Orci & Kurtzman Talk About The Origins Of The Star Trek Origin Story January 13, 2009
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman, Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
In a new extensive interview with FirstShowing.net, Star Trek co-wrtiers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman go into detail on both their own origin story as a writing team, and also explain how the eleventh Star Trek feature film came about. See an excerpt below.
Excerpt from FirstShowing.net interview discussing making Star Trek an origin story:
First Showing: In relation to Star Trek, whose idea was it for the story to take place as a prequel?
Orci: We came to that independently. Certainly that was Alex and my instinct. The first time we ever heard what Paramount wanted it was the same. I’m not sure if they got it from us or we all arrived at that conclusion simultaneously.
Kurtzman: The other thing was that in looking at Trek in its glorious history, it just shocked us that the story of how the bridge crew came together was never told. It was referenced in bits and pieces but it was never told and it’s only kind of the most epic big bang story that you could possibly tell in Star Trek. So it felt to us like if we were going to bring something new to the table, that that was the place to start. It just always started with Kirk and Spock for us. It was always about Kirk and Spock.
Orci: And even though I loved "The Next Generation," one of the reasons we felt that Star Trek possibly had passed us by is we never imagined that anyone would want to go back and take on the original Star Trek again. We thought no one would ever go for that and we were not interested in doing sort of the next- next- next- next- next generation. The idea of doing a new crew had already become an old idea and the new idea really was going back to the original crew.
…read much more from Orci and Kurtzman at FirstShowing.net
Comments»
Before this, I was wondering what they were going to do. Now we a nice package all wrapped up and ready for delivery on May 8th. Bring it on! I can’t wait!
Sounds like they’re still hammering out the FX:
Kurtzman: It was also just the reality of the massive, massive amounts of special effects in the movie. We’re still in the process of going through them. So the idea that we would’ve actually released the movie three weeks ago, given what we’re still in the middle of right now, seems impossible.
After living through the very rushed release of ST:TMP, I don’t mind waiting five months so that they have the opportunity to make the film exactly as they intended.
I agree with what they have to say. A next-next-next-next Generation wouldn’t be the best for a film. Probably why Paramount came to the same conclusion.
I’m looking forward to this movie!
LOVE IT!
Interesting both Paramount and the writers wanted to go back to TOS. I’ve watched all the various Trek incarnations and liked a lot of them but always felt that Kirk and Spock were THE iconic characters in all of Trek. Course, I also knew I was biased since it was my first and best Trek love.
However, I will say I never really pondered the origins of the crew meeting up. They met when they were assigned to the ship but I have always wanted to see more of the 5-year mission. Lots of stories to tell there.
I didn’t expect an article this morning, i’ll be honest. I can’t wait for my comic to come in.. I really wish it was a 900 page graphic novel. I need that much star trek in my life.
Star Trek : the next- next- next- next- next generation
that should be the title of the new tv show..set in the 32nd century on board the Enterprise P
well these Guys are smart. They had a great idea and ran with it and going back to the original Crew was a stroke of brilliance. The story of how Kirk and Spock met and the rest of the Crew is great. i can’t wait for the Comics and the Movie. It will be very Entertaining and i for one will be at the Midnight Showing with my agoniser in hand ready to use it on anny one who gets in my way on seeing the New Movie.
Nice excerpt…and I do agree with them. I think going back to the original crew was definitely the right way to go. Like the writers, I had very little interest (well, ok, maybe a little) in “sort of the next- next- next- next- next generation”. I anxiously await this movie.
Re “It was always about Kirk and Spock.”
It’s always been about Leonard McCoy for me, but his sidekicks are cool, too. :)
How about instead of Star trek The Next next next generation we call it Star Trek in the 25th Century Staring Buck Rogers Staring Richard Dean Anderson as Capt Buck Rogers of the U.S.S Enterprise and Co Staring Brent Spiner as B4. Hey it could Work.
To me it was always about the Big 3. Kirk,Spock and MCcoy. But Remember in the first episode Gary Mitchell Was kirks Best Frend as well.
I thought it was interesting in the “big article” how they say it was scary to think about releasing the movie 3 weeks ago because they are still adding special effects… If you think about it we might have gotten star trek 5 level special effects… (nausea)
All anyone ever wanted was more TOS. We didn’t get it with the movies and we didn’t get it with TNG.
This will be the only attempt that has been made to even get close.
I couldn’t have been less interested in another TNG-era movie or yet another brand new set of characters. I’ve seen the last 4 films with casual interest on television, but I never even bothered to see them in the theater. I didn’t even see the last Star Trek series until after it had been cancelled.
To me— it’s all about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.
A Kirk and Spock story has the best chance of appealing to the mainstream. These characters are iconic. And Star Trek TOS is part of popular culture in a way that no subsequent Star Trek series is. What’s more, this origin story hasn’t yet been told; so it’s the perfect way to introduce people to Trek. Another film about the TNG crew wouldn’t have made enough money. And a story about an entirely new crew may have been worse.
Looking back at the trailer, it struck me how much (in my opinion) the filmmakers have been influenced by Top Gun. The shots on the motorbike are an obvious nod; but there’s a similarity in story, also: Maverick and Kirk’s fathers both die in the line of duty; as a consequence, both of their sons are, for what of a better word, rebellious; both follow in their fathers’ footsteps; and both have an older, wiser mentor, who knew their father. The influence of Star Wars is obvious. I also saw the influence of the Bourne series.
I just hope there’s enough room left for some Star Trek!
#14 “All anyone ever wanted was more TOS”
I don’t believe that’s true for all fans. But it is for me! :-) Yes, returning to TOS/Kirk/Spock was the only way to go with this film, in order to engage maximum public interest. It was only logical.
I always thought Kirk and Spock were roomies at the academy, with Spock picking up Kirk’s dirty socks while Kirk continuously mooched help from Spock in his Quantum Mechanics class…
#18—And of course, Spock would become increasingly annoyed at Kirk for too often displaying a “do not disturb” signal on the door.
:)
It was the logical decision.
Denise 18,
Heh, sounds about right. Though, I don’t think that anyone wants a story about whiny roommates. You get enough of that with me.
I always thought kirk Met Spock When he first Took Command of the Big E. Since Spock was already on the Big E with Pike. So i Kinda Figured that Kirk and Spock did not go to the Acedemy together. I like the Story of how it all began and even though there will be some changes as for the time travel. But at least we get to see nimoys Spock one more time and see how much he has missed his frend and how they also became frends.
#14
Speak for yourself.
I like going back to TOS, but as has been said many many many times before… this crew didn’t cram onto the bridge all at the same time. Scotty and Bones should be a decade older than Kirk. Spock — never quite got what was going on there. He was smart as heck, but just couldn’t win the extra half strip of gold ribbon to command the ship. He’d also been serving in Starfleet for 13 years. But, the biggest problem (unless there’s a QM explanation) is that you’ve got Chekov already a commissioned officer, while Kirk is still in his cadet’s uni. Pavel should be a good 15-18 years younger than Kirk. THAT’s why this big bangeroo of a story’s never been told. Because it doesn’t work.
I know. I know, it’s only a movie. Save me a ticket. I’ll be there opening weekend just like everyone else in this thread.
BTW, if you do Starblazers or Captain Harlock then I don’t care what you change as long as the ships are cool and the chicks hot.
These guys come of so arogant they deserve their abomination to bomb with out trace, I for one will be in line to see Wolverine and T4 this summer instead of this blasphemous pile of targ excrement
I just hope, for the sake of my sanity (and others) that the end of the movie puts everything back to “normal” where the REAL 1701 flies past the screen and the crew are standing on the REAL bridge, not this messed up acid trip of a ship that these freaks have conjured up.
But I know it’s not gonna happen. They’re out to target a new audience, not us old hard core guys.
If you want to know what the movie will be like, just go out and rent the remake of “Lost in Space” and that’ll clue you in.
I don’t even know if I’m going to watch this thing, I’m just so disgusted.
#19 “displaying a ‘do not disturb’ signal on the door”
Tell me, Closettrekker, how does one hang the equivalent of a 23rd Century necktie on doors that swish open and closed and have no handle or doorknob?
Let’s hear Orci’s explanation for THAT!
As much as I love TNG, Trek has always been TOS to me. I can’t wait to see Kirk and Spock again. The fact that Orci, Kurtzmann, and Lindelof are all Trek geeks gives me a confidence in what they’re doing.
Well. Spock Not being in Command is easy to explain. he said many times in the Tos that he had no desire to be in command. But he would if it was a logicle thing to do. In trek 2 he even told Kirk as much. (As a teacher on a training mission im content to command the Enterprise. But if we were to go on actual duty it is clear that the senior officer must assume command) Spock never realy wanted to command but would if logic dictated. That to me is why he was always content to be kirks first officer all the way to trek 6 and after that he went to be an ambassider. So i think that the Movie coming up will be keeping with and may i use the word a Bit of Canon.
Harry — it’s easier in the 23rd Century. Everyone knows… if the starship’s rockin’, don’t come a knockin’.
(If it were me, Rand’s cabin would be rockin’ like a full scale Gorn-Klingon-Nomad-Batmite attack.)
#26—Lol!
#24 and #25 If you do not like the New Movie why are you even on Trek Movie. I am a Hard core an of trek for 35 years and i think it will be great. I have an open mind. To bad you guys don’t
TOS had stories that explored the depths of the human psyche: stories about friendship, loyalty, duty, sacrifice; stories about our better nature overcoming our darker impulses. These are the kind of stories that are SF at its best. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy were complex characters who provided an excellent framework for such stories.
I don’t really care whether a Trek movie is about the original crew or not as long as the characters are interesting and the story is compelling. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a compelling Trek story. Just because they’re going back to the TOS crew guarantees nothing. It could be just another example of how Hollywood is unable to come up with any new ideas so they keep recycling old ones. Nonetheless, I’ll keep my hopes up!
#29. (If it were me, Rand’s cabin would be rockin’ like a full scale Gorn-Klingon-Nomad-Batmite attack.) Hey i Second that Opinion.
Bob & Alex, here are three you can remake anyway you want and NO ONE will complain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-kV-DZG0ss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZUGQ32I03Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fJdjxnHV1Y
(This is for your amusement, of course.)
Batmite??!! LMFAO!!
Haven’t heard that name in years! Thanks for the chuckle!
“Kurtzman: The other thing was that in looking at Trek in its glorious history, it just shocked us that the story of how the bridge crew came together was never told.”
And it still isn’t being told. We’re being taken down the road of an alternate universe where the E is being built in Iowa.
So, really, the original story is still fair game.
#32—”Just because they’re going back to the TOS crew guarantees nothing.”
It does guarantee that my rear-end will be in a theater seat on opening night. The last 4 ST movies didn’t get me to the theater at all.
Harry#26- LOL!
So, will this movie present the “true” origins of our favorite characters or an “alternate universe” version of the origins?
Alternate Quantum Reality stories make me so angry. Now I must annihilate the human race with my Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
#40. Watch it. Or ill get Duck Dogers in the 24th and a half century on you.
Curses. Foiled again.
#42 Actualy. This Duck Dogers is from the Terran Empire. He might just help you.
As long as the Apple logo doesn’t pop up on the view-shinywindow-screen in the middle of a battle…
I’m really looking forward to the new film. But I can’t help it: I still feel extremely uneasy about the alternate timeline/universe plot. It’s okay to leave behind the original Trek and all the great spin-offs like TNG, in order to do something new and fresh, a genuine reboot or origin story. But to completely leave that established universe, to do away with that “history of the future”—not by destroying it completely, but by rendering it irrelevant and hopping into a different timeline—, to me feels like theft and abduction. It’s like in TNG’s “Best of Both Worlds”, where one character says that Picard is gone, but not dead, that by becoming “Locutus of Borg” Picard effectively is no more, and that it might have been better for him to really die, but since he didn’t, it’s a sobering and depressing experience. If the new film launches the New Trek universe, the old universe may be regarded by many as old and decayed, not old and venerable, a lifeless Borg corpse with no future and identity anymore. I really hope that the new filmmakers found a way around this emotional dilemma. The last thing I want is to watch a great new Star Trek film, while knowing at the same time that the film is an abductee, not a new take-off.
Good interview. It’s great to get an insight into how they work together as well.
Counting down the months until release …
#44: As long as the Apple logo doesn’t pop up on the view-shinywindow-screen in the middle of a battle…
Are you kidding, of course it will….you know that Chekov has to sync his Ipod and those damn updates will keep popping up…lol
SCENE: A CONTINUATION OF “THE ODD COUPLE IN SPACE”
Setting: Acacdemy quarters – Young Kirk sits scrunched over his PADD, confused and frustrated, as Spock calmly works on his own homework.
Kirk: Spppooock…
Spock: (looks up with as close to an annoyed expression as possible) Jim, I already told you, I will not do your work for you.
Kirk: I just need help on this Quantum Mechanics equation. So far it is 17 pages long and my head is starting to hurt…
Spock puts down PADD and looks at Kirk’s equation. His face instantly takes on an antimated look of excitement.
Spock: Fascinating…
Kirk: What is it? What do you see?
Spock: Following your theorum to its logical conclusion, not only will we split into an alternate universe in precisely 8 months, 4 days, 6 hours and 13 minutes, but you and I will begin a hot, passionate love affair in this universe very soon.
Kirk: You can tell that by looking at a bunch of numbers?
Spock: No, but I can tell that by looking at the way Pine and Quinto are hugging each other in the Golden Globe after-party pictures.
Kirk: Fascinating…
#23 – I agree completely. Of course, I will see the movie and hope it is a huge success. But I don’t understand the need to change the back stories of the characters in order to tell their origin. Not very many people would’ve been upset if this were only a Kirk/Spock/McCoy story that adhered to what had already been established.
- The other thing was that in looking at Trek in its glorious history, it just shocked us that the story of how the bridge crew came together was never told. -
…for decades fans were forced to use their own imagination…
#45 Schultz “feel extremely uneasy about the alternate timeline/universe plot”
Excellent points, Schultz! Let me add just one more angle to your observations:
Remember how in TOS it was made clear that there were only 12 starships like Enterprise in the fleet? And people asked, “why then are we watching Kirk and crew’s adventures when there are so many other stories to tell?” And the answer was, “because Kirk and crew ARE the best in Starfleet!”
That simple piece of logic makes good sense from a storytelling point of view.
So, it therefore begs the question: In Quantum Mechanics, where there can be untold billions of alternate realities, why should we extend our hopes, dreams and loyalty to this particular version depicted in the new movie?
Are the writers going to take the conceited position that the reality depicted in the new film is, hands down, the best, most deserving, ULTIMATE version of the TOS universe?
And, if that is the position they take, what does that say about the universe version we’ve loved all these forty some odd years?
See, they’re caught in the trap that by asking us to embrace ANY one particular universe, it diminishes all the others…..
PineKirk: Scotty, I need more power for the phasers!
Scotty: I kenna git you more power, Cap’n. It’s these blessed Apple computers. Someone’s been downloading Asian gay adventure films and the buffer is loaded with viruses.
Sulu (whisltes quietly to himself)
Chekov: In Russia vee hev dos types of films on computer. But, you kent tell de vomen from de men.
Spock: The logical course of action would be for us to disengage this battle and for you to come back to my cabin and do my hair, Captain.
PineKirk: Only if you’ll touch up my rouge, Spockikins.
This timeline didn’t last long, as the Janeway-Seven alliance used carpet-cleaning… er, carpet bombing to wipe-out the Alt-Fed. Ent-Fed attempted to asert itself, but was doomed to failure as its catsuited leader succumb to a yeast infection.
(man it’s like 69 forward in here today)
AND NOW BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED CHATROOM…
“…the story of how the bridge crew came together was never told. It was referenced in bits and pieces but it was never told and it’s only kind of the most epic big bang story that you could possibly tell in Star Trek.”
Doubts –> soothed.
Mr. Orci! You made it through a whole interview without mentioning the most tested, trusted theory of modern science!
(I jest, of course. Well said on all counts, to both of you.)
#51 Harry
I don’t agree.
I love the original TOS and always will. This is an extension of that. We have yet to see what Universe the novelists will play in and we know that the movies featuring Shatner/Nimoy/Kelley are likely at an end either way.
Our Trek sandbox just got bigger and that’s a good thing.
51 – Truth be told, the real reason this is in an Alternate Universe (spawned from the current one, BTW) is to allow for changes without breaking the original.
It allows for the creation of the film and story JJ and Co want to make, and change what they deem necessary to get the updates and changes deemed necessary creatively, but leaving a loophole for the original history and events to remain intact.
It means we get an examination of the characters we know from a more basic place. When things have changed, how does it change them as people? As individuals?
In a way, if the movie works on a character level, it reaffirms the spirit of the original. It shows how strong these characters really are.
53 – I hear you.
This opens up possibilities. The future is unknown again.
#23: Canonically, Pavel A. Chekov is only 12 years younger than J.T.K. Born 2245 to Kirk’s 2233 (”Who Mourns For Adonais?”, “The Deadly Years”) Koenig and Shatner, incidentally, were significantly closer in age–only five years apart. Also canonically, Dr. McCoy is only six years older than Captain Kirk–not the ten you posit.
I’m still not sure how they’re handling the chronology (if they even bother with what strikes me as a somewhat irrelevant little detail on a par with hundreds and hundreds of other TOS inconsistencies), but I don’t see it as a serious obstacle. We’ll see in May (thank you for not being one of those rather tiresome boycotters!), but I’m optimistic on this point.
The lesson here is, I think, don’t criticize the writers for ignoring canon when you haven’t quite gotten around to doing the chronological research yourself.
45 and 51
I agree. In an effort to try and tie this new stuff with the old, they have created a mind-bending trap. The story appears to be a solution to external requirements of moving the franchise forward rather than a really cool science fiction story, which requires a sci-fi writer.
So what we end up with is the mix of Top Gun, Star Wars, Starship Troopers and other films. The stereotypes are too clear for some reason. Then an attempt to brand it as Star Trek merely by character names and shirt logos.
They keep talking about going back in time to see how the crew came together…but this is NOT how the crew came together. This is how this crew came together. There is a difference.
#54 Xai
I appreciate the sentiment and philisophical take you have on the whole thing, Xai, and, in many ways I agree with you.
I just hope they got it half as right as we hope they did!
Huh! Funny soundbite there!
#51/Harry
“And, if that is the position they take, what does that say about the universe version we’ve loved all these forty some odd years?”
Yes, it is a worry. For me, it just seems odd for them to say they always wanted to do the untold origins story but then to do one where they change the timeline a la QM. Oh I’m not saying this altered timeline film won’t be good, it probably will be, but it just doesn’t seem to follow, one from the other. If you want to change stuff, skip all the time travel and QM and just retell a story as a straight reboot.
If it’s a good story, then hopefully all the retconning, gratuitous shoehorning, and doubletalk will have been worth it. I find it hard to imagine any story could be that good, but all I can do is keep my fingers crossed.
#56: Actually, I think I’ve been misunderstood.
I take this statement by Mr. Kurtzman to mean that the movie presents itself as a prime-universe origin story–not some sort of AU story that spins off a whole ‘nother universe. We’ll see in May, but I would very much like to *not* open up the sorts of possibilities you have in mind, and this reinforces my (perhaps wishful) thinking that I’m going to get what I want for Christmas-in-May.
All kidding aside, I look forward to the film and fully realize that it can’t possibly be identical to 1960’s TV. Even if all other things were equal… I am not what I was then. I’m a man with kids, rather than a kid. I have seen ungodly quantities of sci-fi, both good and bad. I am both more jaded and more philosophical than I was 40 years ago. So… I just hope for a good story.
And short skirts. I know those are in this flick. Yippee!!
Frankly, I’m a little surprised at most of the reactions here. Doing a story about how the TOS crew met is certainly interesting, and I’m sure every Trek fan would have been captivated by it. But to praise these guys as geniuses seems a little over the top. On the one hand, there’s very little original about a prequel these days (especially in the post-SWTPM era, and, more locally, the post-Enterprise era). It’s proved to be a profitable genre, at least on the big screen, and I think we are kidding ourselves if we see any other motive in Paramount’s decision beyond that. On the other, lest we forget, we’re not getting the origin story (which, like any other back story, be it about the founding of the Federation, the Earth-Romulan War, or the meeting of the TOS crew, would have enthralled us); we’re getting the backstory of some Kirk, on some ship called the Enterprise, meeting up with some crew (and we already know, from other interviews, that the way in which many of this happens us quite different from the way it was “supposed to”, according to the TV shows). So in summary, yes, Bob and Alex, it’s a fun idea to do a story about how the TOS crew got together (not a great, or brilliant, or even overly sophisticated idea), but the new movie won’t tell it.
55.
Then to call this movie an origin movie of the TOS characters is really being intellectually dishonest. It’s not the TOS origins we’ll be witnessing, it’ll be Orci and Kurtzman’s idea of their origins based in an alternate universe. We won’t be witnessing the events that formed the characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy in TOS that have become so iconic around the world. I still don’t see a good reason to change their histories in order to tell a good story. They could’ve told their original histories with new special effects and “updated” materials. No need for an alternate universe. Also I heard the words ‘dramatic jeopardy’ used. Since we all know the crew survived the 5 year mission there would be no drama in any movies of the past. I say hogwash. Show the original origins and then in a sequel, affect the timeline to tell new stories if they wanted to. The characters original histories as written in TOS is what I wanted to see and thought I was getting when they announced this movie early on.
Denise, you and I appear to be the only ones with a ribald sense of humor today. Ah well.
#65 – You should pay more attention to the interviews. If you read what Orci said in a past interview with TrekMovie.com, a lot of the background interpretations were approached without the “alt. timeline” angle, since their backgrounds would have been unaffected.
I’m kind of with #65
I’m a little confused.
Is it an origin story or does it take place in an altered timeline? I’m not pissing and moaning about either, but if this is an alternate timeline, does an origin story have any relevence?
THX,
Eh, not really.
But the good news is that things will unfold in a similar path to what they would have elsewhere. I guarantee that had I stayed in Florida, Idaho, or Indiana, I would have had a similar life, regardless of location. No, it won’t be exact, but it would be very close.
I probably would’ve taken up marching band, played trombone, and been a Trekkie no matter where I’ve lived, because I’ve been that way for…. well, ever. Again, let’s just wait and see.
#68– Seems like it’s an origin story in an altered timeline (at least we know Kirk’s story is different due to his father’s death) which seems unnecessarily convoluted.
Course I freely admit to time travel/altered timeline burnout.
And sorry Devon. I posted at the same time as you. But I don’t remember any interview that said that parts of the origin story would be affected and parts would not.
Could you fill me in?
#69/TOG
I agree that some things in a person’s life might not change, however, big ticket items can and do alter an outcome. In this version, Nero causes the death of Kirk’s dad which changes his trajectory. Now I lost my dad in Jr High and I can say without a doubt, I am a different person than I would have been had he lived in many significant ways. Not having that male influence and the chaos it caused in my family altered all our lives, especially that of my brother.
Shark, I gotta tell ya’, my life has been somewhat dictated by the wind. Where I was had everything to do with the choices I made.
So for me it was truly about location, location, location.
And Liz, I just want to see TOS. But I have my DVD’s. I’m sure I’ll enjoy this flick. I just don’t know how much weight I will give it.
#70: You must understand that while you’re burnt out on time travela and alternate timelines in THIS universe, there are uncountable universes and/or possible futures in which you are enthusiastic about those sorts of stories.
#52: Does it hurt being a genius? :)
#73–I think we are on the same page. I have rarely NOT enjoyed a Trek outing, be it film or tv so I doubt this will be any different. It may however, just be one of the enjoyable pack rather than a continuation of how I feel about “my” beloved TOS. But heh, it’s all good as long as fandom goes on in my world!
Funny comment about location too!
#74–Nope. Sorry burnt out in ALL universes. It just too easy a parlor trick and I don’t just mean in Trek. And for this film, I just don’t get the “why”.
#51 (Harry Balitz): “See, they’re caught in the trap that by asking us to embrace ANY one particular universe, it diminishes all the others.”
Yes. Paraphrasing: The authors say that by wrenching this alternate timeline from the established main universe, they tried to tell Star Trek origins in a more modern way, make some plot/prop/design alterations and at the same time managed to not violate Trek canon and say to the fans: “See? We do care!” But that’s a non-argument, because the whole film is an evasive maneuver. Instead of trying to fit their film with canon, or at least be bold and brave by saying “We’ll do our own thing!”, they simply took it the wussy way, in a totally different direction and universe.
But they don’t realize that Trek is about religion (Latin “religio” = reverence, respect, conscience etc.). Not by chance we call the framework “canon”. And by disregarding established canon and going a totally different way, Orci & Kurtzman have created a schism, not unlike Martin Luther’s reformation, where the Protestants, those “traitors” and “distorters of the original faith” not only broke with Rome, but abolished lots of old Church rituals and liturgy, many teachings, many festive days and especially the revered Saints.
The “Trek Saints”, i.e. everyone from Shatner’s Kirk to every last single one of the characters from that timeline (except earlier ones like Archer & Co. from ENT), are now irrelevant, their memory damned and abolished, their biographies exiled into the oblivion of a bygone “main universe”, their Trek history and wonderful stories rendered inconsequential for all future Trek… all this for a “new Trek”, for the reformed version.
One could of course argue that other episodes & films (like ST First Contact) already must have created an alternate timeline, but with the new film, with regard to the serious ramifications due to its “origin plot” and everything that used to come after the “original origin” in the “original timeline”, and especially with regard to Orci’s & Kurtzman’s interview about making Trek “real” (quantum physics etc.), this is far worse, and frankly quite worrying.
So the only thing that can possibly save this Trek mess to unify the alternate with the main timeline at the end of the new film, to have it collapse back into the original universe, irrespective of the fact that this is a physical impossibility. But after all Trek is fiction, and I’d rather want Trek to accord to a fictional canon than to real physics, because the latter only means the destruction of the former.
yeah, it shows the creative bankruptcy of them to come up with such a silly idea of “what if” in the alternate timeline. they may as well have just did a mirror mirror then and called it “spock’s goatee”. or since for orci and kurtzman its all about kirk and spock they should just make a kirk n spock flick then, like “brokeback trekkin’ through time and and alternate timeline”. the wait apparently is not over, is it?
THX/Liz,
Yeah, I can see what you mean. I’m fairly young, so most everything I’ve done has been dictated by my parents up until a few months ago. It’s all random chance, though.
In some universes, the only thing that’s different is a single electron, while in others, I rule the world with Zachary Quinto by my side.
So who knows? I’m sure it might be close to the “original.” True, not exact.
This also reminds me of a comment in Chat about my favorite play “Phantom of the Opera.” I absolutely adore it. But they’re making a sequel. I was so pissed off. The simple reason is that there is almost NO room for a sequel in Phantom.
But even so, there is a good bit that could be created. With Andrew Lloyd Webber at the helm, I have to accept that he’s going to do a good job, even if I may not like what’s happening. It will most likely be amazing, and I’ll eat my words.
#76: Yeah, me too.
And I’d rather have a new Firefly film than a new Trek film anyway, speaking of “not getting the why” :)
But here’s hoping the new Trek rocks, anyway. Fingers crossed.
How the crew came together?? Uhh-huh…
When is everyone going to get it through their heads that that’s NOT what they’re giving us!
It’s an ALTERNATE TIMELINE version of ALL that Trek has been until now.
What exactly makes this such a great idea??
Oh well, we’ll see.
#57
Additionally, the new actors’ ages seem very close to the character ages, so I don’t think it will be as much of an issue as some think.
#79–No, you are correct in the sense that I do think DNA dictates a lot. I know there’s the whole nature/nuture argument. I guess that’s why the Kirk as aimless rebel is odd to me because I would have thought that no matter what happened, he would still be the same Kirk, driven to exceed and lead, perhaps even more so with the loss of his dad.
You said you’d be a Trek fan regardless. I’ve always wondered if my Trek obsession wasn’t some sort of escape since it began at the time my dad was first diagnosed with cancer. Would I BE a trek fan if he hadn’t gotten sick? It’s an either/or I don’t like to think about to be honest!
#80 (S.J.Ross): Of course it’ll rock! We’ve all seen the trailer. And it’ll be a huge success. But what would be the real worth of this film? A film that “rocks” on a superficial level—you know, like modern slam bang moviemaking? Beyond box office gross, would there be any real worth to a Trek film that partially manages to “rock” by leaving behind everything that used to be Star Trek?
I wish they would stop calling this the origin story of the original crew.
It is not. It is an origin story of how the Bizarro Trek Crew came together.
No Farragut. No Republic. No Kodos. No Gary Mitchelle. Not our backstory. Not our Kirk.
It may be fine, it may even be great. But it ain’t ours.
Remember the Farragut!
The way I see it, we’ve had alternate timelines galore in Trek as we know it, so I don’t see what the big deal is. We had possibly altered timelines in The Naked Now, Tomorrow is Yesterday, City on the Edge of Forever and Assignment Earth, as well as The Voyage Home. It didn’t seem to ruin anyone’s enjoyment of Trek then, so the new movie shouldn’t ruin anyone’s enjoyment of Trek now.
Liz, based off of what I’ve seen of your collection, Trek is BUILT into your DNA.
#86 (sean): No. That’s naive. The difference with the new film is that the authors clearly stated the physical many-worlds theory behind their approach, and that the “alternate timeline” interpretation accounts for many of the changes to received Trek history, designs, biographies etc.. They should’ve simply made their origin movie and succumb to the “death of the author”, but by over-explaining their approach, they basically stated that this is a new Trek, and the other timeline has no more relevance, because everything from now on will be the future in THAT timeline. (Or do you want future Trek films to a canon-disclaimer at the beginning of each film? “Trek”, “Reformed Trek” etc.?) The author’s deliberate choice has implications that go far beyond the scope of one TV episode, where everything is reset to normal at the end.
#87- LMAO! I never have to worry/dwell on that issue again. Thank you, Dr. TOG.
I posted this in a thread a few days ago but maybe its better suited in here (AP – not chain mailing or anything – just wanna add something to the discussion)
sometime in 2005 before this film was announced and when berman was prepping his rather dull sounding prequels about the formation of the Federation or whatever he was doing (set before or around the time of ‘Enterprise’?) I could hold it no more and i posted a thread on the Star Trek: The Beginning imdb forum where i said if they are intent on doing a prequel film they should do a film (or series of films) charting Pike on the NCC 1701..maybe even showing him take over command from Capt April in the 1st one (therefore set pre Cage) or had Pike as the very 1st captain of the just built NCC 1701. That way wed see the original Ent on the big screen again along with the early incarnations of the familiar TOS stuff the fans love – phasers, communicators, uniforms etc (yeah im talking The Cage/WNMHGB uniforms, phasers etc…they wernt that different to TOS)…plus it wouldve allowed for stuff and ships looking different as it wouldve been set prior to TOS and even The Cage..
They couldve got a big star for Pike like Cruise or Crowe or whoever (as pike was about 40 in Cage so around that age or even younger) and had the rest of the cast – No 1, Dr Boyce (im thinking similar a relationship to how the Capt and Dr played out in Master & Commander..which itself had alot of comparisons to trek – specifically TWOK). the gee wizz navigator etc with lesser known actors (like they have in this new film)…as for Spock I suggested a young Nimoy lookalike (so I guess if theyd gone the full Pike route they couldve still got Quinto)…if theyd had Capt April – wouldve been just a cameo of Pike taking over from him and couldve been another huge star (Harrison Ford?)…
I said the final scene of the maybe the 3rd film (if they did a pike trilogy) could have been Pike ‘handing over the keys’ to the new captain whilst stationed in spacedock…doors swish open…cue a 1966 ‘Where No Man Has Gone Before’ Shatner stepping onto the bridge via Forrest Gump/Trials and Tribulations CGI…takes the chair…then pike watches the Ent leave the startrek III mushroom spacedock as Kirk takes her out and records his ’space the final frontier’ speech with Spock at his side…Alexander Courage theme kicks in…end credits…’Star Trek Begins’ as it were – then everyone could go home and put on the 2nd pilot..(like the way the end of Revenge of the Sith made everyone want to watch A New Hope straight after)
I thought the whole pike thing would be the way to go mainly due to avoid over lapping into TOS territory and all the problems I thought that would bring about (canon, having to adhere to the 60s sets/costumes/props In A Mirror Darkly style) not to mention recasting which seemed impossible…it would still invoke the classic trek era as you would at least have some immediate foreshadowing to TOS (original Ent, various characters, familiar looking phasers, communicators, uniforms etc) but not too much as to contradict and overwrite what has gone before in TOS (so it would work pretty much like Revenge of the Sith did)….
Anyway whats turned out looks like it’ll even be better than how i thought that sounded at the time as its really Kirk, Spock (and the rest) who ARE Star Trek..and in my ‘version’ K/S would just be minor characters (well Kirk anyway who would just have a fan pleasing cameo at the end)…the focus would be on Pike and maybe Dr Boyce. Plus the only familiar characters that would appeal to the mainstream in something like that would be spock (who would be in the background abit) and the original Enterprise herself…Althought Pike is as well known to us Trekkies as Santa Claus, mainstream America would have little idea who he was..and would be wondering where the heck Capt Kirk is…Having the film focus on kirk, spock and co is a MUCH safer bet for mainstream success than a full on Capt Pike adventure..even if it was a big A list star cast…
90. screaming satellite – January 13, 2009
Great ideas.
Happy New Year boborci.
I figured your New Years resolution would be to avoid this place
Nice of you to keep coming back for more.
Remember the Farragut!
boborci — Do you still love us??
I hope the abuse doesn’t dim your love for Trek.
BTW — wasn’t joking about Captain Harlock or Starblazers or RoboTech — those are awesome stories waiting for a serious (dark?) treatment.
#93 (CmdrR): He wouldn’t be here if he couldn’t take the “abuse”.
It honors you, Mr. Orci, and despite our occasional criticism (incl. mine), I hope the new film will leave us smiling at the end—in every respect.
EXCELLENT interview. I really enjoyed reading about their story and how they approach writing. This gives me even more confidence in believing that this is truly going to be a great movie.
#90 (screamingsat): I’d love to see pre-Kirk stories; such a plot would resonate well. I personally would also like to see a really dark Star Trek story, some daunting & haunting Section 31 stuff or something similarly “anti-Trek”, maybe even as a TV series.
96 – Agreed. It would be great to focus on the price of the utopia we all envision with Trek. What might be extry cool is a parallel story of TOS era and pre-TOS events that play out as a whole story. Conscience of the King was kind of a lame episode, but the backstory would have been really cool to see. But, I don’t want to mine the 79. I’d rather see new stories.
#93-CmdrR.
Yes! Starblazers! Awesome! I’ve been preaching that story for years. It would seriously destroy Avatar.
Mr Bob! What do you think about my idea that Spock had to help Kirk in his Quantum Mechanics class back in the academy… le giggle…
Sounds loigcal!
you know what I mean!
77 – The new movie does not destroy or devalue what has gone before.
Not one tiny, molecular bit.
It sets up the possibility of exploring the universe anew, with events taking a different turn, and seeing things we have not seen before.
The universe is unexplored, huge, and unknown again.
THAT is what Star Trek is all about.
Exploration of both ourselves and the unknown.
By starting again in this way, but linking back to the universe we already know, it establishes that anything is possible, while not saying “the old stuff is irrelevent” or “the old stuff never existed”.
It means that perhaps, some stories can be retold, such as finding the SS Botany Bay, The Corbomite Maneuver, City on the Edge of Forever, etc.
It means that some things can happen differently, while others may be the same.
As Spock said, “there are always possibilities.”
Lets see some of them.
CmdrR#97- I LOVED Conscience! Thought the insane Lenore was the best character I had ever seen and began reading Shakespeare at the tender age of 8 as a result of that show (of course I did not understand any forthwiths, nays or art thous…). That being said, some backstory on Kodos would not be amiss.
…but, this is the thing that’s annoying me about this whole publicity campaign. Orci, Kurtzman, and J.J. are forever promising us the story of how the original crew came together BUT the story their telling isn’t the story of how the crew we’ve watched all these years came together.
They’re telling us a different origin story based on their “new paradigm” created by all this alternative dimension hellabaloo–and they’ve admitted that the character origins we’ve been exposed to are effected by the presence of these time traveling Romulins.
I don’t mind them doing Star Trek in their own vision, I just wish they wouldn’t cleverly lie about it…still optimistic for the movie though.
#71 – THX – Check this out:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/
So the big question is: Is the destruction of the Kelvin, the canon reason why everything is different?
Bob: It is the reason why some things are different, but not everything is different. Not everything is inconsistent with what might have actually happened, in canon. Some of the things that seem that they are totally different, I will argue, once the film comes out, fall well within what could have been the non-time travel version of this move.
Anthony: So, for example, Kirk is different, because his back story has totally changed, in that his parents…and all that. But you are saying that maybe Scotty or Spock’s back story would not be affected by that change?
Bob: Right.
Mr. Bob#100- (… should I do it… no. I should not. …but I will anyway…)
L – O – G – I – C – A – L
I am so bad…
#102 (OneBuckFilms): Yes, that’s another way to see it. But it doesn’t change the fact that “reformed Trek” and all stories following in this alternate universe will have no connection whatsoever to “old Trek”, except for the history before the “origin”.
“…oh, I’ve gone cross-eyed…”
102. OneBuckFilms – January 13, 2009
“77 – The new movie does not destroy or devalue what has gone before. Not one tiny, molecular bit.”
True, but the new movie has little to do with the history we have known for forty years.
When we go back and watch TOS, and Kirk refers to an incident from his past, say the fact that Kirk only met Pike once. It will have nothing to do with what we see in the new movie.
So the new film isn’t enriching our experience when it comes to the TOS. Because it’s a different origin story.
Remember the Farragut!
85. 750 Mang
It may as well be “the” origin story since the only ones who would really care if it isn’t are posting on sites like this one. We represent only a portion of the potential viewing audience for this film.
Personally, I’m not getting caught up in the whole QMthing. It may have been well-intentioned on Orci’s part, but I think it may have unintentionally (and needlessly) complicated things.
In simpler language, TOS happens in spite of the the events in the new movie, not beacuse of them.
Remember the Farragut!
107 I never said that. But it doesn’t make them irrelevent. And it may be that many of them will happen again.
Is this about whether it is a good idea, and why it may or may not be?
Or is it that it is not the origin story told in flashback as we pieced it together from quotes, references and characters?
Personally, I like not knowing what happens next.
I forget. What was that ship’s name? Farraday? Fat Gut? My Fair Lady?
This is off-topic, but Mr. Orci brought up the new-crew-is-an-old-idea topic. And it got me to wondering why crews get replaced at all if they’re popular. I think it’s just the natural life cycle of popular movie and TV series. Popular actors simply take advantage of their situation to the detriment of the movie or show.
As soon as an actor becomes vitally important to a movie or TV series, he or she might ask for too much money. If they are given that money, the special effects budget, for example, is cut back and the special effects suffer for it. Or the schedule is shortened to reduce production costs, which results in key scenes being cut or just plain overall lower quality.
Or, if the overly-influential actor isn’t given the money they asked for, he or she could ask for too much creative control. So either the story is rewritten to become a vanity project for said actor, or the actor is allowed to direct himself or herself in the movie, which could result in a big budget film school project.
Not to name any names, but Star Trek movies V and X come to mind here.
If Star Trek XI is a smash hit (and there is every indication that it will be) and spawns sequels, then Mr. Pine and Mr. Quinto could find themselves in positions of power. Let’s hope for the best if and when that happens…
While I admit to a tiny bit of trepidation around the ‘alternate universe’ approach, I commend JJ Abrams, Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman for having the creativity and courage to bring Star Trek to a new century and a new audience. Much as I would have enjoyed a ‘fanboy film,’ that wasn’t the recipe for success.
