JJVerse Novels - Why they were cancelled

[Nerys Myk]

"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...

I like it! ( puts down bag of rotten vegetables.)

 

[William Leisner]

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...

No, no.

It takes time for vegetables to properly rot, after all.

 

[Christopher]

I know this won't catch on, but how about "the Neronian timeline?" I.e. the timeline resulting from the actions of Nero. Or perhaps "Post-Neronian" would be more accurate. ("Nerogenic?" Nahh...)

 

[tmclough]

How about the Prime Universe, and the Composite Universe?

Then we can get into arguments over whether or not every element of the Composite Universe is composed of one or more elements of the Prime Universe.

 

[pookha]

"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...

I like it! ( puts down bag of rotten vegetables.)

i sorta like it but..
i still need pelt someone with these veggies..

 

[Dayton Ward]

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.

Well, no. TPTB were thoughtful enough to provide a subtitle for that series, thereby saving fandom months of existential angst pondering a naming dilemma.

The more I think about it, the more I like Allyn's idea. "Prime" timeline for the 1966-2005 Trek, and simply "Star Trek" for what is now occupying center stage. That's the way it's going to go with everybody who doesn't spend time debating stuff like this on message boards, only they're just going to call everything that came before "that old stuff."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

We used to get complaints all the time around here about how people shouldn't refer to the original series as "TOS" because that wasn't its name. Its name was Star Trek.

So no, there is no hope of coming up with nicknames that won't offend anyone - none at all.

 

[Therin of Andor]

We used to get complaints all the time around here about how people shouldn't refer to the original series as "TOS" because that wasn't its name. Its name was Star Trek.

The ST fans in the early days of UseNet, which kinda coincided with the "New Coke vs Coke Classic" debacle, seemed content with the monikers STC ("Star Trek Classic") to distinguish TOS from TNG. TAS was more often called STA ("Star Trek Animated").

Nicknames do evolve.

 

[seigezunt]

Well, then I'm calling the TOS movies the Harverse.

 

[PaulSimpson]

We used to get complaints all the time around here about how people shouldn't refer to the original series as "TOS" because that wasn't its name. Its name was Star Trek..

That's actually the line that we follow in the magazine. The show from 1966-69 is referred to as Star Trek, unless it's not clear from context, in which case it becomes "the original series of Star TreK" or "the 1960s version". In the same way, it's usually incredibly clear whether you're talking about the 2009 film or the 1960s series, but if necessary, we say "the recent movie"... and referring to the timelines, it's the prime universe (all pre-2008), the mirror universe, or the new universe.

Paul

 

[tmclough]

The ST fans in the early days of UseNet, which kinda coincided with the "New Coke vs Coke Classic" debacle, seemed content with the monikers STC ("Star Trek Classic") to distinguish TOS from TNG. TAS was more often called STA ("Star Trek Animated").

Nicknames do evolve.

I seem to recall, at least during the second year of TNG, on Usenet, people using ST:TOS, as opposed to ST:TNG. I'm not saying that people didn't use STC, it's just that that's what I remember. (Maybe the reason I remember ST:TOS as opposed to STC is because I was able to figure out what the "TOS" stood for, as opposed to what the "C" stood for?)

As for TAS/STA, I don't recall anything, probably because I never saw a single episode of it until this past year (on DVD, of course).

 

[Christopher]

That's actually the line that we follow in the magazine. The show from 1966-69 is referred to as Star Trek, unless it's not clear from context, in which case it becomes "the original series of Star TreK" or "the 1960s version". In the same way, it's usually incredibly clear whether you're talking about the 2009 film or the 1960s series, but if necessary, we say "the recent movie"... and referring to the timelines, it's the prime universe (all pre-2008), the mirror universe, or the new universe.

I guess "New Universe" or "New Timeline" has an agreeable simplicity to it. I've been increasingly leaning toward it over the course of this discussion. At least "New" is spelled correctly. (Though ironically that might end up being abbreviated as ST:NU. There's no getting away from it, nu?)

But long view again -- today it's clear enough to refer to "the recent movie," but what will be the convention years from now when there are multiple New Universe films and you need to refer to them collectively as distinct from the Prime Universe films? Hmm, maybe I just answered my own question in the way I worded it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Paul: How about running a competetion in the mag to come up with a new name? Someone's got to have a catchy name for the alternate timeline in them. Somewhere.

 

[seigezunt]

At least "New" is spelled correctly. (Though ironically that might end up being abbreviated as ST:NU. There's no getting away from it, nu?)

And we could call pre-Abrams Trek, Star Trek: Original Years, or ST:OY.

Or Star Trek: Once Your Good Enough Version, All Lost Terribly, or ST: OY GEVALT.

 

[Captain Robert April]

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!

Ah, good, something safe...

 

[Captain Robert April]

Personally, I think NuTrek is probably the closest to a neutral, and easy to manage, moniker that's gonna come around.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Paul: How about running a competetion in the mag to come up with a new name? Someone's got to have a catchy name for the alternate timeline in them. Somewhere.

It would appear, from the context Paul provides, that the writers for the magazine are able to do quite well simply by employing clear sentence structure and concise writing. It's just us folks on the Internet who need acronyms and shorthand for every little thing.

 

[Captain Robert April]

It also helps to have pictures of your subject matter posted alongside the text, just to make sure everything is crystal clear. Beyond that, you can't fix stupid.

However, if a contest is called on, howzabout "Bizzaro Trek"?

 

[Christopher]

I think that in the long run, it'll probably be marketing that determines what label, if any, catches on for the new universe. I don't think "The Original Series/TOS" and "The Animated Series/TAS" really became default designations (winning out over alternatives like "Trek Classic" and "the animated Star Trek" respectively) until the home video releases were labelled in those ways. So maybe 10 or 15 years from now, there will be a box set (or downloadable collection or whatever) of the movies from 2009 onward set in the new continuity, and whatever label is used for that box set will become the default term for that timeline. Ultimately, the kind of competition most likely to decide this question is marketplace competition -- or natural selection.

 

[Herbert1]

In the meantime, we'll just have to endure the snarky labels the best we can.