Even More From Orci & Kurtzman On Linking Next Two Star Trek Movies | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Even More From Orci & Kurtzman On Linking Next Two Star Trek Movies August 13, 2009

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Orci/Kurtzman,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Another new interview with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman has emerged mostly focusing on Fringe, but straying into the next Star Trek as well. The pair talked a bit more about linking the next two films, but dismissed the idea that they could be filmed back to back. Details below.

 

Bob and Alex on the next two Trek films
The interview at IESB focused on Fringe and much of the talk of the next Star Trek movie covered recently reported ground about how their has only been one meeting and anything is on the table, but the discussion did pick up on the recent talk about tying the next two films together:

Q: Could it bridge to a third movie?

Orci: It was more the fact that we talked about the minute you start seeing how much Star Trek there is, and how many ideas everyone’s having, you could have enough material for more films. There is 43 years of material. That’s all that we meant by that. It has to cross your mind, but we’re not leaning one way or the other yet.

Q: How careful do you have to be not to overdo it?

Kurtzman: Well, it’s a balance. The approach for us, on the first movie, was, "How do we please fans? And, how do we please people who have no relationship to Trek?" That’s what we have to keep asking ourselves, constantly. That’s a very tricky formula because it’s hard. A lot of what makes die hard Trekkers really focused on Trek are those details that can sometimes be alienating to people who are not on the inside. So, that leads us back to, "What are the big themes and the emotional ideas?" That’s a language everybody speaks.

Q: Wouldn’t it be cost effective to do two Star Trek sequels?

Orci: Even if we conceived of stories that were connected, I don’t know that we’d be interested in shooting them, back to back. It’s not about doing them together. It’s just about what’s best for the story.

Bob and Alex’s Universes
The pair also talked about parallel universes, something they are using in Star Trek and have introduced into Fringe:

Q: What are your thoughts on parallel universes?

Kurtzman: I think they exist.

Orci: It’s the latest thinking on it, you know. Anything that can happen, does happen. That’s what Mr. Data said in Star Trek: The Next Generation. It seems to resolve a lot of the paradoxes that exist, but who knows. It’s an old idea now. It’s not a new idea.


Bob’s guide Data in "Parallels" explaining the universe(s)

For more from the pair read the full interview at IESB.

Comments

1. Captain Dunsel - August 13, 2009

Let’s hope we live in the parallel universe where the JJ’s Trek Sequels, whatever their content, (linked? Kahn? Mudd? A thousand other choices) are as successful and enjoyable as the first was.

First? Or did someone beat me whilst I was typing? :)

2. captain_neill - August 13, 2009

another article which tells us nothing. It seems to just point out they might connect the next two films.

Pleasing the fans and the mainstream auidence is a hard balance.

What I like about the parallel universe is that it does not wipe out 40 years of Trek history

3. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - August 13, 2009

I think they need to just pick a story and go with it. Time is ticking by fast.

4. I'm dead Jim - August 13, 2009

Still nothing.

Second?

5. Bradley1701 - August 13, 2009

Since timelines, etc. are different now, why not have a story where the primitive Borg of this time pick up the red matter explosion of Nero’s ship and plan an invasion to assimilate the Federation of this time because it believes it has red matter technology. It could be years after the meeting with Nero but before TOS as it would take the Borg time to get to Federation space. Just an idea.

6. boborci - August 13, 2009

even if we had something, we wouldn’t be talking about it this far out! Just treading water in those damned interviews.

7. Kobayashi Maru - August 13, 2009

This snap back on Classic Trek is also a great opportunity to examine where are culture is heading now!
Remember, the best Trek of the 60’s addressed issues that were in the forefront of it’s time, so to be strung up by “canon” or sentimental attachment to characters like Khan or Harry Mudd, defeats the ingenious way these writers gave us our cake and let us eat it too..
The “Undiscovered Country” is the true “Final Frontier”, so let’s see where this can go, liberate the writers’ imaginations…. let them create!

8. Holger - August 13, 2009

@ boborci: How long does it usually take to develop and write a story?

9. assimilator47 - August 13, 2009

As a fan, i just sit back and wait. It’s much too soon to speculate on anything. First, let’s all buy the dvd that is coming out and relive the great movie again. It was a fun movie, very well done with some great acting.

Let’s focus on that for now and maybe next year, let’s see what everyone has to say. My two bits is that if we stay for now in this new and exciting alternate universe, we must focus on new stories with a second known story in the back, but a bit off to keep it alternate.

Let the writers focus on new adventures, we know the crew, we want to see the ship more in action and put in to danger, but it´s a big brandnew universe.
Don´t look back on the told stories in all series and movies, but give Kirk, Spock and crew new adventures that will keep everybody coming back for more.

The danger of comparing with the old series and movies can endanger the new success of the franchise, so please: no more Khan, Q, Borg, or whatever anymore. Just focus on what happened in the original series and use some elements as a second storyline, but no more than that.

New adventures, new dangers, thát is what we want to see.

10. sunfell - August 13, 2009

All I want is a good story, and when I leave the theater to feel that I did not waste a couple of hours and a handful of money.

You guys did it once, and I went on that ride several times. I am confident you can do it again.

11. boborci - August 13, 2009

8. Six months for a first draft of a script from the minute you start thinking about it.

12. sunfell - August 13, 2009

Bob- I read that John Hughes wrote the script for “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” in a week. That blew my mind.

I suppose that your muse may vary when it comes to script writing. I know that when I’m creating and writing, even when I am on fire, it takes a lot longer than doing anything else.

It’s a tough job- and I admire folks who can do it consistently, and make a living at it.

13. assimilator47 - August 13, 2009

I sincerely respect both writers, as they have to keep so many details in mind when writing the script. It is mindboggling. The first movie was very well done with all the small details and eastereggs, it was a lot of fun as a bonus for the fans.
Also, i think the story moved very well, it didn’t ‘hang’ around in scenes with too much dialog, but is was fastpaced from one moment to the next. Again, my compliments.
Just create new adventures, that will keep the audiences coming back for more, new generation and diehards alike.

14. Danpaine - August 13, 2009

“DS9 IN PRIME TIME – August 13, 2009
I think they need to just pick a story and go with it. Time is ticking by fast.”

Incorrect. Do you want a rushed, half-fleshed out product just for the sake of seeing a movie faster, or do you want a well-thought out plot, solid story line and compelling dialogue? Time is ticking by fast for what? Watch some reruns in the meantime.

15. Sybok's Secret Brother - August 13, 2009

Looking forward to these! I’m going to see XI again this weekend. They are playing it at a wonderful brew-pub here in Portland. Pizza, Beer and Trek!
Bob – come on up and I’ll buy the beer…

16. Christine - August 13, 2009

Looking forward to anything they release, but I can wait for another Star Trek movie. ^^ I’m happy with what I’ve got; I’m not dying of anticipation. xD

I can’t wait for the next season of Fringe! Can anyone tell me when the season starts up again on FOX? :3 I’ve been trying to fill the gap by watching X-Files repeats on a DVD I checked out from the library.. ^^;

17. Porthos X - August 13, 2009

#11–bob, i agree with other posters who said in order to remain true to the core ways 60s Trek operated movie stories must reflect whats going on in our time, as 60s Trek did… what would go best would be a borderline hostile alien culture has extreme politicial instability which threatens everyone and Kirk and crew must help calm things down there, and along the way must have his first battle with the Prime Directive and whether it’s relevant in a universe without the culture who inspired humanity to adopt it (the Vulcans)..that or a dissent in the ranks story where ‘a rogue, secretive faction within the Federation’ is quietly powergrabbing with plans to seize control of the Federation from within and turn it into something similar to the Mirror Universe Terran Empire (i.e. Section 31) and Kirk and crew must stop/expose them…of course the latter would have to be done with much caution so as to not spoil the optimistic view of the future…also how about real representation of the gay community in the nuTrek? maybe make Sulu gay in this timeline as a tribute to Takei? How about a McCoy romance? perhaps Emony Dax? Jadzia/Ezri’s precedent host to the Dax symbiont? it was said that she had a romance with Bones? And why not bring back Gaila in the 2nd reboot film? everyone wants her, and theres no definite thing saying she was killed in the fleet massacre at Vulcan…or introduce Carol Marcus? (though make her name Caroline Marcus here to sync her name up with the times)…just ideas:)

18. David B - August 13, 2009

Bob,

All I would say is try and think of the big picture, work out where you want the conclusion of this new film series to be and then work toward it in 1, 2,3 however many films it takes to get there.

Star Wars 1-3 was obvious we all knew what was going to happen eventually, Star Trek doesn’t have those boundaries but I guess all this alternate goings on has to lead to some conclusion.

Will everything be corrected eventually?
Will the future now change forever?

19. Sci-Fi Bri - August 13, 2009

so, bob and alex, your movies this year [trek and transformers] might make a billion dollars this year… whats your cut, 20%?

that’d be sweet, huh?

20. Julie - August 13, 2009

If I can get Spock Prime and Kirk Prime together again I will be happy and the new crew can do whatever they want.

I am on my way to see the movie for the 8th time.

21. Mitch - August 13, 2009

So I think it’s safe to say that you at least have a plot in mind. Is there any chance that Shatner is going to be apart of the movie?

You could actually end a very difficult topic right now if there is no chance. If you have no intention of using Mr. Shatner, it would be nice to get that out of the way now.

22. Sci-Fi Bri - August 13, 2009

21:

you know that will never be out of the way…. lolz

23. assimilator47 - August 13, 2009

#21: if there even wás any reason for bringing mr. Shatner back, than certainly not as Prime Kirk. Way, way, wáy passed station. If, for some reason, Mr. Shatner was granted a cameo, then perhaps as Kirks (Chris Pine) grandfather, giving some advice in a scene.

But really i don’t see any reason to do that. These are new times, a new universe, new cast and Prime Spock was just a (very well done) threat to tie in all Trek that was before and respect 43 years of fandom.

They (writers, studio, TPTB) should purely focus now on the new cast, the new ship and new storylines.

24. Geodesic17 - August 13, 2009

@boborci —

If you are looking for some real life inspiration for thinking about the multiverse, I have to recommend Oxford Professor, and author of The Fabric of Reality, David Deutsch.

http://www.qubit.org/people/david/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/summary

25. RD - August 13, 2009

#2. captain_neill wrote: “another article which tells us nothing. … What I like about the parallel universe is that it does not wipe out 40 years of Trek history”

Actually no, it tells us something very significant. For all of his emphatic insistence that MWI QM would always apply as long as he is involved with Trek, Orci might be back-peddling, or at least softening on adhering to the letter of that quantum theory. “It’s an old idea now” indeed! LOL

As for the parallel universe not wiping out 40 years of Trek history, well, it’s not canon. Nothing on-screen confirms that this new timeline has not overwritten the old one, at least from 2233 forward. But nothing confirms it has either.

However you choose to look at it, those 40 years happened, so they haven’t been wiped out and are available at Amazon.com for repeated visitations. Either way, it’s sort of a moot point because the chances an official movie or TV series returns to the Prime universe anytime soon are quite low, IMO.

26. ss - August 13, 2009

I heard they’re going to do an adaptation of “All the Myriad Ways” by Larry Niven. Should be entertaining.

27. LH - August 13, 2009

boborci: “Just treading water in those damned interviews.”

They ask because they care :-)

Six months seems pretty good, considering you two have others things to do as well.

28. Ralph - August 13, 2009

Bob, do you belive in a new Star Trek show after the third film?
And please, no more time travel.

29. Mitch - August 13, 2009

22-23, it’s always possible if they really want it, but even without it being Kirk Prime, they could establish something cool with an older JTK there. Plus, it would make for an interesting draw just to have Shatner and Nimoy together for what really would be the final time.

However, that said, I recognize the odds of them using Shatner in any capacity are small. I don’t like it, but I get it. Yet, unlike last time, they have a chance to learn from past mistakes and nip this in the bud. If they have no intent of using Shatner in this movie, a comment here would put an end to speculation right now.

I really believe that a good chunk of the backlash over the Shatner issue was the fact that the producers/writers dragged it on themselves, rather than just simply stating, “no.”

30. Azrael - August 13, 2009

Hey Bob, many thanks for taking the time to drop by here.

Re the brand new versus familiar story elements debate: has any thought been given to an approach with an opening featuring the end of the previous adventure (a la James Bond, Indiana Jones) which could feature familiar elements before launching into a brand new story? I can’t help but think a retold ending of a familiar story, e.g. The Doomsday Machine, Ultimate Computer, would make one hell of an opening to the next film.

31. No Khan - August 13, 2009

Kirk Prime is still in Nexus like Guinen. So all they need to do is have him wish to return to a time when he was young & he can interact with the new crew.

32. Mitch - August 13, 2009

31–that’s true. And I believe that IF they wanted to use Kirk prime, they could. Interestingly enough, the rules of the nexus would actually help in explaining an age difference (if Kirk exits at a time before his birth). But if they ever wanted Kirk Prime in the movie, they NEVER would use the nexus, even if it is the perfect tool.

Of course, with our luck, they would do what New Voyages did and just have a temporary aging thing for the Pine Kirk.

Generations really hurt this franchise.

33. RD - August 13, 2009

I seriously doubt they are giving ANY consideration to using Shatner.

However, thanks to Damon Lindelof’s increased involvement there could very easily be a significant and effective flashback element to the film (a la LOST) which might incorporate Shatner as Kirk (which also presumes Nimoy’s return as well since he is the only one who has those memories), or as Kirk’s relative.

But I wouldn’t hold my breath.

34. John from Cincinnati - August 13, 2009

31.
I was going to bring up the nexus too. The nexus is still pretty mysterious on how it works. Guinan said an echo of everyone in the nexus remains there. Who is to say the nexus can’t cross dimensional planes and visit different parallel universes?

BobOrci – Wouldn’t Prime Spock feel responsible for the destruction of Vulcan and the death of this mother for failing his mission on Romulus?

35. THX-1138 - August 13, 2009

Hey folks–

Here is a bit of information; Kirk Prime is in the nexus in the Prime Universe. These movies are in the AU. Who’s to say that kirk dies on Veridian II anymore? Maybe Spock can utilize the Guardian of Forever and visit James T. in the future as he would appear had he not died? Maybe they bring him back to the past to help with a dilemna thatonly the future Kirk can solve.

Having said that, I don’t really care if Shatner is in any more Trek movies. i’m just throwing some discussion fodder out there. Sorry if someone already brought this up.

36. Pork And Beans - August 13, 2009

Lets just hope it’s better than JJ’s first effort at a Star Trek movie (imho!) :-)

37. THX-1138 - August 13, 2009

And please disregard the numerous typos above. It was an all out Typonian attack.

38. Kobayashi Maru - August 13, 2009

Why are people still stuck on restoring “Kirk Prime” (sic) to the franchise?
Kirk is back! He’s in his prime . and his future, albeit alternate timeline/universe, is an open book! There are more adventures garunteed, so let’s take a rest, relax, and allow a little surprise…

39. RD - August 13, 2009

#35. THX-1138 wrote: “Who’s to say that kirk dies on Veridian II anymore? Maybe Spock can utilize the Guardian of Forever and visit James T. in the future … Maybe they bring him back to the past …”

NOT IF ORCI is still sticking to his MWI QM story. None of those things are possible in the Alternate Universe since they don’t conform to the latest greatest scientific theories regarding time travel.

For that matter, neither does the Nexus. So for all practical purposes, it doesn’t exist in the Alternate Universe, at least as we’ve been led to understand it.

40. Ben - August 13, 2009

Thanks for stepping by and answering here and there.

Please use Trek XI Universe with NEW stories and have some small nods here and there to previous Star Trek (like Archer’s Beagle, Tribbles, why Bones is called Bones etc)

and just because you can – ANDORIANS…

I’m looking forward to it, no matter what.

41. Tanner Waterbury - August 13, 2009

@ 24 I dont know, that seems to be some fairly heavy reading, you think you two (Bob and Alex) are up to that task of reading that stuff?

42. Geodesic17 - August 13, 2009

@ 24

Sure. Why not? David Deutsch even checks his email. I got a response from him on a completely random question related to theology and the multiverse.

Deutsch is probably a Trek fan too.

43. Geodesic17 - August 13, 2009

RE: 42
@ 41 (oops )

Also, David Deutsch seems to recommend The Labyrinth of Time: Introducing the Universe by Michael Lockwood.

There is a lot of Trek lore to explore, but why not also get inspiration from the latest science writing available? =)

44. SB - August 13, 2009

#29:
“I really believe that a good chunk of the backlash over the Shatner issue was the fact that the producers/writers dragged it on themselves, rather than just simply stating, ‘no.'”

I have to say I found this very amusing. The way I remember it, the conversation went more like this:

FANS: Is William Shatner going to be in the movie?

ABRAMS & CO. :No.

(Long pause.)

FANS: We couldn’t have heard that right. We’ll give you another chance. Is Shatner going to be in the movie?

ABRAMS & CO. : Sorry, but no. He’s not.

(Intense, religiously-fanatic slow burn.)

FANS: WHAT!!! WHAT DO YOU MEAN HE’S NOT GOING TO BE IN THE MOVIE!!!!

ABRAMS & CO. : Well, we thought about it, but we really couldn’t think of a way to —

FANS: YOU’RE GOING TO RUIN STAR TREK!!!!!!

ABRAMS & CO. : Um, if you’d just let us finish…

FANS: YOU’RE COMPLETE JERKS! YOU’RE GOING TO DESTROY THIS MOVIE!!! WHY DO YOU HATE STAR TREK? WHY DO YOU HATE US?? WE’RE GOING TO FIREBOMB YOUR HOUSE!!!

ABRAMS & CO. : No, look, we think if you just wait till we finish the movie and then go SEE it…

FANS: THIS IS A DISASTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Repeat continuously for 12 months.)

ABRAMS & CO. : Sigh…

45. Newman - August 13, 2009

So on Tuesday I squeezed in between one not so small man on one side and a screaming crying kid on the other side on my transatlantic flight from the UK to Canada. I did not expect it to be a pleasant journey.

That all changed when the flight attendant told me the in-flight movie was going to be Star Trek!!!! What a great flight!!!!!

46. Mitch - August 13, 2009

35–You have an interesting point. A lot depends on the nexus. Would time travelling back and preventing someone from entering the nexus in the first place, make it so they NEVER entered the nexus? Generations is unclear, since that’s exactly what happened to Picard. In fact, it’s arguable that changing history so that someone doesn’t enter the nexus has no effect on the timeline of the person who entered the nexus. After all, history WAS changed so that Picard never entered the nexus.

38–because this movie changed WAAAAY to much to satisfy the desire to undo Generations. They wiped the good AND the bad.

44–your memory isn’t very good.

It was more like:

Shatner–I’m not in the movie.

Fans: Darn

Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman: We’re desperately trying to get him in the movie.

Fans: Awesome–there’s hope!

Shatner: I’m not in the movie.

Fans: Darn

Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman: We’re desperately trying to get him in the movie.

Fans: Awesome–there’s hope!

Shatner: I’m not in the movie.

Abrams/Orci/Kurtzman: What do you want? Generations happened. We couldn’t do it despite making a movie that involves time travel and changing history. We can kill characters that didn’t die and destroy planets that weren’t destroyed, but we can’t get Shatner in the movie despite again, we’re using time travel.

Fans: Darn

47. THX-1138 - August 13, 2009

I still say Shatner was in the movie.

48. david - August 13, 2009

#8 boborci

Take as much time as you need. We’ll wait.

49. sean - August 13, 2009

Are people seriously bringing up the Nexus? Most everyone disliked Generations (even TNG fans) and whined about it killing off Kirk, yet now I see it frequently referenced as some kind of get out of jail free card to bring old Kirk back. Let us never reference that movie again (after all, by the time Nemesis came around it seemed the writers had forgotten it *cough* Data’s character development *cough*).

Besides, we’re in a new universe now. Who says Kirk dies on Veridian III in the first place? Old Spock may well have planted a subtle hint in Kirk’s brain during their mind meld that will cause him to avoid that launch ceremony for the Enterprise-B. Besides, Bob & Alex have confirmed that the Starfleet of their universe doesn’t hire starship captains as incompetent as Harriman, so even if Kirk *is* on the Ent-B it may not turn out the same way.

50. ProperTrekkieUK - August 13, 2009

Shatner isn’t Kirk anymore, he is too….chubby…and doesn’t even look like he did when he was Kirk…period! However Kirk is in the film, amazingly well played by Pine…so I think everyone should leave it at that!

Take you’re time guys, as long as its good no-one minds waiting!

51. Anthony Pascale - August 13, 2009

RE: Nexus
not going to happen. Read last three questions in my last interview with JJ Abrams

http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/07/exclusive-interview-with-jj-abrams/

52. Shawn - August 13, 2009

Boborci

Good job for the first movie! And J.J did one hell of a job behind the camera. The actors were also excellent. This said, even before i heard that they were going to reboot trek… i was praying they would. There is alote of good material, good story lines in trek. I love star trek. But it was getting lame ( especially the directing… too conservative) Compared to the other shows out there. They tried with enterprise but it got cANCELLED ! TOO BAD CAUSE THE ROMULAN WAR WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE!!! VERY NICE. Now you made this movie for everyone, especially everyone in 2009. We fans have to move on… it’s 2009.. the prime universe is gone. Since the last movie CANON DOES NOT APPLY anymore, everything that happens now is new. Stay in this universe no more time travel. ( no shatner… not as older kirk anyway! Unless it suites the soryline. cameo perhaps) With this new movie you brought new fans in the franchise.. that was exactly what it needed. What they know is the new universe… we cant go back again and again… You can do what you want, make it smart , action pack, funny relevant for today and fans old and new are going to be please… Like you did with the first one. Take your time but do it fast lol!

Thanks to you guys and the production team for the reboot. Best movie of the summer!

Have fun writing and everthing will be fine!

Shawn

53. CJS - August 13, 2009

Nexus = stupid. Just say no to the Nexus
Shatner. Nimoy. Next Movie. Don’t need them. Time for the kids to fly on their own.

@12. sunfell – I knew John Hughes*. John Hughes was a friend of mine*. Bob Orci is no John Hughes. Neither is that other guy. Neither is JJ.

*not true, but that’s the line when you want Quayle someone.

54. THX-1138 - August 13, 2009

#49

I said the same thing in #35. Talk about mind melds. Although I had a problem with Typonians that you seemed to have avoided by using your “proof-read” shields. I’m hoping mine are installed in two weeks.

55. AJ - August 13, 2009

Geez, with all this talk about the Nexus, why don’t we bring back “God” from TFF and visit young Sybok on the new Vulcan colony?

I suspect JJ and the team do not need to “bottom feed” to find what they are looking for. Star Trek offers up a great deal of good stuff to “spark” great new stories, and the Nexus is not one of them.

56. toddk - August 13, 2009

keep the new look, but try to shoehorn in elements of the original series to get new fans interested in the original series to boost sales. i think the bottom line is way more important to paramount right now so that star trek maintains its comeback and remains revitalized, cameos by mudd, familier klingons , i would like to see a journey to babel story with andorians again as the antagonists (minus vulcan of course) Kirk can show his diplomatic side, perhaps spock prime could also mediate disputes, once again joining new spock and sarek…wouldnt that be weird.. it could happen since new spock and kirk already have met spock prime as well as sarek spotting spock prime at the academy ceremony, coming up on the dvd.

57. Mitch - August 13, 2009

Anthony–good link. I think that while the nexus opens so many doors, I can understand the lack of desire to use it. I also think that the LAST question in your Abrams interview is what opens the door to the main question I asked Mr. Orci.

To prove that we hang on every word they say, in a subsequent interview mentioned, Mr. Orci mentioned that they may NOT use original actors again. Fair enough.

While I agree, even with 53, that Shatner and Nimoy are not needed, virtually NOTHING is needed. It’s all a question of whether they are WANTED, and I think they would do nothing but good for any Trek story. They are legends. It’s hardly a sign of no confidence, and Pine would be the main guy anyway.

But that’s the whole point. I feel that because Abrams opened the door to using Shatner in the next movie, and Orci didn’t seem that enthusiastic, I’m kind of hoping of ending the “will they or won’t they” issue right away.

If Mr. Shatner is not going to be in the movie, it ends the debate right now if Mr. Orci simply says, “we are working on the story, but we have no plans to bring in Mr. Shatner in the next film.”

That’s so much better than, “we’re desperately trying to get him in the movie,” and failing.

58. Bill Peters - August 13, 2009

Mr. Orci,

I agree Andorians would be cool, Also seeing some Klingons on screen would be cool like Kang and what not! Also maybe intorduce Lt. Riley and Nurse Chapel on Screen! Love the film can’t wait tell the DVD comes out!

59. Trekee - August 13, 2009

I dunno, it’s obviously a chore to be asked the same questions over and over for Bob and the gang, but these sort of snippets are what us mad obsessive types use as oxygen.

Personally, I’m delighted that they won’t do two film back to back. With the exception of LotR I can’t remember any other series of films pulling that one off.

And Bob’s answer again shows just how much we are being pandered to. I enjoy a good pandoring.

60. Bill Peters - August 13, 2009

Mr. Orci,
Some Gorn would be cool as well and please try to get a name out too us as soon as possable, calling it Star Trek 2 is cool and all but having a offical name would be cooler! it would be cool if you take your own Ideas and mix it with ours! You guys Rock!

61. dmduncan - August 13, 2009

Just tell a great story, realizing that accurate science can boost the drama, and never lose sight of the fact that the characters are the most important thing.

And please don’t write stories that hinge on one particular interpretation of Quantum mechanics that may well end up being nonsense. The MWI and the Schrodinger’s Cat problem, which is supposed to flow from the wave function collapse presumed in the Copenhagen Interpretation, and which the MWI was designed to avoid, might well both be wrong.

62. The Angry Klingon - August 13, 2009

I wonder what part, if any, the Organians will play in the new universe. The Organian Peace Treaty in the original series seemed to get forgotten about soon after it was initiated as the Organians certainly didnt live up to their promise to enforce peace. I think an Organian story line with a deeper story and epic space battles would be big screen worthy and a great way to re-introduce the Klingons.

63. dmduncan - August 13, 2009

62: ” The Organian Peace Treaty in the original series seemed to get forgotten about soon after it was initiated…”

One of my biggest complaints about TOS is over its radically episodic nature, by which I mean that each episode seemed to have nothing at all to do with the episode that came before. There was hardly any continuity that united the Trek universe at all. And I think that’s a mistake the writers should not make for the new movie franchise.

Tell stand alone stories, yes, but keep them related as well. The sequels don’t necessarily HAVE to depend on the previous movies, but they should have threads that carry over so that people who saw the previous movies will recognize them, and it will deepen the experience of the sequel for them, and people who did not see the previous movie will not feel like something important to know has been left out of the sequel, and which they need to know to enjoy the sequel.

64. Driver - August 13, 2009

I really need to be informed whenever a new paragraph for the screenplay is written. And when the next paragraph will be written.

65. RD - August 13, 2009

#49. sean wrote: “Bob & Alex have confirmed that the Starfleet of their universe doesn’t hire starship captains as incompetent as Harriman”

No, they hire captains that have even less experience, who cheated their way through starfleet academy, throw morals and ethics to the wind – denying both Vulcan and the Federation valuable prisoners from the future and the opportunity to try them for their crimes. Captains who rely on “fate” to succeed in their missions, purely by serendipity.

But to your point, they do it with a lot more hutzpah than Harriman, for sure.

66. RD - August 13, 2009

#57. Mitch wrote: “I think that while the nexus opens so many doors, I can understand the lack of desire to use it”

Abrams said with humor “we were not going to [bring up the Nexus]” and I would speculate that is because it did not fit with Orci’s specific view of MWI QM he has insisted will apply to Trek as long as he is part of it. Whether a bad one or not, The Nexus violates the laws of MWI QM and therefore cannot be used as a plot device.

Frankly, I see that we are stuck in the alternate universe from now on, with no going back to the Prime universe in the foreseeable future. MWI QM rightly limits the ways in which other characters from the Prime universe can be brought into (or exit) this one – I mean isn’t one duplicate character enough in this universe? Whether one wants Shatner in this movie or not, this actually allows for a much more intelligent way of bringing his character back into the film vis-a-vis flashbacks – a device well known to broad general audiences which the powers-that-be have stated is the target demographic.

If you are an avid Trek fan who must prognosticate what the sequel will be about, think of it this way: they will likely not do anything that requires a pre-existing knowledge of Trek to understand, much less a plot device which was received poorly by the fan base the first time around – unless they can make it better (an ideology they seem to excel at). If Shatner makes an appearance, it will be via some simple-to-explain means the audience already has some grasp of. Since Orci has stated he intends to adhere to MWI QM, that method will not involve time travel or inter-universal travel.

67. Daoud - August 13, 2009

#65 Jim Kirk didn’t cheat. He changed the conditions of the test. And it took more work and planning to do it. It’s like being asked to factor x^2 + 2x + 1 and factoring Ax^2 + Bx + C for all possible integral values of A, B, and C instead. And at no point was Nero or any Romulan in the brig of the Enterprise as a prisoner (and it was unlikely that unless they came willingly they ever would be).

So, we’re left with you saying that Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan was a terrible movie, because in it we learned everything you just crapped on. Who’s got the chutzpah?

#60 I’d lobby for calling it Star Trek Mark Two. Of course, they referred to ST’09 as Star Trek Zero often in pre-production, so perhaps this is really Star Trek One? Mark Two has the advantage of being a trekkian term, and ST’09 can easily be retrofitted as “Star Trek Mark One”.

Hmmm, could a BSG movie be called BSG Carom Two? :)

#general I’ll still say over and over. ||: Garth :||. Mark Lenard’s Romulan Commander. That’s not bottom feeding, that’s what being seven years before TOS’s original time frame and the tectonic shift in Vulcan-Romulan relations brings you.

68. the Quickening - August 13, 2009

I think it’s pretty obvious what the next film(s) should be about: The Doomsday Machine of course! A two film epic about these machines roaming about the galaxy, creating havoc, destroying planetary systems, would just be fantastic; not only dealing with how to stop them, but investigating their originals and exploring where they came from, and dealing with political conflicts within the Federation regarding them. Of course, I’m prejudice because that particular story happens to be my favorite action oriented TREK episode.

69. Chris Doohan - August 13, 2009

In a parallel universe, Bob and Alex may already be done with the script.

Can’t wait!!

70. John from Cincinnati - August 13, 2009

RD.

It is clearly evident you don’t understand how multiple universes are created in quantum theory. According to Orci, any possible outcome creates another universe. You say the nexus can’t exist because it was a part of the original timeline. Then how do you explain there is still a James T. Kirk, Scotty, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, Chekov, Sulu, Pike, Sarek, Amanda, U.S.S. Enterpise, Federation, Klingons, Romulans etc? Virtually every player from the original timeline is there and only the aesthetics have changed. There is still a Guardian of Forever, time travel around the sun etc. I contend it is possible for anyone from the alterntate universe to time travel. Therefore, like science fiction, anything is possible. Someone can go back and stop Nero the second he comes through the black hole, thus creating yet a third alternate universe, indestinguishable from the Prime universe. Paramount will probably want to milk the cash cow they have on their hands and “live” in the current universe for as long as they can but the Prime universe is still out there and crossovers happen all the time in Star Trek (see Mirror, Mirror, Parallels, Yesterdays Enterprise etc) In fact it would be very Star Trek to go back to the prime timeline again someday and very un-Star Trek not to.

71. dmduncan - August 13, 2009

67: “Jim Kirk didn’t cheat. He changed the conditions of the test. And it took more work and planning to do it. It’s like being asked to factor x^2 + 2x + 1 and factoring Ax^2 + Bx + C for all possible integral values of A, B, and C instead.”

Yes. “Cheating” is what those of limited imagination would call it.

Kirk outgamed the test and those who conducted it. By actually finding a way they hadn’t thought of to beat the unbeatable test, Kirk in fact showed them by example that their thinking was stale and too limited. Kirk was demonstrating that you can’t set up a no win situation applicable to all people, because one person may be more ingenious than the next, and where one would fail, another—like Kirk—would not.

One man’s no win situation is another man’s moment of glory.

Kirk didn’t cheat. He gave the test the pie in the face it deserved.

72. dmduncan - August 13, 2009

70: Clearly. If you understand MWI you know that it posits that for any possible outcome to an event there is a universe where the possibility is actual, and that is the way by which the MWI avoids the wave function collapse-Schrodinger’s Cat “problem” presumed to follow from the Copenhagen Interpretation. So the Nexus could exist in every alternate universe.

Which is NOT to support going back to the Nexus. I hated Generations, and I think the Nexus was a cheesy idea that should never be revisited.

73. RD - August 13, 2009

#70. MWI QM doesn’t work that way because Orci says it does – he is stating his application of exiting theory. And there’s much more to it. If anyone fails to understand how quantum theory works it’s you.

What Orci says is that MWI QM is the basis for his application of time travel in this movie. The alternate universe we are now witnessing is a branch of the so-called Prime universe which was created due to Nero’s incursion. That is how time travel occurs under Orci’s interpretation of MWI QM. He has stated emphatically that there would be no sling-shotting around the sun in order to time-travel.

IF the Guardian of Forever exists, it does not function the way you understand it from previous canon. It can only create more branches off the origin universe. Further, MWI QM states unequivocally, thanks to the linearity of physics, that that multiple universes cannot communicate with each other. This means no transferring transmissions, objects, or people. Therefore, once a person has transited into a new branch, they can only ever travel into yet another branch – they can never go back to an existing branch.

Your main assumption results from the belief that everything that happened in the previous 40 years of Trek is still relevant to ST09, when Orci has explicitly stated it does not. He does not concern himself with the past, but has acknowledged that certain aspects of canon will not work with MWI QM.

Therefore, no Mirror Universe, no anti-matter universe, and if there is a Guardian of Forever, Atavacron, temporal anomalies or a Nexus then the result is a new branch alternate universe from which the travelers can never return.

Orci, properly sees Trek as fiction. He uses the specific example likening the last 40 years of Trek using the scientific belief that the world was flat and told stories accordingly. Now that we know the Earth is round and apply new scientific principles, many of the old stories will no longer be relevant.

It does not bother Orci, why should it bother us.

FYI, Orci’s statements are all NON-CANON. Nothing about MWI QM is presented on screen. If you ask the average movie audience what the effects of time travel are on the timeline at the end of this movie, they would tell you that Nero went back in time and changed the timeline, wiping out everything from 2233 forward in favor of the new events. And they would not be wrong. They would know nothing of the Prime Universe. For the uninitiated audiences of ST09, THIS IS TREK. There is no other universe for them to consider than the one they see presented by Abrams. Everything that happened during the last 40 years of Trek (except Enterprise) happened in another timeline which has since been erased for them and is no longer relevant to their Trek experience going forward.

74. AJ - August 13, 2009

69:

Sorry/Happy to say it, Chris, but in an alternate universe, your dad is still Chief Engineer of the Enterprise. No bloody A, B, C or D.

75. RD - August 13, 2009

#71. dmduncan wrote: “Kirk didn’t cheat. He gave the test the pie in the face it deserved.”

Try that on your income taxes and see what it gets you.

From now on, anyone who cheats at anything, taking steroids to increase their baseball performance, lying on their job application, rigging an election, cheating on their medical boards … I’ll call those people innovative and imaginative.

76. Brian Kirsch - August 13, 2009

Thanks for the link Anthony. I think all Trek fans should read that interview over again, or maybe for the first time. It may have been missed amidst the flurry of the opening.

Most telling for me was this quote from Abrams:

” Why in a million years would we not want him in the movie. It would only be better to have him in the film. But even before everyone was talking about ‘Trek canon’. Everyone was like ‘we want you to follow canon’. Now I know, in fact the first sequence of the movie, veers hard left from Trek canon, but that is the point. As much as we could we wanted to be consistent with the thread that had been established. A lot of the same people who were saying ‘you must follow canon!’ were saying ‘Shatner has got to be in the movie!’ Dude, how do you do both of these things!? We could have created some sort of time travel detour thing, but literally when you start going down that path, especially with Mr. Shatner saying he did not want to do a cameo, it became this whole thing that would literally be a reinvention of our reinvention. It is just too hard. ”

Take notice that he said “Mr. Shatner saying he did not want to do a cameo” Enough said.

The whole “nexus” thing was a steaming pile of crap to begin with. A poorly written pile of crap. Am I the only one that still wonders to this day how Kirk and Picard are riding horses one minute, and OUT of the Nexus, and exactly when and where they want to be the next? Seemed very easy and convenient for people “trapped” in the Nexus.

77. AJ - August 13, 2009

71/5:

I think the reminiscence in the Genesis cave was a better way to convey Kirk’s solution to the KM than actually showing the test as they did in ST09. It was certainly more dramatic.

In ST09, Kirk wasn’t given one second to make his case. Also, his “unique” solution allowed him, as faux Captain, to turn the KM into an easy exercise. We should have seen him fail it as well.

It was still entertaining. I love Zoe’s reaction shots.

78. AJ - August 13, 2009

75:

RD:

We don’t have income tax in the 23rd Century. Do we? Awww, Crap.

79. captain_neill - August 13, 2009

RD

Star Trek Online will be in the Prime Universe

Vulcan is in the game

80. captain_neill - August 13, 2009

Guess I am not a big fan of these writers

I will stick with the movies because the new one but I just hope they dont screw it up.

The new film has its flaws and to me is far from perfect and falls short on what is Trek’s best.

What I do love also aout the film is that it has given Star Trek the shot in the arm it needs and made it made it popular, I think the lst time Star Trek was this popular was in the 90s when TNG was at its peak.

81. RD - August 13, 2009

#79. –– STO is not Canon.

82. sean - August 13, 2009

#65

“No, they hire captains that have even less experience, who cheated their way through starfleet academy, throw morals and ethics to the wind – denying both Vulcan and the Federation valuable prisoners from the future and the opportunity to try them for their crimes. Captains who rely on “fate” to succeed in their missions, purely by serendipity.”

I’d rather they hire someone with the guts to act when necessary than a whimpering incompetent like Harriman who merely looks sheepishly around his bridge waiting for someone with a brain to tell him what to do.

Putting that aside, I’ve made my position on Nero’s ultimate fate very clear elsewhere. Simply put, Kirk didn’t deny anyone anything. He offered assistance and it was forcefully refused. He then gave Nero a metaphorical boot to the face, much as he did Kruge after a similar offer. The possibility of Nero escaping was far too great a possibility to ignore.

I’m not sure at what point Kirk relied on fate to make his decisions. He relied on Spock Prime and his intuition (as his Prime counterpart frequently did), but that was hardly fate. Spock Prime did seem to feel the universe had some sort of course-correcting entropy, but that wasn’t made clear.

And as I recall, Kirk Prime did a fair amount of cheating in his day. In fact, he never learned to ‘face death’ and its consequences until he was a middle-aged man.

83. dmduncan - August 13, 2009

73: “Further, MWI QM states unequivocally, thanks to the linearity of physics, that that multiple universes cannot communicate with each other. This means no transferring transmissions, objects, or people. Therefore, once a person has transited into a new branch…”

You are incoherent. If the “multiple universes cannot communicate with each other,” and “this means no transferring…objects, or people,” then how can both objects and people get “transited into a new branch” at all?

“From now on, anyone who cheats at anything, taking steroids to increase their baseball performance, lying on their job application, rigging an election, cheating on their medical boards … I’ll call those people innovative and imaginative.”

Do you bother to do anything but speed read through people’s comments and misunderstand them? Not only did you fail to understand and answer 70’s objection, but you did the same thing to mine.

Shut up already.

