Here, here. I am also officially tired of time travel stories.

I'm equally tired of vampires. And I'm ALMOST as tired of zombies; but I am holding out for a World War Z movie before I declare the idea passe.

The author has nailed the core problem; the ease (which equates to a lack of drama). Heck, all you need is a flying Delorean with a food processor...

So let's all collectively beg for more originality in our sci fi, with less deux ex machina and fewer over-convenient plot devices.

Time travel stories don't bother me. That is as long as the story is engaging. The problem comes when the time travel is all there is and there is no story. Quantum Leap was a series where time travel was the necessary element to all the stories. But the genius was that the stories themselves were good. I am not in favor of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when simply unplugging the drain will do.

Now I know why I liked Seven Days so much! Lets not have a moratorium on Time Travel stories, but only produce GOOD ones! There are so many stories you have named that can be made into excellent movies or series... It's like any technology. It's only as good as the use you put it to. Thanks for the excellent article.

My thinking on time travel, is that I don't really like it when it makes an easy way out. I loved Seven Days, where just because you know what is going to happen doesn't mean it is easy to fix. But too many author's I think are using it as a clutch an easy way to fix some problem. I like it when doing the time traveling thing has consiquenses, where when you go back in time and mess up your life or cause your life to be the way it was because you were there, like Supernatural did this last season. And I like going back in time to give some back ground information, lets be truthful who doesn't love a well placed, plot filling flash back. But when series use it more than twice with out any problems, if it is not the basis of the story telling like Seven Days or Quantum Leap, it just seems like a cheap way to do things. Especially if they don't explain why there is time travel involved.

If you are going to have time travel at all, the aurthors need to explain to me why it works or why it doesn't work. Otherwise it is just a cheap series gimmick like the mostly horrible chip shows.

If there was no time travel there would have been no new Star Trek movie. There is no way the studio would have made another Next Gen movie (and DS9 should not have one because it couldn't be long and epic enough to match the quality of the series).

If the movie(s?) only told stories of the younger versions of the classic crew, they would have either had to be creatively limited to maintain consistency with the original series episodes or they would have forgotten consistency and done whatever. Either one of these options would have led to disaster.

Time travel (and I would add dimensional creation to the concept) was the only solution to give us new movies.

If you wanted new movies this was the only creative way a studio would go, otherwise you would have had to be content with the fact that the Star Trek universe was over and dead with the cancellation of Enterprise.

Time travel ended up being WAAAY overused in Trek. For the most part, it was done well, especially in TOS, TNG and DS9, but it started getting kind of silly in Voyager (What a surprise.) It's been used in three of the 11 movies, so I say give it a rest until we get closer to Star Trek XX and limit any use in a new Trek series to no more than three times per seven year run. (And while you're at it, give the "evil" alternate reality a rest.)

As for Lost, I think the title says it all. I loved the show, but just couldn't keep up. I'm going to wait until the series ends and I can watch the whole thing on DVD.

I don't like time travel stories in both time travel allows for an easy redo of "history" -- a big outcome, but with little effort in obtaining achieving it. The biggest offender to me was "Superman", which was an otherwise fine film, but the big dilemma of Lois Lane dying was resolved by Superman simply flying around the Earth counter-clockwise -- an easy solution which Superman could apply to any difficult situation, robbing any future conflicts of their potential drama.

Star Trek has been a continuous offender in this regard -- but I have to say that the most recent movie used time travel appropriately. It was not used as an easy solution to a problem. In fact, it created a new one: the planet Vulcan was destroyed in new timeline created by the time travel. And, in the original timeline, Romulus remains destroyed.

Yes, Star Trek should get called out for its misuse of time travel -- but not this time.

What?? No mention of "Doctor Who" and its significant use of time travel???

Shame, shame for not mentioning Quantum Leap...and the 'string' theory of time travelling within your own lifetime...

