Trek XI to be alternate timeline, according to AICN

[Jon1701]

What about pre-destination paradox and all that?

Maybe Old Spock did go back in time all along - creating the timeline that we saw. Maybe this is just another spin on it all.

Could give a new layer to Spocks character that we never knew, maybe he knew he wasnt going to die in TWOK?

Would we accept this?

 

[Jack Bauer]

To me this seems like a backdoor reimagining. Instead of doing what Ron Moore did with Battlestar Galactica and scrapping the original series and going back to the core concepts and recreating that series JJ Abrams is coming up with a convoluted way to create an alternate timeline so he can do just about whatever he wants with Star Trek. And any sequel to his movie will be set in that timeline instead of the one comprising the previous 10 films and the 5 tv series. And at the same time keeping the prior continuity intact and basically untouched. Am I reading that right? If so why not just come out and say he's reimagining Star Trek? Why go through a sneaky route like this? It's not like Star Trek fans will actually go out and riot in the streets and burn entire city blocks down if there's a reimagining of Star Trek. It seems overly complicated to me. :dontgetit:

I'm totally ok with a reimagining I just don't see the need to do it this way. I mean I really don't care if this is the case. As long as it's good that's all I really want. Altered timeline, reboot, reimagining it's all pretty much the same to me it's just a matter of what term you use to describe it.

 

[gastrof]

jonnyskywatcher said:
I really hope this isn't true not only for the movie's sake, but for the franchise's future as well...

Recasting the roles I can accept, but if they're planning to do anything like change the look of the uniforms or...far worse (for some reason) the ENTERPRISE from the TOS version, they've killed the franchise.

They'll end up with something ELSE now called "Star Trek", but it won't be the same thing. They'll have erased all that came before and casually said to the fans "Here...you'll swallow this in its place. We know you."

My advice? Show they who they do and don't know.

Just my opinion.

------------
My signature actually says "On screen is canon..." but with what's being planned, I don't know if I can support that any more.

 

[gastrof]

Sharr Khan said:

...As I've mused this idea growing to like it. The Spock Paradox, Kirk saved Spock, so someday Spock could save him and the whole of the Federation and history itself...

And Spock can't have said to young Kirk "Remember this when it's needed....KILL SOREN...IMMEDIATELY"?

 

[Spider]

UWC Defiance said:
Well, if this movie doesn't succeed "the Franchise" has no future.

It will have a future, just a distant one. No one will try anything connected to Star Trek for a long while if this movie fails. And no matter what this movie does, Star Trek will come back in some form or another some day.

But I just can't muster any enthusiasm about time travel or alternate time lines. I'm sick to death of that crap. If there is going to be an alternate time line, why call it Star Trek anyway? Just do an old fashioned hardware in outer space movie with new characters. You don't need the Star Trek universe to push tired old concepts.

 

[AudioBridge]

Well, we have corroboration. Jeremy Smith at Chud.com has this to say about the Romulans going back in time to kill Kirk, etc:

"Actually, it's very true. This is the premise of Star Trek XI. I have 100% confirmed this. And the additional speculation may not be so speculative (although I'm not sure about old Spock as the protagonist)."

I'm officially hating Abrams right now.

 

[Spider]

If all these rumors pan out, I'm going to be very disappointed. When it comes to fucking time travel stories, about the only thing that would piss me off more is if you put a Ferengi in it.

 

[Sharr Khan]

You don't need the Star Trek universe to push tired old concepts.

Most ironic thing said in the whole thread - Star Trek is pretty good at doing, well exactly that. None of its plots or stories are inherently more original then any genre and is even well known to borrow across genres for ideas for stories.

What of course matters is how its done and if its done in an interesting dramatic manner that entertains. A simple premise isn't the story itself or even a script. Better to judge these things once you see more flesh get on them.

Sharr

 

[ChristopherPike]

Well it seems they're at it again. It begins with us being teased with a nice and simple premise. It's Star Trek in it's infancy. A back to basics formula to revitalise the franchise. Then the suits at Paramount complain that it's not "futuristic" enough, so a time travel plot is trotted out to satisfy their demands.

Alternate timelines? A reboot? A reimagining? Still apart of Trek's rich backstory? Why the insistance for this kind of naval gazing to be part of the plot? Don't bog the story down with trivial explainations about past continuity (or lack of it)... not if you've only got a couple of hours to play with. It's perfectly feasible for a movie to take place in the existing Trekiverse, while introducing elements to a new audience... just don't dump any unnecessary parallel universe crap into the mix.

 

[Franklin]

Besides all the other examples given in this thread of movies and stories with a similar premise, while it's not really canon, in the animated "Yesteryear", Spock had to use the Guardian of Forever to go back and correct a mistake in the timeline that had caused him to die as a child.
Other than keeping himself from being killed as a child (as opposed to having to make sure Kirk is born in the first place), that ain't too far off from the AICN premise.
But the point is if he uses the Guardian to travel in this case, then when he corrects the original mistake (as was also the case in "City...") then all of history/the future goes back as it was. It's a reset.
This premise apparently has Spock doing some major reconstructive surgery on the timeline.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, this is going to be very interesting. Jack Bauer is right - this constitutes a "back door reboot."

Looking forward to it. :thumbsup:

 

[Woulfe]

I call BS on this whole thing for one reason alone.

