Will the original timeline ever be restored?

[F. King Daniel]

There's no way James R. Kirk and James T. Kirk are the same guy.

Alternate universe.

Actually, Peter David's excellent multiverse pileup novel Q-Squared DID put "Where No Man..." in an alternate reality to TOS. It led to a TNG era where an unstable Jack Crusher was captain of the Enterprise-D, Wesley died age 5 and first officer Jean-Luc Picard was having an affair with Crusher's ex-wife Beverly Howard....

 

[Christopher]

Huh? Next you're going to be telling me that 23rd century Starfleet officers don't really wear miniskirts and go-go boots.

Let's not get crazy here . . . .

Well, that part isn't a problem, since fashion is often cyclical.

I'm talking about the parallel universe in regards to Trek 09 only. All I am saying is that couldn't those differences be explained because it is a parallel universe?

Depends on what differences you mean. The differences in the design of the Enterprise? Yeah, sure, because it wasn't built until after the timelines split in 2233. The difference in Chekov's age? Okay, yeah, since he was born after 2233 in both timelines. But not the different appearances of Kirk, Spock, Scotty, Sarek, and Amanda, because they were all born, or at least conceived, before the timelines split (and because we know from Spock Prime's reaction that there was no in-universe difference in Kirk's or Scott's appearance, just a difference in the real-life actors who were portraying those particular fictional characters). And not the different technology design of the Kelvin, because it was built before the timelines split.

I know that it's not intended to be, but to me...it would make some sense that it being a parallel universe that there would be some slight changes even physically.

Again, that depends. These things aren't random or magical. You can't just use "parallel universe" as a handwave for any arbitrary difference like the sky being purple, unless you're writing Futurama. Things happen for reasons. If a timeline diverges into two parallel tracks, then variations in events might occur between those two timelines, but anything that happens in one must be something that could have happened in the other if circumstances had been a bit different.

And sure, realistically, any difference in the circumstances in which two people conceive a child would probably result in a different sperm-egg combination and produce a genetically different individual, even if they gave the child the same name. But that's not the way it's usually portrayed in Star Trek, where we've seen numerous iterations of people born centuries after a timeline split still looking identical -- not only played by the same actors in real life, but being able to impersonate each other in the story so we know they're meant to be physically identical. Therefore we must accept the conceit that one of the rules of Trek-universe alternate timelines is that some process is at work that causes the same people to be born in many different timelines. So you can't just say, "Okay, in this one timeline, that rule that applies everywhere else has suddenly stopped working and the people look different." No. That's just silly and arbitrary.

 

[The Castellan]

Chris Pine is Kirk now.

When all is said and done, we ultimately will have six hours of Star Trek production, in which Chris Pine played Kirk, then (most likely) he'll be gone forever from that role. Place that against the multiple dozens of hours of Star Trek with that non-Pine guy playing Kirk.

William Shatner is still Kirk.

Friend!

Heck, if the makers of Doctor Who had insisted that only William Hartnell could play the Doctor, the series would've ended after a bit more than three seasons and would now be mostly forgotten.

But at least Doctor who is NOT a reboot.....ya hear that, Hollywood? And the Doctor Who writers came up with a brilliant idea of keeping the show going, and not alienate fans, either....something that Hollywood should take a look with.

I said it once, I'l lsay it again, reboots are just for cheap, lazy Hollywood who won't touch the "let's make something original!" button with a 100 foot pole. To me, if Trek has to survive by replacing all the Boldly Going Where no one has Gone Before with just mindless, summer blockbuster popcorn action, I say let it die. I mean you'd not take Coke, dump the formula, replace it with something akin to Mountain Dew and say it's still coke. Plus, knowing JJ's style, it seems Trek is just going to be relegated to stuff blowing up every 30 seconds, or Kirk just being some "look at me, i'm so cool!" prick....still wondering if we'll see Spock wearing all black, listening to emo rock, while cutting himself.

I really wish I could find a good TNG era fan series on par with the Phase II TOS series as far as quality -- none of them have been very good.

Well, good sir. I am planning to make a TNG era comic myself soon, and once I get it going, I'll keep an open ear to any constructive critique. I'll have some posted once I can get started.

What makes anyone think we can trust "Prime" Spock's story anyway? He could be from an alternate timeline where he's a loyal Terran Empire soldier in the 24th Century and he intentionally destroyed Romulus.

Well, JJ's universe, to me, feels like a Mirror Universe story. All it needs now is just a knife plunged into the Starfleet logo or something.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

Friend!

