Science and Trek Experts Weigh In On The New ‘Star Trek’ Movie | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Science and Trek Experts Weigh In On The New ‘Star Trek’ Movie December 28, 2008

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

Earlier this month in an exclusive interview with TrekMovie.com, Star Trek co-writer and executive producer Roberto Orci finally came clean and explained how the new Star Trek movie fit in with Star Trek canon, and the explanation involved a bit of Trek science and real science. Today TrekMovie takes a closer look at all of this with the help of some noted experts in both science and Star Trek. [SPOILERS]

 

Star Trek 2009 and the alternative timeline
(aka what we should have already known)
Earlier this month in an interview TrekMovie.com, Star Trek co-writer Roberto Orci confirmed that Star Trek starts in the same canon universe that we are familiar with, but that much of the new film takes place in an alternative universe/timeline, which was created when the villain Nero goes back in time from the TNG era and destroys the USS Kelvin (a ship with both of James T. Kirk’s parents on board).

Time travel, alternative timelines and universes are nothing new for Trek and so even though the article launched over a thousand comments as well as coverage across the media, many observers were not surprised. AICN noted that this alternative universe approach is something you could have picked up on "if you’ve been following the film at all" and AMC SciFi Scanner said the solution was "exactly what everyone assumed all along." And for the mainstream perspective, the LA Examiner noted the discussion was something "only the devout need dare care enough" about, and they just hope that JJ Abrams "makes the movie rock." Which is a good point.


The ‘Star Trek’ trailer shows that things are not exactly as we saw them in TOS…hinting at the alternative universe/timeline

The Quantum Physics of Star Trek 2009
But here at TrekMovie we are ‘the devout’ so we like to go that extra step, as does Bob Orci. In the original interview Orci went on to state that even though the new film posits an alternative universe, the ‘original’ universe was left unchanged. Although Orci noted that this is not necessarily something that needs to be understood to enjoy the film, it could have implications with regard to future films or the ‘extended universe’ of Star Trek. For example it would be perfectly within canon for there to be books, comics and games set in either universe, including the ‘original’ universe after Nero and Spock left for the ‘alternative’ universe. It also shows that the film makers do not see the new film as ‘overwriting’ Star Trek canon and history as we know it.

As precedent for this view Orci cited both Star Trek history (such as the episode "Parallels") as well as real quantum mechanics and specifically the ‘Many Worlds Interpretation‘ which posits that every decision creates a new universe. This view not only allows both universes to co-exist, but also resolves the many paradoxes normally associated with time travel. Orci and writing partner Alex Kurtzman did their homework regarding the theoretical science of time travel and quantum mechanics. In a follow-up Orci tells TrekMovie that four books were particularly helpful: "Black Holes and Time Warps" by Kip Thorne, "Parallel Universes" by Fred Wolf, "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch, and "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku.

In the following video clip, Kaku explains how time travel and the many world interpretation could work.


Quantum mechanics can’t save Star Wars Episode I, but it can work for ‘Star Trek – 2009′

Trek science experts weigh in
We have heard from Orci’s expert (above video), so TrekMovie decided to check in with a couple of Star Trek science experts to see what they thought of all of this.

Andre Bormanis, author of "Star Trek Science Logs" worked as a science advisor for the Star Trek franchise from the seventh season of TNG all the way trough DS9, Voyager and Enterprise as well as some of the TNG feature films. He also was a writer and producer for both Voyager and Enterprise. Bormanis says that he agrees with Orci that quantum mechanics is "the most successful theory in physics" and also notes there isn’t a single interpretation that is considered the ‘right’ solution:

[Many worlds] is one way of looking at quantum mechanics but not everyone agrees that it is the right way, certainly it is not the only way. The many worlds interpretation is fun in terms of science fiction, but it isn’t necessarily how every physicist thinks of quantum mechanics. It is one of several interpretations.

ASU Physics Professor Lawrence M. Krauss, author of "The Physics of Star Trek" and "Beyond Star Trek," agrees, telling TrekMovie that the MWI "is one perfectly adequate approach to trying to understand quantum mechanics in terms of our classical reality." However Krauss also notes:

Jumping back in time and starting a new timeline has been suggested as one way to avoid the time travel paradoxes that would otherwise result. It is probably the only way to avoid this, other than having time repeat itself exactly. Nevertheless I am not convinced this remains consistent with the laws of physics as we understand them. However, it is certainly consistent with the way Star Trek has tried to handle time travel.

Bormanis also points to how the Many Worlds interpretation has the added benefit of resolving time travel issues, noting it "was not intended to address the grandfather paradox, but it just happened to provide an answer to it." In the following video from a Discovery Channel program on time travel, Oxford University physicist David Deutsch (author of one of Orci and Kurtzman’s reference books) explains how MWI resolves the grandfather paradox (the video also features DS9 showrunner Ira Steven Behr on the bridge of the USS Defiant):


MWI resolves that pesky grandfather thing

A clever ‘Star Trek’ solution
Looking at the views of Kaku, Deutsch, Krauss and Bormanis it is clear that quantum mechanics is valid science and that Orci’s preferred flavor is at least acceptable as a possible valid interpretation, but more importantly it is consistent with Star Trek storytelling. Bormanis tells TrekMovie that he feels Orci and the team show "respect for Trek history," but their approach allows them to take liberties, noting "I think it is a pretty clever way to go." The Trek vet even hypothesized that with this view, then the ‘mirror universe’ (first seen in the TOS episode “Mirror, Mirror“) could have been created in the episode “City on the Edge of Forever” in an alternative version “where Kirk and Spock did not succeed in their mission and Edith Keeler survived”.

Bormanis also points out that although there are dozens of Star Trek episodes (and three feature films) that deal with time travel, there has not been a uniform approach:

Star Trek’s approach to time travel has not been consistent. They have played both sides of the street. A lot of people forget, when you look back at The Original Series, there were a lot of inconsistencies…from the beginning. I think that Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman are perfectly within their rights to essentially reinvent The Original Series, yet it sounds to me like they have gone out of their way to be consistent with the established tenants of the Star Trek universe and whatever deviations they introduce are going to be accounted for by a time travel element which is accounted for in the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Some fans have also brought up the question of whether or not the characters in an alternative timeline are the same characters or totally different. This is probably more important than any of the science. Orci tells TrekMovie that their motto for the film was "same ship, different day." TrekMovie asked Bormanis how he sees this issue of characters and alternative universes, and he uses the fan favorite (and alternative timeline) TNG episode "Yesterday’s Enterprise" as an example, noting:

It is a different shade of the same color. So that Picard [in "Yesterday’s Enterprise] — he was recognizably Picard in many ways. He carried himself the same, he had the same character traits and the same was true of the others, but they lived in a different universe and they were shaped by different events. If your characters occupy a different universe and have a different history then it is true they are different characters, but how different is the critical question. I don’t think Picard and Guinan were all that different in "Yesterday’s Enterprise" from the characters that we had been familiar with.

For his part, Orci had previously cited “Yesterday’s Enterprise” as one of the key episodes that they referred to when writing the script and in his more recent interview the writer emphasized that “some things are different, but not everything is different” in this alternative universe.


Are these not the heroes we know — in the closing of "Yesterday’s Enterprise"

Is it May yet?
So there you have it. The Abrams team have used a Star Trek convention (time travel and alternative universes) in order to thread the needle between a traditional prequel and a traditional reboot — allowing them some changes while staying within the canon of Trek history. It also allows them to have Leonard Nimoy’s Spock interacting with the main cast and involved with the plot, instead of having the film just be a big flasback. Of course, the proof will be in the pudding and so far all we have is an approach. The time travel is not the ‘end,’ it is only a means to an end, so we still don’t know why the characters are doing what they are doing and what the consequences are…and for that we will need to see the actual movie.

All of this time travel, paradoxes, and quantum mechanics stuff is fun for science fans, but if it isn’t your thing, then take a hint from Austin Powers and just try to enjoy the movie.


Dive into the depths of quantum mechanics…or maybe just sit back and have fun…whatever works for you.

 

Comments

1. Harry Ballz - December 28, 2008

I’ll trade away scientific accuracy for good story any day! Nice to have both, though!

2. Will H. - December 28, 2008

One of the props in the background looks like one that’s been in Trek a ton, the little red light tube thingie…maybe.

3. DaveM - December 28, 2008

Sums up my feelings nicely since the release of the new trailer. Having had many discussions with friends on the matter, this fits into the story that has been crafted. Looking forward to May.

4. BrF - December 28, 2008

A reboot by any other name still smells as…?

5. Spoctor McKirk - December 28, 2008

I always enjoy listening to Michio Kaku expound on the theoretical.

6. Tonyo2448 - December 28, 2008

Wow. Does anyone else ever sit back and go ‘we might all be taking this a little too seriously?’ Let’s just enjoy the film when it comes out.

7. McData T. Kirkard - December 28, 2008

Here’s my solution to every continuity mistake ever made in Trek: Each episode and movie takes place in its own individual timeline. There. Problems solved. Next?

(Oh wait, that doesn’t solve continuity errors that have happened WITHIN a single episode. Damn.)

8. MikeJones - December 28, 2008

I SAW THE NEW TREK MOVIE LAST NIGHT!!!!
Well..in my dream! But it was SOO vivid I was watching it on like 3 huge plasma screens for some reason, and I went thru the movie hitting all the points in the trailer lol I wish I can remember the story now but it RAWKED!!!

9. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. - December 28, 2008

wish that we could have avoided “the most successful theory in physics” quote.

OrcSter is never going to hear the end of that one.

I’m with the point he was trying to make, though.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

10. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - December 28, 2008

I feel more comfortable with the QM & MWI approach to the STXI storyline with all the above caveats noted. The writers have done the work to present an explanation, but aren’t strong-arming the audience to take it all in in order to enjoy the story — those are the right priorities.

I’m ready to enjoy the ride!

11. boborci - December 28, 2008

9. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. – December 28, 2008
wish that we could have avoided “the most successful theory in physics” quote.

Why? it’s true. If I don’t make that point and people don’t go find that FACT out for themselves, then we get accused of just picking a hippy theory out of thin air.

12. C.S. Lewis - December 28, 2008

There is something very odd about fabricating a make believe reason why a make believe story doesn’t match earlier make believe stories. Very odd indeed.

Were I desirous of a “payoff” (to console me for the shattering of my boyhood memories of Kirk, Spock and McCoy???) I’d rather coupons for free admission and free popcorn than gobbledygook.

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis.

13. boborci - December 28, 2008

12. C.S. Lewis – December 28, 2008

With your name, you of all people should support this. C.S. Lewis is maybe one of the most famous purveyors of parallel worlds!

14. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - December 28, 2008

I’ll also note this: I maintain my contention that relying on the MWI of QM as a theoretical basis for the events in STXI is not fundamentally different from the notion of the Mirror universe. In fact, it’s even better, because I find it difficult to accept that there is just one “opposite” parallel universe. Instead of two black-and-white universes, there are infinitely many “gray” ones, one shade of which is the prime one. Much better.

(Of course, the side of me that cultivates strict rationality and empirical scientific methodology still balks at the notion that causality can “jump” or “tunnel” through different universes, but like I say above, I’m ready to enjoy the ride come May!)

15. JustBob - December 28, 2008

@ #2 “One of the props in the background looks like one that’s been in Trek a ton, the little red light tube thingie…maybe.”

That same prop has been used in a few other films including “The Last Starfighter”.

16. Xai - December 28, 2008

#13 boborci

LOL.

17. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 28, 2008

That explains my love for the original. I’m the victim of quantum anomaly.

18. Harley3k - December 28, 2008

I wonder if some of the tech that is brought back to destroy the Kelvin is used to build a more modern Enterprise.

19. Kirk, James T. - December 28, 2008

Boborci – number 14;

Let me just say that i like this idea, whilst i don’t really understand time travel and all that jazz i feel that this has to be the smartest idea you and the other guys could have done – by taking the trek universe and respecting it whilst setting your own course and creating this new franchise reinventing the original series and beginning again.

I’m really looking forward to this movie :D

btw, have you seen any of the toys for your moive? are they gonna please us fans and are the action figures gonna look like the characters there meant to portray?? :D

20. boborci - December 28, 2008

19. Kirk, James T. – December 28, 2008
Boborci – number 14;

“btw, have you seen any of the toys for your moive? are they gonna please us fans and are the action figures gonna look like the characters there meant to portray?? :D”

One of the most fun meetings we had (this was me, and Damon and Burk) was the day all the toys were presented to us at Paramount for our thoughts and comments. They were already in good shape, but we all singled out the ones that could be made to look more like their real life version. I think you will be pleased.

21. Harley3k - December 28, 2008

It’d be cool if Nero’s defeat in the film leaves him in the Mirror timeline/alt-universe with the goatee’d Spock – that’d give us 5 Spocks in the movie!!!

So are there 4 timelines/alt-universe’s to keep track of in Trek now?

Original Universe
Mirror Universe
Yesterday’s Enterprise Universe
The OrciVerse

Sweet Jeebus!

I’m going to assume that the other time-travel occurrences in canon happened in the traditional way and that that is still possible in trek. Or else there’s another Universe where there-be-whales destroying the Earth… And thanks for all the fish.

-h

22. Captain Pike - December 28, 2008

I hope it does well and I’m looking forward to seeing it, but I LIKE my original TOS timeline just fine. Don’t need a replacement.

I’m afraid this production might have one foot on the shore and one in the boat. It may have been better to stay ashore with the TOS die-hards OR gotten on board the ship and done a fresh unabashed unapologetic reboot for the “general public”. The danger here is the film will fall in the middle and sink.

It’s all academic anyway. The film is basically done and it’s all over except for the waiting.

23. Viking - December 28, 2008

“Why? it’s true. If I don’t make that point and people don’t go find that FACT out for themselves, then we get accused of just picking a hippy theory out of thin air.”

C’mon, Hitch, don’t be a Herbert. Who loves ya, baby? >:-)

24. That One Guy - December 28, 2008

13 Bob,
I believe I just laughed very hard. Dreaming about other possibilities and other streams of existence is something that humans always have, and always will do.

25. Blake Powers - December 28, 2008

My question with the alternate universes and spawning the new universes. If the all actions spawn a new universe, then why would spock care to go back in time??? Wouldn’t it have to affect his timeline for him to care? (In no way am i talking bad about anyway that it has been written, just posing a question as a member of “the devoted”; also I understand that posing this question will have alot of people on the interwebs going ” he’s an idiot”)

26. Harley3k - December 28, 2008

@ 22. Cpt Pike,

Sure there will be TOS die-hards that don’t like it, but then they shouldn’t have liked the Mirror-Universe introduced in…wait for it…. TOS! So it’s nearly impossible for them to cry canon violations in my opinion, without calling the Mirror-Mirror Episode anti-canon as well.

Nice move JJ. You have defeated the canonistas with sheer logic like a bunch of Nomad space probes.

27. STAR TREK ''Soldiers of Pawns'' - December 28, 2008

I’m willing to extend creative license just this one more time for time travel and alternate universes and clever storytelling tricks…

But for Pete’s sake, Star Trek can stand on its own without this…there’s plenty of room to tell a story without having to resort to jumping into the ”lifeboats” of time travel.

I’m not advocating anyone’s particular canon or slavish devotion to it. Canon had been the blessing and bane of Star Trek for a long time. But I do think there’s a bunch of very creative individuals out there with great stories to tell that are neither ”old school” or ”new school”, but rather unique and interesting and compelling…and human.

Star Trek is a ”band of brothers”, and in this case they are the ”originals” (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov etc.). They are a futuristic Jason and his Argonauts on a human quest.

Story first. Clever writing mechanics, tricks, razzle-dazzle, tech-talk gibber-jabber and gadgets way down the list. Well, okay, I’d be fine with losing the tech-talk gibber-jabber entirely. That always felt like ”cheating.”

Star Trek is a ”human adventure”, not a ”hardware adventure” (yes, one more time I say this).

28. helenofpeel - December 28, 2008

Basically, based on the latest theories of quantum physics and mechanics, since Kirk could not get to the Enterprise, the Enterprise came to him.

29. boborci - December 28, 2008

25. Blake Powers – December 28, 2008
“My question with the alternate universes and spawning the new universes. If the all actions spawn a new universe, then why would spock care to go back in time??? Wouldn’t it have to affect his timeline for him to care? (In no way am i talking bad about anyway that it has been written, just posing a question as a member of “the devoted”; also I understand that posing this question will have alot of people on the interwebs going ” he’s an idiot”).

No on should call you an idiot. It is a logical question with 3 possible answers. Either 1. We have ignored the contradiction. 2. Spock is not aware of the LATEST AND GREATEST THEORY OF SCIENCE! or 3. The plot is not what you think!

30. S. John Ross - December 28, 2008

I think it’s excellent that Orci finally came forward to explicitly confirm that it’s an alternate-timeline story (something we pretty much knew all along) and eagerly await the day he comes forward to explicitly confirm that it is, therefore, a reboot (something we’ve pretty much known all along) :)

31. Harley3k - December 28, 2008

@29,

I’m thinking 3) the plot is not what we think.

We are so programmed with the traditional time-travel plots that we’ve just assumed this to be the same.

I for one welcome our alt-universe/timeline overlords and am ready to be surprised.

32. boborci - December 28, 2008

30. S. John Ross – December 28, 2008

Define reboot

33. Jordan - December 28, 2008

I still think its a bunch of BS to do what they want.

34. Harley3k - December 28, 2008

@30. John Ross,

I agree. It seems odd for JJ to allow such a thing to come out, but it has quieted a good portion of the canon nitpicking and TOS comparisons; only to be replaced discussions of “the most successful theory in quantum physics.”

35. S. John Ross - December 28, 2008

I’d define “reboot” as the most successful, most tested franchise-reinvigorating technique in the history of filmmaking.

36. THE GOVERNATOR - December 28, 2008

#29. Boborci

clever tactics.

37. boborci - December 28, 2008

34. Harley3k – December 28, 2008

I didn’t exactly check with anybody before talking about this.

38. boborci - December 28, 2008

35. S. John Ross – December 28, 2008

LOL! Nice dodge.

39. Harley3k - December 28, 2008

Planet of the Apes to me was a “Reboot” – or I think Burton called it a “Reimagining”. It didn’t help that the story sort of sucked.

Every time they change lead actors in Bond or Batman is like a “reboot”.

The concept of Star Trek 2009 doesn’t seem at all like a reboot to me so far. But maybe the end result is similar to “do what they want” as some say.

It’s hard to call it a Reboot if it has clear links to canon like Elder Spock being in the film, and plot history to be revealed in the forthcoming comics that include Picard and B4/Data/Lor/Whomever-that-guy-is.

A complete reboot to me, wouldn’t include any of those, but proceed as if none of them even existed.

40. S. John Ross - December 28, 2008

#38: I’ve been observing you and studying your technique, sir, so I’m flattered to have pleased the master ;)

And not to worry … in several months I’ll probably give a direct answer. Until then, I’ll occasionally leak photos of glimpses of a possible answer to my website, and we can discuss whether the answer would look better from a different angle (or if older, simpler answers had no possible bad perspectives).

In the meantime, it’s likely that there are entire universes where I’ve _already_ given a direct answer, and those universes _in no way invalidate this one._ I’m not discarding or even really contradicting those universes, simply letting us explore one very dramatic alternative to them – and in ways that might surprise you.

41. Harley3k - December 28, 2008

@37 boborci,

Oh, didn’t mean to imply that you did get permission or that the release of the information was tactical in any way. But it has changed the conversation and I like it. The old conversation was becoming as tired as traditional time-travel plots in sci-fi movies.

42. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 28, 2008

Frack, I think the filter just ate my very clever post about rebooting and I didn’t save a copy. Oh, well. I did want to add this:

Mr. Orci, I got Prime Directive for Christmas this year, thanks to your recommendation, and I just wanted to say that it was a real blast. I read it in ten hours flat, and it was far and away the most pleasant experience I’ve ever had with a Trek novel. Thanks a bundle. I’ll definitely be rereading it in the future, something I haven’t done with a Trek book since I was ten years old.

43. cd - December 28, 2008

Star Trek: Zero, as boborci has himself has suggested it be called. Reboot, an in-continuity reboot, but a reboot nonetheless.
And #35, that remains to be seen.

44. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 28, 2008

Turns out I have a few spare minutes, so, to heck with it, here’s my rewrite of my Lost Post. (TrekMovie tooltip: save copies of your posts! You never know when the WordPad Spam Filter piranhas will consume it to feed their ravenous hunger for verbal energy!)

All S. J. Ross’s extreme cleverness aside, I’d take Wikipedia’s definition as a good guide. Because if Wikipedia says it, it *must* be true:

“Reboot, in serial fiction, means a discarding of much or even all previous continuity in the series, to start anew. Effectively, all previously-known fictive history is declared by the writer(s) to be null and void, or at least irrelevant, and the series starts over.”

Now, everyone acknowledges that the very great cleverness in using the MWI for this movie is that it allows major changes without making previous canon null and void. But it *does*, from where I’m sitting, appear to make previous canon *irrelevant*, at least for the purposes of this movie, and possibly for every time travel story in the history of Trek. That does worry me.

But I am keenly aware that “where I’m sitting” is “in the dark.” I have not seen the movie, I haven’t even read most of the spoilers, and some of the things Mr. Orci has said have made me realize just how little I know–and how completely wrong I could very well be.

Not that this awareness is going to make me shut my mouth. I’m a Trekkie; it’s in my nature to say what I think about everything in-universe. :P

45. Devon - December 28, 2008

I don’t mean to go off subject but this is in line with the article as far as “Trek XI Science” goes.

If it is worth anything, the other “science” thing that some Trek fans were quick to criticize and point out was the supposed “impossibility” of the Enterprise being built on the ground.

So I checked with a NASA Forum I am on where the question had been brought up. The general consensus, from a NASA forum, was “why not?” They even gave quick ways it could be done. They also pointed out that if we think something is “impossible” such as getting a ship off the ground, then we should also be quick to pick on the currently “impossible” sciences of artificial gravity, faster than light speed, etc.

46. Harley3k - December 28, 2008

@43,

You’d still have to define-reboot to make the case.
Some would say that an ‘in continuity reboot’ as you called it is not a reboot (by their definition). It’s as contradictory as saying someone survived their own death.

I don’t know of another Rebooted movie franchise that explains the rebooting through an alternate timeline. Trek, being heavy on the “science” in its science-fiction, has the luxury of being able to explain changes in a scientific way. It may all be a plot device to tell the story they wanted to tell, but then isn’t alot of trekno-babble used for this? I mean, just how many atmospheric disturbances can there be to prevent the use of the transporters?

Now I must go reboot my computer.

47. brady - December 28, 2008

Sooooooooooooooo Bob your saying that in an alternate timeline Kirk could be an Elvis impersonator and have a gay nephew? Theoretically that is?

48. Anthony Pascale - December 28, 2008

compare the ‘reboot’ Batman Begins with the ‘in canon prequel’ Star Wars Episode I. Does anyone think that Christopher Nolan didn’t find the essense of Bruce Wayne and the Batman franchise? And yet the ‘canon’ Star Wars perquels spawned http://www.peoplevsgeorge.com/

And as for the general public, they really wont know the difference and I bet most would assume it is a traditional reboot, but they wont care.

The star wars prequels show that when you say the film ‘slots in’ 100%, then every decision you make big and small gets absurd amounts of scrutiny. Here they are allowed some flexibility…the most obvious of which is the production design. It also allows them to bring in Nimoy and have him actually interact with the cast and have it be more than him saying to someone ‘remember back when I looked like Zachary Quinto ‘ (cue the wavy lines for the flashback)

But again, this whole thing is only the ‘approach’ this is not ‘the plot’ of the film and certainly not the execution of the film. Those things are still open ended questions for further review.

49. Aaron R - December 28, 2008

boborci — It is fun that you are on the site interacting with fans but by know means do you need to defend your work. None of the explanation was really even needed. People who are already fans like Star Trek and should give it a chance. Lets hope that you bring in new fans… All the techno-mumbo-jumbo while I find it interesting only scares the more common viewers away. Thrill me in May I wish the movie was in theatres now as originally intended though.

50. Harley3k - December 28, 2008

@48. Anthony Pascale,

Well Said.

I think because our familiar elder Spock is actually in the film; it should be more clear to any TOS aware viewer that it isn’t a real “reboot”. People may still be asking themselves after the movie ends, if the original timeline is “gone now”; and that’s where we are there to explain it to them; having read Orci’s explanation. Unless that fact is somehow explained in the plot, or at least eluded to. Even so some may not notice it or even care.

The possibility of there being so many layers to the film is what is exciting me. Another formulaic simplistic episodic storyline movie would have bored me.

51. Aaron R - December 28, 2008

***god its late sorry about the typos

52. boborci - December 28, 2008

50. Aaron R – December 28, 2008
boborci — “It is fun that you are on the site interacting with fans but by know means do you need to defend your work. None of the explanation was really even needed. People who are already fans like Star Trek and should give it a chance. Lets hope that you bring in new fans… All the techno-mumbo-jumbo while I find it interesting only scares the more common viewers away. Thrill me in May I wish the movie was in theatres now as originally intended though.”

You may be right. But I didn’t just go stand on a mountain top to explain our work. Anthony asked me, so I answered.

53. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 28, 2008

29. boborci

“Either 1. We have ignored the contradiction. 2. Spock is not aware of the LATEST AND GREATEST THEORY OF SCIENCE! or 3. The plot is not what you think!”

I hope it’s not 1. Praying for 3!

54. TomBot99/4A - December 28, 2008

Just wondering out loud, perhaps someone could opine on it, but just where does the matter and energy come from to “create” these alternative universes in the many worlds theory?

55. Vorus - December 28, 2008

My only problem with the alternate universe theory (As of now I call it a theory, because I don’t think the film is going to be presented as taking place in an alternate universe. To me, it sounds more like something that some fans will latch onto because Orci said it.) is that if true, than this ISN’T an origin story of the characters we knew, which we were told that it was. So, there’s a contradiction in information.

That’s one of the reasons I think that this explanation is more Orci’s personal theory than the official explanation. I think the film will be presented as an origin story, and only the fans will know enough of the history to realize that it can’t be the same universe.

While I don’t really like the idea of the bulk of the film taking place in yet another alternate universe, I’m giving it a chance, because there are a lot of good ways that could be done.

56. Aaron R - December 28, 2008

#54 — The universe powers itself I would imagine but then the question is generated… How does a universe successfully separate into two without losing half its energy? For example wouldn’t a star the the moment of separation and split for an instant co-exist in both universes and would then said energy be split in half. Would such a split cause the star to die? Where is Stephen Hawking when you need him?

57. brady - December 28, 2008

Stephens still trying to answer Question 47 lol

58. boborci - December 28, 2008

48. Anthony Pascale – December 28, 2008
“And yet the ‘canon’ Star Wars perquels spawned http://www.peoplevsgeorge.com/

Ouch.

59. Anthony Pascale - December 28, 2008

50
I think the point about nimoy is key. He has talked about how he was attracted to the project because he was actually involved in the plot. Orci in the past has stated that the script relied on Nimoy’s Spock. He isn’t just in some scenes having flashbacks that could easily be cut. And this is really the only way to get Nimoy in the movie interacting with Kirk and others…and Nimoy is 100% Pure Prime Timeline (as is the Kelvin and Nero and probably many other things in the film). And lets not forget that the prequel comic book (COUNTDOWN) actually takes place in the post-Nemesis era, so in a sense this film is a 100% pure in canon sequel.

People are acting like changing *some* things is the same thing as changing *everything*, but from what we have all seen (and from the 20 minute preview I and other journalists have seen), that is clearly not the case. They have not turned Chekov into an evil Asian girl robot, for example.

…although that actually might not be a bad idea ;)

60. boborci - December 28, 2008

55. Vorus – December 28, 2008
“To me, it sounds more like something that some fans will latch onto because Orci said it.) is that if true, than this ISN’T an origin story of the characters we knew, which we were told that it was. So, there’s a contradiction in information.

That’s one of the reasons I think that this explanation is more Orci’s personal theory than the official explanation.”

“Political scientist” L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the “leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists” about the “Many-Worlds Interpretation” and gives the following response breakdown [T].

1) “Yes, I think MWI is true” 58%
2) “No, I don’t accept MWI” 18%
3) “Maybe it’s true but I’m not yet convinced” 13%
4) “I have no opinion one way or the other” 11%
Amongst the “Yes, I think MWI is true” crowd listed are Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman. Gell-Mann and Hawking recorded reservations with the name “many-worlds”, but not with the theory’s content. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is also mentioned as a many-worlder, although the suggestion is not when the poll was conducted, presumably before 1988 (when Feynman died). The only “No, I don’t accept MWI” named is Penrose.

61. helenofpeel - December 28, 2008

Regarding “Ouch”…

With all due respect, George made lousy prequels. Remember Howard the Duck?

It’s the story that is most important. If it holds up, the audience will enjoy the ride. If it doesn’t, then canon simply becomes canonfodder… leaving only the die-hards to argue while the franchise vaporizes…

62. brady - December 28, 2008

that wouldn’t be ‘Sooo Weeeryyyyyyyyyyy Russsiannnnnnnnnn” lol

63. MattTheTrekkie - December 28, 2008

My brain hurts and I’m not sure I’m keeping up with all of the different theories of time travel and whatsit. :(

I’m just gonna pull a “OMG, OMG, OMG!!! Nero is screwing with the time line! Some one kill him!” card out of my hat. That to me makes me want to see the movie :)

However trying to figure out time lines and what not makes me feel like my parents and friends are going to walk in on me and yell at me for “wasting time with that Star Trek stuff” :D

64. boborci - December 28, 2008

cited from a decent source I found tonight:

http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm#conservation

54. TomBot99/4A – December 28, 2008

Goto Q22

65. pinky - December 28, 2008

First, not needing to explain the theory of time-travel behind this movie is ridiculously unfair to audiences. I hope they go into some detail, I hope they explain the ideas. Audiences are far more intelligent that Fringe gives us credit for… and if we’re watching sci-fi, we certainly don’t mind a little explanation. To not have one would be disastrous. Back to the Future gave us one – and that movie was for kids. Terminator gave us one. We were given explanations in successful, quality productions. Let us hear about the sci-fi.

Meanwhile, it is important to note that “the most tested and successful theory” is NOT the Many Worlds Interpretation but rather quantum mechanics. They are not one and the same. If we want to be consistent, quantum mechanics actually seems to lean more towards no choice, no alternative, life is a railway track. You go back in time and it changes the timeline — because you had no choice, you had to do it. It is part of how things unfold.

Nonetheless, I look forward to this movie with excitement

66. Anthony Pascale - December 28, 2008

61
helen I agree

However I was using the examples of Batman Begins and SW Episode I to dispute the notion that reboot=bad and canon=good automatically. As noted in the article, the final film will be the proof, this is just a discussion of the approach.

63
matt, as noted in the article, Orci notes that much of this is not really something you need to grasp to watch the film. It only answers questions regarding what impact the film has on the rest of trek canon. As for the general public, the most successful TNG film (FC) and TOS film (STIV) involved Time travel…and those films only rank 5th and 6th as the most successful Time Travel films
( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=timetravel.htm )
The general public are used to TT films

by the way, while I was doing research on this article I found this great YouTube tribute to Time travel movies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf5oPSuNjXY

67. boborci - December 28, 2008

65. pinky – December 28, 2008

“Meanwhile, it is important to note that “the most tested and successful theory” is NOT the Many Worlds Interpretation but rather quantum mechanics.”

I think I may have said that about 6 times in the interview. I stated one of the interpretations was MW,

68. Paul B. - December 28, 2008

58. boborci – December 28, 2008
“48. Anthony Pascale – December 28, 2008
“And yet the ‘canon’ Star Wars perquels spawned http://www.peoplevsgeorge.com/”
Ouch.

Yeah, Mr. Orci, keep that site in mind! You don’t want Trekkies creating mock lawsuits against your movie! Better make sure it matches canon perfectly or we’re going litigious! :)

Seriously, thanks to Mr. Orci for the great interaction on this site! As a one-time screenwriter wannabe and a lifelong Trek fan, I’m so envious of you for getting the chance to “rebirth” Trek on the big screen. As much as I worry about being disappointed (see “Star Wars prequels” for obvious reasons), I am pulling for you guys 10000%. (Hey, it’s Star Trek: if we can have time travel, we can have ten thousand percent!)

69. pinky - December 28, 2008

#67 boborci

I know. Just seemed like people were connecting the descriptor to the wrong subject… don’t want to mix that up.

70. Vorus - December 28, 2008

@ 60 boborci

Believe me, I understand that the theory is widely accepted. I’ve actually read both of Hawking’s books. (And Kruass’ “The Physics of Star Trek”, actually.) So, I can definitely understand your faith that a time travel event would have the results you predict.

HOWEVER, that isn’t how Trek generally handles time travel. Yes, they did so in “Parallels” (and “Yesterday’s Enterprise” to a lesser extent) but most of the time it is understood that the characters are jumping to and from points within the SAME universe’s time stream. That is why they can “fix” things by the end of the episode. If we were to believe that each and every time travel story in Trek happened to work with the MWI, we’d be left with 54+ universes, which takes most of the drama out of the series. These are no longer the “original” characters. These would be characters very much LIKE the originals, but in a completely different and separate universe. Using the MWI, for all we know, the “original” Kirk may have died during TOS, but by then we were watching “Universe 17 Kirk”, who was still alive and kicking.

That line of thinking leads down all kinds of major diversionary roads like that, if we apply it to every incident of time travel. And I think most Trek fans would agree that Trek’s “legacy” or “legend” forbids us from thinking that we aren’t watching the “real” characters when we watch an episode.

In any case, my concern is that the MWI is definitely NOT the canonical explanation of every time travel incident in Trek. And you seem to be saying that it must be, and therefore, that it must also apply to this film. Which therefore leads me to the conclusion that the only thing backing up the idea that this film is in an alternate universe is the fact that the MWI is widely accepted by modern scientists. In other words, my original point is still alive and kicking, that the film ITSELF does not canonically establish that it is in an alternate universe, but instead tries to pass itself off as an origin story.

I wouldn’t necessarily think of that as a bad thing, because we as fans can simply look at it and say “Well, this CLEARLY isn’t in the TOS universe. I guess Orci was right”.

However, in that case, we’re still left with the fact that it was explained and presented as an origin story, when it clearly isn’t. It’s just another alternate universe. One that, if all goes well, will continue for at least two more films. And then what? We’re left with “normal” people thinking that Trek “really” happened the new way and not knowing any better, and fans believing that there are now three major Trek universes to keep track of. (The original, the Mirror universe, and this new one.)

I’m not trying to sound hostile or negative, but I simply haven’t heard any adequate explanation of this issue. Nor do I really expect one. After all, I’m sure you have contractual limits on how much you can tell us.

All told, I’m simply a concerned long-time fan who just wanted to see a good origin story, and is a little bummed out that it’s just another pointless alternate universe.

71. Harley3k - December 28, 2008

@59. Anthony Pascale,

re: ” They have not turned Chekov into an evil Asian girl robot, for example.”

HA! That would certainly define a “reboot” by anyone’s definition.
Changing the sex of a character, a la Starbuck in BSG is a sure sign.

I’ve wondered how good sequels would have been possible if this movie was a true prequel. It would mean any sequel would be very limited in scope, unless they just kept doing the time-travel trick in every movie. Having it be an alternate timeline gives any possible sequels room to breathe.

The Star Wars prequels were not well received as you mentioned, and yet they were inarguably consistent with canon. Pure consistency, while important is not the end-all/be-all. A good story is key. And my hope is that Orci has given us both with the hopes of more to come in the best, most plausible way possible.

72. TheBigCW - December 28, 2008

MY BRAIN HURTS!

73. OneBuckFilms - December 28, 2008

69 – At the point that new fans will get to figuring it out, they are already hooked, just as we are.

74. boborci - December 28, 2008

70. Vorus – December 28, 2008

“In any case, my concern is that the MWI is definitely NOT the canonical explanation of every time travel incident in Trek.”

True. Not for EVERY one. So since we get to choose, and still remain within canon no matter which explanation we choose, we’ve opted for the most current thinking on the matter. Certainly it is part of Trek’s mandate to adopt advances in science as they become accepted, regardless of previous reliance on out dated science, no?

“In other words, my original point is still alive and kicking, that the film ITSELF does not canonically establish that it is in an alternate universe, but instead tries to pass itself off as an origin story.”

Not sure I understand your canon argument since MW is mentioned in previous Trek AND is the most current scientific thinking, In terms of this being “an origin” story — it is “an” origin story — a story about how the crew of the Enterprise came together.

Enjoying the discussion.

75. Anthony Pascale - December 28, 2008

Vorus

I have already reported that the film does not pass itself off as a traditional origin story, again because of the inclusion of elder Spock. As I saw in the 20 minute preview, Spock interacts with Scotty and Kirk. Nimoy has also revealed that he interacts with his younger self in at least one scene. Kirk talks to Nimoy Spock about how he is ‘changing the past’ I also asked Orci in the last interview about this if Spock ever gives Kirk a version of the Back to the Future II Doc Brown ‘chalkboard lesson’ on time travel, and and Bob said ‘it would be logical’ (maybe he was joking), but I think it will be clear to the audience from this that the time travel going on is doing something

As for there being a single ‘canon’ version of how Trek has handled time travel, there clearly isn’t one, as pointed out by Andre Bormanis in the article. Bob and I have talked about how some past Trek epsidoes can be interpreted with MWI and others cannot, so he is not ‘reconning’ all of trek to match MWI.

76. boborci - December 28, 2008

VORUS

‘All told, I’m simply a concerned long-time fan who just wanted to see a good origin story, and is a little bummed out that it’s just another pointless alternate universe.’

Understand your concern. Hopefully you won’t think it pointless at the end.

77. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. - December 29, 2008

re: The OrcSter (11)
re: Viking (23)

Viking, you KNOW that I am Herbert and embrace that. :) viva La DLRarmy. it is back and it is on crack and its mama is doing smack. speeding faster than ever before!

OrcSter – no no no. I’m one with you, hay hay brother. I was just speaking about the interview with AP – you said this several times and were given much shit for it. I think it came across to the readers of that article as “well prepared”; and they pointed that out very sarcastically. I didnt want you to suffer that again, because to me it seemed that what you were saying was very lost on some in how you were saying it. (is all)

OrcSter, have you had time to think about my proposal? aka “If I Did It, Junior” a musical by the OrcSter and hitch1969 for elementary school children? I am just a supermodeldoug@aol.com away.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

78. JML9999 - December 29, 2008

TIme Travel aside. Somebody’s worked out the math. You need to burn Jupiter(Convert it’s entire mass to energy) to make it to Warp 1

http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=52090

http://www.scribd.com/doc/1251197/Warp-Drive-A-New-Approach

79. Harley3k - December 29, 2008

@70. Vorus,

re: “54+ Universes”

First I’m hoping you didn’t actually count those, but if you did, cool ;)

What about the transporters. Doesn’t every transport actually kill-off the character and create a copy of them on the other end? They are no longer the “original” characters, but copies ;) LOL. But seriously I agree that too many universe-hoppings can gradually drain the empathy we have for the characters. Think Sliders and how old that got…every episode…

80. Viking - December 29, 2008

Canonites will continue to split the soft, downy, liturgical hairs of temporal continuity, no matter it’s concept, construct, or de facto presentation . The bottom line, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is, “Will this movie convert the heathen rabble to the Gospel of Trek?” Partisan bitching aside, we (the trans-generational keepers of the flame) will help to meet the film’s budget. It’s the 16-year-old X-Box jockeys that’ll decide if it’s worth putting down the game pads for and sending a few box office shock waves……

Having said that, Bob, just show us the damned movie. We’ll register our opinion (or not) with rotten fruit afterwards. LOL Keep the fires lit, cowboy. :-)

81. Enterprise - December 29, 2008

How can any space movie that has sound in space, and a transporter be scientifically accurate anyway?

82. Viking - December 29, 2008

Oh, Hitch – you are the Herbert prototype, but we reach, my geezah…… :-)

83. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. - December 29, 2008

yo viking – drop me an email

lettuce get digits and hit the bone phone

=h=

84. S. John Ross - December 29, 2008

I should certainly clarify that – playfulness aside – I _like_ the fact that the film [certainly seems to be a] reboot. I am not anti-reboot; I am pro-reboot. If anyone thinks I’m trying to take the filmmakers to task, I’m really not (at least not on this point). The more rebooty the better, as far as I’m concerned.

I think it’s fun that someone like boborci would bother framing it in a way that avoids “invalidating” canon … it seems, at least, that the existing canon is being set aside (both to allow the story to grow in unexpected directions and allow newcomers to enjoy things unencumbered by years of backstory), but it isn’t being _thrown_ aside; it isn’t being mocked; it isn’t being hurled against a wall or left to fend for itself in an alleyway. It seems it’s being gently picked up, given a warm and sincere hug, and being _gently_ set aside with a tearful salute. That is, at least, the impression I’ve got from what we’ve seen.

And I think that makes it a new _style_ of reboot … the kind of reboot that has no existing equal … but a reboot still.

Unless it isn’t, of course.

85. Viking - December 29, 2008

‘How can any space movie that has sound in space, and a transporter be scientifically accurate anyway?’

I’d tell you to take that up with Harlan Ellison, but in his zeal to agree with you, you might need triaged afterwards.

86. Viking - December 29, 2008

‘yo viking – drop me an email’

Lemme finish this shot of 99 proof bananna schapps, and I’ll see if I’m lucid enough to find the fuggin’ link. LOL

87. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. - December 29, 2008

re: 86 viking

Lemme finish this shot of 99 proof bananna schapps, and I’ll see if I’m lucid enough to find the fuggin’ link. LOL

SO… THAT is AP’s excuse… probably the OrcSter’s too.

=h=

88. Harley3k - December 29, 2008

@74. boborci,

RE: “So since we get to choose, and still remain within canon no matter which explanation we choose, we’ve opted for the most current thinking on the matter. Certainly it is part of Trek’s mandate to adopt advances in science as they become accepted, regardless of previous reliance on out dated science, no?”

Here here!!! Cheers.

I’m glad we’re not getting a traditional prequel with “NX 1701″ or “NC 1699″ slapped onto the side of the same old ship design, or a Reboot that pretends like old trek never existed. And with the poor shape the franchise was in we could have easily gotten that, or nothing at all.

89. Vorus - December 29, 2008

@ boborci

First of all, I thank you for your replies. I REALLY appreciate it. I know you must be tired of “defending” yourself to “die-hard”s by now.

On to the points: (I wish there was a good way to quote)

==Certainly it is part of Trek’s mandate to adopt advances in science as they become accepted, regardless of previous reliance on out dated science, no?==

Oh absolutely. And I have no problem with the theory itself. And obviously, under any theory, mucking about in the past is going to change things, so even under the “traditional” Trek time travel plot line, Nero’s involvement would more or less have created an alternate timeline, at least until the heroes fixed it.

And fixing it is the major difference here. If the film is in an alternate timeline, there is no need to “fix” it, since this new timeline will just continue on. However, where does that leave us for Trek a decade from now? Let’s say some new Trek series starts on TV. How will we know if it takes place in the original universe or your new one? I doubt anyone will bother to explain it to us.

And if they do, let’s imagine they say that it takes place in the original timeline. Now your (Hopefully) trilogy of films is left to never progress anywhere, because we just jumped right back into the original timeline as if your film(s) never existed. Kind of a shame for this new universe that held so much promise.

And if it’s the other way, and we’re told that the new Trek series takes place in the new universe, then we have now left the original canon behind, and will probably never visit it again, and you did in effect, reboot the entire franchise. I for one, would be a little miffed.

