*** Official STAR TREK (2009) Discussion Thread - Page 11

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

It most certainly is "tied to Star Trek 'canon'"--we have visual evidence (the only determining factor of "canon") in the film itself. The alternate timeline is a direct consequence of events originating in the original timeline--the divergent path would never have existed without the original.

This is the real world practical motive for the alternate timeline, but that does not change the fact that, "in universe" (or "multiverse"), the alternate timeline is a result of "canon".

You may choose to do as you wish, but the existence of the alternate timeline, within the fictional universe of Star Trek, is not a matter of opinion. It is as "real" and "factual" as anything else in the long history of Star Trek and its fictional universe. In fact, without "canon", the new movie's story could not have happened.

Hear, hear.

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

It may be factual in the "canon" if you want, but it's pretty clear the writers don't give a hoot, and they're the ones in charge.

So you either go with it, or you don't. Trying to analyze it to death or trying to figure out how it fits into Episode 33 of the OS or something or other ... is pointless, because as a plot device it's not designed to do that. As a matter of fact it's design to do the exact opposite which is to divorce itself from the existing canon entirely.

If it wasn't for the writers having to accommodate the Nimoy cameo, I suspect they might have just gone the full James Bond reboot route and not even acknowledged this at all.

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

Paramount would never go for that. People can say what they want about Trekkers and their reliance on canon, etc. But here's what paramount values: Star Trek is their most marketable, money earning franchise. In 2002, when Time Magazine was slathering praise on Star Trek: Nemisis

Star Trek Inc. - TIME

The estimated revenue worth of Trek was in the billions; counting DVD sales, toys, video game licensing rights, online expenditures, casino licensing rights, and toys, Star Trek is now guesstimated by Forbes to be a $10B+ (in the positve) stream.

And the people that help make that happen, who buy all the DVDs, buy the games, the books, the gear and stuff.. those are the fans who've been lifetime followers.

So yes, they may want to restart the series, and they are happy with that. But don't think for a second Paramount didn't say: "Even if this thing earns $300M at the Box Office, if the core base is infuriated, we gamble a revenue stream estimated at $1.2B a year.. (gross)" That thought had to come up several times.

So, yes, the writers may have "Not" cared, but some studio exec more or less at one point would have told them: "by god, you will care"

And the comparison to Bond is laughable. Show me the hundreds of millions in ancillary property rights that go along with Bond. I don't see kids toys, food products, 2,130 seperately issued DVD/VHS releases (yep), comics, etc.

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

What I'm saying is without the Nimoy cameo they likely wouldn't have bothered to even have the movie slow down and have the obligatory "oh this is a parraellel universe, right Captain?" Basil Exposition scene.

They would've just kept going and not have had the characters explain it outright. This is Kirk, Spock, Uhura, etc. now -- deal with it.

Which is what the Bond movies do (ie: no explanation whatsoever as to why M is a woman or why he drives a BMW etc. etc.).

It's very obvious they don't give a crap about canon (which I don't think is a bad thing per se) as the entire movie is basically about divorcing itself from established canon and even doing things like destroying Vulcan, which they had to know would probably send some hard core Trekkers into a hissy fit.

Abhrams himself even said outright hardcore Trekkers shouldn't go see the movie if they are that hung up on the canon.

Paramount wants something that can appeal to the mainstream movie going audience and they got it.

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

It's not they don't give a crap about canon, rather there's no point even trying if they have to shoehorn everything within the canon, which, lets face it would have been an impossible job all things considered as it has become so convoluted over the years. So, instead they came up with a way to hit the giant reset button while at the same time still making it canon. I give them props for trying. Hell, I'd go farther than that and give them props for making permanent changes in this "alternate universe" that would have been magically reset in the last 5 minutes in every other incarnation of Star Trek.

And no, it's not hypocritical to laud this movie's giant reset button while criticizing 40 years of reset buttons. I'll be the first one to jump on Abrams and company if they do some hocus pocus to clean up the mess they made (which would be just to satisfy the hardcore naysayers anyway, so what's the point?).

As for the Nimoy cameo, the question is which came first, the story idea that required the cameo or a cameo that then needed a story idea? I mean, so what if it's a Nimoy cameo? They could just as easily have written Nimoy's part to be an older Quinto Spock in a brand spanking new standalone version of Star Trek (and had the whole thing be self contained in a basic time travel story) rather than connecting it directly to 40 years of Trek through the alternate universe theory.

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

Shhhhhhhhh! Trek villains are dumb. It's not nice to point it out!

