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

[Jon1701]

I don't think it will be massively different, but I think there will be changes. They are the same people - just down a different path. When this "alternate timeline" stuff was first touted a few years back, I really didn't like the idea.

Now?

As I said, If our Spock experienced the original timeline fully, then it did happen and I'm ok with it.

Still should have done a full reboot though. We wouldn't have to do these mental gymnastics any more

 

[USS Mariner]

"But we would alienate the audience!"

This being, of course the same "audience" that went to see Get Smart, Batman Begins, Alvin, The Pink Panther, Transformers, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and every single reboot since time began.

 

[Jon1701]

Joe Public #1 Hmm...shall we go see that Star Trek movie that looks like every other Star Trek movie that we didn't like?

Joe Public #2 Or we could go see that new Star Trek movie, that doesn't look like anything we've seen before directed by that guy that did that thing that we liked.

Joe Public #1 Yeah, lets go see that new one. I saw a bra in it.

 

[Franklin]

If these characters cease to have the histories that made them who they were in TOS, then they cease to be those same familiar characters.

No. The characters faux "histories" didn't make them who they were (other than perhaps, to some degree, Spock). Kirk was Kirk the first time he appeared, and if every reference to his past life were cut out of TOS it would not make him someone different.

It's certainly not like the writers or actors based the characterization on established "biographies" of the characters; the bios were cobbled together based on what writers decided they needed as backstory on a given week.

I don't think that's what Roykirk means. I think he means that these characters are going to form differently within the parameters of what they would be under certain circumstances. We saw circumstance "A" in TOS. This movie is circumstance "B."
Kirk is Kirk, and so on, but the TOS Kirk we know (I at least know, I won't be presumptuous) was very applied, self-assured, and focused, with a healthy ego and libido to match. Under different circumstances, that talent (but not the ego or libido ) could be stilted. So, in this movie, we see "stilted Kirk." If the timeline stays this way, he'll still be James T. Kirk. But he'll be just a little different than the Kirk we knew. Like a Kirk from another dimension or something.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kirk is Kirk, and so on, but the TOS Kirk we know (I at least know, I won't be presumptuous) was very applied, self-assured, and focused, with a healthy ego and libido to match. Under different circumstances, that talent (but not the ego or libido ) could be stilted. So, in this movie, we see "stilted Kirk." If the timeline stays this way, he'll still be James T. Kirk. But he'll be just a little different than the Kirk we knew. Like a Kirk from another dimension or something.

Except that there's no evidence so far that the intention of the filmmakers is to change the characters themselves. This is in fact the very point that Abrams is making when he says that he's presenting the same characters in a new way. It's a different story, but the same people.

 

[VOODOOXI]

Great post.

I feel the same exact way.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

If these characters cease to have the histories that made them who they were in TOS, then they cease to be those same familiar characters.

No. The characters faux "histories" didn't make them who they were (other than perhaps, to some degree, Spock). Kirk was Kirk the first time he appeared, and if every reference to his past life were cut out of TOS it would not make him someone different.

It's certainly not like the writers or actors based the characterization on established "biographies" of the characters; the bios were cobbled together based on what writers decided they needed as backstory on a given week.

Maybe the problem is with me, but IMHO I think others will have this same problem, so the problem DOES exist...

...It's a mindset issue -- in my mind, I will feel that these are NOT the same characters if I am told that they come from an altered timeline. I'll bring up the Yesterday's Enterprise example again. The characters in that episode always felt "wrong" -- not because of their personalities, but simply because we were told they came from a different history.

The bottom line is this:
If the creative team of ST:XI wants to set up the premise that these people came from a different history than the familiar characters, then don't be surprised if I (and other members of the viewing audience) believe that premise to be true and feel that these characters are somehow not the same as the familiar ones.

 

[Pingfah]

Ditto for me too. I thought we were going back to the TOS era because everyone liked those characters so much. So we go back to TOS and find different characters with the same names instead. Personalities even look different. We now have a bad ass rebel-without-a-cause Kirk, a logical-in-name only Spock who can't control his emotions, a somewhat silly Scotty.

These are all younger versions of the characters. Were you the same at 25 as you are now? (assuming you are old enough for a reasonable amount of time to have passed).

For Kirk to be the same assured, experienced, level headed Starfleet Captain at that age as he was in TOS would be a bit silly if you ask me.

 

[Franklin]

Kirk is Kirk, and so on, but the TOS Kirk we know (I at least know, I won't be presumptuous) was very applied, self-assured, and focused, with a healthy ego and libido to match. Under different circumstances, that talent (but not the ego or libido ) could be stilted. So, in this movie, we see "stilted Kirk." If the timeline stays this way, he'll still be James T. Kirk. But he'll be just a little different than the Kirk we knew. Like a Kirk from another dimension or something.

