A Trek XI Plot Point Guarantee (Might As Well Be A Spoiler)

[Saul]

I don't know where people get this altered timeline stuff from. Are there actually people who have already seen the movie?

I think it's pretty much common sense at this point that this represents a new timeline.

Well, I don't argue that an altered timeline will be central to the plot of this movie. I just don't see why people think it won't be fixed at the end. (Well, I guess for people who think the look of the bridge and ship constitutes the original timeline, it will never be fixed anyway. )

What makes you think it will be fixed?

 

[Michael]

I think it's pretty much common sense at this point that this represents a new timeline.

Well, I don't argue that an altered timeline will be central to the plot of this movie. I just don't see why people think it won't be fixed at the end. (Well, I guess for people who think the look of the bridge and ship constitutes the original timeline, it will never be fixed anyway. )

What makes you think it will be fixed?

Hollywood's fondness for Happy Ends?

Seriously, I don't know how this movie will end. But neither do those who claim this movie will leave us with an altered timeline. All I'm saying is: We don't know yet.

 

[Franklin]

Orci: Everyone here respects and was inspired by what Trek was and this movie is in a unique situation where it is both a prequel, but a sequel. All of Trek that preceded this movie is necessary within canon for this movie to have happened.

The way the backstory in the comic books is unfolding, this quote from Orci leads me to believe that while Kirk and Spock are wrapped up in Nero, and do need to defeat him (the prequel part), old Spock is on an even greater mission that he can't reveal (the sequel part).

Of all the people old Spock will meet in the 23rd century, meeting himself would be the most problematic for a lot of reasons. Actually, I think he'd avoid interacting with himself.
Yet, the Spocks are confirmed to be together in the movie, so I'd guess it's near the end, after the resolution of the conflict, and may even be the scene which confirms all was set right (or at least the future is guaranteed).
I have a feeling it will be a moving scene. There may not even be any talking. Just a recognition between the two, maybe and exchange of raised eyebrows, and an exchange of salutes. The beginning and the end of the arc. The present creates the future. To that end, I'd be very suprised if old Spock dies.

 

[Rii]

If there is an altered timeline at work here I don't expect it'll be resolved to the universe we know at the conclusion of the film, for several reasons. First, not resolving the timeline provides a convenient divergence point between TOS and nuTrek, one that is perhaps unnecessary but will no doubt placate a few fans and allow for further divergences (introducing new characters, altering the development or fate of existing characters, etc.) in future productions without difficulty. Second, if most of the film takes place in the altered timeline then resolving that timeline undercuts the dramatic resolutions and character developments that took place there, and by extension the film itself. Third, resolving the timeline unnecessarily complicates the film, which would seem at odds with its "back to basics" ethos in service of attracting a new, wider audience.

 

[slappy]

The timeline will have to stay changed, that much seems obvious to me.

Otherwise why change anything at all? In order to fix it, you'd have to pretty much negate all the rebooted aspects of this film, which they didn't go to all this trouble just to do away with.

"Oh hey, by the way, you know how you saw Chekov just now? Well you didn't because the timeline is fixed! Prepare to meet him again for the first time in the sequel!"

 

[Michael]

The timeline will have to stay changed, that much seems obvious to me.

Otherwise why change anything at all? In order to fix it, you'd have to pretty much negate all the rebooted aspects of this film, which they didn't go to all this trouble just to do away with.

Why not? We've seen that in many time travel/alternate universe episodes of Star Trek. Also, are all rebooted aspects of this film really the result of a changed timeline? Maybe some are just for artistic reasons.

"Oh hey, by the way, you know how you saw Chekov just now? Well you didn't because the timeline is fixed! Prepare to meet him again for the first time in the sequel!"

Where exactly in TOS did they say when Chekov came onboard the Enterprise?

 

[slappy]

The timeline will have to stay changed, that much seems obvious to me.

Otherwise why change anything at all? In order to fix it, you'd have to pretty much negate all the rebooted aspects of this film, which they didn't go to all this trouble just to do away with.

Why not? We've seen that in many time travel/alternate universe episodes of Star Trek. Also, are all rebooted aspects of this film really the result of a changed timeline? Maybe some are just for artistic reasons.

"Oh hey, by the way, you know how you saw Chekov just now? Well you didn't because the timeline is fixed! Prepare to meet him again for the first time in the sequel!"

