Crisis on Infinite Treks???

[Python Trek]

Based upon some of the stuff that Abrams has been saying lately about "not a re-boot" and "respects canon", I have a feeling that the film is going to cover all its bases by doing an "in-continuity" re-boot, a la DC's "Crisis on Infinite Earths". Since the film has a time travel plot, all Abrams and company have to do is stay true to continuity in the 24th century scenes, show the temporal incursion, and then from there onward (including any sequels), we're in an altered timeline. Even if the heroes "fix" the incursion, they might not really be able to do more than damage control. As someone who's a real continuty/canon geek, I have to say that I'm okay with this. It is a good compromise. It throws a bone to us Canonites, but leaves the new creators' hands untied to do what they will to tell their stories. I was dead-set against nuTrek at the start, but my ice is melting....

I'm feeling better about Trek XI these days. My fingers are crossed....

 

[What's his face]

I think they mentioned something like that. It'd be interesting to see. I wouldn't mind having two different continuities. It leaves so much room for the imagination. What would the 24th century look like in this new universe? Who knows!

 

[Python Trek]

When they do nuTNG, will they cast Tom Hardy as Picard?

 

[shapeshifter]

Excellent attitude Python Trek, I agree.

 

[Commander Kit Draper]

Based upon some of the stuff that Abrams has been saying lately about "not a re-boot" and "respects canon", I have a feeling that the film is going to cover all its bases by doing an "in-continuity" re-boot, a la DC's "Crisis on Infinite Earths". Since the film has a time travel plot, all Abrams and company have to do is stay true to continuity in the 24th century scenes, show the temporal incursion, and then from there onward (including any sequels), we're in an altered timeline. Even if the heroes "fix" the incursion, they might not really be able to do more than damage control. As someone who's a real continuty/canon geek, I have to say that I'm okay with this. It is a good compromise. It throws a bone to us Canonites, but leaves the new creators' hands untied to do what they will to tell their stories. I was dead-set against nuTrek at the start, but my ice is melting....

I'm feeling better about Trek XI these days. My fingers are crossed....

Since I don't know when, I've used this theory to explain continuity errors which have existed since (and during) the original series. We've seen so much time travel during the show, and know that time travel is a major issue in the future of this imaginary universe, that it's impossible that the timeline has remained intact.

CKD

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Seeing as how Crisis on Infinite Earths and all the other in-continuity reboots of DC have been horrendously bad stories, notable only for the fact that they changed continuity, I find the idea of using time travel to create an in-continuity reboot of Star Trek a horrible idea. They want to start Star Trek over from the start and they're covering their asses for the canonites, which means wasting precious screentime on convoluted time travel handwavium.

It's fiction - why does it have to be reconcilable with the original continuity? Aren't we all intelligent enough to simply say - they're rewriting it fromt he beginning? Which, of course, is exactly what they're doing, time travel bs or not.

 

[RobertScorpio]

Seeing as how Crisis on Infinite Earths and all the other in-continuity reboots of DC have been horrendously bad stories, notable only for the fact that they changed continuity, I find the idea of using time travel to create an in-continuity reboot of Star Trek a horrible idea. They want to start Star Trek over from the start and they're covering their asses for the canonites, which means wasting precious screentime on convoluted time travel handwavium.

It's fiction - why does it have to be reconcilable with the original continuity? Aren't we all intelligent enough to simply say - they're rewriting it fromt he beginning? Which, of course, is exactly what they're doing, time travel bs or not.

With all due respect, IMO, CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS was a great story...Its intent, which I disagreed with, and still do, was to put all of DC's Earths (Earth one (JLA) Earth two (JSA) EARTH S (SHAZAM) ect) into one Earth....they did it...Not what I wanted, but it made sense because it was clear that the new generaton of comic book fans were too confused to follow along with DC's multiple earths, and all the continuity problems. (Was there a WILDCAT on Earth one and Earth two? What about Aquaman? ect)

What screwed it all up was what came after it.....mainly Zero Hour and the others...

Rob
Scorpio

 

[elric428]

Based upon some of the stuff that Abrams has been saying lately about "not a re-boot" and "respects canon", I have a feeling that the film is going to cover all its bases by doing an "in-continuity" re-boot, a la DC's "Crisis on Infinite Earths". Since the film has a time travel plot, all Abrams and company have to do is stay true to continuity in the 24th century scenes, show the temporal incursion, and then from there onward (including any sequels), we're in an altered timeline. Even if the heroes "fix" the incursion, they might not really be able to do more than damage control. As someone who's a real continuty/canon geek, I have to say that I'm okay with this. It is a good compromise. It throws a bone to us Canonites, but leaves the new creators' hands untied to do what they will to tell their stories. I was dead-set against nuTrek at the start, but my ice is melting....

