RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,201
Posts: 5,437,005
Members: 24,948
Currently online: 548
Newest member: TedCarchidi

TrekToday headlines

Cumberbatch In Wax
By: T'Bonz on Oct 24

Trek Screenwriter Washington D.C. Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Oct 23

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


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. 209 56.79%
I'm a fan and I don't want the Prime timeline back. 61 16.58%
I'm a fan and wouldn't mind if it came back. 39 10.60%
I don't care, just give me Trek! 53 14.40%
I don't know. 6 1.63%
Voters: 368. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 18 2013, 04:11 PM   #391
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Because you don't want to be under the Federation's thumb, at least in a relative sense.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 18 2013, 04:26 PM   #392
bigboojeg
Vice Admiral
 
bigboojeg's Avatar
 
Location: bbjeg
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

^What, afraid you'll get taxed or something? I think the Federation is the good "Big Brother".
bigboojeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 18 2013, 06:22 PM   #393
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Big Boo wrote: View Post
^What, afraid you'll get taxed or something? I think the Federation is the good "Big Brother".
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 18 2013, 06:55 PM   #394
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

There are people who don't like any form of oversight, even oversight that's (theoretically) beyond any form of reproach.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 18 2013, 08:57 PM   #395
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Colonizing distant M-class worlds was no easy matter back in Kirk's era. How many dead or struggling colonies did the Enterprise visit back in the day? How often did we hear about plagues and famines and dangerous radiation? Judging from what we saw on on TOS, the Federation wasn't exactly drowning in safe, danger-free, uninhabited M-class worlds . . . which were valuable enough that the Klingons wanted them, too, and would go to great lengths to claim them.

Sure, we saw lots of M-class planets on TOS, but most of them were already inhabited and protected by the Prime Directive. And they were often harsh and forbidding.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 09:23 PM   #396
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Now if the nuTrek films are just a trilogy, restoring the timeline might be a nice finish.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19 2013, 10:25 PM   #397
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

publiusr wrote: View Post
Now if the nuTrek films are just a trilogy, restoring the timeline might be a nice finish.
Restoring it to what? The only place its gone is "off screen".
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2013, 10:25 PM   #398
Timewalker
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.

BillJ wrote: View Post
David.Blue wrote: View Post
But this does not preclude accepting the events of TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT as canon. Just that we want a new storytelling style.
I think that you have to simply let all that go. I want the next show-runner to have total freedom to place the show in the 28th century with the Eugenics Wars happening in the 23rd and the first warp flight happening in the 25th, if he/she so desires.

Carrying over continuity from the old series would just shackle the new creative team to something that has nothing more to offer creatively.
In that case, why bother to call it Star Trek?

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. This 'beating a dead horse' argument (which I've seen used several times now) mainly comes across to me as saying 'I think you're wrong, so shut up'.
Agreed. I happen to really enjoy the Voyager series, specifically the episodes dealing with time travel and the seasons with Seven of Nine. There are many instances where people have come to the Voyager forum and spat all over the show, and specifically cite time travel and Seven of Nine as two of the reasons they can't stand the show.

I obviously wish they felt differently, but I don't tell them that if they don't like it they should shut up.


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.
I always had the impression that it's necessary to have "seasoning" BEFORE being given the captaincy of a starship. And I disagree that Kirk "always had a bit of disrespect for those in positions of power over him." He had disrespect for those in power when they made stupid decisions (ie. bureaucratic decisions) that resulted in more harm being done than if the decisions had been different (or at least had come faster). That doesn't mean he had disrespect for his superiors all the time. And it's entirely possible to feel no respect for an individual, while still respecting the position that individual holds.

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
So does anyone else remember when this thread was about whether or not it was a good idea to bring back the Prime Universe and NOT about complaining about either or both Star Trek (2009) or Star Trek Into Darkness?
Last time I looked at the poll numbers, it was 66 in favor of bringing back the Prime Universe and 68 total for all other options combined. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean those 68 people are against bringing back the Prime Universe, as some of those votes are in the "don't know/don't care" categories. Therefore, I conclude that at this point, the ones who voted unambiguously in favor of the Prime Universe are winning the poll.

BillJ wrote: View Post
grendelsbayne wrote: View Post
Yep, so many of those running around, I guess we'd better just start giving them Starships. Because I would want the morons I see wandering around the neighborhood in charge of one of the most powerful weapons in existance.
Well, you're deliberately ignoring what the film tells us about Jim Kirk. A man who is considered a genius and completed the Academy in three years. Plus, we have no idea of what type of experience he gained from ages 18-22 before joining the Academy.

But none of those facts fit with your gripe...
Just because someone is book-smart, that doesn't mean they have the necessary skills to command a starship. And based on what I recall of nuKirk's personality in the 2009 movie, any experience he gained from ages 18-22 didn't include self-discipline and basic social skills when dealing with people higher up in rank.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Star Trek II ignored I, and VI ignored V.
How did Star Trek II ignore TMP? Some years had passed in-universe, so it was plausible that there would be different uniforms, the ship would have been altered, and V'Ger would have been old news.

If TWOK had truly ignored TMP, there wouldn't have been anything about Kirk's depression over his birthday, and his admiral's rank would have either been a new issue for him or it wouldn't have happened at all.

