Trek XI to be alternate timeline, according to AICN

[Ceridwen]

BalthierTheGreat said:
Ok, fine then, imagine that this movie premise has nothing to do with Star Trek.

Sure, let's do that.

We'll have the protagonist of our movie named... Marty. And Marty sees his friend killed. He travels back in time accidentally, and while he's there, he decides to make sure to warn his friend about his coming death. But things get more complicated, and now he has to make sure that the people in his former life get together in the same manner the timeline originally played out.

We could call it Back to the Future. But it would never make any money. "Joe Six-Pack" just wouldn't be able to follow it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No, and it certainly wouldn't make in excess of 380,000,000 dollars worldwide - far more than any "Star Trek" movie. :thumbsup:

 

[Broccoli]

Wait. Wait. Wait! I just thought of something.

If this is to be believed. And the alternate timeline made in the movie diverges from the "normal" timeline around Kirk's birth...then that means the stuff in Enterprise is still within continuity (since that takes place before Kirk's birth)!

But...if the stuff in Enterprise is still in continuity, then that means First Contact is still in continuity...and if First Contact is in continuity...

::head explodes::

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, lots of stuff will probably still be in continuity. It's not like the reboot is guaranteed to change everything, forever.

Actually, I kind of like the idea of "Enterprise" remaining "canon" because it takes place before the alternate timeline is created, but TOS ceasing to be "canon" because it takes place afterward - not because I care one way or another about canon, but because of the folks whose heads will explode.

 

[Jack Bauer]

If this is true and Star Trek 12 takes place in some alternate timeline then in effect it's a reboot. One done through the backdoor. Why not go through the front door? I'd rather go straight to a reboot than spend one entire movie getting there. I don't see the need for doing it that way.

 

[pookha]

UWC Defiance said:
Well, lots of stuff will probably still be in continuity. It's not like the reboot is guaranteed to change everything, forever.

Actually, I kind of like the idea of "Enterprise" remaining "canon" because it takes place before the alternate timeline is created, but TOS ceasing to be "canon" because it takes place afterward - not because I care one way or another about canon, but because of the folks whose heads will explode.

clean up in thread nine.
all these exploding heads is getting messy.
and this isnt even a cronenberg film.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Jack Bauer said:
I'd rather go straight to a reboot than spend one entire movie getting there. I don't see the need for doing it that way.

It may not take anything like the entire movie to set up the premise. Who knows who the Russell Crowe-type Big Bad is, what he wants and how Young Spock and Young Kirk are involved in that? This could be most of the running time of the film, and have nothing very much to do with the reboot.

 

[pookha]

if indeed there is a reboot at all.
i suspect there will be some red herring plot rumors sown along the way. were there not fake scripts put out for some of the movies.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

pookha said:
were there not fake scripts put out for some of the movies.

No, there weren't.

We're talking about the premise of the movie, which is what some people at the studio have evidently spoken to "Moriarity" and others about.

Very few people have actually seen a script - Nimoy and the writers and producers and a few execs at the studio, presumably.

Quinto hasn't seen a script. "Moriarity" certainly hasn't seen a script.

So we're discussing the premise of the movie - the alternate version of events following Spock's correction of the timelime - not the plot or storyline or how the other characters arc through that story. No one knows those things yet, and in fact there isn't even much in the way of rumor on that score.

 

[RookieBatman]

UWC Defiance said:
Actually, I kind of like the idea of "Enterprise" remaining "canon" because it takes place before the alternate timeline is created, but TOS ceasing to be "canon" because it takes place afterward - not because I care one way or another about canon, but because of the folks whose heads will explode.

Imagine how many heads would explode if the movie opened with a heavy-metal redesigned Constitution class (ala Koerner in Ships of the Line) flying by while Faith of the Heart played! I think some diehards would form a cabal to find a brand new way to execute J.J. Abrams.

 

[Kegek]

I'm really not concerned about the canonicity issue... it's not like a reboot automatically invalidates the quality of past Trek productions, just as a canonically faithful production does not buttress them.

Star Trek's never been about the canon, anyhow. Who here actually started watching because 'gee, the history of relations and cultures and politics that serve as background is surprisingly consistent!' At it's best, it's good storytelling and interesting ideas.

But I do hope we'll get a better title theme than the insipid Faith of the Heart - and I'm reasonably hopeleful that Michael Giacchino will deliver.

 

[Balthier the Great]

Ceridwen Troy said:

BalthierTheGreat said:
Ok, fine then, imagine that this movie premise has nothing to do with Star Trek.

Sure, let's do that.

We'll have the protagonist of our movie named... Marty. And Marty sees his friend killed. He travels back in time accidentally, and while he's there, he decides to make sure to warn his friend about his coming death. But things get more complicated, and now he has to make sure that the people in his former life get together in the same manner the timeline originally played out.

