RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,923
Posts: 5,389,326
Members: 24,718
Currently online: 657
Newest member: Count Spockula

TrekToday headlines

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18


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. 190 56.05%
I'm a fan and I don't want the Prime timeline back. 57 16.81%
I'm a fan and wouldn't mind if it came back. 38 11.21%
I don't care, just give me Trek! 48 14.16%
I don't know. 6 1.77%
Voters: 339. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 6 2013, 02:17 AM   #556
FKnight
Commander
 
FKnight's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

The writers of the Highlander franchise of movies and TV shows laugh derisively at this thread
__________________
"You have been examined. Your ship must be destroyed. We make assumption you have a deity, or deities, or some such beliefs which comfort you. We therefore grant you ten Earth time periods known as minutes to make preparations."
FKnight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 02:30 AM   #557
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
As long as they tell good stories with good characters, people will watch.
And because of that, it would not hurt them the tiniest bit to make it part of the Prime universe.
But, again, what's the "Prime Universe?" The original TV series upon which all the derivative shows are based? Or are you including the derivative spinoffs as well? In that case, you're talking about a universe created and maintained for the spinoffs, not for the original. That would be like insisting that all future Sherlock Holmes productions be based on the derivative films featuring Basil Rathbone and not purely the original Conan Doyle stories.

There's nothing "prime" about the Trek spinoffs. No matter how good (or bad) they are, they are derivative works. As are, for that matter, the TOS feature films. They are no more valid or "prime" than any derivative of Star Trek, including the Abrams films. In fact, though I don't actually like the Abrams films, I consider them more "prime" than Voyager or Enterprise, because, featuring Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise, they're closer to the original material.
TOS, TOS movies, TNG, VOY and DS9 are all in the same continuity. Picard, Sisko and Janeway met Shatner-Kirk, Nimoy-Spock, Kelley-McCoy, Takei-Sulu and Doohan-Scotty. Picard, Sisko and Janeway met each other. Kang, Kor and Koloth show up in DS9. The Enterprise-D visited the TOS Spacedock and met Excelsior class vessels, etc... Visual continuity, character continuity, story contuinity, all of that makes TOS to VOY the Prime Universe.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 02:40 AM   #558
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
It was not "adament stubborn entitlement" which (temporarily) killed the primeverse (the real Star Trek) but greed and stupidity.
Fans said the exact same thing with reference to TOS when Next Generation came along
Ah, yes, the "not real Star Trek" fallacy. The cousin of the "no true Trekker" fallacy. Scotty would not approve. As much as I hate to admit it, Scotty whacking his head in STV is real Star Trek.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
IIRC, SGI was made by different people to the live-action series'.
Fine. I'm not a Stargate expert. The existence of SGI as the "red-headed stepchild" of the SG franchise just occurred to me, so I thought I'd throw that out there, for what it's worth.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 02:46 AM   #559
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

CorporalCaptain wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
IIRC, SGI was made by different people to the live-action series'.
Fine. I'm not a Stargate expert. The existence of SGI as the "red-headed stepchild" of the SG franchise just occurred to me, so I thought I'd throw that out there, for what it's worth.
Its also probably a bad example because SGI takes places a while after SG-1, SGA, and SGU so really its kind of hard to say they completely ignored it since its further along in the timeline.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post

I'm pretty sure that most folks see animation and live-action as two distinct animals.
Exactly.
Probably because they are two distinct animals as differently people work on them, while there is overlap their target audiences are different, and they don't really have anything to do with each other for the most part.

In other words there was no vast Superman continuity that the cartoons came along and rebooted there were just separate media adaptations that were doing their own thing.

bbjeg wrote: View Post
I thought I remembered a live action Lois and Clark movie and while Googling for it I came across a Trekbbs thread that supports my point. It so happens to have you on the other side of the argument:
And this has what to do with anything?
Hartzilla2007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 02:50 AM   #560
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Its also probably a bad example because SGI takes places a while after SG-1, SGA, and SGU so really its kind of hard to say they completely ignored it since its further along in the timeline.
True.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 03:01 AM   #561
bbjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
And this has what to do with anything?
Try reading the rest of the post.
bbjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 03:12 AM   #562
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

bbjeg wrote: View Post
I'm sure if Superman Returns was a hit, IMHO the would be trilogy wouldn't have a Richard Pryor-esk character, nor will it ever reference the remaining movies. What's the point of starting a movie in the middle of a set of movies if you planned to keep the rest of them anyway?
Just because they never referenced them again didn't mean they were "officially" expunged from the continuity--to the degree that general audiences even care about such things.

