Timelines, reality,star trek, canon, and the Truth!

[TrekGuide.com]

In conclusion; time travel is not inconsistantly shown in Trek at all, as I said. All scenarios follow the exact same mechanism - except for the new movie.

You're not making any sense at all. When Admiral Janeway went back in time in "Endgame," and changed history to create a new timeline where Captain Janeway and the Voyager get back to Earth 20 years earlier, how is that different from Ambassador Spock going back in time and meeting Commander Spock in this new movie? Two Janeways. Two Spocks. Two new timelines. What set of facts make this new time travel story different?

Also, in "Star Trek Generations," AFTER Picard and Soran entered the Nexus, the camera continued to show the original timeline STILL EXISTING, where the sun exploded, destroying the planet and everyone aboard the Enterprise-D. Later, Picard and Kirk went back in time to create a NEW TIMELINE, different from the one ALREADY SHOWN TO STILL EXIST AFTER PICARD LEFT IT.

Likewise, in this new film, we see on the screen that Ambassador Spock and his original timeline STILL CONTINUE TO EXIST AFTER NERO WENT BACK through the black hole.

And in "Yesterday's Enterprise," just like Admiral Janeway in "Endgame" and Ambassador Spock in "Star Trek XI," Lt. Yar from the original "Klingon war" timeline continued to live and interact with history in the new timeline, as evidenced by the existence of Sela in later episodes.

This is a completely different phenomenon from those "Back to the Future"-style episodes like "Time Squared" and "Year of Hell" where characters manage to "erase themselves" from history. In fact erasing yourself from history is quite the opposite of continuing to live in a new timeline. That's not consistent at all.

"The City on the Edge of Forever" and "Star Trek: First Contact" both showed the same exact time-travel scenario: After McCoy/the Borg go back and change history, the captain (Kirk/Picard) is pulled into the future of that new timeline where the Federation does not exist, and he makes the decision to go back and "un-change" the past.

But this is quite the opposite of the causality loop depicted in "Time's Arrow," where the characters are trapped in a time loop, helpless to change anything in the past or future, no matter how hard they try.

Some of these episodes depict predestination, while others depict free will, which are mutually exclusive. (This is the same problem with the "Terminator" films -- they depict both predestination and free will side-by-side.)

You cannot freely choose to have predestination, nor can you be predestined to make a choice of your own free will.

Both of those would have to be true if you try to shoehorn ALL episodes of "Star Trek" into some self-consistent theory of time travel.

The fact is that every episode of "Star Trek" makes up its own rules, and it is merely coincidence that any two or more time-travel episodes may be consistent with each other.

 

[RoJoHen]

The only thing that is consistent about Star Trek time travel is that they are inconsistent.

 

[BrownShatner]

Eh, if people were honest, they would just admit they're disapointed that their favorite episode/plotline is never going to get remade for the big screen.

Instead they have to cite the thoroughly imaginary SciFi Time-Travel Encyclopedia of 1983.

 

[TrekGuide.com]

There's a very good possibility that the E-C always went to the future, always took back Yar, and thus Sela was always born and was already alive in the peace timeline. It all depends on where the time rift originated, in the future, or the past.

Umm... doesn't a time rift, by definition, have to originate simultaneously in both the future and the past?

No, it connects the past timeline to the future timeline, but it is usually created by an event in one of those times, not both. (Like the black hole in "Star Trek XI" originated in the future, created by Ambassador Spock. No one in the past had anything to do with its creation.)

If you create and enter a time rift in the past, then you simply vanish and re-appear again years later in your own future. (This phenomenon is depicted in the first and last episodes of the "Terminator" TV series.) Nothing changes. Time and events simply go on naturally without you.

That's what happened to the Enterprise-C. It vanished from its own present time, into a rift created by a spread of torpedos during a fight with Romulans, so when it reappeared during the Klingon war 20 years later, that was the natural future that resulted from the Enterprise-C's disappearance.

