Time Travel Again...

[Admiral_Young]

I Know that time travel is a big and normally popular plot device in telling stories in sci-fi but is anyone getting a little tired of them using it constantly in Trek movies? If they wanted to tell an original series story, and I'm all for that, using a new cast, then why didn't they simply just do that? Was it that they couldn't figure out a decent enough story on their own that they had to come up with a convulated time travel story to explain why Spock is in the movie and a future villain hellbent on destroying the Federation? I don't see why we couldn't just have Spock tell a flashback story about the first time he meets Jim Kirk or whatever. Now don't get me wrong, I'm pretty psyched for this movie, I'm just a little disappointed that they're using time travel again when it isn't really necessary. I also realize that in order to capture the attention of a general audience they need to do something splashy and action oriented so you can't really get into any of the original series stuff but I'm sure they could have come up with something...time travel is becoming old IMO.

 

[God Magnus]

...time travel is becoming old IMO.

I've seen this sentiment in a lot of places and while I can empathize with it, I don't sympathize. To me, any plot device can "get old" if not used correctly. You mentioned a character telling a story for instance - that's been done plenty in Hollywood as well. So long as the story is strong, things like time travel or flashbacks are just tools to tell the tale IMO. They're part of the story, not its defining factor. But I'm aware that I'm probably in the minority on this one.

 

[Irishman]

I Know that time travel is a big and normally popular plot device in telling stories in sci-fi but is anyone getting a little tired of them using it constantly in Trek movies? If they wanted to tell an original series story, and I'm all for that, using a new cast, then why didn't they simply just do that? Was it that they couldn't figure out a decent enough story on their own that they had to come up with a convulated time travel story to explain why Spock is in the movie and a future villain hellbent on destroying the Federation? I don't see why we couldn't just have Spock tell a flashback story about the first time he meets Jim Kirk or whatever. Now don't get me wrong, I'm pretty psyched for this movie, I'm just a little disappointed that they're using time travel again when it isn't really necessary. I also realize that in order to capture the attention of a general audience they need to do something splashy and action oriented so you can't really get into any of the original series stuff but I'm sure they could have come up with something...time travel is becoming old IMO.

Been tired of it for decades.

Still, that doesn't mean it can't be done well here.

 

[Franklin]

One of six TOS movies was time travel.

Sorry they're not making the movie you wanted them to.

 

[Irishman]

One of six TOS movies was time travel.

Sorry they're not making the movie you wanted them to.

But an awful lot of Trek is time-travel.

Arguably too much.

 

[Franklin]

One of six TOS movies was time travel.

Sorry they're not making the movie you wanted them to.

But an awful lot of Trek is time-travel.

Arguably too much.

Well, just five TOS episodes, and in "The Naked Time" it was just three days. The only episode that really involved messing with and correcting a timeline was "The City on the Edge of Forever."
As far as the rest of Trek goes, you might be surprised how few episodes were time travel as a percentage of all episodes. As a wise man once said, "You can look it up."

 

[Unionized Elf]

Time travel has been done to death in Star Trek. You could say I have zero interest in seeing it in another movie.

If Abrams wanted to do a TOS reboot, then do a straight reboot of TOS. Don't muck it up with unnecessary bullshit about time travellers from the 24th century or what not.

 

[shapeshifter]

We gotta remember, we fans alone do not a money-maker, make.

The studio isn't doing this to pander to what "We" want, they want to make a gagglion dollors so that means "non fans" have to be serviced with hugh blockbuster style stories every time.

Remember INS and NEM? Stories which kissed the butt of this "sick of time travel, lets do a normal story" idea and look what it got them.

TT stories on the big screen have been more successful than the "episodic" story's have been so it's no wonder they are going to that particular well again.

The kind of stories you seek are better designated for the novels or TV series, imo.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Was it that they couldn't figure out a decent enough story on their own that they had to come up with a convulated time travel story to explain why Spock is in the movie and a future villain hellbent on destroying the Federation?.

The time travel part of this movie is not my favorite part either.

But there is nothing that excludes a time travel story from being a great story and we have absolutely no real info to decide if Trek XI's time travel use is convoluted or not decent.

