RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,346
Posts: 5,502,465
Members: 25,119
Currently online: 650
Newest member: mahler

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

New Line of Anovos Enterprise Uniforms
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11

Frakes: Sign Me Up!
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11


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 17 2013, 03:50 PM   #106
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post

Why the Enterprise couldn't beam Spock and Khan from the flying garbage truck at the end of Into Darkness (because they were moving too much, or something like that) when in the prior movie Chekov beamed Kirk and Sulu out of terminal velocity free fall over Vulcan, on the other hand...
Pretty easy.

Kirk and Sulu were moving in one direction at a constant rate of speed, so it would be easy to calculate where they would be when. Spock and Khan were moving all over the barge in an unpredictable way.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 04:10 PM   #107
Shikarnov
Rear Admiral
 
Shikarnov's Avatar
 
Location: Texas (Connecticut & Ivanovo in years past)
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

I'm a fan of the prime universe for multiple reasons -- the main one of which is that it gave us something to aspire to. The new universe is designed to appeal for the drooling mass audiences who care nothing of big ideas, plausible (albethey fictional) technologies, or characters that actually work to earn their status, etc.

I understood that on ST09's opening day; in the bathroom of the movie theater, listening to two teenage street thugs who could hardly construct a coherent sentence, talk about how surprising it was that this new Star Trek was actually good. "And yo, man, that was hot when they was blowin up the black hole." I remember thinking in exactly that moment that Trek was truly and completely doomed.

That said, I think that NuTrek is well suited for the big screen. It's hard to derive 100s of millions of dollars in sales from Trekkies alone. But on television, I don't think this universe can carry its own weight. Real fans looking for more than a fun moviegoing experience will never tune in long term. For a long-running series, it will need to appeal to folks that enjoy a rich history and a wealth of ideas that produce many stories. And, sorry to say so, that's not going to happen with the new low-brow Trek universe.
__________________
"It is logically impossible for people to know God exists without any proven evidence. It is, however logically plausible to believe something does not exist if there is no evidence of it."
Shikarnov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 04:26 PM   #108
RandyS
Vice Admiral
 
RandyS's Avatar
 
Location: Randyland
View RandyS's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Mysterion wrote: View Post
Melakon wrote: View Post
Odds are, we each have a different interpretation of what Star Trek is. If one of us was suddenly given carte blanche to produce our own version of the show, there would be tens of millions of fans telling us how stupid we were.
I think this is very true. If I was in charge of Trek, there would be many, many unhappy people. No doubt whatsoever.
If I was in charge of Star Trek, I would then turn around and sell the rights for a pile of cash, the size of which would cause a slight, but noticeable shift in the Earth's orbit.
RandyS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 04:30 PM   #109
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Shikarnov wrote: View Post
I'm a fan of the prime universe for multiple reasons -- the main one of which is that it gave us something to aspire to. The new universe is designed to appeal for the drooling mass audiences who care nothing of big ideas, plausible (albethey fictional) technologies, or characters that actually work to earn their status, etc.

I understood that on ST09's opening day; in the bathroom of the movie theater, listening to two teenage street thugs who could hardly construct a coherent sentence, talk about how surprising it was that this new Star Trek was actually good. "And yo, man, that was hot when they was blowin up the black hole." I remember thinking in exactly that moment that Trek was truly and completely doomed.

That said, I think that NuTrek is well suited for the big screen. It's hard to derive 100s of millions of dollars in sales from Trekkies alone. But on television, I don't think this universe can carry its own weight. Real fans looking for more than a fun moviegoing experience will never tune in long term. For a long-running series, it will need to appeal to folks that enjoy a rich history and a wealth of ideas that produce many stories. And, sorry to say so, that's not going to happen with the new low-brow Trek universe.
One has to remember, though, that Star Trek was created to be mass entertainment that a wide variety of people can enjoy. Calling those who may appreciate it just for its action-adventure aspects as "the drooling mass audience" and "low brow" reeks of elitism, something that Trek never was.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 05:00 PM   #110
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Shikarnov wrote: View Post
I'm a fan of the prime universe for multiple reasons -- the main one of which is that it gave us something to aspire to. The new universe is designed to appeal for the drooling mass audiences who care nothing of big ideas, plausible (albethey fictional) technologies, or characters that actually work to earn their status, etc.

I understood that on ST09's opening day; in the bathroom of the movie theater, listening to two teenage street thugs who could hardly construct a coherent sentence, talk about how surprising it was that this new Star Trek was actually good. "And yo, man, that was hot when they was blowin up the black hole." I remember thinking in exactly that moment that Trek was truly and completely doomed.
Stereotype much?

