Alternate timeline = Not the same Kirk, Spock, et al.??

[The Emissary]

Trekguide.com that was an excellant post. You even have me convinced.

My only concern about this alternate timeline/universe thing is this: if there aren't changes in timeline(s) but universe(s), then why the hell does Spock go back in time to "fix" it? What is he fixing? Not his timeline according to what I've read. Am I wrong on this? He's going to fix the history of a new universe that was created because Nero tried to screw up the past. What would be the point of that? This new universe gets its own, new history (possibly a bad one where Nero is ruler????) It doesn't really make sense to me. Also, what happens to the "original" timeline in this theory? Apparently, what happens is...nothing? It can never be changed with time travel? If that is the case, then the original people (the one the OP says he won't recognize in this new movie) still exist there?

I'm completely confused about all of this.

Perhaps Nero's plan involves retrieving something from the past, which requires that he do the timeline altering stuff in order to get to it, so it's not really about killing George Kirk or blowing up Vulcan... they're just in the way somehow.

Sorta John Titor-y.

I appreciate the response, but that has nothing with what I was asking.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

I have been thinking... most of the stuff from Star Trek XI and its sequels will have to get their own articles on Memory Alpha. Currently, there are articles on "James T. Kirk", "James T. Kirk (mirror)", "Spock", "Spock (mirror)" and so on. So I guess they will have to add articles for "James T. Kirk (alternate)" or something like that.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Currently, there are articles on "James T. Kirk", "James T. Kirk (mirror)", "Spock", "Spock (mirror)" and so on. So I guess they will have to add articles for "James T. Kirk (alternate)" or something like that.

Or, each character will have a new section accounting for "Alternate history", or similar. Spock may yet be successful correcting some of the changes being revealed in the movie.

This already happens over on Memory Beta, where numerous characters have had alternate futures and biographical details offered by various licensed comics, novels, short stories and RPGs.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Entries can be labeled "Spock (I)" and "Spock (II)".

 

[M'Sharak]

"I see," said Kirk
"Or I think I do
But which one is you -
Spock (I) or Spock (II)?"

 

[Alex1939]

I was so excited for this movie until I read those "Orci" quotes.


Seriously, why why why make another "timeline". This is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard of.


Why couldn't the movie simply be... Spock (nimoy) telling a story... flashback to these new actors and whatever happens in the movie... forward to Spock (nimoy) and how whatever happened years ago has some relevance in the current time.


That easily works and would make for better fiction.



I think the "alternate timeline, alternate people" crap has a good chance of wrecking the movie.

 

[Sharr Khan]

I was so excited for this movie until I read those "Orci" quotes.


Seriously, why why why make another "timeline". This is one of the dumbest ideas I've heard of.


Why couldn't the movie simply be... Spock (nimoy) telling a story... flashback to these new actors and whatever happens in the movie... forward to Spock (nimoy) and how whatever happened years ago has some relevance in the current time.


That easily works and would make for better fiction.



I think the "alternate timeline, alternate people" crap has a good chance of wrecking the movie.

Its actually genius, in that now they can tell whatever story they desire from this point onward not chained by canon and I for one am glad for this. It also does this without alternating what has gone before.

For a storyteller that's a win-win situation. They can't be tarred and feathered for stomping on precious Trek canon anymore and I think that annoys a segment of Trekfandom who really wanted to do that to them. Its more important that this is an entertaining story in and of itself then whatever "universe" it takes place in the rules of drama still apply.

Why do you care if its an alternate reality? That in no way changes its intrinsic entertainment value. At least it shouldn't.

Sharr

 

[Therin of Andor]

Why couldn't the movie simply be... whatever happened years ago has some relevance in the current time.

For most cinema attendees, that's basically how they'll interpret it. Just ignore all the separate timeline talk, if it bothers you. Orci's comments were aimed only at those fans who were stressing that the re-casting of actors, redesigning of ship's exteriors and interiors, and supposed variations to accepted "canon" would somehow ruin Star Trek forever.

 

[Alex1939]

Its actually genius, in that now they can tell whatever story they desire from this point onward not chained by canon and I for one am glad for this. It also does this without alternating what has gone before.

Why not just do a reboot then?

It's hardly genius. It's mainly cop-out.

Why do you care if its an alternate reality? That in no way changes its intrinsic entertainment value. At least it shouldn't.

Sharr

I would receive much more entertainment from a backstory movie of the original crew...

rather than some bullshit alternate timeline that ignores every aspect of Trek known.

 

[Alex1939]

For most cinema attendees, that's basically how they'll interpret it. Just ignore all the separate timeline talk, if it bothers you. Orci's comments were aimed only at those fans who were stressing that the re-casting of actors, redesigning of ship's exteriors and interiors, and supposed variations to accepted "canon" would somehow ruin Star Trek forever.

