• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What are your thoughts about seeing the prime universe again?

Depends on your definition of "re-imagining". If you take the official one in the dictionary, they're not doing one. They doing a prequel. That they re-imagine parts of it (like the look, special effects, make-up etc.) is neither a surprise or anything new. Every Trek series has done this up until this point.
If you take that willy-wonka-type-definition where where every adjustment and each "plothole" (e.g. contradicting lines of dialogue) becomes a "re-imagining of the universe" to justify your means of not-being-wrong-on-the-internet, well then... go forth with it! But keep in mind there's a difference between someones "head-canon" (where you and I can just easily delete parts we don't like), and the "official" canon (which is what the creators say). In this case I side with the creators.

Just a point of order. "Official canon" only exists until it doesn't. The writers have the ultimate power over what is "canon" and what isn't, and they can do what they want with it. For example - they can decide that the Enterprise's engine room looks like a brewery, and that Khan's blood has magical healing powers. :)
 
Sony, home of such classics as Jack and Jill, Grown Ups 2, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2, Angry Birds and Ghosbusters (2016)?
This is called "cherry-picking," and it's an incompetent way to argue.

It's worth noting that in 2016 so far, Sony is a more successful studio than Paramount.
That's a generally soulless way to look at things though, by bringing box-office success into a discussion about subjective opinion on the authenticity of a film studio.

So first you say that Sony is an incompetent studio and then that Sony's "box-office success" is a "soulless way to look at things"? Whatever. :rolleyes:

But most of them were just bad movies, they weren't insulting (except for maybe Ben-Hur). And while Paramount produces many bad films, it also has some good ones too. Sony is just crap.

Paramount doesn't pull shenanigans like this:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

or this:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Again you're cherry-picking. Look when @Dennis said you are cherry-picking he wasn't using some old odd idiom. He was informing you that that's a logical fallacy. You won't win any arguments with such easily debunked fallacies.

Please read about it before your next reply:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

You have issues.

The ignore button is your friend.
 
Last edited:
So first you say that Sony is an incompetent studio and then that Sony's "box-office success" is a "soulless way to look at things"? Whatever. :rolleyes:



Again you're cherry-picking. Look when @Dennis said you are cherry-picking he wasn't using some old odd idiom. He was informing you that that's a logical fallacy. You won't win any arguments with such easily debunked fallacies.

Please read about it before your next reply:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking



The ignore button is your friend.
Looks like there was nothing you had to say :lol:
 
Just a point of order. "Official canon" only exists until it doesn't. The writers have the ultimate power over what is "canon" and what isn't, and they can do what they want with it. For example - they can decide that the Enterprise's engine room looks like a brewery, and that Khan's blood has magical healing powers. :)


That's true.

Official canon can contradict itself, as well.

Kurtzman, Fuller's boss, has said that their job now is to "modernize Trek for television" just as he and his fellow Bad Robot producers modernized it for film.
 
I just remembered this thread actually had an OP! Who was actually asking what my reaction was, not telling me.

(Sure, it may be a passive aggressive nyeh-nyeh-nyeh-nyeh-nyeh, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.)

.....and that we should just let it go, what was your reaction when you heard that this show is taking place in the prime universe? Were you glad that the prime universe is coming back?

I always said I didn't think they'd backtrack on the reboot. Mostly because that rarely happens. I also thought that they'd just go with an ambiguous 'universe' setting. For eg. A prequel, set before any of the events that can easily 'differ' the Nuverse and the Prime one. For all purposes, a new continuity.

Maybe the latter prediction will be correct, maybe it won't. We'll see in a few months.

But in terms of preference, I never particularly cared one way or the other. I like both universe (if I held a grudge against the Prime verse, then how did I end up here?), and a new series was always going be its own beast anyways.

And speaking of 'beasts', I want one of the redesigned aliens to be the Gorn. I don't care if it's fandom heresy.
 
