Trek XI to be alternate timeline, according to AICN
- Thread starter Ghostface1701
- Start date
An alternate timeline would be a copout. It just subtracts from the franchise and doesn't add to it. It renders it schizophrenic. TOS timeline is always gonna be considered the right and best one. A divergance won't work and won't be meaningful to the characters or the franchise. It can't work.
Some are going to look really funny if the story, however it's done, actually DOES work.
I don't get where you think this is a bout the universe. It's about the story -- and the story sounds stupid. I don't know what kind of universe he wants to reboot into, and it's beside the point. The point is that this story premise sounds like a bad one.
I love it.
Nimoy provides a tangible link to the old timeline, while the small changes in the past have seemingly affected what we used to know as Trek...now there are new faces...slightly different designs, people who were "there" are now somewhere else. It allows the powers-that-be great freedom to start from scratch and not worry about all the baggage of the last 40 years. Genius.
Not to mention the best part, IMO, in the new timeline the spin-offs have never happened! lol
Oh yeah, I'm digging this!
Nimoy provides a tangible link to the old timeline, while the small changes in the past have seemingly affected what we used to know as Trek...now there are new faces...slightly different designs, people who were "there" are now somewhere else. It allows the powers-that-be great freedom to start from scratch and not worry about all the baggage of the last 40 years. Genius.
Not to mention the best part, IMO, in the new timeline the spin-offs have never happened! lol
Oh yeah, I'm digging this!
Ignored and forgotten, we can hope. 
Actually you don't know the story. You know rather rambling premise (Due likely more to how it was reiterated not the premise itself) and nothing about what makes "the story" important yet or what the story is. Premise isn't story.
We are aware they're looking for a big actor to play the "villain" yet the premise mentioned doesn't touch on that.
You don't know the hows or why of "Old Spock" being involved or anything that might have give an emotional hook - of course at this point you really aren't thats supposed to come about when you get to the movie...
Sharr
This is a bad idea to circumvent TOS. It totally robs Kirk of his legendary future and status. The best way around Star Trek is directly through it. Didn't we learn that already in that TNG episode 'Time Squared' ?. Besides it's definitely not neccessary yet to be soo clever that the story tells itself. Cleverness is what killed ST IMO. It's become the McDonalds of the stars - fast food ideas. More like poisened grain and the Klingon imposter, Darvin.
Well what I understood the premise to be is that Spock has stopped Romulans from killing Grandpa Kirk, and the plot of XI is Old Spock using Young Spock to make sure that all of the TOS cast meet.
That sounds like a bad story. If it wasn't a Trek story, but the indroduction of a whole new universe I don't think anyone would take it seriously. I just don't see anything fun to watch at this point. I won't make my final decision until I see a trailer of some sort, but this isn't a good sign.
Oh and whatever agent is involved for moving N-Spock into the story I bet it is devoid of technobable... given Nimoy's apparent dislike for it. It will be touched on, then move on from there but no elopabrote strings of meaningless gibberish chances are its rather organic to the story.
Imagine hearing the pitch/premise for Trek IV - Kirk and Spock go back in time to save whales...
My first reaction would be "Thats not a Trek story" look how that turned out.
Ah why? Putting aside for a moment that Star Treks most successful films have involved time travel. What's bad about the notion of Spock not only saving Kirk but history as well? I mean if your gonna go for epic you might as well make those the stakes. Would it be any better if some superweapon-X was involved?
Its way to early to say this isn't about the "people", since none of us have seen the script and have no idea how the script delivers us these ideas of the emotional impact on those in it.
*And I'm not yet fully convinced this will be a permanent alt.history - of course that's almost beside the point since the Trek timeline is a joke. Is Janeway even the one who left DS9? Did Zef Cochrane really need Gordie all along to help him fix his ship?...
Sharr
Imagine hearing the pitch/premise for Trek IV - Kirk and Spock go back in time to save whales...
My first reaction would be "Thats not a Trek story" look how that turned out.
Ah why? Putting aside for a moment that Star Treks most successful films have involved time travel. What's bad about the notion of Spock not only saving Kirk but history as well? I mean if your gonna go for epic you might as well make those the stakes. Would it be any better if some superweapon-X was involved?
Its way to early to say this isn't about the "people", since none of us have seen the script and have no idea how the script delivers us these ideas of the emotional impact on those in it.
*And I'm not yet fully convinced this will be a permanent alt.history - of course that's almost beside the point since the Trek timeline is a joke. Is Janeway even the one who left DS9? Did Zef Cochrane really need Gordie all along to help him fix his ship?...
Sharr
Busy with Toni Braxton, maybe?
If the new movie locks them into a new alternate future timeline there is no way back. It can only go down hill from there but if they don't rewrite history it will accelerate through TOS canon and climax in TOS, and therefore not be tied to any canon after that. Star Trek doesn't have to prove itself, maybe j.j. does by giving Paramount what it wants - a viable franchise clear of any past history at all - a clean slate. This way they could always blame each other for its failure like hal did in 2010, but either way ST will be screwed forever.
As I posted above, we (five of us at a bar) actually laughed and thought WTF when a friend told us for the first time that STIV was supposed to be about saving the whales. Turned to be the favorite of the TOS movies for four of us (one TWOK holdout).
So, I'll reserve some judgement about this premise. The premise has promise. But, I'll admit Moriarity's other ramblings about the movie make me throw up in my mouth a little bit.
Also, from all accounts this was supposed to be the most action-packed "Star Trek" movie ever. Not sure how that fits the premise, but we'll see.