We could call it Back to the Future. But it would never make any money. "Joe Six-Pack" just wouldn't be able to follow it.

Just to point out -- Back to the Future was a comedy. I don't think that tells very much how the audience is going to accept the same idea in an action-drama. The Devil Wears Prada made a lot of money too, that doesn't mean that it's time for a Kirk-kicks-Fashion-Designer's-Arse Star Trek. And don't get me started on Moulan Rouge Trek. There are some ideas that work great in one genre and suck in others. I think it will be hard to pull of "lets make sure the TOS cast meets" in a serious action-drama. Played up for laughs, it's fine.

It could possibly work, but considering the past history of Trek Time Travel, I'd have to say probably not. It's my opinion, and as I said before, I won't decide whether I'm seeing the movie until I see a trailer. I'm just not in love with this plot idea. You can think whatever you want.

 

[Ceridwen]

BalthierTheGreat said:
It could possibly work, but considering the past history of Trek Time Travel, I'd have to say probably not.

Sure you're welcome to opinion, but statements like these, and the assumptions throughout this thread about what the legendary "Joe Six-Pack" likes to watch, just don't jive with the reality I live in.

Trek's history with time-travel might have lead to some episodes you didn't like, but it also lead to one of the franchise's most memorable episodes, consistently voted in one of the top spots, if not the top spot, in poll after poll after poll: "City on the Edge of Forever". It also lead to two of Trek's top grossing feature films, The Voyage Home and First Contact.

You might not like it, but to say "audiences" won't ignores much of the franchise's history.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

BalthierTheGreat said:

Ceridwen Troy said:

BalthierTheGreat said:
Ok, fine then, imagine that this movie premise has nothing to do with Star Trek.

Sure, let's do that.

We'll have the protagonist of our movie named... Marty. And Marty sees his friend killed. He travels back in time accidentally, and while he's there, he decides to make sure to warn his friend about his coming death. But things get more complicated, and now he has to make sure that the people in his former life get together in the same manner the timeline originally played out.

We could call it Back to the Future. But it would never make any money. "Joe Six-Pack" just wouldn't be able to follow it.

Just to point out -- Back to the Future was a comedy.

So was the fourth - and most popular - TOS-based movie, "The Voyage Home."

Anywya, there's no obvious relevance to the comedy-versus-drama dichotomy in terms of how much the audience can be made to care about the plights of the characters.

 

[Saul]

If presented in an orderly fashion no confusion should ensue...

Hardly. It's not just Star Trek fans going to see this.

And it's certainly not a mad genius type idea. It's fan wankery.

 

[Woulfe]

If any of you believe this convoluted "Plot" is real...
I have a bridge you might be intreasted in....
It's a nice bridge.... It's in New York....
It goes from Manhatten to Brooklyn....

 

[Jack Bauer]

As long as it's exciting people like time travel stories...unless they're burned out Trekkies. Time travel has been overused people cry. Well, so has the ship going to a new planet every other week. Or a disease or disaster episode.

 

[Dradin]

To be honest, I still don't get how anyone can accept a story that revolves around people willingly altering/restoring the timeline to certain goals. The whole idea that you can change things and then change them back again by conscious manipulation of events is simply ridiculous. I''d say you can take two points of view:

1. Everything can be changed. Changes either lead to "erasure" of the "previous" timeline or to alternate universes. However, once things are changed, there's no way of making it right again - the consequences of the smallest action are always so complex that there would be no way to plan them accordingly.

2. Everything has somehow happened as it has happened. There is only one timeline. Every action you take in the past will already be part of the timeline, as it has always been.

Everything else is simply sloppy thinking.
Of course, some of the most intriguing episodes of Trek are based upon this kind of sloppiness, including TOS' "City on the Edge of Forever" and DS9's "Past Tense". Those are great episodes, but their fundamental sloppiness annoys me everytime I see them (especially in "past tense", where the future where the Defiant is waiting shifts back and forth through alternative histories according to no logic but that of the sequence of events as depicted in the episode, which has nothing to do with the actual sequence of events implied by the time travel plot.)

This premise for Trek XI seems to be based upon a similar device, and I hereby condemn it to be most certainly sloppy. I might still be fun. But it will have missed its chance for greatness.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Dradin said:
To be honest, I still don't get how anyone can accept a story that revolves around people willingly altering/restoring the timeline to certain goals. The whole idea that you can change things and then change them back again by conscious manipulation of events is simply ridiculous.

Nonetheless it's been a popular premise of commercial science fiction for about a century - certainly since well before the second World War - and it's not going away any time soon. As Jack Bauer notes, lots of people like it...and it's no more ridiculous than faster-than-light travel.

 

[Pingfah]

Will this mean they can do the TNG and DS9 years all over again?

Star Trek: The Other Next Generation

Sounds good to me