Star Trek Provides One Of The ‘HollyWords’ of 2009 March 12, 2010
by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film), Trek Franchise , trackback
Each year the Glo Global Language Monitor releases their list of the most influence "HollyWords", or words from Hollywood that most influenced the English Language in the past year. Topping this list this year was "Pandora" from Avatar, but there is also a contribution from Star Trek on the list this year, with "Her" coming in at #8, see below for details and explanation.
Star Trek’s ‘Her’ – #8 Hollyword of 2009
The Global Language Monitor (languagemonitor.com) uses "a proprietary algorithm to track the frequency of words and phrases in the global print and electronic media." This algorithm is used to create their annual Top Hollywords list. Here is their list of the new Hollywood words with the largest impact on the English language:
1. Pandora (Avatar) – There are 1,000 words in Na’vi language specifically constructed for Avatar, but the name of the alien planet is originally from classical Greek meaning ‘all blessings or gifts’. The Pandora’s Box myth has the first mortal woman opening a box that holds all the ills of the world, which inadvertently escape. A later version has all the blessings of the world escape except for hope, which remains.
2. Hurt Locker (The Hurt Locker) – In GI vernacular, explosions send you into the ‘hurt locker’, synonymous with ‘a world of hurt’.
3. Barley Pop (Crazy Heart) – Bad Blake’s reference to beer; similar to ‘oat soda’ and the like.
4. Vampire (Twilight) – The living dead are enjoying an unprecedented revival in the 21st Century. Undoubtedly, PhD fodder for sociologists of the future.
5. Squeakquel – Any movie that gets millions of kids (and parents) to use a neologism with two qq’s in it, should be noted in an influential word list.
6. December 21, 2012 (2012) – According to some, the end of the world so marked by the Mayan Calendar; actually it is simply the first day of the 14th b’ak’tun in the Long Count calendar of the Maya.
7. Vichy (Inglorious Basterds) – Shosanna Dreyfus’ suggestion to Frederick on where to find ‘girlfriends’. Yet another generation is introduced to the seemier side of the Free France narrative.
8. Her (Star Trek) – “These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Her ongoing mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life-forms and new civilizations; to boldly go where no one has gone before.” Several hundred years from now, though ‘man’ is replaced by ‘no one’ in the mission statement, starships apparently proudly maintain their female gender status, ‘Her’.
9. ‘Their’s but to do or die’ (The Blind Side) – Sean Tuohy teaches Charge of the Light Brigade to Michael. When was the last time you recall the words of Alfred, Lord Tennyson being recited in a football movie — or anywhere else for that matter?
10. Prawns (District 9) – Politically incorrect name for Space Aliens in District 9, since they seem to resemble crayfish, crawfish, or crawdads.
There she is
Star Trek’s evolving mission statement
The Language Monitor notes the ‘her’ in the Star Trek mission statement for the USS Enterprise. Although both the addition of ‘her’ and ‘no one’ are differences from the original Star Trek mission statement from 1966, neither are new to the franchise. The same gender-neutral ‘no one’ instead of ‘no man’ was used by Star Trek: The Next Generation starting in 1987. And using ‘Her’ instead of the gender-neutral ‘Its’ was used in the closing credits for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, spoken by Spock. Kirk also referred to the Enterprise as ‘Her’ in his closing epilogue in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. And of course the various Enterprises have been referred using the feminine throughout Trek history, which is based on naval tradition.
Here are the various versions of the mission statement through the years, with bold to note how their differ from the original TOS version.
Original Star Trek (1966) [spoken by Kirk]
Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before.
Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan (1982) [spoken by Spock]
Space: the final frontier. These are the continuing voyages of the starship Enterprise. Her ongoing mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life forms and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before.
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987) [spoken by Picard]
Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no one has gone before..
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) [Spoken by Kirk]
This is the final cruise of the starship Enterprise under my command. This ship and her history will shortly become the care of another crew. To them and their posterity will we commit our future. They will continue the voyages we have begun and journey to all the undiscovered countries, boldly going where no man, where no one, has gone before.
Star Trek Enterprise (pilot – 2001) [Spoken by Zefram Cochrane]
On this site, a powerful engine will be built. An engine that will some day help us to travel a hundred times faster than we can today. Imagine it. Thousands of inhabited planets, at our fingertips. And we’ll be able to explore those strange new worlds and seek out new life, and new civilizations. This engine will let us go boldly, where no man has gone before.
Star Trek Enterprise (finale – 2005) [Spoken by Picard, Kirk & Archer]
Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before.
Star Trek (2009) [spoken by Spock Prime]
Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Her ongoing mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life-forms and new civilizations; to boldly go where no one has gone before.
The original Star Trek mission statement
Loading ...
Comments»
It’s crazy there are so many iterations of the mission statement, but it all boils down to the same meaning we can agree on.
Greets from Germany…
in German, a ship is always female…
so it is DIE Enterprise…
and since the Enterprise is – in my opinion – equal in star quality to Mr Shatner and Mr Nimoy she deserves a “feminine” attribute
She is our lady and we LOVE her!
I still hate that they changed “no man” to “no one”. It’s totally insane and preposterous, an improvement for the worse based on… based on what? False political correctness? Feminist fascist ideology? (Does anyone know?) The original “man” in “no man” did not stand for “male person”, but for “human”, as in “mankind”, meaning specifically that the Enterprise would travel to worlds where no human has gone before—i.e. a new experience for *us* here on planet Earth. The new substitute “no one” actually implies that the Enterprise now travels to worlds where no person (human *and* alien beings) has gone before. The words themselves have lost all original meaning and intention. (It made a little sense in TNG S01E06, but that’s about it.)
But I do like “her” voyages. :)
Well, you can of course say that starting with TNG they realized that there were also aliens on the Enterprise, which could in theory account for the “no one”. ;) But that’s a bit far-fetched, isn’t it?
Is it just me or does the hair stand up on the back of your neck when you hear Spock read those words.
My favorite pet peeve in all Trekdom. And it is a big peeve. “No man” is superior in every way to “no one”. Case closed. Politically correct pabulum. No one is not “bold”. “Continuing” voyages is superfluous. Spock’s replacement of “five year” with “ongoing” is fine, because it needs to explain the end of the five year mission. But “new life forms” is clumsy. “To seek out new life and new civilizations” has a better rhythym without that extra “forms” syllable.
Just as Daniel Craig couldn’t say “Bond. James Bond” until the end of Casino Royale, JJ needed to put Trek’s mission statement at the end of last year’s Trek. But I would also hope that JJ puts the statement back at the beginning of the sequel where it belongs. Boldly. Picture Trek 09, as the shuttlecraft dissolves into the spinning emblem, but instead of hearing Giachinno’s new theme, you hear Courage’s fanfare followed by Pine intoning the intro. Chills.
I totally agree with no. 4. “where no man has gone before” sounds so much more poetic than “where no one has gone before.”
4
Go Schultzie!
“Several hundred years from now, though ‘man’ is replaced by ‘no one’ in the mission statement, starships apparently proudly maintain their female gender status, ‘Her’.”
That’s good news, because the Enterprise is certainly looking to be the only female character in Star Trek that matters. Of course, the next movie could change all that if the writers just allow Uhura to do her job instead having everyone else who do it, especially officers who are NOT communications officers.
- Uhura: Hello! My name is Uhura. I study alien languages including morphology, phonology and syntax. I’m a top student in my class where I have on multiple occasions demonstrated exceptional oral sensitivity AND I have an unparalleled ability to identify sonic anomolies in subspace transmissions. Also, my hearing is incredible.
- Captain: You’re in luck! Even though none of what you told me will be of any use to anyone on this ship, feel free to take the “what’s happening” station and tell us the obvious. Mr. Chekov will be handling the communications related durties
- Chekov: Aye!
