Why the timeline had to change.

[smosquito]

The timeline had to change because the writers wanted to make something they could sell as star trek without having to account for it by dotting their i's and crossing their t's.

It's as simple as that. Unfortunately.

 

[Flamegrape]

In the very begining of the movie, at Kirks birth, I thought to myself here begins a life that will end on Veridian III. Far away in time and space but it begins here. Then I realised later in the film with the changed timelime that it wasn't necessarily so. Kirk, Spock, McCoy any of them could be killed at any time. Altering the timeline was essential to remove the constant stigma of a historical record, or "we know they are going to get out of this because..." Because Sulu hasn't had a daughter yet... Because the Enterprise B hasn't been launched... Because Scotty isn't on the Genolen... Because McCoy was on the Enterprise D... Because they all make it to the Kitomer conference in time to save the day.

These are all new voyages and anything can happen. The gloves are off.

But why did they have to blow up Vulcan and kill Spock's mom?

To demonstrate that the gloves are off.

But that was accomplished with Nero encountering the USS Kelvin and the alteration of Kirk's story.

If the genocide of Vulcans is "taking the gloves off," I'd hate to see it when they actually make a mistake that pisses off the majority of fans.

 

[RandyS]

^Like, say, killing Kirk by tossing him off a mountain top?

Not that I considered that a mistake, but......

 

[Darth_Pazuzu]

The timeline had to change because the writers wanted to make something they could sell as star trek without having to account for it by dotting their i's and crossing their t's.

It's as simple as that. Unfortunately.

On a gut level, that's kind of how I feel. I mean, how hard can it be to do a little fact-checking by consulting one the Okudas' encyclopedia or chronology, or even clicking on to Memory Alpha or some other site?

On the other hand...on another level, I am somewhat intrigued by the idea that the gloves are indeed off and now that the timeline is changed anything can happen! It does indeed appear that a universe of infinite possibilities has opened up.

You see, part of the problem with doing any sort of prequel is that there's not going to be much suspense concerning where any of the characters end up. The best prequels (such as the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy - and I suppose we can all argue the merits of that until the cows come home! ) work because they concern themselves with how something happens to bring the characters where they were when we first met them. In the case of the Star Wars PT, we all know that Anakin Skywalker will become Darth Vader and the Jedi Order will fall, it's all a preordained tragedy, but there is already a tremendous interest in why it all comes about. Much the same could be said, in fact, about any film based on historical events in which we know what the eventual outcome is. Take Titanic as an example - you just know that the ship is going to hit an iceberg and sink, but you're still just as interested in knowing what happens along the way.

However (and speaking of tragedy on an epic scale)...the real rub for me lies in the fact that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman somehow felt it was necessary to wipe out Vulcan and kill Spock's mother in the process! I mean...let's face it, that's freaking cold!! I mean, I hate to sound like some stereotypically disgruntled fanboy, but that's a bit of an extreme way of shaking up the status quo, is it not?!

 

[Deffy]

For me this new film = The day that Star Trek died.

At the end of the movie I was left feeling robbed.

 

[Mjuice]

That's one of the things I like most about this movie. As fans, we are sailing into the unknown once more... a feeling we haven't had for a long, long time. Freed from the shackles of canon at last.

Did we know what was going to happen to the characters in the last Star Trek movie? I sure didn't. One of them even died (sort of). So it's not really that long at all is it.

 

[Iasius]

Freed from the shackles of canon at last.

It feels so liberating.

 

[zambingo]

There seem to be several of these types of topics going so I guess I'll just pick one.

imo, I don't think the creative staff had to address Trek Prime at all. They had the go ahead to make this film they could have just done a reboot from scratch. Like Nolan did with Batman, his movies are not sequels to Clooney's Batman & Robin etc. What I feel like this creative staff did is underestimate the fanbase in that it seems like they felt this film had to have ties to what came before or we'd shun it. If this is so, I think that is unfortunate. But it's done... oh well. I'd compare what this film's creative staff did to what Singer did with Superman Returns. What Singer tried to do was reboot the Superman franchise, but remain tied in ways to Reeve's films and this polarized many fans opinions in my observations. But as I said, oh well. lol

Back to the film...

