: How Good Is Star Trek? Damned Good!



lawfive
05-10-09, 10:32 AM
Saw it yesterday in IMAX. To those who are afraid that Abrams will abandon Trek canon or try so hard to appeal to young viewers that he creates Star Trek 90210: he does neither.

To those who are hoping that this movie will rescue/reenergize the franchise: :thumbsup: good chance of that.

CIWS
05-10-09, 10:46 AM
To those who are afraid that Abrams will abandon Trek canon or try so hard to appeal to young viewers that he creates Star Trek 90210: he does neither.

I disagree, about violating cannon. It's no 90210 though. :)


To those who are hoping that this movie will rescue/reenergize the franchise: :thumbsup: good chance of that.

It may draw a whole new fan base. But I won't be following J.J.'s / Paramount's new vision.

Blackout
05-10-09, 11:42 AM
I saw it on friday night at an imax and I gotta admit from beginning to end it was non stop action. Great movie and exceeded my expectations big time. I can't wait to go see it again with my dad this week. The guy who played Spock was great and the kid who played Kirk I really liked. Aren't they turning this into a new series of movies?

iowasevillests
05-10-09, 12:51 PM
Never saw any of the previous versions(more of a Star Wars guy) but saw the new Star Trek yesterday afternoon and thought it was awesome. Stunning visual scenes, great action sequences, great plot, again I'm not a Trekkie and was looking at it from more of a new series standpoint and not comparing it to past movies, but I loved it.

lawfive
05-10-09, 02:09 PM
I disagree, about violating cannon.

How so? The stroke of genius was to insert a quantum event at the beginning which puts the entire movie and all future events into an alternate reality. Now Abrams can do almost anything he wishes without violating canon; the old well-known events and timeline are nicely preserved somewhere else. I like it!

In other news, Trekkers are pissed that the movie is poplular: click (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film)

hueterm
05-10-09, 03:06 PM
So then, in an effort to decide whether or not to boycott it or not (saying a lot for me, as I've sat through ST:V many times...) -- and to minimize spoilers:





























Is the destruction of a certain founding planet of the Federation somehow part of an alternate reality, then? If not, and canon was changed that much, I'm done w/it. I have a big enough problem w/losing the 24th Century...so it won't be a big loss....

AMGoff
05-10-09, 03:19 PM
...To those who are afraid that Abrams will abandon Trek canon or try so hard to appeal to young viewers that he creates Star Trek 90210: he does neither.

To those who are hoping that this movie will rescue/reenergize the franchise: :thumbsup: good chance of that.


I disagree, about violating cannon. It's no 90210 though. :)

It may draw a whole new fan base. But I won't be following J.J.'s / Paramount's new vision.


How so? The stroke of genius was to insert a quantum event at the beginning which puts the entire movie and all future events into an alternate reality. Now Abrams can do almost anything he wishes without violating canon; the old well-known events and timeline are nicely preserved somewhere else. I like it!

In other news, Trekkers are pissed that the movie is poplular: click (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/trekkies_bash_new_star_trek_film)


The wife and I caught a matinee yesterday and I can definitely say that as a standalone "Trek" movie - it was nothing less than spectacular. While I won't go as far as to say it was great as "The Wrath of Khan" or "The Undiscovered Country," I will say that as an overall package it's easily one of the best "Trek" films ever made. Even Becky liked the movie and she's never been a Star Trek fan in the slightest... Although I suspect part of it could have been the ample on-screen "boy-candy," as she so eloquently put it.

As far as it violating Trek-cannon, that's a double-edged sword - it doesn't and blatantly does at the same time.

What you may call a "stroke of genius," I see as nothing more than Abrams cheating his way into building the story line that he wanted - lazily doing so with a convenient, yet dreadfully tired plot mechanism. The bottom line is that he shouldn't have toyed whatsoever with the established plot/timeline, period. He could have still made the movie just as terrific without royally mucking up the works to the extent he did... Instead he chose to make things needlessly messy, leaving too many loose-ends and unanswered questions... As such, I can completely understand why diehard Trekkies are miffed by this movie - however, I believe much it stems from a far more selfish, vain reason.

That of course being that Abrams had the sheer nerve to actually create a Star Trek film that wasn't made for the pure viewing-pleasure of Star Trek fans...

How dare he try to make a genuinely good movie with (eek!) mass-market appeal and even worse - one that's also (gasp!) applauded by critics and worse still - actually be (holyshit!) successful in doing so!

The audacity!!! :thehand: He should be ashamed of himself...

Aron9000
05-10-09, 03:26 PM
^ I think Vulcan being destroyed is part of this "new" reality, think of this new movie as a branch off of the trek timeline/cannon that has nothing to do with the rest of the cannon.

The thing that pissed me off more than them messing up the cannon was how Kirk was promoted from cadet to captain. Like anybody would give some 25 year old hooligan with three years of training at the academey the keys to a starship. This was a guy who three years ago had a criminal record for assault, public intoxication, and other petty crimes.

hueterm
05-10-09, 04:26 PM
Well, then as long as they bring it back in Star Trek: Version 2: Number 2 -- "The Wrath of the Trekkie"...I'm "OK" with it, maybe...

ewill3rd
05-10-09, 05:21 PM
I'm going right now, I don't want to read all the comments, I already know too much.

Looking forward to this since I saw the trailer several months ago!
Got my fandango on baby!

CIWS
05-10-09, 06:22 PM
How so? The stroke of genius was to insert a quantum event at the beginning which puts the entire movie and all future events into an alternate reality. Now Abrams can do almost anything he wishes without violating canon; the old well-known events and timeline are nicely preserved somewhere else. I like it!

WARNING IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS

1st. - Gene Roddenberry had a written/unwritten rule that if ever the timeline had been changed, it was put back to the right way so as not to allow the correct timeline and future events to be altered. This has been violated several times by the producers of the star trek series since Gene's death because, I guess, they lack crative originality and cannot write their sci-fi without doing it.