But when you have a time rift to the past, and you have the opportunity to change the past, then you can choose whether or not to create a new timeline. The Enterprise-C could have stayed in the future and helped fight the Klingons, and there would have been only one timeline.

But when Yar decided to go back in time with the Enterprise-C, that decision then created a new, alternate timeline where there was no Klingon war, and Yar would have a half-Romulan daughter. This was the timeline depicted in every TNG episode, from "Encounter at Farpoint" to the end of the series. "Yesterday's Enterprise" just revealed that every other TNG episode was already in an alternate timeline, and the Klingon war was actually the natural course of events that resulted from the Enterprise-C vanishing into the rift.

In other words, changes to history result only with the flow of information from the future to the past. Traveling into the future, as the Enterprise-C did, doesn't change anything that already happened. But traveling to the past with knowledge of the future, as the Enterprise-C later did, DOES lead to an altered timeline, since knowing one's own future allows one to change it.

But there is also a causality loop, as depicted in "Time's Arrow," where events cause themselves, and characters have no free will to choose whether to change the past, even with knowledge of what will happen in the future.

These are two wildly inconsistent theories of time travel, depicted in two different "Star Trek" episodes. The writers of these stories each have their own theories of time travel, and there is no overall rule governing all time travel stories in "Star Trek."

 

[Nomad8324]

Are we still continuing this stuff?

Using examples from entirely different shows and from the original timeline.

WHY? it made it to the big screen IT IS the law of the land now.

And I thought I was nerdish at times.

 

[cmdrbolly]

In conclusion; time travel is not inconsistantly shown in Trek at all, as I said. All scenarios follow the exact same mechanism - except for the new movie.

You're not making any sense at all. When Admiral Janeway went back in time in "Endgame," and changed history to create a new timeline where Captain Janeway and the Voyager get back to Earth 20 years earlier, how is that different from Ambassador Spock going back in time and meeting Commander Spock in this new movie? Two Janeways. Two Spocks. Two new timelines. What set of facts make this new time travel story different?

Also, in "Star Trek Generations," AFTER Picard and Soran entered the Nexus, the camera continued to show the original timeline STILL EXISTING, where the sun exploded, destroying the planet and everyone aboard the Enterprise-D. Later, Picard and Kirk went back in time to create a NEW TIMELINE, different from the one ALREADY SHOWN TO STILL EXIST AFTER PICARD LEFT IT.

Likewise, in this new film, we see on the screen that Ambassador Spock and his original timeline STILL CONTINUE TO EXIST AFTER NERO WENT BACK through the black hole.

And in "Yesterday's Enterprise," just like Admiral Janeway in "Endgame" and Ambassador Spock in "Star Trek XI," Lt. Yar from the original "Klingon war" timeline continued to live and interact with history in the new timeline, as evidenced by the existence of Sela in later episodes.

This is a completely different phenomenon from those "Back to the Future"-style episodes like "Time Squared" and "Year of Hell" where characters manage to "erase themselves" from history. In fact erasing yourself from history is quite the opposite of continuing to live in a new timeline. That's not consistent at all.

"The City on the Edge of Forever" and "Star Trek: First Contact" both showed the same exact time-travel scenario: After McCoy/the Borg go back and change history, the captain (Kirk/Picard) is pulled into the future of that new timeline where the Federation does not exist, and he makes the decision to go back and "un-change" the past.

But this is quite the opposite of the causality loop depicted in "Time's Arrow," where the characters are trapped in a time loop, helpless to change anything in the past or future, no matter how hard they try.

Some of these episodes depict predestination, while others depict free will, which are mutually exclusive. (This is the same problem with the "Terminator" films -- they depict both predestination and free will side-by-side.)

You cannot freely choose to have predestination, nor can you be predestined to make a choice of your own free will.

