Trek XI to be alternate timeline, according to AICN
- Thread starter Ghostface1701
- Start date
You'll get plenty of sausage if Gay Spock has anything to say about it.
If this is true I wont be going to see it.
Well, they'll have to sacrifice a sure eight bucks here and there in order to produce a decent movie anyway. 
Probably a bit of both. Abrams likes flashbacks.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
I don't get it, if that time travel thing is happening. If the future Spock or present Spock know about the change, why don't they just do a slingshot maneuver around a star, find the Romulans, beam them up, and slingshot back?
Also, with the ease of traveling back in time, why would these Romulans think they could pull off what entire ships making a slingshot maneuver was determined not to be able to pull off - or for that matter is even considered worth wile?
Also, with the ease of traveling back in time, why would these Romulans think they could pull off what entire ships making a slingshot maneuver was determined not to be able to pull off - or for that matter is even considered worth wile?
Me too.
As much as I loved THE VOYAGE HOME and FIRST CONTACT...please...no more time travel in any TREK movies for the time being. Just set the movie during TOS itself and go from there.
In fact, it's this level of fascination and insistence on obeisance to every bit of Trek continuity that killed the Franchise.
It's like the old pre-Byrne "Superman" comics - after fifty years, Supes had been established to have a solution (usually several) to every possible kind of jeopardy or problem. He was too strong, too fast, too smart and had survived far too many attacks from every kind of kryptonite, Kryptonian supervillain, etc to ever be placed in any danger that someone who'd read the comics for more than a few years would believe for an instant. "Hey, Superman can just go back in time/put on his lead suit with the tv camera in it/get Batman to disguise himself as Clark Kent/send Supergirl to deal with the one thing while he tackles the other" etc. etc."
Time was, the turnover in readership for comics and science fiction was assumed by publishers to be about three to five years - that is, the number of folks in the audience who'd been with a series more than a few years was assumed to be negligable (this phenomenon was due to the tendency of pre-Baby Boomer generations to Grow Up and develop adult tastes). Therefore, old events in stories could be ignored.
If the studio can't successfully find a way to just ignore most of the 1966-2005 Trek Franchise in favor of concentrating on the core entertainment values of the thing, then they're screwed as far as making Trek movies or tv shows are concerned. They can not and will not go back to the old version of Trek because they're not a charitable organization for obsessives.
Well, that and years of mediocre product, but who's counting.
I would never argue for obeisance to continuity. I'm just saying that trek has the tendency to keep establishing new ways of time travel. The reason, of course, is that it always needs to be kind of eccidental or new, because otherwise it would raise the question why people don't do it routinely to solve their various problems. Which is one more reason not to use time travel at all - in trek, it has always been a lazy plot device.
One begets the other.
There can be other reasons for "mediocre product," but the overall conservative mac-and-cheese approach guarantees that it'll rarely be better than that.
Dradin, it wasn't your post I was remarking upon - it was the whole "why don't they use the diddly-bump solution from episode x-y-z" mentality.
Crappy writing screwed the franchise, not existing continuity. Most fans don't give a shit if nobody remembers the slingshot time-travel thing, but they will notice if, for example, Our Heroes are running around in upside-down Akiras spamming photon torpedoes a century or more before they should. Obvious shit, people will notice. Nitpicking has no effect any anything or anybody.
Nonsense.
Boredom killed the Franchise. The creative constraints of Trek continuity - in all areas of production, not just storytelling - were more unrelenting, day-by-day contributors to the staleness of the Franchise than "crappy writing."
Do you consider "Deep Space Nine" to be an example of "crappy writing?" The viewership decline of "Star Trek" begins in the first season of DS9 and can be traced through its seven years as steadily as the other spinoffs after TNG.
Over half the people who watched "Star Trek" at its height decided by the last years of DS9 that they'd had enough of "Star Trek." The numbers are explicit and unambiguous.
Of course, if you think DS9 was terribly written then your assertion is at least defensible. I don't much care for the series myself, but I just about never hear it derided as some kind of "disgrace to 'Star Trek.'" Yet people did not watch it in sufficient numbers to keep Trek going in that direction.
There really haven't been any advocates at the studio for the notion that "We can make Trek successful again by changing nothing but just writing it differently" since before the turn of the century. There isn't now, and there won't be.
This is why both "Enterprise" and now Abrams' movie are "soft reboots," for lack of a less clumsy term.
Abrams should concern himself with just trying to do it as good as Gene did it first. That's the hard part. I wouldn't change the color of the railings either. Details are as important as vision and what would be the point ? It's not reality, it's a vision - it's not a damn dark gritty submarine. I hate that stuff. It was overly dramatic, overly brightly optimistic. But what is wrong with that. It's beautiful, with meaningful and memorable music that can stand on its own and good looking naturally charismatic actors it will be even better. Craziness and metaphysical philosophy never killed Star Trek. It was always a welcome treat, so I hope it gets a little bizarre but I sense a he said she said convoluded mind twist where we have to hear what everybody has to say first and how they feel.
I'd rather he concern himself with doing it as well as Matt Jefferies, Gene Coon, William Theiss, Jerome Bixby and a whole lot of other people did it.
Look, everything about this movie will be different from TOS.
Some of it will be a little different, and some of it will be a lot different.
Sure, Spock will have pointed ears. Spock will be someone else.
Sure, the Enterprise will almost certainly be in the movie. It will look and sound different.
And so on and so forth.
How many folks will be upset by the fact that everything is different will depend upon how many of the changes are more than trivial. I'd bet money, though, that there will be significant differences in every aspect of the production between this film and everything that's been called "Star Trek" in the past.
Look, everything about this movie will be different from TOS.
Some of it will be a little different, and some of it will be a lot different.
Sure, Spock will have pointed ears. Spock will be someone else.
Sure, the Enterprise will almost certainly be in the movie. It will look and sound different.
And so on and so forth.
How many folks will be upset by the fact that everything is different will depend upon how many of the changes are more than trivial. I'd bet money, though, that there will be significant differences in every aspect of the production between this film and everything that's been called "Star Trek" in the past.
If there are changes there, should be very good reasons for them, not just to be different. If it ain't exactly fixed, you don't go breakin' it some more. What I mean is the changes shouldn't be practical ones but aesthetic ones. Remember, there was a third world war before TOS, so that could have set the technology back a little bit. just because it doesn't make perfect present day sense does not make it totally wrong. that is where faith and vision come in. Because nobody knows the future and what miracles of design lie there.
The basic reason for the changes is that this is a big-budget movie being made forty years after the television series by an entirely different group of people. There's no reason to think that anything will be the same.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
The problem wasn't continuity so much as what it was the result of: oversaturation. Sameness is inevitable when 90% of televised Trek was produced continuously during the second half of Star Trek's existence.
Ultimately the television end has nothing to do with the movie we're getting now. Even in 1995 Rick Berman said DS9 and VOY movies would be pushing it (in a TV Guide Magazine Special). DS9 was created to fill the first-run syndication gap, VOY was created to supply the demand for a ST series on UPN, and ENT was intended as VOY's replacement since they still wanted a Star Trek series. These were never going to be movies.
The real problem was Insurrection and that does tie back to what you said earlier, boredom. It killed the momentum of First Contact, then they decided to take a four-year break as a result. The problem with that approach was how much things changed between 1998 and 2002. By the time Nemesis came out no one cared anymore. It had been six years since First Contact and Star Trek's heyday was long over; it was all about Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings.
Continuity, mediocrity, those were all just by-products of too much Star Trek sticking around for a little too long.
Similar threads