2nd - The insignia worn on their uniforms, all their uniforms in the new movie including the star fleet cadets, carried the "arrowhead" insignia of the NCC-1701 Enterprise crew. That insignia was the insigna of ONLY the crew of the TOS Enterprise not all of Star Fleet. It was not adopted as the symbol of all of Star Fleet until many years later after TOS crew distiquished themselves with their adventures.

Even with the Romulan drilling ship coming back and destroying the USS Kelvin and Kirk's father as acting captain, Capt Robau and whatever other crew members that didn't escape, they did nothing else to change the future except sit around and wait for Ambassador Spock for the next 25 years. Yet it's written by the current writers / director to have changed "everything" once they came back, which in itself makes no sense since the only things that would have changed would be that directly affected by those killed with the Kelvin incident, such as Kirk growing up without his father.

3rd - Pon farr suddenly thrown out so Spock and Uhura can be with each other in this film ?



ANY SPOILERS ARE NOW DONE

It was my hope they could make a good movie without making the "little" mistakes they seem to keep doing since any post Roddenberry creative control, but they keep doing it. Since it appears this is going to continue to happen since Voyager was released, I have no interest in following with it.

It's not that the movie didn't have good action, good special effects and a job well done by the actors in their roles, all of that was present. But if they are going to no longer follow Gene's vision of what Star Trek is / was and simply change things as it fits their scripts, then it's no longer Star Trek, but just another nicely done Sci-Fi story.

Jesda
05-10-09, 07:02 PM
The movie was fun, the cinematography was awful. Like watching a crappy MTV music video without the booty shaking.

The Tony Show
05-11-09, 09:20 AM
I thought it was fun. The canon breaking didn't bother me at all for two reasons: I'm more of a Next Gen fan than TOS, so I'm not against seeing a more "modern" take on the characters, and the fact that they give a perfectly logical reason why the events in this one diverge from the canon.

I liked most of the actors, with the exception of Anton Yelchin. Everyone seemed to be playing their character, but he just did a bad Walter Koenig impression for 2 hours. Karl Urban was a riot as Bones, and even managed to pull off the "Dammit man, I'm a doctor not a physicist!!" line without winking at the camera. The only part I thought was superfluous was the ice monster scene, which was a totally pointless sequence thrown in just to up the action quotient.

In my mind, Picard will always be THE captain of the Enterprise, but I'm still looking forward to seeing some adventures from this new crew.

EcSTSatic
05-11-09, 09:56 AM
I learned something new in this thread. I have never seen the term "canon" used in this context. I have been out of the loop. click (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_%28fiction%29)
The wife and I are closet trekkies, we'll probably use our free movie tickets to see it.

CIWS
05-11-09, 10:32 AM
and the fact that they give a perfectly logical reason why the events in this one diverge from the canon.

Which was what, the timeline change ? If that's it, that doesn't explain all of what they did. What other reason(s) were there ?

The Tony Show
05-11-09, 10:52 AM
If you subscribe to the Quantum Mechanics (string theory) of time travel (which this film does), having Nero pass through the singularity into our timeline before Kirk was born created an alternate timeline that runs parallel to the one we already know. Canon changes can be traced to the "butterfly effect" caused by Nero's arrival (such as the planet being destroyed, Spock becoming captain, Kirk being a stowaway, etc), but that's the cool part: They're not really canon "changes", since these events do not cancel out what happens in the original timeline. This story happens parallel to what we already know.

The other changes like the arrowhead and the lack of Pon Farr can just be chalked up to 'reimagining'. If they weren't going to change some stuff, what's the point of rebooting the series? I know you're a purist, but things like the origin of the arrowhead are minutiae that have no effect on the quality of the story (and only the diehards will notice). Batman Begins and Dark Knight are chock full of canon contradictions, but they're the best reviewed and highest grossing Batman movies ever.

At some point, especially with a series that's 40 years old, it becomes impossible to tell a new story inside the tiny box of canon that already exists. The singularity and multiple timelines was a solid plot device to allow us to see some new adventures from the TOS crew. Since this theory has already been explored and explained in Star Trek canon, it brilliantly allowed the setup to be canon, while the actual events afterward create a new, alternate canon.

Blackout
05-11-09, 12:03 PM
Even after looking at what canon means I'm still not following. But just like the slogan for the movie goes, "Forget everything you know"

The Tony Show
05-11-09, 12:20 PM
The term "canon" is used to describe what "really happened in the end" (even though it's fiction, so none of it "really" happened :lol:.....). It's easy to understand the term when you take time travel out of the equation, as it's pretty simple. For example: Luke is Darth Vader's son, right? If a Star Wars prequel were made that showed Obi-Wan Kenobi being Luke's father, people would have freaked out and said "That contradicts canon!". Make sense now?

It becomes complicated with time travel. Star Trek assumes that infinite versions of reality exist, but we only see one of them. Any episode of Trek that deals with time travel creates all kinds of alternate versions of events, timelines and realities, but only one version of the events is the one that our view of time moves forward from (since we can't simultaneously perceive multiple realities). The end result after all the meddling and the version of reality that the movies continue on from is canon, as in "this is the version of events that officially happened".

Example: Star Trek IV. An alien ship arrives at Earth and begins destroying it. The Enterprise goes back in time and does something that changes the timeline so that when the aliens arrive in the future, Earth doesn't get wrecked. Earth not getting wrecked is now considered canon, since future Star Trek movies have Earth intact since that's the reality we moved forward from. Keep in mind however, going back in time didn't stop the events from happening in the first timeline- they altered the events in OUR reality, but in the other reality, the Earth still got wrecked by the alien ship and time continued moving forward from then. We never saw it though, so it's not canon.

