Do fans want the prime timeline back?

[SolitaryJustice]

It would, because until the very end when someone came out and hit you with it, it wouldn't really be Star Trek as we know it. It would still BE star trek, but it would be a viable, general-audience presentable drama that, like the re-imagined BattleStar, would bring in an audience who don't have to be familiar with it's predecessor to enjoy the show.

 

[SeerSGB]

It would, because until the very end when someone came out and hit you with it, it wouldn't really be Star Trek as we know it. It would still BE star trek, but it would be a viable, general-audience presentable drama that, like the re-imagined BattleStar, would bring in an audience who don't have to be familiar with it's predecessor to enjoy the show.

They tried that ideal already: it was called Enteprise. They went as far as to file off Star Trek name. We saw how that went.

 

[SolitaryJustice]

It would, because until the very end when someone came out and hit you with it, it wouldn't really be Star Trek as we know it. It would still BE star trek, but it would be a viable, general-audience presentable drama that, like the re-imagined BattleStar, would bring in an audience who don't have to be familiar with it's predecessor to enjoy the show.

They tried that ideal already: it was called Enteprise. They went as far as to file off Star Trek name. We saw how that went.

Enterprise was a failure for a lot of reasons. I don't think taking Star Trek off the title card was one of them. Enterprise failed from a one-dimensional cast and the same, soft, bland, formulaic writing that accompanied the ratings downward in post-TNG TV Trek. It could have been an awesome show, but it wasn't BattleStar was, and they didn't change the name at all.

 

[polyharmonic]

To me, its not an issue of old timeline vs new timeline but rather good writing vs terrible careless, loose writing. Personally I was looking forward to a complete reboot and didn't care about maintaining the prime timeline.

My issue with ST09 and STID is that these were VERY loosely and careless written action sci-fi FX movies. I'm not going to go into all the issues I have with these movies esp ST09 as its been done to death but let me just say I was very disappointed.

The best way to explain my feeling is to compare it to the X-Men movies. AbramsTrek is basically to me like XMen:Last Stand, lots of special effects and explosions but very loosely and poorly written. It was crap.

OTOH that is not the case with XMen FC, X1 or X2. Those movies had lots of action and explosions and FX but, although not perfect, were in general well and THOUGHTFULLY written.

And this is why I hate all those people who say that only a dumb noisy action flick a-la Transformers style can appeal to the casual Trek moviegoer. I mean you can have lots of FX and action and explosions and, gasp, still write something carefully and tightly without tons of careless and thoughtless and nonsensical and convoluted and contrived plot elements. (yes i realize no movie can be free of them but ST09 really goes far in this).

Too bad Bryan Singer/Matt Vaughn didn't reboot Trek instead or Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman.

 

[Belz...]

I get what you are saying, but please stop using films like Ben Hur as an example for remakes. Especially with the case of Ben Hur, each new version was accompanied by a huge leap in film technology.

But we're discussing story. Of course remakes have advances in tech.

Enterprise was a failure for a lot of reasons. I don't think taking Star Trek off the title card was one of them.

That's not what he meant.

 

[Yanks]

(snip) ... But a full-scale Trek project in that vein? I don't see anyone outside of the core fandom really caring.

That that "fandom" would be so fractured and bickering it wouldn't work. (See Enterprise)

 

[JarodRussell]

Just forget about it, do a Prime timeline, post-TNG film, and don't mention it.

In my opinion, a simple 5 minute flashback would suffice. Just explain the backstory a bit. Enterprise, Deep Space Nine, Dominion War, blablabla. And only if it's relevant to the story of the film. If not, then you don't need to know it.
Lord of the Rings gave such a backstory exposition at the very beginning, and nobody complained about being "confused" by so much backstory.
It doesn't matter that there are 700 episodes, it doesn't matter AT ALL. All you need to know is the essence and gist of all of it, which isn't that much. There is the Federation, there is a famous line of starships, there was a big war, and that war is over now and that's it.

Heck, nobody complained about being confused by Old Spock's appearance in Abramstrek. His character has the "baggage" of 70 episodes and 6 films, and what did you need to know about all of it to get the film? NOTHING.

All you needed to know about First Contact was that Picard was previously assimilated. You didn't need to know how, you didn't need to know anything about later episodes with Hugh or Lore, nothing.

All those claims that the franchise somehow got caught up in its own continuity, and that audiences would be confused by so much baggage, is absolute rubbish.

