Wondercon 09: New Star Trek Trailer Premieres – Full Description & Review | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Wondercon 09: New Star Trek Trailer Premieres – Full Description & Review February 28, 2009

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Conventions/Events/Attractions,Review,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

The first ‘surprise guest’ at Paramount’s Star Trek panel at Wondercon was none other than director JJ Abrams. Shortly after hitting the stage Abrams revealed the ‘sneak peek’ was to be the first public viewing of the new trailer, showing with Watchmen opening next weekend. See below for full details.

 

Abrams had to convince Paramount to reveal trailer
Abrams opened up by thanking the huge capacity crowd for showing up, noting "if this place would have been empty that would have sucked." He also noted that he had just flown in from promoting the film in Tokyo, and warned he took an Ambien on the plane, noting "so if I say some stupid s–t, it is the drugs talking." 

Abrams then talked about how "excited" he was about Trek, and talked up the cast and writers and then stated that he "is usually secretive about stuff" (and understatement), but said that "this time the studio has been worse than me." Abrams said he had to convince Paramount to show the trailer at Wondercon, and implored the audience to please not record it and put it online. He even said that he had considered asking for audience members to point out any recorders and the pointers would get a free Bad Robot toy, but then they realized that friends would probably team up just to get the toys. Anyway on to the trailer itself.


JJ introducing Star Trek trailer

Trailer description
Note that the trailer was shown just once, so this may not be 100% exact, but is the best that can be remembered based on notes

The new trailer starts off with a new shot of the young Chris Pine Kirk on motorcycle headed for the Enterprise being constructed. We then see more of the scene in the Iowa bar, with Pike (Bruce Greenwood) saying to Kirk "I couldn’t believe it when the bar tender told me who you are" and Kirk replying back with the "why are you talking to me man" line (seen in the Super Bowl commercial). Cut to image of studio logos.

Greenwood’s voice comes back over scenes of the Kelvin in battle saying "your father was captain of a Starship for twelve minutes…he saved 800 lives…including yours…I dare you to do better…enlist in Starfleet." During the dialog we see Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk on Kelvin (for the first time), and the ‘including yours’ line was shown along with the shot of Jennifer Morrison (giving birth) scene in the theatrical trailer. With the ‘enlist in Starfleet’ line you see an image of Kirk in a very large room full of cadets. Then cut to a shot of Kirk and Spock (at Academy) with Spock saying "you will experience fear, fear of certain death," cut to more footage on the drilling platform. Then title card with "May 8th"

Then there is a shot of Spock on the bridge of the Enterprise saying "we have received a distress call" and then cut to a planet imploding (possibly Vulcan). Then we see a close-up of Eric Bana as Nero saying "I have been waiting for this day my whole life…" cut to shot of his ship "…this day of reckoning" followed by more effects shots of battle, including Enterprise. Then cut to bridge of Enterprise with Bones (Karl Urban) saying "we’ve got no captain and no first officer to replace him" to which Chris Pine replies in a serious tone "yeah we do" as he slowly sits in the captain’s chair. Another title card.

Then more effects shots and shots of Vulcan (including Winona Ryder as Amanda Grayson) and the Ben Cross (Sarek) voice over saying "you are capable of deciding your own destiny, the question is: which path will you choose." This was followed with another quick succession of shots both on the Enterprise and in space, then back to Nero saying "James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life." Then back to the bridge with someone saying "set off your torpedoes" and then Pike ordering "emergency evasive" and a shot of Nero yelling "fire everything." And then even more effects shots, including one from what is like a ‘torpedo cam’ spinning towards the Enterprise. There is also a shot during this final sequence of Quinto Spock hugging Uhura (Zoe Saldana). And then cut to credits.

Thoughts
The trailer goes by very quickly, but it is actually around 2 minutes long. The trailer went over huge with the crowd going wild. Personally it sent up chills, especially the moment Kirk takes the chair. In that moment conveyed Pine conveyed both brash confidence, as well as a sense of having the weight of the world on his shoulders. Also the moment Nero talks about the ‘great Captain Kirk’ from ‘another life’ is surely going to go over well with fans. This trailer was very Kirk focused and (combined with the opening Corvette scene from the first theatrical trailer), gives the movie a clear ‘origin story’ feel.

Other highlights are seeing Hemsworth on the Kelvin, the first shots inside Starfleet Academy and the jaw dropping effects shots of the Kelvin, Enterprise, Nero’s Narada, and Spock’s ship. As for the music, it isn’t clear if it is from the movie. Like the other trailers, it may not be. The music was very dramatic and operatic, and somewhat reminiscent of the main theme from The Dark Knight, which all lent itself to an intensity you don’t often see in trailers.

The trailer is clearly aimed at a general film audience with the message ‘there is a huge new movie called ‘Star Trek’ coming in May, but it should also work with casual and hard core Trek fans, with plenty of new shots and lots of little Trek moments.

Panel report coming soon
After airing the trailer, JJ introduced the rest of the panel of ‘surprise guests’. A full report with pictures coming up son.

 

 

Comments

1. That One Guy - February 28, 2009

Vulcan imploding?

Oh dear. People are NOT going to be happy about this.

2. Noga - February 28, 2009

Sounds Bad Ass!

3. GaryS - February 28, 2009

thanks for doing Double Duty today Anthony.
It is much appreaciated !

4. Jared Butcher - February 28, 2009

Spock Nimoy? Or Spock Quinto? doing the Uhura huggin?

5. Ryan Spooner - February 28, 2009

Awesome, so can’t wait :)

6. Jay - February 28, 2009

Sounds awesome!

7. Syrneth - February 28, 2009

That trailer sounds really cool. I can’t wait.

8. TechTrekker - February 28, 2009

When can we see it online? (first?)

9. Gojira Shippi-Taro - February 28, 2009

@ #4, well Zoe isn’t heavy, so I’m assuming it’s not Nimoy.

10. TechTrekker - February 28, 2009

Not first. Dang! When can we see it online?

11. Yspano - February 28, 2009

Sounds like fun. :D

12. fwise3 - February 28, 2009

#1 Especially any Vulcans that happened to be planetside at the time…

13. Capt. of the USS Anduril - February 28, 2009

Vulcan implodes, eh? That’s not good news…maybe there’s a similar planet in the system for the Vulcans to live on? Either way, unless the Enterprise time travels to prevent it, that’s a big blow to the new timeline. And definitely, at least to me, highlights Spock’s emotional problems. If his home was just destroyed, that’s a good reason for his emotions to be imbalanced.

Personally, if it comes across well in the trailer, I think the highlight scenes are going to be the: “We don’t have a captain or a first officer to replace him.” “Yeah we do.” lines and Nero’s “James T. Kirk was a great man. But that was another life.”

14. Reign1701A - February 28, 2009

So I guess the main drive/point of the movie is: can this alternate universe Kirk, despite the childhood hardships dealt to him by Nero, rise up to become as great of a man as Captain James T. Kirk of the normal (previously depicted on screen) universe? Works for me.

15. Nick - February 28, 2009

“James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life.”

And that’s how we can reboot the franchise.

16. Robert H. - February 28, 2009

Needless to say I will be doing what I always do. Keep looking here on a daily basis to see what’s new. And of course that includes trailers. But I have to disagree with Anthony Pascale, I don’t believe that the ship being constructed is the Enterprise, if they did respect the canon as they said they would. But I would not be surprised if the ship being constructed was the Defiant. Too much symbolism and coincidence doesn’t feel right, and it doesn’t seem to be in this movie, which is a good thing.

17. Enterprise - February 28, 2009

I think they prevent Vulcan from blowing up, right?

18. Scott - February 28, 2009

” James T. Kirk…that was another life.” Could The Shat actually end up in the movie???

19. Capt. of the USS Anduril - February 28, 2009

#16 Actually, considering the alternate universe explanation, it’s entirely reasonable that the original design of the Enterprise was scrapped(it should have been at least in the early construction stages when Kirk was born) due to the total destruction of the Kelvin. The entire project was delayed and drawn out as Starfleet stepped up their technology. Simple matter of fact that war is a good motivator for technological advancement. Perfectly reasonable.

New tech, for example, better and more powerful phaser arrays(possibly), photon torpedoes(notice the Kelvin doesn’t have torpedo tubes), new and improved warp and impulse technology. The impulse tech can also be used to explain why Enterprise is being built on Earth. Impulse engines HAVE to be capable of breaking a planet’s gravity field. If they didn’t, the ships couldn’t orbit planets without eventually falling in.

Either way though, it’s the characters that have to sell this movie to me. I love the tech, but that won’t mean a thing if the characters can’t fit into those roles by the end of the movie.

20. Lousy_Canadian - February 28, 2009

Domo Arigato!

21. AJ - February 28, 2009

16:

I hope it’s not Defiant. Defiant was not even on the original list of 12. True, it could be simply another Starship Class vessel being built at the “Riverside Yards.”

22. OneBuckFilms - February 28, 2009

18 – No.

23. The Governator - February 28, 2009

Wow. This sounds great. I will, however, reserve my judgement until I see it, but everything I have heard and seen thus far gives me no reason to worry. The part about Vulcan getting blown to bits is somewhat interesting, and I can only imagine that such a big event will be remedied at some later point in the movie (or so I hope). In any case, I can’t wait to see the trailer, and more importantly, the movie itself. Only 2 months to go!

24. WannaBeatle - February 28, 2009

18. Scott – February 28, 2009

” James T. Kirk…that was another life.” Could The Shat actually end up in the movie???

there still is some time left for pick up and re-shoots…who knows???

I’m still waiting for some more shots myself…I missed out working on it first time ’round.

25. ensignHarris - February 28, 2009

Sounds kick-ass! can’t wait to see this movie!

26. Third Remata'Klan - February 28, 2009

#4 – Anthony said Quinto Spock in the article. (Hugging Uhura.)

Thank you, Anthony!

It sounds awesome! What are we now, 70 days?
Doesn’t seem so hard to wait anymore….

Roll on May!!!

27. Third Remata'Klan - February 28, 2009

#23

With Bob Orci’s talk of quantum mechanics and how all universes still exist and everything, I actually would not be surprised if they blow Vulcan to heck and gone and DON’T fix it.

This is a reboot. I have little doubt now.

28. The Governator - February 28, 2009

16. Robert H.

Bob Orci has even come out and said that the ship being constructed IS the Enterprise. Also, if it were any other ship, the shot would be pointless. There would be no dramatic effect if he were looking up at the Potemkin or the Defiant.

29. Third Remata'Klan - February 28, 2009

#18

No.

30. jotin - February 28, 2009

This sounds amazing. I can’t freakin wait. ^^

31. Will_H - February 28, 2009

I’d be willing to bet that they dont destroy Vulcan. As much as JJ has used time travel to throw cannon out the window I doubt he’d go that far. But Im looking forward to seeing this, I hope it lands on youtube soon, and knowing how resourceful trekkies can be, I doubt it’ll take long.

32. Ian - February 28, 2009

Sweet! Can’t wait for the Monday after Watchmen to catch it online!

33. The Wild Man of Borneo - February 28, 2009

“we’ve got no captain and no first officer to replace him” to which Chris Pine replies in a serious tone “yeah we do” as he slowly sits in the captain’s chair.

LAME.

So he just goes straight from being a cadet in starfleet academy to Captain?? COME ON. There is a chain of command here people. What, there is only a Captain and a first officer? We got a crew of over 400 on this ship. Cadets are the bottom of the barrel. This sounds childish. A kid’s movie all the way.

34. 750 Mang - February 28, 2009

Vulcan imploding… grrrrrr.

Remember the Farragut!

35. The Governator - February 28, 2009

33. The Wild Man of Borrneo

Woah! Hold it and put on the brakes, man! No where does it say he automatically became captain. I didn’t even remotely get that impression. The impression I got was that he assumed the role of captain temporarily. J.J. isn’t that stupid.

I get the impression that you are one of those people who have already decided not to like this movie. And don’t say you’re not. You make it so blatantly obvious.

36. cd - February 28, 2009

“But Vulcan is a peaceful planet!”

>;>}

37. Ryan H - February 28, 2009

#33 Yes because Geordi having the command of the Enterprise in the episode “Arsenal of Freedom” while being only a junior grade lieutenant is also lame.

38. That One Guy - February 28, 2009

*Cannot wait*

If it is leaked on the internet, I don’t wanna see it just yet. I’m going to the Midnight of Watchmen, and I want to be surprised.

39. Rick Moyer - February 28, 2009

Thanks for the report! VERY COOL!

40. TrekkyStar - February 28, 2009

Except for Vulcan imploding (oh gosh don’t bring the Xindi into this), I don’t have many doubts that Abrams did a good job!

41. BaronByng - February 28, 2009

Anyone in command of a vessel is its captain whether they actually hold that military rank or not. Pretty longstanding tradition. Obviously Pike being out of commission, and presumably Spock as well (is he the 1st officer already?) means someone’s got to be in charge, and with a boatful of cadets, looks like Kirk steps up. (nice mirroring there)

42. Can't Wait for May 2009 - February 28, 2009

Really looking forward to this new trailer when I go see Watchmen this Friday!

43. Robert Saint John - February 28, 2009

I just wanted to mention that I didn’t get the impression during or after that the imploding planet was Vulcan. Not saying it can’t be, we certainly see plenty of ground shots of the planet falling apart in all of the trailers. But there was nothing explicit or in context in this trailer that I recall that would guarantee it was Vulcan. It was a brownish planet, Tatooine-ish if I recall correctly. I guess I would expect Vulcan to look more red, or more like Mars. I don’t have a problem with it either way, but before people got all up in arms, I thought I should throw some reasonable doubt in there. I could just as easily see this planet just being “Joe’s Planet IV”, the first place Nero tests the weapon, and when he first encounters the Kelvin (total conjecture).

44. Spock - February 28, 2009

Some of the dialogue is pretty on-the-nose (“Yeah we do” ??)

But it sounds to be a better trailer than the first theatrical one. I refuse to get my hopes up because I’ve been burned before by trailers, but at least it’s a little more promising.

45. Fansince9 - February 28, 2009

Okay, I am really getting excited about this trailer now. I would never dream of putting such a thing on Youtube by copying it there, but I have to make a confession in that I do watch these from time-to-time. If somebody recorded that or if it shows up on Youtube or somewhere else on the internet before Watchment premiers this Friday, yup, I’ll be one of the people who watches it while darooooooooooooling in anticipation for the real deal when it appears on the official website on 3/9.

I really don’t know much of anything about Watchmen but hey, I may go see it just so I can see the trek trailer on the big screen. Who knows the movie just might be good, too.

46. Robert Saint John - February 28, 2009

I guarantee you, nobody in that Hall videotaped the trailer. It was too crowded, security was tight with their night vision viewers, and — after JJ’s pleas — the audience would have lynched anyone trying to do it. And no one got lynched. :)

47. LostOnNCC1701 - February 28, 2009

It is time once again for my Half-Serious/Half-Facetious, Half-Speculative/Half-Wishful-Thinking look at the plot of ST. I’m gonna go with the guess that Vulcan is NOT destroyed, simply because I don’t think even Abrams has the balls to do that (although I would not be surprised at all if he maybe destroys parts of it). This will likely change as soon as the Watchmen Trailer is actually online, since that description leaves a lot out (where, for example, is Nero when he says that Kirk WAS a great man, but that was another life) :

(Like before, until “Countdown” finishes, the Prolog will remain as I used to have it)
In the wake of Nemesis, the Federation (and, to a lesser extent, the Klingons) and the Romulans got into a better relationship. Not a alliance by any means, but certainly better than it ever has been. There have even been some calls for a movement for reconciliation with the Vulcans. There are some violently against this, led by Nero, who had been a patriotic hero of the Romulans during the Dominion War. Nero, along with other radicals and a few military men, were eventually captured by the Klingons and put on Rura Penthe. Eventually, however, he escaped and with his fellow Romulan extremists (who can easily be identified because of their prison-issue tattoos and shaved heads) hijacked the Narada- a new and horrible weapons ship that is capable of traveling through time and destroying an entire planet (although it still is insignificant next to the power of the Force) . Spock found out about this and “borrowed” (since Vulcans don’t steal) a Federation prototype time-ship to follow him into the past.

Nero realizes that since he will have no supplies he needs to change the past with as little effort as possible. To simply blow up Vulcan would possibly bring in too much trouble, but to go back to the Romulan-Earth War or a similar point in time would be too likely to change the timeline so much that his initial quest becomes irrelevant. So he decides to do the easy thing: Kill James T. Kirk before he is even freaking born. Why Kirk? Well, he’s probably the Federation’s greatest hero ever. He was leader who beat back the Romulan incursion into the Neutral Zone, he beat up Gods, Orions and Gorn with his bare hands, saved entire planets, made Klingons look like fools, and generally was the greatest hero the Galaxy ever knew. It would make sense that to kill him or severely change his life would alter the timeline to make it easier for Romulus. If he is able to kill Kirk before he is born and a trip back to the future reveals that Romulans still aren’t the big bosses of the Galaxy in the new timeline, he’ll go back and do more. Or if Kirk survives he’ll go back and do more. No big deal. He has all the time in the world (heh).

