Wouldn't and won't bother me even a tiny little bit.
I don't believe you.
Why don't you believe me? What could possibly be a reason for me to lie to you?
An interesting line from Wired (spoilers)
- Thread starter Opus
- Start date
Why don't you believe me? What could possibly be a reason for me to lie to you?
Wouldn't and won't bother me even a tiny little bit.
I don't believe you.
That's a bizarre statement to make - I can conceptualise that people take this a lot more seriously than I do (although to be honest, I can't make the leap to 'why') - that it's *real* to them in some way it's never going to be for me, you can't make the leap the other way and understand that perspective?
Wouldn't it be so much easier to assume that this film (and everything springing from it) never happened?
---------------
1. Old Trek happened. Yes.
2. Old Spock intervenes to correct Nero's mess. Yes.
3. He intervenes at a specific point. So, there's something about him intervening at that particular time that's important to correct most of the problems. (Prolly the biggest one being that if not, Spock will get command and Kirk won't, or that Spock would otherwise command this mission and Vulcan would be lost).
4. IMO, Nimoy's Spock will also give his life to save the Enterprise, but no resurrection. (There's some symbolism for you).
5. What actually happens is TOS Remastered.
Believe it. He's far from the only one. And I've seen every episode and film multiple times--dating back to 1973 (I still remember the first TOS episode I saw in the fall of 1973 on WLVI Channel 56 out of Boston--The Devil in the Dark)--so no accusations of being a 'casual fan', thank you.Wouldn't and won't bother me even a tiny little bit.
I don't believe you.
I have a large comics collection (mostly DC). Silver Age to today (not complete, mind you, but enough to be aware of continuity changes in each "era"). From time to time I read Alan Moore's Superman/Swamp Thing "team-up" from the pre-Crisis continuity and enjoy it--I don't dwell on the fact that it's no longer "canon". It does not interfere with my enjoyment one iota. The exact same thing will apply if the movie is good (to me). If I don't enjoy the movie (and there many reasons why that might be the case), its deviation from "the canon" WILL NOT number among those reasons. Of that you can be certain.
All generalities are bad.
I'm a huge X-Men fan. I have all the comics from 138 (just after Phoenix died) onward. The X-Men movie in 2000 played fast and loose with the canon. Very fast and loose.
And I liked X-Men. It got all the characters to the right places and touched the same points in a way that fit in a 90 minute movie. My only bitch was Storm--and she was everyone's bitch.
I'm not a slave to canon. I think characterizing us trailer-bashers as canon-slaves is unfair and, probably for the most part, inaccurate.
It just looks like a lame movie with none of what made TOS awesome. I could be utterly wrong. On the other hand, the Serenity trailers sucked and so did that movie. So I'm going with my gut. Enjoy the movie. I won't see you there.
Believe it. He's far from the only one. And I've seen every episode and film multiple times--dating back to 1973 (I still remember the first TOS episode I saw in the fall of 1973 on WLVI Channel 56 out of Boston--The Devil in the Dark)--so no accusations of being a 'casual fan', thank you.Wouldn't and won't bother me even a tiny little bit.
I don't believe you.
I have a large comics collection (mostly DC).
That's a good point - I enjoyed the adventures of Spock aboard his science ship and Kirk aboard the NCC-2000, I still do!
I got news for you. Lean in close. Lean in closelier. . . closelier. . .
It's just a TV show. Even if Trek XI is a totally worthless piece of crap, it won't make TOS any more or less real than it ever was. Come on people. Battlefield Earth is such a horrible movie I've never been able to tolerate it all the way through, but that in no way tarnishes or keeps me from enjoying the book as much as I ever did.
That's my favorite period of DC's first run. It showed the characters moving on and that the Trek universe could change.
Wouldn't bother me. Holding two opposing ideas in my head at once is easy for me. I would simply not bother trying to reconcile the two, but accept each for what it is in itself.
If you quit reading about it, and don't watch it, then you won't know what it changes or reveals, and so for you it's 'problems' won't exist.In what way *wouldn't* that be denial?
Don't deny it, just ignore it.
---------------
Can't you understand that for fans who have been looking forward to a new "this is no re-boot, we're following canon" Star Trek movie for the past year or more will be disappointed if it bears just a superficial resemblance to what they've been anticipating? The movie won't have to be 'bad' to be a disappointment.
