No, they shouldn't.
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
Then what exactly is the point of it being Prime?
The Kelvin timeline would like a word with you.
Fans didn't like that as they weren't being coddled enough by Abrams and Company.
What else is new.So, as usual, Star Trek exists way behind the times.
To expand ideas.
Still connected.
You can expand ideas in a multiverse without the limitations of what came before. Especially since it seems there is nothing special about Prime that can't be removed if it gets in the way.
So in other words, 'prime' is just a buzzword that doesn't really mean anything.
It was an alternate universe created by people from the prime universe, therefore a different continuity. You explicitly told BillJ that that doesn't happen in Star Trek. I'm pointing out that it does.
It means something. Just as not that much.
That wasn't the point but sure, that's fine.
Sure it does. The Spider-man from 1962 is the same Spider-man from 2022. The Fantastic Four from 1961 is the same FF from 2022. All of the Marvel Universe characters exist in the "616" Universe created in 1961.
The cinematic James Bond was the same guy from 1962 to 1992. The literary Bond was the same guy from 1953 onward.
A new Sherlock Holmes book that the Doyle Estate authorized would take place in the same universe as the original novels.
That different media versions are in different universes is not the point.
That events and characters are tied together.
That Star Trek has deliberately connected new productions to the old. It has worked to acknowledge it's history rather than just reboot.
Well that's pretty nebulous. The KT events and characters are tied together, but it's not the prime universe.
There's a difference between deliberately trying to connect new productions to the old, and just giving that lip service when your intention is to do no such thing.
It is a nebulous concept. It is not the strict literalism.
Ah, well, since we know CBS' intent so well I will take your word for it. Honestly, I don't know what else to say. I think it is "close enough" for me to treat it as part of the Prime continuity, and thaat work with the author's intent to connect in to the larger history. Other's see CBS as just trading on nostalgia. The truth is probably somewhere in between.
Even reboots acknowledge history, in pretty much every iteration. In the Abrams films, everything from the Prime universe still existed, but they had a freedom to move chess pieces around to tell a more modern story.
They are just doing a rolling reboot or else Spiderman would be 65 years old.
CBS's intent is to make a profit, which in this case is a show that will attract the most amount of viewers and get them to pay for their streaming service. They do that by catering to its already existing fanbase, despite the knowledge that such terms as 'prime universe,' 'canon,' 'continuity,' etc. really are meaningless to them. They put their faith in the showrunners they hire to make a show that will make money regardless of whether it slavishly follows what came before it.
And we know there are parallel universes that exist side by side. So, the deliberate connections are there to demonstrate intent.
If you don't agree or feel that it is inaccurate then that's fine. But that doesn't change the storytelling approach.
Slavish adherence is probably the most unnecessary facet of working within a franchise. This is art not religion.
As I said fiction is mutable. Details are fluid. And real time aged Spidey would be around 76.Even reboots acknowledge history, in pretty much every iteration. In the Abrams films, everything from the Prime universe still existed, but they had a freedom to move chess pieces around to tell a more modern story.
They are just doing a rolling reboot or else Spiderman would be 65 years old.
That is by no means an absolute truth.
