Old Star Trek fans: don't you sometimes get happy just because there are new series?

[Richard S. Ta]

And this is part of the reason I always shake my head when people get heated about all of this having to fit together in a single continuity. I don't think it would have hurt Discovery or Strange New Worlds at all to have been disconnected from the Prime Timeline. I honestly believe it would have helped these shows to be their own thing.

Doing this would have been good for two reasons.

A) The dedicated fanbase would have had a lot less ‘canon’ anxiety.

B) The nebulous, oft-referred to ‘General Audience’ wouldn’t even notice or care.

It would more easily allow either show to ‘breathe’ and be it’s own thing.

 

[tomalak301]

I'm liking the idea of leaving the old timeline behind and doing it's own thing. The only issue with that is how connected Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Picard are to the old timeline. They should have done this with Discovery but maybe they tried by sending it to the far future.

Interestingly I was hoping the Kelvin films would do this and then the last third of Into Darkness happened and ruined the entire movie for me.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I never want to leave the old timeline behind! I love the old timeline! Lower Decks, Prodigy and Picard all feature the promise of new adventures afterwards, nothing's wrapping anything up.

That said, if they say that SNW and Disco take place in a parallel universe, existing alongside the Prime Timeline I would definitely be a lot more comfortable with the stuff they're doing. Well, a lot of the stuff they're doing, I don't think mycelium networks and musical improbability dimensions work in Star Trek at all. But a SNW where Pike thinks he knows his fate, but Spock and Chapel's future is completely unwritten... that would be more interesting.

 

[BillJ]

At the end of the day, current Trek isn't my Trek, and sometimes you just can't go to your childhood home again.

 

[DonIago]

At the end of the day I'm fine with the new shows being in the Primeverse. I acknowledge the contradictions and move on. Life's too short.

Of course, if they ever do anything to suggest that DS9 doesn't exist, then I'll have to write a sternly worded letter.

 

[fireproof78]

I think you can go home and appreciate what a new owner has done instead of bemoaning the loss that isn't really a loss.

 

[BillJ]

I think you can go home and appreciate what a new owner has done instead of bemoaning the loss that isn't really a loss.

It really isn’t “home” anymore. Kinda how I feel about Trek. It doesn’t make it good or bad, just not mine.

 

[fireproof78]

It really isn’t “home” anymore. Kinda how I feel about Trek. It doesn’t make it good or bad, just not mine.

I don't know. I don't need it to be mine.

Guess a different perspective.

IDIC.

 

[BillJ]

I don't know. I don't need it to be mine.

Guess a different perspective.

IDIC.

I started watching the original in 1975. It ignited my love of science fiction. So, in a sense, it is “home” to me. It is my Trek.

 

[Tallguy]

This is part of the reason that, while I like Strange New Worlds and think there are great episodes and actors in there, I don't see it as a "flagship" series that advances Star Trek as a franchise. It's a prequel/re-imagining of old characters within a time period where they're locked into certain things having to happen ... if they insist this is the Prime Timeline and there's continuity.

So do stuff that doesn't run into continuity. There were SO many things in TOS that no one ever heard from again. (The Gorn being one of them.) Run into as much new life and new civilizations as you feel like. Don't mess with things and people ("The things are also people") that were in TOS.

Hell, start building to the next Klingon war if that floats your boat. It's all headed to Organia so you can have things get as fractious and belligerent as you feel.

The closest TOS had to a "big bad" were the Klingons and there was virtually no continuity between encounters with them.

And stop going to Earth.

 

[fireproof78]

I started watching the original in 1975. It ignited my love of science fiction. So, in a sense, it is “home” to me. It is my Trek.

I don't have that. "Home" for me is "Tunnel in the Sky" by Robert Heinlein. Then Space Cadet and then Trek.

But, then, I don't really need a "scifi home." My love of science fiction runs deeper than that, so if Star Trek doesn't "feel" like home (50% of it roughly has the feeling) then it's ok because what I love still exists. It still drives me forward, and still engages me in community of fans.

But, then, I'm a weirdo who would rather have people get what they want from Trek than for me to get what I want. I have TOS, I have Abrams, I have much that I enjoy. I don't need it to be "mine."

