• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Reset or not to reset?

mswood

Rear Admiral
Premium Member
Based on the materials we have seen as well as interviews we have heard, I think it is safe to assume a few things.

1. JJ says it isn't a reboot. I would assume by that he means a reboot is just taking the premise of a show and starting over without any connections (besides premise) to the original material.

The current example of this is BSG. It takes the premise of the original Battlestar Galactica, but is in no way connecting to the 70's series.

2. Time travel is absolutely involved. It appears that Nero and other Romulans travel through time to the 23rd century, decades before Where no Man has Gone Before. I would assume about 30-35 years before then.

At this point I assume the Romulans actions dramatically change the timeline. Thus every aspect presented about Trek that would occur after this point is free to be changed. This explains any style changes to ships, costumes, Federation attitudes, Starfleet policy, first contacts, age of characters, ect.

3. I assume that old Spock also travels through time. I make the assumption (which may not be valid). I assume based on the change in his appearance that this occurs many years after TNG, DS9( and Voyager ended and that he is from what we would call the classic timeline.

So if this is correct (which I do believe to be correct) do you think (or wish) that the reset button is used?

The reason I ask is that often with time travel stories in trek we have had many posters (myself included at times) complain about the lack of drama knowing that Paramount is never going to allow those changes to occur and that the reset is coming.

Now it appears we have a number of posters, complaining about a time travel story where it appears we get them not using a reset button to fully restore the original timeline. We see them taking a risk and apparently sticking with it.

One of the reasons I have heard for this is it invalidates all of TOS (most seem focused on) but also TNG, DS9, and VOY (and amusingly enough ENT would be the only show to escape relatively untouched, it would effect their mirror mirror story line).

I have also heard how it negates the possibility of further stories in the 24th century (from TNG, DS9 or VOY). On this issue, I believe that premise is faulty. Not that Paramount/Viacom or CBS is going to go back to either of those series, but with the reference point of old Spock possibly being evens decades past the ending points of those shows or series, the studio could (it wont, but it could) continue stories before even getting to the point where Spock or Nero go back in time.

So should we see a reset? And are we hypocrites for waiting one (or not wanting one)?

I am curious.
 
I have also heard how it negates the possibility of further stories in the 24th century (from TNG, DS9 or VOY).

I will be amazed if we ever see anything set in the 24th century again - not for years and then it will be a reboot.
 
Consider this - without a reset of some kind, big or small, any new TOS stuff would be unexciting as hell. We'd know that Kirk, Spock, and the all the main characters will survive, the Enterprise won't get destroyed, Earth/Vulcan aren't ever in any real danger, etc...

With a reset, anything can happen.
 
The current example of this is BSG. It takes the premise of the original Battlestar Galactica, but is in no way connecting to the 70's series.

Forgive the thread hijack, but this is not entirely true. We've seen some tenuous connections to the original BSG. (Pictures of the TOS Galactica, Vipers, Basestars and Raiders in the museum on the nuGalactica, TOS toasters and raiders in "Razor".) Then there's the whole "all of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again" thing.

Anyway, back to our regular programming. My opinion based on what I've seen is that the movie will likely end with Old Spock at least partially restoring the "original" timeline, so that some things are at least somewhat more familiar than what we've seen thus far in the photos and trailers. I would not be at all surprised if the movie ends with a more familiar Enterprise (either interior or exterior wise) for example than what we've seen already. There have been enough hints from the creative people behind the movie to indicate that this is possible, and based on what I've seen of the plot, I think it's likely. (Just conjecture on my part though.) That way you end up with at least a more familiar universe, where some of what we've known from the prior timeline will likely happen as we expect, while other events can unfold differently. Which basically frees the writers to do whatever without having to utter the dreaded "r" word. (Why it's such a big deal I have no idea. So what if it's a reboot?)
 
The current example of this is BSG. It takes the premise of the original Battlestar Galactica, but is in no way connecting to the 70's series.

