JJVerse Novels - Why they were cancelled

[Snaploud]

It's rather strange to say that Roddenberry had more influence over Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise than StarTrek2009. He wasn't alive for any of those works, but his *influence* was on all of them. In fact, one could argue that he had more influence over StarTrek2009 as it was based upon characters he directly controlled/created.

Edit:

I suppose we could call them the Prime Universe and the SubUniverse.

 

[BrotherBenny]

Roddenberry only had direct influence on TOS and TNG.

The reason I think we can call the Abramsverse as such is because he created an alternate Star Trek universe to what Roddenberry envisioned.

 

[Christopher]

The reason I think we can call the Abramsverse as such is because he created an alternate Star Trek universe to what Roddenberry envisioned.

So did Jerome Bixby, but we call that the Mirror Universe, not the Bixbyverse. And if we're going to go by creator, then it should be the AbramsKurtzmanOrciverse, shouldn't it? Or maybe the AbramsKurtzmanOrciLindelofBurkverse. (Hey, that's it! The AKOLBverse!)

Now, I'm okay with "Abramsverse" as a nickname, but I've heard people say they hate it. No nickname is ever going to please everyone. Which is why it'd be nice if we had a name that wasn't a nickname and that was neutral enough for everyone to be okay with.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm perfectly okay calling it "Star Trek."

Same here, but it will wind up with something else - same as TOS and TNG. So I'm going with nuTrek for now.

 

[BrotherBenny]

I'm perfectly okay calling it "Star Trek."

Same here, but it will wind up with something else - same as TOS and TNG. So I'm going with nuTrek for now.

That's probably the least awkward, good enough for me.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I tend to use "the timeline with the fucking lens flares," m'self.....

Works for me.

 

[JD]

The reason I think we can call the Abramsverse as such is because he created an alternate Star Trek universe to what Roddenberry envisioned.

So did Jerome Bixby, but we call that the Mirror Universe, not the Bixbyverse. And if we're going to go by creator, then it should be the AbramsKurtzmanOrciverse, shouldn't it? Or maybe the AbramsKurtzmanOrciLindelofBurkverse. (Hey, that's it! The AKOLBverse!)

Now, I'm okay with "Abramsverse" as a nickname, but I've heard people say they hate it. No nickname is ever going to please everyone. Which is why it'd be nice if we had a name that wasn't a nickname and that was neutral enough for everyone to be okay with.

Was there any kind of term used by Pocket or Paramount when reffering to the books that were supposed to come out this year?

 

[Herbert1]

I tend to use "the timeline with the fucking lens flares," m'self.....

LOL!

 

[Dayton Ward]

Was there any kind of term used by Pocket or Paramount when reffering to the books that were supposed to come out this year?

Margaret just called them "JJTrek."

It was chaos for weeks until she decided upon that term.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'd prefer something that isn't so personality-dependent, and that doesn't rely on the suffix "-verse." Besides, Abrams' film is still a version of Roddenberry's creation.

Not to mention that "Roddenberryverse" is an extremely unwieldy word. "Prime timeline" or "Prime universe" is easier to say.

I wonder why it did get so personalized at all. At least from my POV, Star Trek has always been Star Trek, no matter if TOS or VOY or even ENT. Sure, people blamed Berman & Braga for a lot of stuff, but it never was "Berman's Trek" or something. But now it has become "Abrams' Trek". But then again, Benett, Meyer, Berman, Piller, and all the other people involved never declared themselves to be the "Supreme Court" of Star Trek.

Just a harmless nickname. Why does it bother you?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Because Star Trek is bigger than one man? Yes this one was JJ's spin on it, but building on the work and ideas of all his predesessors, and all his underlings.
That's why I would like a name for the new Trek that isn't shared by it's director.

And hopefully something really cool sounding.

 

[LightningStorm]

I've gotta say, I've been reading this for a while now and I have to ask why do we even need an official nickname for it? (or an officially unofficial nickname as the case may be).

Really if you encounter any of the following: Abramsverse, ST09, ST XI, Trek XI, JJTrek, nuTrek, new Trek, or any of the other terms suggested are you really going to be confused as to what they're talking about? Even if someone screws up the Roman Numeral and says ST IX, you usually know within 1 second that they are talking about the new movie and not Insurrection, since no one refers to Insurrection by any numbers or roman numerals.

