Can we drop the "alternate timeline" nonsense?

Seriously, how important is this make-believe that Star Trek stories represent some kind of "reality" and that deviations from the old versions of the show have to be accounted for within continuity?

A few years after the last Trek series was cancelled on television, Paramount and J.J. Abrams decided that the best way to revive it was to start over by recasting and recreating the original with Kirk and Spock. The writers concocted this "alternate timeline" thing.

But it's a fig leaf; that's all it ever was.

Fifty years ago, Star Trek was a particular thing produced in a particular way appropriate to that time and medium. A half century later it's a very different property. Trek's not an exception to any rule of the entertainment industry; everything has changed during that time. That's why nuTrek is different from TOS, and really no more justification or rationalization is needed than that one.

TL;DR: Remember that it's just a show; we really should relax.

 

I was just going to post

"NOPE"

But I think at this point I would have just preferred an honest reboot, if there is such a thing. But it wouldn't have had Leonard Nimoy in it without some other mechanism.

 

Fuck the "alternate timeline" label!

The wisdom is with MST3000.

Seriously, especially for those of us who can remember 1966 to 1969, that we get to see new adventures of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy at all is a treat we should enjoy like a Thanksgiving feast. That so much of the changes are window dressing and the characters and basic premises are much the same is even better, and maybe does speak positively about the entertainment value of Roddenberry's creation at its core.

 

Why would we drop the notion about an alternate timeline? That is exactly what the Abramsverse is.

True, you don't have to keep mentioning the fact that it's an alternate timeline, but it doesn't change the fact that IT IS ONE.

 

Oh good God but it's different.

If you enjoy the latest interpretations of Trek this make many of us quite happy, and (if I might say) you should be equally happy for those of us who enjoy digging deeply into the fantasy worlds of our favorite television shows, books and movies.

Have you ever visited some of the web sites devoted to the Matrix movie series? They make our fun investigations and discussions of the two Abrams movie seem like surface level scratches.

To directly answer the question posed by the title of this thread ... no.

 

Another no, and it's not nonsense because it was established as such onscreen and was what actually started the whole chain of events in Star Trek XI.

Alternate realities/alternate timelines/parallel universes are nothing new--either in Star Trek or in science-fiction in general. The only difference is that we continue to see how one unfolds rather than go back to the original. It is what it is, regardless if one likes it or not.

 

Exactly. The Abramsverse was laid out as an alternate timeline from the get go. Why would we want to forget that now?

 

If Marvel and DC fans still get to acknowledge separate continuities as such, than Trek fans have every right to acknowledge the Abrams movies as an alternate timeline.

Besides, Trek XI made the fact they were in an alternate timeline a plot point. Kind of hard to "drop that nonsense" after that.

 

To deny that differences between nuTrek stories and the TOS stories are due to the two things being produced in two different eras of film technology and American entertainment & culture would be denying reality of the 'real world'. Connecting the two eras of story-telling by means of a tale involving the creation of an alternate reality does not give me any heartburn, though. I support it and see no need to drop that part of the story-telling.

I grew up watching TOS and everything that came after it, and while I am not the the type of fan who obsesses over explanations of inconsistencies like James R. Kirk, lithium crystals, UESPA, and when Earth first encountered Klingons or the Borg, I do appreciate -and most times enjoy- when writers try to keep the tapestry of that Universe intact. The Alternate Reality concept keeps TOS intact in all its wonderful, frustrating, and flawed consistencies yet and allows for more flexibility in telling new stories in these new productions.

I am satisfied with the way J.J. and crew decided to explain the 'In-Universe' differences. And yet I do agree that it would be a good idea for everyone to remember it is just a show and we should all just relax!

 

Doesn't that philosophy go against the mandate of this forum?

 

Dennis is, like, my favorite person.

I guess I don't really disagree with responses like The Wormhole's just the same. It's a thing, as stated in the plot, and all that associated jazz. It isn't a thing that enhances or detracts from my enjoyment of the new films, though, and I absolutely concur with Dennis that it isn't important enough to be used as fire against (or even fuel in support of) these movies. It's just a plot point.

Above that, it's just a "fig leaf."

Above all, it's just a show.

 

Oh, so close.

 

...whoops. Ahem. Correcting.

 

Yep. Plot point. Plot point. Plot point. The mother of all "Star Trek" plot points. Hell, if they started with the comic stories as TNG episodes, it could've been the spin off of all spin offs. Imagine a TNG episode version of ST09 ending with the birth of James T. Kirk.

Apparently, it was time to move along in the minds of those who made the decisions of what was best for the franchise. The valentine they gave us was they didn't destroy everything that came first. But while Dennis can certainly speak for himself, I thing the point he raises for the real (people watching entertainment) world is a big, "So what?" This is what "Star Trek" is now, and it's the first time anyone has disputed it as "Star Trek". No one ever disputed TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT as not being "Star Trek". This is a first.

 

I was never a big fan of the notion of the "alternate timeline" premise anyway.

They wanted to reboot Trek, and they tried to give the Trek fans a gift with the explanation. It did not really work with the hard core trekkies.

If it had been my call I would have gone totally Batman Begins on the series. A fresh start with absolutely no ties to previous continuity, and completely reworking everything from the ground up. Taking all the strongest bits of character we had garnered about the original crew and telling a refined story based on that.

 

There's a lot of fixations here that I personally find a waste of time, but at this point I'm far more annoyed by the various posts that seem to want to police what does or doesn't constitute a 'worthwhile' topic of discussion, or what's worthwhile for folks to spend their time thinking about – as though casting that judgement against people isn't the most arrogant goddamn thing in the universe. Or, to put it another way: I remember the old days of the Enterprise forum, when the series was still on the air and the forum filled with Stewie types (remember him?) who did nothing but complain about how the show wasn't doing what they wanted the way they wanted, or that it was focusing on the wrong topics, or the continuity was messed up, or whatever, and the response to that – quite reasonably – was, if you don't like what the series is doing, don't gripe about it. Just take a break and stop watching.

So, in a similar vein, I think if someone doesn't like what gets discussed here, just take a break and stop reading.

 

So ... rather than an alternative Star Trek timeline, you propose to have a timeline for Star Trek which is an alternative. This is an intriguing concept.

 

I don't mind it. I just wish a certain section of the fanbase would stop obsessing over "fixing the timeline", insisting the timelines diverged differently to what the movie depicts and other similar minutae. It's like they can suspend their disbelief for all the other crazy inconsistant crap that happens in the previous 700 episodes and ten movies, but not the latest four hours? It's ridiculous.

 

This thread is in my top fifteen of pointless threads. Maybe 10.