So far, the only "Prime" these showrunners have been able to convince me of is how DISCO is a prime example of how to screw up a Star Trek series.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
Regarding the Abrams movies, this is an ongoing conversation, because the only evidence that they are NOT part of the prime universe are off camera interviews, which I will not consider canon. I call this a rebuttable presumption, because if it is truly the intent to establish the prime and Kelvin timelines as different universes, they can always demonstrate that on screen in a future movie.
The Abrams time travel attitude, while valid for him, does not reconcile with how time travel works in Star Trek, so given that Abrams didn't create Star Trek, the Roddenberry method prevails.
For me, that means that the Kelvin timeline overwrote the prime timeline, with Spock Prime, who just happened to be one of the time travelers, being the sole survivor after ST09, and now, no longer.
There is no dialogue to disprove that. The closest is Uhura talking about an alternate reality, but even if the timeline is overwritten, that's an alternate reality. Abrams chose to be ambiguous, so I consider the decades of Star Trek before him to override it, and nothing in canon disproves it.
As for Discovery, THAT could be an alternate universe. There is no connection between Discovery and the Kelvin Timeline.
If you buy into the idea that Kelvin is separate, I still don't consider Discovery part of the prime timeline, since very little about it seems to work with it. Even the Enterprise doesn't look the same.
The Abrams time travel attitude, while valid for him, does not reconcile with how time travel works in Star Trek, so given that Abrams didn't create Star Trek, the Roddenberry method prevails.
For me, that means that the Kelvin timeline overwrote the prime timeline, with Spock Prime, who just happened to be one of the time travelers, being the sole survivor after ST09, and now, no longer.
There is no dialogue to disprove that. The closest is Uhura talking about an alternate reality, but even if the timeline is overwritten, that's an alternate reality. Abrams chose to be ambiguous, so I consider the decades of Star Trek before him to override it, and nothing in canon disproves it.
As for Discovery, THAT could be an alternate universe. There is no connection between Discovery and the Kelvin Timeline.
If you buy into the idea that Kelvin is separate, I still don't consider Discovery part of the prime timeline, since very little about it seems to work with it. Even the Enterprise doesn't look the same.
Well, for one Spock would probably mention if he thought that everyone he ever knew was erased from time, so that at least suggests that Kelvin and prime coexist, as does the term alternate. Plus, if prime was erased that would create a rather big paradox, since the major changes in the 23rd century will most likely result in a very different 24th century and thus in a very different Hobus super nova.
You're right that there isn't any actual hard evidence that nothing got overwritten at this time, but if that Picard show set twenty years after Nemesis gets made there will be.
There have been alternate timelines that continue on.. since TOS, and there have been timelines they were wiped out, since TOS
There is no "Roddenberry Method"
They haven't screwed up so far.
I've been lobbying for a three thread concept (news, quality, canon) for a long time!
In your opinion. Just as my statement is an opinion.
Yup. Not to mention the events of F.C. and IV. And all the future stuff in Voyager and ENT. If universe goes boom in 24th C there’s no 29th C to stick Voyager in its pickle in the past.
It would t work. Canon might be why someone does or doesn’t like it, news will be seen as good,bad, an improvement, a ‘hah told you so’ etc, and quality is...well. There would the other dragons.
It’s generally quite polite. The naysayers sometimes forget people are allowed to like it, and the cheerleaders need to remember its a Star Trek board overall...of course people are gonna have an opinion on the latest iteration.
Funnily enough it proves TV Trek and possibly Prime Trek is where most fans interest lies...DSC has more discussion than movies.
But apparently not Discoprise. That's why Pike is hijacking Discovery
But apparently not Discoprise. That's why Pike is hijacking Discovery
*shhh* #Prime *shhh*
The level of screwupery (it's a word I made up, just now) is debatable. Here is a link to a place where it is debated daily
I dunno, I was thinking the canon one was specifically for talking about the shows status as prime or non-canon or whatever and talking about specific errors while any major evaluation of those should be in the quality thread, that's supposed to be about the overall quality of the show or specific episodes of it. And of course people will comment on news, but it shouldn't delve in an all out "The show is the worst" argument.
It will though. Some of the most unliked things, even by middle of the road DSC likers like myself fall under the canon debate (the Klingons really do suck. Ships more than the make up, by a large margin. You can stick a wig and some falsies on L’rell, but that won’t work for the starships. Though maybe if they really use a lot of the eyebrows....)
Well, these things could still get posted into the quality thread, just that the discussion wouldn't revolve around how to reconcile it or how different it is from previous iterations but rather if it is a good or a bad change is. And if someone is of the opinion that the Klingons suck because they're different the following discussion should revolve around the quality of the changes (does it look better, more alien, worse, etc.) and not that it presents a contradiction. I mean, that part is obvious anyway, but the argument about it can at least be contained somewhere
You know, I wish that discussion here made the distinction between, "I like/dislike it!" and "It's excellently/badly made!" Those aren't the same thing. I mean, I strongly dislike TOS, but would happily discuss its craft, design, staging, acting, and scripting without deriding it. I find that taking part in discussion here is, frankly, tough, as so little time is spent discussing what's on screen, especially story, plot, and character.
I'd love it if we spent more time deconstructing how it works. I want to talk about "How it's made," not "How much I liked it." I realize that I'm coming at this from a critical analysis stance, which may not be everyone's (or anyone's), but I think it'd be far more fun that way--rather than opening the first dozen threads and find that all of them are a war about canonicity and whether the show is great or sucks.
I'd love it if we spent more time deconstructing how it works. I want to talk about "How it's made," not "How much I liked it." I realize that I'm coming at this from a critical analysis stance, which may not be everyone's (or anyone's), but I think it'd be far more fun that way--rather than opening the first dozen threads and find that all of them are a war about canonicity and whether the show is great or sucks.
Well, these things could still get posted into the quality thread, just that the discussion wouldn't revolve around how to reconcile it or how different it is from previous iterations but rather if it is a good or a bad change is. And if someone is of the opinion that the Klingons suck because they're different the following discussion should revolve around the quality of the changes (does it look better, more alien, worse, etc.) and not that it presents a contradiction. I mean, that part is obvious anyway, but the argument about it can at least be contained somewhere
Oh it’s a good idea, but it would have more containment breaches than a Galaxy class warp core. On the plus side, we could have a right laugh doing the Geordi roll.
We just need more trigger-happy mods. "If you post about canon in the quality thread again you'll get a perma ban" is something I want to hear them say
Similar threads
