Time Travel

[23skidoo]

No time travel in Trek XI, please. Voyager made it an overused cliche and the fanbase rejected the TCW arc on Enterprise. Plus Star Treks IV and VIII and to an extent VII all had time travel-related plots. It's been done. Move on.

I'd rather it just be a flashback movie. That's something that hasn't been overdone in Star Trek (at least to this degree) so it's more likely to be accepted by not only Trek fandom, but the casual viewers Abrams hopes to attract.

Cheers

Alex

 

[Sharr Khan]

How about, Time Travel is an over used plot device in Star Trek Flims and recently in Trek TV...period.

Thanks you made my point that I mentioned above, the only reason this is an issue at all is: "Its Star Trek" so that's what has people in an uproar. Not a good enough reason not to do time travel however, since it says nothing about quality or execution of *this project* and basing its assumptions on others work.

What people are pretty much saying: "Others who have done Trek overused time travel therefore no one else who does it should touch it even if they weren't involved with the other incarnations though they might have a super idea I don't care" again not a valid argument.

New creative team so I'm willing to wait and see what they have to offer and not reject something simply because I think I can assume how all cogs and whistles are going to fit together.

Sharr

 

[Vonstadt]

Oh! I'm sorry, I am not rejecting it, and I intend to give it a chance. It's just I am inwardly groaning because it's a theme that has been touched upon ad naseum in the Star Trek movies.

I guess what my point is, the genre of temporal travel has /already/ been touched upon previously. There seem to be VAST areas and routes that one might take to tell a story.

*shrugs* I guess I was just more hopeful of something of different plot device.

It's still Star Trek and I will see it. I don't have preconcieved notions about the film. Only the /type/ of plot device being utilized....again.

*shrugs* that was all.

Im pretty sure I'll be amongst the first few in line at my local cinema regardless

I'm an old time, long time fan

 

[sturmde]

Last I checked, we're talking about a movie set in the 23rd century.

My calendar still reads 21st.

Thus, anything is time travel.

 

[ThankQ]

Guys, time travel works when it serves the plot, but doesn't work well when it is the plot. Yesterday's Enterprise wasn't about time travel, it was about bravery, intuition and trust. It was wonderful. City on the Edge of Forever was about balancing love with responsibility, helped along by friendship. Good stuff. STIV was about all kinds of good things, none of them being time travel.

The Temporal Cold War was about being a Temporal Cold War. It had fancy and charged words, for example, "Temporal" and "Cold War". It was "let's throw some time travel and and sort it out later." Perhaps Red Foreman could have set Rick Berman straight:

"I don't understand why they aren't digging this Temporal Cold War."
"That's becasue you're a dumbass."

I can see some nice action in this plot, some chances for nods to the canon geeks, a scrappy young Kirk outfoxing cunning Romulans from the future. Sounds to me like it could work. As long as time travel is just used to get to the story and not as the story itself.

 

[John Picard]

ThankQ said:
Guys, time travel works when it serves the plot, but doesn't work well when it is the plot. Yesterday's Enterprise wasn't about time travel, it was about bravery, intuition and trust. It was wonderful. City on the Edge of Forever was about balancing love with responsibility, helped along by friendship. Good stuff. STIV was about all kinds of good things, none of them being time travel.

The Temporal Cold War was about being a Temporal Cold War. It had fancy and charged words, for example, "Temporal" and "Cold War". It was "let's throw some time travel and and sort it out later." Perhaps Red Foreman could have set Rick Berman straight:

"I don't understand why they aren't digging this Temporal Cold War."
"That's becasue you're a dumbass."

I can see some nice action in this plot, some chances for nods to the canon geeks, a scrappy young Kirk outfoxing cunning Romulans from the future. Sounds to me like it could work. As long as time travel is just used to get to the story and not as the story itself.

Very valid points that the time travel fanboys don't understand.

Something I learned studying literature in high school is that there is one fundamental story that repeats throughout all story telling, and that is the one of the hero's quest. The basic outline of the structure is that the hero comes up against and ultimately conquers adversity, an antagonist and perhaps even a protagonist.

The old "Spaghetti Westerns" that Clint Eastwood starred in were adapted from a successful formula based on Japanese samurai stories, which are, to a degree, a formula of the hero's quest. Star Wars is a classic telling of the hero's quest.

