"Choose Your Pain" Klingon ship (Visual spoilers?)
- Thread starter Cranston
- Start date
Sure. But they don't always mean what you think they mean.
And "prime universe" is more a fanon term than an original producer one. By precedent, there is no such thing as a "prime" timeline in Battlestar Galactica either. There's the original series and the new series. There is no reason to assume "prime timeline" and "original series" means the same thing. Particularly if the objective of the reboot is to mainly to retcon PART of of the existing canon without necessarily removing all of it.
tl;dr: "Prime" is a fanon term; from a continuity perspective, it doesn't actually mean anything except "That which is not owned by Paramount"
Yeah, it is a fanon term, and you seem to be the only one who doesn't understand what it means. This has nothing to do with who owns it and everything to do with continuity. If Paramount for some bizarre reason decides to produce a film about Picard's retirement years set after the events of Nemesis, that would be in the Prime Universe. Prime is just a name given to the original continuity/timeline/universe. If you reboot it, it is no longer that.
Yes it is...
No, it literally isn't...
No, it didn't.
Now back to the subject of D7s, google, and batmobiles... Are we seriously suggesting that 10 years from now, the "Choose Your Pain" D7 will replace the classic D7 in the public consciousness and overtake it in google image results, because it has happened with the batmobile?
First of all, no matter what DSC does, the D7 isn't about to be replaced any time soon. 90% of the results for klingon d7 or klingon battlecruiser will still look largely the same. And that's granting this apparent discrepancy actually turns out to be as bad as some of you are predicting, which I very much doubt.
Let's compare apples to apples.
It has been 8 years since Star Trek '09, 16 years since Enterprise, 21 years since First Contact, and 30 years since TNG. Yet, when I google starship enterprise, I have to look hard to find any of these in the results. The overwhelming majority is still the 1701 classic and refit. No bloody D, E, NX, or JJ.
Each new "starship Enterprise" has been backed by a story reason to actually be different, without overwriting the original. Both the Enterprise and the D7 are part of a foundation that has been reinforced continually for decades. They didn't begin life as drawings in a comic book that was adapted and re-adapted time and again as new stories with different origins (and that isn't what DSC is either, no matter how much the "not prime" conspiracy theorists insist).
I would be very surprised if any of this is lost on DSC's creators. Unless it comes out that this design was completely outsourced to a team with no direction or understanding of what they were supposed to be building, I'm going to assume this was intentional and will be explained as the show unfolds.
I understand what it means TO PRODUCERS, which is what we're discussing here. Earlier I mentioned the fact that Trek fandon is very insular and self-referential; it's worth remembering that Star Trek fandom and Star Trek PRODUCTION is not dominated by the same group, and the overlap between them is relatively small. The people who are producing Star Trek Discovery have a background in filmmaking an science fiction/fantasy as a genre where the concept of a "reboot" creating an actual alternate timeline -- or even of different versions of the same story being related to each other in any explicable way -- just isn't a thing. So for everyone else EXCEPT for the insular and self-referential echo chamber that is Star Trek fandom (and even then, apparently, only the half dozen people particularly active in this thread) reboots do not create in-universe alternate timelines.
So from a production standpoint, there are only two timelines. One is being produced by paramount, the other is being produced by CBS. The one being produced by CBS is being rebooted.
From OUR perspective, yes. From THEIR perspective -- i.e. the one that actually matters -- it has to do with intellectual property rights and CBS/Paramount not wanting to have to fight each other over who gets royalties to the films/TV shows. The "parallel universe" excuse has become a sort of neutral zone they have both agreed not to cross, since the split between (what was) Paramount Television and Paramount Pictures also has split the rights of the movies and TV series in their respective mediums.
The "Kelvin Timeline" is an umbrella term that essentially refers to the ST09, STID and STB, over which Paramount owns the rights; for all intents and purposes, Paramount could just as easily retcon all of the feature films as being part of the Kelvin universe too, leaving CBS with the rights to the TV series/episodes. For this reason, until and unless the two companies either merge again or come to some sort of mutual ownership agreement for the franchise as a whole, the movie and TV continuities will never be the same again. This is all the PRODUCERS know about the difference between the Prime/Kelvin universes, because it's all they really care about in terms of continuity, and that a reboot in one continuity doesn't affect the progress of the other.
