There is no prime timeline anymore

[Mr. Scott]

If someone watches a basketball game, and Team A beats Team B 110 to 100, would this event have been different because that person was there at that point in time?

I have a belief in alternate universes. This plane of existance is one of countless ones spread across eternity.

Everything anyone does changes the timeline and you would be surprised at the small choices that people have made that because of those actions saved their lives, or had those lives lost.

 

[Sci]

Yes, I am pleased Star Trek still lives. But my Star Trek, if you will, is now over. I will never get anymore of that universe, that is my point. I am not an idiot.

You do realize the likelihood of there ever having been another movie or show with any of the previous characters was in the negatives anyhow, right?

The most generally marketable characters were the TNG ones, and look at Insurrection and Nemesis.

If there hadn't been a complete reboot, Trek was dead anyhow.

Well, with a new crew or a TOS recasting set in the prime universe there could have been more adventures....so I guess I held out hope. But yes, I accept that Trek was not in good shape. But this new movie was the official nail in the coffin for me that the old universe would definately see no more stories in the old timeline. It's the confirmation I had hoped not to get.

J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman are not responsible for the fact that you were living in denial. Other than novels and comics, Star Trek was dead. Dead as a doornail. Deader-than-Jacob-Marley dead. It died the evening of 13 May 2005 when the last two episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise, "Terra Prime" and "These Are the Voyages...," aired. That you refused to accept this prior to the release of the Abrams film did not make it any less true.

Star Trek was dead when Abrams and Company found it. They resurrected it. They took a rotting corpse and gave it new life.

Star Trek: Born 8 September 1966. Died 3 June 1969. Reborn 7 December 1979. Died again 13 May 2005. Reborn again 8 May 2009. It's a goddamn miracle.

And, by the way, Abrams and Company resurrected Star Trek in such a way that made it accessible to the general public while still allowing future producers the ability to create new stories in the prime universe, as you would prefer to see, if they so choose. Such a choice seems unlikely now, but I think you should bear in mind that Abrams and Company did not take away the option of future "prime universe" stories from future creators.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Other than novels and comics, Star Trek was dead. Dead as a doornail. Deader-than-Jacob-Marley dead. It died the evening of 13 May 2005 when the last two episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise, "Terra Prime" and "These Are the Voyages...," aired. That you refused to accept this prior to the release of the Abrams film did not make it any less true.

Star Trek was dead when Abrams and Company found it. They resurrected it. They took a rotting corpse and gave it new life.

Star Trek: Born 8 September 1966. Died 3 June 1969. Reborn 7 December 1979. Died again 13 May 2005. Reborn again 8 May 2009. It's a goddamn miracle.

So say we (almost) All...

 

[KittySpot]

http://forum.gateworld.net/images/gw_smilies/biggrin.gif[/IMG]

YES!!!! Lol. Isn't this one of leeeeeetle those incidents that should have popped up on their radar?

 

[SantaEddie74]

Yes, the prime/"classic" timeline still exists. Just in a separate quantum reality now that Nero changed history starting in 2233. That history doesn't cease to exist. In the Picard era, Romulus is STILL destroyed in 2387. But Ambassador Spock and Nero/the Narada vanish, never to be seen again. Makes you wonder if the Federation and Starfleet held a memorial service for Spock, believing him dead in the destruction of Romulus.

 

[candle_86]

You know everyone wanted something freash and exciting, well there where 2 scripts before this one, yes 2 scripts.

First script dealt with the Enterprise F in the 25th century after a devestating war with the romuland where an omega bomb was used and now we travel @ sublight and the federation is alot more dangerous and space in general is more frighting than when ARcher took the the stars

Second Script throw out there was going to 2155 and doing the Romulan war, which would have been exciting and fun to watch.

instead we ended up with this. There where ideas, Abrams is just a lazy worthless ass.

 

[0073735963]

I'm chiming in because I'd like some people to discuss a few things that I haven't seen mentioned yet and my brain is too swiss-cheesed.

The writers explanation in the movie and in interviews is perfectly fine by me. It's not a complete reboot like Batman Begins etc, but if the only "reboot" is their laws of time travel, fine by me...because again...it's been 7 years since Nemesis bombed and we wouldn't be seeing anything from that timeline again anyway. I'm actually in the middle of reading the relaunch books from DS9 and would look forward to "prime" timeline books dealing with the destruction of Romulus etc.

