Trek XI to be alternate timeline, according to AICN

[Sharr Khan]

Absolutly. If Paramount thought it's time to make a new Star Trek film nothing is going to stand in it's way. Abrams was in the right place at the right time. He came off the success of MI3 and looked like a safe bet.

He was only in the right place at the right time in as much as he had found himself some "clout" and was also working for the company that could let him make a film he desired to make.

Nothing I've heard or read tells me there would be any Trek project in place of this current one had Abrams not been at Paramount to express an interest in making one.

Actually, as Abrams has seemed to stress often he would rather Direct a Star Wars movie since he says he is a bigger fan of that than Star Trek.

Stress often? Other then at Comic-Con where else has it come up?

I'd like to make to make a really good Flash Gordon Miniseries - Does it mean I think making a Star Trek movie if the chance arises would be second change to me? No - cause I am permitted to have varying degrees of fandom...

Whenever I see that remark from Comic-Con brought up it seems to being carrying the subtext: "Oh he's just doing this cause he can't get his hands on Star Wars". The remark itself doesn't carry that in it.

Sharr

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

saul said:
If Paramount thought it's time to make a new Star Trek film nothing is going to stand in it's way.

They didn't think that until Abrams proposed it.

Abrams was in the right place at the right time.

Wrong again.

 

[Broccoli]

So has anyone else noticed that PTM hasn't popped in this thread to comment on Moriarty's claims regarding Trek XI?

 

[Saul]

Sharr Khan said:
Nothing I've heard or read tells me there would be any Trek project in place of this current one had Abrams not been at Paramount to express an interest in making one.

Nothing I have heard or read says that Paramount wouldn't have made another Star Trek film without Abrams. He isn't the messiah of Star Trek as you seem to portray him.

I'd like to make to make a really good Flash Gordon Miniseries - Does it mean I think making a Star Trek movie if the chance arises would be second change to me? No - cause I am permitted to have varying degrees of fandom...

I never said this was the case.

UWC Defiance said:

saul said:
If Paramount thought it's time to make a new Star Trek film nothing is going to stand in it's way.

They didn't think that until Abrams proposed it.

Rubbish.

 

[Balthier the Great]

Maybe you're somewhat right. I think it's possible that Trek XI is a test of Abrams. That if he can produce a trek movie that makes lots of money, he gets a bonus.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Nothing I have heard or read says that Paramount wouldn't have made another Star Trek film without Abrams. He isn't the messiah of Star Trek as you seem to portray him.

I never implied that that there wouldn't ever be no new Trek without Abrams. But I think the facts speak to this particular Trek, at this moment in time wouldn't have materialized without Abrams involvement. his desire to make a Trek film and being a producer with some weight allowed him to say: "Ok you guys own this franchise - I've an idea, what do you think let me make this film".

All indications are if it wasn't *this idea*, the alternative would be *nothing* in its place a void that would not be looked to be filled for a long while yet.

That is, if there is any fan around turning themselves blue thinking: "If Abrams would just go away they'd make a Star Trek film set Post-NEM" it just aint so. Its this film or nothing.

Sharr

 

[slappy]

I'm all for an alternate timeline. However, as time goes on, the details of the idea are simply too fanboyish to ever buy.

First of all, Romulans going back in time would get an eyeroll from even the worst fanfic writer. Secondly, the notion of James T. Kirk being the one they want to kill? Of all the people to kill (Washington, Lincoln, Cochran) they decide to kill some starship captain? Oh please.

 

[Franklin]

slappy said:
I'm all for an alternate timeline. However, as time goes on, the details of the idea are simply too fanboyish to ever buy.

First of all, Romulans going back in time would get an eyeroll from even the worst fanfic writer. Secondly, the notion of James T. Kirk being the one they want to kill? Of all the people to kill (Washington, Lincoln, Cochran) they decide to kill some starship captain? Oh please.

