RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,892
Posts: 5,222,859
Members: 24,234
Currently online: 603
Newest member: evtclub

TrekToday headlines

De Lancie Joins Mind Puppets
By: T'Bonz on Apr 24

Cumberbatch One Of Time Magazine’s Most Influential
By: T'Bonz on Apr 24

Trek Actor Smithsonian Magazine Cover First
By: T'Bonz on Apr 24

Takei To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Yelchin In New Comedy
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

U.S. Rights For Pegg Comedy Secured
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Shatner: Aging and Work
By: T'Bonz on Apr 23

Kurtzman And Orci Go Solo
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Star Trek #32 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Apr 22

Voyager Bridge Via The Oculus Rift
By: T'Bonz on Apr 21


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. 161 55.52%
I'm a fan and I don't want the Prime timeline back. 52 17.93%
I'm a fan and wouldn't mind if it came back. 32 11.03%
I don't care, just give me Trek! 39 13.45%
I don't know. 6 2.07%
Voters: 290. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 2 2013, 04:27 AM   #211
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

R. Star wrote: View Post
I love that people are going around demanding and trying to provide "proof" of their opinion about the last movie.
It makes no sense for me to run into random threads and tell everyone how much I dislike various elements of the franchise and how many people think they're trash.

It serves no purpose.

Plus, if you're going to talk smack be prepared to back it up.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 04:54 AM   #212
BigJake
Commodore
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Geoff Peterson wrote: View Post
I don't think most people care about either if they have a good time.
In the short term, no. The question is, for a "Future of Trek" thread, what "future Trek" actually aspires to.

If it is making relatively forgettable popcorn cinema, then worrying about details like craftsmanship and good writing is to some extent superfluous. If it is making films that are well-regarded as SF and have some longevity and relevance in the long term to people outside the franchise, that's a different question.

Although [Geoff's] arithmetic may be a bit suspect (22,000 is more than 1 last time I checked), I'll concede that using the word "garbage" in my initial post was ill-advised and guaranteed to provoke defensiveness and attempts at derailment. So, bad call. I'll take another snap at bringing this back to the question I was addressing, and try to be more constructive.

My point is that a large amount of opinion on Abramsverse Trek -- like or dislike, and yes, I'm speaking impressionistically rather than statistically -- concede that it is essentially junk cinema. Junk cinema is not necessarily unenjoyable; I myself don't hate everything about the Abramsverse films -- the cast is delightful, some of the set pieces are of themselves entertaining -- but it's in much the same register in which I enjoy Conan the Barbarian or Big Trouble in Little China or (he says grudgingly, but it's unavoidably true) Inception. It's still junk cinema. I like it because I like it, but it's not particularly good filmmaking and I don't feel like I'm on the grounds to justify it as such. If someone complains, my response is: "don't overthink it, just enjoy the ride."

That's fine for popcorn cinema that one expects to be disposable for oneself and others, and even from those who love the Abramsverse films, that's the basic defense we largely hear: it's fun, it's a thrill-ride, don't overthink it. Pressed, many will claim that the writing isn't any worse than most Trek films -- which is true, but then most of the Trek films are forgettable and largely irrelevant to the broader film landscape and deserve to be so -- and defend it mainly in the terms that if you aspire to more, you're being some variant of OCD spaz. (An example I don't choose at random, I've seen that actual phrasing on these boards. And I will give Abrams this, at least his films are good as popcorn cinema, something The Final Frontier and the TNG films can't say; irrational Trekkieness plays in not at the point where one aspires to better movies, but where one is vindictive enough to actually rate almost any film at all as being worse than The Final Frontier.)

So, I am not saying I unconditionally hate everything about Abrams' films. At the very least he had the wherewithal to assemble an incredible cast who will -- from my standpoint -- hopefully have the chance to feature in something with a bit more ambition. I am, however, enough of a Trekkie to think Trek is capable of being visually thrilling, entertaining and still intelligent. Those are the attributes that IMO would guarantee "future Trek" some real traction and legacy, rather than a couple of periodic "forgetbusters," and they're what I assume people interested in discussing "future Trek" are aiming at.

