It's really not.
At least some of this is likely true, from other things I've heard. I had not heard anything about "alternate timelines," but I think the centrality of Nimoy/Spock to the film has been pretty obvious to everyone for at least a week.
Trek XI to be alternate timeline, according to AICN
- Thread starter Ghostface1701
- Start date
It's really not.
At least some of this is likely true, from other things I've heard. I had not heard anything about "alternate timelines," but I think the centrality of Nimoy/Spock to the film has been pretty obvious to everyone for at least a week.
I saw nothing in that article that says anything other than "this is what Moriarty thinks the movie might be about."
Even the comment about blowing up Vulcan was tossed out in a very nebulous "what if" manner. See, he's set up his comments so nothing he's said is definite... so he can't be slapped back if it turns out to be total BS. He can say "well, I wasn't saying that this was going to happen, I was just arguing about what sort of risks, hypothetically, could be taken."
Pretty crafty article... pours a lot of gasoline on the fire without ever actually saying ANYTHING.
Even the comment about blowing up Vulcan was tossed out in a very nebulous "what if" manner. See, he's set up his comments so nothing he's said is definite... so he can't be slapped back if it turns out to be total BS. He can say "well, I wasn't saying that this was going to happen, I was just arguing about what sort of risks, hypothetically, could be taken."
Pretty crafty article... pours a lot of gasoline on the fire without ever actually saying ANYTHING.
I wouldn't want to see a time travel episode because the franchise has gone back to that well far too many times.
An alternate timeline/alternate universe? Well if that happens that pretty much means the same as "reimagining" which I still believe is the only way the Trek fanbase as a whole is going to accept this film. As I mentioned in another thread, if they're seriously going to try and make this complete canon, they'd be better off using motion-capture CGI rather than recasting, doing the inevitable Enterprise redesigns, etc. The filmmakers will be crucified.
Cheers
Alex
An alternate timeline/alternate universe? Well if that happens that pretty much means the same as "reimagining" which I still believe is the only way the Trek fanbase as a whole is going to accept this film. As I mentioned in another thread, if they're seriously going to try and make this complete canon, they'd be better off using motion-capture CGI rather than recasting, doing the inevitable Enterprise redesigns, etc. The filmmakers will be crucified.
Cheers
Alex
For what it's worth, in FC I can see the advantage for the Borg in preventing humans from achieving warp drive.
But why the hell would some Romulans (or Klingons or whoever, doesn't matter) think that preventing Kirk from being born is a slam dunk good thing for their future? What a stupid premise.
But why the hell would some Romulans (or Klingons or whoever, doesn't matter) think that preventing Kirk from being born is a slam dunk good thing for their future? What a stupid premise.
I said nearly a month ago that the "alternate time line" idea would be the most likely way they would go.
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat....rue#Post7946966
It's the only thing that makes sense mainly for the reasons I laid out in this post http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat....rue#Post7948084 . Several disagreed with me though.
http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat....rue#Post7946966
It's the only thing that makes sense mainly for the reasons I laid out in this post http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat....rue#Post7948084 . Several disagreed with me though.
Makes about as much sense as cloning a Starfleet captain years before he ever comes to prominence. :thumbsup:Franklin said:
But why the hell would some Romulans (or Klingons or whoever, doesn't matter) think that preventing Kirk from being born is a slam dunk good thing for their future? What a stupid premise.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
I hope that's BS for this reason...
Actually having a plot to "create a new timeline" who's sole purpose is to not upset "canon" and "continuity" is overly-geeky DC/Marvel comic BULLSHIT.
If you're so desperate to not be beholden to continuity then just TELL THE DAMN STORY and not worry about the geekiness because 90% of the general population won't care about it one damn. Just do a Batman Begins or Casino Royale.
The idea of having an entire plotline who's purpose is 'create a new timeline' is bullshit. Every second spent thinking about timelines and realities is one less spent on characters and drama. This sort of garbage is what makes comic books pointless and inaccessible to anybody but the chosen 200,000.
...from the article, sums up my thoughts on this as well. Personally I'da just liked a story set during the 5 year mission with new enemies and new plots. But I wasn't against a "reboot" either. This... this sounds like the WORST OF BOTH WORLDS - all the problems of continuity and none of the benefits.
Actually having a plot to "create a new timeline" who's sole purpose is to not upset "canon" and "continuity" is overly-geeky DC/Marvel comic BULLSHIT.
If you're so desperate to not be beholden to continuity then just TELL THE DAMN STORY and not worry about the geekiness because 90% of the general population won't care about it one damn. Just do a Batman Begins or Casino Royale.
The idea of having an entire plotline who's purpose is 'create a new timeline' is bullshit. Every second spent thinking about timelines and realities is one less spent on characters and drama. This sort of garbage is what makes comic books pointless and inaccessible to anybody but the chosen 200,000.
...from the article, sums up my thoughts on this as well. Personally I'da just liked a story set during the 5 year mission with new enemies and new plots. But I wasn't against a "reboot" either. This... this sounds like the WORST OF BOTH WORLDS - all the problems of continuity and none of the benefits.
I think the piece is actually a combination of things that are fairly certainly true and some hypothetical/"for instance" specifics.
Details in the "for instance" category are the Romulans and the specifics of the time problem, "blowing up Vulcan," and the "who's the first Captain of the Enterprise" kind of stuff.
