Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

[Zombie Cheerleader]

Star Trek shouldn't be about continuity and minutia. It's about ideas and characters. There can be 1000 versions of Star Trek as long as the writers and actors get the ideas and characters right. They don't all have to fit perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.

 

[Cyke101]

Star Trek shouldn't be about continuity and minutia. It's about ideas and characters. There can be 1000 versions of Star Trek as long as the writers and actors get the ideas and characters right. They don't all have to fit perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.

Very very much agreed, but if there's ever a day when production begins on "Crisis on Infinite Federations", I'll be the first in line!

 

[King Bob!]

Star Trek shouldn't be about continuity and minutia. It's about ideas and characters. There can be 1000 versions of Star Trek as long as the writers and actors get the ideas and characters right. They don't all have to fit perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.

+1

Just get the broad strokes right and I'm happy. I think that Abrams got the broad strokes right.

 

[King Bob!]

Star Trek shouldn't be about continuity and minutia. It's about ideas and characters. There can be 1000 versions of Star Trek as long as the writers and actors get the ideas and characters right. They don't all have to fit perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.

Very very much agreed, but if there's ever a day when production begins on "Crisis on Infinite Federations", I'll be the first in line!

Will the poster be of Kirk-One holding the broken body of Janeway?

 

[-Brett-]

7.6 out of 10 is pretty much the definition of lackluster. Just saying.

But other than that, the hive mind is right. No more prime Trek. Ever.

 

[mos6507]

Based on what I'm hearing about the new Trek film, it being helmed by a Fast and the Furious guy, and Paramount's desire to get the Guardians of the Galaxy demographic, I'd say there won't be any prime continuity continuation in theaters.

TV is where more cerebral fare is having its golden age, and so I think if and when CBS decides to do another Trek show, they might decide to link it up with prime continuity, but aside from carrying over the most superficial elements (like LCARS) I would expect such a show to come across differently enough that people would not be prejudiced against it due to any residual Berman-hate. So imagine something Battlestar Galactica-like in aspiring to elevate the source material, but through a continuation and not a reboot.

I don't think a decision like that starts in a boardroom, either. I think it would take someone with clout who has decided to champion this, and nobody's out there plugging for it right now. I think it would sell itself mostly based on that person's clout, like someone of the stature of a Chris Nolan.

 

[Zombie Cheerleader]

Wrath of Khan has a 7.7

The Motion Picture has a 6.4

The Voyage Home has a 7.3

Those are usually the top choices for TOS films.

Into Darkness is currently at 7.8.

 

[Zombie Cheerleader]

Based on what I'm hearing about the new Trek film, it being helmed by a Fast and the Furious guy, and Paramount's desire to get the Guardians of the Galaxy demographic, I'd say there won't be any prime continuity continuation in theaters.

.

It's being helmed by a successful up and coming director. What is the "GotG"demographic? People who spend money to go to movies? Yeah, I see why Paramount would want that.

 

[Leo Walsh]

NuTrek brings in any element of prime that it wants, Khan or Klingons etc...Use all that prime backstory as a resource instead of a constraint.

Exactly so.

 

[Tim Walker]

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

I can imagine this coming to pass, because why would the suits care? I suppose another time line could appear, for example, if the suits demanded a Trek more like the Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

[Nebusj]

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.

But if we never go back to the Prime Universe how are we ever going to see if Harry Kim and Ezri Dax are able to captain a Yaeger-class starship together!

 

[Leo Walsh]

We'll soldier on, somehow.

 

[Darren Mooney]

And all this time I thought Star Trek was about looking to the future, not looking to the past.

 

[King Bob!]

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.

But if we never go back to the Prime Universe how are we ever going to see if Harry Kim and Ezri Dax are able to captain a Yaeger-class starship together!

I'm sure the novels will tell that tale someday!

And all this time I thought Star Trek was about looking to the future, not looking to the past.

Last I checked, the 23rd century is the future. But arithmetic isn't my strong point...

 

[Leo Walsh]

It's about some people in spaceships. The spaceships are all pretty much alike whether the characters say they're living in the 22nd, 23rd, 24th or 29th centuries. So what's all this "future versus past" stuff?

 

[Jedi_Master]

Just for the record, you can bet good money that primary reason Paramount execs would be clamoring for a GoTG style film is that GoTG made a tremendous amount of money.

 

[drt]

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.

Shoot, Rodenberry himself arguably rebooted Star Trek twice, with TMP and TNG.

 

[Greg Cox]

Star Trek shouldn't be about continuity and minutia. It's about ideas and characters. There can be 1000 versions of Star Trek as long as the writers and actors get the ideas and characters right. They don't all have to fit perfectly like a jigsaw puzzle.

Nicely put. Star Trek is more than just an encyclopedia of fannish trivia. It's a format for telling a wide range of fascinating stories for all audiences.

 

[Darren Mooney]

So what's all this "future versus past" stuff?

I just find it hilarious that Star Trek fandom is so nostalgic and backwards looking.

"I hate the reboot that has given Star Trek a newer and younger audience. Reboot it back to something I like."

The TNG era is as dead as the Shatner/Nimoy TOS era was in the mid-nineties. It seems weird so many people want to revive a zombified corpse rather than witness an evolution.

Star Trek is dead. Long live Star Trek.

 

[TRON JA307020]

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.

Its day isn't over. Many fans want to see more stories in the Star Trek Universe not just the NuStar NuTrek Universe. I agree with Dar I really hope when the 3rd movie is made it will be its last and then we may get to see a return to the classic trek universe. The last movie while it got good reviews didn't review as well as the first and many fans did not like it as much. It also made less money. The third movie will most likely continue the down trend as is the norm for sequels.

So what's all this "future versus past" stuff?

I just find it hilarious that Star Trek fandom is so nostalgic and backwards looking.

"I hate the reboot that has given Star Trek a newer and younger audience. Reboot it back to something I like."

The TNG era is as dead as the Shatner/Nimoy TOS era was in the mid-nineties. It seems weird so many people want to revive a zombified corpse rather than witness an evolution.

Star Trek is dead. Long live Star Trek.

A zombified corpse that NuTrek had to feed off of. SOrry but the original is far superior then the drivel Abrams and company have given us. They took out the smart writing and drama and put in pure action. Big deal whats so revolutionary about making Star Trek a poor copy of Star Wars?

Wrath of Khan has a 7.7

The Motion Picture has a 6.4

The Voyage Home has a 7.3

Those are usually the top choices for TOS films.

Into Darkness is currently at 7.8.

Yeah and most of the fans voting on STID are young fans that have never seen the original TWOK. Do you really think STID is superior to TWOK?