Why is ST09's altered timeline a problem?

[Greg Cox]

The fact that they are alternate reality versions of the TOS characters and not the actual TOS characters I know completely negates the possibility of me giving a crap about them or anything that happens to them.

Okay, I suspect we're all starting to repeat ourselves at this point, but I confess that, on a fundamental level, I just don't get this.

Why does it matter if they're the "actual" characters or not? Why does one version of Kirk matter more than another?

Either the story works or it doesn't. (Which is a whole other issue!)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

These characters now are as "actual" as they've ever been, and several of them are more interesting to boot.

Shatner isn't Kirk - he's just the first guy who played Kirk.

 

[ST-One]

My only problem with the movie is that it has created a big debate between the movie creating a Parallel Universe or an Altered Original Timeline.


They seem to have gone out of their way to defend and explain how the movie takes place in an Parallel Universe I just wish those explanations had been in the movie itself!!

Spock: '... thereby creating an entirely new chain of events...'

Parallel universe. Altered Timeline.
Ultimately these are the same things only by a different name.

This new "chain of events" can equally mean that this is a new time line within the same universe instead of a parallel universe. "Creating an entirely new chain of events" is a very vague and ambiguous line.

Then you don't know your Star Trek.
Go watch 'Parallels' again.

 

[Brian]

Oh boy. I have a feeling this discussion is going to stray into "personal canon" territory real soon. lol

 

[ST-One]

Altered Timeline and Parallel Universe are the same thing.

Again, not a fact.

Multiverses have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", and "alternative timelines", among others.

Just sayin'

 

[DonIago]

This is the worst ping-pong match ever...

Also, if people don't care about the film or the characters portrayed in said film, I fail to understand why they feel obligated to keep on talking about how much they don't care. We get it, you don't care.

...or is it that you actually do care and are just disappointed? Because if that's so, I'd recommend trying to have some optimism that the next film will be better...since Trek has never had a completely successful first anything.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I care a lot more about these guys than I did the incarnations in films like "The Final Frontier" and "The Undiscovered Country." Ye gods!

 

[DonIago]

I liked TUC, but TFF is the only Trek film I don't own on DVD.

 

[Gojira]

Spock: '... thereby creating an entirely new chain of events...'

Parallel universe. Altered Timeline.
Ultimately these are the same things only by a different name.

This new "chain of events" can equally mean that this is a new time line within the same universe instead of a parallel universe. "Creating an entirely new chain of events" is a very vague and ambiguous line.

Then you don't know your Star Trek.
Go watch 'Parallels' again.

I have watched Parallels many times and I have no problem with the theory its just that the movie itself doesn't clearly state that it is a parallel universe story.

 

[Greg Cox]

I liked TUC, but TFF is the only Trek film I don't own on DVD.

Ditto.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You know, if people took the time spent nitpicking continuity and imaginary cosmology and applied it to masturbation instead we'd at least have orgasms as reward for it.

 

[ST-One]

This new "chain of events" can equally mean that this is a new time line within the same universe instead of a parallel universe. "Creating an entirely new chain of events" is a very vague and ambiguous line.

Then you don't know your Star Trek.
Go watch 'Parallels' again.

I have watched Parallels many times and I have no problem with the theory its just that the movie itself doesn't clearly state that it is a parallel universe story.

Yeah, it does.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Because there's more to STAR TREK than just minor bits of trivia. STAR TREK is about Kirk and Spock and the crew of the Starship Enterprise, having amazing sci-fi adventures in Star Trek's positive vision of the future.

Nitpicky stuff like "Mallory" is not essential to the basic idea. And would have just got in the way. It was a movie, not an encyclopedia entry.

Just think of it as a new adaptation of STAR TREK, like all the umpteen versions of TARZAN or DRACULA. A ZORRO movie doesn't stop becoming ZORRO if they tinker with the details a little for dramatic effect. And a movie about Kirk and the Enterprise is still STAR TREK even if tweaks the continuity for dramatic effect.

Exactly so.

This is a movie about Kirk and Spock and the crew of the Enterprise. That's what I care about. All of this trivial about timelines and the old continuity and the godblessed "Star Trek universe" - that's what I "don't give a shit about."

QFT

Hell, James Bond just got twenty-five years younger and a lot cooler. Didn't bother me a bit.

Agreed and we get Felix back.

 

[Greg Cox]

As a kid, I had no trouble understanding that the comic book Batman, the tv Batman, and the cartoon Batman all had their own continuities. Ditto with Frankenstein, Sherlock Holmes, Conan, and whomever. Didn't bother me one bit. None of them "mattered" more than another.

That's why I don't understand why people are freaked out by a new version of STAR TREK.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Okay, I suspect we're all starting to repeat ourselves at this point, but I confess that, on a fundamental level, I just don't get this.

Why does it matter if they're the "actual" characters or not? Why does one version of Kirk matter more than another?