I like the Prime Universe, I like the Abramsverse, I like Star Wars, I like 2001 and 2010 and I like reading Baxter and Clarke and Kim Stanley Robinson.

So I guess I'm part of the "drooling" masses?

EDIT: I also call bullshit on your "bathroom" tale.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 08:49 PM   #111
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Shikarnov wrote: View Post
I'm a fan of the prime universe for multiple reasons -- the main one of which is that it gave us something to aspire to. The new universe is designed to appeal for the drooling mass audiences who care nothing of big ideas, plausible (albethey fictional) technologies, or characters that actually work to earn their status, etc.

I understood that on ST09's opening day; in the bathroom of the movie theater, listening to two teenage street thugs who could hardly construct a coherent sentence, talk about how surprising it was that this new Star Trek was actually good. "And yo, man, that was hot when they was blowin up the black hole." I remember thinking in exactly that moment that Trek was truly and completely doomed.

That said, I think that NuTrek is well suited for the big screen. It's hard to derive 100s of millions of dollars in sales from Trekkies alone. But on television, I don't think this universe can carry its own weight. Real fans looking for more than a fun moviegoing experience will never tune in long term. For a long-running series, it will need to appeal to folks that enjoy a rich history and a wealth of ideas that produce many stories. And, sorry to say so, that's not going to happen with the new low-brow Trek universe.
One has to remember, though, that Star Trek was created to be mass entertainment that a wide variety of people can enjoy. Calling those who may appreciate it just for its action-adventure aspects as "the drooling mass audience" and "low brow" reeks of elitism, something that Trek never was.
Amen. I admit I roll my eyes whenever people start sneering at "the masses." To my mind, Star Trek is not an elitist thing intended only for the cognoscenti. So what if not everybody who buys a ticket is the "right" kind of viewer? Are we going to start insisting that people pass some sort of fannish IQ test before they're allowed to enjoy a Star Trek movie? To make sure they're watching the movie for the "right" reasons?

Please.

Star Trek started out on NBC, for pete's sakes. It was always meant to appeal to general audiences.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com

Last edited by Greg Cox; August 17 2013 at 08:59 PM.
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 09:53 PM   #112
Shikarnov
Rear Admiral
 
Shikarnov's Avatar
 
Location: Texas (Connecticut & Ivanovo in years past)
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

^Partly true. But it's not elitism. It's about raising the bar. If you want to talk about Trek's roots, lets go back to the Cage which featured women wearing pants and acting in professional roles and positions; and was rejected for having too cerebral of a concept. And though TOS was less ambitious and a lot more campy, it too pushed the envelope to challenge audiences to think with commentary on culture, race, religion, politics, and more. Star Trek aspired to be something the network and censors would never allow and inspired audiences to dream.

I'm sorry if it comes across as elitist of me to enjoy entertainment that exercises a few neurons -- which Star Trek, in most cases, did -- and to lament the lowering of the bar in this new rebooted universe. One would think you'd, particularly, understand that, Mr. Cox; In all my years as a fan, I never saw any of Star Trek's new target market walking around with the latest sci-fi book tucked under their arm.
__________________
"It is logically impossible for people to know God exists without any proven evidence. It is, however logically plausible to believe something does not exist if there is no evidence of it."

Last edited by Shikarnov; August 17 2013 at 10:14 PM.
Shikarnov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 10:16 PM   #113
Santa Kang
Fleet Admiral
 
Santa Kang's Avatar
 
Location: North Pole,Qo'noS
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Shikarnov wrote: View Post
^Partly true. But it's not elitism. It's about raising the bar. If you want to talk about Trek's roots, lets go back to the Cage which featured women wearing pants and acting in professional roles and positions; and was rejected for having too cerebral of a concept. And though TOS was less ambitious and a lot more campy, it too pushed the envelope to challenge audiences to think with commentary on culture, race, religion, politics, and more. Star Trek aspired to be something the network and censors would never allow and inspired audiences to dream.
It also features a half clad green animal woman dancing in a "alien" harem. A Captain uncomfortable with women on the bridge. Blather about female drives. A fight scene between Pike and barbarian. Another fight between Pike and a Talosan that ended with Pike threatening to blow its head off. Real deep stuff that.

It was the network and studio that insisted they include more minorities. Which is why the lily white Cage gave way to the more inclusive TOS.

I'm sorry if it comes across as elitist of me to enjoy entertainment that exercises a few neurons -- which Star Trek, in most cases, did -- and to lament the lowering of the bar in this new rebooted universe. One would think you'd, particularly, understand that, Mr. Cox; In all my years as a fan, I never saw many of Star Trek's new target market walking around with the latest sci-fi book tucked under their arm.
How the world would you know the reading habits of any Trek fan, much less the "new target market"? Most people don't bring books to the movies. (I do, though)
__________________
Nerys Myk
Santa Kang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 10:31 PM   #114
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

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

Why the Enterprise couldn't beam Spock and Khan from the flying garbage truck at the end of Into Darkness (because they were moving too much, or something like that) when in the prior movie Chekov beamed Kirk and Sulu out of terminal velocity free fall over Vulcan, on the other hand...
Pretty easy.

