Post-STXI novels
- Thread starter Procutus
- Start date
I don't consider a change in casting, production design, and fashion to constitute a re-boot or re-imagining of the Star Trek universe.
I am also not upset by the prospet that the likenesses of Chris Pine as Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Spock will replace younger images of William Shatner or Leonard Nimoy on the covers of the Pocket Book novels.
As for the young, wild, and undisplined James Kirk character, he was portrayed that way in the unproduced Star Trek: The First Adventure script by Harve Bennett and David Loughery. Although I am going to be beaten up because this script isn't canon, I do prefer some development of the Captain Kirk character. There is also a hint in William Shatner's portrayal that Kirk was a practical joker and could have been a hellraiser in his youth. This doesn't preclude that the character matured into the William Shatner Kirk character.
I am also not upset by the prospet that the likenesses of Chris Pine as Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Spock will replace younger images of William Shatner or Leonard Nimoy on the covers of the Pocket Book novels.
As for the young, wild, and undisplined James Kirk character, he was portrayed that way in the unproduced Star Trek: The First Adventure script by Harve Bennett and David Loughery. Although I am going to be beaten up because this script isn't canon, I do prefer some development of the Captain Kirk character. There is also a hint in William Shatner's portrayal that Kirk was a practical joker and could have been a hellraiser in his youth. This doesn't preclude that the character matured into the William Shatner Kirk character.
However, in the SFC's timeline, the Declaration-class was operational early in the period between the Romulan War and the design of the Constitution class (roughly the early 22nd Century using the current chronology). So it wouldn't be the ring ship seen in Enterprise (in background photos in a bar and in Starfleet HQ).
Of course, that doesn't preclude two designs of generally similar external profile, one pre- and the other post-founding of the Federation.
No, basic common sense says you can't have seen the movie before you make assumptions about its storyline. Once you see the movie, they're no longer assumptions.
davidh
^^That's not common sense, just linguistic pedantry. The two infrequently correlate.
I haven't seen the film, and I'm making informed assumptions about the plotline -- it's clear that there is a time travel element to the film (Nimoy's appearance in it) and Roberto Orci has stated that any deviations from canon are explainable via a plot device in the film.
This simplest explanation appears to be a "canonical reboot," or using the plot device of time travel to reset the timeline into something new. I don't get why there's any confusion over this at this point -- it seems well established through many interviews with the producers, screenwriters, and even cast. This simply isn't the same origin story as occured in the original Trek canon (whatever it may have been).
Unless, of course, it's simply "I won't make assumptions" because one doesn't like this idea at all. There's always the option of holding onto hope that the end of the movie will mirror one of the most clichéd and awful standard TV Trek practices, and reset the timeline at the very end of the film. I think that's a rather silly thing to do given the aims of this film and the dreadful state of the franchise, but if it makes one feel better to hope for such an ending, then have at it.
This simplest explanation appears to be a "canonical reboot," or using the plot device of time travel to reset the timeline into something new. I don't get why there's any confusion over this at this point -- it seems well established through many interviews with the producers, screenwriters, and even cast. This simply isn't the same origin story as occured in the original Trek canon (whatever it may have been).
Unless, of course, it's simply "I won't make assumptions" because one doesn't like this idea at all. There's always the option of holding onto hope that the end of the movie will mirror one of the most clichéd and awful standard TV Trek practices, and reset the timeline at the very end of the film. I think that's a rather silly thing to do given the aims of this film and the dreadful state of the franchise, but if it makes one feel better to hope for such an ending, then have at it.
^ The film couldn't possibly 'reset' the timeline - not if they want to have a window for sequels, which will need to have the same 'look' and plot freedom. They either have to take the 'new continuity due to time travel' approach you and others have discussed (in-universe reboot), or blantantly ignore any differences by saying the film overrides previous material (out-universe reboot).
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
What I'm calling a "canonical reboot" is basically a divergent timeline from the moment the Kelvin gets destroyed. This seems abundantly clear from the interviews with the producers and cast and it's odd to me to read how many people are still holding onto a "wait and see" attitude about this. I agree that the "reset" seems silly -- but, judging from comments on TrekMovie.com, some (including Rick Sternbach) seem to be holding out hope that we'll see an original NCC-1701 at the end of the film, and that everything will be set back to "normal." I find that attitude rather sad, to be honest.
If it wasn't clear, I'm all for this. Erase the entirety of the TOS and further canon as far as I'm concerned -- start over with the same basic building blocks, and make a new, timely, interesting Trek that isn't so much about navel-gazing as recent incarnations.
^ To be fair, statements from Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman have been contradictory with respect to whether it's a reboot, depending on which interview, outlet, day of the week, and/or mood they happen to be in at the time. They're obviously straddling the fence so as to generate maximum interest and discussion.
If one is open to the possibility that change can be good, and that such change might even be better, or at least more relevant to 21st century audiences, then "wait and see" is a sensible approach.
No one can change the content of the film. It's in the can. Not waiting and seeing is futile, especially if the film turns out to be very good.
I recall people prejudging the rumoured death of Spock in ST II - including Roddenberry himself - but in the end it turned out pretty well, and most people who said they hated the idea still ended up enjoying ST II.
If, if if if this is actually a "in universe reboot", then I really doubt that they would erase it at the end. I'm pretty sure that they've already greenlit a sequel, and I really think that for this to work out the best way possible they should keep this new timeline (if there is going to be one) around. That way they can continue to use the look of the new film, and continue whatever character development it starts.
Can't we just have Abramsverse novels to go next to our Shatnerverse trilogies? Rewhatever or not, I've already started thinking about the new movie as an altverse, like Nolan's Batman films vs. Burton's, or how the DC animated series are in Bruce Timm's universe.
^^For all we know, it might turn out that way. It's too early to say for sure what will happen.
For anyone curious about Countdown, IDW's prequel to the film, TrekMovie has a new article, complete with an intriguing, and possibly spoiler-ific promo image. 
Whatever people believe about the film vis a vis the 23rd century, it's clear that the story of film is going to grow out of the 24th century that we know.
Whatever people believe about the film vis a vis the 23rd century, it's clear that the story of film is going to grow out of the 24th century that we know.
Whoops. Depending on what happens to Spock in this film, we might have our first inconsistency.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Which is what?
The presence of Data makes this pre-NEM. If Spock dies or is stuck in the past as a result of the film, it creates a contradiction with respect to Spock's appearances in post-NEM fiction, particularly Before Dishonor. ...come to think of it, I'm all for something that tosses Before Dishonor out the window!
Of course, if Spock returns to 'our' timeline at the end of the film, then he'll still be around for the post-NEM books (though I'm not sure how he would get back to 'our' timeline after the alterations to the past--wouldn't he simply be traveling into the future of the new timeline?).
And it occurs to me as I'm writing this post that "Countdown" may begin pre-NEM, but end post-NEM, though you'd still have to sort out the dating.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
Of course, if Spock returns to 'our' timeline at the end of the film, then he'll still be around for the post-NEM books (though I'm not sure how he would get back to 'our' timeline after the alterations to the past--wouldn't he simply be traveling into the future of the new timeline?).
And it occurs to me as I'm writing this post that "Countdown" may begin pre-NEM, but end post-NEM, though you'd still have to sort out the dating.
Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
I just had a horrible thought - what if you were writing a comic and thought "man Nemesis sure did suck" and one of your main characters had a timeship and....
Similar threads
