Regarding continuity: So... now what?

[-Brett-]

My question is, why did we "need" to throw out 40 years of Trek History?

Three reasons. Voyager. Enterprise. Nemesis.

Fans might have been willing to forgive and forget, but no one else would.

 

[Pingfah]

Aborting and "un-doing" 40 years of Trek History (spaning centuries of "history") didn't sit well with me.

Hey, Enterprise is still canon.

 

[Greg Cox]

Aborting and "un-doing" 40 years of Trek History (spaning centuries of "history") didn't sit well with me. QUOTE]


But if they hadn't done that . . .

1) People would be complaining that there's no point to the prequel. That we already know everything that's going to happen to the Star Trek universe for the next hundred years or so. Now everything is up for grabs.

2) People would scream every time one of the future movies deviated slightly from the previous continuity. Now they have a little wiggle room to update the series as needed.

Works for me.

 

[Qonos]

My question is, why did we "need" to throw out 40 years of Trek History?

What did we gain from losing all of that?

It would've been perfectly possible to make a loyal movie to the franchise and contnuity and still make it exciting. Nero going around trying to destroy Vulcan/Earth with a recently promoted to Captain Kirk would've worked, spending part of the movie showing how he met Spock, McCoy, etc. and selected them for his crew.

There was no need to abort 40 years of history and do a Starship Troopers-ian promotion of greenhorns to run a starship.

But what do we gain from keeping fourty years of canon that really was just kept by fans. The writers of TOS didn't keep continutiy with some of the things they did when they wrote the show. The Enterprise served under three different orgainzations. The United Space Fleet, the Federation, and some Space Probe agency before it was all settled.

I feel having someone forced to write a story with a VERY Restrictive set of do's and don'ts defeats the purpose of story telling. It was what bogged Voyager, and Enterprise down and it would only hinder a new Star Trek.

 

[miraclefan]

I voted 4. Do what eveh the hell you want J.J.! So far it's been a fun & unpredictable ride so far!

 

[NiteTrek]

My question is, why did we "need" to throw out 40 years of Trek History?

You seem to be the only one throwing it out. Like others have said, my DVD's are still sitting on my shelf, they didn't suddenly disappear.

It's just a TV show/movie. Get over it.

 

[Zeppster]

Old Trek isn't really gone, it's still there and that won't change. But this is a bold new frontier.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

My question is, why did we "need" to throw out 40 years of Trek History?

What did we gain from losing all of that?

It would've been perfectly possible to make a loyal movie to the franchise and contnuity and still make it exciting. Nero going around trying to destroy Vulcan/Earth with a recently promoted to Captain Kirk would've worked, spending part of the movie showing how he met Spock, McCoy, etc. and selected them for his crew.

There was no need to abort 40 years of history and do a Starship Troopers-ian promotion of greenhorns to run a starship.

Trekker4747, you seem overly fond of the "reset button" that everyone else seems to think is a hack writer's crutch.

Think about all those "Voyager" episodes where key crew members die, the ship is destroyed, and then they simply use time travel at the end to undo all of it, and everyone is alive and well. Since the viewers know about this "reset button" writing style that Trek has established over 40 years, we all know that as soon as one regular cast member dies in an episode, then there's going to be a "reset button" at the end, and everything will be exactly the same for next week's episode.

The one time that was not the case was in "Voyager's" final episode, "Endgame," where Admiral Janeway went back in time, and actually permanently changed the past 20 years of history, allowing the Voyager to return to Earth a decade earlier than in the original timeline.

She introduced new weapons and shield technology to the past crew to help them complete their mission, just as Ambassador Spock did in this new movie. And, the changes were permanent in the "Star Trek" universe, since we saw Admiral Janeway in "Star Trek X."

Why did everyone accept the changes to the original timeline with Admiral Janeway talking to Picard in "Star Trek X," while it is somehow wrong for Nero and Spock to be changing history in "Star Trek XI"?

Technically speaking, the last five movies have all taken place in alternate universes, where the original timeline had been changed.

In "Star Trek VII," the entire Enterprise-D and its crew were wiped out when the sun exploded. That was real. It really happened. Then Picard and Kirk went back in time and changed the timeline, allowing the Enterprise-D crew to live and preventing the sun from exploding.

If we can accept the change of an entire star system not being destroyed through time travel in "Star Trek VII," then how is Vulcan, one single planet, being destroyed through time travel in "Star Trek XI" any different?

Time travel-wise, it's not. The only difference is that, to us viewers, time travel "should" be used for "good" (e.g., preventing Soran from blowing up the sun), but physically speaking, a person using time travel for "evil" (e.g., blowing up Vulcan) is equally valid plot-wise and continuity-wise, with the added benefit that there is no reset-button cop-out at the end that invalidates the entire story and removes all suspense.