 

[SolitaryJustice]

Could it be that, somehow, Trekkies are turning on Star Trek? One of the things I used to brag about in the Trekkies vs. Fanboys argument was that, with Star Wars, no matter what comes out, the Fanboys (and Fangirls) always compared it to the original, never satisfied for something that wasn't one of the original releases of the original three movies. Even those same movies with updated special effects, they didn't make anything better. They ruined IV, V, and VI. Trekkies, on the other hand, were given DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, Gerations, Insurrection, Nemesis, ST09, and STID, (I left First Contact off there, because that movie was awesome)... anyway, we were given all that, and no matter how bad it was, we tried. Dammit we tried to like Enterprise. We invested. But as hard as we tried, we still couldn't do it. Was that when the tide started turning? Ten or fifteen years ago, any new trek would have been celebrated! Praised! OMG there is new Star Trek! OMG! Squee! But now... we're picky. We're snobby. We know what we want, and unless we get exactly that, it's worthless.

I'm not here to defend Enterprise or any other bad writing, but I, too, believed in something bigger than me with Star Trek. But now, I'm in a crisis of faith. I want to see it proceed. I want to like it. I want more. But am I really going to like it? Is anyone? Has that tipping point been reached?

 

[Sindatur]

Could it be that, somehow, Trekkies are turning on Star Trek? One of the things I used to brag about in the Trekkies vs. Fanboys argument was that, with Star Wars, no matter what comes out, the Fanboys (and Fangirls) always compared it to the original, never satisfied for something that wasn't one of the original releases of the original three movies. Even those same movies with updated special effects, they didn't make anything better. They ruined IV, V, and VI. Trekkies, on the other hand, were given DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, Gerations, Insurrection, Nemesis, ST09, and STID, (I left First Contact off there, because that movie was awesome)... anyway, we were given all that, and no matter how bad it was, we tried. Dammit we tried to like Enterprise. We invested. But as hard as we tried, we still couldn't do it. Was that when the tide started turning? Ten or fifteen years ago, any new trek would have been celebrated! Praised! OMG there is new Star Trek! OMG! Squee! But now... we're picky. We're snobby. We know what we want, and unless we get exactly that, it's worthless.

I'm not here to defend Enterprise or any other bad writing, but I, too, believed in something bigger than me with Star Trek. But now, I'm in a crisis of faith. I want to see it proceed. I want to like it. I want more. But am I really going to like it? Is anyone? Has that tipping point been reached?

There has always been a certain small percentage to grumble, ever since TAS, that percentage hasn't really increased, and the complaints are no different (Witness the thread using WoK complaints and pretending they were for STiD). Voyager, and especially Enterprise, Insurrection and Nemesis, yea, there was a much larger percentage of "Hardcore Fans" disappointed, as the dwindling ratings showed, but, STiD and ST'09 are not hated by the kind of numbers the recent Media reports have been trying to lead people to believe (Witness the Polls here, the RottenTomatoes numbers, the volume of Board members here, versus the volume of Folks constantly expressing their hatred). In all fandoms, you are always going to have a certain percentage that isn't happy with the latest Product, be it a Rockband, a movie franchise, a Book Franchise, Painter groupies, etc)

 

[David.Blue]

There's so much Trek out there--movies, t.v. series, comic books, novels, video games, fan fiction, fan-made series and movies, audio shows, etc. None of them perfect, some of them just dreadful, the vast majority a mixed bag, and some real gems among the bunch. Plus more on their way. No need to despair.

 

[Timewalker]

I think I'd prefer a new series--if it takes place in the future--where you simply could not tell if it were the "original" timeline or the alternate.

Add in decent writing that doesn't assume the audience is stupid or scientifically illiterate, plus non-plastic actors who can actually act, and I'd give it a try.

Better, but I really do think that remakes get a bum rap. Hollywood history is littered with classic films that are remakes: BEN-HUR, THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE MALTESE FALCON, TARZAN THE APE MAN, THE MARK OF ZORRO, SOME LIKE IT HOT, THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, THE HORROR OF DRACULA, VICTOR/VICTORIA, THE THING, THE FLY, etc. In some cases, there are several classic versions of the same story.

I'm not sure when we decided that remakes and reboots are the devil. I mean, nobody objects when the Met puts on a new production of "Carmen" or Broadway stages a revival of "Death of a Salesman." But remake an old movie or TV show . . . sacrilege!

I get what you are saying, but please stop using films like Ben Hur as an example for remakes. Especially with the case of Ben Hur, each new version was accompanied by a huge leap in film technology. The original 1907 version was a 15 minute silent film. The 1925 version was a long silent film with revolutionary two color technique. The 1959 Charlton Heston version was finally a modern film with color, sound and cinemascope. The 2010 Ben Hur was a mini TV series, so it was transferred yet another medium with different storytelling demands. That is in no way comparable to, let's say, Total Recall 1990 vs Total Recall 2012, where there was no such leap in technology between them.

Same thing goes for stage plays. The very nature of stage plays is that the are re-performed each time, and different theaters need different actors. Films and TV shows are recorded, they stay the same every time. If that is not a distinct difference, then I don't know what would be.

