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

[CorporalCaptain]

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.

Well, I gotta agree about "Living Witness" for sure, don't know how that slipped my mind.

But the future shown in "Shockwave" parts 1 & 2 is one in which the Federation never existed, right?

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I think you guys are giving directors and the audience, far too little credit.

If you give each give berman and abrams 200 mill, give them the script to STID, and strict guidelines scene by scene, those will be 2 entirely different movies.

If you give the audience a well written, well thought out, well acted, cerebral trek film, nd it is subsequently marketed well, it will be successful.

I'm not harping on Abrams results. You guys are harping on the era we live in. People are a lot smarter than you think they are, and people can have better tastes than you think they do. You sound as if you believe the audience is a fickle bunch that is on its way to Idiocracy.

Finally, Nolan is not the kind of director you dictate terms to. Neither is Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Tarantino, Cameron, Coen brothers, or Scorsese. It wasn't luck that Nolans films are successful. They are good films, and he knows how to make good films. If he or any good director wants to make Star Trek a slow, cerebral, political thriller, they will do it, and it would have been successful.


People are not dumb. People have taste. The era doesn't demand that movies are mindless popcorn flicks. That's just something film hipsters say.

I'm glad Abrams is on Star Wars now, because the fun romp through the stars suits that franchise much better. I just hope there are no screaming matches.

News flash to the supposedly wise: Nolan's films weren't widely loved by every Bat-fan out there, so if you think that a Nolanverse Star Trek would be universally loved, you're dead wrong. Secondly, even with a guy like Nolan (or whoever you and all the other haters of the new Star Trek movies think is better than Abrams, Orci & Kurtzman) directing the third movie and future ones after it, a future Star Trek will probably still have the action you hate so much, because Star Trek is an action franchise/space opera, as was conceived by Roddenberry back in 1966.

I guess if I have to do it again. I'll do it, so here goes (again) this definition of what the Star Trek movies have been like (and this also applies to TOS,TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT:

TMP) Somewhat cerebral. Mostly a 2001 knockoff. Illia in a ridiculously short skirt.
TWOK) Revenge. Explosions. Getting old. KHAAAAAAAN! A FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!
TSFS) GE-NE-SIS?! Kirk's son killed. Get out! Get out of there! Lots of Pew!Pew!
TVH) They are not the hell your whales. One damn minute, Admiral.
TFF) Three boobed cat stripper. Sha-ka-ree. Lots of Pew!Pew!
TUC) Racism. Cold War. Shakespeare. Lots of Pew!Pew!
GEN) Fantasy land. Duras Sisters. Enterprise go Boom. Lots of Pew!Pew!
FC) BOOM! Sweaty Borg. Sexual healing. Drunks. A METRIC FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!
INS) Face lift. Forced relocation. F. Murray Abraham on a couch. Lots of poorly paced Pew!Pew!
NEM) Dune buggy. Mentally deficient android. Slowly moving doom device. Lots of random Pew!Pew!

I have highlighted two of the most popular pre-JJ Trek movies in the fandom.
Trek was an action franchise from the second movie installment onward. To suggest otherwise is to completely ignore everything beyond The Motion Picture.

I'll add to this by saying that Star Trek was a sci-fi action adventure franchise from the second pilot.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There was a fair abount of action adventure in the Cage.

Pike gets kidnapped
Pike goes to hell
Sexy Animal woman dances
Pike fights the kaylar while Princess Vina gasps in fear.
Big old laser pew pews a mountain side
The Women!!!!
Captain Pike has to choke an alien and threatens to blow it's head off.

 

[CaptainMurdock]

Not to mention nearly every episode of TOS used Phasers in some way.

 

[T'Girl]

Episodes like Sacrifice of Angels are interesting, but I wouldn't want the majority of a series episodes to have that much FX porn in them, similarly I wouldn't want the majority of any one movie to be FX porn. TWOK had two combat sequence, the first relatively brief, neither consumed the majority of the movie.

The only weapons fire in TVH was when Kirk phasered a door lock.

It isn't that there's action, it when there's too much.

 

[suarezguy]

I think you guys are giving directors and the audience, far too little credit.

If you give each give berman and abrams 200 mill, give them the script to STID, and strict guidelines scene by scene, those will be 2 entirely different movies.

If you give the audience a well written, well thought out, well acted, cerebral trek film, nd it is subsequently marketed well, it will be successful.