==Not sure I understand your canon argument since MW is mentioned in previous Trek AND is the most current scientific thinking==

What I mean is, I doubt that Nero or Spock or someone in the film will explain that he is going back to create an alternate universe, or save people in the alternate universe or what have you. I’m guessing that there will be no mention of these characters being from a universe different from the one Old Spock and Nero are from, thus implying that Old Spock and Nero are products of their younger selves as seen in this film, when actually, they are products of their younger selves from their OWN universe, not this new one Nero created. (That’s confusing, even for me.)

What I’m saying is that the film will be, to anyone unfamiliar with Trek, a story of a bad guy that changes history, and an old good guy that helps his younger friends stop him. But that isn’t really what it is. It’s a film about a bad guy that creates an alternate universe, and an old good guy that goes to that alternate universe to help out people that are LIKE his younger friends. There really isn’t any history being changed. The “real” Kirk’s history still happens as we knew it, TOS still happens as we knew it. Only this new universe is ever affected.

And that takes me to this:

==Hopefully you won’t think it pointless at the end.==

I hope so too. What I would call “pointless” is if nothing Nero does could ,or does, affect the original universe. (Which goes back to the question of why Spock would care about his alternate universe friends.) If the TOS-TNG universe that we are familiar with remains untouched (Other than Nero and Old Spock leaving it.) then what’s the real point? Yes, it may be an entertaining film, but as a die-hard Trek fan, why should I care about alternate universe characters? If the MWI is correct, then there are a nearly infinite number of copies of Kirk, Spock, and the rest. Why should I care whether or not copy number 456,334,232 dies or not? There are billions of other copies that live.

If all this film is, is a window into an alternate universe version of all the classic cahracters, and how THAT UNIVERSE’S crew and ship got together, I’d consider that pointless. Now granted, it may still be good, entertaining, and the like, but it’s not the story of how the “real” crew and ship got together. You couldn’t point to it and say “That’s the true story.” The best you could say would be “That’s the true story for universe number 55.”

And again I thank you for reading and replying. I know I’m long-winded and hard to please.

90. Quarksbartender - December 29, 2008

I like these talkbacks it reminds of bartending at Quarks we were having these same debates when the movie was first announced.
I think in my next trekcast well have some fun with time travel it’s great debate stuff.
Bob Orci did you ever make it into the Star Trek: Experience and enjoy a Warp Core Breach?

91. Kruge - December 29, 2008

Vorus

I really don’t understand people like you, you seem to be getting ourtraged based on a lot of assumptions about the film. Somethings are just going to have to wait, there is no way to answer all you want to konw…without essentially putting the script online…which would be pretty cool, but I doubt Bob is going to do it.

92. Paul B. - December 29, 2008

85. Viking – December 29, 2008
‘How can any space movie that has sound in space, and a transporter be scientifically accurate anyway?’
I’d tell you to take that up with Harlan Ellison, but in his zeal to agree with you, you might need triaged afterwards.

I’d say leave Harlan alone, but you’re right: he’d pop a hundred blood vessels if you simply said, “Sound in space” to him. (I’m a huge fan of Harlan’s writings and rantings.)

But as for the question about Trek being “scientifically accurate,” I will refer to a Star Trek character for my answer: Uhura in “Star Trek III” summed it up best. I always thought her line (though cheesy as hell) summed up Trek nicely:

“This isn’t reality; this is fantasy! You wanted adventure? How’s this?”

Hey, Bob Orci, does the new Trek film fit Uhura’s take on things? :)

93. Quarksbartender - December 29, 2008

I definately had some friends experience alternate timelines after warp core breaches.

94. Vorus - December 29, 2008

@91 Kruge

Perhaps you need to know what my “outrage mode” looks like, because believe me, I am FAR from outraged. I have some minor concerns and things that don’t make sense to me, and one of the actual WRITERS of the film is taking his time to talk to me! So, you can be very sure that I’m going to talk his proverbial ear off for as long as he’s willing to respond.

95. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. - December 29, 2008

re: 89. Vorus

in answer to your (very valid) questions – I have posted several times theories as to why “would spock care” or care to go back IF the “the most successful theory in physics” is true

I wont post it again – it was deleted every time – and I dont have the definitive answers – was just more asking the questions than anything.

Hey, I told everyone at Christmas in my circle who is interested (but not as much as me) that we missed our day! And then had to explain WHY.

wait til may.

the women!!

=h=

96. Just a Fan - December 29, 2008

Harley3k @88 has a very good point
“I’m glad we’re not getting a traditional prequel with “NX 1701″ or “NC 1699″ slapped onto the side of the same old ship design, or a Reboot that pretends like old trek never existed. And with the poor shape the franchise was in we could have easily gotten that, or nothing at all.”

Lets say Paramount went to some other team like McG or who the hell knows…you know we would have got a totally ‘new’ Trek. I think some Trek fans are in some kind of denial about how bad the franchise is right now and how small the fanbase is. Another TNG movie or pure traditional Trek movie would never succeed. It is still pretty shocking that Paramount is even doing this. It is by no means a ‘given’ that Paramount would do another Trek film so soon after Nemesis, and certainly the more likely followup to the failures of the Berman era is a whole new ‘reboot’, which (despite what some believe) does not appear to be what we are getting.

Look at how popular alternative reality and time travel episodes are from “Year of Hell” to “City on the Edge” to “Yesterdays Enterprise” to “Twilight”. Sounds to me like they are carrying on a fine Trek tradition (albeit one that is likely not to have a big giant reset button at the end).

97. Viking - December 29, 2008

Hitch – you’ve got mail.

98. Harley3k - December 29, 2008

@89. Vorus,

RE:”However, where does that leave us for Trek a decade from now? Let’s say some new Trek series starts on TV. How will we know if it takes place in the original universe or your new one?”

It would be simple to explain which universe it’s in with a brief reference to history, like having an old character in the pilot. Remember really old McCoy on Picard’s Enterprise in TNG?

If this movie is a huge success and sequel(s) follow, then a new series in the OrciVerse is possible or dare I say, likely.

If it flops and doesn’t continue, then it is but one strange episode in a long history of Star Trek. And then a TV series based in the OrciVerse wouldn’t ever happen (in this universe). Just like a new series in the Mirror-verse or Yesterday’s-Enterprise-Verse isn’t likely. So far the only alter-verse that’s been visited more than once is the Mirror-verse.

The success of the film will determine if it’s just an episode or a new direction.

99. Kruge - December 29, 2008

Fair enough Vorus

but can you keep it briefer, others are trying to get a word and question in here…these giant diatribes are a bit fillibustery

100. Vorus - December 29, 2008

@99

I’ll try.

101. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. - December 29, 2008

HOWEVER – a very valid question to the OrcSter, that any of you may ask…

Given the canon inaccuracies being explained by “the most successful theory in physics”…. and given the grandfather being explained, in the past so much….

and, given… that the post Nemesis timeline does continue no matter what is done in the alternate timeline (ie – its clear that elder spock is not trying to “save the future”///

or is he? CAN he return to his previous timeline? Can Nero as well?

WHAT can they bring back?

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

102. Harley3k - December 29, 2008

@96.

And I think some people forget just how un-entertaining the last few movies actually were.

I’ve already spent more time watching and re-watching the Trailer for Star Trek (2009) than I ever did watching Nemesis.

The entertainment value of it alone is an improvement IMO.

103. xizro345 - December 29, 2008

I’m totally neutral on the subject, but frankly this is *just* a reboot with a fancy explanation done not to anger the fans (being a physicist myself I frankly see the use of quantum mechanics while possible totally questionable for a simple entertainment movie), IMO. I don’t see the point of going into great lenghts to explain the “timeline” is still the same while it’s obvious they’re trying the fresh start approach. The rest is nitpicking. My doubts on the movie are others, canon isn’t really an issue.

104. S. John Ross - December 29, 2008

#89 sez: “If the MWI is correct, then there are a nearly infinite number of copies of Kirk, Spock, and the rest. Why should I care whether or not copy number 456,334,232 dies or not? There are billions of other copies that live.”

Stuff like that is why I really hope (and it seems to be the case) that all this quantum stuff stays out of the movie and restricts itself to places like this website. Not only is it needlessly fiddly for a fun movie, it also has creepy moral implications. “Hey, I’m not MURDERING this guy, I’m simply choosing to live in a universe where he isn’t alive. I’m in no way invalidating the billions of universes in which he lives long and, you know, prospers and stuff.”

#92 sez (by way of Uhura): “This isn’t reality; this is fantasy!”

Amen.

105. Green-Blooded-Bastard - December 29, 2008

I wonder if anyone has taken into account that just because a person may be able to slip into another universe or timeline, doesn’t necessarily mean his history of existing is wiped in his own. There are other people in his that don’t suddenly stop knowing who the person is and behave as though he never was there. There might be a manhunt for a man that has literally popped out of one existence. I think if time travel or world shifting ever occurs, it may do so from the perspective of the individual, not everyone else’s.

An interesting idea might be if an army could shift into a parallel world and start a war, so you have soldiers popping in and out of worlds to wage war and change histories in both worlds as they do so. What a mess.

106. Enterprise - December 29, 2008

Is it kinda sad that the old guy who kills himself in “City on the Edge of Forever”, really had no impact at all in the future timeline? Poor guy.

107. Viking - December 29, 2008

#60 boborci:

“Political scientist” L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the “leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists” about the “Many-Worlds Interpretation” and gives the following response breakdown [T].

1) “Yes, I think MWI is true” 58%
2) “No, I don’t accept MWI” 18%
3) “Maybe it’s true but I’m not yet convinced” 13%
4) “I have no opinion one way or the other” 11%
Amongst the “Yes, I think MWI is true” crowd listed are Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman. Gell-Mann and Hawking recorded reservations with the name “many-worlds”, but not with the theory’s content. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is also mentioned as a many-worlder, although the suggestion is not when the poll was conducted, presumably before 1988 (when Feynman died). The only “No, I don’t accept MWI” named is Penrose.”

OK, you win. I’ll chuck my college credits in Computer Science, Meteorology, Oceanography, Chem, Bio 101 and 102, and support you for head of Starfleet R & D.

Now can I have a peek at the new phaser? I wouldn’t be worth the American Legion card in my wallet if I didn’t at least pry. :-)

108. Ghost of Star Trek Future - December 29, 2008

104
If no one cares about ‘alternative’ versions, then why are all those episodes listed in the post from #96 so popular? I cared about the characters in Parallels, in Yesterdays Enterprise, in Year of Hell and in Twilight…was I wrong to?

109. Harley3k - December 29, 2008

@101. hitch,

RE: “CAN [elder Spock] return to his previous timeline? Can Nero as well?”

I hope we keep elder-Spock in the OrciVerse. We may need him again.
He can hang out with SylarSpock and be his own big-brother.

Nero must die, or the 2 Spocks can sabotage his alterverse hopping ship and send him off to Mirror-Mirrorverse and let goatee’d Spock dispatch with him.

Amazingly what I just typed does make sense to me.

110. Harley3k - December 29, 2008

@104. Ross,

RE: ““Hey, I’m not MURDERING this guy, I’m simply choosing to live in a universe where he isn’t alive. I’m in no way invalidating the billions of universes in which he lives long and, you know, prospers and stuff.””

Oh great… With the wide acceptance of MWI among the physics community I now expect to see your quote at a defense trial near you.

111. Vorus - December 29, 2008

@108

I’m not saying you were “wrong” for caring about them, I’m just presenting my opinion. I’ve “invested” nearly 102 hours of TV time to the TOS cast. (Including the 6 films) Obviously, their lives mean a lot more to me than the “Random universe 55″ versions of them, in whom I haven’t invested a single second of TV time.

For example, did you REALLY care when Alternate Riker died in “Yesterday’s Enterprise”? If so, did you care as much as you would have if “real” Riker had died in some episode?

That’s what I mean about not caring about an alternate universe version of the characters.

112. DEMODE - December 29, 2008

I just hope that in the end…. if this is an alternate timeline…. that Spock (Nimoy) goes back to his own original timeline in the future. I would hate to see him stuck in a new timeline, where Shatner and crews original adventures did not exist.

113. Enterprise - December 29, 2008

It would be nice if the final shot of the movie is a shot where we see Classic Cast in a picture or something on a wall in Starfleet to show that the timeline was restored.

114. boborci - December 29, 2008

Quoting 89 — Vorus
And fixing it is the major difference here. If the film is in an alternate timeline, there is no need to “fix” it, since this new timeline will just continue on. However, where does that leave us for Trek a decade from now? Let’s say some new Trek series starts on TV. How will we know if it takes place in the original universe or your new one? I doubt anyone will bother to explain it to us.

I know what you mean that it seems like this precedent could lead to chaos, but can we worry about one movie or one decade at a time? LOL!

115. Ghost of Star Trek Future - December 29, 2008

111

well yes I did care that Riker died in YE and I cared that Tasha was Alive…which brings up the whole issue that Sela indicates that every episode that takes place after YE was an alternative timeline….so are none of those episodes after YE ‘real’?

And lets not forget that Spock Prime is the ‘real’ Spock and so he alone should be enough for you to care about. All of us have ‘invested’ hours of our life into star trek, you are not special or better or more ‘invested’ than any of us.

116. boborci - December 29, 2008

90. Quarksbartender – December 29, 2008
I like these talkbacks it reminds of bartending at Quarks we were having these same debates when the movie was first announced.
I think in my next trekcast well have some fun with time travel it’s great debate stuff.
Bob Orci did you ever make it into the Star Trek: Experience and enjoy a Warp Core Breach?

Thrice. Once even brought wife and mother, and was made fun of. Loved it.

117. Uhura (Mirror) - December 29, 2008

This whole solution really seems to be the only thing that works for all groups.

Firstly it works for the new audience who dont know Trek but want all the latest whizbang action, effects, etc (and lets face it…100% canon would have got in the way).

I think this will also work for the ‘casual fans’ who need a reason to return to trek after abandoning it in the 90s…so a new fresh approach with links to the past works for them.

And for the installed fan base, from this site we can see three camps
Rebootists…they are taken care of so no problem
Moderates…this is ‘canon enough’ to work and they are flexible
…leaving just the ‘purists’ who are a minority of a minority, lets say (at most a third of a third) of the total target audience. It is unlikely that any film that would meet all their ‘paint the bridge railing red or you have raped my childhood’ demands could actually appeal to any general audience. And this alt timeline thing is essentially as ‘good as they are going to get’

…and they will continue to bitch of course

118. Harley3k - December 29, 2008

@116. boborci,

Three times? Cool. I’ve only been once. The Romulan Ale / Green Beer did a number on my bowels. I can see why it is illegal in the future.

119. Vorus - December 29, 2008

@ 114 boborci

Fair enough. I wouldn’t call the next decade’s version of Trek my main concern with this new film, but that’s probably just about the only point from my last post that you could respond to without spoiling something, or making me even more concerned.

I guess my main concern with the film is whether or not there is a logical reason for Spock to care about what happens in this new universe. And by “logical reason”, I mean other than something along the lines of “These are my friends, I must help them.” Because they AREN’T his friends, they are version 55 of his friends. It would be illogical for him to be so concerned with the fates of all versions of his friends. If there is a logical reason, then at least this film could be looked at as one more adventure for “real” Spock, if nothing else. And if the reason is good enough, (As in, it threatens the universe we are invested in) then the alternate universe is no longer pointless, it must be saved to save our own.

I guess, boiled down to it, that’s my main concern. (With the apparent slew of corny jokes coming in as second most point of concern.)

120. Vorus - December 29, 2008

@ 115

Wow, chill dude. When did I say I was “special” or “better”?! I was expressing MY opinion. I wasn’t trying to get anyone else to agree with it or believe it.

121. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. - December 29, 2008

re 114. boborci

Dude, what flippance? Not to be too requisite of you as the holy scribe here, but are you going to tell us that the sequel is going to star your buddy shia leboof and that of course you will find a way to write into the script his injuries from his next drunk driving *non-arrest*?

dude.

we appreciate that you post here, but come on.

=h=

122. Harley3k - December 29, 2008

@ 118. Uhura (Mirror),

A very good summary.

I would also say that in addition to this being the best possible scenario for all the groups, that it also leaves the door open for more sequels in this style. Since a return to TNG movies seemed unlikely, and movies based on the other series would seem to Niche.

These movies cost lots to make and even more to make well. They must have a wider appeal. Now let’s just hope the xboxers actually go pay to see it and don’t just download it for free; in the looming economic doom that is to come in ’09.

123. Jordan - December 29, 2008

Very interesting article. Bob and Alex’s approach toward the script sounds incredibly innovative yet, as Bormanis noted, consistent within the Trek universe of alternate timelines, universes, etc. It’s enough to make your head ache but it sure is thought-provoking.

124. Keep the Faith - December 29, 2008

Mr. Orci –

Thanks for your thoughtfulness, and sincere interaction with the fans.

125. Harley3k - December 29, 2008

@121. hitch1969,

I agree with boborci, let’s worry about One Movie at a time.
Trek needs a good film right now, however that is achieved, like a defibrillator to the chest cavity.

126. Harley3k - December 29, 2008

@124.

Ditto.

127. boborci - December 29, 2008

121. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. – December 29, 2008
re 114. boborci

“Dude, what flippance? Not to be too requisite of you as the holy scribe here, but are you going to tell us that the sequel is going to star your buddy shia leboof and that of course you will find a way to write into the script his injuries from his next drunk driving *non-arrest*?

dude.

we appreciate that you post here, but come on.”

“Holy scribe” is exactly the kind of impression I’m trying to avoid. But if you don’t like that, let’s try the opposite… like:

Don’t worry. Though this movie has not come out yet, we have arrogantly counted on it’s success, and expect to be running the Star Trek franchise for the next decade and beyond, which is a good thing because we actually have it planned out into the next generation of the human race.

128. boborci - December 29, 2008

Correction:

ITS success.

129. Harley3k - December 29, 2008

@127. boborci,

That is presumptuous of you too assume that the human race will continue another generation. Don’t you watch the news?

But seriously, thanks for continuing Rodenberry’s vision of a positive future for humanity…squabbling fans not withstanding. But hey, as a trekker yourself before you took this project, you must’ve known what you were signing up for ;) I hope you got a percentage of gross, because I really expect the movie to be a huge success.

130. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. - December 29, 2008

re 127 The Orcster

“Holy scribe” is exactly the kind of impression I’m trying to avoid. But if you don’t like that, let’s try the opposite… like:

Don’t worry. Though this movie has not come out yet, we have arrogantly counted on it’s success, and expect to be running the Star Trek franchise for the next decade and beyond, which is a good thing because we actually have it planned out into the next generation of the human race.”

You should arrogantly count on its success. And you WILL be running the franchise for the next decade on. “holy scribe” is what you should aspire to, for our sake, because i think the “supreme court” thing is rather lame and you are most fit to lead. YOU understand this beast, you’re one of us. JJ isnt, you know that. I don’t like this new democratic approach to the franchise. First it was Roddenberry, then Berman… next, it should be you, in this new regime. JJ should follow what YOU say.

What I DONT want is your buddy Shia LeBoof anywhere near this franchise. IS all that I was saying, OrcSter. I certainly dont want to see you and your writing partner having to hijack your own story to fix in his next trip to walgreens for smokes @ 2am

I know, I know, you guys find him fancy and all that. Of course you cant talk the smack about him publically, I’m down with that. Just keep him away from Star Trek is all I am asking. Maybe as he matures he will grow on me, but I think that major perception of him is that he is an undeserving, overpriviliged punk.

the women!!

=h=

131. Harry Ballz - December 29, 2008

#127 “we actually have it planned out into the next generation of the human race”

Sheesh, Bob, I’m so cynical, I don’t even buy green bananas!

132. hitch1969© speaks with wise tongue™. - December 29, 2008

correctal : publicly. publicity. pubic.

133. Stanky McFibberich - December 29, 2008

One alternate universe I’m interested in is the one where this “project” does not exist.

134. Trekee - December 29, 2008

I suppose the only concern I’d have is that the alternate timeline isn’t a be all and end all thing. MOST Trek wasn’t MWI emm, compliant… Kirk tries to RESTORE the timeline in CotEoF, Picard does the same in YE (but it’s not EXACTLY the same) and so on. I think it’s normal for us to feel invested in what we feel is OUR timeline, though that’s probably wrong by MWI theory anyway.

If there’s no attempt to restore the timeline, ie save Kirk’s parents and restore the Enterprise shuttle bay, then maybe there’s a danger we’ll feel less invested in these new characters?

Liking this thread, lots of brain food.

135. Jas in Perth - December 29, 2008

My problem with the many worlds approach (and I suspect I’m an echo in this discussion) is that if a change in the timeline splits off an alternate universe, what is at stake then? That is, what is Spock’s responsibility to the alternate timeline (and alternate universe) that Nero brings into existence? Knowing it won’t actually affect anything in the canon timeline, why does Spock follow Nero? Is Spock bored? It seems to me that while the many worlds thesis frees the writers up to play around with familiar Star Trek elements in new ways, it also has the contrary effect of absolving Nimoy’s Spock of any real responsibility and of lessening the drama. Afterall, the life of the real Kirk is not at risk, just the alternate one …

136. Cygnus-X1 - December 29, 2008

74. boborci – December 28, 2008

— In terms of this being “an origin” story — it is “an” origin story — a story about how the crew of the Enterprise came together. —

Right, but I think that Vorus was expressing disappointment about your origin story that, while being “an” origin story, is not “the” origin story of the characters to and in whom we long-time fans have developed an emotional attachment and a general vested interest.

And, so, while having your story premised upon the MWI allowed you certain liberties of storytelling that would not contradict canon, the cost of those liberties is feared to be a lack of emotional satisfaction in being told a story involving characters who are not consequential to the ones in whom we have become vested.

To put it a different way, the concern is that, in seeking a way to justify events in Trek history that would facilitate your story, you have abrogated responsibility for dealing with the actual characters (and their actual histories) of TOS. The familiar characters in your story (the Enterprise crew, etc…) are only relatives, albeit close relatives (Quantum relatives, if you will), of the characters in TOS.

Or, to put it yet another way, the concern is that while being very thoughtful, creative, intellectual and clever, you have also managed to be too cute by half.

And, I have to admit that this concern (hopefully I have not misinterpreted Vorus) was also my gut reaction to the news that the events befalling the Enterprise crew are occurring in an alternate timeline/universe.

All of this science is certainly fascinating and adds a palpable depth, “relevance,” and, even, import to the film. But, the negative on the ledger is the diminished emotional impact in knowing that the characters in your story may not actually consequential to the characters of TOS.

Let me also offer a qualified apology, if I have misinterpreted anything said by Vorus or Mr. Orci, the MWI or any other premise of the film that has been revealed.

I’m still excited to see the film, in any case. And, it’s a real treat to read and participate in this discussion with Mr. Orci.

137. Jas in Perth - December 29, 2008

#119 said it so much better than I did above at #135!

138. Pomeranc - December 29, 2008

Wow, this discussion is just amazing. I have to thank Bob Orci for his comments, it explains even more than the article itself (btw great work Anthony).

But it’s obvious, that we will have to see actual movie to understand how them realy figure this time travel thing out. So I’m looking forward to it, it will be fun. :)

Thanks,
Pomeranc, Czech Republic.

139. Jas in Perth - December 29, 2008

Stephen Baxter’s Manifold trilogy weaves a wonderful connection between the multiple universes and timelines that he creates in his series. Each of his Manifold books are a different take (like alternate timelines) on the same premise, using the same characters, and are linked (via the third book) in an intriguing way. I don’t expect that kind of complexity in the new Star Trek film but it provides a context for #136 comments that there should be a link between the canon universe and the alternatve universe, something that gives Spock’s motives for following Nero into the alternate timeline some credibility. Otherwise, the first question that comes to mind is why should he even bother?

140. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 29, 2008

I hope Mr. Orci has gone to bed by now. It’s late. :P

Vorus, well said. You’re expressing pretty much all of my concerns, and more clearly, I think, than I have at times. Particularly your point about Alternate Riker–no, I really didn’t care when he died in “YE.” In fact, I said, “Hey, whoa! Cool!” Same when the entire Alt. Enterprise Crew was killed by the Xindi in “Twilight.” And when Janeway exploded herself in “Year of Hell.” They’re alts; they don’t matter. The only alts I really find myself *really* caring about are the ones who are somehow connected to our own universe–Picard in “Tapestry,” or Picard in “The Inner Light,” or Ben Sisko in “The Visitor.” Or, in all probability, Spock-Prime in Trek ’09.

It does seem like a silly thought when you put it down on paper. Basically, I’m saying, “Oh, yes, I care a great deal about these fictional characters, but I laugh at the deaths of their alternate universe counterparts. Their *fictional* counterparts.” I mean, why should I care about one fictional universe over another? And yet, I do. I guess it’s a matter of investment, and it almost certainly matters only to a few of us hardcores.

I understand *exactly* what you meant when you wrote that, perhaps, “the film ITSELF does not canonically establish that it is in an alternate universe, but instead tries to pass itself off as an origin story.” Even though no one *else* seems to be quite getting what you’re saying, I dig it, and I’ve come to the same conclusions. I agree, too–I think that’s the best-case scenario, and I’d be very pleased if it turned out to be true.

141. Harley3k - December 29, 2008

Whose to say that the alterverse in this movie isn’t the very thing that somehow ends up creating the original universe that we know and love?

Yah, uh huh, I just totally blew your mind. Or not.
I can’t tell any more.
I just need to see the movie now. k, thx.

142. SPOCKBOY - December 29, 2008

I think that the most exciting part of all of this is that the story itself was so intriguing toJJ Abrams that he was compelled to direct it. Consideriing the complicated twists and turns and Abram’s productions like “LOST” I suspect that he wouldn’t have been very impressed with a traditional “time travel” scenario, which suggests a great ride for the fans like ourselves.

Can’t wait for May.

143. Sean - December 29, 2008

The fact that they are citing “Yesterday’s Enterprise” as inspiration for solving the timeline problem wins me over more than some because “Yesterday’s Enterprise” is my favorite TNG episode. If I can get around the issue of why things are different, I think the movie will be successful.

144. Jas in Perth - December 29, 2008

#142. Yes, very, very true. Afterall, the right kind of thought has gone into the writing of this particular Trek movie unlike, say, Generations where Science is embarrassingly absent (indeed, overwritten by a producer’s checklist of things that must occur in the Generations film).

145. SPOCKBOY - December 29, 2008

I liked “Yesterday’s Enterprise” too, but it was HEAVILY inspired or COPIED from Twilight Zone’s “First Flight” which was a story of a world war 1 plane leaving its timeline in the middle of a battle and coming into our time. At the end the pilot is compelled to return to the battle to restore history.

Brilliant show…..Twilight Zone.

146. Jas in Perth - December 29, 2008

#143: I also liked the TNG episide “Cause and Effect”, though under the many worlds thesis that would have the effect of creating 4 different Federation timelines / universes then and there.

147. Chris Pike - December 29, 2008

78. JML9999 – December 29, 2008
TIme Travel aside. Somebody’s worked out the math. You need to burn Jupiter(Convert it’s entire mass to energy) to make it to Warp 1

Or just use a small amount of “exotic matter”…

148. Dyson Sphere - December 29, 2008

Count me in as one that generally has taken the bait on MWI and how things can play out. Now to just wait for one kick-ass story to play out on the screen.

@Anthony – thanks for asking Bob to calm the curious.

@Bob – I very much respect you taking the time to communicate with the fans. I would tend to think you all partake in drugs and go into the deprivation tank to get away from us. Or maybe you just keep a cow in the office for the milk?

149. The Angry Klingon - December 29, 2008

OK Bob (Orci)
Im OK with the alternate timeline
Im OK with the casting and the FX look good….
What Im still obsessing on (as are several folks on a few prop boards) is the fact that the bridge of the Enterprise is LITTERED with BAR CODE SCANNERS.
You guys had a budget , right?
This isnt the 60s with paper mache cave walls, etc…this is a big budget movie and somebody thought it was OK to go scoop up a bunch of retail store barcode scanners and plant them on every empty space on the freakin bridge. Its THAT sort of laziness in design and execution that concerns me. Ive worked in Hollywood as both on props and sets (and on Trek) and SURE we used found items but we at least MODIFIED them so it wasnt so obvious what they were.
Sorry but this sort of laziness doesnt speak well as to teh effort put in by the design team (the new bridge looks horrid) and Im seeing a LOT of found objects in these clips . It seems that if it wasnt for the Apple store, IKEA and STAPLES you wouldnt have sets.
And Klingons in TRENCHCOATS and leather masks?
Dont wait for the translation answer me now!

150. Delgadeth - December 29, 2008

But, if Nero back in time and killed Kirk’s parents, whow Spock go to the very same timeline that Nero a tray to stoped him?

151. Resident nEvil - December 29, 2008

I didn’t realise people still considered the “Grandfather Paradox” a problem.

You’re just not thinking fourth-dimensionally!

If it were possible to travel into the past (as in, ACTUALLY travel into the past – not “create an alternate timeline”), then whatever actions you took would have occurred prior to you making the trip.

So no, you couldn’t go back in time and assassinate Hitler. And if you tried, your actions may very well have lead to him coming to power in the first place.

It’s not just that I consider MWI an (unnecessary) cop-out, but all this talk of “Oh, well, they just created an alternate timeline” seems to rob billions of lives of value and worth. Even if it were a more theoretically plausible rationale, it robs the story of a great deal of emotional weight.

152. thorsten - December 29, 2008

Many worlds represent reality. There we go.
I finished the design for my premiere T-Shirt for next may, though…
maybe I should replace the Starfleet Delta with Schrödingers cat…

http://thorstenwulff.com/TrekXI.jpg

153. thorsten - December 29, 2008

@145…

The Name of that Pilot was Will Decker, Spockboy ;))
It was “The Last Flight” from season one…

154. thorsten - December 29, 2008

@149…

Well, the barcode scanners on the bridge can only be an hommage at germanys version of Star Trek… “Raumpatrouille” (Space Patrol) from 1966. The series ship, the fast cruiser Orion VIII, a saucer shaped ship that started from its undersea base in Australia,

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51N577DVCQL._SS400_.jpg

was famously controlled by flatirons on the bridge…

http://www.tv-nostalgie.de/sound/6d-Bügeleisen.jpg

155. screaming satellite - December 29, 2008

hey they could revisit KHAN for Star Trek ‘2’

as its a new time line (but undoubtedly some or most events will occur as they originally did) maybe for Star Trek ‘2’ they could redo Space Seed and have the NCC 1701 could encounter the Bontany Bay once again and Kirk and Khan could do battle although in a different fashion maybe even with a diff outcome – sort of a remake of Space Seed and Star Trek II

How funny would that be – the new Trek ‘2’ would deal with Khan as well..and as Khan is the most popular Star Trek villian (and a very popular Sci Fi villian in general) it would certainly get bums on seats..

In fact the could ‘remake’ any of TOS episodes (although maybe with a different outcome) and give it the big screen $150m treatment – if thats the case which would you like to see remade? (although i imagine most would be adverse to the idea)

156. thorsten - December 29, 2008

@29…

So Bob, that was the most intriguing hint from you regarding the whole backbone of the story… 3. The plot is not what you think!

So maybe Spock Prime is not just travelling back to stop Nero from destroying Vulcan… I was afraid that stuff would get complicated with Damon involved ;))

157. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 29, 2008

This one of my favorite science guys

158. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 29, 2008

I like the idea of the Mirror Universe being created by Edith Keeler.

There’s a fansite somewhere that starts it in WW2.

Shatner & Reeves-Stevens team starts it at the end of First Contact. Picard created the Mirror Universe by convincing the Vulcans and Cochrane to create a super alliance to fight the Borg.

159. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 29, 2008

I would be really amused if this movie moves BACKWARDS like Memento or sideways like a Quentin Movie.

That would really be quantum

160. rb santos (from Portugal) - December 29, 2008

@127. boborci – December 29, 2008
“Don’t worry. Though this movie has not come out yet, we have arrogantly counted on it’s success, and expect to be running the Star Trek franchise for the next decade and beyond, which is a good thing because we actually have it planned out into the next generation of the human race.”

Mr Orci how exactly are you, and all the supreme Court, planning the next decade of Star trek? What can we (all die-hard fans) wait from the Star Trek franchise in the next 10 years? What do you think of a new tv show? Are you people just planning movies?
Tell us some more…

Thanks,
Lisbon, Portugal

161. CmdrR - December 29, 2008

In college, we used to say that if you wanted to b.s. your parents about how you were spending their money, tell ‘em you’re majoring in philosophy… or pre-law. Now, I think a quantum physics majoy has that beat.

162. SPOCKBOY - December 29, 2008

#153
Thanks Thorsten.
That was a great show( which strangely cannot be re-made to save its life)
Rod was the man.

163. IcebreakerX - December 29, 2008

What Cygnus-X1 said.

On one hand, it’s nice to see that the story has been thought through to such a large extent. But at the same time, it is also troublesome to see that, given available information, the timelines are indeed not the same.

James Bond was able to survive because we’re already used to seeing actors come in and out of the role. Beyond that, Casino Royale was one of the best Bond stories since From Russia With Love.

In the end, the success of Star Trek will probably heavily rely on the quality of the story. But I hope the alibi doesn’t outweigh the case.

164. screaming satellite - December 29, 2008

quantum mechanics and MWI has certainly come to the mainstream in the past couple of years or so – i recall a documentary about the lead singer of Eels whos old man virtually invented it or something but was laughed at by all his peers back in the day..but whose theories resulted in all the cool Mirror/alternate universe episodes of Twilight Zone, Trek etc etc

wonder why its now had a bit of resurrection? – so much so theres even a $150 million summer tentpole film dealing with it

165. thorsten - December 29, 2008

@162…

My pleasure, SPOCKBOY!

“Dialogue from a play, Hamlet to Horatio: ‘There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy.’ Dialogue from a play written long before men took to the sky.
There are more things in heaven and earth, and in the sky, than perhaps can be dreamt of. And somewhere in between heaven, the sky, the earth, lies the Twilight Zone”

166. thorsten - December 29, 2008

@154…

sorry, because of the Umlaut in the URL you have to copy the line into your browsers adress field if you want to enjoy the Bügeleisen…

http://www.tv-nostalgie.de/sound/6d-Bügeleisen.jpg

167. thorsten - December 29, 2008

Anyway, here is another look at the Orions bridge, the control elements were made from bathroom equipment…

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,280849,00.jpg

Obviously, this is one of the parallel universes mentioned above ;))

168. thorsten - December 29, 2008

@159…
good point, MGB…
we don’t know the WHENS of the movie…
When decides Nero to attack Kirks parents on the Kelvin,
and what does he do between that skirmish and the attack on Vulcan, that happens 20 odd years later…

169. Alec - December 29, 2008

Why, in Trek XI, does Bones not have a Southern accent? It is an essential property of our Bones, of Gene Roddenberry’s Bones, that he’s ‘just an old country doctor’. In the trailer, Urban doesn’t use a Southern accent; though, Scotty still sounds Scottish. And we’ve been told that Chekhov still sounds Russian.

There’s an obvious (and fairly significant) difference between our beloved characters and these new ones.

170. steve1 or 2 - December 29, 2008

I think the Austin Powers bit is the angle we should honor. Just sit back and relax…yes. Enjoy the movie.

171. CmdrR - December 29, 2008

OK Alec, but if someone does RESET back to the more familiar TOS elements… Zoe better still pull off her top. Some things are just better in the new reality.

172. BK613 - December 29, 2008

106
ahh but that “bum” had two kids, you see and after their mother moved back to California upon the disappearance of her husband.

The older one became interested finding ways to improve humanity through selective breeding so other kids wouldn’t suffer through an alcoholic father that abandons them. That research would lead to dire consequences in 1992.

The younger one takes up law enforcement and beats out another candidate named Gene Roddenberry for a position on the LAPD, thereby disrupting the events that would allow ST the entertainment franchise to exist in the ST universe.

LOL

173. CanuckLou - December 29, 2008

Thanks for your participation Mr. Orci in this site. Your input and time are always appreciated. The response to CSLewis was golden.

Your solution sounds great. Keeps the original fans happy and clears the slate dramatically for new voyages going forward.

Do your theories encompass the possibility that changes in one timeline can have ripple effects on others? Or is each separate and isolated from one another?

Hope there is a scene(s) with Nimoy going back to the original timeline with some positive changes there. Perhaps a resurrection …..

174. Gigastazio - December 29, 2008

You know, as much as I’m looking forward to this movie, all this talk of alternate universes and such is starting to make me a little apprehensive. Seems to me it’s just needlessly complicating the story and the plot, having to get into a bunch of unnessecary explaining as to why things are they way they are. It’s starting to sound almost apologetic. All so the team making this movie can do what? Try and placate a handful of fundamentalist canofacists who aren’t going to like the movie on general principle?

What makes Star Trek valuable is that it’s meant to be a depiction of OUR future. OUR Earth. US! Not any of our alternate universe incarnations. “Yesterday’s Enterprise” was a good TNG episode, but still I think it’d have been much easier to say, “This is a reboot. Get over it.” Every other fan base can stomach reboot after reboot of their beloved franchises, and you’d think Trek fans would be the most accepting of such a thing. In fact, they are the least, and that’s incredibly sad.

Mr. Orci, tell me I’m worrying about nothing.

175. Sam Belil - December 29, 2008

From day one I have suspected that this movie would be more of an alternate timline story than an “origin story”. In my opinion some of the very best Star Trek stories involved time travel and alternate timelines. But for the most part things looked “relatively the same”. My concerns (and I am over them) — was just how different looking this “new timeline is” — and (not too sound nitpicky), Chekov (all 12 years old of him) being a member of Pike’s crew, etc. etc.. We do know that based on what we have seen so far (since we have not seen the movie yet) — that the TOS timeline as we knew it will be wiped out in favor of the “new timeline”. Do I think that Abrams and crew have taken way to much “Creative license”??? YES. Do I think that Abrams and crew are taking a HUGE RISK with the ST Franchise? YES & YES. Do I think that the at end of the film that the “old timeline” will be restored? NO, NO & NO!!!! I keep reading about all the new fantastic special effects, action scenes, etc. I am not impressed by bells and whistles, never have been. What has always attracted me to Star Trek (as someone stated earlier”, was the human drama — human adventure. If this movie has that, then it will succeed, if it’s all “bells and whistles”, all I have to say is just look at the early results for “The Spirit”, very cool visually, but a total box office bomb!!! Having said that — the fact that Nimoy agreed to be a part of this movie give me a ray of light that perhaps (and I HOPE) that this movie will be GREAT!!!!!

176. Mark - December 29, 2008

I love the way a Star Trek message board is worried about the “science” of this. Clue: Star Trek is not real; and this is a plot device. That’s all. If we don’t debate the fallacies of warp drive, phasers, the transporter splitting someone into two different people with different personalities, or all the other countless exploits of “science” to tell a story, why are we acting as if this one is any different? If it serves a great story, it did what it was supposed to and we buy into it for the story’s sake.

Thanks for putting up with us, Bob O.

177. Duncan MacLeod - December 29, 2008

25. Blake Powers – December 28, 2008

“My question with the alternate universes and spawning the new universes. If the all actions spawn a new universe, then why would spock care to go back in time??? Wouldn’t it have to affect his timeline for him to care? (In no way am i talking bad about anyway that it has been written, just posing a question as a member of “the devoted”; also I understand that posing this question will have alot of people on the interwebs going ” he’s an idiot”)”

I posit the theory that if Spock doesnt care because its not his own universe… Then he is not much of a Spock. All life is sacred and the needs of the many…

178. Duncan MacLeod - December 29, 2008

33. Jordan – December 28, 2008

I still think its a bunch of BS to do what they want.

So… basically paramount handed the reigns of Star Trek to a new creative team. and they should do what … whom wants? The Fans? As it is shown here on the site, the fans are not in agreement. Democracy? No. This is the “Supreme Court” if you catered to a democracy in film making youd have… nothing. IT is not “BS” to do what they want. They are the only ones who CAN. They were given the ball, lets see what they do with it.

179. Alex Rosenzweig - December 29, 2008

#22 – “I hope it does well and I’m looking forward to seeing it, but I LIKE my original TOS timeline just fine. Don’t need a replacement. ”

That about sums it up for me, as well, except that I’ll go further and suggest that the general public doesn’t need a replacement, either.

#26 – “Sure there will be TOS die-hards that don’t like it, but then they shouldn’t have liked the Mirror-Universe introduced in…wait for it…. TOS! So it’s nearly impossible for them to cry canon violations in my opinion, without calling the Mirror-Mirror Episode anti-canon as well.”

This is why the argument really isn’t about canon, so much as continuity. (And, yes, the two are different, as we’ve seen.) Yes, we’ve seen alternate universes in a number of episodes, and they themselves are in fact all canonical. But in each case, the characters returned to the original universe, or a very close analog thereof (as in “Yesteryear”). If the final resolution in this movie does the same, I’ll have no issues with it. But if it severs the link to the original universe, so that future storytelling is no longer beholden to it (i.e., a reboot in sheep’s clothing ;) ), I will be unhappy, not because of canon, but because the continuity has been broken.

Now, obviously, most of us don’t know what the final resolution is, so I can’t really be more authoritative than saying “if” until I actually see the movie. :)

#44 – Nicely put, James. That sums up my thinking neatly, as well.

#48 – I think Nolan’s Batman films have been very good. I think SW Eps 1-3 were mediocre. And, yet, I think that staying in-continuity is the better choice every single time. Had Lucas’s films been better-written, the unhappiness would not have existed. Indeed, if he’d paid attention to his own continuity and not invented things like “midichlorians”, it probably would have gone over better, too. ;)

180. Edwin - December 29, 2008

I’m just glad they moved this movie to May 2009 so that my Christmas wasn’t ruined!

181. Justin - December 29, 2008

Ok people jeeze for real ITS JUST A DAMN TV SHOW Grow up already. it IS NOT Real who cares if its perfect its just something cool to watch sheesh.

182. Duncan MacLeod - December 29, 2008

53. TrekMadeMeWonder – December 28, 2008

29. boborci

“Either 1. We have ignored the contradiction. 2. Spock is not aware of the LATEST AND GREATEST THEORY OF SCIENCE! or 3. The plot is not what you think!”

I hope it’s not 1. Praying for 3!

I dare say if they had “ignored the contradiction” then Bob would not have mentioned that as a possibility. That is your “one answer is obviously wrong” on your multiple choice test (although i think that both one and two are the obvious wrong answers”

183. Alex Rosenzweig - December 29, 2008

#181 – “Ok people jeeze for real ITS JUST A DAMN TV SHOW”

It is, in fact, 6 TV shows (5 if you count TAS as another season of TOS), 11 movies, hundreds of novels (including, now, more ongoing series than there were on film!), hundreds more comic books, hundreds of blueprint sets and tech manuals, thousands of fan-written stories, about a dozen or so fan-created film projects (some with multiple episodes), and I’m sure other things I’ve forgotten to list, with, all told, millions of words written about this fictional world.

It is, arguably, one of the largest, if not *the* largest, “shared universes” (and, yes, that is a term; look it up) in human history.

184. Buddykarl - December 29, 2008

those bastages! That means they trapped old Spock in the new fangled plastic timeline! *waggles a fist in the air*

First thing I am going to do after I build my time machine is make sure I am a successful webcartoonist, then I’ll get a bunch of my alternate timeline selves and form a rocking band! “The Many Faces of Me” Of course, we would all have to travel yet again to gather other copies of us to be our fans.

185. Mike Ten - December 29, 2008

I’m getting the feeling that it’s not just Nero changing time but Spock as well. Not only did he give Scotty the knowledge of transporting someone while in warp, I be Spock was behind the design of the “altered” Enterprise in the movie. He went back it time and advanced Starfleets technology to be able to deal with Nero’s ship. This would explain why the Enterprise saucer section resembles the refit Enterprise saucer.

Now if I had a time machine I could go into the future and see if I am right!

