Do you think they'll keep making Abramsverse movies after #3?

[WarpFactorZ]

I wouldn't mind seeing a time travel plot (or one-off) focusing on the JJ-verse 24th century and seeing what effects Nero's tampering had on Captain Picard and the crew of the Enterprise-D.

Picard never left the family vineyard, but has a wonderful life drinking a bottle per day.

Riker was marooned on a desert planet by his Captain, because he tried once too many times to prevent him from going on an away mission. He was later eaten by the indigenous life forms.

Jack Crusher escaped death in this Universe, and convinced both Beverly and Wesley never to go near Starfleet again. They go through life each drinking a bottle of wine per day, supplied by Picard Vineyards.

Worf got his headbump rings caught in some farm machinery as a boy -- is now the only smooth-forehead Klingon around.

Data was never admitted to Starfleet academy, because Dean 0718 couldn't believe people in the 24th century actually thought he was advanced.

Geordi didn't pursue engineering, but instead devoted his life to teaching tribbles literature on a show called "The Reading Visible Spectrum".

Edit: almost forgot!

Enterprise D -- doesn't exist. Because the first flagship was literally decimated in every encounter it had with hostile forces, it became a bad omen to dispatch the Enterprise on a mission (not to mention cost-prohibitive to fix over and over). The name and registry were retired, never to be seen again.

Also, her first Captain (James T. Kirk) was dishonourably discharged from Starfleet once they remembered the most important attribute for a Captain was keeping his ship and crew safe.

 

[JWPlatt]

I have no vested interest in the "Abramsverse." It is not our timeline. Even if it represents the hopeful and optimistic future of Prime Trek, it doesn't do that in our Universe where it has meaning and significance. I don't care about the Abramsverse, so I'd rather they return to ours where it has relevance intrinsic to our worlds. If the movies continue, I'll watch them as simple fiction and not a statement about where we want our future to go. Because it's not our future. It's someone else's, just like in NextGen's "Parallels." How many of us really care about all those other Enterprises? So that's different than really caring about Star Trek; caring about our own future. Even as a longtime Trekkie, if there were no more Star Trek and I knew that Star Trek had to continue in the Abramsverse were it to continue at all, it would simply fade from my thoughts and I'd not think much about it nor fight, beg and plead for its existence to keep it alive like we did during TOS. Meh.

 

[mos6507]

I think some of the actors are really on the verge of aging out of their "right out of the academy" roles. Unless they advance their arcs forward, it's not going to be plausible anymore if they only make a new movie at the rate they were going with the first two. Simon Pegg is 44 and John Cho and Karl Urban are 42. Urban and Cho were supposed to be fresh out of the academy at the same time as Pine's Kirk.

 

[Kemaiku]

I'd like to see more movies made in this timeline for a few more years.

After that CBS can hand off Star Trek to whoever they want to develop movies or TV variations involving a totally new cast and setting as they see fit.

 

[xavier]

I'd like to see more movies made in this timeline for a few more years.

After that CBS can hand off Star Trek to whoever they want to develop movies or TV variations involving a totally new cast and setting as they see fit.

the actors may want to move on after trek 3 especially
quinto.

 

[Kemaiku]

And they're welcome to, ships do rotate crew members and Star Trek has been very iffy about doing that. Spock in particular at least has New Vulcan as a storypoint for leaving.

Carol becoming the new first officer? could be interesting.

 

[The Wormhole]

I have no vested interest in the "Abramsverse." It is not our timeline. Even if it represents the hopeful and optimistic future of Prime Trek, it doesn't do that in our Universe where it has meaning and significance. I don't care about the Abramsverse, so I'd rather they return to ours where it has relevance intrinsic to our worlds. If the movies continue, I'll watch them as simple fiction and not a statement about where we want our future to go. Because it's not our future. It's someone else's, just like in NextGen's "Parallels." How many of us really care about all those other Enterprises? So that's different than really caring about Star Trek; caring about our own future. Even as a longtime Trekkie, if there were no more Star Trek and I knew that Star Trek had to continue in the Abramsverse were it to continue at all, it would simply fade from my thoughts and I'd not think much about it nor fight, beg and plead for its existence to keep it alive like we did during TOS. Meh.