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

Most villains are dumb. When they're not making stupid decisions based on pure hatred or overdeveloped need for vengeance, they're generally monologuing their plans to the good guys while giving them a chance to escape. I believe it's all part of Writing For Hollywood 101.

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

I hope for the next movie they can have other Trek events happen at the same time. I want the Borg to assimilate the whales.

Seriously, I thought the film was cute (I just came from seeing it), but not needed. There was an entire universe ready to discover with Enterprise. It made me wish that Enterprise had lived on, because that was exploring new territory (in the last season). New in the sense that we had no idea what happened in that century after First Contact but before Kirk was born. When Enterprise did deal with races we'd seen before, they were telling new stories, different eras that hadn't been filmed before.

But this new film series, what, are we going to see the discovery of Klingons again? The discovery of the Borg again? Why? Because camera work is funkier now? I don't see the point.

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

The authors have said in interviews that the story they settled upon, in their opinion, required Nimoy's participation. If he'd turned them down, they would have modified their story a great deal, or come up with another one (and who knows, maybe they did just that in a parallel timeline ).

The events of the film after the opening scene do not "fit the canon"--they're not supposed to as it is an alternate timeline. However, "the canon" is how the opening scene came to be.

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

Careful. I can only handle parallel timelines in science fiction. Once they start creeping into reality then my head explodes.

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

Oh my, oh my, the logic holes are huge. "Hey Dummy, just use the red matter to destroy the star BEFORE it goes NOVA...." Can anybody tell me why a MINING ship has such powerful weapons? The drill made sense, but being able to battle a starship? I don't care if it was from the future. If you take a 1910 battle ship and place it alongside a present day fishing vessel, the fishing vessel will loose.
That being said. I LOVED THIS MOVIE!!!! It was so much fun. I nearly teared up when I saw the Enterprise. And, to finally see the Kobiashi Maru...WOOHOO. I munch on Popcorn and drank a soda and had a great time.

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

Maybe it used its various lasers and particle beams to avoid debris when mining in asteroid fields or taking moons apart.

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

I read somewhere that it was adapted Borg tech, which makes sense given it's green color. From what I'm told it's in the comic that sets up the movie?

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

Sadly, the answer to this lies only in the comic mini-series that was written as a bridge between the Nemesis and the reboot. In short, the ship was retrofitted with borg technology (along with a few other races' tech).

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

"Shhhhhhhhh! Trek villains are dumb. It's not nice to point it out!"

Theres alot of excuses being thrown around here for this movie and some of its holes in a forum that is usually critical of such things.

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

Is it just coincidence that perhaps three (arguably) of the best Trek films happen to have the three best written "villains"?

Star Trek II - Khan, obviously. I think the thing writers don't understand about Khan when they try to ape him is Khan is a warrior, who has his own odd sense of honor, not some random James Bond megalomanic who wants to destroy the world.

Star Trek VI - General Chang was fun and cool (Trek VI as a whole has perhaps the most sophisticated portrayal of the Klingons in Trek as a whole). Heck, even Martia is a more entertaining "villain" if you want to classify her as that.

Star Trek First Contact - The Borg Queen could've been a pretty typical villain, but her kinky subplot and philosophy 101 with Data elevate her above the standard "Bond villain" motif.

The other two Trek films that are generally well liked (IV and now Trek 2009) get away without a good villain, but they largely rely on putting the Trek universe in a completely different, and more mainstream context (some might call this a novelty).

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

Perhaps they're not excuses but rather explanations .

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

Re: Time travel and sequels


'Star Trek' Screenwriters Talk Sequel Plans - Movie News Story | MTV Movie News

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

Matt

You cannot really believe what you wrote, do you? Paramount does not really care if Trekkies don't like this film or the direction. Do they want you on board of course, keep in mind they already have you in the fold, you already and will continue to stuff their coffers. All you'll do if you don't like the direction of the series is disassociate yourself from it, but you wont stop buying their older stuff. They want people such as myself to come on board and hopefully a good percentage of the die-hards. Never forget this is all about the mullah...

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

To be certain, TOS timeline stopped when the Kelvin was wrecked. From that point on nothing in TOS can be taken for granted (and that was what, 20+ years before TOS?). Kirk was part of the 5 Year Mission program to explore deeper into space...but that was without a giant Romulan spaceship destroying a ship and disappearing. For all we know they changed their plan to create a defense fleet first and exploration second.

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

Agreed. I want them to meet up somehow with the Aquatic Xindi and engage in a battle for the ages. Who would win?

