Hypothetical question

[Roboturner913]

First off, I really liked Trek XI. I am excited about the future of Star Trek in these new films.

However, I can't be the only one who thought that the plot of the movie was a little forced because of an apparent "need" to make the film's events jive with the established Star Trek lore.

Comic books and the like come up with new continuities all the time. What exactly would've been the harm in just starting over from scratch? Would it have been so awful to say, ok there's the old Star Trek and it's great. Now, here's the new Star Trek. They don't have to be interrelated and they can stand side-by-side.

I guess I would've just liked to have seen a Kirk/Spock/Enterprise origin story without all the technical mumbo-jumbo. I really think Abrams and Co. did the absolute best job they could given the parameters, but a no-holds-barred reboot would've made for a much better story.

I guess my question is, would you have been able to accept a "new" Star Trek universe? And if not, why?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Apart from the presence of Spock Prime, the two realities *aren't* related. ST XI doesn't wipe out existing continuity, not even with the time travel.

That being said, I wish that the original idea - that the ship destroyed in the opening scene was the original NCC-1701 Enterprise (from TOS) and the captain was Robert April - had been kept...

 

[Roboturner913]

Apart from the presence of Spock Prime, the two realities *aren't* related. ST XI doesn't wipe out existing continuity, not even with the time travel.

I get that, but they are related in the sense that we had to start in the "prime" universe at all. The fact that they had to create an alternate timeline in the first place is the thing I have a problem with. I strongly believe they could've made a better movie if they had just started completely from scratch.

 

[Devon]

Apart from the presence of Spock Prime, the two realities *aren't* related. ST XI doesn't wipe out existing continuity, not even with the time travel.

That being said, I wish that the original idea - that the ship destroyed in the opening scene was the original NCC-1701 Enterprise (from TOS) and the captain was Robert April - had been kept...

Did the writers ever state that they had "Robert April" as a Captain?

 

[The_Baroness]

Trek fans are a dangerous breed. You only need to look at some of the posts on this forum about the films continuity even WITH the alternate universe story to realise that..

There'd have been a lot of fan-fury if they'd not made a nod to the Prime universe

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm happier with the "in-universe" reboot they did than I would have been with a total one. I like the idea that old Star Trek is out there somewhen, like the various alternate futures we saw in "Yesterday's Enterprise", "All Good Things", "Endgame", "Shockwave", "Azati Prime" etc (if old Trek still exists, they do too), as well as the idea that Star Trek: Enterprise still happened 100 years previously.

I guess I like the idea that all my old Star Trek DVDs, novels and comics are still in some minute manner related to the new Star Trek - even though IRL new Trek will do whatever it wants regardless of what happened in an episode from the sixties or a novel from the eighties (as old Trek did too - some insist Enterprise is also an alternate universe)

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Apart from the presence of Spock Prime, the two realities *aren't* related. ST XI doesn't wipe out existing continuity, not even with the time travel.

That being said, I wish that the original idea - that the ship destroyed in the opening scene was the original NCC-1701 Enterprise (from TOS) and the captain was Robert April - had been kept...

Did the writers ever state that they had "Robert April" as a Captain?

Yep.

Originally, the ship that is destroyed by the Narada was the Enterprise, NCC-1701 - the same ship from TOS. With April as captain, and George Kirk as XO (same as in many of the novels). This was ordered changed by TPTB, who forbade Abrams to destroy the Enterprise (*any* Enterprise).

 

[Devon]

Apart from the presence of Spock Prime, the two realities *aren't* related. ST XI doesn't wipe out existing continuity, not even with the time travel.

That being said, I wish that the original idea - that the ship destroyed in the opening scene was the original NCC-1701 Enterprise (from TOS) and the captain was Robert April - had been kept...

Did the writers ever state that they had "Robert April" as a Captain?

Yep.

Originally, the ship that is destroyed by the Narada was the Enterprise, NCC-1701 - the same ship from TOS. With April as captain, and George Kirk as XO (same as in many of the novels). This was ordered changed by TPTB, who forbade Abrams to destroy the Enterprise (*any* Enterprise).

I do seem to recall something about the original Enterprise being destroyed, I just don't recall ever seeing a source for Robert April being considered as the Captain outside of the posting on IMDB.

 

[Sector 7]

In answer to the OP, the alternate reality was meant to appease fanboys by letting them know the Prime universe was still intact. Of course, they complained anyway.

 

[kkozoriz1]

In answer to the OP, the alternate reality was meant to appease fanboys by letting them know the Prime universe was still intact. Of course, they complained anyway.

Well, except for Romulus.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Trek fans are a dangerous breed. You only need to look at some of the posts on this forum about the films continuity even WITH the alternate universe story to realise that..

There'd have been a lot of fan-fury if they'd not made a nod to the Prime universe

Yup. A lot of people come in here after the great pre-premiere film wars, and have no idea how ridiculous and yet ugly some of the debates got. Waaaah! They're going to make 40 years of Star Trek disappear! Waaaa! It never meant anything, they're spitting on Star Trek and on the fans! Waaaa! Someone please call a fucking waaaambulance already!


