Hypothetical question

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If they just went with a direct remake, there'd be people who thought it was simply a prequel, and the TV show and the One With The Whales and everything was set after it.

Nobody thought that about nuBSG, did they? Everyone, fan or no, knew that was a flat-out reboot. I don't think fans are dumb enough to think any different about ST XI. The fans will know better, and the non-fans won't CARE.

 

[M'Sharak]

if Abrams and Cohorts were planning on using Robert April, why didn't they just make him the captain of the Kelvin? Hey, it would be a nice continuity nod, see this is what April did before he commanded the Enterprise.

But they didn't do that, which makes me suspicious they ever had plans on using the character in any way.

The character of Richard Robau was named for Robert Orci's uncle. Most likely they figured that if they had to use a different ship, might as well use a different captain, and so Orci jumped at the chance to include a family member.

As for April: Remember that the names of Jim Kirk's parents (George and Winona) came from novels - Final Frontier and Best Destiny - both of which *featured* April. And in both of those novels, George was April's XO. The writers have said that they considered bits from the novels in writing this film. Obviously this was one such bit.

Only they never once mentioned April by name in any interview, either prior to or subsequent to the movie's release - had ideas at one point about destroying the Enterprise, yes, but as far as anything they've been verifiably quoted as having said goes, April as a character might as well not even exist.

But I won't get apoligies because the original claim that Abrams and Cohorts wanted to use April and the original Enterprise are bullshit. Worse, it's IMDB bullshit.

I'm only going to say this once. I don't like that term being used to describe me. Don't do it again.

Slow down, cowboy, and read that again. Wormhole didn't use any term to describe you. He called BS on the rumor you cited, and that's all.

And I have no idea what IMDB says about this, because I didn't check it.

Oh, but you do have an idea what IMDb says about the Captain April rumor because it was quoted complete in the OP of this thread and you commented on it yourself only five posts in. Maybe, as you said above, April did figure in a couple of novels, but there's been no reliable indication that Orci and Kurtzman gave him so much as the slightest consideration for inclusion in the story for the 2009 film. None.

 

[Devon]

If that's all the case, why not just go with a reboot? It sounds like the means don't really matter anyways.

The writers chose to go the route they wanted.

 

[Roboturner913]

- It's a very old universe that ain't broke, and that deserves our respect. Most superhero comics need to be rebooted every so often because they get ridiculously convoluted, lose all sense of proportion, or both. Star Trek, however, kept a nearly forty-year continuity with only a handful of modest acknowledged and implicit modifications. The franchise lost its way, sure, but it never jumped the shark.

But it is ridiculously convoluted.

Otherwise you wouldn't have people asking why some ship in the 29th century didn't come back through time to stop the events in the movie from happening. Or people endlessly asking what is "canon" and what is not.

Does the first 40 years of Trek history deserve respect? Absolutely. But by making a reboot movie in the first place you are acknowledging that the original continuity is a burden to storytelling.

Let's face it, there are probably going to be 4, maybe 5 of these new movies, tops. They don't have screen time to waste trying to justify their stories to a small percentage of super-nerds who find it horribly offensive that the new Enterprise is bigger than the original or that Kirk's phaser is the wrong color.

Wasting time on the original universe detracts from what the film could have been, in my opinion.

 

[SMC]

Well, the first film in any series, usually comic book adaptations but reboots too, are burdened with introducing characters and explaining the specifics of the setting and narrative and plot often have to be shoehorned in there. First films are rarely elegant, but I think Trek got the preliminaries out the way pretty smartly and managed to tell an interesting, if imperfect story.

Now that they have the setup out the way they can have more room to get into plot and character on the next film. I don't think they'll mention the alternate universe thing again because it no longer matters. Getting rid of all the canon (most of it total rubbish thanks to DS9, Voyager and Enterprise) was the best thing they could have done.

 

[Gaith]

- It's a very old universe that ain't broke, and that deserves our respect. Most superhero comics need to be rebooted every so often because they get ridiculously convoluted, lose all sense of proportion, or both. Star Trek, however, kept a nearly forty-year continuity with only a handful of modest acknowledged and implicit modifications. The franchise lost its way, sure, but it never jumped the shark.

But it is ridiculously convoluted.

Otherwise you wouldn't have people asking why some ship in the 29th century didn't come back through time to stop the events in the movie from happening.