 

[Lord Garth]

I consider DSC and SNW to be part of a divergent timeline where the 23rd Century was altered but the 24th Century was somehow not, and the Eugenics Wars take place in the mid-21st Century rather than the 1990s. "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" makes clear the time-frame of the Eugenics Wars was shifted. And where one thing changes, that means other things can change. Canon and Timelines are two different things. Like I've said before, I blame any differences between the 23rd Century in TOS and the 23rd Century in DSC/SNW on changes that occured because of the Temporal War.

That does not in any way change my enjoyment of Discovery, it's NOT the reason why I'm not into Strange New Worlds, and it has ZERO effect on my looking forward to Section 31.

I don't have that. "Home" for me is "Tunnel in the Sky" by Robert Heinlein. Then Space Cadet and then Trek.

But, then, I don't really need a "scifi home." My love of science fiction runs deeper than that, so if Star Trek doesn't "feel" like home (50% of it roughly has the feeling) then it's ok because what I love still exists. It still drives me forward, and still engages me in community of fans.

But, then, I'm a weirdo who would rather have people get what they want from Trek than for me to get what I want. I have TOS, I have Abrams, I have much that I enjoy. I don't need it to be "mine."

I've disagreed with BillJ about a lot of things, but I think you're misreading what he's saying. He means TOS is his favorite Star Trek and he mainly associates Star Trek with TOS. The other stuff, he's either not into or not into as much. He doesn't mean "mine" as in posession, he means "mine" as in it's the one he enjoys and is a fan of.

 

[fireproof78]

I've disagreed with BillJ about a lot of things, but I think you're misreading what he's saying. He means TOS is his favorite Star Trek and he mainly associates Star Trek with TOS. The other stuff, he's either not into or not into as much. He doesn't mean "mine" as in posession, he means "mine" as in it's the one he enjoys and is a fan of.

Maybe.

I don't know.

I get lost in the whole "my Trek" thing. TOS is what I grew up with and what I prefer so I guess that's "mine?"

I don't know. It's confusing and I just soon as not worry about it. I'm not in to like 95% of the media out there so calling something "mine" feels extremely strange.

 

[Lord Garth]

Maybe.

I don't know.

Yes you do.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes you do.

I really fucking don't.

I grow tired of being told what I do and do not know.

I'm a literalist at times when it comes to language, and certain turns of phrase confuse me because it doesn't make sense, it doesn't fit the definition of the word.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I really fucking don't.

I grow tired of being told what I do and do not know.

I'm a literalist at times when it comes to language, and certain turns of phrase confuse me because it doesn't make sense, it doesn't fit the definition of the word.

It's like when someone says 'my wife', but she also says 'my husband', and neither of them actually own each other. But they do really like each other and would like the other to stick around. I guess I'm saying Star Trek is married to its fans.

 

[fireproof78]

It's like when someone says 'my wife', but she also says 'my husband', and neither of them actually own each other. But they do really like each other and would like the other to stick around. I guess I'm saying Star Trek is married to its fans.

Thank you. This conversation kind of stirred that inside, but I have a tough time with inanimate objects, like entertainment franchises, and calling them "mine." Like, a person I can sort of get because there's that voluntary association aspect. An inanimate object that I didn't purchase?

Yes, my brain is weird. I get stuck on words and will break them down and analyze them to death.

 

[1001001]

Yes you do.

I really fucking don't.

Is this topic really worth the argument?

*Deep Cleansing Breaths*

 

[Lord Garth]

Is this topic really worth the argument?

*Deep Cleansing Breaths*

I had no plans to take it any further than that whether you said anything or not.

Plus, do recognize I was standing up for BillJ, who I've disagreed with a lot over the years. If I'm sticking up for him, than that says something.

I know you disagree with me about a lot of things, and I don't get the sense that you particularly like me anymore, but I'm on your side. I know you don't believe me, but I'm on your side. I'm someone you can talk to. Not someone you have to deal with.

I used to be a moderator in this forum. Remember? Whatever I do, I have good intentions. I was trying to get fireproof to back off of BillJ.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well, I don't know about you guys, but I love Italian!