Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by The Mirrorball Man, Jan 9, 2013.
Definately not. Naked Chris Pine on the other hand...
I'd restore the original Prime timeline at the end of the first episode. it's kinda pointless having a Star Trek series not set in the Star Trek universe. May as well just be a new show.
Anyway, I'd have a Garak spin-off series. My favourite character in all of Trek .
Too late, it's already been broadcast and become the highest rated show in the history of TV. Sadly, this also meant that society collapsed due to everybody in the world being glued to their screens for the 2 hour premiere.
Why would it be pointless? Why should Trek be forced to stick to one continuity* when just about every IP worth it's salt (including Trek) has existed in multiple continuities with great success?
*which is a complete sham requiring fairytale levels of willing suspension of disbelief to keep it all together - despite the constant referencing back and forth, each incarnation of Trek has fundamental incompatibilities with the rest.
I'm a fan of the Star Trek mythology, history and continuity. So I'm annoyed we won't see that again on film until Abrams Trek dies. I'm not as angry as many fans though as I accept that literary Trek will keep going and be much more to my taste than the NuVerse.
You won't see it again period. When Abrams moves on, we'll simply get another reboot.
Well, I'm keeping the dream alive .
Which makes sense with the current company split as well, I mean you don't have to argue over who owns what if you both have your own versions of it. Plus it lets them use a lower budget if they go live action without people wondering why everything is less cool than the movie version.
There's a single English word that covers this: "denial."
I'd call it hope, as I would much rather see a Trek series return to the real universe as well.
Then you're lucky, because a new Star Trek movie will be released in the real universe in a couple of months.
"Real" universe as opposed to "alternate" universe. I see Real and Prime as interchangable, since they are both one and the same.
I'm sure you understand that the word "real" is intrinsically problematic when talking about fictional universes. The old Trek universe is exactly as "real" as the current Trek universe, i.e. not at all.
True. But I'm sure everyone knows its fictional (sorry to break the news if you didn't ), so to me the Prime Universe is the "real" one--within the context of Star Trek being a fictional TV/film franchise.
Anyways, this could make in interestic topic of its own but not here, so lets get back on topic.
This would be the pilot:
All rights to the great General Grin who is my co-producer.
Neither is more real than the other.
Abrams and Paramount call the old continuity "Prime" pretty much to flatter the old fans.
It's simpler and more accurate to call the two versions "old" and "new."
They're not going back to the old. That defeats their purpose in restarting Star Trek.
Whether it's an alternate timeline, alternater universe or whatever you want to call it the Abrams Star Trek exists in the ST universe. Where else would it be...the Babylon 5 'verse? Duh. it's still Star Trek.
I think the great of majority of viewers as well as Trek fans would want that. I don't think people would be interested in following the adventures of a crew in some fake "alternate" universe.
Actually, it's an alternate timeline in an alternate universe. They also call it Abramsverse.
Separate names with a comma.