Goodbye Prime?

[Greg Cox]

Are people still expecting the movies and TV shows to go back to the old continuity at some point? Why on Earth would TBTB want do that? That defeats the whole point of rebooting the franchise.

Now it may well be that some future STAR TREK series will want to start its own continuity, and ignore the current cycle of films, but going back to previous continuity? That would be like the Batman movies going back to the Tim Burton days or even the Adam West version.

I can't see that ever happening . . . .

Well, JJ Abrams shouldn't have made it an alternate reality. He should have just gotten rid of the whole timeline changing thing and not have Leonard Nimoy in the movie. By him doing that, there'd be no question that this was a totally new universe and nothing else.

Honestly, I don't think that would've made a big difference. Even if they'd dispensed with the diverging-timelines gimmick and just done a straight reboot, there'd still be an element of fandom demanding the "real" STAR TREK back and hoping in vain for a return to the old continuity.

It's like yanking a band-aid off. You can do it fast or you can do it slow, but some people are still going to yelp . . . .

 

[Enterprise1701]

Novels, comics, Star Trek Online, and trading card games currently use material from the prime reality. It is not dead.

 

[Greg Cox]

Novels, comics, Star Trek Online, and trading card games currently use material from the prime reality. It is not dead.

Heck, I've got a new TOS book coming out in November, and another one already scheduled for 2016 . . . .

 

[Sector 7]

Novels, comics, Star Trek Online, and trading card games currently use material from the prime reality. It is not dead.

Heck, I've got a new TOS book coming out in November, and another one already scheduled for 2016 . . . .

I'll be looking forward to them!

 

[EnriqueH]

If Enterprise had been more of a ballsy change and gone the Battlestar Galactica route, I think we'd still be in the prime universe.

I remember watching BSG and thinking, "Jesus Christ, this could've been Star Trek!!!!"

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think if prime were to come back it would be as different from what we last saw of Berman-era Trek in Nemesis as TNG felt different from the TOS movies. Probably more, since they can't cannibalize any sets the way TNG did.

So herein drops the other shoe. What's the advantage of coming back to the Prime Universe at all, if coming back would be so different as to be essentially in name only? Just in case it's not clear, that's a rhetorical question.

Yeah, if it's different, it's not the Prime Universe.

 

[Drone]

Where's the critical mass for it? I know that concept doesn't have the same significance today in a world of multiple broadcast platforms than it once did. But still, it would seem that the urgency or insistent drumbeat for even a Prime version that somehow might only very tangentially reference events and characters near and dear, will only continue to diminish as the cohort that witnessed it first run ages along. Mind that a lot of us aren't shuffling off the shipdeck anytime soon, but we are expanding past certain demographics that play a role in project generation decision making.

As has been stated, the books will continue, but will the impetus for new television, let alone features, be driven by the wishes and desires of an audience that is likely delineated as being distinct from that of NuTrek? The legacy of Trek online in this regard is interesting. It's a realm I really know nothing about though.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I remember watching BSG and thinking, "Jesus Christ, this could've been Star Trek!!!!"

Voyager's showrunners wanted to make "Year of Hell" into an entire season, but the network execs wouldn't let them. (Fuckers. ) So it may have ended up something like that, if they had.

 

[thumbtack]

It could continue for years in formats that don't require a larger audience. The novels and a free-to-play online game are perfect examples.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Just because the folks who own the IP won't be producing further projects doesn't mean the prime universe is over.

In the hearts and pens of the fans it will probably outlive the Abramsverse.

In 50 years when the next Star Trek reboot is being transmitted directly to a chip in our optic nerve, the prime universe will still be on the consciousness of the die hard fans and the Abramsverse will be like the 00s Spiderman movies.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Is it safe to assume that we will never see the prime universe again? I love Star Trek: Continues and Star Trek: Phase II, but they are fan fiction in the end and will not garner as much attention nor ever be on Memory Alpha. I honestly think that Star Trek Nemesis was our last view of current Star Trek.

I think it's unlikely that we will see a TV/movie continuation of that continuity, and unnecessary that we do, too. There's also the issue that even if they set a new show in the old continuity again, they won't do it exactly how fans expect and there will be cries of it not being the "real" Prime universe, as we saw with Enterprise and part of ST'09.

Prime continuity isn't completely dead. It is still alive through books and Star Trek Online. If both of those dry up then I would say CBS is done thinking of prime continuity as anything but a nostalgia property.

But wait, they can't both be "Prime" since they both continue on from Nemesis in totally different ways. Which is the one true Prime universe?

The books are one thing that will never die for Star Trek. I think we have many, many years/decades with Trek novels. Sure they aren't numbered, nor are they all series-specific, but I feel like we will have them for a long time. You are correct regarding Star Trek: Online as well. I was just referring to the Star Trek that we see on television. You know, the Star Trek the general viewer watches, aka canon Trek.

Pocket almost let their rights to Trek lapse at the end of 2013. The Cold Equations trilogy was originally planned to end with the death of Picard and be the finale to the novelverse.