186. Vorus - December 29, 2008

@ 136 Cygnus-X1

Yes, you understood me perfectly. Well said. And I have to agree with you, I’m still excited to see the film to, in the end. I just hope its worth it.

@ 140 James Heaney – Wowbagger

Thanks. Nice to know that I can still produce intelligible, if long-winded, posts. And yes, come to thunk of it, it does sound odd on paper that we’d care about Spock-Prime, but not Spock-55. But like you said, we’re ‘hardcores’, so that’s what we do.

I’m getting worried that we hardcores represent such a minor segment of their target audience that our major concerns are getting ignored for the sake of what is more or less a reboot. Sure, we’ll get nice little nods, like mention of a Cardassian drink, but that hardly makes up for the complete divergence from the canon and the universe we are fans of.

187. Babel Girl - December 29, 2008

In some parallel reality Star Trek XI came out today. :(

188. Greenstar - December 29, 2008

I Am So Disappointed………….

189. Xai - December 29, 2008

What better way to stay with continuity AND rebo… um.. re shoe this franchise.

However… I think far too much attention is being paid to the “how we got here” quantum science stuff and not enough on the plot… or what we know of it.

190. Cervantes - December 29, 2008

#180 Edwin

Stanky would be proud of you, lol.

#179 Alex Rosenzweig

Thankyou, as you almost always seem to sum up perfectly my own take on certain things.

I’m just at the stage now, where I’m NOT going to go into this with the expectations I had for a previously looked-forward to big screen incarnations of 60’s shows (i.e.- The Avengers, Lost in Space, Thunderbirds etc.), as I am sure I’ll enjoy all the uncharacteristically different-looking, different-sounding stuff a little more then!

191. Xai - December 29, 2008

188. Greenstar – December 29, 2008
“I Am So Disappointed…………”

How can yo be disappointed in something we know so little about?

192. Duncan MacLeod - December 29, 2008

85. Viking – December 29, 2008

‘How can any space movie that has sound in space, and a transporter be scientifically accurate anyway?’

I’d tell you to take that up with Harlan Ellison, but in his zeal to agree with you, you might need triaged afterwards.

Ellison in his zeal might also sue you for restating his arguments in a way he doesnt approve of. Be careful.

193. rangerone314 - December 29, 2008

74. boborci – December 28, 2008
70. Vorus – December 28, 2008

“In any case, my concern is that the MWI is definitely NOT the canonical explanation of every time travel incident in Trek.”

True. Not for EVERY one. So since we get to choose, and still remain within canon no matter which explanation
*************************************************
I might assume then that the MWI-time travel explanation depends upon the METHOD of time travel…

Methods I remember offhand:
1) Guardian of Forever doorway
2) Anti-matter/Cold Warpcore start (“Naked Time”)
3) Breakaway (Star Trek IV and “Tomorrow is Yesterday”)
4) Timeships (like 29th century Starleet in Voyager or Rasmussen’s stolen ship in STTNG)
5) “All Our Yesterday’s” timeportal (Mr Atoz)
6) DS9 Orb of Time
7) DS9 “Past Tense” transporter incident

(I’m sure i missed a few)

194. 750 Mang - December 29, 2008

All of this is just dancing on the head of a pin.

Again, the real problem here is why would you do it this way? The answer is they just want to change stuff.

Or beleive they are vastly more clever than the original writers of TOS who developed the true backstory of our Kirk. Our Kirk – not Bizarro Kirk.

195. Wolf Trek - December 29, 2008

Another parallel universe story. . . . . sigh. . . .was hoping for a bit more. Oh well, it can’t be any worse than the tired, rehashed stories the Trek franchise was churning out a few years ago. I’m hoping i’m swept away by the movie, despite my misgivings.

196. Duncan MacLeod - December 29, 2008

135. Jas in Perth – December 29, 2008

My problem with the many worlds approach (and I suspect I’m an echo in this discussion) is that if a change in the timeline splits off an alternate universe, what is at stake then? That is, what is Spock’s responsibility to the alternate timeline (and alternate universe) that Nero brings into existence? Knowing it won’t actually affect anything in the canon timeline, why does Spock follow Nero? Is Spock bored? It seems to me that while the many worlds thesis frees the writers up to play around with familiar Star Trek elements in new ways, it also has the contrary effect of absolving Nimoy’s Spock of any real responsibility and of lessening the drama. Afterall, the life of the real Kirk is not at risk, just the alternate one …

How about this one…. Along the lines of where does the energy come from. Maybe Nero going into the alternate timeline “throws off the balance” of the cosmos (ie energy cannot be created nor destroyed) and he has to drag Nero back (dead or alive) to restore that balance.

197. Vorus - December 29, 2008

@ 193 rangerone314

Good point. However, this time we know that Nero is using a time traveling ship. And we know, from episodes like VOY “Future’s End” and “Relativity” that timeships can be used within your universe to actually alter history. Therefore, for this film to be in an alternate universe, Nero’s ship has to either be based on a different time drive, or more absurdly, he has to WANT to create an alternate timeline. Why, if you could travel through time, would you CHOOSE to make an alternate universe in the process, if you could just actually alter history instead? It seems an illogical decision.

@194 – 750 Mang

That’s my thought as well. There is no real plot-driven reason to do it this way, it’s just an easy way to get free reins. And that worries me.

198. Cervantes - December 29, 2008

One of the things that hoping for though, is that a LOT of new audiences (ontop of those of the existing fans that will) are going to like this Trek film in a big enough way for the entire franchise to be given a fresh kickstart, regardless of this Movie’s particular design look and storyline (which I’m none too keen on from what I’ve seen so far)….

….because, if it’s a success in general (whether ‘scientifically accurate’ or not), then any possible greenlit future t.v. shows, Movies will no doubt get yet ANOTHER makeover by whoever the makers are, and I may YET get something I better like the look of….

And yes, I’d have loved the excellent Batman Begins and The Dark Knight a whole lot more without the ‘Batmobile’ looking like a Humvee on steroids, as a for instance, although I know others love the ‘Tumbler’.

199. Dr. Image - December 29, 2008

As long as suspension of disbelief is paramount (pun intended), everything should work out just fine- in other words, it’ll make money.

But I still wish they would have stayed the HELL away from time travel.

#194-YES. They just want to change stuff.
Obviously, in their opinion, the 40+ year backstory of what we’ve had simply isn’t good enough for them to maintain.

200. Greg2600 - December 29, 2008

If Dr. Kaku says it is possible, I agree.

201. Dalek - December 29, 2008

Another great article and discussion. We clearly need Spock prime to return back to whenst he cameth to rescue kirk prime from that pesky nexus.

My question to bob is if the movie is a success are you going to concentrate on trek as a movie franchise or will any effort be made to resurrect trek as a television show again?

I love movies but they are years between and I’ve watched most of your tv stuff “send it down to orci in graphics” and love how you guys structure and arc your stories. Just thinking what trek could finally be like in the right hands again on tv is a fans wet dream. I don’t think there’s been a team capable of such a task since the behr era, altho bless manny coto for trying to clean up the mess.

202. Mirror Jordan - December 29, 2008

Personally, I wouldn’t have cared if they completely rebooted the franchise. I think it’s neat that they decided to branch it off the canon we all know and love, but it wouldn’t have been necessary for me. I’m just glad we’re getting a new Star Trek. As I’ve always said, this is the last chance for Star Trek…if it fails, it’s done. Go watch it and try to have a good time!

203. Nathan - December 29, 2008

boborci
First of all, let me preface my remarks with a big thank you to Bob Orci for taking the time to engage with us, the “devout,” in our opaque discussions of current Trek semantics and theology. Here’s to you, Bob!

Concerning the topic under discussion, though, I think that (to me at least), you’ve managed to satisfactorily explain how this movie fits in with Trek canon–I’m not really a fan of the parallel universe thing, dramatically speaking (scientifically, I don’t even pretend to understand/care about any “latest, greatest theories” in Physics–even though my uncle is a theoretical physicist)…but I have no doubt you can make it work, since you already seem to be aware of at least some of the potential issues. So that’s alright, then…

Concerning other potential issues, my main concerns are still those of characterization– making sure Kirk doesn’t come across as a massive jerk in the film being paramount. But, again, I’ll just have to wait until May to see how that works out. Until then, have a safe and happy New Year, and a good 2009!

204. Trekkie16 - December 29, 2008

I like the approach they are taking. I have been a fan of “alternate universes” since I was a kid and they used the concept on Dark Shadows. I think it worked well for all the Star Trek episodes and I loved the concept on Stargate.

There is enough scientific evidence to suggest it exists and I find the concept fascinating.

Thanks for the discussion Bob; very cool that you are participating and interacting with the fans.

I am looking forward to the movie and on NYE instead of shouting “Happy New Years”, I will be shouting, “this is the year the new movie comes out” Is it May yet?

205. table10 - December 29, 2008

mr Orci

Enough with the canon debates

More movie toys firsthand impressions, please?

206. Mark - December 29, 2008

#183

It is still a TV show. To quote Shatner on Saturday Night Live all those years ago…

207. Greenstar - December 29, 2008

191. Xai – December 29, 2008
”How can yo be disappointed in something we know so little about?”
……………………………………………………

I know all what i need to know………………

208. Mark - December 29, 2008

Boy, Greenstar, that is an open-minded and well-informed opinion. What a way to live!

209. thorsten - December 29, 2008

@205…

about the toys… is the Phaser with the Mattel dolls of Kirk, Spock and Uhura the Starfleet weapon Kirk fires in the trailer on the Narada, Bob?

;))

210. thorsten - December 29, 2008

@194…

“Again, the real problem here is why would you do it this way? The answer is they just want to change stuff.

Or beleive they are vastly more clever than the original writers of TOS who developed the true backstory of our Kirk. Our Kirk – not Bizarro Kirk.”

Bob Orci stated again and again on this board what his, and the other creators, intentions were. This is proof enough that exactly the opposite thing from what you say is the case. They care. They care as much as to interact with hardcore trekkers on this very board and explain the machinations that created the plot. When has this happened before?

Imagine George Lucas would have interacted with fans before the release of eps 1, 2 and 3 or Crystal Skull…

211. Paulaner - December 29, 2008

Why are we unable to accept the simple fact that the original 60’s style is too outdated for the big screen? Of course Paramount and Abrams had to change a lot of things. The alternative timeline is a plain excuse, ok, but it fits canon and keeps alive all our memories and dvds. A perfect solution for a troublesome dilemma.
I don’t want people laughing at the cinema about cheesy cardboard sets and a huge outdated plastic ship cruising through space.

212. Jamesb3 - December 29, 2008

I think Orci’s approach was a wonderful way to reboot the original story without dishonoring the original work by invalidating it. You can essentially approach this new Star Trek with a blank slate while continuing to acknowledge the continuity of classic Star Trek of the past.

213. S. John Ross - December 29, 2008

#110: And the judge leans over the bench, chews on his cheroot and says “Not to worry son, there’s billions a’ universes in which you don’t get locked in the slammer, and yer forthcoming incarceration in this partic’lar slice o’quantum reality in no way invalidates those. [gavel slams down]”

#201: That’s my main hope as well. Movies are all well and good as a fun and high-profile form of tie-in merchandise (and the only kind of tie-in merchandise that gets recognized as canon, no less) but it still doesn’t allow the kind of legroom necessary for a show like Star Trek to be a show like Star Trek :)

214. thorsten - December 29, 2008

@211…
exactly, Paulaner…
Jim Kirk saved the ship and the crew again and again by changing the rules… by not sticking to canon if you will.

So it is the Kirk approach to change the rules, not only to win the Kobayashi Maru test, but also to save Trek.

Bob Orci as a true fan just did that.

215. dalek - December 29, 2008

#194 I’ve been sceptical of the movie in the past.

However, the change in time excites me. I want to see how Kirk becomes CAPTAIN KIRK despite someone screwing up his past!

How does a person still be the same person when it comes to their true calling in life, when someone makes a conscious effort to change their whole destiny?

I want to see Kirk defy all odds and become the man he’s supposed to be. There’s a whole conspiracy on his life; and I find the premise that the same person under different circumstances will still find his true estiny, seriously compelling.

We know Kirk is destined to be Captain of the Enterprise, no matter what his past is. He is also Captain of the Enterprise in another universe that’s completely different to the prime timeline (Mirror universe), and a completely different character.

It’s his fate. It’s his destiny, in all universes, despite circumstance.

And I really want to see how he gets there in this universe, because the odds are completely against it happening, yet THAT situation is where Kirk excells best.

216. Paulaner - December 29, 2008

#212 “You can essentially approach this new Star Trek with a blank slate while continuing to acknowledge the continuity of classic Star Trek of the past.”

Totally agreed. And, please guys, remember: the 60s are over! :)

217. Alex Rosenzweig - December 29, 2008

#189 – “I think far too much attention is being paid to the “how we got here” quantum science stuff and not enough on the plot… or what we know of it.”

In all fairness, I have this feeling that we don’t know enough about the plot to pay the same sort of attention to it. I have little doubt that when we *do*, we will. ;)

#202 – “I’m just glad we’re getting a new Star Trek.”

Hmm… I just watched new Star Trek last week, and read new Star Trek the week before. We do not in fact lack for new Star Trek.

“As I’ve always said, this is the last chance for Star Trek…if it fails, it’s done.”

I don’t really think the premise of this statement is true, but if it were, there are days when I think that if the best that can be achieved is a deliberate sidestep away from the existing fictional world of Trek, maybe it deserves to be done. {shrug}

218. Vorus - December 29, 2008

@ Paulaner

No one has said that we want the 60s visual styling in this entire thread. We’ve been discussing the plot and the time travel and the alternate universe approach.

219. Alex Rosenzweig - December 29, 2008

#211 – “I don’t want people laughing at the cinema about cheesy cardboard sets and a huge outdated plastic ship cruising through space.”

No one expects 1960s set technology or VFX. Those things would need upgrade to make sense on the big screen, and I think just about everyone agrees on that. That said, based on what I’ve seen, I think they could have done a better job at being consistent with the original designs, while still upgrading them for modern sensibilities, though in all fairness, that’s an aesthetic call as much as anything else.

Storytelling continuity, however, is not outdated, and that didn’t need to be altered to tell a compelling tale. I think it’s a fallacy to equate a preference that storytelling continuity be respected to insisting that the film *look* exactly like a 1960s TV show.

220. Greenstar - December 29, 2008

208. Mark – December 29, 2008

”Boy, Greenstar, that is an open-minded and well-informed opinion. What a way to live!”

It’s my opinion. I am disappointed. Whole story is lame.

221. Spectre_7 - December 29, 2008

Alternate timeline or not, by the end of the movie, Kirk better not ridiculously be making captain at age 27 (or whatever young age he is) for the sake of realism. Don’t care what the circumstances are, you don’t reach that rank without 20+ years of experience, or maybe 15 for Kirk.

And it doesn’t look like he graduated from the Academy at age 14, since it looks like he joined up right after finding the Enterprise beeing built in his backyard. Even funnier that it looks like he’s flying in the ship later that evening….

222. John from Cincinnati - December 29, 2008

In contrast to Canonistas there are changistas.

A changista would say, the original series HAD to be changed. It just had to get REBOOTED. Why?

Can not one make a prequel movie in the original timeline and just show the origins of the characters as shown/written originally but with new filming techniques, exciting camera angles and a larger budget?

I think the whole parallel universe thing was an easy way out, while showing Pike hand over command to James T. Kirk, the Obsession creature, Tarsus IV would’ve been the more diffcult challenge but much more rewarding.

223. thorsten - December 29, 2008

@222…

John, have you seen anything from HBOs Entourage, like the season in which James Cameron shoots the fictious “Aquaman” superhero outing?
It gives you a good impression how Hollywood and the creation of Blockbusters work…

224. Spock - December 29, 2008

Cool! So there might be a movie in the future where Kirk isn’t a weasly Matt DiCapriHarnett guy?

Go quantum physics then.

225. bill hiro - December 29, 2008

“Or beleive they are vastly more clever than the original writers of TOS ”

Ding ding ding – that’s the winner.

Gene L. Coon > boborci

226. Gene L. Coon was a U. S. Marine and has taken a liking Bob Orci - December 29, 2008

Quoting earlier post
“76. boborci – December 28, 2008
VORUS

‘All told, I’m simply a concerned long-time fan who just wanted to see a good origin story, and is a little bummed out that it’s just another pointless alternate universe.’

Understand your concern. Hopefully you won’t think it pointless at the end.”

Me: After Nimoy Spock helps out, I suspect there is a glimpse towards the end of the movie of an Enterprise that looks a bit more “familiar”, shall we say, than the one we have seen so far. Just sayin’…

227. Alex Rosenzweig - December 29, 2008

#222 – “Can not one make a prequel movie in the original timeline and just show the origins of the characters as shown/written originally but with new filming techniques, exciting camera angles and a larger budget?”

Of course they could, if they’d chosen to do so. It’s made easier because there are so many gaps in the origins of those characters that what was originally written really isn’t a blueprint so much as a framework.

“I think the whole parallel universe thing was an easy way out, while showing Pike hand over command to James T. Kirk, the Obsession creature, Tarsus IV would’ve been the more diffcult challenge but much more rewarding.”

I don’t know if making a parallel universe was an easy way out or not. I daresay it’s not made Bob O.’s life any easier these last few weeks. ;) But I do agree that telling a story that perhaps touched on the elements you mentioned while showing us how Kirk ultimately grew to become the captain of the Enterprise would indeed have been quite rewarding.

228. Xai - December 29, 2008

199. Dr. Image – December 29, 2008
.
“#194-YES. They just want to change stuff.
Obviously, in their opinion, the 40+ year backstory of what we’ve had simply isn’t good enough for them to maintain.”

Perhaps asking Bob Orci would be better than assuming their opinion, or did he state that and I missed it?

229. Paulaner - December 29, 2008

#222

OK for the filming techniques, ok for the camera angles and the larger budget, but what about the real things? Sets, props, the bridge, the Enterprise itself? I love that things, but they have been crafted in the 60s, with a different taste, in a different time. In my opinion, a simple “lifting” would not have sufficed.
Plus, there is a long-time marketing matter: if Paramout wants to get new people, to re-start a franchise and make it stay for years to come, something really and totally “new” is need. As a hard-core fan, this I understand and this I am willing to accept.

230. Sam Belil - December 29, 2008

#222 — John from Cincinnati, you SO HIT THE NAIL on the button! Early on I thought that this movie would be a “true prequel”. I could hardly contain my excitement. As accepting as I have been for this movie, you just “opened up some my old wounds” ha! ha! As accepting as I have been of this movie — it pains to me agree that yes Abrams and company “took the easy way out”. Enough with so-called canonistas being labelled as extremists etc. etc.

I am concerned about “change for the sake the of change”, which never works. ST always had a certain continuity to it, even in ST Enterprise. I also get concerned when I hear that this movie is also being made for the masses ST Fans & NON-ST Fans alike. I’m sorry, the ST franchise has always been about the “core fans”. You can tell me about the other ST movies that “bombed”, you know why they bombed, because of horrific storytelling. If JJ is creating “this is not your father’s Star Trek” to capture “new fans who never before have been ST fans” — then I’m sorry to say that this movie will fail. If non-Star Trek fans never “took to the Kool-Aid” over the past 40+ years, then guess what? It ain’t happening now.

Not sound too harsh but I get really sick and tired of hearing people say — they could not use an “outdated 60’s look”. AGAIN — have any of you seen, the “Relics” episode, The DS9 Tribble episode, In a Mirror Darkly – continuity was successfully maintained in terms of look.

Having said that, to me the success of this movie will about great storytelling — not about the new look, not about James Kirk channeling James Dean, not about Sulu channeling Bruce Lee. Also be aware this movie can very well be a financial success and at THE SAME TIME be a critical bomb! As I have stated many times prior I want this movie to succeed beyond ALL of our wildest dreams!!!!

231. boborci - December 29, 2008

214. thorsten – December 29, 2008

;)

232. dalek - December 29, 2008

#230 Speaking of the financial success, i must confess to being VERY nervous about a $150 million dollar Star Trek film making its money back. The Star Trek brand is cursed with the stigma of being… well Star Trek. I know JJ and co are working hard to counteract that stigma with the press, but the the people at home who think Star Trek is a nerd-flick for overweigh geeks, who wouldnt be seen dead in a theatre surrounded by the likes of us, aren’t gonna be easily swayed with word of mouth.

Going to the cinema to watch a Trek movie, is like going to a Trek convention. On every row there’s either a guy in uniform, or a Klingon!

I hope they can break the curse of Star Trek’s reputation, but a 40 year stigma Vs a decent 2 hour movie, might be holding onto false hope.

233. Paulaner - December 29, 2008

#230 “have any of you seen, the “Relics” episode, The DS9 Tribble episode, In a Mirror Darkly”

Yes, and imo those things wouldn’t stand a single chance on the big screen :)

234. Sam Belil - December 29, 2008

#233 — Unless you’re in the movie business you do not know that for sure. Many of my friends saw “The Menagerie” on the big screen last year, and in their eyes — everything looked GREAT on the big screen. All you need to do is look back on the posts for this website and all of the positive comments about how great “The Menagerie” looked on the big-screen. Again I stand by words; financial success, critical bomb is a very real possibility!!!!

235. Paulaner - December 29, 2008

#234 “Unless you’re in the movie business you do not know that for sure”

Of course I don’t know that for sure. Well, I am basing my opinions on personal experience from non-trekker fans. I just hope for Trek to be successful again :)

236. hitch1969©, producer of "If I Did It, Jr"- a musical for children, starring children. - December 29, 2008

This isnt going to be a critical bomb or any other kind of bomb.

Its going to be massive and successful.

And the holdouts to canon will come around.

this is the rebirth of star trek.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

237. S. John Ross - December 29, 2008

#224: Amen to that. I’m far more concerned about the possibility that Nero has turned Kirk into a featherweight yup-yup than the hand-wavy science that gets us there.

That said, I’m even more worried that Kirk is being mythologized. If Star Trek stops being about human tenacity and potential and starts being about mythical Chosen Ones (whether written of in prophecy or concieved by midichlorians or just plain “fated” to be), then let me off at the next starbase, please.

But I retain hopes that both these concerns wil evaporate when I read the reviews of the final film.

238. Sam Belil - December 29, 2008

#236 – I really hope that you’re right!!

239. TenaciousMC - December 29, 2008

Some of you people are assuming that the characters in the new film are completely aware that they’re in an alternate timeline or even about MWI. As far as elder Spock Prime is concerned, he’s living a linear existence in whatever universe that science or time travel takes him. I don’t believe he’s thinking about MWI when he’s traveling back in time. The fact of the matter is that a very bad Romulan is changing history with some irrevocable consequences. Spock’s only concern is whether or not he has an acceptable future to return to so he’s taking steps to make sure some (or most) of history is restored (from his perspective). It’s not like he can travel to any universe or timeline. He’s a brilliant science officer (or formerly one) but he’s not God or even Quinn Mallory for goodness’ sake! It’s all linear from his point of view. The MWI is only there for us to understand what’s going on in somewhat obvious hindsight. It should not have to be discussed or explained in the movie itself. Otherwise, it becomes a boring and unenjoyable film.

240. hitch1969©, producer of "If I Did It, Jr"- a musical for children, starring children. - December 29, 2008

Ok, I understand the OrcSter’s explanations and all this quantum stuff to back it up. I am good with that.

I guess that my question to the OrcSter at this point would be – how is this explained or not explained in the movie?

are we talking about a time travel story, or an alternate universe story, and is that explained in the movie?

what is nero after? why does spock need to follow him? are they supposed to go back to the future?

gotta get back in time,

=h=

241. Kirk, James T. - December 29, 2008

number 20: Boborci,

Cheers! everything i’ve seen from this movie looks wicked, i can finally wear my spock ears without being laughed at – because everyone else will want a pair!

another question – will you try and invite all the original Star Trek cast from all 5 series (who are still with us) to attend the premiere – even the Shat-man?

242. Trekee - December 29, 2008

@226 GLC &etc
Me too, I’ve been holding out for that glimpse of the original E too, sad as it is. :)

The trick might be to get us to want the alternative Trek Babies more. Wouldn’t that be a thing?

Dunno though, am watching ST IV at the minute and feeling all sad that it might not be allowed to happen. Or to have happened in my timeline :)

Btw, as Fernman says.. Anyone that thinks they understand Quantum theory, does not understand it.

243. David P - December 29, 2008

unfortunately all this science cannot compute to an appearance by the great and powerful SHAT

244. DJT - December 29, 2008

Bob

Happy Holidays.

245. cugel the clever - December 29, 2008

158. McCoy’s Gall Bladder – December 29, 2008

” I like the idea of the Mirror Universe being created by Edith Keeler.

There’s a fansite somewhere that starts it in WW2.

Shatner & Reeves-Stevens team starts it at the end of First Contact. Picard created the Mirror Universe by convincing the Vulcans and Cochrane to create a super alliance to fight the Borg.”

Whether you guys like ST:Enterprise or not, the fact is that it established how the Mirror Universe was created – instead of warmly welcoming the Vulcans during first contact, Cochrane and followers attacked them, took their ship, stole their secrets, and the rest is (future)history.

246. YARN - December 29, 2008

“Looking at the views of Kaku, Deutsch, Krauss and Bormanis it is clear that quantum mechanics is valid science and that Orci’s preferred flavor is at least acceptable as a possible valid interpretation, but more importantly it is consistent with Star Trek storytelling.”

Why the persistent demand that we accept a plot device in a science fiction tale as “vaid science”?

1. Trek has NEVER been hard science fiction.

2. (Some) fans are upset because QM is being used to leverage a perceived bait-and-switch. “See! It is really the same Trek. Canon is still there, its just relegated to some other reality.” What is potentially troubling is whether or not the film is a good Trek tale, not if it could take place in a possible universe.

3. The multi-world interpretation is NOT science in the sense of tested and confirmed experimentation and observation – rather it is more along the lines of philosophy of science. It’s interesting, it’s speculative, it fits more or less with what we know. It’s not proven either way and there are a plenty of other candidate explanations which are just as plausible. Rejecting multi-world mechanics is nothing like rejecting the theory of evolution or relativity.

4. Orci has already botched the quantum mechanical explanation, so the fig leaf of “hard science”, “soft science” or “speculative science” is not really fitting.

If, heaven forbid, someone took Orci’s explanation seriously, they would know less about quantum mechanics. For example, he has lobbied for his plot on the grounds that quantum averaging (for some baffling reason) would be related to macro-scale human institutional relationships and roles. Orci would lead the lay person to believe in fatalism (i.e., Kirk is destined to captain a ship because nature via quantum mechanics has determined it) which is about as non-scientific as you can get.

Orci’s preferred explanation is NOT acceptable as ANY sort of scientific explanation for what happens in this script.

Is it acceptable as soft-science fiction? Sure! Heck, Trek has always botched the science.

But don’t tell us that we have to accept radical changes in the history of Trek on the grounds on scientific realism. You demand that audiences accept aesthetic changes on non-aesthetic grounds.

I hope the new film is great and I am willing to accept it. But please stop shoveling this horse—t. It is frightening how much there is a demand for universal acceptance of the hard science of the new film

247. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 29, 2008

Alright. There’ve been a lot of generalizations flying around as to what everyone thinks about this movie, and I think a few of us (myself included) are getting more confused than anything else. Opinions on this movie are not a simple two-dimensional thing that can be charted on a spectrum of from “total canon” to “total reboot.” There are a great many different groups with a whole range of different ideas, and so I wrote this guide for myself so I could keep better track of the conversation. When it was done, I looked it over and thought, “Hey, maybe someone else would find this useful.” So here it is, in all its over-lengthy glory. I hope I’m right and one or two of you find it enjoyable and/or helpful. I think that it covers just about everyone, although I know many people will probably fall into several groups to some extent:

Canonistas: Canonistas want canon maintained at all costs. They insist on plausible, in-universe explanation for any changes in visual style, biographical facts, or anything else that appears to diverge from the known TOS timeline. Largely satisfied by the use of Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) to explain the altered face of the universe.

Continuistas: Despite some overlap with canonistas, these fans are willing and sometimes eager to see some big updates to canon, especially visual updates. They either don’t care about making the new movie fit perfectly with canon or would rather leave it to the books and the fandom to resolve any inconsistencies between the new movie and the rest of Trek. In short, continuistas care about canon to some extent, but are very liberal in interpreting it. However (and this is a big however), the MWI suggestion scares the pants off of them. In fact, the introduction of MWI was the event that caused this group to emerge as a coherent force. While plausible and technically acceptable to canon, they argue, MWI appears to save canon by breaking the *continuity* of the Star Trek universe. They see MWI as shunting everything into a new alternate universe, with new characters who are only *reflections* of the Kirk and Spock we care about and whose origin story we’ve been looking forward to. This, they claim, will drain emotional and dramatic strength out of the story, and *that* is what continuistas care about. Their concern appears silly to many others, and whether it actually *is* silly has been the major discussion point since MWI was introduced.

Pleased: Probably the largest group, but also the simplest and loosest. Trek fans ranging from casual to hardcore who haven’t seen anything about the movie to make them worry about it. Obviously, because they’re pleased, they are either satisifed by the MWI or are indifferent to it.

Jack-Booted Rebooters: Jack-Rebooters want the franchise restarted. Blow up the canon, they say, citing Batman Begins, Battlestar Galactica, and other successfully rebooted franchises, or at least set canon aside kindly and give it a nice pat on the back to thank it for forty years of hard work before ignoring it. Generally are fans of TOS, TNG, and often DS9, but almost universally are harsh critics of VOY and ENT. Often known to shout “It’s just a TV show!” when frustrated. Jack-Rebooters are generally pleased with MWI, because it has finally made the canonistas shut up after years of fruitless arguments, but some have criticized the production team for bothering with MWI at all, calling it a useless complication in the plot in order to satisfy a few diehards.

Mainstreamers: Mainstreamers want Trek to appeal to the masses more than anything else. They are fans, and are often franchise-long fans, but after so many years of difficulty, Mainstreamers are prepared to do almost anything to see Trek succeed commercially. This draws frequent accusations that they would strip the soul out of Star Trek in order to reduce it to just another summer blockbuster action franchise. Mainstreamers (obviously) consider this unfair. They are typically pro-MWI, but with the caveat that they hope that it isn’t explicitly mentioned in the movie—that would be too confusing for a mainstream audience.

Displeased: These fans aren’t canonistas or continuistas or anything of the sort. They just don’t like what they’re seeing. It’s not a matter of principle; they simply saw, for example, the new bridge, and said, “Ew. That’s ugly,” or took one look at Chris Pine and said, “I’ve no problem with recasting, but that guy? Not Kirk,” or saw the trailer and said, “That doesn’t feel right to me.” Because the Displeased are a loose assortment of people who didn’t like various things, there is no consensus in this group about MWI. Some think it’s silly and unscientific (hence their Displeasure); others are satisfied with that bit but are incensed about others.

Swiss: This rather large contingent of the fandom refuses to make any judgement whatever about the movie until it’s been released. They remain stalwartly neutral. Not only that, but many Swiss also criticize anyone else who makes any judgement, or even raises any concerns, prior to May 8th. They express no opinion on MWI. Obviously.

Cawleys: TOS fans who are just happy to see a TOS movie. As long as the movie team gets the souls of the characters right, they’ll be happy—and, so far, they’ve had very little reason to fear. A prominent subset of thia group (“Altmans”) are prone to bashing everything from TNG on. Tend to be indifferent to MWI, though there is enough overlap with the Continuistas to make this group lean against MWI.

Franchisers: Fans who love the whole darned franchise. Extremely Trek-positive people who can even find something to love in the second season of ENT. Like the Cawleys, Franchisers are very grateful to have new (official) Trek, and are prone to attacking anyone who expresses negativity about the movie. Tend to be pro-MWI, partly because it appeals to them and partly on the sheer principle of Trek-positive thinking. (I nearly called this group “Savies,” but then I realized that a lot of people won’t know what that term means anymore. Sigh. I’m getting old.)

Sevrinites: TOS diehards who will not tolerate any changes to the show they love. Recasting is heresy to them, any more than a small cosmetic change to the 60’s visual style is intolerable, and leaving Shatner out of the movie borders on blasphemy. Sevrinites (whom I have named after the followers of Dr. Sevrin because, like Sevrin’s space hippies, they love the sixties) don’t care one whit about “canon” or “continuity” or anything of the sort—many of them don’t even really care about biographical details like Tarsus IV or the Cloud Creature. They just want the new Star Trek to *feel* and *look* pretty much just like the old Star Trek, and damn the consequences. For this reason, very few of them were supportive of the movie to begin with, and they become more turned off by each new leak. Sevrinites have been known to call their opponents “Herberts.” They don’t care about the MWI one way or another, but they will align themselves with anybody expressing distaste for anything about the new film.

Shatner’s Army: Like Dumbledore’s Army of the Harry Potter series, Shatner’s Army is made up of Shatner fans who want Shatner in the movie, come hell or high water, canon or reboot, girdle or no girdle. They were most prominent last year during the Will-Shatner-Be-In-The-Movie speculation (prompting widespread opposition), but have continued to make appearances from time to time. Generally supportive of MWI, because it increases the chances of a change in the timestream that will resurrect Kirk post-Generations.

Bob Orci: The contingency of one. The only man in the active fandom who has actually seen the movie and knows what he’s talking about, and therefore its most important apologist. Pro-MWI, because it was his idea. Pro-movie, not just because he wrote it, but because he really liked it. Noted for his good taste in books, eager interaction with the fans, and witty ripostes against the deserving.

248. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 29, 2008

Egads! That was even longer than I thought!

*shame and longing for an edit button*

249. hitch1969©, producer of "If I Did It, Jr"- a musical for children, starring children. - December 29, 2008

“re: Bob Orci: The contingency of one. The only man in the active fandom who has actually seen the movie and knows what he’s talking about, and therefore its most important apologist.”

no fair. i asked that apologist question first, like, weeks ago.

Old OrcSter is taking a licking, but i reckon he’ll keep on ticking. And laughing all the way to the bank, baybeeeeeeee!

From the hypnotic vocals of Sir Steven Perry… “who’s crying now”?

=h=

250. hitch1969©, producer of "If I Did It, Jr"- a musical for children, starring children. - December 29, 2008

I fancy myself a “Franchiser”, more than anything, I spose. Probably a “Cawley” as my minor.

And to be honest, at times, very briefly, I have overlapped into several others, if not all. shades of these others, to be sure.

Heany-Wowbagger™, the man so fine that they named a new really cool sexual position after him. It’s the new 72 or something. Very well written post there. You’ve got my vote.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

251. Vorus - December 29, 2008

Nice read, James. I wouldn’t really put myself in any of those groups, but I’d probably be in between group 1 and 2, but I share some aspects with many other groups. If nothing else, you’ve gathered almost every type of concerned fan’s issues in one post. As a fellow ‘long-wind’er, I don’t mind reading the whole thing.

252. SPOCKBOY - December 29, 2008

#245
I choose NOT to accept the Enterprise explanation of the Mirror universe. If anything it is a wonderful demonstration of how much better TOS was at telling a story. Here are our choices…
TOS-While experiencing turbulent waves of space displacement Sulu gets electrocuted, McCoy rushes to the bridge and revives him with a powerful drug. While adjusting his equipment the ship hits another wave and he accidentally injects himself with an almost fatal dose and goes mad. Out of his mind with paranoia, he beems down to the planet to get away. Kirk and crew follow. They encounter an incredible time portal, suddenly McCoy jumps through the portal to escape and all history is changed. Because Spock’s tricorder was recordering at the time,Kirk and Spock are able to track him down to 1930’s Earth where Kirk inadvertently falls in love with the very person who is the focal point in time causing the change in history. In order to save history Kirk must allow her to be brutally run down in a street accident and we all know that last great scene.
ENTERPRISE-Cochrane, (a character created in TOS) who by nature must be an extremely intelligent man with vision decides after a huge war on Earth to create warp drive. After accomplishing his vision aliens show up to welcome Earth to space exploration and all of a sudden, and completely out of character he decides to kill them and somehow figures out how to use their ship?Also the vulcans who are MUCH smarter AND stronger than humans, and apparently blissfully unaware that humans can be violent-YEAH RIGHT are easily ambushed by Cochrane and his gang of buddies.
The TOS story even asserts a theory to possibly explain how the Kirk, Spock, McCoy triumvirate are drawn to the same place and time with the wonderful metaphor of time being a river, not some empty tech talk about warp plasma fields and tachyon bursts.
THAT’S story telling girls and boys.
Anyway, I hope everyone has a happy new year!
peace.

253. SPOCKBOY - December 29, 2008

#247,
Excellent read James.

254. Wilson7777 - December 29, 2008

I have a question. If the current Star Trek timeline doesn’t actually get altered by Nero’s incursion into the past…..then why would Spock bother going back in time to stop him? I’m not sure if this question has been answered or not….but we’ll probably wait until the movie plays out….

255. dalek - December 29, 2008

#247 Post of the year!!!! Give this man a column!

256. Anthony Pascale - December 29, 2008

James that is a nice breakdown, however I dont like the term ‘jackbooted’ as that is of course code for ‘nazi’ which of course is where all internet debates end.

As for ‘continuistas’, MWI should be really irrelevant and what should matter is only what you will see on screen. It will come down to whether or not these characters ‘feel’ like the characters we know. And Orci has stated that the backstories are not all different for the characters in the new timeline and he would argue that what you see in ST09 would be the same in the Prime Timeline for some. Although Kirk’s back story is going to be the most different (as his folks were on the Kelvin), he still cheats on the Kobayashi Maru so there again is ‘continuity’.

This group may be scared, but they should remember it was an ‘alternative’ Picard who uttered what may be the most moving line of all Trek “Let history never forget the name…Enterprise”

257. cd - December 29, 2008

The multiple worlds/timelines issue is not without precedent: look at the universes of Marvel and especially DC. Multiple ages, multiple dimensions, finally mashed back together in Crisis on Infinite Earths. And now, they have All-Star versions of continuity and Marvel has the Ultimate continuity. Multiple versions so you don’t have to keep track of canon. You can reboot franchises at will like Batman and Bond have done. It is probably a good move from a business standpoint, but it remains to be seen whether it’s good from a creative one.

258. dalek - December 29, 2008

#254

Possibility A) Spock is taken back in time with Nero against his will. Nero wants Spock to see first hand the devestation he causes. Spock then becomes a part of the changed events and he’s stuck there.

B) Spock believes, as he always has, that it is his timeline, and isn’t privy to the thinking of an Andriod (Data in Parallels), to discern that this will result in an alternate universe, and not alternate timeline.

C) Spock knows of the Many Worlds theory, but is a man of high moral stature and values the life of every living thing in all its diversity and combinations. He would NEVER sit back and do nothing if he could make a difference. Can you imagine him not doing anything, knowing Nero is about to create a universe with tremendous suffering in which is friends, family, and the very Federation itself could be dead, destroyed, or severely crippled by his enemies actions?

If Spock does know, he would take action. Remember every single person is the same person he knows in his own universe up until the time incursion. That it’s a different universe doesn’t matter. Spock is Spock.

Would Spock discriminate because it’s not his timeline. That’s not very IDIC is it. And if Nero is his enemy, Spock is indirectly responsible for Nero upsetting the status quo in another universe.

Put another way, would you save the child of someone you didn’t know if you could? But why? It’s not your child! It doesn’t affect your life or your child if you don’t! Yes, you do it because its the right thing to do.

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations is the Vulcan philosophy, its what Spock stands for. That Infinite Diversity would apply to an altered timeline as well.

Bob, is it one of those possibilities or is it

D) The writers have come up with something even better :)

259. YARN - December 29, 2008

NOTE: Objections to the film should not be offered on strictly “canonical” grounds.

Canon by the rule “if it appeared on screen in the series or films” is already rife with contradictions. The original series has Spock announcing several substances to be the “hardest known” and even waffles on Kirk’s middle initial.

Canon contradicts itself, so contradicting canon is one way to be canonical.

260. 750 Mang - December 29, 2008

Look, Orci has already pretty much admitted defeat in the whole “there were other ways to accomplish your goals” argument.

His quote to me was ‘I already did [write a script that didn’t disavow all Star Trek history] in an alternate universe….”

So… again they just wanted change things, and are willing to sacrifice history and go to great pains when it comes to the plot, to do so.

261. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 29, 2008

#256 Anthony: Thanks, Tony. Glad you liked it. (Glad everyone else liked it, too. Yay! Oh, and, dalek: your check is in the mail. ;) )

I don’t *think* that there are serious ties between jackboots and Nazis, anymore than there are serious ties between Sandanistas and Joseph Stalin. I mean, certainly, the idea of a “Jackrebooter” alludes to facism in general, but no moreso than “Canonista” refers to Nicaraguan communists of the 1980’s.

Basically, I felt it wouldn’t be fair to use labels that equate canon freaks with commies if I didn’t equate the anti-canonites with something equally offensive, and “Jack-Rebooters” seemed clever to me. However, I also considered “Bootistas,” “The Souless Demons of Reboot” (reference to “In The Cards,” not a personal opinion), and “Changista,” which was suggested earlier by John from Cincinatti. I’d be good with any of those, too, if they’re more to your liking.

As for the rest of your post, I leave it to continuistas everywhere to *continue* (pun intended) the debate. I merely attempted to categorize everyone. Personally, I’d consider myself a Franchiser, but with a strong streak of Continuista and a dash of Mainstreamer, but that’s a story for another post.

262. Edwin - December 29, 2008

# 222: Can not one make a prequel movie in the original timeline and just show the origins of the characters as shown/written originally but with new filming techniques, exciting camera angles and a larger budget?

I think the whole parallel universe thing was an easy way out, while showing Pike hand over command to James T. Kirk, the Obsession creature, Tarsus IV would’ve been the more diffcult challenge but much more rewarding.
*****************************************************
Yes but that would require creativity rather than the “quantum physics cop-out” that they are using (the same cop-outs that wrecked Voyager and the first 3 seasons of Enterprise). If it had have been in the hands of the Reeves-Stevenses, Manny Coto, or Harve Bennett we may have had something resembling what you describe. But you have the team that brought us “Fringe” and “Transformers” writing this film so you cannot expect too much in the creative writing department!

263. Bob Tompkins - December 29, 2008

I recall as a young man I went to see ‘Superman: the Movie’ several times, read a lot of reviews, ‘making of’ stuff, that sort of thing.

Part of one review of this movie has stuck in my consciousness for all these years- When going to see a movie like Trek or Superman or anything of the genre—“just check your brain at the door and have a good time.”

Very Austin Powersish for the 1970s.

264. cellojammer - December 29, 2008

248. Wowbagger

It definitely *wasn’t* too long. It was one of those rare posts that’s witty, gripping, fast-reading and has the advantage of being true!

Thanks for the laugh. I really enjoyed that. Still haven’t figured out where i fit into the grand scheme…

265. Boborci - December 29, 2008

256. Anthony Pascale – December 29, 2008
“This group may be scared, but they should remember it was an ‘alternative’ Picard who uttered what may be the most moving line of all Trek “Let history never forget the name…Enterprise”

Here, here! That line still gives me chills and is probably my favorite line of TNG, followed by, “Mr. Worf… Fire.

266. Boborci - December 29, 2008

247

Wow.

267. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 29, 2008

Has anyone checked the Parmount “vault” lately?
Just checking to make sure the “completed reels” of next Trek are still safe.

268. Admiral_BlackCat - December 29, 2008

I’ve noticed Orci dropping subtle hints throughout these posts. Mentioning books like “Best Destiny” and “Prime Directive”. The idea of Spock steering his crew (Not just young Kirk and Spock, but the entire gang) toward their best destiny interests me. And there are at least two prime directives, the temporal prime directive comes to mind. I do believe Spock has logically used these rule to his advantage in the past, maybe he does the same here, as in logically planning to go back in time to OBSERVE the past, not interfere, but Nero somehow ruins everything.
Long story short, my speculation is Spock’s logical decisions lead to the past being altered by Nero, which would lead to Spock questioning his logical side. Maybe even experiencing self-doubt, which I think Nimoy would enjoy portraying with Spock.

