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

[Greg Cox]

Some important points:

-Continuity/backstory does NOT equal storytelling style. They could do a series with the fast-paced crazy style of the new movies but set it 50 years after Nemesis and DS9. TOS had a very different style to TNG, which was different to DS9. Stargate Universe had a totally different style to SG-1 and Atlantis, despite being a direct continuation of the universe with cameos from SG-1 and SGA characters.

-Continuity won't be handled any better than it was in Enterprise or the new movies anyway. Trek as a whole hangs together in broad strokes only. Just because they mention the Dominion War doesn't mean they won't make blunders or intentional rewrites as seen in the videos in my signature. Old continuity does not mean they'll do it exactly as you imagine the idealized Trekverse in your head.

-A new Trek, regardless of backstory, will have a visual upgrade. If you think a return to Prime-universe Trek means everything will look the way it did, you're wrong. You saw how the Andorians changed between TOS and ENT, how the Klingons changed between TOS/classic movies/TNG/DS9 and Into Darkness, how the Romulans, Trill and others have changed to suit different producers and improved makeup techniques. Now imagine the Cardassians, Bolians, Jem'Hadar or Ferengi being similarly altered - because if they're ever brought back, it will happen.



So, all that taken into account, do you all want the Prime universe backstory to return?

Nicely put. That first part is exactly what I've being trying to say. The choice of timeline has nothing to do with the style or tone or quality of any future Trek projects. It's simply a matter of what will best attract a new generation of Trekkies . . ..

 

[DonIago]

Yeah. People might find they simply have the style of the Abramsverse (and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the style is one of the things that's irked folks) in the Primeverse.

At least for the people who are irked with the style of the new films, it's not messing with "their" timeline.

 

[bbjeg]

No one choice is predominant over the other but I was under the impression that the BBS was over run with anti-prime-timeliners.

 

[BillJ]

No one choice is predominant over the other but I was under the impression that the BBS was over run with anti-prime-timeliners.

I don't think that's the case at all.

But I'm sure there are others like me who feel the Prime timeline ran its course and that it was time to move onto the next phase of the franchise.

 

[F. King Daniel]

No one dislikes it, we just think characters are more important than coninuity. New anything-can-happen stories with our favourite characters > unknown characters who happen to live in the same universe as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.

 

[bbjeg]

New anything-can-happen stories with our favourite characters > unknown characters who happen to live in the same universe as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.

That's up for debate.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah, "anti" is probably the wrong way to phrase it. Nobody dislikes the old timeline or thinks it's "bad." Hell, I've written over twenty books and stories set in the old timeline--with more on the way. And I'll be rewatching my favorite Trek movies and episodes for the rest of my life.

Here's the thing, though: Accepting a new, revamped version of an old classic doesn't mean you're rejecting or attacking the previous version. It just means you recognize that times change and beloved characters and series tend to get reworked every generation or so. Trek is no exception.

To cite another example, I enjoyed the 1990's MUMMY movies with Brendan Fraser, but that doesn't mean I stopped liking the original b/w MUMMY movies I watched as a kid. And yet I hardly expect Universal to ever return to the old 1940s "timeline."

(Just wait. When Universal does get around to rebooting THE MUMMY again, younger fans are going to complain because it's not set in the continuity of the "classic" Brendan Fraser movies. )

Trek is not an encyclopedia, full of immutable facts. It's a work of fiction, about an imaginary universe, to be toyed with and tweaked as necessary.

 

[BillJ]

New anything-can-happen stories with our favourite characters > unknown characters who happen to live in the same universe as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.

That's up for debate.

I don't think it is, at least for most of us.

I've been a fan since 1975 and even in 1998 I thought the time had long passed that Trek needed to return to its roots. Not because of anything that Modern Trek did, but because you can only water the premise down so much before people just quit caring. The other option is to turn the franchise into something that doesn't resemble Trek except on the surface which I think would be an incredibly bad move by CBS/Paramount.

Does any one want to read an X-Men/Avengers/Justice League comic book that doesn't have super-heroes battling incredibly evil, powerful villains?

 

[JarodRussell]

New anything-can-happen stories with our favourite characters > unknown characters who happen to live in the same universe as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.

That's up for debate.

So far, the characters don't resemble the original characters. Kirk is a spoiled, incompetent brat, Chekov is a whizkid, Scotty is comic relief worse than in TFF, Spock is a psychopath.
And the "new, anything-can-happen stories" consist of rehashing old ones. And at a "1 story every 4 years" rate.
The twists so far were the destruction of Vulcan (could have happened in a TNG film in the Prime universe, where it would have "mattered"), the Enterprise under water and Kirk & Spock in reversed roles in a rehash of the TWOK climax. Oh yeah and Pike is dead, and not in a wheelchair. Big deal.

