Do fans want the prime timeline back?

[R. Star]

Four hours of NuTrek invalidating 21 seasons and 4 movies of the TNG/DS9/VOY era? Not anytime soon. But in another four, five years or so, it should be six hours.

But why does one have to invalidate the other?

That's the thing: people sometimes have the idea that a remake or reboot means rejecting an earlier version, but that's not necessarily the case. You don't have to stop watching or enjoying the old version to appreciate a different take on the subject matter. I still enjoy watching my old TOS DVDs even though I'm intrigued by the reboot.

But I'm not sure what would be gained by going back to the old continuity at this point? That cycle of Trek movies and episodes had a good, long run but it's over now. Time for something else.

You're asking me? Ask BillJ who suggested that all the other "spin offs" would fade away with the reboot, that's who I was responding to.

 

[Hound of UIster]

I'm a fan of the prime universe for multiple reasons -- the main one of which is that it gave us something to aspire to. The new universe is designed to appeal for the drooling mass audiences who care nothing of big ideas, plausible (albethey fictional) technologies, or characters that actually work to earn their status, etc.

I understood that on ST09's opening day; in the bathroom of the movie theater, listening to two teenage street thugs who could hardly construct a coherent sentence, talk about how surprising it was that this new Star Trek was actually good. "And yo, man, that was hot when they was blowin up the black hole." I remember thinking in exactly that moment that Trek was truly and completely doomed.

That said, I think that NuTrek is well suited for the big screen. It's hard to derive 100s of millions of dollars in sales from Trekkies alone. But on television, I don't think this universe can carry its own weight. Real fans looking for more than a fun moviegoing experience will never tune in long term. For a long-running series, it will need to appeal to folks that enjoy a rich history and a wealth of ideas that produce many stories. And, sorry to say so, that's not going to happen with the new low-brow Trek universe.

Not really. Like you said it's so successful, because it's not intelligent and instead appeals to the lowest common denominator. Voyager and Enterprise did that, but the fandom ultimately rejected both. But Abrams managed to sell this version and most of the critics and fans ate it up, which goes to show how lots of special effects, good directing and explosions can hide all that superficiality and bad writing. I think you just need to come to a greater appreciation what he did.

Just think of those two hoods as new fans to ST and two more warm bodies that will help keep ST alive for another generation.

The franchise ultimately has to adapt to changing conditions. What Abrams did was for the good of the franchise.

 

[thumbtack]

The elephant in the room, the great big whopping fib, the bluff the bean counters are going to call again and again, is that Star Trek can only be smart if it is set in the prime universe.

No one in Hollywood is buying that.
No one in Hollywood ever will.

Star Trek can be smart anytime and anywhere it decides to be. What does 40 years of canon have to do with being smart?

A far more believable approach is needed if the canon fans are to be taken seriously. I can't think of one offhand and I've certainly never seen one posted on the internet, but it would have to be an approach that appeals to both logic and profitability.

It seems quite a daunting task. A precedent has now been set (twice) that it simply isn't necessary. How do you convince the creative types that they should be beholden to the canon fans? How do you convince the suits, who are well aware that the prime universe hasn't posted decent numbers since the mid 90s?

Maybe someone will come up with an argument that doesn't provoke the giggles. "Because that's how I want it" isn't going to cut it. In the meantime, I would advise saying "These movies are dumb." instead of "This universe is dumb."

Much less pathetic.


.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The elephant in the room, the great big whopping fib, the bluff the bean counters are going to call again and again, is that Star Trek can only be smart if it is set in the prime universe.

No one in Hollywood is buying that.
No one in Hollywood ever will.

Don't know what you're really going on about there, but I think ultimately the "bean counters" couldn't care less what universe Trek is set in as long as its something that gets people in theatres or people in front of their TVs (or whatever).

I think what really will determine what universe a new Trek production is set in will be the person hired to create it. If that person wants to use the prime timeline, the Abrams timeline, or a new timeline of his/her own, that person will be given the keys to do so. Regardless of what direction, it'll be a new Trek production for the current times.

