EXCLUSIVE: Bob Orci Explains How The New Star Trek Movie Fits With Trek Canon (and Real Science) | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

EXCLUSIVE: Bob Orci Explains How The New Star Trek Movie Fits With Trek Canon (and Real Science) December 11, 2008

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Interview,Orci/Kurtzman,Science/Technology,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

One topic that seems to come up quite a bit with Trek fans regarding the new Star Trek movie, it is the subject of the Star Trek continuity (or canon). It has been the contention of the film makers that despite how some things may appear to be rewriting Trek’s history, the movie fits within Trek’s canon. In a very detailed conversation with TrekMovie’s Anthony Pascale, Star Trek co-writer Roberto Orci finally explains how it all fits together. [SPOILERS BELOW]

 

 

Bob and Anthony talk Time Travel, canon, paradoxes, physics and more

Background: As a follow-up to our earlier ‘post November’ interview with Star Trek co-writer Bob Orci is the following conversation between Bob and TrekMovie.com editor Anthony Pascale. It is presented as a ‘conversation’ because it is more of a chat between two Trekkies diving deep down a nerdy rabbit hole, than a traditional interview. Understanding the issues discussed is not required to watch the movie or enjoy it, but is presented to answer the follow-up questions about how the film ‘fits’ with Trek and with science.

The subject of the discussion was how to reconcile a number of issues. Since day one with regards to this project, it has been stated that the new movie is not a ‘reboot’ like the recent Batman, Bond and Battlestar Galactica, but will fit within Trek canon. However, just by looking at the new trailer and certainly based on JJ Abrams four scene preview tour (see TrekMovie report), some things appear not to fit within canon. Or do they? Many have noted that the report in Entertainment Weekly revealing how the film’s villain Nero travels through time to attack the ship carrying James T. Kirk’s parents might somehow come into play. But if so, then there are implications related to Trek history, as well as real and ‘Trek’ science. And that is where this discussion begins.

 

[NOTE: The discussion goes pretty deep into science and Trek lore, so for those who just want the quick version, skip to the summary at the bottom]

 


Nero attacks the USS Kelvin in "Star Trek (2009"

Anthony: OK, now let’s get really into it. From the trailer, and certainly from the four scene preview, there is no doubt that things are different. Pike and Kirk are hanging out in a bar. The ship looks different. Kirk is on the Enterprise and not headed to the Farragut. People are seeing Romulans…things are different. Now it has been revealed in the Entertainment Weekly article that Nero goes back in time and attacks the Kelvin, and JJ also talked about this during his previews. So the big question is: Is the destruction of the Kelvin, the canon reason why everything is different?

Bob: It is the reason why some things are different, but not everything is different. Not everything is inconsistent with what might have actually happened, in canon. Some of the things that seem that they are totally different, I will argue, once the film comes out, fall well within what could have been the non-time travel version of this move.

Anthony: So, for example, Kirk is different, because his back story has totally changed, in that his parents…and all that. But you are saying that maybe Scotty or Spock’s back story would not be affected by that change?

Bob: Right.

Anthony: Does the time travel explain why the Enterprise looks different and why it is being built in Riverside Iowa?

Bob: Yes, and yes.

Anthony: OK, well then some fans will say ‘fair enough, alternate timeline, we are used to that, but that is not my Kirk, that is some other Kirk.’ So is this still our movie, or are we seeing some other version of Star Trek?

Bob: Well that depends on whether or not you believe in nature or nurture and how much you believe in, for lack of a better word, their souls. I would argue that for the characters, their true nature does not change. Our motto for this movie was ‘same ship, different day.’


Alternative timeline in "Yesterday’s Enterprise"

Anthony: So then is time travel, and the alternative timeline, just a way to do a BSG-style reboot, while still remaining canon?

Bob: In some one else’s hands, maybe, but, again, much of what you will see could conform to classic canon, and thus we were not relying it as an excuse to change everything.

Anthony: So even though some things, most notably Kirk himself, are on a different path (for example he doesn’t go to the Farragut after the Academy), he still ends up on the Enterprise with Scotty, Uhura, Chekov, Spock, etc. Are you saying there is some kind of ‘entropy’ perhaps? So even though some things are different, they gravitate towards some kind of center point?

Bob: Yes. If you look at quantum mechanics and you learn about the fact that our most successful theory of science is quantum mechanics, and the fact that it deals with probabilities of events happening. And that the most probable events tend to happen more often and that one of the subsets of that theory is the many universe theory. Data said this [in "Parallels"], he summed up quantum mechanics as the theory that "all possibilities that can happen do happen" in a parallel universe.  According to theory, there are going to be a much larger number of universes in which events are very closely related, because those are the most probable configurations of things. Inherent in quantum mechanics there is sort of reverse entropy, which is what you were trying to say, in which the universe does tend to want to order itself in a certain way. This is not something we are making up; this is something we researched, in terms of the physical theory. So yes, there is an element of the universe trying to hold itself together.  


Data explains quantum physics in "Parallels"

Anthony: OK so let’s call the timeline Nero left, as ‘the prime timeline’, so that means that the USS Kelvin, as designed and seen in the trailer, that is also in the prime timeline?

Bob: Yes

Anthony: So what happens with the destruction of the Kelvin is the creation of an alternative timeline, but what happens to the prime timeline after Nero leaves it? Does it continue or does it wink out of existence once he goes back and creates this new timeline.

Bob: It continues. According to the most successful, most tested scientific theory ever, quantum mechanics, it continues.

Anthony: So everyone in the prime timeline, like Picard and Riker, are still off doing there thing, it is just that Nero is gone.

Bob: Yes, and you will notice that whenever the movie comes out, that whatever DVDs you have purchased, will continue to exist.

Anthony: OK we just dove pretty deep into Trek physics minutiae. Is any of that discussed in the film? In "Back To The Future II," there is that scene with the Doc and Marty, where the Doc explains time travel to Marty on a chalkboard. Does Spock ever do that with Kirk?

Bob: It would seem very logical. Quantum mechanics avoids the grandfather paradox that Back to the Future relies on, which is: you can go back in Back to the Future and screw with your own birth and potentially invalidate your own birth. In quantum mechanics that is not the case. In quantum mechanics, if you go back and kill your own father, then you just live on as the guy who came in from another universe who lives in a universe where you killed some guy, but you don’t erase your existence doing that.


Doc explains time travel to Marty in "Back To The Future II"

Anthony: And you believe that the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics is the Star Trek interpretation, based on "Parallels."

Bob: Yes. I would argue that at the very least, if we are going to do our Star Trek, it has to conform to the latest scientific theories and the most advanced and complete, and right now that is quantum mechanics.

Anthony: Star Trek has not always been consistent in this regard. For example both "Yesterday’s Enterprise" and "City on the Edge of Forever" seem to follow the Back to the Future rules of time travel, where new timelines overwrite previous timelines. 

Bob: We have to deal with it, with the fact that Star Trek episodes that don’t conform to our theory of it, also do not conform to the latest greatest, most highly tested scientific theory in human history. So I would default that it is the science that counts. And say in the case of "Star Trek IV," it could go either way. They cross over to a parallel universe and grab some whales and bring them back and save their own universe. 


Kirk and crew in "Star Trek IV", one of Trek’s many forays into time travel

Anthony: Although the "Parallels" view of time travel resolves the paradoxes and is based on quantum physics, doesn’t it also affect the level of the drama? Are there still life and death stakes if anything you do in the past has no real effect on the timeline you started in?

Bob: There are, of course, life and death stakes, they simply don’t involve the cartoonyness of having a picture of yourself fading away because you bumped into your mother [as it was in "Back to the Future"].  We are not relying on the time travel element to tell a good story.  That’s why this is not "Terminator" or any other movie you’ve seen before.  And yet, oddly, as a practical matter, most people who see this movie will not have read this interview.  Most of the audience will assume the classical time travel rules still apply.

Anthony: Well in the history of Star Trek there are dozens of recorded time travel events, and so does every single one of those create a new timeline. For example when Ben Sisko goes back in time ["Past Tense"] and becomes Gabriel Bell, does every Trek episode after that exist in an alternative timeline where Ben Sisko is Gabriel Bell?

Bob: I would argue that, yes, any time there is time travel that they created a parallel universe, if they want to conform to our most current and advanced thinking on the matter, which is quantum mechanics.

Anthony: So starting with "The Naked Time," which is the first episode of Star Trek with time travel, where they just went briefly back in time and that even though they didn’t change anything, merely by going back in time they created a new timeline?

Bob: Yes


Trek travels back in time for the first time in "The Naked Time"

Anthony: And even though they are all very similar, that we are up to something like the 57th* timeline when we get to Nemesis due to all the previous time traveling.

Bob: If we take Data’s description of the most current and awesome scientific theory to heart, then there is no prime timeline. If everything that can happen, does happen, who is to say what the right timeline is.

Anthony: But elder Spock and Nero come from the last known Star Trek timeline, which is the post-Nemesis, Next Generation era, right?

Bob: Right, that is where they are starting, yes.

Anthony: And that timeline lives on after they leave?

Bob: Yes.

Anthony: Traditionally in time travel plots from "Yesterdays Enterprise", "Star Trek: First Contact" and "City on the Edge of Forever" to the Back to the Future and Terminator series, the goal of the protagonists is to protect or restore the original timeline. Is that also the case in this movie? Is Spock’s mission to restore his original timeline?

Bob: No comment, I can’t give everything away [laughs]


Spock is back in time again in "Star Trek (2009)," but what is his mission?

 

To summarize…in FAQ form
All of the above can be a bit much to take in, and to paraphrase Captain Janeway ‘time travel gives you a headache.’ In reality you really won’t need to understand any of this to watch the movie. The above explains (in possibly too much detail) how the film resolves both the paradox of how the movie can appear different, but fit within canon, as well as how the film resolves the traditional paradoxes associated with time travel. So here it is in a simpler FAQ. 

Q: Why do some things appear different in the new Star Trek movie?
A: There is an alternative timeline created by Nero traveling back in time.

Q: Is everything different in the alternative timeline?
A: No, some things remain the same.

Q: Does this alternative timeline wipe out the original timeline (from TOS -Nemesis)?
A: No, quantum theory says they both co-exist.

Q: Does the original timeline continue?
A: Yes, again as explained by quantum theory.

Q: Does this quantum theory approach conform to ‘Trek science?’
A: Depends on the episode, but it is explicitly cited by Data in the episode “Parallels.”

 

* 57 was just a number pulled out of the air. In actuality (according to Memory Alpha) there are 53 Star Trek episodes (including movies) involving time travel, many with multiple time travel events within them.

 

 

 

More Orci
See part 1 of TrekMovie’s exclusive December interview with Roberto Orci.

 

Comments

1. Enterprise - December 11, 2008

Great stuff. The movie will be awesome.

2. BonesCLCW - December 11, 2008

Wow! I’m confused!

3. Enterprise - December 11, 2008

If Spock and Spock meet the universe will either explode, or they’ll just faint.

4. Curtis - December 11, 2008

As soon as I read “Spoilers Below” I skimmed right down to the bottom and tried not to read anything else – although I did peak, damnit! Why must your articles be so interesting and why must I be so weak?!?!

;)

5. ~~TARA~~ - December 11, 2008

Wow…that was a heavy discussion. Quantum mechanics always makes my head spin.

6. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 11, 2008

I wonder why they dont explain that when Kirk & crew came to Omaha in the 1960′s they prevented the Eugenics War in the 1990′s and how when Kirk & crew came back in 1986, they caused WW3

Just saying…

I dont mind them fooling with the timeline.

7. Ratchet & Clang - December 11, 2008

I must say, studying Quantum Physics… this certainly boosted my interest in this film. My hat is off to the gentlemen, this will be a very interesting film…

:)

NOW I can sleep easy tonight knowing this bit of info!

8. Harry Ballz - December 11, 2008

The last part of the interview is what caught my attention….if the original timeline continues after Nero and Spock go back in time, then where is the motivation for Spock to want to go back in time unless he isn’t privy to the fact that no change will happen and only discovers that later in the movie before returning to his own original future!

Everybody got that?

Sheesh!

9. Mackenzie - December 11, 2008

I think I speak for all of us, if I say… huh?

10. sean - December 11, 2008

Reading this article gave me a technobabblegasm.

11. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 11, 2008

53 time incursions, no wonder BonesCLCW is confused.

To some, Trek is a great universe to tell stories in, to others, its a religion.

No wonder they banned it in Futurama!

just saying…

12. Leonel - December 11, 2008

Same here, I’m confused.. but this article begs the question:

Has anyone tried diagraming the many different timelines that are how out there? Where would one start, and how would Archer’s trip to the future fit into that map?

That would certainly be interesting.. not to mention (dare I say) fascinating..

13. Gravitic Yours - December 11, 2008

I’d rather have seen a Batman-style reboot than this, personally. Time travel is too easy to get wrong plus we have seen it way too many times. The canonistas won’t be happy in any case so why bother with the silly pretense?

14. Geoffrey Alan Holliday (Writer of STAR TREK ''Soldiers of Pawns'') - December 11, 2008

I’m definitely excited about this movie…however…

It’s time for a future producer of Star Trek to travel back in time to ensure that this is the very last and final time travel related Star Trek story ever made. Time travel in Star Trek is second only to the problems created by the invention of the holodeck in post-TOS Star Trek. Both are the ”kryptonite” of the Star Trek realm.

15. Jordan - December 11, 2008

I’m confused. They are using an alternate timeline as an excuse to change cannon and do what they want? Thats BS.

16. Vance S - December 11, 2008

This is a beautiful solution to canon concerns. It respects what has been, while allowing it to be seen in a new light.

17. Closettrekker - December 11, 2008

“Fascinating”.

18. OneBuckFilms - December 11, 2008

8 – Nero is still endangering lives, even if they are in an alternate timeline.

There fore, with or without Quantum Mechanics, the logical imperative remains the same.

His way of saving lives:

Help Kirk and himself to become who they are meant to be to stop Nero.

19. Michael - December 11, 2008

So how do these multiple timelines explain Vulcan’s BLUE sky in the trailer?

20. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 11, 2008

Hi Harry!

If everything that can happen, does and will, then nothing we do is in vain.

Ever read that Azimov story about the guy that puts the gun to his head and dies, puts it down, it jams, it’s unloaded, etc.?

There was also a parallel universe where Hemingway wrote slightly different stories and eventually, each time he tried to kill himself, an alternate version still lived, skipping into a new universe each time until the end of time. Not a Trek story, but one of those “Years Best” Sci-Fi compilations.

Then one of my favorites was a short story about what would have happened if the Lindbergh baby had lived, instead of having his head bashed in. I wish I still had that story.

Quantum Physics doesnt jibe with Einstein Physics anyway. If everything that could happen does, and already did, then what’s the point of doing anything at all?

21. Harry Ballz - December 11, 2008

#19

Reasonable, I guess, but from a dramatic storytelling point of view, it’s difficult to get “worked up” over the danger to individuals who live in alternate realities.

I mean, come on, if you’re concerned about THAT, where the hell do you draw the line?

22. OneBuckFilms - December 11, 2008

20 – Vulcan’s atmospheric appearance might be weather based.

We have seen only a select couple of locations on Vulcan.

On a Class M planet, the atmosphere likely changes appearance depending on weather, similar to Earth, and that may change noticably depending on geographical location on the surface.

23. Enterprise - December 11, 2008

What about when the Borg ended up in the arctic in Enterprise? That changed everything we know right there.

24. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 11, 2008

What I dont understand is why CGI the Vasquez rocks forver to stand in for Vulcan?

I like the way Vulcan was presented in Search

25. Harry Ballz - December 11, 2008

#20 McCoy’s Gall Bladder “what’s the point of doing anything at all?”

EXACTLY!

As a matter of fact, after reading this interview, I’m so depressed over alternate realities, I’m sleeping in tomorrow!

What’s the point of getting out of bed?

26. Mackenzie - December 11, 2008

#25 Um…. women?

27. AJ - December 11, 2008

Great stuff.

Now we need Closettrekker to spend his whole Friday explaining it to us.

Hi Closet!

AJ

28. Harry Ballz - December 11, 2008

#26 Couldn’t you simply extend the invitation to have them join you?

To me that’s just good time management!

29. Leonel - December 11, 2008

#26 now that’s funny.. ;) doesn’t work for everyone though..

30. Author of "The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers" - December 11, 2008

I think this interview was a $14.49 way of saying “yeah, we reboot everything that was canon, but everything that is canon is still valid, because this is just an alternate universe extrapolation of a different timeline.”

Somewhere, I think I just had a flashback to Bobby Ewing talking to Victoria Principal and explaining away an entire season of “Dallas” as a dream…..

31. Iyellkhan - December 11, 2008

I have to ask, if we branch into another universe inherently by traveling into the past, and the original timeline continues after we’ve left and or changed anything, then what good is going back in time and killing off kirk or spock?

just sayin…

32. Harry Ballz - December 11, 2008

#31

Hey, thanks, you just saved me $11.

33. cd - December 11, 2008

I would have liked to have seen an attempt at real Star Trek, not a convoluted redo to make Ultimate Star Trek. Oh, well, it’s just a movie. >|>{

34. gp1477 - December 11, 2008

So…they are not calling it a reboot but are going to stage this new history in an alternate timeline so they can create a new history…what? How is that NOT a reboot in sheep’s clothing?

35. cd - December 11, 2008

#14 – agreed.

36. Chris Basken - December 11, 2008

What I got from this article is that quantum mechanics is the most advanced, best-tested scientific theory in the history of humanity. :-P

BTW, the “many worlds” theory does, indeed, require that the original timeline gets wiped out. “Many worlds” is something of a misnomer. It’s really more like “many configurations.” If you actually created a whole new universe by going back in time, it would take as much energy that is actually IN an entire universe to make the trip (otherwise where does this new universe come from?). But “many worlds” really means that the positions and whatnot of all the particles gets reconfigured once you arrive. You won’t wipe out your own past and fade like Marty, but you’ll “overwrite” the universe moving forward from your arrival point.

Not that it matters. “Many worlds” also maintains that travel between the quantum realities is impossible, so…

37. Yspano - December 11, 2008

Oh, haha, that sounded like a cheat. XDDD

38. Weerd1 - December 11, 2008

He’s thinking- I like that. Half of the enjoyment of any fiction for me is the production not treating the audience like we’re idiots. With Star Trek, the other half for me is the production understanding my complete adoration for the source material.

39. Cap'n Calhoun - December 11, 2008

> Pine and Kirk are hanging out in a bar.

Now *that’s* going to be hard to explain. ;-)

40. cd - December 11, 2008

#15 – with what we have seen so far, that is the way it appears to me too.

41. Atlantians - December 11, 2008

Latest Greatest “most tested scientific theory ever” what nonsense!

Half of the theory is supposition and a great majority of what is left is pure math and utterly untestable as of yet.

Anyone else get the “beating that into my brain because you can’t actually prove it” feeling? Considering how many times “Bob” repeated it?

He said it in grand and eloquent, yet pointless, flourishes at least 5 times.

42. Aragorn189 - December 11, 2008

So they are making it so that everything that has happened previously timeline wise has always subtly changed the timeline in every Trek episode in movie regarding time travel. Sounds like a good explanation. I also like the fact that he mentioned how the universe likes to Gravitate in a certain way. And it doesn’t mean that this subtlely alternate timeline won’t flow into the normal timeline to some degree. You just have to leave somethings up to the imagination.

43. Rick Sternbach - December 11, 2008

I worked on this stuff for 15 years and even *I’m* confused. :) But as Steven Wright observed, “I was walking down the street the other day and– wait, that wasn’t me…”

44. Chris Basken - December 11, 2008

BTW, I like the gobbledy-gook of the quantum explanation, and it fits with what I was saying a few threads ago that this movie, for all intents and purposes, is completely disconnected from the TOS reality.

This doesn’t diminish my interest in the characters at all. It’s not like the TOS reality was “real” reality.

45. RMBurnett - December 11, 2008

Folks,

Know what? I’m ENTIRELY down with this.

Orsi’s comments engender much trust. Especially after watching the recent episode of UNIVERSE which deals with parallel universes.

Why didn’t they just say this from the beginning?

I LOVE this idea. I really do.

Unfortunately, this Trek universe wound up with absurd production design.

Other than that…Trek on!

46. Harry Ballz - December 11, 2008

So, if the Universe tends to gravitate towards what was intended to happen, does that mean in any alternate reality I’d still be stuck with taking Debbie Simms to the Senior Prom?

Aw, crap!

47. Boborci - December 11, 2008

41. Atlantians – December 11, 2008

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr320/lecture21.pdf

48. Tony Whitehead - December 11, 2008

I have a lot of faith in the writers and the production team, but I sort of hope I don’t need to take a wall chart of alternative timelines with me to understand and enjoy the movie. Give us layers of storytelling, but don’t bog us down in techspeak, please!

49. Captain Pike - December 11, 2008

I’ll go see it. But I’d rather have had a story set in the classic canon TOS universe without time travel for the 53rd time!

50. braxus - December 11, 2008

You think that is confusing, wait until you add in the negative mirror universe into all this. Matter- antimatter. The two meet and BOOM!

51. Harry Ballz - December 11, 2008

When dealing with Matter and Anti-matter, it comes down to mind over matter………if you don’t mind, it doesn’t matter!

52. Devon - December 11, 2008

So much for the pre-scripted claims that things were being “dumbed down.” Almost above my head!

53. CanuckkLou - December 11, 2008

Makes sense.

…and the adventure continues….

54. Anthony Pascale - December 11, 2008

guys, I know the above is pretty thick, but I thought you might want to read the back and forth, and see how much thought actually has gone into this.

However, for those who are less interested or are a bit confused, I added a quick summary at the bottom.

55. Valar1 - December 11, 2008

This is exactly the explanation I’ve been giving friends who ask about the new movie…man I am too awesome.

56. Brett Campbell - December 11, 2008

So… it’s a movie for people who love movies, and who also happen to have Ph.D.s in quantum physics from M.I.T. Now I get it. Huh?

57. Makenzie - December 11, 2008

…they have to resort to quantum mechanics to make the canon work? I love sci-fi!

58. Jared Butcher - December 11, 2008

Well the canon issues were never that important to me, and still are not….but that explanation seems a little weak.

But in the end my enjoyment of this film will have nothing to do with its canonicity, and it still looks like a damn good movie!

Can’t wait to see it!

59. thorsten - December 11, 2008

This is in my regard one of the most mature usages of TT in the whole Trekverse (all of them). It is funny that Tomorrow is Yesterday was the first TT story I ever watched, and it kept me wondering about paradoxons and their physical implications. Which later on lead me to discover the works of Schrödinger and Heisenberg. Star Trek made me a hard SF fan in the first place, and it’s great to see that Bob Orci and the gang steer Trek back into these waters.

So, Bob, did you discuss quantum mechanics related TT a lot with Damon, regarding a certain island?

60. MORN SPEAKS - December 11, 2008

I’m really impressed with the thought and care put into this production thank you Mr. Orci for carrying the Star Trek torch.

61. YARN - December 11, 2008

1. The question of Kirk’s character is not nature vs. nurture, but rather an aesthetic question about the identity of Trek. If the character does not share enough in common with TOS Kirk (for whatever reason) a character central to TOS stories will have been diminished.

62. T2 - December 11, 2008

i love that i can actually read this and understand it…thank you college education. i was seeing this movie regardless…now after reading this i’m all set to go with no doubts…well almost no doubts.

63. Boborci - December 11, 2008

59. thorsten – December 11, 2008

“So, Bob, did you discuss quantum mechanics related TT a lot with Damon, regarding a certain island?”

Damon and I have no idea what you’re talking about…

64. Reign1701A - December 11, 2008

So yeah, why does Spock care if Nero goes back in time? That means all Nero is doing by destroying the Kelvin is creating an alternate timeline. Spock’s timeline (aka the last known Trek timeline) will continue to exist. So why bother chasing after Nero?

65. N - December 11, 2008

This sort of need for convoluted reasoning explains why Canon is the cause for the death of Trek.

Any other, regular franchise, would have just had this sort of movie be its prequel movie. The fact that the movie looks different from the TV show could be entirely attributed to “Its a movie, they have more money, lets enjoy it!”

Instead, the writer have to bend head over heels to try and find a way to appease fans who are more concerned about whether their Star Trek Encyclopedia remains accurate as opposed to whether or not the movie has a good story.

This is how excessive fandom can kill fun, this is how excessive fandom isolates people.

I am looking foward to what JJ Abrams has done. I am just disappointed by the scientific contortions his writing staff has had to pull off.

66. Anthony Pascale - December 11, 2008

57
Well actually no. Star Trek canon is full of time travel and alternative timelines. Quantum mechanics only comes into play when you want to know what happens to the other timelines.

Some fans who have guessed that the film includes an alternative timeline have suggested that it therefore ‘rewrites’ the ‘classic’ Trek timeline. The ‘Parallels’ explanation of quantum mechanics shows that the classic timeline is not rewritten or erased. Therefore Picard, Janeway, etc are not ‘wiped out’ by the new movie.

67. Red-Shirted Monkey - December 11, 2008

Is the main point of the article that we should take comfort in knowing that there is some other universe within the multiverse where this creative team decided to reboot Pigs in Space instead of Star Trek?

68. YARN - December 11, 2008

2. Quantum Physics does not demand that we accept any metaphysics of the sort described. There are determistic versions of QP, indeterministic versions, there is version for every taste. The article latches on to the multi-world version as if it were THE interpretaion of QM.

69. Justin - December 12, 2008

So, I wonder, since this timeline is slightly different, if Kirk survives the incident on the Enterprise B and lives on. Im guessing most likeley not, since the 2 timelines in question are so similar, but it would be cool to know.

70. That One Guy - December 12, 2008

66,
Correct. The “Multiverse Theory” essentially explains everything. It states that everything that CAN happen, DOES happen.

So effectively, the only difference between us and another universe might be that 1 single electron is out of place, as where another universe, half of us might never have been born, the Terran Empire controls the planet, and is in a huge civil war.

So think of it this way: Somewhere in the grande scheme of things, Star Trek DOES happen…. How’s that for food for thought? That is, assuming that the laws of physics allow it.

71. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@63…

Thanks, Bob,
you just saved my uncertainty principle!

72. Will H. - December 12, 2008

I feel a bit more relieved after hearing this. Some will bitch about the alternate timeline, but I like it. Its kinda like a Star Trek side story. And with this done, they could go back to the prime universe and it wouldnt be effected at all.

73. Aragorn189 - December 12, 2008

Well, said N

I think canon should allow a loose frame work (see Terminator or Bond series). It allows you to deviate some while still keeping a semblance of continuity.
And I totally agree that it looks different because the production had cash to burn.

74. McCoy - December 12, 2008

Well, doesn’t take away the the prime motivation for writing the story the way they did: “let’s make changes”.

When I first heard that the “new” Star Trek movie would be set back in Kirk and Spock’s time, I was excited! Wow—we would get to see all those old back stories that were referenced in the series—and get to see how the crew first came together. I never thought that one of the first changes would be rewriting how it all happened. Ouch. It really doesn’t matter how they explain the changes. They were working from square one and they chose to write the history-altering time travel event for the wrong reasons.

I wanted to see how it all started. I can certainly think of some things in TOS that could use updating but I never thought the character backstories needed to be fixed. Was anyone asking for a Trek movie with a new history? Didn’t we just want to fill in the gaps?

It’s not like Orci and Kurtzman were sitting in a room one day writing the coolest Trek story ever and then Nero suddenly when back in time and erased it all. They chose to alter how it all came together and then searched for reasons to explain how they could get away with it and still retain some fans (ahhh, the magic of time travel).

75. YARN - December 12, 2008

3. (my third point not a ref to 3rd post)
The article totally misses the distinction between quantum and classical level events. The probabilities only attach to quantum phenomena and not macro-level events. This conveys an unfortunate sense of fatalism – “Sorry son, it was written in the sum over path histories that you would be capt. of the Enterprise. “

76. USS TRINOMA - NCC 0278 - December 12, 2008

Nero going back in time to destroy the Kelvin. That is part of Trek lore. We can’t ignore time travel. By the way, according to canon, there was even a temporal prime directive, the temporal accords, and even a TEMPORAL COLD WAR!!! That is ALL CANON! Whether you love or hate Star Trek: Enterprise, that series is authentic canon. It would have been a crazy storyline if Nero was part of the Temporal Cold War. But I like Bob Orci’s explanation. Quantum Physics. This theory actually validates the new Star Trek movie with all the changes made. Hey, if Tasha Yar, instead of being killed, was still alive and somehow influenced the Romulan Empire by her offspring…wait a minute…could Nero be somewhat a consequence by Tasha Yar offspring’s dealings? Not much is known in the Romulan Timeline. Hmmmm. Just speculating.

77. Jordan - December 12, 2008

If, by any chance, there are “Six Feet Under” fans here, the Many Worlds Theory was explored so brilliantly in the season 3 premiere, where Nate — upon his supposed death — experiences the vast number of possibilities that could have or did happen in alternate universes. A line is uttered in that episode whilst Nate is on this journey: “Everything that can happen does, Somewhere.” TNG’s “Parallells” is very similar and I never appreciated the depth of that episode until now. I feel even more reassured that the writers of the new Trek film are totally aware of what they’re doing with the Trek universe.

78. Reign1701A - December 12, 2008

Ok so I just reread the interview and answered my own question. Basically, we have to wait to see the movie to see what Spock’s mission/point of time traveling is? Because if there’s no grandfather paradox…Spock/Picard/Riker’s 24th century timeline still continues despite Nero creating an alternate timeline. Um, right?

79. mojonaut - December 12, 2008

Wow! That’s ambiguous! And too convenient an explanation for my liking. At first I fairly much embraced this film. The closer it gets to release, the more sceptical I become.

80. N - December 12, 2008

To: #74 “McCoy”

With all due respect, I don’t think you have it quite right:

“It’s not like Orci and Kurtzman were sitting in a room one day writing the coolest Trek story ever and then Nero suddenly when back in time and erased it all. They chose to alter how it all came together and then searched for reasons to explain how they could get away with it and still retain some fans (ahhh, the magic of time travel).”

I disagree, I think that Orci and Kurtzman wanted to write a cool Trek story, and were probably really excited by the chance to give the actors a real budget for the uniforms, and to have awesome scenes with Kirk seeing the Enterprise under construction.

But then they went:

“Wait, no matter how cool our sets look, or how great our story is, if it does not conform to canon down to the last scripture, our fans will hate us and not see the movie and just complain!”
“Well maybe we should have Kirk go to San Francisco to see the Enterprise under construction”
“But thats just appeasing fans when there is just as good enough a reason for the Enterprise to be in Iowa. If its in his homestate, that is better for the story.”
“But the Encyclopedia says…”

Its true they wanted to “make changes” but those changes would have been for a good story and a great experience.

My concern is that large portions of fandom were not interested in any changes if it that meant that the uniforms looked practical as opposed to looking like pajamas, and that in order to appease them, they used Quantom Physics.

This reeks of “Crisis on Infinite Earths” or of “Marvel Universe and the Ultimate Marvel Universe”. Its just going to add more complications in the long run.

81. USS TRINOMA - NCC 0278 - December 12, 2008

This is not a reboot. This new movie can fit with canon. Canon must be upheld. Quantum mechanics is the answer to it. With quantum mechanics, you can actually, I dare say, reconcile every medium that is not considered canon. Quantum mechanics can make the animated series, the novels, the comic books, the fan made internet shows, and etc. etc. canon. Quantum mechanics is real science. Great work Bob!!! You are making Star Trek more real than you ever know. Mainstream audience may not know it, or even appreciate it, but your detailed explanation will satisfy most, if not all, die hard trekkers.

82. PDX Trek - December 12, 2008

Nice nod to the original and pass of the baton to a new Trek! I am looking forward to the new path of possibilities…

83. YARN - December 12, 2008

#65

Don’t blame the EVIL FANS for cocking an eyebrow at the semantic soft-shoeing or the Deus ex Quanta.

They don’t have to anything, but it would sure be nice to be told straight – Yeah guys, we made a few changes so that we could have a future to grow into rather than ossified canon to be dutifully recited. JUST TELL IT STRAIGHT and stop trying to sell the Kool Aid. If it’s good, it will sell itself.

84. Crewman Darnell - December 12, 2008

Sure, it’s yet another time travel caper but I applaud the real thought and effort that went into the research for this story. The theories behind multi-verses and alternate time lines are being physically tested in ongoing research, at facilities like CERN. For now I’m putting my trust in the likes of Doctor(s) Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku. If they continue saying all of that is not only possible but likely, then that’s still a great plot device with a lot of mileage.

Bob Orci’s comment about “nature or nurture” resounds with me as an adopted kid, who recently was contacted by birth family; and discovered eerie similarities between me and my bio-sibs. From personal experience, I believe how you are raised (and by *who*) has profound impact on the person you become, yet there are personal traits originating from the genetic level that will emerge regardless of nurture. Somehow though, I don’t think that had I been raised by different parents, (or an abusive uncle) it would have changed the color of my eyes from hazel-brown to a sparkling blue. Now that would be a bit of a stretch. ;-)

85. Uhura (Mirror) - December 12, 2008

I have to say that I had to read that twice, but what it shows more than anything is that this team really put their thinking caps on big time.

I can see some of the same crowd that have been raiiling against this movie and even now that they have their answer as to how this thing fits within their holy scriptiure, they are still screaming. It is clear that there is no movie that willl satisfy these people.

When I first heard about this movie I assumed it was going to be another Batman Begins. That made sense from a Hollywood point of view. Trek was dead, last movie and TV failed, time to literally reboot it. Obviously they are doing that to an extent, but you have to give them credit for going out of their way to also tie it into canon (and even tie it to TNG with the new comic book)

I continue to be excited about this movie.

86. YARN - December 12, 2008

#81
QM is real science, real science which gets missapplied by pop-science gurus to explain free will, spirituality, and now rebooting a series.

Sorry, but the QM being discussed here is closer to Deepak Chopra than Richard Feynmann.

87. McCoy - December 12, 2008

80.

There are tons of exciting stories written around “hard facts” every day. If the Enterprise was finished in space, they should have had Pine see it in dry dock. Perhaps they wanted to avoid a dry-dock reference because Robert Wise already did it? The mysterious new audience they are trying to include would not have remembered that scene from TMP. But for fans, it could have been a nice tie-in. Great hand off. Maybe a young Scotty gave the young Kirk his first flyby. But if not, that would still have been an acceptable change in history. Not too many elements would have had to be moved to justify that—and all the fans would have understood the emotional benefit. Of course there wouldn’t be much emotion at all if the Enterprise herself had too many changes. It would have to have been a detailed-up Enterprise we grew up with.

I don’t think a lot of fans expected the history of Trek to be changed. Probably most were thinking the uniforms would be the first to go (and yet the uniforms are acceptable solutions IMO). I don’t think every physical thing has to be exact, but I do think it has to be closer than what we have.

There are those of us who do not read the novels and do not retain all the backstories on a daily basis. It would have been awesome to see a film that put it all together. All the info into a fun romp in the Star Trek universe. A story that boldy said “I am Trek” instead of, “uhmm…well, Trek wasn’t quite up to par and we felt that we needed wholesale changes to mold it into something believable. We then sprinkled in some references to keep it Trek. What we were left with was only the core. The sprit. That’s all the fans wanted, right?”

88. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - December 12, 2008

I’m pleased to see the Many Worlds Interpretation mentioned by name, as it’s what I’ve had in mind all along, from the moment I came to understand the time travel plot of STXI.

I agree with some of the other posters, however, in contending that Star Trek need to lay off the time travel based plots for a while. It’s starting to become more “Time Trek” than “Star Trek”.

89. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - December 12, 2008

86 YARN — I agree with you, and I almost sat down and wrote a long-winded thesis as to why what Pascale and Orci are technically incorrect. But then I realized that no one would bother reading such a thing, and I actually have work to do tonight, so I’d better not spend 4 hours expounding upon the subject in a Star Trek board. I think the bottom line is, it’s Science Fiction, and there are moments when the fiction takes precedence over the science (though occasionally I would like to see a Hard SF movie). If I enjoyed the Parallels episode — and I did, thoroughly — I may as well enjoy the ride on this movie too.

I saw another movie the other night — The Butterfly Effect (Director’s Cut). While the movie has a great many flaws ultimately, it posed the question of time travel in a way that, I think, is quite similar to the way Orci is explaining above. Again, technically, it’s not correct, but it’s an interpretation worth thinking about.

Yet another movie comes to mind as well: a low budget Indie movie called Primer. That one, in my opinion, is far superior conceptually to The Butterfly Effect, but may come even closer to the holy grail of Hard SciFi. In the end, it’s a bit hard to grasp, but that may very well be its strength.

90. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - December 12, 2008

^ correction: “… as to why what Pascale and Orci are saying is technically incorrect.”

91. Enc - December 12, 2008

c
i agree w/ 15

its an escuse to SELL it ot the nextgen of viewers.at tht end itll all be tos fine and tos fans can have their trek back.

now try this

if the time travle did all this. then how long has it been going on. long enough to inflence the ent desgin or those kirk family genes that gave him blue eyes. and gave him driving lessons?????

despite the odd canon mistep here and there the trek franchise holds up rahter well. we usualy tend to ignore the mistakes (note them yes) an even argue over it. sometimes the show hads even broken the rules. some one tried to use gene to make a point over it. sometimes whemn this happens we tend to in a non-spoken majority rules group togther (as fans) and accept certain things as despite evidence to the contrary. it has been noted in more then one ep that a ship can operate with only ONE engine despite the old rule that trek ship should have engines in pairs. most fans tend to favor the even egine rule.
so why does the what is it the Kelvin have one? does neros influence go that far back. Nero was zeeks teacher. gave him a paper virus. :D
is it one of those fan made engines that have two engines glued together housed in a single naccel look?

92. blake powers - December 12, 2008

I just read this article with 6 busch lites and a half bottle of stinky gringo in my body… I have a headache and will wish that I can go back in time in the morning play with quantum mechanics.. Awesome article but good god man… My head hurts.. Will reread in the morning.

93. Concerned fan - December 12, 2008

There s a bit of a problem with what’s been said here. If I’m not mistaken, the past can’t be changed …….. there will always be a repairing factor that will repair the consistency. For example, if someone were to travel to the past to kill someone, something will happen to rectify the timeline. That is what we saw in every Star Trek episode …… the past in overall can’t be changed.

The changes, if there are any, will bee minute.

94. Penhall - December 12, 2008

So….we’re gonna have two seperate Trek time lines now. Everything from TOS-NEM, and now the timeline from the new movie, and yet they will bo co-exist as a result of quantum theory…..

One word sums that up: LAME.

Either do damned remake of TOS or dont.

95. blake powers - December 12, 2008

http://www.stinkygringo.com…….. still hurting..

96. unnamed veteran ST designer - December 12, 2008

To McCoy’s poor gall bladder (#24):

Planets are big.

97. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - December 12, 2008

94 Penhall — In a way, this is no worse than there being a Mirror Universe, only instead of there being ‘a’ mirror universe, there are an uncountably infinite number of mirror universes. Metaphorically speaking, instead of just a ‘black’ universe and a ‘white’ universe, a continuous spectrum of universes in shades of gray.

98. DJT - December 12, 2008

Geez.

I’m gonna have to take some Extended Ed classes to understand all that stuff.

Bob’s comments also remind of this quote from Yesterdays Enterprise,

“Who is to say that this history is any less proper than the other?”

Which reminds me further – when are we going to see TNG on HD? If “remastering” the FX are a big pain in the a**, they should choose a few select episodes and put em out on Blu-Ray – sort of like TOS, but with real CGI. Give it to the dudes who did ENT. They did a pretty decent job.

99. Jayb - December 12, 2008

I really enjoyed reading the back and forth – so Anthony and Bob, thanks for sharing that with us. This sounds just like an excellent sci-fi story should – combining a great adventure and making you think a bit as well. I’ll admit I had some concerns about the movie but now I’m completely satisfied with the explanations and can’t wait to see it!

100. captain_neill - December 12, 2008

Good explanation, as long as the timeline of the Star Trek we love still exists then good.

I am hoping it will all be reset in the end.

I still feel it was a sloppy excuse to explain inconsistincies

101. Just a Fan - December 12, 2008

Although there was a lot of tehnobabble in there, what I do like is that they are putting some SCIENCE into science fiction. A lot of Time Travel movies just dont make any sense at all, when you really think of them, including Back to the Future. Why do those photos just slowly ‘fade’….either you eliminated yourself or you didn’t. I like this ‘no paradox’ form of Time Travel, and it has the nice bonus of not wiping out the trek we know.

However lets look at this even closer, a couple of things struck me:
1. Jonathan Archer and all of Enterprise exists in both timeline canons
2. certain things should exist (exactly as seen before) in the new timeline, such the V’Ger, The Botony Bay and anything else that was launched prior to the USS Kelvin

so they can do a Chris Pine Kirk v Khan movie. So lets star the ‘who should play khan’ game?

What I would like to see from Bob, maybe after the movie comes out, is what does he consider unchanged in both time lines? So did Scotty kill Archer’s beagle in the ‘classic’ timeline

Also, Bob, if you are there, what shall we call the two timelines. Is it Prime and ‘sub Prime’ (ok maybe not that’)

102. Boborci - December 12, 2008

101. Just a Fan – December 12, 2008

“Also, Bob, if you are there, what shall we call the two timelines. Is it Prime and ’sub Prime’ (ok maybe not that’)”

Leave that for you and others to decide…

103. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - December 12, 2008

I see no one has bitten on the meatier stuff, so I’m just going to say…

Dude, cool! Quantum mechanics are gnarly! But tubular! Plus the Kelvin looks rad!

104. Pineapples101 - December 12, 2008

Very pleased these guys are taking the time to explain this to the fans. Im even more pleased that they took the time – in the first place – to give the film and it’s effect on cannon this much thought.

105. Just a Fan - December 12, 2008

wow, that was a fast response! I must say this site has good service, I must remember to tip my waiter

OK Bob
So in your world, is there any way to ever return to your own timeline once you leave it? In both parallels and in Mirror Mirror, they move back and forth between universes. So can Nero and Spock get back to the Prime timeline?

106. Boborci - December 12, 2008

105. Just a Fan – December 12, 2008

Well, let’s see… zzz.zzz…zzzz…… good night…

107. Notbob - December 12, 2008

So…like if Spock has to go into another timeline past after Nero, but Spocks timeline won’t be altered by any of Nero’s actions, then Spock must do so because Nero took something that was needed back in Spock and Nero’s timeline that Spock or the federation had only one of.

Nero goes back in time and that could make sense only if he was ticked off and demented. Nero goes back to kill someone or stop something from happening then in theory he could stay in altered timeline and die; while being born again in altered timeline.

He must have taken like Spock’s keys. Damn him! NNNEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

108. Sisko Is The Prophet, Peace Be Upon Him - December 12, 2008

That is the big question and Bob ducked it in the interview as well.

Is Spock trying to reset the timeline? Is he trying to get back to his timeline? what exactly is he doing back in time? If we are going to extend the Back to the Future picture above, if Nero is Biff, and Marty is Kirk, then Spock is the Doc….so at any point in this movie, does Spock say ‘great scot’!

I get why they are using time travel. It solves every problem it is like some kind of miracle cream. It lets you use Nimoy. It allows you to both break cannon and keep canon. It is a floor wax and a desert topping.

OK fine

But for the sequel, bob, please, no more time travel. Just Kirk versus some amalgum of Khan, the Space hippies, and the space amoeba

109. DJT - December 12, 2008

Bob,

Thanks for taking the time to visit this corner of the web.

Really appreciated by all of us here.

Now get some sleep.

110. Harry Ballz - December 12, 2008

#101 “what shall we call the two timelines? Is it Prime and subPrime?”

How about Prime and……………………(wait for it)……………………..Prime Lite?

111. McCoy - December 12, 2008

LOL

I think the explanation is just serving to justify what they did. I don’t think the fact that the normal timeline still exists will be shown in the movie. It only exists to encourage fans that everything is OK. The value of the past DVDs still exist.

Having said that…if so many multiple timelines exist, how can Spock go back to the exact timeline Nero went to? How can Nero jump ahead from the attack on the Kelvin to the future of the same timeline to attack Vulcan? Why wouldn’t Nero accidently jump to a different timeline? The only solution is the same one the writers of back to the future came up with. Once you change the past, you can only go to the future of the timeline you are in. Since the audience is making this same journey, the audience, figuratively speaking, will be unable to go back to the “normal” timeline as well. Therefore, we have to assume that all previous Trek is now invalid. It won’t happen as we move forward.

Anyone that buys into this is giving the writers way too much rope to play with.

112. Harry Ballz - December 12, 2008

Hey, wait, even better………

Classic Trek will be known as PRIMORDIAL!

Abrams’s movie will be known as NEW PRIME!

113. Of Bajor - December 12, 2008

When a six-sided die is rolled there are six possible outcomes of the roll. In alternate realities each of these outcomes exists and the perceived existence of a single state is not due to a fixed reality, but a fixed point of perception from which the other outcomes are not observable. This has led to the concept of the ‘preferred timeline’.

114. Ghost of StarTrek Future - December 12, 2008

I am glad someone is putting real thought into all of this. Time Travel is always confusing.

I cant for the life of me follow the time travel rules of the Terminator franchise past the first movie, and the Terminator TV show is getting very confusing. And the time travel on Heroes, that is a total preztel…I don’t think they have thought that through at all.

115. tribble farmer - December 12, 2008

Am I a super-nerd for understanding everything they said with crystal clarity?

116. Harry Ballz - December 12, 2008

Yes

117. RiQ - December 12, 2008

OK, I just came up with a new theorem:

“If any fiction serial is composed by more than one episode, then its canon will be affected”

(And thanks, Bob, for the interview!)

118. Harry Ballz - December 12, 2008

How about, “if the gunpowder in your canon is all wet, will it still fire?”

119. thorsten - December 12, 2008

As my fellow northern german countryman Max Planck, who came up with the whole quantum scheme in the first place, put it:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

120. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 12, 2008

Well, for the first time since this movie was announced, I am deeply and thoroughly disappointed.

There is a clear and rather obvious difference between what happened in, say, “Past Tense,” which created a new timeline but ultimately kept *all the details exactly the same* and what is happening here when you rewrite Kirk’s past and fail to reset it. I’ve spent a great deal of time explaining to movie bashers that Bob Orci and the Abrams team are *way* too smart to try cheating their way out of the Trek canon into their own little separate universe and then claim that “oh, this movie still respects canon.” Because, clearly, if you jump out of the canon boat and swim to a new boat as fast as you can, sure, maybe you didn’t blow it to smithereens behind you, but you can hardly say you’re respecting that which you’re running away from.

Yet it seems that Bob Orci and the Abrams *are* that stupid, and Orci is happy to use huge gobs of highly speculative technobabble to try to make the outrageous claim that this has been done before. Technically, if you hinge the whole Trek scientific universe on one line by one character in one episode (a wild leap of faith in itself), it could be *technically* true that Trek has created and moved between many, many different timelines. But, narratively? Has Trek ever gone and permanently rewritten its own past, fundamentally altering certain established facts about our characters and the setting?

No. Every other Trek time travel story in history cleans up after itself. They restore the original timeline, and either incorporate or unhappen everything that happened in the alt realities. *This* proposal is more “Crisis on Infinite Earths” than a Trek storyline.

I *hate* Crisis on Infinite Earths.

I’m stung, honestly. After that much energy defending these guys, it’s just a huge let-down to see that the people I’ve been debating with were largely right. It doesn’t mean the movie will suck, necessarily–but it does put the sanity of all Trek canon at risk. And it does a great deal to undermine my confidence in the team.

To quote Mr. Probert on this site some weeks ago: “Sigh.”

P.S. All this is null and void if the movie *does* and up cleaning up after its own time travel mess like every preceding Trek. Orci notably didn’t comment on that, though, and he seemed to be saying everywhere else that it doesn’t matter what timeline we end up in, because the “Prime” universe (uggh… that is *so* Crisis terminology) will go on with or without us there to see it. Which is just complete humbug.

So let’s hope.

It’s 4:30 AM. I’m going to bed.

121. Dyson Sphere - December 12, 2008

So this quantum mechanics explaination works with the Mirror, Mirror evil universe?

#86 – Feynman would have a field day with this one but the fans would end up just fine.

If you went to MIT, just ignore this article, all will be fine. Techer

122. Iowagirl - December 12, 2008

Believe it or not, I like that idea. :) TOS is one timeline (for me and for others, it will always be the original, genuine one) and everything the film tells us is another timeline I may accept or not. This may not be exactly what Bob Orci said, but this is how *I* understand it. :)

Only question is (now more than ever), why on earth…

Ah, you all know the rest. :)

123. mikko - December 12, 2008

In advance, I congratulate anyone who makes it to the end of THIS posting. It makes sense to me, anyway; it really does!

***

Let’s consider a bit of the ‘going in’ approach for this film: to make it something for Trek fans – and for everyone else, too.

Before reading this, I had already reconciled with the film as a largely-altered timeline that has the same essential points (that is, our Enterprise group). A cynic (such as myself) would say that it provides the production staff an opportunity to make it a ‘reboot’ that exists within the timeline originating from Nero’s (and, subsequently, Spock’s) incursion.

But is there anything ‘wrong’ with that? We are offered another exploration of our heroes’ adventures, and the Tre universe in that light.

Take Data’s diagram pictured (far) above, and consider the old classic: a family tree. With each incursion comes a new branch on the family tree, whose DNA closely resembles it — but at each junction, it gradually becomes less and less closely related to the line that we know and love.

***

Therefore, I propose: While indeed, as pointed out in #66, Picard and etc. continue to exist in the timeline we know, it is possible that the timeline in which the 2009 film exists may have a dramatically different 24th century — so the ‘prime’ timeline MAY lack Picard or the others. Indeed, we have no way of knowing, either way… but the timeline familiar to us would still exist.

Along those lines, there exists still another timeline, in which Nero’s incursion does not occur at all (perhaps by not escaping Rura Penthe, or an ‘unfortunate accident,’ or something). What, then, is the proof of that? Well, it’s the timeline in which our beloved ‘canon’ exists — and those closely related. After all, ‘our’ timeline doesn’t have an iBridge; an Enterprise that looks like THAT; or Kirk and Pike having met far more than once or twice.

***

In ‘the City on the Edge of Forever,’ Spock refers to time having currents and eddies. This does foreshadow this ‘quantum’ view of things.

For instance, is it not possible that the ‘mirror universe’ may in fact be an alternate timeline of Earth history? Despite some fundamental differences in human society, we nonetheless find that all of the familiar characters are born. If human history was so altered, there is little reason — aside from the ‘currents and eddies’ — to expect so many of the characters to exist.

… and yet they were!

***

So, what’s the deal? How do we reconcile this ‘quantum’ thinking with everything else? Let’s keep in mind Spock’s ‘currents and eddies.’ Perhaps we can assume certain timelines to be more ‘dominant’ and certain to be more ‘recessive.’ ‘Our’ timeline could be one; the ‘mirror universe’ could be another.

The exchange between Picard and Guinan in ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’ is a perfect example; the special trait of El Aurians, perhaps, may be to discern the ‘dominant’ timelines from the ‘recessive.’

In short, Guinan’s actions in ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’ — and Kirk/Spock’s actions in ‘the City on the Edge of Forever’ — could then be argued to reassert the ‘dominance’ of their respective timelines — with acceptable alterations.

As for shifts of perception from one timeline to the next: there is probably a metaphysical explanation ‘in-universe.’ However, I am not able to propose that, aside from it being somehow related to my theory of ‘dominant’ and ‘recessive’ timelines.

***

Did all that make sense? Of course it did; how could it be any other way? My apologies.

124. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@120…The Reset Button at the end of every Trek Ep dealing with Time Travel was neccessary to cope with the requirements of Network TV… A weekly audience needed to be reassured that all the time they invested into the dramatic adventures of “their” crew was not erased by some timewarp, to keep them watching the show. So Trek used TT as a vehicle in stories like Voyagers “Year in Hell” to kill people and destroy ships to up the ante, just to reset everything back to normal in the end, how boring is that?

The permanent switch into another timeline, with all the consequences for Kirk and company, is exactly the bold step that Star Trek needed to survive, a pure stroke of genius, not just a simple plot device to get rid of the obstacles of 42 years of canon.

125. Jon - December 12, 2008

What is the point in time travel at all if one accepts the many worlds interpretation? Why bother going back to change the past if it doesnt affect the timeline you came from any way? Why bother following someone back to stop them if it isn’t going to affect your time line?

126. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - December 12, 2008

I think we’ve discovered the name of the new movie:

Star Trek: The Solace of Quantum

127. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 12, 2008

Arrrgh. So I came back. Why? Because I’m a stupid, sick man with a bad and unshakeable case of Trekkie. I apologize to the society on which my obsession with canon is a cancerous growth.

Urk.

What I think bugs me about this isn’t that they seem to be just trying to satisfy the fanboys with a technical pat on the head before scurrying away from them as quickly as possible–though I get *some* sense that that’s exactly what’s happening, it goes against everything I know about Orci, so I refuse to believe it. What *really* bugs me is that, for me, this movie was going to be the big revelation of how Kirk and Spock, the man of Earth and the divided Vulcan, somehow became the Kirk and Spock of TOS–how Kirk becomes the man whose very nature Spock defends against invincible computer evidence in “Court Martial.” That was my major personal selling point on this film, and I didn’t realize until now just how important it was to me that this movie tell that story to me.

Now it isn’t doing that at all. These are different versions of Kirk and Spock who may never actually have the adventures of TOS. They’re not prequel characters; they’re *reboot* characters, designed not to augment the universe we have but to launch a new one. For reasons I am having trouble pinning down at 4:47 in the morning, that changes my whole perspective on the movie. Might it be a good movie, even a great one? Yes. Am I going to get the pleasure of trying to resolve its so-far mostly minor inconsistencies with the rest of canon? No.

Is it going to be a Star Trek movie?

This morning I would have screamed, “Yes!” Now all I can muster is, “…maybe.”

Of course, I’m still going to see it several times. Just now with much lower expectations.

Alright, now, bed.

128. FSL - December 12, 2008

Thank you for taking the time, Mr Orci. I guess you’re saying very nicely that this is a reboot. Thank you for finding a canon way to make it happen. It’s still a reboot. To continue the Back to Future analogy, we’re in 1985A now.

129. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 12, 2008

#124: Yes, the reset button was also a problem. This is why I generally think time travel episodes are a bad idea, although certain hours (“Past Tense,” “City on the Edge,” “All Good Things…”) carried it off quite well without a pointless reset. But, as you say: “A weekly audience needed to be reassured that all the time they invested into the dramatic adventures of “their” crew was not erased by some timewarp.”

Exactly! Except I’ve invested my *entire life since before I learned to speak* in the dramatic adventures of my crews. And I do *not* want my crew either erased in a timewarp or, as Orci posits it, shunted into a side universe while the rest of the show moves on and redoes everything.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and make a Sweeping Generalization. Correct me if it’s wrong: the only people who will like this idea are (1) people who already wanted to chuck canon overboard and see this as a good way to satisfy the fanboys while still getting to *mostly* chuck canon, (2) people like Iowagirl who don’t like this movie at all and would rather keep it outside the canon as far as possible, (3) incredibly technical minded fans, of the sort who start to cry whenever they see a model of a Saladin-class but wouldn’t notice or care if Spock went out of character and started doing the Chicken Dance on the Bridge, and (4) Andre Bormanis. (I could be wrong about the last one.) Everyone else is going to see this and say, “Abrams and the Supreme Court saw the canon and wanted to get the hell out of Dodge, but they don’t want to admit it.” Am I wrong?

That’s three posts from me now, all on no sleep, and I’m not even sure I’m being consistent between them. Hopefully, the sheer number of words I’m excreting will partially make up for that.

130. Jon - December 12, 2008

I am still stoked for this film, can’t wait to see this new take on Star Trek, but a little part of me is sad that yes, this isn’t actually the backstory to the Kirk/Spock and co whose adventures we have watched, regardless of what Bob says about soul- everything I’ve seen so far is great, but it will be hard to relate these characters to the original crew, in anything but name.

131. FSL - December 12, 2008

… where Biff is in control, the court house is a casino, and the doc in in mental hospital…

132. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@129…
James, its 12:13 in my timeline, and I know exactly what you are talking about. I am a hardcore trekker since 1970, when I was five years old. I am happy that it was not my job to come up with the script to that film. But I embrace it wholeheartedly because I have the feeling that Orci and the gang really did the right thing, they came up with the best possible solution for 2009.

Good night ;))

133. Smike van Dyke - December 12, 2008

Everything unfolds as I have forseen it!

134. Vernon Wilmer - December 12, 2008

Why couldn’t they just make a decent Trek movie that wouldn’t require a lot of explaining and justification for the fans to accept it

135. Jon - December 12, 2008

134. Send your screenplay to Paramount, then.

136. Al - December 12, 2008

Ok. So, mostly my main beef is with the enterprise itself how its changed. I dont mind the warp nacells so much, cause the motion picture proved to me they are interchangable. (they had complety diffrent nacells then the tv show)

But, the rest of the body, mostly the extended sensor dish in the front of the ship, kinda pisses me off a bit, because it looks kinda like the enterprise has a bulbus bow (a buldge in the front of the bow of a ship to streamline the waves and make it easer to cut through the water) and not to be a jerk, but kind of make it look like the enterprise has a hard on!

But, if the ship gets damaged throughout the film, which i highly suspect it will, and we both know scotty is brought onboard at some point in the story, maby he fixes up the enterprise and it ends up looking alot more like the TOS enterprise! Easy way to fix that.

For her being built in Iowa, is it that big a deal? I mean, i think our problem is when we think the naval shipyards of San Fransisco we are thinking the enterprise is being built in some element of water, which i doubt would be the case. Iowa, from what i know, is a large open landscape (i have never been there myself) and has alot of Elbow room to build somthing as big as the enterprise without having major tall buildings near by, god forbid somthing major goes wrong with the construction or durring its launch!

I still would have liked it built in pieces on earth, then assembled in space, but what ever. Not that big a deal.

Hell for all i know, they could still do that in the movie. When they built the statue of liberty, they completly built it in France, put it together in france, took it apart, then shipped it to new york, and rebuilt it there! Maby thats what they are doing with the enterprise?

As for the look of the enterprise, with the Ibridge kinda feel to it, you got to update the stuff somewhat. I mean, common, the communicator from the old show looked amazing back in the 60′s, but today its laughable as future tech. As for canon wise, who knows, maby at some point in the trek universe, the sleek slim iphone look goes out, and the old more clunky mechanical look comes into play for some weird reason. Maby they realise, hey we can get things working better, but they end up looking crappy (by todays standards). Fashions change all the time. Look at the technology of computers from the 80′s on to todays machines. Whos to say the 80′s clunky style wont make a return at some point?

But, all that said and done, i dont see any major timeline violations that can be fixed with some decent story telling.

137. Jon - December 12, 2008

^timeline violations don’t matter, it’s an alternate timeline now. Maybe the original designer of the Enterprise died in this timeline and someone else saw his rough plans and made a similar ship.

138. Alex - December 12, 2008

#121 I think the only question regarding the Mirror Universe is when exactly it was created (maybe it was hinted at in ‘In a Mirror Darkly’, when Cochrane shot the Vulcan. Maybe that’s what would have happened if the Enterprise and the Borg hadn’t showed up in 2063, creating thus creating the Mirror Universe.).

Actually, I find it quite refreshing, this new approach. No reset button, and the narrative perspective is *not* the guys from the Prime timeline, but from the new one. I think it makes you care more about the alternate guys. I wish Star Trek would have had the balls to do a non-reset button show in its 40+ years. Better late than never.

@boborci

I wonder, from your perspective, what it would feel like if some writer in ten or twenty years decided to pull the plug on yout new timeline and finally do the reset-button. And I wonder how we would react. Or maybe CBS/Paramount decide to continue the TNG adventures in the Prime timeline (TV-show, mini-series, whatever).

Have you decided on how to call the new timeline yet?

139. Delgadeth - December 12, 2008

The question is: in the end, with timeline will stay? the old one or the new one?
If the wanna do another movie, the new one would stay.

According with Nemesis, the relationship within the Federation and the Romulan Empire wasn’t that bad, why this Nero is doing this? if they come from that very timeline universe?

140. Jon - December 12, 2008

139: How did Nemesis say the relationship wasn’t that bad? Because Donatra was able to bring a measly two ships to help defeat Shinzon, a man who had assassinated the Romulan government? Nothing in Nemesis indicates improved relations between the romulan empire itself and the federation.

141. USS Endeavour - December 12, 2008

And in some universe, it will be produced!

142. A. .S.F.33 - December 12, 2008

>> “Anthony: So, for example, Kirk is different, because his back story has totally changed, in that his parents…and all that. But you are saying that maybe Scotty or Spock’s back story would not be affected by that change?

Bob: Right.<<

Naturally the character I care most about is the one they mess with the most…..

Sorry but I feel like we are being played like violins Technobable to explain a reboot.

Keep in mind folks WE FANS are the only ones that will even KNOW there was any other history. All these supposed new fans will accept this as how it always was. So when people say this will not change interest in the existing Trek TV series and movies that seems very unlikely and well just bs. IMO Very few “new fans” will have any interest in what happened before, since they will accept this as the start of everything for them That IS and has ALWAYS been the problem with this movie taking such a radical departure from the Trek history that was established over the last forty years. Yes all our dvds will still exist but who, besides us, will care? And once we move into this new Trek universe what interest will Paramount have in keeping the old one alive?

143. Sean - December 12, 2008

I appreciate their efforts to ‘reboot’ the franchise without saying “nothing that happened over the past 40+ years matters anymore”. This way there could be another TNG movie and it would just take place in the timeline where Nero disappeared.

144. Forge Lindin (from a physics lab) - December 12, 2008

im sure the movie will be fine, dont worry

that said, after reading this im not sure physics will be fine ;p

145. Admiral_Bumblebee - December 12, 2008

It doesn’t make any sense at all. Why travel back in time when you can change nothing? Where is the point in that?
If Nero leaves for the past and the changes he makes there do not affect the “original timeline”, why does Spock follow him? Let Nero go. If he is gone and nothing changes, all the better – they would be rid of him.

And all this talk about about “original timeline”… so what we have seen so far is the “original timeline” and the new movie takes place in some other?

I think all this explanation of Mr. Orci makes the movie obsolete. It doesn’t take place in the “true original timeline”, all the changes Nero wants to do to the timeline won’t affect the original. So there is nothing at stake…

146. Stanky McFibberich - December 12, 2008

But nowhere have I read about them going back in time to a couple years ago and preventing the idea and execution of a movie which attempts to contrive some origin story with a new cast.

I would pay big money to see that.

147. BadBaird - December 12, 2008

So… in an alternative timeline Sylar is Spock???
Does that mean, that the vulcan ambassador is Sylars real father???
;-)

148. RetroWarbird - December 12, 2008

That’s a lot of explanation for what they could’ve easily described as Deus Ex Machina. Why not just say the Prophets reset everything? Or Q reset everything? Or that Kirk has some sort of historical singularity …

I don’t know …

I’ve always liked the theories of Time Travel Star Trek has showcased, but apart from enjoying the physics theories and how they might work I generally regard them as the weakest episodes and I regard “mythos” episodes like … Romulan or Klingon or Orion conflicts … as far superior.

Except Voyage Home. Voyage Home rocked.

I’m quite happy with the concept of classic Trek, rebooted, and I wouldn’t have needed the “respect for canon” or “excuses”. I understand showing the fans respect … but we’re Star Trek fans. We’re easily smart enough to juggle multiple continuities, compare, and contrast, and not give a crap about what the broader “casual movie-goers” interpretations are.

Expository Time Travel information could get kind of heady for laymen and non-Trekkers …

149. the_law - December 12, 2008

any article that can tie in Star Trek AND Back to the Future is all right in my book. After all, Marty had Darth Vader come from the planet Vulcan….remember?

great job Anthony, as always.

150. Nick Cook - December 12, 2008

Y’know, I would have been more than happy to just accept that some things look different and leave it at that. All this stuff about it being in an alternate quantum reality is just silly.

My interest level was pretty high up to this point. Now, not so much.

151. josh1013 - December 12, 2008

#150, I absolutely agree: Everything I have seen about this new film is great, and I’m really looking forward to it. But explaining the changes they made with an alternate timelinke, I think, quite frankly, is a bit lame. It was clear from the very beginning that they’d have to change things, that the Enterprise would not look like the Enterprise etc., and the reason is not that there is an alternate timeline, but that they’re makeing a big-budget movie in 2008. I understand that, completely. Even as a die-hard fan I would have made the same decision, to break with a few details in the tradition in order to go back to the core themes that created the tradition in the first place. I just don’t need a scientific explanation for that.

152. Mikeat5280 - December 12, 2008

When you think about it in depth – this may be a stroke of brilliance on the part of Bob et al. Now, for all future generations forward, Trek may have a way to reinvent itself. If there is always a Nero – then at some point in the future he will always go back and mess with the timeline. That brings Trek the opportunity to introduce a new set of actors and renewed element of danger to our beloved characters as a new timeline is brought into being. Does anybody follow what I’m saying? I think I have a headache now.

153. Just another German trekker - December 12, 2008

Well, the nerdy “canonite” in me lets out a big sigh of relief – pheeew…
Oh, and interesting discourse concerning the “science”-bits … considering time travel stories “Parallels” has always been the episode which “suitied my beliefs” the most (considering I’m not a pro on that matter) … yet “Yesterday’s Enterprise” was more entertaining (:

154. A. .S.F.33 - December 12, 2008

My burning question is…Why????
Why not use what was already known about these characters and history as a starting point for this movie? From the little that has been revealed about this movie it seems change was wedged in just for the sake of change…. oh and possible shock value to the old fans .

155. Nick Cook - December 12, 2008

I also wonder if any of this is influenced by the fact that the movie and TV rights lie in different hands. If there is a new show, is it possible it’ll be set in the ‘original’ quantum reality?

156. Jon - December 12, 2008

The fact is, these characters are not the characters we know, period. Certain events might transpire in their futures which mirror the stories we’re familiar with, but it’s not them.

157. Holger - December 12, 2008

Many thanks to Bob and Anthony for this interesting interview.

Only one comment about the science: Quantum mechanics is one of the best-tested and most successful scientific theories today, true. But the Many-Worlds-Interpretation invented by Hugh Everett is what its name says it is, an interpretation. The big philosophical problem about quantum mechanics is that it’s not clear why the mathematics of the theory works so well in describing and predicting physical phenomena. In other words, we have nice formulas which work extremely well, but nobody knows why they work so well and how they should be interpreted. So we have a lot of competing interpretations of the mathematical formulas of quantum theory, the Many-Worlds approach is one of them, but there is no consensus among physicists which interpretation is preferable.
Therefore, one should not call the Many-Worlds view the best available science, the Many-Worlds view is really one possible INTERPRETATION of the best available science.

158. CmdrR - December 12, 2008

Sorry, Bob… but, using quantum physics to explain human/vulcan motivations hardly cuts it. Physics is just that, the physical… metaphysical stuff doesn’t come into it until you posit an “evil twin universe.” That’s fun Trek, but hardly scientific. ‘Parallels’ might change Kirk’s eye color, but they wouldn’t change his outlook per se.

Anyway… I’m just grumpy because all I got for Christmas was Tom Cruise in a Nazi uniform. grrrr.

159. CmdrR - December 12, 2008

“So, if the Universe tends to gravitate towards what was intended to happen, does that mean in any alternate reality I’d still be stuck with taking Debbie Simms to the Senior Prom?

Aw, crap!”

Harry — she’s lost weight and gotten toned. But, she snores, so you’re probably right to have dumped her.

160. Spockanella - December 12, 2008

Can’t wait to see this movie so all the questions get answered and I can get off the “will it suck or will it be brilliant” roller coaster. I’m familiar with the many worlds theory and like some other posters, suspect it is being used as a convenient device to make changes. Which is ok (I’m not a canonista), but I am pretty tired of time travel and Trek. It truly pains me to say that this just feels glib to me.

161. SB - December 12, 2008

I’m amused. A little sourly, to be sure, but amused.

It doesn’t seem to matter whether Bob, or anyone connected with the movie, explains anything or not. If they don’t explain, there are people who howl. If they *do* explain, there are people who howl.

Bottom line is that the people for whom canon (how I’ve come to despise that word) is desperately important will go on feeling exactly as they please regardless of what anyone says, and people who are looking for reasons to hate this project will assuredly find them.

Ditto for people like me: all I want is a terrific movie; all the endless, endless, ENDLESS talk of canon is nothing but fanwank to me. I appreciate and respect Bob and everyone else for doggedly doing their best to placate the whiners; but in the end, I’m sure they just want one thing: for us to see the movie they worked so hard on and to enjoy it.

That’s my plan. I welcome everyone who joins me…

162. scooter - December 12, 2008

It’s just a movie. I’m looking forward to a couple of hours of entertainment when it comes out. I don’t care if Jim Kirk has a beard, just make a good movie.

163. S. John Ross - December 12, 2008

While this still didn’t address any of my concerns, it did at least provide amusing new ones :)

And for all those out there that think the only ones concerned about the film are canonistas, let’s say it one more time: I could give a flying flip about canon. I just want a good movie, and on _those_ grounds I am concerned.

164. SB - December 12, 2008

163:

I don’t think that only canonistas are concerned about the movie’s quality. I do think it seems remarkably pointless to be worried about that, however, given that:

1. The picture is almost done and locked; if there’s anything in it you won’t like, it’s too late to change it now;
2. It doesn’t come out for six months; and
3. When it comes out, you’ll *know* whether you like it or not. Until then, is it really worth being concerned? Interested, sure….

165. Doug - December 12, 2008

The last question is the real killer. A great example of a well thought out series of questions building to…. a brick wall in this case. For the most part I accept Orci’s time line opinion but in terms of storytelling and entertainment it is extreme and fatalistic. In every episode of Star Trek where they go back in time and seek to change or restore something they could have simply followed Orci’s rule, not bothered and gone home straight away because why does it matter? Just leave the new parallel time line to do its thing and get back to your own. What a waste of so many hours of TV. And so the killer question asks what is the point of Spock going back in time at all. He can happily live in his own parallel universe and let Nero wreck the other one. There’s nothing to fight for, nothing to drive them.

166. Trekee - December 12, 2008

It’s going to have to steer a course though between this level of detail (which I suspect isn’t going to have an expositional half hour in the film) and keeping the average audience member engaged.

Thing is though, having it as a new timeline re-introduces some jeopardy in the film(s). Maybe in this timeline, Uhuru really can die when she’s attacked by the Bug Beasts of Thrall. In the original timeline she just can’t. It might work dramatically.

167. CSM - December 12, 2008

In my opinion – This is total BS and is exactly what I was afraid of…….I am not one to fret over every minutia of canon, I could live with some reworkings for more appeal and drama, But to me this is just cheap writing.
CSM

168. Nick Cook - December 12, 2008

Ultimately, I’ll judge this movie on the basis of whether it’s a well-written, well-acted, well-crafted story. I appreciate that the prodicers and writers are trying to appease people with the whole ‘quantum realities’ thing, but it just seems like a crutch to me. I sincerely hope that crutch isn’t an indication of the quality of the story being told, but if it is I’ll likely be disappointed overall.

Still, the movie isn’t aimed at me, so no loss there. The new fans will have their movie, and I’ll still have my DVDs.

169. CSM - December 12, 2008

Exactly Doug, ….Exactly (In my best McCoy impersonation)

170. Admiral_BlackCat - December 12, 2008

Anthony and Bob thank you whole heartedly for all the info and insight. Bob I personally appreciate all the research and dedication you have put into Trek lore and Quantum Mechanics. You seem to be very passionate about whatever project you take on.

Post #161: I agree completely.

And one last note.
1. Time Travel: canon
2. Alternate timelines, realities, universes: canon
3. Old school time travel theory (i.e. Grandfather Paradox): canon
4. New school Quantum Mechanics TT theory (i.e. NO grandfather paradox, also refers to #2 above): canon
So we have two completely different and competing views of time travel and it’s consequences present in the Trek Universe: amazing.

171. CmdrR - December 12, 2008

Now I know why Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics.

172. Craig - December 12, 2008

What about the 29th century Federation Time Police, The Temperal factions of the TCW and posible Krenim type temporal sheilds.

173. justcorbly - December 12, 2008

I’ve always thought that Spock’s time travel would have the effect of setting Trek on the timeline we know as canon. That is, if Spock had not intervened, things would have gone wonky. He did, and they don’t.

In other words, the movie doesn’t depart from canon so much as it begins it.

174. MrLirpa - December 12, 2008

Why do I get the feeling that if they had made a “reboot” everyone moaning away here would be screaming ” why not just make it a time travel story that way you could make the changes and …Blah, blah blah”.

At least the writers have made an effort to tie things together in such a way as to explain to fans, (not the general public who, frankly aren’t going to care about the “past”).

We should be celebrating the fact that they’ve even thought about the fans and canon. I seriously suspect that Bob Orci is giving away NOTHING with this interview, I think that there are going to be some major surprises when the full story unfolds and I for one am hoping that I get those surprises at the cinema and not being spoiledbefore hand.

175. Driver - December 12, 2008

Both Star Trek and Quantum Mechanics are science fiction.

176. Will - December 12, 2008

I am looking forward to this movie and appreciate all the info. I have to say, I am not one of these ‘canon’ people that get so worked up over it – however, this explanation is not going to satisfy that crowd (IMHO). To me, this is a really lame excuse for changing some things and not others. I am of the opinion that they should have just started over with the core of characters as the basis and went from there. If things change, thats fine. The idea that the sets and props need to look like they did in the 60′s on a TV show is ridiculous to begin with. The core of Star Trek is the characters and the story, everything else in the end doesn’t matter.

177. Sc00ny - December 12, 2008

Thanks to Anthony and Bob Orci (again) for a great interview, once again, covered some things I was curious about and reassured me of a few things.

Thanks fellas.

Still need to sort that ship out though….

178. LarryL - December 12, 2008

Boborci:

Is it too late to insert a scene where Spock uses a tricorder to see if Schrödinger’s cat is still alive in the box?

179. krikzil - December 12, 2008

“… but I am pretty tired of time travel and Trek. It truly pains me to say that this just feels glib to me.”

Gotta agree with this (and it pains me).

180. CaptainRickover - December 12, 2008

Cool. Quantun-physics. I like it.

But I’m hoping someday there will be a sufficient timeline-theory in Star Trek, besides quantum physics, because in the 23rd century quantum physics is more than 300 years old. Not that it would be wrong in that time, but I guess mankind will find out much more of how the universe works as we know today.

181. Duncan MacLeod - December 12, 2008

In regards to Vulcan’s Blue Sky. Orci and Co have stated several times they consider some of the book ideas to be canon. In “Spock’s World” in particular i recall some vulcans stating that vulcan’s sky is not uniformly red all the time, and can be different colors.

Someone correct me if im wrong.

182. CSM - December 12, 2008

Will – You are right, The core of Trek is the CHARACTERS and that is part of what these folks have tinkered with. I don’t care if the ship looks different, the corridors, the consoles – so what. It still looks Trek…..Only an idiot would have expected this movie to look exactly like a 60′s TV show – That would be a Galaxy Quest thing… But the characters should NOT be messed with – Dress up the ship and the effects all you want, but leave the characters intact.

And if #173-justcorbly is correct – THAT, I can live with….

183. Truthamador - December 12, 2008

Can I ask a favor of those here that apparently have some issues with Mr. Orci and crew…….Bob is right here, reading these posts, so please stop referring to him in the third person. Especially those that decide to insult his writing abilities/intellect/personality. I mean, seriously, he reads these comment boards because he really does care about what we hardcore fans think, and maybe we should all realize what that says about his commitment to Star Trek and his lack of commitment to just making Paramount some money. But, most of all, I just feel very annoyed reading posts that bash on him, but yet sound like we are talking behind his back. If you really have little to no respect for what he is attempting to do, then tell it straight to him. Maybe that might make you stop and think about your anger at this new movie, instead of just sounding like children whining because the world didn’t give you everything exactly how you wanted it.

To Bob and Anthony, thanks for letting us in on the conversation, and yes, even though you guys have taken a little liberty with the whole quantum mechanics stuff, Star Trek really never has followed it to the letter, so its all good. Physics (well, more MetePhysics) does posit the idea that other universes can follow different laws of physics, which has been examined in many a Star Trek book, so I am happy hearing the explanation either way. Plus, I am one of those that totally digs the new look, and especially the fact that the Big E is now being built in my home state, thanks Bob!

184. Conard - December 12, 2008

if Nero acts in a parallel universe, and creates a parallel universe by travelling back, and the past of the first timeline is not put in any danger why Spock should travel back and try to change things at all?

185. Star Trackie - December 12, 2008

Boy, After reading this, I’m happy I can just sit back and accept it, be it in a timeship, a tricked out Delorean or a guy sitting in a chair attached to a spinning satellite dish. All I need for it to work is Spock saying he is going back in time.

186. Duncan MacLeod - December 12, 2008

73. Aragorn189 – December 12, 2008

How about this for a canon explanation for bond….

007 – James Bond – CODE NAME given to each succeeding 007 agent. M and Q as well. All the same universe, just each bond is succeeded by a new bond for whatever reason.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

187. sean - December 12, 2008

This interview has scared me more than anything yet — I like the alternate timeline reboot, which has been pretty clear for months. What I don’t like is Bob Orci’s weird, fawning “I don’t understand anything about science, but I hear quantum mechanics is awesome!!!” justification. How many times can someone appeal to the “most advanced” or “most current” scientific theory when, really, there’s nothing terribly sophisticated or new about this? This is just more watered down versions of Bryce DeWitt’s many worlds theory — a theory that is, essentially, untestable and unfalsifiable. So, how does that make it the “most advanced?”

Cutting Orci some slack, he’s just a screenwriter who’s now in the unenviable position of trying to justify choices they made for narrative reasons by appealing to some form of wishy-washy technobabble. Since things like “soliton field generators” don’t exist, he falls back on the 20th century equivalent — quantum mechanics.

188. SH Cone - December 12, 2008

Jordan…

I just… how is that BS? You might not like it. But it doesn’t affect anything that you love and have access to watch anytime right now.

Maybe if they said, “Screw it all, we do what we want!” you could call BS.

But creating an alternate timeline is not only a logical solution to trying something new, it’s firmly within the Trek rules.

So… just, for the sake of accuracy, could everyone say something like, “Man I don’t like that, I think it’ll suck, and I’m gonna go watch my TOS DVD’s instead,” instead of, “BS!”. It’s more mature, it communicates better and it doesn’t slap objectivity (a Trek principle) in the face.

189. Salvador Nogueira - December 12, 2008

Boborci,

in fact, quantum mechanics is the most successful, test-proven theory in the history of science. But keep in mind that this means it can predict quantum events with incredible accuracy (and that presumes particles can be in many places at once, you can’t know everything about anything, and so on, and so forth).