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

They didn't control the time-jump. So Nero had several hundred years, iirc, of time to kill before the star would go supernova. Plenty of time to get his revenge and destroy Romulus' enemies first. Even still, HIS Romulus was dead and would never be exactly the same again.

Or to put it into Trek terms, Nero was obsessed with defeating his white whale.

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

I don't understand what is so hard to understand here. Nero has over 100 years to deal with the supernova. He stated quite clearly that his goal was to wipe out the Federation so that Romulans never have to deal with their interference and then build a glorious Romulan Empire presumably with his advanced technology. The Romulan Empire would replace the Federation as the controlling power in the Alpha quadrant. Kirk and Spock just stopped him well before he got back to Romulus.

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

Except Nero could have done many things.

He could have attacked Earth when it was much weaker.

He could have gone to Romulus and given them his technology placing them WAY ahead of everyone else at the time - making it easy to conquest = never having to deal with Federation or other planet interferrence.

He could have warned Romulus about the supernova.
And so on.

"Kirk and Spock just stopped him well before he got back to Romulus."

Nero didnt do anything except sit around and wait for 25 years. His words "We do what we've been doing. We wait" or something along those lines.

Voyage Home and First Contact clearly showed that going back in time affected the "real Trek world" and not some alternate reality, so I dont know why everyone seems to think thats the case here. Nero's time travel, the way I saw it, affected the time line we know and are familiar with, not a alternate one.

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

He needed the Red Matter, which was on Spock Prime's ship and Nero had calculated that he would appear 25 years later, so he waited. This seems to be a real issue that most people didn't get in the movie. Nero doesn't have the Red Matter until he captures Spock Prime's ship, which took 25 years to show up! In fact Nero never even takes the Red Matter off of Spock Prime's ship. Nero's ship is powerful but not enough to destroy a planet. Also it could have taken him many years to repair his ship after the Kelvin smashed into it. It isn't like the current time has any of the advanced materials/parts Nero's ship probably uses. Nero would have to be careful about taking damage to his ship. It isn't like he has a Voyager magic reset button so after every battle his weapon's locker is full again and all damage repaired.

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

I do get it. He needed the Red Matter to destroy Vulcan, but having a 25 year headstart he could have done alot of things. Many involve warning or helping Romulus.

He did nothing. But sit and wait.

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

Romulans are not logical.

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

He waited until he had the power to destroy planets, specifically all Federation planets. To go back to "Balance of Terror"
"The Earth captain will follow. He must! And when he does we will destroy him. Our gift to the homeworld, another war."
"If we are the strong is not that the signal for war?"

Nero needs to show he is the strong to the Romulans and the ability to destroy planets is pretty strong. Going back to warn Romulus about a star going supernova 129 years in the future when they didn't even believe it when it actually happened is pointless. Plus there was zero interaction between Federation and Romulus before "Balance of Terror" so Romulans wouldn't know what Nero was talking about when claiming the Federation is a great threat to them when he first appeared. Better to wait until he knows Romulans are ready for war again against the Federation when he comes in with his powerful ship and technology. He also gains tremendous credibility as he single-handedly wiped out the entire Federation in a matter of weeks.

Edit:
Or you could simply say that Nero wanted Spock to suffer watching his own planet be destroyed and that doing any of the above might ruin the chances of Nero making it happen. His best plan would be to be invisible for those 25 years and wait for Spock Prime to appear.

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

Didn't they see Star Trek IV? What more do you need for the "sling-shot around the sun" trick for time travel? I forget if there was more needed besides a starship that would withstand the stress for such a manuever.

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

Spock's plan was kind of incomplete, wasn't it? If he had arrived a day earlier and collapsed Romulus' sun into a black hole, wouldn't the planet Romulus (and all the other moons and planets in that solar system) have frozen within hours?

Unless there was a related plan to tow the planets to another solar system (an engineering feat I don't know that the Federation could pull off), or unless several BILLION rescue vehicles arrived to evacuate the entire planet, Romulus was not going to survive.

Unless... maybe the plan was that the red matter would reach back in time and grab Romulus' sun from a few millennia ago, before it went nova... and replace it... but then, Romulus would never have supported life in the past... oh no I've gone crosseyed.

...

One day after seeing the film, I find 2 problems with the film stick out most:

1) The brewery for the engine room sucked, as did the scenes at the end where Scotty is on the comms with the captain explaining his idea to save the ship -- and all he can do in that brewery is run around through the catwalks. Eventually he reaches a computer panel, but basically, the set didn't work so they just had him run around to create tension.

2) Scotty being sucked around through the tubes like a bad cartoon. Farce has its place, and Trek doesn't do farce well.