Star Trek is a Batman Begins Reboot

[The Super Brando]

I've mentioned this in a few other threads, but thought I'd articulate here.

First of all, I loved the new movie.

But anyway, it seems to me that the new Star Trek movie isn't connected in continuity/canon/timeline/universe to the older incarnations of Star Trek in any way. It's a completely separate universe.

All of the differences in the new movie can't really be explained by one ship from the future destroying another. If you're an obsessed fan you can streeeetch this and twiiiist that to try to make everything fit, but I just don't think it really makes sense that this movie's timeline and universe was the same as the old timeline up until the Kelvin attack.

To me it seems like the filmmakers wanted a fresh reboot with Star Trek, but wanted to get the old fans to see the movie. So they spun some lip-service bologna about time-travel, but at the end of the day this very different movie is a very different incarnation just like Batman Begins.

I might be in the minority here, but to me this appears crystal clear obvious.

 

[shapeshifter]

I haven't seen it yet but that it is in a different universe is crystal clear, I'll never think of it as an altered timeline.

 

[Kelso]

The sky is blue.

 

[gh4chiefs]

But anyway, it seems to me that the new Star Trek movie isn't connected in continuity/canon/timeline/universe to the older incarnations of Star Trek in any way. It's a completely separate universe.

I haven't seen it yet, (3.5 hours and counting) but it would seem to me it's a little hard to argue this point 100% when a big part of the movie features Leonard Nimoy playing the Spock we've always known.

That they've changed things is a given, but to say it isn't connected to the older incarnations of Star Trek in any way is a bit of a stretch. At least from what I know of the film.

 

[The Super Brando]

I haven't seen it yet, (4.5 hours and counting) but it would seem to me it's a little hard to argue this point 100% when a big part of the movie features Leonard Nimoy playing the Spock we've always known.

That they've changed things is a given, but to say it isn't connected to the older incarnations of Star Trek in any way is a bit of a stretch. At least from what I know of the film.

Nimoy is playing Spock, and it's the Spock, but I don't think he's from the same Star Trek timeline/universe as before. Spock comes from nuTNG.

It's much more of a stretch to try to say that the this movie was in the old timeline completely until the Narada attacked the Kelvin. Too much is different; the tech being the biggest I think.

 

[gh4chiefs]

Well I haven't seen it yet, I will reserve judgement, but yours is the first comment like that I've heard. Most people seem to think it's the events of this movie that lead to the other universe. But like I said, I need to see it for myself.

 

[Praetorian]

Aye, they shouldn't even have bothered with the silly time travel nonsense...To hell with continuity humpers!

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I haven't seen it yet, (4.5 hours and counting) but it would seem to me it's a little hard to argue this point 100% when a big part of the movie features Leonard Nimoy playing the Spock we've always known.

That they've changed things is a given, but to say it isn't connected to the older incarnations of Star Trek in any way is a bit of a stretch. At least from what I know of the film.

Nimoy is playing Spock, and it's the Spock, but I don't think he's from the same Star Trek timeline/universe as before. Spock comes from nuTNG.

It's much more of a stretch to try to say that the this movie was in the old timeline completely until the Narada attacked the Kelvin. Too much is different; the tech being the biggest I think.

WTF are you talking about? He talks to Kirk about how his dad was his inspiration for joining Starfleet. How do you think that he's from the altered timeline's future?

 

[The Super Brando]

I mean, there are some saying the Kelvin is pre-TOS, but it's so diffierent in so many ways. It's not pre-TOS, because it's not in the same universe as TOS.

It's just like some are saying Ent takes place before this movie. It doesn't, because it's not the same universe.

The Narada isn't what made this Trek movie different from previous incarnations, JJ is what did that.

 

[Michael Chris]

I don't understand your reasoning.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I mean, there are some saying the Kelvin is pre-TOS, but it's so diffierent in so many ways. It's not pre-TOS, because it's not in the same universe as TOS.

It's just like some are saying Ent takes place before this movie. It doesn't, because it's not the same universe.

The Narada isn't what made this Trek movie different from previous incarnations, JJ is what did that.

You expect them to make it look like the 60s when doing a summer movie in the 09?

 

[cultcross]

I haven't seen it yet but that it is in a different universe is crystal clear, I'll never think of it as an altered timeline.

Well when you do see it, it'll become crystal clear that it's an alternate timeline - dialogue makes this explicit.

All of the differences in the new movie can't really be explained by one ship from the future destroying another. If you're an obsessed fan you can streeeetch this and twiiiist that to try to make everything fit, but I just don't think it really makes sense that this movie's timeline and universe was the same as the old timeline up until the Kelvin attack.

The Kelvin was perfectly in keeping with the 'real' timeline established in Enterprise. So up to that point, everything is perfectly in keeping with continuity. After the ship is destroyed, who knows what happened as a result? The Butterfly Effect could easily have rippled over a lot of stuff, foreign policy, human-romulan and even human-vulcan relations, starfleet technological priorities, personnel deployments affecting hundreds of other missions, designs, meetings, relationships etc etc.
Literally millions of possible changes in all fields could come from that single event.

To me it seems like the filmmakers wanted a fresh reboot with Star Trek, but wanted to get the old fans to see the movie. So they spun some lip-service bologna about time-travel, but at the end of the day this very different movie is a very different incarnation just like Batman Begins.

