It's animated. It's not like Adam West and Burt Ward stretched back into their costumes and started being filmed again.
What are your thoughts about seeing the prime universe again?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
It's animated. It's not like Adam West and Burt Ward stretched back into their costumes and started being filmed again.
So what. It has 1960s Batman TV show written all over it.
It's Adam West and Burt Ward in name only! You're all going to be horrified because the Joker doesn't have a painted on mustache so it ISN'T CANON with the 60s show!
Does the reactivation of the Prime timeline on a new flagship CBS Trek series endanger the Kelvin timeline? Is that what's behind some of this defensiveness, just like Kelvin for a time made some of think Prime was lost forever?
You didn't get the point I was trying to make. Maybe I didn't explain it sufficiently. It's of course the same franchise. It's all Star Trek. But that doesn't really mean much, that's just the name of the property. It's a complitely different continuity residing under the same name.
The "Lost in Space" movie remake from the 90s hasn't much to do with the original television show from the 60s. The Andrew Garfield "Amazing Spider-Man" movies are a completely different continuity than the Tobey McGuire ones, or the upcoming Tom Holland ones. All of them share the same franchise name. Butall of them take place in a different universe.
In the same way, the JJ-Abrams reboot is pretty much disconnected from the old continuity. In the comics it even has it's own mirror universe. While Abrams gave the fans a few branches (like Nimoys appereance), the fact of the matter is that it wasn't and never was intended as a continuation of the Trek franchise, rather it was there to replace it with it's new form. That didn't work out properly. I'm happy for you that you like those movies. For me personally, they are miles apart from TOS.
So I can only repeat myself: I'm happy we are actually seeing a continuation (or, rather prequel) of the original Trek universe. Not the reboot. The differences are subtle, and only matter in-universe, and for some fans. But I'm one of those. And you apparently too, otherwise you wouldn't argue here.
I don't get the big deal, honestly. It is all Star Trek. At least for me it is.
Discovery being in a different universe doesn't diminish my enjoyment of it, or any other series or movie.
I would doubt it. Since Paramount was talking about Star Trek 4 prior to the release of Beyond, but after the announcement of Discovery.
Because there's a huge difference between two guys reading lines in a recording studio and two guys actually involved in a live-action tv show.
You already made that abundantly clear. But is it really that hard to imagine, that for other people it might matter? Especially when they are explaining it post for post in multiple threads?
For me, personally, the brand name is not as important as the story. I would prefer a story to end, and begin a new one, before trying to re-tell the same story again and again, until it looses what made the original special.
I could care less wether a new science fiction series has the name "Star Trek" in it. But I do care if I see that it's part of the same larger story/universe. I probably would have checked DIS out when it would have taken place in another universe as well. But I wouldn't be as invested in it.
Don't underestimate how happy people were seeing Han Solo and Luke Skywalker back on the big screen. Disney could have rebooted Star Wars as well, but they were wiser. They continued the story. Discovery will not manage to capture the same emotions on the same level. But they are there. A tiny little bit.
If I cared about which "universe" the new show was in, I'd make my preference quite clear. It matters not at all to me which "continuity" applies to the new show. It puzzles me that it should matter much at all to anyone, hence my initial attempt at conceptualizing instances where such distinctions would be substantial, rather than "window dressing". I came up with four. None of them seem, to me, very likely.
I'm not arguing (as I'm not attempting to persuade anyone) but rather communicating my puzzlement over why one "universe" setting is so much "better" than another. If it's a good series, what does it matter?
But there are those of us that believe the Prime universe lost what made it special. Part of that was the overabundance of poor to mediocre material.
Much like Star Trek (2009), The Force Awakens is a stealth reboot of the franchise. Resetting all the pieces on the board to where they were when A New Hope opened up.
Consider me another "outlier." The technological advances were already becoming too magical. Story resolutions would be too swift and little challenge with all that magic at hand, or too unbelievable if they couldn't resolve stories swiftly without hobbling all their resources every show. Where's the fun in that?
