RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,172
Posts: 5,435,374
Members: 24,941
Currently online: 526
Newest member: Andrewlmiles

TrekToday headlines

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

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
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 November 8 2013, 04:02 AM   #616
FKnight
Commander
 
FKnight's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
FKnight wrote: View Post
To be sure, he was an unnamed admiral who bore a striking resemblence to Leonard McCoy, despite what Memory Alpha says. Just sayin'
His name was in the closing credits.
With no intention of derailing thread -- in both my SD and BR copies of EAF, the identity of the admiral portrayed by Deforest Kelley is never mentioned in any credits.

Having said that -- of course it was Bones
__________________
"You have been examined. Your ship must be destroyed. We make assumption you have a deity, or deities, or some such beliefs which comfort you. We therefore grant you ten Earth time periods known as minutes to make preparations."
FKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8 2013, 04:17 AM   #617
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

FKnight wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
FKnight wrote: View Post
To be sure, he was an unnamed admiral who bore a striking resemblence to Leonard McCoy, despite what Memory Alpha says. Just sayin'
His name was in the closing credits.
With no intention of derailing thread -- in both my SD and BR copies of EAF, the identity of the admiral portrayed by Deforest Kelley is never mentioned in any credits.

Having said that -- of course it was Bones
Mea culpa if that is so. I may be mis-remembering what I saw when the episode originally aired. It's been over 25 years now!
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Creepy Critter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8 2013, 04:35 AM   #618
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

FKnight wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
The ship on whether TNG is in the same continuity as TOS left spacedock during Encounter at Farpoint.

Who was that Admiral who visited Picard's Enterprise, who didn't like using the transporter?
To be sure, he was an unnamed admiral who bore a striking resemblence to Leonard McCoy, despite what Memory Alpha says. Just sayin'
Oh please, that was obviously a McCoy from an alternate reality, not the TOS one. If the filmmakers intended them to be one and the same, the MOVIE Enterprise wouldn't have come up on the screen when it should have been the TV series version in "The Naked Now". Clearly in the TNG universe the technology advanced at a different rate...

__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8 2013, 04:47 AM   #619
FKnight
Commander
 
FKnight's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Oh please, that was obviously a McCoy from an alternate reality, not the TOS one. If the filmmakers intended them to be one and the same, the MOVIE Enterprise wouldn't have come up on the screen when it should have been the TV series version in "The Naked Now". Clearly in the TNG universe the technology advanced at a different rate...


Indeed. In fact, TNG started right after TVH so it's obvious that the time travel events in that movie were responsible for this divergent timeline -- what with Mr. Scott giving transparent aluminum to Marcus Nichols and a Klingon disruptor and communicator being left in the hands of the US Navy. These events very likely made technology advance faster with the Constitution class already sporting it's refit by the time of "The Naked Time."
__________________
"You have been examined. Your ship must be destroyed. We make assumption you have a deity, or deities, or some such beliefs which comfort you. We therefore grant you ten Earth time periods known as minutes to make preparations."
FKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8 2013, 05:17 AM   #620
Captain Jed R.
Lieutenant
 
Captain Jed R.'s Avatar
 
Location: Lala Land.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Belz... wrote: View Post
Which is exactly what a reboot is. The old series was clearly no longer working.
Doctor Who was brought back in 2005 with fresh ideas, a frees perspective and brand new stories. It was also brought back without rebooting a damn thing. The Doctor in the 2005 series was very much the same character as the one from earlier series, and there have been numerous links since. Doctor Who is currently (arguably) one of the most successful shows in the s-f genre.

A reboot is one way of doing things anew, but don't say it's the only way when that's patently false.

BillJ wrote: View Post
You do realize that ratings started sliding during Deep Space Nine's run? General audiences pretty much started rejecting the Berman led spin-offs.
Um, again, that has precisely what to do with the prime universe?

The thing you're quoting is me saying that the Prime universe in and of itself did not lead to the audience drop off, did not lead to an audience rejection, did not lead to cancellation. What you've said, BillJ, basically confirms my point that it was in a
fact a tired old production team running out of steam that killed the franchise at that point, a problem that could have been fixed with a bit of a break to properly develop a new series and a new production team.

Right now, if they made a Prime universe spin off, it would entirely depend on it's writing and acting whether it was successful, not whether it was set in the Prime universe. Which one could argue makes the Prime universe unnecessary to revisit - and of course, they'd be right - but it doesn't make the Prime universe in any way a bad idea to revisit, which was my point.
__________________
Here's a test to see how many people read signatures. If you read this signature, add this text and the word "Wibble" to the bottom of your signature, like so.