In a strange twist, we begin with William Shatner captaining a ship called the USS Priceline, on a eternal mission to find and negotiate great rates for travel and hotel stays. We then realize it’s a commercial, and laugh.

Fade in:
So we go to the USS Kelvin in the year 2233ish, investigating some weird anomalies (including the disappearance and believed destruction of 47 Klingon ships!). It is under the command of Captain Robau, with first officer George Kirk. Just then, Nero’s ship attacks. Caught completely by surprise, the opening volleys of the “battle” lead to the Captain dead and George in Command. He orders all non-essential personnel- including his pregnant wife- to abandon ship not in the escape pods but by using the Shuttlecraft, leaving many of them severely overcrowded. During the escape, some of the crew use their craft to cover the extremely-heavily damaged Kelvin on a kamikaze attack on the Romulans. The Kelvin is further aided by a mysterious ship (Spock’s timeship). It works, but the stress causes Mrs. Kirk to give birth prematurely as her medical shuttle goes into warp to escape. The Narada, although still operational, is badly damaged and escapes through time to safety (some point in time where they can just go orbit some random moon and do some repairs and get ready for their next attempt at destroying the Federation). We’d then see the Time-ship go through time too, probably going ahead to check to see what this has changed in this “new” timeline which is similar but different from the original one. Spock cares about this new Timeline because, quite frankly, it is the logical and moral thing to do.

We’d then go through a short vignette of Kirk and Spock growing up. Spock has some pressures growing up with being Half-Vulcan, Half-Human, but Kirk’s childhood is more interesting. His mother either died or left him with his idiot Uncle, who Kirk despises and proceeds to aggravate by driving his antique car into the future site of a Starfleet Shipyard with “Magic Carpet Ride” by Steppenwolf playing on the radio all along(oh sure, it wasn’t in the trailer, but POST-PRODUCTION, people!). When the Cop (who is wearing a robosuit to enhance the abilities of himself) catches him and brings him back to his Uncle, he gets into big trouble. It is never stated or shown that Kirk was on Tarsus, but it is never directly denied either (although I’m gonna guess he doesn’t, but everyone can fanon up a explanation, I’m sure.) One thing that changes though is that because of his different upbringing, he never feels obligated to join Starfleet, instead hanging around Iowa causing trouble until one day he enters a bar being frequented by new Academy recruits visiting the shipyard. He gets into a barfight after hitting on Uhura and is then accosted by the famed Captain Christopher Pike of the being-built USS Enterprise. Pike talks Kirk into joining Starfleet.

On his way to Starfleet Academy, Jim meets Leonard McCoy, on his way to Starfleet medical. McCoy says he’ll just be an old Sawbones. Jim then begins to call him “Bones”. The name, and the friendship, sticks.

Kirk’s time at the academy is unorthodox. While the Axanar mission, Finnegan, John Gill, Ben Finney and Gary Mitchell aren’t seen or mentioned, they aren’t directly denied either. However, Kirk does cause trouble in the academy: He hires a Orion Hooker (or maybe just an Orion at the Academy on some sort of exchange program… I like the Hooker idea better), he cheats at the Kobayashi Maru (which Spock, up to the level of Student Instructor, says will show everyone fear, the fear of Certain Death) and is only saved from expulsion when someone (quite possibly Spock) points out that he has shown great original thinking. But still, when first assignments are handed out, he’s left on the ground, primarily because there are still concerns about his conduct with the Kobayashi Maru.

Then distress calls come from Vulcan, and panic breaks out on the Campus.

Kirk’s friend Dr. Leonard McCoy (AKA “Bones”) is able to sneak Jim up to the Enterprise, under Captain Pike and his first officer, Spock. The Enterprise is the most advanced ship in the fleet and this will be it’s first real mission (while this would seem on the surface to eliminate the Talos incident, you could maybe retcon it into having taken place during a shakedown cruise or testing run gone awry). They get a message in from Vulcan about “lightning storms”, causing Kirk to panic about a Romulan attack. He’s right, and when they arrive above Vulcan the Enterprise finds a good chunk of the fleet blown to bits and the Romulan ship drilling into the planet itself (in the future of this new timeline, Picard refers to Wolf 359 as the SECOND worst loss of Starfleet life in history. Also, with much of the fleet blasted up in this new timeline, future sequels will have a explanation as to why the Enterprise is always the only ship in the sector/quadrant/system/whatever). After a brief battle in which the Ship’s chief physician, one Phillip Boyce, is killed (leaving Bones as the chief medical officer), Pike gets a message from Nero asking for a meeting, and since there are transporter problems he goes there using a shuttle, out of which he has Kirk, Sulu and Olsen jump out of to try and disable the drilling.

Kirk and Sulu are able to badly damage the drill (Olsen begins the fine Redshirt tradition), but they are too late and the anomaly black-hole is sent into the planet. Spock beams down to help evacuate the planet, as Kirk and Sulu are then beamed back up (thanks to Chekov’s quick-fix of the Transporter), while Spock continues to save his family down on Vulcan. With no captain and no first officer, Jim declares himself Captain and gets in the chair (“yeah we do”) and attempts to use several methods to try and destroy the black hole, but ultimately fails until Old Spock’s Timeship arrives and closes it just in time. Spock beams back up while most of Vulcan continues to evacuate because of aftershocks from the attack, and the seismic destruction of some parts. The Romulans leave (possibly though a time bubble) to regroup. It appears to only be a hollow victory, as the Romulans could still easily try again. Worried about the Romulans coming back, the Enterprise runs like hell. Meanwhile, all the turmoil boils over inside of Spock (Vulcan? Human? Neither? Both?) and he breaks down and throws Jimbo onto the icy North Pole of planet Delta Vega. This may be because Jim is under the impression he saved Vulcan when in reality it was mainly Deus Ex Spock’s Time Machina.

Meanwhile, on the Romulan ship of DOOOOOOOOM, Nero decides not to kill Pike, because why do that when he can torment Pike with information FROM THE FUTURE! Yes, you will be assassinated in Dallas… err.. wait… I mean, you will be confined into a black box for your entire life and will only be able to answer “yes” and “no” to every question. MWAHAHAHAHAHA! Pike uses some badass words pointing out all the flaws in Nero’s plan, because that’s what he does.

On Delta Vega, Jim finds himself wandering aimlessly, no doubt cursing about the stupid Vulcan and the stupid emotions he shouldn’t even have. Eventually, he will begin singing “Mr. Tambourine Man”, causing a monster shockingly like the one in Cloverfield to become enraged. Thankfully, old Spock shows up and blasts the creature. Because that’s how old Spock rolls. A little bit of exhibition follows in which Old Spock proves that he is, indeed, Spock (this may or may not involve a rousing single of “The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins”). Old Spock drops some zen and backstory, and then they go and see the last dude to get stranded on this Ice Planet: Montgomery Scott.

Scotty was transferred (by which we mean “dropped”) on the Ice Planet because he dematerialized Porthos VI. Not the Planet, the Beagle belonging to Admiral Archer. Old Spock totally breaks the Temporal Directive, makes everyone smile, tells Kirk to piss Young Spock off and get command of the Enterprise and then sends them on their way with a “Live Long and Prosper”. The crowd cheers.

Kirk then goes to the bridge, and proceeds to really piss off Young Spock. Then, using Starfleet regulation, he is able to make himself Captain. Kirk then announces that Scotty is now Chief Engineer, and tells everyone that from now on, he is the biggest badass in the Galaxy (taking the title from Chuck Norris, who had held it since March 4, 1940). He then hears that the Romulans are doing repairs in a white nebula, probably getting ready to blow up Vulcan again. We then get a correction: The Romulans have just LEFT the white nebula, and have set course…. FOR EARTH (Nero, apparently, has just figured “Ah, hell, screw it, let’s nuke Terra and call it a day”.). Oh… that is a problem.But now that James T. Kirk is in command, no force in the universe can stop the USS Enterprise. Nothing! NOTHING! Well, maybe Cancellation after 3 seasons. But even that would be temporary.

We get a gratuitous “prepare for battle” sequence like that in “The Wrath of Khan” and “Nemesis” (come to think of it, that might have been the only good thing in Nemesis’ final battle). The sequence is awesome, and when the DVD comes out Youtube is flooded with remixes of the scene put to such songs as “Eye of the Tiger”, “Flying High Now”, “You’re the Best (Around)”, “Lose Yourself”, “The Touch” and, of course, “The Rocky IV Training Montage in Siberia”. Oh, Rocky IV training montage, you will never get old.

The Narada appears in Earth Orbit. Awfully nice that Starfleet had sent basically every ship they had to Vulcan to get nice and slaughtered. Now nothing is defending what should be most heavily defended planet in the Quadrant. Oh, what’s that? Earth is always undefended? Never mind then. So Nero orders the Narada to begin drilling. Target: San Francisco (he’s into symbolism). But then, appearing out of the blackness of space: The USS ENTERPRISE. (DO-DO-DO, didododedo!)

So, the Enterprise goes one-on-one, mano-a-mano with the Narada. Assisting in the battle, again, is Old Spock’s ship. During the battle, Nero orders the Drilling rig pulled back in, all power must be used to try and destroy the Enterprise. So the Narada flees into the depths of space, but the Enterprise is in hot pursuit (Chekov uses a Russian analogy to describe the Romulans running away). Kirk, Spock and a few ensigns beams over to the Romulan ship, frees Captain Pike (who then beams over back to the Enterprise, which he still is technically in command of), and then fight Nero and his Romulan gang (the ensigns die). Kirk himself fights Nero, who taunts him by saying that Kirk was a great man in another life. Nero makes the foolish mistake of cutting Kirk’s shirt, making him very angry and unbeatable in hand-to-hand combat,. Kirk beats Nero, then starts the autodestruct. He then beams out as the 5 minute countdown starts. Nero, saddened, begins to fiddle, then notices that Old Spock’s ship is still out there. Surmising who it really is, he goes full overkill and launches those Red Matter black-hole thingies, one of which hits a planet and creates a kick-ass special effect. Kirk (Pike is in Sick Bay) orders the Enterprise to risk getting caught in the event horizon of the Narada’s missiles to protect the ship. Needless to say, they save it (because Spock dying again doing anything less than a heroic sacrifice that saves the entire universe would be cop-out). The Enterprise and the Time-Ship race away just in time (as always). Old Spock then sends a message to the Enterprise, although only Kirk and Scotty know who it is since Spock’s voice is so different in his old age. The message: “Jim, it has been an honor serving with you one last time. Live Long and Prosper. Thank You.”, he’ll then time-ship out of there.

In the aftermath (with the Enterprise being repaired in space dock), Pike tells Kirk he has exceeded even his Father, and that he is proud that the Enterprise will next be commanded by such a great leader. Pike himself says he intends to move on, he was in line for a promotion anyway. Kirk puts on the Golden Tunic of Awesome to the cheers of the crowd and walks onto what is now HIS bridge. Spock, fully realizing that he had let his emotions get the best of him, thanks Kirk for what he has done, but asks him how he knew about the regulation to get him removed from command. Kirk says something along the lines that it was something he learned from a “new friend”. He then tells everyone to buckle up, the Enterprise is a ship for exploration, and there is a ton out there to explore.

He then says “Set course for… (pick one: Cestus III /Organia/Eminiar VII/Sherman’s Planet/Ceti Alpha V/Altair IV/L-374/Halkan/”Second Star to the Right”)”.

We then get Pine doing the famous “Space, the Final Frontier” narration. Only one difference: When he’s done, Spock tells him that those are fine, evocative words. Kirk then says the final lines of the first TOS Kirk episode (”Where No Man Has Gone Before”): ” I believe there’s some hope for you after all, Mr. Spock. ”

Warp!

Fade to credits and the musical stylings of Michael Giacchino (the heir apparent to John Williams in great Movie Music)

After the credits, we get a brief TOS clip of Majel Barrett as Number One, in tribute.