So my proposal is that we just call it whatever you want to call it and not nitpick the specific "name" used unless it is really confusing with something else.

 

[David cgc]

Or maybe the AbramsKurtzmanOrciLindelofBurkverse. (Hey, that's it! The AKOLBverse!)

Usually when people do that, they spell it out BALOK, actually.

 

[Christopher]

I've gotta say, I've been reading this for a while now and I have to ask why do we even need an official nickname for it? (or an officially unofficial nickname as the case may be).

For ease of reference. Particularly in analytical discussions and comparisons of the different timelines, where clarity is important.

Really if you encounter any of the following: Abramsverse, ST09, ST XI, Trek XI, JJTrek, nuTrek, new Trek, or any of the other terms suggested are you really going to be confused as to what they're talking about? Even if someone screws up the Roman Numeral and says ST IX, you usually know within 1 second that they are talking about the new movie and not Insurrection, since no one refers to Insurrection by any numbers or roman numerals.

Sure, now, when there's only one movie in that timeline. But what about 10 or 20 years from now, when that timeline is represented by multiple films, comics, books, and maybe even a TV series or two? Maybe it's an SF writer thing, or a history student thing, but I tend to take the long view.

So my proposal is that we just call it whatever you want to call it and not nitpick the specific "name" used unless it is really confusing with something else.

But the thing is, any nickname that one person likes is going to be disliked by someone else. This whole discussion started when someone said they hated the nickname "JJVerse." I've used "Abramsverse" in the past and gotten the same reaction from at least one person. And while others are saying they're fine with "NuTrek," I dislike it because it's too much like adspeak, an ugly, deliberately misspelled portmanteau, and because the "Nu-" prefix is often used with derogatory or dismissive intent (as in "NuGalactica"). Is it so wrong to wish there were a term that nobody would hate?

 

[MHJH]

Star Trek: Fred

I support this, as long as we can call Prime Trek "Ginger" and everybody can get in arguments that Prime Trek did everything JJTrek did, except backwards and in high heels.

 

[ATimson]

And while others are saying they're fine with "NuTrek," I dislike it because it's too much like adspeak, an ugly, deliberately misspelled portmanteau, and because the "Nu-" prefix is often used with derogatory or dismissive intent (as in "NuGalactica").

I'm not so sure nuBSG is always, or even mostly, referred to as such with "derogatory or dismissive intent". I tend to use it myself, and I don't like old BSG and do like the new show!

Is it so wrong to wish there were a term that nobody would hate?

It's not wrong to wish for it. I blame the writers for not subtitling the movie.

Well, if the original universe is the Prime universe, would that make the new one the Integral universe?

 

[Dayton Ward]

My fellow posters, this is my pledge to you: I'm calling it "Trek 2.0" if and when I feel the need to make such a distinction, which I promise you won't be all that often.

Next item: Health care!

 

[Christopher]

But wouldn't TNG have already been Trek 2.0?

Besides, my quest is for a term that describes the timeline, not the production. The new movie has given us this nice handy term for the other timeline, Prime, and so I'd like to have an analogous counterpart term for the new timeline.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

"Secundus Trek."

Okay, maybe not.

It occurs to me that as the script refers to Nimoy's Spock as "Spock Prime" and Quinto's Spock as "Spock," that the universe of the film should simply be called "Star Trek" with no suffix. The suffix "Prime" has now been appended to pre-movie Trek. Quinto is simply "Spock." Pine is simply "Kirk." The movie is simply Star Trek. Shatner is now Kirk Prime. And so forth. I think the distinction now is that the film is Star Trek, and the 1966 series is Star Trek Prime.

Of course, I don't expect anyone to accept that logic. There are probably people ready to pelt me with rotten vegetables as I type...

 

[ATimson]

Of course, I don't expect anyone to accept that logic. There are probably people ready to pelt me with rotten vegetables as I type...

That's... actually not bad logic. It runs completely counter to the normal approach, but... I like it.

(In a similar vein, the recent TOS DVDs/Blu-rays have all been "Star Trek: The Original Series" - and in a different font than the original show/new movie, no less. So it seems that TPTB, while perhaps not using "Prime", agree that it's the 1960s series that needs to be rebranded.)