As far as I know, no subsequent Star Trek movie or television episode has ever mentioned the events of "Spock's Brain" again, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's just that nobody was in a big hurry to bring the subject up again if they didn't have to.

Sometimes it's just easier to quietly "forget" about something instead of making a big deal deal about whether it's still "officially" part of the "continuity."

Hell, no "canonical" movie or TV episode has ever referenced Edith Keeler or the giant space amoeba either . . . .

Movies don't come with bibilographies or footnotes. SUPERMAN RETURNS didn't need to reference the plot of SUPERMAN III any more than THE WRATH OF KHAN needed to acknowledge "Turnabout Intruder" or "The Way to Eden" . . . .
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 03:33 AM   #563
bbjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
bbjeg wrote: View Post
I'm sure if Superman Returns was a hit, IMHO the would be trilogy wouldn't have a Richard Pryor-esk character, nor will it ever reference the remaining movies. What's the point of starting a movie in the middle of a set of movies if you planned to keep the rest of them anyway?
Just because they never referenced them again didn't mean they were "officially" expunged from the continuity--to the degree that general audiences even care about such things.

As far as I know, no subsequent Star Trek movie or television episode has ever mentioned the events of "Spock's Brain" again, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's just that nobody was in a big hurry to bring the subject up again if they didn't have to.
Everything that happened in the series happened in their movies past, regardless if they mentioned it or not. It wasn't like the movies took place in the middle of the series.
bbjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 03:41 AM   #564
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

bbjeg wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
bbjeg wrote: View Post
I'm sure if Superman Returns was a hit, IMHO the would be trilogy wouldn't have a Richard Pryor-esk character, nor will it ever reference the remaining movies. What's the point of starting a movie in the middle of a set of movies if you planned to keep the rest of them anyway?
Just because they never referenced them again didn't mean they were "officially" expunged from the continuity--to the degree that general audiences even care about such things.

As far as I know, no subsequent Star Trek movie or television episode has ever mentioned the events of "Spock's Brain" again, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's just that nobody was in a big hurry to bring the subject up again if they didn't have to.
Everything that happened in the series happened in their movies past, regardless if they mentioned it or not. It wasn't like the movies took place in the middle of the series.
Then why couldn't SUPERMAN III have taken place sometime before SUPERMAN RETURNS--even if they didn't mention it?
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 04:04 AM   #565
bbjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Then why couldn't SUPERMAN III have taken place sometime before SUPERMAN RETURNS--even if they didn't mention it?
I don't know, I wasn't a writer for Superman Returns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_Returns
Superman Returns is a 2006 superhero film directed and produced by Bryan Singer. Based on the DC Comics character Superman, the film serves as a homage sequel to the motion pictures Superman (1978) and Superman II (1980), ignoring the events of Superman III (1983) and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987).
bbjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 04:14 AM   #566
CorporalCaptain
Vice Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

I think Greg Cox has a good point. A failure to reference events does not necessitate disowning that part of continuity.

I'll add that announcements made when a movie is in development or coming out, that unpopular aspects of previous continuity won't be respected, can't be separated from the marketing consideration of not putting off moviegoers. Just because they may have said that III and IV were being ignored, that's not the same thing as saying that the events in SR contradicted the events in either of those films. Greg Cox's point is that, at least in the case of III, they didn't.
__________________
John
CorporalCaptain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 04:22 AM   #567
bbjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

^But they went out of their way to point out that Returns was homage sequel to Superman and Superman II instead of saying it was the next movie in the series and it's safe to say they never intended to fit III and IV back in.
bbjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 04:26 AM   #568
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

bbjeg wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Then why couldn't SUPERMAN III have taken place sometime before SUPERMAN RETURNS--even if they didn't mention it?
I don't know, I wasn't a writer for Superman Returns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_Returns
Superman Returns is a 2006 superhero film directed and produced by Bryan Singer. Based on the DC Comics character Superman, the film serves as a homage sequel to the motion pictures Superman (1978) and Superman II (1980), ignoring the events of Superman III (1983) and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (1987).
"Ignoring" is an ambiguous term. It doesn't necessarily mean: "We have made an Official Ruling that those movies DID NOT HAPPEN." It could just mean that "we're sure as hell not going to reference those particular movies or expect the average moviegoer to care about them."