Anyways, since going back in the past creates a brand new timeline, please help me understand what would happen if you went into the future, under these "rules". You would never be able to get back to the timeline you came from right? So even if Spock wanted to get back to his original timeline at the end of the movie, he can't. If he went to the future, it would just be the future of the most current timeline he's in right (or can he go back through the black hole that he came from because somehow it also creates a link between the two lines or something)? I just want to understand because it's fun to think about all this stuff, even if it over works the brain a bit.

 

[candle_86]

I'm chiming in because I'd like some people to discuss a few things that I haven't seen mentioned yet and my brain is too swiss-cheesed.

The writers explanation in the movie and in interviews is perfectly fine by me. It's not a complete reboot like Batman Begins etc, but if the only "reboot" is their laws of time travel, fine by me...because again...it's been 7 years since Nemesis bombed and we wouldn't be seeing anything from that timeline again anyway. I'm actually in the middle of reading the relaunch books from DS9 and would look forward to "prime" timeline books dealing with the destruction of Romulus etc.

Anyways, since going back in the past creates a brand new timeline, please help me understand what would happen if you went into the future, under these "rules". You would never be able to get back to the timeline you came from right? So even if Spock wanted to get back to his original timeline at the end of the movie, he can't. If he went to the future, it would just be the future of the most current timeline he's in right (or can he go back through the black hole that he came from because somehow it also creates a link between the two lines or something)? I just want to understand because it's fun to think about all this stuff, even if it over works the brain a bit.

The easiest way to think about this I think is along the lines of the Tholians Interphasic rift, where spock and nero fall into an alternate universe where things unfolded diffrently, its the only honest way to think about it. We know many do exist because of TNG Paralles established that. And Id have to say it worked more that way than actual time travel. IF Abrams had done is homework this would have been a better explanation.

 

[Lonemagpie]

Anyways, since going back in the past creates a brand new timeline, please help me understand what would happen if you went into the future, under these "rules". You would never be able to get back to the timeline you came from right? So even if Spock wanted to get back to his original timeline at the end of the movie, he can't. If he went to the future, it would just be the future of the most current timeline he's in right (or can he go back through the black hole that he came from because somehow it also creates a link between the two lines or something)? I just want to understand because it's fun to think about all this stuff, even if it over works the brain a bit.

If he travelled forward in the Abramverse timeline he'd get to the future of that line, not the future he came from. OTOH if he went back through the hole he came from, who knows?

 

[Tarek71]

I didnt think TOS era was a bad idea. I dont think a re-booted TOS represents laziness, anymore than Batman Begins was laziness. Batman, Superman, James Bond all get reboots, along with Battlestar Galactica, and almost in every recent case, it was a very good outcome, IMO.

Much older stories like Arthurian Saga, Dracula, Hercules, Sherlock Holmes, etc also get endless remakes and reimaginings with some better than others.

That Star Trek has joined this long list of great and good stories and epics is a good thing, and inevitable I think. Sure, not all Batmans are good, some stunk. Some Sherlock Holmes movies were forgettable, and some Hercules stories were god-awful. But some were amazing.

NuTrek is ok. I like it. No its not the best thing I have ever seen. Its not even the best Trek I have ever seen. But its got alot of potential, and I am willing to just wait and watch. We may get 3 movies and thats it. Done. Or we may get still more reboots by other writers someday. We could even have a series in a different continuity than the movies, although I doubt that, for now.

In any case, I think that there are certain tales and certain characters that are immortal, and will be told and retold on into the future, and that isnt laziness, but a testament to how these characters and settings appeal to people on a deep level no matter the time they live in.

 

[CommanderTrip]

This really isn't all that hard. I think it's just some people have trouble letting go.

Why is it such a crime for some fans to have that detailed universe of 40 years as one of the reasons for their fandom? Why do they have to let it go? Because you have decided to why are they required to do so?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never said it was a crime. I never said anyone had to let go. I'm not holding a gun to your head telling you to like the movie or piss off. My point is that the reason a lot of disgruntled fans are displeased with this reboot is because the franchise is going to be different. Some people want it to be the same old story that it was before because it appeals to what interests them. If it doesn't interest you anymore, then why waste your time with it?

 

[Ovation]

You know everyone wanted something freash and exciting, well there where 2 scripts before this one, yes 2 scripts.

First script dealt with the Enterprise F in the 25th century after a devestating war with the romuland where an omega bomb was used and now we travel @ sublight and the federation is alot more dangerous and space in general is more frighting than when ARcher took the the stars

Second Script throw out there was going to 2155 and doing the Romulan war, which would have been exciting and fun to watch.

instead we ended up with this. There where ideas, Abrams is just a lazy worthless ass.

