Played by a bald Tom Hardy.
Do fans want the prime timeline back?
- Thread starter Beyerstein
- Start date
Played by a bald Tom Hardy.
I personally would love to see the return to the Prime universe. ITs the one I spent my whole life watching and studying. Its home to me. When I see the JJverse, I feel like I am watching the bastardization of a family member. Don't call me a hater, its just NuTrek is not what I grew up with. Well I guess you can call me a hater, because I absolutly hate lensflares...but thats the only reason you can call me a hater...well theres the brewergineering...but thats the only 2 reasons you can ever call me a hater...Well there is Bob Orci...OK OK you can call me a hater, but I do love the design of the Kelvin. And thats coming from someone who hates 1 engined starships.
Anyways I want to see a return to 2380s Prime Timeline. I am curious to see the aftermath of the Dominion War. How starfleet is rebuilding and the long term effects it has had on the federation, the romulans, the klingons, whats happened to the cardassians. All of that.
Anyways I want to see a return to 2380s Prime Timeline. I am curious to see the aftermath of the Dominion War. How starfleet is rebuilding and the long term effects it has had on the federation, the romulans, the klingons, whats happened to the cardassians. All of that.
What about folks who spent their whole live studying TOS only to have to put up with TNG and Modern Trek as a whole (not that it was how I felt)? If every Star Trek fan had remained as close-minded towards TNG as a few seem to be against the Abrams movies, you'd have never gotten the entire seven-year run of TNG and the spin-offs.
I would love it if anyone of the people advocating going right back to the Prime universe could give one good reason why CBS should spend so much money on such a series.
Given the whole point of the reboot is that practically no one was watching the Prime one and the money was essentially being wasted making live action fanfic for a minority.
Any return to the "Prime" universe would still result in a drastic stylistic change that would make it look and feel very different from any of the prior series and more in line with the new universe, paying the barest amount of lip service to the old ones in order to not be tied down to them in any way.
So really, Prime in name only, for all intent and purposes something new anyway.
So...why bother?
Given the whole point of the reboot is that practically no one was watching the Prime one and the money was essentially being wasted making live action fanfic for a minority.
Any return to the "Prime" universe would still result in a drastic stylistic change that would make it look and feel very different from any of the prior series and more in line with the new universe, paying the barest amount of lip service to the old ones in order to not be tied down to them in any way.
So really, Prime in name only, for all intent and purposes something new anyway.
So...why bother?
That's a reason why I think they should set the next TV series in the 25th century, basically doing what they did to the TOS generation to the TNG generation, but set it in the Prime universe. They could explore other galaxies (they could find a way to travel faster by then) for that unknown factor, they could show a post VOY galaxy for returning fans to say "oh, that's what happened" to, and it'll have a bonus source of revenue should new fans wish to go back to see what happened. It'll be a clean slate, but not really.
What difference would it made which timeline it's in if it's in the 25th century ? How could one tell the difference unless they reference Vulcan specifically ?
It's all the same timeline.
In short: Kill the franchise--again. There's not a big enough fanbase left to justify catering the original timeline(s) anymore. To the mass public (see: the money) Star Trek is Kirk and Spock and a ship named Enterprise. That's the pop-culture icon. Not Picard, Sisko, or anything that came after: James T. Kirk womanizing his way across the galaxy, Spock raising his eyebrow at it all, and ship called the Enterprise.
As fans, we either adapt, or we standover the pyre when the franchise wethers and dies.
Don't like the reboot, fine don't watch it. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the way to save the franchise is a return to the near incestuous nature of the canon and continuity and what had become mundane storytelling of the original timeline.
Like it or not, at the least, we should be grateful that Abrams created a serious movie and didn't go down the route of making it a campy mockery of the 60s show.
Last edited:
You know, I sometimes wonder how much the objection to reboots simply comes from seeing one's encyclopedic knowledge of pop-cultural trivia rendered obsolete. "No, not after I memorized all those Starfleet registry numbers and Cardassian history!"
On one hand, I understand that pang. I have stacks of DC Comics reference books and back issues that can no longer be relied on for research purposes. On the other hand, that's not really a compelling reason to bring back a discarded continuity.
STAR TREK is more than just an encyclopedia of fictional facts about an imaginary future. In the grander scheme of things, Trek trivia contests are not as important as telling compelling stories that will appeal to everyone, not just those of us who can recite all of Kirk's exes by heart.