The “many worlds” thing is just an *interpretation* of quantum mechanics. And, as such, is not at all a proven conclusion. It can be that way, but maybe it is something else. That is what frustrates most people, when they try to “get” quantum mechanics: nobody knows what it truly *means*.

What worries the most, actually, is that we’re talking this stuff to justify a business decision. Business is very messy, but is still much simpler than quantum mechanics. Let’s not complicate things too much!

Best regards and keep up the great work!

Salvador

190. Ruger - December 12, 2008

This is exactly why they shouldn’t have used time travel. At this point in both Trek and scifi in general it is contrived and overused. In this case it has needlessly complicated the backstories of these characters so that the movie team could have free reign to rewrite or make-up new history for them. No offense to Mr. Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams, but it looks like they wanted to make their jobs a whole lot easier by using the time travel angle. Conforming to the canon and what we already know about these characaters AND making the movie they wanted may have been too great a challenge. “Hey, we’re not violating canon because Nero screwed with the timeline!”

191. The Underpants Monster - December 12, 2008

Yeah, yeah, yeah, great news, a lot of people have been assuming this for a while, canon, yadda yadda yadda.

But is it a good story, or is it as silly a story as the previews suggest? That’s the crux of the whole matter, and it’s driving me crazy that I won’t know the answer until May!!!

192. sean - December 12, 2008

#189: “What worries the most, actually, is that we’re talking this stuff to justify a business decision. Business is very messy, but is still much simpler than quantum mechanics. Let’s not complicate things too much!”

Exactly! This is all justification for the hardcore Trekkies who have some vague understanding of the science involved and need convincing of why Kirk’s not on the Republic or Farragut, etc.

It’s a STORY decision. One that’s made on business concerns. This many worlds stuff is all just silly post-hoc justification and looks, IMHO, embarassing for Orci.

193. CmdrR - December 12, 2008

In every universe… Kirk still pulls his boots on one at a time, right after he does your sister.

194. USS TRINOMA - NCC 0278 - December 12, 2008

#86.

I don’t think QM is being misapplied here. Humanity is a passionate species. And to see humanity different “fates,” is a reflection of QM. I really commend Bob Orci for trying his best to meld QM with Trek lore. It is putting SCIENCE in science fiction. I mean, if QM cannot be an answer to reconcile canon, then let’s ask “Q” to just snap his finger to put everything in order. What would you prefer, QM, or “Q”? (And “Q” is definitely canon!)

195. Kirk here - December 12, 2008

This whole explanation is why I *hate* time travel stories.

IMnsHO, using time travel *is* an excuse to do whatever they want with the story. I would rather they did the original Kirk’s origin, rather than a new timeline. Of course, that would’ve taken more effort and study to try an match all the little details from the original series.

I’m still going to go see it, but I do admit, I’m a little disappointed.

196. RoobyDoo - December 12, 2008

Perhaps Spock prime is aware that Nero plans to destroy Vulcan in the alternate timeline — the chance to save billions of Vulcans would be motivation enough to follow.

197. CmdrR - December 12, 2008

Star Trek, a QM production.
Tonight’s Episode: “Hickory, Dickory, Doc… Spock Runs Out the Clock.”

198. Chris Doohan - December 12, 2008

Good Morning!

Great interview/conversation, Anthony!! My brain almost exploded, but it was definitely insightful.

As for Bob, well, all I can say is WOW!!  I’m extremely impressed. Now, If I can just pronounce his last name correctly.

I’m going with “or-see” :)

199. DrNebuloso - December 12, 2008

I already see a flaw in the logic. If Kirk is right out of the academy, how is it he has reached the rank of at least LT Commander…..

Also how is Chekov on the bridge of the Enterprise. Isn’t he 10 years younger….

….I assume that you get out of the academy at age 19-20….then Chekov would be 9-10?!?!?

Kirk has to have served on the Farragut…There is no way is he only 19-20…..

I ain’t being Canon anal….I just want it to be logical. I can buy the quantum mech, but somethings need to at least add up…

200. Duncan MacLeod - December 12, 2008

196. I fully agree.

The fact that Spock doesn’t know or care about most realities is valid too. he cannot do anything about things he doesn’t know about. All life is sacred – The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few… or the one. And since he KNOWS about Nero, he can SAVE some lives SOMEWHERE. The attitude “it wont affect my time line, so who gives a s**t” is NOT Spock. He is aware this is happening, and hopes to save lives.

201. P Technobabble - December 12, 2008

I enjoyed reading Bob Orci’s comments about the new film, and I rather enjoy the possibility that the original timeline might be permanently altered. For all those people who keep harping on the “reboot” issue, you might want to try rebooting your attitudes. Apparently, the realities of CHANGE in this world does nothing to inform you. I’m as hard-core as any Trek fan, and I think this new film is the best chance to energize the franchise, by allowing for new opportunities and new possibilities. Living in one specific box all your life can be quite a limitation, don’t you think??? Hey, If I’m wrong, so what? We’ll end up right where we are. If I’m right, all you critics will have to find new ways to justify your position.
Bring it on, Bob & Alex!

202. Nick Cook - December 12, 2008

For me, this also raises the question of why is Nero going back in time to mess with another quantum reality, rather than his own?

I can buy Spock trying to fix it out of a sense of responsibility, a simple desire to do the right thing, even if it doesn’t directly affect his world. But if Nero is hellbent on revenge, why would he not attack the ‘real’ universe? Does he not realise he’s in an alternate universe? Or does he not care? Both are possible, but from a story-telling POV, would also weaken his strength as a villian.

Wait and see I guess, but this is the first comment that’s really given me pause.

203. Decker's Stubble - December 12, 2008

Time travel – the cause of, and the solution to, all of life’s problems.

204. CmdrR - December 12, 2008

Good morning, Chris. Our heads are still ringing with the quantum mechanics lesson, too. I’m sure it all makes perfect sense to Scotty. He probably has the warp drive reconfigured to jump to any desired reality.

205. Captain Otter - December 12, 2008

I wish some of you would go read Hawking’s “The Universe In A Nutshell.” Heck, get it on CD of mp3 if you prefer. It would help you understand that Orci is actually on the cutting edge of current science.

Granted, I think JJ and co. need some excuse to justify a non-reboot reboot.

But it is very “Star Treky” to use science as your pathway to a reboot.

And like Orci said, the “prime” timeline still exists on DVD, syndicated re-runs, and soon in glorious BluRay.

For a bunch of Star Wars fans, I think they get Trek better than many Trekkies do. Trek “canon” was never meant to be canon or a scripture. This isn’t religion- though it may function as such for many fans (as it once did for me back when I was an atheist.)

Trek is wonderful story telling and great characters exploring the possibilities of the cosmos- nothing more and nothing less.

Based on this interview, it sounds like this new incarnation of Trek will carry the batton wonderfully well.

206. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@198…
good morning, Chris…
as somebody who actually walked on that ship, did it feel like another universe to you?

;))

207. Dennis Sisterson - December 12, 2008

“According to quatum mechanics”? Surely quantum mechanics are just
tiny little guys with wrenches. Why should we take their word for anything?

208. Jeff - December 12, 2008

Although I’m happy with the explanation I agree with #13 that a straight up reboot would have been easier rather than explaining all this as a new alternate timeline- both Batman and Bond have been rebooted and people can still enjoy all the old DVDs and reruns regardless.

I have a feeling that the next Trek movie after this one Bob and co. will definitely admit to it being a reboot… ;-)

209. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@202…
if Nero travels back in time in his own universe, and attacks the Kelvin in his past, this is the incident that creates the alternate timeline. There is nothing he can do about it.

You change the past, you create a new universe that coexists with the one you came from in the first place.

210. Dr. Diehard - December 12, 2008

Great, more excuses to tell a bad story. If you care why can’t you write a good story that fits?

211. freezejeans - December 12, 2008

198

I agree, nearly had a head explosion as well…should know better than to read articles like this first thing in the morning!

Awesome discussion, though. Very cool of Bob to get into the science nerdery with us!

212. Deebo Shanks - December 12, 2008

I find it amusing that the people on this site talk so much about the potential of mankind. You say you believe in a utopian society that some dead guy purportedly thought up in the 60′s–you say you believe the human race can succeed and survive and exist in an optimistic future–but you can’t even stop slamming each other over a television series.

I’m a die-hard “canonista” by the way. And I completely accept this new movie on the grounds with which Mr. Orci has so eloquently described. I have no problems with alternate realities. I quite enjoy them, as a matter of fact.

Is this what I personally would have done? Nope! But I still accept Voyager as canon despite it being the worst television show I can remember watching outside of “Dark Angel” starring Jessica Alba. But then, this is only -my- opinion. There’s room for more than one opinion, it doesn’t mean we have to bash people. IDIC!

213. Admiral_BlackCat - December 12, 2008

The audience is aware that it’s quantum mechanics.
However in the Trek Universe it may be impossible to tell which time travel THEORY is actually proven time travel REALITY (or hard science, truth).
The characters must act as though any timeline incursion will have drastic and dramatic effects.

214. Jon - December 12, 2008

@ 209 – where does all the new matter and energy come from to randomly spawn an entire new universe every time something that has more than one outcome happens come from?

215. Deebo Shanks - December 12, 2008

Oh, and thank you Anthony and Bob for the enlightening article! Class acts all the way! IDIC!

216. Dr. Diehard - December 12, 2008

Can anybody tell me anything Orci has done that is any good? From what I see on imdb it looks like he has only done crap. I mean, this is the guy who made “Parts: The Clonus Horror” look good.

217. brady - December 12, 2008

Recently found missing part of the interview…..

Anthony: You’re really just making this shite up as we go along aren’t you?

Bob: Yup ;)

218. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

Well…

Yes, the concept of the “Many Worlds” theory falls within Star Trek’s canon. And, obviously, this is basically a fancily-dressed-up cover for the fact that the makers of this film felt that, for whatever unknown reason(s), simply telling a story within the Trek Universe as it has existed for the last 4 decades was insufficient.

However…

If one accepts the premise (which I’m not sure I do) that *any* time travel creates an alternate timeline, what we have obviously seen is that the vast majority of time travel has resulted in parallel worlds that are functionally indistinguishable from the originating timeline.

So the question becomes: Is what results from this film close enough to the prime timeline (defined in this case as the continuum in which the general events from ENT through “Nemesis” all take place, aka the one we thought we’d been following for all these years) so that the rest of Trek still “counts”, and we will not be treated to this parallel timeline as an excuse for ignoring, in future films, all that’s come before?

If yes, okay then.

If no… Then color me unhappy and disappointed.

Assumedly the key answer to that question is embodied in the part that Bob can’t give away, and I shall certainly be checking out the movie in May to find that answer. :)

219. CmdrR - December 12, 2008

“the worst television show I can remember watching outside of “Dark Angel” starring Jessica Alba”

That was a tv show? I thought it was just random images of Jessica Alba.

220. Nick Cook - December 12, 2008

@209

Except that’s not been the way it is previously. It certainly isn’t the case in First Contact, or Yesterday’s Enterprise.

Clearly both are possible, so either Nero screwed up, is ignorant of the facts, or doesn’t care.

I’m not going to judge the story until we see the movie, but I can’t say this is a creative decision that sits well with me.

@208

Yeah, I agree. It is a reboot, and that disappoints me.

221. Dr. Diehard - December 12, 2008

Oh, and I really like that line about how are DVDs won’t vanish when the new movie comes out. I hope they don’t becasue I’ll be watching those instead of going to the theater.

Just got the third season, btw. The remastered Cage is really great! It also doesn’t have time travel.

222. Daoud - December 12, 2008

My physicist side gives a thumbs up to Bob on this one… Although it is a bit like the “Learning Annex” version of QM, it’s close enough.

I’m glad a few have pointed out that there are different flavors of QM other than Many Worlds. I prefer the universe of the means approach, that the general equations of state of the majority of universes has a particular mean (or average) set. If someone goes back in time, it causes a change in the average universe (or as some prefer and have mentioned, a “preferred” or “dominant” universe).

So, some have questioned, if Nero goes back and is changing a different universe, why should Spock care? Because if not combatted, the average of all the parallel universes will shift in order to keep a preferred or dominant state. Thus, when returning, there is a high probability he would land back in his corrected, or a satisfactorily similar universe (and all the other Spocks at the same time would end up in satisfactorially similar universes.)

Bob is right to quote TNG’s _Parallels_, as it’s a “canon-based” explanation for the events of this movie.

#198 How do you pronounce Doohan? ;) Silent h? Rhymes with “doing” when pronounced as “doin’”? Let’s also call George “Takai” and see how that goes ;) At least Bob continues the requirement to have an unusual last name to pronounce! When I see his surname though, even though I know how to pronounce Spanish… I keep hearing “orr-i-sigh” because of that season of Stargate SG-1….

223. ensign joe - December 12, 2008

So the point is.. When everybody says (Shatner’s) Kirk is dead they are correct. In that particular timeline he died on Veridian III. And thats all I’m gonna say about that…

224. Randall - December 12, 2008

Bob Orci (if you’re reading):

See, what this discussion confirms for me is what I already knew–that all these fanboy concerns about canon aren’t what really matters here. Sure, it matters on a certain level, you can’t just toss everything out and start fresh–a lot of people are expecting a certain thing that lies within certain limits, and you can’t just violate that. But all the little details here and there—I mean, come on, the canon never agreed with ITSELF one hundred percent, anyway. Nobody imagined back in 1966 that any of this shit would matter to people so much, forty years later. They weren’t even clear as to exactly WHEN Star Trek was taking place.

THAT actually is the better way to go—not telling the audience too much. The subsequent ST series continuously painted themselves into corners by letting too much out and leaving far less to the imagination.

Anyway, back to the point. I’ve said on this site many times that all this stuff about canon—it isn’t the vital thing to me. I’m more concerned about character. And Kirk is a mythic, iconic character. He’s in that league with Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, the Shadow, Batman… and these are characters one, as a writer and filmmaker, shouldn’t f**k with lightly. This is why I thought killing Kirk off was a ridiculous, bumbling mistake—not because I’m some fanboy who cried my eyes out because my imaginary hero croaked—but because I’m a well-educated writer myself and I think I have a strong grasp of the importance of these kinds of fictional entities and why they matter to us, in a mythic sense–and why, therefore, you don’t go killing them off or giving them too much fill-in so that they become ordinary beings like the rest of us. Conan-Doyle made the mistake of killing off Sherlock Holmes once because he’d grown tired of the character and thought he himself, as a writer, should be doing better things (Edgar Rice Burroughs, a less full-of-himself craftsman, never made such a mistake–not to my knowledge anyway). Money drove him to revive Holmes in as nearly an unlikely scenario as any seen on Star Trek. And Holmes has remained alive since. It’s not that killing him would be criminal; it’s that killing him would be stupid. And harmful to our cultural/mythic needs. We need immortal, timeless heroes.

But you also don’t f**k with characters like this, either. Because it has the same effect as killing them off. On the other hand, you have the advantage of the fact that all of them have vague and sometimes undefined backgrounds. We don’t know a lot about Tarzan’s childhood except that he was orphaned and raised by apes. Maybe not a lot of room to maneuver there (his adoptive gorilla mom and dad couldn’t send him to college, and he couldn’t take a job in the family mango-canning factory or any such thing) but still, there’s stuff to play with there. Same with Kirk.

You’ve addressed my concerns before about Kirk’s character being tampered with in the upcoming film, and so that’s that. If it works, great. If not, there’s no taking it back. Que sera sera.

But in the future—if there is a future, if there’s more of these films… I hope we can just move on, and play it smart. I know you guys had to go it this way THIS time, because you’re trying to both connect the old with the new AND excite new audiences… but in the future—let’s get away from the “battle in space” plots, okay? No more villains for a while, okay? It works once in a while, but endlessly reporting a formula just makes it stale. Star Trek ain’t freakin’ Captain Video, with the weekly villain who tries to take over the universe with a new deathray. Are you guys familiar with sci-fi back in the day before it became all cyberpunk and technobabble? It was about intriguing and often bizarre concepts, and was also closely akin to horror—which is NOT just about watching people die in gory ways, but is REALLY about creepiness and eerie-ness, and a feeling of being pitched out of reality, of glimpsing some weird, nightmare/dreamlike existence. The original Star Trek touched on that a lot back in the day—The Next Generation and the other subsequent ST’s and films–hardly ever. I know a film has to have a great conflict and all that, and great drama. Okay. But I hope you guys can put a stop to it being played ultra-simplistically. No more villains for a while… no more Khans and Neros and whatnot. Star Trek isn’t Star Wars, it isn’t some mythic battle of good vs. evil. Star Trek doesn’t need its own version of Darth Vader every other film—it needs new and weird ideas that have depth and provoke thought as WELL as emotion. Monsters that aren’t really monsters–Hortas and other such weirdness—bizarre worlds and concepts that undermine our sense of normalcy and reality—action that’s more than just picking up a phaser and blasting somebody or something. That’s what made Star Trek so successful in the first place. And ask yourselves, too—what ARE the sci-fi/fantasy properties that made themselves mythic, that projected themselves for all time into our psyches? Star Trek. The Twilight Zone. The Outer Limits maybe. A few others. And they all have that weird, creepy, sometimes horrific sense of the nightmare or the dream about them… even Star Trek.

Can we please get back to that, and no more geek fantasies like The Next Generation? I guarantee you that if that’s done–Star Trek will win a larger audience and will survive. Because people enjoy being weirded out and scared and made to shiver, even if only intellectually. It’s why The Matrix was so successful. Why the X-Files was a huge show. Abrams should know this, given what he did with Lost. That’s what I’m talking about. People love that stuff. But they DON’T love being made to feel like nerds because they’re watching something that is, frankly, nerdy.

225. captain shroom - December 12, 2008

I find all of this speculation and discussion a little too much for me. I’d rather just see the end product and evaluate it from there. I know I was warned about spoilers…

This is all a little too theoretical and not very entertaining.

226. Captain Otter - December 12, 2008

#214- It isn’t new matter. This is complex, but I’ll try to give a over-simplified answer. Quantum Theory suggests that every partical which exists in this universe is similatniuously existing in every possible universe.

In other words, each universe doen’t have its own supply of matter. Rather, every universe shares the same matter at the same instant. Even if a given particle is doing one thing in universe A, something similar in universes b-q, and is located in an entirely different galaxy in universes r-z, it is still the same particle. A new universe wouldn’t require new matter.

Again- go get a copy of “The Universe In A Nutshell” for a reasonably accessable intro. to this stuff. It isn’t a perfect book and it is somewhat dated, but it does a good job of making the mind-bending aspects of all this make a little bit of sense.

227. Balok - December 12, 2008

I think Doc Brown would say, “way to think 4 dimensionally Mr. Orci!”

228. Chris Doohan - December 12, 2008

222.

How you doohan. Yes, that’s correct.

206

There were a few times that I had to tighten my seatbelt, but it was an incredible ride. I had the time of my life and Bob made me feel right at home.

229. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@220…
you are right, Nick, it all depends on the way the story is returned to it’s normal state.

Yesterdays Enterprise was different because what we (and Guinan) saw was the changing of the timeline as a “live effect”, with the temoral rift open.

In First Contact the crew tried to hinder the Borg changing the future, succesfully. I don’t know how the Enterprise returned to the future in that movie, but with all the reset-button Time Travel remains the problem how to select the correct future on your Time Machine dial… because while there is only one past, there are lots of possible futures…

230. I'm a Doctor not a ___________! - December 12, 2008

BOB ORCI or ANTHONY..
I appreciate the interview!! Wow…It will be a great watch..and I look forward to it! I still love how it ties the TNG back with Nimoy … and for all we know since the universe holds itself together, who’s to say that the events we see may not still happen (unseen) in the new universe in a form or fashion…. Now…I do have one thing to say in response…
Quantum Shmantum… !!!! I WANT A NEW PIC OF THE BIG E!! (pretty please?)) Any Idea when we might see some more pics of our new E?!?!!

231. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@228…

cheers for sharing that, Chris!

232. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

#23 – “What about when the Borg ended up in the arctic in Enterprise? That changed everything we know right there.”

Ahh, but did it? What if that had already happened in the original timeline? That would certainly explain why (as some folks wondered after “First Contact”) Picard didn’t make any effort to clean up the Borg wreckage. Why? He *couldn’t*. He knew it was found in the 22nd Century, and if he didn’t leave it there, it could mess up the timeline. But I bet it stuck in his craw…. ;)

#65 – “This sort of need for convoluted reasoning explains why Canon is the cause for the death of Trek.”

No, it explains that it would have been much simpler, and more rewarding, to just follow basic continuity and move on.

“Any other, regular franchise, would have just had this sort of movie be its prequel movie. The fact that the movie looks different from the TV show could be entirely attributed to “Its a movie, they have more money, lets enjoy it!” ”

With that, I agree. I would have had no problems with the production design changes, assuming the storytelling continuity holds together.

“Instead, the writer have to bend head over heels to try and find a way to appease fans who are more concerned about whether their Star Trek Encyclopedia remains accurate as opposed to whether or not the movie has a good story.”

Again, we have the assumption taht the two are mutually exclusive, and IMHO, that assumotion is a false one, as is the implied dichotomy.

“This is how excessive fandom can kill fun, this is how excessive fandom isolates people.”

I just don’t see how this conclusion follows, I’m afraid. The existing continuity had lots of little gems that could have served for some incredible storytelling, but they will now be ignored, it would seem.

#72 – “And with this done, they could go back to the prime universe and it wouldnt be effected at all.”

And if I had any faith that they’ll do that, I’d be cool with the side-story, too. But…

233. BudoTrek - December 12, 2008

Great interview, and was glad to hear an explanation, such as it was, as to why this will conform for canon…sort of. But there is still one MAJOR show-stopper for me that has not been answered. How does Kirk go from a Starfleet Cadet to Captain? Sorry, but you just don’t get promoted to command a ship by any other means than earning it over a long and distinguished career no matter how good you are and connections you might have. If we are going to take a modern scientific theory to explain the canon differences, the least we can do it use the modern military career model for when a person is qualified to command a major asset such as a ship. The “prime” timeline Kirk had the experience and training due to his previous assignments as a junior officer before he was given command. This Kirk shows a little spunk and ability, and he gets promoted to Captain and command of the ship dropped in his lap. Sorry, but that’s not how things work in the real world. There are undoubtedly thousands of officers who would have been senior to Cadet Kirk who would have been far more qualified. Heck, if we take this new timeline seriously, Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov are all senior, with more experience and are more qualified.

I am still looking forward to the movie and will be in line with the other Trekkers to see it, but this one little point is going to stick in my craw.

234. Denise de Arman - December 12, 2008

I wonder how many times Mr. Bob read The Entropy Effect.

Liz- I will mix the LIITs if you bring TWO flasks, as one will not be enough.

235. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@226, thanks Captain Otter…

my brain just collapsed the other possible, but uncertain, explanations ;))

236. Third Remata'Klan - December 12, 2008

Good Lord, that was WAAAYYY more explanation than we needed!

It’s just a friggin’ movie, for cryin’ out loud!

You don’t have to explain it to the canon junkies! You don’t!

Fascinating, though….

237. demonfafa - December 12, 2008

This is just getting stupid. Not in the sense of Star Trek geekery, but just storytelling in general. This is a prime example of overthinking a very basic idea.

Enterprise overdid the timeline alterations and its ratings and reception suffered as a consequence. Utilizing time-travel and alternate storylines as a plot device is not only cliched, even for Trek but lazy storytelling. These are ALL PLACES, both in location and in story that WE’VE BEEN SO MANY TIMES!

The creed of Trek’s adventures was that they were explorers. They were seeking out new planets, new life and civilizations, boldly going, yadda yadda yadda. It’s not easy to come with new alien life concepts (Enterprise at least tried with the Xindi, a world with 6 intelligent civilized species), but I’d like to see Abrams attempt to do something that actually captures our imagination rather than eye candy and technobabble.

I’m really starting to get fearful for this movie.

238. Shatner_Fan_Prime - December 12, 2008

I always assumed that Spock Prime traveled back to attempt to restore what Nero had changed, similar to COTEOF, First Contact, Terminator, BTTF, etc … but if the prime timeline exists no matter what Nero does???

Yeah, I’m with all the folks who are scratching their heads on that one. I hope like hell this’ll be explained better in the movie.

239. CDR Cooties - December 12, 2008

Wow, just enjoy the damn movie people. Canon is anything the producers and writers that Paramount hires at any given time say is canon. Live with it.

240. captain shroom - December 12, 2008

I’m modifying my list of Trek cast members (and/or relatives thereof) I’d most like to have a beer with to include Chris Doohan :)

241. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

Like a poor markman, you keep missing the target.

IT WAS SUPPOSSED TO BE STAR TREK TOS THIS TIME!!!

242. S. John Ross - December 12, 2008

#164:

I dont understand point #1 at all … that’s true of _any_ film, surely? I’m not a filmmaker.

Point #2: sure. True.

Point #3: Not necessarily correct. It’ll depend on reviews, etc. I skipped the last two, after all – still haven’t seen either of ‘em … so I still don’t know if I’d like them. Same may apply here.

243. Holger - December 12, 2008

180 CaptainRickover: Today’s quantum theory will be totally outdated in the 23rd. Good point! But if you try to fictionally depict the science of the 23rd century, you’d have to depict something incomprehensible to us. But that wouldn’t make a very attractive story, I guess. So I think it’s not simply a lack of imagination when SF writers present us with extrapolations of science and tech which are actually much too close to home. It’s a (literary or cineastic) necessity to do so.

162 scooter: “It’s just a movie. I’m looking forward to a couple of hours of entertainment when it comes out.”
To me it’s also a form of entertainment to participate in these discussions here.

244. That One Guy - December 12, 2008

Harry,
You will never cease to entertain me.

245. Devon - December 12, 2008

Question:

“also do not conform to the latest greatest, most highly tested scientific theory in human history”

Does this mean Quantum Mechanics.. or just in general that Star Trek doesn’t conform to the “latest greatest, most highly…” etc. etc.?

246. VOODOO - December 12, 2008

Great interview.

It confirms what I have thought for a long time. I think it’s a pretty clever direction to take the series.

247. Brett Campbell - December 12, 2008

My chief concern is that if this apparently rather convoluted plot with such time-line disruptions and quantum mechanics references are potentially confusing a lot of longtime, die-hard fans, what effect will it have on potential new ones? I hope it won’t leave them cold.

I think a lot of people stopped tuning in to the 24th century spin-offs because of their excessive “technobabble’ and instead are drawn to the grassroots plots of TOS as its jargon was very minimal in comparison.

Guess will have to see next summer …

248. jas_montreal - December 12, 2008

I think whoever complains about canon should stop complaining now. IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE NOW. WHY THE ENTERPRISE IS BEING BUILT THE WAY IT IS PPL. NERO DESTROYS THE KELVIN…. THE FEDERATION GETS READY FOR A WAR OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT…. THE ENTERPRISE IS BEING BUILT MORE LIKE A WAR-TYPE SHIP…… Hence the difference between the designs. I think jj and his team have an explanation for everything that has been edited in this timeline. This Trek movie is simply a new beginning. This is going to be a great movie for all trekkies and non-trek fans. Can’t wait !

249. krikzil - December 12, 2008

“I wonder how many times Mr. Bob read The Entropy Effect.
Liz- I will mix the LIITs if you bring TWO flasks, as one will not be enough.”

I have been re-reading some of the older and wonderful novels. Entropy Effect is one of my favorites mostly because it’s so Kirk/Spock friendship-centric. It’s a time travel story I can behind. This movie,so far, not so much. But yes, I’ll bring a multipack of flasks. Or we can just hook up an IV. Like you said on chat, this can be a good movie, it’s just not gonna be our boys. ;( But heh, Len is in it so that’s a good thing, right?

250. Driver - December 12, 2008

Alternative realities simply do not exist. I could never fathom the idea that my beloved SAINTS could ever win the Superbowl in this or any other Universe.

251. Conard - December 12, 2008

2nd

in my opinion if anyone, by travelling back in time, creates an entire new universe (and he doesn’t find a preexisting parallel universe) then:
1 : if he cares about parallel-universe-life should (almost feel obliged) to send many people in the past and literally create new universes with new people
2: if spock travels back in time he doesn’t find the universe in which Nero arrived but just another universe with a new parallel nero. So Spock would have just doubled the danger

252. Paul - December 12, 2008

See I’m not a fan of Quantum Theory in this regard. Once you go back in time, you become part of history. Since history has already happened you’ve must have always been a part of it even if you never knew that until you actually went back.

Still it probably makes for some boring story-telling.

253. Tox Uthat - December 12, 2008

Sorry, this is so simple:

As RO stated, “Parallels”, a Trek episode, therefore canon, is used to explain the time-line change. He and the Supreme Court are trying to use Trek universe info to explain the changes they want to make in regards to film making profitability.

Canon is now thrown in your face and many of you don’t like it. If you can’t accept the changes for New Trek, I guess you can’t accept canon. It’s canon within canon. My brain just stopped hurting.

I like the explanation, works for me. Very Trekian.

“There are always options”.

254. Captain Dunsel - December 12, 2008

“Oh no – I’ve gone cross-eyed!”

255. Brett Campbell - December 12, 2008

250 – lol! Good one! Thanks for adding a laugh to a rather dreary day I’ve been having…

Hey, but if my Packers won one again twelve years ago, anything can happen!

256. Tony Dayoub - December 12, 2008

While I’m not making any judgements before seeing the film, barring any correction of the timeline in this or future stories, this could, sadly, invalidate many beloved stories involving Kirk’s history.

Did Kirk witness Kodos the Executioner commiting his holocaust? Was Ben Finney ever passed over promotion in favor of Kirk? Does Gary Mitchell ever serve on the Enterprise? Is Kirk able to adequately pursue the white cloud that killed Captain Garrovick without previous first-hand knowledge of the cloud? Is he now more pliable or complicit when Spock decides to kidnap Pike and head to Talos IV? Indeed is the whole crew willing to conspire to “save” Pike?

You can see the can of worms opened up by this if there is no follow-through.

257. Altoids Lover - December 12, 2008

I am really starting to hate being a fan of Star Trek. I mean I understand the fear this new chapter of classic trek could be a major disappointment for fans. However, this is a movie. Many sci-fi entities have enjoyed success based on good story telling and great visuals.To go see this movie one must get over the idea that this Star Trek will be vastly different from other incarnations. OK I can either read up on it to ruin the actual experience or I can stop now and wait for the next trailer and when May 9th comes I can enjoy it as a film or not.. I still come here to see what other factoids I could get to see if it is worth it. Is it worth it to fight over continuity ??? Is it really worth making it the last great hope of a money losing franchise??? Should there even be a battle over whether or not this is going to be faithful; to the original series ??? I do not know. I see the fighting ,the name calling,the “my idea is better than your idea” mentality and it is now making me sad. I once thought that being a fan meant having opinions but being open to new, or borrowed ideas. I know for the most part fans will do just that. This movie is just a movie. I do not want to compare anymore.
It looks like it could be fun. It might be mindless fun ,but sometimes it is ok to just dance in the rain just because.it feels good. So I will take my fan status and put it on the back burner …when this film comes out I hope it is fun and entertaining. It star trek lives(which it will either way) on through it , cool , if not then so be it. I just want to have a good time I just hope Star Trek delivers.

258. Kevin - December 12, 2008

1. This is far from conforming to science. The real theory deals with particles. It does not exist on a macroscopic level. Science fiction came up with that idea.

2. It’s the same crap DC comics came up with. “We want to use these characters, but don’t want to conform to any rules… let’s just make a whole bunch of alternate universes! Then we can do anything we want!”

Angry Spock, Kirk driving a car quite well (despite not being able to do it in TOS) with an alcoholic, abusive uncle (okay, so far that’s rumor) and being taken under Pike’s wing; the Enterprise looks virtually unrecognizable… yep, my DVDs will continue. I think I’ll watch them instead.

Basically, they’re just making another sci-fi movie while trying to capitalize on Star Trek’s name.

…unless of course that it’s made very obvious in the movie that this is an alternate timeline which is restored at the end. That I could live with. If that’s the case, I’d go see it… IF.

259. sean - December 12, 2008

I think the biggest point people who are critical of this explanation are overlooking is that we have no evidence that Spock Prime can return to the Prime Timeline after these alterations. Even if the multiple timelines/universes principle is the one holding this particular story together, who says that once Spock enters the timeline that Nero has altered he can ever get back to the one he left? Maybe it is a complete crapshoot and he doesn’t know which future he’ll emerge in?

To me, that this film is already posing these sorts of questions tells me that it is truly Star Trek, regardless of cosmetic changes. That was always what set Star Trek apart for me – the ‘possibilities’ posed. Star Wars was great, but that wasn’t really what it was for. And that’s okay, I do think the two can coexist without destroying the universe. ;)

260. McCoy - December 12, 2008

It’s so mind bending to hear some open-minded fans declare that canon is the world’s worst medicine. If you take that idea to the extreme, you essentially don’t have any Trek facts in the movie. Everyone has different names and the movie takes place under water.

So we can acknowledge that some Trek facts are required to make a movie about Trek. Canon is a good thing.

Now without going to the other extreme about how many inches the Captain’s chair is from Sulu’s chair, we can conclude that more Trek facts are better than less. Some people want that line drawn much closer to what we had before (I’m obviously in that camp) and others want the line drawn somewhere much farther. But we are all interested in some degree of canon (or history) and really need to accept that and stop smirking at the people who were wishing for more continuity.

261. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

#138 – “Actually, I find it quite refreshing, this new approach. No reset button, and the narrative perspective is *not* the guys from the Prime timeline, but from the new one. I think it makes you care more about the alternate guys.”

It doesn’t do that for me, because they are not the people I came to care about. They are alternate, parallel versions of those people, and I have no stake in them whatsoever.

#142 – “IMO Very few “new fans” will have any interest in what happened before, since they will accept this as the start of everything for them That IS and has ALWAYS been the problem with this movie taking such a radical departure from the Trek history that was established over the last forty years. Yes all our dvds will still exist but who, besides us, will care? And once we move into this new Trek universe what interest will Paramount have in keeping the old one alive?”

Precisely my concern, as well. Not unreasonably, they will go where the money is, and if this movie is a hit, the money will not involve supporting previous Trek, unless there is some very overt resolution that allows things to be reconnected.

#150 – “Y’know, I would have been more than happy to just accept that some things look different and leave it at that. ”

Just so. I agree.

#166 – “Thing is though, having it as a new timeline re-introduces some jeopardy in the film(s). Maybe in this timeline, Uhuru really can die when she’s attacked by the Bug Beasts of Thrall. In the original timeline she just can’t. It might work dramatically.”

{Yawn} That’s what new characters are for. There’s no need to rewrite the histories of existing ones.

#195 – “I would rather they did the original Kirk’s origin, rather than a new timeline.”

Agreed.

“Of course, that would’ve taken more effort and study to try an match all the little details from the original series.”

Not much! There are, maybe, a half-dozen discrete datapoints to keep track of. Maybe 20 if you count all the other characters, too, including their years of birth. ;) How hard should that be in making a 2-hour movie?

262. Jon - December 12, 2008

233 is spot on, I will be very disappointed if this is the case.

263. Cervantes - December 12, 2008

So it’s confirmed finally….

….and we are given a *different* timeline ‘TOS crew’ and imagery by the makers, which is explained away by ‘Quantum Physics’….

At least I know now going into this Movie. But there’s still a bit of me that would have far preferred this Star Trek relaunch to have dealt with the *actual* TOS series timeline as it continues ON after the events of the last original episode….

Oh well. Star Trek lives!, regardless.

264. sean - December 12, 2008

#233, 262

Problem is, that problem was part of original canon, too. Kirk jumped ranks pretty darned fast according to the ‘official’ continuity, so if anything, the new movie would just be holding true to what’s already been established with regard to that particular issue.

265. 750 Mang - December 12, 2008

Total BS.

This is not the story of how our Trek crew came together it’s Bizarro Star Trek.

Piss poor…

266. Brett Campbell - December 12, 2008

261 – Very good points and full agreement from me (if you should even care).

267. Jay El Jay - December 12, 2008

This isnt really news, we all guessed that it was an alternative reality, pretty cool that its in keeping with real science and supported by trek canon (Data)

Is it bad that im more interested in how they do the post Nemesis part of this movie?? wonder what will change there or how much we’ll see of it… I mean Klingons in Helmets…

268. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

251. Conard

It’s thoughts like those that make me sad when I continue hearing of a time travel storyline for the new movie. They just don’t make any sense. GIVE US A REAL STORY WITTH REAL PROBLEMS!!!

J.J. said that he wanted to ground Star Trek so that is tied to our future, to make it more of a real drama. I do not see how, in any way, that the alternative reality plotline is going to help achieve this.

This one seems to be way of the mark I.M.O.
But perhaps it will still be entertaining.

269. Nathan - December 12, 2008

Personally, I’ve always preferred the “single-stream” theory of time travel, in which there’s one time stream and going back and changing it actually changes the timeline…frankly, it’s just more dramatic that way, quantum physics or no quantum physics. Knowing that, because you’re in the past, any slip-up could result in massive changes makes for better drama than “Oops…I assassinated Abraham Lincoln. I guess I just created another alternate timeline. Oh, well…”

Also, the whole alternate timeline thing just gets confusing over the long run, when it becomes impossible to tell what’s the “real timeline” and what’s not…and while, scientifically speaking, that may be okay, dramatically speaking, it’s kind of annoying. After all, we (the audience, that is) have become emotionally invested in the characters (from all of the series), and being able to say what “really happened to them” and what didn’t *is* important, if only on an emotional level. The whole alternate timeline thing just begs the question that, if, as you’ve said, there is no “correct” or “central” time stream, then why we following *this* particular time stream, instead of the 250,000 others? What makes this timeline so special when compared to the others, that every single Star Trek series should follow it? What makes the Picard, Riker, etc of this time stream any different from those of the other ones?

However, I’m perfectly willing to accept an “alternate timeline” time travel story, so long as its well done…I actually quite like Parallels, even though I dislike the alternate timeline concept in drama, because it uses the concept smartly, to make a very interesting plot. I have no doubt that, dramatically, at least, you can make the parallel timeline thing work…but it seems to pose, at least in the long run, more problems than it solves.

Just my 2 cents…

270. sean - December 12, 2008

I suppose I’ll just have to say I respect the opinion of those hurt by this change, even if I can’t comprehend it. I’ve been a Trek fan my whole life (30 years) starting with TAS (unorthodox, I know!) then the films, then TOS, then TNG, etc., and I have absolutely no problem with a clean slate. To me, this explanation is a way of not completely chucking out 42+ years but working around it. ‘Bending’ the rules instead of breaking them. That sounds pretty Kirkian to this fan. Plus, half the history of the TOS characters really didn’t jibe (Kirk ESPECIALLY). Just as soon they keep the key points and move on.

271. YARN - December 12, 2008

Star Trek failed the hard physics test the first time the ship jumped to warp after Uhura received a faster-than-light subspace message (both warp drive and subspace comms are enought to raise the spectre of causal paradoxes).

This whole discussion is massively off target. You don’t judge artistic integrity/cohesion in terms of scientific criteria.

272. Nick Cook - December 12, 2008

I guess for me it ultimately comes down to story and character. A large part of telling a good story is to have a strong motivation for your characters, and especially for their protagonists.

If Nero is simply a hate-filled badass who wants to set out to create his own little pocket universe, rather than tackle the people and events who actually lead to his downfall, then I think I’d find that a rather weak motivation. More Ming The Merciless than “a proud Romulan patriot.”

YMMV of course.

273. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

271. YARN
272. Nick Cook

Your making my point perfectly.

274. sean - December 12, 2008

Guys, he’s just explaining their approach to time travel in this story. You either accept it or you don’t.

275. jas_montreal - December 12, 2008

274: Exactly.

276. Topic ufficiale Star Trek - Page 112 - Videogiochi Forum su Multiplayer.it - December 12, 2008

[...] TREK XI IMPOSTATOSU UNA TIME-LINE ALTERNATIVA su Star Trek News 24 VO (che senn Bill non legge ) EXCLUSIVE: Bob Orci Explains How The New Star Trek Movie Fits With Trek Canon (and Real Science) | T… Ora, delle teorie quantistiche non me ne frega una ceppola, ma mi sembra pi di un escamotage per [...]

277. Nick Cook - December 12, 2008

274. Sean, you’re right of course, though at this stage I’d have to say it’s an approach I simply don’t agree with. Unsurprisingly, the world continues to turn though. :)

278. The Riddler - December 12, 2008

So Mr. Orci.

How the hell does Spock get back to his own timeline?

What would the point of Spock time travelling even be if it didn’t effect his own timeline????

Huummmmm???

279. Admiral_Bumblebee - December 12, 2008

#269
Exactly. There is no drama in doing a story set in an alternate timeline, as no one cares about it. We care about the original timeline in which every episode and movie has taken place so far.

But as I think this won’t be explained in the movie at all, maybe we are talking about something that will never become “canon”. If this movie doesn’t explain that everything takes place in an alternate timeline, it won’t. The average moviegoer will just think that is the way everything happened and that every episode of every series and every movie happened thereafter.
And if it is explained Joe Average won’t understand it.

280. McCoy - December 12, 2008

278…

You are sooooooo right!

281. spiked canon - December 12, 2008

The alternative timeline allows for the creation of a new star trek which we needed.

282. Schultz - December 12, 2008

I don’t think that Orci and the other writers have read the three “The Other Marty McFly”-articles in Starlog. The BTTF guys clearly constructed a very similar framework with two alternate timelines, two McFly families etc., already for the first film. (But I’m not really sure if they did it after- or before-the-fact.) They actually admitted that the fading-photo gimmick didn’t fit this “quantum mechanical framework” of BTTF, but was necessary for dramatic reasons, for tension and intention, even if it was illogical. (The normal viewer wouldn’t get it anyway.)

283. sean - December 12, 2008

#277

As it does when things i don’t like take place, too! :)

I guess my primary offer of consolation is I doubt ANY of this will be touched on in the actual movie. Thus leaving the ‘canon’ of the situation up to fans, really.

284. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

274. sean

Sean, if you are any kind of TOS fan, then I think you might agree that seeing how the real crew cam together would have been just as entertaining. Now there is a backstory that goes around 3 or 4 centuries of Trek history. How can the average or new Trek viewer possibly get their heads around such mind boggling Alternate Timeline science?

KEEP IT SIMPLE!!!

Hopefully things will BE RESTORED as they should be TOS Style.
Really TOS style has been missing since DS9s tribute. Trials and Tribulations was a real pleasure – in my humble opinion.

All TOS needed was slight updates to the set designs.
They could have easily made it look real – Yes, not like the plywood they used in the 60s ( obviously.) And with the iconic TOS characters it would still have easily been a slam dunk at the B.O.

We’ll see. I am sure it will still be a good pic. My hopes are still high. Thanks Bob and Anthony!

285. Garovorkin - December 12, 2008

The answer is simple, Spock cannot restore the old Time line, when He goes back things will be different, unless of course, Spock is not going to survive at the end of the film.

286. Kirk's Girdle - December 12, 2008

If you take it from Spock’s previous experience in time travel, every time the Enterprise was involved in an incident, they became trapped in a new universe/timeline, and then upon seeing the need to repair the timeline, actually created a third universe that more closely resembled the first. From their perspective, they would think they were back in timeline #1 and would have a complete misunderstanding of what had just happened.

You’d think The Guardian of Forever would have shared this little nugget, but he/it was always very enigmatic.

Simlarly, Nero wants to get out of universe #1 and effectively create another universe more suited to his preferences. Once you’ve gone back and made the change, you can go forward in universe #2 and believe you’ve actually changed the universe you’re in. So, in essence, time travel only matters to those that actually do it. Everyone else is not only clueless, but actually unaffected.

And I thought “Parallels” was a very cool episode, especially alternate Riker’s crazy homeless beard.

287. C.S. Lewis - December 12, 2008

224. Randall – December 12, 2008

I think, Randall, you got it right in your op-ed. Even in the world’s first Technocratic society, nerdiness is declasse and a turn off for most. I say this with one professional foot in the IT world, and as a holder of a valid Amateur Radio license!

Your link between horror and the unreality of good sci-fi also intrigues. The Nexus, I suppose, attempted such an unreality and it was one of the best parts of Generations. (Does anyone here remember “Mars is Home!”, a short story from the Golden Age?)

I’m glad Orci addressed most of this, but it seems his movie tries to be all things to all people, and that probably will be its greatest risk.

Canon, Nostalgia, & Entertainment… I hope there remains entertainment value in Trekkish nostalgia, but I confess validation for old time’s sake is very welcome in our world gone mad. Having said that, I suppose we must settle for entertainment. Expectations are high that Orci can suspend disbelief the same way “National Treasure” and “Indiana Jones” do — a familiar “everyman”, a bit preposterous if you think about it (but who dares?), and the makings of a great adventure many of us would take in a heartbeat.

Thinking of iTrek this way gives me great hope for a fun 110 minutes!

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

288. David - December 12, 2008

Just my own opinion – but this is fantastic news. This means that for the first time in a lot of years, I feel like Trek has a whole universe to explore without much sense of what is out there, instead of having 20+ seasons of continuity to exist within. The original timeline continues to exist and that’s cool – but at the same time we have this new universe to play in.

I respect those who disagree with this – everyone has their own opinion – but I’m up for something new. Let’s see where they take it.

289. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

#270 – “Plus, half the history of the TOS characters really didn’t jibe (Kirk ESPECIALLY).”

Now, see, this interests me, because I never had any difficulty fitting the various bits of Kirk’s backstory together into a cohesive whole. And most of the other characters, aside from Spock, had so little canonical backstory that fitting it together shouldn’t be any sort of issue.

Thus, I’m curious about what you think didn’t jibe.

290. Brett Campbell - December 12, 2008

272 – What is “YMMV”?

Your (something) may vary? Motivations? Meaning?

Best I’ve been able to guess at.

291. Anthony Thompson - December 12, 2008

Bob,

Was there ever a “non time travel version of movie” (script)?

292. The Khan Federation - December 12, 2008

I don’t have a problem with creating this alternate universe as long as the writer’s bible prohibits the use of time travel as a plot device from any subsequent films or TV series for a LONG time. This new universe opens up countless new story ideas for the TOS characters without having to resort to time travel again.

293. Nick Cook - December 12, 2008

YMMV= Your mileage may vary.

294. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

291. Anthony Thompson

I second that query.

Was there ever a “non time travel version of movie” (script)?

295. VOODOO - December 12, 2008

This film also works in the sense that if it is not a hit, they can just forget about this alternate time line and start back (in one form or another) in the original universe that we have been watching for all these years.

296. Closettrekker - December 12, 2008

Bob: “We have to deal with it, with the fact that Star Trek episodes that don’t conform to our theory of it, also do not conform to the latest greatest, most highly tested scientific theory in human history. So I would default that it is the science that counts. ”

Here is where I disagree. I am no scientist. I’m just a private business owner who happens to be a Star Trek fan. I hope that Bob will forgive me if I do not subscribe to the notion that “actual science” supercedes the value of an entertaining story. After all, Star Trek is fiction. I don’t need anyone to tell me that it is possible to travel faster than light to enjoy it, nor do I need to believe that transporter technology is possible either.

I think that acknowledging “quantam mechanics” might hamper the story. It certainly seems to negate some of the dramatic jeopardy with regard to Spock travelling back in time with the intention of countering Nero’s plan.

I have always dismissed Data’s theory, and done so ‘because’ it invalidate’s episodes like “City On The Edge Of Forever”.

If applying Data’s theory, when McCoy prevents the death of Edith Keeler, there should have been no consequences for the Enterprise crew in their own timeline. The result would simply have been an alternate, “spinoff” timeline in which the Axis won the Second World War.

That is not, by any means, the only example of how Data’s theory conflicts with previously established canon—just a very prominent one.

With that said, Bob is absolutely right about one aspect of this. Most audience members will not have read this article. Even some of us who have can still ignore that theory and its properties, and enjoy this time travel story the way we enjoyed “COTEOF”.

For the purpose of telling a story within the Star Trek Universe, I prefer to think of the potential consequences of time travel within more conventional canon guidelines.

I hope I can view this story in that way.

297. Kirk's Girdle - December 12, 2008

Speaking of the Nexus, using the same theory, even as presented in Generations, Soran made it to the Nexus. Just because Picard prevented him from getting there the second time, doesn’t negate the first time, since the second time couldn’t have occurred if both Soran and Picard didn’t make it into the Nexus in the first place.

ACK!?

So in that instance, you get to have your cake and eat it too. The villain is vanquished at the end, and yet the once harmless man driven mad by loss and despair does achieve the ultimate happiness. Who knows, he might even be playing Fizzbin with Guinan and Kirks’ echoes.

298. Admiral_Bumblebee - December 12, 2008

Why not create a new alternate universe for every new Star Trek movie? Then every time we would get something new, new fans would be attracted by it. This is the ultimate idea! This way Stat Trek never gets old and will never amass a huge continuity to consider for new stories! Just create new timelines with every movie! Maybe this is the concept about the “new” Star Trek… But then it should be renamed to “Universe Trek”.

299. Captain Blank - December 12, 2008

I’ve been against this movie since it was announced. I feared for canon! :) Well, this changes everything; if what we’re seeing is an example of the multiple worlds theory, color me exited! I was hoping this is what they’d do.

#279

I will agree that I don’t think this will be explained at all in the film. However, I do appreciate the idea and reasoning behind it.

300. Kirk's Girdle - December 12, 2008

Re: 298

I would refer to Data’s answer to his father’s question on “Why do humans feel this need for continuity?” as a response to your query.
That’s why they do sequels and remakes in the first place.

301. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@299…

They boldly go where no one went before…

;))

302. McCoy - December 12, 2008

Even if…and I say IF…they somehow try to imply that events in this timeline make it possible for the events in the other timeline to take place at all, that seems like a really convoluted set of events for non-Trek fans to follow. And in the end tries to set the new timeline upon a higher pedestal than the old. Purposely saying that this timeline is “better” or more valuable and not leaving that decision up to the fans.

Unless there is a reset button at the end of this film, the audience will still **be** in this new timeline or alternate reality. As soon as they tell me this is an alternate reality, I won’t care who dies—so it doesn’t matter that they’ve somehow created some imaginary tension as to who will survive or not.

303. Craig - December 12, 2008

194… I sooo want a Q movie

304. Mr. Anonymous - December 12, 2008

Huh. I’d have preferred a simple reboot where shows like Voyager. Never. Happened. And couldn’t he have just told us, “Things are different in our story because it’s no longer 1966 — special effects and set designing has improved; only a handfull of people know these obscure facts about Kirk’s family other than the brother he finds dead in that one episode; Spock no longer will have ever been called a “Vulcanian;” and we recast the crew because, for example, there’s no chance in hell that Shatner could pull-off playing a guy in his 20′s…”

Does there really have to be more of an explanation for change than that?

These interviews seem to keep trying to geek-back-up what looks to be the first geek-free Star Trek movie since the 80′s. I mean, no offense, but though it’s quite awesome at times, Star Trek is just an entertainment franchise and not, you know, real…

305. janekliebe - December 12, 2008

Hey Bob,
one question completely unrelated to the topic in this thread, but I kinda hope you will read this. For 40 years all other Star Trek incarnation avoided that topic. In your Star Trek version – will there be gay characters? I just read Battlestar Galactica is going to be groundbreaking yet again by introducing one of the lead characters as gay? Don’t you think it’s time for Star Trek and its humanistic and tolerant society to do the same.
PS. I think its awesome Bob that you find time to chat with the fans. THANK YOU.

306. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2008

#219: ““the worst television show I can remember watching outside of “Dark Angel” starring Jessica Alba”

That was a tv show? I thought it was just random images of Jessica Alba.”

Random images of Jessica Alba and “worst” are contradictory concepts.

307. cpelc - December 12, 2008

I would say this is somewhat similar to the “course correction” concept which played out on LOST the past two seasons. Desmond finds out that you cannot change the future. Yes you can go back and change the past, but the Universe has a way of stabilizing itself and bringing it back to where you started.

This would make sense then that even though things are different in the past they will eventually work back to being together as a crew and having “most” if not “all” the same adventures which we saw previously with TOS.

308. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

305. janekliebe

Really? I thought most of the crew are already happy.

309. Mazzer - December 12, 2008

You know, I can’t help thinking that all this “changing the timeline” stuff is mostly just a convenience to keep the canon-obsessed fans happy. I’m perfectly comfortable with the notion that things are different because this is a reboot and it provides effective drama in the new movie. But I guess it works either way.

310. Dr. H - December 12, 2008

OF COURSE this has to be some sort of alternate timeline. To make this a truly believable, truly canonic prequel, the look of the ship, uniforms, etc. would have to be identical to the original.

In order to go back and forth between the stories the told in TOS and the new stories that will (hopefully) be told with the new actors, the look and feel would need to be close enough to suspend disbelief regarding the recasting.

While some fans would love nothing more than to have this scenario realized, in my mind, the fact that these roles HAVE been recast simply demands that we re-invent Star Trek in a new light. This does not mean that canon can’t be reflected, but having two casts in the same roles, filmed 40 years apart, doesn’t allow for a neat folding of the old and new together. I’m perfectly happy with new stories being told with the spirit of the original characters echoed in the performances of this stellar new cast.

Creating a distinct timeline gives these and future writers creative license to work in the Trek universe without having to dodge or account for specific events at every turn. Let Trek become, once again, a vehicle for exploring ideas and possibilities. THAT is the Roddenberry legacy I’d like to return to.

311. Kirk's Girdle - December 12, 2008

Weren’t both Lt Hawk from First Contact and Mayweather from Enterprise runored to be gay characters? I gues it’s still “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in the 24th century.

312. Garovorkin - December 12, 2008

Is it possible that Old Spock might not survive?

313. janekliebe - December 12, 2008

You know – rumors are fine, but since we are so deep into the whole canon discussion, I do believe rumors are definitely NOT canon. ;o) If you know what I mean.

314. Schultz - December 12, 2008

The question is—since we’re trying to beef it up with science: If you go back in time, you don’t “change history”, but create an alternate timeline. Fine—great way to avoid the usual time-travel-paradoxes. But then your framework has to remain non-paradoxical, which means that you’re then part of that new timeline. Many people don’t realize that we are all time travellers, because we move forward in time. But we always stay in our timeline, while other versions of our world branch off in the multiverse theory. But you can’t “jump across” and return to your original world and timeline. Even if you try to do this by going back in time *again*, it wouldn’t work, because you’ll only create another alternate universe, branching off from the alternate timeline you’re already in. The world you originally came from would be forever out of reach. A real tragedy!

Alternatively, timelines can maybe collapse into (merge with) parallel alternate timelines, so there might be a possibility of Old-Spock actually returning to his original post-Nemesis TNG world. But I doubt that this would be possible from a timeline that has been altered as heavily as the new Star-Trek-timeline. It might only work with really small-scale changes. Once these changes become macroscopic, it’s fixed, and you’re bound to this new alternate timeline, when moving forward, whether naturally or by time travelling technology.

So Old-Spock will not be able to return to his original world. He will stay in the newly created timeline and will emerge in ITS post-Nemesis future. If one doesn’t take this into account, all new scientific explanations for this new Star-Trek-timeline may probably be worthless. (Just my thoughts here, though.)

315. The Spock Doctrine - December 12, 2008

For those who don’t want to be spoiled, the gist of Bob’s interview is:

“Don’t blame me Trek fans! Quantum mechanics made me do it!”

316. sean - December 12, 2008

#289

Alex, I think we as fans can manage to make even the most blatantly contradictory information contained in Star Trek ‘work’, but ultimately these folks inserted facts based on whether it serviced the story at hand, without a significant amount of attention paid as to whether it fit in with last week’s episode (later shows certainly paid greater mind, but TOS was pretty inconsistent in many ways) or some other established ‘backstory’.

I think Kirk’s academy days/time on the Farragut, Republic, etc. alone are rife with questionable dates/facts. Again, we can make them work, but yes, I’d say a lot of it doesn’t really ‘jibe’, as far as I’m concerned (and apparently Memory Alpha and the Star Trek Chronology agree with me).

317. dalek - December 12, 2008

Interesting. I suggested the very same thing (without a detailed knowledge of Quantum Physics) in a thread a few weeks back, but was told i was wrong lol Looks like my interpretation of this timeline was very similar to the way Bob views it.

Star Trek and current/future science have always had an intrinsic relationship. One of the first things Gene did when developing Star Trek was ask some of the greatest minds of the time where technology was heading. It’s no coincidence that we are now using flip top mobile phones, portable palm computers and non-invasive medical instruments.

There will always be time travel episodes that support and contradict. Star Trek never ever nailed its time travel rules.

Altho the very first episode that dealt with time travel with any detail was Return to Tomorrow.

It would also support Bob’s theory of changes taking place in an alternate universe.

When Kirk and Spock returned Captain Christopher back into his jet, there was no Enterprise from the future there to take him back on board. Ditto the military base guard. If it was the same universe, there would have been two different Enterprises one that first arrived and the one that took them back to an earlier time.

I don’t think that everything would return to a central point tho after something as significant as the movies events. I can’t believe The Enterprise would ever be in the same place to pick up Khan. It’s quite probably Kirk never had relations with Carol Marcus, is no longer best friends with Gary Mitchell etc.

If Kirk doesn’t serve aboard the Farragut — He doesn’t witness Garovick and the crew dying by the cloud creature. Therefore he will not be “obsessed” and used his instincts to save various planets attacked by the creature in a further point in the timelines.

PS – a rematch with Khan would be good. Star Trek 12 anyone?

318. OneBuckFilms - December 12, 2008

310 – I agree with you here. I should also point out that Canon should be adhered to, even via alternate timelines, from a story standpoint.

Visually, they have far more leeway. The new Bridge, the new Enterprise, the design of the Kelvin, Phasers, Tricorders etc., SHOULD be different, by virtue of this being a Movie.

For ST:TMP and TWOK, they simply had the Enterprise being refit, and some time passing for the characters so that uniforms and the Enterprise look very different, while adhering to the same basic ideas.

For JJ Abrams’ Trek, an incursion in the timeline is what allows the look and feel of everything to change.

If the filmmakers were not given this kind of creative license, then the recasting of Saavik for Trek III would violate canon, rather than simply the same character looking different due to the actress playing her.

To be honest, is it really believable that the Space Stations, Uniforms, space station styling, technology items, with EVERYTHING Starfleet and Klingon seen in ST:TMP would change as much as they did from the Original Series?

Visually, I’m giving the filmmakers far more lattitude than with Story regarding Canon.

With the STORY, the alternate timeline is needed to account for many of the changes for this movie.

Personally, I’d like to be able to watch this movie, then ST:TMP onwards and simply believe that Kirk and crew got older, and things changed between JJ’s Trek and the Movie Era.

“Jim, the Enterprise is 20 years old. We feel her time is over.”

I’d also like to believe that the majority of the Original Series, even The Enterprise Incident, pretty much happened the same way in the new timeline, and that TNG/DS9/Enterprise events remain the same for 99%, barring the look of the Enterprise recreation in Relics, and how the Enterprise appeared in Trials and Tribbleations etc.

All of this would be in keeping with Orci’s application of Quantum Theory.

319. Schultz - December 12, 2008

Another big question also concerns the psychology involved: Why would Nero even go back in time? He cannot change his OWN world and timeline, the world HE cares about, because by going back in time he’ll create an alternate universe. So why would he even bother? Or has Nero somehow completely missed out on the advancements of physics, and therefore acts out of pure ignorance? Either version wouldn’t make for a very compelling villain.

320. OneBuckFilms - December 12, 2008

317 – The Enterprise WOULD be in a place to pick up Khan, in one of the multiple realities created.

Every possibility has happened, is happening, and will happen.

Each time a particle changes direction or form in any way, all of the possible directions are taken in each of the infinate spawned universes from that action alone.

At least, that is how I understand quantum theory.

321. BudoTrek - December 12, 2008

[QUOTE]264. sean said: Problem is, that problem was part of original canon, too. Kirk jumped ranks pretty darned fast according to the ‘official’ continuity, so if anything, the new movie would just be holding true to what’s already been established with regard to that particular issue.[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding? We know that Kirk rose in the ranks very quickly and went on to be the youngest Captain in the history of Starfleet at age 31, but promoted to the rank of Captain straight out of the Academy is a little ridiculous. Let’s consider how things work in the real world and not in the imaginary world of Hollywood and Science Fiction.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that the average cadet enters the Academy at age 17. That’s four years at the Academy, and they graduate and commissioned as an Ensign at age 21. Time in grade (TIG) requirement for promotion to Lieutenant Junior Grade is two years and is an almost automatic promotion unless you are a real screw up. So they are now a JG at age 23, and their next promotion is Lieutenant. Let’s be generous and say that a minimum TIG is another two years (usually more like 3), then the officer is now 25. Let’s again be generous and because the officer is really on the ball, they are promoted to Lieutenant Commander in another 2 years. They are now 27. Really exceptional performance (and being even more generous) makes the next promotion to Commander again available in 2 more years. That’s 29 years old. Now since we know Kirk was a prodigy, he again gets promoted in another two years, and that makes him 31.

Please bear in mind that no one in the real world gets to Captain this quick, but in the world of Star Trek, I can suspend belief a little and allow Kirk extremely rapid promotions through the ranks. Even with a minimum of two years between grades, he can still make it at age 31. I can live with that, but I cannot suspend belief enough to believe that Kirk skips every rank from Ensign to Commander and goes right to Captain or that his time in grade for each is measured in minutes or days. Simply not believable.

322. Closettrekker - December 12, 2008

#307—”I would say this is somewhat similar to the “course correction” concept which played out on LOST the past two seasons. Desmond finds out that you cannot change the future. Yes you can go back and change the past, but the Universe has a way of stabilizing itself and bringing it back to where you started.”

That is precisely what I immediately thought of.

I like that concept as a storytelling element, but the problem is, it doesn’t mesh with previously established guidelines on the consequences of time travel in the Star Trek Universe.

But again, this is a canonical contradiction already inherent in Star Trek. TNG’s “Parallels” presents this problem, not Bob Orci’s script.

“Parallels” (TNG) contradicts “City On The Edge Of Forever”, “Tommorow Is Yesterday”, “Assignment: Earth”, “Yesteryear” (TAS), “Yesterday’s Enterprise” (TNG), and many other previous entries that suggest that interference with the past will have consequences that affect the current timeline.

Orci has told us all along that, in the case of an already existing contradiction in canon, the “Supreme Court” would have to make a ruling one way or the other.

It’s not unlike the age of the Enterprise. “The Menagerie” suggests one thing, while TSFS ignores that, in favor of something else.

It seems clear they made a ruling there too. I may not agree with the creative choices, but I do acknowledge that it had to go one way or the another, as long as this is the story they want to tell.

323. Roderick T. Long - December 12, 2008

From the fact that quantum mechanics is our best current science, it doesn’t follow that (and it isn’t true that) the many-worlds *interpretation* of quantum mechanics is our best current science.

324. I'm a Doctor not a ___________! - December 12, 2008

312…

don’t…just…don’t go there…I saw him die once..not..not again…(whimpers..)

325. Closettrekker - December 12, 2008

#317—”I suggested the very same thing (without a detailed knowledge of Quantum Physics) in a thread a few weeks back, but was told i was wrong lol Looks like my interpretation of this timeline was very similar to the way Bob views it. ”

Actually, I never said that you were wrong. I simply pointed out that it was contradictory to other previously established canon.

It still is. But in fairness, TNG’s “Parallels” creates the contradiction, not anything Bob Orci or the rest of the self-proclaimed “Supreme Court” has done.

326. sean - December 12, 2008

#284

Simpler? I suppose, in a way, it would have been simpler. But I think it would have been half as interesting. Where’s the suspense when you know what’s going to happen? This method allows a huge loophole whereby the past isn’t negated, but merely bypassed. Personally, I give them credit for the ingenuity.

327. Harry Ballz - December 12, 2008

I’m beginning to see why Abrams was never allowed to screw with the beloved Superman mythology as he came *this* close to being authorized to do with his crappy screenplay!

328. ponfarr6996 - December 12, 2008

My only fear is that they will try to do the same as with every retelling as far as props go.(Make ships,costumes,computers, more sophisticated and updated in the past) EX..floating interrogation droid(with syringe) in Star Wars IV….Way more advanced weaponrY in episodes I-III,….Computers running DOS in future timelines and running more advanced in past timelines….Take Enterprise for example……It seems more like the Defiant.

329. Chris Doohan - December 12, 2008

240

The pleasure would be all mine. We need to bring Bob along. :)

330. sb - December 12, 2008

242:

“I dont understand point #1 at all … that’s true of _any_ film, surely? I’m not a filmmaker.”

Point #1 is: the movie is now what it is. It won’t be altered by any problem any of us have with it, either six months in advance or after we see it. They’re not going to go back and reshoot scenes, redub dialogue, or do anything to change something we don’t like (and, of course, there’s no earthly reason they should even if they could.) So what, exactly, is the sense in worrying about it?

“Point #3: Not necessarily correct. It’ll depend on reviews, etc. I skipped the last two, after all – still haven’t seen either of ‘em … so I still don’t know if I’d like them. Same may apply here.”

You’re splitting hairs. My point was that the movie won’t be available for our perusal for months. Maybe you’ll see it, maybe you won’t; maybe you’ll like it, maybe you won’t. For the next six months, NONE OF US KNOW. So why, exactly, are so many people wasting so much energy wringing their hands about something they haven’t seen?

I used to think that Shatner’s infamous SNL sketch was more parody than reality. I don’t think that anymore. We’ve turned a simple little job he did for a lark forty years ago into a COLOSSAL waste of time.

331. sean - December 12, 2008

#321

First of all, we have no idea what led to Kirk becoming a Captain in this new movie. We don’t know the details, the timeline, etc. We already know the movie jumps around quite a bit. Now, I’m not totally on board with Kirk just magically turning Captain, either, but what I was pointing out is that even in the original continuity they had Kirk as an instructor whilst simultaneously a cadet, as well as being promoted to Lieutenant before he even graduated. Those points raise eyebrows amongst plenty of military folks, but we accepted them. Many of the non-canon stories have Kirk going from Lt to Captain as the result of some ship disaster. We know Picard became a Captain as a result of his Captain and First Officer’s death. Who’s to say what we might see presented in this flick will be any less consistent with what we’ve already seen?

332. Andros - December 12, 2008

I love how we all speculate about timelines in a TV show.

A TV show.

Read it again.

Ok, now you may enjoy this movie.

333. Shatner_Fan_Prime - December 12, 2008

#317 “a rematch with Khan would be good. Star Trek 12 anyone?”

I’ve been putting forth that idea for awhile now. While some may think it repetitious, the return of the most popular foe certainly worked for the Batman franchise.

If they keep with the tradition of hiring Latins to play Easterners, Benicio Del Toro gets my vote!

334. McCoy - December 12, 2008

330 “….We’ve turned a simple little job he did for a lark forty years ago into a COLOSSAL waste of time.”

Then why are you even on this site?

Star Trek, the fictional universe, has existed for over 40 years. Like it or not, there are people who care what happens to that fictional world.

335. Finny - December 12, 2008

cleverness or cop-out?

336. Donn - December 12, 2008

Well, boo. I eat crow: I was rooting for them NOT using the “alternate timeline” excuse for things they did differently. I guess, when it came down to it, I was for a reboot of sorts, after all.

But, I can embrace this approach. I’ve always thought of time travel and alternate universes along these lines (having grown up on the old Doctor Who); that you can mess with events, but things will still maintain a kind of inertia to play out in the same way. We’ve seen this in episodes/movies where a certain character is “supposed” to die, or a certain character is supposed to make a certain discovery. Messing with the particulars didn’t matter: as long as certain pivotal events take place, the universe will sort the rest of it out.

337. Closettrekker - December 12, 2008

#284—”How can the average or new Trek viewer possibly get their heads around such mind boggling Alternate Timeline science?”

My impression from the interview above is that they will not be expected to, nor will they be required to in order to understand the story. They can probably view it through the eyes of the more traditional notions of possible consequences to interference with the past.

Despite having read the interview above, which is interesting, I probably will too.

338. Roadblock - December 12, 2008

Hey, Bob, you wouldn’t happen to know what the “most successful and tested scientific theory ever in the history of the universe” is, would you?

339. RD - December 12, 2008

224. You’re really talking about a future TV series. Sadly movies are self-continued stories that must embody 2 hours of attention riveting plot.

Take any franchise film series. Bond is probably the longest running one over Star Trek. There’s a supervillain in every one trying to take over the world/universe. The same for Star Wars, the same for Raiders of the Lost Ark, Harry Potter and even the comedies like the Pink Panther series of films.

Sadly, the Star Trek films that did not have a supervillain, but rather some kind of weird alien entity, or a mere mortal trying to grab for power all failed miserably. The very nature of these movies is epic. Therefore, you hire Shakespearean actors who are used to dealing with these huge plots and like Shakespeare pit the characters in life and death struggles with lots of fights and witty dialogue and a satisfying ending that delivers an often not-to-subtle moral message. That’s what audiences have want since the 16th century. Nothing has changed.

In TV, you literally have to fill-the-hour. So interesting character studies and bottle-shows end up filling a much larger proportion of the schedule. Why do you think techno-babble became so endemic on the TNG era of shows? Because it helped fill the time. You could do an episode where everyone was trapped on the ship due to some technical malfunction and mesmerize your audience by throwing a bunch of details at them – suicide in the feature world. I mean look at CSI, the highest rated TV show in the Universe for a decade. They do it every episode, endless technobabble, but one thing they do that ST never did was dumb it down with visuals that clearly explain it to the audience. What would CSI:Trek or Trek:FCIS look like? FIne character study pieces that can explore esoteric ideas. Now let me ask you this, could there ever be a CSI feature film? Doubtful. ST is an epic space adventure and as such, we expect epic stories. Whatever else XI is, it’s epic.

Like you, this whole doublespeak think Orci is doing better not turn up on the screen. My feeling is he is trying to tow the company line in an attempt to ensure most of the core fans show up and buy a ticket. Whatever the reason, what he says in that interview better be transparent to the mainstream audience or this film will die a horrible death worthy of the Tantalus device.

340. bill hiro - December 12, 2008

“Personally, I’d like to be able to watch this movie, then ST:TMP onwards and simply believe that Kirk and crew got older, and things changed between JJ’s Trek and the Movie Era.”

In other words, dump The Original Series out of the continuity of the franchise it started and is the foundation of.
Sad.

Anyhoo, glad to see Mr. Orci finally owning up to what many of us have been saying for weeks, even months. All that “respecting” and “honoring” the canon business was was just PR BS. I guess Mr. Orci got stuck with “Trekkie Control” as part of his job description on the film, and I have to give him credit – he did an excellent job of muddying the waters in a very legalistic and “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” Clintonian sort of way. Do you have a law degree, Bob? If not, you might have missed your calling.

341. sb - December 12, 2008

334:

Yeah, I was waiting for that.

There’s an enormous difference between liking, appreciating, even loving something — as I do Trek no less than any of you — and beating the fracking thing to death. A lot of people here are way over that line.

342. Jeffries Tuber - December 12, 2008

Great thread. Thanks for the thoughtful interview A & B.

I hung out with Martin Landau last night, who described his experience with Roddenberry and Desilu, among other things. As many of you know, he was the first actor offered the role of ‘Spock.’ When he ended up on M:I, their dressing rooms were right next to each other.

So in the new QM-clarified understanding of Star Trek canon, there is an alternate universe where Mr. Spock was played by Martin Landau. Too bad he wasn’t cast in this movie as a Vulcan elder.

Can’t wait for this movie. Normally the expression goes, “time flies.” But now I’m saying, “Fly, time! Fly!”

343. Ben - December 12, 2008

Wow 340+ Comments!

people with headache, read or watch “the elegenat universe” by Brian Greene

I’m still looking forward to the new movie and hopefully what follows. Star Trek rules in ALL universes

344. McCoy - December 12, 2008

326 “…..Where’s the suspense when you know what’s going to happen?”

This requirement is a myth.

1) The so-called newbies they are targeting won’t know what will happen

2) Fans who enjoy Trek but have not read the character back stories won’t know what will happen

3) Fans who are so deep into Trek and already know what will happen, will be happy **when** it happens. Think of the ‘Titanic’: everyone knew what was going to happen in that film but went back to see it many, many times.

345. Harry Ballz - December 12, 2008

#338

Fire??

346. sb - December 12, 2008

342:

Hmmm…

Now I’m wondering if there’s an alternate universe where ABC actually did agree to pick up the series in 1965. Even as we speak, there is a website in that universe where people are complaining about the following things:

1. The actors playing John Tiberius Robinson and his wife, June “Bones” Robinson, are too young.
2. The new design for the Robot sucks.
3. Dr. Zachary Spock actually stowed away in the cargo hold of the Jupiter II, not, as seen in the trailer, in the trash compactor. Therefore this movie is not canon and is a travesty against God, Man and Gene.
4. Rick Berman still needs to be burned at the stake even though he’s got nothing to do with the movie; and
5. It sure is nice having Bill Mumy back to play Old Will, though.

347. boborci - December 12, 2008

213. Admiral_BlackCat – December 12, 2008
“The audience is aware that it’s quantum mechanics.
However in the Trek Universe it may be impossible to tell which time travel THEORY is actually proven time travel REALITY (or hard science, truth).
The characters must act as though any timeline incursion will have drastic and dramatic effects.”

Excellent point, which mirrors my statement in the interview that most of the audience will still be feeling all the potentially misplaced drama of classical physics.

348. Windsor Bear - December 12, 2008

My God… after all this, I have a new respect for the “Lost in Space” TV series. I used to think that some of the things they did made no sense at all, but compared to “Star Trek: Universe 2″, LIS is much easier to swallow.

349. Crusade2267 - December 12, 2008

Good to know that my Star Trek DVDs and digital copies won’t just fade away after next May.

350. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

#316 – “I think Kirk’s academy days/time on the Farragut, Republic, etc. alone are rife with questionable dates/facts. Again, we can make them work, but yes, I’d say a lot of it doesn’t really ‘jibe’, as far as I’m concerned (and apparently Memory Alpha and the Star Trek Chronology agree with me).”

I’m still confused about how you think they don’t jibe. Just repeating the assertion doesn’t add to the discussion. For example, here’s a possible Kirk chronology:

2233 – Born

2250 – Enters the Academy at age 17

2254 – Graduates the Academy and enters Command School as an Ensign. Serves aboard the training vessel Republic and as an instructor (much as do grad students at universities today).

Sometime between 2255 and 2257 – Completes Command School, is promoted to Lieutenant, and is assigned to USS Farragut on his first deep-space assignment. Apparently is a Lieutenant prior to receiving his assignment aboard Farragut, since he is still teaching while holding that rank.

Sometime between 2254 and 2257, Gary Mitchell is an Academy student and becomes friends with Kirk.

2257 – The Farragut encounters the cloud creature at Tycho IV. Captain Garrovick and half the crew are killed. Kirk blames himself for hesitating before firing phasers at the creature.

2265 – With Kirk in command, the Enterprise begins a 5-year mission of exploration.

The only meta-canonical element I included was Command School, which fits because Kirk wouldn’t simultaneously be a regular Academy cadet and a commissioned Ensign at the same time. All the rest are canonical aspects, and they fit together just fine. They’re also just about the only datapoints we have, aside from Kirk maybe being grim as a junior cadet and cheating on the Kobayashi Maru (possibly while at Command School?).

So… That’s 8 datapoints covering Kirk’s established past, including when he becomes CO of Enterprise. And I came up with them off the top of my head. Staying consistent with that is hardly an onerous burden for a well-paid screenwriter, IMNSHO.

That all said, I’m still curious. What doesn’t jibe?

351. Edgar Governo - December 12, 2008

I didn’t find the discussion particularly confusing…but perhaps that just means I spend too long thinking about timelines. ;)

Nevertheless, you’d have to count me amongst the disappointed camp–sure, you can “explain” this quasi-reboot by being a big fan of quantum mechanics, but (souls aside) this isn’t the crew I grew up with.

352. Fabio - December 12, 2008

Sorry, but who cares about canon? What canon? is a reboot abot a franchise. I love Star Trek, but is NOT a religion. Or you can say that TNG is absolutely “canonically” related to TOS? No way.

Is a reboot, and that’s ok with me.

353. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

337. Closettrekker

I would have combined a few early Star Trek – The original Series episodes into one movie. SIMPLE!

And it worked best with “The Wrath of Khan”, did’nt it?
MY GOD MAN! These days It’s like every young hotshot director says that movie is the BEST of TREK (obviously) and possibly the BEST OF SCI FI!

I deeply appreciate Bob and Kurtzman passion in writing this new plotline.
However, I wonder how many discussions they had about how to reignite the franchise. Surely they see the draw of Star Wars. Are’nt they supposed to be trying to transform Trek into more of a mainstream genre?

I think they are trying to take the best of Trek and put it all out there. But suddenly with a Time Travel or Alternate Earth plotline we are missing the mark for what an average moviegoer or Star Trek fan will expect. Thereby also missing the greatter impact that this movie could make for the Trek Universe in general.

With a young Kirk, Spock and McCoy (and company) in the cast the average guy is going to expect a good the “Original Series style” adventure. Its just my opinion that after all the effort this is going to really muddy the water as to WHAT WILL REALLY SELL as good Star Trek.

Once again, I would have combined a few early episodes and stuck to
TOS designs and styles. Which episodes would I choose? Perhaps “Space Seed”, “Mirror, Mirror”, “The Doomsday Machine” and “Amok Time.”

I know its alot but a few plotines could play throughout the movie.

Again, its what people expect, can retell and relate too, and it could be done as well what Trek 09 promises..

Plus, it could be a cool setup for….

KHAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

354. Chris Basken - December 12, 2008

I’d like to point out that just because you know how the reboot mechanism functions doesn’t mean it’s not still a reboot.

Or do car mechanics not believe in the existence of cars?

355. jobryant - December 12, 2008

I remember when it was announced that although this was a new cast taken on familiar characters, that Leonard Nimoy was going to be in this movie reprising the role of Spock. And he was going to be acting a ‘torch barer’ that would bridge what we knew to what was going to be new. And I remember most people were pretty excited about that.

My question for those who are complaining about the time travel stories: How else did you expect Leonard Nimoy’s Spock to be part of the story?

If you ask me, the whole reason why this is a time travel story is so that Leonard Nimoy’s Spock is a part of it.

356. Closettrekker - December 12, 2008

#347—”Excellent point, which mirrors my statement in the interview that most of the audience will still be feeling all the potentially misplaced drama of classical physics”

Exactly. And despite having read this interview and your commentary on the subject, I hope you’ll forgive me if I look at it the other way as well.

I concede that (TNG) “Parallels” presents a notion of the potential consequences of time travel which is contrary to previously established canon. That the only inherent canonical contradiction in Star Trek.