269. 750 Mang - December 29, 2008

Meh, . Why would you change the history?

The question no will answer is why did Kirk’s backstory have to be changed? And not just changed for now but for all time. This is it now folks… Bizarro Star Trek from here on. The simple truth is that they could have written a story (that included Nimoy if need be) without rewriting our collective history of Star Trek.

I fear the real reason for the changes are nothing more than “because we can”.

Just because we can do a thing does not mean that we must do that thing.

Remember the Farragut!

270. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 29, 2008

Not to mention the emotional element of seeing his old friends so young agian. I think you would need a character/actor that who would play that part slightly over the top.

Hmmm… Now who am I be thinking of?

Signed.
TrekMadeMeWonder
A Lieutenant in Shatner’s Army

271. Vorus - December 29, 2008

@ 258 dalek

The problem I have with theory #3 is that it isn’t logical at all for Spock to care about THAT particular universe ahead of all the other universes where his old-time friends might be in danger. Imagine that there are near-infinite amounts of universes. Why does he care about universe 55’s version of Kirk, when over here in Universe 456,243 that Kirk is in mortal danger too? With near-infinite universes, there would ALWAYS be a ship-full of his old crewmates in mortal peril that he could attempt to rescue. Obviously, he couldn’t possibly hope to save them all. The only logical solution would be to stay in your own universe, and deal with the problems that you CAN handle.

The only mitigating factors would be that the universe Nero creates is in KNOWN danger, whereas the other myriad universes are in a Schrodinger-esque state of theoretical danger. And that in this case, the danger came from his own universe, so perhaps he feels some responsibility to intervene.

That would make it not quite as pointless, in my opinion.

HOWEVER (There’s always a “however”) again returning to the nearly-infinite universes, Spock isn’t actually going to the same universe as Nero is anyway, because Spock’s intervention would spawn a new universe, just like Nero’s did. What would actually take place is the following:

1) There is the “prime” universe, holding the Trek we know. Nero leaves this, and as a result, there is now a “prime” universe, and a “secondary” universe, wherein Nero wreaks his havoc.

2) Spock leaves “prime” universe to pursue Nero. His arriving back in time creates another universe, the “tertiary” universe. It is in THIS universe that the majority of the film takes place.

In the “secondary” universe, Spock never arrives. Nero wins.

In the “tertiary” universe, Spock confronts a different Nero, and with the help of his “tertiary” friends, saves the day.

So, in the end, Spock didn’t even save the alternate universe friends he set out to save, he saved the alternate-alternate friends. The actual friends that were in danger are dead.

The only way to avoid this lunacy is if Spock and Nero travel together into the past, but it seems that they have two separate ships, so they likely travel separately.

272. Xai - December 29, 2008

#269 Mang

History didn’t change.

273. 750 Mang - December 29, 2008

#272 “History didn’t change.”

Hmm, didn’t it? Isn’t that what we are being prepared for?

Remember the Farragut!

274. Xai - December 29, 2008

No. Nothing is destroyed or “rewritten”. All of Trek as we know it had to happen to get to the events of this movie.

275. 750 Mang - December 29, 2008

274. Xai

Accepted. But this isn’t our Kirk.

Right?

When we go back and watch an episode of TOS those characters didn’t get where they are because of what happens in this movie.

Right?

It’s a giant “What-If” comic. Bizarro trek.

Right?

Remember the Farragut!

276. Vorus - December 29, 2008

@273 – 750 Mang

Well, technically, history DIDN’T change. The history of “our” Kirk and crew is untouched, they are just introducing a new history of a “new” Kirk and crew from an alternate universe. (As has been said, it’s just a fancy way of trying to get us to accept a reboot, it seems.)

However, I understand and agree with your point. I don’t see any reason that a REAL origin story wouldn’t have worked. There is PLENTY of room in the canon history of the TOS crew for good storytelling that wouldn’t have required any canonical violations. As most of us fans have shown, we’d even accept the vastly different look of the sets and ships, as long as the characters were the real characters.

277. 750 Mang - December 29, 2008

276. Vorus

“I don’t see any reason that a REAL origin story wouldn’t have worked.There is PLENTY of room in the canon history of the TOS crew for good storytelling that wouldn’t have required any canonical violations. As most of us fans have shown, we’d even accept the vastly different look of the sets and ships, as long as the characters were the real characters.”

Amen brother!

Remember the Farragut!

278. Admiral_BlackCat - December 29, 2008

@271
What if Nimoy Spock has logically decided to go into the past, say to observe a disputed event important to the Vulcan/Romulan unification, obtains the timeship FIRST but is then attacked by Nero. Two things happen, Spock makes the time jump to escape, Nero follows ala First Contact. (Been there done that) OR Nero captures Spock and uses his timeship to travel to the past, thus Nero and Nimoy Spock go back together at the same time.
And then Nero being a nobel villian leaves Spock on an ice planet instead of killing him on the spot.
P.S. Nero might have a vendeta with the unification process and Spock who is deeply involved with it.
Also, Nero nor Nimoy Spock know it is an alternate timeline/universe.
Spock may figure it out at some point, but not immediately.
QM and MWI will not be thrown in the faces of the audience, but the clues will be there throughout.

279. Matias 47 - December 29, 2008

Well, we’ve certainly covered a lot today — so I’ll go ahead and state my feelings about this in another way.

Things I don’t like so far (from what we’ve actually seen or had confirmed):

The corvette opening of the trailer. Besides being stupid and WB, excuse me, CW, the heavy-handed symbolism of the ’60’s era ‘vette going over the cliff (i.e “This ain’t your Dad’s Star Trek.”) is just plain goofy.

Evil uncle.

Production design. Everything seems over-designed to me. From the cop (looks 1960’s comics who were stealing from Alex Raymond’s Flash Gordon) to the Enterprise (aerodynamic on the outside and bright and shiny on the inside. Just look at them floors.) However, it’s not like we haven’t accepted bad design on Star Trek before.

Chekov (to be fair, I never liked Chekov).

The alternative universe (so far). Right now it feels to me to be a weak reason to bag the character’s back stories.

It appears that Kirk goes from cadet to Captain. This could be a wrong perception.

The big, red, toothy “crab-monster.”

Building the Enterprise on the ground. ( Actually, this isn’t a big deal, I just think it’s more cool to build her in orbit.)

Things I like so far:

That they’re doing it.

Nimoy is in it. He did, after all, turn down Generations (which was a terrible movie). Too bad he didn’t turn down STV.

In an interview one of the writers (I believe it was Mr. Orci, if not I apologize) gave “Balance of Terror” as his favorite TOS episode and “The Best of Both Worlds” one and two as his favorite TNG episodes. I agree with him completely.

Karl Urban. (I worked with him on the as yet unreleased “Black Water Transit” and he was great.)

Chris Pine. He did a lot with that small part in “Smokin’ Aces.”

Looks to be an actioner — so long as the action doesn’t overshadow story, I’m all for it.

Bob Orci responds on these boards.

That’s about it. Though I won’t check my brain at the door, I will cast off my likes and dislikes and go in with an open mind and hope for the best.

280. 750 Mang - December 29, 2008

Here’s an interesting link from Memory Alpha that our Creative Team should have referred to more often…

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/James_T._Kirk

281. Xai - December 29, 2008

I am not convinced many fans would have accepted this movie as a origins/ backstory with a new cast, vastly updated ship as well as get Nimoy in (which seemed to be a priority). It also would lock the writers into using events that may or may not lend themselves to a good overall story. The answers to the great mystery come in May and I, for one, am reluctant to critique a movie and it’s plot before I’ve seen it. I will remain cautiously optimistic unless I hear something drastic.
My post in #274 should have mentioned.. “IMO”

282. Xai - December 29, 2008

280. 750 Mang – December 29, 2008
“Here’s an interesting link from Memory Alpha that our Creative Team should have referred to more often…

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/James_T._Kirk

But in #275. 750 Mang – December 29, 2008

“Accepted. But this isn’t our Kirk.”

It isn’t but it is?

283. Xai - December 29, 2008

oh yes,

Remember the Enterprise C!

;-)

284. dalek - December 29, 2008

#271 Vorus, thanks for your message.

We don’t know that Nero ever succeeded in altering history the way he wanted. He may never have succeeded if Nimoy keeps stopping him. For all we know Spock is taken back in time with Nero at the moment of the incursion, or follows him at that time.

Second, there is a prequel comic coming out supposedly chronincalling Nimoy’s history with Nero. This suggests, that Nero’s time incursion has something specific to do with Nimoy’s character, on a quest for vengeance. It’s not only the right thing for Spock to do to preserve time, but its personal also, and very conceivable that his history with Spock is Nero’s motivation for causing havoc in the past.

I can’t see Spock not caring. Despite being only half human, his regards for the sanctity of life are larger than most characters in the Trek universe.

Bottom line is there’s only one person who knows Spock better than you and I, and it’s Leonard Nimoy, and he thought the script was terrific, and the role significant. If Spock’s motivations didn’t make sense he woudn’t have done it. Pick no bones, he had a lot of suggestions when they made Generations, but they said it was too late to make them, so he said he wouldn’t do it.

285. USS TRINOMA - NCC 0278 - December 29, 2008

247.

I nominate him to be the another “authority” in the Star Trek culture.

286. Flint - December 29, 2008

Too many long winded statements here. Who cares about “canon”, they can do anything as long as the story is good. Forty years I have been a fan and no matter how canon the story is I’ll see a person who is claiming to be Kirk, but he is not Kirk, only Shat is Kirk. That also goes for the rest of the crew.

Who cares about the laws of physics when telling a completely fictional story, Kirk is fake, so why can’t the laws of physics be fake too? Most of us are not physicists who would know anyway if it was real or not?

I guess its true that all the original storylines have been used so lets go back the alternate universe story. Which I may add as a reason to bring the true Kirk into the film. You see it in this article, Tasha Yar.

I love Star Trek (it makes my wife nuts), sorry to say though, I’ll wait for the DVD.

287. DrNebuloso - December 29, 2008

The movie will be good, but it wont be star trek.

288. Multi Trek - December 29, 2008

What if we all were alternate realities of the same person? Population is expanding as possibilities are expanding. Same rule could be applied to time and space. One person = one universe.

289. cugel the clever - December 29, 2008

252 spockboy

there is nothing in the TOS guardian of forever episode which excludes the events of the ENT mirror universe story. the nazis triumph in WWII and set in motion a chain of events that leads to a nastier, more warlike human race. raised in an evironment of hate and aggression, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Cochrane of the mirror-universe would be “evil”. after all, the kirk of the mirror-universe was an evil version of the “good guy” kirk – why wouldn’t the same logic apply to Cochrane? and your argument against the possibility of the human rabble overpowering the vulcans is weak – there are many examples in history in which a mob (or army) has overpowered a technologically superior adversary via numbers, surprise, and savagery.

290. Anthony Pascale - December 29, 2008

RE: Enterprise ‘established’ the creation of the mirror universe at STFC

no it did not.

291. mr. mugato - December 29, 2008

Hey 247. James Heaney – Wowbagger – December 29, 2008

That’s really something. Such a great thing to see you take the time.

Here’s my experience. I grew up with TOS. It’s part of who I am. I still love TMP (especially the Director’s Cut) I enjoyed II when it first came out but over the years the plot holes have grown larger and larger for me. I own it. I enjoyed III when it came out. i won it. But over the years it doesn’t hold up for me. The rest of the TOS movies are – you know – entertainment to me. Nothing more. TMP is the only “film” in the franchise as far as I’m concerned.

TNG movies. Don’t get me started. Yeah, First Contact is fun but it’s also silly.

I enjoyed TNG quite a bit and watched every episode. But after GR was gone it really got shlockish. Forehead freaks. The whole Klingon / Samurai / Warf deal. All that crap really wore me down over time. Forehead freaks especially.

Voyager. Um, gave it a try. I lost interest in Lost in Space a long time ago.

Deep Space Nine. Well, it’s called Star TREK, not Star Sit at the Bar and Kvetch Because You Ain’t Getting Any.

When I heard about Enterpirse I went in with an open mind. I was annoyed and frustrated after about three episodes. (Why don’t these people quite mumbling?)

Specifically in relation to what I have said thus far when I heard about XI my initial reaction was been there done that. But El Orco has explained that he and his folks looked at all the stuff that’s happened (the other shows, etc.) and – I paraphrase – TOS is and was Trek, Everything else since has been something other than TOS. So, they reasoned, if i understand the man, let’s go back and do thing thing that started it all. In essence, again if I understadn the man, they didn’t want to do another TNG or Voyager or Enterprise. So, given what I have said so far about the spin offs, the approach as explained by Orci is – ahem – logical to me.

I’m not one of the nistas. I’m not even and ist or er or ie. If the idea of this thing is to bring back the fun, action, excitement using the characters created by GR, so be it. As long as it brings back the fun, action, and excitement using the characters created by GR. I love the history, back story and “canon” of Trek as much as the next fan but I’m willing to give it a whirl.

If i don’t like like it, they’ll lose me. It’s that simple. But i wil certainly be on line at the midnight show waiving my Trek flag high.

You know what I’ve been wondering? Has anyone brought up the possibility that this is a one off?

Peace and long life.

292. mr. mugato - December 29, 2008

People flamed me for spelling the term “cannon.”

OK, guys, it’s “hear hear” as in you say something really cool and people should hear it.

PS Spock senses the change in the time line (like he sensed V’Ger) and goes back to save Vulcan, not Kirk.

293. BaronByng - December 29, 2008

The argument over whether “Kirk is really Kirk” because events in his life play out differently is, at its heart, about nature vs. nurture. I think it’s clear that no person’s life is entirely one or the other.

After a certain point, your life is also the sum of the choices YOU have made, regardless of the events of history. Kirk has always been both smart and skilled, but also competitive and impulsive. He’s wasting his life in Iowa as a troubled kid and becomes a promising, but futureless young adult. He is challenged, and takes Pike up on his offer to better himself, and is well on his Hero’s Journey.

Now, from a dramatic perspective, that arc is MUCH more interesting to watch than seeing Kirk arrive onscreen fully-formed as some sort of top-of-his-class graduate / instructor-at-the-academy / youngest captain ever. All that is remarkable, but an audience needs to see HOW and WHY he got there — what motivated him, what changed him, how he fails at his first few trials, but then rises above that failure to become a hero during a time of crisis.

The canon events of ‘prime universe’ Kirk’s youth happen over too long a timespan to really fit into that narrative, and a movie would have to either choose one event or skip others to fit the running time. Yes, the timeline may be changed, but it’s possible we’ll get a character we grow to care about better.

294. Alex Rosenzweig - December 29, 2008

#233- “#230 “have any of you seen, the “Relics” episode, The DS9 Tribble episode, In a Mirror Darkly”

Yes, and imo those things wouldn’t stand a single chance on the big screen :) ”

Which is only logical, since none of them were designed to be seen there. ;)

That does not alter the potential for upgrading the original designs in a way suitable for portraying them on the big screen. I think that it would go further than many purists might prefer, but I also think it could be done without changing a single physical dimension of the sets.

I think Kuramura’s Defiant was pointing in the right direction, but even it didn’t have enough detail level and resolution to hold up on the big screen. Along with the Enterprise and other ships in TOS Remastered, it did, however, prove that Matt Jefferies’ original design holds up just fine to modern VFX.

#245 – “Whether you guys like ST:Enterprise or not, the fact is that it established how the Mirror Universe was created – instead of warmly welcoming the Vulcans during first contact, Cochrane and followers attacked them, took their ship, stole their secrets, and the rest is (future)history.”

Umm… Not really. “In a Mirror, Darkly” implies that the Mirrorverse may go a good deal further back. It’s not at all clear from the episode that the time of First Contact is the point of divergence.

#247 – Now that’s a pretty cool breakdown. :) I tend to see myself as mostly a “Continuista”, with the specification that it’s not so much the impact of the alternate universe on the characters that most concerns me, but more that my support is for the Star Trek Universe, as a fictional world, far above any particular set of characters who might inhabit it. To me, setting aside Trek’s world is a far greater problem than even messing with the beloved characters, and the only thing they could do that places me in the potential position of rejecting the film. Recasting: fine. Updating the visual look: okay. Breaking the overall continuity in some allegedly-permanent way? Nope, uh-uh, no thanks.

#269 – “Remember the Farragut!”

I have to admit that this line made me chuckle. I like it. :)

295. S. John Ross - December 29, 2008

#247: Awesome. Although, yeah, some of us definitely overlap with several, as you say. Here’s my personal rundown:

I’m approximately: 0% Canonista (baggage, buh-bye), 20% Continuista (I think continuity, rather than canon, is important, but I think other things are even MORE important, including overall ethos and message), 10% Pleased (thanks mainly to the casting of Karl Urban, John Cho, Simon Pegg and Leonard Nimoy), 5% Jack-Booted Rebooter (I don’t think Trek *needs* a reboot; I *especially* don’t think it needs a BSG style reboot … but I am pro-reboot because I *DO* think a full-on reboot is vastly preferable to any kind of half-measure, and see above on how I see canon), 10% Mainstreamer (I think Trek lives on even if the “franchise” dies; I even toy with the notion that losing the corporate beancounters could be BETTER for Trek … but since I’ve written Trek tie-in material professionally in the past and would enjoy doing so in the future, that requires the franchise to thrive, so that gives me a selfish interest in the health of it), 30% Displeased (most of this is a reaction to the trailer and it’s trite voiceovers, corny visual choices, and the vaguely [GAP + Starbuck’s + Williams -Sonoma + Apple Store] vibe, both of the set design AND Kirk and Spock), 5% Swiss (I’m dead-set on not predicting that the film will be “good” or “bad” based on such limited info as we have … but I’m not at all opposed to discussing hopes and concerns about it), 20% Cawley (with very faint strains of “Altman” in the background, though I do think Picard is pretty awesome even if I don’t really dig his show … I am, in the end, a Star Trek fan, not a spinoff fan), 5% Franchiser (I love the whole idea of Star Trek, and even the parts I love less I still kinda-sorta love), 0% Sevrinites (I think recasting is overdue, even if I think Kirk should probably have been cast as a man), 0% Shatner’s Army (the Shat is God, but Time magazine said God is dead, baby),

And I’m reasonably sure that adds up to 100% Star Trek fan. If I screwed up the math, I hereby call Quantum and handwave it away :)

296. mr. mugato - December 29, 2008

I’m a confusedinista.

297. S. John Ross - December 29, 2008

#295: One of these days you’ll figure out the difference between “it’s” and “its,” though clearly not today. But you are lookin’ good, I must say.

298. Alex Rosenzweig - December 29, 2008

#293 – “The canon events of ‘prime universe’ Kirk’s youth happen over too long a timespan to really fit into that narrative, and a movie would have to either choose one event or skip others to fit the running time.”

I call shenanigans on this one, considering that even in this film, we will be seeing Kirk at various points over a substantial span of time.

Following “prime universe” Kirk wouldn’t actually have required the storytellers to reference each and every one of the prior events or details (all, what, 6 or 7 of them? ;) ). It would just have necessitated structuring the story so as not to create a situation where those events couldn’t have happened.

Based on what I’ve seen so far, I believe that the story they have already written could have achieved that without a lot of complication. Heck, even some of the things they are asserting are changes might or might not be, since they deal with things that filmed Trek never established. (Who’s to say that in the prime Trekverse, Kirk’s dad wasn’t lost when he was a few days old? We don’t know, really.) I’ll reserve a final assessment ’til I know the whole thing, but if my current hypothesis holds, I intend to prove it after the movie is released.

299. Cygnus-X1 - December 29, 2008

276. Vorus – December 29, 2008

—- Well, technically, history DIDN’T change. The history of “our” Kirk and crew is untouched, they are just introducing a new history of a “new” Kirk and crew from an alternate universe. (As has been said, it’s just a fancy way of trying to get us to accept a reboot, it seems.)

However, I understand and agree with your point. I don’t see any reason that a REAL origin story wouldn’t have worked. There is PLENTY of room in the canon history of the TOS crew for good storytelling that wouldn’t have required any canonical violations. As most of us fans have shown, we’d even accept the vastly different look of the sets and ships, as long as the characters were the real characters. —-

This seems to be the elephant in the room, for us Continuistas, anyway.

Has Mr. Orci yet offered his rationale for having chosen to relocate the franchise to an alternate universe? Does this decision on his part amount to an extinction of Trek stories involving the (original universe) TOS characters? Have we reached an evolutionary dead-end, or, does he see the possibility of interbreeding, for the Alternate Universe crew to mingle with the Original Universe crew, as in “Yesterday’s Enterprise,” and the Original Universe crew emerge as the subjects of future Trek stories, though enriched by the history of the Alternate Universe crew, and all of it fitting neatly together in a lovely Trek package tied with a canon bow?

Mr. Orci, does there remain a flicker of hope for us Continuistas?

Or, should we mentally prepare ourselves for permanent separation with the TOS universe?

Give it to us straight, doc. Whatever it is, we can take it.

300. boborci - December 29, 2008

149. The Angry Klingon – December 29, 2008
OK Bob (Orci)
Im OK with the alternate timeline
Im OK with the casting and the FX look good….
What Im still obsessing on (as are several folks on a few prop boards) is the fact that the bridge of the Enterprise is LITTERED with BAR CODE SCANNERS.
You guys had a budget , right?
This isnt the 60s with paper mache cave walls, etc…this is a big budget movie and somebody thought it was OK to go scoop up a bunch of retail store barcode scanners and plant them on every empty space on the freakin bridge. Its THAT sort of laziness in design and execution that concerns me. Ive worked in Hollywood as both on props and sets (and on Trek) and SURE we used found items but we at least MODIFIED them so it wasnt so obvious what they were.
Sorry but this sort of laziness doesnt speak well as to teh effort put in by the design team (the new bridge looks horrid) and Im seeing a LOT of found objects in these clips . It seems that if it wasnt for the Apple store, IKEA and STAPLES you wouldnt have sets.
And Klingons in TRENCHCOATS and leather masks?
Dont wait for the translation answer me now!

LOL!

301. mr. mugato - December 30, 2008

So this thread is done. El Orco is to bed.

Everything was beautiful. And nothing hurt.

302. Wam Bam Sam - December 30, 2008

His theories are based on very little. Physicists can’t explain so much about our universe and so, as far as I can tell, they’ve come up with these INSANE theories which HAPPEN to fit all the facts. There’s too much we don’t know and so therefore you can’t pass any of that stuff off as fact.

I liked it how he kept on saying ‘if you accept the quantum stance of time’ and so forth… I certainly wouldn’t write a book on this stuff coz 1. There’s no way to test it that I can think of and 2. I don’t believe it it’s too farfetched

BUT I’d like to read his book… curiosity and all

303. Tchessi - December 30, 2008

Has anyone here read David Gerrold’s “The Man Who Folded Himself” which used this parallel timeline concept beautifully back in 1975? Or am I the only one????

304. Chris - December 30, 2008

The problem with all this horse excrement about Quantum Mechanics is that jumping from one time line to another…if that indeed actually means jumping to an alternative universe….actually violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. The First Law says matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed within the universe, they can change state from one to the other, but the total sum of matter and energy in the universe is always the same.

The other Problem with the many-universes theory is that it isn’t even a theory. A true theory can be made into a hypothesis for testing with the scientific method. Since it is impossible to observe an alternate universe, you cannot prove or disprove the theory, which makes it a really poor theory.

If its not a theory it is just a belief. That takes it out of the realm of science and into the realm of faith. I am a man of faith, faith in God in particular, and from my readings over the years, the many-universes theory isn’t there to solve some real cosmological problem, its there to provide an escape hatch for atheists to say the Big Bang wasn’t God’s creation of our universe. Meaning, if you take away the signularity…the begin-point of creation, then you no longer need a creator.

Einstein believed time travel to be impossible. I also think this to be the case, given the massive amounts of energy that would be required, there’s no way to even begin to make enough anti-matter to do what they do in Trek. That’s not to say the concept isn’t plausible in a theoretical sense, its just not practically possible.

Now, having said all that, I love Trek and I love that they try hard to make it consistent with known science, but in the end it is still science FICTION, and you have to allow yourself to take a leave of reality in order to enjoy the show.

After all, science fiction still must tell a story, all the science in SciFi is just a vehicle to allow us to tell a fictional story that we otherwise wouldn’t be able to with a modern day or past setting. SciFi lets us deal with moral and ethical hypotheticals, etc.

I think Orci is trying too hard to make everybody happy on the plausibility front on this one.

305. A. .S.F.33 - December 30, 2008

To Alex R., Vorus and the others who continue to voice concerns about this movie…. I applaud you. You folks often sum up exactly what I am thinking and feeling and I’m glad you keep trying to bring this opinion to light. People think there is less opposition to this movie because fewer folks post about it, but in reality it is just that many that feel this way, have left the discussion all together (and yeah I can already hear some of you cheering about that :)), or at least this portion of it, because the whole thing seems so futile and our opinions are often belittled .

>>>299. Cygnus-X1 – December 29, 2008 “I understand and agree with your point. I don’t see any reason that a REAL origin story wouldn’t have worked. There is PLENTY of room in the canon history of the TOS crew for good storytelling that wouldn’t have required any canonical violations. As most of us fans have shown, we’d even accept the vastly different look of the sets and ships, as long as the characters were the real characters. —-This seems to be the elephant in the room, for us Continuistas, anyway.”<<<

Excellent points! Another elephant in the room for me is how while making this movie, such “fans” of Star Trek could have chosen to disregard so much of what is KNOWN to be important to other fans. I don’t care about the changes in the look of things, but I DO CARE about Kirk being the Kirk I have known for forty years; including the history that was already established for him. I’m not looking for a Kirk with a new “twist” when the old one was just about perfect as he was. Why, as other’s have asked, couldn’t we have had a straightforward origin story??? Now THAT I would have paid to see.

306. NCC-73515 - December 30, 2008

so orci just mistook “science” and “human history” for mere physics…

307. 750 Mang - December 30, 2008

I’m fearful that Mr. Orci and friends just don’t understand how important the collective history of Star Trek is to us. They thought the main things that made Trek what it is was gold shirts and pointy ears. But they are wrong.

Remember the Farragut!

308. Vorus - December 30, 2008

@ 284 dalek

Actually, we DO know that Nero succeeded. If you realize the full import of the MWI, there are BILLIONS of universes in which Nero succeeded, all the good guys are dead, and the planet Vulcan has been destroyed. There are also billions of universes where Spock Prime stops him. There are also billions of universes where Nero’s helmsman sneezes during time travel, and their ship goes off course and slams into a random asteroid.

According to MWI, EVERY POSSIBILITY happens somewhere. EVERY single thing that could POSSIBLY happen, does happen. So yes, there are a LOT of universes where Nero succeeds.

So again I ask, why should Spock care about this one universe more than all the others. All he did was save people in one of the hundreds of trillions of universes where Nero travels back in time. What about the billions of other universes where he succeeds in killing every one.

The ONLY way out of that logical conundrum is if Spock doesn’t know about the MWI, which is problematic for two reasons:

1) That must mean that it isn’t true. Spock is obviously one of the most intelligent science officers SF has ever had. Therefore, if he is unaware of the MWI, or believes it to be untrue, then it must have been disproven or largely disproven by the time Spock learned about science.

2) Spock is a dipstick who doesn’t even know the basics of quantum mechanics. Considering he can do time travel calculations IN HIS HEAD(!!) I think we can all agree that’s not a possibility.

So, either way, there is no logical way to say that the MWI is correct and still claim that Spock doesn’t know about it.

309. hitch1969©, producer of "If I Did It, Jr"- a musical for children, starring children. - December 30, 2008

re: “I think Orci is trying too hard to make everybody happy on the plausibility front on this one.”

And no disrespect to the OrcSter. But I have figured this all out…

Until the movie definitively tells us what the OrcSter is telling us about the alternate timeline (and it won’t)… this story was written as an “origins” story. Sir JJ said it himself, over and over. Even the Orcster has said it – about how all the other series had a backstory established and that TOS was the only one that didnt.

Team, I submit to you that this movie was never intended to be the explanation that the OrcSter has given us about alternate timelines – and it won’t be. It will clearly play out as “back to the future” kind of time travel, with Spock going back into “his” past to save “his” future.

It has only been on this site, when the specific details of canon missing or changed, that we were first told, “anything that appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”. That was a nice blanket statement, very reassuring and warm, interpret it however you need to, very generalized. Because some folks would only key in on certain changes, while some might perseverate over all of them, some might not even be familiar with them to even notice.

KEY in on that last idea. Now think, just who does Sir JJ keep telling us that this movie is made for? Does he say, “this is a labor of love for the die hard trekkers”? NOPE. What he says is the exact opposite – It’s for a general audience who – what? might not be too familiar with canon. therefore, would not know who mitchell and finnegan are, or that the enterprise was assembled in space after being built in san francisco.

When the blanket statement didn’t pacify the masses, then it became a sit down with AP and “the most tested theory” and all that. Backed up, of course, by Commander Data himself. Surely, it was time for cake and eat it too, with a nice apologist icing.

OrcSter himself – in these forums – when questioned about recreating canon verbatim, specifically – incorporating these stories into his script – responded that to him, as a writer – he would need to find them compelling enough to do so. Obviously he approached this as a writer, not a keeper of the canon. So he disregarded alot, changed some. But what if I’m wrong about this?

So how could you play all that out in a 2 hour movie? Working in Kodos, Kirks time on the farragut, the cloud monster… anything that you percieve as missing or wrong. Uhura in Iowa, serving budweisers?

What I am getting to, and what I have figured out is that LIBERTIES HAVE BEEN TAKEN. And unless the movie *really* gets into the alternate timeline idea, in the way that the Orcster has explained it here (and it wont), then what you have is Star Trek IV time travel – a back to the future time travel. And the larger implication – that much like as the writers did with First Contact, changing up the Cochrane details but atleast remaining true to a “framework” established earlier – your dvd collections might erase themselves come may 2009.

THE WOMEN!!

=h=

310. Fridge - December 30, 2008

I wonder if like in other time travel adventures if things won’t revert back to the “origina”l timeline or if this new timeline will be the basis of new stories. After all Star Trek has resovled most of its time travel problems by undoing the changes made, but also has the Mirror Universe as a setting for many stories. Ihave the feeling that this new timeline is here to stay. But anything is possible…

311. BK613 - December 30, 2008

246
“Orci’s preferred explanation is NOT acceptable as ANY sort of scientific explanation for what happens in this script.

Is it acceptable as soft-science fiction? Sure! Heck, Trek has always botched the science.

But don’t tell us that we have to accept radical changes in the history of Trek on the grounds on scientific realism. You demand that audiences accept aesthetic changes on non-aesthetic grounds. ”

QFT

247
awesome list

307
I agree with your posts about the backstory. Lots of potential in the true history of Kirk.

312. Closettrekker - December 30, 2008

#44—“But it *does*, from where I’m sitting, appear to make previous canon *irrelevant*”

No, it doesn’t.

Since Nimoy’s Spock and Nero come from the timeline with which we are already familiar, everything we know as “canon” must occur in order for the story to progress to this point (the point where both characters, for their own reasons, choose to travel back in time). Previously established ‘canon’ is therefore not only relevant, but absolutely essential to telling this story.

313. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 30, 2008

#304 Chris:

The Vulcan Science Directorate agrees with you.

314. Vorus - December 30, 2008

@309 hitch

Yes, I think you’re absolutely right. I’ve been saying all along that I don’t think this film will establish itself as an alternate universe. You made it much simpler by saying that it will present itself like Back to the Future, Spock trying to save his own future. Which means, of course, that if we accept it as that, TOS never happened. At least, large parts of it never happened, and most of the rest was different. And from that point on, we can’t say that ANYTHING in Trek happened the way we know.

Therefore, we either have to accept this as it is presented, as a total reboot, or accept Orci’s explanation of the multiple universes theory, which honestly, doesn’t make much sense plot-wise.

Yeah, I’m not exactly thrilled about either choice.

315. Closettrekker - December 30, 2008

#29—” It is a logical question with 3 possible answers. Either 1. We have ignored the contradiction. 2. Spock is not aware of the LATEST AND GREATEST THEORY OF SCIENCE! or 3. The plot is not what you think!”

A 4th option is that Spock simply does not agree with the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. He would certainly be aware of it.

The truth is, ‘canonically speaking’, he has good reason to dismiss that theory as being flawed.

When McCoy enters the Guardian and alters the past, the timeline these characters exist in is effectively altered. This interpretation (however valid by modern standards) would suggest that it should have not been altered, and instead, a parallel timeline should have been created in which events might have unfolded somewhat differently.

316. Closettrekker - December 30, 2008

#314—“Which means, of course, that if we accept it as that, TOS never happened.”

Of course it did, otherwise the story could not progress to the point where Nero (who comes from that timeline) makes the decision to take action in order to alter the past, nor could Spock (who also comes from that timeline) take action to counter that plan. Everything we know as “canon” must occur precisely as it does in the timeline with which we are all so familiar. TOS is not only relevant, but remains an essential element of the overall Trek mythos.

” At least, large parts of it never happened, and most of the rest was different. And from that point on, we can’t say that ANYTHING in Trek happened the way we know. ”

Assuming you are referring to how events unfold in the “altered” TOS-era timeline beyond Kirk’s ascension to command of the Enterprise, it may be true that we cannot say with assurance that anything happens the way we saw it in TOS. But how much will definitively change depends upon how much of the established character backstory is compromised by the story depicted in this film—more specifically, by the attack upon the USS Kelvin and the subsequent attacks upon the Klingon Empire and Vulcan by Romulan villains from the TNG-era.

Will Kirk ever spend time on Tarsus (“The Conscience Of The King”)?

Will Kirk ever serve aboard the USS Republic with a young officer named Ben Finney (“Court-Martial”)?

Will Kirk ever serve aboard the USS Farragut under the command of Captain Garrovick (“Obsession”)?

Will Kirk ever teach a class at Star Fleet Academy in which one of the students is a young cadet named Gary Mitchell (“Where No Man Has Gone Before”)?

Will Kirk, as a young officer, ever visit the planet Neural (“A Private Little War”)?

Does the absence of George Kirk result in a convirgence of circumstances in which a young James Kirk learns to operate a manual transmission automobile (“A Piece Of The Action”)?

Will Spock still be betrothed (for lack of a better term) to T’Pring at age 7 (“Amok Time”)?

Will McCoy ever spend time on Capella IV (“Friday’s Child”)?

Will McCoy ever have a romantic relationship with a woman named Nancy 12 years prior to a visit by the Enterprise to planet M-113 (“The Man Trap”)?

Any of these events being altered would surely affect (at least to some degree) the precise outcomes or resolutions to stories depicted in The Original Series, but how many of those events are affected is a question unlikely to be definitively answered in this film. As with all questions of ‘canon’, just because something is not depicted on screen does not mean it could not have occurred anyway.

The bottom line is that, no matter what happens in this film, the original 79 episodes of TOS are still very much a relevant chapter in the overall Trek mythos, and indeed—in ‘canon’, otherwise this story could never take place.

317. 750 Mang - December 30, 2008

This whole thing is just depressing. The very first decision the keepers of the keys made was to do this Bizarro Trek concept and disregard who these characters are and where they came from.

This may be an origin story but an origin for our crew. Not the crew in those 79 episodes, not the crew in those 6 movies. These characters are shadows with names like Jim Kirk and Spock.

Remember the Faragut!

318. Closettrekker - December 30, 2008

#317—-“This whole thing is just depressing.”

Depressing? Really?

Why?

It’s not as if anyone was making anymore movies featuring those characters anyway. If you end up not liking it, what have you lost?

“These characters are shadows with names like Jim Kirk and Spock.”

How do you know that? How do you know that these characters will not become essentially the same heroes we have always known them to be?

319. Sam Belil - December 30, 2008

Hey — I believe most of us (correct me if I’m wrong), missed this. But in “Yesterday’s Enterprise”– I just watched it on DVD — the purpose was to send the Enterprise B to “restore the proper timeline” — which they DID!!!!!

Forget “Back to the Future” — that was a comedy. However — there was an excellent Justice League episode (a two-parter), in which the “correct timeline” was altered by Vandal Savage “Savage Time Pts 1 & 2). The Justice League went to back into the past (WWII), and as a result of defeating Savage the “correct timeline” was RESTORED. That was the EXACT term Picard used in “Yesterday’s Enterprise” — “restoring the timeline”.

In “City on the Edge of Forever”, Kirk HAD to let Edith Keeler die to again,r estore the proper timeline. There were NO NEW timelines created, they were RESTORED original timelines. I could be wrong (I will stick to my guns on this), the “orignial STOS timeline” will NOT BE RESTORED in this movie. #317 you said it BEST, this is not an origin story, or at least the origin story I thought we were getting when they annouced this movie.

320. YARN - December 30, 2008

# 293. BaronByng wrote:

“The argument over whether “Kirk is really Kirk” because events in his life play out differently is, at its heart, about nature vs. nurture. I think it’s clear that no person’s life is entirely one or the other.”

NO – the question is NOT nature vs. nuture. The question IS whether Kirk is really Kirk (the character we knew in TOS and the films).

Kirk is a fictional character, there is no genuine question of determinism to be posed. The only thing that determines the actions of James T. Kirk is the pen of the person who writes him. The question is whether this interation of the character relevantly resembles the original enough that it will feel right to say that the new Kirk fits the overall character.

321. NOTBOB - December 30, 2008

Mr. Bob Orci,

I don’t have another timeline question. I’m just curious.

Over the Christmas holidays I was watching my copy of THX 1138. That robot like police officer in the Star Trek trailer….by any chance was it’s look inspired by the police in THX 1138? I don’t know how much of a role the writers have in terms of what things look like, etc. But if the cops of THX were the inspiration, whoever came up with the idea they did a really cool job, in my opinion.

322. Vorus - December 30, 2008

@316 Closettrekker

You’re missing the point of my statement. When I said “if we accept this”, the “this” I was referring to the the film’s INTERNAL explanation of time travel. As Hitch said, the film is probably going to present the time travel like “Back to the Future” did, as Nero and Spock traveling to their OWN past, to alter their OWN present. In other words, the film, we posit, will NOT present the MWI to explain the time travel.

If we accept THAT interpretation, then no, TOS will not have happened the way we know it did, because the past will still be altered by the end of the movie.

323. thorsten - December 30, 2008

@319…

GUINAN
This war was never meant to be.
They must return to their own
time to correct that.

PICARD
And what is the guarantee that
by going back they will
succeed… ?

She gives him a look — there is none.

PICARD
In fact, they could conceivably
create a third time line.

GUINAN
Yes.

324. NOTBOB - December 30, 2008

OK…I guess I lied about the timeline question part.

I wanted to also ask is there anything about Gary Mitchell in the movie? If not, I hope that the sequel…I’m sure there is a real strong chance of one…will mention Mitch.

325. thorsten - December 30, 2008

TASHA
Data, how different do you think
your life would be in the other
time line?

DATA
(considers a beat)
The possibilities are too numerous
even for me to calculate, Tasha.

TASHA
(thinking to herself)
Kind of scary, isn’t it?

DATA
Scary? I would not know.

326. dalek - December 30, 2008

#308 In the billions of possibilities you describe, logically there is only ONE Spock Prime (our Spock) and he can only succeed or fail. Spock Prime can not both succeed and fail. The outcome will be the movie. Any other possibility other than the one we see on screen is not Spock Prime.

And Spock is not thick. He has vast experience in time travel enough to believe what he believes, despite the writers thoughts on how it works, Spock has more experience :)

This is all, however, utter speculation. Chances are the Many Worlds theory isn’t even mentioned on screen and doesn’t really matter other than to appease the many fans who want to know what happened to the universe that spawned their DVD collection. The real answer is Paramount/Rick Berman ran that universe into the ground, it ultimately failed and the string had to be cut. It died.

Now its reborn. It might not be the same identical universe, but its the closest we will get to our fathers Star Trek, and at least this one has a chance.

If people don’t like it (and I may, after watching the movie, be one of them), there’s still the DVDs of the other universe.

The irony is, they went to all this trouble to get Nimoy involved (change the timeline, alternate universes, Kirk’s past altered), yet JJ wouldn’t even pick up the phone when it came to William Shatner :P

327. Vorus - December 30, 2008

@ thorsten

None of those quotes mean that both (or the theoretical three) timelines exist currently. They mean only that there are at least two POSSIBLE timelines, the “correct” one and the “altered” one. Nowhere in those quotes is it established that the “correct” timeline still exists as we are watching out heroes in the “altered” timeline.

In fact, the exact opposite is implied in the episode a great many times. The “correct” timeline no longer exists, because it has been ALTERED by the events of the episode. If there was a split-off of a new universe, the “correct” timeline would not have been altered at all.

Clearly, “Yesterday’s Enterprise” is NOT an example of the MWI in canon, as # 319 Sam Belil explained.

328. Sam Belil - December 30, 2008

Hey #323 I see what you’re saying but remember he said “conceivably” –again please refer to the briefing room meeting where Picard clearly talks about “restoring the timeline”. In fact we know that the correct timeline was restored — with the exception of Tasha Yar giving birth to Sela. The look on Guinan’s face at the END of that episode was indicative (at least to me it was) — that the proper timeline was restored. Same with “City on the Edge of Forever”.

Better yet go to YouTube and check out the Justice League Episode (Savage Time Parts 1 and 2) — their proper timeline is restored.
Refer STTAS, “Yesteryear” the proper timeline is restored not altered. This movie results in an altered timeline, with of course opens up new possibilities for Abrams and Company for future ST films (assuming this movie is successful AND we cannot asssume it will be successful because everyone LOVES the trailer). Just look at the “The Spirt”, pretty cool looking trailer, but sadly a total box-office and critical bomb!!!!

329. Vorus - December 30, 2008

@ 326 dalek

I can see your point, but again, unless he travels WITH Nero, then he doesn’t even arrive in the same universe Nero did. Which makes his whole journey futile in terms of saving the people he set out to save. Even if he does travel with Nero though, (Or through some other means manage to arrive in the same universe) he did nothing to alter the “Prime” timeline, so again the film is kind of pointless. All we’re watching are copies of the characters we knew from some random alternate universe.

Then again, if the MWI is NOT used in the film, than this IS a reboot and NOT the origin story we were lead to believe.

330. I am Kurok! - December 30, 2008

If anyone is interested, David Gerrold (of ‘Trouble with Tribbles’ and “Yesteryear” fame) wrote a now out-of-print book titled ‘The man who folded himself” which for a 100-page story is an absolutely fascinating read. It delves heavily into alternative timelines, and gives a unique perspective(s) from the time-traveler’s viewpoint. The crux of the story is not only alternative timelines, but alternative versions of the same time-traveler bouncing between them.

When you finish the story, you realize that the ultimate focus is not really time-travel, but of the human experience.

(Sound familiar???)

A great book, if you can get a copy.

As for the plot of ST XI, I just hope that at some point, the Guardian kicks in and says “All is as it was…..”

331. Cygnus-X1 - December 30, 2008

308. Vorus – December 30, 2008

—- So again I ask, why should Spock care about this one universe more than all the others. All he did was save people in one of the hundreds of trillions of universes where Nero travels back in time. What about the billions of other universes where he succeeds in killing every one. —-

Right, it definitely lessens the import and makes the story less compelling, when viewed with regard to the MWI premise. Whether it will seem compelling on screen, despite the MWI premise and the break with the TOS prime universe/timeline, remains to be seen.

The importance of canon is ultimately to give depth of consequence to the story. When you’re being told a story, with an awareness of the rich backstories of all of the characters, ships, events and worlds of Trek, the events in that story automatically take on deeper meaning and greater significance and are thus more compelling.