I also kinda liked Seven Days but could never stomach this obvious flaw in logic:

Also the protagonist travels each episode 7 days back, his 7-day-younger-version is just ... omitted. I alsways waited for that episode where they show what they do with all those time-travel-clones.

Time travel stories are my favorite which is why Janeway is my favorite captain. Even better when causality loops occur [Donnie Darko]. And who did kill the Borg Queen--Picard or Janeway?

I liked the way time travel was handled in Babylon 5 - season 1's 'Babylon Squared' set up a premise & we saw events from a different perspective in season 3's 'War Without End (Parts I & II).'

I didn't like the Trek movie because there was no significant point to it. Where was the moral dilema? The time travel cop-out made every decision insignificant. Was the universe saved? Did anyone make the moral choice? What did the hero sacrifice for the good of the many?

What? No mention of the the Planet of the Apes series of movies and how in the last film, Caesar broke the time loop and man and ape lived in peace ever more?? All written by one writer, with ever shrinking budget with each movie...

This is Syfy? A guy no knows gets a soapbox? Who cares?

Add to this the fact that JJ Abrams completely screwed up the time travel aspect (in Trek, time travel does NOT create an alternate timeline, it merely changes the existing one), the entire plot of Star Trek is pretty dumb.

I never really got into Lost, but from what others have told me, it's incredibly confusing. Whether or not it's "good" or "bad" confusing, i can't really comment.

Thus far the only JJ Abrams project I have enjoyed is Fringe. Here's hoping he doesn't screw that one up like he has the others.

Time travel works when it is realistically used in a story. One novel that plays with time travel (without a machine, by the way) and very ably addresses the problems of paradoxes and other timelines is "Replay" by Ken Grimwood. Excellent work.

I believe it was David Gerrold ("The Trouble With Tribbles") who wrote the episode of the "Logan's Run" TV series about a time traveler from the past visiting Logan's world of the future. His resolution was sheer genius.

Time travel is a staple of major SF works, but even if there are times (such as now) when it seems we are inundated with such storylines, the bottom line should be, is it entertaining/believable, and did I enjoy following these characters in their adventure?

I can watch time travel stories only if the story is intriguing, different from each one.., but mostly i get tired of asteroids or meteoroids hitting earth..same old story line with big rocks !

Michael Cassutt:

You ought to get a kick out of my TSCC S3 novel project, which - after much research (including a visit to have lunch and discuss said time travel subject with some Quantum guys at Stanford Research Inst.) - I have developed a NEW theory on time travel that is based upon the latest quantum theories.

No, it probably isn't possible (not any more than other time travel mechanics) but it does provide a more in-depth look at HOW it works, WHY it works, and is able to explain this to the lay reader...

It also creates a new view of time travel from the quantum perspective, which opens far more possibilities than our old, tired linear view, which can only be a cause and a effect or an alternate "out" so we don't have to deal WITH the subject!

I'd like to hear from you. I have a good team of writers who are all talented and passionate about providing fun, exciting and interesting original points of view. We chop up everything to see how it tastes in the real world...another innovation in sci fi writing development.

No ivory tower allowed. You're welcome to join in, see how our ideas stand up, maybe toss in a few dusty ones of your own, that you hadn't dared to mention bc they were so "far out"...

I believe there is a fundamental difference in using time travel as a plot device, and telling a story about time travel. For example, in Doctor Who, time travel is central to the overall premise, but we rarely see a "time travel story" (Father's Day and Turn Left are good exceptions).

Star Trek used it more as a plot device, the actual story was between Starfleet and the Romulans from the future.

Both have their place, and so long as the overall story is one of quality, I don't think you can overuse them. However, a part of that quality includes consistency, and not giving an to many easy outs to any situation a character may encounter. We like to torture our protagonists a little.

In Seven Days, there were no time travel clones. When the traveler returned to the past, his past self and the past time machine disappeared from the time stream, replaced by their future versions.

