When Roberto Orci stepped down from directing Star Trek 3, rumor had it that one of the major problems was his screenplay. According to Badass Digest, the script saw the Vulcans racing to find a time travel device so that they could go back in time and save their planet Vulcan from (in the reboot’s new timeline) Nero blowing it up with red matter, effectively rebooting the reboot.
It’s for several reasons that I’m glad Orci won’t be helming the new Star Trek, but this one is paramount: They shouldn’t try and resurrect Vulcan! Or any obliterated planet, for that matter! Blowing up an entire world should be the kind of narrative decision that writers stick to, without the safety net that they can reverse it when they need more stories a few years down the road.
That doesn’t mean I’m against “let’s save the world!” narratives. I am all for a rah-rah story about narrowly avoiding that massive asteroid/white-hot laser/nuclear warfare. But there are clear consequences to blowing up an entire world, and they should be honored. As TV Tropes points out, with nearly any other apocalyptic scenario, mankind can rebuild. Not when their planet is dust.
Watching Alderaan get blown up in Star Wars: A New Hope was one of the most shocking sci-fi moments I’ve ever experienced. Never mind that I was eight when I first saw that movie; I still get a chill when at the moment where Leia thinks she’s outsmarted Darth Vader and Grand Moff Tarkin, only for them to call her Dantooine bluff and still set the Death Star’s lasers on her homeworld:
In moments, an entire planet is blown to smithereens. And when Leia’s kids come of age in the Expanded Universe, they don’t embark on some foolish quest to restore Alderaan to its former glory and wholeness. The Young Jedi Knights novel Shards of Alderaan has the Solo twins literally weaving through the Graveyard, where the pieces of Leia’s home float as a constant reminder of what can never exist again. Leia got the New Republic and the destruction of the Empire, but none of that can bring back her childhood home.
I have yet to see a narrative that successfully restores a decimated planet while entirely convincing audiences that it was a necessary resurrection. Doctor Who almost got me there with its 50th anniversary special “The Day of the Doctor”: Each traumatized in different ways by Gallifrey’s fall in the Time War, the Tenth, Eleventh, and War Doctors team up to bring back their planet. What slightly redeems this reversal is that they don’t just flip the switch on Gallifrey’s destruction; instead, they freeze the planet in a pocket universe, allowing it to disappear right before the Dalek fleets open fire and destroy each other. The ensuing crossfire hides Gallifrey’s disappearance, adhering to the original canon that it was destroyed, while the planet lives on, to be discovered again someday by the Twelfth (or later) Doctor.
GIFs via the official Doctor Who Tumblr
Stirs up the feels, doesn’t it? But when the emotion of the moment faded, I just felt manipulated. You can make the argument that whether or not Gallifrey exists equally affects the Doctor’s character development, either through his angst over believing he condemned his planet or how its renewed existence affects his relationship with the Master. But as a viewer, I felt sucked in by a hyperbolic plot reversal, the benefits of which nevertheless negated the original loss of the planet.
Why the overwhelming need to click a giant “UNDO” button when it comes to blowing up planets? Is it mere storytelling boredom, or does it grow out of insecurity about our real planet Earth’s chances of surviving the coming millennia? The strongest sci-fi narratives concerning the fate of Earth (or a similar planet) are not the ones where humans double back to revive their homeworld, but instead those where they cut their losses and look for their next home.
Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar managed to destroy Earth, though it had to happen off-screen. At least, that’s what you have to assume at the end of the film, when Cooper wakes up on the Saturn-orbiting Cooper Station, where the remains of humanity live after abandoning their planet. They didn’t go all Death Star and turn it into space shrapnel, but they clearly have no intention of returning to their barren former home.
Some narratives, like the 2012 romantic comedy Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, treat this story trope as the true final end. There is no sequel where humans go back in time and recreate Earth, because by the movie’s end, there are no survivors. It doesn’t fit as well as the other examples here because there’s absolutely no second chance for humans, but I felt compelled to include it for how damn affecting that ending is.
Thankfully, some Vulcans did make it off-planet before Nero struck, so they have options. The more interesting drama in Star Trek 3 would be to have Spock struggle to rebuild Vulcan society on a new planet. (Which we assume Old Spock is doing offscreen during Into Darkness.) The screenwriters could pull inspiration from Battlestar Galactica, a series whose entire premise centers on some 50,000 survivors turning their backs on their 12 imploding planets to track down one mythical world where they can unite their splintered societies into a new form of humankind.
Or how about the 2000 animated film Titan A.E.? Though cheesy in parts, it opens with the destruction of Earth, a ballsy move for a kids’ movie. But after that shock-inducing opening, the movie’s real drama is revealed through its depiction of the tattered remnants of humanity as nomads, ridiculed by other alien species for not having a home. It’s a fascinating commentary on humans achieving deep space travel yet finding themselves sorely disadvantaged. Also, I’m much more a fan of creating a new planet entirely from scratch than just rebooting the old one.
GIF via KH13
If you’re going to destroy a planet, stick to your guns—or Death Star lasers, as the case may be—and let the permanent consequences dictate the survivors’ next moves. Look forward, not back.
Natalie Zutter swears she has nothing personal against Earth, or Vulcan, or Gallifrey. She just likes irreversible story tropes! You can read more of her work on Twitter and elsewhere.
Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy pulled it off. Sort of.
@1: Twice, even. (Funny that the first thing in my mind on reading the article was to come to the comments and mention HHGTTG, only to find someone else already had. Belgium, man!)
I’m not particularly fond of the Star Trek reboot to begin with. I feel strongly that a massive number of awesome storylines were just discarded by the people running the franchise.
That aside, “resurrecting” planet Vulcan is a TERRIBLE idea. Star Trek (at least TV Trek) has a bad habit of hitting the reset button too frequently anyways. Doing a big reboot like that again so soon would be such a waste.
Wouldn’t it be more interesting to have, say, a large percentage of the Vulcan survivors decide to reunite with the Romulans, with Old and/or New Spock struggling to keep them in the Federation (or even struggling with whether or not he SHOULD try to keep them away from the Romulans). The culture differential between Vulcans and Romulans is pretty big, but they both have the same origin as a species. And it’s easy to imagine some Vulcans finding it logical to re-unite with their lost ‘cousins’ in order to better perpetuate their species.
I agree with your central thesis, in re: Stuff that’s blown up should stay blown up, but I feel as if Doctor Who’s nature is 1) that it is about time travel and 2) That it is so often a fantasy/fairytale story where, given enough time and struggle and pain, you can fix what went wrong means that the Gallifrey Reversal is affecting and appropriate.
Star Trek, however, is about moving forward. It is fine to correct an aberration that began at the start of a movie/episode, as happens many times, but after movie/episode is over we want to see how the story moves forward. I would love to have a story about Old Spock uniting his people. resisting using his future knowledge (spoilers) and making sure every Vulcan has somewhere they can pon-farr. Because seriously, how is everyone pon-farring?
Star Trek is dead. We should just let it lie. Too bad the studios won’t.
Gallifrey I think deserves a chance to live again, since it was destroyed OFF-CAMERA before the reboot just to give the doctor a little extra angst and because the writer/showrunner didn’t want to deal with it. It’s not an event, it’s backstory.
Also, it’s a time travel show, that’s part of it’s DNA, not being able to use time travel to undo major events is like having a space opera show not being able to warp to a specific planet even though it can warp to anywhere else – you need a contrived reason for the situation in the first place, and you can come up with a contrived reason to get out of it just as easily.
But in general, yeah, don’t undo things.
I feel that way about characters dying, but they’re resurrected in sci fi and comic books all the time.
I think the first movie depiction of a planet being destroyed was in the first Fleischer Studios “Superman” cartoon, in 1941. Given the astronomical and geological knowledge of the day, it’s still pretty effective and realistic-looking. Reportedly, the sound-effect of the planet exploding was created by greatly amplifying the sound of breaking an apple in half:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UJphNPwDfk
The trouble with restoring Gallifrey is that I would expect a major event like that to be a fixed point in time, that cannot be changed. Did they find a way to legalese out of that box? Sure. But it felt like someone found a loophole in the Ts&Cs and retconned a solution.
The result is valid but disappointing.
Still, I won’t blame you if you don’t credit my position too much – I’ll still watch the old episodes and some of the newer stuff, but the Moffet/Amy/Rory/11 dynamic went too long and got too painful. I walked away, was disappointed with 50, and don’t know if I’ll come back.
The MORE interesting thing to do about Vulcan, would have had that be the impetus behind the Genesis project.
But no, time travel.
Maybe someone can get Orci a job on Who? With the love of time travel and the treatment of women as disposable, it seems like he’d fit right in with Moffat.
IIRC, we don’t have to assume that Spock Prime was helping to rebuild New Vulcan; there’s actually dialogue to that effect in both films.
Spoiler alert: Didn’t Titan A.E. end with the Earth being reassembled from its fragments?
