RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,878
Posts: 5,329,235
Members: 24,556
Currently online: 658
Newest member: EvyR55

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 15 2013, 06:59 PM   #76
Timewalker
Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady
 
Timewalker's Avatar
 
Location: In many different universes, simultaneously.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

DFScott wrote: View Post
And when someone argues that such practices are dead and that a franchise can't tell a good story anymore, a bunch of nearly-broke producers in Britain assemble a truly terrific storyline around a guy without a name who travels space in a blue box.
Huh? Doctor Who has been around since 1963. Even during the long hiatus between Sylvester McCoy and Paul McGann, then McGann and Christopher Eccleston, there were still many books and audio adventures being published.

My counter-argument to that is this: Star Trek has always been the closest thing to "open source fiction" there could ever be. It's the collective product of the contributed wealth of thousands of writers. So if a writer cannot build a good story based on some part of that wealth, then it's extremely unlikely he could tell a better story with elements entirely of his own invention.
So you're saying that any author who can't tell a good Star Trek story, also can't tell a good story, period?

That's ridiculous.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post

This is why I loathe reboots. The best recent example I can think of for TV shows is nuBSG. I really did try to watch it. But less than halfway through the very first episode,.
Gotta disagree there. To my mind, nuBSG is practically the poster child for how reboots can sometimes be even better than the previous versions.

Then again, I confess I never liked the original BSG . . ..
Hey, I was in high school when Battlestar Galactica came along. Richard Hatch... Dirk Benedict... I watched Bonanza as a child, so was also a Lorne Greene fan.

dansigal wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
This is why I loathe reboots. The best recent example I can think of for TV shows is nuBSG. I really did try to watch it. But less than halfway through the very first episode, I turned the TV off in sheer disgust. time.
nuBSG did a bad job at trying to be the original BSG. It did a fantastic job of being an awesome tv show worth watching. Absolutely the poster child for how a reboot can take a used concept and rework it in a way that is different and interesting. It's not a copy of the original, nor does it invalidate what the original was in anyway. Just a new take.

And I gotta say, I don't think you can claim to "really did try" to watch the nuBSG when all you put in was one half of one episode of a show that ran for 4 seasons.
I think it's not nice to call someone a liar. I don't watch much TV these days, so a show has to give me a damn good reason early on to invest my time and mental energy. I was looking forward to seeing what a new generation might do with Galactica, but when the characters show up in 20th-century clothes, with basically 20th-21st century-sounding names, pointless sex changes for the character names they kept from the original series...

And it's not like that's the only exposure I ever had to it. It's impossible to frequent SF, Trek, and gaming forums and not be exposed to discussions, photos, clips, and so on. I even tried on and off to watch a bit, to see if there was anything of interest. It still looked ridiculous. So don't tell me I didn't try. And tell me you haven't made up your mind about a TV show in even less time... I bet you can't.

Why rip off the old name and pretend it's the same when it's clearly not? That's what angers me about nuGalactica, and nuTrek. They butchered the originals for no good reason other than laziness and greed (to rake in $$$$ from the fans desperate for anything, even ripoffs)... so why not call it by a different name?
__________________
"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 August 15 2013, 08:57 PM   #77
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

The Emissary wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Well, I disagree with that. That's essentially what Star Trek is. The key to not making it into a predictable formula is not to rely solely on that. If you look at TOS and TNG, they were able to tell a variety of different stories within the scope of their basic premises.
This is one of those times where Star Trek is...whatever the viewer says it is. To you that is all Star Trek is about. To me, it's about a lot more.
But when you strip it down, it's basically an adventure drama set in space. You can attach all sorts of other attributes and window dressing to it, but at it's core, that's what it is.
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
I have to disagree with this too. The popularity of procedural shows really proves that stories that can be told in just one episode are still...well, popular. But as subsequent shows after TOS did, they had a mix of standalone and multi-episode stories to varying degrees--as well as a connection or overreaching background story between the first and last episodes--and I think that's the format any new Trek series should continue.
DS9 and ENT were the only ones to really have multi-episode stories. TNG and VOY didn't really. They had two parters or they'd RARELY revisit old plot threads (the Klingons), but that's not what I'm talking about at all.
It's actually exactly what I'm talking about--a mix of standalone and multi-episode stories.
I'm for how BSG did it. An overarching story, but with some stand alones every now and again.
That's how nuBSG did it, and with a difference being that the mix of standalone and multi-episode stories favored the latter. Otherwise, though, TNG, DS9, VOY, & even ENT all had an overarching story with a beginning and an ending (although in the case of TNG, it's overarching story--the Trial of the Human Race--was something that didn't become clear until its finale; with ENT, it was about Earth's first Warp 5 starship).
Not really. There was nothing unique about the Delta Quadrant that couldn't be found in the Alpha. Same bumpy headed aliens with the same looking ships (which also had cloaks). Random anomaly. etc.
If that's the criteria you're basing on, then you're going to find that aplenty in every Star Trek series regardless of its setting or premise.

