Do you think they'll keep making Abramsverse movies after #3?

[Kelthaz]

Is your contention that JJTrek is breaking it's own rules, or breaking Past Trek Rules?

If Past Trek, which Warp Scale are you going by? TOS, where they could leave the Galaxy or get to the middle of the Galaxy in days or hours or Voayger, where it took 75 years to get from the far end of The Delta Quadrant to Earth, or somewhere in between like in TNG?

TOS was too experimental, so I pretty much dismiss any rules that era established. The 24th century is when Star Trek became a consistent universe, so I suppose I'm going with the Warp Scale established in TNG.

Although, now that I'm thinking more about this, that's not fair. This is a reboot with a new creative team, so they should feel free to establish new rules for themselves and retcon existing rules that don't work for them. I'm just so used to Star Trek that it feels wrong to have Federation starships that can travel that fast, but in reality there is nothing wrong with it. It's a valid creative choice.

So yeah, that completely obliterates my argument.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Although, now that I'm thinking more about this, that's not fair. This is a reboot with a new creative team, so they should feel free to establish new rules for themselves and retcon existing rules that don't work for them.

But it really isn't a reboot. It *should* be, and I think they intended it to be, allowing themselves the freedom to do what they want. But by pulling the divergent timeline business, they painted themselves into a figurative corner. It really should adhere to the history established in previous Trek (and yes, I know even that history is self-inconsistent).

That being said, to me the "mystique" of Trek has always been that it's a (fairly) self-consistent universe with an established history. It's fun to experience those types of long-term continuities. I grew up reading Larry Niven's 'known universe' books, so I like the idea of self-referencing and consistency.

That's why I fail to see why some people who like Trek completely dismiss the notion of continuity. That takes away a large part of the story.

 

[Jedi_Master]

That's why I fail to see why some people who like Trek completely dismiss the notion of continuity. That takes away a large part of the story.

Not a single poster is saying that. No one is advocating that Kirk be a Gorn, or that Spock be a hemaphroditic co-joined Klingon, but the idea that "continuity" means every detail must fit into a framework that
1) meets the approval of the fans,
2) is completely logical, and
3) does not contradict previous work is wrong.
In a body of work that comprises 12 feature films, five TV series and countless other media offerings, there are bound to be discrepancies both large and small. It is the job of the writers, producers, directors, and actors to determine what works and what doesn't and to ask them to be hidebound to a small subsection of people who have the time and desire to memorize fictional limits to a fictional propulsion system that is fueled by fictional elements is quite frankly, ridiculous.

 

[BillJ]

That's why I fail to see why some people who like Trek completely dismiss the notion of continuity. That takes away a large part of the story.

I don't dismiss continuity, I dismiss slavish adherence to it.

Star Trek has always been incredibly inconsistent with how fast the various hero ships are (a day to the Klingon homeworld and back isn't really inconsistent with TOS). So to start complaining about it with the Abrams iteration seems to be more about Abrams than the perceived foul.

As big of a TOS fan that I am, I understand why Enterprise violated the whole first time that we see a cloaking device stuff from "Balance of Terror". I wish the violation was attached to a better story, but I understand the thinking nonetheless.

 

[drt]

That's why I fail to see why some people who like Trek completely dismiss the notion of continuity. That takes away a large part of the story.

I don't dismiss continuity, I dismiss slavish adherence to it.

Star Trek has always been incredibly inconsistent with how fast the various hero ships are (a day to the Klingon homeworld and back isn't really inconsistent with TOS). So to start complaining about it with the Abrams iteration seems to be more about Abrams than the perceived foul.

What's sort of funny is it's a combination of TOS super-fast warp speeds (800,000x the speed of light) with TNG-ENT shorter distances (94 light years to Kronos).

As I'd argue that in TOS proper Klingon space was probably thought to be thousands of light years away, not hundreds.

 

[BillJ]

What's sort of funny is it's a combination of TOS super-fast warp speeds (800,000x the speed of light) with TNG-ENT shorter distances (94 light years to Kronos).

As I'd argue that in TOS proper Klingon space was probably thought to be thousands of light years away, not hundreds.

I tend to think that the powers that be of TOS never gave it much thought as it wasn't really important to the story.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Most of the time we see the Klingons it's in "neutral space". So It's hard to say how close the Federation and the Empire are in TOS. All we know is they are expanding into the same region of space.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Adding an extra line of dialogue noting the specific passage of speed and/or time is meaningless and unnecessarily superfluous to anyone who isn't a pedant.

It's only ludicrous speed because you perceive it to be--under the erroneous supposition that magical space ship speed must be quantified.