Forgive the thread hijack, but this is not entirely true. We've seen some tenuous connections to the original BSG. (Pictures of the TOS Galactica, Vipers, Basestars and Raiders in the museum on the nuGalactica, TOS toasters and raiders in "Razor".) Then there's the whole "all of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again" thing.

Anyway, back to our regular programming. My opinion based on what I've seen is that the movie will likely end with Old Spock at least partially restoring the "original" timeline, so that some things are at least somewhat more familiar than what we've seen thus far in the photos and trailers. I would not be at all surprised if the movie ends with a more familiar Enterprise (either interior or exterior wise) for example than what we've seen already. There have been enough hints from the creative people behind the movie to indicate that this is possible, and based on what I've seen of the plot, I think it's likely. (Just conjecture on my part though.) That way you end up with at least a more familiar universe, where some of what we've known from the prior timeline will likely happen as we expect, while other events can unfold differently. Which basically frees the writers to do whatever without having to utter the dreaded "r" word. (Why it's such a big deal I have no idea. So what if it's a reboot?)
Actually so far, nothing on NuBSG is part of the universe created for the 70's show. While we have seen a few designs that are the same, so far that is all. The story appears to have no branching off point from that original universe. Even the cycle of events, don't seem to indicate a connection with the 70's series. THough they could introduce that element in the remaining episodes, so far it is not part of it.

As to the reset, yes I would assume that some things are saved (Vulcan, I assume but hell I could be wrong), but since the correction is apparently going to take place decades after the original change in the time line, I would say all the events up to the end of the movie are going to not be reset.

So in fact it still leaves us with a point where no events of TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY are sure to have happened.
 
I think a split should occur as a result of Spock trying to fix things and that will leave our TOS and the rest of history as it is, and allow for the offshoot to grow and have its own history to be recorded. Then we can watch this crew grow and gel and gain a place in Star Trek all their own.
 
Personally I can't have a problem with it. As someone who has complained about the shows taking the safe way out in time travel stories, I can't be a hypocrite about it know.

As someone who has read comics since the late 60's (same time as I was shown Trek), and have no problem with them changing their universe. Both with complete reboots (the original change from Earth two to Earth One, which was explained decades later), to the the type of change that is happening here of a character going back in time to change the timeline (Crisis on Infinite Earths), and enjoyed creations in all forms of those universe. How could I rationally have a problem with this.

Now once I see it I can have problem with story, acting, direction, effects, music score, set design, ect, ect. But not the fact that through time travel things are different.

But that is of course a personal opinion that I can only rationally make after viewing the full product.

I am still laughing about ENT being the one basically safe series. Of course I was one that generally thought ENT was far less hit and miss then TOS or TNG (meaning I think BOth had far more worse, and far more great stories), and more consistent to its premise then VOY. Of course I wish I liked its characters to the degree that I like several TOS, TNG or DS9 characters (or DS9 as a whole).
 
Actually so far, nothing on NuBSG is part of the universe created for the 70's show. While we have seen a few designs that are the same, so far that is all. The story appears to have no branching off point from that original universe. Even the cycle of events, don't seem to indicate a connection with the 70's series. THough they could introduce that element in the remaining episodes, so far it is not part of it.

Fair enough, I think it's a matter of interpretation as to why those TOS design elements were introduced, but that's of course nothing but conjecture. I'm hoping we'll get more than that somewhere in the final 10 episodes.

Personally I can't have a problem with it. As someone who has complained about the shows taking the safe way out in time travel stories, I can't be a hypocrite about it know.

As someone who has read comics since the late 60's (same time as I was shown Trek), and have no problem with them changing their universe. Both with complete reboots (the original change from Earth two to Earth One, which was explained decades later), to the the type of change that is happening here of a character going back in time to change the timeline (Crisis on Infinite Earths), and enjoyed creations in all forms of those universe. How could I rationally have a problem with this.

Now once I see it I can have problem with story, acting, direction, effects, music score, set design, ect, ect. But not the fact that through time travel things are different.