84. dmduncan - August 13, 2009

Bob Orci, if you are still reading:

Earlier I mentioned my hope that the science in the next film would be more accurate without harming the drama. For example, and to point out a shortcoming in Trek ’09: The “black hole” (it actually should have been a white hole) that Nero came through should have stayed open. It was inexplicable and did not add to the drama of the film (or at least the scene could have been written differently so that the excitement came from rediscovering the scene of the still existing and open white hole versus watching the white hole re-open) why a single black hole would have stayed open from Spock’s perspective, and yet closed and then reopened 25 years later (in the exact same universe, apparently) for Nero to rediscover it. I didn’t see any drama gained by doing it that way instead, as I already said, to have had the drama come from Nero finding the location where it still was open. And it didn’t make a lot of sense. It seemed contrived.

That’s a situation where you could have pleased both people who are more critical about the science and people who don’t care about it much at the same time.

85. Blake Powers - August 13, 2009

Been awhile since we’ve had this many comments. Ahh, feels good!

86. dmduncan - August 13, 2009

P.S. If the answer is that because we didn’t want the idea of going back to the original universe, that would not have been possible anyway, since white holes (theoretically) are the opposite of black holes and eject matter where black holes suck it in. That’s why you’d need a white hole connected to a black hole, so that what’s sucked in by the black hole would be ejected somewhere else by the white hole.

What the drama of a white hole would have accomplished, however, is the idea that the original universe still exists, even if no one can go back to it.

87. GarySeven - August 13, 2009

Mr. Kutzman said:
“A lot of what makes die hard Trekkers really focused on Trek are those details that can sometimes be alienating to people who are not on the inside. So, that leads us back to, “What are the big themes and the emotional ideas?” That’s a language everybody speaks.”
Bob, I’m not sure I agree with what your co-writer said. I am generalizing, but I believe the mass audience tends to want summer blockbuster, action-oriented entertainment. I don’t think they want to think about humanity, social commentary, etc. But hardcore Star Trek fans want Star Trek to be about something, to make us think, to make a point through the sci-fi metaphor. This is not a language that everybody speaks. If it was, the “blockbusters” would not be movies like GI Joe, etc.
The point is that to please the fans, you may need to have more substance than that which entertains the mass audience, who are often only looking for an entertaining night out, and nothing more. My hope is you guys will give us a thought-provoking product of quality, even if it means a drop in quantity. That is the real balancing act, I believe.

88. RD - August 13, 2009

#82 – I don’t disagree. I would prefer Kirk to Harriman.

#82. Sean wrote: “The possibility of Nero escaping was far too great a possibility to ignore.”

The onscreen evidence seems difficult to ignore. Nero’s ship had a black hole forming within its superstructure, literally pulling the ship apart from the inside. Nero wasn’t going any where except into that black hole, which he would not have survived without a structurally intact and shielded ship as when he entered the black hole the first time. They were dead men.

Also, the boot to Kruge face was because Kruge was going to take Kirk down with him. Kirk had no choice. In this case, Nero was dead in the water, unable to further harm the Enterprise. Kirk had several choices aside from firing on a defenseless and crippled enemy.

89. S. John Ross - August 13, 2009

#67 says: “Jim Kirk didn’t cheat. He changed the conditions of the test. ”

Kirk PRIME changed the conditions of the test so that it could be beaten. Alt-Kirk simply cheated. That’s all he did. He cheated, and did so in such a shit-eating frat-boy way that the single most inexplicable line in the movie is the dumbass who says “How did that yuppie douchebag beat your test?” (I’m paraphrasing a bit) when the correct line is “How did that yuppie douchebag hack your test?” … because no sentient being would have mistaken what happened as “beating” the test, just some brat who installed a Left-Left-A-Select-B cheat code.

It’s the old tradition of making everyone else in Starfleet look like an idiot so a lazily-written Kirk can look “good” by comparison. See: most of the other Star Trek films.

And of course, the answer to the idiot’s erroneous question is: “Because he is the chosen one.” But Alt-Spock can be forgiven for not knowing that; I think he was living under the delusion he was living in a universe where the Blood of the One True Kirk doesn’t have magical powers.

90. RD - August 13, 2009

#83. dmduncan wrote: “You are incoherent. If the “multiple universes cannot communicate with each other,” and “this means no transferring…objects, or people,” then how can both objects and people get “transited into a new branch” at all?”

Perhaps you do not understand quantum theory as well as you appear with your liberal use of key terms. The quantum event creates the branched universe at the exact moment it occurs. The very term “branch” means that there is a physical connection between universes at that moment in time. Matter is not being transported between one universe and another, but rather matter is continuing on, but on a different path, like a fork in a river which is created at the exact moment you arrive. The universe is duplicated exactly and you continue off in a different direction.

Here’s where the science fiction comes in … the red-matter induced quantum event creates a bridge to the past. Matter entering is sent back in time. At the point it emerges on the timeline, we’re back into quantum theory, and the universe branches creating a universe in which your matter continues on at a time in which you otherwise did not exist.

#83. dmduncan wrote: Do you bother to do anything but speed read through people’s comments and misunderstand them? Not only did you fail to understand and answer 70’s objection, but you did the same thing to mine….Shut up already.

First: why don’t you let #70 answer for himself whether I understood his post or not, rather than assuming you understood it and I didn’t, not to mention libeling me in the process.

Second: I stand by my commentary after re-reading your post. If I misunderstood it, it is perhaps because your post was incoherent. Or I simply misunderstood it. Either way, you’ve done absolutely nothing to help me clarify my understanding, as I have above on part one of your post.

Third: Hard to see how “shut up” is relevant when we are communicating in a written medium.

91. Mitch - August 13, 2009

66–The nexus is canon. MWI QM is not, whether the writers choose to believe that or not. In Star Trek, the nexus is viable.

Regarding the Kobayashi Maru–yes, it’s arguable that Kirk did it differently than Kirk Prime, but Kirk Prime’s solution was not made official canon. I guess since Kirk Prime was wiped out, might as well make the solution used in the book Kobayshi Maru (and also re-used in the computer game Starfleet Academy) canon. That’s a rare case where I accept something from a book to be canon.

In both cases, Kirk couldn’t accept failure, even though their personalities are somewhat different. The core is the same, and the reaction to failure is the same.

It’s unacceptable.

Kirk Prime, in the book, reprogrammed the test so that when the Klingons heard they were up against CAPTAIN KIRK, they backed off and became compliant.

In the prime universe, Kirk got a commendation for original thinking.

THAT was the biggest failure of the presentation of the test in the movie. Starfleet should have patted Kirk on the back in that hearing.

And it makes sense that Starfleet WOULD feel that way.

What was this test?

It was a test to see how you react in a no win scenario.

How can you fail a test that is more psychological than anything else?

Kirk’s answer to the test was a refusal to accept it. So he changed the rules–something that came in handy throughout his unparalleled career as a captain.

92. Thomas Jensen - August 13, 2009

For those of us who desperately care about the details of the original Star Trek series, it’s all in the presentation of the details, blending old and new, without alienating the general audience.

I’d think the incredible thing to do in the next film would be to find a situation whereby the antagonist wouldn’t be anything like what has been done before.

Star Trek VI did it and departed somewhat from the formula of the villain of the week (movie) and merged action, political intrigue and emotion into a thoughtful and exciting film.

The ideas are out there, the writers just have to put them all together. It’s a huge responsibility, as they’ve built something up and now they’ve got to keep it together.

As an older fan who absolutely loved the original Star Trek, I sincerely hope they can do it!

93. RD - August 13, 2009

#91. Mitch wrote: “The nexus is canon. MWI QM is not, whether the writers choose to believe that or not.”

Yes, I would agree with that. My intent is to point out what the writers have said they will do and how they interpret canon. Since they are creating the next several films, it cannot be ignored.

“#91. Mitch wrote: “So [Kirk] changed the rules–something that came in handy throughout his unparalleled career as a captain.

This gets phrase gets tossed-out a lot. Aside from the Kobayashi Maru, where else has Kirk actually “changed the rules”? I mean seriously what does that even mean? Bones said, “He cheated.” and Kirk corrected with a euphemism: “I changed the conditions of the test.” (has “changed the rules” even ever been spoken?)

Bones got it right, he “cheated”. So what … Kirk has “cheated” death? How would you even change the conditions of a difficult situation? Get the upper hand? Cheating doesn’t really apply because all is fair in love and war and you can only cheat if there are agreed upon rules, for say: combat.

The fact remains, Kirk was supposed to take a test so that Starfleet could analyze his ability to lead. He defeated the results of the test and broke the rules in the process. It seems like it was a bad idea of Harve Bennett’s (or whoever had it), designed to be a metaphor (along with many other metaphors) for the challenges Kirk faced in TWOK, and it was made worse by Orci/Kurtzman.

94. CarlG - August 13, 2009

@1: Hear, hear! I like that universe! It’s Exciting!

@44: It’s funny, yet terrifyingly accurate.

@86: “Blood of the One True Kirk”… Ha! :D

I still don’t quite see what makes Chris Pine et al. so terribly “yuppie”, other than being young, clean-cut and good-looking (and if that’s what you think yuppie is, then yuppie me up).

95. CarlG - August 13, 2009

@91: “Spock’s Brain” is also canon. Ponder that for a bit. *shudder*

96. OneBuckFilms - August 13, 2009

91 – Nexus is obviously Canon.

As for Quantum Mechanics – Multiple Worlds Theory, according to Parallels, it IS canon, and by implication, is true for the movie.

It makes sense that Starfleet would be in a pickle when it came to how to deal with Kirk cheating the Kobayashi Maru.

There’s probably two sides fighting each other:

On one hand, we have the fact that he broke regulations and sabotaged a test, and invalidated that test.

Then they consider that he found a way around an unwinnable situation by thinking creatively, and using his intelligence to implement the plan.

It also shows his determination to succeed when it seems impossible, which is something that caught their attention.

They busted his chops because he broke the rules, then decided to relent.

I’d imagine some admiral thinking: Damn, I wish I’d thought of it first. His plan was genius, and well executed.

97. Will Johnson - August 13, 2009

I think it would be neat if for some reason they had to return Spock Prime to “his” universe. That way, it would leave it open for JJ based TV as well as continuing the existing TV shows from the Spock-returns point forward.

98. OneBuckFilms - August 13, 2009

97 – I’m not so sure. Except for hard core fans, there would be a lot of confusion.

It is fun to think about though.

95 – Star Trek V is Canon as well. Not quite the shudder, but close :)

99. Sean4000 - August 13, 2009

Anthony, your Ghostbusters II spoof of the Trek logo is one of my favorite things on the site! Well done!!

100. Julie - August 13, 2009

The reason I want “Kirk Prime” back (at least as a subplot) is that he should never have been killed off in “Generations.” Even Shatner said Kirk was only killed because Rick Berman wanted him dead. And I have heard that other producers realized that it was a mistake after it was done.

There are a lot of Kirk/Shatner fans who just need some closure. Having Kirk Prime and Spock Prime heading off into the sunset together would be terrific.

I do love the new cast and look forward to their adventures.

101. SChaos1701 - August 13, 2009

I think that if they bring up Kirk Prime, him and Kirk Pine should do this as a duet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU2ftCitvyQ

102. Son of a Maui Portagee - August 13, 2009

#93.,

Let’s see if I follow you.

You agree that Spock Prime and Nero both entered the prime black hole at different trajectories and points in time in the Prime universe, and that that is canon. You also agree that they both pop out in the past of the same alternately created universe separated by a time of 25 years and this is canon.

But doesn’t MWI QM demand that Spock Prime’s black hole time travel exit should have emerged into an alternate universe separately created from the one Nero emerged – especially given the consideration that each went back in time a different number of years? I mean Nero’s time travel was “longer” because he went back 25 years farther.

Haven’t the writers painted themselves into a corner? How can they say this new universe now only obeys MWI QM when it clearly wasn’t in effect when the two time traveling different length prime ships both emerged into the same alternate universe?

103. Author of The Vulcan Neck PInch for Fathers - August 13, 2009

I think I’m getting a headache.

Here’s an idea – let’s just have Orci and crew write the story, and see what happens.

104. dmduncan - August 13, 2009

90: “The quantum event creates the branched universe at the exact moment it occurs. The very term “branch” means that there is a physical connection between universes at that moment in time. Matter is not being transported between one universe and another, but rather matter is continuing on, but on a different path, like a fork in a river which is created at the exact moment you arrive. The universe is duplicated exactly and you continue off in a different direction.”

This has nothing to do with what we saw at the beginning of the movie! You are confusing what happened with current MWI theory. Stop doing that. The sort of time traveling quantum decoherence we saw in the film is a fantasy offshoot of current MWI theory. So what you are blathering on about is what I’d call the RDI/ROI/MWI, which in translation means the RD Interpretation of the Roberto Orci Interpretation of the Many Worlds Interpretation.

Clearly there was far more than a MWI type decoherence taking place in the movie.

So when Spock opened the black hole, that event itself caused the decoherence to occur and the universe to split. Spock and Nero clearly went into the black hole on one side and came out somewhere else. And when they came out, they clearly did not come out the same place they had left, because Kirk hadn’t even been born yet when Nero arrived. So if Spock and Nero didn’t end up in the universe they came from, they arrived some place different. That = travel between universes. They didn’t merely continue on with a typical quantum decoherence type event proposed by MWI, they left one place and went somewhere else.

So it wasn’t a mere decoherence of universes to realize different PRESENT possibilities in separate directions that we saw in Trek ‘09, it was a time traveling loop that caused a quantum decoherence in the PAST, and then a jump from the Prime universe to a decohered PAST universe that the black hole caused, which would indeed be “communication” and travel between universes. They never would have entered their past. They only could have entered a sudden copy of their past which the black hole caused, so it does indeed mean a different universe entirely that they went into.

102: “But doesn’t MWI QM demand that Spock Prime’s black hole time travel exit should have emerged into an alternate universe separately created from the one Nero emerged – especially given the consideration that each went back in time a different number of years? I mean Nero’s time travel was “longer” because he went back 25 years farther.”

Actually, if it were plausible that the black hole closed up for some odd reason and then opened again, then it would seem it would have to open in a different universe than the one Nero had entered. But the black hole should have stayed open! For it to open once for Nero, and then close again, and then open again for Spock in the same universe 25 years later was an arbitrary plot device that could have been done better.

Unless Orci/Kurtzman are proposing “smart” black holes that know when to open and shut their exit points based on who is queued up for entry.

105. dmduncan - August 13, 2009

However, since decoherence depends on what the actual possibilities are, and splitting occurs as frequently as there are possibilities to be realized, then according to the MWI, even if Spock entered a different universe than the one the Nero he knew entered, he may well still have entered a universe where there was a Nero out to get him for the exact same reason.

But the arbitrary opening and closing of the black holes is still inexplicable.

106. Jim Nightshade - August 13, 2009

#68 quickening–nice idea re doomsday machine but-new voyages james cauleys first new episode used them and the guardian(was strange to see a shuttle fly thru the guardian ala stargate) and alternate timelines/future with them almost wiping our starfleet etc-it even had a cameo by william windom/decker and showed a shuttlecraft hiddenbib a garage-gotta hand it to cawley and his crew-they beat everyone at rebooting tos-haha–then again of gods and men also had a villian destroying vulcan so who knows-cawley deserved his cameo in the new movie he is the uber tos fan–I wish Paramount would collect the various fan projects put em ob a 1 or 2 dvd set as alternate fan trek and sell them giving fair amounts of the profits to the hard working people who made em–then again rhe new movie is also alternate trek–maybe call it quantam leap trek hehe

107. Jim Nightshade - August 13, 2009

opps sorry for typos-stupid fake keyboards and stylus pens using my nintendo dsi

108. Blake Powers - August 13, 2009

Bob Orci-
Thank you for telling us you’re treading water.

109. RD - August 13, 2009

#104. You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual. Nobody knows exactly how MWI QM would manifest itself, especially when it comes to time-travel, if for no other reason than they cannot be observed (hence no communication between universes). The fact that the beginning of the film depicts what happens is why it is called Science Fiction.

1) MWI QM IS NOT CANON.
2) Orci has said his Trek universe will adhere to MWI QM
3) Any stories written by Orci will follow MWI QM
4) You can interpret the film any way you want because nothing is canon.
5) How you interpret the film does not change the science on which Orci is basing his fiction.
6) MWI QM eliminates certain previous canon possibilities which do not fit the new science.
7) Anything you see in the film should conform to MWI QM

Now lets take your supposition of what you think happens at the beginning of the film … the Kelvin is already en route to investigate an unexplained phenomenon near Klingon space. THE UNIVERSE HAS ALREADY BRANCHED prior to the moment the movie started. History has already changed as the Kelvin never went to explore a lightning storm near Klingon space in the Prime universe. What you keep “blathering on” about is the science fiction of depicting how two ships transited time via a quantum event.

Nobody, nor anything transversed from one universe to another. ST09 began following the quantum event which split off the alternate universe. We NEVER saw the quantum event, nor the alternate universe branch. What we saw was the fictional manifestation of the end result of the quantum event which allowed for the fictional time travel. Spock & Nero split off the Prime universe and into the Alternate universe as it was created.

Everything depicted easily conforms to MWI QM as accepted by the majority of the scientific community. But it is the depiction which is science fiction. Your theory is exactly that: your theory of how it happened. You are making stuff up for which there is no evidence on screen, or indeed in quantum mechanics, while at the same time countering what the writer’s tell you happened.

While what the writers tell us off-camera is not necessarily canon, it does govern how they will be formulating stories as the film series continues in their charge. Orci understands MWI QM just fine. Isn’t it more reasonable to believe the film depicts fictional events which are cinematic manifestations resulting from MWI QM theory, than it is to say the depiction of those events prove some kind of hybrid, theory created solely by Orci (and never discussed by him) to allow possibilities otherwise discounted by MWI QM and which Orci has expressed no interest? Of course.

BOTTOM LINE: The only reason this matters is because it means certain plot lines will not be possible. For those who want to see old canon options which directly oppose MWI QM, like: The Guardian of Forever and the Mirror Universe, then you had better hope Orci changes his mind, or MWI QM loses favor within the scientific community before next year. Anything else is wishful thinking. But you are free to believe anything you want.

110. RD - August 13, 2009

#102. Son of a Maui Portagee wrote: “Let’s see if I follow you.”

LOL, I think you follow just fine. As I explained in #101, the problems are in the depiction of the science Orci attempts to apply to his story. ST09 is no different than the last 40 years of Trek, much of what the writers skip over on screen has to be filled in by the fans.

First, I don’t think we ever saw the event horizon close after the Narada exited it. Did we ever see the Jellyfish come out of a newly formed event horizon? If not then I would posit that the event horizon never closed and that what was only a few seconds in the Prime universe was dilated to 25 years on the alternate universe side. In other words the “wormhole” was a creation of science fiction, which was the manifestation of the quantum event which split the alternate universe branch in the first place. It wasn’t a particularly good one. Nevertheless it can be retconned to fit MWI QM just fine. The theory it was intended to represent, according to the writers, remains solidly intact and in effect and by their words, adhered to for all future stories they create.

111. RD - August 14, 2009

#95. CarlG wrote:“Spock’s Brain” is also canon.
#96. OneBuckFilms wrote: “Nexus is obviously Canon….according to Parallels, [Multiple Worlds Theory] IS canon, and by implication, is true for the [ST09]“
#98. OneBuckFilms - Star Trek V is Canon as well.

The distinction being made is sort of “Old-Testament”/”New-Testament” – or old-canon/new-canon.

Since everything after 2233 has changed, Spock’s Brain, TFF and Parallels are not canon, in the new universe, because they have not happened yet, and may never happen. The Nexus is a bit more problematic. It was not encountered until 2293 and it is not clear if it actually existed prior to that time or where it came from. Therefore, it is entirely possible it does not exist in the Alternate universe.

However, if the Nexus does exists in the Alternate universe it must adhere to MWI QM should it be depicted during Orci’s tenure, which means the nature of the Nexus would be different and one would not be able to transit time with it.

As for Parallels, it did not strictly adhere to MWI QM, but rather presented it as a theory to explain what was happening and merged it with other QM theories. Using Orci’s analogy of the flat-world/round-world application of science to story-telling, this would be akin to believing the world was round but at the center of the universe. Whereas ST09 gets both right.

Even though Parallels introduces the concept of MWI QM, they continue to time travel within a linear timeline of the same universe in subsequent episodes and films. With respect to ST09, while they could be operating under MWI QM, they could just as easily have erased the timeline. The method employed is not canonized in the film and therefore, open for debate as it is not otherwise dictated by a single method which precedes it in the franchise.

112. Anthony Thompson - August 14, 2009

The next movie should be about a resentful Cupcake and his fellow minions plotting to overthrow the arrogant interloper. Kidding.

Not kidding: Bob says 6 months from idea to 1st draft. He himself has stated that they have just begun researching and sifting through ideas. It’s mid-August. The math would tell you that a script by X-mas is a big maybe. Then it’ll need to undergo budget and story revisions, etc. Not to mention the naming of a director (who will have no small say in the final draft of the script. Summer of 2011 for the sequel? I doubt it.

113. S. John Ross - August 14, 2009

#111: “The distinction being made is sort of “Old-Testament”/”New-Testament” – or old-canon/new-canon.”

That’s brilliant; I think that’s the name we’ve been looking for to describe what has been so far nebulously “AbramsTrek” or “New Trek” or “09 Trek” or “Trek Reboot” or “Alt Trek” etc …

It’s Star Trek: The New Testament

Yeah :)

114. Son of a Maui Portagee - August 14, 2009

#110.,

But aren’t the time dilation effects that slow things down and stretch them out limited to going into the event horizon? In other words, aren’t the time dilation effects on emerging from an event horizon limited to speeding time up – not stretching things out for 25 years?

115. screaming satellite - August 14, 2009

OT but do people know that Bryan Singer is producing and directing a new Battlestar Galactica movie? (not connected to the rebooted tv show)…its just been announced that hes gonna direct

he came close to doing a BSG tv show in 2001 but it fell through leading to the Moore tv show…so in a way its not dissimilar to what happened with ST TMP….the proposed tv show falls through – then emerges as a big movie a couple of years later (only in BSGs case another version got made inbetween)

Singers tv BSG was gonna be a sequel to the 70s show so i guess if its gonna be a film version of the disguarded 2001 tv show the new movie will have ties to the original series (like the new Trek…)

gonna be a bit strange having just had the acclaimed Moore series (and isnt its prequel gonna be airing soon?)…then a big budget movie version kinda based on the original show……but then thats the same scenario Singer faced with Superman…

strange news anyway…i guess BSG must be close to his heart like Supes (and trek…)

116. scifib5st - August 14, 2009

No.7 Kobayashi Maru.. You make a very good point. Trek has always been the best when it holds a mirrow up to current conflicts and it makes us stop and exzame what we do and how we think. (toss out the idea of confounting us with a black President) Show us a furture where people of all faiths respect each other and work together, now that’s shocking!

117. Admiral Shatner - August 14, 2009

I think that if the two are linked it should be like this:

Enterprise discovers some threat of some sort. Whatever, BUT NOT KHAN!!!. Enterprise spends a lot of 12 trying to subdue it. Lots of explosions. And hopefully some plot and character development, which 11 lacked and has been a defining factor in most previous Star Trek. Anyway, they are beaten. So Kirk-Pine orders the ship to a mysterious planet near the edge of the galaxy. Nobody is sure what he’s doing, so when they get there they ask him what he’s doing he says. I’m getting some help.
From Who?
Me.
Then they beam Kirk up.

That leads to 13. Where both Kirks solve the problem. I think they could write some funny stuff with two Kirks on the bridge.

118. Brett Campbell - August 14, 2009

boborci — isn’t it nice to know that there are so many pinch hitters on these threads who can come in and work on the script if you need a sick day? ;-)

119. KingDaniel - August 14, 2009

You know how the movies should be linked?
By having the wonderful Mr Arex in both of them.

You hear me Bob?
Mr F’n AREX!

(Just don’t make him into a Jar Jar)

120. Galaxy Quest 2 - August 14, 2009

Re;contribution to earlier parallel universe conversation.
We (world history)exist in linear time.
Outside of linear time is eternity.
Linear time was created .

121. Kobayashi Maru - August 14, 2009

Every action has a reaction.
It can be argued that when the Enterprise- E crew followed the borg into Cochran’s era, and helped him realize the warp flight, an alternate time tangent was placed into being that gave the world Archer, instead of April as the Enterprise’s first captain, Pike’s injuries still allowing him administrative duty, a new course of time that can keep Kirk off the Enterprise- B and away from the bloody Nexus.
It would have been interesting to see Spock Prime go back to his own time where we discover that Kirk was never lost on the “B” or if he was and did go to the Nexus, and help Picard, the bridge he fell from was not compromised.
Little details contribute to the ripple effect as well, I think by virtue of this temporal event that yielded the alternate crew, Kirk Prime is out there in the 24th or 25th century by now, waiting for his friend and shilling for Priceline.com.

122. Mitch - August 14, 2009

93–changing the rules basically means pulling victory out of certain defeat. For example, in ST2, Khan’s sneak attack had Kirk dead in the water. But Kirk knew the shield code and bought them enough time to get out of there alive.

Stuff like that.

As for the Kobayshi Maru–you cannot cheat on a test that has no rules. This was not a test on how to lead. It was a test on how someone reacts to failure. Kirk’s reaction was unique–he couldn’t accept it, and because of that, managed to defeat something that was not meant to be defeated.

95–yes, but you have to take the good with the bad.

96–Let’s go with Parallels as a canon example of MWI-QM. Fine. Where was the time travel in that episode? What is also canon is that you CAN change the timeline. You do NOT create an alternate universe. While there would be an alternate universe where the time travel never happened, within that specific universe, you CAN change history. One timeline per universe. There are numerous in-canon examples where that happens. That’s why based on canon, the prime universe is gone. While there clearly could be a universe that is identical in every way to the prime universe except Nero was stopped and didn’t affect it, the very prime universe we followed all this time is gone.

An interview by the writers is not canon.

They had their chance to put MWI QM explanation like that in the movie. They didn’t.

123. Kobayashi Maru - August 14, 2009

Spock Prime is a living artifact of the Prime universe, and he is from a future, does he violate “Prime Directive” by remaining in the current tangent?

124. the Quickening - August 14, 2009

106. Interesting. Didn’t know that. An original story would be a better approach anyway. The chances of a doomsday story being done are pretty slim now that I know that Cauley has already mined this area. Thanks, Jim.

125. Dom - August 14, 2009

Look at it this way: The Nexus was a weird piece of galactic tinsel whose realm existed outside of the natural universe. When Kirk got sucked into it in Generations, it created a new alternate time-line which we picked up on in the TNG section of the film.

However, from that point of view, in the real prime timeline Kirk never got sucked into it and TNG continued in a different direction after All Good Things.

The version of TNG with the modified Enterprise, dumbed down characters and pointless destruction of the 1701-D on account of shockingly lax security measures is therefore not the one from the TV show. So there we go: Spock Prime comes from the TV version of TNG and Kirk never died on Veridian III!

Good luck to the gang with their next Trek film(s). Let there never be another mention of time travel! ;)

126. MOTU - August 14, 2009

boborci:

You guys are obviously TNG fans. Would you ever consider writing and/or pitching for a TNG film? Don’t know if the studio would want a TNG movie competing with the new series, but maybe something that was direct-to-DVD or a tv mini-series to wrap up TNG?

127. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 14, 2009

The most organic way to bring Shatner into the next movie would be to have him play Tiberius Kirk, as I and several others have been saying for months. It’d be nice to have Shatner in it, but I’m not holding my breath. It doesn’t seem to be one of Team JJ’s priorities. I’m looking forward to seeing the Shatner extra on the Blu Ray!

As much as I enjoyed the movie and the new actors, my favorite scenes were still the ones involving Spock Prime, especially the Delta Vega scenes. That mind meld was perhaps the best one ever!

128. P Technobabble - August 14, 2009

Here are the things I feel need to be in the next film:

1) Kirk’s shirt being torn.
2) Some part of Enterprise isn’t working.
3) Kirk hanging from a cliff.
4) Spock discusses pon-far.
5) Chekov proclaims a Russian invented matter.
6) Uhura is frightened.
7) Scotty is absorbed in a tech manual.
8) Kirk’s shirt being torn.

Without these moments, how could it be Star Trek?

129. Third Remata'Klan - August 14, 2009

I’m all for a third movie, but please, don’t end the second with a “To Be Continued”, or anything like that. I’m really starting to hate blatant sequel setups in tentpole movies. (Marvel is getting absolutely terrible for this.) It’s all fine and dandy to have plot threads that could easily be picked up in a sequel, but let each movie have it’s own ending, for cryin’ out loud.

As for Shatner….

Give it a rest, folks. He’s dead, Jim.

130. Anthony Thompson - August 14, 2009

118.

I’ll only do it if I get a percentage.

131. Brett Campbell - August 14, 2009

130 — Okay, how ’bout A Piece of the Action? ;-)

132. Daoud - August 14, 2009

Well, we’ll always have Paris. Tom Paris. I hear Robbie would be glad to direct ST’11 if asked…. ;)

133. S. John Ross - August 14, 2009

#129: “I’m really starting to hate blatant sequel setups in tentpole movies. (Marvel is getting absolutely terrible for this.)”

Marvel has? I don’t remember any “To Be Continued …” type endings in the recent Marvel movies I’ve seen?

(Unless you mean the easter-egg post-credits tease scenes … but those are for the hardcores who stay after the movie is over, so that wouldn’t count)

134. Blowback - August 14, 2009

@133

I seem to recall the end of Xmen #2 was doing setup work for Xmen #3… Am I remembering correctly?

135. AJ - August 14, 2009

128:

My 10:

1. A bureaucrat on board with Scotty at the helm while K&S are on the planet
2. Kirk having “a few hours as a man” with an alien woman
3. Spock recoiling during a mind-meld and yelling “PAIN!”
4. A classic 3-way debate among Kirk, McCoy and Spock
5. Scotty up a Jefferies Tube jerry-rigging something
6. A klingon on the viewscreen saying “Prepare to be boarded.”
7. Chekov screaming
8. Kirk winning a fight with karate chops and dropkicks and a stuntman who bears no resemblance to Chris Pine.
9. Kirk expressing his love of the Enterprise and calling her a “woman.”
10. Multicolored “food” chunks from the food processors.

136. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 14, 2009

I’ll be fine with the sequel as long as they don’t change the uniforms!!! The return of the beautiful primary color tunics was very, very welcome after years of bland 24 century jumpsuits (yuck)!

Is it just me or does conversation really dry up around here without Closettrekker?

137. MC1701B - August 14, 2009

27, 48. It’s funny.. When I was in grad school, I worked a full-time job, a part-time job, commuted 90 minutes each way to my full-time job, went to grad school, and had 1-2 girlfriends. So, yeah, I had “other things to do.”

I still had to produce a new first-draft screenplay every 16 weeks, and did so, graduating with a 3.7.

And did it on a typewriter, not a PC with formatting software.

So, no, there is no reason a first draft should take six months. Rewrites, with all the people who have to put fingerprints on them, yes, Not first drafts.

138. Captain Dunsel - August 14, 2009

11 boborci “Six months for a first draft of a script from the minute you start thinking about it.”

Is that with or without a producer looking over your shoulder?

139. dmduncan - August 14, 2009

109. “1) MWI QM IS NOT CANON.”

Wrong again. “Orci: It’s the latest thinking on it, you know. Anything that can happen, does happen. That’s what Mr. Data said in Star Trek: The Next Generation. It seems to resolve a lot of the paradoxes that exist, but who knows. It’s an old idea now. It’s not a new idea.”

That’s classic MWI and it’s TNG. MWI is canon. Nuff said.

“6) MWI QM eliminates certain previous canon possibilities which do not fit the new science.”

LOL. That’s just too funny. Apparently you are now dividing canon between Star Trek universes instead of regarding the canon of Star Trek as a whole. Good luck with that.

Bad news, RD: Despite your fanatical attempts make everything cohere by supplying explanations to make things fit—explanations which are NOT part of canon—it’s ALL canon, no matter how inconsistent one part of Star Trek is with another, IT’S ALL CANON. And that’s actually a good thing, particularly for people like you, whether you like it or not, because it reminds people like you, who seem to be in real danger of forgetting that Star Trek is a TV show and movie franchise, that that is what it is.

“Nobody, nor anything transversed from one universe to another. ST09 began following the quantum event which split off the alternate universe. We NEVER saw the quantum event, nor the alternate universe branch. What we saw was the fictional manifestation of the end result of the quantum event which allowed for the fictional time travel. Spock & Nero split off the Prime universe and into the Alternate universe as it was created.”

“Everything depicted easily conforms to MWI QM as accepted by the majority of the scientific community. But it is the depiction which is science fiction. Your theory is exactly that: your theory of how it happened. You are making stuff up for which there is no evidence on screen, or indeed in quantum mechanics, while at the same time countering what the writer’s tell you happened.”

Lol. Nope. You are a tragedy, dude. You TOTALLY do not understand either MWI or what we saw happen at the beginning of the film, and this despite having plenty of time to learn.

Let me ‘splain it to you.

Yes, the movie actually opened in an alternate timeline, ad that is the ONLY thing you understand and got right about MWI.

What you previously described as MWI where universes “branch” off from one another following a quantum decoherence is quantum decoherence of the PRESENT. And no, wrong again, but it really is NOT like a fork in the river. Another thing you don’t understand is that all the multiple worlds exist in the SAME SPACE and at the SAME TIME, but in orthogonal dimensions which is supposed to enable the same person to be at the same place and time but doing two slightly different things also at the same place and time. This is also why communication between worlds is thought to be impossible: Because they are not “separate” worlds with separate versions of YOU that could possibly converse with one another. Your over reliance on the notion of branching and splitting instead of decoherence is confusing you and making you think of the split as leading to separate universes.

But what happened in the film was the Quantum decoherence of the PAST, not the PRESENT. Apples and oranges, RD, and you think they are the same. Not even close.

What happened in the film has little if anything to do with current MW theory which deals with quantum decoherence of present states of the universe in which you simultaneously exist in all of them.

When Spock opened the black hole, the prime universe did not suddenly vanish or cease to exist, because the decoherence that created the alternate past timeline could not have affected the existence of the Prime universe or timeline.

NOR did Nero and Spock continue to exist in the prime universe/timeline. They left it going into the black hole. It’s all in the mind meld sequence of the movie. And when they came out, they came out in a different universe/timeline. No, they did NOT come out in the same universe/timeline, because Kirk was not born yet, and the place they left had an adult Kirk with a very full career in it.

You are totally misunderstanding quantum decoherence and confusing the quantum decoherence of the present and quantum decoherence of the past as if they were the same thing. Quantum decoherence of the past MEANS the branching off of an alternate timeline AND universe, while quantum decoherence of the PRESENT means the branching off of another universe that happens at the SAME time. ONLY in a quantum decoherence of the PRESENT do you not leave the world you are in, regardless of however many branchings ocur.

You clearly do not understand the difference so you keep trying to explain what happened in the film as if it were a quantum decoherence of the present when it CLEARLY was not that at all.

End of story.

“You are making stuff up for which there is no evidence on screen, or indeed in quantum mechanics, while at the same time countering what the writer’s tell you happened.”

Nope. Wrong again. The writers say that Spock entered BOTH an alternate timeline AND alternate universe leaving the prime universe intact. What a coincidence! That’s what I’ve been saying as well.

Finally, here’s Mr. Canon himself, Roberto Orci:

“Secondly, our story is not based on the linear timeline of Einstein’s General Theory of relativity upon which most movies about time travel are based (like say, BACK TO THE FUTURE, or TERMINATOR, both of which I LOVE). The idea of a fixable timeline has been a wonderful staple of sci-fi since the 50’s, but in reading about the most current thinking in theoretical physics regarding time travel (Quantum Mechanics), we learned about the speculative theories that suggest that if time travel is possible, then the act of time travel itself creates a new universe that exists in PARALLEL to the one left by the time traveler. This is the preferred theory these days because it resolves the GRANDFATHER PARADOX, which wonders how a time traveler who kills his own younger grandfather would logically then cease to exist, but then he’d never be around to time travel and kill his grandfather in the first place. Quantum Mechanically based theories resolve this paradox by arguing that the time
traveler, in killing his grandfather, would merely split a previously identical universe into a new one in which a man who is his grandfather in another universe is killed in the new one. The time traveler does not cease to exist, although he is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing). Or something.”

From: http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/18/orci-kurtzman-to-answer-fan-questions-at-trekmovie-transcript-of-last-weeks-impromptu-qa/

He wrote the movie, and that’s what they based the events of the plot on. Spock left his own original universe and went into an alternate universe/timeline, regardless of whether the science supports that or not. Regarding what happened in the story, THAT’S what happened, from Mr. Orci himself, in contradiction to RD, who maintains BOTH that travel between universes is impossible, AND that “Everything depicted easily conforms to MWI QM as accepted by the majority of the scientific community.”

Well, what they “depicted” is precisely what they and I said happened: Spock and Nero crossed through a black hole and into an alternate universe/timeline.

Case closed.

140. John from Cincinnati - August 14, 2009

111.

RD – “However, if the Nexus does exists in the Alternate universe it must adhere to MWI QM should it be depicted during Orci’s tenure, which means the nature of the Nexus would be different and one would not be able to transit time with it.”

You supposition everything into your own interpretation to fit your arguments. You saying the nexus in MWI QM would have different scientific traits doesn’t make it so. You are making up your own reasons for things not to happen. In fact, everything we’ve seen in ST09’s MWI QM shows us how similar things are to the Prime universe. According to you, nothing should behave or act the same from the orginal universe based upon your statement above. However, we still have a Kirk who becomes Captain of the Enterprise. Still a Spock who defies the Vulcan Science Council to join Starfleet. Still a U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701. Still a Scotty with a Scottish accent. Still a cantankerous McCoy. All of these things fly in the face of your theory, and it is your theory. Not the one presented in the movie.. Uhura did state in the movie they were now in an alternate reality. Which confirms in canon the MWI QM theory.

141. Bill Peters - August 14, 2009

an appearance by an older Archer would be fun as well! Klingon’s would also be fun! Hoping for a story that has Bones,Spock and Kirk working together more and also has Scotty doing some Miracle working!

142. CarlG - August 14, 2009

@111: You kind of missed my point. I brought up “Spock’s Brain” because it is canon and it is also capital-B Bad.

Canon isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

@109:” Anything you see in the film should conform to MWI QM”

I just want anything I see in the movie to be good.

As fun as it is to geek out of the fantastic tech, the cool ships and the possibilities of future history. the best Treks are about the people inside the starships. Make us care about them first, sort all this stuff out later.

143. dmduncan - August 14, 2009

When Spock opened the black hole, the Prime past split, and everyone in the Prime universe proceeded to go in two different directions. BUT Spock and Nero went from the future of the Prime universe to the alternate past and newly created alternate universe that the black hole created. They went from one universe—Prime—to another—Alternate Prime, WHETHER that is good science or not, WHETHER that actually conforms to current MW theory or not. That’s how they wrote it and that’s what everything in the film confirms happened. RD is the one who is desperately making things up to avoid having to admit he’s made a mistake.

144. John from Cincinnati - August 14, 2009

RD.

Further proof you are wrong. According to you the physics in the alternate universe is different causing things like the nexus, guardian of forever and slinghotting around the sun not to work. Incorrect and here’s why; Prime Spock used the intership transporter formula from the Prime universe and gave it to Scotty to use in the alternate universe to beam Kirk and himself to the U.S.S. Enterprise and the formula worked. Therefore, the same scientific properties exist in both the Prime and alternate universes. If they didn’t, then that formula would not have worked. Hence, the Guardian of Forever could very well be in the alternate universe (we don’t know if Nero destroyed it or not in his 25 years waiting for Spock) but if it is still there it would still work like it did in ‘City on the Edge Forever’. The sling shot around the sun time travel is still scientifically valid in the alternate universe. The Atavacron is still working. Data’s Parallel theory is still valid.

