Who actually fought in the Xindi War?

[Damian]

It's what they should've done, but they didn't. The intent was that it was essentially the same prior to 2233. That's clear enough from Beyond. Despite the way some people blow a few tiny inconsistencies with Enterprise out of all proportion, the fact that the movie builds so much on Enterprise concepts at all -- the MACOs, the Xindi, the Franklin's ship and uniform designs, etc. -- is proof that Pegg, Jung, and Lin wanted their movie to build on the existing pre-2233 continuity, not divorce themselves from it completely. As I keep stressing, the idea that things could change pre-2233 is just a handwave for minor discrepancies when needed. The storytelling intent is very clearly that the two timelines were essentially the same before Nero, even if a few minor glitches get through here and there.

After all, if they had done a from-scratch reboot, there would've been no need to build the first movie around a convoluted time-travel premise to justify its differences.




Yeah, but it's a complete waste of the potential of a full reboot if you just use it for minor, insignificant changes like that. What a gross failure of imagination that would be if it had been what they'd done. A full reboot is an opportunity to reinvent everything from the ground up. To give characters different genders and ethnicities (something the white male-dominated TOS cast would've benefitted from), to change the timeframe and history to something that builds off of the present rather than 50 years in the past, to amalgamate ideas from different series, etc.

I always thought the genius behind Star Trek (2009) was that it didn't really meet any of the standard definitions of a reboot or prequel, but combined those elements and that of a sequel even. It allowed them to 'reboot' Star Trek without actually 'rebooting' it. Having Ambassador Spock in it was really the linchpin. It allowed them to have their cake AND eat it too. It gave them a reason for making changes they wanted to make while still saying they're not forsaking all that came before in canon, that it all still happened. I had some complaints about production design, but story wise I thought it was pretty incredible.

As for Beyond, I saw more consistencies with Enterprise then inconsistencies. I can nitpick with the best of them, as most will attest to with my comments. But overall I thought the Franklin fit quite well with the continuity established in Enterprise (except for the stupid window on the bridge--would it have killed them to put in a viewscreen on the Franklin at least, sigh). I picked up on the transporter comment about not being rated for human use, but like some others I figured not all Starfleet ships had top of the line technology. In fact we've seen that on Star Trek before, where co-existing ships are not equal in technology.

As far as the comment about the Xindi and Romulan Wars, if just thought he was using the plural because they were two different wars (sort of like saying the Korean and Vietnam Wars).

I just watched the Enterprise episodes "Stormfront" and found it interesting when they were discussing when the time changes began, how they began with Lenin being assassinated which was before Vosk came in the picture. It was a mystery that was never really solved there (except with a line about another possible faction interfering in the past). Could changes in the timeline ripple to the past? I thought Enterprise left open the possibility, and Nero's incursion also might lead credence to the idea. In reality though, I figured everything pre-2233 was left intact and any changes we see mostly due to artistic license. I thought the Franklin and it's crew were close enough that any differences were largely negligible. Now the Kelvin's design is a bit more hard to explain away with simple artistic license. But I'm sure if this impasse with the novels is ever resolved one of our resident novel writers could probably create a story to explain that in a way that fits with existing canon .

 

[Christopher]

I always thought the genius behind Star Trek (2009) was that it didn't really meet any of the standard definitions of a reboot or prequel, but combined those elements and that of a sequel even. It allowed them to 'reboot' Star Trek without actually 'rebooting' it. Having Ambassador Spock in it was really the linchpin. It allowed them to have their cake AND eat it too. It gave them a reason for making changes they wanted to make while still saying they're not forsaking all that came before in canon, that it all still happened. I had some complaints about production design, but story wise I thought it was pretty incredible.

Sure, it was a clever way to strike a balance between continuation and innovation, but I still think they limited themselves too much by trying to satisfy both at once. A full reboot, no "alternate timeline" nonsense but just making up a new version of a fictional premise for a new era, would've allowed far more room for creativity and reinvention.

As far as the comment about the Xindi and Romulan Wars, if just thought he was using the plural because they were two different wars (sort of like saying the Korean and Vietnam Wars).

Well, sure, but that's never been the issue. The issue is that ENT didn't show us a "Xindi War" per se -- just a Xindi attack followed by Enterprise on a solo mission to stop the next attack, with only a small MACO contingent aboard. So Edison's implication that the MACOs suffered mass casualties in a Xindi War as well as the Romulan War is confusing, as stated. Which is why it's best not to take it too literally. Edison's memories being fuzzy after a century or more is a simpler fix than a whole new theory of temporal mechanics.