 

[Belz...]

No one would care? You say that with such absolute certainty. Do you really think that with a good story and a good cast, that it'd be pointless to try it?

Pay attention: not one would care in which timeline this is, except die-hard fans.

Who would it confuse exactly? People who don't pay attention.

Don't project. If a character dies in one timeline and suddenly reappears, or the reverse, casual viewers who are NOT obsessed with reading and knowing everything Trek might get a bit confused, and confused viewers lowers ratings.

Does Trek really need to continue to dumb itself down to reach out to modern audiences that find old Trek boring?

Dumb down ? What are you talking about ?

And honestly, my questions to the people that say we should stick with Abramsverse...are... How and why? Because it is the latest Trek?

Well, yeah. Like sticking to the latest Bond is a good idea, rather than go back to the "timeline" prior to Craig's tenure.

Because Trek is "really about Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise. No one cares about the other crews." What nonsense. If Trek was only about them, Roddenberry wouldn't have made TNG.

It's not about what you or I think, but about how you appeal to the general public. To them, those characters are the show.

But honestly? What do people who support Abrams think is going to happen? Pine, Quinto, Saldana, etc. are not Shatner, Nimoy, etc. It is highly doubtful they'll remain with these characters beyond the third movie like the old cast did.

I agree.

So if you argue "fine...then...we'll get a new crew but in the NEW universe." Well...that kills the argument that Trek is only about Kirk and co. doesn't it?

Not really. It depends how you look at the situation. And yeah, I think we can expect a recast. Now that it's been done once, they know they can pull it off.

I am honestly curious about those that want to stay in this nutimeline, what will it be about? What can be done in this universe that can't be done by going back to the original?

How about we reverse the question: now that we're in the new timeline, why bother going back ? What can we do in the prime timeline that we can't do on this one (aside from having dinner on Vulcan, that is) ?

(SORRY Belz. I didn't mean to go into a rant mode on you. It just happens. Was not ranting at you. )

Don't worry. I love ranting.

 

[Belz...]

Calling those who may appreciate it just for its action-adventure aspects as "the drooling mass audience" and "low brow" reeks of elitism, something that Trek never was.

Par for the course for hardcode fans of anything, though. I remember a lady friend of mine who was a huge fan of Tolkien, and felt threatened when her dear favourite tale was made into a super-popular movie trilogy, because now every dumbo on Earth could think himself an expert.

She didn't realise that the knowledge she gathered about the Lord of the Rings universe over the years could be gathered in a few days by a new, dedicated fan.

^Partly true. But it's not elitism. It's about raising the bar.

Raising the bar of quality, or raising the bar to your liking ? Remember that just because you like it, doesn't make it smart.

I like your sig, though.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nothing in Trek says "dumbed down" like the treatment of the Romulans in TNG. EVERY SINGLE ONE has a bowl cut, a forehead ridge and embarrassing shoulder pads (even the civilians on Romulus!), and why? So as not to confuse Dumb Dumb Plankington in the audience. We managed just fine when the Romulan Commander came back from the dead in identical makeup as Spock's father, thankyouverymuch...

 

[bbjeg]

Sorry, double posted. New post below.

 

[bbjeg]

...What can we do in the prime timeline that we can't do on this one (aside from having dinner on Vulcan, that is) ?

Much more. In the prime timeling (or a 25th century timeline) we'll explore new space, traversing the galaxy, instead of revamping the section of galaxy that older fans already seen, see old and newer species in an evolving galaxy and dealing with them bumping into each other, see newer technologies, and mainly adding to the existing mythos instead of discarding it and boldly going where some of us has already been. The thing I liked about Enterprise was the dot connecting they did like the Borg debris from First Contact and explaining Klingon foreheads between TOS and the movies. The Prime timeline can do anything nutrek can do, not the other way around. You'll just loose Kirk and company.
​

​

 

[F. King Daniel]

In Enterprise they explored new space and met new aliens, and fans wouldn't stop complaining about it! Planet of the Week plots could be told with any crew in any timeframe in any reality and it make zero difference. They're that generic. It's amazing how many TOS, TNG, VOY and S1+2 ENT episodes are pretty much interchangable. In fact, they're so interchangable we even got a couple of Voyager episodes in Stargate SG-1!

