Do fans want the prime timeline back?
- Thread starter Beyerstein
- Start date
Star Trek Into Darkness isn't very good, but Generations is the worst Trek film.
Personally, I'd want the prime timeline back. I don't think us being in an alternative version of 1960s Trek is a particularly fresh, interesting place for the franchise to be. 2 films are never going to replace the insane amount of proper Star Trek though, so it isn't a huge issue. If NuTrek was set in the true timeline, it wouldn't remove most of the problems. I'd take a science-fiction orientated tale in the Abramsverse over a popcorn flick set in the main universe.
Personally, I'd want the prime timeline back. I don't think us being in an alternative version of 1960s Trek is a particularly fresh, interesting place for the franchise to be. 2 films are never going to replace the insane amount of proper Star Trek though, so it isn't a huge issue. If NuTrek was set in the true timeline, it wouldn't remove most of the problems. I'd take a science-fiction orientated tale in the Abramsverse over a popcorn flick set in the main universe.
Four hours of NuTrek invalidating 21 seasons and 4 movies of the TNG/DS9/VOY era? Not anytime soon. But in another four, five years or so, it should be six hours.
But why does one have to invalidate the other?
That's the thing: people sometimes have the idea that a remake or reboot means rejecting an earlier version, but that's not necessarily the case. You don't have to stop watching or enjoying the old version to appreciate a different take on the subject matter. I still enjoy watching my old TOS DVDs even though I'm intrigued by the reboot.
But I'm not sure what would be gained by going back to the old continuity at this point? That cycle of Trek movies and episodes had a good, long run but it's over now. Time for something else.
I would like to return to the prime universe. I don't think it's going to happen, but in my mind I would like to to see them attempt a prime universe resurrection a few years after the last Abrams film. There's a lot of prime universe Trek fans still out there, fans who grew up with TOS not being their first taste of Trek. And there are a wealth of actors out there from TNG, DS9, and VOY that I wouldn't mind seeing again and I'm guessing others wouldn't either.
Though I can't see a new prime universe TV show picking up right after "What You Leave Behind" or "Endgame", I could perhaps see a jump to the 25th century and bringing in some of the 24th century characters for cameos and drawing on stuff like the Dominion War for story ideas, to set the background, etc.
Unfortunately the further time passes I think people move on. And the new films have reinforced the primacy of Kirk and the TOS crew in the popular imagination. It is likely we might get a spin off from these films as the basis for a new series. If that is the case, I still would love to see nods to the other Trek shows worked in somehow.
Though I can't see a new prime universe TV show picking up right after "What You Leave Behind" or "Endgame", I could perhaps see a jump to the 25th century and bringing in some of the 24th century characters for cameos and drawing on stuff like the Dominion War for story ideas, to set the background, etc.
Unfortunately the further time passes I think people move on. And the new films have reinforced the primacy of Kirk and the TOS crew in the popular imagination. It is likely we might get a spin off from these films as the basis for a new series. If that is the case, I still would love to see nods to the other Trek shows worked in somehow.
Of course I want a return to the original prime timeline. Not out of nostalgia, but because there is a lot of open ground there. Plenty of stories with so much history to work off of. There is no good reason to not work off of that. Tons of shows, books, movies have to build an entire history for the background of their stories. Trek needn't waste time on that. It already has a rich history.
I'll concede Trek lore became a bit convoluted with TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT running along together so closely. It quadrupled the background information in a short span. With (some) Trek fans being quite "passionate" about continuity, I understand that it's a literal mine field for writers to go through. But with websites like Memory Alpha, that "mine field" excuse just reeks of laziness.
If they really want to steer clear of the cluster nightmare of 90s Trek, they could simply fast forward like TNG did to TOS. Jump to the beginning or earlyish 25th century. That way, you'll be free of having to write all the fall out from the other shows, start "fresh", and go from there. While simultaneously sometimes injecting mentions of what happened since the other shows (like TNG did with TOS). And since it's a jump into the future, they can change the tech to be more "upgraded", change the nature of some species, change this, change that. Instead...now I have to rely on the really convoluted, nonsensical Star Trek Online for that. Yay...
Trek didn't die because we had too much Trek going on at once. Trek died because almost all of the Star Treks were derivatives (sometimes flat out thieves) of the others. TNG regurgitated some TOS episodes and resurrected the formulaic, episodic ship to alien world-solve problem-fly off into the sunset-idea. DS9 was unique (but ultimately hated). VOY was literally TNG-lite. ENT was TNG/VOY-ite. If Trek had actually been fresh and new, it might have survived.
