Why is ST09's altered timeline a problem?

[John200]

If I don't like something entertainment wise I tend to ignore it.

That works for me.

 

[stonester1]

[
Simply because if you didn't, then you would have to believe that these are NOT the same characters from TOS.

Speaking for myself, all I need is good writing and actors who convince me they are the characters they are portraying. We can noodle on about how they fit in established continuity, but other than that being a moderately interesting intellectual game, to me, it doesn't really matter much.

I want

A. Those characters well written

B. Convincingly portrayed.

I understand this is an "alternate universe". But as far as I'm concerned, those are THOSE characters I grew up with.

They convinced me.

That's all I need.

 

[ST-One]

If I don't like something entertainment wise I tend to ignore it.

That works for me.

Can't argue with that.

Damn you!!!

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Speaking for myself, all I need is good writing and actors who convince me they are the characters they are portraying. We can noodle on about how they fit in established continuity, but other than that being a moderately interesting intellectual game, to me, it doesn't really matter much.

I want

A. Those characters well written

B. Convincingly portrayed.

I understand this is an "alternate universe". But as far as I'm concerned, those are THOSE characters I grew up with.

They convinced me.

That's all I need.

No insult intended, but you must have lower standards than I. In my opinion, the writing was horrendous. I mean, Star Wars horrendous. And the only character that I found even remotely similar to the original was Karl Urban's version of Bones. he was actually very good. He did De Kelley proud, IMO. As for the rest, they are all good actors. They did a good job of acting in the movie. But none of them convinced me that they were the characters that I knew. They were not even close. But of course, that's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Edit: Sorry, forgot to quote.

 

[stonester1]

No insult intended, but you must have lower standards than I

I rather doubt it. It COULD be a matter of "taste".

But of course, that's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

It would seem so.

 

[Sector 7]

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 just physically checked and not a single DVD or book in my collection has been erased. They are there for me to enjoy any time I chose.
This idea that the past has been erased is not true to fact. The only reason the writers created the 'alternate reality' was to appease the fanboys. It did not work, but at least they tried. I would be just as happy with a straight reboot as the blended solution we received. I still applaud the decision to include Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime.
At the end of the day, they are fictional characters. No real, human lives were lost in the making of this movie. There are no more plot holes than any other Star Trek series or movies (another common complaint). We have never had "perfect Star Trek"-- whatever that may be. While I have my complaints (overly emotional Spock anyone?), I will be in line to see the next chapter.

 

[Greg Cox]

We can noodle on about how they fit in established continuity, but other than that being a moderately interesting intellectual game, to me, it doesn't really matter much.

.

Exactly. As I've argued before, worrying about whether this is the "real" timeline is kind of like debating how many Klingons can dance on the head of a pin.

It doesn't have any impact on my ability to appreciate the new version on its own terms.

 

[ST-One]

No insult intended, but you must have lower standards than I. In my opinion, the writing was horrendous. I mean, Star Wars horrendous. And the only character that I found even remotely similar to the original was Karl Urban's version of Bones. he was actually very good. He did De Kelley proud, IMO. As for the rest, they are all good actors. They did a good job of acting in the movie. But none of them convinced me that they were the characters that I knew. They were not even close. But of course, that's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

So you wanted impersonations of Shatner, Nimoy and the rest.

You should just hire Kevin Pollak for your own fanfilm.

 

[Greg Cox]

In my opinion, the writing was horrendous. I mean, Star Wars horrendous. .

Okay, I'll bite. Since when was STAR WARS horrendous?

I don't mean to be contrary, but it seemed like an odd way to insult something. STAR WARS is the most popular science fiction series in the world.

Who doesn't like STAR WARS?

 

[I-Am-Zim]

No insult intended, but you must have lower standards than I

I rather doubt it. It COULD be a matter of "taste".

But of course, that's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

It would seem so.

Seriosly. I didn't mean any insult. Simply stating my opinion. And mileage varies for all of us.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The fact that novels will continue to be written for the original timeline is all the proof I need that the Abramsverse timeline did not overwrite it. Even if you believe that this is the same universe and not a different one, this is still the case.

Besides, how do we really know that in all other previous instances of time travel, the timelines were overwritten? The "Yesterday's Enterprise" one could still have existed even after the Ent-C went back to correct it. We just don't know. Although I find it likely that it does work like this - time travel doesn't *erase* timelines, it can only create new ones.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I just physically checked and not a single DVD or book in my collection has been erased. They are there for me to enjoy any time I chose.
This idea that the past has been erased is not true to fact. The only reason the writers created the 'alternate reality' was to appease the fanboys. It did not work, but at least they tried. I would be just as happy with a straight reboot as the blended solution we received. I still applaud the decision to include Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime.

I'm not talking about your DVD's vanishing off the face of the earth. That's another common retort I hear a lot. No, our DVD's are fully intact. However, if one subscribes to the notion that these are in fact the same characters from TOS, then it must be concluded that the EVENTS depicted in said DVD's has been overwritten by the new timeline.

At the end of the day, they are fictional characters. No real, human lives were lost in the making of this movie.

Say it ain't so!!! And all this time I thought my DVD's were "historical documents" from the future!! Oh the horror!

There are no more plot holes than any other Star Trek series or movies (another common complaint). We have never had "perfect Star Trek"-- whatever that may be. While I have my complaints (overly emotional Spock anyone?), I will be in line to see the next chapter.

