I say that if the people at CBS and, Paramount change the timeline/universe of Star Trek, they should get their own universe/franchise to play around in and mess up and rename it so as it's not to be confused with TOS and the original prime timeline/universe. I mean it's only fair. It's craziness for them both to exist unless some alien is making it possible for Kirk and company to exist outside of time for some unknown purpose (other than to make money. lol). History is gonna have to decide which continuity is better as per survival of the fittest. Which one is more relevant and justifiable?
GR vs. JJ
- Thread starter Valenti
- Start date
- Status
I disagree completely with everything in your post.
They already have their own universe/franchise to play around with. It's called Star Trek. They bought it fair and square back in the '60s.
I'll be happy to change the thread title for you if you come up with one that isn't the least descriptive thread title ever to be used in the 19-year history of the BBS.
What's so hard about accepting each series on it's own merits in it's own time-line? I mean really, the original movies had very little to do with the TOS universe. I don't really understand this insistence that everything must neatly tie together. IT'S A FRICKIN' TV SHOW FOR GODS SAKE!! My advice is to enjoy it or not based on itself and quit trying to make it all fit together; it doesn't and it never will so move on.
BTW, GREAT title for the thread!! lol
BTW, GREAT title for the thread!! lol
I was unable to parse it into anything coherent with which I could either agree or disagree.
As noted elsewhere, this is not unique in movies or tv or books or comics. I'm old enough to have lived through at least eight different live-action versions of SUPERMAN, at least five different PLANET OF THE APES timelines, multiple versions of THE MUMMY and ZORRO and TARZAN, etc. So why fret over various different versions of STAR TREK?
It's not craziness and doesn't require elaborate theories involving alien intervention. It's just how popular fiction works. Heck, how many different versions of PETER PAN or NANCY DREW are there?
It's not craziness and doesn't require elaborate theories involving alien intervention. It's just how popular fiction works. Heck, how many different versions of PETER PAN or NANCY DREW are there?
Last edited:
This argument /reasoning ignores the fact that some of those franchise universes never tried to present themselves as a single coherent universe. Each of those live action Superman series were reboots. That is the fundamental difference. Until NuTrek, Star Trek was presented as a cohesive whole. Even NuTrek presented itself as an alternate timeline in order to respect the cohesive universe idea.
It really is a disservice to present as evidence series that never claimed to take place in the same universe as the predecessor.
I do realize some of your examples, like Planet of the Apes, is supposed to be a single universe. Well, except for the 2001 remake and the subsequent 2011 reboot. So that's 3 universes
I was also counting the TV series (which requires serious elbow grease to work into the movie timeline) and the Saturday morning cartoon. Although I suppose we could count the universe of the original Pierre Boulle novel as well.
And just because STAR TREK has maintained the illusion that it's one "cohesive whole" better than most long-running series doesn't mean that it's vital to preserve this illusion at all costs. Everything gets rebooted and revamped eventually. Why not have various different flavors of STAR TREK as well?
Bottom line: the OP seemed puzzled by the existence of multiple versions of TREK. I was just pointing that this is pretty much Standard Operating Procedure when it comes to durable pop culture creations, so it's nothing to worry about.
Last edited:
I just think it is trying to replace one reality with another by superimposing a 'prequel' of another continuity over TOS. It just seems unnecessary and dumb is all, which is why I don't dig anything Star Trek at all anymore. Rant over.
You can change the title to GR vrs. JJ.
You can change the title to GR vrs. JJ.
Should that not be:
GR vs. B&B vs. JJ vs. B&H?
Seeing as how every person running the show has a new take on it, not all of which we'll ever have consensus on.
I think there can me multiple versions of Star Trek, just like there are multiple Batmen and Supermen and James Bonds.
Is this the thread about Star Trek? Oh good....
I sometimes think we'd have all been better off if we left trek be after TOS.
Or maybe even "The Cage"
It seems to have literally caused fifty years of pain for people who can't accept the difference between above average politically aware light entertainment and a holy text.
I sometimes think we'd have all been better off if we left trek be after TOS.
Or maybe even "The Cage"
It seems to have literally caused fifty years of pain for people who can't accept the difference between above average politically aware light entertainment and a holy text.
I'm working my way backwards to B&B. They deserve their own thread. Who's B&H?
Pretty much. Just leave it at TOS.
Berg & Harberts, showrunners of Star Trek: Discovery.
As I was trying to make sense of this thread, I assumed that it was about STDsc.
Kor
- Status
Similar threads
