STAR TREK - Talkback

[Judge Faiz]

Thing is, it DOES get rid of all the TV series except Enterprise.

Spock & Nero came from the future (some time around the movies). When they came back in time and altered events in the past it doesn't create an alternate reality, nor alternate dimention. There was not reality or dimention travel. There was time travel. Therefore from this movie forward everything is wiped clean and the 30 years of Star Trek history goes right out the window.

It would have been fine if JJ Abrahams had just said, "Hey I want to remake Star Trek and basicly start over." and did just that by starting at Kirk's enterance into Starfleet. But no, they did it in a way that involved time travel and thereby negating everything that happens in the original Star Trek series forward.

Now in the series, sure there were characters that fucked with the timelines, but by the end of the episode, or the episode arc everything was fixed and wrapped up in a nice little bow. They never went back and caused a reboot to the entire series.

 

[SaikoDragon]

Spock & Nero came from the future (some time around the movies). When they came back in time and altered events in the past it doesn't create an alternate reality, nor alternate dimention.

You need to rewatch the movie then because they specifically stated in the movie that this is an alternate timeline that exists parallel to the one already established. That the events unfolding in the movie are just another stream of time created by Spock and Nero traveling back and altering things.

When they went back in time, it didn't rewrite everything. Even if it did? Who cares? You still have your dvds, you can still watch your favorite seasons. They didn't disappear because of this.

 

[Ragna "D" BloodEdge]

Faiz, with all due respect, you're wrong here. The fact that Spock and Nero exist in this new timeline is proof that the original does still exist.

Let me explain this in more detail. Take the X-Men continuities for example. Rachel Summers, the daughter of Jean Grey comes for a dystopian future ruled by Sentinels where mutants have been hunted to near extinction. This was caused by Mystique's assassination of Senator Robert Kelly. In order to prevent this future from coming to pass, Kitty Pryde(an adult in this future)uses Rachel's telepathy to project her mind back through the timestream and into her younger self. Kitty prevents the assassination attempt, which is supposed to change history for the better.

But a few years later, Rachel appears in the current mainstream Marvel timeline, which is the first indication that the future timeline she comes from still exists somehow. Eventually, it's revealed that Kelly's assassination attempt still occured, but Kitty's thwarting of it in the main timeline caused a temporal divergence that splintered that timeline off from the first, creating an new reality unto itself where Kelly still died, while leaving the original timeline intact.

The same thing applies for the Age of Apocalypse timeline when Legion went back in time to kill Magneto in an attempt to remove him as the biggest obstacle to his father, Professor Xavier's dream of peaceful co-existance between humans and mutants. But instead of killing Magneto, he killed Xavier instead, which removed Legion and all the current day X-Men from existence, caused Apocalypse's premature rise to power and Magneto's decision to found and lead that Earth's version of the X-Men against him. But when Bishop traveled back in time and stopped Legion from killing Xavier in the storyline's finale, it undid all of those changes and reverted history back to normal.

But years later, like Rachel's timeline, it was revealed that the Age of Apocalypse timeline still existed, and also like Rachel's had splintered off from the main Marvel timeline into its own separate reality.

This is what happened with Star Trek. The original timeline still exists parallel to the new one established in the movie by the actions of both Spock and Nero.

 

[HaiTien78]

Thing is, it DOES get rid of all the TV series except Enterprise.

Spock & Nero came from the future (some time around the movies). When they came back in time and altered events in the past it doesn't create an alternate reality, nor alternate dimention. There was not reality or dimention travel. There was time travel. Therefore from this movie forward everything is wiped clean and the 30 years of Star Trek history goes right out the window.

Now in the series, sure there were characters that fucked with the timelines, but by the end of the episode, or the episode arc everything was fixed and wrapped up in a nice little bow. They never went back and caused a reboot to the entire series.

No it doesn't really, see it establishes its own canon, its an alternate reality, its Earth 617 instead of Earth 616, however you want to say it. See timeline is fucked up with Trek rules, the main canon can still go on even if one of its main characters leaves it and creates a tangent canon. Sure we probably wont see any movies with the main canon anymore but it still exists.

Yes it was time travel yet it created a tangent universe, this is one of the real life theories of time travel here that when you go back in time and change an event it doesn't change the future you just create a tangent universe. Even DBZ touched on that theory. Since its fiction we can pretty much go along with any rule they make up instead of us choosing only one real life theory for it. So in other words you're kinda wrong here. Yes its time travel but it does not destroy the main canon like you think it does, it establishes its own tangent canon.

Well you see that would have been fine if at the end of each episode everything was fixed up and explained. Well usually it isn't in Trek. Like when Sisko met Kirk and altered the past in DS9. Yes they never done anything major but they sure as hell fucked a lot of the canon.

 

[ryuuseipro]

As I totally enjoyed the new movie, I have to come to this movie's defense. Not that detractors are willing to accept.

The movie is making Star Trek accessible to the mainstream (and, consequently, a new generation), not just to the hardcore fan. What is strictly for the hardcore fan has become so complicated, so convoluted, nobody outside fandom is interested in Star Trek anymore. That, and Rick Berman, who killed the franchise, IMHO.