Wibble.
Captain Jed R. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8 2013, 01:30 PM   #621
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.

Captain Jed R. wrote: View Post
What you've said, BillJ, basically confirms my point that it was in a fact a tired old production team running out of steam that killed the franchise at that point...
So you're saying Deep Space Nine killed the franchise?
__________________
"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 November 8 2013, 01:40 PM   #622
Captain Jed R.
Lieutenant
 
Captain Jed R.'s Avatar
 
Location: Lala Land.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BillJ wrote: View Post
Captain Jed R. wrote: View Post
What you've said, BillJ, basically confirms my point that it was in a fact a tired old production team running out of steam that killed the franchise at that point...
So you're saying Deep Space Nine killed the franchise?
No. The fact that the same production team did the series for years and years killed the franchise. It moght have started then, and it certainly ended with Enterprise.
__________________
Here's a test to see how many people read signatures. If you read this signature, add this text and the word "Wibble" to the bottom of your signature, like so.

Wibble.
Captain Jed R. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8 2013, 05:36 PM   #623
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Captain Jed R. wrote: View Post
A reboot is one way of doing things anew, but don't say it's the only way when that's patently false.
Reboot is such a sloppy term. It could mean a visual reboot, a production team reboot, or a continuity reboot. JJTrek is almost all of those, with the partial exception of continuity.

Part of me wonders what it is about the prime universe that attracts some people so much that JJTrek cannot have. The only thing that I can think of is that Vulcan is destroyed. But that's a good opportunity for stories. Or maybe some think that because of all the changes in the timeline, it's unrealistic to expect their favorite next gen characters to exist. It could be, but unrealism isn't going to stop those in charge of this particular universe. Or is it just that they want to see what happens after Nemesis or the Dominion War and are afraid that Trek will seemingly continue to just reboot Kirk/Spock? Or is it really the production style of the old shows that draws them in?
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 8 2013, 10:44 PM   #624
BigSnake
Rear Admiral
 
BigSnake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
Part of me wonders what it is about the prime universe that attracts some people so much that JJTrek cannot have.
After the second movie: a reason for starships to continue existing and for death to be part of storylines?

(I kid, of course. I'm entirely confident that Orci & Co. will fix those problems next time out, and I look forward to seeing what new problems they'll replace them with.)
__________________
Weasels rip BigJake's flesh!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigSnake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2013, 12:23 AM   #625
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.

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Who was this person, and what were his ideas?
I don't recall exactly where I read this. It could have been in a magazine article, or maybe Chekov's Enterprise, or some other "making of" book. Once I finish unpacking the rest of my ST books, I can check.

The ideas were to put some kind of Mayan/Incan mystical mumbo-jumbo in the movie, and when told that wasn't a good idea, the person shrugged and said (referring to the intended movie audience), "They'll never know the difference."

I really dislike it when TPTB in charge of making a movie or the authors of a book assume their viewers/readers are stupid.
The difference between what? Star Trek's pseudo science and Mayan/Incan mystical mumbo-jumbo?
I've found my copy of The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and early on in the book when the author discusses the attempts to get a script written, one of the people approached was Harlan Ellison (other SF writers had also pitched ideas).

The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, pp. 24-25 wrote:
The studio decided these stories weren't right. They tried again, this time summoning Harlan Ellison, Ray Bradbury, and Ted Sturgeon. Gene knew that Star Trek picture possibilities were in trouble when he heard that Ellison, already a veteran of Star Trek television, had been asked to find a way to work the ancient Mayans into his story, even though his movie treatment had absolutely nothing to do with any subject even faintly related to Mayans. Disgusted, Ellison had thrown up his hands and left.
Source: The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, by Susan Sackett & Gene Roddenberry

This is not the only reference to Mayans (or other ancient peoples) I recall reading about in regard to the TMP script. I'm going to continue reading this book to find it, or it could have been mentioned in Chekov's Enterprise.

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
I could write a sequel to Shakespeare's Hamlet, taking great pains to match the continuity of the original, but that's purely for the internal consistency of my work. It doesn't affect the original Shakespeare play one bit, nor is my argument, "but it matches the continuity of the original!" a valid argument for my play's inclusion in the Complete Works of Shakespeare.
Everybody died by the end of Hamlet. Unless you do a Shakespearean version of CSI, there's nothing more to be said.

