Same canon?
- Thread starter Captrek
- Start date
Also, dates really are irrelevant as well. Ever looked at two different DVR's in two different rooms playing the same channel?
Often depending on the unit, one is several seconds ahead of the other. I remember this when we had a Sony in one room, and an RCA in another.
Since everyone is hell bent on this being an all new alternate universe, you also have to expect that the possibility of being out of some time sync is a plausible excuse. For the record however, I wish that one single line had been left out of the movie since everyone is building a religion around it, where Uhura uses the words "Alternate timeline". Altered tiemline would have worked just as well, leaving the "our beloved universe is still out there going forward" nonsense behind.
Even Chekov is more easily explainable than the "conceived earlier" comment I read. In the real world, my wife and I had decided first born son would be named Michael. She miscarried twice before our first success. We named him Michael. Had she not miscarried, either the first or second would have been Michael instead, 3+ years earlier.
Alternatively however, changing dates shouldn't be the issue people make it out to be. As I recall, an alien spacecraft crashed on Earth in 1915 or so, carrying a baby who in 1938 became known as Superman.
His birth date and history have been changed many times over the years. later his ship crashed in the mid 50's, allowing him to be an adult in his 20's during the late 70's.
And more recently his ship crashed around the late 70's, allowing him to be at his adult prime in the early 2000's.
Pretty sure there are more Superman fans out there than Trek fans, and they didn't make the kind of noise the Trek crowd does. Although....that last movie should never have been made.... ugh.
I absolutely loved the original series. I have pretty much every toy ever made, paperbacks etc. I've got personally signed autographs from every one of the original cast in person. My collection would make Gabe Koerner jealous. So I'm not just some new kid who "doesn't know what Trek was all about" as some people like to use as justification for trying to invalidate others opinions when it disagrees with their own.
Trek needed a modern slant and a face lift that people today could relate to. Sorry to those who didn't like it, I enjoyed it immensely. like it or not, it was something Trek hasn't been in decades, a success.
Often depending on the unit, one is several seconds ahead of the other. I remember this when we had a Sony in one room, and an RCA in another.
Since everyone is hell bent on this being an all new alternate universe, you also have to expect that the possibility of being out of some time sync is a plausible excuse. For the record however, I wish that one single line had been left out of the movie since everyone is building a religion around it, where Uhura uses the words "Alternate timeline". Altered tiemline would have worked just as well, leaving the "our beloved universe is still out there going forward" nonsense behind.
Even Chekov is more easily explainable than the "conceived earlier" comment I read. In the real world, my wife and I had decided first born son would be named Michael. She miscarried twice before our first success. We named him Michael. Had she not miscarried, either the first or second would have been Michael instead, 3+ years earlier.
Alternatively however, changing dates shouldn't be the issue people make it out to be. As I recall, an alien spacecraft crashed on Earth in 1915 or so, carrying a baby who in 1938 became known as Superman.
His birth date and history have been changed many times over the years. later his ship crashed in the mid 50's, allowing him to be an adult in his 20's during the late 70's.
And more recently his ship crashed around the late 70's, allowing him to be at his adult prime in the early 2000's.
Pretty sure there are more Superman fans out there than Trek fans, and they didn't make the kind of noise the Trek crowd does. Although....that last movie should never have been made.... ugh.
I absolutely loved the original series. I have pretty much every toy ever made, paperbacks etc. I've got personally signed autographs from every one of the original cast in person. My collection would make Gabe Koerner jealous. So I'm not just some new kid who "doesn't know what Trek was all about" as some people like to use as justification for trying to invalidate others opinions when it disagrees with their own.
Trek needed a modern slant and a face lift that people today could relate to. Sorry to those who didn't like it, I enjoyed it immensely. like it or not, it was something Trek hasn't been in decades, a success.
This is largely true, but it was done in a way that it respects what was established before. The entire point of the Alternate Reality, rather than a completely clean break.
Uhura's ACTUAL words were: "An Alternate Reality", not "Alternate Timeline".
The difference is both subtle and profound.
The difference is both subtle and profound.
number6
Vice Admiral
That was how they could include Nimoy and I thought that was a good idea for bringing in the older fans while giving them something new.
Only to people like us. The two phrases seem pretty interchangable with the creative team.. Ultimately it doesn't matter. The writers did this so they could break from what was established by all the shows, yet still call back to it if they wanted.
