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

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Only a few year ago we thought we were getting NOTHING. Ever again.

 

[Timewalker]

As I mentioned elsewhere, one of the people involved in TMP had that attitude, and thank goodness his ideas never made it into the movie.

Who was this person, and what were his ideas?

I don't recall exactly where I read this. It could have been in a magazine article, or maybe Chekov's Enterprise, or some other "making of" book. Once I finish unpacking the rest of my ST books, I can check.

The ideas were to put some kind of Mayan/Incan mystical mumbo-jumbo in the movie, and when told that wasn't a good idea, the person shrugged and said (referring to the intended movie audience), "They'll never know the difference."

I really dislike it when TPTB in charge of making a movie or the authors of a book assume their viewers/readers are stupid.

The vast audience that makes these movies money and would make a tv show profitable won't even know the difference between this timeline and the prime one.

That's rather dismissive of everyone who has watched ST from the start (or at least who has seen TOS plus the later series). It's best not to go on the assumption that your target audience is stupid.

This is a complete misread of my post.

I am not talking about "everyone who has watched ST from the start". I am talking about the bulk of the movie audience who has not watched it. We are not the vast audience of which I speak.

If "misread" = "misunderstanding", I accept your clarification.

 

[Greg Cox]

As I mentioned elsewhere, one of the people involved in TMP had that attitude, and thank goodness his ideas never made it into the movie.

Who was this person, and what were his ideas?

I find the notion of people being unable to tell the prime universe from the Abramsverse to be dismissive and implies that the audience is stupid.

To most people, the differences just don't rise to the level of something to be bothered about (cf., what R. Star said about the Joker).

Good point. There's a distinction between "not knowing" and "not caring." For the vast majority of potential viewers, a new timeline is hardly a deal-breaker. Restoring the old timeline is not a priority--nor should it be. And it's not because they're stupid. It's because they care more about the current plots, characters, etc. than stressing out about whether they're consistent with every previous version.

As I've written before, even as a kid I had no trouble understanding that the b/w TARZAN movies with Johnny Weismuller, the new color movies, the Ron Ely TV show, the Gold Key comics, the Saturday morning cartoon, and the original novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs didn't take place in the same seamless, airtight TARZAN continuity. And this didn't bother me one bit.

Audiences are smarter than we sometimes give them credit for. They understand that everything gets rebooted and reworked over time. (I doubt that anyone watching the new SLEEPY HOLLOW is fretting because it's not set in the same "timeline" as the Tim Burton movie, the old Disney cartoon, or the original Washington Irving story.)

Different times, different timelines.

 

[Timewalker]

There's a distinction between "not knowing" and "not caring." For the vast majority of potential viewers, a new timeline is hardly a deal-breaker. Restoring the old timeline is not a priority--nor should it be. And it's not because they're stupid. It's because they care more about the current plots, characters, etc. than stressing out about whether they're consistent with every previous version.

As I've written before, even as a kid I had no trouble understanding that the b/w TARZAN movies with Johnny Weismuller, the new color movies, the Ron Ely TV show, the Gold Key comics, the Saturday morning cartoon, and the original novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs didn't take place in the same seamless, airtight TARZAN continuity. And this didn't bother me one bit.

Yeah, I get that things get changed a bit over time. I enjoy Robin Hood, and have seen the Richard Greene series, Rocket Robin Hood, Robin of Sherwood, Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights. With the exception of the cartoon, I still enjoy all those varieties, and don't worry that they have different origin stories for who Robin Hood was and exactly how he gathered his "merry men." Sometimes they differ as to which men were actually in his band, and in the Richard Greene series, Marian was played by two different actresses.

However, the Robin Hood story is a legend that's been around for many centuries, and every century's popular culture has reworked it to their own tastes. Star Trek hasn't stood that test of time, so any really noticeable changes from the original can be quite jarring.

As for the "don't know" vs "don't care"... please. I do know the difference. It's the "the audience is so dumb they won't KNOW the difference" attitude that angers me.

 

[Lynx]

I'm with the Lynx on this one. So many possibilities in the prime-verse unexplored yet.