Coming back to this point: it's not that a line of extra dialogue needed to be added to mark the passage of time. Rather, a line should have been either removed or altered -- specifically, Scotty's remark "I've been off this ship for ONE BLOODY DAY!"

It's THAT which tells us the ship has ludicrous speed. Not some baseless assumption on the audience's part. In one day, the Enterprise made a ROUND TRIP excursion to Kronos, spent some time idle while Kirk et al. took Mudd's ship to the planet (although we're told it's only 20 extra minutes... but that's an extra 20 min. back), toiled with Klingons, interrogated Khan, etc...

Meanwhile, in this interval, Scotty has time to go get drunk with Keenser, shuttle his way out to Jupiter, slip in with the Vengeance crew, and so forth. Scotty sobers up pretty quick, considering no one apparently needs to sleep in the 23rd century.

So, who is it giving the sense of "ludicrous" here...?

Perhaps Scotty should have either said "I've been off this ship for ONE BLOOD MONTH", or maybe the line could have been stricken all together.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I don't see anything ludicrous about it at all. Ten hours out and ten hours back gives four hours to muck about around Klingon space. And that's only if you take Scotty's "one bloody day" literally. It could just as easily be 30 hours.

How do you know Scotty didn't sleep all day before going to the bar? And there was probably enough time for him to catch a few winks on his way out to Jupiter. Besides, adrenaline and coffee can keep people awake for days.

As far as him sobering up--for one, he's Scottish. Besides modern-day "banana bags" do a pretty remarkable job of sobering people up. I'm sure there's an even more impressive 23c equivalent.

 

[Amaris]

I don't see anything ludicrous about it at all. Ten hours out and ten hours back gives four hours to muck about around Klingon space. And that's only if you take Scotty's "one bloody day" literally. It could just as easily be 30 hours.

How do you know Scotty didn't sleep all day before going to the bar? And there was probably enough time for him to catch a few winks on his way out to Jupiter. Besides, adrenaline and coffee can keep people awake for days.

As far as him sobering up--for one, he's Scottish. Besides modern-day "banana bags" do a pretty remarkable job of sobering people up. I'm sure there's an even more impressive 23c equivalent.

Plus, I just love that scene anyway. To me, Pegg channels pure Scotty there.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

And that's only if you take Scotty's "one bloody day" literally. It could just as easily be 30 hours.

How do you know Scotty didn't sleep all day before going to the bar?

Clearly he's been drinking the whole time and has no idea how much time has passed!

...or closely re-reading the first chapter of the book of Genesis...

...or inverting his estimates by a factor of four (alternate reality, right? ) it's actually been four days!

 

[Set Harth]

I don't see anything ludicrous about it at all. Ten hours out and ten hours back gives four hours to muck about around Klingon space.

Except, as depicted in the film, it's nowhere remotely near ten hours back. It's more like ten minutes.

 

[Greg Cox]

If it is in an "alternate" Universe or timeline, that means one that is not our own, also implying that Prime was our own. I maintain that the creators, writers, and all involved with Trek and, apparently, only most fans, believe it was an optimistic vision of hope for OUR future. The "Abramsverse" takes that away.

All Star Treks are optimistic versions of a future. One is not more real or connected to "our" history than any other. They're all works of fiction that present a future that works better than the present day. That's more than enough.

If you insist on an "in-universe" justification for two different versions of the same imaginary future history . . . fine, both universes share "our" twentieth-first century Earth, but fork off into separate timelines somewhere down the road.

So, when you think about it, we're not losing any optimistic Star Trek future, we're getting two for the price of one!

 

[JWPlatt]

All Star Treks are optimistic versions of a future. One is not more real or connected to "our" history than any other. They're all works of fiction that present a future that works better than the present day. That's more than enough.

Would you say, then, that the Mirror Universe is no less connected to our Prime Universe (Prime being a fiction set in our own future)? The Mirror Universe is no more meaningful to our future than the Abramsverse or any other reality in the TNG episode "Parallels." And I mean other than any message the writers are trying to pass on to us through story.

 

[Greg Cox]

All Star Treks are optimistic versions of a future. One is not more real or connected to "our" history than any other. They're all works of fiction that present a future that works better than the present day. That's more than enough.

Would you say, then, that the Mirror Universe is no less connected to our Prime Universe (Prime being a fiction set in our own future)? The Mirror Universe is no more meaningful to our future than the Abramsverse or any other reality in the TNG episode "Parallels." And I mean other than any message the writers are trying to pass on to us through story.

At the risk of actually talking made-up time-travel theory, you seem to think that the two universes have always been separated and that only the Prime Universe stems from "our" present. That they're two sets of parallel tracks that started from different versions of "today."

But that's not the way the story goes. "Our" present diverges into two tracks at some point in the future, so that the "our" today leads to both Star Trek universes. And neither one is the "real" one . . . to the extent that any work of fiction is "real."