48. Dennis Bailey - February 28, 2009

My, someone’s done a lot of typing…

49. Fansince9 - February 28, 2009

“46. Robert Saint John – February 28, 2009
…. after JJ’s pleas — the audience would have lynched anyone trying to do it. And no one got lynched. :)”
~~~~~~~
Well, if JJ pleaded for nobody to record it, then I’d just feel guilty watching it if it did show up. I guess I can be patient for one more week :(

50. MvRojo - February 28, 2009

I thought the trailer was really good and showed a ton of new scenes. The only thing I wished it included was a shot of Nimoy as Spock.

It was awesome seeing Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Zoe Saldana. I did think it was interesting that Anton Yelchin was there too, but only for the Terminator Salvation panel.

51. The Governator - February 28, 2009

48. LostOnNCC1701

Man, you sure have a lot of free time on your hands.

52. Bryan - February 28, 2009

Thanks for writing this up in such a hurry for us, Anthony!

“Yeah we do!” Hmm. This brotastic new James T. Kirk will take some getting used to.

“FIRE EVERYTHING!” is wonderful, though. I wonder why no one working on Trek has ever thought to use it before.

53. LostOnNCC1701 - February 28, 2009

“My, someone’s done a lot of typing…”

Actually, it started as a short 3 or 4 paragraph summary and I’ve been adding a bit ever since, if you go back to previous trailer reveals and such you’d see how they’ve evolved.

54. MvRojo - February 28, 2009

52. The delivery of the line is not him yelling it. It’s a very cool and collected statement, like him coming to the realization that he has what it takes to be the captain…just like how his father had to take command in the middle of a crisis.

55. LostOnNCC1701 - February 28, 2009

It really didn’t take much time at all, just a sentence added here and there.

56. Andy Patterson - February 28, 2009

That’s got to be the longest post in the history of this site.

57. AJ - February 28, 2009

We’ve been told to expect a disturbingly canon-busting event early on in the film.

We’ve also been told to see the Enterprise as a warship bristling with weapons for a brief part of the film.

I see the destruction of Vulcan, and the subsequent commissioning of the E as a battlecruiser at the film’s beginning as a catalyst for Spock Prime’s return to the past. He and Nero are playing games within the timelines, and the best Spock manages is to save an alternate Kirk (Pine) and reveal himself to him so he can prevent the destruction of Vulcan during what is a second chance at it, after Spock failed at the first chance.

This all sounds freaking great. Can’t wait!

58. AJ - February 28, 2009

57 retry:

I mean after Nero failed at the first chance ;-)

59. VOODOO - February 28, 2009

From the description and dialogue of the new trailer it sounds like
Moriarty’s report over at AICN a couple of years back was right on the money.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33832

In that report Moriarty reported about the planet Vulcan being blown up, an alt universe, an attempt on Kirk’s fathers life,an older
version of Spock trying to set things straight.

Here is some of what he had to say.

“Well, this is sort of… ummm… TREK TO THE FUTURE, I guess you would call it…

Picture an incident that throws a group of Romulans back in time. Picture that group of Romulans figuring out where they are in the timeline, then deciding to take advantage of the accident to kill someone’s father, to erase them from the timeline before they exist, thereby changing all of the TREK universe as a result. Who would you erase? Whose erasure would leave the biggest hole in the TREK universe is the question you should be asking.

Who else, of course, but James T. Kirk? (the dialogue Anthony described seems to back this theory up)

If Spock were in a position to change that incident back, and then in a position to guard that timeline and make sure things happen the way they’re supposed to, it creates…

… well, what does it create? Because evidently the plan is to use this second timeline as a way of rebooting without erasing or ignoring canon. These new voyages of the ENTERPRISE, they’re taking place in whatever timeline starts with this story. Maybe this timeline features dramatic differences. Like… say… if Vulcan were to be blown up. If the Vulcans in the series were suddenly the last of their kind, alone in the universe, it would change who they are and maybe even redefine their strict rejection of emotion in favor of logic.

You can introduce these Universe2 versions of classic TREK events and characters, and you can play with the audience’s expectation. Things have changed. Some things play out the way you expect… some don’t. It’s basically the same solution Marvel Comics has in terms of publishing, the way they use their ULTIMATES line to reboot continuity”

– It seems Moriarty was right back then and this film will take place in an alternate universe that was created by Nero and or older Spock
that will allow established canon to co-exist with the established time line of the last 40 plus years. Thus, in this new timeline Kirk will not suffer the ridiculous fate that was given to him in Generations or Spock may not be the same emotionless character that we have known
for 40 years. While at the same time these characters will maintain their core traits.

My question is are these still the same characters that we have always known or are they simply people who have the same name and look like those people?

60. the constable - February 28, 2009

I understand that these lines are paraphrased, but I do wonder if (some of) the dialogue in this film isn’t rather “hokey” (given the material that has been presented in the trailers, too).

61. Unbel1ever - February 28, 2009

The “destruction of Vulcan” tidbit isn’t exactly new. That’s been suspected for quite some time now. After all, what’s the point of an alternate universe, if everything is the same. We’ll see, wether Kirk will be a “great man” in the new one, too. The line suggests, that Nero isn’t after Kirk at all. I guess they just run into each other and Nero recognizes Kirk, since he’s read the Starfleet historic database. It also shows, that Nero is aware of the “alternate universe” he has created.

Well, the trailer will be online on Monday, am I right ?

62. TrekMD - February 28, 2009

I’m getting goosebumps just READING the description of the trailer. Can we use some of this movie’s time travel to get to May 8?!?!?!? :-)

63. Alex B. - February 28, 2009

OMG! Cannot stand it. The wait is nearly over. And I needed a reason to go see the Watchmen.

64. Gary Seven of Nine - February 28, 2009

#16

Just because San Francisco is on the plaque doesn’t necessarily mean the that E was built there. San Francisco could be her home port. For example, The real-life USS Abraham Lincoln was built in Newport News, Va while her home port is Everett Washington and she was commissioned in Norfolk, VA. Even the Titanic was built in Belfast and her port of registry was Liverpool.

65. 750 Mang - February 28, 2009

#59. VOODOO – February 28, 2009

I remember that aicn story too. Yup it seems he was right. But I still think it’s a giant cop-out. And once more not the origin story of TOS.

Remember the Farragut!

66. Armalarm - February 28, 2009

You know what i noticed…i think its perfectly reasonable to change a few things in this new time line. i mean Nero goes back in time and destroys the kelvin which sets a new future. so that would mean Enterprise being built in Iowa instead of San Fransico, Vulcan imploding…

its like the Enterprise episode: In a mirror darkly.
they show the final scene from First contact, but instead of Cochrane shaking hands he shoots the vulcan, which leads to the terran empire.
i know its a mirror universe, but it was a different timeline that shifted in a differente way

67. bgiles73 - February 28, 2009

36. So was Alderan! ;)

68. Jefferies Tuber - February 28, 2009

The first trailer clearly shows Vulcan being evacuated

… The last trailer features the Narada’s drill weapon attacking San Francisco

… Countdown #2 implies Romulus has been destroyed in the last panel

… and you guys are only just now catching on that Vulcan will be destroyed.

I think Vulcan AND EARTH AND ROMULUS are all toast for at least a portion of this movie.

At some point, there was a post on here about the entire Klingon fleet being destroyed by the Narada.

69. SerenityActual - February 28, 2009

Loved the description, thanks for posting it and all the work you did today.

I cannot wait til May!

70. OneBuckFilms - February 28, 2009

68 – I think Vulcan may be destroyed, but the Finale will be to prevent the same fate for Earth.

71. jas_montreal - February 28, 2009

LOVE IT !!! LOVE IT !!!! CAN’T WAIT !!!!!!! MAY THIS MOVIE LIVE LONG AND PROSPER WHEN IT COMES OUT !

72. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - February 28, 2009

43. Robert Saint John:

Not Joe’s Planet IV! NO!!!!

73. Green-Blooded-Bastard - February 28, 2009

“James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life.”
…a planet imploding (possibly Vulcan).

Man, talk about painting a picture!

74. Liz - February 28, 2009

I can deal with Vulcan blowing up and the Enterprise being a warship. But Spock hugging Uhura? Is he is Ponn Far or something??

75. DavidJ - February 28, 2009

Was fortunate to be there, and thought the trailer was freakin FANTASTIC (just a shame they only showed it once).

The best part were the shots of the Enterprise. Even from my crappy seat, I was completely blown away by the shots and FX. The Enterprise is truly magnificent on screen, and seeing it in pitch battle with phasers firing in every direction, or soaring over the camera, was just cool as hell (it looks like we’re FINALLY going to get some movie space battle scenes to rival those of DS9).

And I know people are worried about JJ having the ship doing “barrel rolls” or zipping around like the Millennium Falcon, but at least in the shots I saw, it seemed like there was still very much a weight and grace to the way the ship moved. If anything, it’s the camera that’s doing most of the moving around here, with the camera tilting and swooping around all the different ships (again, reminded me somewhat of shots in the later years of DS9).

As for the dialogue, I know some of it seems a bit hokey or stilted on the page, but it all sounded perfectly fine and natural on screen. At least to me. The only odd bit was Pine’s “Yeah we do” line before sitting in the chair, where I swear he sounded a little like Christian Slater. lol. Or maybe I just imagined it.

All in all, though, it was a great trailer. More than anything, there’s just a great sense of ENERGY to it. When Quinto said afterwards that he was speechless and in shock for 20 minutes after seeing the entire movie, I believed him.

76. DavidJ - February 28, 2009

Oh and no offense to Anthony, but I never got the impression that was supposed to be Vulcan imploding. It looked like just another average planet that was being used for target practice by Nero.

77. AJ - February 28, 2009

74:

Liz:

Spock is a youngster at this point, and may have come to Earth to freely emote before making a decision to do otherwise. Our favorite Vulcan/Human hybrid Spock was very emotional in the first two pilots, don’t forget. And Vulcan emotional drives are strong.

78. Rastaman - February 28, 2009

Trailer sounds promising. I’m such a sucker because I wasn’t interested in Watchmen but might go see it now just for the Trek trailer. Then again, that’s like $4.75/minute.

Hmmm … geek crisis!!!

79. The Governator - February 28, 2009

To Anthony Pascale:

SInce you’ve seen the new trailer, out of all the trailers, which is your favorite?

80. Odkin - February 28, 2009

“yeah, we do” doesn’t sound like Kirk to me. Kirk would say something like “Someone… will HAVE… to take charge”.

81. Anthony Pascale - February 28, 2009

Governator,

I would say that standalone this one is the best, but it is hard to beat the first theatrical because 100% of it was new stuff.

82. Anthony Pascale - February 28, 2009

LostOnNCC1701

do not post these giant things here ok

83. iyellkhan! - February 28, 2009

comment 47 rocks

84. Dyson Sphere - February 28, 2009

@59 “You can introduce these Universe2 versions of classic TREK events and characters, and you can play with the audience’s expectation. Things have changed. Some things play out the way you expect…”

Kinda like Battlestar Galactica but not – more of a kick ass Trek timeline?

Maybe one which the Prime Directive has a “…shut up mutha $%&” bad ass escape clause if things get hairy? Or just a less predictable way to tell a story than the 1960’s episodes?

JJ, I salute you

85. The Governator - February 28, 2009

81. A.P.

Thanks. Can’t wait!

86. RD - February 28, 2009

REEEEEEEEEE-BOOOOOOOOOOOOOT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOW ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN.

CANON IS DEAD! LONG LIVE THE CANON!

87. VOODOO - February 28, 2009

#27 Third Remata’klan

This is not a reboot in the truest sense of the word. It’s a sequel/prequel and reboot all rolled into one. The film takes place in an alternate universe that is created by Nero. All that has gone before will stand and this film will take place in another time line. Anthony’s description combined with stories that leaked a long time ago (see post #59) all but confirm this. Bob Orci himself has pretty much confirmed this.

Enterprise #17.

“I think they prevent Vulcan from blowing up, right?”

Nope. I think that is Vulcan from the second time line that is destroyed. I’d bet it stays that way.

* I also find it somewhat telling that Leonard Nimoy was again omitted from a theatrical trailer.

88. Iowagirl - February 28, 2009

…‘great Captain Kirk’ from ‘another life’.

‘Course he was.

89. Neil - February 28, 2009

I loved that they showed Simon Pegg briefly in the trailer, it was a shame he didn’t attend the panel.

90. Spock with a Crowbar - February 28, 2009

I saw the trailer today at the panel. The description above, while accurate, can’t communicate how dire it makes the stakes feel. It was just the tone of the imagery combined with the music. It’s the most epic feeling trailer I’ve ever seen.

Oh, and Nero is very angry and seemingly desperate when he delivers that Kirk line. THAT’s the line in the trailer that gave me chills.

91. Sean4000 - February 28, 2009

Theoretically, even if this new Kirk does rise up and become a great person, it’s possible his timeline would end once Nero is stopped. But, talk about a suckfest. You are high and mighty one minute then snuffed out the next. Just a thought. It could end with the timeline being allowed to exist. Who knows.

92. Shatner_Fan_Prime - March 1, 2009

I don’t know why people are jumping on #47. I did not read his post either, but what, your poor widdle fingers can’t scroll past his post? People are such babies sometimes.

93. Devon - March 1, 2009

#1 – Vulcan imploding?

Oh dear. People are NOT going to be happy about this.”

I’m sure the people of Vulcan wont be!

94. thebiggfrogg - March 1, 2009

I really can’t buy Kirk becoming captain, so quickly. Even on a “little training cruise” there is no “adult supervision” except the incapacitated captain and first officer? I hope he isn’t wearing captain’s stripes in that scene. The E is growing on me, but the bridge looks abysmal. I’m giving it a chance, but I hope they don’t strain credulity and I hope there is some Trek in the movie–what I mean is that this movie should be more than action. There should be some meat to it.

95. TrekMadeMeWonder - March 1, 2009

I am probably way oof here. Hopefully.

The main problem I see with the new universe or timeline idea is that it may not compliment or add to Trek’s real history.

It would be better if there was a new TV series on the way next season to buttress the alternate unvirese. So much went into this one Trek. It should be great, and I look forward to it, but to depend on one ‘new’ movie to reimagine and reinvigorate Trek is asking alot. I wonder if the public will get it? Currently I am wondering if I will get it.

Still, generally, this movie looks good and I will see it opening weekend.

96. The Wild Man of Borneo - March 1, 2009

#37

yeah, but he wasn’t a cadet fresh out of the academy and had already 7 years under his belt before that happened. it’s a little more believeable.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Geordi_La_Forge

97. rumpcuż - March 1, 2009

Let me guess: Noone bootlegged it!

98. ENGON - March 1, 2009

#36

“But Basketball was a peaceful planet!”

99. ENGON - March 1, 2009

Despite Bob Orci’s faith in Hugh Everett’s “Many Worlds” explanation of quantum physics, it is just one of several possibilities including the older Copenhagen and more recent Transactional interpretation. These various interpretations are consistent with the bizarre behavior of subatomic particles, but none of these ideas has been proven to be correct and the objective “reality” of quantum physics does not hang on any of these provisional explanations. So, just don’t swallow that failing to accept alternate universes (and, apparently, the premise of this film) is the same thing as denying the findings of the last 100 years of physics.

100. JJ - March 1, 2009

If you wanted to do a series reboot, what better way to start than to destroy Vulcan (and possibly San Francisco). Two locations that were key to the old Trek timeline and continuity being wiped off the map would create all kinds of possibilities, no?

And a Federation that emerges from such 9-11 style shocks would be markedly different from the one we saw in TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY. So, if this film is successful and there are sequels, they can pretty much do whatever they want without running into the canon police.

101. Don Farnsworth - March 1, 2009

The imploding planet will be the one from the comics. No need to worry about Vulcan.

Who ever said it would be an alternate timeline?

102. JJ - March 1, 2009

I don’t know. I hope they do mess with the timeline permanently.

I’d be terribly dissapointed if nothing of consequence actually happens in the movie just so we can please the One True Trek “religious fundamentalists” among us. If you’d go through all the trouble of paying ILM to destroy a planet, it should be a place the audience has some emotional investment in. If it is some two-bit colonial outpost we’ve never seen before (or care about) as usual, then the franchise hasn’t really changed at all. It is still playing it safe. It still refuses to take creative risks. And that’s a recipe for more failure.

103. Morty - March 1, 2009

AICN reported a longtime ago from an anonymous source that Vulcan could be destroyed. The same article was also the first (I believe) to state that the film would depict a new timeline created by Romulans travelling back in time. I think its pretty clear folks that it is Vulcan imploding in the Trailer!

However, whether or not Vulcan will still be destroyed at the end of the movie remains to be seen. It seems likely that the movie will depict several timelines and I recall another report (think it might have been on AICN also) stating that the opening sequence in Star Trek would be spectacular but that it would have the canonista’s up in arms! I suspect that Nero will destroy Vulcan at the start of the movie but that we may revisit that event at the end of the film.

This is just a wild guess of course but it would fit in with what has previously been reported and the footage shown to the international media. I seem to recall Anthony describing the scene on the ice planet where Kirk is instructed by older Spock to travel back in time. I can’t remember if it was implicitly stated that they travel back in time or not I may have just jumped to this conclusion from a remark Kirk made to Spock along the lines of “isn’t that cheating?”. However, I’m fairly certain its been stated that the scenes on the Ice planet are after the fight on the rig and if Vulcan had just been destroyed it would add more credence to the notion of Spock marooning Kirk on the planet.

104. thorsten - March 1, 2009

@103…

Kirk says to Spock Prime: “Coming back in time, changing history, it’s cheating.”

He is referring to Spocks Time Travel.

105. K. Thatcher - March 1, 2009

No one has been able to explain sufficiently why the need for such an elaborate back story – seemingly jumping through hoops – to change Trek’s history in order to rework the franchise to appeal to the masses. Why not tell the story of the early Enterprise as it was? Certainly there is enough history available to fill in areas dramatically? The turn-off for me about this whole film is the Nero story seems very hackneyed and contrived – it’s basically a crutch for the writers to say, “well, we may have got some things very wrong, but…. it was all an alternate timeline to begin with – yeah, that’s it!”

106. Dom - March 1, 2009

103. Morty

