Does anyone think that this whole thing was..

[milo bloom]

Wait, this is still an issue? As PhasersOnStun noted, the screenwriters laid it on the table pure and simple. Heck, even before the movie came out Kurtzman, Orci, et al had talked about this, using the episodes Parallels and Yesterday's Enterprise as examples. I easily made the leap to say something would cause a rift in time to create a new timeline for this and future works, while not invalidating the 40 some years of Trek we already have.

Spock even says it in the movie!

 

[Sector 7]

^And yet for some it continues to be a BFD. "It is not logical, but it is often true."- Spock, "Amok Time"

 

[SalvorHardin]

Wait, this is still an issue?

And it will continue to be an issue for decades to come... no matter what any writer or director or onscreen character says

Enjoy

 

[Shazam!]

I would not have it any other way. We all have our favorite DVDs, etc. for trips down Memory Lane, but I am ready for new adventures.

Is it not possible to have new adventures in the Prime Trek universe?

 

[SalvorHardin]

I would not have it any other way. We all have our favorite DVDs, etc. for trips down Memory Lane, but I am ready for new adventures.

Is it not possible to have new adventures in the Prime Trek universe?

Obviously not for at least 2 more movies and since the prime universe adventures for many years proved to be failures on small and big screen.
A change was needed, it could have come in many ways, this is the way the new creative team decided to do it.
Other teams might have done it differently with better or worse results. Noone can know for sure.

And even if they at some point return to the prime universe, I expect nothing less than more bitching and whining over canon, casting choices, what century it will be set in, what storyline it will follow, why surviving old actors are not in it to pass torches etc etc etc

Well, there was this guy a few months ago that claimed that a DS9-TNG-VOY movie would be a greater success than doing it the Trek XI way...

 

[Shazam!]

A change was needed, it could have come in many ways, this is the way the new creative team decided to do it.
Other teams might have done it differently with better or worse results. Noone can know for sure.

I dunno, let's look at the options:

1. Reboot - The right choice.
2. Prequel - A decent choice.
3. Half-arsed alternate dimension parallel universe time-travel nonsense - The worst of the choices.

 

[Captain_Rogers]

I dunno, let's look at the options:

1. Reboot - The right choice.
2. Prequel - A decent choice.
3. Half-arsed alternate dimension parallel universe time-travel nonsense - The worst of the choices.

WOW.. talk about a slanted and HIGHLY biased set of options there. I'd have been embarrassed to even have posted that.

how about:

1. Reboot

2. Prequel

3. "alternate" timeline

4. continue or tell untold story from the original series.


As opposed to slanting the choices so that it looks as if there is only one obvious option available.

Any of which could have worked just fine.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

A change was needed, it could have come in many ways, this is the way the new creative team decided to do it.
Other teams might have done it differently with better or worse results. Noone can know for sure.

I dunno, let's look at the options:

1. Reboot - The right choice.
2. Prequel - A decent choice.
3. Half-arsed alternate dimension parallel universe time-travel nonsense - The worst of the choices.

Lets see:

1. Reboot - Why not do something within continuity? Why call it Star Trek? from Fanboys.
2. Prequel - Audience falls asleep due to the slow, complex pace of the story.
3. Alternate Reality - Best of options 1 and 2, since it stays within continuity while being fresh.

See? we can all play this game.

 

[Jeyl]

I love how two-dimensional everyone's outlook is on this new universe in concluding that it's the best way to tell new stories.

Please. The only reason we're in an alternate reality/timeline is because the writers wanted to use Kirk and the original crew. Why use Kirk and the original crew? Because they're well established and easier to write for when compared to making brand new characters in a whole new setting. Personally, I think everybody's argument that stories from here on out should be original and/or new is a weak one since we're dealing with characters that aren't new at all.

I'd like to think the Star Trek universe is more than just about Kirk and his crew. Just my opinion.

 

[SalvorHardin]

3. Half-arsed alternate dimension parallel universe time-travel nonsense - The worst of the choices.

As they say on the internet...fail.
I do not disagree that a clean reboot with no old Spocks or Kirks might have been preferable.