Both of those would have to be true if you try to shoehorn ALL episodes of "Star Trek" into some self-consistent theory of time travel.

The fact is that every episode of "Star Trek" makes up its own rules, and it is merely coincidence that any two or more time-travel episodes may be consistent with each other.

Great post - thanks! I remembered that someone here had done a quick count and came up with about 4-5 different ways time travel had been depicted in the Trek universe, but couldn't recall exactly who or on which thread. This will definitely do.

 

[cmdrbolly]

ovation then why dont you go to school become a director and make us the star trek movie we all want or the one you want.

The audience gets to decide what it likes or doesn't like (to whatever degree of intensity they wish). That's it. That is the entire sum of the "rights" of the audience. The creators of any art form owe NOTHING to the audience except the work in question. They don't "owe" them satisfaction. The audience is not "entitled" to satisfaction. Nor do they own the product.

I don't really care if individuals choose to ignore what the creators say (see the numerous interviews where the authors EXPLICITLY state that they've applied a particular theory to explain the time travel sequences in the film and their effects--it's their story, they get to decide). I don't care if people choose to engage in cognitive dissonance by ignoring the facts. What I do care about, and what I find extremely irritating (and what often grows out of attitudes like "Abrams can say what he want's about altered time lines and so on, but he's wrong. In the end it's the fans that write the history.") is the implication that some fans can define "real Trek" (or "real Rolling Stones music" or "real Superman stories" or "real..."--well, you get the idea) for anyone other than themselves as individuals. I'm not saying that this poster (JBElliott) is necessarily doing this, but far too many "real fans" are guilty of this and their assertions are often accompanied by statements like that of JBElliott.

I stand by my statement--individual fans can define (or redefine) any element of Trek (or anything else) they wish, FOR THEMSELVES AS INDIVIDUALS. They don't get to define "Trek" (or other things) for anyone else UNLESS they are part of the creative team. That is why Abrams' is NOT wrong in the sense JBElliott says. He gets to make the determination for others--not the audience.

Bang on the button Ovation.

 

[3D Master]

Ok, since you claim to know how all this is supposed to work I'll ask you something I've been thinking about and I want to know what you think. Assuming the black hole never collapses in the prime universe, could that possibly explain how both realities exist at the same time? Or would the timeline change around the black hole no matter what?

Nope. Any protection to a timeline that a black hole gives would be limited to its influence on space-time. In other words; only where the black hole has warped space-time to the point where it can't simply change as there's no way to escape its grasp would there be any protection from time travel. Further away from the black hole things would simply change. Much like the vortex and its temporal wake in FC. Inside the wake you'd be protected, beyond it, time changes.

The only way you could have two realities, if there either there is another reality that is essentially if not entirely the same up until the time travel incident and in that reality the time travel incident simply did not occur. Of course, this is NOT the reality we've been following for the past 40 years; it just happens to be one that is, or seems, the same up until Nero and Spock going through the black hole. The other possibility, is if the travel through the black hole didn't send Nero and Spock back in time at all - it sent them to another reality back in time. In this scenario, the reality you see in the Star Trek movie, is not, and was never, the reality we followed for the past 40 years.

However, whether there are two realities matters not. What matters is that this movie is just plain wrong on multiple levels, most importantly that it stabs a stake to Star Trek's heart - the secular humanism leading to positive future that lies at its core. To continue onward with his wrongness is just... wrong.

 

[3D Master]

In conclusion; time travel is not inconsistantly shown in Trek at all, as I said. All scenarios follow the exact same mechanism - except for the new movie.

You're not making any sense at all. When Admiral Janeway went back in time in "Endgame," and changed history to create a new timeline where Captain Janeway and the Voyager get back to Earth 20 years earlier, how is that different from Ambassador Spock going back in time and meeting Commander Spock in this new movie? Two Janeways. Two Spocks. Two new timelines. What set of facts make this new time travel story different?