You got it number6 
Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?
What difference?
Uhura said "an alternate reality" in response to finding out Nero's appearance in 2233 changed all their lives. It's "alternate" only because Nero's invasion was not supposed to have happened. The "proper" course of events was TOS.
What difference?
Uhura said "an alternate reality" in response to finding out Nero's appearance in 2233 changed all their lives. It's "alternate" only because Nero's invasion was not supposed to have happened. The "proper" course of events was TOS.
That is not her job. Chekov is the one being left in command, so it is his duty to know what's going on and how to change things, not Uhura. Her duty was to carry out Spock's orders, not satisfy her own personnel concern about him.
Troi: If you should be hurt!
Riker: You have your orders Lieutenant. Carry them out!
Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?
PROPER
Kirk: Cestus III has been destroyed.
Spock: The destruction of the alien vessel will not bring those people back.
NOT PROPER
Kirk: Show them compassion may earn peace with Romulas. It's logic Spock. Thought you'd like that.
Spock: No, not really. Not this time.
*Novelization Bonus!*
Spock: I just lost my entire planet. To hell with logic!
Dang right TOS was proper, cause this new one is just a summer popcorn mess.
PROPER
Kirk: Cestus III has been destroyed.
Spock: The destruction of the alien vessel will not bring those people back.
NOT PROPER
Kirk: Show them compassion may earn peace with Romulas. It's logic Spock. Thought you'd like that.
Spock: No, not really. Not this time.
*Novelization Bonus!*
Spock: I just lost my entire planet. To hell with logic!
Her JOB was to send the message. She did so. She wanted to know something because, primarily, SHE'S A HUMAN BEING.
It would be out of character for her to not give a Defication.
Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?
Al Alternate Reality in that events could not be changed back to "what they were". This leaves 2 possibilities:
- Time Paradox.
- Alternate Reality branching off from the Prime.
Spock Prime, as evidenced by the last scene of the film, already knew this.
Al Alternate Reality in that events could not be changed back to "what they were". This leaves 2 possibilities:
- Time Paradox.
- Alternate Reality branching off from the Prime.
Spock Prime, as evidenced by the last scene of the film, already knew this.
Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?
^It sounds like a slightly different wording meaning the same thing to me
So you read the novelization of the film you didn't like?
^It sounds like a slightly different wording meaning the same thing to me
So you read the novelization of the film you didn't like?
Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?
No, I skimmed to the ending part to see if the book handled Kirk's needless killing of Nero any better. That was my biggest gripe at the time just days after seeing the movie. It didn't.
So you read the novelization of the film you didn't like?
No, I skimmed to the ending part to see if the book handled Kirk's needless killing of Nero any better. That was my biggest gripe at the time just days after seeing the movie. It didn't.
Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?
If you aree going to "quote" something, quote it right; otherwise you distort the meaning. The quote in the novelization is: "Captain, he destroyed my entire home planet. As a human might say -- to hell with logic." Which, as fans, we all know is a call back to what he said in "The Undiscovered Country".
If you aree going to "quote" something, quote it right; otherwise you distort the meaning. The quote in the novelization is: "Captain, he destroyed my entire home planet. As a human might say -- to hell with logic." Which, as fans, we all know is a call back to what he said in "The Undiscovered Country".
Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?
Well, this was a year ago since I last skimmed it. And what exactly does that change? He still says "to hell with logic" and he means it.
I've read Alan Dean Forster's book, and unfortunately, some of his writing was not great.
Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?
Like it or not, it's actually in character with Spock.
In Star Trek VI he says for Starfleet to "Go to hell".
Like it or not, it's actually in character with Spock.
In Star Trek VI he says for Starfleet to "Go to hell".
It had some pretty core rules that seldom changed. I'm not sure that the color of Vulcan's sky or what the ship looks like really falls into that though.
But there are a few I can think of that they didn't adhere to. Of course, that is their right as they are the ones who define it, not the fans.
I feel like with their shoehorning this to fit with the other universe they really didn't let go of the shackles that weighed down other Trek productions. In fact, I think they've made things harder for themselves because they should sit there and think, "So what does and doesn't happen now?" It's almost like now they have to comb through Star Trek and figure out where things should be because it's an alternate universe. A plain reboot would've been much easier to handle this if all they wanted was to just do whatever they wished. Making it branch off the other timeline subjects it to all the scrutiny it has received.
