Did “Eureka” Do the Right Thing by Changing to an Alternate Timeline?

Share a Slice with Friends:

n

n
{democracy:189}

Comments

  1. Bob Singer says:

    What do you mean “it worked for Star Trek”? Most of us Trekkies disavow the new timeline and won’t watch it again. Most of the original fan base is now disaffected and the studio has to hope that the “new” fans will go see it. Eureka at least has the option of going back to the original timeline when or if they decide the change was too radical. I think the idea of seeing how the characters cope with their new relationships is interesting as long as the show doesn’t become a soap opera.

    • A Star Trek Fan says:

      There are plenty of star trek fans that can live in a world with TWO different Star Trek Time lines. Sorry that you can’t. Maybe if you are a super fan oh wait “trekkie” you are not allowed to like creativity or adventure or the exploration of the unknown. That is after all sort of one of the spirits of Gene’s legacy isn’t it? That and the idea of acceptance…Maybe you missed the message and just like the ears?

  2. Maybe most Trekkies disavow the new timeline, but most Trekkers seemed to love it. ;)

  3. I have to agree with maluba, I consider myself a Trekker and thought the 2009 film was brilliant. It’s not the first time Trek has boldly gone to an alternate universe and those ventures were typically excellent additions, I must say I enjoyed the mirror universe episodes in every incarnation they appeared so I welcomed the alternate universe in ST 2009. When the Great Bird of the Galaxy said that the setting of Star Trek is the galaxy, and that there were lots of interesting stories out there, I guess that includes alternate universes. I’m eager to see where they go next in that alternate reality as much as I’d love to see where things go in the “prime” reality (cough cough Captain Sisko, Starship Titan, etc. etc.)

  4. Bob: To paraphrase an old joke, whose this “most Trekkies” kemosabe?

  5. Bob Singer says:

    To reply to all a yah, those of us who watched the first run of Star Trek in the 1960s, and I have talked with many of my fellow original Trekkies (Trekkers, huh?) felt that the altered timeline of the movie (Vulcan destroyed, no Pike Enterprise years, no Kirk career through Star Fleet, Chekov as old as Kirk, and all the other non canon changes) was so drastic and to make a mockery of all of the rest of the books, movies and series that have promulgated in the last 40 years of Trekdom. That’s why we won’t watch any Trek from that “universe”. Come on, Star Fleet making a Cadet the Captain of a Starship because he saved the world?? Spock original making no attempt to right the universe back to the way it was supposed to be? Spock and Uhura??? I expected to see the Q at the end appear and say ” Just kidding!” Those who have not watched the rebirth of the franchise from Star Trek: The Motion Picture, through TNG, Voyager, DS9 and the rest can be expected to just say, “hey, nice concept, show me more”. The rest of us that lived through these years see this as though someone had decided to make Dr Watson a vampire, Dr. Who a Martian, and Superman a guy who only thought he had powers. As Scotty once said “Ya can’t change the laws of physics”, and you can’t change the canon of a legendary show without losing its followers.

  6. “Spock original making no attempt to right the universe back to the way it was supposed to be?”

    The original timeline still exists as it was before Spock left(except spock and nero and his crew are gone). They didn’t change history, they created an alternate reality.

    http://startrekonline.com/timeline-alternate

  7. Bob Singer: Why not try speaking for yourself, instead of trying to play the “true fan” card?

    As for the actual topic of the article, I love this season of Eureka. I was on the verge of dropping the show last season, and now I’m deeply invested in how it’s all going to pan out.

  8. To get this on track I will comment on Eureka.

    When they went back in time you expected that things would just work out and everything would be back to normal. They didn’t and they aren’t. While I applaud the balls it took to try this I’m just not sure I am into it yet.

    It seems the new story lines (Jo/Zane, Allison/Kevin and Fargo) are taking up a lot of time in the show. And for some reason the Dr. Grant character just seems like he is lurking in the background all the time and occasionally interjecting a line here and there. Has he actually contributed anything yet? I know it’s massive culture shock for him but it seems like that guy who’s always standing around saying “What are you doing? Can I see?”

