What are your thoughts about seeing the prime universe again?

[CorporalClegg]

I think it's a little more complicated than that. You imply that any film studio has the permission to make Trek movies as long as CBS allows it, which isn't true. CBS needs Paramount as much as Paramount needs them.

A little more complicated in that there's probably a lot of paperwork and briefcases involved, such that it's not like CBS is going to back out tomorrow because the ensuing fines/fees/whatever would be massive. But if it ever got to the point where CBS was so unhappy they'd be willing to breech, you never know.

The point is, look at the end of any Beyond trailer and you will see: "Star Trek and all related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios INC."--which is just a legalese way of saying CBS is the proprietary owner of all things Star Trek. Which is what I said in the first place.

 

[Shalashaska]

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)?

 

[CorporalClegg]

And the last few Bond films.

 

[Mudd]

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.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

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)?

Pick any studio you'd like kid and I can do the same (and even more successfully). Any studio you'd like.

 

[Mudd]

They're not reimagining Star Trek.

Of course they are. They have to.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Every iteration has been a re-imaging.

 

[Rahul]

Of course they are. They have to.

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.

 

[Shalashaska]

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.

No, it's called pointing out a few movies they've made off the top of my head.

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.

Sony puts out product placement, pandering cashgrab schlock at every opportunity. No wonder they're making more money than other studios with Adam Sandler on their side.

 

[Shalashaska]

Pick any studio you'd like kid and I can do the same (and even more successfully). Any studio you'd like.

Go ahead. At least the other studios will have a much better hit:miss ratio.

 

[CorporalClegg]

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.

"To form a new conception of" isn't a matter of degree.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Go ahead. At least the other studios will have a much better hit:miss ratio.

WTF are you talking about??? Paramount produced some of the biggest bombs and flops in 2016 alone. 13 Hours, Zoolander 2, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Everybody Wants Some, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out Of the Shadows, Florence Foster Jenkins and Ben Hur. And for 2017 they have "such classics" such as xXx 3 and Baywatch. And even when Paramount has a good movie like Star Trek Beyond they mess it up with their bad marketing and even worse trailers!

Why people can't admit they said a stupid thing but have to back it up with even more insane BS?

 

[Shalashaska]

WTF are you talking about??? Paramount produced some of the biggest bombs and flops in 2016 alone. 13 Hours, Zoolander 2, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Everybody Wants Some, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out Of the Shadows, Florence Foster Jenkins and Ben Hur.

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.

Accept third party cookies

or this:

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

Accept third party cookies

And for 2017 they have "such classics" such as xXx 3 and Baywatch. And even when Paramount has a good movie like Star Trek Beyond they mess it up with their bad marketing and even worse trailers!

And for 2017, they have "we don't know yet because it's not 2017, they could be amazing or terrible".

Why people can't admit they said a stupid thing but have to back it up with even more insane BS?

You have issues.

 

[Mr Awe]

DIS takes place ten years before TOS. Those other shows took place either 100 years before or 100 years after TOS. So if you're going to make a show that adheres strictly to the canon of TOS, then I would expect it to look exactly or pretty similar to TOS. And I don't believe it will. But we'll see.

The look is irrelevant as to whether it's the Prime timeline or not. It's set in the Prime timeline.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

I believed that Prime would be the likely choice because of the practical separation between Paramount (movies in the Abramsverse) and CBS (TV in Prime), and I said so to some denigration from the nu crowd. Turns out I was right.

It's actually pretty hilarious how wrong the crowd that somehow thought that they *knew* that the Prime timeline would never be back. The certainty with which they held that belief and told those who thought otherwise that they knew nothing.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

Prime timeline in name only. Let's see how much they think it is "Prime" when all is said and done.

You don't know anything more than the rest of us, yet you seem to think you know what the series will be like.

We shall all see when it airs.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

What you're saying here is, "I have a word that's really really important to me..."

Kurtzman knows that some people like that word a lot, too.

Fortunately, Fuller knows the full import conveyed by that word. Words mean things, and it's the ideas that are important.

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

The Prime Universe thing is nowhere near as consequential as some people are making it out to be. Everything prior to 2233 is "prime" by default and simply represents territory they can play in without worrying about the movies; that has nothing to do with whether they're still going to employ an updated aesthetics and style and do different interpretations of Trek canon and aliens and all sorts of other things. I think we can expect those kinds of departures, which are more meaningful by far than which "timeline" it's in, to be very much present in the new show. So all the crowing about (and demanding that other people eat crow about) the "Prime Universe" is really very much about a side-issue, and expecting people to be impressed that someone just knew any new show was going to be "prime" will result in disappointment.

(Besides this, I think we're all pretty well aware that a great many fans who were agitated about the "Prime Universe" really wanted the setting of TNG/DS9/VOY continued. And a return to the "Prime Universe" in that sense seems to very much not be on the cards.)

That's FUNNY! But, no, some people actually do like the history presented in that timeline. Other's don't care about that history as much. There's no correct answer. It's just a matter of preference.

Mr Awe

 

[Shalashaska]

@Mr Awe

The multi-quote button is your friend.

 

[Mr Awe]

" we felt there was something nice about the Prime universe because there are so many aspects of the "Original Series" that would be fun to explore

– "Star Trek: Discovery" creator and showrunner Brian Fuller

That *does* say a lot about their intentions and motivations!

It's funny the people who can't admit they're wrong!

Mr Awe