I liked Trek, but what bothered me about the new movie was that in almost every tv ep, the time police always stopped them from "changing" history....so why not in the freaking movie....and also...

spoilers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
why doesnt Nero just go kill child spock, then it would have changed history...he already tried to kill child kirk in the beginning..

Agreed. Time travel as a subject in itself is interesting; as a way of solving story problems it isn't.

In the case of the Star Trek movie, it's difficult to see how to proceed without it. You need some sort of reset if you're going to tell fresh stories, and there's a huge amount of audience conservatism that says you can't just start over and pretend the old material doesn't exist. While it isn't interesting in itself to watch someone foreground the solution to a problem like this, the scenes with Nimoy were entertaining enough to make introducing time travel more or less worthwhile.

But part of the issue was that Orci and Kurtzman, and Abrams, just aren't people for whom time travel will ever be more than a plot device (despite the appalling way that Orci and Kurtzman puffed themselves up over using the idea of divergent timelines, as if the idea were novel, and then did lots of handwaving about how Scientists backed them up). Entering, or forming, an alternative timeline by going through a black hole you've just formed by adding a few drops of Red Liquid to a supernova, because, uh, converting the supernova to a black hole is somehow going to save one of the planets? These aren't guys who spoil their science fiction by thinking about it too much.

Hear Hear!!!

That easy use of time bending to create an alternate reality in startrek is one reason I didnt like the show very much. There are other reasons, also, but thats for another thread...

Time bending, with all the adjoining paradoxes should be a monumental task, physically and even emotionally in a story. It shouldnt have been treated as if its a regular daily commute between dimensions.

It was an easy out, and not up to the ideals of what star trek has always tried to be about, whether or not any particular story has ever lived up to those ideals.

Time Travel in the new Trek movie was more than just a cheap lazy plot device.

it was a "Let's rip the heart out of star Trek and screw the fans device."

All this talk of time travel and no mention of "The Time Traveler's Wife"?

The Trek movie needed time travel for the reboot. Setting up an alternative time stream frees them to be creative without having to worry about stepping on a loose cannon.

And Doctor Who RULES!

just my $.02

Z

Damn...lighten up people. The sun's out - go outside and experience life away from your omputers

~~The Trek movie needed time travel for the reboot. Setting up an alternative time stream frees them to be creative without having to worry about stepping on a loose cannon~~

I have said this before and I'll probably say it again. NO IT DID NOT! If Orci and Kurtzman and King JJ ardon't have enough imagination to write a movie within the existing timeline then they shouldn't have been writing Star Trek..

I read an article in which Abrams said that he could not really tell a frsh story about the Trek crews youth when we already know what happens to them.

EXCUSE ME! How doe knowing how James T Kirk dies at the age of 70 or whatever his age was when he died, preclude the telling of his first mission? Which had NEVER been told before. In fact, almost all of Kirks years after graduating up to the piont he becomes captain were wide open creatively speaking. how many years would that have been any way? 6 7 8? You can tell alot of stories in the time. And just because we know Kirk will survive does not mean they can't be dramatic.

Does Abrams honestly think that the fans bekieve that there is any possability that he is going to kill off Kirk in any of his Trek movies? I dare JJ Abrams to prove me wrong. Kill James T Kirk in the next movie JJ. Kill him perminently and don't bring him back. Let's see how long your new franchise lasts then.

1st try=fail

Time travel stories have just been done to DEATH! Especially since Next Gen. I'm sick of them. Please do something else! Even Babylon 5, the greatest show ever IMHO, had a time travel story. Enough already.

Time travel is my thing. But I never need another story if I can see Terminator: The Sarah Connor chronicles again.

a show about time travelling vampires... think about it... :-)

YES!!!!!!!! FINALLY Somebody with some common sense who hates the time travel arch of star trek as much as I do!

