Was the Abramsverse already an alternate universe?

[MakeshiftPython]

Honestly though, I do wish the filmmakers had done a simple hard reboot. It might have upset fans, but I think it would have been for the better to let this incarnation truly stand on its own rather than go with all this alternate timeline business and Nimoy's fan-service appearance.

I like both of the JJ-films, but yeah I do kind of agree that the incorporation of the 'alternative universe' subplot feels like a tacky way for them to try and have their cake and eat it too. Perhaps feeling like it was skating on pretty thin ice to try and reboot Star Trek so thoroughly, they came up with a compromise that still allowed them to fit it into the established canon (however haphazardly).

On some level I do feel Nimoy's cameo is on a level with Shatner's cameo in Generations (let's be honest: Shatner's role in Generations *is* still basically a cameo). It's there to reassure the bean-counters at Paramount that all the exits have been covered, that people will be eased gently into accepting that these new guys are taking over the franchise from here out, so even if a member of the audience has never seen an episode of The Next Generation before they feel reassured that the "baton has been passed". So too does Nimoy's cameo feel like a sop to the fanbase: "Don't worry guys, Leonard's totally on-board with this and is okay with the changes, so all of you in the fanbase can all rest easy that the future of Star Trek is in safe hands".

(Yeah I know. It's a cynical viewpoint. )

Not cynical at all, it's the truth. It's also a very smart move on their part if they want to try to reach for a broad audience that includes Trekkies. Unlike every incarnation of Trek that came out up to ENTERPRISE, this was the first time a Trek had a production crew that had never worked with Roddenberry. Trivial as that may be, it's reasonable to assume there would be fans skeptical of that. Bringing in Nimoy was a great way of trying to let the fanbase know that this would be as legitimate as what came before and not just another case of a greedy studio tainting a beloved franchise just to make a quick buck off a brand name.

I'm unsure how you draw that conclusion since ST:II the villain as Khan and ST:JJII the villain is Khan (it could have been anyone else in the universe, but they chose Khan).

The way Khan was handled in STID only makes it even more evident to me that it's set in a parallel universe that has nothing in common with the "prime universe". The filmmakers might want you to think otherwise (from what I understand there's even a comic book that explains all that shit), but I don't find it all convincing that Cumberbatch is supposed to be the same guy that Montalbán played. It's a different universe as far as I'm concerned.

Okay, I'm curious: the exception being made for Voyager, because... ?

Only in that universe/timeline could there be such a collection of bland and insufferable characters. Doc and Seven excepted, Prophets rest their souls.

Well, I suppose I should have seen that coming.

You couldn't have. You're only mortal.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I've recently been reading through some old ScoTpress Enterprise Log fanzines and IDIC newsletters (online here) and find it amusing to read beneath the EL editorial, that story submissions would only be accepted for Trek set during the original series. Why? The editors don't don't buy the movies as real Star Trek. They accept alternate universe-set stories, but even those must be based purely on the series and not the movies (which at the time were I-III). In IDIC #1, one of the editors states that the only way she can accept the movies is as an alternate universe but she still doesn't like them and doesn't want to read stories about them.

The more things change...

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I get where they're coming from. I don't even acknowledge half of the films in my own personal canon.

 

[The Wormhole]

The way Khan was handled in STID only makes it even more evident to me that it's set in a parallel universe that has nothing in common with the "prime universe". The filmmakers might want you to think otherwise (from what I understand there's even a comic book that explains all that shit), but I don't find it all convincing that Cumberbatch is supposed to be the same guy that Montalbán played. It's a different universe as far as I'm concerned.

Which reminds me, I was recently talking to a co-worker who knows nothing about Star Trek. We were talking in general about how characters in movies these days are miscast with actors who don't fit the characters at all. I then mention "you know, the character Benedict Cumberbatch plays in Star Trek is supposed to be Indian." He asked "seriously?" I said "yes," and he just burst out laughing.

 

[Set Harth]

The way Khan was handled in STID only makes it even more evident to me that it's set in a parallel universe that has nothing in common with the "prime universe".

Yet they kept the original Eugenics Wars timeframe, in contradiction of actual history. This seems a strange thing to do, if one is indeed merrily setting off in a continuity free of restraints and having "nothing in common with the prime universe". Why not let the audience imagine that the events in the films could be taking place in our future, as science fiction tends to do? Then there is the way the famous reactor scene and the call to Spock Prime were handled. Just as in the 2009 film, we are presented more or less explicitly with the concept that the events in STID are occurring in an alternate timeline branching off from the prime. The reactor scene lampshades its similarity to TWOK in this way, complete with dialogue references to how things turned out in the other timeline ( the way things happened in TWOK ). We're seeing a reflection of what the writers think about time travel.

This all aside from the fact that we happen to know the intent of the franchise ( and the writers specifically ) on this issue. Thus, it is not particularly meaningful to claim that STID is set in a parallel universe having nothing in common with the prime. Isn't it the job of the writers to decide where or when a fictional product is "set"?

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

I've recently been reading through some old ScoTpress Enterprise Log fanzines and IDIC newsletters (online here) and find it amusing to read beneath the EL editorial, that story submissions would only be accepted for Trek set during the original series. Why? The editors don't don't buy the movies as real Star Trek. They accept alternate universe-set stories, but even those must be based purely on the series and not the movies (which at the time were I-III). In IDIC #1, one of the editors states that the only way she can accept the movies is as an alternate universe but she still doesn't like them and doesn't want to read stories about them.

The more things change...

The good old days. I knew people who insisted (and some that still do) that TNG wasn't the "real" future of TOS, but just a "possible future" because they thought it strayed too much from "Real Star Trek."

This is why I don't much bother to argue with people who declare the latest iteration of Trek to not be "Real Star Trek." The same complaint has been made against every version of Trek since TOS went off the air (and even in the 70s I recall theories in Trek magazine that not all of the TOS episodes happened in the same universe!).