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

[Greg Cox]

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?

Perhaps, but we shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking this a binary situation--with "the fans" on one side and "the general audience" on the other. It's more like a spectrum with people who will NEVER watch Trek on one end and those of us who can cite chapter and verse on EVERY episode on the other. Neither end of the spectrum is or should be the target audience. The mushy middle is where the bulk of the audience is--and they're as likely to be turned off by too much continuity as too little.

And, honestly, I think bringing back Kirk and Spock was a shrewd commercial move, at least at this juncture. They still have a lot more marquee value than, say, Captain Mimsey O'Roarke of the Starship Endeavor . . . .

 

[Kemaiku]

52% want it back, the rest don't know, don't care, or definitely don't want it.

 

[Ryan8bit]

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.

I think a certain amount can be read in to how you phrase things. You're basically saying that you don't like anything but the original series, and despite that the spinoffs allude to continuity from the original, they are all still clumped in together as one separate continuity that has no bearing on the original.

For starters, I think something like Enterprise is a lot different than TNG in terms of continuity, and it's because of the time between the production of those shows. The only thing that keeps those two more similar is the number of people who worked on both of them. But otherwise they are just about as different as TOS and TNG are. They were made in different generations, so of course they're gonna be different. But the general idea is that regardless of that they're all supposed to be of the same continuity, despite all the errors. Certainly more stories could be made about TOS that ignore all those other shows, but that's not likely to happen unless there's a total reboot, and even then it's not a guarantee.

Also, the chances of them making a Star Trek that you actually like are close to nil. I don't know why you bother with the future of Trek. Nobody is going to come back and reboot the original series while ignoring everything else and still somehow fit under the umbrella of what you want to see. Nothing is going to be exactly like it was in the 60s. Times have changed too much for that, or TNG, or DS9, or whatever people hold as their favorite.

 

[R. Star]

52% want it back, the rest don't know, don't care, or definitely don't want it.

That's a simplistic way to look at the numbers. By that logic I could say only 18% don't want it back and the rest either eagerly do or aren't opposed to it.

 

[Kemaiku]

I still don't see how this poll is even relevant, the vast majority of the board have not voted on it. It isn't fully indicative if this site nevermind a broader community.

Which all takes a back seat to the repeated fact that Prime Trek did not simply end a serialised run, but was cancelled due to non-viability of the product, a failure.

It needed rebooted because no one could justify returning to it yet again, and by the time any new series is made, there will be no point bringing back the emmense baggage of continuity of the previous series.

Then comes the "well, it needn't pay attention to any of it", in which case, why bother going back then? that's still a reboot of some sort.

It's not coming back, and it shouldn't. Let it go.

 

[Captain Jed R.]

I still don't see how this poll is even relevant, the vast majority of the board have not voted on it. It isn't fully indicative if this site nevermind a broader community.

Which all takes a back seat to the repeated fact that Prime Trek did not simply end a serialised run, but was cancelled due to non-viability of the product, a failure.

It needed rebooted because no one could justify returning to it yet again, and by the time any new series is made, there will be no point bringing back the emmense baggage of continuity of the previous series.

Then comes the "well, it needn't pay attention to any of it", in which case, why bother going back then? that's still a reboot of some sort.

It's not coming back, and it shouldn't. Let it go.

It wasn't cancelled due to the "non-viability of the product". It was cancelled due to a tired old production team not making the best use of it. There's a difference. It didn't need rebooting, it needed fresh ideas and a fresh perspective, and a break. If it does return, it'll return as a brand new series, with brand new ideas, telling stories in a universe that still has limitless potential.

It might come back, and there's nothing wrong if it does.

 

[BillJ]

It wasn't cancelled due to the "non-viability of the product". It was cancelled due to a tired old production team not making the best use of it. There's a difference. It didn't need rebooting, it needed fresh ideas and a fresh perspective, and a break. If it does return, it'll return as a brand new series, with brand new ideas, telling stories in a universe that still has limitless potential.

It might come back, and there's nothing wrong if it does.

You do realize that ratings started sliding during Deep Space Nine's run? General audiences pretty much started rejecting the Berman led spin-offs.

 

[2takesfrakes]

You can't Saturate the Market with "too much" STAR TREK, provided, different creative teams are handling each spin-off. It could be done much more successfully than what we've seen with Berman, Zimmerman, et al. But no, The Powers That Be, have to have Product Identity and all of that ... gotta make sure it all LOOKS and SOUNDS the same, or else people won't know it's a STAR TREK product. It's so frustrating, because no matter how impressive an argument for it, Berman's failure at it makes multiple spin-offs a thing of the past ...

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I don't see why it even matters.

Let's say they give us another Trek series. To be profitable it is going to have to look good, much better than the previous series. Sharper dialogue, stories that move faster, more edge. It's going to be different whether it's the Prime universe or not.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I don't see why it even matters.

Let's say they give us another Trek series. To be profitable it is going to have to look good, much better than the previous series. Sharper dialogue, stories that move faster, more edge. It's going to be different whether it's the Prime universe or not.

It wouldn't matter in the slightest.

