J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
How likely is it that Section 31 exists in this new timeline? We've already seen the dramatic butterfly effect over the course of ~25 years. Jump forward another 100-120 years and TNG era wouldn't even be recognizable.

Section 31 has existed since the roughly the same time as the birth of the Federation, 100 or so years before Kirk - that's how it makes an appearance in Enterprise. It's presence would not be altered at all in a new timeline. The only thing that might be altered is who is involved with it.
 
Section 31 has existed since the roughly the same time as the birth of the Federation, 100 or so years before Kirk - that's how it makes an appearance in Enterprise. It's presence would not be altered at all in a new timeline. The only thing that might be altered is who is involved with it.

Very well. I only knew of it from DS9.

I skipped most of Enterprise until a friend clued me in the writing had improved during the last season. I watched a number of the later episodes.

I went into a pretty bad Star Trek burn out. I've watched very little Voyager as well.
 
Section 31 has existed since the roughly the same time as the birth of the Federation, 100 or so years before Kirk - that's how it makes an appearance in Enterprise. It's presence would not be altered at all in a new timeline. The only thing that might be altered is who is involved with it.

Well, they often say existence is formed by a brief moment in time. What if Germany had won WWII, for example?

We can't just say the altered timeline would affect only its membership; its very core could have been altered, even if slightly
 
Enterprise disrupted the timeline of the mirror universe by injecting a Constitution class ship from the prime universe into mirror-Archer's time.

Imagine the butterfly effect that would have by the time the two Kirks meet in 'Mirror, Mirror'. Kirk-prime and TOS Enterprise would have encountered something entirely new.
 
Starfleet Intelligence has actually already been hinted at in the Comics. There's an interesting retelling of "Return of the Archons" which starts off with Intelligence trying to recruit Sulu while still at the Academy. They've never gone further with that, but it's possible it will tie in. The Archon itself, unlike in the original timeline, was a covert ship with special advanced tech that's loss was being kept under wraps, leading Intelligence to start keeping a closer eye on Kirk and the Enterprise.
 
article-0-165390C0000005DC-37_634x915.jpg


Looks like a Godzilla or Cloverfield poster.
 
Kamandi, Go back and watch Season 4 of Enterprise. The rest of the series was pretty "meh' but things were starting to get interesting in Season 4 - and then they cancelled it (oh, and do NOT watch the final episode, it will ruin the whole experience for you - pretend it doesn't exist. I wish I could un-watch it!) Section 31 (though not mentioned by name) plays a pretty prominent role in the back story of one of the main cast members.

I can sympathize with the Trek burn-out; I went through it as well. I never even watched the last couple seasons of Voyager, except for the finale, which I thought was derivative of both "First Contact" and the TNG finale "All Good Things". Not bad stuff to derive inspiration from, but it didn't really add much to the Trek verse, either. I stuck with Enterprise, for whatever reason. I think it was mainly the characters of Archer, T'Pol, and Tucker that kept me coming back for more. The show went off in a totally weird direction in Season 3, but it was at least something fresh and different. Season 4 was moreso what the show should have been from day 1, seeing a proto-Federation forming. It perhaps drew a bit too heavily from TOS, but considering the amount of story-telling they were trying to pack into one season, I forgive them for that. The story arcs were cool, it was like watching mini-movies!

The new reboot timeline is only supposed to differ from the original Trek timeline from Kirk's birth onward. Section's 31 existence from the time if it's inception up to the events at the beginning of "Star Trek" would remain the same. I can only think that Nero's antics would make Section 31 MORE paranoid and aggressive, not less. The butterfly effect would take place, but if you think about what a CIA-like operation at the heart of the Federation would be like in the first place, I would think they'd be extremely crazy and dangerous by the time of "Star Trek Into Darkness". So which TOS-era character would it be that would take the Trek Into Darkness? And could they be affiliated with Section 31?
 
I loved TNG, really liked DS9 but fell off a bit. I was watching Babylon 5 at that time and saw too much stuff being lifted from B5 into DS9. I never warmed up to Voyager and really started feeling the 'formula' of it. I actually remember thinking "Oh god" when they announced Enterprise. I watched a bit at the beginning and realized I didn't even care enough to worry about the 'continuity police' stuff.

I heard they made a big improvement in writing when Manny Coto took over, so I watched a fair amount of the last season (including the stupid, stupid last episode) Some good stuff, but honestly they needed new blood. Whatever people might think of JJ Abrams I was still happy to see Rick Berman get the boot.
 
I loved TNG, really liked DS9 but fell off a bit. I was watching Babylon 5 at that time and saw too much stuff being lifted from B5 into DS9. I never warmed up to Voyager and really started feeling the 'formula' of it. I actually remember thinking "Oh god" when they announced Enterprise. I watched a bit at the beginning and realized I didn't even care enough to worry about the 'continuity police' stuff.

I heard they made a big improvement in writing when Manny Coto took over, so I watched a fair amount of the last season (including the stupid, stupid last episode) Some good stuff, but honestly they needed new blood. Whatever people might think of JJ Abrams I was still happy to see Rick Berman get the boot.

