Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

[JJohnson]

Dear God in Heaven, please tell me they return to the real Trek!!!!!!

nuKirk doesn't hold a candle to Prime Kirk. And after two turns, I'm tired of emo Spock and emo Uhura.

 

[Cyke101]

No, Stewart wouldn't get nearly the same kind of attention - Picard's quite a ways behind Kirk & Spock.

I blame Professor Xavier.

 

[JJohnson]

I think that Picard may not be as well known as Spock, but certainly Stewart is as well known as Nimoy. Although I think he's really the only actor from the TNG era that would even come close.

It added a sexually objectified female character, but that was pandering to what it perceived to be the target market - nerds who like boobs. I love Jeri Ryan's performance, and like her character arc, but the addition of Seven as the new focus character was the point at which it was clear this was not a show that saw itself aiming towards a broad audience, but towards shut-ins who think "sexy" is a painted-on catsuit.

I guess I never thought of that as appealing to the fan base, especially considering how much complaining there was about the catsuits of Seven and T'Pol. So perhaps they thought they were appealing to the fan base, but in reality I don't think that was the case. I think they were just thinking that sex sells and it was a case of trying to raise already falling ratings. The problem came before that and is a lot more complicated. I don't think it can be boiled down to catering to a fan base.

No offense to either actress, but the catsuit only worked with Seven because she was better 'proportioned' putting it nicely, enabling her to fill out the uniform much better. T'Pol, to me, looked like she needed to eat more or just put on some muscle mass, and just didn't fill the uniform out as well. Imagine Billie Faiers or Irene Nell vs. Kristen Kreuk or Ally McBeal. Who would fill out a catsuit better?

 

[IrishNero]

This thread = Haters gotta hate.

 

[JJohnson]

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.

Give me a reboot with a more solid foundation in prime Trek.

Enterprise launched in 2245, and Chekov born then. Give me Captain Robert April, then Pike, then Kirk. Show Kirk beating the Kobayashi Maru (not eating an apple through it), and befriending Gary Mitchell. Show real Kirk's first meeting with Spock. Show a modernized bridge that holds the same shape and layout from TOS, just with 2 turbolifts. Show engineering with a warp reactor, not a brewery. Show real Constitution class ships, not ridiculous distortions, and show multiple other classes of ship. I don't mind revisiting old stories, just don't make them rehashes like ST:ID was. Give us an extended 2-part version of Space Seed. Put Khan in WW3 in the mid-to-late 21st century. Show an Enterprise with phaser banks in the same places as on the movie version (3 top, 3 bottom of saucer; 4 on bottom of Engineering hull; 2 atop shuttlebay) to cover the horrid gunnery blindspots from TOS. Give little clues here and there about the 21st century to the 23rd without too much detail. Directly tell us Trip didn't die and didn't join Section 31 or whatever, and some of the more ridiculous points in Enterprise didn't happen (pregnant Trip, Trip and T'Pol, Ferengi, Florida getting hit by Xindi, etc). Show us character backgrounds more in keeping with how the original characters would've grown up. Show flashbacks to the academy for the main crew, and show a more diverse crew (alien-wise) and shift-wise. There's plenty you could do in prime Trek or 'inspired-more-directly-by-Prime-Trek' Trek.

 

[Relayer1]

Dear God, no more effing reboots.

Athough I'm not a big fan of the JJverse, a spin off TV show or film series once Trek III is done would be my choice if the prime continuity's done.

I still favour a sequel to both continuities set a couple of hundred years later...

 

[JJohnson]

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.

To me they do. You need a consistent universe otherwise it doesn't make sense. On one movie, have Kirk tell everyone his father had no other children because he died shortly after he was born, then oh, wait, Kirk has two younger siblings, from his birth father and mother, because dad was on Earth. Show Bajorans as allergic to peanuts, and next movie, Kira Nerys eating a peanut butter sandwich. Let's throw out consistency whenever we feel like it! Or let's have Chekov, who was born in 2245, be at the academy when Kirk is at the academy! (when Chekov would've been in elementary school).

Consistency is important. Continuity is important.

 

[Cyke101]

If Trek becomes more about its history than about parables of the future, then it becomes strangely entropic and can't be sustained anymore.

To me this was one of the reasons why the Prime Universe was steadily losing viewers. Rather than telling engaging stories in unique situations, the norm eventually became color-by-numbers as dictated by past tropes and continuity sticklers. TATV, for one thing, was so rooted in past Trek that it made the Enterprise cast the guest-stars in their very finale, making for a piss-poor episode, nevermind the very last televised story of the Prime Universe.

I'm not saying it's impossible to use past continuity well -- I feel like the latter half of DS9 and the fourth season of ENT (minus TATV) did a great job of telling new stories with the tools of the past; one of Trek's finest moments was uniting the Klingons, the Romulans, and the Federation, but that weight could only come from the past. But if there's more concern about minutae over telling a good story, then you're going to lose the audience, you're going to burn out the writers, and you're going to get a bored cast. TOS made several changes over its run that contradicted itself (the variables of warp speed, James R. Kirk, shoehorning the Cage into continuity), but it's stood the test of time. If there's adherence to the past, it has to be more than just because it's a mere history lesson -- it has to intentionally contribute to the story.

 

[Relayer1]

Consistency is important. Continuity is important.

That says rather a lot about you.

And me, because you're right !