    I still like Eureka and will continue to watch but I am finding it a bit unsettling right now.

  9. to Bob Singer: Obviously no one opted to talk with me. I am a dyed-in-the-wool Trekker who watched the original series from the first day it aired on NBC to the last of its original run. Was one of the original thousands in the campaign to save it and got it a 3rd season spearheaded by Bjo Trimble.

    I own every Trek movie made to date (in several formats – from recording my own over the years from the TV to VHS, DVD and now those available in HD). Also own every specialized Trek DVD that are currently available, including the entire animated collection. I own so many Trek novels that my wife threatens to burn them if I don’t find them a home at our local library. About the only thing I don’t collect are dust collecting memorabilia, unless you count my Doctor McCoy doll – excuse me, that’s action figure ;) – and original TV Guide covers of TOS.

    Now, if anyone had bothered to ask me what I thought of the rebooted alternate timeline, I am an original old codger (now in my 60′s) who loved it, saw it several times in the theater and bought the Blu-ray disc and have watched it over and over again countless times and am eagerly awaiting the next film with this great new cast.

    BTW: Chekov is not as old as Kirk in the film. He is only 17 (and a boy wonder) while Kirk is in his mid-twenties.

    Back to topic at hand…. I love the new timeline for Eureka and think it may allow a little more of the darkside of the town to creep in.

  10. I’m with Sam. I must be in the minority of long-time “Trek” fans who like the alternative time line and how its put some new life, energy and excitement into Trek. The beauty of it is that way it’s set up, I can still enjoy the original continuity and accept the new one because the new one doesn’t invalidate the old one.

    It would have been less palatable had it just started over with little or no connection to the original time line that we saw in 400 plus episodes.

    As for Eureka, the fact that season four has this alternate time line and isn’t looking to push a reset button has made the show fresh and interesting again. Yes, they still use the same formula, but it’s still enough of a tweak that I like it.

  11. I love it when these “true fans” show up and start screaming about how the new Trek universe is some kind of abomination and how it destroys the decades of established material before.

    If that’s what it takes to be a “true fan,” count me out of your club. When fans within a community start attacking each other over what constitutes fandom, I bow out. Such activity is a shameful embarassment to the community.

    If that’s what it takes to be a “true fan” of Star Trek, I don’t want any part of it. I’ll go watch my DVDs, read my novels, and enjoy the franchise for what it is: a nearly fifty-year voyage in infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

  12. I’m intrigued by all the changes happening in Eureka‘s new timeline, but I do kind of miss the old one.

    Then again, the new one is bringing us James Callis, Wil Wheaton, and Felicia Day, so I really can’t complain. :)

    [And my two cents on the Trek controversy -- I don't mind that Abrams started an alternate timeline. I mind that he created so many unrealistic events within it -- Promoting a not-yet-graduated cadet to captain? No. Jump him past ensign to lieutenant, maybe. -- and reused the big red blob that was lame when he first had it on Alias.]

  13. From reading Bob’s second post, it became clear that when he said “most Trekkies” what he meant was “most of the folks he has personally spoken with.” There’s a big difference, and as you can see from the replies to his comments, most fans really seemed to dig the alternate reality.

    As for Eureka, I applaud their jump away from “monster of the week getting solved in the last 5 minutes”. The characters who made the jump are having to deal with these ramifications for much longer than a single episode. In fact, I’m starting to wonder if they WILL put it back, even if a way presents itself. Allison, Fargo, and Henry may decide they have it better in this timeline. What would be interesting would be if they tried to fix parts of it while leaving other changes alone.

  14. Pugboy415 says:

    Did everyone forget that season one ended with the start of an alternate timeline when Henry saved his first wife and they had to put things “back” in the last episode. Season 2 and 3 had already been living on an altered timeline. The main difference this time is that the main characters are aware of the altered timeline.

  15. Ah,man!

    In Canada, we only get to see Eureka later.

    Could you guys not put a spoiler in the TITLE of an article?

  16. I’m not crazy about the new timeline, but I love having James Callis on the show. It does have some potential but the device seems a little old AND Eureka has used it once before.

