RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,896
Posts: 5,386,927
Members: 24,717
Currently online: 512
Newest member: teriankhoka

TrekToday headlines

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Retro Review: Profit and Lace
By: Michelle on Aug 16

Eve Engaged
By: T'Bonz on Aug 15

Shatner’s Get A Life DVD Debuts
By: T'Bonz on Aug 14

TV Alert: Takei Oprah Appearance
By: T'Bonz on Aug 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. 190 56.05%
I'm a fan and I don't want the Prime timeline back. 57 16.81%
I'm a fan and wouldn't mind if it came back. 38 11.21%
I don't care, just give me Trek! 48 14.16%
I don't know. 6 1.77%
Voters: 339. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 23 2013, 11:15 AM   #436
bbjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

cal_nevari wrote: View Post
I answered Prime - not because I know what "fans" want - (I don't think I really do, not well anyway) - but because when I think of Prime I was thinking of the Trek that came before the two Abrams films, as all being "Prime" and of all that, my favorite was in that group.
It's called Prime because the credits of 2009's Star Trek labeled Nimoy's character as Spock Prime. Prime Trek refers to his timeline.
Is Prime timeline everything except Abrams movies? Or is Prime Timeline anything about Kirk & Company?
Technically NuTrek would be part of Prime Trek, as much as the Mirror universe, especially if you can get Nimoy's character back to his timeline in the third movie.
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
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.
Isn't this an argument against your point? Why should a new series featuring a new ship and crew be called Star Trek other than they simply want to exploit the brand name?
It comes back to the continuity issue. Some would argue Star Trek isn't it's continuity but I would say it's a part of it. A mythos to the adventure. Is Star Wars the only one left that's OK with that concept? I haven't watched Doctor Who but they're continuous too right?
bbjeg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 23 2013, 12:08 PM   #437
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.

Big Boo wrote: View Post
cal_nevari wrote: View Post
I answered Prime - not because I know what "fans" want - (I don't think I really do, not well anyway) - but because when I think of Prime I was thinking of the Trek that came before the two Abrams films, as all being "Prime" and of all that, my favorite was in that group.
It's called Prime because the credits of 2009's Star Trek labeled Nimoy's character as Spock Prime. Prime Trek refers to his timeline.
Is Prime timeline everything except Abrams movies? Or is Prime Timeline anything about Kirk & Company?
Technically NuTrek would be part of Prime Trek, as much as the Mirror universe, especially if you can get Nimoy's character back to his timeline in the third movie.
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
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.
Isn't this an argument against your point? Why should a new series featuring a new ship and crew be called Star Trek other than they simply want to exploit the brand name?
It comes back to the continuity issue. Some would argue Star Trek isn't it's continuity but I would say it's a part of it. A mythos to the adventure. Is Star Wars the only one left that's OK with that concept? I haven't watched Doctor Who but they're continuous too right?
I couldn't say about all of Star Wars, since I've only seen the original IV-V-VI trilogy... in their original form, before Lucas started mucking them up. I tried watching the other three, but found them so boring, I couldn't stay awake long enough to finish them (honestly). I do remember being annoyed at the retcon concerning Leia and her mother. In Return of the Jedi, she states that her mother died when Leia was very young, but that was changed in the chronologically-earlier movie. They both can't be right. As for the other Star Wars stuff - the later books, comics, games, animated shows... never saw it, and I honestly don't care. The 3 movies I did see are enough for me.

Doctor Who is continuous from the First to the current Doctor. Granted, there are paradoxes along the way - the Jon Pertwee-era Dalek/time travel stories really messed up the continuity. And I will say that I was really annoyed at the "Doctor is half-human" crap in the Paul McGann movie. If they had to technobabble their way around things, they should have figured out something that didn't contradict the previous 30 years! That said, there's really no reason to think that there are any of the Doctor Who TV stories that do not take place in the original Whoniverse (not gonna get into the spinoffs of K-9 & Company, Torchwood, or the Sarah Jane Adventures, because I haven't seen them).

There's controversy over whether the books and audio adventures should be part of the continuous, true timeline. I've got a lot of the books, but none from the Eighth Doctor era or later, and I've never heard any of the audio adventures. These are godawful hard to find in my region,and for the longest time I never knew they even existed.