But that is of course a personal opinion that I can only rationally make after viewing the full product.

I am still laughing about ENT being the one basically safe series. Of course I was one that generally thought ENT was far less hit and miss then TOS or TNG (meaning I think BOth had far more worse, and far more great stories), and more consistent to its premise then VOY. Of course I wish I liked its characters to the degree that I like several TOS, TNG or DS9 characters (or DS9 as a whole).

A refreshingly sane point of view.
 
Based on the materials we have seen as well as interviews we have heard, I think it is safe to assume a few things.

1. JJ says it isn't a reboot. I would assume by that he means a reboot is just taking the premise of a show and starting over without any connections (besides premise) to the original material.

The current example of this is BSG. It takes the premise of the original Battlestar Galactica, but is in no way connecting to the 70's series.

Thanks for this.

I read way too many posts from people who seem to think the definition of "not a reboot" is "agrees with every line of dialogue from every Trek show ever made, except when even those disagree, in which case they need to go with the one I like best".
 
It is, to some degree, a reboot, but there's an explanation for why Kirk's backstory is now different and why the Kirk of the new movie doesn't share the same history and backstory as the Kirk played by William Shatner. Someone's been messing with the timeline, altering key events in Kirk's youth. The result is that Chris Pine's Kirk has not lived the same life as Shatner's Kirk.

Does this change anything for you?

- Ibrahim Ng
 
Based on the materials we have seen as well as interviews we have heard, I think it is safe to assume a few things.

1. JJ says it isn't a reboot. I would assume by that he means a reboot is just taking the premise of a show and starting over without any connections (besides premise) to the original material.

The current example of this is BSG. It takes the premise of the original Battlestar Galactica, but is in no way connecting to the 70's series.

Thanks for this.

I read way too many posts from people who seem to think the definition of "not a reboot" is "agrees with every line of dialogue from every Trek show ever made, except when even those disagree, in which case they need to go with the one I like best".
Well to fair, the term "reboot" probably means different things to different people. I am working on the base assumption (and boy those can be wrong) that JJ is honest when he says it isn't a reboot. And thus reboot must mean to him something like how Ron Moore has treated BSG. A completely unconnected show that just shares the same starting premise.

It does seem like JJ and the writers (or maybe just he writers) put in place a logical way of starting in the same universe and then found a way (consistent to what has been shown possible in that same universe) to change what ever they wished. And in that I can find no fault.

I do hope that they treat the concepts of Trek and the characters of Trek close to that of TOS, but I would expect everything else is a blank slate.
 
I have also heard how it negates the possibility of further stories in the 24th century (from TNG, DS9 or VOY).

I will be amazed if we ever see anything set in the 24th century again - not for years and then it will be a reboot.

Yes, please. Without a French Captain with a STRONG English accent, and an Android that perfectly mimics a human being. But they couldn't get the SKIN COLOR RIGHT.
 
Consider this - without a reset of some kind, big or small, any new TOS stuff would be unexciting as hell. We'd know that Kirk, Spock, and the all the main characters will survive, the Enterprise won't get destroyed, Earth/Vulcan aren't ever in any real danger, etc...

With a reset, anything can happen.

YES, GIVE THAT MAN A CIGAR!!!!!
 
Well we all know they aren't going to kill off Kirk and crew...but, they might put a twist in there somewhere. Cylons anybody?
 
Consider this - without a reset of some kind, big or small, any new TOS stuff would be unexciting as hell. ..

Exactly why a new crew should have been made up for this movie, or do more TNG or DS9 movies.
1) I'm sick of the 24th century.

2) A new crew would just muddy things up further, not to mention attract no new viewers. Kirk and Spock are what people think of when they think of Trek. Getting back to the basics was a good move.
 
Consider this - without a reset of some kind, big or small, any new TOS stuff would be unexciting as hell. We'd know that Kirk, Spock, and the all the main characters will survive, the Enterprise won't get destroyed, Earth/Vulcan aren't ever in any real danger, etc...