So I’ll be there May 8 with a silly grin on my face, ready to thoroughly enjoy the new Star Trek.
It’s only ‘loigcal’! (Hey Bob, admit it, that’s your impression of cadet Spock after a frat kegger at the Academy!)
110. Thomas – January 13, 2009
85. 750 Mang
“It may as well be “the” origin story since the only ones who would really care if it isn’t are posting on sites like this one. We represent only a portion of the potential viewing audience for this film.”
I fail to see how changing Kirk’s backstory opens up Star Trek to a new audience. A non Trekkie doesn’t give a crap where the Enterprise was built, but we do. So what screw with it?
Do they think more Iowans will attend because Big E is now built in a corn field?
There was plenty of creative room to write the story of Kirk’s first adventure on the Enterprise with out all of this Bizzarro Timeline mess.
Remember the Farragut!
#110 (Thomas): “[The many-worlds interpretation] may have been well-intentioned on Orci’s part, but I think it may have unintentionally (and needlessly) complicated things.”
Not only that. It has disenchanted beloved fiction. (But Hollywood has been doing that for many years now, so why bother? Because Trek is more than the usual fiction?) And it goes against human experience. Everyone only has one world in which he lives and in which his mind grows, even in Star Trek. Everyone only has one history and one future, even with the many-worlds interpretation. By saying to fans that there are now two Star Trek universes, each with the same people, but different biographies and levels of technological progress, may be more in accordance to a (theorized) physical reality, but in the context of a huge fictional Trek framework of what was and what we thought would be the future, it feels schizophrenic, besides looking like a smokescreen.
#116. 750 Mang
“I fail to see how changing Kirk’s backstory opens up Star Trek to a new audience. A non Trekkie doesn’t give a crap where the Enterprise was built, but we do. So what screw with it?
Do they think more Iowans will attend because Big E is now built in a corn field?”
Amen to that brother, the only people who would even be aware that they have changed things are precisely the people who are puzzled, irked, irritated, angry or livid over it, so why frakkin’ change it? While I don’t hate the idea of this movie now, I have certainly lost almost all of my enthusiasm for it. That’s the difference between me cajoling 4 other people to go see it opening night and me saying “what emotional stake do I have in this faux crew?” and waiting until I can rent it for five bucks at Blockbuster.
The was a book called Enterprise – The First Adventure
Seem to recall it did tell the story of the bridge crew coming together, but if you don’t consider the books canon, I guess the story hasnt been told.
I don’t remember it being the greatest stroy in the world, but it did have Kirk wanting to kick Scotty off the ship as Scotty didn’t like the arrogant punk.
Also had an “emotional” Spock sibling too if I recall correctly . . . .
Also the “My Brother’s Keeper” series by Friedman told of Kirk and Gary Mitchell in the early days . . . . .
I wonder if we see him at all in this new movie . . . . .
Still wishing they had chosen to go forward with the Trek universe, or at least new characters to explore.
Say what you want, but I like stories that move forward. The whole argument about not doing another ‘next- next- next- next- next generation’ I think is a slap in the face because they never even once in that interview explain why it’s old, they just write it off as such.
I like stories that continue to move on rather than ‘restart’ back to a period with characters that have had an established history. It sort of fall into the category of Star Wars where even though we have characters that can carry the bulk of the series, the stories still try to make the original characters from the movies the main priority.
For my 24 years on this little island we call Earth, I’ve spent a good bulk of it watching this franchise. And the one thing I’ve always held in strong belief is that STAR TREK is more about the Final Frontier and all those who have explored it than just Kirk and crew. To go back to Kirk and crew is like saying the whole universe revolves around them which I think is pretty lame.
91 boborci
thank you very much..im very humbled sir! never thought id ever see a mega budget Trek film with the cream of hollywood like your goodself behind it (after TMP)….just goes to show never say never.
116.
We see eye to eye 750 Mang.
Who’s to say seeing Tarsus IV, with the mass murder of tens of thousands of people and a young Jim Kirk wouldn’t be exciting and high drama a la ‘Schindlers’ List’?
Or a young officer Kirk on the Farragut, watching his crew and Captain getting wiped out by some ‘creature’ a la ‘The Thing (1982)’ or ‘Alien’?
“[Kirk] A stack of books with legs.” – Gary Mitchell
“In Lt. Kirk’s class you either think or sink.” – Gary Mitchell
“I was positively grim [at the academy].” Kirk to McCoy
These are the events that shaped and formed the James T. Kirk I’ve come to know and appreciate.
None of these HAD to be changed to get the mass audience appeal. Most of them don’t know Kirk’s history.
Just because you can change something doesn’t mean you MUST change something.
As far as the other timeline stories in TOS. Last time I checked, the timeline got restored to the original in every case, which is not the case here.
The way I look at this movie is not as a prequel or even as a reboot but as a continuation to the Star Trek that we already know, just in another universe. I’m fine with this because I can enjoy what has come before and I can still enjoy this new movie. I see this new direction as a rebirth of Star Trek, meaning the franchise is getting a second life to add on to it’s first. Anyway, just my opinion.
122. John from Cincinnati – January 13, 2009
What we forgot to tell you guys is that Kirk was a secret officer of Starfleet and most of the backstory referred to in your post was actually just his cover. The story we’re telling is the true backstory;)
#105
Yeah I read that. It didn’t jive with me then either. I tend to side with the views of #’s 116, 117, and 118.
And that doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy this movie. It just won’t carry any “real” Star Trek weight with me. But who am I? I’m only a fan.
122. John from Cincinnati – January 13, 2009
“As far as the other timeline stories in TOS. Last time I checked, the timeline got restored to the original in every case, which is not the case here.”
Really? What about Trek 4? At the end of the movie they are in an different timeline as a result of their changing history… same with FIRST CONTACT, both of which could conform to either theory of time travel.
#120 (Jeyl): Hear-hear! The world evolves, and so should Star Trek. The stuff that has always fascinated me the most, were the few glimpses of the really far future, the really far reaches of space, like that species in TNG that somehow established a subspace connection to the Enterprise (if I remember correctly). Even if it wasn’t always done well dramatically, it spawned imagination far beyond the Trek universe. That’s why I think that arguments like “the universe is unexplored, huge, and unknown again” by 102 (OneBuckFilms) are wrong, because (a) the universe was never explored, small and well-known—the series’ authors just lacked imagination and chuzpe—, and (b) with the new Trek film, it’ll still be the same Alpha Quadrant with Klingons, Romulans and the same old species with the same old habits we all know too well. What’s the use of revisiting them? What’s the use of changing the TOS stories a little bit? They’re still the same stories, the same planets, the same species, the same characters etc.
So my HONEST PLEA to the filmmakers is this:
Since the “alternate timeline” framework is now a fait accompli, use it to your (and our!) advantage. Take the “reformed Trek” into a TOTALLY different direction in this new universe. Be bold. Explore Kirk, Spock & Co. in completely altered settings. E.g. envision the Federation being defeated by the Klingon Empire, envision the characters we know as resistance fighters, being oppressed, persecuted, labeled “terrorists”. You made the first step. Why not go all the way?
124. boborci – January 13, 2009
“122. John from Cincinnati – January 13, 2009
What we forgot to tell you guys is that Kirk was a secret officer of Starfleet and most of the backstory referred to in your post was actually just his cover. The story we’re telling is the true backstory;)”
What a glib answer. I hope that isn’t the attitude that prevailed as this story was broken.
Remember the Farragut!
As I stated in an earlier post, I really like this article about the prospects of Star Trek: http://www.darkhorizons.com/news09/090109g.php (Scroll down).
If the movie is sucessful, we are likely to see a few more movies in this timeline. In the end, it’ll be of little consequence. The people who care about continuity, will set aside the Abramstrek from the original Star Trek. Enjoy them as hopefully good entertainment. The stories of the original Trek are thriving in the novelverse. The day may come, that’ll someone at CBS will toy with the idea of creating a new Trek tv show. They will not be able to hire the cast from the movies for a tv show. Simply to expensive. So they will have to come up with something new. Since this will have to be something REALLY new, they’ll be able to go back to the original Trek universe, with it’s established background and draw from that. It’s a full universe with many untold stories after all. Besides, if the desired effect of drawing more fans to Trek is achieved, then they’ll want to look at all the other shows that are out there and realize that there is so much more about the universe we’ve come to love over so many years, than can ever be established in a couple of movies. If Trek is to survive not only in the cinema as a fx demo every 5 years, I believe that this alternative timeline will be the one, that will be remembered as the “thing that helped Trek out of depression”, but will have little impact on the Star Trek universe.
Bob:
You don’t believe that, in both instances, the crews were “supposed” to show up to maintain the current timeline’s integrity?
Same question applies to “Trials and Tribble-ations,” though the two guys from Temporal Investigations seem to poo-poo the idea.
126. boborci – January 13, 2009
“122. John from Cincinnati – January 13, 2009
‘As far as the other timeline stories in TOS. Last time I checked, the timeline got restored to the original in every case, which is not the case here.’
Really? What about Trek 4? At the end of the movie they are in an different timeline as a result of their changing history… same with FIRST CONTACT, both of which could conform to either theory of time travel.”
Boborci, you just don’t understand. Sure history was changed – whales came back to life – but our heroes were still the same people. Our characters moved forward.
Remember the Farragut!
Origin story. Wonderful. Except it’s not the origin of the TOS crew we’re getting, but the origin of this the new alternate universe quantum mechanized crew.
Selling it as an origin of the original crew, however, probably helps to get more casual Trek fan butts in the seats, though.
I agree with other posters, the alternate timline approach doesn’t destroy the Trek that came before, it just makes it convenient to largely ignore it.
125. THX-1138 – January 13, 2009
“And that doesn’t mean I won’t enjoy this movie. It just won’t carry any “real” Star Trek weight with me. But who am I? I’m only a fan.”
I’ll use your comment as representing the argument many are making that you won’t “care” about these characters as a result of a genera existential anomie caused by the contemplation of multiple universes. Interesting that the complaint boils down to the paradox that I would articulate as follows:
WE HAVE NO LOGICAL REASON TO CARE
To which I say, “True!” Your caring for these people is not a given. They will have to win you over, won’t they? Would you want it any other way? If you care about Kirk, Spock and McCoy (and company), and the characters in this movie turn out to be Kirk, Spock, an McCoy, then you will care.
” 132. Time Travel Hurts My Head – January 13, 2009
Origin story. Wonderful. Except it’s not the origin of the TOS crew we’re getting, but the origin of this the new alternate universe quantum mechanized crew.”
See boborci – I’m not the lone nut screaming in the wilderness. The backstory matters to a lot of us. In fact it’s one of the most important parts of Star Trek. Every new incarnation added to the overall story and the richness of the Star Trek universe.
What does this new Kirk tell us about our Kirk? That he would have been a hero anyway? Okay, but he’s not our hero.
Remember the Farragut!
Bob,
I don’t see how you think the events of ST:IV changed the timeline.
When the crew returned to the 23rd century everything was the same!
If Trek fans cant care about characters in alt timelines, then why are episodes like “Year of Hell”, “Twilight”, and “Yesterday’s Enterprise” and others, all fan favorites? As I have noted before, it was an ‘alternative Picard’ who uttered the line “Let history never forget the name…Enterprise.” But I guess all the timeline-istas weren’t moved by that line because he was some ‘fake’ Picard.
And zooming out…I sure cared a lot more about Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins (a total reboot), then I cared about Annakin Skywalker in SW Episode I (a total ‘in canon universe, single timeline’ movie)
And lastly, if you only care about the characters from the Prime timeline, if you are really that narrow that that is all you care about, then you still have Spock Prime (plus Nero and his gang are all from Prime too)
The test is whether or not these characters feel right. Star Trek The Motion Picture takes place between TOS and TWOK, but the characters feel wrong (especially Kirk). What is more important? Is it more important if the character is technically on a specific timeline or more important for the character to feel right and be someone we care about? I know what Leonard Nimoy would say to that, he thinks TMP got the characters all wrong, and that the new movie gets them all right….but what does he know?
127 – What I meant about the universe being large and unexplored again was more of a statement that the Enterprise could go to different places, see different things than she would have otherwise.
There comes a point, and Star Trek reached it, where so much was established, there was so much history, that it was creatively difficult to find something new.
Plots and stories were becoming more and more reliant on previous events, and had to try even harder not to trip over themselves.
5 TV Series and 10 movies worth of established history had to be kept in check, and Star Trek was more about Canon than the Unknown.
Anyone new to Star Trek might ask “Why not do X or Y”? and there would be some throwaway line in an episode that made X or Y impossible, necessitating either Technobable, a complex explanation for the audience, a reference to something a general audience would scratch their head over, or a seemingly illogical plot change or twist.
To be blunt, Star Trek was beginning to collapse under the weight of it’s own established history.
Hi boborci-
Appreciate you taking the time to come on here and converse with us.
I guess it all comes down to each viewers idea of an alternate timeline. Is it simply an alternate universe by definition only where there are subtle changes, such as a future with or without humpback whales? (ST IV) Or are they huge changes which affect the way everything looks, from the ship to the communicators, to even changing the formative years of one of the major characters?
What I was referring to was all the episodes, City on the Edge of Forever, Naked Time, Tomorrow is Yesterday, and even the movies ST IV and First Contact, is that everything gets restored to what we’ve seen before. The characters stayed the same. It may have been different in a quantum mechanics definition, or things that are unseen, therefore relatively minor, subtle changes.
With that said, I love the idea of an alternate universe, opening up new stories and giving new dramatic jeopardy to the characters and situations. I just would’ve loved to have seen Kirk’s original history. I thought it was, fascinating.
I am going to see the movie. I will always be a Trekker. I just would’ve taken a different path. That’s just me, a fan. I’m not a high-paid, successful writer in Hollywood.
#133-boborci
Precisely. I cared for years (40 to be exact) about the adventures of Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al. These guys, at this point, seem to have the same names, but I’m not sure I know them. It doesn’t make them bad characters, it just means that for me to have the same emotional investment that I had in the “original” characters will be difficult. Not impossible, though, as I am always hopeful.
As for the desire to want it any other way, the discussion here seems to indicate that for some, we considered ourselves already “won over”. They had me at hello. And now I’m waiting to see if they say hello the same way.
136. Anthony Pascale – January 13, 2009
“If Trek fans cant care about characters in alt timelines, then why are episodes like “Year of Hell”, “Twilight”, and “Yesterday’s Enterprise” and others, all fan favorites?”
At the end of those episodes order to the timeline was restored. The “Yesterday’s Enterprise” crew didn’t become the new permanent face of Star Trek.
My only hope is that the ol’ reset button is hit at the end of this new movie and Kirk doesn’t have to destroy that nice car after all.
Remember the Farragut!
boborci-
Depending on how well the new movie does in the theatre do you and your companions already have any ideas of where you would like to see these characters go in possibly future films
hello!
135. Harry Ballz – January 13, 2009
“Bob,
I don’t see how you think the events of ST:IV changed the timeline.
When the crew returned to the 23rd century everything was the same!”
How do you know? If the classical time rules apply, then they changed the past by kidnapping a blond and two whales, and the early introduction of transparent aluminum into the 20th century. Also, if classic rules apply, they would not be aware of any changes going forward. Or, another way to look at it is that everything is not the same in that the probe failed to destroy earth’s atmosphere.
In fact, the only way to explain how everything was really back to norma and the same is to posit that the many worlds theory was applied, and our crew took whales (and a blond) from another, similar universe, only to return to their own unchanged one (where the effects of their actions are not registered).
Well hello, Harry. You rascal.
Again, I agree with Mang. At the end of Yesterday’s Enterprise it was a relief that they went back to the original timeline. I didn’t want (at the time) for the Federation and Klingon Empire to be at war.
And as it turned out, they weren’t. I will absolutely jump out of my theater seat and let out a whoop if at the end of this movie we get that kind of restoration. But I don’t think that’s what they have in store for me and I confess to being a little bit sad by it. But that doesn’t necessarily make me a closed-minded Trek fan.
143. boborci – January 13, 2009
“In fact, the only way to explain how everything was really back to norma and the same is to posit that the many worlds theory was applied.”
It’s not about your attachment to the many world theory, it’s about that fact that you have funadmentally changed these charcaters by changing their backstory.
I’ll say it again – these aren’t our guys. The characters in “Yesterday’s Enterprise” were not our guys either, sure it was a great one off episode but at the end we got to go home to our Star Trek.
Remember the Farragut!
#143
Hi Bob, you’re right about the whales. The point is: The timeline that counts is the one, that has been on the screen. I enjoy alternative timelines. In fact I’ve just read the infinity’s prism novels. I believe what would have to be done here in order to satisfy most people is to write an alternative alternative. i.e. What happens when Nero doesn’t travel back in time ?
“How do you know?”
Because we are not in the epistemic position to the characters, but of the audience (who often know more about what is going on than the characters do).
When they returned to the future, it was the same future we had seen before the trip.
147. YARN – January 13, 2009
“How do you know?”
Because we are not in the epistemic position to the characters, but of the audience (who often know more about what is going on than the characters do).
When they returned to the future, it was the same future we had seen before the trip.”
Assuming you’re using classical time travel rules, it CAN’T be the same future for the reasons already mentioned. Our crew ALTERED the past. Unless you want to claim that their incursion into the past had zero effect. If you conclude that, than you must at least acknowledge that they have changed their intended future. One could argue that STIV robbed us all of the preferred future canon!
#147-YARN
Yup. Enterprise was built in the Frisco shipyards. Kirk’s backstory was the same. And it looked the same, essentially. Not that the “look” is what we are talking about.
As for changes in, say, Trek IV’s timeline, aside from the whales and Dr. Anderson, and transparent aluminums early advent, what were the tangible differences or “changes”?
@126 Boborci:
DS9 – ‘Past Tense’ – Sisko effectively becomes Gabriel Bell… operational alternate timeline at the end… ;-)
Apart from the cheezy detail that the entire bridge crew was magically part of the same graduating class at the Academy (must suck to be the same age and to have graduated in the same year as the captain if you are a lowly ensign), and apart from Capt. Kirk strangely resembling a Tom Cruise archetype from the 80’s, I don’t really care that they changed the backstory.
Trek has NEVER been consistent in continuity – the most respectful thing they could do is say “Hey, we aren’t messing with ANYTHING in the original universe” and that is basically what they did (even if it is a sort of cop out).
I am going to wait and see if this film feels like home.
#151
“I am going to wait and see if this film feels like home.”
That is something my girlfriend that a week ago. “Star Trek feels like coming home.” That’s how it has to feel. See the crew as a family not as individual action heroes. That’s at the very core of Trek to me and I am afraid that’s going to get a real beating in an action driven movie.
“Assuming you’re using classical time travel rules, it CAN’T be the same future for the reasons already mentioned.”
It can be if it is a self-completing causal loop.
“Our crew ALTERED the past.”
You are taking a linear view of time – treating the future as if it isn’t already real – if you take the Einsteinian view of time (i.e., block time), then it does not make sense to talk about changing the past than it does the future.
“Unless you want to claim that their incursion into the past had zero effect. If you conclude that, than you must at least acknowledge that they have changed their intended future. One could argue that STIV robbed us all of the preferred future canon!”
Whatever effect it had was negligible (at best), because the present they returned to was identical to the one they left.
And we know, because we’re the only one’s with a gods eye view (don’t confuse physics with narrative).
148. boborci – “If you conclude that, than you must at least acknowledge that they have changed their intended future. One could argue that STIV robbed us all of the preferred future canon!”
I must ask, what makes a future without George and Gracie and Gillian the “intended” future? Perhaps whales were meant to return in the 23rd century…
Also I think that the writer’s intent has to be addressed.
In the aforementioned stories it is my belief that the writers intend for the original storyline to be restored, more or less.
I don’t think that is what is happening here. And that is an added difference in one’s emotional investment. The knowledge, subliminal or overt, that it is the original timeline that is the desirable one to return to as opposed to continuing on in a “changed” universe.
154. earthclanbootstrap – January 13, 2009
You could indeed argue that, but any argument made along those lines can be made in support of our paradigm.
148. boborci – January 13, 2009
“Assuming you’re using classical time travel rules, it CAN’T be the same future for the reasons already mentioned. Our crew ALTERED the past. Unless you want to claim that their incursion into the past had zero effect. If you conclude that, than you must at least acknowledge that they have changed their intended future. One could argue that STIV robbed us all of the preferred future canon!”
Wow Bob. “Classical time travel rules”? Had you chosen to tell a straight forward origin story you wouldn’t have to strain yourself with these techno-babble attempts at justifying the pollution of the Classic Trek timeline.
Just tell the story. Kirk’s history didn’t need re-imagining.
Remember the Farragutt!
155. THX-1138 – January 13, 2009
“Also I think that the writer’s intent has to be addressed.”
How does this argument shape your thinking of Shatner’s death, intended as a noble, heroic, meaningful death?
#155
“I don’t think that is what is happening here. And that is an added difference in one’s emotional investment. The knowledge, subliminal or overt, that it is the original timeline that is the desirable one to return to as opposed to continuing on in a “changed” universe.”
True. It’s like George Lucas reshooting the original Star Wars Trilogy with a different premise: Anakin was good all the way.
#145 – Whose backstory is really being changed? Kirk’s is the only one that I can tell. Will Sulu still not be at the helm and end up commanding his own ship eventually? Will Spock not be promoted to Captain eventually?
“Kurtzman: The other thing was that in looking at Trek in its glorious history, it just shocked us that the story of how the bridge crew came together was never told. It was referenced in bits and pieces but it was never told and it’s only kind of the most epic big bang story that you could possibly tell in Star Trek.”
Since it takes place in an alternate timeline, neither is this new movie telling it, so why keep trying to sell it as such?
Uh, just a quick point to 750 Mang…
You might want to defer to Boborci on this. ‘Cos he’s the one getting paid to write Star Trek. Most of us here aren’t. To be honest, probably a good thing, too.
Tell you what – you do a better job. I write (or at least try), and judging by my success to date (i.e. I’m not rich and famous yet), I guess I’m not that great at it – yet. Until I am, I’m not going to criticise someone who’s earning a living from it.
#158-boborci
Well, Shatner isn’t the dead one, but I know what you mean.
Kirk’s death was a stupid plot contrivance that backfired horribly in the faces of those in charge of Star Trek at the time. But as a storyline it must be followed.
As far as what I “wanted” for this movie, Kirk’s future death was irrelevent. I wanted to see his original backstory.
158. boborci – January 13, 2009
155. THX-1138 – January 13, 2009
“Also I think that the writer’s intent has to be addressed.”
How does this argument shape your thinking of Shatner’s death, intended as a noble, heroic, meaningful death?”
No, it was a decision based on “hey let’s kill Kirk, that’d be cool.” But Generations is by far not the best Star Trek film. Or did you think it was?
I bet the choice to throw Kirk off a bridge (or shoot him in the back, whichever) was made for all the same artistic reasons that you claim for obliterating Kirk’s story.
But the bottom line is you’re doing it “because we can.”
Remember the Farragut!
157: 750 Mang
“Wow Bob. “Classical time travel rules”? Had you chosen to tell a straight forward origin story you wouldn’t have to strain yourself with these techno-babble attempts at justifying the pollution of the Classic Trek timeline.”
I tend to agree. If it was all to have an excuse to get Nimoy in the movie, much as I love the original Spock, I’d rather do without him.
#147 Yarn
“When they returned to the future, it was the same future we had seen before the trip.”
It was? Even with an audience POV, that’s not a given. There was no need to demonstrate a crossover from one universe to another because it had no bearing on the story. This time it sounds like it does.
162. James – January 13, 2009
“Uh, just a quick point to 750 Mang…
Tell you what – you do a better job. I write (or at least try), and judging by my success to date (i.e. I’m not rich and famous yet), I guess I’m not that great at it – yet. Until I am, I’m not going to criticise someone who’s earning a living from it.”
Okay, that’s cool. But what makes you think I’m not a working writer? If I am, then can I say the Bizarro timeline is a cheap excuse to change things?
I guess we’ll never know.
Remember the Farragut!
Xai,
Pray tell, how is it not a given from the audience POV?
The universe we see in the first reel of the film is the same as the universe we see in the last reel of the film.
Moreover, all Trek “canon” which follows this film respected facts established in earlier movies and the original series.
Any change that happened, by necessity, has to be one which was not seen. And since we aren’t talking about actual time travel (since we are not talking about an actual world) this amounts to NO deviation.
156. boborci -”You could indeed argue that, but any argument made along those lines can be made in support of our paradigm.”
absolutely, and it could easily (and probably rightly) be argued that your paradigm now carries more weight, being an officially commissioned work. That doesn’t change the fact that I have absolutely zero emotional investment in these new characters. And taking it further, some of the changes we’ve all heard about seem quite arbitrary and gratuitous to me; they, in fact, altered my whole perception of the movie and moved me into a somewhat hostile stance( Built In Iowa, I’m looking at you). I guess my question for you would be that you had to know that this was going to be the reaction of a sizable amount of the existing fans, so what was the attraction or the overriding need to drastically alter those details and alienate a good chunk of the base?
168. YARN – January 13, 2009
Now you’re splitting hairs. Clearly, some changes were made to the timeline. As a matter of the internal logic of the movie itself. You can argue the changes were minor, but they are changes nonetheless. The ONLY way you can argue that it is the exact same universe is through MW QM.
@ 167 750 Mang:
I’m not saying that you’re not a working writer. You may well be. You might be Salman Rushdie for all I know. But Boborci et al got the job, because Paramount put faith (and their cash) into him.
Besides, IMHO, it’s bad form to criticise a book you haven’t read, or a film you haven’t seen. One of my friends refuses to watch any of the Daniel Craig Bond films. He says it’s because he doesn’t like the idea of a ‘Blonde Bond’. His real reason is he doesn’t WANT to like the idea of a ‘Blonde Bond’. He’s closed his mind to them without even seeing them.
Give the new film a chance. You never know – you might like it.
169. earthclanbootstrap – January 13, 2009
Only the movie can answer that.
170. boborci – January 13, 2009
” The ONLY way you can argue that it is the exact same universe is through MW QM.”
What? If you have to go through these pains to justify the story is it really worth it? What?
Remember the Farragut!
169. earthclanbootstrap – January 13, 2009
“I guess my question for you would be that you had to know that this was going to be the reaction of a sizable amount of the existing fans, so what was the attraction or the overriding need to drastically alter those details and alienate a good chunk of the base?”
One other thing. It is my belief that anything we could’ve chosen to do would’ve alienated some part of the base. Therefore, it was our belief that our solution is the one which would be LEAST egregious to the overall base.
173. 750 Mang – January 13, 2009
170. boborci – January 13, 2009
” The ONLY way you can argue that it is the exact same universe is through MW QM.”
What? If you have to go through these pains to justify the story is it really worth it? What?
We’re talking about Star Trek IV, you realize?
“No, it was a decision based on “hey let’s kill Kirk, that’d be cool.”
That pretty much sums up what they thought — they were quite gleeful at cons about killing Kirk. But I will say in their defense, at the time, Kirk’s inclusion in the film was a means to an end. TNG was THE story and Kirk was no longer the focus of Star Trek. interestingly, I’ve recently seen Braga at a con and he’s less enthusiastic about the method all these years later. Course, what we saw was Verson #2 of his death. He was originally shot in the back. ( Even worse than the Bridge and Fall.)
“Until I am, I’m not going to criticise someone who’s earning a living from it.”
Really? We judge “art” and artists all the time. Why should Trek be any different? And remember, without the level of caring, Trek wouldn’t still be around 4 decades later. Given Mr. Orci’s level of success in cutthroat Hollywood, I think he can survive some fan debates. At least it’s not about the $$ for us. It’s the love of the thing the propels the fans.
#169
I like the Iowa shot, with Kirk and the ship. However, I would love it, if Kirk rode his bike across the Golden Gate instead of some field and we see the Enterprise somewhere in the SF Bay. It’s obvious why the change was made: Kirk is still unconvinced about joining Starfleet so he rides out to think and take a look at the ship while still in Iowa. Building it in SF would imply that he already made his decision, since the academy is there. Yet I would argue, that he could have visited his mate Pike in SF or something after making a road trip… well, what’s done is done.
#170
If it is a self-completing causal loop, then it could be exactly the same (see post 153).
It is hard to see how the trip was not part of such a loop since they return to a future that looks exactly the same. It’s not like the early creation of transparent aluminum started a world war. Heck, the invention of transparent alminum did not even throw off the impossible timing and coordination needed for Kirk (and everyone he is related to) to be born. Ditto for everyone else we already knew in the future. Nothing upset the delicate balance of all those millions of sperm swimming towards that one egg at just the right place and time so that our friends would be the winners.
#126 (boborci): “What about Trek 4? At the end of the movie they are in a different timeline as a result of their changing history… same with FIRST CONTACT, both of which could conform to either theory of time travel.”
In terms of time travel, “First Contact” was nonsense. If the Borg really had the technology for time travel, they would have made the jump at an earlier date and/or in secret. It’s hard for me to imagine that the Borg collective has some sort of a prime directive prohibiting time travel. ;) Although it was a very good film, I try to forget that it exists. Still, their interference in the past changed little, if nothing.(And by the way: why would Picard follow the Borg, if they only create a different timeline and not affect the “origin timeline” at all? Yet another inconsistency that rather makes me forget “First Contact”.)
Concerning alternate timelines in general, you are correct: Trek4, FirstContact, some episodes etc.. If you go for physical reality, hypothesized reality, then Everett & DeWitt are the way to go, otherwise you have paradoxes all over the place. But this is not Harvard, this is Hollywood. It’s fiction. And the outset of your plot for the new film is not some fun time travel episode inbetween, which is somewhere along the timeline (whatever timeline), a story that originates at the peak of the time arrow (like STIV and FirstContact) and always returns to that peak, a plot that still has a serial nature to it and mostly preserves Trek continuity by changing little if nothing (example from Trek4: transparent aluminum; who cares? didn’t change anything apparent technology-wise in the new alternate timeline)… but your film obviously goes deeper into the matter.
When the alternate timeline in Trek IV was created (and became the primary timeline from thereon), there was not yet any future written for the fans, in terms of sequels, TV spin-offs etc.. It was still carte blanche. So it didn’t really matter that a new timeline was created, big changes, small changes or no changes. The story returned to the peak of the time arrow to continue thereon. So there was no need for any debate.
But the new film lifts the anchor of a future already written, on the level of perception and received history, it goes back and hacks into the origin of TOS and factually “changes” what has been known as the “history of the future”, or rather: changes it over to a new universe to alter canonical history significantly: That much we can already extrapolate from the trailer, ship designs, biographies, statements etc.. Even if you say it’s a different and alternate world (which in principle is okay), you’re still going for the core of the Trek universe. It’s like saying to Christians that Easter never happened, or happened differently, like JC having in reality been decapitated… in an alternate reality, that is… whatever. You see, you can only have one truth and one reality per universe. If we watch a story set in the “reformed Trek” universe, the other Trek universe is by definition irrelevant to the story unfolding, backward and forward. And vice versa. And it’s actually a bit saddening that all the history, all that was, has been discarded. Because, like OneBuckFilms (137) has written, history has weight, but unlike he deduced, history is never a burden. It’s something that people cherish and find to be exciting and informative—in real life AND in fiction.
I hope I’ll enjoy the film, and on a technical level of filmmaking, I surely will, but for some reason I have a feeling that I’d rather have preferred either (a) a genuine reboot or (b) a conventional in-timeline prequel. Since I ADORE the new look you all created, since I LOVE the casting etc. pp., I’d probably go for (a)… or for option (c): Continue after TNG. (But that’s not what we have.)
171. James – January 13, 2009
@ 167 750 Mang:
Besides, IMHO, it’s bad form to criticise a book you haven’t read, or a film you haven’t seen.”
I’m critiquing what we have been told by Mr. Orci, “nature vs nurture, same ship different day” all that bother.
And I did see the 20 minutes.
Remember the Farragut!
What about ‘City on the Edge of Forever’? If McCoy changed the past, big deal, he just created a new alternate universe. Therefore no need to go back in time and “correct” things right? Kirk and Spock should’ve just asked the Guardian to send them to another universe, one in which McCoy didn’t make it through the Guardian of Forever and messed up the past.
“175. boborci – January 13, 2009
173. 750 Mang – January 13, 2009
170. boborci – January 13, 2009
” The ONLY way you can argue that it is the exact same universe is through MW QM.”
What? If you have to go through these pains to justify the story is it really worth it? What?
We’re talking about Star Trek IV, you realize?”
Yes I do. But you must realize that the only reason we are having these esoteric conversations at all is because of the Bizarro Timeline?
Remember the Farragut!
Question:
How many people here have a PhD in quantum physics and spatial geometry?
I’m going to guess “none.”
I have full confidence in Bob, JJ, Alex, and the rest of the crew. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: it really takes guts to come onto the internet forums to defend your position. Thanks Bob.
And next year, when you receive the various awards for your movie, please please PLEASE quote Tina Fey at the Golden Globes.
172. boborci – “Only the movie can answer that.”
very coy answer; I can at least tell that YOU now have a FINANCIAL stake in the characters! ;-)
I realized that post 169 may have come off as a bit harsh and that’s not what I intended. I guess I’m just puzzled and quite frankly more than a bit put off by the way the backstory seems to play out and I know that I’m not the only one. I’m being serious when I say that I feel pretty alienated from the whole thing. Did you anticipate these sorts of reactions and in the balance did you just feel that it wasn’t that important to keep the old-schoolers happy?
183. That One Guy – January 13, 2009
“And next year, when you receive the various awards for your movie, please please PLEASE quote Tina Fey at the Golden Globes.”
Yes Bob, please do, I want to hear the word Mang on TV.
Remember the Farragut!
In the multi universe theory, there is no more dramatic jeopardy in time travel stories since all they are doing is creating new universes every time something is changed in the past.
176. krikzil – January 13, 2009
180. 750 Mang – January 13, 2009
We judge art and artists all the time, but usually only on completed works. My point is, don’t judge a book by it’s front cover, and don’t judge this film based on what we know about it so far, which actually amounts to very little.
OK, 750 Mang – you’ve seen a few chunks of the film, so you’re in a better position to offer a critique than most – but you’ve not seen all of it. All I’m saying is, give it a chance.
186. John from Cincinnati – January 13, 2009
“In the multi universe theory, there is no more dramatic jeopardy in time travel stories since all they are doing is creating new universes every time something is changed in the past.”
That’s true if your plot revolves around bumping into your parents and interfering with your own birth.
If it turns out there are multiple universes, is your life going to have any less dramatic jeopardy?
I still do not and will not understand why we couldn’t have been told the pre-TOS story the way we all imagined it to be. The way we EXPECTED it to be. The way all of Trek so far had “historically” spelled it out. It is a rich enough history on its own without being drastically altered. It did not need to be.
Instead we have some things that ironically even Berman wouldn’t have perpetrated again-
Time travel and Romulans.
WHY??
148. boborci – January 13, 2009 ”
“Assuming you’re using classical time travel rules, it CAN’T be the same future for the reasons already mentioned. Our crew ALTERED the past. Unless you want to claim that their incursion into the past had zero effect. If you conclude that, than you must at least acknowledge that they have changed their intended future. One could argue that STIV robbed us all of the preferred future canon!”<<<
OR it was destined to happen that way to begin with! No alternate timeline, no change in their intended future, because it was SUPPOSE to happen that way at THAT point in time so no changes when they returned back to their own time WITH canon intact :)
750 Mang I agree with you completely!
Off Topic: Regarding the Vanguard books, if anyone has read them; I’m almost done with B/1 Harbinger, and will soon have B/3 Reap The Whirlwind… I cannot find book 2 however, nor do I have the means to order it. My question is, will I miss anything major if I jump from 1 to 3? In other words, is it a serialized story or are they self-contained stories for each book? I really don’t want to be like: “uh, wait a minute…” while reading B/3! Thanks.
137. OneBuckFilms: There comes a point, and Star Trek reached it, where so much was established, there was so much history, that it was creatively difficult to find something new. To be blunt, Star Trek was beginning to collapse under the weight of it’s own established history.
Wow. That’s a refresher. It’s difficult to find something new. I hope that’s not your basis for general advice, because doing something new is never old or unoriginal. What difference does it make if some stories rely on past events? Don’t we do those sort of things all the time? We still recall a lot of our nations wars, triumphs, happy days and sad days. We don’t collapse under them, we embrace them. We accept them. We learn from them. You can’t just write off established history because it’s a HARD JOB. You don’t just say it’s hard and than quit. If I was a writer, I’d look at all of the established Star Trek history and say “now it’s my turn”, not “this is hard stuff to live up to. I’m just going to do a story that doesn’t have to rely on all of it”.
Star Trek isn’t collapsing under the weight of it’s own history, it’s collapsing because writers don’t want to do anything challenging. And don’t misinterpret my post as meaning that I’m against this new Star Trek movie. IT’S MY #1 MOVIE I WANT TO SEE THIS YEAR! I’m just against writers who complain about not wanting to do something new because the show’s history is so ‘big’.
Valeris: “It is of endings that I wish to speak. Sir, I address you as a kindred intellect. Do you not recognize that a turning point has been reached in the affairs of the Federation?”
Spock: “Hmm. History is replete with turning points, Lieutenant. You must have faith.”
Valeris: “‘Faith’?”
Spock: “That the universe will unfold as it should.”
187. James – January 13, 2009
“OK, 750 Mang – you’ve seen a few chunks of the film, so you’re in a better position to offer a critique than most – but you’ve not seen all of it. All I’m saying is, give it a chance.”
Look I’ll be there at midnight when to see the thing at the first showing.
There’s no way I won’t see it twice. I love Star Trek. Hell, I even saw Insurrection twice (just to make sure it was as bad as it had seemed. It was).
But I fear my concerns, and those of a lot of fans who care about the history of the characters, will not be resolved.
Remember the Farragut!
“How many people here have a PhD in quantum physics and spatial geometry?
I’m going to guess ‘none.’”
So only scientists are only allowed to talk about science?
So what? This means that sci fi writers get a get out of jail free card, because no one has your preferred credentials?
#188: “If it turns out there are multiple universes, is your life going to have any less dramatic jeopardy?”
Exactly! That’s why I don’t like the argument that one will not be emotionally involved with the characters. They’re still Kirk, Spock et al.. I simply miss the bigger Trek picture that used to be, and which is now gone. It’s not so much a lack of emotional involvement in the characters, but a loss of emotional involvement in Star Trek. That has to built anew, and I hope the film makes it happen.
Oh, and if you want to make a prequel series that’s new and detached from all other Star Trek series, DON’T name the bloody ship ENTERPRISE!
134: “What does this new Kirk tell us about our Kirk? That he would have been a hero anyway? Okay, but he’s not our hero.”
Why cant he be? Do you allow yourself only one hero at a time? I have many heroes, both fictional and real, and included are several *versions* of Batman, of Sherlock Holmes, etc.
#188
It’s not so much the scientific rationalization of the alternate timeline, that makes me feel a little sad about the plot decision, it’s the fact that the new Trek movie is not about the characters of the universe, that we love.
I firmly believe, that the movie will be kickass entertainment for the one night in the cinema. However, I can’t really feel connected to the characters or the universe, simply because even if they’re as amazing as everyone makes them out to be, they won’t be the real characters. They will be alternatives. Kirk dies young ? So what ? Isn’t the real one anyway ! Vulcan gets blown up ? Cool fx , but don’t care, wasn’t the real one anyway. I would have loved to see the origin story of Kirk, but of the real Kirk.