On a separate subject, according to MWI QM, in the Prime universe there was a branching that occurred in which Spock succeeded in his mission to save Romulus with the Red matter.

You are using the black hole as the event that caused the alternate universe in which case you’re right because the Kelvin changed course to investigate the lightning storm. However, when Nero destroyed George Kirk, yet another universe branched off. Again, there is yet another universe in which Prime Spock was successful in saving Romulus, and another universe exists where alt-Kirk and alt-Sulu were successful in stopping the drilling rig from destroying Vulcan, etc etc. Mutiple universes are created every time a different outcome of any event can occur. When walking down the street you can turn left or right. At that moment a new universe is created. One in which you turned left and a new one in which you turn right.

145. CJS - August 14, 2009

The Nexus, if you didn’t hate it, could be transuniversal. There is only one Nexus, but it exists in all universes and is hence a nexus between the Prime, Alternate and even Mirror Universes. So we could not only drag a Prime Kirk out of the nexus into the JJ-verse, we could drag a Prime Picard, a Prime Guinan and a Prime Soran. But who the hell would want to.

146. RD - August 14, 2009

114. Son of a Maui Portagee wrote: “#110.,But aren’t the time dilation effects that slow things down and stretch them out limited to going into the event horizon? In other words, aren’t the time dilation effects on emerging from an event horizon limited to speeding time up – not stretching things out for 25 years?”

LOL, well this is the science fiction part I was talking about. Once you start talking about time travel via black holes, very little of the process can be explained by actual science, or even theoretical physics. Nobody knows what will actually happen when matter enters a black hole and there are very few mathematically proven theories accepted widely among physicists, certainly none to cover this situation.

Before I “blather on” let me clarify, I think the whole depiction of Spock & Nero’s transition into the Alternate universe was handled badly, especially for a writer who has been boastfully adamant that he is adhering to the latest greatest scientific theory: MWI QM. Since it is science fiction while his alternate universe may adhere to MWI QM, he is taking massive liberties with how the unexplained aspects of its application to time travel are handled merely to cover a poorly constructed story.

As I generally understand singularities, there is a gravity well which is warping space/time to a single point. Here’s the sci-fi part, if the black hole connects to some other part of the galaxy, it is literally bending space time from both parts, meaning the event horizon on both sides are affected by the gravitational warping effects. It’s just like if you could drill a hole through the Earth and jump in – as you fell through you would accelerate until you passed through the center at which point you would begin to decelerate until you reached the top of the other side. WIthout sufficient momentum to exit, you would fall back toward the other side back & forth for eternity. Of course this is only one application of science to fiction.

Combine that with an artificially created black hole by something called red-matter within a dead star that went Super-nova (an atypical one at that) and there’s no guarantee what happened, the fiction is allowed to run rampant.

With that in mind, the creation of the black hole was the quantum event that branched the two universes. How the time travel worked is anybody’s guess. But, it could have taken Nero 25 years to transit the time dilation effects on on both sides meaning the the Alternate universe actually branched in 2208, but major events did not change until Nero actually exited the event horizon in 2233. Spock exited 25 years later because during the few seconds between Nero and Spock’s ships, the singularity gained strength and thus the time dilation increased. Again this is not science, but science fiction.

And lest anybody misunderstand what I am saying, the singularity is not a conduit to the Alternate universe forever. it is a quantum event which for an instant in time branched off a new universe from an earlier point in time. And in than instant Spock and Nero were caught in the event horizon and thus became part of the new universe, removed from their own. Their transit through time was in the branched universe resulting from the dilation affects of the singularity. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if it isn’t the dilation effect that caused the time travel – what if it took Nero 129 years to transit the black hole, with Spock taking 25 more years due to the increasing strength? Either way, anyone who entered the singularity after the instant it was formed would have been crushed, not transported to the Alternate universe – or if indeed the fiction is that it is a doorway to an alternate universe, the eventual universe would be yet another branch of the Prime, not the same one Spock & Nero became a part of. In that case, for every tick of the quantum clock, a new universe is branching from the Prime via this singularity, which includes new space dust which was not present there before, not to mention a singularity which was not there before.

Again, this is all theoretical conjecture based on science but is all fiction, including my speculation. Orci & Kurtzman do not offer us an explanation for how the singularity worked, only that it adheres to MWI QM.

147. Nelson - August 14, 2009

I never liked the idea of parallel universes co-existing. It fun for a movie idea.

I think in the film, it was glossed over and that was probably a good idea for a general audience rather then trying to get into the technobabble to explain how Nero has created an alternate universe for our characters to move forward in.

Another way that a general audience can probably better embrace the Star Trek film is to think of it as the film, Sliding Doors. The idea was how one’s life is altered by what they do or don’t do at a pivotal time.

If time travel is possible, then Nero just altered the life paths of our Universe. We moved forward in TOS through TNG, etc, then Nero jumped back in time and reset it.

Our TOS and TNG, etc crews and lives still existed, but I think of them as going up to a point, then they reset and start all new lives in this altered present. Of course I realize this is considered the conventional thinking about time travel paradoxes.

148. nscates - August 14, 2009

#136 “Is it just me or does conversation really dry up around here without Closettrekker?”

Yeah, where is Closettrekker? Haven’t seen his posts in a little while…

149. Admiral_BlackCat - August 14, 2009

In ST12 Spock Prime will dig up Data’s head in San Francisco, then the two Spocks and Data’s head will explain to the Federation council in exact details how Red Matter and MWI QM plus TimeTravel works and why Nero created an alternate reality. Then the two Spocks and Data’s head will accuse Kirk of murdering Nero. At some point in ST12 the Vulcans will find a new homeworld, but will be given limited time because the whole MWI QM plus TimeTravel clarification will take the whole d@mn movie to explain. LOL!

150. RD - August 14, 2009

#139. dmduncan wrote: Case closed.

Perhaps for you. You clearly don’t understand what I’m writing and the more I read your incoherent ramblings, I think you don’t understand your own.

#139. dmduncan wrote: “Apparently you are now dividing canon between Star Trek universes instead of regarding the canon of Star Trek as a whole. Good luck with that.

I didn’t do that Orci did. I don’t need the luck, Orci does. He specifically said aspects of OLD Testament Canon, will not conform to NEW Testament Canon under MWI QM. It’s in the same link you refered me to. Perhaps you should read it all before you start reaming other people with whom you disagree. Orci said: “In our Universe, as long as I am here, you can’t just slingshot around the sun and linear time is a misconception from the middle part of the 20th century.”

#139. dmduncan wrote: Finally, here’s Mr. Canon himself, Roberto Orci: “Quantum Mechanically based theories resolve this paradox by arguing that the time
traveler, … would merely split a previously identical universe into a new one in which a man who is his grandfather in another universe is killed in the new one.” …Well, what they “depicted” is precisely what they and I said happened: Spock and Nero crossed through a black hole and into an alternate universe/timeline.”

Wow, you really don’t read what you write. You contradicted yourself using Orci himself. You claim, that Spock & Nero traveled between universes. Orci says right there in his quote, they split into an identical branch. I don’t need to demonstrate any more clearly that you have no idea what point you are trying to make, which undermines almost any other argument you attempt to make about my understanding of MWI QM, and Orci’s application of it to Trek. You throw out words like decoherence and make a distinction between the present and past (which is science fiction anyway), without understanding that MWI is itself and interpretation of a decoherence theory. What you are doing is trying to expand Orci’s use of MWI into other decoherence theories which might make OLD Testament Canon possible, such as Max Tegmark’s Multiverse theory, which is NOT MWI, without any supporting evidence.

All that can be said in speculation about the sequel is that ORCI is going to apply MWI QM to his stories. If the plot device contradicts that, then it most likely will not be used. If the sequel does employ a plot device in the next movie that contradicts MWI QM, then as you once pointed out, he will have changed his mind, which he is more than entitled to do. Then again, I would call that cheating (er, imaginative thinking) … something along the lines of “read my lips, no new taxes”.

Either way, MWI QM does not allow communication between universes, thus no travel between them, only splitting into new branches which is utterly isolated from the others.

151. Mitch - August 14, 2009

123–it’s long established canon that the time traveller is never affected by the time travel historical changes. So Spock Prime’s existence does not mean the prime universe exists at all. It means nothing other than Spock Prime exists.

127–they would not require Shatner to play Tiberius Kirk, and honestly, in a place where we already HAVE Spock Prime, it would be a waste.

152. RD - August 14, 2009

#140. John from Cincinnati wrote: “You are making up your own reasons for things not to happen…. Uhura did state in the movie they were now in an alternate reality. Which confirms in canon the MWI QM theory.

First of all, It’s not me. I am merely applying what Orci has said in various articles to the wild fan speculation about what could be in the next movie which includes things Orci has said will not be possible because of MWI QM. As for making it NEW Testament Canon because of Uhura’s comment, nowhere does “alternate reality” = MWI QM. It merely means a reality that is different from one’s own, which would also apply to an altered linear timeline without the existence of a Prime Universe. Orci would have you believe that is the smoking gun, but like the rest of the movie it is open to interpretation.

#140. John from Cincinnati wrote: “According to you the physics in the alternate universe is different … the same scientific properties exist in both the Prime and alternate universes. If they didn’t, then that [transwarp beaming] formula would not have worked. “

You are inferring something from my statements I never wrote and confusing concepts which Orci has stated, NOT me. Orci said, some OLD Testament Canon will not work in the Alternate Universe. Meaning, he is applying current understanding of physics to Star Trek, and previous like canon discrepancies, new canon supersedes old. In this case, MWI QM says the Guardian of Forever cannot work in the Alternate Universe the way it did in the Prime universe. This distinction cannot be applied to all physics, just the physics that contradicts current understanding to which Orci claims he is adhering. So, the fictional physics behind transwarp beaming, works the way it always did, while time travel does not.

#140. John from Cincinnati wrote: “when Nero destroyed George Kirk, yet another universe branched off.”

Yes but we didn’t follow that universe. We are only following the universe resulting from Nero & Spock’s splintering quantum event.

153. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 14, 2009

#151 … ” in a place where we already HAVE Spock Prime, it would be a waste.”

Granted, I’d rather have him play James T. Kirk. I felt that should have happened in the current movie, but the likelihood of it now seems very slim indeed. He’d work out just fine as Tiberius, particularly if Nimoy didn’t return for the next movie. But it’s a moot point, because we’re not likely to see Shat in Trek again.

154. Anthony Thompson - August 14, 2009

131.

Exactly! And if Bob uses my “Cupcake Mutiny” story, I’ll want a BIG “Piece of the Action”! : D

155. OneBuckFilms - August 14, 2009

152 – The main issue I have with this part of your reasoning:

“It merely means a reality that is different from one’s own, which would also apply to an altered linear timeline without the existence of a Prime Universe. Orci would have you believe that is the smoking gun, but like the rest of the movie it is open to interpretation.”

is that the story has to be told from within any given reality portrayed, thus there could not be a “smoking gun” beyond the evidence seen on screen.

Here are the clues I see:

– Spock Prime is aware of events being different, as evidenced by Kirk not knowing his father, and the fact that he is not the Captain.
– Spock and Uhura’s exchange on the bridge states that they are aware that things have been altered.
– Things looking different.

From these points, the following can be deduced:

– The Timeline has obviously been altered beyond a “repairable” state, meaning changes are thus permanent.
– Spock Prime is aware of the changes, and is thus unaffected by the Grandfather Paradox, eliminating “traditional” time travel as a viable possibility.
– The changes seem linked to Nero’s arrival in 2233.04, indicating this as the variation point, thus implying that before that point, the timeline is unaltered.

It seems reasonable to assume, based on this, that the Multiple Worlds theory asserted by the writers is correct.

In any case, this was a fantastic and fun movie, and brought back the characters we know and love in a fresh way.

156. dmduncan - August 14, 2009

152: “Wow, you really don’t read what you write. You contradicted yourself using Orci himself. You claim, that Spock & Nero traveled between universes. Orci says right there in his quote, they split into an identical branch. I don’t need to demonstrate any more clearly that you have no idea what point you are trying to make,”

LOLOLOL. RD, you really do have a problem, don’t you? You simply CAN’T admit that you are not the master of Trek Canon that you think you are and that you don’t understand something when you really don’t

“You throw out words like decoherence and make a distinction between the present and past (which is science fiction anyway), without understanding that MWI is itself and interpretation of a decoherence theory.”

WTF are you talking about, dude? Do YOU even know?

MWI isn’t an “interpretation of a decoherence theory” you wacko, MWI IS decoherence plain and simple. There IS no MW theory without decoherence. It’s the very core of the theory itself which denies actual wave function collapse and creates an alternative explanation to the Copenhagen Interpretation about what really happens in double slit photon experiments.

Really, just go away.

Regarding Orci:

“The time traveler does not cease to exist, although he is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing).”

Repeat: “he is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing).”

repeat: “he is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing).”

repeat: “he is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing).”

Question, RD: If “he is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing),” then where is he??? :•o

“Orci says right there in his quote, they split into an identical branch.”

Oh really??? Here’s the quote again:

““Secondly, our story is not based on the linear timeline of Einstein’s General Theory of relativity upon which most movies about time travel are based (like say, BACK TO THE FUTURE, or TERMINATOR, both of which I LOVE). The idea of a fixable timeline has been a wonderful staple of sci-fi since the 50’s, but in reading about the most current thinking in theoretical physics regarding time travel (Quantum Mechanics), we learned about the speculative theories that suggest that if time travel is possible, then the act of time travel itself creates a new universe that exists in PARALLEL to the one left by the time traveler. This is the preferred theory these days because it resolves the GRANDFATHER PARADOX, which wonders how a time traveler who kills his own younger grandfather would logically then cease to exist, but then he’d never be around to time travel and kill his grandfather in the first place. Quantum Mechanically based theories resolve this paradox by arguing that the time
traveler, in killing his grandfather, would merely split a previously identical universe into a new one in which a man who is his grandfather in another universe is killed in the new one. The time traveler does not cease to exist, although he is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing). Or something.”

Where does he say that? Here?:

“Quantum Mechanically based theories resolve this paradox by arguing that the time
traveler, in killing his grandfather, would merely split a previously identical universe into a new one in which a man who is his grandfather in another universe is killed in the new one.”

Is THAT it? Lol. Read it again, genius.

Orci does NOT say “they split into an identical branch.” He says “the time
traveler, in killing his grandfather, would merely split a previously identical universe into a new one in which a man who is his grandfather in another universe is killed in the new one.”

Get it? Not what you say: “they split into an identical branch.” But “…would merely split a previously identical universe into a new one…”

He didn’t say the BRANCHES were identical, he said the UNIVERSE was identical BEFORE the time traveler’s intrusion. They are NOT identical afterwards. You are incompetent. You are determined to twist words to mean whatever you want them to mean so that you do not have to end up being wrong about anything.

I’d say that not only is RD living proof that alternate realities exist, but that communication between them is possible.

For the benefit of those who actually do want to understand and who do not purposely want to confuse themselves and everyone else, here’s my last explanation.

RD likes the analogy of forks? Fine. We’ll use it, even though it’s not the best analogy. Whatever helps.

So we’ll imagine the universe in time as a steel bar standing straight up. The bottom of the bar represents the past, and the very top represents the present, and all the space in between represents all the various moments of the past leading up to the top (the present).

Spock is in the present at the top, and he creates a black hole. The black hole has an entrance and a tail with an exit on the end, so it’s like a tunnel. And this tail begins curving down and snaking it’s way parallel to the bar along the past. Finally the tail makes contact with the bar somewhere in the past, and where it touches immediately causes the bar to split right at the moment where it touches, so that now we have two tangs, and the bar now looks like an odd shaped fork with a long tang, at the top of which sits Mr. Spock preparing to enter the black hole, and a short tang that splits off from the long tang at exactly the point where the black hole’s exit point made contact.

So what we have is this weird looking fork with a long tang and a short tang. The long tang is still the Prime universe, and the short tang is a split off variation of the Prime universe which is running PARALLEL to it. And going from the Prime universe (long tang) to the alternate Prime universe (short tang) is a tunnel, connected on both ends by black holes.

When Spock goes through the hole he goes from the long tang to the short tang, and thus from one universe to the other universe. He STOPS inhabiting one and STARTS inhabiting the other. Or as Orci said, and which RD insists on misinterpreting: “The time traveler …is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing).

THAT is the quantum decoherence of the PAST.

Now along comes George Kirk in the Kelvin. When the black hole makes contact in the past, the past splits. That means George Kirk splits, along with every other crewmember of the Kelvin. One George Kirk passes through that space without incident and he has a son, James Kirk who he sees on to become a Starship Captain. But the OTHER George Kirk finds the Narada and HE dies saving his wife, son, and crew. THAT is the quantum decoherence of the present of George Kirk’s experience, and that is CERTAINLY not what we are discussing regarding where Spock was before and after the black hole.

Those are two totally different things and RD stubbornly refuses to do anything but conflate them because he’s too childish to admit he doesn’t understand something.

157. LJ - August 14, 2009

Another idea for upcoming movies (pardon me):

We’ve seen a young Kirk becoming Captain under Pike’s wing: how about seeing him becoming conflicted between opposing mentors. We know Pike is a ‘traditional’ starfleet officer: honourable, intelligent, brave; however, what if Kirk were to find himself under the command of Fleet Captain/Commodore/Admiral (whatever rank they choose) Garth at the Battle of Axanar? A maverick like himself?

I’d pitch Axanar as a Fed-Romulan battle to follow on from ST09. Kirk is impressed by Garth’s quick intelligence, charisma and cunning. Kirk is enthralled by Garth: he idolises him. Garth sees Kirk as a potential rival, however, so he decides to keep him close. However, during the main part of the battle, Garth loses his ship (another Constitution class) and transfers his flag to Enterprise. He attains victory in a prolonged campaign by breaking the Prime Directive (supplying weapons or other tech to a less-advanced species to take advantage of production capacity or some other motive).

This breach leads to a court martial for Garth. The finding of guilty drives him insane: all he ever wanted to do was defend the Federation – the ideals he cherished. Now he has been betrayed by those he spent his life defending: his dreams are shattered.

Garth is imprisoned, but officers loyal to him (including Kirk who believes in Garth’s actions) break him out of gaol. Garth plans a coup against the Federation government, his justification being the need for strong leadership to fight against the inevitability of Romulan or Klingon invasion (the Feds being weakened by the Vulcan losses).

Pike, aboard USS Constitution, carries out a daring raid against Enterprise and captures the vessel. After a vicious fight, Pike persuades Kirk that Garth’s path is wrong (Pike has now recovered from his Centauri slug injuries). Kirk and Pike together lead a two-ship mission to stop the coup…

Personally, I believe the Roddenberry ideal is best evidenced – and works best – when it is turned in on itself: by that I mean by not looking at a TNG style utopia, but how our heroes act and react in adversity, in terrible situations, in the face of fear. This is what i loved about TUC and DS9. I know many will disagree with me, and that is fine (we are all entitled to our own viewpoint), but I like to see the characters challenged fundamentally.

For example, we know Kirk was prejudiced (Klingons); O’Brien (Cardassians); McCoy (Vulcans – OK half jokingly) – but they get over those prejudices. That’s what I want to see.

I’d maybe even throw in Kodos there at some point as a co-conspirator with Garth (maybe potential Interior Minister – we all know what that might mean…). Maybe in a minor role, to be brought into the fore at a later date…

I know a lot of you don’t like retreads (and I appreciate that: neither do I), but I hope my idea is not so much that as a new take. And, whilst I appreciate the above may look like Pike is intended to be the main hero (even though he actually was THE original Trek hero), this is meant to be a story of growth – a learning curve – for Kirk.

158. RD - August 14, 2009

155. OneBuckFilms wrote: “It seems reasonable to assume, based on this, that the Multiple Worlds theory asserted by the writers is correct.”

Of course it is reasonable, but “assume” is the key word. The litmus test is If you ask any uninitiated audience member what they think happened and the majority tells you they think a parallel alternate universe exists separate from Spock Prime’s continuing universe. I would argue very few average film goers would perceive events that way, but rather assume traditional linear time-travel as depicted throughout the last 40 years of Trek and and in popular films such as Back to the Future as well as Abrams’ own LOST.

According to those rules, the time traveler is almost always a paradox, realizing the timeline has been altered (thus an alternate reality), and whose task is almost always to set things right – therefore in this case, “traditional” time travel cannot be eliminated as a viable possibility.

Your observations are all dead accurate, but can be interpreted in a variety of ways. The writers will of course maintain and adhere to MWI QM as they have stated on numerous occasion, as well as apply it to any new stories. Someone brought up Closettrekker earlier, whose absence is conspicuous to say the least, as someone who always brings interesting and logical debates to these forums – but Closet would give you any number of reasons why he prefers to believe this is a traditional linear timeline which has been reset by Nero (wiping out everything that has already happened). One of which is to keep the OLD Testament Canon intact and functional in ST09, rather than eliminating those things which do not conform to modern physics. In doing so, Closet has formulated an extremely logical position of why Prime Spock does not tell the Federation about sling-shotting around the sun (or the Guardian of Forever) to restore Vulcan, if not the original timeline – the attempt might result in more harm than good. But that is just as much a retcon as is trying to conform all the OLD Testament Canon to the NEW under MWI QM.

I personally find it fascinating, but in the end it doesn’t really matter. Orci has said he will not write a script that violates MWI QM, which means unless he changes his mind, there will hopefully be no stories that have to be retconned. As long as he doesn’t clarify MWI QM on screen (and there’s no reason to) then when the new team takes over Trek, they are free to resume traditional time travel rules and OLD Testament physics. However, this will have the deleterious effect of acknowledging that the timeline was reset by Abrams and there is in fact no Prime universe. Of course by that time, I don’t think anyone will care or remember.

That’s why the best way to look at this film is simply as a reboot. But Closettrekker doesn’t want to do that for his own personal reasons, as do many others for completely different reasons. No matter how you slice it, there is no single right answer, forget Schrödinger’s cat in a box, what Orci has opened is a can of worms.

159. John from Cincinnati - August 14, 2009

Multiverses are not new to scienc fiction and Star Trek 09 certainly is not the first to use it. Remember the show Sliders? Alternate universes abound. But one thing is for sure, they could still “slide” between the different universes. Now in ST09, we have an “event” where a black hole is opened and supposedly a new alternate universe is created. If you actually look at the multiverse theory, a new universe was created when Spock Prime failed to rescue Romulus from the Supernova. There is another universe that is exactly similar to the Prime universe but this one has Spock suceeding in saving Romulus. Then another when the black hole opened causing the Kelvin to change course. Yet another when the Kelvin was destroyed. Now, let’s take the statement that time travel is not possible in the new alternate universe. That is impossible since it was time travel that led to it being created in the first place. To have a universe exist where time travel is not possible would mean the physics in that unvierse would be so different and totally alien to what we’ve seen before that planets may not even be round in the new universe. Space itself wouldn’t even exist as we know it. This is because we came from a fictional universe portayed as our own whereas time travel was possible. Time travel occurred in the Prime universe often. So even in a fictional universe, to have one that doesn’t have time travel would mean gravity wouldn’t even behave as we know it, therefore most likely everything in this new “time travelless” universe wouldn’t even resemble anything at all. Planets could be elliptical for instance, space could be white not black, stars may not exist etc. It is also illogical to say time travel can not exist in the alternate universe when Prime Spock got deposited there via time travel. You can use time travel to create a new story to then say time travel from this point forward can’t happen because we don’t want it to. That is a totally illogical argument.

160. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 14, 2009

#158 … Wow. In Closettrekker’s absence, long, nerdy arguments about quantum mechanics and time travel are now being posted on his behalf! Now that’s funny!!

;-)

161. AJ - August 14, 2009

156: Dmduncan

“the bar now looks like an odd shaped fork with a long tang, at the top of which sits Mr. Spock preparing to enter the black hole, and a short tang that splits off from the long tang at exactly the point where the black hole’s exit point made contact.”

Sounds like Spock is getting propositioned at the end of the bar by a guy who just had sex with a short Orion girl, who, at the bar as well, spurns the advances of a tall Orion girl.

Sorry, but this is getting real stale, guys. Vulcans don’t exist. Trek is pop fiction with a message. Relax.

162. dmduncan - August 14, 2009

@160: lol. And for my part, I apologize. I don’t want to fulfill his role at all.

163. RD - August 14, 2009

#156 – repetition and name calling is not an argument. At least you have now exposed the fallacy of your logic:

#156. dmduncan wrote: The black hole has an entrance and a tail with an exit on the end, so it’s like a tunnel.

A tail? You are kidding me right? THIS IS SCIENCE FICTION. And you made it up. Show me anywhere in the film where this is explained, or anywhere Orci has explained this. You have been pitching black holes and white holes and all sorts of other astronomical phenomenon to which you have been subscribing science fictional attributes since I first came across your name on a post. These things are NOT part of MWI and MWI posits NO explanation for their function in the real universe. Time travel is science fiction and travel by black holes is even more theoretical than MWI QM which you tried to discredit in previous posts as nothing more than science fiction.

#156. dmduncan wrote: “[Bob Orci said] the time
traveler would split a previously identical universe into a new one”

This is at the crux of your antagonism towards me I feel. Orci DOES NOT say there were previously two identical universes. He says A universe splits into a new one. That IS NOT the same as an identical universe running parallel from the beginning of time and then crossing into it from another universe. If you think that’s what MWI QM suggests then you really got it wrong.

You simply CAN’T admit that you are not the master of Trek Canon that you think you are and that you don’t understand something when you really don’t

I never suggested otherwise. You inferred all of that, as you do much of your rants towards my posts. If anything I would say this applies more to your responses to me. Particularly as evidenced by the vitriol you demonstrate in your responses.

MWI IS decoherence plain and simple.

I suggest you revisit whatever source you are using to educate yourself. David Bohm invented decoherence in 1952. Hugh Everett did not formulate MWI until 1957. While MWI uses a mostly unaltered interpretation of decoherence at its core, it is still one interpretation of decoherence among numerous which use the mechanism to explain themselves. It IS NOT synonymous with decoherence as you assert so authoritatively and insultingly to me.

164. dmduncan - August 14, 2009

@161: Tell that to RD, not me. I don’t care about canon at all, and if I had been in charge of rebooting the franchise I’d probably be wearing a fake mustache and nose right now and living somewhere in the mountains of Colombia to protect my life.

165. Mitch - August 14, 2009

159–true, Sliders had multiverses. But Sliders doesn’t follow the same rules as Star Trek. Nothing in the movie suggests that Nero’s actions created a new universe and the prime one was untouched. NOTHING.

They HAD their chance to do that, and CHOSE not to.

All we have are non canon interviews from the writer, and in my opinion, those were just done to placate the fans so they wouldn’t whine about the fact that these guys destroyed the prime universe.

In Star Trek, time travellers can change history, and erase what was “supposed to happen.”

166. Vulcan Soul - August 14, 2009

The approach for us, on the first movie, was, “How do we please?”

That’s how a true artist speaks *LOL*

167. RD - August 14, 2009

#159. John from Cincinnati wrote: “Multiverses are not new to scienc fiction … But one thing is for sure, they could still “slide” between the different universes.”

Here’s the problem. You are assuming all science fiction uses the same methods to achieve the same goals, including Star Trek. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Regardless of what they did in Sliders, or Stargate, or even TNG:Parallels, Orci has stated he will adhere to MWI QM. MWI QM does not allow for communication between universes. It is but one aspect of science he is applying to multiple universes. Whether or not anything else remains the same. As for the multi-universe issue, you are correct in everything you say, every blink of an eye creates a new universe under MWI, however, as I said before, in this film we only follow ONE branch.

#159. John from Cincinnati wrote: “It is also illogical to say time travel can not exist in the alternate universe when Prime Spock got deposited there via time travel.”

Again I never wrote that. Of course time travel is possible, it’s just that time travel works differently under MWI QM. When a fictional quantum event occurs that allows for time travel, the event as defined by MWI actually creates a new branch universe in which the traveler now exists. If Prime Spock were to now attempt completely fictional time travel by any means, he would find himself branched off into a yet new alternate universe, with duplicate but different people than he left behind. This theory also prohibits traveling between these alternate universe branches, so Prime Spock can never go back to his own universe, or any other he may pass through.

YES I know – this is different than what Star Trek has previously done (and other sci-fi series and films as well) and Orci has conceded as much: as the price Trek must pay to use the most current science.

168. John from Cincinnati - August 14, 2009

165. “In Star Trek, time travellers can change history, and erase what was “supposed to happen.”

Like seeing Prime Spock slingshot around a sun, go back in time and wait for Nero as he comes through the black hole and blasts him into oblivion. You mean like that?

169. John from Cincinnati - August 14, 2009

Many of you say “until it is shown on screen that we are in an alternate universe it isn’t canon” and all of you making that statement are the same people who were calling people “canonistas” on this website before the movie came out. Is that not the pot calling the kettle black?

But I digress, the fact is Star Trek is a fictional universe, one that has seen a main character die on screen in a feature film just to get resurrected in another. In science fiction anything can happen just like Spock said “they’re always are possibilities”. I was at the Vegas con and heard Leonard Nimoy speak. He made it very clear the new movie exists in another timeline. He said “other timeline”, not “new timeline” or “rewritten timeline”. Another timeline implies separate as in multiple. In fact let’s ask Bob Orci about the deleted scene in the movie where Prime Spock says to alt-Kirk “it appears that the timeline is trying to correct itself”. Notice, the implication of one timeline being re-written. But that phrase was deleted from the movie therefore it is not canon that only one timeline exists. In fact, there is a scene between Uhura and Spock in the bridge talking about the events leading up to them being in an “alternate reality”. That is said on screen, that is canon. If there truly were only one timeline then they wouldn’t even be aware of this fact.

170. dmduncan - August 14, 2009

163: “A tail? You are kidding me right? THIS IS SCIENCE FICTION.”

You are kidding me, right? STAR TREK is science fiction, RD!

“He says A universe splits into a new one. That IS NOT the same as an identical universe running parallel from the beginning of time and then crossing into it from another universe.”

Honestly? When you write things like this, I honestly don’t know what else to say, because it should be obvious to anyone who actually read, versus just skipped through, what I wrote that this idea you wrote has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I wrote. So I’m genuinely confused about how you can get even simple things like this so totally wrong, RD. Sorry, but I am. It should be clear from the thought example, and the metaphorical image of a FORK, having two tangs which would branch off from the single handle, what I meant. No point in repeating it.

WHO first used the term WHEN is irrelevant with respect to decoherence being at the CORE of MW theory. So take your own advice about things you are clearly just learning about. Without decoherence there is no challenge to wave function collapse, and without portraying wave function collapse as apparent rather than real, there are no multiple universes either. Thus, there is no MW theory without decoherence. It does not follow, and I never said that it did, that ONLY MWI requires decoherence, so don’t attribute that to me.

And your stubborn refusal to see things from an alternative point of view, while projecting your own ignorance onto me is insulting to me, in case that’s not obvious to you. I understand everything you are saying, but you don’t understand what I am saying, and you are telling me I’m getting it wrong really because you don’t understand either my points, MWI, or both. It’s lazy and disrespectful to other people’s intelligence that you don’t put the effort into understanding people’s comments before you say that they are wrong. THAT’S insulting.

So, treat nice if you want to be treated nice.

171. RD - August 14, 2009

#168. John from Cincinnati wrote: Like seeing Prime Spock slingshot around a sun, go back in time and wait for Nero as he comes through the black hole and blasts him into oblivion. You mean like that?

Yes, I believe that’s exactly what Mitch means. That is how I also see Star Trek’s physics and I personally think it is the best way to treat time travel in fiction because it has the most dramatic possibilities for story telling. The fact Orci is sticking to this MWI QM crap does the franchise a disservice.

However, Orci will never write that story or any others which rely on the traditional approach to time travel as long as he clings to this artificially imposed contrivance called MWI QM to which he vows to adhere as long as he is a writer of Trek. It negates using other classic elements like the Mirror Universe. Just to clarify, Orci has stated unequivocally: “In our Universe, as long as I am here, you can’t just slingshot around the sun and linear time is a misconception from the middle part of the 20th century.” So this is not coming from me, in case that’s what you were thinking.

But obviously those are not the stories they want to tell anyway. They’ve made it pretty clear they want it to be accessible to general audiences and address “big themes and emotional ideas”. Paramount will also want lots of action and explosions to fit in with their Summer popcorn “Triumvirate” of Transformers, Trek & Joe, also popular with broad audiences.

172. Captain Dunsel - August 14, 2009

Announcing a NEW Magazine!

As a companion publication to it’s vastly popular “Nacelles Monthly”, The Light Works will be publishing “The Journal of Quantum Time Mechanics”.

The publishers have announced that there will be only a single edition placed in print, but that all possible content will be included because each uiverse will posses an edition with an alternate table of contents.

Sunscriptions available upon request in most realities.

173. John from Cincinnati - August 14, 2009

171.

I am seeing a pattern in the logic that is wrong here. Orci has stated he believes in the multiverse MWI QM theory in which infinite universes exist based upon different choices/outcomes being made and that traditional time travel is not possible. If that is the case, then how did Nero and Prime Spock go back in time? Not only did a black hole go back in time but it deposited them into a new alternate universe where you said earlier that communication and travel between the universes is not possible yet the new movie showed it happened on screen as canon. You can Orci can’t have it both ways. Either there are infinite multiple universes where people can go back and forth from (as shown in ST09) or there is one singular timeline in which case can be altered by time travel. Either way, I see nothing shown on screen that anything that happened in ST09 is NOT repairable or that travel to the Prime universe is NOTpossible. Remember, the entire story is fabricated that mysterious red matter which we know nothing about, can even create a black hole in the first place let alone one that can send people back in time. Like I said earlier, this is science fiction and anything is possible. They could show in the next movie a solid, iron clad reason the prime universe is gone forever and no going back, then in the third movie you could see Prime Spock wake up and the first two movies were nothing but a dream. Anything is possible.

174. John from Cincinnati - August 14, 2009

In fact, by the fourth movie you can see William Shatner wake up and everything from ‘Generations” on was nothing but a dream.

175. RD - August 14, 2009

#170. dmduncan – I have made every attempt to understand what you are saying. So far you have failed to provide any evidence to prove whatever point you are attempting to make. Honestly, I don’t know what it is.

What I do know is that I perceive you failing to attempt to understand anything I am saying and in the process have called me names and insulted me personally while making arguments which seem to me to be flawed. If you truly wanted me to better understand your point you would attempt to explain yourself more clearly for me, even if you have to “dumb it down”. I don’t have to rehash how you’ve handled yourself, every post you’ve made is easily Google-able for all to see unless Anthony has removed them. As are mine. And what I do know, is that I have never made any personal attacks against you and have made every attempt to better clarify my position for you.

This is my point as I understand your problem with it:

1) MWI QM does not allow for communication between universes
2) Orci has stated emphatically that he will adhere to MWI QM
3) Spock & Nero were split off into an alternate universe via a fictional method – they did not travel from one universe into another pre-existing one.
4) Spock can never go back to the Prime universe.
5) Orci will not write a story in which people will travel between existing alternate universe branches unless he changes is mind.

I see no need for name calling. I frankly don’t care if you know more about MWI QM than I do, or even Orci does, or to get caught up in the semantics by which it is defined. The only thing that can be analyzed is what has been presented on and off screen. That is what I am limiting my observations to. What Orci has stated and what we actually saw. Anything else is speculation, including mine and your speculation about what went on in this black hole and how it worked.

So please, if you want to continue a civil debate do assume anything about my motivations and reply in a non-antagonistic way that simply states your position as I have point by point and we’ll discuss that rather than insult what each other knows about the respective minutiae.

176. dmduncan - August 14, 2009

“When a fictional quantum event occurs that allows for time travel, the event as defined by MWI actually creates a new branch universe in which the traveler now exists. If Prime Spock were to now attempt completely fictional time travel by any means, he would find himself branched off into a yet new alternate universe, with duplicate but different people than he left behind. This theory also prohibits traveling between these alternate universe branches,”

Yes, ACTUAL MW theory does not allow communication between “branches” or decohered universes, but you have to make a distinction between current MW theory and Roberto Orci’s portrayal of it in Star Trek. It always sounds to me like you are saying they are one and the same, and they are not necessarily, because Roberto Orci is a writer working on a movie about a fictional universe and he can at any time either take poetic license with it to tell a better story, regardless of what RD says Orci said about not violating MWI, or just plain misunderstand MW theory and incorporate his misunderstanding into canon as error.

I’ve posted numerous times the quotes showing that Orci does indeed regard Spock to have left one universe and entered another, regardless of what MW says is and is not possible, and every single thing in the movie fits exactly what Orci says, and nothing contradicts it.

Spock was in one universe on one side of the black hole and came out, NOT in HIS past, but in a newly created alternate past, which does in fact mean a different universe. Spock didn’t go through one of the branches, the Kelvin did. Spock jumped from one branch to another. Totally different thing. And that is both consistent with what Orci said, and matches what we saw happen on screen, regardless of whether or not MWI says communication isn’t possible. It’s that simple. We’re not talking about the real world where what is impossible obviously never does happen, we are talking about a fictional world where the impossible can easily be portrayed as happening. And when you insist that that is not what happened because MW doesn’t allow that, you are ignoring that we both saw Spock leave his universe and come out somewhere else, AND that Orci said as much when he said:

“The time traveler does not cease to exist, although he is no longer in his own original universe (where he is now missing).”

Obviously, he cannot be missing from “his own original universe” if he never left it and merely blended onto a new path in a newly created alternate universe. And just as obviously, if he is alive somewhere, but he’s not in “his own original universe” then he is in an alternate one. You can’t say he merely went down a different branch the way the Kelvin did, because he completely left the future present that he called home. And you cant say that he went to the past of his own Prime universe, because the whole premise of the story was to create an alternate universe where the future was unknown and the slate was cleaned.

177. GarySeven - August 14, 2009

I have it! The perfect idea for the next movie.
Have a force of such destructive energy, such negative intensity, present a threat to the entire galaxy.
But where could we find such destructive, negativistic energy?
Ummmm….
How about many of the above posts? Yes! Those destructive forces make the Narada look like like a child’s toy.

178. dmduncan - August 14, 2009

175: “I don’t have to rehash how you’ve handled yourself, every post you’ve made is easily Google-able for all to see unless Anthony has removed them. As are mine. And what I do know, is that I have never made any personal attacks against you and have made every attempt to better clarify my position for you.”

Which doesn’t bother me one bit. That’s why my actual name is attached to my posts. Anyone who knows me knows not only that I do not shy away from a fight but that I frequently head straight for them, and no one would be surprised by anything I’ve said in here. I take responsibility for the things I say and the way in which I say them, and if I need to apologize I will, and if I think they were deserved, I won’t. I am capable of doing either, including admitting when I’m wrong, mistaken, or just plain rude.

A while back I had completely misunderstood what actually happened in the movie after I had seen it, and you corrected me, and I accepted it. That’s on record as well. So I have no trouble changing my point of view when the facts warrant it.

But don’t act like you’re a slighted angel. You have been responsible for plenty of unwarranted sarcastic ridicule and LOLing here and there when you didn’t like what I said when it had nothing to do with you or your comments. And I’ll tell you up front that if you insinsuate in an insulting way that I don’t know what I’m talking about when I actually do, you’ll get a fast response that tells you it’s not the strategy to take with me. And honestly RD, if we were face to face I’d tell you the exact same thing. I’m not one person online and another completely different person in real life.