This, along with respect for the great material of TOS and the fans who’ve supported it through thick and thin (and, there’s no denying that it’s been quite thin in the recent past), would be the important reasons for preserving canon in the new film.

And, while, according to the MWI as interpreted and applied by Mr. Orci, canon has been preserved in the new film, it appears to have been done merely by a technicality, while the important REASONS for preserving canon seem to have been set aside.

If this were a court of law, and we were arguing the application of a law known as “canon,” I would have to offer that the MWI justification addresses the letter of that law while sidestepping the spirit of that law.

But, just how much this departure from the TOS prime universe/timeline will bother people is dependent upon how grievous and substantial it is. I suspect that many of us would feel better about the decision to split from the TOS prime universe/timeline if there were a good reason offered. And, perhaps Mr. Orci can’t tell us that reason without giving away too much of the film, and we shall only understand his motivation after seeing it.

I hope that’s the case, because, if it’s not, then his failure to give a reason after having been asked so many times will seem evasive in retrospect.

Anthony got right to the point weeks ago, in the first part of this discussion, and Mr. Orci has yet to answer — we can only hope, for the right reasons:

—- December 11, 2008

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.

[So, why do it, then? It’s hard to imagine that you couldn’t think of a compelling story that happened to be consistent with the limited information known about the pre-TOS history of the TOS crew.]

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: We are not relying on the time travel element to tell a good story.

[ Anthony anticipated our concerns about the dramatic impact of possibly inconsequential events befalling characters who are different from the ones in whom we have become vested, i.e. the TOS prime crew. So, again, why split from the TOS prime universe/timeline? If you didn’t need to split from it in order to tell a good story, what other reason could justify breaking with rich Trek canon? I mean, it seems to me that the needs of the story would be the most acceptable excuse. But, if you didn’t need to split from the TOS prime universe/timeline in order to tell a good story, then what else could it be? I really hope that the film makes evident a good reason, or that the split is minor and trivial enough to not feel disrespectful or annoying.]

332. thorsten - December 30, 2008

@327, 328…

INT. READY ROOM

PICARD
If the Enterprise-C returns to
the battle and its mission is a
success, history will be
irrevocably changed. This time
line will cease to exist… and
a new future will have been
created.

333. John from Cincinnati - December 30, 2008

Despite the fact I would’ve made a far different movie from the one presented to us, I am still keeping an open mind, although it is growing harder and harder to do so. I would’ve re-cast the crew, had to, the originals are too old. However, I would’ve stuck with the pre-established histories of the characters and shown the “real” origins of James T. Kirk and how he became the Captain we’ve all grown to know over the past 40 years as opposed to some schewed version of him which no fan cares about. Maybe in 40 years, this new Kirk history will be the one fans will choose to care about and our original favorite be long lost to those few old enough to remember, and care. Personally, I liked the history of Tarsus IV, the Obsession creature from the Farragut days, et al. They had a mysterious quality to them I wanted to see on the big screen. As far as feel, the best way to describe the feel of my movie if I had a chance to make it, would be like if I made a movie about the episode ‘Arena’, the opening shot of them on the obliterated base, I would’ve fleshed out and make it shot and feel like “Saving Private Ryan” on the beaches of Normandy. Not to say I would actually have put a scene from Arena in the new movie, just using this as an example of how to take pre-established content and make it new and exciting for a new generation of fans. I would’ve shown the horrors and drama of a young teenager on a planet called Tarsus IV where the Governor murdered tens of thousands of people. That would’ve been like a genocidal scene, or even, as harrowing and dramatic as the concentration camps of WWII. I think the writers missed the boat on this one, but I wish them and the new movie the best of luck because ultimately, I am happy to see Star Trek be successful. That would only lead for possibly more opportunities to see the Trek I’ve always been craving for.

334. Sam Belil - December 30, 2008

Hey #332 — Picard on more than one occasstion talks about restoring the timeline, “new future” was a poor choice of words on the script writers part. At the end of the episode it’s more than obvious that the “correct timeline” was restored. Better yet view the conversation with Guinan prior to the staff meeting.

335. A. .S.F.33 - December 30, 2008

>>”318. Closettrekker – December 30, 2008
#317—-”This whole thing is just depressing.”

Depressing? Really?

Why?

It’s not as if anyone was making anymore movies featuring those characters anyway. If you end up not liking it, what have you lost?<<<

You have lost the purity of what came before. That’s what you’ve lost…The SINGLE Trek universe where when someone mentions Captain Kirk EVERYONE knows who and what you are talking about. They don’t have to ask “oh really, which Kirk are you referring too?” Or worse yet when you are actually referring to original Kirk NO ONE knows what you mean since this movie has erased all that. I would rather have had NO movie than one that may make tos irrelevant in the future since these “new” hoped for fans will NOT want to go back and see where this great adventure started….They will just assume it starts HERE with this movie and that is the real damage that could be done by this movie..

336. 750 Mang - December 30, 2008

335. A. .S.F.33

“You have lost the purity of what came before. That’s what you’ve lost…The SINGLE Trek universe where when someone mentions Captain Kirk EVERYONE knows who and what you are talking about.”

Right on.

And the reason it is so depressing is that we have been told this is the origin story of our crew.

It, by the writers own admission, is not.

A small sample of why this is not the Kirk we all grew up with…

Our Kirk served on the USS Republic.

Our Kirk served on the USS Faragutt and carried the guilt of Captain Garrovicks death with him for years.

Our Kirk did not go from Cadet Kirk to Captain Kirk in one adventure.

Our Kirk only met Captain Pike once, Pike was not his mentor.

Does Sam Kirk even exist in this timeline? Does Jim Kirk have a brother here?

I know that if I didn’t have my brother my life would be very different.

This Bizarro Trek timeline is a cheap way for Hollywood writers to just change stuff because they want to. Too much of a challenge in making it work without polluting the timeline.

I know the routine, but I don’t have to like it.

Remember the Farragut!

337. thorsten - December 30, 2008

@334…

Sam, of course I know what you mean… but there is still room for interpretation… after the C comes out of the rift, we see the changed crew on the changed bridge in a new time line, created by the C’s disappearence from Narendra. So Picard in this this time line makes his decision to send the ship back. Tasha decides do die a meaningful death.
The C returns through the rift. The crew and the ship switch back to TNG “normal”. Just Guinan is aware of the events, and asks Geordi about Tasha.
But it is all a question of your perspective. The POV is changing, to the Klingon war time line and to the “normal” time line.
But it is open to interpretation that we, the viewers, watched one single, changing universe all the time, or if we watched three universes.
Only Guinan knows the answer, but…

GEORDI
How could Guinan know that history
has been altered… if she’s been
altered along with the rest of
us?

DATA
Perhaps her species has a
perception that goes beyond linear
time.

PICARD
(acknowledges)
There are many things about her
species that cannot be easily
explained. Even she cannot
explain how or why she senses that
history has been altered. And yet
it is very possible she is correct.
A ship from the past has traveled
through time. Who among us could
know what effect that event has
had on the present. Indeed, we
will never know for certain if
Guinan is correct. But I, for one,
have decided the consequences of
that possibility are too grave to
ignore.

The best way to sort this out is to sit down with Bob and some beers…

338. Sam Belil - December 30, 2008

…#337, it will take more than “some beers”. Hopefully upon seeing this movie, our doubts, fears, concerns and questions will be addressed in (pardon the pun) in logical fashion.

339. Closettrekker - December 30, 2008

#322—“If we accept THAT interpretation, then no, TOS will not have happened the way we know it did, because the past will still be altered by the end of the movie.”

I understood completely.

However, It doesn’t change the fact that, in order for this story to ever take place, everything in TOS must unfold exactly the way it did. Without everything we know as ‘canon’ to this point (ENT-NEM), Nero can never get to the point where he makes the decision to alter the past, nor can Spock (Nimoy) ever get to the point where he makes a decision to take the necessary action to counter that plan.

TOS (as the stories unfold in the original 79 episodes) was, is, and will forever remain essential to the broader storyline which we refer to as Star Trek canon.

The “Many Worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics (whether it is actually inferred in the film or not) makes no difference. Regardless of the possibility that the stories depicted in TOS occurs in a previously dominant timeline, the lineage of which is now severed, those events still occurred. This story absolutely depends upon that premise.

340. Cygnus-X1 - December 30, 2008

I’d be willing to host “Some Beers with Bob Orci.”

I’ll just need a ten minute heads-up so that I can straighten up the basement.

I know what you’re thinking, but don’t worry, my Mom won’t bother us down there.

341. Closettrekker - December 30, 2008

#335—“They don’t have to ask ‘oh really, which Kirk are you referring (to)?’ ”

Why would they ask that? It is the same character evolved under somewhat different circumstances.

“… I would rather have had NO movie than one that may make tos irrelevant in the future…”

TOs can never be irrelevant, particularly since this story depends upon every bit of Star Trek canon (including TOS) in order for it to progress to the point where the timeline with which we are familiar becomes altered.

It is not only still relevant, but absolutely essential to this and any future stories taking place chronologically subsequent to this one.

“…since these “new” hoped for fans will NOT want to go back and see where this great adventure started….They will just assume it starts HERE with this movie and that is the real damage that could be done by this movie..”

As opposed to what?

The people who assume that “it starts here” obviously weren’t watching 40 year old episodes of TOS to begin with, or they would be in a position to assume that in the first place.

And I would argue that many more people (assuming they like the movie) may become more inclined than ever before to go back and watch TOS. It would be akin to a new Bond fan going back and watching “Goldfinger”, or a fan of “Superman Returns” going back and watching “Superman: The Movie”.

And if they do not decide to watch TOS, what exactly has changed? They obviously weren’t watching it anyway!

Nothing is lost.

342. Closettrekker - December 30, 2008

“…or they would not be in a position…”

Sorry for the typo.

343. John from Cincinnati - December 30, 2008

341.

What we have lost, as fans, is the opportunity to see Tarsus IV and the Farragut incident on the big screen, or small screen for that matter, in the future. If this alternate timeline is the current one moving forward. We shall never see the aforementioned stories.

344. Closettrekker - December 30, 2008

#343—“What we have lost, as fans, is the opportunity to see Tarsus IV and the Farragut incident on the big screen, or small screen for that matter, in the future. If this alternate timeline is the current one moving forward. We shall never see the aforementioned stories.”

I understand that, but honestly, did you ever think that was going to happen?

In my opinion, those types of stories are what books are for. Writers have had more than 40 years to tell such stories. I personally cannot say with any realistic conviction that anyone was ever going to film those stories, or for that matter, that I ever really wished for those stories to be depicted on screen at all. Those stories were already recounted in TOS, if only from the recollections of those involved and record tapes.

My wish was always for more stories involving the original characters. I personally wished that they had been recast decades ago.

345. YARN - December 30, 2008

Keep pimpin’ the Kool-Aid Closettrekker, the rest of us will wait to see if the film delivers the goods.

346. Closettrekker - December 30, 2008

#345—“…Closettrekker, the rest of us will wait to see if the film delivers the goods.”

As will I.

This movie might be bad, but if it is, it won’t (IMO) be because the writers used an alternate timeline angle to bring the original characters together aboard the Enterprise. Nor will it be because Chris Pine’s eye color is different from Shatner’s, or that the design of the NCC-1701 varies from the one I saw as a kid on television.

If it fails to “deliver the goods”, it will be because the writing, acting, or directing is poor. None of the rest of this will have anything to do with it.

347. YARN - December 30, 2008

#346

For once, I am in total agreement with you.

348. A. .S.F.33 - December 30, 2008

>>>”344. Closettrekker – December 30, 2008
I personally cannot say with any realistic conviction that anyone was ever going to film those stories, or for that matter, that I ever really wished for those stories to be depicted on screen at all. Those stories were already recounted in TOS, if only from the recollections of those involved and record tapes”<>>”My wish was always for more stories involving the original characters. I personally wished that they had been recast decades ago.<<<
Well you didn’t get that with this movie as far as I can eee. All you have is “re-envisioned, reinvented , reimagined,” versions of the originals that exist in some alternate timeline.

349. thorsten - December 30, 2008

“Parallels”
DATA
The rate of quantum incursions is
increasing exponentially.

At this rate, the sector will be
completely filled with Enterprises
within three days.

350. Xai - December 30, 2008

345. YARN – December 30, 2008
“Keep pimpin’ the Kool-Aid Closettrekker, the rest of us will wait to see if the film delivers the goods.”

Closet can more than hold his own in the posts without my help, but I disagree that he’s “pimping the Kool-Aid”. He has his opinions about this movie that I happen to agree with for the most part. He and I disagree on the TNG and more current series, but that’s the way it goes.
I find his posts well thought out, easy to understand and above all, he seems to respect the other posters opinions.
If having an opinion that disagrees with yours, his or anyone elses is selling Kool-Aid, then I guess I have a stand on the corner selling the good stuff made with tons of refined sugar and it’s only a nickel a glass.
Use of the soap-box is free.

351. John from Cincinnati - December 30, 2008

346.
“This movie might be bad, but if it is, it won’t (IMO) be because the writers used an alternate timeline angle to bring the original characters together aboard the Enterprise. Nor will it be because Chris Pine’s eye color is different from Shatner’s, or that the design of the NCC-1701 varies from the one I saw as a kid on television.”

Well, I don’t know how anyone can say with a straight face, that when you change the history of a person (ie. Kirk) that that won’t change the person he becomes. By definition, it MUST change the person he becomes, therefore he will not be the same James T. Kirk we’ve all come to know. Familiar, similar but not the same.

352. dalek - December 30, 2008

Never ever quote me on this, but I agree with ClosetTrekker (yep first time for everything),

This movie and the characters and universe would not exist if not for the Prime Trek timeline.

Spock’s presence in this timeline is vital it seems (i might be wrong, but at a pivotal moment in the movie he sends Kirk back to the Enterprise to take command, or suffer its annihilation at the hands of Nero with Spock commanding).

Our Star Trek gave birth to this Star Trek. It is not forgotten. One of our characters is the same identical character from the original. The rest with the exception of Kirk are completely identical (their pasts have not been altered). Altho chekov being on the enterprise when kirk is still a cadet seems a bit of a bend in the timeline too me…. Too much of one if im honest.

But the story seems to be about how Kirk, the one with the past we are unfamiliar, becomes the Kirk that we all know and love despite his history being sabotaged.

Same characters, different situation. Whats the problem really with this direction?

In fact it opens the book to put some of their past adventures back on the big screen but put them differently. Meeting Khan again but something different happening would be incredible (you’d have to cast Khan right tho).

Your DVDs arent being erased folks. If you don’t like it don’t accept it. I know I’ll reserve the right to do so after seeing the movie. Its like anything in life, you assimilate that you love, and reject that you don’t.

If I didn’t think this project was being made out of love for Star Trek and the characters, I wouldn’t be posting right now about it.

353. John from Cincinnati - December 30, 2008

As for Leonard Nimoy being in the movie….

Sean Connery couldn’t make ‘Never Say Never Again’ a good Bond flick.

354. dalek - December 30, 2008

#353

But he made Goldfinger a classic. Your point being?

Unless its an agism remark, i fail to see its relevance.

355. YARN - December 30, 2008

#350 Xai

“Closet can more than hold his own in the posts without my help,”

…but…

“but I disagree that he’s “pimping the Kool-Aid”.”

I disagree. Closet has been hyper-vigilant in towing the party line and with defending the film against all dissent.

“He has his opinions about this movie that I happen to agree with for the most part.”

OK?

“He and I disagree on the TNG and more current series, but that’s the way it goes.”

I see.

“I find his posts well thought out, easy to understand and above all, he seems to respect the other posters opinions.”

I didn’t say that he was monster. One can agree with this, but still note that he’s functioning as the self-appointed sheriff of ST XI. Lengthy apologias and explications follow any expression of doubt.

“If having an opinion that disagrees with yours, his or anyone elses is selling Kool-Aid,”

And if disagreeing with Trekker and joking that he is a bit overzealous in defending the new film against any and all criticisms is grounds for having a metaphor converted into a straw argument…

“then I guess I have a stand on the corner selling the good stuff made with tons of refined sugar and it’s only a nickel a glass.
Use of the soap-box is free.”

Just had a sip – seems a little self-righteous for my taste, but hey, it’s only a nickle.

Now go fetch a kitten out of a tree or something – the world needs defending.

356. Sam Belil - December 30, 2008

John from Cincinnati – MY G-D — all of your 3 posts WERE RIGHT ON THE MARK!!! Yes while I have accepted what Abrams and crew are trying to do, while I have accepted these (in my opinion, many unnecesary changes) — it keeps coming back to me WHY? WHY? & WHY!!!! There so many great “back stories” that could have been made into a movie as you so brilliantly stated ..
1-Kirk will be familiar, but not the same
2-We shall never see the aforementioned stories (Farragut. Tarsus etc. etc).
3-Movie about the episode Arena. etc. etc.
4-I can go on and on ….
I guess you can label me a “continuista” — I wanted a true origin story (I thought we were getting that). Sadly we’re not! Again — I do want this movie to be a success!!
Great job John from Cincy!!!!

357. 750 Mang - December 30, 2008

Why you ask?

Because they can. And that is the prevailing sentiment in Hollywood – “I know better, screw what someone else created 40 years ago – I want it my way.”

Sad but true.

Remember the Farragut!

358. Sam Belil - December 30, 2008

Ask a stupid question ……

359. Sam Belil - December 30, 2008

Ask a stupid question ……

360. 750 Mang - December 30, 2008

359. Sam Belil

You think there is another reason the powers-that-be have opted to trash large chunks of what we love about Star Trek?

Nah, they just know better. JJ probably had a dream about the Enterprise be built in a cornfield. Who knows.

BTW – The Star Trek Pez Dispensers I got for Christmas knew where the Enterprise was built – the San Fransisco Shipyards. Maybe the guys that write for the back of the Pez dispensers can have a crack at the next movie. At least they know where Trek came from.

Remember the Farragut!

361. Sam Belil - December 30, 2008

Oh my — all these years I thought that the Enterprise was built in a Ford Factory in Detroit. All kidding aside, we can agree to disagree, speculate all we want — but like I have stated before May 9th 2009 will be “Judgement Day”. Say what you want about Star Trek not being relevant anymore, etc. etc. It is STILL a SUCCESSFUL franchise that has been around for 45 years, that alone means something. The fact that we take time from our very busy lives to write on this website is additional proof that is still relevant.

Anthony can you please have one of your people look into Google Analytics (I’m dying to know) — how many total posts have been placed here from day one — just look at the PASSION that shows up on these websites. We all care, no matter how much we agree/disagree we all care about this franchise and its fascinating characters. Because of that I pray and hope that Abrams and Company are cognizant of the huge risk they’re taking.

IF Abrams and crew have one-tenth of the passion that we all have, then I believe the movie will be okay! We should all root for it to be great.

362. 750 Mang - December 30, 2008

361. Sam Belil

“We should all root for it to be great.”

Amen. And I do. As I’ve said before I hope all this Bizarro Trek stuff is just a head-fake, and I will leave the theatre thinking how dumb I look for questioning the new Creative Team.

That is my deepest wish.

But it certainly seems that we are being prepared to be let down. Did they really think we were all gonna drop dead with joy seeing the origin of the-Kirk-and-Pike-are-buddies-and-Big E-was-built-in-a-cornfield Universe? That’s not the same people I’ve known for almost 35 years (my age not Treks).

If so then clearly our team doesn’t get where the “passion” comes from. I fear they think we are are in it for the gimmicks, not the story, not the history. “Oh they’ll love it Spock will still have a bowl haircut and Scotty will have a funny accent. and the effects will be great!”

Besides we know for a fact JJ doesn’t share our “passion”. He keeps saying so. He says he fell in love with the characters from reading this script. Well then JJ doesn’t even know the Kirk we do! If asked about Kodos or The Republic he would probably say “huh?”

Remember the Farragut!

363. McCoy's Gall Bladder - December 30, 2008

LOL @ John

Connery hated Bond. He couldn’t make Diamonds a good movie.

Nimoy has finally found peace in Spock.

He doesn’t hate Spock the way he did in 78-82.

When the lawsuits were raging, the battles over royalties with Gene and Lincoln Enterprises.

The Heineken ad is what made the fans think Nimoy hated Spock. Gene got paid for the image, Nimoy didn’t.

Since then, Nimoy’s been so much more than Spock.

If Arnie can be paid $1million a minute for 20 minutes of Batman & Robin, shouldn’t Nimoy get at least twice that?

364. Sam Belil - December 30, 2008

362. 750 Mang, could not agree more. Maybe I’m being naive here, but ….

I’m hoping that perhaps Mr. Abrams consulted a great deal with Nimoy on how the “finer details” should be dealt with.
I’m hoping that as the project progressed that Abrams developed not only a better feel for the franchise but also that his passion grew.
I’m hoping that Abrams realizes that by making a “this is not your mother’s/father’s Star Trek” – will be (pardon the pun) futile.
I’m hoping that Abrams is smart enough to realize that what made Star Trek GREAT was the great storytelling/human adventure episodes (Court Martial, Menagerie, City on the Edge of Forever, Yesterday’s Enterprise, The Visitor, etc, etc.)
I’m hoping that he can transfer those elements of GREAT human drama into this movie.
I’m hoping that when me and my son are at the closing moments of the movie say “I DON’T WANT THIS TO END”.
I’m SO hoping that I’m not asking for too much ….

365. Xai - December 30, 2008

355. YARN – December 30, 2008

maybe attempt to make your points without insults… works better

366. Xai - December 30, 2008

360. 750 Mang – December 30, 2008

“You think there is another reason the powers-that-be have opted to trash large chunks of what we love about Star Trek?”

You seem to be on a vendetta but haven’t seen the movie to make this claim. How does that work?

367. MattTheTrekkie - December 30, 2008

66 Anthony,

Sorry… I would like to be one of these die hard Trekkies and really get into all of this… but I just can’t seem to… when the first rumors about the alt. time line stuff came about I pretty much guessed that stuff in the movie would be different, and that it would take place in… an alternate timeline. If that is all I really need to know as a (stupid) Trekkie who is going into this movie, then I’m happy :D

368. thorsten - December 30, 2008

@364…

don’t worry Sam, it will be awsome.

What JJ showed in these 4 clips was the best Trek since TOS,
in any universe.

369. Sam Belil - December 31, 2008

I hope you’re right #368

370. thorsten - December 31, 2008

369…

Sam I don’t know if there will be a german premiere party with the
cast and crew, as it was with Star Wars 2005 in Berlin, but even without an event like that the movie will start on may, 7 in germany. And I will come here and tell the truth that night.

But this movie has the chance for greatness… and history will never forget the name Enterprise…

371. Sam Belil - December 31, 2008

Well Thorsten — I live in New York City, so I will definitely be seeing it on opening night here in the states with my 15 year-old soon, who by the way has become an ST fan in his own right (without my influence), and he too has his reservations. Without question — this movie has a chance for greatness. What would be pretty cool is we ALL took pictures of our respective opening nights in May and posted them and our comments on this website!!! Anthony is that do-able? Can you make that do-able?
HAPPY, HEALTHY, PROSPEROUS & SAFE New Year to All!!!

372. Vorus - December 31, 2008

To everyone who says that the TOS-TNG universe had to happen for this film to happen:

Yes, that is true, to an extent. But once the past is altered, the present INSTANTLY adjusts. Think of TOS “The City on the Edge of Forever”. When McCoy went back in time and altered their past, their present INSTANTLY changed. Everything they knew was gone. Did the Federation EVER exist at that point? No. There NEVER WAS a Federation.

Think of TNG “Yesterday’s Enterprise”, when the Ent-C disappeared from history, their present INSTANTLY adjusted. Where is Lt. Worf in the “new” reality? He’s gone. Can you say that he still exists? No. He DID exist, UNTIL THE PAST WAS CHANGED, at which point, he NEVER existed. There NEVER WAS a Lt. Worf.

So, the same applies here. If the film isn’t using the MWI, and if it doesn’t “reset” to the universe we know, then it IS erasing TOS-TNG. Once the past is altered, the present INSTANTLY ADJUSTS. There NEVER WAS a TOS-TNG.

So, you might say, that in the “first go round”, there was a TOS-TNG, but once everything played out, there never was, so in the end, they never existed. This film IS erasing them from existence, if it doesn’t use the MWI.

Which brings me to my theory of why Orci told us that this film takes place in an alternate universe. I think it’s because he knows that the film is presented as “Back to the Future” style time travel, and he knows that it means that it will erase all the Trek we know, so he’s trying to get us to think that it doesn’t by using the MWI.

I really hope I’m wrong, but that’s the way it looks to me as of now.

373. Sam Belil - December 31, 2008

#372 — you could not have stated it any better!

374. 750 Mang - December 31, 2008

366. Xai – December 30, 2008

“You seem to be on a vendetta but haven’t seen the movie to make this claim. How does that work?”

The claim I’m making is this ain’t our crew. And I know this because one of the writers told us as much, right here on TrekMovie.com. I read English pretty well, it’s my mother tongue.

Remember the Farragut!

375. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#348—“Well you didn’t get that with this movie as far as I can (see). All you have is “re-envisioned, reinvented , reimagined,” versions of the originals that exist in some alternate timeline.”

That’s up to the writers, isn’t it? After all, these are not actual historical figures, but fictional characters in a story.

What if James T. Kirk is as Nick Meyer described him to be—a mythological hero?

Are such heroes not subject to a degree of predestination?

What if, despite the somewhat different circumstances created by the timeline incursion of 2233, JTK evolves into the same courageous, loyal, brash, passionate, romantic hero he always was?

Take the Greek mythological figure of Perseus, for example. Acrisius, upon discovering that his unborn grandson was destined to kill him, took drastic measures to ensure that it could never happen (short of angering the Gods by murdering his own pregnant daughter). Despite everything he tried to do in order to cheat that fate, Perseus would eventually cause his death, albeit accidentally.

Perhaps Nero, despite all of his efforts to alter the course of history, cannot (whether that is his specific intention or not) be successful in preventing James T. Kirk from evolving into the hero he is destined to become.

The original characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and (even) Scotty have always been larger-than-life heroes. The same could not be said for their Berman-era successors in 24th Century Star Trek. Those characters (particularly the “Big Three”) are special.

I have no problem (in a fictional context) buying the premise that no set of altered circumstances could prevent their evolution into the heroic figures I knew as a child.

This creative team has always maintained that their intention is to preserves the “essence” of these characters. I have a feeling that all roads will lead to the same place (not unlike the universe course-corrections in ‘Lost’).

376. thorsten - December 31, 2008

@371…

Hi Sam, greetings to my favorite city on earth!
(and I know what you mean, my son is 13 ;))

377. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#352—-I won’t quote you, since it is apparently shameful to agree with me on anything, but I will say that your logic on this matter is quite sound.

#355—“I didn’t say that he was monster.”

That’s good to know.

“Closet has been hyper-vigilant in towing the party line and with defending the film against all dissent.”

Although I have been largely supportive of this project, I tow my own line (but I am probably “hyper-vigilant” at times in doing so). There are creative choices made which thusfar would not appear to align with my own thinking, but it’s very simple. Paramount did not choose to give me $150 million to make a Star Trek movie. They gave it to Bad Robot, and it is unfair to pass negative judgement upon art which has not even yet been made available to the public.

I like what BR has done in the past, and I have been a Star Trek (TOS-era) fan for over 30 years. Why shouldn’t I be optimistic about this?

I don’t want to see the same old Trek. I’ve seen that. I haven’t been impressed with alot of contemporary and formulaic Trek spinoff efforts either. Much of it has been far too bland and well, just plain boring to me.

I want to see Star Trek returned to its roots. I want to see it sexy again. I think that is where this creative team is headed.

TOS was sexy, adventurous, humorous, and, although cerebral at times, certainly not afraid of two-fisted action either. Everything I have seen and heard so far indicates to me that Star Trek is headed back in that direction under the guidance of this creative team.

I only wish to be entertained.

If they had been available, I would have purchased my tickets long ago.

378. Vorus - December 31, 2008

@ 375 closettrekker

Let’s assume for a moment, you are right, and that SOMEHOW, through the mystical powers of fate, JTK becomes EXACTLY the person he would have been otherwise. That still does not mean that TOS-TNG would have turned out the same.

For instance, there is now a newer, more modern 1701. Presumably, it is more powerful. Now, every battle in TOS, from “Elaan of Troyias” to “Balance of Terror” is different, because the SHIP is different.In fact, EVERY episode where the ship’s capabilities are stressed or used extensively now happened differently.

If Pike dies in this film, TOS “The Menagerie” never happened. At the very least, it is already different, because Pike gets command of a different ship anyway, and probably Pike’s history is different enough that he never suffered that accident anyway, even if he survives the film.

If Kirk never lived on Tuarsus IV, then “The Conscience of the King” never happened. And it’s very possible that Lt. Kyle was never assigned to the Enterprise either, so then TWOK played out without him, as did several other TOS episodes.

Furthermore, if Kirk never served on the Republic or Farragut (Remember the Farragut!) then “Court Martial” and “The Obsession” never happened.

If Kirk’s history is different, then he and Carol Marcus never hooked up, so there is no David. Therefore, TWOK and TSFS are VERY different. (It’s even likely that the Genesis project was never invented.)

In fact, without TWOK, Spock never dies, everything beyond that point is already different.

Without David’s death, Kirk doesn’t hate Klingons so much come ST:VI. That film is now different too.

If Vulcan is destroyed, there is no Reunification movement in TNG, “Unification I and II” no longer exist.

If there is no Vulcan, than Spock never goes there for Kolinhar in ST:TMP, that film is different.

Without Vulcan, and the billions of Vulcans that were on it, the structure of the Federation is VASTLY different. People like Solok (DS9 “Take me out to the Holosuite”) probably never existed, or are very different. That means that episode probably never happened.

The list goes ON and ON and ON . . .

My point is, that even if Kirk becomes EXACTLY the Kirk we know, TOS-TNG are still GREATLY affected, if not completely erased. This film STILL becomes the destroyer of canon.

379. Sam Belil - December 31, 2008

Vorus #378, VERY WELL stated. Let’s also remember (all-right, all-right their fictional characters). The aforementioned events in Kirk’s earlier years played a huge role in defining and shaping the human being and leader that he becomes. The events of City on the Edge Forever, had a devasting effect on Kirk.

The events of the Menagerie — not only showed Spock’s very human side, also demonstrated his fierce loyalty to BOTH of his captains as well as compassion for Captain Pike. Even though we really never get a chance to see it (save “The Cage”/”The Menagerie”) Spock grew under Captain Pike.

Yes it appears a great deal of history is not only being “wiped out”, but additionally, our characters will be a bit different also.

#376-Thorston, my son and I have a very close bond, no surprise that one of my favorite episodes ever is The Visitor, Happy New Year!

380. Vorus - December 31, 2008

@ 379

I agree. In my opinion, there is no way that a person can become exactly the same person if his history was different. I know my past has shaped me. If my father died before I was born, I would probably be a very different person. (For one thing, I wouldn’t have a younger sister. That would have changed me a lot.) If instead, I was raised by a “drunken uncle”, I probably would be in jail for murdering him.

I don’t see any way (Beyond believing in some mystical universal power that draws us all to our destiny.) that Kirk would still become the exact same person.

381. John from Cincinnati - December 31, 2008

354.

Allow me to clarify my statement then. I wasn’t bashing Leonard Nimoy with my statement, in fact, Leonard Nimoy to me is an original from a classic television series. He gave a gravitas to what could’ve been a really silly character and he created something great. Sean Connery was the original Bond, and the best IMHO. When the producers who made ‘Never Say Never Again’ decided to cast Connery, I’m sure they were doing so to give it a certain credibility, since it was being made outside the Eon Productions movies we’ve all seen. It wasn’t an “official” Bond movie but they thought by putting Connery in it it gave it some official feel to it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. NSNA was the worst Bond movie, and just a plain bad movie. Connery couldn’t save it or even give it a feel of being a Bond movie, too many things were “changed” from the Eon produced movies. A lot of fans on here are giving instant credibility to this new movie, just because Nimoy is in it. All I’m saying is, just because Nimoy is in it doesn’t mean it will be a good movie, or even a good Trek movie.

I disagree with my other friend, Sean Connery didn’t hate James Bond. He got physically tired of making them and didn’t feel like his acting talents were being challenged. In fact, he has since said what “fun” they were to make and even reprised his role for a video game in 2005.

382. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#372—“To everyone who says that the TOS-TNG universe had to happen for this film to happen:

Yes, that is true, to an extent. ”

To an extent? No. It’s absolutely essential.

Without everything we know as ‘canon’ (including ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and the ten previous feature films), the story can never progress to this point. All of it is completely dependant upon what came before. It is true, not just “to an extent”, but it is an “absolute truth”.

It isn’t a reboot (since previous continuity is not discarded, but instead, relied upon), nor is it a prequel.

This is an “unconventional sequel”.

“Think of TOS “The City on the Edge of Forever”. When McCoy went back in time and altered their past, their present INSTANTLY changed. Everything they knew was gone. Did the Federation EVER exist at that point? No. There NEVER WAS a Federation.”

Wrong. It existed (just as they knew it) right up until the moment McCoy entered the Guardian and prevented the death of Edith Keeler. Without its existence prior to that moment, McCoy could never have entered the Guardian to begin with.

You are looking at things in the narrowest of terms. Star Trek ‘canon’ extends beyond linear time, and “COTEOF” is not the only example of that either.

Spock must enter the Guardian and pose as “Cousin Selek”, in order to ensure his own survival of the premature Kas-Wahn ritual (“Yesteryear”). He may have to do it again.

Picard must alter the past in order to ensure that the Enterprise-C defends the Klingon colony from a Romulan attack (“Yesterday’s Enterprise”). He may have to do it again.

Kirk must travel back to the 20th Century and alter the past by bringing back two humpback whales to communicate with the alien probe (Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home), otherwise Earth will be devoid of life in the late 23rd Century. He will have to do it again.

Who is to say that this is not how things have to happen all along—that everything unfolds as it does up until this point (post-Nemesis), and then Spock must travel back in time and ensure the defeat of a Romulan villain from his time in the mid-late 23rd Century? Who is to say that this isn’t how the Star Trek Universe is supposed to unfold? That it isn’t Spock’s “destiny” to do this?

Why not embrace the benefit of an uncertain future within the Star Trek Universe in which to tell new stories? These stories are not hampered by the audience’s knowledge of how the characters meet their ends, in other words, how the story ends (something which I believe seriously hampered the Star Wars prequels from the beginning). We can enjoy the benefit of “dramatic jeopardy” in future stories. Instead of just the “how”, we get the who, what, when, and where as well— all over again.

Nothing is lost. The 79 episodes of TOS (along with the other 4 series and ten films) are still an intregal element of the broader storyline—-which reaches far beyond the conventional limits of linear time!!!

Some of you keeping asking why?

I ask—– why the hell not?

383. thorsten - December 31, 2008

@336…750 Mang

“I know that if I didn’t have my brother my life would be very different.”

@380…Vorus

“For one thing, I wouldn’t have a younger sister. That would have changed me a lot.”

Fascinating ;))

384. Vorus - December 31, 2008

@382

Yes, TOS-TNG had to happen On the FIRST time around. We all agree there.

However, once we get to TNG+, when Nero goes back in time, all of TOS-TNG+ are erased, just like TOS up to COTEF was erased when McCoy went back in time. Yes, up to a millisecond before McCoy jumped into the Guardian, TOS HAD to take place to get to that point. But after that point, none of those things EVER existed. They were erased by the changes to the timeline. You could not look at history books from that era and find an explanation of TOS, because it never happened in this “new” timeline that overwrote the old timeline.

It isn’t narrow, it’s how it was explained CANONICALLY. They said in that very episode that the history they knew NEVER EXISTED. The only way it would ever exist is if the timeline was repaired. Otherwise, none of it ever happened. That’s the nature of time travel. Yes, it’s confusing, but that’s how “classic” time travel rules apply.

Again, we all agree that TNG had to take place to get Nero into the past. But once he goes into the past, all of that is erased. It happened only as a precursor to the “real” outworking of history, which is what comes after the temporal incursion made by Nero. The only way that TOS-TNG will ever happen again is if someone repairs the damage done by Nero, just like the COTEF example.

So yes, if you are satisfied knowing that TOS-TNG they USED TO exist, that’s all well and good. But if you want to know if they STILL exist, the answer is no. They never happened according to history. They have been erased.

385. Xai - December 31, 2008

#382 Closettrekker

well said.

Nothing disappears, nothing is destroyed. Star Trek XI is the latest block laid upon the foundation of TOS. It and all the rest of the series would not exist without TOS.

386. Xai - December 31, 2008

374. 750 Mang – December 31, 2008

“The claim I’m making is this ain’t our crew. And I know this because one of the writers told us as much, right here on TrekMovie.com. I read English pretty well, it’s my mother tongue.”

I didn’t claim you were ignorant or could not read.
If you don’t like the direction this is gone, that’s your choice, but what’s done is done and I do not see why you are bashing the movie and it’s production further. You are making claims without evidence, in my opinion.

387. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#378—It isn’t that those stories never happened. It is just that the conflicts in those stories simply unfold differently a second (assuming the timeline we know was the first to begin with) time around.

And the “mystical power” you speak of is simply the hand of the writers.

As for the “mythological” aspect of these characters, there is precedent for that with regard to them (the original characters). In fact, that was precisely how Nick Meyer approached James Kirk.

“…even if Kirk becomes EXACTLY the Kirk we know, TOS-TNG are still GREATLY affected, if not completely erased. This film STILL becomes the destroyer of canon.”

First of all, I must admit that I could not care less about the fate of TNG, but it still has to happen as part of that chain of events which leads the story to this point as well. The relevance of those 7 seasons of TNG is still intact. That sequence of events is still, in effect, a “prequel” to this story.

I would simply suggest suspending your dependance upon linear thinking with regard to Star Trek canon.

Since the story begins post-Nemesis, the whole of ‘canon’ is acknowledged right off the bat. It happened. Period. It is part of the story, and nothing can change that.

It seems that what you are referring to is how the 24th Century will unfold in this altered timeline (assuming, of course, that the changes are permanent). It will not affect TNG, since TNG occurred in the previous timeline (which is—again—an equally important part of the broader story).

Canon has never been strictly linear. It’s nothing new. This is simply more blatant.

Canon is not destroyed. How can it be, when the very canon you claim is destroyed is required for the story to ever take place to begin with?

It isn’t cast aside. It’s part of the overall story. I don’t understand why this is so difficult to understand.

388. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#384—“But after that point, none of those things EVER existed. They were erased by the changes to the timeline.”

Then why did Kirk, Spock, Scotty, and Uhura know of its existence? They knew that the past had been altered. They knew they had to act in order to restore it. It had to exist. Otherwise, McCoy could never have entered the Guardian to begin with.

389. dalek - December 31, 2008

#381 Thanks for the clarification. happy new year :)

If you are not of the MW theory then two points, Star Trek has already CHANGED the timeline permanently twice, and it would also follow that what we saw didn’t happen exactly as the original.

First Contact changed everything. Braga even stated in an interview it permanently altered the timeline.

It’s already happened.

Enterprise also changed the timeline further (we know Enterprise had a temporal cold war, which obviously never happened in Prime timeline, because it’s time interference based, in which people lost lives, earth was attacked, millions died, NX crew members died, ships were destroyed).

Enterprise also made contact with the Borg from First Contact which wouldn’t have happened originally either.

Manny Coto did his best after the temporal cold war and Borg nonsense to steer the timeline closer to TOS. But it was already a radically altered timeline.

If you don’t subscribe to the MW theory, then you HAVE to subscribe to the fact that the original Kirk and Spock’s adventures, whilst they would have been similar, would not have been 100% identical to what we saw on screen.

In fact they might be 90% the same.

This Orbracams universe is likely a lower percentage given the drastic change to Kirk’s past, encounter with Romulans pre Balance of Terror, Chekov serving whilst Kirk is still a cadet????? ;)

But like Manny Coto in season 4, they are stearing the characters in the right direction to where they should be. Rightful places, different situations.

The bottom line is, it’s all happened before in the Trek universe, whichever theory you subscribe to.

If Spock Prime is post-Nemesis, then he is already a time altered OR different universe Spock to the one we saw in TOS. Even if its just the fact he noted some historical data from the NX-01 missions, that didn’t happen pre-time war.

390. TenaciousMC - December 31, 2008

Farragut still exists in the new timeline. Kirk just doesn’t serve on it, that’s all.

391. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#384—“The only way that TOS-TNG will ever happen again is if someone repairs the damage done by Nero, just like the COTEF example.”

That’s the problem with strictly linear thinking in regard to canon.

You are proceeding with the notion that it has to happen again in order to remain relevant. Why?

You know it happened. I know it happened. The dvd’s and reruns are still there to prove it happened in this fictional universe, albeit in another timeline.

It already happened prior to this story taking place. The fact that it happened in another timeline is irrelevant. The linear passage of time is irrelevant.

It is still part of the overall story either way!

You cannot get from point A to point B without ENT, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, and the ten previous films. Period.

It is an unconventional sequel. Period.

Why is that so unattractive to you?

Why can’t you simply see the benefits of having this uncertain universe to play in? Why is it so difficult to embrace a concept of canon which is just a bit unconventional?

I’m looking forward to it.

392. dalek - December 31, 2008

#390 Do we know that Kirk won’t serve on the Farragut after this movie is set?

After all Kirk is fresh out the academy isn’t he? And he is not Captain of the Enterprise, he just assumes the role somehow temporary.

We see him in a gold uniform in the trailer but that could be many years later, after all we know the movie jumps about in time.

I can’t see them promoting Kirk to Captain straight out of the Academy, even if he does save the ship and the universe from Nero.

Perhaps he has a field commision to Lt, and is assigned to the Farragut…

I guess we will find out in May.

393. Xai - December 31, 2008

384. Vorus – December 31, 2008

“It isn’t narrow, it’s how it was explained CANONICALLY. They said in that very episode that the history they knew NEVER EXISTED. ”

From the narrow point-of-view of the fictional characters (and the viewers)…their history would be gone. It made for good dramatic writing in COTEF, but doesn’t fit the current working real theory that is the subject of the story reported above. Star Trek XI seems to be a parallel universe that is similar to the familiar TOS and is caused by Nero’s actions. It doesn’t modify or destroy the TOS universe.

And the trump card is…. we are still talking about just a movie.

394. thorsten - December 31, 2008

@392…
yep, Dalek, Nero attacks Vulcan three years after Kirk entered academy.
Pike made him first officer, and Spock became acting captain…

395. dalek - December 31, 2008

#394 thanks for clarifying, so it’s very likely some form of training exercise appointing Kirk and Spock in those positions, I’m guessing.

396. dalek - December 31, 2008

Something I don’t think has been mentioned in the debate so far…. (how radio call in of me):

If this universe is seperate and tells of a different origin story (I don’t buy the this is how if COULD have happened, on the basis that in the original history the crew never came together to defeat time travelling Romulans)…

Anyway I digress (clears throat)…….. WHY given all we know, was Shatner ambushed over HIS origins story by Paramount, and forced to put a disclaimer saying it was HIS version of events???

Shatner seems to have been unfairly pulled aside by the powers that be at Paramount’s marketing department for something which is seperate to this quantum universe version.

I submit that the film should have the following disclaimer:

“This movie is one artists interpretation of the origin of Kirk, Spock and McCoy’s first mission, and in no way contradicts the established events put forward in the Shatner novel Collision Course…. available from Simon and Shooster”

Happy New Year everyone :)

397. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#389—“First Contact changed everything. Braga even stated in an interview it permanently altered the timeline.”

My interpretation of it was certainly that it did.

