Totally agree. I think when people think "new Prime universe TV show" they think "new show that's just like '90s Trek" and there's no way that would happen.
Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
- Status
Totally agree. I think when people think "new Prime universe TV show" they think "new show that's just like '90s Trek" and there's no way that would happen.
I totally disagree. When I think of Prime Trek, I think of TOS and it's movies too, and when I think of a new Prime universe series, I think of new writers, large shifts from the norm, and a 25th century setting. Maybe there's a sprinkle of TOS, TNG, DS9, and Voyager referencing but it will be it's own thing, not another Berman Trek.
I certainly hope so! And I hope we get the opportunity to find out, eventually.
As much as I enjoy the Prime universe it's time to move on, because times change and they could never do it justice, in a way to me voyager stared to tarnish some of Trek higher moral values.
And when you watch the movies you know it's so different now, it's Action Trek. I've turned the page and hope they don't try to go back, but just keep doing their own thing. To me it's Trek 2.0.
And when you watch the movies you know it's so different now, it's Action Trek. I've turned the page and hope they don't try to go back, but just keep doing their own thing. To me it's Trek 2.0.
I came across this website about Bryan Singer's Star Trek: Federation story he worked on. Thought I'd add it here because Singer is in the current spotlight with X-Men: DoFP and his prestige and wants may give him Paramount's attention.
Nor should we be treating Star Trek as a religion with a Bible whose rules have to be obeyed no matter what.
Considering that Abrams is now directing the new Star Wars movie in London, and will probably get it done by the end of this year in time to direct the next Star Trek film, I doubt that they'll even consider Singer to do it, although nothing's out of the realm of possibility.
Last edited:
I'd love a prime universe series. I'm sure it would work very well !!!
Singer certainly seems to be on the comeback trail, it will be interesting to see how DOFP turns out.
They never had to leave it, in my opinion. If they'd just had the balls to say, "we're rebooting STAR TREK. We know this decision won't be popular with a certain percentage of TREKKIES, but the rest of us are going to appreciate the changes.," then all of this "other/alternative universe" stuff wouldn't even have to be there. It's not even offering anything new, anyway. I mean ... the laws of physics are the same STAR TREK has used all along. It's not too late, you know, for them to a proper, "hard" reboot ...
Not only is it not too late, it's going to happen.
Honestly, I don't think it would've made a difference. Hard or soft, any reboot was bound to be controversial. Even if they'd dispensed with the time-travel gimmick and simply rebooted the darn thing like any other series, we'd still be having the same arguments and a certain percentage of fandom would still be demanding the "real" Star Trek back and pining for the old "canon" and "continuity."
Last edited:
True, but at least we may have been spared the endless geeky threads about alternatve timelines.
This is the TrekBBS. Regardless of a hard or soft reboot, they'll be threads about alternative timelines.
Oh, I stopped reading those years ago!
It's like arguing over how many Organians can dance on the head of a pin!
Personally I'd want Trek to continue in the Prime Universe, there are many more stories there to tell--so long as the proper people were in place to help tell them.
But if given the option (reboot or alternate), I would've asked for a hard roboot of the franchise, rather than the wishy-washy twaddle of an 'alternate timeline'. At least it would've been more entertaining than Teen-TOS and TWOK2. I live in hope that NuTrek 3 will redeem them, but I'm not holding my breath.
Because of the episodic nature of so much - but not all - of STAR TREK, before I really understood fandom, or anything, I always just assumed everybody else figured the show's facts were pretty fluid, anyway. I don't believe I ever really got out of that frame of mind, to start with, I mean ...
For example, Spock in "Menagerie" Versus Spock in "Where No Man Has Gone Before," or even "Naked Now." Then there's "Vulcania" verses "Vulcan." Vulcan has no Moon, then TMP shows it has moons, plural ... And all down the line, these odd "growing pains" and arbitrary alterations that are just presented without a word of explaination or apology. How could anyone expect, much less demand, that the show be so literal?
Having said that, there are certain things I like that I don't want messed around with, but if they do ... I understand it's not always going to work in my favour. Unfortunately, though, the Marketing and Advertising Division of Paramount DID push STAR TREK '09 as being something totally fresh and unexpected, when, in fact, it was a little TOO close to home, for my tastes. I wanted something daringly different and instead, the only thing I got was that everything's prettier ... shinier ...
For example, Spock in "Menagerie" Versus Spock in "Where No Man Has Gone Before," or even "Naked Now." Then there's "Vulcania" verses "Vulcan." Vulcan has no Moon, then TMP shows it has moons, plural ... And all down the line, these odd "growing pains" and arbitrary alterations that are just presented without a word of explaination or apology. How could anyone expect, much less demand, that the show be so literal?
Having said that, there are certain things I like that I don't want messed around with, but if they do ... I understand it's not always going to work in my favour. Unfortunately, though, the Marketing and Advertising Division of Paramount DID push STAR TREK '09 as being something totally fresh and unexpected, when, in fact, it was a little TOO close to home, for my tastes. I wanted something daringly different and instead, the only thing I got was that everything's prettier ... shinier ...
Oh, I stopped reading those years ago!
It's like arguing over how many Organians can dance on the head of a pin!
All of them. That's why they shed their corporeal forms.
Vulcan still has no moon or moons. You saw Vulkan's sister planet and its moon
If new Star Trek show must be daringly different, how are you going to recognize it as a Star Trek (except label)?
Yes, continuity is a heavy thing, but it makes (or could make) Star Trek recognizable.
I started to watch DS9 after TNG and the pilot was interesting to me because of Picard and O'Brein. I continued to watch DS9 because of interesting plot, but start was given by familiar TNG-crew.
I can understand why it's necessary to reject continuity (not easy to support), but I can't understand people, who sincerely want this rejection.
Dr. Evil: "Rrrrrriiiiiiight..."
- Status
Similar threads