However as evidenced by reality, for the majority of people that saw it (Trek fans or not), Trek XI was obviously among the best of the choices and a right path to choose.

Please. The only reason we're in an alternate reality/timeline is because the writers wanted to use Kirk and the original crew.

No. Actually the only reason we are in an alternate reality/timeline is because the writers underestimated the whining capabilities of some Trek fans and somehow thought the whiners would whine less if there were ties back to old Trek and some of the visual changes were explained in the movie.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I love how two-dimensional everyone's outlook is on this new universe in concluding that it's the best way to tell new stories.

Please. The only reason we're in an alternate reality/timeline is because the writers wanted to use Kirk and the original crew. Why use Kirk and the original crew? Because they're well established and easier to write for when compared to making brand new characters in a whole new setting. Personally, I think everybody's argument that stories from here on out should be original and/or new is a weak one since we're dealing with characters that aren't new at all.

I'd like to think the Star Trek universe is more than just about Kirk and his crew. Just my opinion.

The reason for going with the Alternate Reality is so that they could tell a GOOD story, and change some things to make it work better for a general audience without destroying the 40+ years of Star Trek history and lore.

Going back to Kirk and Spock was the right thing because event with TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT etc., the starting place of it all was the original crew.

Everything started from there, so a story of how they got together is the best entry point into the mass of continuity, lore and history we all know, love and debate.

It was a way of doing a reboot, without doing a literal reboot; to reinvent the franchise without rejecting it's past.

I met Nicholas Meyer at a CD signing, and he described the film as "Ingenius, but not Genius."

This is something I definately agree with. The filmmakers found a way to balance the old and the new, and not have them conflict with each other, and went back to basics.

Until TNG, Kirk, Spock and McCoy simply WERE Star Trek. The rest simply spun off of, developed from, and elaborated on the original show and movies, building an incredible universe.

The basic problem: The universe got so complex, so detailed, that writers had to reject countless story ideas because of the history their stories would contradict, and the fan backlash that would inevitably result.

A complete Reboot would have been a mess, because all of a sudden, 40+ years of storytelling would be completely irrelevent, and a large portion of the existing fanbase would have rejected the movie.

Creating an origin film that was completely within the Prime Universe would have been interesting, but the nature of the established past would have dictated a far more pedestrian take, and would have had to have countless leaps forward in time to cover enough of the established events of James Kirk alone (Farragut, Kodos the Executioner, Ben Finney, Carol Marcus etc.), and either confused the viewers, or sent them to sleep.

Simply creating a new crew/mision in the TNG timeline would have defeated the purpose, and we would have more of the same failing formula that was insulating Star Trek from the general public, aka Nemesis II.

When the viable alternatives are considered, the movie made what I believe were the right choices, and went back to the beginning with enough of a twist to work for the new audience Star Trek needed to attract to survive.

 

[cooleddie74]

Give the fans some time. Sooner or later we'll get a home-edited version of TREK XI with Daniels and/or Braxton walking around in the background...taking temporal readings. It'll be like "Trials and Tribbleations(DS9)", only lame.

 

[Jeyl]

The reason for going with the Alternate Reality is so that they could tell a GOOD story, and change some things to make it work better for a general audience without destroying the 40+ years of Star Trek history and lore.

Again, why should a good story be limited to just Kirk and his crew? And for that matter, how was Star Trek 09 a good story?

The basic problem: The universe got so complex, so detailed, that writers had to reject countless story ideas because of the history their stories would contradict, and the fan backlash that would inevitably result.

Ya, a little research into the universe would have yielded some interesting results. And it's not like if one little detail in the story contradicts the other that the story should be scrapped. I mean, come on. If you know the story contradicts something, why don't you try, I don't know, FIXING IT!? Your logic pretty much suggests that if 2 + 2 = 5 and you know that's wrong, you throw the question away rather than correct it.

Simply creating a new crew/mision in the TNG timeline would have defeated the purpose, and we would have more of the same failing formula that was insulating Star Trek from the general public, aka Nemesis II.

