Why is ST09's altered timeline a problem?

[BillJ]

The brilliant thing about the new timeline is that STAR TREK'S future is not set in stone. They can do whatever they want with these new versions of the characters.

Which they could have done with a straight reboot. Or am I wrong in this assumption?

Sure, but the time-travel gimmick makes it more Star Trekky and let them include some nostalgic scenes with Leonard Nimoy. And it may have helped ease some of us old-time Trekkies into the new version.

Fundamentally, the movie is a reboot. The alternative universe business was just a clever bonus.

I didn't need to be eased into a re-boot though. To me the only thing this movie needed was an engaging story. Which it didn't have. Which is a shame because they wasted some very talented actors.

Star Trek had went to the time travel well about seventeen times too often prior to this film and Leonard Nimoy really felt out of place to me.

 

[DonIago]

I thought Nimoy's appearance was one of the highlights of the film and lent it an air of credibility. Not saying it -needed- that credibility, but it certainly didn't hurt IMO.

Also, glad people enjoyed my earlier post. I doubt I've ever been quoted so often.

 

[Greg Cox]

Star Trek had went to the time travel well about seventeen times too often prior to this film and Leonard Nimoy really felt out of place to me.

Our mileage just varied, I guess. I see time-travel as being a standard part of STAR TREK, like transporter beams, alien races, and spaceships. It's like a double agent in a spy movie; it's part of the genre. You expect to see it.

And I'll cop to getting choked up when Old Spock appeared. There's a place for nostalgia, as long as it's kept in its place.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

We are seeing an alternate universe, like Mirror, Mirror. There, it's perfectly acceptable to believe that there's another reality and dopplegangers for all the characters, rolling merrily along in parallel to the one we're watching. We've accepted this idea for decades, with several visits to the MU every now and then.

The question is: why is this concept that we've accepted for decades suddenly "bad"? Only if people think this is an alternative timeline, which we haven't ever accepted as something that has the "right" to run in parallel to the original timeline.

Just think of Abrams 'verse as another variation on the MU idea.

This.

And it introduces crossover possibilities, at least in the novels. Crucible: Robau, anyone?

 

[BillJ]

Our mileage just varied, I guess. I see time-travel as being a standard part of STAR TREK, like transporter beams, alien races, and spaceships.

Great thing about a message board... if everyone got the same mileage there'd be nothing to discuss.

I think that is where the movie went off track for me. Time and again I kept hearing about how this film was going to be different. In fact I remember one of the commercials trumpeting that it wasn't 'my fathers Star Trek'. They were right... it was a 'Cliffs Notes' version of my fathers Star Trek.

Nothing about this film really seemed fresh, it felt like various pieces of past Trek stitched together to make a film.

I have hope that now that the 'origin' story is out of the way they'll try to freshen things up.

 

[Greg Cox]

I have hope that now that the 'origin' story is out of the way they'll try to freshen things up.

Probably. This film kind of had to be the "Ciff Note's" version since the idea was to reintroduce the characters and universe to a whole new audience.

The idea wasn't really to give us jaded old-timers something we hadn't seen before. It was to make STAR TREK new again for the next generation.

 

[Sector 7]

Also, glad people enjoyed my earlier post. I doubt I've ever been quoted so often.

I agree. I feel like Sally Fields at the Oscars, "You like me! You really like me!"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sure, but the time-travel gimmick makes it more Star Trekky and let them include some nostalgic scenes with Leonard Nimoy. And it may have helped ease some of us old-time Trekkies into the new version.

Fundamentally, the movie is a reboot. The alternative universe business was just a clever bonus.

Exactly so.

 

[Greg Cox]

Also, glad people enjoyed my earlier post. I doubt I've ever been quoted so often.

It was a good post. And very true!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I do think that it would have been possible to do a true origin story, in the prime universe, without any time travel (the "Obsession" scenes aboard the Farragut would have made a killer opening scene, pardon the pun), and still update the thing for modern sensibilities, but we gotta go with what they gave us.

I've seen CGI renderings of what a modern day version of the original TOS bridge would have looked like. IMHO, they could have made it look VERY modern. Especially if they stuck to what the "Cage" version looked like. And in any case, bridge modules are swappable on the fly, so they could have used an entirely different bridge anyway and it wouldn't have made any difference.

 

[stonester1]

Agreed all around, Mr LB.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Well going with on how everything is being rebooted, it was expected.

You would still have the same problems people are whining about, the TOS crew being re-casted. Even if the film company decided to use CGI young versions, people would whine. Even if the film company built a delorean and used the actors when they were young, people would whine. Let's face it, people are whiners.

I, personally, have no problems with a new timeline. A new timeline isn't constrained what's previously shown. As they did show in the new movie, they did acknowledge the old with the new. So hopefully, they will keep doing it.

 

[BillJ]

You would still have the same problems people are whining about, the TOS crew being re-casted.