I hope that clarifies a few things. And I apologize to BillJ for my implications of his being dishonest or unintelligent, I am sure he is neither and just passionate about the films. I get it, and I've been there. (Archived somewhere on the Net is my many-years'-ago defense of The Matrix: Reloaded. It's not like I've come to my current perspective without some experience in being on the other side of this kind of discussion.)
__________________
“Let them eat static.”

(Recruiting for a Where No Man Has Gone Before play-by-post RP. Check it out!)

Last edited by BigJake; October 2 2013 at 05:48 AM.
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 05:25 AM   #213
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Well I feel that if you have a "good time" at a film you're more inclined to go to the next film in the series. You remember that "good time". Similarly if you like an actor's work or a director's work. With a series of films like Trek, Star Wars or the Matrix you have to keep and grow an audience, one misstep and they're gone. Trek had it's share of missteps with STV, Insurrection and Nemesis. (And on TV with Voyager and Enterprise) It's hard to recover from those missteps. That Abrams has revived the franchise after those missteps are credit to his ability as a filmmaker (love or hate his technique) I happen to feel that his Trek films have more depth than a lot of folks given them credit for. So he is making films that are "visually thrilling, entertaining and still intelligent". They are more than disposable popcorn cinema.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 05:37 AM   #214
BigJake
Commodore
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Geoff Peterson wrote: View Post
Well I feel that if you have a "good time" at a film you're more inclined to go to the next film in the series. You remember that "good time".
I would agree with this, except that I remember the way my appreciation of The Matrix: Reloaded palled on actually thinking about it, and I was not in fact inclined to go see the next film in the series.

That Abrams has revived the franchise after those missteps are credit to his ability as a filmmaker
(Apologies for cutting this statement off before the end, I'm just responding to what I think is relevant.)

I'm not really convinced that Abrams has "revived the franchise," although make no mistake, I thoroughly appreciate that he has made the TOS universe relevant again. What will tell the tale is what happens when or if the franchise decides to again try something more than just popcorn cinema. All he's really done thus far is sell popcorn cinema wrapped in the trappings of the Trek "brand." It's more than Trek was doing prior to that, obviously, but "intelligent cinema" it does not make.

Abrams does excel in clever touches, which are sometimes confused with "intelligence." We saw this in Lost, which amassed a fanatical following based on turning an entire television series -- however incoherent its character and plot arcs turned out to be -- into a vast Easter-egg hunt. But Lost also lost a lot of viewers in its later seasons to this confusion of cleverness with intelligence, and I get the feeling that the same thing may have happened with the Trek movies, which lack overall coherence or believability but are chock-full of clever touches (most notably, I think, the inversion of the TWOK death scene, which made some people SQUEEEE! and other people recoil in contempt; I'm even someone who thinks that particular touch was genuinely clever and fun, right down to Quinto's "KHAAANN!" yell, it's the unintelligence surrounding it that balks me).

I also think that a strength of Abrams is that, over short stretches, he's really excellent with character touches and beats. I love the Uhura-Spock romance, for instance, even if I don't love that it wound up reducing Uhura to "Spock's girlfriend" in STID. (I'm familiar enough with original Trek to know that any Uhura that gets to do anything at all but connect phone-calls is an improvement.) I love his employment of the characters and that they all get something important to do, in contrast to Kirk, Spock and McCoy doing most of the heavy lifting. In service of genuinely intelligent and coherent plotting and writing, it would be Great Stuff. And perhaps yet will be.
__________________
“Let them eat static.”

(Recruiting for a Where No Man Has Gone Before play-by-post RP. Check it out!)
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 05:46 AM   #215
bbjeg
Rear Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BigJake wrote: View Post
My point is that a large amount of opinion on Abramsverse Trek -- like or dislike, and yes, I'm speaking impressionistically rather than statistically -- concede that it is essentially junk cinema.
I get what you're saying, "a large amount of opinion", but what's being said is a larger amount (x9) enjoyed it (or at least paid to see it again ). It's fan base vs general audiences and the gross numbers, even after you adjusted the previous movies ticket price due to inflation, back up "Into Darkness".

