Will they go back to primeTrek after nuTrek finishes?.

[Cyke101]

Parallels showed multiple timelines that *didn't* heal themselves once everything was resolved, it merely restored the barriers that separated them. The only difference was that none of the ones featured were the ones that the TV show belonged in. So there's precedence for the nature the Abramsverse adopted, merely from the other side of the line.

Right. And how much do people actually care that the alternate Riker we saw, and what was left of his crew, blew up?

Probably the people in that respective universe. But more broadly speaking as well, I'm also pretty sure that more people care about the Abramsverse than going back, because now *they're* the primary audience. There really is nothing to stop the Abramsverse from reverting back to the Prime Universe other than popular reception, and popular reception right now says that the Abramsverse will keep chugging along.

Borg-infested Riker and crew blowing up didn't have any impact on the prime universe - the one we live in.

We don't live there. It's fictional, and no Trek continuity is more or less fictional than another.

I'm certainly much more invested in nuKirk and company than in, say, Sisko and his DS9 pals.

Aw, I like Sisko and his DS9 pals very much. But yes, I'm also invested in nuKirk. As well, nuKirk and Co. greatly expanded and reinvigorated the Trek fanbase. To ignore the fans who voiced their support through going to the JJmovies in droves is to essentially commit brand suicide.

 

[Trekkin]

If the Internet was around in the mid-80's, I can imagine a whole bunch of TOS fans saying the exact same things about TNG. "I'm not invested in these characters and this time period, and nothing that happened before in continuity matters. They should bring back TOS."

 

[Makarov]

If the Internet was around in the mid-80's, I can imagine a whole bunch of TOS fans saying the exact same things about TNG. "I'm not invested in these characters and this time period, and nothing that happened before in continuity matters. They should bring back TOS."

Well... they kinda did! It's back in reboot form.

For those that say Trek TV would never happen because of cost I say look at LOST. LOST was an extremely expensive show, had a bunch of suits that wanted it cancelled, the producer guy who made the pilot got fired, but it still was a huge success.

And reality TV was just as profitable when they were still making LOST. It's the same network that does such wonderful programs known as The Bachelor and Wife Swap. I'm not saying trek would be as popular but flukes like that can happen.

 

[Sindatur]

If the Internet was around in the mid-80's, I can imagine a whole bunch of TOS fans saying the exact same things about TNG. "I'm not invested in these characters and this time period, and nothing that happened before in continuity matters. They should bring back TOS."

Well... they kinda did! It's back in reboot form.

For those that say Trek TV would never happen because of cost I say look at LOST. LOST was an extremely expensive show, had a bunch of suits that wanted it cancelled, the producer guy who made the pilot got fired, but it still was a huge success.

And reality TV was just as profitable when they were still making LOST. It's the same network that does such wonderful programs known as The Bachelor and Wife Swap. I'm not saying trek would be as popular but flukes like that can happen.

Huh? Where are you getting this stuff from? JJ Abrams turned over control of LOST to Damon and Carlton. Also, they had to negotiate with ABC for an end date, because ABC wawnted them to keep spinning it round in circles forever (until the ratings fell). ABC had no desire to cancel it and didn't want it to end

 

[fireproof78]

@fireproof78: I was referring back to my persistent use of "Parallels" as an example of why I do not find the Abramsverse relevant and so do not care so much about what happens within it. Borg-infested Riker and crew blowing up didn't have any impact on the prime universe - the one we live in. His is not the one we are invested in and so we don't care so much. That's natural - it's understandable that losing family members is more important to us than people we don't know. And I think seeing the Enterprise blow up is always entertaining to us ("Cause and Effect" was an orgy of such).

Others contend that we do not live in the prime universe either, and mostly use the Eugenics War to make their point, leaving us with nothing much to care about at all except a TV show and a few movies - nevermind the generations of people who have found inspiration through Star Trek. (Except I disagree with that point of view - I dismiss the Eugenics War from strict canon as writers finding their way through future history never expecting it to be a topic of discussion 50 years later).

Inspiration can come from multiple sources that don't necessarily have to be grounded in our reality. Certainly the myriad of SF works out there that have inspired others (Tolkien's, Jordan's, Asimov, Heinlein, among others) are indicative that human beings can draw inspiration from many different sources. One of my observations is that the characters mean more in terms of inspiration than the setting.

In other words, I can care about that alternative Riker because I can understand the desperation of his point. I find inspiration from Pike because I find his dealings with Kirk to be similar to how I have to deal with younger coworkers.