I hope we get sequels, but I really hope that the creative staff does not feel the need to do Ultimate Trek/NuTrek versions of Trek Prime stories. I think that would be a crying shame to do. Even if they did a Khan (please don't do a Khan). We've seen those stories, sure we haven't seen how they could play in this universe, but we've seen them never-the-less. There are so many possibilities right now with this franchise. It would be a terrible shame if the creative staff felt the need to boldly retread where we've all been before.

Edit: typo, re: boldy. Fixed.

 

[Darth_Pazuzu]

Freed from the shackles of canon at last.

It feels so liberating.

But at the price of Vulcan...??

 

[Ovation]

That's one of the things I like most about this movie. As fans, we are sailing into the unknown once more... a feeling we haven't had for a long, long time. Freed from the shackles of canon at last.

Did we know what was going to happen to the characters in the last Star Trek movie? I sure didn't. One of them even died (sort of). So it's not really that long at all is it.

This is a fair point. However, once the decision was made to go back to the original characters, then most of the suspense would be absent. The solution they adopted (in terms of an alternate timeline--the merits of how they applied their solution is a different matter for debate) is the most efficient way of ensuring that we face a "future" that is not yet written.

 

[Mjuice]

That's one of the things I like most about this movie. As fans, we are sailing into the unknown once more... a feeling we haven't had for a long, long time. Freed from the shackles of canon at last.

Did we know what was going to happen to the characters in the last Star Trek movie? I sure didn't. One of them even died (sort of). So it's not really that long at all is it.

This is a fair point. However, once the decision was made to go back to the original characters, then most of the suspense would be absent. The solution they adopted (in terms of an alternate timeline--the merits of how they applied their solution is a different matter for debate) is the most efficient way of ensuring that we face a "future" that is not yet written.

Yes I agree of course, I just resent the notion that Trek has been somehow fundamentally predictable or unexciting for years or that you need a reboot in order to do something new and exciting. Now I'm not saying that it necessarily hasn't been predictable or unexciting, but if it has, it's not because of this so-called 'baggage' of continuity, but due to the inadequacies of tptb. Of course if you are going to do a prequel, it would be extremely constricting and ENT suffered from this to an extent. However there was nothing really restricting VOY or NEM or whatever from taking their stories anywhere they wanted.

 

[Iasius]

However there was nothing really restricting VOY or NEM or whatever from taking their stories anywhere they wanted.

I think the sequels in book form proved that, though I only read the DS9 ones.

But I think that in order to expand Star Trek beyond its current (former) base, they had to promise new viewers that they could keep up with the story. There's no sense in telling people: "This is an awesome movie, but please watch these 176 episodes first in order to understand it."

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with reading new stories set in the "old" universe in book-form and watch a new continuity on the big screen or maybe even as a new TV series.

 

[kmiller1610]

For me this new film = The day that Star Trek died.

At the end of the movie I was left feeling robbed.

I really disagree. I have always felt that the very best Trek was in the dynamics between Kirk, Spock and McCoy and over the years as the pathetic FX of TOS made it gradually irrelevant to so many fans, it was like so many didn't even remember how wonderful they were.

Bringing back the original in re-boot form is a stroke of genius.

The homage to Trek:OS, of Stragate SG-1's original team and the wonderful company acting of Firefly/Serenity now has a chance to go up against the original in new clothing.

Trek is BACK.

