Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

That really shouldn't be the goal; indeed, the Prime Universe fizzled out because it wore out its welcome; ENT's entire premise was dependent on when the franchise was new as a vital reference point. And even then, the ones who made the best TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT episodes probably didn't think, "I'll write the best episode of all time and they'll love it in the next century and I'll get awards!" Rather, their main goal is the same as the current crew and the next -- to make the best product that they possibly can and let the audience decide (and to make money, of course, but money is the reward). When Star Trek started, Roddenberry just wanted to make a successful TV show -- the cartoon and the movies and TNG, that was much, much later; there's no point in putting the cart before the horse.

Roddenberry didn't write The Cage with Nemesis in mind.

(besides, it would be difficult to keep this gang together for an extended period of time -- many of them already had full fledged careers before they took the job, and clearly the movies are raising their profile, getting them Hollywood money. By contrast, most of the main casts of the TV shows were relative unknowns and had more to lose with a bad performance)

To paraphrase Zephram Cochrane: "Don't try to write a great feature, just write a feature and let the audience decide." It's better to make something that's fantastic and leave it at that, than to make something fantastic and then see it deteriorate over time from burn out and overexposure until it's put to bed like TATV.



(also, point of reference: some of the posters here actually work on media that depend on the Prime Universe, like the novels or the FX crews of the TV shows. Lecturing them about the importance of the Prime Universe is preaching to the choir, but less effectively if they're arguing that Trek can indeed be told in different reboots and versions. They'd have a better idea than most.).

 

Because we all know that no true Scotsman... er, I mean "no true Star Trek fan" could prefer STID to TWOK?

I mean, I don't. You clearly don't. But if some people do (and I suspect they do... I probably even know a couple in real life*), does that somehow invalidate their position?

Who gets to decide whose opinion on Star Trek counts. I remember some TOS fans used to look down on TNG fans because that wasn't true Star Trek. I remember when live-action Star Trek fans looked down on fans of The Animated Series because that didn't count.

Richard Arnold said that The Animated Series wasn't Star Trek. He may not have wanted it to be Star Trek, and he may have wanted it ignored, but that doesn't make it a statement of empirical fact that it broadcast with Star Trek in the title produced by the rightsholders.

Being honest, this possessive and entitled attitude is part of what is wrong with nerd culture.

* yeah, the old "some of my best friends are Abrams fans"... I went there

 

QFT! And, Bi-La Kaifa!

So what if they do? That's their opinion, just like your opinion that the Abrams movies aren't Star Trek.

Opinions! Meaning: not facts! Don't confuse opinion and fact for the other, and life seems a lot better. . That seems to be a problem with the self-entitled, and mistakenly possessive.

And I say this as one who has loved Star Trek for over 40 years. i feel pity for the illogical being who ever dares profess to me what Star Trek I am, or am not allowed to like.

 

I thought it was a cool sight in DS9, having that ship in the background. And the idea that it was part of the Frankenstein Fleet had a certain appeal.

 

It's easier to constantly reboot a franchise instead of trying to continue it from the original. So I doubt we'll see the prime timeline ever again. We'll just constantly get new versions, along with a new generation of people who will constantly complain that it's not "true" Star Trek, as if that actually means anything.

 

People do that over the spin-offs, too. Hell, there are IDIC and Enterprise Log fanzines archived online, which refuse to accept the classic movies (all three of them, back then) as True Trek™.

The whole idea that they're wrong, the people who said the same about TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT were wrong, but the people saying exactly the same thing now are right, is pretty hilarious.

 

It's the hypocrisy of hardcore fandom. The gradient of distaste yields to eventual acceptance.

Their distaste for one follow up will give way as soon as another iteration comes up to stand the trial of fire. And then, when they've accepted that iteration, the next one comes along fresh for being the target of their pre-loaded ire, until they ultimately accept it. It's cascading malcontentism. It's "folk ain't happy 'less they got som'thin' ta' bitch about."

 

The thing some people forget when they make complaints like "But what about the fans? Don't we deserve *our* Star Trek back?!?" is that... well, let me put it this way: you don't grow a fanbase by pandering to the existing fandom. They are already fans, they don't need encouragment to buy a movie ticket. The main game is always in getting new people to become invested in the franchise. Nobody cares much about the prime universe in terms of future projects, because at this point returning to that would feel like a step backwards from where we are today. We've got a nice sampling of Prime Universe Trek that we can watch any time we like. The aim of future Star Trek projects should always be with an eye towards doing new things like the brand, not returning to old tricks. And if that even means rebooting again, then so be it.

 

Whoa! Easy there. I would go for a few times at most if circumstances warrant it. An infinite number of reboots is too much.

Enough with the rebooting already!

 

I know I'm going to be in the minority but I just want good Trek, be in the so called Prime Universe the JJ Universe or X universe

 

But there are still plenty of good stories to tell in Prime such as Sulu getting his own series now that he is Captain of The Excelsior.

Or give him another ship with hologram type of controls and panels like Shatner had in one of his books - of the new ships that existed.

 

But if you alienate the current fan base then you are shrinking the fanbase - you want to try to please both if possible to keep the fanbase growing - keep the old PLUS get new ones to replace them as the old dies off.

 

That strikes me as a very sensible attitude. And I'm not sure you're really in the minority there. I like to think most people feel the same way.

 

Which, of course, you'd have to recast as George Takei is far too old to be a series lead. Then those redesigned controls wouldn't fit into the established continuity between the TOS movies and TNG. Then you have the dramatic problem of people knowing that Captain Sulu would escape any and all danger because we know that he is mentioned in later series.

Anytime you introduce change into the status quo, you run the risk of alienating a portion of the fan base. Check out articles on any new Trek project from 1982 on. You simply can't operate in that fashion.

 

Why does this title make me think of a movie version of How Much For Just The Planet? Somehow I see pies in the face at some point.

I don't think that we will have a return to Prime Trek, especially now with the loss of Leonard Nimoy who was the link between the two universes.

While I would still love to have had a movie with that beautiful space station by a wormhole, I just don't think that it's going to happen. Heck, I'd love an Avengers style movie featuring Enterprise E, DS9, Voyager and anyone else that we could get in there, but I just don't think that there would be the audience for it. JJ's Trek is far more accessible in this day and age for the general population, and so that's where Paramount is going to go.

 

You're working from the assumption that reboots automatically alienate the majority of the "fan base," which isn't necessarily the case. Many of us lifelong fans have no problem with seeing our old favorites rebooted time and again.

If anything, some of us get positively blase about it. As I've joked before, I'm old enough to lived through multiple versions of Superman, Dracula, Zorro, James Bond, Godzilla, and so on. A new STAR TREK doesn't faze me.

And, seriously, this is nothing new. Even as a kid, I had no trouble grasping that the various movie, tv, cartoon, novel, and comic-book versions of, say, TARZAN or DARK SHADOWS were not necessarily set in the same continuity. Didn't interfere with my enjoyment of the stories any.

If it didn't bother me when I was ten, why should it bother me now that I'm a card-carrying member of AARP?

 

I don't get the kneejerk reaction to the word reboot. I'll take a good reboot over a bad sequel any day of the week.

 

+1

 

+1 as well