The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > My Take On WHY Abrams Has Changed Time Lines
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-25-2009, 01:30 AM
Bright Eyes's Avatar
Bright Eyes Bright Eyes is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 262
Default My Take On WHY Abrams Has Changed Time Lines

I don't read every thread, so I may be presenting old soup here, but I think I've worked out (at least to my own satisfaction) why Abrams and Paramount have taken Star Trek in the direction they have.

I don't believe that the 'alternate time line' angle is for the purpose of collectively thumbing their noses at fans of the older Trek; it's so that they are not encumbered by having to concern themselves about established history (or 'canon').

It seems to me that once they settled on the idea of telling new Kirk and Spock stories, they looked at their options. Since there was an already established history of TOS episodes, their choices were to (1) confine themselves to telling stories set before the first TOS episode, (2) tell new stories set between the existing TOS episodes, (3) retell the existing TOS episodes in new terms, or (4) set new stories during the untold second part of the 5 Year Mission.

Honestly, I think they would see all of these options as very limiting. All of these options would demand a constant watch for deviations of existing canon, and all of them would limit them in being as creative as might like to be.

Stories set before TOS would be just a few years long at most and would have to come to an end and not be open-ended; telling stories between TOS episodes would allow canon to become a straight jacket as far as having to conform to it is concerned; retelling the existing TOS episodes would invite endless debate over which was better and whether any change in the story was justified. Telling stories set in the untold second part of the 5 Year Mission (perhaps the most viable of these four choices) still makes demands about canon; it all sounds like a minefield to me.

In comparison, creating a new time-line would have been very attractive to them, as they could tell new stories without any reference to canon, and update the out-dated looking technology in the name of the new time line. (I am aware that, from certain details that have emerged, there seem to be more changes than can be accounted for by Nero's intervention. But it's like a magic trick: your eyes are supposed to be drawn to what the magician wants you to see, not what he is doing where you're not looking; you're not supposed to notice those other changes, but go along for the ride.)

So this seems to be the way of it: a new Star Trek in which a new history is yet to be written, and an old Star Trek that is still technically existing, but actually is preserved like an insect in amber. I can well understand why they wanted to take Trek in a new direction, but I can't help but be sad that they have done so.
__________________
_________________________________
If you are too open minded your brains will fall out.





Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-25-2009, 01:36 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

I think that is the general idea - the new film can be accessed by newcomers without them having to know 40 years of Star Trek history, and leaves itself in a fresh storytelling environment. While the original 40 years is kept, and not erased by anything so not invalidated by the new film. It allows the best of both worlds, if done right in the story itself.

Which I have not seen yet, so can't render final judgement on.

Because that original 40 years is still there, I'm not sad but very excited about this shot in the arm Trek is being given.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-25-2009, 06:47 AM
flw's Avatar
flw flw is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 96
Default

There was one other option that Paramount had: namely to do a straight-up "do-over" like, say, Batman Begins, and pretend that the previous 40+ years of Star Trek didn't exist at all. Of course, if they had done that, they couldn't have used Leonard Nimoy, and they would have totally alienated (no pun intended) every single existing Trek fan. Anyone who has paid attention to the development of Star Trek (and that includes every single member of these boards, of course) knows just what a fractious bunch of people we can be about canon, and whether (for example) Star Trek: Enterprise was a good thing or not, etc. But the only thing that would have united every Trek fan in a completely unanimous (Borg-type "collective") voice is if Paramount had decided on a complete restart which would have erased all of Trek history completely. Given that the studio suits obviously had that option, I'm OK with the idea of a new timeline, or a new "quantum reality". (Suggestion: watch the TNG 7th-season episode "Parallels" to get a sense of the possibility here. It will help you get your mind around the idea of what JJ and Co. have done. I think it will work!)

By the way, Bright Eyes - I love your quips at the bottom of your posts! They make me laugh every time!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-25-2009, 07:50 AM
Magnum Magnum is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 185
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flw View Post
There was one other option that Paramount had: namely to do a straight-up "do-over" like, say, Batman Begins, and pretend that the previous 40+ years of Star Trek didn't exist at all. Of course, if they had done that, they couldn't have used Leonard Nimoy, and they would have totally alienated (no pun intended) every single existing Trek fan. Anyone who has paid attention to the development of Star Trek (and that includes every single member of these boards, of course) knows just what a fractious bunch of people we can be about canon, and whether (for example) Star Trek: Enterprise was a good thing or not, etc. But the only thing that would have united every Trek fan in a completely unanimous (Borg-type "collective") voice is if Paramount had decided on a complete restart which would have erased all of Trek history completely. Given that the studio suits obviously had that option, I'm OK with the idea of a new timeline, or a new "quantum reality". (Suggestion: watch the TNG 7th-season episode "Parallels" to get a sense of the possibility here. It will help you get your mind around the idea of what JJ and Co. have done. I think it will work!)

By the way, Bright Eyes - I love your quips at the bottom of your posts! They make me laugh every time!
Why couldn't Paramount had made another series set 100 years after Voyager. Paramount could do this now. All they would have to do is change all the actors names and add a letter after 1701 maybe G like in NCC-1701-G. It could had been called Generation two. And the ship could had been launched from the ground due to advanced tech not available during Voyagers time.