I'm feeling better about Trek XI these days. My fingers are crossed....

This has been my theory all along. And it would also help explain why things like the Eugenics Wars never happened in the 90's etc. Abrams should have called this movie Star Trek: The Buttefly Effect

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Based upon some of the stuff that Abrams has been saying lately about "not a re-boot" and "respects canon", I have a feeling that the film is going to cover all its bases by doing an "in-continuity" re-boot, a la DC's "Crisis on Infinite Earths". Since the film has a time travel plot, all Abrams and company have to do is stay true to continuity in the 24th century scenes, show the temporal incursion, and then from there onward (including any sequels), we're in an altered timeline. Even if the heroes "fix" the incursion, they might not really be able to do more than damage control.

I think you're probably right, and I agree with you that I'm okay with it.

The writers have suggested (we'll only know in May) that most of the stuff that would make this clear to the fans watching the movie won't really be noticable to the newbies.

"Crisis On Infinite Earths" was a great series. That it failed to accomplish the goal, long-term (or even mid-term) was not a flaw in the series itself. Mostly that failure was the result of trying to satisfy fans with ex post facto explanations for and attempted reconciliations of every factoid and character history that was altered by the Crisis rather than just hand-waving it as "altered timeline" and moving on. The reader mentality at work sounds familiar...

 

[RobertScorpio]

CRISIS set DC up perfectly. The reasons to merge all the DC universes/alternate earths was logical, though I liked it the way it was. The writers who followed Crisis just made bad descions, chiefly among those; Power Girl. That character was so screwed up..

I like how she is being written now in JSA, DC's best magazine IMO. I love that they have KINGDOME COME superman on that group, and I really love the fact that they have found EARTH TWO!!!

Star Trek XI has the same idea. Take it back to a certrain point, so as to wipe away what came after, which as we all know, was fool of continuity issues...

I still believe, and always will, that from XI onward, ALL star trek novels (and this anger the writers in that forum, but oh well) should be coordinated with the new movie series in that everying that happens in those books are in the same continuity of the new XI universe. The usual response? "How could you expect future directors of the trek movies to have to be aware of what happened in the books, and audiences that don't even read the books"

Well,that is just whininig. You make it work. You have these writers write books that don't upset too much of the applecart. And you require the script writers/directors of the movies to do their damn jobs and read up on the source material....they are paid tons of money so make them earn it...make them READ a Book

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Actually, the Legion of Super Heros was another example of mucking around too much trying to reconcile the old continuity with the new.

The Legion was formed, according to pre-Crisis continuity, based upon the inspiration of Superboy.

Post-Crisis, there's no Superboy. So the writers got into this whole nonsense about how the Legion had been fed a "fake history" as a result of some really convoluted silliness. This went on for several issues.

They should simply have provided a new rationale for the origin of the Legion, tossed off in one or two panels, and gone forward with minimal fuss about it all.

 

[JoeZhang]

CRISIS set DC up perfectly. The reasons to merge all the DC universes/alternate earths was logical, though I liked it the way it was. The writers who followed Crisis just made bad descions, chiefly among those; Power Girl. That character was so screwed up..

I like how she is being written now in JSA, DC's best magazine IMO. I love that they have KINGDOME COME superman on that group, and I really love the fact that they have found EARTH TWO!!!

Star Trek XI has the same idea. Take it back to a certrain point, so as to wipe away what came after, which as we all know, was fool of continuity issues...

No they found A Earth-2 not THE Earth-2, power girl isn't from that earth...

 

[Lapis Exilis]

"Crisis On Infinite Earths" was a great series.

Great how? I have never once in ten years on geek message boards heard anyone discuss it except in terms of how it affected DC continuity. No one quotes favorite lines and no events from it have become comic book classics. No one talks about how brilliant the opening scenes were, how unforgettable was the climax, how this character or that character had an iconic moment.

That it failed to accomplish the goal, long-term (or even mid-term) was not a flaw in the series itself. Mostly that failure was the result of trying to satisfy fans with ex post facto explanations for and attempted reconciliations of every factoid and character history that was altered by the Crisis rather than just hand-waving it as "altered timeline" and moving on. The reader mentality at work sounds familiar...

I could give a shit about DC continuity. Crisis on Infinite Earths is an utterly forgettable story.

But I'll be interested to hear the counter argument about why it's not.

 

[RobertScorpio]

"Crisis On Infinite Earths" was a great series.

