Regarding continuity: So... now what?

[DiSiLLUSiON]

They can keep telling stories in this universe, but technically this wasn't a reboot. We should still see certain things happen, like say V'Ger. While some other things should not happen, like any of the Next Generation crew being born.

I think the writers thought they were freeing themselves from the burden of continuity, but now they've made themselves an even worse kind of slave to it. They have to figure out how every character would be.

Only if they try to integrate as much as possible even where some things otherwise wouldn't fit.

I'd be perfectly happy with something like BSG where some people are the opposite sex, for example. Or the Enterprise-D wouldn't have a Riker. Or the Bajorans would never have existed. Or shields don't exist. Or the Borg are pink. Well no, not that. But seriously: There have always been contradictions in canon. The Klingon's ridges is a big example. They've explained all sorts of strange reasons in order for it to still fit in canon. I say: screw it. Make them have tentacles, like D'Argo on Farscape:

 

[mredom]

Even IF you "un do" Vulcan being destroyed, you still have a CADET running a starship! Kirk's mom dead, etc. It's just a mess and it doesn't sit right with me.

Did I miss something-when did Kirk's mom die?

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Even IF you "un do" Vulcan being destroyed, you still have a CADET running a starship! Kirk's mom dead, etc. It's just a mess and it doesn't sit right with me.

Did I miss something-when did Kirk's mom die?

Well, that would have been a waste of a perfectly good George Kirk.

 

[Alex1939]

Now that they've gone forward and thrown the restrictive canon rulebook out of the window, I say they make this universe as different from the 'prime Trek universe' as possible. In essence, do everything that was not possible in the prime universe. Otherwise, why even bother?

Agree with this completely.


Since this is a re-imagining, alternate universe, NuTrekJJA, or whatever you want to call it... they need to roll with it and forget about the other universe. So Vulcan gone, different fates for different characters, thats ok with me under this setting.


What DOES BOTHER ME, is re-visiting the other Trek universe, Romulus is gone. (Or should be.) And I'd prefer for them to still be around for movie/tv shows creativity's sake.


I'm guessing future Star Trek shows, or movies by different directors, will end up as "stand alone" series or movies. Not tied in specifically to either universe.

 

[Trekker4747]

Even IF you "un do" Vulcan being destroyed, you still have a CADET running a starship! Kirk's mom dead, etc. It's just a mess and it doesn't sit right with me.

Did I miss something-when did Kirk's mom die?

I meant Spock. Oops.

 

[commodore64]

Throw it all away. I think the sky's the limit. They've proven to me that this is not the 60s Trek, aren't the 60s characters, etc. Why not create a whole new mythos so we have Star Trek and nuTrek. I do think that's going to be incredibly confusing, but who cares?

 

[Warp Coil]

If you're going to create a new universe/reality to play in, you should feel comfortable throwing the rule book out and starting over again. There is absolutely no reason why this new incarnation of Trek has to follow 40+ years of complicated Trek history. They've already shaken things up by destroying Vulcan. I say, keep going. Push the universe further. Make it different, make it dramatic, and make it interesting.

 

[Trekker4747]

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.

 

[3 of 11]

I figure they will use the genesis device to make a new planet Vulcan in the Vulcan system!

 

[Ryan8bit]

If you're going to create a new universe/reality to play in, you should feel comfortable throwing the rule book out and starting over again. There is absolutely no reason why this new incarnation of Trek has to follow 40+ years of complicated Trek history.

If they wanted to do that, they should've done a plain reboot and not an alternate universe. There are certain constants that still need to be in place.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

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

Because keeping true to all that lore (and outdated facts, like Pike being uncomfortable with Women on a starship) would have made this movie completely and utterly boring, uninspired and uninteresting. Especially for the younger audience. It would probably be called: Nemesis. Oh wait, we already had that movie and we know how that went.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I figure they will use the genesis device to make a new planet Vulcan in the Vulcan system!

Doesn't matter how cool I would find the fact that they would use the Genesis device, it would still suck. I hate reset buttons.

 

[Trekker4747]

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

Because keeping true to all that lore (and outdated facts, like Pike being uncomfortable with Women on a starship) would have made this movie completely and utterly boring, uninspired and uninteresting. Especially for the younger audience. It would probably be called: Nemesis. Oh wait, we already had that movie and we know how that went.

How do you figure? Would the movie have been "that boring" if Kirk was fresh of his last subordinate officer assignment and put in command of the Enterprise?

What makes the movie "more exciting" to have a Cadet on academic suspension put in command of a starship after a few days' events?

Following canon and contnuity doesn't have to mean a movie has to be boring. Vulcan didn't "need" to be destroyed, they could've just as easily have just bombed the shit out of it, leaving the planet still intact just with massive damage to major cities? Did imploding a planet really make the movie "less boring" than it would have been if it was just a massive surface strafing?

 

[Warp Coil]

If you're going to create a new universe/reality to play in, you should feel comfortable throwing the rule book out and starting over again. There is absolutely no reason why this new incarnation of Trek has to follow 40+ years of complicated Trek history.

If they wanted to do that, they should've done a plain reboot and not an alternate universe. There are certain constants that still need to be in place.