The difference is, that the future that Janeway came from, is GONE. GONE, finished, finito, it no longer exists. Janeway goes back into her own time, and CHANGES her own timeline. Trek XI tells us, that upon going back in time, it did not change the timeline, a new reality simply split apart from the original timeline, which continues onward uninterrupted. These are completely different.

Also, in "Star Trek Generations," AFTER Picard and Soran entered the Nexus, the camera continued to show the original timeline STILL EXISTING, where the sun exploded, destroying the planet and everyone aboard the Enterprise-D. Later, Picard and Kirk went back in time to create a NEW TIMELINE, different from the one ALREADY SHOWN TO STILL EXIST AFTER PICARD LEFT IT.

Going into the Nexus is NOT going back in time. They went into the Nexus, and NOT back in time. The timeline happily continues onward, because there was no time travel to be had. Picard is simply in the Nexus, and the Nexus is still moving onward. There isn't any time travel, until Picard and Kirk get out of the Nexus at an earlier point in time. And from that moment onward, time is changed, the original is erased.

Likewise, in this new film, we see on the screen that Ambassador Spock and his original timeline STILL CONTINUE TO EXIST AFTER NERO WENT BACK through the black hole.

Which is the PROBLEM, this is completely DIFFERENT from all the time travel we've seen before. The only way this happens is if Spock and Nero did not go back in time at all, but that went over to another reality from the get go and went back in time of that reality.

And in "Yesterday's Enterprise," just like Admiral Janeway in "Endgame" and Ambassador Spock in "Star Trek XI," Lt. Yar from the original "Klingon war" timeline continued to live and interact with history in the new timeline, as evidenced by the existence of Sela in later episodes.

Again, the timeline got changed, it is now different. First the time became one of war - this is a changed timeline in the same reality - then the timeline goes back to one of peace; the timeline again got changed within its own reality.

In Star Trek XI, no timeline was changed, they popped up in another reality. Before Trek XI, the time travel was consistent: the timeline changes. In Trek XI it's suddenly, we split off a new reality while the old one continues to exist. Which is simply different and counter to all the time travel scenarios we saw before.

This is a completely different phenomenon from those "Back to the Future"-style episodes like "Time Squared" and "Year of Hell" where characters manage to "erase themselves" from history. In fact erasing yourself from history is quite the opposite of continuing to live in a new timeline. That's not consistent at all.

No, it is not, it is the exact same thing. You can change your timeline, thereby erasing the timeline of you changed. What happened in Year of Hell is completely different from time travel for one. And in "Time Squared" Picard arrived in the past to meet himself just like the others. Whether or not you continue on in the new timeline, because you went there - has nothing to do with whether the timeline changes, or whether you go into a new reality while the old one continues to exist.

"The City on the Edge of Forever" and "Star Trek: First Contact" both showed the same exact time-travel scenario: After McCoy/the Borg go back and change history, the captain (Kirk/Picard) is pulled into the future of that new timeline where the Federation does not exist, and he makes the decision to go back and "un-change" the past.

But this is quite the opposite of the causality loop depicted in "Time's Arrow," where the characters are trapped in a time loop, helpless to change anything in the past or future, no matter how hard they try.

Some of these episodes depict predestination, while others depict free will, which are mutually exclusive. (This is the same problem with the "Terminator" films -- they depict both predestination and free will side-by-side.)

You cannot freely choose to have predestination, nor can you be predestined to make a choice of your own free will.

Both of those would have to be true if you try to shoehorn ALL episodes of "Star Trek" into some self-consistent theory of time travel.

Wrong, you can choose to have pre-destination. The two scenarios are NOT inconsistant. It would only be inconsistant if "Time's Arrow" claims that a pre-destination paradox is the only way time travel can work. It never did, therefor there's no inconsistancy. Just because time travel can change the time line, does not mean that the time line must be changed when you travel back in time. Also, they were not helpless to change anything at all. All Guinan would have had to do was shut up and keep Picard here and the pre-destination paradox would have collapsed. She however did not, thus engineering - choosing of her own free will - the pre-destination paradox. There's no inconsistancy here at all.