Otherwise, I can't disagree with that more that they were identical.
The only "unique" thing was maybe Species 8472 and they weren't even from the Delta Quadrant. How was it unique and alien?
I would think not being Human would be sufficient.
I don't mean Alpha Quadrant as in Klingons or Starfleet Academy or something. I meant, the area of space looked generic like anything else you'd find in the Alpha Quadrant.

I don't get this. Were you expecting the space in the Delta Quadrant to be a different color than that in the Alpha Quadrant? Otherwise what makes different territories in space different are the civilizations who live there and what policies they dictate.
That isn't their society.
Sure it is. It's the society they come from.
It's just other ships and planets.
It's not "just." It's showing other aspects of that fictional universe, to see other Starfleet crews and Federation worlds.
When I said society, I mean actually showing us life on Earth.
And they've done that on occasion when it was feasible for them to do so. But in a show set in space rather than on Earth, it's kind of hard to have many stories about ordinary people who get up, go to work, and then come back home.
To show us where our heroes came from. Not just showing them docking with Earth Space dock.
See above response.
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
You probably didn't, because I wasn't talking about stories about life on Earth, but just stories other than exploring or meeting new aliens. TOS and TNG frequently did this.
"frequently"? Not really. From time to time. Yeah.
No, not from time to time--TOS and TNG indeed frequently did so. Many stories weren't about exploring space and meeting new aliens, but rather dealt with routine domestic operations within the Federation, attending diplomatic conferences, going after bad guys, participating in fleet exercises, etc. TNG probably did this more than TOS even.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2013, 12:03 AM   #78
DFScott
Captain
 
DFScott's Avatar
 
Location: Indianapolis, IN
View DFScott's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Timewalker, let me clarify: What I mean by the Doctor Who reference is that those folks manage to do really good storytelling, and a few decent effects where appropriate, on a very tight budget. Certainly not as tight today as it was through the '60s. But that franchise is proof enough for me that a half-century-old backstory can be freshened up for not too much monetary investment, and presented very, very well. Modern Doctor Who blows away anything the Trek franchise has produced in this century.

So you're saying that any author who can't tell a good Star Trek story, also can't tell a good story, period?
No, that's not what I'm saying, and indeed, it would be ridiculous if I did. But I am saying there's no good excuse for a good writer (or these days, writing team) not to tell a good Star Trek story if she puts her mind to it.

Case in point: You have a main character who has become one of the more beloved in the world's popular folklore. And one of the reasons is because he never gives up hope. "There are always possibilities" is one of his taglines. Someone tells a story with that character in which his home planet blows up and his mother, among others, is killed. And in the same story, the man actually sits in and operates a time machine, which supposedly he himself has built in the future. And at no point does he consider, "Hmm, fascinating, suppose I ask my own ship how to engineer a time warp, either back to warn my home planet, or forward to stop the future guy from warping back." Instead, it's decided he'll bottle up his emotions and bury his feelings.

But then later, his boss whom he's only known for a year gets fried in an engine chamber, and he goes all Pon Farr on everyone, does a Shatner impression, and does a fist fight to the death for revenge. If the fellow who does "Star Trek Imponderables" hasn't considered this one, he should. It's easily the largest continuity crap-on since the 22nd century Romulan cloaking device.

Spock is a gold-mine of a character. So much of him has yet to be explored. And now there's a fairly good actor portraying him. So there's no excuse.