I really think that a lot of fans who say they want a new show set in the Prime Universe are really saying either that they want a continuation of their favorite Berman-era show or that they want a spin-off with some of their favorite characters, probably even played by the same actors. Neither of those is going to happen, though.

 

[2takesfrakes]

teacake is absolutely right about the need for edgier stories, more passionate acting and more intensity in the action scenes for any future STAR TREK series. It's going to have to be exciting, from now on, which can only be a good thing. I love how cererbral TNG is and it worked. The show was successful and I find it very satisfying. So, STAR TREK has that under its belt and it's an important part of its history. Now, the fun is coming back to this franchise and I'm really happy about that.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, yes, yes and yes again!

Bring in Q or Captain Braxton to fix the "Adamsrift" and give us a new series with new characters in the timeline shortly after the end of Voyager.

And then no one outside of fandom would care.

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

I keep wanting a TNG-era fan series.

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.

Absolutely. As a general rule, fans are pretty bad at running a franchise. You need someone who understands the business first.

 

[Belz...]

It wasn't cancelled due to the "non-viability of the product". It was cancelled due to a tired old production team not making the best use of it.

Studios don't make decisions based on how original a show is, but how profitable it is. The plug was pulled because of that.

It didn't need rebooting, it needed fresh ideas and a fresh perspective, and a break.

Which is exactly what a reboot is. The old series was clearly no longer working.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

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?

To be sure, he was an unnamed admiral who bore a striking resemblence to Leonard McCoy, despite what Memory Alpha says. Just sayin'

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I keep wanting a TNG-era fan series.

There are fine efforts out there, such as Intrepid and Hidden Frontier, but they haven't gotten as much exposure as the TOS productions and Phase II in particular.

To be sure, he was an unnamed admiral who bore a striking resemblence to Leonard McCoy, despite what Memory Alpha says. Just sayin'

His name was in the closing credits.

Edit: Having been informed that this is incorrect, tonight I'm getting copies of TNG season one, to see whether I've misremembered.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

To be sure, he was an unnamed admiral who bore a striking resemblence to Leonard McCoy, despite what Memory Alpha says. Just sayin'

His name was in the closing credits.

With no intention of derailing thread -- in both my SD and BR copies of EAF, the identity of the admiral portrayed by Deforest Kelley is never mentioned in any credits.

Having said that -- of course it was Bones

 

[CorporalCaptain]

To be sure, he was an unnamed admiral who bore a striking resemblence to Leonard McCoy, despite what Memory Alpha says. Just sayin'

His name was in the closing credits.

With no intention of derailing thread -- in both my SD and BR copies of EAF, the identity of the admiral portrayed by Deforest Kelley is never mentioned in any credits.

Having said that -- of course it was Bones

Mea culpa if that is so. I may be mis-remembering what I saw when the episode originally aired. It's been over 25 years now!

 

[F. King Daniel]

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?

To be sure, he was an unnamed admiral who bore a striking resemblence to Leonard McCoy, despite what Memory Alpha says. Just sayin'

Oh please, that was obviously a McCoy from an alternate reality, not the TOS one. If the filmmakers intended them to be one and the same, the MOVIE Enterprise wouldn't have come up on the screen when it should have been the TV series version in "The Naked Now". Clearly in the TNG universe the technology advanced at a different rate...

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

Oh please, that was obviously a McCoy from an alternate reality, not the TOS one. If the filmmakers intended them to be one and the same, the MOVIE Enterprise wouldn't have come up on the screen when it should have been the TV series version in "The Naked Now". Clearly in the TNG universe the technology advanced at a different rate...

Indeed. In fact, TNG started right after TVH so it's obvious that the time travel events in that movie were responsible for this divergent timeline -- what with Mr. Scott giving transparent aluminum to Marcus Nichols and a Klingon disruptor and communicator being left in the hands of the US Navy. These events very likely made technology advance faster with the Constitution class already sporting it's refit by the time of "The Naked Time."

 

[Captain Jed R.]

Which is exactly what a reboot is. The old series was clearly no longer working.

Doctor Who was brought back in 2005 with fresh ideas, a frees perspective and brand new stories. It was also brought back without rebooting a damn thing. The Doctor in the 2005 series was very much the same character as the one from earlier series, and there have been numerous links since. Doctor Who is currently (arguably) one of the most successful shows in the s-f genre.

A reboot is one way of doing things anew, but don't say it's the only way when that's patently false.

You do realize that ratings started sliding during Deep Space Nine's run? General audiences pretty much started rejecting the Berman led spin-offs.

Um, again, that has precisely what to do with the prime universe?

The thing you're quoting is me saying that the Prime universe in and of itself did not lead to the audience drop off, did not lead to an audience rejection, did not lead to cancellation. What you've said, BillJ, basically confirms my point that it was in a
fact a tired old production team running out of steam that killed the franchise at that point, a problem that could have been fixed with a bit of a break to properly develop a new series and a new production team.

Right now, if they made a Prime universe spin off, it would entirely depend on it's writing and acting whether it was successful, not whether it was set in the Prime universe. Which one could argue makes the Prime universe unnecessary to revisit - and of course, they'd be right - but it doesn't make the Prime universe in any way a bad idea to revisit, which was my point.