- Uhura: But I can do better than-
- Captain: Better than Chekov? Don’t count on it. The moment you have trouble at your station, he’ll come running and pushing you aside yelling “I can do that!” constantly and actually get the job done. Look, I know you want a more important role and that you have a lot of skills, but you know what I think you want more? Quality time with Spock! Believe me, no one will raise a fuss about you leaving your station even in a time of crises because all your station does is tell us what we already know. So go sit down and monitor Spock’s frequencies, cause god only knows how that would be of any use.
Yes, Star Trek 2009. Boldly going backwards by giving women positions that are completely pointless.
Also, I like the “No one” better than “No man” because it’s talking about the Enterprise’s mission, a mission that is not devoted solely to humans. Everyone, including the non-human crew on the ship are on that mission too, and who is to say they’ve been there before? When you say “No one”, you include everyone, humans and aliens. And when you take in the idea that everyone on this ship are going to venture into the unknown that none of them have experienced before, that adds a much broader perspective to the monologue.
I would have “her” no other way.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…
It was not the voice over that bothered me it was how the enterprise or is it better if i call it the JJPrise,looked.
The design was just all over the place. Ugly looking, make it look like a hotrod he told ilm. Perhaps the wrong choice of words.
Anthony, I skipped through a lot of the article, but the shot of the neu-Enterprise is the best I’ve seen yet, yet I don’t think it’s from the movie. What’s your source( apart from http://diamondskyproductions.com/spotlight.php)? It’s the first time I’ve seen the new ship from an angle that I can appreciate, and can say “that’s VERY Star Trek” about.
#13I have that shot blown up to just show the saucer section as my wallpaper on my computer. Anthony posted that a few months back.
You treat her like a lady, and she’ll always bring you home…
that is an official paramount image that was provided to Diamond Sky which is owned by Carolyn Porco, the science advisor on the movie who suggested the Enterprise hiding in Titan scene
what a surprise, Jeyl finds yet another excuse to spout his hatefull bile about the new Star Trek movie
i suggest suicide since you are so worked up over this movie
16
Nice quote. I’ve always loved that line. McCoy had a way with words.
“She is a beautiful lady, and we love her…”
No reflection on trekmovie.com, but what a stupid list.
To quote Hikaru Sulu: “Why do people have to call inanimate objects she? Like, ’she’s a fast ship’?”
=P
After picking up the new E at Toys R Us (priced to clear!), I have to say I really like it a lot better. With something to pick up and hold at various viewing angles, it really comes across as a much more attractive design than I originally thought.
I thought i saw that image of the JJ-Prise 1701 on the cover of cinefex magazine am i wrong?
I agree, I don’t like that they changed the ‘no man” to ‘no one” I don’t know why some feminist women think saying that means only males, not humans. And to say “where no human has gone before” sounds awkward.
I agree too that this new Enterprise is not as good looking as the original.
To make a point about what the actual article is telling us. Of all the words to pick as a “hollyword” from the movie, they pic a pronoun. Really? not Red Matter or something?
#14 That image of the Enterprise is an expanded version of the scene when the Enterprise emerges from Titan’s atmosphere.
24, It sure was.
“Risk….is our business. THAT’S why we’re aboard her!”
- James Kirk
#7 – and Pine actually does it pretty well, too. It’s too bad we only hear him speak the monologue in the ST:09 gag reel, but there’s always the next film!
Of course, we never really got to hear Archer say the monologue either, even though he has done so. I think it was in an audio clip featured on one of the official Star Trek websites; I have a recording of Bakula’s version on my iPod. It went like this:
“Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. Her continuing mission: to explore strange, new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no human has gone before.”
Here’s the link. A fan made a YouTube video incorporating the clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpwv1ZipTL4
18 – wow. That’s really an insensitive thing to say, especially given recent events.
This thread made me think about how the original voiceover came to be. I refer you to the book “Inside Star Trek” by Herbert F. Solow and Robert H. Justman. If you have it, check out pages 143 – 149 for this interesting story.
I also have to plug “The Making of Star Trek,” one of the finest books ever written on this or any other behind the scenes paperbacks. It was written by Stephen F. Whitfield and the man himself, Gene Roddenberry. Great stories on every page.
The original making of book by Whitfield is great and sadly long out of print.
I was fun reading about how all those old school optical effects like the transporter beaming were done.
I wonder if Pocket Books will consider re-publishing the “Making Of Star Trek”. I’ve never got the chance to read it.
To #22, I was going to mention that.
@6:
Yes, it does. Freakin’ spooky.
Whenever I recite the opening for TOS I always feel weird saying “its” instead of “her”. However I much prefer “no man” over “no one”. By changing it they make it seem as if it was bad before. It’ wasn’t, it’s not like they really meant MEN, or males.
in spock prime’s….why the comma rather than the colon? any reason?
The way the article puts it, it’s as if we have starships already :)
Where no Prawn has gone before…
Where no Vichy has gone before…
Nah, I like, “Where no man has gone before.” And man does mean huMAN. Although, I can see the point that “no one” is showing respect to the aliens onboard. As the great Zapp Brannigan once said:
“I don’t care if your skin’s red, or tan, or Chinese…”
“…you’re all going to have to learn to die together.”
@4: “…Feminine fascist ideology…”
What.
#10
I couldn’t agree more. I loved the film, but there were a couple of moments that had me rolling my eyes, Chekov’s moments were one of them.
@11: I don’t agree with Jeyl on much, but this is spot-on. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
10
What do you expect the writers of Transformers?
Star Trek is a fun movie but it has a very weak script. There are too WTF moments and plot coincidences that it does not flow naturally.
I love the film but if you think about the plot then a lot of makes no sense.
#44: “There are too WTF moments and plot coincidences that it does not flow naturally. I love the film but if you think about the plot then a lot of makes no sense.”
So you love a film that has all sorts of problems and you think it works best if you just don’t think about it? To quote sfdebris,
“If a story depends on you not thinking at all about what’s happening in order to work, the story has failed. The minute you decide otherwise that thinking is bad, you are only encouraging them to treat you like an idiot. Unless you’re watching a comedy or a brainless action piece, you shouldn’t stop ‘thinking’ just because the movie started. Drama, mystery, suspense (Jeyl: All the best Star Trek had that)? It should have your mind going all the time. And when it does something that leaves you wondering why the hell people are doing what they’re doing, or why the hell this thing is happening, or worst of all, why the film makers did something so obviously stupid, they’ve failed, and it’s your job as an audience to call them on that. When you get served crap and thank them for it, you will continue to get crap. Not just in Trek, but in all entertainment.”
Now, would you say it’s fair that Bob and Alex got at least ’some’ form of criticism for the work they did on Transformers that didn’t involve “More robots!” or “Devestator in the next movie!”? I can think of hundreds of reviews that pointed out problems in that movie that not only return for the sequel, but are flat out multiplied. You think Jazz had some head shaking moments? How about two more versions of him with more screen time and the stupid racially insensitive level cranked all the way up to 11? With that kind of track record, do they sound like the type of writers who will look at the flaws of Star Trek 09 and try to do better the next time around? I don’t think so, because no matter what anyone says about the flaws of that movie, the two things they will cling to is your “I love the film” comment and that the film was an overall success, because that basically tells them that flaws don’t matter and neither does your intelligence. Why? Because you’ve already said that you ‘love the film’ despite saying “If you think about the plot, then a lot of it makes no sense”.
“Well this is a new ship, but she’s got the right name. Now you remember that, you hear?”
“I will, sir.”
“You treat her like a lady, and she’ll always bring you home…”
– Admiral McCoy, to Data, referring to the Enterprise
Should have said, “..where mankind has not gone (journeyed?) before…” because, if you’re seeking out new civilizations then, well, some *one* has been there before, a la Columbus discovering America.
Actually there is a Archer Version, but it’s not in ENT.
you can find it here.
http://bbs.flyine.net/thread-85789-1-1.html
i’ve upload Archer version audio
Never thought about as much as reading these threads, but I guess I’m with the lot that finds “man” to be more poetic than “one.”