I'm not harping on Abrams results. You guys are harping on the era we live in. People are a lot smarter than you think they are, and people can have better tastes than you think they do. You sound as if you believe the audience is a fickle bunch that is on its way to Idiocracy.

Finally, Nolan is not the kind of director you dictate terms to. Neither is Spielberg, Ridley Scott, Tarantino, Cameron, Coen brothers, or Scorsese. It wasn't luck that Nolans films are successful. They are good films, and he knows how to make good films. If he or any good director wants to make Star Trek a slow, cerebral, political thriller, they will do it, and it would have been successful.


People are not dumb. People have taste. The era doesn't demand that movies are mindless popcorn flicks. That's just something film hipsters say.

I'm glad Abrams is on Star Wars now, because the fun romp through the stars suits that franchise much better. I just hope there are no screaming matches.

News flash to the supposedly wise: Nolan's films weren't widely loved by every Bat-fan out there, so if you think that a Nolanverse Star Trek would be universally loved, you're dead wrong. Secondly, even with a guy like Nolan (or whoever you and all the other haters of the new Star Trek movies think is better than Abrams, Orci & Kurtzman) directing the third movie and future ones after it, a future Star Trek will probably still have the action you hate so much, because Star Trek is an action franchise/space opera, as was conceived by Roddenberry back in 1966.

I guess if I have to do it again. I'll do it, so here goes (again) this definition of what the Star Trek movies have been like (and this also applies to TOS,TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT:

TMP) Somewhat cerebral. Mostly a 2001 knockoff. Illia in a ridiculously short skirt.
TWOK) Revenge. Explosions. Getting old. KHAAAAAAAN! A FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!
TSFS) GE-NE-SIS?! Kirk's son killed. Get out! Get out of there! Lots of Pew!Pew!
TVH) They are not the hell your whales. One damn minute, Admiral.
TFF) Three boobed cat stripper. Sha-ka-ree. Lots of Pew!Pew!
TUC) Racism. Cold War. Shakespeare. Lots of Pew!Pew!
GEN) Fantasy land. Duras Sisters. Enterprise go Boom. Lots of Pew!Pew!
FC) BOOM! Sweaty Borg. Sexual healing. Drunks. A METRIC FUCK TON of Pew!Pew!
INS) Face lift. Forced relocation. F. Murray Abraham on a couch. Lots of poorly paced Pew!Pew!
NEM) Dune buggy. Mentally deficient android. Slowly moving doom device. Lots of random Pew!Pew!

I have highlighted two of the most popular pre-JJ Trek movies in the fandom.
Trek was an action franchise from the second movie installment onward. To suggest otherwise is to completely ignore everything beyond The Motion Picture.

I'll add to this by saying that Star Trek was a sci-fi action adventure franchise from the second pilot.

Not to mention nearly every episode of TOS used Phasers in some way.

That there was some action doesn't mean it was the point of, a major part of or dominated the stories.

 

[BillJ]

That there was some action doesn't mean it was the point of, a major part of or dominated the stories.

Nor do I believe the action has dominated either of the Abrams films.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

^ But many of the detractors of the Abrams films seen to think so, hence my saying what I said (and quoting something somebody else about this as well.)

 

[bbjeg]

That there was some action doesn't mean it was the point of, a major part of or dominated the stories.

Nor do I believe the action has dominated either of the Abrams films.

I'm not implying that I didn't enjoy it but STID was totally dominated by action. It started with Kirk and Bones being chased by bushmen and Spock narrowly escaping death by volcano (thanks to the low orbit flyby from the Enterprise which was parked underwater nearby), to a Starfleet council massacre, to the Enterprise's warp failure during the retaliation, to a high speed shuttle chase with Klingons, to a fight with said Klingons, to a backstab from Marcus who crippled the Enterprise, to a double backstab from Khan (after jetpacking through space with Kirk who he saved at the last second), to a crash landing of Marcus' ship, to a chase of Khan (which included a fight on top of a flying shuttle). Are you saying the majority of that movie wasn't dominated by action?

 

[BillJ]

Are you saying the majority of that movie wasn't dominated by action?