With a reset, anything can happen.

YES, GIVE THAT MAN A CIGAR!!!!!


I'm all for a reset button at the beginning but not at the end. What good would that be. So, JJ's a lying stealing decieving cheat, but he's a good one.
 
Consider this - without a reset of some kind, big or small, any new TOS stuff would be unexciting as hell. ..

Exactly why a new crew should have been made up for this movie, or do more TNG or DS9 movies.
1) I'm sick of the 24th century.
.

What the hell is the point of going backwards?? again? Having a new crew would be much easier
2) A new crew would just muddy things up further, not to mention attract no new viewers. Kirk and Spock are what people think of when they think of Trek. Getting back to the basics was a good move.
Like the remake is not going to do that already
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on the materials we have seen as well as interviews we have heard, I think it is safe to assume a few things.

1. JJ says it isn't a reboot. I would assume by that he means a reboot is just taking the premise of a show and starting over without any connections (besides premise) to the original material.

The current example of this is BSG. It takes the premise of the original Battlestar Galactica, but is in no way connecting to the 70's series.

2. Time travel is absolutely involved. It appears that Nero and other Romulans travel through time to the 23rd century, decades before Where no Man has Gone Before. I would assume about 30-35 years before then.

At this point I assume the Romulans actions dramatically change the timeline. Thus every aspect presented about Trek that would occur after this point is free to be changed. This explains any style changes to ships, costumes, Federation attitudes, Starfleet policy, first contacts, age of characters, ect.

3. I assume that old Spock also travels through time. I make the assumption (which may not be valid). I assume based on the change in his appearance that this occurs many years after TNG, DS9( and Voyager ended and that he is from what we would call the classic timeline.

So if this is correct (which I do believe to be correct) do you think (or wish) that the reset button is used?

The reason I ask is that often with time travel stories in trek we have had many posters (myself included at times) complain about the lack of drama knowing that Paramount is never going to allow those changes to occur and that the reset is coming.

Now it appears we have a number of posters, complaining about a time travel story where it appears we get them not using a reset button to fully restore the original timeline. We see them taking a risk and apparently sticking with it.

One of the reasons I have heard for this is it invalidates all of TOS (most seem focused on) but also TNG, DS9, and VOY (and amusingly enough ENT would be the only show to escape relatively untouched, it would effect their mirror mirror story line).

I have also heard how it negates the possibility of further stories in the 24th century (from TNG, DS9 or VOY). On this issue, I believe that premise is faulty. Not that Paramount/Viacom or CBS is going to go back to either of those series, but with the reference point of old Spock possibly being evens decades past the ending points of those shows or series, the studio could (it wont, but it could) continue stories before even getting to the point where Spock or Nero go back in time.

So should we see a reset? And are we hypocrites for waiting one (or not wanting one)?

I am curious.

I am going to respond to you before I read any other responses. You seem to be in touch with most of the interviews, spoilers, and with fan reactions both for and against your topic points. Well done.

I cannot say I am turning handstands over the prospect of permanent changes but neither am I totally upset. My biggest concern with it is the reality of yet another fracture in the fan base. They're nothing new but it has always been a bit disheartening to me seeing the fan collective tearing its self apart over this or that change. I have seen many people who could not accept change fall out of fandom while I Trekked on, here we go again...

On why I am not upset, I think if we are going to have time travel in the Saga then realistic consequences of that plot device should be utilized in place of simply pressing the reset button every time. In this sense I am on board for the changes. I may not like the changes but instead of stalking JJ for raping my childhood, I can, as I am sure JJ would want, direct my anger onto the true perpetrator of these dastardly deeds: Nero.

On whether these changes will erase the other series, unless this film as some magic ability to erase my memories then no, it won't. I see every series as part of a time line starting with ENT and progressing through to NEM. For me, no matter what changes, if any, are coming, this film will always occur at the end of the original time line and the beginning of the new. How it will work for new fans, given the presence of Classic Spock, is something I've been puzzling over...
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top