I'm sure there are other issues to do with the comics, and whatever gaming material may exist. Again, since I've had little chance to even find that, let alone read it, I just ignore the whole lot of it.
__________________
"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 23 2013, 04:20 PM   #438
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Timewalker wrote: View Post


Your Batman references have no meaning to me, since I've never seen the original TV series, never read the comics, never seen any of the movies, or anything else about Batman. I have a vague idea of the themes and characters, based on all the references I've seen and heard over the years, but I'm not going to discuss Batman with you (or Sherlock Holmes, for the same reason).
You're missing the point. It isn't about Batman or Sherlock Holmes or any other particular character or series. Feel free to substitute Tarzan or Dracula or Robin Hood or The Three Musketeers or the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew or the Arthurian mythos or whatever perennially popular works of fiction you are familiar with. My point is that the basic idea-- a human child raised by apes to be king of the jungle or whatever--is not dependent on the specific "continuity" of whatever the last theatrical version was. Tarzan is Tarzan, regardless if some new versions picks up where the previous movies or TV series left off. And there's no reason to invent a "new" ape-man every time you want to revive the series.

Ditto for Star Trek. It's a concept, not a history book.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com

Last edited by Greg Cox; October 23 2013 at 06:12 PM.
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23 2013, 04:22 PM   #439
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.

^Careful Greg, or you'll attract some torches and pitchforks.
__________________
--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 23 2013, 05:46 PM   #440
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Torches and pitchforks are out... tarring and feathering is back in.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23 2013, 06:23 PM   #441
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

GoRe Star wrote: View Post
Torches and pitchforks are out... tarring and feathering is back in.
Not Klingon mind shredders?
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23 2013, 06:38 PM   #442
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Greg Cox wrote:
Not Klingon mind shredders?
Nah, they're murder on the electric bill. Stick with the classics.

It's a concept, not a history book.
Quite true. Although in fairness, narrative points of reference -- if not necessarily entire "continuities" per se -- can become strongly identified with a concept. If we're seeing a version of Batman, whatever else we see, we still expect him to be a billionaire motivated by the death of his parents, with a butler named Alfred and a secret identity as CEO of Wayne Enterprises and so on. If we're seeing the story of King Arthur, we expect the sword in the stone and Merlin and Morgan le Fey and Mortdred and for the Grail Quest to come up at some point, and so on.

So I guess the question is, does Trek as a concept have any organically-grown narrative points of reference like that, things that people have come to expect alongside the bare-bones concept, costumes, technologies and general somewhat-more-ambitious-than-pulp sensibility (assuming people even agree on all those things as necessary to the concept)? I think the answer to that is probably "no" -- Trek has told diverse enough stories hung around similar basic settings and the same concept for long enough that it doesn't need any particular anchoring continuity or set of characters. One could even say that trying to gesture at the old continuity is probably best left alone -- unless one is really sure of having an actually stronger dramatic take on it than the original material did.

Timewalker wrote:
there's really no reason to think that there are any of the Doctor Who TV stories that do not take place in the original Whoniverse (not gonna get into the spinoffs of K-9 & Company, Torchwood, or the Sarah Jane Adventures, because I haven't seen them).
Torchwood was good, I thought. Captain Jack Harkness is a pretty great character.

I have to confess I'm not really sure what Doctor Who "continuity" even really means. Seems like all sorts of fudging ought to be possible in a series based on time travel, and I have to admit I find references to "fixed points in time" in the new shows totally confusing. Fortunately it usually matters little to following any particular episode or story arc.
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23 2013, 07:20 PM   #443
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BigJake wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote:
Not Klingon mind shredders?
Nah, they're murder on the electric bill. Stick with the classics.

It's a concept, not a history book.
Quite true. Although in fairness, narrative points of reference -- if not necessarily entire "continuities" per se -- can become strongly identified with a concept. If we're seeing a version of Batman, whatever else we see, we still expect him to be a billionaire motivated by the death of his parents, with a butler named Alfred and a secret identity as CEO of Wayne Enterprises and so on. If we're seeing the story of King Arthur, we expect the sword in the stone and Merlin and Morgan le Fey and Mortdred and for the Grail Quest to come up at some point, and so on.
.
True, but each retelling tends to tinker with the details a bit, and nobody expects each new movie or TV show about Camelot to incorporate every previous version into its own continuity. Nobody expected MERLIN, for instance, to treat Boorman's EXCALIBUR or the musical CAMELOT as "canon."

