Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by serenitytrek1, Feb 22, 2013.
What, do you mean it isn't already?
You know, I think some of the TNG cast would be much less bitter if those shitty TNG movies were never made!
As a franchise, yeah. I think his statement is pretty face-value in regards to the rest, though.
Not so much him, but I'm baffled at the fans (not sure how many there are) who seem to have missed the words "alternate reality" in that pivotal bridge scene.
dying. absolutely dying.
But why would they need to? Would Romulus and old Spock really be that important to the story?
Next thing you know he'll be saying midichlorians erased the Force.
Some people are just unteachable.
I've never heard of them either but little freebie stat sites like that are hardly ever accurate.
Out of curiosity I just plugged in the domains of a few sites I know very well and the information is completely wrong. Especially when you compare the same sites on a site like Zoominfo and discover that they have an annual revenue of over 10 million dollars.
Well, that's just non canon meta-information nobody really cares for and that has just been said to make hardcore fans less butthurt. The old timeline is gone, doesn't matter what someone says off screen. If they wanted to make it clear to everyone, they could have said it within the film itself.
You mean like
Uhura: "Like an alternate reality."
Zoe Saldana: "And I would just like to interrupt the film for a second and add that all you nerds can still go home and hug your TNG DVDs."
You see, they really didn't have to do anything like that. For most of us, it was implied ... or common sense.
No, it isn't gone, and it doesn't matter what someone ( you ) says off screen. Your personal beliefs didn't somehow become more "canon" than those of the STXI creators and Star Trek Online.
It would seem the existence of the new timeline hinging entirely on events that happened in the old timeline would somehow seep into the conscious thought of those who think the old timeline is gone.
I watched Contagion last night. It didn't evaporate or disappear from reality when Star Trek 2009 was released.
How could it be gone?
If someone decided they wanted to make a TNG film continuing on with the TNG story where it last left off, they could do so and nobody would say:
"Hey!! That timeline doesn't exist!!!" Instead they will just say: "Hey! Another TNG story!"
As I said before in another post, someone could certainly continue the TNG story if they wanted. There is nothing "artistically speaking" that is stopping them. Whether or not it would be commercially viable is another story, but Abrams' films don't adversely affect that commercial viability, either.
What it comes down to is this: Do you actually believe that it is no longer possible to make another TNG story based in the old TNG universe? And if you do, are you saying it can't be done solely because of the story that unfolded in ST2009?
The "old" timeline was even shown in the movie in the mind meld between Spock Prime and Kirk. In the "old" timeline, Spock readies the jellyfish with the red matter to try to save Romulus and the rest of the galaxy from the super-duper nova. He is able to stop the supernova, but not before Romulus is destroyed. Spock Prime and Nero were pulled into the black hole created by the red matter. When Nero emerged first, he was in the "old" timeline, but his presence created the "new" one rather than changing the "old" one. It branched off to create its own unique future.
Back in the "old" timeline, nothing that happened in ST09 happened there. The 25th century is approaching, Riker still captains the Titan, Picard may be an ambassador, Romulus has been destroyed but Vulcan exists, Spock Prime is missing and probably presumed dead, and so is Nero. Vulcan and the rest of the Federation will probably pay tribute to Spock Prime's heroic act of sacrificing himself for the safety of the galaxy.
Now, if you're saying the old timeline is gone as in "because of ST09, any more new Trek will take place in the new universe where it's possible Picard and the others are never even born," then you're just speculating.
As plenty of others have said, there are now actually two Trek universes to play in. The commercial viability of the first one may have played out for now, but that doesn't mean it's gone as in it can never be revisited if the time is ripe and people want to see those characters again.
Yes. This is the main point here...
If a time comes that Picard and his crew can be the characters of a commercially viable film, then people won't give a damn whether or not that universe should or shouldn't exist. They'll just sit in their theater seats and watch the movie.
To be honest with you, I don't really care if ST2009 was an alternate timeline/universe or not. I would STILL be able to enjoy a well-done future TNG story told in the prime universe even if Abrams film was a straight 100% reboot that ignored the alternate universe idea. However, if someone is so inclined to care, then they do have the fact that Abrams crew is in an alternate universe, and the prime universe is still intact the way we last saw it.
Although it escapes me how someone would not allow themselves to enjoy a potential new TNG film set in the prime universe even if ST2009 was a reboot.
One more thing...does LeVar Burton think the TNG TV series should have no longer gone on after the episode "Parallels" in which one of the alternate universe Enterprises blew up?
You know Trek fans. Always willing to go for the easy "well I would never" until there's the choice of "hmm, more Star Trek, or no more Star Trek".
I know which I prefer.
Don't be delusional, there will never be another TNG film.
Certainly not one starring Stewart, Frakes, Spiner etc... but I wouldn't be too shocked if TNG was remade one day in film or TV form.
Most likely not (at least not one with the original cast).
However, despite what LeVar Burton says, the reason for that has nothing whatsoever to do with the story details of ST2009. In fact, my serious doubt about there ever being another TNG film starring that cast started long before ST2009 ever came out. TNG starring Burton, Stewart, Spiner, et al. may be dead, but Abrams did not kill it.
If anything, the potential continued success of AbramsTrek may give a ray of hope to some future ST projects -- perhaps maybe a TNG re-visit in several years (albeit with a different cast, most likely).
I have to wonder how much of the angst against "new Trek," from the old Trek actors is because their "stock," and thus earning ability is being diminished at Trek conventions - book signings - etc with the popularity of JJ's Trek? Every new ittiration of Trek I'd imagine makes former Trek stars less significant and less bankable.
If you will, Star Trek 2009 cost Patrick Stewart 20 million dollars.
It could easily be argued that sticking his nose into the writing process of Insurrection and Nemesis cost him future Trek paychecks.
Separate names with a comma.