It's the story they wanted to tell.
I'm sure they could have come up with 100 more storylines to do but this is the one they chose, the one they felt was right.
3 months until we know if it is a good or a bad one.

 

[Psion]

Forget time travel, I'm sick of the "We've got to save the Earth!" plot.

• Star Trek: The Motion Picture -- V'Ger is about to pattern Earth's life for data storage.
• Star Trek: The Voyage Home -- A whale probe trashes its aquarium looking for its prize pets.
• Star Trek: First Contact -- The Borg go behind enemy lines to launch a plan best launched from home.
• Star Trek: Nemesis -- The Romulans and their previously unseen cohorts decide they want to go all Pompeii on the heart of the Federation.

I much prefer the smaller-scale stories, one of the things I liked about Insurrection was that it really didn't focus on anything that was life-or-death outside of the Baku village. Sure, there were grander things going on, but it was a small story that I thought was the best of the Next Generation films.

Time travel, on the other hand, has been a part of two Trek movies so far. That certainly isn't underusing it, but I'd like to see an intelligent exploration of the subject. I doubt this next movie will do that, but I'm sure it will still be entertaining.

Consider the series Doctor Who where the whole show is about time travel. And creepy aliens from all over the universe looking to invade London. But never mind that aspect, the important thing is that they use time travel very frequently, and unfortunately, often without thinking it through carefully. But every now and then, they come up with a smashing good episode specifically about time travel. "Blink" and you'll miss it.

I'd really rather not hamper creative people with directives about what they can and can't attempt to do in movies or TV shows. While this upcoming film might be mindless action adventure, the one after that might be Star Trek's answer to "Blink".

I realize that you're not looking to be an iron-fisted arbiter of all things Trek -- that's my job, after all -- but give the next film's story a chance anyway and put it on your personal treasure or rubbish pile afterwards. Maybe it'll surprise us both and have some neat twists about time travel neither of us have yet thought about.

...


And I might need to be prepared for simians flying out of my rectum, too.

 

[SonicRanger]

Time travel was used in the most profitable TOS movie and the most profitable TNG movie. What do you think the studio is going to order for the next film, which desperately needs to be a success?

One could also argue that there is an awful lot of flying around in starships in Trek films, but does that mean the new film shouldn't have that?

 

[Cap'n Claus]

Actually, in this case, time travel works to their benefit. Think about this for a sec: say the new team decided to just go ahead and just tell the "origin" story of the TOS era. Exactly as you are going to see it, in their vision. No explanation for all of the changes of the ships, sets props, characters and so on.

Fan reaction? Pretty seriously poor.

Now, say they just made a Star Trek TOS origin story catered to being true to the continuity of the original show.

Fan reaction? Probably pretty good.
Box Office Potential: Hideously low.

Solution: Bring in Nimoy to make it Authentic Trek, use time travel to explain why everything is different and then they can go on and create any story they wish, make any adaptation they feel necessary without actually violating any original continuity. And, they get Trek fans behind it because it's not a negating of the original. Sure, they may not like what they see, but at least it's not an attempt to ignore the old classic.

Time travel stories will exist until time stops. It doesn't matter how often it is used, it matters how well. "I'm sick of Time Travel"...why not "I'm sick of Space Travel?" It's a tool to tell a story. And in this case, it's a brilliant move to try to include old and new fans. How many other remakes really try to bring in the old fans by not alienating them?

It's a nice change.

 

[Sharr Khan]

...time travel is becoming old IMO.

I've seen this sentiment in a lot of places and while I can empathize with it, I don't sympathize. To me, any plot device can "get old" if not used correctly. You mentioned a character telling a story for instance - that's been done plenty in Hollywood as well. So long as the story is strong, things like time travel or flashbacks are just tools to tell the tale IMO. They're part of the story, not its defining factor. But I'm aware that I'm probably in the minority on this one.

I agree completely more over we can't hold a new set of producers responsible for the failings of the previous bunch which the basic assertion that "time travel is over done" seems to do.

Are we to restrict the creative impulses of all producers on new Trek from ever using what some fans perceive as being "overused"? That is creative fascism. There sure are alot of other SciFi/Trek cliches then we might as well call for abolition as well.