 

[Tuxedo Dragon]

There seem to be several of these types of topics going so I guess I'll just pick one.

imo, I don't think the creative staff had to address Trek Prime at all. They had the go ahead to make this film they could have just done a reboot from scratch. Like Nolan did with Batman, his movies are not sequels to Clooney's Batman & Robin etc. What I feel like this creative staff did is underestimate the fanbase in that it seems like they felt this film had to have ties to what came before or we'd shun it. If this is so, I think that is unfortunate. But it's done... oh well. I'd compare what this film's creative staff did to what Singer did with Superman Returns. What Singer tried to do was reboot the Superman franchise, but remain tied in ways to Reeve's films and this polarized many fans opinions in my observations. But as I said, oh well. lol

Bative staff felt the need to boldy retread where we've all been beforeack to the film...

Yeah but there is a big difference. "Star Trek" isn't considered a mild disapointment like "Superman Returns". On the contrary, its on the path to becoming a pretty big hit. So I don't think tampering with the timeline cost them many fans. And even if it did, it brought in far more new fans. Whatever they did worked. I'd say we are diffinitly getting a sequel. Which I think will have a lot of potential. Not that they got the alternate timeline and orgin stuff out of the way, they can do a Star Trek movie exclusively.

 

[Mjuice]

However there was nothing really restricting VOY or NEM or whatever from taking their stories anywhere they wanted.

I think the sequels in book form proved that, though I only read the DS9 ones.

But I think that in order to expand Star Trek beyond its current (former) base, they had to promise new viewers that they could keep up with the story. There's no sense in telling people: "This is an awesome movie, but please watch these 176 episodes first in order to understand it."

Yeah i guess that's what DC and Marvel have been fighting with since the 80s. Sucks for old bastards like me who are invested in the old continuity and know every last trivial bit of minutiae in it, but what are you gonna do

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with reading new stories set in the "old" universe in book-form and watch a new continuity on the big screen or maybe even as a new TV series.

Yeah thank god for the books I will of course also likewise follow the new continuity closely.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

These are all new voyages and anything can happen. The gloves are off.

Yes, this is what sets this "Star Trek" film apart from the "Star Wars" prequels -- because it's NOT a prequel to future stories; it's a continuation of past stories with an unknown future.

In "Star Wars Episode I," there was no suspense. Would young Darth Vader die in the pod race? Would young Obi-Wan be killed by Darth Maul? There was no jeopardy, since we knew the exact futures of all these characters.

"Star Trek" has brilliantly freed itself from this "prequel" limitation, while still being loyal to previous episodes and continuity.

 

[Cdr MacDuff]

The reason to have the timeline change is for the writer to be able to write new Trek stories without being bothered by past series consistancy. Its an easy way out, but it makes their creative process more simple. For Star Trek fan is means they don't longer can discuss the Trek universe since its not consistant anymore. It can still be funny to see what stuff get changed in the next movie. For example, the Klingon may have acquired future tech from Nero's ship, making them the strongest forces in the galaxy. It could be the story for the next movie.

These are all new voyages and anything can happen. The gloves are off.

Yes, this is what sets this "Star Trek" film apart from the "Star Wars" prequels -- because it's NOT a prequel to future stories; it's a continuation of past stories with an unknown future.

In "Star Wars Episode I," there was no suspense. Would young Darth Vader die in the pod race? Would young Obi-Wan be killed by Darth Maul? There was no jeopardy, since we knew the exact futures of all these characters.

"Star Trek" has brilliantly freed itself from this "prequel" limitation, while still being loyal to previous episodes and continuity.

I don't know where you get that the new Trek timeline is a "continuation of past stories". It isn't. Its true that its an unknown future though.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

What I feel like this creative staff did is underestimate the fanbase in that it seems like they felt this film had to have ties to what came before or we'd shun it. If this is so, I think that is unfortunate.

No, I think the creators knew that, no matter what they did, there would be a minority of fans like you who would shun the film for their own personal reasons. Your mind was already made up before you saw the film. You obviously were not the target audience.

I thought the movie was fine, and among the four best "Trek" movies in the series. There are a lot of other movies, like "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and "Star Trek: Insurrection," that I would like to shun, but this movie was both exciting and consistent with past "Trek" stories. I think the creators made some good choices in terms of storyline and tone and pace.

