RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,392
Posts: 5,505,437
Members: 25,129
Currently online: 426
Newest member: oorang

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 8 2014, 02:47 PM   #196
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
Honestly though, I do wish the filmmakers had done a simple hard reboot. It might have upset fans, but I think it would have been for the better to let this incarnation truly stand on its own rather than go with all this alternate timeline business and Nimoy's fan-service appearance.
I like both of the JJ-films, but yeah I do kind of agree that the incorporation of the 'alternative universe' subplot feels like a tacky way for them to try and have their cake and eat it too. Perhaps feeling like it was skating on pretty thin ice to try and reboot Star Trek so thoroughly, they came up with a compromise that still allowed them to fit it into the established canon (however haphazardly).

On some level I do feel Nimoy's cameo is on a level with Shatner's cameo in Generations (let's be honest: Shatner's role in Generations *is* still basically a cameo). It's there to reassure the bean-counters at Paramount that all the exits have been covered, that people will be eased gently into accepting that these new guys are taking over the franchise from here out, so even if a member of the audience has never seen an episode of The Next Generation before they feel reassured that the "baton has been passed". So too does Nimoy's cameo feel like a sop to the fanbase: "Don't worry guys, Leonard's totally on-board with this and is okay with the changes, so all of you in the fanbase can all rest easy that the future of Star Trek is in safe hands".

(Yeah I know. It's a cynical viewpoint. )

Doing a 'hard reboot' (as you put it) would have been far more of a risk. And movie studios don't like risk. It might have borne greater fruits had it paid off, but it could equally have alienated people. Which is probably why somebody stepped in and forced the 2009 movie to take the path of least resistance: a reboot which leaps through hoops to explain why it's a reboot within the main structure of its own plot.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2014, 03:43 PM   #197
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

Lance wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
Honestly though, I do wish the filmmakers had done a simple hard reboot. It might have upset fans, but I think it would have been for the better to let this incarnation truly stand on its own rather than go with all this alternate timeline business and Nimoy's fan-service appearance.
I like both of the JJ-films, but yeah I do kind of agree that the incorporation of the 'alternative universe' subplot feels like a tacky way for them to try and have their cake and eat it too. Perhaps feeling like it was skating on pretty thin ice to try and reboot Star Trek so thoroughly, they came up with a compromise that still allowed them to fit it into the established canon (however haphazardly).
Personally, I think it would have been a total reboot if there was still a "prime universe" TV series on the air or one that was in development at the time CBS and Viacom (owner of Paramount Pictures) went their separate ways. IMO, starting over with TOS was done more to revitalize Trek just as a movie franchise by Paramount than anything else.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2014, 07:00 PM   #198
patweb
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Location: California
Re: Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
Whatever the filmmakers intentions, I personally regard these two films as having nothing to do with any of the previous incarnations of Trek, except for Voyager. Honestly though, I do wish the filmmakers had done a simple hard reboot. It might have upset fans, but I think it would have been for the better to let this incarnation truly stand on its own rather than go with all this alternate timeline business and Nimoy's fan-service appearance.

I'm unsure how you draw that conclusion since ST:II the villain as Khan and ST:JJII the villain is Khan (it could have been anyone else in the universe, but they chose Khan).

I fully expect that Kirk will be shacking with Dr Marcus in the next film and we might even see a Genesis device. It's so complicated now by the time shifting that they felt the need for Spock to sort it out for everyone involved.

I liked the movies, I just think they could be more original since there is a huge base of untapped stories to tell on screen.