Where exactly in TOS did they say when Chekov came onboard the Enterprise?

There's no way they spent this type of money establishing these characters and their backstories to throw it away after one movie.

The Chekov thing was never a big deal to me. However, Kirk and Pike didn't meet until later, that's established. Not to mention them never having seen Romulans until Balance of Terror. Countless things. I'm not being a continuity nitpicker, but it's past artistic license.

Besides that, they producers come right out and say it. I don't have the exact quotation in front of me, but they did.

 

[Finnegan]

A easier prediction: Spock will die once and for all.

I doubt they'll have spock blast off to the future again, He'll die. I'd be shocked if he doesn't.

I just hope they do a better job of killing off Nimoy's Spock than they did with Kirk.

From what I've heard, a sloppy, drunken Spock falls off a yaht at sea
at night and drowns--a la Natalie Wood.

 

[Michael]

There's no way they spent this type of money establishing these characters and their backstories to throw it away after one movie.

I don't say that they will definitely throw away the altered backstories of the characters at the end of this movie. I'm just saying that we don't know yet. I think it's possible that the changes caused by Nero's time travel could be erased. And by that I don't mean that by the end of that movie the Enterprise, the uniforms etc. will look just like the ones from TOS. As I said, it really depends on what you mean by 'reboot aspects'. If 'reboot aspects' are the altered lifes of Kirk etc. then yes, I think there's a possibility that we will see them restored at the end of the movie.

The Chekov thing was never a big deal to me.

Neither was it to me. Chekov was quite clearly a part of the Enterprise crew in the first season of TOS.

It's just Walter Koenig that wasn't part of the TOS cast yet.

However, Kirk and Pike didn't meet until later, that's established.

It's just speculation at this moment, but someone else noted earlier today that the bar scene in which Kirk meets Pike in this movie could very well be the celebration of Pike's promotion to Fleet Captain. Just like it was mentioned in The Menagerie.

Not to mention them never having seen Romulans until Balance of Terror.

What if they don't recognize them as Romulans here? Or that by the end of this movie the timeline will be restored and all memories of Nero will be erased? It is a possibility.

Countless things.

Yeah? What else?

[...], but it's past artistic license.

I don't think so. But your mileage seems to vary.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Did I miss the interview where the writers say the timeline won't be fixed at the end of the movie?

I must have missed the one where they said it *would* be.

I mean, we know this is an alternate timeline. We've all seen it. The kinds of things that we have seen in the previews, could never have happened in the original timeline. If there's any indication, any suggestion or proof, that any of these things will be fixed (and I don't see how that could be possible, given that Spock seems to only arrive in the past after all the changes have already been made), then we have not seen that proof yet.

Think of it this way: If it really is fixed at the end, then why make the film in the first place?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

There's no way they spent this type of money establishing these characters and their backstories to throw it away after one movie.

The Chekov thing was never a big deal to me. However, Kirk and Pike didn't meet until later, that's established. Not to mention them never having seen Romulans until Balance of Terror. Countless things. I'm not being a continuity nitpicker, but it's past artistic license.

Besides that, they producers come right out and say it. I don't have the exact quotation in front of me, but they did.

I haven't seen too many things yet that could not possibly be part of the "real" TOS's past (and I'm not including the "look" -- to me the look is not an in-universe change).

Even Pike and Kirk's first meeting...All Kirk said about the time they met was that it was when Pike was promoted to Fleet Captain. That meeting could have been at that bar, before Kirk entered Starfleet. Perhaps Pike was at the bar celebrating his promotion.

The one thing from the trailer that is very different is

Spoiler: Vulcan

the destruction of Vulcan (if that really was Vulcan).

However, perhaps that is something that can be "fixed" by fixing the timeline -- but that would not change the characters that have been presented by this film.

I can see these characters moving right into the "real" timeline without too many differences at all. Of course that all depends on the actual plot points of the film that we do not know about yet. I suppose there could be some HUGE differences that we have not been told about.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Even Pike and Kirk's first meeting...All Kirk said about the time they met was that it was when Pike was promoted to Fleet Captain. That meeting could have been at that bar, before Kirk entered Starfleet. Perhaps Pike was at the bar celebrating his promotion.

