Do fans want the prime timeline back?

[Greg Cox]

Seems to me like we're wandering away from the OT here. The way I see it, the timeline doesn't affect the quality of the movies. You can tell good, bad, or mixed STAR TREK stories in either timeline. Or, maybe someday, another one.

STAR TREK is bigger than "canon" or "continuity." Merely setting a new movie or TV series in any particular continuity is no guarantee of quality--and is not necessarily a virtue in its own right. Execution matters more than the (relatively) trivial matter of what timeline it's set in.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek has been rehashing plots since season one of TOS. TMP was a rehash of "The Changeling". TWOK brought back a villain from TOS. TVH was a time travel story reminiscent of at least three TOS episodes. TNG and show that followed mixed and matched TOS characters. The Next Generation films desperately tried to duplicate the success of TWOK and TVH.

There was a kot of story in both of Abrams films. If someone can't see the story through the "explosions" I think the problem might lie with them.

I think you miss the point completely, it may have used similar plots in the past for episodes but we were still learning about the characters, a back story etc.

I can assure you there is no problem with me, I know what I'm watching, if you read my previous post you'd realise I said Abrams Star Trek 'could' have worked if it wasn't for Into Darkness, so mentioning 'both films' is irrelevant. Into Darkness offered us nothing new, I learnt nothing new. That is my point. Apart from Kirk 'dying' of radiation rather than Spock, it was just ooh big explosion and ohh more CGI.

You tell me where the new story is?

Yes, I can. Don't mistake using the same characters and similar situations as being "nothing new". Khan was used in a different way than in Space Seed or TWOK. Carol is used differently as well. Kirk isn't an aging officer who feels ready to be put out to pasture. Khan was play much more sympathetically than in the previous outings. So yes, the movie played differently than TWOK.

We're still learning about these characters too, only we have nearly fifty year of seeing them in their previous incarnations.

I don't care if you mentioned the previous film or not. My comment was directed at more than just you.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I doubt we'll ever see the old timeline onscreen again. When has a popular media franchise EVER gone back to a discarded continuity after rebooting itself?

Animated productions are no stranger to this. Take the Scooby-Doo franchise: it flip-flopped from the originals (and numerous spin-offs) to "kid" versions, then tv movies, another "kid" version, and now yet another series set in the basic, original style. Why? the original, developed concept works best. So, it has happened, and I believe TOS is far more popular/relevant to the culture than Scooby Doo, so a return to the prime universe--specifically TOS--is not such a wild idea.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The "Prime Timeline" doesn't actually exist.

I think fans are making a distinction that exists nowhere except inside their own heads.

There is no a single cohesive overarching "prime" universe. Whether fans want to admit it or not, TMP was the first Trek reboot.

No official statement, so that's not even close to being true, same with TWOK. All press/interviews called TMP the "continuing" story of TOS, not anything along the lines of...

"a different take on..."

"not really in the same storyline as.."

..or anything else that would be 1979's version of "reboot" or "reimagining."

 

[Nerys Myk]

The "Prime Timeline" doesn't actually exist.

I think fans are making a distinction that exists nowhere except inside their own heads.

There is no a single cohesive overarching "prime" universe. Whether fans want to admit it or not, TMP was the first Trek reboot.

No official statement, so that's not even close to being true, same with TWOK. All press/interviews called TMP the "continuing" story of TOS, not anything along the lines of...

"a different take on..."

"not really in the same storyline as.."

..or anything else that would be 1979's version of "reboot" or "reimagining."

Doesn't Roddenberry's novelization dismiss TOS as dramatic presentations based on the adventures of the "real" Enterprise?

It was soft reboot. As was TWOK.

 

[Kirk the Jerk]

There was a kot of story in both of Abrams films. If someone can't see the story through the "explosions" I think the problem might lie with them.

I don't care if you mentioned the previous film or not. My comment was directed at more than just you.

Well I don't care that you don't care

You're the one who quoted my comment about "explosions" so naturally assumed you were directing it at me apologies for the confusion.

 

[Belz...]

Wow, totally shocked at the amount of people saying they don't care or that the prime line is dead...

You might confusing people saying they are ok with a new timeline with saying they don't care.

I'm all for going back personally, rather than sitting through another Into Darkness, which basically used the same story and just switched characters when it came to 'Who dies of radiation poisoning' and piled in a load of CGI explosions etc.

