Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by bbjegglebells, Sep 6, 2013.

?

Do fans want the prime timeline back?

  1. I'm a fan and I want the Prime timeline back.

    56.0%
  2. I'm a fan and I don't want the Prime timeline back.

    16.4%
  3. I'm a fan and wouldn't mind if it came back.

    11.1%
  4. I don't care, just give me Trek!

    14.6%
  5. I don't know.

    1.9%
  1. DonIago

    DonIago Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2001
    Location:
    Burlington, VT, USA
    I don't really agree with that interpretation. I understood it as Kirk really not caring what happened to the Klingons either as an empire or a people; whether or not this event could cause their extinction is beside the point.
     
  2. David.Blue

    David.Blue Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Yeah, I mean it isn't as if every Anti-Semite longed for or cheered the Holocaust. Jefferson Davis, Andrew Jackson and Woodrow Wilson were all hardcore racists--doesn't mean they wanted every single person of color exterminated.
     
  3. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    You're free to believe that, I don't. I think Kirk was talking about the race. The destruction of Praxis screwed up Qo'nos' environment and they were gonna run out of oxygen in fifty years. So... I think "let them die" was rather literal.
     
  4. grendelsbayne

    grendelsbayne Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Klingon Empire = many star systems. Not just the Homeworld. Even if Kronos was unsalvageable, there wouldn't have to be a single unnecessary Klingon death unless the Klingons themselves couldn't be bothered to evacuate (having fifty years to do so).
     
  5. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    If there's so much available space out there, that you can just move billions of people with no problem... why was Genesis specifically made to counter planetary overpopulation as Marcus herself said?
     
  6. DonIago

    DonIago Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2001
    Location:
    Burlington, VT, USA
    Maybe Genesis was always intended to be a WMD and the proposal tape was only created to establish plausible deniability. :evil:
     
  7. M-Red

    M-Red Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    May 26, 2009
    To answer the thread's question:


    For a new film? No, not really.


    For a new TV series? Absolutely, yes.
     
  8. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    I think there maybe something to the WMD and plausible deniability angle. We saw way too many empty class-M worlds and probably countless more that haven't been discovered.

    What was Starfleet's true intentions in regards to the Genesis device? Someone was approving requisitions for proto-matter.
     
  9. grendelsbayne

    grendelsbayne Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2013
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I don't think its really necessary to postulate bad intentions re: genesis. We know for a fact that every major power has many habitable star systems, and we know that many uninhabited star systems still have already habitable planets, but that doesn't mean its necessarily redundant for the Federation to be researching better means of terraforming.

    There are lots of different reasons that could make various colonization initiatives either more or less achievable. Many existing M class planets were probably in very poor locations. No one wants to live in the middle of a nebula that screws with all your sensors and communications. No one wants to live in an area completely surrounded by hostile species. No one wants to live on a planet whose environment is naturally extremely harsh compared to what they're used to. Even a colony which is simply really, really far away from the Federation could potentially have problems attracting settlers, whether there's anything actually wrong with it or not. So looking for ways to add more options in better locations makes sense.

    Also, if the Federation is at all sensible, their colonization plans would consider long term population trends - trying to anticipate problems before they arise, rather than having to react to them while people are already suffering. The 'overpopulation' Genesis was hoped to counter may not even actually exist yet, but would be something more along the lines of politicians twenty years ago starting to worry about the effects of the looming retirement of the baby boomer generation.
     
  10. bbjegglebells

    bbjegglebells Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    Location:
    Right here buddy.
    ^Plus, why settle lightyears away when you can terraform every planet in our solar system?
     
  11. DonIago

    DonIago Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2001
    Location:
    Burlington, VT, USA
    Because you don't want to be under the Federation's thumb, at least in a relative sense.
     
  12. bbjegglebells

    bbjegglebells Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    Location:
    Right here buddy.
    ^What, afraid you'll get taxed or something? I think the Federation is the good "Big Brother".
     
