Trek's continuity is an illusion. A comforting lie told to protect you...
NuTrek spinoff series: you're the producer
- Thread starter The Mirrorball Man
- Start date
Entertaining stories featuring interesting characters in novel situations?
Yeah, it's just not the same without that guy eating a peach just out of shot...
Don't get me wrong. I like internal continuity. It's a powerful element of world-building. But it's not the be-all end-all - and it never was even in the prime timeline. And once the reboot's happened and more importantly has succeeded... isn't it time to move on? Prime's dead, and I don't mean Optimus. Star Trek is dead. Long live Star Trek.
Guys, it's all rock n' roll. JJ may be call it multiuniverse, alternate universe, whatever to please us old folks, but let's face it, there are going to be fans like me who will never accept anyone but Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock. And that's just the way that it is. It's not something you can rationalize or change...it's in your gut. And that's it. Accept it.
But hey, I was one of them who thought they could never accept another captain of the Enterprise...until I met Patrick Stewart, who completely floored me with his performance. There could be another captain and baby, he was it!
So, JJ, make me change my mind. But don't insult my intelligence by calling it a multiuniverse. Just say, these stories happened when Kirk was young. That, I may be able to accept.
But hey, I was one of them who thought they could never accept another captain of the Enterprise...until I met Patrick Stewart, who completely floored me with his performance. There could be another captain and baby, he was it!
So, JJ, make me change my mind. But don't insult my intelligence by calling it a multiuniverse. Just say, these stories happened when Kirk was young. That, I may be able to accept.
Of course, whenever a change occurs, some people will not accept it, that's to be expected. But the change has occured and I think it's a colossal waste of time to keep complaining about it. Those who can't accept it will have to move on to other things, because Star Trek will not revert back to the old version.
There's continuity between shows, but it's an illusion, and requires HUGE amounts of willing suspension of disbelief to hold together.
Yeah, it's cool to think Admiral Janeway knew Picard who knew Sisko who met Kirk... but then, how did Kirk get from the rim of the galaxy to Earth and then to the centre (twice if you include the cartoons), when Voyager's galaxy-spanning journey on the fastest ship in Starfleet should have taken 75 years? Why does Deep Space Nine ignore all the cool things hand phasers can do? You have to kind of pretend all the other shows happened differently in the context of whichever one you're currently watching, otherwise episodes like "The Seige of AR-558" look incredibly dumb.
Janeway knew Picard who knew Sisko who knew Dax who knew McCoy who knew Spock who knew nuKirk. So IMO it's the same continuity if not the same very blurry history.
Multiverse is just a sci-fi way of calling it a "what if...?" story. What if a crazy Romulan showed up on the day of Kirk's birth and started raising hell? How would Spock cope if his planet were destroyed and his mother killed right in front of him? Now we're gonna see the aftermath of all that. Old characters, new situations and no need to hit a reset button at the end to set up the old show.
DalekJim isn't complaining about Shatner not being Kirk. He's complaining about a new timeline. You could have a 25th century show staring captain Tennant of the USS Lollipop. If you tell DalekJim the show is in the classic timeline he's happy, if you tell him the show is in the JJ timeline he's going to complain. The show could be identical in every way. The show can ignore every piece of Trek history just like TNG-ENT did when it was convenient, and he'll be happy as long as you say it's the classic timeline. The minute a producer says it's a new timeline he'll complain, regardless of content.
A continuity constantly being written by hundreds of different writers over five decades is of course going to change and shift, since it didn't come down from on high carved into stone tablets. Errors and contradictions are to be expected, that's just the way life is, so long as those who work on developing stick to the core concepts and direction I'm usually happy.
Those that can't think of anything more interesting or engaging than just pressing the reset button are just being lazy, whilst destroying things like character development and emotional impact, so that you end up not caring about characters.
This is just simply wrong.
