Goodbye Prime?

[Greg Cox]

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.

I don't know. I'm inclined to think that, fifteen years from now, when Star Trek 3.0 comes around, tomorrow's fans will be insisting that the new, new version is nowhere near as good as the "classic" nuTrek movies--and that Chris Pine is the one true Captain Kirk!

(Don't laugh! This is happening right now with THE MUMMY. Folks are already indignant at the prospect of Universal remaking the "classic" Brendan Fraser movie--which was, of course, the THIRD remake of the original Karloff film!)

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

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?

ST Online exists only for the game. So it's not "true," in that sense. The novels don't follow STO continuity at all, thank God.

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

It's not about "loyalty." It's a TV show, not a cult. I doubt that Richard Matheson or Gene L. Coon or Theodore Sturgeon or any of the writers who worked on TOS years ago ever expected their stuff to be treated as Holy Writ fifty years later.

When the current cycle of Trek movies eventually runs its course, they'll probably reboot the series again in hopes of attracting a new generation of viewers--which is what Hollywood has been doing since the silent era.

Heck, I'm see they're rebooting UNDERWORLD and DAREDEVIL already. I have a sentimental attachment to both films, having written the original novelizations, but I'm certainly not going to boycott the new versions out of "loyalty" to the previous incarnations. Times change. The audience changes. That's just how it works.

(But you know you're getting old when they start remaking movies you novelized the first time around! )

 

[-Brett-]

Books and STO don't count. It's dead, Jim.

 

[EnriqueH]

Star Trek has been dead and buried so many times throughout its history that I can't...not even for a second...contemplate the notion that it's gone forever.

Sure, we may never see DeForest Kelley and James Doohan again. (Hopefully, they're up there with the two Genes trying to come up with some cool episodes for that damn 4th Season.) But the prime universe is not dead IMO.

I think it can and will make a comeback one day if the right writers and producers are involved.

It will probably be a while before it happens though.

And even if it doesn't, the important thing is that Star Trek continues to live on...

 

[Greg Cox]

Star Trek has been dead and buried so many times throughout its history that I can't...not even for a second...contemplate the notion that it's gone forever.

But Star Trek is more than just the so-called prime universe. Star Trek is a concept, not merely a single continuity. It's not gone at all. We just have a new version in the theaters these days, just like we have new versions of Superman or Planet of the Apes.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Goodbye Prime! Hello Vulcan! There's no doubt in my complicated mosaic mind that Carol Marcus is only onboard ENTERPRISE for STAR TREK III to launch her Genesis Torpedo at the smokey remains of Vulcan ... to gather them up ... and reconstitute them into a brand new matt painting of a very familiar planet! Once Vulcan's been thus restored, I've little doubt that the NuTimeline will find favour in most people's eyes who've grumbled about it, since 2009.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

I echo that statement. Any Star Trek that was like BSG wouldn't be Star Trek in anyway.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I said goodbye to Prime too after noticing those Transformers movies just keep coming....and coming...and coming.

Oh, wait...we're talking about Star Trek Prime universe. Ahhh...lol

Well, in regards to STO and the Prime universe: I'm sure there would be elements (or could be elements) used in the feature films or tentative television projects.

I'm sure there'll be those who'll say 'they'll never do that' and then go into the marketing - from their point of view whether or not they've actually worked in the film/tv biz - 'whys' it won't work.

Come to think of it, usually when 'fans' say something will never happen...it eventually does in some capacity. As someone brought out earlier, there were those many 'fan' voices who claimed that the 1960s show would never make it onscreen since it was outdated, cheesy, yada...yada...yada...(As if things - technology, stories - can't be modernized).

The 'Prime' universe will always be present. However, for some, the 'prime' universe may be the JJverse...or the original 1960s show and nothing else...or STO...

Anything can happen with this franchise in the future, I say. (Especially, as long as they keep the skirts and boots).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Unless you actually play ST Online, you don't even have to acknowledge that its "continuity" exists, as it is only for the game. The novels are completely separate, and are still being written. So the prime timeline lives on in the novels, if nothing else.

 

[T'Girl]

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

Thank God it wasn't.

