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

[BillJ]

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...

So you're saying Deep Space Nine killed the franchise?

 

[Captain Jed R.]

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...

So you're saying Deep Space Nine killed the franchise?

No. The fact that the same production team did the series for years and years killed the franchise. It moght have started then, and it certainly ended with Enterprise.

 

[Ryan8bit]

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

Reboot is such a sloppy term. It could mean a visual reboot, a production team reboot, or a continuity reboot. JJTrek is almost all of those, with the partial exception of continuity.

Part of me wonders what it is about the prime universe that attracts some people so much that JJTrek cannot have. The only thing that I can think of is that Vulcan is destroyed. But that's a good opportunity for stories. Or maybe some think that because of all the changes in the timeline, it's unrealistic to expect their favorite next gen characters to exist. It could be, but unrealism isn't going to stop those in charge of this particular universe. Or is it just that they want to see what happens after Nemesis or the Dominion War and are afraid that Trek will seemingly continue to just reboot Kirk/Spock? Or is it really the production style of the old shows that draws them in?

 

[BigJake]

Part of me wonders what it is about the prime universe that attracts some people so much that JJTrek cannot have.

After the second movie: a reason for starships to continue existing and for death to be part of storylines?

(I kid, of course. I'm entirely confident that Orci & Co. will fix those problems next time out, and I look forward to seeing what new problems they'll replace them with.)

 

[Timewalker]

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?

I've found my copy of The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and early on in the book when the author discusses the attempts to get a script written, one of the people approached was Harlan Ellison (other SF writers had also pitched ideas).

The studio decided these stories weren't right. They tried again, this time summoning Harlan Ellison, Ray Bradbury, and Ted Sturgeon. Gene knew that Star Trek picture possibilities were in trouble when he heard that Ellison, already a veteran of Star Trek television, had been asked to find a way to work the ancient Mayans into his story, even though his movie treatment had absolutely nothing to do with any subject even faintly related to Mayans. Disgusted, Ellison had thrown up his hands and left.

Source: The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, by Susan Sackett & Gene Roddenberry

This is not the only reference to Mayans (or other ancient peoples) I recall reading about in regard to the TMP script. I'm going to continue reading this book to find it, or it could have been mentioned in Chekov's Enterprise.

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.

Everybody died by the end of Hamlet. Unless you do a Shakespearean version of CSI, there's nothing more to be said.

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

Indeed. It's a shame some of the novels couldn't be adapted for movies or TV.

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.

There was just one hiccup in Doctor Who... the TV movie starring Paul McGann retconned the Doctor as being half-human. Thankfully that notion was dropped with the new shows.

 

[Hober Mallow]

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--

Care to quote where I said anything even close to that?

Also, the chances of them making a Star Trek that you actually like are close to nil.

A bit presumptuous of you to think you know what I'd like in Trek series, isn't it?

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.

Star Trek is indeed going to be rebooted, whether you like it or not.

Nothing is going to be exactly like it was in the 60s.

That's a good thing, because the last thing I'd want is a 60s-style Trek. I want Trek to be relevant to us today. That's why I can't get through one of those youtube Trek fanwank series.

Times have changed too much for that, or TNG, or DS9, or whatever people hold as their favorite.

Exactly. Thank you for making my argument for me. That's exactly my point. It's time to move on and make Trek relevant again.

Everybody died by the end of Hamlet. Unless you do a Shakespearean version of CSI, there's nothing more to be said.

Not everyone died. Fortinbras reclaimed his family's lost land, Horatio lived to tell the world Hamlet's story. Also, Yorick's skull is still lying around somewhere.

 

[Greg Cox]

Everybody died by the end of Hamlet. Unless you do a Shakespearean version of CSI, there's nothing more to be said.

Clearly, you haven't seen Rosencrantz and Guilderstern are Undead . . . .

(Yes, that's a real movie!)

 

[Nerys Myk]

Hamlet 2

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

Part of me wonders what it is about the prime universe that attracts some people so much that JJTrek cannot have. The only thing that I can think of is that Vulcan is destroyed. But that's a good opportunity for stories. Or maybe some think that because of all the changes in the timeline, it's unrealistic to expect their favorite next gen characters to exist. It could be, but unrealism isn't going to stop those in charge of this particular universe. Or is it just that they want to see what happens after Nemesis or the Dominion War and are afraid that Trek will seemingly continue to just reboot Kirk/Spock? Or is it really the production style of the old shows that draws them in?

