Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Did the New Star Trek Movie Ruin the Old Storyline? What I mean is...Ever since the original series, there has been an ongoing storyline or history all the way up to Star Trek Voyager. So since the movie was a reboot of the original show, and it rewrote the origin of the Captain Kirk and his crew. Does that mean the stories of TNG, DS9, and Voyager have been erased? And all we're left with is Star Trek Enterprise?!! Maybe I'm wrong, someone please explain.

Unless JJAbrams has broken into your house and stolen everything that had to do with the original universe you'd have to be an idiot to claim the only universe has been "ruined" by the new one.

It's an alternate reality, like the mirror universe. The prime universe still exists.

Originally posted by Kinneary
It's an alternate reality, like the mirror universe. The prime universe still exists.

Agreed, and if they want to they could still go back in time and set things right and make it the same as the time line we all know.
or they could be free to just make other movies without worrying what is suppose to happen or start a whole new series exploring strange new worlds..........now that would be cool and i'm sure we would all tune in for that one.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Unless JJAbrams has broken into your house and stolen everything that had to do with the original universe you'd have to be an idiot to claim the only universe has been "ruined" by the new one.

Geez! I was asking a damn question... Normally when comic books or Hollywood do a reboot of something it normally means that they are starting over. Ever heard of Batman Begins?!

Originally posted by Kinneary
It's an alternate reality, like the mirror universe. The prime universe still exists.

Ok Cool! Thanks

There's too many fans of the old universes for them to get rid of them that's why this had to be an alternative universe.

Because in all likelyhood no matter how popular this new franchise is it will never reach the peak of fandom the old ones have acquired.

Originally posted by jcvaldez
Geez! I was asking a damn question... Normally when comic books or Hollywood do a reboot of something it normally means that they are starting over. Ever heard of Batman Begins?!

true, but with something like batman it is far easier to accept a reboot cause it is still the same premise. in Tim Burtons batman we learn of his origons and he fights the joker, in batman returns he fights catwoman and penguin
in batman begins we learn of his origions and he fights scarecrow
and in dark knight he fights joker. the movies were revamped for the 21st century.
But with star trek they have 40 years of TV shows and Movies that they would have to take into account, but since they did it this way with the alternate timeline they are free to do what they want from now on, without ramifications in the original series and on.
That was the beauty of the new movie, All of the time in star trek TV and movies the universe is the same at the end of the show as it is in the beginning, even thought it got messed up 15min into it.
but this new one the don't go back and fix it.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
true, but with something like batman it is far easier to accept a reboot cause it is still the same premise. in Tim Burtons batman we learn of his origons and he fights the joker, in batman returns he fights catwoman and penguin
in batman begins we learn of his origions and he fights scarecrow
and in dark knight he fights joker. the movies were revamped for the 21st century.
But with star trek they have 40 years of TV shows and Movies that they would have to take into account, but since they did it this way with the alternate timeline they are free to do what they want from now on, without ramifications in the original series and on.
That was the beauty of the new movie, All of the time in star trek TV and movies the universe is the same at the end of the show as it is in the beginning, even thought it got messed up 15min into it.
but this new one the don't go back and fix it.

agreed

Originally posted by darthmaul1
true, but with something like batman it is far easier to accept a reboot cause it is still the same premise. in Tim Burtons batman we learn of his origons and he fights the joker, in batman returns he fights catwoman and penguin
in batman begins we learn of his origions and he fights scarecrow
and in dark knight he fights joker. the movies were revamped for the 21st century.
But with star trek they have 40 years of TV shows and Movies that they would have to take into account, but since they did it this way with the alternate timeline they are free to do what they want from now on, without ramifications in the original series and on.
That was the beauty of the new movie, All of the time in star trek TV and movies the universe is the same at the end of the show as it is in the beginning, even thought it got messed up 15min into it.
but this new one the don't go back and fix it.

Well Kinneary's answer was understood. But I don't agree with you when you say it was easier to reboot Batman. Batman was created in 1938, 71 years of history! You got years of Comic Books, Graphic Novels, TV. Cartoons, Movies and more to add to the history of Batman. Batman Begins was a reboot - it was meant to forget the previous movies. After all the tag line for the movie was "Forget what you've seen, Batman Begins". The Incredible Hulk did the same thing. It erased the first Hulk movie. Batman is the same premise but so is Star Trek, so I don't see your point.

Anyways, Kinneary answered my question, but thanks anyways!

The new movie is good...be happy...and move on

Originally posted by jcvaldez
Geez! I was asking a damn question... Normally when comic books or Hollywood do a reboot of something it normally means that they are starting over. Ever heard of Batman Begins?!

batman begins didn't invalidate the burton movies, or the shumacher ones, though. not imo, anyways.

Originally posted by jcvaldez
Well Kinneary's answer was understood. But I don't agree with you when you say it was easier to reboot Batman. Batman was created in 1938, 71 years of history! You got years of Comic Books, Graphic Novels, TV. Cartoons, Movies and more to add to the history of Batman. Batman Begins was a reboot - it was meant to forget the previous movies. After all the tag line for the movie was "Forget what you've seen, Batman Begins". The Incredible Hulk did the same thing. It erased the first Hulk movie. Batman is the same premise but so is Star Trek, so I don't see your point.

Anyways, Kinneary answered my question, but thanks anyways!
I said it was easier to accept a reboot of batman (for the fans to accept it)
My point was that STAR TREK from start in 1966 to present has always tried to take into account previous shows and movies and even books i think. So with this new prequel they created an alternate time line so now they don't have to worry.
Where as Batman has had multiple entires in comics and movies so it is easier for the fans to accept the reboot.
So no the new Star trek did not ruin the old story line even though it is a reboot, because they created the alternate time line.