On one hand, I understand that pang. I have stacks of DC Comics reference books and back issues that can no longer be relied on for research purposes. On the other hand, that's not really a compelling reason to bring back a discarded continuity.
STAR TREK is more than just an encyclopedia of fictional facts about an imaginary future. In the grander scheme of things, Trek trivia contests are not as important as telling compelling stories that will appeal to everyone, not just those of us who can recite all of Kirk's exes by heart.
I would see the prime timeline back, but I would love to see it done in a TV series set in the new universe, see them try to restore it for a few seasons, and, for a few seconds, see the new Abrams crew on the old school Enterprise bridge. That would make me happy. I can see it all in my head. lol
The one thing that really needs to be kept in mind is that with any long-running fictional property, every incarnation has an expiration date. At some point, it has to end and be replaced with a new incarnation.
Sherlock Holmes? Countless different versions.
Robin Hood? Same.
Tarzan? Same.
Dracula? Too many to count.
King Arthur? Ditto.
Superman? Yup.
Batman? Yup.
So it has to be with Star Trek. Now, while I am no fan of Abrams or his reboot, I'm not opposed to the idea of a reboot. I'm not against a new incarnation of Kirk, Spock and McCoy and their adventures. If the characters are true to their cores, if the franchise remains visually recognizable, if the stories are well-told and retain the spirit of the original, why would I have any objections to it? It doesn't have to be "prime timeline" to be good. And let's be honest, there's some really terrible stuff in the "prime timeline" that should not be held on to. We can all point to episodes and movies that were either total failures or missed opportunities. Just because it's "prime timeline" doesn't make it good. Also, we can't ignore the fact that Trek as it was had run out of juice. It was burned out, and copying the TNG formula with Voyager and Enterprise had already done enough damage. There comes a point where you have to accept it's time to start over. And yes, that does mean returning to Kirk, Spock, and company, as they're the signature characters.
Now, does that mean you're obligated to like it? No, not if it's done poorly. But if it's done well, if it's got good storytelling and the characters are true to themselves, what reason is there to object? Quality is more important than convoluted, insular continuity, especially when bringing in new fans is absolutely crucial to the survival of a franchise. Trek spent too long being stagnant and samey, and going back to that would be suicidal. For whatever misgivings I have with the Abrams movies, they have helped to make Trek accessible to new fans and new blood. And that's what the franchise needs. I'd rather have a vital franchise that may eventually yield a reboot I can fully embrace than one that repeats itself ad nauseum and plunges into irrelevancy.
So no, I don't want the "prime timeline" back. It's time to move on.
Sherlock Holmes? Countless different versions.
Robin Hood? Same.
Tarzan? Same.
Dracula? Too many to count.
King Arthur? Ditto.
Superman? Yup.
Batman? Yup.
So it has to be with Star Trek. Now, while I am no fan of Abrams or his reboot, I'm not opposed to the idea of a reboot. I'm not against a new incarnation of Kirk, Spock and McCoy and their adventures. If the characters are true to their cores, if the franchise remains visually recognizable, if the stories are well-told and retain the spirit of the original, why would I have any objections to it? It doesn't have to be "prime timeline" to be good. And let's be honest, there's some really terrible stuff in the "prime timeline" that should not be held on to. We can all point to episodes and movies that were either total failures or missed opportunities. Just because it's "prime timeline" doesn't make it good. Also, we can't ignore the fact that Trek as it was had run out of juice. It was burned out, and copying the TNG formula with Voyager and Enterprise had already done enough damage. There comes a point where you have to accept it's time to start over. And yes, that does mean returning to Kirk, Spock, and company, as they're the signature characters.
Now, does that mean you're obligated to like it? No, not if it's done poorly. But if it's done well, if it's got good storytelling and the characters are true to themselves, what reason is there to object? Quality is more important than convoluted, insular continuity, especially when bringing in new fans is absolutely crucial to the survival of a franchise. Trek spent too long being stagnant and samey, and going back to that would be suicidal. For whatever misgivings I have with the Abrams movies, they have helped to make Trek accessible to new fans and new blood. And that's what the franchise needs. I'd rather have a vital franchise that may eventually yield a reboot I can fully embrace than one that repeats itself ad nauseum and plunges into irrelevancy.