Speaking for myself, and I like both Classic and NuTrek, I think what attracts me most about the original continuity is simply that there's a huge fictional universe that I've come to know and be comfortable with as a place to escape when watching TV or reading a book. We all know the characters, the places, and technologies, and it's natural to want to continue visiting it, in my opinion. I like to see where a character that I've known for years and years can be taken by good writers and also seeing where lesser known characters that were interesting but were only on the show for a short time. Set against the back drop of this familiar, comfortable, and second home that writers have been building for 50 years, I think it makes the characters more relatable because I can empathize with the character and story on two levels -- what it means to me in the real world, and what it means for the character in his or her world.

I'm happy that the prime universe continues in the novels and enjoy the fact that the modern novelverse, at least as far as I've been able to ascertain, has a consistency at least as good as the prior incarnations of Trek on TV or movie screens, and extends that continuity. Like I said above, it's a familiar place with characters we love being put into another situation that we enjoy watching them figure out.

The question to me really isn't if I want the prime timeline back, because as far as I'm concerned, it's still there, just not on the TV or movie screen. It's a trade off though -- yeah it's sad there's not anything new in the prime timeline on a screen with special effects, actors, and the like, but at the same time the book lasts longer and what I imagine in my head while reading is always going to be more realistic and impressive looking than TV and the writing is, for the most part, better than Trek became in the later years (I still give DS9 a pass though because it was written well IMO -- for the most part).

NuTrek just hasn't been around long enough and I simply don't care about these versions of the characters as much, or about the circumstances of their timeline. That's not bad though, and it doesn't mean I don't like the characters or the world they're in. I like the characters a lot and enjoy watching them. It's just math. I've known the prime timeline my whole life and I just met these guys, so I'm always going to enjoy visiting the prime timeline, because it's still being written and I'm used to it. NuTrek is just a bonus on top of that because now I get to see how the same characters and situations develop in a different "quantum reality."

As far as the canon, I really can't think of any time between TOS and VOY where the canon really had a negative impact on the stories. If canon was a problem, they ignored it plenty of times and still told a good story. As was said earlier, I think the production and writing just got stale and, IMO, still had a somewhat 80s television sensibility well into the 2000s. That type of Trek was going to get cancelled, canon or not, prime or not. I think the novelverse shows that you can stick within the same timeline and write really good, compelling stories.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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.

I've found my copy of The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and early on in the book when the author discusses the attempts to get a script written, one of the people approached was Harlan Ellison (other SF writers had also pitched ideas).

The studio decided these stories weren't right. They tried again, this time summoning Harlan Ellison, Ray Bradbury, and Ted Sturgeon. Gene knew that Star Trek picture possibilities were in trouble when he heard that Ellison, already a veteran of Star Trek television, had been asked to find a way to work the ancient Mayans into his story, even though his movie treatment had absolutely nothing to do with any subject even faintly related to Mayans. Disgusted, Ellison had thrown up his hands and left.

Source: The Making of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, by Susan Sackett & Gene Roddenberry

This is not the only reference to Mayans (or other ancient peoples) I recall reading about in regard to the TMP script. I'm going to continue reading this book to find it, or it could have been mentioned in Chekov's Enterprise.

What you've related here sounds like something where the industry corrected itself, so I don't see how there's any ax to grind in this case, regarding producers who think that the general public is too dumb to care. Not only is whoever it was with an itch to portray the paranormal not named, nothing ever came of his or her recommendation anyway, at least in Star Trek movies.

---

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!

Yeah, it appears I misremembered. On the DVD, it's in the closing credits, but it says, "Special Guest Appearance By DeForest Kelley". I'm going to assume that this is a case of them thinking that you'd have to have been living under a rock not to know who he was.

Thanks for catching that!

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."

Heh.

 

[T'Girl]

Everybody died by the end of Hamlet. Unless you do a Shakespearean version of CSI, there's nothing more to be said.

Clearly, you haven't seen Rosencrantz and Guilderstern are Undead . . . .

The Blackadder made it work, every season finale TPTB killed off all the main characters, then brought them back at the beginning of the next season (ever so slightly changed).


l

 

[Timewalker]

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.