As for Alderaan, I would’ve found its destruction more impressive if it hadn’t just been a quick fireball no different from a spaceship explosion. I remember seeing Star Blazers a few years later and being impressed by the more gradual way that the planets destroyed by the wave-motion gun swelled up and tore themselves apart, giving it a real sense of scale and catastrophe that Alderaan’s simple “poof” manifestly lacked. The destruction of the Genesis Planet in The Search for Spock was similarly impressive.
Of course, it would also have been more impressive if we’d gotten to see its inhabitants and their lives before it was destroyed. Seeing Leia’s reaction gave it weight, but not as much as it could’ve had. But then, weight wasn’t what Lucas was going for. He was making a fun, fluffy Saturday-matinee adventure, with no time for reflections on death and tragedy except insofar as they moved the plot forward.
@9: The brilliance of “The Day of the Doctor” is that it didn’t alter the timeline at all. It didn’t undo the destruction of Gallifrey; it revealed that Gallifrey had never actually been destroyed in the first place. It was just hidden in a way that looked like its destruction, and because the Doctor crossed his own timeline, he didn’t remember afterward that he’d saved the planet. (Which fits perfectly with the way the Doctor’s later incarnations didn’t already remember what had happened to their earlier selves in “The Three Doctors” and “The Five Doctors.”) It’s the same thing Moffat did with the Doctor’s death in “The Impossible Astronaut” — it still happened, we just learned that it wasn’t what it looked like. What was changed wasn’t the event itself, but our perception of it.
@11, the Titan assembled a new planet from the fragments of the ice nebula in which it was hidden.
I’m fine with the (potential) return of Gallifrey, although the end of the last series has hinted that it isn’t as straighforward or consequence free as marketed, since it happened off-screen in backstory, as pointed out upthread, and also because Doctor Who has always been about finding the loophole or the trick to outwit the unoutwittable. It is a series about a hero who is at least part trickster-archetype. The Doctor has always been sneaky, and finding a way to sneak past himself to restore the thing which has meant both the least and most to him, Gallifrey, is perfectly in-keeping with the mood of the show.
Vulcan on the other hand, there is no setup for the planet’s return in its destruction, the movie series gives no hint that a return is possible. None of the characters even contemplate it. Finally, in Star Trek, time-travel is something to be avoided if possible. Nearly all the Trek series which have time-travel in them treat it akin to juggling unstable nitro-glycerin and is usually something done only by insane villains or by total accident. The only time I can think of it being done deliberatly by the heroes was Trek-IV:Save the Whales. Even then it wasn’t to undo something, but to counter a disaster that had not yet been completed. And they only survived that by the skin of Chekov’s scalp.
Trying to mash the reset button for Vulcan would just be a cheap trick to get an easier story-telling status quo because they’ve partially painted themselves into a corner.
Of course if Orci’s replacement wanted to reboot the reboot, I’d be all for that. The Orci/JJ Trek has been an unmitigated disaster on virtually every level.
3. DavidEsmale
13. Random22 – Absolutely!
This is something of the problem comics have. If everybody can come back from the dead, then death means nothing. And if you don’t take your own plot seriously, then we can’t either. And we want to take it seriously.
So, by all means have the Vulcans outreaching to the Romulans. Have the Romulans begin some serious expansionist policies, because they learn the fate of their star and its worlds. Let there be real implications.
I just hope it doesn’t end up like the new transporters. If we treat that completely seriously, then it makes major plot holes for the rest of the series. By all means, let’s get some serious SF writers in there, people who regularly publish and know how to take a story seriously, while keeping it fun. There should be plenty who would leap at an opportunity like this.
I actually like the idea of the “time travel race to save Vulcan” plot, but it would only work if it resulted in failure and the Vulcans coming to terms with their world’s destruction, then doubling down on their commitment to rebuild on another world.
@15 I have to disagree. It is a good plot for fanfic, but for a mianstream audience it is something that would not go down well. There is no way to make our designated heroes look like heroes. They’d either be assholes or failures depending on whether they were the ones trying to stop Vulcans saving a few billion lives or the ones failing to save those few billion Vulcan lives.
Now you could probably get away with that in a tv-series (in the final season when we’ve got to know the characters and their struggles and have an emotional connection to their issues) where it is mostly the fans turning in each week, but in a big screen production where you need to appeal to the non-fanbase and also make it something that those people feel comfortable enough to rewatch a couple of times on the big screen and buy the blu-ray/itunes release, and also have enough of a feel good factor to turn up for the next sequel; well then assholes or failures is not a workable format. Nice fanfic idea, but more likely to be a franchise killer on the big screen due to audience differences.
Would make an exception in any event caused by time travel, for the simple rule that time problems are always going to have time travel solutions. I thought the destruction of Vulcan was cool, mind you, and I think on it’s merits there’s something interesting about there being a Vulcan diaspora population that would be erased by some planet-saving shenanigans. Still, I wouldn’t tell Spock what to do.
More to the point: most of the audiance only knows one Vulcan, and he’s still alive. They might have cared about a film in which Spock came back to life, but why should they care about all those people on Vulcan who weren’t even extras?
@17: Maybe, but time-travel “resets” are such a cliche of the genre that it’s more interesting if the time travel causes changes that are permanent and that the characters simply have to learn to live with. Both Fringe and Eureka made permanent timeline alterations in their fourth seasons that worked quite well for both shows.
And of course the whole point of the Abramsverse was to make a fresh start that wasn’t dependent on past continuity. The plan was to use just enough time travel to provide a link from the old universe to the new, so that it would be a continuation rather than a totally separate entity, and then just move ahead from there with the new reality and not look back.
The problem is that doing that via time travel has made it hard for fans to move forward and not look back, because their experience with time-travel stories has conditioned them to expect a reset to be possible. And tying the new continuity into the old was done for the sake of not alienating the loyalists, and that didn’t really work. The movies are the most popular and well-liked Trek movies ever with general audiences and critics, and there are plenty of Trek fans who enjoy them, but the time-travel angle and the Spock Prime handover totally failed to win over the hardened purists.
So maybe they would’ve been better off just starting over with a wholesale reboot, a new reality totally independent of the old one. That might’ve made it easier to just move forward and tell new stories.
The time-travel aspect of the reboot bothered me from the start.
Looping the plot to establish continuity with the existing canon, then proceeding to ignore that continuity, upsets me. The Abramsverse set the destruction of the Kelvin as the divergence point- but that would not result in the entire bridge crew being the same age, Klingons having a different look, Khan breaking free from his pattern of two-dimensional thinking to design the most advanced starship of the day… all of which would have been forgivable for an action-oriented treatment if it were presented as a clean reboot.
I’m not sure Justin Lin would be much of a better choice to helm a Star Trek movie either. Not that he’s a bad director, but he’s too action-oriented, too loyal to studios, and not ambitious enough to develop original material.
The problem inherent in the Abrams movies is that the supposed clean break from all the baggage from the past wasn’t really clean at all. Into Darkness had a golden opportunity to really take the franchise in a new direction.
Killing Kirk off was the best plot twist ever written on a Trek script. Spock’s goodbye to him was as emotional as it could get. The promise of an infant friendship that was never going to be fulfilled thanks to his heroic sacrifice. A polar opposite of what happened on Wrath of Khan, where they’d had years of friendship to begin with. Spock would have taken over, creating a whole new dynamic.
But no, the studio had to backpedal and force the writers to provide a contrived method of resurrection.
Orci shenanigans aside, I think studio execs lack guts and the will to really challenge the status quo. Why not kill off Kirk permanently? Just because it might piss off some of the hardcore fans? Haven’t they learned you can’t please everyone.
I always say, write the story you believe in, haters be damned!
@20: As for the crew, the only one whose age has been unambiguously changed is Chekov, who’s four years older than he should be — unless Chekov was actually 26 when he claimed to be 22 in “Who Mourns for Adonais?”
As for the Klingons, they’ve had countless different looks over the decades, as different makeup artists have taken them on and refined their designs. There are the two distinct looks Fred Phillips gave them in TOS (the Kor/Kang version with swarthy skin and bifurcated eyebrows and the Kras/Koloth version without any distinctive makeup of any kind); there’s the original head-spine redesign Phillips devised for TMP; there’s the Burman Studios’ design from ST III which introduced the individualized bony forehead plates and featured females with much subtler ridges; there’s the Richard Snell version from ST IV-VI which featured less pronounced, rounder forehead plates and also gave the females very subtle ridges; and there’s the Michael Westmore version from TNG and after which combined Burman-style forehead plates with TMP-style nose ridges, and which gave males and females equally prominent ridges. Neville Page’s Klingon design for STID is just the latest variation on the same theme — a broad, Burman-like head plate with subdued, Snell-like ridges. The piercings and shaved heads would just be a cultural variation. And we’ve seen blue-eyed Klingons before, notably Gowron. So there’s no more need to “explain” the difference in these Klingons than there is to explain the difference between General Chang and General Martok, or between Azetbur and B’Etor. It’s just different designers exercising their creativity.