And, more to the point, nobody suggests that, well, if they're not going to pick up where the previous versions left off, or do exactly what they did last time, they should just invent their own medieval wizard and not call him "Merlin."

One can certainly debate how far one can stray from "the basics" (and audience expectations) before something no longer resembles the original source. But the point I keep trying to make is that it's the basics that make something STAR TREK, not whether, say, "Amok Time" is still part of the continuity or not.

Indeed, what prompted me to dive into this debate yet again, was the bizarre notion that if you're not going to maintain the "prime timeline" why call something "Star Trek"--which suggests that there can only be one definitive version of any given story or character. Which pretty much flies in the face of the way stories have always been told . . . .

(I'm suddenly visualizing a caveman around a campfire protesting because another tribe member didn't tell the story of the Great Sabertooth Hunt exactly the same way it's always been told before. "Ogg violated canon!")
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23 2013, 08:25 PM   #444
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
But the point I keep trying to make is that it's the basics that make something STAR TREK, not whether, say, "Amok Time" is still part of the continuity or not.
I sense that you have not achieved Kolinahr.

But yes, I quite agree with this.
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23 2013, 10:47 PM   #445
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
Are you saying that TNG, DS9, and Voyager shouldn't have been called Star Trek? I have no objection to them having done that, because they were continuing the story started in TOS, or exploring other parts of the universe that was essentially a future part of TOS. And when TOS charcters (McCoy, Scotty, Sarek, Spock, and Sulu) guested on these shows, they weren't "reimagined" into some modern version that would appeal to a younger generation and that would be unpalatable to many TOS viewers.
I'm just trying to understand your point. You're saying that a Star Trek series based on Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek featuring Star Trek characters Kirk and Spock on the Starship Enterprise shouldn't be called Star Trek, but a series all but ignoring the source material featuring all new character should be called Star Trek. That seems exactly backwards.

I've been wondering lately when the obsession with continuity happened. I don't remember anyone caring that much about continuity except in a broad sense even back during the early days of TNG. Brannon Braga wrote a lot of garbage, but his term "continuity porn" is entirely apt.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 23 2013, 10:49 PM   #446
bbjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BigJake wrote: View Post
... If we're seeing the story of King Arthur, we expect the sword in the stone and Merlin and Morgan le Fey and Mortdred and for the Grail Quest to come up at some point, and so on.

So I guess the question is, does Trek as a concept have any organically-grown narrative points of reference like that, things that people have come to expect alongside the bare-bones concept, costumes, technologies and general somewhat-more-ambitious-than-pulp sensibility (assuming people even agree on all those things as necessary to the concept)? I think the answer to that is probably "no"
Right, if the next Star Trek movie has Sargeant Crunk and his crew explore the ocean in their submarine, the USS Interpreter, you can sit through it. Star Trek is humans, warp vessels, teleporters, and exploring new worlds, seeking out new life and civilizations, boldly going where no man has gone before.
bbjeg is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 23 2013, 11:32 PM   #447
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Big Boo wrote: View Post
Right, if the next Star Trek movie has Sargeant Crunk and his crew explore the ocean in their submarine, the USS Interpreter, you can sit through it.
I find this idea... curiously appealing. Maybe I just like the name "Crunk."

But yes, this:

Star Trek is humans, warp vessels, teleporters, and exploring new worlds, seeking out new life and civilizations, boldly going where no man has gone before.
... is what I take to be the bare-bones Trek concept.
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24 2013, 12:02 AM   #448
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Instead of seeing a new one shot alien every week with that's more often than not a two dimensional stereotype, I'd just like the existing ones to be defined and fleshed out. More than enough story potential in that alone.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24 2013, 07:42 AM   #449
teacake
Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Timewalker wrote: View Post
I couldn't say about all of Star Wars, since I've only seen the original IV-V-VI trilogy... in their original form, before Lucas started mucking them up. I tried watching the other three, but found them so boring, I couldn't stay awake long enough to finish them (honestly). I do remember being annoyed at the retcon concerning Leia and her mother. In Return of the Jedi, she states that her mother died when Leia was very young, but that was changed in the chronologically-earlier movie. They both can't be right.
She may have had a nanny who cared for her while her adoptive mother, the Queen, went about her duties. To further obfuscate her origins once the nanny died they may have told Leia she was her biological mother. A falsehood that would keep her from looking too closely and dangerously into her adoption.
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 24 2013, 10:53 AM   #450
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.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
Your Batman references have no meaning to me, since I've never seen the original TV series, never read the comics, never seen any of the movies, or anything else about Batman. I have a vague idea of the themes and characters, based on all the references I've seen and heard over the years, but I'm not going to discuss Batman with you (or Sherlock Holmes, for the same reason).
You're missing the point. It isn't about Batman or Sherlock Holmes or any other particular character or series. Feel free to substitute Tarzan or Dracula or Robin Hood or The Three Musketeers or the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew or the Arthurian mythos or whatever perennially popular works of fiction you are familiar with. My point is that the basic idea-- a human child raised by apes to be king of the jungle or whatever--is not dependent on the specific "continuity" of whatever the last theatrical version was. Tarzan is Tarzan, regardless if some new versions picks up where the previous movies or TV series left off. And there's no reason to invent a "new" ape-man every time you want to revive the series.

