Should it have been a straight reboot?

[Shazam!]

urbandk wrote:

---

I disagree. I think Star Trek has had enough "reboots" that fit in existing continuity that this one can too. All the other series are reboots in Star Trek's future. This is a reboot in Star Trek's past. Because Star Trek has always played fast and loose with time travel and its implications, this movie fits perfectly well with what came before.

Well, not really. Previous time-travel adventures have all dealt with making sure that the time-line is preserved. This one just goes "fuck it". I don't see how that is fitting 'perfectly well'.

I'll ignore the part about each series being a reboot as that's clearly nonce-sense.

[JarodRussell]

I would have accepted a proper prequel.

I would have really liked a full reboot. BSG style.

[Cyke101]

The fanboy in me would have wanted a true origin story set in the prime universe. It would've been interesting to see just how everyone truly got together and how Kirk picked out his crew. I was absolutely tickled when I found out that Christopher Pike would be in the film, and I liked the idea of an "origin" story set after the pilot but before Kirk's command.

However, the film critic in me says the concept of the semi-reboot was just fine. A true origin story would have lacked a sense of concern for the main characters. Pike's kidnapping, Sulu's fall, and most importantly Amanda Grayson would have zero excitement behind them if I knew they were all going to survive from the start.

With that said, out of all the changed histories for our favorite Big Seven, Scotty's is probably the one that makes the least amount of sense.

[Disillusioned]

Tyralak wrote:

---

Now you've just thrown a new wrinkle into things.

Well, not really. There have been others, including myself, who have pretty much been viewing this entire movie as an AU.

[Cyke101]

Shazam! wrote:

---

Well, not really. Previous time-travel adventures have all dealt with making sure that the time-line is preserved.

I semi disagree with this. Trek has had a whole lot of different ways of time travel and how to deal with it. One of the most famous time travel stories of all, TVH, wasn't about restoring the timeline at all. Heck, it seems that if time took its natural preserved course, humanity would've been doomed. In Generations, had time not been altered, the Enterprise-D crew and Veridian III would've been doomed.

[JarodRussell]

Cyke101 wrote:

---

I semi disagree with this. Trek has had a whole lot of different ways of time travel and how to deal with it. One of the most famous time travel stories of all, TVH, wasn't about restoring the timeline at all. Heck, it seems that if time took its natural preserved course, humanity would've been doomed. In Generations, had time not been altered, the Enterprise-D crew and Veridian III would've been doomed.

Same goes for the Voyager finale.

[Shazam!]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Same goes for the Voyager finale.

Anything in Voyager is a bad idea by default.

[Yug]

I'm torn, because I'm not so sure the alternate reality works for me, I'd prefer a straight up reboot too... but I really enjoyed seeing Nimoy as Spock, he did a great job, and his arc brought a bit of depth to the film, he was the anchor to what could have been a flighty, airy, feature... I almost teared up a bit during the scene of him talking to the younger Spock because I suddenly realized that we may never see Nimoy as Mr. Spock ever again... it was his strongest performace as the character, I feel, and it made it okay to like this new TREK.

[urbandk]

Timelines were handled in arbitrary and disparate ways. This movie was just one more way to handle time travel. When Sisko looks at a picture of himself as Bell, there is more than a little bit of an inside joke. The Enterprise assisting Cochrane was also over-the-top.

These stories completely neglect the likelihood that even a minor change would disrupt the future enough that they would never exist at all, especially when one considers the infinitesimal possibility that a particular sperm would fertilize an egg.

I hope that Star Trek in whatever future form it may take will embrace the parallel universe approach and retcon the past stories to fit into this understanding of time travel.

Time travel in Trek more than most of the rest has been straight fantasy, but Star Trek has had pretensions of being science fiction. I'm happy that these new writers and production team honor the sci-fi side of Star Trek with a more plausible time travel mechanism.

Every Star Trek series has been a reboot or reimagining of the universe. This contrast is brought into hilarious relief in "Trials and Tribble-ations," especially in the scene in which Bashir is confounded: "Klingons, I don't see any Klingons."

Trek has always been able to laugh at itself, to poke fun at the fantasy.

This strategy of fitting the future in with the past is in the best tradition of Star Trek shows and movies that preceded it.

Often, to enjoy Star Trek, you just have to smile and laugh at the silliness beneath the surface. The augment-virus, ancient humanoid, warp-ten salamander, barclay-devolving-into-a-spider, hippie alien, toga alien side of Star Trek is part of the fun.