Great how? I have never once in ten years on geek message boards heard anyone discuss it except in terms of how it affected DC continuity. No one quotes favorite lines and no events from it have become comic book classics. No one talks about how brilliant the opening scenes were, how unforgettable was the climax, how this character or that character had an iconic moment.

That it failed to accomplish the goal, long-term (or even mid-term) was not a flaw in the series itself. Mostly that failure was the result of trying to satisfy fans with ex post facto explanations for and attempted reconciliations of every factoid and character history that was altered by the Crisis rather than just hand-waving it as "altered timeline" and moving on. The reader mentality at work sounds familiar...

I could give a shit about DC continuity. Crisis on Infinite Earths is an utterly forgettable story.

But I'll be interested to hear the counter argument about why it's not.

Because you and I are still talking about it now...not so forgettable is it...

Rob

 

[JoeZhang]

I think Crisis is a notable series but I don't think it's a particular good one plus I never liked the half-way house approach to the reboot they did - they really should have ended the universe and started everything from scratch...

 

[Ovation]

"Crisis On Infinite Earths" was a great series.

Great how? I have never once in ten years on geek message boards heard anyone discuss it except in terms of how it affected DC continuity. No one quotes favorite lines and no events from it have become comic book classics. No one talks about how brilliant the opening scenes were, how unforgettable was the climax, how this character or that character had an iconic moment.

That it failed to accomplish the goal, long-term (or even mid-term) was not a flaw in the series itself. Mostly that failure was the result of trying to satisfy fans with ex post facto explanations for and attempted reconciliations of every factoid and character history that was altered by the Crisis rather than just hand-waving it as "altered timeline" and moving on. The reader mentality at work sounds familiar...

I could give a shit about DC continuity. Crisis on Infinite Earths is an utterly forgettable story.

But I'll be interested to hear the counter argument about why it's not.

It's not the greatest comic story of all time (and I haven't read it since buying the original issues, so my recollection may be fuzzy), but it had its moments. Barry Allen's "death" (well, it was supposed to be "real" at the time) was, for me, a stand out part of the story. I can dig it out and re-read it (perhaps I'll be disappointed) but my recollection of it is a favourable one.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Because you and I are still talking about it now...not so forgettable is it...

Rob

We're not talking about the story of CoiE, because no one ever does. I can't even remember the villain's name. People discuss it because it was a turning point in DC comics history, not because it was a great story - which was my entire point.

But if it's such a memorable story, I'm sure you can explain to me why, in a narrative sense, it is a great tale.

 

[JoeZhang]

Because you and I are still talking about it now...not so forgettable is it...

Rob

We're not talking about the story of CoiE, because no one ever does. I can't even remember the villain's name. People discuss it because it was a turning point in DC comics history, not because it was a great story - which was my entire point.

But if it's such a memorable story, I'm sure you can explain to me why, in a narrative sense, it is a great tale.

I'd agree with this - Crisis is discussed in terms of the mechanics of what it did to the fictional DC Universe, nobody talks about great lines and the like (and a quick skim of my complete crisis suggests there aren't any... )

 

[RobertScorpio]

I think Crisis is a notable series but I don't think it's a particular good one plus I never liked the half-way house approach to the reboot they did - they really should have ended the universe and started everything from scratch...

I totally agree...here is how I reboot DC..
end it....no new comics for a year...

then...
ACTION #1 (reboot)...its the only dc comic for three months as it sets up Superman as first hero to earth...

then...three months later
Detective Comics #1...Batman is set up....

For the next three months only ACTION and DETECTIVE (Superman and Batman) are published...


Three months later Superman and Batman crossover for the first time and they meet Wonder Woman in the process...she gets her own magazine...


Over the next year or so you roll out the next big event..and finally, in year four (four years after reboot happened) you have the first Justice League issue when the known heros all meet for the first time....


that's how I would do it..totally start over....right here in the 2000s. None of this 1939 Golden age hold-over, or silver age 1950s hold over either..reboot as you say...totally....

And jet Geoff Jones or our own Greg Cox write it!!

As for staying on topic? I think JJ will do a good job, we just have to give him the chance...

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Python Trek]

I prefer what I call "soft re-boots". If a continuity becomes too cluttered, just stop referring to all the stuff that mucks up the works. No one FORCES a writer to dwell on minutiae--they just seem incapable of stopping themselves. If you're a Superman writer, and you don't want say, Krypto, in the continuity, then just don't show the little bastard. You don't have to do a galaxy-shaking reality wipe to get rid of a damn dog. Or to get rid of alternate Earths or anything else, for that matter. Just don't give it any "air time", and it'll dry up and blow away. This is true of Marvel, DC, Star Trek...any giant fictional universe.