RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,778
Posts: 5,217,012
Members: 24,216
Currently online: 775
Newest member: momogila

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

View Poll Results: Do fans want the prime timeline back?
I'm a fan and I want the Prime timeline back. 160 55.36%
I'm a fan and I don't want the Prime timeline back. 52 17.99%
I'm a fan and wouldn't mind if it came back. 32 11.07%
I don't care, just give me Trek! 39 13.49%
I don't know. 6 2.08%
Voters: 289. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 4 2013, 06:13 PM   #301
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

grendelsbayne wrote: View Post
Everyone who is here is a Star Trek fan, interested in discussing Star Trek. That doesn't come with any kind of obligation to always be positive or to just never discuss the things you didn't like.
But there's a point in time where people need to let go of the negativity. Should I rush into the Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise forums to harp on how shitty I found those shows (overall), how poor their creative staffs were and how they all had dwindling ratings over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

Why does anyone need to continually piss on something other people enjoy?
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 06:14 PM   #302
grendelsbayne
Lieutenant Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
That they WERE keeping it from their own command? That's part of the movie, and what I said logically follows from that.
Unfortunately, what doesn't logically follow from that is the film's continued implication that Kirk is a command prodigy who clearly deserves to be in command of the enterprise, despite his apparent disrespect for the basic chain of command.
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 06:17 PM   #303
BigJake
Commodore
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

DonIago wrote: View Post
If you believe Our Heroes have any idea what they're doing then it seems reasonable to assume that they had a good reason for doing what they did.
You tried this before, and again, I don't think it works. One of the most basic rules of storytelling is "show, don't tell." To be merely told that our heroes know what they're about Because The Writers Say So is bad writing, particularly when you have to engage in speculative gyrations or simply switch your brain off to make it jive with what is happening on the screen.
__________________
“Let them eat static.”

(Recruiting for a Where No Man Has Gone Before play-by-post RP. Check it out!)
BigJake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 06:19 PM   #304
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

grendelsbayne wrote: View Post

Unfortunately, what doesn't logically follow from that is the film's continued implication that Kirk is a command prodigy who clearly deserves to be in command of the enterprise, despite his apparent disrespect for the basic chain of command.
Kirk always had a bit of disrespect for those in positions of power over him. What we see in "Into Darkness" isn't anything new. What he lacks is the seasoning that the Prime Universe version of the character has, so he is a bit more "in your face" about how he feels and reacts to those above him.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 06:22 PM   #305
The Keeper
Commodore
 
The Keeper's Avatar
 
Location: Where reality ends and illusion begins
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BigJake wrote: View Post
Imminent Anterior Aneurysm wrote: View Post
Not very original, First Contact used a moon to hide the Enterprise from the Vulcans.
Actually the "hiding behind / in a moon" device dates back to The Wrath of Khan. (Extra TWOK reference points!)
So re-using an already overused idea is "better writing"
__________________
The Keeper
The Keeper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 06:24 PM   #306
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

grendelsbayne wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
That they WERE keeping it from their own command? That's part of the movie, and what I said logically follows from that.
Unfortunately, what doesn't logically follow from that is the film's continued implication that Kirk is a command prodigy who clearly deserves to be in command of the enterprise, despite his apparent disrespect for the basic chain of command.
Kirk lied about the Nibiru mission and broke the prime directive. Hiding the Enterprise under an ash cloud so Starfleet couldn't see them and under the water so the natives couldn't either sounds plausible to me.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 06:27 PM   #307
grendelsbayne
Lieutenant Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BillJ wrote: View Post
grendelsbayne wrote: View Post
Everyone who is here is a Star Trek fan, interested in discussing Star Trek. That doesn't come with any kind of obligation to always be positive or to just never discuss the things you didn't like.
But there's a point in time where people need to let go of the negativity. Should I rush into the Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise forums to harp on how shitty I found those shows (overall), how poor their creative staffs were and how they all had dwindling ratings over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

Why does anyone need to continually piss on something other people enjoy?
If you want to discuss any of those things, and can find other people who want to discuss them with you, would you want me barging in on all of you, telling you all 'It's done, just get over it already!'?

