Same for me.
Which do you accept: Alternate reality or canon is erased?
- Thread starter anothertrekfan
- Start date
Same for me.
I know we shouldn't have to use "Countdown," since a movie should stand on its own, but the comic makes it clear that the universe we know is still there.
We have seen time travel several times on Trek, and every single time it has been shown that actions in the past WILL change the future. In "The City On The Edge Of Forever," the Enterprise and possibly the entire Federation were wiped out of existence because McCoy saved Edith Keeler. "Star Trek: First Contact" and the "Yesterday's Enterprise" episode of TNG were also about reversing a changed timeline. Star Trek time travel has rules.
But in Countdown and the movie story, things work differently. The Narada and Spock's ship are sucked into a black hole (or something like it. I don't have my copy in front of me). This isn't the accidental slingshot effect of "Tomorrow is Yesterday." They went through, and, as I said earlier, Countdown makes it clear that the universe we know is still there and going along. All they know is that the Narada and Spock's ship vanished. Trek timeline changes happen instantly. We've seen this repeatedly. This didn't happen, so where did the Narada and Spock go?
Star Trek long ago established that multiple universes exist alongside the universe we know in the series. I have no problem with the idea that the Narada and Spock's ship used the black hole, which is basically a giant rip in space-time, as a doorway to the past of another universe. Just based on the looks of things (front windows on the bridge of the Kelvin), it's a universe that was already different from the one we knew.
In effect we now have two Star Trek universes, which isn't exactly a new idea. Marvel Comics has been running two (and more) universes for years. When their continuity got too overwhelming, they created the Ultimate lines, where things could start fresh and be different, while also continuing their regular continuity (which I believe is known as the 616 universe). For Star Trek, Pocket Books and the comics will continue the universe we know (albeit in an unofficial manner) while the movies show Star Trek: Universe II. I'm fine with that.
We have seen time travel several times on Trek, and every single time it has been shown that actions in the past WILL change the future. In "The City On The Edge Of Forever," the Enterprise and possibly the entire Federation were wiped out of existence because McCoy saved Edith Keeler. "Star Trek: First Contact" and the "Yesterday's Enterprise" episode of TNG were also about reversing a changed timeline. Star Trek time travel has rules.
But in Countdown and the movie story, things work differently. The Narada and Spock's ship are sucked into a black hole (or something like it. I don't have my copy in front of me). This isn't the accidental slingshot effect of "Tomorrow is Yesterday." They went through, and, as I said earlier, Countdown makes it clear that the universe we know is still there and going along. All they know is that the Narada and Spock's ship vanished. Trek timeline changes happen instantly. We've seen this repeatedly. This didn't happen, so where did the Narada and Spock go?
Star Trek long ago established that multiple universes exist alongside the universe we know in the series. I have no problem with the idea that the Narada and Spock's ship used the black hole, which is basically a giant rip in space-time, as a doorway to the past of another universe. Just based on the looks of things (front windows on the bridge of the Kelvin), it's a universe that was already different from the one we knew.
In effect we now have two Star Trek universes, which isn't exactly a new idea. Marvel Comics has been running two (and more) universes for years. When their continuity got too overwhelming, they created the Ultimate lines, where things could start fresh and be different, while also continuing their regular continuity (which I believe is known as the 616 universe). For Star Trek, Pocket Books and the comics will continue the universe we know (albeit in an unofficial manner) while the movies show Star Trek: Universe II. I'm fine with that.
But the question to be asked is, is it needed? Does the presence of Old Spock in the film really add that much, beyond the nostalgia of seeing a fan favourite return?
A straight out reboot would have given them more freedom, would have removed several plotholes, and would have forced the film to create a more memorable villain, rather than relying on "stuff happened in the future, pissed him off".
A straight out reboot would have given them more freedom, would have removed several plotholes, and would have forced the film to create a more memorable villain, rather than relying on "stuff happened in the future, pissed him off".
After Abrams's Star Trek the original prime timeline will be restored, since they would be no point of keeping going with it. For example, intervention by time agents at the moment of Nero's timeline alteration can re-established the original timeline. Theres no way you can press the reset button on 40 years of Star Trek, but you can do it for 2 or 3 movies.