I might be in the minority here, but to me this appears crystal clear obvious.

The movie fits crystal clear obvious into an alternate timeline, beginning at the moment Nero appeared in the past.

 

[The Super Brando]

You expect them to make it look like the 60s when doing a summer movie in the 09?

No, hell no. The new look is great, and is just what Trek needs. What I'm saying is this new movie doesn't diverge from the 1960's Trek timeline, it's a completely different universe.

WTF are you talking about? He talks to Kirk about how his dad was his inspiration for joining Starfleet. How do you think that he's from the altered timeline's future?

Let me clarify. He's not from the timeline where the Narada destroys the Kelvin and you-know-what happens to you-know-what.

But he's also not from the timeline where TOS is his past.

You can't go ST First Contact > Ent > two different timelines (one TOS and one nuTrek). TOS and nuTrek are different universes, even before the Kelvin incident, they don't share the same history or previous timeline. The Kelvin incident changed the timeline of the nuTrek universe.

So Spock in this movie is from the original timeline of the nuTrek universe. I think the Spock from TOS and TNG isn't in this movie, because this movie is a fresh reboot which really doesn't have anything to do with the old incarnations.

Now, having said that, this Spock is consistent in character and all that jazz with the Spock we all know and love.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Of course they can be the same time line, just ignore the technology differences because they have to do with what looks futuristic from the time they were produced it. Enterprise was already more advanced than TOS, so are you going to say they're not in the same continuity?

 

[Roger Wilco]

To me it seems like the filmmakers wanted a fresh reboot with Star Trek, but wanted to get the old fans to see the movie. So they spun some lip-service bologna about time-travel, but at the end of the day this very different movie is a very different incarnation just like Batman Begins.

I'm not sure you mean it that way, but it seems you're implying that the producers somehow "tricked" the Star Trek fans into watching just to serve them something completely differently.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with that. Yes, it's different in many ways small and big, but from the feel it's very, very close to the original imo. And as a Trekkie I was thoroughly entertained throughout the movie, which is exactly what I'm asking for when I go to the cinema.

 

[The Super Brando]

Well when you do see it, it'll become crystal clear that it's an alternate timeline - dialogue makes this explicit.

Oh yeah, altered timeline, but altered from the original nuTrek timeline.

The Kelvin was perfectly in keeping with the 'real' timeline established in Enterprise. So up to that point, everything is perfectly in keeping with continuity. After the ship is destroyed, who knows what happened as a result? The Butterfly Effect could easily have rippled over a lot of stuff, foreign policy, human-romulan and even human-vulcan relations, starfleet technological priorities, personnel deployments affecting hundreds of other missions, designs, meetings, relationships etc etc.
Literally millions of possible changes in all fields could come from that single event.

The butterfly effect is the best explanation for the changes after the Narada attack on the Kelvin, but it's still kind of silly.

But even before the attack, the Kelvin itself isn't in line with pre-TOS technology or anything at all.

Besides, I think if you were to ask JJ and crew if Ent took place before this movie, and if they were going to proceed in this nuTrek universe as if it did, then they would all so "no".

 

[Bob The Skutter]

To me it seems like the filmmakers wanted a fresh reboot with Star Trek, but wanted to get the old fans to see the movie. So they spun some lip-service bologna about time-travel, but at the end of the day this very different movie is a very different incarnation just like Batman Begins.

I'm not sure you mean it that way, but it seems you're implying that the producers somehow "tricked" the Star Trek fans into watching just to serve them something completely differently.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with that. Yes, it's different in many ways small and big, but from the feel it's very, very close to the original imo. And as a Trekkie I was thoroughly entertained throughout the movie, which is exactly what I'm asking for when I go to the cinema.

That's what I look for, too. There are some movies that are more worth seeing because they are interesting, but mostly entertainment is the main reason for seeing a movie.

 

[cultcross]

Besides, I think if you were to ask JJ and crew if Ent took place before this movie, and if they were going to proceed in this nuTrek universe as if it did, then they would all so "no".

The Kelvin's appearance and the mention of Admiral Archer and his beagle suggest otherwise. All implications in the film are that ENT's timeline was preserved until the moment the Narada appeared.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's been clear to me for a while that what The Super Brando is saying here is true - at least if we apply the kind of reasoning that Trek fans have been using for the last four decades, in which every visual variation between different movies and series and recreations of sets and ships has to be at least somewhat accounted for. The visual uniqueness of the Kelvin, its technology, uniforms etc is way outside the boundaries of previous early Trek visualizations - much further, for example, than the NX-01 in Star Trek Enterprise.

 

[Eddie Roth]

But even before the attack, the Kelvin itself isn't in line with pre-TOS technology or anything at all.

And from what source do you draw your knowledge of "pre-TOS technology"? I seem to remember that aside from ENT, we never saw anything "pre-TOS"...

Follow-up question which seems to be my motto today, as often as I apparently need to ask this (cause I truly don't get it): What's so hard about just accepting that this, the technology shown here, is simply a different artistic vision of the exact same thing, in this case the Enterprise? Does anyone ever wonder why the bridge looked completely different in TVH, TFF and TUC?