Except that there's no evidence so far that the intention of the filmmakers is to change the characters themselves. This is in fact the very point that Abrams is making when he says that he's presenting the same characters in a new way. It's a different story, but the same people.

No, you're right. The characters aren't being changed. But they may lead different lives and therefore be different than the characters we knew. They zig left every now and then when they had zagged right. I'm assuming, of course, that things are not tied up nicely at the end of the movie.
I'm not crying over this. Just saying that seeing these characters now relive their lives will mean getting to know them all over again. And, in the back of one's mind is the idea that maybe I won't like them, or what they do, this time. The James Kirk we knew for over 25 years of his life is gone (not Shatner's Kirk, I'm not saying it that way).
That is the big difference between reintroducing these characters and the constant retelling of the hero origin stories. We haven't gotten 25 years of Batman's life from any one TV and movie series. James Bond, Batman, Superman, and the others are forever 30-somethings. We've never seen any of them at 62. But we watched Kirk and Spock and the others grow old together. So, the stake in those characters is higher. Like I said, I don't know. It's just a feeling. The idea of this movie is great. But I'm actually beginning to regret that they tried at all to tie it to past Trek. Maybe a clean cut would've been easier.

 

[Anika Hanson]

I've always liked the notion of alternative timelines and one of the things I've always enjoyed the most was comparing the characters for alternative timelines and the timeline we know, looking at the differences in their personalities and situations.

In regard to yesterdays enterprise I didnt feel that the charcters where too different to how they in our timeline but in the book Q-squared by Peter David which is losely based on yesterday's enterprise they were quite different and I loved this aspect.

 

[BenRoethig]

"But...but they never told us it wasn't gonna come back!?"

It's also self-defeating to the work of all the people involved, who want the "die-hards" to "give it a chance."

How am I (even though I'm not a "die-hard," just someone who doesn't' care for anything other than TOS) supposed to give your vision a chance if we barely get a full movie out of it?

Spoiler: reply

Do you really want a underachieving drunk who hadn't been on a ship before as your Captain, a hotheaded emotional vulcan who hates said Captain, a screw up as your chief engineer, a ninja for your helmsman, Starfleet and the KDF virtually gone, and perhaps an uninhabitable vulcan as the future of Star Trek? If all that comes to pass stays the same, Nero gets the end result he wanted whether he's around to see it or not.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

I'm perfectly happy with the alternative timeline idea. In fact, in some ways I've been hoping for that for a long time (long before any 'rumors'), simply because it will quell alot of the crazy canon-obsession among existing fans.

I think that even in an alternative timeline, we will still see the same fundamental characters.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^ I say let the canon-obsessed fans be damned.

Star Trek has always had canon inconsistencies. Therefore, I don't see the need to create an alternate timeline plot device just to explain away some minor inconsistencies in this film.

Just as I can accept the new look of the Enterprise without any need for explanation, I can accept some canonical inconsistencies without explanation, as long as they don't change everything (a la nuBSG).

...I think that even in an alternative timeline, we will still see the same fundamental characters.

I think the characters will all have the same personalities also...
...but if the story of this film is telling me these characters are from an "alternate timeline", then I may believe they are simply like "clones" of the original characters, no matter how much they may seem like the real thing.

 

[Franklin]

^
^^ I say let the canon-obsessed fans be damned.

Star Trek has always had canon inconsistencies. Therefore, I don't see the need to create an alternate timeline plot device just to explain away some minor inconsistencies in this film.

Just as I can accept the new look of the Enterprise without any need for explanation, I can accept some canonical inconsistencies without explanation, as long as they don't change everything (a la nuBSG).

...I think that even in an alternative timeline, we will still see the same fundamental characters.

I think the characters will all have the same personalities also...
...but if the story of this film is telling me these characters are from an "alternate timeline", then I may believe they are simply like "clones" of the original characters, no matter how much they may seem like the real thing.

Agreed. Since Nero has apparently fouled up the timeline, what we're really seeing is an "alternate" origins story. That is, unless one big curve is thrown at us at the end of the movie, this wasn't how the seven came to serve together in the first place. Spock is cobbling them back together for whatever reason.
Either they form and live in another timeline, or they're living in another dimension. They have fundamentally the same characters, but they are not the same people. They probably face quite different futures and developments.
Like I said, unless one big curve is thrown at us, we are not seeing how they got together for the adventures we've already shared with them. We are not seeing "how Kirk became the man he became," but "how Kirk comes to have the chance to be a similar man." A subtle difference, I know. I don't know if that's bad or not. I mean, it's just a feeling. Not a criticism.

 

[Supernova]

So does this mean the movies are affected? New TWOK: Kirk and Khan actually get to fight, Javier Bardem plays Khan New TSFS: Kirk dies instead, and Spock mourns his loss while also searching for a way to clone Kirk and restore his mind New TVH: a visit to 2008 Earth, this time with a cameo from President Obama and the mission is to save the Earth from global warming instead of just whales?