 

[IrishNero]

It seems that Star Trek has become about pursuing criminals rather than exploration, so I'd be all for a new series that goes back to that old formula. I'm not keen on the 'alien of the week' storylines because it's been done 100s of times, but I'm OK with that along with story arcs. Perhaps they could explore vast distances from Earth that do not involve the same races they've encountered ad nauseam (Klingons, Romulans, Vulcans, Ferengi, The Borg, Andoreans, etc.) unless they happen to be part of the crew. They should have the courage to swing for the fences.

I think there is a crowd of hungry trek fans (who've been waiting over 10 years) who would watch a new series if it was done well.

 

[Makarov]

Voyager just kept fetishing that model of storytelling into the twenty-first century. It added a sexually objectified female character, but that was pandering to what it perceived to be the target market - nerds who like boobs. I love Jeri Ryan's performance, and like her character arc, but the addition of Seven as the new focus character was the point at which it was clear this was not a show that saw itself aiming towards a broad audience, but towards shut-ins who think "sexy" is a painted-on catsuit.

Seven of Nine's addition was the opposite actually - a blatant grab for ratings from the broad mainstream audience. The very same target audience that NuTrek aimed the stripping in the shuttle scene from Into Darkness at. So I don't see that as an example of Prime not caring about the mainstream.

 

[The Doctor]

Continuity has zero virtue on its own. If keeping strict continuity doesn't serve the story, it doesn't matter.

 

[IrishNero]

Voyager just kept fetishing that model of storytelling into the twenty-first century. It added a sexually objectified female character, but that was pandering to what it perceived to be the target market - nerds who like boobs. I love Jeri Ryan's performance, and like her character arc, but the addition of Seven as the new focus character was the point at which it was clear this was not a show that saw itself aiming towards a broad audience, but towards shut-ins who think "sexy" is a painted-on catsuit.

Seven of Nine's addition was the opposite actually - a blatant grab for ratings from the broad mainstream audience. The very same target audience that NuTrek aimed the stripping in the shuttle scene from Into Darkness at. So I don't see that as an example of Prime not caring about the mainstream.

If a painted-on catsuit is what it takes to nab a few extra viewers so that my favorite show remains on the air, then I say go for it. After all, the various writers, actors, producers and technicians aren't making these shows and movies just so the average high-brow trekkie can exercise their cerebral tendencies. They're trying to sell commercial time or tickets. That's it. So, if I have to sacrifice a minute of character and plot development every hour so they can slip in a side-boob shot of Jerri Ryan or a butt-shot of Jolene Blalock so the pre-teen crowd can get their jollies, then win-win.

 

[Makarov]

If I had any stake in the business and cared about their profits then I'd agree. But I'm just a viewer. They can only stoop so low until eventually becomes a show I don't care about being cancelled or not.

I'd rather see TOS end when it did than have Kirk start captaining the ship fully nude in order to get female viewers up. And I think NuTrek proves you don't have to stoop to sex to that degree in order to be a success. It only had one scene of it. Voyager could have been successful even without Seven, if it was as good as JJ Abrams trek.

 

[BillJ]

Consistency is important. Continuity is important.

You only need to get the broad strokes right. Which I think Abrams did. I just don't care about the minutiae of a fictional universe, nor do I believe current writers should be handcuffed by lines of dialogue from fifty, twenty-five or even ten years ago.

Stories need to be fun, exciting and make sense in the "here-and-now". No one is disrespecting Roddenberry or anyone else by making changes that reflect the evolution of society and technology. Do we knock points off of The Wrath of Khan for changing Khan's origins from selective breeding to genetic engineering? Of course not.

 

[IrishNero]

You'd be surprised (then again, maybe you wouldn't) how many Trek fans will take to the effort of writing a stern letter to Paramount every time a phaser has an off-set trigger assembly, or when an Andorean states they were in a certain quadrant when they couldn't possibly be; because the federation was in a meeting at that time...because they read about it in a 1984 Star Trek Encyclopedia...

Of all of the story-telling elements of which I'd need to concern myself, fictional universe canon would be the least of my concerns as a writer. I would be more mindful of creating a compelling and engaging story than which type of Nacelle a Ferengi freighter switched to in order to reach warp 7 in the year 2351. That's not to say that I'd step all over canon and thumb my nose at the fans, but as BillJ says: Broad strokes.

 

[Cyke101]

You'd be surprised (then again, maybe you wouldn't) how many Trek fans will take to the effort of writing a stern letter to Paramount every time a phaser has an off-set trigger assembly, or when an Andorean states they were in a certain quadrant when the could possibly be because the federation was in a meeting at that time because they read about it in a 1984 Star Trek Encyclopedia.

"In episode 2F09 when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder."

 

[IrishNero]

 

[BillJ]

You'd be surprised (then again, maybe you wouldn't) how many Trek fans will take to the effort of writing a stern letter to Paramount every time a phaser has an off-set trigger assembly, or when an Andorean states they were in a certain quadrant when the could possibly be because the federation was in a meeting at that time because they read about it in a 1984 Star Trek Encyclopedia.

"In episode 2F09 when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder."

I'm pretty sure that was a shot fired directly at Star Trek fandom.

 

[Amaris]

You'd be surprised (then again, maybe you wouldn't) how many Trek fans will take to the effort of writing a stern letter to Paramount every time a phaser has an off-set trigger assembly, or when an Andorean states they were in a certain quadrant when the could possibly be because the federation was in a meeting at that time because they read about it in a 1984 Star Trek Encyclopedia.

"In episode 2F09 when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder."

Bless you, Sir! I've been trying to remember that quote for days!