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

[CorporalCaptain]

It also makes sense to treat as suspect a self-sealing assumption that modern audiences can only connect with very basic effects-driven action content.

Movies aren't greenlit until the script and key personnel are approved by professionals whose job it is to judge what audiences will flock to see. The suits are sometimes wrong, and sometimes majorly so. But they're not always wrong either. If there's any truth to the idea that the big studios believe "that audiences can only connect with very basic effects-driven action content" [emphasis mine], then it might be educational to find out what specific data they are supporting that assumption with.

intelligent, entertaining, heroic, romantic, sad, funny, serious, action-packed, intriguing, hopeful, ....

One could say the same thing about you.

 

[BigJake]

If there's any truth to the idea that the big studios believe "that audiences can only connect with very basic effects-driven action content" [emphasis mine], then it might be educational to find out what specific data they are supporting that assumption with.

I don't know whether the suits believe that or not, although in fairness the long-term pattern -- finally fully realized in AbramsTrek -- of trying to make Star Trek into a tentpole action franchise does hint in that direction. But I took wulfio to be objecting to fan assumptions along these lines.

 

[Drekstar]

Prime Trek? You mean, something like Universal Century in Gundam? I wonder though if it's easy enough to put in a good story to fit the setting and context.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Prime Trek? You mean, something like Universal Century in Gundam? I wonder though if it's easy enough to put in a good story to fit the setting and context.

The basic premises of TOS and TNG was that of a starship out in space having all sorts of different adventures (the mention of exploration in their intros was just an excuse for why they were wandering out there in the first place). With the right writers and producers, all sorts of good stories, characters, and specific plots can be derived from that basic premise that can be unique to a particular series with occasional stuff pulled from its predecessors that could be sometimes used as backstory or a source for new stories, IMO.

 

[wulfio]

If there's any truth to the idea that the big studios believe "that audiences can only connect with very basic effects-driven action content" [emphasis mine], then it might be educational to find out what specific data they are supporting that assumption with.

I don't know whether the suits believe that or not, although in fairness the long-term pattern -- finally fully realized in AbramsTrek -- of trying to make Star Trek into a tentpole action franchise does hint in that direction. But I took wulfio to be objecting to fan assumptions along these lines.

Yes Jake it seems you understand the argument I was trying to make.

then it might be educational to find out what specific data they are supporting that assumption with.

There's a good deal of film/tv cliche's, in every era. When those specific cliche's get tired, a new era begins, some innovators break ground, and the rest start emulating them. For instance, we usually laugh at dance sequences now, or we don't dedicate 10 minutes of run time to people just driving and parking cars with absolutely no advancement of the plot. For today's time, soon(I hope) we will be laughing at things like music montages at the end of a tv episode, with sappy music playing, while people are being introspective. People recycle the same techniques in film and television to just fill up space, or elicit specific responses from the audience. There are specific beats that need to be hit at specific points in a story for it to be "successful". I find a lot of movies and television to be very formulaic. And the structure is determined by what cliche's are current for that specific genre in the majority of cases.

As for determining what the market wants, I think it's just studying market trends, and utilizing those well established formula for creating movies/tv shows. When I was still in school I did a project analyzing tv ratings and various forms of distribution. I derived my analysis and conclusions from just the previous 20 years of genre tv ratings, and market shares for the various forms of distribution in that time as well. With that limited data, my conclusions and forecasted trends were completely accurate. I can imagine with the sort of statistics those studio's have available to them, they can predict trends and plan a hell of a lot more than a college student could back in 02 or whatever.

So, I think it's a combination of the current era's cliche's, hitting all the beats, and just knowing what the current market is in to, or is trending to.

 

[bbjeg]

Bumping for the new members.

 

[I am not Spock]

Another cliche which seems very old hat now, is the 'characters sitting around laughing at a joke at the end of the episode'. Quite a few TOS episodes end this way, with McCoy and Kirk laughing at Spock's expense. Despite all the red shirts who perished in the episode. It worked for that time, but it wouldn't if you resurrected that formula now.

 

[Marika]

Prime line for life !

 

[bbjeg]

Another cliche which seems very old hat now, is the 'characters sitting around laughing at a joke at the end of the episode'. Quite a few TOS episodes end this way, with McCoy and Kirk laughing at Spock's expense. Despite all the red shirts who perished in the episode. It worked for that time, but it wouldn't if you resurrected that formula now.

The Prime timeline isn't a formula, it's the contiguous history from the first episode of the original series to Voyager's last.

 

[Lt. LaForge]

The Prime timeline isn't a formula, it's the contiguous history from the first episode of the original series to Voyager's last.

WRONG. It's the contiguous history from the first episode of Enterprise to Voyager's last.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The Prime timeline isn't a formula, it's the contiguous history from the first episode of the original series to Voyager's last.

WRONG. It's the contiguous history from the first episode of Enterprise to Voyager's last.

Also: the earliest event in the Prime Universe took place in Voyager's "Death Wish", at the birth of the universe, and a recollection of the latest took place in Star Trek (2009), in the mind meld, of Spock trying to save Romulus (at least, IIRC). We could say that the prime timeline is the continuous history from Voyager to nuTrek, from a certain point of view.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Another cliche which seems very old hat now, is the 'characters sitting around laughing at a joke at the end of the episode'. Quite a few TOS episodes end this way, with McCoy and Kirk laughing at Spock's expense. Despite all the red shirts who perished in the episode. It worked for that time, but it wouldn't if you resurrected that formula now.