 

[XCV330]

Exactly. Balthazar Edison didn't exactly seem to be lamenting the death of a couple of MACOs that he wasn't even near during the engagement. If it he'd thought of it as a single attack, I doubt he would have called it a war. Pegg's a fan and he had some serious ideas in his head when that was written out. I'd like to know what they were.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I I figured everything pre-2233 was left intact and any changes we see mostly due to artistic license.

That's how I look at it as well.

Yes, yes, I'm aware of Simon Pegg's theory, but that's all it is. A theory. One which I prefer to ignore. And unless it actually makes it into a film (which is unlikely, as Pegg isn't writing ST4), then effectively it doesn't exist.

(Besides, I just don't see the logic of changes to the timeline affecting the past as well as the future. That pretty much throws cause/effect out the window...)

As for Edison: I assume he was one of the MACOS under Major Hayes' command. We just never happened to see him. True, there didn't seem to be any other MACO officers (other than Hayes), but Edison could have received a battlefield commission as an officer after Hayes' death.

 

[Christopher]

Pegg's a fan and he had some serious ideas in his head when that was written out. I'd like to know what they were.

We don't know if that line was in his draft. In the movie industry, scripts are anything but sacrosanct; they can be changed at the whim of a director or producer, or even by an actor's ad lib. Maybe it was scripted as "the Xindi attack and the Romulan War" and it was tweaked in editing to shave off a second or two.

Even if it was Pegg's decision, there are practical considerations in storytelling that transcend fandom or continuity. Simplifying the conflicts to "the Xindi and Romulan Wars" served the needs of that particular moment in the film better than a more complex and time-consuming description of the differences between them. There are times in the creative process where you have to be willing to bend the exact details of prior continuity if they get in the way of what you're doing in the here and now.

 

[Damian]

Sure, it was a clever way to strike a balance between continuation and innovation, but I still think they limited themselves too much by trying to satisfy both at once. A full reboot, no "alternate timeline" nonsense but just making up a new version of a fictional premise for a new era, would've allowed far more room for creativity and reinvention

I don't know. I thought they freed themselves to tell stories they wanted to tell about the original series crew, which was their ultimate goal. Sure, Enterprise is left intact in their new reality, but I don't think that's too limiting. In a way, I think it forces the writers to be more creative. A clean reboot would have made it too easy, IMO. By doing it the way they did it, it still frees them up quite a bit, but it doesn't give them carte blanche to just do anything. There are still a few boundaries they need to respect, and I think it forces them to at the very least stay true to the source material they are working with.

Well, sure, but that's never been the issue. The issue is that ENT didn't show us a "Xindi War" per se -- just a Xindi attack followed by Enterprise on a solo mission to stop the next attack, with only a small MACO contingent aboard. So Edison's implication that the MACOs suffered mass casualties in a Xindi War as well as the Romulan War is confusing, as stated. Which is why it's best not to take it too literally. Edison's memories being fuzzy after a century or more is a simpler fix than a whole new theory of temporal mechanics.

I just took the Xindi "war" meaning to be something akin to the Korean or Vietnam wars. They weren't officially wars, but we generally treat them as such. I figured history after the Xindi incident had treated it like a war. And yes, Edison's memory is probably not the most trustworthy by that point. His memories may have merged the Xindi incident and Romulan War together, considering they happened relatively close together in the timeline. Over time he may have started thinking of the two as a continuous event almost.

 

[Christopher]

I don't know. I thought they freed themselves to tell stories they wanted to tell about the original series crew, which was their ultimate goal. Sure, Enterprise is left intact in their new reality, but I don't think that's too limiting. In a way, I think it forces the writers to be more creative. A clean reboot would have made it too easy, IMO. By doing it the way they did it, it still frees them up quite a bit, but it doesn't give them carte blanche to just do anything. There are still a few boundaries they need to respect, and I think it forces them to at the very least stay true to the source material they are working with.

You can be true to the characters, relationships, and ideas while completely reinventing the universe around them. Look at how much the Marvel Cinematic Universe has changed the 1960s origins and context of the Marvel characters while still successfully capturing who they are and distilling the best of their stories. Or how the Arrowverse has done the same with characters whose origins range from the 1940s to the 2000s, often changing their race or sex or team affiliation or any number of other attributes, but still pulling off something that feels faithful to DC Comics in spirit if not in literal detail.

 

[Damian]

You can be true to the characters, relationships, and ideas while completely reinventing the universe around them. Look at how much the Marvel Cinematic Universe has changed the 1960s origins and context of the Marvel characters while still successfully capturing who they are and distilling the best of their stories. Or how the Arrowverse has done the same with characters whose origins range from the 1940s to the 2000s, often changing their race or sex or team affiliation or any number of other attributes, but still pulling off something that feels faithful to DC Comics in spirit if not in literal detail.

