Litverse & Star Trek '09
- Thread starter Christopher
- Start date
Neither is Simon Pegg.
Even if ST4 ever makes it to screen, he isn't writing it. (I'm sure he'll still play Scotty, but that's the extent of his involvement.) So why does it all of a sudden matter so much what he thinks?
I don't understand it either. I simply don't see the logic of it.
Besides, wouldn't it be much simpler to assume that the Kelvin universe was different all along, even before all of this fancy stuff with the red matter and all that? The end result is the same.
(I'm not suggesting that Nero and Spock themselves are from an alternate universe, just that they emerged INTO one.)
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is aurguing that Peggs opinion is more important than others, but that the adoption of that interpretation by the Star Trek Encyclopedia gives it a pretty heavy weight.
That kind of thing has happened with Okuda assertions before and spread threw fandom widely. Like their disregard for TAS, some of their odd dating in the chronology, etc. Though in this case I actually like the idea, and hope its one that really ends up being accepted.
That kind of thing has happened with Okuda assertions before and spread threw fandom widely. Like their disregard for TAS, some of their odd dating in the chronology, etc. Though in this case I actually like the idea, and hope its one that really ends up being accepted.
People keep getting this backward. The STE originated the idea, and Pegg adopted it from them, not the other way around. Yes, the public heard it from Pegg a few weeks before we saw the excerpt from the STE, but it takes many months for a book to get into print after it's written, so that STE entry must certainly have been written long before Pegg made his comment. Presumably he got a look at the manuscript ahead of its release, and that's where he picked up the idea.
When people first heard the idea from Pegg, they jumped to the conclusion that he was preparing the audience for some sort of massive, retroactive changes to continuity in Beyond. But in fact, Beyond is a lot easier to reconcile with prior canon than the previous two movies are. Sure, incorporating the Franklin and Edison into ENT-era continuity isn't a perfect fit, but neither was incorporating ENT into pre-TOS continuity. What slight glitches arose were minor compared to some of the differences in interpretation in the first two movies -- starships being so much huger, Earth cities being so much more built up, Pike seeming to be much older, that sort of thing. I suspect the Okudas came up with their "retroactive timeline changes" idea as a rationalization for those inconsistencies, and though Pegg referenced and endorsed the idea, it turned out that his own script didn't really need it.
He writes the DTI novels, making sense of temporal mechanics is his job.
Christopher has a very particular set of skills, skills he has acquired throughout his career. Skills that make him a nightmare for paradoxes. He will look for them, he will find them, and he will explain them...He writes the DTI novels, making sense of temporal mechanics is his job.
And none of that makes any sense.
- Starfleet ships had already been shown to have a wide variety of appearances, sizes, mission profiles, etc. So the fact that the Kelvin was so big, means nothing.
- Earth cities? We never saw them in any previous iteration of Trek. The size and technological level of San Francisco in ST09 is therefore meaningless in terms of continuity, as we have absolutely no proof that the Prime version of the city wasn't similarly built-up. (And besides, by the time we actually SEE San Francisco in ST09, it's several decades after the timeline divergence, so that alone is a ready-made excuse.)
- Pike? Again, meaningless. We have absolutely no idea how old Pike is when we first meet him in "The Cage". And recasting is hardly a new thing in Trek (or any other franchise), so the difference between Jeffrey Hunter and Bruce Greenwood can't be attributed to anything at all.
Recasting of roles has always been a thing, and will forever BE a thing. You can't explain it in-universe. It's a losing proposition. You have to let it go.
Last edited:
We saw San Fransisco numerous times in the movies, TNG, DS9, VGR, and we saw Paris in TUC, and DS9. DS9 also featured New Orleans several times.
I saw an article on TrekCore recently where Zachary Quinto said they are still talking about a 4th Kelvinverse movie. I don't think anything's been set, but it definitely sounded like they still plan on doing at least one more.
I thought he was?
^ No, he isn't.
The original announcement named Patrick McKay and JD Payne.
http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/07/official-star-trek-4-is-happening/
http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/07/official-star-trek-4-is-happening/
There was a tweet where Pegg and Jung said they were working on something. That was from last December, so it's newer than the McKay and Payne announcement, though by no means "new."
So somebody, somewhere, may have written something that could be made into a movie. At some point.
Didn't...it already happen? Like, way back in 1986?
.
.
.
.
(Sorry, couldn't help it -- seeing today's modern media outlets lazily refer to these new movies as "Star Trek 3," "Star Trek 4," etc., just drives me up the fucking wall, I guess.)
Last edited:
I'm the opposite. I love the visual play of words - you can differentiate between Star Trek IV and Star Trek 4. Plus, it works as Star Trek (1)4 as well. It's so orderly!
Thanks God that Nemesis sucked. If it were not received so poorly and Star Trek 11 would have been a complete failure we might have to refer to the new movies as Star TreK (11+)1 etc.
I kinda liked Nemesis, then again it was the first and only one I saw in Cinemas. I refused to go and see Jar Jar-Trek.Thanks God that Nemesis sucked. If it were not received so poorly and Star Trek 11 would have been a complete failure we might have to refer to the new movies as Star TreK (11+)1 etc.
Wow, that's fantastic news! It'll be great to finally move into 2387 and beyond!
Similar threads