The fact is that every episode of "Star Trek" makes up its own rules, and it is merely coincidence that any two or more time-travel episodes may be consistent with each other.

Nope, they all follow the same pattern: time lines can be changed.

 

[anothertrekfan]

Well, it's really unfortunate that you don't like this new path and I'm sorry that you really feel this way. I respect your views on the matter and you have some interesting points. I guess some of us choose to accept it and some of us will not. That's just the way it is. I hope someday in the future your faith in Star Trek is restored.

 

[anothertrekfan]

One other thing, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that you could accept this new movie as taking place in an alternate quantum universe such as what was seen in "Parallels"? Who could say that the black hole didn't open a door into another quantum reality and transported them back through time that way, thereby protecting the prime universe's timeline? It seems that would be the best explanation for you.

 

[Shaper079]

Since all of TNG, DS9, VOY and related movies can be argued to be the result of an altered timeline; I fail to see what the beef is about another altered timeline.

Because that was not the intent of the producers at the time. Once something was altered and fixed the timeline was back on track. An alternate timeline was not created, no matter what theory the producers of the new film have gone with. Think about it. Why have the Time Cops in DS9 fix and catalog time discrepencies if a new alternate universe was created instead??? Why would they go to the trouble. Watch the episode with Sisko in DS9.

Sadly now we are going to have the uberfans of this new film constantly state, that we have watched at least 4 different picards, a couple of siskos and janeways and at least 2 kirks these last 40 years. Im not buying it.

The episode I was thinking of is "Yesterday's Enterprise." The result of the unaltered timeline is the war scenario. The alteration occurs when the Enterprise C returns.

 

[Shaper079]

The clearest example of incongruent timelines affecting each other were "All Good Things" and "In a Mirror Darkly". These episode both involved time travel AND alternate realities. There really is no way of knowing for sure which category the movie falls into. It could even be some enormous causality loop, ie in 129 years Spock and Nero fail to return; reset; Prime timeline 129 years, Spock and Nero go back in time; reset. If this is truely an altered timeline won't it be prevented from happening in 129 years given the foreknowledge of the characters? After all the chain of events begins with the destruction of Romulus. Young Spock knows over a century in advance when that will happen and how to prevent it.

 

[3D Master]

One other thing, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that you could accept this new movie as taking place in an alternate quantum universe such as what was seen in "Parallels"? Who could say that the black hole didn't open a door into another quantum reality and transported them back through time that way, thereby protecting the prime universe's timeline? It seems that would be the best explanation for you.

If the movie itself was good and worthy of the name Star Trek, sure. But since it isn't...

 

[Movieguy12]

why dont you like this movie? i mean can you give me good reasons why? i just dont get how the time travel is different?

 

[anothertrekfan]

One other thing, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that you could accept this new movie as taking place in an alternate quantum universe such as what was seen in "Parallels"? Who could say that the black hole didn't open a door into another quantum reality and transported them back through time that way, thereby protecting the prime universe's timeline? It seems that would be the best explanation for you.

If the movie itself was good and worthy of the name Star Trek, sure. But since it isn't...

Fair enough. I hope the sequel will appeal to you more. Long live Star Trek!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Hard to believe that there is a poster who makes Captain Robert April seem rational. His limited bag of trick is always amusing. Telling Ovation, who teaches at the college level, that he lacks reading comprehension.

 

[Dar70]

In conclusion; time travel is not inconsistantly shown in Trek at all, as I said. All scenarios follow the exact same mechanism - except for the new movie.

You're not making any sense at all. When Admiral Janeway went back in time in "Endgame," and changed history to create a new timeline where Captain Janeway and the Voyager get back to Earth 20 years earlier, how is that different from Ambassador Spock going back in time and meeting Commander Spock in this new movie? Two Janeways. Two Spocks. Two new timelines. What set of facts make this new time travel story different?

