Why is ST09's altered timeline a problem?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think they should alter the timeline in every movie from now on.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I think they should alter the timeline in every movie from now on.

Nah, it should be altered at the beginning of Act One and at the end of Act Three in every movie. Keep critics on their toes.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

But it's not how they met up; it as some alternate universe take on it. It would've been 'exciting' and 'significant' had it been a prequel and had it been how the characters we know and love actually met up.

Of course it's some alternate universe take on it: it's fiction. We can't document how these characters actually met up because they didn't: they don't exist outside our imaginations. It really boggles the mind how some people seem to insist that Star Trek is some kind of revealed history of the future, instead of a collection of stories loosely connected by an ever changing continuity.

 

[ST-One]

I want to see the main, true timeline, and no others.

To which "main, true timeline" are you referring? Before or after it was changed by:
- Tomorrow is Yesterday
- STIV: The Voyage Home
- Yesterday's Enterprise
- Trials and Tribble-ations
- Little Green Men
- numerous other episodes and movies which employed time travel and changed history

No change anywhere.

Or the timeline in WNMHGB and The Cage, both pilots, but on screen and therefore canon? Endless arguments could be made in favor of any one of those being the "main, true timeline".

No difference, is the same timeline.

James R. Kirk.

Just sayin'.

 

[Shazam!]

Of course it's some alternate universe take on it: it's fiction. We can't document how these characters actually met up because they didn't: they don't exist outside our imaginations.

And you had at go me for not being 'fun'....

It really boggles the mind how some people seem to insist that Star Trek is some kind of revealed history of the future

Except that no-one has ever done that ever.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

It really boggles the mind how some people seem to insist that Star Trek is some kind of revealed history of the future, instead of a collection of stories loosely connected by an ever changing continuity.

Whuh???

You...mean...they're...not...real?????? Noooooooo! I...I....I don't believe it!! Please say you're not telling me that Captain Kirk is...is....FICTIONAL???!?!?!??!!! Oh My Gosh!!! You're ruined my whole life!!! Are you actually trying to tell me that my DVD's aren't really "historical documents" from the future????? How can this be????

Sorry, just had to do it. It really boggles my mind how some people seem to insist that others have some delusion that Star Trek is somehow "real" and not a work of fiction. However, the "history" you refer to consists of the last 40+ years of continuing stroies in the Star Trek universe. The continuity therein is quite tighter than you give it credit for. There are errors, but for the most part, the internal consistency of the established Star Trek universe is pretty coherent. There are plenty of stories that haven't been told yet.

 

[stonester1]

And that remains a possibility. Meanwhile we have books. The online game. Other mediums.

Only an obsession with TEH CANON prevents one from enjoying them.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

And that remains a possibility. Meanwhile we have books. The online game. Other mediums.

Only an obsession with TEH CANON prevents one from enjoying them.

Correct. But the books and online games aren't "canon". And yes, I have "respect" for Star Trek's canon. And just out of curiosity, what's with the misspelling of "THE (TEH)" every time you type "THE CANON"? Is it on purpose for some reason or a never ending typo, or some kond of inside joke that I don't get? Just curious because you do it every single time you type that phrase in all caps or in lowercase. It's just funny.

 

[stonester1]

It's just funny.

You put your finger on it.

In the meantime, you need to lighten up and try these other mediums. The books are telling some POWERFUL stories, with the intent on broadening the big picture of the established Trek history. They just told the story of the last encounter with the Borg, a simply amazing story.

It's one thing to respect TEH CANON (I do). It's entirely another to be fixated on it.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I have tried to read a couple of the novels. I just don't have time anymore. Especially with a job, wife, and two kids. I'm sure the novels are fantastic. And maybe I'll get the opportunity to sit down with one of them sometime. But as good as they are, they still aren't part of the established Star Trek history. As much as we'd like them to be. The problem is, that story about the last encounter with the Borg may have been amazing, but they could make another movie or TV series that depicts the same encounter with a completely different outcome and that would be "canon" because it was seen on screen. That's why I'm not terribly interested in the novels. And I don't play online games. Never have been that much interested in video games of any kind. But I do see where you are coming form. I just don't see it the same way.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Except that no-one has ever done that ever.

Some people have acted as if the history of the Star Trek universe were something sacred, something axiomatic, something that can't be touched or altered, like a real history or a holy book.

However, the "history" you refer to consists of the last 40+ years of continuing stroies in the Star Trek universe. The continuity therein is quite tighter than you give it credit for. There are errors, but for the most part, the internal consistency of the established Star Trek universe is pretty coherent. There are plenty of stories that haven't been told yet.

Yeah, sorry for the hyperbole.

What I meant was that yes, there are plenty of stories that you could tell within the confines of the old Star Trek continuity, but there are more stories that you can tell by breaking the rules a little, and there's nothing wrong with that. Star Trek continuity has no value of its own: if it doesn't make for better, more entertaining stories, it should be discarded. And in fact, it has.

 

[ST-One]

Except that no-one has ever done that ever.

Some people have acted as if the history of the Star Trek universe were something sacred, something axiomatic, something that can't be touched or altered, like a real history or a holy book.

Like Cary L. Brown, who isn't around any longer to compare a period piece about, say... the second world war with the depiction of the 23rd century in Trek.

 

[Greg Cox]

You...mean...they're...not...real?????? Noooooooo! I...I....I don't believe it!! Please say you're not telling me that Captain Kirk is...is....FICTIONAL???!?!?!??!!! Oh My Gosh!!! You're ruined my whole life!!! Are you actually trying to tell me that my DVD's aren't really "historical documents" from the future????? How can this be????