That's what I mean by "implicit modification" - the viewer accepts a suspension of disbelief in that visitors from the future only show up and act when it serves the plot at hand. The Temporal Cold War could have been a sharp-jumping effect, I guess, if ENT wasn't established as a prequel series that wouldn't substantially rock the boat in any long-term way.

That said, the continuity still holds together remarkably well. It's complicated and stuffed, sure, but not convoluted in that with only passing exceptions, new viewers could join the party at pretty much any time without too much difficulty. The X-Men series, OTOH, couldn't even do four movies without getting their times, story continuities, and relationship stuff all screwy.

Does the first 40 years of Trek history deserve respect? Absolutely. But by making a reboot movie in the first place you are acknowledging that the original continuity is a burden to storytelling.

TPTB didn't consider a franchise reboot to tell stories with fewer restrictions; they considered a franchise reboot to tell Kirk/Spock stories with fewer restrictions.

They could have gone in any number of directions post-Nemesis with the existing continuity, and told whatever stories they liked; they just figured (correctly) that going back to the TOS gang would make them more money.

 

[Roboturner913]

Getting rid of all the canon (most of it total rubbish thanks to DS9, Voyager and Enterprise) was the best thing they could have done.

I was all set to sit by the campfire and sing "Kumbayah" with you, then you had to go diss DS9. For shame...

 

[Roboturner913]

- It's a very old universe that ain't broke, and that deserves our respect. Most superhero comics need to be rebooted every so often because they get ridiculously convoluted, lose all sense of proportion, or both. Star Trek, however, kept a nearly forty-year continuity with only a handful of modest acknowledged and implicit modifications. The franchise lost its way, sure, but it never jumped the shark.

But it is ridiculously convoluted.

Otherwise you wouldn't have people asking why some ship in the 29th century didn't come back through time to stop the events in the movie from happening.

That's what I mean by "implicit modification" - the viewer accepts a suspension of disbelief in that visitors from the future only show up and act when it serves the plot at hand. The Temporal Cold War could have been a sharp-jumping effect, I guess, if ENT wasn't established as a prequel series that wouldn't substantially rock the boat in any long-term way.

That said, the continuity still holds together remarkably well. It's complicated and stuffed, sure, but not convoluted in that with only passing exceptions, new viewers could join the party at pretty much any time without too much difficulty. The X-Men series, OTOH, couldn't even do four movies without getting their times, story continuities, and relationship stuff all screwy.

Does the first 40 years of Trek history deserve respect? Absolutely. But by making a reboot movie in the first place you are acknowledging that the original continuity is a burden to storytelling.

TPTB didn't consider a franchise reboot to tell stories with fewer restrictions; they considered a franchise reboot to tell Kirk/Spock stories with fewer restrictions.

They could have gone in any number of directions post-Nemesis with the existing continuity, and told whatever stories they liked; they just figured (correctly) that going back to the TOS gang would make them more money.

I get your drift. TOS, TNG and DS9 are all near and dear to me. It's not like I want to throw it all away. But we're not going to get new Star Trek without some profitability and mass appeal. I feel like, in some ways, the reboot got itself off to a bad start.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I wouldn't say people are being "tricked" by it at all. Nobody expects Vejur or the whale probe to show up in this timeline, even though they wouldn't have been affected by the changes in the timeline. People know it's a new Star Trek, but they're happy to suspend their disbelief and play along with the story.

If that's all the case, why not just go with a reboot? It sounds like the means don't really matter anyways.

I can't really explain it. Although Trek is a big discontinuous mess, it's still fun to pretend it isn't, and that all these stories are part of the same huge universe. That Spock went through all those adventures in TOS and the movies and then, as an old man, he starts the whole thing off again is really cool.

I guess you either get it or you don't

 

[SMC]

But we're not going to get new Star Trek without some profitability and mass appeal. I feel like, in some ways, the reboot got itself off to a bad start.

But the new movie got things off to a very good start with regard to mass appeal and profitability. This was probably the first full scale crossover of Trek into the mainsteam. Whether this is a good or a bad thing depends entirely on your point of view I guess.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Well, the first film in any series, usually comic book adaptations but reboots too, are burdened with introducing characters and explaining the specifics of the setting and narrative and plot often have to be shoehorned in there. First films are rarely elegant, but I think Trek got the preliminaries out the way pretty smartly and managed to tell an interesting, if imperfect story.

Now that they have the setup out the way they can have more room to get into plot and character on the next film. I don't think they'll mention the alternate universe thing again because it no longer matters. Getting rid of all the canon (most of it total rubbish thanks to DS9, Voyager and Enterprise) was the best thing they could have done.