In the case of the Star Trek reboot, the writers are going at it a different way. Basically, they're saying "this is a different reality than the old show presented us with". Someone traveled back in time and changed something, which caused a new reality that goes off in a different direction than the one we watched in the old show. This new one isn't trying to fit into the established series of events or say that these events are taking the place of the old ones- this is an alternate reality where things went differently than what you saw before.

Now that I'm done typing all that, I'm going to go shoot myself in the face for being the biggest nerd ever.

Brett
05-11-09, 12:50 PM
I like it. Yes it diverged greatly from what is considered "canon", but the reality is we either had that or nothing. I dont think the plot will hold up to multiple viewings as there seems to be some holes in it but all in all, pretty good.

Brett
05-11-09, 12:51 PM
At least there was no "Darth Vader built C3PO" moment.

dkozloski
05-11-09, 01:11 PM
It's humorous to observe grown people obsessing about a goddam movie. I thought that was a pre-teen girl thing.

hueterm
05-11-09, 01:14 PM
I really could care less if Kirk bedded Uhura, or if they kill Amanda early or not -- those are relatively minor points. However, I still say that destroying Vulcan was a slap in the face to the past 40 years of Star Trek. The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning against seeing it.

hueterm
05-11-09, 01:16 PM
It's humorous to observe grown people obsessing about a goddam movie. I thought that was a pre-teen girl thing.


I'm sure when they make "Knut -- The Friendly Polar Bear", you'll be bitching and moaning like the rest of us....

CIWS
05-11-09, 01:30 PM
The other changes like the arrowhead and the lack of Pon Farr can just be chalked up to 'reimagining'. If they weren't going to change some stuff, what's the point of rebooting the series?

If you're going to change things beyond the established storyline, then why even call it Star Trek. Now it's just Sci-Fi Trek. The Arrowhead issue was a easy thing to make right, they just didn't care to follow anything other than what their writers wanted to write. Pon farr is a part of being Vulcan, but I guess Vulcans can now be as the new folks want, to hell with anything established they'll just affect the past or just rewrite it as needed.

The problem with writing in timeline changes of the past and leaving them in is you now just open a huge can of worms to just change things as you wish, there is no longer any real continuity because it's changed with the stroke of the pen. Gene Roddenberry didn't care for it. Star Trek 4 and the whales didn't change the past, it's effect was on the present and future, which hasn't taken place yet.

How shitty has the writing in Hollywood become that they can't reboot a series that's been around for 40 years while still sticking to established ideas of races and cultures ? There is very little written about the years before Kirk became captain of NCC-1701, they didn't have to change anything to be able to write to something that basically hasn't been written, they had an almost clean slate to start with.

They'll make a sequal to this, I'm sure that's already in the works. But I'll wager Star Trek will die with it and Paramount will give up on it for quite a while because some folks there just don't seem to understand why their viewership has been declining over the last several years. Original predictions of it outperforming X-Men Wolverine didn't come to pass after all because without the majority of the established fan base backing it (it appears to be about 50/50) it will not survive for the long term.

BTW Tony, nice bit of writing there :D

CIWS
05-11-09, 01:32 PM
It's humorous to observe grown people obsessing about a goddam movie. I thought that was a pre-teen girl thing.

Movies are just the modern take on the old novel(s). Folks raised hell about the idiosyncrasies of Sherlock Holmes adventures back in the day.

The Tony Show
05-11-09, 01:51 PM
If you're going to change things beyond the established storyline, then why even call it Star Trek. Pon farr is a part of being Vulcan, but I guess Vulcans can now be as the new folks want, to hell with anything established they'll just affect the past or just rewrite it as needed.

Spock is half human though, so it's conceivable to create a reality where he isn't affected by Pon Farr.


The problem with writing in timeline changes of the past and leaving them in is you now just open a huge can of worms to just change things as you wish, there is no longer any real continuity because it's changed with the stroke of the pen. Gene Roddenberry didn't care for it. Star Trek 4 and the whales didn't change the past, it's effect was on the present and future, which hasn't taken place yet.

But they did change the past. In our timeline, the whales were killed by whalers, which led to the eventual destruction of the planet by the alien probe. Going back and creating a new timeline where the whales were beamed aboard the ship may have had all sorts of ramifications, but we'll never know since that timeline carried on without us.


How shitty has the writing in Hollywood become that they can't reboot a series that's been around for 40 years while still sticking to established ideas of races and cultures ? There is very little written about the years before Kirk became captain of NCC-1701, they didn't have to change anything to be able to write to something that basically hasn't been written, they had an almost clean slate to start with.

Similar stories to what you propse have been train wrecks (Star Wars prequels, anyone?). After UPN's Enterprise was a ratings and commercial disaster, I doubt anyone was interested in trying another "origin of Star Trek" story. The studio decided people would rather see the established crew doing new and exciting things, and I can't disagree.

Comic book writers have been tossing away decades of canon and starting over for years now anyway. Look at how many conflicting versions there are of the origins of Batman, Wolverine or even Superman. It's all about keeping it modern enough to make money.


BTW Tony, nice bit of writing there :D

I'm simultaneously amazed and saddened that I was able to articulate that train of thought. :lol:

The Tony Show
05-11-09, 04:34 PM
Oh yeah- and Uhura was hot. I forgot to mention that. :D

dkozloski
05-11-09, 04:52 PM
Movies are just the modern take on the old novel(s). Folks raised hell about the idiosyncrasies of Sherlock Holmes adventures back in the day.
Kinda like Harry Potter? Fantasy worlds are a bitch.

Brett
05-11-09, 06:15 PM
I saw this and thought it was funny:

Galaxy Quest: Tommy scrapes the side of the space station during first launch.

Star Trek: Sulu forgets to take off the parking brake on first launch.

Galaxy Quest: Tim Allen is struck on an alien planet and attacked by giant aliens.

Star Trek: Kirk is is struck on an alien planet and attacked by giant aliens. (With a little Phantom Menace thrown in with the first big alien being eaten by the bigger second big alien).

