ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

J.J.'s Star Trek Trilogy

GalaxyClass14

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 396

Report this Jun. 01 2010, 6:57 pm

Quote (WkdYngMan @ May 31 2010, 7:47 pm)
Quote (fooledagain @ June 01 2010, 1:46 pm)
Quote (Vger23 @ May 23 2010, 10:42 am)
Who's to judge which existance has the right to continue and which does not??

Apparently JJ Abrams since the original/prime/whatever time line continues to exist only in the imaginations of some fans.

So how is that different from now to before the film?

word
brilliant

fooledagain

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 878

Report this Jun. 01 2010, 7:11 pm

Quote (WkdYngMan @ June 01 2010, 6:47 pm)
Quote (fooledagain @ June 01 2010, 1:46 pm)
Quote (Vger23 @ May 23 2010, 10:42 am)
Who's to judge which existance has the right to continue and which does not??

Apparently JJ Abrams since the original/prime/whatever time line continues to exist only in the imaginations of some fans.

So how is that different from now to before the film?

Prior to the decision to remake TOS the Trek universe could have continued along the so called "prime" time line covering events post TNG or within that universe. Considering the success of A-Trek, that will now be the so called "prime" time line. There is not going to be another movie with the surviving original casts (of TOS or other series) and likely won't be any movie or series that pretends to be tied to canon of prior Treks. Anyone that thinks there will be is not being realistic.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jun. 01 2010, 8:22 pm

Quote (fooledagain @ June 01 2010, 7:11 pm)
Quote (WkdYngMan @ June 01 2010, 6:47 pm)
Quote (fooledagain @ June 01 2010, 1:46 pm)
Quote (Vger23 @ May 23 2010, 10:42 am)
Who's to judge which existance has the right to continue and which does not??

Apparently JJ Abrams since the original/prime/whatever time line continues to exist only in the imaginations of some fans.

So how is that different from now to before the film?

Prior to the decision to remake TOS the Trek universe could have continued along the so called "prime" time line covering events post TNG or within that universe. Considering the success of A-Trek, that will now be the so called "prime" time line. There is not going to be another movie with the surviving original casts (of TOS or other series) and likely won't be any movie or series that pretends to be tied to canon of prior Treks. Anyone that thinks there will be is not being realistic.

Why is that such a big deal? I had come to terms with the possibility of that reality back in Dec '91 after "The Undiscovered Country" premiered. I accepted it again when "Nemesis" was billed as "A Generation's Final Journey" in 2002.

Anything else we've gotten is CAKE in my opinion.

And yes, they COULD have continued the "original" timeline into a post-Nemesis era (just like they COULD have done just about anything they wanted), but they were trying to make something that would be of interest to more than 10-15% of the hardcore fan population.

I for one am infinitely thankful they did.

fooledagain

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 878

Report this Jun. 02 2010, 12:27 am

Quote (Vger23 @ June 01 2010, 8:22 pm)
Quote (fooledagain @ June 01 2010, 7:11 pm)
Quote (WkdYngMan @ June 01 2010, 6:47 pm)
Quote (fooledagain @ June 01 2010, 1:46 pm)
Quote (Vger23 @ May 23 2010, 10:42 am)
Who's to judge which existance has the right to continue and which does not??

Apparently JJ Abrams since the original/prime/whatever time line continues to exist only in the imaginations of some fans.

So how is that different from now to before the film?

Prior to the decision to remake TOS the Trek universe could have continued along the so called "prime" time line covering events post TNG or within that universe. Considering the success of A-Trek, that will now be the so called "prime" time line. There is not going to be another movie with the surviving original casts (of TOS or other series) and likely won't be any movie or series that pretends to be tied to canon of prior Treks. Anyone that thinks there will be is not being realistic.

Why is that such a big deal? I had come to terms with the possibility of that reality back in Dec '91 after "The Undiscovered Country" premiered. I accepted it again when "Nemesis" was billed as "A Generation's Final Journey" in 2002.

Anything else we've gotten is CAKE in my opinion.

And yes, they COULD have continued the "original" timeline into a post-Nemesis era (just like they COULD have done just about anything they wanted), but they were trying to make something that would be of interest to more than 10-15% of the hardcore fan population.

I for one am infinitely thankful they did.