Hollywood Types listen up - NO MORE TIME TRAVEL in Star Trek. Trekies (Trekkers etc.) dont need it to see a new Trek movie
The FINAL FRONTIER is SPACE - Not time travel...

Hey Starkiller, I agree with you, but showrunner Josh Friedman did cop out by having Cameron know where there was a time machine stashed in a bank - and then have nothing else ever stashed anywhere so it comes off as a cheap out plot device... - to move the entire show past T3 canon to skip past Sarah's death by cancer and thus make an alternate timeline that only he controlled. He then took nearly two years to not move the plot forward as to why and never give the viewer any insight into what the characters in the show were doing or why.

But hey, we loved the show anyway and not only got a bad deal from Fox but also in the finale with cliffhangers that will never go answered unless we get the show back. Oh, and all of it complicated by time travel - and it seems, the only thing that can FIX it. Yikes!

Yes, Michael is correct. As the comic that that 'bombs' on stage with new material, then changes to sex and four letter insults to recover before being hounded off stage, many of scifi scripts/stories resort to time travel to help along a dead end plot. Of all the science studied and published currently, time travel is still one of the most improbable of possibilities. How can it be so prevalent? It’s more magic than anything else. So, it should be the least of all used scifi plot devices. It would seem only if Harry and gang need to time travel to illustrate such a point (and he does). And most clearly, time travel no longer tells us anything about ourselves in the ‘now’ (but Harry actually does).

In the latest Star Trek movie, I did enjoy this movie. Many of what we cherish out of all the many years of Star Trek universe, summates to possibly 30-40 episodes across 6 series (including the animated one) and maybe 2 of movies (and IV didn’t make the list). I have attempted to re-watch much of Star Trek I watched of the past, and found they don’t hold up. Even more stilted than I remember...With the latest incarnation, I was enamored with gall of the writers to use this plot device to reboot a tired universe. Now, I hope Abrams and gang are clever enough to come up with a plot without time travel. I am sincerely hopeful…

well...double dumb a$$ on you... ;)

Spaceman Spiff, they did tell the story of Kirk's exploits before he got the Enterprise. He was indirectly responsible for the death of his first captain when Lt Kirk hesitated to fire on a hostile lifeform (see the TOS episode "Obsession"). I believe he was on the Farragut when that happened.

For the record, I liked the new trek movie. The big problem I have with time travel in trek is that the federation claims to follow their prime directive and in every case where there was a time travel incident the federation people never kept a low profile. First Contact is a great example of what NOT to do as a time traveler. If I wanted to watch a time travel show I'd go to a Doctor Who movie (wait . . .there aren't any.), and if I wanted to watch a trek movie I expect spaceships and exploration and of course spacebattles.

I don't see what Nero was so mad at Spock for. The romulans believed the strong should survive and the weak should be put down to save resources. If they weren't smart enough to figure out how to save their planet themselves . .I have to quote a famous vorlon for this, "We should let them pass."

No more mucking about in the time stream!

I can handle Time Travel stories, and as entertainment, I liked the new movie.

BUT...what get's me mad the most, is that Hollywood has been trying to "reboot" Trek for years. Ronald D. Moore is on record as wanting to do Trek his way, until he got Battlestar. What I disliked about the Trek movie was that they completely threw out the entire Trek universe for the sole reason that they couldn't come up with a better idea to continue it. VOY was very weak, but it had lasting power. The brainiac that thought of ENT, did it wrong. THAT is why it failed. They erased Star Trek from the name for heaven's sake! They threw a huge amount of sexuality into the series, and then didn't care about continuity. They tried to develop NEW Star Trek fans, by forsaking and thunbing their nose at their actual fanbase. Then to top it all off, they BLAMED the fans for the failure of ENT. Saying there was too much Trek at the time...that it needed time off. No one remembers the first few seasons of ENT, all anyone remembers is that it failed.