Galaxy Quest: Tim Allen is a loud-mouth drunk whom everyone hates, but later redeems himself.

Star Trek: Kirk is a loud-mouth drunk whom everyone hates, but later redeems himself.

Galaxy Quest: Fred is a teleporter "whiz" who saves Tim Allen at the last second.

Star Trek: Chekov is a teleporter "whiz" who saves Kirk at the last second.

Galaxy Quest: Bad-guys ship is huge and shoots lots of missiles.

Star Trek: Bad-guys ship is huge and shoots lots of missiles.

Galaxy Quest: Weird alien artifact that alters time (Omega 13).

Star Trek: Weird alien artifact that alters time (red material).

Galaxy Quest: Alien race all but exterminated by the bad-guy.

Star Trek: Ditto.

The Tony Show
05-11-09, 06:18 PM
Galaxy Quest was awesome.

CIWS
05-11-09, 06:47 PM
Spock is half human though, so it's conceivable to create a reality where he isn't affected by Pon Farr.

Some ship jumping back in time and killing some humans off the Kelvin isn't going to change Vulcan physiology. Again the mere presence of a ship from the future into the past doesn't change reality by itself. It becomes a question of what it does in the past, and any effect those particular action(s) have on the timeline.



But they did change the past. In our timeline, the whales were killed by whalers, which led to the eventual destruction of the planet by the alien probe. Going back and creating a new timeline where the whales were beamed aboard the ship may have had all sorts of ramifications, but we'll never know since that timeline carried on without us.

Was earth destroyed by the probe ? I don't remember seeing that occur. That's because before any new future could happen they did something to influence it's course. The future isn't written, yet. However I guess it will be now as they've changed the course of how things happened. So there will be no whale mission and the Probe that's already on it's way to Earth will wipe it out. Or will it ? We don't know because that future hasn't happened yet.


After UPN's Enterprise was a ratings and commercial disaster, I doubt anyone was interested in trying another "origin of Star Trek" story.

Enterprise ran for more seasons than the original series which was also canceled and look what it became in syndication. Although Enterprise is another example of common sense being thrown out when it comes to sticking to cannon. The pilot episode has a Crabhead Klingon in it and it was supposed to be taking place 70 or 80 years before the original series. What doesn't make sense with the "new folks" controlling the franchise is they go to lengths to try and make Enterprise look like the engine room is more primitive than TOS, putting a copper jacket around the warp core to act as a heat dissapator for example, then just let go of other simple items that make no sense. Again if the fan base doesn't support it, it will die off and this has been happening since the time of Voyager.




Comic book writers have been tossing away decades of canon and starting over for years now anyway. Look at how many conflicting versions there are of the origins of Batman, Wolverine or even Superman. It's all about keeping it modern enough to make money.

Then I guess that's who's taken over at Paramount in the Star Trek office since the mid to late 90s, comic book writers.

CIWS
05-11-09, 06:49 PM
I saw this and thought it was funny:




Very nice :thumbsup:

lawfive
05-11-09, 07:10 PM
So then, in an effort to decide whether or not to boycott it or not (saying a lot for me, as I've sat through ST:V many times...) -- and to minimize spoilers:



Yes. The entire movie winds up being in an alternate timeline, while still telling the story of how Kirk gets Enterprise and the Magnificent Seven come together (need I say: no no, RT).

lawfive
05-11-09, 07:16 PM
WARNING IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE DO NOT READ THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS

1st. - Gene Roddenberry had a written/unwritten rule that if ever the timeline had been changed, it was put back to the right way so as not to allow the correct timeline and future events to be altered. This has been violated several times by the producers of the star trek series since Gene's death because, I guess, they lack crative originality and cannot write their sci-fi without doing it.

2nd - The insignia worn on their uniforms, all their uniforms in the new movie including the star fleet cadets, carried the "arrowhead" insignia of the NCC-1701 Enterprise crew. That insignia was the insigna of ONLY the crew of the TOS Enterprise not all of Star Fleet. It was not adopted as the symbol of all of Star Fleet until many years later after TOS crew distiquished themselves with their adventures.

Even with the Romulan drilling ship coming back and destroying the USS Kelvin and Kirk's father as acting captain, Capt Robau and whatever other crew members that didn't escape, they did nothing else to change the future except sit around and wait for Ambassador Spock for the next 25 years. Yet it's written by the current writers / director to have changed "everything" once they came back, which in itself makes no sense since the only things that would have changed would be that directly affected by those killed with the Kelvin incident, such as Kirk growing up without his father.

3rd - Pon farr suddenly thrown out so Spock and Uhura can be with each other in this film ?



ANY SPOILERS ARE NOW DONE

It was my hope they could make a good movie without making the "little" mistakes they seem to keep doing since any post Roddenberry creative control, but they keep doing it. Since it appears this is going to continue to happen since Voyager was released, I have no interest in following with it.

It's not that the movie didn't have good action, good special effects and a job well done by the actors in their roles, all of that was present. But if they are going to no longer follow Gene's vision of what Star Trek is / was and simply change things as it fits their scripts, then it's no longer Star Trek, but just another nicely done Sci-Fi story.

Cool, Matt, whatev's. Notes:

An alternate reality is just that: only one little thing needs to be changed to branch the timeline.

Voyager sucked. Enterprise sucked more. Nemesis sucked HARD.

We needed this.

CIWS
05-11-09, 07:17 PM
So then, in an effort to decide whether or not to boycott it or not (saying a lot for me, as I've sat through ST:V many times...) -- and to minimize spoilers


I'd still say go and see it. The film is good, it just has some "Star Trek" issues. Just try and go when it's a bit cheaper ticket, like a matinee :D

lawfive
05-11-09, 07:22 PM
I'm sure when they make "Knut -- The Friendly Polar Bear", you'll be bitching and moaning like the rest of us....
:rofl:

fracking rofl...

CIWS
05-11-09, 07:23 PM
Voyager sucked. Enterprise sucked more. Nemesis sucked HARD.