At the same time, I do not so quickly dismiss the “political correctness” of changing the phrase. Star Trek has always been a vehicle for political messages, and gender equality is certainly a valid one. I do not think there was anything WRONG with the first iteration of the mission statement. However, regardless of the necessity of changing the phrase, by changing it they drew attention to the inclusiveness of Star Trek and the message that exploration is an adventure for both men and women. That’s a message I can support!
That youtube Enterprise opening is a thousand times better than what Berman & Braga did…
“sigh”
Voyager and Enterprise…. The Star Treks full of unfulfilled possibilities and missed opportunities…
44. capatain_neill – March 13, 2010
As you know, I am always happy to explain anything you couldn’t follow or that confused you.
Bob
you mean like the confluence of the timelines having Spock Prime and young Kirk meet up in the cave? What, every time you need an improbable circumstance to take place you blame it on the timeline trying to correct itself? How convenient!
Just kidding! I LOVED the movie!
The whole “no man” versus “no one” issue simply highlights a shortcoming in the English language–we have no mellifluous (non-clinical) gender-neutral term for our own species. Words, of course, have no inherent meaning, they only mean what we decide they mean. It’s true that for centuries we used the word “man” to mean both “male human” and “all humans,” but it seems perfectly reasonable to me that some humans (regardless of gender) might think it is past time that practice changed. It is true that “no man” sounds better than “no one,” but it’s equally true that the phrase “no man” perpetuates usage that tacitly disenfranchises more than half of all humans. Which seems to be contrary to the ideals of “Star Trek.” It’s also true that “no one” implies that the Enterprise is only visiting uninhabited regions of space.
Seems to me what was always implied, and could have been said, was: “To boldly go where none of us have gone before.”
51. Harry Ballz – March 13, 2010
I will acknowledge that, given what we explained on screen, that what you point out is the weakest part of the movie, logic wise.
Willing to fight about the rest!
FYI for anyone here who can stream Netflix on TV or their computer: The Harlan Ellison documentary “Dreams With Sharp Teeth” is available for instant download viewing.
Recommended for those Star Trek fans who do not have a burr-up-their-ass reaction whenever Ellison’s name is mentioned.
44: “I love the film but if you think about the plot then a lot of makes no sense.”
Oh give me a break neill. It makes a lot more sense than the sort of time travel nonsense we saw in First Contact WHICH WE ALL KNOW you rate more highly.
Time travel to the past that splits universes to avoid conundrums like The Grandfather Paradox is more respectful of logic than the depictions of time travel we’ve seen since the 60’s which LITERALLY make no sense, and which Star Trek has been guilty of perpetrating right up until First Contact.
Bob,
I though it was an entertaining film. Looking forward to the next one!
I hope you guys can put some of the exploration element back into Trek in the next one as well. That’s something that has been kind of on the back burner for the past several years in all the other incarnations of Trek.
@53: Come on Bob, don’t abandon ship on that either!
Logically it may seem to be unlikely, but the improbable happens. There’s no need to explain it as the timeline trying to correct itself or to explain it any other way either. It’s just one of those mysterious confluences that makes you wonder.
Like Poe’s Richard Parker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Parker_%28shipwrecked%29
Or Paul Campfield’s mother’s record collection:
http://www.sacbee.com/2009/07/31/2071033/sacramentan-buys-old-vinyl-45s.html
Bob,
What about the tiny globule of Red Matter that happened to turn Vulcan into a black hole? A lot of scientists are skeptical about that one. A planet such as Vulcan wouldn’t have enough matter to condense into a black hole. As well as the fact that it seems kind of far-fetched that such a tiny amount of Red Matter would collapse the planet. Assuming that Red Matter does what you say it does, wouldn’t it have made more sense for Nero to send the Jellyfish into Vulcan’s sun? The star would have become a black hole and Vulcan would have been sucked into it.
I’m no scientist, I just think the way Vulcan was destroyed was illogical.
It was a great scene, mind you, but you guys kinda stretched it there. Of course, I could be wrong about all this.
But Star Trek has always taken some liberties with science as part of the story process.
Good Lord. “where none of us have gone before”?
How about “Space, the final frontier. Or perhaps not, due to potential alternate realities, and synchronicitous timelines. (forget it, he’s rolling) These are the on again off again voyages of another starship named Enterprise. Her (Its) perpetual(!) mission, to explore strange (which is in itself human-centric, and judgmental; who are we to call other worlds “strange”?) new worlds. To seek out new life forms, and new (again, to “us”) civilizations. To boldy go where no male, female or transgendered human being from Earth, as opposed to other humanoids, native to other class M planets, have not previously gone. Before.”
57. dmduncan – March 13, 2010
@53: Come on Bob, don’t abandon ship on that either!
—-
You’re right! I take it back!!!
#59
Great! Has a certain poetry to it. Y’know, Klingon poetry, but poetry. Except the opening was only 57 seconds long. Hmm. Perhaps Shatner could have done only the “linking multiple words together” technique and left out the “unnecessary pregnant pauses” technique and made it fit.
I’m surprised no one (I mean, no man) has yet brought up the whole “to boldly go” split infinitive controversy.
54
Bob
I am both honoured and humbled that you were willing to be so candid and open in responding to my observation.
You’re a class act, pal!
Maybe the next version should be “Where No Canon Has Gone Before”.
I loved the film, I really did, but I had sincere issues with a 17 year old on the bridge of the ship, especially one that abandons his post to do someone else’s assigned duties and there not being repercussions for it. I suppose in the future, teenagers man the helms of our armed starships.
@55. dmduncan: “Time travel to the past that splits universes to avoid conundrums like The Grandfather Paradox is more respectful of logic than the depictions of time travel we’ve seen since the 60’s which LITERALLY make no sense, and which Star Trek has been guilty of perpetrating right up until First Contact.”
Of course! Back to the Future would have been a much better movie had Marty just traveled back to his own present where Doc Brown is still murdered and his parents are still losers thus rendering the entire point of movie pointless but also meaningless. Ya, I’m certain a lot of people who walked out from that movie were disappointed in it’s depiction of time travel because going back in time and changing things that affect the present LITERALLY makes no sense.
Wow. I can’t believe you’ve pretty much said that Back to the Future, one of the best written, directed and acted movies of all time LITERALLY makes no sense. Changing things in the past that affects the present which doesn’t involve ‘alternate realities’ was the structure of the whole darn movie!
The one and only thing I enjoyed about Enterprises’s final episode was that final shot and the pieced together voice over.
Too be the rest of the episode sucked.
*To bad
Brain is tired…. >_<
TWOK is full of coincidences and WTF moments. Chekov being the one to beam down to meet Kahn out of all of starfleet? No one, nor the ships computer, registering that there were MAJOR discrepencies between the Ceti Alpha system as mapped and as it existed when the reliant entered orbited? No one in all of starfleet science noticed a planet blowing up? For that matter, “red matter” (whatever that is) is no less preposterous than the genesis project. And where exactly was the light coming from in the genesis cave? And what exactly was it that Spock was fixing at the end? And why couldn’t he just pull on a radiation suit?
and yet TWOK is still the best trek movie of all time.
Even if you don’t like JJ-trek, its at the very least still superior to TFF, INS, and NEM.
#68. “and yet TWOK is still the best trek movie of all time.”
Alright, let’s do this. I’ve talked plenty about the characters, the story and the pi** poor depiction of Uhura. Let me try to explain one important element from TWOK that the writers tried to implement into Trek09, but clearly missed the point of why it was included in TWOK to begin with.
First off in TWOK, the test has more to do with choice than just being pitted against klingon ships. In TWOK, Saavik wasn’t ordered to go in and rescue the Kobayashi Maru, she made the choice to do it. And it was a fuel carrier, not a federation starship. When it’s a Federation ship as it was seen in Trek09, you don’t leave your fellow comrades behind. When it’s a civilian freighter, nothing is really obligating you to rescue them, especially when they’re in the neutral zone. So you either leave them to their fate and proceed with the mission, or you risk your ship to help the freighter. So in conclusion, the purpose of the ‘no-win’ scenario isn’t to put fear into cadets in the face of certain death, but to show them that no matter what choice they decide to make in a critical situation, there are no positive outcomes. Which is EXACTLY what happens at the end of the movie. Yes, they did escape from Khan, but it came at a price that weighed heavily on Kirk and crew. That is what the test was trying to teach cadets, which Kirk finally understood when he admits to his son that he knew nothing.