  17. Well, Well, Well- Very Interesting that this is more about Star Trek

    I have to agree with AndyMac to a point. I love that they reset the same time line but I do not need to see Jo and SZane fall in love all over again, if they do??? Either way this seems like a reboot with the same characters, a little dissapointing. I love the addition of Callis but agree that he needs to actually do something.

    As to Star Trek- I have been a fan since my youth , currently 49, and while I only remeber a portion of it it originally I have watched it ever since in reruns etc. I have loved them all, some more some less, and found the new movie outstanding.I have seen it sevral times. Watching them all now many years after they have been off the air the weakest one iin my opinion is TNG and DS( the best with TOS in a close second with ENT & VGR next. ENT was just getting good when it got yanked due to low viewer ship. Yes, you can always find something to complain about but as you can see trying to please all the so called fans is impossible. Sounds like Kindergarten- Trekkie, Trekker who cares!!!! If you love the show skip it.

    Sam,

    I remember meeting Bjo several times at the Equicon conventions in California and subscribing to her Fanzine. I lost contact when she moved from Texas back to CA. Do you have any news on how she is doing?

    IDIC

  18. Paul Wren says:

    Sorry to perpetuate the Star Trek discussion on this thread, but I’m gonna anyway.

    I have watched ST since the very beginning. I also worked at the Phoenix Fan Convention in 1977 (yep, before the release of ST:TMP), where I met and spoke with DeForest Kelley and George Takei. Trust me when I say I am an original and diehard fan.

    I have no problem at all with the altered time line created in the latest movie. It was a very clever way to make the new history legit, and I am looking forward to more. The original series, films, and all the series that followed were wonderful and unique, and possibly cannot be replicated by the new direction J.J. Abrams has taken, but I like it all the same.

  19. k9: No news on my end. It’s been a long long time since I’ve even been on the same side of the country as Betty. I left CA for the East Coast in early 1975 and now living in the Plains. Last I’ve heard she and John are still living in So. CA.

  20. I don’t really care about the Trekkie/Trekker thing…. sorry if it seemed petty. I was mostly just teasing because he said “most trekkies…” when i’ve heard that real fans prefer to be called trekkers. that’s all. =)

  21. Mitch from Omaha says:

    Maluba – If “Trekkies” is good enough for Gene Roddenberry, it’s good enough for me. To think that there was at one time an actual divide in fandom over the label of the Star Trek fans “Trekkie” vs “Trekker” … well that’s just silly.

    Bob – sorry. But I’m curious. How do you possibly get internet reception while living under that bridge?

  22. Unlike Bob I’ve met only ONE Trek fan who hated the new movie. This is a person who also hates The Beatles. Yeah, I don’t know why we’re friends either.

  23. I really do like the new timeline for Eureka, and am in agreement with all above who would like to see Callis better used in future episodes.

  24. Justathought says:

    I too am an original Star Trek fan. I remember watching Captain Kirk conquer the universe from the HUB Lounge with other mesmerized collage students. While I watched the latest Star Trek movie with enjoyment, it seemed improbable and had little in common with the Star Trek franchise except for some name dropping and scene stealing.

    Eureka has been one of my favorite shows but as is often the case, it’s storyline was running out. Switching to an alternate universe plot will buy it time, but without some really good creative writing, the actors should probably be looking for a future somewhere else. BTW, I liked the original storyline best.

    P.S. The Alternate Universe ploy to get writers out of a dead end is getting old (and is a sign of bad or lazy writing).

  25. Caribulou says:

    I am in full agreement. Real Trekkies not the wannabies that love over done special effects disavow the new timeline. The new series will in no way have the legs of the original. I liked the new movie but I hate what they did with the series. Though with DS9 and Vayager they lost the magic of the original series by making the federation a politcal warm mongering empire. Originally it was a progressive society for the betterment of all.

  26. Concerned Geek says:

    And that doesn’t make you sound pretentious at all. Real Trekkies indeed. I’m embarrassed… literally ashamed to be in the same category as fans like you. You are the kind that make us look bad in the eyes of the public.

    Real fan indeed.

