Also, as someone noted in a Discord chat about it, “decades before” only gives you a small window between the start of the Kelvin universe and Trek '09, otherwise too far back and you’re making a Prime Timeline movie. So that’ll be interesting to see what they plan.
I think the kelvin timeline is great for the sole fact that it is what peaked my interest in trek. I recently just finished watching everything trek and it was because the 09 movie was cool and got me to start watching the different tv series.
@M500@cm0002 I think that’s amazing and wonderful. Any Star Trek vehicle from any point can be anyone’s gateway. And that’s why it’s still here. Rock on you!
Watching squabbles over this stuff is depressing. I have specific Trek I’ll avoid, but that’s me, and bringing it up over and over in every conversation is lame.
@M500 Season 1 and most of 2 of TNG is hard to get through because it’s pretty campy. Wesley went on trial on a planet because he crushed some flowers. They were going to put him to death. :ablobflushed:
Personally though… I’m very into The Wrath of Khan. It’s my list topper of great Trek. And I think that causes a lot of my disdain for “Into Darkness”. Every time I’ve watched it, it makes me like angry? Which is weird I guess, but I can’t objectively watch it. It’s always with judgement.
I agree that tng 1 and 2 can be difficult too. I think it was just genes Star Trek that I had trouble with. Once he was no longer leading the show it picked up for me.
Not to say that it’s bad or I don’t like it. But compared to the rest of trek that’s what I like the least.
Khan was a great movie and I really enjoyed trek 2, 3, and 4. I think I was burn out by 6 as I’d just finished a ton of trek at that time.
Finished tos season 3, watched all of tas and prod, and then did all the tos movies to finish it off. So after 5 I was not ready to like another tos trek movie.
At this point the Kelvin timeline is just a handwavey excuse for recasting Kirk and crew of TOS and following movies. And a prequel to Kelvin is an excuse to recast those parts with younger actors.
Personally, I could care less about new movies featuring the TOS characters. Star trek evolved past them 30 years ago, I wish Hollywood would realise that.
If Discovery or SNW had been the first to recast Kirk, there would have been a revolt, but since Kelvin got us used to the idea people just kind of accept it.
I would take that with a grain of salt - it’s a general-purpose Hollywood outlet reporting what their sources told them, so there could be room for inaccuracies.
They could also follow Simon Pegg’s contention that the Kelvin and Prime timelines could be different at any point in history (which I support).
There are actually differences in the Prime and Kelvin timelines that happened before Nero’s incursion. For instance, Kirk’s date of birth is off by several months. They tried to justify that afterwards by saying something about the event sending shockwaves through time to change things before it even happened or something like that. The real reason probably lies in that interview where JJ Abrams admitted he never liked Star Trek, but you could argue that the removal of various down-stream time travel events, like the events of “The City on the Edge of Forever” likely not happening in the modified timeline, could actually cause retroactive changes to the timeline.
But anyway, the Kelvin timeline already diverges before the Kelvin-Narada thing, because reasons.
@ValueSubtracted @startrek
Basically where I’m also at.
Also, as someone noted in a Discord chat about it, “decades before” only gives you a small window between the start of the Kelvin universe and Trek '09, otherwise too far back and you’re making a Prime Timeline movie. So that’ll be interesting to see what they plan.
I mean…we could all pretend the Kelvin timeline doesn’t exist…
I think the kelvin timeline is great for the sole fact that it is what peaked my interest in trek. I recently just finished watching everything trek and it was because the 09 movie was cool and got me to start watching the different tv series.
@M500 @cm0002 I think that’s amazing and wonderful. Any Star Trek vehicle from any point can be anyone’s gateway. And that’s why it’s still here. Rock on you!
Watching squabbles over this stuff is depressing. I have specific Trek I’ll avoid, but that’s me, and bringing it up over and over in every conversation is lame.
Which is it? For me it’s TOS. There are some good episodes, but it can be really difficult at times.
@M500 Season 1 and most of 2 of TNG is hard to get through because it’s pretty campy. Wesley went on trial on a planet because he crushed some flowers. They were going to put him to death. :ablobflushed:
Personally though… I’m very into The Wrath of Khan. It’s my list topper of great Trek. And I think that causes a lot of my disdain for “Into Darkness”. Every time I’ve watched it, it makes me like angry? Which is weird I guess, but I can’t objectively watch it. It’s always with judgement.
I agree that tng 1 and 2 can be difficult too. I think it was just genes Star Trek that I had trouble with. Once he was no longer leading the show it picked up for me.
Not to say that it’s bad or I don’t like it. But compared to the rest of trek that’s what I like the least.
Khan was a great movie and I really enjoyed trek 2, 3, and 4. I think I was burn out by 6 as I’d just finished a ton of trek at that time.
Finished tos season 3, watched all of tas and prod, and then did all the tos movies to finish it off. So after 5 I was not ready to like another tos trek movie.
@M500 I need tas back in my life.
I expected TAS to be kinda of bad, but I think I genuinely enjoyed each episode. It is not talked about as much, but i really enjoyed it.
At this point the Kelvin timeline is just a handwavey excuse for recasting Kirk and crew of TOS and following movies. And a prequel to Kelvin is an excuse to recast those parts with younger actors.
Personally, I could care less about new movies featuring the TOS characters. Star trek evolved past them 30 years ago, I wish Hollywood would realise that.
Kelvin broke the seal on recasting, as it were.
If Discovery or SNW had been the first to recast Kirk, there would have been a revolt, but since Kelvin got us used to the idea people just kind of accept it.
Yeah, it was Pandora’s recasting, and now all the Kirks and Spocks are loose on the world.
I would take that with a grain of salt - it’s a general-purpose Hollywood outlet reporting what their sources told them, so there could be room for inaccuracies.
They could also follow Simon Pegg’s contention that the Kelvin and Prime timelines could be different at any point in history (which I support).
@ValueSubtracted @startrek Well like we said, all news about a Star Trek film comes with lots of salt onboard 😂
There are actually differences in the Prime and Kelvin timelines that happened before Nero’s incursion. For instance, Kirk’s date of birth is off by several months. They tried to justify that afterwards by saying something about the event sending shockwaves through time to change things before it even happened or something like that. The real reason probably lies in that interview where JJ Abrams admitted he never liked Star Trek, but you could argue that the removal of various down-stream time travel events, like the events of “The City on the Edge of Forever” likely not happening in the modified timeline, could actually cause retroactive changes to the timeline.
But anyway, the Kelvin timeline already diverges before the Kelvin-Narada thing, because reasons.
Another change is Enterprise being built on earth instead of in orbit.
I’m almost entirely sure that choice was because JJ Abrams wanted that visual in his movie. Justifications to Trek nerds were an afterthought.
@setsneedtofeed @startrek Which never made any sense in any timeline.