What do many hardcore fans think of when they hear "Star Trek?" This field is so sad, I'm not gonna' go there...

What does the public think of when they hear "Star Trek?" The original TV series. Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Enterprise, and famous catchphrases like "Scotty, beam me up," "He's dead, Jim," "I'm a doctor, not a..." "Fire Phasers," "Live Long and Prosper," and the list goes on. Yes, the show set many profound standards to sci-fi, and one could not be more proud of that, but it's not meant to be taken too seriously, either. Otherwise, Star Trek is now as well-remembered to the mainstream public as just about any other classic TV series from its era. JJ Abrams was going back to its roots, with a modern twist.

I think what the new movie did was to help the franchise truly grow up, and make Star Trek accessible to the mainstream. People are not interested in the complicated trivial pursuit. The original series was never about trivial pursuit (trivial pursuit is just a tie-in), it was a fucking space adventure!!! I'm glad Abrams got rid of the complicated Byzantine baggage that drove me away from the franchise, and made Star Trek fun and straightforward again, and not beat viewers over the head with some heavy-handed commentary (which is not why I enjoyed Star Trek).

Do you really think that this film would've succeeded at the box office if it were a continuation of Star Trek: Nemesis? No other Trek movie has ever gotten the response it has now. The Trek franchise was dead already, let's face it. I'm just glad the movie was done by a true fan like JJ Abrams, who went back to basics, and not some hack like Michael Hack Bay, who would've truly ruined it. It's beside the point, but I was hoping Godzilla would get this kind of treatment, instead of Dean Hack Devlin & Roland Hack Emmerich's GINO from 1998!

Comparing the new movie to anything by Michael Hack Bay is beyond retarded. Hack Bay could not create a movie as good as this. I thought this movie gave the series a fresh slate, and brought back the spirit of the original series and cast I grew up with. That was both nostalgic and sentimental for me. And love it or hate it, it's creating a new generation of Trek fans! (Trekkies, Trekkers, whatever.) It warms my heart to see at Wal-Mart a little boy holding a Spock figure his dad's buying for him (and the Spock figures, as well as the Kirk figures, were practically sold out!). And when these kids get in their teens, they'll no doubt start joining Trek clubs, going to conventions, and learning Vulcan and Klingon.

Think about it.

 

[Kamen Ranger]

Comparing the new movie to anything by Michael Hack Bay is beyond retarded.

It's a completely valid comparison though. Especially since the screenplay for both Star Trek and Transformers were written by the same guys.

 

[Judge Faiz]

Do you really think that this film would've succeeded at the box office if it were a continuation of Star Trek: Nemesis? No other Trek movie has ever gotten the response it has now. The Trek franchise was dead already, let's face it. I'm just glad the movie was done by a true fan like JJ Abrams, who went back to basics, and not some hack like Michael Hack Bay, who would've truly ruined it. It's beside the point, but I was hoping Godzilla would get this kind of treatment, instead of Dean Hack Devlin & Roland Hack Emmerich's GINO from 1998!

I'm not saying that they should have only made movies that only continued on from Nemesis. I've said multiple times that you can do a reboot without having to use a cliche'd plot device such as time travel. And I thought I remembered reading somewhere that JJ Abrams had never seen the original Star Trek when he took on this movie. Or am I just imaging that?

 

[Rider of Abaddon]

When they went back in time, it didn't rewrite everything. Even if it did? Who cares? You still have your dvds, you can still watch your favorite seasons. They didn't disappear because of this.

I was going to say that. lol

I'm not saying that they should have only made movies that only continued on from Nemesis. I've said multiple times that you can do a reboot without having to use a cliche'd plot device such as time travel. And I thought I remembered reading somewhere that JJ Abrams had never seen the original Star Trek when he took on this movie. Or am I just imaging that?

I could be wrong because I didn't completely follow Star Trek before...I would watch it here and there but I haven't seen all the episodes. But isn't Star Trek totally a giant space cliche? That's the impression I've gotten. So a cliche storyline would be fitting if that's the case. Correct me if I am wrong though.

 

[HaiTien78]

Comparing the new movie to anything by Michael Hack Bay is beyond retarded.

What are you talking about? Its perfectly logical and rational to compare the two movies to each other and Revenge of the Fallen. Just in case you didn't know all three movies were written by the same team of people, in other words Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman made the screenplay for all three of these movies. They wrote the story, thought up the plot, wrote the dialogue, and put it down on paper for Bayformers, Star Trek, and Revenge of the Fallen. Saying its retarded to compare Bayformers to Star Trek is like saying its retarded to compare Coraline to Stardust when they are both Neil Gaiman novels.

 

[ryuuseipro]

So?

Yes, both movies have the same writers, but consider this:

Star Trek will always get more respect than Transformers in the sci-fi world. Transformers is always considered to be some silly kid's toy/cartoon, which was based on a toy line from Japan. It wouldn't make a difference.

Remember, GINO was written by two Disney writers, and their Disney work is better than GINO. I thought JJ Abrams' Cloverfield was a better Godzilla movie than GINO!

Both have the same writers, but one is better than the other (and not just because Michael Hack Bay is not involved in one of them). That should tell you something.