I guess it's Kirk because as I read it, they accidentally end up back in time. They didn't control where (or to when) they were going. Still, I agree with you. There were probably more important people than Kirk they could've messed with if they wanted to screw up the timeline to the Romulan's advantage, even in that time.

They are two very unambitious Romulans if the greatest evil they could think to do to the Federation while stuck in time is keep James T. Kirk from being born.

I just picture this movie where all that happens is old Spock (somehow using young Spock, too) runs around trying to get Chekov, Uhura, Scotty, McCoy, Sulu, and Kirk all back together again. Not an exciting premise.
If it's all true, maybe the title of XI should be "Star Trek: Reunification".

 

[Woulfe]

IF the Romulans wanted to stop things from happening they'd blow up EARTH itself, screw going after one guy, these are Romulans we're talking about you know.

So everyone enjoying the bridge they bought in New York so far ?

- W -
* Who won't be buying said bridge anytime soon *

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

We could at least try to pay attention to the specifics of the rumors we're fussing over.

The allegation is that some Romulans "accidentally" wind up back in time.

This suggests that they probably don't have an absolutely free choice about where they are, when they are and what their options therefore are about who to hunt down and kill. Their weaponry and means of transportation may be limited.

Kirk's father is likely a target of opportunity.

 

[Franklin]

UWC Defiance said:
We could at least try to pay attention to the specifics of the rumors we're fussing over.

The allegation is that some Romulans "accidentally" wind up back in time.

This suggests that they probably don't have an absolutely free choice about where they are, when they are and what their options therefore are about who to hunt down and kill. Their weaponry and means of transportation may be limited.

Kirk's father is likely a target of opportunity.

Yeah, I posted basically the same thing you have said above Woulfe's post.
But like I said, these are still very unambitious Romulans if this is the best they can do. Or, if that is all they can do, that certainly seems to be a very contrived plot device. Just happen to be around Kirk's father?

Shatner should play Kirk's father if this is true. Maybe they could push him off of a bridge.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Franklin said:
But like I said, these are still very unambitious Romulans if this is the best they can do. Or, if that is all they can do, that certainly seems very contrived.

No. That depends entirely upon their situation once they find themselves in the past. Dependent upon their weaponry and means of getting about, killing Kirk's father may be an enormously difficult and ambitious plot.

 

[ancient]

UWC Defiance said:

Franklin said:
But like I said, these are still very unambitious Romulans if this is the best they can do. Or, if that is all they can do, that certainly seems very contrived.

No. That depends entirely upon their situation once they find themselves in the past. Dependent upon their weaponry and means of getting about, killing Kirk's father may be an enormously difficult and ambitious plot.

But that only makes any difference if Kirk isn't born yet, which also means Spock isn't born yet. Besides, that plot seems too 'little' and personal. More like a mediocre episode plot.

That would be my first impression anyway.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

ancient said:
But that only makes any difference if Kirk isn't born yet, which also means Spock isn't born yet. Besides, that plot seems too 'little' and personal. More like a mediocre episode plot.

Yes, but there's no suggestion in the rumor that Spock has been born at the time of the Romulan meddling.

The premise as described by Moriarity is in two parts:

1) Romulans kill Kirk's father, upsetting the time line. Future Spock somehow sets this right.

2) The combination of the Romulans and Spock's meddling creates a different version of the time line, and Spock therefore must continue to try to guide events in the new time line so that certain things occur.

Nimoy and Quinto's interaction throughout the film is almost certainly contained in part 2 of that premise, long after Kirk and Spock have both been born.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

UWC Defiance said:

ancient said:
But that only makes any difference if Kirk isn't born yet, which also means Spock isn't born yet. Besides, that plot seems too 'little' and personal. More like a mediocre episode plot.

Yes, but there's no suggestion in the rumor that Spock has been born at the time of the Romulan meddling.

The premise as described by Moriarity is in two parts:

1) Romulans kill Kirk's father, upsetting the time line. Future Spock somehow sets this right.

