What are your thoughts about seeing the prime universe again?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
Literally every ship we saw (or heard about) Picard captaining, ended up in pieces. Sometimes the same ship was destroyed, multiple times. He even started the self destruct on the ENT-E in its first movie, and was only stopped due to outside interference. The Sisko was fighting in an intergalactic war, and still only managed to lose two!
Don't see how Kirk 'failed' to 'minimise' the death in his movies though. How is Vulcan, some skyscrapers, and the usual
Also - you can't include Romulus in your numbers. If we follow your rules in the blame game, that little incident was on Picard's watch. And maybe Janeway and Spock's.
Last edited:
I keep reading and re-reading this post, thinking that something witty will pop into my head to say in response. But nothing I can come up with is funnier than the post itself. Kudos, Herbert!
Sorry but STB made about a 40% less profit then the previous films. I would call that bad. You can call it a success if you want.
Unless it makes Paramount stop making Trek films, then it doesn't matter. But it's not like we don't already know why you keep yakking on about profit margins, as if you actually care about that.
I never said the movie was a success; in fact, I don't really care how much it makes. But by your previous post, I do have to wonder if you didn't accidentally see Frankenstein Meets the Space Monster or something, because Star Trek Beyond was a pretty damn good movie.
^This.
I think there are people who believe that. if they can make the bad nuTrek go away, William Shatner will magically be 35 with most of his own hair again.
Nope. We just like it when bad nutrek falls on its face.
Really? Even if your post was remotely resembling an accurate portrait of reality (which it isn't), you take pleasure at seeing something that, at worst, is totally innocuous to you, "fail"? Even when it is enjoyable to many other people? That's a rather petty and selfish outlook on life.
Beyond was a fantastic movie, that admittedly was not a big ticket seller, but looking at the numbers, it probably didn't lose the studio a lot of money either. The sequel is coming, that's the only thing that matters.
Discovery, on the other hand, is yet to ensure its future. And while it may be set in the prime universe, it's a pretty safe bet that it's not going to be anything like your grandpa's Star Trek. Fuller mentioned the word "reimagining" on several different occasions. This "Prime Universe" that many of you cling to and hold so dear is in for a fresh coat of paint.
Discovery, on the other hand, is yet to ensure its future. And while it may be set in the prime universe, it's a pretty safe bet that it's not going to be anything like your grandpa's Star Trek. Fuller mentioned the word "reimagining" on several different occasions. This "Prime Universe" that many of you cling to and hold so dear is in for a fresh coat of paint.
It's great to see they were wrong.
To be honest, I didn't expect a new ST series that quickly. I thought it would take at last 5 years or so before a new live action series comes back to TV (or internet, in this case). However I never really thought what bad mouths were saying was true, namely that the one and only Star Trek Universe (aka 'Prime Universe') is dead and gone and that it would never ever see the light of the day again. It was merely wishful thinking on their part, influenced by the intoxication with the "enormous success" of the nuTrek (which I, by the way, immensely dislike). And there's of course also the shared copyright by CBS/Paramount, which makes it even more so. We, however, knew the day would come when Trek would rightfully return to its source, to its place of origin. We only didn't know (at least I didn't) it would happen that soon. But now that it has, I wish success to the new Star Trek series and I hope it's going to be as good as most of the previous Trek shows.
To be honest, I didn't expect a new ST series that quickly. I thought it would take at last 5 years or so before a new live action series comes back to TV (or internet, in this case). However I never really thought what bad mouths were saying was true, namely that the one and only Star Trek Universe (aka 'Prime Universe') is dead and gone and that it would never ever see the light of the day again. It was merely wishful thinking on their part, influenced by the intoxication with the "enormous success" of the nuTrek (which I, by the way, immensely dislike). And there's of course also the shared copyright by CBS/Paramount, which makes it even more so. We, however, knew the day would come when Trek would rightfully return to its source, to its place of origin. We only didn't know (at least I didn't) it would happen that soon. But now that it has, I wish success to the new Star Trek series and I hope it's going to be as good as most of the previous Trek shows.
Last edited:
Thank you.
I think you and other "Primers" misunderstand what folks like me have said.
