Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

[number6]

So because some of us are sick of time travel in Trek movies we are not real fans??

That is exactly what I'm saying.

Well that is just foolish then, I should not have to defend my fandom of Trek. Just because everyone does not constantly praise every decision that JJ makes does not mean we do not like Star Trek. It would be a very boring forum if all we did all day was heap praises on the movie. I still plan to see the movie week one. I just wish that time travel was not used but if its a good movie I am sure I will quickly get over it.

The fact is, based upon what's been posted here, is that fans are bitter moreso because they feel that Trek isn't being done "their" way. I'm not sick of time travel and I have no worries about it being done here. This is a different team of writers and I think that even if this story involves time travel, it will be a fresher approach than what we've seen with the team of writers and producers we've had for three consecutive TV series.

What irks me is how the people who were clamoring for a changing of the guard throughout the production of ENT and VOY are getting exactly what they've been asking for and are still bitching and moaning because it isn't being done to their specifications. And once again we have people proclaiming the failure of something they haven't even seen yet.

I truly don't mind people who have a different opinion. I do respect those who actually have something to say. I don't respect those who have to overindulge in petty namecalling and unrelenting snark over the new crew and what they're trying to do. You don't want to see the film, fine. Do you have to come into every thread to complain about the ship being built on the ground, the shape of the nacelles, and whether or not the bridge is offset by 36 degrees and accusing people of being sheep or kissing JJ's ass for being psyched about the film?? I think that's pretty silly, expecially for people who should be old enough to rise above that. I think they're bitter because someone had the nerve to make Star Trek without their "approval." That's the vibe I get with every one of their posts. You have a problem with that? Too bad. It's my opinion and I have just as much a right to express that as you do to complain about barcode readers on the bridge. And by "you" I don't mean anyone specifically...just the hypothetical "you."

Do I buy Orci's explanation about why things are different?? (Notice how I'm taking this back on topic, guys.) Not for a second. But not for the reasons already stated. I don't think Orci's trying to pull something over on the fans.
I think this film will be a total mindfuck, and I am looking forward to that. I'm not buying the whole quantum reality thing simply because I haven't seen the film and I think there is much more to this story than we are being told. I think Orci's quantum theory is a small piece of a larger puzzle.

 

[lawman]

Interesting thoughts from Orci, I doubt it'll have any impact on the actual film. The filmmakers are going to interpret Kirk, Spock, and the rest. For all practical purposes, the new versions will be Kirk & Co. as far as most audiences are concerned.

Exactly, this detail is only for the hardcore-non-fans.
It will more than likely make no difference when it comes
to the story, and it will continue on to everyone else as
if this is THE Trek Universe.

And that's pretty much how I'm going to look at it too.

What's with all these derisive ad hominem references to "droolers" and "hardcore non-fans"? The latter doesn't even make any sense on its own terms. Obviously, it's fans of the material who care about whether a new take on that material jibes with what has gone before. It's the general crowd comprising "most audiences" that are non-fans.

Those are the people who really do treat it as "just a movie." As such, not only do they not define what qualifies as "THE Trek universe," they're sublimely indifferent as to whether anyone does.

 

[lawman]

I think it's a great idea, but also a cop-out in the same sentence. A very good read though, I like how their using the logic from past Star Trek episodes.

But they're not, really. Orci only cites one episode ("Parallels," from TNG's 7th season), and in that one different "quantum realities" were treated as parallel universes between which one could travel, not as the result of time travel.

Time travel in the Trek universe has always been presented in narrative terms (literally dozens of times!) as a process in which any single timeline can be altered and/or restored.

Given that time travel has never been observed in any form in the real world, one fictional take on it is as good as another, so long as its logic is internally consistent. On those grounds, for Orci to claim Trek's take on time travel "contradicts science" is itself a huge dismissal of established continuity.

 

[trekkerguy]

"Hardcore-non-fans" would be those who repeatedly show they are not interested in getting a quality movie, but that all they really care about is "canon" and "continuity", neither of which defines a quality movie.

They're hardcore about everything that really is not Trek.


Well if those who would enjoy the film are part of the "drooling masses" then the nerds a geeks who spend endless hours critiquing "canon" and "continuity violations"... fit right into their own catagory of dribbling droolers.