After setting up a new timeline, any attempt to reset it yet again would be utter creative cowardice. Having seen the work of Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci before, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that they have no issues with completely shaking up the status quo!

The rumour of the destruction of Vulcan has been kicking around for a long time now and it’s looking like a dead cert. I’m more than certain JJ has the balls to do this and many other things.

It’s great to know Star Trek is back rather than ‘Safe Trek!’

107. K. Thatcher - March 1, 2009

The true test of all this Nero nonsense is whether my Wife, a non-fan who wants to see the movie, will buy it. I keep rolling through my head how I am going to explain it to her – “Remember when Sue Ellen woke up and found Bobby in the shower and it turned out the whole previous season of Dallas was a dream?”

108. Dom - March 1, 2009

105. K. Thatcher

It’s more a case of giving Trek continuity an enema! Trek was bogged down by 25 years worth of post TOS era continuity, covering a lot of the period post Generations opening all the way through to the 29th century.

For a revamped franchise, that’s an enormous creative straitjacket. By having Nero destroy Vulcan, we know once and for all that this is a new Trek where different things will happen. Chances are, this Kirk won’t exile Khan, won’t be on the Enterprise-B, won’t be involved in the Whalesong crisis!

Now, there’s a sense of danger back. We don’t know the future of this universe. Any character has the potential to be killed at any time and anything can happen. Hell, we might even see Kirk vs the Borg this time round!

i doubt the parallel universe thing will be made a big issue of in the movie itself. There’ll be just enough to say that Nero has travelled from a different universe and royally changed history in this new one.

If people are going to be really fussy, the changes in the timeline go back to before Nero anyway, as the Kelvin is a different design and the uniforms of her crew aren’t anything like those of The Cage or Enterprise!

109. True Blood - March 1, 2009

Sounds to me that it would be an odd choice NOT to use the score from the movie in this trailer since it’s already done. Actually its’ already gone into production doing the CD slip and design etc.

SO…

I’m guessing you heard the actual score to this movie.

110. K. Thatcher - March 1, 2009

108. Dom

So essentially JJ Abrams wants us to forsake everything we know about Trek’s past in the name of making it edgier and selling more movie tickets? “Forget everything you know because Nero’s come back in time and made a mess of the whole thing! Now, anything can happen: Kirk and Spock become bitter enemies, Uhura starts her own fashion line, Kirk faces the Borg, Dogs and Cats living together – its Anarchy!” That is what is considered a hack job – take the easy way out instead of challenging themselves to tell their story within the confines of the Trek universe as it known. I will see this film because I am essentially a bot programmed to feed my curiosity, but I am not drinking the kool-aid.

111. Holger - March 1, 2009

I like Nero’s remark that Kirk was a great man in another life. This is a nice reference to the primary timeline (i.e. the one we’ve seen for the last 40 years).

But this also made me suddenly realize that this time-travel premise puts the movie in a real dilemma: Either the time-line will be more or less restored in the end – which eliminates the events of the movie! So in this case we’re shown 2 hours of stuff which “didn’t really happen”. Well, ok, that approach has worked for TNG Yesterday’s Enterprise. But that was one TV episode, not a big movie.
Or else, the primary time-line is not restored – which renders all the events we’ve seen and loved about Spock, Kirk etc. unreal (i.e. not part of the present time-line). Ok, Bob Orci has implied this won’t be so.

But in either case, I’m bothered that we won’t see how Spock, Kirk, Bones and the others “really” met for the first time, we won’t see how Kirk “really” took the Kobayashi Maru Test, etc.
So all the great opportunities which a beginnings-story presents are just wasted.
I agree with 105: why all these epicycles? We could have been shown the “real” beginnings just as well. But now the movie is in the no-win situation that it has to render either itself irrelevant, or it has to render the Star Trek legacy irrelevant. Hmmm!?

112. Devon - March 1, 2009

#105 – You are complicating things for yourself if you are demanding an explanation. No one needs to justify why they wanted to tell a particular story to you. They never had to before, they don’t now. It is what it is, just roll along with it and make the most of it.

113. CmdrR - March 1, 2009

Aaaaah! If this movie doesn’t come out soon, Nero won’t need a big evile gadget. My head will implode on its own.

114. Dom - March 1, 2009

110. K. Thatcher

In fairness, it’s not without precedent in literature and the media.

DC had its Crisis storylines, Marvel had House of M. Series of novels such as the Three Investigators moved their setting from the 1960s to contemporary times, Colin Dexter stopped writing Inspector Morse novels and continued the series with the ‘new’ Inspector Morse with Sergeant Lewis brought more in line with the TV version. Fletch got Fletch Won and Fletch Too.

If any series runs for long enough there are going to be certain inevitabilities: a ‘next generation’ series dealing with the children of the original characters (TNG), a prequel storyline dealing with the parents of those characters (Enterprise and, unprecedentedly, The Cage) before a complete reboot happens.

The new Trek film’s approach to its forebears is an inevitability in the cycle of such things and die-hard Star Trek fans should be glad the team decided to create an ‘in-continuity’ reboot, rather than outrightly overhaul everything.

Realistically, there’s little left to say about the original Trek universe. The 21st, 22nd, 23rd and 24th centuries have been comprehensively covered, be it through the actual shows and movies, backstory references or time travel stories. We know things don’t change that much (barring Countdown’s the new film’s reference to what we assume is the destruction of Romulus and Remus) between the TNG era and the 29th century where the Federation still exists in TNG style and are now effectively Time Lords. After that, we’re getting into territory too complex for a mainstream TV show.

A ‘continuity plugin’ film would be likely to get up fans’ noses unless it was like New Voyages, which wouldn’t appeal to the larger audience, so switching to an exciting new universe that shares some backstory with the old, but has an unknown future, means that we can get an renewed Trek telling new stories in a feasible future setting. I mean, come a sequel to Star Trek (2009), we’re likely to be having the new team on the five-year mission a la TOS, only with more modern sets and technology.

115. Dom - March 1, 2009

111. Holger: ‘But this also made me suddenly realize that this time-travel premise puts the movie in a real dilemma: Either the time-line will be more or less restored in the end – which eliminates the events of the movie! So in this case we’re shown 2 hours of stuff which “didn’t really happen”. Well, ok, that approach has worked for TNG Yesterday’s Enterprise. But that was one TV episode, not a big movie.’

This has been covered on this site: the events in the ‘original’ Trek universe lead to the creation of the new film’s universe, which is a separate entity from the TOS/TNG one that will carry on as before!

‘But in either case, I’m bothered that we won’t see how Spock, Kirk, Bones and the others “really” met for the first time, we won’t see how Kirk “really” took the Kobayashi Maru Test, etc.’

Well, we managed to watch Trek for 40 years without worrying about it and we’ve got several books telling of hypothetical meetings including by Bill Shatner and Vonda McIntyre!

‘We could have been shown the “real” beginnings just as well. But now the movie is in the no-win situation that it has to render either itself irrelevant, or it has to render the Star Trek legacy irrelevant. Hmmm!?’

The original Trek continuity created this new universe so it is relevant. It’s not going anywhere. The new universe is equally relevant as that is where all subsequent Treks for the foreseeable will be set!

116. Rhett Coates - March 1, 2009

#33 / #37; and #96: This is not without precedent. Yes, Geordi took over the Ent-D on occasion, and DeSalle took over the Big E in TOS on occasion. Even Uhura took over the Big E in an episode of TAS – after an outrageous situation left only the women unaffected by [that story’s plot device]. On TNG, Dr. Crusher went through Command training – taking over the Ent-D in the two-part episode “Descent” (featuring Lore and Hugh). Apparently, lower rank personnel, or even the ship’s CMO (Chief Medical Officer) can command in certain circumstances. So young Jim Kirk taking over for Pike (instead of Spock) or some other senior officer may have good reason in this particular story; we’ll have to see the film ourselves to confirm it. (I suspect Bob and Alex have VERY good reason, and one that will satisfy even those who work in our era’s military – and a good enough reason to not raise very many eyebrows. (Use your imagination – in the practical sense: when a crisis of this magnitude [in ST XI] occurs, you often work “by the seat of your pants.” Some call that performing “on the fly” of the situation. Think about it….)

#47: LOL – reading that plot idea, I kept thinking of your comments throughout the piece as though I were sitting in a movie theater while listening to (and participating with/in) a live audience – yelling out comments during a showing of “Rocky Horror Picture Show.” LOL!

117. K. Thatcher - March 1, 2009

“112. Devon – March 1, 2009

#105 – You are complicating things for yourself if you are demanding an explanation. No one needs to justify why they wanted to tell a particular story to you. They never had to before, they don’t now. It is what it is, just roll along with it and make the most of it.”

If that’s the case, what is the point of this discussion board? Why not shut down and wait until the movie comes out and just accept it for what it is? I think I have every right to questions and expect answers. That is what being a fan is all about – I’ve invested 40 years and alot of my money in this franchise. It’s like being a fan of a football team and someone saying, “you shouldn’t demand an explanation for why your team is losing, just keep spending your two thousand dollars a year for season tickets and except it for what its worth.”

Dom: I hear what you’re saying, but my point all along has been why bother re-imagining Trek: TOS? Why not just wait a few years and introduce a new generation to us? Why not a new ship, characters, and enemies that are relevant to our era – much the same way TOS was relevant to the 60’s, TNG to the 80’s and so forth. I could accept that far more than what they are trying to do in this movie. Holger makes some valid points: if the timeline is restored at the end of this film, why should I care about this story? If it isn’t, we face a future of Trek that isn’t rooted in anything – we basically abandon everything the long-time trek fan has known.

118. K. Thatcher - March 1, 2009

The bottom line here is that I guess I take exception to all the people on this board who say, “this sounds wonderful” and “this sounds cool”. And, when someone raises a criticism or asks a question or says, “whoa, wait a minute – this doesn’t sound quite right”, they are told to just accept what the creators are feeding us and not to rock the boat. I hope that this movie succeeds, but, I am going to remain skeptical

119. thorsten - March 1, 2009

@117…

Again another Ship?
Again another crew?
Again new alien races?
That did not work for Voyager.
It did not work for Enterprise.

No, the only right decision was to go back to the heart and soul of Star Trek,
and infuse it with a hefty dose of 21st century SFX and storytelling.

120. The Governator - March 1, 2009

119. thorsten

How true you are.

121. cugel the clever - March 1, 2009

111. Holger
“We could have been shown the “real” beginnings just as well”

After thousands of posts on this subject, you and many other canon cops still don’t get it. There is no absolute “reality”. The timeline depicted in the movie is every bit as valid as “your” reality. The multiverse concept IS CANON. Your “canon” is simply one of an infinite number of equally valid universes. I for one hope that the new visions in this film (Enterprise redesign, attack on Vulcan and earth, etc) are NOT reset at the end and returned to the same old TOS-NG-DS9-VOY story arc.

I want to see new stories and a new direction.

Stop arguing about it and get used to it. Whether you like it or not, this is the new reality.

122. Dom - March 1, 2009

117. K. Thatcher: ‘ my point all along has been why bother re-imagining Trek: TOS? Why not just wait a few years and introduce a new generation to us? Why not a new ship, characters, and enemies that are relevant to our era – much the same way TOS was relevant to the 60’s, TNG to the 80’s and so forth.’

Because ultimately the wider, casual viewing public’s perception of Star Trek is Kirk, Spock and McCoy, the USS Enterprise and ‘Beam me up, Scotty!’

A hypothetical ‘Star Trek: The nth Generation’ would only end up being TOS or TNg with fancy knobs on. Plus, as I say, there’s already too much future history been dealt with in the 40-plus years of the Trek franchise!

In terms of brand awareness, the original Star Trek is the best bet to run with.

‘I could accept that far more than what they are trying to do in this movie.’

But Joe Public would ignore it!

‘Holger makes some valid points: if the timeline is restored at the end of this film, why should I care about this story?’

It won’t be. It’s a separate universe.

‘If it isn’t, we face a future of Trek that isn’t rooted in anything – we basically abandon everything the long-time trek fan has known.’

Far from it: we get a Star Trek rooted in today’s world, our early-21st Century hopes and fears, our present day technology and our perceptions of where it might go. I mean, even a lot of TNG’s conceptual tech (not warp drive obviously!) is dated now and likely to be surpassed in a few years’ time. Certainly, computer tech is going at a phenomenal rate with sentient AI being considered a strong possibility as soon as 2029!

TNG in comparison has no Galactic version of the internet and no AI on the Enterprise!

123. Pock Speared - March 1, 2009

does no one here imagine that l’orcster and kurtzy understand the problems that resets and time travel present to long time trek viewers? it’s not going to be simple or expected, but based on every word i’ve heard from them (and particularly what they haven’t said), i believe the plot will provide a new and tasty resolution.

our timeline won’t be lost and i’m positive that kirk will very much be “our kirk” as the credits run. bet on it. spock wouldn’t have it any other way now, would he?

124. Dom - March 1, 2009

123. Pock Speared

‘does no one here imagine that l’orcster and kurtzy understand the problems that resets and time travel present to long time trek viewers?’

Of course they do! The way some people speak of them here, you’d think they were talking about ignorant kids, not professional screenwriters!

‘our timeline won’t be lost and i’m positive that kirk will very much be “our kirk” as the credits run. bet on it. spock wouldn’t have it any other way now, would he?’

The whole point of the film appears to be that Nero’s actions in this universe represent some sort of universal threat. Nimoy’s Spock has to oversee pulling all the various TOS characters, who are all in the wrong places, together to fight Nero.

So effectively we’ll get the core team back together, only via the ‘scenic’ route!

125. Chris Roberts - March 1, 2009

My feeling Is Countdown will have Romulas destroyed.Neo blames Vulcan and the Federation.He IS caught by Klingons.The begining of the film his group frees him.They have learned how to time travel.They go to kill the greatest captain In Starfleet History James T Kirk on the day he was born.However possibly with the add of 24th Century Spock George Kirk In command of the Kelvin Is able to get most of the crew Including his wife and newborn son and ram the romulans.

This changes Kirk’s backstory,changes devolpment of ship designs,and has the Romulans be aware of much earlier(however It Is still not known they are offshots of vulcans)

Neo returns to destroy Vulcan however the Enterprise Is able to get many
Vulcans off the planet before It Is destroyed.

Neo then because Vulcans were not completly annahaleted deceded to then destroy Earth(the superbowl spot has a shot which suggests Earth
being attacked) Older Spock has to go to Kirk and Scotty to get Kirk back on the Enterprise because he knows If one man can defeat Neo It Is Kirk.

The climix of the film Is Kirk commanding the enterprise to stop the destrucon of the Earth.Kirk,and spock for the first time have to work together to do this.They go over to the romulan ship.Kirk faces Neo who may taunt him over Kirk was a great man but that was another time.
Pike may be killed by the romulans to give him a more heroic end.

Based on the brief shot of Kirk In the captain’s uniform It Is possible the final moments will be a few years later with Kirk now officially captain with all the crew in their official postions going out on their mission.

126. Dom - March 1, 2009

Pike could well end up in his wheelchair, just like in TOS.

That said, if the guys have been really daring, they could keep Pike around as an Admiral/mentor after Kirk becomes captain!

127. wilj - March 1, 2009

#111-“But in either case, I’m bothered that we won’t see how Spock, Kirk, Bones and the others “really” met for the first time”

They didn’t, that is, not all at once. The age difference is to big for that. When Kirk becomes a cadet, Scotty is 28, Chekov 5 and Uhura 11.

128. Z - March 1, 2009

salivating =))

129. FarDreaming - March 1, 2009

I have to admit I was all on board until now. With the “Kirk-centric” way the movie seems to be definitely leaning, and the possible destruction of Vulcan, this may go from what I had hoped would be multiple return viewings to a one-time deal.

130. Dom - March 1, 2009

129. FarDreaming

The original Star Trek was always Kirk-centric. He was only absent from The Cage, one animated episode and three films (which were TNG ones anyway!!)

The destruction of Vulcan simply points to us getting back to the much more dangerous ‘death can strike at any moment’ universe of TOS!

131. schitzonic - March 1, 2009

Dom – I think you’re forgetting that TNG was a pop culture phenomenon in its own right. It was HUGELY popular in its final seasons – and references to Picard and Data can be found all over pop refernces of the early 90s.

Unfortunately, several bad movies and TV shows diluted this popularity. They alienated the mass public (and many casual fans) because they were embarrassing, poorly written, acted, and CHEAP looking.

I’m with K. Thatcher – I think a new generation could ignite the masses interest in Star Trek again – provided it’s quality work and it’s relevant to our time. (i.e. a financially pressed Federation that owes the Romulans trillions in latinum)

It doesn’t have to be Kirk, Spock, and “beam me up Scotty.”

132. cf - March 1, 2009

Isn’t it now tho (assuming no reset) that it is the TOS – Nemesis/Countdown timeline which is now an alternative timeline due to Nero’s meddling, & not this film’s timeline, as surely the destruction of the Kelvin will happen in 2233 on our calender, & therefore this will be the true origins as stated by Orci & co??

133. cf - March 1, 2009

Either way, just roll on may!!

134. falcon - March 1, 2009

@47 – How appropriate.

And if this is, indeed, the way the movie plays out, THANKS FOR SPOILING IT FOR THE REST OF US! :-)

Now turn your flux capacitor off.

135. The Original Mark T. - March 1, 2009

I am bummed that I am AT Wondercon, and can’t see any of this or the Watchmen stuff. My partner and I have a booth for our business, Humerus. If any of you are still there on Sunday, please stop by booth 1120 and tell me what you thought of it all.

136. Steven - March 1, 2009

The new trailer sounds cool. Can’t wait to see it!

God bless!

137. The Original Animated Next Generation Deep Space Voyager Enterprise - March 1, 2009

Not what I was hoping for. Bleh.

138. CaptainRickover - March 1, 2009

After all this discussion about “new trek” and “old trek”, the later will better be sealed and buried by some of the people here (so it seems), I have one question?

Why press the in-universe reset-button (and change everything we know) and not made a entire reboot, create a new Star Trek universe with everything new and exiting?