But “real science” was never essential to my enjoyment of Star Trek. I don’t care if warp drive is feasible, even in the future, nor do I mind the suspension of disbelief required to accept transporter technology as a viable means of human transportation 200 years from now.

I value the sanctity of “City On The Edge Of Forever”, “Tommorow Is Yesterday”, “Assignment: Earth”, “Yesteryear”, and “Yesterday’s Enterprise”, far more than I value the application of current scientific theories (which happen to contradict the canonical legitimacy of those stories) to a setting which is fictional to begin with.

:)

357. That One Guy - December 12, 2008

328,

The whole “Star Wars” tech thing can be explained the fact that once your entire galaxy is purged into war, resources tend to get spread thin, so you go for quantity, not quality, which is what the Empire did. And the rebels had to scrounge for whatever they go.

As for the new Enterprise bridge/phasers/ships, it can be explained by that we now have the know-how for what computer technology should look like. Back in the 1960′s, it was still a pretty distant concept.

358. Closettrekker - December 12, 2008

#356 should read: “That isn’t the only inherent canonical contradiction in Star Trek.”

Sorry.

359. S. John Ross - December 12, 2008

#330:

Point #1: Same answer as before. And I’m not worrying, so the new comment doesn’t apply to me.

Point #3: I”m not among those you mention.

And remember, for some of us, Shatner’s little job those years ago are sometimes our current jobs here in the 21st century. I have had Trek put groceries on my table on several occasions as a writer, wouldn’t mind doing so again. If this new film turns out good, that would benefit that possibility.

360. That One Guy - December 12, 2008

Closet, there is a reason we love you on Chat.

361. David (Flaming Wings Forever) - December 12, 2008

Very interesting.

New fans (viewers) won’t care about this. It’s part of the story. Old fans will be divided between those who accept, and those who will clutch their ragged copies of the Star Trek Technical Drawings and cry.

I love it.

362. boborci - December 12, 2008

291. Anthony Thompson – December 12, 2008
Bob,

“Was there ever a “non time travel version of movie” (script)?”

No, because getting Nimoy into the movie was one of the first things we felt we needed, and having him sitting around a camp fire sharing his memories was never gonna cut it.

363. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@342…

Nice, Tuber.
Please tell Martin that he totally rocked in Entourage,
which I only saw last week

;))

364. pb - December 12, 2008

Wow, that’s just a bunch of scientific nonsense…

365. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

Too bad.

Seems like you were saddled by Kirk’s demise in Generations and its foolish plotline. I would have ignored it completely. No reason you had to be strapped with that in mind.

Perhaps you are a Trek purist Bob.

366. Kev-1 - December 12, 2008

If the Kelvin is the “inciting incident” in Nero’s destruction of “our” timeline, shouldn’t it look like something out of the Cage and not like STTMP? I think Mr. Orci has done his homework, but you need Michio Kaku to explain this. I think the whole thing is a fancy way of just doing what they want. What are the stakes for Spock if its just an alternate timeline? Why do anything if he can’t fix the “real” one? And will any of this techno stuff be in the movie itself?

367. boborci - December 12, 2008

329. Chris Doohan – December 12, 2008
240

The pleasure would be all mine. We need to bring Bob along. :)

HIYA, CHRIS!

368. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@366…

We have not seen the interior od Spocks fancy Time Ship yet, maybe there is a timeline selector in the cockpit for the safe return to PRIMETIME…

369. boborci - December 12, 2008

335. Finny – December 12, 2008
“cleverness or cop-out?”

Quantum mechanically speaking, it’s both at the same time.

370. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

Yes hopefully primetime. And on TV too.

371. falcon (heisenberg) - December 12, 2008

From Wikipedia (an admittedly unreliable source, but anyway…):
“In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that the values of certain pairs of conjugate variables (position and momentum, for instance) cannot both be known with arbitrary precision.”

So, if you invoke the Heisenberg principle, you cannot really know how Kirk, Spock, et.al. will turn out in the future, if you go back to the past. You know how they turned out if you’re in the present, and you know the past that formed them, but you don’t really know where they’re going because their potential futures are all smeared together.

I think that’s a pretty good way to describe this movie. Nero knows how Kirk turned out, so he decides to go back and eliminate his future (in Nero’s timeline, at least) by killing his parents (but only succeeded in killing Kirk’s father), but Kirk’s future wasn’t eliminated, only smeared. Nobody knew which way he would ultimately go. That’s why Spock went back to try and un-smear the future for Kirk by putting him in the center seat where he belonged. But that only unsmeared one possible future for Kirk. If quantum physics is truly in play, then Kirk’s other futures are still smeared at that point, and when (if?) Spock goes back to what he thinks is his own timeline, he may find that he didn’t succeed in unsmearing Kirk’s future in that timeline – he’s still dead, lying under a cairn of rocks on Veridian III.

At least, that’s the way I kind of understand it. I think. I’m kind of uncertain. :-)

372. boborci - December 12, 2008

338. Roadblock – December 12, 2008
“Hey, Bob, you wouldn’t happen to know what the “most successful and tested scientific theory ever in the history of the universe” is, would you?”

OOOH, I KNOW! QUANTUM MECHANICS!!!

373. boborci - December 12, 2008

339. RD – December 12, 2008

“Like you, this whole doublespeak think Orci is doing better not turn up on the screen. My feeling is he is trying to tow the company line in an attempt to ensure most of the core fans show up and buy a ticket.”

LOL! I love the idea that QM is Paramount’s “company line.’” I’d love to see that memo.

374. thorsten - December 12, 2008

Bob, the Narada is not build for Time Travel, right?

375. Pat D - December 12, 2008

Time moves in eddies and currents.

376. sb - December 12, 2008

359:

I find it interesting that Trek fans tend to interpret an attack on their own attitudes as an attack on the property itself.

Let me be absolutely, completely clear:

Star Trek is terrific. There’s nothing wrong with it. I like it more than I like peanut butter — and I REALLY like peanut butter. While I may consider some permutations of it to be of higher quality than others (*cough cough VOYAGER cough*), it has brought joy, inspiration, happiness, fun, eggs, bacon and Spam to millions upon millions of people, provided income for scores of actors, writers, technicians, executives, creative talents and not-so-creative talents, and put dinner on the table for a small but notable score of people such as yourself. Also it blows up stuff real good, and I like watching it.

Okay? We clear?

There are Star Trek FANS, on the other hand, who have taken this wonderful, lovely, happymaking fictional creation and spent far, far, FAR too much time obsessing — and I use that word in its full dictionary definition — over minutae in such a way that there is no phrase that better fits than “colossal waste of time.” At least, not in MY personal thesaurus.

Over to you, Enraged Masses…

377. Captain Dudeman - December 12, 2008

That interview could be summed up in two words: “Damage Control”

378. McCoy - December 12, 2008

362. Bob Orci

Bob, thanks for making yourself available to the other Trek fans.

“….getting Nimoy into the movie was one of the first things we felt we needed, and having him sitting around a camp fire sharing his memories was never gonna cut it.”

If time travel is the cause for the changes, I probably would have chosen to not have Nimoy in the film. If Paramount or JJ is the cause for the changes, and you attempted to explain them using Nimoy, it would be great to hear that. That way we at least understand the true “why.”

I’m sure I’m alone in this, but I would have loved to see a simple 15-minute short about Spock rescuing Kirk from death—with a campfire scene at the end. Maybe it took several years for Spock to have the right time travel technology. Would have been a nice Christmas gift for trekies and cost a lot less t make. :o)

379. THE GOVERNATOR - December 12, 2008

I think that the ships are updated to look more like the future of today than the original series version and that that is just a production decision. The quantum mechanics are used to justify canon issues other than ship designs and so forth, such as Kirk’s backstory, Pike, Romulans, and so forth.

380. NCC-73515 - December 12, 2008

And what about more successful, more tested, more advanced and more complete, greater, (I’ll leave out the ‘human history’) theories like:
gene regulation
theory of mind
evolution
muscle contraction
neurophysiology
hormones and behavior

381. boborci - December 12, 2008

377. Captain Dudeman – December 12, 2008
That interview could be summed up in two words: “Damage Control”

Or it could be summed up as “what we were thinking”

382. Xai, (I'm from Iowa, I only wished I worked in outer space.) - December 12, 2008

Oh, I have no problem with this at all. This is estentially the theory that Closettrekker has been posting and it does help explain updated technology and still fall in with canon.

Works for me, but, (looking above…) I see people taking their cheap shots.

I commend Bob Orci for sticking with us and giving us this information.

383. The Riddler - December 12, 2008

Ok so any time incursion could possibly alter the current timeline which Spock would presume is a threat. So does that mean that the quantum theory isn’t that valid? In fact I think beyond “Parallels” it does contradict other episodes and movies in which there was time travel. Take First Contact for example. Clearly the Borg’s changes to the past changed the current timeline that Picard and Crew were in. So the film still contradicts Time Travel ‘Canon’ in Star Trek.

But please continue explaining. This is fasinating and exciting stuff to talk about.

384. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

378. McCoy

“I’m sure I’m alone in this, but I would have loved to see a simple 15-minute short about Spock rescuing Kirk from death—with a campfire scene at the end. Maybe it took several years for Spock to have the right time travel technology. Would have been a nice Christmas gift for trekies and cost a lot less t make”

I was going to post that too. But I could’nt get mey head around Generations. That’s just too bad. Gererations really did kill the Trek.

385. i like this ship...it's exciting!!! - December 12, 2008

anthony..,y not worry less about quantum mechanics of the timeline and notice more about basic science? namely how theres no oxygen in space so why would there be visible explosions with fire? if its cinematic effect that’s your excuse, just look at the shockwave explosions from generations— amargosa observatory–no fiery explosion…destruction of veridian 3—no fiery explosion…yet in the trailer…THERES FIERY EXPLOSIONS IN SPACE…hmmmmm

386. Wastedbeerz - December 12, 2008

101. – who to play a new Khan vs. Pine’s Kirk? None other than Oded Fehr, if you ask me!!!

387. Xai, (I'm from Iowa, I only wished I worked in outer space.) - December 12, 2008

377. Captain Dudeman – December 12, 2008
“That interview could be summed up in two words: “Damage Control””

What damage?

388. OV-106 - December 12, 2008

So really, if time travel is possible, then there is no point in doing it because you are just jumping to an alternate universe. There’s even less logic in chasing someone and Spock shouldn’t really care then because in “his” universe everything remains the same. So why chase the bad guy when you could just as easily be glad that he is gone and now living in an alternate universe that better suits him?

….and for 385. A large ship in space with a lot of pressurized habital volume, (i.e. air) could lead to explosions. In addition there are other oxidizers than just oxygen.

389. sean - December 12, 2008

#378

Sounds like the ‘valentine’ we received at the end of Enterprise. Thanks, but no thanks. I agree with Bob, Spock sitting around a campfire would hardly be satisfying (and it might induce PTSD in Closettrekker and I with memories of TFF!)

390. Kirokwannabe - December 12, 2008

369. boborci – December 12, 2008
335. Finny – December 12, 2008
“cleverness or cop-out?”

Quantum mechanically speaking, it’s both at the same time.

LOL!! A scientifically literate “Hollywood” writer. Kudos!

I am a huge TOS fan, including making my 8 and 3 year olds sit through repeated viewings of Daddy’s favorite characters.

But DAMN, am I looking forward to this alternate universe version of the characters I so love!! TREK LIVES!

391. Xai, (I'm from Iowa, I only wished I worked in outer space.) - December 12, 2008

385. i like this ship…it’s exciting!!! – December 12, 2008
“yet in the trailer…THERES FIERY EXPLOSIONS IN SPACE…hmmmmm”

And what could possibly cause a fire in space?…Oxygen and a spark, maybe? They gotta breathe something…

392. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

388. OV-106

Such is the problem with Time Travel. Sorry to have the same complaint after all this time.

Keep it simple in the sequel.

393. Chris Doohan - December 12, 2008

367

HIYA, BOB!!

Have a great weekend!! ‹(•¿•)›

394. Alec - December 12, 2008

First of all, for all my concerns about the new film, I must acknowledge what a great privilege it is to be able to ‘discuss’ the film with one of the writers. There is no doubt that Bob is a big Trekkie, which is certainly comforting in a film which promises so much change. I also appreciate the regular feedback we get to assuage some of our concerns.

That being said, I am still concerned. Here’s why. According to the interpretation of time travel being employed in this film, whenever someone travels back in time, an alternative timeline is created with the time-traveller moving from one timeline to another without destroying or, in any meaningful way, changing the original timeline. Fine. Unfortunately, if this is the case, Nero would just move to another timeline and his intervention will not affect the previous timeline. What, therefore, is Spock’s motivation in thwarting Nero? Whatever heinous acts Nero commits, he commits them in an alternative time-line, which will not affect Spock or anyone in existence in his timeline. Note: if it does affect Spock or anyone in existence in his timeline, then history is being rewritten, which, naturally, would trouble some fans. We face a dilemma: either Spock’s action is pointless or Spock’s action rewrites canonical history.

Remember Picard’s line from Yesterday’s Enterprise, which, roughly paraphrased was, ‘Who’s to say this history is any more proper than the other’. Guinan rejoins, ‘I suppose, I am’. To which Picard bellows, ‘Not good enough! Dammit! Not good enough!’ Similarly, who is Spock to judge which timeline is best, proper, or correct? Any number of alternative timelines could be created with time travel. Is Spock to change them all? And why would he change any?

395. ~~TARA~~ - December 12, 2008

I’ve been trying to follow this thread since last night and can barely keep up! I had to read the interview a couple times and now my head doesn’t hurt so much. The only one thing I want to add is to those who say, “Why should Spock care if it’s not his timeline?” Well to me if Spock followed Nero in the past and sees he’s trying to harm his best friend Kirk (even though it’s not HIS Kirk) I expect Spock to want to save him. Maybe that’s a little too emotional for Spock, but he seems to find cleaver logical ways to say his actions aren’t from his emotions (though it sure seems that way sometimes). Just my two cents:)

396. McCoy - December 12, 2008

JJ wanted to do a story set in Kirk’s time because there was something special there that said “Trek” more than any other Trek series.

Then, he proceeded to change 90% of Kirk’s time reducing the film to Trek’s “core” principals. However, every Trek series, no matter how bad, had these core principals. Even Stargate SG-1 has them. Galaxy Quest has them. How far removed from Trek are the mysterious new fans they are hoping to bring to the theater? What are their ages? Have we really been without core Trek principals that long?

And if your saying you want more than just the core principals from TOS, aren’t you asking for a more TOS-related look and feel and/or (at a minimum) the normal TOS history?

Isn’t this really all just about letting someone new try their vision on Trek? Whether we wanted it or not?

397. Andros - December 12, 2008

I wish he would just say:

“Watch this movie or watch your franchise fizzle out and die…quantum mechanically speaking.”

398. Shatner_Fan_Prime - December 12, 2008

So, 400 posts later and I’m still wondering …… why do Spock Prime & Nero go hop-scotching around a universe that isn’t (and doesn’t effect) theirs again?

399. Randall - December 12, 2008

#339 RD:

Your attempt to “correct” my statements or my thinking on certain points doesn’t work. Let’s take it bit by bit:

“You’re really talking about a future TV series.”

No, I’m talking about films. None of what I said could NOT be applied to a film. I’m not talking about a plot DEVOID of action. I’m talking a plot that does not CENTER around it. I’m talking about plots and scenarios where the action is incidental. There are far more films of this nature than the reverse.

“Sadly movies are self-continued stories that must embody 2 hours of attention riveting plot.”

A) what is “sad” about this? B) how is episodic TV *not* this? A TV episode must also maintain attention. Your point is frankly unclear.

“Take any franchise film series.”

We’re talking film, yes, but Star Trek is not ONLY a film series.

“Bond is probably the longest running one over Star Trek. There’s a supervillain in every one trying to take over the world/universe.”

BECAUSE that is the nature of a Bond story, RD. Bond is a secret agent who battles bad guys. Period. Star Trek, however, was NEVER just that, and we all know it. To LIMIT it to that, to a formulaic “good guys vs. supervillains” model, is to say it’s no better than or different from any other formulaic model—a comic book, say.

Star Trek isn’t great literature, of course—I’m not saying that. I’m simply saying it was ALWAYS far more broad than merely ONE layer or level of storytelling, or one form of storytelling. It’s science fiction. It’s a broad category. Bond isn’t; Bond is simply a spy who fights other spies and bad guys. Bond isn’t even as deep or broad as more realistic spy series where the lead characters are more like real people. Bond is more of a cartoon–which is not to denigrate the Bond series, James Bond is a great iconic character. But Star Trek is more than just one character and more than just one formulaic model. It’s about the future and human beings out there in space facing ALL kinds of conflict and weirdness–not just bad guys.

As I said earlier, make it JUST that, and it might as well be Captain Video. I mean… why bother? Are you actually defending the idea that Star Trek should always have some supervillain in it?

“The same for Star Wars, the same for Raiders of the Lost Ark, Harry Potter and even the comedies like the Pink Panther series of films.”

And again, it’s not right to draw that parallel. With the exception of Star Wars, each example you’ve brought up is about ONE hero figure who faces some problem or other. There are bad guys then, who the hero has to defeat. (Though there isn’t always ONE big villain–for instance with the Indiana Jones films). In Star Wars you have one big, huge villain (whether you call it Darth Vader, or the Emperor, or the Empire itself) and a bunch of heroes fighting it. That’s Flash Gordon-ish. Fine. But that’s not Star Trek. Star Trek is the old Western, or the pulp sci-fi idea of Man In Space. And in the Western or in sci-fi, you don’t just have plastic, flat heroes flying out to fight bad guys–or if you do, it’s probably pretty bad stuff, probably very simplistic and probably very adolescent. Again, not that Star Trek is *superior* in any sense—it’s just DIFFERENT. It comes from a different lineage, a different tradition. It’s the Horatio Hornblower series, or, as I said, the Western. There always has to be a conflict in the story—but it doesn’t have to be some comic-book supervillain. And in fact, it rarely was, and rarely should be about that.

“Sadly, the Star Trek films that did not have a supervillain, but rather some kind of weird alien entity, or a mere mortal trying to grab for power all failed miserably.”

You didn’t read carefully what I wrote earlier. I said—the reason why these films failed was because they in fact did NOT really move away from the simplistic villain formula. Instead, they just compromised on it–they’d water down the villains, spread it out amongst several instead of one—or they’d make the “villain” some macguffin that was really just a villain without a persona.

“The very nature of these movies is epic.”

Please. That word is ridiculously overused. Star Trek, overall, is in a sense epic, yes. But the films don’t NEED to be “epic.” And in fact, they really haven’t been—not any of them. Go back and look at true “epics”—”Lawrence of Arabia” for instance—and you’ll see that not one ST film has gotten anywhere near that kind of sweeping, grand enormity of story and impact.

A Star Trek film doesn’t need to be “epic.” That’s reaching too far, which is another reason why some of them fell flat. All a Star Trek film needs to be, to be successful, is intriguing and interesting, and it has to grab you in some way. A couple of them got close to that, and are, therefore, decent films. Not great, but good. But the problem with the ST films is that they have NOT gone this route, they have tried to follow a formula of good guys vs. bad guys or good guys vs. this silly “thing” out there. And as I said, sometimes that might work, but used over and over again, it’s going to fail.

“Therefore, you hire Shakespearean actors who are used to dealing with these huge plots”

What is so “huge” about all these ST film plots? Name one that was really “huge” where it required “Shakespearean actors.” Maybe First Contact comes close, but it in fact did NOT employ such actors. (Except maybe Alice Brige, I don’t know). In fact, off the top of my head the only REAL Shakespearean actor (other than a couple of the regulars—Shatner and Patrick Stewart) who’ve been in the ST films was F. Murray Abraham.

“and like Shakespeare pit the characters in life and death struggles with lots of fights and witty dialogue and a satisfying ending that delivers an often not-to-subtle moral message.”

EXCUSE ME? How is ANY of that “like” Shakespeare? Have you ever READ any Shakespeare? Shakespeare was occasionally potboiler-ISH, in many ways…. but that didn’t make his plays actual potboilers.

No, let’s stop comparing Star Trek to Shakespeare, okay? That’s where people like you get into ridiculous trouble. Stop even thinking like that. Star Trek is a western, okay? It’s an old sailing ship series. Think that. Think of people trying to explore an uncharted land where they meet different societies or where they’re out there on the sea, heading into weird and unknown waters. THAT is Star Trek. Not good guys vs. bad guys.

You want that, go watch Star Wars. Go find some old kinescopes of Rocky Jones, Space Ranger.

Star Trek is the Twilight Zone, the Outer Limits. Star Trek is Forbidden Planet and the old Robert Heinlein books. Star Trek is the Hornblower series.

“In TV, you literally have to fill-the-hour. So interesting character studies and bottle-shows end up filling a much larger proportion of the schedule.”

I wasn’t recommending “interesting character studies,” RD, for the films. READ again what I wrote earlier. You clearly didn’t read it carefully. You want to THINK I was focused on TV ideas, but I wasn’t. Just because I mentioned the way the series did things, that doesn’t mean I was thinking small. Great stories, intriguing plots, weird and horrific scenarios—they’re not small. They can be very big… and, in fact, I’d argue they can be much more “epic” than any of the “villain” stories the movies have spat out so far.

“Why do you think techno-babble became so endemic on the TNG era of shows? Because it helped fill the time.”

Rubbish. The TNG shows in fact had LESS time to fill than the original series… episodic TV has been cut down over the years for more commerical time. The reason TNG was filled with technobabble was the same reason that the films have been formulaic failures—bad storytelling and lame scriptwriting. Good writing doesn’t rely on technobabble—it might drop it in every once in a great while, but it doesn’t need it. And beyond this, the reason TNG had so much of it was bad VISION. TNG had a compromised, touchy-feely vision of Star Trek’s original vision–and what that does is lower the conflict level AND the level of drama AND weirdness/eerieness. It makes it soap opera-ish. So we saw, in TNG, a lot more soap opera-like interaction with the characters… which would have been okay if TNG had instead been a crime series or some show about lawyers. But science fiction is larger in scope and NEEDS to be. Hence, the original series was MUCH better science fiction and MUCH more “epic” and iconic than TNG ever was or could have been. Think, for instance, if TOS had never existed, and there had only been TNG. Would we even be here talking about it? Would there be all these films? Of course not. TNG never had that iconic/mythic force. Rather, it DREW on the iconic/mythic force of TOS, and took it elsewhere—away from the original vision, in my opinion. Some liked it. I personally did not, though I didn’t totally hate it. But I damn well knew it was not of the same caliber as the original show.

“You could do an episode where everyone was trapped on the ship due to some technical malfunction and mesmerize your audience by throwing a bunch of details at them – suicide in the feature world.”

And again, that’s not the kind of thing I was talking about.

But I think you’re also being disingenuous. MANY films work in MANY different scenarios. LOTS of horror films, thrillers, and suspense films work in tight parameters, in claustrophobic surroundings, etc. And many of them make tons of money. You’re looking at sci-fi in very comic book/flat terms. You’re looking at it in Star Wars terms. There’s nothing wrong with that–but it’s not ALL there is to sci-fi and certainly not ALL there is to Star Trek.

400. Andros - December 12, 2008

@399
Because they don’t know that.

401. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

It will affect Spock’s timeline.

The QM talk is really going nowhere.

402. earthclanbootstrap - December 12, 2008

Mr. Orci,
Since you seem to be checking in on the thread at the moment, I just wanted to take this opportunity to say that I do appreciate the time you’ve taken to engage with those of us who frequent this site. Not all of the people who have concerns about where this new version of Trek is going are bottom feeding trolls who feel the need to sink to cheap shots and personal insults. While I may not agree with many of the artistic choices you and the rest of the production crew appear to have made, they were always YOUR choices to make, of course, as the duly appointed representatives of the United Federation of Paramount in this sector and there’s no need to slander you for doing your job as you best saw fit. As a member of the Loyal Opposition I’d just like to say thanks for taking the time to keep us in the loop.

403. I'm a Doctor not a ___________! - December 12, 2008

The question of the reason why Spock would be concerned..if not his timeline is curious…Bob..can you address this?

404. boborci - December 12, 2008

403. earthclanbootstrap – December 12, 2008

Fair enough… thank you.

405. Classic Trek - December 12, 2008

Speaking of time travel – there’s a call on line 3 for Young Kirk. It’s Marty Mcfly – he wants his jacket back

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/bttf/images/a/a4/Martyjacketdry.jpg

***

Ah the lovely differences between alternate and relative time travel theories.

Back to the Future uses relative time travel theory to create branches of reality – where the old future gets rewritten with a new future (such as Biff’s having the gambling magazine)-

And Star Trek’s alternate time travel theory creates new realities with jumpers moving from one parallel reality to another -

it’s really not that difficult to understand and definitly follows the idea of Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.

The idea is growing on me, but I’ll have to see the movie and how it’s handled before my mind is made–

I may be reading into this — but if the Kelvin is in the Classic Trek time line– will that bridge be closer to the 60′s design? Perhaps the destruction of this is what JJ and crew talked about being sacrilegious.

406. boborci - December 12, 2008

403. I’m a Doctor not a ___________! – December 12, 2008
“The question of the reason why Spock would be concerned..if not his timeline is curious…Bob..can you address this?”

yes… in May!

407. focuspuller - December 12, 2008

I think it’s pretty funny that the writers are trying to use science to explain throwing cannon out the window, while at the same time saying “we’re not actually throwing cannon out the window.” Marketing, marketing, marketing. I also love how he keep saying “it’s quantum mechanics.” like that’s all there is to it.

Reminds he of that scene from “Thank You For Smoking”.

“You’re going to make a new film showing smoking in space”

“Wouldn’t you die in an all oxygen environment?”

“One line of dialog and it’s all taken care of, ‘good thing we invented the, whatever, device.”

408. Chris Basken - December 12, 2008

403, I have to agree re: Bob Orci’s presence. I can’t remember a writer being so communicative with the fans. Maybe JMS back during the B5 days when he’d talk to folks on usenet.

That alone makes me want to see his movie. Hollywood would do well to pay attention to what’s going on on this site.

409. Chris Basken - December 12, 2008

I meant 402, whoops. Can I go back in time and reset the quantum state of my post?

410. YARN - December 12, 2008

Problems so far: SCIENCE

1. The mistaken representation of a metaphysical theory about quantum mechanics as tested “hard science.” Multi-world theory is one of many theories.

2. Misapplication of quantum averaging to macro-level phenomena. The most probable or average universe amongst competing possibilities has NOTHING to do with human institutions and behaviors like career choices, ship assignments or paths to promotion. This is a significant, because it pawns off fatalism (a very old and non-scientific theory) as if it were a core tenet of quantum theory (i.e., “The most likely universe is one where Kirk is Cap’n of the ‘Prise!” – as if the universe is probabilistically organized to produce Starfleet captains.

411. earthclanbootstrap - December 12, 2008

As a follow up, I’d just like to say that if I have sunk to the level of a few biting ‘colorful metaphors’ (particularly right after the trailer first came out) just chalk it up to all of the LDS I did at Berkley…

412. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

405

I get it. Perhaps Kirk (JTs father,) will be killed on the Kelvin early on. Before the actual ships name is shown. *gasp.

413. Andros - December 12, 2008

I can address it now:

Space, you see, is the final frotnier and these are the time travelling voyages of the Vulcan Spock. Whose ongoing mission is to explore strange new timelines, seek out new time life and civilizations, quantum mechanically speaking and boldly go where no Trek movie has gone before…. a place where it dominates the box office.”

414. I'm a Doctor not a ___________! - December 12, 2008

406- Bob Orci
..I understand….I look forward to seeing it!!! …..

…NOW ABOUT THOSE NEW PICS OF THE BIG E I INQUIRE ABOUT…..

415. Andros - December 12, 2008

Dear Bob,

Thank you for reviving the franchise. I’m a little worried about you though because you’re spending an awful lot of time here. Why aren’t you working on the sequel?

416. JR - December 12, 2008

So, this is just a smoke-screen way of saying that the orginal TOS timeline will jump tracks from now on. Or, since this is Science Ficiton, will future movies put some things back in place?

417. Gary - December 12, 2008

STTOS tended to use the reset button for good reason. So that it could continue in syndication for years to come and be shown in any order without having to worry to much about continuity. When the TV show “The Fugitive” ended its series by letting the viewers know who the killer was it hurt its future in rerun syndication. Since everyone knew the outcome, there was little interest in watching reruns in syndication. TV shows from that era tended not to be serialized or have story arcs purely for financial reasons. Later Trek shows did not always use the reset button. For example in STD9 Miles O’Brien was killed after becoming infected with delta-series radioisotopes following an accident aboard the station. This, coupled with the presence of a cloaked Romulan Warbird nearby, had the effect of shifting him forward in time by several hours. His death occurred when he deliberately contaminated himself further in order to determine the exact cause of events he had witnessed. He was ‘replaced’ by his counterpart from the timeline he visited. Thus, events that occurred to O’Brien from this point on involved the future version, rather than the ‘original’.

418. D - December 12, 2008

“Everything that can happen has happened.”

Well, I wish I could at least get a glimpse of the universe where I’m filthy rich, married to a supermodel and have been to the ISS.

It would mean at least one of me was very very happy.

419. screaming satellite - December 12, 2008

Mickael Okuda is gonna be….one….pissed….off….dude…

i

420. Mr Tim - December 12, 2008

Save me Jebus!!!!!

People are still gettin bent out of shape over every conversation or soundbite that is transcribed on here.. “pitch-forks at the ready folks!!!!”

give it a rest already…

did Bob Orci explain every decision and the reasonings behind every plot point from when they wrote the script??? no, and he shouldn’t have to..

you’re supposed to be goin seein this movie next year to enjoy a good story.. and am assuming that the writing team had that somewhere on the list of priorities, up there with ‘raping my childhood’ and ‘making my dvd collection out of date’.. boo hoo…

even the colour of a characters eyes is being scrutinized.. i mean, come on… really????

and all this talk about “well, is this the type of time travel we have come to expect? the temporal directives have been thrown out the window by Orci and his cronies.. when according to the episode blah blah blah…”
When JJ was talkin about parodies he should’ve looked here.. cos it’s sad that some so called ‘fans’ have become a parody themselves now!

but, if it makes you feel any better.. you can hope that George and Gracie turn up at the end, and since their time travel experience, they have developed a magical ‘time paradox fixing kit’… and since they owe James T a favour, they put everything right…. but, beware the next instalment people: Picard is Welsh… and has ginger hair… canon out the window!!!

still got them pitch-forks????

421. Hopeful Trekker - December 12, 2008

I guess I don’t understand the need for the timetravel stuff. There are some references to Kirk’s past in TOS but there are huge gaps. Can’t they just tell a story of how they got together once when they were young that can be exciting? Does it have to connect to plots in the future stories? Do they have to save the universe for it to be interesting?

I can overlook a bunch of things to make a good movie, sure you can say the ship is more futuristic looking, that Kirk does not know how to drive (A Piece of the Action) and a bunch of little things. Some things are harder to swallow, like Chekov being around 12 years younger than Kirk. If that’s how old he was then don’t put him in, do we have to have him?

Kirk could still be a senior cadet on a training mission with junior cadets that fall into a situation with a training ship Kirk is commanding as a “Cadet” Captain (much like Red Squad in DS9)

Ya, you can explain things with timelines, but why go there, do you need to?

I of course will watch the new movie, I am just hoping it sets a good base to continue Trek stories on, and the timetravel stuff is always a bit unstable.

422. YARN - December 12, 2008

Problems so far: Scientism Intruding on Narrative Form

1. The whole question of whether Kirk’s genetics would cause him to be Captain-y is misplaced. Kirk is not a real person. Kirk is a character associated with a corpus known as Star Trek. The question is not whether it would be realistic for Capt. Kirk to do anything in some strict scientific sense, but whether it is fitting for the character to act in a certain way. Not what would Kirk (as a hyperliteralized person) do, but what Kirk should (as a literary figure) do.

2. The “new” history of Trek justified by “science” misses the point that if you are going to call an artwork “Trek”, thus trading on the ethos of mythos of earlier artworks by that name, it should have enough of a family resemblance to be called by that name (so far, it looks like the new movie passes this test – so there is no need to try to outsmart canonites).

EXAMPLE: I do a story about two monkeys who ride a ballon over Virginia in the 1930′s. They escape from a zoo, have a wacky adventure, and are then returned to the zoo after they cheer up a dying boy. I call the story STAR TREK XI and laboriously set out to prove that there is a possible world in the Trek canon where this story could have happened – TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT.

423. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

416. JR

“…will future movies put some things back in place?”

Does’nt look like it. We will have to look to Cawley and the likes for the “real” TOS experience.

Ahhhehhh… I gotta ask it.

Does Star Trek really need this story right now?

424. wkiryn - December 12, 2008

Multiple universes is one interpretation of quantum physics – it isn’t a fact like wave particle duality is.

This movie (I hope) will be regarded by the majority much like those Doctor Who movies with Peter Cushing – names are the same but it doesn’t count and maybe it was an excuse to eat popcorn at the time. I think this will be especially the case when Kirk apparently goes straight from Cadet to Captain (as appears to be the case) and insults the intelligence of fans. I’d be less hostile if it wasn’t such a obvious reboot but being denied as one.

Chekov somehow managed to get born a bit earlier in this new universe.

425. YARN - December 12, 2008

Problems so far: The Time Travel Dilemma

1. If the original timeline is preserved, Spock has no need (no logical motivation) to save the past.

2. If the original timeline is altered, canon is changed, and hardcore fans through themselves off of rooftops like “The Happening.”

426. Gary - December 12, 2008

If the original timeline is preserved, Spock has no need (no logical motivation) to save the past.

Well he has one reason. He is Spock. Spock always does the right thing when it concerns others. Even from another universe. Just as Kirk from our universe lectured Spock in the Mirror universe to change things. Kirk didn’t have to tell Mirror Spock anything.

427. Closettrekker - December 12, 2008

#360—”Closet, there is a reason we love you on Chat.”

The feeling is mutual. I always enjoy getting your take on things, especially since it comes from someone much younger than I. This movie is for you and my kids, much more than it is for me.

428. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 12, 2008

#403. I’m a Doctor not a ___________!
“The question of the reason why Spock would be concerned..if not his timeline is curious…Bob..can you address this?”

#406 boborci
yes… in May!

Now *that* is reassuring. Somewhat.

Sorry I talked about you in the third person; I didn’t know you were still reading the thread here. I really want to believe in this script, but this hinting at a straight-up reboot gives me serious pause.

429. Christine - December 12, 2008

OHHHH.

Well, that explains it.

-beats self for reading those spoilers-

And, Andros, #413… You crack me up. xDD That was genius.

430. Closettrekker - December 12, 2008

#389—”…and it might induce PTSD in Closettrekker and I with memories of TFF!”

Funniest thing I’ve read all day!

431. McCoy - December 12, 2008

394. Alec

Wow. Nicely put.

That was a great episode. I think I’m watching that with popcorn May 8th.

432. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - December 12, 2008

I feel better about the movie now.

433. Christine - December 12, 2008

#421: “Can’t they just tell a story of how they got together once when they were young that can be exciting? Does it have to connect to plots in the future stories? Do they have to save the universe for it to be interesting?”

No, unfortunately. I think that’d be fine, but the movie would get SLAMMED by the Trek fans who are like… die-hard for canon.

William Shatner actually wrote a book (start of a series) called, “Academy”. I thought it was amazing. It gave development into Jim’s background, and also a theory on how he met Spock… It got PUMMELED by reviewers. Those that were Trekkies, anyways.

434. Andros - December 12, 2008

@421
“I guess I don’t understand the need for the timetravel stuff. There are some references to Kirk’s past in TOS but there are huge gaps. Can’t they just tell a story of how they got together once when they were young that can be exciting? Does it have to connect to plots in the future stories? Do they have to save the universe for it to be interesting?”

The problem with doing that is that we know that no matter the danger they will sruvive it so it eliminates the feeling of suspense and drama if we know the protagonists aren’t in any real danger. With an “alternate timeline” we don’t know what’s truly going to happen.

435. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

#397 – “I wish he would just say:

“Watch this movie or watch your franchise fizzle out and die…” ”

If the result of this movie is that Trek’s continuity is lost, I’m not really sure what the difference is.

436. Captain Otter - December 12, 2008

Said in #422 by Yarn: “EXAMPLE: I do a story about two monkeys who ride a ballon over Virginia in the 1930’s. They escape from a zoo, have a wacky adventure, and are then returned to the zoo after they cheer up a dying boy. I call the story STAR TREK XI and laboriously set out to prove that there is a possible world in the Trek canon where this story could have happened – TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT.”

That is a rather grosse bending of the scenario, and I suspect you know that.

Now to what I think your point really was, there is a long-standing history in the arts to re-craft narratives through time. There is also warrant in the history of the arts to take a known character and place them in alternative circumstances.

Robin Hood is still Robin Hood, no matter how altered the politics of Nottingham are from incarnation to incarnation. Heck, the Disney fox cartoon is no more or less Robin Hood than Costner of Flynn or any of the guys from the BBC incarnations. Robin Hood was still himself even when the Dreamworks people gave him a french accent.

James Bond was once a cold war character, now he isn’t. Still, Bond is Bond, no matter what actor plays him or what ever historical era the Bond story is set in.

This is what Mr. Orci is describing- taking the Kirk character and giving him new circumstances which differ from previous versions of the Trek story- ditto w/ Spock and the others. Their biographies may have changed, but the hearts of the characters seem intact, at least from the few clips we’ve been given thus far.

And if that is the case, then this have every right to be called Star Trek.

437. PDX Trek - December 12, 2008

Bob – Thanks for the updates and I have to say that as long as it’s a good story with the Great Bird’s optimism for the future, that is all that really matters.

The important thing is that the message of hope inspires another generation to reach to the stars.

Oh, and to make enough $$ for the sequels, of course…

438. pb - December 12, 2008

425 — Yarn, good points.

439. Aragorn189 - December 12, 2008

Ok here’s my timeline analysis. Note if certain events intertwine in the 24th Century, I’m just using the start of those stories as base points.

Normal timeline
Original Backstory – TOS – movies up to 6 – TNG – Generations – DS9 – Voyager – First Contact

1st subtely alternate timeline
First Contact – Enterprise – Some of the Orginal Backstory – TOS – Movies up to 6 – TNG – Generations – DS9 – Voyager – First Contact – Insurrection – Nemesis – JJ Abrams Star Trek Countdown/Star Trek

2nd Subtely alternate timeline
First Contact – Enterprise – JJ Abram’s Star Trek (an possibly some orignal backstory elements left unmentioned but not changed)- TOS – movies up til 6 – TNG – Generations – DS9 – Voyager – First Contact – Insurrection – Nemesis – Star Trek Countdown/ Star Trek

As you can see, certain aspects of the timeline change, but the normal flow of time can still remain the same. Temporal problems are as hard as you make them seem. All these timelines can coexist at the same time. Apparently, most Trekkers are believers in only one alteration. With the new paradigm of a second subtlely altered timeline (which to some is a major change), not everyone is going to go over at once. I dare anyone on the site to come up with a better organization or try to do it with the 53 times that time travel has been involved (that is going to be one deep flow chart)

440. freezejeans - December 12, 2008

Bob & Chris! You guys rock for taking the time (so to speak) to drop in once and awhile in all of these threads over the past year.

Uh, as for the sequel…the Gorn in “Arena” scared the pee outta me back in 1973 at age 5 while watching it with my dad, imagine an updated version with today’s tech on IMAX. Or “The Doomsday Machine.” Just sayin’. :D

441. YARN - December 12, 2008

#426

“Well he has one reason. He is Spock. Spock always does the right thing when it concerns others. Even from another universe. Just as Kirk from our universe lectured Spock in the Mirror universe to change things. Kirk didn’t have to tell Mirror Spock anything.”

Spock should not even be arriving in the same universe as Nero. They took different ships. The original timeline is t1. Nero’s is t2. Spock’s is t3.
Regardless of whether the universes split or whether you simply arrive in a different preexisting ‘verse, he should be in a different place.

And Kirk didn’t go to the mirror universe by choice – he got stuck there and made and tried to make a case before he left.

442. Andros - December 12, 2008

@ 435
“If the result of this movie is that Trek’s continuity is lost, I’m not really sure what the difference is.”

The difference is that continuity will never be lost because its already there. You’ve already watched it. Its already happened. Did the existance of Enterprise kill TOS continuity? No, we just shrugged it off as unexplained. This movie is a saving grace to a dying franchise and I don’t understand why people can’t see that. Why anyone would rather have something that they are passionate about cease to exist rather than see it grow is beyond me. If the movie Enterprise suddenly had four nacelles, would that change TOS’ great episodes? NO.

443. Christine - December 12, 2008

#436: “..This is what Mr. Orci is describing- taking the Kirk character and giving him new circumstances which differ from previous versions of the Trek story- ditto w/ Spock and the others. Their biographies may have changed, but the hearts of the characters seem intact, at least from the few clips we’ve been given thus far.

And if that is the case, then this have every right to be called Star Trek.”

Amen. That was really good. Because, really, that’s the whole point of… Star Trek… and the franchise… and stuff.
I think this movie will be really good, even if the canon isn’t perfect!
After all… has continuity EVER been flawless in Star Trek? Really?

444. Admiral_BlackCat - December 12, 2008

#347
WooT!!

In this new timeline, are they the same charcters, or different characters? Do we care if they live or die? Is it the same Enterprise or a different one? Do we care is this ship gets destroyed? What does the Trekkie audience think of this? What does the general (mainstream) audience think of all of this? How about elder Spock or Nero, what would they consider the same and different?
I’m being more retorical than anything. :)
Repeatedly saying “our most successful theory of science” in the interview, for me, drives home the fact that this probably was a sort of mantra for the Quantum mechanics story element. Treat it like FACT when writing the story, don’t deviate from it and the story will flow Still treat it as THEORY and there could be uncertainty in the decision to make some of the changes to canon. But if it’s treated as FACT then these changes actully have to happen. I’m not trying to tell Bob Orci or anyone how they should have done it, I’m just going on about how I would have gotten myself onboard with Quantum Mechanics had I been involved. (Blame my over active imagination.)

445. Aran - December 12, 2008

RE: #19. Michael – So how do these multiple timelines explain Vulcan’s BLUE sky in the trailer?

Vulcan may be an M-Class planet in this alternate timeline, and the drilling beam coming from the platform Nero extends into Vulcan’s atmosphere may be a catalist for Vulcan’s red sky we are all so familiar with.

It could be a way for the universe to ‘right’ this alternate timeline and bring it closer to the prime timeline.

re: 12. Leonel – Has anyone tried diagraming the many different timelines that are how out there?

I’d love to see that! Perhaps even show how this new alternate timeline could collapse back into the prime timeline.

446. Aragorn189 - December 12, 2008

445 and 12
I made a very rudimentary one using the changes from First Contact and the new film only. It’s on post 439. I also have a standing challenge to do a more complex one utilizing the 53 (54 now) time travel points laid down in canon so far (as a college student during exams, I don’t have that much time.) Check it out and let me know what you think.

447. Bob Tompkins - December 12, 2008

#3-
Part of the latest and greatest theory of quantum mechanics states that not only can a particle be in 2 places at the same time, it MUST be in 2 [or more] places at the same time. It’s from whence the Heisenberg Uncertainty Proiciple derives. It’s why transporters have a Heisenberg Compensator.
2 Spocks coming face to face is possible under certain conditions under this Quantum Theory.

They probably wouldn’t faint but would examine each other with great curiosity if each knew exactly who the other was facing.

448. Nick Cook - December 12, 2008

#435

“If the result of this movie is that Trek’s continuity is lost, I’m not really sure what the difference is.”

IMO there is none. ‘Our’ Trek is presumably relegated to the bargain bin of history. :(

449. John from Cincinnati - December 12, 2008

OK, quantum mechanics.

But what about the universal/string theory?

Also, is there a possibility the two timelines “converge”?

450. richpit - December 12, 2008

I didn’t read all the posts, but I agree with:

13. Gravitic Yours – December 11, 2008
I’d rather have seen a Batman-style reboot than this, personally. Time travel is too easy to get wrong plus we have seen it way too many times. The canonistas won’t be happy in any case so why bother with the silly pretense?

this whole time travel nonsense is not necessary. Just do a reboot.

451. Spock's Brain - December 12, 2008

3. Enterprise said:
“If Spock and Spock meet the universe will either explode, or they’ll just faint.”

LOL!

452. boborci - December 12, 2008

449. John from Cincinnati – December 12, 2008
OK, quantum mechanics.

“But what about the universal/string theory?”

so far, no testable experiments available, unlike QM.

453. Spock's Brain - December 12, 2008

10. sean said:
“Reading this article gave me a technobabblegasm.”

Yes, but remember this a real-world physics explanation for the movie. Not typical Trek-babble.

454. LostonNCC1701 - December 12, 2008

Here’s my latest and greatest half-serious/half-notserious:

In the wake of Nemesis, the Federation (and, to a lesser extent, the Klingons) and the Romulans got into a better relationship. Not a alliance by any means, but certainly better than it ever has been. There have even been some calls for a movement for reconciliation with the Vulcans. There are some violently against this, led by Nero, who had been a patriotic hero of the Romulans during the Dominion War. Nero, along with other radicals and a few military men, were eventually captured by the Klingons and put on Rura Penthe. Eventually, however, he escaped and with his fellow Romulan extremists (who can easily be identified because of their prison-issue tattoos and shaved heads) hijacked a new and horrible weapons ship that is capable of traveling through time and destroying an entire planet. Spock found out about this and “borrowed” (since Vulcans don’t steal) a Federation prototype time-ship to follow him into the past. (most of this would be off-screen or in the prequel comic book that will come out, I’d think)

Nero realizes that since he will have no supplies he needs to change the past with as little effort as possible. To simply blow up Vulcan would possibly bring in too much trouble, but to go back to the Romulan-Earth War or a similar point in time would be too likely to change the timeline so much that his initial quest becomes irrelevant. So he decides to do the easy thing: Kill James T. Kirk before he is even freaking born. If he is able to kill Kirk before he is born and a trip back to the future reveals that Romulans still aren’t the big bosses of the Galaxy in the new timeline, he’ll go back and do more. Or if Kirk survives he’ll go back and do more. No big deal. He has all the time in the world (heh).

So we go to the USS Kelvin in the year 2233ish, investigating some weird anomalies (including the disappearance and believed destruction of 47 Klingon ships!). It is under the command of Captain Robau, with first officer George Kirk. Just then, Nero’s ship attacks. Caught completely by surprise, the opening volleys of the “battle” lead to the Captain dead and George in Command. He orders all non-essential personnel- including his pregnant wife- to abandon ship not in the escape pods but by using the Shuttlecraft, leaving many of them severely overcrowded. During the escape, some of the crew use their craft to cover the extremely-heavily damaged Kelvin on a kamikaze attack on the Romulans. The Kelvin is further aided by a mysterious ship (Spock’s timeship). It works, but the stress causes Mrs. Kirk to give birth prematurely as her medical shuttle goes into warp to escape. The Romulan ship, although still operational, is badly damaged and escapes through time to safety (some point in time where they can just go orbit some random moon and do some repairs and get ready for their next attempt at destroying the Federation). We’d then see the Time-ship go through time too, probably going ahead to check to see what this has changed in this “new” timeline which is similar but different from the original one. Spock cares about this new Timeline because, quite frankly, it is the logical and moral thing to do.

We’d then go through a short vignette of Kirk and Spock growing up. Spock has some pressures growing up with being Half-Vulcan, Half-Human, but Kirk’s childhood is more interesting. His mother either died or left him with his idiot Uncle, who Kirk despises and proceeds to aggravate by driving his antique car into the future site of a Starfleet Shipyard with “Magic Carpet Ride” by Steppenwolf playing on the radio all along(oh sure, it wasn’t in the trailer, but POST-PRODUCTION, people!). When the Cop (who is wearing a robosuit to enhance the abilities of himself) catches him and brings him back to his Uncle, he gets into big trouble. It is never stated or shown that Kirk was on Tarsus, but it is never directly denied either (although I’m gonna guess he doesn’t, but everyone can fanon up a explanation, I’m sure.) One thing that changes though is that because of his different upbringing, he never feels obligated to join Starfleet, instead hanging around Iowa causing trouble until one day he enters a bar being frequented by new Academy recruits visiting the shipyard. He gets into a barfight after hitting on Uhura and is then accosted by the famed Captain Christopher Pike of the being-built USS Enterprise. Pike talks Kirk into joining Starfleet.

Kirk’s time at the academy is unorthodox. While the Axanar mission, Finnegan, John Gill, Ben Finney and Gary Mitchell aren’t seen or mentioned, they aren’t directly denied either. However, Kirk does cause trouble in the academy: He hires a Orion Hooker, he cheats at the Kobayashi Maru and is only saved from expulsion when someone points out that he has shown great original thinking. But still, when first assignments are handed out, he’s left on the ground, primarily because there are still concerns about his conduct with the Kobayashi Maru.

His friend Dr. Leonard McCoy (AKA “Bones”) is able to sneak Jim up to the Enterprise, under Captain Pike and his first officer, Spock. The Enterprise is the most advanced ship in the fleet and this will be it’s first real mission (while this would seem on the surface to eliminate the Talos incident, you could maybe retcon it into having taken place during a shakedown cruise or testing run gone awry). They get a message in from Vulcan about “lightning storms”, causing Kirk to panic about a Romulan attack. He’s right, and when they arrive above Romulus the Enterprise finds a good chunk of the fleet blown to bits and the Romulan ship drilling into the planet itself (in the future of this new timeline, Picard refers to Wolf 359 as the SECOND worst loss of Starfleet life in history. Also, with much of the fleet blasted up in this new timeline, future sequels will have a explanation as to why the Enterprise is always the only ship in the sector/quadrant/system/whatever). Pike gets a message from Nero asking for a meeting, and since there are transporter problems he goes there using a shuttle, out of which he has Kirk, Sulu and Olsen jump out of to try and disable the drilling.

Kirk and Sulu are able to badly damage the drill (Olsen begins the fine Redshirt tradition), but they are too late and the anomaly black-hole is sent into the planet. Spock beams down to help evacuate the planet, as Kirk and Sulu are then beamed back up (thanks to Chekov’s quick-fix of the Transporter), while Spock continues to save his family down on Vulcan. Jim essentially takes over the ship and attempts to use several methods to try and destroy the black hole, but ultimately fails until Old Spock’s Timeship arrives and closes it just in time. Spock beams back up while most of Vulcan continues to evacuate because of aftershocks from the attack. The Romulans leave (possibly though a time bubble) to regroup. It appears to only be a hollow victory, as the Romulans could still easily try again. Worried about the Romulans coming back, the Enterprise runs like hell. Meanwhile, all the turmoil boils over inside of Spock (Vulcan? Human? Neither? Both?) and he breaks down and throws Jimbo onto a ice planet. This may be because Jim is under the impression he saved Vulcan when in reality it was mainly Deus Ex Spock’s Time Machina.

Meanwhile, on the Romulan ship of DOOOOOOOOM, Nero decides not to kill Pike, because why do that when he can torment Pike with information FROM THE FUTURE! Yes, you will be assassinated in Dallas… err.. wait… I mean, you will be confined into a black box for your entire life and will only be able to answer “yes” and “no” to every question. MWAHAHAHAHAHA! Pike uses some badass words pointing out all the flaws in Nero’s plan, because that’s what he does.

On the Ice Planet, Jim finds himself wandering aimlessly, no doubt cursing about the stupid Vulcan and the stupid emotions he shouldn’t even have. Eventually, he will begin singing “Mr. Tambourine Man”, causing a monster shockingly like the one in Cloverfield to become enraged. Thankfully, old Spock shows up to save his ass. Because that’s how old Spock rolls. A little bit of exhibition follows in which Old Spock proves that he is, indeed, Spock (this may or may not involve a rousing single of “The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins”). Old Spock drops some zen and backstory, and then they go and see the last dude to get stranded on this Ice Planet: Montgomery Scott.

Scotty was transferred (by which we mean “dropped”) on the Ice Planet because he dematerialized Porthos VI. Not the Planet, the Beagle belonging to Admiral Archer. Old Spock totally breaks the Temporal Directive, makes everyone smile, tells Kirk to piss Young Spock off and get command of the Enterprise and then sends them on their way with a “Live Long and Prosper”. The crowd cheers.

Kirk then goes to the bridge, and proceeds to really piss off Young Spock. Then, using the Starfleet regulation, he is able to become Captain. Kirk then announces that Scotty is now Chief Engineer, and tells everyone that from now on, he is the biggest badass in the Galaxy. He then hears that the Romulans are doing repairs in a white nebula, probably getting ready to blow up Vulcan again.But now that James T. Kirk is in command, no force in the universe can stop the USS Enterprise. Nothing! NOTHING!

We get a gratuitous “prepare for battle” sequence like that in “The Wrath of Khan” and “Nemesis” (come to think of it, that might have been the only good thing in Nemesis’ final battle). The sequence is awesome, and when the DVD comes out Youtube is flooded with remixes of the scene put to such songs as “Eye of the Tiger”, “Flying High Now”, “You’re the Best (Around)”, “Lose Yourself”, “The Touch” and, of course, “The Rocky IV Training Montage in Siberia”.

So, the Enterprise goes one-on-one, mano-a-mano with the Romulan Ship. Assisting in the battle, again, is Old Spock’s ship. Kirk beams over to the Romulan ship, frees Captain Pike (who then beams over back to the Enterprise, which he still is technically in command of), and then fights Nero hand to hand. Nero makes the foolish mistake of cutting Kirk’s shirt, making him very angry and unbeatable in hand-to-hand combat. Kirk then proceeds to make Nero launch the black hole things INTO THE SHIP ITSELF. He then beams out as the Romulan Ship is literally absorbed into itself. Nero, saddened, begins to fiddle, then notices that Old Spock’s ship is still out there. Surmising who it really is, he begins to gun for that. Kirk (Pike is in Sick Bay) orders the Enterprise to risk getting caught in the Romulan Ship’s event horizon to protect the ship. Needless to say, they save it (because Spock dying again doing anything less than a heroic sacrifice that saves the entire universe would be cop-out). The Enterprise and the Time-Ship race away just in time (as always). Old Spock then sends a message to the Enterprise, although only Kirk and Scotty know who it is since Spock’s voice is so different in his old age. The message: “Jim, it has been an honor serving with you one last time. Live Long and Prosper. Thank You.”, he’ll then time-ship out of there.

In the aftermath (with the Enterprise being repaired in space dock), Pike tells Kirk he has exceeded even his Father, and that he is proud that the Enterprise will next be commanded by such a great leader. Pike himself says he intends to move on, he was in line for a promotion anyway. Kirk puts on the Golden Tunic of Awesome to the cheers of the crowd and walks onto what is now HIS bridge. Spock, fully realizing that he had let his emotions get the best of him, thanks Kirk for what he has done, but asks him how he knew about the regulation to get him removed from command. Kirk says something along the lines that it was something he learned from a “new friend”. He then tells everyone to buckle up, the Enterprise is a ship for exploration, and there is a ton out there to explore.

He then says “Set course for… (pick one: Cestus III /Organia/Eminiar VII/Sherman’s Planet/Ceti Alpha V/Altair IV/L-374/Halkan/”Second Star to the Right”)”.

We then get Pine doing the famous “Space, the Final Frontier” narration. Only one difference: When he’s done, Spock tells him that those are fine, evocative words. Kirk then says the final lines of the first TOS Kirk episode (”Where No Man Has Gone Before”): ” I believe there’s some hope for you after all, Mr. Spock. ”

Warp!

Fade to credits and the musical stylings of Michael Giacchino.

455. Mad Scientist - December 12, 2008

To invoke the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Schrodinger’s equation, a quantum system’s wavefunction will only collapse into a given Eigenstate if an observer makes an observation and thus forces it to. Thus the original, prime timeline will become the real one again if after every viewing of the new movie someone watches an original episode of TOS.

I like that better than the multiverse theory, which is increasingly out of vogue due to its inherent untestability and the perennial problem with M-theory of dealing with 26 dimensions instead of 10, which is just hard to swallow.

I have spent 10 years of my life on this analysis.

456. Captain of the USS Anduril - December 12, 2008

Hmmm…I might be the only fan who figured this out instantly. The only thing that he confirmed for me is that the “prime” timeline does indeed continue. And the beauty of that is that you can have two “separate” franchises. One following the TNG crew(so a TNG movie is NOT out of the question) and one following the new Kirk and co. Yay for quantum mechanics. Boo for time travel headaches. =P

457. Spock's Brain - December 12, 2008

20. McCoy’s Gall Bladder said “Quantum Physics doesnt jibe with Einstein Physics anyway. If everything that could happen does, and already did, then what’s the point of doing anything at all?”

Because you and I can’t travel to alternate realities. We’re stuck with this one, so we must do the best we can while we’re here.

458. Admiral_BlackCat - December 12, 2008

My take on why Spock goes back (even though the Prime Timeline remains completely intact):
1. He doesn’t KNOW that it’s an alternate timeline.
and/or
2. He could have knowledge that Nero plans to destroy Vulcan (better yet, Spock is somehow the catalist to this event) and Spock feels obligated to follow Nero back in time to try to save as many lives as possible and he knows Kirk is the only individual who can effectively lead the Enterprise to save the planet/save as many lives as possible.
Again, over-active imagination. ;)

459. Brian - December 12, 2008

If you want to talk about time travel, this is a very reasonable way to approach it. No further justification is needed. Roberto Orci does try to dress the idea up by bringing quantum mechanics into it, and the results, unfortunately, are pure hippie physics. He relies heavily on dropping the names of ideas he doesn’t understand, and hopes that if he does it often and emphatically enough, and waves his hands a lot, he’ll intimidate his audience. Heavy, man.

Yes, quantum mechanics is a very successful theory. (It goes back to the 1920s, by the way, so it’s hardly the “latest” word on the subject.) Yes, Hugh Everett did have a Many Worlds *interpretation* of quantum mechanics, formulated in the 1950s, which has had varying degrees of popularity since, but isn’t the mainstream view that Orci implies. But most physicists are uncomfortable with it, if they’ve thought about it at all, because it posits that whole universes come into existence when a wave function “collapses,” which seems pretty extravagant, particularly since we can’t even verify whether these universes exist. Most physicists, I think, doubt the possibility of time travel in any interesting sense, precisely because you get into problems with causality, apart from the fact that it’s very hard to demonstrate that it’s physically possible. (Though there’s more to that story than there’s room for here.)

So putting together Many Worlds plus time travel is fringe stuff. Doesn’t mean that it isn’t interesting to speculate about, or that you couldn’t find some physicist somewhere who’s thought about it — Kip Thorne, for example, is very well-respected for his work on general relativity, and he’s wondered about such things. But it’s not something that most physicists take seriously, let alone the “latest” and “best” theory of anything. Physicists prefer ideas you could at least hope to test, or did before string theory came along.

Whatever the physical plausibility of time travel, fiction writers have thought about it a lot, and splitting time lines is probably the most common approach. (For a more sophisticated alternative, using something closer to pure quantum mechanics, see the physicist Gregory Benford’s Time-Scape.) Talking about it as if it were a new idea, and needs to be justified, makes one sound a little naive about science fiction. While I like Roberto Orci’s enthusiasm, I wish, for his sake, that he’d stick to more solid ground.

460. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

#442 – ““If the result of this movie is that Trek’s continuity is lost, I’m not really sure what the difference is.”

The difference is that continuity will never be lost because its already there.”

As it would be without this movie, too. But if, moving forward, the original timeline is no longer supported except by fans, what would be the difference between this movie and the status quo without it. Oh, right. The licensees were still busily supporting the original timeline. Will they still do so?

(Note: that does assume that what results from ST09 is sufficiently different as to be non-congruent to the rest of Trek, and I’ll freely admit that we don’t yet know that.)

“You’ve already watched it. Its already happened. Did the existance of Enterprise kill TOS continuity? No, we just shrugged it off as unexplained.”

I didn’t. I saw no contradiction between the two.

“This movie is a saving grace to a dying franchise and I don’t understand why people can’t see that.”

First one has to accept the premise that the franchise was dying. I don’t.

Second, one has to accept the premise that a continuity-buster/alternate universe/reboot is a saving grace to anything. I don’t.

“Why anyone would rather have something that they are passionate about cease to exist rather than see it grow is beyond me.”

Growth is what I want, not rewriting what has already been established. The latter isn’t growth in my book. It’s reinventing a wheel that didn’t need to be reinvented.

461. McCoy - December 12, 2008

442:

“The difference is that continuity will never be lost because its already there. You’ve already watched it. Its already happened. ”

Lame excuse IMO. Trying too hard to justify changes and uplift their version of events, for no valuable reason.

“Did the existance of Enterprise kill TOS continuity? No, we just shrugged it off as unexplained.”

I shrugged off the whole series.

“This movie is a saving grace to a dying franchise and I don’t understand why people can’t see that. Why anyone would rather have something that they are passionate about cease to exist rather than see it grow is beyond me.”

That is such a myth. Star Trek will never die. But if you want to grow it, continue a timeline forward from TNG. Going back to rework TOS is not growth.

“If the movie Enterprise suddenly had four nacelles, would that change TOS’ great episodes? NO.”

Correct! However, I would be even less-likey to ever see this film and would certainly do to it what I’ve done regarding Enterprise—write it off.

462. I'm a Doctor not a ___________! - December 12, 2008

454
BRILLIANT..AND FUNNY! ..what’s scary is….I can see this…especially the youtube montages ..<>

463. Spock's Brain - December 12, 2008

To: 224. Randall…

Very well said.

464. Harry Ballz - December 12, 2008

Reality……………what a concept!!

465. freezejeans - December 12, 2008

459
“Hippie physics” …that would be an awesome band name :D

466. Andros - December 12, 2008

“First one has to accept the premise that the franchise was dying. I don’t.

Second, one has to accept the premise that a continuity-buster/alternate universe/reboot is a saving grace to anything. I don’t.”

River. Egypt. You know…

467. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2008

#424: “This movie (I hope) will be regarded by the majority much like those Doctor Who movies with Peter Cushing”

By a very, very small and obsessive minority at most.

468. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

#461 – “That is such a myth. Star Trek will never die. But if you want to grow it, continue a timeline forward from TNG. Going back to rework TOS is not growth.”

Correct. Or even just introduce new TOS-era situations, e.g. ST: Vanguard, which is one of the best examples of growth in Trek in the past 10 years.

#466 – Prove me wrong. I have yet to see any serious evidence that either of the aforementioned premises was true.

469. Spock's Brain - December 12, 2008

258. Kevin said “1. This is far from conforming to science. The real theory deals with particles. It does not exist on a macroscopic level.”

Wrong. You are the Weakest Link. You must leave now. Bye, bye!

470. Andros - December 12, 2008

#461 – “That is such a myth. Star Trek will never die. But if you want to grow it, continue a timeline forward from TNG. Going back to rework TOS is not growth.”

“Correct. Or even just introduce new TOS-era situations, e.g. ST: Vanguard, which is one of the best examples of growth in Trek in the past 10 years.”

Any franchise can die, Star Trek is not immune. And heralding new TOS era situations is hypocrytical based on the comment you’re agreeing with. What’s the point of new TOS era adventures? Wouldn’t that dilute the greatness of TOS Enterprise crew?

#466 – “Prove me wrong. I have yet to see any serious evidence that either of the aforementioned premises was true.”

Cancelled series, last movie bombed. Yeah, I don’t know why I would think that. If it weren’t for this very movie all we would have now is books. Not to mention we wouldn’t even have that many books if the interest in Star Trek hadn’t been reignited as far as general audiences are concerned.

In any case, I won’t change your mind and you won’t change mine so whatever.

471. Brad - December 12, 2008

This is just bull crap. They just needed an excuse to change star trek to fit there own image, and say the hell with canon, and get all the cash they can, out of the kiddies, and teens. Can we say star trek 90210. I for one am not going to see this lame movie. How much you want to bet that this movie bombs like cloverfield.

472. Randall - December 12, 2008

#461:

“…But if you want to grow it, continue a timeline forward from TNG. Going back to rework TOS is not growth.”

I beg to differ. The basis of this is a misunderstanding of what MADE Star Trek mythic and powerful in the first place. Going back to the roots, to the basis of it, and those characters that were a part of it, is the only way to breathe new life into this thing.

Your premise is off the mark—jumps were taken off of TNG again and again—not just directly, but in terms of style–DS9, Voyager, then the TNG films, and Enterprise, which followed in the formula of TNG. And what happened? ST got progressively weaker and staler.

TNG compromised the force of what made Star Trek anything strong and iconic and mythic in the first place. That doesn’t mean TNG was all bad–it certainly wasn’t. But it can’t sustain the identity of a cultural icon, following the TNG route. It doesn’t work. You need to bring back the mystery and excitement, and bring us back to larger than life characters–which TNG did not have.

473. Odkin - December 12, 2008

This is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying in multiple threads. Nero’s actions don’t so much alter the timeline as they split off another entire universe, a la Mirror Mirror. That means anything the new creative team does in the future is NOT bound by the constraints of what we have seen already in TOS/TNG. The new Orci-verse can move forward doing whatever it wants.

It’s sort of like those “choose your own adventure” books. The fact that the new guys are going down one path does not mean that the other path (TOS/TNG) doesn’t happen exactly as we’ve seen it. It just means you’ve shifted your viewing from Universe-Prime to the Orci-verse.

Unfortunately, this means that Kirk still dies in Universe-Prime. But the new Pine-Kirk in the Orci-verse doesn’t have to meet the same fate in 40 years. I suppose that opens the door for Shatner to reappear in an Orci-verse flash-forward. :-)

474. Dom - December 12, 2008

Ha Ha!!! Not to sound vain or anything, but Bob Orci just confirmed what I’ve been saying about this film’s approach to time travel since the movie was announced!

As Data’s better looking cousin Kryten would say; ‘Ah. Smug mode. Well, I can’t hang around here saving your necks all day. I think I’ll go make a start on that ironing!’

;)

475. Jeffries Tuber - December 12, 2008

448. Nick Cook – December 12, 2008
#435
“If the result of this movie is that Trek’s continuity is lost, I’m not really sure what the difference is.”
IMO there is none. ‘Our’ Trek is presumably relegated to the bargain bin of history. :(

– Taking this comment seriously for the sake of discussion, if KO hadn’t taken the temporal tack with Star Trek, eventually canon would simply be full or complete. It’s a finite universe and there are only so many stardates and character-based tales to tell. I’m sure that, even as it is now, it’s impossible to line up every TOS episode, comic, book and TNG-based historical reference and make it fit.

The thing that impresses me most, and that I’d suspected myself on these boards, is that Bob is addressing the nature vs. nurture issue and looking in to Kirk’s soul. That’s the most interesting thing about the new timeline: the opportunity to learn more about our characters by contrasting them with new characters, situations and challenges.

And it’s not just Kirk. For example, as Kirk is nurtured differently and grows into a different version of himself, he draws out different qualities in those around him. The only apparent example of this so far is Uhura. As far as we know, raised by both parents and following dad in to Starfleet, Kirk Prime needed alien influence to kiss Uhura. But this Kirk hits on her at a bar, gets caught under her bed and breaks the sexual tension between them before they even know each other. Add months and years to that relationship… and where Uhura Prime may have simply respected her Captain and his outsized personality, this Uhura knows her Captain, can anticipate his leadership and ultimately form a better team.

Anyway, my main point is, for all of the purists and as they’re called in Constitutional Law, “Strict Constructionists” like Nick Cook above, who think their Trek is being trashed, what the hell would you do with yourselves and your canon when the story is complete?

Would you actually propose ending TOS-based storytelling? Hell no! No more than you would sell your copy of Monopoly after finishing the first full game you play. Like Monopoly, you’d go back to the beginning and roll the dice again, to see how the players fare when fortune falls a different way.

476. Doug in Kabul, Afghanistan - December 12, 2008

This conversation is making my head hurt… uh. folks it is just a movie… say it with me, it is just a movie, it is just a….

477. TFLive - December 12, 2008

Really what Orci is doing is using existing science theory (Quantum Mechanics) to explain a Star Trek idea most of us are already familiar with – the Mirror Universe.

In essence the destruction of the Kelvin created a divergent parallel universe (2.0) that shows a different life for Kirk. The events of the movie, Nero, Old Spock all take place in this 2.0 universe.

By movies end I am betting there will now be three main parallel universe – Prime, 2.0 and MU. That is really what Orci is saying without directly saying it.

478. Dom - December 12, 2008

I love quantum theory. I’m not a scientist or a mathematician, but I’ve been fascinated by the concepts for years.

And to the people who say ‘why bother getting out of bed’ my answer is that somewhere a version of you does, but you still won’t. Quantum theory basically says: go out and get on with your life or someone else will!

It also brings me comfort to think that somewhere, my loved ones whom I’ve lost, are still alive.

And maybe, if we get very deep and into spiritual territory, we’re immortal because perhaps all the different incarnations of us in all the universes share the same soul!

479. Weerd1 - December 12, 2008

Randall in 399-
I find your assessment of TNG to be interesting, specifically, “TNG had a compromised, touchy-feely vision of Star Trek’s original vision–” The first season if TNG is about the most pure Roddenberry form of Trek we have, with the possible exception of “The Cage.” The network in ’65 forced many changes on Roddenberry, and a lot of the character development in production we know was actually due to Gene L. Coon. TMP was really more Robert Wise’s vision than GR’s as I understand, and GR had issues with all the films leading up to TNG. He was very active in its production and wrote the show bible setting it up as a pretty preachy show using more intellectual solutions to problems than photorps. Indeed, when poor health caused GR to back off, TNG became more action oriented and had a lot MORE in common with what we knew of Classic Trek. May the Great Bird bless GR, but I’m not sure a lot of fans really understand what they are asking for when they want HIS Trek.

The way this movie is going is not how I wanted it to be. If however it delivers on a storytelling level, if I can buy these new actors are the characters, if on a visceral level my little SF warped brain reads this as “Star Trek” then huzzah. I wanted the last episode of DS9 to be different too, but it still satisifed me intensely.

Mr. Orci- Quantum Mechanics involves a lot of “observer effect.” If my DVDs do disappear because you presented the possibility I am going to be cross… ;)

480. karanadon - December 12, 2008

So, wait…(sorry if this has been brought up before…) boborci, does this mean that “Enterprise” is still canon in BOTH Prime and New universes?! And is this made clear in the movie? Just curious…!

Also, thanks for taking the time to talk to us like this – we squabble like small children at times, but we appreciate it really =D

481. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

#470 – Any franchise can die, Star Trek is not immune.”

Of course. that doesn’t change the fact that there isn’t any compelling evidence that it’s happened, or is happening, to Trek.

“And heralding new TOS era situations is hypocrytical based on the comment you’re agreeing with. What’s the point of new TOS era adventures? Wouldn’t that dilute the greatness of TOS Enterprise crew?”

I think you lost me on the logic of that one. Who says that the Enterprise crew is the only crew of note in that era? I never did. I don’t see anything hypocritical about expanding Trek’s world in the TOS era, any more than doing so in the TNG era was a problem.

“#466 – “Prove me wrong. I have yet to see any serious evidence that either of the aforementioned premises was true.”

Cancelled series, last movie bombed. Yeah, I don’t know why I would think that.”

Star Trek has never been limited to TV series or films, so those things don’t seem to have been any sort of death-knell. Ironically, within a year of the cancellation of “Enterprise”, Star Trek was already starting to see a resurgence, led by interest in TOS, and that was still well in advance of the announcement of the Abrams film. Indeed, we got very close to green-light of a different movie project entirely, before regime-change at Paramount killed it.

“If it weren’t for this very movie all we would have now is books.”

Implying a premise that the books are of lesser value, yet another premise that I do not accept.

“Not to mention we wouldn’t even have that many books if the interest in Star Trek hadn’t been reignited as far as general audiences are concerned.”

The books seem to have been doing pretty well, independent of the TV series. And since that reignition of interest in Trek was getting underway prior to the Abrams film.

“In any case, I won’t change your mind and you won’t change mine so whatever.”

Likely so. We’re working from a really different set of axioms, so even if our respective logical arguments are flawless, we’re gonna get to different conclusions. :)

482. jim - December 12, 2008

1) Thanks to Messrs. Pascal and Orci for their outreach to the restless natives. They may not suffer fools gladly, but they never let us see that.

2) Several months ago, I posted a speculation about a “multiverse” type of solution to the “non-canonical” aspects of the new movie. I will reiterate what I said then – Philip Pullman did the ultimate multiverse (say that three times fast) story with the “His Dark Materials” trilogy. In those books, the multiverse is not a “deus ex machina” but is instead essential to the dramatic tension at the heart of the plot. There are no “prime” and “non-prime” or “sub-prime” characters. Here, as I understand Mr. Orci’s explanation, the multiverse seems to serve as the same kind of plot device that the transporter did in the worst TOS episodes – “Scotty – save my ass!’

3) That being said, as so many have pointed out, the immediate future of ST in THIS universe IS (nearly) so there is no use getting worked up over it anymore.

4) What is not clear (to me, at least) is if enough of the “good stuff” from TOS has been salvaged. It is my sincere hope that it has, and that it will be carried forward, and that future movies focus on the signature character and plot elements that made TOS better than anything that was out there at the time. You CAN have sh*tty plywood sets AND a hit series at the same time. I don’t believe success springs from biff, bang boom, special affects or formula – success proceeds from originality, from an emotion that registers as real when seen by your heart, from characters you care about, stories that draw you in and ideas that inspire you.

483. GregW - December 12, 2008

I find this to be cheap excuse to throw away 40 (almost 50) years of back ground and replace it a more “Star Wars-y” flash over substance style. Berman tried this with Enterprise and now Orci and friends are trying the same stunt. Roddenberry and his team created a rich backstory for his characters and now the Bad Robot folks feel it’s ok to change it because J.J. just “didn’t get Trek”.

I’m sure that this will be a block buster and that there will be more movies with under the Trek title but I’m afraid they’ll just be Paramount’s cash cow and not Roddenberry’s Star Trek.

484. Peter N - December 12, 2008

I don’t think that this “alternate timeline” version of TOS characters – if not necesarily actual events – can be considered a reboot along the lines of the current Batman franchise or RDM’s Battlestar Galactica. In both of those cases the previous series (films/TV episodes) did not have any direct effect upon the new incarnation of the story, although many of the same characters appeared in both versions in order to provide a point of entry/familiarity at the beginning of the new version. The fundamental mythologies are different while being based more or less on the same original concept. With the new Star Trek, the established mythology is still in place, but as a result of time travel from a recognizably “canonic” point in the future the past winds up heading in a different direction. A direction that still results in some inevitable encounters taking place, probably engineered by Spock Prime.

This Star Trek movie is also not really a TOS prequel, because a true prequel would have simply taken all of the events that were hinted at or suggested in episodes and movies and fleshed them out in order to tell a fundamentally uninteresting story. While it might be fun to imagine Kirk in the Academy, Kirk on the Farragut, Kirk at Tarsus etc. such a movie would not have really told a Star Trek story. A Trek fan might have enjoyed such a movie (although I am sure nitpickers would have had a field day with such a concept!) but I doubt it would have created a reinvigoration of the franchise – the catchphrase that the writers, director and actors seem to champion. In order for something fresh to happen to Star Trek that is not just another movie in the same vein as all of the previous movies and TV series (all of which I have enjoyed, some more than others) this kind of story is probably necessary.

So we can either look forward to seeing this movie and appreciate how our beloved characters react in these new and unfamiliar circumstances, or ignore the movie and just continue to watch the old episodes and movies – none of which will apparently be invalidated by the quantum mechanical interpretation of spacetime that allows “new” and “old” Star Trek (fans) to exist side by side. It may seem like this is a fundamental reimagination of the Star Trek universe, but I do believe that the old Star Trek universe is essential for this new vision to come into being and for it to be appreciated. It would be nice to know the complete story of this movie in order to judge how closely the canon of the new timeline will match the canon of the “known” timeline (and why those differences exist), but that’s why I will be lined up on opening night. I have a feeling that this is going to be a great movie; one that will excite a new audience while “stimulating” the established fanbase.

485. Closettrekker - December 12, 2008

#484—-Very well said, Peter. I think you and I are on the same page.

486. I'm a Doctor not a _________! - December 12, 2008

476= heretic

; )

487. BK613 - December 12, 2008

339 RD
“Sadly, the Star Trek films that did not have a supervillain, but rather some kind of weird alien entity, or a mere mortal trying to grab for power all failed miserably.”

Sorry but this simply isn’t true.
Top three US grossing ST films:

TVH, FC, TMP (that’s two weird alien entities and one hybrid alien entity/ super villain )

Top three worldwide gross:
FC, TMP, TVH (that’s two weird alien entities and one hybrid alien entity/ super villain )

That is unadjusted for inflation. Adjust for inflation and TMP is by far the most successful of the Trek films.
———————————————
On topic:

The idea that this movie is based on the “most successful theory of science” is misleading. QM is well tested and proven. However the multiworld interpretation of QM (that Bob Orci alludes to) is one of many interpretations of QM and is not so “successful.” It is not even the most widely accepted interpretation and many critics reject it because they feel that it is unfalsifiable (cannot be tested.) Also not all interpretations require parallel universes.

Every reveal about this movie dampens my enthusiasm. Initially, when the teaser came out last January, I thought, Wow! Finally, we are going to get a movie of unparalleled believability and beauty (like TMP was in 79) but with a director that can tell an exciting story (and about Kirk and Spock, to boot!)

Then came the reveals. The altered timeline. The iBridge. The Uglyprise. The trailer where it is clearly not the backstories of the characters I grew with. The synapses and reviews of The 20 Minutes. And now it’s not even an altered timeline but a different universe where the Kirk and Spock I knew may never exist?

Ugh! No thanks

488. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

#475 – “- Taking this comment seriously for the sake of discussion, if KO hadn’t taken the temporal tack with Star Trek, eventually canon would simply be full or complete. It’s a finite universe and there are only so many stardates and character-based tales to tell. I’m sure that, even as it is now, it’s impossible to line up every TOS episode, comic, book and TNG-based historical reference and make it fit.”

We may be getting close to flling the original 5-year mission, yup. But the time between the various TOS-based features? Not yet even close. :)

And when one adds in hundreds of ships, planets, etc., over more than 2 centuries (fictionally), we have a long, long way to go before it’s “full”.

“The thing that impresses me most, and that I’d suspected myself on these boards, is that Bob is addressing the nature vs. nurture issue and looking in to Kirk’s soul. That’s the most interesting thing about the new timeline: the opportunity to learn more about our characters by contrasting them with new characters, situations and challenges.
{snip}”

Then why not introduce real, honest-to-the-gods new characters and explore how different life paths might go? Even have those new characters interact with the folks from TOS and see what the comparisons and contrasts bring to light?

“Anyway, my main point is, for all of the purists and as they’re called in Constitutional Law, “Strict Constructionists” like Nick Cook above, who think their Trek is being trashed, what the hell would you do with yourselves and your canon when the story is complete?”