The Prime timeline isn't a formula, it's the contiguous history from the first episode of the original series to Voyager's last.

A history with a lot of conflicting information.

 

[Lt. LaForge]

Also: the earliest event in the Prime Universe took place in Voyager's "Death Wish", at the birth of the universe, and a recollection of the latest took place in Star Trek (2009), in the mind meld, of Spock trying to save Romulus (at least, IIRC). We could say that the prime timeline is the continuous history from Voyager to nuTrek, from a certain point of view.

No other form of TV entertainment can entertain yet confuse to the same level Trek does...

 

[bbjeg]

^Ever watch Lost?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Although I like to pretend ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY are all one neat future history, it doesn't hold up if you look closely. What happened in "Year of Hell" kinda makes you wonder which episodes took place between which blasts of Annorax's BFG.

 

[Hypaspist]

The Prime timeline isn't a formula, it's the contiguous history from the first episode of the original series to Voyager's last.

I wish you were right. They neglected a lot of the things they had in their bag of tricks from TOS (mostly) and from the movies as well. I like all three of the 24th C. series, but that doesn't mean there weren't missed opportunities here and there.

The Prime timeline isn't a formula, it's the contiguous history from the first episode of the original series to Voyager's last.

WRONG. It's the contiguous history from the first episode of Enterprise to Voyager's last.

I wish you were wrong. My biggest problem with Enterprise isn't that it sucked, it's that it was the most formulaic of all the series.

I think the new movies are willing to take a lot of good risks as well as some bad ones. I don't like how Kirk has developed in the last movie, but they did introduce some cool new ideas.

- Updated space suits look good and are very functional. It felt right that they used them in action scenes because it essentially tells the same kind of story as a oldschool fight from the television shows. It is just more interesting to look at this way, and it makes more sense when you think about it: they should never have to beam down to crazy environments with only a tricorder and a remote control looking phaser.

- lots of different uniforms and unique aliens are more alien in appearance

- new Klingons are a great design. Did anyone else think the TNG era Klingons were a bit stale and too similar? They're still my favorite alien in any series, along with Vulcans. It made their entrance more impressive.

- I may not like the new interior of the Enterprise, but I do like that the helm controls are more robust. For the displays and all, LCARS is great, but I can't imagine a great pilot being able to use iPad controls to do everything.

- I like the way Starfleet as a whole is portrayed. It is basically the military but it's not designed expressly for war. The semantics of it all are up for debate, but I always understood it as being both the defense force of the Federation without turning the Federation into some kind of belligerent power.

- as much as Kirk acts like a jackass, all of the other characters are on point and endearing. Yes they had those roles for a long time, but Chekov always kind of got shat on before. It seems like everyone has an important role other than their station now, so there's lots of room to develop their characters. That's one of the reasons I'd like to see a regular Spock in the next one...not an angry one (enough already)

all of these work in either timeline, I'm just glad they aren't restricted by convention just because it was done that way before

 

[Hober Mallow]

Although I like to pretend ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY are all one neat future history, it doesn't hold up if you look closely.

Exactly. Furthermore, the term "prime" used to refer to the source material (the series actually called Star Trek) and all of the filmed derivative works except Abrams' Star Trek is fan invention. The use of the term in ST09 refers only to Mr. Spock from TOS, nothing more.

 

[bbjeg]

Although I like to pretend ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY are all one neat future history, it doesn't hold up if you look closely.

Exactly. Furthermore, the term "prime" used to refer to the source material (the series actually called Star Trek) and all of the filmed derivative works except Abrams' Star Trek is fan invention. The use of the term in ST09 refers only to Mr. Spock from TOS, nothing more.

Not necessarily. I don't think that it was ever stated that Prime didn't refer to Nemoy's reprised character.

 

[dub]

I know there were lots of mistakes. I know there were times when previous writing was overlooked. And this is true from within TOS onward. There were different writers and producers even within "the source material." And they were all human as far as I know, so yes there were going to be mistakes, people who disagree/dislike the way things were written before, errors upon errors, all of that. But I do see an attempt at creating an overall timeline. This attempt was obvious. There is no pretending on my part. Granted, again, I do see the obvious mistakes that were made. I also acknowledge the not-so-obvious mistakes that can be found after tons of rewatching (or because...internet). I get it. But I also see the undeniable and very obvious placement of characters and settings to line up with particular times and places within the existing (though admittedly flawed and at times inconsistent) Star Trek universe. And I thought that was incredibly cool and to me it made Star Trek feel larger and more realistic in a way overall. When I tuned into any show or movie from any Trek series, I felt as if I was stepping into a vast universe that had a very rich history. Each series was connected within a flawed but ever-building timeline within this grand saga. And to me, that sets Star Trek apart. I'm sorry if that sounds elitist, foolish, stubborn, or whatever you would like to call it. I simply see and appreciate the large universe that was built, flaws and all. And I love it.

 

[BillJ]

Also: the earliest event in the Prime Universe took place in Voyager's "Death Wish", at the birth of the universe, and a recollection of the latest took place in Star Trek (2009), in the mind meld, of Spock trying to save Romulus (at least, IIRC). We could say that the prime timeline is the continuous history from Voyager to nuTrek, from a certain point of view.

I'd say that the latest took place in either "Living Witness" or "Shockwave", which both have portions that take place in the 31st century.