here my points:
– people don’t have to wonder why Kirk can drive a car
– Pike’s possible death would do no harm to continuity (and there is no question left, why Kirk try to rescue his old friend Kirk and not his friend Pike too)
– The Enterprise could be build anywhere, even in antarctica
– Chekov’s age would be no matter of discussion
– Vulcan’s fate could be everything, blown up, restored or look entirly different
– The Enterprise could have any new design
– The level of technology could be updated without any problems.
– the 24th century is an unwritten place, TNG and all “Berman-Trek” could be ignored

@Dom:
I think not, that I have to thank Abrams, Orci & Co. that they left this movie in the “old universe” (as you sayed in one of your previous posts), if they rewrite everything and change everything for easier storytelling. Then, they better have done the “reboot”-thing and name it as such one.

139. Capt. of the USS Anduril - March 1, 2009

By the way, did anyone else notice that “Your father was captain for 12 minutes, he save EIGHT HUNDRED lives” line? 800?! On the little tiny Kelvin?? When the Enterprise only has a crew of 400?? This breaks the laws of physics and Scotty isn’t involved!

140. Montreal Paul - March 1, 2009

139. Capt. of the USS Anduril

It doesn’t necessarily mea nthe 800 lives were all on board the Kelvin.. they could have been on other ships and on the planet too. Such linear thinking.. good Lord.

141. spock - March 1, 2009

139.. our aircraft carriers have thousands on them. Its a little thing called technology that would reduce the size of the crew.

I can live with an alternate time line, Trek needed to get rid of the modern trek baggage it had attached to it.

142. Jefferies Tuber - March 1, 2009

among the many things we don’t know: whether Nero is imprisoned by Klingons in the Kelvin era or his own [post NEMESIS] time period.

143. Anthony Pascale - March 1, 2009

hi guys, glad you enjoyed the reporting. Anyway there was somethign goofy going on with some comments and I fixed it but i think a couple comments from Sunday morning got lost in the shuffle, so if yours winked out just post it again.

144. Chris Roberts - March 1, 2009

ANother big question Is how much Leonard Nimoy Is In the film.For sure we only know about him meeting Kirk and Scotty on the Ice planet.Based on comments he may have more than the Ice planet with Scotty since reports say he worked the most with Simpn Pegg.And based on reports he also shares scenes with Zachary Quonto and Zoe Saldana.Another question will we see Spock In the 24th century before his time travels
back.

My guess Is spock meets with his younger self at the academy,and may bump Into Uhuru too at this time,and shows up on The Enterprise to help Scotty.Now I could be wrong just specultion.

Since It was earlier reported the 24th century would be visted In the film Neo was Imprisoned in the post nemesis timeframe by Klingons.It would not surprise me if the 24th century Is only seen of Neo as a prisoner,being resuced by his group,and then traveling through time with the possibly of Spcok In his ship seen following them.

145. OneBuckFilms - March 1, 2009

i suspect Spock’s first appearance on film will be when he shows up on the Ice Planet (Delta Vega), and introduces him to Scotty.

He then likely turns up at the 11th hour, with his ship (seen in the trailer) to help out in some way.

He’s not going to be present during the entire movie, but will appear at 2, maybe 3 pivotal points in the story.

After all, this is Pine, Quinto and gang’s movie, and we don’t want Nimoy to steal their thunder.

146. Dom - March 1, 2009

131. schitzonic: ‘I think you’re forgetting that TNG was a pop culture phenomenon in its own right. It was HUGELY popular in its final seasons – and references to Picard and Data can be found all over pop refernces of the early 90s.’

No I’m not. Trek in the early 1990s was in a completely different situation from where it stands now. TNG was launched on the back of the The Voyage Home: Star Trek IV, which was a Trek film that truly succeeded in crossing over into the mainstream. Star Trek (2009) is being launched standalone, years after the last Star Trek TV show sputtered and died and even more years since the last movie demonstrated an act of commercial suicide not seen since Batman and Robin soiled the movie business!

‘Unfortunately, several bad movies and TV shows diluted this popularity. They alienated the mass public (and many casual fans) because they were embarrassing, poorly written, acted, and CHEAP looking.’

Exactly. And you know what Joe Public does when he doesn’t care for something? He doesn’t do what we do and discuss why it’s rubbish: he forgets about it. On top of that, he’ll unconsciously ignore anything related to it unless something is done to re-ignite his interest!

‘ I think a new generation could ignite the masses interest in Star Trek again – provided it’s quality work and it’s relevant to our time. (i.e. a financially pressed Federation that owes the Romulans trillions in latinum)’

No, it wouldn’t. If the public bothered to pay a new generation even the tiniest bit of attention, it would be to laugh at it. Remember how the teaser for the new Trek film was laughed at in cinemas when it first played? The most sensible thing Paramount did was to delay the film till May to promote the hell out of this thing.

The public, as time went on and they increasingly ignored the cheap movies and seemingly endless succession of ‘nth generation’ TV shows, started to become more aware again of TOS.

A major player in this, of course, was Bill Shatner, whose imaged changed from the perceived ill-tempered egotist of the 1990s to the rotund, self-effacing talkshow circuit dweller and award winning actor in the likes of Boston Legal.

That, Star Trek: Remastered and the increasing number of Generation X and MTV Generation people who work in the business, of course! I mean how often has South Park referenced TOS, for example? One episode was near as dammit a remake of Dagger of the Mind!

People came to connect TOS with being a little less stiff and formal than later incarnations. In this decade, they aren’t really seeking patrician role models such as Picard and they certainly aren’t seeking the kind of heavy moralising that TNG could sometimes hand out! In The Drumhead, for example, Picard makes a speech in his courtroom scene. In the 1990s, that made people cheer. In Battlestar Galactica, Bill Adama tells Zarek and Gaeta’s drumhead court to ‘Shove it up your ass!’ to even louder cheers. We’re not in the 1990s now and this is a different world needing a different kind of Trek. And the characters of TOS work better in it than those of TNG!

‘It doesn’t have to be Kirk, Spock, and “beam me up Scotty.”’

Right now, they big boys would beg to differ. Star Trek, as was, died in 2005 and that was really a mercy killing, as the public had long since ceased to care about it! For now Star Trek is returning to its roots, ditching the kitsch and aiming to be a modern franchise. that’s why the new Enterprise is far more modern than even the Enterprise-E.

Kirk, Spock and McCoy are archetypes the public can latch on to with ease. The original Enterprise is iconic and looks much the same in this film as before. Star Trek (2009) is happening, like it or not. Maybe in a few years there’ll be another nth Generation show. But for now, Kirk Spock and McCoy are where we’re headed!

147. OneBuckFilms - March 1, 2009

138 – The movie is a Sequel, and a Reboot, in many ways.

It stays completely within continuity because it creates an alternate universe/timeline within continuity to allow the changes they need to make.

That is EXACTLY the way things are with this movie, as stated by all involved.

148. The Governator - March 1, 2009

Thanks Anthony for fixing the posting glitch. To continue….

149. DGill - March 1, 2009

The shot of Spock hugging Uhura could either be attributed to Pike’s death (who knows, maybe Uhura was particularly close to Pike), or Vulcan’s destruction. It all depends on who’s initiating the hug I guess.

Damn, I’m looking into this too much. I just want to see the trailer!

150. The Governator - March 1, 2009

137. The Original Animated Next Generation Deep Space Voyager Enterprise

“Not what I was hoping for. Bleh.”

So what were you hoping for, because it is exactly what I expected.

151. DGill - March 1, 2009

#125

“Older Spock has to go to Kirk and Scotty to get Kirk back on the Enterprise because he knows If one man can defeat Neo It Is Kirk.”

Actually, I don’t think Kirk could do it. Morpheus would be better equipped to deal with him.

Sorry, I know what you meant. I just had to have a little fun! :)

152. thorsten - March 1, 2009

@151…

You are grounded, Devan.
No trips with the Neb for you this week, Mister.

153. ENGON - March 1, 2009

I think it may be that if JJ Abrams had been more familiar with “Star Trek” when he began this project (he has stated that he wasn’t the “biggest fan”) he might have realized that the “Time Travel/Alternate Universe” paradox motif has been done to death in the franchise. It particularly got out of hand in the later spin-off series, but from that brief coda on the end of “The Naked Time” all the way up through the final season of “Enterprise,” the show has been hip deep in timeline paradox stories.

Even two of the feature films (three, if you count the brief loop-back in “Generations”) have already involved traveling backward in time to change/fix the outcome of something.

It all began innocently enough…

“It is now three days ago, Captain. We have three days to live over again.”
“Not those last three days.”

154. Holger - March 1, 2009

115 Dom: “This has been covered on this site: the events in the ‘original’ Trek universe lead to the creation of the new film’s universe, which is a separate entity from the TOS/TNG one that will carry on as before!”

Has it been covered? I am not aware that the ending of the movie has been given away on this site. Please tell me what I missed! (Except anybody’s opinion, of course.)

“Well, we managed to watch Trek for 40 years without worrying about it and we’ve got several books telling of hypothetical meetings including by Bill Shatner and Vonda McIntyre!”

But now it’s on a movie, so it doesn’t matter any more that we managed 40 years (or 27 years in the case of Kobayashi Maru) without it. And when it’s in a movie it’s not hypothetical or non-canon (like the novels) any more.

121 cugel the clever: “After thousands of posts on this subject, you and many other canon cops still don’t get it.”

My post was not about canon and I didn’t mention canon in my post 111. I accept that the parallel-universe approach by Orci and Kurtzman can preserve canon, technically speaking.

However, I kinda like ‘canon cop’ and prefer it over ‘canonista’. Makes me feel like I was Al Bester ;-)

“There is no absolute “reality”.”

If you read my post 111 carefully you will find that I’m aware of this. That’s why I have explicitly defined the ‘primary timeline’ as the one we’ve seen for the last 40 years.

“Stop arguing about it and get used to it.”

I still believe it’s up to me what I argue about and what I get used to.

“Whether you like it or not, this is the new reality.”

Ironically, now it’s you who’s assuming there is an absolute reality.

155. Dom - March 1, 2009

153. ENGON

Trek on TV and film mostly did alternate universes where the existing timeline was experiencing a corruption that needed fixing. The Mirror Universe and the Parallels multiverse were the exceptions.

Star Trek (2009) deals with a parallel universe that’s closer to the old status quo than the Mirror Universe was.

It might help to think of it as Nimoy’s Spock doesn’t so much time travel in the new film as cross over into a parallel universe that happens to be at an earlier point in its history than the one he comes from.

There’s no paradox that needs correcting in this film. It’s a different universe that’s been invaded by a bloke from the post-TNG-era universe and Nimoy’s Spock needs to assemble this universe’s equivalent of his old gang to stop. Nero!

156. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - March 1, 2009

153. ENGON

Yeah, can’t overdo the time travel aspect. That could ruin things. *Thinks about Dr. Who, Time Tunnel, Quantum Leap, Back to the Future et al* What was that again?

157. Holger - March 1, 2009

155 Dom: “It might help to think of it as Nimoy’s Spock doesn’t so much time travel in the new film as cross over into a parallel universe that happens to be at an earlier point in its history than the one he comes from.”

One wonders, however, why Spock bothers in the first place to cross over into some parallel universe which just happens to be such and such. If he doesn’t fear a corruption of his own timeline, what reason could he have to go to such lengths?

158. Chadwick - March 1, 2009

Granted io9.com had the first description of the new trailer and a great description but this was much more detailed, again like yesterday my excitement, anticipation, and yearning have increased another ten fold.

The first trailer (the teaser,) was fantastic, the music, the effects and shots of 1701 being built, the voices of the great people of the past all culminated to give a grandiose feeling that this is Star Trek and that this is something noble and honorable. Its like I felt pride as a human for accomplishments I hope we one day will achieve in the future, that is why Star Trek has a hold on me, that is why the teaser trailer was one if not the best teaser trailers I have ever seen. Most of Star Trek’s music has always had a feeling of nobility, pride, in a co-operative and peaceful way.

The second trailer was, incredible. No need to go into it, but the music was energizing, the effects, dialog, sets, everything shows that this is going to be a fantastic film. I remember people in the theatre saying “oh wow” and “I didn’t know there was another Star Trek coming out.” Most people who I assume were non-fans sounded impressed. Not one person in the theatre said, “lame, brutal, no thanks” or “Star Trek sucks.” Brilliant idea to show it with James Bond.

We are now two for two…a successful teaser and theatrical trailer.

The third trailer, which was the TV spot during super bowl, was as the second trailer..energetic and exciting. Brilliant idea to show it during super bowl.

Now we are given a fourth trailer with Watchmen, and from the sounds of it sounds as awesome, intense, and energetic as the second the third trailer but turned up to MAX.

Paramount has made the right and the smart moves showing the trailers with the right movies and at the right times. James Bond HUGE, Super Bowl HUGE, Watchmen HUGE. Traveling around to major cities to promote the movie is also a smart move.

Granted seeing a fourth trailer for Star Trek (and by the sounds of it, the best of them all) is a real treat for Star Trek fan. My eyes will gloss up, my heart will pound, and I will cheer. But above all else what I am most eagerly waiting is to gauge the reaction of the audience, most of which will not be Star Trek fans. That is what I can’t wait to experience. The first theatrical trailer, which came with James Bond, was above my expectations for the way the audience was going to react. If we Star Trek fans sitting in the theater opening night of Watchmen experience a positive reaction from the audience we KNOW at that moment this film will succeed.

The fact that this trailers sounds 10 times more exciting then past trailers, I expect many people are going to be wowed…. and at that spark of a moment non Star Trek fans will start thinking differently about what Star Trek is or what they thought it was, and that is what sends shivers up my spine..not just the experience I myself get from the movie, but sharing the experience with others and feeling their energy regarding the experience.

159. Holger - March 1, 2009

155, 157: To me it seems most plausible that we’ll have the same scenario as in First Contact: Time travel from 24th century into the past to prevent corruption of the time line, intervention successfull, however, intervention leaves traces. The residue of the First contact intervention was seen in ENT: Regeneration. In STXI the residue will be… well, that’s the question. Possibly massive alternations, like the horrible disfiguring of the TOS Enterprise ;-)

160. C quest - March 1, 2009

Spock hugging Uhura?
What is this?Star Trek or “Oprah”?

161. Devon - March 1, 2009

#132 – The Countdown comics take place in our regular timeline. This is all LEADING UP to when Nero goes and does his thing, not after Nero has went and done it.

162. Mark - March 1, 2009

All in all this trailer sounds VERY interesting.

I’m dying to see it!

Looks like there’s more to this movie than we thought. Pike out of commission?, Vulcan possibly destroyed? WOW this would get a lot canonistas spinning! This is NOT your typical Star Trek movie!!!!!

Alternate universe indeed!

163. CaptainRickover - March 1, 2009

@147 OneBuckFilms

I’m well aware what this new movie is, but my questions are still unanswered:

Why not an entire reboot? Why change the existing universe to make so many obvious canon violations? Why not reboot the entire franchise and create a new canon? That’ll give the writers and directors a greater freedom for any change they like.

It’s a very cheap trick, to create an alternate universe, only for the sake of change, IMO.

But: We all don’t know what’s the story of this new movie is (we know just a few dots here and some points there). It could turn out, that all the canon violations (or the most of them) will be fixed at the end (like in any good timetravel-episode) or they won’t (that’s my personal worst case scenario!!!)

Only May ’09 will reveal the truth…

164. Gorn Captain - March 1, 2009

163.

What is really the difference between a clean reboot and this in-universe explanation of a reboot? Is it really that big of a deal. Sadly, Star Trek was pretty much finished after Enterprise went off the air, and to get it going again, it needed to be freshened up a little. I think the fact that the film creates an alternate universe is a great way to open up new story opportunities and bring in more modern looking sets while not saying that over 40 years of canon “never happened.” I think it will work quite well, since it is like a reboot, but does not jettison all continuity.

165. Gorn Captain - March 1, 2009

Simply put, they did not make a clean reboot since they felt that making an in-universe explanation for the changes was a better way to respect a huge franchise with a strong fanbase.

166. ENGON - March 1, 2009

156. I Am Morg Not Eymorg

You forgot to mention “Sherman & Mr. Peabody” (aka “Peabody’s Improbable History “).

And for alternate universes, “Tooter Turtler.” — “Help Me, Mr. Wizard!”

If you can never have enough, why not just rename the whole thing to “Time Trek?”

167. mikey_pikey (Ireland) - March 1, 2009

reboot reboot, anyone remember this kid’s animation series, from the 90’s i believe it was called, reboot.

168. nx01 - March 1, 2009

Why is it news that there is a new trailer that we can’t see yet?

169. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - March 1, 2009

166. ENGON:

And I forgot the Time Machine which really started it all. I am saying I just never have understood the griping about time travel with among Trek fans. That would be like Dr. Who fans griping because the TARDIS just traveled through space and not time in some episodes. (which it did), or not traveled at all. (Which it rarely did in most of the third doctor’s tenure, which was very popular incidentally.)

By your own words you have made it clear that time travel is a large part of what Star Trek is about. Not the only thing mind you but certainly a key one. Now let’s examine why this might be the case. Could it be that because one of the father’s of science fiction used it in his most famous story and since then it has been a major part of science fiction itself?

Honestly, complaining about time travel in Star Trek would be like me complaining that there are too many episodes where they visit alien worlds or deal with some sort of space phenomena or discover some strange alien technology, or too many space battles. It would be one thing if there was more of a imbalance. But that just isn’t the case.

170. I Am Morg Not Eymorg - March 1, 2009

168. nx01:

So…you would rather he not say anything about it? Just lounge back, watch it and then just keep it to himself? You do know that’s ludicrous right?

Anthony is sharing what news he can. He saw the trailer, described it the best he could, and posted it on the board so that we can know about it.

I swear, I am beginning to think that genre fans are the surliest people this side of a Mugato. Yeeesh.

171. Dom - March 1, 2009

