Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

There could many, many alternate timelines and universes as was seen in TNG's "Parallels". We can say that all of those endless variant possible histories are equally valid and "real". We can further speculate that the "Prime" Spock seen in ST '09 may not actually be from the timeline of TOS through VOY that we are used to, but rather one of many possible versions of the 24th Century. In this case, one where Romulus is destroyed and he travels back to the 23rd Century. Not being a knowledgeable scholar of temporal physics, JJ Abrams would have no way of knowing which "future" Spock it was that arrives back in the 2200's.

 

It undermines the entire point of Nimoy's cameo unless he's the guy we've been watching since "The Cage". Trek is a bunch of stories written by storytellers, it's not a manual on temporal physics and never has been.

 

In the post of his that you quoted from, Hober Mallow was making the point that all spin-offs are derivative of TOS, from TNG to STID. He said "prime" Trek not prime universe.

 

I don't mind the novels, I don't mind "Prime Trek", and I don't mind "JJTrek".

What irks me, though, is the incessant belief among some that if there's a setting in which the past contains a Picard-fronted Enterprise, a space station near a wormhole, a war with the Dominion, and a starship called Voyager stuck in the delta quadrant, that somehow this turns writers into chimpanzees who don't know how to write.

"We just can't write good stories because "Turnabout Intruder" was written 50 years ago." or "I just can't come up with a good storyline because of this stupid Borg business that some writer wrote 20 years ago."

Berman-Trek is not a setting.

 

Actually its more wanting to use character X but can't becuase episode Y or movie Z removed them from play.

 

It's an unwontedly nit-picky point the reasons for which I still don't understand. It is not controversial that Berman-era Trek was meant to be part of the same universe as TOS Trek, their being spin-offs has nothing to do with that and they're pretty clearly not "reboot" or "alternate universe" material in the way that NuTrek is. That's exactly why the "Prime" notation for "Spock Prime" makes sense on an automatic, intuitive level. You can force them into some kind of similar frame on a technicality, but what for? Seems to me that it's a counterintuitive and futile exercise.

 

Not at all! There are no doubt millions of parallel universes with a Spock. The movie end-credits are not in-universe, and don't mean anything. Nothing in ST09 and STID proves that this FutureSpock is actually the one from the TOS to TNG timeline. All that is established is that this is an elderly Spock from one possible future who travels back to one possible past. What JJ puts in the credits or says in interviews has no bearing on the in-universe events.

 

It just seems pointless to use an existing character if he's not from the established universe he's already acquainted with.

 

Why would it have to "prove" this? Or disprove some bizarre fanwank about him being an alternate Spock? King Daniel is right, here, there's no reason to contort ourselves to avoid seeing him as exactly what he's largely presented as being, the Spock character we're familiar with.

 

It doesn't have to "prove" anything. They can be entertaining stories no matter which universe this FutureSpock is from. There is no "fanwank" involved. "Parallels" establishes that there are millions of variant, but highly similar universes. Nothing in ST09 tells us which of these Universes Nero and FutureSpock are from. No contortions, no wanking. It just isn't established.

 

You'd have to ask him why he thought it was a distinction worth making. I'm not sure. I completely agree with the parts in your post that I've boldfaced, and have only minor qualifications about the rest (by which I mean, this whole issue isn't really of major importance overall, even just in relation to Star Trek).

I think it's clear that Berman-era Trek has a completely different style from TOS. There are all sorts of reasons why that is to be expected. The time difference in when they were made is perhaps the most significant. But there is also a change in venue: cable television in the 1990s as opposed to network television in the 1960s.

The shift to theatrical film in the 2010s (or thereabouts) is, in those terms, another change in venue. On that basis alone, change is to be expected. TOS-proper underwent changes, simply as a result of making the transition to film back in 1979.