Also, in "Star Trek Generations," AFTER Picard and Soran entered the Nexus, the camera continued to show the original timeline STILL EXISTING, where the sun exploded, destroying the planet and everyone aboard the Enterprise-D. Later, Picard and Kirk went back in time to create a NEW TIMELINE, different from the one ALREADY SHOWN TO STILL EXIST AFTER PICARD LEFT IT.

Likewise, in this new film, we see on the screen that Ambassador Spock and his original timeline STILL CONTINUE TO EXIST AFTER NERO WENT BACK through the black hole.

And in "Yesterday's Enterprise," just like Admiral Janeway in "Endgame" and Ambassador Spock in "Star Trek XI," Lt. Yar from the original "Klingon war" timeline continued to live and interact with history in the new timeline, as evidenced by the existence of Sela in later episodes.

This is a completely different phenomenon from those "Back to the Future"-style episodes like "Time Squared" and "Year of Hell" where characters manage to "erase themselves" from history. In fact erasing yourself from history is quite the opposite of continuing to live in a new timeline. That's not consistent at all.

"The City on the Edge of Forever" and "Star Trek: First Contact" both showed the same exact time-travel scenario: After McCoy/the Borg go back and change history, the captain (Kirk/Picard) is pulled into the future of that new timeline where the Federation does not exist, and he makes the decision to go back and "un-change" the past.

But this is quite the opposite of the causality loop depicted in "Time's Arrow," where the characters are trapped in a time loop, helpless to change anything in the past or future, no matter how hard they try.

Some of these episodes depict predestination, while others depict free will, which are mutually exclusive. (This is the same problem with the "Terminator" films -- they depict both predestination and free will side-by-side.)

You cannot freely choose to have predestination, nor can you be predestined to make a choice of your own free will.

Both of those would have to be true if you try to shoehorn ALL episodes of "Star Trek" into some self-consistent theory of time travel.

The fact is that every episode of "Star Trek" makes up its own rules, and it is merely coincidence that any two or more time-travel episodes may be consistent with each other.

That quote above is not mine.



I do understand that there are different time travel methods in Trek. But I dont believe the producers intended to have us watch different Picards and Janeways during the runs of those shows. But with this new film I can see people now thinking that is the case. After Yesterdays Enterprise, we are still watching the same universe but it is now altered to include Sela from the alternate Tasha from the changed timeline. Which IMO is changed back once C goes back to its own time.
I understand that scientifically, that may or may not be correct, Im only going by what the producers intended.

 

[saddestmoon]

3D Masters assumptions about what people think do bother me, because he seems predisposed to believing that nothing good can come of Abrams' movie - ie: my friends who are now taking an interest in TOS, based on having seen Trek XI - however, he presumes that my friends disliked Trek, because they previously had no interest in it - in other words he makes assumptions and tries to use them to argue down different viewpoints.



He assumes a siege mentality, and comes across as extremely defensive and condescending, IMO.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

Sorry for the length. Replying to/quoting several people.
----------------------------------------------------------

I can understand why some people are cross, but when you look at time travel in Star Trek it’s never been consistent and been used to explain what ever they needed it too. So this is the same sort of thing, although on much bigger scale with the big changes.

I don’t agree with the idea that the other time line is gone … it will continue as it always has done with new novels and Star Trek Online is due to be based in it as well. There could be another TV series/film for that time line again.. anything is possible … its sci-fi

I would love to think so.. But i cant see it... It would annoy/confuse all these poor new star trek fans... And we have to look after them. They are so important... Ah look at al the little newbie trekkies .. ah There so cute..

They couldn't be bothered watching it for the past 20 years(granted some weren't born at that stage) But when a guy whos writing skills allow for the creation of wait for it - People on an island, and crab monsters attacking Camcordor users - When he came on board! There all for it! Hurray! A wider audience!!!