Did they actually say Khan designed the Vengeance? I had the impression that he wasn’t found until after the events of the first film, that it was Nero’s attack on Vulcan and Earth that prompted Marcus to search for new defenses and find the Botany Bay. Which would mean that Khan had been awake for less than a year, which is nowhere near enough time to build a prototype starship of that size. (We know from the film that it took well over three years to build the Enterprise, and that’s a smaller ship.) Maybe Khan just designed its weapon systems or something.
I would say they would’ve been better off doing a clean reboot rather than the time-travel soft reboot, but I think Into Darkness demonstrated Abrams and his writers were going to play copycat either way.
They did enough new and radical things with the 2009 movie, leading many to believe they would do even more with its sequel. No such luck. They simply repurposed the series’ iconography. Or simply put, they rearranged their action figures. Khan may have worked for Section 31, but he was really the same old vengeful superman, leading to a slight variation of the iconic reactor scene, with nearly the same dialogue I might add.
Resurrecting Vulcan would most likely be more of the same, with some kind of temporal Genesis device no doubt. Hopefully whoever is writing or rewriting the script can put away the carbon paper and give us something fresh.
@22,, As always, ChristopherLBennett, you’re encyclopedic knowledge of all things Trek is invaluable.
@23: I gather it was mainly Damon Lindelof who pushed for the use of Khan and the rehashing of past elements. Note that he’s the one screenwriter on STID who didn’t have a writing credit on the first film. Orci actually argued against using Khan, and he’s the biggest Trek fan in the bunch. If Lindelof hadn’t been involved, I doubt the story would’ve been as heavy on the rehash elements.
Call me old fashioned, but the JJ Abrams Star Trek reboot bears no resemblance to the Roddenberry heart of Trek. When I saw the JJ Abrams film, I actually found myself nauseated by the camerawork. My eyes glazed like cataracts from the lens flares, and my ears numbed by the dialog.
None of these things are the heart of Trek. And, more importantly, I was repulsed by Abrams view of the franchise.
The point of Star Trek for any who are not familiar with TOS or TNG’s original years is that movie production and TV shows had very similar conflict lines and plots. By the late 1960’s TV shows often lacked the intellectual depth of movie production. In many ways, Star Trek (TOS) raised the bar on prime time TV production by raising the bar on the plot lines and themes.
In this way, I have not found myself very happy with the direction that Paramount and JJ Abrams took the Star Trek franchise.
In fact, I find myself happier with fan fiction production like Star Trek Continues. STC returns the Star Trek franchise to the thought provoking story lines which Roddenberry himself would have supported.
The post 9/11 ST:movies have been saturated with conflict, violence, and war. One could argue that such productions reflect the conflicts and emotions of the directors/producers of their day. However, Roddenberry himself was a veteran of World War 2 and knew the tragedy of war personally. You did not find Roddenberry permitting the glorification of armed conflict in his story line. Vegenance was a negatively portrayed pursuit in a Roddenberry film.
It is most unfortunate that Paramount did not ask Frakes or other experienced Roddenberry camp person to make the ST reboot. Paramount, in asking another new comer, to take the helm of this challenged project might be making a really bad decision.
I would hate to see this new film become a sort of “Fast and Furious” “Shaolin” version of Trek with martial arts techniques being played. No offense to the Chinese movie industry, but Trek has never attempted to cater to that audience. If this move is an attempt to do so, what a disaster that decision would be. I sure hope that Lin stays true to Trek and focuses on the philosophic rather than pander to violence and crash scenes.
In fact, the decision making at the franchise has gotten to be so poor that innumerable fan films are in production. And, these films and productions surpass or match the story lines of the original TV shows they emulate.
Such fan films are a reflection of the devotion of the fan base. But, more importantly to corporate share holders, they are a reflection of the poor decision making of middle management and upper management in how a valuable franchise is protected or profitable. With the debacle at Sony Pictures Entertainment over the past month, Paramount would be wise to protect its assets better.
Moving away from the business discussion to one of plot line and esoterics, critics have often panned the plot lines of ST: Generations and ST:Abrams1. Some have also criticized the plot lines within some of the ST:TNG movies as well.
If I had my druthers, I would bring back Picard, Kirk and Spock and the Nexus. I would spend 30 minutes to correct the plot lines and restore the films to the period between TOS and TNG.
There’s so many stories to explore in the Star Trek universe that one could easily bring back Kirk, Spock, and Sulu for a set of final cameo appearances, reset the timeline and reposition the films for the period between TOS and TNG.
If done correctly and wisely, the sequences would also necessitate that the timeline for the ST:Abrams films would be the dead-end that they already are.
The existing “Abrams”-verse of Trek is an incredible dead end. Abrams not only killed Vulcan. His plot line effectively makes all characters nearly immortal with Khan’s immortality blood product.
It’s not just the planet Vulcan that is the issue.
It’s the fact that the entire premise of Vulcan’s culture is totally missing from the new timeline. I suppose one can argue that such cultural genocide is seldom portrayed in movies, but Trek had certain foundations to it.
The Abrams Trek universe has so many contradictions that I feel like I’m watching Mirror Mirror on steroids and I don’t like it.
@26 I really, really like your proposed idea of a television series or films placed in the period between TOS and TNG. That has a lot of potential for interesting story lines without a lot of the baggage of established canon. Obviously such a series (or films) would have to stay true to the foundation of TOS (and obviously rely on canon from that period) but the in-universe history is particularly sparse allowing for new stories to be told.
@25
Perhaps. Even Lindelof has admitted he’s not much of a writer. But Abrams and the studio went along with it and should share some of the blame.
And I have to question Orci’s Trek cred. In the 2009 movie Pike refers to the Federation as a “peace-keeping armada” or some such. While a minor flub in the greater scheme of things, no Trekkie or Trek writer would let that kind of mix-up slip by them. That’s like confusing the UN with the US Navy. Ha!
@27 – Well, I’m just a country doctor.
@28 – I share your question on Orci.
@28: The “peacekeeping armada” line is not in the script, the novelization, or the early version of that scene that was released as a teaser. And you’ll note that Pike was off-camera when he said it. That means it must’ve been a voiceover line added during ADR looping in post-production, most likely because J.J. Abrams felt that the film hadn’t clearly enough established the significance of the Federation for new viewers. It was therefore most likely Abrams himself who wrote the line.
Remember, also, that there was a writers’ strike going on during most of the filming process, meaning that Abrams wasn’t able to modify the script until filming was almost completed. So a lot of the fixes he would’ve normally been able to make before shooting had to be done in editing and looping in post-production, so maybe they weren’t done as smoothly as they could’ve been.
And really, he would hardly be the first Trek writer — or Trek fan — to confuse Starfleet and the Federation. There are fans out there who actually think the Federation is a military state run by Starfleet, even though we’ve seen a civilian president in DS9.
@30
Well, then it is probably Abrams’ fault. I hope he doesn’t get the Rebel Alliance and the New Republic or the Empire mixed up as well. Man needs to do his homework. Sloppy.
@31: Again, the line was evidently added quite late in the process and had to be inserted into a brief window in a pre-existing scene, so it can be forgiven for lacking refinement.
And here are my thoughts on why it’s naive to expect Abrams’s role in Star Wars to be identical to his role in Star Trek:
https://christopherlbennett.wordpress.com/2014/12/03/oh-all-right-lets-talk-about-the-star-wars-trailer/
@32
Some very good points made, sir. However, in my opinion if a writer or director of science fiction or fantasy, or any other genre, can’t pay close attention to simple details about the basic architecture of a fictional universe that were established decades ago, this brings doubt to their belonging in that chair. After all, it only takes a trip around Memory-Alpha and a notebook—at the beginning of a project.
@@@@@32 Bennett- Your insight into production is excellent to read. In just the last day of reading postings on this website, it has been very useful to review your postings. Thanks for making them. If you are related to Harve (or even if not), do you know if the Abram-verse matches Harve Bennett’s original concepts for an Academy series?
@@@@@33 Patches
Agree with you regarding the absent background knowledge. Perhaps this is what irritates me most about the recent Trek films in the Abrams-verse.
@@@@@ Bennett- I will read your comments on JJA at the helm of SW. I’m sure your comments will be insightful and pithy.
@33: I’ve explained why one can’t read too much into that single sloppily constructed line, given the constraints of production. Your fixation on it is really rather petty.
And why is it that people give Nicholas Meyer a pass for the same kinds of continuity mistakes? Like forgetting that Khan’s followers were multiethnic, or casting them as 20-something actors even though they were stranded as adults 15 years before, or having Kirk say he’d “never faced death” after losing his best friend, his brother and sister-in-law, the love of his life, and his wife and unborn child in the course of TOS? TWOK was full of outrageously huge continuity errors, yet fans forgive it for far worse mistakes than later films committed.
And there were actually Trek purists at the time who hated TWOK and insisted it wasn’t real Trek. There’s always negativity toward the newest incarnation, but eventually fandom learns to accept it.