This is why folks say they want the Prime Universe back. What they want is the effort to tell as complete and contiguous a story as possible. I'd be happy seeing someone do that officially for the franchise, even as an animation. For heaven's sake, "Star Trek: Final Frontier" tells better stories on black-and-white storyboards than what I'm paying $15 to see in 3D.

DF "Imagining Peter Capaldi in His Previous Major Role Appearing in the JJA Universe to Tell Spock to Get an F-ing Clue" Scott
__________________
a.k.a. Scott M. Fulton, III
Editor, FierceEnterpriseCommunications (sorry, not really a Trek magazine)
DFScott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2013, 01:21 AM   #79
Timewalker
Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady
 
Timewalker's Avatar
 
Location: In many different universes, simultaneously.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

DFScott wrote: View Post
Timewalker, let me clarify: What I mean by the Doctor Who reference is that those folks manage to do really good storytelling, and a few decent effects where appropriate, on a very tight budget. Certainly not as tight today as it was through the '60s. But that franchise is proof enough for me that a half-century-old backstory can be freshened up for not too much monetary investment, and presented very, very well. Modern Doctor Who blows away anything the Trek franchise has produced in this century.
Okay, peace... I just wanted to clarify what you meant. I'm a Classic Who fan - to me the definitive Doctor is Tom Baker. I co-admin a whole forum dedicated to Tom Baker's Doctor.

While there are elements of modern Who I don't care for, I am thankful that the new production people haven't deliberately crapped all over the show's history (except for the nonsense of the Eighth Doctor being half-human; please tell me they retconned that shit at some point), blatantly ripped the names and locations, and essentially made it into a travesty with the same name and thought to fool people.

That's what Abrams has done with nuTrek. He can call his characters by the Star Trek names, but the character Quinto is playing is NOT Spock. Whatsisname is NOT playing real Kirk. That ridiculous child-man is not Chekov, that clown is not McCoy, and while real Uhura initially flirted with real Spock, that's as far as it ever went.

So you're saying that any author who can't tell a good Star Trek story, also can't tell a good story, period?
No, that's not what I'm saying, and indeed, it would be ridiculous if I did. But I am saying there's no good excuse for a good writer (or these days, writing team) not to tell a good Star Trek story if she puts her mind to it.
But there are some very good authors who are quite content not ever writing a Star Trek story - not because they couldn't do it, but because they just aren't interested. I'm pretty sure C.J. Cherryh would fall into this category. This woman is a genius at world and universe-building; her characters and worlds are incredibly rich and complex, and her stories are extremely compelling. IF she ever wanted to write a Star Trek story, I'm sure she'd blow at least 90% of the Trek authors out of the water. But to the best of my knowledge, she's never done so, nor does she have any interest in doing so.

This is why folks say they want the Prime Universe back. What they want is the effort to tell as complete and contiguous a story as possible. I'd be happy seeing someone do that officially for the franchise, even as an animation. For heaven's sake, "Star Trek: Final Frontier" tells better stories on black-and-white storyboards than what I'm paying $15 to see in 3D.

DF "Imagining Peter Capaldi in His Previous Major Role Appearing in the JJA Universe to Tell Spock to Get an F-ing Clue" Scott
I'll happily lead the parade of people wanting the Prime Universe back. Anyone who says there's nowhere else to go outside of the Abramsverse for good stories is just lacking imagination.
__________________
"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 August 16 2013, 01:21 AM   #80
Beyerstein
Captain
 
Beyerstein's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Beyerstein wrote: View Post
When TNG first started they were worried about having too many references or mentions of the old show, because they wanted TNG to stand alone as its own show.

Any new series or movie could be in the prime universe without really having tied or weighted down.

It would just be something new.
But it wouldn't really be new and no matter how hard they tried, they would invariably make a misstep in regards to background that would conflict with one of the already existing series. Then the fans would be storming the proverbial castle about how they weren't doing their research and how could they get something so simple wrong.

All you have to do is take a gander at this very board while Enterprise was on the air.
I was here when enterprise was on and i remeber it being pretty split between "gushers and bashers"
Beyerstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2013, 06:46 AM   #81
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Timewalker wrote: View Post
When the Abramsverse has been around for 40+ years, THEN tell me it's "the most successful" one.
It's successful to the people that have seen it (the old fans like myself that aren't trapped in the past and who can only relate to the founding moment, the average person who isn't a fan of Star Trek, and the new fans who love it a lot and are vital to the franchise's survival) as well as to the people who are the ones that control the franchise and determine what gets made and what doesn't. That's all that matters.