Since my idea of the “canon” is the Trekverse as a whole, and not having originally been named Akharin ;) , I don’t anticipate living long enough to ever see the story truly complete. I’ve written close to a million words of Trekverse-based storytelling, myself, and I feel like I’ve only scratched the surface of the characters and situations about which I’m writing.

“Would you actually propose ending TOS-based storytelling?”

I’m not concerned about it, really. I just don’t see it as an issue. Check back with me in another generation or two, if we’re all still here to discuss it. :)

“No more than you would sell your copy of Monopoly after finishing the first full game you play. Like Monopoly, you’d go back to the beginning and roll the dice again, to see how the players fare when fortune falls a different way.”

Or bring different players to the board and let them have at it. :)

489. Kevinjc1989 - December 12, 2008

No one is going to read this comment, but oh well I want to put this out there. If you scrolled own all the way to here, awesome.

They’re using quantum theory as a crutch to keep loyal trek fans into this movie. Unless it is somehow mentioned in the movie, it’s bullshit.

490. LostonNCC1701 - December 12, 2008

BTW: Star Trek will never die as a Franchise. It may be stagnant, but it won’t die. Even if the movie were to bomb, eventually (maybe not this decade, maybe not next decade, but EVENTUALLY) they’d try again. It’s just the nature of Hollywood: If it has made money before, it can make it again, so long as it is not racist (why do you think we haven’t seen any Charlie Chan or Mr. Moto movies in a while?)

491. Michael Isbell - "Mr. Sheldrake" - December 12, 2008

In other words, this isn’t real Star Trek. What a load of horsesh*t. This isn’t Star Trek, it’s a grab at Star Trek dollars using a pretty crew and a dumbed-down story-line. It is what it appears to be, and what fans were afraid it would be. And don’t let anybody tell ya any different. Trust what your eyes see, not the “sell” from the PR department.

Unless you really need to groove on the new FX and an effeminate-looking Kirk with pouty lips, why bother? I don’t need to see Girlkirk in the captain’ seat. It would just make me squirmy, and clearly the Heroes guy has missed Spock by a galactic quadrant, which is probably why Nimoy jumped frantically to his side to try to do a last-minute “save” before he could screw it up completely. Jes*s Chr*st, this looks just awful.

Michael Isbell
“Mr Sheldrake”

Former NYC Critic for Ain’t It Cool News

492. Doug in Kabul, Afghanistan - December 12, 2008

One notion for food for thought.

We have seen adventures of the crew(s) of the Enterprise in its many versions (not to mention DS9 and Voyager) that have involved time travel.

If we multiply that times hundreds of Federation starships, not to mention other planets’ ships, there is no such thing as a pure timeline. It is impossible.

Maybe this is an inherent danger of breaking the light barrier…

The universe is soooooooo f**ked!!! (grin)

493. I'm a Doctor not a _________! - December 12, 2008

491
….clearly….

mmmmmm…….ok.

494. Dom - December 12, 2008

The interesting thing with the concepts we’re discussing is that in The City on the Edge of Forever, it’s possible that there’s still a Federation and an Enterprise. Given the Guardian is a gateway to many universes, it could simply be that McCoy running into the gateway knocks Kirk and co into a separate universe. In Amok Time, the Enterprise disappears with all hands in the original timeline. In the new timeline, the Enterprise appears.

If you think about it, the Scotty who appears in Relics is the one from the supposed TOS timeline, but the Scotty and Kirk who appear in the time-travel-related events of Generations are neither the characters from TUC or Relics, hence Scotty in Relics didn’t know about Kikr’s ‘death’!

On the other hand, maybe the TNG universe seen in Generations only exists after Kirk is thrown into the Nexus!

Heh heh! We’re going to have so much fun now the quantum concept is 100 per cent official canon!! Canon is dead, long live the venn diagram-ey ‘multicanon’ thingy!

495. Kor - December 12, 2008

I think the reason they took this route with Nero altering the timeline is so they would not piss off the fanbase and not erase 40 years of continuity. With BSG it was different. BSG did not have a long shelf life like ST. Nothing from BSG is memorable. Star Trek built a solid continuity. You can’s just piss it away. If TOS was all we had to work with then cool reboot but you have a lot of TNG disciples out there and they last thing you want to tell them is that Picard no longer exists. I think it’s smart what they did. If you think about it, it makes sense. I always knew that eventually they would bring back the old characters with new bodies. There is a lot holes in that old continuity. You can play with it for years.

496. Brodie - December 12, 2008

…because after all Data is a real scientist…

497. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2008

#491:”I don’t need to see Girlkirk in the captain’ seat. ”

I dunno, Pine doesn’t look nearly as feminine as Shatner did in his youth.

“…clearly the Heroes guy has missed Spock by a galactic quadrant, which is probably why Nimoy jumped frantically to his side to try to do a last-minute “save” before he could screw it up completely.”

Okay, so we’ve established that you don’t actually know anything about the history of the project.

“Former NYC Critic for Ain’t It Cool News”

Quite an impressive accomplishment

#448: “IMO there is none. ‘Our’ Trek is presumably relegated to the bargain bin of history. :(”

Yeah, but Nick – that happened in 2005. There was never any chance that the studio was going to greenlight a big TV or film project that represented a direct continuation of a franchise that had simply faded away.

498. Peter Lemonjello - December 12, 2008

So by changing the timeline, this new movie is potentially undoing all three seasons of TOS as we know them, and all the movies too.

Fans ain’t going to be happyyyy.

499. Dom - December 12, 2008

491. Michael Isbell – “Mr. Sheldrake” : ‘In other words, this isn’t real Star Trek. What a load of horsesh*t. This isn’t Star Trek, it’s a grab at Star Trek dollars using a pretty crew and a dumbed-down story-line.’

You’re only saying that because you know JJ Abrams won’t beat the crap out of you in a boxing ring the way Uwe Boll took out MiraJeff (probably the worst critic ever to (dis)grace AICN!)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G8MO4QfTHwo

Laugh at the nerdy critics!!! Ha ha!

500. Dom - December 12, 2008

498. Peter Lemonjello: ‘So by changing the timeline, this new movie is potentially undoing all three seasons of TOS as we know them, and all the movies too.’

Dude, read what he’s saying! All those timelines still happened! But the new series of films are wide open for anything to happen!

501. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@498…
nothing is undone, these stories coexist forever…

502. BK613 - December 12, 2008

Wiki’s article on the many interpretations of QM, in case folks are interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_Quantum_Mechanics

503. Dom - December 12, 2008

I see a very interesting book collection coming up: what happened to the original universe from Naked Time where the Enterprise vanished into the new timeline? What about the universes from Cause and Effect?

Even more interestingly, when one universe’s Enterprise shifts into a different universe, does a different Enterprise arrive in the original timeline.

They could call the book Widowed Histories!

504. blkmagik - December 12, 2008

Just my 2 cents about the whole Quantum Physics.

Well if you’ll recall how Terminator 3 was. Judgment day was supposedly averted in T2, but come around in T3 John was like confused as to how it was possible for Judgment Day to still happen.

I think the overall argument was yes history was altered but not so much as to change history completely. John destroyed anything that would lead to the development of Skynet but all he did was merely postpone it as it was something that was going to eventually happen.

So in regards to Star Trek, yes minor details were changed within the time line but the major things in the timeline were not, such as Kirk being the Captain of Enterprise along with the rest of the crew.

So think of this analogy, imagine a stream deviating from its orginal path. Regardless if its changed course chances are its still running in the same direction it originally was.

505. Neal - December 12, 2008

I am scanning for a post by an actual physicist. Is there a physicist in the house??? A real physicist’s comments would be … fascinating. In the meantime, it’s really a mind-bender to contemplate the *number* of parallel universes that just exist. If a quantum event, like which neutron appears in which position, is probabilistic, might a new parallel universe sprout off with each subatomic event? The word “infinite” doesn’t seem to capture the awesome hugeness of what is being contemplated. My brain hurts!

506. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@505…
don’t worry Neal… your brain will just collapse the quantum events that are relevant for your bubbleverse ;))

507. Aragorn189 - December 12, 2008

Think of this film as a slight detour of history and Nero as a roadblock and Old Spock as the traffic cop. Same thing happened in First Contact. History took a slight detour with the Borg as a roadblock and Picard and Crew as the traffic cop.

Also, nothing is saying that what has been established in canon as certain backstories are not going to occur. They are just going to occur in a slightly different manner (not to mention half of the dates of backstory are conjecture anyway).

508. I'm a Doctor not a _________! - December 12, 2008

503 _DOM
register that intellectual property, copyright and trademark now!!!

509. Will - December 12, 2008

258: you have hit upon something…

what if the end of this movie somehow takes us right to the events of the LAST episode of TOS? Wouldn’t that be awesome? Follow me here…

this way, we have a telling of events prior to TOS, we have all of TOS to enjoy, and now the next movies can be made from the end of TOS up until TMP!

510. Dr. Image - December 12, 2008

When Bob mentioned “quantum mechanics” a few weeks back, I kinda figured all would be well.
I was right.
NOW will everyone finally shut up and be happy??
I will!
(But I’ll still bitch about the barcode scanners;)

PS THANKS Bob and Anthony- this was needed.

511. I'm a Doctor not a _________! - December 12, 2008

509-Will
I like…I don’t think there is any way that will happen….but I like

512. Harry Ballz - December 12, 2008

Let me see if I’ve got this right……………

All these many years the fans of Star Trek and Star Wars have been sniping at each other for dominant position…..

Paramount has finally blinked by relaunching Star Trek as an alternate universe…..about as close as you’d ever like to get to “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away”……

Well, that’s it then…..resistance is futile, you will become one with THE FORCE!

513. Chris Dawson - December 12, 2008

I think all my fears (about this movie being a re-imagining) are fading away . . .

I think this is going to be AWESOME!

514. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

#497 – “Yeah, but Nick – that happened in 2005. There was never any chance that the studio was going to greenlight a big TV or film project that represented a direct continuation of a franchise that had simply faded away.”

I dunno, Dennis… Either Eric Jendresen was lying to us in a couple of interviews I read, or they came very close to doing just that. Got any reason to believe he was lying?

515. S. John Ross - December 12, 2008

#376: To whom was your post meant to be addressed? My post (#359) had nothing to do with fandom, or attacks of any kind on anyone (or on the franchise), or on whether anyone here does or does not find Star Trek joyful, etc. (sometimes, I think a post gets deleted by moderators, and then the numbering scheme changes … maybe that is the case here) …

We had exchanged some posts above, so at first I thought you were responding to me directly, but if so I honestly can’t figure out how we got from A to … to some letter in the Russian alphabet, maybe that one that looks like a B but isn’t. I really don’t understand how your post relates to mine; my apologies if I’m just missing something.

516. Steven - December 12, 2008

Interesting concept. Though I believe it is just good ol’ fashioned destiny. Even when a few elements of the timeline are changed, the destiny of a person or group of people will not be altered; it will just happen in a slightly different variation. And I believe this is what is at the heart of the new “Star Trek:” some events change, but the destiny of the Enterprise crew remains the same.

God bless!

517. S. John Ross - December 12, 2008

#335: It really will depend, in the end, on the script :)

518. Ponn_Far_everyday - December 12, 2008

this is FANTASY…. you don’t try to make something fantasy into something realistic… look at what’s happening to dragonball…

But this is good enough I guess….

damn….

519. Phil Smith - December 12, 2008

Interesting insights. I’m not a big time travel fan, but from a storytelling perspective, it allows you to play a little with an existing universe. Literally, it is playing outside the time box.

I suppose this means that at the end of the film, perhaps we will see the Big E as it was meant to be seen, at least according to the fans.

520. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@514…

“A project was greenlit by one regime, and by the time it’s delivered, there’s a coup d’etat,” Erik Jendresen said of the replacement of Paramount co-president David DeLine at the time, which was the end for his Romulan War Movie.

521. Boborci - December 12, 2008

491

Agree. Trust own eyes.

522. Izbot - December 12, 2008

Someone probably already said this in the 500+ comments above (I ain’t bothering to read ‘em!) but I am gratified that more current theories regarding time travel are being brought to Trek after so many decades of “we-have-to-go-back-to-the-past-to-repair-the-future” stories. It bugged me for years that the Trek series’ always had a “science consultant” when the “science” was usually simpler stuff than in most college physics classes and could’ve come from any layman’s article in a magazine.

523. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

454. LostonNCC1701

Good tale!

524. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

519. Phil Smith – December 12, 2008
“…perhaps we will see the Big E as it was meant to be seen, at least according to the fans.”

Ouch! I like it.

525. Freerad - December 12, 2008

So, Kirk’s background doesn’t matter, but he has to be captain of the Enterprise.
It doesn’t matter where the Enterprise is constructed, it must be made and launched.

This has been done before, e.g

Edith Keeler must die,
Bell riots have to occur,
Cochrane must fly the Phoenix,
The Federation must form, etc.

Even though there were other factors interfering with those events, like the Borg attacking the Phoenix launch site, Xindi attacking Earth, crazy McCoy, those events have to happen.

526. Dom - December 12, 2008

522. Izbot

Ironically, Gregory Benford was the consultant to TNG and wrote the quantum mechanics and tachyon-orientated Timescape in the early 80s. A tough read, which is more down to Benford’s style of writing than the concept, but an interesting one.

527. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@525…

I just overdosed myself with Cordrazine…

528. thorsten - December 12, 2008

@526…

I loved Timescape when it was new, and reread it some years ago.
It aged well, and is still relevant…
Since then I try to send tachyons to my younger self…

529. LoyalStarTrekFan - December 12, 2008

My impression of the interview: Bob Orci’s message is basically that it’s a film made for today’s audience, some things fit with canon and some don’t. If it makes the fans feel better, they can consider it an alternate timeline. Otherwise, enjoy the film. That’s the message I’m getting from this interview. It seems to be that simple and the interview above just got into a complicated, and interesting, scientific discussion.

530. the king in shreds and tatters - December 12, 2008

So, wait, is Captain Braxton going to show up at the end and shoot Nero?

531. Matt Wiley - December 12, 2008

We just need one of those patented Star Trek analogies to explain extremely complex things in a simple way.

Of course! Its so simple! Its like snapping a rubber band! It bends and jiggles but works its way back to its original shape!

532. Dom - December 12, 2008

525. Freerad: ‘those events have to happen.’

No they don’t! That’s what’s so cool about this! The consequences have to happen, but the causes can be different. Maybe Edith Keeler takes to smoking pot and can never be bothered to get into politics. The Bell Riots don’t have to happen, but the attitudes to the dispossessed still need to change. Maybe people come round to the right way of thinking a bit later on without riots. Maybe Edith Keeler’s many-times-Great Grandson becomes president and changes things for the poor instead!

Anything can happen now. Maybe it means life for the crew, mayber it means death. Who can tell?

533. The Guardian of Forever - December 12, 2008

I’d just like to point out that
Since before your Sun burned hot in space
and before your race was born
I have awaited
a question about whether this movie is canon or not.

IT IS BOTH. AND NEITHER.*

(* I answer as simply as your level of understanding makes possible.)

534. Jeffries Tuber - December 12, 2008

488. Alex Rosenzweig – December 12, 2008

I was actually strictly referring to Kirk’s first 5y mission with the crew we know. Of course there’s endless variations, along the lines of what the books have explored. But Paramount will not finance a $150M movie about another crew or the post TMP mission. For that jones, we have books like New Earth and Vanguard.

And in that regard, you’ve agreed. The story is all but completely told.

If the movie are ever to proceed to the second 5y mission, short of TWOK, it would and will have to be after the franchise has been restarted with primary colors, short skirts and fist fights. That’s where we are.

But adapting stories from TOS episodes for film lacks suspense and stakes if they take place in the same universe, because you know all major characters, including the E, will survive.

After this new film, presumably they can remake woefully crappy productions like THE DAY OF THE DOVE, which have near galactic significance, but small and shoddy production value. I doubt KO would rule out remaking THE SPACE SEED, but they’d just set themselves up for failure.

We haven’t even considered the impact of Nero destroying many dozens of Klingon ships in this new universe. It’s safe to bet that the next Star Trek film will be a Klingon story and that the destruction of their fleet will lead to an earlier introduction of the Bird of Prey and a new fleet of vessels that can kick the Federation’s ass.

Look, I hear you when you say the universe is not full. But the the first 5y mission timeline is all but filled and this is a brilliant way of retelling the first 5y mission with suspense and the possibility of failing.

535. Dom - December 12, 2008

528. thorsten

Yeah, me too! Don’t know if it’s worked, though!

536. Greg2600 - December 12, 2008

I knew the moment I saw the article’s headline this would be a wild thread! My view is such….I personally would rather they did an origin story that is nearly completely within canon, where the Enterprise is largely the same as TOS version, inside and out. I also wouldn’t have bothered including anyone but Spock or Kirk, maybe McCoy. I don’t think the changes and “updates” to everything were really needed. But so be it. I don’t really have a problem with them doing an alternate timeline, but to me if it stays that way, whatever they do from then on is not in the same canon as the previous Star Trek. It’s just not.

537. Dom - December 12, 2008

534. Jeffries Tuber: ‘It’s safe to bet that the next Star Trek film will be a Klingon story and that the destruction of their fleet will lead to an earlier introduction of the Bird of Prey and a new fleet of vessels that can kick the Federation’s ass.’

Alternatively, the Klingons turn their fury on Romulus and make peace with the Federation!

Of course, in the Quantum Multiverse, we’re both right . . . and wrong! ;)

538. sean - December 12, 2008

#514

There’s lying and then there’s wishful thinking. Jendresen said a lot of things, as did Rick Berman. The outcome? Nothing. Jendresen later admitted the project simply stalled due to lack of interest on the studio’s part. And who could blame them? A failed movie and a failed TV show don’t inspire great confidence in a franchise.

Oh and I’ve revisited the Kirk Problem we were addressing waaaaay up the thread there. I’ll admit, I think I overstated the case when it comes to Kirk’s background (though I stand by the fact that both Memory Alpha and the Star Trek Chronology call his past ‘muddled’).

However, I don’t buy the grad school theory, primarily because every movie and episode has established Starfleet as a 4 year institution (aside from The Omega Glory’s reference to Tracey’s ‘fifth year’, which was clearly before they’d established the 4 year guideline, though I know some assume Tracey repeated due to his ‘instabilities’). There’s no mention of any other education system in place for command cadets.

So I hold my original assumption true – Kirk is implied to have been both a teacher and a Lt before he even graduated the 4 year program. Not impossible, of course, but certainly an eyebrow raiser at best. That’s the kind of thing I refer to when I say elements of Kirk’s past don’t jibe for me. Frankly, the stack of books with legs and the guy that cheated on the Kobayashi Maru don’t really jibe for me either, but I suppose you could pass that off as a young man’s personality developing.

539. Spike47 - December 12, 2008

Re: “I’ll go see it. But I’d rather have had a story set in the classic canon TOS universe without time travel for the 53rd time!”

I totally agree.

There are plenty of gaps in the Star Trek “canon” in which to place this story. I can’t help but feel it’s a tad lazy on the part of the storytellers to not use the restraints as a challenge and craft a decent story within structure laid out.

540. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

539. Spike47

Too bad. I wonder if Bob feels the same way now?

541. Nick Cook - December 12, 2008

475. Jeffries Tuber

“Anyway, my main point is, for all of the purists and as they’re called in Constitutional Law, “Strict Constructionists” like Nick Cook above, who think their Trek is being trashed, what the hell would you do with yourselves and your canon when the story is complete? ”

I’d rather you didn’t make the blanket assumption that my simple disappointment with a particular artistic choice makes me a “purist”. I’ve hardly been a member of the vocal minority opposed to this movie. Nor am I now such a person. I am, however, a fan of the 40 plus years of Star Trek and am understandbly sad to see it go into the ether. And let’s be honest, that is exactly what’s happening. I don’t think there’s any shame in my feelings about it.

I bear no ill will to the people making this movie, and I have no doubt they are working with the best of intentions, to make the best movie they possibly can. Their mandate is to entertain, nothing more, and I applaud them for it. Even if it ultimately turns out that this movie is not to my taste, which sadly I’m coming to the conclusion that may well be the case.

Oh well, c’est la vie I suppose.

542. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - December 12, 2008

Yarn, I think you are on the money in entry 410. And I agree that any attempt to “reconcile” the upcoming movie with TOS based on QM is shaky (though in my case I can go along for the ride if it’s fun).

My real question to you is this: How does Orci’s Many Worlds QM explanation inherently drag the STXI story down any worse than the notion of a (one, single) “parallel universe” drags down the story of “Mirror, Mirror”?

It seems to me that the Orci’s Many Worlds QM explanation only serves to back up the story, and does not form the crux of the movie. It’s there if you want it and care for it, otherwise forget it.

The first time I watched Generations, I hated it. Why? Because the concept of the Nexus seemed (and still seems) to me to be logically flawed — no matter how you try to explain it away with QM-style “reasoning”. Subsequently, I’ve found that it’s an enjoyable movie. I just have to let go of the idea that the Nexus is a coherent idea on the part of the writers. It’s just a plot device, nothing more. Forget it and enjoy the fun stuff.

Yarn, you bring up the idea of “family resemblance”. So, here’s another question: What have we seen in this movie that fails to deliver on the “family resemblance” front. To me, the Spocks and Kirk , as well as the shape of the Enterprise, evoke the right gestalt.

543. krikzil - December 12, 2008

“No, because getting Nimoy into the movie was one of the first things we felt we needed, and having him sitting around a camp fire sharing his memories was never gonna cut it.”

Don’t ever let Spock near a camp fire again. Singing and marshmellon toasting might ensue. I’ll join Closet in a case of PTSD !

544. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2008

#514: “I dunno, Dennis… Either Eric Jendresen was lying to us in a couple of interviews I read, or they came very close to doing just that. Got any reason to believe he was lying?”

I have *no* reason to believe that *Paramount studio* actually came *anywhere* close to greenlighting that project.

It did, however, give the producers attached something to do with their development budget until their studio contracts ran out.

There was never a real chance of that film being made, so of course those associated with it blamed its non-production vaguely on a “studio regime change” that in fact had begun long before and hastened the end of “Enterprise” as well.

That was pretty obvious at the time. The thing that actually shocked me was not the predictable death of that project but that Paramount still had enough interest in “Star Trek” to approach people whom they really wanted to work with to do it.

545. Jeffries Tuber - December 12, 2008

Nick, Why the discomfort with the label ‘purist?’ Anyway, I didn’t mean to bother you. I’m really talking about the idea that canon can get filled up, then what?

Ultimately this is a creative solution and that’s [often] why writers get the big bucks.

546. Robofuzz - December 12, 2008

You must have faith that the Universe will unfold as it should.

547. confused - December 12, 2008

Now I get it. So Daniel Craig is from an alternate timeline while M is from the primary time line. Now it ll makes sense………………….

548. manitou - December 12, 2008

It’s obvious that Orci has put a lot of thought into explaining the canonicity of the story, and wants to reassure those who don’t want to accept any change whatsoever to the universe that yes, this is still their Star Trek.

I agree with most of what he says really. Quantum mechanics is a bit more complex than the popular version used to explain what’s happening here, and there’s several theories on the subject. The one I was taught during my undergrad years (yes, I’m a physicist) is that basically, you can have a system of several particles in a state of flux.

A “measurement” can be made of one of the particles, that fixes the properties of the others, meaning that several possibilities are not possible. There are plenty of branching off points that also occur during the measurement, and each time the system is measured, you cause a further set of branching off points, basically creating a further set of universes.

This is rather complex, but modern research also says a lot about time travel. There was a paper on the physics research archive (known as arxiv, paper url http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0506027), that might not make sense to a layman, but the conclusions state that:

“According to our model, if you travel into the past quantum mechanically, you would only see those alternatives consistent with the world you left behind you. In other words, while you are aware of the past, you cannot change it. No matter how unlikely the events are that could have led
to your present circumstances, once they have actually occurred, they cannot be changed. Your trip would set up resonances that are consistent with the future that has already unfolded.”

Basically, Nero’s plan is ultimately futile. He can try and kill Kirk, mess up the timeline all he wants, but all he will succeed in doing is slightly altering the events that occur, but still the basic canon will occur: the five year mission, TNG, DS9, Voyager etc will all still happen. Basically, modern science assures us the canon is pretty much still there, but with a few changes.

549. Dave - December 12, 2008

I agree with many posters aboutthe lack of “real” threat if this is all in an alternate timeline. Why bother if it doesn’t afect you. Spock never went to the mirror universe to correct or change anything. Why does this matter to him?

Also, there is a line in “The Managerie” where Commodore Mendez says Pike and Kirk are about the same age…

I’m okay with some of these small inconsistencies… like the ship being built on the ground…

I also see no problem with Kirk being the stack of books with legs.. – that description doesn’t necessarily mean he was a nerd… just committed to rising to the rank of Captain – Starfleet’s youngest!.

I disagree with those who say at the end of the time travel stories, nothing was changed… because our heroes were afected by the events of that adventure. Kirk was devastated at having to let Edith Keeler die. The probe in Voyage home did some damage to something as they didn’t return from 1986 before the probe arrived (that window at Starfleet HQ was still broken by the storm)

Wjhat Star Trek has exemplified in both “City” and “Yesterday’s Enterprise” is that when the past is changed, so id everything from the point of the change on…. Hitler took over… no federation — Tasha being alive due to the war with the Klingons, rather than the Ent D being a ship of exporation. So if Trek has always perceived time travel this way… how can they say “oh it’s just an alternate timeline”

I’m okay with some changes…. I just don’t want major incidents or events changed. Scotty looks like a buffoon in the trailer – I hope it’s just the clip and we’ll see him as our “Miracle worker” at some point.

As someone so rightly pointed out… there were many holes in the original series to fill in gaps or tell new stories… or even between the series and the movies… seems like folly to rewrite what we all already love, rather than build on it.

550. Dom - December 12, 2008

548. manitou

But that rather depends on how ‘important’ DS9, TNG and so on are. Does the running of the entire universe depend on small events or massive changes? Does Voyager ***have*** to get stuck in the Delta Quadrant. Does Sisko have to become the Emissary?

Surely the ultimate function of the universe itself is the biggie. Stuff like Kirk’s origins and whether any of TNG, Voyager and DS9 actually happen are pretty small-fry in the scheme of an entire universe!

By the way, I wonder whether the Q operate in this universe and whether they’re the same Q or parallel universe ones!

551. FarDreaming - December 12, 2008

As I read day after day of this sometime nonsensical nit-picking on any number of points, I have to say that Bob Orci’s devotion to reading and sometimes responding to these posts, even as they number in the hundreds, have given me faith in what he was written for Trek and its devotees. Only a true fan would have the patience and curiosity to put up with this!

That said, as a fan from back on day one in 1966, when many of you were not even born, I look forward to this movie. In my mind, it is just seeing old friends who choose to open a different set of doors this time, that hopefully will lead onto a new set of adventures. I already know what happened in the old time line- now I am excited to see what this one offers, and I am thankful for getting that chance. (And on my birthday yet, though I do wish it would have been sooner!)

552. Dom - December 12, 2008

549. Dave: ‘I agree with many posters aboutthe lack of “real” threat if this is all in an alternate timeline. Why bother if it doesn’t afect you.’

Well I care about the characters in any decent movie. Just because it’s a different universe doesn’t stop me caring about neo-Kirk, neo-Spock and neo-McCoy! I happen to care if Nero wants to wipe out billions of people and I care about neo-Kirk, neo-Spock and neo-McCoy trying to stop him

No disrespect, but that’s a silly argument really!

553. SB - December 12, 2008

515:

Sigh.

S. John, please recall that after I referenced SNL “a COLOSSAL” waste of time, vis-a-vis Saturday Night Live, you leapt to Star Trek’s defense, thusly:

“And remember, for some of us, Shatner’s little job those years ago are sometimes our current jobs here in the 21st century. I have had Trek put groceries on my table on several occasions as a writer, wouldn’t mind doing so again. If this new film turns out good, that would benefit that possibility.”

You may perhaps not feel that you were responding to a criticism of fannish extremes of behavior as if it were a criticism of The Franchise Itself, but it certainly looked that way. And even if you were not, there are undeniably many in fandom, a whole heaping bunch of them right here, who DO respond that way.

So do me a favor, please: reread that paragraph — written in your words — one more time, then reread my answer. I think you’ll find the conversational thread fairly clear. If not, I don’t know what else to tell you…

554. Boborci - December 12, 2008

459. Brian – December 12, 2008
“If you want to talk about time travel, this is a very reasonable way to approach it. No further justification is needed. Roberto Orci does try to dress the idea up by bringing quantum mechanics into it, and the results, unfortunately, are pure hippie physics. He relies heavily on dropping the names of ideas he doesn’t understand, and hopes that if he does it often and emphatically enough, and waves his hands a lot, he’ll intimidate his audience. Heavy, man.”

Yes, quantum mechanics is a very successful theory. (It goes back to the 1920s, by the way, so it’s hardly the “latest” word on the subject.) Yes, Hugh Everett did have a Many Worlds *interpretation* of quantum mechanics, formulated in the 1950s, which has had varying degrees of popularity since, but isn’t the mainstream view that Orci implies. But most physicists are uncomfortable with it, if they’ve thought about it at all, because it posits that whole universes come into existence when a wave function “collapses,” which seems pretty extravagant, particularly since we can’t even verify whether these universes exist.”

RO: Sorry, incorrect analysis. The many worlds theory actually obviates the need for a collapsing wave function or for the preferred status of a wave collapsing observer since everything that can happen, does happen. However, I won’t go as far as saying that you are dropping “the names of ideas you don’t understand.”

“Most physicists, I think, doubt the possibility of time travel in any interesting sense, precisely because you get into problems with causality, apart from the fact that it’s very hard to demonstrate that it’s physically possible. (Though there’s more to that story than there’s room for here.)”

RO: Again, causality paradoxes are the very problems that the many worlds interpretation of QM avoids.

“So putting together Many Worlds plus time travel is fringe stuff. Doesn’t mean that it isn’t interesting to speculate about, or that you couldn’t find some physicist somewhere who’s thought about it — Kip Thorne, for example, is very well-respected for his work on general relativity, and he’s wondered about such things. But it’s not something that most physicists take seriously, let alone the “latest” and “best” theory of anything. Physicists prefer ideas you could at least hope to test, or did before string theory came along.”

RO: Huge fan of his. Have read every book of his I can find. Learned a lot about this very subject form his books.

“Whatever the physical plausibility of time travel, fiction writers have thought about it a lot, and splitting time lines is probably the most common approach. (For a more sophisticated alternative, using something closer to pure quantum mechanics, see the physicist Gregory Benford’s Time-Scape.) Talking about it as if it were a new idea, and needs to be justified, makes one sound a little naive about science fiction. While I like Roberto Orci’s enthusiasm, I wish, for his sake, that he’d stick to more solid ground.”

And I won’t label naive the fact that you’re mistaking my enthusiasm for the appearance of just having heard this theory last night in a fabled Paramount PR seminar.

555. manitou - December 12, 2008

Generally, events in a universe can unfold pretty much the same regardless of minor changes – depending on whether I’d posted or not, the large scale universe would have remained the same, although there would not have been the same conversations here.

Personally, I’m quite happy with the “same, but different” approach. The events of the movie occur, and quite simply what would happen is if you look up the past in the 24th century, you see that the Enterprise was built in Iowa rather than San Francisco, and apart from that things are pretty much the same.

Ultimately, the small-fry nature of Kirk’s origins etc. on the overall universe is what is reassuring about this – the events are slightly different, but the purpose and spirit of them is entirely the same as the old. I don’t see why anyone should have a problem with that.

And from a marketing point of view, everything pretty much has to be new and shiny – a new Trek that stuck one hundred per cent to old set designs (e.g. the ENT mirror universe episodes), while appreciated by some fans, would probably have killed it outright. Perhaps people should just be happy that there is new Trek (with quite painstaking efforts to keep the loyal supporters happy, I might add), rather than nitpicking every single little detail.

556. trekboi - December 12, 2008

I SAW THIS EXPLANATION COMING…

I HAVE TO SAY ALTHOUGH THIS THEORY ALLOWS US TO LIVE IN THE OTHER UNIVERSE WITH THE FRIENDS WE KNOW SO WELL IT IS ALL STILL TOTALLY UNNECISARY.
THERE IS NO REASON WHY KIRK COULDNT HAVE MOVED TO SAN FRANSISCO AFTER HIS PARENTS WERE KILLED AND SEEN THE ENTERPRISE BEING BUILT THERE OR EVEN IN SPACE- THERE IS NO REASON PIKE HAD TO BE HIS MENTOR OR FOR UHURA TO WEAR THAT AWEFULL WHITE BRA! – LOL.
THEY JUST WANT TO MAKE “THEIR” STAR TREK NOT OURS NOT GENE RODDENBERYS OR RICK BERMANS
THEY NEED TO ACCEPT THAT THE FRANCHISE IS ( OR AT LEAST WAS ) BIGGER THAN THEM.

557. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2008

#556: “THEY NEED TO ACCEPT THAT THE FRANCHISE IS ( OR AT LEAST WAS ) BIGGER THAN THEM.”

Agreed – hard-core trek fans need to accept that the Franchise is bigger than them.

558. Dom - December 12, 2008

#556: ‘THEY JUST WANT TO MAKE “THEIR” STAR TREK NOT OURS NOT GENE RODDENBERYS OR RICK BERMANS’

GOOD!

559. Pinky - December 12, 2008

Here’s the problem with Mr. Orci’s ideas of parallel universes. I’m not going to say the team’s concept of time travel and paralleles is not valid enough to be used in science fiction like Star Trek, but…

If you think back all the way to the beginning of time and space, as philosophy, quantum mechanics, physics, et al. do, then you arrive at the question of what created the universe. The answer, based on quantum mechanics, is that time is a loop. Something at the end of the previous universe is what created the beginning of the universe we know. And so on and so on. It was either that, or God. But Star Trek didn’t seem big on the God solution, so the solution we end up with for Star Trek is that time MUST be a loop.

On from there, we all know about casuality. We all know that the reason something occurs is because things were set in motion previously to make them occur. Everything in my life, every experience, every idea, every neuron firing, every person I’ve met — all of it, has led to this moment right here, typing this message now on Trekmovie.com. Essentially, we do not have choices. I could not be on a different page right now. My causal history brought me, as yours brought each one of you, to where you are. We seem to have many choices in life, but the fact is, because of everything that came before, there is only ONE that we can and must choose.

Parallel universes are a way of liberating the human spirit, making us feel like we are in charge of our lives and that we can do or be whatever we please. In fact, time is more like a railway track. Laid out already. As soon as the first even occurs (based on the last even in the previous timeline) everything is set in motion. Everything unfolds as it must based on causal history and the instigation of each new event as based on causality.

The track is laid, there is only one way.

… Or so quantum mechanics says, Mr. Orci ;)

560. trekboi - December 12, 2008

PRODUCTION DESIGN IS THE ONLY THING THEY NEEDED TO CHANGE DRASTICALLY AND THE ONLY THING THEY COULD HAVE
CHANGED DRASTICALLY WITHOUT REALLY AFFECTING CANNON.

I CANT HELP BEING RIGHT ABOUT ALL THIS

BUT I WILL STILL SEE “THEIR” VERSION OF STAR TREK IN THEIR UNIVERSE JUST LIKE I WOULD STILL SEE ANY OTHER STAR WARS FILM…

561. Cpt. Retri - December 12, 2008

his descriptions of quantum mechanics are stupidly redundant. We got it, it’s awesome and it’s the most current, up-to-date, developed theory in the history of mankind, you don’t need to repeat it every two sentences.

562. trekboi - December 12, 2008

LETS ALL HOPE JJ ABRAMS NEW STAR WARS ILM DOES AS WELL AT THE BOX OFFICE AS THE OTHER STAR WARS PREQUELS…

563. Cpt. Retri - December 12, 2008

by the end of the interview it kinda sounded like he was making fun of his interlocutor and trekkies as a whole.

564. Boborci - December 12, 2008

563

Huh?

565. Dom - December 12, 2008

trekboi

It’s rude to post in CAPS here! Write like everyone else or you could get yourself banned by the mods.

Just a friendly warning, mate! :)

566. manitou - December 12, 2008

563.

This basically shows that yes, the writers do ultimately have the greatest respect for both the franchise and its fans, and are bending over backwards to try and win over the hardcore. Ultimately, however, the hardcore are just a small audience.

Given the buzz the trailer and other marketing has created, a lot of non-Trek people are excited about it. They will go in, and see a film called Star Trek, about a ship which visits strange alien worlds, and has exciting battles with outer space villains. They will come, hopefully enjoy it, and go away. They won’t worry about canon, and whether the original TOS continuity is wiped out. They’ll just come and see the film, and that’ll be that.

This interview just shows how much the new crew respect the fans, and as a hardcore fan (I can name just about any episode from seeing a few seconds of it while flicking past channels), I appreciate the effort they’ve gone to immensely. Plus, from a physics point of view, it’s sound. And ultimately, remember: it’s just a film!

567. Kirk, James T. - December 12, 2008

I love the trailer, the movie looks wicked and i’m gonna love it but i just wished that this was a Batman Begins reboot of the franchise rather than a canon saving but totally wiping the slate clean kinda excuse with this QM theory.

Time Travel has been way over done in Star Trek so i only hope this time will be the last time and then we can get on with movies involving Kirk on some planet in a fist fight with some Gorn army.

568. Cpt. Retri - December 12, 2008

564

this?

his descriptions of quantum mechanics are stupidly redundant. We got it, it’s awesome and it’s the most current, up-to-date and developed theory in the history of mankind, you don’t need to repeat it every two sentences.

…just because your interviewer, as hardcore trekkie was concerned about the implications of the plot device (whether it’s really time-travel or not) your movie revolves around in respect of canon.

569. trekboi - December 12, 2008

# 557 DENISE BAILEY
DONT QUOAT ME OUT ON CONTEXT TO MAKE FUN OF ME- I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE RECOVERING FROM HAVING MY CHILDHOOD RAPED BY UBER PRODUCERS WHO CANT FUND THEIR OWN PROJECTS SO THEY JUST VIOLATE EXISTING ONES TO SUIT THEMSELVES.

THE FANS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM- WE ARE STAR TREK WE KEEPT IT ON THE AIR FOR 3 YEARS WE KEEPT IT ALIVE IN THE 1970′S WHEN THE STUDIOS AND PRODUCERS SAW NO STAR WARS TYPE PROFIT IN IT WE FULED IT FOR 18 YEARS ON TELEVISION AND HAVE KEEPT IT (BARELY) ALIVE IN THE YEARS SINCE IT WAS ABANDONED BY THE STUDIOS.

OUR STAR TREK ALREADY EXISTS AND ALTHOUGH GENES ORIGINAL CONCEPT WAS DEMINISHED BY THE END OF BERMANS ERA TO DESTROY IT ALL IS A HARTLESS SELFISH THING- ITS ALL ABOUT THEM- WHY DONT THEY GO MAKE THEIR OWN FILM ABOUT ALTERNATE REALITIES WHERE THEY DONT NEED TO RE-WRITE ANYONES HISTORY AND INVALIDATE A FICTIONAL UNIVERSE THAT PEOPLE HAVE ENJOYED ESCAPING TO FOR GENERATIONS.
WHY?
BECAUSE THE STUDIOS WOULDNT FUND IT OR THEM – THIS IS WHY THEY HAVE TO USE & RE-USE FRANCHISES LIKE STAR TREK AND MISSION IMPOSSIBLE (OR BOND)
STAR TREK HAS ITS OWN LIFE AND FANBASE THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING FOR.
THAT IS WHY PARAMOUNT MADE THIS FILM FOR THE FANS OUT THERE SICK OF BERMANS UNINSPIRED REPETITIVE “MCDONALDS OF SC-FI” VERSION OF STAR TREK AND THE NEW FANS WHO WERE NOT TARGETED IN THE BERMAN ERA

RANT OVER (FOR NOW)
THE DALLAS- “IT WAS ALL JUST A DREAM” EXCUSE IS TRAGIC- REAL SCIENCE OR NOT.

570. trekboi - December 12, 2008

IM SURE ANTHONY WILL DELETE ME ANYWAY- TPTB DONT RESPECT INDEPENDANT THOUGHT- U CANT DISAGREE WITH ANTHONY OR THE STUDIOS AND STILL HAVE A VOICE ON THIS SITE

ALTHOUGH I WAS NEARLY SOLD ON THE “REAL SCIENCE” EXPLANATION/PROPAGANDA- FOR A MOMENT

571. Mammalian Verisimilitude - December 12, 2008

8 > The last part of the interview is what caught my attention….if the original timeline continues after Nero and Spock go back in time, then where is the motivation for Spock to want to go back in time unless he isn’t privy to the fact that no change will happen and only discovers that later in the movie before returning to his own original future!

Perhaps he wants to arrest Nero.

After all, if a wanted criminal tries to escape into an alternate timeline, SOMEONE should follow…

572. Anthony Pascale - December 12, 2008

no more all caps, what you have to say is no more important than anyone else

573. Magister Returns - December 12, 2008

Maybe, just maybe, Nero didn’t go back to destroy the timeline. Maybe he got there by accident and since he couldn’t return, he decides to shape this new universe the way he wants it (without kirk, spock and pesty vulcans) The larger question becomes why then does ol’ prime Spock follow him to the new alternate universe? Is it a possible danger to ALL universes. An infinite quantum cataclysum? Am I knocking on the door with that? What say you, Boborci?

574. Brett Campbell - December 12, 2008

293 – Thanks for explaining the acronym YMMV.

Glad it didn’t stand for You Make Me Vomit, as there are sometimes far too many squabble in these threads. I was hoping we weren’t getting into acrimonious acronyms as well. ;)

TTFN

575. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

#520 – ““A project was greenlit by one regime, and by the time it’s delivered, there’s a coup d’etat,” Erik Jendresen said of the replacement of Paramount co-president David DeLine at the time, which was the end for his Romulan War Movie.”

Just so. :)

My point was, the studio, even after ENT, was indeed willing to move forward on an in-continuity storyline for a feature film. It died in a regime-change, but that likely had more to do with the regime change itself than with Star Trek.

#544 – “I have *no* reason to believe that *Paramount studio* actually came *anywhere* close to greenlighting that project.”

Well, as Thorsten noted, Jendresen has said it *was* greenlit before the regime change. I’m not making it up, just reporting on what the guy who wrote the screenplay said in public. Make of it what you will.

#534 – “I was actually strictly referring to Kirk’s first 5y mission with the crew we know. Of course there’s endless variations, along the lines of what the books have explored. But Paramount will not finance a $150M movie about another crew or the post TMP mission. For that jones, we have books like New Earth and Vanguard.”

To be certain, the advantage to going to Kirk and co. for a big-budget motion picture is that the names are known, and that makes it more easily marketable than something else. Does that mean they couldn’t or wouldn’t do something else? It’s hard to know. As noted above, they apparently got fairly close to doing just that. But it’s also fair to play conservative while rebuilding the public perception of the brand name.

Doing a post-TMP approach would potentially have been interesting, and would certainly be marketable, but the thing is, if they want to skew younger for a youthful audience, it makes more sense to target the characters as young as seems reasonable.

“And in that regard, you’ve agreed. The story is all but completely told.”

But it’s not “the story” of Star Trek. It’s only one small part of Trek. A significant part, to be sure, but a part nonetheless. And even there, significant chunks haven’t been told, especially if one doesn’t include the non-filmed media.

“If the movie are ever to proceed to the second 5y mission, short of TWOK, it would and will have to be after the franchise has been restarted with primary colors, short skirts and fist fights. That’s where we are.”

My thought would be that post-TMP would be a way to go after a successful 5-year mission trilogy. But I fully agree that doing the basics first would be best. I just don’t agree for a minute that continuity needed to be jettisoned to accomplish that.

“But adapting stories from TOS episodes for film lacks suspense and stakes if they take place in the same universe, because you know all major characters, including the E, will survive.”

Just as with franchises like Superman, Batman, et al., I don’t for a moment believe that the characters *won’t* survive. I think “will they die or not” is the ultimate strawman issue. It’s a non-issue for me.

“After this new film, presumably they can remake woefully crappy productions like THE DAY OF THE DOVE, which have near galactic significance, but small and shoddy production value. I doubt KO would rule out remaking THE SPACE SEED, but they’d just set themselves up for failure.”

I would really hope they would, even if they are rebooting the story arc, avoid total creative sellouts like re-making original episodes. Tell new stories!

“We haven’t even considered the impact of Nero destroying many dozens of Klingon ships in this new universe. It’s safe to bet that the next Star Trek film will be a Klingon story and that the destruction of their fleet will lead to an earlier introduction of the Bird of Prey and a new fleet of vessels that can kick the Federation’s ass.”

The bird of prey predates TOS, anyway, but it might be interesting to see how the Klingons react to all this. Perhaps that contributes to the situation leading up to “Errand of Mercy”. ;)

“Look, I hear you when you say the universe is not full. But the the first 5y mission timeline is all but filled and this is a brilliant way of retelling the first 5y mission with suspense and the possibility of failing.”

But there’s simply no need or call to throw out what’s already been established when there’s so much open ground still to be covered. Like I said up-thread, why reinvent the wheel?

576. Jamie - December 12, 2008

It’s great to hear Bob has put so much thought into this movie. This level of care alone is a great sign that the franchise is in good hands.

I just hope, though, that Bob has considered that if “all timelines are valid” then time travel cannot be used to “save the day” because the original, un-saved timeline will still exist.

For example, if the borg go back in time and take over earth, then the Enterprise goes back in time and kills the borg — the timeline where the borg took over earth will still exist.

Effectively, the only way someone can really “save the day” is if they do it in their native timeline without any interference from time travellers.

Generally speaking, though, I find the “all timelines are valid” theory to be depressing from a storytelling perspective, even if it is scientifically valid.

This quantum thing seems illogical to me, anyway. The scientists say that parallel worlds can exist because particles have “random” behaviour. But who’s to say there isn’t some unknown reason behind this behaviour, which would cause them to behave exactly the same in any universe, meaning that there could only be one universe.

Not that I think I know better than the top scientists. I just have never heard any explanation of why particles are believed to behave without reason. That almost seems like a cry of “magic” just because we can’t explain something.

577. manitou - December 12, 2008

Physicists thought about the so-called “random” behaviour, testing it with a theory known as “hidden variables”. The maths doesn’t really make sense, and as maths usually is backed up by experimental results, we know that it can’t exist.

Indeed, much of modern physics contains a lot of technobabble that wouldn’t be out of place in recent Star Trek episodes. Maybe the writers of some future Trek production might do something with it, who knows?

578. Dom - December 12, 2008

569. trekboi

‘# 557 denise bailey’

Dennis had a sex change! :0

‘Dont quoat me out on context to make fun of me- i am not the only one recovering from having my childhood raped by uber producers who cant fund their own projects so they just violate existing ones to suit themselves.’

Yes you are!

‘The fans are not the problem- we are star trek we keept it on the air for 3 years we keept it alive in the 1970′s when the studios and producers saw no star wars type profit in it we fuled it for 18 years on television and have keept it (barely) alive in the years since it was abandoned by the studios.’

No they aren’t. Psycho ‘fans’ are. In the end though, they gripe a lot and the rest of us laugh at them. Paramount laughs at them too. So does Bob Orci. So does Anthony. So does Dennis. So do I. So do the press. So do the public. Face it, man, people like you are free comedy!

‘Our star trek already exists and although genes original concept was deminished by the end of bermans era to destroy it all is a hartless selfish thing- its all about them- why dont they go make their own film about alternate realities where they dont need to re-write anyones history and invalidate a fictional universe that people have enjoyed escaping to for generations.’

They haven’t invalidated it. They’ve left it intact, indeed potentially left it open for more stories, rather than overwrite it. It’s no different from Frank Miller doing Batman Year One or John Byrne doing Superman.

‘Why?’

Tell me!

‘Because the studios wouldnt fund it or them – this is why they have to use & re-use franchises like star trek and mission impossible (or bond)’

Hmm. Abrams is one of Hollywood’s hottest properties right now. he’s one of the most creative guys there, making good mainstream entertainment with a real respect for old-school filmmaking on top! He can have whatever he wants made!

‘Star trek has its own life and fanbase that they were supposed to be working for.’

No, they are freelancers who’ve been hired by Paramount to do a job.

‘That is why paramount made this film for the fans out there sick of bermans uninspired repetitive “mcdonalds of sc-fi” version of star trek and the new fans who were not targeted in the berman era’

Um . . . what?

‘Rant over (for now)’

Thank **** for that!

‘The dallas- “it was all just a dream” excuse is tragic- real science or not.’

No that was just plain funny. Besides, that also happened in one version of a New Voyages ep!

‘Im sure anthony will delete me anyway- tptb dont respect independant thought- u cant disagree with anthony or the studios and still have a voice on this site’

Nah. You’re too funny! Besides, you’re copying every lambrain cliche pumped out by the lunatic fringe since this film was announced!

579. Lee - December 12, 2008

Well, presumably, certain events were in motion before Nero’s inteference, and that will happen in the secondary timeline as they did in the first (likely the whale probe, V’Ger, the Borg’s 2153 message to the Delta Quadrant, the Botany Bay still floating out in space, et al.). Of course, even if the alternate takes on these events are never shown onscreen, I’m sure novels and comics will show them.

What I’m curious about in the film is if Spock is stuck in the secondary timeline/universe, or if he has a way to return to his own time/place in the original.

580. Dom - December 12, 2008

573. Magister Returns ‘Maybe, just maybe, Nero didn’t go back to destroy the timeline. Maybe he got there by accident and since he couldn’t return, he decides to shape this new universe the way he wants it (without kirk, spock and pesty vulcans) The larger question becomes why then does ol’ prime Spock follow him to the new alternate universe? Is it a possible danger to ALL universes. An infinite quantum cataclysum? Am I knocking on the door with that? What say you, Boborci?’

I was wondering if his plan was to create a Romulan super-Empire in the neo-Trek universe, using his future technology, then return to the TNG universe and invade it once and for all! Hence he’d need to take out all the major players early in the timeline!

581. cugel the clever - December 12, 2008

Anthony: And you believe that the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics is the Star Trek interpretation, based on “Parallels.”

Bob: Yes.

YAY!!!!!!
The “Parallels” connection is what I have been saying in several previous threads when the canon cops begin going ballistic over non-continuity. It is gratifying and a vast relief to see that JJ, Orci, and company see it exactly the same as I. After this film is released and is the biggest hit in ST film history, the canon freaks will become increasingly irrelevant because, you see, there are actually an infinite number of equally-valid, but different, canons. Their precious TOS 1960′s-era canon will be history, dead and buried, and never again used. Thank God.

582. S. John Ross - December 12, 2008

#553: “S. John, please recall that after I referenced SNL “a COLOSSAL” waste of time, vis-a-vis Saturday Night Live, you leapt to Star Trek’s defense, thusly:”

Those are my words, but they are not in _any_ way in defense of Star Trek or anything else of the sort.

I understand that you’re passionate about something, but I honestly don’t see how it relates to my posts. Really. Actually. I’m not being sarcastic or dismissive. I just don’t understand.

“there are undeniably many in fandom, a whole heaping bunch of them right here, who DO respond that way.”

Of course. But that doesn’t relate to what I’ve posted, so it’s confusing when you talk about them _at_ me. Does that make sense? I was not discussing those fans and have no call to. So if you want to post about those fans, that makes perfect sense to me, but can you not direct the posts at my name? It’s just odd :(

“I think you’ll find the conversational thread fairly clear. If not, I don’t know what else to tell you…”

I think there’s a very real possibility – and I mean no offense – that what you have to tell, is for someone other than me. None of the things you’re talking about relate to any of the topics I’ve posted on in any way that I can track.

583. Dom - December 12, 2008

Actually, thinking of it. If Spock has been in the neo-Trek universe for a few decades, maybe he’s quietly helped advance Federation technology to fight Nero’s schemes!

584. Garovorkin - December 12, 2008

The long and the short of it is that he is not going to follow the Cannon per say, First off they encounter the Romulans, before the events in balance of terror, so already the original timeline continuity has been blown has been blown , on top of the fact that the Romulns attack Vulcan, no Old Spock is not going to fix this, Everything will change to some degree. Even Kirk’s life will unfold differently because of the disruptions, Also Pikes fate might be different. Tha one of the reason I thought about the possibility of Old Spock not surviving, How can he? his time line is gone anyway.

585. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

#538 – “However, I don’t buy the grad school theory, primarily because every movie and episode has established Starfleet as a 4 year institution (aside from The Omega Glory’s reference to Tracey’s ‘fifth year’, which was clearly before they’d established the 4 year guideline, though I know some assume Tracey repeated due to his ‘instabilities’). There’s no mention of any other education system in place for command cadets.”

Well, as I said, that’s a meta-canonical theory, but by the same token, nothing on film has established that it couldn’t work that way. Simply because it wasn’t mentioned doesn’t automatically suggest that it doesn’t exist, and I find it easier to buy into a graduate level program or programs than to imagine that people get their officers’ commissions (and in some cases another promotion or two) before they even graduate the institution that’s supposed to be training them. ;)

586. G - December 12, 2008

Ok.. so.. let me get this straight (or, someone else, please SET me straight)…

if Nero’s trip back in time starts a totally ‘NEW’ and ‘SEPARATE’ time line (and he makes changes which will NOT affect our ‘traditional/cannon’ Spock/Picard time line).. then..

why does Spock need to follow him back??

587. manitou - December 12, 2008

Perhaps a more helpful way to think about all of this is that well, Old Spock or whatever you wish HAS to go back in time. Time itself demands causality – you have to have something to ensure that the passage of history goes smoothly, and haphazardly changing the course of history just causes paradoxes and fouls up the timeline.

The blurb for Star Trek: Countdown states that Nero “will threaten the very future of the entire universe”, well, without anything to stop him, Nero will go blundering about history undoing everything and causing paradox after paradox, threatening the very fabric of nature itself. So Spock needs to go back and stop Nero (who I assume probably isn’t concerned with paradoxes and so forth) from fouling everything up. Without Spock traveling back in time, it’s goodbye universe. Sounds like high stakes to me…

588. steve623 - December 12, 2008

“Like I said up-thread, why reinvent the wheel?”

So you can take more credit if the re-invented wheel is successful (and get a bigger and more lucrative development deal).

589. Dom - December 12, 2008

586. G

I’ve posted suggestions on 580 and 583. There’s obviously something Nero has up his sleeve that will affect TOS Spock’s universe as well!

590. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2008

#575: “Well, as Thorsten noted, Jendresen has said it *was* greenlit before the regime change. I’m not making it up, just reporting on what the guy who wrote the screenplay said in public. Make of it what you will.”

Mr. Jendresen can use terminology in any way that suits him, I suppose, BUT…

You find me one announcement, one murmur, even one hand-wave or ambiguous gesture from *Paramount Studios* anywhere in the trade press or elsewhere that even *resembles* what the rest of the industry means by “green-light” and I’ll be interested.

So yeah, if Jendressen says that the project was “greenlit” then I’m saying that the statement isn’t so.

That’s what I will make of it.

591. DOUG - December 12, 2008

Quantum Mechwhatsit?
My indubulator went off trying to keep up with the superfluidity of the conversation. Once I recalibrated, I realized I’d been burping up Hawking radiation all over and without a theory for quantum gravity…you don’t want to do that.

I’m happy as a clam with Bob’s (I think I can call him Bob after all we’ve been through in some of the other universes) explanation.

With the creation of the Quantum Canon Cannon, all possibilities are possible, possibly.

Most excellent, sir…most excellent.

592. Anthony Pascale - December 12, 2008

Dom
RE: laughing at the fans
I never laugh at the fans, although I hope I do laugh with them sometimes. And in my conversations with Paramount and with Bob, JJ and the team… I have never ever heard a single one of them say a disparaging thing about any fans. Now JJ has stated, and I think it is reasonable, that they cannot try to make a movie that will fit what every fan wants, as that is impossible.

I think everyone who comes here is a fan in their own way. I do not agree with everyone’s opinion, but I do not discount any opinion (proffered in a civil manner).

And I hope in my interviews that I ask questions that are on the minds of various types of fans. In this case I wanted to get at the meat of the issues:
- how does this film fit with canon, when some things appear different?
- how does this film affect the rest of star trek canon?

All the stuff about quantum mechanics is interesting, but it is really just background information.

593. Dom - December 12, 2008

575. Alex Rosenzweig

With al due respect, I think Dennis knows a lot more about the business than most of us. It sounds like Jendressen was simply involved in a bit of hype.

594. cugel the clever - December 12, 2008

Of course, Orci’s and JJ’s biggest problem now is that by invoking the parallel-universe explanation for the canon differences, they are totally invalidating their reasons for not including Shatner in the film. Given the number of major changes in the “original” timeline, it is completely reasonable to think that Kirk would not have been swept into the Nexus and later killed on Veridian III.

Therefore, a cool way to “bookend” the new film would have been to show old Spock from the original timeline at the beginning of the film, and then in the last scene of the film, show an ancient Admiral Kirk (i.e. Shatner) touring the brand new Enterprise-D along with Admiral McCoy.

JJ- It’s not too late to make a huge valentine for the fams and film one last 30-second scene to close the film in style.

595. Dom - December 12, 2008

592. Anthony Pascale

I’m not talking about fans: I’m talking about the scary types and trolls who are well outside what you could call a fan: hence I used quotes around the word fans. Sorry. Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth!

596. K. Thatcher - December 12, 2008

Why complicate things with yet another time travel deus ex machina and simply tell the accepted story of TOS’ characters’ history?

Clearly this plot was developed because of the desire to involve an aging Leonard Nimoy – Nimoy’s involvement was necessary to give the project some legitimacy.

597. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2008

Dom, not necessarily – but I do sure as hell know what “greenlight” means, and I suspect anyone who follows TV and movie production at all to the extent of just reading the news picks up that stuff pretty easily. And the Jendressen project wasn’t greenlit.

598. Garovorkin - December 12, 2008

Abrams is going to make the film the way he see’s fit. he’s not going to please everyone , Oh well. The film looks great sounds great . Its going make Paramount a ton of money, Probably kick start the Franchise. and make trek relevant again.

599. David - December 12, 2008

So, Basil, if Spock were to travel back to 1969 and I was frozen in 1967, I could go look at my frozen self. But, if I’m still frozen in 1967, how could I have been unthawed in the 90′s and traveled back to the Sixties? Oh, no, I’ve gone cross-eyed.

600. Jamie - December 12, 2008

A lot of people here seem to think this new timeline will be vastly different from the original one. I don’t think anyone can say how different it will be — other than the writers.

Nero going back in time and destroying a ship might not necessarily have any effect at all on anything we’re familiar with from TOS or TNG. As it happens, we know some things have changed, but it doesn’t mean more changes are inevitable.

Changes in the past send “ripples” through time, but the ripples don’t necessarily spread wider, they could die down pretty quickly. Either way, the ripples don’t affect everything, only certain things.

If I went back in time and blew up a bus full of people, the ripples of that would probably change a few things relating to those people’s future. However, if that bus already had a bomb on board anyway, and I merely blew it up 5 seconds earlier than it was already going to blow up, then you’d probably notice absolutely no changewhatsoever.

601. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2008

The supposed history of the TOS characters was mainly developed as backstory during the series – a line here, a line there – and was presented in a plausible manner within the context of the show. That is to say, we got the reasonable impression that most of these characters had led separate lives prior to their assignments to the Enterprise and that they had grown into their current career and life roles as a result of many experiences and actions over periods of decades.

That’s plausible. Believable. Realistic.

What it’s not, is not raw material for an action/adventure sf movie showing the “origins” of the TOS crew. It’s simply not.

If Kirk were an actual individual of some note whom people out in the world and the public in general might reasonably be expected to be intrigued by, a biographical film utilizing the conventions of that genre might be doable.

Fictional biography, OTOH, is really really difficult to get a mass audience interested in unless there’s something unique and intriguing about the structure of the material or the material itself – “Forrest Gump” being a near-perfect recent example of what works. There’s simply nothing so novel about Kirk’s backstory or that of anyone else in “Star Trek” that it could be sold as a must-see to a big audience.

That’s just the truth. ;)

602. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2008

Extra “not” in that third paragraph. Oops!

603. pyxlboy - December 12, 2008

Uni-verses:

It is not that which is,
but that which cannot
not
be.

For all things have been
and have
not

But a version
where all possibilities are
not possible
is not possible.

Disproving all possibilities
were possible.

604. KMKProd - December 12, 2008

Weak.

605. K. Thatcher - December 12, 2008

600: I would disagree in that Kirk, Spock, et.al. are such iconic figures that they walk the line between historical and fictional characters. Certainly some creative license could be taken, but do we need to go to the extreme of introducing a macguffin to rationalize why James Kirk suddenly grew up without a Father-figure?

For argument’s sake, let’s say your analysis is spot on – then why even bother with this storyline? Why not move forward and introduce a new generation of Star Trek characters, new ship, new adventures? Why follow the Hollywood trend of rehashing old material?

606. RD - December 12, 2008

#399 Randall – thanks for clarifying what you were talking about. It’s as clear as mud now. Good luck with that writing career.

607. BK613 - December 12, 2008

585
What gets me is that most everyone (including the Okudas) presupposes that Kirk is only at the Academy once. That he couldn’t have taught later in his career, like maybe right after the Farragut’s crew was decimated by the cloud creature, and he was awaiting reassignment.

608. Gary - December 12, 2008

Speaking of canon. Is the remastered original series yet another alternate universe. In my opinion it is.

609. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2008

#605: “Why not move forward and introduce a new generation of Star Trek characters, new ship, new adventures? Why follow the Hollywood trend of rehashing old material?”

Those are rhetorical questions with no *single* answer other than one which boils down to “this is the creative (and possibly business) choice we thought best.” Everything I’ve seen so far indicates that they’re making a damned intriguing “Star Trek” movie as a result.

Oh, and I can’t buy for an instant the premise that the Trek characters in any way “walk the line between historical and fictional characters.” The line between real people of note and some imaginary pop culture characters that We Like A Lot is a hard, bright one and ought to be easily recognized even by the most devoted Trek fans.

610. Mark C - December 12, 2008

In the subject line of this article, we see the word “canon.” In the first two sentences of the first paragraph, we see the word “canon.” In the first bolded heading, we see the word “canon.” And then 7 more times before we get to the comments, we see the word “canon.”

Over and over again, many here have pointed out the difference between the words “cannon” and “canon.” So why is it that in the comments section, we then see “cannon” in posts 15, 104, 108, 407 (2x), 560, 584, and 586??????? You might as well be talking about Star Track. Let’s get it right, folks…..please? It’s like using the phrase “for all intensive purposes.” Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhh.

611. G - December 12, 2008

611.

I can’t believe you just typed 2 FULL PARAGRAPHS about the spelling of a single word. Who’s the loser now?

612. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 12, 2008

594. cugel the clever

I think that is in the works.

613. Dennis Bailey - December 12, 2008

#612: “I can’t believe you just typed 2 FULL PARAGRAPHS about the spelling of a single word. Who’s the loser now?”

People who keep misspelling “canon.”

614. Altoids Lover - December 12, 2008

wow

615. BK613 - December 12, 2008

610
I think that 605 is making the case that iconic fictional characters have back stories that are part of the public consciousness and therefore read as “untrue” when those back stories aren’t adhered to in some way. While I don’t think Kirk and Spock rise to this level of awareness, Superman’s origins, for example, must include the Death of Krypton and the Parentage of Ma and Pa Kent.

I don’t think that it was being said that the difference between real and imaginary people was hard to distinguish.

616. JP - December 12, 2008

Ahh good.

617. Xai - December 12, 2008

569. trekboi – December 12, 2008
” I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE RECOVERING FROM HAVING MY CHILDHOOD RAPED BY UBER PRODUCERS WHO CANT FUND THEIR OWN PROJECTS SO THEY JUST VIOLATE EXISTING ONES TO SUIT THEMSELVES.”

Do I need to define the word “rape” for you? How do you compare a violent and degrading act on a person to a remake your favorite childhood TV show?
You can’t and you insult anyone who suffered the former by citing the latter.

618. BK613 - December 12, 2008

618
Maybe someone should define it for YOU :-)

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry:
rape
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century

1 : an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force
2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault , statutory rape
3 : an outrageous violation

Seems that the third definition could apply from some folks’ POV.

619. BK613 - December 12, 2008

man I hate this, In the time I typed the two posts above, 610 became 609 and 618 became 617.

620. G - December 12, 2008

613.

And not only did you type 2 full paragraphs about the spelling of the word, you actually scrolled through and read nearly 600 entries on here, just to keep track of it and document it (i.e. “you guys misspelled canon in “posts 15, 104, 108, 407 (2x), 560, 584, and 586″)

Dude, as Shatner would say, “Get a life!” (or, a date).. which, with the same ‘spelling’ could be defined as both, “a day on a calendar”, or “a woman”. I meant the latter.

621. tyronealfonso - December 12, 2008

This doesn’t bode well at all. Either do a reboot or don’t.

While I’m sure he is scientifically correct, using quantum mechanics to this degree just to explain away reasons why this isn’t a reboot is quite lame.

I am looking forward to this film but not nearly as much as before I read this article.

622. Xai - December 12, 2008

And from the real world perspective…

If you don’t like it, don’t go to the movie and quit insulting the writers. They obviously have done a lot of homework on this.

623. Garovorkin - December 12, 2008

#569 Trekboi I think your over reacting here. How can you not look at the previews and not be excited by the fact that we are getting a brand new trek film that’ s actually going to be worth watching. Star Trek First Contact was the last good trek film, Insurrection and Nemesis were both duds at the box office and did not exactly resonate with alot of movie goers,I think Im not going to worry about the two sacred cows trek time line and trek cannon which to me is probably two of the biggest millstones hanging on the franchise neck. The hell with the past , Trek needs this film, its probably the only way this franchise is going to become viable again.

624. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. - December 12, 2008

Folks, the only timeline that is REAL, and THAT MATTERS

is ours… Star Trek – 1964 to ?

it’s not dead, Jim.

VIVA THE ORCSTER!!!

=h=

625. Aragorn189 - December 12, 2008

As in the words of a evil commander on a space station in a galaxy far far away, this bickering is pointless. Sure, Bob Orci has come up with a canon solution. Some will find it acceptable, other no. Personally, it makes a whole lot of sense. I actually posted (number 439 I believe) a timeline chart using First Contact and the New film as basis for certain continuity errors and also of an example as to how this applies to Trek that hsa already been produced. I also stated that both First Contact and the new film are only the future trying to guide the past around roadblocks put in the normal flow of time by evil entities from the future. It all fits nicely if you let it. Sometimes, we need to stop sweating certain details and just go with it (the only detail that I will have a qualm with is if they destroy Vulcan. Then it will definitely be a completely alternate timeline [unless of course the Vulcans resettle on a similar planet in the same general region and it is called Vulcan or New Vulcan]).

626. TBonz - December 12, 2008

I think I agree with Janeway.

**goes off to take aspirin**

627. Xai - December 12, 2008

618. BK613 – December 12, 2008
618
“Maybe someone should define it for YOU :-)”

Maybe they should. I can’t see where using that phrase makes the posters argument. Why are you defending this?

Perhaps it was used flippantly because they have heard it misused several times before, or just to get a reaction? I suspect that tactic.
IMO, there is no “outrageous violation” in remaking a TV show. I seriously doubt anyone has had to see a doctor or get help because a TV show or movie was remade.
…………………..

628. Xai - December 12, 2008

Sorry folks, I didn’t mean to derail the thread. A comment hit a touchy subject.

629. Alex Rosenzweig - December 12, 2008

#590 – In that case, Dennis, take it up with him. I, however, am slightly more wiling to trust what the guy who was involved in the production said. I certainly wasn’t, so the best I can do is weigh the statements people make. :)

Even if the project never got beyond a screenplay being ordered, and was then canceled when the studio changed Presidents, it’s a long way beyond, “They were never going to do such a thing”, and I really don’t think Kerner and Jendresen were just developing a Trek project in their spare time. I think they were doing something they believed was going somewhere. From what I read, “ST: The Beginning” was hardly the only project scuttled when the regime changed, so make of it what you will.

#600 – “A lot of people here seem to think this new timeline will be vastly different from the original one. I don’t think anyone can say how different it will be — other than the writers.”

This, of course, is one of the unknowns. For example, Mr. Abrams has implied that aside from the visual aspects, the most significant change will be some backstory elements, but that the characters will get to where they were at the beginning of TOS anyway. And if that’s the case, then at least the potential impacts will be relatively minor. (Of course, that would also involve some vague commitment on the part of the people in charge to not decide that they now have a clean slate to just keep on trashing continuity.) But then there are the rumors of much bigger things, e.g., Vulcan being destroyed, which would be much more far-reaching. And, of course, there’s the final resolution which may have yet other effects, but which we won’t know about ’til May.

All of these variables are what keeps me from making a final judgment on the film itself. I despise reboots with a great passion, but until I know the exact nature of what’s happening in it, how can I speak fairly to the specifics of this film?

“Changes in the past send “ripples” through time, but the ripples don’t necessarily spread wider, they could die down pretty quickly. Either way, the ripples don’t affect everything, only certain things.”

A fair and valid point.

#601 – “The supposed history of the TOS characters was mainly developed as backstory during the series – a line here, a line there – and was presented in a plausible manner within the context of the show. That is to say, we got the reasonable impression that most of these characters had led separate lives prior to their assignments to the Enterprise and that they had grown into their current career and life roles as a result of many experiences and actions over periods of decades.

That’s plausible. Believable. Realistic.”

Indeed.

“What it’s not, is not raw material for an action/adventure sf movie showing the “origins” of the TOS crew. It’s simply not.”

No. But what it could have been is the loose framework *within which* such an adventure could take place. As you correctly noted, the implication is that those people had had many experiences in the time before they got to the Enterprise, experiences which could in fact be the subject of a great action/adventure movie. Obviously, we don’t know that ahead of time, because the story’s not yet been written, but to say that it *couldn’t* happen is, IMHO, presumptuous.

Right now, I have a bunch of notes for a storyline adapting what we know of the upcoming film into TOS continuity. Why? Because I believe it could have been done that way. The notes are fragmentary, and will likely remain so for a while, but when the time comes, I intend to prove the point. :)

(Oh, and I freely admit that I’m doing one of those “stand on the shoulders of giants” things. It’s much easier to do that sort of rewrite than it is to concoct the story ion the first place, but I’d like to think that some of the ideas I added of my own are pretty interesting. :) )

{snip}

“There’s simply nothing so novel about Kirk’s backstory or that of anyone else in “Star Trek” that it could be sold as a must-see to a big audience.

That’s just the truth. ;) ”

Dennis, the inevitable question is, how do you know? Who’s to say that a creative writer couldn’t find a tale or three to tell? Frankly, boiling what we know of the current film’s storyline down to 3 or 4 disconnected one-line references, it’s not very compelling, either, but obviously quite a few people think that Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman wrote a pretty awesome screenplay. So who, really, can say?

Taking it a step further, there are 8 years between Kirk taking command of Enterprise and the most recent previous backstory reference in his life. Look at the guy’s history from 2264 or so going forward. Do you really mean to assert that it is impossible that he could have had a movie-worthy adventure in 8 years? And if you do, I call shenanigans. ;)

630. Valar1 - December 12, 2008

Bob Orci you amateur, if you’d just said you guys had adjusted the field harmonics of the nadion inducer and re routed it through the gravimetric array we would’ve swallowed it, no problem.

631. Admiral_BlackCat - December 12, 2008

627
“Flippant” and “Extreme” seem to be a recurring theme. Not just here, but on other sites as well. I don’t know why people choose to do this other than to annoy and irritate others.

632. Kelvington - December 12, 2008

There’s like 630 posts here so I came to this party really late, and I won’t even try to imagine I read all the other posts. But for my money this is how Time Travel in Trek Universe works, and if I’m wrong please site me an exact example.

When you go back through time “warp ten” or “sling shot” then you can’t change anything and everything will be fine. However, if you use a device like the guardian, which just PLOPS you back in time, you can seriously screw things up.

So I suspect depending on how Nero goes back in time, it will make all the difference. You may now proceed in tearing me a new one.

633. Finny - December 12, 2008

“Is Spock’s mission to restore his original timeline?”

Perhaps the timeline is “fixed” at the end of the film?

634. Harry Ballz - December 12, 2008

Sling shot back and it’ll be ok, get plopped back and the yogurt hits the fan?

That makes about as much sense as teaching “pick-up lines” to a Ferengi!

635. Galileo - December 12, 2008

There are real wotrld reasons why things are different in this movie, just as there were for differences between TOS and its movie series. Time had pased in the real world and the aesthetic had to evolve. I hope all of you recognized that TMP refit story for what it was. The aesthetic must yet again evolve but the important thing to glean from this is that no matter what universe the crew of the starship Enterprise inhabit, their humanity and courage remain unchanged.

636. FranBro - December 12, 2008

15: Jordan

I fully agree. A copout so they can do whatever type of reboot they want. So the bridge can look a Mac store…
So basically, this isn’t our old crew and E anymore. So why should I care? I was willing to overlook the design changes, the uniform changes, the bloody carppy new bridge design as long as the characters would be the same. They clearly aren’t now. They should’ve just done a new story in the TREK verse. Maybe in the future. The average youg filmgoer today doesn’t really care about TOS. There’s no link, no nostalgia so they could’ve made all new characters. By distorting the old ones, the loyal old-timer fans are just gonna be confused, feel cheated, maybe pissed. “THAT’s not Kirk…”

sigh

637. Jeffries Tuber - December 12, 2008

What the hell happened today? Seriously, people posting angry missives on this site need to take a fresh look tomorrow morning at the mess on the floor from the night before.

JJ, Bob and Alex are artists. They bring their all to this process. Each of them has a background in television, which trains screenwriters to work creatively within a given character and story matrix.

If the Internet was around in ’65 and we were all obsessively tracking Star Trek because we were all fans of FORBIDDEN PLANET, WAGON TRAIN and HORATIO HORNBLOWER, do you really think we would have influenced Gene to make a better Star Trek by talking trash and debating his decisions? [Hint: f no.]

Whatever happens, it’s their asses on the line. If the film rules, makes hundreds of millions of dollars domestic and fires up the franchise for another decade… they have to top themselves! Imagine that! If the film craps the bed, embarrasses us all and has a 90% drop off to freaking BRUNO on May 15… Bob will no more be able to avoid these boards than he can now.

And regarding Quantum Mechanics, Bob’s not reinventing the wheel here. He simply had the nerve [and cared enough] to explain the same science in TNG:Yesterday’s Enterprise and Data’s above referenced tutorial.

Gene never did that.
Nick Meyer never did that when he introduced blatantly militaristic uniforms.
Berman never did that when.
And no one have ever come on here to explain or justify that heinous theme song in ENTERPRISE.

So take a breath, take a fresh look in the morning, and stay alive until May.

IDIC

638. Kenneth Thomson Jr. - December 12, 2008

Good. This is the same conclusion I came to so I am very happy to hear that they are specifically stating my theory was correct.

Ken :)

639. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. - December 12, 2008

Unlike most people, I have read every comment up until mine prior to posting. Don’t skim – it’s a really good discussion, as they all are here.

Anyhoo.

Back in late 1986, I was very narrow-mindedly against TNG. Perhaps at the suggestion of Doohan and Uhura, who visited Fort Collins Foothills Fashion Mall and very politely said that they “didn’t support it”. Maybe it was Nimoy who at the time predicted that replacing the original characters would never work.

I tried and tried. 87 was the easiest, 88 got a little more difficult… and by 1991 it was impossible. That show was too good, and not in a “taking away” from the original kind of way. I got excited about a new Star Trek that seemed to “take away” from the one that I loved. I tried to make them separate entities in my mind for the longest time. At some point, came full circle and like many others… accepted that this was “the next generation” – the next story…. ie canon, a real timeline.

I’ll never make that mistake again with Star Trek. I welcomed DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. And, every one of the original cast came around as well. Especially Nimoy. Call it growth, perhaps, learning from mistake.

This new Star Trek is going to be a great adventure. I cannot BILLieve how many people are simply hung up on the past, loyalty to what?

How does any of this betray anything? These guys wanted to make the next movie about the TOS era. Check. HOW do you do that, in respecting all that has come before, while hitting a reset button? Who even cares if you know when Kirk dies in generations and can’t die before? AS a storyteller, who wants to tell the same story that was told 40 years ago? Its already been done, with outdated SFX. answer: ALTERNATE TIMELINE TIME TRAVEL.

effing CHECK.

Its an origins story. COMPLETELY unfaithful to the storyline you’ve known for some 40 odd years, because it’s not going to END in the same way its had to end fo some 40 odd years. No Kodos, no Farragut, no Number one, Talos, all the inconsistencies…. Enterprise built on the ground in Iowa. Your childhood, as we hate to say, but it sure looks like – raped, with only a recognizable fragment of what you remember, left.

and who cares? I mean, really?

This is going to be a great adventure with the characters and the star trek universe that we have always loved. Nimoy and Majel RoddenB, not to mention JC, have signed off on it.

Sir JJ, honestly, I don’t trust so much with the sanctity of this without the OrcSter. Sir JJ has made it clear even as recently as the press tour where he affirmatively answered a question that this movie happens right after Star Trek 6. I cannot overlook that kind of blatant negligence by the top man in control of something which i love so dearly. However, my faith is restored by the continued perserverance here of the orcster – who makes it clear that story from concept was his. that guy knows his star trek. trust in the orcster. viva la orcster.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

640. Finny - December 12, 2008

Anyone remember DC Comics’ “Hypertime”?

Now it’s The “52″!

Same thing!

641. TrekNerd - December 12, 2008

“Yes, and you will notice that whenever the movie comes out, that whatever DVDs you have purchased, will continue to exist. ”

Whoa.

642. Harry Ballz - December 12, 2008

No, it’s when the movie comes out and your DVDs instantly disappear, then you go…………….WHOA!!!!!!

643. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. - December 12, 2008

anyone recall the HYPERSPACE button on the old “Asteriods” Atari standup game?

it was statistically programmed in at a rate that I no longer know that you would re-appear on an asteroid and lose a ship.

i never used that button, and I own a 1978 standup version of Asteroids in the old storage. OMEGA RACE machine as well.

two great games… I hope that the orcster and daimon lindeloffagus re-whatever them in the future.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

644. Gary - December 12, 2008

I love this multiple universe idea for Star Trek.

There is room for every possible event in Trek history to happily co-exist and allow a writer to move around from time-line to time-line for an endless supply of stories.

And this does leave almost no doubt in my mind that this “time” we will definately see Shatner reprise his role as Kirk since he DOESN’T HAVE TO DIE all over again!!!!