That's ridiculous. Into Darkness has almost NONE of the story of any other Trek movie.

Star Trek for me is about a story

It really depends on which episode you're watching.

Star Trek is dead because I can't see what they can do other than keep rehashing old story lines and switching what happens to who.

Really ? If you can't seen what they can do then the prime timeline isn't going to solve that problem. Sheesh, they did it ONCE.

You tell me where the new story is?

Sure. It's about a younger Enterprise crew, especially Kirk and Spock, learning about their abilities and about making mistakes. Both of the main characters have grown quite a bit in the span of two movies.

I learnt nothing new.

This isn't a documentary.

 

[bbjeg]

I agree with the rest of your post, mostly, but...

I'm all for going back personally, rather than sitting through another Into Darkness, which basically used the same story and just switched characters when it came to 'Who dies of radiation poisoning' and piled in a load of CGI explosions etc.

That's ridiculous. Into Darkness has almost NONE of the story of any other Trek movie.

Explain that.

​

 

[BillJ]

Doesn't Roddenberry's novelization dismiss TOS as dramatic presentations based on the adventures of the "real" Enterprise?

It was soft reboot. As was TWOK.

Yup. Not to mention the fact that Roddenberry was trying to distance himself from TOS when making TNG. There are interviews from him while making TNG where he says parts of TOS are apocryphal.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I don't care if you mentioned the previous film or not. My comment was directed at more than just you.

Well I don't care that you don't care

You're the one who quoted my comment about "explosions" so naturally assumed you were directing it at me apologies for the confusion.

Your statements were just a launching point for my own thoughts. I if wanted to single you out I would have phrased my comment differently.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yes, I can. Don't mistake using the same characters and similar situations as being "nothing new". Khan was used in a different way than in Space Seed or TWOK. Carol is used differently as well. Kirk isn't an aging officer who feels ready to be put out to pasture. Khan was play much more sympathetically than in the previous outings. So yes, the movie played differently than TWOK.

Yeah, I didn't really see STiD as a remake of WOK but as more of a different story featuring a new version of an old villain.

Is THE DARK KNIGHT a rehash of Tim Burton's BATMAN just because they both feature the Joker?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

The "Prime Timeline" doesn't actually exist.

I think fans are making a distinction that exists nowhere except inside their own heads.

There is no a single cohesive overarching "prime" universe. Whether fans want to admit it or not, TMP was the first Trek reboot.

No official statement, so that's not even close to being true, same with TWOK. All press/interviews called TMP the "continuing" story of TOS, not anything along the lines of...

"a different take on..."

"not really in the same storyline as.."

..or anything else that would be 1979's version of "reboot" or "reimagining."

Doesn't Roddenberry's novelization dismiss TOS as dramatic presentations based on the adventures of the "real" Enterprise?

It was soft reboot. As was TWOK.

That's a novel. Roddenberry flip-flopping around when it suited him--particularly in print--was never said to apply to the TOS - movie transition. Few even considered anything in the novelization.

 

[BillJ]

That's a novel. Roddenberry flip-flopping around when it suited him--particularly in print--was never said to apply to the TOS - movie transition. Few even considered anything in the novelization.

You are probably getting Roddenberry's honest, uncensored thoughts regarding TOS in those pages. There was no reason to even bring the issue up if it wasn't something that was on his mind.

 

[BillJ]

Yeah, I didn't really see STiD as a remake of WOK but as more of a different story featuring a new version of an old villain.

Is it a remake? No. Does it lift some elements from TWOK? Yes.

But it was thirty-two years between the two movies. The audience this movie was aimed at isn't obsessive-compulsive where Star Trek is concerned. The audience this movie was aimed at likely hadn't seen TWOK fifty or a hundred times over the last thirty years, the audience doesn't know TWOK backwards and forwards the way we do.

I'm betting there was a good portion of ticket buyers who had never seen TWOK at all.

 

[Hober Mallow]

The "Prime Timeline" doesn't actually exist.

I think fans are making a distinction that exists nowhere except inside their own heads.

There is no a single cohesive overarching "prime" universe. Whether fans want to admit it or not, TMP was the first Trek reboot.

No official statement, so that's not even close to being true, same with TWOK. All press/interviews called TMP the "continuing" story of TOS, not anything along the lines of...

"a different take on..."

"not really in the same storyline as.."