Either the story works or it doesn't. (Which is a whole other issue!)

It matters to me because I don't know this set of alternate universe copies. I've just met these people. I've known Kirk, Spock, and the rest for more than 20 years. I've seen all their adventures, several times each (well, with the exception of TFF). I've seen them live, die (sometimes more than once), age, get promoted, demoted, love, laugh, face perils and death, and so on. If they were real people, I would almost call them old friends. The NuTrek versions are totally new and I can't care about them now because I haven't had time to get to know them. They are very different from the characters I know. Kirk and Spock most notably are almost totally diffferent people compared to their original TOS counterparts. I did not find the new Captain Kirk especially distasteful. He's a pompous jerk who didn't deserve his Captain's bars. Unlike the original Kirk who was a seasoned officer with years of command experience under his belt prior to earning his Captaincy. Maybe I'll warm up to them after the next movie. But I kind of doubt it.

These characters now are as "actual" as they've ever been, and several of them are more interesting to boot.

Shatner isn't Kirk - he's just the first guy who played Kirk.

He's the ONLY guy who has ever played Kirk until now. That's over 40 years. I think it's safe to say that William Shatner defined the character of James T. Kirk. Unlike novels and plays, there was no original template for Shat to follow. He made Kirk who he was. Without the Shat, there would be no James T. Kirk. Now that's not to say I have a problem with somebody else playing Kirk. That isn't the issue. I just wish NuKirk had been more like OriginalKirk. Not only in the acting style, but in his experiences as well. His father didn't have to die. He didn't have to have an abusive stepfather. He didn't have to be a jerk. That's just the way he was written. Personally, I would much rather have seen the law abiding, straight laced, bookworm-ish Kirk that gary Mitchell described in WNMHGB as opposed to this juvenile delinquent from the Abramsverse. But that's just my opinion. One of many.

Then you don't know your Star Trek.
Go watch 'Parallels' again.

I have watched Parallels many times and I have no problem with the theory its just that the movie itself doesn't clearly state that it is a parallel universe story.

Yeah, it does.

No, it doesn't.

Because there's more to STAR TREK than just minor bits of trivia. STAR TREK is about Kirk and Spock and the crew of the Starship Enterprise, having amazing sci-fi adventures in Star Trek's positive vision of the future.

Nitpicky stuff like "Mallory" is not essential to the basic idea. And would have just got in the way. It was a movie, not an encyclopedia entry.

Just think of it as a new adaptation of STAR TREK, like all the umpteen versions of TARZAN or DRACULA. A ZORRO movie doesn't stop becoming ZORRO if they tinker with the details a little for dramatic effect. And a movie about Kirk and the Enterprise is still STAR TREK even if tweaks the continuity for dramatic effect.

Exactly so.

This is a movie about Kirk and Spock and the crew of the Enterprise. That's what I care about. All of this trivial about timelines and the old continuity and the godblessed "Star Trek universe" - that's what I "don't give a shit about."

Then we differ. Because I do give a $hit about the "godblessed" Star Trek universe. The abramsverse, on the other hand, I have a hard time caring about.

 

[DonIago]

^^Because Star Trek's continuity is quite obviously infinitely more important, well-developed, sacrosanct...um...you get the idea.

Really, I am shocked and appalled that you weren't already aware of this. Shocked and appalled!!!

 

[Greg Cox]

Don't get me wrong. I love STAR TREK. I'll be a Trekkie until the day I die. I've spent much of my career writing STAR TREK.

But it's just a tv show, not a religion. I don't see why its continuity is more sacred than, say, LOGAN'S RUN or PLANET OF THE APES.

 

[Warped9]

These are not the same characters. This isn't the same universe with the same history. And I doubt very much Spock Prime is the original TOS Spock.

Nothing looks remotely like TOS in terms of tech and aesthetics, even if TOS' designs were tweaked for feature film standards. The characters don't act the same. The history that led to the current state of affairs isn't the same. Where these characters are at this point of time is wildly divergent from what was already known. Characters that should be there (if it were the same universe) aren't there. TOS' universe (as fictional as it was) had a measure of credibility to it (with context of itself) that the Abramsverse totally lacks.

A reboot could still have worked for me, but they changed so much and invested nothing in anything familiar (particularly character wise) that I had no emotional empathy whatsoever for what unfolded onscreen.

Or more succinctly, "I couldn't give a shit."

 

[DonIago]

You give enough of one to make the post you just made.

 

[BillJ]

But it's just a tv show, not a religion. I don't see why its continuity is more sacred than, say, LOGAN'S RUN or PLANET OF THE APES.

I think the difference is the pure fact that Paramount had something special that really hadn't been duplicated in TV or any other media: They had a shared universe of six TV series, ten movies and hundreds of tie-in stories. With literally hundreds of different creators playing in the same sandbox. To me I think it was very short sighted that they could not deliver an exciting movie within the existing framework of the franchise.