Why is ST09's altered timeline a problem?

[stonester1]

Yes. They're trying to have it both ways and they can't.

Yes, they can.

 

[stonester1]

(On a related note, it puzzles me how so many writers—including obviously O&K—seem to think the only interesting thing to do with Vulcans is show their emotions bursting out. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that actors like to emote, and relatively few of them are good at playing "stoic"? Or perhaps it's just a little basic human chauvinism...)

THE WOMEN!!!!!

 

[Hartzilla2007]

No but there was a comic miniseries where the DC heros Batman included went back in time did something at the Big Bang and replaced the DC multiverse with just a single universe.

Yes. Getting rid of alternate universes/timelines.

Except that that the multiverse was restored in the same mini the fixed Batman's history so WRONG!

Also in case you were not aware their launching Superman Earth One and Batman Earth One soon which are set in another Universe.

Also I can tell the difference between Dark Knightverse Batman, regular Batman and Kingdom Come Batman and at some point they were all ment to be the same guy (well not Dark Knightverse Batman and Kingdom Come Batman).

This literally makes no sense.

When the Dark Knight returns came up it was originally invisioned as Batman's and the DC universe's future put they later changed their minds and it became one of the new 52 Earths in the new multiverse.

When Kingdom Come came up that was then going to be Batman's and the DC universe's future but again they changed their minds and its a seperate Earth though since they guy who kicked off the events of Kingdom Come now running around on New Earth something like Kingdom Come may happen in the future.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's just a TV show and some movies, folks.

Yes. They're trying to have it both ways and they can't.

They can.

They did.

They win.

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

It was a risky move, granted, but obviously it paid off, creatively and financially.

In the long run, I think we gained more than we lost.

I respect your views Greg and I have enjoyed alot of your work in the past.

So my question is this: Could you have come up with a satisfying, action-packed origin story set in the original continuity? Something along the line of Trek XI, but that worked within the original framework?

Perhaps, but you'd still be stuck with the problem that we already know the future of all these characters, how Kirk is going to die and so on, and of the universe. We know the future of the Klingon Empire, when holodecks are going to be invented, etc. But by altering the timeline, all bets are off. They can have the Klingons team up with the Borg next movie if they want . . . or have Sulu marry T'Pring.

Plus, let's be honest, people were always going to looking for canon violations no matter what they did. Now they can just get on with making STAR TREK their way, without having to to worry about that. The timeline technobabble just gives them a little more wiggle room to tweak things as necessary. It was a smart, sneaky idea.

Glad you like my books. Thanks!

 

[stonester1]

Exactly. Imagining all the threads with anal retentive fans counting "teh cannon violations" with each thread, THEN going on about how "they could do better", that just makes me want to vomit.

This way, there is no canon, and we can just get on with the story, thankyewveruhmuch.

I love the PrimeTrekverse. But it's still there, still to be used, maybe, at some point in the future on TV or in the movies. And right now, RIGHT NOW, we've got the books and the online game.

This one will be loaded with surprises.

I like surprises.

 

[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.

Yeah, but there was never an episode of TV Batman were comic book Batman came back in time and altered the timeline to create cartoon Batman.

No but there was a comic miniseries where the DC heros Batman included went back in time did something at the Big Bang and replaced the DC multiverse with just a single universe.

Then another comic miniseries that rewrote history so the the guy who killed Batman's parents was never caught.

And then yet another comic miniseries where history was changed again so that the guy who killed Batman's parents was caught.

Also I can tell the difference between Dark Knightverse Batman, regular Batman and Kingdom Come Batman and at some point they were all ment to be the same guy(well not Dark Knightverse Batman and Kingdom Come Batman).

Indeed, there have been alternate universe versions of Batman running around the comics for as long as I can remember!

Heck, INFINITE CRISIS was all about the original Earth-2 Superman fighting the current Superman. (Trust me. I wrote the novelization of that story!)

Anybody who grew up on DC Comics should have no problem with the new movie. Just think of Shatner as the "Silver Age" Kirk!

 

[DonIago]

You know, right now in the MU, those posters criticizing the movie for not being a clean reboot are criticizing the movie for being a total reboot and Greg Cox is criticizing Batman and every other series that ever dared to allow its characters to be reimagined. Meanwhile, I'm posting exactly what I have here, but with a few more "not"'s.

 

[Shazam!]

Except that that the multiverse was restored in the same mini the fixed Batman's history so WRONG!

How was I wrong in saying that the original Crisis series attempted to resolve the multiverse issue? What they did after that is irelevant.

Also in case you were not aware their launching Superman Earth One and Batman Earth One soon which are set in another Universe.

I don't even know what your point is any more, unless you're trying to tell me that Earth One Superman and Batman are the same person as their present day counterparts. Which is nonsense.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You know, right now in the MU, those posters criticizing the movie for not being a clean reboot are criticizing the movie for being a total reboot and Greg Cox is criticizing Batman and every other series that ever dared to allow its characters to be reimagined. Meanwhile, I'm posting exactly what I have here, but with a few more "not"'s.

