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

[R. Star]

Forbid the concept that Kirk and Spock aren't the only characters in the Star Trek universe and the setting isn't fixed on the starship Enterprise only.

This absolutely kills me!

There are seventy-nine episodes of Star Trek, there are over six-hundred episodes of the spin-offs. I'd say it's about time to explore the core of Star Trek a little bit more before rushing off to create yet another generic ship and crew.

You're easily amused if that's the case. but whatever makes ya happy.

Between three seasons of TOS, two of TAS, six movies and two reboot movies and counting, Kirk and company have gotten as much screen time as any of the other series that lasted a full seven seasons.

Heck, you got your wish in the current form of the franchise anyways yet you still think the next should be another clone of that? Though I guess I couldn't characterize NuTrek as exploring the "core" of Trek(thought tolerance and diversity where that not any set of characters). Characterization and strong story writing aren't exactly the franchise's strength at the moment.

 

[Greg Cox]

^Maybe gay vampires do.

I don't recall any quiche in "Carmilla."

Completely off-topic--I am the author of The Annotated Carmilla and have written a play based on that story. We're having auditions this Saturday!

Glad to act as your shill here--although I swear to God we didn't coordinate this!

Good luck with the play! Where is it being staged?

 

[David.Blue]

I don't recall any quiche in "Carmilla."

Completely off-topic--I am the author of The Annotated Carmilla and have written a play based on that story. We're having auditions this Saturday!

Glad to act as your shill here--although I swear to God we didn't coordinate this!

Good luck with the play! Where is it being staged?

North Hollywood--cannot announce the actual venue until contracts are signed (we're waiting to reach a goal in fundraising). Aiming for a debut in February. We want to "use" the cast as a vehicle for building up interest (and yeah, donations) as well as taking the time to really get everyone on the same page.

 

[Hober Mallow]

If they're going to toss the last 40 years and start over, they should just develop some other SF series that includes spaceships, heroic captains, aliens, etc. It seems to me as though they only want to call it "Star Trek" because it's a recognized brand name.

Isn't this an argument against your point? Why should a new series featuring a new ship and crew be called Star Trek other than they simply want to exploit the brand name?

 

[Greg Cox]

Completely off-topic--I am the author of The Annotated Carmilla and have written a play based on that story. We're having auditions this Saturday!

Glad to act as your shill here--although I swear to God we didn't coordinate this!

Good luck with the play! Where is it being staged?

North Hollywood--cannot announce the actual venue until contracts are signed (we're waiting to reach a goal in fundraising). Aiming for a debut in February. We want to "use" the cast as a vehicle for building up interest (and yeah, donations) as well as taking the time to really get everyone on the same page.

A bit far from my neck of the woods, alas, but break a leg . . . or a fang . . . or whatever.

 

[BillJ]

Between three seasons of TOS, two of TAS, six movies and two reboot movies and counting, Kirk and company have gotten as much screen time as any of the other series that lasted a full seven seasons.

You think that seventy-nine episodes (50 minutes each), twenty-two animated episodes (23 minutes each) and eight feature films (roughly 120 minutes apiece) equal the 178 episodes (45 minutes each) that TNG, DS9 and VOY each got?

TOS: (79*50)+(22*23)+(8*120)= 5,416 minutes. Each one of the 24th century seasons have roughly 2,500 more minutes of material.

TNG/DS9/VOY 178*45=8,010 minutes (this doesn't count the TNG films).

The only one TOS has more material than is Enterprise, which comes in at 4,018 minutes (98*41).

So Modern Trek has roughly 28,028 minutes of material compared to TOS's 5,416. I think we could stand to hang around Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise a while longer.

 

[R. Star]

Roughly so, especially given 40 plus years of exposure. Between cameos all over the place in TNG, tribute episodes in DS9 and VOY and ENT going out it's way to "explain" TOS events(Klingon foreheads anyone?) I think it's fair to say that TOS has had it's day to say the least.