@34: Harve Bennett actually does have a son named Christopher who’s my age, but I’m not him. The reason I included my middle initial in my professional name was to differentiate myself from him (his middle initial is E) in case the question ever came up. But in the nearly 12 years that I’ve been a professional Star Trek author, I believe you’re the first person who’s ever asked me that.
As it happens, Harve Bennett’s real last name is Fischman. My family’s surname has been Bennett going back to 17th-century England at least.
And no, I’m sure Bennett’s Academy idea was totally different from the Abramsverse. Naturally, if the Abrams movies had used Bennett’s ideas, Bennett would’ve gotten screen credit.
@35
Your recollection of disdain in Trek-dom for TWOK is familiar. I recall a great deal of irritation with Paramount killing off the Spock character in TWOK. In fact, I also recall a great deal of speculation in the media about Nimoy directing ST3. Your comment is intriguing because as I recall there was a substantial amount of managerial discussion within Paramount regarding Nimoy’s presence in the director’s chair for ST3. It is also strangely “mirror mirror” that the current ST3 incarnation is having familiar issues with the director’s chair.
The continuity errors in ST and SW films are legend. We could spend many postings just reviewing issues in each film. Each director took liberties and each scene did similarly.
The most obvious change between ST films is the bridge set itself. I’ve reviewed different ST bridge designs in great detail and participated as a bidder in the Christie’s auction. The sets varied greatly and the exact details of each set are fairly well discussed by the fan film producers.
We are fortunate that the fan fiction is out there. I’m particularly impressed with ST: Continues because the acting and the writing are particularly reflective of “canon” and established authors in the genre.
About those questions in continuity, far be it for me to question the Department of Temporal Investigations. But, if I might take a “roleplaying stab at the matter.”
Taking my scalpel to the issue, Starfleet and the Federation have a way of second guessing decisions in the field. The Jim Kirk who I know was occasionally forced to make command decisions based upon circumstances beyond his control. No matter what, I’d stand by Jim Kirk and not some late-comer desk expert from the Starfleet bureaucracy who wants to second guess everything we did out in the neutral zone.
And, if there’s anything I know, it’s the mental and physical health of the officers and men on the Enterprise. Jim Kirk’s temporal events may have crossed boundaries at times but in the end, it is difficult to select the multiverse of choice.
About the Khan group, when Jim Kirk and the Enterprise left the Botany Bay, I recall the crew being on a stable planet and having provisions to sustain themselves. There was no way that our crew or any command could have predicted the situation that would later develop in the Ceti Alpha system.
Some have questioned the visual appearance of Khan’s crew as being much younger than would be predicted. However, I would point out that Ceti Alpha Five and Six had unique positions in the star system with reduced radiation exposure. More likely, the hazy climatic conditions on the surface caused the crew to remain indoors much more than usual. This caused less weathering and aging of the skin.
Medically, the appearance of the crew as being in their 20’s was also related to the slower aging and inherent cellular physiology of Khan’s genetics. Khan’s physiology and genetics led to slower signs of aging in a fashion unlike any other similar group of hominids known to the Federation. Those antioxidant effects are still being studied today.
About Jim Kirk’s frame of mind and his ability to compartmentalize emotion and command. As such, there were times when he faced death in his family but did not internalize the emotions involved. He himself had faced death in several dangerous circumstances but in many ways had not internalized the situation. I was scared out of my wits and eventually Spock’s katra.
:)
Paramount needs to think long term. I think wheather a third Trek film is made or not it will be marginally successful becuase of all the shake up going on. Bringing back Vulcan prehaps has to do with guilt. I think the actors are solid but I’m certainly in the camp of scrap the reboots and start over. I’m very excited about Axanar for example. I wish CBS and Paramount could find some way to work together.
The Abramsverse movies were mere mild achievements as summer popcorn action pictures – by tickets sold, adjusted for inflation, worldwide or domestic gross, neither genuinely popular with just-plain-folks (for example, the reviled Matrix sequels made more by any of these standards, as did the based-on-comics World War Z or Guardians, or even the remake/Keanu version of The Day The World Stood Still).
While Paramount has to share Transformers distribution with Dreamworks, there’s a reason they keep churning those out and it far outgrossed in sheer worldwide ticket sales what were considered more popular or artistic successes on this site or similar (such as Guardians or Lego); all this conversation here trying to relate the Abramsverse product and whatever is released for the 50th anniversary to either the Rodenberry productions, the TNG and post TV series, or the original batch (pre-TNG cast) feature films is non-sensical because business decisions will always keep those considerations apart from the reality (of what we’ve received, either as hardcore Trek fans, sci-fi fans, or simply fans of good stories, well told).
Better to consider the coming film (and the previous Abramsverse products) against the TNG feature films: action versions with a familiar cast (in the Abramsverse case, familiar characters/situations, etc.), with more money for better EFX, props, etc. etc. for a hopefully larger audience. The TNG features didn’t do, proportionally, any better than Trek 2009 or the last fiasco, thus Paramount has tightened – severely – their leash.
All that aside, yes, the entire conception of even more time travel is a bone-headed one.
@38: I don’t think the original Trek movies were ever that “popular with just plain folks.” At the time, as I recall it, even the most successful Trek films were seen as more of a cult thing, and even critics who enjoyed them tended to speak of them in condescending tones. It wasn’t until The Next Generation came along that Star Trek really started to become a respectable media franchise in the eyes of the general public and the critics.
Anyway, as I’ve said, there has always been hostility in fandom toward the newest incarnation of Trek. A decade ago it was Enterprise. Three decades ago it was TWOK. We won’t really be able to assess the impact of the Abrams films meaningfully until a decade or two from now when we see what effect they’ve had in the long term. Until then it’s just kneejerk reaction.
As I recall, the original Harve Bennett/David Loughery story treatment for Star Trek VI included a young McCoy taking care of his ailing father, following on the footsteps of that particular plot point established in Final Frontier.
From that we can easily assume Bennett’s plans for a Starfleet Academy story were going to be vastly different from Abrams’s.
@38
In the eyes of the executives, Star Trek’s original incarnation on NBC in the 1960’s was “too cerebral” for the audience. Those people greatly underestimated the value of the property and the production. It then took those suits ten years to do a film instead of doing a Phase 2 series.
In the end, Roddenberry’s vision of a second TV series proved correct. His commitment to the production is demonstrable and the long-term proven value of the series is patently obvious to any person with basic business experience.
In prior discussion people have discussed the value of the Trek property on TV versus movies. The presence of the fan films is a dynamic that has greatly altered my perception of the production costs involved with classic Trek production.
If a group can Kickstarter a campaign and get a one hour production with special effects produced, there is no excuse for the high budget feature films taking 3 years, a crew of hundreds, and being so difficult to produce. The difficulty from a business perspective isn’t the fan interest, it is the incompetence in how a profitable property is handled.
The Star Trek fan conventions still pack thousands of people to capacity audiences in multiple cities.
The fan films and fan productions have tens of thousands of views per episode.
It’s not that difficult to prioritize small screen production when the sets already exist, the special effects teams are already in place, the script writers already exist, and the actors already are scheduled.
I can’t speak for others, but I think the fan films of the last ten years have garnered a great deal of audience share and the return on those productions could have been much stronger if a visionary and creative process encouraged the growth of the fan film to a regularly scheduled webisode that is budgeted, funded, and promoted.
I see no reason why Netflix, AmazonPrime, or even GooglePlay couldn’t distribute that type of lower cost production regularly.
@39 – CLB
I agree with you regarding the primary audience of Trek.
The media executives are nearly always off track from the Trek base.
The reason is that the Trek base seems to be intellectual people with upper middle income and professional jobs. Many were college kids in the late 1960’s and became engineers, accountants, physicians, nurses, teachers, etc.
One look at the CES floor over the past ten years shows the influence of Okuda and others. That has to be immensely gratifying to the ST:TNG creative team.
Plus, I’ve personally talked with astronauts and scientists who engaged in a professional career based upon a theory or creative concept seen on a Star Trek episode.
The media executives appear completely detached from this reality and instead choose to spend tens of millions of dollars on films that are two hour effects extravaganzas.
The success of the fan films, the books, and others result in me concluding that CBS/Viacom and Paramount have missed the boat for the past twenty years on the primary target market. The executives seem to be using Star Trek as a franchise to counter other effects and sci-fi films.
In fact, the media production should be focusing on great writing, great character development, and the moral questions that are raised in great sci-fi. Instead, the media suits are more interested in NOT addressing these moral dilemmas and instead pandering to the lowest common denominator in film production.
I greatly enjoy the TNG films but the recent films lacked that same maturity. Perhaps it was the intent of the Paramount team to “reboot” to the younger generation. But, this is a younger generation that has literally only known a nation of war and armed conflict for the past 14 years. Therefore, any target market person below 25 years of age, only recalls a war like society that is less Federation.