Right now in the MU I'm on a date. With a real girl.

 

[DonIago]

(blinks) My god, so am I...

 

[Shazam!]

In the nu-verse, you're dating each other.

 

[stonester1]

I don't even know what your point is any more, unless you're trying to tell me that Earth One Superman and Batman are the same person as their present day counterparts. Which is nonsense.

No. They are Batman/Bruce Wayne and Superman/Clark Kent. And they are recognizably so, not some "other guys".

To say otherwise...is nonsense.

 

[ProwlAlpha]

With Shazam! as the camera operator with plans for a director's cut, special edition, 10th anniversary edition, special director's cut, 11th anniversary edition, and the ultimate cut with director's commentary uncovered from the vaults only to be released for a limited time.

 

[Shazam!]

No. They are Batman/Bruce Wayne and Superman/Clark Kent. And they are recognizably so, not some "other guys".

To say otherwise...is nonsense.

I agree.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

In the nu-verse, you're dating each other.

I'm rockin' that goatee, though.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Personally, I do think of it as an "adaptation" of Star Trek. That doesn't really solve anything, though, because:

A) An adaptation is not the real thing. There have umpty-zillion screen adaptations of Sherlock Holmes — he may be the most-filmed character ever — but the real Holmes is the one who lives in Conan Doyle's stories. Period. Full stop. The real Tarzan is in Burroughs' novels. And the real Star Trek is the version we saw take shape on TV... which was a shared universe, not the work of a single author, but which was a single (relatively) internally consistent fictional construct, nonetheless.

I couldn't agree more with this! It seems that quite a few of the proponents of the JJA "reboot" like to bring up how Holmes, Shakespeare, Bond, and various comic book superheroes have been redone many times over and nobody ever argues about that. So why should Star Trek be any different? Well, in the case of Shakespeare, his plays are stand-alone works. One play can be re-interpreted however one likes as long as the core elements are still there. In comic books, let's say Batman for example, if they had kept the continuity consistent, Batman would have grown old and died years ago. Inorder to keep things fresh and keep the heroes in their prime, the comic book universe has to be "reset". It couldn't work any other way. In the case of Star Trek, we are dealing with a vast fictional universe that spans centuries and has a relatively cohesive internal continuity. Of course there are errors here and there, but that is to be expected with a franchise that has been in existence continuously for over 40 years. We have followed these characters for the better parts of their careers in Starfleet. We've watched them live, evolve, age, get promoted/demoted, and even die. We've watched the centuries pass, technology evolve, wars and peace. That's why I care about Kirk, Spock, and the rest. And also why I don't care about NuKirk or NuSpock. I've been a TOS fan for the better part of my adult life. I've come to know these characters. As I've said before, if they were real, I could almost call them old friends. Because the characters in NuTrek aren't the ones I know, but separate alternate universe copes, I have no reason to care about them. At least not yet. I haven't had time to get to know them. And from what I've seen in the movie, I don't know if I want to know much more about them. At any rate, the original Star Trek universe, despite the myriad time travel episodes and movies, is considered to be a single universe. All six TV series and 10 movies take place in the same universe, along the same timeline progressing from the 22nd (ENT) to the 24th (TNG-Era) centuries. No other entertainment franchise (except possibly Doctor Who) can lay that kind of claim. Personally, I feel that Star Trek The Original Series can stand on its own. It didn't need to be rebooted. TOS was just fine the way it was.

B) It's not a particularly good adaptation. What some see as glaring discrepancies others dismiss as nitpicks, but the fact remains, there are differences from the source material as well as similarities. To my mind, the similarities are superficial, while the differences greatly outweigh them... meaning that this new version doesn't get the benefit of the doubt I would extend to something featuring characters and concepts I could genuinely recognize as the ones I'd come to know.

That's what I'm talkin' about! Once again, I totally agree!

C) Even setting aside all prior knowledge of the source material (not really possible, but for the sake of argument)... it's not a particularly good film in its own right. The story is weighed down by plot holes and contrivances, the science is idiotic, the dialogue is full of non sequiturs, the characters behave in completely unmotivated ways, and so on.

Well put.

So when all is said and done, the adaptation simply pales in comparison to the original. IMHO, of course.

Thank you. Very well said indeed.

Names and jobs, yes: the most superficial characteristics. But they don't actually have the same personalities, or quirks, or looks... not in the film I saw, anyway. The writers instead reduced them to simplified caricatures of the characters we've come to know. Scotty was pure "comic relief." Spock was a foil for Kirk, with little of the internal gravitas that made the character so fascinating. Kirk was virtually unrecognizable, just a stock Hollywood "rebellious young hothead." To me, the only one who was really recognizable as his old self was McCoy... and even there, Urban was burdened with too many "cliché" lines.