In ENT’s, “Regeneration”, Borg drones from the 24th Century were discovered in the Arctic Circle by a 22nd Century science team. They weren’t supposed to be there. Archer and his crew even identified the origin of their collective as being the Delta Quadrant.

I’m no TNG expert, but my recollection of it is that Starfleet was not aware of the Borg when Q first introduced them.

It seems clear to me that the timeline we knew was already contaminated. Several humans and aliens who (presumably) did not die previously were assimilated and later destroyed by the NX-01 and her crew.

Who knows how that would have affected things later? Even the fate of a mere single individual (like Edith Keeler) can seriously affect the outcome of history.

I also seem to recall Crewman Daniels informing Archer that certain things had taken place which did not happen as history had been recorded previously. If I’m not mistaken, that was his justification for involving Enterprise and Jonathan Archer to begin with.

So yes, the timeline we knew was altered. How much? Who knows? The effects could have been miniscule, or they could have been very signifcant.

A child who was born in the previous timeline might not have been, or conversely, a child could be born in the altered timeline who was not in the previous one.

Two people who were destined to meet in the previous timeline may not this time around, and so on.

As Dalek pointed out, these possibilities were already out there. Even the TNG-era producers acknowledged this.

But like the scenario with the upcoming film, those Borg drones could not have appeared in the Arctic Circle without everything leading up to First Contact taking place the way it did in the previous timeline.

Nothing is rendered irrelevant to the overall Trek mythos. Each series of events is inextricably linked to what happened before, whether it happened in another timeline or not.

Canon is not strictly linear. It never has been.

398. dalek - December 31, 2008

#397 Very well said. Basically it’s all happened before, and would have either subtle or significant consequences to the Star Trek we all know and love (depending on the event).

What Bob et co have done differently to those that preceded them is tell us we can have our cake, and eat it. We can have the original timeline AND the new timeline as well.

It’s win-win isn’t it?

399. Robofuzz - December 31, 2008

OK – so this whole thing about time travel and alternate universes, etc. How does that square with JJ’s comments about why Shatner can’t be in the film? If they went to this length to “thread the needle” of a prequel and a reboot, then surely they could have put Shatner in the film. I still think this “Shatner’s not in the film” propaganda is hogwash.

400. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#398—“I submit that the film should have the following disclaimer:

‘This movie is one artists interpretation of the origin of Kirk, Spock and McCoy’s first mission, and in no way contradicts the established events put forward in the Shatner novel Collision Course…. available from Simon and Schuster’ ”

They don’t have to have a disclaimer, because the timeline incursion of 2233 is a disclaimer in itself. Even though you and I agree that the timeline was already contaminated, and whether any individual fan chooses to subscribe to the “Many Worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics as it applies to the Star Trek Universe or not, I think we can all agree that the Romulan interference creates a new timeline.

That doesn’t make this origin story any more or less legitimate than “WNMHGB”, “The Man Trap”, “Obsession”, “The Menagerie”, “The Conscience Of The King”, “Amok Time”, “Journey To Babel”, or “Court-Martial” (none of which are “origin stories”, per se, but all of which include character backstory information applicable to that timeline).

Vonda McIntyre’s “Enterprise: The First Adventure” and Shatner’s “Collision Course” were non-canon to begin with—at least by my standards of what constitutes “canon”.

I don’t know why Shatner’s novel would come with a disclaimer, unless Paramount really didn’t think much of his story, but thought it might sell with Bill’s name on it anyway (I didn’t read it, therefore I have no opinion).

401. dalek - December 31, 2008

#400 Sorry I should have added that my disclaimer reference was a joke :)

402. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#399—-Without turning this into yet another “Should he or should he not” discussion, I can only say that whether it could have been done or not is not the only relevant question.

The primary question to me is, “Would it benefit the story?”

Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

Without having seen it, I think that is impossible to answer that at this point. The writers (at least Bob Orci) seemed to believe that the scene written for him would have fit nicely, but the director disagreed. Ultimately, the primary credit for the film will be, “From Director JJ Abrams”. More than any other, the success or failure will be pinned upon him. He has to be able to make that determination himself, even if it means overruling one of the script writers in the decision-making process.

None of us have seen the finished product, or, at least to this point, heard anything more than a vague categorization of the scene in question. At least for the time being, whether it was the right decision or not will remain a mystery.

403. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#401—I actually figured that, but answered anyway out of sheer boredom.

:)

404. 750 Mang - December 31, 2008

386. Xai – December 31, 2008

“You are making claims without evidence, in my opinion.”

The evidence is the very article that this discussion came from as well as this one… http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/

Bob Orci has told us that this movie is Bizarro Trek. Kirk is different, no Kodos, No Republic, No Farragut, no Captain Garrovick.

The problem isn’t that we don’t get to see these events – it’s that they now never happened to Kirk. I have a major problem with that.

The writer of this movie said so. What more evidence do I need?

Do you think Orci is trying to pull one over on us?

I hope so!

Remember the Farragut!

405. 750 Mang - December 31, 2008

402. Closettrekker – December 31, 2008

“Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”

Exactly. That’s true if it’s about Shatner appearing in the movie or the choice to rewrite Kirks backstory.

406. 750 Mang - December 31, 2008

Oh, I forgot…

Remember the Farragut!

407. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#398—“It’s win-win isn’t it?”

I think so.

I think that’s true regardless of whether you choose to subscribe to the MMI or not.

Either way, everything which came before, whether it occurred in another timeline or not, is essential to the Trek mythos—or canon, if you will.

Nothing is ever lost (unless you misplace your dvd’s).

I may even decide that I don’t care for this incarnation of Star Trek. I hope I do, but if I don’t, nothing was lost. I wasn’t getting more of the Star Trek I love anyway.

I have been watching the same 79 episodes and 5 (I, II, III, IV, and VI) films over and over again for decades. If I can add another to the list of Star Trek entries I love—great. If I don’t like it, then, for me, it will simply go into the same category of Trek I have reserved for most of the Berman-era.

I lose nothing.

I can guarantee you this. My dvd’s will not stop playing just because Nero attacked the USS Kelvin and altered the timeline!

408. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#404—“The problem isn’t that we don’t get to see these events – it’s that they now never happened to Kirk.”

Sure they did, albeit in another timeline. Without these events occurring precisely the way they did in that timeline, the story could not progress precisely to the point (post-Nemesis) where the villain (Nero) and the hero (Spock) travel back in time.

Those backstory events are not only still relevant, but absolutely essential. The story in STXI, as well as any future subsequent stories in that altered timeline, depend upon it. Everything you know as previously established canon is an intregal part of the overall Trek mythos being added to by Star Trek XI.

Star Trek canon has never been completely linear. This is no different… only more obvious.

409. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#405—“Exactly. That’s true if it’s about Shatner appearing in the movie or the choice to rewrite Kirks backstory.”

And if the film is as wonderful as we all presumably hope it to be, then both decisions will have been justified to me.

410. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

I’ll catch up with you all next year!

Happy New year!

Closettrekker

411. thorsten - December 31, 2008

@409, 408, 407 etc…

CT, voice of reason, I agree completely.
And, after I saw that 4 outtakes I can tell you,
Bob, JJ, Damon and the rest are giving Star Trek back us.

Have a great night, everybody,
see you in 2009!

412. thorsten - December 31, 2008

Bob, JJ, Damon and the rest are giving Star Trek back TO us.

;))
/t

413. Alex Rosenzweig - December 31, 2008

#372 – “So, you might say, that in the “first go round”, there was a TOS-TNG, but once everything played out, there never was, so in the end, they never existed. This film IS erasing them from existence, if it doesn’t use the MWI.

Which brings me to my theory of why Orci told us that this film takes place in an alternate universe. I think it’s because he knows that the film is presented as “Back to the Future” style time travel, and he knows that it means that it will erase all the Trek we know, so he’s trying to get us to think that it doesn’t by using the MWI.”

and

#382 – “Nothing is lost. The 79 episodes of TOS (along with the other 4 series and ten films) are still an intregal element of the broader storyline—-which reaches far beyond the conventional limits of linear time!!!

Some of you keeping asking why?

I ask—– why the hell not?”

I am going to answer this by doing two things. First, I am going to make the assumption that whatever version of Trek comes out of this film is significantly altered from what preceded it. I don’t know that that’s true, nor do I know that it’s not. So I will speak for a few moments from the assumption.

Second, I am going to step outside the fictional world for a moment, leaving aside the science–or, if you prefer, the scientific philosophy. I will speak from real-world practicality.

If the assumption is correct, and the fictional world of Trek is altered in some way by this film, then I also believe that, going forward, whatever Trek Paramount produces will also take place in this new version of the Trek world. I also believe that the licensees will be signficantly pressured to reflect that alteration in what they produce, which in turn affects my two favorite Trek series (TOS and Vanguard) significantly, and probably the others, too, albeit to a lesser degree.

So what is lost? The potential for ongoing storytelling in Star Trek’s world, as it has existed for 4 decades, at least as far as Paramount and the “official” licensees are concerned.

Now, as I’ve said before, my love for Trek is very much not limited to a few characters. For me, it’s all about its world. I got into Star Trek at the age of 9 or so, and I was looking beyond Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise by the time I was 10. Three real-time decades, hundreds of characters, and two centuries of fictional history later, I still love Kirk and Spock, but I also love all those other things that Star Trek has grown to encompass, as well. It may be unusual, it may be idiosyncratic, but it’s how I look at star Trek: this single, giant, sprawling saga that has had so much storytelling and growth potential, all possibly set aside because the writers of one movie didn’t feel they could tell their one story otherwise. I’m sorry, but I really don’t think that’s a fair, or even a particularly good, trade.

Now, if TPTB could promise me that this movie’s “rewrites” are for this movie *only*, and the next one will go back to the Trekverse as we’ve known it, that’s one thing. But I have a feeling that, after sinking over a hundred megabucks into this film, if it succeeds, the studio isn’t going to want to say, “Okay, that’s done, now let’s just go back to the rest of Trek.” Heck, folks in many comment threads right here are already saying that they just want to rewrite what’s already been told, but differently!

If what I’m assuming for the sake of this point is correct, from where I sit, I lose plenty. I, and those who express their love of Trek in a similar manner to the way I do, don’t come out ahead with this film. I mean, another TNG era film might not be more Trek with my favorite characters in it, but at least it wouldn’t start trying to tell me that what I know about those characters and who they are no longer matters.

And I will end here, with another caveat, just in case anybody missed it the last few times. ;) I am basing these feelings on an assumption. That assumption may indeed prove wrong. For example, this film could create, even if an alternate world, one so similar that we are intended to believe that what happened previously still did in fact happen. And if my assumptions are wrong, my feelings come 8 May, when I walk out of the theater, may be very different. But for right now, here on 31 December, I am not feeling like a winner with this film. I shall continue to hope I’m wrong, but I’m also steeling myself for disappointment, just in case I’m not.

414. Vorus - December 31, 2008

@ closettrekker

Believe me, I can see your point. (Although I do not believe that ENT or First Contact represent a change in any timeline, but that’s for a different discussion.)

However, nothing changes the fact that with the new version of history, None of TOS-TNG takes place. Like I said in my last post, they did happen ONCE, but now the events have been erased. It’s like data on a hard drive that has been overwritten. Yes, it used to be there, but it isn’t any more. If you want to look at it again, you can’t, because it no longer exists.

In essence, the whole of TOS-TNG becomes the alternate universe. It was there for a while and fun to watch (Like the universe in “Yesterday’s Enterprise”) but is then wiped out.

Actually, that example is a good one. The alternate universe in “YE” also HAD to happen, to get the Ent-C back to the time it was supposed to be in. Those altered 20-some years DID take place, because the Ent-C DID reappear in the proper timeline. However, are they the “real” version of history? No. Can you call those events the “true” history of that ship and crew? No.

That’s all TOS-TNG+ is now. A diversionary universe relegated to a footnote. This new history overwrites all of it. Yes, TOS-TNG+ DID happen, but it is not the “real” version of history any longer. It HAS been erased. Period.

Why don’t I like that? It’s simple, there are two reasons:

1) That’s 40 years of Trek that I have gotten rather attached to that no longer represent the “true” history of Trek. And I can tell you, simply on the basis of modern filmmaking techniques and styles, I’ll not like the “new” history as much as I did the “old” history.

2) We were told that canon would be respected and that this film would not destroy previous canon. Well, I’d call overwriting all of canon pretty destructive, and not terribly respectful. (I can see why you and others think that including the “old” events as precursors to the “new” events is respect, but I don’t agree.) . As I said, it is no longer the “true” history. You couldn’t look at a 24th century history book and find ANY of the events we know. (Except events from ENT, ironically.) Therefore, even though the events DID happen once, they are no longer the part of the “real” path events took.

415. Vorus - December 31, 2008

@ 388

As for why the characters remembered the history, it is because the Guardian’s planet was immune to the events of time travel, remember? That was explained in that episode.

416. Sam Belil - December 31, 2008

#414 – Vorus, in my opinion you and Thorsten and the true voices of reason in this entire thread (with ALL DUE RESPECT to everyone else).
When any of you get a chance, go to YouTube, please watch the Justice League Episode Savage Time (Parts 1 and 2) — at the end of the day, it’s about RESTORING the proper timeline. This movie is not about that —

Think about it — Spock prime in going back to the past actually will “pollute” the subsequent timline that we are all familiar with, by giving Kirk and Scotty technological information. REMEMBER in “YE”, Captain Garrett asked Picard for “their technology”, Picard declined knowing it could adversely effect “what should be” — then when the Enterprise “C” went back, everything “blinked back to normal”.

That will NOT happen in this movie. We’re not getting an “origin story”. Really what where getting is Spock Prime to the rescue that happens to take place in a “back story”. In my opinion this new “alternate timeline” — makes it “easier” for Abrams and crew to “start from scratch” and produce additional ST films. Honestly — I can’t help but feel a bit misled. Think about it when we were first saw the first promotional images, how many of you out there DID NOT believe we were getting a true prequel/origin story. I for sure thought we were!

I want James Kirk — Not James Dean!

417. Xai - December 31, 2008

404. 750 Mang – December 31, 2008
Which Kirk are you talking about this time?

You have referred to “bizarro Kirk” and the TOS Kirk

“The problem isn’t that we don’t get to see these events – it’s that they now never happened to Kirk. I have a major problem with that.”

You need to clarify the “Kirks”.
TOS Kirk STILL saw Kodos, served on the Farragut, etc. And forever will have. Nothing changes that.
XI’s Kirk and the events of this movie are in a new universe formed by the events that Nero caused by coming back and attacking the Kelvin. This Kirk has experienced a different life so far, but fate (and the writers) have put him on a path that puts him on Enterprise eventually. His path DOES NOT effect what TOS Kirk experienced.

You have insinuated that the writers didn’t care, or were not familiar with their subject, that pointed ears and flashy effects would fool us into thinking that this is Star Trek among other things.
Just because they found an avenue to tell a story within the framework of Trek that you disagree with, does that allow you to make those kind of claims? I see their “passion” and commitment to making a good Star Trek movie in a lot of stories and interviews here and elsewhere. Too much weight is put into JJ’s statements to the press about “This is not your father’s Trek”. Remember who he’s speaking to.. the general public, not the long-time fans. He needs and wants them to see this movie too.

418. John from Cincinnati - December 31, 2008

May 8, 2009

Judgment Day

419. Xai - December 31, 2008

The mirror universe has been seen in I think three different Treks… did it *poof* back to normal when the episode was done? No.

There are other Trek examples I won’t go into for time’s sake.

Assuming there is ONE universe is foolhardy. Assuming there is ONE Kirk or Spock is also.

Did the Mirror Kirk have the same backstory as TOS Kirk? He couldn’t have but he became captain.

Multiverse.

420. Xai - December 31, 2008

418. John from Cincinnati – December 31, 2008
May 8, 2009

“Judgment Day”

For most. Some have made up their mind already based on little information. Their loss.

421. Sam Belil - December 31, 2008

Xai #417– I have seen many of your posts over the past year and a half, and have come to greatly respect your opinion and passion for ST. however, I must respectfully disagree. I have been a fan since 1967 — I have seen every episode and movie, G-d knows how many times. Star Trek fans have been around forever. There have been a few good ST films made — I doubt that they converted the “non-believers” into “believers”. ST was never about being for the masses. I do take JJ’s statements to heart about not being your “father’s Star Trek etc. etc.”.

I’m not saying that Abrams and Crew do not care OR have no passion, in my heart I believe that they just took the easy way out, as opposed to doing a true back-story. Always remember ST (in it various carnations, ESPECIALLY TOS) at its BEST was human drama/adventure and NOT special effects with all the “bells & whistles”. If Abrams and company are attempting to win over the “non-believers” with the “bells and whistles” he fail on two fronts …

#1-Alienating the core fans (like it or not it is because of the core fans that ST has survied 45+ year)

#2-For 45+Non-fans never gave a hoot about ST, this movie will not change that.

Perhaps when the comic comes out next month we all have a better idea of what is coming in May 2009.

422. A. .S.F.33 - December 31, 2008

>>413. Alex Rosenzweig – December 31, 2008
“If the assumption is correct, and the fictional world of Trek is altered in some way by this film, then I also believe that, going forward, whatever Trek Paramount produces will also take place in this new version of the Trek world. I also believe that the licensees will be signficantly pressured to reflect that alteration in what they produce, which in turn affects my two favorite Trek series (TOS and Vanguard) significantly, and probably the others, too, albeit to a lesser degree.

So what is lost? The potential for ongoing storytelling in Star Trek’s world, as it has existed for 4 decades, at least as far as Paramount and the “official” licensees are concerned.”<<<

Yes Alex I agree completely. This movie, IF and ONLY IF, it is successful has the potential to do away with TOS in the real world as Paramount will want to support this new version exclusively especially if the new version ends up radically different from the Tos of the past. As I said before , and i strongly disagree with “Closettrekker” on this…These new fans will NOT have any interest in the past Treks and if you think about it, why should they? IF this new stuff is a success they will have at least two more movies set in the only world of Trek they know or care about. Now if this movie fails the movie version of Trek will be become nothing more than a forgotten bad dream.

423. Vorus - December 31, 2008

@416 Sam

Thanks, that means a lot to me. I always try to approach things from a logical point of view. (Hence my Vulcan screenname.)

@417

I don’t think anyone’s saying that there is only ONE Kirk or Spock. What some of us are saying is that the Kirk, Spock and company of TOS that we knew, loved, and were attached to are being overwritten by the “new” Kirk, Spock and company. Once Trek has run its course, say in one hundred years from now, the Kirk, Spock and company of TOS will have been replaced. When people go back to look at the “true” lives of those characters, they will not reference TOS, they will reference this movie’s timeline. (Or at the very best, they will acknowledge TOS’ contribution, and then add “But, then things actually turned out this way. . .” and go into the “new” history.

Like I said, we know that there are other universes. We’re fine with that. What we didn’t want was to see our favorite universe overwritten.

424. Vorus - December 31, 2008

Dang, I forgot my closing parenthesis. That really bugs me.

425. Xai - December 31, 2008

421. Sam Belil – December 31, 2008

Thank you for being civil. Happy New Year.

I also began watching Trek during the first run. I love them all and fully acknowledge that some were better than others.

First. This is not about converting anyone. It’s a movie. They want the fans in the seats AND the public in the seats. Why take JJ’s statement as the one and only true message? It would be insane for anyone in his position to walk out there and say “this is for the fans… we don’t expect the general public to attend”. Paramount would have his balls bronzed and mounted. Every indication from Bob Orci points to a movie that has elements fans and non-fans will enjoy and understand. And yes, this won’t be my father’s Trek or mine completely. And that’s fine as long as we find Trek in it somewhere without cheapening it.
Second. The easy way out.
Taking elements from the TOS backstories and sewing them together would have been a hell of a lot easier than what this sounds like. I commend them for finding a way to write an original story that doesn’t rip up canon and explains a Nimoy presence AND a slightly different looking crew.

As I said, I’ve been watching Trek for as long as you and I am well aware that bells and whistles do not make a good Trek story. The writers are fans as well and have made it plain that they know this too. Don’t base a judgement on a book by it’s cover or a movie by its trailer.
Surveys that Trekmovie has done don’t indicate that a significant part of the fans feel alienated, but someone will and that’s unfortunate.I think the producers and crew are proud of the work they have done. There seems to be a vocal minority that screams every JJ sneezes. I understand concerns, but the conjecture and assumptions are getting ridiculous. Base opinions on known facts and not here-say.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have blind faith in this. It could flop but I see no reason for anything less than cautious optimism right now.

Let’s find out in May and don’t assume the worst.

426. Xai - December 31, 2008

#423 Vorus

Logic is not based on assuming. We don’t know what the future may bring for us and Trek.
Many people find something they enjoy then go back and find out more. I did it with Doctor Who. My adult son found Trek, not through me but through DS9 and Voyager eps online. He watched them, liked them and worked his way backward through TNG and then TOS. He didn’t stop at at TOS and say “gosh, this was made 20 years before I was born” and assume it was bad.

427. Vorus - December 31, 2008

@426 Xai

Granted, we cannot know for certain. However, I have never claimed to be certain. I am formulating theories based on the available facts. We know that the plot involves time travel, we know such time travel will be presented in “classic” fashion, meaning without the MWI, and we are all fairly certain that there will be no “reset button” at the end to bring us back to the TOS we remember. Therefore, we can make logical conclusions based on that dataset. Such conclusions lead to the overwriting of TOS-TNG+, as many of us have stated.

If our theory is wrong, I believe most of us would be happy about that, and more than willing to admit we were wrong. But for now, we’re simply trading theories.

428. 750 Mang - December 31, 2008

417. Xai – December 31, 2008
“Which Kirk are you talking about this time?”

And that is the question people will be asking from now on.

Get it?

Remember the Farragut!

429. Xai - December 31, 2008

428. 750 Mang – December 31, 2008

Almost a nice dodge on the question.

Politician or lawyer?

430. Xai - December 31, 2008

427 vorus,

Huh? MWI is in effect according to Orci

431. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#413—Alex, I sympathize with your fears over the discontinuation of stories you currently enjoy, like the “Vanguard series”, for example. I can only say that if there are significant numbers of potential consumers of those products who share your affinity, I can hardly imagine that they would be discontinued altogether.

I suppose the biggest difference between you and me is that I am not currently enjoying any new stories told in the Star Trek Universe. In fact, I have enjoyed very little “new Trek” in the last twenty years or so. Oh, I have enjoyed bits and pieces, but I have never found that same affinity for characters in Star Trek as I did with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. I haven’t been impressed with the “status quo” of the Star Trek Universe for many years. It is for this reason, above all else I suppose, that I am willing to embrace the coming change—that is, as long as it is a good story with the potential for more to come. Unlike you, I guess I haven’t as much to lose, since I wasn’t really enjoying what has been coming out for so long anyway.

432. 750 Mang - December 31, 2008

429. Xai – December 31, 2008

428. 750 Mang – December 31, 2008

“Almost a nice dodge on the question.

Politician or lawyer?”

Writer actually.

Never the less, I’m talking about the Jim Kirk I’ve known for 35 years.

The man who was a walking stack of books in the academy. The man who who was best friends with Gary Mitchell. The man who served on the USS Republic. The man who survived Kodos the Executioner. The man was a young lieutenant on the USS Farragut and carried the death of his Captain with him for years.

That’s the Jim Kirk I have known for the duration of my 35 years on this planet.

In any case…

Happy New Year Xai, and to everyone else here!

There are few things I enjoy more than talking about Star Trek even when we don’t agree.

Remember the Farragut!

433. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#414—“…nothing changes the fact that with the new version of history, None of TOS-TNG takes place. Like I said in my last post, they did happen ONCE, but now the events have been erased.”

Still thinking of canon in strictly linear terms, I see.

Of course it hasn’t been erased. It had to happen before any of this could take place. It still happened. How many times it happened is irrelevant. If the timeline remained unaltered, it is not as if it was ever going to happen again anyway!

” It’s like data on a hard drive that has been overwritten. Yes, it used to be there, but it isn’t any more. If you want to look at it again, you can’t, because it no longer exists.”

It is nothing like that at all. Unlike the data on the hard-drive, your dvd’s will not suddenly fail to operate simply because a fictional villain disrupted a fictional timeline in a fictional universe. It will always exist, and you can always go back and look at it.

“That’s 40 years of Trek that I have gotten rather attached to that no longer represent the “true” history of Trek. ”

Of course it does. All of it is the “true history” of Trek, regardless of which timeline in which it is depicted. It is all equally important, and will continue to remain so. In fact, this altered timeline cannot exist without it.

James T. Kirk still served under Garrovick aboard the Farragut. He still taught a class at SFA in which one of his students was a cadet named Gary Mitchell. He still spent time, as a youth living, on the Planet Taursus. He still served aboard the Republic with a young officer named Ben Finney. He still knew an upperclassman at the academy named Finney. At some point, he and a young woman named Carol Marcus had an affair that spawned a son.

All of this is canon. It happened in the previous timeline. That doesn’t mean it will happen the same way again in the altered one, but it happened nonetheless. It had to, otherwise the timeline would not have unfolded in the manner it did, culminating in the assault upon that timeline by a Romulan patriot-turned-villain from the 24th Century. Nero knows it happened (although probably not in the detail that we know it), as does Nimoy’s Spock.

Your posts seem to indicate that you only regard depicted events as “legitimate” if they happen again in the altered timeline. I’ll never understand that. Why would you restrict the ‘canon’ of a fictional universe, well known for its endless possibilities, to a limited perspective such as the boundaries of the linear passage of time?

That doesn’t make sense to me. There is still an overall mythos to Trek–one that everything we know as previously established canon is very much an intregal part of. Neither timeline is any more legitimate (or “true”) than the other. They are both equally important elements of the broader storyline.

434. 750 Mang - December 31, 2008

433. Closettrekker – December 31, 2008

“James T. Kirk still served under Garrovick aboard the Farragut. He still taught a class at SFA in which one of his students was a cadet named Gary Mitchell.”

Agreed. But that’s not the guy in the new movie. It’s Bizarro Kirk from now on.

Right?

Remember the Farragut!

435. Closettrekker - December 31, 2008

#432—“I’m talking about the Jim Kirk I’ve known for 35 years.

The man who was a walking stack of books in the academy. The man who who was best friends with Gary Mitchell. The man who served on the USS Republic. The man who survived Kodos the Executioner. The man was a young lieutenant on the USS Farragut and carried the death of his Captain with him for years.

That’s the Jim Kirk I have known for the duration of my 35 years on this planet. ”

I like that guy too. He has to exist. He does, or did, in another timeline (he died in that timeline, by the way).

I have to point oput that it is not as if anyone was making anymore Jim Kirk movies when this project was greenlit. Telling stories about an altered timeline in which some or all of those things do not play out exactly the same doesn’t erase those events from the overall Trek mythos.

Those events are just as crucial to this altered timeline as they were to the one in which the TNG-era stories were told. Neither timeline could unfold as it id (or will) without them.

Another thing (and this is not aimed at anyone in particular):

The notion that this story (or future stories for that matter) will somehow prevent new fans from seeing TOS is absurd. It is flawed because it depends upon the notion that they would have otherwise went back to check it out to begin with.

Some new fans will probably get curious and check it out, probably asking themselves, “How did the story get to this point?”. Others may not. Chances are, IMO, not many young people were in much of a hurry to see that 40 year old series to begin with.

IMO, even if only 10% of “new” Star Trek fans get curious enough to check it out, that is most likely far more people in that age group than were likely ever going to do it anyway.

My kids laugh at TOS. They think it is corny and silly. They are mild sci-fi fans and big moviegoers—precisely the kind of audience this film is looking to bolster Star Trek’s box-office numbers. They like TWOK and TVH. They think that TSFS and TUC are okay. Like their father, they couldn’t care less for the TNG movies.

I think that their reactions to TOS are probably somewhat indicative of what the reaction of many of their peers have been or might be (if they have yet to see any of it, which I suspect most of them have not). No one at my second youngest son’s school (according to him) has even heard of Star Trek. As for my oldest son’s peers, for them, Star Trek carries a very nerdy stigma. The only reason my oldest son ever gave it a chance is because of me. I think he will always spend a non-football season Sunday or two watching those and other movies we enjoy together, just as I did with my father.

TOS? That’s a bit of a stretch for him. I don’t even try anymore, unless I watch to hear “that looks so fake”, “that’s stupid”, or “that’s so silly”.

I don’t think those kids (their peers) were ever going to watch TOS anyway. If they accidentally stumbled upon it, they would probably have giggled a bit and continued to channel surf.If anything, some of them may like this movie and get c urious enough to give it a try. Who knows? Some of them, because of that curiosity, may become more inclined to look beyond the production design and 40 year-old effects.

I fell in love with TOS during 1970’s syndication—probably the height of its popularity as a television series. But then again, we had 3 channels, not 900.

436. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 31, 2008

#397 Closet:

You make a good point (which has been mentioned before in these threads, but not fully treated until now). There *is* precedent for the Supreme Court to make this decision, because that is exactly what Mr. Braga said in interviews about “Regeneration:” that First Contact had created an alternate timestream that overwrote the previous canon universe, and that we were, in effect, inhabiting a different universe from universe-prime already.

The fan reaction to this was, as I recall, vicious. Many of the same ENT-bashers who now support the movie were its leading detractors, because it effectively rendered all previous canon irrelevant (while still keeping it as “essential backstory”). Personally, I ignored Mr. Braga’s claim because, while he has written some very good stories, he’s never understood canon at all, and, fortunately, in the Trekverse, the Voice of God (or the sitting Supreme Court) is non-canon. I enjoy “Regeneration” on its own terms, and I accept it as Trek canon because I believe that it can be completely reconciled with “Q Who?” *without* resorting to an alternate universe or MWI theory–and, as a continuista, I won’t accept any other solution.

Now, I suspect that your analogy will play out very well in this case, as it did with “Regeneration”: despite the claim of the executive producer, I suspect that I and other fans with too much time on our hands *will* be able to make ST09 fit into the existing universe with only a few jagged edges, and this whole MWI argument won’t matter anymore (not in this universe, anyways). Canonistas will be happy with MWI; continuistas will be happy with whatever we come up with; Jackrebooters with their affectionate thought that this is a whole new continuity. Everyone else (read: “sane people”) will be happy with a good movie, and Paramount will go on without settling the question, partly because they don’t understand it, and partly because there’s no profit in terminating the prime-universe.

So, in the end, I expect we’re going to come out of the theater on May 8 in near-agreement on all the important points (good movie! good canon!), and life will go on happily. But this is all just prediction. We’ll see.

437. James Heaney - Wowbagger - December 31, 2008

#435 Also Closet:

Actually, I’ve made several new TOS fans in the 12-20 year old bracket just this past year. Once they accept the fact that, yes, this was the absolute pinnacle of technical marvelry at the time even if it’s corny now, and they appreciate how much work went into it, they can appreciate what wonderful stories they’re telling. It’s none too relevant to the MWI argument, but it might be worth trying on your kids.

438. 750 Mang - December 31, 2008

How is changing Kirk’s history attracting new fans?

My wife wouldn’t know if the Enterprise was built in San Fran or a cornfield so why not just leave it where it had been for 40 years?

What do I care about this Kirk who I don’t know at all? And why would they choose to do that? To disregard all that we have followed and cared about for so long?

The Jim Kirk we love is not in this film. This is some other guy. He may be fine. He may be great. But he ain’t ours.

Happy New Year!

Remember the Farragut!

439. Admiral_BlackCat - December 31, 2008

it’s a new playground in the good ole’ neighborhood.

Happy New Year Trekkies!!

440. TrekMadeMeWonder - December 31, 2008

438. 750 Mang

Relevant points 750 Mang.

441. Xai - December 31, 2008

438. 750 Mang – December 31, 2008
“How is changing Kirk’s history attracting new fans?”

Kirk’s history isn’t changed. We are now talking about another Kirk. Your circular arguments are becoming very spammy.

The Jim Kirk we all like didn’t leave. Or get erased. This new guy has potential, given the chance. The new Jim Kirk. If you have to label him, you’d say “bizarro”. Another Trek universe to be explored… you find it scary, I find it exciting and my love of TOS isn’t diminished.

Happy New Year to you as well.

442. 750 Mang - December 31, 2008

441. Xai – December 31, 2008

” Another Trek universe to be explored… you find it scary, I find it exciting and my love of TOS isn’t diminished.

Happy New Year to you as well.”

It’s not scary but it was unnecessary. Kirk had a story. A good one.

Hope you are having a great night Xai!

443. S. John Ross - January 1, 2009

#436: “good movie!”

The only part of your prediction I really care about is the notion that it will be a good movie. I sure hope so.

The rest is just trivia.

444. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 1, 2009

#443: I referred to sane people in my post. We don’t serve your kind here.

:P Happy new year.

445. BK613 - January 1, 2009

442
agreed. IMO we are getting “Deja Vu” type time travel in this movie.

446. Vorus - January 1, 2009

To everyone saying that the TOS-TNG+ universe HAD to happen at one point:

You’re making a rather large assumption. You’re assuming that the TOS-TNG+ universe is ever implied to have existed as we know it. This film is being marketed as the ONLY history, it is not being marketed as a new or “second time around” story.

For example see here: http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/12/2009-wiredcom-m.html

It has this quote:

Concept: Epic space adventure answers the question: How did Kirk come to be captain of the Enterprise?

The powers that be are marketing this film as if this is the ONE AND ONLY story of how Kirk became captain. In other words, the official line is NOT that the TOS-TNG+ universe “had to happen” first. The line is that this new film represents the way it ALWAYS happened. That there never was a TOS-TNG+, but it happened this new way, instead of the way we thought it did.

For example, in this new film, will Spock acknowledge that the timeline he goes back into is significantly altered? Or will he act as if everything is the way he remembered it? If he acts like nothing is out of place, then he is acknowledging that this IS the way his history was, and that his history was NOT the TOS we know.

In the end of the film, when the good guys have won the day, will the implication be that everything has been “fixed”, and that the timeline is now exactly as it should have been? IF so, again, it is saying that TOS never was, and that it always was like this new film’s vision instead.

See what I mean? It is very possible that this film will act as if it is the ONE AND ONLY history, without ever acknowledging that this history is different than the history we knew. Unless the film makes it plain that this new vision is different, than all of TOS-TNG actually never did happen, not even in a “first time around” fashion. This would become a complete and total reboot.

@ 430 Xai

Yes, according to ORCI, the MWI explains the movie. But as others have said, Orci’s opinions are not canon. If you’re going strictly by the canonical explanation of the time travel, we’ll have to wait and see how the film itself explains it. But the implication so far, even by Orci’s own admission, is that the film treats it NOT like the MWI, but like classic time travel rules, such as “Back to the Future”.

447. thorsten - January 1, 2009

@446…

Vorus… where in the couple of lines of the WIRED 2009 Movie Guide roundup devoted to Star Trek would you expect the rather lengthy explanation to appear that this is by the way a parallel universe and not the origin origin story?

The good quotes are here…
“J.J. Abrams embarked on a road show in Europe and the United States to prove that unlike most recent Trek movies, this installment will not suck. Hopeful sign: Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtman are genuine Trek nerds.”

And Bob Orci is not only writer but Executive Producer.

His opinion is canon.

448. Vorus - January 1, 2009

@447

I’m sorry, but opinions, even opinions of creators are not canon. Canon is ONLY what is stated on screen. I could list quite a few opinions of directors, producers, ship designers, etc that have been canonically disproven over the years in Trek.

One such example is Alex Jeager’s opinion of the Akira class that HE himself designed. He claims it has torpedo tubes where it actually has windows, and claims that there are no aft tubes, when the CGI model actually does have aft tubes.

I can fully understand why you want to believe Orci. I might chose to believe his theory too, after seeing the film. But technically speaking, it is, and simply cannot be, canon, unless it appears on screen.

As for the WIRED article: I can see your point, but EVERY article and official source other than Orci’s theory presents it the same way. The lengthy multi-page EW article did the same thing. The simple fact is that the film is being treated as the ONE TRUE history by Paramount.

449. Vorus - January 1, 2009

Obviously, I meant to say “But technically speaking, it is not, and simply cannot be, canon, unless it appears on screen”, with the “NOT” being the important addition here.

450. thorsten - January 1, 2009

SO by turning his script into moving images and sound Bob Orci transforms opinion into canon, right Vorus?

Because he, Kurtzman and Lindelof carry the torch now, with some help from Abrams.

Your example about a Starship class that confused it’s own creator is proof for all the problems Trek had in the last decade… but the wait for good Trek is over.

451. 750 Mang - January 1, 2009

450. thorsten

“but the wait for good Trek is over.”

I hope you are correct.

But Kirk’s ballooning Roger Rabbit hands and Uhura’s bra are not good signs.

Remember the Farragut!

452. Vorus - January 1, 2009

@450

The official Paramount policy is, and always has been, that if it isn’t on screen, it isn’t canon. Period. That’s not my opinion, that’s official Paramount policy.

If Orci’s theory makes it onto the screen, then yes, he’s transformed his opinion into canon. If his theory does not make it onto the screen, then it remains only his opinion. Yes, it is a very weighty opinion, and many fans may and probably will believe it, but strictly speaking, it would not be canon.

453. Databrain - January 1, 2009

‘Sure there will be TOS die-hards that don’t like it, but then they shouldn’t have liked the Mirror-Universe introduced in…wait for it…. TOS! So it’s nearly impossible for them to cry canon violations in my opinion, without calling the Mirror-Mirror Episode anti-canon as well.’

The mirror universe episode of TOS had a unidirectional, causal end point which resolved in the end, with the restoration of what we loved, as opposed to some half tuned reboot tauted as alternate time-line scenario which ‘doesn’t violate canon’ because it never respected it to begin with. But this is based only on what I know thus far.

454. Databrain - January 1, 2009

452 said:

‘If Orci’s theory makes it onto the screen, then yes, he’s transformed his opinion into canon. If his theory does not make it onto the screen, then it remains only his opinion.’

I’ve actually asked him before if there was internal dialogue in which the characters themselves recognize they are part of an alternate universe scenario, as was the case in every startrek series episode dealing with this subject to this point. If this ‘theory’ does not make it to the screen as actual etched in stone canon, then it is a definite and blatant violation of the latter with the excuse added on later that ‘quantum variables led us to X’.

455. Databrain - January 1, 2009

450 said:

‘but the wait for good Trek is over.’

It was over a long time ago. You just did not, or do not like trek.

456. Alex Rosenzweig - January 1, 2009

#436 – “You make a good point (which has been mentioned before in these threads, but not fully treated until now). There *is* precedent for the Supreme Court to make this decision, because that is exactly what Mr. Braga said in interviews about “Regeneration:” that First Contact had created an alternate timestream that overwrote the previous canon universe, and that we were, in effect, inhabiting a different universe from universe-prime already.

The fan reaction to this was, as I recall, vicious.
{snip}
Personally, I ignored Mr. Braga’s claim because, while he has written some very good stories, he’s never understood canon at all, and, fortunately, in the Trekverse, the Voice of God (or the sitting Supreme Court) is non-canon. I enjoy “Regeneration” on its own terms, and I accept it as Trek canon because I believe that it can be completely reconciled with “Q Who?” *without* resorting to an alternate universe or MWI theory–and, as a continuista, I won’t accept any other solution.”

I accept it, as well. In fact, as far as I’m concerned, Mike Sussman did an excellent job of setting up a series of events that essentially have to play out as they did throughout the history. the only reach at all was that the *name* of the alien species wasn’t learned in 2153. It’s not a reach at all that research on the oddities they’d discovered probably got shunted aside during the Xindi crisis, and since the tech was probably pretty opaque, I bet it got stuck in their equivalent of the big warehouse from the end of “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, and not revisited again in any serious way ’til after “Q Who?”.

“Regeneration” also directly answered the criticism of why Picard was never shown to be clearing away the Borg debris at the end of “First Contact”. Answer: He *couldn’t*, at risk of changing history, and he would have realized that. Probably really stuck in his craw, too, knowing how he hated the Borg, but he would have done his duty.

Braga really had no clue of what he was talking about. If he’d been even vaguely smarter, or at least less unaware of TOS, he would have trotted out “Assignment: Earth” and suggested, just as I did above, that it all fit together quite neatly. But instead he made some babble about changing the timestream and got rightly pasted for it.

441 – “Kirk’s history isn’t changed. We are now talking about another Kirk.”

Just so. How that’s any better in practical terms, I’m not quite sure, but you’re definitely right. :)

“Another Trek universe to be explored… you find it scary, I find it exciting and my love of TOS isn’t diminished.”

That would suggest that there was a need to get away from the first Trek Universe, and I find that premise unfounded.

#447-452 – A producer’s opinion becomes canon if that opinion is embodied in material explicated on-screen. e.g., Bob’s use of the MWI to justify what’s going on in ST09 is all well and good, but if it’s not explicated in the film itself, it’s still backstage info, not canon. (cf. Jeri Taylor and the assorted backstories she created for various VOY characters. ;) )

457. Alex Rosenzweig - January 1, 2009

#455 – As we’ve seen, of course, people’s opinions about what constitutes “good Trek” vary wildly.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does weaken any arguments based on a premise that something is, or has been, good or bad.

458. Sam Belil - January 1, 2009

Happy New Year to ALL!
Hope you all had a great celebration.
The New Year should be a HAPPY, HEALTHY, PROSPEROUS & SAFE one for EVERYONE!!! (and a succesful one for Paramount).

#425-Hey Xai- MY PLEASURE!!

Re-“Surveys that Trekmovie has done don’t indicate that a significant part of the fans feel alienated, but someone will and that’s unfortunate.I think the producers and crew are proud of the work they have done….” My question to you (with ALL DUE respect to Anthony) — is just how were the surveys conducted. The reason that I ask is that I have been in Media Research for some 21 years, holding senior level positions at companies like ESPN, Maxim Magazine, Smithsonian & Marvel Entertainment. Believe it or not unless thoroughly designed (and of course a large enough sample size) — results can be “manipulated”. That is a major reason why major media firms work with third party vendors in developing surveys. For example, even before asking any questions I would have asked the following ….
#1-Are you a Major Star Trek Fan (Trekker)?
#2-Are you a Casual Star Trek Fan?
#3-Are you a Non-Star Trek Fan?
#4-For those of you who answered #1 and #2, how long have you been a Star Trek Fan?
THEN ask various questions and then cross-tabulate the results among those respondents answering the first 4 questions. Then the results might have greater meaning.
I hate to agree with this — but the Jim Kirk we will be seeing in May will of course be a different Kirk. ESPECIALLY for those us watching the show since 1966. Just think about all of the events that LED to Kirk being the leader and human being that he is (losing Gary Mitchell, Edith Keeler, seeing his mentor Charles Garrovick die, losing his brother, etc. etc. etc.). I can go on and on.

Forget the fact that he is a fictional character, lets all LOOK AT OURSELVES, all the events in our lives (both good and bad) leading up to right now have EFFECTED/INFLUENCED who we our and what we have become. Take those events away– especially the major ones (while we of course maintain our core personalities) — the result is we end up being different. That is (pardon the pun) pure logic.

As I have stated many time prior, I do support this film and want it very badly to succeed. And I’m speaking for myself here, but I do feel misled, as originally I believed that we would be getting a “true back story of how it all started”. I cannot tell you just how excited I was. I am over it and (I HATE to rush my life away) cannot wait for May 2009.

459. Databrain - January 1, 2009

457:

‘This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does weaken any arguments based on a premise that something is, or has been, good or bad.’

Well you’re talking about something that’s already been and has already had niche success. Take a show like lost for example. It’s like saying ‘the wait for good Lost is over’. What a silly statement for me to even make. If I am not drawn to Lost I simply am not, barring whether or not it is good or bad to me or to someone else. Obviously Lost is good to a certain segment of the population, hence why it has run for several seasons. The other individual was basically implying that trek is beginning now as something good and that its previously established niche base did not know how bad it was. This is completely silly.