645. BaronByng - December 13, 2008

636 said ” I was willing to overlook the design changes, the uniform changes, the bloody crappy new bridge design as long as the characters would be the same. They clearly aren’t now. ”

That’s really it, isn’t it? You don’t want anything to change. You want everything to stay exactly the same, FOREVER.

Is it because your (and when I say “you,” I mean the Carping Canonistas) knowledge of every aspect of Trek minutiae will be invalidated, and therefore your standing in the Eltingville Comic-Book, Science-Fiction, Fantasy, Horror, and Role-Playing Club will diminish?

Some of you talk as if a change in canon somehow makes all of your original series media somehow “unreal,” and therefore unenjoyable. May I humbly suggest that if your grasp on what is real and unreal is so tenuous that a reboot / alternate timeline flick threatens to cause a psychotic break, please seek help NOW. No, really. Please. I’ll wait.

…Well it was never real to begin with, was it? It was a TELEVISION SHOW made by Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz’ production company, made to fill airtime and get viewers to buy Quisp or Tide or whatever. It is a popular entertainment with a Dashing Hero and Loyal Sidekicks and Dastardly Villains with which to have Fist-Fights. There are also soft-focused Pretty Damsels In Distress to rescue, all shot in glorious Technicolor in order to better sell General Electric color TV sets (oh and did you know they owned NBC? Funny that.)

Yes, there was a lot of good writing, with some high-minded notions, occasionally, that paralleled Science Run Amuck, Religion Run Amuck, The Horrors of War, tut-tutting at Imperialism, etc, et al, the party of the first part, and all that, and then a real Science Fiction Spine Chiller Head-Twister (the woman willingly walking into the disintegration booth in A Taste of Armageddon — eek).

But here’s the real notion of this movie. Change may come to characters we thought were immutable. In a TV world, the characters don’t usually permanently die, because we want to see them week after week. That isn’t the case in novels, plays, or non-franchise movies.

In fact most good fiction is about change. How we deal with it, how trying to avoid it leads you to dark choices, or how embracing it lets you live on. Characters that don’t change, in some way, by the end of the film or book, simply don’t ring true. They aren’t believable, and their stories sure as hell aren’t fun to watch.

I mean, who wants to watch the story of Luke Skywalker, Moisture Farmer Of The Year? Or Dorothy, the Girl Who Got Home Safely And Didn’t Get Knocked Out by A Tornado? Or ‘Clean, Upstanding’ Harry?

Frankly, the very idea that ‘the Trek we know, or think we know, is entirely set on its ear, with grave consequences, by meddling in time’, is enough to put bums in seats. What’s going to happen now? We don’t know. It’s the Mystery Box!

*Personally, I bet on Nero doing a Paradox Machine…something that collapses all possible timelines specifically to allow him to rewrite history (yes, Crisis on Infinite Bagels-ish), also seen in H2G2 as the creepy Bird Guide from ‘Mostly Harmless’ that demolished all the alternate Earths…

646. JusticeBoy - December 13, 2008

Orci rocks!

“Parallels” is my favorite TNG episode.

“The Doomsday Machine” is my Favorite TOS episode.

Of course, my favorite Trek episode of all time is “Trials and Tribblations”

Oh, … one more thing

My favorite TV show episode of all time is …

Futurama’s “Where No Fan Has Gone Before”

647. the king in shreds and tatters - December 13, 2008

My problem with this is that the literal reading of the MWH negates, existentially, the humanistic framework of Trek. In the MWH, not only is choice irrelevant (as all are chosen and not-chosen), which resultant choice you remember ‘making’ (or are ‘making’) is the result of chance–whichever universe your newly-fissioned consciousness inhabits (or, more precisely, which viewpoint you are experiencing) isn’t your decision. You just can’t remember making the other decisions that you made, and if you have the bad luck living in a culture in which has developed, scientifically, philosophically or theologically the literal MWH, you don’t really have the choice of deciding whether or not you’re contextualizing your choices in regards to experiential-reality-by-chance or experiential-reality-by-action, because even if you think you are it’s just a flip of the coin.

In essense, the lack of the ability to negate a reality means you don’t really create one, either–you’re a pinball falling through a pre-constructed pinball machine, thrown into the path by whatever you call fate-without-telos.

On a canon level, the time travel episodes, even Parallels, seems to imply a softer reading of the MWH, one in which choice is an active un-realizing of other realities, and manifested–experienced–alternate possibilities have to have active forking mechanisms creating them. Of course, Trek also has people jumping from one AU to another, which would–in a literal reading of the MHW–magnify the possible ‘tracks’ exponentially.

And there’s also the Q. I mean, an infinite number of Q doing infinite numbers of things (including the impossible)? At some point *someone* is going to figure out how to *actual make un-real* extant realities, and at that point you’re deep into The Apocalypse According to VALIS territory.
Trek, despite the SF gloss, has generally* been a vehicle for humanistic allegories–the Organians were metaphors for MAD, the time vortex in Yesterday’s Enterprise (or the Guardian in TCotEoF) just a means of highlighting the issue of sacrificing one’s life for the future.

What’s the metaphor here?

*When it’s been good.

648. Harry Ballz - December 13, 2008

#646 “What’s the metaphor here?”

Don’t count your tribbles before they’re hatched!

649. Nick Cook - December 13, 2008

545. Jeffries Tuber

Sorry, every time I see someone use the term purist, it’s describing the uber-obsessive naysayers. I had assumed that was your implication. :)

Afraid we’ll have to disagree on the creativity of the solution. I don’t think it is particularly creative, but I’m also not foolish enough to consider my creative tastes to be the final word. I’m sure plenty will love it.

Doctor Who did a very good job of reinventing itself without ditching it’s established history, or being overly reliant on it. I guess I simply don’t see why the producers of this movie couldn’t do the same. Indeed, up until this point, I had believed that was exactly whay they were doing. I believe there are still stories to tell in the established Trek universe, so I’d have to disagree that that story needed to be over.

Still, what’s done is done, and I don’t suppose there’s much point in debating it to death.

650. Harry Ballz - December 13, 2008

#648 “I don’t suppose there’s much point in debating it to death”

Too late!

651. Shatner_Fan_Prime - December 13, 2008

406. boborci … “yes… in May!”

By that, I assume you mean you’ll be back here in May explaining it to us geeks!

Right now, I just cannot imagine or forsee any possible scenario in the movie in which Nimoy Spock says, ‘Althought Nero is going into an alternate timeline which will not affect my own, I must follow him because…’

I strongly suspect the film will present the standard ‘must go back in time to save the future I know’ scenario. See also: COTEOF, First Contact, BTTF, Terminator, etc…

652. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 13, 2008

648 – Well said, Nick. Although we will probably continue to debate it to death, and I don’t even know why. It just seems to be what we Trekkies do.

Someone suggested–don’t remember who, and I lost it in the sea of posts–that we “carping canonistas” aren’t giving Mr. Orci due respect for coming on here. And so let me be the first to say: to have one of the most powerful men in STAR TREK not only doing lengthy interviews to explain himself to us but then seeing him regularly in the comment thread with us afterwards is, frankly, one of the most pleasant and empowering experiences in my entire experience of two decades of fandom. It’s just fantastic. Mr. Orci has a sharp wit and a keen mind that adds greatly to the conversation–his evisceration of Brian upthread was Internet Comedy Gold, just as his deeply intelligent defense of Built-On-Earth deeply impressed the canonista in my brain earlier this year. It is also unspeakably empowering to know that one of the biggest men in TREK thinks I matter enough to have a conversation with me.

And, given recent history, it’s frankly astonishing that a TREK exec producer knows the first thing about TOS, much less quantum theory. :P

So I want to emphasize here–and I think I speak for most people of my persuasion–that the disagreements and disappointments we may have with this interview do not overwhelm our warm feelings for Mr. Orci, a man whose first Trek story has yet to air and who already occupies a place in my heart next to RDM, Berman, Behr, Justman, and the Great Bird himself. Thank you for joining us here, sir. You give us a lot of credit by listening to us; I hope we deserve it.

As for my continued distaste for what was said in this interview, Dennis Bailey and hitch1969 are saying some very sensible things right now, and they’ve helped blunt the keen edge of my disappointment I’d add to hitch’s statement by saying that I had a very similar experience with Enterprise that he did with TNG. I was still in school when the “Series V Production Reports” were rolling out almost weekly on StarTrek.com, and, though I devoured them, I found myself more and more distrustful of what I was hearing until, two weeks before “Broken Bow,” I made a strenuous argument for pre-emptively decanonizing ENT, because it was going to suck and we had the excuse that “Star Trek” wasn’t in the title.

I was dead wrong. Enterprise rocked. Throughout all four years, I only missed one episode first-run. Except that one time (“Fallen Hero,” season one; I was out shopping for Mother’s Day presents), no matter where in the world I was, Wednesday nights found me curled up in front of a TV screen, sucking down Trekkie goodness.

I hope that’s what happens with this movie. I hope my worries turn out to be deluded ravings of a man who hates change, and May 10th finds me shouting to the rooftops that people need to see this movie. I half-expect that to be exactly what happens. But, right now, I’m not seeing the need or the justification for what’s being planned. I hope neither Mr. Orci nor anyone else here considers me rude, angry, or obsessed because that.

Well, okay. “Obsessed” would probably be accurate. :P

653. McCoy - December 13, 2008

I sort of get the feeling that JJ isn’t trying to pull “non-sci fi” people to trek, but rather pull Star Wars people to Trek. The people on the boards who seem most open to changing Trek are probably the people who preferred Star Wars all along. It’s like someone invited them to Trek dinner. Sure they are open-minded. They want in the door to feast upon the glory which is Trek. They didn’t like the food they were getting at the Lucas household and need somewhere to go.

At the end of the meal we will all be Trek Wars. Next episode: we find out Nero is Spock’s father and Scotty Calrissian gets to fly the Millennium Enterprise.

I still have my old episodes. Thank goodness for remasterdness.

654. trekboi - December 13, 2008

Ok…

Xai – i was using the term raped as a metaphore (just incase u didnt get that)- for what i feel is a violation of a creative process/fictional universe not a physical body – this was someting i heard someone else say on another thread.
As for any insensitivity on my part i was raped on nov 23 1997 and i still think it is an accurate description of what tptb have been doing to classic franchises lately and i have no problem using the term.

and #578 dom

id run through all ur comments on my coments and comment on them all if i didnt have better things to do.
but you are right about one thing- tptb have been laughing at the fans for years and looking past them for the box office and oddly enuff the franchise has slid into the toilet as they continue to dilute Star Trek to make it appeal to the non fans.
and finally the production design and visuals in preview do excite me as the Star Wars sequel previews did but the story/writing- re-boting are what turns me cold.

655. trekboi - December 13, 2008

OOPS I FORGOT TO USE MY TRADEMARK CAPS FOR THE HARD OF HEARING…

AND METAPHOR MAY BE THE WRONG TERM BUT NOBODYS PERFECT

656. trekee - December 13, 2008

I rather foolishly thought when I read the interview that we were having a really nice backstory which while not being for everyone, would effectively nullify the complaints of most ardent canonites. What WAS I thinking?

There is SO much precedent for this in Trek lore. The Mirror Universe supplements the “main” timelines wonderfully and this does the same only with a bigger, more epic scope. They are taking Trek and giving it a story which changes everything you’ll see from now on but doesn’t insult what went before.

At worse, this is a supplement to TOS and Iowagirl had it spot on way at the start of the thread. I’m genuinely appalled at the insulting manner some people have responded with. If Bob Orci reads this far I’d like to add a thanks for being so gracious and patient and for taking time to explain so much. You have thicker skin than I, sir :-)

657. Boborci - December 13, 2008

651. Shatner_Fan_Prime – December 13, 2008

Nope.

658. Sonny B. - December 13, 2008

Good Q&A between Bob and Anthony. It actually makes sense after the “one to many shots of Cordrozine I had tonight!”

Bob, question . . . obviously contingent upon the success of the movie, do you and Alex anticipate coming out with a ST story that falls in line with what made the series attractive and successful. For example, instead of relying on time travel as a variable in the writing equation, why not go back to:

1. Enterprise on a defined mission. Not the last or only ship in the area to always respond to an emergency.

2. Not a mission where the galaxy is at stake, but where the villain has it out for achieving more tangable objectives; greed, lust for power, but also demonstrates his fallability during his run-ins with the Enterprise crew. More of an impulsive, “colorful” villain versus the calculating kind.

3. Show the Enterprise core characters explore more challenging and demanding persona between each other while trying to defeat the protagonist. The catch would be to do this while trying to stand by each other as the villain offers them “something” they may want to betray each other. Go deeper into the character’s makeup and explore what true “human frailties” they may possess conflicting with their dedication to each other and Kirk.

Just curious questions . . . otherwise, I’m totally psyched about seeing the movie in May. Hopefully, I’ll be back from the Middle East to see the premier!

Beuno Suerte Amico and Ciao!

Sonny B.

659. Bill Peters - December 13, 2008

Wow and Ouch is all I have to say….Intersting Ideas, Intersting way to come at Trek Fresh…but boy do I think Janway has it right when she says this gives her a headace….I’m comming close…..So many diffrent Cannons so little time….ouch…bet the only person who could love and get used to jumping from Timeline to Timeline and Reality to Reality would be a Q!

660. Bill Peters - December 13, 2008

and Congrats to anyone who has time to actually read all these post in one sitting with out losing sleep or sanity!

661. Devon - December 13, 2008

“The people on the boards who seem most open to changing Trek are probably the people who preferred Star Wars all along. ”

Have only ever seen 1 movie of it. So count me out of that. Though, keep on trying with your theories.

662. soup - December 13, 2008

lol bulsh1t

with this explanation you can do whatever you like and still say its canon

663. sybok - December 13, 2008

A rather unsettling interview. Several points/ fears I’d like to share:

Pt.1. [Point]
“Many Worlds” is only an interpretation of QT (Quantum Theory). I’ve heard some other do exist. So it need not be the right/ correct one.

Pt.2. [Fear]
Alternate time-line, hence the “Not your father’s Trek(‘s time-line)”, is a concept I don’t like since it sounds like different Trek than the one I grew up on.
It can be interesting as a stand-alone two-parter (ENT) or some episodes (DS9). It worked in TNG “Yesterday’s Enterprise” and it gave us Tasha’s daughter… But a movie? I may be just afraid to boldly accept it.

——————————————————————————
Professor Hubert Farnsworth: What do you nice kids want?
Dr. Zoidberg: Nothing. I’m leaving. But if you had extra courage I’d haul it away for you, maybe.
——————————————————————————

Pt.3. [Wor(l)d-play]
Instead of canon, let us say “quanon” to depict course of events in all the possible time-lines. Then all can fit within a many-worlds quanon; a canon with the meaning similar as in music, several co-existing and competing voices/ time-lines. Muhahahaha…

664. Conard - December 13, 2008

though I’m not very happy with another back-in-time-to-save-the-present story, even in a quantum key, I believe that it has decided mainly because of the need of Leonard Nimoy for marking the continuity with Star Trek franchise and star Trek fans. The same need I guess it was decided in Generations (with the plot shatner in the nexus) in order to proceed with TNG movies after 6 TOS movies. Beyond the fact we are delighted to see Nimoy in action again this wasn’t really necessary. The prequel or basic rifondation of a franchise is very well acquainted and accepted by movies and tv’s fans.
Daniel Craig’s Bond stories represent a complete reinstallment of all James Bond movies tradition. Lot of contradictions there: He starts these days, so the connery and moore cold war fights theoretically never happened but his boss is lady dench-M which in Goldeneye takes the job after the former M ecc.
I believe that a simple epic reinstallment story (as the Donner’s Superman) with the new crew of star trek would have worked well.

665. BK613 - December 13, 2008

627
Xai
Sorry didn’t mean come across as rudely as I did. The word in question originally meant to despoil (hence how it came to used for sexual assault) and that meaning is still a valid one. Here’s an example from a song:

“Some men came and raped the land and nobody caught ‘em
Put up a bunch of ugly boxes, and Jesus! people bought ‘em”
The Last Resort by The Eagles

Anyway, sorry that the word touched a nerve with you and I apologize for any contribution I made to that.

666. Knowles2 - December 13, 2008

Well interesting, using multi universe theory. Now everything in the movie that has change from the original series and now must directly down to Nero influence. So why would he want Enterprise built on the ground and not orbit. Why does he want enterprise have a different bridge design. This to me just opens a whole other level detail to critcise the movie, thanks.

And now they got explain how the whole enterprise storyline fits in with the theory use the film, the temporal prime directive and the temporal cold war and probably a few others I shall look forward to the explanations with in the film.

667. Xai - December 13, 2008

#665 BK613

Apology accepted. Let’s move on. Thanks

668. thorsten - December 13, 2008

657. Boborci…
Nope.

Which means that Spock travels back fully aware of the fact that he will not be able to return to his prime timeline… his parting words with young Kirk “that is not my destiny” indicate that he knows quite well where he will go to.

So maybe Spock Prime knows that a world defined at some moment of time corresponds to a unique world at a time in the past, but to a multitude of worlds at a time in the future.

669. Databrain - December 13, 2008

Unless the elementals of the science of quantum mechanics and how they effect the alternate or coinciding time-line plot are explained in the new film, then the writers and creators are simply using this as an excuse to alter a time-line for the purpose of actually altering the characters and their pursuits, to suit a capital need for revenue by making an action adventure film with a trek label.

In other words, unless there is a conversation between one or more characters regarding this quantum dynamic variable and its effect on or coinciding with the time-line we are familiar with, then the film will simply be an outright assault on canon. Any time there has ever been a time-line issue in star trek there has been internal dialogue between the characters regarding this variable and either the attempt to restore or the resignation that they cannot restore, the familiar or primary time-line. A case in point being ‘more tribbles, more trouble, where worf explains why some of the klingons of the 23rd century did not look anything like those of the 24th century.

You cannot simply expect the audience members to derive a quantum mechanics explanation if there is not some internal explanation forthcoming in the film itself as to the nature and extent of these changes and the impetus that allowed them to unfold. Without a dialogue between the characters regarding the science or philosophy of this, it would not seem viable to a cerebral audience, let alone a non-cerebral action film audience. So with this in mind, the question I would ask the one co-writer who frequents this site is this. Is there dialogue in the film pertaining to the fact that an alternate time-line is blatant produced by the events that would apparently precipitate them? I would venture to say that without such dialogue, your attempts may come across as anti-canon.

It would be one thing if the issues were minor, as with Khan being familiar with Chekov in the second film, but your entire film is based on the premise of altering a time-line. Therefor it would seem some conscious acknowledgement of this altered time-line and the events, such as enterprise construction in Iowa, that precipitate forth from this, would be necessary. It just would not seem trek-like to not have the characters talking about it.

670. NotBob - December 13, 2008

I probably missed out on my chance to get an answer, but my two questions are these:

1. Does Christopher Pikes story get changed a lot because of this movie?

2. Does Kirk make Captain by the end of the film? I know the film covers many years, but do we like see Kirk from a kid to 30 years old?

I saw the commerical, and I really like what I saw. I was worried about Pegg and Urban and I have to admit that when I saw the adds, (from the little that I saw) I thought to myself, “this might turn out being really really cool. I was worried and had my doubts about the reboot of Battlestar Galactica too, at first, and was blown away by the new show once it aired. It’s one of the best shows on T.V.

671. Databrain - December 13, 2008

Let me simplify my question. If you, Bob Orci, as a writer, as well as the other writers, are creating a brand new time-line here, is it explained internally within the film itself that this is happening by any other event than Nero traveling back in time and destroying the Kelvin? Is there internal dialogue as to the intent to produce a new time-line by one or more of the characters? And if not, why?

672. Databrain - December 13, 2008

Also, is there internal dialogue in the film that explains why seemingly macro-scale changes, such as the enterprise being built in Iowa, are taking place? Is it explained how these changes relate to a newly produced time-line?

673. thorsten - December 13, 2008

According to the Copenhagen Interpretation Neros Time Travel splits the Trekverse into two alternatives. The attack on the Kelvin is a thermodynamically irreversible process. The world is plit in to alternates, one with George Kirk alive and the timeline intact, the other the as it looks in STXI. The observer in this case is Nero, he is aware of the change. No one else is, for obvious reasons. So the question remains, how do the Vulcans learn of Neros actions in another time line? We know they have Timeships, are they secretely travelling between time lines and multiverses all the time?

674. Databrain - December 13, 2008

Unless the writers are just using a lot of scientific excuses to justify their end product.

675. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@674…I don’t think so. The approach to make the Enterprise more real, including her having lots of decks we never saw before and actually functional looking ramscoops, is followed by the attempt to make Time Travel more realistic by adhering to real physics.

676. Conard - December 13, 2008

if Spock’s departure is after Nero’s departure then the arrival of Spock in the past doesn’t happen in the Nero’s altered timeline but creates a second alternative universe in which Spock can destroy Nero’s plans, but in the original Nero’s timeline the villain will do whatever he wants because there’s no future Spock blocking him.
So again, why Should Nero or Spock bother?

677. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@676…
then we have to assume that Bob Orci thought this through, and that Spocks Timeship has a way to find the right multiverse… or that the changes occur on a more local level than expected.

678. Conard - December 13, 2008

@677…
in this case we all could forget parallel universes. Nero would himself go back in time in our original timeline, just like tho old Spock. We’d have then a classical pre-quantum back-in-time story but the star trek world that we know from tv and movies would be deleted forever

679. Papa Jim - December 13, 2008

Wow, way to go Bob. That is some deep and heavy BS you are slinging there. Why not just admit that you guys did whatever the hell you wanted, to bring a cash cow back to life.

I can deal with changes being made to modernize the show and the fact that real technology has surpassed in many ways the sci fi technology of TOS, and the fact that it has been 40+ years, but please do not insult my intelligence that this is in anyway in line with canon. You just changed things wherever convenient to make it popular and have the “pat” psycho-babble answer to try and explain it away scientifically.

Typical modern media way of spinning everything to fit there needs And the need here is to make money.

I have watched Star Trek in all it’s forms since the original series aired in 1966. I took part in the letter writing campaigns to bring it back throughout the late 60′s and early 70′s. I was lucky enough to see Gene Roddenberry give a lecture and share his vision. I have been to every movie on opening day. And though canon was never adhered to perfectly, there was always the effort to stick to it and the respect for all that came before. They did not just rely on characters names and some remastered sound effects

I am still trying very hard to hold on to hope for this movie, and I was very excited when I first heard you guys were doing it, but with all the “We are being VERY VERY RESPECTFUL to what came before, but now every time you guys do an interview and let a little of the story out it does nothing but contradict what you have said before. So, now I understand all the secrecy, if all this had come out at the beginning everyone would have freaked out.

Nothing personal now, you guys are obviously very profitable at what you do.

This is just the way i see it.

680. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@678…
right. If we assume, as Bob Orci stated, that any attempt of Time Travel creates a parallel universe, the big question is why Spock travels back in time, and what his goals are…

681. Conard - December 13, 2008

Sorry, I’m getting boring, it’s fiction after all and the movie will be just wonderful

682. Cervantes - December 13, 2008

Well I’ve read every one of these near-700 posts now, and some of this stuff has made my head hurt again, lol.

I sure hope that things are more obvious during the actual Movie….

A very valid point in post #594 by cugel the clever caught my eye, and it’s worth re-reading for anyone still here.

So for all you Shat lovers that may have missed this previously, here’s the best ‘alternative timeline’ EVER –
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=M2JeKeVynbY

Enjoy.

683. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@682…

Cugels idea is a sweet sendoff that this film will not need.
Because when the credits roll you will be convinced that Chris Pine is Kirk,
and that his adventures are just beginning…

684. ScottyGirl - December 13, 2008

I dig this time travel bit. And it will be interesting. I’m still unconvinced by other issues though. Zach Quinto didn’t come off very well in the trailer. Chris Pine was OK though. Karl Urban as McCoy was believable but Scotty’s part seems to be a bit of nothing. Which is a shame since they’re using such a great actor for the part. I’m sure Simon Pegg’s Scotty could have been bombastic, had the role been written properly.

Hey you writers. Scotty is not a geek. He’s a fully capable officer and he can be a fierce fighter. The trailer makes him look like a nerd. I didn’t like that.

What I did like is the fact that William Shatner is not going to be in the movie. He is so overbearing and offensive lately that it’s going to be a better movie without him in it.

685. Marshall McMellon - December 13, 2008

Hmmmm, after reading that article (great article BTW), I now wonder if John Titor will show up as a red shirt in this movie? :)

686. Cervantes - December 13, 2008

#683 thorsten

It was his point about how this Movie’s ‘quantum mechanics’-led storyline COULD have accounted for the inclusion of an appearance of an older, ‘Nexus’-AVOIDING Kirk….somehow, had J.J. wished it, that I was re-enforcing, rather than cugel the clever’s example of how it could be done.

Whether I’m convinced by this Movie’s end that Chris Pine IS Kirk, or not….I’d rather his adventures were ‘just beginning’, knowing that his ‘original timeline’ ones aren’t NEGATED in any way now….

687. Dennis Bailey - December 13, 2008

#615: “I think that 605 is making the case that iconic fictional characters have back stories that are part of the public consciousness and therefore read as “untrue” when those back stories aren’t adhered to in some way. While I don’t think Kirk and Spock rise to this level of awareness, Superman’s origins, for example, must include the Death of Krypton and the Parentage of Ma and Pa Kent.

I don’t think that it was being said that the difference between real and imaginary people was hard to distinguish.”

You’re probably right, and I should have read it that way. Thanks.

#629: “In that case, Dennis, take it up with him. I, however, am slightly more wiling to trust what the guy who was involved in the production said. I certainly wasn’t, so the best I can do is weigh the statements people make. ”

Alex, you’ve got it backward – since *you’re* concerned by his patently inaccurate claim about the “Chase” project having been approved for production, you can “take it up with him” if you like. I need do no more than dismiss it as irrelevant to the debate, since it is not so. It never moved forward beyond the script level; the folks who were actually in a position to greenlight a project never took that kind of interest in it.

688. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@686…
It all comes down to being in the wrong place at the wrong time…
I am quite convinced that Pine Kirk will be able to sidestep some of the quirks that happened in the Bragaverse…

I for myself will never look back ;))

689. Ripped Shirt Kirk - December 13, 2008

Wow, I would pay real money If Bob Orci coul explain this to me….

If according to your interpretation of QM, what you do in the past don’t affect your future, WHAT’S THE POINT IN NERO GOING TO THE PAST AND TRY TO ALTER ANYTHING, can you answer this simple question without putting a link that doesn’t explain anything?

For the sake of coerency I’m going to pretent the explantion of BO didn’t exist… in any timeline.

690. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@689…
If you change something in the past of course that effects the future… in that particular timeline you are in.

691. Cervantes - December 13, 2008

#688 thorsten

Yes, all Pine’s Kirk has to do is hope that any new eventual ‘timeline’ that he finds himself faced with by this Movie’s end….DOESN’T somehow continue on into the events shown in TNG as a whole!

Thus he avoids that dreadful ‘Generations’ screenplay…. ;)

692. Dennis Bailey - December 13, 2008

#689:

“WHAT’S THE POINT IN NERO GOING TO THE PAST AND TRY TO ALTER ANYTHING, can you answer this simple question without putting a link that doesn’t explain anything?”

Let’s try out a hypothetical answer to that based on that most pervasive and strong of human (okay, and Romulan – don’t split hairs) motivations: self-interest:

Perhaps Nero and his companions would rather live out their lives in a world where they’re considered heroes and patriots rather than hunted criminals and outcasts.

693. Databrain - December 13, 2008

690 said:
‘If you change something in the past of course that effects the future… in that particular timeline you are in.’
Then we are assuming that a spock from our known time-line not only travels to an alternate time, but to an alternate universe to, in effect, restore the non-variable quantum effect of that alternate universe that has absolutely no effect on his universe/time-line? This sounds like a lot of obfuscating excuses on the writers parts.

694. Databrain - December 13, 2008

692 said:
‘Perhaps Nero and his companions would rather live out their lives in a world where they’re considered heroes and patriots rather than hunted criminals and outcasts.’

But why would that concern alternate time-line spock? he should be content that Nero is relegated to his own alternate time-line/universe in the quantum variable realm, where he has everything his own way and thus has no interest in affecting the quatrillion other alternate time-lines/universes. Least of all future Spocks.

695. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@693…

No, it can’t be that complicated,
no layman moviegoer will get onto that Many-Worlds-Wagontrain anyway.

And I bet that Ockham’s razor will apply to the OrciKurtzman script!

696. spiked canon - December 13, 2008

i actually agree with databrain…..why would spock care what is going on in a new timeline?

697. I'm a Doctor not a _________! - December 13, 2008

<>

FIND THE WRITERS…GET THEM…GET THEM ALL…THEY ARE HERETICS!!!….EXPLAIN YOURSELVES!! OR DIE AT THE STAKE….WHERE”S YOUR PRECIOUS QM NOW..>HMM?????

oh…wait….as curious as I am about how BOB &CO. work this out…I almost forgot ..it’s a movie…

698. spiked canon - December 13, 2008

maybe the spock that comes back in time is from the new timeline. I think the timeline sidebar is just to let us know TOS still existed and TNG is still going

699. Dennis Bailey - December 13, 2008

#694: “But why would that concern alternate time-line spock?”

Ya got me – I just essayed to answer the Nero question. I’ll give someone else a turn on Geezer Spock. LOL

700. Nick Cook - December 13, 2008

692. Dennis Bailey

“Perhaps Nero and his companions would rather live out their lives in a world where they’re considered heroes and patriots rather than hunted criminals and outcasts.”

You mean kinda like Soran in Generations? ;)

I agree, it’s not an unreasonable assumption, but I also don’t find it a terribly compelling motivation. I would expect most people in Nero’s position to want revenge on the people who put them there. Yeah, some would rather take the easy out., but if Nero is the baddass he’s been built up to be, this doesn’t really sound like the kind of motivation that would drive him.

I guess we’ll find out in May.

701. sean - December 13, 2008

#585

I think we’re actually in agreement then (for the most part), which makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside – ya know, IDIC, a peaceful future for humanity, etc. :) It’s just that you’ve come up with a ‘meta-canonical’ explanation that works for you.

Here’s the thrust of what I think you and I disagree on (and it relates to your more significant issues with the movie, as well): after 5 TV shows, 10 films, 726 episodes and nearly a quarter of a thousand hours of stories, we have no mention of a grad school for cadets. None. We have innumerable references to 4 years at the academy and to graduating cadets being in their 4th year, but nothing about attending any secondary institutions. In fact, we see a number of cadets going straight into the field, as it were.

Now, does this make references to such an institution in a future installment ‘impossible’? No, of course not. However, it makes such an institution more and more unlikely, as surely over 200 years of fictional filmed history SOMEONE would have mentioned it. It makes it increasingly difficult for the viewer to accept such a significant piece of the puzzle being added retroactively. This is the problem many had with Enterprise – it wasn’t that the existence of a Starfleet (but not Federation) starship Enterprise was impossible, but after 4 television shows and 9 movies and numerous references to Kirk’s being ‘the first Enterprise’ and 6 starships by that name, and an entire wall dedicated to ships named Enterprise on the wall of the Enterprise-D & E’s conference room, it seemed to give new meaning to the definition of ‘flexible’. So no, not impossible, but I understand those that felt it was a violation of ‘canon’.

How does this differ from say, a new alien being introduced that we’re expected to believe has simply been there the whole time without being referenced? Simple, established canon itself gives us an out, as the Federation has been clearly defined as having hundreds of member worlds, and within reason we cannot have possibly seen them all. It isn’t difficult for a viewer to accept that sort of development, because it fits within the ‘rules’.

I believe these sorts of problems which arise from 42+ years of fictional canon are what caused the new writers to create their new loophole (and again, their loophole ‘fits’ with everything Trek has ever established about time travel). Now, I’ve heard the argument that a good writer should be able to work within this kind of framework. True, but should a good writer be forced to chuck half his story simply because it doesn’t fit in with what we learned in episode 15, act III, line 43? Now expand that to the previously mentioned 726 episodes, 10 films, ‘fanon’, etc., and then try to tell me that canon hadn’t been turned into something of a hindrance for new ideas.

As for creating a ‘fresh’ new set of characters, I think the answer is simple as to why that didn’t happen – it had been happening for the last 20 years. We had TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, all with new characters and new settings and new missions. The fanbase had grown bored, the general viewing audience had grown bored. As of 2005, Star Trek was circling the proverbial drain. The studio didn’t want to send Trek to Davey Jones’ locker, so they did what so many other successful franchises had done – gone back to the beginning. The reality of the world is these properties have to make money. It takes a lot of money to make them. So if you have a failed TV show and a failed pair of movies, are you going to trust the same creative team to create yet another new set of characters? I don’t think so. You’ll go back to what you know works. And TOS on the big screen, the characters that existed in the popular consciousness, they knew that worked.

And hey, I hardly think that makes the studio a bunch of ‘bad guys’. As often as people quote IDIC, I think they forget the entire concept was created by Gene to sell necklaces! ;) So he was just as guilty of trying to make a little money off his product. Something I hardly blame him for.

702. sean - December 13, 2008

#653

I have *always* preferred Trek, hands-down. As a kid I lived it, breathed it, read it, played it out, etc. I like Star Wars too, but for completely different reasons and not to 1/120 the degree to which I enjoy Trek. Let’s all stop with the ‘the people that like A must be B’ lines, okay?

703. Tox Uthat - December 13, 2008

#286

“And I thought “Parallels” was a very cool episode, especially alternate Riker’s crazy homeless beard.”

One of my top 5 crazy Trek moments.

704. Exidor - December 13, 2008

So Spiner is STILL pulling strings in Trek. Pretty sneaky, sis.

I have to say that this explanation makes this movie a LOT more enjoyable. Some of my favorite Trek episodes/movies are the complicated time travel-y ones. “Parallels” is on my list.

705. Jon - December 13, 2008

@ boborci.

So now that you have a new timeline free of the constraints of maintaining continuity to events previous depicted on screen- a blank page of future, please… I hope you have a nice writers bible of sorts, to maintain consistency and continuity for the future of this new take on the franchise, to pass on to anyone who might take on the mantle after you guys, or to refer back to yourselves.

706. peej2k - December 13, 2008

I haven’t read every comment… but come on its easy to figure out.
What Nero plans to do affects every universe, not just the ones they are in now.

By successfully doing whatever he plans to do to Vulcan in the movie is going to be such a massive event, such a mass of energy being used, that it will affect Quantum time, and the mechanics of the multiple universe.

It sounds more like they’re using string theory, not just quantum mechanics.

707. McCoy - December 13, 2008

702.

I liked Star Wars and Star Trek too—for different reasons like you. I guess my point was that there are some people who only like one or the other and that this movie seems to be meshing the styles together.

708. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@698…spiked canon

Spock knows that it’s imperative for Kirk to be at the helm of the Enterprise during the Vulcan crisis. How can Spock Prime know that when he is from the post TNG timeline, in which Neros Attack never happened, and Vulcan still exists?

With Pine over at Neros ship, and young Spock in command but emotionally out of control, it sounds quite possible that Vulcan blows up. Reason enough for old Spock to go back in time with his Timeship to correct this mistake and to make sure that young Kirk saves his homeworld…

709. Jeffries Tuber - December 13, 2008

663. sybok – December 13, 2008

I second the motion to introduce the term “Quanon” to Trekdom. In addition to the reference to Bob’s QM research, it also sounds like ‘quasi.’ I certainly don’t second this in a derogatory way, but as an expansion of the too-rigid notion of canon.

Canon is, after all, a religious reference to the Catholic church, the Council of Nicea [which determined what books would be included in the Christian Bible] and the Vatican process for sainthood.

If we’re stupid enough to box ourselves in to the idea of canon forever, as I suggest above, the timeline will eventually be full.

Although Christopher Nolan’s approach to Batman and the new BSG are all sorts of kick ass, Batman comes from a comic book tradition of constant revision by visual artists and writers and BSG comes from a POS television show that was really just Universal/Sidney Sheinberg’s attempt to right the wrong of passing on Star Wars.

I’d also like to make a motion here to quash further reference to the iBridge. There are many reasons, but most of all it’s just not creative criticism. What, are we going to rule out all use of the color white in production design? I think the brighter set and white rather than grey interiors express some of the optimism JJ was going for. Plus, going ‘dark’ is the path of least resistance in big geek movies.

I think there’s a very rational reason for using solid state controls in a 23rd Century Starship: they can’t be overtaken by viruses, invasive computers and other electronic techniques by enemies. But as has been made very clear here, this movie is all about putting jumper cables to a franchise that was felled IMHO by the theme song to ENTERPRISE.

710. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@706…

good idea… all we know is that Nero drops “red matter” into Vulcans core to create a black hole, the consequences of that are totally uncertain…

711. Databrain - December 13, 2008

706 said:
‘I haven’t read every comment… but come on its easy to figure out.
What Nero plans to do affects every universe, not just the ones they are in now.

By successfully doing whatever he plans to do to Vulcan in the movie is going to be such a massive event, such a mass of energy being used, that it will affect Quantum time, and the mechanics of the multiple universe.

It sounds more like they’re using string theory, not just quantum mechanics.’

But this is suppose to appeal to a wider audience? Maybe they have created several different films for several different time-lines in which several different types of fans will be totally stunned by the film. Nah I think they’re just using botchy science to excuse themselves from canon violation.

712. Alex Rosenzweig - December 13, 2008

#639 – “These guys wanted to make the next movie about the TOS era. Check. HOW do you do that, in respecting all that has come before, while hitting a reset button?”

The answer is, you *don’t*. You simply tell a story about those characters and an experience they have together. That’s it. It’s a well-proven approach, and it works, if the story is compelling. A reset button is not needed, and constantly worrying about how to cram one in runs the risk of derailing the process.

#645 – “636 said ” I was willing to overlook the design changes, the uniform changes, the bloody crappy new bridge design as long as the characters would be the same. They clearly aren’t now. ”

That’s really it, isn’t it? You don’t want anything to change. You want everything to stay exactly the same, FOREVER.”

Umm… Leaving the rest of the screed aside, you do realize that what FranBro said, and what you interpreted that to mean, are pretty much opposite, right? Just checkin’. ;)

#649 – “Doctor Who did a very good job of reinventing itself without ditching it’s established history, or being overly reliant on it. I guess I simply don’t see why the producers of this movie couldn’t do the same. Indeed, up until this point, I had believed that was exactly whay they were doing. I believe there are still stories to tell in the established Trek universe, so I’d have to disagree that that story needed to be over.”

Well said. I agree.

#662 – “with this explanation you can do whatever you like and still say its canon”

At the very least, the usage of the term “canon” in Trek will have to be redefined. ;) But let’s face it; it’s happened before, and it will no doubt happen again. (After all, it used to be that canonical Trek was defined as “live-action, filmed material”, but I somehow doubt that people consider “Phase II”, or “Hidden Frontier”, or “Hathway”, or “Lexington”, etc. to be canon… ;) )

#679 – “I am still trying very hard to hold on to hope for this movie, and I was very excited when I first heard you guys were doing it, but with all the “We are being VERY VERY RESPECTFUL to what came before, but now every time you guys do an interview and let a little of the story out it does nothing but contradict what you have said before. So, now I understand all the secrecy, if all this had come out at the beginning everyone would have freaked out.”

I’m somewhat in the same boat as Papa Jim, really. I had been really excited about “ST: The Beginning”, and then that got killed barely after it was born. Then I heard about the Abrams project, and I was, like, “Okay, this could be pretty cool.” And I heard it was going to be an “origin story” for the TOS characters/situation, and that intrigued me, and I read the interviews with JJ and Bob and Alex about how existing Trek, its world, etc. were going to be honored and respected, and about how there were many gaps and uncertainties in the characters’ backstories that they planned to use, and I was pretty psyched, ’cause I knew there was a lot of room for new storytelling. But each new bit of information has implied that all those statements weren’t exactly true. To be fair, they weren’t outright false, either, but it seems like they were picking words very carefully to give one impression, when in fact they had something very different in mind.

713. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@709…

good point with Sidney Sheinberg, Tuber.
I always enjoy your insightful comments.

Agree on the iBridge, writing from my glossy new MBP ;))

714. Chad - December 13, 2008

I’d have rather they just said ‘reboot’ and left this time travel and time line crap to the fanboys. Oh well, as long as the story is good.

715. 750 Mang - December 13, 2008

This whole bizarro universe thing is a cheap gimmick so they can break all the rules, ignore what has come before and still try to say it’s not a Star Trek reboot. pfft.

I can imagine how the story meeting went…

“Hey now we can blow up Vulcan like the Death Star and make Kirk and Pike have a father son relationship like Maverick and Tom Skerritt in Top Gun.”

“Yeah, yeah. And the Enterpriise can be built in Kirk’s backyard!”

“That’s great! And Scotty can have a little sidekick critter like Chaka in Land of the Lost!”

“I love alternate timelines! We can do whatever we want,! We can have Antonio Banderas play Khan in the sequel! And we can find out that Khan and Kirk grew up together and used to be bff’s!”

“Yeah! Yeah!”

Shoot me now.

I just hope that at the end of this new movie Carol Marcus wakes up to find Kirk in the shower and it’s all just been a bad dream.

716. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

Someone in this big mess of postings asked whether the Kelvin would be more like real TOS asthetic. If you look at the pictures of Captain Robau and crew, you will notice the bridge is dark and behind one of the officers we see a black panel. That bridge may be the one that hardcore Trekkies geek out too.

717. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

#750 yeah it is a gimmick – and one we’ve suspected for quite some time. It’s a way of making canon violation part of canon. I admire Bob’s canny use of QM to avoid giving a straight answer, but if he tried it in a bar, he’d still get his ass kicked unless it was filled with MIT grads.

718. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

Antonio Banderas would be awesome as Khan…. but don’t.

719. I. Asimov - December 13, 2008

Surprise! losers.

They’re about to rape your childhood like George Lucas raped the childhood of Star Wars fans.

Fact #1) They aren’t smart enough to come up with a good story that takes place in the current Trek universe.

Fact #2) The ‘Many Worlds’ interpretation is just one interpretation out of four major interpretations of quantum mechanical phenomena. It’s not even strictly about time travel, though it can be extended to speculation on time travel.

Fact #3) They don’t care about fans or ‘canonicity’ and just want your ticket dollars. They view imagination as just a means to a ‘franchise’. And so, they’ll always be giving you cheezy, formulaic stories.

Fact #4) Without the already established associations people have with the characters of Kirk, Spock, et al. this movie would probably fail to entertain, no matter how much special effects money they throw at it. If they could write a good, original story to begin with they wouldn’t need to go back and build it on top of the characters of Kirk, Spock, et al.

720. S. John Ross - December 13, 2008

#610: Definately!

[runs like the wind]

721. 750 Mang - December 13, 2008

#719.

Yup.

Either an incredible lack of creativity or a total lack of giving a crap about 40 years of Star Trek History.

The disappointment I feel coming from this movie really saddens me.

722. thorsten - December 13, 2008

Isaac, you missed the point here.
Somebody who does not care usually shows not up on bulletin boards interacting with the highly critical fanbase…

Somebody who does not care leaves that to the PR department and the publiscists…

Image George Lucas would have opened up starwars.com to free discussion after Phantom Menace…

723. Atlantians - December 13, 2008

Mr. Orci, there is a vast difference between the highly speculative material you promoted and the article you gave me.

You were presenting pop-culture quantum mechanics which is exceedingly tenuous with a defense from directly observable science that ties into other fields such as atomic theory.

Electron orbitals and how light works is far different than the multi-verse concept.

Yes the principles are well grounded (that article uses quite a bit of hyperbole however in its presentation) , but these tenuous hypotheses that have been thrown out there on which you based almost everything you said are not well grounded.

Thank you for your response though. =D

724. 750 Mang - December 13, 2008

#722

Sure, it’s nice that one of the writers show up here to chat. However I would have rather not ever heard from him on this board and instead gotten a real Star Trek movie not Bizarro Trek.

725. Closettrekker - December 13, 2008

#711—”I think they’re just using botchy science to excuse themselves from canon violation.”

They wouldn’t need quantum mechanics to do that. Even more conventional theories in science fiction about the consequences of interference with the past solve that problem quite inherently.

Anything which occurs after the timeline incursion in 2233 would be subject to change, and quite canonically, since the very concept of alternate timelines caused by interference with the past is in itself canon.

So, your accusation makes no sense.

Do you actually mean the sanctity of the original timeline’s continuance, rather than ‘canon’ ?

That is actually not the same thing, but the relevance of the original timeline to the overall Star Trek mythos is not in jeopardy.

Everything we know of the continuity in that timeline must remain intact, otherwise Nero and Spock (who come from that timeline) can never arrive at the point where they actually travel back in time. In a sense, that timeline is a prelude to this part of the greater story—which is Star Trek.

Whether you subscribe to Bob’s theory on how quantum mechanics can be applied or not is irrelevant. The original timeline remains relevant whether you do or not.

As Bob pointed out, audience members (and perhaps the characters as well) will likely approach the problem in a more traditional way.

Why would anyone who hates the concept of this project as much as you do spend so much time on threads devoted to it? Why not spend it talking about something you are enthusisatic about and looking forward to?

I’ll never understand that. It seems rather unhealthy.

726. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

Fact #1 – the prequels could have worked but Lucas had changed from a young, thin, imaginative man under immense studio pressures, to an old, fat, and tired man with virtually no restraints or dissenting opinions. Absolute power corrupted the prequels.

Fact #2 – we know this. That was the crux of the TNG episode “Parallels”.

Fact #3 – Even without QM theory, this is probably both true and untrue depending on who you ask over there. There guys are only human and subject to Maslow’s hierachy.

Fact #4 – not true. There are new and entertaining films all the time. But again, human nature and the need to nostalgia forces us back to the well over and over, sometimes even though we know we’ll probably get the shits if we drink out of it.

727. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 13, 2008

I thought the Kirk, Mcoy and Spock at the end of the film was my idea!

728. Lord Garth, Formerly Of Izar - December 13, 2008

Just tell me how big the new Enterprise is

729. Databrain - December 13, 2008

725 said:

‘Why would anyone who hates the concept of this project as much as you do spend so much time on threads devoted to it? Why not spend it talking about something you are enthusisatic about and looking forward to?’

One could ask the same of those who seem to hate gene Roddenberries original vision of trek. Why do they spend so much time interacting with those who espouse it over this botched up mess of a film they are making? As far as the rest of your non-refutation of what I said. I hope they pay you well!

730. Databrain - December 13, 2008

Getting back to what I was saying. Where is the quantum mechanics explanation for the need for future Spock to venture, not only back in time, but to a completely alternate dimension, if it is not effecting the cozy time-line/dimension that he originally coexisted in? Oh right, the writers just made up the QM explanation the other day.

731. Jeffries Tuber - December 13, 2008

Consider the bloodbath of May 2009:

May 1: WOLVERINE – No real competition, but according ot DH http://www.darkhorizons.com/news08/081212j.php the Magneto movie is dependent on its success. Talk about making the X-Men walk the plank. They get seven days in the first week of [not really] Summer.

May 8: STAR TREK – No competition.

May 15: ANGELS AND DEMONS, BRUNO – A&D has plenty of market power, but less so than THE DAVINCI CODE and the bud is kind of off that rose. BRUNO, same thing, it’ll probably be a better movie with more buzz, but Bruno was never as popular as Ali G or Borat, among Sacha’s characters. More importantly, while BRUNO is definitely a youth culture movie, it’s not a geek film. In the balance, I’d say A&D’s violence and BRUNO’s mature themes and sexuality are not a threat to STAR TREK’s family audience, but A&D is probably more of a threat to audiences over 35. As far as I know, Hanks skipped the mullet for this movie.

May 22: TERMINATOR: SALVATION and NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM 2. This is when STAR TREK will probably take a serious hit at he box office. A double threat: a family movie and a geek movie. Granted, T3 was a waste, the trailer for T:S looks dusty and REIGN OF FIRE-ish, but it is direct competition. I’d wager that NATM2 is the unstoppable juggernaut here.

The real key for STAR TREK and the only way to blunt the effect of the four movies above is that STAR TREK is a cultural event. There’s a little bit of genius in focusing on international BO with a campaign starting in November, because that’s what ST has that none of the others have: 40+ years of global cultural impact. Where ST will take a hit domestically, it has a good chance of trouncing these four movies internationally.

732. thorsten - December 13, 2008

Closettrekker, there you go. You hate Roddenberrys Trek, and Paramount pays you for it, hehe.

;))

733. Closettrekker - December 13, 2008

#732—And yet the checks continue to get lost in the mail.

734. StalwartUK - December 13, 2008

Now we have conformation that this film is really STINO – Star Trek In Name Only.

[/care]

735. Dom - December 13, 2008

Hi Closettrekker (725): ‘Anything which occurs after the timeline incursion in 2233 would be subject to change, and quite canonically, since the very concept of alternate timelines caused by interference with the past is in itself canon.’

Also, we don’t really know how much has already been altered in Trek. We’ve had Trek characters and time-travellers appearing in history since at least the 1940s. The TOS universe we knew was altered well before Enterprise happened. That could explain the massive changes in technology in TMP, the changes on the Enterprise-D in Generations, the version of Scotty in Relics not being the Scotty in Generations.

If we go according to canonistas’ hardline definition of what counts in ‘canon’ they have to accept that canon no longer exists, because now the Parallels theory is confirmed. Canon has destroyed itself by being canon!

This means all the books comics and cartoons have definitely happened somewhere. I love that!

Maybe we should do a sequel to parallels where we have various versions of all the Trek characters, including the cartoon versions meeting up in a bar!

736. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@733…
come on,
we know they will fly you to the premiere on the corporate jet!

737. Harry Ballz - December 13, 2008

Bob

most important question of all…….why is Uhura wearing such a plain white bra?

What, is it standard Starfleet issue?

738. Closettrekker - December 13, 2008

#729—-”One could ask the same of those who seem to hate gene Roddenberries original vision of trek.”

And who is that?

Roddenberry’s original vision of Trek:

An optimistic future in which Humanity not only does not destroy itself, but unites to conquer many of the social ills which plague us today, and embarks upon a journey together to— explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations…to boldly go where where no man has gone before.

Hmmm. Just how do you see that vision as being compromised by this creative team? Moreover, how do you conclude that people like Bob Orci hate that vision?

739. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@731…

good grief, Trek under attack from another Ben Stiller vehicle…
but we know, he is a Trekker ;))

Hanks A&D should pose no threat, though…

740. Xai - December 13, 2008

730. Databrain – December 13, 2008
“Getting back to what I was saying. Where is the quantum mechanics explanation for the need for future Spock to venture, not only back in time, but to a completely alternate dimension, if it is not effecting the cozy time-line/dimension that he originally coexisted in? Oh right, the writers just made up the QM explanation the other day.”

Still insulting the writers for no good reason, I see.

Why are you owed an explanation? We got a look at how they are applying a scientific theory. To explain Spock going back could give away a major plot point.
I could accept your constant critiques of them if you wouldn’t make them personal.

741. Xai - December 13, 2008

734. StalwartUK – December 13, 2008
Now we have conformation that this film is really STINO – Star Trek In Name Only.”

I didn’t see that thread, or did the UK get a very early release of the film?

742. bellpeppers - December 13, 2008

Orci should also use QM to allow Transformers to mass shift.
But I disagree with his “alternate timeline” explanations.

743. Marian Ciobanu - December 13, 2008

- I always hated that thing with ‘Eugenic Wars’ so i like mr. Bob Orci’s explanation…

744. Closettrekker - December 13, 2008

#742—”Orci should also use QM to allow Transformers to mass shift.”

The kids seem to like it, and given they were the target audience, I’d say it’s right on course.

My boys asked me to take them, and suprisingly, I found it mildly entertaining—much more than I expected of a film based upon a toy and a cheesy 1980′s cartoon.

745. Xai - December 13, 2008

715. 750 Mang – December 13, 2008
“This whole bizarro universe thing is a cheap gimmick so they can break all the rules, ignore what has come before and still try to say it’s not a Star Trek reboot. pfft.

I can imagine how the story meeting went…

“Hey now we can blow up Vulcan like the Death Star and make Kirk and Pike have a father son relationship like Maverick and Tom Skerritt in Top Gun.”

“Yeah, yeah. And the Enterpriise can be built in Kirk’s backyard!”

“That’s great! And Scotty can have a little sidekick critter like Chaka in Land of the Lost!”

“I love alternate timelines! We can do whatever we want,! We can have Antonio Banderas play Khan in the sequel! And we can find out that Khan and Kirk grew up together and used to be bff’s!”

“Yeah! Yeah!”

Shoot me now.”

Massive amounts of sarcasm AND assumptions.
Fine. Consider yourself shot.

746. linceleopardo - December 13, 2008

this guy is really into quantum mechanics…so into its kinda sad :S

747. William Kirk - December 13, 2008

What about a TNG reboot? Maybe Vin Diesel could play Jean Luc Picard. Diesel is an action star….or Voyager reboot. Jenna Jameson was at Shatner´s Raw Nerve, is a Trek fan…what about a new Janeway from an alternate universe?

748. Dr. Image - December 13, 2008

I appreciate Bob’s revelations very much. However, after telling a couple of friends about this thread, one asked, “WHY go the alternate time line route at all? Why not just do a straight prequel??”
The other simply said, “it’s obvious- Paramount said ‘make it a time travel story and change the way everything looks,’ so that’s what they did.”

Bob? Still there? Comments?

749. I'm Not a Doctor I'm a _____! - December 13, 2008

#740
“I could accept your constant critiques of them if you wouldn’t make them personal”

Well Said.

750. Closettrekker - December 13, 2008

#678—” If we assume, as Bob Orci stated, that any attempt of Time Travel creates a parallel universe, the big question is why Spock travels back in time, and what his goals are…”

That’s assuming that Spock subscribes to the theory. His behavior and attitude towards the potential consequences of time travel would seem to indicate otherwise.

“Edith Keeler must die.”—Spock (“City On The Edge Of Forever”)

Spock is also the one who insists that Captain Christopher must be returned (“Tomorrow Is Yesterday”), in order for his son, who is to be prominent in 21st Century space exploration, to be born and fulfill his destiny.

These are not the only examples, but Spock’s instinctive reaction to attempt to curb or even prevent Nero’s actions would be absolutely consistent with his previously established attitude toward time travel and its effect upon his own timeline.

751. Will - December 13, 2008

I’m guessing Nero’s ship will explode and create the Nexus.

752. Boborci - December 13, 2008

20. McCoy’s Gall Bladder – December 11, 2008

“Hi Harry!

If everything that can happen, does and will, then nothing we do is in vain.

Ever read that Azimov story about the guy that puts the gun to his head and dies, puts it down, it jams, it’s unloaded, etc.?”

I remember that story fondly. My first encounter with QM as a teenager. If memory serves, it wasn’t Asimov, it was Niven.

753. Boborci - December 13, 2008

679. Papa Jim – December 13, 2008
“Wow, way to go Bob. That is some deep and heavy BS you are slinging there. Why not just admit that you guys did whatever the hell you wanted, to bring a cash cow back to life.”

It’s a given that we did what we wanted, the question is what did we want? I’ll tell you. We wanted the whole of canon to be a prequel to this movie, without which this movie could not exist, thereby honoring canon and keeping it alive.

754. Boborci - December 13, 2008

679. Papa Jim – December 13, 2008

“Typical modern media way of spinning everything to fit there needs And the need here is to make money.”

This is the most amusing line of reasoning I’ve seen repeated here: that somehow QM is media spin, like we’re getting memos from Paramount with talking points about one of the most difficult to understand theories in theoretical physics. As if the CEO were saying, “Kids today LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS! Let’s give it to them!”

755. Dom - December 13, 2008

Boborci (752) I’m reminded of Jim Kirk’s and Leonard McCoy’s discussion about having just seen the birth of a new lifeform in ST:TMP. This time, the whole of Star Trek history – TV shows, novels, movies, comics and games – just gave birth to a whole new universe, complete with, hopefully, lots more novels, movies, comics and games.

756. Boborci - December 13, 2008

689. Ripped Shirt Kirk – December 13, 2008
Wow, I would pay real money If Bob Orci coul explain this to me….

If according to your interpretation of QM, what you do in the past don’t affect your future, WHAT’S THE POINT IN NERO GOING TO THE PAST AND TRY TO ALTER ANYTHING, can you answer this simple question without putting a link that doesn’t explain anything?

Sorry. The particulars of why people end up where they do or why is what the movie is for! May 9th.

757. I'm Not a Doctor I'm a _____! - December 13, 2008

752- Boborci

“It’s a given that we did what we wanted, the question is what did we want? I’ll tell you. We wanted the whole of canon to be a prequel to this movie, without which this movie could not exist, thereby honoring canon and keeping it alive.”

……..and there it is, and …I like it. Thanks Bob. In all seriousness, thank you!

and sorry there are comments here that go beyond legitimate questions and critiques and turn into personal attacks and petty comments.

758. Closettrekker - December 13, 2008

#752—”It’s a given that we did what we wanted, the question is what did we want? I’ll tell you. We wanted the whole of canon to be a prequel to this movie, without which this movie could not exist, thereby honoring canon and keeping it alive.”

I love that answer, Bob.

The original timeline is intact and remains relevant to the overall Star Trek mythos, whether you embrace the concept of quantum mechanics (as you present it) or not. The story cannot arrive at the point where Nero decides to take action in an attempt to alter the past without everything we know as canon occurring prior to that, nor can Nimoy’s Spock (who also comes from that timeline) take action to counter that plan.

Nothing is suddenly rendered irrelevant, regardless of the results of that interference with the past (or, as you’ve effectively categorized it by your application of QM, the creation of a parallel timeline).

759. Jamie - December 13, 2008

Since Bob Orci does seem to be reading this, and this page is already ridiculously long, I’m going to go off-topic slightly and make a little plea to Bob about this film’s soundtrack…

In my opinion, a film’s soundtrack is maybe 50% of what makes it work. After all, a movie such as this is basically two creative works in one (film and music). I don’t see the soundtrack as the secondary medium. In many ways, it’s more important as it has the most emotional resonance. In terms of storytelling, music always speaks louder than the page.

So I am really crossing my fingers about Giacchino’s soundtrack. I’m sure he will have done an outstanding job, but, if I were you, Bob, I would try to get some other soundtrack composer(s) to watch the current version of the film and maybe offer a few small suggestions. Perhaps a few little places where a subtle change might make a big difference, in terms of mood or pacing. Nothing so drastic that anything would need re-recording, just a little editing or rearrangement perhaps.

I’ve no doubt the soundtrack has been discussed and reviewed by many, people, many times. But frankly, when it comes to soundtracks, I think the only people whose opinions really matter are the professionals like Giacchino and his contemporaries who know how to score a film. I work in a creative industry myself and although I’m good at what I do, I really value the opinions of my fellow professionals and always take the opportunity to run my work by them before unveiling it.

Even the best composers sometimes overlook little things. One example is a little bit of Williams’ score for Star Wars that I have always found very irritating. Near the end of the film, Luke is in the death star trench, and it looks like his luck is up. Then, unexpectedly, Han shows up to help him save the day. Unfortunately, this pleasant surprise is not reflected in the music at all. The music just plods on in the background as if to say “nothing to see here, folks”. I’m not sure whether this is Williams’ mistake, or simply an editing oversight, but in my opinion it spoils the film.

So my request to Bob is: please iron out any possible imperfections to Giacchino’s score by letting someone equally qualified review it. Many thanks for your time!

760. Closettrekker - December 13, 2008

#758—-Interesting…but I don’t think that’s Bob’s department. Is that part of the executive producer’s job description? I more or less assumed that any oversight of the scoring (if Giacchino’s work is not practically autonomous) would be on Abrams and/or Lindelof. Bad Robot seems to trust Giaacchino’s expertise, though.

I think he does great work.

761. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@755…The particulars of why people end up where they do or why is what the movie is for! May 9th.

I’ll buy you a beer should you be at the Berlin premiere, may 7th

;))

762. BK613 - December 13, 2008

752
“It’s a given that we did what we wanted, the question is what did we want? I’ll tell you. We wanted the whole of canon to be a prequel to this movie, without which this movie could not exist, thereby honoring canon and keeping it alive.”

While at the same time “retiring” that canon and setting you free, perhaps? ;-)

763. Jeffries Tuber - December 13, 2008

762nd!!!

YES!

764. sean - December 13, 2008

#758

Giacchino is widely regarded as an excellent composer, why should we (or Bob or JJ for that matter) second guess the man’s work when it isn’t even finished? Sounds a lot like micro-management in action, to me. Did Horner or Goldsmith or Williams run around to all their contemporaries to see if they liked their work while still in production? I very much doubt it. These men were confident enough in their work without requiring outside validation, and I think Giacchino will likely do the same.

Despite your apparent disappointment, I doubt many even notice the ‘missing’ cue you’re referring to in Star Wars. I’ve never felt the lack of a specific change in the score in that scene ever took away from it in any way, or affected my enjoyment of the film. I think that’s entering some pretty serious nitpick territory.

765. Holger - December 13, 2008

554: Brian: “But most physicists are uncomfortable with it, if they’ve thought about it at all, because it posits that whole universes come into existence when a wave function “collapses,” which seems pretty extravagant, particularly since we can’t even verify whether these universes exist.”

Bob Orci: “Sorry, incorrect analysis. The many worlds theory actually obviates the need for a collapsing wave function or for the preferred status of a wave collapsing observer since everything that can happen, does happen.”

This is like graduate seminar on quantum paradoxes all over again. I feel 10 years younger!
Brian’s analysis isn’t necessarily incorrect. It depends on what is meant by “collapse” of the wave function here. This may mean something which occurs in the mathematical formalism, i.e. you have a given wave function and apply an operator to it, thus “collapsing” the function in the sense that the result of the operation is not a wave function.
Now some interpretations of quantum theory maintain that this mathematical process is a direct picture of what happens in physical reality, i.e. first there is a wave, and then there is an act of measurement (mathematically represented by the application of the operator) which literally collapses, destroys the wave. The Many-Worlds interpretation denies that this really happens.
But in Brian’s post it’s unclear whether he means the mathematics or the physical process described by it when he talks of the “collapse”. If he means only the mathematical representation, what he says is perfectly in accordance with what Bob says and with Everett’s theory.

766. Craig - December 13, 2008

I see this as a huge temporal anomally surely this is setting alarm bells off with prime 29th federation timeline. Will Braxton or Daniels return again to protect the timeline?

767. OR Coast Trekkie - December 13, 2008

All this, just to explain why the ship looks just a little bit different?

768. I'm Not a Doctor I'm a _____! - December 13, 2008

in response to #765 and all posts that delve that deeply..
<>

errrmmm…(eyes shift)…….yeah…..sooooo…they DO blow things up in this movie though……right?.. yeah….mmmm….

when do ya think we will see more pics of the new E?

769. Random Red Shirt - December 13, 2008

#81

Nice, I’ll love to see Jane Kirk, captain of the Enterprise.

770. dalek - December 13, 2008

Re: Nero’s motives: Anyone travelling back in time automatically becomes a product of the changes they make. They can not return to the original timeline once a single change has been made. I think it’s obvious he either wants to destroy his enemies past, or create a better future for himself, or a combination of both. Either way, it’s the same people, same conditions, different path, and he has to continue on in whatever timeline he creates.

I don’t think a villain cares if its called TimeLinePrime or TimelineSubPrime. What matters is they create a “better” universe by their own standards.

Re: Spock’s motives…. Spock wouldn’t allow Kirk to be killed full stop. Even if this Kirk is a time-altered Kirk, its Still Kirk. Most of us feel the same thing about his fate in Generations. But this movie could effectively mute Generations, which I hope it does.

However we don’t know if Spock consciously travels back. Perhaps he was Nero’s prisoner and Nero forces him to watch the past change and he escapes? Who knows. Spock would be a force for good whatever the situation, and would always choose to save his friend/s from a horrible fate if the opportunity arose. It’s the same characters, very same Kirk, it’s just that someone screwed up his past.

771. Holger - December 13, 2008

767: LOL

772. dalek - December 13, 2008

Additionally, I view Enterprise as a completely altered timeline. As soon as they introduced the temporal cold war and had a Klingon appear in the 1st episode, I resigned this to different timeline, different Trek universe. Not to mention the frequency of 24th century reliances Borg, force fields, holodecks, Ferengi, conflicts that never happened with Xindi (was a product of the temporal cold war sphere builders), attack on earth etc. Altho Manny Coto did his best in season 4 to direct the timeline back to the original, it was clearly not the timeline that naturally progressed into the original series.

And according to Brannon Braga, First Contact changed the original timeline permanently anyway, so the appearance of the Borg in Enterprise does reaffirm that it wasn’t the original Star Trek universe we saw in TOS.

773. L. Fury - December 13, 2008

The net result…Picard, Janeway, and all the 24th century we have seen up to this point IS a result of the events in the upcoming movie. This is why in the original series, WW III was in the 1990′s, but now, in the 24th century, we learn that WW III waited until the 2050′s. (First Contact was in 2061, ten years after the 3rd World War).

I think this will be an excellent “TREK” movie and I’m an old timer that saw the original series as a kid beginning with the second season, had a club, did several conventions, the works

774. Mark Lynch - December 13, 2008

You know what? I do not think that I have ever seen this level of interaction between film-maker and fans ever before. Obviously a lot of this is to do with the permeation of the Internet in our society (a subject in its own right)

But I wonder how Bob and the rest of the team actually manage to get their work done, knowing the vehemence of some of the posters here and in other places. What concerns me is that all this is done without them (fans) having the complete picture I might add.

To be honest, I am sitting in the negativity camp right now having been blown back and forth these past months with what has come to light. Ignorance would probably be bliss. My own fault of course for coming here every day :)

What I am telling myself now is ‘just wait for the release, go see it, then pick everything apart in minute detail’

Oh for simpler days!
And this is coming from someone who has worked as a systems consultant in IT for about 12 years…

But for everyone who is getting so worked up about this, I think that you need a bit of perspective here. There are many things going on in the world which require our attention. This is not that high in the grand scheme of things. It is a piece of entertainment which will stand or fall on its own merit (as it should do). BTW I am a lifelong ST fan since the early 70′s (UK so had to wait a bit before seing it) so don’t accuse me of not being a ‘proper’ fan

But all I am saying is wait to see the finished product before passing judgement. It may be good (or it may not), just give the people a chance.

I am as I said earlier, at this time, sceptical about what is coming. I certainly have made comments on things that have been brought up here on TM both positive and negative.
However, I will not resort to making personal insults to this new team or the movie until I see it. Whether that is in the cinema or on DVD, I do not yet know. But I do know that I will watch it at some point, because Star Trek is too important an interest of mine to ignore.

Was there a point to this post? Probably only to me.

Guess what I am saying is just ‘Let’s wait and see what happens. Make comments by all means. Just don’t get personal if you don’t agree with something you hear or see’

My two pence, for what it’s worth.

Peace and long life.

Oh yeah if you want to see a fantastic TMP Enterprise model try,
http://www.nemvia.com/
And clilck the links on the left relating to his TMP Drydock and PL Enterprise projects, damn! this guy is good.

775. S. John Ross - December 13, 2008

Any take on time-travel that renders moot (or retroactively makes irrelevant and erroneous) the moral and ethical tensions of “City on the Edge of Forever” is messing with something much more important than canon.

IMO, of course.

776. dalek - December 13, 2008

Brannon Braga “Questioned about how this episode derived from events in FIRST CONTACT one audience member could not resist asking how this episode could be reconciled with TNGs episode Q Who, which was supposedly Starfleets first encounter with the Borg. We thought about that, Braga responded. And its complicated. The movie FIRST CONTACT changed everything because the moment the Borg went back in time they immediately altered history. So, the episode Q Who that you are referring to really may not have happened that way if you know what Im saying. The timeline was altered by FIRST CONTACT.

Source: http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=cKCQIK3.1khuc

777. BK613 - December 13, 2008

775
I with you on that one…

778. JT Willis - December 13, 2008

I think the point of Elder Spock’s travels.. is to protect the Quantum Mechanical “preference” for the way things turned out.

Spock has no way of knowing if his original timeline “is the center of the Universe” or merely a minor spur off the main river of Quantum Mechanical events.. aka a true timeline.

Since he can’t afford to assume a Copernican Universal View.. he must choose to view this “incursion” into another timeline as a threat to all timelines.

In effect he can’t police the Universe.. but he can police his neighborhood.

He can be responsible for his kindred from a similar timeline.

If he did not.. then all timelines might become at risk.. for example.. what if Nero continues to tinker with events in multiple timelines.. until a tipping point is reached.. a Chaotic Butterfly effect amonst multiple timelines.. in which they all become tangled in causual knots and the very fabric of cause and effect become unwound?

Probably it would only be a local effect.. but it might.. well probably would change the local physical laws to something that just wouldn’t be tolerable to the current organic life forms.

The tipping point might even be very subtle or very close such that.. not much would be required to bring it about.. certainly the events leading up to the invention of a time machine.. would be critical path events which if disturbed would unwind the creation of such a machine in the first place.

Nero might not even be aware of how close a tipping point might be.. Spock being the scientist that he is might be able to calculate it to a very accurate degree and see the need to act.

Of course it could also be simply for altuistic reasons.. why inflict a criminal on another timeline? A simple code of Moral justice he feels honor bound to uphold.

779. Harry Ballz - December 13, 2008

Star Trek: TMP*

*(Temporal Moral Police)

Funny, and here I thought it meant The Motion Picture!

780. That One Guy - December 13, 2008

Has anyone else here noticed how Bob comes here on a regular basis to directly answer the vehement cries of angry fans? I think that in itself is a testament to how committed these people are.

Things will work out in the end. That’s how it works.

Bob, I thank you for your work and your commitment. It should also be noted that I have friends who are genuinely excited about this new movie, and they know very little, if anything, about Trek.

Congratulations, you’re bringing in a new audience.

781. That One Guy - December 13, 2008

Harry,
I thought it meant Tuvok’s Manly Pride.

782. JT Willis - December 13, 2008

.. also.. in a strange way I’ve always wondered about the laws of thermodynamics and the old adage “You can’t prove a Negative”.

If you could “Prove A Negative” or the laws did not apply…

Whose to say that isn’t the natural state of the Universe.. and our current timelines a mere “region of improbable stability”.

It has a symmetric yin-yang to it.. and reflects the current ideas of Renewable Resources.. we have come to a point where our actions can no longer be casually acted upon as if they have no consequence to the rest of creation.

Spock in the beginning may be chasing the Villian, influencing Kirk.. in effect gathering a team through time until they reach a point where they can confront Nero.. in the beginning he has the advantage of surprise..

At that point Spock may only be able to postumously neutralize his actions.. in a way surprising Nero..

Later Spock must keep the timeline on track.. not by shaping it as he would want.. he would be no better than Nero.. but appealing to his friends to behave as is their nature.. leading up to an ultimate confrontation with the Devil.. when Nero.. quite literally.. runs out of time.

To keep the movie from running endlessly.. or running aground one of those casual loops that unwinds expection completely.. Nero may find he can only travel forward from his initial jump.. or even could only make one jump and then must live out his life parallel with the Nero in this timeline.

Spock may be under the same limitation.. one jump.. and then he must live out his life in parallel with his younger self.

Has a rather nice neat tight story appeal.

783. Odkin - December 13, 2008

I for one am completely embarassed by how dense many posters are. Clearly, the writer and producers went to great lengths to create a canon explanation for all of the cosmetic and dramatic changes they are making. This new cast and crew is just taking another fork in the “road of possibilities” – our old stories and old universe LIVE ON and everything happened just as we know it did. This fork is creating a new universe and the new universe will be different. Nothing is “raped”, altered, ruined, devalued, or discarded. If the “quantum mechanic” hippie nonsense just sounds like technobabble, why can’t you at least understand the “Mirror, Mirror” analogy? Clearly the TOS and Mirror Mirror stem from a shared timeline, UNTIL some event caused two different paths to be taken. Same thing here.

As for why there have to be changes, be reasonable. Do you honestly think the sets, props, costumes, hairdos, etc would fly today? Wouldn’t you rather have a valid explanation for why they are different? And how can a new creative team really just shoehorn new stories into gaps between all the previous Trek episodes? Especially when every characters future is already known and explored? Do you think there is any commercial future in that?

784. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@778782…
excellent musing, JT.
Now I have to go back to the kitchen to check on my Bose–Einstein condensate…

785. Garovorkin - December 13, 2008

#783 the problem is that more then a few hardcore trek fans are living in the past, they can’t see beyond the original series. Whats going to end up happening is that after the film premiers, A lot of them will come around. I can’t wait to see some of the after premier comments on the boards.

786. Nemesis4909 - December 13, 2008

Ok let me get this straight.

We’ll call this movie universe B, why would Old Spock go back in time at all? Nero’s gone from universe A so it’s not his problem any more, there’s no jeopardy to his timeline whatsoever, I think the logical course of action would be to worry about your own universe because surely there’s plenty of problems in there.

Also continuing on this logic of different branching universes, based on what we were watching does that mean that Deep Space 9 and Voyager were existing in different universes as we were watching both, considerring all the time travelling and reset buttons Voyager did and since they’re actions wouldn’t have any effect on the Alpha Quadrant at the time does that mean that when Voyager returned home it wasn’t in the same universe that was shown in “What you leave behind”? I’m not talking very similar i mean the same. This is all very confusing.

As stated before the events in First Contact would create a new universe also where the Borg appeared in the 22nd century. Obviously it led to a similar TOS universe but not the same one making all the canon problems in Enterprise not worth discussing since they’re not in the same universe.

Of course lets take this further, all of the time travelling in TOS, the movies and TNG were creating new universes and when the respective crews return to the present then they the show is now set in that slightly alternate universe so how can we really be sure which line of star trek canon is the correct one now since we can’t even keep track of what damned universe it’s set in at any given time.

I am mucho confused.

787. Closettrekker - December 13, 2008

#775–”Any take on time-travel that renders moot (or retroactively makes irrelevant and erroneous) the moral and ethical tensions of “City on the Edge of Forever” is messing with something much more important than canon.

IMO, of course.”

The obvious solution is not to embrace the aplication of quantum mechanics when evaluating the potential consequences.

Spock doesn’t.

“Edith Keeler must die.”—Spock

As suggested in the interview, most people in the audience will not have read this article, nor will they likely apply anything other than the more traditional view of the potential consequences of time travel in science fiction (like “The City On The Edge Of Forever”).

788. Newtype311 - December 13, 2008

So now Star Trek is diving into DRAGON BALL Z story lines. in DBZ the Character “Trunks” comes back in time from a post apocalyptic future to stop the event from happening. but when he goes back into his own time nothing has changed at all. so when he goes back in time again he finds that he has changed things in “our” timeline as the viewer, so he decides that he’ll stay and help make sure this new time line doesn’t end up like his own.

Now Spock is a DBZ character.

Wish it wasnt like this. but oh well

I wold have rather it just have been a reboot, cuz now its reeking of the same over complexity and technobably that they were claiming to try and get a way from for the sake of the new audience.

789. McCoy - December 13, 2008

783

“…Clearly, the writer and producers went to great lengths to create a canon explanation for all of the cosmetic and dramatic changes they are making.”

Bob has anyway.

“This new cast and crew is just taking another fork in the “road of possibilities” – our old stories and old universe LIVE ON and everything happened just as we know it did. This fork is creating a new universe and the new universe will be different.”

Yes. Clearly.

Nothing is “raped”, altered, ruined, devalued, or discarded.”

They have abandoned the idea that there are still stories to tell about how the characters we knew met each other (in the prime timeline). They **have** discarded the normal universe, for the wrong reasons, and are searching for ways to justify it.

“If the “quantum mechanic” hippie nonsense just sounds like technobabble, why can’t you at least understand the “Mirror, Mirror” analogy? Clearly the TOS and Mirror Mirror stem from a shared timeline, UNTIL some event caused two different paths to be taken. Same thing here.”

When they announced they were doing a new Trek film they said they wanted to go back to the days of Kirk and Spock and tell a story about how they all came together. This is not that story. This is the story about how a **different** group came together. Yes. It’s an important distinction. They have continually said they are respecting canon, however, they are purposely changing the equipment, ship designs and now, the history of the characters. They chose to develop a story that accomplished those goals rather than give us a much needed romp in the original TOS universe. Star Trek is over 40 years old. This is the first re-casting of the iconic characters. Most of us understood that there would be changes to the uniforms, phasers, communicators, bridge and Enterprise. Changing the history of the characters, in addition to all of that, came out of left field. All we really have left is peppered references and “the core” of Trek. To which I say, if you only wanted the core, you should have started from scratch moving forward from the TNG era. Sorry, if you want Kirk’s era, keep something other than just the names.

“As for why there have to be changes, be reasonable. Do you honestly think the sets, props, costumes, hairdos, etc would fly today? Wouldn’t you rather have a valid explanation for why they are different?”

Valid? LOL!

“And how can a new creative team really just shoehorn new stories into gaps between all the previous Trek episodes? Especially when every characters future is already known and explored? Do you think there is any commercial future in that?”

Yes, I do actually. The current fan base is still HUGE. There are stories to be told in the prime timeline! Spock’s relationship with Leila; Kirk on the Farragut; balanced by McCoy on Earth. Some great opportunities. Show the foundation of the main three characters. Divide the story into three arcs having them come together at the end. Great way to highlight what made the series so wonderful—the interaction of the three.

If you added more detail to the Enterprise—and slanted the pylons a bit—Trek fans would have been much happier and NO ONE ELSE in the audience would have known any different.

790. crowmagnumman - December 13, 2008

Wow. That’s a heck of a lot of comments. OK, so let me think. Star Trek was always supposed to exist in OUR future, right? And that’s what made it so great. And that’s what is supposed to be great about this Star Trek movie too, right? That it exists in our future.

But if this Star Trek movie covers both universes, then which universe is OUR future? Is it the original or is it this new universe? And how is this alternate universe supposed to matter to us if it isn’t in our future?

791. bellpeppers - December 13, 2008

786-
“We’ll call this movie universe B, why would Old Spock go back in time at all? Nero’s gone from universe A so it’s not his problem any more, there’s no jeopardy to his timeline whatsoever, I think the logical course of action would be to worry about your own universe because surely there’s plenty of problems in there.”

Wow.
That’s actually a pretty good point.

792. cugel the clever - December 13, 2008

789 McCoy

Get over it. It ain’t happening. JJ, the writers, and producers don’t owe anything to you or any of the other small core of canon freaks. The majority of ST fans are welcoming this new film as an honest and capable effort to breath life into a creaking old franchise which is dying because of aging dinosaurs who can’t accept anything new.

Don’t go and see this film. You won’t like it and most of the rest of us won’t want to hear your whining, nitpicking criticisms.

793. cugel the clever - December 13, 2008

790

BOTH of the universes are our future. Clearly you don’t understand the QM/”Parallels” logic.

794. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 13, 2008

789. McCoy

RIGHT ON!

Like I said. KEEP IT SIMPLE.

