I would love to see the implosion if Kurtzman were to come out and now say it really wasn't the Prime timeline.
The Intersection of Canon and the Prime Timeline
- Thread starter Jinn
- Start date
I would love to see the implosion if Kurtzman were to come out and now say it really wasn't the Prime timeline.
I disagree. As the owner of the IP, it is theirs to do with it as they please.
Witness Star Wars. When Disney bought LucasFilms, they threw out the extended universe, which pissed off a lot of fans. But as the owners of the IP, it was their prerogitive.
Because I get something different out of a TV show, it is lying to myself? Man, that is some serious 1984 shit going on there.
I would love to see the implosion if Kurtzman were to come out and now say it really wasn't the Prime timeline.
That would be funny, but I doubt it would happen since he’s only the show runner and not a member of the CBS executive team that thinks DSC is in the Prime universe.
That new Enterprise is as close as anything we could have gotten given studio attitudes etc, and a lot more akin to the 60's version than the Kelvin version.
And now that she's back in the Prime universe looking like that, people are angrier than in 2009.
Just...I...fuck it. I don't know.
And now that she's back in the Prime universe looking like that, people are angrier than in 2009.
Just...I...fuck it. I don't know.
How is that disagreeing with me? That’s exactly what I said.
Because Prime universe should actually mean something to people. What is the point of there even being a "Prime" universe if anything and everything can be changed on a whim to whatever is cool at the moment?
You can take away anything you want from the show. You can't determine the truth or lie of the creator's intent.
You can think what ever you like, but it doesn't make it true because you don't control the franchise.
In the abstract, it doesn't; that's absolutely true. It could be a reboot or an alternate universe or an adaptation. Except that the producers have said that it would be consistent with prior Trek, part of the same reality... and (as this discussion shows) statements like that obviously carry a lot of weight for a lot of people. Hence the tricky business, as noted upthread, of reconciling what they've said with what they've given us onscreen.
"Clearly"? I seem to recall an awful lot of discussion at the time about whether or not it would or could. There was ample room for legitimate debate, so apparently it wasn't all that "clear." (Certainly TrekLit has proceeded on the assumption that the ENT era can and does evolve into the TOS era.)
Oh, c'mon. Who owns the IP is a question of fact. It can be resolved beyond dispute. How one fictional construct fits into another fictional construct, on the other hand, isn't and can't be a question of fact; it's a matter of interpretation. There is no ultimate "truth" to be determined. No author (never mind owner!) gets to dictate how anyone interprets a work. "Death of the author" and all that, y'know?...
Enterprise did not take place within the same timeframe as TOS, so squinting makes lots of things possible. Don't ask me to defend Enterprise, but they clearly attempted to make the case that they would evolve into the 60s aesthetic with IAMD and their general design choices (overly detailed=ENT era --> slick/simple=TOS era because of tech advances). But that was kind of the point: they made it far enough away in time to let the squint effect let them do whatever they wanted. But again, with DSC I'm not talking about lore or aesthetics, I'm talking about storytelling functionality and tone.
And CBS can say tomorrow that the Abrams films are "Prime". Their right as the owner? Sure. It means everyone working on Trek has to abide by it. Me? I'm smarter than that. I let the actual product do the convincing.
Ford can tell me the Pinto is a great car all they want. Results show otherwise.
Sorry, I think I misread your post. I guess I do agree with this point
"Prime Universe" is a fan made term used to gatekeep other peoples involvement in the fandom based on the idea that fictional storytellling is a set-in-stone thing that cannot evolve beyond what they have emotionally projected onto.
Discovery holds little interest for me, and I don't agree with everything in it. But please, this is a studio owned IP that unlike us, can rejuvenate itself and move past the era it came from.
Actually no it isn't. The term was created by the franchise starting with ST'09. In fact the end credits call Prime Spock, uh 'Prime Spock'.
Unless there are uses of the term Prime Universe used before ST'09 I'm not aware of.
If it is just a fan made term with no importance, then CBS should've rebooted the franchise. Obviously, there is economic value to the term "Prime Universe".
Nah, it was in use long before then in fan circles to refer to the default universe in cases of multiverse episodes
Alright, so Paramount included the term once as a quick throwaway in the credits. It was embraced a little too much in forums like this to start creating very deep divides that have stagnated discussions for nearly a decade.
Prime, First, Blue, The 'up' one, whatever. It means next to nothing.
Yes they can. Once again, you're talking perception, I'm not. I'm talking about the owner being the arbiter. You can take it or change it in your mind to fit what you want. All I'm saying is that you can't determine the creator's intent.
IMO, yes. It would be pretty dumb, but yeah, they can do that.
Similar threads
- Poll