More solid are the "Spock is the hero and central character," "Spock is the guardian of the time line," "a lot of things will look and be different" stuff.
Details in the "for instance" category are the Romulans and the specifics of the time problem, "blowing up Vulcan," and the "who's the first Captain of the Enterprise" kind of stuff.
More solid are the "Spock is the hero and central character," "Spock is the guardian of the time line," "a lot of things will look and be different" stuff.
Personally, I doubt this. Most of what I've read indicates that Orci, Kurtzmann and Abrams have a generally loose sense of continuity. Unlike JMS, who wanted to make his show a clean reboot, they're happy to give the show a new look, new actors, and so on without going into the semantics of 'Universe A' and 'Universe B', and just avoiding the issue altogether. Which, when we're talking about winning over the casual audience, is a good idea.
I can certainly see this possibly being a time travel story, though, but not one that will use time travel mainly as a means to distinguish the story's place in the canon.
I can certainly see this possibly being a time travel story, though, but not one that will use time travel mainly as a means to distinguish the story's place in the canon.
They get a distress call from an ailing Battlestar called Galactica and when they go to help them, are attacked by a vicious species of new enemies called Wraiths. Hot on the Wraith heels are some humans from the 21st century but the Borg soon put paid to most of them (we'll spare the hot guys). The Galactica crew manage to help the Enterprise and rout the Wraiths and the combined forces take on the Borg during a showdown on a far away space station (that has fallen through a spacial anomally) called Babylon 5....but out of the mist of battle comes a mysterious ship referred to only as a Shadow vessel....
Sorry, the author has had to be forcibly removed from the computer and put to bed with a sedative....
Sorry, the author has had to be forcibly removed from the computer and put to bed with a sedative....
Well, I’m willing to give almost anything a chance, but I really hope there’s no truth to this. Just about the last thing I want to see in any new Trek is another time travel story, especially one that essentially recycles the plot of First Contact, not to mention the Terminator films and probably a dozen others where the bad guys go back in time to try to kill someone who was/will be instrumental in opposing or defeating them. Why, oh WHY can we not just have a simple, straightforward origin story without all the convoluted temporal machinations?
Actually, that’s one of the reasons I tend to think this story is bogus, because it just seems like too much future history baggage and too much temporal paradox / alternate timeline geekiness to appeal to the average movie-goer. Then again, if Nimoy really does have a larger role in the film, more than a simple framing story would allow, one of the obvious ways to do it would be to send him back in time somehow. At least, I don’t get the impression that J.J. and company are particularly interested in focusing a significant chunk of this movie on the 24th or 25th century.
Of course, the idea of time travel and changing history does open up another huge possibility: Never mind bringing Kirk back from the dead; once you alter events that far back, there’s nothing that says Kirk has to die on Veridian III in the first place. Honestly, if you’re going to bring Kirk back at all, that’s probably the best way to do it, as a natural consequence of other, far earlier and more significant alterations in the timeline.
I still don’t think that’s what they should do for this movie, though.
Actually, that’s one of the reasons I tend to think this story is bogus, because it just seems like too much future history baggage and too much temporal paradox / alternate timeline geekiness to appeal to the average movie-goer. Then again, if Nimoy really does have a larger role in the film, more than a simple framing story would allow, one of the obvious ways to do it would be to send him back in time somehow. At least, I don’t get the impression that J.J. and company are particularly interested in focusing a significant chunk of this movie on the 24th or 25th century.
Of course, the idea of time travel and changing history does open up another huge possibility: Never mind bringing Kirk back from the dead; once you alter events that far back, there’s nothing that says Kirk has to die on Veridian III in the first place. Honestly, if you’re going to bring Kirk back at all, that’s probably the best way to do it, as a natural consequence of other, far earlier and more significant alterations in the timeline.
I still don’t think that’s what they should do for this movie, though.
I'll go see it. Why not? They're charging money to get in, right? And not my firstborn?
Welp, I might as well toss my possibly misinformed, amateur opinion into the fray... 
I've kinda liked a few of the 'rumored story-lines' that have been popping up around here lately, but I'm not crazy about this particular "rumor" either.
It's got too many contrived occurrences (as others have said) all gobble-dee-gooped together.
If I had my druthers, I'd rather see either of Magisters takes on the early days of Trek, than what is described in that article.
At least his seemed somewhat more realistic.
I've kinda liked a few of the 'rumored story-lines' that have been popping up around here lately, but I'm not crazy about this particular "rumor" either.
It's got too many contrived occurrences (as others have said) all gobble-dee-gooped together.
If I had my druthers, I'd rather see either of Magisters takes on the early days of Trek, than what is described in that article.
At least his seemed somewhat more realistic.
I'm suprised no-one has mentioned the Guardian of Forever yet. What better way to look back upon the timeline? 
Can't see the alternate universe stuff though. Of course the film is going to look different. No need to explain it away with time travel crap. Seems more and more likely that Spock is the central focus of this movie. Less and less likely that Shatner will appear.
Can't see the alternate universe stuff though. Of course the film is going to look different. No need to explain it away with time travel crap. Seems more and more likely that Spock is the central focus of this movie. Less and less likely that Shatner will appear.
Similar threads