 

[Ovation]

It is quite clear that Star Trek (in all its incarnations) has been inconsistent in its use of time travel (regardless of what one thinks of Orci's explanation or other explanations proffered here). Obviously, the "it's all in the same timeline" point of view is comforting--it is the strongest rational for any emotional investment one might have in the characters. However, the "many timelines" point of view (advanced so thoroughly by Trekguide.com), despite its disquieting implications (from an "emotional investment" point of view), is the more logical assessment of the various forms of time travel employed in Star Trek. It correctly points out the inconsistency of the various time travel theories employed in Star Trek as well as the logical implications of each type employed.

The fact that time travel was not consistently applied in Trek is not surprising, again for reasons outlined above. I highly doubt the writers gave much thought to the implications of their particular use of time travel (the author of Yesterday's Enterprise described the process as rather chaotic, IIRC--not much time to devote to the contemplation of the effects of his story on "the timeline" beyond the episode itself). It has been (and will be in the new movie) a plot device around which a story is woven. The beauty of time travel stories is the flexibility it allows in character portrayal (a variation on the "what if" scenarios that fascinate so many of my students). The drawback of time travel stories is the considerable likelihood that, upon close examination, they have serious, if not fatal, logical flaws and those flaws will emerge (usually upon repeat viewings/readings--the entertainment factor, in theory, should minimize the impact of the flaws the first time around, if done well) to provide fodder for nitpickers (and this is not restricted to Trek fandom, by any stretch). In most circumstances, the use of time travel in pop culture entertainment should be a sign that one should "sit back and enjoy the ride" rather than look for flaws from the get go. Much easier to have a good time if one adopts that attitude going in.

 

[trekkerguy]

... one should "sit back and enjoy the ride" rather than look for flaws from the get go. Much easier to have a good time if one adopts that attitude going in.

Weeeee!

 

[lawman]

Re: Bob Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

Maybe I'm reading Orci's words wrong or differently, but my understanding of it was that some things might change in the "past", by Nero and OldSpock's doings, but that, in the end, the universe will still end up to be the exact same universe we've all come to know, just with a few details changed, such as 1701 being built in Iowa, Kirk's backstory, etc.

Sorry, but this just makes no sense to me. Either it's "the exact same" or there are "details changed," but it can't be both. You're trying to square a circle here.

And really, a character's backstory is pretty important. It's what makes him what he is. Without it, he's a cipher.

It resets a few things from the past, but the further and further you get in time, up until the late 24th Century, everything else is as is.

Yeah, that's what Orci seems to be saying with the odd bit about "reverse entropy" , but it's hardly satisfying. Why should we care whether the 24th century is the same, when what this movie (and presumably future ones) is about is the 23rd century, which won't be the same? What sort of satisfaction do you derive from that?

 

[Ovation]

... one should "sit back and enjoy the ride" rather than look for flaws from the get go. Much easier to have a good time if one adopts that attitude going in.

Weeeee!

Make sure you "buckle up".

 

[trekkerguy]

... one should "sit back and enjoy the ride" rather than look for flaws from the get go. Much easier to have a good time if one adopts that attitude going in.

Weeeee!

Make sure you "buckle up".

5 point harness of course

 

[lawman]

My point is this: so what if it ignores previously established Trek history? Does every trek film need to continue the 42-year old story?

Well...

(and this is just personal opinion, I'm not "whining" or trying to "dictate" to anyone, so don't overreact)

...yes. I like continuity! That interwoven tapestry of continuity is what makes it Star Trek, as opposed to just an anthology of superficially similar stories. That's the "so what."

Why not start fresh using the established & familiar characters...

Because that's a contradiction in terms? You can either start fresh or tell a story about the established and familiar characters, but not both at the same time. I'd rather have seen the latter -- a prequel, not a reboot.

In my book, if the characters are recognizable as the familiar TOS characters, and the story follows in the TOS tradition, then it's what I would label as the "Star Trek" brand

Nobody except Paramount executives and stockholders has any reason to be concerned about the Star Trek "brand." Surely there's a better term you can use?

What it is, is a fictional reality. Either a story is set within that reality, or it isn't. What Orci has just told us is that, although there's a slim thread of connection, for all intents and purposes it isn't.

The best thing about Star Trek was the story that each episode told. I enjoyed each episode on its own merits, and really didn't care that much how they related to one another...

I guess we just approach these things very differently. I like the way they worked cumulatively to build a rich, complex world with a deep backstory. Among other things, that made it considerably easier to overlook the individual episodes that didn't work on their "own merits."

 

[lawman]

There was time travel involved because the Enterprise C passed through the rift. How else would it get to the future.

Well, going to the future is not really time travel. We are traveling into the future right now. Only by going to the past and changing events that already happened do you cause a paradox.