So Hollywood has now gotten it's way and trashed the entire Trek universe in order to make money. Trek has died for me, died a horrible death. I would have rather suffered through the first 2 seasons of ENT all over again, than want to admit this new Trek movie is even Trek at all.

RIP Star Trek (1966-2009)

@Bobanort,

You once said "If I wanted to watch a time travel show I'd go to a Doctor Who movie (wait . . .there aren't any.)"

Actually the first introduction of the good Doctor to American soil was not the TV series but the 1960s Peter Cushing movies DOCTOR WHO AND THE DALEKS:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059126/

DALEKS' INVASION EARTH: 2150 A.D.:

ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060278/

You might not find one playing in the cineplexes but if you hunt around perhaps an art house or you could settle for rental.ed9k2t

Bobanort wrote:
~~Spaceman Spiff, they did tell the story of Kirk's exploits before he got the Enterprise. He was indirectly responsible for the death of his first captain when Lt Kirk hesitated to fire on a hostile lifeform (see the TOS episode "Obsession"). I believe he was on the Farragut when that happened.~~

Dude, That was a single incident out of how many years of service before reaching captain? And if i remember correctly Kiek simply related that story to explain to Spock and the rest about his first encounter with that lifeform. They didn't actually tell the whole story. And since the new golden boy Kirk just skipped Lt. and didn't even go to the Farrigut, that particular incident which was one of many that made OUR Kirk the person he was won't happen. Will it?

Even if it was only four years from the time he graduated until the time he made captain, that's alot of time in which to tell alot of stories. Abrams and goons have completely wiped that away.

One big flash bang achievment, even if that achievment IS saving the Earth, can not equqte to four or five years of experience working your way up the ladder.

i don't like this new Kirk and I didn't like this movie. Count me among those who consider trek dead.

If my planet had blown up, and I traveled back in time, I wouldn't bother trying to save it or warn the people on it. I'd lay low for a few decades, waiting to get revenge on the guy who tried to help, but couldn't make it in time. And none of my crew would mutiny in an attempt to save their loved ones. They'd be equally disciplined in their obsession.

I love the way the purist rave with righteous indignation over others taking poetic license with a beloved story or theory. If something entertains you, be happy. If not, move on.
If you write for the love of writing, write. If you read for the love of reading, read. It's only a waste of time if you have something really more important to do. In which case, you should have been doing it!

I have news for you, This movie was not poetic license. It was slash and burn.

To paraphrase Kirk, they all wanted their "piece of the action"

I suppose then it wouldn't be worth mentioning the new FanAudio series Star Trek: Temporal Investigations. Just another overdose..

what about the time police who appeared in many tv episodes of star trex to protect the timeline from any changes in the timeline/future.

It's not just the Federation Time Fleet (aka Time Police), as presented in _Voyager_, that could have (and should have) nipped Nero's intervention in the bud, it's *both* sides of the Temporal Cold War from _Enterprise_, who wouldn't want *their* careful balance disrupted.

I also don't like how the movie further weakened Trek's already-loose adherence to military command structures. The chain of command doesn't suddenly cease to exist beyond the Executiive Officer, it extends down -- by rank and seniority -- to the last crew member on board. As a failed/suspended/ungraduated cadet, a stowaway and not an authorized member of ship crew, JTK would literally have to have been the last living person on board in order to legally assume command, Captain Pike's (improper and legally contestable) order notwithstanding.

Dr. A Cula wrote:
"a show about time travelling vampires... think about it... :-)"

Actually, it could be quite interesting. Vampires don' t really need much to sustain themselves, so if you went off the theory that they could freeze themselves, you could have vampire travel into the future, without even stretching current technologies (minus the vampire thing). Pop into a freezer, set a timer, and wake up in a whole new world. I'd do it.