What you don't have in stage plays is remakes of the actual written play. At least to my knowledge. Romeo and Juliet, now without the silly rhymes, and with more sex and violence!
I also have a hard time thinking of books that are remade. Is there a Tom Clancy version of Lord of the Rings?
Or graphic novels that are redrawn because the old drawing style isn't up to date anymore?

I will disagree about stage plays. Haven't you ever seen a televised stage play? I saw lots of those on PBS. That was my first exposure to Shakespeare that was actually performed, rather than just me reading in the classroom. I got hooked, and couldn't wait to see a real live performance in person. And when that happened, I got hooked all over again.

As for remakes/reimaginings... ever see West Side Story? That's Romeo and Juliet set in New York in the '50s, and it's a musical involving street gangs. That is the ONLY adaptation of Romeo and Juliet I ever liked, other than the Zeferelli movie and the live performances I've seen (I prefer my Shakespeare as close to traditional as possible).

I get what you are saying, but please stop using films like Ben Hur as an example for remakes. Especially with the case of Ben Hur, each new version was accompanied by a huge leap in film technology. The original 1907 version was a 15 minute silent film. The 1925 version was a long silent film with revolutionary two color technique. The 1959 Charlton Heston version was finally a modern film with color, sound and cinemascope. The 2010 Ben Hur was a mini TV series, so it was transferred yet another medium with different storytelling demands. That is in no way comparable to, let's say, Total Recall 1990 vs Total Recall 2012, where there was no such leap in technology between them.

I see your point about changing technology, but part of me still suspects that back in 1959, older folks were going "Ben-Hur again? Hollywood has run out of ideas. And the 1925 version is fine as it is and didn't need to be remade. Stupid kids these days can't appreciate good movies unless they've got lots of flashy color photography and a blaring soundtrack . . . "

My grandmother saw the 1959 version of Ben-Hur in the theatre, and she was enthralled. She loved it, and tried for years to get me to watch it with her whenever it was on TV. Finally I did, and now I understand why she loved it. Naturally, part of it was that Charlton Heston was so damn handsome back then, but the fact is that the movie was simply epic. It was an incredible example of moviemaking for the chariot race alone. I'm in awe of that part of the movie, and I don't even like horses!

There's so much Trek out there--movies, t.v. series, comic books, novels, video games, fan fiction, fan-made series and movies, audio shows, etc. None of them perfect, some of them just dreadful, the vast majority a mixed bag, and some real gems among the bunch. Plus more on their way. No need to despair.

This is one reason why it's annoyed me no end in this thread when some of you have basically said, "Your favorite kind of Trek isn't ever coming back so get used to it, neener, neener, neener!"

I don't need the Abramsverse crap. That's not real Star Trek to me. I've got tens of thousands of fanfic stories at my fingertips, both online and in my fanzine collection, far more than I could ever read. There are lots of TOS novels I've still to read. When some new movie or TV Trek comes along that doesn't assume I'm a moron with the attention span of a gnat or someone who mistakes explosions and special effects for a story, I'll watch it. I might even see it in the theatre instead of waiting a couple of years for it to come on TV.

 

[SolitaryJustice]

It's all Star Trek to me. Star Trek is like family. I really like some of it. I can't stand some of it. But I love all of it regardless, even if it's like me telling my little sister that she needs to get her shit together. Star Trek needs to get its shit together. Whether or not it's done the way I FEEL it needs to be done, I'm not the patriarch. I will love it regardless, even if I hate it.

That being said, I think Star Trek has certain core elements that make it Star Trek and NOT BSG or Doctor Who. Does that mean it can't draw inspiration off those shows? Absolutely not. It can draw inspiration from an NFL team's history for all I care, as long as it doesn't lose the core things: character development, quality science-fiction storytelling, addressing social issues that people hesitate to talk about, and at least acknowledging where it came from if it's not going to just expand on it. That last part is tricky, because it sucks you in. DS9, VOY, and ENT (and Insurrection, Generations, and Nemesis) focused on that last part so much that it defined they dropped the first three and we, as fans, were left feeling empty. The new movies, touched on it, ST09 more than STID, but STID just barely squeaked by in acknowledgement.

So we move forward, in whatever timeline, and get back to what makes Star Trek Star Trek, and we'll be fine.

 

[Hober Mallow]

To me, its not an issue of old timeline vs new timeline but rather good writing vs terrible careless, loose writing. Personally I was looking forward to a complete reboot and didn't care about maintaining the prime timeline.

My issue with ST09 and STID is that these were VERY loosely and careless written action sci-fi FX movies. I'm not going to go into all the issues I have with these movies esp ST09 as its been done to death but let me just say I was very disappointed.

The best way to explain my feeling is to compare it to the X-Men movies. AbramsTrek is basically to me like XMen:Last Stand, lots of special effects and explosions but very loosely and poorly written. It was crap.

