It's about parallel worlds, not ripping off (spoilers)

I am a huge fan of Fringe, which is similar in many ways to STID, and is a show created and created by the same creative minds (Abrams, Orci, and Kurzman).

My favorite Trek is DS9, but I am very much enjoying the latest film franchise.

Following are some thoughts that contain spoilers for both Fringe and STID.

Fringe is a show about (among other things) two alternate Earths coming into contact.

The Earths are subtly different, and the show LOVES to show scenes from subtly different angles.

For example, in one episode, a father on Earth One is shown teaching a coin trick to his son, who is terminally ill.

On Earth Two, we see the same boy, still terminally ill, who is being taught the same coin trick but by his mother.

We also see that in Earth One, the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11 while on Earth Two, the twin towers were saved, but the Pentagon and White House were destroyed.

Even seemingly insignificant details are shown to be different, such as Back to the Future starring Eric Stoltz, rather than Michael J. Fox.

So for those who think a lot of the subtle differences in, for example, the Engine Room scene of STID are just tugging on nostalgia (or- more unkindly, laziness or a lack of creativity), I would strongly disagree.

The subtle differences of a parallel reality are clearly an idea that interested the creative team in 2009. To my mind, it's a great idea and one of my favorite things about this new incarnation of our favorite franchise.

 

Huh, I didn't know that is what Fringe was about. It was explained to me as a typical conspiracy X files type show. You have intrigued me, AU is one of my favorite things.

 

Like the X-Files, MOST episodes are about science run amok, and the fringe team trying to contain some science-related badness.

But the overarching metaplot, which shows up a few times a season, involves two earths crossing over and influencing each other.

 

The parallel worlds is just a cop out so they can play it safe.
Abrams has rebooted Star Trek. He can go anywhere with this universe yet he continues to rehash old villians. Romulans, Klingons, Khan. I expected them them to do something new with Star Trek and instead of getting more original it's gotten less. If the best you can do is make Wrath of Khan 2.0 then maybe somebody else should take the helm for the next movie. Abrams has complete freedom with this universe, why not do something new with it. Show us these "strange new worlds and new civilizations" not the same old worlds we've seen for 40 years. The opening scene was great and the very kind of thing I want Star Trek to do. Why couldn't we have seen more of that?

 

Again, evidence suggests otherwise.

In a show he created from whole cloth in 2008, with characters of his own design, Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman went to great pains to show the same scene from subtle different angles.

It's obviously an idea that they find extremely interesting.

And I agree.

 

What's the point of rebooting Trek if all they're going to do is take bits from previous movies/episodes and Frankenstein them into new movies?

 

Unfortunately the entire last third of the movie is devoid of emotion for people who have seen this shit before.

It was laughable and took some of us right out of the movie.

Pity.

 

I would argue that's far from "all" they are doing.

There was a lot going on in STID that had nothing to do with that- Section 31, a rogue Federation Admiral, the father-son relationship between Kirk and Pike, the growing friendship between Kirk and Spock and a moral dilemma for Kirk all leap to mind.

That said, there have been entire TV shows dedicated to alternate realities- Sliders and Fringe.

Star Trek episodes, like Yesterday's Enterprise have also dealt with this topic.

It's a very fertile concept.

Especially when it allows them to explore characters we love from different angles.

The engine room scene, for example, was as much about Kirk doing what Spock would have done (putting the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the one), while Spock did what Kirk would have done (using Khan's arrogance to take him out).

In other words, two men who didn't trust each other learning they had a lot to learn from each other.

 

I wore a Mr. Spock mask for Halloween in 1976. Trek was the first show I remember watching.

When Wrath of Khan came out, me and my friends pored over every magazine reference, trying desperately to suss out what the movie would be about.

When it came out, we went to see it every weekend at the drive in all summer.

So I have definitely "seen this shit before" and the last third of the movie most definitely did NOT have that effect on me.

I saw Kirk and Spock learning from each other and bonding, while standing up for their beliefs and saving the galaxy.

 

It is a very fertile concept but the past two movies have been about alternate realities. It's becoming tiresome. How about a self contained story that has no connection to the prime universe starting with an antagonist we haven't seen before? Into Darkness practically confirmed that the Klingons would be next so maybe we'll get lucky with Star Trek 4. I wouldn't put money on it though

 

Well, the first movie was about Nero, who was never seen in the prime universe.

I am not sure what you want.

A movie that doesn't mention the premise of the reboot at all? That doesn't mention Trek-Prime Spock running around?

If Pike, as captain of the Enterprise being abducted by Nero and rescued by First Officer Kirk doesn't qualify as something new, I am unsure what would satisfy you.

This movie was clearly showing two sides of a familiar coin, but the first movie did not.

