Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

[Ryan8bit]

Terminator is a pretty good example. The Sarah Connor Chronicles basically ignored T3 and rebooted off of T2. Terminator: Salvation then went back to T3.

But it doesn't really matter if it's been done before or not. All that matters is if something is viable. And personally, I don't think there's much difference between the old universe, the Abrams universe, and just doing a new reboot altogether. As long as they tell good stories with good characters, people will watch.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In the case of Stargate, the cartoon spinoff got erased from continuity, so that could partially qualify.

You have:

1. Movie
2. SG-1
3. SGI
4. SGA
5. SGU

The animated spinoff SGI is not a part of SG canon, but it aired between SG-1 and SGA. One could argue that had SGI been more successful, it would not have been disowned like that, and possibly SGA and SGU never would have come to pass (instead we might have had something else). Of course, SGI is a cartoon, and doesn't have essential characteristics of a reboot. However, to everything that aired after SGI, SGI never happened.

 

[JarodRussell]

As long as they tell good stories with good characters, people will watch.

And because of that, it would not hurt them the tiniest bit to make it part of the Prime universe.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Just look and see what we had. We had this universe created in TNG, DS9 and VOY with hundreds of exciting races and enormous possibilities to come up with good stories about all this. And what do the fools do? They regress back to pre-TOS, followed by a lousy remake of the same series. It's like if the whole music industry should abandon the technology of today and go back to 78 rpm records and technology from the 30's.

No it's not. "How did the Federation come about?" is a question fans have been asking since TOS. How do you tell that story? A prequel. The execution was hit-and-miss (miss in seasons one and two, BIG hit in three and four IMO), but the concept of a prequel is a sound one.

And how else do you tell new stories with a young Kirk and Spock, without having to worry about fans going, "We know they'll make it because Kirk doesn't die until in Generations"? You reboot it so those prior destinies are irrelevant. We now have that same universe with hundreds of races, but where anything can happen.

It was not "adament stubborn entitlement" which (temporarily) killed the primeverse (the real Star Trek) but greed and stupidity.

Fans said the exact same thing with reference to TOS when Next Generation came along

 

[F. King Daniel]

In the case of Stargate, the cartoon spinoff got erased from continuity, so that could partially qualify.

You have:

1. Movie
2. SG-1
3. SGI
4. SGA
5. SGU

The animated spinoff SGI is not a part of SG canon, but it aired between SG-1 and SGA. One could argue that had SGI been more successful, it would not have been disowned like that, and possibly SGA and SGU never would have come to pass (instead we might have had something else). Of course, SGI is a cartoon, and doesn't have essential characteristics of a reboot. However, to everything that aired after SGI, SGI never happened.

IIRC, SGI was made by different people to the live-action series'.

Although he's now talking about a fresh reboot (owing to the age of Kurt Russel and James Spader), Roland Emmerich talked a bit a few years ago about making 2 sequels to the original Stargate movie, which would have ignored all the TV spin-off series. Although not a true reboot, Stargate SG-1 did make several big changes to the original movie's backstory and going back to the original premise would qualify, I think.

 

[Hober Mallow]

As long as they tell good stories with good characters, people will watch.

And because of that, it would not hurt them the tiniest bit to make it part of the Prime universe.

But, again, what's the "Prime Universe?" The original TV series upon which all the derivative shows are based? Or are you including the derivative spinoffs as well? In that case, you're talking about a universe created and maintained for the spinoffs, not for the original. That would be like insisting that all future Sherlock Holmes productions be based on the derivative films featuring Basil Rathbone and not purely the original Conan Doyle stories.

There's nothing "prime" about the Trek spinoffs. No matter how good (or bad) they are, they are derivative works. As are, for that matter, the TOS feature films. They are no more valid or "prime" than any derivative of Star Trek, including the Abrams films. In fact, though I don't actually like the Abrams films, I consider them more "prime" than Voyager or Enterprise, because, featuring Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise, they're closer to the original material.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Whatever they do, there will inevitably be continuity errors, leading to fans posting threads like this and insisting that the new Prime-verse series is really set in an alternate universe despite the producers intentions...

(I should point out that we're at the point there it's impossible for a new show to remain 100% consistent with TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, since they all contradict each other on so much)

 

[Hober Mallow]

Whatever they do, there will inevitably be continuity errors, leading to fans posting threads like this and insisting that the new Prime-verse series is really set in an alternate universe despite the producers intentions...

That's another good reason for a reboot: to save us from annoying threads like those.

 

[Ryan8bit]

But, again, what's the "Prime Universe?" The original TV series upon which all the derivative shows are based? Or are you including the derivative spinoffs as well? In that case, you're talking about a universe created and maintained for the spinoffs, not for the original. That would be like insisting that all future Sherlock Holmes productions be based on the derivative films featuring Basil Rathbone and not purely the original Conan Doyle stories.

There's nothing "prime" about the Trek spinoffs. No matter how good (or bad) they are, they are derivative works. As are, for that matter, the TOS feature films. They are no more valid or "prime" than any derivative of Star Trek, including the Abrams films. In fact, though I don't actually like the Abrams films, I consider them more "prime" than Voyager or Enterprise, because, featuring Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise, they're closer to the original material.

"Prime" has been defined so many times that it shouldn't really need to be restated. In the credits of the new movies, Leonard Nimoy was credited as Spock Prime. This refers to the reality that he comes from, one that we assume to be of one continuity despite all of the errors and broad strokes that it was painted in. With Abrams' movies, it's deliberately a new continuity, although somewhat tethered to the old.

