RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,607
Posts: 5,425,525
Members: 24,807
Currently online: 595
Newest member: Dixonn

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12


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. 196 56.32%
I'm a fan and I don't want the Prime timeline back. 57 16.38%
I'm a fan and wouldn't mind if it came back. 38 10.92%
I don't care, just give me Trek! 51 14.66%
I don't know. 6 1.72%
Voters: 348. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 6 2013, 10:51 PM   #781
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.

Wait, Vengeance has much, much more internal volume than the Enterprise-D does.

And back on the earlier topic, TNG's formula was stretched to it's absolute limit under the Berman administration (or whatever you want to call it)in the 18 years between TNG's start and the end of ENT. They got an awful lot out of it, but as we saw in ENT's first two seasons, they'd taken it as far as it could go. I don't want more stories in that style.

And going back even further, Wrath of Khan is about revenge. Into Darkness is about how far people will go to protect those they care about.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3

Last edited by King Daniel Into Darkness; December 6 2013 at 11:32 PM.
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2013, 11:30 PM   #782
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: Hollywood, CA
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to doubleohfive
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post

And back on the earlier topic, TNG's formula was stretched to it's absolute limit under the Berman administration (or whatever you want to call it)in the 30 years between TNG's start and the end of ENT.
Only 18 years passed between the beginning of TNG (1987) and Enterprise's finale (2005).

If you're going to make broadstroke generalizations, at least get the math right.
doubleohfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 6 2013, 11:33 PM   #783
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.

Silly you, assuming I can count.

(fixed. I think I meant 20)
__________________
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 December 6 2013, 11:52 PM   #784
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.

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

And back on the earlier topic, TNG's formula was stretched to it's absolute limit under the Berman administration (or whatever you want to call it)in the 30 years between TNG's start and the end of ENT.
Only 18 years passed between the beginning of TNG (1987) and Enterprise's finale (2005).

If you're going to make broadstroke generalizations, at least get the math right.
It was eighteen years, but twenty-five seasons.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2013, 12:03 AM   #785
HaventGotALife
Fleet Captain
 
HaventGotALife's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Wait, Vengeance has much, much more internal volume than the Enterprise-D does.

And back on the earlier topic, TNG's formula was stretched to it's absolute limit under the Berman administration (or whatever you want to call it)in the 18 years between TNG's start and the end of ENT. They got an awful lot out of it, but as we saw in ENT's first two seasons, they'd taken it as far as it could go. I don't want more stories in that style.

And going back even further, Wrath of Khan is about revenge. Into Darkness is about how far people will go to protect those they care about.
I disagree the formula is the problem, and I disagree that it was always formulaic. I believe that there was a lack of creativity with Enterprise and Voyager. They didn't develop characters beyond the original 5 or 6 episodes, and even then, it was hokey and contrived as if a 10-year-old was watching the show. A small example: Fight or Flight is a very interesting concept. Yet, the symbolism of "sluggo," is explained by the Doctor questioning Hoshi. I think someone who is a little bookish and not fully prepared for space travel, but loves languages, was a good starting point and a story that only Enterprise could tell. But the episode is rather blunt and lacks realism.

Kirk isn't thinking about protecting anyone. He is mad that Pike is dead and he wants to "take the bastard out." He doesn't care that he's violating his rights until Khan tells his story. He beats Khan until he collapses "in the name of Captain Pike." Not exactly about defending the world.

Further, Spock yells "KHHHHAAAAAAAANNN!" and proceeds to try and beat the living pulp out of him. Not because of what he has done to the Federation, but to make him pay for killing Kirk.

Only at the end of the movie, with Starfleet and the Enterprise re-built, does Kirk say "Oh, sorry. We shouldn't try to seek revenge."

Revenge is a theme in STID. Khan, Kirk, and Spock all have a grudge and they try to kill someone because of it.
HaventGotALife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2013, 12:17 AM   #786
HaventGotALife
Fleet Captain
 
HaventGotALife's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BillJ wrote: View Post
HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
Why were you a fan of Star Trek?
Why am I a fan of Star Trek is an interesting question (though not pointed at me, I figure I'm allowed to answer)? I am a fan of Star Trek because it use to be fun to watch before the TNG gang started to believe they were self-important and changing the world. Which bled into the rest of the spin-offs and the TNG movies.

Star Trek is entertainment. I watch it to be entertained. Abrams brought much of the fun back to the franchise. Do I still wish I got way out, weird stuff like Greek gods trying to capture the Enterprise? Sure. But I also know that modern audiences may not be as appreciative of such an approach.
Of course you can answer! The more the merrier!