#195 (YARN):
I’ve had 6 semesters of nuclear physics, incl. quantum theory. I even read DeWitt’s book. ;)
199. Unbel1ever – January 13, 2009
“It’s not so much the scientific rationalization of the alternate timeline, that makes me feel a little sad about the plot decision, it’s the fact that the new Trek movie is not about the characters of the universe, that we love.”
Interesting that complaints have moved off of the notion of recasting to begin with. And the notion that we should cheat just to bring Shatner back has also fallen away.
boborci
You gotta be tired about having to defend your movie. How do you feel about Smoked Baby Back Ribs????
199. Unbel1ever – January 13, 2009
” I would have loved to see the origin story of Kirk, but of the real Kirk.”
They can’t understand why we care. And I can’t understand why they don’t.
Remember the Farragut!
188.
No Bob, I am living my life on my own plane of reality as opposed to the audience which gets to see all the different universes presented to us. Just from the clips we see Spock Prime in the new altered universe. Well, he had to get there somehow. Spock’s time ship? Therefore a method to travel between the two universes.
202. Richard Daystrom – January 13, 2009
boborci
“You gotta be tired about having to defend your movie. How do you feel about Smoked Baby Back Ribs????”
Not at all. Arguing time travel and canon and trek history is a joy. Don’t feel I have to defend the movie at all. Think of this as the added value in client services that KO brings to a project.
As for the ribs, i try to avoid eating mammals.
@194. 750 Mang – January 13, 2009
Insurrection – LOL! I read somewhere that the only interesting thing that happened in that film was Troi and Riker having a bath while she shaved off his beard!
Fears? I know where you’re coming from there. I have a few nit-picks myself about the film – but everyone seems to be proceeding on the basis that previous to this film, Star Trek canon has been wholly consistent. But we know that it hasn’t! We all know glaring examples.
Canon ‘violations’ are already part of the Star Trek mythos – and I use the word ‘mythos’ carefully. That’s what it’s become – myth. Some elements of truth, but it’s been told and retold and had bits added to it here and there by different people along the way, that even now, the whole body of work conflicts with itself in several major ways. So if anyone adds anything new to it, it’s BOUND to conflict with SOMETHING.
So, in a way, I’m kind of OK with any conflicts that the new film throws up. ‘Cos I’ve already been putting up with it for a long time!
201. boborci – January 13, 2009
“Interesting that complaints have moved off of the notion of recasting to begin with. And the notion that we should cheat just to bring Shatner back has also fallen away.”
You never heard me complain about recasting as long as you get it right. But why even do young Kirk if his story was so uninteresting.
If Classic Trek needed a page-one rewrite then just do a different ship a different crew.
Don’t re-write what we already know and try to tell us this is the real story.
Remember the Farragut!
203,
Your response is illogical.
They are fully human.
203. 750 Mang – January 13, 2009
199. Unbel1ever – January 13, 2009
“They can’t understand why we care. And I can’t understand why they don’t.”
Of course we do. That’s why we’re here trying to make it less painful for you.
#201
I never was oppossed to the recasting. I think the casting choice was inspired. Also I have to admit, I prefer Patrick Stewart to Shatner as an actor any day. I would have loved to see a TOS adventure, in the universe we know and I believe that while there would have been complaints, the number would have been far less and not as fierce.
207. 750 Mang – January 13, 2009
201. boborci – January 13, 2009
“If Classic Trek needed a page-one rewrite then just do a different ship a different crew. Don’t re-write what we already know and try to tell us this is the real story.”
You can’t rewrite what hasn’t been written.
#201 (boborci): “Interesting that complaints have moved off of the notion of recasting to begin with. And the notion that we should cheat just to bring Shatner back has also fallen away.”
I hated these arguments, and I don’t think anyone ever really took them seriously. (a) The casting is GREAT!! (b) Nobody can bring Shatner back except by extracting his shadowy echo from the Nexus and feeding him back his own history with some magic trick like Ripley in Alien4. ;)
209. boborci – January 13, 2009
“Of course we do. That’s why we’re here trying to make it less painful for you.”
Why cause us pain at all? Why not just write a story that doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater?
What is the target audience that wants Pike and Kirk to be buddies instead of only meeting once? How is messing up Kirk’s story bringing new fans to Star Trek?
Remember the Farragut!
“Oh, and if you want to make a prequel series that’s new and detached from all other Star Trek series, DON’T name the bloody ship ENTERPRISE!”
I think that this is hasty – let’s see if the film delivers the goods.
Bob,
So I take it you’re probably not going to give us any hints?
—————-
“As for the ribs, i try to avoid eating mammals.”
I can make a mean whitefish??
212. Schultz – January 13, 2009
You watch… he’ll be after the end of the credits, for sure… ;-)
Sadly, though, I KNOW I’ll be waiting JUST TO MAKE SURE…
Even sadder… I KNOW I won’t be the only one!
Let’s face it, all these timeline whiners would be bitching about canon if this film were supposed to be set in teh same timeline. Any deviation of the ship, uniforms or offhand mentions of Kirk and SPock’s past would be vilified…now that Bob Orci and his magical QM have solved that, they have just moved to a different type of whine. Nothing short of a $150 shot for shot remake of teh cage would satisfy this group. The movie they want would have no appeal and would make the bomb of Nemseis look like good returns
We get it people…you have a strict taliban like view of the trek universe…congrats. Well guess what buckos, that universe wasn’t selling anymore except in books (where it will live on). The new team figured out a way to do a reboot and have it stil be canon, I bet that is really pissing you off too. But Reboots work too. Batman Begins was amazing, as was Casino Royale, Star Wars prequels sucked. ANd at least in this reboot we get a piece of the past moving on in the form of NimoySpock.
I am sorry but I think the treatment being given to Boborci, who is ‘one of us’ and has been kind enough to come here, is disgraceful. I am shocked he even answers the questions from this lunatic fringe who are all over him….the rest of us cant get a word in edge-wise.
If you are reading this Bob, the only question I have is, will a general audience watching this film understand that what they are seeing is an alternative timeline (ala Yesterday’s Enterprise)? Will it be clear that Nero has changed things?
184. earthclanbootstrap – January 13, 2009
“Did you anticipate these sorts of reactions and in the balance did you just feel that it wasn’t that important to keep the old-schoolers happy?”
As I said earlier, we feel this solution will cause the least amount of pain. Do you know what an uphill battle it was to pitch a movie that relied on pulling Leonard Nimoy out of retirement? You think that was for NEW fans?
“What is the target audience that wants Pike and Kirk to be buddies instead of only meeting once? How is messing up Kirk’s story bringing new fans to Star Trek? ”
Yeah, I think you could write a great film that stayed true to the details of the original. We don’t know much about these days anyhow, so there was plenty of lattitude within parameters of reasonable canon.
But they elected to go in a different direction. If the soul of Trek went with it remains to be seen, but I hope it did.
211. boborci – January 13, 2009
“You can’t rewrite what hasn’t been written.”
Righto.
Here’s what has been written:
Kirk and Pike met once.
Kirk served and the Farragut and was haunted for years by the death of Captain Garrovick.
Kirk served on the USS Republic.
Kirk taught at Star Fleet Academy.
Kirk was best friends with Gary Mitchell.
Kirk got help from Lieutenant Mallory’s father to get into the Academy.
That’s what has been written and has stood for four decades.
Remember the Farragut!
I have never complained about the casting, and I haven’t read many complaints about it. When they announced the original crew in their younger days I think all of us realized it will be with new actors. I am glad to say I think you guys all did an awesome job in casting.
As far as Kirk, once it was revealed it was definitely going to be another universe, I realized you can’t bring Kirk back. The whole reason to do an alternate universe is to create dramatic jeopardy. By putting Kirk at the end of the movie you would actually defying your own purpose for the new universe to begin with. It would mean any future sequel would lose it’s drama because we know Kirk would survice no matter what the situation.
201. boborci – January 13, 2009
“Interesting that complaints have moved off of the notion of recasting to begin with. And the notion that we should cheat just to bring Shatner back has also fallen away”.
Not necessarily true really…Just may indicate those folks have given up lost interest and moved on to other things. There are Shatner fans that are still not happy about how this thing went, but what’s the point in saying anything now…It’s a done deal,
217. Kruge – January 13, 2009
Yes.
218. boborci – January 13, 2009
“Do you know what an uphill battle it was to pitch a movie that relied on pulling Leonard Nimoy out of retirement? You think that was for NEW fans?”
Again you act as if the only way to get Old Spock in the movie was to wreck the history. It’s not. You know know that.
Remember the Farragut!
#220
It would have been more fitting to see Kirk teaching at the academy and having a class with future members of the crew or bumping into them in the hallway.
Kirk is supposed to be 10-15 years their senior.
#209
I really appreciate the effort you put into answering comments here, Bob.
I am not one, who has a problem with minor discontinuity. As I mentioned earlier the building in Iowa doesn’t really bother me, it’s the setting.
Kirk’s history can be derived from books as well as TOS itself.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/James_T._Kirk
There’ll be probably a new page in that wiki with the addition (alternative), that deals with the new Kirk.
Had this story been about the Enterprise during TOS (in a Vanguard like setting), I would not have cared.
A person as well as a fictional character is the sum of his/her experiences and those of the two Kirks diverge a great deal to the effect, that they are not the same any more. Nemesis made the same mistake with the two Picards.
I can’t change it. When the movie hits theatres, it’ll be a huge success (I will contribute) and then all of us, who care about the past 40 years of Trek lore, will have to face the facts, that they’re getting old (I’ll be 25 in July).
#206 (James): “Canon ‘violations’ are already part of the Star Trek mythos”
Definitely. That’s why I would’ve preferred a real in-timeline prequel, which breaks with canon here and there, including prop/set design etc.. It would’ve been absolutely fine. A modern take, a bold move against the fundamentalists, but perfectly okay. Period.
But this switch to an alternate reality at the core of Trek’s origin is not a violation of canon. It’s a violation of Star Trek itself. It’s totally okay from the pragmatic points of physics and SciFi story-telling, and it could never break established canon, but it’s strangely detached from the holistic Star Trek world that used to be, also disregarding the emotions projected into that world. It leaves behind everything, because it changes the origin.
Did the writers ever once think of how dramatic it would be to see a young Jim Kirk on a planet where the Governor slaughtered tens of thousands of people? I mean, this is where Kirk could’ve gotten his rebellious streak. A kid that always followed the rules, and now his Governor wants to kill his friends and him too. So young Kirk, disobeys the rules and survives, thus leaving him with the incling to follow his own instincts as opposed to always following orders, and a distrust of authority which he must work to overcome in order to be a successful officer in Starfleet.
Or am I completely off base?
225. YARN – January 13, 2009
“It would have been more fitting to see Kirk teaching at the academy and having a class with future members of the crew or bumping into them in the hallway.
Kirk is supposed to be 10-15 years their senior.”
Yup. Why not write it after Kirk gets his promotion to Captain and is beginning his tour on the Enterprise?
I have a good guess. Kirk couldn’t be in his 30’s, as he should have been. They wanted Kirk as Captain and hey wanted him as young as possible.
That’s what they really think is bringing in the “new fans”. New fans = teenage girls who think guys in their 30’s are ancient.
Remember the Farragut!
That’s why I would’ve preferred a real in-timeline prequel, which breaks with canon here and there, including prop/set design etc..
Yep…
but it’s strangely detached from the holistic Star Trek world that used to be
… I hope not
“That’s what they really think is bringing in the “new fans”. New fans = teenage girls who think guys in their 30’s are ancient.”
Probably right – too bad they couldn’t have cast sexy Sulu or Chekov instead.
Bob, will Kirk sparkle and glimmer when exposed to direct sunlight?
#217-Kruge
OK “bucko”, try this hat on.
Just because I have been a long time Trek fan doesn’t mean that I have to accept any change that comes my way. I am not some “rah, rah, yay a new movie for us undeserving fans” sheep. I don’t have to like what I’ve seen so far. And I don’t have to accept the explanations I”ve been given so far either. I am not a whiner. I have questions and Bob is here by his own accord to provide his answers. But it doesn’t change the fact that I feel a bit disenfranchised about the prospect of an alternate timeline. which I have every right to.
I don’t see the point of this time travel storyline. Why wasn’t an origin story about the actual origins good enough?
199: Kirk dies young ? So what ? Isn’t the real one anyway ! Vulcan gets blown up ? Cool fx , but don’t care, wasn’t the real one anyway”
There is no Vulcan more “real” than another. It’s all fiction. If one particular *story* could make you care about he death of a billion people, why couldn’t another story?
#213 – Did you complain about this during any of the Alt. Timeline stories, Yesterdays Enterprise? I dont think Orci or anyone ever said they equated not having Enterprise on the Farragut or whatevership as “Appealing to the Masses.”
Geesh people, lets get real here.
232. THX-1138 – January 13, 2009
“Just because I have been a long time Trek fan doesn’t mean that I have to accept any change that comes my way. I am not some “rah, rah, yay a new movie for us undeserving fans” sheep.”
You said it buddy. You can scoop up a glass of bathwater and call it Star Trek but that doesn’t mean I’m going to drink it.
Remember the Farragut!
#217 (Kruge): “I am shocked he even answers the questions from this lunatic fringe who are all over him”
Let me put this straight. I am not from the lunatic fringe. I’m simply disappointed that “reformed Trek” will have no connection to the original universe that has been part of our lives for years, with some fans even for decades. And judging from other people’s posts here, I don’t think I’m the only one who feels that way. Some people’s disappointment might tip over into anger, but that’s only human. It will pass. But it has nothing to do with canon fundamentalism nor with being on the Trek fringe. It’s what the people feel, alright? It’s based on what they’ve felt all their Trek life. And as a matter of fact, the new film is the Star Trek fringe, at least for the moment, because it has left Trek mainstream, it has created its own reality apart from the established Trek world.
234. Devon – January 13, 2009
“#213 – Did you complain about this during any of the Alt. Timeline stories, Yesterdays Enterprise?”
Again we didn’t stay there. The episode ended and the timeline was restored. That’s not what we are getting here. This is it now – Bizarro Trek.
Our collective knowledge of Trek is out the window. And it’s out for good.
Remember the Farragut!
@227. Schultz – January 13, 2009
I don’t really see it as a ’switch’ – everything about Star Trek that we’ve seen so far MUST have occurred (in one quantum reality or another ;-)) in order for Nero & Co. to go back in time and screw stuff up. The fact that Spock Prime follows them back implies that he’s there to set things straight again.
Boborci states absolutely in 223. boborci – January 13, 2009 that the audience will be very much aware of the timeline changes caused by Nero & Co. going back in time. So I see a couple of possibilities:
1. Spock Prime gets everything sorted and we return to the Prime Universe at the end of the film;
2. We stay in the Bizarro Universe, and maybe return to the Prime Universe in later films.
To be completely honest, I’m OK with either. If we go back to the Prime Universe, all well and good.
When I watch ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’ and other alternate reality episodes, part of me doesn’t want to leave the alternate reality – part of me wants to stay and see what happens there, ‘cos it looks quite cool! If we stay in the Bizarro Universe, that comes true. And that’s cool too.
#232 – I think you may be over complicating things for yourself here. Why was a story about Khan necessary? Why was bring Spock back necessary? Why was the first Time Travel movie necessary? Why was Yesterday’s Enterprise made? Why was First Contact made? Why why why? Etc etc? *None* of it was necessary, but it was made because a few writers wanted it to be made and it was the story they wanted to tell. Same with this movie. Simple.
#233
My point was that I and quite a few others are to some degree emotionally invested in the original timeline. So if a change occurs that does not effect the original timeline I won’t really care. Stargate Atlantis 5×19 Vegas was an alternative timeline effecting the original timeline: I believe it was this timeline’s Woolsey who said: “I really only worry about our universe.”
That’s basically how I feel about it.
Bob,
You certainly had your Wheaties (© 2008 general mills) today!
:)’
“#237 – Again we didn’t stay there. The episode ended and the timeline was restored. That’s not what we are getting here. This is it now – Bizarro Trek.”
Does it matter? No. The story was still told in an alternate timeline. Was the story memorable because it was restored at the end? No, it was memorable because it changed at the beginning. Did Trekkies do a mass walk out of their living rooms and shivered in the corner of their room biting their nails hoping it was restored at the end kicking and screaming and complaining that “this isn’t canon OMG please reset it?”
“Our collective knowledge of Trek is out the window. And it’s out for good.”
Maybe your knowledge is, I still have mine.
@boborci:
Hi Bob,
I have got a little question about the MW QM Theorie:
If person A from timeline A travels back in time, creates timeline B with a few changes and then travels to the point he started, will it be timeline A or B? I would say, it must be B, because he notices the changes being made e.g. Sisko sees his picture as Gabriel Bell’s. (And if person A just travels back 5 minutes and then waits 5 minutes to get back he would still be in universe B.)
But what happens with universe A, if you can’t go back to universe A? In this case in Star Trek IV only the earth in universe B would have been saved because Kirk did not bring back whales to universe A?!
Can you solve this?
Greetings,
Stephan
#86 – Sean
While I would have preferred an original timeline story, I wouldn’t have had so much of a problem with an alternate timeline one if the writers hadn’t made a big damn deal of saying, “There’s this HUGE gap in the canon where an origin story should be! So let’s fill it with… an ALTRENATE TIMELINE!”
#143 – boborci
Depends on what time rules you consider “classical,” I guess. The ones I was brought up with are the ones where the time traveler himself is indeed aware of the changes. In fact, I’m having a hard time thinking of examples of stories where this ISN’T the case.
* * *
I hope it ends up being a good movie, but from what we know so far it smacks of cheap, shortcut, “because we can” storytelling, and I really don;t see the point.
218. boborci – “As I said earlier, we feel this solution will cause the least amount of pain. Do you know what an uphill battle it was to pitch a movie that relied on pulling Leonard Nimoy out of retirement? You think that was for NEW fans?”
sorry about you basically answering the same question twice; i was actually composing post 184 while you were answering it in post 174, so does that indicate some sort of temporal anomaly at work here?
The passion that you obviously still feel about that pitch is yet another indication of how strongly you feel about this project as a whole and I’ve never doubted that. That passion, along with the casting, is part of what had me so excited initially. I fully realize that you’re kind of stuck in a Kobayashi Maru; whether Shockwave and his little cassettes are around and whether Bumblebee is a Bug or a Camaro is nothing compared to Kirk’s early years in terms of fan scrutiny. Please just realize that to a fair amount of us the wholesale rewriting of huge swathes of the Star Trek tapestry is a bit… off-putting.
242. Devon – January 13, 2009
“#237 – Again we didn’t stay there. The episode ended and the timeline was restored. That’s not what we are getting here. This is it now – Bizarro Trek.”
“Does it matter?”
Yes. The characters were different. They had been at war for 20 years. Riker and Picard hated each other. Worf was gone. I think those things matter. They wouldn’t have been the same people we had come to know in all the episodes that came before “Yesterday’s Enterprise”.
“’Our collective knowledge of Trek is out the window. And it’s out for good.’
Maybe your knowledge is, I still have mine.”
Sure I have mine too. But it will be meaningless in the movie. And this movie won’t help us know our characters better the next time we watch “The Corbomite Maneuver”. The guys in the “Corbomite Manuve” didn’t get to that place because of any of the events in the new film.
It’s a sideshow.
It’s a “What-If” comic. Sure they’re a nice place to visit but I don’t want to live there.
Remember the Farragut!
Looks like this conversation/debate will NEVER end. I haven’t posted in a while. Again I’m as “old-school” as they come, over time I have come to accept the fact this movie will not only be an alternate timeline movie, but at the end of the film (sorry guys), will REMAIN in that alternate timeline — in other words “things will not return to normal” as many other people have indicated or wished for.
It’s taken me awhile I can accept just about all of the elements of the new timeline — but the one stands out and bothers me the most is Chekov, UNLESS this is a 15 year old version of Chekov, this is a problem for me. How can Chekov have POSSIBLY ever served under Pike. This for me makes no sense at all!!! Having said that we have trust that Abrams anc company know what they’re doing and that the movie will have some kind of logical explantation.
This is a forum for all Trekkers to come and voice their opinions. I think it is wonderful so long as everyone remains respectful to each other and the writers and anyone else who pops on here.
IMHO
Hey guys,
I thought, Bob told us that there are only minor changes and that all the other stories from TOS to the movies will still take place.
I think you can compare it a little bit to the Terminator timeline, where judgement day has been prevented a lot of times. Later they find out, that it just has been delayed but takes place, this way or the other.
Stephan
#248 — WELL SAID!!!
#249
They do take place in the original Star Trek universe, but the movie plays in a different alternative universe that forks off from the original when Nero travels back in time.
This has got to be the most civilized debate I have ever seen on this site, and over a topic which is as controversial as they come, with diametrically opposing viewpoints and a VIP visitor to boot.
Gold stars all around.
207. 750 Mang
“Don’t re-write what we already know and try to tell us this is the real story.”
But he did rewrite it, and they shot it, and it’s coming out on May 8th. Like it or not, this IS the real story. It’s official. It’s….canon.
Your statement raises some interesting questions and also exposes some of your own assumptions. One, who is “we,” and two, what is it that “we” are supposed to “already know?”
Speaking strictly from a real-world point of view, your assumption seems to be that “everyone” knows the “facts” about Kirk & Co.’s “backstory.” The reality is that most people do not — even most Trek fans probably don’t — and neither do they care. Their knowledge or ignorance of these so-called ‘facts’ neither helps nor hurts their enjoyment of the series.
Again – real world perspective. Paramount has plunked down a mighty amount of cash to make this film, with a name director, and a crew who have a reputation of solid box office and TV hits. A film that is budgeted at $150M has an expectation of making anywhere from $450M – $1 billion, but that expectation includes *worldwide* releasing.
As this blog has chronicled, most people, especially outside the United States, are not Trekkers. They might have a passing familiarity with it, if at all, but the series simply hasn’t aired in as many countries as you think it might have.
So this massive potential worldwide audience for, what by all reports looks to be blockbuster material — probably isn’t familiar with Trek at all, let alone the minutiae of Kirk’s backstory as cobbled together by the pulp-adaptation franchised-merchandise mill.
So once again, who is this “we” you speak of?
Again, from a real-world perspective, as echoed by comments the actors and writers themselves have made in interviews, having a character being established as Captain Perfect-Pants from minute one is absolutely boring.
All great stories show the journey of imperfect people who react and change by the end of the movie. The biggest problem with Trek isn’t even the amount of canon — it’s the fact that every episode, every movie, pushes the reset button, and by the following week, everyone is just the same, having neither learned, nor changed, nor grown, for better or worse. (although DS9 tried, to their credit).
You might say that the events of the ‘prime timeline backstory’ show that Kirk had trauma that shaped his life as well, but in a two hour movie, how do you get that all across to an audience who are possibly unfamiliar with the franchise to begin with? What do you put in, what do you leave out? If you put in Finnegan, do you leave out Tarsus IV? How do you even start to tell the story of Tarsus IV without making that a movie of its own?
Once you start examining it, all this heavy backstory was, in reality, a clever way for TV series writers to introduce a convenient “hook” for the story-of-the-week. Kirk having served on the Farragut and prevented Ben Finney from advancing in his career for leaving the connection to the atomic matter pile open — is a way to advance a story of an Old Enemy Who Wants Revenge, and create dramatic tension, in a 40-minute TV show where we have to go on faith that all this stuff actually happened in the past, and imagine Ben Finney burning with resentment for 15 years or more, because we can’t actually see it (in fact, we only see *him* towards the end of the 3rd act!)
It’s no different than having, say, B.A. Baracus from the A-Team suddenly revealing that he spent 2 years in ballet school as a kid, in order to tie into this week’s episode of a ballet school threatened by gangsters (i’m sure that episode really exists). By next week, it’s all forgotten and we’re on to the next story!
Only, it seems, in Trek fandom do people elevate these throwaway story hooks to the level of Talmudic scholarship…. (cont’d)
#88
Can’t wade through all these posts to see if it’s been addressed, but no, it isn’t ‘naive’. The Naked Now clearly involved time travel *without* a reset, though it was admittedly only 30 minutes. In City on the Edge of Forever, though things seem to be more or less back to normal by episode’s end, there’s presumably still an original timeline where a bum wasn’t disintegrated by a phaser. Tomorrow is Yesterday, too, though I’m not sure any significant changes were made. Assignment Earth *clearly* involves some kind of change, otherwise how did Starfleet know to send Kirk back to fix Seven’s tinkerings to begin with? Otherwise, his changes should have been part of ‘normal’ history and they shouldn’t have known to ‘fix’ it. The Voyage Home involved all kinds of alterations that weren’t explained.
There are numerous examples in subsequent shows I won’t get into. Even though things were more or less status quo at the end of an episode doesn’t mean *every* event was exactly as it was before. Bob’s ‘many worlds’ explanation fits with what we’ve already seen in these examples. Just because it was never specifically or directly addressed by the previous writers doesn’t change that. He was merely offering some clarification on his thought process. If it bothers you, ignore it. I ignore The Final Frontier – not because Gene said it was apocryphal, but because watching it makes my soul cry.
I guess the fact is, Our Star Trek is an ugly duckling. A Plain Jane.
iTrek is what she becomes after an hour of “What Not to Wear”.
[And here really did like her for her personality. If I wanted bling, I would watch "Miami Vice" reruns.
[Speaking of "Miami Vice", has anyone else noticed certain vague similarities between Star Trek and CSI Miami? The bold use of color, sci-fi gadgets that do miraculous things for the characters, plots with a very clear "moral" to them (the good guys always win!) and even the sort of Kirk-like way HORATIO handles himself and his crew? As they say, "Just Sayin'.]
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
Lovers of Plain Janes.
#211-boborci
“you can’t re-write what hasn’t been written”
Wow, a little defensive are we?
Maybe because it HAS been written; wehave episodes denoting Kirk’s prior career & who Pike’s crew are. We have visible proof that starships are built in orbit, not on the ground, even 100 years before this & we have episodes clearly showing us that James T. Kirk can’t drive a car & humans haven’t seen a Romulan yet.
If you couldn’t write within what’s already established, you shouldn’t have taken the job!!
You did the same thing to Transformers & it sucked! It had barely any robots & about 7 superfluous human characters!
Try actually reading the source material next time!
Maybe then you wouldn’t be forced to come up with time travel excuses to allow you to trash another great franchise.
You have no business writing Trek if you don’t like it the way it is.
I’m all for a new movie starring Kirk & crew recast, maybe even with a few other upgrades, but you changed the ship & way too many crucial plot points for Trek fans to be happy about this movie.
There is a reason that Cawley’s fan films are so popular despite the horrible acting; he knows what to change & what to leave alone. That’s a lesson, you & Abrams really need to learn!!
#256 – I know you feel 10 feet tall right now, but there is little merit to anything you said.
There are a lot of people who are going to wind up with egg on their faces if this film rocks….
#174
“One other thing. It is my belief that anything we could’ve chosen to do would’ve alienated some part of the base. Therefore, it was our belief that our solution is the one which would be LEAST egregious to the overall base.”
boborci:
RIGHT ON!
I have just read in the last 3 weeks “Best Destiny”, “Vulcan’s Forge” and the Shat’s “Starfleet Academy: Collision Course”. They all deal with angry young Kirk, fighting for control Spock, and how both met. 3 different takes yet similiar in tone.
I look forward to this kind of conflict playing out on the screen.
#238 (James)
QUOTE: “everything about Star Trek that we’ve seen so far MUST have occurred in order for Nero & Co. to go back in time and screw stuff up.”
Yes. There is no “alternative origin” without someone creating it. That’s also why the original and the alternate timeline share the same history *before* Nero’s appearance in the past. But after this “new origin”, there is no connection anymore. Alternate Kirk, alternate Picard, alternate Sisko, alternate Janeway… they’ll all be different. None of the primary stories and history will matter.
QUOTE: “The fact that Spock Prime follows them back implies that he’s there to set things straight again.”
I still believe this may eventually pose a problem for the following reasons:
(a) If Spock Prime follows Nero, he will wind up in yet a different alternative universe. By physical definition, he can’t follow Nero. If he enters history *before* Nero’s entry he will create an alternate timeline, which in turn Nero won’t enter. If he enters history *after* Nero’s entry, he will also create an alternate timeline, which Nero won’t enter (or rather: hasn’t entered, because his own alternate timeline branched off before that point). Spock Prime would have to travel to the past using the exact same temporal pathway as Nero, i.e. in his “slipstream”, if you may.
(b) Spock Prime would be forever caught in this alternate universe and would by physical definition not be able to return to his primary timeline. There is no way to jump between alternate universes. There is no way to have a large-scale alternate reality with significant macroscopic changes collapse back onto the prime reality.
(c) Why should Spock Prime follow Nero, if his own primary universe will not be affected?
If e.g. the drilling on Vulcan somehow breaks down the quantum barriers between these two alternate realities, then it’s okay, but THEN we’re dealing not with real quantum physics but with science fiction. Then Spock has a legitimate intention to intervene, because his own world is in peril. And if in this SciFi-take the quantum barriers between universes can fall, then there’s also a possibility to have the alternate universe collapse back entirely into the primary timeline. Then all of our discussions about losing established Trek history etc. are totally moot, and we should simply have a helluva fun with the new film.
QUOTE: “Spock Prime gets everything sorted and we return to the Prime Universe at the end of the film”
This is impossible due to Bob Orci’s own approach based on the many-worlds hypothesis. By definition and based on Orci’s premise, Spock Prime will remain stuck in the alternate timeline forever. The only solution is ScienceFiction: collapse it back into the primary timeline or apply some weird unscientifical super-machine to break down quantum barriers.
QUOTE: “We stay in the Bizarro Universe, and maybe return to the Prime Universe in later films.”
Same thing applies. By definition, nobody can return to the primary universe he came from. Only in science fiction, and since Trek is science fiction, we might see some sort of solution. But then I don’t see any reason why the filmmakers relied on quantum-physical theories like the many-worlds-hypothesis in the first place.
QUOTE: “If we go back to the Prime Universe, all well and good.”
Sure. I’d be the last to object. But again, that’s not quantum physics, that’s SciFi. Actually, I stated my own opinion on this matter above: “Since the “alternate timeline” framework is now a fait accompli, use it to your (and our!) advantage. Take the “reformed Trek” into a TOTALLY different direction in this new universe. Be bold. Explore Kirk, Spock & Co. in completely altered settings. E.g. envision the Federation being defeated by the Klingon Empire, envision the characters we know as resistance fighters, being oppressed, persecuted, labeled “terrorists”. You made the first step. Why not go all the way?”
So my stance is: We have an alternate timeline. Let’s play with it for at least a few movies. We can always return to the original universe, if the filmmakers’ plans allow for such an unscientific, magic SciFi-solution.
Just like you said yourself: “When I watch ‘Yesterday’s Enterprise’ and other alternate reality episodes, part of me doesn’t want to leave the alternate reality—part of me wants to stay and see what happens there, ‘cos it looks quite cool! If we stay in the Bizarro Universe, that comes true. And that’s cool too.”
Ditto. The only thing I’m saying is that it saddens me that this new film could mean the end of any connection to former Trek. That’s why I’m hoping that the filmmakers retained some “fiction” in “science fiction”. ;)
# 257
I know you must feel even taller for getting to take a poster down a notch – (which must make me feel 12 feet tall).
#255: Get over yourself. Firstly, your ugly duckling star trek will always be there. That will NOT change. PERIOD. End of story. Secondly, the new Star Trek has already been completed and people are going to like it, so just give it a rest. Let it be. Avoir. THE END.
(this is all based upon the personal opinion of The Governator)
BaronByng:
Star Trek and the A-Team are different animals entirely. TOS, as it was produced, may fit the mold you describe. And I am sure the Writer’s Guide paints Kirk more as he was in WNMHGB than the character into which he evolved in 3 subsequent years.
The syndication years gave fans lots of time and grist for speculation as to who these characters were, and all we had were the facts as presented in the original 79.
Theodore Sturgeon and then DC Fontana can be credited for giving Spock a rich and cohesive backstory that works. With Kirk, it’s more or less “connect the dots” and “fill in the blanks.”
The A-Team disappeared fairly quickly. Trek didn’t.
“Yes. There is no “alternative origin” without someone creating it. ”
Perhaps, but perhaps Nero transported quantum mechanically to near-identical universe where everything looks the same – he didn’t create this time line, but merely arrived in this alternate reality and altered its natural (?) progression.
Put that in your pipe and Spock it.
#253
“As this blog has chronicled, most people, especially outside the United States, are not Trekkers. They might have a passing familiarity with it, if at all, but the series simply hasn’t aired in as many countries as you think it might have.”
Well, I’m outing myself: I’m not American.
“Only, it seems, in Trek fandom do people elevate these throwaway story hooks to the level of Talmudic scholarship…. (cont’d)”
I don’t think this is limited to the Trek fandom. True, you can ignore certain elements like false dates etc. . Yet there has to be a common ground. If two people are talking about something, they have to have basically the same knowledge about the topic to understand each other. So if you start with different timelines, someone will always miss the point. That’s the real tragedy here I think.
#255 – wow, when did you get to see the full movie? I mean, you know more about it that anyone I’ve read.
Just kidding, I know you harbor great feelings for trek. But seriously, how can you judge the new movie without seeing it.
And to Bob Orci… thank you for helping guide the remaining few holdouts towards the light :)
253. BaronByng – January 13, 2009
“So once again, who is this “we” you speak of?”
I’m talking about the fans, like me, who when they hear Gary Mitchell say that he directed a blond lab assistant Kirk’s way they think of Carol Marcus.
I’m talking about the fans, like me, who when Kirk says to Spock in STV that he knows what it’s like to lose a brother we think of “Operation: Annihilate!” and Sam Kirk.
I’m talking about the fans, like me, who know why Sulu smiles when Kirk theatens the Romulations with corbomite device in “Enterprise Incident”. Who knows that he is smiling because of what happened in “The Corbomite Manuevre”.
I’m talking about the fans, like me, who think that all of these seemingly small plot and character details are the very molecules that make up the body of Star Trek. It’s all these little things that make the characters meaty and deep. Even when Star Trek is not good, we still have that collective story to carry us through.
But you’re right. Far be it for me to speak for others. I haven’t been elected to anything. I’m just a fan. For me Star Trek is like the air, I have no memory of not breathing, and I have no memory of life without Star Trek and its story, it’s history.
I am sad that that history is not to be used anymore. And I don’t think there was a valid reason (artistically, commercially or otherwise) to abandon it.
Remember the Farragut!
#256
Sorry, but we had on screen proof that ships were built ON THE GROUND. Enterprise made the error there, contradicting what had been clearly depicted before. One could argue there were multiple methods for starship construction, but the fact remains that Abrams & Co have ‘canon’ for their theory.
As for Kirk not driving a stick in APOTA…eh, pretty minor point, isn’t it? TOS also told us there was one death penalty on the books in ‘The Menagerie’, then in ‘Turnabout Intruder’ gave us another. They couldn’t make up their minds if it was Starfleet or UESPA, United Space Ship or United Star Ship. Humans having never seen a Romulan was a pretty ridiculous plot point to begin with, so IMO, not such a bad rule to break. Trek has a long history of contradicting itself, so they’re merely continuing in that fine tradition! ;)
KATARIAN EGGS:
Very, very rude and insulting. I’m sorry, but if your canon matters that much to you, you need to go take some pills to help with your OCD. As far as I’m concerned, to hell with canon all together. People get so wrapped up in this stuff. It’s just TV. It’s not even real. What really matters and what Gene Roddenberry cared about was telling a good character story and giving good moral lessons. This canon stuff, Gene Rodenberry didn’t live to see most of it, and probably didn’t give a rat’s ass. Seriously, what’s wrong with some of you people.
“You see, Elphaba, where I come from, we believe in a lot of things that aren’t true. It’s called ‘history.’”
-The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
256 – James Cowley’s Phase II is good for a fan film effort, but many of those things will not stand up to a $150m feature film.
You are telling him he has no business writing for a Feature Film?
He has written SEVERAL features, including Transformers, and M:I:III, countless hours of Television, including Fringe (which a Fox executive called ” a keeper”) etc.
Transformers barely having any robots was more likely a Budget/Feasability solution, since the Robots were such complex things to create for the film, and NOT Orci’s decision.
Would you expect a Mainstream audience, unfamiliar with Star Trek, to see a film about a Cadet famous for being a Bookworm?
Would you really expect Paramount to spend $100m+ on a feature film with the sets, designs and style of the Original Series?
Hardcore fans like us would enjoy it, but we’d come away feeling wanting, that it wasn’t the epic film we wanted to see, and the publicity would send Star Trek to a singularity.
At least see what he HAS done on Star Trek before attacking him.
#254 (sean):
I’ve elaborated on that before. Until now time travel stories were all about leaving the foremost peak of the time arrow, the peak of the overall Trek universe narrative, going back and returning to the peak of the time arrow, plus/minus a few minutes or hours. But as Bob Orci said (and I agree), they all probably returned to an alternate universe. But since the future hadn’t been established at that point, it didn’t really matter if it was an alternate universe, and obviously there were only minor changes to the timeline (if any at all).
This new story however does not a have a point of return, except for Spock Prime maybe, which would be unscientific (see above; 260). The new film uses time travel to establish a narrative that stays in the past of the alternate timeline, with major changes. It doesn’t take the audience back to the TNG era.
So you’re actually comparing apples and oranges.
267: 750 Mang
“I’m talking about the fans, like me, who when Kirk says to Spock in STV that he knows what it’s like to lose a brother we think of “Operation: Annihilate!” and Sam Kirk.”
I haven’t seen STV in a while, but I’m pretty sure Kirk was referring to Spock when he talks about losing a brother.
Spock: I’ve lost a brother.
James T. Kirk: Yes. I lost a brother once. I was lucky I got him back.
Leonard McCoy: I thought you said men like us don’t have families.
James T. Kirk: I was wrong.
#251
Yes, I know. But nevertheless he told in one of his interviews with anthony that the changes in the alternate universe are not that great a lot of people here seem to imply. He said there is still a botany bay out there, still the nomad or the whale probe and that most things will stay just the same because the universe tends to let the most probable things let happen. As far as I can see no big plotlines from TOS to the movies have necessarily been made impossible by the idea of this alternate universe. The only real differences lie in the past of these characters and not in some big “onscreen” stories.
Stephan
#269 (THE GOVERNATOR):
Canon is totally irrelevant here. According to the authors, the new film avoids any clashes with established canon by creating a different timeline universe. The people here, who voice canonical concerns, obviously don’t understand the multiverse theory. So there’s no need to bash alleged canonistas. You should rather educate them on the new film’s groundwork.
#275 – Schultz
Understandable. However, my point was to address those who are insulting Bob Orci and the new direction of the film, specifically the fact that people dislike it taking place in an alternate timeline.
273. barrydancer – January 13, 2009
“267: 750 Mang
I haven’t seen STV in a while, but I’m pretty sure Kirk was referring to Spock when he talks about losing a brother.”
Yes, but that was the touching part of the line. The fact that we knew that Kirk had lost his actual blood brother and was now saying that Spock was more important to him than Sam.
Without the knowledge of Sam Kirk and his death the line loses its punch.
Remeber the Farragut!
I’m not completly sure if I reproduce it correctly, because it was many years ago, but I read once in a science magazine about a theory of time, that sayed that past, present and future are all the same. The future interferes with the past and the present all the time etc. It sounds very weird and complicate and the theory also sayed that it’s just we humans who see and life time as a linear process, multidimensional beeings will perhaps not and exist in the past and the future at same moment.
I don’t remember the professor’s name who sayed that, but it sounded very interesting for me (I think he was british, but perhaps Kayla could find out?). Beside that, that theory seems to fit very well with the common time travels in Star Trek.
