Was it a mistake to set STD in the Prime Universe?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think a stronger argument against Prime recognition would just be that we don't know if Spock from '09 Trek is the same Spock from TOS, or maybe that in the Prime timeline there is splinter universes as Data explained. There's nothing evidently fraudulent of the Prime moniquer, just that it came about only so far as writers have qualified it and that it was a new distinction out of the Abrams crew once the Abramsverse became centric. If it is a splinter universe with minute differences, then I don't see that as terribly prevalent in determining it one way or the other. Anyhoo, writers of Discovery saying that it's definitely Prime are stronger support than official purveyors simply not confirming it as a case for dismissal of Prime distinctioning.

[Madner Kami]

You don't seem to understand. Nobody is argueing that either STD or Kelvinverse are not Prime Trek. They are Prime Trek. In fact, they are the only Prime Trek around. Argueably both happen in different parallel timelines, given the visual distinction between both, but that is besides the point.

What people are arguing against is that "Prime Trek" includes TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise, as well as the first ten Star Trek movies. Those are not "Prime" Timeline Star Trek. And, clearly with success, Paramout is using the "prime"-moniker to imply that their new show Star Trek Discovery, is happening within the same timeline, timeframe and universe, that the original 5 Trek-series happened in, because people associate the word "prime" with "original" or "first".

And, frankly, the STD-writers can go fuck themselves. Their word in this regard lost all it's value, somewhen between Spock suddenly getting a sister out of nowhere and Klingons being morphed into whatever mess they currently are in STD.

[Yukaphile]

^ This man gets it. (clap)

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

You don't seem to understand. Nobody is argueing that either STD or Kelvinverse are not Prime Trek. They are Prime Trek. In fact, they are the only Prime Trek around. Argueably both happen in different parallel timelines, given the visual distinction between both, but that is besides the point.

I'm not understanding where the notion of Prime Trek or Prime Universe only pertaining to Abrams and post Abrams work comes from, specifically speaking. From what I can gather they only started using Prime to make distinct Nimoy Spock from Quinto Spock, in which case what you're saying here would mean that Prime Spock in Trek '09 is not the same Spock as in The Original Series.

Also in reading the more precise working definition of Prime Universes (in general media, granted), the Prime distinction is typically given to original worlds established in a franchise. Just that in the case of Star Trek it's not as explicitly clear what Prime distinction means as it is in DC for example. The point being though that Prime specifically means the original established world, as far as that definition goes.

And I've always been of the mind that "Spock Prime" and Kelvinverse are of the same continuity, whatever universe or timeline the former comes from whether soft or hard reboot.

What people are arguing against is that "Prime Trek" includes TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise, as well as the first ten Star Trek movies. Those are not "Prime" Timeline Star Trek. And, clearly with success, Paramout is using the "prime"-moniker to imply that their new show Star Trek Discovery, is happening within the same timeline, timeframe and universe, that the original 5 Trek-series happened in, because people associate the word "prime" with "original" or "first".

Mainly the breakdown from what I'm seeing is between Paramount Films and CBS post Viacom/CBS split, with CBS getting Paramount Television and Viacom getting Paramount Films and them getting the television and film rights respectively. I'm not trying to inform you of this, just that this seems to be more of a schism than anything pertaining to timelines or universes.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

^ This man gets it. (clap)

That's great, considering the first sentence in the first post makes an apparent distinction between Kelvinverse and Prime Trek, and that the Prime Universe is directly correlated to nostalgia.

Just what it says on the tin. STD seems like it'd be better suited to the Kelvin Universe than the Prime Universe. Now granted, they couldn't do that because of legal issues I hear, but supposing they created a new universe to set this in like JJ Abrams had done in 2009? The only reason for setting it in the Prime Universe is to generate nostalgia, but nostalgia for what? They clearly don't care about the larger continuity of Trek, so just make up your own universe to set this world of Trek in. Is it so hard?

What do you think? Would it have been better to create a third universe apart from the Prime Universe or the Kelvin Universe for STD? Would it at least have made it less controversial? I still think my "make it an alternate dimension and not a changed timeline" idea might have been the way to go.

[Zoinksberg]

in which case what you're saying here would mean that Prime Spock in Trek '09 is not the same Spock as in The Original Series.

That's exactly what we have been trying to say.

And they are using the term "Prime" specifically because it typically means "the original". It's a marketing term to try to convince people that this is the continuing voyages of TOS, when in reality from a legal standpoint nothing since Enterprise and Nemesis has been that. Nimoy was playing a different Spock, Stewart will be playing a different Picard (if it happens) and nothing that has happened since 2005 can or will be a part of the original Star Trek universe unless the various IP holders can get things worked out or merge back together.

[Yukaphile]

I was actually referring to this.

And, frankly, the STD-writers can go fuck themselves. Their word in this regard lost all it's value, somewhen between Spock suddenly getting a sister out of nowhere and Klingons being morphed into whatever mess they currently are in STD.

Sorry, should have been clearer. That's what I latched onto the most out of all that.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

in which case what you're saying here would mean that Prime Spock in Trek '09 is not the same Spock as in The Original Series.

That's exactly what we have been trying to say.

And they are using the term "Prime" specifically because it typically means "the original". It's a marketing term to try to convince people that this is the continuing voyages of TOS, when in reality from a legal standpoint nothing since Enterprise and Nemesis has been that. Nimoy was playing a different Spock, Stewart will be playing a different Picard (if it happens) and nothing that has happened since 2005 can or will be a part of the original Star Trek universe unless the various IP holders can get things worked out or merge back together.

Well it seems that our understandings are consistent with each other. It's easy to understand the tokening nature of Priming something. Though with canon while it seems you, Madner, et al. are anchoring to explicit consent of the producer/showrunners, I'm not too clear on how that doesn't get extended to executive producers as well (even if we're talking bout nothing more than the studios as arbiters of the license). And in the case of IPs, Viacom does seem to own all movies past and present, which does blur the lines between Abramsverse and TNG/TOS movies. I'm personally satisfied agreeing to disagree with showrunner authorized canon and more broadened franchise teams so to speak. We'll be like the Sunni and Shiite factions of Islam what have you.