I really HOPE that is how I'll be able to view the movie.


The fact that the ship looks different and minor details (Chekov being on the ship before he was historically supposed to) makes no difference to me. I can look over, use my imagination, and ignore small details.



But a major movie plot explaining that the actions of Spock result in an altered Star Trek universe, I mean why would anyone want that? I can't see any hardcore, casual, or non Trek fan that would think that's just a great idea.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Why not just do a reboot then?

It's hardly genius. It's mainly cop-out.

Cause, perhaps they found artistic inspiration in telling the story this way? That would seem the right answer given what we've been told. That by the way is actually all that matters in the realm of fiction.

Oh yeah and a straight reboot would have engendered just as much if not more hate so they might as well as gone for what they believe to be a the best creative route which is allowing two universes to exist.

I would receive much more entertainment from a backstory movie of the original crew...

rather than some bullshit alternate timeline that ignores every aspect of Trek known.

A statement filled with assumptions. You don't know what this film does or does not ignore. Asian official statements lead me to think it does take into account all aspects of existing Star Trek but like anything else this will be in varying degrees.

Once more the rules of drama still apply no matter what universe this takes whatever at stake for the heroes, is what matters and not what time-space location it all unfolds in.

But a major movie plot explaining that the actions of Spock result in an altered Star Trek universe, I mean why would anyone want that? I can't see any hardcore, casual, or non Trek fan that would think that's just a great idea.

I want that. I'm tired of the old stale Trek universe. No really. "None Trek fans" aren't gonna care either way, and this is a way to start fresh well using what came before as a springboard to blank slate - its almost years to late in coming.

Sharr

 

[Alex1939]

I want that. I'm tired of the old stale Trek universe. No really. "None Trek fans" aren't gonna care either way, and this is a way to start fresh well using what came before as a springboard to blank slate - its almost years to late in coming.

Sharr

Why? I mean with all the limitless possibilities for Trek stories out there...

And the story you prefer is to go back to the original crew, but make everything different??



And I'm sorry, but "NON" trek fans could easily care. A stupid plot line involving another universe/time line being created is going to TURN OFF certain movie goers. You really don't think that's a possibility??

 

[Sharr Khan]

Why? I mean with all the limitless possibilities for Trek stories out there...

But the Trekverse as it now exists has not shown it self to be limitless, if anything its become rather narrow and recycled I want someone's version of what has already happened - much like Nolan has done with Batman.

And the story you prefer is to go back to the original crew, but make everything different??

Alot of it looks pretty much the same to me, just sharper. I am not in a position to say what's different and what is not until I've seen the whole product. See I made a big mistake prejuding RDM's BSG before I gave that a chance and promised never to do so agian - I was in the no reboot camp...

And I'm sorry, but "NON" trek fans could easily care. A stupid plot line involving another universe/time line being created is going to TURN OFF certain movie goers. You really don't think that's a possibility??

Why would they care? They have no horse in the race but to be entertained with what they're presented to them its just a part of the plot and judging from what's said all the inside baseball is so subtle you really need to be hardcore to care. To them this is more like "Back to the Future" the first time they ever saw that movie but without the reset/corrections that Doc and Marty suceeded in making. I truly don't think a first time viewre would care if its an altnernate reality or not they just want to have two hours of fun and excitement.

Sharr

 

[Alex1939]

But the Trekverse as it now exists has not shown it self to be limitless, if anything its become rather narrow and recycled I want someone's version of what has already happened - much like Nolan has done with Batman.

Ok that's true. But it's not because the trek universe, as it is now, doesn't have limitless potential great stories to tell.

It's because the writing went in a shitty direction.

Alot of it looks pretty much the same to me, just sharper. I am not in a position to say what's different and what is not until I've seen the whole product. See I made a big mistake prejuding RDM's BSG before I gave that a chance and promised never to do so agian - I was in the no reboot camp...

haha, nice to see some admit to being wrong.

Myself, I didn't start BSG until season 2 was in progress. Finally listened to my friends advice and I'm glad I did. (Of course, I was never a fan of the original so the reboot thing didn't bother me)

Why would they care? I truly don't think a first time viewre would care if its an altnernate reality or not they just want to have two hours of fun and excitement.

Sharr

I see your point. But I'm thinking if there is any screen time devoted to explaining the "alternate timeline/universe" thing.. there will be a lot of eyerolls in the theatre.

I just don't think your average movie viewer is going to be interested in such sci-fi concepts. I think it could, in that sense, make viewers not enjoy the movie as much as they could.


I think what people want is more "Star Wars" than sci-fi concepts. Good space battles, dramatic story (like the orginal star wars movies), cool looking aliens, interesting monsters, interesting characters...