Now, I’ll grant you the benefit of the doubt that what you say is true, and that regardless of how it seemed to me, you made an effort to understand me. I have honestly done the same to your comments.

Now, if we are agreed on the point of civility at least, hopefully we can dialogue from here on out.

179. dmduncan - August 14, 2009

@177: “But where could we find such destructive, negativistic energy?
Ummmm….
How about many of the above posts?

The most important part of a conversation is how it ends, not the friction that builds up in the middle. That’s just life. If it were easy in all times and places, there wouldn’t be so much war.

Reasonable people try to learn and do better.

180. RD - August 14, 2009

#176. dmduncan wrote: “I’ve posted numerous times the quotes showing that Orci does indeed regard Spock to have left … one universe on one side of the black hole and came out, NOT in HIS past, but in a newly created alternate past, which does in fact mean a different universe. Spock didn’t go through one of the branches, the Kelvin did. Spock jumped from one branch to another. … Obviously, he cannot be missing from “his own original universe” if he never left it and merely blended onto a new path in a newly created alternate universe.”

I believe this is the issue which has been causing the problem. It is the only place where I disagree with you.

1) First, I think Orci would disagree he does not fully understand MWI QM, he’s said as much on this website. If he’s taken artistic license with it, he has not said so. I would not presume to infer that.

2) I do not interpret Orci’s quote to mean that the Alternate universe was in existence when Nero arrives. I don’t think it can be confirmed one way or the other. Orci says: “the time traveler would merely split a previously identical universe into a new one” All that can be inferred from this is that there was one universe and it split, the action of which was caused by the time traveler. Orci then says: ” the act of time travel itself creates a new universe that exists in PARALLEL to the one left by the time traveler.” Since we are discussing time travel and the time traveler, and Nero is the one doing the time traveling, the conclusion I would draw is that Nero is the one from whose viewpoint has created the then new alternate universe.

3) Nero & Spock created the alternate past. Everything Orci states indicates he understands the time traveler and the act of time travel creates the branch. Yes the Kelvin branched, but so did Nero & Spock, simultaneously, despite the fact that Nero & Spock went back in time. They are technically from the same universe and QM assumes time is not linear anyway.

4) How the time travel happened, how the black hole manifested itself, how the branch formed, is all fiction. There is nothing in the movie or spoken by Orci which says how this was accomplished. We cannot infer that there was a wormhole that formed AFTER the alternate universe branched from the Prime universe, which Nero & Spock transited through. If anything, Orci’s own quotes confirm he understands the branch is created by Nero & Spock. MWI QM stipulates nothing about how the universe branching would be manifested, to say nothing of a quantum event resulting in a time travel branch.

5) While the movie opens in the Alternate universe, nothing suggests that Nero & Spock arrived there under any other circumstances other than transiting into the alternate universe branch which they created, regardless of the physical manifestation by which it occurred. As the Kelvin is already en route to investigate the “lightening storm”, this suggests Nero & Spock are simultaneously in the alternate universe, just not physically “re-integrated” after passage through the quantum event. Again based solely on Orci’s comments that the branch is created by the time traveler and the act of time traveling. But there is nothing to imply one or the other.

6) If any artistic license is taken, it would be the director and visual effects house who chose to depict Nero and Spock’s arrival.

7) Whether Spock & Nero are missing from their own universe does not in any way imply that they crossed between two existing universes. When a universe branches, whether by time travel of choosing to wink or not wink one’s left eye, a different universe is created by branching from the choice made from that decision. It is considered a different universe, not just a branch of the same universe. The ST09 Alternate Universe IS a BRANCH of the Prime Universe as I understand it. Regardless of how Nero & Spock got there, it is still a different universe from the their original from which they are no longer present.

8) Orci has made it clear numerous times, he’s researched MWI thoroughly and Trek adheres to it. He has never indicated he has taken artistic license with it. Therefore, whether time travel via MWI QM is depicted accurately (and who is to say it is not), there is nothing to indicate that Orci does not intend to otherwise strictly adhere to it when writing a new story.

181. NBKSUPERSTAR - August 14, 2009

HOW ABOUT LIKE HOW DID THEY GET THE SHIP INTO ORBIT, IS THAT A DELETED SCENE?

182. dmduncan - August 14, 2009

180: “2) I do not interpret Orci’s quote to mean that the Alternate universe was in existence when Nero arrives. I don’t think it can be confirmed one way or the other.”

This is where we’d have to consult what MW would say. MWI is informing Orci’s plot decisions. And what MW would say is that the creation of a black hole where none had been before in that past would be the act which splits the universes so that Nero and Spock could not possibly have arrived in their own past at all, unless we are granting powers to Orci to make up his own science. I completely understand the example given regarding how MW might be a way out of the Grandfather Paradox, but let’s not get off track on that right now; all I’ll say is that it’s not really analogous to what we saw happen in the movie. In theory, the creation of a black hole where it had not been before would be the event that splits the universe, i.e., if it’s possible ( a big if) for there to be both a black hole and not a black hole at the same time, then there is a split and a universe where no black hole was created and Kirk sails by unharmed (TOS), and there is a universe where a black hole was created and curiosity kills the cat. So that’s one split.

Another split could have happened to Spock, but we never saw it, nor was it implied. But for argument’s sake, the same sort of split that happened to George Kirk could have happened to him, i.e., if it was possible for Spock to decide NOT to start the black hole, then there was a split and another universe where he did NOT start the black hole. And if it was possible for Spock to have saved Romulus, then there was a split and an alternate universe where that happened as well. But all of these are purely imagined.

What we actually did see, however, was Spock leave the Prime universe through the black hole and go somewhere else, and that was independent of the split in the past which created the alternate Prime universe in which George Kirk met his doom. So what happened to Spock that we saw was NOT a split, it was a leap through the portal of a black hole which left the Prime universe behind and unharmed, except for the loss of his presence in it.

Another issue related to this question is how strictly Orci has to adhere to MWI, because MWI also involves speculations that may or may not be true, but which scientists are theorizing about anyway. One such speculation actually DOES allow for contact between the universes, according to which what we saw would not have been a violation of the rules, and Orci is free to at the same time both use these MWI speculations to great dramatic effect and remain committed to MWI. So the question, from my point of view, is not whether he is committed to it, but to which parts of MWI he is committed—because not all the parts of it are necessarily consistent with each other, and they depend on which of other various theories related to MWI end up being true.

Needless to say, all of this is very far from settled, so it’s difficult to say how MWI would really work in many Hollywood plot situations. There’s no escaping having to speculate here or there, so Orci does have wiggle room and without betraying MWI. The best Orci can do from a dramatist’s standpoint concerned with the science is to average out these different Many Worlder points of view. And the most he can do from the purely scientific standpoint is to adhere to the most conservative least risky aspects of MWI, which conflicts with the movie dramatists natural and fiscal urge to be as dramatic as possible, which means adopting the more dramatic speculations within MWI. Either way, he can’t strictly adhere to the “correct” view because no one really knows what that is. That’s why there’s a huge split between the Copenhagen Interpretation which does not accept MW at all, and MW which does not accept the weirdness of the observer role implied by Copenhagen in collapsing the wave function.

183. Gary Seven - August 14, 2009

#179 dmduncan:
Not taking the bait.
Gary Seven, out.

184. dmduncan - August 14, 2009

Anyway, since we are in a much better mood now, you have the last word, RD.

185. Mitch - August 14, 2009

168–That SHOULD be what Spock Prime does next, but that’s an out of character writing issue.

169–There are too many examples that show only one timeline per universe to ignore just because they don’t address it in this movie. The fact that they ignore it, means that it’s only one timeline. If they wanted this to be an alternate universe, they should have said so. But they didn’t. Not only that, on many occasions, they have stressed that these are the same characters, same souls. They can’t have it both ways. If it’s a different universe, it’s different people, different souls.

It doesn’t matter what Orci believes. He didn’t create Star Trek. MWI/QM is NOT how time travel works. Whether he writes a story that goes against that or not is not important. Bottom line is that onscreen, nothing shows that the prime universe still exists.

If they ever DID that, then they would have to admit that they are dealing with a distinctly different universe, and these are distinctly different characters. And if THAT is the case, who cares about them?

We wouldn’t be dealing with Kirk and Spock. We’d be dealing with alternate versions of them, so they just don’t matter.

Since CLEARLY, they don’t want that, they chose to not address it in the movie.

186. S. John Ross - August 14, 2009

#171: “The fact Orci is sticking to this MWI QM crap does the franchise a disservice.”

There is no such fact. It was just a hogwash claim to pacify gullible fans over the fact that the movie is a reboot … a bit of social engineering, that’s all.

Red Matter. Do the math. Simple as that.

187. Brett Campbell - August 14, 2009

Wow, I’ve never skimmed through such a thread as this, that reads like a long, drawn-out episode of “Big Bang Theory” without the jokes — and, sadly, the hot-chick neighbor nowhere in sight.

188. AJ - August 14, 2009

I think someone in the new film should jump up and say “Hey! We’re all gonna get laid!”

Because while Star Trek has always been intelligent enough to generate debates like the one we’ve all seen here, that stuff has always just been a backdrop for the characters to interact.

It’s not a perfect set of works. Hundreds of people working on hundreds of episodes over 5 decades..None can claim that it’s an orderly universe, and those who despair over QM, or whatever should remember that it’s a sci-fi show about people which requires us to suspend our disbelief about many things. The time-gizmo from ST09 is fine. Who cares?

189. Boborci - August 14, 2009

What a discussion. So fun.

190. Thomas Jensen - August 14, 2009

Boborci, so you read it all?

191. Bill Peters - August 15, 2009

Glad you Enjoy it Mr. Orci, I think we also enjoy these Discussions!

192. The Mighty Bruce - August 15, 2009

I hope that the succeeding films deals with the aftermath of the destruction of Vulcan as well as Kirk’s rapid rise as captain of the flagship- I’m sure there will be resentment among more senior people for being passed over command of the Enterprise.

193. Mitch - August 15, 2009

192–A pure followup to the last film would actually be something one would expect if this were a TV series. It’s extremely out of character for Spock Prime to let things alone like that. Billions died who did not die before, including his own mother.

194. rogue_alice - August 15, 2009

My idea for a sequel: Tribbles. They have evolved a higher order of consciouness. The have a Tribble Queen. A select group of Tribbles travel back in time to thwart the test launch of the first Warp flight. Ironically, they first appear in the Phoneix engine module.

The Borg, a bit miffed that the Tribble civilization is advancing beyond their collective dominance, follow them in.

The Enterprise, in it’s attempt, to, respectively, follow them in but is caught in a temporal distortion that delays their arrival by 10,000 years.

Kirk and crew must battle the evolution of a merged Tribble and Borg civilization. Of course, the resolution is that Scotty beams them “where there’d be no Trib-Borg-le at all”. The early 1960’s.

Thus, the invention of self replicating shag carpet that revolutionizes the industry a full two decades before transparent aluminum.

The only hitch in this plan is you must keep a vigiant eye for The Shag…at all times. The linked sequel to this movie?

Star Trek: Berber, The Taming of the Shag

195. rogue_alice - August 15, 2009

Oh, that idea might not be Canon. But Canon makes towels, not carpet so…I think the concept still have merit.

196. Daoud - August 15, 2009

Mmmm, Doritos.

197. Will_H - August 15, 2009

First off I disagree on the fact that paying attention to the details and getting them right will alienate non fans. Almost every instance in the movie where such things were ignored (transporter, warp “cores”, etc.) could have been reworked to make us happy and still keep the non fans happy. I have faith that if they had decided to they could have made an engineering set that would have kept the general public happy, maybe even more, and not left most of us thinking wtf. Seriously, I’d rather them make something that actually looks like the engine section of a starship than throw in a random hidden tribble to make Trekkies happy. Oh yeah, and I should throw in my general no Khan or Mudd rabble here. Its been done, try something new, said it before, but if saying it more times helps its worth it.

198. RD - August 15, 2009

#182. dmduncan wrote: “What we actually did see, however, was Spock leave the Prime universe through the black hole and go somewhere else, and that was independent of the split in the past which created the alternate Prime universe in which George Kirk met his doom. So what happened to Spock that we saw was NOT a split, it was a leap through the portal of a black hole which left the Prime universe behind and unharmed, except for the loss of his presence in it.”

This is where I see it differently, and I believe the source of our disagreement. But without any evidence one way or the other we will have to simply part ways at this point.

Your contention assumes that the black hole operates like most “transit” black holes depicted in science fiction. However, all we see is an event horizon which Spock enters into and from which Nero exits. Further, the exact moment of the “split” may not be depicted either. Therefore, there is no concrete on screen evidence that the split in the past occurred at a different time than Nero’s or Spock’s entrance into the event horizon, nor that the black hole works the way you posit.

MWI is unfortunately extremely vague about how to determine the splitting process, but it does allow for the branching to occur over the period of time in which the observation is taking place. This means the event horizon we see Spock enter could well be the beginning of the split, a visual manifestation of the quantum event, and the event horizon he exits being the end of the quantum event. Where the Kelvin splits during this time is unknown. What complicates the application of strict MWI here is the addition of the science fiction layer: time travel. Since no one knows how this could actually be accomplished, much less how the event horizon of a quantum event would be represented during such a process, all bets are off on what is happening in the movie.

Also, I believe from everything I have read about what Orci has said about MWI, that he is adhering strictly to Everett’s original theory, which is the most widely accepted interpretation of QM.

Thus I am forced to explain what is depicted on screen by what Orci claims he intended and by what MWI allows. Anything else is sheer speculation. There is great leeway due to the fact that the singularity itself is not part of MWI but rather a construct of science fiction and can behave virtually any way necessary to fit the known parameters.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume Orci is not adhering strictly to MWI QM and travel between universes is possible. In which case, there is no reason Spock cannot go home. Stories can be written about the Mirror Universe, or the Anti-matter Universe. But, time travel has been unequivocally changed, meaning the nature of The Nexus, The Guardian of Forever, The Atavacron, and temporal anomalies has changed – one can no longer go back in time to change one’s own future. Of that there can be no argument, unless Orci changes his mind. Assuming he’s going to change his mind given his statements is pure folly.

Speaking of Orci … did you notice his post at #189? Boborci wrote: “What a discussion. So fun.” If you were hoping Orci would “come to your rescue” and confirm your hypothesis, well now you have your answer. Take from it what you will.

For me, his post reminds me of a guy who is driving home and his bumper falls off crossing the railroad tracks. When he gets home he discovers it missing and drives back along his path until he stumbles upon a smoking train wreck where a passenger train has derailed after striking his bumper. After gawking at the spectacle for a bit, he jumps back in his car and drives home, assuming no responsibility for the carnage and hoping it will just “go away” without having to explain to anybody what happened, much less admit the mechanic who advised him to have his bumper assembly replaced was right.

199. boborci - August 15, 2009

Actually, there is a bit of implied evidence that the Prime universe still exists, and that is the fact that Spock Prime does not disappear! Chances that young spock will fall into a black hole 100 years later while being pursued by Nero are VERY SLIM. In a linear universe, therefore, Spock Prime’s presence would likely be affected by changing his past. But it didn’t. Also, he jokes with young Spock about Kirk’s assumptions when he says, “He (KIRK) assumed universe ending paradoxes would ensue…” essentially saying Kirk thought it was all linear time travel, not QMMWI.

200. AJ - August 15, 2009

It all reminds me a bit of “Selek” in TAS “Yesteryear.” Despite its linearity, I’d say that’s a good thing.

201. Mr. "There are always possibilities" - August 15, 2009

Mr. Orci:

As a fan, I can’t begin to express how much I appreciate you taking the time to read and post on this website. Thank you so much.

You made a great movie. I saw it five times, and will own it. Congratulations on your success.

Live long and prosper, and boldly go!

202. boborci - August 15, 2009

190. Thomas Jensen – August 14, 2009
YUP

203. boborci - August 15, 2009

201. Mr. “There are always possibilities” – August 15, 2009

5 times?!! Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, and thank you!

204. LJ - August 15, 2009

Oh…and Nick Frost in the next movie…maybe as Transporter Chief Lt. Kyle? Now that’d be cool.

205. RD - August 15, 2009

#200. AJ wrote: “It all reminds me a bit of “Selek” in TAS “Yesteryear.”

Good observation. I agree. However, somehow, despite the fact young Spock had been killed in the past, he was still able to return to a present where he did not exist and correct events, all without disappearing!

Star Trek’s time travel has never operated on the traditional “Back To The Future” principle that destroying one’s past destroyed the time traveler. Trek used its own interpretation of paradoxical time travel in which the time traveler was protected from killing one’s own grandfather. It worked really well for 40 years and made for great drama. Orci has seemingly made an assumption from the beginning that the time traveler in Trek is altered by affecting his past. But I cannot think of a single episode in which the time traveler disappeared because the events leading to their existence have changed. Even the most recent example of time travel in Enterprise has the Nazi’s invading North America, yet Archer, his crew and the NX-01 all remain exactly as they were before, none of which would have likely been possible had that timeline gone unchanged. It seems he has changed this one aspect of Trek’s fictional physics to suit his own personal problem with fictional time paradoxes. This is absolutely no different than if he was writing Superman and decided not to allow Superman to swoop in and catch people falling from great heights because the actual physics involved would cause more damage to the victim than if they hit the ground.

Also, I hear there’s a bit of implied evidence of MWI QM in the film. ;-) However, implied evidence is rather like confirming the color of an unseen character’s eyes as blue, through another character’s description that they are the “color of the ocean”, without knowing when the ocean was observed, where the ocean was observed, or whether the observer is colorblind. In the case of Trek, one also has to consider whether the observer is human or if the ocean in question was even on Earth.

206. AJ - August 15, 2009

RD:

There was always a device or ‘maguffin’ (hate that word) which protects the gallant crew from time alterations, whether it’s being caught in a temporal wake, or next to the Guardian. There was also a VOY episode where Kurtwood Smith kept messing with the timestream to get his family back, but VOY was unaffected, perhaps due to its utter uniqueness in the Delta Quadrant. Can time changes be strictly localized? I don’t care as long as it’s a ripping good yarn.

Alternate-Guinan’s spider-sense starts tingling as soon as the E-C pulls up in “Yesterday’s Enterprise” (why should it? She was born and lived in that timeline), so I think there is an uber-super Trekkish thing which can be tapped for story-writing purposes which trumps the current movie’s explanation, regardless of how current it is, of the effect of a time jump.

207. dmduncan - August 15, 2009

201: “Mr. Orci:

“As a fan, I can’t begin to express how much I appreciate you taking the time to read and post on this website. Thank you so much.”

“You made a great movie. I saw it five times, and will own it. Congratulations on your success.”

I’d like to ditto all that. I also saw it five times and it’s one of those rare movies that gets better to me each time I see it because I notice something I missed the previous viewings. I’m not saying that as a Star Trek fan, because I sure can’t say that about ST-TMP, where I have the opposite experience.

Good work. The love really shows, to me at least.

208. dimitri - August 15, 2009

What about a movie with the borg?

209. dmduncan - August 15, 2009

198: “Your contention assumes that the black hole operates like most “transit” black holes depicted in science fiction. However, all we see is an event horizon which Spock enters into and from which Nero exits. Further, the exact moment of the “split” may not be depicted either. Therefore, there is no concrete on screen evidence that the split in the past occurred at a different time than Nero’s or Spock’s entrance into the event horizon, nor that the black hole works the way you posit.”

First we see Nero exit. THEN we see Spock exit and Nero order him captured (now we never SAW Spock captured either, even in Spock’s mind meld, but it is directly implied because Nero gave the order to capture him, and we then saw Spock bowed on the Narada). Then, through the mind meld, we see both Nero AND Spock get sucked in. So it’s directly implied by the events shown to us. The only other way to do it, it seems to me, would be to follow Spock through one side in one long unbroken camera shot and then showing him exit in front of the Narada. But they took a short cut which pretty much accomplished the same thing.

Also, you have to come to every movie with a certain foreknowledge of many things or the movie would not be comprehensible at all. Movies depend on viewers supplying information from their own experience to understand them. The movie’s job isn’t to thoroughly educate a person on every aspect or implication of the things it portrays. That would be one hell of a snoozer no one would ever bother to watch once word got around.

So there’s no escaping that you frequently have to infer what happened from the clues you are given. Some of the best movies, like Hitchcock’s PSYCHO, show you a woman being stabbed to death without ever showing you that she’s been stabbed! That’s the artistic process of moviemaking in action, and it’s what makes great movies great.

Where Star Trek is concerned, while you would ideally want to have as few questions left over after the movie about what happened, you can’t always do that while remaining true to the goal of telling a great story while attracting non fans who won’t be interested in didactic monologues (that’s also why I have mentioned several times they should write and shoot lengthier scenes and include them in an optional fan-cut DVD edition for people like us who would really enjoy that stuff).

Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams, I believe, put on a clinic with this movie on how to compact a load of information and ideas into a tight space without ever making it didactic or boring. And really, part of the fun of this movie is that, look what we’re doing now: We’re STILL debating what we saw happen. That’s not the hallmark of a shallow movie that you forget after seeing it once. A movie where every thing was shown and nothing was implied, where you didn’t have to use your brain to figure things out, would be a dreadful bore!

So it really is impossible to understand completely what happened without leaning on various parts of MW Theory and speculation, but the clues to understand it are all there. Most viewers won’t get that far: They’ll just accept what they see and enjoy it at that level. Even if they don’t understand what we are debating, it is STILL an enjoyable movie with great characters, which helps the movie to transcend the missing details that are only implied.

But even leaning on MW theory and speculation, it seems there is still some poetic license taken in this film, and that’s fine, it doesn’t bother me one bit, because it’s not really a scientific exposition, it’s an artistic one. If you were completely loyal to the least risky parts of MW theory, the whole plot would have to be different. So when I see lightning storms in space that herald the arrival of a new entrant through the black hole, I don’t try to figure out how real science says a lightning storm in space would, first, be possible, and second, how it would herald the creation of a black hole or the arrival of someone new through it; I just accept it is a poetic and visually spectacular plot device to show something important is about to happen.

Ultimately, for me, it’s about the characters. The new cast and their acting made this film shine.

210. mr. mugato - August 15, 2009

The blackl hole premise was exceedingly lame.

211. Bill Peters - August 15, 2009

Mr. Orci,

I have seen the Film 4 time 2 twice with new fans! they all loved it! Also wondering if we could see some Klingons on screen and maybe Nurse Chapel and an older Archer? Hope you have fun making the next film! I for sure will go see it opening day!

212. S. John Ross - August 15, 2009

#208: “Ultimately, for me, it’s about the characters.”

Now all we need are filmmakers who agree with you.

213. miguelito - August 15, 2009

31.

kirk isn’t in the nexus. He’s dead, there’s just an echo left.
Otherwise guinan would have left with picard to face soran.
She couldn’t, that is why picard went to look for kirk in the first place.

214. RD - August 15, 2009

#208. dmduncan wrote: “you have to come to every movie with a certain foreknowledge of many things or the movie would not be comprehensible at all. Movies depend on viewers supplying information from their own experience to understand them. The movie’s job isn’t to thoroughly educate a person on every aspect or implication of the things it portrays.”

I know this will shock you, but I agree 100% with this. However, that doesn’t apply to the debate at hand. Since I am losing focus a bit from your response, let me reframe the issue:
1) This article speculates what the story for the sequel will be about.
2) Orci has stated ST09 adheres to MWI QM and any sequel will as well.
3) Orci has confirmed he will not write a script which allows for traveling back in time to change future events.
4) Orci has conceded that certain Old Testament Canon will not fit with MWI QM.
4) Orci has not clarified whether he strictly adheres to MWI QM including its prohibition on travel between worlds.
5) Fans have speculated that future stories could include Old Testament Canon, like The Guardian of Forever and the Mirror Universe, disallowed by MWI.
6) There is confusion about whether ST09 depicts travel between universes, counter to MWI QM, which would pave the way for such stories in the future.

In this context, and for the purposes of this debate, we must “check” anything we know at the door. Of course audiences can assume anything they want, including the most logical interpretation that this is a linear time travel story where Spock has gone back in time and history has been changed wiping out everything from 2233 forward. There is no Prime timeline for the average audience and nothing on screen to prove otherwise. That’s why we can’t bring our preconceptions and inferences to answer point #6 above – the only issue which is still in question in my mind.

#208. dmduncan wrote: “First we see Nero exit. THEN we see Spock exit…”

Neither one of these events proves that Spock & Nero came through a “wormhole” from one universe to another. However, there is nothing to prove they did not. It is a matter of interpretation. If we search for a solution to otherwise explain it from MWI, one is there.

#208. dmduncan wrote: ” Then, through the mind meld, we see both Nero AND Spock get sucked in. So it’s directly implied by the events shown to us. “

The mind meld has been discussed at some length because it shows us events which are scientifically inaccurate – the view of Vulcan imploding from Delta Vega for instance. It also shows us a third party POV, not Spock’s direct experience. It would be impossible for Spock to witness the Narada and his own ship being swallowed by the black hole. Therefore, the film is absolutely taking poetic license here. In context of the story, Spock could very easily be manipulating the images he shares with Kirk to be representations of events to best convey what happened rather than Spock’s actual experience. Therefore, this imagery cannot be taken as a depiction of actual events.

#208. dmduncan wrote: ” But even leaning on MW theory and speculation, it seems there is still some poetic license taken in this film,”

Absolutely, no question there. Every film and TV show takes poetic license. That’s what makes it all the more confusing: from extrapolating the size of the Enterprise to confirming strict adherence to MWI. To that, all I will say is this: Orci responded in #199 above. He had the opportunity to settle this debate, but once again, he merely parroted a quotation he has made many times before. Yet in doing so, he has once again confirmed his commitment to MWI. Not a variant of a “many worlds” decoherence QM interpretation, but Everett’s specifically named “MWI”.

So in my mind, the answer to point number #6 above is a combination of: nothing is concretely defined on-screen and Orci’s insistence he will adhere to classic MWI. Therefore, in addition to not writing a sequel story in which characters can travel travel though time and restore Vulcan, he will likely not write a story about transiting back and forth between the Mirror Universe.

But as you and others have pointed out, he can change his mind at any time, which is why I think ST09 is intentionally vague. My contention is that fans should not expect such a change of heart based on his emphatic statements regarding MWI QM.

#208. dmduncan wrote: “Ultimately, for me, it’s about the characters. The new cast and their acting made this film shine.”

And to that I respectfully ask, why debate this kind of crap at all? (don’t assume I don’t know it’s inconsequential ;-)

215. dmduncan - August 15, 2009

214: “Neither one of these events proves that Spock & Nero came through a “wormhole” from one universe to another.”

Here’s where we disagree and why. It’s a fictional universe, so there are no objective facts that our statements can be matched up against to determine if our statements about them are true or not. You can’t prove that Spock went or did not go into a wormhole if there really is no Spock. So it’s not appropriate in my view to speak of these events as if they were real events that happened and which we can gather evidence in the real universe to prove things about them. But, what we do have is two things: We have the science it is supposed to be based on to help us understand, and we also have Orci and Kurtzman. Since they are the creators of this new universe, they are in effect stand-ins for the “objective” universe of this new Trek. So while we cannot go looking in the real universe for “proof” that Spock did or did not go through a black hole, because there is no real Spock, we CAN look to the authorities of this new universe, because they’re the people who wrote and directed the movie.

“Neither one of these events proves that Spock & Nero came through a ‘wormhole’ from one universe to another. However, there is nothing to prove they did not. It is a matter of interpretation. If we search for a solution to otherwise explain it from MWI, one is there.”

I believe Orci himself called them black holes in Q&A, although I can’t recall at the moment if that is what they were called in the movie, and they certainly behaved that way onscreen with the exception of the poetic license taken in which both Spock and Nero came out of one. Kirk had trouble escaping from it at the end. So I defer to their authority regarding what they intended to show and have no reason to question it, because it’s a fictional universe.

Another thing regarding the moment of the split I’d like to address:

I believe that the idea of Trek ‘09 was that at some point Spock’s interference created a splitting of the universes, and that before that happened, we are intended to accept the Kelvin’s universe as the past of the Trek Prime universe.

So now the question is when did the split occur?

What we can say is that either there was a Prime Spock produced black hole in TOS timeline that the Kelvin found or there was not.

If there was, then either there was a Narada that came out of that hole and destroyed the Kelvin, or there was not.

We know that George Kirk did not sacrifice himself attacking the Narada in the past of the Trek Prime universe, because had that happened, Kirk Prime would not have known his father which Spock indicates that he did in the ice cave on Delta Vega.

So it would seem that the splitting had to occur sometime before the Kelvin was destroyed.

But this still doesn’t pin down the exact moment of the split. For example, it’s possible that in the Prime universe there was a Spock Prime produced black hole, but a more civil Nero piloting the Narada came through, and he made no contact with the Kelvin, and just zoomed off into Romulan space. So in effect, the split might have occurred, in this theory, after the Kelvin’s encounter with the Narada in both universes, and then there was a split in which in one universe the Narada disappeared without causing any damage (or creating any face to face contact which, according to canon we know there should not have been at that time in TOS universe), and where in the other branch the Narada proceeds to destroy the Kelvin.

It seems closer to what Orci and Kurtzman intended (and since there IS no real, objective Star Trek universe to match our statements up against to determine if what we say matches the facts, because there ARE no facts, it’s all fictional, i.e., Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams are the representatives of this new universe and we have to look at what they intend, not what the non-existent “objective“ facts are) that if a Nero had come out of that black hole, he would have been intent on revenge, so the universe wouldn’t have split after he came out, but before, with the beginning of the black hole created by Spock Prime. Of course, he could have come out in both universes, attacked the Kelvin and failed to destroy it in the Prime universe, leaving George Kirk alive, but that would still mean that the split had to occur well before George Kirk died in Trek ‘09 or before the Kelvin was in such bad shape that escape would have been possible, so that helps to narrow the moment down; but given the advanced technology Nero had and that he had the complete drop on the Kelvin, escape for the Kelvin would not have seemed possible in either universe. Remember, even 25 years later Nero blasted the fleet to bits all by himself when they went to Vulcan, and the Enterprise survived only because he spared them. Also remember, MWI says that whatever CAN happen does happen, so if it’s not possible for the Kelvin to escape the Narada, it wouldn’t have happened in ANY universe, which would mean that the split occurred before the Kelvin met the Narada, which then points to the Spock-created black hole as the event/moment which split the universes.

“And to that I respectfully ask, why debate this kind of crap at all?”

It is fun!

: )

216. AJ - August 15, 2009

Please God! Make it stop! Someone please make it stop!

217. mr. mugato - August 15, 2009

Face facts people, it’s a different universe, it’s not Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek anymore. I’m not even sure it’s Star Trek even though that’s what it’s called.

218. Boborci - August 15, 2009

218. mr. mugato – August 15, 2009
“Face facts people, it’s a different universe, it’s not Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek anymore. I’m not even sure it’s Star Trek even though that’s what it’s called.”

It is Star Trek.

219. P Technobabble - August 15, 2009

135. AJ

I love it….

220. P Technobabble - August 15, 2009

219. Boborci

Yes, it IS Star Trek.

First, the fact that Leonard Nimoy — at this stage of his career (and life) doesn’t need to do anything he doesn’t want to, nor does he need the $$ —
agreed to be in this film tells me that HE believed it was Star Trek.
Second, the fact that some people are completely incapable of accepting change is the beginning of an extremely unhappy life… as opposed to people who can go with the flow, go along and enjoy the ride, have a good time… Happy feels way better than anything else.

221. S. John Ross - August 16, 2009

#217: “Face facts people, it’s a different universe, it’s not Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek anymore. I’m not even sure it’s Star Trek even though that’s what it’s called.”

It’s Star Trek … to the same extent that The Phantom Menace is “Star Wars” and to the same extent that the re-imagined BSG is “Battlestar Galactica.” Going back further, it’s Star Trek to the same extent that Gil Gerard was Buck Rogers, and so on.

Which is to say: to some people, it’s not very Star Trek at all, and to some people it is. To some people, it’s the ultimate finally-it-is-realized version of Star Trek. Legally speaking, Paramount and its cronies (or licensees) can declare a random paper bag plucked from a bin as “Star Trek” by stamping a logo on it … and they’re not wrong. That’s their right; they own or license the IP. But fans get to decide, for themselves, how much any given work lives up to the _promise_ of that name, and to what it represents to them. The suits, and their lackeys (and even the ever-classy, ever-awesome Leonard Nimoy) get no say in that. It’s not for them; it’s not about them; it’s not something they can own.

So if you’re not sure, you’re not sure. Some people ARE sure, one way or another. Legally, it’s moot … It’s Star Trek because the trademark notice is unambiguous on that point. In every other way that actually matters: nobody can be wrong or right about it.

But either way, it’s canon. That’s a suit thing. Alas.

222. Brett Campbell - August 16, 2009

221 — What is “the IP”?

223. Son of a Maui Portagee - August 16, 2009

221. S. John Ross once said “Legally speaking, Paramount and its cronies (or licensees) can declare a random paper bag plucked from a bin as “Star Trek” by stamping a logo on it … and they’re not wrong. That’s their right; they own or license the IP.”

Actually, no. Paramount now licenses STAR TREK from CBS. CBS owns and licenses the IP and is its sole arbiter.

Just as CBS chose to shut down another of their licensees, STAR TREK: THE EXPERIENCE, they could shut down Paramount’s Trek, in effect, at their whim.

224. Son of a Maui Portagee - August 16, 2009

#222

Intellectual Property

225. screaming satellite - August 16, 2009

199 boborci – “Also, he jokes with young Spock about Kirk’s assumptions when he says, “He (KIRK) assumed universe ending paradoxes would ensue…” essentially saying Kirk thought it was all linear time travel, not QMMWI.”

i took that a a slight reference to Back to the Future 2 – Doc Browns universe ending paradox when two people who are the same meet….

226. RD - August 16, 2009

#215. dmduncan wrote: “So now the question is when did the split occur?”

As I understand decoherence in MWI, simplistically: the splitting applies to the subject and the observer(s) equally once the measurement is completed. I would argue the point of view the audience follows is Nero & Spock’s because they are the time travelers, or the ones “conducting the experiment”. In this case, the crew of the Kelvin is rather like Schrödinger’s cat. Once the “box is opened” and the observation complete, they split without knowing there is a version of themselves which does not encounter a lightning storm. Spock & Nero, as the observers, “open the box” to discover that they have arrived in 2233 and altered the course of the Kelvin and thus future events, understanding that there is an alternative outcome.

MWI says the split is complete once the measurement is complete, no matter how long it takes, but not when exactly the split occurred. In the case of the cat, the minute the box is opened, the split has begun to occur, but cannot be completed until the observer sees the cat, and arguably confirms the cat is physically alive or dead and not merely sleeping. In the case of Spock & Nero as the observers, the measurement is not complete until they observe their presence in the new timeline, though the split begins from the moment they witness the formation of the singularity, or begin lifting the lid of the cat box – “the quantum event”. Therefore, when the Kelvin splits is irrelevant, just like it is irrelevant to the cat. The cat neither knows it is part of the experiment, nor cares whether it is still alive, nor aware in the event it has died. The cat splits as a result of the observers experiment. Whether that happens when the box lid is grasped or the observer confirms the cat is in one state or the other. In this case I would suggest, the Kelvin splits as soon as the singularity appears in the past where it did not before. However, Nero & Spock created the formation of the singularity (“the experiment”) and presumably the universe split (taking them with it) before it propagated to the past, even if that amount of time was measurable only in quantum Planck time – thus the grasping of the “box lid”.

Since Spock & Nero initiated the quantum event resulting in time travel, the universe branches from their perspective, regardless of how they transited into the branch, nor how the branch jumped from an earlier time. MWI QM doesn’t care how it happened, only that it followed the rules.

If I had to guess, I would say the singularity bent space time so that 2233 & 2362 touched, allowing any matter caught in its effects to split from that earlier point.

So why isn’t there an “original of Nero & Spock” left in the Prime universe? Further complicating this is that MWI insists there are multiple outcomes resulting in incalculable worlds spun off from this event. Unlike the cat where there are two states: alive and dead, the result of entering the black hole results in many different states. Regardless of which befall Nero & Spock, they are no longer alive in their universe. Physics requires that at a minimum, they cannot escape the black hole and the Prime versions are crushed in the gravity well. In any number of resulting universes this is the most likely possibility. However, the singularity can not only connect to 2233, but to all points along the timeline (and all places in the universe) sending previously identical copies of Nero & Spock to all of them. I would guess it is also possible that it behaved as a simple wormhole through which they passed and were deposited at the exact same moment in their own universe, though that would be an alternate universe and not the Prime one, which they have most definitely vacated one way or the other.

Given all of those possibilities, QM would hone in on the probabilities of where they would most likely turn up. Orci tells us they are absent from the Prime universe so they did not remain. Regardless, we followed Nero & Spock to 2233 and the universe in which the Kelvin made that particular choice to investigate the lightning storm, rather than any of the many other possibilities which might have otherwise found it elsewhere upon Nero’s arrival.

After ALL THAT: I now see that Orci is writing about travel between parallel universes over at Fringe and has said “It’s more wish fulfillment and riffing on our world than ‘We have to follow the rules of two universes.'” Evidently “Fringe” does not not conform to “the latest greatest, most highly tested scientific theory in human history.” This seems odd to me because Fringe is supposed to be as much about science a Trek, if not more so. Is he sending us a message about Trek’s application of MWI QM? More importantly, Orci is making a statement about not adhering to “the rules” in Fringe, whereas he has said exactly the opposite about Trek. Clearly we can take him at his word (unless he is lying ;-)

227. S. John Ross - August 16, 2009

#223: “Paramount now licenses STAR TREK from CBS. CBS owns and licenses the IP and is its sole arbiter.”

A fair correction, then; thank you. Keep the word “cronies” and mentally search-and-replace for the rest. :) Telling one set of bean-counting suits from another has never been my strong suit … But mocking them is something that is very, very Star Trek to me ;)

Hm. Speaking of: I wonder if CBS are easier to deal with than Paramount were for approvals?

228. S. John Ross - August 16, 2009

#222: What #224 said. It’s shorthand to keep from typing “relevant copyrights, trademarks, trade-dress and/or patents,” which are some of the major categories that bundle together to form what is more generally known as IP.

229. dmduncan - August 16, 2009

226: “MWI says the split is complete once the measurement is complete, no matter how long it takes, but not when exactly the split occurred. In the case of the cat, the minute the box is opened, the split has begun to occur, but cannot be completed until the observer sees the cat…”

No RD. MWI was developed by Everett precisely because he rejected the weirdness of the observer role in determining objective reality. It’s in the Copenhagen Interpretation where what you see affects the outcome, not in MWI. In MWI the outcome is determined independent of the observer. So in the double slit photon experiments, for example, the observer has no role in determining where the photon hits on the detector. If it is possible for the photon to strike in two different areas of the detector, then there is a split in the worlds and a world where it hits in one place and a world where it hits in the other place where it is possible for it to hit, and the observer is never a factor in deciding exactly where it hits by his measurements, because it actually hits in both places. The wave function collapse is only apparent, not real, because the one who measures only and ever detects it striking in ONE place. MWI would say that the other measurers will detect it striking in different places at the same time in alternate universes.

230. RD - August 16, 2009

#227 – As CBS is trading at over $14.00 LESS than Viacom, dropping by over 8 points since last year, I would definitely say CBS is easier to deal with than Paramount. Keep your eyes open for recycled brown paper bags with the Trek logo, coming soon.