  13. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    I wouldn't be so sure of that.
     
  14. DonIago

    DonIago Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2001
    Location:
    Burlington, VT, USA
    There are people who don't like any form of oversight, even oversight that's (theoretically) beyond any form of reproach.
     
  15. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Colonizing distant M-class worlds was no easy matter back in Kirk's era. How many dead or struggling colonies did the Enterprise visit back in the day? How often did we hear about plagues and famines and dangerous radiation? Judging from what we saw on on TOS, the Federation wasn't exactly drowning in safe, danger-free, uninhabited M-class worlds . . . which were valuable enough that the Klingons wanted them, too, and would go to great lengths to claim them.

    Sure, we saw lots of M-class planets on TOS, but most of them were already inhabited and protected by the Prime Directive. And they were often harsh and forbidding.
     
  16. publiusr

    publiusr Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Now if the nuTrek films are just a trilogy, restoring the timeline might be a nice finish.
     
  17. Happy Xmas (War Is Over)

    Happy Xmas (War Is Over) Fleet Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    If you want it
    Restoring it to what? The only place its gone is "off screen".
     
  18. Timewalker

    Timewalker Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Location:
    In many different universes, simultaneously.
    In that case, why bother to call it Star Trek?

    Agreed. I happen to really enjoy the Voyager series, specifically the episodes dealing with time travel and the seasons with Seven of Nine. There are many instances where people have come to the Voyager forum and spat all over the show, and specifically cite time travel and Seven of Nine as two of the reasons they can't stand the show.

    I obviously wish they felt differently, but I don't tell them that if they don't like it they should shut up.


    I always had the impression that it's necessary to have "seasoning" BEFORE being given the captaincy of a starship. And I disagree that Kirk "always had a bit of disrespect for those in positions of power over him." He had disrespect for those in power when they made stupid decisions (ie. bureaucratic decisions) that resulted in more harm being done than if the decisions had been different (or at least had come faster). That doesn't mean he had disrespect for his superiors all the time. And it's entirely possible to feel no respect for an individual, while still respecting the position that individual holds.

    Last time I looked at the poll numbers, it was 66 in favor of bringing back the Prime Universe and 68 total for all other options combined. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean those 68 people are against bringing back the Prime Universe, as some of those votes are in the "don't know/don't care" categories. Therefore, I conclude that at this point, the ones who voted unambiguously in favor of the Prime Universe are winning the poll.

    Just because someone is book-smart, that doesn't mean they have the necessary skills to command a starship. And based on what I recall of nuKirk's personality in the 2009 movie, any experience he gained from ages 18-22 didn't include self-discipline and basic social skills when dealing with people higher up in rank.

    How did Star Trek II ignore TMP? Some years had passed in-universe, so it was plausible that there would be different uniforms, the ship would have been altered, and V'Ger would have been old news.

    If TWOK had truly ignored TMP, there wouldn't have been anything about Kirk's depression over his birthday, and his admiral's rank would have either been a new issue for him or it wouldn't have happened at all.

    As for Star Trek V, that piece of nonsense should be ignored.
     
  19. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Because it would still be "Star Trek". It would still be Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise out exploring really weird shit and fighting bad guys.

    You toss the prior continuity because why tie the hands of a new creative staff with bullshit? You can eliminate people screaming about how the color of Kirk's medal doesn't match the color of the medal we see in This Side of Paradise.

    I love Star Trek. But I think any new series is best served by shedding the last forty years of continuity and starting over with the basic premise and rebuilding the universe from there.
     
  20. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    Huh? What should a TV series based on Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek featuring Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock on the Starship Enterprise be called?
    Definitely. At some point people need to stop equating Berman-Trek with Star Trek. Berman-Trek is based on Star Trek, created by and large by other people, and no more a valid version than any other derivative. I think, though, that many people who call themselves Star Trek fans are really Berman-Trek fans, and they're going to have the hardest time with new derivatives of Star Trek.