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchi...d=startrek.htm

I enjoyed it, even though it shuffled previous ideas. I took it as a homage movie.
__________________
-Star Trek Rock Opera-
bbjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 05:51 AM   #216
BigJake
Commodore
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

bbjeg wrote: View Post
I get what you're saying, "a large amount of opinion", but what's being said is a larger amount (x9) enjoyed it (or at least paid to see it again ).
No, I get you, what I'm saying is that the "junk cinema" assessment doesn't track to who liked or disliked it. I didn't dislike STID as pop cinema and in fact paid twice to see it (theatre and PPV); I just don't think it's intelligent filmmaking with a long-term appeal.
__________________
“Let them eat static.”

(Recruiting for a Where No Man Has Gone Before play-by-post RP. Check it out!)
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 05:56 AM   #217
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Well like most of the TV shows he's produced in the last few years, he really wasn't all that involved in Lost past the first couple of seasons. You'd have to look at the people who actually ran that show to blame for any of it's problems or excesses.

As for intelligent cinema, not sure if Trek's really cut out for that role. At its heart its an action adventure story that occasionally plays with interesting ideas. It tends to get stodgy and stale when it tried to be "intelligent".
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 06:06 AM   #218
BigJake
Commodore
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Geoff Peterson wrote: View Post
As for intelligent cinema, not sure if Trek's really cut out for that role.
Trek can certainly manage basic narrative coherency and adherence to its own rules. Any movie conceived with quality in mind can manage those things. I'm not even talking about high-concept stuff, which I happen to think could be managed in a Trek film but is not the basic benchmark for "intelligence" I'm talking about here.
__________________
“Let them eat static.”

(Recruiting for a Where No Man Has Gone Before play-by-post RP. Check it out!)
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 06:12 AM   #219
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BigJake wrote: View Post
Geoff Peterson wrote: View Post
As for intelligent cinema, not sure if Trek's really cut out for that role.
Trek can certainly manage basic narrative coherency and adherence to its own rules. Any movie conceived with quality in mind can manage those things. I'm not even talking about high-concept stuff, which I happen to think could be managed in a Trek film but is not the basic benchmark for "intelligence" I'm talking about here.
I guess I'm not seeing any real incoherence or rule breaking in the recent films. The idea that these films are being made with out quality in mind is rather baffling to me.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 06:19 AM   #220
BigJake
Commodore
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Geoff Peterson wrote: View Post
I guess I'm not seeing any real incoherence or rule breaking in the recent films.
I don't hate it the way Devin Faraci did, but he's a useful guide to some of the major complaints. I particularly agree with this:

Devin Faraci wrote:
More than once a character comments on how stupid something is, or how out of character someone is behaving. This sort of handwaving is a way of distancing the creative team from the junk they’ve created, a way of saying ‘Hey, we know this doesn’t really work, but come along for the ride anyway.’ It’s infuriating, and the time spent having Scotty whine to Kirk that he’s making decisions that are stupid, inappropriate and out of character should have been spent finding other solutions to the narrative problems.
IMO that's dead on.
__________________
“Let them eat static.”

(Recruiting for a Where No Man Has Gone Before play-by-post RP. Check it out!)
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 06:19 AM   #221
David.Blue
Lieutenant Commander
 
David.Blue's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

I enjoyed Star Trek Into Darkness when I saw it. Lots of fun. Whizz bang, explosions and an exciting chase. But that is all I felt. It was fun. My complaint remains that is all it was. A exciting if irregular roller coaster ride.

But...Star Trek has always been more than that, at least to me. I firmly believe had STID been a better film, a more dramatic film, one that engaged me emotionally, it would have made more money.
__________________
David.Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 02:30 PM   #222
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BigJake wrote: View Post
irrational Trekkieness plays in not at the point where one aspires to better movies, but where one is vindictive enough to actually rate almost any film at all as being worse than The Final Frontier.)
Can't argue with you there!

I was actually rewatching ST V last night, for the first time in ages. Lord, is that a dreadful movie!
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com

Last edited by Greg Cox; October 2 2013 at 03:23 PM.
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 10:40 PM   #223
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BigJake wrote: View Post
My point is that a large amount of opinion on Abramsverse Trek -- like or dislike, and yes, I'm speaking impressionistically rather than statistically -- concede that it is essentially junk cinema.
But in what universe is one out of ten more indicative of the quality of a product than nine out of ten? Essentially, you're saying nine out of ten people are wrong because their opinion disagrees with yours.