2) The combination of the Romulans and Spock's meddling creates a different version of the time line, and Spock therefore must continue to try to guide events in the new time line so that certain things occur.

Nimoy and Quinto's interaction throughout the film is almost certainly contained in part 2 of that premise, long after Kirk and Spock have both been born.

I still don't like it. It just doesn't sit right.

Of course, it's all in the execution, but this sounds exactly like the convoluted fanboy nonsense that they are trying to get away from.

Romulans back in time. Terminator subplot. Alternate timeline. Future Spock talking to Present Spock.

It's just too much.

And worst of all, it doesn't even sound interesting. It sounds tedious. It sounds laborious.

The only way this is going to work is if all of the above is pushed waaaay into the background, and there is still plenty of character-based interaction, development, and adventure.

If the fanboys are having a hard time wrapping their heads around (what little) we know so far, imagine the general public's reaction to it.

Sounds like more of the same. More of the bad same, actually.

I don't buy it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The fanboys are having a hard time wrapping their heads around this stuff because it matters to them.

My guess is that premise item (1) is about as crucial to enjoying the main story (that is, whatever Spock and Kirk are up to in fighting "Captain Russell Crowe" or whatever once they get together) as is the fact that Doc Brown stole fissionable material from terrorists to power his time machine to enjoying BTTF - it drives a couple of plot points but it's essentially poohbah.

 

[Balthier the Great]

Sharr Khan said:

Nothing I have heard or read says that Paramount wouldn't have made another Star Trek film without Abrams. He isn't the messiah of Star Trek as you seem to portray him.

I never implied that that there wouldn't ever be no new Trek without Abrams. But I think the facts speak to this particular Trek, at this moment in time wouldn't have materialized without Abrams involvement. his desire to make a Trek film and being a producer with some weight allowed him to say: "Ok you guys own this franchise - I've an idea, what do you think let me make this film".

All indications are if it wasn't *this idea*, the alternative would be *nothing* in its place a void that would not be looked to be filled for a long while yet.

That is, if there is any fan around turning themselves blue thinking: "If Abrams would just go away they'd make a Star Trek film set Post-NEM" it just aint so. Its this film or nothing.

Sharr

That wasn't what I meant by that. I guess I wasn't being clear. I get the impression from some Abrams fans that this film is going to be a success because of Abrams, that movie-goers will see Abrams as the producer and decide that they want to see an Abrams movie. I'm not convinced of that.

Maybe for some ultra-successful producers that would work. People know who Peter Jackson is, they know who Steven Spielberg is, George Lucas, etc., but I'm not convinced that it works that way for Abrams. And unless he's legendary, I doubt people are paying that much attention to movie and TV producers.

I've seen people do that with movie stars to some degree. If Russel Crowe is in it, that will probably get a good number of people in the seats. But outside of hard-core movie buffs, I don't think you could find 10 people who could name the producer of the last movie they watched.

That was what I was trying to get across. Abram's name on the marquee probably isn't going to affect the box office like the actors and the title are.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

UWC Defiance said:
The fanboys are having a hard time wrapping their heads around this stuff because it matters to them.

Well, it's going to have to matter to the general public -- for very different reasons, of course -- or this isn't going to work.

My guess is that premise item (1) is about as crucial to enjoying the main story (that is, whatever Spock and Kirk are up to in fighting "Captain Russell Crowe" or whatever once they get together) as is the fact that Doc Brown stole fissionable material from terrorists to power his time machine to enjoying BTTF - it drives a couple of plot points but it's essentially poohbah.

It's going to have to be. If it's anything more than just the set up, we're in trouble.

Which one is the MacGuffin? And how many MacGuffins are there?

 

[DarthPipes]

Does this film take place at the beginning of the five-year-voyage or before it?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Samuel T. Cogley said:
Which one is the MacGuffin? And how many MacGuffins are there?

As many as they can use well, I guess. Arguably large parts of the premise of "Buffy" were MacGuffins and the thing ran for seven years.