'Star Trek' = Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles

[DigificWriter]

After recently finding out that the new Trek movie (which I'd previously had very little real interest in) is going to be set in an alternate timeline, I've been perusing this forum, and have noticed a lot of complaining about this and how it's going to disrupt the existing Trek continuity, and all I have to say is this:
Calm down, people.

This new movie isn't going to invalidate the existing Trek universe any more than "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" has 'invalidated' the existing Terminator movies and the timeline they inhabit. Abrams new ST is the Trek equivalent to TSCC, and I now can't wait to see what storytelling possibilities this opens up.

 

[trevanian]

After recently finding out that the new Trek movie (which I'd previously had very little real interest in) is going to be set in an alternate timeline, I've been perusing this forum, and have noticed a lot of complaining about this and how it's going to disrupt the existing Trek continuity, and all I have to say is this:
Calm down, people.

This new movie isn't going to invalidate the existing Trek universe any more than "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" has 'invalidated' the existing Terminator movies and the timeline they inhabit. Abrams new ST is the Trek equivalent to TSCC, and I now can't wait to see what storytelling possibilities this opens up.

Maybe you're citing the wrong TERMINATOR. I was just reading yesterday that the new T flick is going to include some TSCC continuity but pretend that T3 didn't happen (ignore/invalidate it.) So maybe this trek09 is going to be T3, not TSCC?

 

[RobertScorpio]

After recently finding out that the new Trek movie (which I'd previously had very little real interest in) is going to be set in an alternate timeline, I've been perusing this forum, and have noticed a lot of complaining about this and how it's going to disrupt the existing Trek continuity, and all I have to say is this:
Calm down, people.

This new movie isn't going to invalidate the existing Trek universe any more than "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" has 'invalidated' the existing Terminator movies and the timeline they inhabit. Abrams new ST is the Trek equivalent to TSCC, and I now can't wait to see what storytelling possibilities this opens up.

Thats all find and dandy, but the normal people out there who dont watch Star trek are going to assume this is the 'real' star trek timeline..and thats fine with me. The old trek timeline was so messed up, it has been fodder for threads on this board for.......years.

I hope this movie totally rewrites the future and we start a new...

Rob

 

[Ben Sisko3]

After recently finding out that the new Trek movie (which I'd previously had very little real interest in) is going to be set in an alternate timeline, I've been perusing this forum, and have noticed a lot of complaining about this and how it's going to disrupt the existing Trek continuity, and all I have to say is this:
Calm down, people.

This new movie isn't going to invalidate the existing Trek universe any more than "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" has 'invalidated' the existing Terminator movies and the timeline they inhabit. Abrams new ST is the Trek equivalent to TSCC, and I now can't wait to see what storytelling possibilities this opens up.

Maybe you're citing the wrong TERMINATOR. I was just reading yesterday that the new T flick is going to include some TSCC continuity but pretend that T3 didn't happen (ignore/invalidate it.) So maybe this trek09 is going to be T3, not TSCC?

TSCC blatantly ignores T3. T:Salvation cannot possibly ignore T3, as Kate Brewster, now Kate Connor, is a character in the film.

 

[DigificWriter]

After recently finding out that the new Trek movie (which I'd previously had very little real interest in) is going to be set in an alternate timeline, I've been perusing this forum, and have noticed a lot of complaining about this and how it's going to disrupt the existing Trek continuity, and all I have to say is this:
Calm down, people.

This new movie isn't going to invalidate the existing Trek universe any more than "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" has 'invalidated' the existing Terminator movies and the timeline they inhabit. Abrams new ST is the Trek equivalent to TSCC, and I now can't wait to see what storytelling possibilities this opens up.

Maybe you're citing the wrong TERMINATOR. I was just reading yesterday that the new T flick is going to include some TSCC continuity but pretend that T3 didn't happen (ignore/invalidate it.) So maybe this trek09 is going to be T3, not TSCC?

Can you tell me where you saw this? As far as I was aware, and as someone else has said, TSCC ignores the events depicted in T3, but Salvation does not, and this wouldn't change regardless of whether or not either branch of the timelilne references events which occur on the other.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

After recently finding out that the new Trek movie (which I'd previously had very little real interest in) is going to be set in an alternate timeline, I've been perusing this forum, and have noticed a lot of complaining about this and how it's going to disrupt the existing Trek continuity, and all I have to say is this:
Calm down, people.