Well, I think the alternate universe plot device was a way for the writers to have their cake and eat it, too. I suspect they wanted to do a traditional re-boot, but didn't want to offend 40+ years of Trek lore and the loyal fans who'd followed it. So if they create something that honors and acknowledges what's come before, while ultimately creating something fresh and new, they hopefully won't face as much backlash.

 

[FalTorPan]

I love Trek 1.0, but this is Trek 2.0. Let its creators do as they please.

 

[NCC74894A]

Throw it all away. I think the sky's the limit. They've proven to me that this is not the 60s Trek, aren't the 60s characters, etc. Why not create a whole new mythos so we have Star Trek and nuTrek. I do think that's going to be incredibly confusing, but who cares?

Yup. In for a penny, in for a pound - and Abrams' Trek is already in for quite a bit more than that.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

How do you figure? Would the movie have been "that boring" if Kirk was fresh of his last subordinate officer assignment and put in command of the Enterprise?

What makes the movie "more exciting" to have a Cadet on academic suspension put in command of a starship after a few days' events?

Following canon and contnuity doesn't have to mean a movie has to be boring. Vulcan didn't "need" to be destroyed, they could've just as easily have just bombed the shit out of it, leaving the planet still intact just with massive damage to major cities? Did imploding a planet really make the movie "less boring" than it would have been if it was just a massive surface strafing?

In my opinion, it's not about Vulcan being destroyed.

Look at some of the other things they changed:

The design of the white lady (inside and out) was updated. If it looked like the TOS episodes on DS9 and ENT, most people today would walk out of the theater laughing.

The morals and values of the characters were updated. In TOS, Uhura was there purely for her legs and it would be monumental for a black woman to kiss a white male. If they made it seem as if that's special nowadays, there would be hell to pay from all sides.

The pacing has been updated. If the battles were as slow paced as original trek, most viewers would be disinterested at best, fallen asleep at worst.

And keeping true to canon also means keeping true to all contradicting statements ever made and contradicting things we've seen. There should have been a 15 minute explanation why Nero doesn't have ridges and a bowl-cut, while the Romulans from TNG had. And another about why they had those while the TOS Romulans did not.

They probably decided: As long as we'll throw the rulebook out the window, we better to it right, not half-baked. And by destroying Vulcan, they sent a very powerful message: There is no reset button. And that means new exploration possibilities for our loved characters.

 

[Ryan8bit]

If you're going to create a new universe/reality to play in, you should feel comfortable throwing the rule book out and starting over again. There is absolutely no reason why this new incarnation of Trek has to follow 40+ years of complicated Trek history.

If they wanted to do that, they should've done a plain reboot and not an alternate universe. There are certain constants that still need to be in place.

Well, I think the alternate universe plot device was a way for the writers to have their cake and eat it, too. I suspect they wanted to do a traditional re-boot, but didn't want to offend 40+ years of Trek lore and the loyal fans who'd followed it. So if they create something that honors and acknowledges what's come before, while ultimately creating something fresh and new, they hopefully won't face as much backlash.

Right, but the consequences of that are still having to partially adhere to continuity. A reboot would've at least given them complete freedom, which is what they really need. If they had the balls to do that, then they wouldn't have to worry about continuity at all. But now there's still a lot that has to happen.

 

[Trekker4747]

Look at some of the other things they changed:

The design of the white lady (inside and out) was updated. If it looked like the TOS episodes on DS9 and ENT, most people today would walk out of the theater laughing.

The morals and values of the characters were updated. In TOS, Uhura was there purely for her legs. If they did that now, there would be hell to pay from the feminist societies.

And keeping true to canon also means keeping true to all contradicting statements ever made and contradicting things we've seen. There should have been a 15 minute explanation why Nero doesn't have ridges and a bowl-cut, while the Romulans from TNG had. And another about why they had those while the TOS Romulans did not.

These things are all... "fine." Simply just different looks and different mentailities.

I'm talking about HUGE changes in "canon" like the destruction of Vulcan, Kirk's early command, etc.


(though I still maintain using a slightly updated Ent-Nil would've worked just as fine and spectacuarly on the screen.)

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

These things are all... "fine." Simply just different looks and different mentailities.

I'm talking about HUGE changes in "canon" like the destruction of Vulcan, Kirk's early command, etc.

Depends on your definition. I'm very interested in your view. Why do you see those changes as 'huge'?

I mean: Vulcan was there. Now it's not. How can that be any kind of a big deal?

Seriously, if it'd changed into a big sperm whale in space, I would have frowned. But the destruction of Vulcan is well within the realm of plausible possibilities.

Sure, you can't state every old episode completely followed this movie now, that's true. But you couldn't anyway, due to all the contradicting information we've been given over the years. It's simply the way it works; they don't plan the entire universe out for the next 5 series and 15 movies. There has to be a time where you'll say: Okay, it has gone far enough. Let's stop and clean it all up.

I believe it's just like programming: Once the parameters or goals of the software have changed too frequently, it's so bogged down with outdated functions, incorrect functions calls, lots of bugs and inconsistencies, ragged documentation and so on, it's sometimes best to simple take those elements still functional and begin anew. It has the same functionality, same goals and 50% of the code is the same, but it's new. And more robust. And these kind of software 'renewals' usually run right next to licensed versions of the old thing, and get upgraded for a while longer at the same time.

Just like oldTrek and Star Trek.