You seem to be awfully knowledgeable about how some unknown writers would have treated the stories after Nemesis. You can't just say we'll get another movie like Nemesis because there was a Nemesis. And don't forget, Nemesis deliberately ignored established continuity so it wouldn't confuse the general public. Remember any of that?

 

[I am not Spock]

As Picard himself said in Yesterday's Enterprise: 'Why should this timeline be any less proper than the other?' (That should be my new sig)

It's true of Trek XI as well. I've accepted the JJ timeline. It was an enjoyable film, and i look forward to more to come. Prime and Nu Trek can coexist. We've had multiple universes in Trek before.

 

[Shazam!]

However as evidenced by reality, for the majority of people that saw it (Trek fans or not), Trek XI was obviously among the best of the choices and a right path to choose.

By default, no because it was the best choice.

WOW.. talk about a slanted and HIGHLY biased set of options there. I'd have been embarrassed to even have posted that.

I would be equally embrarrassed jumping on my high-horse and decreeing posting on teh cyborz to be a serious business.

The filmmakers found a way to balance the old and the new, and not have them conflict with each other, and went back to basics.

I wish they had gone back to basics.

A complete Reboot would have been a mess, because all of a sudden, 40+ years of storytelling would be completely irrelevent

It basically is anyway. Outside of the novels, there's going to be no more movies or TV shows set in the Prime universe.

Creating an origin film that was completely within the Prime Universe would have been interesting, but the nature of the established past would have dictated a far more pedestrian take, and would have had to have countless leaps forward in time to cover enough of the established events of James Kirk alone (Farragut, Kodos the Executioner, Ben Finney, Carol Marcus etc.), and either confused the viewers, or sent them to sleep.

Why? Isn't that what other films are for?

 

[JarodRussell]

As Picard himself said in Yesterday's Enterprise: 'Why should this timeline be any less proper than the other?' (That should be my new sig)

Yeah, and the answer to that was that he realized that this timeline was indeed less proper than the other. Maybe you should put that in your sig, too.

A complete Reboot would have been a mess, because all of a sudden, 40+ years of storytelling would be completely irrelevent

Why? Does Moore-BSG make Larson-BSG irrelevant?

 

[PhasersOnStun]

Outside of the novels, there's going to be no more movies or TV shows set in the Prime universe.

Are you a prophet? Fortune teller? Time traveller yourself? You must be! For that is the only way you can be so sure that in the entire future of cinematic production, for as long as the human race makes visual art, there will be no more shows/films set in the prime universe.

If I were to use cinematic history as a guide, I would make the ever-so-slightly educated observation that 1) films/shows get remade and 2) every now and again, the remakes are faithful. So if nothing else, I would guess that since Star Trek II, for example, was a successful, popular, and well made movie, in the next 50-100 years someone might remake it as is the way so many other movies from 50+ years ago are now being remade. And if it were faithful, that would be a prime universe story on film.

That was just one guess, of course. One could come up with other hypothetical possibilities as well. But I don't see the future like you do, so I'm clearly wrong. Or at least smarmy.

 

[Shazam!]

since Star Trek II, for example, was a successful, popular, and well made movie, in the next 50-100 years someone might remake it

They already did. They called it Nemesis.

 

[Devon]

I love how two-dimensional everyone's outlook is on this new universe in concluding that it's the best way to tell new stories.

Please. The only reason we're in an alternate reality/timeline is because the writers wanted to use Kirk and the original crew. Why use Kirk and the original crew? Because they're well established and easier to write for when compared to making brand new characters in a whole new setting. Personally, I think everybody's argument that stories from here on out should be original and/or new is a weak one since we're dealing with characters that aren't new at all.

That doesn't make much sense. So because the TNG characters ceased being "new" around Season 3 then it was weak to expect new stories? Why would people not want new stories regardless of the crew? In that case as many people that complained because they felt that Nemesis resembled TWOK too much obviously had no need to be complaining?

Unbelievable.

 

[I am not Spock]

since Star Trek II, for example, was a successful, popular, and well made movie, in the next 50-100 years someone might remake it

They already did. They called it Nemesis.

They've remade TWOK at least twice. Nemesis and Trek XI.