• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What are your thoughts about seeing the prime universe again?

A lot of series today seem to get by on pure character driven drama..putting them through the ringer. The outside world almost doesn't seem to matter..I'm thinking of Jessica Jones, Daredevil, Mr Robot, and I'm sure many others. So if the show holds your interest in that regard, it'll probably work purely on character interest. Such a show might be lauded critically if done well too, but I'm sure a lot of Trekkies might miss the action-adventure part from that TOS "era". To be fair, Daredevil has quite a bit of derring-do in it.

Doesn't really answer my question, though. If it has no impact on the greater universe, then what does it matter what universe it is part of?
 
It doesn't really. But the attitude of some that it absolutely couldn't be prime and that other people who thought differently were met with rather negative feedback (to put it mildly) was and is unacceptable.

I was ridiculed and made to feel stuck in the past by smug know it alls for even suggesting Star Trek could exist as anything other than the JJ Abrams movies in a thread that was created a few days before Discovery was announced:rolleyes:

I don't think it's a case of "told ya so" but more a case of "stick that in your pipe and smoke it, bitches!":razz::nyah::rommie:
 
The timeline of Star Trek Discovery will be the prime universe. No matter how the show looks visually.

Here we are having a showrunner saying that show will be set in the prime time line, but people are still claiming the prime universe is dead.

Never knew it was that tough to admit you were wrong. Apparently it is.

Or maybe you're just making more of an issue about it than it needs to be. So you feel vindicated. Yay you. Now you can move on.

I was ridiculed and made to feel stuck in the past by smug know it alls for even suggesting Star Trek could exist as anything other than the JJ Abrams movies in a thread that was created a few days before Discovery was announced:rolleyes:

Oh please. Anyone who would have personally attacked you the way you describe would have been warned by a moderator. Sounds like you just have a victim complex. Nobody can make you feel intimidated; only you can choose to feel that way.

I don't think it's a case of "told ya so" but more a case of "stick that in your pipe and smoke it, bitches!":razz::nyah::rommie:

Well, that's certainly a healthy way to channel your aggression, I suppose.
 
Last edited:
...what does it matter if its set in the Prime timeline?
It's our timeline and not someone's else's. We will know the creators are connected to a point of view about us and not anyone else far, far away. We will know they have a sense of consequence and, dare I say it, optimism, I hope, about where we might be headed. And not anyone else.

The look and feel of the show itself is like the skinning of a website. Change the UI - the facade - all you want to remain in an attractive contemporary context, but the content is the same.
 
Last edited:
It's our timeline and not someone's else's. We will know the creator's are connected to a point of view about us and not anyone else far, far away. We will know they have a sense of consequence and, dare I say it, optimism, I hope, about where we might be headed. And not anyone else.

That doesn't make any damned sense. Star Trek (the concept) is (kinda) about hope and optimism, not the minutiae. The minutiae isn't what makes Star Trek, "Star Trek".

An interstellar alliance that involves humanity in an important way is "Star Trek", that the Federation is founded in 2161 is useless minutiae. It should be able to be moved and reimagined as the story requires. Thinking it as anything more turns it into useless dogma.
 
This is what's funny - Fuller's rationale is to avoid conflicts with the live, ongoing continuity of current day Trek by using an old continuity that's finished - fossilized, in effect. Whatever he overwrites will never be contradicted by future oldTrek, because there will be none.

Wow. The "old continuity" Trek is "finished" and "fossilized". A comment made exactly on the 50th anniversary of the "oldTrek". I'm left speechless. Don't know what to say to that really so I'll use your words:

The kindest thing that one can feel for that sort of mentality is pity.
 
That doesn't make any damned sense. Star Trek (the concept) is (kinda) about hope and optimism, not the minutiae. The minutiae isn't what makes Star Trek, "Star Trek".

An interstellar alliance that involves humanity in an important way is "Star Trek", that the Federation is founded in 2161 is useless minutiae. It should be able to be moved and reimagined as the story requires. Thinking it as anything more turns it into useless dogma.

Exactly so.
 
Wow. The "old continuity" Trek is "finished" and "fossilized"

I watched three episodes of TOS yesterday. It isn't coming back, it is done. It is still enjoyable to watch but time and society stand still for no one. Which brings another point, does anyone actually think this show is actually going to match up with the "feel" of "The Cage" and TOS? Society has changed a lot in the intervening fifty years. People who are dancing now, may have a hard time reconciling what will be two very different treatments of the same time period.

A comment made exactly on the 50th anniversary of the "oldTrek"

Sometimes, the truth hurts.
 
Doesn't really answer my question, though. If it has no impact on the greater universe, then what does it matter what universe it is part of?
It matters for the characters if you are interested in them. That really AN answer.

However. I can answer your question also with one of the first things Fuller said at the SDCC: it didn't matter WHAT timeline it was set in. The story could fit in either. It's convenient to set it in Prime.

RAMA
 
Oh please. Anyone who would have personally attacked you the way you describe would have been warned by a moderator.

It happened in the JJTrek forum. So no.

Sounds like you just have a victim complex.

Sounds like you're a douchebag.

Nobody can make you feel intimidated; only you can choose to feel that way.

I wasn't intimidated. I was mocked. I never said I was shitting my pants over it.

Well, that's certainly a healthy way to channel your aggression, I suppose.

I have no aggression. What I do have is a sense of humour. You can't buy that:beer:
 
It matters for the characters if you are interested in them. That really AN answer.

It really isn't. One can't be interested in the characters unless a hodge-podge of fictional dates created over the last fifty years comes with them?

Seriously, it comes down to an attachment to a fictional set of dates. It feels like Bender from Futurama, who doesn't want to change the past because he doesn't want to have to memorize "new kings".
 
It happened in the JJTrek forum. So no.

There's a mod there just like in every other forum.

Sounds like you're a douchebag.

Reported.

I wasn't intimidated. I was mocked. I never said I was shitting my pants over it.

Sure sounded like it.
I have no aggression. What I do have is a sense of humour. You can't buy that:beer:

Calling people bitches is your way of having a sense of humor? Okey dokie.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top