Seriously? The way they actually ended up doing it might have been a cop-out (not my opinion as such), but it was the safest way to go - the fewer rabid fans you piss off, the better.

 

[SMC]

Star Trek shares many of the hallmarks of a religion and its fans share many of the hallmarks of militant fundamentalists - any tampering is going to cause anger, most of it irrational. However Trek fundamentalists are really a small minority and the internet is the only outlet for their displeasure at what the producers of the latest film have/have not/should have/could have/should be forced to have/ done.

I personally think Abrams along with Kurtzmann and Orci came up with the alternate timeline idea because they thought it would be cool - I really doubt pandering to the militarnt fans figured in their thinking at all. There is a vocal minority of fans who hated the movie but out of the whole fanbase, let alone the audience at large, are a very tiny number of people.

I do admit I think the alternate reality plot did needlessly complicate the script which in turn causes lots of plot holes, and I would have been just as happy, if not more so, with a straight reboot - no explanation offered at all. Might have lead to a better story, though I do like how the film came out anyway so its not a big issue for me. I always thought though, the question is not "Is this Trek too different from what went before?" but "Is this Trek different enough?"

 

[Ryan8bit]

What exactly would've been the harm in just starting over from scratch?

The only harm I could think of would be word of mouth before the movie, but that harm would be negligible. Not many people would resist seeing it because it was a different continuity. And the people who do care would probably go see it anyways just so they could complain about it later.

The biggest problem I have with this approach is that the writers should technically be hindered by this kind of decision. I would rather they forget the past and just do what they want rather than shoehorn the prime universe into things. Because this way it feels as fake as a nod to Delta Vega. They think it's a nod to fans, but it actually doesn't work out so well.

Technically now they should be burdened by continuity from the prime universe, but they won't be. So it was really just a hollow nod, and a strange one to build the whole movie around. The movie is essentially a reboot with people being tricked into thinking that they are supposed to share the same continuity.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sure, they could have started from scratch and I'd have been just as interested. As it is, I don't really buy this movie as a "alternative universe" anyway - it's simpler to just acknowledge that they're rebooting and starting over.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The movie is essentially a reboot with people being tricked into thinking they are supposed to share the same continuity.

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 you look too closely, much of old Star Trek can't be in the same continuity. "Balance of Terror" vs Enterprise, "True Q" vs "The Q and the Grey" are just two examples of stories that can't possibly co-exist. Get more anal about the details and none of it adds up at all - but the vast majority of fans don't mind.

 

[The Wormhole]

Apart from the presence of Spock Prime, the two realities *aren't* related. ST XI doesn't wipe out existing continuity, not even with the time travel.

That being said, I wish that the original idea - that the ship destroyed in the opening scene was the original NCC-1701 Enterprise (from TOS) and the captain was Robert April - had been kept...

Did the writers ever state that they had "Robert April" as a Captain?

Yep.

Originally, the ship that is destroyed by the Narada was the Enterprise, NCC-1701 - the same ship from TOS. With April as captain, and George Kirk as XO (same as in many of the novels). This was ordered changed by TPTB, who forbade Abrams to destroy the Enterprise (*any* Enterprise).

Has there ever been an official source for that rumour? Because 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. Okay, so they're not allowed to destroy the Enterprise or any Enterprise, but are we really supposed to believe that Paramount forbade them from killing Robert April? That would imply Paramount considers Captain April to be as important to Treklore as me and a few other fans have claimed and been ridiculed for. If this indeed is the case, I demand apoligies from everyone who ridiculed me on the matter.

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.

But if you have a source from somewhere that's not IMDB, pleace share it.

 

[Gaith]

What exactly would've been the harm in just starting over from scratch?

When it comes to genre fiction, I generally agree that clean reboots are the way to go. Star Trek, however, is different, imo, for two main reasons:

- 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.

- Its social history. Trek means a lot to a lot of people, and specifically offers a hopeful vision of the future in a way and extent that Batman comics, to take one instance, simply don't. With most genre continuities (or heck, 007), it's not the histories and the universe people are attached to so much as the characters and the details. But while many people love Spock and Kirk, many people love the mostly peaceful UFP future also.

Given those two unique circumstances, I think the alternate-timeline route was the exactly correct way to go.

 

[Ryan8bit]

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.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

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.

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.

Whatever, dude. I have no idea what IMDB says about this, because I didn't check it. And FWIW, I like April as well. If there was any directive from Paramount regarding that character, then logically it must have happened before TOS ever existed (the earliest outlines of TOS I've seen had him in it), and so it is not our problem.

 

[David cgc]

As I recall, the real-life reasoning for the alternate universe rather than a straight-up remake was to impress the difference on the non-fans. 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. That's why nuSpock stopped the movie in the middle, looked directly at the camera, and told the audience that whatever may have happened in old Star Trek, the rules were different here and there were no guarantees about what would happen down the line in these new movies.