In this gap, the fan films play a pivotal and critical role in filling the creative expression needs of the Trek base.
When I talk with younger family members (in the below 30 demographic), the time between the films translates to huge changes in lifestyle and maturity. The TOS and TNG films appealed to that maturation process and encouraged it.
With so many Americans only familiar with a nation at war, it is time to use the media to bring understanding and maturity to the screen.
Such stability is not only visual (in terms of a stable camera platform and sound level) but also is scripted to share that experience with the viewer. I’ve seen exactly that from the fan films. And, for this, I am tremendously grateful that crews bring that great era of TV and production back.
1. No problem with current star trek movies being an alt timline
2. No problem with them having more “big dumb action” than a lot of Trek fans want A becuase many trek fans will never be happy untill they get two hours of a hologram and an android reading Proust and talking about “What it means to be alive” B those same fans seem to love watching an andriod pretend he’s Sherlock Holmes.
3 Big problem making Vulcan NOT EXist in the new timeline while not replacing it with something that ONLY exists in the new timline.
@41: The whole “too cerebral” thing was exaggerated by Roddenberry as part of the myth he spun about battling the ignorant network suits in the name of quality television. According to Inside Star Trek by Herb Solow and Bob Justman, the NBC executives loved the show’s intelligence. Their “too cerebral” objection to the first pilot was the network’s party line, but it was a code word for their real problem with the heavily sexual themes of the pilot.
And NBC was much more supportive of the show than Roddenberry’s myths suggest. They kept the show on the air for three years even though they consistently lost money on it; this was partly because their parent company RCA profited from the color-TV sales that Star Trek inspired, but also because they appreciated having a prestigious, daring, Emmy-nominated drama on their network. And they were supportive of bringing the show back in some form. They did bring it back in animated form for two years — indeed, they were so eager to bring it back that they gave Roddenberry full creative control over the animated series, a very rare concession.
And the NBC executives would’ve had nothing to do with the decision to make a feature film for release in theaters. That was Paramount’s bailiwick. A totally different group of suits.
@42: Aren’t you forgetting that the US was also a nation at war (in Vietnam) during the time of the original series? And that Reagan-era Cold War tensions grew quite severe during the time that most of the TOS movies and early TNG came out? If you think there’s anything new about the current generation of Americans growing up in a time of war, then you really need to brush up on your history.
Wasn’t there a Star Trek time travel movie already? I think it involved whales. The Earth was getting destroyed, so Kirk had to learn to eat pizza.
I can’t believe Spock hasn’t already fixed things. When I saw Vulcan blow up, my son was really upset, but his uncle and I reassured him, because Star Trek people know so many ways to go through time that it would be inconceivable that no one whipped around the sun a few times to fix things.
But apparently that’s only when Earth people are getting hurt. It’s fine for billions of Vulcans to die.
As a movie, it might be hard to do new things with the idea. But I find it hard to believe that old Spock, who knows how to fix things, doesn’t even consider it.
maybe with Vulcan gone Vulcan’s sun and moon are gone too.
Maybe the psionic death scream of those vulcans reshaped all the Romlans’ brains and they are now totally new creatures.
Maybe there’s a big worrmhole where Vulcan used to be and every ship that was warping to vulcan got lost.
Heck Maybe “Red matter interacting with normal matter stars life based on totally new elements. See? Blowing up Vulcan does’nt HAVE to be a mistake.
@45: The idea is that since Spock came through by accident, he has no way to time-travel to change things. Also, the idea is that the timeline he comes from still exists; it hasn’t been changed at all, it coexists alongside the new one. So Spock’s own universe is in no danger and thus he doesn’t have to do anything to “restore” it.
But this was the problem with their decision to use time travel at all. Decades of time-travel stories have conditioned audiences to expect it to be reversed, as well as conditioning them to believe in the ridiculous notion that a timeline can be “overwritten” by another, when in reality two different versions of the same span of time would coexist simultaneously by definition, and thus would have to be parallel tracks. And so their use of time travel conveyed the wrong idea to a lot of viewers. The plan was not to create a temporary aberration, but to reinvent the franchise for a new era and allow telling stories that were unfettered by past continuity.
@CLB #44
Perhaps your perspective of late 1960’s TV is more reflective of the insider information, but my perception is to compare Star Trek with Lost in Space, Bonanza, and Dick Van Dyke. My point was not so much about the suits and Roddenberry’s mythos. My point was that TV suits were prioritizing production to the lowest common denominator.
In this discussion, the lowest common denominator is a sense of plot or theme in which conflict resolves with a shoot-out, a chase scene, a fight sequence, and a victor. But, in TOS and early TNG Roddenberry appears to have prioritized conflict resolution as a part of the plot.
In some ways, the tension in some of the best episodes exists due to the issue of how conflict would resolve. You didn’t know if the primary characters would resolve the conflict through dialogue and negotiation and understanding or through an arena and a fight sequence.
There can be little argument that 50 years ago, TV Networks were using a different rubric than today. Having known and spoken with an experienced “compliance” person from that generation of TV, it is clear that the networks were producing for the lowest common denominator in order to make programming easier to understand. I would argue that the tendency (with the exception of public broadcasting) is still present today.
Raising the issue of NBC executives in the context of Paramount decisions is a bit of a non-sequitor. The decision to produce the movies was prioritized over the TV series by the suits at Paramount.
In the end, Roddenberry’s commitment to return Trek to the small screen proved remarkably successful with an entirely new generation of viewership.
My point wasn’t so much about NBC. The point was that suits were making bad decisions all throughout the 1970’s while Roddenberry and his writers were sidelined. That poor comprehension appears to continue to today in which fan films roll out excellent and thought provoking content at low budget and considerable personal expense. Meanwhile, the big budget films garner nearly identical numbers. From my uninvolved perspective as a “country doctor” and “fan”, I really have to question the judgment of executives who fail to seize the opportunity.
While reasonable to argue that the animated series has some artistic merit, there is not the following of TAS that TOS and TNG has. The reasons are obvious. Live action TV shows in color and with great writing maintains itself over decades. I recall watching the original run of TAS and enjoyed Saturday mornings. But, as a child, it was a bit cerebral for my taste which was more focused on Fat Albert and the Bugs Bunny-Roadrunner hour. :)
Regarding the discussion about war, comparing the Cold War under Reagan to the 14 year Afghanistan / Iraq conflict is frankly bizarre. Reagan prevented military engagements because he was so rhetorical that he was literally scaring the opposition. The Clinton-Bush43-Obama administrations have all had extended US military engagements in innumerable nations where no declared war existed and the authorization was seemingly interminable. The Reagan era was quite the reverse.
The Vietnam and SE Asian conflict in the 1960’s lasted from 1964 to 1975, eleven years. TOS was produced near the peak of the war in 1968. My point is that the TOS writing was making commentary on how to resolve conflict in the future. The current incarnations of Trek films do little in the way of discussing conflict resolution. These films are more about shooting the other guy and strange ways of killing a main character and then resurrecting them from the dead. I find the differences profound.
My memory on the severity of the Reagan era Cold War in 1987 to 1994 is that the Berlin Wall fell in the middle of the TNG series and that the Soviet Union fell shortly after. While one can point to Desert Storm and Desert Shield, these were military entanglements of relatively short duration and which concluded by 1992.
My point is that the militarism and conflicts in the current Trek franchise reflect the world view predominating at the time of production.
I would point to ST6 (airing tonight on Sci-Fi) as another great example of how Trek reflected current events.
Will ST3a do the same? One really wonders given Orci’s apparent antipathy for a more academic discussion regarding the production.
@47 CLB
The issue of multiverse versus a singular universe may be appropriate to discuss here.
Back to the Future played with this a bit in BTTF Part 2. When Marty McFly and Doc return to 1985 and find an alternative 1985 timeline.
The question here is which singular timeline is the “correct” timeline.
In high energy physics, there is a thought process in which there could be innumerable different universes with slightly different or completely different events occurring.
The framework of something like Yesterday’s Enterprise or All Good Things could sit in the juxtaposition of several universes (meaning several different timelines) interacting in a unique and overlapping location.
One might consider the Guardian of Forever or the Atavachron a catalyst of the overlap between timelines and universes.
To extend this hypothetical discussion to the current Abrams movies, I did not interpret the existing plot sequence as an extention of the primary timeline featured in most TOS and TNG films.
The Abrams films can easily be interpreted as a side step of the “normal” or “primary” plot sequence due to the fact that the Romulans and Spock tampered with the primary universe and timeline with the temporal disruption and distortion in Abrams ST 1.
The issue here is that some seem to view Abrams as having “reinvented” the franchise while most fan base that I know (including myself) see the recent films as having literally killed the franchise’s ability to do more movies.
Those who control the direction of the franchise need to consider business but I would say also that you would not want to be the person who leaves a 50 year franchise in a literal dead end.
How can you have any tension regarding life if all the characters are immortal anyway? This is literally going where no plot line has gone before and literally an entire movie can not be composed of immortal characters.
