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

[Harvey]

Some points:

(1) The A and B plot may have been an innovation compared to Star Trek, but it was hardly remarkable in terms of dramatic television in 1987.

(2) Star Trek: The Next Generation definitely took greater narrative risks than its predecessor. As you've pointed out, character arcs developed over time, secondary characters were highlighted on a recurring basis, etc. Nonetheless, compared to dramatic television in 1987-94, I'd hesitate to call any of this truly "innovative," although unlike VOY or ENT, it was at least keeping abreast of changes to television.

(3) I'd agree that TNG is "genuine sci-fi" (although I'd drop "genuine" as being redundant; it's either sci-fi or it isn't), but I'd also argue that the later series were just as much science fiction as much as TNG was.

(4) I (shockingly!) disagree with your assessment of the Abrams movies as lacking any distinguishable elements of STAR TREK. To my eyes, they get as close to the original series as anything in their sense of adventure, pace, aesthetic, and tone.

 

[BigJake]

It might be more accurate to say TNG was innovative for the genre in the medium (or for its franchise) than for the medium per se, that's fair enough.

 

[Sindatur]

Fantasy Island was a Genre Show, and often had More plots going than just different ones for the Guest stars. IE: Often a Plot of Tattoo being given an important Fantasy to oversee being granted, or A Maid finding Love or Mr. Roarke showing a Dark or mysterious side, etc (Though, Dark Roarke was far more directly shown with the Malcolm McDowell Remake)

The Love Boat also had a Ship's Crew Plotline, along with the Guest plotlines, which often developed the Crew's Characters.

And those started a Decade + earlier

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Fantasy Island was a Genre Show, and often had More plots going than just different ones for the Guest stars. IE: Often a Plot of Tattoo being given an important Fantasy to oversee being granted, or A Maid finding Love or Mr. Roarke showing a Dark or mysterious side, etc (Though, Dark Roarke was far more directly shown with the Malcolm McDowell Remake)

Fantasy Island was dark in the original series as well, especially the pilot movies.

The Love Boat also had a Ship's Crew Plotline, along with the Guest plotlines, which often developed the Crew's Characters.

And those started a Decade + earlier

The less said about The Love Boat, the better; I'm sorry I ever wasted my time seeing that show as a child. Having B-plots on it meant nothing as the show was written 'for a child of five years old by a child of five years old' as Gale Gordon put it in an interview for the Toronto Star back in the 1980's (he was asked if he ever wanted to be on that show, and what he thought of TV then.)

 

[BigJake]

It occurs to me that literally the only thing I remember about Fantasy Island is Tattoo's catch-phrase: "Boss! Boss! The plane! The plane!" That is it.

That makes me sad, somehow...

 

[drt]

Heh...

All I really remember is the wide brush strokes of how in the earlier seasons the Island was more grounded in reality with things like "movie special effects", etc. and Roarke would be shown to be playing some of the characters the visitors encountered, but in the later seasons Roarke was some kind of supernatural creature and occasionally fought demons and crap.

 

[Sindatur]

<snip> ...but in the later seasons Roarke was some kind of supernatural creature and occasionally fought demons and crap.

Was that MontalRoarke? McDowellRoarke, definitely was portrayed as Supernatural from the Get-go, but, all I remember of Montalban Roarke was allusions and explanations? Did I stop watching before it turned more Supernatural?

 

[Timewalker]

Heh...

All I really remember is the wide brush strokes of how in the earlier seasons the Island was more grounded in reality with things like "movie special effects", etc. and Roarke would be shown to be playing some of the characters the visitors encountered, but in the later seasons Roarke was some kind of supernatural creature and occasionally fought demons and crap.

In the last season (I think it was the last season), Roddy McDowall played the Devil, and he and Roarke contended for the soul of Roarke's young female ward (I forget her name). Finally, Roarke offered to split the difference, saying the Devil could have her 3 days a week, he'd have her 3 other days, and she would get 1 day to herself. The Devil said, "That's absurd!" and somehow the situation got resolved.

I remember enjoying these shows a lot - Saturday night was the Love Boat/Fantasy Island time, and a lot of actors guested on both shows. There were even a couple of crossovers, although Mr. Roarke never stepped foot on the Pacific Princess.

 

[Commishsleer]

(3) I'd agree that TNG is "genuine sci-fi" (although I'd drop "genuine" as being redundant; it's either sci-fi or it isn't), but I'd also argue that the later series were just as much science fiction as much as TNG was.

I think what muddied the water in regards to the sc-fi aspect of TNG are (to me at least)
- The A and B plots confused the 'serious' plot
- Technobabble
- The lack of wonder at most any great discovery - eg. Picard seemed to have more interesting things to do than marvel at the Enterprise going to the Andromeda Galaxy
- The lack of Classical Science Fiction themes but more modern ones such as cloning etc
- The political plots involving the Klingons etc

 

[bbjeg]

The distinction between the two is one is an alternate reality, though I always considered NuTrek to be apart of Prime Trek. The fact Spock Prime didn't cease to exist after Vulcan's demise leads me to believe he could get back to his reality (if he had the knowhow).