Not true. I've praised the cast time and again on this board. My beef is solely with the lackluster writing.

 

[DonIago]

Also, glad people enjoyed my earlier post. I doubt I've ever been quoted so often.

It was a good post. And very true!

We've got to stop meeting like this, Mr. Cox.

Also, thanks! Very cool to be complimented by someone who's actually a published Trek author!

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I do think that it would have been possible to do a true origin story, in the prime universe, without any time travel (the "Obsession" scenes aboard the Farragut would have made a killer opening scene, pardon the pun), and still update the thing for modern sensibilities, but we gotta go with what they gave us.

I've seen CGI renderings of what a modern day version of the original TOS bridge would have looked like. IMHO, they could have made it look VERY modern. Especially if they stuck to what the "Cage" version looked like. And in any case, bridge modules are swappable on the fly, so they could have used an entirely different bridge anyway and it wouldn't have made any difference.

Man, I soooo agree with this. Just check out Vektor's and Deg3D's updated versions of the TOS Enterprise. Absolutely fantastic!!! A true origin story, for me, would have been very much preferred over what we got. I would like to see how our favorite space heroes actually met and came to be aboard the Enterprise. I could care about that. The biggest problem I have with this alternate universe BS is that I do not care one iota about these characters. I have no reason to. Like the Mirror Universe, they are not the ones I know. So why should I care about them?

 

[stonester1]

I do. Because as far as I am concerned, they are the same characters. The writing took me part of the way, the actors took me the rest.

I don't not care about Batman in a Batman movie because the "Tim Burtonverse" may not be the same as the "Nolanverse". All I need for you to do is convince me that is Batman.

Then I can enjoy the story.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I do. Because as far as I am concerned, they are the same characters. The writing took me part of the way, the actors took me the rest.

I don't not care about Batman in a Batman movie because the "Tim Burtonverse" may not be the same as the "Nolanverse". All I need for you to do is convince me that is Batman.

Then I can enjoy the story.

Problem is, Batman was quite literally "rebooted". As in, the Nolan Batman has no connection except the names with the old Burton films. In the case of STXI, it is connected to TOS. The movie itself sort of established that it was an alternate reality. If you believe these are intended to be the same characters as the ones from TOS, then you must believe that the Abramsverse timeline has erased and overwritten the original. And the majority of proponents of the film reject the theory that the original timeline has been erased. So by definition, the NuTrek characters MUST not be the ones from the other universe. Can't be the same, since STXI takes place in an alternate timeline/universe. The original characters are still in their timeline.

 

[stonester1]

Problem is, Batman was quite literally "rebooted". As in, the Nolan Batman has no connection except the names with the old Burton films. In the case of STXI, it is connected to TOS. The movie itself sort of established that it was an alternate reality. If you believe these are intended to be the same characters as the ones from TOS, then you must believe that the Abramsverse timeline has erased and overwritten the original.

Why must I believe that?

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Problem is, Batman was quite literally "rebooted". As in, the Nolan Batman has no connection except the names with the old Burton films. In the case of STXI, it is connected to TOS. The movie itself sort of established that it was an alternate reality. If you believe these are intended to be the same characters as the ones from TOS, then you must believe that the Abramsverse timeline has erased and overwritten the original.

Why must I believe that?

Simply because if you didn't, then you would have to believe that these are NOT the same characters from TOS. They are, quite possibly, alternate universe versions of the originals. If they were the same people, then their histories would have been changed and all the events of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and all 10 movies would have been erased from the timeline. If OldSpock and Nero actually travelled back in time along their own timeline, changed history, and DIDN'T create an alternate universe/reality, then your belief that these are the same people that we have followed for 40+ years would be correct. And you could very well be correct. There is evidence to support both views. I, however, prefer to go with the alternate universe theory and believe that the characters I know from TOS are still in the TOS universe and the NuTrek characters are in the Abramsverse, completely separate and apart from each other, like the Mirror Universe.

 

[Greg Cox]

Problem is, Batman was quite literally "rebooted". As in, the Nolan Batman has no connection except the names with the old Burton films. In the case of STXI, it is connected to TOS. The movie itself sort of established that it was an alternate reality. If you believe these are intended to be the same characters as the ones from TOS, then you must believe that the Abramsverse timeline has erased and overwritten the original. And the majority of proponents of the film reject the theory that the original timeline has been erased. So by definition, the NuTrek characters MUST not be the ones from the other universe. Can't be the same, since STXI takes place in an alternate timeline/universe. The original characters are still in their timeline.

I suppose, in an abstract sort of way, but you may be overthinking it. Why does it matter if the characters are "the same"? Or if the original versions are still off in tv heaven somewhere?

At the end of the day, it's a new STAR TREK movie with slightly different versions of Kirk and Spock. Just like the Christopher Lee DRACULA movies were slightly different than the Bela Lugosi ones. Why worry about which Dracula is the "real" one?

It's all just make-believe.