If people want to talk about the things they didn't like about something, they have every right to do so. Don't they?

Even beyond that, how would you even define this 'point' at which people should just leave the negativity behind? Exactly when does that happen?

And how are you defining this idea that there are people 'continually piss[ing] on something other people enjoy'?

When I engage in a handful of threads specifically created for discussing the quality of these specific movies, stating my opinion (including the positive aspects of the films) and then continue to defend my position (mainly re the negative aspects, since that's where the discussion focussed itself) in exactly the same way that other posters continue to defend theirs, is that really all it takes to constitute 'pissing' on things? And how long do I have to keep participating in the discussion before I have been pissing 'continuously'?

I mean, I only saw STID for the first time last week, so I guess I'll need to get all my pissing done asap before my criticism window runs out...
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 06:30 PM   #308
BigJake
Commodore
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Imminent Anterior Aneurysm wrote: View Post
So re-using an already overused idea is "better writing"
I didn't say it was "overused." It's an idea that makes organic sense in the setting and has come up more than once for a reason. As long as it's given a fresh twist and execution, and as opposed to hiding a ship on the bottom of an ocean because of reasons, yes, I think it's better writing. (Admittedly not a high bar to clear.)
__________________
“Let them eat static.”

(Recruiting for a Where No Man Has Gone Before play-by-post RP. Check it out!)

Last edited by BigJake; October 4 2013 at 06:51 PM.
BigJake is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 06:33 PM   #309
grendelsbayne
Lieutenant Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BillJ wrote: View Post
grendelsbayne wrote: View Post

Unfortunately, what doesn't logically follow from that is the film's continued implication that Kirk is a command prodigy who clearly deserves to be in command of the enterprise, despite his apparent disrespect for the basic chain of command.
Kirk always had a bit of disrespect for those in positions of power over him. What we see in "Into Darkness" isn't anything new. What he lacks is the seasoning that the Prime Universe version of the character has, so he is a bit more "in your face" about how he feels and reacts to those above him.
That makes a reasonable amount of sense, for me. Yet, it makes the film rather more problematic, not less - since this kind of attitude, especially to such an extreme degree, simply shouldn't be tolerated by an organization like Starfleet.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
grendelsbayne wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
That they WERE keeping it from their own command? That's part of the movie, and what I said logically follows from that.
Unfortunately, what doesn't logically follow from that is the film's continued implication that Kirk is a command prodigy who clearly deserves to be in command of the enterprise, despite his apparent disrespect for the basic chain of command.
Kirk lied about the Nibiru mission and broke the prime directive. Hiding the Enterprise under an ash cloud so Starfleet couldn't see them and under the water so the natives couldn't either sounds plausible to me.
Plausible enough for the ship - not plausible for the film's continued characterization of Kirk as a man who actually deserves command. Because Captains who completely ignore the most basic rules of their profession and then try to keep their job by hiding and lying don't deserve command. YMMV.
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 06:34 PM   #310
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

grendelsbayne wrote: View Post

If you want to discuss any of those things, and can find other people who want to discuss them with you, would you want me barging in on all of you, telling you all 'It's done, just get over it already!'?
I'd hope someone would tell me to get over myself and grow the fuck up. YMMV.

But even then, there are respectful ways to deal with the issues you want to discuss. I've seen "bad writing" thrown around so often by people who simply can't define what "bad writing" is and then acting like those who defend the film are ignorant hicks whose only reading gets done when jerking off to a Playboy in the outhouse.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 06:38 PM   #311
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

grendelsbayne wrote: View Post

That makes a reasonable amount of sense, for me. Yet, it makes the film rather more problematic, not less - since this kind of attitude, especially to such an extreme degree, simply shouldn't be tolerated by an organization like Starfleet.
But the whole reason Pike recruited Kirk in the first place was to give Starfleet a kick in its complacency.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 06:47 PM   #312
grendelsbayne
Lieutenant Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BillJ wrote: View Post
grendelsbayne wrote: View Post

If you want to discuss any of those things, and can find other people who want to discuss them with you, would you want me barging in on all of you, telling you all 'It's done, just get over it already!'?
I'd hope someone would tell me to get over myself and grow the fuck up. YMMV.