And, honestly, what does it matter in terms of the viewing experience? Or our ability to invest in the story and characters?

We're talking works of fiction here. Theatrical productions. You don't have to believe that they could literally happen to be caught up in the story. That's not how theater works.

"Gotham" is set in a different "parallel universe" than the previous BATMAN movies and TV shows and comics. Does that mean that nobody should care about what happens in it because it's not set in the "real" Gotham City?

Of course not. Same with STAR TREK.

 

[UFO]

If it is in an "alternate" Universe or timeline, that means one that is not our own, also implying that Prime was our own. I maintain that the creators, writers, and all involved with Trek and, apparently, only most fans, believe it was an optimistic vision of hope for OUR future. The "Abramsverse" takes that away.

All Star Treks are optimistic versions of a future. One is not more real or connected to "our" history than any other. They're all works of fiction that present a future that works better than the present day. That's more than enough.

If you insist on an "in-universe" justification for two different versions of the same imaginary future history . . . fine, both universes share "our" twentieth-first century Earth, but fork off into separate timelines somewhere down the road.

So, when you think about it, we're not losing any optimistic Star Trek future, we're getting two for the price of one!

Unfortunately I would say not. In fact it's mainly for that reason that I didn't like the first film in particular. While I don't think that merely creating an alternative universe removes any sense of hope we might gain from ST09 for our own future, my problem is that the movie itself does that. The net result being we get a future that, if anything, looks worse than the present.

A situation that is dialed back in the second movie but still shows Starfleet as so weak and incompetent that one man can manipulate it to do his personal bidding with apparently no checks and balances. Well, other than Spock and then Kirk displaying a conscience. But there was no institutional or cultural sense of optimism, that I recall.

Would you say, then, that the Mirror Universe is no less connected to our Prime Universe (Prime being a fiction set in our own future)? The Mirror Universe is no more meaningful to our future than the Abramsverse or any other reality in the TNG episode "Parallels." And I mean other than any message the writers are trying to pass on to us through story.

That's and interesting observation (to the extent I understand it ), but perhaps the issue is when the "inspiring" universe split off. And therefore the degree to which we think it may have relevance to us, if that addresses your point?

Greg, re your later* comments, I'm not sure if your view of what JWPlatt is saying is correct or not but I thought the Mirror Universe may have split off earlier than the 1960's and therefore is not so influential. But in any event the question is not our involvement in the characters etc, but whether the sum total of the Trek we relate to can inspire us and whether nuTrek contributes or detracts from that feeling. My way of looking at it anyway.

* Edited

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't know. I get the optimistic vision thing; that's a big part of Trek's appeal and always has been. But it seems to me that the new movies are just as optimistic as TOS ever was. You've got an Earth that works, however imperfectly, that's not a hellish dystopia or post-apocalyptic wasteland. You've got a United Federation of Planets, working together for the common good. You have a Starship Enterprise with a multicultural, multiracial crew, united in a joint mission to go boldly, etc.

Sounds like a positive vision to me.

Sure, things aren't perfect and bad things happen in the new movies, but that was true of TOS, too, which had no shortage of crazed Starfleet captains, obnoxious Federation bureaucrats, war criminals, mad scientists, berserk computers, assassins, con artists, mail-order brides, giant space amoebas, flying neural parasites, deadly plagues, and the occasional premeditated homicide. Heck, Spock's own fiancee plotted to get him killed!

But humanity is making progress, and the valiant crew of the Enterprise is up to the challenges of the Final Frontier. Just like in the new movies.

P.S. I have to ask: What in the 2009 movie made you think that that future "looks worse than the present." I don't remember seeing any evidence of wars, poverty, political oppression, racism, religious strife, etc, all of which are plentifully abundant today. According to the Abrams movie, humanity has gone to the stars and is co-existing peacefully with various alien races. How is that worse than present?

I mean, okay, Kirk gets beaten up in a bar fight, and the Vulcan Science Council are kind of dicks, but that's not exactly Road Warrior or the Planet of the Apes.

 

[fireproof78]

If it is in an "alternate" Universe or timeline, that means one that is not our own, also implying that Prime was our own. I maintain that the creators, writers, and all involved with Trek and, apparently, only most fans, believe it was an optimistic vision of hope for OUR future. The "Abramsverse" takes that away.

All Star Treks are optimistic versions of a future. One is not more real or connected to "our" history than any other. They're all works of fiction that present a future that works better than the present day. That's more than enough.

If you insist on an "in-universe" justification for two different versions of the same imaginary future history . . . fine, both universes share "our" twentieth-first century Earth, but fork off into separate timelines somewhere down the road.

