Can we drop the "alternate timeline" nonsense?
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
Either way... "Real Star Trek" or "Proper Star Trek" or whatever qualifier one wishes to use to somehow indicate that the Trek they like is the ONLY Trek that matters can come across as combative and (ill-fittingly) condescending to those with a wider palate.
I can understand if a person (such as Timewalker....with my apologies) says: "It's not real Trek to me." That? Ok, I'll accept that view, since they speak for themselves and no one else.
But when the jackasses who try to proclaim : "NO! TOS (or Prime Universe) Trek is the only, the real, the proper Star Trek, and if you believe otherwise, then you don't know what Trek is about!", that's when I feel pity for such folk...because they sap the life and fun out of fandom.
It's a vicious circle that will never end.
I can understand if a person (such as Timewalker....with my apologies) says: "It's not real Trek to me." That? Ok, I'll accept that view, since they speak for themselves and no one else.
But when the jackasses who try to proclaim : "NO! TOS (or Prime Universe) Trek is the only, the real, the proper Star Trek, and if you believe otherwise, then you don't know what Trek is about!", that's when I feel pity for such folk...because they sap the life and fun out of fandom.
It's a vicious circle that will never end.
The reboot being an alternate reality is, like, an important plot point and to be honest, it's what I like the most about the reboot!
We can't just ignore the fact that the reboot is set in a different reality because you actually have not only lines acknowledging that, but you also have a character (Spock) who co-exists in this reality with another version of himself from another reality (Spock Prime), thus the latter being a reminder of the fact that another reality does exist and that character comes from that.
I like the idea of different realities and the fact they can explore 'what if' scenarios with the characters because of the changes happened in this reality.
You can say that all reboots and remakes are, in a way, alternate realities compared to the original, but the writers making THAT a plot point in the story was genius to me and I'm not sure that pretending this point doesn't exist would be a good idea.
If we were on wikipedia writing articles about the trek movies, they'd tell us to not confuse the fictional universe's pov (the story) with the real world perspective (e.g.,the main purpose of the reboot was being different from the old thing regardless the fact that it's called alternate reality).
+1
I agree with this.
I think a certain section of the fanbase is obsessed about 'fixing the timeline' because it still doesn't compute to them that the reboot being an alternate reality doesn't mean the tos one got deleted or rewritten. The two realities co-exist and, I dare to say, might even connect to each other through time travel if the writers want to.
We can't just ignore the fact that the reboot is set in a different reality because you actually have not only lines acknowledging that, but you also have a character (Spock) who co-exists in this reality with another version of himself from another reality (Spock Prime), thus the latter being a reminder of the fact that another reality does exist and that character comes from that.
I like the idea of different realities and the fact they can explore 'what if' scenarios with the characters because of the changes happened in this reality.
You can say that all reboots and remakes are, in a way, alternate realities compared to the original, but the writers making THAT a plot point in the story was genius to me and I'm not sure that pretending this point doesn't exist would be a good idea.
If we were on wikipedia writing articles about the trek movies, they'd tell us to not confuse the fictional universe's pov (the story) with the real world perspective (e.g.,the main purpose of the reboot was being different from the old thing regardless the fact that it's called alternate reality).
+1
I agree with this.
I think a certain section of the fanbase is obsessed about 'fixing the timeline' because it still doesn't compute to them that the reboot being an alternate reality doesn't mean the tos one got deleted or rewritten. The two realities co-exist and, I dare to say, might even connect to each other through time travel if the writers want to.
I think Dennis has enough gas for his torch already.
Yep. It's a hinge point, and was a way to give a gimmie to the fans to say "hey, that stuff you liked isn't gone, it's just discontinued." It's almost like somebody on the writing staff was just enough of a Trek fan to know that somebody was going to need to hear that...and some people STILL missed it...and still take massive steaming dumps on it in the form of "HOW DARE THEY ERASE MY TREK".
True, one can't deny it is a different universe within story, as it was called one in ST09. But as fans, calling the Abrams movies an "alternate timeline" also suggests a return to the other one, or stories in both is possible. The Abrams stuff is just a diversion. Just another mirror universe. A new Trek series could come on TV and take up where ENT or TNG left off, or be somewhere in between.