Neither of those ideas would have had the broad general appeal that the owners of the property were after. Paramount is a business, not a charity for fan-fic proposals like these. As a long-time fan, I would probably watch something like either of these and I might even, if done well, enjoy them. However, as the head of a mega-sized film studio, I would never approve either of these ideas if my goal was to generate maximum revenue for my company. Given the early results so far, I'd say the studio chose the right path to meet its goals.

 

[Photoman15]

You know everyone wanted something freash and exciting, well there where 2 scripts before this one, yes 2 scripts.

First script dealt with the Enterprise F in the 25th century after a devestating war with the romuland where an omega bomb was used and now we travel @ sublight and the federation is alot more dangerous and space in general is more frighting than when ARcher took the the stars

Second Script throw out there was going to 2155 and doing the Romulan war, which would have been exciting and fun to watch.

instead we ended up with this. There where ideas, Abrams is just a lazy worthless ass.

Those are two of the stupidest, fan-wank crap ideas I've ever heard, at least to make a movie of. Thank God JJ took over and did this movie. Thank you for letting us know just how much more we owe to JJ.

 

[Davros]

It's not like this movie was cannon.

Like it (I do) or not, canon is what Paramount says it is.

No, since it is a fictional universe cannon is whatever the individual decides is cannon for themselves.

 

[Sci]

It's not like this movie was cannon.

Like it (I do) or not, canon is what Paramount says it is.

No, since it is a fictional universe cannon is whatever the individual decides is cannon for themselves.

Um, no. The term "canon" refers to the body of works upon which derivative works are based. Ergo, canon is whatever the owner of the work says it is. It is not a subjective status.

 

[Phily B]

The Star Trek canon was in a mess and in need of a reboot.

Voyager essentially destroyed the TNG era, and Enterprise whole premise was terrible from the pilot episode. Its a real shame we didn't get more RDM Trek imo, what he did with Battlestar was great and I would've liked to have see Enterprise like that.

 

[Ovation]

Like it (I do) or not, canon is what Paramount says it is.

No, since it is a fictional universe cannon is whatever the individual decides is cannon for themselves.

Um, no. The term "canon" refers to the body of works upon which derivative works are based. Ergo, canon is whatever the owner of the work says it is. It is not a subjective status.

Exactly.

 

[Australis]

The Star Trek canon was in a mess and in need of a reboot.

Voyager essentially destroyed the TNG era, and Enterprise whole premise was terrible from the pilot episode. Its a real shame we didn't get more RDM Trek imo, what he did with Battlestar was great and I would've liked to have see Enterprise like that.

Mmm, I think I know where you're coming from, but nuBSG was so bloody depressing I would have necked myself if Trek became like that.

Now, a thought for today:

Assume for a moment that JJ had gone for a prequel instead of a reboot. He would have had to have jumped through many many hoops to get canon/continuity right, and even then some whiny bitch would be in here going "ooooo, he got some tiny detail wrong". Probably several whiny bitches. And the new fans will not know what the fuss is about, and be discouraged by all the old school whining. Can you see that would have been a strong possibility?

I like that he tried to do something a bit more 'out there'. Prime U exists, nuU exists, it's all good. Life's too short to stress this much.

 

[Sci]

The Star Trek canon was in a mess and in need of a reboot.

Voyager essentially destroyed the TNG era, and Enterprise whole premise was terrible from the pilot episode. Its a real shame we didn't get more RDM Trek imo, what he did with Battlestar was great and I would've liked to have see Enterprise like that.

Which is funny, since even Ronald D. Moore has said that he wouldn't want see Trek done Ronald D. Moore-style. Moore has always said that Trek and his BSG have fundamentally different creative conceits and temperaments, and that if he ever ran a Trek series, he'd approach it from much less of a dark and pessimistic standpoint than he did BSG.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

You know everyone wanted something freash and exciting, well there where 2 scripts before this one, yes 2 scripts.

First script dealt with the Enterprise F in the 25th century after a devestating war with the romuland where an omega bomb was used and now we travel @ sublight and the federation is alot more dangerous and space in general is more frighting than when ARcher took the the stars

Second Script throw out there was going to 2155 and doing the Romulan war, which would have been exciting and fun to watch.

instead we ended up with this. There where ideas, Abrams is just a lazy worthless ass.

First of all, those films would have bombed big time. That's not speculation, that's the truth, sorry to burst your bubble.

Second, yes, way to go personally insulting someone because you didn't like their work.