I'm sure I have made the point before but inspiration can derive from multiple sources, and the importance of them will depend on the individual.

Please note that I'm not dismissing your position out of hand. Rather, I want to present an alternative point of view regarding inspiration.

 

[Greg Cox]

Borg-infested Riker and crew blowing up didn't have any impact on the prime universe - the one we live in.

We don't live there. It's fictional, and no Trek continuity is more or less fictional than another.

Bingo.

 

[Makarov]

Huh? Where are you getting this stuff from? JJ Abrams turned over control of LOST to Damon and Carlton. Also, they had to negotiate with ABC for an end date, because ABC wawnted them to keep spinning it round in circles forever (until the ratings fell). ABC had no desire to cancel it and didn't want it to end

Actually ABC executives thought the show would fail before it aired, and I'm talking about Lloyd Braun who was fired because they thought the pilot of Lost was a waste of money.

 

[Ovation]

Borg-infested Riker and crew blowing up didn't have any impact on the prime universe - the one we live in.

We don't live there. It's fictional, and no Trek continuity is more or less fictional than another.

Bingo.

There is no limit to how often this bears repeating, sadly.

 

[Sindatur]

Huh? Where are you getting this stuff from? JJ Abrams turned over control of LOST to Damon and Carlton. Also, they had to negotiate with ABC for an end date, because ABC wawnted them to keep spinning it round in circles forever (until the ratings fell). ABC had no desire to cancel it and didn't want it to end

Actually ABC executives thought the show would fail before it aired, and I'm talking about Lloyd Braun who was fired because they thought the pilot of Lost was a waste of money.

Ah, OK, I thought JJ made the Pilot, and your post gave me an apparently wrong impression that there were execs hounding the show all the all way through, wanting to kill it, when you used the word "cancelled", since typically, a Pilot is done, and then a Series is agreed to or not, which isn't cancellation, it's merely deciding not to proceed to Series. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

 

[Makarov]

Borg-infested Riker and crew blowing up didn't have any impact on the prime universe - the one we live in.

We don't live there. It's fictional, and no Trek continuity is more or less fictional than another.

No but his point still stands, because some continuities are invested in and others are not. The riker borg universe is included for about 5 minutes in TNG, the audience isn't meant to be attached to that universe. Imo I'd just replace the words "the one we live in" with "the one we watch in 90% of the episodes"...

Yeah ABC loved lost when it was making them money, my point was intended to be that no one expected it to be a success - a Trek pilot would face similar hurdles to overcome if it was going to try TV again, but could still happen.

 

[JWPlatt]

Borg-infested Riker and crew blowing up didn't have any impact on the prime universe - the one we live in.

We don't live there. It's fictional, and no Trek continuity is more or less fictional than another.

Bingo.

There is no limit to how often this bears repeating, sadly.

This quote-thread appears to be making the distinction between something like a soap opera and the crazies who believe they and the characters are real. Yes, I know it's fiction.

But it also bears repeating that the writers of TOS put their story in our future - not anyone else's. And TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT were all within that same universe.

 

[Mudd]

Borg-infested Riker and crew blowing up didn't have any impact on the prime universe - the one we live in.

We don't live there. It's fictional, and no Trek continuity is more or less fictional than another.

No but his point still stands, because some continuities are invested in and others are not.

 

[BillJ]

But the writers of TOS put their story in our future - not anyone else's. And TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT were all within that same universe.

Not our future. Not even close. Unless we were launching orbital nuclear weapons platforms in 1968?

 

[Cyke101]

Bingo.

There is no limit to how often this bears repeating, sadly.

This quote-thread appears to be making the distinction between something like a soap opera and the crazies who believe they and the characters are real. Yes, I know it's fiction.

But it also bears repeating that the writers of TOS put their story in our future - not anyone else's. And TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT were all within that same universe.

The TOS writers also acknowledged that the future could change, otherwise we wouldn't get City on the Edge of Forever or Mirror, Mirror (or Parallels, for that matter). Which makes other futures (by them or other shows and other writers) no less valid than the ones those writers focused on. And the idea of a changing future didnt' begin with Trek, either.

The important thing is the that the themes that made TOS great get adapted properly to carry on that enthusiasm for future generations to enjoy as well. That doesn't mean adherence to only "one" timeline. When we're more focused on self-referential minutae rather than the reasons for these stories to be told, we're missing the forest for the trees.