At the time, for all intents and purposes, Prime Trek was dead. The TNG-era casts had for the most part moved on. CBS (the new owner of the Trek franchise) had no interest in a new Trek show, as reported by alumni who had actively pitched ideas. Further, Nemesis and Enterprise didn't bring the numbers to keep the studios interested. Prime Trek, at the time, appeared to have run its course.
Enter JJ Abrams and the new series of films for Paramount (licensed by CBS to produce big screen Trek). These movies showed that there was a market for new, reimagined Trek, despite a minority of fans' protests.
Fast forward to present day. CBS wants to be a player in the streaming video market. What do they have that will bring new subscribers, hopefully in large numbers? Star Trek. CBS hired Alex Kurtzman's production company to oversee the project, and Kurtzman hired a showrunner he had confidence in, Bryan Fuller.
Fuller brought in, among others, Nicholas Meyer and Rod Roddenberry (likely for name recognition--a great marketing move). They developed a concept to keep from having to compete with, and probably avoid crossovers from--Paramount's movie franchise. It was announced that the new series would be set in the "Prime" universe. Almost in the same breath, it was said that the series would take place ten years before TOS. This gives the new team a lot of leeway, being able to separate themselves from Enterprise, TOS, and later shows.
Fuller also stated that they will be reimagining many elements of previous shows. Aliens, technology, whatever. They are, by his own admission, free to "play" in this universe.
I could be wrong, but the "Prime" you wished for may not be the "Prime" you get.
Remember, you heard it here first.
I know that.
Well, we'll see what that means exactly. It doesn't necessarily mean those wet dreams (pardon the expression) of the nuTrek on small screen will come true.
I asked this before, and I'm asking it again.
Most people here have been watching Star Trek for around 20-50 years. Maybe not consistently, but generally their fandoming began prior to 2009.
So how on Earth can they be considered as not being fans (aka 'haters') of the Prime universe?
Most people here have been watching Star Trek for around 20-50 years. Maybe not consistently, but generally their fandoming began prior to 2009.
So how on Earth can they be considered as not being fans (aka 'haters') of the Prime universe?
Last edited:
Now that to me sounds a whole lot different than these:
They're talking about the first 39 years of the whole Star Trek franchise here! The Star Trek that celebrated its 50th anniversary a few days ago! The universe that consists of 10 movies and 5 TV series!
These are the threads that I could find. They are a barrel of laughs.
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/star-trek-2017-will-not-be-set-in-the-jj-verse.276899/
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/goodbye-prime.253156/
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/do-fans-want-the-prime-timeline-back.222676/
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/will-star-trek-ever-return-to-prime-universe.189595/
Thanks for the trip down memory lane!
Not sure what you're actual issue is? The pro-Prime folks have acted far more like children in this thread than any of the people who didn't think we'd go back to the Prime timeline...
You're right of course.
But this is my point: going back to the prime timeline offers you nothing in the way of promotion or ratings. It puts the show in a box creatively. So why cause your show-runners unnecessary trouble by putting them in that situation?
I think that if Trek ever makes it back to TV, they'll reboot again. That way any potential show-runners will be able to cherry pick the elements that they feel are useful to the new show and dump the rest.
You supposably weren't here for any of those, and some of the participants no longer post. Besides not being able to 'win' an argument that you never took part in (making your gloating(?) on the thread seems even sillier), why do you think anyone 'owes' you an admittance that they were apparently wrong?
I'll give them this: I can at least see why mos and Pubert have a chip in their shoulders about this. I don't think they should, but that's another matter.
Last edited:
That's a legitimate question, but not one I see being answered, satisfactorily at least.
But, then, I'm of the personal opinion that "haters" is an overused buzzword designed to shame others in to consent. If I were to use the term "hate" regarding any opinions i have read around Star Trek circles, it would involve Abrams Trek, not Prime.
Regardless, I think, given the information present when the questions were asked, was that Paramount and CBS would want a united front and continue on with the Kelvin universe. ENT had ended with a lack luster whimper and Nemesis was sacrificed to the movie gods in terms of release date. The only information lacking was what CBS wanted to pour money in to.
I still think that a Kelvin Universe show is a better bet, but I'll not begrudge discovery either. I'll wait and see and decide.
