Can we drop the "alternate timeline" nonsense?

[Pauln6]

I thought that the alternate timeline was a clever way of doing a reboot. My issue is more that when doing a reboot, you should put the right amount of effort into retaining the core of the original.

The recent Terminator reboot was very well done (temporal illogic aside). The principal thing that grated for me was Kyle Reese. Instead of a slightly under-nourished, ragged, desperate, but clearly intelligent hero, we got a clean-cut, chiseled, slow on the uptake, muscle-bound hero. The reboot of that character lost a bit too much of the original for my tastes.

Battlestar Galactica jettisoned 90% of the original but because it was a franchise with a smaller fan base, they kept enough of the core to be recognisable, because much of the original was pure cheese, and because the reboot was intelligent, with themes relevant to the modern world, and was really, really well done, they got away with it.

Star Trek is a very different beast. I have really enjoyed the reboot but the issue for me is that the original ship was so iconic, I wished that they had updated it far FAR less than they have. I wish that they had made the original recurring female characters more rounded and more relevant, instead of jettisoning them almost entirely, and I wish they had just upped the science quotient a bit and had given us something more like Balance of Terror instead of Independence day. We only see brief flashes of TOS Kirk, much of that to Pine's credit in his performance. I wish I recognised him more.

I'm fine with the alternate timeline, however.

 

[Mage]

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.

This, to me, says it all. I'm fine with it, they mentioned it once, and used it to have a scene with Nimoy in STiD. That's it. It's not like they remark on it all the time.

And really, I don't care about it either. I take the movies for what they are; a new take on Kirk and crew. Cool with me.

 

[martok2112]

I take the movies for what they are; a new take on Kirk and crew. Cool with me.

^This.

 

[Mudd]

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


.

No it's not. It's a Star Trek movie in a new version of the continuity.

As others have said more succinctly than I, the AU is just a plot point in the first movie. Judging anything about the films through the lens of "does this satisfy my personal notion of how an alternate timeline works" is a dumb waste of time.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The conceit that TNG was set in the same universe as TOS, but the better part of a century later, was also a similar fig leaf, evidently to avoid doing the whole thing as a hard reboot. That was despite the fact that certain integral elements, such as Data, would have been more plausible had it been handled that way. The movies with the TOS cast also make better sense if one forgoes trying to reconcile their respective continuities with TOS's to the nth degree. So, yeah, fig leaves such as nominally keeping things in continuity spare our fragile minds from the shock of full frontal realities and stuff.

 

[Mudd]

Exactly so.

 

[Timewalker]

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?

The nuTrek movies present themselves as an alternate reality from Star Trek (TOS) and all its TV series spinoffs merely by having the scenes with Nimoy-Spock explaining what has occurred (in the 2009 movie) and in the nuSpock/Original Spock scene in STiD.

So with first two nuTrek movies stating themselves, in-story, that they take place in an alternate universe, why should we pretend they don't take place in an alternate universe from Original Star Trek?

In short: NuTrek started it.

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.

That's because they take place in the same historical continuity as TOS. Same universe, only later (or earlier, in the case of Enterprise).

NuTrek does not take place in the same universe. There were too many negative changes for it to resonate with me as "real Star Trek", so I don't think of it as any more than glorified fan fiction that happened to get professionally produced.

 

[martok2112]

No such thing as "real Star Trek".
Real Star Trek is an oxymoron.

 

[Timewalker]

No such thing as "real Star Trek".
Real Star Trek is an oxymoron.

NuTrek doesn't feel like Star Trek should feel - to me. That makes it "less real" to me. If it feels like genuine Star Trek to you, groovy. Watch and enjoy yourself.

That doesn't make my opinion wrong, and I'm not the one telling other people what to think.

 

[Mage]

No such thing as "real Star Trek".
Real Star Trek is an oxymoron.

NuTrek doesn't feel like Star Trek should feel - to me. That makes it "less real" to me. If it feels like genuine Star Trek to you, groovy. Watch and enjoy yourself.

That doesn't make my opinion wrong, and I'm not the one telling other people what to think.

But that's the point. There are some out there who will not use the words 'to me'. They keep insisting that they are right, and this nuTrek isn't real. End of story. They get mad when fans say they like this incarnation of Star Trek.

On the other hand, they are also people that love this new version, and get angry at people who hate it, and they also insist they are right and that people who hate are idiots.

Both sides are unwilling to accept the opinions of the other side.

Me, I'm the one saying, everyone has a right to an opinion, as long you realize it's just that; an opinion. It's not gospel. It's not set in stone. Just because you feel a certain way, everyone else should. Respect that others feel. And that goes for both sides.

 

[Timewalker]

No such thing as "real Star Trek".
Real Star Trek is an oxymoron.

NuTrek doesn't feel like Star Trek should feel - to me. That makes it "less real" to me. If it feels like genuine Star Trek to you, groovy. Watch and enjoy yourself.

That doesn't make my opinion wrong, and I'm not the one telling other people what to think.

But that's the point. There are some out there who will not use the words 'to me'. They keep insisting that they are right, and this nuTrek isn't real. End of story. They get mad when fans say they like this incarnation of Star Trek.