Yes. There was a lot more to the film than just those scenes. Do the Abrams films have more action than the average episode of Trek? Yes. But they aren't dominated by the action.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I don't really see what the value of "The Prime Timeline" is, when the "Prime" TOS crew has been dying off for a while, now. Without them, The Original Series vibe is gone with it. Yes, the new actors do pretty well trying to recapture the myth, but in the end, the reboot is their own thing. To me, it's almost a sign of respect to The Original Series to NOT bring back Prime Time.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Episodes like Sacrifice of Angels are interesting, but I would want the majority of a series epiosdes to have that much FX porn in them, similarly I wouldn't want the majority of any one movie to be FX porn. TWOK had two combat sequence, the first relatively brief, neither consumed the majority of the movie.

The only weapons fire in TVH was when Kirk phasered a door lock.

It isn't that there's action, it when there's too much.

Well some whales had a harpoon shot at them. And that beam from the probe wasn't exactly harmless.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Episodes like Sacrifice of Angels are interesting, but I would want the majority of a series epiosdes to have that much FX porn in them, similarly I wouldn't want the majority of any one movie to be FX porn. TWOK had two combat sequence, the first relatively brief, neither consumed the majority of the movie.

The only weapons fire in TVH was when Kirk phasered a door lock.

It isn't that there's action, it when there's too much.

Well some whales had a harpoon shot at them. And that beam from the probe wasn't exactly harmless.

Also, Chekov tried to stun a government agent, so it's not like phasers as weapons weren't story elements elsewhere.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Episodes like Sacrifice of Angels are interesting, but I would want the majority of a series epiosdes to have that much FX porn in them, similarly I wouldn't want the majority of any one movie to be FX porn. TWOK had two combat sequence, the first relatively brief, neither consumed the majority of the movie.

The only weapons fire in TVH was when Kirk phasered a door lock.

It isn't that there's action, it when there's too much.

Well some whales had a harpoon shot at them. And that beam from the probe wasn't exactly harmless.

Also, Chekov tried to stun a government agent, so it's not like phasers as weapons weren't story elements elsewhere.

The soldiers chasing him weren't holding walkie-talkies, either.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The soldiers chasing him weren't holding walkie-talkies, either.

Maybe someday....

 

[fireproof78]

Are you saying the majority of that movie wasn't dominated by action?

Yes. There was a lot more to the film than just those scenes. Do the Abrams films have more action than the average episode of Trek? Yes. But they aren't dominated by the action.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Are you saying the majority of that movie wasn't dominated by action?

Yes. There was a lot more to the film than just those scenes. Do the Abrams films have more action than the average episode of Trek? Yes. But they aren't dominated by the action.

Precisely.

There's moments of quiet, introspection, and conflict other than shooty zap-zap. Compare to Desolation of Smaug, which is a tedious series of interconnected action scenes from the title card to the end credits - a movie so low in its self-esteem that it thinks you'll fall asleep if it doesn't pull a shakey-cam swordfight out of its ass every 5 minutes. But that's getting off-topic. The Abrams Trek movies have something a lot of VFX-heavy blockbuster films do not: self-respect.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I don't really see what the value of "The Prime Timeline" is, when the "Prime" TOS crew has been dying off for a while, now. Without them, The Original Series vibe is gone with it. Yes, the new actors do pretty well trying to recapture the myth, but in the end, the reboot is their own thing. To me, it's almost a sign of respect to The Original Series to NOT bring back Prime Time.

THIS.

 

[Hypaspist]

Precisely.

There's moments of quiet, introspection, and conflict other than shooty zap-zap. Compare to Desolation of Smaug, which is a tedious series of interconnected action scenes from the title card to the end credits - a movie so low in its self-esteem that it thinks you'll fall asleep if it doesn't pull a shakey-cam swordfight out of its ass every 5 minutes. But that's getting off-topic. The Abrams Trek movies have something a lot of VFX-heavy blockbuster films do not: self-respect.

Holy cow that is so true. I don't look at the new Trek films as being anything like a lot of the lame action movies that come out every year. I may have a few problems with the plot of Into Darkness, but never is the plot ancillary to all of the action...and the action is well done and exciting.

 

[Mudang Harada]

Aa much as I love them, anything stylistically resembling Berman era Trek would likely kill the franchise at this point, so if that's what you mean by "Prime", then no, I wouldn't want it.

However, any show, in any timeline/setting, embracing the energy and excitement of Abrams Trek, while simultaneously retaining the "core" essence of TOS could truly be great. The last two movies, particularly STID, achieved this in spades.

The next movie will be exploration focused, right?