Given all this change that is simply a natural result of the march of time and changes in venue, I don't believe it makes sense to say that all Trek taking place in the Prime Universe intrinsically belongs together in every way and nuTrek is intrinsically apart from all that. The takeaway I was getting from what Hober Mallow said was that the unifying factor for Prime Universe Trek is something essentially only nominal in nature, and the clear implication there is that the difference between that and nuTrek isn't a large enough distinction to separate nuTrek from the rest as something that is in every way dissimilar from all the spin-offs we've had before. With that, I agree.

 

I'm a bit torn on this question & poll really.

The simple fact is, the chances of Prime coming back is very unlikely now, for reasons I'm sure we all understand. Perhaps not impossible but unlikely.

Trek doesn't need it, however, to survive. It exists on in the lit-verse, Online etc… and while not canon, it feels as good as. Until we get a Star Wars-ian overhaul of the expanded relaunch universe, I for one will treat much of that *as* canon & enjoy them.

What does seem pointless to me, however, is simply remaking all Trek shows past in the same timelines. In fan fiction, sure - a TNG reboot, DS9, VOY, all entertaining, but on TV if they went down that route would seem very pointless. TOS rebooted on the big screen makes sense because Kirk & Spock & co are iconic beyond the series, but you can only perhaps say the same for Picard & Data from the rest (and that's pushing it). If we're staying in the Rebooted timeline, any further show would be best leaping forward to, say, the 25th century & doing something new beyond the TNG-era in that new timeline.

So yeah… it is a bit sad Prime is probably gone but Trek as a concept can survive any timeline.

 

To the bulk of the viewesr of any new Trek series, the difference between prime and alternate universes is meaningless. Non-fans will far out number knowledgable hardcore fans.

But to those harcore fans which universe the series is set in will be important. The network will likely want them, and this matter is important enough that some fans won't watch consistantly a alternate universe show, won't talk it up on social media, won't buy the mechandise.

It's alway foolish to piss off your base, a series isn't like a ever four years summer movie.

 

Oh I completely understand that, but from a financial standpoint they're presumably going to want to drag in as many of the new punters from the movies to watch the TV show, and the Prime would I'm sure confuse them a fair bit were it suddenly leapt back into.

I do agree though these things matter to the hardcore. The irony is, that hardcore probably wouldn't watch a non-Prime show, or at least a good chunk of them.

 

I agree with T'Girl in her stating that the non-fans wouldn't care (or notice) the references and it's not like they would mind.

For instance, in Iron Man, Stark explains to Pepper that what she needs to do is similar to the game Operation. She didn't get the reference and people in the audience who didn't know what Operation was didn't storm out in confusion, they just moved on with those in the audience who did get the reference smiled.

 

D'you not think then that, say, someone who has only seen the Abrams Trek films, if then given a Prime show following on from the TNG-era, would not find the 100+ year jump jarring?

I'm genuinely curious because, don't get me wrong, I'd welcome another Prime show. I just think they would notice, say, Vulcan suddenly existing again or something quite huge. Then again, I guess anyone who jumps into a new series would probably be enough of a Trek fan to go back & watch all the Prime stuff anyway so... maybe it's a circular discussion

Maybe I just don't trust the Powers That Be to credit the general population with enough intelligence that they could cope with two timelines.

 

^The mistrust is understandable, people can be... slow at times.

Also, a better reference to use was Kirk's reference of Mudd in Into Darkness. Fans unaware of the character couldn't care less.

 

Did he?? Blimey I missed that one! I'll now be looking for that.

 

The ship they flew to Kronos was recovered during the "Mudd Incident". Which is a reference to the Countdown to Darkness comic prequel, because, for some reason, Mudd is a Bajoran woman in that comic.

I'm thinking the people working on the comics didn't know who Harry Mudd was.

 

Well I never... guess then if I can miss those details as a fan, there's nothing to worry about!

Harry Mudd as a Bajoran woman is bloody odd though! I will get to those comics eventually but that's a timeline tweak too far, surely?!