Oh GOD, yes, the end of the Berman era was a definite blessing. The only reason DS9 flourished (and I didn't watch B5, so the comparisons never bothered me) was because Berman and Braga turned their full attention to Voyager and pretty much let the DS9 writers do whatever the hell they wanted to from Season 4 on - I think it saved the show. Voyager was just painful. The scripts were rote, boring, and unimaginitive, the characters were inconsistently written, Trek really became just a pale, cliched version of itself. Enterprise started off much the same way in seasons 1 & 2, but saw some drastic improvements in season 3 and especially season 4. I think it's not unfair to draw a parallel between what Berman did to Trek from about 2000 on and what Lucas/McCallum have been doing with Star Wars from 1990 on. There was some good stuff there, but you have to pick and choose and sift through a lot of crap. New blood can be such a great thing. J.J.'s take on Star Trek was fresh, fun and exciting to watch. It wasn't even so much about the plot, as that was pretty underwhelming (really, Avengers was too, when you think about it); the fun was in seeing new actors take a fresh turn on familiar characters and pulling it off, set against a lavish backdrop of cool sets, special effects, and lots of exciting action! I'm hoping that's the way the next SW trilogy will go. Seems like in the second Trek movie, plot will be more important, but characters will still be at the core.

I'm just wondering which character could be the villain. Someone who's downfall will carry enough emotional gravitas that we'll feel conflicted about it, right along with Kirk. The plot synopsis, while thin on details, seems to convey at least that much. It does sound like Gary Mitchell, but the comics would seem to indicate otherwise - and really, what's the point of dragging in one of the movie's screenwriters as a consultant to keep things canon if they are just going to throw all that out the window (and I'll just add, I haven't read these comics yet, just going by what others have said). So, if not Gary Mitchell, WHO? :dunno
 
Gary Mitchell's story arc could work within the space of a single film. The rumors of Khan don't appeal to me because Khan's hatred of Kirk was fueled by a 15 years of pain. There's no way to do it justice in a single film.

When studios throw hundreds of millions of dollars around on a movie they aren't going to worry too much about a comic book from a few years ago.
 
I was aware of Babylon 5 but could never get past the inferior producton values and some crappy actors. DS9 always won out for me.

Voyager got my interest in season 4 when they brought in the borg and Seven of Nine but then it quickly became repetitive, the borg became the new klingons. I remember Robert Beltran was openly critical of the show and how it was basically just the Seven and Janeway show. No one else could get a look in, only there to deliver technobabble lines.

Never watched Enterprise. They lost me at the first playing of 'Faith of the heart' :lol

Everyone loves TNG. But for whatever reason they only managed 2 films out of that cast that were really any good - Generations and First Contact. Insurrection and Nemesis had great moments but also many embarrassing ones - usually involving Data. Wish they'd have focussed on Worf and Picard at least once. All the drama had to be Data and Picard for some reason. Sure Picard is a given, you don't put Patrick Stewart on the sidelines but Worf was always just as good a character as Data. Maybe they felt that with Worf on DS9 he was already getting plenty of screentime but I'd still have preferred less goofy Data moments. It was fine in Generations when it was a novelty but after that...
 
All of that is true. TNG films haven't held up well over time, they really feel like slightly scaled up episodes.

Nemesis was so wimpy with it's ending. "Oh noes! Data!!!" but there's a spare sitting over here. Utter crap.

I started to think "some of these actors need this job, and the rest are Patrick Stewart."
 
I was aware of Babylon 5 but could never get past the inferior producton values and some crappy actors. DS9 always won out for me.

Voyager got my interest in season 4 when they brought in the borg and Seven of Nine but then it quickly became repetitive, the borg became the new klingons. I remember Robert Beltran was openly critical of the show and how it was basically just the Seven and Janeway show. No one else could get a look in, only there to deliver technobabble lines.

Never watched Enterprise. They lost me at the first playing of 'Faith of the heart' :lol

Everyone loves TNG. But for whatever reason they only managed 2 films out of that cast that were really any good - Generations and First Contact. Insurrection and Nemesis had great moments but also many embarrassing ones - usually involving Data. Wish they'd have focussed on Worf and Picard at least once. All the drama had to be Data and Picard for some reason. Sure Picard is a given, you don't put Patrick Stewart on the sidelines but Worf was always just as good a character as Data. Maybe they felt that with Worf on DS9 he was already getting plenty of screentime but I'd still have preferred less goofy Data moments. It was fine in Generations when it was a novelty but after that...

I love B5. Too bad it wasn't named Babylon 6. The Shadow war would have ended in Season 4 instead of mid season, and Season 5 would been the Earth Civil War. But yeah the acting was pretty bad from time to time.

Sorry didn't mean to get off track.

:monkey1
 
Generations and First Contact were both great cinema experiences for me though. When Generations finished everyone got up and clapped, I had never seen that before in an Irish cinema. I remain quite fond of that film ever since. I was prepared to $h!t all over First Contact because I was engaged in verbal battle with a friend of mine at the time over which was better Star Wars or Star Trek....but ended up loving it. Again another great cinema trip, a very edge of the seat film on that first viewing. Downhill after that though.
 
Either the callback to a particular Wrath of Khan scene at the end of that trailer is a bait-and-switch or a huge spoiler. I doubt they'd give it away like that.
 
Back
Top