So unlike Trek09, The Kobayashi Maru test fits with TWOK perfectly. Trek09 on the other hand?
NuKirk: “Going back in time. Changing history? That’s cheating.”
Prime Spock: “A trick I learned from an old friend.”
Not only is that exchange bad, but it’s entirely incorrect in the context of whatever point it’s trying to make. It wasn’t Spock who went back in time and changed history, it was Nero. Everything that has happened before and after Spock had arrived was out of his control. And he certainly isn’t changing history by being there now because anything resembling the original history is already long gone.
And really, how can you experience fear of certain death when:
A. You know it’s a simulation.
B. You know the outcome.
C. You know your life is not in any danger.
D. You know that whatever you do is pointless.
Oh, and back to the original subject, why do you think NuKirk didn’t give the “Space, the final frontier” monologue at the end of the new movie? I’ll tell you why. Because it would have been out of character. No where in Trek09 does Kirk reflect any interest or desire to do what that monologue is all about. He wasn’t a character who looked up at the stars and said “I want to see what’s out there”, he looked at the Enterprise being built on Earth and thought “I’m going to make that mine”. Everything he does at the academy pretty much is all about him showing off and not taking the purpose of the Federation seriously.
So congrats Trek09, you took Kirk’s opening Monologue from the original Star Trek and rendered it “Out of character” to your own Kirk.
Back to the Future is one of my favorite movies, but it’s a fact that the theory of time travel it relies on is not the most current.
Spock Prime did indeed change the course of events by helping the young crew. Kirk is referring to this intervention when he calls it a cheat.
Kirk did not give the final send off because we didn’t write it that way. We felt the movie could not have happened without Nimoy and we thought it appropriate that he deliver the line, since he himself made the ongoing mission possible.
65: “Wow. I can’t believe you’ve pretty much said that Back to the Future, one of the best written, directed and acted movies of all time LITERALLY makes no sense.”
1. Go play with your phaser and utility belt some more, fanboy. I’ve seen Back to the Future maybe twice. I’m not a fan. So I don’t think much of how much you think of it either.
But rest assured, you won’t find me on backtothefuturemovie.com bashing a film that fans go there to celebrate. I’m not that juvenile.
2. Yes, that’s right. It makes no sense. At all. Just because you’ve been raised to think in those nonsensical terms through pseudo science fiction in TV and movies before your brain was fully developed doesn’t make it any more sensible.
MWI/QM was examined as a means of avoiding the paradoxes in time travel. And a paradox is something that doesn’t MAKE SENSE.
3. I am not the one who COMPLAINS about scientific accuracy all over the place, and then even rather selectively. If I did care as much as some of you anal retentives did, I would hold myself hostage at gun point until a high level meeting with The Supreme Curt assured me that Star Trek’s depictions of gravity aboard the Enterprise and how it’s transporters could project dematerialized people to any location without a receiving unit to recompose them on the other end, made sense.
The post you are gnashing your teeth over was a reply to neill who said the plot made no sense — as IF. So do I have to repeat the relative treatment of time travel between ST.09 and FC again, regarding which made more?
4. Harlan Ellison is NOT, and never has been what is called a “hard science fiction” writer. When Harlan Ellison wrote City on the Edge of Forever, he wasn’t interested in portraying the most up to date according to the latest scientific theories idea of time travel.
No! For Ellison it was a device to put Kirk in a situation where he had to make the biggest decision of his career, which was going to be costly either way, and which he could not have been thrust into without the time travel plot device.
THAT is what I care about. I care about the CHARACTERS, not whether DELTA VEGA was used differently in ST.09 than it was in WNMHGB.
Nor do I care whether RED MATTER is “real” or not. Who in their right mind can stare blankly past Star Trek’s depictions of gravity in space and transporter technology, while leaking spittle, to complain about something that is MOSTLY — not entirely without scientific justification — but MOSTLY about a plot device that is in the same family of plot devices that also includes Harlan Ellison’s Guardians of Forever, and a time traveling Delorean?
And I don’t hear you complaining about the Delorean.
69: “Yes, they did escape from Khan, but it came at a price that weighed heavily on Kirk and crew. That is what the test was trying to teach cadets, which Kirk finally understood when he admits to his son that he knew nothing.”
So your Kobyashi Maru teaches the dimwitted denizens of 23rd century Earth that there are such things as are called “dilemma”?
“BRILLIANT!” as the Guinness beer commercials say. Makes a HELL of a lot more sense now genius.
God only knows how anyone would know what what a dilemma was before experiencing one in a Kobyashi Maru test.
Tell you what, if the cadets don’t know about that or haven’t experienced any prior to joining Starfleet, then can they even be trusted with the keys to the LAVATORY?
And remember. Star Trek’s depiction of transporter technology was due to BUDGET constraints. They didn’t have the CASH to depict ship to shore flights with SHUTTLECRAFT every week.
But if they insisted on scientific coherency, you would NEED a transporter on the other end to get people there. Unfortunately, all those “strange new worlds” the Enterprise would visit wouldn’t have those transporter receivers on their surfaces already, making shuttle flights again necessary — and too expensive.
Sometimes you just get what you can afford and what drama requires.
And honestly, we could assail TWOK for ignoring canon.
Kirk never faced loss before? What about Edith Keeler?
I’ve been reading through several recent books about time by some of the leading theoretical physicists of our day. What all these books have in common is the proposal that our traditional notions about what time is are being blown apart by quantum research. “Time” is not observable… only clocks are. We measure time by observing a moving object, for example, and where that object is according to where the hands of the clock are. “Time,” at the level of particles, does not follow traditional ideas of “past-present-future.” The “future” may even affect the “past.” What we think of as “time” is an invention of our own making, one which we are simply accepting a presumption about. Apart from that, time is an illusion. What we think of as time does not exist.
You might criticize a writer for proposing an event that seems coincidental — like the “Spock Prime meets young Kirk in the cave” scenario. I was one of them. Yet, everything I keep learning about quantum physics, the matter of time, the seemingly bizarre nature of the universe, informs me, at a deeper level, that we don’t know anything, really. It seems that literally anything is possible… and if we could wait long enough, probable. What we do know is limited by our ability to view things, our prejudices and presumptions, and even our own nervous systems. It seems, more and more, that what we are coming to is some kind of understanding that space, time, matter, energy, existence and consciousness is one great big ZAP of something we will probably never be able to completely define. Sounds pretty cool…
The “one person altering the past to change the future” idea is not an easy one to get a grip on. If you went back in time and murdered your parents, you wouldn’t be preventing your own birth in your future, since you already exist. You would be preventing your own birth in an alternate future, another time spun off from your original time… a baby universe.
“Back To the Future” is a completely enjoyable, entertaining movie which does not present any scientific concepts any more profound or legitimate than Star Trek.
As far as I’m concerned, all of this “what I like is better/makes more sense/is more legitimate” nonsense has come to an end.
Star Trek lives. The Supreme Court rules. I can live with that. If you can’t live with that, nobody is telling you you gotta stay tuned…
71. “Spock Prime did indeed change the course of events by helping the young crew. Kirk is referring to this intervention when he calls it a cheat.”
Change course of events? The moment Nero shows up, nothing is set in stone anymore. You wrote that in the movie.
NuSpock: You’re assuming that Nero knows how events are predicted to unfold. The contrary, Nero’s very presence has altered the flow of history beginning with the attack on the U.S.S. Kelvin, culminating in the events of today there by creating an entire new chain of incidents that cannot be anticipated by either party.
So if it’s an entire new chain of incidents that no one knows how it unfolds, how is Spock changing history when there isn’t any history to change?