 

[Ovation]

So does this mean the movies are affected? New TWOK: Kirk and Khan actually get to fight, Javier Bardem plays Khan New TSFS: Kirk dies instead, and Spock mourns his loss while also searching for a way to clone Kirk and restore his mind New TVH: a visit to 2008 Earth, this time with a cameo from President Obama and the mission is to save the Earth from global warming instead of just whales?

I like your new TWOK scenario--the other two, not so much. Imagine if they tackled any of those--the internet might actually meltdown from the indignation.

In a more serious vein, I don't think they will revisit old episodes or movies in any (potential) sequels.

 

[Praetor]

I don't understand the logic of Spock expecting help from a crew that was already altered by Nero's actions. That seems incredibly stupid.

"Yesterday's Enterprise" touched upon this briefly, with Picard asking why Guinan's timeline was "right" and his timeline was "wrong." Other than trillions of people dying in his timeline, there wasn't anything bad about it (especially from the Klingons' standpoint. )

This question is even more relevant when you take into account Star Trek's use of alternate timelines, which implies that time traveling doesn't do anything to a timeline; it simply places the time-traveler into another timeline.

Now, if Spock meant to stop the destruction of the Kelvin, and somehow ended up in the "current" time of the story, the question becomes "Now what?" What does he expect to accomplish now, now that the damage has been done?

Spoiler: What I think happens with the timeline

I think that Spock travels back with Nero and witnesses the changes take place and is powerless to stop or alter them, and so must do everything in his power to restore the altered timeline to a 'correct' course. So by the end of the movie we probably won't have a reset button per se but the universe will be rerouted back on course to be like the original timeline.

Not what I would prefer but that's what I believe will happen.

Now to the question of characters, undoubtedly all of them are subtly changed by their experiences as others have suggested, perhaps Kirk and Spock most dramatically of all, but hopefully, even with the timeline skullduggery. I don't think the TNG crew in 'Yesterday's Enterprise' acted that out of character, they weren't goateed or anything, but they had indeed lived different lives. In the upcoming movie, if JJ and the writers have done their jobs, their basic characters will remain the same, their experiences will just be different.

 

[Supernova]

So does this mean the movies are affected? New TWOK: Kirk and Khan actually get to fight, Javier Bardem plays Khan New TSFS: Kirk dies instead, and Spock mourns his loss while also searching for a way to clone Kirk and restore his mind New TVH: a visit to 2008 Earth, this time with a cameo from President Obama and the mission is to save the Earth from global warming instead of just whales?

I like your new TWOK scenario--the other two, not so much. Imagine if they tackled any of those--the internet might actually meltdown from the indignation.

In a more serious vein, I don't think they will revisit old episodes or movies in any (potential) sequels.

Well, I was only really serious about the TWOK idea--I couldn't think of anyting else for the other movies! And you're right, there would be quite a meltdown on the ol' Internet. I've only been lurking here a few days now and just registered, but I can already tell there'd be some real armaggedon going on here. -Dan

 

[BorgusFrat]

Same timeline, alternate timeline ... I think it's probably gonna be an alternate timeline. The question is why is "the Spock we know" in this thing at all?

I would think he's either there to correct something and bring everything back on course (a reset button), or he's there to correct something and yet "let it be", as though his presence in and of itself is gonna be the ONLY tip of the hat to purists. If it's the second, then the "new" timeline or reality would be the one going forward. But if that's the case, it makes you wonder why you even have him in the movie at all. And if it's the first, then it kind of makes a reset button likely, which would seem to be the ultimate cop-out.

Except that there's no evidence so far that the intention of the filmmakers is to change the characters themselves.

But it was Kirk who was described as a "stack of books with legs." And he taught classes too ... "In Kirk's class you either think or sink!" And when Mitchell sent a blond technician his way he says he almost married her.

We haven't seen much of the flick from just one trailer, but sure doesn't seem like the James Dean / Tom Cruise version of Kirk that Abrams is giving us so far.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...We haven't seen much of the flick from just one trailer, but sure doesn't seem like the James Dean / Tom Cruise version of Kirk that Abrams is giving us so far...

Again, I don't want this thread to degenerate into "Kirk isn't supposed to act like James Dean", or "Spock shouldn't get angry" -- That is NOT the point I was trying to make.

My point is that even if these characters act EXACTLY like they are supposed to, the very fact that they come from a totally different timeline as the TOS characters will make them feel like impostors to me. They may act just like their TOS counterparts, but since the film is telling me that these people are from a different timeline, thus I may feel (in the context of the film) that they are not the same people as in TOS.

Like I said, that doesn't mean that this can't be a great film...it just means that there may be a little voice inside of me that says "these characters came from a different origin, so they're not the real thing"