So, basically, you have contempt for people who like the new Star Trek movie but didn't watch any of the other Trek incarnations?

Makes sense to me.

So, even though the original universe, the one we know and love can theoretically go on with new stories, new adventures, it's more likely than not that the bulk of the creative direction towards the franchise (at least, as far as films go) will be pointed towards this alternate universe/timeline that's been created.

Basically, to my understanding, the original timeline will go on into the 25th/26th/784th century with everything before it just as we've come to know it.

Right?

If that's so, then what's the bloody problem?

I'm not much for J.J. Abrams (not much for Lost and Cloverfield was just kind of average), but it seems to me that he went to some pretty decent lengths to make things open to whatever viewpoint you want to have. If you want two universes, fine. If you want just one, then that's fine, too.

The "Bloody problem" it doesnt go on. Reality was changed. TNG, DS9, VOY, even TOS exists on a redundant timeline.... Is there no one here, regardless of whether you love JJ Trek, or not that will just admit that... REDUNDANT TIMELINE.... NOT ALTERNATE UNIVERSE, The old timeline NO LONGER EXISTS or are you all living in denial... it hurts me to think of this fact but it doesnt stop me thinking of it

I can cite, probably, about three or four different reasons why this is not the case, but it would be useless because I would have to cite what we see in the actual movie and, after reading your posts, it's abundantly clear that you are already predisposed to discounting anything seen on screen in this movie --- and the sad fact is, if the *exact same movie* had the name "Braga", "Berman", or "Roddenberry" on it, I'd be perfectly free to cite my examples and you would accept them. Your problem is that you are perfectly fine with anything that Paramount puts on the screen and sticks a "Star Trek" title card in front of, unless it has JJ's name on it.

What about loyalty to fans, what about loyalty to the millions who buy box sets, and other merchandise...

Not once has anyone from Paramount, Spyglass, or Bad Robot entered my home to remove any of my box sets, comic books, novels, or other Bermanverse material. Loyalty? Are you kidding? You act as if someone took your VHS tapes and pulled the ribbon out of them, wrapped it around the VHS casing and threw it in a toilet. Your definition of loyalty is producing a movie that meets hal9500's specific standards, to hell with anyone else -- especially if they aren't an "actual fan" by whatever definition you assign that term.

REBOOT! Sorry folks, your show isnt good enough, there isnt enough action nudity, sex scenes, and car chases in it,
We need it to appeal to a wider audience,

Yeah, we didn't have anything risque in Old Trek. What about the "decon chamber" in Enterprise "Broken Bow"? As far as sex scenes, you can bet your ass that if the sensibilities of viewers allowed it at the time, Kirk's scene with Marlena in "Mirror, Mirror" would have been very different, *guaranteed*. And don't tell me you missed all of the innuendo between Riker and *every* woman (that broad in "Silicon Avatar" makes the best desserts -- Riker's favorite part of dinner). And why do you give the car chase scene in "Nemesis" a free pass?

It's been my experience in these few, short days since Star Trek came to general release, that the people who tend to insist that the movie represents not an alternate timeline but an altered timeline have been those who dislike the movie. I offer this admittedly anecdotal correlation without comment.

As it was, I was surprised in regards to the extent which Star Trek went to ensure that it was absolutely clear that the events of the rest of the canon remains, in its entirety, intact. It seems to me that there's very little room for actual debate on that point, given the film's exposition on the matter.

Nero in the true universe went back in time and changes things... In exactly the way that the borg went back and assimilated earth .. except no one stopped Nero from doing it - Therefore ALTERED!!!!!

Except it didn't alter the main timeline, it split off from it, making a divergent, ALTERNATE timeline. The original timeline continued the way it did it TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY etc etc.

Why are ppl having problems understanding this?