  27. Ok the :Original Time Line for Star Trek:

    (See the pilot show)

    There was no Capt Kirk number One was a chick in pants ……

  28. I love topics that have posts that quickly spiral off-topic

  29. Tim the Avatarless says:

    The reboot was good for Eureka. Now the Eureka characters have a longer running conflict for adaptation/resolution. I expect the return of a corporate villain soon. My concern is that the show will continue to be a bit too fluffy. Where are the serious sci-fi shows. Oh that’s right, is Syfy now. At least we will have friday wrasslin’.

    Off topic, I have to agree with the Trekkies on most of the new flaws in the alternate time line. Cadet Kirk to Captain? Old time-traveling Spock content with the altered time line? Really, it is all just an excuse to bring back Kahn.

  30. I can’t comment on Eureka, only because I haven’t watched a single episode (Collective gasp!) I know.. I’m a baaaad boy. will remedy that thanks to Hulu.

    But I can however, comment on the ST portion of the thread that’s worked it’s way in.

    Within the different persona’s of Trek (from TOS, to ENT, you see somewhere in that timeine a show, that was based around a “Time Travel” Time travel has always involved alternate realities. With that said, I fail to understand how the “hard core fans” as one put it, refusing to watch any of the other material JJ Abrams will possibly put out in future movies for the franchise.

    In the “Prime” timeline, Romulus and Remus have been destroyed. In The “prime Timeline” is where Star Trek Online operates, and the breakdown of the Kittomher Accord has happened, and the Borg have returned.

    JJ’s reboot, is another strand of time that even if you watched the Next Gen Episodes, was talked about, not specifically, but for every one “Prime” Timeline there could be hundreds of alternate realities. Could it be possible for Spock to fix the “prime” timeline? Possibly. But then you’d loose all of the current continuity that has already been established from other areas of Trek fandom, and for that matter, the concept itself.

  31. Star Trek isn’t just about the material that’s already been out out. It’s about a universe where all things can be taken for what they are. and I for one, whether you call me a “trekkie” or a “trekker” I call myself lucky to have become a part of a group that not only enjoys the concept that Gene Roddenberry created, But the different flavors that others like J.J. Abrams, Leonard Nimoy, William Shatner, and countless others have added to make Star Trek what it is today.

  32. Tim the Avatarless says:

    Will, I must admit that I would sure miss Star Trek if it was not around in any form. I like your approach to the latest incarnation being an alternate universe (AU) version. Thus the prime universe is out there as well somewhere … it must be as we continue to have Spock prime … right? Go in peace and live long and prosper.

  33. Tim, I don’t want to ruin the movie for you, but when Spock released the red matter to stop the Hobus Supernova from obliterating the galaxy, He and Nero’s ships were pulled into the alternate timeline that ST 11 is based on. Spock will never be able to return to the “prime Universe” and will live his days in the alternate timeline, according to the current movie.

    Now, with that being said, Star Trek Online is 20 years ahead of ST: Nemesis, and does include the events of the Hobus Supernova in the “prime timeline”, and the Romulans are looking for payback from wherever they can take it. I won’t ruin that for you… to get the answers as to who might have caused the event in the first place, you’ll have to get yourself a copy, and play that mission…LOL!

    Peace and Long Life

  34. In what universe are they going to give a Constellation class star ship to a wet behind the ears not even out of the academy little kid with no experience? The admiral should be taken out and phasered. The crew for that ship would hav e been picked years before its first spave flight.

  35. spave flight (LOL)!

  36. Considering that I rarely, practically never, watched Eureka before the change, but am now avidly following it on Hulu, I voted that the change was great. I found its previous episodes and character story-lines boring, but nearly as annoying as Star Trek-lite aka Stargate.

    Regarding the revamp of Trek as SW using TREK character names, I’m sadden that the universe I love so well had to be decimated to increase its mass popularity. That said, I acknowledge the new Trek for what it is, a fresh piece of bubble gum that after tiring of its fleeting favor will be spit out and mostly forgotten.

Click on a tab to select how you'd like to leave your comment

Speak Your Mind

*