Also, the fact of the matter is, Earth's future isn't going to look like the future depicted by TOS (or any other novel, show, movie, etc), because Earth's future involves far more moving parts than anyone can predict. Lessons leaerned from TOS are fine, but to expect it to be a blueprint for the future is pure fantasy to be enjoyed, not to be taken seriously. And in that case, the story matters much more because at least that can be transmitted.

 

[BillJ]

The important thing is the that the themes that made TOS great get adapted properly to carry on that enthusiasm for future generations to enjoy as well. That doesn't mean adherence to only "one" timeline. When we're more focused on self-referential minutae rather than the reasons for these stories to be told, we're missing the forest for the trees.

Time to close the thread, because this says it all.

 

[JWPlatt]

But the writers of TOS put their story in our future - not anyone else's. And TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT were all within that same universe.

Not our future. Not even close. Unless we were launching orbital nuclear weapons platforms in 1968?

Ok, so you avoided the whole Eugenics War thing, but I'm still not going to whip the TOS writers' butts for getting their predictions or warnings wrong of what we could do to ourselves. I do allow for real-world considerations.

 

[BillJ]

But the writers of TOS put their story in our future - not anyone else's. And TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT were all within that same universe.

Not our future. Not even close. Unless we were launching orbital nuclear weapons platforms in 1968?

Ok, so you avoided the whole Eugenics War thing, but I'm still not going to whip the TOS writers' butts for getting their predictions or warnings of what we could do to ourselves wrong. I do allow for real-world consolidations.

Since the episode is set in 1968 and the episode debuted in 1968 and was written by Gene Roddenberry, I'd say they knew they weren't dealing with their world.

 

[Cyke101]

But the writers of TOS put their story in our future - not anyone else's. And TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT were all within that same universe.

Not our future. Not even close. Unless we were launching orbital nuclear weapons platforms in 1968?

Ok, so you avoided the whole Eugenics War thing, but I'm still not going to whip the TOS writers' butts for getting their predictions or warnings wrong of what we could do to ourselves. I do allow for real-world considerations.

No one's whipping them for it. But the point is that no predictions are going to be accurate anyway, and that shouldn't even be the point of investment for fans to begin with. The enjoyment and takeaways from those episodes should be the focus, not accuracy.

The very fact that we're recalling an episode in this discussion set in 1968 about 1968 is more than enough proof about it, especially since said-episode has been watched and enjoyed much, much more after 1968. Do we care more about what they predicted about that year, or do we care more about the thrills and entertainment about a covert ops mission by Kirk and Co. set in the 20th century? If the episode was 100% accurate but poorly produced, we wouldn't care enough to talk about it 50 years later because it would just be plain boring.

 

[BillJ]

No one's whipping them for it. But the point is that no predictions are going to be accurate anyway, and that shouldn't even be the point of investment for fans to begin with. The enjoyment and takeaways from those episodes should be the focus, not accuracy.

Exactly.

If they gave me an exciting story set in a universe where Riker and the Enterprise are chased by the Borg, like we see in "Parallels", then I would quickly become engaged in that story. The timeline or universe it is set in wouldn't matter a bit.

 

[JWPlatt]

The TOS writers also acknowledged that the future could change, otherwise we wouldn't get City on the Edge of Forever or Mirror, Mirror (or Parallels, for that matter). Which makes other futures (by them or other shows and other writers) no less valid than the ones those writers focused on.

I was about to add this to my other post, but Bill beat me in the post race.

One of the larger complaints about Trek has been the reset button even though it was necessary to continue the series as-is. Some say they should have had the courage to follow on without the reset, which would be pretty tough to do, say, after "Cause and Effect." I suppose the Abramsverse is like that - no reset button. Yet.

"City of the Edge of Forever" was self-healing. "Mirror, Mirror" had no reset because it was a different universe - like the Abramsverse. "Parallels" needed no reset - only to put Worf in the right place. They were more "other universes" than "other futures." Ours - Prime - continued intact after all of them. And from my point of view, ours still continues intact, but the camera just got lost in the wrong one and no one bothered retrieving it. So while it's still entertaining, it's not as significant to me.

No one's whipping them for it. But the point is that no predictions are going to be accurate anyway, and that shouldn't even be the point of investment for fans to begin with. The enjoyment and takeaways from those episodes should be the focus, not accuracy.

This fits my own attitude as well.