They're pissed off because the movie didn't have Gary Mitchell, Finnigan, Carol Marcus, Captain Garrovick, and every other fanboy wank throwaway minor character and they're trying to find ways to justify it.

Relevant Video

A Very insulting video, which calls Roddenberry a Hack...

Quick Question, it seems clear this is the forum for future fans of star trek... Where is the one for actual Fans?

More contempt for people who either A) Are being introduced to Star Trek with this movie, or B) Existing Trek fans who like this movie.

You have no authority at all as to who "actual fans" are. I like the new movie -- and yes, I'm an "actual fan" whatever the hell that means. I have Franz Joseph's Tech Manual, I have "Mister Scott's Guide to the Enterprise", the "TNG Tech Manual" .. I have all the shows on VHS or DVD -- TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, all the movies. With the exception of TOS which I saw in syndication, I saw everything else first run -- every movie -- every series. I have a bookcase with shelves full of TOS and TNG novels.

I had the toys - -the prop phasers, the prop communicators -- I was even a member of Starfleet (the Fan org) for a couple years. I was there for the incessent, nonsensical arguments on FIDONET Star Trek over whether Lt. Cmdr. Data followed the THREE LAWS due to his "Positronic Brain" -- participated in discussion threads that lasted *YEARS* over what O'Brien's Starfleet Rank was, and I even, at one time, PRINTED OUT James Dixon's Chronology to entertain myself on the fracking school bus during an hour long ride. I got my "Mr. Scott's Guide" ripped up by some assclown at school because his experience with Star Trek fans was with a then buddy of mine who acted JUST LIKE YOU when it comes to a TV show. I sure as hell like this movie, but don't question whether I or anyone else who likes it is a fan.

Its not diffcult to rewrite the movie so that its consistent with the trek universe and still kept all that action all that SFX and draw in the new audience. But he wanted to destroy the old "lore" as it would cause he is addmitly not a trek fan. And he just didnt care for all the trek that came before him. Or possibly he didnt know how important vulcan is to the star trek universe from a lack of research into star trek "lore".

There are also alot of little things that bugs more about the film. I thought the actors did their best to portray their characters given they had very little to work with. But the things that bugs me the most is they feel like they need to add some kissing into the film because sex sells so they had Uhura kissing spock. Now now where is that even hinted in the originals. And that part about spock sending kirk into an icey planet in an escape pod where he could get eaten by a spider like creature. How believeable is that? Now anyone knowing anything about spock would not believe even at the worst conditions he would ever do that to anyone. Put kirk in the brig is the worst spock would do.

Now if you throw the old trek out the window, you'll proably like this movie. But if you are an old fan, you would feel like you have just been slapped in the face.

Where was it hinted in 79 episodes that Kirk had a son? Where was it hinted in 79 episodes and 4 movies that Spock had a brother? Just because we didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. Spock could have been having a torrid love affair with Uhura and we didn't see it. And kissing? Did you see TNG or DS9?

As regards to the lore --- some writers a few years ago tried to do a prequel show called "Enterprise" and they couldn't even take a breath without canonistas getting their panties in a wad and organizing freaking show boycotts and actively campaigning to get the show cancelled because the ship wasn't using "Lasers." Screw the old lore. I'm an old-school fan and I like the new movie and what they've done with the lore, and I saw it twice. Any "old Trek" fan who *believes* that this movie is a slap in the face quite frankly deserves it.

What is so stupid is that throwing away everything was so completely unnecessary. The whole point of having a universe such as Star Trek is that there are infinite stories to tell

As long as those stories perfectly line up to the expectations of a few loud fans who have a history of campaigning to get shows cancelled if they don't perfectly match up with their imagined canon of a time period that wasn't once documented on screen before.

I see the destruction of Vulcan as a big middle finger to those "fans" or as Nimoy would call them "dickheads" -- and I will stand right next to the writers of Star Trek XI holding up my middle finger as well.