Star Trek

[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?