*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread - Page 10

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Review Thread

Well, given that ILM did the visual effects, I have a feeling that if Lucas is "having a conniption", it's in a good way.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

This week's SNL weekend update had some visitors:

Saturday Night Live - Update Feature: Star Trek - Video - NBC.com

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

It is a good reminder, though post #158 did mention this back on Sunday I thought that the comments on how good a job the new Kirk and Spock did were a highlight.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Gosh, now I feel like I need to add a post here in addition to my earlier ones to clarify.

I liked the movie. One of my friends whose not a huge fan liked it better then Khan.

For the long time fan, there are a few little odd things here and there.

I'm going to see it again shortly. And I can't wait for the BD and any deleted scenes!

edit, Wow, I just saw that SNL skit with Nimoy, Quinto and Pine. Nimoy said it! That was his "Get a Life" moment.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Yes, but events that began before the the Kelvin was destroyed will still happen in this timeline.

1) The star will still go Nova destroying Romulus - unless Spock can stop it. (Why didn't Nero use the red matter to fix this?)
2) V'ger is still coming look'in for Momma.
3) A probe is still on it's way looking for whales.

But, no Klingon will ever kill Kirk's son because he doesn't exist. This Kirk went to the Academy about the time that Carol Marcus was graduating (he went in at 22 and finished at 25 - the original went in at about 18). Kirk's son (if he has one) might be green...

Also, chaos theory indicates that no truly random event will play out the same way - and there is nothing more random than conception. So, every character that was conceived after Kirk's birth will be different in this timeline. That's why this Chekov was a whiz-kid who graduated early and got on the Enterprise at 17 - same egg, different sperm; not just a different environment. This also means that any Next Gen character may not exist, may be very different, or may even be a different gender.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Conceived or born? There's about 8-9 months difference in time between those 2 events for Jim.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Exactly - it's about as clever a reboot you could hope for, while still acknowledging the roots of the show.

Another thing that I would point out--it's highly probable that Praxis will still explode in a few decades (is it decades?), crippling the Klingon Empire. With the loss of Vulcan, and the future loss of Romulus (albeit far in the future), the future looks pretty bleak for a lot of the key races.

Will this place the Federation in a good or bad position? I almost wish this reboot was a series, helmed by Abrams, Cuse, and Lindelof, as there is so much potential for (slightly darker?) new stories.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Not my point. Obviously, Jim was conceived before the Narada came through, since that is his birthday - so he is the same person genetically. This point is driven home when Nimoy's Spock recognizes him.

Spock and McCoy are older, so they are also genetically the same.

Sulu, Uhura, Scott - not sure. Were they conceived before or after Kirk's birth? If I had to guess I'd say that Sulu is the same. Uhura, maybe not. Scotty looks quite a bit different with Pegg in the role, but I always thought of him as older than Kirk, so I'm a bit torn.

Chekov I'm certain of. He's much younger AND, apparently, much smarter. Genetically a different person.
________
While I have fun figuring out the differences of this timeline, it really doesn't matter at all. The real point is that this is NOT the same universe, and this crew will do very different things.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

I was just saying that your point was that things changed after Jim was born, not conceived, which was 8-9 months earlier. How this impacts the principle cast is to be seen (for those older than Jim, they aren't changed too much genetically, but they are by their environment due to the butterfly effect).

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

You've brought up a point that is, the more I think about it, the main flaw in the movie. Spock should have been removed from this universe - he should have been the one to pilot his ship and followed the Narada back through the singularity (perhaps back to his own time). Leaving him in this time means either ignoring his presense or bringing him into future films - both are very bad ideas.

1) Ignoring him:
This implies that Spock spends his time rebuilding his society. While that sounds fine it is really quite dark. It means that Spock, a man who knows about both Praxis and the Romulan supernova, does nothing to save either the Klingons or the Romulans from impending disaster. It means that, by his silence, he is chosing a future with a dominant Federation, and sacrificing the lives of billions. This is not the Spock that I have known for decades.

2) Including him in future films:
This would completely negate the clean break from the past that this film accomplished. No one wants to spend film after film going on Spock's missions to fix things before they happen.

Spock should have gone back to his time or died saving everyone.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Maybe, Maybe not. Remember, 47 klingon ships were lost when the romulan ship showed up in this universe

Sometimes, though, ill things that could be stopped create strange ripples also. Would Q do anything to bring them to the borg? Remember, Q was stated as someone who sees all possible realities. So, he'd be clearly aware of this option as an alternative to the main. (seen in the episode in which Picard changes his past).. so who knows what that changes in this universe. In fact, he'd be a unique bridge between the two, far more then Spock, though I doubt JJ would go there.

And, specifically mentioned in the movie is that most federation ships were caught up at the Tellarites border. Tellarites appeared in TOS as they were trying to join the federation; the Federation wanted them because they are one of the leading sources of Dilithium. But, what's with all the federation ships piled up there decades before that happens in the Prime timeline?

BTW, changes to that would impact:

* The Orion theory in this universe (TOS)
* The Orion Syndicate Criminal Organization (TNG/DS9)
* Discoveries high speed warp may be causing damage to the universe (TNG)

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Are we sure? I don't remember her name or if we heard which ship she was assigned to, but if it was any ship other than the Enterprise she's not around anymore anyway.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Yup. I agree with everything. I'm glad there are others who can see the interesting implications/complications the new reality will have. To be honest, I think it's fun to think up "what if" situations regarding events that have been changed from the prime reality and events that are relatively certain to happen in the future(on the scale of galactic events, like stars going nova, where it is unlikely even drastic changes will alter them).