There is a lot of unknown/untold material based on the early years of Kirk. I get sick and tired of people thinking Kirk and Spock should be at the academy together along with Scotty, blah, blah, blah. Think of your life right now and those who interact with you. Now, go back 5 years, 10 year, or for some of us, 20 years. Each moment in time is different than the others because of our different life experiences. I think this idea of everyone coming up through the ranks together fused itself into the fan community because of stupid cartoons ideas like the young Looney Tunes as well as a cartoon based on the Marvel mutants all having attended high school together, when comic continuity is clear that they all met at different times of their lives.

Yes, this is science fiction, but I want a degree of believability. I WANT A DAMNED STORY. To me, a story is not how people try to go back in time to change the timeline. A perfect example of a time travel TURD is the movie "The Final Countdown".

Tell a story of young Kirk, whether he be in his academy days, a young Lieutenant, or his first test as a commanding officer with a bit of the movie interspersed with flashbacks.

No amount of fanwank fantasy nor special effects will make up for the lack of a story!!!

 

[Balthier the Great]

Sharr Khan said:
First its not 'intellectual bankruptcy' - no such thing exists when it comes to art and entertainment.

It does exist in art, I won't say it's common, but it has happen. Things like a crucifix in urine are pretty close to "intellectual bankruptcy", as it takes very little thought and almost no skill to do something like that.

I don't think a time travel plot is exactly that bad, but some stuff that people call "great modern art" I think are closer to fraud.

Second, the only reason this is a big deal to anyone is - its Star Trek, which is really silly since if it were brought up minus the label "Trek" none of us would really bat an eye.

Amazing that we're arguing about a trek movie on a Trek board.

Lets take Heroes for instance - it relies in part on time travel to tell its story... now true there is no pressing *need* to do so... but then there never is a "pressing need" for anything when it comes to the realm of fiction - but all the same Heroes has integrated a time travel element into its ongoing plotline and it actually enhances that show. We can safely assume that "Time travel doesn't equal lazy or bankrupt".

Umm no. Hiro's entire ability is to manipulate time. If you were to remove time travel, you'd have to remove one of the main characters. I'd say the same thing for the psychic cop -- mind reading isn't just an add on, because if you take it away, there's no reason to have the cop. I'd say having an entire character based on the ability to manipulate time makes time travel necessary. They're doing a good job with it.

What would make the Trek Time Travel plot different is that it isn't integral to the story. You could leave out the time travel and no one would notice, because you don't need it. And handled badly, it would make an otherwise decent story bad. That's why I'm not in love with time travel -- it's easy to pull off badly, and very hard to pull off well.

Thirdly: Given this is a whole new crew involved in this production there's zero reason to assume that however time travel is utilized or not in this movie it won't be "the same old same old" like we've seen in the past in Trek. If only because there are different people running it and in that much bring their own artistic take on it all.

As I said before, I think time travel is an easy thing to screw up. Especially if the romours are true and the time travel is part of a backdoor reboot -- that story is going to be nigh on impossible to pull off. Not saying impossible, but very hard. It's just too complex.

I'm hoping that "time travel" will turn out to mean "flashbacks" or something.

 

[sturmde]

^ Yes, but we saw how horridly that can turn out with "These are the Voyages" with Enterprise...

I hope, and frankly trust Roberto to avoid, any sort of "holoflashback"... that this will all play out as the recollections of Nimoy's post-Nemesis era Spock, teaching his first class of Romulans entering Starfleet Academy, or something like that.

Throw in Bandii syndrome as his father had, and then you can even play it as hallucinatory... why, even a hallucination of Kirk could appear. Or could it be Kirk from the Nexus... if the writers leave it open to interpretation and speculation (as I'd expect them to do with any time travel anyway), they'll generate a year of discussion as they prepare Star Trek XII: The Wrath of Kirk.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Guys, time travel works when it serves the plot, but doesn't work well when it is the plot.

Right now no one is in the position to say which is which in this case - I'm betting its more of "it serves the plot" but that's just me.

Amazing that we're arguing about a trek movie on a Trek board.

Well my point is clearly: This is only an issue because some Trek fans think "Time Travel is over done", were this another movie involving the same issue most of us here wouldn't bat an eyelid and might even cheer it on but mistakingly because its Star Trek that makes this an issue - which I don' think it is.