As for you and the other obdurate foundamantalist (using a quote from Irshad Manji in her book The Trouble With Islam that describes the Muslims resistant to change creating problems for Islam itself) fans here stuck in the founding moment, if you can't get behind it, you can't get behind it, but that's not my problem, or CBS's, or Paramount's, or Bad Robot's or anybody else that's not so obdurate and trapped in the past and who can only deal with the founding moment. It's yours, and if you want to see more official Star Trek, you'd better get used to it, because the fan shows aren't going to be approved to become official productions so that they can be on TV (for one, they need professional actors to make it work.) This is it now, and most likely, forever.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2013, 07:52 AM   #82
Timewalker
Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady
 
Timewalker's Avatar
 
Location: In many different universes, simultaneously.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Well, now you've ruined my whole day.

Look, I don't need a new movie every other year to feed my Star Trek habit. I rarely even watch TV. There are years' worth of pro novels I haven't even acquired yet, let alone read. And of the ones I already have, there are probably 2-3 dozen of those I haven't gotten around to reading yet.

And then there's the fanfic - the classic stuff from the '70s and '80s zines I've been reading online and collecting, and some pretty decent ongoing series on fanfiction.net and elsewhere. Or I'll write it myself if there's something I really want to explore and nobody else is doing it. It helps to have this thing called an "imagination" - so I don't necessarily need the pros to entertain me. I do appreciate those whose work I enjoy, and I salute their skill. But my Star Trek world will not crumble if the Abramsverse garbage is all that's left to show on screen.

So I Do Not Need somebody arrogantly telling me I'm "trapped in the past" and acting like the only Star Trek that matters is what's current. I don't consider the current movie series to be anything more than glorified crap, and it's my right to have that opinion. You have the right to your opinion, and isn't it wonderful that neither of us will be carted off to prison or executed for daring to voice our opinions?!
__________________
"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 August 16 2013, 10:02 AM   #83
The Emissary
Lieutenant
 
Location: The Celestial Temple
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
But when you strip it down, it's basically an adventure drama set in space. You can attach all sorts of other attributes and window dressing to it, but at it's core, that's what it is.
No...that's just the medium that the original Trek set it in. It has always been about the human condition and exploring us - humanity. It is not just some adventure drama set in space.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
It's actually exactly what I'm talking about--a mix of standalone and multi-episode stories.
....no. You said TOS/TNG did that. They did not really do any multi-episode ideas except for the occasional two parter. I'm talking about how it was done in B5, Farscape, or "nuBSG" as you call it. I don't mean an occasional two parter. I mean one episode leading into the next. Not reset buttons every end episode.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
That's how nuBSG did it, and with a difference being that the mix of standalone and multi-episode stories favored the latter. Otherwise, though, TNG, DS9, VOY, & even ENT all had an overarching story with a beginning and an ending (although in the case of TNG, it's overarching story--the Trial of the Human Race--was something that didn't become clear until its finale; with ENT, it was about Earth's first Warp 5 starship).
Um...yes. That's what I mean. Multi-episode stories...but a lot more than the random two parter. They all had a theme, but each episode did not lead into the other.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
If that's the criteria you're basing on, then you're going to find that aplenty in every Star Trek series regardless of its setting or premise.
Except the other Trek shows didn't make it a point to say "OMG!!! Our ship is alone and lost in this dangerous unexplored area of space!" The others were business as usual in the Alpha Quadrant. The Delta Quadrant was the same thing.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Otherwise, I can't disagree with that more that they were identical.

I would think not being Human would be sufficient.
Um ok?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post

I don't get this. Were you expecting the space in the Delta Quadrant to be a different color than that in the Alpha Quadrant? Otherwise what makes different territories in space different are the civilizations who live there and what policies they dictate.
The civilizations that lived there looked exactly like anything you'd find in the Alpha Quadrant. That is my point.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Sure it is. It's the society they come from.
That is the equivalent of someone walking around my neighborhood and saying "now I understand the society that exists in this state." Them walking around Starfleet HQ or visiting Earth Spacedock is not exposing us to their society.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
It's not "just." It's showing other aspects of that fictional universe, to see other Starfleet crews and Federation worlds.
...no it is not. The point is that if you are going to show other facets of life in that universe, it can be done better and not solely from the view point of Earth.