So no, I don't want the "prime timeline" back. It's time to move on.
I don't know if I entirely agree. One of the endearing things about cultural icons like Star Trek and Doctor Who is that they haven't been rebooted. Star Trek has found a unique way to continue anew, and Doctor Who has had one of the most brilliant runs in modern sci-fi television. I think what Star Trek needs, fundamentally, is to return to TV, a return to good story telling, and, for the fans, enough familiarity to sell that, whatever universe the show is set in, it's in a style that is Star Trek, focusing on character development, social justice issues, and new and interesting concepts. Take risks. Kill off major characters. Have a huge, overlaying, dark plot, but give hope, faith, and loyalty a core with your new crew, and you're set.
It is indeed time to move on, but the thing about Star Trek fans, we Trekkies are THE MOST LOYAL fans to our show. Unlike Fanboys, who criticize and hate everything but the original trilogy, we Trekkies tried our hardest to love everything with a Berman or Abrams influence, even if it went against our taste, principles, or both.
As a Trekkie, and a fan of other quality television writing, I think that if you stick to those core elements, while getting serious, doing cool shit, and having the time of your life doing it, if you can communicate that to your audience, you're completely set.
And by the way, Captain Jack Harkness needs to be there. It's time for that, too.
I'm serious. How would one tell the difference once we go back to the 25th century ? I mean, look at TNG. How do you know it's in the same timeline as TOS ? So that's my question: why mention the prime timeline if you're going to make a show in a totally different time period ?
I see a lot of talking but not a lot of actual demonstrating. What did they rehash ?
I'm still loving the 'prime' timeline in the novelverse - it's dynamic, changing and very well done. It is and always will be my first love.
I'm also enjoying the new continuity, but not quite as wholeheartedly as the older one.
I can't see the new continuity being canned, but in its present form it has a limited shelf-life. Movie contracts and film star cast members won't give the sort of longevity you get with TV shows. At some point Pine, Quinto and co. will move on and necessitate another reboot, a spin off or a jump forward in time.
I wouldn't be hugely surprised if a show or film set in the 25th century or beyond doesn't happen, working as a follow-up to either timeline. Most of the differences in takes on the TOS era wouldn't be noticeable after a couple of hundred years, although the loss of Vulcan and/or Romulus may need some inventive retconning...
I'm also enjoying the new continuity, but not quite as wholeheartedly as the older one.
I can't see the new continuity being canned, but in its present form it has a limited shelf-life. Movie contracts and film star cast members won't give the sort of longevity you get with TV shows. At some point Pine, Quinto and co. will move on and necessitate another reboot, a spin off or a jump forward in time.
I wouldn't be hugely surprised if a show or film set in the 25th century or beyond doesn't happen, working as a follow-up to either timeline. Most of the differences in takes on the TOS era wouldn't be noticeable after a couple of hundred years, although the loss of Vulcan and/or Romulus may need some inventive retconning...
As with all reboots and remakes, these will be quickly forgotten, especially since they don't bring anything substantial and new to the table. All they did until now was Part 1: The Reboot, and Part 2: The Re-Use of a Previous Villain.
Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, while having the same Part 1 and Part 2, left a deep footprint on the franchise, because what it offered had great impact and was truly fresh and new to the franchise. Cumberbatch's Khan in comparison to Montalban's Khan was in no way as exciting and fresh as Ledger's Joker in comparison to Nicholson's Joker or any previous Joker incarnation. Abrams' "lens flares because the future is so bright" approach is nowhere near as well done as Nolan's "realistic, down to earth take" on the Batman universe (and yes, I'm well aware of the controversy regarding the word "realism" in that context).
When people think of James Bond, they immediately think of Sean Connery, and then of Daniel Craig. Because Connery was the first and mostly considered the best, and then Craig's Bond movies left their mark as being special Bond films. People might also think of Roger Moore, but more because of the camp.