I don't know. I saw a lot of plot holes. Moreso than in most Trek movies. And I've seen 'em all. But you're right, no Trek movie has ever been perfect. They all have their own problems. STXI, however, has more than it's fair share, IMO.

So you wanted impersonations of Shatner, Nimoy and the rest.

You should just hire Kevin Pollak for your own fanfilm.

Not a bad idea. He does a very convincing Shat impression.

But seriously, no. I didn't want "impersonations" per se. I wanted to see the Kirk that I know, not "Kirk the Jerk". The alternate Kirk's life is so radically changed from the original TOS Kirk that there was no way he could have been the same person that we know from TOS. Same with regard to Spock. The Alt-Spock's life is radically different from the TOS Spock's. He can't be the same person. However, if they had done a true prequel, that wouldn't have been the case. These would have been the characters we know. Of course each actor would have put his/her own "spin" to the character, but essentially, they would have been the same. And yes, I was hoping for a little more similarities to the original characters. Karl Urban was the only one who delivered on that for me.

Okay, I'll bite. Since when was STAR WARS horrendous?

I don't mean to be contrary, but it seemed like an odd way to insult something. STAR WARS is the most popular science fiction series in the world.

Who doesn't like STAR WARS?

I never said I didn't like Star Wars. I'm a Star Wars fan. But you have to admit, the writing, especially the dialogue, is horrendous. That is and has been a common gripe about Star Wars for 30 years. I didn't find the writing or the dialogue in STXI to be intellegent. But, again, mileage varies dramatically on that point.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I never said I didn't like Star Wars. I'm a Star Wars fan. But you have to admit, the writing, especially the dialogue, is horrendous. That is and has been a common gripe about Star Wars for 30 years. I didn't find the writing or the dialogue in STXI to be intellegent. But, again, mileage varies dramatically on that point.

Curious, what did you find unintelligent about the dialog? The dialog seem like standard conversational English to me. Nothing too flowerly like "My Lady", silly like "Yousa mean people gonna dies!" or overly crude. The delivery was natural too.

 

[Warped9]

Who doesn't like STAR WARS?

Me for one. It is very nice to look at, but it is terribly written, particularly the more recent trilogy, The animated Clone Wars is significantly better than the live-action films. It is sci-fi at its simplest and near most dumbed down.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Curious, what did you find unintelligent about the dialog? The dialog seem like standard conversational English to me. Nothing too flowerly like "My Lady", silly like "Yousa mean people gonna dies!" or overly crude. The delivery was natural too.

"We wait. Wait for the one who allowed our home to be destroyed. As we've been doing for 25 years.". That's just one example. I'll have to watch the movie again to pick out some more. I know most will simply say it was "expositional" dialogue. But to me it didn't sound like something that a maniacal villain would say. His crew already knew they had been "waiting" for 25 years. They already knew Spock was the one who allowed their home to be destroyed. That line was cheesy and comic-bookish. There were more. When they come to me I'll tell ya.

 

[stonester1]

The fact that novels will continue to be written for the original timeline is all the proof I need that the Abramsverse timeline did not overwrite it. Even if you believe that this is the same universe and not a different one, this is still the case.

Indeed, I'm reading them right now. Just finished an epic story in the 24th century dealing with a final showdown with the Borg. It showed looks at several different starship crews in action (Enterprise-E, Titan, Aventine, Excaliber, Voyager, Bozeman) and crossed several eras, including the final fate of the NX-01's sister ship, the Columbia.

It was absolutely fantastic.

 

[Greg Cox]

Okay, just to avoid any more pointless debates about what happened to the old timeline, why don't we just stipulate that the new versions are NOT the same characters as the old versions. Why does that matter?

It's still STAR TREK, just different.

 

[muzzleflash]

I see no reason why a prequel or origins story couldn't be done and remain consistent with the "prime" timeline or universe or whatever.

As a example...Kirk spoke about Mallory's father helping him get into the academy. We could have seen that, instead of Pike being the mentor figure,
(which was never really the case).

It seems lazy to me, it seems as if they could have written a story in keeping with established canon, just as exciting, just as entertaining.
But someone wanted to do different things, things that wouldn't be in keeping with established ST history or canon or premises.

Wait. So it seems lazy to you that they didn't rewrite a story conforming to established canon?

It WAS lazy that they decided to take their origin stories in a different direction?

Oookay

 

[stonester1]

To Mr. Cox: Or this...how about let fans think whatever they wish, since there is no definitive answer everyone isn't going to accept?

As far as I'm concerned, they are the same characters. But it's clear others think differently. We aren't going to convince each other. But I say, it's not important to tie it down, and there's no point in trying, because there is no definitive answer one can get everyone to agree on.

But it doesn't really matter, as you say.

 

[Nerys Myk]

"We wait. Wait for the one who allowed our home to be destroyed. As we've been doing for 25 years.". That's just one example. I'll have to watch the movie again to pick out some more. I know most will simply say it was "expositional" dialogue. But to me it didn't sound like something that a maniacal villain would say. His crew already knew they had been "waiting" for 25 years. They already knew Spock was the one who allowed their home to be destroyed. That line was cheesy and comic-bookish. There were more. When they come to me I'll tell ya.

Not seeing the problem with that line in the context of Star Trek or maniacal villain dialog. Ayel asked a question and Nero answered. Even for non-maniacal villains it sounds natural.