157. Holger: ‘One wonders, however, why Spock bothers in the first place to cross over into some parallel universe which just happens to be such and such. If he doesn’t fear a corruption of his own timeline, what reason could he have to go to such lengths?’

Well, that’s the point, isn’t it? Something Nero’s up to must threaten Nimoy’s Spock’s universe too!

172. WonderCon 2009: Star Trek Panel « Your Entertainment Now - March 1, 2009

[…] TrekMovie’s description of the […]

173. RaymondJ - March 1, 2009

Why are so many of you calling our antagonist “NEO” when it is in fact “NERO??” You may remember Neo was in the Matrix movies, not Trek. And I don’t think Keanu Reeves is in this movie…

174. Oktoberfest - March 1, 2009

@116 “Even Uhura took over the Big E in an episode of TAS – after an outrageous situation left only the women unaffected by [that story’s plot device].”

Hey! The Lorelei Signal was not outrageous!

The Magicks of Megas Tu, now that was outrageous.

175. Pete359 - March 1, 2009

Everyone seems worried about Vulcan being destroyed. While it’s not conclusive that the planet imploding is indeed Vulcan, I still think it would be pretty awesome if Vulcan were destroyed… at least temporarily.

Remember the comments about the writers using “Yesterday’s Enterprise” as inspiration. Well if Vulcan were destroyed I think that would be enough to shift the exploration-based Starfleet into a battle fleet not unlike the Enterprise-D in YE. And again, I’d bet that this darker timeline is fixed (or at least the process begins) early on.

Think of it, Nero travels back and blasts Vulcan into oblivion, he’s also destroys the Kelvin in an attempt to do two things, 1. kill or change Kirk to the point where he’s no longer a threat and 2. Seriously undermine the power of the Federation. Imagine what would happen if one of the founding planets of the Federation were destroyed and it’s people whittled down to a small handful? You’d get a mix of “Yesterday’s Enterprise” universe and ENT’s “Twilight” universe. I doubt very much Older Spock would risk travelling through time to save his old buddy Kirk and then NOT saving his entire frakking planet and it’s people? What was that saying of his again, the needs of the something something?

Now I hardly think the writers will let that timeline exists past the closing credits, but hey… they might.

176. SChaos1701 - March 1, 2009

I love this. Now, JJ and Co aren’t handicapped by having to rehash old stories. Good stuff.

If I am right and this brings back Star Trek Conventions all across the country. I already have my first cosplay. I’m going to dress as Capt. Matt Foley, Starfleet’s Motivational Speaker.

177. Trekkiefan16 - March 1, 2009

I was there and all I can say is WOW. The other trailers didn’t do much for me and I had my doubts but this one gave me goosebumps. I was blown away and I think Chris Pine is going to pull it off; he IS Kirk. If this trailer is any indication of the movie, we are all in for one wild and amazing ride.

178. TBerk - March 1, 2009

The planet getting hit by the mega-weapon ISN’T Vulcan.

179. Insider1234 - March 2, 2009

I have a feeling Shatner will be in the movie

180. me - March 2, 2009

So this movie will be like “In a Mirror Darkly”?

Showing us the beginning of second Mirror universe, that has been influenced by the normal universe. “In a Mirror Darkly” the alternate universe was influenced by the Defiant and later by Kirk and Sisko, and in that Mirror Universe of Orci and JJA the second universe was influenced/created by Nero and Old Spock.

181. Dom - March 2, 2009

175. Pete359; ‘Remember the comments about the writers using “Yesterday’s Enterprise” as inspiration. Well if Vulcan were destroyed I think that would be enough to shift the exploration-based Starfleet into a battle fleet not unlike the Enterprise-D in YE. And again, I’d bet that this darker timeline is fixed (or at least the process begins) early on.’

Why on earth would they do that? That would be a grotesque act of creative cowardice! The reset switch was the most detested plot device used in the TNG era! The inspiration from YE is that we get a revamped universe!

‘I doubt very much Older Spock would risk travelling through time to save his old buddy Kirk and then NOT saving his entire frakking planet and it’s people?’

He doesn’t ‘save’ Kirk! He makes the best of a changed history by getting Kirk into the captain’s chair via a different path from his own universe! Clearly the planet Vulcan gets evacuated.

‘Now I hardly think the writers will let that timeline exists past the closing credits, but hey… they might.’

I bloody well hope they do!

182. Chris M - March 2, 2009

I was already excited about seeing Watchman cause it looks like an awesome movie but seeing the new Star Trek trailer will definitely be the highlight! :)

183. wiesniak - March 2, 2009

gdzie jest trailer zajebany pastuchy

184. harris250 - March 2, 2009

I find it hard to believe that Spock would fail in his mission to restore the original time line. But on the other had I also find it hard to believe that JJ would restore the time line…”it’s like nothing we’ve ever seen before”……

185. T.J. Trek - March 2, 2009

Blow up vulcan, okey, that would so radically change everything that you would have most star trek fans revolting. you can not change things that drastic. I don’t think so. However blow it up and redo it. That could be alright. Although it might be a little too much like the “wow it;s okey that was all just a dream” sorta thing

186. Jamie - March 2, 2009

Was the Star Trek logo the new, non-italic one?

187. Jamie - March 2, 2009

Vulcan imploding sounds great to me. Very dramatic!

It doesn’t mean Vulcan is definitely gone. Anything can happen in a film. I can think of a dozen ways Vulcan could turn out to be safe, especially in a sci-fi film with a time travel plot.

There’s no point criticising an entire work you haven’t seen based on one tiny excerpt taken out of context.

(That’s what people like to do with The Bible.)

188. AJ - March 2, 2009

183:

Watch your language…

189. BaronByng - March 2, 2009

a sneak peak is a stealthy mountain….

a sneak PEEK (spelled like SEE) is something you LOOK at.

sadly, there’s no homonym error-checker plugin for WordPress…

190. Dom - March 2, 2009

184. harris250: I find it hard to believe that Spock would fail in his mission to restore the original time line. But on the other had I also find it hard to believe that JJ would restore the time line…”it’s like nothing we’ve ever seen before”……’

He’s not trying to restore the timeline: it’s a different universe, but it appears Nero’s plans might affect his own universe too.

185. T.J. Trek: ‘Blow up vulcan, okey, that would so radically change everything that you would have most star trek fans revolting.’

Only the revolting ones! ;)

‘you can not change things that drastic. I don’t think so.’

Yes you can! There will be plenty of Vulcans left in the universe, only they don’t have their ancestral homeworld anymore, meaning a Vulcan refugee crisis and a deep sadness felt by the entire race. It would add a whole new layer of melancholy these great thinkers! Not to mention that Spock has always felt like an outsider and now his whole race will!

‘However blow it up and redo it. That could be alright.’

No, it would be cowardly and an easy way out!

‘Although it might be a little too much like the “wow it;s okey that was all just a dream” sorta thing’

Precisely and precisely why it hopefully won’t happen!

191. Christine - March 2, 2009

I WON’T READ IT.
I WON’T READ IT.
I CAN’T.

-eyes strain-

….No spoilers for Christiney! She is either (A) going to spend all night on Youtube ’til someone puts up a “Shaky Cam” version (hehe, those are the BEST) or (B) go to the movie, which would be great. (A) is more likely, though. ALL NIGHTERS! Whoot-whoot!

192. AJ - March 2, 2009

Christine:

Calm down. No real spoilers revealed! Almost the same as the last trailer!

193. JamesinTucson - March 2, 2009

i’ve got passes to an advanced screening of watchmen tomorrow. Maybe I’ll get lucky and it will be in there! If it is I’ll be sure to report back and let everyone know!

194. Liz - March 2, 2009

190 Dom:

“there will be plenty of Vulcans left in the universe, only they don’t have their ancestral homeworld anymore, meaning a Vulcan refugee crisis and a deep sadness felt by the entire race. It would add a whole new layer of melancholy these great thinkers! Not to mention that Spock has always felt like an outsider and now his whole race will!”

That’s so beautiful. So sad and horrible at the same time. The ultimate diaspora. Interesting, I personally have always associated the Vulcans with Jewish people. Mostly because of Leonard Nimoy, of course, but this does add to the sad parallel.

195. ENGON - March 2, 2009

In an unexpected plot twist, the katra of every citizen on Vulcan will be put into the brain Dr. McCoy before the planet is destroyed.

196. ENGON - March 2, 2009

…and then Harlan Ellison will sue them for ripping off “Demon with a Glass Hand.”

So, then Spock will have to go back in time to prevent the birth of Harlan Ellison…

And then they’ll get sued by Anthony Lawrence for ripping off “The Man Who Was Never Born.”

197. Bono Luthor - March 3, 2009

It’ll be a great shame if Shat does not pop up when (if) Spock returns to his future. It seems from this new trailer that it would make narrative sense. I guess if he does not then it was either due to a problem on his side or on JJ and co’s side, but nothing to do with story.

If the timeline is being changed or re-booted it seems unlikely that everything will be neatly re-set by the end of the film.

JJ is unlikely to want to create narrative freedom from canon for one film only to lock his new crew back into TOS 1960’s continuity by the end of the picture and limit the possibilities for the future.

198. Don Farnsworth - March 3, 2009

@160
Dude you may want to spread your legs so i can kick start that thing in between. Every guy wants to hug Zoe Saldana.

I hear Quinto surrendered his paycheck in exchange for being able to do that scene.

199. Liz - March 3, 2009

“198. Don Farnsworth – March 3, 2009
@160
Dude you may want to spread your legs so i can kick start that thing in between. Every guy wants to hug Zoe Saldana.”

Maybe 160 isn’t a dude. We are half the population, if not half the Star Trek audience, you know….

200. EFFeX - March 3, 2009

So, I’m going to a special premier of Watchmen tonight anyone think that they’ll play the Trek trailer with that or are they obligated to wait until the official release?

201. Closettrekker - March 3, 2009

I’m not going to see Watchmen, so I’ll have to wait for it either to appear online or on the Reelzchannel.

There isn’t a whole lot here that is new, it seems.

But I like the sound of this trailer…it’s exciting!

202. ENGON - March 3, 2009

Here’s a nightmare scenario for Shatner fans…

Spock fixes the timeline, but when he returns to the future he discovers that a side effect of his repairs is that Old Kirk still alive and kicking…

…and Old Kirk is played by Chris Pine in makeup.

203. Capt. of the USS Anduril - March 3, 2009

I’m all for planets going boom. Even if it isn’t Vulcan, the knowledge that the same fate could befall Earth and Vulcan is enough to want the good guys to really go after Nero.

And think about it, do we really want a complete “stick to canon” story? No. Why? No real suspense. If we stuck completely to canon, we know that Spock, Kirk, McCoy, and Scotty are safe for about 80-some-odd years, and that the Enterprise will still be in one piece with all her command crew at the end of the movie. Where’s the suspense? Ooo, which redshirt gets killed now?? Boring.

204. ENGON - March 3, 2009

203.

Just to play “devil’s advocate” here…

The very well-made film “Tora! Tora! Tora!” is incredibly suspenseful, even though we know exactly what will happen.

Helps to have a great Jerry Goldsmith score, of course.

205. Jamesintucson - March 3, 2009

No Trek trailer with my watchmen preview :(

206. Ryan H - March 3, 2009

#205 – were there any previews at all or just no ST?

I was hoping you’d have some good news.

207. Alex Rosenzweig - March 3, 2009

#102 – “I don’t know. I hope they do mess with the timeline permanently.”

I won’t speak for anybody else, but they do that, and what comes out is radically different from the Trekverse to date, they lose at least $200 I would otherwise pay in movie tickets. And I’ll take that to the bank. ;)

#105 – “No one has been able to explain sufficiently why the need for such an elaborate back story – seemingly jumping through hoops – to change Trek’s history in order to rework the franchise to appeal to the masses. Why not tell the story of the early Enterprise as it was? Certainly there is enough history available to fill in areas dramatically?”

Darn straight. A great big continuity-altering time travel story is just…well…unnecessary. There’s so much room in the history already, both to explore the backstory the fans know and to provide jumping-on points for the new fans. Perhaps once the movie’s out, Bob and Alex will be able to discuss their thought-process more candidly, without having to worry that such a discussion would spoil the film. I’d be interested in that, because I don’t understand the logic of the creative choices, at least not yet.

#114- “…die-hard Star Trek fans should be glad the team decided to create an ‘in-continuity’ reboot, rather than outrightly overhaul everything.”

A back-door reboot is still a reboot in my book, and in my lexicon, “reboot” is equivalent to “fail”. That’s not specific to Star Trek, either; I think that way about all storytelling. If one doesn’t one to play in a fictional world, as it is, go create one’s own. End of line.

#122 – “TNG in comparison has no Galactic version of the internet and no AI on the Enterprise!”

Actually, I’d argue that the computer was very much an AI, just one that was fairly heavily restricted.

#123 – “our timeline won’t be lost and i’m positive that kirk will very much be “our kirk” as the credits run. bet on it. spock wouldn’t have it any other way now, would he?”

My current guess is that, when all’s said and done, Spock will indeed mostly rescue the timeline, though probably with some seams and patches. I base that guess on the fact that Bob Orci has fairly broadly hinted on a significant and as-yet unrevealed resolution, and that JJ Abrams has said that the movie is intended to bring us to the beginning of TOS, with the people involved being the people of the series. (And also, perhaps, on Abrams’ Wondercon comment” “So the answer to your question is that there are a million references and the story adheres to canon pretty much as well as The Original Series adheres to canon, the movie really does. I mean that.” Yeah, the “dodge” is, of course, that a multiverse is canon, but then we just have to ask if Mr. Abrams prefers to play with that sort of dodge, or if he’s just answering straight.) That said, I suspect that what will happen is that some of the backstories will be changed and, obviously, things will look a bit different.

I also base that on my doubts they’d do a whole film based on the idea that Spock would go back in time to fix things and *fail* in maybe the biggest mission of his life.

I could be wrong, of course, but that’s sort of where I’m at right now.

#130 – “The destruction of Vulcan simply points to us getting back to the much more dangerous ‘death can strike at any moment’ universe of TOS!”

It’d also simply bash a great deal of an established world. Maybe that’s fun for some people. It isn’t for me.

#203 – “And think about it, do we really want a complete “stick to canon” story?”

Most assuredly. :) At least, *I* do.

I don’t think that knowing that our favorite characters survive is any sort of impediment to a great story, any more than knowing that Batman, Superman, etc. are certainly going to survive in a film about those characters harms the storytelling potential.

I’m much more interested in *how* they deal with a situation. If I really have a need to worry about who’s going to survive or not, I’ll create new characters. ‘s just that simple.

208. Alex Rosenzweig - March 3, 2009

#154 – “And when it’s in a movie it’s not hypothetical or non-canon (like the novels) any more.”

But if the movie itself breaks from continuity, then the whole imprimitur of “canon” itself doesn’t necessarily apply. That only made real sense if we’re talking about a largely consistent world, which filmed Trek has been (until now?).

I’d argue that an alternate universe film could, if people so chose, be utterly ignored with no impact to all the rest, canon or no canon.

#157 – “One wonders, however, why Spock bothers in the first place to cross over into some parallel universe which just happens to be such and such. If he doesn’t fear a corruption of his own timeline, what reason could he have to go to such lengths?”

That’s one of the problems with the MWI approach to all this. If it’s just a different universe with no impact on the main timeline, then Spock has no stake in what happens, and thus no reason to go back in time. But if there is a stake, and he goes back, then either he fixes, or mostly fixes, things, or we have a story all about Spock’s failure. The more I think about it, the more I really have to doubt we’ll get a story about Spock’s failure.

#190 – “No, it would be cowardly and an easy way out!”

Cowardly is running away from decades–and billions of words–of established continuity. IMHO, anyway. But what can I say? I’ve only written about a million or so of them in that world. ;)

209. Jamesintucson - March 4, 2009

no previews at all. Was really bummed usually there’s a couple good ones. Watchmen is a must see though ;)

210. Closettrekker - March 4, 2009

#204—“The very well-made film “Tora! Tora! Tora!” is incredibly suspenseful, even though we know exactly what will happen.”

Agreed, although since that is an historical piece, I think that ‘The Godfather Part II’ is perhaps a better example.

The story of young Vito’s ascension to power (the substory in GFII) doesn’t seem to be hampered by the knowledge that, decades later, he will die peacefully in his tomato garden.

While this is certainly true in that instance, it doesn’t mean that the added element of dramatic jeopardy is not beneficial to the writers (and audiences, for that matter) in the case of future Star Trek stories.

I don’t think that is the sole motivating factor by any means, but it is no less a benefit, IMO.

#208—“But if the movie itself breaks from continuity, then the whole imprimitur of “canon” itself doesn’t necessarily apply. ”

How is continuity broken?

A+B still leads to C, even if C represents a permanently altered timeline.

Why should the Star Trek Universe be restricted to the boundaries for strictly linear passage of time, especially when the potential for this has always been there?

“Cowardly is running away from decades–and billions of words–of established continuity.”

Leaving aside (for a moment) the disagreement over the notion that this equates to some kind of departure from continuity, it could only be construed as “cowardly” if fear is the motivating factor for the writers to choose leading the Star Trek Universe into an altered timleine, which–IMO– isn’t a fair assumption. They obviously believe this story to be a good one, and it doesn’t have to be any more complicated than that.

211. Alex Rosenzweig - March 4, 2009

#210 – “#208—”But if the movie itself breaks from continuity, then the whole imprimitur of “canon” itself doesn’t necessarily apply. ”

How is continuity broken?

A+B still leads to C, even if C represents a permanently altered timeline.”

But from the outside, as in where we sit as an audience, the concept of Trek as a single world (which had held, at least on film, through all the TV series and films {even though some fans might reject one or the other, the producers still maintained that they were all in the same world} ) had held true…possibly until now. I’ll be cautious and say “possibly” because I don’t know how it will end up, and I don’t want to jump to conclusions on insufficient data.

Still and all, an altered timeline, one in which things which had previously occurred in one way and subsequently occurred in a different way, is a break in continuity. One can jump through whatever hoops to *explain* it ;) , but that doesn’t change that there’d be a discontinuity.

“Why should the Star Trek Universe be restricted to the boundaries for strictly linear passage of time, especially when the potential for this has always been there?”

My view–and speaking for me alone–is that the steady and consistent building up of the Trekverse as a single fictional world has always been its strength, and the same is true for any fictional world. Sure, we’ve had occasional peeks into alternate worlds, but the idea that, abruptly, development of the “main” world would simply stop has never been part of Trek. But unless you can tell me that we’ll take a little trip to an alternate world in this film, and then go back, then at least while these writers and producers are controlling Trek, the universe of the past 40 years will–as far as the property owner is concerned–end. That, to me, is not a good way to go.