Time travel plotlines (and QM to for that matter) seem to be the hardest stories to do well. When do they ever advance or compliment Star Trek’s universe?

Never.

Next time PLEASE, KEEP IT SIMPLE.

795. McCoy - December 13, 2008

Why would the time cops from the various episodes have to exist at all if it never mattered what the changes were? How can the Enterprise disappear in City on the Edge of Forever just because McCoy went back in time and saved Edith?

There has to be one prime timeline. That’s what Trek started in TOS and that makes sense for storytelling. If you change the past, something happens to the future. Therefore, Nero’s timejumps are the cause for all the changes in the film. Spock goes back in time but only changes **some** things back to the way they were.

796. cugel the clever - December 13, 2008

I’m astounded (and grateful) for Bob Orci’s patience and continuing contributions to this forum considering the ungrateful, unjust, and simpliy idiotic complaints that a small hardcore of purists are levelling at him and his colleagues.

Bob – most of us here are extremely grateful for the care and hard work that you have put into a project and subject matter that you and your colleagues obviously like and respect.

797. McCoy - December 13, 2008

793 cugel the (not so) clever

“Get over it. It ain’t happening. JJ, the writers, and producers don’t owe anything to you or any of the other small core of canon freaks. The majority of ST fans are welcoming this new film as an honest and capable effort to breath life into a creaking old franchise which is dying because of aging dinosaurs who can’t accept anything new.

Don’t go and see this film. You won’t like it and most of the rest of us won’t want to hear your whining, nitpicking criticisms.”

Never said anyone owes me anything. I am not a Trek freak, however I would much rather spend time with one then have to even exist in the same QM timeline as someone with your brain-mouth linkage (or rather lack thereof). Just because someone handed JJ the keys to the Star Trek car, does not mean I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. You see, I don’t owe them anything either.

I am aging and proud of it. You are clearly very youthful and unable to accept my honest opinions. Here’s hoping that once you reach my age you are a better person. Happy New Year!

798. spiked canon - December 13, 2008

708. thorsten

But, if the alternate timeline theory is correct, Spock wouldn’t change anything, he would just create a new time line. So this has to eb the older Spock in hte alternate timeline wanting to keep Vulcan from being destroyed. (which he won’t be able to—–just start a new timeline)……AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

799. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 13, 2008

The article that should never have been written.

800. Boborci - December 13, 2008

737. Harry Ballz – December 13, 2008

“Bob

most important question of all…….why is Uhura wearing such a plain white bra?”

why not?

801. thorsten - December 13, 2008

@798…
I know, I know ;))

Bob and Anthony let Schrödingers cat out of the bag,
and we have till next may to sort through the quantum fog…

802. Boborci - December 13, 2008

723. Atlantians – December 13, 2008
“Mr. Orci, there is a vast difference between the highly speculative material you promoted and the article you gave me.”

My only point with that link was to support the contention that QM is the most rigorously tested and successful physical theory to date. This is not a controversial point. I concede that the many world interpretation is one of only a handful of interpretations of the most successful theory of all time.

803. Brodie - December 13, 2008

“why is Uhura wearing such a plain white bra?”

It’s wash day.

804. Anthony Pascale - December 13, 2008

I think there are a lot of interesting questions and comments here, but I do want people to find a way to keep their discussions civil, especially without name calling and using incendiary language (like ‘rape’)

RE: more detailed questions and why article was written

THere are a lot of questions I see that follow on from this, like why and how Spock and Nero go back and what happens when, etc. Well that is the kind of stuff that is for the movie. Bob assures that it all adds up, so I would say keep your assumptions to a minimum and try and have an open mind. The above article may seem to reveal a lot, but it really doesn’t. It just takes what is out there about from the November articles and puts it in context to the rest of Trek canon. Many fans were wondering how the film fits with canon and some who had deduced that the film contained an alternative timeline wondered if it actually rewrites or eliminates the previous canon timeline.

Now we know, but that only tells us the setting and part of the premise of the film. The real film will be in the characters, who, according to Bob, are largely the same with regards to either timeline. We will have to see the film to see their arcs, their motivations and if they really are the Star Trek heroes we know.

To me, that more than anything is what matters, how they feel and if they ‘fit’ with who they are…or with ‘their souls’ as Bob puts it. And that is something even bigger than quantum physics.

805. Boborci - December 13, 2008

748. Dr. Image – December 13, 2008
I appreciate Bob’s revelations very much. However, after telling a couple of friends about this thread, one asked, “WHY go the alternate time line route at all? Why not just do a straight prequel??”
The other simply said, “it’s obvious- Paramount said ‘make it a time travel story and change the way everything looks,’ so that’s what they did.”

Bob? Still there? Comments?

Not a good theory of the genesis of this movie.

As I’ve said, getting Nimoy into the movie was a priority for us (not Paramount), and simply having him recounting his memories by a campfire was not going to cut it for us.

806. Ripped Shirt Kirk - December 13, 2008

“756. Boborci – December 13, 2008

Sorry. The particulars of why people end up where they do or why is what the movie is for! May 9th.”

————————————————————————————–

Thanks for answer me, but basicaly your answer seems nothing more than a dodge because you clearly stated that the way you understand QM, what you do in the past will not alter the future.

(i.e. if you go to the past and kill you father, you will not cease to exist because you gone to a alternative timeline and just killed some guy)

So I don’t see the motivation for Nero or Spock wanting to go to the past, not to mention that that explanation would contradict all trek timetravel where past events always changed the future.

Back to the Future Mechanics seemed far more appropriate, so I hope I’m wrong and you are right, I really do!

So May 9th then , I hope I don’t have to make the same question again then, and then not getting an answer because of your lack of one.

807. Jeffries Tuber - December 13, 2008

Bob – Since we haven’t seen the Kelvin-era uniforms, we don’t know if this movie maintains the ‘Mission Badge’ element of canon. Under that element of canon, the Kelvin’s crew should be sporting it’s own, non-arrowhead dingbat on their chests.

I, for one, kinda loved the continuity of NASA Mission Badges to TOS Mission Badges, or as Memory Alpha calls them, “Assignment Patches.” http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Assignment_patch

So what can you tell us?

808. Boborci - December 13, 2008

806. Ripped Shirt Kirk – December 13, 2008

“Thanks for answer me, but basicaly your answer seems nothing more than a dodge because you clearly stated that the way you understand QM, what you do in the past will not alter the future.

(i.e. if you go to the past and kill you father, you will not cease to exist because you gone to a alternative timeline and just killed some guy)

So I don’t see the motivation for Nero or Spock wanting to go to the past, not to mention that that explanation would contradict all trek timetravel where past events always changed the future.

Back to the Future Mechanics seemed far more appropriate, so I hope I’m wrong and you are right, I really do!

So May 9th then , I hope I don’t have to make the same question again then, and then not getting an answer because of your lack of one.”

If not giving away the entire plot of the movie is a dodge, then I guess I’m guilty. Suffice it to say that given what I have stated here, you are correct that the desire to change the past seems incongruous.

809. Dom - December 13, 2008

806. Ripped Shirt Kirk:

Presumably, Nero wants to build up a super-Romulan Empire, unhindered by past foes such as . . . James Kirk, who fought them countless times, the Planet Vulcan, who seek unification, Spock, who presumably brokers peace after Nemesis . . .

If Nero has a way back to the quantum universe he’s travelled from, he could invade with an empowered extra-dimensional Romulan Empire and annihilate the Federation as a matter of patriotic honour. And possibly a number of Neros doing that in numerous universes could collapse the fabric of causality! Spock must stop Nero in this reality, even if he fails in numerous others!

810. Boborci - December 13, 2008

807. Jeffries Tuber – December 13, 2008

Maybe from being a cub scout, I liked those badges, too

811. Magister Returns - December 13, 2008

@808

Then change is not the motivtion for Nero. His is more akin to a fall down the rabbit hole. But once there,his eyes light up at the possibilities – a fox in the hen house. And Ol’ Spock – why does he care? I’m thinking along the lines of quantum catalysm. And the fact that perhaps it was Spock that left the back door open for Nero in the first place. His responsibility. Am I close, Master Orci? A wink and a nod will do. Can’t wait for May…

812. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 13, 2008

812: Mr. Orci, if I may, since I seem to have gotten on when you happen to be on:

How do you feel about all this reaction? Are you pleased? Hurt? Angry? Grinning because you have still more surprises up your sleeve? Pensieve? Resigned? Exuberant? Overall, do you think we fans are being intelligent or pigheaded or both?

*crosses fingers; hopes for reply*

813. Boborci - December 13, 2008

812. James Heaney – Wowbagger – December 13, 2008

“How do you feel about all this reaction? Are you pleased? Hurt? Angry? Grinning because you have still more surprises up your sleeve? Pensieve? Resigned? Exuberant? Overall, do you think we fans are being intelligent or pigheaded or both?”

all of the above (except hurt or angry)! A tad surprised at some of the negative reaction, but such is the risk when doing anything other than SHOWING THE MOVIE, which should sink or swim on its own merits, and not based on whatever any of us say.

814. BK613 - December 13, 2008

811
I think change is the plan but Nero just doesn’t plan on returning to the future. Attack the Kelvin, attack Vulcan, (and maybe the other core worlds, like Earth, Andor and Tellar.) and while the Federation is reeling, seize control of the Romulan Empire–in Kirk’s time where he has the technological advantage to do so. Then he is set to found a dynasty that will be the dominant power for the foreseeable future.

815. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 13, 2008

#813 Boborci: “A tad surprised at some of the negative reaction, but such is the risk when doing anything other than SHOWING THE MOVIE, which should sink or swim on its own merits, and not based on whatever any of us say.”

That’s not a bad idea, actually. Let’s have a show of hands. Who here would mind if Mr. Orci leaked an advance copy of the movie to this site so we can decide for ourselves? I, for one, promise not to tell J.J.

Ah, worth a try. :P

816. dalek - December 13, 2008

#813 Bob, I’ve really enjoyed this article, the interview, your thoughts, your intelligent well-thought-through replies in this thread. I think it’s the most anyone has ever thought about a very real theory and the possible science of time travel, in relation to a Star Trek flick. I think you’ve been unfairly chastised by some well before they can make a real judgement as to any story or plot devices based on mainly guess work and conjecture.

Don’t get me wrong im not sucking up. A few months back I was majorly peeved about the Shatner thing, but I’m willing to give the movie a chance.

817. Just a Fan - December 13, 2008

Guys, lets not forget the ’squeeky wheel’ effect.

Look at the latest poll, only 14% as of now are saying they are ‘unhappy’…the issue is that you have these people making multiple posts. Some of the ‘unhappy’ have posted 20 times alone in this thread, which skews the perception. And this is of course the ‘last straw’ for the canon purists who wanted to have their pure ‘in universe’ canon movie. And it appears that the link to TNG and to canon is not enough for them…and so they post and post and post over and over about what this has done to their childhoods.

They will get over it

818. Boborci - December 13, 2008

817. Just a Fan – December 13, 2008

Thanks, I feel better…

816. dalek – December 13, 2008

And thanks for open mind.

819. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

Re: 814 – Good theory. You really couldn’t change your own future in the new timeline – unless you went back, killed your contemporary, and took his place.

And as for the Enterprise being built in Riverside: Could it be the next generation in ass-kicking starships is being built there in honor of the heroism of the late, great George Kirk Sr?

820. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

RE re 814: It’s also the basic ending of “In a Mirror Darkly” where mirror Hoshi Sato can basically take over the Terran Empire with the Defiant.

821. Boborci - December 13, 2008

819. Kirk’s Girdle – December 13, 2008

;)

822. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

That big mother rising up out of corn country would cast a big shadow over Jim, I’ll bet.

823. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

It would give him a hell of a ship on his shoulder.

HAHAHA!!!!!

824. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

I asked this question previously, Bob, but as a fan, are you aware of any musical cues from TOS (aside from the main theme) being utilized by Michael Giacchiano (a la his heavy borrowing from John Barry in “The Incredibles”)?

825. Boborci - December 13, 2008

824. Kirk’s Girdle – December 13, 2008
I asked this question previously, Bob, but as a fan, are you aware of any musical cues from TOS (aside from the main theme) being utilized by Michael Giacchiano (a la his heavy borrowing from John Barry in “The Incredibles”)?

Yes. Although, have not heard the final score in the movie itself.

826. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

Awesome!

I’d assume he’s got to be using Spock’s theme.

But how about the fight music…

DA-da-daaa-daaa-daaa-daaa-daaaaaaaa-da-da-DA-DA!

827. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

Kirks Girdle
Holy Crap you got a wink from BOB on your theory….holy crap…

828. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

J.J.’s gonna tan his ass if he keeps hanging around here.

829. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

He didn’t respond to my observations about the Kelvin’s bridge, though.

830. dalek - December 13, 2008

If it is to honour George Kirk, I think it not only makes sense, but is pretty damn cool!

831. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

What’s pretty cool is on Youtube, you can see the alternate (pilot) opening for Where No Man Has Gone Before, featuring a different main title.

832. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

Bob…I tell you what…rather than get in trouble..here’s the solution….why not just personally dialouge via email with Kirk’s Girdle and myself and answer any and all questions without reservation….oh…and get us pics and sketches from production and art departments……and a copy of the film….without soundtrack is fine…it’s Christmas after all and times are tight……..we wont’ tell….

honest…..

; )

833. Boborci - December 13, 2008

832. I’m a Doctor not a _____! – December 13, 2008

I’ll just send you the link to the top secret website…

834. MH - December 13, 2008

I apologize, but I have been defending this project since day one and after reading the articles pertaining to the actual plot of this movie I am officially concerned. It seems to me as though they are trying to SUPERMAN RETURNS the Trek franchise. And we all know how well that tactic worked for the Superman films.

Yes, I know that Nimoy is on board with the story and some out there are quoting that overused and asinine saying “NUFF SAID” to officially canonize the film, but I have, as of now, major doubts. This whole alternate-reality-to-defend the design choices of the director and his production team seems convoluted.

It’s a shame really, in trying to anticipate the needs of the fans, they seemed to have missed the mark. My biggest fear is that TREK will be 2009′s SPEED RACER.

Of course, I might be totally wrong about all of this and if that is true in five months time I will retract any and all statements I have made.

835. Trelaine's Mom - December 13, 2008

Kirk’s girdle is on to something here. They keep saying have an open mind, and apparently when you do, interesting ideas can pop into your mind. Now the whole Riverside thing makes sense and it no longer bugs me.

well done

so is the Orci ;) the new form of figuring things out? do we need to search back for past winks? maybe this whole movie has been outlined before.

836. dalek - December 13, 2008

#818 Bob I did try my best to hate this movie, but the pictures and the trailer, melted my defiance, and I felt like a big kid again waiting for Christmas. So to be honest I did try the whole dummy-spit-thing, but it wasn’t for me :)

837. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

Kirk’s Girdle…

….you do want him to work in Hollywood again right? I mean if he keeps this up he will be writing episodes for a local PBS kids program in Kansas (……not that there is anything wrong with Kansas, Kids Programming or PBS…love’em all). And for the music rumor has it that Survivor’s music will play a big part in the training montage right before the big fight with Nero…oh wait….wrong flick…

838. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

Not sure about the Superman Returns reference. That film was a lovingly nostalgic recreation of the original. The main problem, aside from it not knowing whether it was a sequal to Superman or Superman II, was that it was overly long and not particularly exciting.

And hey, I dug Speed Racer. The source material wasn’t exactly Shakespeare.

839. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

833-Boborci

<>

“EEEXXCCCELLLEEEENNNTT. Smithers…get this man a lollipop for his troubles….”

840. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

As long as that secret website isn’t http://www.newvoyages.com

841. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

840.

oh no you dih’ent.

842. Ghost of Star Trek Future - December 13, 2008

817

Did Anthony say once that when you look back, there is a consistency with all the polls of a small group of people who have always opposed any changes to canon. So really there is nothing new, it is the same (what is now 15%) that said they hated the new enterprise, didn’t want any changes, dont like the trailer, etc. There is nothing that will satisfy that group and we shouldn’t let their constant barrage of ‘waaaaaaaaaaaa’ affect us.

I think there is nothing realisically possible for a mainstream star trek movie that would satisfy this group. THey want something that just cant exist while you are also trying to bring in some new kids. I for one would like to see some freshb blood. Have you looked around a convention lately (that is a convention that hasn’t gone bankrupt)…it is starting to look like an old folks home, and I should know, I am oooooooooooooold as the hills. I watched TOS the way it was meant to be seen…in Black and White!

now get off my lawn you kids

843. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

I keed, I keed!

I love the Cawley!

844. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

TOS was always in living color.

845. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

I must admit, I didn’t want this whole alternate timeline. I felt that the suggested backstory of the REAL JTK (what we know of it) was quite compelling and would have liked to have seen it played out on screen, rather than substituting a different one. When it comes to mental trauma, Uncle Frank can’t hold a candle to friggin’ Kodos the Executioner.

846. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

844
Not in my mom’s apt for the first 7 years of my life……(thanks Dad for not only leaving but leaving the crappy tv too……no really….it gave me character…and it was fun to figure out what color things were ……lots of fun..)

847. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

Uncle Frank Soliloquy:

Will all the water in the ocean wash this beer from my shirt?!

848. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

844 – Well, yeah. My TV was B&W too, and that was for repeats in 1971 on good ol’ WPIX in NY. But the show was filmed in color – uunashamedly so.

849. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

833 Boborci

….yeeeaaahhhh….mmmmm …funny thing Bob…I um….I haven’t seen that email with top secret site info that is privy to only the select few….., I am sure you sent it….I mean..you wouldn’t ……I mean I don’t think you would not…would you? ..I will check again…I don’t want to think the worst…..but um….I …well I will just say it….I think you and I ..we might have some trust issues here Bob…
….I mean…I will still go see the flick and all…but I gotta be honest Bob……it’s gonna hurt a little when I do Bob…it’s gonna hurt a little when I do……

850. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

I think Bob’s gone out to dinner.

851. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

844

That is true…
I never would have thought Primary colors would make their way onto a starship in quite the way they did…but they did….I love it don’t get me wrong…..

852. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

you may be on to something there……

853. BK613 - December 13, 2008

818
An open mind isn’t the issue. I’ve been trying to keep an open mind, mostly because of the way you and “Silent Bob” distilled the real essence of an 1980s cartoon into a pretty decent live-action movie.

There is, however, a finality about this new movie that invokes a sense of loss that reminds me of the way I felt when DeForest Kelley died. The sense of loss I felt when I knew with certainty that the Triad would never appear on screen again.

I feel similarly about the history that you have tried to honor. There will be no new official ST stories from Paramount from that history because, if this movie is successful, then all future ST will build on it.

I hope that maybe that clarifies some of the negativity I have expressed today.

854. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

I think that would be Silent Alex. It’s “chatty” Bob we’re talking to.

855. BK613 - December 13, 2008

820
Didn’t stick around long enough in Ent to see those eps.

Just basically saying what I would do if I was a time-traveling super-villain with a Shadow, err, a Vorlon, I mean, a Romlulan planetkiller.

856. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

Neither did I, but I had to watch that one to see the big D.

857. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

I miss the Vorlons.

858. BK613 - December 13, 2008

857
They have always been here :-)

859. Wrangler - December 13, 2008

I have to agree with post 672. This is attempt retain the old distruntal Trek Fans by telling them that old canon still alive to try keep them from walking off. Movie is bit drastic in changes. Using previous trek science lessons and actual current Quantum Physics theories. They can make excuss why they changed everything and not have to say “reboot” the franchise. They retired the old canon and old Spoke made his fairwell to old canon. (Arguable waving good by from better written story material.)

However, using the Quantum Physics in way their presenting it. They are also suggesting, that their re-doing universe everytime they travel. Giving excuse wreck the story and not have to worry about it. STNG movie First Contact changed good chunk of Trek History with Cochran not going Alpha Centurie to meet the Vulcans. (That is originally what happened.)

Now, we may end up changing the continum and canon everytime things don’t work out per-movie. Say, 2009 Star Trek movie does work out they make 2nd one that bombs. Oops, time to make new continuum . Thats going get old.

860. Kirk's Girdle - December 13, 2008

Re: 858

Zathras also always been here.
Zathras never being allowed to use vacation time.

861. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 13, 2008

I hope Mr. Orci knows that I am now working on an engine that will dial random internet addresses and IP’s until I find the “secret website” he mentions. Even though the odds of it even *existing* are something like 2,228.7 to 1.

862. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

859

Nahh…if a #2 bombs….or even doesn’t live up to what everyone hoped for…..they will simply pair down the story, tighten the budget, and use a exisitng character/storyline from previous tos episodes to build a good solid action/sci fi story that will flesh out the trifecta even more…..OH..and change the uniforms…to something..more nautical…like….Horatio Hornblower in space…but all of that is just a wild guess …..

863. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 13, 2008

#862

OR! They’ll do a DS9 movie!

Ha ha. No, I jest. Man, I crack me up sometimes…

864. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

861- James Heaney-Wowbagger

I have a feeling Mr. Orci knows…..in fact I think Mr Orci is probably from the Q…and is toying with us…

865. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

863
NONONONO

an Enterprise movie…..yes..that’s it….that’ll get the $$$ rolling in the franchise again…..

866. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

…oh ..my gosh…that….that…..that’s it …..isn’t it Bob….you and your “supreme court” are really the Q Continuum….coming in..messing with the timeline we have always known and loved……it’s all becoming abundantly clear now……

867. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

BOB ORCI & Co.= “Q”!!!

868. Professor John Robinson - December 13, 2008

I started responding to one of the previous reader responses but I accidentally rolled into an alternative timeline and the responses changed, so I didn’t have that particular message to respond to anymore. Now I’m a bit confused as to my next move. Should I continue in this timeline or look for a way back to my original time line? Or is there a third alternative? or fourth, or fifth, or sixth or….

869. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 13, 2008

*in Bob Orci’s voice*

Number EIght Six Seven, thou are notified that thy kind hath infiltrated my disguise too far already. Thou art directed to return to thine own sphere of influence immediately. Now go back… or thou shalt most certainly die.

870. Xai - December 13, 2008

I am looking forward to seeing Star Trek in May. I’ll judge then what I’ve seen and say if it’s good or bad, canon or heresy according to my taste.

According to some of you, this movie bombed already. I find that amazing and scary. But I’ve been told that you don’t need complete information to make a good judgement on anything.

OK.

So here’s the fair warning.
I am going to the movie and don’t want to sit next to you. Should you decide to scoff, comment, kick a seat or otherwise disrupt mine and other people’s enjoyment of the movie, you will have a Diet Coke bath with a sprinkling of buttered popcorn. But take heart…in a few of the multitude of timelines, I will miss.

871. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

**in best quasi-Patrick Stewart voice**

ENOUGH OF THIS!!! WE AREN”T YOUR PUPPETS WHOSE LIVES YOU CAN PLAY WITH ..MR. BOB. “Q” ORCI!!! PUT THINGS BACK THE WAY THEY WERE!!! THE LINE MUST BE DRAWN HERE!!!

872. Chris M - December 13, 2008

That certainly explains a lot. The time travel and parallel universe storyline fits within Stat Trek history and tradition! And it definitely fits within canon. The main thing is that we have Kirk, Spock and the rest of the gang on the NCC-1701 USS Enterprise and the movie is called STAR TREK!!!! :)

873. Boborci - December 13, 2008

853. BK613 – December 13, 2008
818
“An open mind isn’t the issue. I’ve been trying to keep an open mind, mostly because of the way you and “Silent Bob” distilled the real essence of an 1980s cartoon into a pretty decent live-action movie.

There is, however, a finality about this new movie that invokes a sense of loss that reminds me of the way I felt when DeForest Kelley died. The sense of loss I felt when I knew with certainty that the Triad would never appear on screen again.

I feel similarly about the history that you have tried to honor. There will be no new official ST stories from Paramount from that history because, if this movie is successful, then all future ST will build on it.

I hope that maybe that clarifies some of the negativity I have expressed today.”

I really do understand. A small part of me felt it as well the minute we took the job… happy as we were, we knew we were complicit in recasting TOS, and some part of me felt sacrilegious. For a fan, it really is the ultimate no-win scenario to go back to this ship and this crew, no matter how you slice it.

874. Boborci - December 13, 2008

868. Professor John Robinson – December 13, 2008

Stay put. Same rules as when you’re lost in the forest.

875. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

….jeez…how’d I ever get married…

I am such a geek…..

that being said…
Bob…I still think you are Q.

876. Boborci - December 13, 2008

870. Xai – December 13, 2008

LOL! You tell ‘em!

877. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

872 “The main thing is that we have Kirk, Spock and the rest of the gang on the NCC-1701 USS Enterprise and the movie is called STAR TREK!!!! :)

In all seriousness…you are spot on..that is really the point isn’t it?

And Bob, as silly/loopy as i have been I know it is difficult FIRST dealing with characters you love and recognizing the task ahead and the implications, SECOND writing the darn thing and making it work THIRD.putting up with other fans who are as passionate in their own way about the characters and franchise and who feel comfortable enough to let you know in polite and not so polite ways how they feel….anyhoo…all of that to say..I look forward to May, and thanks for all your work!!!

878. I'm a Doctor not a _____! - December 13, 2008

Bob
on a side note, as i saw that pic of Mr. Nimoy again at the top of this posting. and I remembered I wanted to ask..what was it like …i mean..you wrote a part for a guy who arguably knows the character better than any of us….what was it like writing his part, did he give any points? did he tweak or even suggest what young spock might be like? Was it thrilling, intimidating, scary to meet him? Is he as laid back and insightful, and cool as he seems?

879. Xai - December 13, 2008

#876 BobOrci

Glad you enjoyed.

In the past, you mentioned coming back to Trekmovie after the movie was out and telling us more about what went into the writing of this story. Possibly answering a few questions(?).

How long after the premiere are you going to wait?

880. Xai - December 13, 2008

#872 Chris M

Good post

881. Notbob - December 13, 2008

Mr. Orci,

After reading a lot of what some people posted, I have to honestly give you a lot of credit. Because you showed up and answered questions in spite of the fact that some of the posts were not all that nice to the movie concept. It says a lot, to me, about you and your character that you came back more than once and are reading these comments and responding. No one can honestly say that you do not care about the fan’s views or thoughts. Some people may not agree with the approach you fellows took. I can understand their frustration. After all, many of them are dedicated to a fourty plus year franchise. But I can also understand why you guys made some of the changes that you did. To be honest we haven’t seen the movie yet, so any comments of whether or not the movie is going to be great or going to stink is not fair at all.

The more I read about the ideas and reasonings, the more the sit better, for me personally. In my opinion, the trailer looks great. It looks like it could be a really awesome time. I honestly had my doubts when I read Bruce Greenwood would play Pike, Karl Urban would be Bones and Pegg would be Scotty–that had nothing to do with their acting, as much with they don’t look a thing like the origianl actors– but from what I saw in the trailer it honestly worked for me. I even went back to look at the bridge for this movie….and while at first I didn’t like it at all…the more I look at it, the more it grows on me. I can understand the reason you guys wanted to do the time travel idea with the simple explanation–not of Quantum Machanics– but with the words Leonard Nimoy. You wanted him in the film. But you obviously wanted–and understandably so–to have the original crew when they were younger, too. That leaves it to you either have to use Leonard Nimoy as old Spock having flashbacks or thinking back about the old days–something that may turn off some new viewers, and I’m sure their would be gripes about that too by some fans– or if you want Nimoy’s Spock to play a role in the action, then that pretty much only leaves the time travel idea.

The time travel issue opens doors for other things, too. It allows you, as the writer, the freedom that you need to tweak with possible future story lines. I mean, If you just wrote a prequel that did not have any of the actors from the original show reprise their roles, and everything fit the canon, then where would the suspense be? We know they all live to be a crew in their 50s and 60s. We would go into a film about the original crew knowning before the movie even starts, that nothing bad will happen to any of the fictional characters we like.

I hope that this film is a huge success; but I really hope it’s as good of a story as the trailer looks.

I posted a couple questions yesterday and I will narrow the question down to one simple question.

1. This movie has Christopher Pike in it. Did this Christopher Pike, (as played by Bruce Greenwood) still experience the events that occured in the episode The Cage? I think that was set in the year 2254. This question, I would think, should not reveal anything about the film’s plot.

I changed my second question to this:

2. In the trailer for the movie, there is a clip of Chris Pine as Kirk aiming a gun at the camera. Is this the federation’s phaser?

882. Alex Rosenzweig - December 13, 2008

#687 – “Alex, you’ve got it backward – since *you’re* concerned by his patently inaccurate claim about the “Chase” project having been approved for production, you can “take it up with him” if you like. I need do no more than dismiss it as irrelevant to the debate, since it is not so. It never moved forward beyond the script level; the folks who were actually in a position to greenlight a project never took that kind of interest in it.”

Really, no, Dennis. I have nothing to take up with him, since I’m not asserting his claim to be inaccurate. I consider him to be a reliable source for a project for which he wrote the screenplay. Now, if there’s some real proof to the contrary, I’m all ears… :)

In any case, the point is likely somewhat academic, since whether or not it was greenlit for some period of time, it doesn’t change the fact that when the regime changed at the studio, the project was stopped, and now resides in that realm of interesting might-have-beens, alongside lots of other such projects.

#701 – “#585
I think we’re actually in agreement then (for the most part), which makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside – ya know, IDIC, a peaceful future for humanity, etc. :) It’s just that you’ve come up with a ‘meta-canonical’ explanation that works for you.”

Precisely. And until such time as they offer up a canonical counter-example or a meta-canonical theory that I like better (which happens from time to time :) ), I’ll likely stick with it.

“Here’s the thrust of what I think you and I disagree on (and it relates to your more significant issues with the movie, as well): after 5 TV shows, 10 films, 726 episodes and nearly a quarter of a thousand hours of stories, we have no mention of a grad school for cadets. None. We have innumerable references to 4 years at the academy and to graduating cadets being in their 4th year, but nothing about attending any secondary institutions.”

True, but it doesn’t necessarily discount the idea, especially since a) only a tiny fraction of all those stories even address the Academy, and b) lots of other non-canonical sources drew comparable conclusions to mine (and, indeed, to be fair, influenced my thinking), going all the way back to Franz Joseph’s Tech Manual in the early ’70s. I can’t claim to have come up with the theory out of whole cloth, but it is one that fits both the on-screen data and some basic logical assumptions about how StarFleet Academy could work.

“Now, does this make references to such an institution in a future installment ‘impossible’? No, of course not. However, it makes such an institution more and more unlikely, as surely over 200 years of fictional filmed history SOMEONE would have mentioned it.
{snip} ”

Now, that I’ll grant you, but I think that one has to approach the matter both from the realm of realism and equally from the idea that anything not canonically ruled-out is still available to be added later (unless that addition makes no logical sense, but then the issue is less canon/continuity than just sense itself ;) ). I think that’s the way to avoid over-limiting oneself in terms of continuity issues.

“This is the problem many had with Enterprise – it wasn’t that the existence of a Starfleet (but not Federation) starship Enterprise was impossible, but after 4 television shows and 9 movies and numerous references to Kirk’s being ‘the first Enterprise’ and 6 starships by that name, and an entire wall dedicated to ships named Enterprise on the wall of the Enterprise-D & E’s conference room, it seemed to give new meaning to the definition of ‘flexible’. So no, not impossible, but I understand those that felt it was a violation of ‘canon’.”

No, I can understand the mindset, to be sure. If it had been up to me, I probably would have named the ship something else. But I understood the logic of what they were doing, and since I also was willing to allow that having a whole bunch of vehicles called Enterprise up through the 21st Century, and then *none* for 200 years after that, seemed a bit silly, having another one in the midst of it didn’t unduly stretch my suspension of disbelief.

“How does this differ from say, a new alien being introduced that we’re expected to believe has simply been there the whole time without being referenced? Simple, established canon itself gives us an out, as the Federation has been clearly defined as having hundreds of member worlds, and within reason we cannot have possibly seen them all. It isn’t difficult for a viewer to accept that sort of development, because it fits within the ‘rules’.”

Agreed. I have no problem with a new alien being shown. But I think that applies to the above examples, too.

“I believe these sorts of problems which arise from 42+ years of fictional canon are what caused the new writers to create their new loophole (and again, their loophole ‘fits’ with everything Trek has ever established about time travel).”

Maybe so, and maybe I’m coming at the whole thing as I am because I’m seeing all of the above as non-problems. One poster put it as: augmenting canon is not contradicting canon. And I agree with that thinking.

“Now, I’ve heard the argument that a good writer should be able to work within this kind of framework. True, but should a good writer be forced to chuck half his story simply because it doesn’t fit in with what we learned in episode 15, act III, line 43?”

If that line is important enough, then yes. For example, I think an already-odd throwaway line about Pike being about Kirk’s age is dismissible, because it made no sense in the context of what we were being shown *at the time*, let alone 42 years later. Ditto a line like “Faster than light, no left or right” (VOY), because it itself contradicted myriads of prior examples. But something like KIrk’s prior service on Farragut is not so easy to dismiss, in my mind, because an entire episode’s story–and one important to Kirk’s character, to boot–was derived from it.

“Now expand that to the previously mentioned 726 episodes, 10 films, ‘fanon’, etc., and then try to tell me that canon hadn’t been turned into something of a hindrance for new ideas.”

Well, I’ll leave out fanon, because we know it has no standing (whether or not we might like it to, and I always find it interesting when bits of fanon become canon, e.g., the founding races of the Federation), but as for the rest, no, I really and truly don’t believe it to be a hindrance at all. If I believed it was, I might not be as adamantly hostile to the very concept of reboots/re-starts/re-whatevers as I am.

“As for creating a ‘fresh’ new set of characters, I think the answer is simple as to why that didn’t happen – it had been happening for the last 20 years. We had TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, all with new characters and new settings and new missions. The fanbase had grown bored, the general viewing audience had grown bored.”

I think, much more than new characters being boring, Star Trek as a show had gotten formulaic. A long time ago, David Gerrold wrote about the trap of a TV show going from format to formula, and what the difference was. I think Trek, late in the game, had made that transition. It wasn’t until almost the very end that it started to claw its way back, in part because it finally had a fresh person at the helm, but by then it was too late. I think very much if the freshness and energy that marked ENT’s final season had been there from the beginning, the show might only just have ended.

Ergo, I agree that the audience had gotten bored, but I think we disagree on why. :)

“The studio didn’t want to send Trek to Davey Jones’ locker, so they did what so many other successful franchises had done – gone back to the beginning.”

Nothing wrong with that. They could very easily have done so very effectively. Heck, if they’ve got some more surprises up their sleeves that we don’t know about yet, I may yet have to amend that to “they have done so”, but we shall see.

“The reality of the world is these properties have to make money. It takes a lot of money to make them.”

Sure.

“So if you have a failed TV show and a failed pair of movies, are you going to trust the same creative team to create yet another new set of characters? I don’t think so.”

Ahh, but you see, there’s the qualifier…”the same creative team”. ;) And the answer is, no, I wouldn’t trust the same creative team at all. Nor for an instant did I suggest staying with that same team. (I don’t think they were bad folks, intrinsically, but after 18 years straight, *anybody* could get burnt out, and I think Rick Berman and Brannon Braga were absolutely burnt out. The change in energy level when Coto came in is indicative of that, too.) But I might be willing to trust a *new*creative team with a new situation and a fresh way of telling the stories to do that job.

“You’ll go back to what you know works. And TOS on the big screen, the characters that existed in the popular consciousness, they knew that worked.”

No disagreement there! And when I thought they were really going to go back and do an “origin story” consistent with TOS, I was extremely excited. I mean, bouncing-off-the-walls excited! I knew there was lots of room for it, I knew that there was a lot of story potential there, I thought there was a real opportunity for a great, cinematic story to be done.

I don’t consider that the team are “bad guys”. I respect that they had a tough job. But I’ve said all along that there was only a *single* thing they could do that I wouldn’t accept at all. Just one thing. And that was throw out the general continuity. {shrug}

#709 – “Christopher Nolan’s approach to Batman and the new BSG are all sorts of kick ass, ”

I really like Nolan’s take on Batman. As for Moore’s BSG… I really don’t know what to say…

883. Alex Rosenzweig - December 14, 2008

#753 – “We wanted the whole of canon to be a prequel to this movie, without which this movie could not exist, thereby honoring canon and keeping it alive.”

I get what you’re saying, Bob, but I gotta ask… In practice, the generalities like “honoring canon” set aside, how will it be kept alive, going forward, if the studio’s focus–as I’d imagine would be likely–is heavily shifted toward a whole new continuity in which none of what came before is considered relevant?

I can understand that you might not feel that it’s irrelevant, and obviously I don’t, but can we rely at all on the idea that now that the backstories have been altered (assumedly), even if the characters have reached that same starting moment of being on the Enterprise, that in future projects–whether they be films or whatever–what occurred in TOS will be considered to still “have happened”?

#780 – “Has anyone else here noticed how Bob comes here on a regular basis to directly answer the vehement cries of angry fans? I think that in itself is a testament to how committed these people are.”

Absolutely agreed, and that involvement is indeed appreciated, Bob.

#790 – “Star Trek was always supposed to exist in OUR future, right? And that’s what made it so great.”

Err… Nope. Star Trek’s world ceased to be congruent with our likely future a very long time ago, possibly ca. the early ’70s, when our space program began to founder and the one in the Trekverse didn’t. It is a separate world, in many ways a better world than ours, and one to which we can still aspire for our future to be *like*. But it’s not the same world, and never will be.

And, y’know…? That doesn’t make it even a tiny bit less great. :)

#815 – “Who here would mind if Mr. Orci leaked an advance copy of the movie to this site so we can decide for ourselves? I, for one, promise not to tell J.J.”

Oh, sure, like J.J. wouldn’t find out anyway… ;) I bet those scripts are numbered, coded, tracked, and for all I know have little GPS tracking sensors on ‘em so if *anything* goes awry, J.J. will know not only when and how, but who. >:)

#817 – “Look at the latest poll, only 14% as of now are saying they are ‘unhappy’…the issue is that you have these people making multiple posts.”

This is true, but I’ve seen people on all sides of the debate posting multiple times, so I don’t think it’s quite as simple as a huge majority of posts being multiples from one set of angry people, with all the other happy people posting just once and then going away. There are ongoing discussions here, often interesting ones, from a lot of people across the spectrum of opinion.

I agree very much with Anthony, though, that we all owe it not only to Bob and the folks from the movie’s creative team who visit here, but to each other, to be civil about our disagreements.

#853 – “I feel similarly about the history that you have tried to honor. There will be no new official ST stories from Paramount from that history because, if this movie is successful, then all future ST will build on it.”

The unknown variable in this point is, how different will the two histories be, when all is said and done? It may yet be that when the movie ends, the two histories will be very similar. Or it may not. That was very much at the heart of my comment to Bob O. earlier in this post.

884. Alex Rosenzweig - December 14, 2008

#873 – “A small part of me felt it as well the minute we took the job… happy as we were, we knew we were complicit in recasting TOS, and some part of me felt sacrilegious. For a fan, it really is the ultimate no-win scenario to go back to this ship and this crew, no matter how you slice it.”

There’s that, to be sure. But the reality is also that there wasn’t much you could do about recasting. If the characters are to live on, there must be new actors. And you’re hardly the first to face that.

What you do/did have control over is how true or not true your story is to the existing Trekverse. Breaking with continuity, unlike recasting, is not something that you had to do as an intrinsic aspect of doing a TOS movie.

Now, of course, I don’t know how true or not true the film is to TOS continuity. I only know what I’ve seen so far, and of course my responses and reactions are based on what I know. Come May 8th, I may yet feel differently. Or I may not. We will see.

885. Shatner_Fan_Prime - December 14, 2008

# 657 Bob Orci …

Ok, Bob. I appreciate the response. And FWIW, I really am thrilled (like my fellow Texan fan Closettrekker) that you guys are returning to TOS. I have opening night, which also happens to be my Birthday(!), marked on my calendar and plan to take lots of friends to see it.

I wish you guys, and us fans, the best. I hope we all emerge winners!

886. captcrunch - December 14, 2008

I’m really looking forward to this movie. The writers seem to really know and understand Star Trek and is trying their best to respect the canon, yet create something fresh. How cool would it be to “redo” some of those old TOS episodes, but into a actual movie. Just a thought …

887. Just a Fan - December 14, 2008

Glad I made you feel better Bob, but I have a semi-serious question.

You had previously stated that the ‘Supreme Court’ would have to make rulings on canon issues. But now that we know there is an alternate time line, were there any rulings past the first one agreeing to an alternate timeline? Once you set that precedent, what is there left to rule on, since every discrepency can be explained via the magic of quantum physics.

888. Boborci - December 14, 2008

878. I’m a Doctor not a _____! – December 13, 2008

I will tell all once the movie is out…

889. Boborci - December 14, 2008

879. Xai – December 13, 2008

I’ll be here the very night it opens…

890. Boborci - December 14, 2008

881. Notbob – December 13, 2008

No comment on 1

2 — yes, federation phaser

thanks for open mind

891. Boborci - December 14, 2008

887. Just a Fan – December 14, 2008
Glad I made you feel better Bob, but I have a semi-serious question.

“You had previously stated that the ‘Supreme Court’ would have to make rulings on canon issues. But now that we know there is an alternate time line, were there any rulings past the first one agreeing to an alternate timeline? Once you set that precedent, what is there left to rule on, since every discrepency can be explained via the magic of quantum physics.”

Yes, there are further rulings, because as I said to Anthony, QM is not an excuse to change everything. I believe much of what we did could fit within canon. In fact, for certain elements of the story, we tried to ignore the time incursion and imagine what would’ve been consistent with commonly accepted canon.

892. cellojammer - December 14, 2008

I’ve been supportive of this movie from the get-go, but when I read about this multi-universe quantum whatchamacallit earlier today, I started to have my doubts. I would have preferred that this story slotted right into the established Trek history.

Now that I’ve digested it for a few hours, I get it. I may not necessarily agree with all the changes, but I get it. The TOS universe is a tricky one to play in, fraught as it is with a lot of baggage. Hopefully this will allow for a certain amount of creative freedom for these and future writers of Trek movies.

If this is so, then my greatest hope is that they write good stories and make exciting, provocative movies. Just throw us an occasional reference to the almighty canon so that we can knowingly smile, secure in the knowledge that the timelines are related.

“I heard they were…similar.”

893. thorsten - December 14, 2008

@890…

that is a federation phaser? the blast appeared green to me, I thought Kirk just picked up a romulan disruptor ;))

894. Anthony Pascale - December 14, 2008

RE: Bob here the night it opens

That is pretty cool Bob

And I am intrigued by your comment about the non time incursion stuff. Obviously not everything is different, it would be interesting if, after opening night. you could point to the things that are and are not different in the Court’s view. From seeing the preview the most obvious thing that is different is Kirk (at least early on). His parents were on the Kelvin and now Pike is some kind of father figure, but it appears that regardless of where he is, being Captain of the Enterprise is his ‘Best Destiny’ as he ends up there anyway.

But I could see Scotty Prime still being the same guy we see on that ice planet and Urban McCoy seems pretty much exactly like McCoy Prime except maybe he formed his friendship with Kirk earlier. I am just speculating here folks by the way, but I guess this is all part of the fun of it.

It is also intriguing that many things would have to be exactly the same, like the Botony Bay is where it should be floating in space ready to be found, and V’Ger is still probably headed back to Earth as are the Whale Probe, Nomad and all sorts of stuff from the Prime timeline….right?

895. thorsten - December 14, 2008

@894…

right, Anthony… the Botany Bay will float in the same part of space, I just wonder if the Enterprise will be there to find it… but I guess you are right, and what we see at the end of the IS the start of the 5 year mission.

Buckle Up!

896. Anthony Pascale - December 14, 2008

well the Enterprise doesn’t have to find it, maybe some other ship does, maybe even a Klingon ship. Maybe in this timeline Kirk and crew have to face Khan after he has conquered some other race or empire. Maybe in this timeline Khan becomes an ally…who knows….regardless he is still out there with his band of genetic supermen and women.

897. thorsten - December 14, 2008

Oh, I can see that Anthony…
the Klingons, aready weakened by the loss of 47 ships,
stumble pon Khan and he reboots their empire…

excellent ;))

898. thorsten - December 14, 2008

@881. Notbob…

well after Bob decided to keep the cone of silence over your question 1,
if the Enterprise build in Iowa in not finished when young Kirk checks it out the night before he enrolls with Starfleet, and Pike is spending a lot of time with the grooming of cadets, there is no chance he went to Talos IV with Spock… at least not with the Enterprise, in that timeline. We know that Nero attacks Vulcan three years after Kirk became a cadet, so there is always the chance that Pike survives, Kirk finishes his education, and the Enterprise under Pikes command with Spock will travel to Talos after the resolution of the Vulcan crisis… Or what we see in the “Buckle Up” moment is after Kirks field promotion to golden shirt and they start head over heels into their adventure…

899. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 14, 2008

#896: See, that’s exactly the kind of thing that would absolutely drive me up a wall. Really? Messing with “Space Seed” and TWOK is a good idea? That idea just makes my skin crawl. Which, I know, before you say it: that means I care wayyy too much about my particular brand of Trek. But still! Yuck! Squick, even!

Doesn’t change my opinion that you’re pretty much the bomb, Tony. I just don’t get it.

900. thorsten - December 14, 2008

Wowbagger, I am sure that a restarted franchise will look in other parts of space for their stories, there is a lot of stuff that can be done before they have to dig out the TOS storylines…

901. Peter Lemonjello - December 14, 2008

Have the writers of this film ever seen Back to the Future? I’m thinking not.

902. thorsten - December 14, 2008

@813. Boborci [… ] such is the risk when doing anything other than SHOWING THE MOVIE…

it is bad that we have to wait till next may for the movie, but it’s good that the majority of people who saw the outtakes loved what they saw and became instant Trekevangelists… you must have done something right, Bob…

903. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 14, 2008

#902: “it’s good that the majority of people who saw the outtakes loved what they saw”

More accurately, didn’t EVERYONE love what they saw? I haven’t heard one negative word about this film breathed by anyone who’s seen it or parts of it.

904. David K. M. Klaus - December 14, 2008

Someone above mentioned they’d rather have a Batman Begins or Battlestar Galactica-style reboot rather than an alternative timeline.

What you’re not understanding is that a reboot of the franchise is an alternative timeline, only you’re not seeing the point where the divergent universes branched apart. In this film, it’s shown, that’s the only difference. Whether they’re calling it a reboot or not, in essence, this it what the new movie will be and is.

Reboot / alternative universe / parallel dimension, etc.: Just different words for the same thing.

905. David K. M. Klaus - December 14, 2008

Someone above mentioned they’d rather have a Batman Begins or Battlestar Galactica -style reboot rather than an alternative timeline.

What you’re not understanding is that a reboot of the franchise is an alternative timeline, only you’re not seeing the point where the divergent universes branched apart. In this film, it’s shown, that’s the only difference. Whether they’re calling it a reboot or not, in essence, this it what the new movie will be and is.

“Reboot” / “alternative universe” / “parallel dimension”, etc.: Just different terms for the same thing.

906. David K. M. Klaus - December 14, 2008

I don’t know why the HTML I’m trying to type is not reproducing properly, but I’m not going to post the same copy a third time. Sorry, folks.

907. Holger - December 14, 2008

@ Bob Orci: The way time travel works in the Star Trek universe may be seen as evidence that the Many Worlds Interpretation is the correct one in that universe. It got experimentally confirmed there, as it were :-)

908. S. John Ross - December 14, 2008

#787: Remember, though, that I’m one of those people who cares nothing about canon, so it isn’t amenable to any “solution,” justification, or rationalization.

I think I must have stated my position unclearly. My apologies.

909. Tchessi - December 14, 2008

It could be argued that when the timelines in “Tomorrow Is Yesterday” and “City On the Edge of Forever” were not restored, per se, to their original condition, but rather a new alternate timeline closely resembling the original unaltered version was created. David Gerrold postulated this theory in his book, THE MAN WHO FOLDED HIMSELF back in the 70s!

910. Alec - December 14, 2008

To 905. David K. M. Klaus – December 14, 2008

Yes. In fact, it’s much, much more than a reboot. For the characters we know and love are different. The Kirk(s) in this film has completely different social conditioning to ‘our’ Kirk. They should, consequently, have completely different personalities and make completely different choices. We are told, however, that they will still act in either the same, or a very similar, Kirk-Esq. way. This would seem to be an espousal of genetic determinism, which is incoherent, or some mystical predestination theory, which is even less plausible. Sadly, it’s nothing more than a nod from the filmmakers to the fans.

911. Alec - December 14, 2008

My concerns about this film are whether, and to what extent, it will respect Star Trek. By why I mean the show’s original essence: its philosophy. This film should be a good film. But I want to see both a good film and a good Star Trek film. I think a little should be said about this film in relation to the others. If this film is successful, as it really ought to be, it is because, finally, Star Trek is getting the sort of treatment it deserves. It is finally being treated like a big blockbuster such as Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, etc. The budget is well over twice as big as that for the previous film, Nemesis; and it is comparable with the aforementioned films. What’s more, Paramount is proactively marketing this film worldwide: I find it incredible to believe that this is the first Star Trek film to be properly brought to the attention of France, Spain, etc.

912. cugel the clever - December 14, 2008

797. (the not so real) McCoy

“I am aging and proud of it. You are clearly very youthful and unable to accept my honest opinions. Here’s hoping that once you reach my age you are a better person. Happy New Year!”

I’m in my 50′s and in high school I was one of the legions of TOS fans who wrote NBC urging them to renew ST for a third season. At the time, it was the most creative, thoughtful, and exciting science fiction on television or film. Since then I (and most people) have realized that everyone must grow with the times and not cling to the old habits and conventions of their youth. You have clearly not realized this fact.

My orginal comment stands – retire to your 60′s-era faux-wood-paneled basement, pop a Beta tape into your mono-VCR, and watch “Turnabout Intruder” for the 100th time.

Happy 21st century.

913. BK613 - December 14, 2008

873
Thanks for the response.
As an aside, also thank you for building the Enterprise on the ground. One of the most powerful visual moments in ST is that shipyard sequence in TMP and one of the best Kirk-Scotty character moments as well. I thank you for preserving that by doing something different, and not simply trying to top it, like someone else in your position might do. Although I am hoping that this movie’s ship-launch sequence, if there is one, is also spectacular.

914. Papa Jim - December 14, 2008

First off I would like to say to you, Bob, that i am very impressed with the fact that you are actually here and reading these posts.

I tip my hat to you with deep respect.

And I would also like to say that even though i do not agree with what i have seen and heard recently, I do realize that this was a huge undertaking and that it is your rodeo now.

My worry is that my beloved Star Trek is being traded in for something that is just pretty and flashy and that it will have lost it’s depth for no better reason than to have it be as profitable as can be.

This reminds me of an analogy I once heard about the difference between a Heroin addict and a Tweaker.

A Heroin addict will steal your wallet, take the money and never look back.

A Tweaker will steal your wallet and then help you look for it.

(I hope you all can take that in the humor it was intended)

915. Papa Jim - December 14, 2008

#754 Orci

This is the most amusing line of reasoning I’ve seen repeated here: that somehow QM is media spin, like we’re getting memos from Paramount with talking points about one of the most difficult to understand theories in theoretical physics. As if the CEO were saying, “Kids today LOVE QUANTUM MECHANICS! Let’s give it to them!”

I wasn’t trying to say QM was media spin. I was saying that it is being in the media spin and that is was being used a marketing ploy to attract the kiddies.

I was saying that is was being used as an easy and convenient excuse / explanation to explain away the inconsistencies in the storyline.

916. (The much more real) McCoy - December 14, 2008

912

“My orginal comment stands – retire to your 60’s-era faux-wood-paneled basement, pop a Beta tape into your mono-VCR, and watch “Turnabout Intruder” for the 100th time.”

Wow. Based on your attitude an inability to read other ideas without getting upset, I didn’t realize you were actually older than me. I had much more of that running through my veins when I was younger. I’m happy that wisdom and openness towards others allows me to spare the drama when expressing my opinions.

I really, really feel for you that even at your age, you still carry so much mouthy drama with you. Perhaps you still have **some** time left to learn to chill out. Better get going on it.

Happy 23rd Century!

917. sean - December 14, 2008

#882

“If that line is important enough, then yes. For example, I think an already-odd throwaway line about Pike being about Kirk’s age is dismissible, because it made no sense in the context of what we were being shown *at the time*, let alone 42 years later. Ditto a line like “Faster than light, no left or right” (VOY), because it itself contradicted myriads of prior examples. But something like KIrk’s prior service on Farragut is not so easy to dismiss, in my mind, because an entire episode’s story–and one important to Kirk’s character, to boot–was derived from it.”

And I think that’s where you and I will fail to reach an agreement. For me, story is paramount (no pun intended…okay, maybe it was intended). I believe this was the approach the TOS writers took, and even later incarnations went with (including Chekov in TWOK despite his absence in Space Seed, implying Kirk as a bad boy who cheated on his final exams in contrast to ‘a stack of books with legs’, etc.)

I’m a big picture guy. So for me, it doesn’t matter if Joe Chill killed Bruce Wayne’s parents or if the Joker did. What does matter is that they die tragically, and are the impetus for Bruce taking on the Batman moniker. So in terms of this new film, as long as Spock is a half-human/half-Vulcan hybrid that raises his eyebrow and has a strained relationship with his father, and as long as Scotty is an engineer that complains about overworked engines or Kirk is thinking of clever ways out of ridiculous situations, I’m happy. It doesn’t really matter if he witnessed a massacre at the hands of Kodos the Executioner, or whether he served on the Republic and ratted out Ben Finney, or fought a vampire cloud with the cerw of the Farragut.

That’s not to say I have absolutely no concern for consistency or detail – that’s definitely not the case. I used to be obsessed with the minutiae of Trek and became incredibly frustrated when characters ‘misspoke’ about prior events or got the name of a planet wrong or when Worf couldn’t decide how to pronounce Cardassian ship classes or Kirk couldn’t seem to get the date right. But eventually I realized that approach led to a sort of ‘forest for the trees’ issue, and now such errors easily fade when I’m engaged in a particularly good story (who cares if it was silly for Scotty to imply that the Enterprise was incapable of sensing a ship beneath it – Trek VI was a beautiful sendoff, and I appreciate it as such).

918. Sammelpost zu Star Trek XI: Alle Fakten, Gerchte und Infos - SciFi-Forum - December 14, 2008

[...] bei Treknews.de TREKNews.de: Star Trek 11: Orci ber den Canon Das Originial bei Trekmovie.com: EXCLUSIVE: Bob Orci Explains How The New Star Trek Movie Fits With Trek Canon (and Real Science) | T… Achtung – Bitte in diesem Thread keine Kommentare oder dergleichen posten. Aktuelle News sind [...]

919. Admiral_BlackCat - December 14, 2008

A thought occured to me. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? I mean does Spock follow Nero back into time, or does Nero follow Spock (in his time ship)? Spock could be going back in time to OBSERVE an event disputed by the Vulcan-Romulan unification opponents and that could shatter the entire unification relationship and Spock wants proof of the real outcome from the past. Nero, with yet unknown motivation, attacks Spock in his time ship before he travels back. The only logical escape is to make the time jump, but the unknown side effect is the “temporal-wake” that Nero forces himself through. (We know of the temporal wake from first contact, spock might not have read that brief due to it’s top secret classified nature.)
I’m just saying maybe.

920. Databrain - December 14, 2008

740 said:
‘Why are you owed an explanation? We got a look at how they are applying a scientific theory. To explain Spock going back could give away a major plot point.
I could accept your constant critiques of them if you wouldn’t make them personal.’

Oh come on, there is nothing personal about my criticisms. To become personal would be to make an ad hominem stab at someones life beyond this project. For example, if I started venturing opinions on what type of overall life someone leads based on their circumstantial business choices.

921. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 14, 2008

903. James Heaney – Wowbagger – December 14, 2008
#902: “it’s good that the majority of people who saw the outtakes loved what they saw”

Except for the comments about the redesign and esp,. the Engineering department sets.

I am still on the fence and wil wait patiently for the May release. But I will be there opening day.

Kudos Bob!

922. NOTBOB - December 14, 2008

898. thorsten -

I keep trying to figure out some details from the trailer (I have it on a copy of the last episode of the Shiled. I literally find myself putting the DVD in the player just to watch the trailer). Now, I’ll be honest, I dig the idea of having Pike in a movie and I really kind of hope there will be more Pike story lines because he’s that cool of a character who acts and reacts different from all the other captains. Plus, he has that tragic end that seems to make the character all the more interesting somehow, for me. But like you said, if Kirk watches them building the Enterprise, where the hell were Pike, Spock , Dr. Boyce, etc?

When I first saw the trailer saw the phaser and thought, ” that’s the new phaser. I can dig it.” It’s fine that it’s different. Especially considering that the phaser changed between the Cage and somewhere in middle of season one. And let’s face it, we have so many different looking handguns now–why not phasers? But then going back I thought it might be Romulan gun. At least I know it’s the phaser…and I like based on what I see.

I was a skeptic. And I’ll be honest with a my opinion if I am skeptical about something. I realize that sometimes that makes me sound like a real jerk, too. But that’s part of the reason I feel it’s important to say you might be wrong or your opinion is changing. From what I’ve read and what I have seen so far….this honestly looks awesome, to me.

So to add it up:
1. I was wrong about Cloverfield. It was a pretty good movie.
2. Star Trek looks better and better to me everyday. It’s premature to say it’s good or bad. But I dig what I see.

Because of this, I may even go back and check out Fringe again. The first few shows honesty didn’t move me or make me think, “this is great.” It wasn’t terrible, mind you. It just didn’t get me hooked or addicted to it the way other shows have. But sometimes it takes 7 or 8 episodes to get things going. To be fair, I am also one of two people who actually thought the X-Files movie wasn’t all that bad a movie, it just would have been better if it had been a movie about the alien plot.

923. Xai - December 14, 2008

#920 Databrain

Oh please……

You have called them lazy, implied lying and more in this thread and beyond.

924. BaronByng - December 14, 2008

712 – ” Leaving the rest of the screed aside, you do realize that what FranBro said, and what you interpreted that to mean, are pretty much opposite, right? Just checkin’. ;)”

No, FranBro said he was ‘willing to overlook’ — i.e. grudgingly — the cosmetic changes, but that he couldn’t accept the fact that the CHARACTERS would change. And a good part of my screed was that characters who don’t change are boring from a dramatic perspective.

We’ve never really seen Kirk’s story arc; the closest we got to that was a bit of midlife crisis in TMP and more in TWOK. Even less for McCoy; he’s just been grumpy from day one. For the most part, from movie to movie, everything Ends Up Right Again. This has been the curse of most syndicated TV series, in that there are rarely any permanent consequences. As another poster mentioned, you can do a Year of Hell every week because there is a reset button and it *will* get pushed.

This is where shows like LOST and BSG, or even in the wider television world, shows like The Sopranos, The Wire, etc. have a clear advantage in telling, essentially, a single, longer-form story cut into episodes.

From show to show, week to week, they get you interested in, and/or to care about, these characters and their motivations, and it’s a huge wrench when something happens to them. And in both series, there is the background premise that there is Something Much Bigger going on.

In general terms, I think this is something Trek needs to adopt if it is going to be relevant to a much more sophisticated audience. Reset-button plotlines filled with technobabble are just…unsatisfying.

925. BaronByng - December 14, 2008

In fact, now that I think about it, the button that had to be pushed on LOST — wasn’t that kind of a meta-reference to ‘reset buttons’ in science fiction and fantasy television? And if you don’t push the button, WHOA it sets off a zillion more interesting plot developments!

As to the constant speculation about Kirk being captain if he is fresh out of the Academy — Presuming he took the command school track, he might have graduated (barely) with a Lieutenant rank; I doubt he would be a simple Ensign. If Captain Pike were incapacitated, and Spock was similarly sidelined under a technicality, Kirk might be the senior officer and therefore next in line for the big chair.

As old naval tradition states, anyone who is ‘captaining’ the ship, regardless of rank, may be called Captain.

At the end of this story, it remains to be seen if Kirk remains captain permanently. I think it’s more of a temporary field commission…maybe Kirk only becomes Captain after another movie or two. (After all, Luke wasn’t a Jedi after the first movie, was he?)

926. Boborci - December 14, 2008

And a question:

According to canon, what is/was the fate of Kirk’s father?

927. Nick Cook - December 14, 2008

#926. There is no canon answer on the fate of Kirk’s father. There’s some pretty good background in the novels, but as good as it is, I certainly wouldn’t expect you to be beholden to that. Nor should you be.

Besides, I’m much less interested in canon than I am incontinuity.

I still disagree with the whole multi-universes choice, but it’s your choice to make. I’m sure your movie will be successful, regardless of what I think or want. :)

928. tom vinelli - December 14, 2008

i was just thinking,the non-trek fan isn’t gonna care about all of this.
so this movie better be great just on face value.
for this movie to suceed with the non trek fan[which paramount is hoping happens] its gonna have to be simple to understand like startrek 4

929. Bah - December 14, 2008

I have really bad feeling for this. Even though this is not reboot this is “reboot”. They are using time travel as excuse to make things different, as seen in trailer like typical b-class action movie. Honourable thing would have been to continue saga of original timeline.

This might be just same that Lucas and Spielberg did to Indiana Jones (South Park anyone?).

930. (The much more real) McCoy - December 14, 2008

927 Nick Cook

I agree.

We know lines had to be drawn because they feel they “can’t make everyone happy.” I am not an avid reader and have therefore not read the novels. Perhaps the Trek fans that have read them, feel they have to use the idea of a multiverse to justify all the continuity problems in their minds? I didn’t know George Kirk Sr.’s history but it sounds like it would have been a cool movie itself.

I really wonder what came first: “get Leonard into the story” or “change Kirk into someone the audience can better identify with”. It would have been much simpler for the new audience—and current Trek fans—if they had avoided time travel for this film. Introduce us to the new cast with the correct history, then have Nero come change it all for the second film.

931. Dom - December 14, 2008

901. Peter Lemonjello: ‘Have the writers of this film ever seen Back to the Future? I’m thinking not.’

They’ve referred to it and, more specifically its sequel, IIRC.

896. Anthony Pascale

The Eugenics War might already have shifted to later in history. I mean, I get the impression that history was changed by time travel so many times during the TNG-Ent era that loads of details were probably subject to ‘date-slippage!’

I mean, with all the changes, maybe there are still whales on neo-Trek’s Earth. Maybe Voyager 6 was never launched, as with our Earh. Maybe Botany Bay got blown up by an asteroid, but another sleeper ship survived!

I love the fact that this new timeline is full of ‘maybes.’

Just as with new Galactica, we remember the original, but we wonder whether certain stories will be told again.

A cartoon series could actually retell some of the Trek stories between movies, especially if they were 25-minute two-parters!

932. Boborci - December 14, 2008

894. Anthony Pascale – December 14, 2008

“It is also intriguing that many things would have to be exactly the same, like the Botony Bay is where it should be floating in space ready to be found, and V’Ger is still probably headed back to Earth as are the Whale Probe, Nomad and all sorts of stuff from the Prime timeline….right?”

Yup.

933. Greg2600 - December 14, 2008

My issue with possibly “forgoing” TOS canon has nothing to do with science or believability or whatever. It’s simply that many of these instances have been important backstory for the characters for over 40 years. Entire novels have been written based on one or two lines in a single episode. To say, blah, none of that happened to this character, is both a strike on the characters as well to the actors and writers who wrote them. If that is not the case, then I have no gripes.

To take the example Anthony gave of the Botany Bay or V’Ger, well of course that is not going to happen. Neither is a World War III (I hope!). Honestly, I can’t see any possibility of being able to get to another star system by the 23rd century. Not at the rate we’re going. As Gene thought 40+ years ago, it cannot be done in a nationalistic, capitalistic society. However, to suggest that because the Botany Bay’s launch and Eugenic Wars did not or likely won’t happen, is a smear on the writer of that material, and on the entire concept of Star Trek. The purpose of the material is to show what we CAN do, even if we haven’t.

So again, my take is purely based on honoring the previous material. Now, if this film goes in the other direction, I’m not going to bash them, I have no problem with it. But it wouldn’t be canon to me, and I wouldn’t think of it as part of the rest of Star Trek history. It would be something different, because over all the Trek incarnations, the writers have always been very cautious about rewriting previous canon. In fact, Manny Coto made a lifelong fan out of me simply by devoting Enterprise Season 4 (the only watchable one) episodes to bridge it to TOS stories.

934. Admiral_BlackCat - December 14, 2008

A month or so ago I asked myself what is Kirk’s backstory?
Then I asked who was his father and what was the fathers story?
(Alot of info on memory-alpha and memory-beta wikis.)
Not much available canon wise. The novels helped fill in alot of the gaps and made sense. But according to canon, huge gaps still remain in regards to father Kirk and his influences on Jim Kirk as well as the fate of said father.
P.S. In my research I personally like that two father stories are present in non-canon. I liked the Colonel Benjamin Kirk story because it was short, to the point and he was a military hero of some military conflict…
Oh wait.
SOURCE: The Enterprise Logs, Volume 1, 1976 via Memory-Beta.

935. The Vulcanista }:-P - December 14, 2008

Harry @ 46: Yep, you’d still take Debbie Simms to the prom, but this time you’d get lucky. ;-P

Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|

936. BK613 - December 14, 2008

933
“Manny Coto made a lifelong fan out of me simply by devoting Enterprise Season 4 (the only watchable one) episodes to bridge it to TOS stories.”

I’ll have to check that out then.

I stopped watching about half-way into season 1. Seemed like every episode had the crew end up in their “cave” set. Got to be a joke amongst my friends when we watched another show. Something along the lines of “This really isn’t all that good but AT LEAST THEY”RE NOT IN A FREAKING CAVE!” (Almost as funny as Voyager’s infinite supply of shuttlecraft.)

I’m guessing that the mirror universe eps are season 4 then?

937. Xai - December 14, 2008

yes

938. thorsten - December 14, 2008

@922. NOTBOB…

The Shield, yes, didn’t that Fed-job look like Vics personal hell?

I am afraid that Pikes fate this time will be determined by what happens to him on Neros ship… there must be a reason we see Jim with three stripes at then end.
From drawings I saw I expected the Phaser to look more shiny, silvery.
If you check Spocks belt when he helps his mother along in the trailer, you see some longish silvery thing on his right hip…

I am a Trekker since 1970, and as canonista as you can get,
but the way Bb Orci participates in Anthonys forum and the amount of enthusiasm that J.J. showed when presenting the four outtakes proves how much they believe in this movie, and they earned my trust that Trek is in the best possible hands.

And I watched the outtakes, and boy, they blew me away ;))

939. Newman - December 14, 2008

I’m just glad that we are getting another Trek movie. Bob Orci and the team have obviously made a concerted effort to appease the fans, but its just not good enough for some people.

Just watch, the naysayers will all be eating their words once May arrives. Every last one of them.

940. Newman - December 14, 2008

@938

“…they earned my trust that Trek is in the best possible hands.”

Thats exactly how I feel

941. A. .S.F.33 - December 14, 2008

>>>853. BK613 -There is, however, a finality about this new movie that invokes a sense of loss that …….I feel similarly about the history that you have tried to honor. There will be no new official ST stories from Paramount from that history because, if this movie is successful, then all future ST will build on it. <<

WOW this is exactly how I feel. I have been wondering why I have disliked the idea of this movie from the very beginning and you have put into words what I have been feeling and yes afraid of, all this time. It does feel like the death of the Star Trek I have known and loved for all these years and that is why I don’t think I can ever support this movie. Too many changes to too many things especially to my beloved Kirk As I said way back in post #142, but you said much more elequently…yes… our DVD’s will still exist but, if this movie is a success, no one will care about them except us old fans. All future Trek will revolve around things established in the movie. If that happens, MY Trek will be done.

942. 750 Mang - December 14, 2008

The question that is begging to be asked of this Bizarro Trek movie is why?

Why would they decided to disregard the established backstory of these characters?

Do they really hold TOS writers in such low regard as to say “yeah well I think this would be a better backstory for Kirk than Kodos, or the Republic, or the Farragut.”

That’s arrogant presumption.

Why?

943. thorsten - December 14, 2008

“Books!” Jimmy spat out. “You’re going to believe what you read in some book? Why waste your time with a book when you can get out and live!”
//Jim Kirk, North Skunk River, Mahaska County, Iowa.

All I knew about George Kirk came from another sub-timeline, the book Best Destiny from Diane Carey, 1992.

944. Boborci - December 14, 2008

942. 750 Mang – December 14, 2008
“The question that is begging to be asked of this Bizarro Trek movie is why?

Why would they decided to disregard the established backstory of these characters?”

If you still believe that after that movie, then you will have every right to be angry.

945. Boborci - December 14, 2008

943. thorsten – December 14, 2008

“Books!” Jimmy spat out. “You’re going to believe what you read in some book? Why waste your time with a book when you can get out and live!”
//Jim Kirk, North Skunk River, Mahaska County, Iowa.

“All I knew about George Kirk came from another sub-timeline, the book Best Destiny from Diane Carey, 1992.”

Alex and I read that book, too. Loved it.

946. Greg2600 - December 14, 2008

I’m not talking about George Kirk, obviously he wasn’t covered much at all in TOS. But Kirk’s time on the Republic, Farragut, and in the academy were vital elements in TOS episodes. You can’t through them out the window. I do understand the scientific explanation Mr. Orci is giving on this. In fact, it does peak my interest, given one of my other favorite television shows (Sliders) also dealt with Quantum Mechanics.

However, his statements also sound as if the entire timeline of the known Star Trek Universe, including the vaunted TOS would then no longer exist in the “Universe” of this and subsequent J.J. films. So the “overwrite” or “rewrite” doesn’t stop at the little things here and there, this sounds like the segway into another canon entirely. I’m not going to chastise them on that, if it comes to bear, but to me, again, that is a deliberate departure from “established” Star Trek. Not something I prefer or would have done, to quote Mr. Cawley. But it’s not my film, or my money, or my responsibility to make money on. I fix computer systems.

947. Jeffries Tuber - December 14, 2008

Anthony,

Been thinking: Bob’s suggestion of Steve Buscemi as Mudd some weeks ago is worth a whole thread. There are a ton of characters worthy of fantasy stunt casting.

What about?

Maggie Gylenhaal as Christine Chapel
Uma Thurman as Romulan Commander from “The Enterprise Incident”
Rainn Wilson as Trelane & Koloth
Forest Whitaker as Richard Daystrom
Robert Downey Jr. as Commodore Matt Decker
Rhona Mitra as Lt. Marlena Moreau [Bob, you gottaput Moreau in the next one]
Gwyneth Paltrow as Droxine

948. 750 Mang - December 14, 2008

Okay, one more thing… if the original backstory had to be thrown out, then why bother to do a movie about the original crew? Just set it after TNG or on a different ship in Kirks time. Or whatever… but if Kirk’s story sucked so bad it needed a page-one rewrite then why bother? Make a new Captain.

I mean this isn’t our crew… they don’t know what we know, they don’t come from where we knew they came from, these are different people. So why not just create new characters?

And lastly I probably wouldn’t be so put off by all this if it weren’t for the fact that I’ve been excited by the prospect of an origin movie for the Original Crew. All we have heard from the creative team behind this movie is that they aren’t throwing away everything that came before.

Well maybe not technically, but they really are. Aren’t they? It’s a giant What-If comic, What-If Batman’s parents weren’t murdered, What-If Luke Skywalker died on Dagobah, What-If Superman landed in Moscow?

Again these are our characters in name only. Nature vs Nurture… poppycock.

How could this Kirk be the same as our Kirk, he didn’t survive Kodos the Executioner, he didn’t carry the guilt of Captain Garravick’s death with him for years, he didn’t almost marry Carol Marcus. If this many major occurrences were changed in your past would you be the same person? Well no, of course you wouldn’t.

I probably would have had a better reaction if we had been lead to believe that this was a total reboot and then find they found a gimmick to shoehorn our Trek into the story. Maybe I wouldn’t be as disappointed.

949. 750 Mang - December 14, 2008

Mr. Orci,

Thanks for the note.

Mang

950. Jeffries Tuber - December 14, 2008

Bob, don’t wuss out on me here. I know you have played this game.

951. thorsten - December 14, 2008

@948…

“Everything must change so that everything can stay the same”
//old Vulcan proverb.

952. Harry Ballz - December 14, 2008

#943 “Why waste your time with a book when you can get out and live?”

Didn’t Paul McCartney’s grandfather say the EXACT same thing to Ringo Starr in A Hard Day’s Night?

If I remember correctly, that led to all sorts of trouble!

953. Harry Ballz - December 14, 2008

#935 Vulcanista “this time you’d get lucky”

Oh, well, then that’s a different story!

954. thorsten - December 14, 2008

@952…
you are right, Harry:

“I’m a drummer, not a wet nurse.
Why does it have to be me?

You can learn from books.

You could learn more by getting out
there and living.”

955. Dennis Bailey - December 14, 2008

#882: “I consider him to be a reliable source for a project for which he wrote the screenplay. Now, if there’s some real proof to the contrary, I’m all ears…”

In this case he is not, and were you not irrationally attached to this piece of misinformation to buttress your other notions about the course and recent history of Trek at Paramount you’d easily see the incongruity of the claim.

In saying that, I’m assuming that you understand what it means for a project to be greenlit by a studio – in fact, I’m sure you do. And since you do, if you’re actually interested in what’s true rather than what’s reassuring, you can determine for yourself with a little investigation of available trade publications, et al whether production finance was ever formally approved for this project or not.

I’m betting that you won’t bother.

956. BK613 - December 14, 2008

943
Mitchell: “Well, I’m getting a chance to read
some of that longhair stuff you like.”

Kirk: “You? Spinoza?”

Mitchell: “Once you get into him, he’s rather simple. Childish, almost.
I don’t agree with him at all.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinoza

:-)

957. Boborci - December 14, 2008

950. Jeffries Tuber – December 14, 2008
Bob, don’t wuss out on me here. I know you have played this game.

Uhm… Bon Jovi as Sybock? Whadd’ya’ think?

958. thorsten - December 14, 2008

@956… well, BK, these days they print Spinoza quotes on cereal boxes, so Gary was right in his assesment ;))

959. thorsten - December 14, 2008

@957…
Bob, what about a nice Trek/Indy crossover for Jones V…
to bring Shia into the fold ;))

960. Boborci - December 14, 2008

959. thorsten – December 14, 2008

Great — Shia could be a young KAHN.

961. sean - December 14, 2008

#896, 931

Didn’t Voyager already delay the Eugenics Wars? I seem to recall an episode where they go back to 1996 (and Tom Paris hooks up with Sarah Silverman, no less) and it sure seems as though there were no wars going on.

962. thorsten - December 14, 2008

@960…

… and Scarlett Johannson as Marla McGivers!

963. Admiral_BlackCat - December 14, 2008

Halle Berry as Dr. Carol Marcus

964. 750 Mang - December 14, 2008

A word on major life events shaping who we become as people and our souls, if you will…

“There are many parts of my youth that I’m not proud of. There were loose threads… untidy parts of me that I would like to remove. But when I pulled on one of those threads it unraveled the tapestry of my life.” – Jean-Luc Picard, “Tapestry”, TNG Season 6.

Thereby changing the man he would become.

So here’s some of the threads we will be tugging on in the new film when it comes to Jim Kirk’s psyche: no Tarsus IV , no USS Republic, no USS Farragut, no Captain Garrovick, not a teacher at the academy, no Ben Finney, no Gary Mitchell.

What’s left of the guy we knew?

He likes hot chicks and cheats on tests.

I dunno sir….

965. Dom - December 14, 2008

961. sean

Yep! No Eugenics wars in the 1990s according to Voyager. Khan in STII refers to being a prince 200 years before (somewhere around 2285) so Trek history’s clearly already had plenty of shakeups. And, let’s be honest, there was no Eugenics War in our 1990s, so if Star Trek is supposed to be about ***our*** future and not some dippy, namby-pamby, self-contained fantasy playground universe, some of its events are going to have to shift a bit!

966. Shane - December 14, 2008

964 is correct.

As Star Trek fans, we care about these characters because of all we have “been through” with them – or at least I believe that most of us do. I am not a fan of Star Trek just because of warp drives and phasers and transporters and the Federation and all of these things. I care about the characters. Change the characters, and it is simply no longer Trek. It is no longer the Kirk I know and care about… it’s just some other person who, frankly, I have no interest in spending money to watch.

The success of this film depends on that final question. If the original time line is restored, then all is well. If it is not, then it really seems as though Mr. Orci et al. dug through the several hundred episodes of Star Trek not to understand it in preparation for making a great film, but to find any excuse they could to do away with all we know in favor of whatever they want to come up with, and finding it in “Parallels.”

PLEASE understand that I do not say all of this in the spirit of nastiness. I am rather appalled at some of the nasty things which are said of Mr. Orci, Mr. Abrams, et al. They are, after all, human beings. I say it to express how things *appear*, which is very important. I care about the James Kirk and the Mr. Spock that I have seen for decades. I do not wish to see Trek moving forward as some alternate time line with a series of essentially different characters. My concern is heightened by the interview, because it seems like an awful needless set of arguments to justify an alternate time line.

Let me explain. We already know that in the Trek Universe, going back in time can create alternate time lines, with many similarities to the original. That Mr. Orci spends a great amount of time explaining this with quantum physics seems extremely excessive to explain something about which there is widespread understanding and agreement. I certainly do appreciate the interesting explanation, and I thank Mr. Orci for it. That he felt the need to provide it in explaining that the film involves time travel makes me worry that he is trying to explain more than we already know. In other words, is he trying to prepare us for a “rebooted” Trek in an alternate time line which can be claimed to be basically the same, with all of the similarities, while yet being different.

We’ll see…!

967. Redshirt96 - December 14, 2008

Mr. Orci,

As a member of the team that is bringing Trek back to the movies, I thank you for your presence here. I have no concerns about canon, I don’t mind timeline stories, and I can’t wait for the movie to open. As a guy who watched TOS in its original run and has been a big fan ever since, all I want is a good story and a fun 2 hours of entertainment.

Is it May yet?

968. Boborci - December 14, 2008

964. 750 Mang – December 14, 2008

“A word on major life events shaping who we become as people and our souls, if you will…”

“There are many parts of my youth that I’m not proud of. There were loose threads… untidy parts of me that I would like to remove. But when I pulled on one of those threads it unraveled the tapestry of my life.” – Jean-Luc Picard, “Tapestry”, TNG Season 6.

Thereby changing the man he would become.

________________

Interesting you would cite an episode in which Q allows Picard to experience a parallel universe in which he took a different path.

969. Justin - December 14, 2008

I accept the very new, fresh idea that going back in time does not change the future, but creates a parallel timeline. This has potential to be a great twist on an old sci-fi trope.

I was going along with Mr. Orci’s explanation until he said that the non-fanboy and fangirl audience who will never read this interview will go into the theater and think they are seeing the Back to the Future “grandfather effect” happening in the Star Trek movie.