...

But at least Doctor who is NOT a reboot.....ya hear that, Hollywood? And the Doctor Who writers came up with a brilliant idea of keeping the show going, and not alienate fans, either....something that Hollywood should take a look with.

I said it once, I'l lsay it again, reboots are just for cheap, lazy Hollywood who won't touch the "let's make something original!" button with a 100 foot pole. To me, if Trek has to survive by replacing all the Boldly Going Where no one has Gone Before with just mindless, summer blockbuster popcorn action, I say let it die. I mean you'd not take Coke, dump the formula, replace it with something akin to Mountain Dew and say it's still coke. Plus, knowing JJ's style, it seems Trek is just going to be relegated to stuff blowing up every 30 seconds, or Kirk just being some "look at me, i'm so cool!" prick....still wondering if we'll see Spock wearing all black, listening to emo rock, while cutting himself.

...

Well, good sir. I am planning to make a TNG era comic myself soon, and once I get it going, I'll keep an open ear to any constructive critique. I'll have some posted once I can get started.

...

Well, JJ's universe, to me, feels like a Mirror Universe story. All it needs now is just a knife plunged into the Starfleet logo or something.

If you quote people but, rather than actually replying to what they've said, you use it as a transparent pretext for posting the same old harangues you've posted many times already, you know what that's called? It's called spamming, and as I've asked you before not to do that, you now have a warning for it. All comments to PM, please.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

But at least Doctor who is NOT a reboot... ya hear that, Hollywood? And the Doctor Who writers came up with a brilliant idea of keeping the show going, and not alienate fans, either... something that Hollywood should take a look with.

They came up with that brilliant idea in 1966. Unfortunately, Trek doesn't have a built-in reboot device. You can't simply apply the Doctor Who formula to other series.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'd say the idea the Doctor can regenerate is a clever way to reboot. You can change the characters look and personality.

 

[Christopher]

I'd say that using time travel to branch off a new timeline is also a clever way to reinvent a franchise while still staying connected to what it originally was. And heck, that is what the new Doctor Who did -- it established that the Time War had heavily altered history, as a handy excuse for the changes it made to the continuity.

 

[Spock/Uhura Fan]

If the question is whether the alternate timeline will ever become or become exactly like the prime timeline, then no, I don't think it will. They went to a lot of trouble in the movie to set the alternate timeline apart from the original as a way to say that this is something new, but then I've heard/read from some of the producers/writers that they are going to get things moving back in the direction of "old trek," so you never know...

All I know is I liked the reboot movie, and I hope that whatever comes after it can still keep me interested. Shrugs.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

And heck, that is what the new Doctor Who did -- it established that the Time War had heavily altered history, as a handy excuse for the changes it made to the continuity.

They didn't need any excuse. There's no such thing as a canon or an official continuity in Doctor Who, and there never has been.

 

[Therin of Andor]

And the Doctor Who writers came up with a brilliant idea of keeping the show going, and not alienate fans, either...

Um, a lot of Star Trek fans were not alienated by the new movie. Many of us were pleasantly surprised by the respect the writers had for the original material (and the tie-in books).

And don't be so sure with "Doctor Who". Every new doctor has won over some fans while alienating others. I seem to recall much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the departures of Jon Pertwee and Tom Baker, and much fan resentment toward Colin Baker, Sylvester McCoy and Paul McGann.

 

[Christopher]

They didn't need any excuse. There's no such thing as a canon or an official continuity in Doctor Who, and there never has been.

That's an overstatement. Of course there's a canon; a canon is simply the original core work as distinct from tie-ins. But contrary to many fans' mistaken assumptions, the word "canon" is not and never has been synonymous with "consistent continuity." Any long-running canon rewrites itself to some degree or other, and some are less concerned with continuity than others. Doctor Who is one of those canons that never worried much about strict continuity. But it's just a matter of degree. Star Trek has rewritten or ignored past continuity on many occasions as well.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Of course there's a canon; a canon is simply the original core work as distinct from tie-ins.

That's not a canon. A canon, by definition, is the corpus of what is accepted as "official" in a specific fictional universe. Officiality derives from authority. Whoever is the de facto caretaker of a fictional universe, whether it its author, a producer or a corporation, gets to define what is canon and what is not.

One possibility, although it's by no means the only one, is to decide that the canon is "the original core work as distinct from tie-ins". It is my understanding that Star Wars has several different levels of canonicity. The Star Trek canon used to be "whatever Gene Roddenberry says it is". Middle Earth canon is defined by Christopher Tolkien by determining which of his late father's writings best reflect his final position on any given subject.