Is it needed? No. I was okay with a fresh start. But it is a case of having your cake and eating it too. Abrams has completed rebooted the series, but technically rebooted nothing.
I also like this short tradition of handing off the movies from the old crew to the new, as was the case in Generations.
I think most people agree they managed to retain the essense of star trek and also the characters. So it would be really intresting to see how things would turn out if this was regarded as a replacement universe rather than an alternative. To see if the same premise of these characters develops a universe that corrolates with how it happened last time.
Much as i love TOS, there were flaws with it too (personal opinion only). It wasn't consistently brilliant. Perhaps this time round...
Much as i love TOS, there were flaws with it too (personal opinion only). It wasn't consistently brilliant. Perhaps this time round...
Every new Star Trek TV series has changed canon. Every Star Trek movie has changed canon. Every time they tell a new story it alters the Trek universe by adding something new. This movie is no different. They're part of an alternate reality. That would suggest that the other reality still exists but regardless, it's canon. Whatever they put on screen for us to watch is canon. Star Trek is Star Trek.
They didn't change canon, they added to the previous canon. For example, Sisco couldn't invite a new race called the Vulcans to DS9 and act as if it was the first time humans ever met those Vulcans. Because we already know from previous series that Human met Vulcans way before Sisco's time.
I do love to speculate on the question. I agree with previous posters that it matters not a hill of beans and the new Trek will go on without the canon restrictions regardless of the method involved. Still it is fun to think about. So I'm a Nerd...sue me.
Not always. You forget "Time's Arrow" and "All Good Things". In the former the changes were in effect before the time travel occured; in the latter the different time periods did not effect one another. "Yesterday's Enterprise" is the closest example of what happened in the movie. A person from the future goes to the past and changes history. More importantly they stayed in the past and continued to exist in the new history. I have argued and still do that "Yesterday's Enterprise" did not repair the timeline but altered it. The Klingon War timeline did not originate from future intervention rather from events as they unfolded without interference. Because the weapons discharge created a rift rather than destroy the Enterprise C. Picard and Co were able to alter the past. The important thing is the TNG timeline we know could not exist without the Klingon War timeline existing as Tasha was essential to it. Much as Spock and Nero are essential to this timeline. They exist therefore the place that spawned them must exist as well.
I agree this is a whole new Trek universe created through time travel or preexisting doesn't really matter.
Not always. You forget "Time's Arrow" and "All Good Things". In the former the changes were in effect before the time travel occured; in the latter the different time periods did not effect one another. "Yesterday's Enterprise" is the closest example of what happened in the movie. A person from the future goes to the past and changes history. More importantly they stayed in the past and continued to exist in the new history. I have argued and still do that "Yesterday's Enterprise" did not repair the timeline but altered it. The Klingon War timeline did not originate from future intervention rather from events as they unfolded without interference. Because the weapons discharge created a rift rather than destroy the Enterprise C. Picard and Co were able to alter the past. The important thing is the TNG timeline we know could not exist without the Klingon War timeline existing as Tasha was essential to it. Much as Spock and Nero are essential to this timeline. They exist therefore the place that spawned them must exist as well.
I agree this is a whole new Trek universe created through time travel or preexisting doesn't really matter.
Wasn't consistently brilliant?!?! You mean "Spock's Brain" amd "Mudd's Women" weren't the height of SciFi entertainment; with a deep and resounding social message? Blasphemer!!
Some say tomato, some say tomatoe.
You would think those that loved the original time line, would subscribe to the alternate reality theory by the director/writers/and what was said in the movie. It just seems that some people just want to be miserable.
"They erased my star trek! I don't care if everyone is saying that they didn't, I know they did!!!!"
"They erased my star trek! I don't care if everyone is saying that they didn't, I know they did!!!!"
Exactly. The Alternate time line will be the one that new movies will be located in. And if there is any doubt that the reset button has been pressed, then it should be made clear after you read that the sequel to this movie is called "star trek 2" not star trek 12 Link
I can see the last movie being made and relating back to fixing the more disasterous effects in the alternate time line, like stopping Vulcan from blowing up. And that may tie in the two universes. But that will be that. Who knows, maybe thats just wishful thinking on my part since as much as I liked the movie, I hated seeing Vulcan implode. This new movie will stand on its own, especially since it's such a huge hit at the box office.
Similar threads
