That's a terrible metaphor for this. What are you proposing - having the pet stuffed, crying over it forever or hooking it up to some Frankenstein electrodes?
I mean, if you're not willing to let it go and move on, those are your choices.
To restore the prime universe timeline, the Narada, like the Enterprise C need to go back...
- Thread starter DertyNerdy
- Start date
That's a terrible metaphor for this. What are you proposing - having the pet stuffed, crying over it forever or hooking it up to some Frankenstein electrodes?
I mean, if you're not willing to let it go and move on, those are your choices.
I don't see Sean Connery, Lois Maxwell, Bernard Lee and Desmond Llewellyn reprising their roles anytime soon.
Yep. All the oldBond stuff was dumped with Craig's introduction, and none of that is coming back.
Same with oldTrek.
One of these days, maybe not so many years from now, the Kelvin Timeline will be abandoned for yet another version of Star Trek.
Maybe even the new TV series will do it.
That one won't be the oldTrek timeline, either.
Same with oldTrek.
One of these days, maybe not so many years from now, the Kelvin Timeline will be abandoned for yet another version of Star Trek.
Maybe even the new TV series will do it.
That one won't be the oldTrek timeline, either.
Even if set in the Prime timeline, people are sorely deluding themselves if they think that the new series will be anything like what came before in style and tone.
There is part of me that hopes it is set in the Prime timeline. So I can watch some people squirm as Fuller deconstructs fifty years of canon and does whatever he damn well pleases.
There is part of me that hopes it is set in the Prime timeline. So I can watch some people squirm as Fuller deconstructs fifty years of canon and does whatever he damn well pleases.
All you need is some time to pass, add in some dramatic event(s), and blammo... It's a whole new playground where anything can happen. re: Doctor Who's time-war for the 2005 relaunch.
A
Amaris
Guest
So what you're saying is Sean Connery has been Bond since Roger Moore left? Because if not, then your point makes no sense. Right now, the prime timeline has been dead since 2005. The Star Trek you knew from that timeline is preserved, but otherwise dead. Whatever happens going forward will be different, even if a showrunner claims it will be in the prime timeline, the look, feel, and story fixtures will be different. It won't be what you remembered.
I find it amusing when those of us who are fans of franchise that has been actively releasing content for over 49 years are upset when said content doesn't match our personal preferences in every way imaginable.
If my experiences are any indicator, when a beloved pet dies you mourn it for a time, but then, circumstances permitting, you may find a new pet. And when you do, you hopefully don't spend all of your time dwelling on how inferior your new pet is to your old pet, but rather learn to appreciate your new pet. And if you find you're fundamentally incompatible with your new pet, then you give it up to be adopted by someone who will be more compatible with it, while accepting that you're partly responsible for things not working.
Moore (like the Abrams universe) was flash in pan.
A
Amaris
Guest
So what you're saying is Sean Connery has been Bond since Roger Moore left? Because if not, then your point makes no sense. Right now, the prime timeline has been dead since 2005. The Star Trek you knew from that timeline is preserved, but otherwise dead. Whatever happens going forward will be different, even if a showrunner claims it will be in the prime timeline, the look, feel, and story fixtures will be different. It won't be what you remembered.
I repeated it since we seem to have been cut off for some reason.
No, you're thinking about this the wrong way. The Enterprise-C didn't create an alternate timeline by disappearing and reappearing 20 years later. It simply traveled into its own natural future, where the Klingons and UFP would be at war. (Like when Doc Brown's dog, Einstein, went one minute into the future in the DeLorean in "Back to the Future" -- going into the future doesn't alter the timeline, it just means you disappear and then reappear later, having no effect on the timeline.)
There was no alternate timeline created until the end of the episode, when Lt. Yar took the Enterprise-C back in time, created the alternate timeline where the Federation was not at war with the Klingons, and she had a half-Romulan baby. (Every other episode of TNG took place in this alternate timeline created by Yar -- "Yesterday's Enterprise" depicted the original, unaltered timeline.) What Lt. Yar did was exactly the same as what Nero did -- they both went back in time, created an alternate timeline, and stayed in that new timeline until they died.
Likewise, in "Endgame," Admiral Janeway went back in time, created an alternate timeline by getting the Voyager back to Earth decades earlier, and died in that alternate timeline. That alternate timeline was depicted again in "Star Trek: Nemesis," where Admiral Janeway is seen back on Earth giving Picard his orders.
Between Lt. Yar, Admiral Janeway, and Nero, many alternate timelines have been created in exactly the same way, and none of them has ever been "fixed." We just follow the time traveler into the new timeline, and continue on with the story in that alternate timeline even after the time traveler has died and their original timeline is forgotten. There was never one "Prime" timeline. This new timeline is no different from the dozen new timelines that have been created in previous episodes and movies.
If (at 7 movies) Moore was 'flash in the pan', then what was:
- Connery (6 'real' Bond movies + 1 'non-canon'.)
- Lazenby (1 movie)
- Dalton (2 movies)
- Brosnan (4 movies)
- Craig (5 movies)
- Lazenby (1 movie)
- Dalton (2 movies)
- Brosnan (4 movies)
- Craig (5 movies)
Not gone. Bryan Fuller has said the new series is placed in the Prime universe. Very good news.
"Failed miserably?" I think you need to check the numbers...
Bryan Fuller has said the new series is placed in the Prime universe. Very good news.
Until it contradicts something that has been established (or even things which haven't been officially established), without the 'alternate universe' safety net. In which case, fan asses shall resume their regular hurting.
Tis our Trekkie way.
Seriously, I'm willing to lay money that the show itself won't ever establish which 'universe' it takes place in (similar to how Beyond didn't.) Because why bother unless it's important to the plot?
Been watching for 47 years and I'm super happy to let it go.
Nope. The bulk of the prime universe is a bloated, predictable and uninspired mess of mediocrity. Nothing has been lost by leaving it behind.
So pretty much like TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT? Because no one outside of Trekkies gives even the remotest shit about any of them. I mean, you'd think that since TNG had better numbers in first run, it would've made some kind of lasting impact, but after Nemesis, it's like it never existed.
That's got nothing to do with this topic, though.Not gone. Bryan Fuller has said the new series is placed in the Prime universe. Very good news.
Plus, you're in the wrong forum: discussion of the series goes in Future of Trek.
But STAR TREK and the Prime Universe are not the same thing. STAR TREK is a concept; the Prime Universe is just the accumulated continuity of one version of STAR TREK. And neither continuity is more more real or authentic than any other. STAR TREK continues, regardless of whatever continuity is in place.
At, just to be clear, I'm not talking about any in-universe hair-splitting about which timeline is the "alternate" one or whatever. That's just technobabble. In the real world, one continuity is as much STAR TREK as any other. They're both the "main event."
Similar threads