Though lumping all three together as if they're one coherent series isn't exactly valid except an exaggerated figure to argue the point in your favor somehow. As I said you're getting what you want in the movies, so that's that. Talk of a new series mostly is moot after all with CBS in full safety mode.

 

[nureintier]

With the new movies, I wish they'd just do all new stuff.

My problem with Into Darkness was how much it kept reminding me of TOS, often in an unfavorable way. I mean, I'd be totally cool with new versions of the same characters in an alternate timeline, but I don't like that they kept reminding us of TOS by having Spock Prime show up, by all the similarities to TWOK, etc. It kept me from really accepting the characters as different versions, and that made me keep comparing them to TOS and TWOK in an unfavorable way. And I know it's an alternate timeline so things happen differently, but I wish they'd focused on them having totally different stuff to deal with.

 

[R. Star]

With the new movies, I wish they'd just do all new stuff.

My problem with Into Darkness was how much it kept reminding me of TOS, often in an unfavorable way. I mean, I'd be totally cool with new versions of the same characters in an alternate timeline, but I don't like that they kept reminding us of TOS by having Spock Prime show up, by all the similarities to TWOK, etc. It kept me from really accepting the characters as different versions, and that made me keep comparing them to TOS and TWOK in an unfavorable way. And I know it's an alternate timeline so things happen differently, but I wish they'd focused on them having totally different stuff to deal with.

Well the 09 movie had a glimmer of promise. Of course half the movie was dedicated to establishing "the reboot" with an unnecessary connection to the regular universe as if that would somehow appease the fans. The rest was dedicated to reintroducing us to the characters, a ton of flashy effects and that tentative thing called the plot. Still, a fun action flick in it's own right between all that.

Into Darkness.... bleh. There was absolutely nothing really original that he hadn't seen. Ooh let's have that Khan guy come back, but let's have Kirk die and Spock yell Khan instead! And totally having Section 31 as the bad guy, a corrupt evil admiral too, we'll have Carol Marcus in her undies, a tribble, and totally putting Spock Prime back in there, and this awesome new big black evil ship for the bad guys! This will be the best Trek movie ever!!! Wait... not really. Just cherry picking plot elements from all across the Trek spectrum, putting them into a blender and presto... "new" movie. What's the point of a reboot and a clean slate, if you're just going to do the same stuff with a slight makeover?

Always a hope they'll do something better with the 3rd movie. Though with transporters that can beam across the galaxy, I'm not sure why they're bothering with having a ship on a 5 year exploration mission now.

 

[BillJ]

Though lumping all three together as if they're one coherent series isn't exactly valid except an exaggerated figure to argue the point in your favor somehow.

It was all made behind-the-scenes by mostly the same people and had mostly the same feel. For the most part, you could have swapped characters between series and wouldn't be able to really tell the difference.

Though with transporters that can beam across the galaxy, I'm not sure why they're bothering with having a ship on a 5 year exploration mission now.

You still have to know where to point those transporters...

 

[Greg Cox]

Though lumping all three together as if they're one coherent series isn't exactly valid except an exaggerated figure to argue the point in your favor somehow.

It was all made behind-the-scenes by mostly the same people and had mostly the same feel. For the most part, you could have swapped characters between series and wouldn't be able to really tell the difference.

Can't really go that far. DS9, in particular, was very much its own thng and not readily confused with TNG or Voyager.

 

[BillJ]

Though lumping all three together as if they're one coherent series isn't exactly valid except an exaggerated figure to argue the point in your favor somehow.

It was all made behind-the-scenes by mostly the same people and had mostly the same feel. For the most part, you could have swapped characters between series and wouldn't be able to really tell the difference.

Can't really go that far. DS9, in particular, was very much its own thng and not readily confused with TNG or Voyager.

Which is why I said "for the most part".