What would make the Trek Time Travel plot different is that it isn't integral to the story. You could leave out the time travel and no one would notice, because you don't need it. And handled badly, it would make an otherwise decent story bad. That's why I'm not in love with time travel -- it's easy to pull off badly, and very hard to pull off well.

It isn't? How can you reasonable come to that conclusion without knowing the writers intent? Where's that script? I can't tell you what is or isn't integral since I totally lack any context to judge it from - statements like the above are why I froth when I see people get all upset about this. We can't at this time say what is or is not intergral. At least I can't without proper context such as a script to judge from.

For all we know the "time travel" much like in "Back to the future" is inherent to the movie itself. Perhaps like time travel is inherent to Babylon 5 - that is its so integrated everything would fall apart without it. Not knowing script details its hard to say but those making such assertions like you have miss this.

As I said before, I think time travel is an easy thing to screw up. Especially if the romours are true and the time travel is part of a backdoor reboot -- that story is going to be nigh on impossible to pull off. Not saying impossible, but very hard. It's just too complex.

None of this can really be judged without context. You're making assumptions not really knowing the mind of those doing the creating - I've a bit more faith in those making this film and don't think its half a herculean as you seem to make it out to be.

Sharr

 

[Balthier the Great]

It isn't? How can you reasonable come to that conclusion without knowing the writers intent? Where's that script? I can't tell you what is or isn't integral since I totally lack any context to judge it from - statements like the above are why I froth when I see people get all upset about this. We can't at this time say what is or is not intergral. At least I can't without proper context such as a script to judge from.

For all we know the "time travel" much like in "Back to the future" is inherent to the movie itself. Perhaps like time travel is inherent to Babylon 5 - that is its so integrated everything would fall apart without it. Not knowing script details its hard to say but those making such assertions like you have miss this.

They've said it's an origen story. You can do origen stories without time travel. Batman Begins didn't need time travel, nor did X-Men, or Spiderman. So I don't get why Trek needs time travel.

Babylon 5 required time travel for the purpose of making Valen exist and having a prophecy make sense. They actually didn't use time travel all that much in b5.

In Back to the Future, the entire prremise of the movie is getting Marty "Back to the Future", and that can't work without time travel.

 

[Sharr Khan]

They've said it's an origen story. You can do origen stories without time travel. Batman Begins didn't need time travel, nor did X-Men, or Spiderman. So I don't get why Trek needs time travel.

No series/tv show/book *needs* time travel or well much of anything else for that matter. These things aren't about "need" they're about artistic desire. Applying a value judgment of *necessity*, particularly not knowing the story (And anyone who claims to know the *story* if full of themselves) and how it all goes together is a tad - jumping the gun.

If these rumors are true - then in this case "this origin story" does require it (not all different then saving whales was important to Trek IV), simply because its an element that at least in the writers mind helps move the story forward (pardon the pun) and really that's the only "need" that's important when you're doing fiction. There's no right or wrong way to make it.

Here again and I don't claim to know for sure of course but its likely the time travel element is as much a ("needed") part of the story as it was to "City on The Edge of Forever" or "Back to the Future" - can't say for sure but you can't dismiss that its not important to the *this story* being told without really knowing how the puzzle pieces fit together. At this point only the writers, Abrams, and Nimoy know how it all clicks its for us to discover later.

In Back to the Future, the entire prremise of the movie is getting Marty "Back to the Future", and that can't work without time travel.

There's no reason to think the same doesn't hold true here as well. Hard to dissect a plot or script or story and judge what parts are required and what parts can be cut without first reading it...

One assumes if there's a time travel element it somehow fits the story and plot at hand.

Sharr

 

[VULCANwithaSMILE]

Really this same discussion would be taking place weather it was rumored to be about time travel or anyother plot device. As I have often said to friends and messageboards around the net, most people that would describe themselves as FANS seem to hate anything new. To tell the truth I cant understand it, why do so many so called fans bash and degrade anything that anyone tries to do with there favorite franchise in the words of Spock "Fasinating".

Anyway we arent even sure that this film will be about TT, I just hope that everyone will keep a positive attitude and to kill this thing before it gets off the ground.