Therefore, I have spent much more time enjoying the fan films than the Abrams films. The Fan Films such as ST: Continues, ST: New Voyages, and Of Gods and Men by Russ at least allowed my mind to play in a believable story line.
Regarding the assertion that it is a “ridiculous notion that a timeline can be ‘overwritten’ by another”, there are many sequences in Sci-Fi lore where just this type of thing occurs. The best example is BTTF.
My view of this question isn’t so much one of time but of universes.
It is clear that the original timeline can not co-exist with Spock Prime in the Abramsverse. The reason is that Spock Prime exists and is aging in the Abramsverse. If he does not return to the Prime timeline, the Prime timeline is forever altered. Therefore, Spock Prime must return to the primary timeline at the exact instant and location that he left. If Spock Prime does not do so, then the entire Prime universe is altered from the point Spock Prime was gone.
In this regard both the Guardian of Forever and the Atavachron resolve these issues exactly. The characters return precisely to the correct time and space to continue the Prime universe.
Spock Prime has not returned or interacted with the Prime Universe in the Abrams movies because he does not appear to be interested in a reset. He should be. To use the good Green blooded Vulcan’s vernacular, “illogical” to believe that Spock would be willing to allow Vulcan to no longer exist when he knows that time travel is possible. He is not only in the wrong place at the wrong time. Spock Prime is in the wrong universe.
The Nexus in ST: Generations could also be considered to be an overlap between parallel universes. In ST: Generations, Kirk is in the Nexus with Picard. As a viewer, I was quite perplexed at the changes in settings and sequences in the Nexus. Even to this day, I am confused as to whether or not the Nexus was actually a dream sequence, a parallel universe or dimension, or something generated like a holodeck.
If James T. Kirk died in the Nexus, this really doesn’t say much for the Prime universe. To the people in the prime universe, Kirk is simply missing in action after the accident about NCC-1701B.
But, when Picard enters the Nexus many decades later, he finds Kirk immortalized in the Nexus and yet Kirk then dies. Kirk’s death in the Nexus makes no sense. Kirk is already immortalized in the Nexus.
In this way, the franchise has a deep contradiction in the story line. In the original Prime timeline/universe, Kirk is missing in action. In the Nexus timeline/universe, Kirk is both alive and dead simultaneously. In the Abrams universe, Kirk can not die because McCoy has literally discovered a way to bring back the dead using Khan’s blood.
The only sequence that makes any story-telling sense is the Prime universe in which Kirk is still missing in action.
The ST franchise can tell many stories in the gap between TOS and TNG. Plus, you would not have the unbelievable situation where Khan is immortal and so are all the main characters.
Thanks for this fun dialog. Please don’t take my comments as a personal attack. I am having a great deal of fun reading this board and welcome any challenge to my opinion.
I liked Enterprise and it was getting very good when they cancelled it I think.
Again I’d say I’m excited about Axanar because I like the actors that have been cast I look forward to an exciting story. I’d love to see it get a theatrically release rather than a tentpole production because I want to cheer on the underdog.
What I will say of Abrams Star Trek is that Nero was a well played villain but I wish they would not have brought back Khan.
For the future I think as long as there are trek fans trek will live long it just won’t prosper the way Paramount expects it to.
So that leaves trek in books, and on TV in the future I hope.
@48: I wouldn’t have counted The Dick Van Dyke Show as “lowest common denominator.” I gather it was one of the better-regarded sitcoms of its era, and had some top writers.
As for Lost in Space, that’s not really the best comparison, since that show was overtly aimed at children, while Star Trek was designed to be science fiction as an adult drama. Its writers’ bible explicitly encouraged its writers to pitch it on the same level of sophistication as the classiest adult dramas of the era such as Gunsmoke and Naked City.
“Raising the issue of NBC executives in the context of Paramount decisions is a bit of a non-sequitor.”
Your non sequitur, not mine. Your own words in post 41 were:
So you were talking about the NBC executives who dealt with the show and the Paramount executives behind the movie as if they were one and the same.
@49: “The issue here is that some seem to view Abrams as having “reinvented” the franchise while most fan base that I know (including myself) see the recent films as having literally killed the franchise’s ability to do more movies.”
Bull. Again — these movies have been more financially and critically successful than just about any prior Trek movies. You forget that after Nemesis performed poorly and Enterprise foundered in the ratings, people were assuming that Star Trek was a moribund franchise then — but Abrams brought it back to life.
Yes, there’s a cadre of purists who hate the new movies, but there have always been people who hated and rejected any new incarnation of Trek, from TAS to the movies to TNG to ENT. There have always been people who condemned the newest thing for corrupting and ruining the franchise and killing it forever. And they have been wrong every single time. They have always found themselves on the wrong side of history, because they were wrong to assume that their rejection of the new was a universally shared opinion.
“Regarding the assertion that it is a “ridiculous notion that a timeline
can be ‘overwritten’ by another”, there are many sequences in Sci-Fi
lore where just this type of thing occurs. The best example is BTTF.”
And that’s fantasy. My point is that, however common a fictional trope is, it’s absurd and nonsensical in realistic terms. The filmmakers chose to follow a theory of temporal mechanics more grounded in what real physics says. They can’t be faulted for that.
And no, Spock Prime leaving the timeline doesn’t “forever alter” it any more than any given character’s death does. Yes, it’s changed going forward, but that’s not a timeline alteration, just the same kind of change that always happens in life when people die or things come to an end. The past is unchanged, only the future differs. And that’s not a time paradox, that’s life. To quote from another SF franchise (Doctor Who), everything has its time, and everything ends.
@51
Are you referring to BTTF as “fantasy”?
I would say any element of time travel is “fantasy” in the context of the universe in which we live.
The point of sci-fi is that the conditions are NOT confined to the physics of “real-world” contemporaneous understanding.
Under your pretense, HG Wells’ Time Machine and 20,000 Leagues would be characterized as “fantasy”. Perhaps, but the discussion about multiverse holds.
My understanding of current quantum theory and high energy physics is that some physicists believe that Big Bang Theory is one element of the multi-universe existence.
The discussion of multi-verses which overlap is consistent with that hypothesis.
I am unclear on what you are labelling as “absurd and nonsense”. Relativity and Quantum theory is filled with paradoxical statements which reflect the limitations of the English language to appropriately describe physical observations.
The absence of Spock Prime from the primary timeline does in fact alter the Primary Timeline. Spock is not present in the timeline when he should be. One can not argue this point. Spock Prime can not have two existences. Either he is or he is not. Because Spock Prime is in the ST1A universe, he is NOT in the Primary universe. He left one and entered the other through the spatial-temporal anomaly in Orci’s 1A film. Spock explains so.
Vulcan can have two existances. Vulcan was formed in the Primary universe and was also formed in the Alternative universe. Spock Prime’s life was started in the Primary Trek Universe and he crossed into the 1A universe. Had he not crossed from the primary to the 1A universe, Spock Prime would be in the primary universe doing something.
For this reason, I have stated that Spock Prime must cross back to the Primary Timeline or Spock is missing from the Primary Timeline from that point forward.
In the same way, Kirk left the Primary timeline and entered the Nexus in the ST: Generations film. Kirk’s absence was interpreted by the denizens of the Primary Universe as his death. But, Kirk was alive and living in the Nexus as a literal immortal being caught in the Nexus. Kirk’s absense from the Primary timeline causes a deviation in the course of events if he had been there.
In this line of logic, there is a Trek 1A timeline which is the timeline created with the arrival of the Romulan ship through the spatial-temporal rift/BlackHole. Had the Romulan ship never arrived, the Kepler would not have come under fire. Presumptively, the progression of events would have been closer to the events in the Primary timeline. However, the course of events shifts dramatically with the attack by the Romulans.
The arrival of Spock Prime is another event that alters the 1A timeline. Presumptively, there is a universe where Spock Prime remains in the primary timeline and there is a universe which is portrayed in ST:1A.
The issue is that of causality.
Your view is that “the past is unchanged, only the future differs.”
And, my point is that the perspective is relativistic. Your view is based upon where you are in time. The future differs, but the past could have been much different under different circumstances.
It appears that you are saying that there is one universe and Spock Prime is generally and only moving in time.
I am saying something a bit different. I am saying that Spock Prime’s entry into the 1A universe causes a deviation in the course of events in that universe. My view is consistent with the other TNG shows where multiple Enterprise D ships appear in the context of temporal anomalies.
The irony is that I am attempting to hand you, the genuine Trek author, an explanation for the contradictions in Orci’s own plot. This shows the incredible paradoxes made in the last two films from a physical science stand point.
These plot paradoxes are the very reason that I stopped following the current Trek and instead much prefer the Fan films.
The managers of Trek so destroyed the physical context of the franchise, that the movies became too difficult to believe.