I agree. Just because they have the same names doesn't make them the same people. They are not the same people. They are alternate reality versions of the characters we know. They (espceially Kirk and Spock) have experienced wildly different circumstances as compared to their original universe counterparts, thus making them essentially different people. Add to that the fact that they are, quite literally, physically different people since they exist in another separate alternate universe as compared to their original universe counterparts. Example: NuKirk could actually cross through an interphasic rift or some other Trekkian thimajig into the TOS universe and actually meet his original universe counterpart. Thus, same names, different people.

Same here. They're like variants or clones or evil twins of the characters I know... similar but not quite right.

I'm not sure quite how much of this to chalk up to my knowledge that it's not the "real" Trekverse, and how much to chalk up to the plain godawful writing. It's a little of both. I'm inclined to think that I could've enjoyed (perhaps even come to love) a really smart, thoughtful, imaginative reboot... but this film didn't give me a chance to test that possibility.

Once again, couldn't have said it better myself. However, I would be careful using the term "real" Trekverse. Some of the NuTrek fans will invariably try to insult and demean you for having some type of delusion that the Star Trek universe is real and not fictional.

It's a different issue, but I think it's an intertwined one. If the characters and setting were recognizable, it'd be easier to give relate to them and thus give the benefit of the doubt to goofs in the story. (To a certain extent, anyway; ST V was still crap, no matter what.) Conversely, if the filmmakers made lots of changes but the end result was something brilliant, a real improvement over what went before, that would pretty much justify itself as a creative exercise in its own right. This movie, however, had neither set of virtues to recommend it, no strengths on one side to balance weaknesses on the other.

Agreed.

Very succinctly summed up. Really, the only things marking it as Star Trek at all (besides the title) were a handful of character and ship names, a (very) few design elements, and a smattering of words like Starfleet and Vulcan. IOW, the most superficial elements that "brand" the "franchise." The actual substance was something different and far less satisfying.

Kind of like New Coke. Remember that?

For me, the look of the Abramsverse was a deal breaker. Had the Abramsprise actually resembled the original Enterprise more than simple having a saucer and two nacelles, I may have felt differently. Had the iBridge not looked so much like the jewelry department at Belk and more like the simple, functionally elegant TOS bridge, again I may have given it more of a chance. IMO, the only thing they got right aesthetically were the uniforms. And even they look completely out of place in the stark glaring white landscape of the iBridge.

That's one more good example. Thank you.

(On a related note, it puzzles me how so many writers—including obviously O&K—seem to think the only interesting thing to do with Vulcans is show their emotions bursting out. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that actors like to emote, and relatively few of them are good at playing "stoic"? Or perhaps it's just a little basic human chauvinism...)

Excactly. NuSpock wasn't even close to Original Spock as far as his personality and emotions. Sure, Spock smiled in "The Cage". And he also had a smattering of emotion in "WNMHGB". But he was still Vulcan. And he still had control over his emotions. It was disheartening to watch NuSpock lose control of his emotions so often. As a child, it was somewhat understandable. But as an adult, not so much. They could have done much better.

 

[Agenda]

Excactly. NuSpock wasn't even close to Original Spock as far as his personality and emotions. Sure, Spock smiled in "The Cage". And he also had a smattering of emotion in "WNMHGB". But he was still Vulcan. And he still had control over his emotions. It was disheartening to watch NuSpock lose control of his emotions so often. As a child, it was somewhat understandable. But as an adult, not so much. They could have done much better.

Did young TOS Spock watch his mother and planet die in front of him?

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Yes. They're trying to have it both ways and they can't.

Yes, they can.

No. They can't.

It's just a TV show and some movies, folks.

Yes. They're trying to have it both ways and they can't.

They can.

They did.

They win.

Not necessarily. If thay had "won", this thread wouldn't be here.

Excactly. NuSpock wasn't even close to Original Spock as far as his personality and emotions. Sure, Spock smiled in "The Cage". And he also had a smattering of emotion in "WNMHGB". But he was still Vulcan. And he still had control over his emotions. It was disheartening to watch NuSpock lose control of his emotions so often. As a child, it was somewhat understandable. But as an adult, not so much. They could have done much better.

Did young TOS Spock watch his mother and planet die in front of him?

Give that guy a cookie!!!!! That is precicesly my point! Because NuSpock had to endure such radically different circumstances in his alternate universe, he is pretty much a completely different person both physically and emotionally as compared to his Original Universe counterpart. If young TOS Spock were to cross over to the Abramsverse, he surely wouldn't recognize his NuTrek doppelganger(sp?). They probably wouldn't even get along well with each other.

 

[Greg Cox]

In comic books, let's say Batman for example, if they had kept the continuity consistent, Batman would have grown old and died years ago. Inorder to keep things fresh and keep the heroes in their prime, the comic book universe has to be "reset". It couldn't work any other way. .

But the TOS crew did grow old and die. (In the case of some of the actors, literally.) So it's the same situation.

If you want more Kirk and Spock, which the public obviously does, it's time to "reset" things. Especially if you want to "keep things fresh" like you say.

What's wrong with keeping STAR TREK fresh, too?