... Until/Unless they decide that it Nemesis isn't in the Prime Timeline either. Intellectual property laws are funny like that.
tl;dr:
That's now how reboots work ANYWHERE except in the minds of Trek fans. And since Trek Fans (for the overwhelming part, thank god) are not in charge of producing Star Trek TV shows, it's not likely to be the case for Star Trek either.
No one is claiming they do. Sometimes the reboot has in-universe explanation (I think some of the DC comic universe reboots did) and sometimes they don't. That's however not really relevant.
Of course they work like that. Burton Batman and Nolan Batman are two different continuities, probably usually referred to with the names of the directors, like Kelvin Universe was often called Abramsverse or JJtrek before the name Kelvin Universe was established.
Actually "timeline" isn't code for license, it's code for ice cream sundae. I know this is true because I heard it in a youtube video. When the producers say they're in the Prime timeline, they're really telling us that chocolate is their favorite flavor. And that's really all that matters.
It inserted the Borg Queen into Best of Both Worlds and changed the entire reason why Picard was assimilated in the first place... that's a massive retcon.
What difference does it make? In a reboot situation, the new design replaces the old for the purposes of the reboot. The Bat Mobile is a good example, in that no one in the story has any idea that another version of the Batmobile could/has/did exist. Even when they break the fourth wall and reference the pre-reboot material ("What were you expecting? Yellow spandex?") the new design is still the current/canon one.
It isn't a question of popularity. The story only needs to be consistent with itself.
Which, while interesting, has never actually been necessary. It's something they've always done in the past for various reasons. That doesn't guarantee that they always will, and if Star Trek lives to be an old enough property, we will definitely reach a point where they WON'T give those reasons, or even make any pretense of trying.
Discovery may or may not be that moment, but it's naive to think that moment could never come because it's never happened before to Star Trek. It happens to EVERYTHING eventually; it'll even happen to Star Wars some day.
It certainly wasn't lost on Bryan Fuller. But considering some of the things that got changed after he left the show (the uniforms being the most obvious), even Alex "it's important to respect canon" Kurtzman doesn't categorically rule out the possibility of a continuity reboot.
Hell, Christopher Nolan even talked about how his crew specifically went out of its way to come up with designs and concepts that would make sense to fans of the source material and would be respected by "the internet guys." But "Begins" was still a reboot, and it was excellent.
Just saying: the concept of cross-series compatibility is something Star Trek has had in the past. It is not something likely to continue indefinitely.
You're claiming a reboot of the prime universe would create an alternate universe in the same canon as the prime... so yeah, you kind of are.
NOW we're getting somewhere:
Suppose CBS decides one morning that the Berman era of Star Trek is no longer part of Discovery canon? If, for example, they decide that the follow-on to Discovery should be a straight up reboot of TNG? (call this "Star Trek: Galaxy" or something). The term "prime universe" basically ceases to be relevant at that point, as does the illusion of any alternative timelines being branched or related to each other.
And there's another reason CBS might want to talk about the "prime universe" even in the context of a reboot: if they intend to show a version of the TOS Constitution that ISN'T the version from the Kelvin films, that distinction suddenly becomes very important to people who are aware of the Kelvin films AND LITTLE ELSE. In other words, it would only really be relevant in terms of "Why does the Enterprise look so different from that movie I saw last year?" Because those movies were set in an alternate timeline where Vulcan got destroyed, remember?
This CBS/Paramount 'rights battle' thing is probably the most enduring myth in fandom since "beam me up Scotty". Paramount made movies on licence from CBS to use their IP. CBS retain any and all rights to all Star Trek property except the right to make theatrical movies. Paramount could use anything they wanted in their movies (and did, including Spock Prime, a character directly from CBS's well worn sandpit). They chose to do a reboot/alternate timeline because they wanted to do Kirk/Spock/the 1701 in their own way in a modern production while providing a continuity handwave so it wasn't just different without explanation (they guessed, rightly, that Trek fans hate that). That's it. CBS retain ownership of all the Trek elements they used to make those movies, and could use them themselves if they wanted (have Robau show up, for example, or have Quinto play his Spock).