Yeah, I guess. I still think it requires a bit more creativity to create a reboot that still forces you to respect all that came before, however minimal that is.

I think the writers reasons for doing what they did were twofold. One, obviously they wanted Leonard Nimoy in the film, plain and simple. In fact I read they wrote the script without any back-ups if he refused. They basically never considered a story without him. I think the other is Bob Orci considers himself a fan of all Star Trek. He probably was reluctant to completely wipe the slate clean. He probably wanted a lifeline to the 'prime' universe. Not to be a crutch. But to simply say that even this new Abramsverse is still tied in a small way to all that came before. As a fan who enjoys a certain continuity I appreciated that. I still have some issues with production design, but I'm a bit more forgiving because I can still see how the story can fit in the Star Trek universe at large from a story perspective.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, I guess. I still think it requires a bit more creativity to create a reboot that still forces you to respect all that came before, however minimal that is.

I don't think that's a valid comparison, because there are many ways to be creative. Opening up the universe to new concepts that would never be possible in the existing formulation of Star Trek would introduce many new opportunities for creativity. Like, imagine having the freedom to redesign Klingons or Andorians or Cardassians as nonhumanoid aliens. Imagine setting the show much farther in the future and coming up with a whole new history for how the Federation came about. Imagine mixing and matching characters from different Trek series and eras the way superhero adaptations mix and match characters and storylines. Imagine building the universe around 21st-century science fiction concepts instead of the quaint, pulpy stuff that TOS was based on. What you're talking about is a single act of creativity, the beginning of the series. I'm talking about opening new doors for the ongoing creative process of telling stories once the setting is established.

Just in general, I think it's misguided to pretend there's a competition between different modes of creation, like one has to be better than another. That's an artificial choice. The best kind of creativity to choose is every possible kind. We've already had in-continuity sequels. We've already had a partial reboot. The one thing we haven't had yet in Trek, even though countless other franchises do it all the time, is a complete reimagining. We already have the other stuff, so why can't we have that too?

 

[thribs]

There was no Xindi War in the Prime but the JJVerse seems to indicate that there was one. Since the Sphere Builders has the ability to manipulate different timelines it isn’t hard to see them doing something there that was different to their approach on the Prime that lead to a war.

 

[Damian]

I don't think that's a valid comparison, because there are many ways to be creative. Opening up the universe to new concepts that would never be possible in the existing formulation of Star Trek would introduce many new opportunities for creativity. Like, imagine having the freedom to redesign Klingons or Andorians or Cardassians as nonhumanoid aliens. Imagine setting the show much farther in the future and coming up with a whole new history for how the Federation came about. Imagine mixing and matching characters from different Trek series and eras the way superhero adaptations mix and match characters and storylines. Imagine building the universe around 21st-century science fiction concepts instead of the quaint, pulpy stuff that TOS was based on. What you're talking about is a single act of creativity, the beginning of the series. I'm talking about opening new doors for the ongoing creative process of telling stories once the setting is established.

Just in general, I think it's misguided to pretend there's a competition between different modes of creation, like one has to be better than another. That's an artificial choice. The best kind of creativity to choose is every possible kind. We've already had in-continuity sequels. We've already had a partial reboot. The one thing we haven't had yet in Trek, even though countless other franchises do it all the time, is a complete reimagining. We already have the other stuff, so why can't we have that too?

While all true, I don't think the Abrams team ever intended on 'reimaging' Star Trek to that kind of degree. Abrams wanted to put his own spin on things, but I don't think he wanted to upend everything that came before.

I think what they wanted to do when I say have their cake and eat it too is open Star Trek up to a legion of new fans while bringing along current Trekkies. Star Trek (2009) was incredibly popular and while STID and Beyond didn't quite capture the same amount of people, they both still did very well. And while some older fans might have walked away, I find that a lot of Trekkies stayed in the fold. So I think Abrams opened the door to nubie fans but also told older fans they were still welcome to come along for the ride. That their story device allowed all that came before to still exist in this new continuity. It certainly worked for me. I was able to transition to the Abrams Trek from Berman Trek easily enough.