But even with DS9, you had Worf and O'Brien come over from TNG, they brought in their own kick ass starship (pretty much using the same exact camera angles for bridge shots as the other Modern Trek shows)...

They had far more in common than they had differences.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Can't really go that far. DS9, in particular, was very much its own thng and not readily confused with TNG or Voyager.

As far as my non-Trek fan friends are concerned, DS9 is virtually indistinguishable from the others.

 

[cal_nevari]

I might have read the poll wrong. Is Prime timeline everything except Abrams movies? Or is Prime Timeline anything about Kirk & Company?

I answered Prime - not because I know what "fans" want - (I don't think I really do, not well anyway) - but because when I think of Prime I was thinking of the Trek that came before the two Abrams films, as all being "Prime" and of all that, my favorite was in that group.

However, it occurs to me that the very first Star Trek was KIRK & CO. and the last two movies were about KIRK & CO. and no matter who runs the next 1 or 2 or 3 movies, they seem likely to be about KIRK & CO. and for me? Just for me? I don't really ever need another movie about Jim Kirk & Company - whether it swims in he Continuity Lake of JJ Abrams design, or jumps into the Berman Lake of Continuity, or dives into the Roddenberry Lagoon of Continuity - I don't need any more Captain Kirk & his merry band.

What is even worse, I don't need any movies period. Or new tv series about Picard, Or Sisko. Or Janeway. Or Archer, or Kirk.

I would like a tv series with new characters. I would like to see a progression of the federation and star fleet - AFTER the Dominion War.

Yeah I'm not going to hold my breath on that. It would not surprise me if there are less than 50 people in the United State that would want a new series about a new crew in that timeline.

Heck, people freaked about Picard before he came on. People freaked about a female Captain before she came on. People freaked about a Star Trek on a space station before it came on.

If CBS announced they were going to do a new series next year set after the dominion war with a whole new crew, no doubt there would be a huge outcry of people saying "idiots! who cares about a new crew??? We want Kirk! We want Kirk! Give us more Kirk! And Spock! And Scotty! And give Sulu his own ship!!!!"

I'm not really getting what I want out of them in new production, but that's okay, because it is mass media and it is appealing to the masses. Kirk & Co is very popular and it is what most people want and what will be made.

I just have to imagine... what I can't see made into episodes. Some days it's even fun to imagine.

So maybe I answered wrong in choosing "Prime" Because as I reflect on it - what I'm interested in (the period AFTER the Dominion War) - I don't even think I would call that PRIME TIMELINE - Kirk & his timeline seems to me more of a PRIME Trek timeline - just ABRAMS version is an alternate universe, but it is still the PRIME TIMELINE because it is all about James T. Kirk & his fellow travelers.

I am so confused. Past my bedtime. Funny as I get older, my bedtime gets earlier....

 

[Timewalker]

I think that you have to simply let all that go. I want the next show-runner to have total freedom to place the show in the 28th century with the Eugenics Wars happening in the 23rd and the first warp flight happening in the 25th, if he/she so desires.

Carrying over continuity from the old series would just shackle the new creative team to something that has nothing more to offer creatively.

In that case, why bother to call it Star Trek?

Because Star Trek is more than just forty years of continuity. It's a concept--and sometimes a set of characters--that aren't necessarily tied to the particulars of what happened in a previous cycle of TV shows or movies.

You can make a STAR TREK movie or TV series, about the crew of the Starship Enterprise exploring strange new worlds and all that, without having to, say, stick to exactly what "Balance of Terror" said about the Romulan Wars. That was the old version. Doesn't mean you can make a new one.

Just like you can make a Sherlock Holmes movie without being wedded to the continuity of the old Basil Rathbone movies or whatever. Or you can make, say, a Mission: Impossible movie that doesn't necessarily treat every old TV episode as "canon."

Star Trek does not have to incorporate the "prime timeline" to be recognizable as Star Trek. Trek is an idea, not a trivia contest.

