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

With a hard reboot, there would have been less sense that it was contaminating or ruining what preceded it by tying itself in, which is where a lot of the "Abrams has killed Trek" stuff seems to come from.

(I also think the commonplace contention that fan reaction to any possible product would have been precisely the same isn't very convincing. The actual quality of the product matters, in the short run and in the long run.)

 

Oh, I'm sure the actual quality of any new Trek movies would be vigorously debated, just as they always are whenever a new movie or episode (or book) comes out.

But the endless debates about restoring or preserving the old continuity would have probably taken place regardless of the quality of the latest films. As well as the debate as to whether it was "necessary" to reboot the franchise at all.

And, honestly, once you start worrying about "contaminating" the precious bodily fluids of a movie or TV series, you may have lost perspective a little bit. You can't "ruin" something good by doing different versions.

Did JAWS:THE REVENGE "ruin" or "contaminate" the original Spielberg movie? Did PSYCHO 3 ruin the original Hitchcock film? Of course not.

The original versions are still just as good as they ever were. If you don't like the sequels or reboots, you can just ignore them.

 

Yes and no. The existence of Nemesis doesn't affect my enjoyment of any of TNG's episodes, for example, any more than the existence of TSFS affects my enjoyment of TOS.

OTOH, it's perfectly possible to produce enough tripe in sequels and add-ons and "reboots" of a brand that you actually do real damage to the brand. That this happened to the Matrix series is why we're not currently swimming in an ocean of Matrix-related TV series, video games and merchandise. And that this happened to Trek is why it needed any kind of reboot at all; for that very reason trying to tie the reboot directly into the Prime continuity as an "alternate timeline" was an odd decision. (And really the ire of loyalists who feel it "ruined" Trek wasn't even the primary risk there.)

 

My take is that what we saw in Vulcan's sky was a large gas giant and Vulcan is in orbit of that planet.

Basically Vulcan is a moon itself.

 

That's Andor/Andoria's claim to fame! But, I'm cool with Vulcan "acquiring" a moon, whether by natural processes, or otherwise. Maybe the Vulcan government is inducing tides in the planet, for some reason.

As I stated, I've always considered "canon" to be played rather "fast and loose," anyway, thoughout the series. Things are changed, or modified, like Trills, for example. Their look was radically changed, as were other aspects and nobody takes notice. Yet, when Scotty gets new plumbing in his Engine Room, in keeping with the new movies, fanboys are eating their own.

I think STAR TREK can change a lot and not be considered "in name only." For instance, why can't ENTERPRISE be equipped with Warp Speed AND the ability to Fold Space, for example? I don't know ... whatever ... just by adding more to the pot would be like a breath of fresh air, without giving up anything. Let's see a little more imagination and creativity from these writers ... I'll still call it STAR TREK. I think they should!

 

Yeah, pretty much. People excuse what they like and raise hell over what they don't. Technically, Voyager's journey is fundamentally incompatible with the speeds and distances crossed in TOS and the classic movies (they'd have made it in a month, tops). I think less people realised that than freaked out about Chris Pine's blue eyes.

 

Even TNG, where the Enterprise was suppose to be able to cover seven-thousand light-years in a little over two years in "Q, Who". Or "Where No One Has Gone Before".

 

Did they ever say which part of the Delta Quadrant they were sent to. It could have been a shorter trip if they were just sent to the edge near the Beta Quadrant. Voyager was sent to the outer ring of the Delta Quadrant.

 

You forgot to put "reboot" in quotation marks.

 

Wait. Kirk has blue eyes now? That's sacrilege.

Next you'll be telling me that James Bond is blond . . .

 

I would like to see Trek back in its original TOS-VOY universe, no references to the other show and movies with the undeserved title of Star Trek. A show respecting the history and continuity of the universe but moving forward with a new premise and character driven drama.

 

VOY and ENT weren't deserving of existence, let alone of having the name "Star Trek."

IMO, of course.

 

Thought I'd give this thread a bump. Many new members might want to ring in a vote.

 

Operation - Annihilate!


In the poll I choice option 1.
If there will be another tv-series I prefer it to be set in the prime timeline.

 

Continuity for it's own sake is pointless. Take a fresh look at the mythology and have fun with it. Option 2.

 

I`d prefer prime trek.

What that could be though I couldn`t say;

a new tone in the same universe(deep uncharted space -horroresque)
a new perspective(section 31 - political thriller) this would be the largest departure from trek.
a new time(in the future - with intergalactic travel, before time travel)

The latter would allow for the writing team to do whatever they want without having to worry about the established universe; yet still satisfy the idea that it`s the prime trek universe. I think those could all be viable.

I`d even love to see Star Trek following a Klingon ship. That obviously wouldn`t be possible since a network would most definitely require a human centric show.

 

Because terraforming every planet in a solar system isn't a good idea, especially if you have to rely on resources of the non-class M planets to keep your society running (if something necessary for space travel and making plastic is on Mercury and terraforming it would destroy that resource, you'd leave Mercury as is.) Or, if you want to terraform Io, but doing do would jeopardize the mining of sulfur (mining sulfur most likely being banned on Earth)-guess what? You don't terraform Io or the other moons of Jupiter (save maybe Europa) after all. Therefore, terraforming every other planet not like Earth (especially when your species doesn't have faster-than-light spaceflight capacity to go elsewhere, and you need the resources of the planets to maintain Earth's economy and also maintain the building of spacecraft/starships) isn't wise (maybe just terraforming Mars is all we do.)

As for the main topic? I like the new continuity as it is, and don't want to see the old one brought back just to satisfy a bunch of aging fans who can't see that the franchise needs new blood in the form of new fans and that said new fans are not going to necessarily want to have to struggle with continuity just to enjoy Star Trek.

 

^That statement was in regards to why the genesis project was made.

 

I don't think we will see the Bermanverse back ever again, even if some future production team "says" it is set in the "prime" universe. Any new team will bring their own ideas about Trek, and they should be encouraged to do so. Endless recastings and retellings of classic tales and heroes has been going on for thousands of years.

 

Bingo.