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
  #11  
Old 04-25-2009, 12:20 PM
andyp's Avatar
andyp andyp is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 70
Default

[quote=andyp;180130]
STS9
quote]

For Defiant
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-25-2009, 02:40 PM
flw's Avatar
flw flw is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 96
Default

Given the fact that Star Trek has always been Paramount's biggest money-generating property, they needed to do something to get the franchise going again. I suppose you could say that they "abandoned" the fans - some fans will inevitably see it that way. But I for one am looking forward to the new movie a lot. I wasn't always excited about it, but I am now.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-25-2009, 02:49 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
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.
I suspect you're waiting for a personal apology from Abrams and Paramount because you didn't like their film.

What makes you think they're ignoring you personally? They're not. Your opinion, just like on this forum, is a part of overall fan reception to this film. As you say, your opinion is worth no less to them than anyone else's, and they'll accept your dissent on those terms... just as you professed at the end of your comments.

You're not being ignored, but your personal opinion so far is not in agreement with a larger number of individually differing opinion. Sometimes it happens that way.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-25-2009, 03:31 PM
wedestroymyths wedestroymyths is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 85
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneBuckFilms View Post

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?
And there is the problem with contemporary cinema--the audience's demand for familiarity.

Did everyone 'know' Luke Skywalker when Star Wars opened? Did everyone know Peter Venkman before Ghostbusters opened? Ripley before Alien? Heck, out of respect for JJ, did we know who Jack or Sawyer were before Lost?

Some might ask, why should I feel like I "must see" a movie that's just a rehash of tired characters that should be put to rest.

The truth is, with enough ingenuity and good writing, the unfamiliar can capture an audience's imagination. Unfortunately, audiences tend to stay away from the unfamiliar and so Hollywood keeps rehashing the same junk over and over again banking primarily on name recognition to keep profits up.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-25-2009, 04:10 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,207
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.
That option died with VOY and ENT. They killed it, Star Trek was dead.

I know a lot of fans like to think "if they only did it right, I 'just know' a show set 100 years later could..."

Problem is, there's no "if they only" about it. The time do it right, make the "ultimate" ST series everyone thinks should be made... that time was fifteen years ago. And the people in charge let it pass. DS9 was the last Trek series that even tried to evolve.

Likewise, the time to realize maybe it was time to give ST a break, was at least ten years ago.

Second Generation Trek, with its trend of expanding with new characters and settings, had run its course. We're in Third Generation now, and this is the shape it has chosen. Go back to the franchise' roots, blow it up and push it mainstream.

It's the only way to bring it back at this point. And it took real balls for Paramount, which usually only knows how to "react" (they were reacting when they decided VOY and ENT needed to be TNG Lite), to finally realize this.

(A more "typical" reaction on their part would've been to continue business as usual, with the anticipation of ever-diminishing returns. Call it Planet of the Apes syndrome)

Last edited by samwiseb : 04-25-2009 at 04:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-25-2009, 04:58 PM
Mjolnir2000 Mjolnir2000 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 33
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!
I would have been fine with a "do-over". That's what they're doing anyway, why not be honest about it? What bothers me is that they're trying to pretend that everything somehow fits within the established universe - there's time travel, and yet somehow the old timeline still exists? How does that make any sense given how time travel has worked in every other movie and episode? If they had just said, "yes, we're doing a reboot" I would thought "huh, cool - I wonder what their take will be".

Last edited by Mjolnir2000 : 04-25-2009 at 05:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-25-2009, 05:04 PM
flw's Avatar
flw flw is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 96
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mjolnir2000 View Post
I would have been with a "do-over". That's what they're doing anyway, why not be honest about it? What bothers me is that they're trying to pretend that everything somehow fits within the established universe - there's time travel, and yet somehow the old timeline still exists? How does that make any sense given how time travel has worked in every other movie and episode? If they had just said, "yes, we're doing a reboot" I would thought "huh, cool - I wonder what their take will be".
As I said, watch "Parallels" from the 7th season of TNG. Data explains, saying that there are an infinite number of options at any moment, and that there is a theory in quantum physics that states that anything that CAN happen, DOES happen - creating a multitude of new realities that each proceeds forward independently, in a different dimension. I'm not a quantum physicist - it may be a bunch of baloney - but if it is a plausible idea, then, yes, in fact, the old timeline would continue on as well as a new one. And after all, stranger things have happened in the Star Trek universe, haven't they?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-25-2009, 05:16 PM
Mjolnir2000 Mjolnir2000 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flw View Post
As I said, watch "Parallels" from the 7th season of TNG. Data explains, saying that there are an infinite number of options at any moment, and that there is a theory in quantum physics that states that anything that CAN happen, DOES happen - creating a multitude of new realities that each proceeds forward independently, in a different dimension. I'm not a quantum physicist - it may be a bunch of baloney - but if it is a plausible idea, then, yes, in fact, the old timeline would continue on as well as a new one. And after all, stranger things have happened in the Star Trek universe, haven't they?
Every single time there's been time travel in star trek, the prior timeline is erased. That's how time travel in star trek works.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-25-2009, 05:34 PM
Beetlescott's Avatar
Beetlescott Beetlescott is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 1,645
Default

As a longtime fan of Star Trek, I am somewhat saddened by the use of a seperate timeline or alternate universe or what ever you want to call it. The reason being, it is just difficult to keep up with it. Maybe not now, but if it, say, goes on for a few movies or possibly a few series, (who knows, maybe history will repeat itself!) Then it gets kind of difficult. Second, there will probably never, ever be anymore movies or TV shows about the "prime" timeline we have all followed all these years. That said, there is one far worse thing JJ could have done. IF they had of decided to start over like someone else mentioned, and wipe the slate clean and pretend it never happened. That would be worse, so I guess it could be worse
__________________
LET'S MAKE SURE HISTORY NEVER FORGETS THE NAME ENTERPRISE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-25-2009, 05:53 PM
Samuel Samuel is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beetlescott View Post
That would be worse, so I guess it could be worse
Worse for some. Probably just fine for most. Today we are very used to reboots and if its done well most just think of it as such. Daniel Craig has not nor ever will destroy Sean Connery but he is Bond just as much as any of the other actors were. Well, maybe all but David Niven.
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 05:56 AM.


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.