That said, had that happened and when Pocket eventually does drop Trek, someone else will almost certainly buy the rights to publish Trek novels and start afresh (no doubt leading to another round of Star Wars EU cancellation angst!)

It would be cool if Star Trek: Online were canon. But, it's probably not. It's funny, because one of the creators of the failed 2013 Star Trek game, said it was canon. I guess that would refer to canon in the Abramsverse and not the Prime universe.

I can't speak for the Gorn game since I've never played it (although JJ Abrams hated how it turned out), from what I know of STO's storyline it's a constant intergalactic wargasm, and IMO that's not what Trek should be.

Well, JJ Abrams shouldn't have made it an alternate reality. He should have just gotten rid of the whole timeline changing thing and not have Leonard Nimoy in the movie. By him doing that, there'd be no question that this was a totally new universe and nothing else.

I seriously doubt that's their intent, after all the continuity porn in Into Darkness. Of all the movies, it's definitely the one most heavily tied into the Trek mythos.

However, I could see why he bothered to include the exsistance of the prime universe. He wanted to have Star Trek '09 be a film for both old fans and garner new ones.

And IMO it worked brilliantly. I love the way the new timeline ties in with the old.

There's no such thing as "prime" Trek in the sense that fans envision. There's the source material (Star Trek) and derivative works based on Star Trek. Rick Berman's Star Trek spinoffs were simply one derivative version of the source material. Others will come and go, no more or less relevent than the Berman-verse.

True. And fans, when pointing out continuity issues in ENT and the new movies seem to forget that there are massive ones between TOS and TNG/DS9/VOY. Mainly the old Enterprise zipping around the galaxy in no time when for Voyager, it's suddenly a lifelong journey. Are they really the same continuity? And should that continuity be continued, which version should they build on and which parts should be ignored? The new movies are seemingly ignoring Voyager's idea of warp speed.

 

[Last Redshirt]

I don't understand the jerk-sessions the fandom has about the loss of the Prime universe. To me, it will never go away.

Not just because of loyalty to dozens upon dozens of writers, who put in their time to make a universe that has stood tall for fifty years, to make it some of the best television that's ever been produced, but because it's creatively stupid not to. Why would you toss away an entire universe of story-telling ideas? What happens when the Abramsverse gets boring and people don't want to watch it anymore? Do another universe switch? No, you bring it back to the old universe.

 

[Sci]

Prime continuity isn't completely dead. It is still alive through books and Star Trek Online. If both of those dry up then I would say CBS is done thinking of prime continuity as anything but a nostalgia property.

But wait, they can't both be "Prime" since they both continue on from Nemesis in totally different ways. Which is the one true Prime universe?

Who gives a shit? It's all equally imaginary. Why does there have to be only one "true" Star Trek Prime Universe?

Why are we looking for "purity" and "truth" like religious zealots seeking God's One True Doctrine?

Pocket almost let their rights to Trek lapse at the end of 2013. The Cold Equations trilogy was originally planned to end with the death of Picard and be the finale to the novelverse.

The good news is that they didn't let the rights lapse, and several of their subsequent Star Trek novels have made the New York Times Best Sellers list for the first time in ages and ages. A good sign for the future health of the Star Trek book line and a vindication for Pocket's decision to keep it going!

 

[F. King Daniel]

Prime continuity isn't completely dead. It is still alive through books and Star Trek Online. If both of those dry up then I would say CBS is done thinking of prime continuity as anything but a nostalgia property.

But wait, they can't both be "Prime" since they both continue on from Nemesis in totally different ways. Which is the one true Prime universe?

Who gives a shit? It's all equally imaginary. Why does there have to be only one "true" Star Trek Prime Universe?

Why are we looking for "purity" and "truth" like religious zealots seeking God's One True Doctrine?

You do know I was being facetious there, right?

Pocket almost let their rights to Trek lapse at the end of 2013. The Cold Equations trilogy was originally planned to end with the death of Picard and be the finale to the novelverse.

The good news is that they didn't let the rights lapse, and several of their subsequent Star Trek novels have made the New York Times Best Sellers list for the first time in ages and ages. A good sign for the future health of the Star Trek book line and a vindication for Pocket's decision to keep it going!

Agreed, although I'll always wonder how that original Cold Equations #3 would have turned out.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

I don't understand the jerk-sessions the fandom has about the loss of the Prime universe. To me, it will never go away.

Not just because of loyalty to dozens upon dozens of writers, who put in their time to make a universe that has stood tall for fifty years, to make it some of the best television that's ever been produced, but because it's creatively stupid not to. Why would you toss away an entire universe of story-telling ideas? What happens when the Abramsverse gets boring and people don't want to watch it anymore? Do another universe switch? No, you bring it back to the old universe.

Why, exactly? If the Abramsverse continues for 20 years, a large portion of the Prime audience will be gone and a large portion of the Star Trek audience in general won't even know the Prime universe ever existed. At that point - exactly what is the advantage of 'going back' to Prime over just rebooting?

