I’d have preferred a flashforward at the end showing that Kirk is still alive in this alterante timeline, but I suppose that would have taken away any worry that Kirk might die in the sequels. Oh well.

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4383/timetravel.png

There has been a lot of Time-Travel in the Star Trek Universe.

Each time travel episode could cause a new divergence from the Time-line, just as the events of First Contact created the “ENT” era, this time travel incursion created the new universe in which we see in the movie, effectively a new Universe. (Funny, you don’t see fans bitching about seeing the “original” time-line from pre-First Contact.)

This could be taken further, perhaps the meddling of the NCC-1701 from TOS “Tomorrow is Yesterday” created a universe in which TAS didn’t happen. Perhaps meddling in “The City on the Edge of Forever” explains why there is no “James R. Kirk”

In my picture I assigned the Prime Star Trek universe a random number mostly because episodes involving Parallel Universes show that there are millions of other Universes and it’d be highly unlikely given chance that we’re observing “Universe 1″ (even so, the amount of meddling in time could create a thousand different universes.)

The other thing I’d like to touch upon is the fact that even in this radically different Universe the crew appears very much in the places they are in from the original time-line, perhaps the Universe has a self-repairing principle. It’s self-consistent to the best of its ability (after all, a universe with Paradoxes is unlikely to survive so a self-repairing universe would last longer, therefore assuming Universal evolution the only universe in existence now are those that can somehow self-repair or mend themselves in a way to wrap most things up so as to survive.)

Cheers,
Allynd.

It is my opinion that this movie was made to pander to people with ADD.

For gods sake, it won’t kill you to have a few minutes of thought-provoking drama. And, it’ll make the action sequences that much more impactful and tense. And, you’ll care more about the outcome of them.

It’s called “dynamics,” and they used to employ it in movies about 20 years ago.

Nor do I.

Nor do I feel that anything remotely close to lying was done in the promotion of this film.

And you’re right that you and I have different points of view.

I don’t believe that Lindelof was “lying” a few years ago about LOST, especially given that he admittedly had no idea as to what direction in which he and Carlton Cuse were going to take the show back then. I see it as simply having a change of heart since that time. In my mind, that doesn’t make him a liar—-it just means he changed his mind. I think he would only have been lying if he knew he was going to do it all along.

And Abrams has had no real involvement with LOST since the show’s first season, just as he had no significant involvement with ALIAS after the first two seasons.

“You do it all the time, liberally accusing people of lies and dishonest agendas, etc.”

First, this is grossly overstated and mostly stems from your recent perception that my musing about the conspiratorial zeal with which dissenters are quashed, which you infer as an outright accusation. Second, the only person I have even remotely accused of lying and dishonest agendas is Abrams and co. I recall the thread you are referring to, which stemmed from my disillusionment about being mislead about how different this film was going to be from what they actually delivered. This feeling was further heightened when it was publicly stated by Abrams that ABC asked him not to reveal too much Sci-Fi too early in LOST (and hats off to Abrams for putting the entire burden on ABC). This resulted in a general deception which JJ justified as necessary to keep the secret. Some outright lies were told to protect that secret. There’s no debate about that, whether JJ told them directly or not, producers for the show did. Is it then mere coincidence that a similar deception appeared to surround the reveal of just how extensive the changes were in this movie?

In any event, it boils down to a point-of-view. It is no secret that popular culture tends to see advertising and marketing and indeed sales in general as, people who attempt to make you buy things you don’t need. There are truth in advertising laws for a reason, because in a free market economy some businesses will stretch the truth if it helps increase profits. Drug companies in particular regularly engage in campaigns of deception parading happy actors who suffer from a named affliction who are now leading happy healthy lives thanks to the miracles of a some brand new trademarked and patented medication, which has a list of detrimental side-effects so long they now run in print so fine on one can possibly read it during the entire length of the commercial. Now is this a lie? Depends on your definition. If you are the marketing or advertising executive, you will probably say no and justify it by any means necessary (the benefits outweigh the negatives, it’s the public’s responsibility to read the fully disclosed side-effects, etc,). Nevertheless, it is definitely deception and to many, there is little difference from lying. Is telling a little white lie to protect the surprises in and therefore the viability of your story different from telling a little white lie to keep the government’s secret that they are waterboarding detainees in GITMO? Sure it is. Is it still a lie? Yes.

And at the end of the day, I am entitled to my opinion. I call ‘em as I see ‘em and the way I was raised says, if you withhold details it’s the same as lying, if you mislead someone to think something else it’s the same as lying. Any lawyer will tell you that on the witness stand. There’s a reason why the phrase “no comment” exists. It allows someone from saying anything. That’s a much better way to address a fans questions that get too close to your surprises.

Now I know full well you and I don’t see this the same way at all, which is why I can only agree to disagree with you. Then again I don’t work within a business model which solely exists to promote only the positive attributes of a client or product and conceal the negatives. I can only hope that people in such positions reject clients who have too many secrets so as to resort to misleading tactics.

You claim that you don’t actually or literally question that—-so what’s the problem?

“AND FOR THE RECORD, I NEVER SAID ANYONE WAS “TAINTED”. ”

Agreed. You suggested that they lacked objectivity.

“Further, there is no qualifier on my part about whether Trek fans, and not TrekMovie in particular, are good or bad for for their enthusiasm.”

You mean like suggesting that they are less objective due to such enthusiasm?

“Nor is there anywhere implied by my statement that I am better than anyone. ”

Only more objective….