The point, which got seriously derailed, is that Earth does not need to be shown for another show. And the old episodic formula has been done to death. Why can't one Trek show go beyond that?
The Emissary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2013, 10:31 AM   #84
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
But why does one have to invalidate the other?
+1.

Excellent post.

The Emissary wrote: View Post
Of course I want a return to the original prime timeline. Not out of nostalgia, but because there is a lot of open ground there.
My problem with the idea is that, aside from longtime fans, no one would care and it could serve to just confuse people.

Personally, I wouldn't mind, but since we've made the switch already, I'd rather just stick to the new timeline. Besides, we can still watch the older stuff !

bbjeg wrote: View Post
Have you seen Star Wars 1-3?
Star Wars is a mass appeal franchise. Star Trek is struggling to be one.
__________________
And that's my opinion.

The Onmyouza Theatre: an unofficial international fanclub dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2013, 11:17 AM   #85
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

DFScott wrote:
And in the same story, the man actually sits in and operates a time machine, which supposedly he himself has built in the future. And at no point does he consider, "Hmm, fascinating, suppose I ask my own ship how to engineer a time warp, either back to warn my home planet, or forward to stop the future guy from warping back." Instead, it's decided he'll bottle up his emotions and bury his feelings.
Old Spock's ship is not a time machine, it just carries the Red Matter weapon. The time travel in the movie was completely unexpected and uncontrolled. Nero and Spock fell into the same black hole seconds apart in the future, yet emerged 25 years apart and in different locations in the past.

Remember that in prior Star Treks, they've been able to time travel by warping around a star (STIV), modifying a deflector dish (ST: FC) or even in one DS9 episode by using the transporter - yet these things are never brought up as a means to fix anything that goes disasterously wrong. When the Federation was about to lose the Dominion war, no one mentioned going back to undo "Emissary" and warning everyone.

So yeah, there's an Imponderables clip in it, but it'd be one covering the entire Trek franchise.
__________________
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 August 16 2013, 11:42 AM   #86
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Timewalker wrote: View Post
I don't consider the current movie series to be anything more than glorified crap, and it's my right to have that opinion. You have the right to your opinion, and isn't it wonderful that neither of us will be carted off to prison or executed for daring to voice our opinions?!
It's also my right to say that you and others like you don't speak for me when you attack the new movies, and I just exercised that right a while ago-nothing more, and nothing less. All I've been getting recently is that 'many fans hate the new movies' when in fact, it's not true, and many fans actually accept it just like the last one. A few fans at a convention or online at a web site saying that they hate it isn't 'everybody' at all, just those few fans. As for what you said about reading novels and fan fiction, great-please stick to that, and don't watch the movies in future, at all.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2013, 11:48 AM   #87
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

As a human being, I naturally expect progress. A reboot of TOS isn't progress. Especially when the reboot only consists of references to stuff I already know. Give me something new already. A post-TNG/DS9 era film with a new hot and fresh crew and a new ship and truly alien stuff, strange new worlds that you can only realize in a big budget production.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
To put things in perspective, thousands of people attended the Las Vegas convention. This poll questioned 100 people . . . out of at least 15,000 attendees.

Talk about statistically insignificant! I'd hesitate to draw any grand conclusions on what "the fans" want from a sampling of 100 people at one Trek convention . . . especially when the audience for the Star Trek shows and movies numbers in the millions.

