To the alternate universe vs. alternate timeline: it doesn’t work that way. The theory quoted is that, when going back in time, a new universe is created form the point when you arrive. Even Uhura says that it was the time travel that did it. The only differences in this universe stem directly from Spock and Nero’s presence in the timeline. It changed a lot of things, but it can’t alter how the universe itself works.

All Orci had to say is that, by the time Spock Prime was in position to go back, it was already too late (as Vulcan was already destroyed), and that he’s going to die soon anyways, and his old universe is fine without him. If a fan can come up with that, he can, too.

No, we saw it work in the 22nd, 23rd, 24th centuries. There is no way something that fundamental was altered by traveling back in time. We even saw linear time work in Enterprise, which is still in continuity. To claim that all of this was a 20th century myth that didn’t happen is to say those universes do not exist. Which mean he’s been lying to us the whole time.

He really does believe that his universe is the only universe. To think I’ve been defending him amongst Trek fans. They were right. He wasn’t being faithful to the old canon while creating a new niche for his work; he’s just lying to try to keep the Trek fans happy. Sorry, guy, but we are not that stupid.

1) When I first saw the Kirk-car-cliff scene, it bothered me because I didn’t envision Captain Kirk as having been such a brat. Later, when I realized this wasn’t “our” Captain Kirk, but a version of him as he would have been with an entirely different upbringing (having lost his father), it made sense. It really sets up the new version of the character who we then see unfold. If we hadn’t seen that scene, I think the later scenes where he is acting vaguely “un-Kirk-like” (at the bar, etc.) would have felt more questionable.

2) I think the Spock child scenes are very strong in establishing, not just his mixed heritage (for that part of the movie audience who are new to ST), but the inner conflicts that that added to his childhood, which, as we see, really never go away, as that thread continues to play right to the final scene between the two Spocks. It also shows that he is capable of “losing it”, which I think again allows the later scene where Kirk goads Spock to violence not seem questionable as it might have if we hadn’t seen it foreshadowed in his younger behavior.

Judging by the redness of the star, however, one would conclude this explosion is nothing so spectacular as the movie suggests, a red star, more precisely, it could only be a (smaller) red supergiant, which would typically give just your run-of-the-mill Type II supernova explosion. This would have to be closer than say two dozen light years to be dangerous to anything (probably much closer), and would be fairly predictable, thus making it very improbable that they could be late at preventing it. In any case, its an awfully convinient plot element, for such biosphere-destroying supernovae events are rare in the extreme, it would happen maybe twice in a billion years of a planet’s history by some estimates, to get it to happen in near history of a key alpha/beta quadrant race, and their homeworld to be precise is very unplausable.

A black hole created with the mass of a romulan ship would have gravitational pull of – a romulan ship, not anything more. Light might have troubles escaping that pull on subatomic distances – for such a black hole is definitely of nuclear proportions – but enterprise should have no troubles at all. Its a common, and very irritating mistake of pop scifi to assume that black hole has some incredible gravitational attraction.

I just watched the film, and I didnt like it at all.

Excuse me from rude langue here but.. What the hell was that scene with Kirk driving a car over a cliff about? what did it tell about the character, other than making him look like an idiot? what had it to do with the plot? why was it there?

we have been constantly scratching ourselves in the heads over this, If my annalistic gifts serve me well there must be some scenes cut out that explains this a little more, but why did you then choose to cut that but not this? Why is it there? what do you want to tell with that little clip?

I liked the scenes with the little Spock better, but only a bit because I sit with the exact same questions about those scenes, what is it you want to tell and why are they there? you could in fact have cut them and only showed the grown up Spock with his mother and the teachers at the academy (Which was some brilliant scenes by the way) and have told just as much about his character, the child scenes didn’t add a thing.

Greetings From Denmark, we love you, even here on the other site of the planet.