I'm reading his statements from the interview. Those statements don't say Prime to me or why would the timeline give away spoilers? It being "Prime" shouldn't be important on anything more than a superficial level.
Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed
- Thread starter captainkirk
- Start date
I'm reading his statements from the interview. Those statements don't say Prime to me or why would the timeline give away spoilers? It being "Prime" shouldn't be important on anything more than a superficial level.
For the spoilers, you're on the right track but you're a bit off. They're talking about the timeline *because* it doesn't give away plot details, but it still informs us a bit about the show's approach. It's not that they're hiding the timeline due to spoilers. They're talking about the timeline rather than plot details because that avoids spoilers.
Previous statements have linked it to Prime and his statements link it to the original Star Trek. He specifically does not mention the new films. The preponderance of the evidence makes the intent very clear.
You can cling to your hopes but I'm going by the totality of the evidence that we have so far. Eventually, we'll be able to judge it from the show itself.
One statement from a supervising producer. Fuller himself said the show could take place in either the Prime or Abrams universe.
^ But Fuller is no longer involved with making the show. The other producer is, thus his word predominates.
Fuller is gone. Believe what you want. The proof will be in the pudding. Just don't be surprised if it's not what you're clinging to.
I really find this obsession with timelines to be silly. I just want a decent show. I really don't care if the fictional history doesn't perfectly line up, it's entertainment and not a historical record. A lot of fans really remind me of the aliens from Galaxy Quest.
If I had to guess, I'd say that nothing in the first season will nail it down to a particular timeline, and so they originally said it was Prime, mainly to appease the old fans. But at some point things shifted, perhaps due to wanting a more modern aesthetic, and so now it's Kelvin or a whole new timeline but they don't want to come out and say so because of what the reaction will be.
Nonsense. I refer you to the monty python sketch about the painting of the last supper for the funniest easiest explanation. And to any time someone thought painting on top of oil paint with acrylic was a wise move for a commissioned portrait.
I can see why they would be deliberately vague about it. If it's Abrams-Trek, they why come out and say that upfront if you know it's going to turn off some portion of the fan base who aren't into Abrams-Trek? Just be deliberately obtuse about it, so that those people will tune in to see for themselves. Maybe people who wouldn't have given it a chance otherwise would choose to do so.
You can't please everyone, so don't try. That's that approach they are taking. Instead of saying "Prime or Abrams", just don't say anything at all. It's the best choice from a marketing perspective, even if it bothers some fans who just NEED to know either way.
That being said, it's certainly looks Abrams to me. Complete with lens flare.
You can't please everyone, so don't try. That's that approach they are taking. Instead of saying "Prime or Abrams", just don't say anything at all. It's the best choice from a marketing perspective, even if it bothers some fans who just NEED to know either way.
That being said, it's certainly looks Abrams to me. Complete with lens flare.
That seals it! Everyone knows that a lens flare is only possible given the unique laws of physics of the Kelvin Universe.
Last edited:
That's my main focus as well. If we get good stories, I'll be happy. That said, I do find a bit of value if Discovery is linked to the larger timeline that I've been following for a long time. That's not a requirement for me, but it does add some value. Not everyone shares that, which fine.
My main point is not fixated on a specific timeline. Rather, if we're trying to predict what the show is going to be like, we should base our guesses on the preponderance of the evidence rather than personal wishes and wording nitpicks!
Of course, as I've been saying, the proof is in the pudding. We'll find out with the actual show. Imagine that, right? It is funny how some fans get so wrapped up in the minutiae!
My personal wish is that the show be entertaining. Whether Prime or another timeline, I'll still be paying to watch on All-Access.
How dare we evaluate the statements of the person in charge of the entire enterprise!
That's my wish too. So, we're agreed. Let's just wait to see what the show is like before get to worked up over stuff, ok?
How dare we evaluate the statements of the person in charge of the entire enterprise!
"Evaluating statements" is not the same thing as "nit picks."
I'm talking about evaluating the preponderance of what the showrunners have said.
You're talking about analyzing what the "a" means in one sentence! Hugely different things!
I hope you can see the difference.
A patron setting pre-agreed upon rules in the contract for a job is a lot different than him sitting in the room saying "no" or "can't" between notes, brush strokes, key strokes, and flashes. I don't know why that needs explanation.
Oh rather:
"Get Leo on the pigeon!
Yo, Leo. Bishop Cleese here-- Oh. Good. Good. Yeah. Bishop Chapman is still prattling on about how silly everything is--
--I know right? Well now he thinks he going to be king or something. Delusions of grandeur, I tell you.
Bishop Palin has gone to the New World to save souls or sommat. I told him it's a fool's errand, but he thinks he'll surprise people. He also brought that chair I'm so fond of.
What?
Yes! Like clouds, I tell you!
Any-way. The reason I'm pigeoning is we got this panting about the Last Supper, right? And Mike was going to do it for us--
--Yes! Yes! Marbles ALL gone. He wanted to add Kangaroos. Kangaroos! So obviously that wasn't going to work out. So I thought I might give you a buzzard.
You'll help us out? Brilliant. There's just the obvious contract negotiations and what not. But nothing should be too much of a problem. There is one thing, though. Yeah, well, given our recent troubles, I think it might be wise to send Bishop Jones along to give you a hand--
--Well, I think it would be best to have someone in the room, you know, to peek over your should every now and thing to make sure everything is going according to pla---"
Mike hangs up his pigeon.
Well aside from timelines and canon, Abrams Trek has its own unique visual aesthetic and overall style. Maybe they will use a Beastie Boys song as the theme song for Discovery.
Working as a writer on a prexisting show is precisely that. Work for hire, set rules. Star Trek is Star Trek...if you turn up and try to write game of thrones because you don't like space ships, you aren't doing the job you are hired for. There are always rules...be internally consistent or you lose your audience, be aware of your audience or lose the rating or the time slot, be aware of the characters on the show or you can lose your job....it is not an act of pure creation, because you are not the creator or the originator. If I paint the last supper, and it is lacking in disciples or Jesus, or symbolic representations thereof....then it's not the last supper is it?
I have heard many an argument against rules in art, in many forms, and usually it's not from the creatively strong people. The creatively strong know how to work with the rules, or at the very least, earn the right to break them by showing they know them.
This is Trek, not a creator owned original work on SYFY. (And I like those just fine.)
Having someone say 'no' also prevents a tendency towards a bad kind of excess, and is a criticism you see come up time and time again...typically with creators now so big that no one does say no....George Lucas on the prequels, Anne Rice on pretty much everything post Memnoch, any time Ridley Scott makes a sequel to anything, and sometime just spiritual sequels....sometimes 'no' or 'you cant' can prevent horrible mistakes.
Like painting acrylic over oil...sometimes there's a reason you just don't do things.
Guys, they have outright stated this is the prime timeline, set ten years before the events is TOS. This is not a debate, it is what it is. Some of you are just gonna have to come to terms with the fact a look can be modernised without touching the events.
It would beat Faith of the Heart.
But why can't it look like a show filmed half a century ago on a budget comparable to the caterering budgets for modern shows? They won't look laughably absurd to modern audiences.
I'm not sure what that's from, but for some reason I sang it as a rap song. I recommend everyone else do the same.
Similar threads