I'm not so sure. They were already to the point by Voyager that they were retelling stories and just gluing different pieces of rubber to actors foreheads to make "new" aliens.

But that was because the writers who had been around since the beginning of TNG had lost all inspiration. A new writing staff could come up with new ideas for the aliens we already have in the Primeverse plus a few more.

 

[Captain Jed R.]

I'm always wary of questions like "do fans want X", because fandom - any fandom - is not a homogenous entity but a collection of individuals, some of whom broadly speaking may want one thing, but in a thousand different variations.

For myself, I believe there are still stories that can be told in the Prime universe, places that can be explored, things that can be learned. The fact that a bunch of people who did a job for a decade happened to burn themselves out on it does not mean the entire thing is a loss. It just means that something different needs to be arrived at. Different writers will, naturally, bring their own style to the thing. I will await what happens, and accept (though not without comment if I disagree with something).

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm quite aware that many Trek fans don't know every last detail. My brain glazes over when I see arguments about the technical aspects of some particular make and model of Klingon/Romulan ship. I never notice those things - just like I tend to notice only superficial details of RL vehicles.

For what it's worth, I'm with you there. My eyes glaze over at that stuff, too. But that just goes to show that different people get different things out of Trek. Some fans are really into the hardware and technology; others think it's all about a message or philosophy; some are heavily invested in the world-building and politics; some are more into the humor and adventure; some are fascinated by Klingons but couldn't care less about Romulans (and vise versa); some of us grew up on TOS and others prefer the TNG-era stuff; and some people can't get enough of the new timeline. Different strokes for different folks

Which is why trying to figure out "what the fans want" is kinda a pointless exercise . . ..

 

[bbjeg]

^The only thing factual about the poll are people's opinions, which is the point.

 

[JarodRussell]

^The only thing factual about the poll are people's opinions, which is the point.

And that poll shows that 80% would be okay with the Prime universe returning, only 20% are naysayers.

 

[bbjeg]

^The only thing factual about the poll are people's opinions, which is the point.

And that poll shows that 80% would be okay with the Prime universe returning, only 20% are naysayers.

I guess that's multiple facts then.

 

[Nerys Myk]

As I mentioned elsewhere, one of the people involved in TMP had that attitude, and thank goodness his ideas never made it into the movie.

Who was this person, and what were his ideas?

I don't recall exactly where I read this. It could have been in a magazine article, or maybe Chekov's Enterprise, or some other "making of" book. Once I finish unpacking the rest of my ST books, I can check.

The ideas were to put some kind of Mayan/Incan mystical mumbo-jumbo in the movie, and when told that wasn't a good idea, the person shrugged and said (referring to the intended movie audience), "They'll never know the difference."

I really dislike it when TPTB in charge of making a movie or the authors of a book assume their viewers/readers are stupid.

The difference between what? Star Trek's pseudo science and Mayan/Incan mystical mumbo-jumbo?

 

[Hober Mallow]

Everything about Star Trek, even TOS, is derivative in some fashion, and there isn't some spectrum of derivation, especially focused on which characters are and aren't used. The "Prime" designation has no bearing on quality.

I'm not sure what you're arguing, as my point had nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of any series. All I mean by "derivative" is that the Trek spinoffs are derived from the original Star Trek series.

TOS, TOS movies, TNG, VOY and DS9 are all in the same continuity. Picard, Sisko and Janeway met Shatner-Kirk, Nimoy-Spock, Kelley-McCoy, Takei-Sulu and Doohan-Scotty. Picard, Sisko and Janeway met each other. Kang, Kor and Koloth show up in DS9. The Enterprise-D visited the TOS Spacedock and met Excelsior class vessels, etc... Visual continuity, character continuity, story contuinity, all of that makes TOS to VOY the Prime Universe.

No, that's the continuity created specifically for the Rick Berman-produced Star Trek spinoffs. It's still no more valid than a total reboot or a series which acknowledges TOS continuity but totally ignores TNG and beyond.

I could write a sequel to Shakespeare's Hamlet, taking great pains to match the continuity of the original, but that's purely for the internal consistency of my work. It doesn't affect the original Shakespeare play one bit, nor is my argument, "but it matches the continuity of the original!" a valid argument for my play's inclusion in the Complete Works of Shakespeare.