Now, of course, it may be that the two worlds are only subtly different, as occurred in “Yesteryear”, in which case we could assume that essentially the same things happened in both worlds, except for the specific variances we’ll be shown. But that would involve a commitment on the part of the creators to not be in a mindset of, “Hey, it’s a different world now, we can do whatever we want!” Maybe, once this film is out and we see the entire story they’ve told, I’ll be able to trust that this team won’t do that. But right now, that trust is not there.

” “Cowardly is running away from decades–and billions of words–of established continuity.”

Leaving aside (for a moment) the disagreement over the notion that this equates to some kind of departure from continuity, it could only be construed as “cowardly” if fear is the motivating factor for the writers to choose leading the Star Trek Universe into an altered timleine, which–IMO– isn’t a fair assumption.”

All biases admitted to, I see very few other remotely possible justifications for doing so, and fear is probably the kindest of the ones I do see. (I’m certainly not prepared to accuse this team of laziness or creative bankruptcy, which are other reasons that come to mind, since it’s pretty clear that these guys are neither lazy nor creatively bankrupt.)

“They obviously believe this story to be a good one, and it doesn’t have to be any more complicated than that.”

I’m sure they do believe that. I’ve talked to many writers who are utterly convinced that they could tell a wonderful story in an ongoing series, if only they weren’t asked to keep the story consistent with the fictional world in which they are playing. And I have no reason to doubt that they sincerely believe that.

Equally, I have no doubt that Bob, Alex, and the others are completely convinced that their story is a good one, and they may well be right. But no matter how good, is it worth–as a trade-off–the idea that it will just stop a 4-decade progression of storytelling in a single, giant fictional world? In all the debates I’ve seen over the past few years, I really have yet to see a single argument that has made the case for me. Most of the attempts seem to make the case for people to just go create new worlds, rather than try to play in existing ones. Now admittedly, I’m a hard sell on that sort of thing, but I really do feel that if one is going to play in an existing fictional world, one has a responsibility to be true to that world, not to change it to follow one’s own whim or the exigencies of the moment.

212. Closettrekker - March 4, 2009

#211—“Still and all, an altered timeline, one in which things which had previously occurred in one way and subsequently occurred in a different way, is a break in continuity. One can jump through whatever hoops to *explain* it ;) , but that doesn’t change that there’d be a discontinuity.”

I have to reject that reasoning, for the simple reason that it is a narrow view of continuity. I’ve yet to hear sufficient argument as to why venturing into an altered timeline constitutes a break in continuity—especially when events in one timeline directly cause the altered timeline to exist in the first place.

That’s not “jumping through hoops”. That’s simply adding A and B together to get C.

Continuity, in terms of fictional storytelling, is simply telling stories that are directly linked by succession of events.

I’m not sure how, especially within the Star Trek Universe, that necessitates staying within one timeline. The events to be depicted in the altered timeline are directly dependant upon (and linked to) the events depicted in the timeline with which we are all familiar.

It seems to me that you are not really defending “continuity”, but merely the desire for stories within that Universe to remain within a single timeline.

213. Alex Rosenzweig - March 4, 2009

#212 – “It seems to me that you are not really defending “continuity”, but merely the desire for stories within that Universe to remain within a single timeline.”

I see it, really, as defending both, though we’re also coming at it from slightly different applications of continuity.

For example, from the specific point-of-view of the characters of Spock and Nero, there certainly is direct continuity, as they travel from one continuum to the next just as we would hop on a plane and fly overseas.

But from a meta point-of-view, there is a distinct break (or at least the potential for one) in storytelling continuity, because it’s no longer a single, fully-connected world. If a “Timeline B’ is created (or, depending on how one views the metaphysics, entered), the progression of the characters in the second continuum is no longer linked to the events of the first, and they can become–if they aren’t already–entirely different people, in an entirely different world. The single overall continuity of the fictional world is thus broken.

From a practical view, the result is that, from the perspective of film as the primary builder and guide for what is and is not “real” in Trek, if a second timeline is created (i.e., one that is sufficiently different that we cannot reasonably extrapolate that what occurs in Timeline B also occurred in Timeline A) and the future storytelling is confined to that new timeline, the worldbuilding in the first timeline ceases. And, yes, I have a real issue with that. (Now, to be fair, if fandom is willing to accept other media as authoritative for Trek, there’s plenty of room for both timelines, but to date–as the dismissive attitude of many toward the novels and comic books demonstrates–that acceptance has not yet widely occurred, so the emphasis remains on film.)

214. McCoy - March 4, 2009

I agree with 211. The process of adding A and B to get C is the “jumping through hoops” aspect of AR’s statement. The fact that you end up in C at all is the problem. Star Trek has mostly maintained that the audience came back to the prime timeline (A) at the end of day.

Creating a story which elevates your new story as required to activate the original is a bit flamboyant and cocky. I’m sure that was not the intent of the writers, only part of the end perception, Connecting the two “visions” of Trek is the single biggest problem and should not have been attempted at all (IMO). It has been mentioned before, but this new story should have stayed away from time travel and old cast members.

If the film had a totally different vision and did not attempt to connect it to the series, it would have been easier for me to place it in it’s own little box. In addition, they would have been even more free to alter or update whatever they want. Connecting this film to TNG and TOS using Nimoy begs for greater continuity with what came before.

215. Closettrekker - March 4, 2009

#213—“If a “Timeline B’ is created (or, depending on how one views the metaphysics, entered), the progression of the characters in the second continuum is no longer linked to the events of the first, and they can become–if they aren’t already–entirely different people, in an entirely different world. The single overall continuity of the fictional world is thus broken.”

They can indeed, but that doesn’t break the overall continuity. The alternative progression of that character (or characters) becomes part of that continuity.

Moreover, my feeling about the potential for the same fictional character evolving in two distinct environments is that it may be that more than one road can lead to the same place. Now, of course, that is not the same as suggesting that ALL roads lead to the same place, but it is possible that there is more than one way for Jim Kirk (for example) to become the hero we know him to be.

IMO, it doesn’t really matter who he is in the beginning, so long as he becomes the type of man we know in the end.

#214—“Star Trek has mostly maintained that the audience came back to the prime timeline (A) at the end of day.”

I refuse to believe that it is necessary to cling to some formulaic approach that always ends up wrapping things up in a tidy little bow. We saw that already in, for the most part, TOS and TNG. The other spinoffs have taken a different approach already (with more definitive story arcs, etc.). I do not feel that Star Trek should be conservative or stagnant.

Moreover, both “Yesteryear” (TAS) and “Yesterday’s Enterprise”(TNG) result in permanent changes to the timeline. Coincidentally, these are my two favorite episodes of those respective series. Furthermore, it could be reasonably argued that both FC and ENT have resulted in permanent timeline changes themselves.

I enjoy a bold turn. This is no different to me, except I am able to see how such interference with the past affects my favorite characters and their evolution in this altered timeline.

“Connecting this film to TNG and TOS using Nimoy begs for greater continuity with what came before.”

I have yet to read or hear of any loss of continuity. I see no reason to believe that continuity has been broken. IMO, it has simply taken a unique turn. I find that intriguing—not threatening.

If some of the fanbase doesn’t stay aboard, that’s okay. We’ve seen this before. I was part of the group that never really embraced TNG. It was far too different from what I grew up on, and the characters rarely did more than annoy me. So what? The sky did not fall, and TNG probably garnered more fans who had never seen TOS to that point than otherwise. The show’s producers certainly did not cry over me.

I think that, in the end, Star Trek might be stronger than ever—although some of the far right wing of its fanbase may indeed be severed.

I find it funny that I’ve always considered myself quite the canonista, yet I have no problem with the general notion of venturing into a permanently altered timeline.

I have some issues with what we know of the story so far (Kirk’s apparent ascension to the Captain’s chair by some sort of permanent battlefield commisssion, for example), but utilizing already existing canon to go in a bold new direction isn’t a problem at all for me—nor is bringing action, adventure, sexuality, and humor back into the Star Trek fold. Those things, along with its as yet uncompromised optimistic vision of Mankind’s future and fantastic characters, were what made me fall in love with Star Trek in the first place. I welcome a return to that—and eagerly wave goodbye to excessive technobabble, subpar characters, friendly Klingons, children on the bridge, Earl Grey tea, Borg drones, and holdecks.

216. frederick - March 4, 2009

As far as Kirk’s captaincy, we have no idea when it begins. It may be that command is thrust upon him by neccessity as we have read, but that does not mean he stays the captain then. It means he is acting captain in an emergency. When we see him as the official captain at the end is probably some time later after the primary events in the movie. We do know it skips around showing various time periods.

217. Closettrekker - March 4, 2009

#216—“As far as Kirk’s captaincy, we have no idea when it begins. It may be that command is thrust upon him by neccessity as we have read, but that does not mean he stays the captain then…We do know it skips around showing various time periods.”

This is my continued hope.

As a former U.S. Marine Officer with a degree in history, I can tell you that battlefield promotions do indeed occur, but they are generally task specific and almost always quite temporary.

There is also the suggestion that he is wearing actual Captain’s insignia on his sleeve. The thing about it is, commanding a vessel wouldn’t require an actual rank of Captain. Traditionally, anyone in command of a ship–permanently or not–would be addressed and treated as Captain (this is not the same as “having the conn”, but actually being the senior able command officer currently assigned to the ship).

Simply put—the “position” of Captain and the “rank” of Captain are two different things.

As far as “canon” is concerned, it is admittedly a gray area (since Starfleet is not a modern navy, but a future organization), but we have seen this issue addressed before in Star Trek (DS9, “Valiant”). Cadet Nog points out (somewhat) that it is improper for the personnel in command of USS Valiant to be wearing actual rank insignia reserved for commissioned officers, although he does not deny their duty to function in command positions, given the circumstances.

This would seem to indicate that Starfleet has maintained this Western Naval Tradition even into the 24th Century—it seems logical that it would have been honored in the 23rd Century as well.

Even during the events depicted in TWOK, Lt. Saavik is (quite correctly) addressed as “Captain” while in simulated command of the Enterprise during her command test. It isn’t that they are pretending her rank is different, but were she actually left in command of that or any ship, she would be addressed that way for the duration of that command (she is also correctly addressed as “Mister”, another Naval tradition where that term is applied to officers aboard ship, regardless of gender).

My hope is that Kirk is forced to assume command of the Enterprise during the crisis, but by the time we see him with actual Captain’s insignia, enough time has passed within the story to make that more plausible.

We’ll see.

218. Alex Rosenzweig - March 4, 2009

#215 – “Moreover, my feeling about the potential for the same fictional character evolving in two distinct environments is that it may be that more than one road can lead to the same place. Now, of course, that is not the same as suggesting that ALL roads lead to the same place, but it is possible that there is more than one way for Jim Kirk (for example) to become the hero we know him to be.

IMO, it doesn’t really matter who he is in the beginning, so long as he becomes the type of man we know in the end.”

Right. I’ve considered that, too, and noted so at one point or another in the last few days. It may well be that the extent of the real differences, once Spock Prime is finished with his patchwork, is the variant backstories. Indeed, Mr. Abrams has suggested as much. And if one theme is indeed that the essence of a person’s character is such that it will emerge despite whatver adversities he has undergone, then the effect may be that the two timelines are essentially congruent by the actual beginning of the five-year mission.

I’d be okay with that–maybe not thrilled, but okay ;) –assuming the result is not to then start going hog-wild and spinning off all sorts of other discontinuities. That may be something we’ll just have to wait and see on.

“#214—”Star Trek has mostly maintained that the audience came back to the prime timeline (A) at the end of day.”

I refuse to believe that it is necessary to cling to some formulaic approach that always ends up wrapping things up in a tidy little bow.”

I just think we should get the heck away from time travel, but I can understand the desire to have the link to Nimoy-as-Spock for this film. I might not have done it, but I can understand it.

“Moreover, both “Yesteryear” (TAS) and “Yesterday’s Enterprise”(TNG) result in permanent changes to the timeline. Coincidentally, these are my two favorite episodes of those respective series. Furthermore, it could be reasonably argued that both FC and ENT have resulted in permanent timeline changes themselves.”

But that’s not clear, really. Only in “Yesteryear” is a change actually explicated from the point-of-view of the characters: I-Chaya’s death or not. In both “First Contact” and “Enterprise”, the “changes” can be equally argued to loop back into the existing timeline, much like the oddity of Kirk’s endlessly time-traveling glasses. ;) Even in “Yesterday’s Enterprise”, the only real “incursion” is the War Universe’s Tasha Yar into the Prime timeline, but since the Enterprise-C goes forward, and then comes back to the battle, it’s not clear that the change is something that didn’t happen anyway, just as “Assignment: Earth” suggested that the “changes” in that episode were what the historical record had indicated had always happened.

And so forth. :)

“I have yet to read or hear of any loss of continuity. I see no reason to believe that continuity has been broken. IMO, it has simply taken a unique turn. I find that intriguing—not threatening.”

Show me that Paramount will continue to support storyteling in the Prime Universe after this film is over, and I won’t be threatened either. :)

“I have some issues with what we know of the story so far (Kirk’s apparent ascension to the Captain’s chair by some sort of permanent battlefield commisssion, for example),”

I’m not convinced that’s actually happened, though. I have a feeling–and, again, I could be wrong, of course–that the final scene is some years later. Bob Orci hinted at that a few months back, too.

“but utilizing already existing canon to go in a bold new direction isn’t a problem at all for me—nor is bringing action, adventure, sexuality, and humor back into the Star Trek fold.”

I have no problem at all with that, either, as far as it goes. It’s only when they take the next step and walk away from the existing universe that I part company, wave, and let them go, only to continue on my own path within said world. :)

219. Closettrekker - March 4, 2009

#218—“It may well be that the extent of the real differences, once Spock Prime is finished with his patchwork, is the variant backstories. Indeed, Mr. Abrams has suggested as much. And if one theme is indeed that the essence of a person’s character is such that it will emerge despite whatver adversities he has undergone, then the effect may be that the two timelines are essentially congruent by the actual beginning of the five-year mission. ”

Agreed.

“But that’s not clear, really. Only in “Yesteryear” is a change actually explicated from the point-of-view of the characters.”

But it is easy to logically deduce that’s it has happened.

“In both “First Contact” and “Enterprise”, the “changes” can be equally argued to loop back into the existing timeline, much like the oddity of Kirk’s endlessly time-traveling glasses. ;) ”

I don’t think so, especially when Daniels says to Archer that “History does not record that any of this ever happened.”

The other examples are obvious and well-documented—that Starfleet is not made aware of the Borg until the 24th Century, when “Q” introduces them to Picard and the Enterprise-D. It seems obvious that those Borg in the Arctic were not supposed to be there…

“…the “changes” can be equally argued to loop back into the existing timeline, much like the oddity of Kirk’s endlessly time-traveling glasses. ;)”

I took that as merely a joke, but it may be of note that the 3 members of the “Supreme Court” of STXI who have a hand in “Lost” have made clear their own view of time travel—that nothing you do can actually alter events that are “supposed to happen”. You may subtly change the path that gets you there, but not the destination.

This would seem to support the notion that only some of the backstories may differ in this timeline. It may be that certain things will indeed overcome new obstacles (probably using Nimoy’s Spock as a constant or catalyst/tool to maintaining a degree of order in the Universe).

“…just as “Assignment: Earth” suggested that the “changes” in that episode were what the historical record had indicated had always happened.”

Except that those “records” weren’t checked until after it was all over. It could easily have been that the “records” would not have shown such events prior to their trip to the 20th Century, and the ripple effects of those potentially altering events were simply insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

“Show me that Paramount will continue to support storyteling in the Prime Universe after this film is over, and I won’t be threatened either. :)”

I don’t think there is a “Prime Universe”, only different timelines (one of which is referred to as “Prime” only because it is already established on screen.

“I’m not convinced that’s actually happened, though. I have a feeling–and, again, I could be wrong, of course–that the final scene is some years later. Bob Orci hinted at that a few months back, too.”

I hope so. To me—venturing into another timeline is one thing, but (seemingly) bad storytelling is another.

220. McCoy - March 4, 2009

215:

Correct me if I’m wrong (I’m sure you will) but the whole synopsis behind “Yesterday’s Enterprise” is to restore the prime timeline. Guinan serves as the reminder that there is one correct timeline and that the direction they are traveling through most of the episode is not the right path. In the end, the timeline is restored. The audience gets back to where they were from the previous episode.