Ditto for Star Trek. It's a concept, not a history book.
I vaguely remember seeing Tarzan movies as a child. As a teenager, I collected and read the novels, along with some other Edgar Rice Burroughs books. As I recall, the comics I read were quite faithful to the books (I still have some of those comics, and all the books). I've seen Greystoke, although it was a long time ago and I don't remember much of it.

As for Robin Hood... it's like Shakespeare. I prefer it to be as authentic as possible - as in period settings, costumes, speech, etc. I will admit to liking a few exceptions; I loved the Robin of Sherwood TV show and the musical West Side Story is a terrific adaptation of Romeo and Juliet.

Consider one thing you said:
...there's no reason to invent a "new" ape-man every time you want to revive the series.
That's what nuTrek did, though. They invented a "new" Kirk, Spock, etc. that are not true to the original characters. Some apparently like these new characters. I happen to think they're obnoxious.

DonIago wrote: View Post
^Careful Greg, or you'll attract some torches and pitchforks.


BigJake wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote:
there's really no reason to think that there are any of the Doctor Who TV stories that do not take place in the original Whoniverse (not gonna get into the spinoffs of K-9 & Company, Torchwood, or the Sarah Jane Adventures, because I haven't seen them).
Torchwood was good, I thought. Captain Jack Harkness is a pretty great character.

I have to confess I'm not really sure what Doctor Who "continuity" even really means. Seems like all sorts of fudging ought to be possible in a series based on time travel, and I have to admit I find references to "fixed points in time" in the new shows totally confusing. Fortunately it usually matters little to following any particular episode or story arc.
I take it to mean that once something has happened, it can't un-happen (unless it wasn't supposed to in the first place). Take Adric's death, for example. That was the first Companion death since the Hartnell era. Nyssa and Tegan were aghast that it happened, and they begged the Doctor to go back a few minutes and save him. The Doctor was extremely upset (and indeed felt guilt over Adric's death right up to his regeneration), and told them that he couldn't do it.

Now that I think further on it, I believe I overlooked the matter of Rose and her parents. Rose's father was originally dead, but I seem to remember him surviving in another universe... which would make it correct to say that not all of the TV stories were set in the same continuity.

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
Are you saying that TNG, DS9, and Voyager shouldn't have been called Star Trek? I have no objection to them having done that, because they were continuing the story started in TOS, or exploring other parts of the universe that was essentially a future part of TOS. And when TOS charcters (McCoy, Scotty, Sarek, Spock, and Sulu) guested on these shows, they weren't "reimagined" into some modern version that would appeal to a younger generation and that would be unpalatable to many TOS viewers.
I'm just trying to understand your point. You're saying that a Star Trek series based on Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek featuring Star Trek characters Kirk and Spock on the Starship Enterprise shouldn't be called Star Trek, but a series all but ignoring the source material featuring all new character should be called Star Trek. That seems exactly backwards.
They can call it Star Trek, but if it doesn't FEEL like Star Trek, I'm not going to accept it as such. To me it has the feel of Abrams saying, "I'd like to make a space movie, with lots of young, pretty people as the crew. Nah, it doesn't matter if they can act. Nobody cares about that, as long as we have enough FX and explodey things. Now what's the best marketing angle we can use to get people to see this thing? Oh, yeah - use the character names from Star Trek! Sure, we'll make the actors look sorta vaguely like the originals, rip off elements of the old TV episodes, and tell everybody it's new and fresh! Who's gonna notice?"
__________________
"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
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 02:10 PM.

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