Oh hush with the practical explanations. Where's the love for Galaxina (possibly the worst movie ever made)?
Trek canon is dead. Thanx JJ!
- Thread starter Plum
- Start date
- Status
Anyone who's paid close attention to the past 700 episodes and 10 movies of "Star Trek" will recognize two basic facts:
1. Every instance of time travel uses a different method and scientific rationale (warp-10 slingshot, Guardian of Forever, chronometric displacement, Bajoran Orb of Time, temporal Nexus, time vortex, etc.), and has a different result (self-fulfilling time loop, multiple parallel timelines, altered timelines that can be "repaired" through further meddling, etc.).
2. Through all the "Star Trek" series, there have been at least two dozen distinct and mutually exclusive timelines (not even including the self-fulfilling causality loops). For example, in TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise," it depicted the original timeline where the Federation was at war with the Klingons; Picard's decision to send the Enterprise-C back in time to save a Klingon outpost created the alternate timeline that we see in every other TNG episode, where Worf serves in Starfleet and the Klingons are allies.
The entire series of "Star Trek: Enterprise" takes place in the alternate timeline created when Picard and the Enterprise-E went back in time to fight the Borg in "Star Trek: First Contact." "Enterprise" episodes showed wreckage of the Borg sphere on Earth, and mentioned Cochrane's recollections of the Borg attack. (We can assume that after the Enterprise-E returned to the future, it returned to the "Enterprise" timeline, rather than the one it was in at the beginning of "First Contact.") So the movie "Star Trek: Insurrection" takes place in the future of the "Enterprise" timeline that was started in "First Contact."
The final episode of "Voyager" depicted Admiral Janeway creating a new timeline where the U.S.S. Voyager got back to Earth 20 years early. This alternate timeline was continued in the movie "Star Trek: Nemesis," as evidenced by Admiral Janeway's appearance in that film (when the Voyager and Captain Janeway would still be trapped in the Delta Quadrant for another 20 years in the "original" timeline).
There are dozens of other episodes over the past 40 years where new timelines are created within the episode, and then the series just continues on from the point of view of that new timeline.
In fact, the last four "Star Trek" movies have each taken place in a different timeline from each other.
"Generations" created a new timeline where the sun did NOT explode, and everyone did NOT die, due to Picard and Kirk changing the timeline.
"First Contact" started in the "Generations" timeline, then passed through the Borg-assimilated-Earth timeline, then created the "Star Trek: Enterprise" timeline where the Borg attacked Earth but were stopped.
"Insurrection" took place in the future of the "Star Trek: Enterprise" timeline created in "First Contact."
"Nemesis" took place in the "Admiral Janeway" timeline that was created in the "Voyager" finale.
And, according to this latest report, "Star Trek XI" will take place in yet another timeline, possibly starting in the "Admiral Janeway" timeline of "Nemesis," then spawning its own alternate timeline through time travel.
My point is that each of the last five "Star Trek" movies has taken place in a different timeline from the one before it. It makes no sense to criticize the "Star Trek XI" writers for this, when it has already been going on in the four previous films (whether the writers were aware of it or not).
Aesthetically, every one of the movies has taken liberties with set design and costumes and makeup, starting with "The Motion Picture," so whether the new Enterprise bridge's glass-and-chrome design is the result of an alternate timeline, or just the filmmakers' creative license, it is nothing that hasn't been done a dozen times before.
There is no "official" "Star Trek" timeline. The series has taken place through dozens of mutually exclusive timelines, so creating just one more timeline in this new movie will not invalidate all 750 past episodes; it will just add one more timeline to the dozens that have already been created and incorporated into the series.
1. Every instance of time travel uses a different method and scientific rationale (warp-10 slingshot, Guardian of Forever, chronometric displacement, Bajoran Orb of Time, temporal Nexus, time vortex, etc.), and has a different result (self-fulfilling time loop, multiple parallel timelines, altered timelines that can be "repaired" through further meddling, etc.).
