RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,162
Posts: 5,402,575
Members: 24,751
Currently online: 530
Newest member: kaklina

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


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 January 6 2014, 12:37 PM   #976
Taranis
Lieutenant
 
Taranis's Avatar
 
Location: Dublin Ireland
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Taranis wrote: View Post
it did have a greater sense of been out there and that a great distance lay between in most of the episodes ...
TOS (more than the others) really captured the feeling that they were out there in the darkness.


That what I thought when watching and every-time since when watching the TOS.

Personally I have always felt that Star Trek should be on TV.. to be able to tell the broadest scope story telling.

I have only watched the first Abramstrek movie and that was enough for me and as "Bigjake" said "badly-written" that goes for me too.

once I was discussing my thoughts of Star Trek to a friend, I made few observations between each generation
of the show.

The TOS era was more like the era of tall ships 1700s to the late 1800s, Captain James Cook or from literature Captain Hornblower who Kirk was modelled on, for the most part weeks, months or years out of touch depending on the mission and the Captain was the man or woman that had to make the big decisions.

The TNG era was more contemporary like any modern ships Captain that can be in contact with a home base very quickly and easily.

One of the aspects I never liked but learned to accept was the 3 seats in the command area of the bridge on TNG era ships. for me that was a mistake, the Center seat should be alone to reinforce the loneliness of command for who ever is sitting in it.

that's my view anyway
__________________
My Blog.
Star Trek and some other Sci-fi
http://taraniscgi.wordpress.com/
Taranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6 2014, 02:37 PM   #977
bbjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
BigJake wrote: View Post
Hober Mallow wrote:
said distinction doesn't actually exist except in the heads of some hardcore fans.
The distinction is quite plainly meant to exist in more than just "the heads of some hardcore fans." The Abramstrek films are carefully crafted to not be Trek as it previously was (while exploiting those pieces of the property known to a general audience), and were also marketed that way -- that's why Abrams always made a specific point of saying when asked that he wasn't a Trek fan and didn't know or care what they thought.
I think you misunderstood my point. My point is that's always been the case with every incarnation of Star Trek. Harve Bennet's Trek is not Gene Roddenberry's Trek. Rock Berman's Trek is not Nick Meyer's Trek. We can pretend it all represents one unified whole, but it doesn't and it never did. So to lump Abrams' films on one side and every other singular vision of Star Trek produced by everyone else on the other side and call it "Prime Trek" is creating a distinction that doesn't really exist.
The distinction between the two is one is an alternate reality, though I always considered NuTrek to be apart of Prime Trek. The fact Spock Prime didn't cease to exist after Vulcan's demise leads me to believe he could get back to his reality (if he had the knowhow).
bbjeg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6 2014, 05:22 PM   #978
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

bbjeg wrote: View Post
The distinction between the two is one is an alternate reality, though I always considered NuTrek to be apart of Prime Trek. The fact Spock Prime didn't cease to exist after Vulcan's demise leads me to believe he could get back to his reality (if he had the knowhow).
Rick Berman's version of Star Trek is merely one version of Star Trek, based on Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, but no more or less valid than Abrams' version, which is also based on GR's ST. To lump Berman's Trek spinoffs under the blanket term "Prime" implies it to be somehow more legitimate or "real" Star Trek than Abrams' Trek, which is nonsense.

And I don't even like Abrams' movies...
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6 2014, 08:59 PM   #979
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Examples, please? Because TNG to me is anything but innovotive or genuine sci-fi.
I don't know about innovative, but early on the show definitely has more of a sci-fi feel to it. Episodes like "Where No One...", "Lonely Among Us", "We'll Always Have Paris", "Skin of Evil", "Conspiracy" and another handful from season two.

It was definitely something that waned as the show progressed though. One of the reasons I fell out of love with the series. That and it got progressively dull.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 6 2014, 11:20 PM   #980
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Harvey wrote:
I think the optimism was a more important element than you're giving it credit for.
Well, fair enough. It's not that it was unimportant so much as I think it wasn't really, at least on Roddenberry's part, a big programmatic thing -- it was just about making the adventurers sympathetic and relatable. Such optimism as TOS had seems to me to have followed from that (even then it still used future holocausts as a trope and had Kirk & Co. cleaning up after some rather dark misadventures by Earth's representatives).