I echo that statement. Any Star Trek that was like BSG wouldn't be Star Trek in anyway.

If you're solely talking about the story line, then I'd agree.

But if you look at the complexity of the story line, the number of main characters, the attention given to minor players, the different tone of the special effects, then there was some things from nuBSG that would profited Star Trek in general.

Unless you actually play ST Online, you don't even have to acknowledge that its "continuity" exists ...

Would that statement also apply to the novels, if a fan didn't read them?

For the vast majority of the Trek fan base, the novels basically don't exist.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

For the vast majority of the Trek fan base, the novels basically don't exist.

The point is, the 'extended continuity' that has been developed in the last decade or so is a vast, rich tapestry. It's meant to be taken as a serious exploration of the Trek universe. It may not be official, but at least it tries to fill the void, as it were.

What continuity STO has, on the other hand, has no meaning other than the game. It's not meant to be a serious continuity, it exists only to serve the "needs" of the game. And I'd hazard a guess that there are a lot more Trek fans who read the novels than who play STO.

 

[M.A.C.O.]

Thank God it wasn't.

I echo that statement. Any Star Trek that was like BSG wouldn't be Star Trek in anyway.

If you're solely talking about the story line, then I'd agree.

But if you look at the complexity of the story line, the number of main characters, the attention given to minor players, the different tone of the special effects, then there was some things from nuBSG that would profited Star Trek in general.

Well has along as we are talking about the first 2 seasons of nuBSG. Season 3 is where everyone says the series lost direction and it's charm. Season 4 we had so many rabbits pulled out of different hats to justify Ron Moore's style of story telling. That he doesn't map things out, but writes and makes changes as he goes. The BSG movies are testament to that.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Thank God it wasn't.

I echo that statement. Any Star Trek that was like BSG wouldn't be Star Trek in anyway.

If you're solely talking about the story line, then I'd agree.

But if you look at the complexity of the story line, the number of main characters, the attention given to minor players, the different tone of the special effects, then there was some things from nuBSG that would profited Star Trek in general.

I'm talking about the tone of BSG which isn't in keeping with what Star Trek is. Grim, gritty, oppressive and depressing is not Star Trek. ( at least not in large doses) But yes, things like complex storylines, a large number of main and minor characters and focus on them are all things Star Trek could benefit from. Not sure what you mean by the "tone of the special effects".

 

[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!!!!"

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.

I disagree vehemently.

nuBSG was alive, dangerous, unpredictable, AND most important of all: socially relevant.

And it's that "socially relevant" quality combined with all its other factors that made me think of Enterprise and what it should've been.

Given that Enterprise took place many many years prior to TOS, it's not inconceivable to me that it could be different and have a BSG tone. (After all, TOS and TNG have a different tone, but both are socially relevant.)

Star Trek has been dead and buried so many times throughout its history that I can't...not even for a second...contemplate the notion that it's gone forever.

But Star Trek is more than just the so-called prime universe. Star Trek is a concept, not merely a single continuity. It's not gone at all. We just have a new version in the theaters these days, just like we have new versions of Superman or Planet of the Apes.

Oh, I agree.

Star Trek evolves. There was a time when everyone thought it was just Kirk, Spock, McCoy and company. And then there were those that thought it wouldn't be Star Trek without the Enterprise. And then we realized that Star Trek is much bigger than anybody could've ever predicted. It goes beyond the great Kirk, Spock and almighty Enterprise.

Thank God it wasn't.

I echo that statement. Any Star Trek that was like BSG wouldn't be Star Trek in anyway.

If you're solely talking about the story line, then I'd agree.

But if you look at the complexity of the story line, the number of main characters, the attention given to minor players, the different tone of the special effects, then there was some things from nuBSG that would profited Star Trek in general.

EXACTLY!

I'm glad somebody is getting what I'm trying to say.

 

[Cyke101]

I disagree vehemently.

nuBSG was alive, dangerous, unpredictable, AND most important of all: socially relevant.

And it's that "socially relevant" quality combined with all its other factors that made me think of Enterprise and what it should've been.