This makes me think that Orci is telling us this to give canonists an excuse to go ahead and accept the movie. It makes me think there is nothing in the *script* that contradicts the “grandfather effect”. People will assume that Nero goes back in time to change his present. And why shouldn’t they believe this, because it is the plot of every timetravel movie and episode.

Unless, the script states that Nero goes back in time for some other reason. Maybe he goes back because he wants to create and *live* in a parallel time line more to his liking. This might be a more interesting story because it focuses on personal motivation instead of political motivation.

My hunch is that all this research Orci claims to have done into quantum mechanics was not to serve the plot of the movie, but to give the canonists a peg to hang their hat on.

I am not a canonist, but I do like writers to be consistent. I do not see Orci being very consistent on this question.

970. cugel the clever - December 14, 2008

962. thorsten – December 14, 2008

” … and Scarlett Johannson as Marla McGivers!”

No way – Scarlett Johannson as Janice Rand – that way she’s in more episodes :P

971. 750 Mang - December 14, 2008

Ya, but we didn’t stay there.

Picard as a meek lieutenant didn’t become the new Picard and the changes in his life did make a dramatic change in how he turned out as a man.

Or are you saying that the 20 minutes we’ve seen is a shuck and jive thing. Part of the movie is in Bizarro Trek Universe and another part in our Trek universe?

Is this like the first 5 minutes of WOK all over again?

“Is it a Romulan plot a ploy to star a war?”

I hope so.

972. Admiral_BlackCat - December 14, 2008

How about Kirsten Dunst as Janice Rand.

973. Harry Ballz - December 14, 2008

#968

Parallel universe?

Now wait just a minute! In that alternate reality Picard never did become Captain of the Enterprise!

So much for “first best destiny” and people still ending up where they should no matter what events or circumstance shape their life!

Hmmphh!

974. Boborci - December 14, 2008

970. 750 Mang – December 14, 2008
“Ya, but we didn’t stay there.”

Ok, so at the very least, we agree that a wonderful, memorable episode which you found significant enough to quote is a story about a character you love reacting to the differing circumstances of a parallel universe. We have more common ground than I thought.

975. 750 Mang - December 14, 2008

BobOrci-

But don’t you understand he didn’t become the Picard we knew because the same things didn’t happen to him in his past and therefore he couldn’t become the man that he did in TNG?

See?

976. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 14, 2008

#968 Boborci: “Interesting you would cite an episode in which Q allows Picard to experience a parallel universe in which he took a different path.”

But sets things (mostly) right by the end of the episode.

As for the canon knowledge about George Kirk (re #926 Boborci): it’s interesting to note that, as of today, even that *name* has yet to become canon. It’s a really nice hat-tip to “Best Destiny” and the non-canon expanded universe. We know nothing about the man, nor his wife, and we certainly don’t know the first thing about his fate. We don’t know who mentored Kirk in his youth (could even have been Chris Pike, if we assume that Kirk was only telling a half-truth in “The Menagerie” because of his emotional investment in the man), or whether it’s possible that he drove a car into a Mysterious Iowan Chasm.

Mr. Orci’s question reaffirms that, other than a handful biographical details that I think are open to some canonical fudging (Kodos, the Republic, the Farragut), the youth of James T. Kirk is canonically a wide-open expanse… which I guess is why I expected so strongly for this to be a straight prequel, not a reboot.

And why the sorts of questions you’re asking, Mr. Orci, are leading me to wonder whether I completely misunderstood what you were hinting at in the interview.

977. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 14, 2008

968. Boborci

Don’t feel like you have to defend everything Bob. The comments are interesting, and TOS’s backstory is already compelling enough.

Are you worried that you just did not have the time to address everything?
Obviously there is so much to tell and only so much time available.

It looks to me like this new story will have plenty of backstory still left of the plot to permit Kirk and company some of the above mentioned and pre-established TOS plotlines to occur. Really, as Trek fans we are great at this.

It sounds to me like you, Bob, already have a head start on this part of the game. Perhaps a “Star Trek ’09 for Dummies” book would be a profitble idea for you. $; )

978. Boborci - December 14, 2008

974. 750 Mang – December 14, 2008
BobOrci-

“But don’t you understand he didn’t become the Picard we knew because the same things didn’t happen to him in his past and therefore he couldn’t become the man that he did in TNG?

See?”

It’s not because the same things didn’t happen that Picard turned out differently, it’s because he CHOSE differently in the same circumstances, second guessing his original instincts and betraying who he was inside.

976. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 14, 2008
968. Boborci

“Don’t feel like you have to defend everything Bob. The comments are interesting, and TOS’s backstory is already compelling enough.”

Thanks… I don’t feel that need. I just hate to see unsatisfied customers. And I am a GEEK, and love these discussions. I’d be here saying similar things if I had nothing to do with the movie.

979. sean - December 14, 2008

970, 972, Bob Orci, etc.

What’s interesting about that episode (Tapestry) is that if what Q showed Picard really *did* take place, the only thing we see Picard ‘repair’ is the fight with the Nausicaan. Yet, there were other things he changed besides that and prior to that. Sleeping with Marta, for instance. So it’s possible that Picard existed in a new timeline, despite fixing that one, major event. So who’s to say that Tarsus IV is what really, *really* made Kirk the man he is? How do we know it wasn’t something else we haven’t seen just yet? Or that might be portrayed in this new flick? Food for thought.

980. 750 Mang - December 14, 2008

#977 Boborci

“I’d be here saying similar things if I had nothing to do with the movie.”

I’m available if there are any job openings.

lol

981. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 14, 2008

What IS with the Mysterious Iowan Chasm, anyway? I was all gushing about the robocop and the UFP flag and seeing Spock go all Sylar on The Kirk, but my girlfriend to this day keeps asking who dug an enormous canyon in Iowa between the 20th and 23rd centuries.

Or is that classified?

982. Spock's Brain - December 14, 2008

Full-length reveiw of The Cage, when?

983. Boborci - December 14, 2008

979. 750 Mang – December 14, 2008
#977 Boborci

“I’d be here saying similar things if I had nothing to do with the movie.”

I’m available if there are any job openings.”

LOL! Touche…

984. sean - December 14, 2008

#981

Do you think asking this question in every article will somehow make it happen faster?

985. Alex Rosenzweig - December 14, 2008

#909 – “It could be argued that when the timelines in “Tomorrow Is Yesterday” and “City On the Edge of Forever” were not restored, per se, to their original condition, but rather a new alternate timeline closely resembling the original unaltered version was created. David Gerrold postulated this theory in his book, THE MAN WHO FOLDED HIMSELF back in the 70s!”

Yup. It may well be the case that a resultant timeline very close to the original going forward is created, but that would then fall to a commitment from the folks in charge to proceed in that fashion, as opposed to saying, “Hey, we have a new continuity! We can do what we want now!”

#917 – “#882
“If that line is important enough, then yes. For example, I think an already-odd throwaway line about Pike being about Kirk’s age is dismissible, because it made no sense in the context of what we were being shown *at the time*, let alone 42 years later. Ditto a line like “Faster than light, no left or right” (VOY), because it itself contradicted myriads of prior examples. But something like KIrk’s prior service on Farragut is not so easy to dismiss, in my mind, because an entire episode’s story–and one important to Kirk’s character, to boot–was derived from it.”

And I think that’s where you and I will fail to reach an agreement. For me, story is paramount (no pun intended…okay, maybe it was intended).”

You may be right regarding agreement. I don’t think the story of the moment, by itself, is sufficient reason to ignore substantive continuity, especially when the same story, or one extremely similar, could be told while respecting same. And if it can’t, perhaps it’s not the right story to tell.

“I believe this was the approach the TOS writers took, and even later incarnations went with (including Chekov in TWOK despite his absence in Space Seed, implying Kirk as a bad boy who cheated on his final exams in contrast to ‘a stack of books with legs’, etc.)”

Neither of those things are issues, to me, in terms of the parameters I outlined before. Chekov’s absence in “Space Seed” is easily explained, and there’s enough vagueness in Kirk’s backstory that both aspects of the man could have existed.

“I’m a big picture guy. So for me, it doesn’t matter if Joe Chill killed Bruce Wayne’s parents or if the Joker did. What does matter is that they die tragically, and are the impetus for Bruce taking on the Batman moniker.”

But if Bruce Wayne’s parents were killed when he was 28, vs. when he was 10, that might have a substantial difference in what sort of person he became, and what his attitudes were toward the villains of Gotham.

“So in terms of this new film, as long as Spock is a half-human/half-Vulcan hybrid that raises his eyebrow and has a strained relationship with his father, and as long as Scotty is an engineer that complains about overworked engines or Kirk is thinking of clever ways out of ridiculous situations, I’m happy. It doesn’t really matter if he witnessed a massacre at the hands of Kodos the Executioner, or whether he served on the Republic and ratted out Ben Finney, or fought a vampire cloud with the cerw of the Farragut.”

See, I think all those things went to the core of who Kirk is, and without them, he won’t be the same person anymore, and trying to make him respond the same ways in situations no longer rings so true. I do believe that who we are is heavily based on our experiences, and without those experiences, Kirk will not be the Kirk we know. It’s not a question of a minor difference; these things are at the heart of who he is.

“That’s not to say I have absolutely no concern for consistency or detail – that’s definitely not the case. I used to be obsessed with the minutiae of Trek and became incredibly frustrated when characters ‘misspoke’ about prior events or got the name of a planet wrong or when Worf couldn’t decide how to pronounce Cardassian ship classes or Kirk couldn’t seem to get the date right.”

On that level, yes, I think there’s room for “slack”, as it were. But that’s not the kind of difference we’re talking about for this film. And the level of difference we’re (apparently, with all the usual caveats in place) talking about here is, IMHO, too much.

#924 – “712 – ” Leaving the rest of the screed aside, you do realize that what FranBro said, and what you interpreted that to mean, are pretty much opposite, right? Just checkin’. ;)”

No, FranBro said he was ‘willing to overlook’ — i.e. grudgingly — the cosmetic changes, but that he couldn’t accept the fact that the CHARACTERS would change. And a good part of my screed was that characters who don’t change are boring from a dramatic perspective.”

Well, he said he was willing to overlook the cosmetic changes, and you responded by accusing him of being unwilling to accept any change at all. They really are two different things.

And I don’t think anyone’s saying characters shouldn’t evolve as part of the experiences they have. But for established characters, the storytelling should take into account the experiences we already know about, even as new stories are told.

“We’ve never really seen Kirk’s story arc; the closest we got to that was a bit of midlife crisis in TMP and more in TWOK. Even less for McCoy; he’s just been grumpy from day one.”

But that’s the point. There’s already so much story yet to be told about those men that we don’t have to rewrite what little has already been established.

“This is where shows like LOST and BSG, or even in the wider television world, shows like The Sopranos, The Wire, etc. have a clear advantage in telling, essentially, a single, longer-form story cut into episodes.

From show to show, week to week, they get you interested in, and/or to care about, these characters and their motivations, and it’s a huge wrench when something happens to them.”

No disagreement there. I like arc storytelling, myself.

“In general terms, I think this is something Trek needs to adopt if it is going to be relevant to a much more sophisticated audience. Reset-button plotlines filled with technobabble are just…unsatisfying.”

I’d agree with that, though I think it would be better to build a whole new story, with new characters and a new situation, when creating such an arc. That would allow a clean slate and the ability to build the story. At an absolute minimum, if using existing characters, the arc should take place during a period of their lives not well-covered. e.g., a big James Kirk arc could happen between the period of his service aboard the Farragut and the Enterprise, almost 8 years about which we know almost nothing, canonically.

986. Mike G - December 14, 2008

The way I am approaching this movie is like this–these are very different days from when Gene Roddenberry first created the original Star Trek obviously—-this version of Star Trek seems to fit more in line–for good or ill–with the zeitgest of our times—-it seems to have a bit more darker of a tone–but the Star Trek realm certainly took that turn in with Deep Space Nine and even Enterprise—-
This Trek movie is a trek film for a new day—I can say that since I am now getting to old fart status since I remember watching the orginal show way back when we got our first color TV back in the ’60s—I remember watching the show on Friday night’s on NBC all those many years ago. I have been a fan of the series ever since those days.
I am approaching this new movie with an open mind and will make up my mind whether I like it or not only after I see the whole thing— from what I have seen in the trailers—I can’t wait till 05.08.09!!!!

987. boborci - December 14, 2008

984. Alex Rosenzweig – December 14, 2008

Great debates. One thing caught my attention:

“At an absolute minimum, if using existing characters, the arc should take place during a period of their lives not well-covered. e.g., a big James Kirk arc could happen between the period of his service aboard the Farragut and the Enterprise, almost 8 years about which we know almost nothing, canonically.”

I agree that it is great territory. Not sure if our movie precludes time aboard the Farragut. The question for me would be, would a general audience be interested in seeing 8 years of Kirk anywhere other than the U.S.S. Enterprise? And where would Spock be in that movie?

988. Stephan Seifert - December 14, 2008

@boborci:

Hello Mr Orci. I think it is impressing how you are still answering all these questions which sometimes sound like you have been brought to trial. ;-)
I have to admit that your answers reassures my confidence in the future of Star Trek as well and I am glad that at least one of the creators cares that much. But sometimes I ask myself why it has to be so important for us that you have an explanation for every little alteration of the canon. Of course Star Trek is unique with its “holy” canon which is great because it makes it so realistic. But it is also unique with having fans who are often called nerds, especially here in Germany because we Trek – Fans often exaggerate with canon – issues. So I think you can find a lot of explanations for the smaller inconsisties which cannot be avoided. But I’d rather watch a Star Trek movie with a few inconsisties which gives me a heart-touching and mindblowing experience than a movie which fits perfectly with every single Detail into canon and is lame.
That’s why I hope this movie helps the fandom to realize what Star Trek is really about after the release of your vision. (although I welcome your engagement on this board.) ;-)

Stephan

989. sean - December 14, 2008

“See, I think all those things went to the core of who Kirk is, and without them, he won’t be the same person anymore, and trying to make him respond the same ways in situations no longer rings so true. I do believe that who we are is heavily based on our experiences, and without those experiences, Kirk will not be the Kirk we know. It’s not a question of a minor difference; these things are at the heart of who he is.”

But here’s the major caveat – none of those things happened. Kirk is a fictional character. He wasn’t a great leader because he served on the Farragut or was tormented by Finnegan – he was a great leader and a terrific character because someone wrote him that way. Before we knew anything of his past experiences, or the episodes containing those references. We liked Kirk not because of what happened to him when he was 8, but what he actually *did* from episode to episode, before our eyes. The backstory was merely filled in on an episode-by-episode basis, mostly because it played into the specific story in some way (thus why very few past events are ever referenced from one episode to another in TOS).

Now, I understand the purpose the backstory serves and how it fleshes out the character. I appreciate that. However, we have no idea which past experiences coalesced to form the man we saw. Without Tarsus IV, would Kirk *really* be a completely different person? We don’t know. For Picard, we know that the fight with the Nausicaan and the loss of his heart was a major turning point. Yet, surely other critical events took place in his life. Were they completely invalidated or irrelevant? Perhaps when weighed with that one event, they were. We’ve never had a similar event established for Kirk (and as far as I know, neither Q nor Trelane ever hosted an episode of ‘This is Your Life’ for Kirk), so I have less of a problem with things being switched around. Plus, I suppose in my view of the character, becoming Captain of the Enterprise was that one key thread in his life. After all, whenever he left that position, it seems Bob’s theory of entropy came into play – he was always drawn back to the big chair.

990. boborci - December 14, 2008

988. Stephan Seifert – December 14, 2008

Appreciated.

991. 750 Mang - December 14, 2008

987. boborci – December 14, 2008

“Not sure if our movie precludes time aboard the Farragut. The question for me would be, would a general audience be interested in seeing 8 years of Kirk anywhere other than the U.S.S. Enterprise? And where would Spock be in that movie?”

In that case maybe the movie should have taken place after the Farragut. Why change history?

Write Kirk’s first adventure as Captain in the traditional timeline. No one has seen that, on screen anyway.

Why all the smoke and mirrors?

992. CmdrR - December 14, 2008

Bob –

So… how do you like these questions so far? Have you figured out yet these are the same questions you’ll be answering for the rest of your natural life, if not longer?

Regardless of whether any of us here would have done things differently, most of us haven’t made a movie, much less a great Trek movie. I’m anxiously awaiting May 8th. Hope you still are.

993. boborci - December 14, 2008

991. 750 Mang – December 14, 2008

“Write Kirk’s first adventure as Captain in the traditional timeline. No one has seen that, on screen anyway.”

If that’s the case, who is to say that the events we depict aren’t what happened?

And on that headache inducing question, I will say thanks for a truly great discussion. I hope your low expectations contribute to a great surprise. If not, I apologize in advance.

I’m sure we’ll chat at the next anomaly…

994. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 14, 2008

@#991 750 Mang: Bah. Mr. Orci gave a pretty good reason: the story they wanted to tell wasn’t in the post-Farragut years. You can’t just sit down and *decide* that you’re going to write a story that does XYZ in ABC setting with MNO characters that hits PQR plot points… and so on.

Well, you *can,* but it usually doesn’t work out. Generations did that and suffered a lot. Enterprise got that because of Network Interference, and it deeply damaged the show.

The story Orci and Abrams and Co. wanted to tell was set here, in Academy time, not after Kirk is already a quickly-maturing adult.

What I’m curious about now is–if the movie doesn’t preclude the Farragut, does it preclude Tarsus IV? Could a creative-minded with a liberal imagination and a hard-bitten philosophy of “the creator is always right” manage to fit the new movie continuity into the old?

Because that’d be awesome in a hardcore way.

995. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 14, 2008

Meant to say “creative-minded FAN”, sorry.

996. 750 Mang - December 14, 2008

993. boborci – December 14, 2008

“And on that headache inducing question, I will say thanks for a truly great discussion. I hope your low expectations contribute to a great surprise.”

It is my deepest hope that on May 8th I eat my words and all my concerns are made to look foolish.

I hope it’s f-ing awesome.

997. Anthony Pascale - December 14, 2008

Hey Bob

on behalf of all of us, thanks very much for doing the above interview and interacting with the fans. I know this is above and beyond and not part of Paramount’s official publicity and to me it shows you really do care and this is not just a job for you.

I am sure that if you hadn’t written this film you would be here asking questions to whoever it was that was, that is if that other writer would actually show up.

The only question I would have is, what would your ‘handle’ be if you were just here as a fan? I guess that will be in our next interview…have a Feliz Navidad!

998. Dennis Bailey - December 14, 2008

#989: “But here’s the major caveat – none of those things happened. Kirk is a fictional character. He wasn’t a great leader because he served on the Farragut or was tormented by Finnegan – he was a great leader and a terrific character because someone wrote him that way. Before we knew anything of his past experiences, or the episodes containing those references. We liked Kirk not because of what happened to him when he was 8, but what he actually *did* from episode to episode, before our eyes. The backstory was merely filled in on an episode-by-episode basis, mostly because it played into the specific story in some way (thus why very few past events are ever referenced from one episode to another in TOS).”

Absolutely Right(TM).

That is why *none* of this anxiety about the characters’ backstories really matters to whether something is “real Star Trek” or not. The behavior of the characters matters very much; the long-time claims about the wheres and whens of things that supposedly happened in the past – including where the ever-lovin’ Enterprise was built – matters not at all.

999. Alex Rosenzweig - December 14, 2008

#926 – “According to canon, what is/was the fate of Kirk’s father?”

As Nick said, canonically, Kirk’s father’s fate is unknown. Of all the possible continuity contradictions, that ain’t one of ‘em. :)

#936 – “933 “Manny Coto made a lifelong fan out of me simply by devoting Enterprise Season 4 (the only watchable one) episodes to bridge it to TOS stories.”

I’ll have to check that out then.”

You should! I am firmly convinced that if the energy, the writing, and the overall sense of fun that was in ENT Season 4 had been there from the beginning, the show might have run a full 7 years. I’ve had a number of friends who tuned out on ENT early on come back and watch Season 4 and proceed to get hooked. :)

#939 – “Just watch, the naysayers will all be eating their words once May arrives. Every last one of them.”

For the record, if what I fear is going on in this film in fact isn’t going on, I will be more than happy to eat any words of criticism I have made. :)

#944 – “942. 750 Mang – December 14, 2008
“The question that is begging to be asked of this Bizarro Trek movie is why?

Why would they decided to disregard the established backstory of these characters?”

If you still believe that after that movie, then you will have every right to be angry.”

Ahh, Bob, still you tantalize. :) Well, I’ll stand by what I just said above and in the past. If the end result is not what I fear, I’ll chow down on that plate of crow. But I really do gotta tell ya’, I did follow what you were saying in the interview, and that didn’t exactly allay those fears. ;) But I also am fine with the idea that the proof will truly be in the pudding come May.

#955 – “#882: “I consider him to be a reliable source for a project for which he wrote the screenplay. Now, if there’s some real proof to the contrary, I’m all ears…”

In this case he is not, and were you not irrationally attached to this piece of misinformation to buttress your other notions about the course and recent history of Trek at Paramount you’d easily see the incongruity of the claim.”

Well, right now, I have the statement of the involved screenwriter, and the countering statement of someone in no way involved with the project. Come on, Dennis, in that situation, if neither of those parties was you, who would you believe?

“In saying that, I’m assuming that you understand what it means for a project to be greenlit by a studio – in fact, I’m sure you do. And since you do, if you’re actually interested in what’s true rather than what’s reassuring, you can determine for yourself with a little investigation of available trade publications, et al whether production finance was ever formally approved for this project or not.

I’m betting that you won’t bother.”

Why should I? What real reason do I have to suggest that the guy directly involved doesn’t know what he’s talking about?

But, y’know, for the sake of argument, I’ll modify the statement. Let’s assume that when Mr. Jendresen said “greenlit”, he meant that he was told the project was going forward, even if money hadn’t yet been committed for production, and then the studio changed presidents and development was stopped. It still means they were paying enough attention and showing enough interest to commit money for a screenplay and led the guy who wrote it to believe that the project was moving forward. That’s still a far cry from, “They were never going to do another Trek project in continuity.” (And, frankly, since Jendresen himself isn’t exactly unfamiliar with how this stuff works, why should I assume he has no idea what he’s taking about?)

#961 – “Didn’t Voyager already delay the Eugenics Wars? I seem to recall an episode where they go back to 1996 (and Tom Paris hooks up with Sarah Silverman, no less) and it sure seems as though there were no wars going on.”

Since the Eugenics Wars weren’t being fought in North America, anyway, I don’t think “Future’s End” said much that was conclusive.

1000. Dennis Bailey - December 14, 2008

“Let’s assume that when Mr. Jendresen said “greenlit”, he meant that he was told the project was going forward, ”

Then you have a statement which may actually be true, in fact probably is. And it has *nothing* to do with the project having been greenlit, which it never was.

And people “tell people” things that don’t come true and expectations go unfulfilled every single day. Means nothing – “the project is moving forward” and two bucks will buy you a grande drip at Starbucks.

“It still means they were paying enough attention and showing enough interest to commit money for a screenplay and led the guy who wrote it to believe that the project was moving forward. ”

It means that a producer who was hoping to have a project to produce told the writing on the project that he believed the project would move forward.

The project didn’t move forward. One of the producers involved had a deal with a development budget that enabled them to assign a script, but the studio execs had no interest in the project (or, by that time, the producers – they’re no longer at Paramount). It never moved beyond the script.

There simply wasn’t going to be any more of the old “Star Trek,” period, and the studio folks moved on to talking to people they had some real interest and confidence in working with just as quickly as they could.

1001. Dennis Bailey - December 14, 2008

“writer,” not “writing. Fifth paragraph.

1002. Redshirt96 - December 14, 2008

998 referencing 989

I’m with you 100%. Ultimately, I think the producers, writers and director know what they’re doing and they are fans of Star Trek. If the new cast ends up behaving in a manner we’ve come to know – what does it matter how they got that way?

Is it May yet?

1003. Alex Rosenzweig - December 14, 2008

#987 – “984. Alex Rosenzweig – December 14, 2008

Great debates. One thing caught my attention:

“At an absolute minimum, if using existing characters, the arc should take place during a period of their lives not well-covered. e.g., a big James Kirk arc could happen between the period of his service aboard the Farragut and the Enterprise, almost 8 years about which we know almost nothing, canonically.”

I agree that it is great territory.”

Thanks for the reply, Bob. :) I’m glad you find it intriguing, too.

“Not sure if our movie precludes time aboard the Farragut.”

I must admit that that comment intrigues me, especially since it goes back to the likelihood that what we’ve seen of the movie so far is so fragmentary that perhaps we’re drawing erroneous conclusions. That’s always been a concern of mine. I know how I’ve reacted to what I’ve seen, but I wonder if the tendency to try connecting the dots when so many of the dots are missing is yielding wrong patterns.

“The question for me would be, would a general audience be interested in seeing 8 years of Kirk anywhere other than the U.S.S. Enterprise? And where would Spock be in that movie?”

Well, it’s easy to play armchair quarterback, of course, but my thought was that the answer to the first question is, “Sure, if the story you’re telling is compelling.” The answer to the second is that Spock’s already on the Enterprise, of course, and that’s the audience’s connection to that ship.

For a while, I had been thinking that you’d have Kirk on another ship, and that ship would interact with the Enterprise under Pike, with Spock on board, and that could set up the beginnings of the relationship that came to flower during TOS. But, of course, that was just me speculating based only on my own knowledge of the characters’ backstories and how I might have woven them together in a fashion that would meet what were stated to be the goals of this film.

#989 – “But here’s the major caveat – none of those things happened. Kirk is a fictional character.”

He’s a fictional character, sure, but for me, the argument, “it’s fiction, so it didn’t ‘really’ happen, and thus is of no import” doesn’t fly. In the context of the characters in a fictional work, what is said to have happened to those characters did in fact happen *for them*. That there are no equivalent people or events in the “real world” is irrelevant.

“He wasn’t a great leader because he served on the Farragut or was tormented by Finnegan – he was a great leader and a terrific character because someone wrote him that way.”

But those events and experiences were part of how he was written. Sure, it could be written again in a different way, but then it’s also not the same character. It might be a similar character, but similar isn’t enough for me.

#997 – “on behalf of all of us, thanks very much for doing the above interview and interacting with the fans. I know this is above and beyond and not part of Paramount’s official publicity and to me it shows you really do care and this is not just a job for you.”

Amen to that, Bob! Many thanks!

1004. Alex Rosenzweig - December 14, 2008

#1000 – “One of the producers involved had a deal with a development budget that enabled them to assign a script, but the studio execs had no interest in the project (or, by that time, the producers – they’re no longer at Paramount). It never moved beyond the script.”

If the studio execs had no interest in the project, why establish a deal that involved spending money at all, let alone telling a screenwriter that the studio was moving ahead with it? That’s not ringing true to me. It reads to me like somebody at the time did have an interest, and that person left, and the person(s) who followed didn’t want to pursue it.

Maybe there’s some deep, dark, extra complexity, but until somebody trots out some evidence for it, I’m going to stick with Occam’s Razor here and go with what’s been stated.

1005. sean - December 14, 2008

#999

“Since the Eugenics Wars weren’t being fought in North America, anyway, I don’t think “Future’s End” said much that was conclusive.”

Actually, the conflict is said to be a global one. Kahn controlled 1/4 of planet Earth by 1996 – you’re telling me that didn’t reach the United States? Or that it wouldn’t have at least of had a demonstrable effect on the USA even if it didn’t reach their shores? For me, that stretches credibility a little too far. The 1996 shown in Voyager shows no sign of global conflict, not so much as an offhand reference to Kahn or the conflict overseas. It looks just like *our* 1996.

1006. sean - December 14, 2008

#1003

“He’s a fictional character, sure, but for me, the argument, “it’s fiction, so it didn’t ‘really’ happen, and thus is of no import” doesn’t fly. In the context of the characters in a fictional work, what is said to have happened to those characters did in fact happen *for them*. That there are no equivalent people or events in the “real world” is irrelevant.”

But a fictional character *is* fundamentally different from a real person. Kirk’s name in WNMHGB was James R. Kirk. Later, it was James T. Kirk. In real life, you can’t change your name without visiting a judge. In fiction, a second writer can decide he doesn’t like what someone else wrote, and can choose to ignore it or reinterpret it. That’s the point I was trying to make. That even if you can come up with a reasonable excuse as to why Kirk went from a stack of books with legs to cheating on his finals, the real reason is Nick Meyer didn’t care that WNMHGB portrayed Kirk differently. He chose to portray Kirk the way *he* saw Kirk. I don’t believe that made Kirk from that point on a different character.

“But those events and experiences were part of how he was written. Sure, it could be written again in a different way, but then it’s also not the same character. It might be a similar character, but similar isn’t enough for me.”

I suppose it’s simply a matter of different thought processes, but that doesn’t hold true for me. I’ll make my own decision as to whether the Kirk of this movie is the Kirk I’ve come to know come May, but just because his story flows a little differently from what I’ve known in the past doesn’t mean he won’t be the same James T Kirk, in my mind. If it looks like a Kirk, and acts like a Kirk, it stands to reason that it’s a Kirk.

1007. Spock - December 14, 2008

Ugh. He can gasbag about quantum theory until he’s blue in the face, I still don’t see how that explains why the trailer is making the movie look so formulaic.

Still, I’m hoping they left out the good stuff, or something. I’m still optimistic that the movie won’t be complete crap!

1008. Alex Rosenzweig - December 14, 2008

#1005 – Personally, I would have liked to see a couple of war reports on the various bits of news footage that they looked at, but did I have a problem believing that a brief look at Los Angeles might not show direct effects of a war which was not being fought in North America? Not really.

To the extent that they could have added a few hints that it was happening, yes, I think they should have. That they didn’t was their potential continuity error, not a rewrite of fictional history. As continuity errors go, though, it’s a pretty minor one.

1009. sean - December 14, 2008

#1008

It is interesting how subjective this process can be. For me, it was pretty glaring and quite obvious that was there was no conflict taking place. Genetic supermen take over 1/4 of the Earth and the citizens of LA are roller skating and roaming the boardwalk. Plus, wouldn’t part of Starling’s plan have been to retake the world from Kahn? Or wouldn’t Robinson’s first thought have been to ask visitors from the future or ‘Martians’ to help? Heck, it sort of makes the entire subplot of Chakotay being kidnapped by militiamen seem kind of silly, since surely Kahn would be a better candidate as ‘the beast’ at that point than the US government! I won’t even address the fact that it seemed rather clear that they were nowhere near the tech necessary to launch the DY-100 that Kahn escaped in.

Again, I think that the fans have a remarkable capacity to explain away these sorts of discrepancies, but for the most part it’s simply one writer choosing to ignore aspects of another writer’s work.

1010. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 14, 2008

#1009 sean: “Again, I think that the fans have a remarkable capacity to explain away these sorts of discrepancies, but for the most part it’s simply one writer choosing to ignore aspects of another writer’s work.”

BUT, as long as the fans can plausibly explain away those discrepancies, it’s not a continuity error. Alex Rozenwig just gave a very plausible explanation of “Future’s End”‘s apparent uninvolvement in the Eugenics Wars. Here’s another: right now, the U.S. is involved in a “global war on terror” that, indeed, is affecting every nation on Earth. But if you go to L.A., it doesn’t seem the least bit different than it did on September 10th, except for a bit more airport security.

And, of course, Greg Cox gave the Ultimate explanation, reconciling “Space Seed” with “Future’s End” with TWOK with Real Life in his non-canon book trilogy on Khan and the Eugenics Wars.

It’s when new canon directly contradicts something that’s central to a character that there start to be problems. Whereas ignoring Tarsus IV might not be a problem–when you get down to it, it’s really not all that important, and the fan writers could probably explain it eventually anyway–declaring that, in the New Trek Universe, nothing we’ve ever known to happen in Trek matters anymore, because it isn’t going to happen as we remember it… that’s a much more serious problem. It provides an explanation, yes, but it’s an unsatisfying one, and I find that unsatisfying explanations are worse than no explanation at all.

But I’ve upgraded myself from “unhappy” to “unsure” based on the conversation we’ve had in these comments, so… I dunno.

1011. Harry Ballz - December 14, 2008

Boy, we’ve really analyzed the crap out of this thing, haven’t we?

If we’re not careful, when we finally see the movie, we’ll wet our pants trying to process everything we’ve discussed with what we’re watching!

1012. Xai - December 14, 2008

1007. Spock – December 14, 2008
Ugh. He can gasbag about quantum theory until he’s blue in the face, I still don’t see how that explains why the trailer is making the movie look so formulaic.”

Gasbag… sure. The guy spends the weekend here answering questions and he’s a gas bag.
Nice.
And maybe the trailer looks “formulaic” is because they have to jam a lot in and still have in be coherent.

1013. BaronByng - December 14, 2008

Just quickly to respond to Alex Rosenzweig,

I have to say I fall on the side of giving writers creative freedom. I believe they have some extremely knowledgeable people on their team who weighed the pros and cons of anything that could be said to deviate from canon, and found a good, in-universe (or at least consistent) explanation for them. I do not think there will be any face-palming ‘OMG how could they do something like that’ moments.

We don’t know for sure that canon even IS really broken yet. (I don’t consider the look of technology to be canon — that’s a styling issue).

Even if they are bending or rewriting canon (in a ‘universe B’ manner), to whom does this matter? Surely not to the general public!

Again, this attachment to a series of inferred events (inferred by ‘fanon’, mostly, occasionally referred to by novels, which are NOT canon), based somewhat off occasional tidbits in dialogue thrown in to set up individual episodes — which were not created as part of the ‘series bible,’ if there was one — is puzzling. None of it is real, it’s a framework for telling stories. Every generation takes old frameworks and adapts to them to their own storytelling needs.

One has to recognize that episodic television is rarely thought out with long story arcs, or with every character’s bio set in stone. There are rough frameworks and writers fill them in, under deadline. There is often contradiction. Does that make the stories any less fun to watch?

In exchange, they are giving us what looks like a really exciting story that looks set to re-energize the franchise. If the psychological need to have mastery of every factoid is going to prevent you from enjoying it…STAY HOME!

1014. Newman - December 14, 2008

I was less than impressed with Best Destiny…it just wasn’t exciting enough for me.

1015. sean - December 14, 2008

#1010

I suppose I draw a rather clear line between fan’s reconciling seemingly incongruent facts and stories being truly, intentionally consistent. The problem is it’s very subjective, and what one fan finds an acceptable explanation isn’t the same for everyone (obviously I don’t really buy into Alex’s solution, though I’m sure many others do).

A terrorist attack is quite different from 4 years of outright global war with genetic tyrants that have conquered 1/4 of the planet. I don’t find those 2 situations even remotely comparable (putting aside the fiction vs reality side of things, obviously).

“declaring that, in the New Trek Universe, nothing we’ve ever known to happen in Trek matters anymore, because it isn’t going to happen as we remember it… that’s a much more serious problem.”

I don’t remember them saying that. What was postulated is that events we know may not happen in exactly the same way we remember, or in a different order. I don’t see that as a serious problem, really. For one, it doesn’t necessarily preclude any of the events we know from taking place. They might just take place in a slightly different way. I view it much in the same way as I do the design aesthetic of the new movie – it’s just the hi def version.

1016. USS TRINOMA - NCC 0278 - December 14, 2008

Wow! Over 1000 comments about canon and QM. All I know is this: There are really “two canons” of Star Trek. One canon is the movies that are owned by PARAMOUNT PICTURES. The other canon is the TV series owned by CBS.
These two corporations are in some ways at odds with each other. An example has been Paramount starting a cable network on their own, thus taking away their movie library that is being shown by the Showtime Network, owned by CBS.
Remember, when Sumner Redstone, CEO of VIACOM, split his company into two, The Star Trek franchise was also split into two. The movie copyrights belong to Paramount. The TV series copyrights belonged to CBS. These two corporations necessarily do not have to cooperate with each other. What does that mean to us fans? In theory, one company can listen to us, while the other company could care less and reboot their franchise. As Paul Harvey would say, “And that the rest of the story.”

1017. Chris M - December 14, 2008

#877 and #880 thanks for that guys, much appreciated!

1018. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 15, 2008

#1015 sean: If that’s the case, then we have no disgreement. If they decide to rearrange the order of, say, “The Doomsday Machine” and “Charlie X,” I really don’t care (watched ‘em out of order anyways). And if they were even to alter some more central character beats (for instance, as has been suggested, eliminating the dikoronium cloud creature from Kirk’s past, which would gut “Obsession,” or elminating Tarsus IV, which guts “The Conscience of the King”), I would be okay with that, too. As you said–and I FULLY agree with you–canon is a flexible framework designed to allow the writers to tell a story that they want to in a rich and populous universe, and the important thing, to borrow Mr. Orci’s terminology, is that the *soul* of the characters remain the same. My philosophy has *always* been, “If it’s inconsistent, and it isn’t critical, screw it and let the fans work it out later.” And this philosophy served me very well as an Enterprise fan, let me tell you. :P

The problem for me is that they appear to be shunting the whole thing into a new ‘verse, and so not only might the order of episodes be rearranged, there’s no guarantee in our *new* universe that Kirk ever *faces* the Doomsday Machine! As Tony suggested, maybe the Botany Bay gets picked up by Klingons! Or Spock dies during “Amok Time!” That’s not working within the framework; that’s abolishing the framework and leaving only whispered suggestions of it behind.

I could be misinterpreting the Orci Plan. You seem to think that I am. Unfortunately, the only way to be sure of that would be for Mr. Orci to send me a link to the finished movie, or wait until May 9th. This is certainly what I got out of the interview.

Otherwise, I think we agree much more than we disagree about the important issues here.

#1013: I must say, more than anything else, anywhere in fandom, the thing I am most tired of, after ten long years of it, even tireder than I am of Berman-bashing and TrekUnited jokes and “Not. Dead.” insults… the thing that really, really gets me is people who stay, “We don’t need your kind here. STAY HOME!”

That’s just so chilling to the dialogue we’re having here, and so self-centered and so very self-*rightgeous,* I simply don’t think it’s a sentiment that’s compatible with IDIC.

Particularly when the person making the comment–in this case, you–hasn’t the slightest understanding of the person’s–in this case, Alex’s–thoughts or objections.

That’s how I feel about it, anyway.

ONE THOUSAND EIGHTEENTH!!!

1019. (The much more real) McCoy - December 15, 2008

1015

” have to say I fall on the side of giving writers creative freedom. I believe they have some extremely knowledgeable people on their team who weighed the pros and cons of anything that could be said to deviate from canon, and found a good, in-universe (or at least consistent) explanation for them. I do not think there will be any face-palming ‘OMG how could they do something like that’ moments.”

If JJ wanted certain things to happen, even against character history, the knowledgeable guys would have done their best in a bad situation. This seems to mean that they came up with a way to “explain” the changes rather than **stop** the changes.

“We don’t know for sure that canon even IS really broken yet. (I don’t consider the look of technology to be canon — that’s a styling issue).”

I do consider the visuals of Trek part of canon. Updates could have been made much closer to the original designs. For example, the uniforms look close enough. The Enterprise interiors and exteriors not only inaccurate, but also poor designs. IMO

“Even if they are bending or rewriting canon (in a ‘universe B’ manner), to whom does this matter? Surely not to the general public!”

It matters to many Trek fans. But you are right—it doesn’t matter to the general audience. In fact, if they had not bent or rewritten character history, the general audience would not have cared about that either.

“Again, this attachment to a series of inferred events (inferred by ‘fanon’, mostly, occasionally referred to by novels, which are NOT canon), based somewhat off occasional tidbits in dialogue thrown in to set up individual episodes — which were not created as part of the ’series bible,’ if there was one — is puzzling. None of it is real, it’s a framework for telling stories. Every generation takes old frameworks and adapts to them to their own storytelling needs.”

This generation has different needs? Hmmm. If they didn’t like the way Kirk, Spock and McCoy fit the current “needs” they should have used different characters. BTW, for me, the novels are not canon either. None of this is real, but should match what came before.

“One has to recognize that episodic television is rarely thought out with long story arcs, or with every character’s bio set in stone. There are rough frameworks and writers fill them in, under deadline. There is often contradiction. Does that make the stories any less fun to watch?”

If they call it Star Trek, it should match Star Trek. If it’s that easy to be entertained by random stories, they should have stayed away from 40 years of Trek.

“In exchange, they are giving us what looks like a really exciting story that looks set to re-energize the franchise. If the psychological need to have mastery of every factoid is going to prevent you from enjoying it…STAY HOME!”

Don’t need mastery of factoids, not sure what that is…however, if I feel what they did prevents me from enjoying the movie, I will stay home. If I hear the big E reappears as her normal self at the end (with greater detail of course) I will run to the theater.

1020. thorsten - December 15, 2008

987. boborci
[…] Not sure if our movie precludes time aboard the Farragut.

// Now that is really a great piece of intel, because it helps sorting out the events of the movie. Right now all we know is that Jim becomes a cadet three years before the main part of the movie with Nero attacking Vulcan takes place… it is always possible that he saves Pikes life on the Narada and returns to the Academy, finishing his last year and starting his tour… bad luck for old Ben Finney!

The question for me would be, would a general audience be interested in seeing 8 years of Kirk anywhere other than the U.S.S. Enterprise? And where would Spock be in that movie?

// No, I don’t think so. The general audience is not so crazy about Kirk as we are… this will change of course after they saw Pines performance ;))
But in the days of TV series made rather for the DVD Box and not tso much for weekly airing anymore, there are always possibilities…

1021. thorsten - December 15, 2008

// Another pesky question for Bob…

Bob, is the fact that Spock Prime insists on Kirk being in command during the Vulcan crisis the result of the fact that he remembers himself as a troubled younger man, or is more behind this?

1022. Atlantians - December 15, 2008

Mr. Orci I again appreciate all the responses you are giving and all the interaction! I wish we got this in every awesome movie that comes out! =D

My trepidation about the use of Quantum Mechanics is that Quantum Mechanics is oft used as an excuse for everything from Hinduism to Microwaving Cats to Positive Thinking to Anything else under the sun including the Multiverse speculation presented here.

If you mentioned Quantum Physics once and referenced it again as a sort of “this is the idea and hypothesis we are basing this plot point around”, I would not be as… um… aggressive. However, it was so frequently used and repeated with such hyperbole in reference to Multiverse rather than electrons, nuetrons, nuetrinos, or photons that it quickly began to sound like it was just a new toy that the writers just bought and are happily playing with for the first time rather than a seriously thought out basis on which to base the arguments and background structure of the plot.

Thanks in advance.
And Merry Christmas.

1023. table10 - December 15, 2008

re: 987. boborci

Although I agree with both of you that plenty of material is available for those 8 years before Kirk took the enterprise, His first 5 year mission is also full of material, without re-interpreting known stories (ie: joker in the Dark Knight)

You must assume that with only 20 something episodes per year, the enterprise might have encountered hundreds of other fascinating stories during any of those 5 365 day periods

1024. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1023…

Right, table10. What we saw from the 5 year mission was only the tip of the iceplanet.

And “Star Trek: Farragut” sounds like a good project for Bryan Fuller…

1025. BK613 - December 15, 2008

1015
Khan was the “last of the tyrants to be defeated” and he was said to have left in 1996. So what would LA look like, and what would be the behavior of the people, if, by the time of “Future’s End,” the war had been over for many months? Especially if the US had come out relatively unscathed by the conflict, like it did in WW2.

1026. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1025…

like this:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3294/2473677947_df9a2c666d.jpg

1027. cugel the clever - December 15, 2008

#1023 table10

“His first 5 year mission is also full of material, without re-interpreting known stories (ie: joker in the Dark Knight)…You must assume that with only 20 something episodes per year, the enterprise might have encountered hundreds of other fascinating stories during any of those 5 365 day periods”

Actually, the opposite is probably true. The reality of deep space missions would be days/weeks/months of tedium and routine surveying. My take on TOS, TNG, VOY, etc is that the televised episodes were probably the *only* notable and interesting events of the missions. Think about it – is it really reasonable to believe that every week; one ship in a fleet of hundreds or thousands of ships and crews would be involved in life-or-death struggles for its own survival and the survival of the Federation? This is what happened routinely on the ST series’. As much as I enjoyed ST, I always thought how absurd it was that the survival of the Federation was so fragile that it depended on the herculean efforts (and luck!) of the best crew in the fleet, week after week!!!! Why didn’t some of these dire enemies attack from the other side of the Federation from where the big-E was patrolling or why didn’t they attack during the time when an incompetent was captain of the E (John Harriman)?

It looks like the new film is carrying on this tradition of blind luck for the Federation and of it’s survival depending on skin-of-the-teeth heroics from a relatively few people out of the entire Starfleet.

1028. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1027…
very clever, cugel…
I am still waiting for the Bond villain who just kills 007 without explaining all his plans and leaving the airducts open…

1029. cugel the clever - December 15, 2008

980. 750 Mang – December 14, 2008

“#977 Boborci

“I’d be here saying similar things if I had nothing to do with the movie.”

I’m available if there are any job openings.

lol”

Please, no. I and most other fans do not want to go back to the days of plastic models, fuzzy planets, brylcream, and pajama uniforms.

1030. cugel the clever - December 15, 2008

” 981. James Heaney – Wowbagger – December 14, 2008

What IS with the Mysterious Iowan Chasm, anyway? I was all gushing about the robocop and the UFP flag and seeing Spock go all Sylar on The Kirk, but my girlfriend to this day keeps asking who dug an enormous canyon in Iowa between the 20th and 23rd centuries.

Or is that classified?”

Perhaps in this altered universe, the Xindi attacked Hawaii instead of Florida? :)

1031. cugel the clever - December 15, 2008

Oooop, I mean Iowa instead of Florida.

1032. BK613 - December 15, 2008

1026
That photo was taken on V-J Day (in August 1945) at Times Square. Come back to Times Square in three months later in November of 1945 and you’d find the Macy’s Day Parade passing through it (first time in four years.) Life moves on.

1033. thorsten - December 15, 2008

Okay, BK, it is a safe bet that no nurse kissing sailors were roaming Times Square 12 weeks after VJ-Day. Let me put this another way… were I writing an 1996 TT episode for VOY I would have included a little hint about the war for the fans.

1034. The Underpants Monster - December 15, 2008

I’d be willing to bet there are nurse-kissing sailors in Times Square as we speak! ;-)

1035. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1034…

I knew this would backfire!

1036. Alex Rosenzweig - December 15, 2008

#1013 – “Just quickly to respond to Alex Rosenzweig,

I have to say I fall on the side of giving writers creative freedom. I believe they have some extremely knowledgeable people on their team who weighed the pros and cons of anything that could be said to deviate from canon, and found a good, in-universe (or at least consistent) explanation for them. I do not think there will be any face-palming ‘OMG how could they do something like that’ moments.”

You may be right, and we’ll undoubtedly find out come May. But in any ongoing fictional world, there always has to be some balance between “creative freedom” and overall consistency. Different people may interpret that balance in different ways, of course. I tried to elaborate on my interpretation a bit up-thread, so I won’t bore folks with the repetition. :) I suspect that there will be instances in the movie that may fall on both sides of the balance for me. But like the rest of us–except Bob O. ;) –I still have to wait to truly know what will be where in the end product.

“Again, this attachment to a series of inferred events (inferred by ‘fanon’, mostly, occasionally referred to by novels, which are NOT canon), based somewhat off occasional tidbits in dialogue thrown in to set up individual episodes — which were not created as part of the ’series bible,’ if there was one — is puzzling.”

I don’t find it so at all. In all honesty, what puzzles me is how folks can so readily dismiss what’s been built up. It may come down to the axioms under which we approach an ongoing fictional work.

“None of it is real, it’s a framework for telling stories.”

And that is why it is even more important to maintain the overall internal continuity. We don’t have an external, “real” framework in which to work. The world, as built, is all there is.

“One has to recognize that episodic television is rarely thought out with long story arcs, or with every character’s bio set in stone. There are rough frameworks and writers fill them in, under deadline. There is often contradiction. Does that make the stories any less fun to watch?”

It does impact my enjoyment, yes. If I’m watching an ongoing saga (not just Trek; any such saga), and something previously established is directly contradicted, it almost invariably throws me out of the story.

1037. Jeff - December 15, 2008

Wow, 1000+ replies!

Mr. Orci,

Thank you for taking the time to explain to the hardcore fans what you are trying to do but personally if I were in your shoes I would just say its a reboot that pays respects to canon- I’m sure most true fans will accept what you are doing and will make this movie a BO hit anyway. You can’t please everybody, especially the uber-geeks who want everything done their way so I say screw them and focus on getting new fans in- they are the key to making this a successful franchise.

And I sure hope you won’t do any more time travel plots in the sequels after this!

1038. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1037. Jeff […] And I sure hope you won’t do any more time travel plots in the sequels after this

No worries, Jeff. Time Travel will be branched out to the new Spinoff
TimeTrek™, that will run neck to neck with the last season of LOST on ABC, starting january 2010…

1039. Unimpressed Git - December 15, 2008

OMG will he just shut up about the most awesome stokingly wonderful frabjous and kid-tested mother approved theory of ALL TIME.

Read a book. You’re making us look like jerks.

1040. Cagerattler - December 15, 2008

Time travel movies SUCK, SUCK, SUCK! Comics do this over and over until the “alternate timeline/universe get so inflated and confusing they just kill everyone at the end and start over. Does anyone realize what it means to have everything possible happen? What is a “happening” Mr. “quantum mechanics”?
It could be argued that every particle has an infinite number of states at any
moment in Planck time- Now multiply that by all the particles in the universe and this becomes the most ludicrous statement possible! The fact is that the future does NOT exist. The past does NOT exist. Time is relative and clocks slow down as particles approach the speed of light, but the arrow of time “moves” one way. NOW is the only reality, and now generates the future and past which are artifacts of our intellects and therefore illusions. Do not mistake symbols for reality.

1041. Xai - December 15, 2008

#1039

Just some of us.

1042. 750 Mang - December 15, 2008

After recent exchanges with Bob Orci I started to wonder why he seemed befuddled when I asked why not just tell the straight story of how Kirk took command. IE after his tours of duty on the USS Republic and the USS Farragut.

I have a feeling that the reason Kirk’s backstory has been excellerated is due to a directive from the studio. I bet there were a few things Paramount insisted on: 1. Had to include original crew, 2. Movie had to end with Kirk in command of Big E, 3. Kirk had to be in his 20′s.

It seems to be the only logical reason the writers would go through all these painful plot maneuvers to tell a story that should have been relatively straight forward. But in the straight story of Jim Kirk he didn’t take command until he was in his early 30′s.

Kirk at 33 was probably too old for the suits at Paramount. It’s like fricking “Logan’s Run” over there.

1043. NOTBOB - December 15, 2008

938. thorsten –

I was born in 1977, so I grew up watching reruns, during the day, of a lot of great shows. The classic Star Trek, the 13 or so episodes of Planet of the Apes, Lost in Space, The Sisco Kid, The Lone Ranger, Tarzen, etc. I grew up with the original Star Wars movies so, I am more of a Star Wars nerd, but I still love classic Trek and the characters. I’ve also always been into artwork, since I was a child. So I too am a bit of detail freak (and I am drawing, or attemtping to draw the charcters from the new film. I’m toying with the idea of submitting art to comic companies. I have started to draw five pages with the classic crew to submit to IDW.) I noticed the shiney thing on Spock’s right hip too. I also assumed it was a phaser, but I could not make out any of the the details. I assume that the left hand side of his belt is something to hold the I-Phone like looking communicator.

Now, if I can find out what the transporter room looks like and also whether the turbolift is still located on the same area on the bridge, that would be cool. Also, the old uniforms of George Kirk’s time would be cool too. I guess I have to wait a few more months.

“I am afraid that Pikes fate this time will be determined by what happens to him on Neros ship… there must be a reason we see Jim with three stripes at then end.”

Great, now you got me thinking that Pike aint gonna make it to a sequel. If he does get killed in the action, he had better get a cool death. Not a crappy one. Though he might just get radiation from Nero’s ship and need a chair. But without Talos IV, I he doesn’t get the illusion of a healthy body

As for Vic’s new fed job, it sure seemed like his own personal hell. Though, something about that ending makes me think that L.A. will be searching for a night time vigilante in a furture movie. That;s great drama, they knew a happy ending waould suit those characters.

1044. NOTBOB - December 15, 2008

That last line should read:
That’s great drama, they knew a happy ending wouldn’t suit those characters

1045. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@104344… NOTBOB
// The Turbo is still in the same place, but the bridge has a huge door now, at 90 degrees from the Captains chair… where excited cadets can enter the bridge pronto in case of emergencies ;))

// I just remember the transporter from the sequence when Checkov is fumbling with the controls to save Sulu and Kirk… he beams them aboard in the last second and they land in a heap on the platforms floor. A nice way for the new chief engineer to enter that exciting ship…

// The Kelvins Uniforms look like nothing I saw before, they are not the Overalls of ENT anymore, but they have a distinctive old school look, and some bulky part around the neck…

1046. Denise de Arman - December 15, 2008

Mr. Bob- If you come over to Chat (otherwise known as 69 Forward) and say a few words, our hearts will burst with happiness and glee…

1047. krikzil - December 15, 2008

I don’t know Denise…we may scare him over there. ;)

1048. YARN - December 15, 2008

#436. Captain Otte

“[YARN]Said in #422 by Yarn: “EXAMPLE: I do a story about two monkeys who ride a ballon over Virginia in the 1930’s. They escape from a zoo, have a wacky adventure, and are then returned to the zoo after they cheer up a dying boy. I call the story STAR TREK XI and laboriously set out to prove that there is a possible world in the Trek canon where this story could have happened – TOTALLY MISSING THE POINT.”

[Otte]That is a rather grosse bending of the scenario, and I suspect you know that.”

No, I am simply using an extreme example to show the faultiness of the reasoning being used. AGAIN: Whether or not a film deserves to be called Star Trek is not determined by whether or not there is a possible world in the Star Trek canon in which the story could have occurred.

At most we are talking about a necessary condition that needs to be fulfilled for a story to be Trek. But Star Trek has violated its own canon on so many occasions that there isn’t an actually possible world in which a story could be absolutely faithful to Trek canon. How can you be faithful to a world where P and Not-P is the case.

1049. Denise de Arman - December 15, 2008

Liz#1047- No “might” about it… AJ wanted me to ask Mr. Bob, and I can refuse AJ nothing (he speaks that sexy Russian, you know).

1050. Denise de Arman - December 15, 2008

Liz#1047- Sorry – not “might” – “may”. Was that confusing enough…

1051. hitch1969© is back in 2008. - December 15, 2008

Hey Denise de Arman, why would the OrcSter want to come over to your chat forum when you guys are saying things like this behind his back?

361. CmdrR – December 14, 2008
Bob Orci just left his thread, “beaten and sobbing” (or maybe I embellish) after nearly 1000 posts. I’d say we popped his cherry, but good.

That chat thread serves no purpose and should be closed permanently. And I’ll be watching over there for the comments about me now.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

1052. Okie Trekker - December 15, 2008

I still personally think the producers made a mistake going back to the characters from the original series. My feeling is that there is this huge canvas where we could have seen other aspects of the same universe. Let’s do a movie depicting a story set between the end of ENTERPRISE and the start of TOS. Or let’s do a TOS-era story featuring a different set of characters (The Enterprise was just one ship in an awfully big fleet, after all…) Or let’s go further ahead in time and do a story set a generation or two after the TNG/DS9/VOY era. Heck, there are all kinds of good STAR TREK stories that can be told without rehashing (and/or somehow changing) the past.



Abrams & company keep talking about how it’s the original characters that many fans are most interested in, and to some extent that’s true. But it’s not just the characters; it’s the actors playing them – even with the occasional wooden dialogue and scenery chewing. Say whatever else you will about the man, William Shatner IS James Kirk. From what I’ve seen these new actors are a talented bunch and will do a good job (particularly the ones playing Spock and McCoy). And yet it won’t be Spock and McCoy in my mind because it won’t be Nimoy and Kelley. 



There are some characters – Sherlock Holmes, Tarzan, James Bond, Batman and Superman among them – that are iconic enough on their own to allow for valid reinterpretations by a variety of actors; but some characters become iconic in large part because of the actors playing them. Try picturing any other actor playing Indiana Jones, for example; sure, Tom Selleck originally got the part and probably would have done a good job, can you REALLY picture anyone other than Harrison Ford in those movies? Or to use another Ford character as another example: Christopher Walken as Han Solo? Just would not have been the same…



I don’t know if any of the above makes sense to anyone but myself. All I know is that I’ll see the movie, will probably come away appreciating it on its own terms, but expect to greatly disappointed as to its place in the “canon.” I’ll just have to see which reaction proves the stronger of the two. If you want to get downright nitpicky, “canon” was thrown out the window as soon as we got our first look at how the Klingons looked in ST:TMP.

Now bear in mind that I’m the guy who once got kicked out of a room full of Trek fans at a comic book convention because of the way I answered a question on that particular topic. I walked into this room to find a great roundtable “Face The Nation” discussion going on, the topic of which was, in essence: “Why do you think the Klingons from TOS didn’t have the turtle shell foreheads we saw in TMP and beyond. (This was back in 1992, well before the TV producers tried answering that question themselves.) There were a number of different theories being bandied about: the foreheads were the result of some genetic disaster or evolutional
change; the Klingons from TOS were actually a different breed, perhaps denizens of another planet in the Klingon Empire; the original Klingons were from the southern hemisphere and the later Klingons from the northern; and so on. Then they came to me (who didn’t expect to be asked in the first place, having just walked into the room), and I responded, quite honestly, that I thought the difference had something to do with the fact that they had more money for makeup and SFX in 1979 than they did in 1966. Buy, THAT caused an uproar; you don’t know what true humiliation is until you’ve been chased out of a room full of angry Trek fans with rubber Spock ears bouncing off your back and cries of “Heretic!” ringing in your ears…

1053. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1051…

hitch, there is no way we can talk about QuantumMechanics™ without you!

1054. BK613 - December 15, 2008

1033
Oh I would probably have had an obscure reference as well. Maybe something like a headline that read “Relief to Wa-ravaged Asia Bogs down in Congress” or some such. Something the fans might get but wouldn’t be a distraction from the story at hand.

My point is that the assumed premise that a lot of fans make that the Eugenics War and “Future’s End” are occurring at the same time doesn’t have to be true. The end of the first could quite easily be 6 or 9 months prior to the events of the latter and therefore be “old news.”

1034
LOL

1055. Tin_Man - December 15, 2008

My thing is, if Nero is going back in time and by doing so creates an alternate reality/time line from the “prime time line” and this won’t effect the “prime time line” WHY DOES FUTURE SPOCK CARE!

Nero would be gone from his timeline and according to the movie maker guy anything Nero does in the past won’t effect our beloved pirme time line. Which future Spock lives in…

If this is the case, Spock who probably knows a little something about time travel should come to the logical conclusion that Nero is gone and this doesn’t effect him.
Nero has just created YET ANOTHER alternate timeline/reality out of the infinite number that currently exsist. So he’d stay home and NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!

MORE Total garbage

1056. Harry Ballz - December 15, 2008

Hitch

“serves no purpose”?

In this version of reality the chat thread got you to comment here, thereby taking the precious seconds out of your life at the very moment you were going to have the revelation of, finally, how to attract…THE WOMEN!!

Life can be mean, can’t it?

1057. YARN - December 15, 2008

#436. Captain Otte

“Robin Hood is still Robin Hood, no matter how altered the politics of Nottingham are from incarnation to incarnation. Heck, the Disney fox cartoon is no more or less Robin Hood than Costner of Flynn or any of the guys from the BBC incarnations.”

Artworks change through time as they are reprinted, re-performed, and rewritten. This is an historical fact. If I managed to produce several successful films in which Robin Hood was an inner city pimp fighting off cops with light-sabers and his trusty band of zombie hookers in the City of Sherwood, CA, guess what? That’s right, the story would change and we would, as you put it, “have every right” to call this story Robin Hood.

Unless and until, however, our aspiring filmmaker manages to successfully alter the narrative, we have no reason to say that Robin Hood is a light saber wielding pimp. And a major determinant of what will determine whether or not he succeeds is whether or not his/her surrounding culture decides that this is an acceptable turn on the theme and gives it the stamp of approval. And the question that will be put to the artwork is “Does this bear a strong enough resemblance to the original to warrant calling it Trek.”

With every permutation of a story the link to the original is weakened. This is why historians work so hard to find original documents and to stabilize texts. Today’s Illiad is NOT the Illiad of the ancient Greeks. Change is the name of the game. But not all change is necessarily good and change can only occur at a given rate in order to be intelligible (and acceptable).
I have the high hopes for the new movie, but as the proof is in the pudding, the proof of this film will be in the viewing.

1058. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1054… good idea, BK, and no problem to slip that edit into the bluray special edition of VOY in the collectors box with that huge reset button on the front ;))

1059. YARN - December 15, 2008

#542.

“Yarn, you bring up the idea of “family resemblance”. So, here’s another question: What have we seen in this movie that fails to deliver on the “family resemblance” front. To me, the Spocks and Kirk , as well as the shape of the Enterprise, evoke the right gestalt.”

I agree, for the most part. Spock lunging at Kirk, does not fit the picture, but I am willing to wait and see how it plays out. It could fit fine when presented in the full context.

What I am going on about is not really the movie itself, but the lame defenses of the film that seem to assume that we ourselves are characters from a film (i.e., the dimwitted fans of Galaxy Quest).

Two examples stand out:

1. J.J. is just playing “bad Riker.” – (At the end of Shatner’s old SNL skit he appeases the dweebs by saying – “No, I was portraying bad Kirk”).

2. The invocation of QM to cover the reboot. – “See, it’s all different, but really the same.”

I hope the film is great, but I find these apologies to be disengenuous and misleading.

1060. Denise de Arman - December 15, 2008

Harry#1056- Thank you for defending my honor, sweetums. Just for that you receive 10 gold stars for whatever limerick you want to write, concerning Quantum Mechanics, in advance.

1061. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1059…
Yarn, from what we know Spocks attack on Kirk on the bridge is the direct product of Spock Primes advice. Kirk beamed back aboard, together with Scotty, and whe walks straight up to the bridge to provoke Spock till he cracks… attacking another Officer unter the watchful eyes of the bridge crew, watched by Redshirts in the background. As soon as Spocks hands let go of Kirks throat he will invoke Star Fleet regulation and relieve him from command, taking over the helm and save the ship…

1062. krikzil - December 15, 2008

Hey Denise de Arman, why would the OrcSter want to come over to your chat forum when you guys are saying things like this behind his back?”

“That chat thread serves no purpose and should be closed permanently. And I’ll be watching over there for the comments about me now. ”

Humor, a difficult concept for some.

1063. Anthony - December 15, 2008

Let’s get down to brass tacks. The new movie and the existing movies and TV shows will all continue to be “canon” because they will be regarded as such by Paramount, the final arbiter. The QM explanation shows how this can be the case and how the timeline(s) depicted in previous “Star Trek” productions can continue to exist.

The real issue, however, is that any future “Star Trek” productions will presumably follow on from the new movie and take place on a timeline where Kirk did not serve on the Farragut after the Academy, where he can drive a manual transmission, and so on. Therefore, there will be no further productions set in the “original” timeline(s). In the eyes of many fans, that constitutes a “reboot”, and impedes the general fannish tendency (shared across many fandoms) to try to fit everything into a single coherent timeline, even if the particular fandom’s canon (like those of “Star Trek” or “Doctor Who”) makes clear that there are multiple timelines.

1064. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 15, 2008

#1062: Humor is pretty easy for most people. Hitch’s problem is that he has no soul.

It was taken from him by… THE WOMEN!!

1065. boborci - December 15, 2008

Still here?

Ok, let me summarize interview for everyone. JJ gave up the fact that time travel occurs, which, under any theory, means that the whole of canon was the necessary precursor for our story. Therefore, the only question was, which rules of time travel did we use, classical, or quantum mechanical? That’s it.

1066. 750 Mang - December 15, 2008

Did Paramount insist that Kirk be in his 20′s?

1067. krikzil - December 15, 2008

The Cliff Notes version!

1068. thorsten - December 15, 2008

Okay, thanks Bob!
;))

1069. hitch1969© is back in 2008. - December 15, 2008

orcster, then why does spock care if nero is not going to change anything in his timeline?

why bother?

see dude, it’s kind of like the chat forum here at trekmovies dot com dot org. people badmouthing us in another timeline, and while we know its there… neither you or myself building a timeship to go stop it.

because you an i, orcster, we aint yella. btw- hows the work coming on cowboys and arabs? is there a fan site for that one where we can defend our theories of canon?

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

1070. boborci - December 15, 2008

1066. 750 Mang – December 15, 2008
Did Paramount insist that Kirk be in his 20’s?

Paramount did not insist on a thing.

1071. boborci - December 15, 2008

1069. hitch1969© is back in 2008. – December 15, 2008
“orcster, then why does spock care if nero is not going to change anything in his timeline?

why bother?”

Great question!

1072. Harry Ballz - December 15, 2008

Bob

if you stop by the Chat thread to converse with Denise I KNOW it will MAKE her Christmas!

1073. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1071… Great question!

please check 1021

;))

1074. boborci - December 15, 2008

1072. Harry Ballz – December 15, 2008
Bob

if you stop by the Chat thread to converse with Denise I KNOW it will MAKE her Christmas!

Where?

1075. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1074…

here…

http://trekmovie.com/chat/

1076. hitch1969© is back in 2008. - December 15, 2008

Orcster, I love ya man…. but if you travel over into the alternate timeline, I’m not building a timeship to chase you. Even as much as I love ya.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

1077. Denise de Arman - December 15, 2008

Mr. Bob#1074- Ooh, a question I can answer knowing I will get it right – go to the top of the page and click on the Chat tab. AJ will plutz…

1078. Chris Pike - December 15, 2008

Ok maybe the multiverse created from time travel idea derived from quantum mechanics theory is a bit of a stretch, but it is a nice sci-fiction-fact bit of creative writing that goes nicely in the Trek/GR tradition. I mean getting warp drive from General Relativity is a stretch, but it is similarly a nice mechanism for sci-fi writing, and has even encouraged some recent theorists to write scientific papers on possibilities.
Just the sort of thing to keep Trek going.
And have loooong fascinating discussions as this one…

I can’t help thinking there must be quite a bit Boborci is itching to tell us but can’t. Imagine having an itch you can’t scratch ’til May. Only a Vulcan could bear that…

1079. 750 Mang - December 15, 2008

1070. boborci – December 15, 2008

1066. 750 Mang – December 15, 2008
Did Paramount insist that Kirk be in his 20’s?

“Paramount did not insist on a thing.”

Then I just don’t get it. Why not just tell the tale? Why alternate timelines if not just so things can be screwed around with?

If it was to shoehorn Nimoy into the story then I don’t know if it will be worth the price of having to unravel Kirk’s history. Plus you wouldn’t have necessarily needed the political capitol that Nimoy provides if you weren’t re-writing history.

1080. boborci - December 15, 2008

1079. 750 Mang – December 15, 2008

Many reasons. A big one already discussed is NIMOY.

1081. boborci - December 15, 2008

Plus you wouldn’t have necessarily needed the political capitol that Nimoy provides if you weren’t re-writing history.

Oh really — you think the notion of recasting everyone would go down as smooth without him?

1082. 750 Mang - December 15, 2008

Actually, yeah. I’m mean your just trading hassles aren’t you?

Pain in the ass people with re-casting vs the pain in the ass cannon-istas like myself.

1083. 750 Mang - December 15, 2008

Plus I didn’t see the reason for recasting everyone. Where is the army of Chekov fans?

Could have told the “Prime Timeline” story with just Kirk, Spock and McCoy, maybe Scotty too if he’s not just used for comic relief.

1084. 750 Mang - December 15, 2008

Lastly, (maybe) I fail to see why if Nimoy is an absolute necessity, there wasn’t still a way to craft a story without the Bizarro Timeline.

You’re a creative guy Boborci. I know you could have done it.

1085. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1043…

something else about the Phasers…
they are sleek silver gizmos with spring-triggered barrels that revolve and glow in the transition from ”stun” to ”kill.”

;))

1086. boborci - December 15, 2008

1084. 750 Mang – December 15, 2008
Lastly, (maybe) I fail to see why if Nimoy is an absolute necessity, there wasn’t still a way to craft a story without the Bizarro Timeline.

You’re a creative guy Boborci. I know you could have done it.

I did, in a another universe where you’re happy!

1087. thorsten - December 15, 2008

Bob, for something more constructive here, when Checkov is running from his post on the bridge to the transporter room, is that on the same deck?

1088. 750 Mang - December 15, 2008

1086. boborci – December 15, 2008

“I did, in a another universe where you’re happy!”

LOL! I’d like to read that.

1089. Alex Rosenzweig - December 15, 2008

#1086 – Well, darn, how do I get to *that* universe? ;)

1090. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1089…

try this, Alex…

http://jp.youtube.com/watch?v=zJ6VT7ciR1o

1091. Alex Rosenzweig - December 15, 2008

#1090 – LOL!

1092. 750 Mang - December 15, 2008

So I guess the bottom line here that the alternate timeline gimmick really is about “let’s just change stuff”. We all know these talented guys could have written a story that fit in with our collective history of Star Trek and have Nimoy in it at the same time.

I mean right? I can think of some story ideas that would accomplish that goal (without Spock sitting around a campfire reminiscing). I’m sure the writing team could think of dozens more that would be 1,000 times better than what I can imagine.

That really just leaves “I want to change stuff because I can.” I respect that but I don’t like it.

I think my comments back at post #715 is probably pretty close to right.

“Unfortunate this is.” – Upps that’s not a Star Trek quote.

1093. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 15, 2008

750 Mang, if *you* can come up with such a story, then I suggest you do so. It’s really not fair to Mr. Orci–nor does it particularly make sense–to call him a bad writer because he’s such a *good* writer. Kind of puts him in a bind, you know? This is the story that came out of their heads. That’s just the simple truth of it. What they do to canon is a legitimate topic of debate, but, if they want to do a story in Kirk’s Academy days, it’s really not for you to say that another story would have been better if you can’t prove it by showing them a better story.

Am I making sense, or sounding like a jerk?

Reflection:

Twenty years from now, long after this movie and its two sequels have gone on to revitalize the franchise and started a chain reaction that will lead to Trek entertainment glory, world domination, and religious control of the human race, long after Bob Orci is a happy and enormously wealthy man who can actually afford to build the computer from “Eagle Eye” (only leaving out the evil circuit this time), I am going to find him at a convention, and, during a Q&A session, shouting over his throngs of screaming girlish fans, I am going to ask him what the most researched, most tested, most successful, theory of science in the whole history of science might happen to be.

Watch out. I’m'a comin’.

1094. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1093… hehe, Wowbagger, you nailed it.
Case closed.

1095. 750 Mang - December 15, 2008

1093. James Heaney – Wowbagger – December 15, 2008
“It’s really not fair to Mr. Orci–nor does it particularly make sense–to call him a bad writer ”

I never called him a bad writer. In fact I think I said he’s a very talented writer. And both he and his partner are fine writers, from what I have seen in other projects.

But I have some serious issues with the direction they have chosen to steer Star Tre.

1096. 750 Mang - December 15, 2008

Here’s an interesting quote from our director JJ Abrams on MTV.com.

“I thought going back to those characters was important. [In previous films] when we met those characters, we met them pre-established. They’d already been working together, they already knew each other. They had this history. And for some reason, the origin of those relationships of those characters was something that probably would have helped me, at least, connect to them and understand why I should care about them and who they were.”

Does JJ know that this is an alternate timeline? This isn’t the history of the show you weren’t watching JJ. If I understand what Boborci has been telling us. So what’s he talking about?

Here is the link… http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1601281/story.jhtml

1097. thorsten - December 15, 2008

Come on, Mang. I read the whole JJ interview on MTV, nothing in there, and not the part you quoted, contradicts what Bob explained about QMTT…

1098. 750 Mang - December 15, 2008

1097. thorsten – December 15, 2008

“Come on, Mang. I read the whole JJ interview on MTV, nothing in there, and not the part you quoted, contradicts what Bob explained about QMTT…”

Whaddya mean? He’s saying he wants to see where the characters in TOS came from. The Kirk from “Obsession” served on the Farragut. Right?

The Enterprise in the show JJ is referencing was built in San Fransisco not Iowa. Right?

I mean I’m just confused.

Or did he let something slip?

Maybe all this alternate universe stuff is jive and our universe is really the one that prevails in the end.

For this we pray.

1099. BaronByng - December 15, 2008

#1018 James Heaney — Forgive me for any chills you may have felt, but I really feel strongly that people with a fundamentalist-canonista perspective are arguing a lost cause here.

The movie is done. It’s been edited. They’re just finalizing the sound mix now. They’re not going to back and do any re-shoots in order to satisfy a vocal minority-of-a-minority within the larger moviegoing public.

So if people are just going to carp and complain that “it’s not the movie that I would have made,” for the next five months, without having seen anything more than the trailer, please…spare the rest of us. Start your own blog called PinesNotKirk.com!

As to whether this change in the timeline means Kirk never experiences certain events, or experiences them differently…Yes, almost certainly, that is to be inferred if JJ does not push the Magic Reset Button (which I am fervently hoping he does not).

Personally, I don’t see that as a bad thing.

Again, it comes down to what is more dramatically satisfying: seeing someone arrive on screen fully formed, with all of their previous life experience merely alluded to in expository dialogue, or to watch them living that experience, making mistakes (big, bad mistakes), being hurt, experiencing loss, learning and being changed?

It was much more satisfying to me to see Daniel Craig mess up most of his first outings as Bond. He made bad, impulsive decisions that cost time, information, lives even. But you see him learn and grow. He’s not the same person at the end of Quantum of Solace that he was at the beginning of Casino Royale, and he will presumably still face enormous challenges (personal, emotional) in the next one.

Compare that to Roger Moore sauntering suavely onto the scene, seemingly knowing everything at all times, with everything at hand to escape every situation, and never really getting hurt or learning or changing. Fun in the escapist 1970s, I suppose, but not the Bond for a post-9/11 era.

Sure, JJ’s Trek will not be dark, brooding and troubled, but it does give us the ability to see The Troika knocking around, learning the ropes, making mistakes, and growing.

If they just arrive on screen with all character traits in place, because the creators expect the audience to “know” them from TV and books etc etc, it’s simply unsatisfying, lazy screenwriting, and it gives a non-Trekker audience no emotional hooks into the story. This, to me, is what made most, if not all, TOS movies slightly unsatisfying as motion pictures; they all play more like extended TV episodes.

#1019 TMMR McCoy — A saucer, two nacelles, a neck and an engineering section are canon — as is the general layout of the bridge. I don’t consider the details canon. Sure, there are people who have spent a lot of time rationalizing the placement of every little greebly, and a lot of it makes sense functionally, but the rest of it comes down to aesthetics. Let’s face it, the TMP Enterprise was created specifically to look great on a big screen, with an updated aesthetic. It is equally “un-canon” compared to the original. You can’t deny that part of the appeal of TMP was to see the ‘new’ Enterprise, wasn’t it?

The bridge, to me, is actually conservative — in 237 years I would expect completely different user interface paradigms — at least Minority Report type stuff…for instance, why does everyone have to face the screen? Why is there a screen at all, and not full-on direct-to-brain visualizations or something? — but that said, the bridge looks like a Starfleet vessel, everyone’s sitting in the right places…in fact it’s BIGGER…the way you would expect the command deck of a starship to be, which to me HELPS the process of ‘suspension of disbelief’. I would find it much harder to believe a cramped cardboard set with Eames-era design cues.

In general, when I talk about Trek being a ‘storytelling framework,’ it’s not about the specifics of costumes or even what the ships look like. It’s a mythological framework about exploration, ideals, friendship, and how humanity and empathy is tested when it comes up against fascinating ‘what if’ situations. There are certain elements of that mythology (characters, ‘magical items’ like phasers, transporters, etc.) that are core to the story and others that, to me, are free to be discarded or reinvented.

I believe in this movie. I believe it’s gonna be really good, and I’m excited about it for many different reasons.

When I hear people grousing because it’s not a literalist interpretation of a 1966 television show, it depresses me. It’s religious fundamentalism — appealing to a claimed Higher Authority, selectively picking and choosing a set of Rules to obey and things to Memorize, ultimately in order to feel like one is better than others…I’m not better than any other Trekker, but dammit, Jim, at a certain point people’s obsessive-compulsive Need To Keep Canon’s Precious Bodily Fluids Pure just makes it not fun anymore.

1100. thorsten - December 15, 2008

JJ knows that Bob is the Trekker in the team.The Enterprise is built in Iowa because George Kirk died on the Kelvin. It is still possible that Kirk will finish his education and serve on the Farragut. We don’t know that Kirk will command the Enterprise after the Vulcan crisis depicted in the movie is resolved. Nothing that I saw in the trailer and the 4 outtakes convinced me otherwise. Maybe Kirk still witnesses Kodos massacre on Tarsus IV with his mother…

1101. 750 Mang - December 15, 2008

1099. BaronByng – December 15, 2008

#1018 James Heaney — “Forgive me for any chills you may have felt, but I really feel strongly that people with a fundamentalist-canonista perspective are arguing a lost cause here. ”

True. But why bother having these boards if the only purpose is to be a hallelujah choir for the new movie.

I don’t expect them to change anything (although it’d be pretty cool if they could) but at the same time I don’t have to pretend that the reasons being given for messing up Kirk’s history hold water. They don’t – other than “we wanted to change it”.

Oh and one more thing… Pine IS Kirk. At least he is some version of Kirk.

1102. Atlantians - December 15, 2008

That article you gave me was a pre-written lecture that stated that “Quantum Mechanics is the most successful/tested/ect. theory of all time”.

Saying it over and over and repeating it over and over is not an argument or an explanation.

I do disagree with the raw hyperbole of that article.
QM is not the best tested or most supported theory ever.
Atomic theory is far superior in that regard as is relativity as well as biogenesis.

However, that is irrelevant because of one reason:

You were not even talking about quantum mechanics!
QM deals with how and why micro-particles function, why they act as waves and particles at the same time, and the like.
Electrons, protons, neutrons, Photons.

What you were talking about is not quantum mechanics, it is a hypothesis that uses QM as a foundation. There is a great deal of speculation and multiverse is a loosely related HYPOTHETICAL element of certain proposed ‘theoretical physics’ (as opposed to applied physics, such as the different sized and weighted balls landing at the same time) theories. It is NOT quantum mechanics.

Good outline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics

That is my issue and it has not been addressed.
Repeating “quantum mechanics is great” doesn’t change the fact that you were not actually talking about quantum mechanics.

Thank you.

1103. byron d. - December 15, 2008

dang, there are a lot of comments on this thread. I have to say it, because i know quite a lot about the physics involved. If someone crossed over to change a timeline, IT DOESN’T EVEN MATTER, because the ORIGINAL timeline will never be affected! How does spock even knows this is going to happen! The whole point is, if this is a parallel universe and Nero disappeared into, no one would notice!