Kirk and Sulu were moving in one direction at a constant rate of speed, so it would be easy to calculate where they would be when. Spock and Khan were moving all over the barge in an unpredictable way.
Hmmm.... I still don't quite buy it, they probably could have beamed the whole barge up. Maybe the Enterprise's targeting scanners were damaged during the Vengeance attack, or something.
Shikarnov wrote:
[snip]...the new low-brow Trek universe.
Lower brow than Joe Piscopo and Data making spastic noises on the holodeck in "The Outrageous Okuna"?
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 10:50 PM   #115
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Shikarnov wrote: View Post

I'm sorry if it comes across as elitist of me to enjoy entertainment that exercises a few neurons -- which Star Trek, in most cases, did -- and to lament the lowering of the bar in this new rebooted universe.
I'm sure there are lots of people who enjoy science-fiction and look at Trek fans and think, "they think their shit is smart and deep, how cute". They likely think you're simple for enjoying something they don't think very highly of. They probably consider you as part of the drooling masses. Why do I care if someone goes to a Trek movie to watch shit blow-up? All I care about is if I enjoyed it.

Personally, I watch Star Trek to be entertained, not to make people think I'm smart.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 10:52 PM   #116
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post

Hmmm.... I still don't quite buy it, they probably could have beamed the whole barge up.
Do we have any idea if they have the uber transporters of TNG on? If not, beaming an entire barge, especially after the ass-whoopin' they took, may not have been an option.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 11:12 PM   #117
nightwind1
Commodore
 
nightwind1's Avatar
 
Location: Des Moines, IA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

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

Why the Enterprise couldn't beam Spock and Khan from the flying garbage truck at the end of Into Darkness (because they were moving too much, or something like that) when in the prior movie Chekov beamed Kirk and Sulu out of terminal velocity free fall over Vulcan, on the other hand...
Pretty easy.

Kirk and Sulu were moving in one direction at a constant rate of speed, so it would be easy to calculate where they would be when. Spock and Khan were moving all over the barge in an unpredictable way.
Hmmm.... I still don't quite buy it, they probably could have beamed the whole barge up. Maybe the Enterprise's targeting scanners were damaged during the Vengeance attack, or something.
Shikarnov wrote:
[snip]...the new low-brow Trek universe.
Lower brow than Joe Piscopo and Data making spastic noises on the holodeck in "The Outrageous Okuna"?
Or Janeway and Paris "de-volving" into lizards?

Or "Spock's Brain" or "The Way to Eden" ("I reach, Herbert...")?
__________________
Remember: No Matter Where You Go, There You Are...88

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.
nightwind1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 11:21 PM   #118
Shikarnov
Rear Admiral
 
Shikarnov's Avatar
 
Location: Texas (Connecticut & Ivanovo in years past)
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

BillJ wrote: View Post
Personally, I watch Star Trek to be entertained, not to make people think I'm smart.
The same is true of me. The OP's question was "Do fans want the prime timeline back?" I answered it from my POV and explained why I think so. I'm not trying to look smart. Hell, if I was so interested in fitting in, I would have been a lot more successful leaving my love of Trek in the closet.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Shikarnov wrote:
[snip]...the new low-brow Trek universe.
Lower brow than Joe Piscopo and Data making spastic noises on the holodeck in "The Outrageous Okuna"?
LOL. You got me there. But in my own defense, I did acknowledge that the prime universe didn't always provide food for thought, just that it did in most cases. With 28 seasons and 10 movies, there's plenty of nonsense.
__________________
"It is logically impossible for people to know God exists without any proven evidence. It is, however logically plausible to believe something does not exist if there is no evidence of it."
Shikarnov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 17 2013, 11:28 PM   #119
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Shikarnov wrote: View Post
LOL. You got me there. But in my own defense, I did acknowledge that the prime universe didn't always provide food for thought, just that it did in most cases. With 28 seasons and 10 movies, there's plenty of nonsense.
And I'm sure there's plenty of that non-sense you enjoyed.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 18 2013, 01:33 AM   #120
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back?

First you call his story about the bathroom 'bullshit' and now you're deigning to tell us what lesser entertainment he enjoyed?

Man, I love you in the THESE ARE THE VOYAGES thread, but everyplace else ...
trevanian 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 11:35 PM.

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