 

[Zeppster]

My question is, why did we "need" to throw out 40 years of Trek History?

What did we gain from losing all of that?

It would've been perfectly possible to make a loyal movie to the franchise and contnuity and still make it exciting. Nero going around trying to destroy Vulcan/Earth with a recently promoted to Captain Kirk would've worked, spending part of the movie showing how he met Spock, McCoy, etc. and selected them for his crew.

There was no need to abort 40 years of history and do a Starship Troopers-ian promotion of greenhorns to run a starship.

Trekker4747, you seem overly fond of the "reset button" that everyone else seems to think is a hack writer's crutch.

Think about all those "Voyager" episodes where key crew members die, the ship is destroyed, and then they simply use time travel at the end to undo all of it, and everyone is alive and well. Since the viewers know about this "reset button" writing style that Trek has established over 40 years, we all know that as soon as one regular cast member dies in an episode, then there's going to be a "reset button" at the end, and everything will be exactly the same for next week's episode.

The one time that was not the case was in "Voyager's" final episode, "Endgame," where Admiral Janeway went back in time, and actually permanently changed the past 20 years of history, allowing the Voyager to return to Earth a decade earlier than in the original timeline.

She introduced new weapons and shield technology to the past crew to help them complete their mission, just as Ambassador Spock did in this new movie. And, the changes were permanent in the "Star Trek" universe, since we saw Admiral Janeway in "Star Trek X."

Why did everyone accept the changes to the original timeline with Admiral Janeway talking to Picard in "Star Trek X," while it is somehow wrong for Nero and Spock to be changing history in "Star Trek XI"?

Technically speaking, the last five movies have all taken place in alternate universes, where the original timeline had been changed.

In "Star Trek VII," the entire Enterprise-D and its crew were wiped out when the sun exploded. That was real. It really happened. Then Picard and Kirk went back in time and changed the timeline, allowing the Enterprise-D crew to live and preventing the sun from exploding.

If we can accept the change of an entire star system not being destroyed through time travel in "Star Trek VII," then how is Vulcan, one single planet, being destroyed through time travel in "Star Trek XI" any different?

Time travel-wise, it's not. The only difference is that, to us viewers, time travel "should" be used for "good" (e.g., preventing Soran from blowing up the sun), but physically speaking, a person using time travel for "evil" (e.g., blowing up Vulcan) is equally valid plot-wise and continuity-wise, with the added benefit that there is no reset-button cop-out at the end that invalidates the entire story and removes all suspense.

Well said and trying to stay with strict canon is also impossible, Trek has never done a good job of doing this.

 

[Lightinspire]

At least if they are going to throw the rule book and canon out the warp cores, at least there is a way to bring Shatner back as Kirk and then they could maybe then kill him off with a death that means something. Anyway, I loved the musical score..I just ordered the cd.

 

[EnsignRicky]

In honor of Kirk's favorite Kobayashi snack and the overall design aesthetics of the New Enterprise, I will hence forth refer to this version as the Apple Universe. For the sake of argument I'll call the original version the Orange Universe. And that's about as far as my interest in comparisons go.

 

[DEWLine]

Let's keep both universes around to play with, each with its own continually-evolving set of rules.

 

[leedstickets]

I think the new Star Trek is marvellous... its exactly what the franchise needed, making it up to date, popular (beyond a band of fans), and with a future.

I'd have been deighted if it were a reboot... un-afflicted from the noose of 40 years of canon.

I do have a niggling problem with the fact that this film isn't a reboot.... its in the trek universe we're familiar with, with a time travel altering storyline which (uniquely in Star Trek) doesn't end up with a reset.

A reboot wouldn't have meant that the hundreds of hours of post Enterprise (unaffected by the movie) Trek was potentially destroyed, as it really would have been a different undertaking. The film, having the "prime" established Spock moving backwards in time renders everything... TOS onwards... potentially void.

A reboot would have been 10/10; for me, the fact that 40 years of stories in the new prime universe (which I have watched) may not have ever (in universe) happened, dulls the shine to a mere 9.75/10.

 

[DEWLine]

My question is, why did we "need" to throw out 40 years of Trek History?

Three reasons. Voyager. Enterprise. Nemesis.
Fans might have been willing to forgive and forget, but no one else would./QUOTE]

There are still those of us who believe that those three projects needed neither forgiving nor forgetting, and figure them as worthy of our time and attention as anything else.

 

[Zeppster]

Here's a good reason to forget about continuity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1chtJQFQNs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NwNrkzz4s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Q-pFlzung
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy_-TklmyYE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1-B8naP6TU

continuity wasn't always followed in Trek

 

[Ryan8bit]

Why did everyone accept the changes to the original timeline with Admiral Janeway talking to Picard in "Star Trek X," while it is somehow wrong for Nero and Spock to be changing history in "Star Trek XI"?

