I'm really over the whole alternate universe. We need to go back to the main universe with a new show or movie.
My only real problem with the "alternate timeline" thing is this: They did it so that they wouldn't have to adhere to the previously established canon. "We've wiped the slate clean; now we can tell any story we want to tell." But do they give us something new? No, not really. They screwed with the Enterprise and gave us shiny phasers that look like toys, then dragged previously established characters like Spock (prime), Carol Marcus, and Khan out of the franchise's history. And now rumor has it they're bringing back Kirk (prime). So, what was the point of eliminating the original timeline in the first place? Why couldn't they have left the original timeline in place and told us new stories with new characters within that timeline? Considering the way they keep taking elements from the previously established canon, it seems like they went to a lot of trouble to let people know, "Oh, no, this is an all new Star Trek," for nothing....I'm really over the whole alternate universe. We need to go back to the main universe with a new show or movie.
If I were JJ and wanted to do a Trek movie for the 50th anniversary, I'd have a serious sit down with Harlan Ellison.
Original Kirk shows up to undo the terrible and illogical changes that occurred when Nero came back in time. Presto the alternate timeline never happened and JJ Trek ceases to exist...and there was much rejoicing.
And liking that chick got him killed (temporarily), which I believe would come under "not having a lot of luck with women"
The writers broke that universe with being able to transport halfway across the galaxy. They almost have to reboot it already.
My only real problem with the "alternate timeline" thing is this: They did it so that they wouldn't have to adhere to the previously established canon. "We've wiped the slate clean; now we can tell any story we want to tell." But do they give us something new? No, not really. They screwed with the Enterprise and gave us shiny phasers that look like toys, then dragged previously established characters like Spock (prime), Carol Marcus, and Khan out of the franchise's history. And now rumor has it they're bringing back Kirk (prime). So, what was the point of eliminating the original timeline in the first place? Why couldn't they have left the original timeline in place and told us new stories with new characters within that timeline? Considering the way they keep taking elements from the previously established canon, it seems like they went to a lot of trouble to let people know, "Oh, no, this is an all new Star Trek," for nothing.
The impression I get is that everyone making these movies loves working with each other, and Star Trek is simply a means to achieve that end. So who gives a crap about what Star Trek is if everyone is having a good time?
Maybe Star Trek fans?
STAR TREK 3 Shatner Update He’ll Share The Screen With Chris Pine | Badass Digest
Well it won't be Kirk Prime and guess it won't be Spock Prime again either.
Actually, the last thing he knew was that he was dying on a scaffold on Veridian III.They need to have him show up and say "Where am I? Last I knew I was helping Capt. Picard."
Speaking of which, I know this is sci-fi and they can pretty much do whatever they want, but it should be interesting to see how they'll bring Kirk back...y'know, considering he's dead and all.
Riiiiiight...this stuff makes my head hurt. :lolDoesn't sound like he will be playing Kirk Prime only the older self of Chris Pine's not so Prime Kirk...
Doesn't sound like he will be playing Kirk Prime only the older self of Chris Pine's not so Prime Kirk. I think I will skip this one entirely in the theater and wait for a rental. Fool me twice shame on you, fool me thrice shame on me.