Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Wow, you found a scenario where I would rather vote for JJ.

 

Well, yeah. If you read something into my post that I actually didn't say, then I guess I totally said it.

I said, justifiably, that old Trek wasn't working anymore. Enterprise and Nemesis showed that. Paramount/CBS lost their confidence in the product as it was.

What was needed, for the franchise to continue, is a fresh approach. What they chose was a reboot. I never said, thought or implied that it was the only choice, though I will admit that it's the one I would've taken myself, had I been in their place, and I had been saying it for a while before ST09 was announced.

Doctor Who's revival is nothing short of amazing, and it's a fantastic series. And yes, it shows that you can just pick up where you were and go on. However, most of the new show doesn't hinge on knowledge of the old show, so the impact of keeping the previous history of Who was minimal.

Also, as stated before, Trek's reboot isn't actually a full reboot, as it's an in-universe reboot that's dependant upon everything else happening before, and the new movies are full of references to old Trek as well.

That's irrelevant. What matters, from a studio perspective, is whether or not the viewers need to understand past stuff in order to follow the show. This is one of the big reasons why television series in the 60s and 70s were episodic.

And applying the time-travel rules of both series, one could easily say that every time the Doctor does anything, he creates a new continuity. At least Trek's time travel is relatively rare. Trying to construct a single, consistent continuity for Doctor Who is futile, with this in mind. Doesn't stop people from trying, in vain.

 

Perhaps then you should endeavour to say exactly what you mean to begin with - on the Internet, people misunderstand other people quite easily. Or, alternatively, not get apparently offended when people read into a short sentence to find the exact meaning. Either works.

You said one sentence. That sentence was in reply to this:

To which you said

Implying that the reboot was the only logical/desired course of action by saying that the old series wasn't working.

If you honestly can't see how that reads like that to me, that's perfectly fine. But please don't get snarky because others see things in your words you don't.

To the bold: that, right there, was my point. Did you need to know all that much about TOS when TNG came along? Nope, it seemed fairly self evident what the hell was going on. My entire point, before this little irrelevant side-step into talking continuity in Doctor Who, was that Star Trek didn't necessarily need a reboot to be made successful again, and frankly this entire conversation has made me wish I hadn't bothered posting.

And Trek's reboot might as well be a "full" reboot. Visually speaking it is, completely: technology, from the get go, looks more advanced than the Enterprise E, there's an entirely different aesthetic to the entire universe, weaponry's changed from beams to bolts...

Story wise, apart from the clunky origin story for the universe, it's also different: the characters have different relationships to one another, different attitudes, different skills. Basic information changes from one universe to another, where suddenly everyone forgets that they aren't meant to know what Romulans look like. Spock Prime being there doesn't stop it from being different.

I can't see how anyone can argue it's not a full reboot. Because it really is, down to it's very fibre. It's just a different beast. That isn't even a bad thing, FFS, as it's clearly been wildly successful. Good for it. Now if you'll excuse me, I made my point, and I have less than no interest in continuing this conversation further.

 

It implies nothing of the sort. It says exactly what it says: that a reboot is a fresh perspective. YOU are the one who added meaning to my sentence. Don't put that on me.

Take it as a lesson for the future: read what people write, and stop reading between the lines.

We're going to have to agree to disagree, here.

Well a lot has changed from Nero's arrival, which could account for the ripple effect.

The fact that Enterprise and everything prior to 2233 already happened, and that Nero's arrival can't occur without the prior series having happened should be very clear. It's not like they ignored the past series: they keep talking about them. Hell, there are two Spocks, right there.

 

That's in the eye of the beholder. The changes inside the TARDIS interior (not to mention the Doctor's endless reincarnations) look at least as different to me as the Enterprise's in TOS, the classic movies and the new ones. The basic set-up is always the same, but the details are totally different.

Yet whatever the point-of-view of the in-universe characters (and Spock Prime sure reminisced about Khan in ID) the viewers with knowledge of what came before can see when something parallel to the original adventures happens.