1104. Admiral_BlackCat - December 15, 2008

I thank Stargate SG-1 and the dvd movie Stargate: Continuum for my understanding of how quantum mechanics work with temporal mechanics. Amanda Taping rocks the sci-fi world as Samantha Carter. Now she knew all about the latest and greatest theories… on distand planets even. /end geek out.

1105. Admiral_BlackCat - December 15, 2008

And honestly I always felt that with the traditional time line scenario there way too many paradoxes created. Paradoxes that realistically and/or scientifically could NEVER be wrapped up so neatly with a bow at the end of any tv episode or movie regardless the series. Though it is a very nostalgic and reasurring thought that everything will be okay, even if you do end up in the past mucking around with the timeline, going where you don’t belong.

1106. BaronByng - December 15, 2008

1101 – Mang — I agree with you in the sense that if the new film borks it badly, I’ll be here noting my disappointment. It’s not going to ruin my childhood though (any more than Star Trek V did)…I’ll just wait for the next interpretation of the mythos.

Whatever the scientific technobabble — ‘messing up’ Kirk’s history? In reality, what we’ve got is roughly 60 hours of television, not all of which was about Kirk, and of which, we got a few story-specific tidbits which individual writers created, not in service of the show bible or any specific story arc, because they probably didn’t even know what order the episodes would air in. (Hence, reset-button plotlines). Kirk’s ‘history’ is as gauzy as cobwebs, and people have taken those dusty threads and woven them up with new things created of whole cloth (novels, comics). Even through the TOS movies — sure, he has adventures, but from TMP to TUC, can you arguably say his character changed at all? Did he learn anything, grow, lose anything? David’s death affected him for all of 30 seconds, it seemed like!

So if anything, this movie is properly filling in Kirk’s history. Maybe it is changed a little, but for once, we’re seeing a Trek character being forged, instead of merely “always there, always the same.” And that’s a Good Thing.

1107. hitch1969© is back in 2008. - December 15, 2008

hey the bright side – to all the folks who hated kirk’s death in generations……

i think that the orscter has fixed that for ya!!!

reset button, baby. alternate timeline.

san francisco becomes iowa, space becomes the ground. no finney, no kodos, no mitchell… but no death of james t kirk!!!

i think it’s an OK trade.

=h=

1108. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 15, 2008

#1099 BaronByng: And, once again, you demonstrate that you haven’t the least grasp of my (tentative) objections, nor of Alex’s objections, nor of Mang’s objections. You try to paint the triad of us with this broad canonista brush, when not a single one of us is screaming for slavish greebly-placement as your straw man so heartily wishes us to be.

And, even if one of us was–say, I was sitting here ranting because the Enterprise in the movie was built on Earth and the Enterprise was built in space, dammit! (note: I do not think this, and, even if I did, I wouldn’t care)–where the devil do you get off telling me to jump ship on the franchise? I’ve been as long as you have, quite possibly longer, and I’m at least as eloquent and witty as you are, so what makes your contributions to this Orci-forsaken comment thread any more important than mine? Sure, the canonistas are definitely fighting a lost cause–I quite concede that. But then telling them to get out, stay home, and stop stinking up the fandom with their heretical thoughts? You’ve got no right to do that.

If you want a site where nobody ever complains or discusses anything about any part of Star Trek that you like, and you’re just going to carp and complain about anyone who comments in a way you don’t like, please… spare the rest of us. Go start “BaronByngsTrekViews.com.” I’ll even read it.

In general:

Online fans have been telling other fans to “STAY HOME!” or “GET OUT!” or “TURN OFF THE TV!” since DS9 came out, and it’s probably been going on offline for a lot longer than that. I’ve personally watched it happen through Voyager, through Enterprise, through the fan film years (and I speak as a huge fan of all three who always disagreed with the bashers) and now I’m seeing it with this movie. It doesn’t help anything to tell another fan of Trek to call it quits. In fact, sometimes, those fans *do* quit–and a lot of people on the fence who weren’t sure until they saw how the fan was treated quit along with. In the last fifteen years, where has that gotten us as a franchise?

It reflects much more poorly on the person making the demands than the one being shouted at.

I’m sorry; this has ceased to be a comment on the movie and has evolved into a general comment on fandom conduct. Probably more appropriate in a different thread.

1109. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 15, 2008

There is another elephant in the room.

Why is Spock (aparantly) working on a Time Ship to begin with?
To save Kirk?

The Gaurdian of Forever would make for a far more logical choice as a Star Trek inspired Alternate Timeine “vehicle.” Would not Spock use the GOF to save Kirk at Verandan III? Why not? IMO the GOF would make for a better Star Trek plotline. Or, are we not supposed to remember one of all of Trek’s alltime best episodes.

Also, if an evovled species can develop a Time Ship, or QM ship (?), that us capable of destroying all theorized Unvierses, would’nt that have already happened somewhere already in the universe already?

Why not?

I say it can’t happen. It’s just not logical and just too fantastic an idea.

1110. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 15, 2008

Munch on that, Trekdom.

By the way, I saw Dark Knight again last night. I am really liking it more after a third viewing. Kinda hoping for the same with Trek, that it keeps getting better after repeated viewings. Spidey III was like that also.

1111. McCoy - December 15, 2008

1099: BaronByng

“A saucer, two nacelles, a neck and an engineering section are canon”

Nope. Sorry. Not close enough. But why are you concerned about canon at all? You seem to be completely open to anything.
____________

“— as is the general layout of the bridge. I don’t consider the details canon. Sure, there are people who have spent a lot of time rationalizing the placement of every little greebly, and a lot of it makes sense functionally, but the rest of it comes down to aesthetics.”

Well, the details are canon too. That would be 100% canon. I am not personally asking for 100% canon but I would have like something much closer than what we have. In terms of aesthetics, I think the new bridge looks like something from the 80′s rather than the future. When I say I don’t like the bridge, it’s not just about TOS canon. They failed on both levels (IMO).
____________

“Let’s face it, the TMP Enterprise was created specifically to look great on a big screen, with an updated aesthetic. It is equally “un-canon” compared to the original. You can’t deny that part of the appeal of TMP was to see the ‘new’ Enterprise, wasn’t it?”

TMP bridge was fine. The characters were moving forward in the timeline. It didn’t matter what they did. However, I think they did a great job. All the designs in TMP felt like the **real** future to me back then…and actually still do. I can appreciate good design. JJ’s look is not working for me. The 1701-A Enterprise is the best Enterprise design to date. Bar-none. If they had started with that ship and retro added rounded nacells to better match the old series, I could have lived with it for this film. It would not have been TOS canon, but it would have made some degree of sense.
____________

“The bridge, to me, is actually conservative — in 237 years I would expect completely different user interface paradigms — at least Minority Report type stuff…for instance, why does everyone have to face the screen? Why is there a screen at all, and not full-on direct-to-brain visualizations or something? — but that said, the bridge looks like a Starfleet vessel, everyone’s sitting in the right places…in fact it’s BIGGER…the way you would expect the command deck of a starship to be, which to me HELPS the process of ’suspension of disbelief’. I would find it much harder to believe a cramped cardboard set with Eames-era design cues.”

What you are asking for is fine, in any other starship movie. But if you are designing a Trek film, with the Enterprise, you have to stick with what came before (or something much closer). With computers running most of the ship, I think you can hardly make the argument that the bridge needs to be bigger than TOS. And the lights….OMG.
____________

“In general, when I talk about Trek being a ’storytelling framework,’ it’s not about the specifics of costumes or even what the ships look like. It’s a mythological framework about exploration, ideals, friendship, and how humanity and empathy is tested when it comes up against fascinating ‘what if’ situations. There are certain elements of that mythology (characters, ‘magical items’ like phasers, transporters, etc.) that are core to the story and others that, to me, are free to be discarded or reinvented.”

Well. Hmmm. If are taste-testing several brown sodas, it’s gonna be pretty darn hard to tell the difference without their cans. There’s a lot of cola out there—and there’s a lot of sci-fi out there. I happen to think that you need visual elements from the past to brand it as Trek. Also, if the “storytelling framework” is the only key for you, then you’d probably be just as happy if the set and ships designs were closer to the originals. You would never know. You still get your story.
____________

“I believe in this movie. I believe it’s gonna be really good, and I’m excited about it for many different reasons.
When I hear people grousing because it’s not a literalist interpretation of a 1966 television show, it depresses me. It’s religious fundamentalism — appealing to a claimed Higher Authority, selectively picking and choosing a set of Rules to obey and things to Memorize, ultimately in order to feel like one is better than others…I’m not better than any other Trekker, but dammit, Jim, at a certain point people’s obsessive-compulsive Need To Keep Canon’s Precious Bodily Fluids Pure just makes it not fun anymore.”

Dude. It’s not a religion. Just design. If you are so open to other designs….watch some old episodes of ‘Buck Rogers in the 25th Century’. They have stories.

1112. krikzil - December 15, 2008

#1102 — 2 of my physicist friends said much the same thing to me.

1113. Cagerattler - December 15, 2008

#1102 (Atlantians)i hear you! you are not alone…see #1040

1114. Xai - December 15, 2008

1102. Atlantians – December 15, 2008

You thought all questions would be answered?

1115. Ensign Fox - December 15, 2008

What if . . . in the new Abrams timeline Kirk lives on and didn’t die a somewhat pointless death at the hands of Dr, Soran. At the cost of all that had come before, so that Kirk can fulfill his best destiny, for the greater good of all. If I were Spock, I would be willing to do it. “To put right what once went wrong” to quote an old show. But as Spock I would have done it for my friend. Kirk. It would be a very human thing to do . . .

1116. realtrekkie - December 15, 2008

fu<k this. I, for one, will boycott this movie.

Gene Roddenberry is spinning in his grave.

To emphsise, F|_|CK JJ.

1117. boborci - December 15, 2008

1116. realtrekkie – December 15, 2008
fu<k this. I, for one, will boycott this movie.

Gene Roddenberry is spinning in his grave.

To emphsise, F|_|CK JJ.

I feel slighted! Why don’t I get a F[_]CK OFF?

1118. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 15, 2008

1116. realtrekkie

Your comment should have provided at least one constructive criticism.

I feel your pain. But I’d wait and see first.

1119. thorsten - December 15, 2008

@1117…

well, life is a mystery box, youll never get what you want if you rip it open ;))

1120. Harry Ballz - December 15, 2008

Bob

I know you have a keen sense of humour, but I am truly surprised that you would even respond to #1116……what, had a glass or two of wine tonight and feeling……..playful?

1121. Anthony Pascale - December 15, 2008

Wow, ‘realtrekkie’ makes his first post by breaking every rule we have here.

Warning for flaming and using profanity and trying get away with it, also ‘realtrekkie’ is not a valid name, everyone is a real trekkie here and you do not have the market cornered

I suggest you find a way to discuss Star Trek and not just throw bombs and your computer

1122. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 15, 2008

I did not wish to infer that I would be as harsh as 1116.

Even if the movie is as bad as Superman Returns.

1123. Anthony Pascale - December 15, 2008

RE: Roddenberry
Again I have also warned people on this site for speaking for the dead. No one here knows what Gene Roddenberry would say or think, except maybe those who knew him well.

however we do know somethings he said in the past which are interesting in context today:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/02/27/roddenberry-considered-tos-prequel-for-tmp/

http://trekmovie.com/2008/03/06/more-from-roddenberry-on-treks-future-after-him-recasting/

1124. sean - December 16, 2008

I can think of a very simple reason why they didn’t do a ‘Kirk on the Farragut’ story. 17 Star Trek fans would show up and love it, and everyone else in the theatre would say “Where’s the guy with the ears? Why isn’t that Irish guy complaining about the engines? What happened to that little guy that says ‘Nuclear Wessels’?”

1125. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 16, 2008

Holy pants, Mr. Orci’s still here.

Are you seriously reading *everything*? *I’m* able to do that because I’m a college student who’s supposed to be studying for finals, and I find myself ten times more interested in these other things when finals are pressing, but you’re a highly successful Hollywood professional! How are you even still *here* after three days of this?

I mean… pants, dude!

1126. Meteo - December 16, 2008

Bob Orci:

I treat the new movie as being Sigma universe, with my regular Trek continuity as being Eta.

1127. Meteo - December 16, 2008

#11:
Trek is actually like religion in ONE way:

There are moderates, and there are the fundamentalists.

F*** the fundamentalists.

1128. thorsten - December 16, 2008

All I have to say about all of this quantum entanglement is, coming back in time, changing history, it’s cheating!

;))

1129. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 16, 2008

#1127 Meteo:

And as in all communities, there are also small-minded people incapable of conversation, and intellects. That for illustrating this point for the 47th time this thread.

1130. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 16, 2008

And, Thorsten, I think you’re thinking of something else. Quantum entanglement is even wilder crazy stuff than QM is.

In fact, it’s precisely crazy enough that they need to do an episode on it. :P

1131. McCoy - December 16, 2008

1127 “#11:
Trek is actually like religion in ONE way: There are moderates, and there are the fundamentalists. F*** the fundamentalists.”

You left out the far left side of the spectrum: the progressives. People who jump all over anything that comes out with the name “Trek” on it. The people that can’t help themselves but to act as cheerleaders for anything new—despite quality—and are quick to put down others for varied opinions.

1132. thorsten - December 16, 2008

@1130…

you are right, Wowbagger, but its a trick I learned from an old friend…

1133. (The much more real) McCoy - December 16, 2008

Sorry. Didn’t mean to imply that this film is low-quality :o)

1134. Boborci - December 16, 2008

1125. James Heaney – Wowbagger – December 16, 2008
Holy pants, Mr. Orci’s still here.

Are you seriously reading *everything*? *I’m* able to do that because I’m a college student who’s supposed to be studying for finals, and I find myself ten times more interested in these other things when finals are pressing, but you’re a highly successful Hollywood professional! How are you even still *here* after three days of this?

I mean… pants, dude!

I need help! I am a GEEEEEK

1135. thorsten - December 16, 2008

@1134…
hah, Bob, don’t you have to produce 2:22 or something?

;))

1136. thorsten - December 16, 2008

And talking about the past, and the future, and certain things that never change, when Spock Prime says “to stop Nero, you alone must take command of your ship” to young Kirk proof enough that he will become the character we all loved for generations, with or without cruising the galaxy on ye olde Farragut?

1137. thorsten - December 16, 2008

hmm, what I tried to say was:

And talking about the past, and the future, and certain things that never change, IS’NT when Spock Prime says “to stop Nero, you alone must take command of your ship” to young Kirk, proof enough that he will become the character we all loved for generations, with or without cruising the galaxy on ye olde Farragut?

1138. Ensign Fox - December 16, 2008

either way, it’s a staggering thought . . .

1139. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 16, 2008

#1135 Thorsten: I’m going to bed, but I’ll be back tomorrow! The chat guys said that their community was better than ours, just because it happens to have its own tab on the site. I think they’re dead wrong.

But, seriously, just to clarify… quantum entanglement has *not* been mentioned by anyone but you, and it’s *not* part of the movie as of last we heard?

Also on a serious note: I’m reading #1065 again, and, as I do with everything Mr. Orci says, I’m reading wayyyy too heavily into it. Here’s what I’m getting out of it this time, and put big OrciText Speculation Sirens on my next bit here:

It seems to me that Mr. Orci is saying that the movie merely calls for “time travel” (I will abbreviate this as “TT”), and it isn’t necessarily clear from the movie itself whether they’re using classical model or QM-model TT. Now, both of those have huge precedent in Trek TT models (although, if we’re being honest, the *most* common Trek TT model is the “Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey” model… see here if you’re not familiar with the term fan: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TimeyWimeyBall . But I digress). What’s more, the QM model has been gaining ground in recent years in arguments that attempt to find a “grand unified theory” of Trek TT.

Some Trekkies prior to this have, in fact, made almost the exact same argument that Mr. Orci does here: that all Trek TT in history has all been on the QM model, and such episodes as “City on the Edge” and “The Voyage Home” didn’t fix changes to the past (which is impossible under the QM model), but merely created new timelines and moved our “prime” universe into that new timeline. Brannon Braga used something like this case to justify “Regeneration” (although he didn’t need to; Braga never knew canon well enough to know how far he needed to go in justifying certain things).

Now, I’ve always hated that idea, for all the reasons I’m uncomfortable with it here: it makes time travel seem futile, and our characters so empty, if we know they’re just copies of copies of copies unwittingly fleeing from their timelines’ problems rather than fixing them. But that’s not my point.

My point is that, based on #1065, I doubt that the actual movie makes any claim as to the model of time travel used, which means that it is left to us, the canon-raving hardcores, to decide whether ST09 uses a classical or a QM model. Mr. Orci offered this explanation as the most *plausible,* in his opinion, because it not only explains the movie’s visual and historical inconsistencies, but also explains every Trek time travel inconsistency in history. However, if we proponents of the classical model choose to justify the inconsistencies without resorting to a parallel universe, then what I’m reading out of Mr. Orci’s post is that the movie will allow us to do that, too. To boil it down to a sentence: my sense is that the new movie will *not* canonize this “alternate branching universe” theory and sail on into the future able to blithely ignore all the canon it left behind in the so-called “Prime” universe. It will leave that open as a possibility, and it may even be the explanation Mr. Orci endorses, but it sounds like the movie doesn’t force us to draw that (rather disturbing) conclusion.

Now, if that’s the case, then there’s no problem here whatsoever, at least not for me. The interview offers an explanation that satisfies the visual canonistas, but we who care mainly about sticking to established character histories can come up with our own explanation, and the actual *canon* on the point–the movie–will be ambiguous enough to allow us to argue the point for decades to come!

Did that make any sense at all, or should I have just gone to bed before I started? If it DID make sense, what do you think? Am I right? Will we proponents of the classical model, the “Yesterday’s Enterprise” model, still have an out? Has all my worrying these last few days been in vain?

And, Thorsten is 2:22 a movie… or is it the gorram time of the morning that Mr. Orci was online surfing TrekMovie.com? :P

1140. thorsten - December 16, 2008

Wowbagger, to start with the easy part, yep, 2:22 is a movie. A mystery thriller about a girl finding out about a murder on her day of birth that leads into a pattern in her life that is repeating itself daily… like a time loop ;))

And about the quantum entanglement, I was only joking and used the lines of Kirk and Pock Prime from the Scotty/Transwarp Beaming sequence…

Regarding 1065, Bob explained here again that JJ asked for the inclusion of all previous Trek canon into the movie by TT… So they asked themselves what flavor of TT to use. That desision is interesting in itself, because as earlier movies proved, the writers got away with timeline reset quite often. So my guess is that Orci/Kurtzman and Lindelof decided to go the Quantum way to reach a clean break, regarding earlier TT inconsistencies.

In my regard, all TT creates new timelines, just the time travellers are aware of the fact that they switch between them, and that will become the TT of choice for the Trekverse for the time being…

1141. thorsten - December 16, 2008

I like your idea about the Wibbly Wobbly Timey Wimey stuff, and beliebe that you are on the right track here. When Spock Prime meets Kirk on Iceplanet X he will explain that he comes from the future, but I don’t expect him to explain to Jim Kirk the physics involved… the general audience will not care, Bob Orci just dropped this whole QMTT for us geeks to chew on. And while some folks use it to bash the new Trek further, I like it. But on the other hand, everybody likes to stay with the characters he invested in. I always went with the Trek flow that a time-travelling away team always returns as themselves to the timeline the episode/movie started in, regardless if they jumped through the Guardian™ or slingshot around some G-Type Star.

In the end, it’s just all about turning the Frozen Donkey Wheel in the right direction ;))

http://lostpedia.com/images/f/ff/FDK.jpg

1142. Sam - December 16, 2008

star trek is orsem!

1143. Fifthrate - December 16, 2008

Quantum schmontum all I care is what I feel like after seeing the movie.

1144. Alex Rosenzweig - December 16, 2008

#1124 – “I can think of a very simple reason why they didn’t do a ‘Kirk on the Farragut’ story. 17 Star Trek fans would show up and love it, and everyone else in the theatre would say “Where’s the guy with the ears? Why isn’t that Irish guy complaining about the engines? What happened to that little guy that says ‘Nuclear Wessels’?” ”

I don’t think that’s true, really, especially if the point is to reach new fans and tell an origin story. (i.e., the fact that there is an already-existing backstory wouldn’t play into the perceptions of the new audience, unless the new story relied in some way on the audience already knowing that backstory, and frankly, I’d trust writers like Bob and Alex not to make that mistake.) I also don’t think the optimal approach is “Kirk on Farragut”. It’d be Kirk *after* Farragut, getting on the course that will lead him to the Enterprise. I think that Spock, probably McCoy, and the Enterprise would be important to see, and I suggested, up-thread, how to link both Spock and the Enterprise (not to mention Pike and maybe even Scotty) to this concept.

Beyond that, it’s the story of how those three key characters came together. If one really feels the need to include Sulu, Chekov, and Uhura, have a coda at the end leading into Kirk’s command, and have all the main characters in place at that point. And/or have them come in during the ourse of the story, as the timeframe approaches the beginning of TOS (again, assuming a movie that isn’t necessarily simple and linear in structure).

I think there are creative ways to include all the main characters, with the added benefit of mixing things up so that those characters aren’t necessarily seen just as we’d always seen them until nearly the end of the picture. Much like the actual film, it could be a story of how the characters came together, just fitting a bit more comfortably in what we know.

But we shall see what the actual movie brings. :)

1145. Alex Rosenzweig - December 16, 2008

#1137 – “And talking about the past, and the future, and certain things that never change, IS’NT when Spock Prime says “to stop Nero, you alone must take command of your ship” to young Kirk, proof enough that he will become the character we all loved for generations, with or without cruising the galaxy on ye olde Farragut?”

Really not. If the Enterprise were a privateer, sure. But we are still talking about a spacegoing semi-military, and a character who has been shown to have gotten where he was by having a career and being very, very good at it. Simply having Spock play the role of the old wizard who makes proclamations and the character(s) must obey is not, by itself, satisfactory.

But… What if this incident and Spock Prime’s comments are what set undisciplined young Kirk on the path to gaining focus and growing into the command that must become his later? Are we wrong in assuming it all happens at once?

1146. thorsten - December 16, 2008

@1144…

at the end of the bar scene, when Pike talks sense into Kirk and tells him “you can be an officer in 4 years and have your own ship in 8…”, and Kirk shows up the next day to enter the shuttle to academy and replies “Four years? I’ll do it in three”, that sets off a motion. So we see him 3 years later fighting Nero, and saving the Enterprise, and maybe Vulcan. Pike makes him First Officer under Spock then, battlefield promotion. But there is a good chance that Kirk serves on the Farragut for some time onward.

Because in a 150 million dollar movie, no line to the general audience is spoken in vain.

1147. thorsten - December 16, 2008

@1145…

Thanks, Alex, this leads up to my 1146 quite nicely ;))

1148. Alex Rosenzweig - December 16, 2008

#1146 – Yup. I think that in our drive to connect the dots, we may be assuming that the movie goes immediately from the end of the incident at Vulcan to Kirk taking permanent command of Enterprise. But if there’s a time-jump there, there might be room for a number of things that we’ve been assuming don’t happen at all. If our assumption here is wrong, that could redraw the map.

1149. thorsten - December 16, 2008

@1148…

Okay, Alex, I doubt that Jim Kirk will become Captain of the Enterprise straight after the end of the Vulcan crisis…

If “buckle up” is at the end of the movie, then there has to be a gap between it and the events at Vulcan…

1150. Alex Rosenzweig - December 16, 2008

#1147 – I think our perceptions are getting similar here. :) Gotta admit, Bob O.’s vague comment about not being sure if the movie would preclude the Farragut started me thinking that there may well be more going on than some folks have been assuming.

In terms of a middle ground interpretation, if there’s room for the Farragut’s events to happen, even if not exactly 11 years prior to “Obsession”, it could be a reasonable compromise.

1151. thorsten - December 16, 2008

That’s it Alex, you just have to deduct the years Kirk hangs around in Iowa, like 3 or 4, before he enters the Academy. That leaves enough time for a trip on the Farragut and maybe even the USS Republic ;))

1152. 750 Mang - December 16, 2008

Let’s face it folks. To the new creative team “getting Star Trek” right is about who’s the computer voice, not our collective knowledge of the history of it’s characters.

Sad but true.

“He chose poorly.” … damn that’s not from Star Trek either.

1153. McCoy - December 16, 2008

Since time travel is involved, I guess we don’t really know how many Enterprises are involved in the film. That would be a cool question to pose.

1154. thorsten - December 16, 2008

@1153… I would think the one from Ryan Church is it, McCoy…

1155. Alex Rosenzweig - December 16, 2008

#1153, 1154 – A while back, there was a rumor that we’d see several timelines, with variations on the Enterprise. It suggested that in one timeline, the Enterprise was going to be a full-on warship.

That said, we’ve heard nothing about that rumor for quite some time, and even if it’s accurate, it may also be that what we’ll see are variations on the Church design.

I just don’t get the feeling that the whole reveal of the Enterprise that we’ve seen is entirely misdirection. ;)

1156. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 16, 2008

Although, don’t forget, these ARE the producers of Alias.

1157. McCoy - December 16, 2008

1154

“… I would think the one from Ryan Church is it, McCoy…”

:o( If the intel from the theater supports that, then I am a 3rd, 4th or 5th week viewer.

1158. McCoy - December 16, 2008

If they somehow visually “admit” that my childhood did in fact occur (i.e. show me the classic E somewhere in the film) I would be better able to have more “fun” with even an altered timeline Trek. Although I would **still** dislike the bridge and the JJ/Church designs. If I can’t have higher-detailed classic sets and ships, at least give me something that looks like it’s from the future. I am not getting that.

1159. Dennis Bailey - December 16, 2008

#1157: “( If the intel from the theater supports that, then I am a 3rd, 4th or 5th week viewer.”

That’s good – it always helps a film to be pulling in new viewers even after the first few weeks. ;)

1160. Xai - December 16, 2008

the same 5 or 6 still in here taking swings at Orci?

1161. Xai - December 16, 2008

#1157 McCoy

re: 3rd, 4th, 5th….

Don’t take this as callous… but what are we supposed to take away from the statement? You’ve made it plain several times that you don’t approve of many things about this film…what more is there to know?

1162. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 16, 2008

#1160 Xai: Actually, at this point, we’re having a conversation, and a pretty good one, at that. At least, that’s how I see it. When Mr. Orci jumps in, he brings his own special brand of fun, and it sure as heck gets the rest of us excited, but the same five or six of us are pretty much hanging out enjoying ourselves. You should join us!

McCoy: I would love to see the classic E featured somewhere in the movie, too, but, if we don’t, I’m okay with that. Don’t take this the wrong way, because I sympathize with you in a lot of other ways, but why *are* the visuals so important to you? Every iteration of Trek has changed the visuals, sometimes in wildly unlikely ways (I *still* think the overhaul of the Big E in TMP was absurdly complicated – far too complete a restructuring to be believable in-universe), and it’s basically been acknowledged by everyone in the history of the production staff right back to Gene that Trek just does its best to make things look cool within the loose framework of what’s come before. They don’t make a difference to the characters’ souls or any of what they actually do–any of what makes Trek great. So, for me, bad visuals are a *sign* of something wrong (if they look too toy-like, for instance I have to wonder if the designers missed the point of Trek as a whole), but they are in no way *themselves* something wrong.

I just want to wrap my head around your point of view on this.

1163. BaronByng - December 17, 2008

If comments are still open,

James Heaney, please accept my apology. I did rather tar you too swiftly with a very broad brush. You are a pretty open-minded person (and a good writer, to boot).

To just touch on the ‘religion’ note for a second, mostly in response to The Much More Real McCoy, there might be classicists on one side, and people who are open to new interpretations on the other, but the broad majority of fans are in the middle somewhere. (Where do those people who do The Nitpickers’ Guides fit?)

If I come down too hard on naysayers, it’s because I really feel for the creators of this movie. They’re not looking to knock out yet another Movie Of The Week, TV-budgeted installment of Star Trek on the big screen — they have much bigger ambitions.

When they say they’re making a movie for people who like movies, I am heartened. By that I take it to mean far more superbly composed shots and sequences — pure visual spectacle — characters that we get to know and are worth caring about, a well-told story with crisp, memorable dialogue. Stuff that can stand up to the epics — Ben-Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, The Empire Strikes Back, Kurosawa’s Ran…

Talking numbers: with a $150M budget, Trek 2009 is just shy of The Dark Knight’s territory. That film has currently grossed over $500M domestically alone, and will likely pull in close to $1B worldwide.

Even adjusting for inflation, etc, the highest any Trek film has grossed is in the $200M range, usually on budgets in the tens of millions. (Interestingly, The Wrath of Khan had a mere $12M budget: Insurrection had $70M).

Speaking not just as a creative but as a business franchise, Trek has to break out of the niche where it appeals to fans only. I don’t think Paramount wants to fritter away cash on trying to sell the public on new characters that have little or no recognition or appeal, as that route has proven to have diminishing returns. Hence, a fresh take on old characters and a well-known ship.

I think it’s an enormous risk, both creatively and from a business point of view, but the team in charge has delivered a constant stream of successes on both the small and big screen. They’ve also shown themselves (thanks Bob Orci for reading through all this) to care about what we think. I don’t think we’re going to be disappointed.

So no, I’m not going to just accept anything that is handed to us. I have reason and judgement to believe that it’s going to be good, and I like what I’ve read and seen so far.

1164. Brian - December 17, 2008

I’ll reserve final judgment until I see the film, but based on what I’ve read so far I have serious concerns. Like many people, I think Star Trek relies way too much on time travel as a plot device, and I think the upcoming movie crosses the line in that regard. We want to see the Star Trek universe that we all know and love, not some new conveniently-invented one with a hand-wavy argument claiming to be based on quantum mechanics. I seriously hope to see Kirk on the Farrugut, Pike on Enterprise and everything hunky dory in terms of canon by the end of the new movie.

1165. Julien - December 17, 2008

This movie will be terrible. It would be nice, but it will hurt badly the whole Star Trek saga for sure.
Just think about it! From now on, anyone can make anything in Star Trek, he just have to say “this is parallel” and everything is all right?! This isn’t good at all. And in the end, Star Trek will merge with Sliders and noone will know which reality is the original, and which ones are parallels.
It’s also possible that in the not-so-far future people will forget about the original Star Trek (TOS, TAS, TMP) just because other parallel TOS/TAS/TMP realities are shinier or nicer just because they were created by CG technology.
This movie will come destruction to the Trek universe. Maybe not when it will be released, but sooner or later it will cause huge troubles.

1166. Harry Ballz - December 17, 2008

#1165 “sooner or later it will cause huge troubles”

Which will lead, as Orci would point out, to an alternate reality Star Trek television episode entitled, “The Tribble With Troubles”.

Bizarre, oh, indeed!

(runs and hides)

1167. thorsten - December 17, 2008

Thank you for that closing argument, Harry!

;))

1168. Dennis Bailey - December 17, 2008

#1165: “This movie will be terrible. It would be nice, but it will hurt badly the whole Star Trek saga for sure.”

To paraphrase Picard (nerd alert!) in “The Neutral Zone:”

“Trek’s already dead. What more could happen to it?”

1169. thorsten - December 17, 2008

I disagree, Dennis. It is more alive than in the last decade… because since Generations 1994, Kirk is back in the game!

1170. USS TRINOMA - NCC 0278 - December 17, 2008

It would really be excitin to see Bob, JJ, and the gang do something with the mirror universe. Star Trek: Mirror Universe has so much potential. Bob, how does the mirror universe fits with QM? The mirror universe is just the opposite.

1171. thorsten - December 17, 2008

Not directly quantum-related, but WIRED reports that Dark Energy Could Be Einstein’s Cosmological Constant…

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/dark-energy-ein.html

1172. Alex Rosenzweig - December 17, 2008

1168 – As always, it seems that reports of Trek’s death remain greatly exaggerated. ;)

1173. YARN - December 17, 2008

1170.

How do you know that the Mirror Universe is the opposite of QM?

1174. sean - December 17, 2008

RE: #1165

Isn’t it nice to have posters like 1165? It sort of puts whatever ‘differences’ the rest of us might have into perspective.

1175. thorsten - December 17, 2008

@1173… The Mirror Uni is just another one of the ManyWorlds™ in our direct neighborhood… and of course there are lots of different ones.

1176. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 17, 2008

#1163: Apology enthusiastically accepted.

I’m so strident about it because I used to do it, too. Early seasons of Enterprise, I would just say, “Fine. Don’t like it; switch off.”

And they did.

I really do have an enormous amount of sympathy for what you’re saying, and I agree with the vast majority. Thanks for an open mind.

Now, on topic, #1165 may have mild-to-serious challenges using the English language, but he does put his finger on one of the ancillary concerns I’m seeing, and which I somewhat feel–that this is going to be Star Trek’s version of Crisis on Infinite Earths. Whatever its virtues (I would say there aren’t many, but that’s for another comment), Crisis really did screw up the DC ‘verse, and, rather than cleaning the continuity, it created a continuity headache that continues to worsen right down to this day.

Personally, though, having discussed the issue at enormous length here and having heard what I’ve heard from The Bob, I don’t think that’s a serious worry for ST09. The main focus of the movie will be the new movie, which is where it should be, and, aside from references and basic plot-motivated mechanics, the canon and QM and all this crazy continuity stuff will be largely left to the side, where it can’t do any serious damage to itself or the movie. Also as it should be, I think.

1177. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 17, 2008

#1175 Thorsten: Right on.

I would add, however, that STAR TREK: MIRROR UNIVERSE is a terrible idea for a number of reasons long-before discussed.

Sorry, Trinoca. I gotta say what I believe. :P

1178. BK613 - December 17, 2008

1166
And an angst-ridden tribble is troubling, because you never know if the thing is crying or peeing on your shoulder.

:-)

1179. Harry Ballz - December 17, 2008

The trouble with a tribble
Is that it tends to dribble
You don’t know if it’s pee
Or crying caused by glee
But, watch out, they nibble!

1180. jalewis - December 17, 2008

Did I miss something? The Star Trek story never changed! Right?! The Star Trek history is the history! Right?! I understand about the quantum mechanics and the parallel universes, and all the things that physics theories are made of, but for the sake of good solid Trek History, can we just stick with the “prime timeline” for just a couple of hours and tell the story as it should be told? (Seeing how alot of us left our quantum mechanics books at home anyway!) When Star Trek premiered in 1966, most of us (baby boomers) couldn’t even spell quantum, much less—understand it! To be really honest, I think this whole parallel universe concept, being discussed here, is just an excuse for NOT holding true to the Star Trek canon for fear of “Lack of appeal” to the age 30 and younger group! But how shallow of me, I forgot that it’s not about holding true to anything(Star Trek) , or to anyone(Roddenberry/The Fans/Serious Movie Viewers), it’s about doing what needs to be done in order to create that “Appeal to Make the Most Money as Possible on that opening weekend!!” Yep, that old “more bang for your buck” concept always works! “Just blow’em a little smoke, and they’ll see things our way every time”, is what I’ve always heard. Some foresightful genius thought the same about this movie—apparently. Well, that’s another kind of physics that everyone understands in all universes! It’s like going to see a superman movie, and he’s dressed like Liberace! The quantum mechanics involved makes it right—right? NO? YES? If the whole quantum mechanics thing doesn’t work, then, the appeal factor kicks in! It’ll make more money! Just change the story! So go ahead and muddle it, tweak it, explain it away, and scientifically justify it—Why heck, blatantly disregard the whole original story, and we’ll pay to see it anyway—right? That’s what the money mongers are counting on. I could care less about the “quantum mechanics” and the “parallel universes” ! I just want to know, is there anyone out there that can produce a Star Trek prequel that will hold to the “Prime Timeline” of this universe and hold to the dream of Gene Roddenberry? And doing it without regard for the “Money” prime timeline! Okay, they win. I’m going to see the movie, and hope that I’ll have to eat my words. But I doubt it! (maybe I will in a parallel universe!)

1181. thorsten - December 17, 2008

@1180…

jalewis, you have to break down the whole quantum thingy to a personal level. Every single decision you made today, moved you into another timeline. Every single decision created a new bubbleuniverse. Tha’s the way it works.

1182. jalewis - December 17, 2008

Yeah–but boogers are boogers!

1183. thorsten - December 17, 2008

are you comparing the many worlds theorem to a piece of dried nasal mucus, jalewis?

McCoy: Where are we going?
Kirk: Where they went.
McCoy: Suppose they went *nowhere*?
Kirk: Then this will be your big chance to get away from it all.

1184. alien - December 17, 2008

@1182

Way to go jalewis! Don’t let these suedo-brainiac types scare you! I get what you’re saying—boogers are green no matter what universe their in!! Live long and prosper brother!

1185. Harry Ballz - December 17, 2008

What did Scotty say when he saw the booger?

A: It’s green!

1186. Disgusted - December 17, 2008

I agree with Jordan (#15). At least have the courage to admit its a reboot. Lame!

1187. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 17, 2008

I hope TM does not change its format until well after the premier.

I want to see one of these articles go to 1,701 posts!

1188. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 17, 2008

Well, we’ve officially slipped to the very bottom of Page One.

I fear this comment thread is not long for this world of activity. But 1701 comments would be awesome. If this one doesn’t make it, nothing will until the premiere, I think.

1189. BK613 - December 17, 2008

1183
Hmmm here’s a thought:
Using the transporter creates parallel universes.

Here’s another:
How could you tell the difference between the way the transporter is shown to work and the following?

“Energize”
Transportee original dies instantly in the energy conversion process.*
Energy beamed to destination,
Transportee copy (complete with memories) emerges from the energy conversion process.

*(i.e, that is the end of the end of the original’s experiences)

1187
This thread will probably die when the next news article pushes it off the front page.

1190. BK613 - December 17, 2008

^^
oops too many “the ends” in there

1191. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 17, 2008

That’s why I would really like the Transporter to be tied to the Warp field.

Killing someone to move them is a bad idea.

1192. thorsten - December 18, 2008

@1191…

I guess it freaks you out only the first time… except for McCoy of course.

But here is an interesting take on the concept by James Patrick Kelly…

http://www.jimkelly.net/index.php?Itemid=50&id=35&option=com_content&task=view

1193. LordCheeseCakeBreath - December 18, 2008

If the Kelvin is from the original Trek universe why does it look like its from the alternate timeline? The glowing dish and all.

1194. thorsten - December 18, 2008

because as Orci said, there are some things they would have changed anyway… So the look of the Kelvin is emulated from the ENTERPRISE Universe of Trek…

1195. thorsten - December 18, 2008

@1190…

BK, the human adventure is just beginning ;))

1196. The Great Geek Manual » Geek Media Round-Up: December 18, 2008 - December 18, 2008

[...] Orci explains How The New Star Trek Movie Fits With Trek Canon. [...]

1197. BK613 - December 18, 2008

1195
then we’ve come full circle :-)

1198. MIKEY M - December 18, 2008

Is there a flux capacitor in this movie?

1199. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 18, 2008

191

“Think Like A Dinosaur,” is the the essay you are referring too?

Looks like it’s $15 bucks and only through his website.
You’ll have to wet my a bit more.

WHO WILL BE #200? BOB?

1200. thorsten - December 18, 2008

“Think Like A Dinosaur” was adapted as an episode for The Outer Limits, it is a Transporter story with a bad twist…

Here is the synopsis…

http://www.theouterlimits.com/episodes/season7/711.htm

The Audiobook is here for $1.95,
the ebook here for 99 Cent…

http://stanza.fictionwise.com/ebooks/Ebook57.htm

It is an excellent story that really makes you thinks twice about beaming up and down all the time ;))

1201. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 18, 2008

Way to go, Thorsten. Ruined the #1200 spot we were saving for THE BOB.

I haven’t noticed anything unusual about the Kelvin. It’s an early 23rd-century ship, placed about evenly between “Terra Prime” and “WNMHGB,” so it stands to reason that the Kelvin would look like a rough compromise between NX-01 and 1701-NoBloodyABCOrD. Though there may be a few turn-of-the-century design fads (like the glowing deflector dish) that have been discarded by the time of the movie, it fits pretty surprisingly well into the known design lineage.

I thought, anyways.

1202. ctiii - December 18, 2008

Orci’s “paralell timeline” explanation of why things are different is fine and dandy…but if thats the theory they’re going with, couldnt that also explain why Kirk is alive and well in “a” future…making Shatners appearance as post-Nemesis Kirk a possibility?

Sure in the prime timeline, Kirk dies after his fight with Soran, but according to their paralell explanation of their material, in another paralell timeline he would have lived, and if thats a timeline Spock returns to then Kirk might be there to greet him. Why would that be anymore fanboy-ish than them using it to explain why so much of their stuff looks different?

1203. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 18, 2008

1202:

That has been speculated here at TM many times.

I got some hate mail about this one, but I enjoyed writing it…

See my post #24 here…

http://trekmovie.com/2008/07/25/more-star-trek-footage-described-online/

1204. New Star Trek Movie Relies on Long-Time Series Convention | Completely Random Tidbits - December 18, 2008

[...] As a long-time Trekkie, consider me shuddering from the throes of yet another geekasm. Full interview available here. [...]

1205. thorsten - December 19, 2008

@1201… but Wowbagger, I thought we reserved the 1701 spot for Bob?

1206. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 19, 2008

1701 is reserved for the Premier. The first official Star Trek review on TM will be filled to 1701 by noon the next day.

Now, where did I park my time ship?

1207. frank cochrane - December 19, 2008

I’m still pissed with the way they’re changing some things we accept as law of phisycs of space travel in trek’s universe. Watching the trailer the first detail is to see the Enterprise being built in earth’s surface, and i think is was an accepted fact that Enterpise isn’t able to perform atmospheric fligth due its size and weight, that’s why the ship always rely on transporter technology and the shuttles she has inside to deal with any contact on planetary surface. It’s somehing accepted that Enterprise was built on earth’s or mars orbit. The only federation starhip able to perform planetary flight was the voyager, much smaller, streamlined and far more advanced than original constitution class.

1208. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 19, 2008

Voyager was smaller than the original E? Really?

I thought all ships got bigger post TOS. With the exception of the DS9′s Defiant of course.

1209. Chris Basken - December 20, 2008

Rob Orci, I don’t know of you’re still checking this thread, but with all the attention to time-travel science, is there going to be the equivalent attention paid to biological science? Do you have any kind of explanation for how Humans and Vulcans can crossbreed, or are we going with the TOS Preserver (later expanded on in TNG with The Chase) concept?

That is, Vulcans are Humans, genetically, only with localized adaptations to their new planet.

1210. New Star Trek Movie Relies on Long-Time Series Convention - December 20, 2008

[...] As a long-time Trekkie, consider me shuddering from the throes of yet another geekasm. Full interview available here. [...]

1211. Alex Rosenzweig - December 20, 2008

#1207 – “Watching the trailer the first detail is to see the Enterprise being built in earth’s surface, and i think is was an accepted fact that Enterpise isn’t able to perform atmospheric fligth due its size and weight, that’s why the ship always rely on transporter technology and the shuttles she has inside to deal with any contact on planetary surface.”

Unless there’s a launch scene we don’t know about yet, the movie doesn’t necessarily make the claim that Enterprise could get from the ground to orbit *on her own*. If they used heavy-duty antigravs and tug craft, it could be perfectly plausible using mid-23rd Century technology to raise the ship to orbit, where she gets final shipfitting done, and then powers up her own drives.

“It’s somehing accepted that Enterprise was built on earth’s or mars orbit.”

Commonly-accepted, and probably more logical from a vessel construction standpoint. (The very need to have all sorts of support for the massive saucer and drive nacelles in a one-g field makes a ground construction dubious, but… {shrug}) But not canonically-established, and not the only possible way it could have happened.

“The only federation starhip able to perform planetary flight was the voyager, much smaller, streamlined and far more advanced than original constitution class.”

and then

#1208 – “Voyager was smaller than the original E? Really?”

Nope. The original E is said to have been roughly 289 meters long, and Voyager is 344.

Note that both the Defiant and the Nova-classes, along with the Intrepid, apparently have landing capability. The Intrepid may be at the upper size limit of ships that can do so in the late 24th Century, but it’s not unique.

1212. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 20, 2008

Thanks Alex! Good intel all around.

1213. Alex Rosenzweig - December 20, 2008

#1209 – I think it would be exceedingly cool to address the idea, hinted at as far back as the mid-’70s and made semi-canonical (via the use of examples with other pairings) in VOY and ENT, that the crossbreeding could be done with appropriate genetic engineering.

However, I also wonder if that might be extraneous information for the purposes of the film.

1214. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 20, 2008

It would make an interesting scene. Maybe after the explosive intro of the Kelvin and its demise…

…a fade reveals Amanda and Sarek sitting together listening to the final comments from a vulcan genetic engineer. We are at the final stage of the process. Fertilization will commence immediately.” You will have to be ready. They watch on as the engineer gently nudges the final chromosome into its “proper” place.

A complex three dimensional image of the twisting helix is shown building on a holographic projection. A computerized female voice is heard (Majel?) confirming the compatibility of their fertilization.

The Vulcan engineer quickly places a glass dish below the simulator and activates the system. The equipment hums a bit and a clear goo is deposited into the dish. He turns, nods and offers it to Sarek.

Sarek then dips two fingers into the goo and nods to the engineer. Sarek then turns to face Amanda. “Are you prepared?” he asks. The silver haired Amanda warmly smiles. “Yes my love.” she says quitely. She then looks back into his eyes sharply. “No. Not without at least a kiss first.” Sarek looks uncomfortable for a moment but they embrass and exchange a good kiss.

Amanda flashes another winning smile at her husband and raises her two fingers. And they touch. The goo is shown to glow a warm red color between thier fingers as they embrass again.

Fade out.

The next scene is of a young Kirk in school being reprimanded for his “dicipline” problems…

“It IS the Logical thing to do.”
Your

1215. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 20, 2008

SCRAP THOSE LAST TWO LINES!!!!!! ARGH!!!!!

1216. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 20, 2008

Related must see video (esp the last two minutes)…

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/journey-to-babel/3840940671

1217. Chris Basken - December 20, 2008

1213, 1214… All they would need to do is drop a line mentioning the biomolecular tweaking. Or better, a line that hints a genetic heritage between humanoid species in Trek.

1218. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 20, 2008

It would make an interesting scene. Maybe after the explosive intro of the Kelvin and its demise…

Is Kirk born on the Kelvin?

1219. Ricky - December 21, 2008

First post!!1!

Great article. This only makes me want to see it even more.

1220. K.J.Egan - December 23, 2008

interesting , however i wonder if it was even worth revisiting the original in the first place, as you know the enterprise’s mission is” to boldly go were knowone has gone before”.However Iknow that the canon does make it didficult to tell a new star trek story. the aproach may work also we never actualy see cptain Kirks actual back story so we don’t know if it is canon or not,also we never see the original enterprise’es launch in other films so we don’t know if canon was violated by a ground launch.[actualy if the ol prise was launched from the ground woudn’t a better place to launch it from might be Tonapah Nevada. area fifty-one as that area is isolated and used for testing top secret aircraft. any
since the area is ajacent to the old nuclear test range it might be a
better bet for a surface launch, wile the warp drive may not be able to hit the speed af light , at least a warp field migh result in acounter force against gravity reducing is mass and allowing to lift of from the ground.
If fails and there is a core breach.well there is still fifty miles to Los
vegas!

1221. Sid - December 25, 2008

I’m a Star Trek fan and I think the problem with this “quantum” explanation is simple: I as a viewer know ONE timeline which happens to have, for dramatic purposes, intrusions from other universes and paradoxes. The O’Brien from “Visionary”, the 1701 Enterprise that goes back 3 days in time during “The Naked Time”, and so on, all end up back in the ONE timeline that we all know. The new film is basically saying this is an alternate universe.

The reboot is necessary. Unlike the Batman mythos, there haven’t been many alternate origins and interpretations on Trek over the years. Star Trek has been around almost consistently intact or 40 plus years. It would have been just as easy to start from scratch and not infringe (hehe) on what’s already been established since there is no official television or film “origin” for this crew anyway.

1222. john and jana » Where no reasonable person who just likes a good Star Trek episode has gone before - December 28, 2008

[...] to feel as though they have been pummeled on the head, here is a meandering description of what the upcoming Star Trek movie is going to be about as built around the description of quantum physics by a fictional android . . . all this just to [...]

1223. Greg - January 15, 2009

Wait Wait. Can you return to your timeline after you leave?

1224. A - January 24, 2009

The only way this works is if they start with some alternate timeline, but because of the time travel in the movie, things get changed to the way they “really” are in TOS.

1225. A - January 24, 2009

Although, on second thought, that wouldn’t really work either, because of things in “Enterprise” (which took place before this) that wouldn’t fit with the starting point of this movie. What they ought to do is stop making backstories, which make it too easy to mess things up, and instead do a star trek that takes place after Nemesis, in which case they actually could do anything they wanted without a problem.

1226. Elim Garak - February 4, 2009

I must admit I find the premise of this movie troubling (the whole alternate reality aspect). As has been suggested by others, it does seem that the creators of this new Trek movie wanted to find a way to remake Trek in their own image, but didn’t want to be accused of heresy against canon, so they used the whole alternative time line scenario as a fall back excuse. That is just my initial feelings, but I am hopeful that my doubts will be proven unfounded upon seeing the actual film.

1227. 1 - February 16, 2009

Unless it’s stated in the film, it’s bullshit.

That pretty much sums it up, and I highly doubt they will make any reference to the theories stated above. I hope they do but….I’m not getting that vibe.

Anyhow, the superbowl teaser looked shit…I’m skipping this one.

Thanks for the entertaining if not LOL inducing interview guys!

1228. Casual Viewer - February 18, 2009

Trekkers, you can have your canon if you see the movies enough times to make them box office hits. From obscure facts to even wanting the ship to look as outdated and bland as the original t.v. show or movie. Good grief…
ST:TNG was the one I grew up with.
I think they should give up on one particular flavour of quantum theory in their interviews and go with an easier explanation (mentioned in earlier posts) of many different available quantum theories. Then they can just say that here’s a universe where Spock’s actions do have an effect on his timeline without affecting his existence. Then even though it’s contradictory, it’s possible as long as they start with an axiom that contradictions can co-exist together.
Otherwise just go with the same vein as The Butterfly Effect starring Ashton Kutcher (and I don’t know who wrote the book).
But they really should have just said they would come back to canon in future movies so please give them a chance in this movie.
Anyways, as long as it’s not junk like Highlander 2 or as insultingly illogical as HellBoy 2 then it will probably be enjoyable.
Because of the trailers, I’m excited to see this new movie though. And I have never been excited to watch a Star Trek movie before (justifiably, after watching several of them).

1229. Kissinger - April 11, 2009

They could have saved us all a massive canon and mental pain in the @$& and just have done a TOS TOS film instead of paradox-time travel-alternate-whatever TOS-ish film.

1230. tchi - April 11, 2009

this is just a massive cop out, it’s just their way of having the story they have and going against canon. Blowing up Vulcan+new Enterprise+changes in Kirk’s backstory= weak sauce

1231. John Catsle - April 12, 2009

This means that James T. Kirk will survive in this Timeline, though I hope they restore his Original Timeline and bring him back in that one.

1232. Star Trek fans: Don't knock the film reboot until you see it | Geekend | TechRepublic.com - April 18, 2009

[...] passing judgment as to whether it’s done right in the movie. (In a recent interview, Bob Orci addressed the issue of time travel continuity in a really great [...]

1233. David in Chelsea, MA - April 19, 2009

If the many worlds theory says that all possibilities DO HAPPEN, then one would not need Nero to go back in time to destroy the Kelvin, and begin a new parallel universe, because there would already BE parallel universes were the Kelvin is destroyed in an infinite number of ways, and, for that matter, there would already be a universe where Kirk and the Enterprise, etc, look just like they do in this new film, without any “help” from Nero.

1234. “nuevas noticias de star trek 2009 “ « CHICO STAR TREK - April 19, 2009

[...] intención es respetar el canon” Son palabras de Roberto Orci en la entrevista concedida a Trekmovie la semana pasada. Hay una minoría de fans furiosos por el argumento de la película (que propone [...]

1235. DaX.9 - April 25, 2009

I would like to point that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with time travel at all. Like Data explained thouse are universes parallel with our univerese, and if someone would leap back in time and change something he WOULD create grandfather fx, not another universe, cause another quantum universe already exists. So if something is changed in past it directly affects the future of that universe.

Also you can not travel into different quantum universe without quantum portal as nicely explained in paralels. And if you manage to somehow jump into another quantum universe there is no way of knowing in which one have you jumped and there is no guarantee that you will find person, location or anything from your universe.

So it seems that your research on quantum universe and time travel is wrong and weak as is this latest abomination in trek universe itself.

It seems to me that only way to repair this damage it to make sequel to this abomination and find a way to fix timeline itself.

So let me help you on that, use Spock cause he is only one who knows what is going on beside Nero.

And one more thing, do a humanity a favor and do not try to write anymore scripts in star trek universe please.

1236. Tickleonthtum - April 26, 2009

I’d like to point out that this is all a load of rubbish! The reason that the Film’s timeline is different is they couldn’t be bothered to keep the original as it got in the way of the story they wanted to tell. This is all FICTION people. This movie (despite what they say) is a reboot movie. They undoubtedly hope it will get a new generation of kids hooked and become either a fiml or TV series. As this new franchise goes forward they will wreck the old one as they see fit.

Star Trek as we knew it is over. Either go onto this new version (ala BSG) or boycott it and stick with the old (as we are).

1237. Robert - May 4, 2009

I would argue that we tend to forget about Lily from First Contact and her contact with the Enterprise E crew. That is why Star Fleet Academy uses the arrow head of the TOS Enterprise vs every one using different insignias used during TOS. The changes that were made by this very contact altered the original time line enough to negate the use of different insignias. Due to FC is what sent all these changes in to the time line, even so slightly. I agree that the time line can be somewhat static it can still be changed cosmetically and we get this new Enterprise look and use of the arrowhead throughout Star Fleet.

1238. Robert - May 4, 2009

FC is the key here for the cosmetic changes. But Kirk and Spock and the original 5 year mission is still intact, somewhat. As is the time line for TNG, DS9 and Voy. We must also look at the time line issues with Enterprise and Daniels from the 29th century.

1239. TallGrrl - May 8, 2009

“Star Trek as we knew it is over. Either go onto this new version (ala BSG) or boycott it and stick with the old (as we are).” Tickle

That’s nice. Now go take a nap, grandpa.

Me? I saw the first episode of TOS that aired. I was a little kid and I LOVED it. (Uhura became my hero.)
I grew to love TNG, DS:9 and Voyager, and Enterprise…which got better just as they canceled it.
I just saw the new Star Trek movie and I, once again, have fallen in love.
this was a wonderful Origin Story.
When I let go of the canon and just went along for the ride, which was immediately, the movie became a sort of re-boot and for me has sort of become canon.
And I’m fine with it.

1240. teloiv - May 8, 2009

Just seen the new Star Trek and i loved it. I am 37 years old and i can still remember seeing Start Trek the Motion Picture in a movie theater that is no longer standing. And i have seen all the rest of them as well. For me to see this new Star Trek in a time when it seems like Hollywood is running out of ideas is a great way to breath some new life into a on going movie series that has seems to have run out of steam.

For me the new movie has brought Star Trek full circle if one might say and has given it a chance to restart and go again. The new cast was great the look of the ship was like old technology smashed into new technology, it worked very well, it was just great all around and i can not wait for the next film to come out. If the next film stays with this same style that it has now it will just as good, if not better the next time around.

1241. Verwirrter Trekkie...neue Zeitlinie entstanden? - Seite 10 - SciFi-Forum - May 9, 2009

[...] die ursprngliche Frage des Freds angeht, ob es denn nun eine neue Zeitlinie ist … EXCLUSIVE: Bob Orci Explains How The New Star Trek Movie Fits With Trek Canon (and Real Science) | T… [...]

1242. ed - May 9, 2009

People look at it this way OK…

The ST we knew and loved happened but it has become the ‘past’…

The new future is now actually the new ‘past’…

Confused yet? Blame Nero as he’s the one that changed it all going forward…

Look, no matter how you slice it, if they try and use the Quantum mechanics theories they will fall flat on their faces because its obvious that they dont understand it that well and they know that 99% of people that will go see this movie dont either.

Those people will just go to the movies and accept what is on screen. Those few that do understand things are such a small pocket of fans that if they lose their support, they figure no big loss, let them go home and watch their ST collections. Its all about the $$$.

So, if you want to sleep at night then just watch TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY…then start again with ENT. and then watch this movie and go FORWARD as of this movie…

Again…the ‘future’ (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY) has become the ‘past’ and the ‘past’ is now the new future…

Got it? I hope so because its the way it is now…

On the bright side for you KIRK/SHATNER Fans…Generations has been blown away (technically) as of FC since in this new verse ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN going forward…and if they really are going with this alternate universe crap (by changing the universe everytime someone goes back in time) then technically Kirk dying on V3 was only one of a multitude of possible outcomes…so essentially in this verse he could very well have killed Soran and lived on!

As Orci said it…no one knows which verse is really the ‘prime’ verse….

So…in YOUR HOMES….just make your OWN verses with whatever episodes, movies and books you like! AWESOME!

OK I am out!

1243. Brian - May 10, 2009

Hi all,
I consider myself a Trekkie for most of my life, I’m now almost 46 and have seen some of the TOS when they originally aired in ’66-69. As you all know anything can happen in sci-fi. If you go along with the original Trek physics of time travel then what would stop young (new) Spock to prevent the destruction of Romulus 120 years in the future via destroying the star that went nova? This would restore the timeline exactly as it should be. Niro would never have traveled back in time to destroy the Kelvin and Vulcan, etc……..
I think this story line should happen in the last movie of this reboot, maybe 10 years from now. I can really live with this possibility.
Just my thoughts.

P.S. I did love the movie but hope the original time line is restored eventually!

1244. toeknee - May 11, 2009

OK, for the record, the Many Worlds theory is not about time travel. It is simply a way of explaining quantum uncertainties. Like the famous example of Schrodinger’s cat: fire a photon at a plate that will trigger the release of poison gas into a chamber in which a cat is napping. According to quantum mechanics, a 50% probability exists that the photon will hit the plate. And a 50% probability exists that it won’t. The Many Worlds theory says that both will happen. That in one universe the cat will live and in another the cat will die, that both will come into being the moment the cat is observed. So I open the box, and in Universe 1 the cat is alive. In Universe 2 the cat is dead. One is no more valid than another so they both exist equally. However the split is caused by the observation of the result. Before the result is observed the cat in the box is 50% alive and 50% dead (and if you hear him moving then you have observed already and the universe has split). It has nothing to do with time travel.

1245. A Greene - May 12, 2009

That works for me, in a wibbly wobbly, timey wimey, stuff kind of way.

The fact that it can still be argued that the Star Trek canon of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and the older movies is still as valid as the canon of this alt: and that they have specified the Prime timeline as being the one with which we have all grown up for 40+ years, and even spoken the words “alternate time line” in the film, makes the whole thing work.

In some way, Spock can feel a little less uneasy, knowing that his original timeline can continue, and look forward to strange new adventures as eagerly as I am now.

1246. Dark - May 12, 2009

I consider myself a big fan. I was not too happy with this film mainly because the original timeline was not restored. Throughout the 40+ years the original timeline has always been restored. Also I don’t like the fact that Spock and Uhara have a thing going. It just doesn’t seem right. Finally they explained Nero and Spock’s time traveling occurring because they went through a blackhole. Time travel doesn’t occur by entering a blackhole. You would be ripped apart if you entered a blackhole.

1247. Donn - May 12, 2009

Very interesting to revisit this interview after having seen the film.

1244. Absolutely granted, the Many Worlds theory is not about time travel exclusively. However, the pivotal event that kicks off a different universe is the Narada arriving from the future and destroying the Kelvin. In one universe, the Prime universe we have been observing for the last 40 years, this did not happen. Now going forward we are observing a universe in which it did.

I would submit that even those episodes that are essentially about “restoring” the future timeline still actually create a new one. You have the original, in which our heroes never arrived in the past and events proceeded as they were historically known, and you also have a new universe in which our heroes were there in the past, and even though they strove to make history play out in the way they knew, it was still slightly different owing to their presence at all. All they did was ensure that this new universe’s future played out in a similar fashion to the one they knew.

Now, it is kind of bogus in COTEOF that Kirk and Co. somehow jump universes and experience a “future” without the Enterprise in orbit, because it no longer existed due to Bones’ interference in the past. But, similar to anytime Q meddles with time, I chalk that up to some kind of influence the Guardian has on the perceptions of sentient beings nearby.

Boy, it does give one a headache.

1248. James Larson - May 12, 2009

Don’t get me wrong. I loved the movie. But Orci’s answer is just cover for lazy writing. As I see it, the only flaw in the movie is the failure to resolve the timeline issues. It is the same with Fringe, Transformers, and other work by these writers — just lazy writing.

1249. Verwirrter Trekkie...neue Zeitlinie entstanden? - Seite 16 - SciFi-Forum - May 12, 2009

[...] [...]

1250. Tony - May 13, 2009

Great movie, but being a huge Star Trek fan and a Scientist, the physics of this movie just doesn’t make scene. Quantum mechanics is not the best tested theory and people in the field will tell you that they don’t even understand everything that is going on in quantum mechanics. The biggest error is to think by entering a black hole you somehow would come out in an other place and time. The basics of a black hole states that not even light can escape once beyond the event horizon. Once entering a black holes event horizon you may live for a long period of time but will never be able to generate enough speed to break the orbit of the black hole. If they are being as true to modern physics as we know it they would never use a black hole to time travel. All this being said, it’s a movie that physics and trows them out the window. Which I’m OK with, because it would be a boring movie if they used science of reality. The creation of warp drive in the next 500 years is not going to happen and may never happen. The energies to even consider warping space and time are unbelievable. So to get to our next nearest start would take 10,000 or more years. Trust me a boring movie. So, lets all just sit back and enjoy the movie for what it’s worth. Entertainment! Live long and prosper!

1251. Dennis - May 15, 2009

wow! I’m realy confused. but I really enjoyed the movie

1252. Josh - May 15, 2009

I both like and dislike this concept of time travel having no effect on your own time. It’s sort of like that show Sliders from the mid-90s, right? In that sense, it’s our perception that is wrong. They’re not ‘traveling through time’ they’re traveling through dimensions. I would posit that the 2009 Star Trek universe is merely one of an infinite number of universes that was just waiting to be born.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with me on that point, consider this:

If Nero travelling back in time does not affect the most recent post-nemesis timeline, other than by creating a new timeline (or traveling to a new dimension if you agree with me), then why bother doing anything in the past or in another dimension at all? Unless you need something from another universe to save your own (like a few whales :D ).

All that said, why should anyone in the universe care about time travel and fixing anything since there will always be another dimension where evil defeats good. If there is a limitless number of possibilities, then there’s a galaxy controlled entirely by the borg, by the romulans, by the federation, hell even one controlled by star wars fans. You can’t save an infinite number of dimensions, so why bother? Why not just stay in your own timeline and try to protect that one? If the above interview provides the basis for Star Trek canon then even the events in a film like First Contact had no bearing on our time line…

UNLESS! The heroes we see in each time travel episode are NOT the prime timeline characters but actually the heroes from the new timelines that are created. In other words, Spock Prime is not actually Spock Prime but an older version of Spock whose only purpose is to exist in the new Star Trek universe!

Ahhhh I think I just gave myself an aneurism… Are anyone else’s ears bleeding?

1253. Dark - May 15, 2009

Thank you Tony. I argued with someone for about an hour that insisted that you can time travel using a blackhole. He even argued that it was possible if the blackhole was a Kerr hole, which has yet to be proven and even if it did exist the laws of physics still apply.

1254. Drew - May 16, 2009

I liked the movie and am ok with the theory, but one to point out what contradiction inherent in Bob’s logic regarding quantum universe’s gravitating toward the most probable.

From Data: “all possibilities that can happen do happen”.

From Bob: “According to theory, there are going to be a much larger number of universes in which events are very closely related.”

If there are an infinite amount of quantum universes, and everything that can happen will happen, then there can’t be MORE or LESS of any type of universe – because we are talking about infinite universes.

Therefore, one can only conclude that there is both an infinite amount of probable universes and an infinite amount of improbable universes …

1255. Drew - May 16, 2009

at 1252#

I think it would be cool if they did a movie where the ultimate goal was to save each of the infinite timelines from evil …

1256. lolarusa - May 16, 2009

For a fascinating discussion of the multiple universe theory, check out this episode of Radio Lab.

http://blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2008/08/12/the-multi-universes/

The comments from listeners are also great fun.

1257. lolarusa - May 16, 2009

I agree with the above commenters that there’s no harm in visiting an alternative Star Trek universe – in fact, it’s great fun – provided the the “real” Star Trek universe is eventually restored. There’s got to be a “prime” universe, or there’s no motivation to care about what happens.

1258. NicePace - May 19, 2009

I liked the movie a lot — and I am a first generation fan. Started watching with “Mudd’s Women.” There was so much that was so very good about this movie — to name just a few, Dr. McCoy, the look of the young Spock, the relative absence of the quasi-scientific jargon that so often plagued TNG and the other later series.

But I think the moviemakers are guilty of the same act of hubris that the moviemakers of the ‘Lord of the Rings’ series committed. They think they can tell a better story than their source material. In both cases this is ridiculous since the source material in both cases is so incredibly good. And there is so much backstory to the “original” TOS that could have been explored … I feel cheated because they chose instead to invent a new set of circumstances.

Despite my enjoyment of the movie, I agree with the other poster who says the “prime” timeline should have been restored. It always has been in all the other time travel scenarios.

1259. Brian - May 24, 2009

Being a life-long fan of Star Trek, I would have to say that this was the best Star Trek film ever made. The F/X were incredible. The action was intense. The acting was great and it didn’t take near as long to get used to the “new crew” as I originally expected. The explanation of the new, alternative time line was well done and it fits “canon” nicely. I only have 3 major problems with the film that I hope somebody can explain to help me feel even better than I do about the film now. Let’s start with the smallest problem and work our way up.
#1. Alternate time line or not, I don’t think that would change the color of a persons eyes as long as they had the same parents as they did in the “prime” time line. Captain Kirk has brown eyes, not blue and this was simple detail that shouldn’t have been over looked.
#2. The new Enterprise design is beautiful! The sleek, “hot rod” look of the new Enterprise is incredible and the high-tech design of the new bridge was a knock out! But what happened in engineering? The scene where Kirk and Scotty are being chased by security was an eye-sore. You have the most advanced ship in the fleet of that time line and the engineering section looks like an abandoned, 1940′s paint factory.
#3. Bob Orci says the alternative time line explains the new look of the Enterprise but it doesn’t really. When we first see the USS Kelvin it is clear that this ship has a far more advanced design than any ship that was ever shown in TOS. I liked the design of the Kelvin but I think it should have had a more original series look to it. Then it could have been explained that because of the attack and the destruction of the Kelvin is what forced Starfleet to quicken its research and development of their fleet and lead them down different roads of ideas that would never have been thought of without the demise of the USS Kelvin. Then a different Enterprise design would have been easier to accept.

1260. Rarehero - May 27, 2009

Time travel, grandfather paradox and many worlds theories as well have always been a part of the canon. And canon has told us, a travel back in time would cause a grandfather paradox, but has any of the characters during the shows and episodes ever tried to kill his grandfather in the past to avoid his own existence? From what I know the canon only provides a theory, which is unproven. And for me the canon can evolve (and why not, while we evolve ourselves) and with Star Trek XI it has evolved and now contains the information, that a time travel doesn’t lead into paradoxa but creates a new alternate time line. If this explanation can remain halfway consistent, I’d prefer this addition the canon since it finally makes an end to the usual paradoxa.

1261. Rarehero - May 27, 2009

@Brian
I guess we simply shouldn’t compare the current look and feel of Star Trek with the standards of the 60′s.

1262. Dean - May 30, 2009

Hey, I agree with everything said above and Roddenberry and his crew afterwards have done a remarkable job of maintaining consistency as the latest and greatest science was updated over the years, and whilst I understand that Picard, Sisko and Janeway will all continue to live on in another timeline … I just don’t want this timeline to be built upon in the franchise — It just doesn’t seem right, to tie off 40 years of franchise history and start afresh. You’ve at LEAST gotta link in some crossover and/or ‘guest stars’ from our, well, “prime” (or 57th) timeline.

1263. Massimo - June 2, 2009

I’m appalled by Orci’s blabbering. Many-universe is only *one possible interpretation* of QM – as any idiot can read on wikipedia.

To think that he would dismiss the problem as easily is kinda enraging.

Besides, ok, in some episodes of canon there is many-world interpretation, BUT they always single out THE timeline they want to restore, and try and fix it.

Also, this idea that in the different timeline the old crew would somehow find itself together once again, through different routes, is ludicrous. Just as much at the same people being in the mirror universe of DS9.

Too easy, man. Too convenient. Great movie, but these aspects suck.

1264. The Permanency of the New Timeline: Star Trek 2009 and temporal paradoxes | tunequest: music reviews and itunes too! - June 3, 2009

[...] lend support to this theory as well and Star Trek (2009) co-writer Roberto Orci cites that episode and the Many World’s aspect of quantum theory as rationale for the time travel story of the [...]

1265. NoGuff - June 7, 2009

This is NOT an “alternate” or “parallel” universe to TOS, it is a retelling of TOS. A re-boot. No different than when the James Bond franchise gets a new actor. No different than the new BSG.

Orci is explaining the alternate timeline WITHIN this story.

1266. Ruben - June 14, 2009

Ok, ok, so, some questions in the air?
1) In the “original” timeline Spock dissapear to the alternative universe, is he coming back anytime soon? ;) There is a rescue plan for him or what? Nobody misses him? Is taken for dead?
2) What happened to the Romulan empired after Romulus destruction? Because after all, in the original timeline Romulus is really, really gone, so…
3) Someone is already planning books, movies, something about the future of the original timeline, or it will be abandoned in favor of this “new” universe?

PD: excuse my english, i usually speaks spanish (trekker 100% Argento ;)

1267. Maximara - June 24, 2009

“City on the Edge or Forever,” “Yesterday’s Enterprise”, “First Contact”, “Past Tense”, “The Visitor”, “Time and Again”, “Future’s End”, “Before and After”, “Year of Hell”, “Timeless”, “Relativity”, and “Endgame” you CANNOT create alternate timelines by messing around in the past–you mess up YOUR timeline.

“Past Tense” is especially damaging as the Defiant protected by some particles remains in the present and can actually SEE the changes in the present due to Sisko’s actions.

“Year of Hell” involves a ship able to change the present by changing the past and protected by a new shield configuration Voyager sees the present changed.

1268. Dude - June 28, 2009

Regarding the comment earlier about the black hole and time travel -

QUOTE -
“Thank you Tony. I argued with someone for about an hour that insisted that you can time travel using a blackhole. He even argued that it was possible if the blackhole was a Kerr hole, which has yet to be proven and even if it did exist the laws of physics still apply.”

Theroetically, a “Kerr” black hole is the only type of black hole which would be able to allow timetravel.
As a matter a fact, the most common types of black holes are “Kerr” black holes.

The common known description of a black hole which states that nothing can escape it’s pull, and that the object would be crushed once it reached it’s singularity only applies to the most extreme type of black hole…A Schwarzchild Black Hole.

A Kerr black hole has a rotating axis, which means the object caught in it’s event horizon orbits the black hole as it is being pulled in. THis orbiting motion reduces the strain on the pull on the object and would allow the object to journey through the event horizon without being ripped apart.
THis also allows the object to eecape it’s pull under the right circumstances.
Along with the rotating axis, the kerr black hole does not have a pinpoint singularity at it’s center. Instead it has a ring schaped collection of rotating neutrons. THis would allow the object to pass through the center without being crushed.
THis type of black hole is also theorized as a method of time travel.

A Schwrazchild black hole, does not rotate…Which means the objects being pulled towrads it would enter in a direct line rather than an orbit. As a result of a direct entry, the object would be torn to shred during it’s journey.
The center of this black hole does not have a ring shape, but rather a pin point singularity which would crush the object passing through the center.
THis type of black hole would not be effective for time travel.

And yes, as you stated, the Kerr black hole has not been proven as a method of timetravel….But then again, NO method of time travel has been proven…..But that hasn’t prevented previous Trek shows/films from employing unproven theories as timetravel methods in the past.

1269. Dark - July 6, 2009

Time travel may be possible through a Kerr Blackhole, but most likely the object entering the blackhole will be ripped apart by the tidal force before reaching the singularity.

1270. Rykard - July 13, 2009

Let’s forget all the psuedo-scientific theorizing for a second and just assume that any semi-legitimate version is ok for a film… we are still left with the problem that the new “alternate” reality still functions under the same basic structures that the old one did.

Before I watched this film my main complaint was that the writer was too lazy to make an effort to introduce the characters in some kind of logical order… Nero coming back in time really wouldn’t change when people are born after all… therefore it seemed wrong to have Kirk in the academy with Uhura. This turned out to be handled adequately, however, as Kirk enters the academy late (even I don’t care if it was late enough).

After watching the thing I have to admit that it was fun and that none of this will matter if there are any future movies… This first one will just be glossed over in an effort to get on with our beloved franchise. BUT, can someone please explain to me how Nero killing Kirk’s father allows Kirk to go from 3rd year cadet (let’s say he is as good as he thinks and call him a senior–maybe even ready to graduate) to captain in what? a week?

Some advice to the writer–a parallel to this happened in STNG. Riker’s double from when he was a lieutenant didn’t get promoted just because Riker did… and neither would Kirk. You should have wasted 10 minutes showing him graduating and being assigned to the Farragut or whatever… Then said “8 years later.” It still would have been too fast, but at least it wouldn’t have been stupid… Normally I would say the quickest way to make Captain is to be reduced in rank via courts martial… in fact Kirk did that in the old movies… but not anymore… just be a hero and skip the 5 ranks between… PRESTO – Congratulations “Captain Kirk.”

1271. Flynn T - August 17, 2009

1266-

Look up Star Trek Online. The new Star Trek MMO explores the old universe after the events of this movie- Destruction of Romulus, Spock disappearing, etc etc.

1272. Steve - November 26, 2009

Sorry but this movie was a disappointment for me.
I hope that future movies will correct the time line as past episodes and shows have done. Granted, this movie opens up a Pandora’s box of new plots for the show but I prefer the one that we all grew to love.
I hope they set things right.

1273. Just watched it - December 4, 2009

I’m afraid I am behind the times and missed this in the theatre, just saw it on DVD. With over 1000 posts I apologize if I have repeat what has been said already. My basis is only on the TOS and not any related books.
I think the most glaring example was Chekov. (see post 199). According to TOS Kirk was 35ish and Chekov was 22 (Who Mourns for Adonis?). Here Kirk is 25 and Chekov is 17 when he should be 11 or 12. Time travel can not explain change in birthday.

Kirk going from the cadet to captain and not just captain, but of one of the top starships is absolutely beyond belief. By my calculations, the main part of the story would take place 10 years before TOS. This makes even Uhura possibly too young to be in starfleet. I had a big issue with their ranks. Uhura and Sulu were already Lieutenants and Spock was already Cmdr. At the start of TOS, Spock was Lt. Cmdr. (If Nero were rampaging the federation all this time maybe you could say because Nero kept killing officers people got promoted faster.) In the end that added a sense of silliness or juvenility to the movie. I think it could have made the film more credible if Sulu and Uhura were a raw ensigns out of the academy (he was portrayed that way but given a rank of Lt.) Spock could be an Lt. I do like them bringing Scotty and McCoy that way.

Seems to me that the writers just used time travel as an excuse to do whatever they wanted to the storyline.

To me they took a sci-fi action film and slapped the Star Trek franchaise label on it and made only a token effort to tie the two together. Kind of like buy Star Trek underwear (what does one really have to do with the other).

In defense, some of the things I did like were George Kirk, perhaps it was taken from a book as suggested by a previous post, but Kirk’s brother’s name was George (although also called Sam). They also did throw a bone to Trekkies with the use of Adm. Komack’s name, who appeared in a couple of TOS episodes.

1274. James - December 5, 2009

It appears to me that the old Spock from the 24th century(played by Leonard Nimoy) is in the 23rd century 11 years prior to the beggining of the original five year mission, and that the future from there will be different that that wich we know, but some things will be the same. The sleeper ship containing Khan and his crew is drifting in space. Being that the elder Spock knows this, will he seek it out and arrange for the apprehension of all on board, before someone, if not the Enterprise discovers and revives them, leading to equally disasterous results. And according to the novel, The Probe that lost contact with the Humpback Whales is already in route to Earth. Will the elder Spock travel back in time and bring forward the Humpback Whales years to it’s arrival, and thereby preventing the probe from losing contact and attacking Earth in the first place. The evolution of these two events was not altered by the arrival of Nero and Spock, so how will that be handled?

1275. Drew Barrymore - December 27, 2009

How does Orci explain away the 29th century starfleet, as established as canon in Voyager episode Relativity? They had technology which allowed them to detect timeline changes and it was their job to correct them when necessary.

Claim that the Voyager writers didn’t know Quantum Mechanics theory? I don’t buy that. Sounds like an excuse to justify lack of imagination. Should have just let go of the idea of being canon. Alternatively, a future sequel has to depict the timeline being restored perhaps by the 29th century starfleet. Quantum Mechanics is just theory. It hasn’t been proven by anyone to date. Relying on it is rather creatively desperate.

1276. Star Wars Stuff » Star Wars Fan Club Exclusive Micro Machine Vader + Ship - January 22, 2010

[...] EXCLUSIVE: Bob Orci Explains How The New Star Trek Movie Fits With … [...]

1277. midzy - June 5, 2011

I think the question worth asking here is: Whether they will show us the new “parallel universe” of ST, the old one TOS-Nemesis, or the two of them combined…?

1278. Jamey - September 20, 2011

I do not like the whole time travel plot, and yes I know that plot has been the bread and butter of science fiction … well, forever. So, the way I’m handling the new Start Trek … is … it is a new story and will watch/read it as if the slate is clean.

1279. Trek Fan - September 26, 2011

The new film is enjoyable and good enough in its own right, however why muck about with things? It seems that some writers and/or directors aren’t happy unless they’re messing around changing things for changing things sake. The new film didn’t need an alternate timeline, it’s a totally pointless aspect. So now we’re going to have a whole load of new films in this alternate timeline? Ridiculous.

1280. TNG and Voyager RULES - October 20, 2011

So back to quantum theory and the existance of mulitple parallel universes or relaities, does that mean that at any point in time in one singluar reality, there could be mulitple realities branching out from that single point? Therefore, there would be an infinite number of realities in existance. Phew. My head hurts just from thinking about this.
Saw the movie in the theatre way back, and it was awsome!

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.