The Trek franchise does need a reboot. It needs to get back to basics. If it takes a PhD in nuclear physics to argue a plot point, you’ve lost the dramatic battle. Abrams alt-universe does precisely this. Instead of making the situation easier to understand, he makes it even more complex by creating these paradoxes which cross the limit of believability.
Unwinding this complexity is important for the ability of the franchise’s characters and elements to move forward.
@52: “The point of sci-fi is that the conditions are NOT confined to the physics of “real-world” contemporaneous understanding.”
You’re so wrong. It’s called science fiction for a reason. The whole point of scientific theory is to use what we know as a basis for extrapolating and predicting what will happen in novel circumstances. After all, the universe is not random. Every bit of it follows the same laws. And if we know how a law applies in various circumstances, if we know the mathematics that consistently work in every observed situation, we can plug new numbers into that math and extrapolate how those same laws would apply in more unusual circumstances. Theoretical physics actually tells us a great deal about how time travel would actually work — and how it wouldn’t.
Besides, it doesn’t take advanced physics to know that the idea of a timeline “overwriting” itself is a contradiction in terms — it just takes a little bit of common-sense reasoning. In order for something to be changed, there must be a before and an after. But it should be obvious that a single moment in time cannot come after itself. If there are two different versions of a moment in time, then by definition, they are simultaneous. One doesn’t replace the other, because that doesn’t make any sense and is impossible. Rather, it coexists alongside the other. If a time traveler perceives one as coming after the other, that’s just because the time traveler has looped back and is experiencing the same single moment a second time, like rewinding a tape.
The idea that a timeline can be “erased” is a handy fictional trope because it creates a sense of peril. But if you just apply a little common-sense skepticism to it, it becomes clear that it is self-contradictory nonsense. You cannot use the conventions of stories as a guide for what is realistically plausible.
Actually, based on the foregoing discussion, it strikes me that there must now be essentially (at least) four “mainline” Trek universes in play:
* The “Abrams-verse”, in which the two Abrams movies occurred, and wherein Vulcan has been destroyed
* The post-Nero TOS-compliant universe postulated above, in which Spock Prime has not returned to the timeline/reality from which he was ejected in the first Abrams movie.
* A post-Nero TOS-compliant universe to which Spock Prime must necessarily have returned exactly as bonesmccoy suggests, in which the current body of licensed novels and related material continuing to appear from Pocket/S&S occur (because Spock is present in or has influenced too much of the material in that continuity for him not to have done so).
* A TOS-compliant universe in which the events of the Abrams movies either did not occur or occurred in such a way that Spock was never diverted out of that timeline/reality and into the “Abrams-verse” in the first place.
I include this last for two reasons. First, there’s the basic tenet of parallel-universe theory to consider: namely, that a new branching occurs for every possible either/or decision point (i.e. ‘everything that can happen, does happen). Second, on a practical level, as far as I’m aware the current extended “novelverse” continuity has never actually addressed its (theoretical) side of the Nero storyline directly within the canon, such that “it never happened here” is a much simpler explanation than Spock’s having jumped from one track to another and back again.
And of course then there’s the TOS-canonical Mirror Universe, the much later DS9-canonical Mirror Universe, and the likely plethora of alternates generated from those….
@53
On the “point of scientific theory”, I am not wrong. The proper term is usually “scientific method”.
1. The universe does have chaos and does show random causality. One can not predict die rolls, lottery tickets, or other accidents for a reason. The reason is that chaos and random events happen. It’s literally a part of the laws of thermodynamics. Because the universe tends towards disorder, we are not able to fully conserve energy in any experiment (physics, chemical, or biologic). We can come close to estimating things within very small deviations, but there are always deviations in terms of measurement. Time is just one such factor.
2. Scientific hypotheses (note that the term is hypothesis and not theory) needs no underlying raison d’etre. The hypothesis is merely defined to be tested and proven wrong. A theory of sorts can only emerge when various hypotheses have been sufficient tested that a theory (such as of evolution or relativity) can exist.
3. The “scientific method” is not predicated on a motive. It is merely one approach to explain the universe and our world. If you have another method, be my guest. But, please note that the “scientific method” should not be confused with “theory”. They are not synonymous.
4. The physics of a black hole is very complex when attempting to account for multiple dimensions and time. Few people in advanced mathematics and physics have fully tackled this issue. If you have those credentials, I am fully willing to learn from you. But, do you? Moreover, those most learned scientists themselves disagree and ponder the variables when the number of dimensions escalates and the velocities become very high.
5. You can not plug new numbers in a classical physics equation and have that equation translate to “real world” experience when dealing with extremely high energies and velocities. Relativity applies.
Your statement that theoretical physics “tells us a great deal about how time travel would actually work” is intriguing. I have sufficient training in physics and math to know that at relativistic velocities time is not a constant. Even in slower velocities and energies, time is not a constant (though the discrepancy is not easily measured or noticed).
It is not possible to apply “common sense” reasoning when analyzing the physics and contradictions at relativistic velocities. Star Trek relies upon these Warp Factor velocities in the story telling. Setting aside the implausible nature of exceeding the speed of light, at relativistic velocities, the time effects dilate and time slows. In such a comparison, there is a well known paradox that Einstein himself noted called the Twin Paradox.
Because the passage of time is not constant, there are factors that can literally slow or speed the passage of time.
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment
The concept of time is not reflective of the physics we ordinarily experience (which is classical physics). It is technically possible for three clocks to be synchronized, move through three trajectories, and all three clocks can be out of synchrony at the end of the paths due to alterations in the passage of time based upon differences in velocity and gravity in the paths travelled by the clocks.
By the fact that these experiments have already been run on atomic clocks, we already know and can demonstrate that time is not constant.
Applying this reality to the Star Trek 1A universe is next to impossible because the 1A authors have totally disintegrated so many “common sense” things that it is damn near impossible to get the story line back into alignment with reality. Shall we go through these errors in more detail?
The question of differences in the plot lines in Star Trek does not require “two different versions of a moment in time” to be “simultaneous”. In fact, I am arguing that “two different versions of a moment in time” might exist in two different universes that are essentially in parallel. In this fashion, the 1A universe is parallel and yet now distinctly different from the Prime timeline in TOS and TNG. This interpretation of the events in the various incarnations of Trek makes more sense then the reality that is extrapolated from a singular Trek universe with one canon and one timeline only.
When studying physics, is a photon of light a wave or a particle? This simple question is constrained by the English language as being an either/or proposition. However, in reality, any physicist will tell you that light behaves as both simultaneously. It may contradict your view of “common sense” but it is fact that light behaves as a particle and as a wave simultaneously.
Your concept of “looping back” is conventional in the Trek wisdom but like the inference on Warp Factors, is as “fictional trope” as time travel is. But, this is my point that sci-fi does not condition its fiction on the limitations of “real world” physics.
The argument that sci-fi follows some sort of extrapolation of “real world” physics is absurd.
@54 JCBunnell
YES! I totally agree.
It is truly absurd that a group of people can lay claim to “canon” based upon a particular timeline of events, especially when the claim is predicated on a fanciful interpretation of “science”.
The point of this lengthy discussion (at least in my mind) is to clarify that the Trek franchise’s issues are partly related to the mindset of those who are leading the franchise’s various incarnations.
One could argue that the events at the Guardian of Forever and the Atvachron in TOS generated similar separate timelines. Because the main characters follow a specific timeline of events in both TOS episodes, we do not follow or explore the “mirror” “non-prime” universe or timeline. But, the theatrical examination of those universes could be of interest or merit.
The varieties of incarnations are not limited. The varieties need not follow a singular timeline that is “canon” or not because it is “science fiction” (emphasis on “FICTION”).
My point is that if it takes an examination of general relativity and time dilation effects due to gravitational fields and velocity; then something is wrong with the artistic basis of the fictional play. The point of the play isn’t to get into a “plausibility” discussion on the physics. The point of the fictional play is to get into the emotions of the characters (or lack thereof) in the context of the various conflicts presented.
I can not concur with a fictional Trek world where conflict resolution is not presented and entire cultures are destroyed in seconds. This is not the basis of Roddenberry’s view of the Trek vision of mankind’s future. It is also not the view of major actors in the original series. IDIC means something. Detractors of this view should look it up.
When JJ Abrams blew up Vulcan, he literally allowed the Romulans to blow up IDIC (infinite diversity in infinite combinations). Is that what the Paramount and CBS/Viacom executives really want to do? Is that really the legacy of their leadership? Is that what JJ Abrams is saying?
What a dark and sad legacy to leave!
For any reviewing this thread who are interested in the parallel universe concept or “multiverse” concept to which I am referring… please see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
In the context of Spock Prime entering a black hole, note the hypothesis of “black hole cosmology”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-hole_cosmology
Please note that cosmology and physics are very complex subjects which are so esoteric in math and science that some very credible scientists distance from the field.
However, the list of cosmologists and theoretical physicists who concurr with the defintion of “multiverse” cosmology include esteemed physicists such as Stephen Hawking, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and Michio Kaku.