...Yes, the rift caused the Enterprise-C to instantly appear 20 years in the future (i.e., travel through time), but that did not change history, because the creation of the rift, and the disappearance of the Enterprise-C into it, was the natural and inevitable result of the photon torpedo explosions during the fight with the Romulans.

Your whole approach hinges on this assumption: that something disappearing into a time anomaly is somehow a "natural and inevitable" feature of the prime timeline.

IMHO it doesn't matter whether the thing goes forward, backward, or sideways; the operative word here is anomaly, and the ship's disappearance is what caused the divergent timeline in which the Federation and Klingons went to war. As soon as it was restored to its proper place in spacetime, things went on as they "originally" did/would have/should have.

You're right on target about the logical flaws in some other episodes and movies, and I've been known to criticize them myself, but that's beside the point here.

The point is, the basic underlying assumption has been that there's a single throughline from past to present in the Trek universe... even if it happens to zig and zag a bit as a result of causal loops, chronal incursions, etc.

Look at it as climbing a tree (the metaphor Data used for the branching realities in "Parallels")... the line from trunk to the tip of (a particular) branch may not be a straight line, but at least it's an unbroken one.

What's Orci's discussing here, OTOH, is like going back to the trunk and venturing out toward a different branch entirely.

(Albeit a branch he promises will be very, very similar to the one we remember, for unconvincing reasons. )

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I like the way the worked cumulatively to build a rich, complex world with a deep backstory.

And I don't think that it did. The "Trek Universe" is about a block wide and a quarter-inch deep. It's endlessly repetitive and has been built too much by simple analogy and superficial borrowing. Just because there's a lot of it doesn't make it better.

If Trek can break out of that little fenced-in "universe" into something of greater scale and imagination, good.

 

[trekkerguy]

I like the way the worked cumulatively to build a rich, complex world with a deep backstory.

And I don't think that it did. In imaginative terms the "Trek Universe" is about a block wide and a quarter-inch deep, and just because there's a lot of it doesn't make it better.

If Trek can break out of that little fenced-in "universe" into something of greater scale and imagination, good.

Agreed. This isn't "The Fountain" or "2001", it's good intellectual Science Fiction with a broad scope... but it isn't deep.

 

[lawman]

It is quite clear that Star Trek (in all its incarnations) has been inconsistent in its use of time travel (regardless of what one thinks of Orci's explanation or other explanations proffered here). Obviously, the "it's all in the same timeline" point of view is comforting--it is the strongest rational for any emotional investment one might have in the characters.

Complete agreement so far.

However, the "many timelines" point of view (advanced so thoroughly by Trekguide.com), despite its disquieting implications (from an "emotional investment" point of view), is the more logical assessment of the various forms of time travel employed in Star Trek. It correctly points out the inconsistency of the various time travel theories employed in Star Trek as well as the logical implications of each type employed.

I can't really go along with this... after all, it's attempting to draw logical conclusions from (differing) time-travel mechanics which were, admittedly, devised by writers for the purpose of serving the narrative and enhancing (at the time) the audience's emotional investment. To pursue the resulting logic out to a point that undermines that key narrative value thus seems to me like a reductio ad absurdum.

There are points at which the Trek timeline seems to veer this way or that, yes. However, there's nothing that really qualifies as an out-and-out discontinuity.

(First Contact is arguable, I'll grant, especially with hindsight putting Enterprise in its aftermath... but even that one can be reconciled.)

In most circumstances, the use of time travel in pop culture entertainment should be a sign that one should "sit back and enjoy the ride" rather than look for flaws from the get go. Much easier to have a good time if one adopts that attitude going in.

I've just never been able to do that; sorry. My mind doesn't work that way. (Much as I enjoyed Back to the Future, for instance, that was despite the fact that its logical flaws jumped out at me right away.)

And I've read too many genuinely good time-travel stories over the years to make excuses for the writers of the sloppy ones.

 

[3D Master]

Orci's comments are a straw man to get the fan base talking about something else other than the fact that this movie ignores previously established Trek history for the sake of a quick buck.

Let me re-word your quote a bit...

"...this movie ignores previously established Trek history, and will hopefully be an entertaining film that is commecially successful"

My point is this: so what if it ignores previously established Trek history? Does every trek film need to continue the 42-year old story?

Yes.

Why not start fresh using the established & familiar characters and the established & familiar Star Trek philiosophy of story-telling?

Because that diminishes it. We're reduced now to just any old comic that gets rewritten every time an author comes along who think he knows better.