But thinking of it as a "new version of the continuity" means what we see now will be where all future Trek stories done on the big and/or little screen by Paramount and/or CBS will take place. (Or they'll ignore all continuity and the idea of any "timeline" will be moot.) The "prime timeline" is likely gone for good in that sense. So, the creation of Abrams is not an alternate in a business sense that they will switch between it and the other or use both at once. It's a replacement of it. Any fans or novel writers wanting to play in the former one are welcome to, but otherwise, it's not getting revisited.
But thinking of it as a "new version of the continuity" means what we see now will be where all future Trek stories done on the big and/or little screen by Paramount and/or CBS will take place. (Or they'll ignore all continuity and the idea of any "timeline" will be moot.) The "prime timeline" is likely gone for good in that sense. So, the creation of Abrams is not an alternate in a business sense that they will switch between it and the other or use both at once. It's a replacement of it. Any fans or novel writers wanting to play in the former one are welcome to, but otherwise, it's not getting revisited.
This chaos, confusion, and frustration expressed in the last dozen posts is exactly why I wish the writers hadn't been as generous as they were to the fanbase.
No. I'm saying I would have preferred a Star Trek relaunch which pretended that no previous Star Trek ever existed. Start from scratch. No wormholes to alternate realities required.
Just Kirk, Spock, Bones, The Enterprise, doing the Star Trek thing. Building a Trek purely for the 21st Century. Not keeping anything else in continuity. Just the biggest broad strokes. You could completely rework the future history, and rework many of the supporting characters. Make Chapel an MD that McCoy works with on the ship full time as an equal, and have their different styles of medicine clash. The age old "Make Scotty a woman." Whatever you want.
Exactly as Batman 89 and Batman Begins have nothing to do with each other at all in any way except for being about Batman. Adam West doesn't jump through a portal in Quahog that takes him to Gotham to let Christian Bale know he needs to become Batman.
A silly example down to a nuance. In a complete reboot, assuming you even had the character, I would get rid of Chekov's kitsch accent. Bye bye Nuclear Wessels.
No. I'm saying I would have preferred a Star Trek relaunch which pretended that no previous Star Trek ever existed. Start from scratch. No wormholes to alternate realities required.
Just Kirk, Spock, Bones, The Enterprise, doing the Star Trek thing. Building a Trek purely for the 21st Century. Not keeping anything else in continuity. Just the biggest broad strokes. You could completely rework the future history, and rework many of the supporting characters. Make Chapel an MD that McCoy works with on the ship full time as an equal, and have their different styles of medicine clash. The age old "Make Scotty a woman." Whatever you want.
Exactly as Batman 89 and Batman Begins have nothing to do with each other at all in any way except for being about Batman. Adam West doesn't jump through a portal in Quahog that takes him to Gotham to let Christian Bale know he needs to become Batman.
A silly example down to a nuance. In a complete reboot, assuming you even had the character, I would get rid of Chekov's kitsch accent. Bye bye Nuclear Wessels.
I personally think it WAS an honest reboot and the "parallel universe" bit was just charity for a fanbase that is overly obsessed with world-building.
The "consensus" in fandom is that the parallel universe is basically the canon explanation, but I'd just as soon believe that "Spockprime" and Young Spock are the same person after all; that when Youngspock asks him "How did you defeat him?" Spock Prime answers something to the effect of, "The torpedoes are the key. You do still have them, don't you?"
Something used to cover an embarrassment? I agree.
Nope seconded.
An embarrassment? Star Trek (2009) was the most liked and highest grossing Star Trek movie up to that point.
I'm sure Paramount will take that kind of embarrassment every day of the week.
Correct. I think he meant to say olive branch, but I could be wrong.
Hey now, I corrected "big leaf" to "fig leaf." I stand by "fig leaf."
Fig leaves are great.
Fig leaves are great.
See with both of those side by side you could have a double "Nope" for extra impact. Ricardo's being red might even give it a false 3D effect.
Similar threads
