Wow, is there anyone who's not whining in your book? And no, you don't count. 
Alternate Timeline! (a.k.a. Everyone can chill out now!)
- Thread starter The
- Start date
Yes, and that's the problem here. That's why I wanted a prequel, not a reboot. I wanted to see unchronicled history of characters we know and love -- not alternate versions of those characters. This isn't Star Trek, so much as it's something new and different with a Star Trek label hung on it.
Well, no, the real problem with ROTS is that it's crap, because George Lucas couldn't write his way out of a paper box. (That, and the way it actually undermines rather than validates what it leads into—when the whole overarching theme becomes about generating sympathy for Darth Vader and his eventual redemption, the original Star Wars just doesn't work in that context.)
But in a reboot they're not actually familiar characters, you see? They're just people with different life histories who happen to have the same names.
Wow, is there anyone who's not whining in your book? And no, you don't count.
Me--......oh.
I know this interpretation has been floating around for years (long before TNG existed, even, just to rationalize inconsistencies in the original series), but in narrative terms it's just not satisfying.
I can accept your first premise, but not your second. The way the stories have been presented, the underlying assumption is that there is a single "prime" timeline in the Trek universe (along with umpty-zillion variations), even though that prime timeline includes various causal loops as a result of various stories we've witnessed. One can trace a historical throughline from beginning to end. (Lots of people have gone to some considerable effort documenting it, even.)
I'd go so far as to submit, based on what we know to date, that the film as it appears on screen (notwithstanding Orci's dicta here) will tell the tale as if Nero's actions, and Spock's rescue attempt, are all about changing or salvaging a single timeline.
Even if one rejects that interpretation and accepts your take on the cosmology, though, the fact remains that these previous "distinct" timelines have been anything but distinct; they have been functionally indistinguishable from one another in both visual and character terms, to allow at least the perception of an ongoing narrative about the same set of characters. That doesn't appear to be the case in this film, and thus the "reboot" problem remains a jarring one.
(It is not a problem, of course, for (A) those who will come to this film fresh and not previously acquainted with Trek, nor for (B) those whose main concern is to preserve the financial viability of the "franchise." However, my assumption is that most of us writing here are fans who already love Trek, and do so because of its characters and concepts, not its intellectual property status... so it seems odd to me that so many are ready and willing to relegate the familiar Trek history to mere "alternative" status.)
I'd sure love to stipulate that. Who wants to place their bets now?
I think a safer prediction (based only on what we've seen so far) is that it's a workmanlike SF/fantasy film, high on spectacle and FX, not so much on ideas and depth of character, more reminiscent of Star Wars than original Trek. IOW, some people will be legitimately entertained, while others will have legitimate criticisms. And that being the case, the question will almost certainly remain: what's the point of putting "real" Trek on the back burner in favor of this version?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I actually do prefer the "Cochrane always had that history" approach. If nothing else, it has the virtue of narrative simplicity, by avoiding needless multiplication of timelines.
Taking it your way, though, there's actually no need for the Nero/time travel element in JJA's film... the entire TOS era was already rendered "alternate" by First Contact and Enterprise (which, you're positing, had "never happened" in TOS's original history).
JJA, Orci and Kurtzman could just have called it a reboot from the start, and pointed to a 12-year-old movie and an underperforming TV series to rationalize it, rather than having to write a reason into their own film.
And it would have been about equally as satisfying in narrative terms, IMHO.
I think I can safely say that most viewers think of the timelines where Bad Stuff Happens (major wars, exploding suns, etc.) as the "alternate" ones, and interpret the story events as working to restore the "correct" timeline, not create new alternates. I'd venture that that is also how the writers have typically intended the stories to be understood.
Well, in many previous episodes, there has been a complete "re-boot" of the timeline, the last example of which is Voyager's "Endgame," where Admiral Janeway came back and helped the Voyager get back to Earth 20 years earlier.
Then, in "Star Trek: Nemesis," we saw Admiral Janeway at Starfleet Command, so obviously, that movie takes place in the alternate timeline where the Voyager got back to Earth earlier.
What Nero and Spock are doing in "Star Trek XI" is no different from what Janeway did in "Endgame."
And if "Star Trek: Nemesis" could continue from that alternate past created in "Endgame," then how is that different if the next Trek movie takes place in the new alternate past created in "Star Trek XI"?