Star Trek, at its core, is about adventure. It's about heading out into the unknown, and how the characters deal with what they find. I was really happy with the idea of visiting these characters before their introduction in TOS, so we could see what shaped them, and to see how they deal with eachother and the unknown for the first time.
A time travel story about Spock going back in time to keep Romulans from killing Kirk's dad (or whatever the Hell has been propsed) is not an adventure story. Since TOS was cancelled we've only really seen the TOS crew head out for adventure into the unknown twice; first in TMP (v'ger is definitely the unknown), and in ST V. And it's not like we can hold V in high regard.
I was really hoping for an adventure story with this new film, where we'd finally get another movie where the Enterprise heads out to explore; this time with the added interest of how these younger versions of the characters we know deal with it and eachother for the first time. Looks like that won't be happening, and if it does it will be with the damn time travel plot complicating it needlessly.
A time travel story about Spock going back in time to keep Romulans from killing Kirk's dad (or whatever the Hell has been propsed) is not an adventure story. Since TOS was cancelled we've only really seen the TOS crew head out for adventure into the unknown twice; first in TMP (v'ger is definitely the unknown), and in ST V. And it's not like we can hold V in high regard.
I was really hoping for an adventure story with this new film, where we'd finally get another movie where the Enterprise heads out to explore; this time with the added interest of how these younger versions of the characters we know deal with it and eachother for the first time. Looks like that won't be happening, and if it does it will be with the damn time travel plot complicating it needlessly.
No time travel. Rebooting the 5 year mission yes. Time travel just gets my shields up and makes me more likely to wait for a used copy of the DVD.
Good. Then it will probably get better and better.
AudioBridge said:
I was really hoping for an adventure story with this new film, where we'd finally get another movie where the Enterprise heads out to explore; this time with the added interest of how these younger versions of the characters we know deal with it and eachother for the first time. Looks like that won't be happening, and if it does it will be with the damn time travel plot complicating it needlessly.
I'm having a hard time keeping straight what I've read from persons actually associated with the movie and what has been just logical speculation or rumor, but:
-- I thought this movie was just supposed to "fill a gap" in the Trek timeline.
-- This was supposed to be the most action-packed Trek movie ever.
-- It primarily, though not exclusively, invovled starships (i.e. it's not a "planet movie").
I guess it could have the AICN reported premise and still meet those three criteria. I don't know. And, of course, things could've changed since those things were said.
ETA:
I could see the timeline of the movie being set into place just at the point where TOS took to the airwaves. In other words, the timeline that became TOS is the one Spock "creates" in XI by seeing to it Kirk is born. It's not a reset or another dimension, but all that took place takes place because of Spock. (IF the premise is true.)
Well, I'm not a huge fan of 4 anyway -- it seemed like it was supposed to be funny, but it wasn't. And while I'm sure whoever wrote the script LOL'd every time Spock started a sentence with "The Hell", it wasn't funny. Scotty talking to the mouse wasn't all that funny either.
That was probably the biggest problem with 4 -- everybody was trying to be funny, and it just wasn't.
Ok, fine then, imagine that this movie premise has nothing to do with Star Trek.
Fred is now and old man, and he's just travelled back in time to stop the evil Vendeeni from killing his best friend Ted's grandfather. Now he has an even bigger problem. He has to make sure that Fred, Ted, Bill, Suzy, Curly and Moe meet. Why should I care? I mean what makes me as a moviegoer want to watch Old Fred tell Young Fred that he has to go and talk to Ted? See that's the problem. The only reason people want to see the movie is because of the Star Trek label, not because the premise is exciting.
And Time travel has been overdone, and most of the time it ends badly. Time travel is the Trek Reset Button in far too many cases for Time Travel to be a point in favor of the movie.
True, so we can't say its any good either. I've seen enough of the bad time-travel in trek to be skeptical of the aledged emotional impact until I see something more. Right now, I'm leaning towards this movie not being worth buying a movie ticket.
I actually would enjoy that movie... but I like paradoxes...
What made you care about Marty McFly? You had no previous engagement with him but the first movie - the drama arouse out of will he restore himself? Simply going on the premise tells us well nothing since how its played in the script that is the "story" the combination of dramatic moments and insights in them is what counts not the skeleton its working from.
Most basic premises sound dull without any substance to go with them since they're broadstrokes about something that needs details to go with it.
"And Time travel has been overdone" No one should ever write a time travel story anymore? What mean to say is the previous group involved over did time travel which is a debatable idea not a fact but moreover...
...We can't hold another production team responsible for the previous ones faults. Who says they'll have the same problems and will handle it badly? That is Abrams (Someone known for telling none linear stories so I think he can grasp this time travel stuff) and company aren't Berman and Braga yet you are assuming they'll handle it the same?
But you admitted we can't know... I certianly don't and have no desire to dismiss something solely on a random stated premesis lacking any substance but for what seems to be supposition at best.
This isn't the same group of people at the helm so how they view and use this storytelling technique will likely not be anything the way we've seen in Trek before. Your words seem to be painting a broad brush and assuming its just gonna be something we've seen a hundred times on Star Trek. If the previous group behind the camera was involved I'd be inclined to agree but they're not.
And though in someways it might be a "reset" like a "Year of Hell" kind of reset. I don't think it will be that in this story. Consequences may even be at the heart of it all. Not all time travel is the same...
*I found Star Trek New Voyages: In Harms Way & World Enough and Time - both in one way or another a "time travel story" very entertaining at their heart. I see no reason Abrams can't archive something as equally entertaining.
Sharr
Similar threads