If timetravels will create new universes we will not know until we tested it in real life, so timetravels are fiction. What makes Yesterday’s Enterprise or Year of Hell great was the fight of the alternate-versions of our beloved characters to restore the original-timeline. In the end, every timetravel set everything back to normal – in a new universe or not. Only small details left changed. I doubt that will happen with the new movie. Personally, I could life better if the new movie represent the style of the years between 2255 and 2263, an era we don’t know nothing – at least visually. The new Enterprise could be an experimental refit used between The Cage and WNMHGB.
About Star Trek 4:
1.) we never know about the fate of George and Gracie in the original timeline.
2.) We don’t know about the fate of Gillian in the original timeline. If the time-interaction-theory (just my name for that) is right, then it was allways the destiny of the three of them to travel through time. In the original timeline they thought to be killed or disappeared, like many animals and humans before them. Only in the 23rd century the truth was revealed.
3.) The theory of transparent aluminium might be in the computer of Nichols, but I guess he never found out how to make it real (not possible without 23rd century technology), so the future might be untouched and Nichols take that secret into his grave.
4.) The story of the bird-of-prey-encounter of the whalers no one would have believed and so they died as poor, insane men.
5.) the gamma-rays aboard the USS Enterprise CVN-65 destroyed the technology inside the klingon handphasers and so they become useless for the US and the technology could not be duplicated. I guess the damaged phasers were stored in Area 51 and forgotten.
About First Contact:
1.) The Borg Sphere where damaged and could not jump deeper in time as the late 21st century. I guess they need energy to create as hole through time. The more energy you have, the farer you could travel through time. So, the Sphere was damaged in the spacebattle (Picard mentioned that later in the movie), they could not create enough energy to travel back to ancient Rome, so they choose 2064, after WW-III.
2.) We don’t know how long the Borg were in posession of time-travel-technology. It seems very likley that they explored it just right before the events of FC.
3.) The outcome of the events in FC are the same as in the original timeline. The future left unaltered.
4.) But there was indeed an alternate universe. It was created by the Borg: The borgified earth!
5.) Cochrane came never in touch with 23rd century technology. The future left unaltered. And Lilly was no engineer.
and on that point of Talmudic scholarship — I really worry about people who take their obsession with ‘the facts of canon’ too seriously, and who seemingly, cannot enjoy ANY Trek (even their old episodes) if the new movie changes things, because it somehow ‘invalidates’ them.
There are certain people who have great difficulty dealing with things that are new. (”People can be very frightened of change.”) There was a recent study that showed significant brain differences between self-identified ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals,’ for instance, when presented with situations of sudden change or moral ambiguity.
It seems a constant, at least in my 40 years upon this island Earth, that people who obsess over “knowing all the facts about things” are using this knowledge as power — power over an imaginary world of escapism, or power over things (computers, machines), or people (in the case of religion or politics), often because real life is messy and ambiguous, and they don’t know how to deal with people very well. If you mess with their ‘facts’, they tend to freak out.
Trek is, perhaps almost archetypally, a kind of refuge for people like this, because it presents a set of facts that they can latch onto and memorize, a future history all set out in neat little chunks, and they can buy semi-official books listing all the ships and technology and whatnot.
It’s also kind of predictable that these people miss all the emotional content in the show, especially the messages about the dangers of being rigid and closed-minded: “ENT: Chosen Realm,” “TOS: Let That Be Your Last Battlefield,” “VOY: Distant Origin”…
People have said that they don’t know if they can ‘care’ about the new actors taking over these roles — well it is the filmmakers’ job to make you care and their pay depends on it, actually. If you can’t care about the characters because a set of imaginary ‘facts’ have been changed through an in-universe temporal incursion…I can’t help you. Maybe therapy?
#274
Sure Botany Bay etc. are the same in both timelines since they share the same timeline before the split. Everything after the split is different. It might play out similar, but not the same.
HEYHEYHEY
A little love for B.O.B. from Disney’s The Black Hole, please?
Okay, okay, a little love for BobO, too.
This man has worked hard to think of EVERYTHING. Not just what you all can think of, but what you haven’t thought of yet. Truly he’s almost Einstein! No one had ever thought about gravity the way he did and no one ever will think of gravity the same hence. Even Newton could not explain gravity, and he invented the stuff!
SO: Kick back and watch the movie, then we can all get together, have some beers, smoke some weed, and chill out and discuss it like rational folks.
I’m interested in seeing the story pan out. I want to follow the logic. I currently debug logic for a company you might have heard of. And it’s more fun and more productive to figure it out than just bitch at the programmers and engineers. But I do admit, I’d love to crack some pointy skulls.
And Denise: You think Kirk & Spock finally come out of the closet too?
Bob0
277:
Yes, but knowing that Shatner and the writers most likely never saw “Operation Annihilate” sucks even more wind out of it.
279. BaronByng – January 13, 2009
“I can’t help you. Maybe therapy?”
Nice. Maybe so.
Remember the Farragut!
Damn I forgot to finish my thought…
#276 (THE GOVERNATOR): “specifically the fact that people dislike it taking place in an alternate timeline.”
To be honest, I don’t like the fact that it takes place in an alternate timeline. But that’s only for purely personal and emotional reasons, attachment to Trek narratives hitherto. And I’ll definitely get over it. There are fears and hopes:
(1) I fear that the filmmakers are not audacious enough to take the new timeline into a totally different direction, at least with the coming sequels, and that they will simply rehash TOS in a modernized way, with some twists and tweaks here and there, some ironical winks at primary canon for the fans.
(2) I hope that they (at least theoretically) leave open the possibility to return to the original timeline, either for distinctive films or series (detached from “new Trek”), or by merging the whole alternate universe into the “old world” again. (There was this TNG episode with Worf jumping from one universe to another, which is pseudoscientific nonsense, but at least we have an Trek-precedent for breaking barriers between alternate timelines.)
#280
But this happened before when Cochrane and Lily knew about the Borg. In the original timeline the first encounter with the Borg has been made by Picard. But in Voyager the alternate timeline was shown where they knew about the Borg a lot earlier and an exploration vessel examined them about 20 years earlier than Picard just because mankind knew about the Borg.
Stephan
# 286
The Hansons find them first, collect many of data and unwisly followed them. But I guess they never could send all that information to starfleet before they get assimilated. And so, Picard had the first known encounter, because no one heard of the poor Hansons, who left the known space to follow the traces of a mysterious cybernetic civilisation. I don’t see why the story of the Hansons should be taking place in a new universe.
#286
They could have started that journey just a easily without Picard. Why ? Well, the Enterprise B saved some El-Aurian refugee vessels in ST VII who were fleeing because the Borg had destroyed their homeworld. After all Guinan was on one of these vessels. So it’s quite possible, that rumours about the Borg started from that point out.
#269 The Governator:
AMEN BROTHER!!!!!
I’VE WATCHED AND READ ALOT OF TREK IN MY 45 YEARS. lOVED MOST OF IT. BUT I HAVE NEVER LET MYSELF BECOME SOOO OBSESSED WITH IT. SURE, I HAVE MY LITTLE SHIPS THAT I PLAY WITH SOMETIMES, BUT I’M ALSO STARTING INTO MY SECOND CHILDHOOD! HA! HA! HA!
#253 BARONBYNG
YOU, SIR, ARE CORRECT. MOST PEOPLE DON’T KNOW AND DON’T CARE ABOUT STAR TREK! tHAT IS WHAT THIS MOVIE IS TRYING TO CHANGE. AND ONCE AGAIN, THE PEOPLE WHO HAVEN’T TAKEN THEIR PILLS FOR THEIR ” OCD ” ARE TRYING TO RUIN IT FOR EVERYONE ELSE WHO LIVES IN THE “REAL WORLD” AND HAVE A “REAL WORLD PERSPECTIVE”
FOR ALL OF YOU “CANONISTS” WITH “OCD”
I WILL GO AND SEE THIS MOVIE AND MASSIVELY ENJOY MYSELF AND SEE A GREAT ADVENTURE UNFOLD ON THE SCREEN WHICH WILL RIVAL ANYTHING THAT HAS COME BEFORE. JJ, BOB ORCI, ALEX KURTZMAN, AND DAVE LINDELOF ARE VERY GOOD STORY TELLERS. I LOVED ALIAS, WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH MI-3, AND COMPLETELY BLOWN AWAY BY TRANSFORMERS.
SO HOW THE HELL CAN THIS NOT BE A GREAT MOVIE!!!!! THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN EVERYTHING THEY NEEDED TO MAKE IT GREAT AND THEN GAVE OF THEIR DEDICATED FAN ORIENTED MINDS THE BEST THEY COULD IMAGINE. THAT IS WHAT GREAT STORIES ARE. THE IMAGINATIONS OF GREAT STORY TELLERS.
I BELIEVE DEEP IN MY HEART THAT GENE RODDENBERRY WOULD BE ASHAMED OF ALL OF YOU. UNLIKE L.RON HUBBARD, GENE DIDN’T SET OUT TO CREATE A NEW RELIGION, HE JUST WANTED TO TELL GOOD STORIES THAT MADE PEOPLE THINK. TO MAKE THEM CONSIDER WHERE MANKIND WAS, WHERE IT COULD BE, AND WHAT AM I GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO HELP MANKIND ATTAIN THIS BRIGHT SHINY FUTURE THAT HE BELIEVED WE NOT ONLY COULD ATTAIN BUT OWED IT TO OURSELVES AND OUR CHILDREN, TO ATTAIN!!!!!!
IT IS SOO SAD THAT ALL OF YOU MISSED THE POINT.
267. Mang
Dude, I hear you and I understand. Honestly!
The thing is, a little touch here and there like Sulu smiling at Corbomite, is something that only makes sense to someone who’s seen all the episodes. In fact, lines like that in the movies only make sense if you’ve seen not only the series, but all the other movies as well.
As I believe Roger Ebert once said about the Trek movies, they tended to rely far too much on unearned sentimentality about the characters, and on the fans’ knowledge of the series. (Again, this goes a long way to explaining why ‘the whale movie’ was the most popular one).
While I know that Bob Orci is making sure they get as much canon into the film as humanly possible (within the boundaries of the story), what we are getting, probably for the first time in Trek, is proper on-screen character development — i.e. a reason for ordinary filmgoers to care about these characters, as we follow their arcs. There will be *new* touches and moments to discover, possibly in a more meaningful way, but with enough of a nod towards the original. It’s not turning into the re-imagined BSG, after all.
Yes, the timeline change makes all that a bit more convenient to do, but at the same time, it also opens up dramatic possibilities: the future is no longer set exactly as it once was. But it’s still the future I’d like to live in, and one I want to see.
#279 (BaronByng): “I really worry about people who take their obsession with ‘the facts of canon’ too seriously, and who seemingly, cannot enjoy ANY Trek (even their old episodes) if the new movie changes things, because it somehow ‘invalidates’ them.”
(a) it’s not about canon; there is no canon breach here, because it’s an alternate timeline
(b) the new movie does not “invalidate” the old Trek—especially not its contents, its messages—, but by this new film the complete Trek narrative up to this point (excluding ENT and parts of “First Contact”) is rendered completely IRRELEVANT for the new timeline.
It’s the clean slate that bugs me. As a science fiction fan I’ll surely enjoy the stories from the alternate universe, but as a Trek fan the new outset has left me quite sobered, at least at this moment.
#278 – Good points but also consider this: What if the Borg attack in First Contact killed the grandfather of the guy who ordered the first ships into combat with the Romulans in the late 2150s or something along those lines? IDIC.
#287
Ok, point for you. ;-) But what about enterprise – regeneration? They have the Borg sphere on the south pole and Archer fought with a lot of Borg. I think his logs did not exist in the original timeline.
#289
You do realize that by writing everything in capital letters, you keep people from taking your opinion seriously, don’t you ?
“and on that point of Talmudic scholarship — I really worry about people who take their obsession with ‘the facts of canon’ too seriously,”
Wouldn’t some say we are too obsessive merely by being here regularly and posting long comments in the first place?
I’m primarily in it for the Kirk/Spock relationship yet I value the rich tapestry that has been woven over the decades. I am not afraid of change but if change is to be had, I’d like a reasonable, logical (sorry, Spock) explanation as to the “why?” That’s just the way I approach things and that includes Star Trek. It doesn’t mean I’m rigid or close-minded either. All these labels are too easy and really don’t work in a fandom setting.
#253 – Baron
I’m not sure your A-Team analogy holds. It would if the new movie only dealt with things that *weren’t included* in the original backstory, but it includes things that *directly contradict* things that were in the original backstory.
The real head-scratcher is this: there were so few things IN that original backstory that a new story, even one along the lines of the one that was written, could have easily have been written WITHOUT contradicting what had gone before. That makes the changes seem arbitrary and pointless.
#293
Well, he didn’t know it was the Borg or anything about them, did he ?
They never stated their name, he did not gain much insight into their goals or their organizational structure. Phlox only theorizes a group counsciousness in the end. Archer’s logs were probably classified. The threat from the Borg was probably underestimated, since it could not be said for certain, that the Borg even received the message sent at the end of the episode, besides they didn’t realize the Borg had transwarp.
I believe it’s credible to assume, that Picard wasn’t aware of them as well as most of Starfleet and the Federation before Q’s introduction.
In terms of the canon conundrum, personally most of what I’ve seen so far doesn’t really make any difference to me. I’m not a fan of the Enterprise design, or even the concept that the original crew were somehow cosmically ordained to meet up on the bridge. Or the Enterprise being built on the ground, or whatever else. It’s a movie, this is 2009, so be it. I was happy with the FX in Indiana Jones and KOTCS, so I can’t be hypocritical on this one.
All that said, from what I’ve read so far, the alternative (permanent) timeline is likely something I won’t be happy with at all. I’ll hold off until I see the movie, but it’s probably not going to sit well. To possibly erase episodes like Court Martial and The Menagerie, make me shudder.
291. It’s not really that much of a clean slate. All the other races, planets, factions, technology, etc, are still there, and they all have *their* timelines as well, many of which will remain unchanged. I would even say that, aside from some design changes, even Earth and Starfleet’s timeline is mostly unaffected.
From a storytelling perspective, yes, things change, but as Bob Orci said, ’same ship, different day’. Within the larger ‘thermodynamics of history’ many events may well play out the same, but of course with minor differences from the prime universe…to those who care, observing those differences will be fun, to those who don’t, it’ll just be a good story…
290. BaronByng – January 13, 2009
267. Mang
“The thing is, a little touch here and there like Sulu smiling at Corbomite, is something that only makes sense to someone who’s seen all the episodes. In fact, lines like that in the movies only make sense if you’ve seen not only the series, but all the other movies as well.
As I believe Roger Ebert once said about the Trek movies, they tended to rely far too much on unearned sentimentality about the characters, and on the fans’ knowledge of the series.”
I don’t see how removing my understanding of such small moments, like Sulu smiling, helps expand Treks fanbase.
As far as Roger Ebert’s opinion, I don’t put too much credence in film reviews from the man who wrote “Valley of the Dolls”, quite possibly the worst movie ever filmed.
Remember the Farragut!
#289 (Capt. Jax): “GENE DIDN’T SET OUT TO CREATE A NEW RELIGION, HE JUST WANTED TO TELL GOOD STORIES THAT MADE PEOPLE THINK.”
Correct. And now read through this thread to see what good thinkers we are! ;) Seriously: Star Trek also took on a life of its own. It’s especially the films and series and their reception that matter. They are what makes Star Trek. What Roddenberry originally set out to do, is not unimportant to keep the Star Trek vibe intact—and I’m sure the new film will manage to do that—, but it’s only a part of the whole equation. And Roddenberry would surely not be “ASHAMED” of all of us, because—believe it or not—, we also care about StarTrek, but we care about more than just the vision Roddenberry had in the 1960s, because Trek is more than just his vision. And to be honest: People with visions should visit the doctor. As I stated above, it would be great to also have some kind of Anti-Trek in the future, a film or a TV series that deliberately breaks with Roddenberry’s vision.
In a way, your opinion is a bit schizophrenic: On the one hand you SCREAM at fellow Star Trek fans for their efforts in perpetuating Trek heritage and call on them to embrace a film that breaks with this heritage, but on the other hand you enshrine Roddenberry’s alleged initial vision of Star Trek as a sine qua non. In your eyes, some of us may be missing the point, but you actually don’t have *any* point.
#294 Unbel1ver
The point I was trying to make, which you and other don’t get, is that Star Trek is not something to get obsessed over. All of the episodes in all of the series’ and movies are nothing more than great stories told by great story tellers. Great stories are the ones that touch the heart and “open” the mind. They make us grow, just like the grinch, who’s heart grew ten sizes that day!!!!
GET THE POINT NOW!!!!!!!!!
#302
Do you believe that Star Trek would still exist, if it had been an accumulation of stories without establishing a universe around them ?
#299 (BaronByng): “It’s not really that much of a clean slate. All the other races, planets, factions, technology, etc, are still there, and they all have *their* timelines as well, many of which will remain unchanged.”
Yes, but that’s actually something that I brought up as a negative point above. It means that the new Trek will effectively not be a journey to where no man has gone before. Instead of continuing the Trek narrative after TNG into the far reaches of space and time, possibly with new technology, we’ll now be revisiting the same races, planets, factions and technology of the Alpha Quadrant. Home sweet home, sure, and it’ll be interesting to see them in a modernized fashion, but is that really what Trek is about? Venturing into the known?
QUOTE: “I would even say that, aside from some design changes, even Earth and Starfleet’s timeline is mostly unaffected.”
Yes. I often said that I wouldn’t even have minded the design and biographical changes, if this new film were an in-timeline prequel. So I definitely don’t mind changes in an alternate timeline. After all, that’s what alternate timelines are for. ;) Whether the rest of Earth’s timeline is mostly unaffected, remains to be seen. As I said earlier, I’d prefer to use this opportunity of an alternate reality and take Star Trek into a totally different direction.
Y’all are makin’ my head spin.
People would complain about this movie no matter HOW it was conceptualized and written. Trekkers have decided opinions, don’t we? And I will admit that I’m one of the skeptics about the QM/alternate timeline angle, which does NOT make me a canonista or a lunatic or any of the other derogatory terms that have been flung about. It makes me a fan and a thinking human being, that’s what. Despite that, I’m willing to be convinced and hopeful. Mr. Orci, show me what you’ve got. I can’t wait!
295 – yes, we are obsessive :) As to their being a rich tapestry, it’s not so rich when you view it from outside the fan perspective, more a series of old carpet remnants held together with the duct-tape of semi-canon and fanon.
296 – I have 150 million reasons why the changes were necessary. If you’re going to do an epic, blockbuster movie, you have to tell the story in a simple, iconic, character-driven way that non-fans (the majority of the audience) will be able to latch on to. The existing backstory would be a pile of facts that would puzzling to non-fans, and from a practical perspective, is simply too complex to fit into a two-hour movie.
I mean Tarsus IV? That’s like Kirk surviving the Holocaust, and that would be an entire movie unto itself (and showing how he likely dealt with feelings of depression, suicidal thoughts, extreme guilt, nihilistic behaviour, or worse, bullying authoritarianism…read up on the psychology of trauma survivors)…is that something people who don’t know Trek want to see?
306. BaronByng – January 13, 2009
“I mean Tarsus IV? That’s like Kirk surviving the Holocaust, and that would be an entire movie unto itself… is that something people who don’t know Trek want to see?”
You don’t have to make a movie about Tarsus IV to allow it to remain a part of Kirk’s backstory. You don’t even have to mention it.
This movie was supposed to be the origin of how TOS crew came together – that wasn’t on Tarsus IV. Kirk was a teenager on Tarsus.
Remember the Farragut!
Dear Governator,
There really is no need to be harsh, it’s just a discussion among friends.
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
304. I hear you. I’m sure that enough will be different that it won’t be “Oy! Again mit the Klingons!” to quote an episode of the Simpsons…it’s a big galaxy and there are plenty of things we *haven’t* seen on screen in any of the series or movies. Future films (presuming sequels) will of course go in different directions playing off topical issues of the 21st century, but keep many elements of the same universe we know and love…i mean it could hardly be Trek without dilithium, Klingons and Tribbles now could it? :)
#306 – BaronByng
Did you truly think I was suggesting that every single detail of Kirk’s life before hitting the Enterprise bridge should be included in the movie?
Leaving things out and contradicting them are two different things altogether.
310. T.U.M. – January 13, 2009
“Leaving things out and contradicting them are two different things altogether.”
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner.
Remember the Farragut!
point on trek V;
i never ever thought that kirk’s “lost a brother” comment had ANYTHING to do with “sam”. i think the line was not a sly reference for fans, it was just lame writing and at best a cheap reference to to earlier, better films. (II and III).
does anyone agree?
What a great thing is Star Trek that it attracts such a wide range of fans – engineers, computer people, film makers, Service veterans, applied temporal physicists, executives, psychiatrists, experts in political science and neurology. :-) I like this website. It’s exciting!
Sincerely
C.S. Lewis
#303 Unbel1ver
Twilight Zone still exists and yet it is nothing more that “moral” stories. It has no “universe” established. And yet people will still turn on the TV and set through hours of reruns from the THREE different series.
Yes, Star Trek has created a universe that I gladly visit every chance that I can. But what makes it GREAT is the charactors and how they touch us with their stories.
The SciFi channel runs ads saying “What If”, that is all the new movie is saying “What If?” George Lucas starts out, “Along time ago, in a galaxy far, far away….. It doesn’t matter how great stories start, just that they get told, and in the telling they make us take time out from our frantic short lives to FEEL something other than selfish self-absorption.
I read alot. Have for over thirty years. I have a favorite series of books by Anne McCaffrey that I have read from the very beginning. Now her son is writing the stories, because she has gooten too old to write. Does he write like she did? No! But I still read the stories and have come to appreciate what he is trying to do. He is trying to keep alive that which he holds dear, the Dragonrider universe that his mother created.
Bob and Alex are just like Todd McCaffrey. They love Star Trek and don’t want to see it die!! They are the new writers asking us all to consider “What If? Just as Gene did over 40 years ago when he pitched the idea of a “Wagon Train to the Star” sales pitch to the studio.
312. never mind the farragut, hail the kelvin! – January 13, 2009
“point on trek V;
i never ever thought that kirk’s “lost a brother” comment had ANYTHING to do with “sam”. i think the line was not a sly reference for fans, it was just lame writing and at best a cheap reference to to earlier, better films. (II and III).”
Even if you disregard Sam Kirk’s presence in that line, the same point is still made. The line pulls us back to previous events in Star Trek’s history – Spock’s death and rebirth in STII and III. It’s all part of our collective Star Trek consciousness.
Remember the Farragut!
“As to their being a rich tapestry, it’s not so rich when you view it from outside the fan perspective, more a series of old carpet remnants held together with the duct-tape of semi-canon and fanon. ”
I was speaking only from a fan perspective. I fear those outsiders don’t even see carpet remnants…just a bunch of nerds standing on faded vinyl. ;)
But again, it just seems odd to me given that the target audience are those non fans…why go to the trouble of this QM thingy? They don’t know or care so it doesn’t matter to them but for a portion of the fan base, reactions range from puzzlement (me) to an outright turnoff.
307. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.
Enough people on these comment threads have thrown up the idea that since Kirk’s backstory has changed via the timeline incursion — i.e. he apparently *doesn’t* spend time on Tarsus IV as a teenager, but ends up as a kid with a chip on his shoulder, from a broken home, who gets into bar fights — he “isn’t the same character anymore” and thus isn’t worth caring about — and they want to see that ‘established backstory’ in the film.
My point is that the old, complex Kirk ‘backstory’ woven together from bits and bobs of throwaway lines and novels is essentially unfilmable — too unwieldy for the purposes of this particular story (as you quite rightly say — how the TOS crew got together).
What is more cinematic than the story of a talented loser wasting his time in a backwater, who becomes a bold leader who takes command in a crisis situation? Yeah, it’s ‘An Officer And A Gentleman,” and “Top Gun,” but also “Lord of the Rings,” and “Star Wars,” too…it’s more human, more understandable, more relatable, and gives us more of a connection to the character than the idea that he was a grim student, drill instructor, and survivor of a colony massacre!
#309 (BaronByng): “i mean it could hardly be Trek without dilithium, Klingons and Tribbles now could it? :)”
No Trek without that! ;) And I also have nothing, absolutely nothing, against re-imagining Trek for new audiences. I mean, you can always force them to watch TOS—you know, like they treated Alex in “Clockwork Orange” ;) —, but remakes, rehashes, recycling of old stories are necessary for every culture. That’s also what forms a common history. So, in a way, it’s a dilemma between the needs of the younger audience (get to know Trek) and the old Star Trek fans (wanna see more and new stuff of Trek), and to be honest, in order to maintain this as a viable franchise, certain stories need to be retold. So yeah, I acknowledge the reboot-factor, definitely.
But all these established Trek constellations in the Alpha Quadrant were conceived decades ago—you know: Klingons = the Empire of Evil, Soviet-Union-style. ;) Times have changed. That’s why I second what you write here:
“Future films (presuming sequels) will of course go in different directions playing off topical issues of the 21st century”
That’s also what I meant with “clean slate”. The filmmakers have the room to follow established canon, if they want to, but there is no obligation for them to do so, because it’s an alternate universe. But maybe that again is what Trek is all about—probably—, but as a Trekkie it’s still hard for me to let go of that whole history. I hope the new film will make it easy, but if it’s just another modern generic Hollywood TripleA trash, I’ll come back here and SCREAM MY LUNGS OUT!!! ;D
“What is more cinematic than the story of a talented loser wasting his time in a backwater, who becomes a bold leader who takes command in a crisis situation? Yeah, it’s ‘An Officer And A Gentleman,” and “Top Gun,” but also “Lord of the Rings,” and “Star Wars,” too…it’s more human, more understandable, more relatable, and gives us more of a connection to the character than the idea that he was a grim student, drill instructor, and survivor of a colony massacre!”
Ah, but some of us feel that those incidents are what made “our” Kirk the bold leader. I find it difficult to believe that a drunk, bar fighting loser can end up being the same Kirk. It just doesn’t play in my mind. Now, can it be interesting to watch? Of course but it makes him like some many other fictional characters. Not sure I want him ultra-relatable because James T, Kirk was rather mythical, and beyond the norm.
317. BaronByng – January 13, 2009
“307. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.”
I don’t have to see a movie about Tarsus to still want it to count in Trek’s history.
I do find it interesting that some of us are criticized for questioning the new team’s plan for Star Trek, but it’s okay to refer to the work of TOS writers as “bits and bobsof throwaway lines.”
That’s arrogant presumption.
Remember the Farragut!
#314
I don’t deny that there can be and are great stories without establishing a larger universe around them, but having one just makes them so much bigger. The Star Trek Universe itself is it’s greatest story. Everything falls into place, there is a community effort. It’s not just the movies and tv shows, it’s the books, the comics and everything around that. Everytime you start to write story in this universe you don’t have to establish 10000 facts to make it that much better to the knowing audience without deminishing its value as a story itself to the casual onlooker. Take First Contact. Itself a solid action movie that attracted a fair crowd of mainstream viewers. However Trekkies get the characters far better, because the knowledge of the universe. They get what Picard goes through in this movie because they know more about him than the 2 mins introduction. The comical effect of the E.M.H. appearing, the Dixon Hill holodeck program and so forth. If you’ve read some of the recent books, you’ll also now that Lt. Hawk is not only a blank redshirt. That’s what’s so great about the Star Trek universe. If you take that away, you’ll have a solid action movie for sure, but nothing else. There won’t be any passionate fanbase that organizes itself in order to save a show. Star Trek will simply faint into memory with all the other great stories out there.
Franchise heroes are recast all the time (James Bond a prominent example) but it took this long for Star Trek to come around to it because the original cast stayed with it so long. The Next Generation was a logical development because the TOS cast was still going strong at the movies.
I think Trek got overextended when TNG was forcibly ended on TV so it could take over the movie series. That was actually the missed opportunity to recast the original characters in the movies, perhaps with a time travel plot not unlike Spock’s baton passing in the new film. TNG should have continued uninterrupted on TV in the manner that ER has, keeping the Enterprise but letting cast members come and go.
The Next Next Generation was done, unfortunately, by Voyager, a show that in hindsight should have been an honest continuation of TNG instead of a let’s-shake-things-up/on-second-thought-not-really replacement for it.
315 (mang)
“Even if you disregard Sam Kirk’s presence in that line, the same point is still made. The line pulls us back to previous events in Star Trek’s history – Spock’s death and rebirth in STII and III. It’s all part of our collective Star Trek consciousness.”
okay. yeah. my question was simply if anyone actually thought shatner and his writer’s give a hoot or bothered to reference a detail from a one-off episode (there was no “search for sam” film). i’m looking at the way fans project absent meaning onto just about anything and infer some kind of reality onto something as sloppy and organic as writing for trek.
no one was outraged that kirk suddenly had a son and i feel no one need be outraged that some guy named nero messed with a timeline. i haven’t seen the film anymore than you have but i bet b’orci & co. will make more, better written and purely fun little references than we’ve ever seen before.
actually, i’d like to see one shot in the new movie of “brother sam” lying on the floor that is really chris pine with a moustache. now THAT would be a fun reference.
310 – to echo Bob Orci, you can’t contradict what hasn’t been dictated!
All these details about Kirk’s history are inferences from anecdotal commentary and in-episode throwaway lines, in many cases self-contradictory, and filled in over the years by fanon and semi-canon novels.
In the end, what is the character of Kirk all about? He’s the id, the driving risk-taker, pleasure-seeker, rule-breaker, restless, an explorer. Spock is the ego (in the classical sense), seeking reason. McCoy is the superego, balancing the id, always concerned with what is right and wrong, to some extent driven by guilt or fear.
The exact details aren’t really as important, in terms of a character drama, as how these characters interact, conflict, resolve their differences. We need to see them grow as people *into* the characters we know.
Did I miss something? Did someone involved in the film say, at one point, “We’re replacing the old Kirk with a new, rebellious one?” Why can’t the newfangled Kirk backstory be made to coordinate with the original Kirk backstory — Tarsus & all that? It’s not as though the Gene Roddenberry ever gave us a meticulous, item-by-item timeline handed down from on high.
I seem to recall some brilliant post from a Nerd Greater Than I reconciling every last item in Kirk’s past with the supposed new plot. Isn’t it possible he spent part of his boyhood at home on the farm with mummy while daddy was out in space, THEN witnessed the tragedy on Tarsus, THEN lost his parents, THEN was raised by his uncle, THEN became a rebellious James Dean biker/bar-fighter, THEN had his little epiphany at the Enterprise refitting, THEN turned serious, stiffened up at the Academy and became the JTK we know and love? Well?
324. BaronByng – January 13, 2009
“We need to see them grow as people *into* the characters we know.”
But how can they become the “characters we know” when they haven’t gone through the same things that made the characters who they were.
Remember the Farragut!
#319 (krikzil (aka Lixy)): “Not sure I want him ultra-relatable because James T, Kirk was rather mythical, and beyond the norm.”
Lixy, Kirk was not mythical and beyond the norm. He is (and has always been) a very simple and stereotypical character, with only a few unusual traits and features. He’s not Spock. So I actually hope that in the new film(s) they try to make him more compelling, more of an archetype. However, I share your concerns that this rather generic character-arc created for the new film doesn’t really substantiate that. Grim student, drill instructor and survivor of a colony massacre are definitely more compelling biographical features, but to be honest, they never showed in his later years as Captain/Admiral Kirk. This past was simply constructed, but it was never really an integral part of his character on-screen, and therefore it wouldn’t be a loss to do away with it at this point.
325. Trek Nerd Central – January 13, 2009
“Did I miss something? Did someone involved in the film say, at one point, “We’re replacing the old Kirk with a new, rebellious one?”
Yes that is exactly what has happened Bob Orci, one of the writers, has informed us that these things didn’t happen to Kirk. That his backstory is profoundly changed. In fact in this very thread he basically said he chats here so much as a way to prepare us for the changes in the timeline that are coming.
I wish I didn’t have to be prepared by Mr. Atoz… err I mean Mr. Orci before going to see Star Trek.
Remember the Farragut!
#327. Yo, Schultz: “Simple and stereotypical”? Them’s fightin’ words!
I think of Kirk as a wildly complex and charismatic Freudian test case inside cornfed-American physiognomy. The guy is ego, super-ego and id in one attractive package.
#328. Well, then. I stand corrected.
I’m still pumped to see the movie, however.
This point is made in the comic book adaptation of ST:V:FF
The line is changed to “I lost two brothers” (pause) “I was lucky to get one of them back.”
312. never mind the farragut, hail the kelvin! – January 13, 2009
“point on trek V;
i never ever thought that kirk’s “lost a brother” comment had ANYTHING to do with “sam”. i think the line was not a sly reference for fans, it was just lame writing and at best a cheap reference to to earlier, better films. (II and III).”
Even if you disregard Sam Kirk’s presence in that line, the same point is still made. The line pulls us back to previous events in Star Trek’s history – Spock’s death and rebirth in STII and III. It’s all part of our collective Star Trek consciousness.
Remember the Farragut!
317. “Not sure I want him ultra-relatable because James T, Kirk was rather mythical, and beyond the norm.”
See, this is what makes the Superman movies kind of boring. He’s Superman. He can do anything! He’s perfect! His greatest disappointment is having to pretend he’s not a great football player! His biggest conflict in life is that he has a comical romantic misunderstanding with a co-worker! Of course, they had to invent an Achilles’ heel in the form of Kryptonite, but still — in the end, Superman, created as a kind of Moses-as-Ubermensch fantasy in the time of Hitler, is dramatically unsatisfying because he’s perfect in word and thought and deed, and never really grows or changes.
Compare that to Spider-Man – a geeky teenager who takes pictures for the school newspaper. Power is thrust upon him, unbidden, and he has to balance his growing abilities with his budding romance with the girl next door (who is practically out of his league anyway), getting beat up by the school jock, dealing with his jerky boss… using his power selfishly, then having it lead to tragedy — which forms his character and leads him to realize his Great Responsibility.
Do people relate to the mythical man or the real, flawed man? Let’s put it this way – Spider-Man 3 took in over $600 million in its first 10 days. The Superman series as a whole, including Superman Returns, has taken in $513 million…in 30 years.
320. There’s a big difference between writing a major feature film – especially one where you need to place a great deal of emphasis on character development as it’s an origin story — and the sausage grinder of television production. Yes, for TV, Trek was exceptionally well-written, but I don’t think the series bible was *that* detailed or that there was a continuity team keeping track of all the references. In essence, they were making it up as they went along for the purposes of creating dramatic TV shows, — they weren’t worried about satisfying the OCD of future Trekkers.
Which is why my analogy about the A-Team still stands. Pick Space: 1999 or any other syndicated show of any genre, really. You can find hundreds of episodes where some person reveals something that, until now, we’ve never known about, but which is central to the plot of that episode, and it’s never mentioned again in the series. It’s just how TV writing happens, particularly when there isn’t a central story arc or when episodes are not intended to be broadcast in any particular order.
326. Maybe a point of this film (none too subtle) is that although you can change the details of their backstory, “the universe unfolds as it should,” to quote Spock himself.
#329 (Trek Nerd Central): “I think of Kirk as a wildly complex and charismatic ”
Complexity & charisma—the latter of which Kirk definitely has—don’t make an archetype: uniqueness plus universality do. I’ve seen gung-ho, ballsy, womanizing and (super-)ego-driven leaders of men many times before in films. There is nothing that makes Kirk special and noteworthy, nothing that sets him above the stereotype level. There’s only his SciFi environment, his co-characters (especially one of the quintessential archetypical aliens of film history: the Vulcan), his fantastic adventures, and of course his belated legacy. Furthermore, there were times when Shatner drove Kirk way over the fringe into absurdity and exaggeration, which is a common feature of stereotypes.
I still haven’t seen a good answer as to why we are telling this story in an alternate timeline.
Why?
“okay. yeah. my question was simply if anyone actually thought shatner and his writer’s give a hoot or bothered to reference a detail from a one-off episode (there was no “search for sam” film). i’m looking at the way fans project absent meaning onto just about anything and infer some kind of reality onto something as sloppy and organic as writing for trek.”
Yes, they knew what they were doing. It’s been asked at cons. And I think you sell trek writers short….and somewhat contradictory given the defense of the new movie’s writers in the same breath. Mistakes are gonna happen simply due the sheer volume of the trek universe. (Meyers, Nimoy and Shatner all made some canon errors in their films.)
“Lixy, Kirk was not mythical and beyond the norm. He is (and has always been) a very simple and stereotypical character, with only a few unusual traits and features.”
I think the Kirk character could have been stereotypical and maybe originally was to a certain extent but the writers and Shatner made it so much more. And it helps to have 4 decades to work on it too. ;)
“He’s not Spock. So I actually hope that in the new film(s) they try to make him more compelling, more of an archetype.”
Ah, Spock. This is why I see Kirk as more than a stereotype. Would Spock be drawn to someone simple? I don’t think so. The incredible force of Kirk’s character with all its facets attracted the Spock character and they fit well together. Again, a lot is owed to the actors for making it work.
“However, I share your concerns that this rather generic character-arc created for the new film doesn’t really substantiate that. Grim student, drill instructor and survivor of a colony massacre are definitely more compelling biographical features, but to be honest, they never showed in his later years as Captain/Admiral Kirk. This past was simply constructed, but it was never really an integral part of his character on-screen, and therefore it wouldn’t be a loss to do away with it at this point.”
Hmm, I really did see these things are being integral to his character. The strength to survive a tarsus even if we didn’t see is later evidenced with other terrible trials he endures and moves through; being grim and a stack of books at the Academy really fits with the Kirk we saw in the show and movies — he was going to succeed in Starfleet, he was going to be a Captain and do all that was necessary to make it happen. It’s reflected time and again in what we did see in the shows and movies. And I think because Spock is so brilliant there is a tendancy to sell Kirk’s intelligence short. So called throwaway lines like these remind us that there’s a lot more going on and add up to an interesting whole even if we didn’t see it on screen.
“no one was outraged that kirk suddenly had a son ”
Why would we be? The only thing that I didn’t really buy about the scenario was that David was unaware that Kirk was his dad. Paternity would be hard to hide in such an advanced time — it’s hard enough now.
332. BaronByng – January 13, 2009
“320. There’s a big difference between writing a major feature film – especially one where you need to place a great deal of emphasis on character development as it’s an origin story — and the sausage grinder of television production.”
Very true. When writing for film you have the luxury of time to craft a story and really consider what you’re doing. That’s why gimmicky choices, like this Star Trek takes place in an alternate universe – in fact from now on all Star Trek takes place in an alternate universe, are really inexcusable.
They had the time and the talent to write an origin story for TOS crew that fits what we already know while still making it fresh. Instead they opted to shoot from the hip and go with a well used Sci-Fi gimmick as a way to just change stuff.
It didn’t have to be this way.
Remember the Farragut!
Well done, Boborci. Thanks for the excellent thread.
335. THX-1138 – January 13, 2009
“I still haven’t seen a good answer as to why we are telling this story in an alternate timeline.”
According to boborci, they ONLY way they could think of to get Niomy’s Spock in the movie was an alternate timeline.
I don’t get it either.
I think it’s really because someone – the studio, JJ, I don’t know – but someone gave the directive that Kirk had to be in his 20’s AND had to end up as Captain of the Enterprise. That’s really the only reason that I can come up with.
It’s still not a good reason, but it is a very Hollywood reason.
Remember the Farragut!
#332– Hmm, a lot of folks don’t find Superman boring; he’s certainly endured. [I'm Switzerland on the comic book icons.]
