Hober Mallow wrote:
But, again, what's the "Prime Universe?" The original TV series upon which all the derivative shows are based? Or are you including the derivative spinoffs as well? In that case, you're talking about a universe created and maintained for the spinoffs, not for the original. That would be like insisting that all future Sherlock Holmes productions be based on the derivative films featuring Basil Rathbone and not purely the original Conan Doyle stories.
There's nothing "prime" about the Trek spinoffs. No matter how good (or bad) they are, they are derivative works. As are, for that matter, the TOS feature films. They are no more valid or "prime" than any derivative of Star Trek, including the Abrams films. In fact, though I don't actually like the Abrams films, I consider them more "prime" than Voyager or Enterprise, because, featuring Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise, they're closer to the original material.
"Prime" has been defined so many times that it shouldn't really need to be restated. In the credits of the new movies, Leonard Nimoy was credited as Spock Prime. This refers to the reality that he comes from, one that we assume to be of one continuity despite all of the errors and broad strokes that it was painted in. With Abrams' movies, it's deliberately a new continuity, although somewhat tethered to the old.
That's really all it is. And none of that has anything to do with how derivative anything is. Everything about Star Trek, even TOS, is derivative in some fashion, and there isn't some spectrum of derivation, especially focused on which characters are and aren't used. The "Prime" designation has no bearing on quality.