Sorry, just had to do it. It really boggles my mind how some people seem to insist that others have some delusion that Star Trek is somehow "real" and not a work of fiction.

Hah! Seriously, I don't think anyone is really suggesting that the hardcore continuity fans actually think this stuff is real, but there does seem to be a segment of fandom that is emotionally invested in the idea that there is a "real" and a "true" STAR TREK canon that trumps all others. As opposed to those us who attach less importance to canon and see it just as raw material to work with--and revise as necessary.

(I, of course, may be biased here, having spent my entire career writing books that were never considered canon. So I stopped worrying about canon decades ago)

So, yeah, some of us get baffled and scratch our heads when people start complaining that this isn't the "real" Kirk. It's not that we think those other posters are delusional; it's just that we know in our hearts that none of it is real. So arguing about which imaginary fictional constructs are more real than others seem kind of puzzling . . . .

 

[Brutal Strudel]

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

Exactly. The altered timeline stuff is a fig leaf to make us canonistas happy (and we see how well that worked--though it did permit the creators to explain why this Kirk is so different from Shatner's) while allowing the new team to take Star Trek wherever they want to. I'd have preferred a fig leaf-free reboot but then, I didn't make the movie.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'd have preferred a fig leaf free reboot but then, I didn't make the movie.

I think it would have been simpler.

 

[stonester1]

Simpler? What they did was pretty simple, and in fine Trek tradition. The only people who have a problem with it are the canonistas.

Who cares?

 

[I-Am-Zim]

You...mean...they're...not...real?????? Noooooooo! I...I....I don't believe it!! Please say you're not telling me that Captain Kirk is...is....FICTIONAL???!?!?!??!!! Oh My Gosh!!! You're ruined my whole life!!! Are you actually trying to tell me that my DVD's aren't really "historical documents" from the future????? How can this be????

Sorry, just had to do it. It really boggles my mind how some people seem to insist that others have some delusion that Star Trek is somehow "real" and not a work of fiction.

Hah! Seriously, I don't think anyone is really suggesting that the hardcore continuity fans actually think this stuff is real, but there does seem to be a segment of fandom that is emotionally invested in the idea that there is a "real" and a "true" STAR TREK canon that trumps all others. As opposed to those us who attach less importance to canon and see it just as raw material to work with--and revise as necessary.

(I, of course, may be biased here, having spent my entire career writing books that were never considered canon. So I stopped worrying about canon decades ago)

So, yeah, some of us get baffled and scratch our heads when people start complaining that this isn't the "real" Kirk. It's not that we think those other posters are delusional; it's just that we know in our hearts that none of it is real. So arguing about which imaginary fictional constructs are more real than others seem kind of puzzling . . . .

Yeah. I'm one of "them", and I freely admit it. I place the "canon" of the fictional Star Trek history in high regard. I don't think it should be messed with unless the changes can be explained within the continuity itself (and please don't start about the alt universe. That didn't explain anything, it was a clever trick to sidestep any relationship with previous canon). If all Star Trek series and movies (with the obvious exception of STXI) are supposed to be set in the same fictional universe (and they have been, all the way from "The Cage" to "Nemesis", unless someone from Paramount or CBS - who own the rights, say otherwise), then there must be some kind of framework of history within that universe with which to build around. It would be odd if say, another Trek TV series came out claiming to be a continuation of Kirk's five year mission on the Enterprise and we find that Ckekov was killed by Armis the greasy oil creature. That would make the rest of the series and movies completely meaningless because the history of that universe had been changed. That's my problem. However, STXI is obviously set in an alternate universe from the beginning so it really shouldn't matter. But it does, to me.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Simpler? What they did was pretty simple, and in fine Trek tradition. The only people who have a problem with it are the canonistas.

Who cares?

Actually, if your gonna call me names, I would prefer the term "canonist" Canonista sort of has a feminine connotation to it. Thanks.

Edit: Not that the "ista" on the end is bad. If I were female, it would be fine (I don't want to offend any female cononists out there, if there are any). But I'm not, so I would prefer an "ist" on the end.

 

[Gojira]

You...mean...they're...not...real?????? Noooooooo! I...I....I don't believe it!! Please say you're not telling me that Captain Kirk is...is....FICTIONAL???!?!?!??!!! Oh My Gosh!!! You're ruined my whole life!!! Are you actually trying to tell me that my DVD's aren't really "historical documents" from the future????? How can this be????

Sorry, just had to do it. It really boggles my mind how some people seem to insist that others have some delusion that Star Trek is somehow "real" and not a work of fiction.

Hah! Seriously, I don't think anyone is really suggesting that the hardcore continuity fans actually think this stuff is real, but there does seem to be a segment of fandom that is emotionally invested in the idea that there is a "real" and a "true" STAR TREK canon that trumps all others. As opposed to those us who attach less importance to canon and see it just as raw material to work with--and revise as necessary.

(I, of course, may be biased here, having spent my entire career writing books that were never considered canon. So I stopped worrying about canon decades ago)

So, yeah, some of us get baffled and scratch our heads when people start complaining that this isn't the "real" Kirk. It's not that we think those other posters are delusional; it's just that we know in our hearts that none of it is real. So arguing about which imaginary fictional constructs are more real than others seem kind of puzzling . . . .

As a long time fan since the early 70s I have enjoyed Trek's continuity. I don't mind Trek being rebooted I just think this movie really muddied up the waters because there is great debate on how this movie fits in with continuity and there are valid arguments on both sides of the isle that point to a parallel universe being created or original Trek being written over. So the problem is that the movie isn't as clear about these issues as the writers claim it to be.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Why does it matter?

Jesus.