” Do people relate to the mythical man or the real, flawed man? Let’s put it this way – Let’s put it this way – Spider-Man 3 took in over $600 million in its first 10 days. The Superman series as a whole, including Superman Returns, has taken in $513 million…in 30 years.”
Basing things on boxoffice is a slippery slope. Good films often tank while bad ones do really well. (The new Star Wars for example) Also too, Chris Reeves’ Supermans came out in a different time for movie-going — every theatre wasn’t a multiplex with $8-10 ticket prices like now. I’m old enough to remember when films actually played for years, rather than having to make all their money the first weekend. Ah, the good old days. ;) Where’s my walker…
“339. 750 Mang – January 13, 2009
It didn’t have to be this way.”<<
That is the truest statement made to date and the reason this issue bothers me so much. There WAS another option, there was KNOWN history but the writers chose to ignore it. …I really wanted to see the history we all knew about these characters fleshed out and expanded upon. I wanted to see how the Kirk I’ve known for forty years came from his farm and family in Iowa to become the man we all know…. or do i have to say “knew”, since that Kirk no longer exists. How sad is that?
336. Echoing Schultz – were they really integral to his character beyond the single episodes in which they were referenced? Kirk having nightmares or PTSD freakouts about Tarsus would show it as more integral. Beyond driving his need to unmask Kodos, how did Tarsus affect the person Kirk became? We’re not really told. Similarly, someone as reportedly brilliant as Kirk would be studying all the time, taking refresher courses, reading new manuals, engineering or tactical white papers…we never saw that on-screen. So it does rather underly the argument that these are things that fans have inferred from bits of dialogue, rather than anything we’ve seen organically on-screen, or in the character’s behaviour, attitudes, etc.
337. So it’s not a gimmick as long as you use ANOTHER gimmick — the Reset Button – to make sure nothing ever changes and TOS remains the same forever and ever amen?
Hey, Bob. Looking forward to the new movie, and thanks for engaging the fans in conversation.
BTW, I love “Fringe”.
I really enjoyed the interview. I have great admiration for these guys (and jealousy) for taking on Star Trek. I’m very much looking forward to seeing the film, there’s plenty of room in my mind to embrace a new Star Trek.
For me, the noise of the critics is rapidly fading away, as May is not so far away anymore…
Bob and Alex, if you ever come into Southern Mass., please let me buy you guys a beer!
#342– for me, yes. All these bits and pieces were reflected in the character I saw. It’s also not an “inference” if the lines are included in the episodes. The things I point to aren’t fan fic or stuff from books so they were meant to enhance our understanding of what made the Kirk character tick, why he was reacting as he did in that episode, etc. Otherwise, what’s the point?
I truly believe that Trek has existed so long because it is richer and there was a care to make the characters more dimensional with little bits and pieces of backstory; the Trek universe fully invisioned. Otherwise it would have faded into obscurity as most shows do or simply be a fond piece of nostalgia.
339. Since when was Trek ever NOT a product of Hollywood, California, USA? The difference is now one of scale, scope and intention — make yet another dull “extended television episode” Trek film for the core fanbase, or make a blockbuster big-budget epic that blows the doors off the place? (Everyone I’ve shown the trailer to is very, very eager to see the movie, fans and non-fans alike).
340. Superman’s endured, and he’s iconic, but I don’t think, when you get right down to it, that people out-and-out love him as much as flawed, neurotic Peter Parker, who fails as often as he succeeds — losing his girlfriend even if he defeats the villain, etc.
341. Was that history really known? If so, by who? Was it really canon or just fanon? And realistically, would its inclusion clarify or clutter the storyline of a film intended to reinvigorate the franchise for a wider audience with no knowledge of this history? My view is, if you’re going to tell a story, it’s what you show on screen (or on stage) that counts, not what has to be explained in expository dialogue…
anyway – thanks Bob, and to everyone else for a very thought-provoking conversation. n-nite.
342. BaronByng – January 13, 2009
“337. So it’s not a gimmick as long as you use ANOTHER gimmick — the Reset Button”
I agree. The reset button is gimmick and sucks too. So why go there at all? Why an alternate universe? Just tell the story not in another timeline but in the Prime Star Trek timeline.
What’s wrong with the Prime Star Trek timeline? And don’t tell me it was the only way to get Nimoy’s Spock in the movie. To quote a certain doctor we all know and love, “Bull”.
There was plenty of room for creativity and newness in the things we didn’t know about how Prime Kirk came to the Prime Enterprise without all this alternate universe song and dance.
How did Prime Kirk (we have to say prime Kirk to clarify what Kirk we are talking about now) get to the Prime Enterprise? I don’t know.
When did Prime Kirk and Prime Spock meet? I don’t know.
What was Prime Kirk’s first mission as captain of the Prime Enterprise? I don’t know.
How about filling those holes in the Star Trek Prime history? Why the complicated alternate timeline mubo jumbo?
Remember the Farragut!
346– As I said, I really don’t have any strong opinions on the comic book heroes. I just enjoy the films for 2 hours. However, I’m not sure it’s their daily incarnations, be it fake nerdy newsman Clark or neurotic Peter that are the ultimate attraction. I think it’s the Superhero part that is exciting for a lot of average folks and the cool special effects! ;) And speaking of the Superguy, a lot of his fans were in a major uproar with JJ’s reboot of that franchise. It never got off the ground but it’s not just us Trek folks that get upset when origins are messed with.
“And realistically, would its inclusion clarify or clutter the storyline of a film intended to reinvigorate the franchise for a wider audience with no knowledge of this history? ”
The QM thing seems unnecessarily complicated to me.
Human drama.
That makes the best stories. No matter what the genre.
Seeing Tarsus IV would be that ‘edge’ Star Trek has lacked, without re-writing the entire history and without having to re-frame the franchise in some new series (ie. DS9). It’s right there, the story, the origin. It would be dramatic, powerful. It wouldn’t be the entire movie for crying out loud. It would simply be one part of our hero’s past.
I think, an opportunity missed.
#348 (750 Mang):
Maybe it was the other way around? They wanted to have Spock Prime in the film, to tie it to the original TOS actors, i.e. to pass the torch, which is totally legitimate, so they naturally wound up with the alternate timeline, which is the only way to avoid paradoxes and unscientificity. And then they realized: Okay, this is an alternate universe—let’s have some fun.
Why not? It’s disappointing for some of us, but why not?
#272
I guess I’m confused as to how that’s any different. At the end of the Voyage Home, that’s an alternate timeline they’ve ‘returned’ to. It looks more or less the same, but the original didn’t have Scotty giving away future secrets, 2 whales disappearing, a whaling ship seeing a decloaking Bird of Prey, Gillian Taylor vanishing or the navy losing a mysterious Russian prisoner in a hospital (or elderly patients regrowing their kidneys, for that matter).
Same goes for First Contact: the end of that film has Picard returning to a ‘future’ where Zefram Cochrane knew his destiny, knew about the Borg, and was fully aware that his future actions would result in a future federation of planets, Starfleet, etc. Not to mention several engineers that presumably would not have simultaneously died in 2064. You could argue all those events were some sort of pre-destination paradox, but that theory is just as ‘unscientific’ or ‘pseudoscientific’ as any other. Plus, if we’re really going to wield phrases like ‘psuedoscientific’ around we’ll end up cutting the legs out from under half the so-called scientific principles in Star Trek! :)
Just because future stories may continue in the ‘past’ doesn’t make the nature of the story or the method of time travel any different. At some point, Future Spock will undoubtedly return to the future (the future of the events he participates in here), regardless of whether we see it. And it will likely be more or less as he left it, with a few minor changes. Much as it was after his actions in City on the Edge of Forever, Assignment Earth, and if you accept TAS, Yesteryear.
And again, Bob just offered his take on the thinking behind he and Alex’s story and how it could fit with the rest of the Trek Universe. You don’t need his explanation (in fact, I’d argue 99% of the audience will not require his explanation) and if it isn’t specifically established through dialog in the film it *really* doesn’t matter.
“anyway – thanks Bob, and to everyone else for a very thought-provoking conversation. n-nite.”
Yes, very interesting thread. (So much for going to bed early!) I’m sure it’ll continue on tomorrow. take care everyone.
#350
Star Trek might be doing better now had it found a few more DS9s along the way. Where it stumbled was recycling TNG 2 times too many.
#354–agreed. There’s way too much repetition within the latter years of the franchise. VOY, ENT, and the Next Gen films (Yes, even First Contact–I liked it too), were overly repetitive, even with in their own lore. For example, how many episodes of Voyager are we going to have where holograms go Charlie Manson because they feel they’re being oppressed. Please, TNG’s Moriarty anyone? And how many damn times must we time travel per series? 20? 30?
#168 YARN
You want to debate it then cast it aside because it’s “not a real world”. First clue?
Cute.
Perhaps these two writers could possibly explain WHY Kirk and Spock are giving each other the ‘high five’ in the trailer?
C’mon, Whom are they trying to kid?
Notice Bob hasn’t been back in a while?
I bet that right about now he’s one drink away from polishing off that bottle of Jack Daniels!!
And I, for one, don’t blame him a bit!
1. Alternate time lines give me a headache, but I have cared for the characters from all Treks, whatever time line they are in or even belong to.
2. I guess I’m a sheep who wants to see Trek make a comeback with the characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. A reboot of sorts via timelines explains the subtle changes, yet familarity of it all, to me.
3. I want this film to be huge, do well, and bring in all kinds of new fans. It needs to have “legs”, too. The reimagined BSG has a following, but those legs are weakening. (BTW-I much prefer the original BSG, but I understand and accept this new BSG and the reasons why it had to be done)
4. Changes in the bridge, ship, other technology was inevitable. This is the best way to explain it.
5. I think we oughta thank Orci, Abrams, and company for getting Nimoy’s Spock and some of the original things into the film. Some yayhoo’s could have just changed everything completely and slapped the names Kirk and Spock onto it.
6. I think people are way too worked up, but that’s just my opinion. Many seem to have the Kirk-like opinion about this movie (that Kirk felt about reformed Klingons): :let them die!”. In this case, let Star Trek’s future DIE!
7. Bob, you are a true gentleman! I would have lost my cool long ago. Guess that’s what I get for eating steaks, prime rib, etc.! lol
Kurtzman: “… it just shocked us that the story of how the bridge crew came together was never told. It was referenced in bits and pieces but it was never told and it’s only kind of the most epic big bang story that you could possibly tell in Star Trek.”
THAT’S BECAUSE IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO HAPPEN!!! Rodenberry never conceived that the bridge crew just assembled all at once and became long fast friends. THEY WERE ALL DIFFERENT AGES: Kirk met Spock, later Scott & Sulu then Uhura, Rand and McCoy came along later and finally Checkov.
Kurtzman and Orci have merely slapped together a story that gets them altogether at once, completely defying canon (and indeed logic) just to get off on their pre-pubescent fantasies. This admission really shows just how little regard these two have for TOS.
#360-I respectfully disagree. It’s better than making Spock a female, making the Enterprise saucer a square, and having Kirk die in the end for a mostly meaningless death.
#335 – As I think I may have said, you are over complicating things for yourself. Tell us why not?
*Why* was “Yesterdays Enterprise” sat in an alternate timeline? Why was ANYTHING in Star Trek was done? Does it matter? Nope. No answer needed other than that is part of the story.
#360 – There is no admission for anything that I can see. It’s like they said “The sky is blue during the day” and that is an admission “that the sky isn’t black at night.” If you do some research, you will see the casting sheet for the new movie had everyone different age ranges.
“THEY WERE ALL DIFFERENT AGES: Kirk met Spock, later Scott & Sulu then Uhura, Rand and McCoy came along later and finally Checkov.”
To be fair, that is your assumption. Remember… anyone could have been serving on different parts of the ship. So no.
#325: Trek Nerd Central
I *think* I know the post you’re referring to, because I *think* I’m the one who wrote it. A repost:
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.
2233: Kirk born. Horoscopes on the day of his birth give him lucky numbers of 4, 8, 15, 16, 23, and 42.*
2246: Tarsus IV (may have been only a week; perhaps even a day – need not be covered by the movie)
2257: Farragut (same as above – Kirk’s timeline with the Farragut is far from clear)
2264: Enterprise
2267: Redjac is unmasked on Aregelius II. His true identity is revealed to be the famous ancient Earth mass murderer… Milo Rambaldi.
*Note: all references to previous Kurtzman/Orci works are affectionate.
If that was the one you were thinking of, TNC, I’m flattered. The point I was making then (as now) is that we have a very, very, *VERY* bare handful of facts about JTK pre-Enterprise. The canonical, prime-’verse Kirk backstory is an open book. So I’m just confused–and continue to be confused–by the idea that the movie can’t fit into the established timeline regardless of the story Kurzman/Orci are telling. As long as they don’t explicitly contradict those events, KO could write just about any movie they wanted, set it in the Prime universe, and experience no trouble with canon. Right?
Baron, I think you’re being *extremely* harsh to those disagreeing with you. I know half a dozen of the people you’ve browbeaten en masse were quite alright with some hefty cosmetic changes, a recast, and some canon fudging. Something about the idea of an alternate universe doesn’t sit well with us, and slamming everyone who feels that way down as if they’re out of their Vulcan minds and would hate anything given to them… well, I’ll just say that I don’t think that indicates *our* need for therapy.
And, for the umpteenth time: I’m *still* pumped for this movie, I *still* watch the trailer at least once a week, the new Ent is *still* my desktop (and I am slowly learning to appreciate its nacelle pylons), and I’m *still* planning to attend the midnight premiere wearing a sombrero. I’m just disappointed with the continuity decisions that have been made, and I’m still hopeful that I’m going to be able to justify this movie within the “classical rules” of time travel. If nothing else, none of that makes me *less* of a fan than any of you who are slamming the continuistas for “wanting the franchise to die” or whatever. Obviously, as Mr. Orci said, some fans are going to be disappointed, and some are going to be downright unreasonable (read: outraged, all-caps screamers) no matter what movie KO write, and he made the call he thought was right. But the fact that I suspect (*suspect*; I won’t know until the movie comes out) that it was the wrong call on this one point doesn’t make me into a heretic, unless I become disrespectful towards Mr. Orci or anyone else in the production.
A great many people on all sides are being entirely respectful here. You know who you are, and that bit wasn’t directed at you.
Anyhow, all these somewhat idle, somewhat recycled reflections aside: with Kurtzman calling this is a straight-up origin story and Orci calling it an AU reboot, just color me confused at this point about what STAR TREK will actually *be* and call it a day.
360. RD – January 13, 2009
“Kurtzman and Orci have merely slapped together a story that gets them altogether at once, completely defying canon (and indeed logic) just to get off on their pre-pubescent fantasies. This admission really shows just how little regard these two have for TOS.”
Having an opinion is fine.. but try being civil in expressing it.
I can’t resist one more go.
The question Mang raises about ‘why not just do everything in the prime timeline’ is a good one. It’s a bit of a moot question now, since the film has been made already, but it deserves examination.
Time travel, and specifically, forces from the future attempting to rewrite history, or accidentally changing it is a central pillar of Trek lore. In most cases, however, any change to the “normal” history is usually reset or repaired by the end of the episode or movie, or the interference was just some sort of predestination paradox.
For instance, the ending of Voyager specifically involved Janeway breaking the Temporal Prime Directive in order to change the past, in essence being a ‘reset button from the future’, rather than live in a 25th-century ‘present’ without Seven and Chakotay and the other crew members who died in the original timeline.
Now that’s all fine and well, but if you’re going to essentially reboot the franchise, you can’t do it knowing the future fates of all the crew members, as it removes any dramatic tension or existential threat. If we know that Kirk survives until Generations, nothing that happens to him is really much of a threat is it?
To draw a BSG parallel for a second, this is, in a dramatic sense, what happened when they destroyed the Resurrection Hub. The magic backup-and-reboot button for Cylons was turned off permanently. (or, to use Lost as an example, the button in The Swan station…what happens if you DON’T push it? Drama happens!)
I mean sure, you could do a complete ‘updated TOS’ prequel that connects all the dots, is moderately interesting, maybe has new action sequences and FX and all that, but wouldn’t it really just be like a bigger-budget version of Enterprise? It’s neat to see how the canon dominos fall into place, but ONLY if you know what those dominos are, i.e., are a longtime fan with deep knowledge of the series. And that would essentially doom the movie to ‘mediocre TNG movie’ status.
Maybe the time travel angle is hackneyed, but it’s something that people can latch on to and understand, as an explanation that the Trek universe has been altered.
What positives do we get out of it?
- Immediate existential threat from major villain from the future, who’s trying to kill Kirk or cripple Starfleet, etc.
- Different story arc for Kirk, but one that is possibly more appealing and easy to understand for non-fans
- Origin story of Kirk / Spock, Pike’s Enterprise, classic crew coming together possibly earlier than in prime universe, but still, a tale untold
- partway goes to explain updates/changes in art direction & design, recasting, etc.
- Opens door to many sequels in a ‘clean slate’ Trek universe that keeps much of what we know, while still allowing the future to be unwritten
So when the writers say this is the solution that provides the best overall way to achieve the goal (reinvigorate Trek) I believe them. I don’t see any other plausible way to balance healthy respect for the Trek universe with the need to create a new franchise for a bigger, 21st-century audience.
241. Chris Doohan – January 13, 2009
LOL. Just rested after the holidays. Happy New Year!
328. 750 Mang – January 13, 2009
Yes that is exactly what has happened Bob Orci, one of the writers, has informed us that these things didn’t happen to Kirk. That his backstory is profoundly changed. In fact in this very thread he basically said he chats here so much as a way to prepare us for the changes in the timeline that are coming.”
not true, nothing you’ve referenced as canon is precluded by the movie.
And James. thanks for your comments. I didn’t intend to browbeat anyone, so if I did, I apologize.
I do realize that there will always be some percentage of fans who just won’t be able to appreciate the movie because of their feelings about an AU-reboot-timeline thingy.
That said — Even though some of us have been lucky to see the extended press preview of sequences, most of us have not, or only read the descriptions posted online. No-one outside of people immediately connected with JJ Abrams or the cast has seen the movie in its entirety, so we are all rushing to judge / defend something based not on tangible evidence but on hearsay, rumors, speculation, and a lot of philosophical conjecture, plus a little bit of non-spoiler explanation from the writers who have been kind enough to post here.
If I am zealous in defending the movie that I haven’t seen, it is partly because I am a fan of this team’s other work; I’m fairly sure their attention to detail will carry through here. Bob Orci has proven himself extensively knowledgeable and to care about what the fans think. They were the people empowered to make these creative decisions and they did not, I’m sure, come to them lightly or easily — I can only imagine they have, over many pots of coffee and late-night whiteboarding sessions, painstakingly figured out how this whole thing will work, and we are playing catch-up months later.
I say give them the benefit of the doubt — if the movie sucks, it will suck, and of course, you can’t please everyone, but…early buzz is good, and I’m stoked!
368. Boborci – January 13, 2009
“nothing you’ve referenced as canon is precluded by the movie”
But nothing in this movie makes my Prime guys in TOS who they are right? The Prime Kirk in “Corbomite Manuvre” has no association with the Kirk in the new movie right? Except his name and DNA. Pretty much all of their life experiences are entirely different.
That’s what you’ve lead us to believe.
No Kodos.
No Republic.
No Kirk and Pike met only once.
No Captain Garrovick.
Remember the Farragut!
Right?
366. BaronByng – January 13, 2009
“I can’t resist one more go.
The question Mang raises about ‘why not just do everything in the prime timeline’ is a good one. It’s a bit of a moot question now”
But I don’t have to pretend to like it.
Remember the Farragut!
Here’s a thought… Sure Nero goes back to kill Kirk. Yes, his back story may be altered. What happens when Nero’s ship obliterates a fleet of Klingon ships? How does this change the balance of power between the Feds and the Klingons? If the Klingon fleet is wiped out, then the Constitution class doesn’t need to be built for, say, another 15 years…maybe in Iowa instead of San Fran, it looks different, etc, etc.
I’m pretty sure it will be made clear (for everyone) how events have changed
Oh yeah, let’s not forget a clever, dramatic twist at the end! :)
Overall, I am with 750 Mang and John from Cincinnati on this; I just don’t see the reason to depart from what we do know. The new film may (or even likely will) have a really compelling human story with really good actions scenes that will please new and old audiences alike. I may REALLY enjoy the film… but I will always wish it showed the Prime timeline. The ‘new’ young Kirk may be really neat, but I will never be able to equate his origin to the Prime Kirk origin.
I won’t question the efforts of Mr. Orci or Mr. Kurtzman. Mr. Orci is obviously a fan and has a greater than average knowledge of Trek and a real passion for his story. I, however, would have done it differently. The difference here is he’s the pro who got to write it, and I just get to watch it. I hope I really enjoy his reboot of Star Trek.
Regardless of really fun explanations regarding quantum mechanics and a “just for fans” comic tie-in the net result of the new movie is a reboot, defined by me as starting over with the same concepts but a new look and history. I believe that to be a dictate of the studio, and I admire Mr. Orci for working through a way to make it not be a BSG fresh reboot, but I wish it weren’t so. I wish Kirk in this movie was in his early 30s and taking command. I think the same “controversy” regarding his taking command could have been met by introducing an incident on the Farragut which convinced Starfleet to give him command. Whole new story, shows him to be a bad boy with a genius streak- doesn’t contradict earlier known history.
See the earlier history isn’t made up of throwaway lines. Tarsus IV’s events are the basis of AN ENTIRE EPISODE. Kirk’s actions on the Republic against Ben Finney are the basis of AN ENTIRE EPISODE. Kirk and Captain Garrovick on the Republic are the basis of AN ENTIRE EPISODE. Kirk’s friendship with Mitchell is the basis of… well you get the idea. Someone had to make a decision to get rid of that, and then spend a year telling me it’s not a reboot. It is. That may be fine- I love the rebooted Galactica. My sole complaint is this was portrayed in a somewhat disingenuous manner. I’m over that. I’m looking forward to a new version of Star Trek.
But it is a new version, and I will always wish it wasn’t. No, I don’t necessarily wish it looked like the old show- I understand how commercially non-viable that would be. I am still quite unconvinced the show, or the timeline, needed to be rebooted to tell this story.
I will now have to continue just wondering how the “original” crew came together. I hope the “new” crew is cool too.
#369: You know, I was really only referring to your early posts, which were the only ones of yours I had read carefully at the time of my posting. Since then, you’ve been very reasonable, respectful, and what’s-a-good-word-for-eloquent-that-starts-with-the-letter-R. Still, it never hurts to throw in another reminder about respect to everyone, regardless of their opinion.
You’re right on the nose about how little we know and, thus, how silly this conversation is likely to seem in a few months, when we actually know what’s going on. Like you, I’m stoked for May 8th. Until then, of course, let the wild speculation continue!
As for your substance, you make your point well, and the only bit I want to niggle with is the need for an existential threat. On the weekly show–heck, even in the movies–we pretty much know that, on a week-to-week basis, nobody’s in actual mortal danger. Harry Kim may die (and often does), but he’s a regular, he hasn’t been fired, and we know he’ll be back at the end of the episode. Even the Big One, Spock’s death, was reset at the first opportunity. In short, I don’t think anyone *expects* any of the lead characters to be in *actual* danger of dying, and so creating the illusion of the possibility by having an alt universe is just playing a parlor game with the audience. So I *don’t* see the ‘verse split as significantly expanding the storytelling possibilities (I could be wrong!), and in fact I see it as fairly limiting.
Now, the first time I read your post, I thought you said “late-night *waterboarding* sessions,* which pretty seriously threw me for a minute. :P
‘Night!
Maybe I’ve been explaining myself poorly. It’s not that you’re making the Prime Star Trek mean any less, it has 40 years of its own history to fall back on.
But by separating Prime History from what happens in this movie, via the alternate timeline, you are making the new movie have less depth. It won’t have all the benefit of the heft that 40 years of Prime Star Trek history brings to the table. We won’t be watching these guys saying “oh yeah and then they’ll fight Khan like we saw in “Space Seed” or “oh wow and then Kirk has to kill his best friend Gary Mitchell.
The new team has done far worse than hurt me, they have cheated themselves out of one of the richest parts of Star Trek – it’s collective consciousness of continuity.
Remember the Farragut!
#370 750 Mang:
Not to diminish your point, but we don’t actually know how many times Kirk met Pike. The line of dialogue (inherently an unreliable source in the best of times) is this:
MENDEZ: You ever met Chris Pike?
KIRK: When he was promoted to Fleet Captain.
MENDEZ: About your age. Big, handsome man, vital, active.
KIRK: I took over the Enterprise from him. Spock served with him for several years.
SPOCK: Eleven years, four months, five days.
The hilarious thing about citing this line as canonically establishing a single meeting between Kirk and Pike (which it does not) is not only that it is hardly explicit, but that this section of dialogue *itself* contradicts canon!
According to canon, JTK was the youngest C.O. in fleet history when he was promoted, and “The Menagerie” was set only a few months after that promotion. Yet we *know* (from both “The Cage” and the rest of “The Menagerie”) that Christopher Pike has been a Captain for at least a decade already, so he can’t *possibly* be “about the same age” as Kirk!
This has been tonight’s lesson in noting how the finer points of canon already were, a mere 16 episodes into the very first season of Trek, already *seriously* fudged up, the moral of it being: we can hardly hold Orci and Kurtzman, with 722 hours of canon to cope with, to *higher* standards than we hold Gene Roddenberry working with the very earliest episodes of Trek! A position that does not allow KO to do their own (significant) fudging of obscure points of canon (leaving the cleanup, perhaps, to novelists and fanon writers) is an absurd and impossible position.
At the same time, I remain unsettled by the apparent plan, which seems to be: rather than simply fudging the inconvenient points of canon to make the movie work, set the movie in a *completely different universe* and lose the origin story of the “prime” characters we all know and love.
I know, I sound like a harsh movie basher and a fierce movie apologist at the same time here. And maybe I am. Sanity is not a requirement on the Trekkie application form.
375. James Heaney
You’re right on the nose about how little we know and, thus, how silly this conversation is likely to seem in a few months, when we actually know what’s going on.
I concur. After the movie comes out, we’ll all be able to go back to these archived posts and see how silly or spot on the commenters were. That should be interesting.
375 – “what’s-a-good-word-for-eloquent-that-starts-with-the-letter-R[?]”
Refined? Rhetorical? Really-good-writin’? ;-)
#370 – You have not paid any attention at all to what Orci has said in the past.
If anything, only Kirk’s background is different. The rest of the guys and their upbringings wouldn’t have been changed.
Canonite or not, I am the first to admit there are inconsistencies in the TOS on-screen canon. I would argue however, especially given the standards of 1960’s television storytelling, the Classic series storyline is remarkably consistent. The fact so many old school fans have a lot of the same assumptions in their “fanon” would indicate a fairly compatible set of stories. I suppose to a degree we all have acceptable levels of interpretation. As an old dude, mine are perhaps a bit more tunnel-visioned than others…
Terrific points #377!
I am not making a “broad slam” but I think some of the people who complain and whine bring on the complaints themselves without realizing there isn’t too much to complain about as far as the canon stuff goes.
377. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 13, 2009
“#370 750 Mang:
Not to diminish your point, but we don’t actually know how many times Kirk met Pike. The line of dialogue (inherently an unreliable source in the best of times) is this:
MENDEZ: You ever met Chris Pike?
KIRK: When he was promoted to Fleet Captain.
MENDEZ: About your age. Big, handsome man, vital, active.
KIRK: I took over the Enterprise from him. Spock served with him for several years.
SPOCK: Eleven years, four months, five days.
The hilarious thing about citing this line as canonically establishing a single meeting between Kirk and Pike (which it does not)”
To me Kirk saying he met Pike “when he was promoted to Fleet Captain”, in no way implies he was Kirk’s mentor who coaxed him into joining Star Fleet and saved him from getting his ass kicked in a Iowa bar, oh and Kirk and Pike had a big adventure on the Enterprise before Kirk was captain.
How do you get all of that new backstory from Prime Kirk basically saying “I met the guy when he got promoted and I took his old job”?
Always Remember the Farragut!
380. Devon – January 13, 2009
“If anything, only Kirk’s background is different. The rest of the guys and their upbringings wouldn’t have been changed.”
Great! I’m so glad that Checkov’s (nonexistent) backstory remains pure.
Only Kirk? It’s just Kirk who is totally screwed with, that’s all. Just the main character.
But hey Uhura, Checkov and Sulu (who we knew nothing of anyway) are safe.
I don’t know sir…
Remember the Farragut!
#201
I beg to differ, Mr. Orci, and agree to A. .S.F.33 (#222). The “complaints” about the absence of Bill Shatner have not fallen away, people have just grown a bit tired and have realised that the train has left. But please let me touch one point. As far as I remember, no one ever said you were expected to “cheat” in order to implement Mr. Shatner into XI; most of the arguments were given in a conceived and elaborate way, referring to the science fiction genre in general, the Star Trek possibilities in particular, and Mr. Shatner’s importance for Star Trek. There were heated and heartfelt posts by people who felt very disappointed at the course of events, and don’t be mistaken, they still do. Nothing will change that. Maybe some of them will accept and enjoy the film though, which is fine, but that doesn’t mean they don’t care any longer for the Shatner issue. So please, Mr. Orci, do not use the word “cheat” in connection with Mr. Shatner’s possible involvement in XI anymore – it’s disrespectful of Mr. Shatner and his fans. Thank you, Mr. Orci.
Way back upstream in this thread, Mang used the baby & bathwater analogy.
That ’s an expression that repeatedly comes to my own mind as the bits and pieces of this film emerge. I have always expected changes in the actors, set designs etc, with an open mind. I was prepared for a *new* look of the old E. As I’ve stated before in these discussions, more so than ever, I *really* want to love this movie. However, the more I learn about the story details while studying scenes of the iBridge and angst ridden, Jimmy Kirk gazing at the Iowa ship yard with his sparkling blue eyes, (did Nero’s time traveling shenanigans alter Kirk’s DNA too?) I’m seeing a lot of unnecessarily trampled Trek.
Of course I’ll be in the theater on opening day for this movie, but I can’t help but feel that the baby-to-bathwater ratio isn’t much in favor of the baby.
# 292
The fact, that the earth-romulan war happend and it’s outcome was the same (but we don’t know any detail of that war, so this all is speculation)and the Enterprise-E returned in an unaltered future, the attack of the Borg created no damage in the timeline. Actually I don’t see any death people around the Phoenix-complex in First Contact. But I guess you mean the poor bicycle rider or the insane guy on the roof. I say both of them would have died without the Borg in the same night as well. It’s a bit insane to ride a bike at midnight without a lamp in the middle of a wood. It’s also selfmurder to walking around drunken on a roof at night – even if it’s flat. And if the previous written theory of time-interaction is right, then the Borg-attack from the future might have created the exactly timeline of the Star Trek universe we all know. Who knows what would have happend with the first warpflight if Barclay haven’t exchangend some materials. Maybe the Phoenix would have blown up when Cochrane pressed the Warp-button…
126. boborci – January 13, 2009
—-Really? What about Trek 4? At the end of the movie they are in an different timeline as a result of their changing history… same with FIRST CONTACT, both of which could conform to either theory of time travel.—-
Wait, this is an important point.
Bob, from your previous explanation and the MWT, I would take the events in Trek 4 to be thus:
Kirk and the gang travel to a previous point in an alternate universe/timeline, in order to pick up some humpback whales to bring back to THEIR ORIGINAL UNIVERSE/TIMELINE in which humpback whales had been extinct during most of the 23rd Century, until Kirk and the Gang went off somewhere in a Klingon ship and then returned with two humpback whales.
My understanding of the MWT, and your explanation of it, is that Kirk and the Gang COULDN’T have interfered in their OWN past, as illustrated by the GRANDFATHER PARADOX. So, the adventure of Kirk and the Gang to fetch some whales, physically speaking, was an INTERSECTION of their Prime universe/timeline with the universe/timeline of the whales and the blonde.
In the late 20th Century of the Prime universe/timeline, there was no Klingon ship that parked in Golden Gate Park and so forth, and transparent aluminum wasn’t invented until the 23rd Century of the Prime universe/timeline.
Is my understanding of your explanation and the MWT not correct? Is this not how you have envisioned time-travel working in your film?
148. boborci – January 13, 2009
—-Assuming you’re using classical time travel rules, it CAN’T be the same future for the reasons already mentioned. Our crew ALTERED the past. Unless you want to claim that their incursion into the past had zero effect. If you conclude that, than you must at least acknowledge that they have changed their intended future.—-
Wouldn’t their incursion have been an INTERSECTION of their Prime universe/timeline with the universe/timeline that they went into to get the whales? Basically, they jumped from their world to the world with the whales and the blonde, and then jumped back home? According to the Many WORLDS Theory, don’t all possibilities exist in discrete “worlds?”
And, when Kirk and the Gang returned to their Prime universe/timeline with the whales, why would they have changed some established “future” of their universe/timeline? Their universe/timeline was one in which the probe came, caused catastrophes on the Earth, and those catastrophes were ended, by the mission of Kirk and the Gang to fetch some whales, before the Earth was totally wiped out. Is this not how the Many Worlds Theory would have it? Kirk and the Gang left their world, got the whales, and returned to their world just in time to save it. Or, in terms of timelines, the Prime timeline intersects with the timeline of the whales and the blonde and the point(s) — depending on whether they returned home at the EXACT time that they left — where Kirk and the Gang leave it and return to it.
correction:
Or, in terms of timelines, the Prime timeline intersects with the timeline of the whales and the blonde at* the point(s) — depending on whether they returned home at the EXACT time that they left — where Kirk and the Gang leave it and return to it.
#384 750 Mang: Hey, maybe we’ll get a reference to Piotr! :P
Seriously, though: “How do you get all of that new backstory from Prime Kirk basically saying “I met the guy when he got promoted and I took his old job”?”
I don’t get *any* backstory out of that statement–nor do I expect to. Such speculation would be just that–speculation, not canon. As Trekkies, we have a *lot* of speculations about everything from the life of James Kirk to the exact history of Klingon forehead ridges to Spock’s relationship with Saavik. But *none* of that speculation is canon, and all fans must accept that when new canon comes along that contradicts disorganized fan speculation, the canon supersedes the fanon. The only thing new canon can’t supersede is old canon, and there’s no conflict between the two here.
In short, unless Kirk *explicitly* stated that he *only* met Capt. Pike the once, or he *explicitly* contradicted the KO storyline (he did neither), then the idea that Kirk and Pike were very close for many years prior to Kirk’s taking command and they once had a big adventure together does *not* contradict canon. Our assumption that Kirk had only met Pike the once based on that single line in “The Menagerie, Part I” does not become more canon simply because we’ve held it for forty years. Our assumptions are not canon; Trek XI is. We have to change our assumptions to fit Trek XI, except where the two works explicitly contradict.
This is a point many of the ENT bashers never quite got. “But Spock implied that the Romulans didn’t have warp in the 22nd Century!” “No, you *inferred* that the Romulans didn’t have warp in the 22nd Century. And ENT just showed that you inferred *wrong*.”
The additional irony I pointed out is simply that that very same paragraph we’re arguing about forty years later is *itself* inconsistent with canon, and much more severely than the Orci-Kurtzman script appears to be. So, frankly, though I’m happy to do it as a Catholic Trekkie (the Roman Catholic Church: home of the professional canon lawyer!), going over this passage with a fine-toothed comb to verify Trek XI’s compliance with it when it itself failed to be compliant with prior canon strikes me as a silly exercise. If Gene Roddenberry can fudge canon like that, why can’t Orci and Kurtzman?
Heck, if Gene were alive, he’d probably just decanonize the whole Prime universe for this movie, like he did for TAS and everything else he didn’t like. Silly Gene. Thank goodness we continuistas have taken his place.
#385 Iowagirl
Totally right on!
Right on Iowa Girl # 385!! The Whole Shatner thing WAS and STLL IS an issue for me and many others. It remains a bone of contention that is unresolved an unforgiven when it comes to this movie. AND on top of that we’re told ” oh not to worry not EVERYONE’S back story is changed…JUST Kirk’s is”…Oh well thanks a lot folks THAT makes me feel SOOOO much better. My favorite actor AND my favorite character disrespected by the same movie. A lose/lose scenario for me.
hey the new movie will rock and TOS was cool 40 year ago in the dark times of the 60es… so dont critize the newer the incarnations here, without them nobody woul talk about star trek anymore.
booya
“collective consciousness of continuity”
Say THAT fast 3 times. (But I like it!)
#385– Yup, we’re just resigned to our fate and disappointment. I’ll always ponder JJ’s comments about Shatner/Kirk and canon in light of finding out that the canon does change in the movie. You know I agreed with him originally that it was a problem given his Generation’s death but now that Nero changes things, not so much. Oh, I’ve never felt that the new group owed it to us to “fix” the bad death of the previous lot. I DO look forward to reading the Shatner cameo scene that was written. It’ll be a special treat.
“MENDEZ: You ever met Chris Pike?
KIRK: When he was promoted to Fleet Captain.”
I’m with Mang. Kirk met the guy when he took over the Enterprise. There’s no history there.
Seems like Bob can’t understand predestination paradoxes
All I can say is I love creative liberty, especially when time travel is involved. With so many theories and not one absolute truth about time travel and how it truely works and what the consequences truely are and how to avoid paradigms and destroying the fabrics of space/time SciFi has given us some seriously entertaining stories. And that’s just it, how do these “timeline incursions” effect and change the future. Most stories end with all lose ends wrapped up nicely in a little bow and all is right with the timeline. Regardless of which time travel theory is applied to the story the general result is at the end all changes are accounted for and (again) all is rosey, sweet and right with the world. The point is that this new Star Trek movie is not about setting things right, fixing what went drastically wrong in the past but more about setting our heros onto their best destiny.
It is all about the story and how time travel serves the purpose of the story. In almost all other time travel stories the timeline has been restored and that was the point of those stories. However here, the point is that the timeline has been altered beyond restoration to EXACTLY the way is has been presented before. Will there be similarities? Definitely. Will it fit gently into all pre-established events? Nope.
I think I meant “avoid paradoxes” not paradigms. Oops.
I don’t think, and I am of course only speculating, that we can say only Kirk’s origin has been altered. There are at least six people on the Kelvin (I’m sure there’s many more, but that’s what we’ve been shown as I remember). The death of those six MUST affect other people somewhere, and the destruction of the Kelvin seems to have affected Starfleet (perceived Romulan incursion prior to ‘Balance of Terror’). Indeed, such a thing would explain moving the construction of Enterprise to Iowa from San Fran (where it was built based on admittedly skimpy onscreen evidence), and possibly the delay in the ship’s construction (based purely on onscreen evidence- Kirk is at least thirty in the first season. Using the established 2364 date from TNG’s first season, we can place the first season of TOS reasonably in the mid 2260s, putting his birthday no later than the mid 2230s. If “The Cage” was 13 years before TOS, the Enterprise had to be commissioned before the early 2250s, and likely already in service for a while before the events of ‘The Cage.’ According to reports on the four screened scenes, Kirk is 26 in the scene where he sees the Enterprise being built. That can be no earlier than the mid to late 2250’s. Thusly, Vis a vie, concordantly, the Enterprise in the new film is delayed). More has changed than just Jim Kirk- heck, apparently Gary Mitchell never even got assigned to Enterprise! He’s still out there somewhere…
Orci:,,We thought no one would ever go for that and we were not interested in doing sort of the next- next- next- next- next generation. The idea of doing a new crew had already become an old idea and the new idea really was going back to the original crew.,
I am on agreement with this statement. There is very little interest from general public seeing another new cast further into the future.
Going back to original crew, when they where in their prime is a great idea. However don’t like the plot in XI movie with time travel, alternate time-line and having Nimoy in this movie.
