Crisis on Infinite Treks???

[VOODOOXI]

Hasn't it pretty much been common knowledge that this film takes place at least in part in an alternate universe since Moriarty over at aintitcool.com broke the story http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33832 over a year ago?

If you read between the lines of what Mr. Abrams and Mr. Orci have been saying combined with the leaks and the AICN story it seems pretty clear this is an alternate universe where the majority of this film takes place.

As a matter of fact the creative team keeps bringing up "Yesterdays Enterprise" as an inspiration for the new film.

It seems pretty likely this is the direction they are going. It keeps everyone happy. They get to have an all new universe to play in. While at the same time keeping the time line of the last 40 plus years as canon.

I think this is a creative direction to take the series in.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'd agree.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I believe that any alternate timeline that results from Nero's meddling will be mostly restored by the end. So what we get at the conclusion of the film will not be *exactly* like it was in TOS, but *mostly* like it. Meaning, we will be left with a universe that has the look of Trek XI, but the historical events we are all familiar with. For example:

Spoiler: Trek XI

Kirk will really be a Captain - by rank, as well as position - and will have worked his way up through the ranks over the years like any other officer would. Pike will have met the fate we are familiar with in 'Menagerie'. Scotty will not have just invented the transporter. That type of thing.

 

[Ovation]

I believe that any alternate timeline that results from Nero's meddling will be mostly restored by the end. So what we get at the conclusion of the film will not be *exactly* like it was in TOS, but *mostly* like it. Meaning, we will be left with a universe that has the look of Trek XI, but the historical events we are all familiar with. For example:

Spoiler: Trek XI

Kirk will really be a Captain - by rank, as well as position - and will have worked his way up through the ranks over the years like any other officer would. Pike will have met the fate we are familiar with in 'Menagerie'. Scotty will not have just invented the transporter. That type of thing.

You really have to let go of the Scotty thing in your spoilers (here and elsewhere). NOTHING either seen or read about the movie suggests that he is doing that.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

You really have to let go of the Scotty thing in your spoilers (here and elsewhere). NOTHING either seen or read about the movie suggests that he is doing that.

Ok, what other conclusion would you have me draw?

 

[Ovation]

You really have to let go of the Scotty thing in your spoilers (here and elsewhere). NOTHING either seen or read about the movie suggests that he is doing that.

Ok, what other conclusion would you have me draw?

I explained to you in another thread, but here goes:

Spoiler: response to spoiler in a prior post

Scotty does not have to be "inventing" the transporter. He merely needs to be experimenting on some sort of major enhancement and have that experiment go awry to suffer his punishment. It doesn't say anywhere that he was inventing the transporter from scratch, only that whatever he was doing with it resulted in the death of a dog.

Your kind of presumption, if you'll pardon my saying so, is of a kind with all sorts of extrapolations people are making that are in no way the "only" conclusion that can be drawn from what little information we've been given so far. Some people are assuming Kirk and Chekov are the same age--nothing in the released material makes that an incontrovertible conclusion. There are numerous other examples. I see no need to get all bent out of shape over things that have NOT been explicitly indicated. Perhaps your conclusion is correct--if so, then it will be a bit disappointing. But your conclusion is not the most probable, based on the available information.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

You really have to let go of the Scotty thing in your spoilers (here and elsewhere). NOTHING either seen or read about the movie suggests that he is doing that.

Ok, what other conclusion would you have me draw?

Spoiler: spoiler

Scotty isn't inventing the transporter in this movie

Spoiler: spoiler

One the transporter is used by Spock as well as Kirk and Sulu before Scotty appears. Two Scotty is tring to come up with away to use the transpoter at warp which is very different from inventing it

Sorry about that had trouble using the new spoiler code

 

[Ovation]

You really have to let go of the Scotty thing in your spoilers (here and elsewhere). NOTHING either seen or read about the movie suggests that he is doing that.

Ok, what other conclusion would you have me draw?

Spoiler: fixing the text for spoiler coverage

Scotty isn't inventing the transporter in this movie


spoilers after this point!!!!