Last edited:
It's actually pretty hilarious how wrong the crowd that somehow thought that they *knew* that the Prime timeline would never be back.

It seems to now be pivoting over to: "yeah, but I bet you it will have lens-flares and shaky-cam, so it might as well be JJ-Trek!"
 
The look is irrelevant as to whether it's the Prime timeline or not. It's set in the Prime timeline.

Mr Awe

Betcha it's not!

:vulcan:
@Dukhat : Not sure if trolling or uninformed anymore at this point. You know this series is set in the prime universe, right? Like, we have official confirmation and so forth. Right?
 
Also, this thread has seriously gone off the rails. From a (admittedly somewhat gloating) "what was your reaction to see the prime universe again?" to "the creators know nothing and it will look different and so it can't be prime because I'm never wrong on the Internet".

Which actually is only sad at this point. On all accounts.
 
No one's forcing you to stick around.

No one's forcing you to turn this thread into a mudd-slinging contest either.

I don't know about you, but I usually like hanging around here, having discussions about a franchise that we all hold dear. Turning everything toxic against those with whom one disagrees helps no one, except that after time any sane person or those with unique opinions abandon threads and one is left with only a giant circle-jerk of people with the same opinion reassuring each other about how right they are. Kind of takes the fun out of something which is ultimately there for our enjoyment. But clinging to those positions even after they have turned out wrong is just baffling.

I mean, I would ultimately enjoy a civil discussion about "this could have also fit into the Kelvin timeline"/"this feels more like a reboot". We still have those threads about ENT going on, and I'm certain there will be arguments made for STD as well. But pretending that this isn't just your fringe opinion but the ultimate truth even thogh the creators themselves have already flat out told us what they are doing, and more importantly complaining about a series that hasn't even started filming yet is actually annoying. A bit more common sense and civility would be very welcome here, and help for a more productive atmosphere.
 
...and more importantly complaining about a series that hasn't even started filming is actually annoying.

Where have I complained about Discovery? Seriously?

Must be this post...

I don't have an issue paying for All-Access. I do have an issue with the shitty apps associated with it.

I disagree that it is going to be in the Prime universe, in anything but name. That isn't a complaint, that is a reading of what has been posted by the various figures.
 
Where have I complained about Discovery? Seriously?

Must be this post...

There was enough complaining going on in this thread that I was thinking of a certain William Shatner quote about life and who should get one...

I disagree that it is going to be in the Prime universe, in anything but name. That isn't a complaint, that is a reading of what has been posted by the various figures.

This would actually be a valid opinion. But it's just that. An opinion. I can only give you my opinion, that Bryan Fuller probably hasn't chosen this particular timeframe on accident, and I guess there will be certain cross-over elements and references to specific events why he chose this particular setting. So it might look different, but the plot will probably fit in more neatly into the prime universe than even Enterprise did.

All of this is just speculation at this point though. The only thing we DO know at this point is this: It's prime universe. And it's a prequel to TOS. Period. And it will have updated looks and a modern way of storytelling. As it should be and frankly was expected. The end.
 
Last edited:
:vulcan:
@Dukhat : Not sure if trolling or uninformed anymore at this point. You know this series is set in the prime universe, right? Like, we have official confirmation and so forth. Right?

I'll have you know that I am now proudly in the denial camp that Fuller is giving trufans lip service and that Discovery is in fact a secret reboot of Star Trek, since after reading this thread, there's supposedly a huge mass of members here who are in similar denial.

Oh, and BTW...Benedict Cumberbatch most definitely isn't Khan.
 
Last edited:
I guess my question is this: how much can Kurtzman, Fuller and Company change, still claim it is the Prime universe and have fandom buy it? Or will some fans burning desire for it to be "Prime" overwhelm their ability to recognize if it simply doesn't fit?

Can they blow up Remus in 2255 and still claim it is Prime?

All just my personal curiosity.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top