Star Trek needs a fresh start, a reboot smilier to Batman Begins.
There are similarity between XI & Superman Returns as both are a prequels. Superman was good but kind of seen that, done that feeling when you saw it.
Also when i herd about Superman Returns plot , my gut feeling was it was wrong approach. XI plot make my feel same way.
Time travel and Star Trek have always gone hand-in-hand. What doesn’t work is if long-time viewers are taken way beyond the inherent “suspension of disbelief” factor that is such a crucial element for *any* sci-fi entertainment., let alone Trek.
Star Trek fans are known for being picky, to the point of being obsessive. I openly admit to being one of those folks, yet I’ve always expected reasonable changes. Again, it’s the baby-to-bathwater ratio that is the core of my uncertainty with this film.
#383—-”To me Kirk saying he met Pike “when he was promoted to Fleet Captain”, in no way implies he was Kirk’s mentor who coaxed him into joining Star Fleet and saved him from getting his ass kicked in a Iowa bar, oh and Kirk and Pike had a big adventure on the Enterprise before Kirk was captain.”
Nor does it establish that they only met once.
I met my wife years ago when she was hired at a restaurant where I was then working as a manager. That certainly doesn’t mean I haven’t interacted with her since (my kids are proof).
Now obviously, changes in the timeline have resulted in a different set of circumstances in which Pike takes a greater interest in the early development of James T. Kirk.
You seem to have difficulty grasping the concept that two different roads can lead to the same place (in a fictional story, no less).
Why?
Four-hundred and FIRST!
It is official. This is the whiniest thread in the history of TrekMovie.com. Quite an accomplishment.
#390—”I don’t get *any* backstory out of that statement–nor do I expect to. Such speculation would be just that–speculation, not canon.”
Precisely. Another term for such speculation is “fanon”. It isn’t the same thing as “canon”.
#402—”This is the whiniest thread in the history of TrekMovie.com”
You must have missed the Shatner and Enterprise pic threads!
:)
This is nothing…
You know I was amazed by a few friends of a friend last year when I mentioned they had made a new Trek movie and what its was all about and they said, you can’t mess up things, you can’t do it with other actors and they are not even fans of this show.
They were saying it’s not like Dr Who, which you can change but you can’t mess with the original Trek story and cast.
All talk of canon conflicts aside – am I the only one who gets a bad taste in my mouth from the whole idea of “The absolute only person who can possibly captain the Enterprise during this universe-shattering crisis is a green cadet simply because his name happens to be Jame T. Kirk” notion?
Apply a cargo bay full of QM to it, but it still smacks of equal parts gratuitous deus ex machina and childlike magical thinking.
For me, Star Trek was always about raw human potential – leave the mysticism and magic to Star Wars and LOTR.
Why is everyone saying that they return to the Prime Universe after the events of YESTERDAY’S ENTERPRISE and everything goes back to normal????
Ummmm…. Tasha Yar went back with the Enterprise C and is captured and raped and we get Sela now.
I’m sorry… When the Enterprise C went back into th erift with Tasha yar.. they created an alternate universe and TNG continued from there.. NOT the prime TNG universe.
See what i mean?????
#398—”I don’t think, and I am of course only speculating, that we can say only Kirk’s origin has been altered.”
Nor do I. Who knows how many fates are altered by the attack upon the USS Kelvin by villains from the future? Who is to say that only George Kirk is a casualty that was not in the previous timeline?
I would submit that everything after the attack in 2233 is now up for grabs. For all we know, Starfleet may alter some of its priorities, as the United States did after the 9/11 attacks.
There is nothing to guarantee that the USS Enterprise under Pike’s command will ever visit Talos IV, for example (although the vessel carrying Vina would still have crashed there).
#394
I also an looking forward to reading the scene for Shatner. I was surprised to see Bob Orci write that people asked them to cheat to get old kirk in. Was the scene written cheating?
Any of the suggested storylines for bringing back Shatner as Kirk in this movie were convoluted at best and fanwankery at worst. Bob is right on target when he says including the dead Captain would have been ‘a cheat’. Implementing one of these questionable plot lines would have been far more disrespectful to Trek fans than simply stating the obvious – that it would have been a stretch to include a long dead version of a character with an actor that’s aged 14 years since he was last portrayed.
#406
Who says that happens? The only references I’ve seen are consistent with Spock’s statement in TWOK about a starship being Kirk’s ‘first, best destiny’. No that ‘midichlorians’ have decided his fate.
Was Shatner-Kirk’s father alive during the events of the original show? I can’t remember it ever even being addressed…
#412—There is nothing wrong with your memory. It was never established if he was still alive or not.
So they’re NOT breaking with continuity here like some people have suggested. Sweet!
#410 – I always agreed with that assessment, until I learned what the final story they DID come up with was. I may be proven wrong in May – and I hope I am – but I don’t see how it could possibly get much more convoluted, cheaty, or fanwanky than the way they’ve chosen to include Old Spock.
#414—-It may not be the backstory you imagined from the tidbits of detail in TOS, but that “continuity” is safe. Everything is quite canonical. The potential for the creation of an alternate timeline due to interference with the past has been, in itself, canon since the very first season.
It remains intact because the story begins in the post-Nemesis TNG-era. Everything you and I know as canon must occur prior to the story adavencing to this point. Previous continuity is not only relevant, but absolutely essential, whether what results is a completely altered timeline or not.
#415
Hmm…a Vulcan we knew to still be alive in the current continuity with a lifespan nearly double that of a human (with an actor’s looks to match) travels back in time. That’s really *that* convoluted?
#417 – *That* isn’t, but *that* isn’t all that’s going on, is it?
#418
“I don’t see how it could possibly get much more convoluted, cheaty, or fanwanky than the way they’ve chosen to include Old Spock.”
“*That* isn’t, but *that* isn’t all that’s going on, is it?”
As far as the Spock character’s role in the movie, yeah, I think him going back in time as an old man pretty much covers it. They didn’t need to bring him back from the dead (think that was covered in TSFS by different writers) or try to make him play the character at the same age he was 17 years ago. They just brought an existing character into the storyline. Maybe I have a different definition of ‘convoluted’ than others do, but it doesn’t sound overly complex or involved to me.
If you’re referring to other aspects of the story, without the whole picture I don’t know if it’s convoluted yet. If it is and there isn’t a satisfying dramatic payoff, I assure you I’ll be disappointed in May, same as those who are already disappointed now (except I’ll have empirical evidence as a basis for my judgment, instead of speculation).
As happy as I am that this movie is happening, I truly hope we haven’t seen the last of the TNG crew. With their 25th Ann. coming soon, I think they should get one final movie.
I’m sure part of the reason this movie deletes established history is that using it might mean acknowledging the work of TOS writers, which could mean moneys paid to them. Check out the Superboy lawsuit concerning “Smallville”. A fresh story eliminates this potential problem. Not saying that is a good thing, and I don’t know if Paramount owns all that material completely (TOS), either.
“189. Dr. Image – January 13, 2009
I still do not and will not understand why we couldn’t have been told the pre-TOS story the way we all imagined it to be. The way we EXPECTED it to be. The way all of Trek so far had “historically” spelled it out. It is a rich enough history on its own without being drastically altered. It did not need to be.
Instead we have some things that ironically even Berman wouldn’t have perpetrated again-
Time travel and Romulans.
WHY??”
Because storytelling is about surprise. You can’t tell a story by outlining things that are “expected.” Could the story have been told without so much change? Probably.
But could the story be told in a way we expected it to be? I certainly would hope not. There’d be no reason to see it if it didn’t surprise us in some way.
I have to chuckle, giggle and scream with laughter at the way some “fans” think that Star Trek belongs to them, only they know what Star Trek is all about, and only their vision of Star Trek (based upon their own particular attachment to TOS) is the “correct” one.
There’s another view that goes beyond this “members only” attitude.
Within the TOS era ITSELF – meaning all tv. animation, and films – Star Trek had numerous moments when the “facts” of canon did not always neatly line up. Thus, I say canon is comprised of the same kinds of “facts” that modern science is comprised of — meaning, it’s only a fact until some new information is uncovered or revealed. How that information comes around depends entirely on who is contributing to this ever-expanding work of fiction.
The fans do not “own” Star Trek, and they are not always “right” simply because they adamantly attach themselves to some tradition. And no amount of foot-stomping is going to change anything now…
#410
Bob Orci has said in past threads that he thought the scene he wrote for Shatner was good. I doubt if he thought it was a cheat.
Well, it now seems quite obvious to me that the film is NOT a result of the MWI of QM. That theory is just something Orci has been trying to get us to apply to this film because he knows that the film is going to shatter some major aspect(s) of canon.
Think about it, EVERY official explanation of this film is that it is an ORIGIN STORY of the “REAL” characters. But Orci has acknowledged that Kirk’s backstory is different than the “real” Kirk’s backstory. Orci’s explanation for this is the MWI. However, this interview makes it quite plain that the MWI is not going to be the official position of the film. The film is being presented as if this really IS the ONE TRUE HISTORY of our beloved characters. However, we know that it isn’t. (At least, if something major happens, like Pike dying or Vulcan staying blown up.)
In other words, my theory is that Orci knows that this film will wipe out TOS (Or at least parts thereof) and he is trying to get us to believe that won’t happen, because this film takes place in an alternate universe.
However, that theory is not the official posistion. The official position on the film is that it is the “real” backstory.
In other words, this film IS a reboot. Period. Like many others have said, they changed stuff because they WANTED to, and they did so without any real explanation “in-universe”. Nimoy’s Spock will NOT acknowledge that the history he arrives in is any different than it should be, Nero will NOT explain that he is going back in time to create an new, better alternate universe, etc.
This IS a reboot. Orci’s explanation is just a PR ploy to get the die-hard fans to swallow the film’s destruction of canon.
Now of curse, the above is my personal belief based on what I’ve read about the film so far. I hope to Kahless that I’m wrong, and that this film can fit into canon. But if it doesn’t, it becomes either a pointless alternate universe, (Even though we are being told it isn’t an alternate universe by interviews such as this) or it becomes the destroyer of canon. Either result is undesirable, and worse, would have been entirely avoidable had the powers that be worked harder to tell a canon-preserving story.
This double-speak does nothing to dampen my melancholy over this film.
#424
When he referred to ‘a cheat’, I’m fairly certain he was implicating the other ideas that had been offered up to bring Kirk back. Though I have no firsthand knowledge of whether he felt the scene he wrote was ‘a cheat’ or not. Apparently JJ did, because he vetoed it. In either case, I think we end up in the same place we started.
I thought it was buttoned up weeks ago? Or is this interview from weeks ago?
I’m not saying it’s impossible for Kirk to have had this longstnadging, deep, life-changing relationship with Pike and not mention it when asked by Mendez in “The Menagerie.” But it’s so unlikely that he WOULDN’T, that it’s insultingly ridiculous to propose it. Therefore, saying that nothing in the new movie contradicts Kirk Prime’s established backstory doesn’t really wash.
Anyway, like I said before, I really do hope I get proven wrong. Before the half-hour preview got released, I was one of the new film’s biggest cheerleaders because I firmly believe that a great story trumps most other concerns. But what we now know of the story indicates that it’s really not THAT great.
I agree, what about McCoy? It wasn’t just Spock and Kirk, it was McCoy as well, it was that trio, and hell you could almost throw Scotty in there as well but it wasn’t a duo it was a trio. I have always liked the McCoy character better then Kirk or Spock, in fact I prefer the McCoy and Spock duo more then the Kirk and Spock duo….DeForest did a great job :D
Now I am going to behave like a typical cynical Star Trek fan:
I think most fans complain too much but it is because of their antisocial or selective-social nature. Does it feel so good to complain about this new movie, that you cant even try to find something you might like? I only have one friend who likes Star Trek that I hang out with because I cant stand to be around the typical Star Trek fan, they have unpleasant dispositions, are cynical, and get so technical you take the fun out of it. Besides I can’t stand your shit ass replica uniforms that you wear to the bloody conventions that look nothing like the real uniforms. I watch the TV show and movies, but a few reference books and that is it for me.
I still dont see what is upsetting people. I was upset in the beginning, back in 2006-2007 but it was because of my ignorance of what was going on and what the movie was about. The more I read about the movie, saw photos the more my mind was put to ease as I understood how, why, and what Orci, Kurtzman, and JJ were trying to do…and your telling me after all this most people are still upset. Get over it. As a 20 year Trek fan I can say I am VERY excited about this movie, I am no longer worried about it, as I understand what they are trying to do. A reboot would not have been my first choice but maybe it had to be done. How can you say TWOK has action when the action scene in First Contact where the Borg cube was destroyed was more action then we have seen in any Trek movie. Granted the nebula battle in TWOK lasted longer but there was more action squeezed into the First Contact Borg ship scene then in any other Trek movie. When I saw the battle the scene in First Contact I though “I WANT TO SEE MORE OF THAT IN STAR TREK,” and I am happy JJ had the same vision. The only bigger action scene where the battles with the Dominion in the DS9 series and your telling you dont want to see more on a more grand scale with a higher budget. When Starfleet retakes DS9, the attack on the Chin’toka system, the attack on Cardassia. Most fans would argue that is not what Star Trek is about, and I agree but that is not what I am defending. I have high values and morals which is why I love Star Trek, it would not be Star Trek without that but there is nothing wrong with some more action, I love action and I am simply defending the fact that Star Trek can have more action without sacrificing story or morals. Why is that action movies or movies with gore 20 years ago don’t have the same effect today, because things change and no longer have the same effect. Why is it that Star Trek fans don’t label Star Trek this way? Star Trek no more high and mighty than anything else, it will become dated and would need to change in order to survive, why can you see this? Star Trek is not excluded from the effects of time and an ever-changing society. Granted for me Star Trek will always be timeless, but that is because my heart deems it so, and love is blind.
First Contact was my last favorite Star Trek movie. I will always own every Star Trek TV series or movie, but c’mon Insurrection and Nemesis were not the best, they ran out of grandiose ideas. Granted they still contain the moral values that are so important but Insurrection and Nemesis lacked a grandiose feel.
Orci and Kurtzman have great ideas, why will no one let them try???? It is not better to try and fail then to never try at all. How can you go against a guy who has an Enterprise phone?
Any fan who is against this movie is a bigot, a hypocrite and cynic, you contradict yourselves by going against new ideas when that is precisely what Star Trek is about! By not accepting new ideas you are going against what Star Trek is and what it preaches.
I am surprised at how many of my non Star Trek friends are coming up to me telling my they saw the trailer for the new Star Trek and “it looks awesome!” Almost brought a tear to my eye, even with the trailer alone, I said to myself “Orci, Kurtzman, and JJ did it…they did it!”
It is time for Star Trek to change and you damn basement dwelling nerds have to come to terms with that. There is no going back, this movie is coming out no matter what you do or say, I want this movie to be successful, I know this movie will be successful.
#425
Eh, if that’s how you feel I’m sure none of us will change your mind. To me, the ‘canon’ they might be throwing out is pretty trivial. I’ve seen many individuals cry foul that Gary Mitchell is being disregarded (of course, we don’t *know* that), yet the characters and subsequent writers clearly didn’t care much about him either, as he was never, ever mentioned again. Not once. Not even in passing.
Now, WNMHGB is one of my top 5 favorite episodes, ever. Yet, I will not shed a single tear for Gary should he not be featured in this film. Any more so than if Spock isn’t called a ‘Vulcanian’, or if it isn’t called the ‘United SPACE Ship’ Enterprise, or if Sarek fails to acknowledge that Amanda is his 2nd wife, or they don’t refer to Starfleet as UESPA or Spacefleet Command, or if they fail to mention that TOS established the show taking place in 2166, 2266 and 2566 simultaneously.
Good morning gang. How will I ever get any work done?
All this controversy is the result of a botched roll-out with long time fans. We have been being told that this is the origin for TOS crew. We now know that it is not. It’s an alternate universe origin story.
It may have been wiser to tell us it’s a total Galactica style reboot (which it really is) and the let us leave the theater thinking well they did throw the Prime Star Trek Universe a bone after all, it’s there it just doesn’t matter to this all new take on our classic characters. I may have been less disappointed, I know no-one cares if I’m disappointed, well actually I do.
But that’s not how they chose to do it. No, they’ve been getting my hopes up for over a year that this will follow the history. It only does so by acknowledging the history is there and then rewriting it.
BTW – I’m replaying The Menagerie now. It sure seems like Kirk is deferring to Spock as the guy who knew Pike well. And the argument that Kirk and Pike could have been close even with the Menagerie dialogue being accepted is just weird.
If I’m married to Becky and someone asked “Do you know Becky?” I doubt I would only say, “I met her at graduation.” I’d say, “Do I know Becky? Shoot she’s my wife!”
And I bet that if Kirk had had his ass saved by Pike in a bar fight he would have said to Mendez “Yeah Chris Pike and I go way back.”
But he didn’t say that . He said he met Chris Pike when Pike was promoted to fleet captain. No implication of any history with the guy at all, and again he instantly defers to Spock’s long relationship with his disfigured captain.
Pike should have been a cameo at best if this was the origin story of TOS crew. Sorry, but that’s how it went in the Prime Star Trek history.
Is anyone else already tired of having to say Prime vs Bizarro? This is the kind of hair-splitting distinctions we are left with now.
“Captain Kirk is the man!” I said.
“Which one?” my friend asked.
“Oh right, um the old one.” I reply.
Remember the Farragut!
431 Yeah I’ve been saying the past year how dumb the idea was to even suggest recasting kirk and co. been there done that It boldly going backwards
377
The “about the same age” line comparing Pike and Kirk is to tell Kirk (and the audience) who may not know Pike at all – that he is not a white haired 99year old man in a wheelchair but a middle aged man with severe radioactivity burns and other effects. Ten years is not that much…a 30 year old and a 40 year old doing the same unique job, a starship Captain, would feel about the same age compared to a twenty year old cadet or a retired 90 year old.
It is OBVIOUS that Kirk met Pike just that once and that Pike is Spock’s mentor. I would expect in this movie continuity the Menagerie’s events would have had Kirk risking everything to save Pike – since it seems Spock’s relationship to Pike has been tossed aside in favor of Cadet Kirk becoming instant captain.
#423.-agreed.
I think these threads speak volumes about the dysfunction in the artist/audience relationship. I tend to align myself with particular musicians, artists, etc to appreciate the entire work being produed. We have a tendency to only want to hear the hit songs in concert and not the surrounding work, we feel we as fans are “owed” something. However sometimes I think we forget our place as “fans”. We are fans of “it”, whatever “it” is (trek in this case of course). It’s not up to us to make the artistic decisions, it’s up to us to appreciate (or not) the end product. And for me, personally, I wouldn’t be interested in something that doesn’t change and grow. I wouldn’t want my favorite band to put out album after album of essentially the same songs. I’d hate to think anyone would want a re-tread of the same old thing in a new movie, and we could have been in danger of that happeneing. I don’t feel I am “owed” the Trek backstory as I might have personally imagined it. I think its time to shake up the snowglobe a little. I’m excited for a new Star Trek movie and will wait until the credit roll to make my determination. If we get a good movie, then good! if not, then too bad. It’s wonderful to be emotionally invested in such an incredle body of work as Trek, but lets take a second to remember which end of the spectrum we’re on. We’re the audience, it doesn’t belong exclusively to us, and we’re along for the ride. Ups and downs included. Let’s hope we get one hell of a ride this May!
“Nor does it establish that they only met once.”
No, but it’s pretty literal that it was the first meeting. But no, it certainly doesn’t preclude subsequent interaction, perhaps due to the change of command issues. Or being in that exclusive Starship Captains’ Club! ;)
“Bob Orci has said in past threads that he thought the scene he wrote for Shatner was good. I doubt if he thought it was a cheat.”
I’m very curious to see what they came up with. As for it being a cheat or too fannish, well, it seems fanboyish to me to have everyone all together in the coming movie despite ages, etc. Which is why I never jonesed for an origins story — it never seemed mysterious to me. They simply got posted to the ship at various times as happens in the military. But I’ve always wanted to see more of the 5-year mission! Or how bout the end? What on earth made Kirk accept promotion? Or why was it so bad that Spock felt Gol was his only option. Juicy stuff.
#425—”… this film IS a reboot.”
No, it isn’t. A “reboot” would discard previous continuity. This film not only acknowledges that continuity (by beginning in the post-Nemesis era), but actually depends upon it to advance the story to this point.
“The film is being presented as if this really IS the ONE TRUE HISTORY of our beloved characters. However, we know that it isn’t. ”
I don’t see that it has been presented that way at all. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that it will be made clear within the film that part of Nero’s objective is to take action which will “alter” the past. I think it will be made equally clear that Spock (Nimoy) is acting with the intention of controlling the “damage” done to the timeline.
That much alone will make clear to the audience that events are unfolding somewhat differently than before.
I cannot imagine a scenario where that much is not made clear.
Orci: “Anything which appears to violate canon will have a canon explanation.”
Orci:”…nothing you’ve referenced as canon is precluded by the movie.”
These two statements prompt me to conclude that one or more of these three things is true:
a) At some point after the events depicted in Nemesis, the timeline is canonically altered, which of course, inherently preserves the relevancy of the TOS-NEM timeline;
b) The “final solution”, as Orci has referred to it, is one in which the original timeline is reset, or at the very least, the alterations to the timeline are minimal in the end;
c) Nothing depicted in the film actually contradicts previously established canon, beyond what we all knew to be the reasonable judgement necessary with regard to already contradictory material.
Now “c” is the most precarious option to me, given the already apparent difference in the relationship between Kirk and Pike, but consider this.
“The Menagerie” has already been outright canonically contradicted. Harve Bennett and Leonard Nimoy effectively rebooted the age of the Enterprise in TSFS, both in dialogue and admitted intent. That being the case, why is it okay for the Enterprise to be depicted as a mere 20 years old— 15 years after the events depicted in “Space Seed” (blatantly contradicting “The Menagerie”),— but not okay to render moot the notion that Kirk first met Pike when he was promoted to Fleet Captain?
I’d say the latter is much less significant than the former. Wouldn’t you?
:)
YARN and 750 Mang and Vorus- Could not agree more.
I said once that they’re telling us that pre-TOS no longer happened THAT way anymore- that now it happened OUR way.
The more I hear, the more I believe this is true.
If they make it all fit, It’ll be the greatest stunt of writing gymnastics ever.
But again, WHY go THIS route??
Didn’t Arthur Conan Doyle say something to the effect of: “I don’t let the continuity get in the way of a good story.” in reference to the inconsistencies in the Sherlock Holmes canon?
#435—” But I’ve always wanted to see more of the 5-year mission! Or how bout the end? What on earth made Kirk accept promotion? Or why was it so bad that Spock felt Gol was his only option. Juicy stuff.”
As have I. The great thing about it is—-all of that remains on the table!
394 431
And later in the episode we have
“Chris, was that really you on the screen?”
like Kirk had never seen Pike earlier in his life before that meeting as Pike was promoted to Fleet Captain.
429 – I agree with much of your sentiment.
I have a TOS and WOK Uniforms from ST: Experience, and I did wear them to Comic-Con 2008 and the Star Trek convention.
Sorry ;-)
I personally think this movie looks like it’s going to be pretty good, and reserve final judgement until I see it.
I’m pretty optimistic and relaxed about it. I get technical about things, but as a fun way of exploring the Star Trek universe.
I ENJOY talking about continuity issues, as well as what could have been, and figuring out what the “real” story is.
I don’t get negative, but I do acknowledge retcons, contradictions and mistakes. All part of the fun.
I also am not one of the “Anti-Berman” crowd, who slams almost everything he did.
He did a lot of fantastic work with his team, and the Star Trek franchise expanded immeasurably in that time.
I also recognize that a degree of “franchise fatigue” crept inwith Enterprise and Nemesis, and that Star Trek was collapsing under it’s own weight.
To me, Star Trek is simply great entertainment, that makes you think, that makes you feel something, that has a lot of depth in characters and ideas, and like any other art, is a product of it’s time.
I have the TNG Tech Manual, which is fun to look at and read, but is really not the core of what Star Trek is.
Whether this movie is an alternate take on Trek, a Time Travel/Alternate Universe origin story isn’t what matters.
That it is a good movie, with a good story, well told, with a good take on the Original Crew, and great production values, is what is of interest to me.
Fans may take it as a separate interpretation of the idea, aka new Galactica or The Dark Knight, or an alternate universe spun off by nefarious Romulans going back to change things, but the core of a good movie is what is needed.
Gene Roddenberry is actually quoted, though I forget what he actually said, that he’d love it if someone came along and restarted Star Trek’s original crew over, doing it better.
The Series creator didn’t sweat the small stuff, and neither should we.
Instead, we should appreciate the differences as an expantion of the possibilities.
Vulcans call this IDIC.
#431
“Is anyone else already tired of having to say Prime vs Bizarro? This is the kind of hair-splitting distinctions we are left with now.”
I think that’s why most of us just call it ‘Star Trek’! ;)
#439 — Yes, years from now. We’ve got to get to May first and I’m not sure THAT is ever gonna happen. ;) It’s like kids with Christmas! It can’t come soon enough.
“Ten years is not that much…a 30 year old and a 40 year old doing the same unique job, a starship Captain, would feel about the same age compared to a twenty year old cadet or a retired 90 year old.”
I can’t tell the difference a lot of the time between a 30 or 40-year old man today. (Dang you fellows for aging so well!!) In a couple of centuries, I’d imagine there will be even less distinction due to advances in health and science. It will all be viewed as prime-of -life years.
“Why is it okay for the Enterprise to be depicted as a mere 20 years old…”
Well, actually for me it isn’t but I think it’s “less” of a problem for some than changing Kirk’s backstory. We know they did it deliberately cause of the Trek anniversary coming up. (Sigh) Just like Shatner changing the deck levels in #5 to make it “more dramatic”. (another sigh)
#429– You’ll never change minds my being hostile and insulting.
#437—”I said once that they’re telling us that pre-TOS no longer happened THAT way anymore- that now it happened OUR way.”
No matter what, that isn’t true. All of the backstory tidbits in episodes like “Obsession”, “Court-Martial”, “The Conscience Of The King”, “The Man Trap”, “A Private Little War”, “Friday’s Child”, “Amok Time”, “Journey To Babel”, “The Menagerie”, and “Where No Man Has Gone Before” are essential to forming the timeline which leads the story to this point.
In the end, it may have occurred in another timeline, but nonetheless, it did occur, and is no less relevant. It is, in fact, absolutely essential to the story.
440. BK613 – January 14, 2009
“Chris, was that really you on the screen?”
like Kirk had never seen Pike earlier in his life before that meeting as Pike was promoted to Fleet Captain.
I guess you didn’t watch the episode.. it was also stated that Starfleet did not keep such detailed logs at that time.. Kirk was merely asking if that was REALLY Pike and not something the Talosians make up. Get it??
#440
“394 431
And later in the episode we have
“Chris, was that really you on the screen?”
like Kirk had never seen Pike earlier in his life before that meeting as Pike was promoted to Fleet Captain.”
Even if Kirk only met Pike once, he’d know what he looked like (pre-accident). The line is more likely making reference to the fact that the tape is so detailed (something later clarified when they state that no starship keeps records of that nature). In other words, Kirk is verifying that the tape is legit.
The line also adds another layer to the ‘he only met him once’ debate – Kirk IMMEDIATELY refers to Pike as ‘Chris’. Not as Captain, not as Pike, but as Chris. This indicates a familiarity beyond ‘I met him that one time he gave me the keys to the Enterprise’. So the episode itself may be contradictory.
136. Anthony Pascale – January 13, 2009
—-If Trek fans cant care about characters in alt timelines, then why are episodes like “Year of Hell”, “Twilight”, and “Yesterday’s Enterprise” and others, all fan favorites? As I have noted before, it was an ‘alternative Picard’ who uttered the line “Let history never forget the name…Enterprise.” But I guess all the timeline-istas weren’t moved by that line because he was some ‘fake’ Picard.—-
I don’t think the issue is that fans can’t care about characters in other timelines. It’s that fans care MORE about the characters of the universe/timeline that we have been following over a period of 40+ years of storytelling. Watching alternate universe/timeline characters is great in an hour-long episode, but that’s hardly the same as watching them FOR EVERMORE.
And, now, we’re presented with the idea that those characters that we care MORE about have been basically left behind or excised from the Star Trek franchise and all future stories, in favor of a set of Doppelgängers from/of/in an alternate universe/timeline who, while resembling their original counterparts in many important ways, are not actually them.
And, some people are further concerned that, beyond the franchise simply having left behind the original set of characters, new fans will confuse the Doppelgängers of the new film with their original counterparts, which will diminish the import and stature of the originals.
These new characters might be wonderful, but according to Bob, they’re different characters trekking about in a different world from the characters and stories of the past 40+ years of Star Trek stories.
For the past year and a half, or whatever, we’ve been eagerly expecting that Trek was not dead. That the world that we love to inhabit — the world of TOS, TNG et al — would be told of again in this new movie, and that we would revisit this wonderful world at point in time previous to TOS. And, recently, it has come to our attention that this is not exactly the case. It will, in fact, be a new world that we will be visiting. And, while this new world might be as good or even better than the one that we’d been expecting, it still raises some questions and doubts. If the new world is as good or better than the old world, then I suspect that most of us will be happy to see Trek continue on in it, though we may still miss the world of TOS, TNG et al.
—-The test is whether or not these characters feel right. Star Trek The Motion Picture takes place between TOS and TWOK, but the characters feel wrong (especially Kirk). What is more important? Is it more important if the character is technically on a specific timeline or more important for the character to feel right and be someone we care about? I know what Leonard Nimoy would say to that, he thinks TMP got the characters all wrong, and that the new movie gets them all right….but what does he know?—-
This is a strong point, but my rejoinder is: why couldn’t we have both? Why couldn’t we have our Prime characters portrayed in a way that felt right within a compelling story?
And, as to the Batman Begins vs. The Phantom Menace comparison, it’s just a question of better storytelling. It’s not all or nothing. Just because you liked Batman Begins better than The Phantom Menace doesn’t mean that your experience must be attributable to the choice of reboot vs. canon-consistent prequel. There are many factors, of course, that would have affected your experience. I mean, Jar Jar Binks. Need I say more?
As to the issue of whether people would have found something to complain about no matter what, be it the uniforms, the modernized ship or the eye color of the actors, I would respond that some things are more important than others. Some factors are weighed more heavily by most people than others. And, without having consulted anyone here, I think it’s safe to say that the decision to make the new film about a set of Doppelgängers in an alternate universe/timeline will have greater impact on the likes of us than the decision to change the uniforms, for example, would have had.
What does bother me is the prospect of Kirk being suddenly given the rank of captain from a position of cadet (one that is in trouble, no less).
I hope that isn’t the case, and hold out for the notion that some significant amount of time is depicted as having passed between his cadet days and seeing the gold braids on his wrists.
I would still prefer for there to be enough time to squeeze in the possibility of James Kirk spending time under Captain Garrovick aboard the Farragut, aboard the Republic with Ben Finney, and even as an instructor at Star Fleet Academy.
Still, none of that is as important to me as the assurance that James Kirk becomes basically the same “Captain Kirk” we know and love. I refuse to believe that there is only one road leading to that destination. After all, it is fiction.
#433
Except that The Menagerie takes place 13 years prior to that meeting, and if Kirk was indeed the youngest captain in Starfleet history than Pike *had* to have been older than Kirk 13 years ago. Add to that the fact that Pike had also clearly been in command for some time (references to past missions, etc.) and Pike in The Menagerie is *at least* 15 or more years older than Kirk. That’s definitely not the same as ‘about your age’.
“Still, none of that is as important to me as the assurance that James Kirk becomes basically the same “Captain Kirk” we know and love.”
OK, Kirk wins the Starfleet “Be a Captain for a Day” contest and does such a good job, that they give him the ship along with a lifetime supply of soap – I reckon you’d be happy so long as all roads lead to Rome.
#448
Closettrekker for the win! :) I’m equally troubled by that notion of instant promotion, but hopefully it gels or the rest of the story is so good we ignore it.
#447—”…some people are further concerned that, beyond the franchise simply having left behind the original set of characters, new fans will confuse the Doppelgängers of the new film with their original counterparts, which will diminish the import and stature of the originals.”
I find such fear completely irrational. For one thing, these potential “new fans” aren’t watching the original episodes anyway. So what exactly is lost? The possibility that, somehow, significant numbers of young potential moviegoers were going to fall in love with a 40+ year old television show anyway?
They should be viewed as the same characters, even if evolved under slightly different circumstances. I think that is the point.
The “import and stature of the originals” is not at all in jeopardy. That’s absurd.
So, what you are really saying is—many of the naysayers are simply insecure?
@444
You hold to that view rather tenaciously. And I can see your point.
However, you are assuming that this film explains that the history that it creates is different than the history that used to be there. What I’m saying is that the official position is that this film’s history has ALWAYS been what really happened. That if we could have looked into Kirk’s past back in the 60s, we would have seen this very film take place.
That further implies that the TOS-TNG+ that we know sprang FROM the events of this film. In other words, this film’s TOS plot is what the 60s version of Kirk went through. THAT is the official position. That this film is an ORIGIN STORY for the 60’s ERA KIRK. (That differs from your thesis in that your thesis claims that the 60’s era Kirk has a different backstory from the modern era Kirk.)
That official position is fine, as long as essential elements of canon are not violated. (Even Orci’s most recent “nothing you’ve referenced as canon is precluded by the movie.” quote doesn’t mean that Pike or Vulcan will survive.) However, if major elements (ie Pike or the planet Vulcan) are changed, then it the official position becomes impossible. TOS-TNG could not have sprung from a history where there was no planet Vulcan, for instance.
In the end, your thesis is fine, AS LONG AS the film establishes itself to be in a different timeline by the end of the film. If the film continues to try to pass itself off as the true history of the 60s era Kirk and crew, but violates canon, then canon is broken.
#377 et al. ““MENDEZ: You ever met Chris Pike?
KIRK: When he was promoted to Fleet Captain.””
God, I love how people miss a key point. At the point Pike was promoted to Fleet Captain, he was similar in age to Kirk (as Mendez references–or worse, is it really Mendez, or have the Talosians already bent things?).
This means Pike was promoted to Fleet Captain when HE took over the Enterprise. And was in Iowa overseeing its refit-construction. Which is when he met our Punk Kirk in a bar. In the prime version, Pike very well could have met Prime Kirk at the same time.
(BTW, a big kudos to whomever thought up the idea that the Iowa chasm is due to the Xindi superweapon…. take an arc from Iowa that skips a bit, restarts in Florida and trenches all the way to Venezuela. I can buy that!)
In other words, Mendez’ lines fit perfectly if you realize that at the point Pike was named Fleet Captain (and given the flagship, the Enterprise) Kirk was much younger.
Only the Kirk of Menagerie and Pike of this much-earlier-Kirk meeting would be the same age and build.
“MENDEZ: About your age. Big, handsome man, vital, active.”
Which means Kirk (about 33 at the time of Menagerie!) met Pike eleven years previously, when Kirk was 22, or 21 years, seven months, 25 days old, if you’re a Vulcan with a sense of being exact.
“KIRK: I took over the Enterprise from him. Spock served with him for several years.”
Again, as others point out, taking over the Enterprise doesn’t have to be the same point in time as the meeting for the first time. Frankly, it never made sense that he wouldn’t have “interned” in a way on board the Enterprise. Frankly, if that baffle plate hadn’t blown, perhaps that was the original intention?
“SPOCK: Eleven years, four months, five days.”
During which Kirk, both Prime Kirk and Punk Kirk, finished the Academy, went to the Republic and the Farragut, and then went to Command school where he “passed” the Kobayashi Maru, got summoned by the Commandant, blackshirted, etc.
Who’s to say much of what we’re going to see, wasn’t essentially the same in both Prime and Punk Trek? I for one agree there’s a way to adopt almost all of it into canon.
And what things don’t, are due to Nero; Borg; Picard; Kirk; Braxton; Future Guy (hmmm, if Nero doesn’t die….); Daniels, etc. and the cumulative effects of all these time-travelers.
#450—-” I reckon you’d be happy so long as all roads lead to Rome.”
I nevr implied that “all roads” lead to the same place, only that there may be more than one.
Your tendancy to misrepresent other people’s words is rearing its head again.
Let me throw this our to all you guys…
Could it not be possible that Kirk had already graduated from the Academy and just finished his instructor assignment when the movie takes place. The fact that he wasn’t assigned a ship yet was because not were immediately available? Couldn’t he already served on the Farragut? How long was he on the Farragut anyway?
I’m just trying to say that he could already be holding the rank of LT or whatever and isn’t just a cadet. Is this not plausible?
454. Daoud
“During which Kirk, both Prime Kirk and Punk Kirk, finished the Academy, went to the Republic and the Farragut, and then went to Command school where he “passed” the Kobayashi Maru, got summoned by the Commandant, blackshirted, etc.
Who’s to say much of what we’re going to see, wasn’t essentially the same in both Prime and Punk Trek? I for one agree there’s a way to adopt almost all of it into canon.
Well stated.. i agree completely!
#426
sean, i have to agree that the Shatner issue ends in the same place.
#453—”However, you are assuming that this film explains that the history that it creates is different than the history that used to be there.”
Indeed I am, but I don’t that at all to be much of a leap in faith.
“What I’m saying is that the official position is that this film’s history has ALWAYS been what really happened. ”
Given that this is the premise of your argument, where exactly is that “official position” stated? Is it merely the categorization of this film as an origin story? If so, that seems rather precarious to me.
If, as part of the film’s plot, Nero goes back in time and Spock follows, can you honestly envision a scenario in which the intent to alter (or, in Spock’s case, to “mend”) the timeline is not made clear?
You have to admit that such a scenario seems unlikely. Does it not?
Bizzaro?
This is nothing more than another adventure of Kirk and his crew aboard the starship Enterprise. It has different actors, a cool ship and acknowledges it’s roots. Even though it primarily takes place in a new universe and some things have changed… I don’t care. It is an extension of what has come before, but in a way that we are not completely used to. Isn’t that Boldly going where Trek has not gone before?
I can understand that some fans want everything lock-step with past canon..or what they think is past canon. I cannot understand why nearly every post in the thread must state the same thing over and over again. I don’t have to agree with you, nor you with me, but I got your point about 300 posts back. You don’t like it, check. I do… we’re even.
I don’t like the practice of a few posters attempting to get “in the face” of Bob Orci or twisting his words. I like they guy, he’s told us more than we really deserve. I consider him a guest here, not a man to be subjected to the Inquisition or his work belittled before viewed.
The proof is in the movie and the movie is NOT here until May. It IS just a movie.
IDIC applied to Star Trek…what a concept.
“455. Closettrekker – January 14, 2009
(YARN) #450—-” I reckon you’d be happy so long as all roads lead to Rome.”
I nevr implied that “all roads” lead to the same place, only that there may be more than one.
Your tendancy to misrepresent other people’s words is rearing its head again.”
Please note the key phrase “so long as”.
That is, so long as any proposed origin story results in Kirk basically being Kirk and running the ship, you are OK with it, yes?
My counterexample is a reductio designed to show that you cannot stand by this claim (without qualification) – unless you are OK with Kirk taking command as a result of winning a promotional contest (or any number of ridiculous scenarios)?
Please read this slowy, so that you don’t miss the point this time.
#436 – I’ve done a fair bit of writing myself, and I know it can be incredibly difficult to be objective about one’s own work. So, I don;t think we can leave out possibility d) Orci is being very, er, fluid in his interpretation of what does and doesn’t contradict canon.