How much you wanna bet the Star Tours cruisers will be in Star Wars Episode VII, I think it's 100% likely.
patweb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8 2014, 10:47 PM   #199
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
Whatever the filmmakers intentions, I personally regard these two films as having nothing to do with any of the previous incarnations of Trek, except for Voyager.
Okay, I'm curious: the exception being made for Voyager, because... ?
Only in that universe/timeline could there be such a collection of bland and insufferable characters. Doc and Seven excepted, Prophets rest their souls.
Well, I suppose I should have seen that coming.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 03:44 AM   #200
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Lance wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
Honestly though, I do wish the filmmakers had done a simple hard reboot. It might have upset fans, but I think it would have been for the better to let this incarnation truly stand on its own rather than go with all this alternate timeline business and Nimoy's fan-service appearance.
I like both of the JJ-films, but yeah I do kind of agree that the incorporation of the 'alternative universe' subplot feels like a tacky way for them to try and have their cake and eat it too. Perhaps feeling like it was skating on pretty thin ice to try and reboot Star Trek so thoroughly, they came up with a compromise that still allowed them to fit it into the established canon (however haphazardly).
Personally, I think it would have been a total reboot if there was still a "prime universe" TV series on the air or one that was in development at the time CBS and Viacom (owner of Paramount Pictures) went their separate ways. IMO, starting over with TOS was done more to revitalize Trek just as a movie franchise by Paramount than anything else.
Hmm, I actually suspect there is some truth to the idea that Paramount seems to look at the Trek features and the Trek TV shows as being quite different things. The reality is that the Trek movies have got a much bigger mass-market appeal than the TV series, because more people around the world are likely to have bought a movie ticket or hired them out from the video store than they are to have sat down for the TV shows. So in terms of revitalizing the overall 'brand', looking to doing so in the movies would always IMO be the way to go, because they'd have more chance of reaching the biggest audience possible.

As you say, because of the lack of a regular TV series at the time, JJTrek maybe felt compelled to throw a bone to the prime universe somehow, whereas I think there would probably have been some larger degree of major league differentiation if there were still TV shows going on at the time.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 06:03 AM   #201
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

Lance wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
Honestly though, I do wish the filmmakers had done a simple hard reboot. It might have upset fans, but I think it would have been for the better to let this incarnation truly stand on its own rather than go with all this alternate timeline business and Nimoy's fan-service appearance.
I like both of the JJ-films, but yeah I do kind of agree that the incorporation of the 'alternative universe' subplot feels like a tacky way for them to try and have their cake and eat it too. Perhaps feeling like it was skating on pretty thin ice to try and reboot Star Trek so thoroughly, they came up with a compromise that still allowed them to fit it into the established canon (however haphazardly).

On some level I do feel Nimoy's cameo is on a level with Shatner's cameo in Generations (let's be honest: Shatner's role in Generations *is* still basically a cameo). It's there to reassure the bean-counters at Paramount that all the exits have been covered, that people will be eased gently into accepting that these new guys are taking over the franchise from here out, so even if a member of the audience has never seen an episode of The Next Generation before they feel reassured that the "baton has been passed". So too does Nimoy's cameo feel like a sop to the fanbase: "Don't worry guys, Leonard's totally on-board with this and is okay with the changes, so all of you in the fanbase can all rest easy that the future of Star Trek is in safe hands".

(Yeah I know. It's a cynical viewpoint. )

Not cynical at all, it's the truth. It's also a very smart move on their part if they want to try to reach for a broad audience that includes Trekkies. Unlike every incarnation of Trek that came out up to ENTERPRISE, this was the first time a Trek had a production crew that had never worked with Roddenberry. Trivial as that may be, it's reasonable to assume there would be fans skeptical of that. Bringing in Nimoy was a great way of trying to let the fanbase know that this would be as legitimate as what came before and not just another case of a greedy studio tainting a beloved franchise just to make a quick buck off a brand name.


patweb wrote: View Post
I'm unsure how you draw that conclusion since ST:II the villain as Khan and ST:JJII the villain is Khan (it could have been anyone else in the universe, but they chose Khan).
The way Khan was handled in STID only makes it even more evident to me that it's set in a parallel universe that has nothing in common with the "prime universe". The filmmakers might want you to think otherwise (from what I understand there's even a comic book that explains all that shit), but I don't find it all convincing that Cumberbatch is supposed to be the same guy that Montalbán played. It's a different universe as far as I'm concerned.

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Okay, I'm curious: the exception being made for Voyager, because... ?
Only in that universe/timeline could there be such a collection of bland and insufferable characters. Doc and Seven excepted, Prophets rest their souls.
Well, I suppose I should have seen that coming.
You couldn't have. You're only mortal.


MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 10:21 AM   #202
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

I've recently been reading through some old ScoTpress Enterprise Log fanzines and IDIC newsletters (online here) and find it amusing to read beneath the EL editorial, that story submissions would only be accepted for Trek set during the original series. Why? The editors don't don't buy the movies as real Star Trek. They accept alternate universe-set stories, but even those must be based purely on the series and not the movies (which at the time were I-III). In IDIC #1, one of the editors states that the only way she can accept the movies is as an alternate universe but she still doesn't like them and doesn't want to read stories about them.

The more things change...
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 10:32 AM   #203
MakeshiftPython
Captain
 
MakeshiftPython's Avatar
 
Location: Ladies love Riker's beard.
Re: Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

I get where they're coming from. I don't even acknowledge half of the films in my own personal canon.
MakeshiftPython is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 01:47 PM   #204
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

MakeshiftPython wrote: View Post
The way Khan was handled in STID only makes it even more evident to me that it's set in a parallel universe that has nothing in common with the "prime universe". The filmmakers might want you to think otherwise (from what I understand there's even a comic book that explains all that shit), but I don't find it all convincing that Cumberbatch is supposed to be the same guy that Montalbán played. It's a different universe as far as I'm concerned.
Which reminds me, I was recently talking to a co-worker who knows nothing about Star Trek. We were talking in general about how characters in movies these days are miscast with actors who don't fit the characters at all. I then mention "you know, the character Benedict Cumberbatch plays in Star Trek is supposed to be Indian." He asked "seriously?" I said "yes," and he just burst out laughing.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 01:49 PM   #205
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Rhovanion
Re: Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

MakeshiftPython wrote:
The way Khan was handled in STID only makes it even more evident to me that it's set in a parallel universe that has nothing in common with the "prime universe".
Yet they kept the original Eugenics Wars timeframe, in contradiction of actual history. This seems a strange thing to do, if one is indeed merrily setting off in a continuity free of restraints and having "nothing in common with the prime universe". Why not let the audience imagine that the events in the films could be taking place in our future, as science fiction tends to do? Then there is the way the famous reactor scene and the call to Spock Prime were handled. Just as in the 2009 film, we are presented more or less explicitly with the concept that the events in STID are occurring in an alternate timeline branching off from the prime. The reactor scene lampshades its similarity to TWOK in this way, complete with dialogue references to how things turned out in the other timeline ( the way things happened in TWOK ). We're seeing a reflection of what the writers think about time travel.

This all aside from the fact that we happen to know the intent of the franchise ( and the writers specifically ) on this issue. Thus, it is not particularly meaningful to claim that STID is set in a parallel universe having nothing in common with the prime. Isn't it the job of the writers to decide where or when a fictional product is "set"?
__________________
Whatever happens on earth, that up there, that's the endgame.
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2014, 09:56 PM   #206
EliyahuQeoni
Commodore
 
EliyahuQeoni's Avatar
 
Location: Redmond, Oregon, United States of America, North America, Earth, Sol System, Milky Way, Universe
View EliyahuQeoni's Twitter Profile
Re: Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
I've recently been reading through some old ScoTpress Enterprise Log fanzines and IDIC newsletters (online here) and find it amusing to read beneath the EL editorial, that story submissions would only be accepted for Trek set during the original series. Why? The editors don't don't buy the movies as real Star Trek. They accept alternate universe-set stories, but even those must be based purely on the series and not the movies (which at the time were I-III). In IDIC #1, one of the editors states that the only way she can accept the movies is as an alternate universe but she still doesn't like them and doesn't want to read stories about them.

The more things change...
The good old days. I knew people who insisted (and some that still do) that TNG wasn't the "real" future of TOS, but just a "possible future" because they thought it strayed too much from "Real Star Trek."

This is why I don't much bother to argue with people who declare the latest iteration of Trek to not be "Real Star Trek." The same complaint has been made against every version of Trek since TOS went off the air (and even in the 70s I recall theories in Trek magazine that not all of the TOS episodes happened in the same universe!).
__________________
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'." - Leonard Nimoy
EliyahuQeoni is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.