Not everyone did. One of my biggest complaints about Endgame was the introduction of future technology to the past, and how that kind of thing would cause political upheaval or even a war.

Despite that the temporal cold war was terribly executed, the concept is somewhat sound. If time travel became common or even rarely used as a means to make a selfish change in the past, it would inevitably spawn some sort of police to prevent it if there were bad consequences. That was often the idea in early Star Trek... there was only one timeline. Now with alternate timelines, who cares who does what. Future Spock shouldn't have cared at all about the people in this time if it were simply alternate. Hell, he could just get another time machine, and go back before Nero came back, and destroy him. This is why this kind of time travel makes little sense.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Despite that the temporal cold war was terribly executed, the concept is somewhat sound. If time travel became common or even rarely used as a means to make a selfish change in the past, it would inevitably spawn some sort of police to prevent it if there were bad consequences. That was often the idea in early Star Trek... there was only one timeline. Now with alternate timelines, who cares who does what. Future Spock shouldn't have cared at all about the people in this time if it were simply alternate. Hell, he could just get another time machine, and go back before Nero came back, and destroy him. This is why this kind of time travel makes little sense.

So, as I mentioned in another thread, treat it like Farscape did: have a few primary timelines (in this case oldTrek, Star Trek, Mirror Universe etc) and have all choices and travels not result in new timelines, but rather in unrealized potential timelines. Problem solved, right?

 

[Zeppster]

Why did everyone accept the changes to the original timeline with Admiral Janeway talking to Picard in "Star Trek X," while it is somehow wrong for Nero and Spock to be changing history in "Star Trek XI"?

Not everyone did. One of my biggest complaints about Endgame was the introduction of future technology to the past, and how that kind of thing would cause political upheaval or even a war.

Despite that the temporal cold war was terribly executed, the concept is somewhat sound. If time travel became common or even rarely used as a means to make a selfish change in the past, it would inevitably spawn some sort of police to prevent it if there were bad consequences. That was often the idea in early Star Trek... there was only one timeline. Now with alternate timelines, who cares who does what. Future Spock shouldn't have cared at all about the people in this time if it were simply alternate. Hell, he could just get another time machine, and go back before Nero came back, and destroy him. This is why this kind of time travel makes little sense.

That's been an issue with Trek every since Mirror Mirror though hasn't it?

 

[CobraCommander]

My question is, why did we "need" to throw out 40 years of Trek History?

Three reasons. Voyager. Enterprise. Nemesis.

Fans might have been willing to forgive and forget, but no one else would.

Star Trek had always been about looking forward to the future. The desire to explore human boundaries (be they physical, mental, or social). The problems with Voyager and Enterprise was that they looked backward. The premise of Voyager was getting back to Earth. In all other Star Trek productions, the crews looked out into space and were eager to explore.
The ship was stuffy and the acting was wooden. Ensign Kim getting formally reprimanded for doing what came natural was a low point. I admit that most episodes are throwaway after a first viewing. If a Fed starship was really trapped in the Delta quadrant, it would have looked like the Equinox.
Enterprise shredded canon with more wooden Voyager-like acting and plot direction. I don't feel that Scott Bakula was cast right and the whole cast lacked chemistry (for whatever reasons). In this series, Star Trek regressed backward into previously explored territory. Only a real trekkie would have wanted a prequel series. Even with a prequel, the trekkies would have wanted established canon maintained, not shredded.
Nemesis... each viewing makes me hate it more. The whole premise of dealing with Shinzon is as un-democratic as it gets. The battle scene with the Enterprise was utterly pathetic. Why are the Romulan warbirds so easily shot to pieces while the Fed Starship doesn't have a scratch with the amount of pounding his "predator" inflicts. The bridge design on the Enterprise was the worst i have ever seen on a starship. Utterly cheap non-pleasing to the eye. Why they didn't use the First Contact ship design is beyond me.
In the end, it's Paramounts property and they can do as they wish. I have no intention of seeing this film. It doesn't add anything new to the human frontier or social condition. The Star Trek I grew up shall hopefully live on in book and Comic form (hopefully with better writing). Hopefully in its exile, the writing aquifer shall replenish itself once more until the day real Trek arises from the ashes. As a phoenix it shall live once more. Cobra

 

[CaptainJon]

I voted for throw it all out, but at the same time, you can still honor what took place in the original series. But I wouldn't be afraid to maybe incorporate some things into future movies. Why not do something with the planet-killer? Or maybe bring in Khan? Honestly, I wouldn't mind seeing the relationship between Carol Marcus and Kirk. That would make an interesting emotional anchor in the new movie.