One the transporter is used by Spock as well as Kirk and Sulu before Scotty appears. Two Scotty is tring to come up with away to use the transpoter at warp which is very different from inventing it

I'm sorry, is the spoiler code so difficult to understand? Clearly if he and I bothered to cover up this information in spoiler code, we did NOT wish to leave it "out in the open" (whether the information is readily available elsewhere is immaterial--the intention, at least for me, and, we can infer, for babaganoosh, is clear)

 

[M'Sharak]

You really have to let go of the Scotty thing in your spoilers (here and elsewhere). NOTHING either seen or read about the movie suggests that he is doing that.

Ok, what other conclusion would you have me draw?

I explained to you in another thread, but here goes:

Spoiler: response to spoiler in a prior post

Scotty does not have to be "inventing" the transporter. He merely needs to be experimenting on some sort of major enhancement and have that experiment go awry to suffer his punishment. It doesn't say anywhere that he was inventing the transporter from scratch, only that whatever he was doing with it resulted in the death of a dog.

Spoiler: spoiler

It's not even the death of a dog, as I recall. It just wasn't rematerialized.

 

[Ovation]

Ok, what other conclusion would you have me draw?

I explained to you in another thread, but here goes:

Spoiler: response to spoiler in a prior post

Scotty does not have to be "inventing" the transporter. He merely needs to be experimenting on some sort of major enhancement and have that experiment go awry to suffer his punishment. It doesn't say anywhere that he was inventing the transporter from scratch, only that whatever he was doing with it resulted in the death of a dog.

Spoiler: spoiler

It's not even the death of a dog, as I recall. It just wasn't rematerialized.

I stand corrected. (I appreciate you fixed the spoiler above, but you've left enough uncovered to render it moot--perhaps it doesn't matter, but I thought it worth mentioning).

 

[M'Sharak]

^ Oops. I think it's been fixed now.

 

[Cranston]

You don't have to do a galaxy-shaking reality wipe to get rid of a damn dog.

This crystallizes the absurdity of such convolutions beautifully.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I suppose I still have a problem with Scotty's situation as described, though. The Miracle Worker doesn't make mistakes. Or at least he *shouldn't*.

 

[Ovation]

I suppose I still have a problem with Scotty's situation as described, though. The Miracle Worker doesn't make mistakes.

Maybe this is the "formative mistake" that teaches him not to make anymore. It would be in keeping with the theme of the film as described so far.

 

[Logical Leopard]

I suppose I still have a problem with Scotty's situation as described, though. The Miracle Worker doesn't make mistakes. Or at least he *shouldn't*.

I think it's kind of charming. We get to see everyone young and raw. Spock hasn't quite got a hang of his emotions, Scotty is perhaps less competent than he makes himself appear later in the series (and I do mean makes himself appear, as he told LaForge in TNG about making things seem more drastic to the captain than they actually are). hopefully, we'll even see Uhura say, "Can you hear me now? Good..."

 

[M'Sharak]

I suppose I still have a problem with Scotty's situation as described, though. The Miracle Worker doesn't make mistakes. Or at least he *shouldn't*.

You speak as though you think characters like Scotty are supposed to have been born fully-formed, never having had to learn anything. Does that sound at all realistic to you?

This is fiction but, for the space of an hour, or of a two-hour movie, we're supposed to be able to believe that these are real people. Do you know anyone who has never made a mistake? I don't.

 

[lawman]

"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.

But I'll be interested to hear the counter argument...

Okay. I was on the edge of my seat every single month the year Crisis came out, waiting for the next issue... and I remembered it fondly enough years later to be one of the hordes of readers who purchased the hardcover edition. The story was suspenseful on an epic scale.

Marv Wolfman nailed the characterizations of a slew of key characters, and George Perez's art was consistently beautiful in terms of both design and rendering.

Kara's death was one of the best comic-book deaths I've ever read... and Barry Allen's sacrifice was another, the crowning moment of his heroic career.

Every single one of the attempted "big event crossover" follow-ups over the years has fallen short of the original. Crisis broke the mold.

How's that?

 

[lawman]

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...

Ignoring stuff that went before (that you don't like) is one thing. Contradicting it is another. The latter is problematic

And doing it as a "soft reboot" in which supposedly one thing has changed yet everything else has stayed the same just compounds the problem by defying logic. It's a piecemeal approach that just causes confusion and satisfies no one.

This sort of thinking is why Superman hasn't had a coherent origin in the comics for a good five years now.