Personally, for me, I never liked complete reimagings. Sometimes it's change for change sake. That's probably one of the reasons I don't get into the superhero genres. They're always changing things and it's impossible to follow any sort of coherent continuity. I like Star Trek partly because from a story perspective it generally follows a storyline from point a to b to c. Not perfectly, but the general outline can be followed. I do think that there are certain boundaries they should respect. I don't think you need to completely redesign a Cardassian to tell a good story about Cardassians. Minor changes don't get me to hung up. Like Enterprise allowing Andorians ears to show when they weren't really seen in the past--not a big deal. Or even the Tellarites in Enterprise. They looked even more different then their original series counterparts than Andorians, but I thought they were still recognizable as Tellarites. But I'm not interested in seeing them change Tellarites into say a 6 legged creature with 3 eyes. They'd likely lose me on such a proposition. It's a big galaxy. If they want to have non-humanoid species they can just, you know, create new ones.

 

[Christopher]

While all true, I don't think the Abrams team ever intended on 'reimaging' Star Trek to that kind of degree.

Obviously not. That's the whole point -- that they limited the possibilities by not going for a full reboot. I still feel that, eventually, someone will go for a completely new beginning for Trek. Countless other franchises have been reimagined multiple times -- it's unrealistic to think that Star Trek will never attempt it. What happens when the real calendar catches up with WWIII and First Contact? That's only 45 years from now, within the lifetimes of many people watching Trek today. If ST is going to stay a cutting-edge, forward-looking science fiction franchise instead of becoming just a quaint piece of nostalgic kitsch, then sooner or later it's going to have to make a clean break from a continuity established in the 1960s and make a fresh start. Star Trek was groundbreaking futurism for my generation of TV viewers. It deserves to be that again for future generations.

Personally, for me, I never liked complete reimagings.

And why should your opinion, or mine, be the only one that matters? Star Trek does not exist for one person alone. A large part of the reason for its success is that it's always appealed to a wide range of different tastes and interests, has had something for everybody. So to insist that it should limit itself to doing only one thing forever is misguided. It should do everything. Its whole defining philosophy is about exploring the new and different, celebrating diversity and discovery. Demanding that it be narrow and limited and cling to what you already know is missing the whole point.

 

[XCV330]

A reboot is fine. I still enjoy watching the first two Christopher Reeve superman movies. I don't have to say "damnit, it's not in continuity with DCU" (probably more of a plus actually), and when they tried to make Superman Returns part of that continuity it was awkward. Instead of being a sequel it was a half hearted reboot attempt. using what it wanted from two movies and ignoring, understandably, the next two. It was better just to start again.

but in the meantime, I like seeing the world that's been built over the last 5 decades have the occasional little detail filled in..

 

[Christopher]

but in the meantime, I like seeing the world that's been built over the last 5 decades have the occasional little detail filled in..

There's no reason to paint it as a competition between the two choices. The original Marvel Universe in the comics is still the same continuity it's been since 1939 (allowing for a sliding timescale and periodic retcons) despite having multiple separate continuities in TV and movies as well as comics reboots like Heroes Reborn and the Ultimate Universe.

 

[Damian]

And why should your opinion, or mine, be the only one that matters? Star Trek does not exist for one person alone. A large part of the reason for its success is that it's always appealed to a wide range of different tastes and interests, has had something for everybody. So to insist that it should limit itself to doing only one thing forever is misguided. It should do everything. Its whole defining philosophy is about exploring the new and different, celebrating diversity and discovery. Demanding that it be narrow and limited and cling to what you already know is missing the whole point.

Oh, I don't pretend that my opinion really carries any weight. Ultimately they'll do what they want no matter what I care to think.

I just don't feel all these reimagings we see today are necessary to tell a good story. In fact, I actually think it's a bit lazy. It's them saying they can't work in the existing universe so it's just easier to start from scratch. I personally think it takes a bit more creativity to create an original story in an already established universe. That's one thing I really enjoyed about Star Trek (2009), that they found a way to tell original stories but still using the original continuity to establish the new continuity.

I also feel its unnecessary because there is so much of the galaxy left to explore. By TNG we have, what, 11% of the galaxy charted. Even adding in the explorations of the Gamma and Delta quadrants in DS9 and VOY that's still a small percentage of the galaxy. And all those shows managed to create new civilizations...the Borg, the Dominion, the Kazon, Vidians, Hirogen and so on. In fact, I'd love it if the movies and shows continue to move in that direction. Lets see new civilizations we never heard of. You don't need to create a 'new' version of Klingons or Tellarites and so on. Create new civilizations.

One thing that's really great about Star Trek is they established such a small portion of the galaxy has been explored. It leaves so much open to possibilities that they don't actually have to reboot it from scratch. They can simply go somewhere different if they want to. You know, go where no one has gone before .

 

[Christopher]

I just don't feel all these reimagings we see today are necessary to tell a good story.

