I regard this movie as a remake/reimagining...

[Captain Zog]

and not as the prequel/pseudo-prequel that the writers like to refer to it as. I'm sorry but the whole 'alternate timeline' idea is just daft and contradicts everything we know about time travel in the ST universe. I enjoyed this movie but I consider it a remake/complete reboot, therefore having no direct connections with the pre-existing Trek franchise that ended in 2005. I wish New Trek the best of luck, but let's stop all this nonsensical talk about 'reinvigorations' and alternate realities and call a spade a spade. Anyone here agree with me?

 

[IndyJones]

No.

There was a character in the movie with pointy ears that looked earily similar to one I remember from past Treks. That's enough for me.

 

[Cyke101]

and not as the prequel/pseudo-prequel that the writers like to refer to it as. I'm sorry but the whole 'alternate timeline' idea is just daft and contradicts everything we know about time travel in the ST universe. I enjoyed this movie but I consider it a remake/complete reboot, therefore having no direct connections with the pre-existing Trek franchise that ended in 2005. I wish New Trek the best of luck, but let's stop all this nonsensical talk about 'reinvigorations' and alternate realities and call a spade a spade. Anyone here agree with me?

I'm not sure if the writers themselves called it a prequel (though I could be wrong). After all, they specifically wrote the scene on the bridge explaining the whole movie as an alternate reality, which by itself defeats the purpose of a prequel. Rather, reviewers seem to be calling it as such.

However, to say it has no direct connections is not quite accurate. The writers themselves have said that the events of Enterprise occurred in both the primary and movie timelines.

 

[Jeri]

earily similar -- i like it!

 

[NileQT87]

It's a sequel to Nemesis that travels to a parallel alternate dimension that is further back in its own timeline than the prime timeline. It is the actions from the prime timeline characters that change events in the new timeline.

It really is STXI, not a remake or a prequel.

 

[Chindogu]

Anyone here agree with me?

Probably, but, when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter one way or the other since the movie has been made and it's doing pretty well with the viewing audience.

The writers did this 'alternate/parallel' universe thing as an olive branch to the fans of the pre-existing series, showing that, in fact, they do respect what came before. Some may argue this point, but they are fans, like us, and, like us, have their own interpretations of how the Trek Universe(s) work. They may differ but are just as valid. And happen to be lucky enough to be sanctioned by those with the official Trek rubber stamp.

Just think of it this way, in Twenty years are people still going to be having this same argument. Probably, but not about this film. They'll be complaining about Star Trek XVII and the recasting of TNG. Besides those few lovable crackpots out there, we've all come to accept the other shows and movies as belonging to one continuim, despite the evidence of all the mini reboots that have happened.

Personally, I am glad they went this route, as it does reinvigorate Star Trek without totally rebooting and ignoring what came before. As is evidenced by Spock Prime. But we have to remember that this is still just fiction that someone is pulling out of the air, and if they do it convincingly enough to disable your disbelief then it's a success. As it does for me. And if not, well, then it sucks to be you.

 

[Middle Earther]

Whatever. You can always get your fill of the "prime" timeline with the ST novels that continue to be written. ST is big enough to contain multiple universes (as is well established in ST "canon" ) and contain paradoxes.

Star Trek is back in the public eye - isn't that enough?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

and not as the prequel/pseudo-prequel that the writers like to refer to it as. I'm sorry but the whole 'alternate timeline' idea is just daft and contradicts everything we know about time travel in the ST universe. I enjoyed this movie but I consider it a remake/complete reboot, therefore having no direct connections with the pre-existing Trek franchise that ended in 2005. I wish New Trek the best of luck, but let's stop all this nonsensical talk about 'reinvigorations' and alternate realities and call a spade a spade. Anyone here agree with me?

It doesn't make any difference to me whether one considers it a remake or a reboot or a prequel. They're all the same to me. So I guess you could call that half an agreement.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I'm sorry but the whole 'alternate timeline' idea is just daft and contradicts everything we know about time travel in the ST universe.

Considering that Trek has never been consistent about time travel, it makes ok sense.

Really, the most reasonable notion about time travel is that you cannot travel w/n your own timeline - grandfather paradox ahoy! - so any time travel attempt either sends you to, or creates, an alternate reality. (The distinction between "sends you to" and "creates" being fairly unimportant for story purposes.)

What makes NO sense and never has is the notion that you can go to the past of your own timeline, mess it up, and then set it back exactly the way it was. That's like trying to unscramble an egg. Every time Our Heroes thought they were doing that, they were just in a parallel universe, messing shit up, and then returned to their own universe, which they had never been in any danger of messing up, so no wonder it was all "okay." How the hell are they to know what they did or didn't do?

So what's happened now is something new in the way Trek handles time travel - one of Our Heroes (Old Spock) travelled to "his" past which is, and always has been, someone else's past, and stayed there! That's something Trek hasn't tried, and I'm willing to stick around and see how it all works out.

 

[gastrof]

I agree that the movie serves to reboot the franchise, but does so by way of time travel and the altering of the past.

How someone could have seen the movie and not gotten that point is beyond me.

As I've said elsewhere, there are elements right at the start of the film that suggest this was an alternate reality to begin with, before Nero even arrived in the past.

Now, according to the prequel comic (now said to be NOT canon, tho' the impression was that it would be) the Nero and Spock we see in the film originated in what sure SEEMED to be the original Trek universe, so if that's true (and even the movie seems to imply it is), then whether this actually IS a parallel universe to begin with (as I suspect), or is actually the mainstream universe with its history being altered, the fact remains it IS Star Trek, and has its roots in the original Trek universe.

We can debate from now until the cows come home that it is or isn't a prequel, reboot, or bootquel, but it IS Star Trek, and it's there for us to enjoy. Will its future lead to the TNG era we know? At best, not exactly (since Vulcan's gone), but that's a moot point. We may have YEARS of this nu-TOS era to enjoy, well before nu-TNG might show up.

We just have to warn Pine not to get paunchy when he's in his 60s.

 

[gastrof]

...Every time Our Heroes thought they were doing that, they were just in a parallel universe, messing **** up, and then returned to their own universe, which they had never been in any danger of messing up, so no wonder it was all "okay." How the hell are they to know what they did or didn't do?

That's not what the Guardian said in "City".

You will be eaten by glomars for spewing such heresy. FIEND!

 

[I am not Spock]

Meh. Both the 'nuTrek' timeline and the Prime timeline are equally fictional, after all. It's a reboot, as far as I'm concerned, with an 'alternate timeline' explanation being an olive branch for the hardcore fans. The sooner we can accept this, the better.

Actually, I think the altered timeline plot could have been confusing for non-fans. They won't care about timelines anyway. They just want to be entertained. If JJ wanted to do a reboot, I think he ought to have just done it as an upfront, unapolegetic reboot from the beginning.

 

[Captain Zog]

If JJ wanted to do a reboot, I think he ought to have just done it as an upfront, unapolegetic reboot from the beginning.

That's exactly my point! I have no problem whatsoever with a complete reboot of the Star Trek universe. I just don't like it being directly connected with the original franchise via time travel.

 

[shatastrophic]

It is a reboot, a prequel, and a re-imagining all in one.