This new movie isn't going to invalidate the existing Trek universe any more than "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" has 'invalidated' the existing Terminator movies and the timeline they inhabit. Abrams new ST is the Trek equivalent to TSCC, and I now can't wait to see what storytelling possibilities this opens up.

Maybe you're citing the wrong TERMINATOR. I was just reading yesterday that the new T flick is going to include some TSCC continuity but pretend that T3 didn't happen (ignore/invalidate it.) So maybe this trek09 is going to be T3, not TSCC?

Can you tell me where you saw this? As far as I was aware, and as someone else has said, TSCC ignores the events depicted in T3, but Salvation does not, and this wouldn't change regardless of whether or not either branch of the timelilne references events which occur on the other.

Plus if thats true what's the point of watching the show you can only have Terminator Salvation continuing from TSCC if Skynet's creation can't be averted. Meaning their no point to the show, which is kind of a bad idea.

 

[Eric Cheung]

Maybe the point of TSCC is that it's a show about John Connor coming-of-age, and Sarah Connor learning to let him go.

Also, there are elements of T3 in TSCC, such as Sarah Connor's cancer. They even cast a John Connor that looks kind of like a cross between Edward Furlong in T2 and Nick Stahl in T3. I had a theory that TSCC ends with going back in time to where they would be had they not made the jump, possibly even realizing that judgement day couldn't be stopped, and that events would play out as they had in T3 or something.

But more likely it is a divergent timeline like the new Trek movie. Either way, I'm looking forward to T4 and I'm interested in seeing how much they tie it into other Terminator stories.

 

[xortex]

Maybe the point of TSCC is that it's a show about John Connor coming-of-age, and Sarah Connor learning to let him go.

Also, there are elements of T3 in TSCC, such as Sarah Connor's cancer. They even cast a John Connor that looks kind of like a cross between Edward Furlong in T2 and Nick Stahl in T3. I had a theory that TSCC ends with going back in time to where they would be had they not made the jump, possibly even realizing that judgement day couldn't be stopped, and that events would play out as they had in T3 or something.

But more likely it is a divergent timeline like the new Trek movie. Either way, I'm looking forward to T4 and I'm interested in seeing how much they tie it into other Terminator stories.

Now, the Terminator seems like BSG and the matrix. It was also the plot of a Buck Rogers episode with Jaime Curtis.

 

[flightmech73]

Man all this back and forth on time lines is making me space sick Me I'm just having a fun time watching entertaining stories from some of my favorite subjects.

 

[captcalhoun]

Salvation does feature Kate Connor - played by Bryce Dallas Howard - HOWEVER, it's set in 2018 TEN years after J-Day, not 14 after T3's J-day...(which was summer 2004)

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Well. considering that the whole damned franchise revolves around time traveling and alternate timelines, I don't see how TTSCC can be considered as violating any Terminator 'canon' no matter what they do.

This is the problem with and the easy-out of time travel franchises, the dreaded reset button and reboot button.

-Shawn

 

[Hello It's Me!]

Interesting Thread...I love TSCC - whole family does. Unfortunately for all of us it was not made as an HBO or showtime series. The commercials are such a pain...

As for the connection to Star Trek....merely coincidence...

 

[TrekGuide.com]

There was a recent "Terminator" episode where Reese's girlfriend from the future remembered events that happened to Reese, but he did not remember the same events.

They concluded that Reese was making actual changes to the timeline, and that the woman came back from a different future timeline than the one Reese came back from.

So, following that logic, each "Terminator" movie and TV episode, in which either a human or android comes back in time, is creating a whole new timeline than the one depicted in the previous episode.

In fact, the only thing all the timelines have in common is the existence of John Connor.

The final "Terminator" story should show old John Connor going back in time and killing his mother (or just killing Kyle Reese in the future so he never goes back in the first place), so that he himself never existed, thus causing the entire "Terminator" timeline not to exist.

Maybe the paradox that resulted in Connor's birth is what caused Judgment Day in the first place, and the only way to prevent it is for Connor to erase himself from history.

 

[DigificWriter]

I haven't watched TSCC in a while (I've been too busy), but that sounds like one heck of an arc.

Getting back to my original point, I think that if we look at what Abrams and Co. are doing with their "Star Trek" in the same light as what the producers of TSCC have done (which is to branch off from a certain point and create their own storyline from that point, thus creating their own separate timeline), it will make things easier to grasp. The existence of the TSCC timeline doesn't in any way negate the existence of the 'T3' timeline; they exist simultaneously, and I see no reasons, at least at this point, why the 'Abrams timeline' and the existing Trek timeline can't co-exist also.