I agree, Star Trek is entertainment. I can read to get information. I can have a discussion with a knowledgeable person. I don't feel Star Trek needs to be preachy, it just needs to be good. And good fiction is learned fiction, using all the tools and not talking down to an audience. Fun for me, is still intellectually stimulating. It needs to have a theme, symbolism.

I enjoyed the Greek gods episode because I'm an atheist and it gave me an alternative understanding of why the Greek gods died out. I thought it was imaginative, even if how they find the god is a little unorthodox. It's about the imagination of what we would find in deep space.

I don't like the violence of the last two films. A LOT of people died. All of vulcan. The heart of Starfleet. A man's head is crushed. Pike is shown being shot and dying. That's not fun for me, and, quite frankly, I can get that in other entertainment if I wanted it.

Did you start with '09?
I started watching TOS in 1975.
I started watching TNG in 1990, so I'm a little late to the party. But you still had to find something wrong with Original Star Trek to think it needed the re-boot treatment. And that was my point.
HaventGotALife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2013, 12:20 AM   #787
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.

Everything Khan does in ID is to free his people, and the only times he's out for revenge is when he thinks Marcus and later Spock has killed them. Ditto Spock when Kirk dies. It's certainly not the Moby Dick theme that completely dominates Wrath of Khan.

At the start of the film we see what that the father of the little girl will kill for her. Khan kills for his people throughout. We see Kirk die for his crew. That's the dominant, recurring theme of the movie - "Is there anything you would not do for your family?"
__________________
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 December 7 2013, 12:20 AM   #788
J. Allen
Taste The Rainbow™
 
J. Allen's Avatar
 
Location: Equestria
Send a message via ICQ to J. Allen Send a message via AIM to J. Allen Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to J. Allen Send a message via Yahoo to J. Allen
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
I started watching TNG in 1990, so I'm a little late to the party. But you still had to find something wrong with Original Star Trek to think it needed the re-boot treatment. And that was my point.
No, I love the original series, and I love the rebooted movies. You can love both without having to think either needs the other, because they don't. Also, I'm a vintage 1984 Trekkie. I was 4 years old when I started watching the original series.
__________________
I tried to make a deal with the Devil, once. Turns out I didn't have anything he wanted.
-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
You will never find a more welcome hive of love and humility.
J. Allen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2013, 12:25 AM   #789
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.

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post

But you still had to find something wrong with Original Star Trek to think it needed the re-boot treatment. And that was my point.
That's simply non-sense. I'm actually watching Star Trek right this very moment and have seen the Original Series dozens of times.

Needed the reboot treatment? No. Was it welcomed? Yes. It's fun to see old favorites updated as society and technology evolve. But I can't imagine there is anything that will ever top TOS as my favorite TV series ever.

Santa Hooves wrote: View Post
I was 4 years old when I started watching the original series.
Five here.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2013, 12:29 AM   #790
HaventGotALife
Fleet Captain
 
HaventGotALife's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BillJ wrote: View Post
Santa Hooves wrote: View Post
I was 4 years old when I started watching the original series.
Five here.
Six here.
HaventGotALife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2013, 12:34 AM   #791
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

I was seven when STAR TREK debuted in 1966. And, yes, the Salt Vampire scared the heck out of me!
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2013, 01:26 AM   #792
J. Allen
Taste The Rainbow™
 
J. Allen's Avatar
 
Location: Equestria
Send a message via ICQ to J. Allen Send a message via AIM to J. Allen Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to J. Allen Send a message via Yahoo to J. Allen
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

I always closed one eye and squinted with the other when the Salt Vampire would appear in its true form.
__________________
I tried to make a deal with the Devil, once. Turns out I didn't have anything he wanted.
-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
You will never find a more welcome hive of love and humility.
J. Allen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2013, 01:53 AM   #793
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.

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
What they have done with these two movies makes me long for Rick Berman.
I didn't like the movies either, but damn, that's taking it too far.
HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
I started watching TNG in 1990, so I'm a little late to the party. But you still had to find something wrong with Original Star Trek to think it needed the re-boot treatment.
The reason it needs to be rebooted is not because there's something wrong with it, but because there's something right with it. Otherwise it wouldn't be rebooted.

What's the other option? Yet another spinoff series about Captain Nobody on the U.S.S. Noonegivesaf*ck?
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2013, 02:12 AM   #794
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
What they have done with these two movies makes me long for Rick Berman.
I didn't like the movies either, but damn, that's taking it too far.
HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
I started watching TNG in 1990, so I'm a little late to the party. But you still had to find something wrong with Original Star Trek to think it needed the re-boot treatment.
The reason it needs to be rebooted is not because there's something wrong with it, but because there's something right with it. Otherwise it wouldn't be rebooted.
That's a good point--that extends beyond just STAR TREK.