Star Trek used to be something grander, something more, something practically majestic. Something better than all the other rebooted, crisis-changed, retconned whatnots.

In my book, if the characters are recognizable as the familiar TOS characters, and the story follows in the TOS tradition, then it's what I would label as the "Star Trek" brand, even if it did not continue (or add to) the story that we all consider the "canon".

This new one, isn't recognizable as that, new diminishing story or not.

Was the best thing about Star Trek really the fact that it essentially told one continuous story? I personally don't think so. The best thing about Star Trek was the story that each episode told. I enjoyed each episode on its own merits, and really didn't care that much how they related to one another (especially since that was a very rare occurance until midway through TNG's run.)

Not THE best thing, but it's one of them, yes.

 

[Ovation]

There was time travel involved because the Enterprise C passed through the rift. How else would it get to the future.

Well, going to the future is not really time travel. We are traveling into the future right now. Only by going to the past and changing events that already happened do you cause a paradox.

...Yes, the rift caused the Enterprise-C to instantly appear 20 years in the future (i.e., travel through time), but that did not change history, because the creation of the rift, and the disappearance of the Enterprise-C into it, was the natural and inevitable result of the photon torpedo explosions during the fight with the Romulans.

Your whole approach hinges on this assumption: that something disappearing into a time anomaly is somehow a "natural and inevitable" feature of the prime timeline.

IMHO it doesn't matter whether the thing goes forward, backward, or sideways; the operative word here is anomaly, and the ship's disappearance is what caused the divergent timeline in which the Federation and Klingons went to war. As soon as it was restored to its proper place in spacetime, things went on as they "originally" did/would have/should have.

You're right on target about the logical flaws in some other episodes and movies, and I've been known to criticize them myself, but that's beside the point here.

The point is, the basic underlying assumption has been that there's a single throughline from past to present in the Trek universe... even if it happens to zig and zag a bit as a result of causal loops, chronal incursions, etc.

Look at it as climbing a tree (the metaphor Data used for the branching realities in "Parallels")... the line from trunk to the roots of (a particular) branch may not be a straight line, but at least it's an unbroken one.

What's Orci's discussing here, OTOH, is like going back to the trunk and venturing out toward a different branch entirely.

(Albeit a branch he promises will be very, very similar to the one we remember, for unconvincing reasons. )

What you describe is the more "comfortable" and "desirable" notion (from an "emotional investment in the characters/fictional universe" perspective). It is not the logical implication of the various forms of time travel employed in Trek over the past 40 or so years. In the end, though, it doesn't really matter, does it? None of it is real, so everyone is free to apply whatever "world view" of Trek they wish.

I didn't watch Yesterday's Enterprise and contemplate the underlying implications Truth be told, I never gave it any thought until reading Trekguide.com's posts--but once I did, it became quite clear that his analysis is correct. I don't have the level of emotional "commitment" some people in here have (though I will not allow another to define whether I'm a "true fan"--only I get to decide that), so I don't really care if I've watched one set of characters from one timeline or various sets of similar characters from many timelines. The implications of Yesterday's Enterprise do not bother me. I can see, however, why they might be bothersome to some--though that does not make the implications any less correct. More to the point, though, is the fact I enjoyed Yesterday's Enterprise WITHOUT any concern about whether the type of time travel used in that episode resulted in a different timeline. I followed Kirk's advice to the woman in Metamorphosis--"sit back and enjoy the ride". I plan to do the same with the new film (if I don't like the new film, "continuity", "canon", "alternate timelines" will have nothing to do with my disappointment--the lack of an entertaining story will be the cause of my disappointment, if any).

 

[trekkerguy]

Orci's comments are a straw man to get the fan base talking about something else other than the fact that this movie ignores previously established Trek history for the sake of a quick buck.

Let me re-word your quote a bit...

"...this movie ignores previously established Trek history, and will hopefully be an entertaining film that is commecially successful"

My point is this: so what if it ignores previously established Trek history? Does every trek film need to continue the 42-year old story?

Yes.



Because that diminishes it. We're reduced now to just any old comic that gets rewritten every time an author comes along who think he knows better.

Star Trek used to be something grander, something more, something practically majestic. Something better than all the other rebooted, crisis-changed, retconned whatnots.

In my book, if the characters are recognizable as the familiar TOS characters, and the story follows in the TOS tradition, then it's what I would label as the "Star Trek" brand, even if it did not continue (or add to) the story that we all consider the "canon".

This new one, isn't recognizable as that, new diminishing story or not.