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
My hat's off to the TrekLit authors who manage to come up with genuinely new ideas within a well trodden franchise.
Indeed. It's a shame some of the novels couldn't be adapted for movies or TV.

Captain Jed R. wrote: View Post
Doctor Who was brought back in 2005 with fresh ideas, a frees perspective and brand new stories. It was also brought back without rebooting a damn thing. The Doctor in the 2005 series was very much the same character as the one from earlier series, and there have been numerous links since. Doctor Who is currently (arguably) one of the most successful shows in the s-f genre.
There was just one hiccup in Doctor Who... the TV movie starring Paul McGann retconned the Doctor as being half-human. Thankfully that notion was dropped with the new shows.
__________________
"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 November 9 2013, 01:21 AM   #626
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.

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
I'm not sure what you're arguing, as my point had nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of any series. All I mean by "derivative" is that the Trek spinoffs are derived from the original Star Trek series.
I think a certain amount can be read in to how you phrase things. You're basically saying that you don't like anything but the original series--
Care to quote where I said anything even close to that?

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
Also, the chances of them making a Star Trek that you actually like are close to nil.
A bit presumptuous of you to think you know what I'd like in Trek series, isn't it?

I don't know why you bother with the future of Trek. Nobody is going to come back and reboot the original series while ignoring everything else and still somehow fit under the umbrella of what you want to see.
Star Trek is indeed going to be rebooted, whether you like it or not.

Nothing is going to be exactly like it was in the 60s.
That's a good thing, because the last thing I'd want is a 60s-style Trek. I want Trek to be relevant to us today. That's why I can't get through one of those youtube Trek fanwank series.

Times have changed too much for that, or TNG, or DS9, or whatever people hold as their favorite.
Exactly. Thank you for making my argument for me. That's exactly my point. It's time to move on and make Trek relevant again.
Timewalker wrote: View Post
Everybody died by the end of Hamlet. Unless you do a Shakespearean version of CSI, there's nothing more to be said.
Not everyone died. Fortinbras reclaimed his family's lost land, Horatio lived to tell the world Hamlet's story. Also, Yorick's skull is still lying around somewhere.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2013, 01:49 AM   #627
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Timewalker wrote: View Post
Everybody died by the end of Hamlet. Unless you do a Shakespearean version of CSI, there's nothing more to be said.
Clearly, you haven't seen Rosencrantz and Guilderstern are Undead . . . .

(Yes, that's a real movie!)
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2013, 01:58 AM   #628
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.

Hamlet 2
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2013, 03:13 AM   #629
FKnight
Commander
 
FKnight's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
Part of me wonders what it is about the prime universe that attracts some people so much that JJTrek cannot have. The only thing that I can think of is that Vulcan is destroyed. But that's a good opportunity for stories. Or maybe some think that because of all the changes in the timeline, it's unrealistic to expect their favorite next gen characters to exist. It could be, but unrealism isn't going to stop those in charge of this particular universe. Or is it just that they want to see what happens after Nemesis or the Dominion War and are afraid that Trek will seemingly continue to just reboot Kirk/Spock? Or is it really the production style of the old shows that draws them in?
Speaking for myself, and I like both Classic and NuTrek, I think what attracts me most about the original continuity is simply that there's a huge fictional universe that I've come to know and be comfortable with as a place to escape when watching TV or reading a book. We all know the characters, the places, and technologies, and it's natural to want to continue visiting it, in my opinion. I like to see where a character that I've known for years and years can be taken by good writers and also seeing where lesser known characters that were interesting but were only on the show for a short time. Set against the back drop of this familiar, comfortable, and second home that writers have been building for 50 years, I think it makes the characters more relatable because I can empathize with the character and story on two levels -- what it means to me in the real world, and what it means for the character in his or her world.

I'm happy that the prime universe continues in the novels and enjoy the fact that the modern novelverse, at least as far as I've been able to ascertain, has a consistency at least as good as the prior incarnations of Trek on TV or movie screens, and extends that continuity. Like I said above, it's a familiar place with characters we love being put into another situation that we enjoy watching them figure out.

The question to me really isn't if I want the prime timeline back, because as far as I'm concerned, it's still there, just not on the TV or movie screen. It's a trade off though -- yeah it's sad there's not anything new in the prime timeline on a screen with special effects, actors, and the like, but at the same time the book lasts longer and what I imagine in my head while reading is always going to be more realistic and impressive looking than TV and the writing is, for the most part, better than Trek became in the later years (I still give DS9 a pass though because it was written well IMO -- for the most part).

