I am on my knees begging all of you...
- Thread starter T'Baio
- Start date
Meh. In a while when people say "Star Trek" they'll mean the movie more often than they mean the franchise or TOS much like how now when people simply say "Battlestar Galatica" they're not referencing the series from the 70's.
The Original Series already has a distinguishing term. Everybody refers to it that way, they have since 1987. Your example is deliberately obtuse.
That is a nonsense example. The phaser effects have been different every series and every movie, so you'd use an abbreviation anyway.
"Personally, I prefer the way TMP does it to..."
or
"Star Trek does it to how it's done in TNG"
Every movie and series has an abbreviation. Star Trek does not need one. When a new movie is made, or a new series, then we can begin making up a new abbreviation for that one.
I'm partial to "frell".I like the appellation and will continue to use it. It works for BSG, it works for Dr. Who, it works for Trek. Don't like it? Don't care.
Now "frak", on the other hand...
But it doesn't work for Dr. Who, and it doesn't work for Battlestar Galactica. The only ones who still call it nuWho and nuBsg are the ones who frantically hold on to the old series. Nobody does that anymore. Why would Star Trek be any different?
I personally don't have a problem with it. If some intend it as an insult, using it freely just throws it back at them (there's a long and proud history of this.) But I suspect that it will fade in time, as the bitter dead-enders realize the past is not coming back. This is pretty much what I've seen with BSG.
Setting aside the hatred, though: For purposes of online references (wikis and such) there really should be some designation like "Timeline Prime, Timeline 2" or whatever, to differentiate people, places, and objects with two divergent histories.
Setting aside the hatred, though: For purposes of online references (wikis and such) there really should be some designation like "Timeline Prime, Timeline 2" or whatever, to differentiate people, places, and objects with two divergent histories.
I'm in the minority on this but I've been taking a cue from the end credits and just using the term "Prime" to refer to anything taking place in the "original" universe. I don't know if that's annoying or not, but it's helped a bit when getting into the whole "ZOMG the original timeline has been ERASED!" discussions.
So nu?
Seriously, it's really not pretentious or self-important or aggrandizing (I mean, what's being pretended or promoted by it?) - it's just a little lazy, I suppose, but then so am I. nuTrek is shorter than "pertaining to the version of Star Trek seen in the new J.J. Abrams film."
For your sake perhaps I'll switch to JJTrek, which I'm sure will annoy no one. That's as much extra effort as my lazy ass will make.
Yes we will accept two European swallows carrying a coconut on a line.
Yes we will accept two European swallows carrying a coconut on a line.
But what's the maximum warp speed of an unladened swallow?
Rii
Rear Admiral
I'm partial to "frell".I like the appellation and will continue to use it. It works for BSG, it works for Dr. Who, it works for Trek. Don't like it? Don't care.
Now "frak", on the other hand...
But it doesn't work for Dr. Who, and it doesn't work for Battlestar Galactica. The only ones who still call it nuWho and nuBsg are the ones who frantically hold on to the old series. Nobody does that anymore. Why would Star Trek be any different?
I haven't seen much of Dr. Who in any form, but I'm aware that there have been many incarnations of the character portrayed by different actors, "nuWho" to me merely suggests the most recent incarnation, no prejudice against the series implied. Perhaps there's some history there that I'm not aware of. I'm a fan of nBSG with no interest in the old series, but I see no harm in acknowledging that it exists. In contexts where the show I'm referring to is unclear it seems more appropriate to tag nBSG as such than to label the old series "oBSG" or something similar.
I don't call it "nuTrek."
At worst, I refer to the new timeline as the "Abramsverse."
At worst, I refer to the new timeline as the "Abramsverse."
I like that. Original Trek (TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, movies) Trek Prime.
"Current" Trek (ENT, 2009), generic Trek.
What was wrong with STXI?
I really hate it too. It is so irritating! I don't mind calling it "new Trek" or "new BSG" or whatever, it's the shortening to "nu" that I can't stand. I agree with the OP, it is hard to pin down exactly what is so infuriating about it, but whenever I see it I get really annoyed.
I'm partial to "frell".I like the appellation and will continue to use it. It works for BSG, it works for Dr. Who, it works for Trek. Don't like it? Don't care.
Now "frak", on the other hand...
But it doesn't work for Dr. Who, and it doesn't work for Battlestar Galactica. The only ones who still call it nuWho and nuBsg are the ones who frantically hold on to the old series. Nobody does that anymore. Why would Star Trek be any different?
I think "frell" works great with Dr. Who. For example:
"Frell Dr. Who, even with a budget it still comes across as campy!"
See, that worked fine!
And to help the OP out I shall not refer to the new movie as nuTrek. I shall instead reference the original universe as "olTrek". And that should leave us with no nu problems at all.
Similar threads
