Yeah they were. That’s what makes it a paradox. Look at the post I made above while you were writing
Last edited:
What do you consider to be the Prime Timeline?
- Thread starter HotRod
- Start date
This.
As well as a majority sentiment that could shift just like showrunner positions. Neither is that strong stability some seem to think exists.
Did people really accept Roddenberry's view that TOS and a good portion of movies were not really canon during season 1 of TNG? I know there was considerable fan outrage over the idea of TNG. But I was 9-years-old at the time, so I don't know how far that extended, but I'm gonna guess there was some pushback on Roddenberry's ideas of what was and wasn't canon, and there were many fans that just didn't accept that. And Roddenberry saying "because I said so" (which is always a really shitty justification whether we're talking about TV show canon or justifying government policy) wasn't good enough.
Them telling Cochrane about the future is very important in setting the stage for both how he and Lilly approach Vulcan first contact. Cochrane makes that clear when he tells Riker his true intentions. And because of how he originally viewed what warp drive meant, there's a clear implication that he may not have "rose to the occasion" if the timeline had progressed without the Borg incursion.
RIKER: I don't think you're a saint, Doc, but you did have a vision. And now we're sitting in it.
COCHRANE: You wanna know what my vision is? ...Dollar signs! Money! I didn't build this ship to usher in a new era for humanity. You think I wanna go to the stars? I don't even like to fly. I take trains. I built this ship so that I could retire to some tropical island filled with ...naked women. That's Zefram Cochrane. That's his vision. This other guy you keep talking about. This historical figure. I never met him. I can't imagine I ever will.
RIKER: Someone once said 'Don't try to be a great man. Just be a man, and let history make it's own judgements'.
COCHRANE: Rhetorical nonsense. Who said that?
RIKER: You did, ten years from now. You've got fifty-eight minutes, Doc. You better get on with the checklist.
COCHRANE: You wanna know what my vision is? ...Dollar signs! Money! I didn't build this ship to usher in a new era for humanity. You think I wanna go to the stars? I don't even like to fly. I take trains. I built this ship so that I could retire to some tropical island filled with ...naked women. That's Zefram Cochrane. That's his vision. This other guy you keep talking about. This historical figure. I never met him. I can't imagine I ever will.
RIKER: Someone once said 'Don't try to be a great man. Just be a man, and let history make it's own judgements'.
COCHRANE: Rhetorical nonsense. Who said that?
RIKER: You did, ten years from now. You've got fifty-eight minutes, Doc. You better get on with the checklist.
The Enterprise crew give him the impetus to see first contact as something more. Picard convinces Lilly that a society where money and greed are not the important aspects of life is possible.
Nothing in that episode precludes or alters any of the "history" from TNG or the other shows. At the end of the episode, they have no idea it was the Borg, they don't know the significance of the Borg, and the signal doesn't conflict with any other aspects of Trek/TNG canon (i.e., if you take the attacks in TNG's "Neutral Zone" as being the result of the Borg, the Borg were aware of Starfleet before the events of "Q Who," and how were they aware of them?).
Except Daniels states and shows the timeline repairing itself to its original form in the final episode dealing with the Temporal Cold War.
I think like letting everyone interpret material in their own way, and listening to how fans react to it when they like or don't like something is healthier and more interesting.
Last edited:
Given how poorly regarded and dismissed TOS was by the fans I knew at the time I'd say it had its followers.
There's no other way. Fans are not in charge.
Last edited:
Thank God for that.
Except that's not true.
- There are official approved cuts of the Star Wars films, but is there consensus as to what's the definitive version of A New Hope?
- Do Lord of the Rings fans agree with all of Peter Jackson's changes to the original films or The Hobbit?
- Is Deckard a Replicant in Blade Runner? Do fans accept Ridley Scott's interpretation? Do they accept the official cut with the voiceover? No, there's a myriad of opinions, and to me that makes that film interesting because of it, not in spite of it. The various fan interpretations that have gained hold over the years add depth, even if some feel the variations are different and distinct.
- Are fans of The Song of Ice and Fire obligated to accept the ending that the final season of Game of Thrones produced? Or can they point out the problems in narrative consistency and the problems of how it fits with the other material?
I once heard people talk about this with other works of art (e.g., paintings, sculptures, literature, etc.) where the creator has their intention, but once it's in the world the audience is under no obligation to accept those intentions, and the fan viewpoint and interpretation is just as valid if supported with a good argument once the material is out in a public space for consumption.
Saying that because the creator wants something to be a certain way it negates all other opinions is so limiting. Stephen King has very strong opinions about Stanley Kubrick's interpretation of The Shining. Does that negate Kubrick's interpretation as valid because TPTB who created it doesn't agree?
Kubrick is free to create his own version. And King is free to say that version is not the same as his work and doesn't fits with it, just like any other fan.
Last edited:
It doesn't put fans in charge. Just that they can interpret art how they want. Bit that creates zero obligation on the owner of the property to change anything.
The Star Wars films are a prime example. Lucas regarded the theatrical releases poorly so redid them. Now, fans can not buy it but that doesn't alter who is in charge of official productions.
And fan debates on the above matters proves fans are not in charge and no consensus will be reached.
Im sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. If that's the case, then scans and data should have existed from Archer's time. When the D first encounters the Borg, the relevant matching data from 2 centuries earlier would have popped up.
The IP owner is the IP owner. But their IP is worthless without the fan's consumption of their product. The IP owner is in charge. But they can also be in charge of a failure. How many studios have run IPs into the ground by deciding to do their own thing while fans grumbled and begged to attempt something different.
And there have been instances where the IP owner, in all their authority, has been responsive to the fan reaction. For example, Beverly Crusher returned in TNG season 3, in part, because fans LOATHED Dr. Pulaski.
