Time Travel in Star Trek 11: Good or Bad?

[number6]

Star Trek is NOT Doctor Who! ENOUGH WITH THE FRACKING TIME TRAVEL STORIES ALREADY!!

Enough??? Like someone said up thread. Only two movies involved timne travel.

Since I haven't seen the movie, I cant say how good or bad the time travel element is.

I said it. No one has explained to my satisfaction why this is such an awfully big deal.. So they're using time travel.. So freakin' what?? Some of Star Trek's best moments involved time travel. Time Travel, Parallel Universes, Altered Timelines, are all classic sci-fi storytelling devices. Why not use it here? As long as this new Trek film is a good film, it shouldn't matter. Not one bit.

 

[milo bloom]

Sure Star Trek has used time travel to great effect, it's also used it for boring, bumpy-foreheaded alien of the week hit-the-reset-button-and-make-it-all-better drek.

One of my personal favorite dead-horses to beat is VOY's Year of Hell. It should have been a year of hell. It should have been 24 eps long, it should have ended with Voyager emerging from it's final fight battered, bloodied and bruised, and with some cast members not coming back. And at the end, whoever was left in charge would have said to whoever was left to pilot the ship "set a course for Earth". That would have spoken volumes more about the human spirit then Janeway's final suicide run did.

As for XI: I was hoping for a while there we'd see a "timequake" effect wash over everything at the end, restoring the visual aesthetic to what came before, but it appears that this new look is permanent and will be used going forward. I really wish wish now that they had just rebooted it and told anyone that didn't like it to smeg off. Trying to create this unholy union of reboot and canon is just unnecessarily pissing off people when it should be re-invigorating and unifying the fanbase. I would have accepted a reboot if that's what they had called it. This just seems like pandering.

 

[number6]

Sure Star Trek has used time travel to great effect, it's also used it for boring, bumpy-foreheaded alien of the week hit-the-reset-button-and-make-it-all-better drek.

One of my personal favorite dead-horses to beat is VOY's Year of Hell. It should have been a year of hell. It should have been 24 eps long, it should have ended with Voyager emerging from it's final fight battered, bloodied and bruised, and with some cast members not coming back. And at the end, whoever was left in charge would have said to whoever was left to pilot the ship "set a course for Earth". That would have spoken volumes more about the human spirit then Janeway's final suicide run did.

As for XI: I was hoping for a while there we'd see a "timequake" effect wash over everything at the end, restoring the visual aesthetic to what came before, but it appears that this new look is permanent and will be used going forward. I really wish wish now that they had just rebooted it and told anyone that didn't like it to smeg off. Trying to create this unholy union of reboot and canon is just unnecessarily pissing off people when it should be re-invigorating and unifying the fanbase. I would have accepted a reboot if that's what they had called it. This just seems like pandering.

So you saw the film? How was it?


FWIW, Brannon Braga wanted Year of Hell to be a season long arc, but was shot down by the suits. I thought the episode, as it was, was pretty good, but then I don't feel automatically cheated by the reset button. As far as how they "should have" done it... That's only a matter of opinion and no one is going to agree here. I would rather enjoy what they did for what it was and leave the hypothetical scenarios out of it. Frankly, it is rather presumptuous to believe that what I think they "should have" done would be that much better than what they did, or that anyone would give two shits about what I think they should have done.

 

[Alex1939]

As far as how they "should have" done it... That's only a matter of opinion and no one is going to agree here. I would rather enjoy what they did for what it was and leave the hypothetical scenarios out of it. Frankly, it is rather presumptuous to believe that what I think they "should have" done would be that much better than what they did, or that anyone would give two shits about what I think they should have done.

That's a pretty boring way to look at things.

 

[number6]

As far as how they "should have" done it... That's only a matter of opinion and no one is going to agree here. I would rather enjoy what they did for what it was and leave the hypothetical scenarios out of it. Frankly, it is rather presumptuous to believe that what I think they "should have" done would be that much better than what they did, or that anyone would give two shits about what I think they should have done.

That's a pretty boring way to look at things.

How so?? I prefer that to being soooooo outraged and insulted. I didn't even know Star Trek sucked until I came here. People are so obsessed with complaining. I feel like I'm at a Jewish rest home in Florida.

