (I still have some of those comics, and all the books). I've seen Greystoke, although it was a long time ago and I don't remember much of it.

As for Robin Hood... it's like Shakespeare. I prefer it to be as authentic as possible - as in period settings, costumes, speech, etc. I will admit to liking a few exceptions; I loved the Robin of Sherwood TV show and the musical West Side Story is a terrific adaptation of Romeo and Juliet.

Consider one thing you said:
...there's no reason to invent a "new" ape-man every time you want to revive the series.
That's what nuTrek did, though. They invented a "new" Kirk, Spock, etc. that are not true to the original characters. Some apparently like these new characters. I happen to think they're obnoxious.

DonIago wrote: View Post
^Careful Greg, or you'll attract some torches and pitchforks.

BigJake wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote:
there's really no reason to think that there are any of the Doctor Who TV stories that do not take place in the original Whoniverse (not gonna get into the spinoffs of K-9 & Company, Torchwood, or the Sarah Jane Adventures, because I haven't seen them).
Torchwood was good, I thought. Captain Jack Harkness is a pretty great character.

I have to confess I'm not really sure what Doctor Who "continuity" even really means. Seems like all sorts of fudging ought to be possible in a series based on time travel, and I have to admit I find references to "fixed points in time" in the new shows totally confusing. Fortunately it usually matters little to following any particular episode or story arc.
I take it to mean that once something has happened, it can't un-happen (unless it wasn't supposed to in the first place). Take Adric's death, for example. That was the first Companion death since the Hartnell era. Nyssa and Tegan were aghast that it happened, and they begged the Doctor to go back a few minutes and save him. The Doctor was extremely upset (and indeed felt guilt over Adric's death right up to his regeneration), and told them that he couldn't do it.

Now that I think further on it, I believe I overlooked the matter of Rose and her parents. Rose's father was originally dead, but I seem to remember him surviving in another universe... which would make it correct to say that not all of the TV stories were set in the same continuity.

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
Are you saying that TNG, DS9, and Voyager shouldn't have been called Star Trek? I have no objection to them having done that, because they were continuing the story started in TOS, or exploring other parts of the universe that was essentially a future part of TOS. And when TOS charcters (McCoy, Scotty, Sarek, Spock, and Sulu) guested on these shows, they weren't "reimagined" into some modern version that would appeal to a younger generation and that would be unpalatable to many TOS viewers.
I'm just trying to understand your point. You're saying that a Star Trek series based on Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek featuring Star Trek characters Kirk and Spock on the Starship Enterprise shouldn't be called Star Trek, but a series all but ignoring the source material featuring all new character should be called Star Trek. That seems exactly backwards.
They can call it Star Trek, but if it doesn't FEEL like Star Trek, I'm not going to accept it as such. To me it has the feel of Abrams saying, "I'd like to make a space movie, with lots of young, pretty people as the crew. Nah, it doesn't matter if they can act. Nobody cares about that, as long as we have enough FX and explodey things. Now what's the best marketing angle we can use to get people to see this thing? Oh, yeah - use the character names from Star Trek! Sure, we'll make the actors look sorta vaguely like the originals, rip off elements of the old TV episodes, and tell everybody it's new and fresh! Who's gonna notice?"
"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