445 446
But that is your “fanon” interpretation of that line of dialog. Based on the surrounding lines of dialog, right? And you came to a reasonable conclusion?
Well reasonable conclusions about character dialog is not canon apparently.
Even if the conclusion is about the dialog of the opening teaser of an episode which sets out to establish that Kirk barely knew Pike but Spock knew him well and cared enough to betray everyone and everything for him.
#461—I didn’t miss the point the first time. I was merely taking a playful shot at you.
I would not be okay with that, nor am I likely to be okay with a simple “battlefield promotion” to the actual rank of captain from cadet.
As a former Marine officer, I will acknowledge that battlefield promotions do indeed occur, but are nearly always temporary and specific to the task at hand. Moreover, an actual promotion to the “rank” of captain would not be necessary for an officer to assume the “position” of captain aboard a naval vessel (or, in this case, a Starfleet vessel).
However, in all fairness, I think we have to allow for the possibility that some significant amount of time will pass between Kirk’s cadet time and his ascension to “captain” (and I am referring to the actual gold braids on his sleeves). That would seem to align with this comment from Mr. Orci:
“…nothing you’ve referenced as canon is precluded by the movie.”
If this is true, then either enough time has passed for kirk to serve aboard the USS Farragut under Capt. Garrovick, and aboard the USS Republic as well, prior to his official “promotion”, or the altered timeline is not permanent ( reference to Orci’s previous claim of a “final solution”).
Even the 20 minutes of footage shown to critics is not all that comprehensive, and it is quite possible that there are still significant “gaps”, either filled by the film or left open to interpretation.
I’m not as close to Star Trek history as some and would have enjoyed seeing the real ‘Star Trek’ “prime” origins. Can anyone who knows the history, tell me if the events of this movie (as we currently know them) could occur within the timeline and still yield the same “prime” history we have come know? What if Nimoy erased the memories of the crew he encounters? Could it work then?
Yes, no matter what, we still have ibridge and Uglyprise. I like Pine as Kirk but Qunito’s voice is killing it for me.
Also, since we will not be getting the real Star Trek origin, isn’t the headline for this thread misleading?
#462—”So, I don;t think we can leave out possibility d) Orci is being very, er, fluid in his interpretation of what does and doesn’t contradict canon.”
Fair enough, but just how “fluid” can we realistically expect his interpretation to be?
The entire succession of events depicted in “The Menagerie” can plausibly be called into ‘canonical question’ already by what was said in TSFS. Bear in mind that this was admittedly not an error on the part of Harve Bennett and Leonard Nimoy, but quite intentional.
Admiral Morrow’s clear statement that “The Enterprise is 20 years old” is blatantly contradictory to the dialogue in “The Menagerie”.
If the Enterprise is only 20 years old 15 years after the events depicted in “Space Seed”, then Pike could hardly have been in command of her 13 years before Spock’s Court-Martial. At the very least, there is certainly precedent for disregarding the dialogue in that episode.
Is there not?
446. sean – January 14, 2009
Sean wrote “Even if Kirk only met Pike once, he’d know what he looked like (pre-accident). The line is more likely making reference to the fact that the tape is so detailed (something later clarified when they state that no starship keeps records of that nature). In other words, Kirk is verifying that the tape is legit.”
Exactly Right.
[In the interest of fairness to the show's not perfect crowd - of course anytime after that it does seem like they keep records that good: Finney's trial, Spock's Death STII, Picard's questioning Hugh]
“Kirk IMMEDIATELY refers to Pike as ‘Chris’. Not as Captain, not as Pike, but as Chris. This indicates a familiarity beyond ‘I met him that one time he gave me the keys to the Enterprise’. So the episode itself may be contradictory.”
Not so right…first name usage is fairly common in TOS especially between captains. I’m sure there’s plenty of instances of Kirk talking to higher ranking on-duty officers like that too. Starfleet is out on the frontier still – there is only going to be a few other ships and bases in the neighborhood and they all know each other.
The entire succession of events depicted in “The Menagerie” can reasonably (not plausibly…sorry) be called into ‘canonical question’…
“As a former Marine officer, I….”
Closettrekker — OT. You may have already told us but I missed it. How long were you in the service? I always have admired our men and women in uniform.
#469—12 years total.
All this multiple-universe talk makes me wish they had made a “Sliders” movie. What a fun show.
467
“Not so right…first name usage is fairly common in TOS especially between captains.”
agreed.
Kirk used first names with many of his peers and superior officers, including Jose I. Mendez. Doesn’t make any of them Kirk’s mentor or BFF.
Closettrekker,
“I didn’t miss the point the first time. I was merely taking a playful shot at you.”
Humor. A difficult concept. You’re subtlety eluded me that time.
“I would not be okay with that, nor am I likely to be okay with a simple “battlefield promotion” to the actual rank of captain from cadet.”
Yes, that would be a hell of a leap.
“As a former Marine officer, I will acknowledge that battlefield promotions do indeed occur, but are nearly always temporary and specific to the task at hand. Moreover, an actual promotion to the “rank” of captain would not be necessary for an officer to assume the “position” of captain aboard a naval vessel (or, in this case, a Starfleet vessel).”
I’ll take your word for it. And thank you for your service.
“However, in all fairness, I think we have to allow for the possibility that some significant amount of time will pass between Kirk’s cadet time and his ascension to “captain” (and I am referring to the actual gold braids on his sleeves).”
Agreed.
“That would seem to align with this comment from Mr. Orci:
‘…nothing you’ve referenced as canon is precluded by the movie.’”
It would also fit with the interpretation that he simply referring to the original canon which is being displaced.
“If this is true, then either enough time has passed for kirk to serve aboard the USS Farragut under Capt. Garrovick, and aboard the USS Republic as well, prior to his official “promotion”, or the altered timeline is not permanent ( reference to Orci’s previous claim of a “final solution”).”
This seems less likely.
“Even the 20 minutes of footage shown to critics is not all that comprehensive, and it is quite possible that there are still significant “gaps”, either filled by the film or left open to interpretation.”
The most straightforward projection, given what we have been shown and told, is that Kirk seizes the day and is catapulted into the Captain’s chair in series of events that were designed to change the past.
At any rate, I am glad that we agree that not just any set of circumstances would prove to be satisfactory, just so long as Kirk winds up Kirkish and in command.
#467
I respectfully disagree on the first name point. Everyone else Kirk spoke to with that familiarity in TOS was someone it was established he had a prior relationship with. Other captains, etc. Pike was a fleet captain of higher rank, and that familiarity implies something beyond one, brief meeting. He didn’t greet Commodore Mendez with a ‘hey Jose, how are ya?’. I’m not saying it’s a fact, I’m just saying that there is an implied contradiction between what he said and how he acted.
#472
But he clearly knew Mendez before seeing him at the starbase. There’s an established relationship. Not a ‘I met Commodore Mendez once and now I call him Jose’. That’s all I’m saying.
I agree that a new crew would not have been good. If youre going to start out with a new crew, best do it on TV, not in a movie, just wouldnt work with Star Trek. I still think that the original crew has been overdone, though, and it would have been better to have done something with the TNG crew. They say theyre trying to market to the non-Trekkie market, well 9 out of 10 people I talk to that arent Trekkies say that they used to watch TNG but have never touched TOS. And I dont understand why they say theyre so shocked about there never being a back story of how the TOS crew came together. Ever heard of crew assignments? We got to see how the DS9 crew came together and I have to say that was one of the most unimpressive first episodes Ive seen. TNG just kind of started out with them together, and it worked. VOY I think was the only show to really show a crew being formed and to pull it off and of course Enterprise, well we all remember how that went. Even if this movie goes well, I dont think I’ll ever like the idea behind it. It seems like the Trek timeline froze at Nemesis and just refuses to go further. Personally Id love to see what the late 24th and early 25th century have in store, and that’s not counting the online game, which seems unlikely to be considered cannon.
#476—”…well 9 out of 10 people I talk to that arent Trekkies say that they used to watch TNG but have never touched TOS.”
But what about the movies? Many people I know have only been exposed to Kirk, Spock, and McCoy through films like TWOK and TVH. They are not launching a new television series. They are releasing a film.
People were never exactly flocking to the theater for TNG movies. Even I, a Star Trek fan for over 30 years, never once paid to see one of those (after seeing them on television, I cannot say I missed anything).
Picard, Data, etc.—those are admittedly sci-fi icons.
Kirk/Spock.McCoy—those are pop culture icons.
There is a difference. I think it will show at the box office.
“Personally Id love to see what the late 24th and early 25th century have in store…”
That’s a valid opinion, but I think many lost interest in it. Star Trek spinoffs have, IMO, long since become a “geeks only” club.
Even the most heralded TNG-era film, First Contact, isn’t playing in a theater somewhere in the Greater Houston area (I can’t speak for what happens in other major cities) at least once a month. TWOK is, along with movies like Jaws, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, etc.
I don’t think that they would continue to show it if people weren’t still paying to see it on the big screen.
Kirk, Spock, and McCoy are simply more mainstream, bankable, box-office characters.
“…it just shocked us that the story of how the bridge crew came together was never told…”
…so we made a story which has nothing to do with the bridge crew originally coming together, putting them together under totally different circumstances which are not a remotely relevant for basic Star Trek timeline. Clever!
It has been reported Ricardo Montalban has died. He was 88.
Khhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
452. Closettrekker – January 14, 2009
—-#447—”…some people are further concerned that, beyond the franchise simply having left behind the original set of characters, new fans will confuse the Doppelgängers of the new film with their original counterparts, which will diminish the import and stature of the originals.”
I find such fear completely irrational. For one thing, these potential “new fans” aren’t watching the original episodes anyway. So what exactly is lost? The possibility that, somehow, significant numbers of young potential moviegoers were going to fall in love with a 40+ year old television show anyway?
They should be viewed as the same characters, even if evolved under slightly different circumstances. I think that is the point.
The “import and stature of the originals” is not at all in jeopardy. That’s absurd. So, what you are really saying is—many of the naysayers are simply insecure?—-
Well, this is where it gets a bit weird. I mean, they’re KIND of the same characters, but, not really….
I suppose we’ll be much better equipped to debate this point after we’ve seen the film, and many of the concerns expressed here may fade away if it turns out that the new characters are similar enough to the Primes.
As for what is lost — and, I’m going to sidestep the point of “insecurity,” for the time being — while this point is not of paramount concern to me, I can see how some die-hard fans, who’ve supported Trek through thick and thin, might resent the idea of their Trek being sort-of hijacked and driven off by a younger generation who’ll grow up thinking and talking about “James T. Kirk,” as a character whose backstory is different from the Kirk of TOS. And, the entire future of the franchise will focus around and be premised upon this quasi-re-written James T. Kirk. And, the TOS Kirk and the Gang will be relegated to the increasingly distant past.
Again, if within the context of the film, the new characters are similar enough to the Primes, then all of the concerns expressed here might fade away. But, it’s still somewhat irksome to not know why Orci and Kurtzman chose to take the franchise in this direction. In a way, the answer to this question is the most compelling thing about the new movie.
But, man….I REALLY hope it gets answered in a good way, and it doesn’t turn out to have been a weak reason, such as to be able to make the ship and other props look different. Or, there are going to be A LOT of angry Trekkies, myself probably among them.
#465: The answer to your question is “maybe.” At present, the only revealed part of the movie that doesn’t fit into canon is Kirk driving a stick shift… which is a ridiculously minor point in any case.
I think I’m just about talked out. The sense I’m getting at this point is that the fandom (at least, in this thread) is confused more than anything else–we’re confused about what “truth” the movie presents, whether our characters are “the same” as ever, we’re confused about what’s canon and what isn’t… we’re confused about things as basic as the vocabulary one uses when talking about MWI. Mang is right; talking about “Prime” and “Bizarro” universes gives one a serious headache. Confusion, combined with a healthy suspicion, makes everybody a bit tense, and is feeding some feelings of anger in all quarters–by the continuistas and against them. I’m not about to become less confused, so, after three threads on the subject and some 2200 posts with ya’ll, I think I’m just about done.
I’ll say this, though: the discussion of “Yesterday’s Enterprise” prompted some thinking on my part. “YE” did, in fact, not return us in the end to the status quo ante. “YE” created Sela, and that changed the universe, even though *nearly* everything was left the same.
I do not want the new movie to end in a timeline that’s been radically altered, a la the Klingon War timeline “YE” shows for most of the hour. But if it ends in a slightly altered timeline, as “YE” ultimately did–a timeline we can ultimately fit the rest of canon into with relatively few contradictions–then I’m okay with that. We shall see.
#480—” I can see how some die-hard fans, who’ve supported Trek through thick and thin, might resent the idea of their Trek being sort-of hijacked and driven off by a younger generation who’ll grow up thinking and talking about “James T. Kirk,” as a character whose backstory is different from the Kirk of TOS. And, the entire future of the franchise will focus around and be premised upon this quasi-re-written James T. Kirk. And, the TOS Kirk and the Gang will be relegated to the increasingly distant past.”
As much as I absolutely adore TOS, my kids cannot even sit through an episode. They know the characters from the movies, but what “backstory” have they gained from that, aside from the fact that Kirk fathered an illegitimate son and cheated on a command test?
My kids do not represent everyone, but they are mainstream moviegoers. Their peers don’t know anything about Star Trek, and without this upcoming film, they probably never would.
It is difficult to argue that something which isn’t already there can be removed. In other words, they most likely wouldn’t have gotten to know these characters anyway. If the Kirk, Spock, and McCoy they come to know are the products of slightly altered environments, what’s the difference?
The only people who will care about a contradictory detail or two in how we were told the characters evolved are those of my generation.
^ Most of the young Trekkies I run into these days are actually Voyager fans, who know the lives of Janeway, Seven, and Tom Paris backwards and forwards.
It’s weird how that show has developed such a strong following within a very particular age group.
480. Cygnus-X1 – January 14, 2009
“But, it’s still somewhat irksome to not know why Orci and Kurtzman chose to take the franchise in this direction. In a way, the answer to this question is the most compelling thing about the new movie.”
I’m telling ya, they felt they had to have Kirk in his 20’s (not his 30’s) AND end the film as captain of the Enterprise. It’s really the only reason for all this fooling around with the timeline. And it so makes sense in terms of how the industry works – youth obsessed.
Why did they want Kirk in his 20’s? Well that’s where the “new fans” the team is trying to attract come in. New fans = teen girls, who the team hopes will find Chris Pine young and dreamy. Pfffft.
Why risk telling the story the way it happened (with a Kirk in his 30’s) with all that popcorn at stake?
Remember the Farragut!
#484: Meh, I think that’s a bit disingenuous. If they wanted to tell an origin story, it stands to reason that Kirk would be under the age of 31, since he’s 31 when he takes command of the Enterprise. Most ages under 31 are, in fact, in their twenties. Chris Pine is 28; I’m not sure what age Kirk will be in the movie. Seems kosher to me. No need to impute unsavory motives to them for making a storytelling decision that just about anybody would have made in writing this story–including you, I think.
485. James Heaney – Wowbagger
But we know that he does become captain in this flick and he’s fresh out of the academy so he’s not going to be 30 when he becomes captain.
From cadet straight to captain seems to be where we’re headed.
Also watch for the chief engineer and medical officer to get killed off conveniently so that Scotty and McCoy can have their permanent jobs before the credits roll. Hide and watch.
Sound contrived? Yup.
Remember the Farragut!
444 Closetrekker: I said pre-TOS history, not TOS.
The events you refer to are TOS.
And how exactly do you know that any of the events you mention are essential to THIS story??
Personally, I would have liked to know about the PRIME timeline characters and their backstories.
I could care less about these “fantasy timeline” versions.
@459
==Given that this is the premise of your argument, where exactly is that “official position” stated? Is it merely the categorization of this film as an origin story? If so, that seems rather precarious to me.==
To say that something is an “origin story” seems quite plain to me. Even this interview explains that Orci and Kurtzman believe this to be the “untold story” of the Kirk and crew that were in TOS. This IS supposed to be THEIR one true history. That seems rather obvious. The only thing we have ever seen that runs contrary to that is Orci’s interview here about the MWI and QM and all that, which I think you and I agree was more for the die-hard fans than for any official position on the film. Every other source talks about this film being the true story of how Kirk got the command the 1701. In other words, a plain and simple origin story.
==If, as part of the film’s plot, Nero goes back in time and Spock follows, can you honestly envision a scenario in which the intent to alter (or, in Spock’s case, to “mend”) the timeline is not made clear?==
Oh, I’m sure they’ll go back in time with the INTENT to alter a lot of things, but do you really believe that at the end of the film it will be explained that Spock Prime LEFT the timeline in an altered state? If this is a “classical time travel” film, the implication or statement will be that the timeline has been RESTORED. Which again, if that is established while leaving major canonical points wrong, canon is destroyed.
Finally, even if someone does at some point alter something obvious, like Pike dies, that doesn’t change the fact that this film supposedly represents the origin of the 60s era Kirk. But if major things change, then it cannot be HIS origin, it would be the origin of “new Kirk”.
Now, I’m not saying it HAS to be so. Obviously the dialog of the film will determine how well they explain it. But I don’t think it logical to assume right now that it has to be as you say either. As of right now, we’re being told two major lines:
1) This is the origin of the Kirk and Spock from TOS.
2) Kirk’s backstory is different than we thought.
While not mutually exclusive, there is little room for error. And when you throw in Orci’s MWI theory:
3) This isn’t the origin of Kirk and Spock from TOS at all, but an alternate universe version of them.
You can see why my faith in the official lines is rather decimated. Depending on who speaks, on under what conditions, we get different lines.
#487—-”I said pre-TOS history, not TOS.
The events you refer to are TOS.”
The episodes I listed cite events from Pre-TOS history, in particular, the backstories of the “Big Three”.
“And how exactly do you know that any of the events you mention are essential to THIS story??”
What I said was that those events are essential to forming the ‘timeline’ that leads the story to this point.
By all accounts, the story ‘begins’ in that timeline. Nero and Nimoy’s Spock are products of that timeline.
Without that timeline, the story cannot advance to the point where either one of those characters travel back in time to begin with. That is why it is essential.
486 wrote:”Also watch for the chief engineer and medical officer to get killed off conveniently so that Scotty and McCoy can have their permanent jobs before the credits roll. Hide and watch.
Sound contrived? Yup.”
—————–
Above scene stolen from ST: Voyager
God how I wish someone in charge said to the new movie people “You are allowed to only watch “Where No Man has Gone Before” and “the Cage” to get the feel of set design, costumes, and characters. McCoy wasn’t even there from day one. Spock and Kirk weren’t best friends on day one – it’s debatable if Spock is even first officer. And Sulu was a department head (alien botany I think) – not a helmsman. Kirk was an intellectual & chess (and by implication stratagy) expert that not even spock could beat – not a cocky SNL caricature .
#488—I still adamantly maintain that the very fact that Nimoy’s Spock finds it necessary to travel back in time in response to Nero’s actions makes it quite obvious (to anyone) that something has (or is threatened to be) altered.
Even without the assumption that the dialogue will suggest that events have been altered, that much is still true. However, I still feel quite comfortable in that assumption.
@491
I agree, and have never said otherwise. Obviously, Nero intends to alter some aspects of the past. And Nimoy’s Spock intends to stop him, or correct those changes.
However, to have it as you suggest, that this is now a new version of their histories, we’d have to believe that Spock FAILED to prevent or correct the changes Nero intended. I don’t see that as a very likely ending, do you?
And actually, even if things supposedly are changed, that doesn’t really affect the fact that this film is still supposedly a telling of how they REALLY got together. In other words, any supposed changes are supposed to have happened to the crew we saw in TOS, since this is supposedly THEIR origin story. See what I mean?
Either this IS an origin story, and the events, whether a result of time travel or not, really DID happen to the old 60s era TOS crew. (And worse case scenario, things are left in such a canonical mess that the TOS that we know could not have happened.)
or
This isn’t an origin story at all, which goes directly against the lines that the official sources are telling us right in this interview.
If your theory is right, then this isn’t an origin story for the 60s era TOS crew, right? So how do you reconcile your theory with this interview stating that it is an origin story?
OK- just for kicks I looked up the word “reboot” on dictionary.com. The definition is:
>>>To turn (a computer or operating system) off and then on again; restart.
Obviously we are talking colloquial usage, so I like the American Heritage dictionary of cultural literacy version:
>>>A term that comes from computer usage. To reboot a computer is to start it up again after a computer crash. Hence, “reboot” has the connotation of starting a process over again.
When I reboot my computer, I don’t have to install a new operating system, I just start the process over again. Regardless of their being a connection to TOS and the newly dubbed ‘Prime’ Timeline, the new movie is starting the process over, after the franchise crashed. This is a reboot. Again, hear me out. I am not ‘whining’ or complaining. A reboot is fine, but I still find it disingenuous to tell me this is the origin of the TOS crew- history has gone through a reboot.
I think this leaves us with a conundrum:
If the timeline doesn’t reset to the ‘Prime’ version, we are not really seeing the TOS crew, but a permutation of these fictional characters. This worked for Superman. Rather than coming from a planet of genetic Supermen where the gravity was stronger than Earth, and therefore so was the baby in the rocket; now the baby is energized by radiation of a yellow sun. Cool, but literally a different entity. It will take a REALLY good story to make me care about different entities in the new Trek.
If the timeline DOES reset to the ‘Prime’ timeline, it will take a REALLY good story to make me care about the two hour movie about the different entities.
I hope its a really good storyline, but I think I would rather see either a full non-connected reboot, or the TOS origin, not a hybrid.
484. 750 Mang – January 14, 2009
You are assuming a lot and still putting words in Orci’s mouth or telling us what they “had to do”.
You’ve attempted to make your point several times already in this thread. There is no prize for “last post”.
492. Vorus – January 14, 2009
or we just don’t have all the facts yet.
Hmmm…
492 – Exactly; they’re trying to have their origin story cake and eat it too, and that’s dishonest. And whether it’s meant to be or not, it’s disrespectful to anyone who reads the interview.
#493″If the timeline DOES reset to the ‘Prime’ timeline, it will take a REALLY good story to make me care about the two hour movie about the different entities”
With ALL DUE RESPECT, and I have stated this many times before, you can bet the house the “prime timeline” will NOT be restored. This new timeline will give Abrams and Crew creative license to create a “whole new history” for the TOS crew. Mark my words on that!
#492-Hey Vorus, how are you? I’ve been quite busy with work/home stuff.
490. wkiryn – January 14, 2009
” Kirk was an intellectual & chess (and by implication stratagy) expert that not even spock could beat – not a cocky SNL caricature .”
not a cocky SNL caricature…
have you seen the movie already? i find it tough to judge a performance before i’ve seen it.
497-Sam:
I agree, it would make no sense to change it all for two hours, and then go back to the original at the end. The “new” audience would be baffled.
#492
“However, to have it as you suggest, that this is now a new version of their histories, we’d have to believe that Spock FAILED to prevent or correct the changes Nero intended. I don’t see that as a very likely ending, do you?”
I think it’s likely Spock isn’t capable of preventing *every* change Nero makes. After all, we know that Nero destroys the Kelvin (and a large Klingon fleet, based on the preview footage) and neither of those events likely transpired (at least not that way) in the original timeline. I think Spock prevents the most serious damage, thus why the timeline is slightly different. I’ve mentioned it before, but similar events transpire in Trek IV and other TOS episodes. This isn’t unprecedented.
I’m with these guys on where they are going with a story idea and how they arrive at it, but there is this (hopefully unintentional) sentiment that the previous Star Trek was all wrong or missed the point. They aren’t doing what the Entertainment Weekly article did, but they are still giving me the impression that all previous Trek was… well not good enough. That bugs me because, well Star Trek still is what we know it to be and not this reboot -yet-.
#494 Xai: “You’ve attempted to make your point several times already in this thread. There is no prize for “last post”.”
WHAT?!
All these hours… gone! Wasted! DAMMIT!
Damn, this thread went through the roof after I went beddy-bye last night. You guys and gals know your still going to go see it regardless.
“If you want to know what the movie will be like, just go out and rent the remake of “Lost in Space” and that’ll clue you in.
I don’t even know if I’m going to watch this thing, I’m just so disgusted.”
Why is it that every time there is good news we have to go and call the waaaaaaaahmbulance? Get over it, man. Remakes have always been what Hollywood is about. How many fricking different versions of Dracula have there been for goodness’ sake? The only difference is that it isn’t *your* sacred cow.
Bring it on, I say. The new ship design is my desktop background, because I think it’s just beautiful — and similar enough to the original to tug my heartstrings. I’ve grown into that opinion, honestly — at least how *much* I love the design. Set dressings are set dressings – the characters and story are what need to be most right.
Honestly, Roddenberry would probably love this thing. It’s about time to have some optimism in our movies, and Star Trek is the perfect champion for that.
One other thing, reading this thread. If I read the words “Remember the Farragut” again within the next 12 hours, I’m going to gouge a stranger’s eyes out at the store.
Signing out.
Mr. Orci, your participation in these crazy debates is very much appreciated by the sane.
486. 750 Mang – January 14, 2009
From cadet straight to captain seems to be where we’re headed.
Says who? You are assuming a lot from not even seeing the movie yet. Could it not be possible that Kirk has already served on the farragut and has already completed his instructor assignment and is waiting for a ship to be assigned to?
Can he not already be Lt. or Lt. commander just awaiting his ship and subsequent promotion to Captain?
If you let your mind open a little.. you might see that he may not go directly from cadet to captain.. this may also explain why people like Uhura and chekov graduated from the academy ,as it would seem, the same time as Kirk.
Anyway.. it doesn’t matter how many people explain something.. all you will continue to see and argue is your point. You will always see the glass as half empty. too bad you are so disappointed in the movie you haven’t seen yet.
#505 JWM:
Unfortunately for you, I love reading about people I know in the paper, and I love reading the crime blotter even more. Remember the Farragut!
494. Xai – January 14, 2009
“You’ve attempted to make your point several times already in this thread. There is no prize for “last post”.”
So is it okay to continue to post your opinion frequently if you are a member of the “hallelujah chorus” praising the Bizarro Timeline?
I understand your points too. I don’t agree with them but I understand them. I don’t ask you not to posit them here. It’s an open forum.
I love Star Trek. I have opinions about Star Trek. I think is a forum for such discussions.
If my views are questioned, criticized or even agreed with here, can I not respond? If you prick me do I not leak?
If Anthony thinks I’m out of line he can ban me by my IP address ( I’d get more work done!).
Is your position so fragile that it can’t take questioning? Of course not. Let’s have our debate. If you think I’m beating a dead horse then feel free not to read my posts. That’s cool. How could anyone read all these posts?
I love Star Trek, and yes…
I Remember the Farragut!
OT-
On a note I know we can all agree on…
I’ve got TNG’s “Serek” playing right now while I’m working (and chatting with all my friends at trekmovie.com).
Wow! What an amazing 48 minutes of television.
Great stuff.
RTF!
#84: I fear I share all of your concerns and none of your confidence. _Despite_ having seen the trailer, though, I still hold out hopes that the new Trek film will rock.
Barring that, I hope that Karl Urban rocks, and on that point I still feel confidently hopeful instead of just generically hopeful :)
#503: Your stereotyping aside, that isn’t true of all of us. Some of us MIGHT see it if we hear good things. Some folks have made up their mind that they hate it (sight-unseen) and will avoid it. Some others have made up their mind that they love it (sight-unseen) and will be there opening night. But there are a few of us (I hope more than a few) that will decide for our own reasons when there is more information available. I didn’t see the last two; there’s no gaurantee I’ll feel the need to see this one. I HOPE to see this one. I hope to hear many good things from those I trust (but, for starters, the only people I trust about it are NOT on any kind of Paramount payroll).
508. 750 Mang – January 14, 2009
And if Anthony thinks I’m out of line, he can ban me as well.
I see you didn’t have a response to the beginning of post #494.
Is YOUR argument so fragile you have to put words in Bob Orci’s mouth? Or tell us what he really meant?
#510 S. John Ross
I don’t always agree with you, but on this I do. I will be seeing this, but despite what a couple other posters think, I am not completely sold. It’s my nature to be cautiously optimistic and approach this movie with that trait in my heart.
Until and if it proves otherwise, I have my hopes. I feel bad for those that have already made up their mind to dislike the film because they have unproven misconceptions or an agenda.
511. Xai – January 14, 2009
“Is YOUR argument so fragile you have to put words in Bob Orci’s mouth? Or tell us what he really meant?”
I never said your responses were fragile. In fact I said…
“Is your position so fragile that it can’t take questioning? OF COURSE NOT. Let’s have our debate. If you think I’m beating a dead horse then feel free not to read my posts. That’s cool. How could anyone read all these posts?”
As to #494.
I’m sorry if I’m putting two and two together and coming up with four when it comes to how things work in show business.
It would be very naive to think that Paramount (Viacom) simply handed over the reigns to a billion dollar franchise with no preconditions. Would you?
I get that the team insists that that is the case. But do you buy that? Really?
A billion dollar franchise.
Even in one of these threads when boborci said that Paramount made no requests of the new team. Anthony, himself, had to say something like “Really, not even make money?” That is not an exact quote, but the point is made.
OT – I’m watching TNG “Best of Both Worlds” now, another great one. Right gang?
RTF!
I750 Mang wrote: It would be very naive to think that Paramount (Viacom) simply handed over the reigns to a billion dollar franchise with no preconditions. Would you?
—————————————-
It is well documented some trekkies will watch anything with the Star Trek label on it.
I remember the Farragut, and they can’t take that away from me.
Just bought the remote control flying Enterprise… that can’t take that from me either (but I need to get it back from my neighbor’s yard).
#750 Mang
Nice dodge.
Your argument IS fragile when the man you supposedly quote (in the same forum) says… I didn’t say that.
516. Xai – January 14, 2009
“Your argument IS fragile when the man you supposedly quote (in the same forum) says… I didn’t say that.”
Not sure where we are now, but I’m game.
Say what? That Kirk’s backstory is fundamentally changed? Bob Orci came here and said that. It’s in the first interview about the new timeline, “nature vs. nuture”, “same ship different day”, all that jazz.
Maybe that’s not what you’re talking about. Lemme know. i love talking about Star Trek.
OT – My wife just got home and made me turn off “Best of Both Worlds” so she could watch “Top Chef” on tivo. Man, what a drag. Back to work.
RTF!
515. Weerd1 – January 14, 2009
“Just bought the remote control flying Enterprise… (but I need to get it back from my neighbor’s yard).”
Awesome. I got the Star Trek Pez Dispenser collection for Christmas. Very super-cool.
RTF!
513 – I think he was being partly facetious with the “Make money” comment. Any studio wants their movie to make money.
#510 S. John Ross:
Honestly, I hope you see STXI no matter what. I have no idea whether I’m going to like it, but I *am* going to see it at least once, no matter what. Frankly, I think you missed out in skipping Insurrection. IMO, it was the best out of all ten movies. Sure, it was an extended episode of TNG, but I *liked* episodes of TNG. That’s why I showed up to the theater in the first place. It also happened to be a really *good* episode of TNG, with my personal all-time favorite Picard speech. Had I listened to my instincts or the reviews, I never would have had the pleasure of seeing it.
The point I’m driving at is: it’s impossible to judge a work of art (*especially* anything associated with Trek and its raucous, half-mad fanbase) without seeing it for yourself. You might see Insurrection and hate it; you might see XI and hate it. But you might just as easily find that you’ve found something new that you love, and that’s worth the plunge.
Even if Mr. Orci steps onto the TrekMovie stage and reveals that the new movie reboots the Klingon Empire to a race of singing monkeys that do softshoe for bananas, I’ll be seeing this movie (though I might wait for DVD). At the very least, I’ll have something to remember along with my fellow fans… and, hey, it might not actually suck.
And we are a *loooooong* way from singing monkeys right now. It looks *good,* despite my serious misgivings on some points.
Now, you might accuse me of being one of those indiscriminate fans #514 is talking about. You might be right. I know Star Trek V and “Shades of Gray” and “The Seventh” are complete dreck… but, when I’m watching them, *I enjoy them,* despite what my brain is telling me! However, this aside, I think my advice applies to everyone, hopeless Trekkie or not. To experience a new thing before rejecting it is simply… logical.
I, too, got the Pez Dispenser for Christmas from my wonderful girlfriend.
What, I head out to watch three hours of Fringe and not one post in the meantime? I’m disappointed.
Fringe. Man. *There’s* a show. Abrams, Kurtzman, and Orci could definitely stand to take a few pages out of the book of whoever created Fringe.
;)
“#507
Unfortunately for you, I love reading about people I know in the paper, and I love reading the crime blotter even more. Remember the Farragut!”
Damn. I’m at work. Do you think that they’ll fire me for taking time during lunch to gouge out someone’s eyes?
Remember the Alamo!
#364. Yes! That’s the one. I am in awe, O Great One.
#368. Excellent news, Mr. Orci. Thanks for the clarification.
#493—”OK- just for kicks I looked up the word “reboot” on dictionary.com. The definition is:
>>>To turn (a computer or operating system) off and then on again; restart.”
Try this definition (from Wikipedia), which is relevant to the way in which the term is used to describe a work of fiction:
“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.”
By definition, STXI is certainly not a “reboot”, since previously established continuity is not only relevant, but actually essential to advancing the story to the point where Nero and Spock (both of whom are products of the timeline forged by that previous continuity) take action to alter (or, in Spock’s case, to mend) the timeline. In addition, the very potential for the creation of an alternate timeline as a result of interference with the past is in itself a part of that previously established continuity (or canon), and has been for over 40 years (”COTEOF”, “Tommorow Is Yesterday”, “Assignment: Earth”, etc.).
Since this story depends upon events in the timeline created by the events depicted in all 5 Star Trek television series and the 10 previous films, unfolding just as they did, in order for the overall story to advance to this point, it is extremely difficult to make the case that previous continuity is discarded or declared irrelevant.
This story does not take place without it. It is not only relevant, but absolutely essential.
STXI is not a reboot—by the very definition of the term as it is applied in fiction.
#492—”I agree, and have never said otherwise. Obviously, Nero intends to alter some aspects of the past. And Nimoy’s Spock intends to stop him, or correct those changes.
However, to have it as you suggest, that this is now a new version of their histories, we’d have to believe that Spock FAILED to prevent or correct the changes Nero intended. I don’t see that as a very likely ending, do you?”
As long as the attack upon the Kelvin (and the attack upon Vulcan) are depicted as events which did not take place in the previous timeline (something I expect to be made clear in the dialogue of the film, once again), then it will be obvious to anyone that the timeline has been altered.
“Either this IS an origin story, and the events, whether a result of time travel or not, really DID happen to the old 60s era TOS crew.”
The timeline altering events will undoubtedly affect much more than just the old TOS-era crew, even if the bulk of the villainy is thwarted by Spock and co.
“(And worse case scenario, things are left in such a canonical mess that the TOS that we know could not have happened.)”
If the altered timeline precludes much of the vague backstory we have on the TOS-era characters from occurring, then it is very likely that at least some of what occurred in the 5 year mission will not happen precisely as it did. However, it may very well be that the differences are hardly notable–if at all. Since Orci is maintaining (on this very thread) that the film does not preclude any of that, it may be that enough time is left open to interpretation that none of it would be affected at all.
“or
This isn’t an origin story at all, which goes directly against the lines that the official sources are telling us right in this interview. ”
Either way, it is AN origin story. It may not be THE origin story suggested by the tidbits of backstory provided in TOS (and some of the films), but it will be AN origin story nonetheless.
Then again, it may simply be easier for the creative team to answer questions about it under the general assumption (before the film is seen) that it is a run of the mill prequel, rather than taking the time to explain (in every interview) that it is a story about a villain from the future who alters the past and therefore the succession of events which brought the original crew together in the previous timeline, blah, blah, blah.
I think that this is very likely.
Your fear seems to be that people who would likely have never taken the time to watch TOS in the first place might get the impression that this is how it always came together. I have to say that, if this is true of your potential issue with the film, I do not understand the rationality behind that concern.
Assuming that we are talking about a) non established fans who never watched it; b) people who may have seen the series but didn’t like it; and/or c) young moviegoers who were never likely to take the time to watch or see past the dated effects to appreciate it anyway—–
—-then what’s the difference? What are you trying to protect?
With all of that in mind, I still maintain that it is very unlikely that the film will not have an in-story explanation that not everything is as it seems, or none of the events depicted as altering the timeline will prevent anything we know as ‘canon’ (aside from the already contradicted episode, “The Menagerie”) from occurring anyway.
524- C’mon Closet, you can’t use Wikipedia as a source. For all I know YOU wrote the entry! :)
Regardless- the definition you provide says it discards “much or even some of the previous continuity…” And that known history is “effectively” declared null and void.
As I understand what we have seen so far (and I again freely admit I am making suppositions based on the interviews and the bits of film we have seen) Kirk’s history age 0-30 as established in TOS (and a good amount is well established– Remember, the Farragut?) has been discarded. The history of relations between the Federation and the Romulans from 2235 to 2266 has been discarded. The visual history of TOS, for (right or wrong), has been discarded. The purpose of the film is to clean the slate to tell new stories with the TOS characters in the TOS time period with all bets off.
I suppose, if we agree on the details of this paragraph we are really just arguing over the meaning of the word “reboot.” To me however, a reboot is the effective result of the film, in spite of connections to the earlier continuity. However, in the interest of peace, would you be more comfortable with the term “reset”?
I may not remember the Farragut (we never even saw the bloody thing, did we?) but I agree 110% that Sarek is a fantastic episode. Tour de force for both Patrick Stewart and Mark Lenard.
#526—”C’mon Closet, you can’t use Wikipedia as a source. For all I know YOU wrote the entry! :)”
Well, I didn’t, but even if I had—would you disagree with the terms of that definition? If so, why?
“As I understand what we have seen so far (and I again freely admit I am making suppositions based on the interviews and the bits of film we have seen) Kirk’s history age 0-30 as established in TOS (and a good amount is well established– Remember, the Farragut?) has been discarded. The history of relations between the Federation and the Romulans from 2235 to 2266 has been discarded. The visual history of TOS, for (right or wrong), has been discarded. The purpose of the film is to clean the slate to tell new stories with the TOS characters in the TOS time period with all bets off….I suppose, if we agree on the details of this paragraph we are really just arguing over the meaning of the word ‘reboot.’ ”
But we are not agreeing upon the details of that paragraph.
Nothing in previous continuity has been “discarded”, rendered null and void, or deemed irrelevant by the story in question. How could that be if the story advancing to this point at all depends upon that very continuity playing out just as it did?
This story cannot exist without the timeline formed as a result of all of those events depicted in 5 series and 10 previous films. The story even begins in that timeline! Two of its more significant characters are products of that timeline!
This story cannot discard continuity which is inherently essential.
526. Weerd1 – January 15, 2009
How about sequel? For the one remaining member of the original crew.
529. boborci – January 15, 2009
“How about sequel? For the one remaining member of the original crew.”
You mean Prime Spock?
RTF!
Bob—
It seems obvious that this is a sequel, since everything depicted in previous films is required to take place prior to the story told in this one.
It seems to me that it could only be “part-prequel” if the timeline is restored in the end.
But one thing is absolutely clear. If the discarding of previous continuity is necessary for a “reboot”, then it certainly does not fall into that category.
It may be that, in the end, some of the “benefits” of a reboot are there for the taking—-namely, the elimination of the hinderence inherent in a broader story to which the audience already knows the ending—-but there can be no argument that previously established continuity is discarded or rendered no longer relevant.
The story can never progress to this point without that continuity. Everything we know as “canon” is every bit as relevant to the overall Trek mythos as it was yesterday.
531
YEAH!
So here’s an esoteric question…
If I were watching Star Trek chronologically (as I’m prone to do), where would I place this new movie? Before “Where No Man Has Gone Before” or after “Nemesis”?