On the other hand, they are also people that love this new version, and get angry at people who hate it, and they also insist they are right and that people who hate are idiots.

Both sides are unwilling to accept the opinions of the other side.

Me, I'm the one saying, everyone has a right to an opinion, as long you realize it's just that; an opinion. It's not gospel. It's not set in stone. Just because you feel a certain way, everyone else should. Respect that others feel. And that goes for both sides.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I have some very emphatic opinions of nuTrek. But as I know that there are movies (and Star Trek series) I like that others don't, I've never told people not to like nuTrek if that's their cup of tea. I reserve my criticism for the characters, story, and the people involved in making the movies.

 

[Mage]

NuTrek doesn't feel like Star Trek should feel - to me. That makes it "less real" to me. If it feels like genuine Star Trek to you, groovy. Watch and enjoy yourself.

That doesn't make my opinion wrong, and I'm not the one telling other people what to think.

But that's the point. There are some out there who will not use the words 'to me'. They keep insisting that they are right, and this nuTrek isn't real. End of story. They get mad when fans say they like this incarnation of Star Trek.

On the other hand, they are also people that love this new version, and get angry at people who hate it, and they also insist they are right and that people who hate are idiots.

Both sides are unwilling to accept the opinions of the other side.

Me, I'm the one saying, everyone has a right to an opinion, as long you realize it's just that; an opinion. It's not gospel. It's not set in stone. Just because you feel a certain way, everyone else should. Respect that others feel. And that goes for both sides.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I have some very emphatic opinions of nuTrek. But as I know that there are movies (and Star Trek series) I like that others don't, I've never told people not to like nuTrek if that's their cup of tea. I reserve my criticism for the characters, story, and the people involved in making the movies.

I never ment to imply that you yourself have made the kind of comments I spoke of. I ment that there are people who do.

 

[martok2112]

NuTrek doesn't feel like Star Trek should feel - to me. That makes it "less real" to me. If it feels like genuine Star Trek to you, groovy. Watch and enjoy yourself.

That doesn't make my opinion wrong, and I'm not the one telling other people what to think.

But that's the point. There are some out there who will not use the words 'to me'. They keep insisting that they are right, and this nuTrek isn't real. End of story. They get mad when fans say they like this incarnation of Star Trek.

On the other hand, they are also people that love this new version, and get angry at people who hate it, and they also insist they are right and that people who hate are idiots.

Both sides are unwilling to accept the opinions of the other side.

Me, I'm the one saying, everyone has a right to an opinion, as long you realize it's just that; an opinion. It's not gospel. It's not set in stone. Just because you feel a certain way, everyone else should. Respect that others feel. And that goes for both sides.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I have some very emphatic opinions of nuTrek. But as I know that there are movies (and Star Trek series) I like that others don't, I've never told people not to like nuTrek if that's their cup of tea. I reserve my criticism for the characters, story, and the people involved in making the movies.

Perhaps the term "proper Star Trek" would come across a bit better.

 

[F. King Daniel]

"Old Star Trek"

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

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

No it's not. It's a Star Trek movie in a new version of the continuity.

Same thing, basically.

 

[JWPlatt]

No one ever disputed TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT as not being "Star Trek".

I've seen many posts on these forums saying they aren't "Star Trek."

 

[C.E. Evans]

No one ever disputed TNG, DS9, VOY, or ENT as not being "Star Trek".

I've seen many posts on these forums saying they aren't "Star Trek."

I remember someone saying once that TOS wasn't "Star Trek" either...

 

[F. King Daniel]

Every new incarnation of Trek has been given the "not real Trek!" treatment at one time or another. Everyone who thinks they're part of some special anti-reboot revolution is really just the latest part of an endless cycle. References available on request (can't be arsed to dig the links out unless someone actually cares)

 

[Timewalker]

But that's the point. There are some out there who will not use the words 'to me'. They keep insisting that they are right, and this nuTrek isn't real. End of story. They get mad when fans say they like this incarnation of Star Trek.

On the other hand, they are also people that love this new version, and get angry at people who hate it, and they also insist they are right and that people who hate are idiots.

Both sides are unwilling to accept the opinions of the other side.

Me, I'm the one saying, everyone has a right to an opinion, as long you realize it's just that; an opinion. It's not gospel. It's not set in stone. Just because you feel a certain way, everyone else should. Respect that others feel. And that goes for both sides.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I have some very emphatic opinions of nuTrek. But as I know that there are movies (and Star Trek series) I like that others don't, I've never told people not to like nuTrek if that's their cup of tea. I reserve my criticism for the characters, story, and the people involved in making the movies.

Perhaps the term "proper Star Trek" would come across a bit better.

Why? In my opinion, people who use the expression "real Star Trek" aren't saying it literally doesn't exist. I know the 2009 movie and STiD exist because I watched them.

 

[Relayer1]

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.

No. It is what it is.

A reboot would have been fine but TPTB set up the alternate timeline thing, so it's binding. If they'd made it a reboot, it'd be a reboot.

We don't get to decide. I'd like Trek V to not have been made. I'd have liked TNG to have not made any movies at all. They are all canon.

Not up to me.

Or you.