Oy.. it's too hot.
It's not the heat, it's the humidity
Why do they make the oatmeal so lumpy?
Someone get me a shawl, it's freezing here.

Oy, again with the time travel?
It's not the time travel, it's the reset.
Why do they make the foreheads so lumpy
Someone get me a laptop so I can write a petition.

 

[Kryton]

Having just seen the movie, I have come back from the distant future of May, 2009 to warn you that there IS NO TIME TRAVEL in this film!

Apparently, Abrams will read this thread between December and May and changed the entire plot in editing.

Weird.

Oh, and President Biden's working out pretty well. Who knew Obama would flake out and resign so soon after the inauguration! Crazy times.

 

[milo bloom]

They've as much as admitted that they're using a time-travel schtick to get around the changes to the characters and the look of the ship. We've seen how well how that's worked in the past, and I don't think it's a far stretch to be mildly worried.


As I've noted in other threads, I'm still overall optimistic to see this. They're taking a fresh approach while still folding in concepts we all know and love. I hope it works. I'm just not sure of it.

 

[Nowhere Man]

I'm not agiant time travel stories, however I wish they would have made a straight up prequel to TOS a real story showing how the crew comes together like JJ. said he was doing. It seems to me the "Alternate" timeline makes the movie a little bit in significant to me. Don't get me wrong, I think the movie will be good, but it feels disconected when you use alternate timeline to explain away changes. It seem too easy.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Time travel is often used badly, but hey, I won't discount it sight unseen. And if the only difference in the "new" timeline vs the old is the interior decoration of the Enterprise, that's not something that will make me lose too much sleep.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The only reason I wouldn't like time travel as it's used in this film is that it basically wipes out the character of Kirk.

Spoiler: ST XI

Now as I understand it, Nero changes history such that Kirk's parents are both killed, and Jimmy is raised by his drunk uncle. Thus, Kirk grows up as a bitter, clumsy, oafish drunk himself. Where's the heroic Captain we can relate to? The stack of books with legs? The fine, upstanding Starfleet officer? All gone. What makes this Jim Kirk anything like OUR Jim Kirk? With just one stroke of time travel, one of the greatest captains in Starfleet history ceases to exist and will never be seen again. I cannot be the only one who would have a problem with that...

 

[Kryton]

Dude...that's what future old-man Spock is for!

 

[Captain Robert April]

So, Obi-Spock Kenobi is gonna be Li'l Kirk's father figure now?

 

[LutherSloan]

I don't really care that much either way. Trek can work either with or without time travel. I'm glad that they were at least able to bring back Nimoy for this one, for 'passing of the torch' purposes.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The only reason I wouldn't like time travel as it's used in this film is that it basically wipes out the character of Kirk.

The writers have said they were inspired by the early Diane Carey novels, including "Best Destiny", in which young Kirk is a rebellious tearaway, years before he became a studious stack of textbooks on legs.

The recent William Shatner novel, "Academy: Collision Course", also portrays young Kirk as an impetuous tearaway with no respect for authority whatsoever.

But then, what would Shatner know about the character of Kirk?

 

[Nerys Myk]

The stack of books with legs pretty much vanished when the show was picked up and the writers moved towards Shatner's strengths and away from Roddenberry's sketch of the character. It was one line and is in contrast with much of what we would learn later.

 

[Sharr Khan]

The only reason I would hate time travel would be if it ended in a reset button which is the real problem with time travel stories - there likely won't be a reset button here time travel will have lasting consequences.

Sharr

 

[USS Excelsior]

It depends on the story they right which would determine if the time travel is good or bad.

Better to have time travel than have old Spock as the only real character, and where the TOS characters and scenes play out entirely on the holodeck where old Spock is running the program.

 

[trekkerguy]

As long as this new Trek film is a good film, it shouldn't matter. Not one bit.

Ding ding ding!

 

[MisterPL]

I don't have a problem with time travel so long as it's forward.

 

[24thcenstfan]

I think whether or not the time travel aspect will be good or not will depend heavily on the believability factor. How well it works into the story.

In general, I’m not a proponent of time travel or alternate universe stories. I think it is often a lazy copout for writers. Instead of spending time writing a substantive episode or movie that fits into “our timeline”, they go off into “it never happened la la land”.

That being said, not all time travel is bad IMO. I enjoyed TVH immensely.