One could just as easily say that the Trek movies "ignored" any number of old episodes. I don't recall Kirk and Spock reminiscing about "Catspaw" or "Spectre of the Gun" in any of the movies . . . or the Salt Vampire making a surprise appearance. Heck, in TUC, Kirk and McCoy act like they've never met a shapeshifter before . . . ,

Here's the thing: there's no reason anyone needs to absolutely, positively know what Superman (or Star Trek) movies are still "canon" to enjoy the latest adventure. Unless the plot specifically hinges on, the return of Gus Gorman, it really doesn't matter whether SUPERMAN III still "counts" or not. What matters is whether the new adventure is compelling and entertaining--not whether it does or does not fit into some imaginary continuity.

You want to leave something behind, you don't need to rewrite history. You just never mention it again.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is online now   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 04:32 AM   #569
bbjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
One could just as easily say that the Trek movies "ignored" any number of old episodes. I don't recall Kirk and Spock reminiscing about "Catspaw" or "Spectre of the Gun" in any of the movies . . . or the Salt Vampire making a surprise appearance. Heck, in TUC, Kirk and McCoy act like they've never met a shapeshifter before
But it's not like the Star Trek movie writers came out before the movie and pointed out what episodes will be ignored, Superman Returns writers did.
bbjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 6 2013, 04:34 AM   #570
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.

BillJ wrote: View Post
CDR6 wrote: View Post
I'm with the Lynx on this one. So many possibilities in the prime-verse unexplored yet.
I'm not so sure. They were already to the point by Voyager that they were retelling stories and just gluing different pieces of rubber to actors foreheads to make "new" aliens.
That's the fault of writers who were running short on imagination. It's not the fault of the series itself or the universe in which the series was set.

teacake wrote: View Post
The vast audience that makes these movies money and would make a tv show profitable won't even know the difference between this timeline and the prime one.
That's rather dismissive of everyone who has watched ST from the start (or at least who has seen TOS plus the later series). It's best not to go on the assumption that your target audience is stupid.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Lynx wrote: View Post
Just look and see what we had. We had this universe created in TNG, DS9 and VOY with hundreds of exciting races and enormous possibilities to come up with good stories about all this. And what do the fools do? They regress back to pre-TOS, followed by a lousy remake of the same series. It's like if the whole music industry should abandon the technology of today and go back to 78 rpm records and technology from the 30's.
No it's not. "How did the Federation come about?" is a question fans have been asking since TOS. How do you tell that story? A prequel. The execution was hit-and-miss (miss in seasons one and two, BIG hit in three and four IMO), but the concept of a prequel is a sound one.

And how else do you tell new stories with a young Kirk and Spock, without having to worry about fans going, "We know they'll make it because Kirk doesn't die until in Generations"? You reboot it so those prior destinies are irrelevant. We now have that same universe with hundreds of races, but where anything can happen.
You use your imagination, same as all the novel authors who had to work within that restriction. If they'd thrown up their hands and whined, "This is impossible!!!" there would have been far fewer Star Trek novels.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
TOS, TOS movies, TNG, VOY and DS9 are all in the same continuity. Picard, Sisko and Janeway met Shatner-Kirk, Nimoy-Spock, Kelley-McCoy, Takei-Sulu and Doohan-Scotty. Picard, Sisko and Janeway met each other. Kang, Kor and Koloth show up in DS9. The Enterprise-D visited the TOS Spacedock and met Excelsior class vessels, etc... Visual continuity, character continuity, story contuinity, all of that makes TOS to VOY the Prime Universe.
Trying to sort out this paragraph...

Picard met McCoy, Scotty, Sarek, and Spock during the TV series. He met Kirk in the Generations movie.

Sisko met Kirk in a scene that was actually from Mirror, Mirror instead of The Trouble With Tribbles (Sisko was substituted for Marlena Moreau).

Janeway met Sulu and Rand.

Therefore, I am left wondering when all these other meetings happened?
__________________
"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 11:22 PM.

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