Huh? We never left.
Am I missing a joke here?
Probably some complaint about changing the status quo and moving the universe forward instead of keeping it in perpetual stasis.
Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
- Status
Probably some complaint about changing the status quo and moving the universe forward instead of keeping it in perpetual stasis.
I want to prime reality back. I miss the world of Star Trek post-Nemesis.
Really the novel-verse created it's own timeline/universe some time ago.
Yes, that's non-prime universe I was referring to. If you like the completely new ships and the completely new crews great, but I would want stories about the ships and crews seen on the show.
Simple in my opinion,Star Trek Voyager and Enterprise presented us with the Starfleet temporal police,which main job is to correct any temporal incursion,so where were they in the story when ST2009 was made,they should have stopped Nero before he attacked the USS Kelvin,JJ Abrams can't say he was not aware of that in Star Trek.
Where were they when Janeway decided to rewrite sixteen years of history in "Endgame"?
They stopped the shit off screen. Destiny trilogy would give them even more motivation to do so. Timetravelling Janeway is directly responsible for the death of BILLIONS.
I personally am glad that the novels are not canon.
Really the novel-verse created it's own timeline/universe some time ago.
Yes, that's non-prime universe I was referring to. If you like the completely new ships and the completely new crews great, but I would want stories about the ships and crews seen on the show.
I agree. While I have no problem with what the various series are currently doing, except for TOS and ENTERPRISE, The former actually doing books set within the series, and the latter showing us an interesting look at the Federation's early days, effectively eliminating the need for another "Lost Era" type of series (at least for now), I do wish that the 24th century series would cut back on the "present" a little and give us more of a balance, a return to the seven year show periods every now and then. Doesn't have to be alot. twice a year each would be nice.
Or even once a year would be nice.
I voted I don't care, just gimme Trek.
But not because I don't care. It's the second half that does it. I don't care about the century, about which timeline, about what crew, about what universe.....
I care about good characters, good plot, well writen dialogue. I care about the spirit of Star Trek.
But not because I don't care. It's the second half that does it. I don't care about the century, about which timeline, about what crew, about what universe.....
I care about good characters, good plot, well writen dialogue. I care about the spirit of Star Trek.
Exactly. Star Trek is more than a just a heap of continuity and "canon." Telling a good story is what really matters.
And continuity is not essential for a good story?
You want continuity within one episode, you usually want continuity within a season, you also want continuity between multiple seasons, and some want continuity within a franchise.
Han Solo was frozen in carbonite at the end of Empire Strikes Back. What if they just ignored that for Return of the Jedi, and he was back without any explanation whatsoever. Just because there could have been a better story without the Tatooine segment.
If they could tell a better story then I say 'go for it'. Because I want the best story possible.
Because Greg has no clue about continuity and needs you to explain why it can be a good thing.
You can't let continuity take over and turn the series or franchise into a string of continuity references.
Continuity is a virtue, but it's not the only virtue--especially when you're dealing with multiple versions of a series over a period of decades. There's a sliding scale here. Of course, you don't want to contradict last week's episode. But expecting a movie in 2014 to hew strictly to something established in an old episode from 1967? Maybe not.
It's judgment call, and "continuity" doesn't automatically trump every other concern, particularly over the course of nearly fifty years. The occasional reboot keeps things fresh and accessible--and allows you to clear out some of the old baggage.
It's judgment call, and "continuity" doesn't automatically trump every other concern, particularly over the course of nearly fifty years. The occasional reboot keeps things fresh and accessible--and allows you to clear out some of the old baggage.
I'm still not seeing how nuTrek isn't part of the existing continuity? It's not a true reboot. They didn't ignore what came before. They acknowledged it with Spock (a.k.a. "Spock Prime") and put the new stories in an alternate timeline. Same universe, different timeline. One could do a diagram of timelines in the Trek universe and add the new movies to the same diagram. They wouldn't have to put the new movies on a separate diagram. By the way, I wouldn't want to see this diagram because it would make my head explode.
Star Trek is essentially one big story. You are right about it being the same universe (literally and metaphorically). The Abramsverse is the same universe but just an alternate timeline within that universe. The thing that people want to see is what is happening in the prime universe. The timeline that Spock Prime came from is the Star Trek we all know and love and grew up with. Others, including myself, would just like to see the prime universe after the actions seen in Nemesis.
So, it's not like what happens after the actions of Nero doesn't exsist. I believe it is reality for everyone else. Star Trek: Online acknowledges this. As far as canon goes...There is Prime canon and Alternate canon except for the actions of Spock Prime as he is our only link.
Last edited:
That's an extreme example, and you know it. If they decide to just do a Trek series set in the 28th century and NOT reference to anything ever done before, it can work quite easily. The only people who would complain are those that NEED to have ALL of Star Trek to fit in a nice, clear diagram of who's-who and what's-what.
Let that go, and it's far easier to enjoy things for what they are, instead of what you need it to be.
It's extremely hard for me to weigh in on the continuity debate when it comes to Trek. On the one hand, I completely understand the solid arguments made reference story coming first and blowing troublesome old cobwebs away. But I can't deny, I really do love my continuity in Trek.
OK, ST'09 is essentially a "soft reboot", but the changes are explained "in universe", joining it to the Star Trek I love so much in an enjoyable and palpable manner - especially with the inclusion of Spock prime. I must admit, this contrivance made it much easier for me to go into that movie with an open mind.
Oddly, I don't have the slightest problem with cold, hard, reboots of any other franchise... Batman, Spider-man or whatever. But my precious Star Trek... oh dear!
OK, ST'09 is essentially a "soft reboot", but the changes are explained "in universe", joining it to the Star Trek I love so much in an enjoyable and palpable manner - especially with the inclusion of Spock prime. I must admit, this contrivance made it much easier for me to go into that movie with an open mind.
Oddly, I don't have the slightest problem with cold, hard, reboots of any other franchise... Batman, Spider-man or whatever. But my precious Star Trek... oh dear!
Actually...
Unless Janeway had gotten home early and triggered the Borg invasion, the Borg would have never been defeated in Destiny and the galaxy would have been assimilated by 2600.
Without "Endgame", there would be no 29th century time cops.
Without "Endgame", there would be no 29th century time cops.
As for time cops in the new timeline, perhaps the 30th century of the new timeline is a massive improvement.
"I don't care, just give me Trek!"
As long as it doesn't suck, of course.
As long as it doesn't suck, of course.
Oddly, I don't have the slightest problem with cold, hard, reboots of any other franchise... Batman, Spider-man or whatever. But my precious Star Trek... oh dear!
For me, I think there are some I wouldn't want. I don't want a reboot of Star Wars. And since they have the luxury of making boatloads of cash, they don't really need to reboot.
Star Trek, like many other franchises, sort of hit a wall where it wasn't popular or more importantly making tons of money. After a couple shitty movies and a failed series, it certainly seemed like it was time to reboot.
And even though it was the kind of franchise that was set up to not be the kind to reboot, failure sort of pointed it in that direction.
If I was producing Trek, I'd probably reboot too, despite that I liked a lot of what came before.
- Status
Similar threads