And my main problem with the Abramsverse is - I said that years ago about Part I and it hasn't changed with Part II - there is NOTHING in these films that needed the reboot of TOS. You could have told the story of Part I in the TNG universe, with the same style, and the same characters. A group of young hotshot cadets, one of them lost his father, the other one struggles with being between two worlds, Picard instead of Pike as mentor, a crazy Romulan with a black hole weapon, and Vulcan gets destroyed, Picard retires and hot shot cadet becomes hotshot Captain of the Enterprise-E. Part II, a section 31 conspiracy and an extremely angry spy with special abilities, eventually the hot shot cadet/captain sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise-E falling into the atmosphere, and the bad guy's Section 31 super secret battleship destroys half of San Francisco.
I don't feel any attachment to the names Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and they are played by different actors with entirely different takes on these characters anyway, so I don't see the reason. Because some guy in the marketing department thinks that Kirk == 100 million dollars box office and Unknown == 1 million dollars box office. Yeah right. How well they can actually pre-determine the box office performance of their films we already know.
Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, while having the same Part 1 and Part 2, left a deep footprint on the franchise, because what it offered had great impact and was truly fresh and new to the franchise. Cumberbatch's Khan in comparison to Montalban's Khan was in no way as exciting and fresh as Ledger's Joker in comparison to Nicholson's Joker or any previous Joker incarnation. Abrams' "lens flares because the future is so bright" approach is nowhere near as well done as Nolan's "realistic, down to earth take" on the Batman universe (and yes, I'm well aware of the controversy regarding the word "realism" in that context).
When people think of James Bond, they immediately think of Sean Connery, and then of Daniel Craig. Because Connery was the first and mostly considered the best, and then Craig's Bond movies left their mark as being special Bond films. People might also think of Roger Moore, but more because of the camp.
And my main problem with the Abramsverse is - I said that years ago about Part I and it hasn't changed with Part II - there is NOTHING in these films that needed the reboot of TOS. You could have told the story of Part I in the TNG universe, with the same style, and the same characters. A group of young hotshot cadets, one of them lost his father, the other one struggles with being between two worlds, Picard instead of Pike as mentor, a crazy Romulan with a black hole weapon, and Vulcan gets destroyed, Picard retires and hot shot cadet becomes hotshot Captain of the Enterprise-E. Part II, a section 31 conspiracy and an extremely angry spy with special abilities, eventually the hot shot cadet/captain sacrifices himself to save the Enterprise-E falling into the atmosphere, and the bad guy's Section 31 super secret battleship destroys half of San Francisco.
I don't feel any attachment to the names Kirk, Spock and McCoy, and they are played by different actors with entirely different takes on these characters anyway, so I don't see the reason. Because some guy in the marketing department thinks that Kirk == 100 million dollars box office and Unknown == 1 million dollars box office. Yeah right. How well they can actually pre-determine the box office performance of their films we already know.
Last edited:
And this is why you and the minority will safely be ignored by movie industry, if popular culture reflected your lack of 'attachment' to Kirk, Spock and McCoy then there would be no market for Star Trek at all, let alone a boring TNG era reboot.
Give it time. Eventually, when the Hartnell-present continuity of Dr. Who runs its course, it'll be rebooted from scratch. It's not going to be immune to a complete restart at some point.
And you know what? It shouldn't. It's a strong enough property to withstand it. Star Trek is only now showing it can survive rebooting and reinterpretation and still be successful. I don't see where or how the same can't apply to Dr. Who.
Every incarnation of a long-running franchise has a limited shelf life. Periodic reboots are the norm, not the exception. I wouldn't expect the Abramsverse to last for decades on end. It's just not realistic, nor would it remain accessible to newcomers were it to drag out as the "prime timeline" did. It would eventually fall victim to the same pitfalls that killed the old continuity. There is something to be said for knowing where to call it quits instead of wearing out your welcome, and Paramount would be wise to do that from here on out.
Further, if guys like Superman, Batman, Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood, and such can be recast and rebooted frequently without any undue harm to the characters, I don't see how or why Kirk, Spock, and the gang can't do the same. I don't see them as being more fragile than any other long-standing characters.
Like the John Carpenter remake of THE THING? Like the Cronenberg remake of THE FLY? Like the new-and-improved BATTLESTAR GALACTICA? Like every Dracula adaptation since Bela LUgosi? (Sorry, Christopher Lee and Gary Oldman!) Like the Richard Lester version of THE THREE MUSKETEERS? Like every SUPERMAN movies since Kirk Alyn? (Sorry, Christopher Reeve!)
"all reboots and remakes" is way too sweeping a statement!
Similar threads