231. RD - August 16, 2009

#223. Son of a Maui Portagee wrote: “CBS chose to shut down another of their licensees, STAR TREK: THE EXPERIENCE, they could shut down Paramount’s Trek, in effect, at their whim.”

Actually no. Paramount wholly owned the exhibition until 2006 when it was sold to Ceder Fair whose contract expired in 2008. According to Trek Movie’s own reporting, the Hilton was likely the main reason the exhibit was closed down, but declining revenue made it less attractive to Ceder Fair as well. And CBS may have well been already engaged in negotiating a more lucrative deal with the developers of the Neonopolis to be re-opened in 2010.

http://trekmovie.com/2008/06/29/star-trek-the-experience-closing-in-september/

Your statement suggests that CBS can shut down a licensee at any time, however, that is not true. The licensee would have to violate the terms of their legally binding agreement to terminate a contract. Once the contract expires however, CBS can do anything they want. I would tend to side with S. John Ross on this one, I doubt CBS would be too discriminating about what they license (as IMO they have not been, as evidenced by the various Trek “fragrances” marketed with this movie), as long as they were paid enough. In fact I would speculate Les Moonves is chomping at the bit to separate Trek from Paramount (where I suspect they are subject to less lucrative licensing conditions resulting from the Vicaom split), in order to auction it off to the highest bidder.

232. captain_neill - August 16, 2009

To me the new movie had the spirit of the original series but I think it missed on the more philosophical Trek.

I feel some of the true weight of Star Trek was jetisoned to make the film more mainstream. Is the film Star Trek? I would say to a degree it is.

I guess it could be described as Star Trek light, changes where made to make it marketable to the mainstream audience.

The new movie to me has leaned more towards Star Wars in many aspects. I can accept this film as it runs parallel to the Trek we all love.

233. ger - August 16, 2009

What the hell.

234. ger - August 16, 2009

“218. Boborci – August 15, 2009
218. mr. mugato – August 15, 2009
“Face facts people, it’s a different universe, it’s not Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek anymore. I’m not even sure it’s Star Trek even though that’s what it’s called.”

It is Star Trek.”

Yes, that’s the name you gave the product, but the content inside is fake.

TOS and TNG were both creations that Roddenberry was involved with. DS9 and VOY are proper continuations of that creation, sharing the same continuity. ENT started to mess things up, but it still acknowledged TOS and even TNG, glueing it all together again.

Your product, on the other hand, consciously ignores and rewrites everything that original universe stood for. And then it’s rewritten badly. It’s a slap in the guts of that original universe. It’s “You’re old, you’re bad, I’m new and fresh.” That’s not the same product, it’s fake. The company has been bought by some private investor who changes the entire product line but keeps the name. That’s what happens all the time, and it’s what happened here.

A proper sequel, in the 25th century or later, sharing the continuity with TOS and TNG, that would have been the right thing to do, and it would have made NO difference on the general audience. The people watched this movie because of the trailers, the actors and JJ Abram’s re-branding, and because they like your shitty writing, they didn’t walk in because of the characters. Those could have been Jerk and McGurk, two Starfleet officers in the 26th century, it would have made NO difference to the audience. But to the fans, and the name Star Trek, it would have, because it would have still been a proper continuation of the original Star Trek, and not a fake reboot.

235. screaming satellite - August 16, 2009

232 – “To me the new movie had the spirit of the original series but I think it missed on the more philosophical Trek.

I feel some of the true weight of Star Trek was jetisoned to make the film more mainstream. Is the film Star Trek? I would say to a degree it is.

I guess it could be described as Star Trek light, changes where made to make it marketable to the mainstream audience.”

yeah – just like ‘Where No Man Has Gone Before’

236. screaming satellite - August 16, 2009

and TWOK

237. screaming satellite - August 16, 2009

199 boborci – “Also, he jokes with young Spock about Kirk’s assumptions when he says, “He (KIRK) assumed universe ending paradoxes would ensue…” essentially saying Kirk thought it was all linear time travel, not QMMWI.”

also remembered even before Pine Kirk meets Nimoy Spock the scene on the bridge where Kirk and Spock are discussing Nero etc and Spock berates Kirk for thinking to be unpredictable is the best way considering Nero is from the future…and spock says something about it all being an alternate timeline and Kirk gives this look of like ‘WTF?’ as if he had been thinking about conventional time travel…

238. ger - August 16, 2009

It’s always fun when someone tries to quote Quantum Mechanics to back up his writing when he doesn’t even understand how a black hole works, and when essentially he uses “magic” to justify the awful amount of coincidences in the script. A timeline healing itself… my ass… what is this now supposed to be, science fiction with timetravel, parallel universes and chaos theory, or fantasy with chosen ones and magical destiny?

239. ger - August 16, 2009

237. screaming satellite.

Yeah. If WE know about parallel universes and bla, then THEY should know, too, shouldn’t they?

Oh no, a paradox! How can Kirk be puzzled about physics, when the audience already knows?

240. Boborci - August 16, 2009

234. ger – August 16, 2009

I think your post is all the evidence we need to establish why you do what you do and why I do what I do.

241. dmduncan - August 16, 2009

(I posted this last night and it apparently got sucked into an alternate universe Trekmovie blog, so here it goes again.)

One more point to make: We know that the latest the split could have occurred is at the moment of George Kirk’s death; it would have happened sooner than that if we presume there was no possible escape for George after he decided to ram the Narada, but in any case, no later than the moment of his death, because in the Prime universe he did not die.

That would mean that the universe split at that moment, which would make Nero and his crew actual time travelers to the past of the Trek prime universe. But since Spock came after that moment, that would mean Spock Prime, unlike Nero, STILL made a leap between universes: Since he arrived in the universe that George Kirk died in and which Nero caused the split in, there would be no escaping the fact that Spock leaped from one universe to the other, and unlike Nero, was never literally a time traveler to the past of the Trek Prime universe at all. IF Nero was the one that created the split AND the split occurred at the moment of George Kirk’s death, then Spock, coming out of the black hole 25 years after the split, entered the alternate universe created after Nero attacked the Kelvin and where George Kirk died.

So no matter how you look at it, there had to be a leap between universes for Spock.

***

226: “MWI says the split is complete once the measurement is complete, no matter how long it takes, but not when exactly the split occurred. In the case of the cat, the minute the box is opened, the split has begun to occur, but cannot be completed until the observer sees the cat…”

No. MWI was developed by Everett precisely because he rejected the weirdness of the observer role in determining “objective” reality. It’s in the Copenhagen Interpretation where what you see affects the outcome, not in MWI. In MWI the outcome is determined independent of the observer. So in the double slit photon experiments, for example, the observer has no role in determining where the photon hits on the detector by his measurements. If it is possible for the photon to strike in two different areas of the detector, then there is a split in the worlds and a world where it hits in one place and a world where it hits in the other place where it is possible for it to hit, and the observer is never a factor in deciding exactly where it hits by his measurements, because it actually hits in both places. In the Schrodinger’s Cat example, from the MWI perspective, there would be a split independent of the observer and there would be a world where the observer opens the box and finds the cat dead, and a world where the observer opens the box and finds it alive, so by MWI, and in CONTRAST to Copenhagen, the cat is never both alive and dead at the same time in the same universe prior to the observer’s observation; instead MWI asserts the cat becomes both alive and dead at the same time in DIFFERENT universes or worlds independent of the observer or his measuring activity. The wave function collapse is only apparent, not real, because the one who measures only and ever detects the photon striking in ONE place or the cat as EITHER alive OR dead, so it merely LOOKS like his measurements are collapsing the wave function.

242. dmduncan - August 16, 2009

234: “But to the fans, and the name Star Trek, it would have, because it would have still been a proper continuation of the original Star Trek, and not a fake reboot.”

Speak for yourself, Mr. Angry Pants. I’m a fan of TOS only.

Roddenberry’s involvement with anything afterwards notwithstanding, he had clearly lost the touch by TMP when he fell in line behind Bob Wise’s opinion that you couldn’t have bold colored costumes or sets on a big screen as the reason why they made it so damned drab in appearance. When I heard they were going to do a reboot and go back to the beginning, I was ecstatic because that was a fantasy idea of my own for a long time, to see how this crew came together.

No only that, but what’s the point in taking the show or it’s offshoots more seriously than the man who created it? It certainly wasn’t a religion to him, and consistency to him wasn’t so big a deal as it is to so many fans who take it a little TOO seriously.

TMP was obviously a reboot of the episode “The Changeling,” or are we for the sake of some silly fanatical wish for consistency supposed to believe that James Kirk and company found TWO modified Earth probes returning to their home of origin to find their creators during their careers? I’m not buying that. Sorry.

And WHEN, do tell, has Star Trek ever been 100% hard science fiction? Sling-shotting around the sun to go back in time? That’s fantasy. Transporters that can beam people anywhere on the surface of a planet WITHOUT a receiving pad to receive their signal and recompose them? Fantasy. Sounds in space?

Star Trek has ALWAYS been a balance between the credible and the incredible, and not only is Bob carrying on Gene Roddenberry’s tradition, he’s doing a fine job of it.

243. RD - August 16, 2009

#243. dmduncan wrote – “So no matter how you look at it, there had to be a leap between universes.”

Again, I don’t see it this way. In my post at #146, I outlined a fictional method for which the singularity could have behaved as the quantum event horizon in transiting Nero & Spock into the alternate branch, literally completing the “observation” 25 years after the split. I’m sure there are many more ways to view it that are even more coherent than mine in order to make events on screen conform to MWI QM.

But as you continue to point out, this is all merely fiction. To that point I say, Spock’s delay is just sloppy writing, if Orci truly has attempted to adhere to MWI QM – whether he claims “artistic license” or not (or maybe he really knows more about it than we give him credit for). Either way that satisfies my point which is Orci does not intend to write stories that violate MWI QM.

But honestly, taking it out of the fictional universe is not what Star Trek is about for a lot of fans. The whole point of Fanon is to plug holes in the plot the writers failed to close, for whatever reason – despite the fact none of it is real. So everything that occurs on screen must be explained as if it were real.

As I have said repeatedly, I’m perfectly content to imagine that the timeline has been reset and there is no Alternate Universe. However, Orci says the film adheres to MWI QM, so it must be able to be explained by that means. As I see it, it can be explained both ways. Nothing on-screen is conclusive proof of one or the other.

And that brings us back to the initial problem – is the Mirror Universe a viable possibility for a sequel? Based on Orci’s unspecific comments alone and the fact there is nothing in the film that cannot be explained by MWI QM, I say it’s not very likely.

P.S. of course you are right about the cat experiment. It was a bad way to analogize what I am thinking (and it seemed so clever at 3 in the morning). MWI does not specify when a split occurs because it can happen at a potentially infinite number of times for previously identical observers. Oops.

244. dmduncan - August 16, 2009

Regardless of how both universes were once the same universe, once there is a branch they are not the same anymore. They were the same before the split. Afterwards there are two instead of one, so after the split Spock goes from one to the other. So I fully accept Bob’s intention that the Prime universe still exists and was not wiped out. But there will always still be a requirement that you suspend disbelief here and there.

There are thought to be some rare and unusual cases where split universes may actually FUSE back together, which would be very interesting to see from a ST plot perspective, but you would probably still have to suspend a good amount of disbelief to accept how it would be portrayed onscreen.

Somehow, however, if that were depicted as a means of uniting the Trek timelines, I don’t think many fans who are complaining now would complain then that the science for that to happen was not impeccable.

: )

245. dmduncan - August 16, 2009

And when this team (Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams) knows the last sequel is due, maybe they’ll consider exploring the fused universe plot premise. That might offer an interesting way to wrap this series up and prepare it for a yet another rebooting.

246. AJ - August 16, 2009

240:

Bob, I don’t envy you putting your chin on the line like that (though I do wish I had your job). That one must have really pissed you off, because you’re usually quite balanced in how you deal with the fans. That’s my impression, anyway.

You and Alex K. wrote a great TOS film that grossed $400m with the help of a great director, a wonderful cast, and countless others behind the scenes. You and your colleagues also brought in another $800+m in revenue with the team at Transformers 2. Fringe is going to season 2…You’re in the zone. Now. Sunday the 16th.

Don’t let ‘em get you down. Ever. Just keep up the great work.

247. RD - August 16, 2009

#241. –– I have been looking at this whole thing the wrong way.

Applying MWI QM we easily eliminate traveling between universes for ST09, regardless of what we see on-screen.

When S&N create the quantum event which results in time travel, they are immediately split into a myriad of branch universes, including one in which they are crushed in the singularity, one in which they are transported to 2009, etc. Likewise, the one in which they are transported to 2233 is a separate branch. They can never go back to the Prime Universe from which they originated. The fact that they entered a singularity in the “Prime” universe by the laws of physics means they are no longer in it, except as possibly atoms. The real question there is if all outcomes from entering a black hole are possible, can any be considered a linear continuation of a single Prime universe? Not likely.

So what do we see in the movie? Well, we see an alternate branch where Nero arrives from 2387. It is one of many previously identical Neros from the Prime universe. It is from this altered branch of the universe that a previously identical Spock later arrives. Neither are able to return to another universe, regardless of how they got there, because they represent merely one of a myriad of outcomes branching off of a previously identical universe.

The problem we’ve created is trying to even comprehend a particular linear path through these branched universes as a single cohesive whole labeled “Prime”, “Alternate” or “Mirror”. The reality is the term “Prime” only applies to one instant of quantum Planck time, immediately previous to the following split. Since the universe is branching for every single thing at every single set of options, in order to make sense of it, we do have to follow a particular set of choices, artificially constructing a linear progression from a particular viewpoint – presumably one that follows the path of greatest probability.

Since this is a movie, we are able to follow the choices of many characters or perhaps the aggregate of their most probable choices.

Bottom line: from the first frame of the movie, the Prime universe was history. Regardless of the method Nero & Spock transited the timeline, the versions we saw in the Alternate universe were already branched from the Prime universe incalculable times, with absolutely no way to go back. Of course we can assume a set of choices in the Trek universe that result in the collective universe we call “Prime”, but any travel between that manifestation of events and the one we call “Alternate” would by definition create a new universe, whether or not it continues to follow a specific perceived path. Moreover, if the path is determined by the individual or aggregate perception of the most probable course, then how could one ever expect to return to the exact path they were on once removed from the closed system generating the path?

Sadly, solipsism seems to be the net result of MWI.

248. Anthony Pascale - August 16, 2009

ger

warning for trolling

we ask people to be polite around her with everyone, find ways to do so

249. dmduncan - August 16, 2009

246: “You and Alex K. wrote a great TOS film that grossed $400m with the help of a great director, a wonderful cast, and countless others behind the scenes…

Don’t let ‘em get you down. Ever. Just keep up the great work.”

I agree with 246, and please tell this wonderful cast that we think they’re phenomenal in their roles.

250. dmduncan - August 16, 2009

247: “The problem we’ve created is trying to even comprehend a particular linear path through these branched universes as a single cohesive whole labeled “Prime”, “Alternate” or “Mirror”.”

It would actually be okay to speak of a Prime universe as long as we realize that Prime universe doesn’t mean “the” universe, but the universe of the TV show we saw, and that regardless of however many splits hypothetically occur, the drama we see always belongs to the same set of people, as we follow their stories down whatever branches they go through. Prime really just means the particular stories that happened to those particular characters that went down those particular branches that we saw, so that a Kirk in the Prime universe, for instance, would not have the memories of what a Kirk in any alternate universe did when they each did different things. That’s what Prime would have to mean, and alternate would have to mean any other branch other than the ones we saw happen in TOS. Prime and alternate would be relative terms, designations important only to our own specific points of view watching it happen.

251. ger - August 16, 2009

“Speak for yourself, Mr. Angry Pants. I’m a fan of TOS only.”

I fail to understand how one can be a fan of multiple, very different versions of TOS, but not of a continuation of it.

Isn’t this movie so much different to TOS as TNG/DS9 were to TOS, or even TMP to TOS? If you ask me, the nuTrek is even much, much more different than that.

So what makes the difference to you? The amount of suspension of disbelief that is needed to accept Pine as Kirk, opposed to the amount needed to accept a character like Picard or Sisko as the lead in a new series?

252. RD - August 16, 2009

#250. dmduncan wrote: “Prime and alternate would be relative terms, designations important only to our own specific points of view watching it happen.”

Indeed I think they are even in MWI. A “Prime” path through the many-worlds and an “Alternate” one.

As I understand MWI, it evidently accounts for subsets of interacting branches, in other words, a collective, or individual consciousness: the cat lives and the observer sees the cat is alive. These then comprise a macroscopic system of probable sequential choices: Prime universe or Alternate universe.

So even on a macroscopic level I would posit that Spock cannot return to the so-called Prime universe he left, because he has been removed from the interaction of choices in that universe (his “existence”) and therefore, it has evolved differently than had he been there. He may be able to get close, but it will never be the same as if he never left. Let’s say he returns to the exact moment he left. Again, he will make different choices than before he left. What is the old saying: “You can never go home again”? Turns out there’s a reason for it in quantum mechanics.

So granted, through the magic of Sci-Fi, if somehow one can tag the exact universe they left, they would have to return to that exact moment in order for the events to continue to unfold similarly as before they left. If one were to transit back and forth between universes in real time, there would be no way to be sure they were traveling back to the correct path in either universe, only one of many probable paths that would have branched off in their absence, none of which would be the existence which was once theirs. I am then forced to ask: what would be the point in that kind of story? In essence one would be dealing with different people each time no matter how similar.

Time travel of course remains completely pointless as it only alters the traveler’s personal perception of reality under MWI and is therefore a completely selfish endeavor.

253. dmduncan - August 16, 2009

251: “So what makes the difference to you? The amount of suspension of disbelief that is needed to accept Pine as Kirk..”

I didn’t have to suspend any disbelief to accept Pine as a young Jim Kirk. He was so good in that role that I accepted him effortlessly.

In the 60’s Star Trek was just a TV show, but by TNG it had become full of a sense of it’s own mythos and responsibility, so it was too politically correct and bland. This new Trek is a flashback not only in appearance but attitude to TOS.

And I didn’t like the sets, the costumes, or the ship design of TNG.

The brilliant design work that went into the look of TOS was a miraculous confluence of several geniuses at that precise moment in history that has never been improved on, in my view, and Abrams was wise in returning to its greatness.

Look at the uniforms in the new movie: They are for people who can run, jump, be active, fight, if necessary. They aren’t the stuffy naval style costumes developed on TWOK for middle aged med with tummy bulges which would split at the butt if any one of them bent over to pick up a dropped communicator.

254. dmduncan - August 16, 2009

And there were really some pretty major suspensions of disbelief you’d have to make for the TOS Trek movies. I loved TUC, but come on, Spock slapped a veridium patch on the shoulder of Kirk that was as big as a GOLF ball and nobody noticed? Add to that that the Klingons let Kirk stay in that uniform all the way to Ura Penthe and down on its surface.

And what was with that leap Kirk made at the end that saved the Federation President? It looked like Kirk was launched from a cannon!

It’s the little things, I tell ya…

255. LH - August 16, 2009

“Those could have been Jerk and McGurk, two Starfleet officers in the 26th century, it would have made NO difference to the audience. But to the fans, and the name Star Trek, it would have, because it would have still been a proper continuation of the original Star Trek, and not a fake reboot.”

I am a strong fan of TOS and I thought TNG was OK. I would NOT have seen this if it was just yet another series (or even if it was TNG); I saw it (three times) because it’s TOS and because it’s a good movie. It got me back into Trek because it was good. My friend, who was a moderate fan of TOS watching as a kid in the 1980s saw it because it’s TOS. TOS (and the others) did plenty of things that I would think if you’re being consistent you would find “fake”.
Does it really take that much “suspension of (dis)belief” to accept Pine? Heck, I managed to accept Karl Urban as McCoy, one of my two favorite characters (other is Spock) and he is built like an action hero, not like DeForest Kelley. Seems Urban and Pine were both good enough to pull it off, if people were willing to give them the chance.
If you don’t like it, you have thousands of hours of other movies and the series to watch.

256. Admiral_BlackCat - August 16, 2009

RE: this is Star Trek.
I’ve been saying for awhile now that with STXI humanities hope and optimism of our future is alive and well, comes across wonderfully on-screen, and that has always been a huge draw for me to Star Trek as a whole. So yes, it is Star Trek.

RE: suspension of disbelief.
The Eugenics Wars of the 1990’s. Khan was absolute ruler of a quarter of the entire planet by 1992. I was around during that time and that never happened.

257. S. John Ross - August 16, 2009

#234 sez: “Those could have been Jerk and McGurk, two Starfleet officers in the 26th century, it would have made NO difference to the audience.”

So very, very, very true.

#240 sez: “I think your post is all the evidence we need to establish why you do what you do and why I do what I do.”

So very, very, very true.

258. S. John Ross - August 16, 2009

#231: “I doubt CBS would be too discriminating about what they license (as IMO they have not been, as evidenced by the various Trek “fragrances” marketed with this movie), as long as they were paid enough.”

Alas, “paid enough” is still a trick, for what I’ve been hoping to see :)

259. Son of a Maui Portagee - August 16, 2009

#231.,

I was constructing a reply laying out my reasoning but it seems to have been swallowed by a black hole.

While we wait to see if it pops up on the other side, I’ll post this peek at the contracts:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/26826019.html

“CBS-Paramount helped shape the Experience and owns the intellectual property rights. So it will take back and lock up museum pieces, like Capt. Kirk’s costume and Spock’s coffin. It will consider hauling away entire spaceship bridges. But everything the studio doesn’t want will be destroyed, as contracts stipulate, to keep workers from putting any of it up for sale on eBay.” – Doug Elfman, LAS VEGAS REVIEW JOURNAL

260. Katie G. - August 17, 2009

Re: #44. SB

LOL — brilliant!!

Thanks!

ktg

261. ger - August 17, 2009

Wow, way to read a message without understanding it.

262. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 17, 2009

This thread is the Get A Life Award winner of 2009.

263. P Technobabble - August 17, 2009

I guess I’m a little slow, but I really do not get these fanatics (primarily those who blatantly throw out the nastiest remarks) regarding whatever the changes brought to Star Trek, why this isn’t Star Trek and what the “proper” reboot should have been, and so on. What a megalomaniacal point of view this is, as if these people were more qualified to make Star Trek than the people who were HIRED by Paramount.

For some of you fanatics, I ask: what are your credentials? Are you a working, published or produced writer who has had a measure of success in the industry? If that’s the case, I’m not very impressed with your snotty remarks, which only convey apparent envy and jealousy. I’m sure Paramount would be willing to look at whatever script you throw in their lap, based upon your amazing status in the industry.
If you are not a working, published or produced writer who has had a measure of success, then you’re just a fan, who would never be hired by Paramount to do anything without some “money where your mouth is.” Again, I’m sure Paramount is always looking for new talent. Do what everyone else does: write your script, discover the proper submission policy, and launch your photon movie career.
Otherwise, I say: enough with the sour grapes. What’s done is done, and nothing you piss and moan about is going to change that. Business is business. Star Trek is what it is. Star Trek lives.
The facts are, hardly anyone (other than your small contingency) agrees with you, and that’s based on the numbers, the positive reviews, and the positive response of the majority of people who saw the film.
Because YOU didn’t like it, or don’t think it was done properly, or whatever is no reason to get snotty and mean-spirited. But it’s because you are snotty and mean-spirited that you won’t understand a word I’m saying.

As a fan of the movie, I’m going to tell you WHY it worked, and it’s MY opinion (which carries EXACTLY the same weight your opinion does).
When you look at the movie, you see a rather sterile-looking, ultra-tech, alien infested world, full of vast uncertainty. But what lies beneath all of that is the emotional thread of the film. I FELT it when George Kirk gave his life. I felt it when Spock got into the fight, and I felt it when Sarek explained to Spock why he married Amanda. IMO, this is what affected the majority of those who made the movie a blockbuster. My girlfriend is a complete non-Trek, non-sci-fi person, who genuinely enjoyed the film. When I asked her why she liked it, she said, “It wasn’t what I expected. It was more emotional than I expected. I was surprised at how touching it was in places.” She didn’t know anything about Quantum Mechanics, nor would she give a rat’s ass. She didn’t know anything about Star Trek Prime, and what this new film meant. She didn’t need to know about, or care about, or be concerned about ANY of that shit in order to enjoy the film.
I can appreciate all of these various debates about what the changes mean, or should mean, in the new Trek-verse. Some of them raise good ideas, and are genuinely interesting. Some of them are just mental masturbation. And some of them are just whining. Simultaneously, none of it matters one bit, so I don’t get why people have to get so nasty about something that doesn’t matter one bit.
I will be putting down my $$$ to see the next Trek movie, partly BECAUSE of who is doing it, because I really liked what they did. It’s tough tamales that you didn’t like it, or don’t like it, or whatever, but as Jagger once sang, “You can’t always get what you want…” Act like the civilized characters you claim to admire and honor, instead of whatever it is you’re doing.

264. star trackie - August 17, 2009

Hey boborci, just had a revelation! I know JJ’s pal wants to play Harry Mudd. But IF you write Harcourt Mudd into the story and IF you need to cast him, the perfect Mudd would be Penn Jillette, from Penn and Teller. This guy’s bravado, charisma and towering presence could bring home any kind of Mudd you guys could write..funny…dastardly…back stabbing…etc.

IF you guys go that direction, keep him in mind! If you go with Khan or Charlie Evans, well, I’m afraid I can’t reccomend him for that.

And just snuck in one more showing (that makes 5 times total) of Trek at the dollar movie.. wanted to see it on the big screen once more before it goes to DVD. And it still had a full house! Looking forward to the next one.

265. S. John Ross - August 17, 2009

#263: “as if these people were more qualified to make Star Trek than the people who were HIRED by Paramount.”

On the other hand, not all of us are so cowed by money.

People are hired to make things of low quality every day; that’s the nature of industry, the fundamental essence of capital. The more money there is at stake, the greater the creative cowardice and the harder the creative arteries. Dare I criticize the wonder and perfection of a McDonald’s hamburger when I’m not one of the people who’ve been hired to fry the nasty little things? ONLY the consumer is qualified to judge a product, and – as you later say (you can’t seem to make up your mind) every consumer’s opinion is equal. And corporate product is corporate product, and that’s what the film in question is, alpha to omega (and I’m one of the people who LIKE the movie, saw it twice).

266. John from Cincinnati - August 17, 2009

185.

You’re saying it would be out of character for Spock to try and fix a wrong? Oh really! I remember a logical Vulcan that hijacked the Enterprise, violated orders and risked the death penalty just out of loyalty to his former Captain Pike to give him peace on Talos IV. The episode is “The Menagerie”. Remember it? How about ST IV:TVH when he suggested going back in time to rescue an extinct species in order to save Earth. Remember that?

So I don’t think it would be out of character for Prime Spock to try and correct the deaths of billions of Vulcans and the death of his mother when he knows they were supposed to live.

267. John from Cincinnati - August 17, 2009

199.

Thank you BobOrci for setting it straight. It was a great movie, in an alternate universe!

185.

“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.” -remember that line? In this case, the needs of Vulcan outweigh the needs of Spock Prime.

268. ger - August 17, 2009

And a Vulcan who later would time travel to save a few billion people on Earth.

269. Boborci - August 17, 2009

265. S. John Ross – August 17, 2009

“people are hired to make things of low quality every day; that’s the nature of industry, the fundamental essence of capital. The more money there is at stake, the greater the creative cowardice and the harder the creative arteries. ”

Yeah, re-casting icons, risking not getting Nimoy out of retirement, and basing the hole thing on quantum mechanics to honor the past yet not be burdened by it — totally took the easy way out and dumbed it down. You called it. You’re too sharp.

270. ger - August 17, 2009

How exactly are you burdened by Trek’s past? What does it prevent you from doing? Destroying Vulcan? You could have easily done that in a TNG era movie.

271. Boborci - August 17, 2009

270. ger – August 17, 2009

You still of the NEXT NEXT NEXT generation? Do you really think the New York Times and Newsweek would’ve given us the free press they did and compared our current President to your Doctor MGurk or Captain Jerk, instead of Spock?

272. Boborci - August 17, 2009

270. ger – August 17, 2009
“How exactly are you burdened by Trek’s past? What does it prevent you from doing? Destroying Vulcan? You could have easily done that in a TNG era movie.”

Yes, we could’ve destroyed Vulcan in TNG era movie, except there are no VULCANS in TNG so it would’ve been a giant “who cares.” The only reasons, dramatically, to destroy Vulcan is to play out its effect on people we care about – – like a SPOCK or two.

273. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 17, 2009

#270 “How exactly are you burdened by Trek’s past? What does it prevent you from doing?”

Almost everything. I already know the story of Kirk and Spock Prime. And so do you and every other fan. It was time for something new.

“Destroying Vulcan? You could have easily done that in a TNG era movie.”

One problem. No one wanted to see a TNG era movie.

274. S. John Ross - August 17, 2009

#269: “Yeah, re-casting icons,”

The recasting of Khan was particularly effective; Bana really elevated the material.

“risking not getting Nimoy out of retirement,”

Not every script would require him to prop up the proceedings, though personally I was grateful to see him on screen again.

” and basing the hole thing on quantum mechanics to honor the past yet not be burdened by it”

No you didn’t. Also: there is no such burden; it’s a fictional world full of people, and where there are people there are always new stories, when the stories are about characters and ideas. The myth of the franchise’s “burden” and “baggage” just a faint bit of whining from the 24th century creative teams, warmed over. And you know how to spell ‘whole.’

” — totally took the easy way out and dumbed it down. ”

Yes. That said, I liked it. Saw it twice. The speed helped.

“You called it. You’re too sharp.”

To quote a favorite film: “only compared to some.”

275. ger - August 17, 2009

“271. Boborci – August 17, 2009
270. ger – August 17, 2009

You still of the NEXT NEXT NEXT generation? Do you really think the New York Times and Newsweek would’ve given us the free press they did and compared our current President to your Doctor MGurk or Captain Jerk, instead of Spock?”

Yes, I do. I think what made this movie successful is the strong promotional campaign, YOUR names (it was heavily advertised as that huge Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman movie, wasn’t it? “From the creators of Alias and Lost and Cloverfield: STAR TREK”, and so on…), the quality of the trailers, and the quality of the movie (while I didn’t like it, millions loved it).

Do the names “Kirk” and “Spock” do that? I don’t think so. It’s Chris Pine’s and Zachary Quinto’s chemestry on screen, the fast pace, the music, etc., a combination of lots of elements that made this movie successful.

Which is why I think the actors could have played different characters and that the recasting was never needed. Pine playing a young cadet whose father has been killed by a time travelling Romulan. Captain/Admiral Picard as his mentor (instead of Pike). Zachary Quinto playing an alien, or even a Vulcan, who’s forced to become friends with Pine. Stuff like that. It wouldn’t have made ANY difference on the basic story, the action, the pace, the overall quality of the movie, would it?

Do YOU really think that your movie would have bombed just because the characters were not called Kirk and Spock? They were played by totally new actors anyway.

276. ger - August 17, 2009

“One problem. No one wanted to see a TNG era movie.”

Aww, come on, as if EVERYONE wanted to see a TOS reboot… The reaction to that announcement was like “Ohh, hopefully they don’t screw up.”

The reaction to Abrams doing a new spinoff would have been equally good/bad.

277. S. John Ross - August 17, 2009

#275: “Stuff like that. It wouldn’t have made ANY difference on the basic story, the action, the pace, the overall quality of the movie, would it?”

I agree, though for my part I’d have rather seen a reboot done without the bets hedged, full-bore and glorious (and without the attendant muddying of the plot).

We each know what we’d prefer to see; give the franchise 500 years and perhaps we’ll each be pacified in turn ;)

278. Boborci - August 17, 2009

“Do YOU really think that your movie would have bombed just because the characters were not called Kirk and Spock?

Yes. Especially since the movie you’re talking about would never have been made. Not by us, anyway, so there goes our names, the campaign based on our work, our casting choices, and everything else you claim made the movie a success (apart from Roddenberry’s original construct itself, which you seem to think is worthless in this case).

Flatterd, however, that you think we can just do whatever and it will work.

279. Boborci - August 17, 2009

and I’m also flattered.

280. S. John Ross - August 17, 2009

#279: “and I’m also flattered.”

It’s good to see you wading in a bit, btw. Bravo.

281. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 17, 2009

#274 “there is no such burden; it’s a fictional world full of people, and where there are people there are always new stories, when the stories are about characters and ideas.”

If the story had adhered to canon and still been set pre-TOS, all the characters would have been serving on different ships. Not to mention the Enterprise would have had to look as it did in the Cage, etc. The notion that 40 years of canon is no burden on a writer is silly. I would have felt the burden as a viewer!

#276 “Aww, come on, as if EVERYONE wanted to see a TOS reboot”

Nearly everyone did, by all indications. Your proposal of new characters just wouldn’t have worked for a lot of people, including me. After 4 spinoffs, I didn’t want anymore new characters. No thank you, I wanted Kirk and Spock back! Thankfully, I got ‘em.

#278 “Roddenberry’s original construct itself, which you seem to think is worthless in this case”

You tell him, Orci. He’s seriously underestimating the popularity of TOS.

282. AJ - August 17, 2009

Boborci:

To what extent are the writers handed market research data before they write? Are you guys handed a load of figures and told “18-35 male-skewed urban demographic,” etc.?

Or, do you know a film’s demographic intrinsically and get asked for re-writes when the script/early prints go in front of focus groups? And how much freedom do you have to push back or make creative solutions?

283. screaming satellite - August 17, 2009

275. ger
imagine if they tried what you suggest with other pop culture icons like Batman, Bond, Superman, sherlock Holmes etc…e.g. …a non Bruce Wayne Batman or a 007 who isnt Bond or Superman 6 with another survivor from krypton in the lead role, sherlock Holmes great great great grandson solving cases…

perhaps a problem of the SW prequels wasnt so much the films themselves but movie goers were really wanting to see Han, Luke and Leia etc again…

movie goers want to see the original characters – they dont care so much about recasting as long as its done well

284. screaming satellite - August 17, 2009

283 – i forgot to add – they dont care so much about recasting ……as a result of the original actors being too old or dead for the role!….as long as its done well

285. S. John Ross - August 17, 2009

#281: “The notion that 40 years of canon is no burden on a writer is silly.”

Despite what must be a heroically crushing burden of the sweep of human history, people manage to write human dramas set in 2009 Earth without fussing over Peter the Great’s desire for a Baltic port, the minutiae of Greek Pottery, the manifest of the Santa Maria or the childhood of Charles Schulz.

40 years of canon is the text of a greeting card by comparison to the real world, and yet writers muddle on through somehow without blaming the depth of the world for burdening the stories they tell.

That said, a Charles Schulz biopic is overdue.

286. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 17, 2009

#283 “movie goers want to see the original characters”

Precisely. My family members, casual Trek fans at best, had no interest when the TNG movies were being released. It just wasn’ t the Star Trek they remembered. But when the media started reporting. ‘New Kirk, new Spock, original series crew,’ their ears definitely perked up. They remembered the characters fondly and wanted to see them again after a long period of time. A lot of the public obviously felt the same way.

287. LH - August 17, 2009

#285-“40 years of canon is the text of a greeting card by comparison to the real world, and yet writers muddle on through somehow without blaming the depth of the world for burdening the stories they tell.”

If they knew the future, it would. The canon dictates what happens to the characters in the future, including the death of Kirk (and Spock, for that matter).

288. ger - August 17, 2009

Wow, good thing your family members didn’t think so when Kirk and Spock appeared for the first time.

Not giving anything new a chance, THAT’s the problem here. And a spin off would be the most original thing you can do within a franchise. Rebooting is doing the same lame thing over and over again. That’s not progress, that’s a setback.

289. S. John Ross - August 17, 2009

#287: “If they knew the future, it would.”

Ah, I’ve always wondered why nobody ever makes a movie set in the American Civil War, for example, or World War II … or about the American settlers, or about famous gangsters, politicians, or rock stars. Or set on board the Titanic.

It all makes sense now. Since the outcome is known, there can be no drama! Oh woe is the Trek writer. Woe!

290. boborci - August 17, 2009

282. AJ – August 17, 2009
Boborci:

To what extent are the writers handed market research data before they write? Are you guys handed a load of figures and told “18-35 male-skewed urban demographic,” etc.?

Or, do you know a film’s demographic intrinsically and get asked for re-writes when the script/early prints go in front of focus groups? And how much freedom do you have to push back or make creative solutions?

———————————————–

We are handed NOTHING.

Script never goes to focus groups.

As for focus groups of the movie itself, sometimes you do one and sometimes not. On Trek we just had friends and family give us feedback.

291. ger - August 17, 2009

283. screaming satellite

Wait, did I miss something? Did the Star Wars prequels bomb?

I think it’s about time that Mission Impossible thing needs to be rebooted. Oh wait, Abrams is doing a sequel to this, right? With Ethan Hunt, that great, original character from the show from the 1960s, huh?

292. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 17, 2009

#285 … As I said, I already know the story of TOS Kirk and Spock. I know it backwards and forwards. I watched 80 episodes of it and roughly 7 movies. I know what they did before, during and after the five year mission. I know what they did when they were old men. And I know how Kirk died (unfortunately). Saying that the writer of a drama set in 2009 isn’t burdened by the life of Peter the Great? Sorry, that doesn’t quite seem comparable. The Kirk/Spock Prime story has been told, period.

I personally like a clean slate.

293. ger - August 17, 2009

Yes, the story has been told. Why revisit it? To change it? Well then it’s not the same anymore, is it? So why not do something new from the start?

294. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 17, 2009

#288 “Not giving anything new a chance, THAT’s the problem here.”

Something “new” appeared between 1987 and 2005. Then the franchise croaked.

“Rebooting is doing the same lame thing over and over again. That’s not progress, that’s a setback.”

Really? Well, you know how the franchise croaked in 2005? Can you guess what brought it back to life, bigger than ever before?

295. S. John Ross - August 17, 2009

#292: “I personally like a clean slate.”

As do I, hence my stance above (I’m pro-reboot, remember?) And it’s lovely that we both know what we like, but it is very much beside the point.

“Saying that the writer of a drama set in 2009 isn’t burdened by the life of Peter the Great? Sorry, that doesn’t quite seem comparable.”

It isn’t comparable to the point others were trying to make, that’s for certain. It is, however, quite central to mine, and I don’t fall for straw-man tactics.

296. RD - August 17, 2009

#263. P Technobabble wrote: “The facts are, hardly anyone (other than your small contingency) agrees with you, and that’s based on the numbers, the positive reviews, and the positive response of the majority of people who saw the film.”

When the facts work in one’s favor, it’s often quite easy to cite them.

Transformers 2 had the worst reviews of any film this year. I have seen a paucity of reviews that it was a good or even entertaining film. My own personal sampling has returned nothing but negative reviews. Yet, inexplicably, the film has made almost a billion dollars worldwide and earned a 60% Rotten Tomatoes rating out of 5800 people, and the film has sold more than 114 million tickets.

I don’t disagree with the thrust of your argument, often the tone gets extremely nasty around here unnecessarily. However, you claim facts which are merely little more than a sampling, which proves only that ST09 was successful for the majority of those you’ve experienced who saw it. Further, based on a sampling of these boards alone, many of those people are multiple repeats, 3-8 times on average. So out of the 53 million tickets sold, how many of those are repeats of those who REALLY loved it? The sampling would suggest a lot! Only 5600 have even weighed in on Rotten Tomatoes, yet that 90% number is routinely cited as the opinion of the majority of those who who saw it.