 

[trekkerguy]

Bryce Dallas Howard

 

[Timo]

I actually thought that TSCC was created as a vehicle to (retroactively) make T3 possible in the first place?

I mean, the story can't really flow from T2 to T3 because Skynet is dead / will not be born at the end of T2. It takes TSCC and its new variety of past incursion (constructive rather than merely destructive or protective) to raise Skynet from the dead. In that sense, TSCC is a bit closer to SG1 than to neo-BSG: it makes multi-flavored lemonade out of very sour lemons, but it does use those original lemons rather than starting all anew. It just benefits from having two good movies to support it before the lemon one comes around, while SG1 had to start from just that one clunker.

TSCC at least creates some continuity and story logic where there previously was none, while admittedly doing all sorts of collateral damage (and simultaneously creating quite logical if annoying excuses for that damage). STXI isn't the answer to an original shortage of story logic in a similar manner, and doesn't agree to stay subservient to any earlier material, which is probably a bad thing - but it, too, obviously comes with a number of quite logical if annoying excuses for what it does.

As for the timeline logic, surely TSCC only follows the original logic of T2 where future is always at flux and time travelers from one future can create another without negating their own birth. That logic, typical of virtually all time travel stories save BTTF, can be retroactively applied on the original Terminator as well: the predestination cycle there would just be an allowed side effect of an universe that is in flux, not a necessary feature of the time travel mechanism.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Admiral_Young]

Basically what I took from the writers comments about the upcoming film is that there are three timelines that we're dealing with in this movie. The main one that we're all familar with that carries on from Nemesis then an alternative track B that is created the moment Nero ( I keep on wanting to call him Emperor Nero) leaves our timeline to back to the past in an attempt to create yet another alternate timeline. This is also the timeline that Spock will travel back to in order to provide information to the younger Kirk to stop Nero's plan and restore the timeline. However it seems that whatever Nero did has already effected the past and created a third timeline...track c which is the continution of Star Trek "a rebooted" universe and track D. Damn...this is confusing. All of these timelines can exist according to Orci and Kurtzman's claiming of quantum theory and specifically alternative timelines. Does that help any?

 

[DigificWriter]

I actually thought that TSCC was created as a vehicle to (retroactively) make T3 possible in the first place?

No. TSCC, as has been already stated, completely ignores T3. The majority of the events of T3 take place in 2004, while, in TSCC, we have Judgment Day being pushed back to 2011 after the events of T2, and the majority of the events of the series taking place in the present day (2007 as of the start of the series).

Meanwhile, we know that the T3 timeline still exists (thanks to the character of Kate Brewster Connor, who is exclusive to that timeline, appearing in T:S), although it apparently has undergone a few changes of its own between the events of T3 and the events which will take place in T:S.

 

[Saul]

If there are any Dragon Ball Z fans reading this then read on. Spoilers for ST movie and DBZ series.


This reminds me more of the Time Travel Trunks did. You could compare Spocks tiem travel into the past like Trunks. Trunks couldn't change his own future timeline but he could change the past and so could cell. When Trunks returned to the future it was his own future unchanged even though past events had changed and the future from that point was no longer the same.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Plus if thats true what's the point of watching the show you can only have Terminator Salvation continuing from TSCC if Skynet's creation can't be averted. Meaning their no point to the show, which is kind of a bad idea.

I think that is the general idea of the show, even if some people think otherwise. In an interview with Josh Friedman, he said that the show wasn't really about them stopping Skynet so much as how the characters developed as they tried (and I believe he alluded that they may ultimately fail). To me, and probably you, this is bullshit. It's like the ending of Voyager where they say that the voyage was all that mattered, which is also complete BS. Character development is awesome, but not at the expense of a plot. Some people will care about the plot or the consistency.

While Star Trek XI is supposedly alternate, I don't think that SCC is a good comparison at all because it is not alternate, just different. There is no real point of divergence in the terminator timeline, where STXI supposedly does have a divergence point. SCC just ignores T3, so there is no Kate Brewster, General Brewster, T-X, or any of the other characters and events. The cancer was purely a coincidental nod.

Also, I hope STXI isn't nearly as convoluted as SCC.