I always supported Prime under the theory that CBS would want the separation between themselves and Paramount's nuMovies. They had other considerations as well, so it was not entirely just avoiding marketing confusion.
That said, and to put myself in the very odd position of supporting BillJ et al. to a rare and limited extent, I'll just point out here that we might need to wait more than a season to see if Prime was really the right choice. Those who laugh last, and all that... Even if it fails for a completely different reason, there's always looking forward to a bright future of reading about how they should never have gone Prime.
This is my feeling as well. I want to understand and apreciate the ack and forth as others, like @Rahul or @JWPlatt try to explain why it being in Prime/Our continuity matters. But. it might be an emotional thing for others.
So, I'm left trying to understand but still puzzled by the importance. Sorry, y'all.
On the big screen "prime" Trek had two colossal duds in a row. On the small screen the quality and ratings were steadily dropping for years before both hit rock bottom and it was put out of its misery. The "Kelvin" movies on the other hand were commercially successful until this year.
All the logic on Vulcan said that the "prime" continuity was dead and going to stay dead. Believing otherwise and being right (remains to be seen) is nothing more than a case of the broken clock being right twice a day.
All the logic on Vulcan said that the "prime" continuity was dead and going to stay dead. Believing otherwise and being right (remains to be seen) is nothing more than a case of the broken clock being right twice a day.
Oh I don't mean at Paramount, they would be much more concerned about the disappointing performance of the last two films. I mean among the folks here who were very excited about Kelvin and said stuff like people who want the Prime timeline just need an emotional blanket and can't let go.
It seems now that shoe is on the other foot.
A
Amaris
Guest
No, it doesn't seem that way at all. It seems that "Prime" is about to get a whole lot stretchier in how it's defined when this new series comes out. As for the last two Kelvin movies, they weren't disappointments. Critically, Star Trek Beyond has been well received. Financially, the film has made $318 million USD, and is still being released internationally, to which it has received an excellent running start: http://variety.com/2016/film/asia/s...al-box-office-secret-life-of-pets-1201857606/
Star Trek Into Darkness was critically acclaimed, and did very well at the Box Office, making $467 million worldwide.
So no, no shoe on the other foot. It would be best, however, for those crowing about some kind of win, when the series hasn't even been released to the public as of yet. I hope it does well, but those who wish to be petulant now, may find it a very bitter season coming soon. Perhaps, instead, people should agree that different tastes and different opinions lead to different conclusions? Yes, I think that would be best.
After reading through two of those threads linked earlier, it's hard to take some of these voices seriously who were wrong on almost every condescending point made for several years. Points argued from a position of authority that was never earned, with maximum nastiness employed. Small wonder there's an "I told you so!" thread, then. It's a great franchise and usually the fans are ok, but the GLEE exhibited by those doing an extended dance on Prime's grave was a bit much and desperately premature.
Good thing a hand came out of the grave and grabbed their ankle, then. Prime lives!
Considering the talent involved, Discovery is going to be a blast to discuss! I lurked here starting at the tail end of Enterprise but damn -- I won't be missing the fun this time around! This time with an ignore filter, thank gawd.
It will be interesting to also see how a floundering Kelvin continues at an even flounder-ier Paramount, but nowhere near as interesting as discussing proper TV Trek!
Good thing a hand came out of the grave and grabbed their ankle, then. Prime lives!
Considering the talent involved, Discovery is going to be a blast to discuss! I lurked here starting at the tail end of Enterprise but damn -- I won't be missing the fun this time around! This time with an ignore filter, thank gawd.
It will be interesting to also see how a floundering Kelvin continues at an even flounder-ier Paramount, but nowhere near as interesting as discussing proper TV Trek!
You know, I don't think you meant to imply the Prime universe is a brainless, shambling, and rotting member of the undead - making one last desperate grasp at sticking its teeth into the brains of innocent passerby.
Not to say that wasn't an appropriate description at times, but it seems a wee-bit harsh.
Last edited:
