The Star Trek Universe Has Been Destroyed by J.J. Abrams
Who Needs the Borg When you have JJ Abrams
As a Star Trek fan, change is hard for us all. When "Star Trek: Next Generations" first aired, many like myself was upset that Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard) was trying to replace William Shanter (Captain Kirk) until I braced myself what Hollywood was doing, creating the Star Trek Universe. Throughout the series, there was many references to the adventures of the original crew of the Enterprise and the late actor James Doohan even appeared in an episode Montgomery Scott.
Throughout the many spin offs of the Trek franchise, "Deep Space Nine", "Enterprise" and "Voyager", there were always references to what the other series did in their missions or what other characters did by reading historical logs.
Continuity is what Star Trek is all about and the last 2 installments of Star Trek undid everything we all know about Star Trek.
Changes in the Timeline
A temporal violation is a term used by the Department of Temporal Investigations in the Trek franchise when a character uses time travel to change the past which in turn can change the fabrics of time and change the outcome of the future. Characters from the Star Trek universe can commit these temporal violations. If it were not for these characters, Captain Kirk, Captain Sisko, Captain Janeway, Seven of Nine, or Ensign Kim, storylines would be boring. However, our directors and writers cannot.
So exactly how did the first two Star Trek movies by JJ Abraham did what the Borg or not other Trek foe could do, destroy the fabrics of our Trek World?
JJ Abrams' List of Temporal Violations
List of Timeline Issues
Do not get me wrong, I have enjoyed the new movies with the special effects and impersonations of the original Enterprise crew as younger men and woman. However, I am waiting for the next installment to make everything right, that is the joys of time travel, you can keep on going back to make it right but as of now, it is a rip in time that is so vast, why bother watching any of the old shows or movies and get into Trek conversation if everything was erased. Decades of TV History, do over.
At last, here is my list of flaws in the 2 movies.
- Biggest problem is the destruction on Vulcan! Need I need to go into depth in this one? Without the original planet, many of the events from STOS and the movies seem pointless. Hello "Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan" Spock is recruited from the planet Vulcan to rejoin Kirk?
- Captain Pike dies in an terrorist attack at the Federation council meeting when he his fate was to live his life on Talos IV where the alien race, the Talosians, could tap Pike's mind with telepathy and illusions, so he would be spared dying helplessly in his lifeless body in a wheelchair with blinking lights. This version of Pike was not like the original.
- Mr. Spock in love with Lgt,Uhura, the ships' communications officer. Lgt. Uhura was more dignified and conservative on the ship and her wild side should have never been displayed on the ship. And we thought Captain Kirk (Shanter) kissing Uhura (first interracial kiss) was controversial.
- Future Spock tells his younger self that Khan is the Federation's biggest foe and there is reference to the events in "Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan" but this could not be if Vulcan was destroyed altering the future and future Spock since he was not caught in any temporal rift so he should have been altered by the timeline change.
- "The Trouble With Tribbles" Kirk meets the troublesome furballs for the first time but in the 2nd Trek movie, it is the Tribbles that save the day and the Enterprise's test rat.
- Khan dies in a battle in space not on Earth. The early reference to the rise of the supermen was good but lost track to shove the movie goers more action and random familiarities.
- Like most fans, I was excited to see Carol Marcus enter into the "Darkness" film but once Khan was determined to be the father, this was impossible.
- The series Enterprise is totally disregarded in this timeline as there is many references to the movie being the beginning when "Star Trek Enterprise" was before the days of Kirk and Spock.
- Kirk was raised in Montana and we see Kirk not being drafted to the Federation or any reference to his upbringing.
- If Kirk was given Khan's blood to save his life? How is that possible? Does Khan have his blood type? Why did Kirk not become superhuman like the rest of Khan's supermen race?
In all, I like the new Star Trek movies but they have not capture the chemistry like the original staff had. I owe the movies and watch them often but they do not have the Star Trek magic like the other series or movies had. Perhaps changing the soundtrack had a major factor in my feelings. If it is not broken, do not fix it is what I say. Granted to keep the franchise going, they had to do something and why not create a movie with familiar characters? Two of the original actors have already passed on and the original cast is not getting any younger so I get it.
How do I and other Star Trek fans deal with such matters? Shut up and just enjoy the movie? No, as fans, we need to keep the directors and writers straight. What did Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates) in the Stephen King movie, "Misery", I think she said it best with matters of continuity.
"This isn't what happened last week! Have you all got amnesia? They just cheated us! This isn't fair! HE DIDN'T GET OUT OF THE COCK - A - DOODIE CAR!"
So for now this fan can sleep at night, the Abram films is not really Star Trek but "Star Trek: Alternative Universe" and now I have finally found peace and can sleep at night.
Enjoy the show.
Related
Comments
I wrote about this as well. And I agree -- these new movies are not Trek by any stretch of the imagination.
They did mention that in the film itself. If you remember the scene after Kirk and the crew got back on the enterprise after finding out Nero was from the future, Kirk claims that the best way to get over on him is to be completely unpredictable because Nero would possibly know the outcome of future events that they might do to attack him. Spock retorts saying how Nero's very presence has already altered the timeline; hence Nero wouldn't have any more of a clue on what would happen next anymore than they would by this point. The Uhura says something like, "An alternate timeline?" And young spock says, "Precisely." They mention it in that one scene. You might've missed it, but it's there. Trust me. As far as future Spock is concerned, he did warn Kirk about not telling his younger self about his presence along with anyone else. The only reason he confided in Kirk about it was because they were stuck on that planet together, and they were running out of time because if Spock Prime never would've helped outKirk, then Earth would've been destroyed by Nero as well.
- AUTHOR
If the alternative timeline is the basis of this new franchise, I can see your points but I never picked that up watching the first movie. If it was an alternative timeline why didn't future SPOCK say anything about that since he would not affect any timeline because he has a different past. Even temporal rifts have been addressed in many storylines in many different shows, it was only a storyline and not the basis of the series. Will I boycott these movies, definitely not, and I will be the first one waving my $7.00 in my hand waiting in line on the next movie. If that is the true intent of this franchise then I will accept this new crew of Enterprise with new eyes and not comparing to how Shanter (Kirk) handled certain situations in the series and movie installments. Great answer. :-)
Excellent points, but I'm afraid almost 90 percent of your complaints are kind of proven moot by the fact that they established in the first abrams movie that the entire new series takes place in an alternate timeline; hence it doesn't mean the events of the other series never happened, as they still did. It just means that everything that's happening in the new movies is part of an alternate new timeline that's separate from the original timeline that we know.
Also, this isn't something that's uncommon either, as I seem to recall there being talks of alternate timelines before in enterprise. Remember when the series went over what would've happened if Zeffron Cochran shot the Spock's dad at the moment of first contact?
Or how in "Deep Space Nine", they had episodes dedicated to showing the evil alternate timeline? Therefore, if you just accept the fact that Abrams' films take place in an alternate timeline, then it's a lot easier to accept all the changes.
Also as far as other fans not getting why Uhura would date Spock, knowing that Vulcans rarely procreate, I would like to remind you all that Spock's dad did marry a human, so yeah....
As far as planet Vulcan being blown up, I can see why most fans wouldn't like that part. But we have to remember, this new series is taking place in an alternate timeline that doesn't exist in the same timeline as the other star trek shows took place in. Therefore, it's not contradicting anything when Nero blew it up because it's not part of the same timeline that the other shows shared, nor does it affect anything that happens in the original timeline either.
I personally think the only reason he decided to have it blown up in the movie was simply to get new audience invested into Star Trek again because lets face it...star trek was dying. Enterprise didn't exactly have great ratings, and the last two movies before the rebooted series were flops. That's just a fact.
And the common stereotype about star trek is that they never kill off any major characters, or make that many dramatic changes. Not saying that's the case, but that seems to be the stereotype. It's the same problem with superman as a character. Take in mind, I love superman stories, but the reality is that he's a hard character to write for when you stop and think about it. If you make him seem too weak, then people will say that's not really superman. If you make him too powerful, then it becomes hard to really draw up any real adversity for him to overcome.
In a sense, it's kind of that way with Star Trek. Because no major changes or characters die, people start to think..."what's at stake?" "Why should i care about these characters if I know they're going to survive anyway?" In my mind, I think Abrams blowing up Vulcan was kind of his answer to show people that anything can happen in this new timeline, and to appeal to younger audiences.
Don't get me wrong, you've made some excellent points, and I can see why you'd cite these against the rebooted series. But like I said, 90 percent of what you just said is proven moot by the fact that the new reboot takes place in an alternate timeline, or an alternate reality if you will. Therefore, you can't expect it to follow the exact same continuity as the original series.
Having said all that, one major complaint i do have about the new star trek series is how freaking fast kirk got promoted to captain. you remember how he started off as a cadet in the first film, but he ended up captain by the end of his first mission? that's a boat load of bs if you ask me, as that's one major complaint i do have about the new series.
Also, Khan didn't die in "Star Trek Into Darkness", as they did show that he was put back into suspended animation again by the end of the movie, so he can still come back possibly.
4