I hope we get sequels, but I really hope that the creative staff does not feel the need to do Ultimate Trek/NuTrek versions of Trek Prime stories. I think that would be a crying shame to do. Even if they did a Khan (please don't do a Khan).

I agree, they should use this opportunity to get creative and invent all-new stories. Doing another Khan or Trelane or Harry Mudd would be too much like the Mirror Universe episodes, just introducing new versions of people we already know.

But at the same time, I would like to see some familiar aliens, besides Vulcans and Orions. Where are the Andorians, or the Betazoids, or the Deltans?

But at the price of Vulcan...??

Why is everyone getting upset about Vulcan? It's just one fictional planet. They've blown up many planets in "Star Trek" over the years ... including Romulus. Praxis blew up in "Star Trek VI." (Oh, the horror! All those dead Klingons! Why did the producers have to do that?)

Were you whining at the end of "Lord of the Rings," "Why did they have to blow up Mordor? Those poor Orcs!"

I think it's refreshing for a "Star Trek" story to have actual consequences that shake up the status quo. After all these years of people complaining about the "reset button" keeping everything the same in every episode, now people are complaining that something is actually different at the end of a story.

Obviously, they just can't please everyone. All they can do is tell an exciting story and hope a lot of people like it.

 

[Cdr MacDuff]

I think it's refreshing for a "Star Trek" story to have actual consequences that shake up the status quo. After all these years of people complaining about the "reset button" keeping everything the same in every episode, now people are complaining that something is actually different at the end of a story.

Well the entire past trek catalog is now receiving the "reset button" treatment. Its ok to have some reservation about it.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

The reason to have the timeline change is for the writer to be able to write new Trek stories without being bothered by past series consistancy. Its an easy way out, but it makes their creative process more simple.

No, you are comparing this to "Casino Royale" or "Batman Begins," where they just start a whole new story with the same character names, but ignore all previous stories. That is NOT what the creators did here. They went out of their way to both acknowledge and continue storylines established in past episodes and movies.

For Star Trek fan is means they don't longer can discuss the Trek universe since its not consistant anymore.

No, this story is just as consistent as every other time travel episode. In Voyager's "Endgame," Admiral Janeway went back to a new timeline and helped her younger self, exactly as Ambassador Spock did in this movie. (Since we saw Admiral Janeway in "Star Trek: Nemesis," that movie, like this one, was obviously taking place in an alternate timeline. How is this movie any different?)

In "Star Wars Episode I," there was no suspense. Would young Darth Vader die in the pod race? Would young Obi-Wan be killed by Darth Maul? There was no jeopardy, since we knew the exact futures of all these characters.

"Star Trek" has brilliantly freed itself from this "prequel" limitation, while still being loyal to previous episodes and continuity.

I don't know where you get that the new Trek timeline is a "continuation of past stories". It isn't. Its true that its an unknown future though.

It is a continuation of all past stories, from TOS through TNG and Voyager, because Ambassador Spock is still alive and remembers everything from his lifetime. Plus, this movie takes place in the future of "Enterprise," so every episode of that series still binds the creators of this movie, as seen in references to "Admiral Archer's beagle," "Melvaran mud fleas," etc.

Spock's statement to Kirk that he has been, and always shall be, his friend, is a direct reference back to "Star Trek II," which still happened in the original timeline.

We know the original timeline is still there, because we saw it in the movie AFTER Nero went back in time. Spock and Picard and Riker and Worf and everyone else was still there in the original timeline AFTER Nero went back. In fact, since Spock went back AFTER Nero, but ended up in the same new timeline, then obviously the black hole is an ongoing gateway between the two timelines, BOTH OF WHICH CONTINUE TO EXIST, AS DEPICTED IN THIS MOVIE.

So all of your favorite episodes still happened. Picard and the Enterprise-E is still out there having new adventures, and Ambassador Spock has not faded away like Marty in "Back to the Future." This movie is still very much connected to all previous episodes of "Star Trek." Nothing has been deleted or erased.