For my own sampling, I see many comments in this forum and others which suggest audiences enjoyed and were entertained by Trek and giving it a high approval rating. But a huge percentage of those glowing reviews expect significant changes in the sequel. It’s bi-polar behavior at best: They loved it but in order to keep them you have to agree to their changes? So, I think it is safe to say, “hardly anyone” thought the movie could have been done better is not a fact. Could a small vocal majority handle themselves better, of course. We ALL could.

297. dmduncan - August 17, 2009

274: “there is no such burden; it’s a fictional world full of people,”

Pfft! When did YOU write a Star Trek reboot? Like I said, I care way less about canon than Bob does, so if I had been responsible for the reboot I’d be wearing a fake mustache and nose, living in a foreign country on the run from some Trekkie fatwa right now.

I think there’s a HUGE burden, and it takes a lot of skill to balance out all these different and competing aims and make a movie that is not only a blockbuster success, but one that stays true to the original while inducting new fans to rave reviews from non fans. These guy hit the bullseye from a thousand yards away.

And hes’ right: You TNG fans can cry about it all you want to, but TNG is toast. I couldn’t have cared less about a TNG reboot. And it has more to do with the difference in characters and attitude between TOS and TNG than anything else. TOS was the first and best Star Trek. Every TV show after that was increasingly lame. And the greatest contribution of DS9 was “Trials and Tribbleations,” going back to TOS.

Moore’s criticism of the show was entirely justified, and the man proved his excellent writing chops by turning BSG into a great show. Star Trek had talent with that guy, and those in charge let canon tell them that talent wasn’t allowed. Fanatical Trekkie fans with their dogmatic adherence to canon were responsible for the bland lameness the franchise became.

298. ger - August 17, 2009

294.

Yeah, without that “new” between 1987 and 2005, where would Star Trek be now?

“Really? Well, you know how the franchise croaked in 2005? Can you guess what brought it back to life, bigger than ever before?”

Please explain how it’s bigger than ever before? One movie that rewrote everything, so that new universe is pretty empty. THe new books are not allowed to expand radically upon it, and they don’t count anyway, so that new universe is only going to be influenced by the next movies. And there will be two movies maximum, I’m pretty sure of that.

What then? Yet another reboot to revisit TOS again? Hopefully then you will realize how lame rebooting it is.

299. ger - August 17, 2009

Actually, for most TOS purists it’s the “new” between 1979 and 2005.

Wasn’t it dmduncan who thinks that Roddenberry already lost his touch by TMP?

300. dmduncan - August 17, 2009

291: “I think it’s about time that Mission Impossible thing needs to be rebooted. Oh wait, Abrams is doing a sequel to this, right? With Ethan Hunt, that great, original character from the show from the 1960s, huh?”

Tell me please how rebooting hurts anything? Is part of the rebooting process destroying all copies of TOS so no one can ever see them again? No. So whether it is rebooted or not, and whether the reboot is good or not, you ALWAYS still have what you had before. There is NOTHING lost.

And Bob took pains (more than I or probably even Gene Roddenberry would have) to craft a plot in which the Prime universe was NOT wiped out but which still exists in parallel to the new one, so that anyone who wants to pretend that TOS no longer exists (trust me, they just released the thing on Bluray, so all the proof you need that it still exists is at Best Buy) can’t really even do that without misunderstanding what happened.

What’s the crying all about really? Are we supposed to have a Council of Trekkies that Bob, Alex, and JJ have to stand before to obtain permission for each and every creative decision?

Oh the utter garbage that would be produced after creative guidelines like that.

301. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 17, 2009

#298 “without that ‘new’ between 1987 and 2005, where would Star Trek be now?”

We saw where it got us. We saw it in 06, 07, and 08 when there was no Star Trek. The 24th/22nd century stuff had some good episodes, but the best spinoff totally stumbled as a film series, and the other shows proved the law of diminishing returns with their increasingly low ratings.
How do any of these shows affect Star Trek 09? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.

“Please explain how it’s bigger than ever before?”

Even adjusted for inflation, Star Trek 09 is the biggest hit the franchise has ever had. And Paramount is giving this “new universe” A level treatment. Tons of people went to see it who wouldn’t have seen a Trek film before, and the sequel seems certain to be equally huge. That sort of explains it.

“One movie that rewrote everything, so that new universe is pretty empty.”

Only to people deeply invested in the sprawling entity that Berman Trek had become by the end of its run. The rest of us see the new universe as a fresh start.

302. dmduncan - August 17, 2009

299: “Wasn’t it dmduncan who thinks that Roddenberry already lost his touch by TMP?”

Yes, I do. I think he changed things for no good reason, just to do something different. For all the money they spent on that film, none of Probert’s design work approached Matt Jefferies’ original genius. It was a colorless new Star Trek they had approved, as bland as the original was bold.

The most interesting thing that came out of TMP was the completely new looking Klingons, UTTERLY ignoring what canon Klingons were supposed to look like. Is anyone going to bust Gene Roddenberry’s chops over non canon looking Klingons?

Stop taking canon so seriously and get over it.

303. RD - August 17, 2009

#300. dmduncan wrote: “Oh the utter garbage that would be produced after creative guidelines like that.”

Yes it was called “TNG”, “DS9″, “VOY” & “Enterprise”.

Actually, those series are much to maligned. TOS certainly has as many problems as those series, albeit of different nature, the present film included.

However, the general observation I have of those series is they relied entirely too much on pleasing the fans, an understandably easy trap to fall into when pressured with keeping your ratings up on a weekly TV series, since they are the ones responsible for those ratings. Clearly, by a quick read through these boards, the fans have no idea what they want. Best to give them what they need and accept the criticism.

304. dmduncan - August 17, 2009

And I actually recall somebody complaining about Romulans having tattoos because they never had tattoos in any episode of Star Trek before.

???

Excuse the writers for imagining more depth to the world of Romulus than one fan wanted there to be.

305. star trackie - August 17, 2009

#208 “That’s not progress, that’s a setback.”

Post Insurrection. Post Nemesis and Enterprise… the LAST thing Trek 09 was, was a “setback.”

306. marveyhudd - August 17, 2009

HEY BOB ORCI, how about a movie with some totally badass Borg?

307. star trackie - August 17, 2009

^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ( sorrry, the # 288) ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

308. RD - August 17, 2009

#301. Shatner_Fan_Prime wrote: “Even adjusted for inflation, Star Trek 09 is the biggest hit the franchise has ever had.”

Not to start this debate again, but going on box office alone, adjusted for inflation it is only likely equal to the biggest hit the franchise has ever had, but definitely not bigger than TMP.

There is no doubt it is the best reviewed of any film and has performed better than any film. So overall, I would say it is the biggest hit in the franchise, but only because of its reviews, not because of its box office. But, it is also the most expensive film in the franchise and is nowhere near as close to making the adjusted ROI that TMP did.

So far ST09 has not proven itself to be any more viable than the franchise ever was at the box office. That’s what happens next.

309. Deringer - August 17, 2009

Going on box office and success, what does 25 seasons and cancellation vs. 3 seasons and cancelation tell you?

310. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 17, 2009

# 309 … Huh?

311. Deringer - August 17, 2009

What huh?

TNG, DS9 and Voyager lasted 7 seasons each and ended with proper finales. They were very successful TV shows. Enterprise ran 4 seasons and then got cancelled.

TOS was cancelled after 3 seasons.

If you want to play the “but it was a success” card, play it right.

312. RD - August 17, 2009

#309 – again you have to take the whole picture.

The TNG movies on average made much less than the TOS movies. The TNG era shows & Enterprise had low ratings on average during their combined 25 years in syndication and on a low-rated cable network, compared to: TOS’s mediocre ratings for three years on a major network, not to mention its two years as a relatively successful animated series on a major network. In addition it has been running worldwide in syndication for 40 years (TNG has been off an on). So that’s 5 years and 8 films earning higher revenue, compared to 25 years and 4 films earning less. DVD sales figures would help here too as it is unlikely TNG has matched the sales of TOS – if it had, I would think we would have already seen TNG Blu-ray despite the higher cost to re-master.

313. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 17, 2009

#311 … LOL. Who cares how many seasons Voyager lasted? As my dear departed pal Closettrekker often said, “Picard and Data are geek icons. Kirk and Spock are cultural icons.” He was absolutely right. And Sisko, Janeway, etc. are each less known than Picard. No one except for some Trekkies would want to see a movie with any of those crews. To the general public, Kirk and Spock ARE Star Trek. And rightly so. I’m grateful that Paramount, JJ, Orci, etc. saw the wisdom in going back to the best characters.

314. RD - August 17, 2009

#313 Shatner_Fan_Prime wrote: “Kirk and Spock ARE Star Trek”

Exactly. There’s a reason why TMP and ST09 are the highest grossing films in the franchise. There’s also a reason the TOS films made a lot more money than TNG films. TOS fans did not all embrace TNG. Though I don’t begin to have and figures in front of me, both TOS & TNG continued to gain new fans despite the fact there was no new TOS installments after 1994. I would argue more embraced Trek, or both than rejected it, based on box office numbers alone.

315. John from Cincinnati - August 17, 2009

311. said “TNG, DS9 and Voyager lasted 7 seasons each and ended with proper finales. They were very successful TV shows. Enterprise ran 4 seasons and then got cancelled.

TOS was cancelled after 3 seasons.

If you want to play the “but it was a success” card, play it right.”

You need to look up the facts before throwing out distorted opinions as facts. Star Trek TOS launched a franchise. It is the most enduring series of all of them and it caused NBC and the rest of the networks to re-think the nielsen rating systems. It was discovered after TOS was in syndication that it was actually a hit among the 18-24 year old males when it first aired. Had NBC knew this, TOS would not have been cancelled after 3 seasons.

316. dmduncan - August 17, 2009

Stories, GREAT stories, do NOT go on forever. They have a beginning, middle, and end, and those limits help the story to be great. I don’t WANT to see Star Trek going on, and on, and on, 24th century, 25th century, 26th century, etc., with no sense of its own direction, limits, or objectives.

Add to that, movies take about 2 years to make and get released. So young though they may be, this reboot crew doesn’t have the time to make 79 movies. Unless they are going to do a rebooted TV-TOS, we are going to spend significantly less time with this crew than we had with the original crew, and that makes me sad because I’ve already grown to love this cast as much as the original. So the time with this crew should be well spent over the years telling A story. A great story that has a great finish.

And then, inevitably, if there are still movies being made in the world then, it will be rebooted again, hopefully telling a completely new story from beginning to end.

Because while the actors playing them may age, truly great characters never grow old.

317. Audiomatron - August 17, 2009

They should explore the mirror universe some more, you know, since they’re screwing with alternate realities and such. I bought the box set of alternate realities DVDs, and watched them one night in one sitting. Needless to say, I had dreams about getting the Terran empire logo tattooed on myself after that (I and I don’t get tattoos). Those have got to be my favorite episodes of TOS, DS9, and ENT.

Think about it… in an attempt to help old Spock get back to his universe and time, young spock accidentally gets switched with his evil counterpart… or something like that.. I dunno, maybe it’s a stupid idea…nevermind..

318. Deringer - August 17, 2009

“And then, inevitably, if there are still movies being made in the world then, it will be rebooted again, hopefully telling a completely new story from beginning to end.”

Why the hell do you need the same characters when everything else… ah nevermind.

319. AJ - August 17, 2009

Arguing that one series surpasses another is pointless. “Star Trek” is all of it. While TNG et al went on, the regret that Kirk and Spock’s era must end due to the actors’ ages was always there.

And it was TOS that set the mold for all subsequent series. The team is always greater than the sum of its parts, and the more diverse those parts, the better. Kirk, Spock and McCoy have yet to be bettered in that regard. And with the current 40-and 50-somethings having grown up with them in syndication and film, it made sense to finally bring them back. It was done, with aplomb. And accessibility.

I am sure we will see a “Next Generation” re-boot. TNG has a a storied history, and paved the way for genre TV’s revival these last two decades. And there is a generation that grew up with TNG first, before discovering TOS. Hell, some grew up with Voyager. Imagine being 6 when catching your first ep, and watching until you’re 13. A solid reboot of Voyager would resonate with the millions who watched that show, and the public as well, if it’s good.

320. Deringer - August 17, 2009

I mean you want to see the same characters over and over and over and over again. That’s… I don’t know what it is.

321. S. John Ross - August 17, 2009

#297: “Pfft! When did YOU write a Star Trek reboot?”

I don’t recall doing so. If I was supposed to and I missed a deadline, I do apologize.

“I think there’s a HUGE burden, and it takes a lot of skill to balance out all these different and competing aims and make a movie that is not only a blockbuster success, but one that stays true to the original while inducting new fans to rave reviews from non fans. ”

I agree; that would be a profound burden. It’s also, however, not relevant to any of my prior comments.

“Fanatical Trekkie fans with their dogmatic adherence to canon were responsible for the bland lameness the franchise became.”

I agree that canon fanaticism (and indeed, the entire concept of canon) is a drag on Trek that does it no good. However, I’m also reasonably sure that those fanatical fans weren’t writing Voyager or Deep Space Nine or TNG (etc), and so once again, I reject the idea of canon being placed on the sacrificial altar to absolve the writers who _actually did the deed._ The fans are, then and now and forever, a peanut gallery only, and canon just sits there, growing and sort of leering at us.

322. S. John Ross - August 17, 2009

#319: “Kirk, Spock and McCoy have yet to be bettered in that regard.”

Or as I prefer to put it: McCoy, his Vulcan Sidekick Spock, and their jock friend the other guy.

323. dmduncan - August 17, 2009

321: “I don’t recall doing so. If I was supposed to and I missed a deadline, I do apologize.”

No need to apologize so long as you didn’t cash the check.

“I agree; that would be a profound burden. It’s also, however, not relevant to any of my prior comments.”

It’s not just A burden, but a Chinese Box of burdens. And much of those burdens come directly from what came before, written by writers who were not concerned about the future or canon or how one line of dialogue was going to restrict in some fans minds what could creatively happen from that point forward in the franchise.

“However, I’m also reasonably sure that those fanatical fans weren’t writing Voyager or Deep Space Nine or TNG (etc), and so once again, I reject the idea of canon being placed on the sacrificial altar to absolve the writers who_actually did the deed.”

Who is absolving the writers??? Because Moore proved how talented he was on BSG he’s absolved from contributing to Star Drek? Everyone on those shows was responsible for what they became. It’s those writers who made canon, including the worst death scene for a major character ever (Kirk). I can understand wanting to repay gratitude to fans for having rescued the franchise, but for the good of the franchise and the fans too, really, I think listening too much will just screw it up.

When they didn’t have many fans and weren’t listening to anybody but themselves, THAT’S when the show was the best it ever was. By the time Star Trek was ready to return to TV, the culture surrounding it was responsible for screwing it up, fans, writers, and producers. One big incestuous family of Trek geeks.

I’ve seen Star Trek (2009) five times, and I as a fan of TOS, I am ecstatic that the franchise is under the control of Orci, Kurtzman, and Abrams. This IS the original Star Trek, better than it’s ever been done on the big screen before.

“The fans are, then and now and forever, a peanut gallery only, and canon just sits there, growing and sort of leering at us.”

I am a fan too. And it’s not leering at me. I haven’t been this jazzed about Star Trek in a long time.

324. P Technobabble - August 17, 2009

265. S John

“..On the other hand, not all of us are so cowed by money…”

That may be the case, but then we aren’t talking about the industry any longer, because the industry is mostly about making money. Yes, there is an independent movement that is more about “art,” but most of those films do not have an opportunity to be seen by many people — and so, how would one measure it’s success? In the case of the film industry, if a movie is popular with millions of people, it is considered a hit, eh? If a movie is popular with the 1500 people who see it by word of mouth, it might be successful in terms of “art,” but it is not a hit. The film industry is all about $$$, as is most everything on this God-forsaken rock.

“… Dare I criticize the wonder and perfection of a McDonald’s hamburger when I’m not one of the people who’ve been hired to fry the nasty little things? ONLY the consumer is qualified to judge a product, and – as you later say (you can’t seem to make up your mind) every consumer’s opinion is equal….”

I’m not sure what your point is. Yes, the consumer will decide that they like or dislike a product, but that doesn’t mean the consumer is capable of making the product, although in our so-called capitalistic society, every consumer has the right and opportunity to go out and make his own product if they chose to (even if they have no idea what they are doing). The people who were hired to produce a Star Trek movie were (are) established film-makers, with experience, a track record, and a clearly measurable degree of success, whether anyone approves of them or not. This is the main point I was trying to make. I have written before that I believe success is measured by the product accomplishing what the makers set out to do. If I am the only person to have seen movie “XYZ,” and I liked it, I’m sure the film-makers would appreciate that, but it does nothing for them in terms of business (how many studios REALLY make movies simply out of love of making movies?). So, what is the purpose of making films, and why is there a film industry anyway? This is not just a black and white matter, I realize that… there is a lot of room for debate and interpretation about what is “good,” or “bad,” or what is successful, but I’m not intending to write an essay about it. Nor am I attempting to say that because I dislike something that proves it sucks, but this is PRECISELY what some people seem to be saying… with words, of course, but with an attitude behind it as well. So, what is up with the attitude?
As for making up my mind, yes I know very well what’s on my mind. I do believe everyone has a right to their thoughtful, intelligent opinion. As for the contents of those opinions, that is another matter. I wouldn’t try to tell someone not to have an opinion, but I can certainly question the contents of that opinion, and this is what I believe I am doing.
I’ve said it many times: it is totally okay to dislike Star Trek 09, for whatever personal reason one has. But I’m saying to take responsibility for that opinion by saying, “In my opinion.” It annoys me when someone makes claims like, “Star Trek fans hated this movie because it changed everything, etc.” when that person is not speaking for me. Opinions such as, “The movie sucked,” or “the writers wrote shit,” are presented AS IF they are absolute statements of truth, when they are ONLY the speaker’s personal view. No one speaks for me, and I speak for no one other than me. This is the fundamental point I was trying to make. I’m willing to admit I may not always formulate my words carefully enough, but I’m not as serious about Star Trek, in general, as some of the fanatics seem to be, I’m just writing off the top of my head…
And I’m glad you liked the film, I saw it twice myself…

325. P Technobabble - August 17, 2009

296. RD

Yes, when the facts are in your favor, it is worth citing them. If the facts are not in your favor, you cannot avoid them. In Hollywood, much is written about “the bottom line.” The bottom line is that Star Trek was a hit, no matter how we might dissect it. Is it all about the bottom line, or isn’t it? If you believe it is not, then what is it about?

I agree, if you have 5000 people take a poll and 90% of them like the film, it is typical to state “90% of people polled like the film.”

Then you stated:
“..But a huge percentage of those glowing reviews expect significant changes in the sequel…”
I’m not quite sure I’ve seen the same thing, other than the fanatics who are unhappy about Trek, trying to tell Orci what was wrong with the movie, and how it should have been done, and how the next one should be done.
Perhaps Anthony could put up a poll for us and just ask: should the Trek sequel be significantly different than Trek 09? It is my opinion that the majority of respondents would say “No,” but if it turned out differently, so be it.
Even if you got a majority to say “yes,” how many of them could manage to agree on HOW it should be significantly different anyway? We’d end up having the same conversations for the next 2 years.
And even beyond that, movie-making by committee never works. I’m completely satisfied with what the new keepers of the Trek flame have done, and I’m looking forward to see what they do next, without any sort of expectations, or demands. Is it possible I could envision a Star Trek story of my own and get it published? Sure (especially now that I’ve recently become a published sci-fi writer). But I haven’t been hired to do it, the “Supreme Court” has, and the ball is entirely in their court. When the rest of us make our own movies, then the ball will be in ours, and we will find out how we handle it when someone says, “Your movie sucks,” or “You can’t write for shit.”

I don’t mean to try to speak for anyone else, I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind and all I can do is reiterate: everything I say is ONLY my opinion, all my own thoughts, not intended to be agreed with, approved with, or whatever. I’m just saying what’s in my head. If people agree with me, great, I’ll dig it! If people disagree with me, so be it. I’m sure those who made Star Trek feel somewhat the same way: if people like the movie, great! If not, so be it. They move on to their next project. Fanatics can’t stop disliking it, they can’t move on.

326. dmduncan - August 17, 2009

325: When the rest of us make our own movies, then the ball will be in ours, and we will find out how we handle it when someone says, “Your movie sucks,” or “You can’t write for shit.”

I pretty much know how I’d handle it right now: Like Scotty handled it when a Klingon called his beloved Enterprise a piece of garbage.

327. Son of a Maui Portagee - August 17, 2009

#231.,

RD I posted my response in the more appropriate forum:

http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/03/st-the-experience-expected-to-re-open-in-2010-part-2-of-stte-documentary/

in comments 88-91

328. dmduncan - August 17, 2009

320: “I mean you want to see the same characters over and over and over and over again. That’s… I don’t know what it is.”

That’s probably what’s going to happen, that’s what that is, the same way it’s happened to Superman and Batman and Hamlet and Cyrano de Bergerac.

Great characters don’t age, their stories get updated for new generations.

Whoever said it was right: The original crew are cultural icons. No other characters in Trek can fill their shoes. That’s really what was behind Kirk’s death in Generations, I’d argue.

Picard couldn’t FILL Kirk’s shoes, so they had to BURY them (ack-ack-ack-ack, as Popeye would say).

329. dmduncan - August 17, 2009

I mean really, you guys have to understand this, every new iteration of Trek from TNG to Enterprise has been a reiteration of TOS, updated for a new generation but without the boldness and originality of the first crew.

When I first heard of Enterprise I thought it would be a show that was significantly lower tech than TOS, that would showcase totally different challenges for a humanity that was just making its way into deep space, to show how difficult and dangerous it would be. Instead, we got an only slightly lower tech version of TOS and it wasn’t a different concept.

Jolene Blalock and Linda Park were the two best reasons to watch that show.

So spare me the complaints that you aren’t getting something different. You haven’t had anything different since the 60’s.

I think Gene Roddenberry would approve of Star Trek ’09 as a wonderful movie and continuation of the franchise that was his baby.

330. boborci - August 17, 2009

297. dmduncan – August 17, 2009
“Like I said, I care way less about canon than Bob does, so if I had been responsible for the reboot I’d be wearing a fake mustache and nose, living in a foreign country on the run from some Trekkie fatwa right now.”

—–

Hilarious.

331. RD - August 17, 2009

#324. P Technobabble wrote: “But I’m saying to take responsibility for that opinion by saying, “In my opinion.”

I actually make it a point never to say “in my opinion”. Because, no matter what I say, that’s all it is. It’s just like I cannot affect how someone feels, it’s up to them to accept the responsibility for reacting to me however they choose.

But moreover, these are just words. We live in an electronic society where thoughts are conveyed by “tweets” of a 140 characters or less. I routinely receive texts with all manner of numerals substituted for words and cryptic punctuation marks which serve to convey the message. I say on any such casual forum, life is to short to proceed one’s thoughts with “in my opinion” when clearly that’s what it is. If I wrote, “Anybody knows”, or “Everyone thinks”, then I had better be able to back that up. But if I write, “the movie sucks”, then I would respectfully suggest you give the writer a pass.

Ironically enough, I was calling you on the very thing you thing that upsets you. You said: “The facts are, hardly anyone (other than your small contingency) agrees with you”. IN YOUR OPINON.

I question your use of “the facts” and “hardly anyone”. The so-called facts are your perception of what has been reported in the media and your interpretation of the limited information available to the average consumer for analysis, as well as your own limited direct experience. Have you seen any demographics reports? Have you done any marketing research? – And “hardly anyone”? I know a great many people who did not like the film. Or liked it but had problems with it. I also know that they did not post their opinions on any polls, reviews or other marketing databases. But I do know that Paramount got their money and it went to the box office grosses that get touted so highly.

#325. P Technobabble wrote: “I’m not quite sure I’ve seen the same thing, [a huge percentage of those glowing reviews expect significant changes in the sequel] other than the fanatics who are unhappy about Trek, trying to tell Orci what was wrong with the movie, and how it should have been done”

This may be because you skip over them like I do … they are the comments that go: “Mr. Orci, I loved the film, it was really great … but in the next film can you redesign engineering”, etc. There are varying degrees of these all over Trekmovie. I would NOT classify these people as haters, but clearly are fanatics – who loved the film maybe too much. They are also the ones who are going to give Trek 9 out of 10 stars. But they are clearly dissatisfied on some level. Some comments are as harmless as “please give McCoy more to do”, but others are more disconcerting: “Now that you have the origins out of the way, please give the next film a more meaningful story”, and “please don’t make Scotty the comic relief”, etc.

Now I may be overstating how many of these comments appear on this forum and others in my casual observation of them, but IN MY OPINON, there seems like a lot of them.

332. Son of a Maui Portagee - August 17, 2009

#227. & 231

I suppose a summary of 327 as it applies in general to CBS licensing couldn’t hurt:

CBS dictates to Rohit Joshi as reported in the LAS VEGAS SUN refutes RD’s contention that CBS licensing is not too discriminating. In fact, it indicates they had and continue to have a very firm hand in the matter.

333. pock speared - August 17, 2009

dmduncan:
well said on all points. thanks.

rd:
how’s the oxygen up there? do those of us below you look wee tiny?

ger:
dude. you need a pain session with sybok. share it somewhere else please. poor lonely baby.

b’orci:
you remain a champion, thanks for a great script.

334. RD - August 17, 2009

327. Son of a Maui Portagee wrote: “RD I posted my response in the more appropriate forum: http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/03/st-the-experience-expected-to-re-open-in-2010-part-2-of-stte-documentary/?

Thanks for that. Very interesting. I believe the posting problem you were having is that there is some kind of auto spam filter on the database software which rejects too many URLs in a single post, or too many list items as I have personally noticed.

All I would say is after reading your post is, I think there is a big difference between not renewing a contract with a licensee, negotiating terms of a new contract with a licensee, and terminating a contract when the terms are in reasonable compliance. Not to say CBS couldn’t pit their high priced lawyers against someone else’s to prematurely end a contract, but that is bad business if they do it too often. Eventually CBS will find their prospective pool of licensees have become gun-shy.

Besides, with something as significant as an amusement attraction, I would fully expect CBS to call the shots, especially when it comes to their property. I wouldn’t expect them to be nearly so controlling over lesser licenses, like placemats and brown paper “lunch” bags ;-). But they would likely have approval over final products to make sure nobody tries to pull a fast one.

335. dmduncan - August 17, 2009

Honestly, Star Trek (2009) is the first Star Trek movie I want up on my shelf as a great MOVIE. I have the movies because I’m a Star Trek fan, and I love the Prime crew no matter what, but even though my favorite Trek movies are good movies, they are not great AS movies.

But with Star Trek (2009) I finally have something that deserves to be up on my shelf along with Casablanca, The Third Man, The Wind And The Lion, The Stunt Man, Blade Runner, The Professional, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Runaway Train, Star Wars (first one only), Apocalypse Now, Peggy Sue Got Married, because even though they are all quite different, what they do they do in a very special and memorable way that is extraordinary to achieve, and it’s magic when it happens.

For me, Star Trek (2009) did the same thing.

What’s important is to keep the spark and emotion alive from the original.

Raiders Of The Lost Ark was a great movie, but the sequels have lacked something important. And I think it’s this: The element of the Supernatural in Raiders was uncertain. It was hinted at, but we weren’t sure until the very end of the movie that the Ark was indeed a supernatural artifact. And Indy himself was skeptical until the last moment; he had that smirk on his face at the Nazi idiots who thought the Ark was all powerful as they performed their ritual over it and nothing happened, and THEN something started to happen and he became a believer, and we with him. So we, like him, were skeptical until the end. But in every sequel thereafter the supernatural is a given, so there’s no real payoff. They’re just action movies with no punchline.

So part of recreating the magic is knowing what the magic was in the first place. For Indiana Jones that would be hard to recapture because we know he lost his skepticism, which is something you probably wouldn’t get back in a way that didn’t seem contrived, and that was such an important part of the movie. So that horse only had one trick.

And some of the magic can’t be duplicated for a Star Trek sequel. For instance, watching how these guys all get together or Kirk beat the KM test, you can’t do over again. We already saw it.

But what you can do, whatever the story ends up being, is to work on the relationships, deepen the characters, explore conflicts, and to write action (and great MUSIC) that aims for the emotions.

5 times I saw George Kirk sacrifice himself, and 5 times tears were dripping off my chin. And James Kirk, alone in the bar with some funky 23rd century version of country music twanging in the background when he pulls up that Kelvin salt shaker, told us all we needed to know about how he missed a father he never knew. And I never cared for Spock so much as when he was on that transporter after losing command, missing his planet and his mother.

These are things worth going to a movie to experience.

336. P Technobabble - August 17, 2009

331. RD

“..I actually make it a point never to say “in my opinion”. Because, no matter what I say, that’s all it is. It’s just like I cannot affect how someone feels, it’s up to them to accept the responsibility for reacting to me however they choose…”

Agreed. No matter what anyone says regarding something, it is only their opinion, whether they acknowledge that or not. The reason I say “In my opinion,” is an attempt to let others know I’m not trying to ram anything down their throat , I’m just in it for the conversation. What I ADD to that is my acknowledgement that I, personally, don’t have a lot of patience for people who are deliberately being rude. And, again, I agree that everyone owns whatever their reaction is. And if that reaction is one of anger, it’s their tough cookies.

“…Ironically enough, I was calling you on the very thing you thing that upsets you. You said: “The facts are, hardly anyone (other than your small contingency) agrees with you”. IN YOUR OPINON….”
Fair enough, it’s my opinion, which I confess pretty regularly. I have no problem with people saying whatever they want, honestly. When I said “hardly anyone,” I admit I am basing that on the number of people who made Star Trek a hit, whoever they are. Sure, there are people who went to see the movie and hated it. I do not believe they are of significant numbers to warrant a change in the progress of Star Trek under the reign of the “Supreme Court.” That’s what I think. Maybe I’m wrong, and the majority of people who bought tickets and made Star Trek a box office success didn’t like, or had problems with the movie. If that’s true, and the majority of people decide to boycott the film, the next box office should be significantly down… unless those who hated the first film decide to attend the sequel so they can hate that too. This is just psychology, no?

“…I question your use of “the facts” and “hardly anyone”…”

Again, I believe I am pointing to the fact that the numbers, and the numbers of positive attitude toward this film are significant enough to have made Star Trek a hit. I believe the numbers are “fact,” at least in the sense that it made Paramount a profit, and proved Star Trek still has some life left in it, despite its years long entropy. Now, if the movie had received predominantly bad reviews, negative word of mouth, and other bad press, would it have attracted the same numbers? We can only speculate, but based on the failure of other highly touted films that bombed, it is unlikely Star Trek would have made the same kind of money. The “hardly anyone” is a bit extreme, I admit. What I meant by that, and should have said, “It appears — based on the success of the film — that the number of people who liked the film outweighed the number of those who didn’t like the film. Okay, this is my interpretation, but I think I have a better than 50% chance of being right. Sometimes I’m a gambler… Paramount gambled as well, and it paid off.

“…Now I may be overstating how many of these comments appear on this forum and others in my casual observation of them, but IN MY OPINON, there seems like a lot of them….”

I agree, it is almost impossible to do more than casually sift through the number of posts, but if you notice the key words in them… like “Khan,” or “Borg,” or “Carol Marcus,” “please,” and “don’t,” etc. you do get a sense of what that writer is focusing on. I read lots of these posts, and, generally speaking, it’s a blast. We get to communicate with people from around the world, all brought together by a love of something. And we have the privilege of hearing from people who live in the eye of the Star Trek hurricane, which, for me, is delightful. This is what has brought me back here, on a daily basis, for the past couple of years. It’s a lot of fun! At the same time, it’s sorta like the news. The stories are mostly bad. This is what society focuses on… look at what is wrong with everything. I’m sure neither of us has an exact figure, but I’ll agree, there does seem to be a noticeable amount of negative comment, often a lot from the same players, repeatedly. I am repeatedly trying to say positive things, because I really enjoyed the film, I have good feelings about the people making Star Trek, and I am happy to see Star Trek being talked about again. When you’re happy about something, life is great. When you’re unhappy about something, life is something else.

337. Son of a Maui Portagee - August 18, 2009

#334., Rd said “Thanks for that…I wouldn’t expect them to be nearly so controlling over lesser licenses, like placemats and brown paper “lunch” bags ;-).”

You are welcome.

Neither would I. But you are losing focus. You are the one that introduced that extraneous bit in response to my suggestion of what CBS might have the temerity to do with their Paramount license.

338. Son of a Maui Portagee - August 18, 2009

#336.

“Box Office success” can be a very ambigous, relative and fleeting concept:

http://www.slate.com/id/2222096/pagenum/all/

For example: THE HANGOVER just broke $400 million planetary-wide; a hurdle STAR TREK failed to crest.

339. screaming satellite - August 18, 2009

291 – “Wait, did I miss something? Did the Star Wars prequels bomb?”

no but youd be hard pressed to find anyone over 10 who prefered the prequels to the originals…

340. Deringer - August 18, 2009

“Stories, GREAT stories, do NOT go on forever. They have a beginning, middle, and end, and those limits help the story to be great. I don’t WANT to see Star Trek going on, and on, and on, 24th century, 25th century, 26th century, etc., with no sense of its own direction, limits, or objectives.”

Uhm… dmduncan… as long as Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams don’t decide to remake Space Seed or any other episode, you will get NEW stories, and not the same “great” story. So what you are saying doesn’t make sense.

Or I fail to understand what you mean by “great story”.

Of course, you want them to tell you that this is Kirk who you see on screen, and then you are perfectly happy. You switch off immediately when someone tells you this is Picard, no regards to what story the characters are actually put in. You wouldn’t want to watch a TNG reboot either, would you?

Somehow you are blinded by the character’s names, aren’t you? “Oh, this is Kirk, so this just has to be good.”

I’m wondering if you watched anything original the last 40 years or if you watched TOS over and over again. You would have rather wanted a TOS reboot in 1987 than TNG? How lame that would have been.

And yet in the long run a TOS reboot would not have been any different from TNG, DS9 or VOY. You know why? Because your re-imagined characters will develop into something completely different than the originals, do you realize that? And where is the difference then, the difference to a fully different, new, fresh character? Just because he has the same name everything is much better? Aww, come on.

Well, talk about being close minded. Good for you that you get those characters re-hashed. Hopefully for you, they will reboot TOS every ten years. Remake Space Seed, remake Balance of Terror, remake everything for every new decade. Eventually the reboot of the reboot of the reboot of the reboot of Kirk will be black and the Enterprise will be a space station. Oh wait…

341. Deringer - August 18, 2009

That said, reboots, remakes, re-imaginations are the worst thing currently happening in Hollywood. I hope this trend ends soon and we see more original stuff.

Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, The Next Generation, Stargate, it’s TV spinoff, Terminator, those were great original ideas. I’m wondering when Indiana Jones and Star Wars will get rebooted… maybe that’s your next job?

When was actually the last time you wrote for something original, Orci & Kurtzman? Transformers? Star Trek? Fringe (which is a rehash of X-Files)? Mission Impossible? That one is especially funny because it felt more like an episode of Alias with Tom Cruise. With all the scenes in the headquarters, Hunt’s home, and that funny technician was especially unoriginal… It’s like you recycled a script for Alias and changed the names.

342. P Technobabble - August 18, 2009

338. Son

Good article. I agree, box office can be everything you mentioned. And there will always be a subjective factor as to whether or not a film is “successful.” Because the movie industry is a money-making endeavor, I’m not really sure how anyone is supposed to gauge whether or not a film is successful, if not based on how much money it makes. As I said earlier, if 90% of 5000 people think a movie is great, that may be all well and good. But if 5000 ticket sales does not turn a profit for the studio, the film is viewed to be a failure. I think it is idealistic to think a movie’s profit margin is irrelevant, or inconsequential, since it is the goal of every studio to make a profit. If there is a profit, the film is a “success.” I understand there are movies that have made profits and been slaughtered by some critics, and there have been movies that made next to nothing and been embraced by critics. In those terms, whether or not the movie was a “success” is a subjective matter. In business terms, I believe success means profit. In the current economic market ANY profit is a good one, and that is successful. And, yes, it can be ambiguous, but nothing is ever just black and white. This world is just as full of paradoxes as all the worlds we imagine…

343. captain_neill - August 18, 2009

I love TOS but I love the spin offs

why does everyone bitch about TNG when it is a great spin off that became a great success in its own right.

344. Deringer - August 18, 2009

I would like to know how many people really watched this new movie. I’ve read on many occasions across various message boards “I’ve seen it 10 times, will watch it for the 11th time now!”

345. Deringer - August 18, 2009

“343. captain_neill – August 18, 2009
I love TOS but I love the spin offs

why does everyone bitch about TNG when it is a great spin off that became a great success in its own right.”

Because it seems that as of late this board consists of TOS purists.
Strangely enough, those kind of TOS purists who are willing to see unlimited TOS reboots, but not a single spin off.

346. captain_neill - August 18, 2009

345

I would rather have a spin off than a reboot

too many reboots and remakes these days

347. captain_neill - August 18, 2009

i see a spin off as an expansion and that is cooler than a redo

348. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 18, 2009

#341 “reboots, remakes, re-imaginations are the worst thing currently happening in Hollywood.”

In many cases, I’d agree with you. And many of those tank because there’s no demand for them, or they’re just done poorly. But Star Trek is an exception. Star Trek is a legendary series, and the TOS characters are beloved cultural icons. The filmmakers did a great job with the recasting, honored the original show, and made a fun product. And because it’s been 40 years, and the original cast is elderly or dead, the public embraced these new, young versions. I’m happy it succeeded.

#347 “i see a spin off as an expansion and that is cooler than a redo”

Well, you’ve already had 4 spinoffs, spread out over almost 20 years. While some were good, none ever equaled the popularity of the original. So after the last two remaining spinoffs died on the big screen and tv, it made good business sense to return to what the public always liked best. And Paramount is reaping the rewards.

And I don’t think any of those spinoffs were cooler than this redo, by the way.

349. Mitch - August 18, 2009

199–Boborci–

That logic does not work in Star Trek. In Star Trek, when there is a time traveller, that person is never affected by historical changes. Two perfect examples of this are in City on the Edge of Forever, when McCoy changed history, and in First Contact, when the Enterprise E was following the Borg. In both cases, history was established as having changed. A linear timeline, and the only chance of repairing it is for the heroes to go back in time and fix it.

Spock Prime never would have disappeared because he was caught up in the black hole. It’s perfectly consistent with past Trek for the prime universe to be gone, while Spock Prime doesn’t exist.

By choosing not to put anything in the movie that specifically counters what we know from the 40 plus year history of Star Trek, the only canonical presumption is that the prime universe is gone. No amount of post-movie interviews can counter what you put on the screen, because interviewing the writer is not canon.

Of course, as the writer, you have the ability to deal with this issue in a future movie. That’s entirely up to you of course. But until you prove it onscreen, the prime universe is toast.

I don’t know if you want to return to this or not. That’s part of the new movie decision making process. I think it would make a hell of a movie. The changes you made in this movie have consequences.

I do think that you painted yourself in a corner. Obviously, there are 2 choices:

1. The Prime Universe is gone. Pros: It’s consistent with Star Trek canon. It’s what you showed on screen. It frees you from the past episodes and allows contradictions. It keeps with what I think is your true intent, which was to tell stories with the SAME characters (which is why you usually talk about the same souls/people).

Cons: The prime universe is gone, and while I would guess most people don’t care, you did piss off a good chunk of hardcore fans.

