Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by xvicente, Jul 10, 2013.
Nu isn't new? My head hurts...
There is nothing nu under the Sun...
On the TrekLit board, it took a while to convince some people to use TTN as the three-letter term for the "Titan" series instead of... TIT.
Until someone else takes over, it effectively is the Abramsverse.
I support Abramsverse. It doesn't need to be any more complicated then him being the public face of this much-ballyhooed reboot. Even if he leaves, he'll always be the guy who started it.
(Whenever we get another reboot, we can make a portmanteau out of that guy's name.)
It's not goddamned important.
No one here gets to vote on it anyway.
Original Trek fans objected to "TOS" for ages (I was there, go ahead and argue the point). It didn't make one bit of difference - TOS it is.
People are calling the movies nuTrek, the Abramsverse, all manner of things. It'll shake out however it shakes out.
As for acronyms - on the teensy-weensy change that anyone would ever call the new movies TFR it wouldn't make a fucking bit of difference than some fans use that to refer to a licensed novel published thirty years ago, since even most people who know what Star Trek is have never heard of the book and would not give a fuck.
I like Abramsverse.
There's every kind of porn on the Internet, people. Go find some porn!
I was skeptical of the Abramsverse at first, but now I like the Abramsverse even more. I hope that the Abramsverse continues and that we get a lot more Abramsverse films and even Abramsverse novels. The Abramsverse will live as long as J.J. Abrams wants to pursue the Abramsverse. The Abramsverse films were bigger hits than any non-Abramsverse Trek films; the Abramsverse makes a lot of money for filmgoers who want to come see the Abramsverse.
Abramsverse is like "Whedonverse." It'll do. So will nuTrek and oldTrek.
Agreed. Abramsverse is my default for the whole thing; unless I'm referring to something or someone specific, then I use (nu)<XYZ>, or <XYZ>(nu).
We could always go "Star Trek 2.0, ST2.0 or, as one girl has on my facebook ST^2 and ST(2).
See, now Abramsverse is just a whole lot simpler to say--plus I don't have to update my spellchecker.
I just think it's too inelegant and cheesy a label. I use "Abramsverse" in discussions -- it's not as irritating as "nu-"whatever -- but it's for want of something better.
I do like "Second Universe." Prime Universe, Second Universe -- it's got symmetry. It probably won't catch on, though, and it's useless as a label if there's no consensus understanding of its meaning.
Only Star Trek fans could get so heated about what to call the damn thing. Call it whatever the hell you want, as long as other people know what you're talking about.
The Alternate Nubramsverse Timeline. 2.0.
Abrams-Trek. Which would work with "Roddenberry-Trek" & "Berman-Trek" that sometimes gets used to divvy up the eras.
So far, I'm only seeing one or two people getting worked up over it. I'm pretty sure most people don't really care one way or the other.
I'm calling it Harold.
Fuck you, this is Timeline is Timeline Bob...yeah, it looks like a Bob.
But there's already a Planet Bob. Too confusing.
Separate names with a comma.