Was there a need for an alternate timeline?

[los2188]

Again, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but the thought has crossed my mind. Unlike some die hard fans I really do enjoy the new timeline with all the possibilities therein. I'm excited about the new adventures of the starship Enterprise, where her ongoing mission is to explore new worlds.. to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man, or no one has gone before...I came up with that phrase all by myself! Anyway...is an alternate timeline even necessary? I mean why not cover the original 5 year mission, but just expand on that 5 year mission. Tell stories of the things that we didn't see on the aforementioned original 5 year mission? Introduce new races and new stories. But then again I can understand the need of a new timeline to explain physical differences whether it be to the new crew like Kirk's eyes being blue now instead of the hazel green eyes that Shatner has, or the differing look of the Enterprise. What do you think...thanks for all the replies. I love it!! The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...or the one...(thought of that one myself too! )

 

[F. King Daniel]

They wanted to tell an origin story, but one that avoided all the usual prequel issues of knowing who lives and who dies (and open the door to sequels where anything can happen). I don't see how they could have done as well making a straight prequel.

"Whatever our lives might have been, if the time continuum was disrupted, our destinies have changed."

But then again I can understand the need of a new timeline to explain physical differences whether it be to the new crew like Kirk's eyes being blue now instead of the hazel green eyes that Shatner has, or the differing look of the Enterprise.

The new timeline DOESNT explain anything about how anyone or anything looks. Spock Prime recognized Kirk and Scotty on sight, so in-universe they look the same as Shatner and Doohan. They've simply been recast and the look of the universe given a much needed modernization.

 

[Dukhat]

Anyway...is an alternate timeline even necessary?

Yes, because now they can tell any kind of stories they want without having to be slavishly devoted to what happened in a '60's TV show, while at the same time respecting that a LOT of people loved that '60's TV show and making it clear that that universe still exists. It's just not the one they're playing in anymore.

But then again I can understand the need of a new timeline to explain physical differences whether it be to the new crew like Kirk's eyes being blue now instead of the hazel green eyes that Shatner has...

That has more to do with casting than with the color of someone's eyes being different in a parallel universe. How many times were different actors cast in the same roles in the prime universe? Saavik? Alexander Rozhenko? Torah Ziyal? I doubt central casting cared that Robin Curtis's eye color was or wasn't the same as Kirstie Alley's.

...or the differing look of the Enterprise.

The Enterprise looks different in this new timeline because there was a 20 year difference in technology advancement between Nero's incursion and the construction of the ship.

 

[C.E. Evans]

It was really only necessary in the sense of redoing TOS and taking it in new directions without tossing out everything that came after it. That was more of a creative choice than anything else, because we still would have two different continuities no matter what (our copies of movies and films from the original universe wouldn't just vanish into thin air).

 

[The Wormhole]

Rebooting the continuity was necessary, and given the very nature of Trek it was inevitable that this would be labeled an alternate timeline.

What was not necessary was the way they handled the alternate timeline with it splitting from the original Prime and Nimoy Spock showing up to spell things out.

Whatever, it's a three year old argument, and a rather pointless one. It is rebooted. We have an alternate reality that split from the original one. And registry numbers now start with zero.

 

[Dukhat]

And registry numbers now start with zero.

They started with zero in the prime timeline, as the Kelvin was in existence before Nero's incursion.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

They wanted to tell an origin story, but one that avoided all the usual prequel issues of knowing who lives and who dies (and open the door to sequels where anything can happen).

Yeah it was a mercenary decision (which is not to say it wasn't also a correct decision) to free up the story possibilities so that they could write a compelling story for the wider audience while pissing off the fans as little as possible.

Any other decision would have had large pitfalls. The alternative would be, who cares about the fans, just reboot the whole thing for real. And then you would have heard some real howling around here.

What they were never going to do is, cater to the fans even if it means being restricted creatively. The make or break for the movie is reaching a huge global audience who are largely non fans. Anything that inhibits that goal had to be swept away.

 

[Set Harth]

Just like the last remnants of the old Republic.

 

[1bulma1]

Yes there was ....the success of the 09 film both critically and finically proves it.

star trek was starting over so the needed to make new stories with old characters and this to me was the best decision.

The same was done with Nolan’s batman series and the recent Spiderman series.

I always fail to understand why people always whine and say some of the stuff in the 09 film is not TOS canon

09 film is an alternate universe (a different history) so some of the things we see on screen are not meant to be TOS canon.

 

[Silversmok3]

YES!

Writing an original script thats compelling to all viewers is hard enough, without shoehorning decades of canon behind it. Trek fans would walk in thinking "we know Kirk, Spock, McCoy and gang ain't dying" and the average Joe would sit down wondering if why they need to take a class in Trek History 220 before watching a movie.

The old canon had to be set aside for the 2009 movie to work, and work well it did. Furthermore, the old timeline still technically exists;so future filmakers are not precluded from making a 24th Century follow on, should the franchise be popular enough for such a project.

 

[Desert Kris]

For me, the best reasons for having a version of Star Trek that connects to the what's been seen in the past, yet can be different or similar to varying degrees is best imagined when I compare the old and new Battlestar Galactica shows side by side.

The first example that presents itself is a personal favorite storyline of mine in the old series, the visit to Kobol, where the characters visit a mysterious, ancient homeworld that their legends tell them they came from. They do some cook archeology things, there's fun action, and a hard-hitting change occurs for a couple of characters on a deeply personal level. It all goes down in about 1 or 1 and a half episodes, and was well remembered years after I had seen it as a little kid.

