Impact of Discovery on post ST4 new Trek movies

[Balok's Decoy]

If I had a nickel for every newbie who got on this board to talk about how Abrams destroyed the franchise, I could become a premium member.

Seriously though, the old "it's not Star Trek because I personally don't like it and I'm the biggest Trekkie ever so my word is law!" is probably the most boring non-starter comment on this board. Can we all move on from this tired topic that never goes anywhere? So you hate the KT and you think it ruined Star Trek. Whoop-dee-doo. Join the club. I could name a half dozen episodes dumber than anything in the KT but they're all still Star Trek.

 

[Anthoney]

This doesn't even make sense. What was Abrams supposed to do, break out the styrofoam and cardboard? The characters and setting are easily recognizable as "Star Trek" to this long time fan.

In general I've always felt that Star Trek was always best in TV format. The movies were like giant bonus Easter eggs for the fans and to give the hard working TV actors some scratch to retire on. But this has gotten way off topic. My point was that Discovery will have no effect/interaction with ST4 or any of the other new movies because Discovery is in the real timeline not the Kelvin.

 

[Anthoney]

If I had a nickle for every newbie who got on this board to talk about how Abrams destroyed the franchise, I could become a premium member.

Seriously though, the old "it's not Star Trek because I personally don't like it and I'm the biggest Trekkie ever so my word is law!" is probably the most boring non-starter comment on this board. Can we all move on from this tired topic that never goes anywhere? So you hate the KT and you think it ruined Star Trek. Whoop-dee-doo. Join the club. I could name a half dozen episodes dumber than anything in the KT but they're all still Star Trek.

I never said hate that's your word. I never said my word is law. I expressed my personal feelings on the matter. I'm against reboots/remakes of just about anything. They almost always mean that whoever's involved can't come up with a new idea but they want to make sure you watch and or spends money on it. Wait till someone decides to reboot The Godfather or the original Star Wars. I'll be against them and so will a lot of other people.

Unlike you, who aggressively attacked me personally, I only expressed my opinions about Star Trek.

 

[donners22]

They almost always mean that whoever's involved can't come up with a new idea but they want to make sure you watch and or spends money on it

Trek didn't need a reboot to do that. TOS was repeating itself after a couple of dozen episodes, TMP was an ugly mash of four TOS episodes with a tone borrowed from one film and an ending ripped from another, and Trek tropes were run into the ground by TNG and Voyager.

As for aggressive attacks, that seemed to be just what you were trolling for.

 

[BillJ]

Wait till someone decides to reboot The Godfather or the original Star Wars. I'll be against them and so will a lot of other people.

Gotta tell you, I don't give a shit. More important things in the world than entertainment properties being rebooted.

Plus, there are plenty of original works out there and works adapted from literature like The Man in the High Castle and The Expanse. If Star Trek doesn't up its game in a major way, it'll end up being televised version of junk food.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I never said hate that's your word. I never said my word is law. I expressed my personal feelings on the matter. I'm against reboots/remakes of just about anything. They almost always mean that whoever's involved can't come up with a new idea but they want to make sure you watch and or spends money on it. Wait till someone decides to reboot The Godfather or the original Star Wars. I'll be against them and so will a lot of other people.

Unlike you, who aggressively attacked me personally, I only expressed my opinions about Star Trek.

Actually I didn't say anything about you personally. I was criticizing your comments, which are typical of "debates" that go nowhere and aren't conducive to interesting discussions, just meaningless back-and-forths. Like this, for example.

 

[F. King Daniel]

And this brings us to the other thread. From what we've seen so far, Discovery looks more like the recent movies than the original series. They're currently claiming it's set in the same continuity as the originals, but with all the changes theyre making, will it be close enough to appease @Anthoney and others?

 

[Balok's Decoy]

And this brings us to the other thread. From what we've seen so far, Discovery looks more like the recent movies than the original series. They're currently claiming it's set in the same continuity as the originals, but with all the changes theyre making, will it be close enough to appease @Anthoney and others?

I think they should focus on crafting stories they care about and think are worth telling, not what they think people want or what will appease fans.

EDIT: This is the difference between an artist and a salesman.

 

[Trekkin]

Gotta tell you, I don't give a shit. More important things in the world than entertainment properties being rebooted.

Plus, there are plenty of original works out there and works adapted from literature like The Man in the High Castle and The Expanse. If Star Trek doesn't up its game in a major way, it'll end up being televised version of junk food.

Plus, you know...The Godfather already is a derivative work.

And as far as I'm concerned, the movies were all the better because of their deviations from the source material.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I have a sneaking suspicion that while Discovery will be starting in the Prime timeline - so technically, Fuller and company didn't lie - it won't stay that way. The pictures of one of the sets are making me think that a divergence will occur almost immediately due to a ship from the future. So crossovers every which way will be fine, if done well.