..or anything else that would be 1979's version of "reboot" or "reimagining."

It doesn't make any difference. Derivative works created by other people are still derivative works created by other people. If I wrote "Romeo and Juliet II," no matter how closely I kept continuity with the original Shakespeare, it would still simply be my interpretation of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet universe, one valid interpretation but by no means the only one. A sequel or spinoff being consistent with the original work has to do with the internal consistency of the new work; it doesn't affect the original work.

TMP is clearly a reboot -- a revamped look to the entire universe, a totally new look to the Enterprise, to Starfleet, the Klingons have been completely reworked. Nebulous references to ship "refits," and "northern vs southern" Klingons are made to placate fans.

I think the various incarnations of Trek are destined to be thought of as separate interpretations, especially the Berman-era TV spinoffs as we get further and further away from their influence and new versions of Star Trek come into being.

 

[BillJ]

I think the various incarnations of Trek are destined to be thought of as separate interpretations, especially the Berman-era TV spinoffs as we get further and further away from their influence and new versions of Star Trek come into being.

I think Modern Trek (TNG, its spin-offs and movies) will largely be forgotten in another five or ten years with only the hardest of hard-core fans continuing to watch.

It will definitely be interesting to see where Star Trek goes in the near future.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm betting there was a good portion of ticket buyers who had never seen TWOK at all.

And that's as it should be . . .

 

[Kirk the Jerk]

You might confusing people saying they are ok with a new timeline with saying they don't care.

That is a possibility yes.

That's ridiculous. Into Darkness has almost NONE of the story of any other Trek movie.

Almost NONE? I suggest you watch TWOK again if you're to stand by that comment.

It really depends on which episode you're watching.

I don't ever recall watching an episode or movie that didn't have at least some sort of back story. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

Really ? If you can't seen what they can do then the prime timeline isn't going to solve that problem. Sheesh, they did it ONCE.

I can think of hundreds of unexplored ideas etc. within the Prime line but thats for another thread, and what I meant by that comment is that if they're just going to cherry pick ideas from previous movies then I can't see this alternate timeline lasting too long IMO.

Sure. It's about a younger Enterprise crew, especially Kirk and Spock, learning about their abilities and about making mistakes. Both of the main characters have grown quite a bit in the span of two

I agree in the first movie we explored quite a bit about the main characters etc. and I feel that if they'd carried on in that direction then Into Darkness could have been a great movie. But again it just felt Lazy and an easy thing to do by basing the movie on a previous ones ideas.

Star Trek 2009 was a good Star Trek movie for the most part, it certainly comes across as a more well written movie than Into Darkness IMO

This isn't a documentary.

Well done, I'm not saying we have to learn specific facts in a documentary way, I'm saying they could have done a great back story, introduced us to something different other than the action we were watching on screen. It felt hollow to me and if it didn't to you then that's great but I'm just giving my opinion.

 

[Ketrick]

I think at least a large minority of fans would love to revisit the Prime timeline. I count myself among them. Personally, I see no reason why the Alternate Reality timeline couldn't continue in movie form and the Prime timeline on tv. I know
there are those who would say that would confuse most people, but I don't see it that way.

For one thing, the Abramsverse actually lends itself well to this sort of treatment whereas it isn't a straight reboot. In fact, it's as much a sequel to Star Trek: Nemesis as it is a prequel and reimagining of TOS. The technology of the Abramsverse is in some ways as advanced as the technology in the Nemesis-era of the Prime timeline and in a few cases perhaps more advanced, so technologically speaking, a series set in the 25th century of the Prime timeline wouldn't necessarily be that much more advanced than anything seen in the two Abrams' films.

Also, a tv series done in the Abramverse style set in the mid to late 25th century of the Prime timeline that takes a back to basics approach could easily be popular. With such an approach, you could bring in both new fans, old fans, Abramsverse fans, Prime timeline fans. A lot of the fans the Abrams' films have brought to Star Trek wouldn't really care which timeline a tv series would be set in as long as it was entertaining and perhaps somewhat thought provoking. The problem wouldn't so much be the audience, but rather convincing tv execs that a Trek series set in the Prime timeline could still work and ensuring that execs wouldn't continually interfere with the vision of the production team.

 

[bbjeg]

^I agree.

But don't forget to add 'new writers' and 'new story' to that. Otherwise, some people will assume going back to the Prime timeline only means repeating the new alien of the week theme.