2. The Prime Universe exists: Pros: You do NOT piss off that good chunk of fans. Trek canon is in tact. Spock Prime and Nero not only travelled through time, but they moved to another universe, a la Sliders or Mirror Mirror. Cons: If they are not in the same universe, they are NOT the same people. These are not the same characters with the same souls. They are a completely different people that are “lookalikes.” No different than Parallels, or Mirror Mirror, except they are still heroes. It’s still a Kirk and Spock, but not the SAME Kirk and Spock. So why should we care?

Option 2 is out there, if you truly want the prime universe to still exist, but there are consequences, and I feel you need to actually address it ONSCREEN. In the absence of that, you’re passively choosing option 1, which is your right, and my guess what you are going to do.

350. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 18, 2009

#349 “It’s still a Kirk and Spock, but not the SAME Kirk and Spock. So why should we care?”

I care because they’re fictional characters, and we can never have the “same” ones back.

351. captain_neill - August 18, 2009

I love this film but it IS NOT the best ever Trek.

I am sorry but this is not the best movie, TWOK, FC and TUC are much, much better films.

I will proudly have the new movie in my collection but this is not the best Star Trek

This film was Star Trek dumbed down in my opinion.

352. captain_neill - August 18, 2009

This is a great film but I am sorry if I dont like it as my all time fav.

My all time fav is TWOK. I am a huge TOS lover, I also happen to love the spin offs. TNG is a legendary show as much as TOS and I grew up loving it as much as TOS.

I think the spin offs added to the legacy of the original. The new movie takes that legacy and puts it into a new universe and changes it. What the new movie does well is to bring back the spirit of TOS but I think it missed the deeper stuff that Trek does so well. Abrams changed things I was not happy with and the script suffered from contrivances. I also mean it when I say that it was the best film I hae seen this summer.

353. screaming satellite - August 18, 2009

349 – interesting post…

“By choosing not to put anything in the movie that specifically counters what we know from the 40 plus year history of Star Trek, the only canonical presumption is that the prime universe is gone”

it was ‘gone’ anyway – after Nemesis…;)

seriously though it was shown to be ok on the final page of Countdown – but it remains under debate as to if that was canon or no…(since the writers were involved in it id say that it was though)

354. Mitch - August 18, 2009

353–Countdown is not canon. Kind of ends that one :D

And of course, post-Nemesis we have not seen anything, but that’s not really the issue.

I’m kind of torn on the whole issue of how I feel about the prime universe being wiped. There was a lot of bad that SHOULD have been wiped–notably Generations.

Interestingly enough, and I said this when the film came out, it’s actually possible to pick and choose some events we don’t like and put them in the new timeline to resolve canon paradoxes.

For example–maybe in the prime universe, Kirk doesn’t go into the nexus, and that’s why Scotty remembers him as alive when he’s found in the TNG era. Maybe the experience on the E-B and Generations is the future of the PINE timeline. Maybe everything after All Good Things is the post-Nero timeline.

In Flashback, Valtane died. He didn’t die in ST6. Yes, in real life that was Braga not watching more than 3 minutes of TUC, but the new timeline cuts him some slack.

It’ll be interesting if somehow Tuvok is ever seen again…

355. AJ - August 18, 2009

352:

“What the new movie does well is to bring back the spirit of TOS but I think it missed the deeper stuff that Trek does so well.”

The main message I get from Star Trek TOS is “let’s all get along because we can either achieve great things together or destroy ourselves.” Very apropos for the time. I think JJ achieved this in the Kirk/Spock story, and as the gallant crew gelled into a functional unit. The racial issue which made this more poignant in ’66 has progressed to the point that a multi-racial/sex crew of equals is no longer controversial or revolutionary.

I was also moved by the role of Pike as Kirk’s father figure. Whether it’s a Lucas/Speilberg daddy-issue redux role or not, his appearance in the bar reminded me of a voice in my head I had in my own late twenties: “time to get serious.” Whether that’s a deep ‘Trek’ message or not is up to the viewer.

356. captain_neill - August 18, 2009

355

I guess it did have that point.

I just don’t think it had the true weight of some of the past Treks, but as I said I felt that it had the spirit and fun of TOS.

that is a great ideal to have, I also love how Star Trek in all its series has used characters such as Sock, Data, Odo to cirtique and observe the human condition. through those the characters we understand our uniquness. I love the utopian socirty Roddenberry developed.

357. captain_neill - August 18, 2009

I guess I must be the only one who thinks JJ is a little over rated.

However, he did a good job on Trek XI. it may not be my all time fav Trek movie but it was fun.

358. captain_neill - August 18, 2009

oh in my post 356 I meant to say Spock, Data and Odo to critique the human condition

359. Deringer - August 18, 2009

A little overrated? Abrams, the writers and this movie must be the most overrated bunch in a very long time.

360. captain_neill - August 18, 2009

correction- way overrated

361. Shatner_Fan_Prime - August 18, 2009

#359 and 360…

As a filmmaking crew, give me Abrams & co. over Berman’s bunch any day! David Carson? Stuart Baird? And, sorry, Jonathan Frakes as well – they made tv movies for the big screen. Star Trek 09 was a MOVIE. Its success hasn’t happened by accident. The people making it set out to reinvigorate something that had gone stale and they did it.

362. P Technobabble - August 18, 2009

359. Deringer

Why MUST they be the most overrated bunch in a very long time? I’m keen to discover…

363. captain_neill - August 18, 2009

Frakes is a great director

Baird is a better editor than director.

Sorry for my opinion on JJ Abrams, I think hes a talented guy but I don’t think hes a genius.

361 As I said I love TOS plus the spin offs. I guess I feel a bit annoyed that there is an anti TNG vibe here.

To me Captain Picard and Data are just as cool as Kirk and Spock.

364. captain_neill - August 18, 2009

361

First Contact was a movie as well, I will admit Generations and Insurrection felt like extended episodes but I still enjoyed them.

365. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

340: Deringer wrote: “Of course, you want them to tell you that this is Kirk who you see on screen, and then you are perfectly happy. You switch off immediately when someone tells you this is Picard, no regards to what story the characters are actually put in. You wouldn’t want to watch a TNG reboot either, would you?”

“Somehow you are blinded by the character’s names, aren’t you? ‘Oh, this is Kirk, so this just has to be good.'”

Deringer, you are shooting blanks, my friend.

My Mom used to play a trick on me when I was a kid. I hated liver, but she thought she could serve it to me and call it steak, as if I was revolted by the idea of eating liver, and if I didn’t know I was eating liver I would discover how much I liked it. Dear Mom was wrong. Call it what you want, if it tastes like liver, I’m spitting it out.

My acceptance of Pine as Kirk has nothing at all to do with what anyone is telling me. Pine somehow managed to BE the character William Shatner pioneered without doing a William Shatner impersonation. It was amazing to behold, and one of the many reasons the movie was so good.

It’s not that TNG or the other spinoffs sucked as that they just weren;t as good. I came to realize this when I saw Generations, and after Kirk was sucked into the Nexus, I realized during the rest of the movie that there was a huge void created by the missing Kirk that the TNG characters couldn’t fill. I realized it again during Nemesis when I actually found myself rooting for Shinzon over Picard! So why bother rebooting a paler version of your best product, which is TOS? TOS was rebooted exactly because TNG had tanked. TNG movies were a necessity if you were going to still do Star Trek at all because it was the only direction to go after the stars of your strongest product couldn’t play the young heroes anymore.

That problem is now gone.

“I’m wondering if you watched anything original the last 40 years or if you watched TOS over and over again.”

1. Yes, I watched TNG. That’s how I became disinterested in it.
2. I don’t have a litmus test for movies that’s like original = good, reboot = bad. I actually go into a movie with an open mind and if its a good movie, that’s how I call it.

I just saw District 9 this past weekend, and it was an original, outstanding motion picture. Well, you can make a case that it’s similar to Alien Nation, but who cares? I didn’t think it was as good as Star Trek (2009), but it was very good.

“I would like to know how many people really watched this new movie.”

5 times for me.

345: “Strangely enough, those kind of TOS purists who are willing to see unlimited TOS reboots, but not a single spin off.”

I would love to see a spin-off TV series, just not another imitation of TOS which is all we’ve had since the 60’s. You guys who are clamoring for something new just don’t seem to get it.

I would like to see an original CONCEPT TV series spin off that doesn’t fall into the same formula trap of imitating TOS that every series after TOS has been guilty of.

So don’t cry about originality when you want to see a reboot of TNG which was always a copy of TOS.

“By choosing not to put anything in the movie that specifically counters what we know from the 40 plus year history of Star Trek, the only canonical presumption is that the prime universe is gone.”

That’s not true. This movie IS canon. And you have all the clues you need to understand that the Prime universe is not gone.

When Spock Prime tells alternate Spock that Kirk thought universe ensuing paradoxes would occur if the two Spocks met, what he’s really saying is the only way universe ending paradoxes might ensue is if Spock Prime was in the past of the Prime universe meeting himself. That he can meet himself without ending the universe conveys the point that they Spock Prime is meeting an alternate Spock, not the Spock he was in his own past. And the direct implication of that is that Spock Prime is in an alternate universe, having left the other behind.

There is nothing to go on in this movie that supports the idea that the Prime universe no longer exists, and enough clues for you to figure out that it still does. If anything, I think Bob was respecting the intelligence of Trek fans to be able to sort it out. Speaking for myself, I didn’t come away with the impression that the Prime universe was gone, but I did have to think about it all for a while to understand what had happened.

366. Mitch - August 18, 2009

I have to say I agree with a lot of the last few posts. Is this movie overrated? I think so. Was this movie better than the garbage from the Berman era? Absolutely. I think the best way to describe it for me is “good, but not great.” To borrow a line from the movie, I think they can do better. I bet even THEY would say that.

The movie was not without flaws and poor decisions. I think the Spock/Uhura thing was awful, and I also felt that more people hated it than liked it. I’m sure there were people that liked it, but I think dropping it was a good idea. I’ve seen worse decisions. There was no Jar Jar Binks. They didn’t give Superman a bastard son. But yeah, I think that Spock/Uhura needs to be forgotten.

Yes, they reinvigorated the franchise. They did that by doing something anyone not named Berman or Braga could see–go back to the original characters.

They nailed some of the characters perfectly like Bones. They messed up on Scotty. I really am hoping they improve on Scotty.

The casting was very well done.

The Star Trek audience is out there. Always has been. To get to it, you just need to make a movie that is good. Berman never did that.

367. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

I should spell out that last next to last paragraph more clearly:

When Spock Prime tells alternate Spock that Kirk thought universe ensuing paradoxes would occur if the two Spocks met, what he’s really saying is the only way universe ending paradoxes might ensue is if Spock Prime was in the past of the Prime universe meeting himself; Spock is clearly referencing the sort of problem depicted by the Grandfather Paradox to which there is a MWI solution proposed, and which the film was based on. That he can meet himself without ending the universe conveys the point that Spock Prime is meeting an alternate Spock, not the Spock he was in his own past. And the direct implication of that is that Spock Prime is in an alternate universe, having left the other behind.

368. Mitch - August 18, 2009

Sorry for the double post, but 365 and I wrote at the same time.

Yes, the movie is canon. But the continued existence of the prime universe is not. Nothing in the movie indicates that, and again, past Star Trek treatment of time travel absolutely indicates that you can erase history, and rewrite it.

Spock Prime only told Kirk all that stuff because he wanted to help Kirk and Spock establish their friendship. That was even discussed in the movie. It had nothing to do with paradoxes and the like. In short, he exaggerated. In fact, on several time travel occasions in Star Trek, we have seen people interact with their past and future selves.

Again, in the absence of a direct canonical statement within the movie proving the existence of the prime universe, the only presumption is to follow every single instance of Trek time travel, and accept that the prime universe is gone.

Can that presumption be rebutted? Sure. Put it in ST12.

369. Son of a Maui Portagee - August 18, 2009

#342.

Re:Profit

To that end, I point out that Paramount’s second quarter has come and gone (covering May 8 – June 30 of ST’s release) and no one at Paramount suggested that ST HAD made a profit. What the CEO of Viacom said was that he was certain it would generate a profit as it moves through its windows which is tantamount to predicting that it will “eventually” make a profit – something which has been true of all movie Trek, even the ones most disdained by fans, as they move through their windows.

Even though the phrase “dead in the water” has been thrown around a lot in regards to Trek the truth is none of the previous movies released have ever stopped generating revenue. They are doing it even as you read this.

I will grant you one thing: since the 2006 split it has been very confusing as to exactly what entity is that which we refer to as Paramount?

In reading RD’s stuff and digging through the stuff I unearth it seems to me that which we now call CBS was just a renaming of the Paramount that fans have traditionally associated with all things Trek and that which we now call Paramount is some different animal that, while now receiving revenues from all movie Trek, I’d be hard pressed (due to the complexity) to try and figure out if since 2006, they’ve actually profited from it? But I’m fairly certain CBS has.

370. AJ - August 18, 2009

While ST09 is not a perfect film, I think that whole wall of fear that ‘we can never again have Kirk and Spock” has been successfully removed. There is certainly a lot that could have gone wrong with the film had a great cast not been there, and writers who know the lay of the land. There was a chemistry both in front and in back of the house that make it work like “Star Trek” on screen.

What they did in fact what not stray far from the original material. Why bother? It works, and the hard job was to recapture the essence of it for a new audience.

371. John from Cincinnati - August 18, 2009

The writers and producers have all come out and said these are not the exact same characters we saw in TOS. Therefore, they have different souls in a different universe. Orci has just come on here and said so and some of you fans just can’t deal with that and try to hold on to an idea that the Prime Universe is gone. Orci just said it still exists! As did the comic book Countdown Just like there was a mirror universe in TOS this is a totally new universe. It’s academic. There’s no debating it. End of discussion. The issue is moot. Star Trek is now living in a new alternate universe for the forseeable future.

372. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

368: “Spock Prime only told Kirk all that stuff because he wanted to help Kirk and Spock establish their friendship. That was even discussed in the movie. It had nothing to do with paradoxes and the like. In short, he exaggerated. In fact, on several time travel occasions in Star Trek, we have seen people interact with their past and future selves.”

Mitch, I don’t think you understand the Many World Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics or the Grandfather Paradox. Whether both of those are spelled out explicitly in the movie or not, that is where they were writing the movie from, and when you understand each of those then you will be in a better position to understand the clues, which really don’t make sense unless and until you understand them.

The Prime universe isn’t gone if you follow the clues.

Yes, Spock told Kirk that universe ending paradoxes would ensue if the two Spock’s became aware of each other or met to get those two to be friends. But he was making the opposite of the point you think he made.

The way that one view within MWI would resolve the paradox of you going back in time to kill your grandfather and thus prevent your birth (which, if you were born, then how could you have gone back in time to kill your grandfather?), is to say that anything which did not happen before would immediately split the universes, thus, if you did kill your own grandfather it would be the alternate grandfather of the alternate universe you caused by killing him, and not the one who was your direct descendant in your own universe. There would be a split universe, and the one you killed would be the alternate one, not the one who gave birth to your parent, who helped give birth to you in your universe.

The only way, in other words, such paradoxes as Spock mentioned would happen is if they WERE the same universe and Spock junior was the actual younger version of himself rather than an alternate version.

And by making that paradox a FIB, as he did, and as you pointed out, he was saying the opposite: That they were NOT the same person, but alternate versions of each other. Hence, there was no universe ending paradox of meeting himself because he was really meeting an alternate self.

It’s tricky, but they really did put it all in there.

As far as canon is concerned, I believe Bob already said that things like time travel by sling shotting around the sun would not be possible in this reimagined universe, that he was going to adhere to MW, which is a good thing because the sling shot thing is bunk. So whether or not elsewhere in Star Trek we saw characters meet their actual younger selves, in THIS movie, which is now canon, I hasten to add, they relied on a different theory.

Now I’m not sure which episodes you mean when you say some characters met their younger selves, but I would say that Bob’s interpretation of the science probably makes more sense than the episodes where that happened, so again he is doing something better for the franchise by putting in the effort to make it seem more believable and logically consistent. If I was in the producer’s chair, I would NEVER allow for a character to meet what was supposed to be his actual younger, or older, self. Canon is no excuse to continue portraying awful science or offending logic. I’m sure Spock would back me up on that.

So, as Gene Roddenberry did when he completely and inexplicably reimagined how the Klingons looked in TMP, ignoring canon and without providing any explanation, you are just going to have to accept the differences in portrayals of some theories between the various versions, just as you have to accept the other inconsistencies Star Trek is filled with.

373. Mitch - August 18, 2009

372–It’s not about MWI-QM. No matter how that is touted, it doesn’t matter because in the Star Trek universe, you DO erase history when you travel back in time and change it. This is basically a case of the writers trying to have it both ways, and only a select group is buying into it.

If they wanted this to be another universe, they would have said it in the movie. If they wanted MWI/QM, they would have put it in the movie specifically.

You don’t need clues. To try to imply that the prime universe still exists requires looking for things that just aren’t there.

Example–Spock Prime’s existence couldn’t be less relevant. In Star Trek, the time traveller is never effected.

This is a little different than simply putting on makeup due to a budget.

This changes the entire physics of Star Trek, just to placate a few hardcore fans. They don’t want to say, “yeah, we did this, now live with it.”

If they never use the prime universe again, then it’s clear that it’s gone. The only way to prove the validity of what they are saying OFF CANON, is to make it canon.

Given that MWI/QM has not been proven, as no one has time traveled, there is no way to prove that the science is faulty. In fact, the science argument couldn’t be more ridiculous when dealing with science FICTION. After all, it currently is not believed to be possible to move faster than light, nor is it possible to transport, or do phasers, or time travel into the past.

374. Bill Peters - August 18, 2009

MR. Orci,

How can I use your Great Movie as a Jump off point for new fans who want to know more and see more from past series, what series besides The Original Series should I introduce new fans too?

375. boborci - August 18, 2009

374. Bill Peters – August 18, 2009

NEXT GENERATION!

376. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

“…but I would say that Bob’s interpretation of the science probably makes more sense than the episodes where that happened, so again he is doing something better for the franchise by putting in the effort to make it seem more believable and logically consistent.”

A laughable claim, I say. The movie is more about destiny and about a timeline healing itself than the actual quantum mechanics theory, or chaos theory, two of the most recent theories. Chaos theory, the butterfly effect, negates destiny, so do quantum mechanics.

And when you look at how scientifically inaccurate the black hole or the supernova in this movie were… whew. There goes the believability and logic out of the window.

I think someone else in this long talkback already mentioned that this movie was more like Matrix than Star Trek, with all that destiny and chosen one stuff. “You are chosen to be Captain of the Enterprise…”
That’s not Star Trek, at least it shouldn’t be.

Star Trek always used science (or pseudo-science) to back up stuff like that. There’s no such thing as magical, god-given or timeline-given “destiny”. Even the prophets were aliens. And Sisko was still fully capable of deciding his own future.

Well, I simply don’t like the direction this movie took. I would have rather liked to see a proper prequel, or a full blown reboot like BSG, or a TNG sequel. But not that strange, awkward in-between-reboot-but-not-reboot-Superman-Returns-type of shyte we got.

377. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

And you know, that destiny stuff takes away from Kirk’s character. Since he is chosen to be Captain, and chosen to be friends with Spock, there’s nothing he can do for himself. And eventually, he didn’t do anything by himself. He was handed over that Captain’s chair over nothing. Going from cadet, who’s about to get thrown out of the Academy, to Captain in three days… seriously, Orci & Kurtzman, what were you smoking?

And you still think this movie is more believable than the older Star Trek?

I found it hilarious most of the time, but mostly for those negative reasons.

378. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

That last post lacks a “seemingly” somewhere. Of course Kirk did do stuff in this movie. But then coincidence did actually all of the important deeds. Almost magical coincidence that he found original Spock at the exact right place, so close to Scotty. Coincidence that Nero happened to kill Kirk’s father, and Pike happened to have written a thesis about that incident (which was actually not of any importance anyway), and that Spock happened to arrive close to Vulcan (otherwise the Vulcan’s wouldn’t have seen the lightning storm in space).
Everything goes back to that destiny stuff. I find that lame, sorry.

379. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

Can’t you make a movie about Alternate Universe Kirk & Spock of the 2250s meeting Prime Universe Kirk & Spock of the 2250s? Both played by Pine & Quinto and so forth, but a lot closer to the originals, and also aboard an Enterprise much closer to TOS?

I think that would be fun.

380. captain_neill - August 18, 2009

I believed that TNG was a massively popular show which is still one of the best sci fi shows ever

but on here it seems to be reviled and I feel that all those years in the 90s were for nothing because I thought lightening was captured a second time with it.

I love TNG and I guess I hate the fact that there movies get panned.

Yes the new movie was great but it was not the best ever Trek

381. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

373: “It’s not about MWI-QM. No matter how that is touted, it doesn’t matter because in the Star Trek universe, you DO erase history when you travel back in time and change it.”

Not anymore, Mitch. It IS the Star Trek universe, and it’s no use judging Star Trek (2009) by the sloppier science of what came before during any of the series, because once Star Trek (2009) comes out on DVD, it’ll be an impossibly hard task to round up every copy in existence and to return balance to the universe by destroying them all.

“If they wanted this to be another universe, they would have said it in the movie.”

Well they did say it, they just didn’t say it using Playskool alphabet blocks.

“To try to imply that the prime universe still exists requires looking for things that just aren’t there.”

No, it requires understanding what Spock meant. It’s in there. What you may have to do is a little homework to understand MWI which, I believe, this very Trekmovie post points to as canon from TNG. “Parallels” I believe they quoted the episode as being. So MWI is canon, and Star Trek (2009) references its own historical canon as the major plot device of the movie.

You said two things:

“This changes the entire physics of Star Trek, just to placate a few hardcore fans.”

and:

“In fact, the science argument couldn’t be more ridiculous when dealing with science FICTION.”

There are no physics of Star Trek. There’s just physics. To distinguish physics of Star Trek from real physics is really to say the physics of Star Trek is nonsense.

In addition, you don’t get to determine what’s relevant here, because you are not the writer. If Bob wants to make Star Trek adhere more closely to theory than other versions of Star Trek have done in the past, then that’s his call, and it’s perfectly reasonable.

What it really sounds to me like you’re complaining about is that he didn’t make it crappy enough, or that he moved it just a hair further away from fantasy than it was before.

You can blame him, but I’ll commend him for it instead, because it’s what I wanted to see happen for a long time.

When the crew-woman aboard the Kelvin got sucked out into silent space, it was both good science AND awesomely dramatic. More of that type of thing, please, wherever possible.

382. screaming satellite - August 18, 2009

so Mitch – ur argument is basically the prime TL is toast as its not consistant with previous incarnations of time travel seen in star trek where the characters bust their asses trying to fix stuff and to ‘repair whatever damage is done’ like Marty in BTTF…

and that Prime Spock is basically in the same scenario as Marty when he goes into the alternate 1985 in BTTF 2….if Spock wanted to change things back to how they were in the prime TL hed have to slingshot back to before Nero arrived…alert everyone to his impending presence so they could stop him – and tell the kelvin to stay away etc….

383. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

I agree with you. TNG was great Star Trek. I grew up with TOS, but TNG was a brilliant addition. The movies were great, too. I loved Generations, First Contact and Insurrection. Nemesis was for the toilet, though.

But everyone here acts like TNG was the end of Star Trek, when it’s actually like the biggest reason Star Trek made it this far into 2009. Without TNG, wouldn’t it have ended in 1991? Or does anyone think there would have been a reboot? As far as I know, in the 1990s, reboots were pretty rare.

384. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

381.

“In addition, you don’t get to determine what’s relevant here, because you are not the writer. If Bob wants to make Star Trek adhere more closely to theory than other versions of Star Trek have done in the past, then that’s his call, and it’s perfectly reasonable.”

But the problem I see is that Mr. Orci didn’t do that. His interpretation of QM, and the other science, kinda sucks, excuse the strong language. There are many episodes in Star Trek where those theories are followed much more precisely and accurately. This movie really looks like nobody cared for any science. Everything just follows the plot, really. The supernova, the black hole, that time travel/parallel universe thing…

385. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

380: “but on here it seems to be reviled and I feel that all those years in the 90s were for nothing because I thought lightening was captured a second time with it.”

Speaking for myself, I certainly don’t revile TNG. First Contact was a good movie, the best of TNG series. And I liked all the characters in TNG, but I liked the original characters better, that’s all. TNG IS Star Trek too, and it’s a good thing that people are attracted to the franchise by whichever series that they fell in love with.

386. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

385. “Speaking for myself, I certainly don’t revile TNG. First Contact was a good movie, the best of TNG series. And I liked all the characters in TNG, but I liked the original characters better, that’s all. TNG IS Star Trek too, and it’s a good thing that people are attracted to the franchise by whichever series that they fell in love with.”

Well, that certainly doesn’t sound like what you said hundreds of comments above. There it reads more like “I’m a fan of TOS only, and I won’t watch anything but TOS.”

387. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

386: “Well, that certainly doesn’t sound like what you said hundreds of comments above. There it reads more like ‘I’m a fan of TOS only, and I won’t watch anything but TOS.'”

Well I’m glad you read all 380+ comments Lando, but now you might want to go back and try to understand what you’ve read, particularly before you start talking about how “His interpretation of QM, and the other science, kinda sucks…”

This has been a long discussion that has covered many different points.

And when people start feeling like other people are saying TNG is trash, it’s time to cool it. I never said it was trash. It’s true that I’m not a great fan of the show. If they made another movie, I’d probably go see it once, but I don’t and wouldn’t get excited by TNG the way I would for TOS. That’s my position, and I’m actually in a better position to know how I feel about than you.

388. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

“I’d probably go see it once, but I don’t and wouldn’t get excited by TNG the way I would for TOS.”

How can you know when you haven’t seen it?

389. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

“Well I’m glad you read all 380+ comments Lando, but now you might want to go back and try to understand what you’ve read, particularly before you start talking about how “His interpretation of QM, and the other science, kinda sucks…””

As far as I’m concerned, I understand everything of what I’ve read. But thanks for implying I might be stoopid.

390. RD - August 18, 2009

#372. dmduncan wrote: “The Prime universe isn’t gone if you follow the clues…It’s tricky, but they really did put it all in there”

1) I would say there is nothing in those so-called “clues” that confirms MWI QM. We may have to wait until the DVD comes out to make a list of “clues”, but until then I don’t see that they can’t apply to both MWI and Old Testament Trek time travel, which never suffered from paradoxes. In fact one of the 4th season episodes of Enterprise (which is still canon under the New Testament by the way), an old T’Pol, touches the young T’Pol on an alternate future enterprise which traveled back in time.

2) You can’t have it both ways. You wrote in #209 the following:

#209. dmduncan wrote: “you have to come to every movie with a certain foreknowledge of many things or the movie would not be comprehensible at all. Movies depend on viewers supplying information from their own experience to understand them. The movie’s job isn’t to thoroughly educate a person on every aspect or implication of the things it portrays. …So there’s no escaping that you frequently have to infer what happened from the clues you are given.”

You wrote this with respect to black holes and travel between parallel universes. But it applies equally to time travel: Anybody who sees this is going to bring the experience and understanding of one of the most popular depictions of time travel ever, “Back To The Future”. That simple concept has been reinforced recently by other popular films: Terminator, Austin Powers, The Butterfly Effect, Harry Potter and on TV, Abram’s own LOST. In addition, Trek’s own audiences would be trained to expect traditional time travel rules from the series.

I see NOTHING in that movie to suggest otherwise. If you did not know what Orci said in interviews about MWI QM, you would not have any idea there was an alternate universe involved. Indeed, the message did not get out as widely as Orci had hoped since there was a lot of confusion on these boards following what actually happened in the film. You yourself thought Spock had intentionally gone back in time to try and restore Romulus.

There is a big difference between what Orci may have intended and what ended up in the film. Had the conversation with the Spock’s gone anything like this:

SPOCK: What will you do now … try to find a way back to your reality?
PSPOCK: No, my reality is here now. My universe will have to go on without me.

… then that would be unequivocal evidence of MWI QM.

So again, there’s what the writer intended and what he says he’s going to do in the future. Then there’s what the audience takes away from the film. The “clues” may be in there but are in my opinion intentionally ambiguous: had the writer wanted to be clear, there were far too many ways to do so. Therefore, it cannot be said one way or the other from the evidence I’ve seen whether the Prime universe still exists or not and I think that’s the point.

391. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

I watched TNG up until about the halfway point of its runs and lost interest. Who said I never saw it?

392. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

“391. dmduncan – August 18, 2009
I watched TNG up until about the halfway point of its runs and lost interest. Who said I never saw it?

Now you didn’t read correctly. We were talking about a new TNG movie, weren’t we? “If they made another movie, [...]“

393. boborci - August 18, 2009

1) “I would say there is nothing in those so-called “clues” that confirms MWI QM. ”
IS suppose if we didn’t show the curvature of the earth from space, you would argue there is no evidence that the world isn’t flat?

394. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

You have to admit that the general audience probably thinks in Back to the Future, Timecop, The Voyage Home terms when it comes to time travel.

And for your question, I give you one example: is the Earth in Lord of the Rings flat or a sphere? You don’t know. It’s a fantasy world, so it could be. It could also be a planet. Tolkien never mentions it. So yeah.

And when your question is supposed to imply that the knowledge about Quantum Mechanics is as widespread as the knowledge of the fact that Earth is a sphere… I disagree with you.

395. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

Every time travel movie I’ve seen deals with ONE timeline, with ONE universe. Deja Vu starring Denzel Washington is the most recent one that comes to my mind.

Your approach to time travel would have needed A LOT more explanation in this movie.

396. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

390: “You wrote this with respect to black holes and travel between parallel universes.”

Yeah, RD, but I meant it with regard to the latest theories and how things are speculated to work, and certainly not with respect to how other pop culture franchises unrelated to Trek depict time travel, or even with respect to how Star Trek depicted it in the past, which is now irrelevant with respect to THIS movie.

“1) I would say there is nothing in those so-called “clues” that confirms MWI QM. We may have to wait until the DVD comes out to make a list of “clues”,

I already explained it by the Grandfather Paradox. Clues by nature do not CONFIRM, they point and suggest. This is not a real universe, remember. So it’s absurd to speak of the things that happen in a movie as if they can be proven one way or another by objective facts we can gather and test to come to a conclusion. The writer and what he intends is the objective force you have to consult, where there is no objective universe about these things to consult.

“I see NOTHING in that movie to suggest otherwise.”

But I do. Otherwise RD has to come up with his own explanation of what Spock meant when he fibbed about universe ending paradoxes if the two Spocks became aware or met each other. I don’t have to come up with one because The Grandfather Paradox that Bob mentioned explains perfectly why what Spock said was a fib.

“If you did not know what Orci said in interviews about MWI QM, you would not have any idea there was an alternate universe involved.’

Not true. The Grandfather Paradox wasn’t something I first heard about either from or after this movie, and that is clearly what Spock means when he explains it to Spock junior, so if I had never read an Orci interview I would still know what happened.

“You yourself thought Spock had intentionally gone back in time to try and restore Romulus.”

That is true. The movie went so fast I barely had time to catch my breath much less think about everything I had just seen. But I’ve now seen it five times! And it’s all in there. All the clues you need to understand it are there, but it is true that you may have to go outside the movie to understand the Grandfather Paradox, to make it all make sense, which is exactly the sort of thing I meant in that quote you have of me above.

“The ‘clues’ may be in there but are in my opinion intentionally ambiguous: had the writer wanted to be clear, there were far too many ways to do so.”

I can’t infer what Bob Orci’s interest was in writing it exactly the way that he did such that you found it ambiguous. Neither can you. So this is useless speculation.

All I can say is that I did not find it to be ambiguous. The only way of looking at it that makes sense is the alternate reality view that Bob explicitly claims was the premise.

But again, you HAVE to think about it, and you have to understand something about the MWI’s solution to the Grandfather Paradox.

“Therefore, it cannot be said one way or the other from the evidence I’ve seen whether the Prime universe still exists or not and I think that’s the point.”

Not only do I disagree, but I CAN say one way from the evidence what happened. It isn’t a stalemate. The only way to explain Spock’s fib and of why he told it to Kirk is through MWI and the solution to the Grandfather Paradox which one part of MWI has proposed. If you don’t understand those things in the context of the events of the film, then Spock Prime and junior are just talking nonsense. And since I understood what they were saying, I can’t call it nonsense.

397. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

395: “Every time travel movie I’ve seen deals with ONE timeline, with ONE universe. Deja Vu starring Denzel Washington is the most recent one that comes to my mind.”

Congratulations, with Star Trek now you’ve seen one that’s different.

“Your approach to time travel would have needed A LOT more explanation in this movie.”

Speak for yourself. The majority of positive reviews do not seem to have the MWI premise as much of a stumbling block in the enjoyment of the movie. I agree with those.

398. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

The reviews didn’t care for MWI. I have yet to read a review where that problem is actually even mentioned.

399. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

398: “The reviews didn’t care for MWI. I have yet to read a review where that problem is actually even mentioned.”

Bingo. Give the man a prize.

400. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

The audience, and most of the fans, thinks old stuff is overwritten, because that’s just how time travel has been depicted in every major motion picture, from Back to the Future over The Voyage Home to Deja Vu.

Since that doesn’t create a problem for the general audience, because they couldn’t care less, this isn’t mentioned in any review.

But the truth is that Orci’s goal kinda failed. Nothing in this movie implies MWI QM. It’s just backstage info for worried fans, not something you’d learn from just watching the movie.

It’s strange, because a single line spoken by one of the characters would have cleared that up easily.

401. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

“399. dmduncan – August 18, 2009
398: “The reviews didn’t care for MWI. I have yet to read a review where that problem is actually even mentioned.”

Bingo. Give the man a prize.

Sigh. It’s not mentioned in reviews because the whole issue isn’t a problem for the general audience. And as far as I know, this discussion wasn’t about this, but about what Orci & Kurtzman intended with that particular theory on universes and time travel.
They say they intended to give the fans a loophole so the Prime Universe would still exist. Fine. Problem is, nothing in the movie suggests this. So the whole thing is just backstage info that is made huge fuzz about.

And that’s what this discussion was about all the time. Your sudden argumentation with reviews being positive isn’t even important here.

402. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

400: “Nothing in this movie implies MWI QM.”

Not true, Lando. MWI is not explicitly mentioned, but things that are implied are by definition things that are not explicit.

“It’s just backstage info for worried fans, not something you’d learn from just watching the movie.”

I don’t agree. If you understand something about MWI, black holes, and Grandfather Paradoxes—whether or not everything you see is 100% accurate in the movie as depicted—then you can see the underlying structure of MWI in the movie, sort of like the shape of a woman in a loose dress when she moves this way or that.

403. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

401: “They say they intended to give the fans a loophole so the Prime Universe would still exist. Fine. Problem is, nothing in the movie suggests this.”

This is comment 400+ now, and I just spent a lot of time up there saying the opposite.

404. Lando C. - August 18, 2009

Well, if you want to see QM theory in this movie, you are able to find it. But the same applies to Back to the Future, and Deja Vu, and The Time Machine, too.

If you are able to show me one review that says something along “Thankfully there’s the new exiting MWI QM which enables the original universe to continue to exist.” then you may have a point.

I think that in fact that whole QM thing is just a trekmovie.com thing. It started here in one interview with Bob Orci, where he said it was like the most current, most scientific, most colorful, most awesome something. But the movie isn’t about that. Would have been cool if it was, but it simply isn’t.

Probably nobody involved in the production but Orci cared about what happens to the “original universe”, which is why it didn’t make it into the movie. So all Orci can do is talk about it in these talkbacks.

405. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

In addition, it was already noted that MWI IS a part of TNG canon, and Bob is a fan of that show more than I am. So what now is the argument? That each successive episode of Star Trek, whether it be on TV or in the movies, should have reference to the original point of canon that it includes in itself?

I mean, would you have liked it better if Star Trek (2009) referenced the TNG episode “Parallels” where MWI was used, like some weird movie footnote to establish the canon legitimacy of the Star Trek (2009) plot?

Should Kirk now announce his entire history for each sequel of Star Trek so that it now becomes canon for each sequel too? Is that really necessary? Should Spock reference the destruction of Vulcan in every sequel of Star Trek, and if he does not, does that mean some fans will assume that Vulcan might exist in the sequel where it’s destruction was not specifically mentioned?

Does this strike anyone else as a bizarre way to enjoy Star trek?

Maybe we should have a ticker tape of text at the bottom of the screen that cites canon reference points for the scenes being depicted?

Better yet, maybe we can plug the time of the movie showing we are going to into our cellphones, and we’ll all get prerecorded calls from Bob Orci explaining what the canon reference points are for each scene of the movie as we watch it. Using Bluetooth headsets of course, because we wouldn’t want to disturb non fans who might actually be ENJOYING THE MOVIE with our nuttiness.

406. boborci - August 18, 2009

“The ‘clues’ may be in there but are in my opinion intentionally ambiguous: had the writer wanted to be clear, there were far too many ways to do so.”

I can’t infer what Bob Orci’s interest was in writing it exactly the way that he did such that you found it ambiguous. Neither can you. So this is useless speculation.
______

I’ll tell ya! We wanted the audience to have to work a little. And still some accuse us of dumbing it down. And if you didn’t want to do the work, and you preferred to think of the time travel in classical terms, you’d have that option. A quantum mechanical solution, oddly. Both can seem true depending on your POV.

Nonetheless, it was always the intention to have the internal logic of the story reflect the rules of QMMWI. That is why Spock does not attempt to “fix” any timelines, and why he makes the comments he makes.

407. RD - August 18, 2009

396. dmduncan wrote: “Yeah, RD, but I meant it with regard to the latest theories and how things are speculated to work, and certainly not with respect to how other pop culture franchises unrelated to Trek”

Really? You are really suggesting that audiences come to the theatre with an understanding of MWI QM? If that’s the case, then I would suggest the majority of the audiences who see this movie absolutely thinks this is traditional time travel.

“Clues by nature do not CONFIRM, they point and suggest. This is not a real universe, remember. So it’s absurd to speak of the things that happen in a movie as if they can be proven one way or another by objective facts we can gather and test to come to a conclusion”

You write this, then immediately confirm your observations by what is presented in the movie. I think we all KNOW it is a movie and it is from that context that we comment. Once you start talking about bringing an outside knowledge into the movie to understand it, then you have the same problem that the Old Testament Canon was causing and led to the reboot in the first place. The fact is, you don’t need to understand MWI QM to appreciate the film. It neither adds nor detracts, but only matters to confirm the Prime Universe is there for pre-existing fans. Why would new audiences care?

You make a lot of absolute claims here. They all seem to be based on the “Grandfather paradox”. First of all, Spock did not say “Grandfather Paradox”. Orci did. Spock joked about “universe ending” paradoxes. But here’s the problem. You seem determined to take the explanation outside the movie, despite your protestations to the contrary. The frame of reference IS the movie. Since that is the target audience for whom MWI matters are the prior Trek fans, how can you possibly suggest they forget the context of all the Old Testament canon they know when viewing the film, whether they had prior understanding of MWI or not? You siad yourself, it isn’t real. All they have to go on is their previous experience with the film, 40 years of suspension of disbelief versus some cryptic references to real science. When Spock jokes about “universe ending paradoxes” that’s exactly what it is … a “joke”. Every Trekker knows that Prime Spock has been around the block with time travel and that the way time travel works in Star Trek is that there are no paradoxes. TNG era shows even “hung a lantern” on it. And that’s all they have to go on. It really doesn’t matter what the writer intends, or what a current real world theory says, if it isn’t explained within the context of the movie when it contradicts a major earlier concept.