The reboot was uninspired to begin with, and the way they are treating it is more and more uninspired.

A couple of years ago I asked if anyone thought they would shake things up in the second film, and said I was certain the film would end with all of the characters on the bridge of the Enterprise, without shaking anything up. Seems I was absolutely right.

 

[BillJ]

And the "new, anything-can-happen stories" consist of rehashing old ones. And at a "1 story every 4 years" rate.

Which actually hasn't happened, they used a character and a scene from another film. But that doesn't fit your argument so you continue to ignore that point.

The twists so far were the destruction of Vulcan (could have happened in a TNG film in the Prime universe, where it would have "mattered")...

If Vulcan blows up in the Prime timeline yet no one buys tickets to see it, does it actually happen?

 

[DonIago]

It occurs to me that, given how some folks seem to have such a problem with the Newverse, they'd be vaguely grateful that Abrams et al. at least had the courtesy to set their films in an alternate timeline instead of futzing around with the established continuity.

 

[Greg Cox]

It occurs to me that, given how some folks seem to have such a problem with the Newverse, they'd be vaguely grateful that Abrams et al. at least had the courtesy to set their films in an alternate timeline instead of futzing around with the established continuity.

Indeed. I keep using a Band-Aid analogy. Better to rip the continuity Band-Aid off in one fell swoop than deal with years of nitpicking over "canon violations."

 

[bbjeg]

New anything-can-happen stories with our favourite characters > unknown characters who happen to live in the same universe as TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.

That's up for debate.

I don't think it is, at least for most of us.

The poll results would disagree with you. It seems at least some would rather see the prime timeline back.

 

[BillJ]

That's up for debate.

I don't think it is, at least for most of us.

The poll results would disagree with you. It seems at least some would rather see the prime timeline back.

You have forty-five votes on a message board dedicated to Star Trek. I'd be surprised if the vote turned out any other way.

 

[JarodRussell]

That's up for debate.

I don't think it is, at least for most of us.

The poll results would disagree with you. It seems at least some would rather see the prime timeline back.

Those poll results are skewed by bitter fans that can go fuck themselves!

Exactly!

 

[Kemaiku]

Some would rather see the prime timeline back.

18 out of over 40, and all of them want it back only under certain considerations.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

I voted "I don't care, just give me Trek!" because I took the question literally -- as in "Do fans want the prime timeline back?" To me the timeline is exactly that -- a timeline. A historical series of events. If there is an interesting Star Trek story and it's produced well, I'll take it in either timeline.

There are a bunch of different questions going on in the thread -- having to do with production style, media format, etc., which are kinda different from "timeline" concerns IMO.

Do I believe that it's impossible to write new and exciting stories in the old timeline? No. Do I think it's a good idea to go back to the writing style that characterized Voyager, late TNG, or the TNG movies? No.

In my own personal opinion, in the grand scheme of things I think all of the Star Trek movies are okay -- not great, and on balance, probably a bit subpar -- particularly when compared with the various television incarnations of Star Trek. To me, Star Trek is always better on TV because there's time to explore the characters, situations, and everything else.

I'd generally prefer to see Star Trek continue on television, as a series, miniseries, series event (whatever they call them these days), but I really don't care which timeline it happens in as long as it's not the VOY alien of the week/crew staffed by committee/reset button type format. Except for DS9 and Ent season 4, Star Trek on TV got pretty boring and repetitive. That's not the fault of the timeline though. But like I said, a TV series set in either timeline is fine with me.

As far as "JJtrek Style" what with the frenetic pace of action, booms, fights, and all that. It's a movie and I expect it to be styled the way it is, just like all the other Star Trek movies.

 

[Greg Cox]

For the record, I voted for "I don't care" as well, because, yeah, continuity and "canon" are less important than style, execution, and approach. IMHO.

But the pragmatist in me can't see any practical advantage to backtracking at this point. Like I said, it's not going to attract new viewers or general audiences, so why bother?

 

[DonIago]

Since I'm not quite sure whether "I don't care" is intended to imply that we don't care about the Prime timeline...which I do...I'm going to opt to continue to not vote on this one. I wish the poll had been worded more clearly, or perhaps allowed for a wider range of options.

 

[Greg Cox]

I took "I don't care" to mean that I'll watch Trek regardless, and that the choice of timeline is hardly a deal-breaker for me.