The core story was taken by the new series, and expanded and adapted to fit the sensibilities of the new show's style. Some of the consequences of the new show's creator's decisions in adapting the story expanded the scope of what was happening for the characters and story, and the original core story idea inspired material to last for something like 7 or perhaps 9 episodes, forming a huge epic built on that much smaller but still epic idea of the visit to Kobol. Breathtaking.

This big storyline in the new series started as a big time season ending cliffhanger for the new series, after utilizing the style of the new series to cultivating many episode built on entirely brand-new story ideas.

So, the new version of BSG early on maximized it's potential for new stories, and took a small but significantly memorable story idea from the old series and got an extraordinary piece of television drama out of it.

We now have a totally different perspective on how the TOS characters relate to each other. And we have the potential for totally brand new stories. And we have the potential for an old favorite to work in a totally unexpected way.

I know people argue about Khan. But it's a well known example. Strong in the minds of a casual viewer. We could see a version of Khan who has already been set loose on the galaxy. Not one guy with a handful of followers trying to hijack a ship, or a vengeful madman who captures a ship to battle one-on-one, ship versus ship. What about seeing Khan as a prince once again, with political power in the 23rd century? And dreams of continued imperial expansion and conquest. A formidable opponent at many different levels, politically, tactically, or physically.

 

[starburst]

I like to think that if the next movie is about Khan, or one further down the road, it plays out how you suggest, where he was found earlier and that encounter was radically different so Khan doesnt try to take control and instead works a larger, grander scheme.

To parapharase the BSG analogy, just because it happened before doesnt mean it has to happen again.

 

[BruntFCA]

No they should have just called it what it was, a reboot/reimagining. I really liked the new movie but the story gymnastics they went through to try and connect it to the "prime" universe was just stupid and unnecessary.

 

[R. Star]

They would be bound by continuity if they just worked the new movies into the old universe. Now they're not. Better that than Berman/Braga's attitude of just not caring about it.

 

[Skellington]

The alternate timeline explanation keeps the movie on the straight and narrow by making it a soft reboot rather than an entirely new version, which would really bethe only viablealternative. A straight prequel was never feasible, as it would constrain the scope and timetable of any sequels and (probably) elicit apathy from the general moviegoing public; hence NuSpock's spelling out that the future was not written in stone.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

No they should have just called it what it was, a reboot/reimagining. I really liked the new movie but the story gymnastics they went through to try and connect it to the "prime" universe was just stupid and unnecessary.

I'm with you in this camp. While the ALT-universe idea doesn't bother me too much, I think it would have just been easier to say "this is a re-imagining".

Hopefully, from this point forward, we won't be reminded that this is an ALT-universe, and we can simply try to enjoy the story being presented in the universe that, for all intents and purposes, is a re-imagined one. No ALT-universe is required.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I love how this new Trek is tied to the old - it gives nuTrek the rich, deep universe without any of the continuity bog-downs (aside from the ancient history of Enterprise which doesn't impact anything)

And it's incredibly cool that the Spock we saw from "The Cage" through to STVI and "Unification" lives on in it.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Better that than Berman/Braga's attitude of just not caring about it.

Rick Berman shepherded - was it 25 seasons of television? - and four feature films, and you're accusing him of "just not caring" about consistency, quality and canonicity?

I think it would have just been easier to say "this is a re-imagining".

I think there'd have been much anger from a larger group of complainers.

And it's incredibly cool that the Spock we saw from "The Cage" through to STVI and "Unification" lives on in it.

Exactly. I was fully expecting him to return to his own timeline, or vanish in the attempt - or that that the unfamiliar Enterprise bridge would suddenly reset to a TOS appearance. Those final two scenes in the movie were totally out of left field and thrilled me no end!

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I love how this new Trek is tied to the old - it gives nuTrek the rich, deep universe without any of the continuity bog-downs (aside from the ancient history of Enterprise which doesn't impact anything)

And it's incredibly cool that the Spock we saw from "The Cage" through to STVI and "Unification" lives on in it.

I could not disagree more. The scenes with Leonard Nimoy were unnecesary, brought the story of Star Trek 09 to a screeching halt, shoehorning in painful and nonsensical exposition, and twisting the whole story into tortured loops when it had had a chance to be something interesting - and for what? Hamfisted proclamations of lifelong friendship? Trek fans already knew that and non-Trek fans said WTF? It was horrible, horrible storytelling. You want me to believe that Kirk and Spock have a deep and abiding friendship? Show me, don't tell me - that's rank amateurism, or rank fanwank and I don't need it. What I do need is good SF storytelling and I couldn't care less whether or not the reboot is attached through some time travel bs to the old universe when the end result is exactly the same. I will never understand why fans find it "disrespectful" to reboot a universe. It's not like doing so means someone breaks into your house and steals all of your TOS DVDs. It doesn't "erase" anything. It just says, we're done with that particular version of the story - now we're doing a new one. Which they are doing anyway. And in the course of pandering to fans they ruined what might have been a good movie, ending up with something that was mildly entertaining for a couple of hours, but utterly forgettable because it was ultimately so completely dumb.

 

[Set Harth]

nonsensical exposition

There was nothing nonsensical about it.

The scenes with Leonard Nimoy were unnecesary

For the story the creators of the film wanted to tell, they were necessary. They also help to counter the notion that the film has no connection to prior continuity, a notion often promoted by those seeking a flimsy excuse to discredit the film by any means.

You want me to believe that Kirk and Spock have a deep and abiding friendship? Show me, don't tell me

Already done, in TOS and the earlier films. In STXI we're not at that point yet. That would be jumping ahead.

utterly forgettable

Some might find it hard to forget the resurrection of a franchise that was for all intents and purposes dead in the water, especially when the film in question has the strongest opening sequence out of all the films in the franchise.