Ironically, I see people saying that Abrams brought Trek back to life (true) with something new, exciting, and fresh (false). What exactly was new about either movie? The first one was Nemesis done in Kirk's era. The second one was Space Seed and WoK redone. I didn't get anything new at all. I'm not saying I hate the Abrams' Treks. They're mediocre, but fun action movies. But if that's the "future" of Trek. Well then damn.
For all those tl;dr... Yes, I want the prime timeline back (but with a lot of changes). No old formula.
I'll concede Trek lore became a bit convoluted with TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT running along together so closely. It quadrupled the background information in a short span. With (some) Trek fans being quite "passionate" about continuity, I understand that it's a literal mine field for writers to go through. But with websites like Memory Alpha, that "mine field" excuse just reeks of laziness.
If they really want to steer clear of the cluster nightmare of 90s Trek, they could simply fast forward like TNG did to TOS. Jump to the beginning or earlyish 25th century. That way, you'll be free of having to write all the fall out from the other shows, start "fresh", and go from there. While simultaneously sometimes injecting mentions of what happened since the other shows (like TNG did with TOS). And since it's a jump into the future, they can change the tech to be more "upgraded", change the nature of some species, change this, change that. Instead...now I have to rely on the really convoluted, nonsensical Star Trek Online for that. Yay...
Trek didn't die because we had too much Trek going on at once. Trek died because almost all of the Star Treks were derivatives (sometimes flat out thieves) of the others. TNG regurgitated some TOS episodes and resurrected the formulaic, episodic ship to alien world-solve problem-fly off into the sunset-idea. DS9 was unique (but ultimately hated). VOY was literally TNG-lite. ENT was TNG/VOY-ite. If Trek had actually been fresh and new, it might have survived.
Ironically, I see people saying that Abrams brought Trek back to life (true) with something new, exciting, and fresh (false). What exactly was new about either movie? The first one was Nemesis done in Kirk's era. The second one was Space Seed and WoK redone. I didn't get anything new at all. I'm not saying I hate the Abrams' Treks. They're mediocre, but fun action movies. But if that's the "future" of Trek. Well then damn.
For all those tl;dr... Yes, I want the prime timeline back (but with a lot of changes). No old formula.
I think this is part of the problem. So much of the world-building has been done. It's one of my biggest problems with many of the novels, they are constantly going over material that I already know so it feels like they're being bogged down.
I'm really of the opinion that a movie every three or four years is a great way to revisit old friends. If the resources are available for outer space sci-fi, I'd rather there be a brand-new series set in a completely new universe with its own rules and characters and bad guys then regurgitating Trek again.
You make a fair point. I completely understand that people are getting tired of Klingons, Romulans, Borg, etc. It's been done ad nauseum. But the universe is so big. One thing I don't like about Trek is that the universe feels so small. There is still a lot to explore if they wanted to push off from old Trek material.
I'd love for a really deep space, wagon train to the stars idea. Something really far from Earth. Give it a very isolated in space feel to it. Eventually that was lost with the UFP being so damn expansive.
I think the problem inherent with the isolated in space idea is that you eventually wind up with VOY (and perhaps ENT) again in which it's the only ship out there encountering aliens of the week. Not even TOS did that because it had the sense to keep the Enterprise far enough away where it could encounter new worlds and aliens, yet not too far enough away where it couldn't periodically return to Federation space for some stories set there and with returning bad guys. Such "home-based" stories gave variety and enabled viewers to explore the society our heroes came from.
Last edited:
When the Abramsverse has been around for 40+ years, THEN tell me it's "the most successful" one.
Movie receipts =/= "most successful".
This is why I loathe reboots. The best recent example I can think of for TV shows is nuBSG. I really did try to watch it. But less than halfway through the very first episode, I turned the TV off in sheer disgust. And I did watch the first Abrams nuTrek movie... and hated it. This isn't real Star Trek. It's some drivel that stole bits of Star Trek and calls itself Star Trek, but it's just an unimaginative rip-off by a lazy filmmaker with $$$$ signs in his eyes and zero respect for the fans.
To anyone in this thread who has read the novel Federation: The ending of that book would be the perfect jumping off point for a new series or movie. It's far enough in the future to not be hampered by the convoluted, committee-written stuff of the spinoff series, it could go in literally any direction at all, and instead of a "we have an enemy we need to kill" feel to it, there is a feeling of hope and optimism that's been missing from Star Trek for a very long time.