---------------
I'm sure there will be a time-travel explanation for whatever gets changed. I knew they were messing with canon when I saw the cast of characters and noted that the whole TOS crew was together in a movie set when Kirk just emerges from the academy.
I hope that's part of the 'altered' timeline - i.e. it is one of the things Old Spock must correct.
None of this crap about Young Spock getting so emotional that he nearly beats the shit out of Kirk on the bridge; Kirk hitting on Uhura; Kirk showing up on the Enterprise as a cadet *and being outranked even by Chekov*; or Kirk going straight from Cadet to Captain
should survive the end of the film.I suppose I can live with it if the new timeline is *mostly* like the old one. Meaning: Not everyone is in the Academy at the same time, and Kirk is something other than an irresponsible jackass; Kirk graduates from the Academy and *actually has to work his way up through the ranks* like any other officer would; at some point, Kirk serves on the Republic and Farragut; Christopher Pike commands the Enterprise, then hands over the ship to Kirk (who, as I said, has followed a normal promotion order, and is a Captain *for real*) and somewhere down the line meets the fate we see in 'Menagerie'; etc.
This sounds like a good idea and everything; but quite frankly, I'd much rather prefer a big fat REBOOT! 
I'm sure he will have to work his way through the ranks - his command in this film will likely be temporary at best.
I hope that's part of the 'altered' timeline - i.e. it is one of the things Old Spock must correct.
None of this crap about Young Spock getting so emotional that he nearly beats the shit out of Kirk on the bridge; Kirk hitting on Uhura; Kirk showing up on the Enterprise as a cadet *and being outranked even by Chekov*; or Kirk going straight from Cadet to Captain
I suppose I can live with it if the new timeline is *mostly* like the old one. Meaning: Not everyone is in the Academy at the same time, and Kirk is something other than an irresponsible jackass; Kirk graduates from the Academy and *actually has to work his way up through the ranks* like any other officer would; at some point, Kirk serves on the Republic and Farragut; Christopher Pike commands the Enterprise, then hands over the ship to Kirk (who, as I said, has followed a normal promotion order, and is a Captain *for real*) and somewhere down the line meets the fate we see in 'Menagerie'; etc.
Quick question:
Is there any difference between an "alternate timeline" and an "alternate dimension"? Like the mirror universe. That's just basically an alternate timeline, isn't it? So if this is how it really plays out, I don't see how this presents a big problem. You've got one universe where Spock has a goatee, and two where he doesn't. All canon.
Also, you know, I finally figured out a way around the Hitler Paradox. If you wanted to go back in time and kill Hitler, couldn't you just leave yourself a note to build a time machine and kill some guy named Hitler before you killed Hitler? So you'd still have a motivation (although a different one) to kill him.
Is there any difference between an "alternate timeline" and an "alternate dimension"? Like the mirror universe. That's just basically an alternate timeline, isn't it? So if this is how it really plays out, I don't see how this presents a big problem. You've got one universe where Spock has a goatee, and two where he doesn't. All canon.
Also, you know, I finally figured out a way around the Hitler Paradox. If you wanted to go back in time and kill Hitler, couldn't you just leave yourself a note to build a time machine and kill some guy named Hitler before you killed Hitler? So you'd still have a motivation (although a different one) to kill him.
This is the best explanation, should this be the route Abrams and co. are actually going with this relaunch of the franchise, how all this fits together with established canon yet stands as its own, new entity.
I'm also someone who grew up watching TOS reruns on WLVI-56 in Boston. I think my first episode I ever taped was "Return of the Archons" (and might still have that tape buried somewhere!) and I'd be quite pleased if this is the new direction.
Not really.
An alternate timeline is just that: a timeline. A version of history.
An alternate *universe*, on the other hand, is a physical location. What distinguishes one universe from the other, is the 'frequency' at which all of its matter 'vibrates'. Different universes have different frequencies, so to speak. So technically they all occupy the same space, but never actually touch each other.
Any given universe can comprise many different timelines. We've seen this happen in Trek already - ST:FC, for example. The alternate timeline in which the Borg assimilate Earth, is not an alternate universe (although I'm sure there *are* alternate universes where that happened), it's the same Trek universe we're familiar with. Just took a bit of a detour.
The Mirror Universe is not an alternate timeline. It is a distinct, separate physical location from the mainstream Trek universe. We know this because (among other reasons) characters are able to travel back and forth between the two...
Similar threads