But here is the difference between Lost and other shows that have used the time travel idea, the writers of Lost have a plan. They know where the story is going and who is going to do what and what will happen. Where as, let's say Heroes, the writers use time travel because they wrote themselves into a corner and could not get themselves out of said corner as we saw in Heroes.
Time travel, mess with time, all of it is a cheap ploy. Kirk is in trouble and who comes to save him-oh it's the man from the future with all the answers. I suppose adding the changes resulted in different traits for the characters. Maybe we will see Spock and Uhura hook up in the next one.
I,like many of you enjoyed the new Star Trek movie. I don't see why the same movie could not have been made with out all the time travel involved in it, but that is what he were given. I will more than likely purchase it on blu-ray.

@Fletcher,

You are right the movie didn't need it. But most are buying into the hype that the alternate universe was some creative genius decision. It wasn't.

In 2005, Viacom rent CBS from Paramount giving CBS Trek and all its merchandising.

The reason Paramount needed to create an alternate Trek universe is that they no longer had a direct pipeline to draw on the Trek cash cow (That's why Paramount had to go into partnership with Spyglass to get ST09 made.). They needed something they could copyright and minimize the cross royalty payback to CBS. Its a fairly complicated arrangement but in essence Paramount is merely a licensee of Trek from CBS.

So Paramount no longer gets to decide what's STAR TREK canon anymore than a Trek novelist because that's CBS' call.

There's a good chance CBS might go along with it but CBS could generate more ROI in house that they wouldn't have to share with anyone, if they successfully develop their own Trek property.

Sounds like the Ferengi got ahold of Viacom!

@Spaceman Spiff,

More like the Ferengi got a hold of CBS and throttled Viacom/Paramount as CBS is the only entity that is profiting (and obscene amounts) from ST09 at this time.

Paramount simply does not have access to all the Trek revenue enhancing streams that it did in the prior Trek films.

This is why the industry trade papers continue to report doubts that Paramount is going to turn a profit from this deal.

From what I can discern, CBS retains control over all video presentations of Trek. That means that at the very least they retain a veto over any video presentation of ST09, i.e. the licensee is not allowed to interfere with the video plans/profits of the owner of Trek, and that means it has to cost Paramount something to stay that hand.

So it is not even clear that Paramount is going to be able to recover as much as in previous years from DVD sales/rentals.

If the Ferengi succeed in getting Paramount to release ST09 on their CBS label, you can be sure Paramount's not.

@Spaceman Spiff,

Those Ferengi just don't sleep:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE56163A20090702?sp=true

"Viacom Inc's Paramount Studios is in early talks with several studios, including News Corp's Fox and Sony Corp's Sony Pictures, to cut costs by combining DVD manufacturing and distribution operations, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Tuesday." - Anupreeta Das and Jui Chakravorty Das, REUTERS

"Despite the enormous success of 'Transformers', Paramount has been a drag on Viacom earnings from the perspective of Wall Street analysts." - David Molner, managing director of Screen Capital International and former Paramount executive

We shouldn't be calling this movie "ST09", even though it was made in 2009, because there already is a ninth film in the series, _Star Trek: Insurrection_. This is the *eleventh* Trek film, so "ST11" is more proper. Or, even though people may be tired of the y2k-style notation, call it ST2k9. It only saves one keystroke, versus ST2009, but it leaves no ambiguity. Can't call it "New Trek", because that's already been previously applied both to the earliest movie versions (versus the TV version) and NextGen (versus the classic cast). Though, all things considered, maybe we should follow the example of the old 7-Up commercials, and call it the "Un-Trek"

@Shremedy

Well, I have to agree with you that there's a lot of confusion with regards to this movie. And I like un-Trek. But I think most people know there's some difference twixt ST9 and ST09 in notation. But I suppose if we were really going for keystroke economy with meaning we could just settle on ST:_

What about
Crap Trek

In an article lamenting how hackneyed and overdone time travel in venues such as STAR TREK and LOST has become, MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E. and BARETTA producer, Anthony Spinner's claim to have originated LOST's TT in the actual decade of the 70s isn't on topic as one of those twists?