Too many people seem to think that a remake or reboot somehow constitutes a rejection or criticism of the previous version, when that's not really the case. Accepting a new version doesn't mean you think the old version wasn't good enough. It's perfectly reasonable to appreciate both on their own terms--and accept that the new version is doing things differently. Not necessarily better, nor worse, but differently.

Doing a new version of Star Trek, and tweaking the formula, doesn't mean you have to insist that every previous version was somehow flawed. It just means you're having fun with an old standard, like doing a new jazz interpretation of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" or whatever.

Again, that doesn't mean the classic Judy Garland version isn't still great, but there's always room for another variation on the theme. Nothing is sacred, nothing is set in stone. Everything is grist for the mill.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 7 2013, 02:40 AM   #795
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.

HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
HaventGotALife wrote: View Post
I find that extremely reductive. "First Contact" from TNG looks nothing like "The Apple" in TOS. Yes, they are exploring planets that have other lifeforms like us on it. But there's a host of episodes, to be as equally reductive, where they have to learn to communicate with something that doesn't have a mouth and bumpy foreheads. They just aren't talked about like the Borg episodes.

Voyager, by the end of its run, had done nothing to further the Maquis, got rid of Kes, neutered Neelix, had become a host of guest star appearances (Jonathan Frakes, Marina Sirtis, John De lancie, and Dwight Schultz) from TNG (esp. Sirtis and Schultz), and every two-parter, most especially the series finale, included the Borg. It didn't stand on its own two feet. It tried for 2 seasons and then mailed it in as a continuation of TNG, a bad season of TNG. That's bankrupt.

DS9, by the end of its run, had added layers to the Cardassians, Bajorans, Trills, and Klingons. They did whole character pieces about each of their characters and how they act in their society. They had a host of guest stars that were added during the run of the show, and only Marc Alamo had been a guest on TNG, although as a different character (but same race). The central themes were consistent throughout the show. They added the Dominion to the Star Trek vernacular. It was creative. That's what I want. And they managed to be creative in adding familiar elements. They abandoned the type of guest appearances that ruined Voyager (Q-Less comes to mind).

I figured the definition might need an example.
Yeah, DS9 was so creative that it imported a TNG character who had already turned TNG into a Klingon soap opera. DS9 was already bad enough with Smug, Perfect Jadzia Who Knows Everybody And Has Done Everything, but adding Worf to that... just made it worse, in my opinion. I was honestly dreading the day when they'd find a way to get Worf onto Voyager.
I know it's two different people, but complaining that TNG was a "soap opera" while complaining "nothing matters because they warped away" is being attacked from both sides.

I addressed Worf, although indirectly. Because you have to trash previous Star Trek to prove this was needed while seeing the world in black-and-white terms to not see the distinction. Why were you a fan of Star Trek? Did you start with '09?
I'm not sure who you were addressing here...

I just didn't really care much for Worf and was annoyed when he pretty much took over huge amounts of time from other characters. I thought he was more interesting in the first season when we learned things about him gradually, rather than having episode after episode be about Worf's family, Worf's dishonor, Klingon homeworld politics, Picard's involvement, etc. and so on. I get that there are people who really enjoyed these aspects of TNG; I just happen to have enjoyed different things about the series.

I became a Star Trek fan in 1975, at age 12. As to why... well, things would have turned out much differently if my grandfather had let me change the channel that night. He wouldn't, and basically told me to either shut up or leave the room because he wanted to see what this "Star Trek" show was about (it was his first time watching it, too). So I watched it, enjoyed it, and noticed it was on 5 days a week on two different channels. I decided to see if other episodes were as entertaining, and two weeks later had to admit I was hooked (especially after discovering the Blish books).

I wasn't really into science fiction before Star Trek. I was into science, but preferred to read mysteries. Nowadays, the vast majority of the books I own are science fiction and the only mysteries I read are the Roman historical ones by Lindsay Davis (the Didius Falco series). I started reading science fiction soon after getting into Star Trek, and discovered I'd been missing some really good stuff - Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, and so many others.

It's hard to put it all into words in just a single forum post. The reasons I liked it then are not exactly the same reasons I like it now, 38 years later.

BTW, I just realized... today is the 38th anniversary of the first time I ever bought the Blish books - Star Trek 4 and 6, at Woolco.


Greg Cox wrote: View Post
I was seven when STAR TREK debuted in 1966. And, yes, the Salt Vampire scared the heck out of me!
I have a filk tape that has a song about the Salt Vampire. It's actually a really beautiful song that had me feeling sorry for the Salt Vampire.
__________________
"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 09:21 PM.

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