Do fans want the prime timeline back?

Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by Beyerstein, Aug 14, 2013.

  1. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Seems to me like we're wandering away from the OT here. The way I see it, the timeline doesn't affect the quality of the movies. You can tell good, bad, or mixed STAR TREK stories in either timeline. Or, maybe someday, another one.

    STAR TREK is bigger than "canon" or "continuity." Merely setting a new movie or TV series in any particular continuity is no guarantee of quality--and is not necessarily a virtue in its own right. Execution matters more than the (relatively) trivial matter of what timeline it's set in.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2013
  2. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    Yes, I can. Don't mistake using the same characters and similar situations as being "nothing new". Khan was used in a different way than in Space Seed or TWOK. Carol is used differently as well. Kirk isn't an aging officer who feels ready to be put out to pasture. Khan was play much more sympathetically than in the previous outings. So yes, the movie played differently than TWOK.

    We're still learning about these characters too, only we have nearly fifty year of seeing them in their previous incarnations.

    I don't care if you mentioned the previous film or not. My comment was directed at more than just you.
     
  3. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    Animated productions are no stranger to this. Take the Scooby-Doo franchise: it flip-flopped from the originals (and numerous spin-offs) to "kid" versions, then tv movies, another "kid" version, and now yet another series set in the basic, original style. Why? the original, developed concept works best. So, it has happened, and I believe TOS is far more popular/relevant to the culture than Scooby Doo, so a return to the prime universe--specifically TOS--is not such a wild idea.
     
  4. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    No official statement, so that's not even close to being true, same with TWOK. All press/interviews called TMP the "continuing" story of TOS, not anything along the lines of...

    "a different take on..."

    "not really in the same storyline as.."

    ..or anything else that would be 1979's version of "reboot" or "reimagining."
     
  5. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    Doesn't Roddenberry's novelization dismiss TOS as dramatic presentations based on the adventures of the "real" Enterprise?

    It was soft reboot. As was TWOK.
     
  6. Kirk the Jerk

    Kirk the Jerk Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2001
    Location:
    Nottingham
     
  7. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    You might confusing people saying they are ok with a new timeline with saying they don't care.

    That's ridiculous. Into Darkness has almost NONE of the story of any other Trek movie.

    It really depends on which episode you're watching.

    Really ? If you can't seen what they can do then the prime timeline isn't going to solve that problem. Sheesh, they did it ONCE. :rolleyes:

    Sure. It's about a younger Enterprise crew, especially Kirk and Spock, learning about their abilities and about making mistakes. Both of the main characters have grown quite a bit in the span of two movies.

    This isn't a documentary.
     
  8. bbjeg

    bbjeg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    Location:
    Right here buddy.
    I agree with the rest of your post, mostly, but...
    Explain that.
     
  9. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    Yup. Not to mention the fact that Roddenberry was trying to distance himself from TOS when making TNG. There are interviews from him while making TNG where he says parts of TOS are apocryphal. :techman:
     
  10. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    Your statements were just a launching point for my own thoughts. I if wanted to single you out I would have phrased my comment differently.
     
  11. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Yeah, I didn't really see STiD as a remake of WOK but as more of a different story featuring a new version of an old villain.

    Is THE DARK KNIGHT a rehash of Tim Burton's BATMAN just because they both feature the Joker?
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2013
  12. TREK_GOD_1

    TREK_GOD_1 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 24, 2006
    Location:
    Escaped from Delta Vega
    That's a novel. Roddenberry flip-flopping around when it suited him--particularly in print--was never said to apply to the TOS - movie transition. Few even considered anything in the novelization.
     
  13. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    You are probably getting Roddenberry's honest, uncensored thoughts regarding TOS in those pages. There was no reason to even bring the issue up if it wasn't something that was on his mind.
     
  14. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    Is it a remake? No. Does it lift some elements from TWOK? Yes.

    But it was thirty-two years between the two movies. The audience this movie was aimed at isn't obsessive-compulsive where Star Trek is concerned. The audience this movie was aimed at likely hadn't seen TWOK fifty or a hundred times over the last thirty years, the audience doesn't know TWOK backwards and forwards the way we do.

