My only care is if I come out of the film entertained, Trek being a work of fiction is by its very nature an alternate timeline apart from our very own.
What matters if alot of people have fun watching it nothing more or less.
Sharr
Alternate Timeline! (a.k.a. Everyone can chill out now!)
- Thread starter The
- Start date
My only care is if I come out of the film entertained, Trek being a work of fiction is by its very nature an alternate timeline apart from our very own.
What matters if alot of people have fun watching it nothing more or less.
Sharr
What's his name over at ex-astris-scientia has basically decided to place TREK XI in sort of a proto-canon limbo for the time being sort of like TAS all depending on just how much of this Nero-created alternate timeline remains intact by the end of the film.
Well, if there are supposed to be sequels it would make sense to keep the timeline. That's also how I interpret the Roberto Orci comment. Why would he say that a new "parallel" quantum reality will be created in the movie (while the original Trek timeline continues to exist somewhere), if that new timeline isn't supposed to stay?
I guess it's best to see this movie like Enterprise's "In the Mirror Darkly"... just with the possibility of sequels (which were planned in ItmD's case, but Enterprise got cancelled before we came to that).
I guess it's best to see this movie like Enterprise's "In the Mirror Darkly"... just with the possibility of sequels (which were planned in ItmD's case, but Enterprise got cancelled before we came to that).
Let's stipulate for the sake of this post that Abrams Star Trek turns out to be an excellent film that is highly regarded among movie-goers and critics alike (similar to the status of Iron Man).
So, are there some people who won't be able to enjoy this "excellent" film -- no matter how good it is -- simply because they are Star Trek fans? If those same people were never Star Trek fans, does that mean they would probably enjoy the film?
I don't quite understand how this can be.
So, are there some people who won't be able to enjoy this "excellent" film -- no matter how good it is -- simply because they are Star Trek fans? If those same people were never Star Trek fans, does that mean they would probably enjoy the film?
I don't quite understand how this can be.
bully!
If I understand them, ST fans who refuse to see it won't see it because the movie, in their opinion isn't what should have been done or haven't seen anything in the trailers to spark their interest.
I partially understand where they are coming from, I heard a spoiler plot point about TDTESS and it totally put me off seeing it at the theater.
The difference is, I ain't going to go to any web site and continually moan and groan about what a bad decision the producers of that film made. Since I am now turned off of seeing that film, this post will, in all likelihood, be the last thing you hear me say about it.
It can be.
There are people who take their enjoyment of Star Trek too seriously. So seriously in fact, that it clouds their good judgement. They start thinking that they're owed details because they're as devoted as they are. Anything can be taken too far, including nostalgia. There's a such thing as being too invested.
There are a few fans who still hate Daniel Craig and Casino Royale for not living up to what they expected of James Bond. In the end, it's more important to repectfully disagree and try to please more people than those that you can't.
Let's assume this movie will be a huge success and there will be many sequels and perhaps even spin-offs... then we'll have an "all Trek" fan community, an "only old Trek" fan community and an "only new Trek" fan community. The latter of these two will probably feuding each other until the end of all eternity. The horror, the horror!!!
Well, personally, I am disappointed that they decided to abandon what Star Trek has been for over 40 years. I mean, yeah, towards the end it had its problems, but surely with creativity and a good story they should have been able to restore it to grace. Now we have learnt this isn't so. I can accept that and I will watch the movie and if it's good I will enjoy it. I would just enjoy it a lot more if it were part of the Star Trek that I am familiar with.
It's really the only way to do it without messing everything up.
Now we can have a reimagined DS9 and TNG one day. And VOY done right...
Awesome, bring it on!
What's horrible though is that ENT is the ONLY series that is canon in the new timeline. NOOOOOOO. That series would have needed reimagining the most.
Now we can have a reimagined DS9 and TNG one day. And VOY done right...
Awesome, bring it on!
What's horrible though is that ENT is the ONLY series that is canon in the new timeline. NOOOOOOO. That series would have needed reimagining the most.
How are they abandoning what Star Trek has been for many years ? Seriously...
They have repeatedly said they admire Trek and its characters and want to preserve the spirit of Trek and even when Orci talks about the alternate timeline thing he clearly states :
"It is the reason why some things are different, but not everything is different.
Not everything is inconsistent with what might have actually happened, in canon.
Some of the things that seem that they are totally different, I will argue, once the film comes out, fall well within what could have been the non-time travel version of this move."
Regarding the canonicity (?) of ENT in the new "Timeline B"... will there still be a Temporal Cold War in this new timeline? Or crashed Borg spheres from the 24th century? Or did they, at least in "Timeline B", come from an alternate/possible future which will not occur anymore? Now it gets complicated...
But I think "These Are The Voyages..." will not be Canon in "Timeline B" anymore. Good riddance.
Seriously? When they gave up on canon, recast the orignial characters, and made a mess of the Enterprise.
In my opinion, they should have gone forward without altering old Trek. They should have done a 25th century story and update Star Trek properly. I mean, the newst technologies in Star Trek were basically all introduced in 1987, the holodecks, replicaters etc. Give us an inspired vision of the future not some retro-retooling. Is it so hard to come up with something original and meaningful by themselves? Must they plagarise old material? Respect what has come before, build on it and go forward that's what I prefer.
Or maybe they won't, and the rest of us will just pick up Star Trek exactly where our parents and/or grandparents picked it up 40 years ago.
Then the REAL Enterprise-E is a Galaxy class... the Borg Queen doesn't exist... the Son'a don't exist... the Scimitar didn't happen... Data's alive, and doesn't have a retarded brother named B4 who has been inexplicably embroiled in a half-baked Romulan plot to destroy Earth for some reason.
That's a huge load off my mind!
You know, there were groups of fans (see "The Best of Trek" books) who've been claiming ever since ST:TMP that the movies were in a parallel universe, 'cos "our Spock" would never try to purge his human half, "our Kirk" would never take a promotion to admiral and leave his lady (the Enterprise), and Klingons' spinal cords shouldn't ever touch their noses!