Nor do the Trek spinoffs affect the original Star Trek series. Maintaining a continuity with the original series has to do with the internal consistency of the spinoffs; I think that's an important distinction people need to realize.

Those pining for the so-called "prime" universe are, perhaps, more Rick Berman Trek spinoff fans than Star Trek fans. There's nothing wrong with that, but why should the rest of us have to have that material included in all future Trek? It would be as if all future Sherlock Holmes movies must acknowledge the continuity of the animated series SHERLOCK HOLMES IN THE 22ND CENTURY (or -- even worse -- the Downy Jr. movies).

 

[bbjeg]

^So all the other characters reprising their rolls like Kirk in Generations were not their characters?

I don't think you fully understand what the Prime Timeline is. TOS is Prime Trek.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The ship on whether TNG is in the same continuity as TOS left spacedock during Encounter at Farpoint.

Who was that Admiral who visited Picard's Enterprise, who didn't like using the transporter?

 

[Greg Cox]

^The only thing factual about the poll are people's opinions, which is the point.

And that poll shows that 80% would be okay with the Prime universe returning, only 20% are naysayers.

But that's a poll conducted on a Trek message board, populated by folks like us, who like to analyze and debate Trek on a daily basis.

But we are not the general audience. We are the extremes at one end of the spectrum. The vast majority of viewers are somewhere in the middle, which is where the real numbers are. (And, please, for once, let's not have any sneering at "the masses.")

It's all about being realistic and keeping things in perspective . . .

 

[DonIago]

I'm still not clear on whether the intention of the poll was to vote as to whether Abramsverse material should be discontinued in favor of Primeverse stuff, or whether it was more along the lines of, "Would you object to seeing more Primeverse stuff?"

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I think it is about burning Nutrek with fire.

 

[JarodRussell]

^The only thing factual about the poll are people's opinions, which is the point.

And that poll shows that 80% would be okay with the Prime universe returning, only 20% are naysayers.

But that's a poll conducted on a Trek message board, populated by folks like us, who like to analyze and debate Trek on a daily basis.

But we are not the general audience. We are the extremes at one end of the spectrum. The vast majority of viewers are somewhere in the middle, which is where the real numbers are. (And, please, for once, let's not have any sneering at "the masses.")

It's all about being realistic and keeping things in perspective . . .

The general audience is in the "I don't care, as long as it's entertaining" group, which is independent from this poll.

So if you make an entertaining Prime Universe Trek film, you are on a track to make both 80% of the Trekkies and the general audience happy. What would be wrong with that?

I stated several times that in my opinion you could have turned Star Trek 2009 into a (post)-TNG film with the same success. Abrams' style, introduce new, young characters, have Admiral Picard in Pike's role, smash Vulcan, etc...

 

[bbjeg]

^A few more good points. I think I posted in some of those "several" posts of yours agreeing with you.

But that's a poll conducted on a Trek message board, populated by folks like us, who like to analyze and debate Trek on a daily basis...

Everyone who posts in this thread is a fan one way or another but it's not like we agree on everything. This poll is more of an allocation of opinions out of those fans.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The problem is, no one's posted a premise for restarting the Prime Universe that shows any promise of being entertaining. Many people have posted their ideas, both on this board and elsewhere on the Internet. The most common ideas are variations on the theme, "Let's do the Prime Universe, but set it 147 years after episode 69, and explore the galaxy beyond Beta-374, but let's have a first officer from Omicron 13, and let's make them encounter a new enemy even more powerful than the Borg," as if permutations of what we've seen before is enough to make a successful series. It wouldn't be. You try to explain that to them, you can feel their eyes glazing over on the other side of the web, and they come back with something like, "But I said more powerful than the Borg!?!"

Additionally, the most successful fan series are TOS retro formats which general audiences would assuredly not be drawn to.

There's just no evidence that fans are the right people to come up with something that will sell. Generally speaking, though not universally, fans want more of what they like, which by definition is what's already been done. You see evidence of this all the time, when fans resist reboots and new takes on the franchises they adore.

My hat's off to the TrekLit authors who manage to come up with genuinely new ideas within a well trodden franchise.