    I'm betting there was a good portion of ticket buyers who had never seen TWOK at all.
     
  15. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    It doesn't make any difference. Derivative works created by other people are still derivative works created by other people. If I wrote "Romeo and Juliet II," no matter how closely I kept continuity with the original Shakespeare, it would still simply be my interpretation of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet universe, one valid interpretation but by no means the only one. A sequel or spinoff being consistent with the original work has to do with the internal consistency of the new work; it doesn't affect the original work.

    TMP is clearly a reboot -- a revamped look to the entire universe, a totally new look to the Enterprise, to Starfleet, the Klingons have been completely reworked. Nebulous references to ship "refits," and "northern vs southern" Klingons are made to placate fans.

    I think the various incarnations of Trek are destined to be thought of as separate interpretations, especially the Berman-era TV spinoffs as we get further and further away from their influence and new versions of Star Trek come into being.
     
  16. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    I think Modern Trek (TNG, its spin-offs and movies) will largely be forgotten in another five or ten years with only the hardest of hard-core fans continuing to watch.

    It will definitely be interesting to see where Star Trek goes in the near future.
     
  17. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    And that's as it should be . . .
     
  18. Kirk the Jerk

    Kirk the Jerk Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2001
    Location:
    Nottingham
    That is a possibility yes.

    Almost NONE? I suggest you watch TWOK again if you're to stand by that comment.

    I don't ever recall watching an episode or movie that didn't have at least some sort of back story. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

    I can think of hundreds of unexplored ideas etc. within the Prime line but thats for another thread, and what I meant by that comment is that if they're just going to cherry pick ideas from previous movies then I can't see this alternate timeline lasting too long IMO.

    I agree in the first movie we explored quite a bit about the main characters etc. and I feel that if they'd carried on in that direction then Into Darkness could have been a great movie. But again it just felt Lazy and an easy thing to do by basing the movie on a previous ones ideas.

    Star Trek 2009 was a good Star Trek movie for the most part, it certainly comes across as a more well written movie than Into Darkness IMO

    Well done, I'm not saying we have to learn specific facts in a documentary way, I'm saying they could have done a great back story, introduced us to something different other than the action we were watching on screen. It felt hollow to me and if it didn't to you then that's great but I'm just giving my opinion.
     
  19. Ketrick

    Ketrick Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Location:
    Maryland
    I think at least a large minority of fans would love to revisit the Prime timeline. I count myself among them. Personally, I see no reason why the Alternate Reality timeline couldn't continue in movie form and the Prime timeline on tv. I know
    there are those who would say that would confuse most people, but I don't see it that way.

    For one thing, the Abramsverse actually lends itself well to this sort of treatment whereas it isn't a straight reboot. In fact, it's as much a sequel to Star Trek: Nemesis as it is a prequel and reimagining of TOS. The technology of the Abramsverse is in some ways as advanced as the technology in the Nemesis-era of the Prime timeline and in a few cases perhaps more advanced, so technologically speaking, a series set in the 25th century of the Prime timeline wouldn't necessarily be that much more advanced than anything seen in the two Abrams' films.

    Also, a tv series done in the Abramverse style set in the mid to late 25th century of the Prime timeline that takes a back to basics approach could easily be popular. With such an approach, you could bring in both new fans, old fans, Abramsverse fans, Prime timeline fans. A lot of the fans the Abrams' films have brought to Star Trek wouldn't really care which timeline a tv series would be set in as long as it was entertaining and perhaps somewhat thought provoking. The problem wouldn't so much be the audience, but rather convincing tv execs that a Trek series set in the Prime timeline could still work and ensuring that execs wouldn't continually interfere with the vision of the production team.
     
  20. bbjeg

    bbjeg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    Location:
    Right here buddy.
    ^I agree.

    But don't forget to add 'new writers' and 'new story' to that. Otherwise, some people will assume going back to the Prime timeline only means repeating the new alien of the week theme.