 

[Ovation]

In general I've always felt that Star Trek was always best in TV format. The movies were like giant bonus Easter eggs for the fans and to give the hard working TV actors some scratch to retire on. But this has gotten way off topic. My point was that Discovery will have no effect/interaction with ST4 or any of the other new movies because Discovery is in the real timeline not the Kelvin.

Psst...Com'ere. Yes you. Over here. Got somethin' important to tell ya:

Spoiler

[whisper]None of it is "real".[/whisper]

Get the word out.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Given that some very intelligent people now believe that what we call "reality" is a holographic simulation, you'll excuse me for not taking your word on that.

 

[Shane Cathcart]

At what point does the Prime Universe become the Kelvin universe? Is it judged on the how big a change to the Prime timeline is (the destruction of Vulcan being a big one), or is it from the point the Narada first appears and whoops poor USS Kelvin? My thinking is that with the Narada still flying around the galaxy doing nothing at the time Star Trek: Discovery takes place, you can still say the series takes place in the Prime Universe even though Nero is lurking around waiting to turn it into the Kelvin universe.

 

[urbandefault]

The movies were like giant bonus Easter eggs for the fans ...

That's not what "easter egg" means.

... because Discovery is in the real timeline not the Kelvin.

You understand that it's all fiction, right? None of it is real.

 

[USS Triumphant]

At what point does the Prime Universe become the Kelvin universe? Is it judged on the how big a change to the Prime timeline is (the destruction of Vulcan being a big one), or is it from the point the Narada first appears and whoops poor USS Kelvin? My thinking is that with the Narada still flying around the galaxy doing nothing at the time Star Trek: Discovery takes place, you can still say the series takes place in the Prime Universe even though Nero is lurking around waiting to turn it into the Kelvin universe.

There are four possible answers that make sense to this question:
1. The point of quantum branching occurs when the Narada very first emerges from the wormhole. Everything that happens from that point forward is butterflied by that event from that point forward.
2. The Kelvinverse was *always* a parallel universe - the Narada and Spock Prime just shifted over (and back? maybe, but not necessarily if that universe was out of temporal sync with the Prime one to begin with).
3. Some previous temporal event, such as the events of "Star Trek: First Contact" or events shown on "Enterprise" as part of the Temporal Cold War, had *already* been the branching point for the Kelvinverse - and the Narada and Spock Prime only shifted over while going back through the wormhole.
4. (Proposed by Simon Pegg, if that matters to you, but still not screen canon) The point of quantum branching occurs when the Narada very first emerges from the wormhole, but, unlike answer #1, the changes propagate both forward AND BACKWARD in time from that event. So how far back before that point the changes would have occurred is hard to say and depends on how big a "ripple in spacetime" the sudden addition of the Narada created.

I'm a proponent of answer #3, myself, placing the point of divergence at the appearance of the Borg sphere and the Enterprise-E around 2063 Earth.

But I have to admit to finding Simon Pegg's idea interesting - especially the implication that if the appearance of the Narada made a finite ripple backward and forward, then at some point in the future, the Kelvinverse and the Primeverse should achieve mathematical identity once more - and whether that would result in identical but parallel universes or the actual reunion of both into one universe moving forward from that point but with 2 histories for a portion of them, I don't know.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm a proponent of answer #3, myself, placing the point of divergence at the appearance of the Borg sphere and the Enterprise-E around 2063 Earth.

I'm sticking with the idea of a predestination paradox - meaning, those events were always part of history.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I'm sticking with the idea of a predestination paradox - meaning, those events were always part of history.

And that's your choice - NONE of my four answers is canon, until shown on screen in no uncertain terms. They're just the only four answers that I can see that have logical internal consistency and a basis in our current understanding of the science.

 

[Ovation]

Option 1 makes most sense, is the simplest explanation and does not erase any prior Trek iteration.

 

[Apparition B5]

Wait till someone decides to reboot The Godfather or the original Star Wars. I'll be against them and so will a lot of other people.

Star Wars was already essentially rebooted back in 2015 with The Force Awakens. Obviously not too many were against it, as it made a lot of money.

 

[Kor]

The STD series will have the same impact on the NuTrek movies that Agents of Shield has on the MCU movies and that the various DC TV shows have on the DCEU movies.

Um, yeah.

Given that some very intelligent people now believe that what we call "reality" is a holographic simulation, you'll excuse me for not taking your word on that.

We're all actually brains in jars. Some philosophy professor up in the ivory tower said this might be true, so it is.

And that's your choice - NONE of my four answers is canon, until shown on screen in no uncertain terms. They're just the only four answers that I can see that have logical internal consistency and a basis in our current understanding of the science.

Well, #4 could be considered "Word of God" in TV Tropes terms. So I think that's the closest to a "cannnon" explanation that we will ever get.

Kor