You're not getting the "apples to apples" point, are you? The fact that a thing has happened with one IP does not imply it will happen with another, particularly when the context is completely different. There are reasons that the concept of the batmobile has been replaced in the minds of producers and viewers, and those reasons don't apply here. This whole line of reasoning begins and ends with the premise that Star Trek and Batman have much in common, which they don't.
Could that happen? Of course. Also, a reimagining of Star Trek set in the 1800s where James Kirk is a train conductor could happen. But there is no reason to suspect that is happening now or will happen soon... unless of course you substitute everything the writers and producers have said with your own imagination and invent new meanings to words, as you have done here.
While "CBS/Paramount fight for Trek rights" obviously is bunk, I do think the theory that there were some rights issued involved has some merits.
Remember: JJ. Abrams Star Trek (2009) was not just intended as a feature length movie. The original intention was to reboot the entire franchise. With new spin-off television series, tie-in comics, books and everything else. JJ. Abrams has his own television company (Bad Robot), and Star Trek's IP was seriously damaged at the time.
The more plausible theory is, that Bad Robot had an agreement with both Paramount and CBS: They make Star Trek viable again. But, for the duration of JJ Abrams "original" new trilogy, if they wanted to make a new television show, Bad Robot would need to be involved. That wouldn't have been a bad deal for CBS at the time: Either it's successfull, and they make money. Or it isn't, then there isn't much lost (they weren't going to do a new Trek series at that time directly after ENT anyway).
But then, they didn't came to terms on how to proceed with the franchise (there were some rumors at the time about JJ Abrams being unhappy with CBS - with whom he normally shouldn't have much to do if he only ever wanted to do a movie, and not a television franchise). Then, the comic-book-boom took over television, leading to much more genre shows and renewed interest in a new Star Trek show, but JJ Abrams changed gears to instead do the next Star Wars. Thus, CBS just waited for the "time-out" of their contract to do a new Trek television series. The series was announced to shortly premiere after Star Trek: Beyond, but still in the 50th anniversary of Star Trek, where it would have made much more sense to release it. But then Beyond was pushed back, and inexplicitly, the launch of a "new" Trek series was delayed as well, to after the release of "Beyond". That happened way back before they even hired Fuller in the first place, so there were no creative reasons to push back a new Trek series. Which smelled like contractual obligations (You are allowed to release a new tv-series, but not as a "direct competition" to the current movie trilogy - if your not working with us on this).
Again: This is just a theory. But one backed up by some press-releases at the time ("we pushed the new series back, to avoid confusion with the movies"). Of course it's not the black and white Paramount vs. CBS theory that has run amok. More akin to MARVEL renting out their characters (FOX had the movie rights to Daredevil, as long as they continued to produce movies, so Marvel just waited until the rights to Daredevil reverted back to them from FOX, and immediately put out a new television series).
I sure as hell don't know whether it's true or not. But I think it has at least some merits, as it explains some shifting of release dates (mostly away from the 50th anniversary, which wouldn't make much sense, giving free advertising and stuff, if there weren't other reasons involved) and lines up neatly with the rumors at the times and the chronology of what happened.
No. It would create a new continuity with it's own canon. We can call this universe or timeline or version or whatever. When people talk about the 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' they do not talk about some universe which exist in some cosmology that is 'real' in the fictional reality. Though as said, sometimes that its the case too, as some creators might want to come up with watsonian explanations for reboots or make crossovers between different versions of the same franchise. But it doesn't really matter.
No it doesn't! In this case the Prime Universe would refer to the pre-reboot continuity, and people would come up with a new term to refer to the new continuity, such as 'Discoverse.' And if CBS wanted to confuse things like you by insisting on calling the new continuity 'Prime Universe' too, then people would start to call them 'Old Prime' and 'New Prime' or something like that.
Nope. That was when Paramount Television was a subsidiary of paramount studios. CBS -- any incarnation of it -- didn't own the rights to Star Trek until after the Viacom split.
The reason the RIGHTS were split is because CBS wound up with what used to be Paramount Television while Paramount PICTURES continues to exist as a separate entity.
This was something that confused me intensely until I actually went and looked it up, because no matter how hard I tried I could not remember CBS having FUCKAL to do with Star Trek until recently and I clearly remembered the big triumphant Paramount Television jingle at the end of every episode. For that matter, that's what the "P" in "UPN" used to stand for. It had nothing to do with CBS, UPN was Paramount's TV station and Voyager was their flagship product in the same way that Discovery is the flagship for All Access.