There is nothing about the Abramsverse films that I consider "junk" cinema. Also, it really concerns me that a product is considered "junk" because it decides to put audience enjoyment first and foremost. It reeks of elitism.


And I apologize to BillJ for my implications of his being dishonest or unintelligent...
No worries. I've been known to be out of line from time to time.

David.Blue wrote: View Post

I firmly believe had STID been a better film, a more dramatic film, one that engaged me emotionally, it would have made more money.
Everyone thinks that if something was done more to their taste that it would've done better. There is no way to ever prove it.

There are things that I would've liked to have seen in the film but I have no doubt that it would've made it a mess. One of the things I enjoy about the films are the fact that the plots are pretty straight-forward and to the point. I don't need the characters to stand around and painfully dissect the events going on around them. YMMV.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 2 2013, 11:18 PM   #224
dub
Captain
 
dub's Avatar
 
Location: Location? What is this?
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

For me, Trek is different from franchises like Batman in that from TOS through VOY and then ENT there was at least an effort to create a universe and a timeline that was somewhat consistent instead of trying to retell the same stories in different ways, or bring us the same characters with different stories that completely ignore stories told in the past. I think this effort to be consistent helped create a "realness" to that universe over the years. They didn't always get it right, and there were of course mistakes and times when things were ignored, but there was certainly an effort at some point to create a continuous timeline. The alternate timelines and mirror universes were fun to visit, but ultimately unless they had a direct impact on the prime timeline in some way, they were nothing more than fun diversions or nice stories (or awful stories depending on your POV).

And that's sort of how Trek '09 and STID feel for me overall. They are fun and I think it was a brilliant move on the part of the filmmakers, but they are in an alternate universe and I can't completely escape that in my mind. I understand those who feel differently on this, and for new fans it's definitely irrelevant, but to me that's the best way I can explain how I feel about it. I personally would like to get back to the prime timeline which carried on for decades, if not in film at first at least on television if that's a possibility.

One way to do this is to have a scene with Spock Prime somehow getting back to the prime universe (or just disappearing from the alternate universe) in one of the next films (hurry, Nimoy's getting on up there in age)! Then, he can have a brief cameo in the pilot of a television series where he arrives back in the 24th century 10 to 15 years after Voyager ended, and we are introduced to the new state of affairs in the alpha quadrant, prime universe. It would be beautiful to see Nimoy setting eyes on Vulcan for the first time since seeing it destroyed in the alternate timeline. But they don't have to do it that way, they can have cameos from folks from TNG, DS9 or VOY. Or, they could pick up with shows about the ENT B or C, or those years of the prime universe, or the years between TOS and TMP. I'd be giddy to see any of that.

I know this is subjective and it's totally cool if you disagree. But that's the explanation of my vote.
dub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 3 2013, 01:17 AM   #225
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

BigJake wrote: View Post
Geoff Peterson wrote: View Post
I guess I'm not seeing any real incoherence or rule breaking in the recent films.
I don't hate it the way Devin Faraci did, but he's a useful guide to some of the major complaints. I particularly agree with this:

Devin Faraci wrote:
More than once a character comments on how stupid something is, or how out of character someone is behaving. This sort of handwaving is a way of distancing the creative team from the junk they’ve created, a way of saying ‘Hey, we know this doesn’t really work, but come along for the ride anyway.’ It’s infuriating, and the time spent having Scotty whine to Kirk that he’s making decisions that are stupid, inappropriate and out of character should have been spent finding other solutions to the narrative problems.
IMO that's dead on.
I found nothing wrong with that element of the film. It sets up Scotty being on the Vengeance when Kirk and Khan need to board the the ship. Plus there needed to be a "voice of reason". One of Kirk's traits, as seen in TOS, is going off half cocked and he needs someone to temper that. Usually its Spock or McCoy. So I don't think that's out of character for Kirk.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.

Last edited by Nerys Myk; October 3 2013 at 02:17 AM.
Nerys Myk 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 10:02 AM.

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