77 “You might criticize a writer for proposing… ‘”Spock Prime meets young Kirk in the cave”‘
Please note that I wasn’t criticizing the writers for that in my post #52. I was simply teasing Bob, which I clearly acknowledge with my closing remark, “Just kidding! I LOVED the movie!”
I would never criticize a writer of a Trek movie who has the good grace and fortitude to visit us here!
10 jeyl
uhura says “aural” sensitivity, not “oral”.
big difference there.
uhura got to use her talents during the romulan dialect scene and was instantly promoted by pike.
besides, women are weak and useless and have no business being on a starship, except for some leg candy and vulcan teasing…
81
Uh, oh…..
80. Harry
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean my remark directed toward you at all. It was, indeed, clear that you were teasing, and your respect for Bob O is also clear.
79. Jeyl
What, specifically, is the purpose of all your nit-picking? Or is it just a hobby?
@80: “I would never criticize a writer of a Trek movie who has the good grace and fortitude to visit us here!”
While I do think this is a rare privilege and honor to go one-on-one with a writer, I am by no means going to give the writers a “That was brilliant!” exchanges like they do in their own commentary tracks. I’m an audience member who pays admission, and a Trek fan who pays for everything else. I feel it is my duty to criticize their work and to let them know how I felt about it. I wouldn’t be spending my time here if I didn’t care about Star Trek. I could simply say that Star Trek is dead and move on and probably feel better for it. But I don’t because than I’d feel like everything I did for the past 20+ years was all for nothing and that I’m giving up too easily. Plus I have already given up on Star Wars.
For the writers to come in here and talk about the story and plot issues is a great thing, but if had to criticize one thing about it, they should have their next movie do the talking for them. If it’s not in the movie, why is it worth explaining outside of it?
@81: “besides, women are weak and useless and have no business being on a starship, except for some leg candy and vulcan teasing…”
I got a better one, and this one is played out in the movie.
*A Black Hole is being created in the center of Planet Vulcan. Billions of lives are at stake. The planet has only minutes left.*
Spock: *To Uhura* Alert Vulcan Command Center to signal a planet-wide evacuation, all channels, all frequencies.
Uhura: Spock, wait! *leaves her station*
Let me reiterate. Vulcan has minutes left, Spock orders Uhura to contact Vulcan and evacuate as many people as possible and the very next thing she does is leave her station… She has been constantly bragged about being the best of the best, top of her class who has unparalleled skills in pretty much everything communications wise, and when the moment she’s given a time sensitive task to help save lives, she LEAVES HER STATION! That’s a little worse than teasing vulcans and being nothing but leg candy.
79.
Spock Prime can either crawl in a hole and die, thus leaving events to unfold as they will, or he can intervene and help our young crew, which is what he does. He therefore changes what would otherwise happen (specifically, Nero would destroy earth). Spock Prime is acting on information he has from the future, namely, that Kirk and Spock are the chocolate and peanut butter of the galaxy. Therefore, Kirk calls him out in a sense that it’s cheating.
83
PT
no need to apologize, I just wanted to clarify my position. Thanks!
86 “Kirk and Spock are the chocolate and peanut butter of the galaxy”
Whoa! No wonder they have such great chemistry! :>)
@86: “Spock Prime can either crawl in a hole and die, thus leaving events to unfold as they will, or he can intervene and help our young crew, which is what he does.”
Ok, going by that logic, wouldn’t you say that if Spock had let Nero do his thing that he would also be allowing your NuUniverse’s history to be changed? Nero isn’t supposed to be there according to history. So Spock let’s things happen on their own, history is changed. Spock intervenes and let’s Kirk save the day, history is changed. Nothing Spock does will make any difference in keeping history the way it was. He’s a cheater if he does, and a cheater if he doesn’t. I don’t see how that relates to Kirk’s method of cheating.
Also, be careful what you say about story ideas. Spock Prime crawling into a hole to die just so Nero can blow stuff up? Someone might think that’s a good idea!
84. Jeyl
“…I’m an audience member who pays admission, and a Trek fan who pays for everything else. I feel it is my duty to criticize their work and to let them know how I felt about it….”
If the entire mass of paying audience altogether waged a campaign of criticism, that might amount to something. For one person — or a minority — who paid admission to feel duty-bound to criticize a writer’s work (as if their criticism overshadowed the rest of the mass audience approval) seems rather self-glorifying. And what is this about “duty?” Duty implies an obligation. No one on the planet is obliged to pay admission to a Star Trek film, or a Star Wars film, or any other film. So, where’s the duty? Being a fan of something does not automatically make you a collaborator. If you don’t like the film, fine. Bitching about what you don’t like probably won’t amount to anything, other than you feel like you are right, and the writer is wrong. Silly human race…
88. Jeyl – March 14, 2010
Let’s label this discussion as follows:
Rules of a Temporal Prime Directive
Spock Prime likely subscribes to the idea that changing the past is a no-no. You’re right, however, that Nero is already affecting things. Still, Spock Prime has a choice to make: intervene or not. Logic might dictate that even though Nero is changing things, it does not mean that Spock Prime should. Logic might lead him to conclude that less interference from the future is preferable. Hence, perhaps he should leave things alone.
Also, since you quote young Spock’s reasoning that events are now inherently unpredictable, recall that Kirk does not subscribe to Spock’s position. He believes in the BACK TO THE FUTURE rules of time travel. So his comments to Spock Prime are within character, in my humble opinion.
Bob
riddle me this…….how did having an alternate timeline make Delta Vega move from the edge of the Galactic Barrier to within spitting distance of Vulcan?
(runs and hides)
1. Harry Ballz – March 14, 2010
I remember the day that one of our wonderful researchers (Sean Gerace, who also has a cameo in the movie) came and asked us about naming Delta Vega. He pointed out that it was already a moon somewhere. This may be the one instance where we consciously chose to screw with Trek just because we could. I know it’s wrong, but we’re only human;)
Bob
months ago you mentioned to us that you, the writers, took one liberty with canon. Recently I asked you about that and you couldn’t remember what change it was….I sincerely believe this point about Delta Vega was probably it.
Thanks again for taking the time to interact with us! It’s much appreciated!
92.
Here’s my Delta Vega ‘explanation’. Planetoid names are assigned based on the order in which they’re discovered. In this altered timeline, this piece of rock was discovered just as the name “Delta Vega” became available.
Errrmmm…works for me!
93. Harry Ballz – March 14, 2010
I think you’re right!
94. Rocket Scientist – March 14, 2010
Yeah, that’s it!
95
Thanks, Bob! Gawd, I’m such a geek!
96
Hey, what the…….aw, c’mon!!!
Bob, on a different note…….months ago I told you that I thought your brother-in-law, Brandon Routh, did a SUPERB job playing Superman. Now I read that the studio is planning on relaunching the franchise once again with a whole new cast! They should replace everyone EXCEPT Mr. Routh! He gives off a great vibe as Supes!
….and, remember, I happen to be the pickiest bastard on the planet, so, if I feel that way, then many others do as well!
I think Jeyl is upset because she did not get the “Star Trek” she feels entitled to. Jeyl is a Trek fundamentalist that considers anything that diverts even slightly from what came before as blasphomous.
Here’s some advice to Jeyl: “Relax, cupcake”.
98. Harry Ballz – March 14, 2010
I have to agree with you. It’s been heartbreaking to read speculation that he might be replaced. Superman was one of my favorite movies of all time growing up, and the idea that anyone else could be Superman was against my every instinct. But when I saw Brandon in the role, I gotta give it to him… he WAS SUPERMAN. And that is no easy thing to do.
I agree about Routh. He was a seamless successor to the role after Christopher Reeves, and I thought that was by far the best Superman movie since the original Donner film, which I love.
Bob, since you are also a big fan of Donner’s Superman, does this mean you’ve considered a Jor – El like interactive hologram as a means of giving Shatner a “live” role in the sequel?