 

[bbjeg]

In Enterprise they explored new space and met new aliens, and fans wouldn't stop complaining about it!

There was no reason they had to go pre-TOS to show new space and new aliens that didn't exist in the later series because they could have done that in the prime timeline.

​

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm sorry if it comes across as elitist of me to enjoy entertainment that exercises a few neurons -- which Star Trek, in most cases, did -- and to lament the lowering of the bar in this new rebooted universe. One would think you'd, particularly, understand that, Mr. Cox; In all my years as a fan, I never saw any of Star Trek's new target market walking around with the latest sci-fi book tucked under their arm.

On the other hand, do we really want to just preach to the converted? If somebody comes for the space battles and cool-looking aliens and ends up wanting to know more about Klingons and Vulcans and warp drives, that's a win for everybody. Granted, that's not always going to happen, but I'd rather cast a big net than worry about attracting "lowbrow" types. The more the merrier.

Look, I was seven years old when I discovered TOS back in the sixties and I'd be lying if said I started watching it for the science and social allegory and thinly-disguised parables about overpopulation, racism, and Viet Nam. I was in it for the space monsters and ray-guns and that cool alien guy with the pointed ears.

Was there more to TOS than that? Of course, but there's no rule that people have to watch STAR TREK to be informed and enlightened. STAR TREK is not spinach. You're not supposed to watch it because it's good for you. It's supposed to be fun as well.

Is everyone who watches the new movies going to rush out and buy the latest Hugo Award-winning sf novel? Probably not. But we might hook a new generation of wide-eyed seven-years-olds, some of who might even be intrigued enough to sample some of that "old" STAR TREK stuff . . . .

Pop culture is supposed to be popular. That's the whole idea. And, honestly, prior to the new movies, latter-day TREK was starting to turn into chamber music. As I've written before, Abrams added a much-needed jolt of rock-and-roll (and old-fashioned pulp energy) to a franchise that was beginning to feel just a wee bit staid and stodgy.

 

[BillJ]

Much more. In the prime timeling (or a 25th century timeline) we'll explore new space, traversing the galaxy, instead of revamping the section of galaxy that older fans already seen, see old and newer species in an evolving galaxy and dealing with them bumping into each other, see newer technologies, and mainly adding to the existing mythos instead of discarding it and boldly going where some of us has already been.

Thing is, it's still just a variation on the same theme that we've seen seven-hundred plus hours of. That's kind of the problem.

What are they going to do go Warp 9.99999975 instead of Warp 9.975? Glue different bumps onto the foreheads of the alien of the week? Star Trek is running into a problem that it has already used the same ideas over and over and over again.

With Enterprise it was a glaring issue where they simply renamed technology that served the exact same purpose in latter series. Hull plating instead of shields, photonic torpedoes insteab of photon torpedoes, phase pistols/cannons instead of phasers. Voyager ran into the problem by first giving us the Kazon, which looked like Jamaican Klingons, then went to the Trek well over and over and over again.

The strength of any new Trek is going to be based on its characters not the background information that people already know so well. And the strongest characters Trek has are Kirk and Spock.

Personally, outside of a movie every few years and a novel here and there, I'm not really interested in going to the well yet again. They're friends I like to revisit now and then but I don't need to see them every week nor do I need to add to those friends any more than Paramount already has.

 

[BillJ]

First you call his story about the bathroom 'bullshit' and now you're deigning to tell us what lesser entertainment he enjoyed?