Given that Enterprise took place many many years prior to TOS, it's not inconceivable to me that it could be different and have a BSG tone.

There's different ways to go achieve the "alive, dangerous, unpredictable, socially relevant" aspects of storytelling, in sci-fi, legal dramas, police procedurals, dramedies, etc. Other fictions do it in their own styles, without resorting to BSG-type storytelling. TOS did, sure. But Trek is fundamentally brighter and more optimistic than BSG, with a far greater emphasis on exploration (space, time, personal, political, social) rather than survival, and therein lies the key difference.

Consider that DS9 is without a doubt the darkest of the Trek shows, and perhaps the most introspective of itself and the one that offered the most critique of the Trek utopia. It's no coincidence that the BSG writers cut their teeth on DS9. And yet, Trek's own nature wouldn't let them go with a BSG tone simply because there *was* that utopia that they were analyzing (otherwise, there'd be no point in that self-reflection). Trek tropes were there, while still maintaining its social relevance and other traits that you described; especially towards the end, it explored religion, occupation, fascism, terrorism, ends-justifying-the-means (all of which happens in the real world), and ultimately a rare peace between Trek's 3 most popular nations. And DS9 definitely felt more like Trek than BSG while still hitting those core 4 traits that you mention.

BSG is its own creature, and rightfully so; it's a show that's primarily concerned about politics, coping, and survival, and that's perfectly fine. Trek is its own creature as well, with a broader focus on exploration. Trek's failings come when it tries too hard to be other things. BSG and Trek can succeed on their own terms, but they can still achieve those traits you wanted while still retaining their unique identities, because those traits are only ingredients, not the entire product. One only need look at their respective finales -- BSG's ending had them make it to Earth and survive, as the culmination of a 5 year investment by the viewer, succeeding in their mission and surviving to create a new start. A few of Trek's finales, on the other hand, were about contemplating future and fate beyond survival, about life and growth after the hardest of challenges, the beginning of a new exploration. Neither BSG's nor Trek's finale premises are inherently better than the other, but rather it's about which ending is more fitting for each show's individual philosophy.

BSG is fine, but Trek really should just stick to being Trek -- and we've had several series where Trek was indeed "alive, dangerous, unpredictable, socially relevant" (granted, some series handled it better than others). Should Trek adapt to a 21st century style of storytelling the way many modern shows are doing? Sure, definitely, but it should also still retain its Trek identity as well. One need not be BSG to achieve those goals, as other programs have shown us.

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?

ST Online exists only for the game. So it's not "true," in that sense. The novels don't follow STO continuity at all, thank God.

If people had problems with Kirk jumping from Lt. to Capt. in the span of a movie, they'd go absolutely ballistic about a Cadet going to Vice Admiral in a year, storywise.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I echo that statement. Any Star Trek that was like BSG wouldn't be Star Trek in anyway.

If you're solely talking about the story line, then I'd agree.

But if you look at the complexity of the story line, the number of main characters, the attention given to minor players, the different tone of the special effects, then there was some things from nuBSG that would profited Star Trek in general.

EXACTLY!

I'm glad somebody is getting what I'm trying to say.

What T'Girl seems to be describing is the what most modern dramas (and not a few comedies) are doing. Any new Trek show would be foolish not to do it that way. And Enterprise missed the boat by not doing it. It's a TV in the 21st Century thing, not a BSG thing.

 

[EnriqueH]

I disagree vehemently.

nuBSG was alive, dangerous, unpredictable, AND most important of all: socially relevant.

And it's that "socially relevant" quality combined with all its other factors that made me think of Enterprise and what it should've been.

Given that Enterprise took place many many years prior to TOS, it's not inconceivable to me that it could be different and have a BSG tone.

There's different ways to go achieve the "alive, dangerous, unpredictable, socially relevant" aspects of storytelling, in sci-fi, legal dramas, police procedurals, dramedies, etc. Other fictions do it in their own styles, without resorting to BSG-type storytelling. TOS did, sure. But Trek is fundamentally brighter and more optimistic than BSG, with a far greater emphasis on exploration (space, time, personal, political, social) rather than survival, and therein lies the key difference.

