The Star Trek Franchise in Year 2013
- Thread starter xavier
- Start date
Did not know people felt that way, I thought most people will take no trek in a year over terrible trek although I am not implying into darkness is a bad film because it is not.
Substitute 'trek' in your sentence with chocolate, coffee, sex..
I can't be effed with high standards, just give me my fix. If it's not as great as I want it to be at least I can bitch about it on message boards.
Don't forget pizza!
YeS!!! Pizza. Totally.
Have to concede a point here. Was 1989 a good year for Trek. Judging solely by the movie The Final Frontier, I probably still would have said yes, but very reluctantly.
I remember eating breakfast one morning and the radio talk show started in on how TFF, particularly the finding God story, was not very strong. The weren't mean, just dubious as to the writing choice of the latest Trek outing.
It was the first time I felt ashamed of being a Trek fan.
I remember eating breakfast one morning and the radio talk show started in on how TFF, particularly the finding God story, was not very strong. The weren't mean, just dubious as to the writing choice of the latest Trek outing.
It was the first time I felt ashamed of being a Trek fan.
I love TFF.
People who don't love it need to learn to enjoy life.
People who don't love it need to learn to enjoy life.
The Final Frontier got trounced by Batman and Indiana Jones in the Summer of 1989. Good opening weekend but it quickly fell off the map. TNG was headed into its third season as well.
I'd say '89 was a good year for Trek, even with its box office struggles.
None of the above, probably. We may get another reboot down the road, but I seriously doubt that we're ever going to see the old timeline on screen again. Franchises, once rebooted, seldom go into reverse. That kinda defeats the point . . . .
The alternate timeline gimmick was just a cute way to maintain a nostalgic connection to previous generations of Trek, in hopes of softening the blow for us old-time fans. It was not part of some master plan to allow them to reverse the reboot at some point.
Why on Earth (or Vulcan) would they even want to do that . . . after spending several years and hundreds of millions of dollars to get Trek off to a fresh start?
Last edited:
Technically, no. But, from a practical, pragmatic perspective, the intent was to essentially reboot the franchise. Yes, the Prime timeline still exists as an abstract, fictional concept. But, in the real world, it's now a fondly-remembered bit of movie and TV history that we're never likely to see onscreen again.
Is it fair to call STIX and STID adaptations of TOS? I think so.
I think of it as a reboot, but my wife insists its a new timeline of the original continuity. As BillJ said/implied (somewhere), it is 100% possible that we'll see a crossover back to the original timeline. Reboots don't/can't do that.
I always said that they should have severed tied with the Prime universe and treat this as its own new timeline. Truly rebooting it in a way BATMAN BEGINS did. The whole thing with Spock Prime not only makes things convoluted but it's clearly just the filmmakers way of telling longtime fans "hey, this isn't a cynical exploitation of a franchise by a studio that doesn't care for fans, we've got Nimoy here to let you know this is legit! Fangasm!"
Not really, given that NimoySpock in STXI and STID is supposed to be the same guy from TOS, just later in life.
Any film based on a TV series is an adaptation.
But even beyond that, what you said does not apply to nuSpock and the rest of the nu-characters. They are, at best, based on the original characters from TOS.
I guess we differ on the meaning of adaptation, then. A film based on a TV series may or may not be intended to be in the same continuity as the series.
Fair enough. What I'm saying is that if it says "Based on Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry" or words to that effect, then that "based on" is acknowledging that the new work is derivative of the one Gene Roddenberry created, and it is in that sense an adaptation.
This seems to be a much more liberal view of an "adaption" than I would have anticipated.
One definition I came across is: "something that is adapted; especially : a movie, book, play, etc., that is changed so that it can be presented in another form."
From that POV a movie or TV version of Shakespeare would be an adaption, but DS9 and STID are not adaptions (of TOS) because they deal with different characters etc, even though they may have also been changed to suit a modern audience, or a different medium. There was of course, no previous TV series of nuTrek. It is only by confusing Star Trek as a whole with TOS, that I believe we can view STID as an "adaption" in some form.
Am I off base here? It just seems inaccurate to call any work, often loosely based on something else, an "adaption" when there are more apt terms (reboot, spin-off etc). Too me, an adaption keeps pretty close to the source material and is mainly changed in ways appropriate for the new medium. That might still leave some room for differences of opinion.
Similar threads