2. Through all the "Star Trek" series, there have been at least two dozen distinct and mutually exclusive timelines (not even including the self-fulfilling causality loops). For example, in TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise," it depicted the original timeline where the Federation was at war with the Klingons; Picard's decision to send the Enterprise-C back in time to save a Klingon outpost created the alternate timeline that we see in every other TNG episode, where Worf serves in Starfleet and the Klingons are allies.
The entire series of "Star Trek: Enterprise" takes place in the alternate timeline created when Picard and the Enterprise-E went back in time to fight the Borg in "Star Trek: First Contact." "Enterprise" episodes showed wreckage of the Borg sphere on Earth, and mentioned Cochrane's recollections of the Borg attack. (We can assume that after the Enterprise-E returned to the future, it returned to the "Enterprise" timeline, rather than the one it was in at the beginning of "First Contact.") So the movie "Star Trek: Insurrection" takes place in the future of the "Enterprise" timeline that was started in "First Contact."
The final episode of "Voyager" depicted Admiral Janeway creating a new timeline where the U.S.S. Voyager got back to Earth 20 years early. This alternate timeline was continued in the movie "Star Trek: Nemesis," as evidenced by Admiral Janeway's appearance in that film (when the Voyager and Captain Janeway would still be trapped in the Delta Quadrant for another 20 years in the "original" timeline).
There are dozens of other episodes over the past 40 years where new timelines are created within the episode, and then the series just continues on from the point of view of that new timeline.
In fact, the last four "Star Trek" movies have each taken place in a different timeline from each other.
"Generations" created a new timeline where the sun did NOT explode, and everyone did NOT die, due to Picard and Kirk changing the timeline.
"First Contact" started in the "Generations" timeline, then passed through the Borg-assimilated-Earth timeline, then created the "Star Trek: Enterprise" timeline where the Borg attacked Earth but were stopped.
"Insurrection" took place in the future of the "Star Trek: Enterprise" timeline created in "First Contact."
"Nemesis" took place in the "Admiral Janeway" timeline that was created in the "Voyager" finale.
And, according to this latest report, "Star Trek XI" will take place in yet another timeline, possibly starting in the "Admiral Janeway" timeline of "Nemesis," then spawning its own alternate timeline through time travel.
My point is that each of the last five "Star Trek" movies has taken place in a different timeline from the one before it. It makes no sense to criticize the "Star Trek XI" writers for this, when it has already been going on in the four previous films (whether the writers were aware of it or not).
Aesthetically, every one of the movies has taken liberties with set design and costumes and makeup, starting with "The Motion Picture," so whether the new Enterprise bridge's glass-and-chrome design is the result of an alternate timeline, or just the filmmakers' creative license, it is nothing that hasn't been done a dozen times before.
There is no "official" "Star Trek" timeline. The series has taken place through dozens of mutually exclusive timelines, so creating just one more timeline in this new movie will not invalidate all 750 past episodes; it will just add one more timeline to the dozens that have already been created and incorporated into the series.
No, the established canon is not dead. It's not even sick.
In fact, it's so safe that this movie is now completely irrelevant.
Which is probably the only good thing I can say about this misbegotten project at this point.
In fact, it's so safe that this movie is now completely irrelevant.
Which is probably the only good thing I can say about this misbegotten project at this point.
^
^^ But if it ends up being a good movie (canon issues notwithstanding), it would not be irrelevant to all the non-Star Trek-fan movie-goers who saw it and enjoyed it (the ones not hung up on canon). In fact, it's possible for it to be SO relevant to them that they want a sequel.
If the general concensus turns out to be that this was a good film, but is thought of as irrelevant by some people simply based on 'canon' rather than actual quality of film-making, then the film itself isn't to blame.
^^ But if it ends up being a good movie (canon issues notwithstanding), it would not be irrelevant to all the non-Star Trek-fan movie-goers who saw it and enjoyed it (the ones not hung up on canon). In fact, it's possible for it to be SO relevant to them that they want a sequel.
If the general concensus turns out to be that this was a good film, but is thought of as irrelevant by some people simply based on 'canon' rather than actual quality of film-making, then the film itself isn't to blame.
But, Star Trek history is a straight line.
Or, rather, a series of straight lines. Main line, Mirror Universe line, JJ line...