Let’s use Orci’s own explanation to explain the change in the science used in the stories
with the analogy that TOS stories took place on a flat Earth and ST09 takes place on a round Earth. He has also pointed out on numerous occasions that some fans need to see the curvature of the Earth from space in order to see the difference. But that isn’t really relevant. What’s relevant is that a reader who has accepted the old stories in the context of a flat Earth, regardless of their understanding of science, read a new novel and envision that it takes place in the same setting. Because, in the context of the franchise, that is what they expect. If in the first new round-Earth based story a character briefly jokes about sailing over the horizon, without explaining it further, the audience will assume he meant sailed off the edge of the Earth. Without further explanation in the story … they would not be wrong in context of hundreds of stories that came before it.

“MWI is not explicitly mentioned, but things that are implied are by definition things that are not explicit.”

Inferring is not the same thing as implying.

408. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

Look, I don’t work for Paramount, and I wasn’t hired to come in here and snatch the tinfoil off your heads (relax cupcakes, it was a joke).

I’m defending it because I loved the movie. It makes sense to me. I get it. I understand it. And I thought it succeeded in a way that I wouldn’t have dreamed possible, on every level, including making fans that weren’t there before.

That’s cool.

409. RD - August 18, 2009

#402. dmduncan wrote: “MWI is not explicitly mentioned, but things that are implied are by definition things that are not explicit.”

Inferring is not the same thing as implying.

Implied evidence is rather like confirming the color of an unseen character’s eyes as blue, through another character’s description that they are the “color of the ocean”, without knowing when the ocean was observed, where the ocean was observed, or whether the observer is colorblind. In the case of Trek, one also has to consider whether the observer is human or if the ocean in question was even on Earth.

410. RD - August 18, 2009

#406. boborci wrote: “[if] you preferred to think of the time travel in classical terms, you’d have that option. A quantum mechanical solution, oddly. Both can seem true depending on your POV.”

Who is this really?

411. boborci - August 18, 2009

407. RD – August 18, 2009

If in the first new round-Earth based story a character briefly jokes about sailing over the horizon, without explaining it further, the audience will assume he meant sailed off the edge of the Earth.

————————-

That’s why we included the scene on the bridge when young Spock first posits the theory that Nero is from the future — they very seriously discuss that their future is now unwritten because they are living in an alternate reality. If I remember correctly;)

412. boborci - August 18, 2009

410. RD – August 18, 2009

Who is this really?

————————-

Alright, alright, I admit it.

I’m really Alex Kurtzman.

413. RD - August 18, 2009

#405. dmduncan wrote: “In addition, it was already noted that MWI IS a part of TNG canon”

Not as used with time travel. Time travel right up to the very last depiction was handled in traditional terms using Star Trek’s own twist which ignored paradoxes. Period.

As for the rest your post, I merely shake my head at your attitude. Why would you even take the time to write so many ridiculous proposals which no sane individual would even remotely consider? No one here has made such ridiculous propositions and I find it insulting in that I infer you make them as you see some of the otherwise perfectly rational arguments in kind. I have not seen a single argument presented here that doesn’t have some merit.

414. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

407: “Really? You are really suggesting that audiences come to the theatre with an understanding of MWI QM?”

No I’m not. Most audience members got it and accepted it without understanding anything about QM at all, which was exactly my point to Lando. They don’t care. But if you want to understand it at the level that Bob wrote it, then yes, you DO have to have more knowledge of QM/MWI. And you have to bring it with you because you can’t make a didactic blockbuster, unless, of course, it’s a really good documentary.

“The fact is, you don’t need to understand MWI QM to appreciate the film. It neither adds nor detracts, but only matters to confirm the Prime Universe is there for pre-existing fans. Why would new audiences care?”

You don’t have to understand everything about it to enjoy how good a story it was. And I’m not arguing that you do.

“The frame of reference IS the movie.”

Not exactly. They spoke English, and you brought your understanding of English with you to the movie, and you didn’t learn English either in or from the movie, and if you didn’t know English prior to seeing the movie in English, you wouldn’t have understood any of the dialogue. So the movie is not, contrary to how you seem to be arguing, a self sufficient, self contained little universe that depends on nothing which you bring. Movies have never worked like that, and they never will.

“What’s relevant is that a reader who has accepted the old stories in the context of a flat Earth, regardless of their understanding of science, read a new novel and envision that it takes place in the same setting. Because, in the context of the franchise, that is what they expect. If in the first new round-Earth based story a character briefly jokes about sailing over the horizon, without explaining it further, the audience will assume he meant sailed off the edge of the Earth. Without further explanation in the story … they would not be wrong in context of hundreds of stories that came before it.”

I don’t know what else to say but that the problem you describe is neither one that I have nor one that the general audience seems to have. So it sounds like you are saying some Trek fans have an unfortunate kind of tunnel vision that is preventing them from seeing things in a different way. I didn’t have any problems getting over what I had seen in Trek before to accept what happened in this movie. But I do take your word for it that there are some fans who are having that problem.

415. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

Sorry RD, I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

416. Boborci - August 18, 2009

414. dmduncan – August 18, 200

thanks uncle Joe. you can fess up now;)

417. RD - August 18, 2009

#411. boborci wore: ” they very seriously discuss that their future is now unwritten because they are living in an alternate reality. If I remember correctly;)”

With all due respect, you stay out of this! ;-)

Seriously, though, you are biased. I totally get that this film can be seen as MWI QM, just the way that TVH can – and almost any of the Old Testament canon stories (except sadly, City on the Edge without some serious retconning) … but like any work of art, it doesn’t matter what the artist intended, but rather how the fans perceive it. You can never take it back.

I think you remember reasonably well enough, and you also responded elsewhere that “alternate”=”parallel”. But as with the context argument, this sort of requires a glossary. In real time, it would be something akin to a first year language student trying to translate subtitles with a Spanish/English dictionary while they watch the movie. They’re going to miss the meaning of a thing or two. I’m not sure, but I even think Doc Brown referred to their alternate timeline as an “alternate reality”. So even though I know what you meant, it doesn’t make it so in the popular lexicon.

418. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

409: “Implied evidence is rather like confirming the color of an unseen character’s eyes as blue, through another character’s description that they are the “color of the ocean”, without knowing when the ocean was observed, where the ocean was observed, or whether the observer is colorblind. In the case of Trek, one also has to consider whether the observer is human or if the ocean in question was even on Earth.”

RD, I think you are thinking too seriously about philosophical issues involving epistemology and semantics that ought to be focused on the real world, instead of being framed as questions about a fictional world, and how we know what the writers of Trek (2009) really meant. I know that you want to argue this into a stalemate so that you can say that your point of view is equally viable as the one I’ve explained, but I don’t think it is. I don’t think the facts of what we saw and heard make any sense under the way you want to interpret them.

419. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

416. Boborci – August 18, 2009

414. dmduncan – August 18, 200

thanks uncle Joe. you can fess up now;)

***

I stay in character until the check is in the mail. That was the agreement, and I’m sticking to it because I know how squirrelly you Hollywood types are. ;)

420. RD - August 18, 2009

#418. dmduncan wrote: ” I think you are thinking too seriously about philosophical issues involving epistemology and semantics that ought to be focused on the real world, instead of being framed as questions about a fictional world, and how we know what the writers of Trek (2009) really meant.

I’ll keep that in mind. Really why are you still debating this? Cause I’m pretty sure the point was lost back around #63.

“I know that you want to argue this into a stalemate so that you can say that your point of view is equally viable as the one I’ve explained, but I don’t think it is. I don’t think the facts of what we saw and heard make any sense under the way you want to interpret them.”

Glad you know the facts and what my motives are.

Especially, since Orci wrote in #406 above: “And if you didn’t want to do the work, and you preferred to think of the time travel in classical terms, you’d have that option. A quantum mechanical solution, oddly. Both can seem true depending on your POV.”

421. dmduncan - August 18, 2009

420: “Really why are you still debating this? Cause I’m pretty sure the point was lost back around #63.”

And yet comment number Four Hundred And Twenty belongs to you, who is still debating it too.

“Especially, since Orci wrote in #406 above: “And if you didn’t want to do the work, and you preferred to think of the time travel in classical terms, you’d have that option. A quantum mechanical solution, oddly. Both can seem true depending on your POV.”

So Great, RD. You have what you want then, so you should be happy. I wanted to do the work, so I came closer to understanding what they intended by the meaning of the scenes we had to do the work to understand, and you didn’t want to do it so you can preserve what you knew from before. That makes me happy too because I don’t have to defend my point of view anymore. It’s legitimate, closer to what they meant in the scenes themselves, and the only way to understand what Spock was saying.

So we can drop it now, right?

422. Charles H. Root, III - August 18, 2009

I’d be interested in the relationship between the Preservers, Organians and Q. Do they represent three branches of an uber being federation government that has not yet been explored?

423. captain_neill - August 18, 2009

god sorry about my rage. I love the attention this movie has given Star Trek again. Its a great fun movie. I don’t treat it as canon and treat it as a separate entitiy, I do the same with the last two James Bond films.

The film brings the sense of fun of TOS. But I am also a fan of the spin offs, being a huge fan of TNG and DS9 espeically and it hurts me to hear so many anti vibes towards the TNG.

I do love TOS but I love the spin offs as well and I hope that the new fans wil embrace all of Trek.

TNG et all add to TOS’s legacy

424. The Middleman - August 19, 2009

MWI QM, whoa. Dudes, your film is so full of scientific blunders, it makes your whole reasoning with “bringing most recent scientific theories into this movie” pretty laughable.

I always thought the Star Trek universe has this structure:

There are parallel universes. Each parallel universe has its own timeline. If you slingshot around a sun in your universe A, you never leave your universe A. You just travel along the timeline of universe A. You can switch between universe A and B by using a few anomalies, and in DS9 they found a way to beam from one universe into the next.

Every single episode, from TOS to ENT, supports that. ENT is an especially good example, because the Defiant is thrown into a parallel universe and then travels back through time to meet the Mirror Universe NX-01.

What Star Trek does not support is that time travel creates new universes. There have been predestination paradoxes, there have been time travels to fix a time line. There have even been timeships, for crying out loud, that fix timeline violations. There has been a timetravel war, for God’s sake!!! That wouldn’t work with what you are trying to achieve, Mr. Orci.

And sorry, 40 years of Trek totally outweigh what you did. I hope in a few years there’s going to be a reasonable filmmaker who undoes the damage you did. Yeah, yeah, the movie is a success, and you swim in money right now, blabla, good for you.

But since I’m just a customer, I have the right to be totally pissed about what you did with the product.

425. P Technobabble - August 19, 2009

I think this debate about Quantum Mechanics, time travel, alternate/mirror universes, and alternate time-lines is being approached as if there are any actual facts about these things, apart from whatever actual knowledge is currently available. Most of what is being discussed is based on theories, none of which have been proven. Physicists, themselves, even admit when they are looking at something they, as yet, have no explanation for, yet some people are discussing it as if it were everyday knowledge. That is why these conversations are circular, going nowhere, and people are never going to agree — at least until someone, somehow actually sees, measures and documents the effects of altering a time-line. That is what science does, isn’t it?
We are talking about Star Trek, a work of science fiction (even at its most scientific). Fiction is not intentionally meant to be taken so seriously that people might want to beat each other senseless over it. It should be viewed and enjoyed precisely for what it is… flight of the imagination. At the same time, if ya don’t like the soup, don’t eat it. Go eat the soup elsewhere, or make your own.
424. Middle
Let me get this straight: you state the new movie is full of “scientific blunders,” hm? Then you state: ” always thought the Star Trek universe has this structure:”
Are you suggesting that the science of the Star Trek universe is more valid than the science of the movie? As I just stated above, it is all fiction, and most of the “science” is all based on theory or even sheer imagination. And just because the “Star Trek universe” may have presented time travel in a particular fashion doesn’t mean the movie necessarily had to present it the same way. That is nonsense. 40 years of Star Trek have been leading up to this movie, along with the 40 years advancement of scientific theories, and plain old movie-making.
I think Orci & Kurtzman’s presentation of alternate time-lines, alternate universes, etc, etc, are as plausible and valid as they are in lots of other works of science fiction, and dissecting them to find faulty science is ludicrous.

Look, when we suddenly hear on the news that scientists are able to travel through time, AND we even have some way to figure out if our time–line has been altered, then we might have something to argue over. Until then….. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

426. boborci - August 19, 2009

424. The Middleman – August 19, 2009

Are you saying we cannot change the laws of physics?;)

427. RD - August 19, 2009

#424. The Middleman wrote: “I hope in a few years there’s going to be a reasonable filmmaker who undoes the damage you did.”

Actually, despite what some think, I have been trying to point out that no damage has actually been done. Orci has thankfully intentionally left this story vague so that future filmmakers can go back to the old way of telling Trek if they choose and it will fit with this series of films without blinking an eye. As long as they don’t tell stories which force the hand of MWI QM on screen, then someone can always go back in time using Old Testament Canon and restore the universe the way it was. Alternatively, we can always cross back into the Prime universe, as long as again, MWI QM is not better defined on-screen. From everything the writers have said, time travel and parallel universes are not likely to be part of any story they write for the foreseeable future, so the whole debate is probably moot.

Then again, as others have observed, the new generation of Trek fans created by this movie are used to re-boots of classic characters, and the next “keepers-of-the-flame” will merely blatantly reboot the franchise without the care Orci has taken to thoughtfully attempt to observe the Old Testament canon, because the new fans will be used to the idea. It strikes me this has become an issue only for long-term fans.

#424. The Middleman wrote: “But since I’m just a customer, I have the right to be totally pissed about what you did with the product.”

What is it they say – “The customer is always right”?

428. RD - August 19, 2009

#425. P Technobabble, if you didn’t read my post at #407, I actually agree with you. However, I maintain that context is critical for understanding any work of fiction. Whether the “science” is real or not is irrelevant, to the extent it does not stretch the bounds to which the audience must suspend their disbelief. The most important issue for me is whether it is consistent or not, and if it isn’t, that an explanation is offered. This is true for Star Trek or a Merchant Ivory film. Once the “rules” for a story are established, don’t just switch them without explaining it – assuming it matters to the story whatsoever.

To put this debate to rest here and now, not only do I not think the perspective of MWI QM matters to the film, but is not likely to affect any future films by these writers. The whole debate really stems from fans proposing certain stories for a sequel based on Old Testament Canon, like the Guardian of Forever. Since Orci has already conceded MWI QM is incompatible with some aspects of Old Testament Canon, some fans have reacted badly. Addressing the underlying reasons for that resulted in the debate about the real-world application of quantum mechanics to this film. Since it is not relevant to the story or likely future stories, the whole thing is moot, regardless how closely the real-world science is adhered to or not – Orci will simply not be writing any Guardian of Forever stories.

And Orci’s so-called implied “clues” are just that. Strokes on a canvas that convey the artists intentions. But art is an interpretive medium from which the beholder infers a subjective meaning, if any at all. As I pointed out in #417 above, ultimately it doesn’t matter what the artist intended, but rather what experience the patron takes away from it. This has both positive and negative consequences for the artist. Just ask Robert Mapplethorpe.

But in an example closer to home, in 1977 everyone was talking about Star Wars, including the church (that’s how you really know you’ve arrived when they discuss your movie as part of a Sunday-school lesson!). I remember vividly churches across the country drawing a profound Christian message from the story – like all Christianity, the church claimed the movie was full of symbology that incontrovertibly proved the filmmaker intended a Christian message. George Lucas vehemently denied that was his intent, but despite his protestations, it was hard to refute any of the claims since the “clues” were right there in the movie. Were they wrong? Is it possible for something intended by an author to be interpreted in an equally valid way?

Yes. In a more real-world example, that’s why we have courts and lawyers, to interpret the meaning of laws and contracts, despite the stated intentions of the original parties involved in drafting them. Obviously entertainment carries no such importance in interpreting the meaning of a writer’s words, yet the same principle applies. Trek is successful because of the fans, and it’s up to the fans to decide how they want to view a piece of art. If they think Nemesis sucked, then it did. If they decide MWI QM doesn’t apply, then it doesn’t, whether or not anyone else agrees with them. Without any concrete evidence to the contrary, it is hard to refute an individual’s subjective deductions, no matter what authority intervenes. As long as the context cannot be shown to have overtly changed, interpreting through an historical lens is perfectly legitimate.

429. RD - August 19, 2009

#421. dmduncan wrote: “It’s legitimate, closer to what they meant in the scenes themselves, and the only way to understand what Spock was saying. … So we can drop it now, right?”

To paraphrase the Talosian Magistrate:

“You have an illusion, and I have reality. May you find your way as pleasant.”

430. dmduncan - August 19, 2009

425: “Most of what is being discussed is based on theories, none of which have been proven. Physicists, themselves, even admit when they are looking at something they, as yet, have no explanation for, yet some people are discussing it as if it were everyday knowledge. That is why these conversations are circular, going nowhere, and people are never going to agree — at least until someone, somehow actually sees, measures and documents the effects of altering a time-line.”

I don’t think that’s the case, Techno. I think they based the film on current thinking on several different things, one being time travel, another being Many Worlds, yet another being how MWI might relate to time travel paradoxes. Whether that thinking is true or false is another issue, and it doesn’t really matter with respect to what happened in the film. To understand the clues I’ve been talking about you have to understand some things about current thinking, not know whether those things are true or not. It doesn’t matter if they are true or not to understand what happened, you just need to know what the thinking is, because even if it is later discovered that the science in the film is completely wrong, you can still understand what happened according to the modes of thinking that were prevalent at the time the movie was made.

“At the same time, if ya don’t like the soup, don’t eat it.”

I agree. The problem is that many Star Trek fans may hate the soup and yet NOT be able to stop eating it.

427: “Orci has thankfully intentionally left this story vague…”

Only to people who prefer pampers to big boy shorts.

“so that future filmmakers can go back to the old way of telling Trek if they choose and it will fit with this series of films without blinking an eye.”

Did you say “can”? They “can” do it regardless. RD has no say. The most RD can do is to express his opinion which belongs to a minority who do not have the power to make the franchise a success on their own. How many dollars did you put into the film so far, RD? I saw it 5 times, paid for the admission of 4 other people 3 of those times, and for the admission of another person all 5 times with myself, and never had to twist anybody’s arms to go see it multiple times. None were previous fans, all are now. I bought the soundtrack, and I even ordered the Captain Kirk T-shirt and holographic plate from the cereal and Eggo boxes. Have any idea how long it’s been since I’ve even THOUGHT of doing something like that? I’m a fan too, and canon schmanon is what THIS putting-his money-where-his-mouth-is fan says.

“I remember vividly churches across the country drawing a profound Christian message from the story – like all Christianity, the church claimed the movie was full of symbology that incontrovertibly proved the filmmaker intended a Christian message.”

The 3 pronged outlets in my wall right now look like shocked little faces. Is that interpretation correct? Are they, in fact, shocked little faces? Is the interpretation that they are shocked little faces equally valid to the interpretation that they are electrical outlets? Have you ever spoken to the shocked little faces in your wall as if your interpretation was correct? Or do you more often than talking to them plug electrical stuff into them?

“Trek is successful because of the fans, and it’s up to the fans to decide how they want to view a piece of art. If they think Nemesis sucked, then it did. If they decide MWI QM doesn’t apply, then it doesn’t, whether or not anyone else agrees with them.”

Which fans? I’m a fan, and I don’t care about the same kind of consistency that you do. If there’s any consensus it’s that the movie was great.

The minority whose pampers are high in the crack over consistency are going to see the sequel no matter what, and have no power to make anybody who liked it, which is the vast majority, change their minds.

You prefer consistency and not to understand what the meaning was of various things in the movie, despite the fact that Bob indicated they were there because they wanted fans to work a little harder to understand their intention. But, compassionate as they are, they also wanted the fans who were either unwilling or unable to do the work to have an option to think of it in traditional terms. The bottom line remains: Your interpretation exists because you want consistency, not because you did understand certain lines of dialogue and what they meant. Your point of view depends on ignoring things we saw and heard in the film, and mine depends on understanding those same things.

I did the work. I understand what they did. And I didn’t need Bob Orci to tell me. Why? Because it’s there.

Furthermore, when Gene Roddenberry decided to change the appearance of Klingons in TMP, despite 10 years worth of old fans and new fans accustomed to seeing them as they were in TOS as greasy faced caucasions, without ANY explanation at all within the movie about why they suddenly looked different, that doesn’t mean there’s no explanation. Oh there is. A real one: He changed them because that was his pleasure to do.

Sorry, RD. But like a fiend of the night in John Carpenter’s “Vampires,” I’m going to lasso you and pull you out into the sun.

“Without any concrete evidence to the contrary, it is hard to refute an individual’s subjective deductions, no matter what authority intervenes.”

First, film is made of celluloid, not concrete, and the celluloid evidence is there, but your confirmation bias is rejecting it because you want consistency above everything else. Both Bob and I have pointed out Spock’s dialogue, and Bob pointed out the dialogue of the bridge crew.

Second, a deduction isn’t “subjective” if you mean to say that it’s an opinion. It is either valid or invalid, and the ways of determining whether a deduction is one or the other are well known and easy to look up. There’s no “opinion” about the validity of a given deduction any more than there is an opinion about the correct result of a mathematical equation.

Third, I noticed in comment # 420 you were quick to quote the authority when you thought doing so backed up what you wanted to believe. I also noticed, however, that you do not quote that same authority when what he says is contrary to what you believe.

Confirmation bias.

429: “To paraphrase the Talosian Magistrate:

“You have an illusion, and I have reality. May you find your way as pleasant.”

No, you have confirmation bias, and that leads the way opposite of reality.

431. Brian Kirsch - August 19, 2009

Wow, what a thread! I’m exhausted and feel dirty. Think I’ll take good long shower.

Such vitriol aimed at the writers of this film is uncalled for, IMHO. The entire team produced a film that may be the best, or at least in the top 3, of the film franchise. They revived and, more importantly, gave new life to a “dead” franchise. They did so in a highly entertaining, highly emotional film that not only references the OS, it embraces it.

Those of you, on both sides of the WMIQM, AR/AU, etc., debate should really move on, and as someone once said, “get a life”. Or you can watch every OS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT episode, along with the previous films with your handy little canon/non-canon checklist. As someone else famously said, you won’t “see the forest for the trees” As for me, I prefer to see the forest, and it was wonderful!

Talk about OCD, a few of you have actually forgotten how to actually enjoy Star Trek! And you’ve forgotten how to enjoy good storytelling. Most importantly, you’ve forgotten the basic idea of the entertainment of “fiction”. Sorry folks, but Star Trek is “fiction”, i.e., not true or factual.

My advice to Mr Orci: Run, don’t walk, RUN away from this site! Do your thing, trust your instincts. There is nothing good for you here!

(On a personal note: To that troller with the name from another sci-fi franchise: Go away! Don’t get me started criticising your beloved franchise!)

432. Brian Kirsch - August 19, 2009

I forgot to include that at the very least, 90% of the people that saw the film loved it! That number includes Trek fans and new, non-Trek fans alike. And that they are unaware this “crucial” debate is going on. They couldn’t care less, including this Trek fan of 40 years. They, and I, enjoyed the hell out of this movie and can’t wait to see what’s next!

433. dmduncan - August 19, 2009

One other point: What you see on screen is a necessary but NOT sufficient precondition for understanding what you see.

When I said that a viewer has to bring stuff to a movie to understand it, I didn’t mean and never intended anyone to understand me as meaning that he has to bring everything—so unpack the suitcases and call the plumber to put that sink back on the wall.

This won’t apply at all to the general viewer who enjoys the film without understanding each and every part of it, but for some in here, it’s probably best to follow an Occam’s Razor type of rule, that is, don’t bring anymore than you have to to understand it. More than that is superfluous and will just get in your way. That’s what I did when I first saw it, and that’s why I wrongly thought it was typical Trek time travel.

This includes 40 years of Trek history, or a mere 10 years of Trek history, when Gene Roddenberry decided to suddenly drape the Klingon spine over the top of the Klingon skull.

This will have the added benefit of not forcing Bob Orci to SHOW everyone the curvature of the earth so that everyone knows that, yes, it’s STILL round—although we WILL have to wait for Trek in 3D for him to establish that the Earth in the 23rd century is also still spherical, and not a 2 dimensional flat circle.

434. dmduncan - August 19, 2009

My way of passing time right now seems to be coming in here with a coyote mask on and chasing some wild turkeys around.

There’s plenty of time for more serious stuff, and it’s not like some fans can’t use the exercise.

435. Brian Kirsch - August 19, 2009

I love Wild Turkey, on the rocks, with a splash of water ;-)

436. dmduncan - August 19, 2009

Jim Beam Black, sans water & rocks. I can only stare through the window at Johnny Walker Blue. : (

437. Brian Kirsch - August 19, 2009

Unfortunately, I have to live within my means. You obviously are living high on the hog with JBB. JWB is like winning the lottery: not gonna happen ;-(

438. Chris Doohan - August 19, 2009

426

LOL

439. RD - August 19, 2009

#430. dmduncan wrote: “Sorry, RD. But like a fiend of the night in John Carpenter’s “Vampires,” I’m going to lasso you and pull you out into the sun.”

And the real motives surface. I’m flattered you have made this all about me.

All things considered I think I liked this persona of dmduncan best:

“I don’t care about unimaginative naysaying. You seem to have a toxic personality that’s better for me to just avoid as long as you decide to be the person you are. I’ve probably encouraged you by engaging you in conversation, so in retrospect it was probably my own fault to fall into the sort of conversation you seem to want to have, and which I am uninterested in having. Ciao, RD.”

“ciao” indeed.

440. RD - August 19, 2009

#366. Mitch wrote: ” I think the Spock/Uhura thing was awful, and I also felt that more people hated it than liked it. I’m sure there were people that liked it, … But yeah, I think that Spock/Uhura needs to be forgotten”

I completely disagree.

It was a stroke of genius for Orci/Kurtzman to have Spock & Uhura have a serious relationship. Not only did it give Uhura a more pivotal and impactful role among the central characters, but it allowed Spock for the first time to have a real reason to explore his humanity. The kiss in the elevator was the perfect set-up for the salacious open mouthed public display in the transporter where Kirk could get his comeuppance. It showed us a logical side of Spock that does not care, indeed does not need to care that anyone knows or sees what he is doing. Hopefully you will pump this relationship up. It would be fantastic to see Spock & Uhura in bed together, locked in a meaningful exploration of “love-making” and not the mere sexual exploits that we saw Kirk engage in. It would be a fantastic contrast and truly add some romantic and emotional depth in a non-exploitative way that can only appeal to a new audience and Trek’s traditionally weakest demographic: women. The most brilliant aspect of the relationship is how much more accessible Spock has become to audiences. He’s not just the pointy-eared alien guy to new audiences, but a thinking, feeling, loving person with a soul, with whom the average person may finally identify.

Orci & Kurtzman have shown us with this relationship they are skilled writers able to both expand the Trek universe while remaining true to the characters and offer even more substance for fans to chew on. Star Trek is dynamic again and it’s fantastic additions like this that make it unpredictable and relevant to more people.

441. dmduncan - August 19, 2009

437: “You obviously are living high on the hog with JBB.”

I wish! Wild Turkey is more expensive…I think. No, it is.

442. dmduncan - August 19, 2009

439: “And the real motives surface. I’m flattered you have made this all about me.”

It’s not. The fun is mine.

443. RD - August 19, 2009

#354. Mitch wrote: “I’m kind of torn on the whole issue of how I feel about the prime universe being wiped. … Interestingly enough … it’s actually possible to pick and choose some events we don’t like and put them in the new timeline to resolve canon paradoxes. …For example–maybe in the prime universe, Kirk doesn’t go into the nexus, and that’s why Scotty remembers him as alive when he’s found in the TNG era.”

Yes one can pick and chose events from a timeline that has been linearly erased, but that presupposes that despite the significant alterations which took place by 2258, that the TNG era ended up exactly as it was supposed to. Whereas MWI QM has raised some interesting ideas about just what universe ST09 took place in. Meaning we know it was branched off the Prime Universe, but did that Prime universe it branched from cover ENT through TNG, or thinking retconned quantum mechanically, was it already a different universe that had spun off of First Contact or another previous time travel story (or every time travel story)? In which case, New Testament Canon prior to 2233 could be even more different than anyone expects. This would of course have invalidated the Nexus story from Generations as we knew it, almost immediately with First Contact.

444. dmduncan - August 19, 2009

Spock/Uhura was my least favorite part of the new movie and, get this, the reason why had nothing to do with canon!

To me as a kid growing up watching reruns of TOS, I always thought that Spock and the Vulcans performed a specific function in Star Trek, which was to dramatize the idea that logic isn’t enough. That in making the choice to embrace pure logic to survive, the Vulcans had lost something essential that humans still had, which is an ideal balance between logic and emotion. Vulcans were too emotional, and they went too far the other way in compensation. If Spock gets plunged into a romance, that point is lost and Spock is just a pointy eared human.

So to me the Vulcans were, and Mr. Spock in particular was, a contrast by which we could see and understand ourselves more clearly, because there are many, many people who act and live their lives as if logic or reason is the bulk of all that matters.

It also seemed that McCoy was as emotional as Spock was logical, and that Kirk represented a symbolic balance between those two extremes, and that was why he was the most fit to command.

But what Spock also meant to me, even though I knew I would never want to embrace pure logic or live that way as a human, was the possibility for some people to live peacefully with that choice, and of not apologizing to any human for being different or for having made a different choice.

IDIC. And again, Spock/Uhura for me makes Spock more of a human and less of the “other,” which I thought was an important aspect of Star Trek to keep and which gets lost by that relationship.

That’s my view. But it certainly was a bold move for the writers.

445. dmduncan - August 19, 2009

I think that’s why you saw the character of data in TNG. Another character with no emotions to dramatize the same point. You could explore different stories by making him an orphan android instead of a Vulcan, but if they had given him emotions then he might as well have been human.

446. Son of a Maui Portagee - August 19, 2009

But what we do know about time is that it is relative. It can travel faster for some objects and slower for others.

I always thought it also was symmetrical in that if you jump forwards in time under MWIQM you would experience the same alternate universe creating effects as going in reverse.

If this is true, what distinguishes a MWIQM forward jump from the normal forward time travel all objects seem to experience? Is there a threshold as in if, say, you jumped one femtosecond forward and no alternate universe would be created??

447. RD - August 20, 2009

#444. dmduncan wrote: “That’s my view.”

dmduncan … my how you have grown and radically changed your opinions about this movie.

From this on May 9th:

dmduncan wrote: “Apparently, I now have better control of my emotions than this new love bird Spock does, and I’m a warring mixture of Scottish-Italian. Boo. I wanted to love this movie, but I really couldn’t. The drama was no more credible than the science.”

To this during May:

dmduncan wrote: “if you change the characters they aren’t the people we know and love anymore. Spock publicly sucking face with Uhura on the transporter was absurd. Like so many other things in this movie it was contrived and unbelievable … What’s next? Spock on Uhura action to Barry White music? Spock walking around the Enterprise sporting a woody through the Starfleet pants while he assures everyone he is in full control of his emotions?… I want to see how the crew I know and loved became who they were, not an altered history Star Trek where a bipolar Spock publicly sucks face with Uhura on the transporter which is TOTALLY out of character for a guy who didn’t even like his mother fussing with his clothes in the same movie…. And just because you write it a certain way doesn’t make it believable that way. And just because you have an answer to the nagging questions doesn’t mean your answers makes sense. …Orci and Kurtzman need a third writing partner and I’m available. Because lacking the conscience of McCoy in the room, that duo isn’t making all the right decisions. … In addition, you can’t have it both ways boys. Everything we know and love ISN’T still there. By changing the timeline the entire future of the TV series was erased. This isn’t an alternate universe Trek, it’s an altered HISTORY Trek.”

And finally, this part is the most relevant to this thread:

dmduncan wrote: “Look, I loved the film too, but for the amount of money these guys are making on this thing they could afford to love it more and be less lazy in the head. And how exactly did Spock see the destruction of Vulcan from Delta Vega? And why is it our job to scratch our heads trying to figure out how it all makes sense at all? It’s the filmmaker’s job to relieve us of that necessity by making it all clear. Why do Orci and Kurtzman have to go around answering all these questions at all? If you write it and edit the thing properly you wouldn’t have to. The movie itself will do the job. I loved the film and I love this new cast, but I think the story is the weak link here…. The time travel element didn’t get any better the second time around and I don’t expect it to get better in the future. I would suggest that we view that element merely as the device the writer’s used to give themselves freedom to rewrite “canon” and nothing more. “

Not only did you since change your understanding of the film 180 degrees, but clearly you had a revelation about how clearly the writer must make his ideas to the audience, not to mention reevaluating how much the audience must bring to the film. It truly was a fascinating growth to observe. Thank you so much for sharing it publicly with us.

I only wish I had done the work you have to get from there to here. It looks like most of it happened shortly after you started posting on Trekmovie where the writers routinely drop in, so that was fortuitous. Regardless, I am happy that I did not disagree with you back then, before you learned to debate without such vitriol and otherwise incur your acerbic wrath and personal attacks on myself.

Thanks again for the hope, that with any luck and some hard work I may be able to completely reverse some of my opinions about this movie and “see the light” like you too.

448. ger - August 20, 2009

447. Now that’s really interesting. Great one!

449. Brian Kirsch - August 20, 2009

#’s 440, 444, (366) –

The development of Spock in the movie was one of the pleasant surprises for me. In many ways he was the focus, the center of the film much more than Kirk. Perhaps that’s why some fans were left with the feeling that Kirk, as a character, was not fully developed, not fully thought out. Interesting choice by the writers, which may somewhat explain why Spock Prime was an integral part of the film, but yet including Kirk Prime was not. Just a thought……

Personally, I thought I was seeing Spock as a “realistic, three-dimensional character” and not just a cariacature. We saw the beginnings of this in the OS movies, as Spock became more and more “human”. In Roddenberry’s original vision (The Cage) we saw this Spock. To appease network execs, he made Spock more “alien”, more Vulcan than Human.

His personal, internal battle was only hinted at in the OS, with only the occaisional episode that showed the ridiculous extreme, and only due to some alien influence. In this film, they hit the balance just right. We got to see his inner conflict, up close and personal.

The writers have a goldmine here, if the keep the balance they had in the recent film. I don’t expect them to make Spock a romantic, joking, lothario. Nor do I expect them to make him an unemotional, logical, asexual Vulcan either.

Let’s hope Kirk gets the same level of character development in the next film……..

(Grandfather Tiberius emerges as an influence in James T. Kirk’s life. A possible role/cameo for The Shat, if he chooses to accept it. This tape will self-destruct in 6 months…… M:I – The Shat)

450. dmduncan - August 20, 2009

447: “dmduncan … my how you have grown and radically changed your opinions about this movie.”

Hahahaha! First of all, I’m touched that you are spending so much time examining my past comments. I almost wonder if it’s going into a dossier. Which…would be kind of creepy.

But yeah, and maybe that will be an example to you, RD, but that’s what reasonable people do. We don’t stay, as the Army General in New Orleans said a few years ago, “stuck on stupid.” We change. When the facts warrant a change of one’s view, it is pure stubborn foolishness to maintain the same view.

And I don’t know where it went, but I did post a comment, which disappeared (so you won’t be able to include it in your file), after the 3rd time I saw the movie, where I realized how wrong I initially was and how good a movie it really was after I got over my initial prejudices.

So here we have an example where your rigid adherence to canon and stubborn wish for consistency in Star Trek also shows up in how you act and think as a human being, because if you think my earlier comments illustrate contradictory points of view rather than an evolution of my own awareness as I understood the movie better and lost my initial disappointment, then it’s because you either can’t or don’t know how to do the same thing. The only thing I haven’t really changed my opinion on is Spock/Uhura; although it didn’t bother me the last two times I saw the movie, I still think it would be a better move to end it rather than to continue.

Live and grow, RD. It’s good for you.

“Thanks again for the hope, that with any luck and some hard work I may be able to completely reverse some of my opinions about this movie and “see the light” like you too.”

You are welcome, RD. Sometimes a man just needs to see it’s possible before he decides to embark down that road as well. Best wishes! I truly hope you can learn how to unstick yourself.

449: “The development of Spock in the movie was one of the pleasant surprises for me. In many ways he was the focus, the center of the film much more than Kirk. Perhaps that’s why some fans were left with the feeling that Kirk, as a character, was not fully developed, not fully thought out.”

I thought this at first as well. But after subsequent viewings the movie does seem to be about Kirk as much as Spock. Spock certainly had a more central role than before, which is hard to avoid when you have TWO Spocks to ONE Kirk, but after seeing it 5 times, I lost the initial feeling I had that it was mostly about Spock. It wasn’t.

451. dmduncan - August 20, 2009

And by the way, I should add, for the record, since RD is obviously keeping track and might even have ordered the transcripts, that in the run up to the film, watching the trailers, I had formed some internal ideas about how I would see certain things unfold. When they didn’t unfold in the movie the way I had imagined they would in my head, I was disappointed.

For example: The third major trailer was awesome and the music helped to create that effect. When that music was not in the movie, and when Kirk did not take the center seat as dramatically in the film as he had in the trailer, I felt disappointment.

But that was my problem. I had engendered false expectations by my own internal fantasy of what would be that harmed my enjoyment of what I saw and heard.

Now, however, the opposite is true: After listening to the soundtrack in the theater as it accompanied the movie, it strikes me as beautiful and fits wonderfully.

So, I’m a flexible human being, capable of losing my preconceptions.

Guilty as charged!

452. dmduncan - August 20, 2009

And that’s also my answer to the absurd claim some people make that this Star Trek was “dumbed down.” I’m not a stewpid man, and it took more than 3 viewings for me to get it. But that’s probably also because it was such a visual feast, and it was easy for a TOS fan to get distracted from the action or dialogue by the wonderful details JJ had built into this cool new Trek universe.

453. dmduncan - August 20, 2009

And also by the way, I guess I should also confess that I thought TMP was great at first, because I was a Star Trek fan, but that my point of view on it has ALSO changed, and that I now have it bottomed out as a mediocre movie with some good moments, because, despite my wish to like it, it really isn’t that good a movie, and I would feel like a fool to pretend to myself AS AN ADULT that it is.

So when the facts change or your understanding of them improves, you should change too.

Otherwise, you are like one of those giant stone heads on Easter Island, always stuck looking in the same direction.

But I think the vast majority of Star Trek fans are better than that.

454. ger - August 21, 2009

It took you three viewings TO GET IT?!?!

It’s worse than I thought.

455. dmduncan - August 21, 2009

454: “It’s worse than I thought.”

No, it’s just not the dumbed down thing some people are making it out to be. Some people still don’t get it despite careful explanation. But the bottom line is, even if you don’t understand all the complicated stuff they were implying, the movie still works just as an action movie with some great characters. It works well simultaneously on multiple levels.

And one more thing ’cause this just keeps cracking me up:

447: “dmduncan … my how you have grown and radically changed your opinions about this movie.”

I said I didn’t understand it at first. I said my opinion of the movie had changed (indeed, don’t know if the old vanished comment has since reappeared, but I recall referring to myself in it as an “inflexible a–hole” the first time I saw the movie!), and RD accuses me with evidence that shows I am not a liar!

Congratulations, Inspector Clumseau. Dieu sait, you’ve caught me red handed! A suspicious history of honest Trekmovie commentary has been revealed! How will I ever post at Trekmovie.com with my head held low again?

456. Boborci - August 22, 2009

appreciate dmduncan’s well reasoned and eloquent views, positive AND negative.

457. dmduncan - August 24, 2009

Thanks Bob!

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.