We needed this.

Because somebody's guiding the ship at Paramount and they don't seem to get it.

lawfive
05-11-09, 07:27 PM
Star Trek 4 and the whales didn't change the past, it's effect was on the present and future, which hasn't taken place yet.



Umm... no.



"Paging Captain Janeway... Temporal mechanics have given CIWS a headache..."

lawfive
05-11-09, 07:33 PM
Galaxy Quest was awesome.
Galaxy Quest was awesome.

lawfive
05-11-09, 07:34 PM
Spock is half human though, so it's conceivable to create a reality where he isn't affected by Pon Farr.

True. While we're at it... we have no proof that Spock and Uhura are actually having sex. They allude, but that's it. Perhaps they've ALWAYS been hot for each other, and ALWAYS gave up on it when were both assigned to Enterprise.

CIWS
05-11-09, 09:51 PM
Umm... no.


Uhh Yeah.

ewill3rd
05-12-09, 08:31 AM
Okay, so here is my take on all this banter (I skimmed so forgive me if I hit some innacuracies)

The movie was good, I am glad I went to see it and I will certainly add this to my ST collection. I have 4 series and all the movie directors cuts and some of the plain jane versions too. I have only been to 2 conventions though so don't start picking on me :lol:

I hate ST movies and shows where they do the alternate timeline crap and yeah from a scientific point of view it's just annoying. My wife and I both agree that this is not Gene's vision but an action movie based on his ideas. Honestly Gene's vision was of a peaceful society on the defensive but you can't make money on that content for a long time so you have to spice it up and sell it to the action crowd. People living everyday lives in a future Eutopia would be pretty freaking boring.
DS9 was the first real departure from Gene's vision and even though it had it's merits that is when I started to fall out of love with Trek.
Don't get me wrong I still enjoy it all. It is probaby better than most of the recycled worn out crap that is flowing out of Hollywood like water over Niagara.

My only problems with the movie was that about 70 percent of it was character introduction and the other 30 was just pure action. I really enjoyed it despite the little flaws that kind of annoyed me, I just chose to ignore the nitpicking junk and operated under the realization that Hollywood is in business to make money and that they made an entertaining movie that was actually worth my time to watch, unlike almost anything else out these days.

If you are a dyed in the wool, hard core, nitpicking Trek fan, save your money.
If you like Star Trek and want to go have a good time at the theater and you can just relax and enjoy a good movie, go, you won't regret it.

lawfive
05-12-09, 10:01 AM
Uhh Yeah.
Umm... no.

In ST4 as soon as they time traveled they created a new timeline. They then proceded to change the bejesus out of their past. In their new timeline they saved the world, but in their prior timeline I'm afraid the alien ship kicked their asses because Kirk and crew never reappeared.

CIWS
05-12-09, 10:36 AM
Umm... no.

In ST4 as soon as they time traveled they created a new timeline. They then proceded to change the bejesus out of their past. In their new timeline they saved the world, but in their prior timeline I'm afraid the alien ship kicked their asses because Kirk and crew never reappeared.

You should apply for a job with Paramount. You can dream up shit just like they think they can now.

CIWS
05-12-09, 10:37 AM
Okay, so here is my take on all this banter (I skimmed so forgive me if I hit some innacuracies)




All fair, I would agree.

lawfive
05-12-09, 10:41 AM
You should apply for a job with Paramount. You can dream up shit just like they think they can now.
"I canna change the laws of physics, Matthew!!"

CIWS
05-12-09, 10:47 AM
"I canna change the laws of physics, Matthew!!"

heheh laws of physics. You mean theories.

RightTurn
05-12-09, 10:50 AM
:food-snacking:

lawfive
05-12-09, 11:04 AM
heheh laws of physics. You mean theories.
Yep, but Scotty never said "theories of physics"; wouldn't be as funny.

My point is, it's neither me nor Paramount "dreaming this shit up." It's guys like Brian Greene and Stephen Hawking. I'll tell ya... I gotta go with them on this one.

The Tony Show
05-12-09, 11:12 AM
Umm... no.

In ST4 as soon as they time traveled they created a new timeline. They then proceded to change the bejesus out of their past. In their new timeline they saved the world, but in their prior timeline I'm afraid the alien ship kicked their asses because Kirk and crew never reappeared.

^Correct, as long as you stick with the explanation of Quantum Physics and time travel as Data explained it in TNG. If you prefer to believe in time travel as Einstein's theory of relativity would have it happen, time folds onto itself, and changes in the past wipe out changes in the future.

Technically speaking, the "multiple timeline" theory violates canon from the TOS movies, and Einstein's theory would violate the TNG canon. It depends which series' canon you're more upset about being violated.

CIWS
05-12-09, 11:42 AM
Yep, but Scotty never said "theories of physics"; wouldn't be as funny.

That's because there are proven Laws of physics and there are theories. Theory of relativity, String theory, etc, all theories not proven facts.

In the time period in which Scotty would exist, many things that we now call theory would have been proven or disproven. One such thing would be time travel and it's actual effects, not some Hollywood director's take on a theory.

lawfive
05-12-09, 11:54 AM
^ I think Vulcan being destroyed is part of this "new" reality, think of this new movie as a branch off of the trek timeline/cannon that has nothing to do with the rest of the cannon.

The thing that pissed me off more than them messing up the cannon was how Kirk was promoted from cadet to captain. Like anybody would give some 25 year old hooligan with three years of training at the academey the keys to a starship. This was a guy who three years ago had a criminal record for assault, public intoxication, and other petty crimes.

Yup, they'd do it. He originally got Enterprise when he was 34, the youngest ever. But this new timeline gave him the early opportunity to:

Get appointed First Officer by his mentor
Prove his decision making as acting Captain was sound
Prove he could handle a starship
Kick the ass of an enemy nobody else could beat
Save the world

Good captains are hard to find, and they lucked into this one. I don't care how old Kirk is, I give that kid the keys to a starship.