At some point, the "character development and emotional impact" that a few cling tightly to becomes a entry barrier for general audiences. They want to be entertained and don't care about the minutiae. Creating yet another generic group of characters does nothing to really grow the brand.
I thought they (Abrams, Orci & Kurtzman) did an incredible amount of work trying to make this accessible to not only general audiences but to those who take things like canon seriously, they tried to move forward without leaving those folks behind. For me, I knew as far back as 1999 that a reboot was inevitable but I would've went whole hog and did a hard reboot. I didn't need Nimoy. Also, I didn't need my hand held and assured that the old universe was still there.
What they did is equivalent to putting a label of a very expensive wine (Star Trek) on a bottle of a very cheap and tasteless wine (2009 film) and selling that to the people.
Star Trek was a cultural icon and recognized by many long before Abrams. He only made Star Trek for Dummies version of it, that's all. That he/they made it "accessible" is actually just a myth.
There's more to continuity than B follows A. As others have said the point is telling a story that's entertaining. Check off continuity boxes isn't entertaining. In the end it just bogs things down.
How does calling it a "multiuniverse" (or multiverse) insult anyone's intelligence? The concept has been a SF staple forever and has been used in Star Trek from time to time.
I wonder what the implications are for the mirror universe? Did a mirror Nero tavel back in time to destroy Vulcan?
A mini-series about being trapped in the mirror universe where Vulcan still exists might be interesting, in that Quinto's Spock might be torn and wish to remain there.
A mini-series about being trapped in the mirror universe where Vulcan still exists might be interesting, in that Quinto's Spock might be torn and wish to remain there.
A show set in the main Star Trek timeline wouldn't be merely ticking continuity boxes. It'd be about a ship exploring new worlds and new viewers wouldn't really notice most of the continuity references. The fact it wouldn't go out of its way to separate itself from other series in order to appeal to non-fans would make some of us feel less alienated.
A sci-fi show aimed at people who dislike sci-fi is just dumb. It works for popcorn movies to be sure but I doubt the general audience will stick with it for 7 seasons or whatever.
You mean like Lost? Or maybe Walking Dead? Or how about Game of Thrones? What we've seen is the exact opposite. Shows that limit themselves to sci-fi fans can't get the audience to last one season, while shows aiming for a broader appeal are hits for their network.
It seems like whenever a JJ apologist pleads his case, it seems to run along these populist lines, that mainstream audiences don't care for any of the qualities most film buffs feel good quality movies should possess. It need only provide cheap thrills. And if you begin to talk about these important qualities, then you're accused of being an elitist out-of-touch film-snob.
Sorry, man, but good films are good films. The fact that lots of people like empty-calories for movies doesn't change that.
For some reason, some people seem to think that slavish adherence to a byzantine and arbitrary continuity has anything to do with the quality of movies. They are wrong.
Suggestion: How about retiring the phrase "JJ apologist"? You really can't complain about being called an "elitist out-of-touch film-snob" when you use a loaded term like that.
What "qualities" do most "film buffs" think good films must posses?
Who said ST09 provided only "cheap thrills". Most people here have pointed many elements in the film that were more than "cheap thrills".
Yes a good film is a good film. But a good film can also be a cheap thrill ride with empty calories.
Captain Hikaru Sulu aboard the USS Excelsior set ten years after the movie. Maybe during a Romulan war to spice things up.
I'm familiar with 'the qualities most film buffs feel good films should possess'. None of the eleven movies released under the 'Star Trek' banner possesses very many of those qualities. If most people are prepared to say TWOK is the best - TVH is my favourite, but whatever - they needn't be thinking TWOK is anything other than a successful popcorn movie. Which there is nothing wrong with it being.
There's no point judging ST09 by the standards of the TV shows. You can only judge it by the other movies. And I think it holds up very well, to say the least.
There's no point judging ST09 by the standards of the TV shows. You can only judge it by the other movies. And I think it holds up very well, to say the least.
Similar threads