What you've related here sounds like something where the industry corrected itself, so I don't see how there's any ax to grind in this case, regarding producers who think that the general public is too dumb to care. Not only is whoever it was with an itch to portray the paranormal not named, nothing ever came of his or her recommendation anyway, at least in Star Trek movies.

Would you please take note of my repeated statements that I'm angry that there were producers/studio idiots with some kind of input who thought the viewers were too dumb to KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? I've also said that this isn't the only time I read about this notion of inserting ancient mysticism into the movie script. When/if I find the other text I read, I will reference it here.

"Not caring" is not the same as "not knowing." The first is apathy; the second implies stupidity.

I am angry that whoever wanted this crap in the script thought the viewers were STUPID, not apathetic.

Everybody died by the end of Hamlet. Unless you do a Shakespearean version of CSI, there's nothing more to be said.

Clearly, you haven't seen Rosencrantz and Guilderstern are Undead . . . .

The Blackadder made it work, every season finale TPTB killed off all the main characters, then brought them back at the beginning of the next season (ever so slightly changed).

Yes, I've seen Blackadder. The thing is, that was a consistent in-universe thing they did. It's not like there were years, or decades going by between the series and completely different production and writing personnel making those decisions. I just thought of it as a form of reincarnation, coupled with the typically weird (but lovable) British humor.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

What you've related here sounds like something where the industry corrected itself, so I don't see how there's any ax to grind in this case, regarding producers who think that the general public is too dumb to care. Not only is whoever it was with an itch to portray the paranormal not named, nothing ever came of his or her recommendation anyway, at least in Star Trek movies.

Would you please take note of my repeated statements that I'm angry that there were producers/studio idiots with some kind of input who thought the viewers were too dumb to KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? I've also said that this isn't the only time I read about this notion of inserting ancient mysticism into the movie script. When/if I find the other text I read, I will reference it here.

"Not caring" is not the same as "not knowing." The first is apathy; the second implies stupidity.

I am angry that whoever wanted this crap in the script thought the viewers were STUPID, not apathetic

It would be helpful if you could find a reference to this "producer/studio idiot" calling viewers dumb. As it is, it sounds like someone might have been a Von Däniken fan and wanted to shoehorn that into the film.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What you've related here sounds like something where the industry corrected itself, so I don't see how there's any ax to grind in this case, regarding producers who think that the general public is too dumb to care. Not only is whoever it was with an itch to portray the paranormal not named, nothing ever came of his or her recommendation anyway, at least in Star Trek movies.

Would you please take note of my repeated statements that I'm angry that there were producers/studio idiots with some kind of input who thought the viewers were too dumb to KNOW THE DIFFERENCE? I've also said that this isn't the only time I read about this notion of inserting ancient mysticism into the movie script. When/if I find the other text I read, I will reference it here.

"Not caring" is not the same as "not knowing." The first is apathy; the second implies stupidity.

I am angry that whoever wanted this crap in the script thought the viewers were STUPID, not apathetic

It would be helpful if you could find a reference to this "producer/studio idiot" calling viewers dumb. As it is, it sounds like someone might have been a Von Däniken fan and wanted to shoehorn that into the film.

Timewalker, it would indeed be helpful if you could find such a reference, because the account that you quoted from Roddenberry & Sackett doesn't mention anything about the person in question saying that the viewers were too dumb to know the difference. All one can suppose is that the person in question thought it would make the film more appealing.

Additionally, as I said, the industry corrected itself, since nothing ever came of the idea, at least in the Star Trek movies, although we'll never know whether including the recommendations would have hurt or helped a film that never got made. Moreover, the alleged incident took place circa 1975, in TMP's life as a prospective film before work on Phase II even began. Since that's twice removed from the TMP we got, I have a hard time seeing how this supports the idea that this unnamed person had "some kind of input". If we knew who the person was, and if he or she was still around for actual work on TMP, then one might be able to say that he or she tangibly had input.

So, why is knowing that there is one anonymous "bad man" in Hollywood who didn't get his way with a Star Trek film that never got made something to be angry about?

 

[Timewalker]

Have you ever read this book? Just curious, because it details all kinds of ridiculous ideas for the movie, some of which must have percolated in someone's mind, given the "let's go to the middle of the galaxy to find God" crap that was ST V.

There were some interesting ideas as well, involving time travel, and who knows if those could have worked?

