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

I want something new that keeps the principles and philosophy of Star Trek. I like prime trek, but it's very old and stale through repeated viewings of it.

I want something fresh.

Unfortunately, that is a very hard thing to do, especially among fans that are locked with the old Trek who hate any kind of changes what so ever.

 

Nice to see that so many want the prime trek universe back. Hopefully one day.

 

It's not coming back. It is a part of the franchise that is now done. There may be reboots, re-imaginings, or whatever, but the Berman era Trek you know, in its current form, will never return. It's like people reminiscing about the "good old days". It's great fodder to use against changes one doesn't like, but it doesn't make it any more likely to return.

 

^It still continues in books and games FYI.

 

Except that if you include those, then the original question is pointless, because in that case the prime timeline never left. If, instead, we're talking about television shows and films, then yes, it is gone, and it will not return.

It is far easier to write a story set in the prime universe than it is to produce a TV or film series set in that universe.

 

^It's in regards to coming back to television.

 

Then why bring up that it's in books and games? I know it's in books and games. I have some of those books, and play some of those games. If we're talking television, though, and I assumed that's what we have been talking all along, it just isn't going to happen.

 

Don't count out the prime universe just yet. There are business reasons to bring back the prime universe in a new TV series. Merchandising tie-ins are one of them. The other reasons is the 'X-files' (I like to call it) factor. in a recent trend, some networks have brought back some old shows (like the X-files) in part, to raise license values of the old series to places like Netflix or Amazon. The idea being, that fans of the new version of an older show will be interested in the older show to see what has happened before in in the overall series mythology.

So for Star Trek, lets say we have a new show that take place 20 years after Voyager. New fans for that show will want to look back and the see what happened before that new shows timeline. If you have the new series in the 'rebooted' universe you don't have any previous references beyond the Abrams films.

CBS wants to get as much money as they can from the older series and this is a way to do that. We already now that CBS has had some arguments with Abrams over merchandising of older series products, they do not want do anything that jeopardizes their revenue from there Star Trek product line. They are already dealing with depreciation with the older series (and product tie-ins), so they will want to find ways to bring up the value.

 

This makes perfect sense and I love it.

 

CBS also doesn't want to take a monetary bath by associating new product with product that was obviously a failure in the mainstream. There will never be a live-action series set 20 years after Voyager because no one simply cares and there is nothing to be gained by setting it there other than appeasing a few die-hards.

The X-Files is a totally different beast as we haven't had 28 seasons of prior product and it will be a heck of a lot cheaper to produce.

 

And BTW, Berman and the old production team have nothing to do with this. They will bring in an entirely new team and the new series will have more polished visual differences than the past 5 series. Yet, the new series will still be in the 'TV Prime Universe' just pushed ahead a bit. It will be much the same way TNG was different than TOS, but still in the same continuity . CBS is looking for a another situation similar to how TNG took off.

 

I guess if I'm a studio head, my question would be: "what does moving 20 years into the future offer us that a reboot doesn't?"

Yeah, TNG was a hit, 25 years ago. But it didn't exactly take off in syndication and there doesn't seem to be a huge appetite for it or the other spinoffs among modern audiences. An unprecedented restoration was done for the series which was mostly ignored, even by fandom.

 

Failure? Was TNG a failure?? They just pushed Star Trek with to many sequel series (after TNG) , often overlapping each other, a perfect case of oversaturation. They gain more than they lose by associating it in the existing TV Prime universe. In any case, the series will succeed or fail on it own merit, not from any associations with its past.

 

Better merchandising potential and an uptick in licensing revenue on the older series. In the overall picture there is more potential profit to be made. This is a business and it has nothing to do with die hard fans. It all about Money.

 

So you're saying a reboot would have no merchandising opportunities? That because it is a reboot it wouldn't have any impact on the sales of the older series?

The way I see it, you're first job is to get the best creative minds available and attempt to make a series people want to watch. I don't believe you get the best creative minds out there if you lock them in with 50 years of useless names and dates. Plus, you are creating a huge barrier to entry for people who want to jump in fresh.

 

Bill, My point it this was the same thing that happened in 1987 when TNG first came out. It had barely anything to do with TOS beyond McCoy making a cameo and some references. TNG was almost completely different than TOS yet they choose it to be in the same 'universe' than TOS and that did nothing to hurt it. A new series would have to stand on it own and tailored for a 2016 audience. The stories and cast would stand on its own with perhaps some occasional call backs to events and people in the previous series history (just like how TNG would sometimes reference TOS). It actually sets the news series in an existing universe and gives the show more of a sense of depth (which is a good thing IMO). Just to be clear I am NOT saying the new show has to be made like Berman's shows and constantly referring to the past. it's just nice to be in the existing universe because it does create potential, not just 'in-universe' stories but also in profitablitly.

BTW, When Doctor Who came back after in 2005, they could have rebooted it, but they continued it and now the BBC is enjoying some profitability on some classic Doctor Who merchandise and the classic series episodes value.

 

It had lots to do with TOS and it took plenty from TOS.

"The Naked Now" and quite a few other episodes would like to have a word with you.

Of course it would.

Or it gives new people the feeling they're being dropped into the middle of a story which I don't think works in the age of serialization.

Roddenberry was able to make us feel like we were in an existing universe back in 1966 when he created Star Trek. Sometimes, stripping something down to its core elements is good for it.

Doctor Who is a completely different animal from Star Trek.

 

Going to stop going on about this. But I am going to state a new series will not take place in Abrams universe and probably will take place in the Prime Universe (which BTW, is still the TV universe, since we have not had a new show by CBS to contradict that). If I'm wrong you can hunt me down with pitch forks later.

 

I don't think a TV series will take place in the Abramsverse either. I believe we'll get a hard reboot when Trek comes back to TV.

 

Either universe is fine by me as long as the writing is excellent. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why people are talking about these universes as though they're actually that different. Klingons, Starfleet, Vulcans, etc, they all exist is both. The only significant difference related to the missions of Kirk et al and the planet Vulcan

For example, if they released Voyager on blue ray and edited out all mentions of the planet Vulcan......hey presto, it now exists in the NuTrek universe

I honestly don't see any meaningful difference here at all.