As for Star Trek V, that piece of nonsense should be ignored.
__________________
"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
Old October 21 2013, 10:38 PM   #399
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Timewalker wrote: View Post
In that case, why bother to call it Star Trek?
Because it would still be "Star Trek". It would still be Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise out exploring really weird shit and fighting bad guys.

You toss the prior continuity because why tie the hands of a new creative staff with bullshit? You can eliminate people screaming about how the color of Kirk's medal doesn't match the color of the medal we see in This Side of Paradise.

I love Star Trek. But I think any new series is best served by shedding the last forty years of continuity and starting over with the basic premise and rebuilding the universe from there.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2013, 10:55 PM   #400
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Timewalker wrote: View Post
In that case, why bother to call it Star Trek?
Huh? What should a TV series based on Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek featuring Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock on the Starship Enterprise be called?
BillJ wrote: View Post
I love Star Trek. But I think any new series is best served by shedding the last forty years of continuity and starting over with the basic premise and rebuilding the universe from there.
Definitely. At some point people need to stop equating Berman-Trek with Star Trek. Berman-Trek is based on Star Trek, created by and large by other people, and no more a valid version than any other derivative. I think, though, that many people who call themselves Star Trek fans are really Berman-Trek fans, and they're going to have the hardest time with new derivatives of Star Trek.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2013, 11:11 PM   #401
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Geoff Peterson wrote: View Post
publiusr wrote: View Post
Now if the nuTrek films are just a trilogy, restoring the timeline might be a nice finish.
Restoring it to what? The only place its gone is "off screen".
As much as I hate time travel being overdone, saving Vulcan and seeing Pine in a TOS type Enterprise as the last scene just strikes me as a rather nice way to end a trilogy...
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2013, 11:17 PM   #402
Timewalker
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.

BillJ wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
In that case, why bother to call it Star Trek?
Because it would still be "Star Trek". It would still be Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise out exploring really weird shit and fighting bad guys.

You toss the prior continuity because why tie the hands of a new creative staff with bullshit? You can eliminate people screaming about how the color of Kirk's medal doesn't match the color of the medal we see in This Side of Paradise.

I love Star Trek. But I think any new series is best served by shedding the last forty years of continuity and starting over with the basic premise and rebuilding the universe from there.
If they're going to toss the last 40 years and start over, they should just develop some other SF series that includes spaceships, heroic captains, aliens, etc. It seems to me as though they only want to call it "Star Trek" because it's a recognized brand name.

And personally I don't actually care about Kirk's medals. I worked in the theatre (as in live theatre), and sometimes we didn't have access to all the props (they might have been damaged or lost). We had to do a lot of improvising. In all honesty, I never noticed those ST details.

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
In that case, why bother to call it Star Trek?
Huh? What should a TV series based on Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek featuring Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock on the Starship Enterprise be called?
BillJ wrote: View Post
I love Star Trek. But I think any new series is best served by shedding the last forty years of continuity and starting over with the basic premise and rebuilding the universe from there.
Definitely. At some point people need to stop equating Berman-Trek with Star Trek. Berman-Trek is based on Star Trek, created by and large by other people, and no more a valid version than any other derivative. I think, though, that many people who call themselves Star Trek fans are really Berman-Trek fans, and they're going to have the hardest time with new derivatives of Star Trek.
You are confusing me with one of those "Berman-Trek fans." I'm primarily a TOS fan who happens to like specific episodes of TNG, specific characters in DS9, and most of Voyager.
__________________
"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
Old October 21 2013, 11:19 PM   #403
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Timewalker wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
David.Blue wrote: View Post
But this does not preclude accepting the events of TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT as canon. Just that we want a new storytelling style.
I think that you have to simply let all that go. I want the next show-runner to have total freedom to place the show in the 28th century with the Eugenics Wars happening in the 23rd and the first warp flight happening in the 25th, if he/she so desires.

Carrying over continuity from the old series would just shackle the new creative team to something that has nothing more to offer creatively.
In that case, why bother to call it Star Trek?
Because Star Trek is more than just forty years of continuity. It's a concept--and sometimes a set of characters--that aren't necessarily tied to the particulars of what happened in a previous cycle of TV shows or movies.

You can make a STAR TREK movie or TV series, about the crew of the Starship Enterprise exploring strange new worlds and all that, without having to, say, stick to exactly what "Balance of Terror" said about the Romulan Wars. That was the old version. Doesn't mean you can make a new one.

Just like you can make a Sherlock Holmes movie without being wedded to the continuity of the old Basil Rathbone movies or whatever. Or you can make, say, a Mission: Impossible movie that doesn't necessarily treat every old TV episode as "canon."

Star Trek does not have to incorporate the "prime timeline" to be recognizable as Star Trek. Trek is an idea, not a trivia contest.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2013, 11:24 PM   #404
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Forbid the concept that Kirk and Spock aren't the only characters in the Star Trek universe and the setting isn't fixed on the starship Enterprise only.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 21 2013, 11:28 PM   #405
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

GoRe Star wrote: View Post
Forbid the concept that Kirk and Spock aren't the only characters in the Star Trek universe and the setting isn't fixed on the starship Enterprise only.
This absolutely kills me!

There are seventy-nine episodes of Star Trek, there are over six-hundred episodes of the spin-offs. I'd say it's about time to explore the core of Star Trek a little bit more before rushing off to create yet another generic ship and crew.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ 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 05:56 PM.

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