Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

[Dar70]

I hope they do.I really miss tv primeTrek. They could always leave a conduit open to revisit the alternate reality that prime spock built. This third film i feel may be the last. Cast members will probably want to move on and with the lackluster reviews of the last film i can see this one being the last. Thoughts?

 

[King Bob!]

What lackluster reviews?!? I really wish these inaccurate statements would go away...



Critics rated it a 7.6/10 and audiences rated it a 4.2/5 on 307,000+ ratings.

Personally, I am hoping they never return to the Prime timeline. It had its day and that day is over (and I can watch that day anytime I like). Some folks don't like Star Trek Into Darkness and the Abrams films in general. Which is normal. Nothing is universally loved. But I don't really see how the numbers quantify it as anything other than a critical success.

 

[Lance]

^ Spot on BillJ. There seems to be a contingent within the fandom who like to pretend that 'Star Trek Into Darkness' was received unfavorably, presumably because *they* didn't happen to like it. But this idea that it has received "lackluster reviews" is a complete myth.

 

[martok2112]

Hear, hear!

The Prime universe had its run, and it was a hell of a run. There is a wealth of it on dvd and blu-ray now to revisit. Anyone who came into watching Star Trek via the new films and is interested in more can watch this material at their leisure. Not everyone will, but those who do have this available.

Long live the new Trek universe! (and I say this as someone who enjoyed Trek ever since I was a toddler watching reruns of the original show and the animated series in first run back in 1972)

 

[Jedi_Master]

To the OP: No.

Time to move on.

 

[JWPlatt]

I say stick to the Prime Universe instead of the consumer mentality that shopping for new stuff solves all your problems. If Star Trek becomes a franchise of reboots like Spiderman or Batman, we could simply go from one alternate reality to the next, eventually losing the trust to invest ourselves in what we have now. In future retrospect, everything that came before is meaningless as we move from "Squirrel! to "Shiney!" to the next thing where franchises become disposable like the trash of our unsolved problems.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I would imagine that it will be at least 10 years before any decisions are made on "discarding" the current nuTrek films franchise and proceeding with something shiny and new.

 

[King Bob!]

...we could simply go from one alternate reality to the next, eventually losing the trust to invest ourselves in what we have now.

I invest myself in good stories, not the trappings of a fictional universe.

 

[Dar70]

What lackluster reviews?!? I really wish these inaccurate statements would go away...



Critics rated it a 7.6/10 and audiences rated it a 4.2/5 on 307,000+ ratings.

Personally, I am hoping they never return to the Prime timeline. It had its day and that day is over (and I can watch that day anytime I like). Some folks don't like Star Trek Into Darkness and the Abrams films in general. Which is normal. Nothing is universally loved. But I don't really see how the numbers quantify it as anything other than a critical success.

The movie was not as well recieved among fans. Its has a 7.8 on imdb below the 8.0 of the first ones. I dont want this to degrade to a analysis of how good or bad it was.....

I would still like to see more primetrek on tv or i would love to see a complete reboot of trek with no ties to any previous versions.

 

[King Bob!]

The movie was not as well recieved among fans.

Still not seeing it...

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=209857

53% of people that voted at the TrekBBS gave the film an 'A-' or better. Seems like the new definition of 'fan' is "those that hate the Abrams films".

 

[ALF]

From a financial viewpoint, it seems too cost prohibitive to be continuously connecting all the series' canon points together endlessly. What's the advantage? Writers and producers alike probably love this idea of yet another new timeline in the expanding Star Trek multiverse... it's always a fresh start.

NuTrek is still profitable. I'm sure they'll squeeze it for all it's worth before conjuring up a new reboot.

 

[F. King Daniel]

They're much more likely to reboot again than go back to the old continuity.

That said, Chris Pine's signed on for two more movies, so I'm hoping for a fourth nuTrek movie before we find out.

 

[JWPlatt]

The movie was not as well recieved among fans.

Still not seeing it...

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=209857

53% of people that voted at the TrekBBS gave the film an 'A-' or better. Seems like the new definition of 'fan' is "those that hate the Abrams films".

Any self-selecting poll is suspect.

 

[King Bob!]

Any self-selecting poll is suspect.