Okay, I'm going to say here that I have read fanfics of AU Star Trek. Obviously I can't go into details since there are pro authors reading this thread. I will just say that some of these AU stories were very good, and some were really awful. The good ones had the characters in different situations, yes. But the essential core of who these people were remained intact and true to the original material. That's not the impression I get with the Abrams movies, and it's a huge reason why I didn't like the 2009 movie.

If they're going to toss the last 40 years and start over, they should just develop some other SF series that includes spaceships, heroic captains, aliens, etc. It seems to me as though they only want to call it "Star Trek" because it's a recognized brand name.

Okay, I have to ask: If Batman Begins was going to ignore all the previous Batman movies and TV series and start over again, should they have just invented another dark avenger of the night?

Of course not. Because the concept and the character do NOT equal the continuity. Batman Begins is no less a Batman movie for starting over from scratch than any new Star Trek project that keeps the basic idea but chucks the continuity of the previous versions.

(Plus, let's be honest: If they'd done what you suggest, but kept the transporters and starships and a prime directive and such, everyone would rightly accuse the "new" series of ripping off Star Trek!)

Your Batman references have no meaning to me, since I've never seen the original TV series, never read the comics, never seen any of the movies, or anything else about Batman. I have a vague idea of the themes and characters, based on all the references I've seen and heard over the years, but I'm not going to discuss Batman with you (or Sherlock Holmes, for the same reason).

I know that comic book characters are "reimagined" from time to time - it was done with one of my favorite western comics: The Rawhide Kid. The comics I used to read as a kid gave every indication that the Kid was into women, not men. So I choose to ignore any issues that don't follow the original characterization. To me, they're not authentic.

Space movies can exist without transporters and the Prime Directive! The essential ingredients you need for space stories are: characters who travel in space, some kind of spaceship for them to travel in, somewhere to go, and a reason for going there. It would also be great if the creators could decide whether to use FTL or not - and make it consistent, or at least plausible, given current scientific knowledge.

If they're going to toss the last 40 years and start over, they should just develop some other SF series that includes spaceships, heroic captains, aliens, etc. It seems to me as though they only want to call it "Star Trek" because it's a recognized brand name.

Isn't this an argument against your point? Why should a new series featuring a new ship and crew be called Star Trek other than they simply want to exploit the brand name?

Are you saying that TNG, DS9, and Voyager shouldn't have been called Star Trek? I have no objection to them having done that, because they were continuing the story started in TOS, or exploring other parts of the universe that was essentially a future part of TOS. And when TOS charcters (McCoy, Scotty, Sarek, Spock, and Sulu) guested on these shows, they weren't "reimagined" into some modern version that would appeal to a younger generation and that would be unpalatable to many TOS viewers.

 

[bbjeg]

I answered Prime - not because I know what "fans" want - (I don't think I really do, not well anyway) - but because when I think of Prime I was thinking of the Trek that came before the two Abrams films, as all being "Prime" and of all that, my favorite was in that group.

It's called Prime because the credits of 2009's Star Trek labeled Nimoy's character as Spock Prime. Prime Trek refers to his timeline.

Is Prime timeline everything except Abrams movies? Or is Prime Timeline anything about Kirk & Company?

Technically NuTrek would be part of Prime Trek, as much as the Mirror universe, especially if you can get Nimoy's character back to his timeline in the third movie.

If they're going to toss the last 40 years and start over, they should just develop some other SF series that includes spaceships, heroic captains, aliens, etc. It seems to me as though they only want to call it "Star Trek" because it's a recognized brand name.

Isn't this an argument against your point? Why should a new series featuring a new ship and crew be called Star Trek other than they simply want to exploit the brand name?

It comes back to the continuity issue. Some would argue Star Trek isn't it's continuity but I would say it's a part of it. A mythos to the adventure. Is Star Wars the only one left that's OK with that concept? I haven't watched Doctor Who but they're continuous too right?