The Prime Universe ain't coming back on screen. Even if Trek XIII were the last Abramsverse movie, the next movie or even the next TV series would very likely be in a completely separate newly created alternate reality. That is the future of the Trek franchise, and I say that as someone who would very much like the Prime Universe back. But it won't happen.

And they're welcome to, ships do rotate crew members and Star Trek has been very iffy about doing that. Spock in particular at least has New Vulcan as a storypoint for leaving.

Carol becoming the new first officer? could be interesting.

Star Trek series always end with the crew splitting and going their separate ways. Presumably if the Abramsverse crew splits, that's it for that series. And besides, why would Carol become first officer? She's only a Lieutenant, that's still two ranks away from becoming first officer. Oh, right, in the Abramsverse everyone skips over ranks, don't they?

 

[Set Harth]

If the movies continue, I'll watch them as simple fiction and not a statement about where we want our future to go. Because it's not our future.

The Prime timeline isn't our future either.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think some of the actors are really on the verge of aging out of their "right out of the academy" roles. Unless they advance their arcs forward, it's not going to be plausible anymore if they only make a new movie at the rate they were going with the first two. Simon Pegg is 44 and John Cho and Karl Urban are 42. Urban and Cho were supposed to be fresh out of the academy at the same time as Pine's Kirk.

Urban's McCoy is already a Doctor when he joins Starfleet so he's got a MD which requires four years of Medical School. He's probably been practicing medicine for a few years as well and is past the intern and resident stage. Which might place him in his early thirties at the time of ST09.

Did we ever see Sulu at the Academy? So he might not be part of Uhura and Kirk's class. But yes Cho is playing younger than he is. Not unheard of in entertainment. Walter Koenig was 31 when he began playing Chekov who supposed to be 21.

 

[JWPlatt]

If the movies continue, I'll watch them as simple fiction and not a statement about where we want our future to go. Because it's not our future.

The Prime timeline isn't our future either.

How so? Or are you saying that things like the eugenics wars in the 90s not happening here prove that Prime is not our timeline? That's being a bit pedantic. If so, any alternate reality has a chance of being ours and the entire concept breaks down with nothing having any meaning. Well, while you have a point in the fiction, the writers of TOS intended it to be ours and wrote it as if it were.

 

[Dukhat]

How so? Or are you saying that things like the eugenics wars in the 90s not happening here prove that Prime is not our timeline?

Yes, that's exactly right, and one would have to have a hole in one's head not to see that.

Well, while you have a point in the fiction, the writers of TOS intended it to be ours and wrote it as if it were.

Er, no they didn't. The writers of "Space Seed" were not being paid to be futurists. They were being paid to write a script for a '60's TV show. It's no different than the writers of "Back to the Future Part II" really believing that we'll have flying cars and hoverboards by 2015. If one thinks those writers honestly believed that what they were writing was actually going to happen in reality, one also needs to check one's head for holes.

 

[The Wormhole]

Yeah, the Prime Universe is not "our future" at all. The writers of TOS, TNG and all the other shows were just TV writers writing a show for the entertainment of others. Contrary to popular belief, they were not visionaries trying to craft a world of the future that had to align with real history somehow and be what our world must inevitably evolve into. Damn it Jim, it's a TV show, not a religious foundation.

Now, I won't deny the Abramsverse is flawed, deserves the criticisms it gets from Trek fandom, and I will even be so bold as to utter that it is not "true Trek." However, the reasons for that certainly are not because it's a different future from our own.

 

[JWPlatt]

How so? Or are you saying that things like the eugenics wars in the 90s not happening here prove that Prime is not our timeline?