Or, rather, a series of straight lines. Main line, Mirror Universe line, JJ line...
more lies. How conveniant. Suckers !
None of the various sub-continuities within the Trek mulitverse are straight lines. What you identify as the Main line has been altered, both by events in the live and animated series. "The Naked Time", "Tomorrow is Yesterday", and "Yesteryear" all end with timelines altered. The series followed events as they proceeded from each change as more often than not the other lines led to a dead end (destroyed ship, etc.).
This film was already set in a different continuity from that portrayed in the original series and films as it follows from Nemesis and TNG's divergent continuity (extra WWIII, the First Contact changes, ENT, etc.). This Old Spock is that timeline's Spock, not Spock Prime or DC Comics' Spock or Bantam Novels' Spock.
Enjoy it, reject it, whatever. The producers of this movie aren't lying, at least not out of malice. They're treading the path they think best to rejuvenate Trek as a viable commercial entity for the future. They want to retain as much of the old audience and their goodwill as possible while reaching out to the general public in order to expand that group. Whether or not their efforts are successful will be revealed in May.
Nope. Canon is alive and rides on! It's like a perpetual time loop -- it never ends! -- RR
Oy! Judging from your avatar, it's not surprising that you have such a visceral reaction!
Enjoy the change! Embrace the change! Kiss the change! BE the change! -- RR
B'wha? Where was that established besides on internet message boards?
...The different 'look' of various Trek/Dr. Who productions are explained canonically as timeline divergence.That's my theory.
Please leave Doctor Who out of this, since it's never been said "different looks" have been explained by "timeline divergence".
The Doctor looks different at various times due to regeneration, not changes to his past. The Tardis has been shown not only to have more than one console room, but the "desktop theme" can also be changed, at least in the main one. Nothing about the past being changed there either.
In Trek also, there's never been an official statement about timeline divergence, except as of this movie, and even that statement by Orci is full of holes.
He claimed the changes done by Nero and Spock don't affect the original timeline, but that's hooey. If it were true, Spock wouldn't bother to go back and stop Nero, since nothng Nero does, according to Orci, can affect the existing Trek timeline.
So why should Spock follow him back and stop him?
Orci's statement is a grasping at straws, and he was pulled down by the content of the movie itself. Hoist by his own petard.
Aside from what he's recently said, NOTHING has been said about "explaining differences" in Trek, let alone saying there ARE any differences.
Fans, using the "fixit" method, have come up with all sorts of good-sounding ways to explain seeming contradictions. This has never come from any official source, however (until now).
Your two claims (Trek and Who) are invalid. Sort of like the several times you told people on the TOS board that the entire Eastern portion of the United States would be having TOSR air at a different time "this weekend", simply because YOUR local station changed ITS timeslot for the show.
PLEASE stop doing stuff like this, giving out supposedly "solid" takes on things that are just plain WRONG.
Did no one read what Trekguide posted? 
And that's your opinion. I've see quite the opposite reaction.
And that's your opinion. I've see quite the opposite reaction.
It hasn't, outside of Braga shooting his mouth off at some convention appearance somewhere. Officially, all the movies and series are in the same universe and any changes in the timeline have been relatively minor, or are examples of predestination paradoxes.
At least up until this one. JJ's little foray is the first time we're gonna be stuck with an ongoing alternate timeline.
Oy.
Did no one read what Trekguide posted?
And that's your opinion. I've see quite the opposite reaction.
And that is??
Did no one read what Trekguide posted?
And that's your opinion. I've see quite the opposite reaction.
And that is??
I have had lots of people who don't watch or like Trek tell me how excited they are to see this film and they didn't even know what else he made.
And the in theatre reaction to the trailer was very receptive as well.
In the end only time will tell. Jolan Tru.
must work in a place that likes sci-fi.? still doesn't value in the "original" public.Did no one read what Trekguide posted?
And that's your opinion. I've see quite the opposite reaction.
And that is??
I have had lots of people who don't watch or like Trek tell me how excited they are to see this film and they didn't even know what else he made.
And the in theatre reaction to the trailer was very receptive as well.
In the end only time will tell. Jolan Tru.
May I say, ew.
- Status
Similar threads