460. thorsten - January 1, 2009

@457, 458…

A happy new year, Alex and Sam!

461. Sam Belil - January 1, 2009

Same to you Thorsten — have a great one!

462. Sam Belil - January 1, 2009

Vorus #446 “In the end of the film, when the good guys have won the day, will the implication be that everything has been “fixed”, and that the timeline is now exactly as it should have been? IF so, again, it is saying that TOS never was, and that it always was like this new film’s vision instead.”

Here is your answer, straight from Paramounts promotional department:

Synopsis:
From director J.J. Abrams (“Mission: Impossible III,” “Lost” and “Alias”), producers Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk and screenwriters Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman (“TRANSFORMERS,” “MI: III”) comes a new vision of the greatest space adventure of all time, “Star Trek,” featuring a young, new crew venturing boldly where no one has gone before.
Release:
May 8, 2009

Clearly it’s being labelled as a “new vision” which does have me feeling a bit nervous. Oh and to the person who brought up “Entropy” as not being canon (as well as other novels to boot), they were still OUR characters as we knew them in the series — their entire backstory did not change, we DO KNOW for a fact, that at least Kirk’s entire backstory changes. Therefore, as stated many times before — there is no doubt this will be a “new” Kirk and not the Kirk we have known and loved for the past 40+ years!

463. boborci - January 1, 2009

“The implication so far, even by Orci’s own admission, is that the film treats it NOT like the MWI, but like classic time travel rules, such as “Back to the Future”.”

I’ve never said that.

464. thorsten - January 1, 2009

Happy 09 Bob!

465. thorsten - January 1, 2009

I just watched Karl Urban on TV, expertly using a defibrillator in DOOM…
very boneslike ;))

466. Xai - January 1, 2009

446. Vorus – January 1, 2009

“To everyone saying that the TOS-TNG+ universe HAD to happen at one point:

“This film is being marketed as the ONLY history, it is not being marketed as a new or “second time around” story.

For example see here: http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/12/2009-wiredcom-m.html

It has this quote:

Concept: Epic space adventure answers the question: How did Kirk come to be captain of the Enterprise?

The powers that be are marketing this film as if this is the ONE AND ONLY story of how Kirk became captain. ”

__ I am sorry, but…huh?
The link you are showing and the quote you are giving above are not marketing. It’s from a story written about upcoming films, including Trek. It is NOT marketing or a press release. There is a difference. If the writer isn’t up to speed on facts or the scuttlebutt, that’s his or her fault, not anyone elses.

“@ 430 Xai
Yes, according to ORCI, the MWI explains the movie. But as others have said, Orci’s opinions are not canon. If you’re going strictly by the canonical explanation of the time travel, we’ll have to wait and see how the film itself explains it. But the implication so far, even by Orci’s own admission, is that the film treats it NOT like the MWI, but like classic time travel rules, such as “Back to the Future”.”

__ Newsflash on that one.
Bob Orci co-wrote this movie. He knows what he and his writing partner were thinking, intending and what they produced. And if you look at post #463, he has something to tell you.

467. Xai - January 1, 2009

Vorus,
Until it makes the screen and becomes canon, I don’t think you can assume it’s “classical time travel”. Bob Orci helped write it, and until and IF his work is changed somehow, I will believe his words on what the intent is, etc.
He should know and I think you owe him an apology, especially for misquoting him.

468. Xai - January 1, 2009

456. Alex Rosenzweig – January 1, 2009
“441 – “Kirk’s history isn’t changed. We are now talking about another Kirk.”

Just so. How that’s any better in practical terms, I’m not quite sure, but you’re definitely right. :)”

“Another Trek universe to be explored… you find it scary, I find it exciting and my love of TOS isn’t diminished.”

That would suggest that there was a need to get away from the first Trek Universe, and I find that premise unfounded.”

Sorry, no.
I am not suggesting that there is a need to get away from the TOS Universe. It was not implied. I just look forward to enjoying more adventures aboard the Enterprise.
And as for a “different James Kirk”… we won’t know if that’s better or worse until May, but discounting possibilities in January doesn’t make sense.

469. Xai - January 1, 2009

459. Databrain – January 1, 2009

Splitting hairs.

470. Vorus - January 1, 2009

@ 463

Granted, you haven’t said it in so many words, but your quote from the original interview implies such:

“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.”

What I take away from that is that the film presents itself as “classical time travel”. Why else would the audience assume that, unless the film presents itself that way?

Therefore, if the film is presented that way, that is the canonical explanation, and my recent posts still have validity.

Believe me, I’d rather have an alternate timeline than see all of the TOS-TNG+ canon overwritten or completely erased. So, if you’ve managed to include that in the film canonically, I’ll be happier with that than with the understanding I have now. But so far, even your statements make it sound the like the film is presented as “classical time travel”. I understand if you can’t directly tell us one way or the other, however.

Again, I’m not trying to be a “downer” or to attack or disparage anyone’s work on the film, least of all yours, since you are taking your time to talk to us. (I’d rather have you tell me something I didn’t want to hear, than not have you here at all.) I’m just trying to get as complete a picture as I can of the way this film will fit into (Or Kahless forbid, destroy) canon.

471. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 1, 2009

I’m not even sure how we’ve gotten onto this tangent, but, from a pure rules-lawyer point of view here, Bob Orci’s opinions about the time travel mechanics of his movie are non-canon. Only filmed material that reaches the final cut of the film is canon (with some gray area for scenes that are filmed, cut, and then included in a later release on, say, DVD).

He wrote it, of course, and he actually knows what he’s talking about, which means his perspective is very important, but his commentary is akin to St. Augustine’s commentary on Holy Scripture–it’s brilliant, and has a wide following, but it is *not* Holy Scripture itself. (Otherwise, we would have to accept everything RDM ever said about DS9 in his online chats as canon. And we’d have to accept many of Mr. Braga’s more idiotic statements as canon. And we’d have to accept Ira Stephen Behr’s claim that the entireity of Deep Space Nine takes place in Benny Russell’s head… among others.)

It’s impossible to tell how much of this MWI stuff will actually turn up in canon. I’m still very hopeful that the movie will be open to alternative interpretations, but this may be wishful thinking on my part.

Anyhow, Vorus, I’m with everyone else here: not really seeing where you were going in 446.

And to add to #458 Sam Belli: TrekMovie.com’s readership is *not* representative of the fandom as a whole. Commenters here are typically quite a bit more movie-positive then at other sites, and we have a ridiculously large contingent of fans who didn’t enjoy anything after TOS. TrekMovie’s community cares also doesn’t care about canon as much as other fan sites do, and–like every fan site–it suffers from a frighteningly low proportion of so-called “casual fans,” the fans who haven’t watched consistently since TNG went off the air but who make up the bulk of the fandom. Add in basic self-selection bias and the inherent unreliability of public internet polling, and the TrekMovie polls end up with a margin of error that cannot be calculated, but which is most likely well in excess of +/- 25%.

Which is to say, in short: the TM.com polls are fun, but they’re not remotely useful for actually gathering information about fan reaction. Reading comment threads on a variety of different sites? That’s useful.

Fortunately, it appears that that’s exactly what Orci and the Supreme Court (band name of the day!) are doing.

472. Vorus - January 1, 2009

@ 471

==Anyhow, Vorus, I’m with everyone else here: not really seeing where you were going in 446.==

Perhaps I can clear it up then.

It seems to me that any description of the movie is not describing it as taking place in an “alternate universe”, or being the result of an “altered timeline”.

The difference in those two explanations is an essential point, so I’ll elaborate.

1) The “Alternate Universe” theory posits essentially the same thing that the MWI puts forward. That the events in this film are not in ANY way affecting the TOS-TNG+ universe that we know from TV and films. (Other than Nero and Spock leaving) Under this theory, the film literally takes place in a separate universe from the rest of Trek.

2) The “Altered Timeline” theory says that the events in this film will overwrite the previous canon. This is essentially what closettrekker is trying to say. The TOS-TNG+ events that we know took place to get the film to the point where Nero and Spock leave. After that, the changes that are made are made to the “original” TOS universe, and history is RE-written with the new ship’s and crew’s history instead of the TOS-TNG+ that we knew.

Now, what I’m saying is that the film is not being presented to the public as doing either of those things. This film is being presented as if this WAS the way it happened, before the TOS that we saw in the 60s. In other words, this film is supposed to be the actual true story of Kirk’s life, not the result of an altered timeline. The alterations happened to the “original” Kirk too, we just didn’t know about them until now. THAT’S how this film is being presented.

Obviously, that way of thinking violates much of the canon we have now. And that’s what I’m worried about, that this film will act as if it ALWAYS WAS the way history went.

Is that more understandable?

473. A. .S.F.33 - January 1, 2009

And still, after reading ALL of this discussion….my question is this—Why couldn’t we just have had a straightforward origin story using the HISTORY that was already there? Jazz it up with bells and whistles and anything else they wanted to do, but SHOW us how the Kirk we have known for FORTY years became the captain of the enterprise–why invent a whole new back story for faux Kirk when, original Kirk’s back story was just fine the way it was and had PLENTY of room for exploration. New audiences wouldn’t have known the difference and old fans would be at peace with the whole thing.

474. Sam Belil - January 1, 2009

#472-Vorus “This film is being presented as if this WAS the way it happened, before the TOS that we saw in the 60s. In other words, this film is supposed to be the actual true story of Kirk’s life, not the result of an altered timeline. The alterations happened to the “original” Kirk too, we just didn’t know about them until now. THAT’S how this film is being presented”

You could NOT have stated any better, and that is what has always been my concern. I don’t understand (I’m not trying to be rude or disrespectful to ANYONE), why others don’t see that — especially the longtime ST fans.
I’m sorry to say — I have to TOTALLY agree with Vorus (whether we use the term “canon”, “continuity”, whatever). That type of thinking does violate much of the canon we have now, that we have had for some 40 PLUS years — there is no way to deny that.

There is an old saying “If it ain’t broke, don’t break it”!!! I’m not saying that Abrams and crew are going to “break it”, but I have to tell you “change for the sake of change” (and that is how I see it) does not necessarily translate into success.

Remember the Farragut AND the Republic!

475. Sam Belil - January 1, 2009

#472-Vorus “This film is being presented as if this WAS the way it happened, before the TOS that we saw in the 60s. In other words, this film is supposed to be the actual true story of Kirk’s life, not the result of an altered timeline. The alterations happened to the “original” Kirk too, we just didn’t know about them until now. THAT’S how this film is being presented”

You could NOT have stated any better, and that is what has always been my concern. I don’t understand (I’m not trying to be rude or disrespectful to ANYONE), why others don’t see that — especially the longtime ST fans.
I’m sorry to say — I have to TOTALLY agree with Vorus (whether we use the term “canon”, “continuity”, whatever). That type of thinking does violate much of the canon we have now, that we have had for some 40 PLUS years — there is no way to deny that.

There is an old saying “If it ain’t broke, don’t break it”!!! I’m not saying that Abrams and crew are going to “break it”, but I have to tell you “change for the sake of change” (and that is how I see it) does not necessarily translate into success.

Remember the Farragut AND the Republic!

476. Sam Belil - January 1, 2009

Sorry about the duplicate entry — no idea how that happended!

477. Alex Rosenzweig - January 1, 2009

#460 – Right back at ya’, Thorsten! Here’s to a great 2009!

478. Alex Rosenzweig - January 1, 2009

#462 – “Clearly it’s being labelled as a “new vision” which does have me feeling a bit nervous.”

Well, to be perfectly fair, each new team that has comer to Trek has brought a “new vision”. But equally, I’d read less into that simply because it makes for good industry hype. It’s also entirely possible to bring a new vision while retaining a fictional storytelling framework.

“we DO KNOW for a fact, that at least Kirk’s entire backstory changes. Therefore, as stated many times before — there is no doubt this will be a “new” Kirk and not the Kirk we have known and loved for the past 40+ years!”

Much will still depend on what happens by the time the film is done.

#468 – I’ll just address the response to a part I actually sad before, rather than the nested quote. :)

“I am not suggesting that there is a need to get away from the TOS Universe. It was not implied. I just look forward to enjoying more adventures aboard the Enterprise.”

I’ll accept it as my own bias, but I don’t find it attractive at all to create a whole other version of something unless there’s a reason to move away from what we already have. Why create a new Trek Universe (for TOS or otherwise) when the existing one is perfectly sound? Again, admitting all my biases, none of the explanations offered over the past 3-4 years has held a drop of water for me. {shrug}

#472 – “It seems to me that any description of the movie is not describing it as taking place in an “alternate universe”, or being the result of an “altered timeline”.”

Now, this strikes me as somewhat of a semantics debate. If we accept the macroscopic interpretation of MWI, every alteration to a timeline essentially creates (or perhaps accesses) an alternate universe. If the idea is that there is an infinite number of possible universes existing in parallel, then in one, the original set of events plays out, and in another, the different set of events plays out (and of course there may be infinite variations of each of those, too).

Leaving aside the philosophy of science debates ;) , my concerns start playing out on more basic levels: How will all this be presented to the audience in a way that the “average Joe” gets it? and If Spock goes back in time to correct the timeline, and he doesn’t manage to get it essentially back to how it was, there’s a pretty solid argument that he has failed in his mission; do we really want to have a story in which Spock, of all people, is portrayed as failing in one of the most important missions of his life? I’m thinking not, which suggests to me that either much gets corrected, or Bob and Alex and the others have figured out what they felt was a way to spin a positive outcome, even if it doesn’t completely fix things.

And, BTW, Happy New Year to all the rest of you, too! :)

479. Vorus - January 1, 2009

@ 478

==Now, this strikes me as somewhat of a semantics debate. If we accept the macroscopic interpretation of MWI, every alteration to a timeline essentially creates (or perhaps accesses) an alternate universe.==

Yes, it’s probably semantics, but ONLY if we accept the MWI for this film. I for one, won’t accept that just on Orci’s word alone. (With apologies to Orci.) If the film itself presents the time travel as taking place in the same universe Trek has usually inhabited, then that is the canonical explanation.

If, as I and other theorize, the MWI is not used for this film, then it is not semantics. The “Alternate Universe” theory creates another reality, separate from the rest of Trek’s reality. The “Altered Timeline” theory would result in the original Trek being overwritten, because of changes to the original timeline.

I’m really just repeating myself now, I guess . . .

480. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 1, 2009

Vorus: Yes, that’s a bit clearer. I still don’t quite follow, though.

However, on this: “If the film itself presents the time travel as taking place in the same universe Trek has usually inhabited, then that is the canonical explanation.”

Only if it makes a clear claim. If classical temporal mechanics are only *implied,* then the movie remains open to *both* MWI and classical interpretations. In fact, this is true of the vast majority of Trek time travels stories–MWI is a *possible* canonical explanation for many of them, from “Regeneration” all the way back to “City on the Edge.”

I happen to hate that idea, and, like most fans, I’ve been very pleased with sticking to the classical interpretation for every Trek time travel story. Hopefully, this movie won’t be definitive one way or another.

I cannot believe I’m still discussing this. I feel like such a nerd!

481. Closettrekker - January 1, 2009

#446—“You’re assuming that the TOS-TNG+ universe is ever implied to have existed as we know it.”

That is not an assumption. It has already been made clear that the film begins in the post-Nemesis era.

What I *will* assume is that it will be made equally clear wthin the progression of the story (and quite early on) that Nero’s intention is to *alter* the past.

482. Xai - January 1, 2009

RE: MWI vs. “classical time travel” debate.
(especially Vorus)

I am sticking with the guy who co-wrote the thing. There’s a reason MWI was brought up and I doubt it was just as a mental exercise for us here.

472. Vorus – January 1, 2009
“2) The “Altered Timeline” theory says that the events in this film will overwrite the previous canon. This is essentially what closettrekker is trying to say. The TOS-TNG+ events that we know took place to get the film to the point where Nero and Spock leave. After that, the changes that are made are made to the “original” TOS universe, and history is RE-written with the new ship’s and crew’s history instead of the TOS-TNG+ that we knew.”

__ Closettrekker can correct me if I misunderstood, but I don’t believe you are representing his opinion correctly, Vorus.

483. Xai - January 1, 2009

Closettrekker,
please look at #482 and 472 and comment please.

484. Xai - January 1, 2009

473. A. .S.F.33 – January 1, 2009

I AM at peace with the whole thing.

485. Vorus - January 1, 2009

@481

But how do you know that the timeline that Spock leaves isn’t a result of the FILM’S timeline, and not a result of the TOS-TNG+ timeline that we know?

That’s what I’m saying.

486. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 1, 2009

#485: Why do they have to be different timelines, again?

487. Vorus - January 1, 2009

@ 486

This really is getting confusing, isn’t it?

They have to be different because the histories are different. The “original” TOS-TNG+ timeline is the one we know from watching the show. The “new” TOS-TNG+ timeline is the one that would happen if the events played out after the film’s end, with the different backstories for the ship and crew. So, the question is, from which timeline do Nero and Spock leave? From the “original” timeline that took place after the TOS-TNG+ that were on TV, or from the “new” timeline that took place after the film?

If they leave from the “original” timeline, and then ALTER the past, and it stays altered, than the alterations will cause TOS-TNG+ to work out differently than what we remember. In essense, TOS-TNG+ will be “overwritten”.

If they leave from a timeline that is a result of this film, then either that timeline is SEPARATE (As in, an alternate universe) from the TOS-TNG+ we know, or it is REPLACING the TOS-TNG+ that we know, literally taking its place, and acting as if it never happened. (As in, a reboot.)

488. Vorus - January 1, 2009

@486 again

I should have mentioned, there is a third possibility.

Nero and Spock leave the “original” timeline, but CREATE an alternate timeline, as per the MWI. In this case, everything is as Orci says. This film takes place in an alternate universe, and never affects the TOS-TNG+ that we know.

489. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 1, 2009

#487: I thought that’s what you were saying. But do we have any proof that movieverse Kirk’s backstory cannot be reconciled with primeverse Kirk’s backstory?

In which case, there’s no need for an AU *or* an overwrite. Just some very clever fanfic to fill in the gaps.

490. Vorus - January 1, 2009

@489

I’d very much like to be able to reconcile everything, but that looks all but impossible. For one thing, Orci himself has acknowledged that in this film, Kirk doesn’t serve on the Republic or Farragut, so there are in fact, significant changes.

491. Xai - January 1, 2009

Vorus, re #482

Don’t read everything addressed to you?

492. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 1, 2009

Mr. Orci’s acknowledged that the film doesn’t *show* Kirk serving on the Republic or the Farragut, but he has stated previously in response to a question about the Republic (in the comments on the *other* thread on MWI) that he was “not sure” whether the new movie precluded Kirk serving on the Republic.

We have only six dates for Kirk’s life before the Enterprise, and a bare handful of facts:

–Born 2233 (date March 22nd and birthplace Iowa are still unverified by canon, though Iowa is strongly implied by “I’m from Iowa!” in ST:TVH)

–Lived on Tarsus IV at some point during 2246 – we don’t know for how long. Barring canonical declaration, we cannot assume anything; perhaps he was there for only a day, and happened to be very, very unlucky in picking the day he visited.

–The next date we have is nine years later, when, in 2255, Lt. Kirk visits Neural (“A Private Little War”). We don’t know canonically what ship he was serving on at the time.

–In 2257, Lt. Kirk is serving as navigator on the Farragut when they encounter the dikironium cloud creature (“Obsession”). We don’t know how long Kirk’s service under Captain Garrovick was, on what ship or ships it was (although the Farragut had to be one of them), nor whether he may have served under Garrovick more than once at different times in his life.

–In 2261, Kirk breaks up with Janet Wallace. We know nothing about this relationship.

–In 2363, Kirk breaks up with Areel Shaw. We know nothing about this relationship.

–In 2264, newly-minted Captain Kirk is named to the Enterprise command chair.

At some point in here (2246 – 2264), Kirk is on the Republic long enough to report Ben Finney–but, again, we know next to nothing about this service.

We also know that–somewhere between ’46 and ’64–Kirk attends and completes Starfleet Academy. He may also teach there (“Where No Man Has Gone Before”); canon is unclear on the point. All we know is that, like anyone, he meets a lot of different people in this years (before, during, and after the Academy), including Finnegan, Carol Marcus, Gary Mitchell, Mallory, John Gill, Ben Finney, Ruth, Janet Lester, Areel Shaw, and Janet Wallace, that he is part of the peace mission to Axanar, and he beats the Kobayashi Maru. But, once again, we know next to nothing about *any* of these events–dates, contexts, duration, rank. All we have are the fandom’s sizable speculation and the non-canon Star Trek Chronology.

In short, the life and times of James T. Kirk before the Enterprise are, canonically, an open book. Canon gives us almost no detail on *anything* prior to the Enterprise, and so, as long as the new movie does not directly and irrevocably contradict the handful of events we *do* know about–which would be difficult, because inventive fanfic writers have been resolving apparent canon “contradictions” for decades now–it will probably be possible to interpret the movie as being exactly what you and I want it to be: an origin story of OUR Kirk in OUR universe saying how he became captain of the Enterprise and kicked off TOS. Heck, if you and I are guessing correctly at the script, that’s what’s going to be implied, and it will fit together beautifully.

Here’s hoping, at least!

Did you follow that? As you’ve said, this is getting hopelessly confusing.

493. Vorus - January 1, 2009

@491

I just didn’t see anything there that needed replying to. closettreker is the only one that can answer whether or not I’ve explained his position clearly. (I’m not really trying to state his position for him, I was just using hm as an example of someone who has been saying similar things to that theory.)

And as for Orci’s opinion on MWI, we’ve already been over it, you and I. You are happy to accept it as it is, and I would accept it only if canon allowed it. I don’t doubt that it was more or less “a mental exercise” for us, because like I said, even his own words imply that this film is “classical time travel”, and not MWI-based.

If he comes back on here and explains that isn’t really what that statement meant, and that the MWI is actually provided as the explanation in the film, than that’s fine by me. But until it is established canonically, it’s still just his opinion.

494. Vorus - January 1, 2009

@ 492

Thanks for at least chronicling it all. Well done! And you have at least provided a small gleam of hope. (I still think Pike is going to die in this film, ruining ALL chance of it being reconciled.) However, here are a few quotes from Anthony and Orci’s interview:

==Anthony: 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.==

Some things ARE different.

==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.==

So, Kirk IS different. (At least, if Bob is still using the word “right” to apply to the entire statement, and not just the last question.)

==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 . . (He then goes into the MWI.)==

Again, assuming that “Yes” is acknowledging Anthony as correct inhis entire paragraph, then Bob is saying that Kirk NEVER goes to the Farragut.

Those are the reasons I believe things are going to be noticeably and significantly different. (And then of course, you have the VASTLY different Enterprise and Bridge, but I’m willing to overlook design aesthetics as canon violations.)

HOWEVER, I do acknowledge that the possibility exists that we will be able to reconcile everything into existing canon. If so, I’ll be right there with you, putting it all together. I hope it works out like that.

495. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 2, 2009

In the words of Matriarch Astrin-Sa of the Valandrians: “We shall see, General. We shall seeeeeeee.”

496. thorsten - January 2, 2009

@492…

Good Job there, James.
And it reminds us about the storytelling perspective the new movie will take… What we will see are the life and times of James T. Kirk, but in a new and thrilling way. I am sure that Bob, Alex and Damon had a list like yours, with all the huge holes in canon in young Kirks life marked in day-glo color.

Star Trek was exciting and inspiring… it was much more than just a a pop culture phenomenon. Having people like Abrams, Orci and Lindelof working on it is the best chance to make Star Trek great again.

497. A. .S.F.33 - January 2, 2009

>>”484. Xai – January 1, 200

I AM at peace with the whole thing”<<

Yes that’s clear and hey good for you, but that doesn’t change the fact that MANY are not at peace with the direction of this movie and THEIR opinions are EQUALLY valid.

498. Alex Rosenzweig - January 2, 2009

#490, 492 – Actually, it was the Farragut aboard which he said he wasn’t sure if the film precluded Kirk’s service. (I remember that quite clearly, ’cause it was one of the times he responded to me. ;) ) that led me to think that we may be trying to play a game of connect-the-dots before all the dots have been revealed, and we might be drawing flawed conclusions based on that.

(This hasn’t stopped me from playing, of course. I just acknowlege that the preliminary conclusions are subject to change. ;) )

#497 – “>>”484. Xai – January 1, 200

I AM at peace with the whole thing”<<

Yes that’s clear and hey good for you, but that doesn’t change the fact that MANY are not at peace with the direction of this movie and THEIR opinions are EQUALLY valid.”

Just so. Speaking solely for myself, I do not yet fall into an “at peace” category. Throwing out storytelling continuity (and I really don’t care what mechanism they use to do so) was the only “line in the sand” I have with regard to this film, and it *looks* like they may have crossed it. If they’ve really crossed it, then how egregiously they’ve done so will be what determines how at peace–or not–I’ll be when we get to 8 May. ;)

499. thorsten - January 2, 2009

@498…

well said, Alex… I guess it all rotates around Spock Primes Time Travel…
the if, why and whens of his decision. We know that he will meet young Kirk with the knowledge that it is paramount for him to take the helm during the Vulcan crisis… and that Kirk has to promise never to mention their encounter to young Spock. And we know that later on in the movie the two Spocks meet. We can only guess if Prime reveals his identity to his younger self…
which will be a crucial point in the developement of Kirks and Spocks relationship…
If Prime reveals himself, why should he tell Kirk to keep quiet over his visit, storytelling wise?
But anyway, then Kirk and Spock are bonded by that secret forever.
And if he decides to keep his secret, Kirk will keep it from his friend all his life…

But nowhere is written that Kirk will not serve on the Farragut after saving the Enterprise at Vulcan and before he becomes Captain.

Yet.

500. Xai - January 2, 2009

Are we all so innocent of mind to believe they have told us everything on this subject.? What would be the point in going to the movie.. or making it?
I could cite a couple things further on this, but I don’t want to appear to be putting words in Bob Orci’s mouth.

A.S.F. …I replied with the “at peace” statement, because your post read as if you were speaking for all fans, which as we both know, none of us do.

501. Xai - January 2, 2009

#498 Alex
Read #500. I am FULLY aware.

502. Alex Rosenzweig - January 2, 2009

#500 – “Are we all so innocent of mind to believe they have told us everything on this subject.?”

One would certainly hope not! That, of course, won’t stop us from trying to piece things together, anyway, based on what we do know. ;) I figure that, as long as we’re all aware that it is, at this point, a speculative puzzle-solving game and nothing more, there’s no harm in it.

#501 – {Grin}

503. thorsten - January 2, 2009

“as long as we’re all aware that it is, at this point, a speculative puzzle-solving game ”

LOST returns january 21…
I expect some clues hidden by Damon ;))

504. Xai - January 2, 2009

Yea, Trek clues or an “easter egg” on Lost. That would be fun.

505. BK613 - January 2, 2009

492
nice list but you left out that he knew Finnegan and Ruth 15 years before the events of Shore Leave. Which puts at least a decade between the Academy and the Captaincy.

506. thorsten - January 2, 2009

You know, Xai,
Ben moved the island and appeared in the desert, two years later…
the question is, in which time line?

;))

507. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 2, 2009

#505: True enough! I failed to consult the “Shore Leave” transcript for exact dates.

2252: Kirk’s last encounters with Ruth and Finnegan, respectively. *Probably* Kirk’s plebe year at the Academy, which would make it the same year as his participation in the Axanar peace mission… but, once again, episode dialogue is not explicit on the point.

Throwing in my two cents, I’m “at peace” with the movie, whatever it turns out to be. There’s never been a Trek movie I didn’t enjoy, and I hardly expect this one to be the exception. I’m just here because I enjoy discussing the philosophy of canon–and some of its finer points.

Oh, and #498 Alex: thanks for the correction. If there were an edit button, I’d fix it. :P So that gives us, what?

2233: Kirk born
2246: Tarsus IV
2252: Ruth, Finnegan (plebe year at Academy? Axanar?)
2255: Neural survey (rank: Lieutenant)
2257: Dikronium cloud creature (rank: Lieutenant; position: Navigator; posting: USS Farragut)
2261: Breakup with Janet Wallace and Carol Marcus.
2263: Breakup with Areel Shaw
2264: Posted to the Enterprise (rank: Captain)

Or, to use the less exhaustive timeline:

2154: A Xindi attack carves an enormous chasm through Florida and also (strangely) part of Iowa
=DAY-GLO MARKER=
2233: Kirk born. Horoscopes on the day of his birth give him lucky numbers of 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 42.
=DAY-GLO MARKER=
2246: Tarsus IV.
=DAY-GLO MARKER=
2257: Farragut.
=DAY-GLO MARKER=
2264: Enterprise
=DAY-GLO MARKER=
2267: Redjac is unmasked on Aregelius II. His true identity is revealed to be the famous ancient Earth mass murderer… Milo Rambaldi.

I like it.

508. YARN - January 2, 2009

# 375 Closettrekker

“What if James T. Kirk is as Nick Meyer described him to be—a mythological hero?

Are such heroes not subject to a degree of predestination?

Perhaps Nero, despite all of his efforts to alter the course of history, cannot (whether that is his specific intention or not) be successful in preventing James T. Kirk from evolving into the hero he is destined to become.”

You can’t peddle the scientific realism on the one hand and then argue mythology on the other.

The script either gives us a realistic account of how and why Kirk becomes captain or it doesn’t. The multiple-worlds interpretation of quantum physical offers us NO reason to believe that the quantum realm would care about coarse-grained and socially constructed facts of history. In short, science does not offer any reason to believe in fatalism.

Consequently, (Mr. Orci’s creative PR work aside), the “realistic” explanation of this alternate world offers us no grounds to expect that Kirk would (by some metaphysical necessity) become captain of the Enterprise.

As for the “mythological” account, fatalistic predestination (which should not be confused with mechanistic predestination) is as non-scientific account as one can imagine. In short, you can only claim this as the justification for Kirk’s dubious ascension to the captaincy, if you admit that all the soft-shoeing about quantum mechanics really has nothing to do with why the story plays out the way it does.

509. Closettrekker - January 2, 2009

#486—“But how do you know that the timeline that Spock leaves isn’t a result of the FILM’S timeline, and not a result of the TOS-TNG+ timeline that we know?

That’s what I’m saying.”

The reason that doesn’t work is it clearly doesn’t mesh with what the creative team has insisted all along, that the story does not violate ‘canon’.

“Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation”—Roberto Orci.

Orci, Lindelof, and Kurtzman have repeatedly addressed that issue, but it is best summed up in that one quote.

Moreover, they have actually come right out and said that much of the story takes place in an *altered* timeline, even while it begins in the timeline with which we are all so familiar. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

If they are to “honor canon”, as Lindelof insists, then the reasons for the absence (and/or prevention) of canonical events such as the Farragut incident, Taursus IV, etc., then it must be done so canonically—-assuming they are telling the truth (and I refuse to assume otherwise, since I have no reason to call any of them liars).

Unless you subscribe to the theory that the timeline was already altered due to events depicted in FC and ENT, your suggestion makes no sense.

510. Closettrekker - January 2, 2009

#508—“You can’t peddle the scientific realism on the one hand and then argue mythology on the other. ”

I think you’ve missed the point of that altogether.

The writers can have James T. Kirk evolve anyway they see fit. It’s fiction. They can put an entirely different set of obstacles in the path of his development and have him evolve into basically the same hero–with the same character traits.

I was merely pointing out that there is precedent to the view of JTK as a “mythological hero”. In fact, it was the perspective of the very director/screenwriter most often heralded as having made the best of the Star Trek feature films.

The bottom line is, that is a perfectly legitimate route for these writers to take.

And while my own belief is that one’s environment shapes him to be who he is more than anything else, it is also true (IMO) that certain individuals are genetically predisposed to specific behavior.

In the case of James T. Kirk, I think that predisposition is one of an alpha-male with natural leadership potential, stubbornness, arrogance, courage, a need for loyalty and purpose. Despite a difference in the circumstances surrounding his upbringing, it is clear that Pike and Nimoy’s Spock are (from different perspectives) pointing him in a certain direction in this *altered* timeline.

Pike’s perspective seems to be that he believes in Kirk’s potential, while Nimoy’s Spock obviously knows that potential and believes that its fulfillment is absolutely essential to the future of the Federation, particularly in the face of considerable evil from one “possible future”.

It’s fiction. The writers can assert that the character becomes whomever they wish him to become, even if the circumstances surrounding his evolution of character are different this time around.

511. Vorus - January 2, 2009

@509

As always, I can see your point. (And as always, there is a “however” coming up. :P)

However, the only reason to believe that Spock and Nero leave the “original” timeline is, as you stated, because they have been claiming that’s what happens. What I’m saying is, how will the FILM present it? Like all canon, the creators can claim whatever they want, but the CANONICAL explanation will be the one that makes it to the screen.

I’m not saying anyone is lying, I’m just saying that they’re take on what happened may be different than what the film itself presents. (That’s happened many times in Trek, as others have explain in this thread.)

The reason I think my theory is likely is because I cannot imagine the film bothering to explain that Nero and Spock left timeline “A”, to travel to timeline “A’s” past, only to leave it forever altered, now overwriting the “original timeline A” with a “new timeline A”. That seems like it would be a bit too convoluted of an explanation for a film that is being marketed to non-fans.

Instead, I think it more likely that the film will end with the idea that everything has been “fixed”, and that the timeline is as it should be. In other words, the film will be presented as leaving the timeline almost completely unaltered from when it started. If that is the case, then the timeline that Nero and Spock left WAS the timeline that the film created. (Since the film wouldn’t have altered anything, there would be no difference in a pre-film and post-film timeline.)

Again, I’m not saying that I’m certain, I’m just exploring the possibilities, based on what I think is most likely.

512. YARN - January 2, 2009

#510

“I think you’ve missed the point of that altogether.”

And I think you are in the horns of a dilemma.

“The writers can have James T. Kirk evolve anyway they see fit. It’s fiction. They can put an entirely different set of obstacles in the path of his development and have him evolve into basically the same hero–with the same character traits.”

Sure, just like Lucas could ruin Star Wars by showing us Lil’ Annie “the pod racer” grow into whiney Hayden Christiansen. They “grew” into Vader, the bad guy we came to know later – problem was, the prequels were poorly written, poorly acted, and poorly directed.

In fact, YOU place limitations on the writers that they do NOT have, since we are simply speaking in “factual” terms. As a matter of fact, they could rewrite Kirk as a woman if they wanted to (it worked for Starbuck on Battlestar Dramatica). They could make James T. Kirk a cyborg. They can do anything they conceive of, but this does not mean that they should do any of this, does it?

Your observations here are irrelevant – of course they can do what they like (that’s what some of us are afraid of).

“I was merely pointing out that there is precedent to the view of JTK as a ‘mythological hero’. In fact, it was the perspective of the very director/screenwriter most often heralded as having made the best of the Star Trek feature films.”

And I was merely pointing out that this does not fit with all the quantum prestidigitation we have been offered. Greek fatalism and scientific realism don’t mix as explanations. Is Kirk going to be Captain of the Enterprise for all the scientific reasons espoused here? Will it be because of environmental or genetic determinism? Will it be because Nero consulted the Oracle at Delphi?

There is a way in which you could integrate these views, but you haven’t done it. Instead, you seem to be oblivious to making the categorical error of making aesthetic judgments on scientific grounds, and then offering aesthetic justifications to support the so-called “scientific” explanations.

“The bottom line is, that is a perfectly legitimate route for these writers to take.”

You seem to fail to note that I have not so much been criticizing the new film, as the half-baked, and yet strangely magisterially intoned justifications of the film. In short, I am not really criticizing the film, but you.

“And while my own belief is that one’s environment shapes him to be who he is more than anything else, it is also true (IMO) that certain individuals are genetically predisposed to specific behavior.”

And here you effortlessly and unconsciously shift back into realism as explanation/justification.

“In the case of James T. Kirk, I think that predisposition is one of an alpha-male with natural leadership potential, stubbornness, arrogance, courage, a need for loyalty and purpose. Despite a difference in the circumstances surrounding his upbringing, it is clear that Pike and Nimoy’s Spock are (from different perspectives) pointing him in a certain direction in this *altered* timeline.”

Really? I though Kirk was a mythological figure. I thought he wasn’t real, but ideal. I thought the writers could do whatever they pleased. Here the criteria of human development impede and delimit the development of narrative form. We have travelled back through the looking glass and are now realists.

“Pike’s perspective seems to be that he believes in Kirk’s potential, while Nimoy’s Spock obviously knows that potential and believes that its fulfillment is absolutely essential to the future of the Federation, particularly in the face of considerable evil from one ‘possible future’.”

So it’s peer-pressure/influence that makes Kirk the great man? Got it.

“It’s fiction. The writers can assert that the character becomes whomever they wish him to become, even if the circumstances surrounding his evolution of character are different this time around.”

Voila! We are suddenly whisked away from the cares of the real world and are transported back to the truism that writers can write whatever they like. And again, this point is irrelevant.

513. thorsten - January 2, 2009

After the “EXCLUSIVE: Bob Orci Explains How The New Star Trek Movie Fits With Trek Canon (and Real Science)” thread reached 1222, this one accumulated more than 500 posts again… clearly an achievement in itself.

514. Closettrekker - January 2, 2009

#511—I can acknowledge that as a possibility (that the film might leave it open to such interpretation), but I don’t think that as likely as you.

Although I cannot be any more *certain* than you at this point, I fully expect it to be made plain in the dialogue of this film that Nero’s intention is to *alter* the past, and I suspect that it will be made equally clear that Nimoy’s Spock is proceding with the intention of either repairing or controlling the damage done by the villain. I would be very surprised if the story fails to address the fact that certain events are *not* playing out the way in which they did before.

But ultimately, the only fans who are likely to care about such detail are the only ones who have cared about such detail in the past—-people like you and me. Most will simply be there to be entertained. As for those of us who consider ourselves ‘guardians’ of Star Trek’s “canon”, we have our explanation for the differences. We have always had to *reach* at times to obtain reconciliation with what seems to be, on the surface, contradictory, so why should this be viewed differently?

I think that Orci and company have made it easy for us. The writers have handed Mr. Abrams one giant canon loophole. The potential for the creation of an alternate timeline as a consequence of interference with the past has, in itself, been “canon” for over 4 decades.

The explanation is easy. Everything we knew from TOS-TNG-DS9-VOY and the previous ten films is part of a chain of events which leads the overall story to progress to this point—-where a new timeline is created (assuming that FC/ENT did not create a new timeline to begin with) by interference with 23rd Century events, perpetrated by a group of Romulan villains from the late 24th Century.

Even if it *is*, in the end, open to interpretation—-I cannot imagine embracing any other interpretation than that one. To each his own, I suppose.

I have other issues with what we know of the story, but the notion that anything is “lost” in the continuity I know and love is certainly not an issue to me. It will always remain intact (and on my dvd shelf), and this story cannot happen without it.

515. Sam Belil - January 2, 2009

Hey Thorsten — how are you? Hope the New Year is off to a great start. My G-d 500+ posts, each one making me more dizzier than the next. My final say on this matter (if I have not stated it already) ….

This movie will not — I repeat NOT end in the “normal 45+ year timeline as we knew it”. It will clearly end in the altered timeline (no Talos IV, No “Mengerie” no Tarsus, No Garrovick and Farrugut, Finnegan, etc. etc. as we KNEW IT). That is where Abrams and Company are taking a HUGE RISK, playing with the established (if not embedded in our brains) history. Again — if this turns out to be great storytelling, then we just might be in for a treat. If this turns out to be an “all style no substance” movie, like the recently released “The Spirit” — then G-d help us and Paramount!!!

516. thorsten - January 2, 2009

@515…

Sam, things are good, we expect Fahrenheit -4 and snow for the weekend, I just opened a bottle of ausralian Shiraz and Bill Shatner is on TV in some canadian Everest drama…

The important part for me is really that it will be a great movie… and after the 20 minutes JJ showed around, I sleep well ;))

I’ll see the premiere in Berlin on may 7 and will take a plane to JFK after that!

517. Closettrekker - January 2, 2009

#512—“And I think you are in the horns of a dilemma. ”

Hardly.

“You seem to fail to note that I have not so much been criticizing the new film, as the half-baked, and yet strangely magisterially intoned justifications of the film. In short, I am not really criticizing the film, but you. ”

I’m afraid I won’t be losing any sleep over that.

“Really? I though Kirk was a mythological figure. I thought he wasn’t real, but ideal.”

Since when does a mythological hero have to be ideal? Hercules certainly wasn’t. The last time I checked, murdering your family isn’t ideal behavior at all.

I think you are confused.

First of all, I never said Kirk was a mythological figure. I said that, more than any other characters in Star Trek, Kirk/Spock/McCoy (and to a lesser extent, Scotty) were “larger-than-life heroes”.

You are confusing my acknowledgement of the legitimacy of that perspective as a personal assertion.

“And here you effortlessly and unconsciously shift back into realism as explanation/justification.”

It has never required much effort for me to “shift back” into realism after spending any amount of time talking about fiction, nor is such effort (however miniscule) anything but conscious.

“We are suddenly whisked away from the cares of the real world and are transported back to the truism that writers can write whatever they like. And again, this point is irrelevant.”

Why? Since when do any writers of fiction have to reconcile their stories with real world science.

If you have read any of my posts on the matter, I don’t subscribe to the MWI of quantum mechanics as applicable to Star Trek (because f the inherent contradictions of that theory to previously established canon), but take solace in the notion suggested by Bob Orci that the actual story doesn’t depend upon that theory. In other words, most people will not even be aware of his commentary on its application here, and it won’t likely be in the actual film.

There are quite a creative decisions with which I do not feel I would have made at this point with regard to this story. However, the suggestion that Kirk might not be the same kind of guy at some point in this story because of different circumstances surrounding his evolution as a man isn’t one of them.

I don’t have to reconcile anything I find insignificant. It’s fiction. If the writers have him evolve into basically the same kind of captain I remember from TOS, then they don’t have to either. It’s fiction. They can do whatever they want.

I suppose I’m not following what your criticism of me is about…

518. Sam Belil - January 2, 2009

Thorsten — you saw the 20 minutes?????
Contact me when you get to NY, as I plan on taking my son to the premiere.

519. Closettrekker - January 2, 2009

#518—Thorsten actually contributed here at trekmovie.com when Abrams was showing parts of the film in Europe. His review of the 20 minutes shown was great. You should go back and give it a read.

It should be easy to find in the archives.

520. thorsten - January 2, 2009

@518…

yep, will do Sam!

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/12/report-from-jj-abrams-german-star-trek-presentation-more-movie-details/

521. thorsten - January 2, 2009

@519…
haha, thanks CT, I was just working myself through your 517 while you posted that ;))

522. Closettrekker - January 2, 2009

#521—I looked over it again too. I was “multi-tasking” when I posted that (I was on hold with a client in Dallas). I wonder what he would have thought if he knew I was having an internet discussion about Star Trek while he was considering spending a considerable amount of money with my company! Lol.

The following paragraph should have read:

“There are quite a few creative decisions which I do not feel I would have made (at this point) with regard to this story. However, the suggestion that Kirk might not be the same kind of guy at some point in this story because of different circumstances surrounding his evolution as a man isn’t something I concern myself with. The writers can easily choose to develop him into the same Captain we know and love, despite that development taking a somewhat different path.”

Sorry for the incoherent mess above.

:)

523. Vorus - January 2, 2009

@ 514

Fair enough. In the end, you’re right, only the die-hard fans will even care enough to worry about it. We’ll just have to wait and see what the film is portrayed as, before we can decide anything for certain.