Was the best thing about Star Trek really the fact that it essentially told one continuous story? I personally don't think so. The best thing about Star Trek was the story that each episode told. I enjoyed each episode on its own merits, and really didn't care that much how they related to one another (especially since that was a very rare occurance until midway through TNG's run.)

Not THE best thing, but it's one of them, yes.

All opinion, no fact.

 

[number6]

Let me re-word your quote a bit...

"...this movie ignores previously established Trek history, and will hopefully be an entertaining film that is commecially successful"

My point is this: so what if it ignores previously established Trek history? Does every trek film need to continue the 42-year old story?

Yes.



Because that diminishes it. We're reduced now to just any old comic that gets rewritten every time an author comes along who think he knows better.

Star Trek used to be something grander, something more, something practically majestic. Something better than all the other rebooted, crisis-changed, retconned whatnots.



This new one, isn't recognizable as that, new diminishing story or not.

Was the best thing about Star Trek really the fact that it essentially told one continuous story? I personally don't think so. The best thing about Star Trek was the story that each episode told. I enjoyed each episode on its own merits, and really didn't care that much how they related to one another (especially since that was a very rare occurance until midway through TNG's run.)

Not THE best thing, but it's one of them, yes.

All opinion, no fact.

Nothing new here.

 

[BillJ]

Well, going to the future is not really time travel. We are traveling into the future right now. Only by going to the past and changing events that already happened do you cause a paradox.

...Yes, the rift caused the Enterprise-C to instantly appear 20 years in the future (i.e., travel through time), but that did not change history, because the creation of the rift, and the disappearance of the Enterprise-C into it, was the natural and inevitable result of the photon torpedo explosions during the fight with the Romulans.

Your whole approach hinges on this assumption: that something disappearing into a time anomaly is somehow a "natural and inevitable" feature of the prime timeline.

IMHO it doesn't matter whether the thing goes forward, backward, or sideways; the operative word here is anomaly, and the ship's disappearance is what caused the divergent timeline in which the Federation and Klingons went to war. As soon as it was restored to its proper place in spacetime, things went on as they "originally" did/would have/should have.

You're right on target about the logical flaws in some other episodes and movies, and I've been known to criticize them myself, but that's beside the point here.

The point is, the basic underlying assumption has been that there's a single throughline from past to present in the Trek universe... even if it happens to zig and zag a bit as a result of causal loops, chronal incursions, etc.

Look at it as climbing a tree (the metaphor Data used for the branching realities in "Parallels")... the line from trunk to the roots of (a particular) branch may not be a straight line, but at least it's an unbroken one.

What's Orci's discussing here, OTOH, is like going back to the trunk and venturing out toward a different branch entirely.

(Albeit a branch he promises will be very, very similar to the one we remember, for unconvincing reasons. )

What you describe is the more "comfortable" and "desirable" notion (from an "emotional investment in the characters/fictional universe" perspective). It is not the logical implication of the various forms of time travel employed in Trek over the past 40 or so years. In the end, though, it doesn't really matter, does it? None of it is real, so everyone is free to apply whatever "world view" of Trek they wish.

I didn't watch Yesterday's Enterprise and contemplate the underlying implications Truth be told, I never gave it any thought until reading Trekguide.com's posts--but once I did, it became quite clear that his analysis is correct. I don't have the level of emotional "commitment" some people in here have (though I will not allow another to define whether I'm a "true fan"--only I get to decide that), so I don't really care if I've watched one set of characters from one timeline or various sets of similar characters from many timelines. The implications of Yesterday's Enterprise do not bother me. I can see, however, why they might be bothersome to some--though that does not make the implications any less correct. More to the point, though, is the fact I enjoyed Yesterday's Enterprise WITHOUT any concern about whether the type of time travel used in that episode resulted in a different timeline. I followed Kirk's advice to the woman in Metamorphosis--"sit back and enjoy the ride". I plan to do the same with the new film (if I don't like the new film, "continuity", "canon", "alternate timelines" will have nothing to do with my disappointment--the lack of an entertaining story will be the cause of my disappointment, if any).

Well to be honest it's still up to individual interpretation. We've seen temporal phenomenon that has started in the future and moved into the past. Who's to say that the Enterprise-D didn't do something that caused the rift to open 22 years in the past.

 

[Ovation]

Hence my prior observation about time travel in pop culture entertainment--don't go looking for flaws from the first moment you're watching/reading the story. If you do, you're guaranteeing some sort of disappointment along the way.