Star Trek

[Alex]

I'm not going to say there is a solid line. But Kirk's motiviations and Spock's motivations for how they proceed through life have been fundamentally changed. And whether that results in somewhat similar courses that is, in my opinion, a very important difference.

But the key thing is not just that they are different people than originally depicted but that with this film we are told that all that has come before is irrelevant (and I believe one of mousepod's points is that it is cheating to use the love of what has come before as the draw to get you into the theater only to reveal halfway in that it is all being discarded) to any future engagement with the franchise except insofar as it allows the writers a convenient shortcut. Yes, those events still happened in some other timeline (similar to "its just a dream events" really happened in the dream) but they are of no future use in experiencing future events (except where they provide easy one-liners to future writers).

I also don't understand at all the comparison to James Bond beyond the fact that they are really the only examples of such lengthy movie franchises. I'm sure you really do see a parallel of importance but I'm completely missing it since the internal structure of the two franchises has never been on similar terms.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex

I also don't understand at all the comparison to James Bond beyond the fact that they are really the only examples of such lengthy movie franchises. I'm sure you really do see a parallel of importance but I'm completely missing it since the internal structure of the two franchises has never been on similar terms.

True, but the kernel of analogy is there. A new Bond does not mean that all that stuff for the last 40 years never happened. Even Daniel Craig presented as the "start" of James Bond does erase the past. Though I suppose some upset purists could have ranted on about that.

It's left incredibly fuzzy in the Bond series. But for all we know, the internal structure is exactly the same as Star Trek. As far as the films present, Sean Lazenby Moore Dalton Bronson the Third are all the same, non-aging person ... and Daniel Craig is then the very first James Bond in an alternate universe where S.L.M.D.Bronson III never existed.

They just don't bother to make an explaination ... perhaps so people won't have silly discussions about it.

The New Timeline element of this Star Trek movie is simply a matter of literary convenient licensing. It's being blown out of proportion here. It does not mean that James T. Shatner and Leonard Spock never lived. If you like, their exploits continue unchanged in an alternate timeline of endless reruns. These are different actors stepping into their shoes with the explanation that they are essentially the same characters under more or less drastically changed circumstances. Perhaps the timeline change is also why Chris Pine looks only vaguely like Bill Shatner, and Zachery Quinto looks like Leonard Nimoy only in the right light. In other words, WTF?