524. thorsten - January 2, 2009

@522…

hmm, refurbishing the Dallas Cowboys Skybox I guess ;))

I was thinking about your 514 line “(assuming that FC/ENT did not create a new timeline to begin with)”At least we know that Scotty beamed Archers dog into the void…
and while I rechecked with Yesterdays Enterprise last week I was surprised that the Ships destination in that ep in both timelines was a system called Archer…

525. YARN - January 2, 2009

“Since when does a mythological hero have to be ideal? Hercules certainly wasn’t. The last time I checked, murdering your family isn’t ideal behavior at all.”

You are confusing the ideal of moral perfection with a character as an ideal (conceptual) object. An ideal tragic hero, for example, is not morally perfect, but will have a tragic flaw, which will often prove to be a virtue and a vice.

“First of all, I never said Kirk was a mythological figure.”

No, you said “perhaps” he is a mythological figure and then offered an argument stating that this would justify predestination. If you did not mean to contend that this was an option that deserved respectful consideration (if not endorsement), then it is baffling as to why you would go to the trouble to offer the argument.

“You are confusing my acknowledgement of the legitimacy of that perspective as a personal assertion.”

What matters is not so much whether or not you personally endorse the argument, but whether the argument is sound. I contend that the mythological explanation does not fit with the scientific explanation. I am working to eliminate this as an option one can maintain while drinking the Kool-Aid of realism (which is the claim advanced in the article of this thread).

“Why? Since when do any writers of fiction have to reconcile their stories with real world science.”

They don’t!

It is only if one claims to be writing “hard” sci-fi that such demands rest on a writer. My point is that THIS THREAD (like its sister) makes precisely this wrongheaded assumption! That is, this thread (and its sister) lamely attempts to justify the action of plot in the name of “real science.”

“If you have read any of my posts on the matter, I don’t subscribe to the MWI of quantum mechanics as applicable to Star Trek (because f the inherent contradictions of that theory to previously established canon), but take solace in the notion suggested by Bob Orci that the actual story doesn’t depend upon that theory. In other words, most people will not even be aware of his commentary on its application here, and it won’t likely be in the actual film.”

But you do defend the plausibility of that explanation, in general (outside of Trek), and you are very quick to import the scientific ideas about human development as justification (i.e., nature vs. nuture). The category error occurs when you justify narrative development in terms of “real world” scientific accounts of human development. On the one hand, you disavow the responsibility of writers to write in these terms (above), but then you justify their choices in precisely these terms.

“There are quite a creative decisions with which I do not feel I would have made at this point with regard to this story. However, the suggestion that Kirk might not be the same kind of guy at some point in this story because of different circumstances surrounding his evolution as a man isn’t one of them.”

You offer two reason why this is not a concern:
1. Kirk “may” be a mythological hero and therefore would be exempt from such realistic implications (a posit which you are confident enough to suggest, but not to stand behind).

2. Environmental determinism would still account for the similarity of character (a posit which you do appear to have enough confidence to endorse).

Since, #1 is incompatible with #2, we cannot endorse both views simultaneously.

“I don’t have to reconcile anything I find insignificant. It’s fiction. If the writers have him evolve into basically the same kind of captain I remember from TOS, then they don’t have to either. It’s fiction. They can do whatever they want.”

Again, we return to the truism that writers can write whatever they please – which is the very source of the concern that motivates our discussion.
Could they do anything with the character of Capt. Kirk and receive your rubber-stamp approval? After all, they can do whatever they please… …they are the writers.

“I suppose I’m not following what your criticism of me is about…”

I am not interested in criticizing you so much as the hasty apologies for a movie that hasn’t even been released yet. I have high hopes for the film, but I am baffled by the dogmatic insistence that everyone must appraise the artwork as “probably very good” before it is even released.

What I didn’t like in your “mythology” post was that it dovetailed a little too nicely with Orci’s quasi-scientific fatalism. I think we need to keep our reasons clears, which means keeping our categories straight.

I think you generally make good sense when you argue in aesthetic terms (i.e., whether or not we should worry is not related to canon so much as quality).

526. Sam Belil - January 2, 2009

Thank you Thorsten — and keep warm this weekend!

527. Closettrekker - January 2, 2009

#525–” I am not interested in criticizing you …”

I guess that clears that up, although it seems a bit contradictory to this:

” In short, I am not really criticizing the film, but you. ”

Here was the context of the comment you initally responded to:

CT: “My wish was always for more stories involving the original characters.”

(post #348): “Well you didn’t get that with this movie as far as I can eee. All you have is “re-envisioned, reinvented , reimagined,” versions of the originals that exist in some alternate timeline.”

CT (post #375): “That’s up to the writers, isn’t it? After all, these are not actual historical figures, but fictional characters in a story.

What if James T. Kirk is as Nick Meyer described him to be—a mythological hero?

Are such heroes not subject to a degree of predestination?

What if, despite the somewhat different circumstances created by the timeline incursion of 2233, JTK evolves into the same courageous, loyal, brash, passionate, romantic hero he always was?

Perhaps Nero, despite all of his efforts to alter the course of history, cannot (whether that is his specific intention or not) be successful in preventing James T. Kirk from evolving into the hero he is destined to become.

The original characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and (even) Scotty have always been larger-than-life heroes. The same could not be said for their Berman-era successors in 24th Century Star Trek. Those characters (particularly the “Big Three”) are special.

I have no problem (in a fictional context) buying the premise that no set of altered circumstances could prevent their evolution into the heroic figures I knew as a child.”

Where, in the context of all of that, is my supposed support of Orci’s MWI or the scientific “realism” applicable to this film?

I have *never* listed scientific realism as a requirement for my enjoyment of Star Trek. That enjoyment has *always* been dependant upon suspension of disbelief.

“What I didn’t like in your “mythology” post was that it dovetailed a little too nicely with Orci’s quasi-scientific fatalism. I think we need to keep our reasons clears, which means keeping our categories straight. ”

Like “nature vs. nurture”?

I can admire stories which advocate one or the other, but I do not personally find that they must be mutually exclusive.

For instance, a man can be genetically predisposed to certain behavior, and yet still be equally influenced by the presence of outside factors.

I think that such is the case with James T. Kirk. I think he is predisposed to being an “alpha”. Now, of course, that doesn’t make him a hero. An individual who is predisposed to being a leader can just as easily succumb to a path of villainy or even unused or unrealized potential.

I think that, whether he arrives on his path by means of Taursus, the Farrgut, the Republic, etc., or by means of an intervention by a mentor (not to mention by a man–Nimoy’s Spock—who knows exactly where this man needs to be in his life), Jim Kirk can still arrive upon the same path to becoming the hero the story requires him to be.

The entire point of the “mythological hero” post was merely to point out that—if a writer were to choose such a perspective on that character—it wouldn’t be unprecedented with specific regard to that character, nor would I have a problem embracing that perspective. That’s all. There was nothing more to it than that.

I wouldn’t know if that is the perspective taken by Orci and Kurtzman. I never suggested that it was.

528. Closettrekker - January 2, 2009

#524—“hmm, refurbishing the Dallas Cowboys Skybox I guess ;))”

I wish! I could use an infusion of some of that Jerry Jones money!

“…while I rechecked with Yesterdays Enterprise last week I was surprised that the Ships destination in that ep in both timelines was a system called Archer.”

Archer IV was the destination in both timelines, as I recall.

I wonder if that was sheer coincidence, or if the show’s producers already had a name in mind for an important character to be used in a prequel series at a later date, and chose to name that system in honor of that person.

529. thorsten - January 2, 2009

@528…

you are right, CT…

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Archer_IV

530. Vorus - January 2, 2009

@528

I’ve always figured that the creators of ENT chose the name Archer to go with that planet, since it is one of the few planets with a human-sounding name. That way, they could point to that episode and claim inter-series continuity. But I don’t know how accurate that assumption is.

531. Alex Rosenzweig - January 2, 2009

#527 – “What if, despite the somewhat different circumstances created by the timeline incursion of 2233, JTK evolves into the same courageous, loyal, brash, passionate, romantic hero he always was?

Perhaps Nero, despite all of his efforts to alter the course of history, cannot (whether that is his specific intention or not) be successful in preventing James T. Kirk from evolving into the hero he is destined to become.”

This does dovetail in some senses with Abrams’s assertion that the characters are still intended to be the people from TOS, even if some of the backstory has been altered. It’s also the underpinning of one of my thoughts that perhaps the actual degree of variance between the timelines is relatively minor. That still would rely upon a commitment from the writers to not decide that they can just keep on ignoring what’s previously established, though.

532. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 3, 2009

#530: Actually, it was apparently a total accident–the “Strange New Worlds” planet remained unnamed for nearly four years after its original airdate, when Mike Sussman, doing production art for “In A Mirror, Darkly”, got a bright idea and wrote the connection into canon.

http://web.mac.com/mike.sussman/mikesussman/IAMDArcherbio1.html

533. thorsten - January 3, 2009

@533…

Thanks, James, just what I expected,
but good thinking on Sussmans part

;))

534. thorsten - January 3, 2009

Frelling self-referenced myself again…

;))

535. Christopher Valin - January 3, 2009

I realize I’m coming in really late to this party, but I have to mention that I love the idea that McCoy created the Mirror Universe by saving Edith Keeler. In fact, I thought I had come up with it when I wrote my first entry in the Kirk vs. Picard FanLib contest (which Mr. Bormanis played a big part in), but later discovered the concept had been around for a while.

And I didn’t read all 500+ postings above, but I did read a lot of them and I didn’t see anything mentioned about this: Could there be a fundamental difference between the multiverses being created as a normal part of physics (every time a new decision is made, it creates two universes where each option was chosen), a la “Paralells,” and someone going back in time along their OWN timeline and changing it, as in “City on the Edge of Forever” and “Yesterday’s Enterprise?” Could this explain the discrepancy between the creation of (or travel between) alternate timelines in some instances and the overwriting of history in others?

536. Christopher Valin - January 3, 2009

I forgot to mention that I don’t think the opening credits to “In a Mirror, Darkly” contradict the COTEF/Mirror theory, even if they’re taken as canon. There were certainly many instances of ships fighting one another in the Age of Sail in our history that we dont’ have to assume that it was a depiction of an alternate universe. After all, that footage all appeared to exist from old films or TV shows that WERE showing our history.

537. Closettrekker - January 3, 2009

#535 and #536—I think that the COTEOF/Mirror Universe notion holds water, so long as you subscribe to the “Many Worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, suggesting that a new timeline could have been created while the other continued unmolested.

The problem with that, for me, is that it seems rather canonically contradicting.

If the creation of a new timeline would not interrupt the other, then why would Kirk and Spock need to “repair” the damage that McCoy had done in the first place?

Why was the Enterprise no longer in orbit?

MMI would seem to suggest that, while a new timeline might have been created by McCoy’s actions, the one in which the UFP existed should have continued as it was…

I have always viewed the “Mirror Universe” as having nothing to do with alternate timelines—but an alternate dimension, accidentally stumbled upon during an ion storm and a strange convirgence of circumstances…

538. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 3, 2009

#535: I’ll second what Closet said, but I’m really posting to say Whoo! Another refugee from the KvP FanLib contest! Virtual High Five!

I feel like I read a COTEF/Mirror story during that contest, actually. What was your screenname? And did you ever make the finals?

539. Christopher Valin - January 3, 2009

High Five backatcha, Wowbagger– I remember you well. My screenname was cvalin, and I won Week Three with the notorious introduction of Gary Seven and the self-destruct cliffhanger (which people seemed to either love or hate).

My Week One entry switched back and forth between the Prime Universe and the Mirror Universe, with a landing party in each and the Guardian perceiving both at the same time, which was what was causing its malfunction (in my version of the Mirror Universe, this was when Kirk assasinated Pike).

I realize Andre Bormanis probably knew about the Mirror/COTEF theory before, but since he was part of that contest, I couldn’t help but wonder if he was thinking about my story when he mentioned it above…

540. Vorus - January 3, 2009

@ 537

I agree with you on the Mirror Universe thing. I don’t think that it was “created” by anything or anyone from any other universe. I think it simply represents an alternate reality. Granted, it seems connected somehow to our own, (I figure it must be, how else do you explain that the same people keep being born?) but I don’t think it is a “branch” off our own universe.

My personal theory is that the MU represents the way things would have worked out if Picard and Co. hadn’t shown up in Montana in 2063. (Thus the ST:FC storyline is a case of a “predestination paradox, in my mind.) Without that intervention, Cochrane, either because of being a grumpy old man, or thanks to being wasted on booze, kills the Vulcans and loots their ship, as seen in ENT “In a Mirror, Darkly”. I agree with #536, all of the footage in the opening credits that predates 2063 also happened in our universe, so it can’t be taken as evidence of an earlier time of divergence.

Plus, why else was that in that episode, except to finally show us where the Mirror Universe began to be vastly different than our own?

541. Sam Belil - January 3, 2009

All this alternate reality, alternate universer stuff, making me so crazy — and the hit me!!! Think about the STOS episode “Mirror Mirror”, it was not alternate universe OR alternate reality — it was in fact a PARALLEL UNIVERSE, just go to the DVD when Kirk figures out. The TNG episode “Parallels” is again (seems almost too obvious) many parallel universes and NOT alernate universes/alternate realities. So this tells me that the 45+ year universe that we are so very familiar with will be in fact ALTERED.

Yes it will be a different Kirk, why do I say that — from Thorsten’s review (and please correct me if I’m wrong), he says to the nurse in sick bay “Hi Honey” — which tells me that the “new Kirk” is dabgerously flirtatious. NOW — go back to any episode of TOS, NOT once did we see Kirk act out like some “uber-stud” at a some night club with the ladies. Yes he was flirtatious, but we was flirtatious in almost a respectful manner. I don’t have the time to list all the episodes — just for example look how he treated Marlena Moruea in “Mirror Mirror”. That is the the Kirk we know and love — NOT ONE who says to a nurse “hi honey”. For that alone I am concerned. Vorus/Thorsten, what do you think????

542. Xai - January 3, 2009

#541Sam

I am not Vorus or Thorsten, but I’ll offer…… age and “seasoning” and weigh of command has sobered many men.

Trek, even TOS alone, has offered parallel universes before that didn’t effect the “prime” timeline. I don’t see why some people are having difficulty accepting the writers explanation of a divergent universe formed by Nero. And prime Spock could have just followed in his “wake”. Why this concerns Spock will be explained..

543. Xai - January 3, 2009

541

I am pushing fifty and some things I’ve said or done as a young man I wouldn’t do now. The phrase “young and stupid” is no lie.

544. Vorus - January 3, 2009

@541

Like you, that aspect worries me a little. I don’t want to see some punk kid that I loathe, I want to see the serious-minded Kirk that was known to carry a stack of books, and who idolized Capt Garth as someone to be imitated.

However, I can also believe that he’d be like that to some extent. After all, he’s successful in classes, a born alpha-male, good looking, confident. In most young men, those qualities would breed no small measure of “look at me, I’m so hot” arrogance.

So while I don’t want to see it overdone, I think some level of smug flirtation is acceptable for the character. As long as he grows out of it like he obviously had in TOS.

545. Sam Belil - January 3, 2009

Thanks Xai — and like said before I have always respected your opinions and your passion. BTW, I happen to be 47 years old, so I know where you coming from.

Hey Vorus — Lets just pray that this will be James T. Kirk and not James “Teen” Kirk. Yes I agree for the most part Kirk is an alpha-male, but I have always seen his character as more of an “Officer and Gentlemen”. Yes — he is confident, but not OVERLY-confident — he is a human with fears and some self-doubt (refer to “Ultimate Computer”, “Enemy Within”, “Obsession” and STIIISFS). Kirk in TOS was confident NOT brash. Again — this a fear and I HOPE that will be put to rest on “Judgement Day”.
BEST REGARDS TO ALL!!

546. Alex Rosenzweig - January 3, 2009

#540 – ‘I agree with #536, all of the footage in the opening credits that predates 2063 also happened in our universe, so it can’t be taken as evidence of an earlier time of divergence.”

I took the shot of the astronaut on the moon planting a Terran Empire flag to be equivalent to the Apollo 11 landing, myself. That’d be well before 2063.

547. James Heaney - Wowbagger - January 3, 2009

#546: Here’s a fun question for everyone: are theme songs canon?

DUM DUM DUUUUUUUUM!

#539: cvalin! I always *wondered* how that was pronounced! Not trying to do it as a single word helps a lot! Anyhow, it’s good to see you again; hopefully you’ll be hanging out around TM.com comment threads in the future. I hope you enjoyed your well-deserved Macbook and the envy of all who looked upon you. Oh, and making all our lives crazy during week four. :P

You wouldn’t happen to have a copy of the finished script, would you? I’ve gone without one ever since FanLib shut down.

548. thorsten - January 4, 2009

@541…

Sam, we certainly see Jim Kirk as a womanizer…
At the bar in Iowa with no idea what to do with his life, he tries to land with Uhura… but ends up with Pike. From the trailer we know about his relationship with her roommate later in academy, and finally, when McCoy smuggles him aboard the Enterprise he flirts with a nurse, up to his ears full of alien virus and Bones drugs.
Jim Kirk 09 is a ladies man like his 66 version, but he will mature for sure.
As a photojournalist I used the Kirk approach all the time ;))

549. thorsten - January 4, 2009

And our Kirk, firguring out what went on in Mirror, Mirror…

Not our universe, not our ship.
Something …
parallel.
A parallel universe coexisting with ours
on another dimensional plane.

550. Christopher Valin - January 4, 2009

547 – James/Wowbagger–I’ve actually been around for a couple of years, but I’ve only posted maybe a dozen times. But I check this site constantly, as I’m heavily addicted to any news about the new film.

Enjoying the MacBook a lot, thanks!

I thought I’d saved the KvP script somewhere, but I can’t seem to find it. I know I have my 1/4 of it (Part 3), and I’m sure I can get a hold of Part 2, since I’m in contact with esr960. I’ll ask him if he has the whole thing. E-mail me and I’ll see if I can get it to you (cvalin@aol.com).

551. YARN - January 4, 2009

527. Closettrekker – January 2, 2009

#525–” I am not interested in criticizing you …”
I guess that clears that up, although it seems a bit contradictory to this:

” In short, I am not really criticizing the film, but you. ”

It certainly looks that way when you cherry pick the original.

What I said in post 525 was “I am not interested in criticizing you so much as the hasty apologies for a movie that hasn’t even been released yet.”
Taken in its full context, there is no contradiction. The clause “so much as” indicates that I have a deeper interest. Another way of reading it is as saying, “I am much more interested in criticizing hasty apologies for a movie that hasn’t even been released yet.”

Since you post so often you present a familiar and representative set of examples of the trend with which I wish to take issue. When I say that I am criticizing you and not the film, and then offer the clarification, what I am saying is that my criticism of you is an instrumental means for me to make a critique of the outright rejection of dissent, questioning, and concern about the new film.

552. YARN - January 4, 2009

# 527

“The entire point of the “mythological hero” post was merely to point out that—if a writer were to choose such a perspective on that character—it wouldn’t be unprecedented with specific regard to that character, nor would I have a problem embracing that perspective. That’s all. There was nothing more to it than that.”

Then you have retreated even further than you did beforehand. When I initially pressed you on this point, you declared that you had no personal commitment to the hypothesis. Now you claim to assert this a mere factual possibility.

In the context of your earlier conversation, you were responding to the charge that the new characters are merely “re-invented, re-booted, re-imagined.” In the context of your conversation it is obvious that such a dilution of these characters (by whichever of the “R-word’s” we take to be operative) would be a BAD thing. That is, this was offered as a criticism, not an observation. In response, it would seem that you would be offering reasons indicating why this would not be a BAD thing.

Hence, we were off to the land of mythology. If there is nothing bad about mythological characters being diffuse, and if Trek’s characters are mythological, it would seem that there is nothing bad about re-booting-re-envisioning, re-imagining (pick an R).*(see next post)

When I pressed you about it – you emphasized that this is merely a perspective one “might” take. That is, this is not YOUR rejoinder to the accusation of dilution and alteration of the characters, but a reason one could use to challenge the idea that these characters should not change.

Now, you have retreated even more. Effectively, you are saying, “Hey, I am not saying that this is a good thing, I am merely observing that if a writer chooses to view Trek mythologically, then it makes sense that they would write the characters this way.” But this fails to answer the question of whether or not this is a GOOD thing to do. You merely make the rather obvious point that if one chooses to view things this way, then they will act accordingly. You say that you have no problem with this, but you don’t tell us why YOU don’t have a problem with it – what’s missing is the argument that supplies the response to your interlocutor. The only argument we have (in the context of this sequence) Trek = mythology and mythology allows for change is one which you have refused to claim as “your” reason for accepting the changes as good.

553. Databrain - January 4, 2009

551:

Sometimes I wonder if some of the people here work within the ranks. This is not merely a position of paranoia but a logical acknowledgment that, if and where there is such a strong voice against dissent, it must mean that certain individuals fear their interests being ideologically pummeled. It makes no sense for anyone but those involved, deductively speaking, to be so upset. But of course, I am basing this assessment upon logic, even if this assessment is circumstantially incomplete.

554. YARN - January 4, 2009

#527 Cont.

*But you didn’t stop there. You went on to talk about how predestination also makes sense in “mythology” writing, “Are such heroes not subject to a degree of predestination?”

You also wrote, “Take the Greek mythological figure of Perseus, for example. Acrisius, upon discovering that his unborn grandson was destined to kill him, took drastic measures to ensure that it could never happen (short of angering the Gods by murdering his own pregnant daughter). Despite everything he tried to do in order to cheat that fate, Perseus would eventually cause his death, albeit accidentally.”

What are we to make of these lines? They don’t offer a reason why the big R’s (reimagining, rebooting, envisionin) are a bad thing.

Instead, this appears to be a response to the plausibility objection that some have made about Kirk’s new and arguably dubious path to captaincy. The “official” response we got on this front was from Orci himself who suggested that MWI would present us universes in which Kirk (on average) would be captain. I objected (more than once) that this conflates fatalism with actual science. Here you appear to defend the film on the grounds that, as mythology, Kirk’s rise to power can be viewed as predestination (apparently, Trek is not just mythology, but something like Greek mythology which has an ontological commitment to predestination). And this is why I pointed out that Greek fatalism (as explanation of why Kirk is destined to become captain) is incompatible with a “realistic” account of why Kirk becomes captain (which apparently is the grail of Orci and others wishing to appease angry canonistas).

If you were up to something else here, you are invited to explain how these remarks were intended to be read.

555. Sam Belil - January 4, 2009

Thank You Thorsten — and that is an important quote to be cognizant of ..
“A PARALLEL universe COEXISTING with ours
on another dimensional plane” …. again not sound like a broken record, NOT an alternate universe/timeline.

556. YARN - January 4, 2009

“551: Sometimes I wonder if some of the people here work within the ranks. This is not merely a position of paranoia but a logical acknowledgment that, if and where there is such a strong voice against dissent, it must mean that certain individuals fear their interests being ideologically pummeled. It makes no sense for anyone but those involved, deductively speaking, to be so upset. But of course, I am basing this assessment upon logic, even if this assessment is circumstantially incomplete.”

Either way, it appears to be motivated by a felt need for solidarity. That such a need is felt indicates that there is something valuable which may be lost if such solidarity is not achieved. The most obvious candidate for concern is that without support and solidarity the film might not succeed.

If the demand for solidarity is simply a way for hard core Trekkies to project good will and hope for the film’s success, it may (on occasion) be obnoxious, but is not a cause for alarm. There is a sense in which we might interpret this as a demand for politeness and gratitude for the big-wigs who actually look at this site (like Orci). This does not concern me so much.

What concerns me is that it may be (to a greater extent than is outwardly apparent) the filmmakers who are concerned that there is a need for solidarity and that the pressure is (to a significant extent) coming from the top-down. If so, this troubles me, because it may be an indication that the film really is not so “out of this world” that they are sure it will be a hit and that they reallize that they are going to have to market this thing carefully to get a big opening weekend before the general public realizes it’s a stinkbomb (or perhaps just a yawn).

I think one thing we all have in common is that we want the film to be a success. For actual fans, we want a succesful film that is also good and is recognizably “Trek.” The suits who are producing the film would be happy to escape with a tidy profit, but we all hope for a success. And to this extent, I think there is universal good will (despite all the bickering).

557. Sam Belil - January 4, 2009

#556-Yarn, all good points especially this one …

“I think one thing we all have in common is that we want the film to be a success. For actual fans, we want a succesful film that is also good and is recognizably “Trek.” The suits who are producing the film would be happy to escape with a tidy profit, but we all hope for a success. And to this extent, I think there is universal good will (despite all the bickering)”

My concern are the “suits who hope to escape with a tidy profit”. As I have stated many times before this movie can be a critical bomb and money maker at the same time, CONVERSELY it can be a criticalm success and a financial bomb. “Judgement Day” will be very interesting and hopefully WE ALL WIN!!!

558. thorsten - January 4, 2009

@555… thanks Sam,
rest assured, it will be a success, at the box office and with the critics.
I talked to Paramount International VP Rob Moore, and he told me that the suits are happy with the movie, and confident about the work of Orci, Abrams and the rest. And I am a hardcore trekkie, and I saw the outtakes. Everything will be fine.

559. Sam Belil - January 4, 2009

#558 — Thorsten, coming from you I will take that as “Gold”.
Like I stated regardless of our respective opinions/concerns — any Star Trek fan, be it AVID, CASUAL, etc — should WANT THIS MOVIE to SUCCEED!!! Have a great week!!!

560. Xai - January 4, 2009

I find the expressed concern that certain posters (other than Orci) slightly silly.

561. YARN - January 4, 2009

I find the expressed concern that certain posters (other than Orci) slightly silly.

?????

562. Xai - January 4, 2009

My post was incomplete… it should have read..

” I find the expressed concern that certain posters (other than Orci) work for the studio, or are members of the production staff, slightly silly”

563. thorsten - January 5, 2009

Lost will return, Wednesday January 21 at 9 Eastern on ABC…

don’t miss this line uttered from Daniel Faraday to Sawyer “You have no idea how difficult it would be for me to explain this phenomenon to a quantum physicist…”

564. Xai - January 5, 2009

I love Lost.
……………………………………………

And I disavow any link thought to be between myself and the production or promotion of this film.

No pay, no perks…. (sigh)

565. Closettrekker - January 5, 2009

“Now, you have retreated even more. Effectively, you are saying, ‘Hey, I am not saying that this is a good thing, I am merely observing that if a writer chooses to view Trek mythologically, then it makes sense that they would write the characters this way.’
But this fails to aswer the question of whether or not this is a good thing to do”.

It was never my intention to answer that question to begin with. Once again, you are completely ignoring the context in which the “mythology” comment was made. And yet, ironically, you feel completely comfortable in accusing ‘me’ of cherry-picking.

I find that rather funny.

There was never a ‘position’ from which to “retreat”. You simply took more from that post than was ever intended.

You’re trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and you’ve yet to make clear the reason why. If it makes you feel better—I give up. I’ll concede the imaginary argument…whatever it was…

566. YARN - January 5, 2009

562. Xai – January 4, 2009

” I find the expressed concern that certain posters (other than Orci) work for the studio, or are members of the production staff, slightly silly”

Is it? If so, it is only slightly silly. There are people who are paid to post in various forums.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_marketing

I don’t imagine that we are debating corporate vice presidents, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have the occasional marketing lackey hyping things up.

567. YARN - January 5, 2009

565. Closettrekker – January 5, 2009

“It was never my intention to answer that question to begin with. Once again, you are completely ignoring the context in which the “mythology” comment was made. And yet, ironically, you feel completely comfortable in accusing ‘me’ of cherry-picking.

I find that rather funny.”

OK, it just seems to me that my interpretation of your speech-act was the most plasuble given the context of your utterance. Again, why else bring up the predestination/fatalism unless it is in support of Orci’s riffing on these themes and (plausibly) a response to my criticism of fatalism via quantum mechanics.

“There was never a ‘position’ from which to “retreat”. You simply took more from that post than was ever intended.”

OK, but what were you driving at? I apologize if I was over hasty in interpretation, but I still don’t see what else you might have been saying.

“You’re trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, and you’ve yet to make clear the reason why. If it makes you feel better—I give up. I’ll concede the imaginary argument…whatever it was…”

If you are genuinely confused, I am willing to work through it again.

568. Closettrekker - January 5, 2009

#567—-The only thing I was ever “driving at” was an answer to the notion that ‘a set of altered circumstances surrounding the development of one of these characters would result in that character being a different person altogether’ as an absolute in fiction.

I pointed to the perspective taken by a past writer/director (Nick Meyer) as an example of a situation where that might not be the case.

That was the extent of it. Nothing more. There was nothing else to be taken from it.

Let it go.

569. Xai - January 5, 2009

566. YARN – January 5, 2009

I am aware of what you mean, I am in advertising, but I don’t see it happening here. It’s only effective if done over a long term (like any advertising), not just one or two posts. I’ve been here awhile and I only see a couple “suspects” and I’m one of them. I work in newspaper advertising in a middle-sized midwestern paper, not an agency hired by the producers or the studio. I wish I could get paid to talk on here, but it’s not happening. I know what the other suspect does for a living as well, and he’s not a marketing ghost.
Despite what you may think of this movie, I genuinely feel it’s on a positive track and the studio “shills” you think may inhabit the woodwork aren’t at work here. If anything, I think we have a small, vocal, anti-movie faction with their own agenda. Lord knows what they, if real, represent.

570. YARN - January 5, 2009

“#567—-The only thing I was ever “driving at” was an answer to the notion that ‘a set of altered circumstances surrounding the development of one of these characters would result in that character being a different person altogether’ as an absolute in fiction.”

OK, then my analysis in post #525 was correct after all.

You were arguing for (the possibility of) a sort of mytholgical “geneticism” (the “DNA” in this instance not being in the cells, but in the essence of the character) alongside scientific environmental determinism (the latter interpretation being the one you support).

It’s not nearly as simple as you claim, but is rather sophisticated when you put it in perspective. You can’t, after all, simply make both claims simultaneously because of ontological incompatibilities. And you don’t, but hold out the former as a mere possibility. It’s a sort of heding argument.

“I pointed to the perspective taken by a past writer/director (Nick Meyer) as an example of a situation where that might not be the case.”

But the crucial question is whether or not “mythology” is a get out of jail free card. I don’t think you could simply depict ANY set of events leading up to Kirk’s coronation as Capt. and have this work.

EXAMPLE:

“Hey, in this version, Kirk’s environment is altered such that he never learns to read or even attends school (he is abducted by Nero at birth and delivered to an alien planet). He sews Mackaloc quilts with the blind children of Tarsus 7. Once, however, he is randomly beamed aboard the Enterprise, he “becomes” Kirk!”

I don’t think you could plausibly argue with regard to the above case, well HE IS KIRK and KIRK IS MYTHOLOGICAL and get away with it. Part of what makes a character’s mythology is the backstory. Part of what makes Oedipus Oedipus is the prophecy and the peculiar arrangements of his childhood. And if part of the mythology IS the backstory, then messing with the backstory IS messing with the mythology.

But hey, let’s get real. Kirk’s essential backstory is basically that he was an ambitious and capable youth who rose quickly through the ranks of the academy and Starfleet. As far as I can see, this part of the backstory is still entact, yes? Sure, no biggee.

One the ohter hand, since we are being shown AN ORIGIN STORY, Kirk’s backstory is NOT the in background, but is rather the foreground. It is being brought forward – and this means that the story itself has to hang together. It has to ring true with what we would expect of similar stories and it needs to be internally consistent.

You couldn’t tell the story of Oedipus without the prophesy (otherwise people would say, “What the heck was his motivation to flee?) and what is the prophesy but an example of an environmental determinant? Consequently, the story itself has to deliver the goods.

I don’t think the mythology hypothesis would cut the mustard in the final analysis.

“That was the extent of it. Nothing more. There was nothing else to be taken from it.

Let it go.”

I might say the same to you with your endless wrangling with all dissenters.

571. YARN - January 5, 2009

XAI,

“Despite what you may think of this movie, I genuinely feel it’s on a positive track and the studio “shills” you think may inhabit the woodwork aren’t at work here.”

Probably not, but then again, I would not fall out of my seat if I found out that there were a few plants attempting to create as much positive buzz as possible.

I think that it is much more likely that if there is any pressure it is a sort of trickle down peer pressure. That is, the site gets updated with information with the understanding (implicit or explicit) that the site will be friendly to the new movie. Ditto for interviews. This translates into moderator/adiministrator pressure to not only be nice, but be positive, and this, in turn, establishes a norm which folks like yourself seek to enforce. And again, it’s not a nefarious thing. To the extent that it is a demand for politeness, it’s well-warranted.

What genuinely concerns me is that folks who don’t tow the party line don’t seem to fare well in these threaded discussions.

“If anything, I think we have a small, vocal, anti-movie faction with their own agenda. Lord knows what they, if real, represent.”

They represent fear. Fear that the film won’t be good. Fear that the film might succeed but that Trek become something alien in the process. It sounds cool to say, “This ain’t your father’s Star Trek”, unless of course you are that father or mother. Change always produces anxiety – it is baffling that you claim to be incapable of identifying with your opposition.

572. Xai - January 5, 2009

#571 Yarn
“They represent fear. Fear that the film won’t be good. Fear that the film might succeed but that Trek become something alien in the process. It sounds cool to say, “This ain’t your father’s Star Trek”, unless of course you are that father or mother. Change always produces anxiety – it is baffling that you claim to be incapable of identifying with your opposition.”

_ I cannot rule out this film may tank. Like you, we only know bits and pieces. But I prefer cautious optimism. I’ve lived with fear far worse than the possibility that this movie may fail. I see good things in the bits and pieces so far.
My father’s Trek is mine. I sat on my father’s lap watching with him in the sixties and got a better understanding of Trek in the 70’s when I’d sprint home to watch the reruns after school, complete with Mom’s peanut butter cookies.
My father now waits as I do to see what has happened with the characters that “boldly” entertained us years ago. He wants to see this next step in the legend. He’s not afraid. Sometimes things have to change a little to live on.. better and stronger. I want Trek to live on as close as possible to it’s origins as well, but change was inevitable. Small steps began with TMP.

I don’t have an “opposition” here. I take that back..I do.
I have been adamant in stating that people shouldn’t prejudge this film. I oppose that because I see possibilities and I’d hate to have a fellow fan miss out. Assuming the worst usually gets you exactly what you were expecting.

Regarding the “plants” in the posters here…if they are here they have hidden well and their voices are not ringing out above the clutter, nor are they memorable. If they are not consistent, they are not effective. One commercial or ad does not make an effective campaign. Who are the theoretical shills here in your opinion? If you’d not like to say, I still would like to know and I can give an email addy to save your face if you prefer.

As for the rest of your theory of complicity between this site and the studio/production team you need to ask Anthony. I’m not privy to that, but I see no evidence to confirm it. If it were my site, I’d be p*ssed as hell at you for implying it.
And pressure to be polite and positive? If there is any it must be nearly viral. Sorry, no… can’t agree. I want people to discuss and consider, not be confrontational or assume things. But that’s me… not a puppet-master pulling a string.

573. Xai - January 5, 2009

YARN

I almost neglected this statement.
“What genuinely concerns me is that folks who don’t tow the party line don’t seem to fare well in these threaded discussions.”

It’s been my experience that some, not all, of the posters you describe come in and create a post with far too much attitude, far too many assumptions and want to be confrontational. That seems to raise the concerns of the site owner. We have other posters… Stanky… for example, that are completely against the whole thing. He says his peace, calls no names and makes his point without hammering. He’s never been scolded or banned by Anthony as far as I know.

574. Closettrekker - January 6, 2009

#570—-” I don’t think you could simply depict ANY set of events leading up to Kirk’s coronation as Capt. and have this work.”

Nor do I, but I think there are numerous sets of events which could be depicted that lead to very much the same thing. I see multiple means to that end.

“It’s not nearly as simple as you claim, but is rather sophisticated when you put it in perspective. You can’t, after all, simply make both claims simultaneously because of ontological incompatibilities. And you don’t, but hold out the former as a mere possibility. It’s a sort of heding argument. ”

It’s not so much a ‘hedging argument’ as it is an acknowledgement that I have no clue as to their approach, and that I find both approaches equally legitimate in fiction.

My #375 post only claimed that the other poster’s assertion was not an absolute, and that there was precedent to the classification of Kirk as a “mythological” hero-type.
Other than the dismissal of that as an “absolute”, there was no position taken on my part at all.

575. YARN - January 6, 2009

“It’s been my experience that some, not all, of the posters you describe come in and create a post with far too much attitude, far too many assumptions and want to be confrontational. That seems to raise the concerns of the site owner. We have other posters… Stanky… for example, that are completely against the whole thing. He says his peace, calls no names and makes his point without hammering. He’s never been scolded or banned by Anthony as far as I know.”

Well, I can’t vouch for all posters, especially not the nefarious league of “some” posters who are out and out trolls.

What I can say is that when some “other” posters voice concerns, that they should not immediately corrected, silenced, or otherwise shut down.
I have had occasion here to express and see others express concerns/ criticisms, only to be called a canonista or lifeless geek or jerk and told that only happy shiny boppy strictly pro-movie dialogue is appropriate. One should not have to be subjected to ad hominem attacks for merely voicing opinions, concerns, and questions.

576. Anthony Pascale - January 6, 2009

i have not read all the above posts, but i was emailed and asked about the notion that there could be marketing people here. There is no sockpuppeting going on here from Paramount or CBS, they have no need to do that and everyone I have talked to say they like to read the dialog. I have spotted and stopped sockpuppeting before on this site and others for other things that we have reported on.

Bear in mind that comments are just a tiny fraction of the overall traffic of any website, this one included. Companies are far more interested in the articles than they are in the comments, here and elsewhere.

577. Xai - January 6, 2009

#575 YARN

Are you saying that there is an effort to shut down other opinions?
We have plenty of posts that are “not toeing the company line” as you like to say. Who’s shutting them down? For example, I see Vorus in the posts above questioning several things, or Databrain… did someone put pressure on them or ban them? I cited what I’ve seen. I can’t speak beyond my experience

578. YARN - January 6, 2009

“Who are the theoretical shills here in your opinion? If you’d not like to say, I still would like to know and I can give an email addy to save your face if you prefer.”

I don’t think in particular here is a likely plant – I just said that I would not die of shock if there were stealth marketing on this (or any other) website.
You did suggest yourself earlier as a suspicious character, so if I were being waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay, I guess I had have to give you up as a suspect. : )

“As for the rest of your theory of complicity between this site and the studio/production team you need to ask Anthony. I’m not privy to that, but I see no evidence to confirm it. If it were my site, I’d be p*ssed as hell at you for implying it.”

But I didn’t imply it – I simply gave you a “just so” story indicating how indirect influence is just as (if not more than) plausible as the theory of direct influence. You don’t have to put on a tin hat and worry that every other poster is a marketing rep, to plausibly suppose the existence of some variety of influence.

I have also speculated that the influence is also plausibly at “bottom-up” phenomenon, in which case it is the posters who are the primary source of agency/causality.

As for Anthony’s alleged outrage at these suggestions, you can always tattle, if the spirit moves you. Maybe I’ll catch a ban?

579. YARN - January 6, 2009

Xai,

Awesome! You actually tattled over a hypothetical suggestion (made in response to you calling another poster’s idea “silly”) made in the dying embers of a thread on page 2. Wow.

At any rate, I don’t think I am crazy, because I have had other posters note that they have felt marginalized for voicing criticisms, concerns, and questions. It’s a plea for tolerance – not for trolls, but merely for dissent.

“We have plenty of posts that are “not toeing the company line” as you like to say. Who’s shutting them down?”

You and Closettrekker are giving it your best effort. I didn’t say that Anthony was running aroung recklessly with the ban hammer, but rather that fellow posters have been a little too quick to attempt to close off controversy, doubt, and concern. It would be nice to be able to voice an honest opinion without being labeled as an apostate or canonista, continuista, or whatever pejorative neologism springs to mind.

580. Xai - January 6, 2009

Y#579 Yarn,

“Awesome! You actually tattled over a hypothetical suggestion (made in response to you calling another poster’s idea “silly”) made in the dying embers of a thread on page 2. Wow. ”

Glad you enjoyed, but I have better things to do. I suggested you ask Anthony. It was not me. How do I know it wasn’t you?
Regarding the effort you think Closet and I put forth to shut down dissent, I can only speak for myself and again…. no. And in my opinion, Closet does a great job of bringing up points regarding the subject and questioning the statements of others, but that’s lively debate, not an attempt to shut anyone down.
Two posters on this site could not possibly do what you accuse us of. We couldn’t even dent the flow if we wanted. And it seems like you have had plenty of opportunity to voice your opinion. If you want to complain, give Anthony a call…. or an email.

581. YARN - January 6, 2009

Xai,

This thread is dead and off topic. We’re producing more heat than light now.

I’m signing off.

582. Xai - January 6, 2009

ok, I’ll expect the apology on another thread. Make it two.

583. Closettrekker - January 7, 2009

#579—-“You and Closettrekker are giving it your best effort. I didn’t say that Anthony was running aroung recklessly with the ban hammer, but rather that fellow posters have been a little too quick to attempt to close off controversy, doubt, and concern. It would be nice to be able to voice an honest opinion without being labeled as an apostate or canonista, continuista, or whatever pejorative neologism springs to mind.”

That is completely absurd. Secret Paramount/Bad Robot shills? Company line conspiracies? Now, Xai and I are surpressing naysayers with the imaginary “company line” in tow?

I have never called you or anyone else an apostate, canonista, contuinista, or any pejorative name. The only poster I have ever labeled as a “canonista” is me!

Also, I do not merely seek to “close off” all doubts or concerns. I just hope at times to assuage those which I find irrational.

In fact, I have had my own “doubts and concerns” over some of this creative teams’ decision-making. I’m not aware of any “company line” to tow.

I’m just curious…What is it about positive thoughts on the film that you find somehow less legitimate in a post than those expressing concern?

Am I 90% positive about the film? Sure.

But what’s your problem? Who is restricting your ability to express concerns about the film? It is certainly not me. It isn’t Xai either.

Put very simply—-if you do not wish your opinions to be subject to discussion or debate, then do not post them publicly!

Otherwise, discuss, debate, and have fun.

I will.

584. Leonel - May 16, 2009

Good god, this is an enjoyable read after seeing the movie. :-) Which raises the question: is time travel only possible to alternate universes, and never within the same one..? Or are both possible?

585. Camhanach - May 19, 2009

Having seen the most recent Star Trek movie recently (and only once), it seems to me that there is an enormous logical hole in the plot that I haven’t seen addressed in any of the film reviews I’ve read. Perhaps I missed a plausible explanation in the film–and I didn’t read all of the comments above, so if one or more addressed this question, I would be happy to have it pointed out.

The problem is: the film’s central storyline revolves around the character Nero’s anger over the destruction of his planet Romulus in the future, his return to the past (either to the same past that he then alters or to an alternate past–for the purposes of this question, it doesn’t matter which), and his revenge on the planet Vulcan and attempted revenge against Earth.

Why does the character waste his time (and the precious red “matter” that would have saved his planet, which he now has in his possession) blowing up Vulcan and attacking Earth? Why doesn’t he take the time and the red stuff and SAVE HIS PLANET! Since he’s now far in the past, his planet HASN’T BLOWN UP YET! IT’S STILL THERE. And HE NOW HAS THE MEANS TO SAVE IT. If he doesn’t know how to use the red “matter”, why doesn’t he enlist Spock’s assistance or the Federation scientists’ assistance, in saving Romulus.

At the very least, they could evacuate all of the people on the planet. After all, they’ve got years until disaster strikes (Ambassador Spock/Leonard Nimoy– was an old man when it happened. Now they’re in the past, when Spock/Zachary Quinto is, presumably, in his twenties. So they would seem to have a minimum of fifty years to save Romulus.

Anybody have a logical answer?

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.