But even then, there are respectful ways to deal with the issues you want to discuss. I've seen "bad writing" thrown around so often by people who simply can't define what "bad writing" is and then acting like those who defend the film are ignorant hicks whose only reading gets done when jerking off to a Playboy in the outhouse.
I think you're overstating some of the other posters' attitudes.

But regardless, I've seen rather nebulous claims of the last two films being 'the best' Trek films ever being bantied about quite often, as well. Plenty of people occasionally have trouble explaining exactly what they're trying to say - especially when the people they're trying to explain it to aren't entirely open to it in the first place. (That's not a criticism of these particular film's defenders - it applies equally in both directions, imo)

Maybe that makes all these discussions pointless and redundant, but it clearly doesn't stop people from feeling the need to continue discussing it all anyway.

BillJ wrote: View Post
grendelsbayne wrote: View Post

That makes a reasonable amount of sense, for me. Yet, it makes the film rather more problematic, not less - since this kind of attitude, especially to such an extreme degree, simply shouldn't be tolerated by an organization like Starfleet.
But the whole reason Pike recruited Kirk in the first place was to give Starfleet a kick in its complacency.
Which, personally, I regard as yet another problematic plot point in regards to the question of whether Kirk really deserves his command at this point in the story.
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 07:44 PM   #313
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

grendelsbayne wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
grendelsbayne wrote: View Post

Unfortunately, what doesn't logically follow from that is the film's continued implication that Kirk is a command prodigy who clearly deserves to be in command of the enterprise, despite his apparent disrespect for the basic chain of command.
Kirk lied about the Nibiru mission and broke the prime directive. Hiding the Enterprise under an ash cloud so Starfleet couldn't see them and under the water so the natives couldn't either sounds plausible to me.
Plausible enough for the ship - not plausible for the film's continued characterization of Kirk as a man who actually deserves command. Because Captains who completely ignore the most basic rules of their profession and then try to keep their job by hiding and lying don't deserve command. YMMV.
Not a TOS or TOS movie fan, then?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 07:57 PM   #314
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
grendelsbayne wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Kirk lied about the Nibiru mission and broke the prime directive. Hiding the Enterprise under an ash cloud so Starfleet couldn't see them and under the water so the natives couldn't either sounds plausible to me.
Plausible enough for the ship - not plausible for the film's continued characterization of Kirk as a man who actually deserves command. Because Captains who completely ignore the most basic rules of their profession and then try to keep their job by hiding and lying don't deserve command. YMMV.
Not a TOS or TOS movie fan, then?
Yep,Kirk's been a rule bender and breaker since TOS. So has Spock. Kirk was constantly tweaking the noses and rubbing the wrong way authority figures from Earth to the edge of the Galaxy. Audiences like fictional heroes who buck authority. Reality is less kind to rebels.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 4 2013, 08:22 PM   #315
grendelsbayne
Lieutenant Commander
 
grendelsbayne's Avatar
 
Location: Netherlands
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
grendelsbayne wrote: View Post

Plausible enough for the ship - not plausible for the film's continued characterization of Kirk as a man who actually deserves command. Because Captains who completely ignore the most basic rules of their profession and then try to keep their job by hiding and lying don't deserve command. YMMV.
Not a TOS or TOS movie fan, then?
I know Kirk's anti-authority history - but that Kirk stood up for his decisions and faced the consequences. He didn't try to sweep everything under the rug like a teenager hiding his playboys. An ability to think independently, even when that means questioning your own orders is clearly a desired quality in Starfleet captains (and rightly so, given how many insane admirals we've seen) - but when you turn that into Kirk ignoring his orders while at the same time casually trying to convince Starfleet he's doing everything by the book, that's basically saying that Starfleet doesn't even matter to him. Like its beneath him, because he clearly knows best in all things.

That's not the kind of personality you want in control of a starship.
grendelsbayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
prime timeline, prime trek

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.