NOT time travel and alternate universes.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Ok that's true. But it's not because the trek universe, as it is now, doesn't have limitless potential great stories to tell.

It's because the writing went in a shitty direction.

Its a combination of things, part of it is when sticking to the established Trekverse there's a degree of 'sticking to the rules/GR's edicts about what can and cannot be in Star Trek' I think this approach throws that noose out the window and goodly so. There should be no 'right way to tell a Trek story' as I think Berman said about someone who submitted a script: "It was good but it just wasn't the right way to tell a Star Trek story" that mentality killed Trek stories.

The best way to make Trek fresh is to give free reign to an outsider and permit them to go off on a creative tangent. Best to give the new blood the benifet of the doubt as well.

haha, nice to see some admit to being wrong.

Myself, I didn't start BSG until season 2 was in progress. Finally listened to my friends advice and I'm glad I did. (Of course, I was never a fan of the original so the reboot thing didn't bother me)

I went into the miniseries with the intent on hating it, boy did I eat my words after.

I just don't think your average movie viewer is going to be interested in such sci-fi concepts. I think it could, in that sense, make viewers not enjoy the movie as much as they could.


I think what people want is more "Star Wars" than sci-fi concepts. Good space battles, dramatic story (like the orginal star wars movies), cool looking aliens, interesting monsters, interesting characters...

NOT time travel and alternate universes.

If a movie with a frankly complicated string of events like Back to the Future can make sense to joe schmo a good Trek tale can as well - mean LOST is just as complicated for that matter so was Alias. Have a little faith.

The other thing: No one involved in this movie strikes me as the type that wants to bore their viewers with complicated technobabble where it concerns time-travel/alternate reality that's just not their style Abrams specifically I think lives first and foremost for the drama. This is a good thing.

Sharr

 

[Alex1939]

"It was good but it just wasn't the right way to tell a Star Trek story" that mentality killed Trek stories.

The best way to make Trek fresh is to give free reign to an outsider and permit them to go off on a creative tangent. Best to give the new blood the benifet of the doubt as well.

First sentence, agree completely.

I also agree with an outsider taking over Trek.

HOWEVER, there is no reason that Trek stories could not go in a different direction without using ToS characters and creating an alternate timeline.


I can think of plenty ideas in my mind for darker horror stories, comedy stories, war stories, anything anyone wants....without having to ignore or re-write star trek.


Basically Star Trek can go in a new story-telling direction yet still hold onto established history.

If a movie with a frankly complicated string of events like Back to the Future can make sense to joe schmo a good Trek tale can as well - mean LOST is just as complicated for that matter so was Alias. Have a little faith.

Sharr

I had all the faith in the film possible until reading Orci's comments.


I guess I should've been more skeptical from start, considering I never liked Lost and I think Cloverfield is only an average movie at best.



We'll all find out in 5 months. And one thing's for sure, alternate timeline or not, the movie could still royally suck, or be highly entertaining.

 

[Sharr Khan]

We'll all find out in 5 months. And one thing's for sure, alternate timeline or not, the movie could still royally suck, or be highly entertaining.

That of course is a constant when speaking about all films and or entertainment.

I don't watch LOST and never saw Cloverfield - though it should be pointed out Abrams was only a producer on that flick not the director. I did however like Alias and its layered complicated storytelling.

But to permit a creative tangent you sort of need to let the creator take the story where they desire to go with it.

*I made the Admiralty, cool!

Sharr

 

[Ovation]

I did not get the impression that Orci was suggesting the film would contain the kind of "explanation" he was offering. IMO, he was simply proffering his take on how the story fits into canon/continuity as he understands it. I doubt it'll get more than 30 seconds, if that, of screen time. And those who don't read his interview can happily make it fit however they want (or not).

 

[Mordock]

I would receive much more entertainment from a backstory movie of the original crew...

rather than some bullshit alternate timeline that ignores every aspect of Trek known.

Canon isn't an ipso facto guarantee of quality. If this film had beige pullovers and Gary Mitchell and the whole nine yards and you hated it, would you feel bound to see it several times and buy the DVD out of appreciation for the dotted i's and the crossed t's?

 

[Alex1939]

Canon isn't an ipso facto guarantee of quality. If this film had beige pullovers and Gary Mitchell and the whole nine yards and you hated it, would you feel bound to see it several times and buy the DVD out of appreciation for the dotted i's and the crossed t's?

No.

But there would be a stronger chance I'd like the film.



As I said, I don't think anyone, trek fan or not, really WANTS to see an alternate timeline/ alternate universe created by events in the movie explained on screen.

I think people want cool space battles, cool aliens, cool special effects all around, and most importantly an intriguing story.
Perhaps I am wrong in audience preferences.


I think "Ovation" probably nailed it in his post, although I am going to personally hope to leave the theater with a feeling that everything I saw fits into Trek lore.