And my memory was correct: it was ALWAYS paramount until Viacom -- which also owned CBS -- bought the rights, and then Viacom split up and gave the rights back to CBS. Fact of the matter is, Discovery is the FIRST AND ONLY Star Trek show that was actually be produced under CBS's exclusive ownership. Which might also explain why they're going for a reboot.
And they can still make a TV series too, provided Paramount Pictures decides to create a subsidiary of itself that handles broadcast television in the same medium (which is what Paramount Television used to be). CBS could probably sue them over the broadcast rights, and the lawsuit would be messy and expensive for BOTH sides, and there's no guarantee they would win. That, plus the fact that creating a whole new television film company from scratch would be like reinventing the wheel at this point, makes this extremely unlikely. So with a gentleman's agreement, the two studios have decided to (try to) give each other space. This hasn't always worked -- they seriously butted heads with the marketing for ST09 and it caused a lot of problems -- but drawing the neutral zone around "Prime Universe" has mostly kept the peace for the last ten or so years.
CBS obtained ownership of those elements, yes, by virtue of CBS and Paramount both being subsidiaries of Viacom at one point (which obtained the rights along with the purchase of their companies). Technically, paramount could be said to have sold the TV rights to CBS as part of the transfer of Paramount Television, but it's never been made 100% clear whether or not those rights were actually transferred from the parent studio along with/to the TV branch. Rather than fight it out to determine it one way or the other, they just kind of shook on it and agreed to keep out of each other's turf.
Oh, but they DO. The only meaningful difference between Batman and Star Trek in this regard is that Star Trek has never had a proper reboot. This is a difference they will continue to have until, one day, they suddenly don't.
Anything else you might have added to this conversation is invalid after this point.
Yes, and this continuity would be a NEW version of the prime universe. CBS gets to decide what that actually looks like, and WE get to decide what the fuck to call it from now on.
What CBS might do -- and, IMO, DID do -- is frame the reboot in such a way that they could literally recycle the fictional history of the Prime Universe directly into their new productions without having to take the time to reestablish that history themselves (unless they really want to, which they probably don't). So if, hypothetically, they wanted to include an episode where Discovery meets the Enterprise, they can do a modernized version of the Enterprise, a modernized Pike, a modernized Number One, and even directly reference the events of "The Cage" in dialog. All of this without having to be visually or even directly (story wise) consistent with the original filming of "The Cage," and they could even introduce a subtle difference (say, the Talosians being a race of hyper-intelligent crab creatures a la Rodenberry's original script) via flashback.
The reason we know we're watching the Prime Universe is because we know that most things will still happen pretty much the same way, even if they look and sound drastically different. The point of REBOOTING this universe is that it gives the producers creative freedom to approach these classic stories (if they so choose) in completely new and unexpected ways.
That depends on how they actually do it. If, after all, the only thing they change is the LOOK of everything, then we'd have the same basic continuity with "Discovery versions" of everything in the captions of all the pictures (anime continuities are famous for this; in Macross canon there are at least three different versions of SDF-1, depending on whether you're watching the movies or the TV series). It wouldn't even be a new timeline, it would be the SAME timeline with different mechanical designs. This would be a bit like the Baz Luhrmann adaptation of Romeo and Juliet: they took the entire story pretty much as is and didn't even change any of their lines... except that it was set in the late 20th century and the Capulets and Montegues were fighting with guns instead of swords.
Exactly. WE are the ones who come up with bullshit names for things in order to describe them in shorthand. The studios have their own agenda for all of this.
There's definitely a trick to it. I'm not convinced Discovery has figured out how to do this, but fortunately they haven't really been trying.
Yet.
The reason everything looks different is so they can merchandise it.
Everyone who was gonna get one probably has a classic Enterprise model. But now they're gonna have to get a new one for Discovery's inevitable version.
Same for uniforms, phaser, tricorders etc.
Even stuff like Earth or Vulcan looking unique, so they can have their versions plastered on calendars and the like.
Everyone who was gonna get one probably has a classic Enterprise model. But now they're gonna have to get a new one for Discovery's inevitable version.
Same for uniforms, phaser, tricorders etc.
Even stuff like Earth or Vulcan looking unique, so they can have their versions plastered on calendars and the like.