I mean, I totally LOVED the Shatner ending you guys wrote and would have preferred it end that way with Mr. Shatner’s involvement, but it seems pretty damned clear that he WANTS to be a part of Star Trek again, so I imagine there must be some pressure from a number of directions on that matter.
You won’t answer that, will you? : )
90 – bob orci
“Also, since you quote young Spock’s reasoning that events are now inherently unpredictable, recall that Kirk does not subscribe to Spock’s position. He believes in the BACK TO THE FUTURE rules of time travel. So his comments to Spock Prime are within character, in my humble opinion.”
would you say Kirk still thinks its the BTTF rules by the end? i got the impression Spock 2.0 or Spock Prime (if he even met him again) wouldnt tell him
hopefully they will just bite the bullet and cast Routh as superman again – like they did Dench in Casino Royale…heres hoping they’ll do that…
102. philpot – March 14, 2010
90 – bob orci
would you say Kirk still thinks its the BTTF rules by the end? i got the impression Spock 2.0 or Spock Prime (if he even met him again) wouldnt tell him.
Probably not. I figure by the time he is promoted, Kirk’s become an expert on what the hell happened.
101. dmduncan – March 14, 2010
Ain’t it the truth?
105. boborci
Is there any sort of bribery that would make you spill just one bean on where the next movie is going????
(Hey, I had to try… ;-)…)
#90. “Kirk does not subscribe to Spock’s position. He believes in the BACK TO THE FUTURE rules of time travel.”
Huh.
So, we know today, in the 21st century that linear paradoxical travel is scientifically inaccurate, yet Kirk who has been through 4 years of the academy, and is smart enough to reprogram Spock’s sophisticated software, thinks time travel works the way people thought it did over 400 years earlier?
Spock Prime tells young Spock that Kirk kept his secret because Kirk believed universe ending paradoxes would ensue.
Bob, so although you guys updated and revised how time travel worked in the Star Trek universe, you were sort of paying homage to canon there for fans who were used to how it worked in TOS?
I do recall a spirited debate where someone argued strenuously that you guys simply could NOT abandon linear time travel when it had been so well established in TOS as the way time travel worked in the Star Trek universe. I disagreed, but I recall you got a bit of grief on the matter.
And that would be a neat trick actually: Referencing how it USED to work in contrast to how it works NOW so that fans can tell the difference and how it actually plays out differently in terms of plot structure and consequences, although the non fan moviegoer would probably not pick up on the difference.
Well, it’s TIME they knew the difference!
I love the fact that the mission statement is still be used almost 44 years after the Original Series began, even though a few words have changed here or there over the year the meaning remains the same and it remains iconic within the history and tradion of Star Trek! :)
@89: “For one person — or a minority — who paid admission to feel duty-bound to criticize a writer’s work (as if their criticism overshadowed the rest of the mass audience approval) seems rather self-glorifying.”
Everybody is a critic one way or another. Doesn’t matter whether you like it, hate it, are in the minority or majority, you have the right to say what you thought of the product. And if you believe that you should say something about it, how is that not a duty? If you watch something that’s bad and you don’t care if it continues being bad, than that’s ok. Me? I want to watch good entertainment, I want things to be better the next time around, and god forbid, I want to like Star Trek again. So when I watch something and I say it isn’t good when I hope the next installment will be better, I’m going to speak my mind even if others disagree with me. So go take your ”critic’ issues, tell that to everyone who has an opinion that are in a minority and see what happens.
talking of BTTF i just noticed young Kirk driving seems to be wearing Martys size altering future jacket from part 2
The worlds gone mad.
The ‘no man’, as #4 says, relates to a species not a gender. Humans not huwomen.
Where as ‘no one’ is incorrect as they are going where other species live of have been. Someone has been there before.
political correctness sucks!
113. Jeyl
“…Everybody is a critic one way or another. Doesn’t matter whether you like it, hate it, are in the minority or majority, you have the right to say what you thought of the product….”
I never said you didn’t have a right to say what you wanted… I said that your criticism would probably amount to nothing.
“…And if you believe that you should say something about it, how is that not a duty? If you watch something that’s bad and you don’t care if it continues being bad, than that’s ok. Me? I want to watch good entertainment, I want things to be better the next time around, and god forbid, I want to like Star Trek again. So when I watch something and I say it isn’t good when I hope the next installment will be better, I’m going to speak my mind even if others disagree with me…”
First, I don’t believe I SHOULD say something about anything, I’m not compelled to say anything, I’m just participating in the conversation, so I do not feel duty-bound. If I watch something bad, then it was bad. I move on to the next thing. But we aren’t talking about just anything, we’re talking about Star Trek, and I didn’t think Trek09 was bad, so I’ve got nothing bad to say about it. I still like it. I didn’t care for either INS or NEM, but that didn’t end my love for Star Trek. I already know there are plenty of people who disagree with me (and not just about Star Trek), but so what? 6 billion people in the world, I don’t expect everyone to agree with me, or even like me…
“…So go take your ”critic’ issues, tell that to everyone who has an opinion that are in a minority and see what happens…”
Even professional, paid critics are a minority, because not everyone who voices an opinion gets paid for it. If you heard Roger Ebert say, “This movie is a real clunker,” and you liked it anyway, you’d just ignore Ebert, hm? Or would you try to call him and tell him to take his critic issues and…?
You, and those who continually bash Trek 09, are missing the point, entirely. Sure, you can say anything you want about the film, it’s a free country (at least for the time being). But all of your continued criticism won’t change Trek09, and it may not have much of an effect on future Treks. And, in any case, I don’t think Star Trek was bad, so how could I then say it would continue being bad?
I think it’s time to just move on… or at least recite the Serenity Prayer.
PS: I should have added that I doubt Bob Orci or Alex Kurtzman would say they delivered a bad Star Trek and that the next movie needs to be better. Every artist strives to better themselves with each effort, so that’s a given.
I love HER. She IS a character and needs to be featured as an entity. She keeps her crew safe…always.
No “one” is technically incorrect, and suggests that in the future we will be as self-obsessed as in the past. As is shown time and time again on Trek, SOMEone has gone most everywhere before. Man, or human, is what is truly meant. Using “no one” is similar to how cultures (both today and historically) love claiming they “discovered” things that others have known about long before them.
@116: ” And, in any case, I don’t think Star Trek was bad, so how could I then say it would continue being bad?”
That I cannot tell you. All I can suggest is telling the writers to not make it worse….like they did with…Doh, you already know.
#108, ah.
Well, you’ve said Kirk believes in Back to the Future rules of time travel in #90. Now you say old Spock tells young Spock what he believes Kirk thinks.
So, either Kirk does not really believe it, or young Spock also believes in Back to the Future rules, and laughs along with old Spock so as not to appear ignorant, despite the fact that the parallel universe theory was previously known over 300 years earlier to the scientific community (and sci-fi screenplay writers).
121. Nope. You are confused.
Spock Prime “implied” universe ending paradoxes (Back to the Future) would ensue if Kirk didn’t do as he said. Kirk believed him. Spock Prime shares this insight with young Spock. Simple as that.
The ‘where no one . . .’ replacing ‘where no man’ bit is the only thing that really rang off for me in the film: it’s a shame it was the last line!
If the Enterprise can be a ’she,’ then ***she*** can go where no ***man*** has gone before, therefore assuaging the PC brigade, by implying a female can go where no male has gone before.
I’d love it if that gets corrected in the next movie. Given Spock Prime comes from a 24th century-era variant timeline, perhaps he would use ‘no one. . . ‘ but, with luck Jim as a 23rd century guy would say ‘no man . . .’
#122, not really.
If what you say is accurate (and hey, you’re the writer), that means Kirk is dumb enough, or gullible enough, to believe everything he’s been taught at Starfleet academy for the last 4 years about quantum mechanics is wrong, because old Spock says so (I also presume the general public laughs at such concepts presented in Back To The Future by this time as well). And considering they’ve learned to bend space time for warp drive by this time, it would be the equivalent of telling him the world is flat and him believing it.