Rick Berman's version of Star Trek is merely one version of Star Trek, based on Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, but no more or less valid than Abrams' version, which is also based on GR's ST. To lump Berman's Trek spinoffs under the blanket term "Prime" implies it to be somehow more legitimate or "real" Star Trek than Abrams' Trek, which is nonsense.

And I don't even like Abrams' movies...

The term "Prime" was coined from 2009 Trek's credits referring to Nemoy's character as Spock Prime. It's not implying it's more legitimate, just connected to a different reality. A contiguous reality that spans from TOS, through TNG, DS9, and Voy, to the future scenes in 2009's Trek (the Prime Timeline).

 

[Maurice]

Hill Street Blues was doing A, B and C plots virtually every episode from day one, with each major plot arcing across three subsequent episodes so if you tuned in on any given week you'd catch the start of one new plot, the middle or another, and the finish of a third. THAT was innovative and pre-TNG. TNG was a throwback in many ways, so to claim it was a "first in its genre" is truly damning with faint praise.

 

[milojthatch]

Well, if Trek '09 had been the abomination that some people seem to consider it to be...

But as far as the general public was concerned it wasn't, and as far as the Trek fanbase is concerned, it's my opinion they should be grateful that something happened to revive interest in the franchise even if they didn't care for the precise form that it took.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: *IF* JJ-Trek is the only way to get new "Star Trek," then I'd rather we never see another new film or show again. Just my feeling, I doubt I'm alone.

If Trek comes back, it should be the Prime Universe. Gene and Rick set the dang thing up so wonderfully, and it was THAT version I became a fan of. I realize that the studio wants non-fans to pay ticket prices to see the newest Star Trek film, but frankly, I doubt most of them care. It's fans that keep this franchise going and it's fans that spend billions of dollars each year on Star Trek merchandise and tickets to attend Star Trek conventions, not the general public.

The general public will watch (at best) a new Star Trek film once, maybe twice if they liked it enough in the theater, and possibly buy the film on DVD or Blu-ray and that is as far as it will ever go. They would re-buy the film six years down the road to get the new extras, they won't buy the comic books or the video games or action figures, they won't dress up and buy all the things needed to make their costume look awesome, they won't go to Star Trek Conversions or theme park-like attractions (when they exist). They won't invest in the franchise the way real fans do. As far as I can see, the current powers that be at the studios doesn't get any of this. And that is why I don't think Star Trek has much of a future right now. Just a hollow shell of it's once awesome self.

 

[Kemaiku]

There is a new film coming out in 2016, with no indication that it will be the last Abrams film. And if Trek is rebooted again after that which it likely will be, it will be changed even more.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

It's fans that keep this franchise going

Until they all die off or move on.

Hence why Nemesis bombed and Enterprise was cancelled there weren't enough fans to keep Trek going.

 

[Harvey]

It's fans that keep this franchise going and it's fans that spend billions of dollars each year on Star Trek merchandise and tickets to attend Star Trek conventions, not the general public.

The figures I've read indicate that CBS makes about $20 million a year from original series merchandise (presumably, each successive spin-off draws in a little less than the show before it). If the franchise ever made "billions of dollars" from merchandise and convention sales, those days were over long ago. Given the age of the fan base we're talking about, continuing to target them isn't the greatest long-term strategy.

Also, considering the bump in sales that have occurred for "Prime" Trek on home video upon the theatrical and home video releases of both Bad Robot films, I don't think your complaints about the "real fans" versus the (fake?) fans have much merit.

 

[BigJake]

Hence why Nemesis bombed and Enterprise was cancelled there weren't enough fans to keep Trek going.

Actually, the lesson of Nemesis and Enterprise is that alienating the fans is bad. They're potentially a goldmine -- the fandom-powered franchise goes well beyond TOS merch -- but only the very hardest-core of them will turn out for just anything with the Trek brand slapped on it.

 

[bbjeg]

^ 33 of our voters so far, or as I like to call them, the "I don't care, just give me Trek!" crowd.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I'd add in several things from The Wrath of Khan: Terrell's suicide, the Ceti eel coming out of Chekov's ear and one of the Enterprise crew being turned into a human torch when Reliant hits it in the torpedo bay.

Which was taken by Abrams and used in the battle scene with the Kelvin and the Narada at the beginning of the 2009 movie, albeit with a sucking out of the crew-member into outer space this time.

 

[Harvey]

Are the two scenes really that similar? Brings to mind the poor guy who gets sucked out the front of the bridge in Star Trek: Nemesis than it does anything in TWOK.

 

[Maurice]

I'd add in several things from The Wrath of Khan: Terrell's suicide, the Ceti eel coming out of Chekov's ear and one of the Enterprise crew being turned into a human torch when Reliant hits it in the torpedo bay.

Which was taken by Abrams and used in the battle scene with the Kelvin and the Narada at the beginning of the 2009 movie, albeit with a sucking out of the crew-member into outer space this time.

Oh please. The explosion and someone catching on fire is a common action movie trope.