I'd say the single most important thing that set Star Trek apart from its sf television contemporaries (beyond the anthologies, which were a different beast that didn't have the continuing characters important to fandom) was that it attempted to appeal to an audience beyond young children.
That's also an important part of it, definitely.

As for the films being a "nostalgia delivery system," well, yes, but I fail to see how that sets them apart from most of the franchise to follow the original, beginning with Star Trek--The Motion Picture.
In the sense that the nostalgia it's delivering is for space opera in general and no longer for any distinguishing aspect of the Trek franchise; a nostalgia for audiences that no longer recollect the differences Trek had from other properties, as one can see for instance in Shaka Zulu's comments (sorry to pick on you Shaka but it's true). The Motion Picture is radically different in that distinguishing aspirational sense most of all. (After TWOK this element of the film franchise did start to recede into peddling sentimentality and fanservice, or in the case of TFF perhaps just Shatnerian ego-service.)

[No substantial disagreement with the rest of your remarks, thanks for that detailed response.]

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
BigJake wrote:
TNG continued to try to tell genuine SF stories and innovated new approaches to its medium.
Examples, please? Because TNG to me is anything but innovotive or genuine sci-fi.
You're mistaken.



None of which of course means you have to like TNG, that's up to you. (I myself prefer TOS in many ways.)
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig

Last edited by BigJake; January 7 2014 at 02:23 AM.
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2014, 12:08 AM   #981
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Some points:

(1) The A and B plot may have been an innovation compared to Star Trek, but it was hardly remarkable in terms of dramatic television in 1987.

(2) Star Trek: The Next Generation definitely took greater narrative risks than its predecessor. As you've pointed out, character arcs developed over time, secondary characters were highlighted on a recurring basis, etc. Nonetheless, compared to dramatic television in 1987-94, I'd hesitate to call any of this truly "innovative," although unlike VOY or ENT, it was at least keeping abreast of changes to television.

(3) I'd agree that TNG is "genuine sci-fi" (although I'd drop "genuine" as being redundant; it's either sci-fi or it isn't), but I'd also argue that the later series were just as much science fiction as much as TNG was.

(4) I (shockingly!) disagree with your assessment of the Abrams movies as lacking any distinguishable elements of STAR TREK. To my eyes, they get as close to the original series as anything in their sense of adventure, pace, aesthetic, and tone.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2014, 12:24 AM   #982
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

It might be more accurate to say TNG was innovative for the genre in the medium (or for its franchise) than for the medium per se, that's fair enough.
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2014, 05:07 AM   #983
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Fantasy Island was a Genre Show, and often had More plots going than just different ones for the Guest stars. IE: Often a Plot of Tattoo being given an important Fantasy to oversee being granted, or A Maid finding Love or Mr. Roarke showing a Dark or mysterious side, etc (Though, Dark Roarke was far more directly shown with the Malcolm McDowell Remake)

The Love Boat also had a Ship's Crew Plotline, along with the Guest plotlines, which often developed the Crew's Characters.

And those started a Decade + earlier
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 7 2014, 11:36 PM   #984
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Sindatur wrote: View Post
Fantasy Island was a Genre Show, and often had More plots going than just different ones for the Guest stars. IE: Often a Plot of Tattoo being given an important Fantasy to oversee being granted, or A Maid finding Love or Mr. Roarke showing a Dark or mysterious side, etc (Though, Dark Roarke was far more directly shown with the Malcolm McDowell Remake)
Fantasy Island was dark in the original series as well, especially the pilot movies.

The Love Boat also had a Ship's Crew Plotline, along with the Guest plotlines, which often developed the Crew's Characters.

And those started a Decade + earlier
The less said about The Love Boat, the better; I'm sorry I ever wasted my time seeing that show as a child. Having B-plots on it meant nothing as the show was written 'for a child of five years old by a child of five years old' as Gale Gordon put it in an interview for the Toronto Star back in the 1980's (he was asked if he ever wanted to be on that show, and what he thought of TV then.)
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8 2014, 12:02 AM   #985
BigJake
Rear Admiral
 
BigJake's Avatar
 
Location: No matter where you go, there you are.
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

It occurs to me that literally the only thing I remember about Fantasy Island is Tattoo's catch-phrase: "Boss! Boss! The plane! The plane!" That is it.