Maybe. But when enough of them exist, then you have a trend. Pretty much every site I've seen where a vote exists, Star Trek Into Darkness fares pretty well.

I'm still not seeing the problem in admitting the film fared well with most critics/movie-goers. As someone who isn't a huge fan of Star Trek: First Contact, it would still be silly of me to try and argue the film as some type of critical failure that everyone hates.

 

[JWPlatt]

...we could simply go from one alternate reality to the next, eventually losing the trust to invest ourselves in what we have now.

I invest myself in good stories, not the trappings of a fictional universe.

The inspirational qualities of Star Trek and Middle-earth came up in a different thread. While I don't directly equate Middle-earth and Star Trek as inspirational vehicles, the deep backstory for The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and the other tales of Middle-earth are one on the legendarium's major assets, if not the most important aspect of it. I appreciate that about Middle-earth as well as Star Trek Prime. Middle-earth is more internally consistent, but I can work around that in Star Trek. I wouldn't appreciate a reboot of Middle-earth either.

 

[King Bob!]

...we could simply go from one alternate reality to the next, eventually losing the trust to invest ourselves in what we have now.

I invest myself in good stories, not the trappings of a fictional universe.

The inspirational qualities of Star Trek and Middle-earth came up in a different thread. While I don't directly equate Middle-earth and Star Trek as inspirational vehicles, the deep backstory for The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and the other tales of Middle-earth are one on the legendarium's major assets, if not the most important aspect of it. I appreciate that about Middle-earth as well as Star Trek Prime. Middle-earth is more internally consistent, but I can work around that in Star Trek. I wouldn't appreciate a reboot of Middle-earth either.

But the deep backstory still exists, just in another form. People latch onto birth dates, a characters favorite flavor of ice cream and the minutiae of a fictional war like they really mean something. But they just don't. Without good stories that connect with people (which was where we were at near the end of the Berman era), we're just dealing with fictional data that some refuse to let go of.

No writer should be constrained by a line of dialogue from fifty or twenty-five or even ten years ago. While it is a great line that serves to make the Romulans mysterious, the line that two races fighting a war against each other yet never saw one another makes zero sense in a greater universe.

I guess I just don't see how one can find minutiae inspiring.

 

[Zombie Cheerleader]

No writer should be constrained by a line of dialogue from fifty or twenty-five or even ten years ago. While it is a great line that serves to make the Romulans mysterious, the line that two races fighting a war against each other yet never saw one another makes zero sense in a greater universe.

I guess I just don't see how one can find minutiae inspiring.

Exactly. Some fans seem to confuse deep, meaningful and insightful with long running and filled with minutia. A call back to a single line from 50 years ago doesn't really make something complex.

 

[Leo Walsh]

They won't go back, nor should they.

If Star Trek becomes a franchise of reboots like Spiderman or Batman, we could simply go from one alternate reality to the next...

Yes, that's the way it will work.

 

[Makarov]

Yes it will "go back" in some fashion, but I don't get this idea of nutrek and prime being in competition with eachother. It's all part of the same thing really.

People are worried about minutiae why exactly? NuTrek brings in any element of prime that it wants, Khan or Klingons etc.. a show set in the prime universe can do exactly the same thing. Use all that prime backstory as a resource instead of a constraint. There are a lot of ways they can do it. Alternate realities are one way but by no means the only way to continue star trek.

 

[Cyke101]

I'd love it if they returned to the Prime Universe. But, quite frankly, there's nothing to argue compellingly that it's needed, either. As far as Paramount/CBS and the general population are concerned, the major decisions have been made correctly, and that's just fine by me. So would I like them to return to it? Sure. Should they? Most likely not. It's like me reminiscing about my first girlfriend, but I'm not about to leave my lovely current one for her -- there's no good reason other than nostalgia.

On a personal level, my wanting the Prime universe isn't meant as a slight to the current movies as a whole, just that Prime is what I grew up with and was most invested in. I enjoy the current movies for the most part. The funny thing is, if we get another reboot, I might find myself, oh I don't know, Pining for the JJverse for the same reason. In twenty years, I could very well be the poster who goes, "You kids don't know real Trek! In my day, Kirk was constantly hanging off of cliffs and Spock would beat people up left and right!"