“I have yet to read or hear of any loss of continuity. I see no reason to believe that continuity has been broken. IMO, it has simply taken a unique turn. I find that intriguing—not threatening.”

The “unique turn” is the loss of continuity. You have identified it. How can you say you say you “have yet to read or hear of any loss” under one breath, then exclaim that it’s intriguing in another? If you are intrigued by the turn, you are intrigued by the change in continuity. It is also possible for you to have “seen” a loss in continuity. Yes, the visuals are part of it and for this version of Trek, there’s a lot of turns.

I am not threatened by the film, I simply disagree with many of the creative choices they have made. The information I have at this point in time is enough to come to that conclusion.

221. Alex Rosenzweig - March 4, 2009

#219 – ” “But that’s not clear, really. Only in “Yesteryear” is a change actually explicated from the point-of-view of the characters.”

But it is easy to logically deduce that’s it has happened.”

Perhaps, perhaps not. Based on the evidence, it’s just as easy to conclude that the “changes” were always meant to have occurred at those points in time.

” “In both “First Contact” and “Enterprise”, the “changes” can be equally argued to loop back into the existing timeline, much like the oddity of Kirk’s endlessly time-traveling glasses. ;) ”

I don’t think so, especially when Daniels says to Archer that “History does not record that any of this ever happened.” ”

But any of *what*? And since it clearly *did* happen, perhaps it’s Daniels who came from a future where things are different, rather than the continuum of the various shows? Since ENT was clearly intended to be a prequel to the other series, we can conclude that what happened in that show was the earlier period of that world.

“The other examples are obvious and well-documented—that Starfleet is not made aware of the Borg until the 24th Century, when “Q” introduces them to Picard and the Enterprise-D. It seems obvious that those Borg in the Arctic were not supposed to be there…”

Except that StarFleet had no idea that they were Borg, or likely what they were at all, exactly, until “Q Who?”. I always thought that “Regeneration’ also neatly explained why Picard didn’t do anything to get rid of the Borg drones and wreckage in “First Contact”. In short, he couldn’t, because he realized what the unknown creatures that history recorded as having been found in the Arctic actually were, and had to leave them alone to keep history intact. I gave Mike Sussman big kudos for neatly linking it all together.

” “…the “changes” can be equally argued to loop back into the existing timeline, much like the oddity of Kirk’s endlessly time-traveling glasses. ;)”

I took that as merely a joke,”

Well, I think it really was, but leaving the joke aside, it does point out one of the odd potential paradoxes of time travel.

“but it may be of note that the 3 members of the “Supreme Court” of STXI who have a hand in “Lost” have made clear their own view of time travel—that nothing you do can actually alter events that are “supposed to happen”. You may subtly change the path that gets you there, but not the destination.”

Did you see the 2002 version of “The Time Machine”? That film had a similar approach to the matter. Each time Professor Hartdegan went back to try to prevent something, all he managed to do was change the circumstances of its occurrence. It may be that Nero’s attempts to change things will have a similar effect.

” “…just as “Assignment: Earth” suggested that the “changes” in that episode were what the historical record had indicated had always happened.”

Except that those “records” weren’t checked until after it was all over. It could easily have been that the “records” would not have shown such events prior to their trip to the 20th Century, and the ripple effects of those potentially altering events were simply insignificant in the grand scheme of things.”

But even then, the result is still an altered timeline that is so subtly changed that the difference was essentially irrelevant. If the end result of this film is a timeline changed that subtly, I won’t mind so much at all.

Still, I’d say that the rather clear intent of the episode is that Kirk, Spock, Gary Seven, et al. were intended to be playing out roles that history suggests were already there. Of course it’s possible to *manufacture* a scenario in which things were changed significantly, but working strictly from what was presented on-screen, that approach seems quite unnecessarily Ptolemaic. ;)

” “Show me that Paramount will continue to support storyteling in the Prime Universe after this film is over, and I won’t be threatened either. :)”

I don’t think there is a “Prime Universe”, only different timelines (one of which is referred to as “Prime” only because it is already established on screen.”

The single world stretching through the 6 TV series and 10 films—and I do think it’s quite obvious that it is one world–is what I am defining s the “Prime Universe”, so named because a) the Spock of that world, intended to be the Spock we’ve known all this time, is being referred to as Prime Spock, and b) because Prime is often a term used to refer to the first of something. Seems straightforward enough. :)

” “I’m not convinced that’s actually happened, though. I have a feeling–and, again, I could be wrong, of course–that the final scene is some years later. Bob Orci hinted at that a few months back, too.”

I hope so. To me—venturing into another timeline is one thing, but (seemingly) bad storytelling is another.”

Agreed. Leaving aside the question of different timelines, the idea of Kirk jumping straight from rebellious cadet to starship captain in one fell swoop is just too much to accept. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far, after all. ;)

222. Closettrekker - March 5, 2009

#220—” How can you say you say you “have yet to read or hear of any loss” under one breath, then exclaim that it’s intriguing in another? If you are intrigued by the turn, you are intrigued by the change in continuity.”

That assumes that I agree upon your definition of “continuity”, which I certainly do not. There is no “change” in continuity. Everything depicted in all 5 television series and 10 previous films happened already. In fact, that chain of events has led the story to this point. What happens next only “adds” to that continuity.

You act as if ENT-NEM somehow ceases to be a part of the broader story (which is the only way there could be any “loss of continuity”). Star Trek continuity is not bound by timelines. One event still leads to another, regardless of what timeline in which it takes place. The only way that continuity would be lost is if the writers had disregarded previously established continuity (which is the criteria for a “reboot”)—which they have not. Clearly, their story depends upon that very continuity.

Asking the writers to stay within a singular timeline is not the same as asking them to honor continuity. They have done the latter, and the former has nothing to do with it.

Interference with the past can result in an altered timeline. That is part of Star Trek canon, and indeed, its continuity.

“It is also possible for you to have “seen” a loss in continuity. Yes, the visuals are part of it and for this version of Trek, there’s a lot of turns.”

Visual continuity? Yes. But not story continuity. And visual continuity is simply nowhere near as important to me as Star Trek’s canon. In fact, I would have been somewhat disappointed to see a souped-up retro take on the window dressing.

I’ve already seen what Star Trek’s father envisioned the 23rd Century to look like from the perspective of the 1960’s. IMO, it would be asurd to ignore 4 decades of perspective-altering progress with regard to what the future might look and feel like.

It’s all about the characters, story, the message, and themes. This is fiction—not an historical piece.

223. Closettrekker - March 5, 2009

#220—“Correct me if I’m wrong (I’m sure you will) but the whole synopsis behind “Yesterday’s Enterprise” is to restore the prime timeline. Guinan serves as the reminder that there is one correct timeline and that the direction they are traveling through most of the episode is not the right path.”

It is only “correct” from Guinan’s perspective. It isn’t so much that she fears it is the “wrong timeline”—but that the Enterprise-D is supposed to be a ship of exploration and peace, rather than a ship of war.

“In the end, the timeline is restored. The audience gets back to where they were from the previous episode.”

But that is debatable. Who is to say that Tasha Yar was always supposed to go back with the Enterprise-C, become captured by Romulans and give birth to a daughter named Sela who becomes (in a bad storytelling twist) a powerful member of the Romulan establishment?

What you are suggesting is that time is somehow supposed to be interfered with in that instance. If that is the case, who is to say that time isn’t supposed to be interfered with 8 years after the events depicted in Nemesis?

You?

224. McCoy - March 5, 2009

223: “What you are suggesting is that time is somehow supposed to be interfered with in that instance. If that is the case, who is to say that time isn’t supposed to be interfered with 8 years after the events depicted in Nemesis? You?”

You’re kidding right? You really can’t grasp the issue? The audience in TNG was moving forward through the timeline. It didn’t matter from any real perspective that Tasha survived the second time around. The audience ended up in prime. In the new film, you are taking the audience back in time to TOS (which by the way now looks different) and creating a new alternate timeline. By the end of the film, as we are lead to believe, the audience will be left in the alternate time line—or the new film is trying to say that the last 40 years was the alternate timeline. Either way, it’s dis-joining to do. This film should then be called “Star Trek: Alternate Realities”.

This film may contain elements of Star Trek, but having the main story play with or change what came before misses the point of the original series which is to tell good sci-fi. The whole notion of the characters living differently in a different time (Nimoy) was the wrong way to go. The film should have avoided time travel and concentrated on the early development of the characters.

225. McCoy - March 5, 2009

222:

Starting the film out after TNG and going back in time to change things is the story element the writer’s used to change things. They created something to alter continuity. I would say a really aggressive more rather than clever at this point. During the course of, and all the way to the end of the film, continuity is altered from what we knew as TOS.

Again, as a writer, if you invent a story element and send it back in time to change things, you are sending the character back to change what came before. If you leave the audience there, you have left them someplace new. No one was asking for that.

The main goal for most time-travel stories is to restore the known timeline (known continuity). It has been said that one of the main goals of the film is to change things to draw a different audience. That change they are referring to is the break in continuity.

226. Alex Rosenzweig - March 5, 2009

#222 – “That assumes that I agree upon your definition of “continuity”, which I certainly do not.”

To a point we’re arguing different semantics here. Or perhaps it’s different perspectives. Closettrekker, to a point I think you’re right. But I also think McCoy and I are right, as well. It simply depends on what vantage point one has.

“There is no “change” in continuity. Everything depicted in all 5 television series and 10 previous films happened already. In fact, that chain of events has led the story to this point. What happens next only “adds” to that continuity.”

It may be true that there is no “change” in the sense that the story suggests that all those events did occur in one continuum, but I’d argue that from the point-of-view of the broad audience, people entering Trek from this point will have a different view of at least Kirk’s past and that of the Enterprise, so one could certainly argue that there *will* in fact be a change in how people perceive that world, because it’s not the same world anymore. But unless you can say that future stories can take place comparably in *both* continua, then there’s absolutely an argument to be made that going forward, the continuity of Star Trek’s fictional world to date will no longer be added to, at least by this particular storytelling team.

“You act as if ENT-NEM somehow ceases to be a part of the broader story (which is the only way there could be any “loss of continuity”).”

Well, not ENT, because the temporal incursion occurs later, but unless the history of the new continuum plays out equivalently to the history of the old, then it is indeed possible (if maybe even likely?) that TOS-NEM *do* cease to be part of the ongoing story, at least until some future producer decides that it’s time to go back to continuum A and pick up the story again.

“Star Trek continuity is not bound by timelines. One event still leads to another, regardless of what timeline in which it takes place.”

That’s very much dependent on one’s point of view. ;) No, seriously.Let’s say I’m a guy sitting on Gateway in Continuum A. If I’m watching Spock and Nero, I might see them go back in time. maybe they come out at some point in the same space-time as I am, but more likely, they vanish, maybe never to be seen again. Now one of two things happens, depending on how one interprets all this: either the universe *changes* because of the actions in the past (cf. “City on the Edge of Forever”) or nothing happens because all the “action” takes place in some alternate world (Continuum B).

But if we, the audience, are following that alternate world now, events in that world lead to a future in Continuum B that’s no longer the same future as in Continuum A, and thus the past events might well no longer lead to the future events that we’ve known. From the audience perspective, the direct continuity from past to future that has lasted all this time ceases, and is thus broken. Unless, of course, the story does include a way to knit it all back together.

“The only way that continuity would be lost is if the writers had disregarded previously established continuity (which is the criteria for a “reboot”)—which they have not. Clearly, their story depends upon that very continuity.”

The writers haven’t disregarded continuity, no. But they have created a story that appears, on the face of it, to be a whole elaborate way to “sidestep” that continuity, so that they *can* disregard it going forward. It might not be a “conventional” reboot, but if the changes are not set right (and for all I know, they might be, so the usual caveats remain in place), the effect is essentially the same: for the purposes of ongoing storytelling, the old universe is cast aside and a new one begun. Once again, from the perspective of the audience, there is still an effective break in continuity, no matter how much it is also explained by *using* continuity.

“Asking the writers to stay within a singular timeline is not the same as asking them to honor continuity. They have done the latter, and the former has nothing to do with it.”

Again, here, we’re talking two different sorts of continuity, and while they have appeared to honor a continuity in which a chain of events can include characters going back in time and altering the world, it does not honor the continuity of the fictional world’s stricture and the events therein.

” It is also possible for you to have “seen” a loss in continuity. Yes, the visuals are part of it and for this version of Trek, there’s a lot of turns.”

Visual continuity? Yes. But not story continuity. And visual continuity is simply nowhere near as important to me as Star Trek’s canon.”

I myself am more willing to be flexible with the visuals than I am about the storytelling continuity.

“In fact, I would have been somewhat disappointed to see a souped-up retro take on the window dressing.”

Here I don’t necessarily agree. For example, there are some wonderful modelers out there who have done modernized, sophisticated takes on the original Enterprise, and I would have been overjoyed to see that sort of update take place for the film. Dennis Bailey, Jason “Vektor” Lee, Koji Kuramura, Douglas E. Graves, and others have done truly amazing renditions, all of which are preferable, in my mind, to even the relatively limited (compared to the level of nuts they might have gone!) change embodied in Ryan Church’s design. I would have preferred to see that ethic of making the original designs new again to the approach they’ve taken, but that’s simply an aesthetic quibble, and not as critical as the other aspect.

“It’s all about the characters, story, the message, and themes. This is fiction—not an historical piece.”

I agree about the story, message, characters, and themes, but I also believe that maintaining a consistent fictional world is intrinsic to all those things. Break that consistency, and at least story, characters, and message are compromised.

227. Closettrekker - March 6, 2009

#225—-“They created something to alter continuity.”

First of all, they didn’t “create” the element in the story utilized to venture into another timeline. TOS did. Furthermore, venturing into another timeline does not break continuity. The possibility of an alternate timeline being created due to interference with the past is part of the fabric within that continuity which we know as “canon”.

#224—“This film may contain elements of Star Trek, but having the main story play with or change what came before …”

They are “playing with” or “changing what came before”.

Everything that came before (ENT-NEM) is part of a long series of events that leads the broader story to this point. Everything you have seen happened. There’s no getting around that, nor can it be “changed”.

I do not understand why you cannot get your mind around that. It isn’t really that difficult.

#225—“The main goal for most time-travel stories is to restore the known timeline…”

Been there… again…and again…and again.

I’m not opposed to a unique outcome, and clearly—I am not alone.

228. Closettrekker - March 6, 2009

#224—“It didn’t matter from any real perspective that Tasha survived the second time around. The audience ended up in prime.”

Only if time was “supposed to be interfered with”.

In the “Prime” timeline, Tasha was dead long before that. In the altered one (the result of “YE”), Tasha ended up alive in the RSE. If TNG was still within the “Prime” timeline, the birth of Sela would never have occurred.

It simply wasn’t clear until “Unification” that the timeline had ever been altered. That doesn’t change the fact that it was.

229. BaronByng - March 7, 2009

While this debate is fascinating, it’s all academic. We’re not the ones who made the movie, and nothing we write here will change the movie to fit our personal preferences.

I personally have to agree with Closettrekker, who wrote almost exactly what I would have. Interference in the timeline, whether it all be in a single universe or in a Many Worlds scenario, becomes PART of continuity once it’s established on-screen.

This is really a core philosophical point of the movie, it seems — about being challenged to become ‘the person you were meant to be,’ with certain essential personality traits, qualities, realizations, truths etc. The details may differ, but we see how they self-actualize.

Setting aside the technical quirks of time travel and universes, I have to (again, for the nth time) note that it’s dramatically uninteresting for a non-Trekker audience to see characters arrive fully formed. If a large, wide audience is to become interested in this story, we have to see the characters’ journeys, how they evolve.

I disagree that simply retelling the “past we already know” about Kirk is satisfying — Tarsus IV and a stack of books with legs etc etc. I doubt any of that was intended from the beginning, they are facts that accumulated over the run of a series that was written by many different people, introduced conveniently to explain how Kirk knows so-and-so from years ago, or play up the fact that he’s the Youngest Bestest Officer Ever in a trial scene, etc — i.e. they are all plot devices, and not particularly elegant ones either, they’re akin to deus-ex-machina endings.

To start over with a flawed, human Kirk who rises to a challenge is much more interesting, much more appealing. For those who ‘know’ the story it’s interesting to see things click into place, for those who don’t, they will empathize with the character’s journey. Either way, it sets the groundwork for stories where the appeal of the TOS gang is not based on sentimental rememberings, but by strong character arc writing.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.