So, when you think about it, we're not losing any optimistic Star Trek future, we're getting two for the price of one!

Unfortunately I would say not. In fact it's mainly for that reason that I didn't like the first film in particular. While I don't think that merely creating an alternative universe removes any sense of hope we might gain from ST09 for our own future, my problem is that the movie itself does that. The net result being we get a future that, if anything, looks worse than the present.

A situation that is dialed back in the second movie but still shows Starfleet as so weak and incompetent that one man can manipulate it to do his personal bidding with apparently no checks and balances. Well, other than Spock and then Kirk displaying a conscience. But there was no institutional or cultural sense of optimism, that I recall.

Would you say, then, that the Mirror Universe is no less connected to our Prime Universe (Prime being a fiction set in our own future)? The Mirror Universe is no more meaningful to our future than the Abramsverse or any other reality in the TNG episode "Parallels." And I mean other than any message the writers are trying to pass on to us through story.

That's and interesting observation (to the extent I understand it ), but perhaps the issue is when the "inspiring" universe split off. And therefore the degree to which we think it may have relevance to us, if that addresses your point?

Greg, re your comments, I'm not sure if your view of what JWPlatt is saying is correct or not but I thought the Mirror Universe may have split off earlier than the 1960's and therefore is not so influential. But in any event the question is not our involvement in the characters etc, but whether the sum total of the Trek we relate to can inspire us and whether nuTrek contributes or detracts from that feeling. My way of looking at it anyway.

UFO, I'm going to attempt to address some points you brought up because I found them interesting.

First of all, I think that Trek 09 offers an optimistic future in that a screw up like Kirk can still reach for his potential. I'll admit to some minor straining of credulity, but its par for course as far as Trek goes

I think that Trek 09 reinforces the notion of a community is needed in order to work properly, the idea of relationships and community coming together in order to defeat a greater problem.

Maybe it is just me, but I derive greater enjoyment and meaning from Trek 09 than I do Nemesis or Insurrection. But, that's me, and YMMV

As for the MU split, one theory was that the Earth Starfleet lost the Romulan War (the first one, mentioned in Balance of Terror) and the resulting oppression by the Romulans resulted in an uprising and formation of the Terran Empire, determined to never be dominated again.

So, the diversion point of the MU may be another possibility starting from the Prime Universe and splitting at the Romulan War loss.

 

[JWPlatt]

Would you say, then, that the Mirror Universe is no less connected to our Prime Universe (Prime being a fiction set in our own future)? The Mirror Universe is no more meaningful to our future than the Abramsverse or any other reality in the TNG episode "Parallels." And I mean other than any message the writers are trying to pass on to us through story.

That's and interesting observation (to the extent I understand it ), but perhaps the issue is when the "inspiring" universe split off. And therefore the degree to which we think it may have relevance to us, if that addresses your point?

Nicely, thanks. And you go on to tell it well with:

...But in any event the question is not our involvement in the characters etc, but whether the sum total of the Trek we relate to can inspire us and whether nuTrek contributes or detracts from that feeling.

Yes, it is about what is relevant to us and inspires us. For me, it needs to be closer to home. i.e., a hopeful story set in our Universe, reality, and our future.

 

[Lance]

I don't know. I get the optimistic vision thing; that's a big part of Trek's appeal and always has been. But it seems to me that the new movies are just as optimistic as TOS ever was. You've got an Earth that works, however imperfectly, that's not a hellish dystopia or post-apocalyptic wasteland. You've got a United Federation of Planets, working together for the common good. You have a Starship Enterprise with a multicultural, multiracial crew, united in a joint mission to go boldly, etc.

Sounds like a positive vision to me.

Sure, things aren't perfect and bad things happen in the new movies, but that was true of TOS, too, which had no shortage of crazed Starfleet captains, obnoxious Federation bureaucrats, war criminals, mad scientists, berserk computers, assassins, con artists, mail-order brides, giant space amoebas, flying neural parasites, deadly plagues, and the occasional premeditated homicide. Heck, Spock's own fiancee plotted to get him killed!

But humanity is making progress, and the valiant crew of the Enterprise is up to the challenges of the Final Frontier. Just like in the new movies.

Again, completely correct Greg. TOS was always optimistic despite humanity still showing many signs of the flaws and avarices of our own time. It wasn't until TNG that this whole "Future Humanity Is Perfect" trope started getting rolled out and overplayed (and, by most accounts, people to this day find it a bit cloying, and often seem to welcome DS9 and VOY's attempts to inject a little bit less of that into the mix again).

I have my own issues with the nuTrek movies, don't get me wrong. But one thing they definitely are is perfectly in step with the Star Trek I've known all my life. Especially TOS.