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

I dunno, that's really a pretty big assumption. That's decades away from the current point, I mean, going to the Klingon's now and saying "Hey, in 40 years, your planet will blow up" is likely not going to be very persuasive.

Also, were Spock to do so, what would happen? There goes the peace treaty. Now the Federation remains at war, so how many more lives would be lost? Would warf make it to the Enterprise? Or DS9? With a different political landscape, he may very well not. How would that affect the survival of both?

Additionally, the Supernova's what? Over a century away? I really don't think the TOS timed Romulans are going to listen to a Vulcan, and there's really nothing at all he can do right now. He can write down the formula for Red Matter so Romulus isn't blown up in a century or so.

Spock's got the worst curse humanly possible, the knowledge of the future and the knowledge that were he to tamper, he could doom exponentially more people.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Gene Roddenberry would agree with you, Sam. And you've seen more time-travel stories in Trek than he has.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

It might be a little hard NOT to use time travel with a temporal singularity sitting right near Earth's orbit. (Talk about plot holes...)

(Well, not really a hole - just something that MUST be addressed in future movies that almost certainly won't be.)

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Hopefully future movies won't take place anywhere near earth so it won't be an issue.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

The actor is Russian so chances are he probably knows.

I enjoyed the movie and the only thing that I was disappointed in were the gummy hands scene with Bones and Kirk. They didnt need that scene.
Can't wait for a sequel.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Agreed.

But for a film that wanted to create a fresh start, they've given themselves quite a few unecessary complications.

-Can't go near Earth without dealing with temporal black hole.
-Can't mention Spock Prime without getting immersed in messy paradox filled time-travel plots that take focus away from new crew.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

^^^

I wonder, though, if in the next film we could get yet another (third) timeline, and so on and so forth for all subsequent films....

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

The reality is that no one will want to tell these particular stories again, so they won't. And when asked "but... but.. !" they'll simply say "alternate timeline, something we don't know about changed it so that it doesn't come up" - as they should.

I think as long as they cover new ground instead of re-hashing old ground I'll be happy. Some people here and other places online are wanting to see what happens when Kirk meets Khan in this timeline. I vehemently do NOT want to see such a thing. Why do what has already been done, especially when it was already done so well?

One can assume there will be at least 2 more films...

And then what?

I guess they may keep doing films if they are successful, but you gotta think they'll bring the franchise back to TV eventually. I don't know if they can do that with the characters from this new film, because they probably won't be able to keep the cast. Do they dare try to cast them again?

And now that they've jettisoned the old timeline they can do whatever they want on any eventual TV show. In this new timeline they can forget about the Borg, forget about all of the old stuff - which was fun, but was by now carrying too much baggage for fresh story ideas. Why not have a huge conflict with the Orion Syndicate? Or perhaps in this timeline the Vulcans (without their home world and as a species of small number) embrace peace with the Romulans and they form an alliance that causes.... well, anything!

And they can set it WHENEVER they want it. Maybe they make a new TV show on the Enterprise B, about halfway between the (original timeline) versions of TOS and TNG. All new characters, all new part of the galaxy. No tie-ins with the old show other than theming and concept. No "new timeline" versions of Data or Picard - just let them be what they were. At most, tie it in to the new films as a follow up to them and them only.

I don't know. It will be at least a decade from now before Star Trek returns to the small screen, and I'm frankly optimistic about the possibilities.

Of course, they got to get the next two films right, too.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

I really hope that they do not rely on the same formula they've been using for the past films, a big villian they must defeat in order to save the Earth or the galaxy.

Because it just ends up being a big action film. Granted, that's what the suits will want now because it makes money. I would hope they can fashion an adventure story that's compelling and has something to say as well about life, philosophy or something else. I read Roger Ebert's review after seeing the film and I absolutely agree with this first paragraph, which I paraphrased.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

To post #291 and #292

Amen! I agree with you both.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

It is a different timeline--nothing is pre-ordained. Not the explosion of the Klingon moon, nor the return of V'ger, nor the whale probe, nor anything else. These things could happen, but they don't have to happen. That's the beauty of this new timeline--the future (from the perspective of the crew of the Enterprise) is UNKNOWN.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

The singularity is closed by the explosion of the warp core (and it wasn't "near Earth's orbit"--they went to warp before that occurred and the Narada followed the Enterprise).

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Hahahahah.. Prophets go back and adjust time to make sure that The Sisko can still be their emmissary. After all, they've changed timelines repeatedly to make sure that happens In fact, his timeline would be that one that would be almost impossible to change because of that, regardless of other factors.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Yeah the next writer for a Star Trek movie that comes up with a "James Bond villain" in the script needs to be slapped upside the head.

Seriously.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

I've read some rather convincing arguments that suggest a new timeline is created in just about every version of Star Trek time travel (not all, but almost all) and that the audience only thinks it is "following the original people around" because the camera simply focuses on the outcome the storytellers want. It's a long explanation and I have not committed it to memory, but I have examined it enough to be convinced that it is the most logical consequence of the way time travel is usually portrayed in Trek (it will do nothing to comfort any "purists", though).

In any event, with this particular movie, the filmmakers are on record as stating they created an alternate timeline--one that does NOT erase the "original" but rather continues along its own path.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

The alternate universe thing is for the writers benefit, it's not anything tied to Star Trek "canon" for the purpose of enhancing the universe.

It's so the writers have freedom to do what they want going forward.

You either accept that or you don't. Trying to justify it within the context of the universe is pointless.

Re: *** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread

Echoing the sentiment to stay away from any time travel/alternate timeline stories.

Adding to that a hope that they refrain from dipping into the previous canon pool too - ie no Khan revisits etc.

The movie has set up a brand new blank slate - please take advantage of it and give us some totally new and original in the next voyage.