Yes, you only saw the original future for less than an hour in "Endgame," and you saw the original future for three years in TOS; so maybe people are willing to accept the fact that they may never see the universe they were watching for the past hour in "Endgame," but after "Star Trek XI," they may never see the TOS universe again.
But that's just a difference of time invested in watching characters in a particular timeline. The effect is the same, though. "Star Trek: Nemesis" is set in the "Admiral Janeway" alternate timeline created through time travel, and "Star Trek XI" is set in the "Nero/Spock" timeline created through time travel.
I think alternate timelines are like the Mirror Universe. Even when we watch the Mirror-characters there, we know "our" versions of those characters are still in their own reality; and even if "Star Trek" decides to take place solely in the Mirror Universe from now on, it is still a logical continuation of the established "Star Trek" continuity, just from a different point of view.
Likewise, if "Star Trek XI" is the first of several movies set in the same new timeline, it is still a logical continuation of past "Star Trek" episodes, because the new timeline was created by Nero and Spock from the established Trek universe. In that sense, we should think of "Star Trek XI" as a sequel (not a prequel, not a re-boot) to the 10 previous films and 700 episodes, since it logically continues from those storylines, regardless of its chronological setting.
Then, in "Star Trek: Nemesis," we saw Admiral Janeway at Starfleet Command, so obviously, that movie takes place in the alternate timeline where the Voyager got back to Earth earlier.
What Nero and Spock are doing in "Star Trek XI" is no different from what Janeway did in "Endgame."
And if "Star Trek: Nemesis" could continue from that alternate past created in "Endgame," then how is that different if the next Trek movie takes place in the new alternate past created in "Star Trek XI"?
Yes, you only saw the original future for less than an hour in "Endgame," and you saw the original future for three years in TOS; so maybe people are willing to accept the fact that they may never see the universe they were watching for the past hour in "Endgame," but after "Star Trek XI," they may never see the TOS universe again.
But that's just a difference of time invested in watching characters in a particular timeline. The effect is the same, though. "Star Trek: Nemesis" is set in the "Admiral Janeway" alternate timeline created through time travel, and "Star Trek XI" is set in the "Nero/Spock" timeline created through time travel.
I think alternate timelines are like the Mirror Universe. Even when we watch the Mirror-characters there, we know "our" versions of those characters are still in their own reality; and even if "Star Trek" decides to take place solely in the Mirror Universe from now on, it is still a logical continuation of the established "Star Trek" continuity, just from a different point of view.
Likewise, if "Star Trek XI" is the first of several movies set in the same new timeline, it is still a logical continuation of past "Star Trek" episodes, because the new timeline was created by Nero and Spock from the established Trek universe. In that sense, we should think of "Star Trek XI" as a sequel (not a prequel, not a re-boot) to the 10 previous films and 700 episodes, since it logically continues from those storylines, regardless of its chronological setting.
Umm.
First of all, I'll 'fess up that I never watched "Endgame." (If we really have to boot something from canon, I nominate Voyager.)
But again, even accepting (for the sake of argument) your take on the time-travel mechanics... don't you see how what you dismiss as "just a difference of time invested" is really a huge difference in terms of audience identification... which is itself a huge part of what effective fiction is all about? Saying that the plot structure is similar is almost completely beside the point.
Logical? Perhaps. Emotionally satisfying? Not so much. Who would choose to watch it, knowing that it came at the expense of seeing the originals ever again?
I'm ordinarily a very rational, analytical sort of person. People have even called me Spock-like. But in this case, I have to argue the other side. You just seem to be missing the point of why people love Trek (or most fiction, period!) in the first place.
There's no reason to expect to see what you're calling "the originals" ever again in any event. Trek 1.0 died in 2005 and the studio has indicated no real interest in returning it to active production, ever. They went so far as to liquidate all of the sets, costumes, models etc at auction a couple of years ago rather than store any of it.
You know, if Abrams and company had passed on Trek the studio would almost certainly have moved on to someone else to reboot it instead (hello, Michael Bay!) or simply let it remain dead. Based on the fact that they approached a group they consider to be rising stars and asked them to take Trek on my guess is that the former would have been more likely than the latter (but then, prior to the Abrams announcement I would have said the latter).