It is important to note that these hypotheses border on religion and culture. This cosmological discussion also borders on faith.
If you are Christian, then nothing is truly “random” or “chaos” because God has willed such circumstances. I have no disagreement with this relgious philosophy itself.
Since IDIC was touted in the 1970’s to 1990’s as a central theme of Trek, the absence of IDIC is difficult to reconcile with the original theoretical cosmology of Trek (at least in my opinion).
And, based upon the growing fan base associated with ST: Continues, the viewership appreciates holding on to IDIC as a priority in framing the story telling.
That’s incorrect. At the present time, the Pocket novel continuity is only up to January 2386. The destruction of Romulus and Spock’s disappearance occur in 2387.
Licensed tie-ins are required to remain consistent with onscreen canon. So of course the books do not contradict the events of the films. They just haven’t yet caught up with those events.
Anyway, Spock does not play a major role in the 24th-century novel continuity. There’s only been one trilogy in the past few years in which he’s played a significant part in 24th-century events.
Question for DTI/CLB #58
How do you account for the events in “All Good Things” future timeline which correlates to the year 2395 in the context of the ST1A timeline?
In my view, the ST1A timeline has NONE of the events of TOS or TNG or DS9 because the deviation of the story occurs well before any of those events.
I would also point out that if DTI is in place in the year 2395, the department would have to eliminate the ST1A timeline because it is a dramatic departure to lose Vulcan and its population. How do we know if Saavik and Valeris are both alive? In fact, they may not be. While one could write an explanation, it is harder to write a reasonable explanation within the current 1A timeline than to use DTI to correct the 1A timeline back.
The key point to examine is the “late” nature of Spock’s delivery of the red matter.
If Spock Prime were to return to the Prime timeline through the temporal anomaly, he can use DTI to correct the “late” delivery of the red matter to the star. The entire 1A timeline hidges on any event that delays Spock in delivering the Red Matter.
The examination of those delays and timings would be interesting because small delays can amplify to huge impact later in the known 1A universe.
Ah, happy memories of the reaction in the Doctor Who fandom when the books decided to undo the onscreen destruction of Skaro, with a convoluted retcon about the Daleks travelling back in time and secretly moving Davros to another planet so the Doctor would think it was Skaro and blow it up instead. Though even before then, various reference works seem to have decided that there needed to be more than one Skaro to make the continuity work.
No-one ever brought Traken back, though. Poor Nyssa.
The basic problem is that the destruction of Vulcan was COMPLETELY bogus to begin with.
It violated cannon just because J. J. Abrams wanted to piss on the old fans.
So far, New Trek has gone out of it’s way to break with all possible faith an continuity with the original series(es) and fans. Frankly, I agree that they shouldn’t “fix Vulcan”. But that’s because I quit Trek permanently, like a lot of other old fans I know, and never intend to go back. So there’s no point in trying to please us.
@61 Alcore
I perceive a difference between “quitting Trek” and “quitting on Abram-verse”.
So far, I have not paid a dime to view an “Abrams-verse” Trek film in a theatre. I’ve seem Abrams-verse via DVDs that were gifts. I’ve also seen the 1A films on cable.
But, I haven’t quit on the Star Trek: Continues group or other fan films that are in alignment with “canon” and the original Roddenberry/Wes Thierry style of story telling.
The comment about “no point in trying to please us” is also off base. “They” aren’t trying to please us. They’re trying to sell a product.
The entire point of my commentaries in this thread is to point out that production teams with substantially less budget and time were able to produce excellent programs. Some of those fan films had huge interference from various directions and were slowed in releasing product by those legalities (ST: New Voyages is an example).
Despite those legal hurdles and the interference with production, they still got excellent stories produced and published. Those stories are substantially stronger than the recent two films.
CB states that Abrams was successful in his box office take. I have been considering posting analysis which shows that JJ Abrams box office take, while respectfully strong, is not substantially different than comparable Trek films in the series.
My primary observation is that executives in Paramount and CBS are unable to capitalize on this profitable franchise while other production studios can capitalize on 50 year old products like James Bond or 40 year old products like Star Wars.
It’s truly mystifying to see such confusion by the management team at the studio while fan films like ST: Continues and ST: New Voyages continue to produce excellent product.
You would think someone would realize that the Trek audience is still there and is still willing to spend time viewing TOS or TNG content.
Clearly, Amazon Prime understands. TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise are all available for streaming with Amazon Prime membership.
Normally I would agree with sticking by changes, but with the Bad Robot crew, I’m fine with them leaving the Star Trek playbox as intact as they found it.
it`s not all that complicated . when kirks father died in the reboot the time line split off , forming two seperate time lines . the original , and the new one . so in reality both the original startrek universe and the new ( reboot ) universe exist . if the vulcans save vulcan they will split off a third timeline , one in which spocks family , and all other vulcans survive . all three universes would exist . not the strangest thing that`s ever been done in scifi , I`m not worried until they try to save romulus ! lol
Another thought on ST4: The Voyage Home and the Abramsverse.
In Star Trek directed by JJ Abrams, an alternative timeline exists following the appearance of the Romulans through a spatial-temporal rift. The 1A timeline further gets altered when Spock arrives and Vulcan is destroyed.
In the Prime timeline, an “unknown” probe of “unknown origin” appears in the beginning of Star Trek 4: The Voyage Home. Undoubtedly, this probe would have been sent by the originating culture to seek out the Humpback Whales regardless of whether the Prime timeline or the 1A timeline were in effect.
It occurs to me that the events of Star Trek 4 would have been permanently altered by the 1A timeline.
For one thing, Spock did not die in the interaction with Khan. Specifically, it is the death of Spock that leads to the Klingon Bird of Prey being in the correct position to intervene in Star Trek 4.
In Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, the explosion of the Genesis torpedo in the Mutara Nebula creates the Genesis planet. Spock’s death saving the Enterprise in the end of TWOK leads to the events of ST3: The Search for Spock. If Spock did not die in the encounter with Khan, then Spock would not have been on the Genesis planet and the Enterprise would not have been destroyed over the Genesis Planet. This means that Kirk and the other prime characters would not have been with Spock at Vulcan either.
In fact, in the 1A timeline, there is no Vulcan. There is no Genesis planet because Khan did not intervene with the Enterprise crew in the same Ceti Alpha 5/6 star system. Khan ends up in a totally different interaction with Kirk/Spock in a much earlier time frame (apparently prior to the five year mission).
If the Whale Probe approaches Earth in the 1A timeline, the Earth could suffere significant climate change and weather effects with no ability to respond. If the events of ST4 are to hold without the Prime crew and Klingon ship to assist, it could be argued that the Federation and Earth itself has been dealt a serious and fatal blow even without other threats materializing from the Romulans or Klingons or Borg.
After considering this tonight, I can see no other way to correct these glaring plot holes except the correction of the 1A universe to the Prime timeline by way of the Department of Temporal Investigations in the Prime timeline investigating the departure and disappearance of Ambassador Spock.
If someone isn’t already writing this story, it should be.
I’m game. Should I?
Vulcan should stay gone and all the living vulcans should slowly lose their hold on logic and become emotional, evil psychics as the planets field was a force that maintained there logic. Then Old Spock can lead a movement to save the vulcans and find them a new home with the necessary field. He can be opposed by Romulans and those exiled Vulcans who rejected logic.
@SCLaJolla
If the Vulcans sense of logic were lost, the remaining Vulcans should assimilate with their Romulan cousins.
What is particularly ironic about the 1A storyline is that the events in the 1A film essentially show an ultimate form of genocide. Any Vulcans who happened to be off planet would be in a forced diaspora.
The reconstruction of Vulcan in the 1A timeline seems a long shot. Plus, if the Vulcan survivors were to lose logic and act only on emotion, wouldn’t you have Romulus and Remus?
Therefore, it would seem to be Romulus winning and assimilating all Vulcans…showing a epic loss for logic and peace and a epic win for genocide. This is a horrendously poor thing to do to the entire Star Trek franchise and the reason for my continuing postings on this topic.
Seeing how Star Trek Continues rolled out their Kickstarter campaign today, I see that I am not alone in my view and feeling.
@26 et seq bonesmccoy Thank you for your continuing comments, which are much more eloquent than I could be about the current “Star Trek For Dummies” movies inflicted on us by non-fan JJ Abrams. Apologies to the nice-looking people in the casts, but these bloody, crass, heartless and thoughtless movies, made by and for those who enjoy casual genocide and think 9/11 was fun, are the opposite of the Roddenberry ethos.
@JVTyrrell–
Thank you very much for your encouragement and comment.
I have done more thinking about the plot line paradoxes and have made some conclusions.
I’d really like to write up a blog posting but am unclear (I am new to Tor.com) as to how I can write a blog posting on this site for others to review.
How fitting that an article about the destruction of celestial bodies use the word “remnant”. Coincidence? I THINK NOT
Nope, the jar jar abrams timeline is what should and must be obliterated.