What I see are conflicting answers from you. ;-)
120: “That I cannot tell you. All I can suggest is telling the writers to not make it worse….like they did with…Doh, you already know.”
I for one literally have no idea what you mean.
#125 It means P. Technobabble won the argument. :-)
I’m probably a bit late for this conversation, which sucks cause it’s pretty cool to interact with a Trek writer, but I’m going to throw my penny in for the heck of it. I liked the new movie. Got a kick out of it. What I was really stoked about however is how well it did because that means more Trek.
I liked the movie. I loved the visual aspect of it but felt that the story was lacking a bit only because there where things left out that would have fleshed it out some. I am referring to the graphic novel that preceded it. I bought a copy and loaned it out to those who were planning on seeing the movie and was told by all of them that they were glad they read it because it explained a lot.
Also, I have issues with coincidence as well as over the top ideas. For instance, where a super nova might destroy a couple of solar systems, claiming that it would have destroyed the whole galaxy (or quadrant, I can’t remember) seems a bit far fetched. That the Hobus star threatened and ultimately did destroy Romulas was enough. Plot wise, I feel it didn’t need to do more than that.
So, Bob, if you’re still listening, please for the love of Trek don’t consider this a lecture. If anything it’s a plea. I know this new iteration of Trek needs to feel young and fresh, funny and cool in order to attract a newer audience, but please oh please make it relevant. Make it fun, exciting, all that jazz. But please make me think.
PS – Colonel Green or someone like him would make a fairly relevant villain in my humble but ultimately worthless opinion.
124: “If what you say is accurate (and hey, you’re the writer), that means Kirk is dumb enough, or gullible enough,”
How about neither?
Here we have two ideas of how time travel works, one from classic TOS and the other from some MWI/time travel mashup-speculation on how the Grandfather Paradox might be solved.
Nobody knows how time travel really works, regardless of what this or that theory says, until somebody actually does it.
Spock Prime actually did it. As far as we know, since this is the earliest moment in TOS history we’ve ever seen, Spock Prime is the ONLY person who’s ever done it besides Nero.
So BOTH speculations might be “live” at the time, and when Spock deceives young Kirk, he causes Kirk to infer how it does NOT work, i.e., classic TOS rules.
So first there are several competing theories, and both are “live,” i.e., possible as far as anyone knows. Nobody really knows which one is correct. Spock Prime knows because he made the journey.
Spock Prime leads Kirk to believe the wrong theory.
Kirk trusts Spock.
That’s one point.
However, we also soon reach the limits of how much you can explain by meshing classic TOS with neo-TOS.
In other words, since ST.09 begins at the earliest time in TOS history, ALL of the adventures the original crew may, or may not experience, and which we saw in TOS, lie in these characters’ futures.
And in THOSE stories time travel worked according to classic TOS rules, which you cannot make consistent with the new MWI rules.
So. Although Nero may have changed how events would unfold from the moment of his intrusion, that intrusion could not make how time travel works, change as well. Logically then, time travel should unfold unchanged from how it was in TOS in all future episodes.
But Bob already said that as long as they are in charge, canon be damned, nobody’s going back in time by slingshotting around the sun!
Which makes sense. Nobody is getting to the past by slingshotting around anything, and Bob and Co. have the integrity to refuse to repeat the mistakes of the past simply because they are “canon.”
And that, in my opinion, is where they seem to be balancing things between old and new. To me it’s a nod to fan expectation more than anything else, in the same way that poor little R2D2 floating around the debris field of Federation starships doesn’t literally mean Star Trek and Star Wars belong to the same neighborhood of stars, or even to the same universe.
124. Red Skirt – March 15, 2010
Canon is silent on what exactly cadets are taught regarding time travel. Perhaps they are taught various theories (since various theories have been canon at one time or another), but since we pick up our crew before any of them have seen evidence of the reality of time travel, it’s all speculation. For all we know, there are two or more schools of thought in the future, or that time travel is impossible. Spock Prime is the first time traveller they encounter, and he knows more than all.
In any case, classical time travel rules and quantum time travel rules are the latest thinking on the matter in that order. I would love to have them arguing about two new theories that none of us have ever heard of yet, but then that would be gibberish. Quantum mechanics may itself be out of date by the 23rd century. The point is, Spock Prime knows more than all, and young Spock is just a few steps behind. And yes, Spock Prime tricks Kirk because Spock Prime is smarter than Kirk at this stage in their lives. Like Kirk, half the audience didn’t even follow the fact that we’re using quantum mechanics.
Guess what else I doubt they have in the 23rd century — hand held communications devices. Surely they all saw the historical films of all of us wearing our blue tooth devices, no?
128. dmduncan – March 15, 2010
U explained it better.
Back to the Future played with a variation of TOS time travel rules where meddling with the past radically alters the present.
This is Ray Bradbury’s “butterfly effect” (short story by the same name), which preceded Star Trek.
So, Ray Bradbury may actually be the single most responsible man for the version of time travel we saw in TOS!
129 “saw the historical films”
Bob, you mean like the “historical documents” in Galaxy Quest?
I LOVED Galaxy Quest!!
Tell me, Bob, what did you think of Galaxy Quest?
Galaxy quest was genius!
#128
“To me, it’s a nod to fan expectation more than anything else, in the same way that poor little R2D2 floating around the debris field of Federation starships doesn’t literally mean Star Trek and Star Wars belong in the same neighborhood of stars, or even in the same universe.”
That hasn’t stopped some people from accusing J.J Abrams of turning Star Trek into Star Wars. :-)
But really, if you think about it, both Star Trek and Star Wars exist in the same universe. Our own current existence. And by the way, both franchises have an alien race called, get this, Bothans!
Finally, I got to hand it to dmduncan. He explains things in such a way that you’d think he was, say, a writer who works on Star Trek and comes here to clarify things up for us fans.
Loved Galaxy Quest.
And I would love to see Sam Rockwell reprise his Galaxy Quest role for Star Trek as a neurotic red shirt painfully aware of the life expectancy of red shirts.
#129, Oh I get it now, if you read between the lines, you’ll find the answers to all your questions, including which lines not to read between. Brilliant!
134: “Finally, I got to hand it to dmduncan. He explains things in such a way that you’d think he was, say, a writer who works on Star Trek and comes here to clarify things up for us fans.”
Bob. They found out. What do I do now?
Oops. I was supposed to send that in a private email, wasn’t I?
Yes, that is a joke. I post under my real name. I can only WISH that I was as lucky as Bob and Alex as to have something to do with Star Trek the way they do. Lacking that, this is how I contribute.
#139
Maybe Bob can pay you a couple bars of gold pressed latinum to teach people about his theory of quantum mechanics? How about it, Bob?
Finally, if there’s anything that could legitimately confuse a genius like Kirk, it would be making sense on short notice of exactly how the various theories of time travel either meshed together or negated each other while some mad man in a planet destroying ship was going God knows where next.
He had more pressing worries at the time. But by the end, for sure, he would know he’d been had.
139. dm
I have the same wish… Next lifetime, perhaps. ;-)
My other wish is that Galaxy Quest had been filmed with the original Star Trek cast in place. Now THAT would have been something to see!
#129. “Quantum mechanics may itself be out of date by the 23rd century.”
O.K., I can’t let this go. The point is, you have based the science of this movie, the very catalyst of the plot, on Quantum Mechanics as we understand it today. Yet, you are trying to get out of applying it to the characters within the film? Give me a break. You are the writer. You can tell us for certain whether or not Quantum Mechanics is out of date within the film, but chose not to. The bottom line is, the very plot of the film is based on it, yet you are playing fast and loose with what the characters may know.
And that surely is cheating.
“Like Kirk, half the audience didn’t even follow the fact that we’re using quantum mechanics.”
How superior of you. Are you sure you didn’t go to Harvard? ;-) You show me_anyone_who did not read your dissertation on parallel universes prior to seeing the movie who understood you were using quantum mechanics and I’ll eat my skirt.