Man, I love you in the THESE ARE THE VOYAGES thread, but everyplace else ...

1. In four-plus years since the first movie released, I've never heard the "bathroom" story. I'll leave it at that.

2. Much of Star Trek is non-sense, so if you like Star Trek you like and enjoy non-sense to some degree.

3. I'm not really concerned whether you love any particular comment of mine or not.

 

[nightwind1]

In Enterprise they explored new space and met new aliens, and fans wouldn't stop complaining about it!

There was no reason they had to go pre-TOS to show new space and new aliens that didn't exist in the later series because they could have done that in the prime timeline.

Uhm, "Enterprise" IS in the prime timeline.

So, apparently, not even these so-called "prime timeline" fans really know what they want.

 

[bbjeg]

Thing is, it's still just a variation on the same theme that we've seen seven-hundred plus hours of. That's kind of the problem.

What was in "Into Darkness" that we haven't seen?

What are they going to do go Warp 9.99999975 instead of Warp 9.975?

With technologies like transwarp and slipstream drives that were exstablished already, they can break the warp 10 barrier.

Star Trek is running into a problem that it has already used the same ideas over and over and over again.

The story in 2009's Star Trek could have been used in the prime timeline, future ship or not. All that was needed was new writers.

With Enterprise it was a glaring issue where they simply renamed technology that served the exact same purpose in latter series. Hull plating instead of shields, photonic torpedoes insteab of photon torpedoes, phase pistols/cannons instead of phasers. Voyager ran into the problem by first giving us the Kazon, which looked like Jamaican Klingons, then went to the Trek well over and over and over again.

Transwarp would be as confusing to a new viewer as NuTrek's regular warp is. Your point?

The strength of any new Trek is going to be based on its characters not the background information that people already know so well.

The same can be said about a new prime trek show.

And the strongest characters Trek has are Kirk and Spock.

Your opinion.

Uhm, "Enterprise" IS in the prime timeline.

I'm not knocking it because it wasn't the best series but a ship and crew that was never mentioned, aliens that never existed, with a plot that was suppose to use that alternate reality nutrek idea. Enterprise's series finally's "Hey, we're still prime trek" sadness can be your prime trek.

 

[BillJ]

Your opinion.

Well...

The general population still knows the characters fifty-years after they debuted and the two newest movies have done about three times the revenue of the four TNG films would seem to suggest that Kirk and Spock (they are part of Time Magazines "100 Greatest People Who Never Lived") are still the most viable characters the franchise has.

What was in "Into Darkness" that we haven't seen?

I'm not sure where I claimed there was anything new in Star Trek Into Darkness?

 

[bbjeg]

The general population still knows the characters fifty-years after they debuted and the two newest movies have done about three times the revenue of the four TNG films would seem to suggest that Kirk and Spock (they are part of Time Magazines "100 Greatest People Who Never Lived") are still the most viable characters the franchise has.

Iconic characters =/= Strongest characters .

​

 

[BillJ]

Iconic characters =/= Strongest characters .

They are the strongest characters, almost every other character has been a variation of those two. They are also the most popular. Which makes it a no-brainer that if Trek comes back to TV, it will feature Kirk and Spock.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Uhm, "Enterprise" IS in the prime timeline.

I'm not knocking it because it wasn't the best series but a ship and crew that was never mentioned, aliens that never existed, with a plot that was suppose to use that alternate reality nutrek idea. Enterprise's series finally's "Hey, we're still prime trek" sadness can be your prime trek.

If everything's new as you claim, wouldn't that make Enterprise your ideal Trek series?

That said, in ENT showed us a few species we'd previously head of in TOS but never seen, like the Axanar and Coridanites. The links are all there. It certainly fits as well and TOS and Voyager, which have completely incompatible ideas of how fast warp speed is (TOS, TAS, the classic movies and he new ones cross the galaxy at a whim, wheras it's a lifelong journey for Voyager), yet they still crossed over in "Flashback".