It's just possible that Jim Kirk could kick Chuck Norris' ass. (Chuck, if you're on here: don't hurt me.)

lawfive
05-12-09, 11:56 AM
That's because there are proven Laws of physics and there are theories. Theory of relativity, String theory, etc, all theories not proven facts.

In the time period in which Scotty would exist, many things that we now call theory would have been proven or disproven. One such thing would be time travel and it's actual effects, not some Hollywood director's take on a theory.

Why do I feel as though you're making my point for me?

Oh, well...

lawfive
05-12-09, 11:58 AM
^Correct, as long as you stick with the explanation of Quantum Physics and time travel as Data explained it in TNG. If you prefer to believe in time travel as Einstein's theory of relativity would have it happen, time folds onto itself, and changes in the past wipe out changes in the future.

Technically speaking, the "multiple timeline" theory violates canon from the TOS movies, and Einstein's theory would violate the TNG canon. It depends which series' canon you're more upset about being violated.

LOL, Data had the benefit of speaking in the 90's and 00's. An ugly side effect of the advancement of theoretical physics: violation of older Trek canon. :lol:

I can totally see some future Trekker nerd coming back in time to deal with this problem...

The Tony Show
05-12-09, 12:13 PM
LOL, Data had the benefit of speaking in the 90's and 00's. An ugly side effect of the advancement of theoretical physics: violation of older Trek canon.

I started to write a dissertation on the fact that not only was Data speaking 30 years later in real time, but also around 150 years later in Trek time, but decided not to. During both of these time periods, many scientific advances would have been made in both the real world and the fictional world. I'm glad someone else was thinking the same thing. :lol:

Based on the later explanations of how time travel affects reality, it's safe to assume that even though the TOS crew didn't know at the time, the "Earth destroyed by Alien probe" timeline continued forward in an alternate reality while we continued forward in the new one they created by saving the whales.

Blackout
05-12-09, 12:37 PM
lol what a bunch of nerds

CIWS
05-12-09, 12:46 PM
lol what a bunch of nerds


Yeah, isn't it grand :D

CIWS
05-12-09, 12:48 PM
Why do I feel as though you're making my point for me?

Oh, well...

It's the alternate reality you're living in at the moment. Try these words.

"Computer, end program and exit"

;)

CIWS
05-12-09, 12:50 PM
I started to write a dissertation on the fact that not only was Data speaking 30 years later in real time, but also around 150 years later in Trek time, but decided not to.

Data sold out to the Hollywood producers/writers. Just watch Nemesis . . .



:hide:

CIWS
05-12-09, 12:53 PM
I don't care how old Kirk is, I give that kid the keys to a starship.



Just don't give him unescorted access to your daughters :sneaky:

The Tony Show
05-12-09, 01:22 PM
Data sold out to the Hollywood producers/writers. Just watch Nemesis . . .


B4. Ugh. :nono:

Brett
05-12-09, 01:38 PM
I can totally see some future Trekker nerd coming back in time to deal with this problem...


The fact that nobody has is evidence that time travel isnt possible at all :stirpot:

Brett
05-12-09, 01:41 PM
My main problem with the "alternate timeline" theory is that it means essentially a new universe is created everytime anyone does anything, meaning all possible outcomes of every possible decision play out, meaning nothing has any meaning. Whether you made a good choice or bad choice depends on what universe you actually reside in.

CIWS
05-12-09, 04:15 PM
B4. Ugh. :nono:


no no that was in one of the alternate realities :D

lawfive
05-12-09, 07:06 PM
The fact that nobody has is evidence that time travel isnt possible at all :stirpot:
Or they have and they knew how to end up in the timeline they wanted, and we ain't in it.


Or they're effing with us lowly ignorant people of the past.


FUN WITH TIME:

1. Create a way to make contact with the past. (Note: this is the tough part).

2. Prepare to send a message asking for a note to be placed in a safe deposit box.

3. Realize that if your attempt will be successful, the note should already be in the box.

4. Yup, it's there.

5. Now: don't send the message.

Brett
05-12-09, 07:11 PM
Or they have and they knew how to end up in the timeline they wanted, and we ain't in it.


Or they're effing with us lowly ignorant people of the past.


FUN WITH TIME:

1. Create a way to make contact with the past. (Note: this is the tough part).

2. Prepare to send a message asking for a note to be placed in a safe deposit box.

3. Realize that if your attempt will be successful, the note should already be in the box.

4. Yup, it's there.

5. Now: don't send the message.

Thats a similar paradox to Kirks reading glasses. The pawn shop got the glasses from Kirk, Kirk got them from Bones years later....So who actually manufactured the glasses??? Nobody!!

This paradox also exists in babylon 5 regarding the machine used by Sinclair to become Valen. Sinclair gets the machine from Delenn and then proceeds to take it back in time and leave it for her.....So Sinclair gets it from Delenn and Delenn gets it from Sinclair, the machine is never actually built

The Tony Show
05-12-09, 07:26 PM
*head asplode* :bonkers:

AMGoff
05-12-09, 07:46 PM
There's one big problem that goes to the heart of this argument.... That being trying to channel the "vision" of a man who died almost twenty years ago.

The Original Series wasn't so much about science or technical theories of any sort... Instead it was more a commentary of the times and a retrospective of pop-culture up to that point. If Star Trek were to have continued strictly adhering with Gene's "vision," then it would have ended after the "talk show in space" with The Next Generation.

Granted, that wouldn't have been the worst thing as it would have saved us all from Quantum Enterprise... but I digress. The fact remains that Gene Roddenberry's "vision" was completely fulfilled and that shouldn't be questioned since the man is dead. Dead men don't have visions, nor do they have opinions on what happened after their time. Frankly, I think he probably would have liked this new movie - why? Because it was never intended to change the "canon." There was no misrepresentation here... It was billed as a reboot from the get-go... as an alternative, but still very Star Trek reality.