The 2005+ Doctor Who requires as much knowledge of the old versions as the 2009 Trek does - nothing. They're both quasi-reboots, each with rich but unnecessary take-it-or-leave-it backstories. Both were intended as fresh starts designed to attract new fans.

 

Interior decorating. Plus, the TARDIS can reconfigure itself, and there have been instances of parts of it being jettisoned (ie. Romana's bedroom in Logopolis and the Zero Room in Castrovalva). None of that means the different TARDIS interiors take place in different timelines.

The modern Doctor Who is enhanced by knowledge of the Classic Doctor Who stories. For example, the episode where the Doctor meets Sarah Jane in the school, and she tells him he really didn't leave her in Croyden. To really appreciate that, it helps to have seen the episode The Hand of Fear in which the Doctor gets summoned back to Gallifrey and can't take her with him. He promises to take her home, but misses the coordinates.

Recommendation to the people who have seen the new Doctor Who trailer: Watch the Tom Baker-era story Brain of Morbius before you see the upcoming 50th anniversary show. It looks like a marvelous bit of continuity there.

 

* Bolding mine

So you're not up to eithe "The Doctor's Wife" or "Journey to the Center Of the Tardis yet" or even "The Name Of The Doctor"?

 

That wasn't the point - I was merely saying that new Trek and new Who are equally loose with their visual continuity. They stay basically the same, but change all the details and make stylistic changes at will.

I don't deny that - I'd say it's just like Into Darkness is given another layer of meaning when watched with knowledge of Space Seed and Wrath of Khan - and the "great cost" that the elder Spock spoke of.

 

Apparently, nothing is on the horizon according to Abrams...

http://trekweb.com/articles/2013/11...Interested-in-a-New-Star-Trek-TV-Series.shtml

 

I saw those recently but I don't know what you're refering to.

 

I'm still watching the Tennant stories, and I believe you're referring to Matt Smith stories that I haven't yet seen (or at least not in their proper context - I did see a few in one of the holiday marathons a couple of years ago).

 

We know from those episodes that the interior of the Tardis can control time / have areas of where time is sped up, slowed down, or even have different realities "bleed" together inside the Tardis. We also now know that the Tardis experiences all of time at once: what has happened, what is happening, what has yet to happen.

For example: The ~30 (past and future) console rooms (and probably the other "deleted" rooms) are still there in the archives / as echoes time shifted. So it's possible that some of the interior is experiencing/stored in different realities or points in time.

 

I hope you are enjoying them. Matt Smith was my favorite, though I'm ready for newness. Who is your current companion? Rose's mother is my favorite character ever.

 

I've just finished watching the Agatha Christie one (the Companion is Donna), and it's driving me nuts trying to place the actress who played her. I recognize one of the others from the old "Good Neighbors" sitcom.

I am definitely enjoying the David Tennant stories a lot more than the Eccleston ones.

Nobody will ever replace Tom Baker, though.

 

I should watch Doctor Who so I could get the references.

I want to but I don't know where to start.

 

If you don't mind black-and-white, I'd suggest starting at the very beginning: An Unearthly Child, first broadcast in November 1963.

Mind you, if you want a crash course in Who, you'd likely want to sample a few key stories from each Doctor. There's a thread for that in the Doctor Who subforum, if I recall.

 

Thanks for the tip. Saw a thread. I do like black and white movies so it shouldn't be that difficult to watch.

 

Yeah but what does this have to do with different timelines ?

 

I've been a Who fan for 30+ years, I'd recommend starting with the nuBBC series (Christopher Eccelson), it's really somewhat of a soft reboot, and you wouldn't need to watch anything that came before to understand what's going on.

The older episodes are really more of an acquired taste.

 

I'm partway through the first season of Matt Smith, and I have to say that the new Who stuff is an acquired taste. There are some of the Classic Who stories I've seen easily a dozen times and could happily watch a dozen times more.

There are very few modern Who episodes I'd care to see a second time, let alone more.