Will Star Trek continue to pull themes and characters and maybe even certain storylines out of the prime universe? Of course they will, it's an easy way to get material that's guaranteed to fit. That certainly does not qualify as returning to the original continuity, however. If all that matters to you is the storytelling *ideas*, then there is no definitive difference between Prime and Abramsverse. After all, they both have Kirk, Spock and McCoy, Enterprise and Federation, Khan and Section 31, Klingons and Romulans, Prime directive, etc, etc (and the list of reused ideas is basically guaranteed to grow over time).

 

[Last Redshirt]

Why, exactly? If the Abramsverse continues for 20 years, a large portion of the Prime audience will be gone and a large portion of the Star Trek audience in general won't even know the Prime universe ever existed. At that point - exactly what is the advantage of 'going back' to Prime over just rebooting?

Will Star Trek continue to pull themes and characters and maybe even certain storylines out of the prime universe? Of course they will, it's an easy way to get material that's guaranteed to fit. That certainly does not qualify as returning to the original continuity, however. If all that matters to you is the storytelling *ideas*, then there is no definitive difference between Prime and Abramsverse. After all, they both have Kirk, Spock and McCoy, Enterprise and Federation, Khan and Section 31, Klingons and Romulans, Prime directive, etc, etc (and the list of reused ideas is basically guaranteed to grow over time).

Why not? I'd imagine out of the people who've seen the Abramsverse movies, many of them have watched the Prime Universe. Do you really think that people won't even watch it? That's just ridiculous on many scales. Are you seriously arguing that nobody will have even watched the older Trek shows/movies twenty years ahead?

Why the hell would you reboot a second time? There's literally no point whatsoever when you can just bring back an established timeline and put it 50 years ahead.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Why the hell would you reboot a second time? There's literally no point whatsoever when you can just bring back an established timeline and put it 50 years ahead.

To tell new stories with the famous Star Trek characters, of course! As awesome and rich as Trek's universe setting is, it's the people that inhabit it which make it special. A new adventure with archetypes Kirk and Spock on the USS Enterprise will always be more interesting to me than Captain Joe Bloggs, the Next Next Next Generation of starship captain.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Why, exactly? If the Abramsverse continues for 20 years, a large portion of the Prime audience will be gone and a large portion of the Star Trek audience in general won't even know the Prime universe ever existed. At that point - exactly what is the advantage of 'going back' to Prime over just rebooting?

Will Star Trek continue to pull themes and characters and maybe even certain storylines out of the prime universe? Of course they will, it's an easy way to get material that's guaranteed to fit. That certainly does not qualify as returning to the original continuity, however. If all that matters to you is the storytelling *ideas*, then there is no definitive difference between Prime and Abramsverse. After all, they both have Kirk, Spock and McCoy, Enterprise and Federation, Khan and Section 31, Klingons and Romulans, Prime directive, etc, etc (and the list of reused ideas is basically guaranteed to grow over time).

Why not? I'd imagine out of the people who've seen the Abramsverse movies, many of them have watched the Prime Universe. Do you really think that people won't even watch it? That's just ridiculous on many scales. Are you seriously arguing that nobody will have even watched the older Trek shows/movies twenty years ahead?

Why the hell would you reboot a second time? There's literally no point whatsoever when you can just bring back an established timeline and put it 50 years ahead.

Maybe they'll have watched it, maybe they won't have. It's all just reruns now, not necessarily even on tv in every market, and a lot of it hasn't aged that well visually. That was enough to turn TOS into TNG, but that was also a very different time period. How many people are there now that don't really even watch tv much anymore? They're not likely to seek out old reruns of TNG just because they liked the Abrams films.

And I would say there's literally no point whatsoever in going back to an old continuity you've already abandoned when you can just reboot and use all the same ideas without tying yourself to heavy visual and story continuity problems. Reboots are a very common thing, increasingly common in the modern entertainment world. How many examples do you have of any franchise that has abandoned one set of continuity only to then later go back to it? Because I don't know of any off the top of my head.

 

[RandyS]

If Enterprise had been more of a ballsy change and gone the Battlestar Galactica route, I think we'd still be in the prime universe.

I remember watching BSG and thinking, "Jesus Christ, this could've been Star Trek!!!!"

Thank God it wasn't.

Unless you're referring to the 1978 version.

Which of course, I know you're not.

 

[Cyke101]

If Enterprise had been more of a ballsy change and gone the Battlestar Galactica route, I think we'd still be in the prime universe.

I remember watching BSG and thinking, "Jesus Christ, this could've been Star Trek!!!!"

Thank God it wasn't.

Unless you're referring to the 1978 version.

Which of course, I know you're not.

It should be said that both BSG and ST (any version of each) have fundamentally different premises, so they'll be very different shows anyway. Even Voyager, which has the premise closest to BSG, still has a home and a Starfleet to return to, unlike Adama and Co.

I love nuBSG, but trying to get something like it to replace Enterprise would be like trying to apply the Trail of Tears to the Apollo space program -- both events have very, very little in common.