Although it'll never be relevent, Enterprise is still part of STXI's past. Also, some concepts from STXI originate from the later shows - for example, time passing at a different rate on both sides of a temporal anomaly is straight out of VOY: "Future's End"

 

[kkozoriz1]

Although it'll never be relevent, Enterprise is still part of STXI's past. Also, some concepts from STXI originate from the later shows - for example, time passing at a different rate on both sides of a temporal anomaly is straight out of VOY: "Future's End"

Actually, Eye of the Needle, Season 1, Ep 7, first introduced this concept with the Romulan from the past.

 

[The Wormhole]

I have no idea what IMDB says about this, because I didn't check it.

IMDB is the only site I kow of that has made the claim that the writers considered using Robert April in the movie. If you didn't get this from there, where did you get it from?

Only they never once mentioned April by name in any interview, either prior to or subsequent to the movie's release - had ideas at one point about destroying the Enterprise, yes, but as far as anything they've been verifiably quoted as having said goes, April as a character might as well not even exist.

And even that link doesn't say they were going to destroy the original Enterprise. They just say "the Enterprise" so for all we know, they were contemplating destroying the Abramsprise in an earlier draft of the movie.

 

[Ryan8bit]

If that's all the case, why not just go with a reboot? It sounds like the means don't really matter anyways.

The writers chose to go the route they wanted.

If only all commentary could be as insightful as this...

I can't really explain it. Although Trek is a big discontinuous mess, it's still fun to pretend it isn't, and that all these stories are part of the same huge universe. That Spock went through all those adventures in TOS and the movies and then, as an old man, he starts the whole thing off again is really cool.

Ok, I get what you're saying. It still seems somewhat cognitively dissonant to me though.

For my own purposes, I'm just treating this movie as a reboot because it seems that it was their goal anyway, despite having the whole plot revolve around events of the prime universe. That way I don't care about the little continuity details and can just enjoy the movies for what they are.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I have no idea what IMDB says about this, because I didn't check it.

IMDB is the only site I kow of that has made the claim that the writers considered using Robert April in the movie. If you didn't get this from there, where did you get it from?

Only they never once mentioned April by name in any interview, either prior to or subsequent to the movie's release - had ideas at one point about destroying the Enterprise, yes, but as far as anything they've been verifiably quoted as having said goes, April as a character might as well not even exist.

And even that link doesn't say they were going to destroy the original Enterprise. They just say "the Enterprise" so for all we know, they were contemplating destroying the Abramsprise in an earlier draft of the movie.

Sounds to me that this probably WAS the TOS Enterprise, as a way to shock the audience before introducing the new design to serve as the Enterprise.

One of those pie-in-the-sky ideas that come and go in less than an hour.

 

[The Wormhole]

I have no idea what IMDB says about this, because I didn't check it.

IMDB is the only site I kow of that has made the claim that the writers considered using Robert April in the movie. If you didn't get this from there, where did you get it from?

Only they never once mentioned April by name in any interview, either prior to or subsequent to the movie's release - had ideas at one point about destroying the Enterprise, yes, but as far as anything they've been verifiably quoted as having said goes, April as a character might as well not even exist.

And even that link doesn't say they were going to destroy the original Enterprise. They just say "the Enterprise" so for all we know, they were contemplating destroying the Abramsprise in an earlier draft of the movie.

Sounds to me that this probably WAS the TOS Enterprise, as a way to shock the audience before introducing the new design to serve as the Enterprise.

One of those pie-in-the-sky ideas that come and go in less than an hour.

The point still stands. The only thing that is said is that they considered destroying "the Enterprise." That's it. So how the hell do you take "we considered destroying the Enterprise, but Paramount wouldn't let us" and twist it into "we were going to feature the original Enterprise commanded by Robert April and destroy it, killing April. But Paramount wouldn't let us."?

Hey I like stretching and manipulating the truth as much as the next guy, but this is just too far.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Although it'll never be relevent, Enterprise is still part of STXI's past. Also, some concepts from STXI originate from the later shows - for example, time passing at a different rate on both sides of a temporal anomaly is straight out of VOY: "Future's End"

Actually, Eye of the Needle, Season 1, Ep 7, first introduced this concept with the Romulan from the past.

But in "Future's End", Braxton' ship and Voyager fell into the time vortex seconds apart, but emerged decades apart on the other side - exactly what happened to Narada and Spock's ship in STXI.