Consider that DS9 is without a doubt the darkest of the Trek shows, and perhaps the most introspective of itself and the one that offered the most critique of the Trek utopia. It's no coincidence that the BSG writers cut their teeth on DS9. And yet, Trek's own nature wouldn't let them go with a BSG tone simply because there *was* that utopia that they were analyzing (otherwise, there'd be no point in that self-reflection). Trek tropes were there, while still maintaining its social relevance and other traits that you described; especially towards the end, it explored religion, occupation, fascism, terrorism, ends-justifying-the-means (all of which happens in the real world), and ultimately a rare peace between Trek's 3 most popular nations. And DS9 definitely felt more like Trek than BSG while still hitting those core 4 traits that you mention.

BSG is its own creature, and rightfully so; it's a show that's primarily concerned about politics, coping, and survival, and that's perfectly fine. Trek is its own creature as well, with a broader focus on exploration. Trek's failings come when it tries too hard to be other things. BSG and Trek can succeed on their own terms, but they can still achieve those traits you wanted while still retaining their unique identities, because those traits are only ingredients, not the entire product. One only need look at their respective finales -- BSG's ending had them make it to Earth and survive, as the culmination of a 5 year investment by the viewer, succeeding in their mission and surviving to create a new start. A few of Trek's finales, on the other hand, were about contemplating future and fate beyond survival, about life and growth after the hardest of challenges, the beginning of a new exploration. Neither BSG's nor Trek's finale premises are inherently better than the other, but rather it's about which ending is more fitting for each show's individual philosophy.

BSG is fine, but Trek really should just stick to being Trek -- and we've had several series where Trek was indeed "alive, dangerous, unpredictable, socially relevant" (granted, some series handled it better than others). Should Trek adapt to a 21st century style of storytelling the way many modern shows are doing? Sure, definitely, but it should also still retain its Trek identity as well. One need not be BSG to achieve those goals, as other programs have shown us.

I think some of you guys are misunderstanding me: I'm not saying Enterprise needed to copy BSG verbatim.

It's the show's attitude, danger and unpredictability that made it an exciting show to watch.

As you so eloquently stated, BSG was about survival and Trek is about optimism.

It's that optimism in the face of danger and challenge that Trek's message becomes very clear.

The problem was: Trek was losing its danger and therefore it's excitement.

When I was tuning into BSG, I was thrilled (and scared) that I just never knew if one of my favorite characters would die in this episode. That's an investment right there as a viewer. I'm invested in this sucker.

Are you telling me Star Trek had that in Enterprise? (Maybe it did, as I only saw up to Season 2, I think.)

I love Star Trek, even when it's below par. By the time Enterprise came around, it needed more danger. And since we were going back 100 years before TOS, that was all the more reason to include that danger element.

If you're solely talking about the story line, then I'd agree.

But if you look at the complexity of the story line, the number of main characters, the attention given to minor players, the different tone of the special effects, then there was some things from nuBSG that would profited Star Trek in general.

EXACTLY!

I'm glad somebody is getting what I'm trying to say.

What T'Girl seems to be describing is the what most modern dramas (and not a few comedies) are doing. Any new Trek show would be foolish not to do it that way. And Enterprise missed the boat by not doing it. It's a TV in the 21st Century thing, not a BSG thing.

Absolutely.

 

[Harvey]

(Don't laugh! This is happening right now with THE MUMMY. Folks are already indignant at the prospect of Universal remaking the "classic" Brendan Fraser movie--which was, of course, the THIRD remake of the original Karloff film!)

Well, that's because the Brendan Fraser movie (the first one) is by far the most entertaining version of THE MUMMY to date. The Karloff version is a tedious DRACULA ripoff that gets by on the basis of one really incredible make-up, which is only on screen for a few minutes. The less said about the endless sequels that followed, the better.

 

[dub]

I think some of you guys are misunderstanding me: I'm not saying Enterprise needed to copy BSG verbatim. It's the show's attitude, danger and unpredictability that made it an exciting show to watch. ... Are you telling me Star Trek had that in Enterprise? (Maybe it did, as I only saw up to Season 2, I think.)

You really need to watch season 3!