Why is ST09's altered timeline a problem?

[TiberiusMaximus]

I'd like to know why the alternate timeline in ST09 bothers the critics so much. We've seen alternate timelines many, many times in the shows - Yesterday's Enterprise, Year of Hell, and so on - and I don't think any of that has caused such irritation. Is it because they've been overused? Or is it because the 'changes' seem so permanent? I'm just wondering what everyone's thinking.
On a slightly related note, it really bugs me when fans of a show think they understand the show better than the people who made it. I read a transcript of a chat between Orci, Kurtzman, and a bunch of fans a while ago, and one of the fans actually told one of the writers he was wrong about the way HE WROTE the show. They made the show, and you don't have to like it, but in the end it is their creation and what they say is the truth as far as the "reality" of the show goes.
Any thoughts?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

We're not seeing an altered timeline because the Trek tradition is to either ignore altered timelines as irrelevant or to reboot the suckers so we can get back to the One True Timeline.

We are seeing an alternate universe, like Mirror, Mirror. There, it's perfectly acceptable to believe that there's another reality and dopplegangers for all the characters, rolling merrily along in parallel to the one we're watching. We've accepted this idea for decades, with several visits to the MU every now and then.

The question is: why is this concept that we've accepted for decades suddenly "bad"? Only if people think this is an alternative timeline, which we haven't ever accepted as something that has the "right" to run in parallel to the original timeline.

Just think of Abrams 'verse as another variation on the MU idea.

 

[SchwEnt]

Speaking for myself, I can think of a couple of things.

One...do a straight prequel origins story, sticking with established facts and histories or Two...totally re-boot the thing, start off with a "re-imagining" or whatever term you wanna use. One or the other.

They went half-assed with "alternate time line", so they can SAY these are the same characters and this is the origins story, but they can do whatever they want with them. It's a cop-out to me.

I'll keep going...
It's not so much the "alternate time line" as much it's a betrayal of TOS.

A Spock who lost his mother when he was young, along with his planet, who seems to be on speaking terms with his father...is fundamentally NOT the Spock we've known for decades.

A Kirk who never knew his father, didn't witness the massacre under Kodos, didn't serve aboard the Farragut under Captain Garrovick, etc...is fundamentally NOT the Jim Kirk as we have known him.

It's like having a Hamlet whose father wasn't murdered. It's just not Hamlet, is it?

Same with everything else...it's not the timeline, it's the characters. They are being changed with or without these life-altering events. So yeah, I got a problem with these characters called McCoy and Kirk and Spock who bear no resemblance to those I've known all my life.

Plus, I simply don't buy the "alternate timeline with no Vulcan" bullshit.
If the Earth got wiped out, there's no ST EVER that would have just gone along okay, let's just deal with this timeline. Go back in time, whatever it takes, to save Earth (naturally). But this time, with Spock no less, yeah it's okay to let Vulcan go. Right.

 

[muzzleflash]

Speaking for myself, I can think of a couple of things.

One...do a straight prequel origins story, sticking with established facts and histories or Two...totally re-boot the thing, start off with a "re-imagining" or whatever term you wanna use. One or the other.

They went half-assed with "alternate time line", so they can SAY these are the same characters and this is the origins story, but they can do whatever they want with them. It's a cop-out to me.

They went with the alternative universe to appease the inevitable mass of drooling fans crying "TEH CANON!"

I'll keep going...
It's not so much the "alternate time line" as much it's a betrayal of TOS.

A Spock who lost his mother when he was young, along with his planet, who seems to be on speaking terms with his father...is fundamentally NOT the Spock we've known for decades.

A Kirk who never knew his father, didn't witness the massacre under Kodos, didn't serve aboard the Farragut under Captain Garrovick, etc...is fundamentally NOT the Jim Kirk as we have known him.

I hope you're not a writer.

It's like having a Hamlet whose father wasn't murdered. It's just not Hamlet, is it?

Except that the murder of Hamlet's father was integral to the plot. TOS (which did not have much of a plot to begin with) is much more than Kirk & Spock's relationships with their respect parents. In fact, how many episodes in total ever focused on Spock and his parents? How many on Kirk and his parents?