A different set of minds at work means a likely more fresh result.

Time travel is a component of the story, but likely not the whole of the story and usually the best stories its only used as a means to move the characters into action rather then the heart of the story itself.

Sharr

 

[Garak]

At first I was wary of the time travel element, but having seen two trailers now I think this movie can pull it off.

 

[btflash]

personally i think the whole time travel, timeline change thing is just a crutch for unoriginal writting. just my opinion. i could be wrong. we will know in about 3 months.....

 

[I am not Spock]

Precisely 4 of the 11 Trek movies involve time travel. That ain't such a bad track record.

TVH
Generations
First Contact
Trek XI

And it's debatable whether the Nexus in GEN actually constitutes time travel or not. I know the various Trek series have done time travel a lot, but its not that common in the movies.

 

[BenRoethig]

It may be warranted in this case. They really had two choices if they wanted to do something fresh, they either had to do a complete reboot that you might alienate a very large portion of your audience or you can tell your story in a way that sidesteps continuity. In this case, it involves creating a parallel timeline. They're able to do things that would be very constrained if time travel had not been involved.

Could they do a more traditional origin story that is set within continuity? Yes, they could, but I doubt it could match the stakes of this movie.

 

[Ptrope]

personally i think the whole time travel, timeline change thing is just a crutch for unoriginal writting. just my opinion. i could be wrong. we will know in about 3 months.....

QFT

As noted above, "only" 4 of 11 movies? Four?! That's a huge percentage. And then we had an entire series that started with the premise of time travel.

The time travel in STXI seems to be a huge plot crutch to solicit 'permission' from the fans to, essentially, reboot the concept, without actually committing themselves to it - just as time travel is an escape hatch for inconsistent storytelling, it appears to be an escape hatch for J.J. and the writers in case they don't somehow bring in all the mainstream audience who don't give a damn about Star Trek (which I still highly doubt, just because I've seen nothing to make me believe they much committed to a 'fresh new approach,' either); for the fans, they can always say, "Well, we didn't actually contradict anything in the history of Trek, so it can all continue onward from here without any conflict." More than anything, that's what bugs me about this movie - they didn't seem to commit to anything - to the fans, the mainstream audience, or the concept.

Either do something new that fits into the established history (not another idiotic "how it all started" script!), or reboot it and thoroughly clean house; they've apparently done neither. It's hard to respect J.J. for being a p****.

 

[Franklin]

So, writing can't be unoriginal without time travel? And, a story that uses it is shopworn by definition?

I know next to nothing about science fiction outside of Trek. In the good stuff, about how much of it involves time travel in some way? Does Dr. Who count as time travel?
Something like 48 of around 700 Trek series episodes (around 7 percent) involved time travel (according to Memory Alpha). And, some involved it in only a marginal way (hours, days, or months difference). Whether or not that's a lot of time travel stories is debatable. That it includes some of the most popular episodes in each series is undeniable.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So, writing can't be unoriginal without time travel? And, a story that uses it is shopworn by definition?

There are fans who have some purist notion that Trek is about space exploration, only about space exploration, and should stick to that.

Of course, that's never been true from the earliest days of TOS. It's not just that several of the Trek films have successfully used time travel to entertain millions of people (more successfully, based on their box office, than some of the other Trek movies) but that time travel was also used to good effect in a number of Trek's most popular and well-regarded television stories: "City On The Edge Of Forever" and "Yesterday's Enterprise" to name the most obvious.

If everything we've seen and all that the producers of the new Trek have said so far demonstrates one thing, it's that the people making this film know very well what they're doing and why. Nothing that the fans are complaining about right now actually has anything to do with the health or future of Star Trek; all that matters now is to see if enough people find Abrams's version of Trek entertaining enough for it to continue forward.

Does Dr. Who count as time travel?

Davies' Doctor Who is the most brilliant and entertaining thing going these days in the way of sf on television, but the DW concept of time travel almost always ignores all of the conceits, concerns and cliches of the time travel genre. Even when the Doctor travels to an actual historical period it's almost always to do battle with invaders from across the Universe.