NuTrek just hasn't been around long enough and I simply don't care about these versions of the characters as much, or about the circumstances of their timeline. That's not bad though, and it doesn't mean I don't like the characters or the world they're in. I like the characters a lot and enjoy watching them. It's just math. I've known the prime timeline my whole life and I just met these guys, so I'm always going to enjoy visiting the prime timeline, because it's still being written and I'm used to it. NuTrek is just a bonus on top of that because now I get to see how the same characters and situations develop in a different "quantum reality."

As far as the canon, I really can't think of any time between TOS and VOY where the canon really had a negative impact on the stories. If canon was a problem, they ignored it plenty of times and still told a good story. As was said earlier, I think the production and writing just got stale and, IMO, still had a somewhat 80s television sensibility well into the 2000s. That type of Trek was going to get cancelled, canon or not, prime or not. I think the novelverse shows that you can stick within the same timeline and write really good, compelling stories.

__________________
"You have been examined. Your ship must be destroyed. We make assumption you have a deity, or deities, or some such beliefs which comfort you. We therefore grant you ten Earth time periods known as minutes to make preparations."

Last edited by FKnight; November 9 2013 at 03:19 AM. Reason: minor edits sorry
FKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 9 2013, 02:21 PM   #630
Creepy Critter
Admiral
 
Creepy Critter's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Timewalker wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
As I mentioned elsewhere, one of the people involved in TMP had that attitude, and thank goodness his ideas never made it into the movie.
Who was this person, and what were his ideas?
I don't recall exactly where I read this. It could have been in a magazine article, or maybe Chekov's Enterprise, or some other "making of" book. Once I finish unpacking the rest of my ST books, I can check.

The ideas were to put some kind of Mayan/Incan mystical mumbo-jumbo in the movie, and when told that wasn't a good idea, the person shrugged and said (referring to the intended movie audience), "They'll never know the difference."

I really dislike it when TPTB in charge of making a movie or the authors of a book assume their viewers/readers are stupid.
Timewalker wrote: View Post
I've found my copy of The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and early on in the book when the author discusses the attempts to get a script written, one of the people approached was Harlan Ellison (other SF writers had also pitched ideas).

The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, pp. 24-25 wrote:
The studio decided these stories weren't right. They tried again, this time summoning Harlan Ellison, Ray Bradbury, and Ted Sturgeon. Gene knew that Star Trek picture possibilities were in trouble when he heard that Ellison, already a veteran of Star Trek television, had been asked to find a way to work the ancient Mayans into his story, even though his movie treatment had absolutely nothing to do with any subject even faintly related to Mayans. Disgusted, Ellison had thrown up his hands and left.
Source: The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, by Susan Sackett & Gene Roddenberry

This is not the only reference to Mayans (or other ancient peoples) I recall reading about in regard to the TMP script. I'm going to continue reading this book to find it, or it could have been mentioned in Chekov's Enterprise.
What you've related here sounds like something where the industry corrected itself, so I don't see how there's any ax to grind in this case, regarding producers who think that the general public is too dumb to care. Not only is whoever it was with an itch to portray the paranormal not named, nothing ever came of his or her recommendation anyway, at least in Star Trek movies.

---

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
FKnight wrote: View Post
CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
His name was in the closing credits.
With no intention of derailing thread -- in both my SD and BR copies of EAF, the identity of the admiral portrayed by Deforest Kelley is never mentioned in any credits.

Having said that -- of course it was Bones
Mea culpa if that is so. I may be mis-remembering what I saw when the episode originally aired. It's been over 25 years now!
Yeah, it appears I misremembered. On the DVD, it's in the closing credits, but it says, "Special Guest Appearance By DeForest Kelley". I'm going to assume that this is a case of them thinking that you'd have to have been living under a rock not to know who he was.

Thanks for catching that!

FKnight wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Oh please, that was obviously a McCoy from an alternate reality, not the TOS one. If the filmmakers intended them to be one and the same, the MOVIE Enterprise wouldn't have come up on the screen when it should have been the TV series version in "The Naked Now". Clearly in the TNG universe the technology advanced at a different rate...


Indeed. In fact, TNG started right after TVH so it's obvious that the time travel events in that movie were responsible for this divergent timeline -- what with Mr. Scott giving transparent aluminum to Marcus Nichols and a Klingon disruptor and communicator being left in the hands of the US Navy. These events very likely made technology advance faster with the Constitution class already sporting it's refit by the time of "The Naked Time."
Heh.
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Creepy Critter 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 11:27 AM.

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