Also- I wouldn't necessarily bank on the Klingons- Kirk thought war was around the corner in Errand of Mercy... then HOPED it was coming in Search for Spock... then Admiral Cartwright said it was inevitable in ST VI.

In other words, we've heard this song many times before, sung by Federation hawks.

 

Nero is a Romulan we've seen Romulans before. I want a new a villain something we've never seen before. Not the overdone Romulans, Klingons, Borg, Khan, giant space probes etc. And you can not tell me Star Trek 09 didn't have shades of WOK.

 

I think they need to bring back Soran only this time he should say, "Fire is the time in which we burn..". Because it's alternative!

 

...and they are supposed to completely ignore all of those races sitting right on their doorsteps and make up a bunch of new ones just for the sake of being different? Events will change but the different species of aliens won't. In comparison, we've only seen Khan two times. Ever. But everyone feels that THAT is overdone, too. If they got rid of everything that was familiar in Star Trek then it wouldn't feel like Star Trek anymore, it would feel like your generic space flick.

 

Well, technically 3 times if you count "Space Seed".

Sooo overdone.

And yet shockingly, when Chris Nolan rebooted Batman, he used the Joker again. Weird. It's almost like when you inherit a toybox full of kick-ass toys, you should take them out and play with them.

 

Okay yes, yes DO IT!!!!

 

Because if they didn't, the fans would be whining "How is this Star Trek? Where's XYZ? Why did you bother writing this crap and call it Star Trek when it's just a new bunch of people using the same names?"

I don't think the problem here is a lack of originality from Abrams and co. I think the problem is a fanbase who is very nitpicky and difficult to please.

 

Well, the first film could have gone a different direction.

In the future, the Romulans and the Federation become allies. (Build on the idea brought up at the end of "Nemesis" where the two were firmly working together on building a permanent alliance.) During a crisis, the Federation takes steps that are viewed by some, including the captain of a ship, as a betrayal. On his way home, this captain finds himself propelled backwards to the past ("The Final Countdown"). He finds himself and his ship in the early 2260s.

Nero contacts his homeworld and convinces the Romulans that for them to survive they need to defeat the Federation. Using the technology of his time, and manipulating the political situation of the era, Nero leads the Romulans to war against the Federation.

During this time, Captain Kirk is the captain of a destroyer. The Federation has come out of a long period of war. He has proven himself to be a great warrior.

In the movie, we see how Captain Kirk defeats this new threat, and how he becomes the captain of the Enterprise. This war between the Federation and the Romulans alters the timeline.

I would start the movie with an attack on an Earth Outpost by a Romulan warbird, and I would show the failure of a Federation starship to meet this threat. During the course of the movie, I would show how this came to be different than what was seen in the "Balance of Terror".

If one is insisted on showing the destruction of Vulcan, make the planet the site of a major battle between the Romulans and the Federation. Show the Romulans destroying the Vulcan Defense Force and the Starfleet. Show the planet being bombarded from space. Show the capitulation of Vulcan. Show the survivors fleeing to Federation space.

In the end of the movie, the Federation wins the war, but at a great cost. Vulcan has fallen to the Romulans, and the Romulans are keeping the planet. Vulcans found a new world - a refuge camp -for the survivors. On Vulcan, the Romulans expel the Vulcans and bring in settlers to colonize Vulcan. (This is historically plausible. In the Peloponnesian War, Athens would conquer enemy city-states, expel or enslave the population, and colonize the city-state with settlers.)

For the second movie, show the aftermath of this war. Show the crew maturing on Kirk's new command into a family. (The first movie shows him getting this family. The second movie shows him becoming the pater familias of this ship.)

I think that I have demonstrated how it's possible to create a parallel world that is believable for the characters, respects the original, and works on what was already there. The first film makes no narrative logic - Nero wasn't saving his world; if he succeeded, his world would still be destroyed and there would be few worlds for the survivors to flee to. Many of the choice worlds were already inhabited, as homeworlds and as colonies. He had the time to convince a Romulan Empire hungry for war to declare hostilities against the Federation. In "Balance of Terror", the Romulans were testing the resolve and response of the Federation to a threat. With the success of the Federation, the Romulans would later forge a brief alliance with the Klingons in an attempt to stymie the expansion of the Federation. Now, if things went another way, then what we saw in the original timeline would be altered forever.

People have been copying and modifying what came before for thousands of years. I think what is important is how and why you do the copying and the modifying.

JJ Abrams has admitted that he found Star Trek to be too philosophical for him. Wheaton remarked,

http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/50514989060/jenniferdeguzman-he-said-star-trek-is-too

 

Ah yes. Too philosophical. Too much action. Hm, this all sounds familiar.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/...ek-universe-revisits-one-of-its-great-debates