And I hate it when people toss around the word "necessary" in creative criticism, as if creativity were just something functional. Strictly speaking, stories and entertainment aren't "necessary" at all; they're something we create and consume by choice, because we want to. The only person who gets to say what a given story needs is the person telling the story. That's how creative freedom works.

In fact, I actually think it's a bit lazy. It's them saying they can't work in the existing universe so it's just easier to start from scratch. I personally think it takes a bit more creativity to create an original story in an already established universe.

So, what, it's more creative to work within someone else's universe than to create your own? That makes absolutely no sense. Was Joss Whedon less creative when he came up with Buffy or Firefly than when he made The Avengers? Was Isaac Asimov less creative when he wrote the Foundation Trilogy than when he novelized Fantastic Voyage? Was I less creative to write Only Superhuman or the stories in Among the Wild Cybers than I am when I write a Trek novel? For that matter, was Gene Roddenberry less creative when he came up with Star Trek in the first place -- before it was an established universe -- than later Trek writers were? Every "established universe" was newly created at some point.

As I've already said, it's invalid to pretend there's some sort of conflict between the options. Surely it serves creativity better if people are free to pursue both.

 

[Damian]

Sure, the ultimate in creativity is creating your own universe with nothing to work from. I'm just saying if someone decides to work in an already established universe like Star Trek, I just feel there are certain boundaries they should adhere to. I liked the Abramsverse movies because they found a way to create new, original stories without upending everything else.

But yes, that's a personal preference. I'd prefer a continuous, coherent storyline. I don't sweat small details, but I'd like to see things go from point A to B to C. And I just think there's still plenty to work with in the Star Trek universe that retconning everything is not necessary to tell a good, original story. The fact that there's still probably close to 80% of the galaxy left to explore leaves the door open to a ton of good stories.

But that's my preference. I may be in the minority. Probably so I guess. I don't get into all these new superhero movies, probably partly because I don't like all the retconning-reboots that are out there. I just think to myself, it that's what you want to do, just create something altogether new. Why does it have to be a retcon at all? I'm not all that interested in seeing the 54th iteration of Batman (ok, I exaggerate but you know what I mean).

At the end of the day, I'll have to make my own call if and when someone decides to do the same to Star Trek. If I left the fold because I just couldn't get into a totally new Star Trek, well I'm just one person and they probably couldn't give a hoot about me. But I'll be fine. It's a hobby and I still got hundreds of hours of TV and movies and books to keep me engaged in Star Trek. CBS isn't going to come and take my Blu-Rays, DVD's and books away because they changed everything.

 

[Christopher]

Sure, the ultimate in creativity is creating your own universe with nothing to work from. I'm just saying if someone decides to work in an already established universe like Star Trek, I just feel there are certain boundaries they should adhere to.

"Boundaries"??? As a writer, I find that attitude deeply threatening. It feels like an attempt to impose censorship. You cross a line when you start talking about your personal tastes as rules that should be imposed on other people.

 

[Damian]

"Boundaries"??? As a writer, I find that attitude deeply threatening. It feels like an attempt to impose censorship. You cross a line when you start talking about your personal tastes as rules that should be imposed on other people.

You read to much intent into my comment. Parameters maybe would be a better word. Even you as a novel writer have certain limitations of how far you can go with a Star Trek novel. You can't decide to write a book depicting the death of say Captain Picard, at least not without someone's approval (at least not that I'm aware of--I read that when Martin and Mangels retconned Trip's death for instance, they did so with editorial approval). CBS ultimately is in charge of that sort of thing.

I think there are certain basics that make Star Trek what it is. If you take that away it is no longer Star Trek. Starfleet and the Federation for instance, are basics to Star Trek. If you take those away, would it really be Star Trek then?

For my own personal preferences, I'd like more consistency with the overall timeline from a story perspective. My point is that I would not likely be interested in a total retconning where they just ignored all that came before (I never say never, because nothing is impossible). But they're going to do what they want regardless of what little ole me thinks.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

While all true, I don't think the Abrams team ever intended on 'reimaging' Star Trek to that kind of degree. Abrams wanted to put his own spin on things, but I don't think he wanted to upend everything that came before.

As for the differences in the look of the Abrams films vs. the rest of Trek, that's also easy to explain:

The crew of the Kelvin took detailed scans of the Narada and managed to upgrade Starfleet's technology. That's why everything looks so much more advanced. (IMHO, the look of the actual Kelvin itself is entirely compatible with the TOS aesthetic..)

And there was another poster here (unfortunately I've forgotten exactly who ) who suggested another reason: After the divergence, Admiral Marcus became the Starfleet c-in-c in the kelvin timeline, and pursued a much more militaristic and aggressive stance than Admiral Nogura did in prime.