There’s an old series of videos with Rod Serling, the creator of The Twilight Zone, discussing various issues with aspiring writers. One of the issues Serling tackles is the balance between whether a work of art is a "shared experience" where the reflections of the audience are just as an important an aspect to consider than the creative intent of those that control it. And it's important to consider "how people react to how I write."
Last edited:
Well, the Federation Starfleet in TNG season 1 hadn't seen a Ferengi either even though the NX-01 was commandeered by them.
Also, whose to say that maybe all of the Borg info was classified by either section 31 or Temporal Investigations?
Beyond all of that, the producers of Enterprise used the same excuses as the showrunners of Strange New Worlds as to how it didn't really change the timeline. So if we go with the idea espoused here that because TPTB say it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter given the argument asserted by some.
Last edited:
That doesn't put them in charge. They are just consumers.
Now, a good producer will respond to the interests of the audience, but that's they're choice, not a demand.
It might be a balance, but at no point are fans are in charge. They do not determine canon, continuity or official status. They can only choose to consume or not consume. If they consume, they can offer their interpretation. None of that puts a burden of responsibility on the producer.
It’s ok. Things don’t have to be perfect. I still abide by my theory.
TOS, TAS, the TOS movies, TNG, DS9, TNG movies, VOY, ENT, DISCO, Short Treks, PIC, SNW, LD and PRO. Not Prime: the Kelvins. Pretty Simple. Changing sets is like changing actors. Means nothing from a continuity standpoint.
It's pretty simple really. As far as onscreen material goes, everything is Prime Universe with the exception of the Abrams movies, which are of course in the Kelvin Timeline. The only other exceptions are episodes which are specifically stated to be in different timelines/universes like the Mirror Universe episodes or episodes like Yesterday's Enterprise, Parallels or whatever.
This is the way.
This is the way.
I figure it's when it gets to about 7pm and you go get a piece of chalk and draw a straight line on the ground, and that's the Prime Time Line. Canonically, it doesn't matter what colour the chalk is.
At 05:14 am I draw a chalk line on the ground, making it the Kelvin Time Line.
I'm actually not really sure about this issue, considering all the discrepancies and retcons between the different shows and movies.
At least in my head canon i consider TNG S1, 2 and 3 (before "Yesterday's Enterprise"), for an example, as not belonging to the same timeline/parallel universe as everything after them.
At least in my head canon i consider TNG S1, 2 and 3 (before "Yesterday's Enterprise"), for an example, as not belonging to the same timeline/parallel universe as everything after them.
Last edited:
The question of the thread asks individuals to identify what they consider Prime, so naturally there are multiple perspectives. Such variety expresses the concept of audience interpretation of art (of any category) as compared with creator intent—and that’s been true since art was invented. However, despite what postmodernism would argue, authorial intent is not irrelevant (where would the art come from otherwise). The creators make the art and so get to decide their intentions, including any rules they wish to apply (Prime Universe, time travel mechanics, connections to other iterations, etc.). As audience members, we can pick and choose what to accept and what any of it means…to us. We don’t (and NEVER SHOULD) get to decide for anyone other than ourselves. And we especially SHOULD NEVER expect to dictate anything to the creators. They have right to make their art as they wish—taking the audience into account is a choice, NOT an obligation. Audiences are free to like or dislike the end result. They are NOT entitled to be satisfied. Just as the creators are NOT entitled to success.
Ultimately, any individual’s interpretation of Prime, in this case, is fine for the individual. But only the creators get to decide the original intent of their creation.
Ultimately, any individual’s interpretation of Prime, in this case, is fine for the individual. But only the creators get to decide the original intent of their creation.
Three timelines.
Classic Timeline (Mid-23rd Century looks like TOS, Eugenics Wars happen in the 1990s)
Prime Timeline (Mid-23rd Century looks like Early-DSC and SNW, Eugenics Wars happen in the mid-21st Century)
Kelvin Timeline
Before someone responds, the question was "What do you consider to be the Prime Timeline?" I would say TOS is the Classic Timeline, not the Prime Timeline. I think 99+% of the time, TNG/DS9/VOY/PIC are virtually the same in the Classic and Prime Timeline. ENT is the same in all three timelines. Disco is Prime Timeline. SNW is Prime Timeline.
This is getting to the point where someone might as well be asking, "What's your religion?"
Some people are also under the VERY false assumption that "You don't consider it all the same timeline!" means "You don't like it!" Nothing could be further from the truth. Discovery is my favorite Trek series and I'll die on that hill. I also like TOS better than SNW, yet I called SNW "Prime Timeline" and not TOS. So please DO NOT read where I put these series as some type of indicator of how much I like them.
Classic Timeline (Mid-23rd Century looks like TOS, Eugenics Wars happen in the 1990s)
Prime Timeline (Mid-23rd Century looks like Early-DSC and SNW, Eugenics Wars happen in the mid-21st Century)
Kelvin Timeline
Before someone responds, the question was "What do you consider to be the Prime Timeline?" I would say TOS is the Classic Timeline, not the Prime Timeline. I think 99+% of the time, TNG/DS9/VOY/PIC are virtually the same in the Classic and Prime Timeline. ENT is the same in all three timelines. Disco is Prime Timeline. SNW is Prime Timeline.
This is getting to the point where someone might as well be asking, "What's your religion?"
Some people are also under the VERY false assumption that "You don't consider it all the same timeline!" means "You don't like it!" Nothing could be further from the truth. Discovery is my favorite Trek series and I'll die on that hill. I also like TOS better than SNW, yet I called SNW "Prime Timeline" and not TOS. So please DO NOT read where I put these series as some type of indicator of how much I like them.
Similar threads
- Poll