OTOH that is not the case with XMen FC, X1 or X2. Those movies had lots of action and explosions and FX but, although not perfect, were in general well and THOUGHTFULLY written.

And this is why I hate all those people who say that only a dumb noisy action flick a-la Transformers style can appeal to the casual Trek moviegoer. I mean you can have lots of FX and action and explosions and, gasp, still write something carefully and tightly without tons of careless and thoughtless and nonsensical and convoluted and contrived plot elements. (yes i realize no movie can be free of them but ST09 really goes far in this).

Totally agree with all those points. That's why I'm hoping the next TV series is another reboot. A good reboot.

 

[SolitaryJustice]

It would be cool to see a reboot, but I really hesitate with that, and here's why: by continuing Trek instead of rebooting it, we continue to be unique. We can reboot storylines (Next Gen did often from TOS episodes), but by continuing, somehow, without a reboot, we aren't just another sequel or another reboot, we're PART of a HUGE saga, and, for fans like me, I like being part of something that big that hasn't just rebooted like every other movie out these days. Looking at a list of movies out this summer, 9 out of 10 were either sequals or reboots. Certain movie series are exempt from that, of course. Bond movies, LOTR, Star Wars... there are a few movies that are part of a larger saga, and people have accepted that.

Look at Batman, though. That series has been rebooted how many times, with how many actors, how many "begins-"type stories? By being the right part of a... thing... that Star Trek is, we have a chance to do a new series that, in many ways, will be viewed by some without having seen, nor the desire to watch, any other Star Trek at all. That's okay. That's awesome! Watch this and be happy. The other cool part is that, if done right, gives enough of a nod to the fans already that are loyal.

The Dark Knight movies did that very well. Hey new people, try this Batman, and see if you like it. They did. They loved it. But then again, that doesn't mean they're going to go back and watch the old ones. Same with the newest Bond movies. Bond fans don't worry about Canon. (How could they?) Each movie is a stand-alone movie (with the exception of the last three), some loved the Roger Moore movies, the Sean Connery movies, the Daniel Craig movies, and they'll never watch any of the others.

The most recent Trek flicks started out okay, built the roles for the new team, nodded to canon with Spock coming back from the future, had a good story. The second one, why it was empty, was that it seemed to be trying a little too hard to get people to watch it (that's why the revenues, while good, were disappointing to paramount, people can always tell. Batman Forever!) It was also way too much of a nod. Showing old Spock? Nod. Riverside, Iowa? Kobayashi Maru? Pike? Nods! Great nods! A minor-tweak copy of Kirk/Spock's "deaths" from ST2:TWOK? Too much! An homage is all you need. Not a word-for-word copy. An homage would have punched me in the emotional gut.

I suppose the really slow point here is that if you're going to make a Star Trek, make a STAR TREK, do it the way you want, to the best of your ability, and make it good enough to stand on its own two feet. If you can do that, IMHO, you're in like Flynn.

 

[T'Girl]

Enterprise ... It could have been an awesome show, but it wasn't BattleStar was, and they didn't change the name at all.

Ummm, both shows ran for four season, and both were removed from the air owing to their poor ratings.

 

[SolitaryJustice]

Battlestar Galactica wasn't cancelled. Here's a list of awards and nominations it won in its 4 seasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Battlestar_Galactica

...with all due respect, Madam Vice Admiral.

 

[Belz...]

Lord of the Rings gave such a backstory exposition at the very beginning, and nobody complained about being "confused" by so much backstory.

No but plenty of LOTR fans complained that it wasn't the "prime" timeline.

 

[JarodRussell]

Battlestar Galactica wasn't cancelled. Here's a list of awards and nominations it won in its 4 seasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Battlestar_Galactica

...with all due respect, Madam Vice Admiral.

Awards are not ratings.

 

[Yanks]

Enterprise ... It could have been an awesome show, but it wasn't BattleStar was, and they didn't change the name at all.

Ummm, both shows ran for four season, and both were removed from the air owing to their poor ratings.

Correct. The so called "hearlded" BSG actually got worse ratings than Enterprise did.

 

[Sindatur]

Battlestar Galactica wasn't cancelled. Here's a list of awards and nominations it won in its 4 seasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Battlestar_Galactica

...with all due respect, Madam Vice Admiral.

As I mentioned before (Maybe in a different thread?), yes, it did get critical acclaim and got awards, but ratings sank and it did indeed get cancelled. The awards and critical praise is what allowed it to last as long as it did, because SyFy hoped those awards and critical acclaim would gain it ratings and "up" their brand image, but, despite the awards and praise, they finally had to cut it loose due to ratings that were too low for too long. If it didn't get that praise and awards, it would've been cancelled sooner