Yes, that's exactly right, and one would have to have a hole in one's head not to see that.

Well, while you have a point in the fiction, the writers of TOS intended it to be ours and wrote it as if it were.

Er, no they didn't. The writers of "Space Seed" were not being paid to be futurists. They were being paid to write a script for a '60's TV show. It's no different than the writers of "Back to the Future Part II" really believing that we'll have flying cars and hoverboards by 2015. If one thinks those writers honestly believed that what they were writing was actually going to happen in reality, one also needs to check one's head for holes.

So ad hominem are de rigueur here?

 

[JWPlatt]

Yeah, the Prime Universe is not "our future" at all. The writers of TOS, TNG and all the other shows were just TV writers writing a show for the entertainment of others. Contrary to popular belief, they were not visionaries trying to craft a world of the future that had to align with real history somehow and be what our world must inevitably evolve into. Damn it Jim, it's a TV show, not a religious foundation.

Now, I won't deny the Abramsverse is flawed, deserves the criticisms it gets from Trek fandom, and I will even be so bold as to utter that it is not "true Trek." However, the reasons for that certainly are not because it's a different future from our own.

This is saying the thing Star Trek is best known for, that which separates it from all the dystopian stories of our future, and that which most people believe and preach, even if they have never seen Star Trek, that Star Trek uniquely gives us hope through its optimistic vision for our survival - that we flourish among the stars in a Federation of cooperation instead - is all a farce? A lie? Marketing hype from its very inception? It's the facade of Star Trek? It's not really the vision we can strive for?

If it is in an "alternate" Universe or timeline, that means one that is not our own, also implying that Prime was our own. I maintain that the creators, writers, and all involved with Trek and, apparently, only most fans, believe it was an optimistic vision of hope for OUR future. The "Abramsverse" takes that away.

 

[johnjm22]

For those of us that dislike Orci/Abrams, it puts us in an awkward position for ST3.

I don't want it to do so poorly that it kills off Trek completely, but at the same time I don't want it to be so successful that we get more of Roberto and JJ.

I'm fine with cast and premise of Abramsverse, I just want someone else writing and directing it.

 

[Dukhat]

So ad hominem are de rigueur here?

Attacking you personally? No. Pointing out that one's assertions are flawed based on tangible evidence, while stating that it's silly to even make such an assertion? That's fine.

The Eugenics Wars did not happen in reality; ergo, the Prime universe is not our own universe. No sci-fi universe is our own universe. Reality trumps intent every time.

If it is in an "alternate" Universe or timeline, that means one that is not our own, also implying that Prime was our own. I maintain that the creators, writers, and all involved with Trek and, apparently, only most fans, believe it was an optimistic vision of hope for OUR future. The "Abramsverse" takes that away.

Please explain how the Abramsverse takes away an optimistic vision of hope for our future.

 

[Smellmet]

Put simply, it doesn't.

 

[Set Harth]

If it is in an "alternate" Universe or timeline, that means one that is not our own, also implying that Prime was our own.

No, it just means alternate to the Prime.

 

[MacLeod]

Coming to a cinema near you soon.

Star Trek: The Quest for More Money

As long as it is profitable, they'll want to keep making them. The question is do the actors want to keep making them and if they do what sort of fee/contract do they want.

 

[BillJ]

Also, her first Captain (James T. Kirk) was dishonourably discharged from Starfleet once they remembered the most important attribute for a Captain was keeping his ship and crew safe.

Except when it comes to the Prime Directive...

Captain's log, supplemental. The Enterprise has left the Exeter and moved into close planet orbit. Although it appears the infection may strand us here the rest of our lives, I face an even more difficult problem. A growing belief that Captain Tracey has been interfering with the evolution of life on this planet. It seems impossible. A star captain's most solemn oath is that he will give his life, even his entire crew, rather than violate the Prime Directive.