Talking about Doctor Who, the BBC is the only entity that could pretend to have authority on the franchise as a whole, and no one at the BBC has ever uttered an official pronouncement about what is and is not canonical.

 

[Christopher]

Of course there's a canon; a canon is simply the original core work as distinct from tie-ins.

That's not a canon. A canon, by definition, is the corpus of what is accepted as "official" in a specific fictional universe. Officiality derives from authority. Whoever is the de facto caretaker of a fictional universe, whether it its author, a producer or a corporation, gets to define what is canon and what is not.

They're both valid definitions, but yours is narrower and more incomplete. The original work is canon by default; nobody really has to say it's the original, authoritative version because that's just what it is. It's axiomatic that the original creator's vision of a character or universe is the most authentic version and that somebody else's is going to be different. It gets more complicated when you have a franchise with multiple hands guiding it, but for the most part, canon is not something that anyone sits down and formally defines in writing or something -- not as a rule. It's just something that is. A couple of big franchises, Star Trek and Star Wars, have taken a more activist approach to defining canon, and in so doing have turned "canon" into a major buzzword and obsession of fandom far beyond its actual importance to the fans; but their approach is not the only approach (and really ST was only that rigid about canon for the last few years of Roddenberry's life and for the past 2 decades Trek fans have been driving themselves crazy over a dead letter). The fundamental definition of canon is broader, simpler, and more automatic than that. The canon is the original vision as distinct from derivative works by other creators. That's all. It's not even a value judgment, just a matter of taxonomy.

Talking about Doctor Who, the BBC is the only entity that could pretend to have authority on the franchise as a whole, and no one at the BBC has ever uttered an official pronouncement about what is and is not canonical.

They don't have to, because it's wrong to assume that canon has to be some formally declared doctrine. In most cases throughout fiction, it hasn't been. The first use of "canon" in reference to fiction rather than religion was in Sherlock Holmes fandom, but of course Sir Arthur Conan Doyle never issued some written document saying what was "real" and what wasn't. He just wrote the damn stories, and what he wrote was automatically the original, core version of Sherlock Holmes, while what other people wrote was a variant, derivative interpretation that didn't necessarily fit and weren't universally accepted. Canon vs. apocrypha was never a formal declaration of the creator or any authority; it was simply a matter of critical analysis and categorization after the fact.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

The canon is the original vision as distinct from derivative works by other creators. That's all. It's not even a value judgment, just a matter of taxonomy.

Would you mind expanding on that? There's no argument in your post besides a statement of fact. Your definition, for example, doesn't work with my Tolkien example. It doesn't quite match up with the original Biblical definition of the word either.

 

[Therin of Andor]

There's no argument in your post besides a statement of fact.

Now there's a first. Someone asking for an argument on the TrekBBS.

 

[Christopher]

The canon is the original vision as distinct from derivative works by other creators. That's all. It's not even a value judgment, just a matter of taxonomy.

Would you mind expanding on that? There's no argument in your post besides a statement of fact. Your definition, for example, doesn't work with my Tolkien example. It doesn't quite match up with the original Biblical definition of the word either.

Ohh, for gods' sake, I've been expanding on it in dozens of threads on this BBS for years now. I've written far more words on the subject than I probably should have, considering nobody's paying me for it. Try using the search function for "canon" in posts under my name and you'll find plenty.

And as I already tried to explain to you, there isn't a single, monolithic definition or approach. You can't hold up a single example like Tolkien or Star Wars as absolute doctrine, because there is no doctrine. Canon is not some universal law that was passed by an act of Congress or carved in stone by God or something. It's determined by individual creators. And it should be obvious that different creators will approach the matter differently. Some choose to define it strictly, others don't. So insisting on a single, monolithic definition is naive.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Canon is, and always will be, a very worthless term. It seems like the term solely exists to use for complaining when continuity doesn't match up. Well, it's been shown several times in the past that when writers don't care about continuity they'll do whatever fits the story, canon be damned. It's pointless.

 

[Christopher]

^Exactly. My point is that just because Doctor Who has a loose continuity, that doesn't mean it "has no canon." The original body of work is automatically the canon. But canon is not synonymous with absolute consistency. All long-running canons have some degree of retconning or self-contradiction, and some have more than others.

 

[The Castellan]

At least, though, with Doctor Who, they did not need to reboot it....the new series is not a reboot, it's a continuation.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Same with Star Trek. It's not technically a reboot either.