Like I already said... The mechanism used to do so is tired and lazy, but the result was fantastic and it allows for new, great stories to be told that wouldn't otherwise... All without completely throwing away or trampling on Gene's "vision."

Here's a matter of physics for you... You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Personally, I like cake...

RightTurn
05-12-09, 07:51 PM
http://rachelmarsden.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/trekkies.jpg

RightTurn
05-12-09, 07:52 PM
http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/insp_expendability.jpg

ewill3rd
05-12-09, 09:06 PM
This thread is awesome... :lol:

My issue with altering the timeline is that Vulcan is now a singularity and a few billion Vulcans died.
That will really eff up the timeline if you ask me regarding anything to do with the Federation.

I liked all the series save Voyager. Not because of a female captain, but because it just sucked, bad.
I have never seen such a horrible assemblage of actors in my life. Even in some awful B movies I saw the story sucked but at least some of the people could act. Then they kill off the only person on the show that could act and replace her with a pair of boobs attached to arguably one of the worst actresses of all time. But I digress.

The whole time thing is annoying. It was fun for a few TNG episodes but it got really nuts in DS9 and just went off the chart in Enterprise.
I kind of liked Enterprise at first but they lost me with the whole Xindi thing (sorry if the spelling is wrong) and it seemed to drag on forever.
The Borg were awesome at first but a motion picture and half of Voyager about them really burned me on them too.

The movie rocks, go see it.
Split hairs if you must... lol

lawfive
05-12-09, 09:18 PM
There's one big problem that goes to the heart of this argument.... That being trying to channel the "vision" of a man who died almost twenty years ago.

The Original Series wasn't so much about science or technical theories of any sort... Instead it was more a commentary of the times and a retrospective of pop-culture up to that point. If Star Trek were to have continued strictly adhering with Gene's "vision," then it would have ended after the "talk show in space" with The Next Generation.

Granted, that wouldn't have been the worst thing as it would have saved us all from Quantum Enterprise... but I digress. The fact remains that Gene Roddenberry's "vision" was completely fulfilled and that shouldn't be questioned since the man is dead. Dead men don't have visions, nor do they have opinions on what happened after their time. Frankly, I think he probably would have liked this new movie - why? Because it was never intended to change the "canon." There was no misrepresentation here... It was billed as a reboot from the get-go... as an alternative, but still very Star Trek reality.

Like I already said... The mechanism used to do so is tired and lazy, but the result was fantastic and it allows for new, great stories to be told that wouldn't otherwise... All without completely throwing away or trampling on Gene's "vision."

Here's a matter of physics for you... You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Personally, I like cake...

Agree! Gene said his vision was "Wagon Train In Space:" totally sweet for the sixties, but "Wagon Train" wouldn't sell today.

Brett
05-12-09, 10:16 PM
My issue with altering the timeline is that Vulcan is now a singularity and a few billion Vulcans died.



Some good came out of it, the destruction of Vulcan likely precludes the birth of Tuvok and possibly the entire Voyager series. If only the black hole could have somehow erased it from all of our memories.

lawfive
05-12-09, 11:36 PM
Some good came out of it, the destruction of Vulcan likely precludes the birth of Tuvok and possibly the entire Voyager series. If only the black hole could have somehow erased it from all of our memories.
lol @ brett

Tell you what: the "Scorpion" episodes were good; let's keep those. The one where Janeway did her Ripley impersonation and kicked ass against the macro viruses on Voyager was cool. We can send everything else into the black hole.

ewill3rd
05-13-09, 06:37 AM
T'pol can stay though... Jolene Blalock... :drool:

CIWS
05-13-09, 07:42 AM
T'pol can stay though... Jolene Blalock... :drool:

T'pol would have been alive, now it's a question of if she's was one of the 12,000 survivors (although she'd be getting a little old).

lawfive
05-14-09, 02:09 AM
"If you're going to bring a whole new iteration of Trek to life, you could never put them in any real danger - because you already know how they either died or lived. So, we felt we had to find a way to make the future unpredictable, so whenever they're in these difficult, treacherous situations there truly is the risk of death."

http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/05/no-more-time-travel-in-star-tr.html

CIWS
05-14-09, 07:52 AM
"If you're going to bring a whole new iteration of Trek to life, you could never put them in any real danger - because you already know how they either died or lived. So, we felt we had to find a way to make the future unpredictable, so whenever they're in these difficult, treacherous situations there truly is the risk of death."

http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2009/05/no-more-time-travel-in-star-tr.html

Well thanks for posting that. It simply confirms the thinking of the folks they have writing the screenplays now and if that's all they have to work with in their imaginations it confirms I'm done with their future work.

"Orci said: "I don't think we ever need to talk about time travel again. In fact, in the end of the movie, the device that allows time travel is destroyed. So we're stuck with this universe we're in now."

They can't even think outside of that box :histeric:

lawfive
05-14-09, 08:26 AM
Huh. I don't understand, but whatev's.

Blackout
05-14-09, 12:03 PM
Going to see it again tonight with pops. Can't wait!

The Tony Show
05-14-09, 12:41 PM
Well thanks for posting that. It simply confirms the thinking of the folks they have writing the screenplays now and if that's all they have to work with in their imaginations it confirms I'm done with their future work.

"Orci said: "I don't think we ever need to talk about time travel again. In fact, in the end of the movie, the device that allows time travel is destroyed. So we're stuck with this universe we're in now."

They can't even think outside of that box :histeric:

I give them credit for doing what no other recent "reboot" has done, and that's working to fit the new film into established stories while still going in a new direction. Batman Begins simply gives you a brand new origin of Batman, wholly disregarding what's written in the comics and earlier films, and just expects you to accept it at face value that this is the "definitive" version- none of the other stuff up until now counted.