Plus, I simply don't buy the "alternate timeline with no Vulcan" bullshit.
If the Earth got wiped out, there's no ST EVER that would have just gone along okay, let's just deal with this timeline. Go back in time, whatever it takes, to save Earth (naturally). But this time, with Spock no less, yeah it's okay to let Vulcan go. Right.

Again, it's not an alternative timeline, it's an alternative universe. Thus, Abrams can do whatever the hell he wants with it, assuming you care that much about continuity and can't simply accept that it's a different Trek. The existence/non-existence of Vulcan is a mere technicality. It doesn't change what Trek is fundamentally about. In fact, this opens up the possibility for the next movie (hpoefully but I doubt it) to explore the ramifications of a world that has just been obliterated.

 

[Sector 7]

Some basement-dwelling fanboys simply cannot accept that Star Trek is a business property whose owners decided to make changes in order to make it more profitable.

The fans purchase products made by Paramount, the owners; the fans do not own Star Trek. Unfortunately, some fans refuse to understand this concept. That is why ST09's altered timeline is a problem for them. It is not a problem for the studio, they can do what they want. This time many, many fans and non-fans agreed with their decisions and spent approximately a quarter billion dollars on Paramount's product. That was enough profit to warrant a second venture by Paramount in the form of a sequel.

As long as they continue to produce a profitable product, fans will have Star Trek in its current form.

 

[DonIago]

The writers were apparently damned either way.

Alternate timeline - "They don't even have the balls to say, 'This is the new canon!'"

Altered the original timeline - "How dare they blow up Vulcan and destroy the characters I grew up with! Who do they think they are?"

Altered the original timeline, but saved Vulcan - "Oh joy, a -movie- with a reset button ending. God forbid the writers should do anything ballsy!"

 

[Sector 7]

The writers were apparently damned either way.

Alternate timeline - "They don't even have the balls to say, 'This is the new canon!'"

Altered the original timeline - "How dare they blow up Vulcan and destroy the characters I grew up with! Who do they think they are?"

Altered the original timeline, but saved Vulcan - "Oh joy, a -movie- with a reset button ending. God forbid the writers should do anything ballsy!"

QFT!!!!!

 

[DonIago]

FWIW, I really did think they'd save Vulcan at the end...rather mixed feelings at the time. I was impressed that they didn't.

 

[SchwEnt]

Yeah, the writers were damned either way. But it needn't be so.

I see no reason why a prequel or origins story couldn't be done and remain consistent with the "prime" timeline or universe or whatever.

As a example...Kirk spoke about Mallory's father helping him get into the academy. We could have seen that, instead of Pike being the mentor figure,
(which was never really the case).

It seems lazy to me, it seems as if they could have written a story in keeping with established canon, just as exciting, just as entertaining.
But someone wanted to do different things, things that wouldn't be in keeping with established ST history or canon or premises.

So they used the cop-out of an alternate "timeline" or "universe" whatever.
This enabled them to make something they wanted yet still call it "Star Trek".

 

[Warped9]

My beef isn't that it's an alternate universe or whatever or even a reboot. My beef(s) is that I don't think it's a good film in of itself. There are just too many things wrong with it I don't like.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

Some basement-dwelling fanboys simply cannot accept that Star Trek is a business property whose owners decided to make changes in order to make it more profitable.

The fans purchase products made by Paramount, the owners; the fans do not own Star Trek. Unfortunately, some fans refuse to understand this concept. That is why ST09's altered timeline is a problem for them. It is not a problem for the studio, they can do what they want. This time many, many fans and non-fans agreed with their decisions and spent approximately a quarter billion dollars on Paramount's product. That was enough profit to warrant a second venture by Paramount in the form of a sequel.

As long as they continue to produce a profitable product, fans will have Star Trek in its current form.

The writers were apparently damned either way.

Alternate timeline - "They don't even have the balls to say, 'This is the new canon!'"

Altered the original timeline - "How dare they blow up Vulcan and destroy the characters I grew up with! Who do they think they are?"

Altered the original timeline, but saved Vulcan - "Oh joy, a -movie- with a reset button ending. God forbid the writers should do anything ballsy!"

QFT & Epic Pawnage!

 

[stonester1]

The writers were apparently damned either way.