And, no, the old timeline isn't coming back . . . except in the novels, of course.
Which are, of course, only read by those 100 people who voted at the con. Don't risk alienating your audience, Mr. Cox!
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2013, 02:01 PM   #88
bullethead
Fleet Captain
 
bullethead's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

I'm going to say "Hell no" to returning to the Prime Universe if it winds up going down the grimderp path of STO and the novels. I get that they wanted to shake up the status quo, but bringing back the Borg, blowing tons of stuff up, and having people drop out of the Federation for dumb reasons isn't likely to draw and maintain a sustainable audience. If you want to do a dark take on the Prime Universe, just look at all the unintended implications of things prior writers have put in the shows (such as the fact that if you look at Starfleet Command's/the Federation Council's track record of decisions, you get the impression Section 31 is pretty justified in taking things into their own hands when the people in authority consistently horrible decisions).
__________________
A business man and engineer discuss how to launch a communications satellite in the 1960s:
Biz Dev Guy: Your communications satellite has to be the size, shape, and weight of a hydrogen bomb.
bullethead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16 2013, 06:41 PM   #89
Timewalker
Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady
 
Timewalker's Avatar
 
Location: In many different universes, simultaneously.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
Timewalker wrote: View Post
I don't consider the current movie series to be anything more than glorified crap, and it's my right to have that opinion. You have the right to your opinion, and isn't it wonderful that neither of us will be carted off to prison or executed for daring to voice our opinions?!
It's also my right to say that you and others like you don't speak for me when you attack the new movies, and I just exercised that right a while ago-nothing more, and nothing less. All I've been getting recently is that 'many fans hate the new movies' when in fact, it's not true, and many fans actually accept it just like the last one. A few fans at a convention or online at a web site saying that they hate it isn't 'everybody' at all, just those few fans. As for what you said about reading novels and fan fiction, great-please stick to that, and don't watch the movies in future, at all.
Damn, you're bossy.

Did I EVER claim to speak for you? No, not even once. The only person I claim to speak for is ME. It's MY opinion that I hate the Abramsverse crap. I wasn't at this convention, didn't vote, and have no idea what it was about. In fact, I've only ever been to one fan event in the US - in the late '80s, when I met Sylvester McCoy at a Doctor Who event at the PBS TV station in Spokane, Washington. So kindly do not tar me with whatever animosity you hold for the people at this other event. And taunting me with "your version of Trek will never be on TV or in the movies again, neener-neener-neener!" is just childish.
__________________
"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 August 16 2013, 07:19 PM   #90
DFScott
Captain
 
DFScott's Avatar
 
Location: Indianapolis, IN
View DFScott's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Okay, King Daniel, fair enough that Spock didn't actually build the "Jellyfish" to be a time machine. But it became one, and quite obviously so, and it strikes me as going against the grain of the character to not have him consider how that happened and whether he could use that to save billions of souls, before deciding rather illogically to use it in another Impulse Act of Revenge and kill a few hundred. (For an emotionless character, we have two films where Spock could have been played by Sally Field.)

But I shouldn't stray too far from the topic, lest the moderator call me out. You do have a point, Daniel, in that throughout the franchise is sprinkled the ingredients with which any character can make a Magic Reset Button. And if the characters were smart enough to realize that fact... well, then, any jeopardy or danger they're put in, or any negative consequences they would ever have to face, would be reversed. Which could threaten to make the entire series somewhat pointless if handled poorly enough.

That said, I think it's ridiculous for any writer to saturate an episode or movie with ingredients for all sorts of Magic Reset Buttons (e.g., transporting between any two points in space including inside warp bubbles, tossing a teaspoon of red matter into space resulting in instant time/space wormholes, etc.), and then to force the viewer into accepting that the only reason the characters don't open their eyes and use these devices as Magic Reset Buttons, is because they're too stupid. It's not good storytelling to create magic plot devices for the express reason of moving the plot along and advancing the jeopardy, and that for unexplained reasons can't be used to simply resolve the whole issue (e.g., instantly transport Nero off the Narada and onto the Gorn homeworld).

Modern Trek viewers are modern sci-fi viewers, and their expectations have been raised since 1967 or 1987. Some of the silly bits that you've parodied in your videos (like the two-minute elevator ride from deck 1 to deck 2, which had me howling on the floor) are places where the seams are showing in a program that we all love anyway and have learned to laugh at and forgive. It's these glaring inconsistencies in the modern version of the product, which I believe make true fans wish they have those two-minute, eight-foot elevator rides back again.

DF "I'd Pay Money to See That Turbolift as a Six Flags Ride" Scott
__________________
a.k.a. Scott M. Fulton, III
Editor, FierceEnterpriseCommunications (sorry, not really a Trek magazine)
DFScott is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
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 07:36 PM.

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