Joe 6-pack wouldn't be able to follow it.

If this film is being made with the goal of bringing in Joe 6-pack to the theaters, this PLOT can't be there, sorry.

Joe 6-pack likes things SIMPLE, not overly contrived as this mess seems to be.

Now sci-fi fans can follow this stuff easy, but I'm not taking about them or us even.

I'm talking about your average american shmuck.

If your gonna bring him or her into the theaters to watch a Star Trek film, this alternate time-line BS will have to go.

Joe 6-pack bearly unerstood it back in BTTF if Doc Brown han't drawn on the black board to explane it in a way that Joe 6-pack would understand it all, the trilogy would of not been the sucess it had been.

So excuse me if I call a big BS on this plot.

- W -
* Who's BS meter exploded on the spot *

 

[Agent Richard07]

thumbtack said:
I'm thinking they'll kill either Chekov or Sulu to make room for a new female in the sequel. A nearly all-male ship isn't as realistic as it was in the seventies.

I dunno, it worked out alright for the three 'Ocean's' movies. Besides, we have Chapel, Rand or anyone else they want to add if need be. There's no need to kill off Chekov or Sulu.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't know many "Joe Sixpacks" or "average American schmucks" who are less imaginative, mentally flexible or interesting than the folks I meet on the Internet who consider themselves more clever somehow.

After four decades of close observation I've no reason to think there's anything that Trekkies can handle that the "average" person on the street can't.

 

[Woulfe]

Point # 2....

IF this were the real plot Paramont would pull a C&D, yesterday....

Have they done so ?

- W -
* See it works both ways *

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Paramount can't pull a "C&D" on reporting, sorry.

If a site had published the script, that would be different. But there is not a thing Paramount can do to prevent the reporting of or discussion of this information once it's out.

Nothing.

This is, more or less, the premise of the movie. That's becoming clear. Whether all the rather speculative details - Romulans, exploding planets - are part of the current script is another matter.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

AudioBridge said:
Well, we have corroboration. Jeremy Smith at Chud.com has this to say about the Romulans going back in time to kill Kirk, etc:

"Actually, it's very true. This is the premise of Star Trek XI. I have 100% confirmed this. And the additional speculation may not be so speculative (although I'm not sure about old Spock as the protagonist)."

I'm officially hating Abrams right now.

It is not "100% confirmed," or even 1% confirmed, unless the statement is coming from someone who's actually MAKING THE MOVIE.

Be careful not to fall into this trap. I don't care what a MILLION websites may come out and say... I only care about (1) what the people making the movie say, and (2) the actual movie itself (when I finally get the chance to see it)

Even major-media press published information which is later demonstrated to have been false. Most of the time, because it went along with what they WANTED to be true. I would hardly trust what we're hearing right now.

I'm actually sort of waiting for the "other shoe to drop"... that is, for Abrams or someone else involved with the movie to come along and deny some part of this (thus demonstrating that the whole thing is BS without actually giving away what their movie is REALLY about).

Stay tuned...

 

[Cary L. Brown]

UWC Defiance said:I don't know many "Joe Sixpacks" or "average American schmucks" who are less imaginative, mentally flexible or interesting than the folks I meet on the Internet who consider themselves more clever somehow.

A comment comes to mind about a pot and a kettle...

In any case, his comment was clearly not (despite your mischaracterization of it) a reference to the weak-mindedness of "normal people" (as opposed to "highly evolved fans").

His comment, clearly and unambiguously, was about the fact that the storyline supposedly being promoted here REQUIRES A DEEP AND EXCESSIVELY "FANBOYISH" KNOWLEDGE OF THE TREK UNIVERSE AND HOW IT WORKS.

This story, as being presented, just REEKS of "fanboy fantasy." As someone who's always so ready to leap onto the attack on other folks for being "fanboyish," I'm surprised that you don't pick up on that.

After four decades of close observation I've no reason to think there's anything that Trekkies can handle that the "average" person on the street can't.

So, are you counting yourself among those people or are you setting yourself above as someone "better than 'Trekkies'?" Just wondering...

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

AudioBridge said:
Well, we have corroboration. Jeremy Smith at Chud.com has this to say about the Romulans going back in time to kill Kirk, etc:

"Actually, it's very true. This is the premise of Star Trek XI. I have 100% confirmed this. And the additional speculation may not be so speculative (although I'm not sure about old Spock as the protagonist)."

I'm officially hating Abrams right now.

Well, maybe Jemery Smith of chud.com and Moriarty of aintitcool.com got their information (or hopefully disinformation) from the same source. If they both got this same info from two separate independant sources, then it seems that there may be some truth to this report.

I'm not against an alternate-reality timeline film i principle -- it's not the plot but the execution that is important for good movie-making.

But if Abrams is going down this alternate timeline path just to kowtow to the anal fans who would otherwise criticize every tiny continuity error, then I think he's making a mistake.

I think a movie could be made that follows the actual timeline and still stays faithful to canon...it just takes some careful story-telling and clever writing. To use the "alternate timeline trick" is just being lazy, in my opinion.

 

[RookieBatman]

I'm in a good place right now. If this is the premise of the movie, I can live with that. If it's not, I can live with that, too.

*Ah, bliss*