Picard wouldn't do it. It might violate the PD.
He could have saved his family by going back in time in the Nexus but chose not to.
Janeway on the other hand...
Hated it
- Thread starter KSoldier
- Start date
Picard wouldn't do it. It might violate the PD.
He could have saved his family by going back in time in the Nexus but chose not to.
Janeway on the other hand...
By that logic, Picard violated the PD by stopping the borg from assimilating earth, and stopping the aliens in Times Arrow.
Except this universe was created because the writers didn't want to adhere to continuity. So that is a specious conclusion.
I can't wait for NuTrek3 to erase Star Trek Generations.
Oh, good
The Abrams universe is just as much a valid alternate timeline as the Mirror Universe, Universe B from the Alternative Factor, and all the various Enterprises from Parallels, to name a few.
Yes, the writers wanted to explore a different reality and not be bound by all the rules set up by many years of continuity and not having to abide by each event. That does not make the alternate reality explanation invalid.
Have you seen the Star Trek Continues fan films? They carry on right after "Turnabout Intruder" and aside from the obvious fact that the roles are played by different actors, they've captured the TOS look and feel perfectly. It's like watching a fourth season.
Nobody knows what happened between the end of TAS and TMP, other than Spock resigned and went back to Vulcan, McCoy retired, Kirk got promoted, Chekov got a promotion and a new job, and the Enterprise got a refit. That could all be said in about 3 lines of dialogue. There was plenty of room to expand on what happened between TOS and the first movie.
So Spock and Uhura were dating on TOS, and having whiny lovers' quarrels on duty? Gee, I must've missed that. Maybe they cut those scenes out for the commercials. And Kirk was obviously just pretending to be unfamiliar with cars in "A Piece of the Action" since he already knew how to drive from his pre-Captain Frat Boy years.
And that was some collective hallucination we all experienced, thinking that "Amok Time" happened on a planet that no longer existed, and how about "Journey to Babel"... Ghost Amanda looked pretty real. For a dead woman, that was a very solid slap she gave Spock in Sickbay.
Two episodes. She was also in "Yesteryear." She was also mentioned in several episodes - "The Naked Time" and "This Side of Paradise" come to mind immediately.On other hand, it's possibly worth pointing out that Amanda appeared in exactly one episode of the TV show and later made a five-minute cameo in one of the movies.
So it's not as though she was the heart and soul of the franchise.
Harry Mudd got more screen time.
The Star Trek: Phase II fan film series already took care of that.
Everyone important survived, and you just listed the highlights, all stories which conclude in TMP and thus would be without resolution. I don't want to see continuity porn, I want to see a good movie where anything can happen. Also, filling in small gaps in an established story won't attract a new audience, which is exactly what the reboot was intended to do.Timewalker said:
I don't understand why these pretend things having "happened" or not matters so much to some people. I love TOS, but it was almost 50 years ago. So what if a new version does something different?
You must not have been here when ST Enterprise was on the air. The debates were very heated. Possibly more than the ones about the Abrams films. From what I understand TNG also inspired heated discussions on the nascent interwebs.
I totally agree!
A link for the OP:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=112365
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=112365
No you aren't alone, but you posted in the NuTrek apologist/rabid fan forum, hence the hate-flame posts.
Personally, I'm not the biggest fan of the Abramsverse, but I liked Trek 2009. It was a fresh, well-executed film with great FX, and actually pulled off the a soft reboot pretty well and far better than expected. It was STID I couldn't stand. It was a gawdaweful mess that tried to pass plagiarism and unoriginality off as "homage."
Exactly. People seemed to be missing the whole point of rebooting the series. It's not supposed to be a prequel that leads seamlessly into the original series and movies. The whole point was to wipe the slate clean and more or less start over from scratch--in order to a create a new STAR TREK movie series for a new generation of viewers.
Blowing up Vulcan and killing Amanda was actually a brilliant and dramatic way to make it clear, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that events were NOT going play out exactly the way they did before. "Amok Time" and "Journey to Babel" are not going to happen this time around. Kirk is not necessarily going to be killed by Soran. Sulu may or may not end up as captain of the Excelsior. Spock and Uhura might end up getting married and having kids. The Borg could show up tomorrow instead of waiting for Picard to come along. It's whole new ball game--and we don't know what happens next . . ..
Insisting that the new movies are "wrong" because they don't fit into the old continuity is missing the point. It's like complaining that DRACULA UNTOLD doesn't necessarily work as a prequel to the 1931 Bela Lugosi DRACULA. Which was never the intent.
(Forgive all the Dracula comparisons, btw. It's Halloween so I have monster movies on the brain.)
Last edited:
No one has "hate-flame"-d the original poster. If we disagree we are apologists and rabid? The OP clearly has no idea what an alternate universe is and it shows in his/her posts on the subject.
+2. The key is, I believe, "in order to a create a new STAR TREK movie series for a new generation of viewers".
And that's exactly what happened, My 3 kids (21-34) all loved both of the movies and that is the Trek that was first exposed to my granddaughter. This is who the target is. Not us old guys and gals. If we do end up liking it, that's just icing on the cake to the powers that be. Fortunately, my wife and I both are enjoying the new ride. Keep 'em coming.
While the first movie did OK with younger audiences, the second one did not: http://www.thewrap.com/movies/artic...ger-audience-fast-furious-hangover-iii-92796/
Hopefully the 3rd one can lure them back in.
Hopefully the 3rd one can lure them back in.
Precisely. I know people who have actively mocked me for liking Star Trek in years gone by, who have not only watched the new movies at the cinema, but really enjoyed them, even my rom com loving girlfriend has enjoyed them. I would imagine younger adults and children absolutely lap up these new films.
That I like them too is like you said, a bonus. Yes they've lost a little soul in the process but what re-make/reboot doesn't to a certain degree?
That I like them too is like you said, a bonus. Yes they've lost a little soul in the process but what re-make/reboot doesn't to a certain degree?
My three kids ages seven to twenty-one all loved Star Trek Into Darkness.
But Star Trek will never compete with things like The Fast and the Furious and superhero movies with the majority of the under-25 crowd. It never has.
The thing is, I think the Abrams films have more soul than the Berman-led spinoffs.
Similar threads