That's really all it is. And none of that has anything to do with how derivative anything is. Everything about Star Trek, even TOS, is derivative in some fashion, and there isn't some spectrum of derivation, especially focused on which characters are and aren't used. The "Prime" designation has no bearing on quality.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm not sure how a film that has been rebooted (from Christopher Reeve's Superman to the animated Superman: Brainiac Attacks where Jonathan Kent lives) and then returned to a previous continuity (Superman Returns returning to Christopher Reeve's Superman) doesn't count.

I'm pretty sure that most folks see animation and live-action as two distinct animals.

Exactly.

 

[BillJ]

Whomever ends up in charge of televised Trek will end up being the one who makes the decision one way or the other of continuing the old timeline, the Abramverse timeline or wiping the slate clean and starting over.

For a creator, I would think a clean slate would be the most attractive way to go. You can pick and choose the elements you want to use, disregard the rest and not worry about conflict with prior works.

 

[bbjeg]

I'm not sure how a film that has been rebooted (from Christopher Reeve's Superman to the animated Superman: Brainiac Attacks where Jonathan Kent lives) and then returned to a previous continuity (Superman Returns returning to Christopher Reeve's Superman) doesn't count.

I'm pretty sure that most folks see animation and live-action as two distinct animals.

Exactly.

I thought I remembered a live action Lois and Clark movie and while Googling for it I came across the Trekbbs post below that supports my point. It so happens to have you on the other side of the argument:

I honestly can't think of a single movie or tv franchise that reverted back to a previous continuity after being rebooted.

"Superman Returns" ignored "Superman III", "Supergirl" and "Superman IV: The Quest for Peace" and was a sequel to "Superman II".

The rest of Reeve's movies were ignored and they did go back to a previous continuity.

 

[Greg Cox]

The rest of Reeve's movies were ignored and they did go back to a previous continuity.

More like they ignored parts of the same continuity. Not quite the same thing.

 

[F. King Daniel]

How exactly were Superman III and IV ignored? They're not referenced, but AFAIK, there's nothing to directly refute them having "happened" in the Superman Returns timeline, prior to Supes' packing for Krypton. I see more of a "that never happened" vibe in STVI, after Kirk's friendly drinking with Klingons at the end of STV.

 

[bbjeg]

I'm sure if Superman Returns was a hit, IMHO the would be trilogy wouldn't have a Richard Pryor-esk character, nor will it ever reference the remaining movies. What's the point of starting a movie in the middle of a set of movies if you planned to keep the rest of them anyway?

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

The writers of the Highlander franchise of movies and TV shows laugh derisively at this thread

 

[JarodRussell]

As long as they tell good stories with good characters, people will watch.

And because of that, it would not hurt them the tiniest bit to make it part of the Prime universe.

But, again, what's the "Prime Universe?" The original TV series upon which all the derivative shows are based? Or are you including the derivative spinoffs as well? In that case, you're talking about a universe created and maintained for the spinoffs, not for the original. That would be like insisting that all future Sherlock Holmes productions be based on the derivative films featuring Basil Rathbone and not purely the original Conan Doyle stories.

There's nothing "prime" about the Trek spinoffs. No matter how good (or bad) they are, they are derivative works. As are, for that matter, the TOS feature films. They are no more valid or "prime" than any derivative of Star Trek, including the Abrams films. In fact, though I don't actually like the Abrams films, I consider them more "prime" than Voyager or Enterprise, because, featuring Kirk and Spock and the Enterprise, they're closer to the original material.

TOS, TOS movies, TNG, VOY and DS9 are all in the same continuity. Picard, Sisko and Janeway met Shatner-Kirk, Nimoy-Spock, Kelley-McCoy, Takei-Sulu and Doohan-Scotty. Picard, Sisko and Janeway met each other. Kang, Kor and Koloth show up in DS9. The Enterprise-D visited the TOS Spacedock and met Excelsior class vessels, etc... Visual continuity, character continuity, story contuinity, all of that makes TOS to VOY the Prime Universe.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It was not "adament stubborn entitlement" which (temporarily) killed the primeverse (the real Star Trek) but greed and stupidity.

Fans said the exact same thing with reference to TOS when Next Generation came along

Ah, yes, the "not real Star Trek" fallacy. The cousin of the "no true Trekker" fallacy. Scotty would not approve. As much as I hate to admit it, Scotty whacking his head in STV is real Star Trek.

IIRC, SGI was made by different people to the live-action series'.

Fine. I'm not a Stargate expert. The existence of SGI as the "red-headed stepchild" of the SG franchise just occurred to me, so I thought I'd throw that out there, for what it's worth.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

IIRC, SGI was made by different people to the live-action series'.

Fine. I'm not a Stargate expert. The existence of SGI as the "red-headed stepchild" of the SG franchise just occurred to me, so I thought I'd throw that out there, for what it's worth.

Its also probably a bad example because SGI takes places a while after SG-1, SGA, and SGU so really its kind of hard to say they completely ignored it since its further along in the timeline.

I'm pretty sure that most folks see animation and live-action as two distinct animals.

Exactly.

Probably because they are two distinct animals as differently people work on them, while there is overlap their target audiences are different, and they don't really have anything to do with each other for the most part.

In other words there was no vast Superman continuity that the cartoons came along and rebooted there were just separate media adaptations that were doing their own thing.

I thought I remembered a live action Lois and Clark movie and while Googling for it I came across a Trekbbs thread that supports my point. It so happens to have you on the other side of the argument:

And this has what to do with anything?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Its also probably a bad example because SGI takes places a while after SG-1, SGA, and SGU so really its kind of hard to say they completely ignored it since its further along in the timeline.

True.