Well I saw that article as well, but I don't know about that. It's hardly a scientific study.
The question posed though, do I want the original timeline back? Yes. And I want a TV series. Will I get it? Likely not. Do I mind if they make this movie franchise concurrently? Not really.
I agree with your ascertain, and this most recent film I can dissect pretty easily and say it was horrible, but at the end of the day, it was just an action film with a star trek brand thrown on. Having watched all of the films recently though after seeing Into Darkness for nostalgic reasons, I can tell you that viewing this solely as a film (and not as "that's not my star trek!"), it's much better than a lot of the prior ones.
Oh god yes I want the Prime timeline back!
Another fair point. But this is one of those cases that you can't please everyone. On the one hand, you have fans who are tired of the old alien races, worlds and wants something new. On the hand, you have fans that want that sense of the familiar.
And you're definitely right that my idea is at risk of turning to VOY part 2. Which I wouldn't want. But my idea wouldn't be a ship exploring the unknown. Like I said about a wagon train to the stars is maybe something of a bigger scope. I'm not saying copy, but something like how BSG was done. A Starfleet vessel leading civilians (not under the same circumstances) to building a new colony world. It'd allow for multiple view points from SF to civilian life.
I personally agree with those who said the old formula of random ship running into random aliens just cannot be done anymore. Especially not in this era of television. Most shows now have arcs that span the entire show. Like Game of Thrones or Lost or Heroes or (insert any other modern show here).
But I just kind of want to recapture the idea that space is strange, vast, and very alien. VOY didn't really do that. The Delta Quadrant looked exactly like the Alpha Quadrant.
I do disagree that those "home-based" episodes ever let us see what the society our heroes come was like. There are more question marks than answers on life on Earth. But I understand what you mean.
I haven't read it, but sounds really interesting! Shame such a plot happens at the end of the book. But you're right. Sounds like a really good idea for a plot.
And my sentiments exactly. For the writers who don't want to deal with all the stuff from TNG/DS9/VOY - just jump forward and clear out the deck. But the whole idea of erasing it all and "starting fresh" is pretty much dumping the baby out with the bath water. It was laziness. And it's not particularly clever or fresh to regurgitate the old movies while simultaneously saying that you've found a great new way of resurrecting Trek.
Someone else already said it in this thread, but I am curious about Abramsverse. Will it continue past movie three? If it doesn't... who picks up the pieces of what is left of Trek to move forward?
Well, I disagree with that. That's essentially what Star Trek is. The key to not making it into a predictable formula is not to rely solely on that. If you look at TOS and TNG, they were able to tell a variety of different stories within the scope of their basic premises.
I have to disagree with this too. The popularity of procedural shows really proves that stories that can be told in just one episode are still...well, popular. But as subsequent shows after TOS did, they had a mix of standalone and multi-episode stories to varying degrees--as well as a connection or overreaching background story between the first and last episodes--and I think that's the format any new Trek series should continue.
I don't think that was lost, truth be told. If anything, it was taken to extremes in VOY.
It didn't to me. There was nothing really familiar--much less like the Alpha Quadrant--in the Delta Quadrant other than the Borg threatening to assimilate people and entire worlds. Sometimes VOY had to invent excuses (usually via a holodeck) to bring more Alpha Quadrant aspects into it.
Sure, they did. They enabled us to see other Starfleet ships and outposts, Federation worlds and colonies.
You probably didn't, because I wasn't talking about stories about life on Earth, but just stories other than exploring or meeting new aliens. TOS and TNG frequently did this.
Last edited:
What I want back is the good storytelling that epitomized the best episodes of The Original Series, the peak of the DS9 story arc, and the even-numbered movies prior to JJA.
I think even the deepest Trek fans will agree that no segment of the franchise was ever consistently good in the storytelling department. Some of the silliest Trek stories ever told were in the Original Series, and some of the worst were in Voyager. But "Balance of Terror" was one of the greatest hours ever produced for television, and I would be quite satisfied if the quality level of JJA's stories rose even as high as the bar set by "Year of Hell."
We all love Star Trek when it rises to the level of excellence. And yet we know it's never consistently attained that level.