As I've said, if/when I find the other reference I've mentioned, I will certainly post whatever information I have. For now, you will have to trust my word that I remember reading it, although after all these years I'm not sure exactly where. It may take awhile, since I'm doing NaNoWriMo this month and my reading time is limited.

I don't see why it's difficult to understand why someone (me, among many other hypothetical movie audience members) would be angry at being thought stupid, since that's what the studio individual did when he (assuming it was a "he") said the viewers would never know the difference.

The reason I said the person had "input" is because this incident was mentioned in the first place. If the person didn't have the right and authority to make suggestions, recommendations, or order the movie to include certain themes, it likely wouldn't have been deemed important enough for Susan Sackett to mention it in this book.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Have you ever read this book?

No. I'd have at least vaguely remembered the incident involving Harlan Ellison, if I had.

I don't see why it's difficult to understand why someone (me, among many other hypothetical movie audience members) would be angry at being thought stupid, since that's what the studio individual did when he (assuming it was a "he") said the viewers would never know the difference.

With over six billion people in the world, me, I make it a point not to get upset over the existence of people here and there who might think negative things about me.

The reason I said the person had "input" is because this incident was mentioned in the first place. If the person didn't have the right and authority to make suggestions, recommendations, or order the movie to include certain themes, it likely wouldn't have been deemed important enough for Susan Sackett to mention it in this book.

My point is that, while this unnamed person had input, it was input on a project that never got made. And, based on the information presented, it's hard to see how whatever influence he or she had circa 1975 carried over into Phase II once the '75 film project was abandoned, or into the film we got once Phase II was abandoned. It would help to know who we are talking about, and what role he or she played in both Phase II and the actual TMP. Not to mention, it would help to know what actually transpired between this person and Harlan Ellison.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

Maybe it was joke the guy made while at the urinal with Harlan one day.

 

[BrownShatner]

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.

Doctor Who had a long established "reboot" mechanism with regenerations and the notion that the sidekicks were temporary characters.

Even if it technically was never fully rebooted, I don't see how one could apply the Doctor Who method to most other television programs. "Captain Picard had a medical procedure and now he's a younger guy with a different personality." Not going to work.

 

[BrownShatner]

Also, I have to wonder if the timeline really matters at all.

The only point of the NuTrek reboot was to bring back Kirk & Spock & the gang. If there was a new ship and new characters, how much would really change if it was set in the 23rd or 24th or 25th centuries?

The exploration stories would be the same
The alien of the week stories would be the same
The colony in danger stories would be the same
The Klingon stories would be pretty much the same
The Romulan stories would be the same, except Romulus blew up
The technobabble might be superficially different, I guess


My gauge of fan sentiment: Over the years a lot of people always wanted there to be some follow-up to Deep Space Nine, and are disappointed they never got one. But if they did bring back the Prime Universe, it's really unlikely they would reference the space opera politics of DS9 very much. It was somewhat complicated and obscure even when it was on the air, and that was a long time ago.

I suppose in the Prime universe, you would be more likely to see Cardassians and Ferengi, but they would be in the Nu Universe as well, along with Andorians and whoever else the writers wanted to use. Other than a few throw-away lines here and there, there probably would not be much if any difference between a Prime show and one set in the NuTrek reboot.

 

[bbjeg]

Also, I have to wonder if the timeline really matters at all.

... how much would really change if it was set in the 23rd or 24th or 25th centuries?

... Other than a few throw-away lines here and there, there probably would not be much if any difference between a Prime show and one set in the NuTrek reboot.

The state of Vulcan would be a huge difference.

And those throw-away lines could have meaning to those who understand its reference. I'm only using The Avengers as an example because I literally just saw it but there's a scene where Nick is telling Thor about the scepter that's able to turn people into the users own personal flying monkeys. Thor didn't get it but CA ringed in that he got that reference, and he felt great about it. The rest of the movie continues and those who got that scene, got it, and those who didn't, weren't going to storm away from the movie because they didn't. Plus a 25th century series would be foolish not to reference to prior series. When Admiral Jones tells Commodore Teton "We expect more casualties then the time Sisko retook DS9," those who got it would smile, those who don't could imagine it was a big battle, and those who want to find out can buy the (soon to be released HD) episode and see it for themselves. It'll be a source of revenue.

IMO throw-away lines gives stories replay value.