Because having a group of people in the same universe in the future from Kirk and Spock will never work.
21? You were like two when TNG went off the air. I'm 54 and grew up watching TOS and grew old watching TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT. I love the new films.
My Godfather owns all of TNG on vhs, I grew up with those. I started on the TOS movies with my parents before I started borrowing the TNG episodes weekly. So yes, I may have been 2 when it went off the air but it's still possible to grow up with this stuff. The 2009 film wasn't too bad but I do not like Into Darkness. I always try to push away my critiques while watching these movies but this one rubbed me wrong and I probably won't buy it when it comes out. The 2009 film felt like Star Trek to me, Into Darkness just felt like an action film. That's not what Star Trek is about. I could go on but then I'd be writing a novel.
I was 12 when I started watching Star Trek in 1975. And I envy the people who had access to all the cool stuff that came out before that! The first Star Trek series I ever started taping on my VCR was TNG. Week after week, trying to scrunch as many episodes as possible per tape (there wasn't any way to program the machine to cut out the commercials; it had to be done manually), year after year... And now with a few mouse clicks, I could buy all of it on Amazon. It seems too easy, like cheating, somehow...
Watching STAR TREK in syndication was like playing roulette. You never knew which episode you were going to get. It could be "Amok Time" (yay!) or it could be "Miri" (oh well) . . . .
Yeah, I did the same thing: I recorded every single episode of TNG, and then DS9 and then Voyager. I once had a vast collection of Star Trek on VHS. It was tough when TNG & DS9, and then DS9 & Voy were airing at the same time. It felt like I never had enough tapes. I recorded some of ST: Enterprise on DVD (I still have the pilot that I recorded from UPN), but I wound up missing a majority of that series. Been meaning to catch up on it now. Come to think of it, there's still a good chunk of Voy that I haven't seen. Maybe that's why I don't really care whether they make more shows in the prime timeline, because I still have yet to watch a part of it. Sean
Just how dead remains to be seen. Most likely the alternate Abrams version of Star Trek will die quickly following his third Star trek movie. What come after that might be something completely new, another reset/reboot. Or it just as easily could be a return to the "prime universe" once again. We'll see.
Star Trek Online, due to its massive scale, has done more changes to the prime timeline than any other expanded universe material. I wonder if, should they ever decide to revisit the prime timeline, they will keep these changes. After all, having an Enterprise-F is a major thing in Star Trek.
But Star Trek Online is designed from the ground up to result as much fighting as possible. The galaxy's basically in a constant state of anarchy. If TPTB were to ressurrect the Prime universe, I'd prefer they used the novelverse's post-Nemesis backstory, which is far truer to the spirit of the shows and movies. Not that I think they ever would - like Star Wars VII will most likely ignore their post-RotJ Expanded Universe. Trek's already done it once before - Enterprise rendered every pre-TOS story obsolete in one swoop.
Probably for the better too. Creators and writers should have as free a hand as possible when creating new stories.
Do you know if ST Online has on their site a synopsis of their timeline/history? I tried to find one once (didn't look to hard), but couldn't. There's something about that that I wonder about. As I understand it, one of the reasons that TPTB created the character of Tom Paris, instead of simply using the character of Nicholas Locarno, was they didn't want to pay the original writer/creator of Nicholas Locarno everytime they used the character. If a new series employ large numbers of characters and situations from the novels, would CBS then have to compensate the novels authors for their ideas, or does CBS now own all those ideas after paying the authors for their novels? Intellectual property. This question was raised a while back concerning a possible Titan TV series, who "owns" Christine Vale?
http://www.stowiki.org/Path_to_2409 The tie-in writers operate under different rules to the TV writers. Anything they create in the Trek universe is property of CBS. Vonda McIntyre (Enterprise: The First Adventure) and Diane Carey (Final Frontier, Best Destiny) named and developed George Kirk, yet AFAIK, neither got a penny from Paramount or CBS when a version of George Kirk cropped up in JJ's first Star Trek.
This is because TV writers have a union, and novelists don't. The book are written on a strictly work-for-hire basis, so we don't own any characters or planets we create. This applies to not just Star Trek, but pretty much any TV tie-in book.
What, no love for the Lois & Clark timeline? If years of reading comics has taught me anything, it's that timelines are like buses. There will always be another one coming around before you know it.
Yeah. SPOCK: I feel anger for the one who took mother's life. An anger I cannot control. SAREK: I believe, as she would say, do not try to. Of course they were speaking in the first movie of Spock's anger toward Nero, but it's not hard to follow that Spock would take this to heart as far as other emotional contexts. ^^ Seriously -- all of the "nods" and lifted dialog blemish an otherwise good movie. It doesn't ruin the movie and I'll watch it again, but the fan service was almost at fanfic levels.
^I had the feeling they made "Into Darkness" for older trekkies, like a homage movie. Sadly it felt like a few in the theater I was in and myself got those references. I rolled my eyes during Spock's "Khhaaann!" too but I still enjoyed the movie.
Yeah there was a lot of old school feeling to it. But I liked how they did it in the 2009 version, by introducing each character pretty much one by one made it so cool. Into Darkness was just so violent in my opinion. And Star Trek isn't known for violence.