Alternate timeline - "They don't even have the balls to say, 'This is the new canon!'"

Altered the original timeline - "How dare they blow up Vulcan and destroy the characters I grew up with! Who do they think they are?"

Altered the original timeline, but saved Vulcan - "Oh joy, a -movie- with a reset button ending. God forbid the writers should do anything ballsy!"

This.

 

[Shazam!]

Alternate timeline

Altered the original timeline

Altered the original timeline, but saved Vulcan

Because the writers only had those 3 options to choose from.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It doesn't bother me at all. As far as I care, this is a reboot and I'm happy with the reboot.

 

[ST-One]

Some basement-dwelling fanboys simply cannot accept that Star Trek is a business property whose owners decided to make changes in order to make it more profitable.

The fans purchase products made by Paramount, the owners; the fans do not own Star Trek. Unfortunately, some fans refuse to understand this concept. That is why ST09's altered timeline is a problem for them. It is not a problem for the studio, they can do what they want. This time many, many fans and non-fans agreed with their decisions and spent approximately a quarter billion dollars on Paramount's product. That was enough profit to warrant a second venture by Paramount in the form of a sequel.

As long as they continue to produce a profitable product, fans will have Star Trek in its current form.

The writers were apparently damned either way.

Alternate timeline - "They don't even have the balls to say, 'This is the new canon!'"

Altered the original timeline - "How dare they blow up Vulcan and destroy the characters I grew up with! Who do they think they are?"

Altered the original timeline, but saved Vulcan - "Oh joy, a -movie- with a reset button ending. God forbid the writers should do anything ballsy!"

This.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'll keep going...
It's not so much the "alternate time line" as much it's a betrayal of TOS..

It's not a "betrayal." It's just a new take on STAR TREK for a new generation. What's the point of relaunching the series if you're just going to do the same old thing?

The brilliant thing about the new timeline is that STAR TREK'S future is not set in stone. They can do whatever they want with these new versions of the characters.

 

[BillJ]

The brilliant thing about the new timeline is that STAR TREK'S future is not set in stone. They can do whatever they want with these new versions of the characters.

Which they could have done with a straight reboot. Or am I wrong in this assumption?

 

[Brian]

I'd like to know why the alternate timeline in ST09 bothers the critics so much.

Because they cling to the canon so tightly, as if it's their lifeline. They have a desperate need to know everything, every detail, and have it lay out along a timeline that they can refer to in their arguments about shirt colors and forehead ridge shapes.

Because the altered timeline makes them feel like someone is saying that all of their favorite moments in Trek history didn't "really" happen. But news for them, Star Trek is fiction. None of it really happened, regardless of what J.J. and company did with the film.

Like Dennis, I feel that it's a reboot, and I'm fine with that. Maybe their mistake was tying it to the original continuity in any way at all.

 

[BillJ]

I'd like to know why the alternate timeline in ST09 bothers the critics so much.

Because they cling to the canon so tightly, as if it's their lifeline. They have a desperate need to know everything, every detail, and have it lay out along a timeline that they can refer to in their arguments about shirt colors and forehead ridge shapes.

Because the altered timeline makes them feel like someone is saying that all of their favorite moments in Trek history didn't "really" happen. But news for them, Star Trek is fiction. None of it really happened, regardless of what J.J. and company did with the film.

Like Dennis, I feel that it's a reboot, and I'm fine with that. Maybe their mistake was tying it to the original continuity in any way at all.

I actually find this post quite insulting.

Maybe people don't find it dramatically satisfying that copies of what they've known for forty years were destroyed. I know that as I sat in the theatre that there was just no emotional hook for me. Wrap the lack of emotional hook with the fact that the story was pretty poor and you have the reason that this movie failed for me.

 

[Greg Cox]

The brilliant thing about the new timeline is that STAR TREK'S future is not set in stone. They can do whatever they want with these new versions of the characters.

Which they could have done with a straight reboot. Or am I wrong in this assumption?

Sure, but the time-travel gimmick makes it more Star Trekky and let them include some nostalgic scenes with Leonard Nimoy. And it may have helped ease some of us old-time Trekkies into the new version.

Fundamentally, the movie is a reboot. The alternative universe business was just a clever bonus.