So you're suggesting that Pike could have (in the original timeline) still commanded the Enterprise even after his promotion?

The way I interpreted the original line is that Kirk and Pike met when Pike was promoted, but that was also when Pike turned over command of the ship to Kirk. Meaning, Pike's promotion would mean he would have to leave the ship.

(It's the same for L&O, for example: Anita Van Buren is a Lieutenant. If she were to be promoted to Captain, she would have to transfer to a new position as per NYPD rules.)

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^I think that thinking Pike was promoted when Kirk took over is a perfectly valid way to look at it...but so is the idea that Pike remained in command of the Enterprise for some time (years?) after his promotion.

In "the real" navy, a Fleet Captain was commander of a "battle group", but he also had the command of his own ship. "Fleet Captain" is an archaic rank that was re-named "Commodore".

In "Star Trek" there may be a difference between Fleet Captain and Commodore, but there is no reason to believe that a Fleet Captain, like a Commodore, can't still remain in command of a specific ship.

Although the rank of Commodore (old Fleet Captain) is no longer part of the U.S. Navy, it WAS part on the Navy in 1966 when Star Trek was made. However, it was not a permanent rank but rather temporary ranks used in time of need -- such as being named the Fleet Captain of a battle group put together for a specific mission. In Star Trek, it seems that Fleet Captain is a permenent rank.

The bottom line is that in my opinion it is perfectly valid to think that Pike remained as commanding office of the Enterprise for some time after being promoted to Fleet Captain. The lines in The Menagerie when Kirk said:
"we met when he was promoted to Fleet Captain"
and
"I took over the Enterprise from him"
Could have been two different events separated by several years.

 

[steveman]

What I got from the Orci interview with TrekMovie is that when Nero travels back in time to destroy the Kelvin (two events that occur within the Trek timeline we're familiar with) the destruction of the Kelvin (an event that didn't occur in "our" timeline) is what creates a second timeline. And this second timeline (which is where most of the movie takes place) is like "ours" in every regard... except for the fact that the Kelvin is destroyed and the repercussions of that have changed things (i.e. Kirk's life is screwed up, the Enterprise is being built in Iowa, etc.).

What Orci was getting at was that we don't need to worry about "our" timeline being screwed up. That is preserved. The destruction of the Kelvin is a catalyst that creates another timeline -- a timeline that is similar, yet different from our own.

By the end of the movie, we don't need to worry about the timeline being restored; certain events have created another, and it is within that timeline where the movie exists. Having Star Trek exist in a new, altered timeline opens the door for things to unfold differently -- even though we'll be seeing those things unfold differently with the same characters we know and love.

It's the best of both worlds: We get to see a Star Trek where things have the potential to unfold in brand new ways, but with the characters we're familiar with. And, ultimately, that had to be the goal of this movie as Orci and Kurtzman were writing it: Putting Star Trek in a place where it doesn't have to be beholden to canon, but preserving the characters we all know.

With this movie, I think they will have done just that. And I can't say I disagree with that choice. It was necessary for Trek's long-term viability. And they didn't have to incorporate the already existing timeline at all. They could've just threw canon to the wind and started over. That they made the effort to justify this movie by honoring the existing timeline shows me that they did, indeed, care. I tip my hat to them for that. We all should. It's more than anybody else would've given us.

 

[cooleddie74]

A easier prediction: Spock will die once and for all.

I doubt they'll have spock blast off to the future again, He'll die. I'd be shocked if he doesn't.

I just hope they do a better job of killing off Nimoy's Spock than they did with Kirk.

I've been predicting Nimoy Spock's death in this movie ever since I learned he was in it. Especially if the timeline's going to be changed I don't see Old Spock going back to a late 24th century that will eventually be altered...perhaps drastically...from the one he was familiar with.

 

[Aike]

Kirk will kill the old Spock. Why? Because Spock finally admits his feelings for him.

 

[cooleddie74]

Nimoy's probably been looking for a noble, heroic FINAL death for Spock since he was on TNG in 1991. Since Spock was allowed to keep living at the end of "Unification" and we heard about his status and activities on Romulus only one more time after that in the entire length of the franchise("Face of the Enemy(TNG)"), Spock's been out of action and commission for longer than most expected. Nimoy is getting older, has moved on to other things and wants closure.