 

[Timewalker]

I answered Prime - not because I know what "fans" want - (I don't think I really do, not well anyway) - but because when I think of Prime I was thinking of the Trek that came before the two Abrams films, as all being "Prime" and of all that, my favorite was in that group.

It's called Prime because the credits of 2009's Star Trek labeled Nimoy's character as Spock Prime. Prime Trek refers to his timeline.

Is Prime timeline everything except Abrams movies? Or is Prime Timeline anything about Kirk & Company?

Technically NuTrek would be part of Prime Trek, as much as the Mirror universe, especially if you can get Nimoy's character back to his timeline in the third movie.

If they're going to toss the last 40 years and start over, they should just develop some other SF series that includes spaceships, heroic captains, aliens, etc. It seems to me as though they only want to call it "Star Trek" because it's a recognized brand name.

Isn't this an argument against your point? Why should a new series featuring a new ship and crew be called Star Trek other than they simply want to exploit the brand name?

It comes back to the continuity issue. Some would argue Star Trek isn't it's continuity but I would say it's a part of it. A mythos to the adventure. Is Star Wars the only one left that's OK with that concept? I haven't watched Doctor Who but they're continuous too right?

I couldn't say about all of Star Wars, since I've only seen the original IV-V-VI trilogy... in their original form, before Lucas started mucking them up. I tried watching the other three, but found them so boring, I couldn't stay awake long enough to finish them (honestly). I do remember being annoyed at the retcon concerning Leia and her mother. In Return of the Jedi, she states that her mother died when Leia was very young, but that was changed in the chronologically-earlier movie. They both can't be right. As for the other Star Wars stuff - the later books, comics, games, animated shows... never saw it, and I honestly don't care. The 3 movies I did see are enough for me.

Doctor Who is continuous from the First to the current Doctor. Granted, there are paradoxes along the way - the Jon Pertwee-era Dalek/time travel stories really messed up the continuity. And I will say that I was really annoyed at the "Doctor is half-human" crap in the Paul McGann movie. If they had to technobabble their way around things, they should have figured out something that didn't contradict the previous 30 years! That said, there's really no reason to think that there are any of the Doctor Who TV stories that do not take place in the original Whoniverse (not gonna get into the spinoffs of K-9 & Company, Torchwood, or the Sarah Jane Adventures, because I haven't seen them).

There's controversy over whether the books and audio adventures should be part of the continuous, true timeline. I've got a lot of the books, but none from the Eighth Doctor era or later, and I've never heard any of the audio adventures. These are godawful hard to find in my region,and for the longest time I never knew they even existed.

I'm sure there are other issues to do with the comics, and whatever gaming material may exist. Again, since I've had little chance to even find that, let alone read it, I just ignore the whole lot of it.

 

[Greg Cox]

Your Batman references have no meaning to me, since I've never seen the original TV series, never read the comics, never seen any of the movies, or anything else about Batman. I have a vague idea of the themes and characters, based on all the references I've seen and heard over the years, but I'm not going to discuss Batman with you (or Sherlock Holmes, for the same reason).

You're missing the point. It isn't about Batman or Sherlock Holmes or any other particular character or series. Feel free to substitute Tarzan or Dracula or Robin Hood or The Three Musketeers or the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew or the Arthurian mythos or whatever perennially popular works of fiction you are familiar with. My point is that the basic idea-- a human child raised by apes to be king of the jungle or whatever--is not dependent on the specific "continuity" of whatever the last theatrical version was. Tarzan is Tarzan, regardless if some new versions picks up where the previous movies or TV series left off. And there's no reason to invent a "new" ape-man every time you want to revive the series.

Ditto for Star Trek. It's a concept, not a history book.

 

[DonIago]

^Careful Greg, or you'll attract some torches and pitchforks.

 

[R. Star]

Torches and pitchforks are out... tarring and feathering is back in.