With JJ's new Trek, he at least provides an explanation as to why things are happening differently this time around, and in doing so adds back the tension and excitement of the unknown. As they said in the interview- the boring part of prequels is that you know who lives or dies, what treaties get signed and what planets are safe. This way, when a character is in a perilous situation you actually don't know what's going to happen.

Brett
05-14-09, 01:57 PM
This way, when a character is in a perilous situation you actually don't know what's going to happen.


I knew for sure that the dude in the red space/jump suit was screwed the second I saw him. :)

trukk
05-14-09, 02:03 PM
I knew for sure that the dude in the red space/jump suit was screwed the second I saw him. :)


HAHAH, Kirk, Sulu, and Ensign Johnson. 2 out of 3 make it....HMMMM.

-Chris

Blackout
05-14-09, 02:46 PM
HAHAH, Kirk, Sulu, and Ensign Johnson. 2 out of 3 make it....HMMMM.

-Chris

http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/insp_expendability.jpg

CIWS
05-14-09, 03:07 PM
With JJ's new Trek, he at least provides an explanation as to why things are happening differently this time around, and in doing so adds back the tension and excitement of the unknown. As they said in the interview- the boring part of prequels is that you know who lives or dies, what treaties get signed and what planets are safe. This way, when a character is in a perilous situation you actually don't know what's going to happen.

I can understand a desire on their part to find a way to reboot the series, but to say a new timeline was the only way to accomplish it, IMO, lacks a good imagination, especially in science fiction where almost anything can be possible. The TV series and the follow on movies were quite able to come up with ways to kill off main characters, hell they had to invent a way to bring Spock back after it was originally written to kill his character off in Khan. They wrote in an Omnipotent being for goodness sakes (Q) who can do anything. Kirk was "killed" in Generations and then brought back. Spock, Kirk, McCoy and several others all met death, and yet with Sci-Fi found their way back.
The already established original series barely spoke of the years prior to Kirk taking the Enterprise, leaving open an entire realm to invent stories and adventures around with a new faced young crew, alien encounters just waiting to be revisited in a new a different way, similar to what they did with Khan's character, which is considered one of the best.

trukk
05-14-09, 04:04 PM
I enjoyed the movie very much. With that said, by far the two lamest things about Star Trek are:

1) Time travel. This is a writers crutch. I hated all the episodes that utilized that theme, same with the movies.

2) Tacheons. This started the demise of the series as far as I'm concerned. Starting approximately in Voyager, they fixed everything, or overcame insurmountable odds in the 56th minute, with either a tachean beam, a tacheon burst, a tacheon infusion, or some other such nonsense. I think the writers got stale, and just made McTarded situations up, and then solved them at the end with some crazy techno-magic. Blech.

EDIT: 3) The Borg. I forgot to add this originally. They were cool for a few episodes, but by the 50th, and then the character on Voyager, they had beat that dead horse to the ground, then clean through to China.

Farscape is still BY FAR my favorite Sci-Fi show. Amsome writing on that show.

-Chris

CIWS
05-15-09, 07:01 PM
Farscape is still BY FAR my favorite Sci-Fi show. Amsome writing on that show.

-Chris

Writing can make all the difference. :thumbsup:

ewill3rd
05-15-09, 09:48 PM
I have to confess I was totally getting into it until I saw old Spock.
Once he started babbling about time travel I was kind of put off but I decided to suck it up and just enjoy the movie anyway.
My wife and I both can't stand time travel or alternate universe episodes.
A few of them are fun but for the most part I agree, it just screams lack of imagination.
With all the episodes and movies written around it though it doesn't surprise me that they went this route.
I am interested to see what becomes of it all.

77CDV
05-17-09, 11:03 PM
http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/insp_expendability.jpg

:histeric:

lawfive
05-18-09, 06:33 AM
HAHAH, Kirk, Sulu, and Ensign Johnson. 2 out of 3 make it....HMMMM.

-Chris

Ensign (and Chief Engineer) Olson.

Jesda
05-18-09, 06:36 AM
Back to the Future knockoff. Classic cars and all.

lawfive
05-18-09, 12:50 PM
Yeah, thanks for reminding me: nice Vette! I thought the sequence where Kirk destroyed it was a little gratuitous but I guess it served its purpose.

hueterm
05-18-09, 07:42 PM
I'd rather an old 'Vette get destroyed...than say...VULCAN!?!? ;-)

lawfive
05-18-09, 10:00 PM
Bah, Vulcan was full of foreigners. Said the conservative. Or not.

EcSTSatic
05-20-09, 01:38 PM
http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/insp_expendability.jpg


:histeric: From Galaxy Quest.....
[The crew is on a shuttle descending to an alien planet.]
Guy Fleegman: I changed my mind. I wanna go back.
Sir Alexander Dane: After the fuss you made about getting left behind?
Guy Fleegman: Yeah, but that's when I thought I was the crewman that stays on the ship, and something is up there, and it kills me. But now I'm thinking I'm the guy who gets killed by some monster five minutes after we land on the planet.
Jason Nesmith: You're not gonna die on the planet, Guy.
Guy Fleegman: I'm not? Then what's my last name?
Jason Nesmith: It's, uh, uh---I don't know.
Guy Fleegman: Nobody knows! Do you know why? Because my character isn't important enough for a last name, because I'm gonna die five minutes in.
Gwen DeMarco: Guy, you have a last name.
Guy Fleegman: DO I?! DO I?!?! For all you know, I'm "Crewman Number Six"!

hueterm
05-23-09, 01:39 AM
OK, my long-standing criticism of it is justified. Although, my previous primary beef that was destroying Vulcan has shifted to the new beef of being an overall time travel copout.

They were in such a hurry to extinguish most of the non-J.J. details, I'm surprised they "stooped" so low as to mention Cpt. Archer and his beagle -- that 'Enterprise' might taint their new '90210' meets BSG universe.

It was OK, but if the entire franchise were to have started w/this -- it never would have become a franchise...