Please don’t say both.
RTF!
After Nemesis
534. boborci – January 15, 2009
“After Nemesis”
Well that really begs for more questions, and I’m sure I would only come across as being argumentative.
So I’ll just say thanks for now.
RTF!
Mang, that was a great question. I was curious too.
But then the interview is still being disingenuous, leading the casual reader to believe that this is the straight origin story that was never told.
#526: “C’mon Closet, you can’t use Wikipedia as a source. For all I know YOU wrote the entry! :)”
He didn’t… because I DID! Mwahahaha!
Nah, not really. I *did* used to have a bit of clout in Star Trek: The Internet Experience, though, because I ran the Star Trek XI page on Wikipedia with an iron fist. Debunked more than my share of rumors and mounted a rather robust defense of the movie team, and, since all I did was cite well-sourced facts against ignorant bashers, I wasn’t even violating NPOV. But this was back in 2006-2007, when the movie was fresh, the article was new, and TrekMovie was just starting to become *the* definitive source for everything new in Trek. It’s long since moved on, and I think there are only a few sentences left that I wrote.
Ah, yesteryear…
#522: I checked *my* contract, and it says I’m allowed extra time off from work for “medical emergencies.” It doesn’t say *whose* medical emergencies, nor whether I’m supposed to take the time off to recover from them or to cause them.
IANAL, but I think you’re in the clear.
On-topic comment: If it’s after Nemesis… Huh. So, to make an analogy, more “Crisis on Infinite Earths” than “Batman Begins?” Comments?
#537
How is it disingenuous? These folks have been more detailed and up front about their intentions that any other Trek writers in history.
#537—”But then the interview is still being disingenuous, leading the casual reader to believe that this is the straight origin story that was never told.”
As I suggested earlier, it may very well be that going along with such imprecise and simplistic characterizations is much easier than explaining the complexity of it over and over again.
#535—”Well that really begs for more questions…”
Why? It seems quite straight forward to me.
ENT-NEM must occur (and already has, in the ST Universe) before the story in STXI can ever take place.
Why must Star Trek canon be viewed only within the restrictive boundaries of the linear passage of time? Are our imaginations suddenly so limited?
We can suspend our natural inclinations of disbelief in favor of warp drive, transporters, and time travel so easy that Spock can simply adjust his computations for “time warp”, using the infamous “slingshot effect” to accomodate a Klingon Bird Of Prey—–but yet some of us are incapable of embracing a view of ‘canon’ that exceeds one linear timeline.
I don’t get it.
529-
Hi Mr. Orci! I might buy “sequel,” but I think I’m going to have to see the movie first… don’t suppose you can hasten THAT process… ;)
Subjective to Prime Spock’s timeline, I won’t argue with the sequel word. Subjective to James T. Kirk, I still have to say reboot. Subjective to me… Again, I will tell you what I think in May!
Please do keep in mind, my concern is out of adoration for Trek, and I do certainly appreciate you can talk the Trek talk! You seem like the type of guy who should sit around my living room with a Guinness arguing over why Starfleet assigned the heavily armed Reliant to find a place to use Genesis and the unarmed Grissom to guard it…
541. Closettrekker – January 15, 2009
” #535—”Well that really begs for more questions…”
Why? It seems quite straight forward to me.
I don’t get it.”
Oh Closettrekker, just when I think I’m out you pull me back in! lol.
One question I can think of right off the bat is why keep saying this is the origin story for TOS? It’s not.
It’s AN origin story but for the new versions of the crew, not TOS crew. The alternate timeline is thrown forward from Nemesis with all it’s changes. Big E in Iowa, no Kodos, you know the drill.
Can we call it a offshoot-reboot? I dunno, seems pretty complicated.
Maybe someday we will find out how the guys from “Where No Man Has Gone Before” met. But we won’t find out in May.
Remember the Farragut!
#542—”…why Starfleet assigned the heavily armed Reliant to find a place to use Genesis and the unarmed Grissom to guard it.”
That’s easy. Starfleet, like everyone else in the Star Trek Universe, is always inhibited by the script!
If a vessel as heavily armed as USS Reliant were orbiting the Genesis Planet, it would have taken more than just a “lucky shot” to dispatch her!
The bigger question is, why were a dozen Klingons in a cloaked vessel “painted like a giant bird of prey”???
Talk about a shot at Trek lore! That was clearly established in 1966 as a Romulan cultural practice. Presumptuous fanon notions of mutual technological exchanges between the xenophobic Romulans and the Klingon Empire aside, I have never seen nor heard a satisfactory canonical explanation as to why that happened.
“Intelligence Reports Romulans now using Klingon design.”—Spock, “The Enterprise Incident”.
That’s all we have, and yet is it enough to believe that 1) the Romulans have chosen to surrender their biggest tactical advantage—the cloaking device; and 2) the proud Klingon Empire has no problem suddenly adopting a cultural practice specifically unique to Romulans?
I don’t think so.
That was always disappointing to me, and that disappointment was further compunded by the apparent template for all future Klingon behavior being Kruge (who I saw as a “rogue”, but a memorable one) and his men. The slick and cunning Klingons of the TOS-era became the seemingly regressed “cavemen in space” we came to know in TNG and beyond.
Very disappointing.
Quote: I just hope, for the sake of my sanity (and others) that the end of the movie puts everything back to “normal” where the REAL 1701 flies past the screen and the crew are standing on the REAL bridge, not this messed up acid trip of a ship that these freaks have conjured up.
——————————
I just dont get it? What do people want to see? the old cardboard cut outs used in the 60’s?
Come on folks… go watch your 60’s trek on DVD, and leave the rest of us in peace to enjoy this upcoming movie. Dare I say that folks with this attitude is why Trek is dead within mainstream audiences?
Sorry, but a Trek movie with the old sets just wont appeal with many movie goers and we’ll end up with a boxoffice disaster… No, I want my Trek to succeed, I may not love the reboot, and i’m not saying I like the new bridge and sets, but I will keep an open mind to change and give this movie a chance.
#543—”Maybe someday we will find out how the guys from “Where No Man Has Gone Before” met. But we won’t find out in May.”
Forgetting for a moment that I see them as the same people evolved under slightly (and we’ve yet to see exactly how slightly) circumstances, Star Trek writers have had more than 40 years to tell such a story on screen. For whatever reasons (one of which was a reluctance to recast those iconic characters with younger actors 20 years ago), that story was never told.
In the end, such a story is— IMO— best left to a novel. After all, where would the “dramatic jeopardy” in such a story come from?
You and I might like to see that story, and Liz and I might like a bunch of stories set in between TMP and TWOK, but in the end—-I think that such stories would ultimately suffer from much the same things as hamstrung the SW prequels for many of us.
We already knew the ending…Where’s the beef?
Moreover, where is the impact in such a story for someone who isn’t already invested in the characters?
“… just when I think I’m out you pull me back in!”
Ah, a line from a poor sequel to my all-time favorite film…
I begin to like you, Earthman….
546. Closettrekker – January 15, 2009
“I think that such stories would ultimately suffer from much the same things as hamstrung the SW prequels for many of us.”
My main problems with the SW prequels were the HORRIBLE script writing and the fact that Lucas doesn’t even abide by his own rules, such as Leia remembered her mother in Jedi but PaddyMaeMae dies in ROS. Ugg… but I don’t want to pollute a Star Trek forum with talk of how George Lucas soiled his own nest.
546. Closettrekker – January 15, 2009
“Moreover, where is the impact in such a story for someone who isn’t already invested in the characters?”
Maybe the impact is in the telling of a compelling story. I mean I know how Frost/Nixon ends too but it’s still holds my interest.
546. Closettrekker – January 15, 2009
“‘… just when I think I’m out you pull me back in!’
Ah, a line from a poor sequel to my all-time favorite film…”
Yes, it’s a shame that the Godfather had to go out like that.
“I begin to like you, Earthman….”
The feeling is mutual.
RTF!
The claim that Nemesis needs to happen doesn’t really inspire a lot of confidence in big box office numbers can it?
If they were going to do a roboot why not use the perfectly canon consistent explaination that Picard did a do-over of Generations from the Nexus to spare us from lame TNG movies.
548. wkiryn – January 15, 2009
“If they were going to do a roboot why not use the perfectly canon consistent explaination that Picard did a do-over of Generations from the Nexus to spare us from lame TNG movies.”
Yes and save Kirk from that killer bridge!
RTF!
#547—”Maybe the impact is in the telling of a compelling story.”
Perhaps. It isn’t impossible, by any means. GFII did a fantastic job of telling the story of young Vito Corleone, despite the audience being already aware that he would ultimately die peacefully in his tomato garden.
However, why tell a story about Kirk aboard the USS Farragut, for example? The story would, I suppose, need to encompass much more than just the fate of that ship and its captain (that story is already recounted to good effect in “Obsession”).
Stories such as that one, the young Jim Kirk living on Taursus, Kirk’s days as a junior officer aboard the USS Republic, or on assignment to the planet Neural frollicking among the primitives, really do not strike me as all that compelling as a film. But that’s just my opinion.
Do I hope that Orci and Kurtzman’s tale leaves enough room for interpretation that these events occur again, even in the altered timeline?
Sure. Then we can all assume that the events portrayed in “Obsession”, “Court-Martial”, and “A Private Little War” still unfold in this timeline precisely the way they did in the previous one.
But will I be upset if it doesn’t? Not really.
To a fan of the franchise, these events still happened, even if only in a previous timeline.
The bigger question is how Spock and McCoy could be incorporated into that story.
Kirk is a mere shadow of his potential without his right and left hands.
Hopefully, Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and the rest of this creative team have put their best efforts into telling us the best Star Trek story they are capable of, and done whatever they deemed necessary to get that done. That is far more than anyone else was doing for fans like me, who have been waiting for another ST film featuring the iconic original characters for a long, long time.
The movie may be bad, but if so, it won’t be because someone altered the timeline.
:)
#548—”…why not use the perfectly canon consistent explaination that Picard did a do-over of Generations from the Nexus to spare us from lame TNG movies.”
Only if he could somehow throw in the revelation that Sybok and the campfire singing was merely a Fal-Tor-Pan driven hallucination on the part of Leonard H. McCoy. First thing’s first.
I’m all for the canonical excommunication of STV: The Great Trek Turd Of ‘89.
#540 – If we’re buying Mr. Orci’s latest explanation, then it ISN’T really that complex. And it WOULDN’T have to be explained “over and over again” if it was clearly stated in the first place rather than deliberately made ambiguous.
A man who’s got the wordsmithing skills to write it in the first place ought to have the wordsmithing skills to clearly and accurately describe it in an honest and straightforward manner from the getgo.
Yes, imprecision is often easier, but that doesn’t make it not disingenuous or misleading (if not intentionally misleading, then so clearly misleading that its authors can’t help but be aware that it will mislead). It may be easier for me to call a donkey a horse, but the guy who answers my ad selling a horse isn’t going to be expecting a donkey for his money.
#541 Closettrekker: “We can suspend our natural inclinations of disbelief in favor of warp drive, transporters, and time travel so easy that Spock can simply adjust his computations for “time warp”, using the infamous “slingshot effect” to accomodate a Klingon Bird Of Prey—–but yet some of us are incapable of embracing a view of ‘canon’ that exceeds one linear timeline… I don’t get it.”
I have no problem accepting this new timeline as canonically valid–there is every canonical precedent for such a thing, and anyone who claims that this thing is impossible within the rules of the Trek universe will receive an extremely wordy canonical beat-down from me.
I just don’t *like* it. A bit like your reaction to TNG Klingons–sure, using MWI this way is *legitimate,* it *works* within the universe… but it’s a disappointing direction to take, creatively. Unlike you, I quite liked the turn the Klingons took following Kruge (though I didn’t care very much for Kruge personally). And unlike you, I *will* be mildly annoyed if the new movie doesn’t allow eps like “Obsession” and “Space Seed” and “The Conscience of the King” to unfold as they did. It really appears to come down to a matter of taste. You like it, I don’t. We’re both still looking forward to May 8th, though, so we’re cool.
Now, as for dramatic wossname… I noted this earlier, but since when has any iteration of Star Trek had serious dramatic jeopardy in the way that you mean? TOS was a show written with syndication in mind, so it was well-known in advance that every episode had to begin and end with the same basic status quo. TNG was syndicated from the get-go; same rules. All of the movies (except for 2 and 10), same rules. VOY and ENT put their characters in “jeopardy” on a regular basis, and even tried to convince us that they were at risk… but they, too, returned to the status quo ante, and we started to chuckle when they “killed” Harry Kim for the umpteenth time.
More than any other show in history, Star Trek has demonstrated that one can (and usually will) know the ultimate outcome of an episode without detracting one iota from the drama of the show. Indeed, I’ve always found the habit (adopted by certain other franchises) of drumming up viewer interest by suggesting that SOMEONE MIGHT DIE TONIGHT! AND WE’RE SERIOUS! to be a sign of lazy writing. It’s one of my chief complaints against the new version of Battlestar Galactica. Not to mention Heroes.
550. Closettrekker – January 15, 2009
“#547—”Maybe the impact is in the telling of a compelling story.”
However, why tell a story about Kirk aboard the USS Farragut, for example? The story would, I suppose, need to encompass much more than just the fate of that ship and its captain (that story is already recounted to good effect in “Obsession”). ”
But there’s no need to tell that story just because your telling the origin of TOS. There is also no reason to negate it. It happened to Kirk before he became Captain of the E. So let that be in his past and tell me how TOS’s Kirk first mission as Captain happened.
Here’s a good one, if the argument is “Kirk becomes Kirk no matter what happens in his past.” Then would that be true for Vito Corleone as well? What if Clemenza never asked Vito to hide a stash of guns for him? What if Vito never murders Don Fanucci? Would he still be the character you know and love from the original Godfather?
Maybe I don’t have a good answer. But I would still really like to know how the guys in “Where No Man Has Gone Before” came together. That is what we were told we were getting. But it’s not. You see my problem? You see how the team has actually cheated themselves out of all this character depth and history?
I’ll go to the new movie. I may even like it. But it won’t mean as much because it doesn’t lead to all that Star Trek lore I love so much.
Does that make sense? Or do I still sound like a prick? My wife says I’m mean to you guys. I don’t think she understands.
OT – Wifey is out of town tonight, so I get to finish “Best of Both Worlds” and then move on to part two, and hopefully “Family” and “Brothers” as well, before I crash.
RTM!
RTM? Remember the Merrimack? That’s a typo.
I meant…
RTF! Or should I change it to Who Mourns for Capt. Garrovivk? Lemme know.
RTF!
To this day, I have never seen “Family.” One of the great regrets of my life… Ah, well. We have Netflix now.
Make it “Who Morns for Garrovick?” That way you get a good pun, and a reference to Morn, who may or may not exist in… in the new universe.
Do we have a name for the new ‘verse yet? Something official? Somehow it seems a bit aggressive to use “Bizarro Trek” or “Punk Trek” or “the Trek that cometh from the most tested, most awesomest theory in the whole history of modern physics.”
However, that last one makes me chuckle, so I might use it in any case.
556. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 15, 2009
“To this day, I have never seen “Family.””
You really need to check that sh-t out. Patrick Stewart… wow.
556. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 15, 2009
“Do we have a name for the new ‘verse yet? Something official? Somehow it seems a bit aggressive to use “Bizarro Trek” ”
Well that’s probably my fault. But it seemed the natural thing to call it. How about the Beta Universe? Is that less prejudicial? Beta Trek? Alternate Trek? Trek with a beard? I don’t know sir…
RTF!
Of course, you’re all forgetting that perhaps all this mucking about in the timeline might mean Nero prevents ‘Spock’s Brain’ or ‘Way to Eden’ of STV! WNMHGB is one of my top 5 episodes of all time, and I’d happily give up its ‘canonicity’ if it meant none of those episodes/movies ever took place! :)
#557
We could call it Neu! Trek ;)
“My main problems with the SW prequels were the HORRIBLE script writing and the fact that Lucas doesn’t even abide by his own rules, such as Leia remembered her mother in Jedi but PaddyMaeMae dies in ROS. Ugg… but I don’t want to pollute a Star Trek forum with talk of how George Lucas soiled his own nest.”
[starwars hat on]You’re right, the daughter of (for lack of a better term) a *god* wouldn’t possibly remember images of her mother through the Force.
I am sick and tired of people hating on the PT. As a whole, it’s quite good, and truth be told, I’m more likely to watch one of them than the OT. And I’ve been a SW fan since day 1.
Further, I’m a ST fan as well, and since literally 5-6 out of the existing ten outright suck, with only 2.5 out of all of them even qualifying as solid films in and of themselves that have any appeal except to myself and fellow fans, the sense of pompous superiority that certain ST fans have over the PT annoys me to no end.[/star wars hat off]
“It’s one of my chief complaints against the new version of Battlestar Galactica.”
One of my chief complaints with BSG is that it’s got an outright political agenda now. Instead of presenting an issue and allowing the viewer to think for themselves and/or debate with other viewers in a thought-provoking way (as seasons 1 and 2 did), it’s now just a bunch of ideologically motivated writers trying to shoehorn their own opinions into your brain. Blech.
And stealing the ending from Planet of the Apes was lazy. And making Tigh a Cylon was stupid. I’m watching the last ten out of a passing sense of “OK, I made it this far, may as well finish it,” and nothing more.
LOST – now there’s a show.
P.S. And Fringe. That show is awesome as well, and I mean it. I hope that it continues for quite a while, and Walter is one of my favorite TV characters right now, hands down. That actor just nailed the part perfectly. Terrific cast as a whole, too.
Anyone here know the one distinction of the episode “Family’ compared to previous Trek episodes?
No Zippy the Robot.
RTF!
“You and I might like to see that story, and Liz and I might like a bunch of stories set in between TMP and TWOK, but in the end—-I think that such stories would ultimately suffer from much the same things as hamstrung the SW prequels for many of us.”
I so really, really would like to see those stories. Sigh. No comment about the SW preqs. The filter doesn’t allow words like that….
556- Morn exists in every universe. He is the existential glue who holds the quantum omniverse together…
#557: Beta Trek works, though I very much like Goatee Trek as runner up.
Was “Family” the first time we saw the surface of future Earth?
562. Harry Ballz – January 15, 2009
“Anyone here know the one distinction of the episode “Family’ compared to previous Trek episodes?”
Seriously, no Data.
RTF!
#562
Only episode not to feature Data, I think.
No, apparently it was the very first episode of Star Trek to not show a shot of the bridge! Maybe in subsequent episodes that might have happened again, but that was the first!
#560
“One of my chief complaints with BSG is that it’s got an outright political agenda now. Instead of presenting an issue and allowing the viewer to think for themselves and/or debate with other viewers in a thought-provoking way (as seasons 1 and 2 did), it’s now just a bunch of ideologically motivated writers trying to shoehorn their own opinions into your brain. Blech.
And stealing the ending from Planet of the Apes was lazy. And making Tigh a Cylon was stupid. I’m watching the last ten out of a passing sense of “OK, I made it this far, may as well finish it,” and nothing more.”
Okay, I’m going to have to take issue with this. Exactly what ‘political agenda’ is BSG pushing? The show I’ve been watching for the last 4 years shows the downside to every extreme – whether it be political, religious or otherwise.
Also, I’d say the 4.5 cliffhanger wasn’t exactly an outright theft of Planet of the Apes. The original BSG posited the existence of Terra, a planet much like Earth but not Earth, embroiled in a worldwide nuclear assault. If anything, they’re just staying consistent with the original plotlines as they always have.
#569
Just checked Wikipedia & Memory Alpha, and both answers are correct. The bridge is not featured, and neither is Data (a first on both counts). Interesting!
560:
JWM:
There are no apologies for the abomination that is the SW prequels. It shut down SW for me as anything other than entertainment for my young children. And I stick with IV – VI.
The politics of the Senate and Trade Syndicate are oh so boring, and it just shows that George Lucas got old and opinionated.
Darth Vader turned into a pussy mass-murderer of children, and I threw away the Vader Pez dispenser someone gave my six-year old son for Christmas. The fact he shows up now at the end of “Jedi” with Ben and Yoda is just pathetic. He’s a psychopathic killer, thanks to eps II and III. He doesn’t deserve redemption. Awful, awful stuff.
#570: Okay, I’m going to have to take issue with this. Exactly what ‘political agenda’ is BSG pushing? The show I’ve been watching for the last 4 years shows the downside to every extreme – whether it be political, religious or otherwise.
Speaking as a mostly-moderate person here, I’m hard pressed to think of a left-wing shibboleth that BSG has so much as questioned, much less outright attacked and/or caricatured as it has things supported by the right wing, such as Israeli defense policy, religion (in general), Guantanamo Bay, and, above all, BSG’s outright offensively flip portrayal of abortion towards the end of season two.
The show typically does a good job of articulating its views, and I give it credit for that. But I also think it’s point-of-view is not just obvious, but shoehorned and often suffocating.
#573
An example of what I feel is the show’s even-handed treatment of controversial topics – suicide bombings. This was handled most effectively in the New Caprica/Occupation arc, and clearly showed both viewpoints, pimples and all. At times, you felt a certain justification in what Tigh was doing, but you also simultaneously saw just how flawed his decisions were (and the President vehemently opposed him). There was never a point where the show ‘championed’ Saul’s ruthless tactics. It only offered a context for them. And heck, if you want to view the Cylon Occupation as an Iraq analogy, it was clear that certain Cylons had only the best of intentions, while others did not.
Again, I feel the show has been pretty fair in exploring the downside to *any* extreme. Humans & Cylons alike have done both heroic and incredibly unheroic things. I don’t think any side has ever been presented as being all right or all wrong.
482 Closet:
“It is difficult to argue that something which isn’t already there can be removed. In other words, they most likely wouldn’t have gotten to know these characters anyway. If the Kirk, Spock, and McCoy they come to know are the products of slightly altered environments, what’s the difference?”
1) Because it didn’t have to be that way. This movie was written from scratch. There is no real reason why anything in the “understood” history of the characters would have to be changed.
2) Because the writers keep talking about wanting an origin story…but are planning to deliver a non-origin story
3) Because the PRIMARY ticket buyers for this new sci-fi film with Leonard Nimoy, are the EXISTING Trek fans. Every effort, not just some effort, should have gone into pleasing the core fan base with reverence to existing histories, designs and expectations.
So it questioned whether suicide bombing should always be condemned. And it questioned whether the occupation of Iraq was a just war or a rapeful occupation of an independent people. It questioned whether military tribunals were not inherently unjust, and… well, one can hardly say there was any “questioning” at all in the abortion storyline.
So BSG spends an enormous amount of time and energy questioning assumptions held by the *right wing.* Seems to me the handful of right-wingers in the audience are the ones doing all the hard work of thinking with this show; a hypothetical left-winger could just sit back and be smug, his assumptions about the world illustrated, but never interrogated.
That’s not to say that BSG doesn’t do a good job with those episodes–the Gitmo analogy in particular certainly provoked thoughts in my mind. It’s just that they are *all* coming from the same, utterly obvious point of view, and cannot even pretend to any kind of even-handedness in what targets it chooses.
Show me an episode of BSG that authentically questions, say… *thinks of liberal shibboleth*… whether there might be some validity to the right-wing view of homosexuality as a disordering of human sexuality, or forces its viewers to consider the possibility that abortion is a brutal, murderous practice. It wouldn’t have to draw conclusions, but it would have to show that it’s put some serious thought into the matter. When that happens, I’ll accept what you’re saying.
I still like the show somewhat, but I really think it has a great big pimple here that need not come up if people just go into BSG knowing what POV it’s selling.
All this debate and discussion about the convoluted script of the new movie would seem to indicate that the screenwriters have been “too clever by half”!
Thoughts?
#552—” It may be easier for me to call a donkey a horse, but the guy who answers my ad selling a horse isn’t going to be expecting a donkey for his money.”
Please. That’s a fascile analogy.
“It’s not a horse, but a donkey”, is far less involved than explaining to each and every interviewer that STXI is kind of an origin story, but not really (especially when they do not wish to give away the whole of the film’s plot in the first place), and going through the whole time travel thing and its potential effect upon the timeline as existing Star Trek fans know it to have played out.
With that in mind, I don’t think it is a stretch to say that it is merely far less complex to go along with the general conception (in the mainstream media) of a simple origin story. The film itself should clear it up for them.
#553—”TOS was a show written with syndication in mind, so it was well-known in advance that every episode had to begin and end with the same basic status quo.”
True, especially when viewing it 40 years later.
“TNG was syndicated from the get-go; same rules.”
Didn’t one of the primary bridge officers die fairly early on?
“All of the movies (except for 2 and 10), same rules. ”
Here, I disagree completely.
Secrecy may not have been at anywhere near the level it is for this film, but to the average moviegoer, Spock’s death in TWOK could have easily been a total surprise.
And “dramatic jeopardy” doesn’t necessarily mean that someone will actually die—just that the possibility is in play. Even the general feeling that “of course the good guys will win” does not preclude the element altogether. Knowing precisely how the characters meet their end (in life or career) does, however.
#554—”Here’s a good one, if the argument is “Kirk becomes Kirk no matter what happens in his past.” Then would that be true for Vito Corleone as well? What if Clemenza never asked Vito to hide a stash of guns for him? What if Vito never murders Don Fanucci? Would he still be the character you know and love from the original Godfather?”
Ok. Here’s the thing. I don’t think anyone has suggested that ‘all’ roads lead to the same destination, merely that there might be more than one.
If Puzo had written Vito to succeed Fanucci instead of assasinating him in that apartment building, would we even know the difference? It may have been far less entertaining, and De Niro might have missed out on an Oscar, but the creative team behind the masterpiece that is GFII could have developed him in any of several ways to believably become the wise old don written by Mari Puzo in the 1969 novel and brilliantly portrayed by Brando in the 1972 film. In the first installment, we did not even know how he emerged as the pillar of gangland wisdom he appeared to be in the 1940’s. Puzo could have put together any origin story he wanted.
Vito Corleone, like James Kirk, is a fictional character. Kirk, like Corleone, could have evolved into the same loyal, determined, charismatic, intelligent, resourceful, and romantic leader he would become by any number of routes the writers of TOS could have imagined. In fact, the existing tidbits of backstory in the original timeline are quite piecemeal and not always fluid–hence the two very distinctive perspectives on his character taken by two people who knew him around the same general period of time (Mitchell and Marcus), and the reconciliation debate (still ongoing in some circles) over the “stack of books with legs” who puts his good friend on official report, and yet is completely comfortable with cheating on a Starfleet command test.
“…it doesn’t lead to all that Star Trek lore I love so much.”
Perhaps not, but it does follow (and supplement) it. The backstory and history you allude to is every bit as important to that “lore” as it has ever been.
“If the Kirk, Spock, and McCoy they come to know are the products of slightly altered environments, what’s the difference?”
One difference is as someone who has been aware personally for nearly 30 years and others even more that NEVER has there been one indication in the slightest that, for example, the Enterprise was built in Iowa with young kirk in awe watching it – and every single line said San Francisco Shipyards I shouldn’t have to associate with new “fans” and books (The ST Encyclopedia is going to get a hell of a rewrite) telling me I’m wrong because of this origin movie when they never cared to know anything before. And I am 100% confident that there will be nothing in this movie other than the costumes and props that will tell the viewers this is an alternate universe. This will be consistently promoted as THE origin story, it will be the official only origin (unless you happen to know better and then it is an alternate universe)
577. Harry Ballz – January 16, 2009
“All this debate and discussion about the convoluted script of the new movie would seem to indicate that the screenwriters have been “too clever by half”!
Thoughts?”
I’d agree with that.
Who mourns for Captain Garrovick?
#575—”…the PRIMARY ticket buyers for this new sci-fi film with Leonard Nimoy, are the EXISTING Trek fans. Every effort, not just some effort, should have gone into pleasing the core fan base with reverence to existing histories, designs and expectations.”
Lol.
Significant portions of the “existing” fan base have been displeased with some aspects of EVERY incarnation of Star Trek. Even the mighty TWOK had (and still has) its purist detractors. For example, I don’t care for TNG or much of what followed it. It just wasn’t ‘my’ Star Trek. I can’t stand Star Trek V: The Great Trek Turd of ‘89 either.
Making “every effort” to please the whole of the existing fan base is futile. That is never going to happen. Making a good movie that EXPANDS the fan base should be (and seems to be) the objective—in my opinion.
There was never going to be a movie that pleased everyone. Everyday I read posts here which have nothing to do with ‘how’ these iconic characters are being treated, but instead, complain that the studio is not making yet another Picard movie or a movie featuring all new characters in the 25th Century.
Still others wish that the film had incorporated the look of the 1960’s era set designs, William Shatner’s acting style, William Shatner himself, or left Nimoy out of it. Some fans even wish there was no movie at all, and think the whole thing is pointless.
The only thing that Star Trek fans will ever unanimously agree upon is that they like Star Trek in some form or another.
Just entertain me. That’s the whole point.
#581—”And I am 100% confident that there will be nothing in this movie other than the costumes and props that will tell the viewers this is an alternate universe. ”
I’d bet that would be 100% wrong.
#581
“and every single line said San Francisco Shipyards”
Actually, *no* line has ever said San Francisco Shipyards. It’s in tiny print on a rarely visible piece of the set. Besides, the name itself supports planetside construction. If anything, the new movie is just moving it to another state.
robert april in TAS said A LINE about supervising the components contruction in san francisco
482. Closettrekker – January 14, 2009
—-My kids do not represent everyone, but they are mainstream moviegoers. Their peers don’t know anything about Star Trek, and without this upcoming film, they probably never would.
It is difficult to argue that something which isn’t already there can be removed. In other words, they most likely wouldn’t have gotten to know these characters anyway. If the Kirk, Spock, and McCoy they come to know are the products of slightly altered environments, what’s the difference?—-
The difference is that the Kirk, Spock and McCoy that they will come to know will not be the Kirk, Spock and McCoy of the past 40+ of Star Trek sagas — not exactly. Though, the characters that your kids come to know WILL have the same names and perhaps many of the same attributes. So, the concern, as I see it, is that this will have the effect, for a large swath of the audience, of changing the fundamental characters of this rich collection of sagas.
And, I would reiterate that there’s no reason why this issue had to be either/or. This new film could have been an origin story of the TOS characters with all of the modernized production values that your kids would expect and be taken in by.
And, then, when your kids grow up — if they are like me, and didn’t get into the relatively cerebral and dramatic TOS until they were in their teens — they would be able to appreciate the latter adventures of the characters that they’d been introduced to in this film as within one continuous collection of sagas.
Just as a counterexample to illustrate this point, can you imagine how much less fulfilling an experience it would have been if the Bilbo Baggins in The Lord of the Rings had had a somewhat different backstory from the Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit? In large part, it’s the continuity of the characters and their histories that makes the world of Middle Earth so compelling. It makes it rich and cohesive.
Again, depending on how deviant the alternate universe/timeline Kirk & Co. are, it could come across in varying degrees of disparateness with respect to TOS and the Prime Trek stories/characters.
484. 750 Mang – January 14, 2009
—-I’m telling ya, they felt they had to have Kirk in his 20’s (not his 30’s) AND end the film as captain of the Enterprise. It’s really the only reason for all this fooling around with the timeline. And it so makes sense in terms of how the industry works – youth obsessed.—-
485. James Heaney – Wowbagger – January 14, 2009
—-No need to impute unsavory motives to them for making a storytelling decision that just about anybody would have made in writing this story–including you, I think.—-
I still don’t see anything resembling a need for the choice to go with alternate universe/timeline versions of the TOS crew. And, Bob Orci has said only that his reason will be revealed in the film.
While Pine may be 28, it’s typical for a character in his teens or early 20’s to be played by an actor who’s about 28. Tom Welling in Smallville, for example.
So, I have to concede that 750 Mang seems to make a plausible conjecture. While Bob Orci doesn’t strike me as someone so superficial as to have been motivated solely by demographics in making fundamental decisions about a project whose subject matter is so near and dear to him, demographic considerations could have been part of the motive.
A Kirk who’s straight out of the Academy is roughly in his early 20’s, as opposed to a Kirk who’s been working in Star Fleet for 5 years who’s in his late 20’s or even 30. And, the early 20’s demographic is larger and more lucrative than the late 20’s, early 30’s demographic. The point being that this conjecture is not about the actual age of the actor playing Kirk, but rather of the CHARACTER with whom the audience will connect. And, a 22 year-old character will connect differently than a 30 year-old character. Though this point may be rendered null when we see the film.
#587—”… the concern, as I see it, is that this will have the effect, for a large swath of the audience, of changing the fundamental characters of this rich collection of sagas.”
Isn’t it ultimately up to the writers to determine how these characters will behave and react, regardless of their histories?
I still do not understand the concern that they won’t be the same people. It sounds as if you are trying to apply real world nurturing to characters in a fictional story.
Even with the current tidbits of backstory intact, the writers can still bungle the characters. Having them develop (canonically, mind you) in a slightly altered timeline doesn’t make that any more likely than it already is.
As long as the characters behave in their fictional universe the way they have always behaved, then—once again, what is the concern?
#586—-Personally, the only episode of TAS that I can regard as canon is “Yesteryear”, and only because it has been so often referenced in live action Trek that it would be ridiculous to ignore.
As far as I am concerned, there is no Robert April, and “The Counter-Clock Incident” is no more canon than a novel, comic book, or “reference book”.
Even if you acknowledged TAS as canon, how would you reconcile April’s captaincy (along with the 2245 Commission date) and the Bennett/Nimoy ‘retcon’ of the age of the Starship Enterprise to 20 years (15 years after the events depicted in “Space Seed”)?
It might be perfectly okay to consider TAS canon (if that is your preference), but it would be difficult to argue that the dialogue in a children’s cartoon would supercede Nimoy/Bennett’s 1984 feature film, TSFS. Would it not?
I don’t think that the line in “The Counter-Clock Incident” to which you refer is any more canon than Robert April himself.
#586
And according to ‘official’ canon, TAS never happened. So we’re back to square one.
589. Closettrekker – January 16, 2009
“I don’t think that the line in “The Counter-Clock Incident” to which you refer is any more canon than Robert April himself.”
I always liked the idea of Captain April. I thought it was cool to think that the Big E was an old warhorse that had seen many adventures preceding even Captain Pike.
I also find “The Counter-Clock Incident” to be a very good animated episode, with its references to the San Fransisco Shipyards and the appearance of Captain April. I dig it.
Who mourns for Captain Garrovick?
>>Speaking as a mostly-moderate person here, I’m hard pressed to think of a left-wing shibboleth that BSG has so much as questioned, much less outright attacked and/or caricatured as it has things supported by the right wing, such as Israeli defense policy, religion (in general), Guantanamo Bay, and, above all, BSG’s outright offensively flip portrayal of abortion towards the end of season two.<<
One that stands out in my mind is the early “New Caprica” one that said in no uncertain terms that the religious fanatic president really HAD been justified in rigging the election, because look what happens when she decides not to after all – the make-love-not-war candidate is going to get us all invaded and killed! If that wasn’t a love poem to George W. Bush, I don’t know what is.
#592
Or how about the fact that the only confirmed atheist on the show, Cavil (Adama is an wavering agnostic at best) helped orchestrate the genocide in the colonies, turned on his own kind and lobotomized those who disagreed with his point of view. The ‘good’ Cylons are all god-fearing monotheists.
Actually, the show’s treatment of religion in general (usually thought of as a ‘right wing’ issue) is pretty even-handed and respectful on the whole, IMO.
Closettrekker wrote: Even if you acknowledged TAS as canon, how would you reconcile April’s captaincy (along with the 2245 Commission date) and the Bennett/Nimoy ‘retcon’ of the age of the Starship Enterprise to 20 years (15 years after the events depicted in “Space Seed”)?
——————–
The Admiral misspoke. Just like another admiral misspoke when referring to Kahn being from two hundred years ago or whatever he said when Bashir was discovered to be genetically modified (and the DS9 writer even said it was a typo- probably R.H.W. on USENET).
The thing about TAS is the live action treks have since done far sillier things than the Counter Clock incident. Further one of the things the TOS-Remastered folks have done right is use TAS to provide the new details, like ship models and Vulcan landscapes.
TAS had access to the same background info that the original series had – since it was all the same people. Did you know that Constitution class was never explicitly said until the next generation – even though everyone understood it to be that and was used on diagram props. Likewise with San Francisco Navel Yards.
588. Closettrekker – January 16, 2009
—-Isn’t it ultimately up to the writers to determine how these characters will behave and react, regardless of their histories?—-
Yes, and Trek writers such as DC Fontana and Nick Meyer have done fantastic jobs fleshing out these characters so as to give them depth and make them increasingly compelling the more that you learn about them. Watching STVI, for example, those of us who’d seen STIII got a very palpable sense of Kirk’s hatred for Klingons because we knew about the senseless manner in which Kirk’s son had been murdered by Klingons. This part of Kirk’s backstory surely influenced his later behavior.
Now, what if many sequels down the road, Orci’s alternate universe/timeline Kirk, for example, doesn’t have a son? Or, what if he has a son, but that son doesn’t die? How will that affect your overall experience watching Trek? Will it diminish it the Kirk of the TOS movies, now that, while he’s kind of unique, he also comes in a different flavor? And, when people talk about Captain Kirk, which one are they talking about? The Old Coke or the New Coke?
err…I mean, Kirk.
And, what happens to the cache and import of the Old Kirk as more and more Trek is made with the New Kirk? All of the Old Kirk’s experiences will no longer be applicable and relevant to future Trek films. Might this not diminish both Old Kirk and the New Kirk, at least a little bit?
—-I still do not understand the concern that they won’t be the same people. It sounds as if you are trying to apply real world nurturing to characters in a fictional story.
As long as the characters behave in their fictional universe the way they have always behaved, then—once again, what is the concern?—-
The concern is, as I expressed above, that the experience as a whole will be lacking, to some degree, because of the schism. Also, that TOS will be diminished somewhat in stature. For most of the audience, who aren’t as knowledgeable as we about he histories of the characters, it probably won’t be an issue. But, we’re not here arguing on their behalf. We’re arguing on behalf of the loyal and the proud.
#594—”The Admiral misspoke.”
No, he didn’t. Both Bennett and Nimoy have made clear that the retcon was quite intentional. It was not done in error.
Even if you completely disregarded the filmmakers’ intent (which was to bring the time between TOS and TSFS in line with the upcoming 20th Anniversary–i.e, the passage of real time), how would Admiral Morrow, who just participated in the decision to decommission Starfleet’s most celebrated vessel, be so completely unfamiliar with her age? That seems to be pertinent information, does it not?
No. Not only does Morrow’s dialogue (along with the intentions of the film’s writer/producer and director) render null what is postulated in “The Counter-Clock Incident”, but it also retcons the suggested age of the Enterprise in “The Menagerie”.
TSFS vs. “The Menagerie” is an existing canonical contradiction. It is my theory that the self-proclaimed “Supreme Court” behind STXI have ruled in favor of the vessel’s age in TSFS (not surprising, given Nimoy’s involvement and the fact that TSFS is the later entry).
There is no Robert April, nor is there any credibility to the notion that Pike was in command of the Enterprise 13 years prior to its second visit to Talos IV (since the Enterprise had not been launched yet). She certainly could not have been commissioned in 2245!
You may choose to ignore Nimoy/Bennett’s intentional retcon, but it lends no legitimacy to your argument. The latest canon entry on the subject makes the Enterprise 20 years old, 15 years after “Space Seed”.
#595—”And, what happens to the cache and import of the Old Kirk as more and more Trek is made with the New Kirk?”
In the real world? The same thing that happens to nearly everything with the passage of t