That makes me sad, somehow...
__________________
It's got electrolytes!
"I wanna read more" - Dennis "I . . . agree with everything you said" - SPCTRE "I blame Cracked" - J. Allen "Take me off" - The Stig
BigJake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8 2014, 12:21 AM   #986
drt
Commander
 
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Heh...

All I really remember is the wide brush strokes of how in the earlier seasons the Island was more grounded in reality with things like "movie special effects", etc. and Roarke would be shown to be playing some of the characters the visitors encountered, but in the later seasons Roarke was some kind of supernatural creature and occasionally fought demons and crap.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8 2014, 05:06 AM   #987
Sindatur
Vice Admiral
 
Sindatur's Avatar
 
Location: Sacramento, CA
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

drt wrote: View Post
<snip> ...but in the later seasons Roarke was some kind of supernatural creature and occasionally fought demons and crap.
Was that MontalRoarke? McDowellRoarke, definitely was portrayed as Supernatural from the Get-go, but, all I remember of Montalban Roarke was allusions and explanations? Did I stop watching before it turned more Supernatural?
__________________
One Day I hope to be the Man my Cat thinks I am

Where are we going? And why are we in this Handbasket?
Sindatur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 8 2014, 09:08 AM   #988
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.

drt wrote: View Post
Heh...

All I really remember is the wide brush strokes of how in the earlier seasons the Island was more grounded in reality with things like "movie special effects", etc. and Roarke would be shown to be playing some of the characters the visitors encountered, but in the later seasons Roarke was some kind of supernatural creature and occasionally fought demons and crap.
In the last season (I think it was the last season), Roddy McDowall played the Devil, and he and Roarke contended for the soul of Roarke's young female ward (I forget her name). Finally, Roarke offered to split the difference, saying the Devil could have her 3 days a week, he'd have her 3 other days, and she would get 1 day to herself. The Devil said, "That's absurd!" and somehow the situation got resolved.

I remember enjoying these shows a lot - Saturday night was the Love Boat/Fantasy Island time, and a lot of actors guested on both shows. There were even a couple of crossovers, although Mr. Roarke never stepped foot on the Pacific Princess.
__________________
"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 January 8 2014, 03:40 PM   #989
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: At the After Party Still...
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Harvey wrote: View Post

(3) I'd agree that TNG is "genuine sci-fi" (although I'd drop "genuine" as being redundant; it's either sci-fi or it isn't), but I'd also argue that the later series were just as much science fiction as much as TNG was.
I think what muddied the water in regards to the sc-fi aspect of TNG are (to me at least)
- The A and B plots confused the 'serious' plot
- Technobabble
- The lack of wonder at most any great discovery - eg. Picard seemed to have more interesting things to do than marvel at the Enterprise going to the Andromeda Galaxy
- The lack of Classical Science Fiction themes but more modern ones such as cloning etc
- The political plots involving the Klingons etc
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 8 2014, 11:02 PM   #990
bbjeg
Vice Admiral
 
bbjeg's Avatar
 
Location: ˙ɐlnqǝu sıɥʇ uı ʞɔnʇS
Re: Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
bbjeg wrote: View Post
The distinction between the two is one is an alternate reality, though I always considered NuTrek to be apart of Prime Trek. The fact Spock Prime didn't cease to exist after Vulcan's demise leads me to believe he could get back to his reality (if he had the knowhow).
Rick Berman's version of Star Trek is merely one version of Star Trek, based on Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, but no more or less valid than Abrams' version, which is also based on GR's ST. To lump Berman's Trek spinoffs under the blanket term "Prime" implies it to be somehow more legitimate or "real" Star Trek than Abrams' Trek, which is nonsense.

And I don't even like Abrams' movies...
The term "Prime" was coined from 2009 Trek's credits referring to Nemoy's character as Spock Prime. It's not implying it's more legitimate, just connected to a different reality. A contiguous reality that spans from TOS, through TNG, DS9, and Voy, to the future scenes in 2009's Trek (the Prime Timeline).
bbjeg 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 12:48 AM.

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