But what has really happened is Abarms and Paramount have abandoned the fans. In my opinion Paramount has done this for the money. All they see is $$$ and they are ignoring those who are opposed to this fluff, (Believe me when I say it was fluff, no script no plot, no substance, just a money maker)

And thats just my opinion. No opinion is better than another.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-25-2009, 08:02 AM
jtrek79's Avatar
jtrek79 jtrek79 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Athens,Greece
Posts: 3,330
Default

and last 2 star trek movies drove the franchise to the ground by not being money makers.....man i love abrams...he was so right when he said,i cant please all the fans
__________________
B E H O L D T H E N A R A D A
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-25-2009, 08:23 AM
AyanEva AyanEva is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnum View Post
Why couldn't Paramount had made another series set 100 years after Voyager. Paramount could do this now. All they would have to do is change all the actors names and add a letter after 1701 maybe G like in NCC-1701-G. It could had been called Generation two. And the ship could had been launched from the ground due to advanced tech not available during Voyagers time.

But what has really happened is Abarms and Paramount have abandoned the fans. In my opinion Paramount has done this for the money. All they see is $$$ and they are ignoring those who are opposed to this fluff, (Believe me when I say it was fluff, no script no plot, no substance, just a money maker)

And thats just my opinion. No opinion is better than another.
Because it would still be inaccessible to non-Trek fans. They'd still need to know all of the existing canon in order for the movie to be relevant. Just my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-25-2009, 08:29 AM
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
OneBuckFilms OneBuckFilms is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnum View Post
Why couldn't Paramount had made another series set 100 years after Voyager. Paramount could do this now. All they would have to do is change all the actors names and add a letter after 1701 maybe G like in NCC-1701-G. It could had been called Generation two. And the ship could had been launched from the ground due to advanced tech not available during Voyagers time.

But what has really happened is Abarms and Paramount have abandoned the fans. In my opinion Paramount has done this for the money. All they see is $$$ and they are ignoring those who are opposed to this fluff, (Believe me when I say it was fluff, no script no plot, no substance, just a money maker)

And thats just my opinion. No opinion is better than another.
Star Trek needed an entry point to those unfamiliar with the universe.

To set a show another 100 years in the future, they would be adding another series to the 40+ years of established continuity. To the general aiduence, it would be "yet another Star Trek show. Been there, done that."

Also, it is far more risky to bring a completely new crew to a movie. There would be no effective way to make this a "must see" movie. Why would anyone care about characters they don't know?

A core of fans would see it, and nobody else would have any reason to see it.

No, they had to go back to basics (Kirk/Spock/Etc.), due to their recognisability with the general public (everyone knows who Spock is, the one with the ears), and give it a makeover.

What they have done is find a way to reboot the franchise without invalidating, or making irrelevent, the rest of established Canon.
__________________
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-25-2009, 08:31 AM
jtrek79's Avatar
jtrek79 jtrek79 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Athens,Greece
Posts: 3,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms View Post
Star Trek needed an entry point to those unfamiliar with the universe.

To set a show another 100 years in the future, they would be adding another series to the 40+ years of established continuity. To the general aiduence, it would be "yet another Star Trek show. Been there, done that."

Also, it is far more risky to bring a completely new crew to a movie. There would be no effective way to make this a "must see" movie. Why would anyone care about characters they don't know?

A core of fans would see it, and nobody else would have any reason to see it.

No, they had to go back to basics (Kirk/Spock/Etc.), due to their recognisability with the general public (everyone knows who Spock is, the one with the ears), and give it a makeover.

What they have done is find a way to reboot the franchise without invalidating, or making irrelevent, the rest of established Canon.

u re right 1000000000000%
__________________
B E H O L D T H E N A R A D A
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-25-2009, 11:36 AM
Samuel Samuel is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnum View Post
But what has really happened is Abarms and Paramount have abandoned the fans. In my opinion Paramount has done this for the money. All they see is $$$ and they are ignoring those who are opposed to this fluff, (Believe me when I say it was fluff, no script no plot, no substance, just a money maker)
Another possibility... they didnt want to wait for the fans of the original to all pass from the Earth first. Maybe they could have waited 20 more years for alot to either die off or be too old to care. Very harsh but true. People who didnt grow up with Shatner et al are more open to a reimagining (or pick your own word).

Absolutely Paramount is looking at the money and worrying about the other particulars of Star Trek is not their job nor should it be. That is, so long as the movie delivers and the creative types are not making a complete turkey that will lose money. If you were a major stock holder and the execs of the company passed on a sure blockbuster for the sake of preserving some peoples attachment to an original then I would hope you would call for them to be fired. And as someone who puts out alot more money than for tickets and DVDs that would be your prerogative. That said, the question of whether a reboot or a next-next-next-gen movie would be a bigger hit is an interesting one. As a stock holder I would want to see the numbers. If the latter has projections of $30 million more then forget any movie about Kirk and Spock.

Thats the %100 legitimate business side but the rest of us not concerned about budgets and so forth and can work on the creative people to make what we want.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-25-2009, 12:16 PM
andyp's Avatar
andyp andyp is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
Default

If Paramount wasn't looking at the money, we would have..... nothing! The books, the web series, the conventions.... if it wasn't for the money... Star Trek would have died in 1969.

None of what you've read or have seen would have been possible with out Paramount/Viacoms approvals.

So enjoy the fact that Paramount wants the money.... We get a new Trek.

TOS
10 - TEN MOVIES
ST:NG
STS9
Voyager
Enterprise

Now Star Trek: The Beginning

If anyone doesn't like that, then Buy Paramount/Viacom and change it!

By the way they already have my $125.00 for 10 IMAX tickets, so buy it quick and lower the prices.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:47 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.