The problem with today's Trek, I sincerely believe, is that it isn't even really trying any more. It's simply decided, here's another "superhero franchise" where we assemble the familiar cast of multi-colored shirts, the usual list of villains (whether it's Khan or Mr. Mxyzptlk doesn't really matter much), and we make spaceships go foom and boom. So when folks say they want "the Prime Universe" back, I believe they're really crying out for the days when at least somebody tried to tell a quality story.
And when someone argues that such practices are dead and that a franchise can't tell a good story anymore, a bunch of nearly-broke producers in Britain assemble a truly terrific storyline around a guy without a name who travels space in a blue box.
So to address BillJ's comment:
I'd have to agree that any well-told sci-fi story with believable, likable, challenging characters would be better than what Trek is producing today. There's a fair argument for the fact that all the Trek stories ever told by so many thousands of writers over the last half-century, tend to blend together into a murky, brown monotony, such that when anyone tries to follow continuity to the extent that they can (which is, frankly, impossible), the best she can do is no better than the average episode of "Enterprise."
My counter-argument to that is this: Star Trek has always been the closest thing to "open source fiction" there could ever be. It's the collective product of the contributed wealth of thousands of writers. So if a writer cannot build a good story based on some part of that wealth, then it's extremely unlikely he could tell a better story with elements entirely of his own invention.
DF "Counting the Days to the Next Reboot When Uhura's the One Screaming, 'KHAAANNN!'" Scott
I think even the deepest Trek fans will agree that no segment of the franchise was ever consistently good in the storytelling department. Some of the silliest Trek stories ever told were in the Original Series, and some of the worst were in Voyager. But "Balance of Terror" was one of the greatest hours ever produced for television, and I would be quite satisfied if the quality level of JJA's stories rose even as high as the bar set by "Year of Hell."
We all love Star Trek when it rises to the level of excellence. And yet we know it's never consistently attained that level.
The problem with today's Trek, I sincerely believe, is that it isn't even really trying any more. It's simply decided, here's another "superhero franchise" where we assemble the familiar cast of multi-colored shirts, the usual list of villains (whether it's Khan or Mr. Mxyzptlk doesn't really matter much), and we make spaceships go foom and boom. So when folks say they want "the Prime Universe" back, I believe they're really crying out for the days when at least somebody tried to tell a quality story.
And when someone argues that such practices are dead and that a franchise can't tell a good story anymore, a bunch of nearly-broke producers in Britain assemble a truly terrific storyline around a guy without a name who travels space in a blue box.
So to address BillJ's comment:
I'd have to agree that any well-told sci-fi story with believable, likable, challenging characters would be better than what Trek is producing today. There's a fair argument for the fact that all the Trek stories ever told by so many thousands of writers over the last half-century, tend to blend together into a murky, brown monotony, such that when anyone tries to follow continuity to the extent that they can (which is, frankly, impossible), the best she can do is no better than the average episode of "Enterprise."
My counter-argument to that is this: Star Trek has always been the closest thing to "open source fiction" there could ever be. It's the collective product of the contributed wealth of thousands of writers. So if a writer cannot build a good story based on some part of that wealth, then it's extremely unlikely he could tell a better story with elements entirely of his own invention.
DF "Counting the Days to the Next Reboot When Uhura's the One Screaming, 'KHAAANNN!'" Scott
Gotta disagree there. To my mind, nuBSG is practically the poster child for how reboots can sometimes be even better than the previous versions.
Then again, I confess I never liked the original BSG . . ..
nuBSG did a bad job at trying to be the original BSG. It did a fantastic job of being an awesome tv show worth watching. Absolutely the poster child for how a reboot can take a used concept and rework it in a way that is different and interesting. It's not a copy of the original, nor does it invalidate what the original was in anyway. Just a new take.
And I gotta say, I don't think you can claim to "really did try" to watch the nuBSG when all you put in was one half of one episode of a show that ran for 4 seasons.
Batman & Robin (may it rest in peace) was a reboot of the Adam West style of Batman. They tried to reboot Hulk (it wasn't the bomb, it was his DAD1?1) but they discarded that idea to reboot the tv show Incredible Hulk, and Star Wars, not just 1-3 which doesn't really count as a reboot but all the old republic books and games, isn't going to stop 7, 8, and 9 from being made.
And that argument that Nemesis killed prime trek is weak. All of the TOS movies weren't blockbusters but TNG was still made.
I liked the original BSG.
I also liked nuBSG. Both were awesome shows for different reasons.
What happened in Vegas should have stayed there, lets settle this the Trek BBS way.
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=222814
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=222814
Similar threads