Now, as to why people like fiction - okay, I don't know what "most people" may be getting out of "most fiction" but I know that the satisfaction of something like, oh "The Sun Also Rises" or "1984" or "Fahrenheit 451" or even stuff like "Forrest Gump" is not of a sort that leaves me clamoring for sequels or continuations. That I can pick up the original books and re-read them any time I like does matter a great deal.
Last edited:
Alot more people than you think.
The "Originals" are all still on the DVD shelf. Now we gets new stuffs!
I pretty much agree with Lawman. If it is a new universe from the point that Nero arrives in the 23rd century, why do I care if it's set straight? Why does it need to be set straight?
From a drama point of view, I think calling it another universe is a bad move. If there are 100,000 universes with various versions of me in it, who cares if one is pushed off course?
From a drama point of view, I think calling it another universe is a bad move. If there are 100,000 universes with various versions of me in it, who cares if one is pushed off course?
Touche.
I'm talking about the viewing audience.
why should you care if Kirk survived his fight with Gary mitchell... I mean it was a new show, a new universe no one knew about.... Until they watched the damn story..
Oh wait that's logic
I mean you do understand that no one KNEW who James R.. I mean T. Kirk was when WNMHGB premired on NBC back in the sixties. It was something new, it didn't have a fan base. So I think we all really need to drop the bias, if anything is condescending and insulting it's the fact that the people who like the old trek which when it originally appeared was something new and unknow are trying to bully the new version out of the way because it's giving a new take on something that intially was lucky to survive it's first two seasons on tv...
I think sometimes you guys lose sight of the big picture here.
Star Trek as a franchise grew old and stale.
JJ Abrams wants to make it feel new and fresh.
Instead of creating a ST within established rules (the same rules that in Abrams opinion made it stale in the first place), Abrams is breaking the rules and creating a new ST that will have no boundaries to constrict his teams creative thoughts.
And while doing so, they were kind enough to tie the previous 40 years of Trek into this new Trek. They didn't want to 100% piss off the old fans. Just make them uncomfortable for a little bit, because that is the cost of getting a whole new set of fans into this new ST to make it new and fresh, while still keeping some of its roots.
So its a reboot, but its not. Only the hardcore fans care about timelines and tieing it together. The average fans that will start to popularize ST will be happy with a bad ass movie.
Maybe its time for some people to end their ST association now and just consider only Roddenberry Trek as the real ST and nothing more, nothing less. Abrams Trek can be considered something else. And we can create a section on the message board just to those that want to talk about Roddenberry Universe.
Otherwise, accept what is happening now because there is nothing you can do about it.
Star Trek as a franchise grew old and stale.
JJ Abrams wants to make it feel new and fresh.
Instead of creating a ST within established rules (the same rules that in Abrams opinion made it stale in the first place), Abrams is breaking the rules and creating a new ST that will have no boundaries to constrict his teams creative thoughts.
And while doing so, they were kind enough to tie the previous 40 years of Trek into this new Trek. They didn't want to 100% piss off the old fans. Just make them uncomfortable for a little bit, because that is the cost of getting a whole new set of fans into this new ST to make it new and fresh, while still keeping some of its roots.
So its a reboot, but its not. Only the hardcore fans care about timelines and tieing it together. The average fans that will start to popularize ST will be happy with a bad ass movie.
Maybe its time for some people to end their ST association now and just consider only Roddenberry Trek as the real ST and nothing more, nothing less. Abrams Trek can be considered something else. And we can create a section on the message board just to those that want to talk about Roddenberry Universe.
Otherwise, accept what is happening now because there is nothing you can do about it.
No, that's a faulty analogy.
If they were doing a new, fresh SF film from scratch I'd say, sure, approach it with no preconceptions, on whatever terms it chooses to present for itself! (As was done with Trek back when it was just a pilot.)
But the filmmakers didn't choose to do that. They chose to offer a "new take" on a property that does come with lots of preconceptions, that has years of backstory and audience familiarity and hard-earned fan loyalty and emotional attachment. You can't hang the film on all of that for marketing purposes, then just wish it away for storytelling purposes.
Nobody complained when, say, The Matrix didn't dovetail with known Star Trek history, because, obviously, it was its own thing, and won an audience on its own merits. But this movie is calling itself Star Trek... it invites the kind of comparisons you're telling people not to make.