Originally posted by jcvaldez
Did the New Star Trek Movie Ruin the Old Storyline? What I mean is...Ever since the original series, there has been an ongoing storyline or history all the way up to Star Trek Voyager. So since the movie was a reboot of the original show, and it rewrote the origin of the Captain Kirk and his crew. Does that mean the stories of TNG, DS9, and Voyager have been erased? And all we're left with is Star Trek Enterprise?!! Maybe I'm wrong, someone please explain.

Erased? No. They are now separate, and anything can happen in the new Star Trek world.

I hate to be one of the few people who rain on the parade but I think JJ Abrams blew it. Once again we have a Star Trek story line involving time travel (this time by the Romulans). When I heard he was taking over the franchise I had high hopes but now I'm disappointed. I was hoping to see the "historical record" of how Kirk took over from Pike but instead i got a rewrite of Trek history. Don't get me wrong, I've been a Trek fan since the 70's but doesn't any Trek movie involve going to a new planet and finding something strange and otherworldly instead of, ho-hum, fighting the Klingons, Borg, Romulans, etc? Well that's my opinion and I know a new generation of fans won't agree but I wanted to see the fantastic and I got the mundane...

So long as this new time ends up with Wesley Crusher never being born then i'm fine with it.

Originally posted by jaden101
So long as this new time ends up with Wesley Crusher never being born then i'm fine with it.

What do you have against Wesley Crusher?

Wesley does suck ass. The character itself was obtuse and boring. I think even Wil Wheaton has said that he didn't like Wesley either.

Originally posted by jaden101
So long as this new time ends up with Wesley Crusher never being born then i'm fine with it.

Originally posted by Kinneary
Wesley does suck ass. The character itself was obtuse and boring. I think even Wil Wheaton has said that he didn't like Wesley either.

he did. he regularly rants about how shit wesley was...

I would would say no because I'm a fan of the origional series, TNG and Voyager. This new star trek movie was great and I really enjoyed it. Atleast in my opinion, it really made up for insurection and nemisis which were big time flopps. Star trek went down the hill after First Contact and now with this new reboot, I think star trek has been reborn. Just one question though, is kirk back for good now because of a fan movment that was trying to bring him back? I would hope so because it would be great to see him in the 24th century.

It's going to take them a while to reach the 24th century.

Just wish they could alter the time line so star trek 5,7,9 and 10 were never made. I don't own any of those. and make it so kirk doesn't die like a panzy.

The only thing this movie and the series Enterprise did was ruin the Vulcans. They are portrayed as arrogany ****s. You could expect the Vulcan children to be assholes since they have not gone through the disciplinary art of muting their emotions or whatever its called, but the rest of those Vulcan elders were dicks. I imagine this was done so Sylar/Spock can get with Uhura. Boo hiss! The rest of the movie looked great though, the script was meh with a lot of great action... logic and respect for science was thrown out the window. Take for instance our heroes diving into the Vulcan atmosphere and not vaporizing from friction with the atmosphere or the fact that ships are able to fly in and out of black holes without being damaged whereas a planet is comsumed in minutes. Hire a ****ing science adviser for ****s sake!!!

As they've said, all the commotion in the new movie were an alternate universe, so no.

I don't know why trekkies seem to hate the new movie. It could be that it does not have much relation to the old one, but what's so bad about watching an action & adventure science fiction film with alot of effects and an understandable screenplay in it?
What's the fuss all about.

Of course I hated the Spock=Uhura thing for shi*, but the rest of the film was fine.

What I think might ruin it, is if in the 3rd and hopefully final film, is they somehow make the story slot back into the original timeline.

I don't want that. I want an alternate timeline, like a good Kahn, or some sort of Klingon destruction.

Something completely different to the original timeline.

Originally posted by mardook
The only thing this movie and the series Enterprise did was ruin the Vulcans. They are portrayed as arrogany ****s. You could expect the Vulcan children to be assholes since they have not gone through the disciplinary art of muting their emotions or whatever its called, but the rest of those Vulcan elders were dicks.
They've always seemed like an arrogant race to me. Spock constantly telling Kirk everything he does is "illogical". Sarek trying to hide his emotion - in TNG - when it's obvious that he's coming into a part of his Vulcan life where emotion is unavoidable (Bendii Syndrome). T'Pol was arrogant because humans - as far as the Vulcans were concerned were too young when it came to space travel. Spock in the new Star Trek was simply more open to emotion because in the new universe, something happened that made that Spock didn't do the emotion purging ritual.


What JJ Abrams was trying to make clear is the fact that the original script in TOS was written so that Spock had a romantic involvement with Uhura, unfortunately for Lenard Nimoy, Will Shatner decided he wanted to kiss Nichelle Nichols so changed the script.


It's Star Trek...all "science" used is theoretical at best, if not a stage behind that as far as science goes - it's probably not even regarded as fringe science.


good point


the ships flew in and out of the blackholes, yes. The planet however, had a blackhole inside it. As is the case with the Nerada at the end of the film, the blackhole was inside the Nerada and it fell apart...

My main complaints were the airsoft phasers and Sulu fencing with a collapsible katana.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Erased? No. They are now separate, and anything can happen in the new Star Trek world.

woohoo what do we call the new trek fans?..treksters?
edit: Im on board thought the movie was great! can I copyright that? I hereby claim that treksters as mine...lol...though Ill share just throw somw royalty $

I loved the approach they took in rebooting the franchise. Both can coexist without harming each other.

I loved the recent film and can't wait for more.

Originally posted by Doctor-Alvis
My main complaints were the airsoft phasers and Sulu fencing with a collapsible katana.

I thought the collapsible katana was quite cool, actually. The new phaser design was ..eh.. I wasn't completely wowed by it, but I understood where they were going with it.

Good reboot.