Comments on: Abrams: Star Trek Split Timeline

By: Razorburn

Razorburn — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:56:00 +0000

If you think you can do a better job, why don’t you write to Paramount and offer some suggestions?

By: Razorburn

Razorburn — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:52:00 +0000

They did the altered timeline thing because they didn’t want the film to become a cheap remake of something that fans care a great deal about. And for that, I salute and commend jJ.J. Abrams and the writers for such ingenuity. If they hadn’t used that subplot device, the film would have bombed big time due to fans backlashing it. Star Trek fans do have a way of holding the power of the franchise’s destiny and future. The franchise fatigue before 2009 is a clear example of that.

By: kargandarr

kargandarr — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:15:00 +0000

My answer to this is simple. Build a copy of the ship that the Spocks flew in the movie, go back in time to a point before Nero appeared. Use the red graviton liquid to collapse the star that will go nova, years or decades before it was to happen in the original timeline. No this will not restore the timeline to its original state, but it would still be close enough to have all of the original stories and movies be the correct outcome again. Maybe this could be an idea for a book that someone could write.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 12:37:00 +0000

While I can appreciate the film as being a good film; a flick that in my opinion held together well and moved briskly (something which traditional Trek movies can be guilty of – slowing down). I also believe that JJ Abrams has done serious damage to Trek for us loyalists with the look and feel of his movie (at time with appearences that left me with the impression of it being a video game) and us Trek loyalists should heed what my local film critic (Dallas) had to say about the film at the time it came out namely “…people new to Trek will like the film and Trek loyalists should consider skipping it entirely…” If anything I accept what’s come to be called the “alternate universe” as a result of what was actually the topic of a Next Gen episode – namely that through alternate universes every action and every possible outcome is played out. Different decisions over time way back when were made branching realities off, different decisions about vessel design for example were made in each as to why in the “prime reality” the vessels look clean and office like but in the “alternate reality” they almost look like a brewery. It’s the only way I can rationalize the two Treks, otherwise the new Trek is a travesty.

By: Redbird1214tif

Redbird1214tif — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:17:00 +0000

I LOVE IT! RE-BOOT the franchise. After TOS, it was derivative, cannibalistic, and watered-down. DS9 was a soap-opera too intricate to keep up with without constant viewing; Voyager sold out on it original premise, Enterprise was too tepid to stand the test of time.

By: Benji_W

Benji_W — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:39:00 +0000

I dont buy it or accept it. Fact is without respect to the cannon it’s less than half the show and what at least I enjoy. I’m not a stickler for lore eg I embraced the Xindi and everything Enterprise did with the Vulcans, new things can be made up, they can even send Spock back in time…They just shouldnt have blew Vulcan up.

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 08 Jan 2012 01:45:00 +0000

Totally agree Kevin (from Adelaide, Australia) as NONE of us have ever time travelled with the knowledge of it being puerly theoretical why argue over it go watch any incarnation of CSI and see the inconsistancies there (as far as time taken to arrive at a conclusion)…but its still fun to watch. Just enjoy Trek even though I have all the DVD’s of all of treks incarnations when it comes on TV I will watch it just for the serendipitous of the moment.

By: TickleOnTheTum

TickleOnTheTum — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:53:00 +0000

I thought the new film was rubbish…

I am a sort of fan of Star Trek, and found it boring even as a general Sci-Fi action movie. I hate ‘re-boots’ etc, and especially the casting of new actors to play old established characters.

The humour was to in your face (Scotty in the water tubes, bleach), and the emotional aspect as well.

I felt that it was an insult to the actors of TOS (which I haven’t watched since the original airing).

I won’t be buying the last one on disc, and won’t be bothering to go and see anymore at the cinema…

RIP Star Trek…

By: Kang the Unbalanced

Kang the Unbalanced — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 14:55:00 +0000

You idiot.
The original, cleaned-up releases of the original series are still available.
The changes made to TOS-R are subtle and fit in very well, because they were rigidly controlled by continuity meisters like the Okudas. I’m very much a purist, and I think they did an excellent job.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 19:07:00 +0000

Have to remember in the Star Trek universe the timeline has been changed, and many times set back.

I think Q said it best “How little you mortals understand time. Must you be so linear, Jean-Luc?”

Time can be changed and changed back, has happened more times in the universe then can be counted. Chances are at the end of these movies the timeline will be reset.

Abrams is right this timeline does not negate the other one.

Enjoy these movies for what they are, and don’t worry about the timeline. It’s just an alternate timeline. Doesn’t make the timeline we know and love irrelevant.