“Surely they all saw the historical films of all of us wearing our blue tooth devices, no?”
You know, I understand by coming here and posting I get lumped in with all the fans who like to dissect the minutia of the film, but I could really care less. My point about Kirk is not about canon, it’s about internal consistency.
And yes, I seem to recall Uhura had such a device in her ear, which is also not terribly realistic. If you didn’t like the communicator, you had a free hand to change it, after all they had 25 years to change everything – and boy did you guys change things. But don’t come here and put that back on the fans to dodge a bullet … you certainly didn’t worry about the fans when you blew up Vulcan. Besides you already had precedent in TNG for a more realistic communication device which would have been accepted by the fans, albeit with some grumbling, but then what else is new?
144: “You know, I understand by coming here and posting I get lumped in with all the fans who like to dissect the minutia of the film, but I could really care less. My point about Kirk is not about canon, it’s about internal consistency.”
That’s exactly what you are doing too. You are stuck on irrelevant minutiae, and you persist in trying to “win” a point when there are no points to win.
“you can tell us for certain whether or not Quantum Mechanics is out of date within the film, but chose not to.”
What didn’t you get about the explanation?
Making up phony science leads to technical GIBBERISH, which is what we got every episode of TNG. Who the hell wants to hear that nonsense?
This is where you are pointlessly dissecting minutiae as well.
BOTH versions of time travel aren’t 300 years apart from each other, as you said elsewhere, because BOTH of them are 20th century theories. Who knows what theory will be popular 300 years from now? Yet you seem to be confusing what people will actually think about time travel 300 years from now with what Bob Orci has to say about it in a SF movie made in 2009, using different theories that are decades apart in origin during OUR time, NOT the time of the 23rd century.
Bob doesn’t have a time machine to go into the future and come back with an answer to put in his movie. I’ll bet money.
Nor do you understand, because you persist in making the same mistake, that it isn’t a simple matter of “internal consistence.”
Star Trek has 40 years of baggage and rabid fans who throw fits about canon. Bob isn’t reinventing the thing from scratch to make a totally self consistent and scientifically accurate SF franchise.
Hence his remark about the communicators.
Like it or not, they do do seem to desire to preserve canon as much as possible, and the entire MWI/QM plot device is an attempt to jump start the franchise WHILE respecting canon. It’s NOT one or the other.
“139. dm
I have the same wish… Next lifetime, perhaps. ;-)”
***
Bob and Alex are lucky, but we are lucky too that Bob in particular is one of the writers. Who else would come here on a regular basis to listen to fans?
So we’re lucky too that we get to talk to Bob and that he considers what we say! That’s remarkable.
146. dm
“..but we are lucky too that Bob in particular is one of the writers. Who else would come here on a regular basis to listen to fans?”
I agree 1000%. I honestly didn’t know much about him prior to the Star Trek film, but I’ve come to be a big fan, and have great respect for him because of his interactions here. It’s been said many times, but I’ve gotta say it again: the man is a class act.
Regarding communicators, I don’t care if they’re too damned big for the 23rd century. They’re cool.
You could, however, explain their size in the 23rd century by making them a little bit more than JUST communicators.
Let me explain.
Transporters, if they are possible, will have to work something similar to what we saw in The Fly: You will have one unit that zaps you into atoms, transmits them to another unit, and then uses the second unit to reassemble them into you again.
Now, it’s also proposed that “you” could be vaporized completely, converted to “data,” and then reconstituted out of local matter at the destination transporter booth.
Of course, once your “data” were recorded, you could be duplicated ad infinitum. So let’s say that in the Star Trek universe this problem is dealt with by using your actual dematerialized material to reassemble you somewhere else.
Let’s say that 23rd century ideas of personal identity REQUIRE such a practice.
Next question is, how does the transporter do it? You still need TWO transporter booths — one on the ship and another at the remote location — and Star Trek regularly uses only one to accomplish what we see.
Now I don’t claim my solution will ultimately add up to much sense scientifically, but who knows? All I’m really hoping for is to confuse all of you enough into thinking it makes perfect sense.
Now the ship’s transporter pad has TWO “discs.” One on the floor the transportee stands on, and the other in the ceiling directly above. Why are there two? Glad you asked. I now have an answer (wink, wink).
One disc acts as the “projector” of your material and the other acts as the “receiver” of your material. When you are dematerialized, both discs can also act together to hold your atoms in stasis exactly where they are on the pad.
Now if the transporter can hold your atoms between the two circular units in a straight line, then let’s say the transporter can also “project” the “stasis field” in a PARABOLA off the ship where one end of the parabola is linked to one circular unit on the transporter pad, and the other end of the parabola is linked to the OPPOSITE circular unit on the transporter pad, so that BOTH projecting transporter unit AND the receiving transporter unit are actually on the SHIP in the transporter room, AND people and objects can be transported anywhere within range (you would probably need some sort of feature on the hull of the ship, i.e., two “nodes” that correspond to where the parabolic stasis field is cast from and is retrieved by).
The final piece in this scenario are the bulky communicators we see.
In addition to being communicators, they might also act as transporter remote power sources that assist in dematerializing the holder and precisely recording the data needed to properly reconstitute a person, which is sent as a data packet to the ship an instant before the person begins to dematerialize.
So the transporters can set you down anywhere from the ship, but they can’t pick you up the same way; for that they need a little help, which is found in the communicator. And to do something like THAT the communicators obviously need to be bigger and have an additional function than mere communication between two people.
Hows that?
#148
I couldn’t have said it better myself!
I forgot to specify:
The peak of the parabola would be the stasis field where the atoms were kept and place where the person was rematerialized, so that you can cast that peak down to a planet surface while BOTH projector and receiver were performing their functions from the ship as opposed to one being on the planet and the other being on the ship.
To bad they cast such an ugly ship to play “her” in this movie.
I have watched this movie over & over; I can forgive the lack of imagination in predicting the future or the many, many continuity errors/omissions…
But I can never forgive the art department for designing the ugliest Enterprise of all time!
Who created this disco disaster? Bootsy Collins?
#148: Have you considered that the transporter may not be “smashing” atoms like it was built in 1945, but may just be temporarily “altering” the structure of the molecules of said object to take on enough of the properties of light that it can be shifted from one point in space to another instantly?
151: “#148: Have you considered that the transporter may not be “smashing” atoms like it was built in 1945…”
No, you don’t want to smash anybody’s atoms. That’d be murder.
151
I agree about the exterior shots of the Enterprise in the movie. They are SO unrealistic looking!
152
Hulk smash atoms NOW!
Possibly relevant factoids:
In the THE PLANET OF THE APES film franchise every sequel after and including ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES was also simultaneously its own prequel.
Ricardo Montalban appeared in two of those sequel prequels.
Beneath wasnt a prequel
the rest were yeah
same with terminator T2 wasnt a prequel but T3/T4 are sequels/prequels
#155 philpot
My intended meaning was ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES and after. Thanks for making it clearer and expanding on the premise.
It seems to possibly apply to the back BACK TO THE FUTURE franchise as well. Wouldn’t you say?
“New life-forms” always bugged me – it’s jargon; it’s cant. “New life” is essential and evocative.
Dennis, I’m reminded of when the Shat told fans to “get a life”!
Oh, wait, that was simply provocative! :>)
#3 Harry, your were talking about Erica Durance on Smallville, right?
Now, now, Lore, you can’t complain to TPTB on the Smallville thread that I constantly criticize that no-talent boob, then encourage me to do so here! You can’t have it both ways!
Tell me, why are you so harsh toward me on the other thread, seriously trying to get me into trouble with the people who run this website, then try to play nice with me here?
#158. Harry Ballz
Actually, if it was anyone who told “fans” that, it was Robert Smigel via that fictional skit he wrote for SNL. Shatner had generously agreed to perform it, but the Shatner in the skit was a fictional caricature of himself and the so-called “fans” were equally fictitious as was the setting.