If anything, this new Star Trek takes itself more seriously than did the campy Star Trek before it.

[FlapJoy]

urbandk wrote:

---

Timelines were handled in arbitrary and disparate ways. This movie was just one more way to handle time travel. When Sisko looks at a picture of himself as Bell, there is more than a little bit of an inside joke. The Enterprise assisting Cochrane was also over-the-top.

These stories completely neglect the likelihood that even a minor change would disrupt the future enough that they would never exist at all, especially when one considers the infinitesimal possibility that a particular sperm would fertilize an egg.

I hope that Star Trek in whatever future form it may take will embrace the parallel universe approach and retcon the past stories to fit into this understanding of time travel.

Time travel in Trek more than most of the rest has been straight fantasy, but Star Trek has had pretensions of being science fiction. I'm happy that these new writers and production team honor the sci-fi side of Star Trek with a more plausible time travel mechanism.

Every Star Trek series has been a reboot or reimagining of the universe. This contrast is brought into hilarious relief in "Trials and Tribble-ations," especially in the scene in which Bashir is confounded: "Klingons, I don't see any Klingons."

Trek has always been able to laugh at itself, to poke fun at the fantasy.

This strategy of fitting the future in with the past is in the best tradition of Star Trek shows and movies that preceded it.

Often, to enjoy Star Trek, you just have to smile and laugh at the silliness beneath the surface. The augment-virus, ancient humanoid, warp-ten salamander, barclay-devolving-into-a-spider, hippie alien, toga alien side of Star Trek is part of the fun.

If anything, this new Star Trek takes itself more seriously than did the campy Star Trek before it.

I agree whole-heartedly with almost everything you've posted here, other than the last bit. I do think this new TREK is bringing back the campy fun of the original, that's what I truly enjoyed about it. From Kirk and McCoy running around in the hypospray scene, Kirk and the Orion slave girl, to all of Scotty's scene stealing comic relief, it brought back the fun. It was a breath of fresh air.

[Shazam!]

urbandk wrote:

---

If anything, this new Star Trek takes itself more seriously than did the campy Star Trek before it.

The more serious Star Trek is the sillier it becomes.

[Cyke101]

Shazam! wrote:

---

The more serious Star Trek is the sillier it becomes.

Y'know what kills me in Trek? When a silly, lighthearted episode has a conflict that might destroy the entire ship/station.

It was done well only once, with the bomb in Trouble with Tribbles. After that, it seemed that in order to have a few laughs meant that lives had to be in mortal danger.

[Temis the Vorta]

A straight reboot would have had no emotional connection to TOS.

But to go for a straight origins story would have had two big problems:

1. Canon says that young Kirk was dour and serious as a cadet. That makes him overlap far too much with young Spock. There needs to be a contrast between the two main characters.

2. Seeing the characters as we know them develop could be interesting. But seeing both Kirk and Spock embark on different arcs, while still being essentially the same recognizable people, is far more exciting.

I think we're going to see more rage and dangerousness from Spock, and watch Kirk evolve into the familiar maturity and compassion but not start out there. In other words, as Kirk evolves towards TOS Kirk, Spock evolves away from TOS Spock, and what plotline emerges is anybody's guess.

After thinking about this (a lot), I'm convinced they took the best of the three paths open to them.

Well, not really. Previous time-travel adventures have all dealt with making sure that the time-line is preserved. This one just goes "fuck it".

My pet theory is that timelines can never be restored to exactly the original - that's like unscrambling an egg - so that every time Trek time-travelled, an alternate timeline was created, and we started following those characters, leaving the originals in the dust, it's just that nobody noticed the difference before now.

And the only reason we noticed now is because the writers gave the characters weird, preternatural knowledge of the changed timeline - it still makes no sense that they could step outside their universe and understand "how timelines work."

[JarodRussell]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

A straight reboot would have had no emotional connection to TOS.

As if that new target audience of current teens had any emotional connection to TOS.

The trailers were cool. And Sylar was in it. And Abrams directed it. That's why it was successful.

That the characters were called Kirk and Spock is totally irrelevant.

[urbandk]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

My pet theory is that timelines can never be restored to exactly the original - that's like unscrambling an egg - so that every time Trek time-travelled, an alternate timeline was created, and we started following those characters, leaving the originals in the dust, it's just that nobody noticed the difference before now.

And the only reason we noticed now is because the writers gave the characters weird, preternatural knowledge of the changed timeline