I'm not saying it is a big deal. It's just the way it is, like it or not. A lot of posts here try to reconcile the new Trek with the old and make the prime and alternate arguments. In the context of where Trek will go for the next few years at least, A-Trek is the prime time line. My reply to the quote is that Paramount has given the right to decide to Abrams.

fooledagain

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 878

Report this Jun. 02 2010, 12:09 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ June 02 2010, 8:53 am)
Abrams doesn't make the decisions for CBS...only Paramount.

:logical:

SB63, we've been around the block before about who owns what with regard to Trek, but that is not my point here. The success of Abrams' Trek makes him the the prime mover for the future of Trek at this time. He doesn't own it, but having re-imagined it in a financially successful way means that Paramount will let him decide on which way the story goes from here. His track record with television also makes him the "logical" front runner to develop any new series for CBS. His new "vision" of Trek is the defacto prime time line and is as legitimate as Roddenberry's or Berman's. His writers will not have to feel at all obligated to reconcile canon or alternate universes. I am neither advocating or disparaging Abrams Trek (at least in this post) but the constant bickering about the universes and who gets to decide the future direction of Trek in general is moot.

fooledagain

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 878

Report this Jun. 02 2010, 2:06 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ June 02 2010, 12:49 pm)
Quote (fooledagain @ June 02 2010, 12:09 pm)
Quote (starbase63 @ June 02 2010, 8:53 am)
Abrams doesn't make the decisions for CBS...only Paramount.

:logical:

SB63, we've been around the block before about who owns what with regard to Trek, but that is not my point here. The success of Abrams' Trek makes him the the prime mover for the future of Trek at this time. He doesn't own it, but having re-imagined it in a financially successful way means that Paramount will let him decide on which way the story goes from here. His track record with television also makes him the "logical" front runner to develop any new series for CBS. His new "vision" of Trek is the defacto prime time line and is as legitimate as Roddenberry's or Berman's. His writers will not have to feel at all obligated to reconcile canon or alternate universes. I am neither advocating or disparaging Abrams Trek (at least in this post) but the constant bickering about the universes and who gets to decide the future direction of Trek in general is moot.

That Abrams may be the "logical" front runner is not in dispute...but would CBS be willing to pay for him to do Trek on TV?

Or would they prefer a more cost effective Orci? Or Manny Coto?

Just because he created the new Paramount timeline may not mean CBS has automatic use of it, even if Abrams were to go from Paramount to CBS.

I don't know why one movie suddenly makes people think the Paramount timeline overrules decades worth of Trek history.

:logical:

I agree with what you say, but I think the dollar far and away makes the choice for CBS clear. Abrams, Orci, and Kurtzman would probably tie a series to their movie in some way. Don't they all just share the same brain anyway? Their Trek would be a great lead in for the re-imagined Hawaii Five-0.[I]

fooledagain

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 878

Report this Jun. 02 2010, 2:24 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ June 02 2010, 2:13 pm)
Could you imagine the ads?

"Book him, Spocko..."

:laugh:

:logical:

You know...I'm afraid to continue this line of thought out of fear that some decision maker at CBS might..........

Narada

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4010

Report this Jun. 05 2010, 1:08 pm

What is cool about that is the new Detective Chin Ho Kelly is played by Daniel Dae Kim who was in both Voyager and Enterprise.

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Jun. 05 2010, 1:34 pm

Have any of you seen the Red Dwarf episode "Stasis Leak"? The heroes go back in time and meet their past selves, and at the end of the episode discover that their future selves have also gone back in time, so that in the final scene there are three versions of everyone, complete with Mirror-Spock goatees so you can tell them apart. Great stuff.

Kirk_vs_Kahn

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 319

Report this Jun. 09 2010, 11:15 am

I'm against the idea of them 'restoring' the timeline. Since both exist, really, there is nothing to restore.

I also think if you bring back Kirk Sr and Amanda, there deaths will have meant nothing. I want to see where this universe goes. I like the idea that Kirk or Spock, or whoever, could die.

Hell, the big difference between the universes isnt so much the parents, it's VULCAN. In one, it exists, in this new universe, it's gone.

24thcenstfan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7310

Report this Jul. 02 2010, 8:34 am

I hope the trilogy ends just like "The Undiscovered Country" ended...the crew and the fans being excited about the future and what's to come.

I'm also of the opinion that the writers don't need to restore the timeline. It is what it is now (for this crew).

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum