Star Trek – The Future Began 1 Year Ago Today | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Star Trek – The Future Began 1 Year Ago Today May 8, 2010

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Fandom,Review,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

On May 8, 2009 the future of the final frontier began again with the release of JJ Abrams Star Trek. One year later the film is still fresh in the minds of Trekkies while we await news (and the release) of the sequel the film inspired. Today TrekMovie takes a look back at the film, its history and impact.

 

From Fatigue To Phenomenon

Following its return on the big screen in 1979 with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the Trek franchise grew as part of the cultural landscape, spawning multiple sequel films and TV series through the 80’s and 90’s. But by December 2002 the Star Trek film franchise hit a wall with the first true bomb in the ten film series: Star Trek: Nemesis. Just a little over two years later, in early 2005, UPN and Paramount announced that the 17-year run of Trek on TV was coming to an end with the cancellation of Star Trek Enterprise. On top of that you had drop-offs across the extended world of Trek from conventions, toys, publishing, and beyond. Things were so bad in the early 2000’s that the gaming licensee (Activision) sued Paramount to get out of their contract.


With failure of Nemesis and cancellation of Enterprise – Star Trek was without a crew for the first time

Around this time some people at Paramount (including Star Trek overlord Rick Berman and chairman Jonathan Dolgen) starting talking about "franchise fatigue" and saying that Star Trek needed a rest. But as it turns out, this was also when Paramount executive Marc Evans first approached the writing team of Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci to see if they had any ideas for Star Trek. Some in the studio wanted to bring Trek back and they were impressed with the work Orci, Kurtzman and JJ Abrams had done on Mission: Impossible III, which was in post-production. By Spring 2006 news broke that Paramount (with its new CEO Brad Grey) had tasked JJ Abrams and his partners in geekdom to create a new Star Trek movie. This was also when news first broke that Abrams was going to take on the challenge of recasting Kirk and Spock, who he saw as the heart of the franchise and natural starting point for any new spin on the final frontier.


Comic Con 2006 teaser poster hints at return to Kirk and Spock

Even though the recently released Batman and Bond films had shown that franchises can be rebooted for the 21st century, many fans were still skeptical with some even saying that it was impossible to recast icons like William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. The Abrams team actually found it rather easy to recast Spock, with Heroes villain Zachary Quinto actively lobbying for the role. And using the ‘idea’ that Orci and Kurtzman came up with, they could also cast the original Spock, Leonard Nimoy, and both were announced to a roaring crowd of geeks at Comic Con 2007. Casting Kirk did turn out to be a bit harder, but eventually they convinced Chris Pine and filled out the rest of the new crew with talented attractive young actors like Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Anton Yelchin and Simon Pegg. Shooting began (during a WGA strike) in November 2007 for a planned release date of Christmas 2008.


Comic Con 2007 Star Trek Panel

In early 2008 the buzz began to build with the release of the Star Trek teaser trailer. This waiting period was soon extended after the WGA strike ended and Paramount moved Trek to May 8th 2009. Now positioned as a Summer tentpole, the buzz continued on a low ebb  amidst the backdrop of Abrams’ trademark super-secrecy, with little official information coming out until the Fall of 2008, when the first images emerged and a the first full trailer soon followed. The buzz moved into high gear with a Super Bowl commercial and a hugely successful trailer in March 2009 (with Watchmen).


Award-winning trailer shown with "Watchmen"

And the months leading up to Spring 2009 also saw a Trek resurgence of another sort, with toys and merchandise from both the movie and classic Trek appearing at Walmart, Walgreens, Toy R. Us and other big retailers. 2009 was a collector’s bonanza with everything from shirts to key chains to Pez and of course, action figures. Paramount also lined up a number of big name marketing tie-ins like Verizon, Lenovo, Esurance, Nokia and Burger King, which all built on the critical mass that was the return of Star Trek.


Burger King commercial shot on the Enterprise bridge

As the Summer approached and more and more footage was being released, skepticism was replaced by enthusiasm in much of the mainstream and geek media. After years of dismissing the Trek franchise as either dead, or just for hardcore geeks, the world started waking up to the possibility that Star Trek could be cool again. With a worldwide promotional tour and screenings starting in April combined with consistently positive reviews, by the time of official release in May, JJ Abrams’ film had developed into a meta story about the rebirth of Star Trek as a cultural phenomenon. 


Star Trek inspires cover of Newsweek

But what about the fans?

With so much positive vibe on Star Trek, some in the mainstream media tried to push the notion that fans were not happy with the new take on their beloved franchise. Some even scoured the world, contacting fans like myself and James Cawley to appear on TV to attack the film. This new found relevance for Trek even inspired the humorists at The Onion to create a parody video of Trekkies complaining about how Star Trek was "too watchable."


Onion has some fun at our expense

However, all kidding aside, the Star Trek movie did what many thought was impossible. It played well with the mainstream moviegoers and the Star Trek fans (casual and hard-core). Polls at this site and other Trek sites have shown that JJ Abrams Star Trek was well received by the faithful, with most rating it as one of the best of the series (if not the best over all). These same kind of positive thoughts were also apparent in geek reviewers like those posted here by myself and Jeff Bond, and the likes of Harry Knowles of AintItCoolNews and others. Of course, being that it was a totally new take on Star Trek, and the fact that it played a bit loose with timelines and canon, there were (and still are) detractors. However, even RedLetterMedia, famous for their video take-downs of the TNG era films and the Star Wars prequels, had a back-handed way of complimenting the Star Trek film (in a very un-PC re-enactment of Star Trek ‘having its way’ with a fan).


Famously brutal – Red Letter Media was pretty gentle on Trek

Legacy – Getting Serious

There is no doubt that Star Trek was a hit. It was the sixth highest grossing film of 2009 domestically with $257.7M. Globally the total was $385.5M, with the film performing well in English-speaking countries, but not as well in the rest of the world. Even detractors acknowledge that the film successfully achieved its goal of making Star Trek popular (again). Paramount was so up on Star Trek, that they commissioned the sequel script in March of 2009, before the money even started to roll in.

In addition to mainstream popularity, the film also got a lot of serious attention from the critics and film industry. Star Trek was one of those rare films that was nominated for popularity contest awards like People’s Choice and even Teen Choice, along with more high-brow groups like the Critics Choice Awards. When Star Trek wasn’t nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, it generated quite a lot of ‘snub’ buzz, especially following its PGA and other guild and critics award recognitions. Bottom line was that Star Trek was being taken seriously. And in the end, the film still took home the first Oscar for the franchise (for Makeup). 

Another legacy of the film is that the new crew find themselves to be big-time celebrities, especially Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana (although Avatar also helped there). The new crew of attractive young actors are followed by paparazzi and are often rumored to be attached to new tentpole films. All this of course can only help the sequel, due June 29th, 2012.


Star Trek celebrities Chris Pine & Zoe Saldana at Academy Awards

Still a good Trek movie after a year

Watching the film again today I still find it an enjoyable, entertaining and emotional experience. There are still little facets that can be noticed for the first time, and familiar moments can continue to have impact, such as the tear-jerking opening segment with Capt. Robau and Mr. and Mrs. Kirk (and the baby too). And how can you not like seeing Leonard Nimoy once again as Spock. To me, Star Trek is an action thrill-ride film, that still finds time to inspire hope for the optimistic future envisioned by Gene Roddenberry (and the greats that followed him).


Leonard Nimoy came out of retirement for a reason – these guys got it

Is it flawless? By no means. JJ Abrams once told me that he agrees with most of the criticisms of the film, and I agree too. I don’t like the Budweiser redress for engineering, nor the squishy location of Delta Vega. The series of coincidence meetings and rapid promotions do force a lot of suspension of disbelief. And although I am no canon-ite, I really do miss phasers that beam instead of the blaster bolt style we have now. In addition, while the time travel plot allowed them to stick with canon and do a reboot, they could have made it a bit clearer that we are dealing with a parallel quantum universe and not a rewrite of the timeline. Of course, there also may have been just a few too many blinding lens flares.


Kirk wonders if this brewery can even hit Warp 1

I think the difference for me is how much I care about those things, and how I weigh them against all that is right with the film. It is hard to ignore the success of this new cast who all hand in impressive tours of duty. Of course Karl Urban’s pitch-perfect McCoy is a favorite (even for detractors). But, I am still amazed by Chris Pine’s performance going on an arc from jerk to Kirk. While it is true that the villain Nero was not fully realized, this film was not really about the Romulan threat. It was about this family coming together, especially the building of the partnership between Kirk and Spock. And then there are the technical achievements from effects to makeup to sound and beyond that I believe put this Star Trek film into a new class. But most importantly, the team of Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof and Burk were able to thread the needle and bring us fans a new and very modern take on Trek that mixed action, humor and character in a way that both was reminiscent of classic Trek and something new.


Star Trek’s new crew is a key to its success

So in my initial review for the film I said it would take time for me to decide if it was the best of the series. In the end, I feel that honor still sits with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. However, JJ Abrams Star Trek is in there with my group of second favorites: Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country and Star Trek: First Contact. But, the guys have a sequel or two (or more?) to get to the top of the list.


Can’t wait to see where they go next

 

POLL: One Year Later

So now one year after release, how do you rate the Star Trek movie?

Does Star Trek: DS9 fit with Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek future?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

 

 

Comments

1. Harry Ballz - May 8, 2010

It’s Chris Pine’s amazing performance that really sold me on the movie! Shatner left big shoes to fill and Mr. Pine did NOT disappoint!

2. Spock of Ages - May 8, 2010

Agreed. TWOK still reigns.

3. trekreturns - May 8, 2010

I have to say it’s best next to Wrath of Kahn…

4. Harry Ballz - May 8, 2010

p.s.

you have “how do you rat the Star Trek movie”

that would be “rate”…….leave “rat” to the Stanky McFibberich’s of the world!

5. N - May 8, 2010

Wow, the 13% of 31 voters who voted “0 (Worst Trek…ever)” need to chill out.

Chill okay. This is a good thing, all the popularity. Maybe you need to watch the ‘Onion’ clip provided via You Tube above.

6. Anthony Pascale - May 8, 2010

N

bear in mind the poll was just put up moments ago so don’t really look too closely until the sample size increases. Check back later or tomorrow to get a balanced picture. But I suspect that in the end there will be a significant ‘hater’ crowd. They are out there.

7. doubting_thomas - May 8, 2010

5: how is it a good thing to make an awful movie, slap “star trek” on it and sell it to millions of idiots?

8. doubting_thomas - May 8, 2010

1: pine diddn’t fill shatner’s shoes, he was given ford’s shoes instead.

9. Harry Ballz - May 8, 2010

8

Are you kidding? Harrison Ford WISHES he came across with as good acting in the initial Star Wars movie! Not even close! Ford is extremely wooden and limited as an actor!

10. British Naval Dude - May 8, 2010

A year later…

And I still really like tha’ film. Did I have great expectations cuz’ o’ Lord Anthony and this site? Yes. And it wuz’ great. Really “fascinatin’.”

Ok, Mr. Pine… I said whatz ye’ wanted… can ye’ let me oot’ o’ yer’ kung fu grip now? Those big hands!

Oh, I kidz… Starry Trek ’09, as it wuz’ said afore by men better than me, wuz’ like a TOS episode updated and big-budgeted. Now, personally, I dunna’ like how tha’ ship looked at all, except upside down fur’ a a change, all nacelles and AMT parts… but tha’ ST09 film really delivered and made me feel enbiggened… or mayhaps that wuz’ just some Pine in me pants…

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…

11. Harry Ballz - May 8, 2010

BND and I agree on the fact that the exterior shots of the Enterprise were weak, almost bordering on amateurish. For the next movie they should get a GOOD special effects company and LOSE the brewery/engineering look!

12. British Naval Dude - May 8, 2010

Oh, I kidz cuz I loves…

Great film.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…

13. British Naval Dude - May 8, 2010

Aye, Harry.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…

14. British Naval Dude - May 8, 2010

OK- one last post… Harry, that be tha’ one thing that took me outta’ tha’ movie- seein’ tha’ Enterprize look so wanky… really bugged me… I coulda’ made me a better ship outta’ a paper plate and two used toilet tissue rolls…

Otherwise, I can ignore that and enjoy tha’ film again and again.

Great film. Lotsa’ fun. Good actin’ in it and a nice TOS-like feel that made me tingle. That and me cellular telephone be on vibrate as I called meself repeatedly while watchin’ it.

But I am real glad I wuz’ here at this website ta’ “build up” up ta’ it…

Way ta’ go, JJ… And way ta’ go, Anthony- ye’ made that film so much fun ta’ wait fur’.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…

15. dmduncan - May 8, 2010

The ship looked fine, engineering looked fine, the movie was a very fine movie. And Pine was on target as a young Kirk; he was a much better actor as Kirk than Ford was as Solo. Ford’s gotten better over the years, but his early work is weak.

But what is UP with these poll choices? 10, 10 +? Is 10+ somewhere between 10 and 11? And why would you frame it 10+ best Trek movie ever?

Perhaps I think it’s an 8 or 9 and the best Trek movie ever.

16. jas_montreal - May 8, 2010

My biggest Trek dreams came true with this movie. I almost cried at every character introduction in the film, especially the mccoy intro. This movie had a lot of positives. I felt as though i waited all my life for this huge production interpretation of Star Trek and it finally had come. The character interpretations were damn spot on and the action/plot/drama were all balanced soo well. I think the JJ team took the best of the Star Trek Franchise and the Star Wars Franchise and the lessons learned from the Ron Moore Battlestar galactica series and gave us this great Trek Interpretation. This movie shocked the crowds as though they were all about to enter warp speed for the first time.

There were a few shortcomings that i felt a bit betrayed by, but once again, it was trying to reintroduce the characters foremost and align cannon with the JJ-verse. So i shouldn’t take it personally, but i still feel let down by the “the big trio” and a little bit more of “romantic enterprise ship moments”.

Regardless, one of the best movies of 2009 and What a great reboot. I loved it soo much. It made my dreams come true.

Hope the JJ-team continue their creativity with the Trek-Sequel and make sure Khan is in it ! You heard me boborci ?!

17. TrekkieJan - May 8, 2010

There certainly was some franchise fatigue by the time Voyager and Enterprise were made – and I’d say it was more to be found in the writers and producers than the fans who stayed loyal even as the show quality bottomed out.

But Trek was never dead. They always had the option to revive the Original Series in some form.

I just feel sad it was this form – more Star Wars than Star Trek – and writers that sacrificed beloved characters for adolescent laughs and quick and shallow shock.

I feel bad that Vulcan and Amanda Grayson got stuffed into the refrigerator merely for shock value and the kind of cheap “character development” only the least sophisticated fanfic writers fall back on in lieu of real depth. I feel bad that Spock’s character was thrown under the buss for cheap laughs and shock and all his and Vulcan’s alien mysticism stripped away. I feel bad that Uhura was demoted to an object the boys could fight over.

I lump this movie in with “Generations” and “The Final Frontier” – bad Trek that didn’t respect or treat the characters well and that I can’t regard as canon.

18. Hat Rick - May 8, 2010

And I was one who photographed a part of the production of ST2009 in 2008, as you can see from a entries in my blog. I had high hopes for the production then, and I couldn’t be happier that my hopes have been fulfilled.

As a longtime fan of Trek, I want to thank all the other Trek fans that helped make this moment possible — the one-year anniversary of a reinvigoration of the franchise that has mesmerized much of the entertainment world, and, more importantly, one that has inspired countless high-achievers to go where no one has ever gone before.

Some people are afraid of change, as Kirk himself said in ST VI. But the future is about change. Hope is change. Hope springs eternal. As, it strongly appears, does Trek.

Lest we forget, the creators of Trek — Gene Roddenberry, Gene Coon, the great writers of the Original Series, the hundreds or thousands of cast and crew who followed — are to be credited for inspiring a fanbase of millions.

And last, but certainly not least, thanks to JJ Abrams, O & K, and the cast and crew of the new Star Trek movies.

We live in good times for Trek. Very good times, indeed.

Keep up the good work!

19. doubting_thomas - May 8, 2010

9: that’s my point.

17. as much “fatigue” as enterprise must have suffered, the climax of the final episode (not the one with riker, i mean the real final episode) personifies the defining traits of star trek, and precisely what was missing in the new movie.

20. Harry Ballz - May 8, 2010

This movie was FUN (squared)!

21. Denes House - May 8, 2010

I think that TWOK and FC are the best Trek movies ever, but the key distinction in 2009’s Trek movie is that it was appealing to non-Trek fans. That is a key thing that none of the other Trek movies, save TVH, could boast. That alone is reason to love Trek 2009.

22. Capt.Roykirk - May 8, 2010

@ N and Anthony,

Yes, there are haters out there. I am one of them. I did not like this movie, nor do I find the “Onion” clip funny.

As probably no one will listen to why I did not like this movie, I won’t waste typing it out. Sufice to say, this is not my Trek.
I do agree though that STWOK is the best Trek ever.

23. Hat Rick - May 8, 2010

I am a big fan of TMP and TWOK, and I find something new in FC every time I see it. All the Trek movies speak to me, but these movies in particular stand out, I think, as brilliant pieces of popular art — in the best possible sense of that term.

ST2009 reintroduced Trek to the world — a Trek as Roddenberry intended, full of vigor and fun, full of action and humor, and with a dash of philosophy besides.

ST2009 made all the Star Wars movies — all of them, from the first to the last — seem yesterday’s news.

Partly this is because of the youth of the cast, and their sheer coolness, besides. Partly this is from the story — an origins story that is nevertheless full of the promise of the unknown and suspense.

Of all the SF franchises out there, Trek has become THE franchise to beat. While Transformers may have more bucks, it has none of Trek’s intellectual appeal. Where Iron Man may have more zing, it’s a one-man story in a universe located merely in the present. Trek carries the promise now of everything we could have wanted it to be.

The elders of Trek — Shatner, Nimoy, and many others — will always have our respect.

But it is the current generation that has our attention, and the attention of the masses.

And that, my friends, is a good thing.

24. CardasiaPrimera - May 8, 2010

A year later…I need a Star Trek TV Series.

25. Harry Ballz - May 8, 2010

Everyone keeps raving about First Contact. I reject that movie from consideration because it has a HUGE plot mistake. If the Borg can send a ship back in time at leisure, why not just send it back in their quadrant of space and then travel to Earth and conquer it in the past? Easy, right?

Yeah, nobody wants to acknowledge the elephant in the room. This story was put into production ONLY because the in-house writing staff came up with it! If anyone else had submitted it, they would have been laughed out of the room!

Same with Generations…the Picard we know from the television series would have known to leave the Nexus at an earlier point in time and apprehend Soran in Ten Forward (with a full security team).

Sloppy, sloppy writing!!!!

I hate it when favoritism trumps talent!

26. Tony Whitehead - May 8, 2010

Fun film, though I still have a special place in my heart for ST:TMP.

27. Imrahil - May 8, 2010

Ah yes. RIP Trek, 1966-2008.

28. JosephSidney - May 8, 2010

the wrap-up of Fringe’s second season is giving me great impressions that Mr. Orci and Mr. Kurtzman will be able to weave a fantastic story arc for new Star Trek films

29. AJ - May 8, 2010

I was briefly on Good Morning America as a pesky fan at the pre-midnight pre-screening last Spring. “It better be good,” I said (and it was on TV), and it was. ;-)

30. doubting_thomas - May 8, 2010

20: “fun”, as you use it, means stupid. shut-off-your-brain-and-enjoy-the-shiny-colourful-spectacle-of-vacuous-idiocy fun. not what i look for in a movie, and not what star trek is supposed to be. star trek is phi-fi.

31. Anthony Pascale - May 8, 2010

actually i should rephrase. I do not like the term ‘hater’ and should not have used it, let’s just say ‘passionate critics’, some of whom i consider friends and people i respect.

32. "Check the Circuit!" - May 8, 2010

@22

There’s a reason you didn’t find the hilariously spot-on Onion parody funny…..

33. Bill - May 8, 2010

You know this film did a lot of good things. This is the kind of send off that Shatner should have gotten. It was good from start to finish, yes there are some lens flare glaring “trekkie” issues. But there are about 100 in twok and TUC and FC as well. So witht hose out the window, I gave it a ten, not twok 10 but a solid I had to think about it for a second, 10.,

34. doubting_thomas - May 8, 2010

21: how is it praise to say this movie appealed to people who don’t like star trek? that is the very criticism it should be receiving, it’s not star trek.

23: how is it “reintroducing star trek” to introduce something that isn’t star trek? star trek isn’t just a name. you can’t make a movie that not only ignores, but shows distain for, the central philosophies of star trek, call it star trek, and tell everyone you’re “reintroducing star trek”. that’s not a reintroduction, it’s a redefinition. imagine filming an arthur c clarke story as a mindless action movie containing only the most superficial aspects of the original, and then saying “i’m bringing new fans to the works of clarke”. those “new fans” will open up a clarke novel and say “where are the tits? this sucks”. how many people became asimov fans because of the will smith movie? as for the star wars movies, they posess actual quality, and intelligence, leaving any recent fad in the dust.

27: hear hear. of all the shows i have encountered in my travels, this was the most…. human…. *cue bagpipes*

35. t_mac - May 8, 2010

my only worry with the new cast is they won’t stick around past their 3 movie deal, and then Trek will be dead again…lets face it Shatner, Nimoy etc didn’t have many other options, all these actors are going to be big and move on to other things

36. Captain Conrad - May 8, 2010

The Wrath of Khan will never be overtaken by any future Trek movie unless they use 6ft models and fly them over each other at impossible angles and dimensions. The new movie is good but it will NEVER compare to the originals. I personally believe it’s only better than V and all the TNG movies. The Original films have a substance that is impossible to recreate. I am excited for the next film, but it will not be a Star Trek I II III IV or VI. Luckily I have Star Trek Online to help endure the long wait.

37. doubting_thomas - May 8, 2010

35: heard that before.

this movie will be quickly forgotten, just like any other brainless special effects blockbuster. by the time they can make a contrived sequel, people will have forgotten it entirely, and they’ll have to market the sequel as a new movie. even intelligent blockbusters like the nolan batman series have gone through this, where they market the second as if the first never happened, so as not to confuse ADD moviegoers. pirates of the carribean did this too.

38. Devon - May 8, 2010

“21: how is it praise to say this movie appealed to people who don’t like star trek?”

How is it not? Past Trek did it before, thus why 99% of us here are fans. You realize that don’t you?

“that is the very criticism it should be receiving, it’s not star trek.”

No.

“23: how is it “reintroducing star trek” to introduce something that isn’t star trek?”

It is Star Trek, you have no power to declare it not to be

39. Devon - May 8, 2010

#37 – “35: heard that before.

this movie will be quickly forgotten, just like any other brainless special effects blockbuster”

Nope, it won’t :)

40. Hugh Hoyland - May 8, 2010

My opinion is that Star Trek 09 was an epic win. It brought back to life a franchise that had become mediocre over the years. Great Job to the whole SC for doing a fantastic job! Cant wait for the sequel either (2012 is to dang long to wait though :] ), Im interested to see where JJ, Bob and Alex and the rest of the SC take this series. I have to rate this movie up there with ST: TMP and ST: TWOK, IMO its kind of a mixture of both, it has the epic look and directing of TMP married with the more action/adventure story line of TWOK.

41. Happy Russia - May 8, 2010

It’s funny how people think that those who say it’s the “worst Trek movie ever” assume that they’re ALL haters.

Maybe some of those folks, like myself (who voted a 3), think it’s bad in the sense that I just didn’t enjoy it. When I saw Star Trek on opening day, I went in there with an open mind, both Trek-wise and with the mentality of a film critic.

While all the little quips to Treks past were nice, they couldn’t mask what was, to me, a very shoddy film.

42. doubting_thomas - May 8, 2010

38: there was no point when i disliked star trek. it appealed to me as soon as i saw it, for the very reason this movie disgusts me. and the reverse is true, people who like shallow crap like this are disgusted by star trek. that was the movie’s target audience, people who actively hate star trek. they still hate star trek, only now they like a crap movie with the same star trek stamped on it.

i’m not declaring it anything. it isn’t star trek. my say has no impact on that. they made a non-star trek movie and called it star trek. that was their choice.

39: what won’t?

can any of you seriously say to me that you think carl sagan would have enjoyed this movie?

43. Fubamushu - May 8, 2010

Count me in as a detractor. The potential was there, but sadly, it was missed in my opinion. From a soundtrack that sounded a mashup of the soundtrack from Tim Burton’s, “Batman,” and of course, “LOST,” to a weak and lame plot device; from bad casting decisions to missed opportunities and overlooked details, this film just did not work for me.

44. t_mac - May 8, 2010

Just to clarify i loved the new movie, just worried it won’t last like the Shatner era because of the actors leaving…guess they could go TNG in that case though.

45. Anthony Pascale - May 8, 2010

thomas

you just started posting here are already you are bullying. You dont like the movie fine, but dont berate everyone who does. one out of six posts already is from you

46. Rocket Scientist - May 8, 2010

I started out loving Trek 09, but gradually, piece by piece, it started to lose its luster. One year later I accept it for what it is, but not as the Star Trek I grew up loving. It’s fun, it’s entertaining, but I find it to be somewhat empty. The essence of TOS is there in form but not in spirit. Let’s try to do better next time, shall we?

47. t_mac - May 8, 2010

@43

That’s your choice, at least you’re not a “hater”. There were flaws with the movie no doubt, but there were also flaws with TOS(UESPA anyone?), and all of the movies from 1 to 10.

48. fax_ - May 8, 2010

I have to say, as a ‘star trek’ film it ranks as my least favourite (indeed, the only film I did not enjoy, despite trying desperately to do so). However, as a generic ‘sci-fi’ film I’d rank it somewhere about 5-6.

@ N and Anthony: As with Capt.Roykirk et al., I don’t appreciate caricatures of star trek fans who dislike the movie as being incalcitrant and unreasonably conservatives. We have our reasons, and while some of us may be unable to control themselves sufficiently to explain them clearly (or be sufficiently patient to do so repeatedly), I certainly respect the opinion of those who enjoy the film, since we are (after all) judging it from a different perspective.

Of course (@ Devon), we ‘new-film haters’ can’t really criticise the film as ‘not being star trek’ just because it doesn’t fulfil our own definitions – however, that doesn’t mean the conflict can’t exist for us (i.e. that it does NOT match our definitions), or that we can’t be ‘reasonable people’ in disliking the film for being so-very-different. Everyone, after all, has a different idea of what makes ‘star trek’ = ‘star trek’, whether it is those tenets we attribute to Gene, the style of story-telling, universe or ethics. Some people place importance on the intellectual or allegoric aspects, and others more weight on the action – that was even the case during Voyager or DS9, I recall friends who enjoyed the way the stories were presented, but were keen on Star Trek to ‘get darker’ or for quicker pace / more ‘epic battles’ &c.

We should lay off any provoking insults on both sides, as there are plenty of more fleshed out and mature ways to explain why you like or didn’t like the film other than simply calling it ‘stupid’ – and unless we ‘new film haters’ are truly all completely barmy, I find it infinitely difficult to imagine that ‘film lovers’ cannot empathise at all with us, although they may disagree with the conclusions (i.e. they may enjoy aspects which others do not – a matter of personal preference that is hardly arguable).

My feelings are that:

1) The new movie is not in the spirit which I associate with original trek and its corresponding movies, at least in the sense of Gene Robbenberry’s utopian ideology (that admittedly was more manifest in the TNG era than TOS/TAS/TMP)

2) The morality of the story is lost, as is the emphasis on discovery, the overruling importance of intellectual and mental personal development (the passion for knowledge and understanding above vulgar, ‘uncivilised’ tastes) as opposed to transitory pleasures (se x, bar fighting etc.)

3) The filming style and dialogue is far too action oriented with a weak/contrived plot (especially when it comes to Nero, whose background and character are extremely shallow without the backstory provided elsewhere – although even then I find him somewhat cliche and one-dimensional) and none of the more strategic (naval style) and philosophical flairs Star Trek was so loved for.

To understand this point of view, run the following thought experiment:

-Thought Experiment- (as an exercise in simple logical coherency):
Notation: Given statements listed (i) i = 1,2,3… ; (r) denotes the physical object society typically associates with the the word prior to (r) (e.g. apple(r)). (n) denotes only the name prior to (n) (e.g. apple(n) which is actually orange (r))

(1) I enjoy eating apples(r)
(2) I do not enjoy eating oranges (r)
(3) I possess an orange (r)
(4) I rename the orange (r) with the name: apple (n)
(5) I rename the apple (r) with the name: orange(n)

This is necessarily logically coherent with:
‘I do not enjoy eating apples (n)’

Question: Have I now changed my tastes so that I enjoy eating apples, whereas before I did not?
Answer: The name ‘apple’ may experience continuity, but the properties and qualities that constitute what can be named an ‘apple’ has changed. If you apply this to the Star Trek movie: even if the new movie is called ‘Star Trek’, it has lost the original essence (at least by the definitions and in the eyes of we ‘new trek haters’) of ‘Star Trek’, and can be distinguished as a seperate entity. We might as well call it by another name (By Any Other Name, haha!) e.g. ‘Quinto, Pine & co.’.

@ Hat Rick: Some people *are* afraid of change, and some people dislike change… but is that so wrong?

49. doubting_thomas - May 8, 2010

41: excellent point. the assumption that is made is that all the criticism of the movie comes from change-fearing lifelong trekkies in their 40s, primarily pissed off at the change of cast. this assumption was of course promoted through a media smear campaign against star trek fans by the makers of the movie. if you point out that the movie was awful and stupid, they say “this isn’t the 60s, old man, get with the times. it’s young and hip and exciting and (insert marketing-buzzword euphemism for stupid here), you just don’t like it cuz ur OOOOLD”.

the fact is, i’m 22, and i viewed the movie as if it were not a star trek movie at all, which was helpful, because as it turned out, it wasn’t. i did not hold it to star trek standards, i held it to movie standards. i hated it for the same reason i hated transformers or x-men 3 or any other brainless special effects movie (now it’s own genre, plot optional). it was bad. then holding it up to remake standards, it faills still more. it fails by not keeping true to the characters, reducing them to one-dimensional action-movie cutouts, or worse yet, an accent with legs. it fails by not keeping true to the message of the original, or even the mood of the original. basically, it fails as a remake in every way that “the day the earth stood still” suceeded as a remake. it doesn’t have to be identical, just good. i’m not against change, i’m against change for the worse.

now onbviously i can’t rate it as an entry in the star trek series, because it isn’t. the fact that it claims to be is insulting, and takes it down another notch. but even with that notch, it’s still a terrible movie.

50. Terran_Man - May 8, 2010

I rated it as my favorite. I’m one of the younger crowd so I liked its fresh take on classic Trek. I’ve seen almost every season of Star Trek and every movies and its my favorite with First Contact close behind. I’ve always been a bigger fan of The Next Genertion that The Original Series but, this really was both enjoyable and awe-inspiring.

51. Lieutenant - May 8, 2010

The new Star Trek film changed my life and introduced me into the TV series, since I’m particularly young and never got the chance to really see it on TV. Without the movie -which I thought was fantastic- I probably wouldn’t have ever become the Trekkie I am today. My nickname at school is “Star Trek”… and I love it!

I definitely owe my life to Trek09. :)

52. Dan - May 8, 2010

http://www.newsweek.com/id/196005

“Despite whatever robots and aliens roam the landscapes of science fiction, the genre’s real subject has always been people. Since “Star Trek” first hit the airwaves in 1966, the show has worked as part of this tradition, using extraterrestrial settings to ask ethical and philosophical questions about the way people behave. In this way, the TV series commented on most of the big issues of the past 40 years: war, sexism, racism, animal rights, the environment, religion, sexuality.

In an episode titled “Plato’s Stepchildren,” for instance, Captain Kirk tells a slave who’s been treated unfairly because of his appearance, “Where I come from, size, shape or color makes no difference.” This was in 1968, when the civil-rights movement was still very much battling for equality, and only seven and a half months after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. It was also in this episode that Kirk and Lieutenant Uhura, played by the actress Nichelle Nichols, who was black, shared television’s first (fictional) black-white interracial kiss.

“[Star Trek] motivated us to think about things that most people either don’t think about or take for granted,” says Judith Barad, a professor of philosophy at Indiana State University and coauthor of “The Ethics of Star Trek.” “I think—and this is why it’s lasted—it gave us a vision of hope for the future, a goal that we could all aspire to.”

The latest film version of “Star Trek,” however, is more brawn than brain, and it largely jettisons complicated ethical conundrums in favor of action sequences and special effects. The film shows the beginnings of the Enterprise crew, tracing how Kirk, Spock and the others came together. All the character quirks are there, and the Enterprise is rendered more realistically than ever, but what’s missing are the typically progressive politics and moral dilemmas that made the original “Trek” more than a space-age adventure show and helped earn it legions of ardent fans. Where the series often condemned conflict and advocated forgiveness, the new film depicts a violent and war-torn future, reveling in big explosions and revenge.

In one noteworthy scene, an offer of mercy to the villain by the Enterprise crew becomes an apparently pleasurable opportunity for retribution, leading to a screen full of twisting metal and laser fire.”

53. Dr. Cheis - May 8, 2010

Most of the dissenters didn’t like the movie because it was different, (more different than previous Star Treks). Fortunately we have survived things being different in the past.

54. doubting_thomas - May 8, 2010

45: so it would seem this site has dropped it’s censorship policy from last year, when they would delete such posts. any criticism was deemed unacceptable.

“bullying” indeed

48: i use “stupid” in a strictly technical sense, as in “lacking intelligent content, vacuous, meaningless, hollow”. traits unbecoming speculative fiction.

as for “afraid of change”, i was on this site during theing of the remasters complsining about insufficient change. the remasters kept the things about TOS that should have been discarded. the movie discarded the things that should have been kept. both of them mock the original by doing this. i would say about the remasters “whatever happened to boldly going?”. but this movie went not only boldly, but blindly, the wrong way. isn’t there something in between clinging to useless vestiges and throwing out the proverbial baby?

55. Hateya - May 8, 2010

It’s been a year and I still remember it. For someone like me who tends to watch movies and forget them within a day, this Star Trek movie 2009 is an astronomical WIN!!!

Star Trek fatigue? Well… I didn’t even know there was a Nemesis movie until about two months ago.

The 2009 cast was rock solid. I was overjoyed to see my all-time favorite Trek crew resurrected. I was equally happy with JJ’s determination to “blow up something big” over and over and over again. :D

Before JJ, Orci and Kurtzman brought me into the fold, I never ever participated in Star Trek fandom. Never.

56. James Heaney - Wowbagger - May 8, 2010

#23 doubting_thomas: Actually… I became an Asimov fan because of the Will Smith movie. I, Robot was great fun with enough brain to get my brain-cogs wheeling, and so I picked up the book and BAM! Read the whole Robot series and now I’m into Foundation.

I rated it an 8. It’s a very, very good movie, with a lot of laughs, very good characterizations, and a lot of strong emotional beats. I’m hoping that the next movie has a soul, however, and that will require the depth and vision of a Wrath of Khan or an Insurrection or a “Terra Prime” or an “All Good Things.”

I am hopeful!

57. fax_ - May 8, 2010

@Dr. Cheis
Survival is insufficient. Surely you cannot complain if someone wishes to enjoy the present also?

Given the popularity of the new film I suspect there is very little ‘we dissenters’ can do about altering the present, which means we just have to grit our teeth and bear the change. We will ‘survive’ the difference, and go on with life – but we can still feel like we have lost something which we once valued. Differences arise in many ways. The new film, as I see it, played against some very fundamental concepts, where others did not. It was not merely ‘more different’ by a linear measure.

58. SPB - May 8, 2010

STAR TREK ’09: BIG & STUPID

Or, The ‘Ol Razzle-Dazzle Never Fails!

59. doubting_thomas - May 8, 2010

52: that’s the main one that got me. a starfleet crew in the actual star trek series would never do that. “oh, well, i suppose we should like offer you mercy or something. you could like surrender and we could send recue parties and stuff, i guess. oh, you’d rather die? GREAT! that’s much more fun! begin the slaughter!”

53: different can be good. if it’s good. a bowl of maggots might be different from a bowl of porridge, but that doesn’t mean when i get tired of porridge i should eat a bowl of maggots. is “different” really your only criterion to judge things by? what about quality?

60. ChessMess - May 8, 2010

Great writeup Anthony!

I just recently went through a bing, watching the movie another 5 times (saw it 4 times at the theatre).

Its a great movie.

61. Jason Trotter - May 8, 2010

The last time that I saw ST09 was a month or two ago with my cousin who has not yet seen it. I will agree that it has flaws. Every movie has flaws. Every incarnation of Star Trek has flaws. It was still both a good movie and a good Star Trek movie. There is no need to contradict me on this, although some frequent posters on this thread may try, in an attempt to push their OPINION as fact. Your opinion is no more fact than what I am writing. Yes, ST09 was lacking in the philosophy or ethical commentary department. So, what. Now that the crew has come together and is established I would expect that to be in any future films. In a film about the family coming together, though, that is what I expect to see, the family coming together through adversity, not some sort of social commentary. Finally, just because Rodenberry and company chose not to depict any major conflict does not mean that it did not exist. Does anyone on here really believe that 100% of the Milky Way was living in complete utopian harmony?

62. SPB - May 8, 2010

Wanna know why this isn’t STAR TREK?

In a “real” TREK movie, once cadet Kirk discovers he’s living in an “altered timeline” where he father was killed the day he was born… and once Spock (Prime) sees the planet Vulcan being destroyed and his mother killed… they would have banded together and found out how to SET THINGS RIGHT and get back to their proper timeline.

In this film, they essentially throw up their hands, saying, “Oh, well!”

63. startrekkie - May 8, 2010

I saw it once in the cinema I just fell in love with Star Trek it’s just a amazing movie thank you JJ Abrams and the wonderful young cast and crew.

64. Hugh Hoyland - May 8, 2010

The one thing that I loved about Star Trek was that it was never PC. It did touch on areas of morality and ethics and other topics, but never did so in a preaching manner like some other shows did/do (some actually try and slam it in your face). It raised questions about those topics, but it left it up to you to come to your own conclusions based on rationality and not any political bent. That and its hopeful possible future is what makes the show enduring to me. Im just glad that Gene Coon was such a force in the making of Star Trek (Gene Coon the creator of the Klingons, The Prime Directive, Khan ect ect….)

65. Phobos - May 8, 2010

1 year later, still watching it on my iPod.

Spock Prime’s scenes were grandiose.

Masterpiece.

66. Jason Trotter - May 8, 2010

61. In any Star Trek, while either Spock might have tried to undo a “recent” event, such as the destruction of Vulcan, neither Spock, nor Kirk (of any time period or timeline) would be irresponsible enough to try and undo 25 years of history. Archer and SIsko might, and did, reset such large amounts of time, but Kirk and Spock usually displayed a little more control in that area.

67. Harry Ballz - May 8, 2010

#60

“Does anyone on here really believe that100% of the Milky Way was living in complete utopian harmony?”

Hell, the people ON THIS SITE can’t live in utopian harmony! :>)

68. Devon - May 8, 2010

#61 – Why are you assuming the other timeline is the “proper” one? You’re assuming there is one right timeline, there isn’t. The other timeline is working just fine, yet isn’t the “correct” one. Nothing to fix.

#52 – Saw that. Dumb.

#42 – “38: there was no point when i disliked star trek. it appealed to me as soon as i saw it, for the very reason this movie disgusts me”

I never said there was a point that you disliked it. That’s skewing what I said, re-read again please.

“for the very reason this movie disgusts me.”

The movie disgusts you because people liked it?

“and the reverse is true, people who like shallow crap like this are disgusted by star trek.”

You do realize that most of the Trek fans like this “shallow crap” as you haphazardly call it, right?

“that was the movie’s target audience, people who actively hate star trek. they still hate star trek, only now they like a crap movie with the same star trek stamped on it.”

No.

“i’m not declaring it anything. it isn’t star trek. my say has no impact on that. they made a non-star trek movie and called it star trek. that was their choice.”

It isn’t up to you to declare that it isn’t Star Trek. You have no proof nor any power to say that it isn’t. As far as reality is concerned, it is.

“39: what won’t?”

Be forgotten.

“can any of you seriously say to me that you think carl sagan would have enjoyed this movie?”

Not even relevant.

69. VGer23 - May 8, 2010

It was a great movie that got back to the fundamental thinkgs I enjoyed when i was first intorduced to TOS as a kid. I’m so thankful that Abrams and team dropped the pretentious and bloated self-righteousness that plagued the 24-century era Treks too often and got back to adventure, fun, and characters that seem real and have relatable personalities.

It was time for Star Trek to evolve. I for one am glad it has…and that kind of “evolution” will always leave a small population of people behind. I think fandom is better of if that is the result. The stodgy, arrogant, entitled “hardcore” fan minority had become nothing but nitpickers and complaining fanboys. If they are lost in the transition…so be it. Clearly Trek has show the capacity to not only survive without them, but to THRIVE without them.

Thanks JJ!

70. fax_ - May 8, 2010

@SPB:

I have to agree with Jason Trotter here (although I think poorly of the film for other reasons). It’s hard to say what Kirk Prime or Spock Prime would have done, and difficult to apply it given time difference concerned in the film. Besides, it isn’t such an important aspect of the plot or film – to complain about it would be like complaining why Kirk’s Nexus ‘dream’ was on Earth, and not on the bridge of the Enterprise (indeed, I think he *should* have been on the Enterprise, but the situation on Earth was not so terribly far-fetched).

71. Thomas - May 8, 2010

65. Jason Trotter

That reminds me of the old “Menagerie argument” that people made about Spock being repsonsible enough to go back and reset the timeline. They suggested that Spock Prime would go back and undo the events of this movie having demonstrated a willingness to take matters into his own hands to do what he believed was the right thing, even going so far as to suggest that he could save Kirk dying in Generations and that he was practically beholden to him for Kirk saving him in ST3. However, in the way the argument was usually presented, it neglected the mention the fact that Spock had manuveured the situation (with the aid of the Talosians) so that all responsibility would fall on his shoulders alone. This time, there could be too many risks, and Spock would not be the only one to feel the repercussions. Also, it could simply be that Spock was not in the position to do anything about it; perhaps, his attempts could have even made things worse.

72. Weerd1 - May 8, 2010

Great summary Anthony. I just rewatched the film last night as a way to unwind after a really bad day. I love the film, and it always cheers me up. Yeah- I annoy my wife by saying all the dialogue along with it…

73. doubting_thomas - May 8, 2010

68: in star trek (and in my view, reality) there is only one timeline. that’s been the central element in dozens of plots, that changing the past changes the future, it doesn’t just create a new future. several times, events have been changed around people who are protected from timeline changes. the original timeline is erased when this happens. that’s established in the rules of the series, as far back as “city on the edge of forever”.

“I never said there was a point that you disliked it. That’s skewing what I said, re-read again please.”

that is what you said,m because i was talking about the movie targetting people who dislike star trek, and you said that’s why we’re fans.

“The movie disgusts you because people liked it?”

other way around, people like this movie because it posesses qualities that they like, qualities that disgust intelligent viewers

“You do realize that most of the Trek fans like this “shallow crap” as you haphazardly call it, right?”

no, they’re simply scared of being seen as fearing change, as the media campaign made them out to be.

“No.”

nice argument. utterly irrefutable.

“It isn’t up to you to declare that it isn’t Star Trek. You have no proof nor any power to say that it isn’t.”

that’s what i said. it’s not that it isn’t star trek because i say it isn’t, i say it isn’t because it isn’t. you have a strage tendancy for getting the causality of things backwards.

“Not even relevant.”

not relevant? in what universe? roddenberry and sagan were as one mind when it came to their central messages. the inspiration cosmos had on next gen is unmistakable. star trek appeals to people who appreciate sagan. such people would not appreciate this movie. we look for thought-provoking movies, or better yet, conversation-provoking movies.

74. Harry Ballz - May 8, 2010

What, this isn’t a conversation? :>)

75. doubting_thomas - May 8, 2010

not really. a conversation, when done right, is a learning experience for all involved. so is a movie.

76. dmduncan - May 8, 2010

58: “STAR TREK ‘09: BIG & STUPID”

Probably just like your unwashed fat ass.

77. dmduncan - May 8, 2010

Oh, bad me! Bad, BAAAD me!

78. MJ - May 8, 2010

While initially I was not happy to find out A and company would take 3 years for the next Trek movie, after seeing Iron Man 2 last night, and movie that was obvsiously rushed to get out 2 years after the original, it made we realize that taking 3 years to do it right makes more sense.

As for Iron Man 2, what a disaapointment. Even my 8 year old boy agreed that the movie was lame.

79. Jason Trotter - May 8, 2010

73.
“no, they’re simply scared of being seen as fearing change, as the media campaign made them out to be.”

Do not presume to know what other people fear or do not fear. I like Star Trek (the franchise up to the end of Enterprise). I like like the characters, their back stories, their interactions and their growth. I like the stories and plots of the franchise. I like blatant and subtle social commentary. In essence I LIKE STAR TREK. I also like Star Trek (the 2009 movie). The two items are not and do not have to be mutually exclusive. It is possible to like one (like you), the other (like others), both (like myself and many others on here) or neither (if they’re posting on here, I’d be surprised). Love of everything “truly” Star Trek does not mean you have to hate last years movie.

“in star trek (and in my view, reality) there is only one timeline.”

The TNG episode “Parallels” blows that statement out of the water. If there is anything that Star Trek has shown us, the current theory on time travel and it’s effects are as ever changing as the writers. For this reason, Janeway had it right when she said time travel gave her a headache.

71.
The whole idea of possibly making things worse is probably the one thing that I think would ultimately make Spock/Kirk decide to not undo any timeline “changes”, which is why I tried not to imply anything further than “might.

80. Capt.Roykirk - May 8, 2010

I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who didn’t like this movie.
And I do want to clarify something, that is maybe true for others.

Simply speaking as a movie fan, this was a good movie. It had very good Special effects, a good looking cast that is able to act. And the plot line was not bad, in and of itself.

It is as a Trek fan that I have trouble. First off, I think it’s hard for most fans of some show to see all those characters being played by other actors. I didn’t like that they blew up Vulcan. In my opinion that was just a bad idea. I did not see a need to complelty redo the Enterprise, the technology and etc. I know some of it did need to be updated, as the old sets wouldn’t pass muster, but I don’t think it needed to be changed so much. Overall, it didn’t feel like the other Star Treks. They didn’t save the day, I didn’t learn a lesson. So was it a good movie? yes. Was it good Star Trek? no.

81. Will_H - May 8, 2010

I’m surprised that the 3% that ranked it either as worst or 2nd worst even are on this site. Like it or not, this is the direction Trek’s gonna be on for a while. Hard to believe its been a year already, though. Sucks we have to wait so long for another movie.

82. fax_ - May 8, 2010

Not wishing to sound impertinent: for genuine curiosity, what aspects of the film did people really think made it stand out above the other star trek films? don’t answer with ‘the characters were young and energetic’ or ‘it was so cool’ (&c.).. I’d rather know why being ‘young and energetic’ made the film better, or why ‘Nero was a good villain’.

I know some people apparently enjoyed it as a story of a ‘family coming together’, but did we really get to know the characters and motives of any of the core characters any deeper than (although I know some of you will hate me for saying it…) STV Final Frontier? Sure, I think we had one brief mention from Mccoy about his divorce, we had the ‘relationship’ between uhura and spock, amanda grayson’s death / spock’s being bullied – but I found these ‘backgrounds’ to be very overt. I can’t help feeling that none of the subtlety and ‘allusion to other feelings’ was present in this film as it was in older films. There was a slight ambiguity to emotions in past films that meant you couldn’t quite grasp exactly how much pain a character was feeling, or the sort of conflict/warmth/feeling-of-family that must have been felt by (say) the revival of Spock despite the death of Kirk’s son (and the question asked by Sarek at the end of STIV)… and that ambiguity helped make the situation and the people feel more real and personal. Wasn’t the new film a bit too straightforward and melodramatic?

I’d like to hear fleshed out opinions.

83. fax_ - May 8, 2010

@Will_H

Trek fans can still rate Trek movies, and one necessarily has to be at the bottom. We’re not talking about hating Star Trek, we’re just talking about whether people think it was the ‘worst Trek movie ever’. I originally came onto the site as my primary source for Remastered TOS info. I still have an interest in the franchise, despite what I agree with you, would seem to be the inevitable direction of things.

(sorry for double posting – if I have)

84. MJ - May 8, 2010

Why are so many of use who loved the movie getting so upset at the vastly small minority who didn’t like it. We have taken the day folks, and all ten of the people who didn’t like it are posting here. LOL

85. Jason Trotter - May 8, 2010

In all honesty, it’s hard to think of one specific thing or another that stands out as making me like this movie. I liked it and thought it was a great Star Trek film. However if I could only pick one Star Trek film to watch I would probably still pick ST:VI (partly because of the story, and partly because of the uniform and ship design elements used in those movies). I think the main reason I like the new movie is because, in spite of the necessity to recast, in my opinion the characters came across, believably and not in the copy-cat sense, as the same characters that have been gracing our TVs for the last 45 years. True there were elements that were a stretch of the imagination, even for a fictional universe, but those exist in any movie. In the end, the characters were brought back to the screen (with the blessing an compliments of several of the original actors) and I can see the potential for the new film series to grow into the same fullness that its television and cinematic predecessors posses.

PS
I certainly hope that they do not try to revisit Kahn in the next film. We had Kahn twice already and a watered down Kahn in this film. Besides, an outing with Kahn in the next film would be a variation of “Space Seed” and not TWoK, which I think is what most people think of when they think of Kahn.

86. Devon - May 8, 2010

“68: in star trek (and in my view, reality) there is only one timeline.”

There isn’t.

“that’s been the central element in dozens of plots, that changing the past changes the future, it doesn’t just create a new future. several times, events have been changed around people who are protected from timeline changes. the original timeline is erased when this happens. that’s established in the rules of the series, as far back as “city on the edge of forever”

There were no rules established about this. They created a new timeline whenever they went back in time. Think about what a timeline is.

“that is what you said,m because i was talking about the movie targetting people who dislike star trek, and you said that’s why we’re fans.”

You said it *appealed* to people who didn’t like Star Trek before. I didn’t have an automatic like for Star Trek before I knew what it was… did you?

Nah.

“other way around, people like this movie because it posesses qualities that they like, qualities that disgust intelligent viewers”

You’re not being too careful with what you say. You’re throwing waaaay too many unfair and baseless characterizations. So what are you saying of the people who like it?

“no, they’re simply scared of being seen as fearing change, as the media campaign made them out to be.”

Another blanket and baseless statement. Remember, most of the posters here are fans who liked the film too, so are you willing to say this to everyone else here straight up?

“that’s what i said. it’s not that it isn’t star trek because i say it isn’t, i say it isn’t because it isn’t. you have a strage tendancy for getting the causality of things backwards.”

You’re denying the same thing you’re admitting to. Either way, you’re still incorrect.

“not relevant? in what universe? roddenberry and sagan were as one mind when it came to their central messages. the inspiration cosmos had on next gen is unmistakable. star trek appeals to people who appreciate sagan. such people would not appreciate this movie. we look for thought-provoking movies, or better yet, conversation-provoking movies.”

Irrelevant and also incorrect.

87. fax_ - May 8, 2010

@85 Jason Trotter
Yes, I would probably have to compliment the new cast as well (still don’t like the film though, just for those who seem so keen on insulting those who have a different opinion to them) for acting well given the script they had, and also making a reasonable effort to portray an old character without following the old caricatures. Given a script more in my tastes I could imagine finding them quite watchable, and possibly very much up to doing as great a job as their predecessors (however I am very uncertain about ever seeing the sort of tone and atmosphere of past treks to really allow me to appreciate their acting ability). My favourite film was STVI also, by the way ;-)

If any of the other high-voters would care to contribute their explanations I would be interested also.

@84. MJ
This is not a competition. Some people are arguing quite passionately, because it is a subject about which they are passionate – fine (although it may have gotten a little too aggressive). We should be able to accept each other’s opinions and try to understand them, just like the civilised people we claim to appreciate in our beloved franchise do. I cared to post a lengthy explanation of my own reasons only because I thought it Trek-fans are the best commentary for helping one see properly the merits and flaws in one’s own argument/opinion, and so I could see what other Trek-fans thought of those particular issues. It seems I was mistaken in expecting a reasonable discussion and exploration of the issues.

@Devon
All this ‘nah’ and ‘incorrect’ business is tiresome and looks just childish. Don’t you think it might be better either not to answer (if the question is beneath you), or to give a full explanation for your own views?

88. Hat Rick - May 8, 2010

One of the above messages stated,

“star trek isn’t just a name. you can’t make a movie that not only ignores, but shows distain for, the central philosophies of star trek, call it star trek, and tell everyone you’re “reintroducing star trek”. that’s not a reintroduction, it’s a redefinition. imagine filming an arthur c clarke story as a mindless action movie containing only the most superficial aspects of the original, and then saying “i’m bringing new fans to the works of clarke”.”

Let me address that, since it was directed to my message.

I think that the response above can be looked at as a matter of truth. That is, by the use of the word “redefinition,” the implication is that there is a “true” (or original) Star Trek, and then there is the “fake” (or non-original) Star Trek.

But Star Trek is many things to many people. This is in the nature of franchise entertainment. Let’s take, for example, the Superman franchise. Which of the various versions of Superman is the “true” one? It depends in part on what you mean by “true.” If by “true” you mean the exact original, then the only “true” Superman is the comic book version. But we are very far removed from the comic book Superman who couldn’t do much more than lift automobiles above his shoulder. (The latest movie version could lift what amounted to an entire mountain infused with Krytonite into the sky. Other versions could turn back time.)

Is the original Superman about philosophy? Sure, and there is plenty of that in other versions, as well. The entire “alien without a home” theme is explored in the 1970’s – 2000’s movie version, for example. And let’s not forget the angst in “Smallville.”

But the Superman of these eras, and of today, bears little relation to the original Superman of the comics.

You mention Clarke. I was just watching a Blu-ray of Kubrick’s 2001 — a version of Clarke’s story which, by its very nature, was mediated through the director. Was that version the definitive 2001, or was the original story upon which it was based (“The Setinel”)?”

The truth is that Star Trek is different depending on whoever it is that makes it. Even the same director and the same cast can make slightly different versions of the same franchise. Compare TWOK with TUC, for example — same director, same cast, but a recognizably different feel.

The truth is, therefore, that Star Trek, like Superman, like Shakespeare, like most things in life, has changed, and must change, in order to continue to live. Heraclitus said that we never step in the same river twice.

We never see the same Star Trek twice, either. We never have. And we never will.

89. startrekkie - May 8, 2010

People are allowed to like it what is it to you if people like it anyway I am one of the fans that love JJ Abrams Star Trek sorry but that is my decision and I’m sticking with it forever so anyway thanks Anthony for this great writeup on this brilliant movie to some and me.

90. The Unknown Poster - May 8, 2010

Chris Pine was great and avoided a Shatner impression.

But I still get chills at the end of the movie when he walks onto the bridge. That last couple of minutes, he complete invokes Shatner, from the swagger, to the inflection in his voice, to how he sat in the chair.

Very cool.

91. fax_ - May 8, 2010

@88. Hat Rick
I think everything you said here sounds right, but it should be noted that it doesn’t obviate the fact that some people value the continuity of certain qualities. Whether the new Trek feels like ‘Star Trek’ to them depends on which qualities they valued most. Heraclitus’ comments were made in the context of his belief in the unity of the world through perpetual fire (in constant flux) – however the fire, as the fundamental element, created continuity (his argument then goes that conflict was perpetual and the source from which harmony is created &c.), and in a similar way we each associate some certain constancy with star trek. That constant quality differs from person to person, but is probably the primary reason for the general disagreement on this thread. This is reasonable, certainly, so it is far more interesting to find out what other people’s opinions are regarding the important aspects of Trek.

@89. startrekkie
People are allowed to like it – no problem, let’s just try protect the integrity of those people who don’t like it, and we can discuss our differences if people find it interesting to do so. Not everyone who disliked the movie is trying to attack you or insult you.

92. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - May 8, 2010

Sweet mercy, that was really a whole year ago? Seems like just a couple weeks!

They still didn’t need to change the way it looked as much as they did. If more than just the uniforms could have been at least REMOTELY recognizable as TOS (instead of just another late development of Star Trek), I’m sure a lot more people would have been happy (me included).

93. Hat Rick - May 9, 2010

91, your comments about Heraclitus remind me of other philosophical and philosophico-religious beliefs as well, including the famed yin-yang idea in Eastern beliefs.

Likewise, the idea that this everchanging “Star Trek” is the overarching thema by which the chaos achieves unity is intriguing, and particularly in that we could analyze it on several levels. On a political level, for example, Trek has become something of a minor cause celebre. Certain politicians cite Trek as the depiction of a stifling technocracy, a socialistic dystopia, while others who share the same end of the spectrum see it as morally praiseworthy (to coin a phrase!) in its military virtues.

We could indulge in a sidebar here about how the early quasi-Queegish Picard (circa 1987) was completely unlike the much softer Picard of “Inner Light” or “Generations.” But, I would hasten to say, to do so would be to overindulge our inner nerds.

I think that you and I see the same central thing in Trek, and that is that there is change, and that change is constant.

So when is Trek not Trek? After all, there has to be a point, right? I would draw the line, re: point of departure, at the depiction of the Enterprise as a space-themed diner, a la SNL. Or perhaps as a comedy, or as a fantasy in the mind of a character in the Star Wars universe (although, come to think of it, the latter has possibilities). Less frivolously, there are, after all is said and done, limits to what Star Trek should be interpreted to be.

Trek is: a. An entertainment franchise; b. A set of philosophies; c. A collection of characters; d. A collection of stories or tropes; e. All of the above; f. None of the above; g….

Ah, but there are plenty more letters, wouldn’t you agree, in the alphabet?

94. Dion1701 - May 9, 2010

doubting_thomas: SHUT THE HELL UP. You know I have been a fan for 43 years. I love the original – that cast was just plain “magic”. But who are you to tell me or any other fans that their opinions of this new incarnation are wrong? Even if your last name was Roddenberry, you would not have that right. It is what it is to each person. So Until Rod Roddenberry, Paramount, Viacom, or someone at CBS makes you the almighty grand pooba of all things Star Trek, you are no different then the rest of us. I am sick of seeing you bash other people because “you think” that is the way it is. Canon?? it is fiction, it is not real! This is the problem with blogs like this and chats – cowards can feel like they are big men, even bullies and remain anonymous. I LOVED the new move. Everyone involved did a great job and made Star Trek exciting and relevant again. I paid to see it a couple of times and bought the Blue Ray. You know you are the type of person that would never have the guts to call me and idiot (#7) for doing so to my face. I thought it was fun – what now I am stupid (#30) So get off your imaginary pedestal, put the inflatable Orion slave girl down, climb out of your parents basement and leave other fans to their opinions. Because I am like this – I will give you my address if you had a set, and I dare you to call me an idiot or stupid to my face.

95. T2 - May 9, 2010

Wow…a whole year, I did not realize it. Fastest year I can recall. I still remember the casting rumors and such, and especially the night I came home to see the breaking news that Trek XI was pushed from December ’08 to May ’09. Here’s to another year, when hopefully on May 8, 2011, we’ll be talking about the latest sequel tidbits.

96. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

It’s the film first birthday isn’t it kind of anyway Doubting- Thomas leave people that like the film alone just because you and some others don’t like it doesn’t mean that we have to agree.

97. www.chrisfawkes.com - May 9, 2010

Great write up Anthony, really terrific.

One thing on top of all else that i felt this film does is counter the death of Kirk.

By that i mean the death of Kirk was so extremely repugnant in how it was done, so offensive and on the nose that it is still a thorn in the side for many of us 16 years later.

Killing off such a popular icon like Captain James t Kirk like that was one of the major blunders of moviedom.

The complete opposite extreme however is that no popular fictional character has ever been given so grand and honorable an entrance as has James T Kirk, thank to Abrams Orci and Kurtzman.

That opening sequence dealing with an ultimate sacrifice needed to deliver James Kirk to the universe is one of the greatest moments of cinematic history.

Great story telling.

I do remember when i first heard they were going to do Next Gen movies. I said to my brother that they needed to recast the original characters for the franchise to succeed.

I always liked TNG but that interaction between the characters was always going to be too bland for the movies.

There was more tension between McCoy and Spock than there ever was between Worf (who should have been the most volatile) and any other tng character.

TNG characters outside of Picard were simply not drawn to be interesting for the big screen.

When i heard they were recasting the original crew i knew someone had it right.

The movie was great. I think if they get Nick Meyer involved with the current boys for the next movie the next installment is guaranteed to be better again.

Lets remember a third installment is probably only dependent on how good the second one is.

We hope for something along the lines of a dark knight but let us not forget x men 2

And if Transformers 2 can teach us anything it is that spectacle over story does not work.

Get Nick Meyer involved.

98. Buzz Cagney - May 9, 2010

Yes, its shocking that a year has passed!
I was there on preview night, and can still remember the goose bumps on my arms!
It was/is a terrific movie. Not perfect, of course, but if they had gone out of their way to make it perfect it would probably have bogged the film down with unnecessary scenes.
Kirk and Spock (and crew) live again. And I’m still deliriously happy about that.
Now build on the great job you did guys. Blow our socks off!!

99. Selor Kiith - May 9, 2010

For me… TWoK and UC will be the best forever but ST09 is a close second next to FC ^^

100. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

off course it isn’t 100 percent perfect but I don’t care is any movie perfect just saying I’m sure the sequel will be as great as it’s predecessor Star Trek 09 boborci blow us away with the next installment LLAP JJ Abrams Trek movies.

101. KingDaniel - May 9, 2010

Happy birthday, Star Trek film!

You were fantastic. You’re still my favourite movie a year on. You’re not perfect, but I don’t care. You rule.

Thanks, everyone involved at Bad Robot, Paramount and CBS.

Your work is much appreciated!

102. Holger - May 9, 2010

I think of it as the day Trek died.

103. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

someone could dedicate a song to Star Trek 2009 you know seeing it is the films birthday cheesy I know that idea but it’s just a wonderful film so buckle up for the next installment can’t wait until 2012 for another Trek film thank you JJ and the brilliant cast and crew.

104. Devon - May 9, 2010

“#87 @Devon
All this ‘nah’ and ‘incorrect’ business is tiresome and looks just childish. ”

To you maybe, just as posting incorrect and unfair statements is even more tiresome and childish, but you aren’t complaining are you?

Nope.

105. Jim Nightshade - May 9, 2010

Perfect movies is an interesting subject-i think some movies were so close to perfect they essentially are–jaws–close encounters-raiders of the lost ark-star wars-apocolypse now-back to the future-et-taxi driver-2001-dr strangelove-the shining-20,000 leagues disney-jurassic park-there are others-flawed movies i still luved-trek09-logans run-superman-tron-spidey 1-3-many others-a movie is not a tv series–i respect n acknowledge that those with poor opinions of trek09 have some valid points as do those who liked n loved it-movies only have 2 hours to tell a story-jj bob orci n co knew this n made star trek into an awesome looking roller coaster of entertainment while still retaining treks essence with much love n respect for the past-nimoy,majel,gene-all the nods to fans–and with bombastic pacing brought new fans n the general public in as well, no small feat-the new cast made the most of the story n helped us to believe our fave characters live again- i think gene would have loved seeing his creation with so much spectacle, such a talented cast and would agrer it is trek–

106. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

well said I agree even though I didn’t grow up watching Star Trek this new incarnation of Trek made me into a trekkie it’s awesome and like the nods to past Trek it’s like a child paying respect to it’s mother universe the cast was brilliant,story was great, special effects just everything was great.

107. philpot - May 9, 2010

best to worst Treks for me:

Classic (***** stars out of *****)
II

Goods (****)
III
XI
VIII
VI
IV

Oks (***)
I
VII

Bads (**)
V
X
IX

108. Third Remata'Klan - May 9, 2010

Wrath of Khan
First Contact
Undiscovered Country
Star Trek

Best of the franchise, in that order. But they’re all 10s.

109. naseweis - May 9, 2010

I agree with #48.
I hope that 1% of the non-fan audience of Star Trek XI is interested enough to watch anything Star Trek that came before. And maybe 50% of those become Trekkies or Trekkers. It’s an optimistic assesment. The others might be interested in the sequels alone.
For me it was like watching Matrix. It was a fun action blockbuster with the name Star Trek attached to it. I love Karl Urban’s McCoy and parts of the others. I didn’t watch the Matrix sequels. I will decide in 2012 if the Star Trek sequel is worth watching.

Now I’m waiting for Star Trek IV and V thanks to the scif-fi weeks in Kabel1(German TV Channel) caused by Star Trek XI’s release date last year.
And on Friday I’m going to watch the (unintentionally Star Trek) western “Warlock” with the late great Deforest Kelley (De Forest Kelley in the credits) on Kabel1. :D
http://www.presseportal.de/pm/7841/1603828/kabel_eins
http://www.kabeleins.de/echt/scifi2010/index.php

110. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

I love the prime universe as well but this new incarnation better get back to what classic Trek is really all about is that what the haters are trying to say anyway I think they did capture essence of TOS isn’t that what the film is based on?

111. Ahmed - May 9, 2010

Same as #107

Wrath of Khan
First Contact
Undiscovered Country
Star Trek

The first time I saw Star Trek (2009), I was a bit upset by the many changes in the continuity, but after seeing it again the week after, I got into it.

I hope the next one, will explore some of the big issues in the Trek universe.

112. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

the timeline has been altered that’s why there is changes Ahmed .

113. mjmjr91 - May 9, 2010

The only Star Trek 09 I thought sucked was Insurrection

114. Anthony Thompson - May 9, 2010

“Paramount…commissioned the sequel script in March, 2009″. BOB, IS IT READY YET??? : )

115. SciFi Guy - May 9, 2010

Bud-gineering was in the 80’s series V: The Final Conflict as an engine room as well. And yes, it was the exact same Bud plant near Los Angeles. One of the people on the DVD commentary confirmed it.

116. SciFi Guy - May 9, 2010

Correction: V: The Final Battle; not “Conflict”…

117. P Technobabble - May 9, 2010

After recently watching Trek 09 again (I’ve watched it about a dozen times since I bought it), I find the film holds up quite well. I agree with those who have said the movie is not flawless, but, then again, no Star Trek movie is flawless — including the iconic TWOK.
I find it interesting how the line between like and dislike for the film is so completely drawn. Those who like the film point to its mainstream energy, the fine cast, the innovative way in which an “old” product is re-introduced; while those who don’t like it point to the playing loose with canon, the new look, and lens flares.
What can be most unsettling is how personal opinions can be stated as facts, which is an attempt to utterly dismiss the opposite view-point. When people make thoughtful, considered critiques of this (or any) film, it can be interesting, while shallow bashing of the film, or the film-makers, reminds me why the human race will probably never achieve “Trekkian evolution.”
I think the main thing about Trek 09 that should not be underestimated is that it was a FUN movie. It had a cast that managed to fill some rather large shoes and did so in a way that did not lessen the characters. It had Leonard Nimoy, and I truly believe that — as Nimoy certainly did not NEED to come out of retirement — if he did not respect the story or the film-makers, he would have turned it down. It also had a great deal of energy, and I’m not speaking specifically about action. The energy I am speaking of is clearly the underlying enthusiasm everyone involved in the making of the film had for it. When someone is having a good time, the feeling has a way of transmitting out to the world.
IMO, this movie captured everything that TOS was about, touching upon heart and soul, action and adventure, and humor. In fact, I cannot find anything about this film that was not Star Trek, in spite of all the arguments I have read here. When the first pictures of the new Enterprise came out, for example, there were some who were criticizing its appearance because they were looking at every tiny detail; meanwhile, I looked at it and immediately thought, “Enterprise.” For me, I did not need to analyze every little detail, while I understand that some people do need to. Scientific scrutiny, however, does not make one enjoy things to any greater degree. Nor does it necessarily put one in a superior position. Entertainment is to be enjoyed. It is an occasion to have a good time, and be happy. If such scientific scrutiny annihilates one’s ability to simply have fun, then, IMO, ITS purpose should be inspected with the same amount of scrutiny. In the end, Star Trek, in all its forms, is a work of entertainment which no single opinion (including mine) can make any more or less of. When all opinions are considered together, Trek 09 comes out a winner. What else is the bottom line? And now it’s time to look ahead…

118. Anthony Thompson - May 9, 2010

“This new cast…all hand in impressive tours of duty”. AP, has your opinion of Anton’s work mellowed? I hope so. My opinon of Pegg’s performance has not. He was not Scotty for me; he was some sort of comic foil.

119. Anthony Thompson - May 9, 2010

The film looked great overall though I wish the Calatravaesque quality of the initial designs for the Academy, etc., had been executed. And, it wasn’t just engineering which was problematic. The starbase on Delta Vega was also not up to snuff.

120. BiggestTOSfanever - May 9, 2010

Star Trek Lives!!!!!!
I cannot wait for the sequel, 779 days away!
Star Trek is indeed the best movie EVER.

121. BiggestTOSfanever - May 9, 2010

I have watched it eleven times.

122. ChristopherPike - May 9, 2010

One year on and hurt is still raw. I saw it in cinemas several weeks after the opening, and it simply wasn’t Star Trek for me. I have yet to buy the DVD or Blu-ray.

123. CarlG - May 9, 2010

Great write-up!

(Though I think you ought ot have included the first teasr that was paired with Cloverfield. I literally got chills from that one :))

Here’s to another 44 years of Trekking!!

124. CarlG - May 9, 2010

I really hope though, they get a chance to build the amazing engineering set from the concept art book.

125. VeratheGun - May 9, 2010

I think the cast and crew did the near impossible–they pulled off this re-imagining so fraught with potential missteps, making an entertaining film with more than the usual summer blockbuster depth. Truly, my hat is off to them. It may not be perfect, but it did the job it set off to do, remarkably well.

When I first heard the rumors about a “Starfleet Academy”/Young Kirk&Spock reboot, my only thought was “LAME”. How happy I was to be proven wrong.

And to my vast disappointment, Iron Man 2 was a disaster. Even Downey couldn’t save that turkey.

126. CJS - May 9, 2010

My guess is that the JJ Trek Franchise will last for 3 films (including the 1st). After 2015 Trek will go away for a year or two and re-emerge as a TV project. Films will reboot in early 2020’s.

127. Xavier - May 9, 2010

One year has passed since STAR TREK died. Oh, well there was a movie released last year, but it was more of a zombie… just the names were the same… the soul was dead.
RIP STAR TREK 1966 – 2005. You’ll be missed!

128. Zebonka - May 9, 2010

I wouldn’t put it above 6th out of 11.

129. SerenityActual - May 9, 2010

Well, ST09 wasn’t the greatest movie in the franchise, but it was nowhere near the worst. I go with II, VI, IV, 09, with the TNG movies close to the bottom.

Was it the Star Trek I grew up with? No. But neither were TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT, but they all had their strengths and weakness and all added to the mythos of Star Trek. This current movie series will do the same.

130. Gary - May 9, 2010

One year later, it still is horrible fan fiction with a big budget. The premise is awful, the plot is full of holes and a lack of attention to details gets apparent in every part of the production. So J.J. Abrams wanted to do a science-fiction movie? Why didn’t he do one on his own and leave the brand alone? He didn’t like Star Trek, he liked Star Wars more? So why did he do a Star Trek movie? The writers claim they love TNG and would love to see another TNG movie. So why didn’t they write a script for one? It’s not like they NEEDED the money to pay their bills, as they have their hands in plenty other very profitable projects. Karl Urban was the ONLY actor in the whole cast who actually realized what it means to play the character. All other actors tried to re-invent their roles. Why do they even bother to play Kirk, Spock, Scotty et al if they don’t even want to play them properly?

131. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

Xavier it may be dead Star Trek to you but can you respect the people that love Star Trek 09 please guess you’re one of the haters long live JJ Abrams Trek movies.

132. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

Gary can you get used to it this is what happens in the entertainment industry the brand gets reinvented for fresh audiences who cares if JJ was a Star Wars fan more.

133. Julie - May 9, 2010

I went to the movie expecting to be disappointed and was pleasantly surprised. However, it isn’t one of the DVDs I watch often. I voted based on which DVDs I watch most and it came in 6th. Of course, I only own 1 TNG movie and I have only seen it twice.

134. Gary - May 9, 2010

While observing the production, I couldn’t but be reminded of the story Kevin Smith told about writing the Superman Reborn script. Producer Jon Peters’ attitude apparently is how Abrams and Co approached this Star Trek movie. “I want to make a Superman movie. But I don’t want to see him fly and I don’t want to see him in that suit. And I want a giant spider in the third act. Who is the f… is Kal-El? Superman needs guards! Superman needs a companion in the Fortress of Solitude!”
The difference was that fortunately, this sick Superman movie never got made, and unfortunately, the sick Star Trek movie GOT made.

135. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

Shut the hell up I see you as a detractor who likes to bash NuTrek what is it to you if people me included love Star Trek 09 I think the film is great you can call me a idiot if you want but in my opinion I think they did a great job.

136. Gary - May 9, 2010

For the protocol: I didn’t start bashing other posters or calling them idiots, did I? Why the over reaction on your part?

137. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

because your opinion sucks it’s wrong who are you to tell people that the film must be close to Star Trek or the cast were rubbish I thought in my opinion they did a great job portraying these iconic characters. Have a good day and looking forward to the next installment.

138. CarlG - May 9, 2010

Oh dear God/Yahweh/Allah/Bhudda/Flying Spaghetti Monster/Big Ol’ Head at the Centre of the Galaxy, you guys and your melodrama…

139. Tony Whitehead - May 9, 2010

66. Jason Trotter

Perhaps you’ve forgotten a little-known episode called “City On The Edge Of Forever.”

140. Gary - May 9, 2010

137. startrekkie

LOL, my opinion sucks and is wrong? Ha, wtf! You are a funny guy.

141. ChrisM - May 9, 2010

I can’t believe it’s been a whole year since the release of the movie! It seems like only yesterday we were counting down to the release of the movie, waiting in anticipation and I can still remember the thrill of seeing the movie for the very first time!! So once again congratulations to all those involved in the making of an extraordinary movie and I would like to wish STAR TREK a very Happy 1st Birthday!!!! :)

142. Alec - May 9, 2010

I tried to rate Star Trek ‘9’ (and I was feeling generous) in the TM poll. But it won’t let me! I get the message: ‘Please choose a valid poll answer’. I wonder whether the poll will let me select ‘10+’!? I know that TM is close to the makers of Star Trek 2009; but this is ridiculous. LOL!

I have to agree that there are more nuances to be found with multiple viewings. I have picked up many more references to past Trek, this way, which I like. But I also have learned to just enjoy the film; instead of watching it with my virtual Trekkie cap on.

Post Script: Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion. But I cannot see why some (many?) fans prefer Star Trek 11 to TWOK. With its monumentally bigger budget, Trek 11 has much better effects, sound performance, sets, costumes, etc. But the story is all-important to me. And TWOK had the better story, with real substance as well as emotion and drama, arguably, unparalleled in Trek history. The opening of Trek 11 was very good; but surely nothing is more emotional than the ultimate sacrifice of Spock for his best friend, Kirk, after he is beaten by Khan, facing a no-win scenario? And Horner’s inspiring and complete soundtrack, backed up by great character interaction and dramatic acting, makes for a nigh perfect two odd hours of Trek.

My favourite Trek films (so far) are:

1) TWOK
2) TVH
3) TUC
4) Star Trek
5) TSFS
6) Nemesis
7) Generations
8) First Contact
9) TFF
10) TMP
11) Insurrection

143. Carl LaFong - May 9, 2010

I’d rate it right smack in the middle of the pack, better than all the TNG movies and not quite as well scripted as most of the TOS films – just to make a gross generalization. I have no problem with the re-inventing of the franchise; let’s face it, everybody, Nick Meyer essentially re-imagined Trek as a militaristic naval drama and moved away from Roddenberry’s benign Hilton Hotel in space aesthetic which was killing the narrative.

My biggest quibbles were the giant lapses in logic in order to rush through a new origin story; the 20+ year gap after the arrival with the Narada (big mistake cutting the Rura Penthe sequence), making Kirk and Spock approximate contemporaries (Spock having served with Pike more than a decade earlier in the Prime Universe), and a cadet being promoted to CAPTAIN after a single mission! Aesthetically, of course the lens flare thingy has been mentioned to death, but it WAS awfully distracting – right up there with something that I thought was impossible: product placements in a Trek movie.

On the plus side, Urban and Greenwood nailed their roles – a few more scenes with both of them would have strengthened the picture. Pine showed promise near the end of the story – he actually had a story arc and changed personally as a result of the narrative, a surprisingly mature move for an otherwise pedestrian script. Quinto has yet to convince me, but his scene with the Vulcan Academy elders was a great nod to Nimoy’s wry humor. Most of the supporting cast had so little to do that they left no clear impression, although Yelchin seemed to be having a great time – good for him!

I look forward to the greater participation by Damon Lindelof on the next flick; he’s a much stronger character writer than Orci & Kurtzman. It’s too bad his old partner Carlton Cuse isn’t in on the fun, as they really do compliment each other stylistically. With Abrams not likely to helm the next outing, I think this is the perfect opportunity to welcome back an old deckhand, though – Nicholas Meyer, anybody? He’d be ideal, but not sure how much of a team player he’d be at Bad Robot – and surely he’d overhaul any Orci/Kurtzman script personally – which is a good thing…

Just my two cents…

144. Alec - May 9, 2010

Edit: the bottom poll works for me; but the side on didn’t. No problems.

145. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

Gary sorry at attacking you have the right to have your opinion I should chill.

146. SPB - May 9, 2010

Budget: Good

Direction: Good

Acting: Good

Special effects: Good

Story & script: A great, big sloppy mess, of GENERATIONS proportions. Just doesn’t hold up, on any number of levels.

147. Trek Lady - May 9, 2010

I have mixed feelings about Trek 2009. In some ways I loved it… seeing my favorite crew of all time together again was a thrill – and I “like” action/adventure style films that also explore character, (Yes, I am also a Star Wars fan) so I didn’t really mind the action sequences. For the most part, I enjoyed the actors chosen to play the parts, though I might not have enjoyed how all the characters were interpreted. So, that was all good.

On the down side, however, there were large plot holes and inconsistencies that annoyed me. There were changes in basic established personality traits and the loss of significant cultural variations among characters, which seemed more influenced by wanting to be “cool” and “edgy” through appeal to the youth demographic than in any real desire to further explore the significant characters. There were elements and events which did nothing to advance the plot and seemed there only for “shock” value. And there were elements used to further the plot which were highly suspect in terms of necessity and believability.

And then there was an ending in which my beloved Trek crew took pleasure in blowing the enemy to kingdom come, when the black hole itself would have destroyed the Narada without outside interference. THAT to me, what so totally un-Kirk and Co. that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth a year later.!!!

Still, having been thoroughly disappointed in Hollywood’s previous “reincarnations” of my favorite childhood shows, (turning Starsky and Hutch into a lame comedy; loosing all the humor and humanity in BSG to create some dark re-make I can’t stomach; re-vamping Star Wars, dumbing down the prequels, and… can you say Jar-Jar Binks?), I was expecting to walk out of the theater in tears yet again, disappointed by the direction they had chosen to take my favorite franchise of all time. And surprise, surprise! For the most part, I really enjoyed it – and saw it five more times in theaters.

It is my sincere hope that the next film will feel more like “Trek” to me, and less like a classic summer, action-packed block buster. That there will be more emphasis on science (that makes sense) and boldly going to seek out new worlds and civilizations, and exploring the moral questions that confront humanity throughout the ages…. etc.

I understand they needed to get audiences in the door – and it this age of video games and short attentions spans, big explosions and actions sequences are often necessary… but I am looking forward to more balance in the future. Some of the best episodes of TOS managed to use moral dilemmas entwined with action to encourage character exploration and to offer us, the audience, the chance to question ourselves and our perceptions.

Oh, and I do hope they actually DEAL with the fact they blew up Vulcan, and don’t allow it just to be some ‘shock and awe” moment used to get from plot point A to point B with the least amount of effort.

148. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

Trek Lady sorry if you feel that way but can you understand the timeline has been altered they are going down a different river hopefully the sequel will improve more to make some fans that didn’t care much for Nutrek not that I’m one of the detractors I love this movie.

149. Anthony Pascale - May 9, 2010

I always enjoy a lively discussion here at TrekMovie but I do ask that people are polite. We are all Trekkies and have a common bond.

It is important to remember that there is a ‘right answer’ to any aspect of fandom. There isnt a right way to think about any of the films or series. No one can claim to know the right way to be a ‘real fan’.

What I really don’t like to see is people attacking all those who disagree with them, calling those who dont agree ‘stupid’ etc. I even warned myself for using the term ‘haters’

150. Trek Lady - May 9, 2010

149

Um… how does my opinion have anything to do with a different “time line”? The “timeline” has nothing to do with any of the points I made….

151. Alec - May 9, 2010

#143

I think that Meyer’s talent, principally, was as a writer. He’s a good director. But I think that a big-budget, modern, action-flick would require a young director with a reputation and lots of talent. JJ fits the bill. If he doesn’t want to direct Trek 12, then I hope that they get someone with an even bigger reputation and more talent. That’s the direction that I would hope that they would take.

For Trek 12, let’s have the following:

1) Give us a GREAT STORY, a la TWOK, with action, suspense, etc. Perhaps more focus on exploration and morals: but keep the mainstream very much onboard.

2) Continue to give us things we’ve never seen in a Star Trek film; e.g., epic space battles with fleets of ships; or Kirk having a proper love interest (Carol Marcus?)

3) RE-FIT THE ENTERPRISE. Update the production design: engineering should be a massive, plush, computer centre with masses of technicians, computers, and a humming warp core. As it has always been in the films and certainly from TNG onwards. Let’s not have Scotty, alone, in a brewery. And the bridge should not have tacky bar code readers; etc. (You have the money now, given reusable stuff).

4) Let’s see THE TRIUMVIRATE form: explore the main characters of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Show how Kirk is the best of friends with them both and how his essence is a balance between their extremes. Let’s have more of Spock and McCoy bickering.

5) Show-off THE WONDER AND BEAUTY OF SPACE. Lots of sci-fi films do this: Trek 11 didn’t really. Once people understand that space is an object of great interest and something ‘cool’, they will enjoy the journey more.

6) Get HOLLYWOOD A-LISTERS onboard as Admirals or even someone like…I dunno…Khan?

7) The LENSE FLAIRS were fine. But, having been used already, ARE THEY NOW PASSE? Will JJ (or whomever) need a new style for the sequel?

8) Have a BETTER, LESS REPETATIVE SOUNDTRACK with more classic Star Trek music. Star Wars reuses The Force Theme, Vaders Theme, etc. Why not establish the TOS Theme, or the TMP Theme, or the Klingon Theme, etc. And tell the whole story with music, not just specific moments.

152. StarFuryG7 - May 9, 2010

I prefer the term “Trekker” actually, as do a lot of other Classic Trek fans.

And the travesty of this last film was how it completely obliterated longstanding Trek canon with no apparent qualms or hesitation in doing so.

153. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

Sorry Anthony for this attacking other fans

154. The Original Animated Next Generation Deep Space Voyager Enterprise I-XI (that's right, I love it ALL!!!!!!!) - May 9, 2010

I think I hear the short bus coming…

155. Anthony Pascale - May 9, 2010

RE: Trekker
We have run multiple polls on this and the majority of fans, including classic fans (like myself) prefer Trekkie or don’t care.

I dont really care that much but have always used Trekkie so this site uses Trekkie

For anyone that upsets, I suggest not caring so much

156. doubting_thomas - May 9, 2010

73: “parallels” shows exactly what it says it shows, parallel universes, not alternate timelines. the mirror universe is one of those. there is no point of divergence between any of those universes, they are seperate.

80: you must have very low standards in movies. this movie personifies why i’ve basically given up on american movies. there’s this idea that a movie has to be “fun”, simple, fast, shiny, short, and empty. no substance. obviously nobody would tolerate a tv show like that, people expect more from a tv show. standards for movies have plummetted in the united states. this is why so many of the movies i watch come out of britain and china.

86: “There were no rules established about this. They created a new timeline whenever they went back in time. Think about what a timeline is.”

timestream is a better word. a change upstream ripples downstream. every time the past was changed in star trek, the present changed too. time travellers and people preserved from the change could watch the change happened. if the series followed the remake’s rules, all that would have been at stake in “city on the edge of forever” is getting mccoy back. they wouldn’t be bothered by any changes he made, because it would just make a new universe, rather than changing the one they were in so that the enterprise was no longer there. there would be nothing at stake in “first contact”. archer and daniels would never have been trapped in the 31st century. and so on and so on.

“You said it *appealed* to people who didn’t like Star Trek before. I didn’t have an automatic like for Star Trek before I knew what it was… did you?”

that’s not what we were talking about. this movie is aimed at people who, like abrams himself, actively dislike star trek, think it’s boring and old.

94: you should work for abrams. this is exactly the kind of hatred that he’s shown for star trek and it’s fans.

127: star trek died with the cancellation of enterprise. all this movie did was bad mouth it at the funeral.

129: if what you wanted added to the series is a pro-war mindset and a sense of destiny, there’s something wrong with you.

157. StarFuryG7 - May 9, 2010

If you want to use “Trekkie” you should acknowledge the alternative “Trekker” in parenthesis at least once at the outset of an article you’re posting the way other periodicals have had a tendency to do when writing about trek fans.

Just one man’s opinion of course, but “Trekkie” strikes me as trite and childish. “Trekker” sounds more hip, cool, and not at all immature by comparison.

158. StarFuryG7 - May 9, 2010

Incidentally, this is the closest I recall seeing this site come to date to acknowledging that this last film didn’t make it clear that what happens in it is supposed to be an alternate universe rather than a complete stripping rewrite of the original timeline and universe.

And there’s an easy way to address and rectify that in the sequel if anyone’s at all interested in hearing it by the way.

159. Jeffery Wright - May 9, 2010

An annoyed and very cross miner, destroys Starfleets best from a few hundred years earlier with a mining vessel.

Like pitting a modern offshore oil rig against WWI destroyers.

Guess who wins?

Still, it was a fun picture.

160. fax_ - May 9, 2010

@doubting_thomas:
I think what 149. Anthony Pascal said should be reiterated here. There is no absolute right or wrong, we are just discussing whether we enjoyed the film or not what whatever reasons, and trying to understand each other in a civil way. I agree with quite a few of the things you’ve send in the thread, and clearly you are very passionate about it (understandably), but I think its best not to say things like ‘there’s something wrong with you’ if we all want to stay happy campers. startrekkie has apologised for some of the things he has said, so let’s just calm down and not incite too much aggression.

161. startrekkie - May 9, 2010

I am a girl not a guy I’m really sorry for some of the things I have said to some people.

162. dmduncan - May 9, 2010

The last thing I would EVER do is become an apologist for the ACTION in ST.09 (or any other movie) as if that were a bad thing.

You exist in the world and the world requires action. Who are you critics of action? Disembodied brains in vats for whom contemplation of abstract ideas is all you need do to exist?

I half way suspect that people who deplore action are themselves incapable of it in any competent way, and to feel better about themselves tell themselves the lie that only cerebral things “really” matter.

ST.09 was a very smart action film.

163. startrekker - May 9, 2010

how in and what way did the new film let you down

164. dmduncan - May 9, 2010

156: “parallels” shows exactly what it says it shows, parallel universes, not alternate timelines. the mirror universe is one of those. there is no point of divergence between any of those universes, they are seperate.

Yes there are MANY points of divergence between those universes, hence the grounds for saying they are different or separate.

An alternate universe is indeed also an alternate timeline, since the present unfolds in those universes differently from the others. There are multiple and distinct presents, and therefore multiple and distinct timelines that unfold differently from each other. The fact that they may all be unfolding in different directions at the same time in a general sense, does not mean that they are not each different timelines in the particular sense.

165. Rocket Scientist - May 9, 2010

159. Jeffery Wright

LOL! That is *SO* spot on. I realize the Countdown comic addressed that, but if it ain’t on the screen, how are we supposed to know?

I hope it was a conscious choice to make a summer action blockbuster in order to give the reinvigorated franchise a grand debut. I’d like to think that they are working on a more thoughtful Trek story now that this has been accomplished. This first film was a spectacular business move as well as an entertaining movie, but let’s get more of Trek’s heart in the next one, shall we? I find myself feeling a little emptier with each subsequent viewing. Historically, Trek delivered so much more than what we got this time.

Regarding continuity, what’s done is done. If you want to play in this universe, you gotta roll with it. I’m game!

166. fax_ - May 9, 2010

@dmduncan
You know, you’re right, I *am* physically feeble, and I’m pretty terrible at sports, let alone anything more trying and aggressive (although I used to love fencing). Besides, some of us are not trying to say that action is inherently bad (so far as I can see), but only that we dislike action in our Star Trek films (an opinion, based on what we feel matters to us in Star Trek).

In any case, I do not believe that love of intellectual pursuit and understanding is simply an ‘escape’ from physically disability. My experience (not a perfect teacher, admittedly – as time brings with it as much stubbornness as it does wisdom) has always been that in-depth analysis, as well as sense and scientific judgement make life (and all things in it) more meaningful and interesting. It is one thing to see a flower and think ‘oh, I like red’, and it is quite another to wonder ‘why has the flower evolved in such a way – what are the infinite unseen stories being told by the insect-life &c. associated with the flower’. David Hume believed that through greater knowledge and understanding we could learn to appreciate things-in-general more (and eventually come to a common conclusion as to quality). While I do not agree with Hume’s conclusion, I do believe that being able to observe something through its many facets allows greater satisfaction than judging by a small number of vague qualities alone. Indeed, seratonin levels and brain stimulation are far greater when an instrument-player listens to music when compared to a ‘casual listener’ precisely because they notice the patterns and logic behind the notes and constructions.

As for non-physical action: that is, the ability to make decisions, to manage people and tasks effectively and efficiently – surely the person who thinks more carefully about the basis (theory) of his actions, processes and reasons (as well as empirics) is better placed to affect more responsible and useful change in his business (and indeed the world by increment). Given that we complain about ‘poor decisions’ in (for example) the liquidity crisis 2008, we are effectively complaining about the inability of people to foresee the dangers present in the market due to poorly formed theory, it is clear that ‘abstract’ cerebral formulation *does* really matter.

I can happily watch action in something like Star Wars, for which my expectation is for cowboy-western action, but I simply don’t associate action and Star Trek together (personal taste), and similarly enjoy intellectual media more so than other forms of media, for the reasons given above.

@startrekkie
actually, now i look at some of your posts, you were pretty reasonable with the exception of maybe that 1 post. I should apologise for using you as an example~ Sorry for the gender mix-up too.

167. www.chrisfawkes.com - May 9, 2010

I love how the new Trek captured the spirit of the original trek.

TNG had some of that but other incarnation had non of it.

Coupled with the recast of the original characters, particularly Kirk, Spock and McCoy and they totally nailed it.

This movie resurfaced all the emotions and senses that the original series did when i first watched Star Trek.

And thankfully it left a string of dud movies to hopefully be forgotten.

168. dmduncan - May 9, 2010

159: “Like pitting a modern offshore oil rig against WWI destroyers.”

Nah. The Narada wasn’t the equivalent of a modern offshore drilling rig. It was a heavily weaponized space warping ROMULAN drilling rig from the future, with torpedoes whose power matched the technology of it’s time of origin. And as we all know, in Star Trek it’s a dangerous ‘verse out there. Not even once did that strike me as a credibility problem.

169. startrekker - May 9, 2010

I’m sure the sequel will deal in depth into issues that were presented in TOS guess they wanted to make the last one to reel new fans into this brilliant universe and made a popcorn big budget action adventure movie that was amazing at least to me anyway what’s wrong with that?

170. startrekker - May 9, 2010

I also loved the scenes Between Spock Prime and the younger versions of the enterprise crew those also make the film great as well.

171. fax_ - May 9, 2010

@170. startrekker
I have to admit that I found the first few moments of the cave scene between Nimoy and Pine quite emotional. It was horribly contrived (almost fan-fiction-esque), but the initial reaction of Spock Prime is what I would have expected it to be. It really felt as if he had, for so long, wished to say once more those words ‘I have been and always will be your friend’ to Kirk (Kirk Prime having died), and although the words came out abruptly, the sadness and longing was apparent.

172. startrekker - May 9, 2010

Well it was also a happy emotional scene

173. Carl LaFong - May 9, 2010

#151

Alec, I can’t really dispute your observation about Meyer being a stronger writer than director, especially since that is the one area the Bad Robot team may need some help. Still, it must be remembered that Meyer also had minimal budgets (heck, TWOK was originally slated as little more than a suped-up TV-movie) and relatively little financial support from Paramount. The fact that those two movies look so good is a credit to Meyer and staff for stretching creatively…

The Bad Robot team did have the advantage of the first proper A-production budget since TMP (albeit THAT film also had to absorb the cost of the aborted TV revival), yet I still get a claustrophobic vibe to the picture; even warp speed seems to close in on itself and never took full advantage of the vistas possible. Maybe it was the secrecy of the shoot, being so soundstage-bound to conceal the look of the film that made it feel like a submarine with a brewery for an engine room…

As for who will be director for the next one (Since JJ will be busy with Super8 and MI4)? Bad Robot will likely draw from their stable of directors; Jack Bender, Stephen Williams and Matt Reeves being the most likely names. Reeves, in particular, did such a bang-up job with Cloverfield that if they go the action-adventure route (likely for a summer blockbuster) he’d be my choice.

Giacchino’s score was just fine. The biggest smile in the flick for me was his retro-arrangement of the Alexander Courage theme complete with bongo drums! I hope he can tie in one or two other classic themes in there, too, without going overboard in the future.

In any event, as long as Pine, Quinto, and Urban don’t break into a rendition of “Three Little Maids From School” (with apologies to Messrs Spiner & Stewart), I think we’ll be in good hands for the next in the series…

174. startrekker - May 9, 2010

Well if JJ Abrams isn’t going to be Trek 12 director then get Nicholas Meyer if that does indeed happen.

175. MJ - May 9, 2010

re: 87. fax_

It is a good thing for the detractors that is not a competition, as 2% just ain’t cutting it. I agree that we should all respect each others opinion, but we should also caveat carefully opinions that are only supported by extremely small percentages of people.

176. Boborci - May 9, 2010

As always, all opinions are noted. Happy anniversary and happy mother’s day.

177. startrekker - May 9, 2010

Boborci happy anniversary to Star Trek I am one of the fans that love NuTrek you and Alex did a great job with the film so did the wonderful cast I thank everyone involved so how is the script for the next one coming along.

178. Anthony Thompson - May 9, 2010

Bob, you didn’t answer my question (#114). : )

179. fax_ - May 9, 2010

@175. MJ
The minority opinion should be approached with caution, yes – because there is often a good reason why minority opinions are a minority (perhaps because their reasoning is poor, perhaps because they lack certain information &c.). Being cautious doesn’t mean reasons aren’t worth discussing on a non-aggressive level though, or that they cannot be valid insofar as their assumptions are. Socrates, after all, was tried and sentenced to death for questiononing Athenian politics and society.

It is easy to simply brush away other opinions and say ‘oh, I respect you, we agree to disagree’ – but I think it is important to try understand and appreciate each other’s opinion. I was genuinely interested in finding out what attracted other long-time Trek fans to the movie, and also hoped to expound my own feelings (#48) in a disinterested fashion if only to protect the integrety of those of us labelled ‘haters’ (too many nasty words are thrown around on the topic, after all). Perhaps someone could remind me of some aspect of the film I had missed or forgotten (indeed, until #170 I had somewhat forgotten that initial scene with Kirk/Spock), and perhaps my explanation of why I dislike the film will help others feel less defensive when the new film is criticised.

If the praemises are different, even by logical reasoning the conclusion can be different. I may have made an error in reasoning, in which case feel free to mock me or complain – however given my defintions, I feel my opinion is justified (although not universally ‘correct’). Is understanding why people disagree about the film not rewarding in any way? Expressing opinions without wanting to hear disagreement, or discuss explanations is just like expressing opinions into a vacuum. When people do comment however, surely it would be better to give balanced and full explanations of our own opinions, as opposed to simply lambasting others. Discussion is a medium of external and internal examination – where we each possess a ‘crucible in which we burn away irrelevancies’ to temper and shape our own views. Defensiveness should not obviate openness and the willingness to alter our own perceptions.

@Boborci:
Congratulations on the film anyway. It may not have been to my tastes, but I’m sure an unimaginable amount of hard work and stress was put into it, and the film pleased a great many people. Everyone did a brilliant job given the objectives you had laid down for yourselves and the production values were evident – all of which makes the work estimable in its own right!

180. Harry Ballz - May 9, 2010

Bob

I know you can’t give details, but how far along are you on the next script?

181. startrekker - May 9, 2010

boborci what did you really think of the movie please tell me or is that secret anyway fascinating your view on NuTrek.

182. Ahmed - May 9, 2010

# 151 Alec

I totally agree with you there. Star Trek 12 need to have a great story, epic space battles & more of Kirk, Spock & McCoy.

#176 Boborci, how long before starting the production? Also, any idea who is the villain in Star Trek 12, did you guys decided on that or not yet?

btw, I can’t wait to see Cowboys & Aliens

183. Randall - May 9, 2010

I watched Star Trek 09 for the umpteenth time yesterday. And year having one by, it’s the ideal time to chime in with our thoughts on it.

First, the idea that the film will “be forgotten” is silly—I wasn’t anywhere near as enthusiastic about it as some, yet here I am still watching it, just for the entertainment value of it. It’s a f**king entertaining film. There’s the emotional pathos of the opening scenes, with the death of George Kirk, which was VERY well done (of course, this then bounces right in to the silliness of young Jim stealing, of all things, a Corvette…. not so much because it’s a car, but because… so what? I’m still not sure how that scene advanced the story—but it was fun to watch–and that’s the key to this movie–even when it’s dumb, it’s a lot of fun to watch) and the spot-on scenes on Vulcan. The fun continues in watching the characters come together, and it’s enjoyable–let’s face it–to continually play the game of comparing the new actors to the old. And even THAT game evolves—I initially found Yelchin’s Chekov annoying, but on repeated watchings, he’s grown on me considerably, because I realized how likable Yelchin makes him, because Yelchin is fun to watch–he’s a good young actor. In fact ALL of the actors here are energetic, dynamic, and fun–and JJ Abrams is a HIGHLY dynamic and fun director. In fact, the best thing about this movie is JJ Abrams. As a director it’s clear he’s a little dynamo of energy and enthusiasm, and I’ve found myself loving the guy for it. The original Star Trek TV series was often the height of energy and dynamic fun–something NONE of the later series managed to replicate (though some of them did have their own qualities) and certainly NONE of the movies–in fact, the movies, most especially, are largely plodding or at best slow-and-steady affairs that sometimes recall the energy, but never really resurrect it (and yes, that goes STWOK and “The Voyage Home” too). Abrams brought the energy back to Star Trek that it so desperately needed—so one the very largest and most essential point for bringing ST back to life, he succeeded wildly.

The other actors do well with their roles–to varying degrees. None of them have the vocal power or the presence of some of the original actors, but they can yet grow into that, one hopes. It also depends on what the writers give them to work with. I’m most concerned with Quinto, because he has, perhaps, the largest shoes to fill. It wasn’t only that Nimoy was a very good actor, it’s that Nimoy put so much of what seemed to be himself—or at least some innate understanding for Spock—in to the character, that he essentially was the creator of Spock in more ways than even Roddenberry was, or any of the writers of TOS. And the problem is, of course, that if you get Spock wrong (and Kirk as well) then you lose much of the essence of what Star Trek is. Pine seems to have a handle on Kirk, so I’m less concerned there—along with the fact that Kirk is a tad more open to interpretation. Kirk HAS to be “the hero”—but of a very specific kind–he’s Horatio Hornblower, Doc Savage, and Flash Gordon sort of all rolled up into one. Dynamic, fun, disciplined, a good leader, an inspiring figure. If Pine keeps that stuff in mind, and the writers give him good material to work with, he can do it. What’s MORE essential is that the writers and Abrams remember that it’s really Kirk, Spock, and McCoy together that form the heart of Star Trek, because as much as the stories revolve around these central characters, they form that familiar “triumvirate” that we’ve heard of for years—which is not just some fanboy nonsense, but is truly a great expository take on what made TOS so good and enjoyable in the first place. Kirk is the hero, yes—but he’s not anywhere near as good or successful without Spock on the one hand, keeping him focused—Kirk, like anyone, has doubts and occasionally doesn’t know what to do—and he’s sometimes reckless. Spock yanks him back to reality and allows him to be human while still making all the right decisions. McCoy then forms the other side of that—he’s the moralizing, ultra-human guy that can be Kirk’s conscience even when Kirk doesn’t think he has time for the delicacies of such things. McCoy battles Spock because the two seem to be in opposition, or opposing aspects of Kirk’s character and mind—but of course they go beyond that as “human” characters who like and respect each other. All this was stumbled into by pure accident–I’ve never seen any evidence that Roddenberry really created this deliberately—and it’s in part due to the actors who originally created the roles. But Pine and Urban have enough charisma to pull it off again, and I think Quinto does too. He just has to keep getting the Spock side of this right.

I get a sense from Pegg that he knows enough Star Trek to get Scotty right—Scotty isn’t just a throwaway character—he’s the humor relief in a lot of ways, but he also has to be the mature tough guy on occasion. At first I was thinking that Pegg wouldn’t be able to do this—but I noticed in watching the film again yesterday that he’s totally capable of it. And here’s why: take note of Scotty’s first appearance on the bridge when Spock questions him. Now, Scott has only just met Kirk, so he’s got no particularly huge stake in simply throwing in with him. Still, he senses he can’t just give in to Spock. The line for him here, as written, is perfect: “I’d rather not choose sides.” It gave Pegg a chance to be kinda funny again, for a half second. But he did a little more with it. He added an air of “I’m a little bit older than either of you two (Kirk and Spock) and I’m not going to play your game. You two work it out—I’m neutral.” It’s there in his delivery, the way he pauses for just a moment before saying the line, and the way he tilts his head to give it. It’s something I could easily have imagine Doohan doing, and it speaks volumes about Scotty’s character, if I’m right, and in the way Pegg sees him. Pegg goes on to make Scotty funny, but at the same time businesslike. He knows damn well what he’s doing, I suspect. Pegg’s is a Scotty I can believe is capable of taking the Captain’s chair when needed. And I hope we see that.

Saldana is great, Cho is good—Saldana is great at conveying emotion–she too is lots of fun to watch, and of course to look at—-but they need to give Uhura more to do than just be “the girlfriend.” Both the character and Saldana as an actress deserve more than that. She displays moments of strength in the film, but I worry about hers, of all the characters, being lost in the mix. Of course, Greenwood’s Pike was great fun to watch. I wish the guy could have his own TV series as Pike.

So that’s the actors. And Abrams, as I said, made this film every bit of the fun and excitement that it was. (Along with the music, which was excellent–someone earlier knocked it, which I find unbelievable–the music was superbly done, as was the editing, the cinematography, and of course the effects). The only small criticisms—yeah, a few too many lens flares (come on, enough with it already) and sometimes the camera moved a little TOO fast—though better it has that energy than not.

The writing is the one area where the film slipped for me. I still find it enjoyable, but it doesn’t surprise me that Orci and Kurtzman display such unevenness in their work at times. Something about this film seemed rushed to me, and I realized early on that it was the script, and I still get that feeling, even after watching it several times. Of course, it isn’t that the film was “rushed.” They had plenty of time to hammer the script out. But the reason it feels that way is sloppiness.

Destroy Vulcan, kill Spock’s mom? Well, okay… these are the consequences of change, and of evil, and we’re in an alternate timeline after all. But a romance between Spock and Uhura? I wasn’t opposed to it and I’m still not—but I also still do not like the way it was handled and written. An ATTRACTION between Spock and Uhura here would have worked much better and would have accomplished the same goal. It was too soon to throw both Spock and the audience this kind of curve, because it seems jarring in some way. Not because it’s unSpocklike (though it is)…. Spock is young here and still dealing with keeping his emotions tamed. But Spock is somehow also weakened by simply being “tossed into” an already existing relationship with Uhura. It would have been better to see him coping with the *germ* of such a relationship. Now, probably in the next film we *will* see him coping with it—but the outcome would have been the same—we’d eventually see the conflict in him (and in Uhura). Why just jump right into it, so quickly, already establishing it offscreen? It seemed sloppy and hurried to me, as though they just had the idea and forgot to really develop it. And of course, as pointed out earlier, it weakens Uhura too, because it forces her to primarily be “the girlfriend” first, before anything else.

Orci has always used the excuse of saying that they saw “flirtation” between Spock and Uhura in the original series. I’ve been hard pressed to find any REAL examples of this. It seems to me, rather, to be based on mis-readings of the characters. Yes, in one scene in one of the early episodes, Uhura clearly IS engaging in a kind of “flirtatious” talk with Spock–at least, it can be interpreted that way—but there’s little evidence that he returns it, and at any rate, Uhura is quickly rebuffed by Spock’s apparently emotionless response to the news that someone in a landing party has been killed. Uhura calls him to task on this, and his response to her is off-putting and coldly logical, and she displays a sort of low-grade shocked disgust. Hardly flirtation or evidence of an intimate relationship. (“The Man Trap.”) Again, later, Uhura seems to feel fondly towards Spock again, and he towards her (Charlie X) as they essentially form a musical duet and there are interplays between them, in their eyes and facial expressions—but this, in context, appears to be more friendship than anything else.

Of course, in choosing to build intimacy on this rather loose basis, Orci and Kurtzman could still be said to be justified–why not, after all? But as I say, the real fault in it is that it’s not really explored or handled well. It’s just done, and that’s that. And this then leads to embarrassing moments like Uhura and Spock getting into a FAR too lengthy and contrived clutch on the transporter pad before Spock and Kirk beam aboard the Romulan ship. This was both WAY too outward and much too unprofessional for these two characters—both of whom ARE supposed to be consummate pros. Ask yourself if this would have happened on the original show…. or if these characters, in “real” life, would have stood there so long, smooching and caressing. It’s silly. It’s done strictly so that Kirk can have something to react to, semi-comedically, it seems—and that’s bad.

And there’s the key to the one flaw here–Orci is a ST fan, but either he or Kurtzman (or both) just don’t *get it* sometimes. Why else the silly little errors that get sprinkled through the movie? Pike calling *the Federation* a “peace keeping armada” when he clearly meant *Starfleet.* (easily enough explained–Pike was pissed at Kirk for being so dismissive and so willing to throw his life’s potential away, and so he stumbled and said one thing when he meant another—but then Pike is also a consummate pro, and it’s hard to believe he’d make a slip like that. Still, he did, and it CAN be explained–but what can’t be explained is how anyone could write such a clumsy line that could be so easily fixed with a pencil–it seems nitpicky, but it’s indicative of what seems to be wrong with these guys as writers—they’re not tight and careful). Another example—the claim that a supernova could somehow destroy a galaxy. Come on. All it would have taken to fix that would be for Spock to say that it was some kind of UNUSUAL supernova—perhaps caused by some Romulan experiment (which would give an added resonance to the tragedy of what happened to Romulus) or other. But it left us wondering just how the hell that could be. As we were left wondering why Nero blamed Spock for the destruction of his world. Obviously the implication was that Spock had promised to save Romulus, and hadn’t made it in time. He did then stop the supernova—-and if you put two and two together, you could conceive of Nero imagining this to have been some Vulcan/Federation plot to “let Romulus die” but then save themselves from destruction. Okay—but why leave it up to the audience to figure that out? Why not just take the three seconds to have Nero SAY it? There seems to be an overweening prejudice against exposition in these guys, as though someone in film school taught them that too much exposition is bad (it is) and they’ve taken the lesson WAY too far.

The problem is that it gives the film a feeling of not making total sense. Now part of this could be bad editing and not the fault of the writers (and while the editing of the movie is good, there is the sense that at times Abrams and his editor cut TOO much, cut too close to the bone) and surely at times that’s the case. But it’s also clear that Orci and Kurtzman just didn’t take the time to smooth out their story well enough, to make it hum. They did write some good lines (they also wrote a few clunkers, but not that many—in fact, very few) and they did well by the characters for the most part. But if a film, as written, is analogous to a well-tuned car, then what they wrote here is a car that runs, but has a bad idle. It skips a little and has some mild shakiness. I’d take it into the shop and have it gone over more closely, if I’d been the driver.

Other than that, though, Star Trek was a very good movie. Abrams, I think, is largely responsible for this. Though, even the criticisms I’ve levied here against Orci and Kurtzman aren’t all that damning—they too surely had a lot to do with the film’s success. Perhaps it’s just that, with this time travel story, they took on more complexity than they had it in them to deal with. It DID create a lot of issues, and I can well imagine that ANY writers would have had a hard time with it.

The bottom line, though, is that Star Trek is still hugely watchable and fun. It is precisely the kind of movie I’ll pull off the shelf again and again in the coming years to watch in repetition, because it’s so well done in so many ways. Sometimes corniness and small flaws don’t matter if a film is that much fun and that easily digestible–and Star Trek is.

184. fax_ - May 9, 2010

@93. Hat Rick
Ah, sorry, I missed your extremely eloquent and wittily written post a while back. Hope you get this belated reply. Yes, what you describe is similar to what I feel regarding the Trek-pseudo-constancy (nice to know someone else thinks along the same lines!). I wish I could give a satisfactory answer to where the boundary of the circle of fire lies, but we both know that a strict demarcation is difficult.

Was a poll ever done that might indicate ‘weights’ placed on each dimension of Star Trek (as a character?) – i.e. what people think makes ‘trek = trek’? e.g. 10% progressive ethics, 10% friendship/family &c.? We could even create a mathematical index to measure the degree to which films/episodes conform to the ‘community definition’!!! from this we could calculate the average for each series/movie, as well as measures of spread/temporal variation and a ‘core tenet’ group of least variable weights. Of course, vague and broad factors like ‘an entertainment franchise’ would have to be broken down or made more specific. Anyone else like this idea? Perhaps it sounds a little over-the-top, but I’m deadly serious. It would mean we would have a dynamic measure of how the Trek-fandom is progressing. We would be able to *quantitatively* say ‘My idea of trem is -this- different from present day trek, given index inflation and weight-adjustment’! There would be no more arguments about ‘this is not Star Trek’ – we would simply say, ‘based on the average index for 1980-1990, new trek is at least 2 standard deviations different from old, at 5% level of statistical significance! New-film-writers would be able to compare their plans with a quantitative indicator!

Philosophically of course, the descripting statement solves the issue of the ‘single demarcation’ concept. Gross change is not a useful measure, but *relative* change is. Don’t worry about, as you say ‘overindulg[ing] our inner nerds’. That is – in the end, why we are on this site.

185. dmduncan - May 9, 2010

Shoreleave, I, Mudd, The Trouble With Tribbles. ST.09 is in step with some of TOS’s most fun episodes. TOS didn’t have one flavor. It was a fruit salad.

Oh, and Iron Man 2 rocked. Tony Stark is so much cooler than Bruce Wayne.

186. T'Cal - May 9, 2010

I loved the film. I do, however, believe the way Pike/Greenwood delivers the lines in the trailer during the bar scene was better than that of what was used in the actual film. In the film, he chuckles as he says the lines. In the trailer it was more dramatic – a mixture disappointment and frustration at how Jim, the son of Pike’s hero, was wasting his talents. That small issue ( and maybe a few others), it was a thoroughly enjoyable movie and I’m hoping that the sequel is even better,

187. dmduncan - May 9, 2010

And after watching JJs trailer for Super 8, I think JJ is Spielberg — The Next Generation. I hope he directs the second installment of ST.

188. doubting_thomas - May 9, 2010

“entertaining”? like a goram mobile for a baby? are you really sitting there clapping and going “pretty colors!”?

189. fax_ - May 9, 2010

@183. Randall
A good writeup. Agree with you on a number of these points. Not sure about the ‘dynamism’ you describe is properly reflective of TOS though, but when you mention the rushed/sloppy qualities of the script I wonder if perhaps it is this which causes me to perceive a difference. TOS may not have had the sort of exposition as TNG did, but I don’t think it was as fast paced as the new movie. The TOS (excl. TMP) scenes that made the characters seem the most human (and the friendship between the trinity most authentic and comfortable) were minimalist and ‘ploddish': i.e. Kirk’s checkups in the sick-bay, the discussions in the briefing room &c. Even though Kirk was very often seen sitting at his chair at red-alert, it was more often a waiting-game, or was interspersed with pauses as characters wondered what to do, or what was happening. Conversely, it could just be that I associate TOS too closely with the TMP era films, and I place too much value on TNG style exposition.

190. startrekker - May 9, 2010

Randall Guess you are one of the detractors are you?anyway excellent review and great in depth in on the film’s good and bad parts but I don’t think I agree in my opinion this movie is great.

191. Randall - May 9, 2010

@189. fax_
Thanks… as to your point, I think you’re confusing “fast paced” with dynamic. They’re not always synonymous. TOS was almost always “dynamic”—it was in the nature of television in the sixties. Check out any TV show from the period, and you’ll get *some* sense of it. Star Trek had more than most, perhaps, but only just.

It was often fast paced, as well, but it depended on context. Certainly it was faster paced than TNG, which was often TOO slowly paced (and too expository–also related to its over-reliance on jargon and jargony plot devices).

Yes, TOS was more “slowly” paced than the 09 movie, but it’s also not quite fair to compare them, since they’re such different forms. As TV series go, TOS was fast-paced. Certainly much, much faster paced–and much more theatrical–than ANY of the other ST series. But the various Star Trek films have been slow and sometimes plodding.

I think you’re getting to the question of whether the Abrams film was TOO fast paced, but I think it’s less that than that it was just a shade too closely cut, too edited. I don’t think leaving the film a little more fleshed out would have spoiled that fast pace at all. There’s a point where you can’t make a film any more streamlined than it already is. You can add too much, sure, and slow it down to a crawl, or bring it to a halt—but you can’t make it faster and faster and more efficient simply by cutting, cutting, and cutting, either. Eventually you reach a point where it isn’t going to really get any faster nor is it going to be told any more efficiently.

Go back and watch some of the TOS episodes, viewing them as whole entities–not just looking for the moments of exposition, or the pauses, etc. The pauses are there—and they work. But the stories are told “bang bang bang” in about 50 minutes, and they wrap up well. They rarely plod. TNG, by comparison, or DS9, Voyager (ugh–particularly Voyager) and ENT almost NEVER come out “bang bang bang.” In the same amount of time (less in fact, because of the greater number of commercials today) as TOS, the newer series end up, *in aggregate,* being far less eye-catching and attention-holding. Even when TOS was bad, it went by at such a pace that you barely cared. But when TNG was dull (which it my opinion, was often–sorry) it seemed like an episode dragged out for twice as long as it actually was.

192. Randall - May 9, 2010

@190 startrekker

NO! I’m not a detractor. Read what I wrote more carefully. I’m a fan of the movie—I love it, in fact. I think it’s hugely fun and entertaining as hell. I was just spelling out what I think was good, great, and less-than-well done about the movie. In balance, though, I thought it was very good, and I’ll keep pulling it off the shelf and re-watching it for years to come.

193. Trek Lady - May 9, 2010

183

Randall,

Very well stated opinion – much of which I agree with.

194. VeratheGun - May 9, 2010

183.

Excellent analysis, which I mostly agree with.

I just want to reiterate that now, after the fact that this film was a huge success, it’s easy to nitpick here and there. But frankly, if Abrams and the cast hadn’t pulled it off, it was very probably career suicide.

Orci and Kurtzman would still be writing scripts but can you imagine the pressure on an unknown like Chris Pine if this had flopped? Or Zachary Quinto, who had a really hard job stepping into Nimoy’s shoes, with NIMOY THERE? They wouldn’t be able to get arrested in Hollywood after that.

I really give the entire cast and crew a lot of credit for reenergizing the franchise. Making any movie is hard. Making a GOOD movie is nearly impossible.

195. Imrahil - May 9, 2010

wow, lots of tl;dr here.

196. fax_ - May 9, 2010

@191. Randall
I stand corrected. Latching onto specific moments is unwise when judging in aggregate. You’re quite right that dynamism does not equal fast-paced, and I can see that given the context you outline TOS does have a structure that ‘moves’ in a way the other series don’t (as much). Furthermore, similarly face-paced periods do work if sufficiently fleshed out (I remember some of the quick jumping from scene to scene in the STIV holmes-esque ‘deduction’ sequence worked very well – although I still think some good variation in pace is necessary for a movie as a whole).

Otherwise it seems we just prefer different balances: I prefer TMP TNG balance (I think the dialogue was richer than in TOS, VOY or DS9 in most cases, thus preventing dullness, and adding to the weight of the plot when the plot itself was not progressing) – although I would agree that VOY (‘ugh’ is a sentiment shared) and DS9 have some serious structural problems on occasion. I suppose I don’t really tend to divide episode and movie quite as strongly either, which is why I can accept STV and STIX more easily.

197. Gabriel Bell - May 9, 2010

@192, Randall …. Uh, all 3,208 words? Wow!

198. Dee - May 9, 2010

Star Trek 09 is definitely GREAT!

199. fansince66 - May 9, 2010

Greatest ever. I love getting back to the era I grew up with; and the A.O.K.L.B. crew can again go where no person has gone before, with new stories & arcs. That is the most important/most valuable thing that this movie accomplished. Damn the canon; full speed ahead.

200. Devon - May 9, 2010

” 188. doubting_thomas – May 9, 2010

“entertaining”? like a goram mobile for a baby? are you really sitting there clapping and going “pretty colors!”?”

Doubting_Thomas, you really have no intention of being on this site very long do you?

201. Simon - May 9, 2010

#11 – “Harry Ballz – BND and I agree on the fact that the exterior shots of the Enterprise were weak”

I agree both of you should make an appointment with LensCrafters.

No matte lines, no blu-spill, no unnecessary fill light, paneling and into-the-windows detail clearly visible: the ship’s outline may not please all but the model itself never looked better (BTW, it’s still a *model*, whether it’s pixels or plastic).

202. Ceti Alpha 5 - May 9, 2010

1. STII The Wrath of Khan
2. STXI/’09
3. STVI The Undiscovered Country
4. STIII The Search for Spock
5. STIV The Voyage Home
6. STVIII First Contact

That’s my list so far…

203. Harry Ballz - May 9, 2010

201

Simon, I appreciate your input….all I’m saying is that when one watches the movie, the ship either looks “real” to the viewer, or it doesn’t….in my case, it didn’t look “real” AT ALL…I thought it was a very poor attempt and can be bettered…..it’s as simple as that.

204. Pro-Khan-Sel - May 9, 2010

I am impressed by the articles truthfulness, Message to Berman and paramount, DON”T TAKE TREK FOR GRANTED EVER AGAIN!

205. Anthony Pascale - May 9, 2010

doubting_thomas

final warning

find a way to discuss things without insulting people. Or find a new site where you can express yourself without being hamstrung by our difficult requirement of being respectful.

206. Sebastian - May 9, 2010

This was one of those (increasingly) rare times when I’ve gone into a movie with huge misgivings, concerns and reservations and have been proven utterly wrong!

I loved it thoroughly, and I’ve been a classic Trek fan since I was about 6 years old and watched the show in syndication, and IMO they kept a lot of what makes Trek work (the character stuff, primarily) and jettisoned the elements of the show that haven’t dated as well (the outdated look of the sets, the clunky analog-era props, etc).

It was both a loving homage and a great step forward into (hopefully) a renewed future for the franchise….

207. Gary Neumann - May 9, 2010

Well said!

208. Gary Neumann - May 9, 2010

I think the poll should last longer this time, to get a good impression of the ratings of the movie!

209. Andrew - May 9, 2010

It’s AWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOME!

if i didn’t like it, i’d be screaming: “KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!”

210. Andrew - May 9, 2010

best Star Trek films are the new movie, and Wrath Of Khan. Worst ST in my book is Generations.

211. Andrew - May 9, 2010

and it’s More Entertaining than the New Star Wars Trilogy.

212. Harry Ballz - May 9, 2010

Howard the Duck was more entertaining than the New Star Wars Trilogy!

213. Todd - May 9, 2010

The caption of one of the pictures says, “With failure of Nemesis and cancellation of Enterprise – Star Trek was without a crew for the first time”, but it was actually the second time we had gone without Trek.

This was a fine popcorn movie, but it treated the characters disrespectfully, the plot was just absolutely lame, and the sets looked cheaper than the original TOS sets. It’s not the worst Trek movie, but it’s far from the best.

214. Andrew - May 9, 2010

i hope in the Sequel we see younger versions of Khan, Saavik, Nurse Chapel, Carol Marcus, Will Decker, Ilea Probe, Kruge, and General Chang.

215. Melllvar - May 9, 2010

Can’t believe it was a whole year ago. Time flies! This site was SO GOOD — sorry, IS so good… but in the days leading up to the release, this site was simply phenominal. Got a mention in the special features even! Solid work Anthony. We all own you much

216. Andrew - May 9, 2010

I’ll take Star Trek 2009 over Star Trek Generations any Day.

217. Andrew - May 9, 2010

Nero is tough Bada*# compared to Khan, who looks like a Crazy Old Woman with that long white hair.

218. Anthony Thompson - May 9, 2010

Bob’s silence to our modest inquiries is deafening. I believe that the veil of secrecy has been lowered over the sequel just as it had been for the first film.

219. Andrew - May 9, 2010

JJ Abrams is the George Lucas/ Gene Roddenberry: The Next Generation.

220. Andrew - May 9, 2010

and People Like to pretend that Nemesis doesn’t exist.

221. Andrew - May 9, 2010

I haven’t watched it on Blu-Ray yet, once i’ve watched it I’ll decide from my Point of View if it’s good or bad.

222. Anthony Pascale - May 9, 2010

Andrew

appreciate the enthusiasm, but try and maybe work your thoughts in a post instead of posting over and over and over and over in a row

223. denny cranium - May 9, 2010

I remember being in the theatre saying to myself “please don’t suck, please don’t suck”
I wasn’t disappointed. I loved the movie. Repeated viewings on blu-ray make me appreciate the film even more.
Everyone please remember: They had two hours of screen time to write a script that had to:
Revive the franchise
Cater to existing and rabid fans (for the most part I think they nailed it)
Attract new fans (movie going public) I would suggest this was the most important mission they were given. JJ and crew had to put bums in the seats.
WITHOUT all the regular movie goers filling the theatre and giving the good buzz about this film Trek would have limped away on her batteries.
Then we all would be sitting here moaning there isnt a new movie to look forward to.

On a side note: They hit a grand slam on casting the characters. Chris Pine IS Kirk.

Also its SHOW BUSINESS! Paramount spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Trek. Profit is not a dirty word.
My business runs on profit
So does Paramount

224. Harry Ballz - May 9, 2010

Even the Prophets say its okay to make profits!

225. pock speared - May 9, 2010

“star trek” saved star trek.

226. Boborci - May 9, 2010

218

True indeed. Doesn’t mean we are not listening to you!

227. Harry Ballz - May 9, 2010

Bob, I know you can’t give plot details, but how far along on the script are you guys? Half way? Two-thirds?

228. Harry Ballz - May 9, 2010

Hey, Bob, way back on the Shatner/Governor General Buzz thread at post #67, I gave a pretty good suggestion on how to have Shatner appear in the next film. I know you’re a busy guy, but I think it has merit for getting past the whole “Kirk’s dead” roadblock….if you want to take a look at it.

229. startrekker - May 9, 2010

Chris Pine was great so he was portraying a young arrogant Kirk he nailed the role,

230. startrekker - May 9, 2010

denny cranium I agree

231. P Technobabble - May 10, 2010

As comparisons continue to be made between TOS films, TNG films and “Star Trek,” I think it is important to remember there is a tremendous difference in style between them all. This may seem like an obvious statement, but I think when one prefers a particular style of Trek, one tends to put Star Trek in a box that it cannot get out of, and then it becomes the standard by which all other Treks are measured.

The original series was produced and directed by many people who came from a background of 50’s-oriented Westerns and sci-fi programs. The TOS films were greatly influenced by the big 3, Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley, and all of them came from a similar background, and they brought much of that to their roles in Star Trek. And then they each had some degree of input when it came to the scripts for the TOS movies, regarding their characters, and even story. I believe I read where Shatner and Nimoy had a lot to do with the ending of TMP, for example. But it was an influence of a slower-paced, more “talky” kind of storytelling.

I don’t know as much about the TNG films, other than that it was pretty much the same people making the films who made the tv series. I think that was part of the problem with this series of films: they were making big-budget tv episodes (with the possible exception of FC). And then the one time they brought in an outsider (Stuart Baird), the results were disastrous, since the poor man knew nothing about Star Trek, and very little (apparently) about directing. (Yes, Logan was an outsider, but he was a devout Star Trek fan).

The so-called NuTrek is being made by younger, 21st century film-makers who have solidly established themselves in both tv and films, who bring a more energetic, faster-paced style to the table. I think this is simply a sign of the times. When we watch other recent blockbusters, such as the Batman films, Iron Man, Avatar, etc. there is a tendency to try to pack as much into 2 hours as possible. Whether the trend affects the writers’ approach, or the writers are responsible for the trend would probably be hard to nail down, since they seem to go hand in hand.

Thus, I think it is in some ways very unfair to compare “Star Trek” to any of its predecessors. Each “era” of films is different, and based on entirely different approaches and philosophies about storytelling and film-making. Certainly, as long as there is a Capt. Kirk, a starship Enterprise, and so forth, there will be a Star Trek. But as the older Star Trek looks somewhat different than Star Trek today, some future Star Trek will look much different than today’s. It’s the nature of the business and it’s the nature of things, in general.

232. G - May 10, 2010

Movie was great, but ST: II, III and IV are still the best.

233. Sotirios Moshonas - May 10, 2010

One Year After Star Trek 90210. ray. whoopie-do.

Abrams: “This is not your father’s Star Trek!”

Quote: “You were never my son in the first place! Period!”

Bring back Star Trek: Enterprise! At least, we can find out who is “Future Guy” and how the Earth-Romulan War started. Also visit the mirror universe again to see how Empress Sato and her empire is doing.

For more Star Trek, visit USS Tamerlane (www.usstamerlane.com) —

Star Trek New Voyages (www.startreknewvoyages.com),

Star Trek Animation (www.startrekanimated.com)

or better yet, if you want to create your own Star Trek stories, visit GoAnimate (www.goanimate.com). It is free to join.

Thanks for your time. Live Long and Prosper. By the way, Happy Belated Mother’s Day.

234. Admiral_BlackCat - May 10, 2010

Anthony, great article! “Trek cool again.” “Trek popular (again).” are just the sort of things that let us know you care about Trek. Not only is this a great place for news and scoops, but really it’s also really well written. Addressing your “haters” comment is top notch as well.
I love the new movie, the performances, the writing, action and SFX, everything was great about it. My biggest gripe is the whole “threaten the entire galaxy supernova”. Vague enough to work, but I needed more info about the whole shebang to make it believable.
Good job Supreme Court!

235. Frederick - May 10, 2010

I was watching the original “V” on DVD the other day and guess what I saw…. a BREWERY doubling as the inside of a starship engineering room! JJ, you thief!

I just hope we get an engineering set as impressive as the rest of the ship this time. It should be the biggest, best set ever on Star Trek.

236. JimJ - May 10, 2010

When I watch this movie, I just get this reinvigorated (is that a word?) feeling. It’s hard to explain. Though I love the other movies that have been made, all for their own reasons (and some more than others), this movie really hits my emotions. The overall story just takes me there, whether there are some flaws or not.

The characters/actors/actresses:
Pike-MUCH more likeable and commanding of respect than the original.

KIrk-Pine’s gonna be a great Captain, I can just feel it. Love his chemistry with Quinto, too.

Spock-Quinto shows his best Spock when interacting with Kirk and/or McCoy. That needs to be the focus, not the Spock/Uhura thing.

McCoy-Urban is my hero. When De. Kelley passed on, I thought McCoy would never live again on screen. I was wrong. Urban IS McCoy and I bet he’s even better yet in the sequel.

Scotty-I liked the accent, the actor, and the comedy. It’s now time to see the miracle worker come out of him in the next movie AND time to get him a real engineering, rather than a frikkin’ brewery (worst part of the movie for me). Scotty might “have” a brewery somewhere in the ship, but not in his beloved engineering!

Sulu-Sold me on his expertise after he finally got the ship going. Good actor, probably too good for such a small part.

Checkov-I like the guy and his enthusiasm. Just let him mature more and more with each movie.

Uhura-Great character ideas and a fabulous actress (as well as gorgeous). I just don’t like the Spock/Uhura thing, even though it didn’t “bother” me. I just think it’s “fluff” that isn’t needed and isn’t that “dynamic changing” between the characters of Kirk/Spock/Uhura.

I can’t decide yet if this is my favorite movie or not, but it’s definitely close, that is for sure. Long live Star Trek!!!! Can’t wait for the next one. Bring on Star Trek ’12. Cool, In 2012 comes Star Trek 12-tricky!

237. JimJ - May 10, 2010

I think this is my order of preference for the movies, after rewatching the newest one and some of the old ones:

Star Trek 11 (’09)
Star Trek 4 (TVH)
Star Trek 2 (TWOK)
Star Trek 8 (FC)
Star Trek 6 (TUC)
Star Trek 3 (TSFS)
Star Trek 9 (INS.)
Star Trek 10 (NEM.)
Star Trek 1 (TMP)
Star Trek 5 (TFF)
Star Trek 7 (GEN.)

I tell you what, I used to like Generations a lot more, but as time has worn on, I really hate the cheap production values, lousy lighting, rushed script feeling, below average music, questionable directing, and quirky marketing ploy (2 captains). Additionally, the “death” of the Enterprise D and Kirk should have felt so much worse than they did. Kirk’s death was cheap-an awful way for the best captain ever, to die. I felt absolutely nothing for the “D” as she crashed. I cried when the original Enterprise was destroyed. Looking back, Generations is just a gawd-awful movie that showed how little TPTB knew/cared for the original franchise, at that point. 2 Captains on horses, another cheap ploy to capitalize on Shatner’s presence in the movie. I could keep going, but I won’t.

238. starshipconstellation - May 10, 2010

#48 fax accurately sums up my feelings for Trek ’09. Beyond that, I expected a lot more from this movie and it did not deliver. It was billed as being “not your father’s Star Trek” but it actually was “my father’s Star Trek” because it trotted out one more time the worst cliches of my beloved original timeline which is the revenge seeking villain looking to destroy Earth and time travel. I was worn out with this from the original Trek, why would I want to see this in nuTrek? There was so much in the story that made me cringe as both a Trek fan and as someone who tried to give nu Trek a chance.

For what little I saw that was positive, I’ll say this. It’s not the actors’ fault. They did very well with a seriously flawed script. Karl Urban and Bruce Greenwood being the best of the lot.

I saw this movie once in the theatre and left quite depressed. My fiancee bought the DVD and I’ve seen it twice more since then. Some of my friends and family who are Trek fans do not understand why I loathe Trek ’09 so much.

If you loved the movie, fine. Don’t expect all of us too.

239. Admiral_BlackCat - May 10, 2010

Ben Cross was excellent as Sarek. He nailed the character and pulled off the “Vulcan in love with a human” convincingly. Bruce Greenwood gets alot of deserved recognition as Pike, but lets not forget how great Ben Cross was in his role!!

240. Michael Hall - May 10, 2010

After frequenting this site for tidbits nearly every day after the film was greenlit and standing in line for its very first showing in San Marcos, CA, I wound up leaving the theatre in a near-stupor of disappointment. In a year that had some pretty significant personal and professional setbacks for me, Trek ’09 was in a class all by itself. I could live with the questionable production design elements, the mis-allocated resources in a huge budget (wouldn’t the money spent on those shots of the ship under construction used only in the freaking trailer have been better used to build a proper engine room set, or even a digital set extension?); radical reinterpretations of the characters that left many of them barely recognizable; the standard schlock villain-out-for-revenge plotting; coincidence piled on top of coincidence; one implausible contrivance after another. As many have pointed out, few of the episodes, and certainly none of the previous films, have been anything close to perfect. But I couldn’t live with all of it, any more than I could live with the contempt for the audience and pandering to the lowest common denominator that, in the end, was the real glue that held this entire mess together.

Yes, the film has its moments, as I was able to see on my second viewing in IMAX when I could put aside my own disappointment and look at the thing more objectively. It’s fast-paced, fun (I suppose), and superficially exciting–a decent summer popcorn outing. But it’s lousy Star Trek, bad science fiction, and worse drama. What a waste–of time, money, resources, and dreams.

241. starshipconstellation - May 10, 2010

239. You’re right. I had forgotten Ben Cross and wore the mantle of Sarek quite well.

242. Harry Ballz - May 10, 2010

I thought Cross should have shown a hint of smouldering rage under a facade of unemotional logic when his wife was killed on the transporter pad. Mark Lenard was a master at doing that! Remember when he first arrived at Kirk’s apartment in ST:TSFS?

243. JimJ - May 10, 2010

#238 & #240-I really wish I could see your points of view. As a person born the same year that Star Trek premiered on TV, I have followed the original series from the first moment my eyes gazed at a TV. I just can’t see the disappointing things you see. I see my heroes back in action and alive!!!!! I saw great production values (except the brewery engineering, which I have already grumbled about on numerous occasions) and a lot of care for the franchise, for the first time since TNG production crews took over the movie franchise.

I am glad Star Trek is alive again, it’s just too bad that not all of you are along for the ride. It truly makes me feel badly.

#239-True, I thought Ben Cross was great, too. Actually, the only person I wasn’t too impressed with was Spock’s Mom. Oh well, she wasn’t bad, just didn’t impress me as much.

244. SChaos1701 - May 10, 2010

doubting_thomas and Gary need to shut up and stop trolling.

245. Rev. Jeremy Duncan - May 10, 2010

It was a decent re-boot. Probably better than, or at least as good as all the movie with the original cast. The really sad thing about this film is that it marks the point of no return for The Next Generation cast. Let’s face it, TNG was easily the best of the Star Trek series. I think they still had a movie or two left in them, even if Nemesis bombed.

246. Yanks - May 10, 2010

Anthony’s review is pretty much in line with mine. Both right after I watched STXI for the first time and now. I hold FC in a little higher regard than he, but all his comments are right on the money. I’m looking forward to the next installment with our new actors (the unparalleled success of this movie) and hope they take the time to include a great “Star Trek story” in this one. (go easy on the lens flares JJ!!)

247. startrekker - May 10, 2010

I’m also looking forward to the next installment it was such a great film like Kirk said buckle up and enjoy this rollercoaster ride of a movie it’s great that Trek has been reinvented for everybody guess some people don’t feel the same way and optimistic about the film not that I am one of the detractors. LLAP JJ Abrams Trek movies.

248. Gary - May 10, 2010

244. SChaos1701 – May 10, 2010
doubting_thomas and Gary need to shut up and stop trolling.

Another one who overreacts. I make two perfectly legitimate posts out of 247 posts. But I am trolling. Yeah, right.

249. startrekker - May 10, 2010

starshipconstellation I see you disliked newtrek but I disagree this movie is set in an alternate universe so things that bugged you is about that is that the reason why so many detractors despise NuTrek anyway ah well at least I loved the movie just everything worked for me I wasn’t bothered by some of the poor stuff in the film who cares?

250. dmduncan - May 10, 2010

245: “Let’s face it, TNG was easily the best of the Star Trek series.”

LOL. TOS is the ONLY series Star Trek produced that is worth my time to watch.

251. davidL - May 10, 2010

#25 harry you are right about generations and first contact I had never throught of those points

252. fax_ - May 10, 2010

@238. starshipconstellation
Thanks, and I agree that Karl Urban came off quite positively. I think Bruce Greenwood’s Pike failed to offer the same ‘veil of coldness’ that the original Pike did, but I don’t think in this case that is a core criticism.

@243. JimJ
The problem we have is that we place more importance in what we perceive (an admittedly personal preference) as the philosophy of Star Trek, as opposed to simply the universe. As per my post in #48, just having the names ‘Kirk, Enterprise, Starfleet’ does not guarantee perfect equivalence. The rest is just a disagreement in what (about Trek) was important to the series. The point is you *won’t* be able to be disappointed in the same things (and that’s ok, and understandable), but you should be able to see that certain things have changed, and that some people valued ‘that which was lost’ in the transition.

@231. P Technobabble
I think almost everything you said here is true, but as has been discussed before (#88, #91, #93 are relevent) and in my response to to JimJ above, this isn’t really a defense against people not liking the film (although I know the post wasn’t meant to suggest that disliking the film was ‘wrong’ -I don’t mean to imply this!- I think it a key point that ought to be made clear to those who find it very difficult to appreciate/understand the feelings of those who do). ‘Certainly, as long as there is a Capt. Kirk, a starship Enterprise, and so forth, there will be a Star Trek’ – The main statement that bothers me, given my arguments in #48 about why the new Star Trek does not fit my definition of Star Trek & my other comments above.

Having said all these things, I do join in the chorus of people here who ‘look forward’ (perhaps not in exactly the same sense) to the next movie. I know our minority voices are not really important to the new film writers, but I remain open to the next film. After all: there is always hope. Old Star Trek said as much.

253. Harry Ballz - May 10, 2010

251

Thank you, David. Most kind of you to acknowledge my post.

254. Gary Neumann - May 10, 2010

So.. “gary” what was your ideal STAR TREK ZERO MOVIE then?

255. captain_neill - May 10, 2010

Its a good movie but it is far from the best

256. Michael Hall - May 10, 2010

“I am glad Star Trek is alive again, it’s just too bad that not all of you are along for the ride. It truly makes me feel badly.”

Well, my advice would have to be not to feel badly about it, JimJ. Just to be clear: I’m not trying to talk you out of your enjoyment of the Abrams film, any more than I would want to convert a devout Catholic to my agnosticism. If you really enjoyed Trek ’09, then more power to you. I envy you, in fact; I only wish that I could have done the same.

257. captain_neill - May 10, 2010

Trek XI is for the mainstream

258. Celeste - May 10, 2010

Should I make a confession? Why not? Star Trek 09 opened up a whole new world to me. Before I saw the movie, I knew a total of 3 things about it:

1. There was a pointy-eared guy named Spock played by Leonard Nimoy
2. The captain was called Kirk and was played by Shatner
3. There was some guy named Sulu.

That was all the exposure to Star Trek I had. No one in my family were ever Trek fans (although my mom says she watched it once in awhile), and no one was interested in watching it on TV so I never developed an interest.

This new movie got me curious. I thought, “wow, I’d like to see that but I know nothing about it”. Until some friends of mine had seen it, raved about it, and said you didnt have to know anything about it to understand it. THEN, I happened to catch this documentary on the History Channel about Star Trek the next day and I was intrigued even more. I was like “I must see this movie!” And I did, and adored it. I kept seeing it and seeing it all summer.

Now after about the 3rd time I saw it, I wanted to know more, I wanted to learn more about these characters, get familiar with them. So I went to the library and started checking out DVDs of TOS, and the other movies, and reading Trek novels. I spent the summer basically taking a crash course in Star Trek. And the more I saw and read, the more I loved it. I couldnt get enough of it. In fact, after seeing my first few episodes I had…an epiphany, I guess. I sat there watching it and was like “WHY did no one tell me this was so good????” Spock & McCoy have ended up being my favorites, and as of last month, I met my goal of watching all the TOS episodes, all the animated episodes, and the first 6 movies, thanks to the library and YouTube.

So if nothing else, Star Trek 09 definitely had an impact on me, to say the least. ;)

259. Michael Hall - May 10, 2010

The “mainstream”–whatever that is–deserved better.

260. Boborci - May 10, 2010

258.

Thanks!!!

261. Kev-1 - May 10, 2010

I had many problems with this film, but anybody whose favorite part of Trek is/was the intelligent working relationship/ friendship between Kirk and Spock (without fist fights) probably would have the same. Didn’t like codified Vulcan bigotry, either– the Vulcan elder criticizes Spock from the dais– what happened to Surak’s tolerance? Cadet ? to Captain seems contrived. But I know they were going for a new demographic with this one. Plus changes from Roddenberry’s original might be financially advantageous for the studio. One thing I loved was Karl Urban. Good job!

262. fax_ - May 10, 2010

@258. Celeste
Actually that’s a really encouraging story, and I think it is wonderful if the new movie is acting as a first stepping stone for new fans, to the richer backlog of Trek. Out of curiosity, how did you feel after watching the old series/movies – relative to the new movie? It’s a lot to watch and absorb in such a short period of time.

I hope you go on to explore TNG, and then the TNG movies which were (as I see them) equally fantastic. VOY and DS9 are interesting, but by now you must already have a feel for the significance and legacy of the Enterprise and its mission, and TNG is the logical next step.

263. Michael Hall - May 10, 2010

Agreed. Whatever my personal feelings for Trek ’09, if it got some people to go back and check out the backlog of occasionally better (and, in a few cases, far better) material, that is certainly a good thing. :-)

264. fax_ - May 10, 2010

@258. Celeste (cc: 263. Michael Hall)
Just to add to what Michael said, I’ve always thought that Star Trek should be viewed as a collective piece of work. TOS, TAS+TMP was a story of ‘the lives’ of a family from early days to old age and death (similarly TNG as a collective work). I don’t believe TMP would be half as meaningful if it wasn’t for the feeling that we had followed this band of brothers through life and death from the very beginning, watched them grown old along with ourselves, and seen (in the context of their lives, as opposed to one or two movies/episodes) what it meant to be these character or what conflicting feelings they may be having. The ethics and morals, mistaken and well judged, were forged through their repitition, re-application, diffusion and evolution through the series, in a way that one episode cannot reassure you (i mean, from ‘encounter at farpoint’ alone, who could really place much confidence in the commitment of each character to the ethics/morals they displayed).

The new movie doesn’t require any of the above, and doesn’t reflect it (as far as I can perceive: which is what is the big, but unavoidable shame given the return to origins) – but hopefully after watching TOS, TAS, TMP, TNG &c. you will be able to appreciate everything else in a way you could not before (which is kind of why I asked my question in #262)

..anyway I should really stop posting, but it’s just one of those things I feel so passionately about.

265. CarlG - May 10, 2010

@258: Now that is an awesome post. Welcome aboard, Celeste! :D

266. fax_ - May 10, 2010

darn, didn’t want to double-post, but when I said ‘return to origins’, I mean the ‘time-altered’ origins. Plus there’s the chronological direction factor to consider. I really will try shut up now.

267. U.S.S. Manila NCC-99232 - May 10, 2010

1st year of “The Future Begins” of Star Trek. Star Trek may not be that popular in the Philippines but Star Trek will always teach us to dream big and to boldly go where no one has gone before…

268. P Technobabble - May 10, 2010

264. fax
It’s understandable to be passionate about Star Trek. Somehow, it gets under your skin.
I’m not directing this at you, personally, but for every person I hear say something like, “Star Trek was a disappointment,” I feel that it was a wonderful film. Every time I hear someone say, “It had a bad story/script/directing,” I feel the exact opposite. Every time I hear someone complain about the engine room, I feel that this did nothing to spoil my enjoyment of the film. You get the picture…
I’m willing to say my feelings are JUST my feelings… which were, of course, shared by everyone else who enjoyed the film. Those who didn’t like the film, well, that is JUST their feelings. No one is right or wrong… but that seems like such a difficult concept for some people to get around. It is, therefore, difficult to understand why so much bickering goes on. But it is that “passion” thing, which is our “undoing,” as Spock would say.
As I have stated before, Star Trek today is different than Star Trek of the past, and tomorrow’s Star Trek will be different than the Star Trek of today. It is my contention that many “complainers” are unable to like today’s Star Trek simply because they don’t like change, they are too rigid, without flexibility, they refuse to let go of the past. But EVERYTHING changes, including all these forms of entertainment. We’ve been around long enough to see Superman, Batman, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Dr. Who, and so on ALL change. Star Trek won’t be an exception either.
I don’t mind people saying, “I didn’t like the movie.” But my passion nudges me to feel annoyed when people outright insult the film, calling it lousy and so forth. Such comments tend to have an underlying judgement that says, “This movie is such a piece of crap, how could anyone be so stupid as to like it?” That’s how I see it…

269. Michael Hall - May 10, 2010

“Such comments tend to have an underlying judgement that says, “This movie is such a piece of crap, how could anyone be so stupid as to like it?” That’s how I see it…”

Well, I can understand your feelings there. If I say the film is lousy, seen from a certain perspective that’s an implied criticism of your taste in movies if you think otherwise. But of course, the only items under discussion in my posting were the film itself and my reaction to it. You simply don’t figure into that at all.

And speaking entirely for mysef, the ‘resistance to change’ issue is just a red herring. I’m not a canonista, was very open to the idea of recasting the characters (and actually felt they did a pretty good job in that respect), and fully understood that a 21st century take on TOS, even as a (soft of) prequel, would necessarily reflect a new take not only on tech design but all of the other myriad changes that have taken place since the ’60s in the way stories are dramatized on screen. Bottom line: I wanted this Star Trek to be more intelligent, more relevant and nuanced and scientifically accurate than what a low-budget TV space opera was able to manage almost two generations ago. And that a 150 million dollar epic, produced with the cream of Hollywood talent, was unable to do this was in my view simply inexcusable.

270. Harry Ballz - May 10, 2010

Yes, but how do you put a value on the FUN factor they brought to it? I’ve been with Star Trek since 1966 and was blown away at how JJ and crew brought the fun back to Trek! That is a very hard dynamic to replicate, as compared to “my chicken sandwich and coffee”!

271. JimJ - May 10, 2010

#270-Amen! I think there is LOTS there rgearding relationships between the characters, and those relationships will grow. Remember, they just met each other, they aren’t old buddies or long time co-workers. the fun is there and quite frankly, needed to be. Even some of the stuff I don’t like…needed to be there. If you don’t make Star Trek exciting/fun and make it completely intellectual, the crowds will not come. Take Star trek 4, for example. That is an unfortunate fact of life and one that needed to be seen by the former powers that be (or were). JJ and Co. see the bigger picture, so they kept important elements but added 21st century flavor booster to it. Now it looks and tastes good, too, IMO! lol

272. Porthos Archer - May 10, 2010

This isnt Star Trek…. Scotty Violated the time line when he beamed me off Captain Archers ship!

273. doubting_thomas - May 10, 2010

205: respect is earned. if your idea of respect is for other people to stop disagreeing with you, you’re going to have a difficult time in this world. and if you’re going to infringe on free speech by playing the hurt feelings card, you’re going to have some difficult legal battles as well.

274. Boborci - May 10, 2010

273

Porthos lived!

275. Harry Ballz - May 10, 2010

273

Yeah, like THAT is going to work! What a moron!

274

So much for the phrase, “dog gone it!”

276. Harry Ballz - May 10, 2010

Bob

how far along on the script?

277. dmduncan - May 10, 2010

So I find myself in the kitchen staring out the window…well, not so much OUT the window as AT the window…with the TV going blah blah blah, when on comes Dancing With The Stars.

No, I am not a fan. Yes, it was fun to watch.

Derek, the professional dancer, is partnered with Nicole Sherzinger, the amateur who’s not too amateurish.

Derek looks like Chris Pine’s little brother. Nicole looks like Zoe Saldana’s sister. Like Zoe Saldana’s HOT sister. And eventually they get to do this Paso Doble, and I can’t help but thinking that their particular interpretation of that dance, a bizarre combination of 1950’s teenage fun and Spanish martial snap and pop, was a sort of spiritual representation in motion of how I thought the Kirk/Uhura relationship should be.

Just another weird insight courtesy of me.

Catch it if you can, Bob. The Paso Doble from Derek and Nicole. It’s later in the show.

http://abc.go.com/watch/dancing-with-the-stars/93512/259960/week-seven

278. dmduncan - May 10, 2010

258: “So if nothing else, Star Trek 09 definitely had an impact on me, to say the least. ;)”

Why I believe that calls for a video of Bob Orci standing on the hangar deck of the USS Enterprise and announcing: “Mission accomplished.”

I believe your reaction is what many of us had hoped for. Star Trek is too good to keep secret.

279. dmduncan - May 10, 2010

274: Boborci: “Porthos lived!”

Whuh? Is that…am I reading that correctly? Looks like Bob is giving us a hint on the sequel. Porthos reappears!

280. S. John Ross - May 10, 2010

“Franchise fatigue” was always a cheap, pass-the-buck excuse. Berman’s cohorts should have been honest with him and quoted Shakespeare: “The fault, dear Berman, lies not in our Star Trek, but in ourselves.”

281. AJ - May 10, 2010

274:

Bob:

Please display said canine in a transporter room with, like Anton Yelchin or something saying “Yo Mayo!” so we can start to believe it. Alan Dean Foster doesn’t count!

BTW, I hope you’re aware that “Yo Mayo” is quite crude’n’dirty Russian!

282. Chadwick - May 10, 2010

Wow a year already, two more years will fly by. I can’t wait for the next wave of juicy spoilers! No I don’t. Yes I do. No I don’t. Damn it.

283. fansince66 - May 11, 2010

#258 Great story!
Kinda makes me feel “Yeah, TNG/DS9/Voy/Enterprise was just a sidetrack while us TOSers were waiting for the REAL next generation of actors/writers/producers to make the Kirk/Spock/Bones (& now Pike) magic happen again. Everything old is new again. Us oldtimers really like that.

284. philpot - May 11, 2010

Porthos got re-petted a few times then

285. P Technobabble - May 11, 2010

269. Michael

“…Bottom line: I wanted this Star Trek to be more intelligent, more relevant and nuanced and scientifically accurate than what a low-budget TV space opera was able to manage almost two generations ago…”

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Your above statement is, however, the sort of statement that I must comment on. What, specifically, was unintelligent about the movie? I thought it was an intelligent and clever film, and really can’t determine what might have been unintelligent. After numerous viewings, I find I am in agreement with those people who said Nero didn’t come off very well as a villain, but everything else about the film made perfect sense to me.
As for being relevant, the film was made to have a specific purpose — to re-introduce Star Trek. I thought, in that sense, it was as relevant as, say, “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” If you were looking for more of a message, as in TVH, I think we can expect something like that in the sequel. And as for nuanced… I’m just not sure what you mean. Everything about the film hearkened back to TOS, all of its inspiration came from that low-budget tv space opera… what sort of nuances are you referring to?
And as for being scientifically accurate, in what way was it not? Orci has stated the science in the film is based upon the most current theories regarding quantum physics, multi-verses and alternate universes. Based on some of the stuff I’ve been reading, I am in complete agreement. Much of what I’ve been reading is so utterly mind-boggling, it makes you aware of the possibility that EVERY possibility is “permissible.” And as current as such philosophy is, it is all still theory anyway. It has yet to be proven in the way science, itself, demands. Therefore, I think Bob Orci is safe with his scientific proposals. I’m sure we could go further, getting into more and more detail, which is fine. But, as I said before, I think if such analysis makes it impossible to simply have a good time, then that process of analysis should be questioned. Just my 2c.

286. Hugh Hoyland - May 11, 2010

Im entertaining myself and hopfully soon others with my Star Trek novella Star Treak :Invasion (may end up at first just being a treatment). Im not waiting until 2012 to get my Star Trek fix in, I understand ST 09 is fun to watch, and can be watched over and over without it getting that washed out look. But thats not enough for me, and I dont want to guess at what will be in the next movie, Its under wraps and Im sure Bob knows what he and Alex are doing as far as writting the script goes. Im excited to see what they come up with, I bet it will be cool :}

Hugh

287. Hugh Hoyland - May 11, 2010

and as a total side note over the weekend I purchased a move written and directed by Guillermo del Toro titled “Pan’s Labyrinth”. What a fantastic movie, really “got to me” and made me a little emotional at points. Now I see why Jackson pegged him to Co-write and Direct “The Hobbit”. I wouldnt be averse (although it cant happen) del Toro directing a Star Trek movie if JJ cant or Steven either, IMO hes that good.

Hugh

288. Celeste - May 11, 2010

Well, well, I feel loved! Or at the very least, encouraged :) Since ‘entering this world of Trek’ I have seen some of the other series as well. I’ve seen a little of DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise. I’ve seen quite a bit of TNG, mainly cuz it’s so available. Its on 3 different channels where I live. I like TNG quite a bit (Data & Picard being my favs there) but for me none of the others can quite touch TOS.

@262- It WAS a lot to take in. But I have a voracious appetite when it comes to discovering something new (or at least, new to me) like that. I couldnt stop thinking about it. I was filled with this need to know everything, as fast as possible. So I couldnt help it, even if I wanted to.

As for how I feel about the new movie, compared to the original cast? I’ve thought about this before, mainly in regards to Spock, and honestly I have a hard time placing one over the other. I find them both so amazing, yet they are so different, so its hard for me to compare. It’s also difficult for me because one cast had 25 years worth of time (right? 1966-1991?) to play these characters and the other has been in just one movie. I dont feel its totally fair of me to judge one against the other in that respect. I see them as opposite sides of the same coin. I enjoy them both immensely. In fact, getting familiar with TOS made me love the new movie even more. Maybe I should get off the fence and pick a side, but I really cant choose one over the other.

289. captain_neill - May 11, 2010

I agree that it should hae been made clearer in the film that this is a parallel universe.

Its because it is a parallel universe that I don’t treat this film as canon. But even though I don’t treat it as canon I do like it on its own.

290. Finding Nimoy - May 11, 2010

@ doubting_thomas

Let it go. I’m sorry that your religion has been questioned by people other than yourself. You are just as closed-minded as the type of person that Trek has always railed against. Sometimes, a place where social commentary exists, such as Trek needs to take a break from the preaching. In case you didn’t know, the 60s are over; there is no cold war, the space race is taking a break with the retirement of the Shuttle and the Civil Rights movement is not what it used to be, Just because Trek no longer speaks to you or your generation (unless you’re a 30 year old acting like a dejected Boomer) does not mean you have to bully people on this forum because generations other than your own have been deemed relevant by the producers of Trek 2009. There is still plenty of Trek in the form of books, DVD/Blu Ray in the form what you feel has been created in your image.

“I’d give real money if he’d shut-up”:

291. The Disinvited - May 11, 2010

#274.

Bob, as much as that news brings joy to us lovers of that fictional dog, I think that it probably warranted a *SPOILER* notice.

But thanks for giving us something to chew on as to how Porthos’ rematerialization and/or Scotty’s tracking him down might fit into, or be key driving elements of, the next plot.

BTW has Hawking’s recent observations on the true nature of time travel caused any epiphanies or opened any doors in your narrative that you thought were sealed as tight as one Lazarus’ grip on the other’s neck?

292. startrekker - May 11, 2010

I think they should have made it clear that we are dealing with a alterations in the universe from what came before so this is a new story and as such the characters are in situations none of the original actors ever found themselves that’s what Bob Orci said on the Casting featurette on the dvd and also they made it also clear in the movie Uhura said an alternate reality didn’t she

293. startrekker - May 11, 2010

@finding Nimoy well said I agree

294. Anthony Thompson - May 11, 2010

273.

AP: doubting thomas should be beamed into space where he’ll never be heard from again. Oh, and beam his “lawyers” too! : D

276.

Harry: You, I and others have asked him that at least 10 times now. Bob hasn’t spilled the beans and he won’t. He’s already agreed with me that the “curtain of secrecy” has been lowered.

295. moauvian waoul - May 11, 2010

I read both sides of the debate and think both have merit. I think a few more lines of dialogue would have gone a long way and the villian could have been done better and the Enterprise wasn’t my favorite but alot had to be done in two hours and I think it was. I think the characters were the hardest thing to get right and I thought they did a good job. But I don’t think it’s the TOS fans that have most of the issues with this movie, I think it’s the younger TNG fans. Us older fans we’re happy to have the old crew and fun back. Some of the canon violations seemed unnecessary, I agree, but it has happened before and less relevent, light-hearted stories have also been a part of Trek since it’s inception. So lighten up.

296. Alec - May 11, 2010

183. Randall – May 9, 2010
‘Along with the music, which was excellent–someone earlier knocked it, which I find unbelievable–the music was superbly done’

I criticized the music, earlier. I’ll respond to you, even if you weren’t responding to me. Now, I do like the music. I just think that it could have been better; and that it wasn’t as good as what we are very fortunate to be used to with Star Trek. I feel that whereas Horner, for example, told the complete story of the film with his soundtracks, the music in Trek 11 was too repetitive, too generic, and too restrictive. Let me explain.

The music in Trek 11 was too repetitive because it, essentially, had one main theme: Enterprising Young Men, which heralded any major action set-piece. Or, at least, that’s how my ears remember it; so, perhaps, any memorable, major action set-piece. This theme was good, of course; but that it played so often shows a lack of range of the soundtrack.

The music in Trek 11 was too generic because it didn’t feel like a Star Trek soundtrack; rather, it felt like a soundtrack any non-descript action blockbuster might use. Apart from a few chimes of the TOS theme, it lacked identity. As I have said, ‘Star Wars’ music sounds like ‘Star Wars music’: hear a few chimes of it and it’s instantly recognizable. This is because it uses several key themes: the Force Theme; Vader’s Theme; Yoda’s Theme; etc. Star Trek used to have this kind of association: we had the TOS Theme; The TMP Theme; The Klingon Theme; etc. I hope that the sequel will return to these themes and build on them. Identity is key. You know you’re watching a Bond film, or a LOTR film, or a Hitchcock film just from the music.

The music in Trek 11 was too restrictive because the composer chose to (or had the choice imposed on him) to really just focus on key moments, such as the death of Kirk Snr. The other themes were then just used to fill out the film. In contrast, Horner tells every scene of TWOK with music. When Khan appears, the Horns thunder. When Kirk appears, ‘Kirk’s Theme’ hums out. When Kirk dares Khan, the chimes of a clock sound. When Engineering is sent into action, the music builds up in tempo in the finest Naval traditions. When the E leaves dry-dock, it almost sounds as if the sails of a great ocean destroyer are unfurling; and that the ship is leaving port of the great expanse of space: beautiful, poetic, and rich. Every choice, ever action, every movement is told by Horner in sound.

The point of the above is not to criticize, too heavily, the music in Trek 11; as I’ve said, I like it.

But I’m a Trekkie who seeks perfection. And this, I think, is something that can be improved, to the benefit of all who watch (and indeed listen) to the sequels.

297. Red Skirt - May 11, 2010

#268. P Technobabble –
“my passion nudges me to feel annoyed when people outright insult the film, calling it lousy and so forth. Such comments tend to have an underlying judgement that says, “This movie is such a piece of crap, how could anyone be so stupid as to like it?” That’s how I see it”

There’s no question that you are not short on passion. And your responses are often measured and well thought out. But, you also have plenty of bias. Try to see the other side as well:

When someone raves about this film, suggesting it is perfect and without faults (and worse yet insisting any faults may be overlooked because of its brilliance), there is an equal judgement that may be inferred which says, “This movie is fantastic, how could anyone be so stupid as to not like it?”

See it anyway you like, but others do as well. You want to read into someone’s opinion about the film, fine, but be prepared to have them read into yours and others. What I see mostly on these forums are opinions, not stated explicitly as such, but few outright call other people idiots for their opinions in expressing their own.

Nevertheless, it is everyone’s right to their own opinion which is routinely debated here, often on a very personal and juvenile level.

I have yet to see an empirical argument proving the perfection, nor inferiority of this film. Until such time, folks are free to like or dislike it based on their own personal preferences and express themselves accordingly. You can no more influence someone that this film is great, than insisting red-heads are the most attractive people.

298. Harry Ballz - May 11, 2010

So, Porthos lives?

Too bad they gave the dog that name, otherwise the next film could be called…….wait for it……………….

Star Trek: The Search For Spot

299. Anthony Pascale - May 11, 2010

Harry Ballz
warning for flaming

300. Anthony Pascale - May 11, 2010

Doubting_thomas

Let me be clear. Respect on this site is a given. There are many many people on this site with differing opinions, as noted above. The rules do not apply to what your opinion is, but how you treat other commenters. Like any other site, we have rules. Commenting here is a privilege not a right. You consistently break the rules, you will be banned.

The first amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This site is not ‘congress’ nor a part of the government. Just like any commercial enterprise, we have the right to choose what we make available to be seen on our site which is hosted on our servers. I am not stopping you from standing on the street and calling people names. That is your right. But you don’t have the right to do that on my site.

And your lawyer (after laughing heartily) will tell you the same when you ask to sue a site for not letting you post insults to its readership.

301. Harry Ballz - May 11, 2010

Anthony

I only called him a name to illustrate the point you just so eloquently stated. Sorry for trying to defend you.

302. British Naval Dude - May 11, 2010

I dunna’ think Harry be “flaming” or “trolling”… does that he mean he be at a “men’s” bar lookin’ fur’ Leonardo Nimoy look-a-likes? Duzn’y sound like him…

Oh, I kidz cuz I luvz…

No matter. Lord Anthony, this be yer’ site ye’ gave us, and I’ll say it again:

Starry Trek 09 iz’ a fun film I enjoyed; enjoyed as much as I did tha’ time I spent on Trekmovie.com leadin’ up ta’ tha’ film.

Thanks fur’ tha’ site, Lord Anthony.

May tha’ force be wit’ … Uh, sorry… wrong franchise… uhhhh… Give long and prosper?

Now, Harry, whar’ be that twenty bucks ye’ promised me?

Oh, I kidz… I’ll settle fur’ twenty shots…

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…

303. P Technobabble - May 11, 2010

297. Red

Hey Red, where ya been? Haven’t seen you for a while.
I admit I’m biased, but I do get your point completely. It’s a two-sided coin, and neither side ever sees the other. Each side co-exists together while looking in opposite directions.
I also realize it’s often difficult to not read into people’s comments, seeing what might be implied, could be implied, or even imagined to be implied. I think that is one of the greatest drawbacks of the written forum because you can’t see the other person’s face. You might read something I say and feel your blood boil, but if we were sitting around a table and you saw my great big grin, you’d know I was really harmless… y’see?
I do realize that if someone dislikes the film (we could talk about any film, tv show, musician, etc.) my argument — or anyone’s argument — is not going to change anyone else’s mind. I honestly don’t mind a debate, even a heated one, if it’s thoughtful and considered. I do object when people say things like, “The movie was terrible, the writing was lousy, the story made no sense,” or other such things. How about: “I didn’t like the movie BECAUSE….?” It’s not easy to be creative, but it’s terribly easy to be a critic.
I have certainly read some very decent, and interesting critiques here, and I might argue with them, but I respect them. Other so-called criticisms annoy the bejesus outta me — I confess, I don’t have much patience for juvenile behavior, but that’s my problem. And you are also correct that I do not always say things in a way that conveys whether or not I see the other side of the coin.
In the end — as great a Star Trek fan as I am — it is just a movie, and I really have nothing invested in it, apart from my time and enjoyment. Sure, I think it was a terrific movie, but I don’t really lose any sleep because some others don’t like it. I don’t intend to dismiss your — or anyone else’s — criticisms of the film, but I don’t mind having a good-natured argument either. So, please, I hope you — or anyone else — will not take me too seriously, I’m really just a clown with a big mouth.

304. startrekker - May 11, 2010

oh for goodness sake stop being fussy they made a Trek film to cater for everybody not just Trek fans isn’t that not a good thing

305. doubting_thomas - May 11, 2010

304:

that’s not what they did. they made it specifically to appeal to people who dislike star trek.

306. Alec - May 11, 2010

258. Celeste – May 10, 2010

It’s great to hear that the new film is expanding the fan base. It’s even better to hear that the new film is prompting some of these new fans to have a look at prior Trek.

Incidentally, Celeste, it sounds like you’ve only seen TOS (and those films) so far. Lot’s of fans say that TOS is their favourite. Personally, I think that the TOS films are the best; however, I think that TNG is the best TV show. TNG has much to recommend it. Patrick Stewart, Capt. Picard, insisted that the stories had to be intelligent, entertaining, and in the true spirit of Gene Roddenberry. The ship has many new innovations. The characters are good, especially the android Data, who’s redolent of Spock, except that his quest is to become Human. If I were you, I would check TNG out.

TNG Classics:

Encounter at Farpoint (the first episode. It sets up the new crew, ship, and adventures very well. Watch this one first; then watch the series and episodes in the chronological order, imo.)

Some of my favorites, however, in no particular order:

The Inner Light
The Measure of a Man
Tapestry
The First Duty
Yesterday’s Enterprise
The Best of Both Worlds
Chain of Command
The Defector
Frame of Mind
Cause and Effect
Darmok
All Good Things (The Final two-part episode)

All of these will be readily accessible. I hope that you have a look.

307. doubting_thomas - May 11, 2010

290: i’m 22, thank you very much. i am precisely in the age range the movie targetted. the problem is i’m far out of the IQ range they targetted. you’re reading from a script given to you by the smear campaign launched against star trek fans. they want you to see a black and white world, where young people want flashy, fast, and vacuous movies, and only sad old men want quality.

300: again, if you’re going to call honest criticism “insults” just because you don’t agree, you will have problems.

by the way, i don’t live in the united states, i’m not concerned with it’s silly documents.

308. dmduncan - May 11, 2010

305: “by the way, i don’t live in the united states, i’m not concerned with it’s silly documents.”

Good. We have enough arrogant loons ruining things here already.

309. dmduncan - May 11, 2010

@288: Welcome to Star Trek, Celeste. We are not all fans of the entire franchise. I’m personally more of a fan of TOS (The Original Series) than of Star Trek — which is WHY I also loved ST.09. If you haven’t watched Firefly, that’s another great SF series that ended far too soon, and it’s the best kept secret after TOS.

310. Rocket Scientist - May 11, 2010

307. High IQ? No real proof of that other than an idle boast. Arrogance and immaturity is unquestioned. Way too much evidence of that to ignore. Ability to interact in a civilized manner? Not demonstrated.

“We’re laughing at the superior intellect.”

311. Celeste - May 11, 2010

@306- As I said in my 2nd post (#288) I have seen some of the other series as well. :) I’ve seen a lot of TNG, mainly because it seems to be on all the time where I live, so its easily accessible. Incidentally I started watching it last summer, a few weeks after I started getting into TOS. I figured, “well, its on, why not go all in? I’ll watch this one too and see how it is. I mean, I already like Patrick Stewart” So I was kinda getting familiar with both of those at the same time.

I’ve thought about watching the TNG movies, but First Contact and Generations are the only ones I really hear anything about. i’m not really sure what category Generations fits in as I understand its a crossover of sorts, where Kirk dies. I hear First Contact is really good and Generations is…not. I so guess I’d want to know which are the good ones to watch. Or should I just watch them all in order?

I’ve also seen some of Voyager, and a little of DS9 and Enterprise. While I do happen to like TNG the best out of the subsequent series, I still like TOS best, probably because I like the characters and their relationships in it the best.

I’ve seen some of the ones you’ve mentioned. Inner Light I just saw 2 months ago, and it was one I’d been wanting to see, ever since I first saw that History Channel Star Trek doc. The one I call the “Picard/flute” episode. Darmok also sticks out in my mind. It was an interesting concept. I remember seeing “Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra” somewhere and being proud that I got the reference. I really like Cause & Effect. I wondered how they were going to stop time from repeating itself, and it was cool to watch them figure it out.

I’m now in the process of trying to see more of the other Trek shows, and that’s probably what I’ll spend THIS summer doing. I’ve gotten a few DVDs of them from the library when I’ve been able.

312. startrekker - May 11, 2010

shut up doubting thomas are you the Trek expert I think they know what sells and what people look for in a movie and at last a Trek film that caters to a wider audience not just Trek fans so there you go I’m fed up with you bashing other people’s thoughts so get lost please.

313. Enterprisingguy - May 11, 2010

After reading the first couple of days of this thread I decided to re-watch the new movie before commenting.

I liked the movie. I didn’t mind the new Enterprise. I didn’t even mind the “brewgineering” set. I knew there would be some changes in cast and sets and was prepared for them too. Those things were to be expected. But what I found to be unacceptable was some pretty sloppy plot points which stick out even further upon repeated viewings. Some have commented about the poor science. The Red Matter hardly is what I would call realistic cutting edge science. And the scene where the Enterprise detonates the warp cores for a shove was the worst. All future science aside…..the only thing that explosion would have done without an atmosphere would have been to maybe fried the crew with radiation. That’s simple physics. Even with a science adviser they got the Titan part wrong. You wouldn’t raise out of the upper atmosphere like your were coming out of a near solid like was shown.

I liked the movie for many things and hope that in the next one they can eliminate some of the easily avoided WTF moments. Like getting to Vulcan in mere minutes only to find that the rest of the fleet that had a 60 second head start was already destroyed!

314. P Technobabble - May 11, 2010

311. Celeste

I have always found the thing that TOS had that subsequent series lacked was heart. This is not at all to say the other series weren’t any good — I liked all of those shows, but for different reasons.
TOS had just the “right” chemistry between the characters, particularly Kirk, Spock and McCoy. And when those original characters moved to the big screen, they carried that heart and chemistry with them. Perhaps it was the real-life friendships between Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley which came through, but there was truly something there.
Now, the TNG cast were also good friends, I understand, but they never looked comfortable, IMO, whereas the TOS cast seemed right at home, like the starship was their living room. The other series — DS9, VOY and ENT — all had good things about them, but I felt they, too, lacked the chemistry of TOS.
As for the TNG films, I think it is unanimous that First Contact was the best, and I think that is because it was a real movie. The other films seemed more like 2-part episodes — although the opening of Generations was pretty good (it included Kirk, Scotty and Chekov).
Can we ever get enough Star Trek, no matter what it is? I don’t think so!

315. Yammer - May 11, 2010

I voted for Best Trek Movie ever.

The WoK is of course terrific but it was a sequel, depending heavily on knowledge of the show and indeed of its cultural relevance for so much of its surprising impact.

This reboot was done with care, wit, humour, spectacle, heart, and a vast number of references and injokes to previous Trek incarnations. How one can miss that it is a gift from Trek nerds to Trek nerds is beyond me.

While I appreciate contrarianism, it is the height of absurdity to call this new movie stupid or merely flashy. It doesn’t telegraph its big themes but they are there, and the fact that for once you don’t have some boring Picard figure stentoriously belabouring the moral is in fact a sign of respect for our intelligence.

As for going for the lowest common denominator, please. Spectre of the Gun. The Way To Eden. Catspaw. THOSE are stupid shows.

316. Hawaiowa - May 11, 2010

The trailer was better than the movie. But overall, it was a pretty good movie, and hopefully the 2012 movie will pull a “Wrath of Khan” and really go over the top as the undisputed ‘best Trek movie ever’. I still remember seeing the premiere of Khan in my local community…one of the few times I heard a movie audience cheer and applaud like they were at a football game (esp. when Kirk pulled the remote-code shield deactivation command on the Reliant when it seemed that all was lost). The most recent movie, there was some tame applause (which I instigated) during a couple scene. One of the most memorable scenes for me was the E emerging from the atmosphere of Titan, truly a great eye-catch. If a movie can deliver one or two memorable scenes, then it’s done well (who could forget the immortal “There be whales” scene from ST IV?).

317. dmduncan - May 11, 2010

315: “and the fact that for once you don’t have some boring Picard figure stentoriously belabouring the moral is in fact a sign of respect for our intelligence.”

Exactly. And even when Shatner did that in TOS he at least made it interesting to watch instead of delivering his lines with that all knowing stupid smile that lazily told you just how OKAY it was all going to be in the future.

TOS was optimistic, but it wasn’t stupidly utopian.

What, did I miss the episode where Picard goes back in time to that moment when they turned on that magic device that suddenly makes everyone just get along?

And what would that machine be, according to the latter-day Gene Roddenberry? A device that disintegrates all religious minded folk leaving behind nothing but like minded reasonable people with nothing to disagree about?

318. Alec - May 11, 2010

311. Celeste – May 11, 2010

You sound like a TOS fan through-and-through. And there’s nothing wrong with that! I would, however, urge you to check out the TNG episodes that I mentioned: I really think that you’ll enjoy them. It’s difficult, though, to advise you when I don’t know what aspects of Trek that you most enjoy. But you did mention the characters and the various different relationships between them. So, perhaps, we can single-out a few episodes:

(no major spoilers)

ENCOUNTER AT FARPOINT – this is the first episode and establishes all the main characters and their relationships. There’s Data, the superior android who would ‘give it all up, to be human’. We have Riker: the young hot-shot who has to prove his worth to the Captain of the Federation Flagship. On this mission, Riker is reunited with his former love, Troi, from whom he parted to pursue his goal of becoming Captain. A recurrent theme in TNG. Then there’s the young wiz-kid, Wesley Crusher, who makes Picard distinctly uncomfortable. It’s not simply that Picard ‘doesn’t like children’; rather, this particular child is the son of his two best friends. One of whom, Dr Crusher, has been assigned aboard the Enterprise against Picard’s wishes: Picard is ashamed that he felt more than friendship for Dr Crusher; and guilt that he was responsible for the death of her husband, his friend. Wesley becomes something a kin to Picard’s adopted son throughout TNG.

FIRST DUTY – In this episode, Wesley, now at Starfleet Academy, is involved in an accident during a manoeuvre of ‘his’ elite flying squad. The squad was practicing a dangerous manoeuvre for the graduation ceremony; but one of the squad was tragically killed in the attempt. There is an investigation. And a painful lesson is learned.

THE MEASURE OF A MAN – In this episode, Data’s very right to existence is put on trial. Cyberneticist Commander Bruce Maddox claims that Data is simply the property of Starfleet and should be deactivated, dissembled, and analysed; so that more Datas can be created. The trial pits Picard, defending Data, against Riker, forced to prosecute Data. There’s a strong moral core to this intelligent episode.

TAPESTRY – Lying near death, as a result of his artificial heart having failed, Q (the very powerful being first seen in ENCOUNTER…appears and offers Picard the chance to live his life again without the need for the artificial heart that had been necessitated by Picard’s being involved in a bar room brawl during his Academy days.

YESTERDAY’S ENTERPRISE – this episode was said to be an inspiration for the Trek 2009 team. Out of a rift in space-time, comes the Enterprise C (a ship believed to have been destroyed decades earlier) and a new reality is created. The Enterprise D is now a warship and at War with the Klingons; and a beloved crew member is somehow brought back to life. Guinan, Whoopi Goldberg, whose species has an uncanny awareness of time, senses that something is wrong and offers Picard a dilemma.

BEST OF BOTH WORLDS – this is the episode that arguably established TNG as a big success. It features the Borg. I shall say no more.

Regarding the TNG films, they’re widely seen as somewhat disappointing: certainly, compared to the TOS ones. You might want to have a look at them, though: you might really like them.

Sorry for what has gone from a post to something more resembling a dissertation! I just hope that I helped….

319. dmduncan - May 11, 2010

@316: You made me think of something. The trailer was great. Particularly the MUSIC. The trailer did create this impression of a young hero (Kirk) coming of age in an emotionally impactful way.

The way the music makes the moment in the trailer where he takes the center seat for the first time stand out as a pivotal event that would change history raised the hair on my arms when I first saw it.

The actual scene in the movie did not do that for me. Kirk just plopped down into the chair without drama.

I think that may in part be why I keep wanting Bob to have Kirk prove he deserves that seat. It would be another opportunity to do that scene over with the emotional impact that the trailer had, and which the character of Kirk deserves.

There should be some moment when Kirk becomes the Great Captain, and everyone now trusts him to be that, and where he takes that seat dramatically, with a great score backing up the moment, a moment which says he is not a cocky frat boy any more. He is The Captain.

320. Michael Hall - May 11, 2010

” It doesn’t telegraph its big themes but they are there, and the fact that for once you don’t have some boring Picard figure stentoriously belabouring the moral is in fact a sign of respect for our intelligence.”

Well, I’ve been wondering mightily since May 2009 just what those “themes” might have been. Character is Destiny? No. . . that speculation is a simple throwaway line in the script, and it’s not playing fair in any case to lend this movie’s narrative weight by presupposing knowledge of the Prime Universe the audience may not have. Kirk’s emotional journey from wastrel to Galactic Golden Boy? No. . . aside from realizing that the “pointed-eared bastard” ain’t such a bad guy after all, he learns nothing of value about himself during the course of the film at all that I can see, ultimately saving the day just by giving in to the same character flaws (e.g. impulsiveness and arrogant bravado) that led him to drive his stepdad’s Corvette over a cliff. Or was the theme, as Leonard Nimoy would have it, that seeking revenge is a hollow, pointless pursuit? I woudn’t disagree, but it’s hard to believe that’s the point of Trek ’09 given the relish with which the Enterprise crew dispatches Nero at the film’s conclusion.

So please do enlighten me as to the film’s themes. . . stentoriously or not.

321. dmduncan - May 11, 2010

BOB: Another thing in relation trailers: Not sure it’s a good idea to make such a good trailer, or at least a trailer that creates expectations that the film will not fulfill. I went in expecting the trailer music to be in the movie itself, and that Kirk’s ascension would have the same feel as it did in the trailer.

As it happened, the film stood on its own just fine and my disappointment at having unmet expectations because of the trailer withered away, but why give anyone cause to byotch?

322. Michael Hall - May 11, 2010

dmduncan: the trailer was also much more powerful in depicting Kirk’s first view of the Enterprise under construction. By comparison, Giaccino’s music hardly seemed to underscore such an iconic moment at all.

323. dmduncan - May 11, 2010

@320: The usage of MWI to tell a modernized Cosmic Rebirth myth conveys a cyclical vision of the universe, while Kirk’s becoming the same man in SPITE of a less than ideal childhood suggests interesting questions about archetypes. In contrast to a similar theme in Nemesis, where one Picard is good and the other one is evil due the different circumstances of their upbringing, ST.09 makes a far less hamfisted but no less present case that the heroic adapts and survives to hardship coming out more or less the same.

And Kirk DID change. Although we never learn without the deleted scenes why young Kirk took the Corvette, we don’t really need that information to see that the qualities which make Kirk a great Captain are already beginning to be channeled away from self satisfying impulses and toward purposes greater than himself.

It is true that he has more growing to do, and I’ve been quite vocal in here about wanting to see him grow in the next movie, but at the same time we can’t use the absence of radical change in Kirk in THIS movie as a criticism when there are more movies to come and more changes (I hope) in store.

NOT forcing Kirk through what I would consider overly dramatic changes in the course of a single movie in which the events are all close together in time actually lends to its credibility. And it creates more lengthy opportunities for change in the next movie. I hope we get to see it happen.

With everything else going on in ST.09, I don’t think it would have been done with justice in the time available.

324. dmduncan - May 11, 2010

@322: Well you know I was disappointed in the music of the movie at first, but it gives me chills when I hear it now. The hair stands up on my arms when I hear that brassy intro as all the company logos are filing past.

What I really like about Giacchino’s score is that it instantly gives me the theme of the movie in a few musical notes. It gives me the feeling of an impending sense of triumph that will follow a more immediate sense of tragedy.

Unlike TNG, ST.09 goes back to its roots, and gets back to reality, i.e., we’ll come out alright in the end, but not without painful things happening that change us along the way. And yes even, some of us may not make it, but we’ll survive, we’ll make it through.

325. dmduncan - May 11, 2010

And I have to say, I think Chris Pine is a really good actor. He’s a worthy successor to William Shatner. He naturally seems to have the Shatner swagger that with a nudge here and there by Bob, Alex, and Director X will turn him effortlessly into the Captain of TOS. And as an actor Pine seems to have an age beyond his years, and I think that’s a sign of his intelligence, which is a quality anyone who plays Kirk must have in abundance. You just can’t believably ACT smart if you are not.

326. Michael Hall - May 11, 2010

Well, if I read your post correctly it seems that you are making the case for “character is destiny.” Even if I agreed, I can’t honestly say I consider that to be much of a heavyweight theme in the first place–certainly weak beer when compared to really great Treks of the past. I wish I felt otherwise.

As for Pine’s acting ability: I had no real quarrel with his performance, but obviously didn’t care for the way the character was written, so for me the jury is still out. Better material to work with may make all the difference. I did very much like his reeling from the impact of Spock Prime’s emotions in the aftermath of their mind-meld, which was so well-done that I almost forgot they only met in the first place ’cause Kirk was being chased by a snow-lobster. :-)

327. Christine - May 11, 2010

All right, I have to comment.

I’m a 17-year-old Junior in high school and I can’t tell you what good this movie did for the franchise. LIterally like 8 or more people in my band class started watching TOS ’cause of ST09. I, myself, love all of Star Trek (except for.. ahem.. a few episodes and movies) and am thrilled to be talking about it with people actually my age. Of course, they’re n00bs compared to me, but a lot of them ARE JJ-verse and TOS fans. Yeah, you heard that right. Smart, intelligent, 4.0 GPA students who liked the movie.

Do I think it was the best ‘Trek movie? No. That belongs to FC, TWOK, and TVH. (Not in that order.) But I LOVED it nonetheless. The acting was solid, the plot was good, the cinematography blew all the other ‘Trek movies out of the water (sorry, other directors!) and it was highly entertaining. It lacked the feeling of stories like DS9, the 4th season of Enterprise, and the classics of TOS and TNG, including TWOK, TSFS, and other movies, but there’s room for improvement there.

As for all of you intent on bashing ST09… Why? Look at all the other remakes. Transformers has been horrible. Iron Man 2 was (sadly) disappointing. Even the latest Terminator movie was… unimpressive, in my opinion. And don’t get me started on the Star Wars I-III movies. JJ and his crew are keeping the franchise alive instead of letting it die a slow, painful death. He’s made Star Trek cool again. We once more have it in the highschool yearbooks and girls are once again swooning over Spock like nothing else.

It’s something new; it’s something different. It’s not perfect, but when is any Star Trek? Besides, I love being able to giggle with my girlfriends about Spock and Chapel relationships… And, of course, with the ones I’ve convinced to watch DS9, Odo and Kira. (Adorable!)

I’m hoping this new reboot lives long and prospers. I don’t think it was a stupid movie at all. Even looking at it pessmistically… Star Trek’s done a LOT worse.

328. moauvian waoul - May 11, 2010

@313 “I liked the movie for many things and hope that in the next one they can eliminate some of the easily avoided WTF moments. Like getting to Vulcan in mere minutes only to find that the rest of the fleet that had a 60 second head start was already destroyed!”

I asked about this very point here several months ago. Bob Orci responded to it directly explaining that much more time had indeed passed as was evident by Kirk waking up in sick bay and McCoy’s uniform having been changed. I know that doesn’t alter your point; just letting you know.

329. dmduncan - May 11, 2010

@326: Well I wouldn’t quite put it as destiny. That sounds too much like hard determinism and if anything I think this film was more indeterministic. More at what is heroic is the ability to adapt through hardship without being made evil by those different circumstances. The question of why one adapts and where the will toward character comes from is one of the more interesting things to think about.

And what I really liked about Pine’s performance were the little things: How he tolerates Pike’s little lecture. How his confidence is unchanged after being beaten up. When he flirts with Uhura on the shuttle out of Iowa. His fumbling for words when he learns Spock Prime isn’t going to the Enterprise with him. That chuckle when he tells Spock he is NOT the Captain of the Enterprise. Some of his facial expressions — and his swagger when he crawls out of the ice hole are eerily Shatneresque.

330. doubting_thomas - May 11, 2010

312:

yes, they do know what sells. what sells is sleaze. what doesn’t sell is intelligence. what doesn’t sell is star trek. what was the last true sci-fi movie to have financial sucess? look at speculative fiction in recent years. district 9 achieved mild cult status, primarily because of visuals, not character or story. moon was so limited, i couldn’t find it at best buy, had to order it online. the day the earth stood still was a flop.

but if your definition of sci fi is “exploding robots in space”, there’s no shortage, the ADD generation is all over that. anything that can keep your eyes busy and your brain vegetating will put people in those seats and sell that popcorn.

this is probably why halo can’t get off the ground. when they try to make a sleazy version of it in the style of jj abrams trek or michael bay transformers, the creators of the game object, because they actually have artistic integrity and respect for the story, but when they try to get a more loyal version made, the studios won’t back it because they know it won’t sell.

of course, when i say they “know” it won’t sell, i mean by the rules of marketing. and like stephen fry and hugh laurie, i don’t believe in market forces. look at star wars and the matrix, they were expected to be financial failures. even star trek was mistreated based on marketing numbers. i think smart people are an untapped resource that isn’t even on the radar for the studios. they’d rather appeal to the great vulgar masses, because it’s worked in the past. but they’ve never tried anything else.

327:

“I don’t think it was a stupid movie at all. Even looking at it pessmistically… Star Trek’s done a LOT worse.”

star trek has done weaks movies, but it’s never done bad movies. it has failed at doing intelligent stories, but never suceeded in abandoning intelligence completely. it’s never done “loud, dumb, and obvious”, although it has tried, to it’s shame.

question: is this script online yet? a few days of editing, and this story could be made into actual star trek. all it takes is to put it in continuity, add in the actual character traits of the series characters, and surgically graft on some intelligent content. not to mention give it an ending.

331. MJ - May 11, 2010

The only bad thing about this otherwise fantastic web site is that it allows all 10 of the people who disliked this movie to continue to post ad infinitum…as if the mass postings of dmdumbledorf and his friends are going to change the minds of those of us who loved the movie…yea, right! These follks are so small in number the the word “minority” has requested a restraining order against htem.

To all of you who loved the movie, relax folks, we have carried the day here with the poll…it is not even close…”I am laughing at the superior intellect!”

332. StarFuryG7 - May 11, 2010

I’ve been watching episodes of TNG late night on the East Coast, where it airs at 3:00 in the morning currently, for the first time since I last saw the show originally in first-run, and what I’m struck by is more than anything is how much of a soap opera the show is, and why I therefore cannot recommend it above TOS, which is still the best of all the Trek shows and subsequent movies to date, this latest film notwithstanding because it’s a reboot and outside of all prior Trek incarnations therefore.

But for all the raving about TNG that I see here by some posters, frankly, I really don’t see it. “Star Trek” was always intended to be science fiction, not serialized soap opera, and that’s what really turns me off about TNG.

333. doubting_thomas - May 11, 2010

nothing beats mob mentality.

334. Harry Ballz - May 11, 2010

As compared to SNOB mentality?

335. StarFuryG7 - May 11, 2010

#258 Celeste

It’s nice to see that a new universe has been opened up to you as a result of this last movie, but I’m surprised the fun of those earlier episodes and movies hasn’t soured for you somewhat by the realization that ST09 erases virtually everything that had come before it.

336. Yammer - May 11, 2010

@320

Themes in ST09?

The obvious plot point is that it is about heritage. Kirk is the son of a famous martyr and for years cannot really deal with that, so he sublimates his abilities until another daddy figure snaps him out of it. Spock, Kirk’s Jungian shadow, is an incredibly disciplined man, but is perhaps even more rageful than Kirk, whose viciousness is only skin deep; the difference crystalizes in the scene where Kirk, bleeding and barely escaping with his life, offers mercy and Spock is incredulous, being in the grip of his mommy issues.

The corollary to this theme is the message that we are what we are. Kirk always had the hero in him, but lost his way. He ignored the ship in his backyard until his moment of realization. Meanwhile, Spock was meant to bridge two worlds, but continues to think he must choose either logic or emotion, and is in his own way a far more deluded and emotionally cluttered character than the seemingly whimsical and chaotic Kirk.

Orson Scott Card thinks it is about the difference between a sensible rationalist and a good war commander. His thesis is that it is about the key difference between Spock and Kirk, and that although Kirk has serious flaws, Spock’s would have been fatal to Earth.

I’m not sure the film is that clear on this point — maybe a rendezvous in the Laurentian System would have been ok, we’ll never know.

The great moral theme of the movie, I believe, is acceptance of what is. Until we accept truth we are stymied as people and cannot reach our potential. Kirk is blocked by his father’s death and subsequent elevation into an icon. Spock is stymied by his failure to realize that his anger is inevitable and natural, having internalized the racism of his young peers. Nero cannot accept that Romulus was destroyed by a natural phenomenon, and in his quest for retribution is driven to punish the innocent, and thus create his own destruction and infamy.

Without these themes I do not believe I would have cared for the movie as much as I did. The name Star Trek does not mean that much to me anymore — thanks Voyager! — and I am fan enough to recognize that even my beloved TOS is replete with dud episodes. The writing is solid because it is based on resonant and believable themes. If it was just about spaceships exploding, then it would be Andromeda or some other numbskullery.

All of this passes well over the heads of those conditioned, in a fan version of Stockholm Syndrome, to equate dry, trite sermonizing as part of the appeal of Trek, rather than its albatross.

337. Yammer - May 11, 2010

@333

Well, of course these boards would not be as much fun without a variety of opinions. Including the wrong ones.

338. Yammer - May 11, 2010

@330

Intelligence doesn’t sell?

Clearly there are hit movies that are stupid but I would argue that audiences do respond to genuine wit and soul and other such qualities of good cinema. You cite The Matrix; the same talented filmmakers poured their abilities and Warner’s money into Speed Racer, an asinine (though sometimes ecstatically hypervisual) exercise that rightly flopped.

I would have liked to see Sunshine outgross Transformers 2, but audiences have never gone for downer endings in a big way; intelligence is like basil and explosions are like sugar. Bummer endings are like cilantro.

339. Harry Ballz - May 11, 2010

336

Nicely expressed, Yammer!

340. Anthony Thompson - May 12, 2010

336.

Based upon an analysis of your analysis, I am doubting that thomas (AKA Mr. Mensa) can hold a candle to your intellectual firepower. However, you lack his talents for name-calling and childish rants.

341. ryanhuyton - May 12, 2010

I really enjoyed “Star Trek 09″. Sure there were some things that bothered me, like the brewery, the way Vulcan was destroyed, the stereotypical villain. But there were many more things I enjoyed such as the new cast’s abilities to do the classic characters justice( Especially Urban’s portrayal as McCoy), the fantastic action sequences, the designs of the Enterprise and Narada, the awesome and emotional beginning featuring the Kelvin and George Kirk’s sacrifice. And Leonard Nimoy, Bruce Greenwood and Ben Cross all leant gravitas with their strong performances. It was a fun movie. But I would rank it just behind “The Wrath Of Khan” and “First Contact”. Those films were a bit stonger overall.

I have no doubt the sequel will be better than ’09. The point of a sequel is to improve upon the first film. Bob Orci is an awesome dude who knows how to write. So does Alex. And J.J Abrams knows his stuff as well.
You’ve heard it here folks: the sequel will be better. I have faith. Most others do to, barring a tiny minority.

And to “Doubting Thomas”

You have made it clear that you HATE the new movie. We get it. You are a troll who pretends to be a fan. Just because you hate “Star Trek ’09” doesn’t give you the right to slam others for liking it. I think that you are jealous and insecure. You cannot understand why others are enjoying something that you clearly aren’t. And you are angry because of it. Well, that is too bad. Its time for you to take a hike!

342. P Technobabble - May 12, 2010

336. Yammer

Thank you for that eloquent consideration — well said!

343. Enterprisingguy - May 12, 2010

Thanks 328 for pointing it out. I guess if the movie had made use of the Captain’s Log entries, like the show did, to briefly explain sudden leaps forward in time it would have been better.

344. moauvian waoul - May 12, 2010

Yeah, no problem. Captain’s log would have helped. Or maybe a fade to black.

345. Rocket Scientist - May 12, 2010

I don’t doubt Thonas’ sincerity nor do I discount the validity of many things he has said. I’m inclined to agree with a number of those things. They’re good points. But the unreasonable, smug and self-congratulatory manner in which he chooes to express them undermines their credibility. There’s something wrong when one is so wrapped up in their righteousness that they alienate even those who share their opinions!

346. Damian - May 12, 2010

I loved the story and the actors in the film. I did not like the set designs and the plethora of flares. Also, if you did not know JJ Abrams was a Star Wars fan, you would after watching Star Trek. Many of the effects were taken right out of the Star Wars handbook. There were some things that could have been adapted to make it more in line with other Star Trek. Anthony Pascale noted the phaser effects. Also, the ships going to warp did look cool, however they could have easily differentiated it from Star Wars by adding the flash just as the ship enters warp like the previous series. Also, I always loved the streaking star effect of a ship at warp from TNG on. I was not in love with the tunnel effect in the new movie. Yeah, some of this is nitpicking, but these are a few things that make it a great, but not the greatest Star Trek film of all. I am one that likes consistency. The fact that some of the sets look nothing like they did in previous Star Trek series and movies does bother me.

I consider myself a universal Star Trek Fan. I liked all 11 movies (to varying degrees) and all the TV series, the animated series and am an avid reader of the novels. There was much to love in the movie, and am looking forward to the sequel. But some minor changes could bring it in line with previous Star Trek without sacrificing a great story.

There seems to be 2 things that fans want universally (at least from the comments on the posts)

1–a cementing of the relationship between Kirk, Spock and McCoy
and
2–while Simon Pegg was great as comic relief Scotty, it seems many fans want to also see the Scotty who could command the ship, stare down a Federation Ambassador, and make a warp core out of duct tape, plywood and a phillips screwdriver.

Also–a personal request, please do not redo an episode or villain. Much of the original series was great as is (and the remastered series lets us see the episodes with updated effects already). We have enough remakes today. One of the things about this new parallel universe that I likes is an opportunity to do something new.

347. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

331: “The only bad thing about this otherwise fantastic web site is that it allows all 10 of the people who disliked this movie to continue to post ad infinitum…as if the mass postings of dmdumbledorf and his friends are going to change the minds of those of us who loved the movie…”

If the dmdumbledorf is a reference to me, dmduncan, you’ve got the wrong guy and might want to redirect your aim. I’m a very strong fan of the movie and one of its most vocal defenders.

348. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

335: “It’s nice to see that a new universe has been opened up to you as a result of this last movie, but I’m surprised the fun of those earlier episodes and movies hasn’t soured for you somewhat by the realization that ST09 erases virtually everything that had come before it.”

Totally false. You didn’t understand the MWI premise if you think that.

349. P Technobabble - May 12, 2010

One thing Yammer said in post #338 intrigues me: “…You cite The Matrix; the same talented filmmakers poured their abilities and Warner’s money into Speed Racer, an asinine (though sometimes ecstatically hypervisual) exercise that rightly flopped…”

I often wonder how experienced film-makers, directors, screenwriters, etc. manage to produce films that turn out to be horrible disasters. I know there are innumerable factors that go into making a film, but doesn’t someone along the way say, “Stop! This picture is gonna flop?” I also know that creative people do not set out to produce flops. Sometimes the very concept of a film makes me scratch my head and wonder. For example, I recently saw part of a film called “The Adventures of Pluto Nash,” an Eddie Murphy comedy. Thank God I didn’t have to watch the entire movie. It is a well-known Hollywood bomb. It had a $100 million dollar budget and made about $7 million back. I also read somewhere that Murphy hated the film. So, how did such a stinker get made in the first place? Could it have started with a good script that got ruined, or was the script already a disaster? And if it was a disaster, why would a producer and director want to take it on? And, as up and down as Murphy’s career has been, did he need the money that badly?
Of course, there are unpopular films that find favor with some people, just as there are popular films that some people dislike (we all know that from first-hand experience, eh?). But I’m talking specifically about movies that most everyone agrees unanimously that it was a bad film — like “Heaven’s Gate.” How do these stinkers wind up on the big-screen?

350. doubting_thomas - May 12, 2010

336: the only themes in the movie were militarism and destiny. where was the love of science, the longing for exploration that DEFINED the series?

“space, the final battlefield. these are the conquests of the warship enterprise. it’s continuing mission, to destroy strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilisations and kick their asses. to boldly kill what no man has killed before. awesome!”

338: intelligence really only sells if it’s accompanied by nothing short of groundbreaking visuals. star wars, the matrix, to a lesser extent district 9. but i think as cameron’s avatar shows, you really only need to tell people the visuals are groundbreaking, and then show them the same old garbage.

341: the actors diddn’t do justice to the characters. i think most of them could have, but the characters were written differently. kirk was written as an anti-hero instead of the encyclopedia on legs from the series, spock was made outwardly emotional, mccoy’s caring side was removed, scotty’s tough side was removed, chekov was made a boy genius for some reason, uhura and sulu were reduced simply to “the chick” and “the asian guy”. they were parodies of the star trek characters.

and i know just fine why people like it, but when i say it, it’s called “name calling”.

345: yes, why don’t you read into my words traits that aren’t there just because others told you to. never mind what i actually say, no, that’s not important.

349: it’s marketing. stupidity sells so well that studios and advertisers don’t know when to stop. when even eddie murphy, with his history of crap, is saying “um, no, i’ll pass, thanks”, that should be a sign that doctor doolittle 23 won’t be good, but they go ahead with it anyway, thinking it’ll make the same money as the first one. the same thing will happen with this watered-down star trek knockoff, they’ll keep making new ones, all the same, and they’ll be forgotten. the thing about the ADD generation is they can’t watch the same thing for extended periods. that’s why they like short movies. a long series will be the same as a long movie, their eyes will start to wander, they’ll get bored. you have to repackage the same old crap, rearrange it every once in a while. look at how the same slapstick that made people roll their eyes in star trek 5 can be repackaged, made younger and shinier, and suddenly be seen as quality material. replace “shooting up a turboshaft on rocket boots” with “transporting into pipes of coolant with an inexplicable eggbeater at the end” and what once made a movie bad now makes a movie good, if you have the attention span of a goldfish.

351. Danpaine - May 12, 2010

Loved almost all of the film, and this coming from a 44-year old “Old-School” Trekkie. Respect for the original material is what made it great.

I, and others I know, agree with this, though:

“2–while Simon Pegg was great as comic relief Scotty, it seems many fans want to also see the Scotty who could command the ship, stare down a Federation Ambassador, and make a warp core out of duct tape, plywood and a phillips screwdriver. ”

Please….make it so…..

352. StarFuryG7 - May 12, 2010

#348. dmduncan

“Totally false. You didn’t understand the MWI premise if you think that.”

I understand it very well actually and perhaps even better than you. So by all means, specify the line in the film that makes abundantly clear that what happened in this last movie takes place in an alternate universe rather than it being the prime universe undone.

And to save you the time, the “alternate reality” line used by Uhura on the bridge of the Enterprise just doesn’t cut it as it’s not sufficient to make clear that it’s an alternate universe. When Kirk and Spock went back in time in “The City on the Edge of Forever” and had to correct the timeline for instance, what had occurred there as a result of Edith Keeler not dying was an ‘alternate reality’ also, but it was the same universe, which was why Kirk had to let her die in a car accident the way she was meant to in the original timeline.

If you want to like the movie, that’s fine. After all, who am I to tell you that you shouldn’t despite its flaws? But if there’s one thing I’m more than tired of at this point especially more than a year after the picture was released, it’s people who will go out of their way to make excuses for the script on the basis that they want to like the film no matter what and feel that they must therefore defend it to the hilt regardless of what’s wrong with it.

Orci and Kurtzman knew exactly what they were doing; they could have made things clearer, but chose not to. Stop defending that.

353. doubting_thomas - May 12, 2010

essentially, the problem with the movie was that it was written, like most remakes, to resemble how people remember the series to be, not how the series actually was. this coupled with a director who actually dislikes star trek, a lot, resulted in what is basically a mockery of the series.

354. doubting_thomas - May 12, 2010

352:

the only way the movie makes internal sense is if the timeline change erases old spock’s timeline. otherwise, why would old spock emerge from the time displacement in the altered timeline instead of his own? he’s travelling back in time. that means his past, not the past in a completely different timeline. he arrives after nero makes his change. if the 2 timelines exist seperately, that would mean old spock jumps between them as well as going back in time.

this does not, however, mean that the stories in the star trek series never happen, because there are so many things wrong with both the kelvin and the jellyfish that they don’t come from that universe anyway. the only way to make the movie fit into canon is to make it an “in a mirror, darkly” style alternate universe story, with both the original and changed timelines taking place in a parallel universe. otherwise, it’s to be dismissed as a remake like any other. nobody would try to rationalise the transformers series and movies as being alternate timelines or parallel universes. that would be silly.

355. Michael Hall - May 12, 2010

#336–

Let me concur with others for congratulating you on a well-written, thoughtful, articulate defense of the Abrams film. Too bad I can’t agree with it for a second (any more than I can concur with dmduncan’s intelligent, well-written defenses of it). Frankly, I think you’re reaching–reaching beyond the sky, beyond the Moon, beyond the Antares Maelstrom and to the Great Galactic Barrier itself, imparting to a summer blockbuster mostly concerned with tit-grabbing, bar fights, Mickey Mouse hands and explosions such highfaultin themes and concepts as detailed by yourself and Orson Scott Card (who, despite his own obvious talents, is full of processed birdseed on just about any given issue, most notably in this case the value of the original series and the acting ability of the late DeForest Kelley). I’ll grant that the themes exist for you; fine. But that doesn’t make the movie dramatically or thematically sophisticated–any more than Roberto Orci’s “quantum universe” research makes a film which posits that a supernova could threaten the entire galaxy, much less a nearby star system, in realtime, a sophsticated treatise on astronomical science.

Let’s try a thought experiment, okay? Picture J.J. Abrams, on stage at Comic Con or some similar venue to pitch his latest and greatest to an avid audience of geekoids like ourselves, asked by a fan what he considered the themes of Trek ’09 to be. Do you really think that his answer would involve Jungian shadows and acceptance of the truth of our natures? Or would the more likely response be a blank stare, followed by his oft-repeated refrain about how much he loved Star Wars as a kid and wanted to impart to the Trek franchise its exuberance and energy? (I’ll admit he succeeded there–too bad little of its occasional mythic grandeur came along for the ride.) Now, I know that Abrams didn’t write the script. But he did commission it, participated in numerous story conferences, directed the actors, and by all accounts shaped the film to fit his particular vision in every way possible If such grandiose subtexts weren’t on his mind while directing the thing, why should I give the film credit for them?

We are agreed, incidentally, that TOS had its fair share (and perhaps more) of duds, along with a fair amount of preachiness. The best episodes, though, didn’t require such to tell great stories or tackle interesting concepts–any more, to be fair, than the best episodes of TNG and DS9 do. Those shows will, I maintain, continue to stand the test of time, long after the 2009 Abrams film has been long forgotten (and hopefully in favor of newer, better Treks). So we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that score. But again, I do appreciate your thoughtful response.

356. doubting_thomas - May 12, 2010

*in robin williams voice*

when your director’s starting point for a movie is “well, the originall sucked so bad, i felt i had to fix it”, WARNING.

357. Michael Hall - May 12, 2010

#349–

Oscar-winning screenwriter William Goldman said it best about Hollywood, “No one knows anything.” I think that aphorism actually applies to many other venues, as well.

358. Yammer - May 12, 2010

@350

I agree that isn’t a strong exploration vibe explained by any of the characters. There hasn’t been a great deal of that in any of the movies, actually. TMP lets us wander through Vger but Vger is also a “world threatening badguy” trope.

Really, exploration has been more the setting than the foreground of Trek, from its conception. Travel obviously occurs because our heroes travel from planet to planet — nicely referenced in the superb credit animations of Trek09 — but rarely if ever are they meaningfully affected by their voyaging. They see much but seldom grow. The exceptions is that Picard’s experiences as Locutus and as Kataan did get acknowledged in subsequent episodes.

I don’t think that Trek09 is as guilty as you think of glorifiying militarism — it is the villain who employs shock and awe tactics, Kirk et al have the inferior warship and only save the day using trickery and guts. For a better example of Trek exposing a might-is-right mentality, consider A Piece of the Action, Last of the Archons, or Who Mourns For Adonis, which essentially have Kirk consciously remodelling alien civilizations.

@354

I exactly agree that the movie more caters to our memories and impressions of Trek rather than to how the series was. To reproduce the original set design is an interesting notion and in fact we have Cawleytrek to show us how that looks. I think it holds up well as a webseries catering to extreme Trekophiles but it is inconceivable as a contemporary film. The character relationships, however, are spot-on to me.

As for revisionism, as explained above I think it is you who misremembers Trek as a dramatic series of deep themes focused on exploration. Trek certainly has that potential and I would like to see that in the next movie, but it is more often than not been quite content to be popcorn entertainment reliant on fistfights and space battles.

359. startrekker - May 12, 2010

yes doubting thomas take a hike I think you are jealous and rude

360. P Technobabble - May 12, 2010

353. doubting

I disagree that a love of science and longing for exploration “defined” the original series. Certainly, there were episodes that expressed this, but you also had episodes such as “A Piece Of The Action,” “Patterns Of Force,” “Who Mourns For Adonis,” “By Any Other Name,” and probably a few others — episodes, which IMO, were far less scientific, exploratory, or even meaningful than the recent film. In addition, I feel that most of TOS’s third season was a mockery of the show itself, reducing it to the same sort of camp exemplified in the “Lost In Space” series during its final leg. The original series was not without flaws, and faults.
I also disagree that JJ Abrams dislikes Star Trek a lot. If I recall, in his earliest interviews, he stated that the original Star Trek was not a show he paid much attention to. That is quite different than disliking it a lot. And he has since stated that his appreciation for Star Trek and love of the characters has grown. What is wrong with that? Even still, Abrams was surrounded by admitted Trekkies, so he was in the right company.
Finally, I believe your response to my question about how a bad film gets made is a bit off the mark of the sort of consideration I was attempting to bring up. Your answer is the simple one: “stupidity sells.” Sure, you can make an argument for that, but your argument is based more upon your own attitude than anything else. I don’t believe for one moment that any writer who takes pride in his/her work wants his/her name attached to a pile of rubbish. Perhaps there are cases when a studio might go with something that’s been lying on a shelf so that they can write it off for business purposes, but I do not think that is the rule. Name one business in the world that deliberately tries to lose money. In addition, the notion that “stupidity sells” presumes that everyone who looks forward to, and buys a ticket for, this movie or that is stupid, and that presumption is simply wrong. If it were true, then why, in fact, would a movie like “Speed Racer,” or “The Adventures of Pluto Nash,” or “Heaven’s Gate,” or numerous other films not also have broken box office records? Obviously, the viewing public has got some smarts, which you are dismissing outright.

361. startrekker - May 12, 2010

Oh will you please let other people like JJ Abrams Star Trek just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean that we have to agree so Doubting Thomas shut up please and take a hike

362. Damian - May 12, 2010

#352–This might sound a little oversimplistic, but basically I accept the new Star Trek is an alternate universe because the writers say it is. Simple as that. It is their story, they say they prime universe is unaffected, so in my mind, it is.

There is some precedent for this, namely the mirror universe and TNG episode “Parallels”.

363. Yammer - May 12, 2010

@355

“a summer blockbuster mostly concerned with tit-grabbing, bar fights, Mickey Mouse hands and explosions”

Sure, it has those things (and does them well) but I think you can find the themes. When movies do not have those themes and are simply about action, then you have Street Fighter: The Adventures of Chun-Li or Whatever. A complete dud. I think we might have middle ground where we agree that Trek09 had enough meaningful content/heart/substance to allow us to care for the characters, which is really what movies need.

“I’ll grant that the themes exist for you; fine.”

That’s alls I bes saying.

” But that doesn’t make the movie dramatically or thematically sophisticated–any more than Roberto Orci’s “quantum universe” research makes a film which posits that a supernova could threaten the entire galaxy, much less a nearby star system, in realtime, a sophsticated treatise on astronomical science.”

Well, not going to split hairs or point out that Orci’s mandate was probably not to give us a postgrad seminar in the multiverse, single string theory or whatnot. I simply take it as an acceptable way to reconcile canon with the desireability — I would even say need — to reset Trek for contemporary audiences, or frankly for TOS fans like myself who long ago abandoned the tedious, repetitive, lukewarm “authorized” spinoffs.

Sure Orci et al have refashioned Trek, but don’t you think that what they have added to it (namely, bleeding-edge production values) is an honorable tribute to TOS? Diane Duane’s TOS novels feature an almost unrecognizably literate and tactically ingenious Kirk but that, too, is a tribute and not a mutilation.

“The best episodes, though, didn’t require such to tell great stories or tackle interesting concepts–any more, to be fair, than the best episodes of TNG and DS9 do. ”

David Gerrold points out that TV budgets cannot afford to show us giant battles every week; you can only have two warriors meet and talk, which creates a more intimate drama. That is the limitation and advantage of the TV format over movies.

“you really think that his answer would involve Jungian shadows and acceptance of the truth of our natures?”

No, but be fair. He’s not a critic, he’s an artist. It is never the responsibility or expectation of the artist to know or articulate the meaning of his work, that is the purview of the critics.

364. Michael Hall - May 12, 2010

To my mind there’s just too little connective tissue to previous Treks to consider the 2009 film to be anything other than a reboot, notwithstanding the presence of Leonard Nimoy. Which suits me just fine–the original continuity had a 40-plus year run, which should be sufficient for just about anything. I just wish it had been a better reboot.

365. Harry Ballz - May 12, 2010

Well, we’ve really analyzed the CRAP out of this thing, don’t you think? :>)

366. StarFuryG7 - May 12, 2010

#362. Damian

“This might sound a little oversimplistic, but basically I accept the new Star Trek is an alternate universe because the writers say it is. Simple as that. It is their story, they say they prime universe is unaffected, so in my mind, it is.”

And that’s fine if that’s how you feel and what you want to chalk it up to — however, what they say outside the film is not canon. If it were in the film, stated unequivocally by one of the characters, then it would be clear, unequivocal canon. And I don’t like the fact that the writers think they can slip it by people simply by catering to what most of them want to believe outside of the film itself. It’s not concrete and there’s something sneaky about it, as in their not wanting to take a clear, definitive stand on the matter.

“There is some precedent for this, namely the mirror universe and TNG episode “Parallels”.”

True, but there’s no question about what occurred in “Parallels”, is there? It was abundantly clear, so there’s no reason to question it on any level. And if Braga of all people can do that, why couldn’t Orci and Kurtzman in this last movie?

That’s what really bothers me about that aspect of the film.

367. StarFuryG7 - May 12, 2010

#354. doubting_thomas
“the only way the movie makes internal sense is if the timeline change erases old spock’s timeline. otherwise, why would old spock emerge from the time displacement in the altered timeline instead of his own?”

There was nothing to prevent them from doing that, since no one (other than V’Ger) had ever travelled through a Black Hole in Trek before, but if their intent was to make it a different, alternate universe, then they would have had to make that clear in the film, which obviously they did not.

“this does not, however, mean that the stories in the star trek series never happen”

Not that they “don’t happen,” because they obviously did. What occurs in the last film though by all appearances is that the events of that original timeline have been _erased_ and _replaced_ by the new timeline.

“because there are so many things wrong with both the kelvin and the jellyfish that they don’t come from that universe anyway.”

Right, but those are purely aesthetic issues, so people overlook them and focus exclusively on the story content instead.

“the only way to make the movie fit into canon is to make it an “in a mirror, darkly” style alternate universe story, with both the original and changed timelines taking place in a parallel universe.”

Which they didn’t do in this last film.

368. doubting_thomas - May 12, 2010

362: in star trek, parallel universes and alternate timelines are not the same thing. the mirror universe and the universes in “parallels” do not have any point of divergence from the regular universe. they are entirely seperate. they each have their own seperate timestreams, an interruption in which changes the flow in the rest of the stream. the movie follows this rule, having spock emerge in the changed timestream. if nero had caused a divergence, spock would have emerged in his timeline, not the new one.

369. Holger - May 12, 2010

Re 365: So one would have thought :-)

370. Boborci - May 12, 2010

As far as alternate universes go, I will admit that we made it purposely ambiguous on a surface level, but as I said before, events and reactions in the movie cannot be reconciled with any logic other than MWI.

371. startrekker - May 12, 2010

boborci it was ultra creative how you and Alex wrote the Trek 09 movie anyway how is the sequel progressing when is the veil of secrecy going to be lowered. regarding Trek XII

372. Damian - May 12, 2010

#368–While not canon, the novels have speculated that the mirror universe diverged from the prime universe at some time in the past. Again, call me simple, but the writers say their movie does not affect the prime timeline, and I accept what they say. It is their story. And the characters (Uhura, Spock and Kirk) did discuss this in the movie, stating that this was a new timeline they were in, with no effect on the prime. Spock-prime still existing with all his previous knowledge also lends credence that this is a parallel universe we are in now. Of course, we can go on and on, but Star Trek has done time travel so many different ways, that to me this is simply another way of doing it.

373. StarFuryG7 - May 12, 2010

370. Boborci
“As far as alternate universes go, I will admit that we made it purposely ambiguous on a surface level, but as I said before, events and reactions in the movie cannot be reconciled with any logic other than MWI.”

Then why didn’t Spock Prime make that clear at some point and in some way in the film?

The kicker is that I believe you could have easily made what happens in this film as being the result of a split universe that was a result of Nero and his crew travelling through and emerging from the Black Hole. We see that “Star Trek Online” has in fact adopted that very approach, but it’s not clearly indicated or spelled out anywhere in the film.

Thanks for your response by the way. I realize that your taking the time to do this kind of thing here is a courtesy to we hardcore fans, and I appreciate it.

And there is an easy way to address this issue in the sequel in my opinion that will in effect give everyone everything they want; it would involve some very subtle ambiguity also, but given the situation, I think it would be an ideal approach.

374. StarFuryG7 - May 12, 2010

#372. Damian
“And the characters (Uhura, Spock and Kirk) did discuss this in the movie, stating that this was a new timeline they were in, with no effect on the prime.”

That’s not what they say –they acknowledged that the timeline and events in their lives had been completely changed as a result of Nero’s incursion into the timeline, but they do not in any way indicate that the prime timeline went unaffected as a result.

“Of course, we can go on and on, but Star Trek has done time travel so many different ways, that to me this is simply another way of doing it.”

Fair enough –whatever rocks your boat …However, I’m keenly aware that the Spock of old that I know and am very familiar with would have never allowed that timeline to stand without feeling the need to correct it; especially considering that it was his Home World that gets targeted and destroyed in the story. The fact that he doesn’t is also not really consistent with his character.

375. Boborci - May 12, 2010

373.

Spock Prime says to young Spock that the only reason Kirk followed his advice is that Kirk “inferred universe ending paradoxes would ensue…”.

In other words, Spock Prime implied to Kirk that the rules of Back to the Future applied. But he was “lying.”.

376. doubting_thomas - May 12, 2010

the real question is this:

why not do the movie in continuity? why not set it before the original series and portray the characters in keeping with the series instead of redefining them? why not show how the tarsus massecre influenced the young kirk, show him developing a friendship with spock instead of just being told to, show his career in starfleet and how he earned the captain’s chair? why “reboot” at all?

377. Boborci - May 12, 2010

376

A few reasons:

Again, it is not technically a reboot.

we wanted to see Nimoy.

We wanted the threat of death resulting from an unwritten future.

We wanted justification for future stories with unknown outcomes.

We wanted and in canon rationale for the inevitable changes the would occur (casting, production design, etc.)

Some of our story may indeed be the same in both universes.

To name a few reasons off the top if my head.

378. ryanhuyton - May 12, 2010

#376

Bob and J.J wanted the new movie to take place in a new timeline to free themselves of the restraints of canon. If the new movie took place in the Prime timeline, then the writers would be losing sleep over how to not violate canon. Plus, they didn’t want the new movie to have the same problems as the “Star Wars” prequels in which we already knew what was going to happen to most of the main characters. Anakin Skywalker, Padme and Obi Wan Kenobi already had their paths laid out even before “The Phantom Menace” was released. By creating a new timeline, Bob and crew have freed the characters from one specific path, allowing for different adventures and situations while remaining true to the characters.

379. Rocket Scientist - May 12, 2010

377. Boborci

You tell him, buster! All valid reasons for writing new stories within the classic format.

As much as I have criticized some things, I’m still interested in your take on this universe. Write us a great sequel sir!

380. ryanhuyton - May 12, 2010

Bob, are you guys going to do a tie-in comic with the sequel like you did with the first film with “Countdown”?

381. doubting_thomas - May 12, 2010

it is technically a reboot, because even before the supposed timeline change, the kelvin is out of continuity.

nimoy could still have been involved, “yesteryear” style

then why do existing characters at all? what happened to the romulan war idea? new characters, new threats, new drama. besides, if you wanted the threat of death, you could have had future spock say time was in flux because of his and nero’s presense, that the future he knew COULD BE, not already had been, erased. there would be so much more at stake than just lives

there’s no shortage of room for new stories without leaving continuity.

firstly, you don’t need to rationalise cast changes (saavik anyone?), and a timeline change doesn’t do that anyway, except for chekov who, being younger, is not the same person at all. secondly, why change the production design? there’s no reason the bridge from “the cage” couldn’t be rebuilt, perhaps a bit larger, with modern materials, better textures, more convincing screens and controls and circuitry. a new set, but still believable as the same room. look at doctor who, they were able to maintain original designs while modernising construction. it’s not difficult, if you have enough respect for the original and for your own work, and if you’re willing to put in the effort.

you’re not even trying, man.

382. ryanhuyton - May 12, 2010

#381

How is the Kelvin out of continuity? Prior to this movie, no one even heard of a U.S.S Kelvin. In fact, we didn’t know much about the 23rd century prior to the time of “The Original Series”. There is no basis for that arguement.

383. doubting_thomas - May 12, 2010

378:

a mark of a truly great writer is to show events you already know about, and make them shocking and suprising. look at the heroes season 3 episode “villains”. that was a masterpeice, specifically because it revealed layers behind what was already seen. also, last year’s doctor who finale, showing that the doctor’s final solution was not, as previously thought, used against the daleks with the time lords as collateral damage, but against the time lords directly. more often than not, canon is an inspiration for stories, not a hindrance. only to lazy writers is canon an obstacle. besides, look at what happened when those obstacles were gone, we got a massively substandard story.

384. doubting_thomas - May 12, 2010

382:

the ship is absolutely enormous, has far too many alien crewmembers for the period, the delta insignia, hand phasers, and gregorian calendar instead of stardates. it’s out of continuity.

standard response here:

“don’t be such a nerd, you’re too focused on details, nobody cares, get a life, etc.”

those are excuses, trying to justify inattentive filmmaking.

385. ryanhuyton - May 12, 2010

#383

“A mark of a truly great writer is to show events you already know about, and make them shocking and surprising. look at the heroes season 3 episode “villains”. that episode was a masterpiece, specifically because it revealed layers behind what was already seen.”

No, every episode of “Heroes” during season three was an example of laziness, convolution and contrivance. Even “Villains”. “Heroes” became wallowed in its own “mythology” and every episode became increasingly myopic, dull, tedious, self-reverential and the characters were no longer interesting. The first season was great, but after that, the writing went downhill faster than an avalanche on Mt. Everest. They resorted to “stunt” casting to try to bring in Trekkies and other sci-fi fans, but that smacked of desperation to gain ratings and to cover up poor writing.

As for Dr. Who, I never watched it so I can’t comment. But to me, “Heroes” is not an example of great writing. It might have been in its first season, but from season two on, the show is an example of how bad writing can ruin everything.

You want great writing, watch Ron Moore’s version of “Battlestar Galactica”. Or watch Bob Orci’s “Lost” or “Fringe”. Ooops, I forgot you don’t like Bob as a writer.

386. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

352: “I understand it very well actually and perhaps even better than you. So by all means, specify the line in the film that makes abundantly clear that what happened in this last movie takes place in an alternate universe rather than it being the prime universe undone.”

Why do you assume there is some one line that makes it verbally clear what is going on in the film?

What “line in the film makes it abundantly clear” that Kirk was attracted to Uhura? Did Kirk say “I am attracted to you Uhura.” ?

In 2001: A Space Odyssey, “what line in the film makes it abundantly clear” that the obelisk changed the monkey-men in some way that they knew how to use bones as weapons?

I’ve gone through explaining all this months ago. It’s tiresome to have to keep doing it, and for a film that is allegedly so “dumb” that quite a few people out there still don’t get it.

If you go to a Spanish language film but speak no Spanish, does the film teach you the Spanish language so that you can understand what’s being said in the film, or is the language used, like your common sense and your active brain, one of those many things which you are absolutely required to bring with you to the theater?

I trust nobody will be so thick as to pretend yet again for the sake of trying to win an unwinnable argument that movies contain every single thing you need to know INSIDE the movie as if the moviegoers were dribbling know-nothing newborns about whom the filmmakers and writers can’t trust you to get anything, no matter how simple, unless it is spelled out for you on a placard held up by a grinning Captain Picard.

“And to save you the time, the “alternate reality” line used by Uhura on the bridge of the Enterprise just doesn’t cut it as it’s not sufficient to make clear that it’s an alternate universe.”

That’s NOT the only comment genius, it’s only one piece of the puzzle that has several pieces spanning the movie. Did you know the Grandfather Paradox was referenced without ever being explicitly mentioned? And what relationship does the Grandfather Paradox have to the depiction of the events in this movie?

“When Kirk and Spock went back in time in “The City on the Edge of Forever” and had to correct the timeline for instance, what had occurred there as a result of Edith Keeler not dying was an ‘alternate reality’ also, but it was the same universe, which was why Kirk had to let her die in a car accident the way she was meant to in the original timeline.”

No, see, you DON’T understand MWI. There is absolutely nothing in City that indicates anything about alternate or parallel realities as per MWI, and Harlan Ellison is the furthest thing from a hard SF writer as you can get.

As far as City is concerned, McCoy changed the condition of the universe by meddling with the timeline thus erasing the future history of the Prime universe; he did not split universes as per MWI leaving the Prime universe intact next to a parallel alternate universe. So when you call what Harlan created in City an “alternate” universe, you are equivocating on the meaning of “alternate.” Yeah, it’s “alternate” compared to what Kirk and crew remember, but that is NOT the same meaning that applies in MWI, and that is not what happened in ST.09.

Yeah, a really dumb film, and a year later I’m still ‘splaining it.

354: “the only way the movie makes internal sense is if the timeline change erases old spock’s timeline. otherwise, why would old spock emerge from the time displacement in the altered timeline instead of his own?”

Because that’s a way that MWI resolves the Grandfather Paradox.

Instead of wasting time accusing the film of being dumb, spend some time LEARNING about MWI. Your comments betray a complete lack of understanding about the MWI theories Bob built the story around. If you don’t understand MWI, you can’t fully understand the film. Sorry.

355: “But that doesn’t make the movie dramatically or thematically sophisticated–any more than Roberto Orci’s “quantum universe” research makes a film which posits that a supernova could threaten the entire galaxy, much less a nearby star system, in realtime, a sophsticated treatise on astronomical science.”

I didn’t take that word “galaxy” literally. I took it the way I take the use of that same word in Firefly when Mal or someone talks about the Alliance being the most powerful force in the “galaxy” (to paraphrase). It’s obvious space hyperbole. All the drama in Firefly takes place in a single solar system, so it’s a colloquial way of speaking that means more at “known space.”

“Or would the more likely response be a blank stare, followed by his oft-repeated refrain about how much he loved Star Wars as a kid and wanted to impart to the Trek franchise its exuberance and energy? (I’ll admit he succeeded there–too bad little of its occasional mythic grandeur came along for the ride.) Now, I know that Abrams didn’t write the script. But he did commission it, participated in numerous story conferences, directed the actors, and by all accounts shaped the film to fit his particular vision in every way possible If such grandiose subtexts weren’t on his mind while directing the thing, why should I give the film credit for them?”

Neil Gaiman is said to have closed Campbell’s Hero With A Thousand Faces before finishing it saying, and I paraphrase, that if what Campbell was saying was true he’d rather it just show up in his work rather than him (Neil) doing it that way deliberately. Which is often what happens. And that’s the interesting thing here. NOT that someone necessarily INTENDS to include these themes (and I don’t know whether it applies in this case to Bob or not), but that these themes reappear regardless. I personally find that profoundly interesting, and would whether it was connected to Star Trek or not.

As you mentioned Jung, it does raise questions about the nature of reality that are not even close to being answered by science, and probably never will be. By science, that is, in it’s currently understood and accepted form.

368: “in star trek, parallel universes and alternate timelines are not the same thing. the mirror universe and the universes in “parallels” do not have any point of divergence from the regular universe. they are entirely seperate. they each have their own seperate timestreams, an interruption in which changes the flow in the rest of the stream. the movie follows this rule, having spock emerge in the changed timestream. if nero had caused a divergence, spock would have emerged in his timeline, not the new one.”

Nope. As I said in 164: “An alternate universe is indeed also an alternate timeline, since the present unfolds in those universes differently from the others. There are multiple and distinct presents, and therefore multiple and distinct timelines that unfold differently from each other. The fact that they may all be unfolding in different directions at the same time in a general sense, does not mean that they are not each different timelines in the particular sense.”

370: “As far as alternate universes go, I will admit that we made it purposely ambiguous on a surface level, but as I said before, events and reactions in the movie cannot be reconciled with any logic other than MWI.”

Yes Bob, you made it ambiguous. But a treasure map is also ambiguous — AND it leads to the ONE spot where the treasure is buried. So those who don’t get it don’t have an excuse.

I just find it deliciously ironic that some of the people calling the movie unintelligent didn’t really understand what happened in it (and I don’t mean you, Michael Hall).

It’s like smashing yourself in the face with pie.

387. P Technobabble - May 12, 2010

I think the alternate universe which Star Trek now inhabits is a legitimate and necessary one for numerous reasons, relative to story and relative to business. My question to those who object is: WHY do you want Star Trek to remain in its original timeline, remaining with all the original parameters it was born with? For what reason and to what end?
I’m not trying to be smug, but why is it so important that Star Trek remain in the same box it came out of? It’s not that there’s anything wrong with classic Star Trek, taking into account its own faults and failures along the way. I’m as big a Trekkie as anyone else in this room. But, honestly, what is so wrong about Star Trek morphing into something a bit different?
Other character franchises have been around for decades and, over the years, they have changed in various ways — whether they’ve gotten a different look, different actors, and so forth. What is the great problem with Star Trek going through the same sort of transformations?
In the film TSFS, Adm. Morrow told Kirk, “The Enterprise is 20 years old. We feel her day is over…” How many things in this world get put out to pasture after some passage of time? I think we are all essentially grateful that Star Trek wasn’t put out to pasture, and it’s been around for over 4 decades! But I think this attitude that anything that “messes” with the original format is not legitimate, or is wrong, or is simply awful is, at the very least, a terribly inflexible attitude. I’m not saying one is not entitled to feel that way, but why? Apart from complaining about deviating from canon, changes in the look, criticizing that the science is not valid, and so forth, I have not read a single critical post which makes a decent argument WHY Star Trek should remain as it was 40 years ago. And I don’t think there needs to be an argument why it should change, since change is the nature of all things regardless of argument — otherwise we’d still be using stone knives and bearskins trying to build pneumonic memory circuits.

388. Christine - May 12, 2010

#384 :: Personally, I don’t think it’s too horrible that the nuEnterprise has more alien crewmembers. One of the main reasons we didn’t see more in TOS was because of budget and technological limitations. Besides, it wasn’t nearly as diverse as it could have been (DS9, much?).
And ENT used the Greogorian calendar. New timeline; maybe something was up with the whole stardate thing. I dunno. Use your imagination.

——–

I have another thing I’d like to say on here.

What is with the bashing over and over of what is, essentially, my generation? It’s highly insulting. A lot of you are making gross generalizations concerning millions of young people. It’s as if you think we’re unintelligent and all we want are sex, guns, and explosions.

Open up your eyes against the stereotypes, people. Not all teenagers are pot-smoking, hip-hop-dancing adolescents. Believe it or not, most of the people I know who went movie-going these past 12 months liked ‘Trek because it wasn’t a mindless piece of junk like Transformers.

389. doubting_thomas - May 12, 2010

385: i diddn’t know he wrote for lost, but it explains a lot. every flaw you’ve described in heroes (which i completely agree with, “villains” being the rare exception) was worked into the show in an attempt to imitate lost, with it’s famously lost storylines and sad cliffhanger oneupmanship. this effectively flatlined the show, leaving it with moments of greatness, but little else. but of course, moments is more than lost has. like many people, i think it shouldn’t have been “heroes”, just “hiro”.

i’ve only seen one episode of battlestar, and it failed to draw me in. i have intended to try it from the beginning, however. fringe also sounds hackey, from what i’ve heard it’s basicaslly house meets torchwood.

these are all reasons why i have basically given up on american entertainment. most of the movies i watch now are chinese, most of the tv shows british.

390. ryanhuyton - May 12, 2010

#384

“The ship is absolutely enormous, has far too many alien crewmembers for the period, the delta insignia, hand phasers, and gregorian calendar instead of stardates. Its out of continuity.”

The ship is big, so what? There is nothing to say it can’t be that big.

And how many aliens was the Kelvin supposed to have? Just because it was more then the Enterprise doesn’t mean it violates canon. Some ships would have more aliens than other ships. Same holds true for human crew members.

The delta insignia. Nowhere was it stated that the delta insignia was specific to the Enterprise. Its entirely possible that many ships used their own insignia by choice. Perhaps the Enterprise (and eventually Starfleet) would adopt the delta shield in honor of the Kelvin. I don’t think it was established on screen that the delta shield was ever purely the symbol of the 1701. It may have been implied in books, but books aren’t canon.

Hand phasers changed design numerous times during the 23rd century.
The phasers were different during Kirk episodes of TOS than during “The Cage”. They changed designs several different times during the first six movies as well.

Stardates. We use different methods of keeping time in our day-day lives. There is military time and there is conventional time keeping. The same would be true in the 23rd century I would assume. There is nothing to suggest the old stardate system wouldn’t still exist in the new timeline.

391. Christine - May 12, 2010

#389 :: “..fringe also sounds hackey, from what i’ve heard it’s basicaslly house meets torchwood. …”

Aaaaah, no. In my opinion, Fringe is nothing like those two shows. (Though I do think they’re both fabulous.) I think it’s the revolutionization (that’s probably not a word) of sci-fi television. It’s better than V, Heroes, or really any of the other sci-fi I’ve seen on broadcast. Besides, it’s got John Noble (STELLAR actor) and the rest of the cast is solid, too. The writing’s some of the best I’ve ever seen and heard. The show is crazy with the plotlines and just when you think they’re all going to connect, BAM, the show hits you with something you never expected.

It’s an unpredictable, and, in my opinion, exciting program. It weaves together the overlying plot with smaller, episodic sub-plots very well. Character relations and development are really, really good.

You should check it out. It’s so good. Make an opinion for yourself.

392. ryanhuyton - May 12, 2010

#389

“these are all the reasons why i have basically given up on american entertainment. most of the movies i watch now are chinese, most of the tv shows british.”

Then why do you even bother with this site? Why do you even bother with Star Trek at all? You do realize that Star Trek is part of the American entertainment business and pop culture? It was created by an American (Gene Roddenberry) This site was created by an American(Anthony Pascale). The property is based in Los Angeles. So if you prefer Chinese movies and British shows over American shows and movies, I suggest you go enjoy those while the rest of us enjoy our Star Trek.

393. doubting_thomas - May 12, 2010

386: it seems i’m talking over your head, so i’ll put it in simpler language

you have a timeline. because of a change, it diverges. a divergence is like a fork in a road. let’s call these split lines road A and road B

why would someone travelling backward along road A to a point still later than the fork end up on roab B?

this is what spock does. both he and nero go back to their own pasts. but they arrive at different points. nero goes back and arrives at a period in his history. he then makes changes, causing a new history.

logically, spock should also arrive in a period in his own history, but he doesn’t. he arrives in nero’s new history.

the only way this would make sense is if the original history is gone.

also, in the star trek series, those forks in the road to not happen. if you went backwards along the timeline of the mirror universe, there is no point where it would meet up with the regular universe. they are seperate. no branching, no forking. just a series of completely parallel timelines progressing in a straight line.

394. MJ - May 12, 2010

doubting_thomas – the math is not adding up for you my well meaning foreign friend. Despite you posting 10’s of times here, it is you and the same few folks who make up that miniscule 3% minority who don’t like the movie…you are not getting any traction her, bro! 3% isn’t even a minority — it is more like a uncomfortable hair on my you-know-what. Those of us who loved the movie have carried the day in a landslide of epic proportions on this poll. We are relaxed about this and secure in our overwhelmingly positive assessment of the film. Your attempts to change our minds and upset are are humorous at best….”I am laughing at the superior intellect.”

395. Rocket Scientist - May 12, 2010

I have no problem with the alternate timeline. In fact I think it was an ingenious way to reboot without simply being a reboot. When I first heard that was what they were doing, I was blown away by how clever that was.

My criticisms center around the storytelling itself, notably Kirk’s character arc. It was unrealistic and I just never came around to liking him. He was a punk who got lucky. Too lucky. Implausibly lucky.

I could go on, but I’m really just responding to the question about why an alternative timeline might be objectionable. It’s not. It’s a stroke of genius!

396. Damian - May 12, 2010

#374–Yes, after going through the scene again, it is a little ambiguous. But at the end of the day, the writers said the original timeline is unaffected so we simply have to accept that. Otherwise our heads will explode.

#377–There is some confusion about the type of movie you guys wrote. I think this is the only time that I can consider a movie a sequel/prequel/reboot all at the same time. And part of me would have loved to have seen a true prequel in the prime universe, although my logical half knows how difficult a sell that would be. It worked for Enterprise (In a Mirror, Darkly) with the 60’s sets, but TV is much different then motion pictures.

#381–The Romulan War idea was something floated by Eric Jendersen when Rick Berman was still in charge. That basically lost traction after Abrams took over. It was an intriguing idea for Star Trek fans, but it would had to have been a truly kick-ass movie to get the general public to go. It would have had no characters from any of the series except one or two from Enterprise. I think that’s why PocketBooks decided to take it up finally. Anyway, a huge war like the Romulan War that did not involve the Enterprise and Captain Archer would probably not have flown anyway. After all, the Enterprise was the flagship of StarFleet. It would have been like Captain Stiles and the Excelsior taking on Khan while Kirk and the Enterprise were on shore leave.

#384–They did take some liberties with the ships, crew complement, and the fact that there are Stardates about 20 years before in the prime universe. And as someone that likes consistency, that did bother me. But I tried to look at the big picture.

397. StarFuryG7 - May 12, 2010

386. dmduncan
“Why do you assume there is some one line that makes it verbally clear what is going on in the film?”

Excuse me –was there something visually that somehow made it clear that it was a different universe rather than an earlier period of the prime universe? Hell, I’d have been content with that as well, but the reality is that no such thing occurred in the film.

“What ‘line in the film makes it abundantly clear’ that Kirk was attracted to Uhura?”

You mean you didn’t recognize the signs concerning Kirk’s actions and so forth?

“In 2001: A Space Odyssey, ‘what line in the film makes it abundantly clear’ that the obelisk changed the monkey-men in some way that they knew how to use bones as weapons?”

That was made apparent visually obviously by what occurred on screen. As I said above, I’d be perfectly content with that too, except that there’s no such comparison you can make with respect to that scene in “2001” and what took place in this last Trek film obviously, otherwise we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

“I’ve gone through explaining all this months ago. It’s tiresome to have to keep doing it, and for a film that is allegedly so ‘dumb’ that quite a few people out there still don’t get it.”

Look, I’m really not interested in what you told who when, and beyond that you’re trying to put words in my mouth apparently besides. Nowhere have I described the film as “dumb”. There were things that I really liked about it, as well as things that annoyed me, and I’m talking here about one of the chief things that bothered me about it.

“If you go to a Spanish language film but speak no Spanish, does the film teach you the Spanish language so that you can understand what’s being said in the film, or is the language used, like your common sense and your active brain, one of those many things which you are absolutely required to bring with you to the theater?”

You’re going out of your way to try and make excuses here for something that simply is not in the film–period. I’m not saying you shouldn’t like the movie, but clearly you cannot point to anything definitive, be it visually or in terms of dialogue that makes clear that what happened in ST09 happened in an alternate universe rather than the one we already knew.

“I trust nobody will be so thick as to pretend yet again for the sake of trying to win an unwinnable argument that movies contain every single thing you need to know INSIDE the movie as if the moviegoers were dribbling know-nothing newborns about whom the filmmakers and writers can’t trust you to get anything”

You’re arguing on behalf of supposition, pure and simple, saying that it should be up to the viewer to draw his or her own conclusion about what happened in the movie. Well, that’s ridiculous. How many Trek episodes or Trek movies have you seen where that was the kind of writing technique that was employed? Even if you want to point to TNG’s “Parallels,” where “Many Worlds” multiple universes were actually at issue, it was abundantly clear what was going on there, and we’re talking about Braga for cryin’ out loud, who have little respect for as a writer by comparison.

“That’s NOT the only comment genius”

I see that you’re more interested in being rude than having a civil disagreement. Fine –I’ll let that one pass for the moment for the sake of the discussion anyway.

“it’s only one piece of the puzzle that has several pieces spanning the movie. Did you know the Grandfather Paradox was referenced without ever being explicitly mentioned?”

And I can point to a line that’s in an earlier draft of the script that either didn’t make it into the finished film, or which is there but is barely audible that serves as a hint to the “Many Worlds” theory of Quantum Mechanics being at play in the film — So what? Either something was made clear in the movie or it wasn’t, and one of the principal writers has just acknowledged that it was deliberately left ambiguous, meaning that at best, there’s nothing definitive and concrete pointing to it being an alternate universe even though you’re determined to argue that’s what the film indicates supposedly.

“When Kirk and Spock went back in time in “The City on the Edge of Forever” and had to correct the timeline for instance, what had occurred there as a result of Edith Keeler not dying was an ‘alternate reality’ also, but it was the same universe, which was why Kirk had to let her die in a car accident the way she was meant to in the original timeline.” -StarFuryG7

“No, see, you DON’T understand MWI. There is absolutely nothing in City that indicates anything about alternate or parallel realities as per MWI”

Where did I say that it did supposedly?

“As far as City is concerned, McCoy changed the condition of the universe by meddling with the timeline thus erasing the future history of the Prime universe”

No kidding –you’re just restating the argument I put forth obviously.

“he did not split universes as per MWI leaving the Prime universe intact next to a parallel alternate universe.”

Where did I say that he did?

“So when you call what Harlan created in City an “alternate” universe, you are equivocating on the meaning of ‘alternate.’ ”

Uh, No –what you need to do is read what I said again apparently without trying to inject your own incorrect interpretation to what I said and then telling me that I don’t know what I’m talking about. In short, either read more carefully, or learn to read.

398. Boborci - May 12, 2010

397. Ambiguous on the surface, I said.

399. Christine - May 12, 2010

#398 :: Hi, Mr. Orci. Good to see you!
….. Um….

I love what you and the crew are doing with Fringe. I know this is a ‘Trek forum, but I don’t have any Star Trek-related questions, and I’m SUPER psyched for Fringe tomorrow night. It’s my post-AP Exams celebration. :D

400. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

@392: LOL.

You clearly have no idea what MWI is, the various ideas that came out of it, or its proposed solution to the Grandfather Paradox which Bob and Alex based their story on, or you would not be asking such obviously ignorant questions.

So you don’t understand MWI and lacking that understanding you accuse the MOVIE of being unintelligent and not making sense when it’s actually your own knowledge that’s deficient. By the same logic, time dilation is “stupid” if it doesn’t make sense to YOU.

“why would someone travelling backward along road A to a point still later than the fork end up on roab B?”

Because the fork is CREATED BY THE TRAVELING!!! Based on the MWI/QM solution of the Grandfather Paradox, the universes would split by any action in the past that did not happen the “first” time thus letting the “time traveler” out in an alternate universe where he is incapable of preventing his own birth or interfering in his OWN past in any way — because it is a duplicated universe NOT the same universe of his own birth that he has gone “back” to. In a DUPLICATE universe Spock might meet his grandfather and kill him without paradox because it is not literally THAT Spock’s own past but a branched off copy of his own past, split by the action of Spock’s attempted travel to his own past.

“this is what spock does. both he and nero go back to their own pasts.”

Nope. Nero and Spock traveling seconds apart through the same black hole to the same location NEVER arrived in their actual pasts since the opening of that black hole in the past where none had been before would have been the action that split the universes, thus letting both Spock and Nero out in an alternate universe from the BEGINNING. Get it? We were in an alternate universe from the beginning of the movie.

The Prime universe is unchanged and existing in parallel, in an orthogonal dimension, to a universe newly made by Spock/Nero in which the events of the ST.09 movie take place.

“also, in the star trek series, those forks in the road to not happen. if you went backwards along the timeline of the mirror universe, there is no point where it would meet up with the regular universe. they are seperate. no branching, no forking. just a series of completely parallel timelines progressing in a straight line.”

But we’re not IN the Star Trek “series” anymore, toto, and THIS incarnation was based on MWI which, oddly enough, DID make an appearance in TNG and so is technically “canon” EVEN IF it is inconsistent with previous Trek. Get over it or seethe yourself to death. Whatever your pleasure.

401. MJ - May 12, 2010

“You clearly have no idea what MWI is, the various ideas that came out of it, or its proposed solution to the Grandfather Paradox which Bob and Alex based their story on, or you would not be asking such obviously ignorant questions.”

Thank you Steven Hawking….NOT!

I think I speak for everyone here…I really hope the economy improves so that you can replace your Trek 11 unpaid posting position with a paying position….whoops, you are not in this country (like any of that really bought that weak line).

LOL

402. Martin in Boise - May 12, 2010

I hated the movie. It jettisoned decades of continuity in favor of a mindless popcorn blockbuster.

403. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

401: “I think I speak for everyone here…”

You don’t, actually. I’ve had far more complimentary reactions to my posts than uninventive smears like yours. But yeah, narcissists usually think they speak for everyone in whatever room that they enter.

“I really hope the economy improves so that you can replace your Trek 11 unpaid posting position with a paying position….”

I haven’t been out of a well paying job in 10 years, and I won’t be out of one any time soon. I guess that’s why I have the time and can afford to do this for fun. : )

“whoops, you are not in this country (like any of that really bought that weak line).”

I don’t know what country YOU live in, but I live in America and have never claimed otherwise.

404. Christine - May 12, 2010

#401 :: It’s “Stephen” Hawking. Stephen William Hawking.
A brilliant man. And one of my inspirations. ♥

#402 :: I see your point, but… I think of it more as a really, really extensive “MIrror Universe” plot. Because based on what I’ve been reading, it seems like this is moreso a parallel universe. Isn’t that kind of like calling “Mirror, Mirror” and all the succeeding episodes “non-canon”? It’s just a different timeline of canon.

405. MJ - May 12, 2010

401: “I think I speak for everyone here…”

“You don’t, actually”

Correction: “I think I stand for the 97% of us who liked he movie here.”

406. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

397:

407. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

You don’t speak for anybody but yourself, idiot. And please do tell me what country I don’t in.

408. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

Correction: And please do tell me what country I don’t live in.

409. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

BTW 397, I had a nice long post fro you at 406. “397:” is all that posted.

410. Boborci - May 12, 2010

399

Congrats and good luck on results!

411. Harry Ballz - May 12, 2010

Bob

what goes through your mind when you see the heated debates your script has caused?

412. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

What a pain to lose that post, but I’ll try again:

397: “Excuse me –was there something visually that somehow made it clear that it was a different universe rather than an earlier period of the prime universe?”

It wasn’t something verbal OR something visual ALONE, it was a series of BOTH. If you watched the movie then you saw specific actions, not general ones, specific actions that told the story and conveyed the meanings, along with specific lines of dialogue that did the same thing.

“You mean you didn’t recognize the signs concerning Kirk’s actions and so forth?”

Oh I understood what was going on just fine, but I didn’t say anything about “signs.” You’ve changed the actual word I responded to, which was “line.”

You wrote: “So by all means, specify the line in the film that makes abundantly clear that what happened in this last movie takes place in an alternate universe”

“Line” was your word, used to suggest that the alternate universe idea wasn’t made “abundantly clear” because there was no “line” that made it so.

But that’s a straw man. Nobody is making the argument that there is some SINGLE line that establishes what happened. It’s a 2 hour long motion PICTURE. There’s a series of lines and actions associated with them that makes the connection. To say it’s not there simply ignores what’s in the film.

As I’ve already established, lines may or may not make a point. Actions may also make a point. Or actions in conjunction with words. You have to be alert for any one alone or in combination with the others.

“You’re going out of your way to try and make excuses here for something that simply is not in the film–period.”

Erase that “period” because it is in Spock Prime’s dialogue with Kirk on Scotty’s transporter pad when Spock lies to him and Prime’s dialogue with his younger self at the end revealing the lie of universe ending paradoxes which is a direct reference to the MWI solution to the Grandfather Paradoxes, which we know at that moment is the real situation that applies in the universe of the movie. Those, in conjunction with the lines on the bridge are the X that marks the spot. The Grandfather Paradox is an implicit part of the movie. And please don’t waste your time trying to argue that the Grandfather Paradox is not “in” the movie unless somebody says “Grandfather Paradox”; that would be tantamount to arguing that there was no bridge in the movie because there was no sign explicitly marking it as “the bridge.”

You know it by inference from what happened and from what was said, otherwise I would be on your side.

“but clearly you cannot point to anything definitive, be it visually or in terms of dialogue that makes clear that what happened in ST09 happened in an alternate universe rather than the one we already knew.”

Not so “clearly.” I just did. So did Bob.

“You’re arguing on behalf of supposition, pure and simple, saying that it should be up to the viewer to draw his or her own conclusion about what happened in the movie. Well, that’s ridiculous.”

Nope. 1. I’m arguing from INFERENCE based on what’s actually IN the film, which is NOT the same thing as “supposition.” Inference, of course, is part of the scientific method. It’s how we first learned that black holes existed. Facts aren’t all anybody’s guess when we don’t see or hear them directly. 2. That’s not what I’m saying AT ALL. It’s not up to the viewer, it’s about what’s in the film. I am saying if you understand those lines of dialogue

413. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

Note: Half the post vanished, but I saved it this time. Here’s the other half:

Nope. 1. I’m arguing from INFERENCE based on what’s actually IN the film, which is NOT the same thing as “supposition.” Inference, of course, is part of the scientific method. It’s how we first learned that black holes existed. Facts aren’t all anybody’s guess when we don’t see or hear them directly. 2. That’s not what I’m saying AT ALL. It’s not up to the viewer, it’s about what’s in the film. I am saying if you understand those lines of dialogue

414. MJ - May 12, 2010

Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how many of the posters taking down Trek 11 are the same person posting as different people here? I bet 2-3 people here are responding as multiple personalities — i.e. reinforcing their own arguments in the guise of a supposed independent posting from someone else. Given 97% of the people liked the movie, this explanation is LOGICAL.

415. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

My apologies. The remainder of the post isn’t that long, but it isn’t showing up in total. One more try for the last part:

“And to save you the time, the ‘alternate reality’ line used by Uhura on the bridge of the Enterprise just doesn’t cut it as it’s not sufficient to make clear that it’s an alternate universe. When Kirk and Spock went back in time in ‘The City on the Edge of Forever’ and had to correct the timeline for instance, what had occurred there as a result of Edith Keeler not dying was an ‘alternate reality’ also, but it was the same universe, which was why Kirk had to let her die in a car accident the way she was meant to in the original timeline.”

Yes, it was the same universe, no MWI, no branching universes. But so what? What does City have to do with the MWI in ST.09?

What you are calling in that quote an “alternate reality” has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the alternate realities postulated by MWI. Nothing. Whatsoever. So when you say “what had occurred there as a result of Edith Keeler not dying was an ‘alternate reality’ also,” it was NOT “alternate” in the sense that MWI and ST.09 utilizing MWI means “alternate.”

That is incorrect.

The only reason you can say there’s an alternate reality premise in City at all is because Kirk and crew (and us) remember something different and NOT because one universe split from another and exists in parallel to it, so “alternate” means something totally different in MWI/ST.09 than how you are using it to refer to what happened in City.

Understanding what happened in City won’t help anyone understand what happened in ST.09. It’s irrelevant. So why mention it?

416. MJ - May 12, 2010

“My apologies.”

No problem…we were all waiting with baited breath for page 67 of your posts to date on this topic.

417. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

FYI. Giving up. The post was mangled by a glitch and is still incomplete.

418. Harry Ballz - May 12, 2010

Maybe it appeared in an alternate reality!

419. ryanhuyton - May 12, 2010

#417

Your overwhelming logic caused the “glitch”. This site can’t handle your arguements. :-)

420. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

414: “Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how many of the posters taking down Trek 11 are the same person posting as different people here? I bet 2-3 people here are responding as multiple personalities — i.e. reinforcing their own arguments in the guise of a supposed independent posting from someone else. Given 97% of the people liked the movie, this explanation is LOGICAL.”

Actually, I’ve sometimes wondered the same thing. It’s very rare that somebody irritates me in precisely the same way, so when it happens I naturally suspect a name change, particularly when the other guy is losing the argument the way that RD and Trekenstein was so fond of doing.

Anthony could probably figure that out by IP address, but why would he waste his time? As for myself, I post under my name, and ONLY under my name. But I suspect less honest people do otherwise to save face when the argument isn’t going so well for them.

“No problem…we were all waiting with baited breath for page 67 of your posts to date on this topic.”

As I said. I’m well employed. I can afford to. How about you?

And don’t short me. I’ve written WAAAY more than 67 pages on this site over the past year, and I’m proud of most of them.

421. Boborci - May 12, 2010

411.

I mostly feel lucky, and also slightly disembodied, because I too am a fan and I try to imagine what I would think, and I can imagine that I would agree with some of the detractors.

422. doubting_thomas - May 12, 2010

400:

you’re clearly not getting this…..

spock and nero enter the displacement at the same time

but spock exits it years after nero does.

spock should exit it in his past, not nero’s new timeline.

you said yourself, the split is caused by the travelling. so for spock, there shouldn’t be a split until he arrives. nero’s split should have happened years earlier, splitting AWAY from where spock arrives.

do i have to draw a diagram? fine

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v705/neomp5/timelinediagram.jpg

this really shouldn’t be so difficult to understand.

423. ryanhuyton - May 12, 2010

#421

Bob, we are all lucky to have Star Trek to enjoy and I am lucky to be able to read your responses to our questions.

424. Harry Ballz - May 12, 2010

Bob

most kind of you to answer my question; one more thing…..I’m curious, when you’re “brainstorming” for script ideas, and you think you’re closing in on a good premise……how do you manage to “lock in” on that story and proceed to flesh it out (staying with it), and not second guess yourself constantly that maybe an even better premise is just one more “brainstorming” session away?

425. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

422: “you’re clearly not getting this…..”

Welcome back. And save the pictures. I doubt they’re any better than your reasoning or comprehension.

Spock and Nero do NOT enter the black hole at the same time, they enter seconds apart. Nero FIRST, and THEN Spock. They exit 25 years apart.

They enter the same black hole which has what? You guessed it, the same exit hole, thus leading to the same PLACE — which is 25 years earlier than Spock’s exit, from the experience of Nero, and seconds apart from the experience of Spock Prime — that PLACE being the NEW universe created by Nero’s intrusion into history. There is NO scenario under MWI which would have had Spock going to his OWN past, as for example when you say “spock should exit it in his past, not nero’s new timeline.”

If you still think that’s what SHOULD have happened, review the film, and continue googling. Spock exiting “in his past, not nero’s new timeline” IS the sort of problem that MWI was proposed to solve.

How does it solve the paradox if Spock ends up in his own past?

426. StarFuryG7 - May 12, 2010

398. Boborci – May 12, 2010
“Ambiguous on the surface, I said.”

I take that to mean that the intent “on the surface” wasn’t meant to be definitively clear and concise, and therein lies the problem, because even upon closer examination and scrutiny of the film from beginning to end, one can’t really make a case that what takes place in the film is an alternate universe; more than anything it appears to be the prime universe undone.

427. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

Furthermore, since the copy universe Nero created has no “history” prior to Nero’s actions, then it is impossible to suggest that Spock Prime’s appearance in that universe could somehow be a catalyst for the branching off of another universe which has no Nero in it. Since it would take an event from the “future” attempting to intrude into the past where it didn’t happen before, and the new Nero universe has no history in which Spock Prime did NOT appear in, then we cannot argue, either based on what we saw or MWI, that Spock’s appearance in that universe was an event that should have caused another universe to branch off where there was no Nero, and where Spock and Nero went their separate ways.

So no matter how you look at it, both Spock Prime and Nero would have both ended up together in a single universe on the other side of the black hole, which was not their literal past.

428. StarFuryG7 - May 12, 2010

#415. dmduncan
“Yes, it was the same universe, no MWI, no branching universes. But so what? What does City have to do with the MWI in ST.09?”

I was making the point about why Uhura’s “alternate reality” line in ST09 is not conclusive evidence attesting to it being a “Many Worlds” scenario obviously, that’s why I brought up “The City on the Edge of Forever,” to give an example.

“What you are calling in that quote an ‘alternate reality’ has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the alternate realities postulated by MWI.”

Exactly –and that was my point; what happens in that episode with the timeline having been radically altered by McCoy going back in time was an “alternate reality” also, that’s why Uhura’s line in ST09 doesn’t work as definitive proof about it being a different alternate universe in the film.

“Understanding what happened in City won’t help anyone understand what happened in ST.09. It’s irrelevant. So why mention it?”

:::Sigh::: Because I’ve already had this argument/disagreement with other people over the last year, and Uhura’s “alternate reality” line is usually what they leap right to as supposed “proof” that it’s an alternate universe. The reason it doesn’t work however is because it’s too generic and describes their situation as of that moment when they’re having that conversation on the bridge regardless. They’re literally talking about the trajectory of their lives having been radically altered by what Nero does in the movie, and that would apply even if it’s the prime timeline being undone obviously. I was basically just looking to cut you off at the pass and save you the time of giving me an argument I’ve already heard before, more than once, but which doesn’t work regardless. It’s not sufficient evidence that makes the point obviously.

429. StarFuryG7 - May 12, 2010

**My prior attempt to post this didn’t go through apparently –I’m glad I had the presence of mind to safeguard the text beforehand as a precaution, or it would have been lost completely also.**

412. dmduncan
“It wasn’t something verbal OR something visual ALONE, it was a series of BOTH. If you watched the movie then you saw specific actions, not general ones, specific actions that told the story and conveyed the meanings, along with specific lines of dialogue that did the same thing.”

You’re talking in generalities. I asked you to point to something concrete that shows it was an alternate universe–one thing, and you’re drawing upon the broader picture while at the same time providing no evidence that actually makes your case.

“Oh I understood what was going on just fine, but I didn’t say anything about ‘signs.’ You’ve changed the actual word I responded to, which was ‘line.’ ”

That’s because you drew upon a different example: Kirk’s interest in Uhura, which was apparently through his actions, along with some of his dialogue. But we hadn’t touched on that aspect of the movie previously.

” ‘Line’ was your word, used to suggest that the alternate universe idea wasn’t made ‘abundantly clear’ because there was no “line” that made it so.
But that’s a straw man.”

No, it’s not –I asked for dialogue, but it was just to make the point that I was looking for and wanted actual proof, and I really couldn’t care less if it was in the form of words uttered by the characters or on screen evidence that pointed to a clear shift from one universe to another taking place, such as the early scene in the TOS episode “Mirror, Mirror,” where we literally see the Enterprise changing directions in orbit around the planet to show that a shift in universes had occurred. Evidence is evidence as far as I’m concerned, regardless of which form it comes in.

“Nobody is making the argument that there is some SINGLE line that establishes what happened. It’s a 2 hour long motion PICTURE. There’s a series of lines and actions associated with them that makes the connection. To say it’s not there simply ignores what’s in the film.”

Oh, hey, feel free to break it down however you like to make your case, I really don’t care. If that means having to point to specific scenes and what happened in them, then I say go right ahead and do so. Prove me wrong –show me the evidence is irrefutably there that attests to it being a universal shift rather than a timeline being changed and undone and I’ll gladly accept it if it’s really there.

“Erase that ‘period’ because it is in Spock Prime’s dialogue with Kirk on Scotty’s transporter pad when Spock lies to him and Prime’s dialogue with his younger self at the end revealing the lie of universe ending paradoxes which is a direct reference to the MWI solution to the Grandfather Paradoxes”

But Spock Prime was lying about that, and regardless, “universe ending paradoxes” does not mean that the prime timeline has not been affected and changed as a result of what Nero does in the movie, and I would point out that at no point is it even brought to Nero’s attention that he’s in a different universe, and that his actions therefore have no point, since he’s seeking to punish all the wrong people. Clearly the guy was mad, but one would think someone would have at least tried to reach him with that approach the way Pike tried to get through to him when he was about to be tortured at Nero’s hands.

“The Grandfather Paradox is an implicit part of the movie. And please don’t waste your time trying to argue that the Grandfather Paradox is not “in” the movie unless somebody says ‘Grandfather Paradox’ ”

I wouldn’t exactly go that far, however, I would hasten to point out that with respect to Kirk, his father dying took place at the moment of his birth, well after he was already conceived obviously. In order for the Grandfather paradox to truly apply, the prospect of his father dying would have had to occur at an earlier stage, and clearly his father dying in the movie does not prevent his being born.

“Nope. 1. I’m arguing from INFERENCE based on what’s actually IN the film, which is NOT the same thing as ‘supposition.’ ”

It sounds as though it’s supposition to me, and you’ve admitted that you can’t point to anything clearly definitive that spells out it’s an alternate universe rather than the prime universe and timeline undone.

“Inference, of course, is part of the scientific method. It’s how we first learned that black holes existed.”

That’s all well and good, but we’re talking about a movie, not a Black Hole –a movie that just so happens to have a Black Hole in it, but still a movie in contrast.

430. Boborci - May 12, 2010

424.

That’s a good question. I probably can’t offer very good insight on an instinct, other than to say that I treat it as a court case, and I try to imagine what the detractors woukl say, and if I can’t respond with a straight face to my own imagined criticisms, then we dont have it.

431. Harry Ballz - May 12, 2010

Bob

thank you so much for taking the time to answer my question. I’ve done quite a bit of writing myself and wondered how you handled it.

432. doubting_thomas - May 12, 2010

425:

i don’t know how to put this in any simpler way. pock is supposed to be going back in time like nero is, not sideways in time.

433. moauvian waoul - May 12, 2010

@421 great response.

434. Red Skirt - May 12, 2010

#373. “370. Boborci “As far as alternate universes go, I will admit that we made it purposely ambiguous on a surface level, but as I said before, events and reactions in the movie cannot be reconciled with any logic other than MWI.””

StarFuryG7 – you seem to be new here. Let me Translate: the movie is purposefully ambiguous so stupid people can enjoy it as much as the smartest people. If you do not understand it as implied by the writers, then you are not very smart, but it’s OK, because millions of other stupid people were able to enjoy it on a lower level. Since the writers wrote it and are telling you what the movie means, you cannot argue with them, because theirs is the only way to “correctly” interpret the movie (it would be like challenging God after she told you what the bible means), whether or not you think their words and actions can be interpreted in any other way (even though that was their stated intention). But that’s OK, because we’re not all as smart as film and TV writers, or their disciples.

Follow the advice offered here in this forum and I’m pretty sure eventually you’ll find the movie can only be correctly interpreted one way. Or, that the writer’s are full of themselves. ;-)

In either event, only you can decide just how hard you want to work to adjust or contrast your understanding, especially here.

But I never get tired of hearing about all the people that never heard of Star Trek before,who after viewing the film one or more times, commented on the novel use of the Many Worlds parallel universe theory to set up the plot. ;-) Oh that’s right they don’t … because it just doesn’t matter.

435. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

428: “I’ve already had this argument/disagreement with other people over the last year, and Uhura’s “alternate reality” line is usually what they leap right to as supposed “proof” that it’s an alternate universe.”

Okay, so we agree on some things. But if other people are having the same trouble discerning your meaning on the same matters you should ask yourself why that is. I’m not making that “one line” argument. That’s only one clue.

“You’re talking in generalities. I asked you to point to something concrete that shows it was an alternate universe–one thing, and you’re drawing upon the broader picture while at the same time providing no evidence that actually makes your case.”

Spock “lied” to Kirk that universe ending paradoxes would ensue if the two Spock’s met each other.

It’s in the movie.

If Spock lied and that is not true, then it means that universe ending paradoxes WILL NOT ensue if they meet.

So there ARE no paradoxes in the two Spock’s meeting. One Spock can kill the other, but he can’t kill himself PARADOXICALLY, or his grandfather, thereby stopping his own birth, because they are not the SAME Spocks with the same parents and grandparents. They are copies.

So the movie is oh so clearly saying there ARE NO GRANDFATHER PARADOXES created by the events of the movie.

And if there are none, it can only be because that “past” is not Spock’s OWN past but a copy of his past.

That’s the well known solution to the Grandfather Paradox via MWI.

There’s no paradox because they are not literally the same people in the same past. Which is to say that they are different people in different or parallel realities.

You have to really ignore what they are saying and what the words are meaning to insist that ST.09 is the past of the Prime universe.

My explanation fits perfectly. What is YOUR explanation of what those words meant???

“But Spock Prime was lying about that, and regardless,”

No, no, no, not “regardless.” Sweeping past that part so swiftly is why you aren’t getting it.

The thing Spock Prime was lying about was that universe ending paradoxes would ensue. They would not ensue and that was the truth he didn’t tell Kirk. They would not ensue because SPOCK knew that he was NOT in his own past.

““universe ending paradoxes” does not mean that the prime timeline has not been affected and changed as a result of what Nero does in the movie,”

You have to clarify your meaning here.

“his father dying took place at the moment of his birth, well after he was already conceived obviously. In order for the Grandfather paradox to truly apply, the prospect of his father dying would have had to occur at an earlier stage, and clearly his father dying in the movie does not prevent his being born.”

1. In one sense I think you’re taking the paradox too literally. The principle involved in the Grandfather Paradox is the principle of being ABLE to revisit ones own past. If it is literally possible to do that, those paradoxes arise out of that possibility regardless of whether you actually go back far enough to kill your grandfather, your father, or even to meet and kill yourself.

You could also rename it the “kill yourself” paradox because it’s the same principle. How could you kill yourself if you exist as an older person from the future who did not kill himself? The grandfather example is the one that was historically presented but it’s not the ONLY way to present the same paradox.

2. The Grandfather paradox DOESN’T apply in this film. And it doesn’t apply in principle, not merely in circumstance where it might still be possible in principle to revisit one’s past and kill one’s grandfather. That is precisely my point and Spock Prime’s point. The reason WHY it doesn’t apply is because it’s not the same universe. If Nero had come through much earlier killing George Kirk before James was conceived, that would just be another split universe where no James Kirk exists. So the NON applicability IN PRINCIPLE of the Grandfather Paradox as evidenced by Spock meeting himself — the final piece of the puzzle at the end of the film — proves my case, not yours.

“It sounds as though it’s supposition to me, and you’ve admitted that you can’t point to anything clearly definitive that spells out it’s an alternate universe rather than the prime universe and timeline undone.”

I’ve admitted nothing and given precisely what you asked for above. You mistook my laziness for an indefensible position.

436. dmduncan - May 12, 2010

430: “and I try to imagine what the detractors woukl say, and if I can’t respond with a straight face to my own imagined criticisms, then we dont have it.”

Yikes, Bob. You are going to have detractors no matter what you do! All the voices you must have in your head. How do you stay sane? (It’s the wife, isn’t it?)

437. moauvian waoul - May 12, 2010

@ Enterprisingguy
(if you’re still there)

off topic… After reconsidering your post, I’m not sure my response was accurate. Your point was about the amount of time that it took for the fleet to be destroyed before the Enterprise arrived at Vulcan. My original question was about the time it took to reach Vulcan from Earth and then the amount of time to return to Earth later. It was this question that Bob Orci answered explaining that the intial trip to Vulcan was longer than appeared as was evident by McCoy’s change in uniform and Kirk being unconscious for the length of the trip. Woops.
I now return to your regularly scheduled debate…

438. Canon Schmanon - May 12, 2010

PLEASE no brewer for the second film. I love the movie, but the moment I saw “Engineering” I knew it was a frigging brewery and it suddenly looked SO cheap and SO thrown together. Why all these people on computers beside these giant tanks of beer? So effing stupid. It bugs me more and more every time I watch it. Please, JJ, drop the “steam punk” look there, because you sure don’t use it elsewhere. The bridge and the rest of the Enterprise are definitely not steam punk.

And in case I didn’t make myself clear. Get rid of the brewery!!!!

439. captain_neill - May 12, 2010

Thank you for no longer making me feel alone

I loved this film but JJ Abrams did things i despised. I hated the brewery engine room, the new phasers were no where near as good as the original ones.

He destroyed Vulcan and I also agree the quick promotions and Kirk going from cadet to Captain required a lot of suspension of disbelief.

Also this story is very weak.

Its a great reboot but to me its a separate entity from the rest of Trek and not canon.

I do hope they return to the Prime Universe

440. Devon - May 13, 2010

“I do hope they return to the Prime Universe”

Doubt it.

441. captain_neill - May 13, 2010

I know but I wish it though.

442. Harry Ballz - May 13, 2010

Wishing doesn’t………….(wait for it)……………”make it so”!

443. Devon - May 13, 2010

#432 – “Pock??”

Yes, so much for the simpleton audience you put yourself above…

444. Hugh Hoyland - May 13, 2010

The only problem, and its a big one in the next film is bringing the “Trio” totally together. Not U/S, not K/S, OR any other variance. Those three… (Kirk, Spock, Bones) are the heart and soul of the entire story line from first to last and if its not included, disaster will come about…..fast! Have those three in “trinity” mode thru out the movie, and just that alone will make roughly 95% of anyone claiming to be a Star Trek fan happy as all get out IMO.:} You got the uniforms right, and the colors (Blue, Blue, Yellow) now get them together and its a done deal.

445. philpot - May 13, 2010

the way i see it is this (simplistically)

Fans know its an alternate timeline and the Prime timeline is still out there due to the last page of Countdown, TM.com etc

Average Joe Cinema goers and Causal Fans who dont read comics, check online every day etc think its been rewritten BTTF style so no TOS, Wrath of Khan, TNG etc etc ever happened (Spock Prime knows of it all but thats it)

dunno how it could have been explained more in the film that it was MW thing other than actually showing it – e.g. if the Enterprise had gone through the black hole at the end and ended up in the 24th century and briefly sees the Enterprise E monitoring the event horizon (like last page of Countdown and similar to ‘Yesterdays Enterprise’) but then is flung back into its own time/universe – like a tidel wave retracting…(to reinforce the idea that the alternate universe goes on and it isnt a new timeline overwriting it)

or if nero had figured out how to get back to his own time via the red matter after his earth destruction plan fails…kirk (on the narada now in the future) destroys the warp core and gets beamed out by Spock on the jelly fish. the Narada is destroyed and K&S head back into the blackhole to their own time before it closes..

as they leave they dont notice but we briefly see a ship that arrived to check out the disturbances… the Enterprise E

446. P Technobabble - May 13, 2010

Obviously, none of the detractors can say WHY Star Trek shouldn’t be allowed to change, I guess…

The alternate timeline was explained enough in the film without resorting to a lot of technobabble, which some people here seem to be proposing should have been used. There was no need for these characters to sit around a conference table and have Spock present a dissertation on quantum mechanics, time paradoxes and alternate universe theory… especially since what he would be using for his explanation would be 21st century science. One must imagine by the 23rd century, some new kind of understanding would have evolved concerning quantum mechanics and such. And such a conference would have brought the film to a grinding halt. I understood what was going on in the film just fine. Raise your hand if you didn’t…

447. fansince66 - May 13, 2010

#438
The engine room is a brewery because beer is the matter that is used in the matter/antimatter reactor core.It’s a fantastically complex process to regulate the beer flowage into the reactor core thus requiring all the personnel at the control consoles.
And you should try a mug of that anti-beer. It’ll take your frikken head right off. No, actually anti-beer makes you super-sober, and is frequently used at keggers to sober up right away.

448. fansince66 - May 13, 2010

#445
I’m taking it as a rewrite/reboot anyway. I’ve been with the ST saga from beginning-to-end, and I’m sooo ready for a redo, with my original favorite characters (plus Pike). And with new stories too. As long as the iconic threesome (plus Pike) are “dancing” together, I’ll be one, happy oldtimer.

449. captain_neill - May 13, 2010

I am not a detractor I do like the new movie and I accept the film as a reboot and not canon.

I do hope that we can return to the Prime Universe someday.

450. captain_neill - May 13, 2010

the problem with the brewery being used for engineering is that it looks like a brewery being used for engineering.

In that shot with AU Kirk in front of it, it just doesn’t look right.

Its out of scale also with the Enterprise.

Although the new Enterprise is growing on me, I still prefer the TOS and refit looks to the good old Constituation Class.

451. Damian - May 13, 2010

The debate over whether this is an alternate timeline or a fundamental change to the prime timeline has gotten a little ugly. For me it is easy. Bob, Alex and JJ say it is a new timeline, they wrote it, and I accept it. The debate over how time travel has been done in the past is fascinating, however. I agree that how time travel in the past has been handled is that by the end of the show/movie, whatever happened was resolved. In this case that did not happen. They use as their basis for parallel universes “Parallels” in the Next Generation. The basic assumption I suppose is that all the parallel universes (including the Mirror universe) sprang from one single point at some point in the past and diverged, and the new Nero created universe is simply a new reality added to the mix. Obviously this was not ever explicitly stated on screen, so is technically not canon. But to tell you the truth, as someone who reads the novels of the various different series, I generally accept things as part of the Star Trek story unless they become contradicted on screen. (i.e. Admiral Janeway “died” in the novel “Before Dishonor”–as far as I am concerned, she is “dead” unless it is stated on screen that she is still alive). Otherwise, why read the novels in the first place. The same goes for me here. If Bob and Alex say this is an alternate universe, I am willing to accept that unless someday on screen it is stated otherwise.

452. startrekker - May 13, 2010

wasn’t it not time for a fresh approach to Star Trek I really love what JJ and the cast and crew have done it’s ultra creative your mileage may vary

453. Damian - May 13, 2010

452–I think the old team of Berman, Braga and Moore were spent. Let’s face it, some of them had worked on Star Trek for 10+ years. However, I did think that Star Trek: Enterprise was finally gaining some respect in the 4th season with the addition of Manny Coto and I would have loved to have seen a 5th season. While I loved Enterprise as much as I liked all the Star Trek series, there weremissed opportunities with this show that were not realized until Season 4. Eventually JJ and co. will have the same problems if they stay on too long and start doing TV series in addition to movies. Everyone runs out of ideas eventually. But JJ Abrams, Bob Orci and Alex Kurtzman just started, so they I am sure they have plenty of Star Trek in them to keep them going for some time. And when they are done, hopefully someone else will take over and move us into the next generation.

454. Red Skirt - May 13, 2010

#446. “Obviously, none of the detractors can say WHY Star Trek shouldn’t be allowed to change”

P Technobabble, you mean like its proponents who accept everything else yet insist Spock and Uhura should not have a relationship? True there are those who resist any changes, but the majority of the posts I’ve read here from the so-called “detractors” don’t seem to have a problem with change itself, but rather how the change was implemented.

“no need for these characters to sit around a conference table and have Spock present a dissertation on quantum mechanics”

Instead Orci does it outside the film on the web and in comic books. I agree with you, that “some” people here have lobbied for a more elaborate discourse (for which such briefing room scenes were a routine part of the original series). I also agree such a lengthy scene would have inappropriately slowed the momentum and allowed people to think too much about what they just saw (and speed was definitely this film’s friend). But I do think there is a happy medium between what was presented and what you suggest is required to appease those “detractors”. Back to the Future II did it in all of :10 seconds. I’m not sure Star Trek even needed that. However, clarifying it further would have denied the writers the ability to have their cake and eat it too by making it intentionally ambiguous to appeal to all intellectual levels, so I get that as well.

“I understood what was going on in the film just fine. Raise your hand if you didn’t”

I don’t believe anyone failed to understand what was going on in the film on some level, and patronizing its “detractors” doesn’t help your cause. But tell me honestly, if you had not read countdown, or any of Orci’s treatise on Quantum Mechanics presented here, would you have still understood the film as Orci maintains is the only “logical” way to do so? He’s already stated that it was intentionally written to allow other interpretations, so you’re not wrong however you understood it – you simply aren’t smart enough if you don’t ultimately see it the way he does. But that’s in no way insulting to the audience, and certainly wouldn’t influence anyone’s answer here. ;-)

455. P Technobabble - May 13, 2010

454. Red

“..but the majority of the posts I’ve read here from the so-called “detractors” don’t seem to have a problem with change itself, but rather how the change was implemented…”

On this point, we’ll have to disagree, because I’ve noticed more posters that don’t seem to like the fact that Star Trek has changed at all. People who have protested that Trek09 has dismissed continuity, canon, all the stuff that the original series presented and that the writers have introduced a new timeline/alternate universe, seem far more aggravated that we didn’t get a movie that either continued along the same lines, or started prior to the original series as it was. It seems to me those who didn’t like the film didn’t like all the new stuff that was introduced. But that’s how I see it, and I accept you see it differently. And I’m sure there are those who accept change, but didn’t like what they got. I simply see more of the other.
As for the need for further explanation about the scientific basis of what caused the events of the film, I’ve read some people complaining that Orci & Kurtzman wrote it ambiguously. Alright, then: specifically HOW should it have been written? If the explanation in the film is unacceptable, then what should it have been, specifically? If, as Orci says, the explanation was written ambiguously so as to allow for audience interpretation, what sort of specific explanation beyond “Nero is from the future and his presence here has altered the timeline and we are now living in an alternate universe,” should have been offered? I still feel there was plenty of explanation there and one did not need any heavy understanding of quantum mechanics to get it. I don’t see any sort of condescension coming from the writers. Meanwhile, I haven’t read Countdown or every word Orci ever said about quantum mechanics. My own understanding comes from reading sci-fi and dabbling in the books of Hawking, Susskind, Kaku and a few others. To say that I understand ALL of it would be a severe lie. The math is WAY over my head, but the concepts boggle my mind. If the writers of the film had to really get into any of this stuff in greater detail, in order to justify what was going on in the film, it would have been a very long movie. ;-D

456. doubting_thomas - May 13, 2010

452:

star trek is supposed to be a show of the future. it’s always been ahead of it’s time

this movie was of the present, a movie of it’s time, a bandwagon jumper. it wil be dated in only a few years. star trek will never be dated.

457. Michael Hall - May 13, 2010

Fascinating discussion, less the acrimony. (Except for the stuff about ‘multiple universes’ vs. ‘alternate universes’ vs. ‘altered timelines.’ About which, frankly, I don’t give a shit.)

Getting back to the subject of artistic intent, it is true that artists are by no means the best critics of their own work, or even the best disposed to talk or write about it. The issue in and of itself is as mysterious as any speculation as to why people do what they do, which is why, centuries later, we still argue about what the Mona Lisa’s smile meant or why Van Gogh used all that yellow paint. Still–an artist totally unaware of the thematic content of his own work? Color me skeptical on that one (sorry). While fans might see facets to the film that he didn’t consider, so far as I’m concerned, if J.J. Abrams didn’t know, in essence, what Trek ’09 was ‘about’ when he filmed it then no one does. My imagination may conjure the Mona Lisa out of a cloudbank, but that doesn’t mean all the water droplets are little Da Vincis.

*Sigh* Maybe Yammer and dmduncan are right, and those of us who walked out of the theatre so disappointed, for whatever reason, are just not ‘getting it.’ Robert J. Sawyer, a fine writer of thoughtful, literate SF thrillers (and a Trek fan himself of long standing) who occasionally frequents this site, loved the Abrams film. I don’t know about these guys, but I’ve no doubt he’s a damn sight more intelligent than I am, and probably at least as artistically perceptive. So, who’s to know? Nevertheless, after two theatrical viewings and several on a very low-res copy I downloaded (sorry, I just can’t bring myself to buy the thing, though I may eventually relent), my impression of Trek ’09 is essentially unchanged. The Kirk arc is just Top Gun on the far side of the stratosphere, featuring a talented Bad Boy with Daddy Legacy Issues, a best friend/sidekick who both worships and disapproves of him (“Mav/Jim, what the hell have you gotten us into now?”), a rival he comes to respect, an inconsequential romantic subplot, and lots of lovable pranks and hijinks so we can like him for a regular guy until he decides to straighten-up and fly right, just in time for the final act. Throw in a workable approximation of Spock’s background, a by-the-numbers villain, some glossy production values, and sprinkle with a lot of little Trekkie easter eggs (and one very big one in the person of Leonard Nimoy) to keep the fanboys happy, and you’ll have the impressions I walked back to my car with on that not-so-happy day a year ago. Which, obviously, haven’t changed very much since then.

And one other thing, just for the record, in response to some speculation about posting under multiple aliasas: “Michael Hall” is not only the sole name I’ve posted under in these forums, it’s the one my parents actually gave me. And while the group of us “detractors” (aka “haters”) is relatively small, I gather that John Ross liked the film somewhat better than I did, while doubting_thomas liked it less. And I have no doubt that Red Skirt is a lot prettier than I am. :-)

458. startrekker - May 13, 2010

When people loosen up about STXI if it achieved it’s goal bringing in new fans I actually love TOS it was because of NuTrek I became a trekker.

459. captain_neill - May 13, 2010

I am goingto rewatch the film on Mon. Despite my gripes at the changes I do look forward to watching it again.

I can admit I enjoy the film despite the many things Abrams changed that annoyed the Trekkie in me.

460. captain_neill - May 13, 2010

Does anyone think the scene where Uhura ‘insists’ she is assigned to the Enterprise to Spock almost ruins the character?

Sorry was not a fan of the Spock Uhura relationship

461. Hugh Hoyland - May 13, 2010

I was a “trekker” since I was a kid way way back in the late 70’s and I also love Star Trek 09. And I to think that it did do its job by getting in new fans while rekindling the spirits of the old timers as well. Job well done.

462. captain_neill - May 13, 2010

the new movie had its flaws but its good.

But I do prefer my dad’s Star Trek as the press states it

463. StarFuryG7 - May 13, 2010

Why aren’t my posts showing up?

464. StarFuryG7 - May 13, 2010

#434. Red Skirt
“StarFuryG7 – you seem to be new here.”

Hardly. I don’t post here as frequently as others, but I have been posting here for some time. Apparently you’ve never noticed me though.

“Let me Translate: the movie is purposefully ambiguous so stupid people can enjoy it as much as the smartest people.”

Oh, I see –so even stupid people are supposed to understand _ambiguity_ rather something more direct and straightforward in terms of plot, story, and the overall script used to shoot the movie.

Got it –that sure makes a hell of a lot of sense.

“If you do not understand it as implied by the writers, then you are not very smart, but it’s OK, because millions of other stupid people were able to enjoy it on a lower level.”

Your post is a fine example as to why Trek nerds are also considered snobs by people who are non devotees of the franchise.

“Since the writers wrote it and are telling you what the movie means, you cannot argue with them”

Says who? If they weren’t clear about something that I as a viewer feel they should have been abundantly clear about, it’s within my right as a viewer to say so and even take issue with them directly about it if and where possible.

“because theirs is the only way to ‘correctly’ interpret the movie (it would be like challenging God after she told you what the bible means)”

They’re not “God” –they’re writers …well paid Hollywood writers, and what they write has implications obviously. I’ve looked at the film and I know what’s there and what isn’t, and despite what one of them is telling me here, the simple fact is that the totality of the film stands to indicate the prior prime timeline being overwritten –not that what happens in it takes place in an alternate universe instead. That’s why no one can point to any direct proof within the film that indicates otherwise.

“whether or not you think their words and actions can be interpreted in any other way (even though that was their stated intention).”

I’m not saying that people shouldn’t take into account a writer’s stated intent, especially when they’re telling the audience “this is what was meant/intended,” but the reality is that what they say outside of the film is not what constitutes canon really, because it’s what’s actually on screen that counts as canon more than anything.

465. StarFuryG7 - May 13, 2010

#434. Red Skirt (Cont’d)
“But that’s OK, because we’re not all as smart as film and TV writers, or their disciples.”

More snobbery. Do you really think that just because someone writes something that ends up on screen that they’re “more intelligent” than you? I’ve seen a load of crap both on the big screen as well as the small screen that has made it pretty clear to me that the people it was written and put together by weren’t all that intelligent in actuality. It’s ridiculous to think that just because a screenwriter puts something down on paper that that automatically makes them a brain surgeon. Dare I say that that is not a very “smart” assessment by the person who’s drawing such a ridiculous conclusion.

“Follow the advice offered here in this forum and I’m pretty sure eventually you’ll find the movie can only be correctly interpreted one way.”

Where in the film is it indicated that the events happening therein are occurring in an alternate universe rather than the prime universe? By all means point to it in whatever capacity it appears therein.

I’m taking issue with this here for what I consider to be an important reason –that being that the implications of the film are that Kirk and company now have their lives to live over again, in which they will play out differently in contrast to how things originally panned out for them all. It basically takes established canon and rips it up. Did the writers know what they were doing in terms of how they decided to portray it and have it come across to the audience? Yes, they most certainly did, and I’m simply calling them on it. As others have argued, perhaps more so elsewhere as opposed to here, they basically want their cake and eat it too. If they’re “the same people with the same souls,” then logic dictates they should be from the same universe also, otherwise they’re different people –and Spock Prime speaks to young Kirk as though he knows everything about him and his anticipated future. But if young Kirk is from an alternate universe, he can’t make the kinds of claims that he does because he doesn’t know how things should play out in this alternate universe obviously, as it’s just one of many countless potential possibilities, which is why Kirk in the TOS “Mirror” universe is so very different compared to the Kirk we know in the Prime Universe. In the Mirror Universe Kirk and Spock are the closest of friends, whereas in the Mirror universe not so much so obviously –they simply tolerate each other in a professional and more calculated capacity, each knowing that the other may have to be eliminated at some point for the sake of their own interests. Do you see what I’m saying here? The “Many Worlds” theory of Quantum Mechanics also postulates the notion of universes splitting off from an already existing universe, so even if you want to argue that souls can exist in more than one place at any given moment (which I’d take issue with, as I doubt it’s really possible, but then again, I don’t claim to be a physicist –it’s ‘above my pay grade,’ so to speak, and obviously we’re talking about a movie here besides), there’s really no way for Spock Prime to _know_ what the implications are for the universe he’s inhabiting in ST09 and how things will play out there, nor is there any indication that he understands that what is happening there is a universe different from his own.

“Or, that the writer’s are full of themselves. ;-) ”

Bob seems okay –he’s willing to mingle with ‘the great unwashed’ here after all. He deserves some credit for that for bothering and taking the time.

“But I never get tired of hearing about all the people that never heard of Star Trek before,who after viewing the film one or more times, commented on the novel use of the Many Worlds parallel universe theory to set up the plot. ;-) Oh that’s right they don’t … because it just doesn’t matter.”

What also bothers me about that is the extent to which it’s reminiscent of the old guard, meaning the apologists who went out of their way to defend whatever Berman and Braga did as the franchise descended into utter ruin over a period of years and several different television shows by looking to excuse whatever they did, no matter how bad. Only in the case of this last movie it’s worse, as the fans have been more ‘fanatical’ in defending this last movie regardless of the criticism expressed about it; no matter what happens in it, it’s all great, regardless of previously established continuity and how it stands to contradict it in whatever way or capacity. I’m not a lapdog however –I’ve written my own extensive review of this picture, not that that in itself matters for much necessarily depending on who’s asked, but I know what’s in it and what my reactions are to what I saw depicted in it.

466. Boborci - May 13, 2010

Starfury

I get the feeling red skirt was being slightly ironic and using such irony to criticize what she perceives our position to be. But I could be wrong as a result of her deliberate ambiguity;)

467. captain_neill - May 13, 2010

bottom line the mainstream audience doesn’t care about th Trek universe.
we do.

despite my problems I choose to accept that the new film is a parallel universe, there is no way in hell I will allow everything except Enterprise be erased from canon.

There is a lot of better stuff in that prime universe but I can enjoy the new movie as a separate entity, separate from canon.

Even though I still hate the deciseion that you guys blew up vulcan.

468. StarFuryG7 - May 13, 2010

466. Boborci
“I get the feeling red skirt was being slightly ironic and using such irony to criticize what she perceives our position to be. But I could be wrong as a result of her deliberate ambiguity;)”

No, I believe you’re right, but it was a little hard to tell when I read it earlier today. I wasn’t sure if she was being sarcastic in my direction, or sarcastic in the direction of others who argue in favor of the film despite what its critics are saying. I should have went back and looked at some of her earlier posts here since I wasn’t entirely sure (and I did read it upon waking up to boot actually), but I said the hell with it and became more focused on getting my posts through since my attempts from earlier today never showed up.

Thanks, Bob –and my apologies, Red.

469. StarFuryG7 - May 13, 2010

I still can’t get a post to go through to dmduncan no matter what I do.

I guess the Page has more text than it can handle.

470. StarFuryG7 - May 13, 2010

435. dmduncan
“Okay, so we agree on some things. But if other people are having the same trouble discerning your meaning on the same matters you should ask yourself why that is. I’m not making that “one line” argument.”

I don’t have to –they’re apologists by and large, reminiscent of the Trek fans who went out of their way to defend Berman and Braga to the hilt, no matter how bad what they put up on screen was, only in the case of this film, last year especially, it was more fanatical than I had ever seen it.

“Spock ‘lied’ to Kirk that universe ending paradoxes would ensue if the two Spock’s met each other.
It’s in the movie.
If Spock lied and that is not true, then it means that universe ending paradoxes WILL NOT ensue if they meet.”

That could hold true for the prime universe also so long as both Spock’s don’t get in each other’s way or try to contravene the actions taken by their counterpart concerning something vitally important. This is all theoretical of course, but the universe in ST09 had already been drastically altered prior to that point anyway –Kirk’s father dies on the Kelvin as opposed to going on to live out his life the way he was meant to, and Vulcan has already been destroyed rather than surviving and thriving as it does in the original timeline, so it’s not as though Spock Prime has any reason to fear that anything more could go wrong or that worse can happen if he meets his younger self; great damage and massive universal upsets have already happened at that point anyway obviously.

“So there ARE no paradoxes in the two Spock’s meeting.”

Again, there’s no reason to believe they couldn’t also meet in the prime universe as well for that matter, since Spock Prime has gone into the past where he’d be potentially meeting himself also.

“One Spock can kill the other, but he can’t kill himself PARADOXICALLY, or his grandfather, thereby stopping his own birth, because they are not the SAME Spocks with the same parents and grandparents. They are copies.”

Okay, good –fair enough. But at the same time, however, that is not really at issue in the film since everything happens well after his birth, 25 years later for the most part. So if Vulcan had been destroyed prior to his birth instead, or his father (or grandfather) had been killed by Nero prior to that point, then you’d have an argument. But it all happens later, so the argument doesn’t really hold up obviously.

471. StarFuryG7 - May 13, 2010

435. dmduncan (Cont’d)

StarFuryG7 continues from last post:
And Spock Prime talks to young Spock as though he knows him intimately, which he does evidently and even goes so far as to discuss his future friendship with young Kirk with him and what that means for both their futures. If it was an alternate universe, Spock Prime could only surmise about that, because as an offshoot alternate universe, he can’t really know what the future of these people who resemble the people he knows would be.

“So the movie is oh so clearly saying there ARE NO GRANDFATHER PARADOXES created by the events of the movie.”

Again though, all of this would have to take place prior to Spock’s birth –he would literally have had to show up prior to his own birth and caused the death of one of his progenitors in order for the analogy to apply.

“You have to really ignore what they are saying and what the words are meaning to insist that ST.09 is the past of the Prime universe.”

No, that’s simply not true, because so far this is the best evidence you’ve been able to point to obviously, and as I just pointed out, the paradox isn’t really applicable because the conditions aren’t meant in the film in order for it to actually apply. When Spock Prime shows up his younger self is already about the same age as Kirk, and nothing Nero does when he first emerges from the singularity stands to affect Spock directly obviously –all of that comes later, but Spock’s existence is already assured at that point obviously.

“My explanation fits perfectly.”

Your explanation is reaching obviously.

“What is YOUR explanation of what those words meant???”

They’re too abstract to draw the kind of conclusion you have reached. And I, as well as others in the theater, viewed Spock Prime’s line as a joke more than anything as I distinctly recall. But even if it did have farther reaching implications, the implications are not what you argue apparently, because major changes have already occurred in this universe, and no one bothers to point out to Nero that his actions all for naught, because he’s seeking to punish people in the wrong universe.

The thing Spock Prime was lying about was that universe ending paradoxes would ensue. They would not ensue and that was the truth he didn’t tell Kirk. They would not ensue because SPOCK knew that he was NOT in his own past.

“his father dying took place at the moment of his birth, well after he was already conceived obviously. In order for the Grandfather paradox to truly apply, the prospect of his father dying would have had to occur at an earlier stage, and clearly his father dying in the movie does not prevent his being born.”

“1. In one sense I think you’re taking the paradox too literally. The principle involved in the Grandfather Paradox is the principle of being ABLE to revisit ones own past.”

The principle is that you can put an end to your own existence by going into the past and killing a direct ancestor, a father, a grandfather, thereby cancelling out your own birth and existence as a result. Clearly those conditions were not met in the film.

“If it is literally possible to do that, those paradoxes arise out of that possibility regardless of whether you actually go back far enough to kill your grandfather, your father, or even to meet and kill yourself.”

Not true –at least not as far as I know regarding the theory/principle at issue here. If Spock Prime had killed his younger self, he would have been born, and would have existed for about a quarter of a century prior to his death as of the period that most of the movie takes place in, and in doing so whether Spock Prime would still continue to exist following that action would of course be open to question. But that’s not what happens, and Spock Prime’s line to Kirk only covers whether Spock Prime can meet and know about his younger self without there being serious probable ramifications, but everything has already changed in this universe anyway, and Spock Prime knows that, hence the future is now totally open to question instead rather than having a set path the way it did in the original timeline.

“You could also rename it the ‘kill yourself’ paradox because it’s the same principle. How could you kill yourself if you exist as an older person from the future who did not kill himself?”

Why would Spock Prime be interested in doing that though? I mean, it’s entirely possible that younger Spock will die as a result of something else because the future no longer has a predetermined path as I said, and at that point, whether Spock Prime would simply wink out of existence is open to question obviously as I also said since he’s already there in the past and no longer a part of the future he came from — But of course, why would Spock Prime choose to remain there anyway if he knew it wasn’t his universe? Unless he had no way back because he crossed universes as opposed to simply travelling through time, but again, there is no indication that Spock Prime is simply _stuck_ there. He chooses to remain to help what few Vulcans are left to build a new life and to enable the species to somehow survive and thrive again elsewhere on a different planet, BUT, how can he assume that the culture and history of events for the Vulcan race are the same as where he came from? If it’s a different Quantum reality and universe, he can’t obviously.

“The Grandfather paradox DOESN’T apply in this film. And it doesn’t apply in principle, not merely in circumstance where it might still be possible in principle to revisit one’s past and kill one’s grandfather. That is precisely my point and Spock Prime’s point.”

Then you’re saying at best that it’s only vaguely implied, and I’d take issue with the contention anyway obviously, as I just have.

“The reason WHY it doesn’t apply is because it’s not the same universe.”

As far as we know, there’s nothing preventing Spock Prime from encountering a younger version of himself in the past of the prime universe either, and so long as he doesn’t do anything that would affect the actions of his younger self, nothing would change for future Spock in terms of how time unfolds and history plays itself out. If Spock tells his younger self in the Prime universe “You must stay with Zarabeth and not return to the Enterprise” for instance, then everything changes for him obviously. However, everything has already changed for young Spock in the last movie, and since Spock Prime allows that to stand and chooses not to go back in time to try to correct it all, obviously the future is no longer written in stone.

“If Nero had come through much earlier killing George Kirk before James was conceived, that would just be another split universe where no James Kirk exists.”

Yes, but again, bear in mind that Spock Prime talks to young Kirk as though he knows him, and if it’s really a different universe, then everything he thinks he knows about him may not apply at all obviously if it’s a different universe and reality rather than the one he came from.

“So the NON applicability IN PRINCIPLE of the Grandfather Paradox as evidenced by Spock meeting himself — the final piece of the puzzle at the end of the film — proves my case, not yours.”

It’s certainly an interesting argument, but for the reasons I’ve outlined, I don’t believe it holds up, and it’s too abstract at best.

472. dmduncan - May 13, 2010

454: “But tell me honestly, if you had not read countdown, or any of Orci’s treatise on Quantum Mechanics presented here, would you have still understood the film as Orci maintains is the only “logical” way to do so?”

Obviously the answer depends on how much you already know and thus will be different for different people. Contrary to what you seem to think, inequalities of ability, talent, intelligence, and knowledge NATURALLY ABOUND IN THE REAL WORLD.

I did not read Countdown or learn about the Grandfather Paradox from Roberto Orci, and I’ve probably covered it on this site in more detail than he has. So the insinuation that we CAN’T understand what happened in the film without supplemental material from BOB is demonstrably, and demonstratedly, false.

“He’s already stated that it was intentionally written to allow other interpretations, so you’re not wrong however you understood it – ”

Bob said it was ambiguous on the surface. Nor does it follow that something ambiguously written from a narrower perspective does NOT have a specific and unambiguous meaning from a more panoramic perspective.

One has but to apply the logic of your thinking to the analogy of treasure maps to see the absurdity in it:

“Captain Iron Hook already stated that the treasure’s location on the map was written to allow other interpretations, so you can find the treasure wherever you understand the X to be.”

Actually, no. Captain Iron Hook may not have wanted the X (and the treasure) to be easily found, and hence, he drew the map ambiguously — but it certainly does not follow that the treasure hunter is equally correct about ANY location he imagines the X to mark.

Despite the ambiguity of the map, the treasure hunter is either right or he’s wrong about where the treasure is located, and the treasure will not undig itself from where it is and replant itself where the hunter thinks it should be merely to spare his ego.

“you simply aren’t smart enough if you don’t ultimately see it the way he does.”

Take off the troll outfit and get your facts straight. When has Bob EVER divided his audience between the intellects and the buffoons as you are doing and then attributing that distinction to him as if HE’S the one doing it?

473. Enterprisingguy - May 13, 2010

437. moauvian waoul – May 12, 2010

@ Enterprisingguy
(if you’re still there)

” off topic… After reconsidering your post, I’m not sure my response was accurate. Your point was about the amount of time that it took for the fleet to be destroyed before the Enterprise arrived at Vulcan. My original question was about the time it took to reach Vulcan from Earth and then the amount of time to return to Earth later. It was this question that Bob Orci answered explaining that the intial trip to Vulcan was longer than appeared as was evident by McCoy’s change in uniform and Kirk being unconscious for the length of the trip. Woops.”

I’m still here. Just WAAAAAYY down due to the huge volume of time travel posts. Which I enjoyed reading by the way.

I understood your explanation of the dilated time of the trip to Vulcan. It appeared shorter than it was due to the abrupt scene change shortly after leaving. But what puzzled me was the fact that the Enterprise was only perhaps a minute behind the fleet after the amusing “parking brake” gaffe but arrived to see that the whole fleet was already decimated. It didn’t seem plausible. Perhaps, if they arrived in the middle of a pitched battle and barely evaded destruction due to their newer weapons and shields, I would have believed it.

But I’m still not buying the warp core explosion escape for a minute! :)

474. Boborci - May 13, 2010

467

Interesting. Tell me why you hate Vukcan being blown up.

475. Boborci - May 13, 2010

Vulcan, too.

476. captain_neill - May 13, 2010

472

Uh because its one of the major planets in the Federation in Trek.

Bob I like your movie but am I not allowed to have any gripes with things in the movie I did not like?

477. dmduncan - May 13, 2010

470: “That could hold true for the prime universe also so long as both Spock’s don’t get in each other’s way or try to contravene the actions taken by their counterpart concerning something vitally important. This is all theoretical of course, but the universe in ST09 had already been drastically altered prior to that point anyway –Kirk’s father dies on the Kelvin as opposed to going on to live out his life the way he was meant to, and Vulcan has already been destroyed rather than surviving and thriving as it does in the original timeline, so it’s not as though Spock Prime has any reason to fear that anything more could go wrong or that worse can happen if he meets his younger self; great damage and massive universal upsets have already happened at that point anyway obviously.”

Only by TOS rules and NOT by the rules established in this movie. We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto. It’s time to adapt.

The Grandfather Paradox has nothing to do with circumstances, i.e., with WHETHER or not elder Spock does something paradoxical. It has to do with the POTENTIAL of him doing so which is ALWAYS present whenever you can meet your actual past self in your actual past.

The premise of the MWI solution to the Grandfather Paradox is that if you can meet your grandfather in the past, you can kill your grandfather in the past, thus preventing your birth. But if you prevent your birth how can you arrive from the future to kill your grandfather preventing your birth? That’s the paradoxical nature of what we traditionally think of as time travel to the past and for which MWI was invoked to possibly resolve.

The Grandfather Paradox illustrates a potential problem in the notion of time travel to ones past, but the grandfather example is merely the historical way that the paradox was framed, and not the ONLY way the same paradox can be framed.

For example, the same paradox is potential merely by Spock meeting himself.

I.e., if you can meet yourself in the past, then you can kill yourself in the past.

But if you kill yourself in the past, how can you go on to become a future self that travels back in time to kill himself?

There’s no “grandfather“ mentioned, but it’s the same paradox reshaped into a different example; the principle behind both, which is the paradox, is the same.

The MWI solution is to remove the potential for that ever happening

Thus, and given the context in which Spock lies to Kirk, i.e., that Spock KNEW there was no possibility for universe-ending paradoxes to happen, then Spock also knew that there was never any paradox POSSIBLE if one Spock meets the other; no paradoxes can possibly follow because although one can indeed kill the other, it would not be paradoxical if that happened because they are different Spocks from different universe, not the same Spock from different times in the SAME universe.

That’s the MWI solution to the grandfather paradox. And it is directly inferred from the things that were said and happened in the movie.

So, the travel by Nero through the black hole that kills George Kirk splits the universe. We KNOW this because Kirk Prime’s dad did NOT die in Kirk Prime’s universe, and thus any universe where George Kirk dies is NOT the same universe where a Kirk Prime grew up with his father.

This is explained by the lines on the bridge, and then further corroborated by Spock’s lie to Kirk, Spock’s physical meeting with himself in which no paradox was possible, and his explanation of the lie that he told.

Indeed, that you want to hold on so strongly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that we are not in the Prime universe speaks to some personal issue on your part regarding how badly you WANT the film to be in the Prime universe, for whatever reason.

478. dmduncan - May 13, 2010

I, on the other hand do not care. I am not trying to force the film to match my preconceptions. I didn’t understand it the first time I saw it, and paid strict attention to everything that was happening and being said in subsequent viewings to understand what Bob, Alex, and JJ were doing. So my disagreement with you is based on what the film is doing and saying, not on what I want it to mean.

479. dmduncan - May 13, 2010

I should also point out that I am not discussing the actual, real world, philosophical merits of the MWI solution to the Grandfather Paradox. I am discussing the logic of the rules in the world we saw in the movie, NOT the cogency of the MWI solution itself. That is a different issue and not one I want to get into.

480. StarFuryG7 - May 13, 2010

477. dmduncan
“Indeed, that you want to hold on so strongly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that we are not in the Prime universe speaks to some personal issue on your part regarding how badly you WANT the film to be in the Prime universe, for whatever reason.”

You’re wrong about that because I don’t like the way what happens in the film stands to affect longstanding canon. That’s precisely why it not being made clear that it’s an alternate universe, if that was really the intent, bothers me about the movie. And I think the case that you’ve put forth is on very shaky ground and simply doesn’t hold up for the reasons I stated. And we know that elder Spock has no reason or intention of killing his younger self obviously, which is also why the argument you’ve attempted to make has no real merit.

481. ryanhuyton - May 13, 2010

#467

The mainstream audience is needed to keep the Trek franchise afloat. The new movie succeeded somewhat in bringing in new fans, but more work has to be done, especially overseas. The sequel has the ability to do that. Whether we like it or not, the future of the franchise hinges on the mainstream audience. If the mainstream audience decide they don’t want anymore Trek, we won’t get anymore Trek. The days of studios creating new movies and shows primarily for the fans are long gone. It is just the way it is going to be from now on.

There were things about this movie that bugged me as well, such as the villain, the somewhat weak plot, and the brewery, but there were many more things that I liked. Bob knows the characters well and the performances of the actors were great. The visual effects rocked as well. It was a really fun movie.

“The Wrath Of Khan” and “First Contact” rank higher for me. But “Star Trek” has laid the groundwork for a sequel that could very well be the best movie yet. We have something to look forward to.

482. dmduncan - May 13, 2010

Oops, sorry. Left out a piece:

For example, the same paradox is potential merely by Spock meeting himself.

I.e., if you can meet yourself in the past, then you can kill yourself in the past.

But if you kill yourself in the past, how can you go on to become a future self that travels back in time to kill himself?

There’s no “grandfather“ mentioned, but it’s the same paradox reshaped into a different example; the principle behind both, which is the paradox, is the same.

The MWI solution is to remove the potential for that ever happening.

Hence, “never the twain shall met.”

If they meet, it is because no paradoxes are possible, and no paradoxes are possible because they are not the SAME Spocks from different times in the SAME universe. Rather, they are different Spocks from different times in different universes.

483. Boborci - May 13, 2010

476.

Of course you can have a gripe. I was genuinely curious. Just seems that it’s importance is precisely the reason to target it.

484. Boborci - May 13, 2010

Its importance.

485. dmduncan - May 13, 2010

480: “And I think the case that you’ve put forth is on very shaky ground and simply doesn’t hold up for the reasons I stated. And we know that elder Spock has no reason or intention of killing his younger self obviously, which is also why the argument you’ve attempted to make has no real merit.”

I’ve already answered this objection. Spock elder’s intention with respect to the Grandfather Paradox is irrelevant I believe I’ve clearly noted the distinction which you are failing to make that is causing your difficulty here between what is a potential and what is an actual circumstance. It’s now up to you to respond to that.

I’ve specifically pointed out each of the scenes and dialogue points that create the total picture of what’s happening in the film, but you have not supplied any evidence to support an intelligible alternative of what’s happening in the film.

You are merely remembering what happened in Trek before, and insisting that because Bob didn’t make it clear enough to your satisfaction, then the same thing MIGHT be happening now, despite the fact that you cannot point to any evidence in the film that suggests that it is ACTUALLY happening that way, while ignoring the abundant evidence that indicates it is NOT happening that way.

So, if you do have some evidence from the film that actually SUPPORTS the idea that this is typical old Trek time travel from the 60’s — let’s hear it. And if you don’t have any then it strikes me as self flagellating to worry that the Prime universe “may” be gone.

Movies don’t have the ontological depth of the real world. Consequently it makes no sense to talk about what is “really” happening in them apart from what the creators show and do in them.

486. Harry Ballz - May 13, 2010

Bob

I notice that, for your last few posts, you are accidentally typing a “k” when you mean to type “l”……..I get it, this is a subliminal message to the hardcore fans here that you’re busy hammering out a script that includes Kirk Prime in a substantial role for the next film, right?

Oh, you’re GOOD!

487. Yammer - May 13, 2010

@457

“*Sigh* Maybe Yammer and dmduncan are right, and those of us who walked out of the theatre so disappointed, for whatever reason, are just not ‘getting it.’ …. The Kirk arc is just Top Gun on the far side of the stratosphere, featuring a talented Bad Boy with Daddy Legacy Issues, a best friend/sidekick who both worships and disapproves of him (“Mav/Jim, what the hell have you gotten us into now?”), a rival he comes to respect, an inconsequential romantic subplot, and lots of lovable pranks and hijinks so we can like him for a regular guy until he decides to straighten-up and fly right, just in time for the final act. Throw in a workable approximation of Spock’s background, a by-the-numbers villain, some glossy production values, and sprinkle with a lot of little Trekkie easter eggs (and one very big one in the person of Leonard Nimoy) to keep the fanboys happy, and you’ll have the impressions I walked back to my car with on that not-so-happy day a year ago. ”

Well, no. You’re getting it just fine. That was a pretty good precis and critique of the movie. It is certainly replete with echoes of the classic hero’s journey, from the call to greatness to the coronation. If it feels shallow and derivative to you, that’s totally your prerogative.

My defence of the movie is no more and no less because I freakin’ love it. I think it is awesome. It is not TOS, but it is to me a deeply heartfelt tribute to TOS, which earns it my sentimental affection, and it is a kickass action movie, which earned it several expensive return trips to the theatre.

I keep posting in its defence because much of the criticism, to me, seems sheerly argumentative, e.g., why couldn’t they keep the original Matt Jeffries designs, a question that is never asked of 46 year old patterns for dresses, cars, or remounts of plays (which is basically what nuTrek is all about).

But it’s not to make you or anyone feel defensive for not liking it. You didn’t like it. You wanted something different. That’s not for anyone to dispute.

488. Christine - May 13, 2010

#474, Mr. Orci :: I didn’t ask the question about Vulcan, but I’ll sure as heck answer it.

I was shocked and heartbroken when Vulcan imploded. Yes, it was kind of — nice, actually, to see a major change, a major disaster, with no lovely “reset” button, but let’s face it, I love Vulcan. I love the planet and the people. I adored how far they took it in “Enterprise” and every Vulcan that’s ever been in ‘Trek… With the exception of that V’Las guy. And the creepy dude from “Meld” (ENT).

Besides, what about all the later Vulcans? What about Tuvok?! And T’Pol, assuming she was still alive? And the fact that Amanda Grayson died was even more heartbreaking. To me, it seemed a little — forgive my words — careless. But if you and the other writers were going for the shock effect, believe me, you succeeded.

——

As for the rest of this conversation, my head’s spinning, so I won’t try to jump in. I’m in 11th-grade Physics and this is more confusing than the Physics professor I talked to the other week! Maybe I’ll retreat to my “The Universe” and “Stephen Hawking’s Into the Universe” DVDs now…

489. ryanhuyton - May 13, 2010

#488

Don’t worry, all this time travel talk gives me a headache myself. No one really knows how time travel works until someone invents the technology and develops a method that can be tested. Until then, everything posted on this thread and everything theorized in the scientific community is just a theory.

I chose to accept Bob’s interpretation of quantum mechanics just like I have accepted every other form of time travel as demonstrated before in previous Star Trek movies and episodes. What we have seen throughout the history of Trek are story devices based on scientific theories. And there are many theories of time travel. It seems Bob has done his homework in regards to the theories of time travel. Of course, I am also sure he and Alex deviated slighltly because of neccessity.

And I don’t need someone on screen going into deep detail on how time travel works. There just isn’t the time. I think most people are smart enough to figure things out on their own. Its the consequences of time travel that need to be explored, not the technical aspect. The new movie made clear that the new movie does take place in a new timeline. Spock postulated that they are now in an “alternate reality”. Which clearly means “timeline” and not “universe” since the new timeline splits off from the prime timeline once the Narada shows up in 2233. Once the Narada showed up, it was too late for Spock Prime to do anything to correct the timeline since he ends up in the 23rd century 25 years after Nero. So even before the destruction of Vulcan, there were enough significant changes to the timeline that could not be corrected.

In previous movies and episodes, the various crews of the various ships always had knowledge of the changes in the timeline. They were able to correct them, with little change, like “City On The Edge Of Forever”, or with a noticeable change, like “Yesterday’s Enterprise” or “Star Trek First Contact”. The creation of alternate timelines happen nearly everytime time travel is used in Trek. But there was always the reset button, with everything reset to approximately what it was before. There were still changes, whether it be the birth of Sela or Borg drones buried under the ice on Earth two hundred years “before” the official first encounter. But everthing else stayed the same. Not so with this movie. Nero unleashed a chain of events once he went back in time. Those events changed things drastically, so that there can be no reset. Prime Spock would have had to have prior knowledge of the intentions of Nero to stop him. Even if he had, the Jellyfish was obviously no match for the Narada.

490. Harry Ballz - May 13, 2010

Ryan

“I don’t need someone on screen going into deep detail on how time travel works. There just isn’t the time”

Irony on line 1!

491. ryanhuyton - May 13, 2010

#490

Yeah, I know! Somehow, I inadvertently found the time to be sucked into the discussion!

But I was also commenting on the fact that some people on this thread apparently need everything spelled out for them. I was saying how most of the audience are smart enough to fill in the blanks. Especially during a movie when time is of the essence.

492. Harry Ballz - May 13, 2010

Ryan, I congratulate you, and others, for having the patience to write out these long and detailed explanations for everyone. I used to do the same kind of thing, but ever since entering my 50’s, I have neither the time or inclination to make the effort.

Fun to read, though!

493. ryanhuyton - May 13, 2010

#492

Glad you enjoyed reading my “explanations”. Though I can’t quite articulate my points as well as others can. My posts are a bit clumsy. I just hope people can understand what I write:-)

And I had no idea you are that old LOL!

494. Red Skirt - May 13, 2010

#457. “Fascinating discussion, less the acrimony. (Except for the stuff about ‘multiple universes’ vs. ‘alternate universes’ vs. ‘altered timelines.’ About which, frankly, I don’t give a shit.)”

Frankly, neither do I. But I think this discussion is representative of the “tip” of the greater submerged iceberg, to which you constantly allude. You know the one that rips into the your brain when you examine it too closely.

“*Sigh* Maybe Yammer and dmduncan are right”

Don’t give up Michael, you’re one of the few combating the Glen Beck vibe around here. ;-)

Besides, one day, I might post a link to my Facebook page. ;-)

We’ll just have to resign ourselves that we are not as smart as some of the others who tend to climb up onto soapboxes and hurl barbs and incontrovertible inferences at any who would disagree with their interpretation. Obviously the longer and louder someone repeats a thing, the more it becomes a fact – lest we forget Obama’s “death panels”. Sometimes red_is_blue and a more intelligent person would be able to recognize that, or at least be willing to put in the work to understand the film the correct way. Clearly we have to overcome our own personal baggage that prevents us from seeing the truth.

I’m thinking at this point Orci should consider starting a religion to “audit” fans like us, thereby ridding us of our polluting Thetans and allow us to finally make the correct, enlightened, inferences from this sophisticated film, rather than simply enjoying it on the ambiguous level of a slack-jawed yocal who merely wants to munch popcorn and see some kick-ass ‘splosions.

495. Harry Ballz - May 13, 2010

493

Yeah, I turn 55 on June 21st. I’ve always enjoyed corny, ribald humour so I probably come across as younger! I encounter so much seriousness and drama in real life, I guess I look for humour anywhere I can find it!

496. StarFuryG7 - May 13, 2010

#485. dmduncan
“I’ve already answered this objection. Spock elder’s intention with respect to the Grandfather Paradox is irrelevant I believe I’ve clearly noted the distinction which you are failing to make that is causing your difficulty here between what is a potential and what is an actual circumstance.”

No, I get what you’re saying and I’m telling you it’s of no consequence because there’s nothing at stake in elder Spock meeting young Spock in the movie. There’s no ill intent on the part of Spock Prime obviously, and he can no longer relay any potentially vital information to younger Spock in any event that might serve to alter the future because the future has already been altered to such an extent that the original timeline is out the window and no longer relevant.

“I’ve specifically pointed out each of the scenes and dialogue points that create the total picture of what’s happening in the film, but you have not supplied any evidence to support an intelligible alternative of what’s happening in the film.”

Uh, uh, uh –you’re not going to get away with that. You’re just trying to turn the tables on me here and it isn’t going to work. My position on the movie has been clear: that what happens in it appears to be overwriting the original timeline and that there’s no alternate universe at issue or pointed to in the film. The dialogue is what supports that, along with the imagery of what happens in the film. I asked you for concrete definitive proof that shows otherwise, and you’re basically trying to hinge it all on something elder Spock says at the end of the movie, which was too abstract at best and therefore just doesn’t fly as irrefutable proof of anything. It was an inside joke by the writers to the audience basically.

“You are merely remembering what happened in Trek before, and insisting that because Bob didn’t make it clear enough to your satisfaction, then the same thing MIGHT be happening now”

No, I’m going by this movie and this movie alone. I’ve drawn on examples of earlier Trek in order to make various points here and there over the course of the discussion, and have even gone to such lengths as to pose the question as to why if it’s really an alternate universe that the point was never clearly made in the film, such as directly to Nero for instance, who’s on a mad mission seeking vengeance, but apparently in the wrong place without his even knowing it if the contention that it’s an alternate universe were actually true, and that is something you have made no real attempt to even address interestingly enough. “Hey, Nero –wake up, dude …you’re in the wrong universe! You’re looking to punish the wrong people –we don’t even know if the Hobus Star will explode a century from now because it’s not the same universe as the last one, so why are bothering?” Instead, nothing whatsoever to that effect.

497. StarFuryG7 - May 13, 2010

488. Christine
“As for the rest of this conversation, my head’s spinning, so I won’t try to jump in. I’m in 11th-grade Physics and this is more confusing than the Physics professor I talked to the other week! Maybe I’ll retreat to my “The Universe” and “Stephen Hawking’s Into the Universe” DVDs now…”

LMAO.

Those are both great shows by the way, and Hawking’s show has proven to be even better than I was expecting.

498. moauvian waoul - May 13, 2010

@ 473 Enterprisingguy

Right on. Not sure how Nero accomplished such a feat of destroying the fleet in half a minute. Must have been some ship he had there. Arriving in the middle of a pitched battle would have been more realistic and at least as dramatic. The warp core explosion was a glaring example where the movie could have done better. The transwarp beaming didn’t sit well either, negating, I feel, the need for starships. And the cadet Kirk story seemed thin. I share your opinions on the points you raised, still I enjoyed the movie because I thought it suceeded in several important areas. Star Trek rediscovered its mojo, its energy and was fun again. That should not be underestimated. I always thought of young Kirk more like Ferris Buler but Pine was great and I was impressed by the depictions of most of the characters.

499. Michael Hall - May 13, 2010

“Just seems that it’s importance is precisely the reason to target it.

Its importance.”

So the importance (or beauty, or value) of something is directy related to the dramatic desirability of blowing it up? Interesting.

Personally, I’m not so sure. I’m not a huge fan of Tolkein’s LOTR trilogy, but were I put in charge of the franchise I’d be hesitant in slagging the Shire for the mere shock value of it, out of respect for tradition and the fans if nothing else. Imploding Vulcan may have resulted in a few nice dramatic moments in Sickbay and a pity smooch from Uhura, but in the end the loss of the planet and its six billion inhabitants didn’t even so much as slow down the “We Rock!” celebration on Earth. Doesn’t really seem like much of a tradeoff to me.

500. Harry Ballz - May 13, 2010

Post #500?

Wow, it’s been quite some time since a thread generated this much interest!

501. Boborci - May 13, 2010

494

Have enjoyed your posts. You speak well as a critical voice. And though I know you dont speak for all (no one does) I want to acknowledge all criticisms. I only take issue with the notion that if someone didn’t like something, that it’s because we didn’t love Star Trek, or respect the intelligence of the fans, or purposely tried to dilute Star Trek for the masses. On the contrary, our goal was to show everyone why we all loved Star Trek so much. You can believe we failed, but I won’t accept the belief that we failed for lack of our best effort to do our duty when we were asked to serve Star Trek.

502. Michael Hall - May 13, 2010

A very heartfelt post, Mr. Orci. For what it’s worth, I have no reason to suppose that you gave the screenplay anything less than your best effort. As to whether you really love Star Trek or were willing to dilute it for mass consumption or respect the intelligence of the fans, I would refrain from attempts at mind-reading and judging the motives of a total stranger, preferring instead to evaluate your work exclusively on the merits. On this, at least, I’m sure we agree.

Obviously at this late date it’s unlikely that my opinion about the film will change, so the most positive thing I can do at this point is to offer up your own challenge: I dare you to do better.

503. Boborci - May 13, 2010

502

Inspiring words;)

504. Harry Ballz - May 13, 2010

Bob

this goes back to what I asked you about your writing efforts. Let’s say you “brainstorm” and come up with “A”. You start to work on “A”, fleshing it out and developing the idea. You said if you could answer all criticisms or concerns you would keep going with it. That’s not really what I asked. My original question was, when you come up with “A”, even if it appears viable, how do you commit to it and resist the notion that if you kept talking and “brainstorming”, you might come up with “B”, an idea that would make “A” look like a “dog’s dinner” in comparison.

Case in point: the writer who went that “extra mile” came up with Yesterday’s Enterprise and not some average episode of TNG.

How do you, as a professional writer, know when you’ve come up with the very best idea possible, one you’re willing to commit months of effort on finishing? How do you know where to “draw the line’?

505. fax_ - May 14, 2010

501. Boborci
I haven’t posted here in a while, but I agree with Michael Hall’s reply here. While I wasn’t fond of the film (by my interpretation of Star Trek), I think the effort and care than went into the film (for the sake of old and new fans alike) was evident. I hope my criticisms in the early half of this thread did not suggest otherwise. I look forward to the next film. You have all my hopes.

506. Harry Ballz - May 14, 2010

I think the film did a great job of RECAPTURING THE FUN OF TOS!

That’s why I enjoyed it!

507. captain_neill - May 14, 2010

486

Either that or they are doing Khan.

Which I am very much against.

508. startrekker - May 14, 2010

Harry Ballz I agree with that post

509. Damian - May 14, 2010

At the end of the day for me, this was a middle of the road Star Trek film for me. I liked some more, some not as much. But that being said, I loved all 11 films, even the much maligned Star Trek V. I do believe a prime universe origin story for Star Trek could have been completed (would it have been as successful, we’ll never know), but the writers chose a different course. Their job was to reenergize Star Trek. In that sense, mission was accomplished. We will have to see where this takes us in the future to determined if the masses will stay. Some of the newbies will only like this and other JJ Abrams produced films. But there will be some of the new fans that will decide to take a peek at the other movies and maybe some of the other series.

I became a Star Trek fan with Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (another movie with broad mass appeal). That movie led me to watch the 3 prior films (Star Trek: The Motion Picture becoming my favorite of the films, believe it or not). Then I started watching the TV series and reading the novels in quick order (my first novel was Battlestations by Diane Carey–which I still have). I’ve been a fan ever since, followed the successive series religiously, and it all started with a film designed for Star Trek fans and nonfans alike. So JJ Abrams film, with it’s broad based appeal, has the same potential to create new Trekkies who will do the same.

510. Boborci - May 14, 2010

504

U have to get good at reading people’s reactions when you pitch your idea to them, like a comedian honing his act. When u r really honest with yourself, you can tell if people think you are telling a good story or if they are just being nice.

511. captain_neill - May 14, 2010

As much as I enjoy this movie, I prefer the prime universe and always will.

512. Alex Rosenzweig - May 14, 2010

I was very conflicted aout the movie. It boiled down thusly:

I *loved* the new cast. I thought they all ranged from good to amazing. It’s ard to take on a set of roles that have become so identified with particular performers, and I think these folks did it very well. Greenwood’s Pike and Urban’s McCoy are particular standouts, and I think Quinto credited himself especially well as Spock, too.

I was somewhat hit-and-miss about the production design. Some parts I really liked, e.g. Vulcan, some parts I thought were okay, like the new bridge, and some parts were execrable, like using the brewery to simulate starship interiors. I thought the new Enterprise was fair until I started hearing TPTB babbling about giganticizing it, and that was a big negative for me. The design-size of the model as created was just fine, and with just a few tweaks the new ship could have been excellent.

The story… Sorry Bob O. and co., I *hated* the story. I hated the premise, I hated the alternate universe, and I really hated all the things you just had to blithely accept in order to buy into the story itself. Oh, and destroying Vulcan? Yeah, not a winner move for me. ;)

So Primeverse Trek will remain where my affections lie. I’ll still give the next film a chance, though, because I like the new cast so much, and maybe now that the writers don’t have to go through this whole dopey “alternate continuum” song and dance so they could disconnect themselves from that which they never should have disconnected, they’ll be able to give us a story that will be engaging and fun and could fit smoothly into either Trek world.

513. Boborci - May 14, 2010

512

Knowing an inevitable percentage of you would never accept our solution, we left the prime universe alone and intact within canon for you.

514. Michael Hall - May 14, 2010

“maybe now. . . they’ll be able to give us a story that will be engaging and fun and could fit smoothly into either Trek world.”

That it will be ‘fun’ is probably a safe bet. As for ‘engaging,’ ‘intelligent,’ thought-provoking,’ well. . .

And I very much doubt that the eventual story could wind up being able to fit smoothly into either Trek world, if only because the dynamic between the four leads (as opposed to TOS’ triumverate) is so completely different. (Not to mention dealing with the implosion of that planet full of snobby, pointy-eared racists.) Of course, that doesn’t rule out the possibility of Trek ’12 being a very good movie in its own right. But I probably won’t be first in line to see it.

515. Damian - May 14, 2010

#513–For me, the fact that the prime universe and it’s canon were preserved was what helped me accept your story.

#512–I did like the overall story, however I agree with you that the suspension of belief that was required did become a bit much (like the idea of Kirk going from cadet to Captain in the time it takes me to drive home from work). Separating the time from being Cadet to the Nero crisis by a few years might have helped in that regard. The coincidental contacts did not bother me as much only because that happens all the time in movies.

Vulcan did look ok to me (until it was scratched) and regarding it’s blue sky, I recently watched an episode of Enterprise where Trip asks T’Pol if the skies ever get blue on Vulcan, and she did say sometimes. So there is precedent for that. In any event, I guess we won’t need to know what Vulcan will look like in the next movie:)

516. Red Skirt - May 14, 2010

#514, now Michael, to be fair, had this been set in the early days of the Prime Universe, it is likely that the dynamic we know today (which only developed during the first season of the original series), would not have been the same either.

But I agree, if “fun” and profit are at the top of the list, I’m not expecting anything much more than what we got. However, if the script is as intentionally ambiguous as this one, then regardless, I’m certain the film will be argued to be every bit as engaging, intelligent and thought-provoking as this one. ;-)

517. Michael Hall - May 14, 2010

“. . . like the idea of Kirk going from cadet to Captain in the time it takes me to drive home from work.”

Don’t evvy you that commute, dude. :-)

Seriously–promoted to Captain not just of any old ship, but of Starfleet’s latest and greatest flagship, presumably leapfrogging over line officers with decades’ worth of experience who would likely have considered themselves logical candidates for the job. Aside from the sheer foolhardiness of putting the awesome destructive capabilities of such a vessel in the hands of a largely untested hothead, the problems to morale resulting from such a capricious act, even in a quasi-military organization, would be reason enough to not consider it. Unfortunately, that this was all pretty farfetched seems to have escaped the filmmakers, for whom making the Trek universe more ‘realistic’ and ‘credible’ was largely a matter of product placement and the application of grime, steam, and rivets.

518. Michael Hall - May 14, 2010

“Now Michael, to be fair, had this been set in the early days of the Prime Universe, it is likely that the dynamic we know today (which only developed during the first season of the original series), would not have been the same either.”

True enough, Red. And I can bring myself to believe the McCoy and Kirk met in the “Prime” universe in a way not dissimilar to Trek ’09 (I actually liked that scene quite a bit), though it wouldn’t have been my first idea. Not so much the relationship with Spock, though, since there was no indication whatsoever of any rivalry between the two, rather than a command relationship gradually leavened by friendship. And hitting on Uhura in any way, shape, or form? Not in my TOS universe, baby. :-)

519. P Technobabble - May 14, 2010

I believe that within the confines of a two-hour movie, Star Trek was as well-written as any other well-received, critically acclaimed film. After all, how much information can you squeeze into two-hours anyway? How would you decide what to leave in, what to leave out, what’s more important that this or that…? I imagine any writer would be pulling his/her hair out trying to make such decisions, especially with such an obsession-inducing franchise as Star Trek. And, in the end, the writers make choices. Do we put in more elaborate explanations of things, or do we use some kind of short-hand to keep things moving? Do we have to show Kirk going through all sorts of obstacles when we need to put him in the Captain’s chair by the end of the film? Do Kirk and Spock still have any growing up to do, or should they behave just as the Kirk and Spock of TOS? I have no doubt that no matter who wrote this script, they would have juggled all sorts of questions in telling the story, and eventually come to make decisions to do it a specific way. Bob Orci can’t do any more than acknowledge that “Knowing an inevitable percentage of you would never accept our solution, we left the prime universe alone and intact within canon for you.” We do, after all, still have “our father’s Star Trek” out there…
I think if Star Trek had been designed as a LOTR or Harry Potter continuing saga, or even a tv mini-series, there would have been time to get into far more elaborate details about the characters, story, background, etc. But two hours is two hours, period.
As much as those who didn’t like the film aren’t going to change anything about the film, I am not really defending the film, at this point. What would be the point? But I think it is important to understand more about what the Supreme Court was up against in making this film, rather than being negatively critical about it. If we ever get a “Making of Star Trek” book, we might get more insight into this.

520. Boborci - May 14, 2010

517

Your precise logic is good evidence for why you r doing what you r doing and why I am doing what I am doing;)

This is a genuine tip for any one who cares, which is that when making a movie, the difficult part is not in following logic. That’s easy. The hard part is knowing when to do something even when pure logic doesn’t support it. That’s why computers don’t write scripts, nor is there a formula you can follow for guaranteed success.

We were fully aware during our decision making that some would argue the promotion seemed fast (despite death of many Captains, Kirk’s beating the Kobayashi Maru, Kirk’s new resume, which includes saving the federation, and a culture that elected Bush Jr. and then followed up with a one term Senator). But we did it anyway because it is what we “felt” was the best ending.

521. Harry Ballz - May 14, 2010

520

As Spock would say, “do what feels right”.

Bob, for a guy who is probably busier than a hooker at a Naval Convention, you are more than gracious in taking the time to answer our comments/questions. Thank you!

522. StarFuryG7 - May 14, 2010

#517. Michael Hall
“Seriously–promoted to Captain not just of any old ship, but of Starfleet’s latest and greatest flagship, presumably leapfrogging over line officers with decades’ worth of experience who would likely have considered themselves logical candidates for the job. Aside from the sheer foolhardiness of putting the awesome destructive capabilities of such a vessel in the hands of a largely untested hothead,”

And just a twenty-five year-old kid no less –yeah, like that would happen. Oh, I know, I know –“it’s just a movie,” but it is an example of where the original took the idea of the Service more seriously obviously by comparison. The smarter thing would have been to show young Kirk being commended for his handling of the crisis at the end without being promoted to Captain of the Enterprise. They could have at least moved toward that in between the first and second film being that there’s a gap of years in there that won’t be accounted for until when things pick up again in the next film.

523. StarFuryG7 - May 14, 2010

#515. Damian
“#513–For me, the fact that the prime universe and it’s canon were preserved was what helped me accept your story.”

:::Sigh::: …Yeah, okay –whatever.

If only they could have been as clear about that in the actual movie as they have attempted to be outside of the film in the real world.

I’m just not buying it frankly.

524. Michael Hall - May 14, 2010

“This is a genuine tip for any one who cares, which is that when making a movie, the difficult part is not in following logic.”

Thanks for the tip. Admittedly, screenwriting is indeed not what I do.

Just a few observations on your other points:

–Many captains died, but there would still obviously be many officers ahead in line with far better qualifications than making a few lucky guesses. Including, presumably, some already captains with a history of proven leadership.

–Kirk only ‘saved the Federation’ in the sense that his actions did rescue the Earth. Vulcan, not so much.

–Kirk’s cheating on the Kobayashi Maru just about got him thrown out of school. Now it’s definitively an item in the ‘plus’ column?

–And since you brought it up, no, the 23rd century Starfleet brass, or a modern-day Navy review board for that matter, is hardly the same thing as an American Idol-addled electorate who (narrowly) elected George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

So let me ask you this, Mr. Orci: would you say that other members of the Writer’s Guild West would agree with your statement, and that, furthermore, any of them would have handled the matter of Kirk’s promotion in Trek ’09 more or less the way you did? Because if so, you’ve made an interesting point; otherwise, in my view it’s just post-hoc rationalization based on the false choice of logic (that is, realism) versus good drama.

525. Boborci - May 14, 2010

It’s not post hoc. I saw you and your criticism coming from a light year away, Your criticism was evaluated and overruled before you even knew Trek was again in the works.

526. Harry Ballz - May 14, 2010

Some could argue that, in the latest movie, Kirk and Spock are promoted to their respective positions of authority to simply pander to the mindset of today’s youth, who have this misguided sense of entitlement. Most young people these days have been coddled while growing up, and programmed to think that everything should be “handed to them” without any talent, hard work or effort being involved.

Sure, why not show that in THIS reality you can be 25 and get to command the flagship of the Federation without working your way up through the ranks.

“I want it and I want it NOW!!!!!”

527. Michael Hall - May 14, 2010

Post hoc to myself and the others calling you out on this, sir. Because, in the end, what you really wanted was your money quote (“Buckle up!”), your group shot of the crew on the bridge in their familiar positions, and an entry-point into the second film uncomplicated with tedious exposition about promotions and transfers and such. All perfectly understandable, and, I think, fixable with some care and effort you regrettably didn’t bother to make.

528. Boborci - May 14, 2010

527.

I doubt you really think your specific criticism never occurred to us. You will have to work much harder to articulate something we haven’t considered.

529. P Technobabble - May 14, 2010

Bob Orci: tough crowd, eh?
Reminds me of how Galileo was “criticized” pretty vehemently for proposing stuff the Catholic Church felt was against Scripture…

530. Michael Hall - May 14, 2010

Sorry, Mr. Orci; I guess I’m not making myself clear here. I fully expect that the potential for criticism of Kirk’s remarkable career-jump–from disgraced cadet to flagship captain, all in one swell foop–did indeed occur to you and the rest of the “Supreme Court” as you crafted the Trek ’09 screenplay. How, indeed, could it not? My point was that rather than address the issue in a believable manner through the artful use of your craft, you chose to simply disregard it, because it got in the way of doing what you wanted to do.

531. Michael Hall - May 14, 2010

Oh, for gosh sakes’ #529. I’ve been called many things in my life, a few of them not-so-pretty. But an Inquisitor, really?

(Personally, I think a modern-day Galileo would have known that Titan orbits in the plane of Saturn’s ecliptic, not above it, and would have thought ‘Red Matter’ was a real hoot. But I digress.)

532. Enterprisingguy - May 14, 2010

I think an easy answer to the amazing leap in rank would have been to have Pike make a log entry during a montage of Kirk at the academy, and his subsequent assignments, rising through the ranks. Pike could opine how proud he was of Kirk since he took his dare to do better than his father. He could even make a brief comment on Kirk being the “stack of books with legs” Then the action could have picked up with Kirk on shore leave from the Farragut during the crisis on Vulcan causing him to be posted on the Enterprise. For the most part the whole story could have unfolded the same and his leap from Lt. to Captain would have been easier to believe.

533. Boborci - May 14, 2010

529

Only if three percent is a crowd!

534. P Technobabble - May 14, 2010

531. Michael
I hope you are not taking me too seriously, or too personally.
I was more-or-less referring to the entire 3 percent Bob Orci mentioned.

535. P Technobabble - May 14, 2010

Oh, I forgot the “nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!”

536. StarFuryG7 - May 14, 2010

#532

That was another thing that bothered me about the young Kirk seen in this film, as the way he’s portrayed is not entirely what we would have expected based on what we already knew about Kirk from the original series. If there’s one thing Pine’s Kirk certainly isn’t, it’s “a stack of book with legs”; not even close. Yes, I know, his father died, so he’s an angry youth who lacked fatherly guidance, and it also serves to illustrate that this wasn’t “your father’s ‘Star Trek’,” but it’s proof that young Spock’s criticism of Kirk in the film is also valid, and yet Kirk gets control of the Enterprise anyway despite his immaturity and lack of self-control. He wasn’t ready to become the assigned Captain of the Enterprise. He was too young and still had a lot to learn, especially about how to control his own emotions and passion by knowing when to take a step back and hold things in check.

That said, Pine was good in the role. He knew how to play Kirk nonetheless and did a fine job.

537. Michael Hall - May 14, 2010

Oh, I forgot the “nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more!”

What about “No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!”

My next bumper sticker: “Three Percent and Proud of It!”

538. Michael Hall - May 14, 2010

“If there’s one thing Pine’s Kirk certainly isn’t, it’s “a stack of book with legs”; not even close.”

This I particularly found to be a real letdown, especially in light of interviews I’d read–probably with Roberto Orci–which stressed what a brilliant astronaut Kirk would have to be, and implied we would see the development of that aspect of the character. This sounded very cool to me, since the original series and subsequent movies have mostly emphasized only his brilliance at tactics and qualities as a charismatic decision-maker. I had really hoped to see a knowledgeable young Kirk actively engaged with the business of exploring the final frontier; what we got instead was a skirt-chasing rocket-jock. What a shame, and wasted opportunity.

539. Red Skirt - May 14, 2010

#537, “What about “No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!””

LOL! Go get ‘em “Miguel de Torque-Hall-da”

540. dmduncan - May 14, 2010

496: “No, I get what you’re saying and I’m telling you it’s of no consequence because there’s nothing at stake in elder Spock meeting young Spock in the movie.”

I know for a fact that you don’t understand it, because your comment above proves it.

This is also why you persist in making the false argument that there is nothing in the film to support the MWI connection.

You think that the Grandfather Paradox only applies in particular situations and that if nothing is at stake by one Spock meeting the other, then there is no paradox.

While it is true that there is no paradox created by a meeting between an elder Spock and the younger Spock if the elder does not try to kill his younger self, it is a gross misunderstanding of how MWI proposes to resolve the Grandfather Paradox by suggesting that “there’s nothing at stake in Elder Spock meeting young Spock in the movie.”

Let’s take it from the top, shall we?

MWI says that for any event that can happen there is a universe in which it DOES happen.

If you meet yourself in the past, it is possible for you to kill yourself in the past, and if it is possible then there is a universe in which you do.

But if you kill yourself in the past you create the paradox.

Thus, if Spock Prime meets the younger Spock there is a universe where the elder kills the younger.

Paradox. WHETHER it happens in the movie or NOT.

But we can’t have that paradox. The MWI solution to it is that you can NEVER travel back in time to meet your real past self. IF you meet a younger version of yourself, THEN you are meeting a copy in an alternate universe, because IF you meet yourself in one universe then there is a paradoxical murder of yourself in another according to MWI.

So by the MWI solution you CAN’T ever meet your actual past self.

It has nothing to do with whether young Spock is in any danger of being murdered by Elder Spock in the circumstances of ST.09.

So please don’t tell me you understand that and then immediately make a statement which says “there’s nothing at stake in elder Spock meeting young Spock in the movie.”

Let’s say I travel back in time to meet my younger self, who doesn’t recognize me, who’s having a bad day, and we get into a fight and in defending myself I accidentally push my younger self over the railing of a bridge and he dies. Paradox.

What do you think is going to happen? That a black hole will suddenly open up sucking my older self into some other dimension to prevent my older self from accidentally killing my younger self to avoid a paradox?

That’s not how the MWI solution is conceived. The way that MWI solves the paradox is by NEVER letting the two meet. IF they meet, they are not the same Spocks.

It simply does not matter and it is not a test for paradoxes under MWI in the film to check whether Spock was in any danger by the other in the circumstances of the movie.

So the argument you are making to counter mine is totally irrelevant.

“You’re just trying to turn the tables on me here and it isn’t going to work. My position on the movie has been clear: that what happens in it appears to be overwriting the original timeline and that there’s no alternate universe at issue or pointed to in the film. The dialogue is what supports that, along with the imagery of what happens in the film. I asked you for concrete definitive proof that shows otherwise, and you’re basically trying to hinge it all on something elder Spock says at the end of the movie,”

Your position is clear. It is also unsubstantiated by a single line of dialogue or image in the movie, and rather than telling me that the evidence that I did point out is wrong, you would have done better to point out some counter evidence from the film that better supports YOUR position rather than mine.

But where is it? I asked you for the evidence in my last post to you and so far it hasn’t appeared. Why not?

You haven’t posted any examples at all. What dialogue supports that the original timeline was overwritten? I DARE you to post it. No, I DOUBLE DARE you to post it. You CAN’T. It’s not THERE.

There IS dialogue and action to support what I’ve said, dialogue and action which you clearly still do not understand, and while accusing ME of not providing any examples, you stubbornly adhere to a position without either providing or even HAVING any examples of your own to counter mine with. You haven’t a SINGLE example to back yourself up with or to argue that the TOS timeline was overwritten like it was in City on the Edge of Forever.

I’m wrong? Fine — let’s hear it. Cite the scenes and actions form the movie.

We saw George Kirk die and we know from Spock Prime that George Kirk did NOT die in the Prime universe. We know that Kirk’s life unfolded differently in ST.09. We heard the dialogue on the bridge regarding alternate realities. We heard Spock Prime tell Kirk that paradoxes would occur if the two Spocks met, meaning that MWI was false (Spock Prime being the one in a position to know), and later we learned that the line about paradoxes ensuing was false, directly implying the truth of MWI in the universe of the movie, and thereby finally explaining the beginning of the movie and George Kirk’s death as an event happening in an alternate universe.

This all indicates that the timeline was NOT rewritten. So don;t even TRY to accuse me of not providing examples. Where are your counter examples?

So I don’t have to turn any tables. All I have to do is present my argument and evidence against your lack of either. There is absolutely nothing in the film that suggests the timeline was overwritten. No dialogue. No imagery. Nothing.

My argument is supported. Yours is not.

And you dare to say my argument is wrong when you have even less of one to support your own position and NO dialogue or facts from the movie to back up what YOU say?

Fact is, the ONLY thing you can point to is previous Trek, which this movie is not following the rules of.

541. Michael Hall - May 14, 2010

dmduncan:

Can you spare a little of that energy, sir? I have some iron to push, and could really use it. :-)

542. dmduncan - May 14, 2010

@517: I don’t find Kirk’s promotion as far fetched as I once did. At least Kirk actually proved what he could do with command by saving the Earth with it.

We don’t require that of the people we elect to make life and death decisions affecting the nation. In politics, who sings the best lullabye wins.

543. dmduncan - May 14, 2010

541: lol. No kidding. I feel like a fusion reactor.

544. Harry Ballz - May 14, 2010

Um, if someone doesn’t go along with another person’s opinion, wouldn’t that be a RE-fusion reactor?

545. dmduncan - May 14, 2010

494: “Obviously the longer and louder someone repeats a thing, the more it becomes a fact – lest we forget Obama’s “death panels”.

And lest we forget that healthcare reform will lower budget deficits.

If you say it, they will believe.

“Sometimes red_is_blue and a more intelligent person would be able to recognize that, or at least be willing to put in the work to understand the film the correct way. Clearly we have to overcome our own personal baggage that prevents us from seeing the truth.”

Sure, Red Skirt, reality is opinion. Facts don’t matter. They can be ignored with impunity. No matter how smart or how pig headed you are, nobody is wrong about anything. That’s why the state of California is in such great shape, because reality is whatever you and your elected officials want it to be.

546. ryanhuyton - May 14, 2010

I don’t get why some people have a hard time believing Kirk’s rapid promotion. His father sacrificed himself by ramming the Kelvin into the Narada. Young James T. Kirk was sent to live with his abusive uncle. Jim didn’t have a true father figure and so he became a no-good punk. We saw Kirk being a jerk at the bar and wasting his talents on chasing women and getting into barfights. Captain Pike comes in and dares Kirk to do better by enrolling in Starfleet. After that he was assigned to the Enterprise. This was the turning point. Kirk led the mission to shut down the drill. He succeeded. But unfortunately, Vulcan still ended up being destroyed with billions of Vulcans, including Spock’s mother Amanda, perishing. Kirk put his talents and skills to good use even though Vulcan ended up becoming a black hole. He exhibited bravery and showed command ability during that mission. The fact that Spock jettisoned him onto Delta Vega was a reflection of Spock’s emotional instability, not Kirk’s “lack of maturity”. On Delta Vega, Kirk runs into Prime Spock. There, Spock reveals the friendship that both he and Kirk will develop over time.
Even in this alternate timeline, Prime Spock knows that young James Kirk is more capable of command than his younger self. Kirk returns to the ship, where he takes command after Spock relieves himself of duty. Earth is then under attack from the Narada. Kirk leads a landing party to the Narada where he and Spock are able to stop Nero from destroying Earth.
The point is, Kirk got command of the ship because throughout the movie, he showed command ability. That same ability which Pike saw in him during the bar scene. Kirk just needed the time and situation to prove himself. He did so by saving Earth and destroying the Narada. Plus the Narada took out a lot of Federation ships just before the destruction of Vulcan. A lot of fine officers and captains died. The pool of candidates became smaller. And Pike suffered injuries preventing him from resuming command of the Enterprise. Therefore, the logical choice for captain was Kirk. It was Kirk’s abiliites on display during the events of the movie that helped get him command of the Enterprise. It was also the events of the movie that explain why he was promoted so quicky. Had the Narada not travelled back in time, Kirk wouldn’t have gotten promoted as quickly. No question. We know this from the prime timeline. But the events of this new “Star Trek” movie provided the opportunity for Kirk to prove himself and get command of a starship a lot sooner than he did in the prime timeline. It is that simple. Why a lot of people have trouble grasping that, I don’t know. But it certainly has made for a great discussion.

547. Yammer - May 14, 2010

@524

Kirk was promoted unrealistically by my expectations too.

However if we look at the way navies have handled promotion in the past, I prefer this movie’s system.

Star Trek is basically Hornblower in space, right? Hornblower and all Royal Navy officers started as midshipmen, learning on the job. They could be made lieutenant after passing tests and if they could also show that they were gentlemen, an arbitrary class assessment. Then they had to wait for a ship. If they were made post, then they rose to admiralty strictly through attrition, no merit required!

It is somewhat bizarre that Kirk made captain in under four years.

But…he did solve the Kobayashi Maru. I think it is safe to infer that he was plenty smart enough on all the academy curriculum. In the field, Kirk alone realized that the attack on Vulcan was by a Romulan ship, a single massive ship with advanced and formidable weaponry, and convinced Pike that it was likely an ambush situation, not a rescue mission. For this, Kirk made him first officer by brevet. Kirk legally (if sneakily) obtained acting captaincy against absurd odds and then not only implemented the correct battle strategy, he defeated Nero before it could take out Earth, and then the rest of the Federation (as he’d promised). He even got Pike back AND offered mercy, thinking ahead to the diplomatic ramifications on Romulus.

I think it would be reasonable that Kirk should still have to serve time on a vessel to learn the nuts and bolts of starship handling. But as for merit, would any other Starfleet officer actually be able to say, with a straight face, “I deserve Enterprise more than that kid, what does he know”?

@536 and 538

“Stack of books on legs”

Cripes.

This line occurred, what, once in TOS? Did you ever see Kirk hitting the books in TOS? No, because Spock was there to serve as the pedantic counterpoint to the all-id McCoy.

If anything, Trek09 paid far more respect for the idea that Kirk is a grind by having him (a) promise to finish school in three years (b) quote Pine’s master’s thesis back to him.

I do however acknowledge that this Kirk is far more leering than Shatner’s. Shatner had a twinkle around women but he wasn’t a frat boy. I believe that the current production team felt that it was better to incorporate elements of Shatner’s popular perception along with the character of Kirk. There is a bit of Zapp Brannigan in that.

548. Harry Ballz - May 14, 2010

And the young folk were cranked to watch a movie where the theme of “entitlement over effort” trumped everything, providing them with a self-congratulatory strokefest.

Buttered popcorn, indeed!

549. Rocket Scientist - May 14, 2010

546.

“The point is, Kirk got command of the ship because throughout the movie, he showed command ability.”

Speaking as an ex-navy officer, I can tell you that “command ability” is definitely NOT the devil-may-care grandstanding we saw. It’s a combination of leadership, shiphandling, tactics, political savvy and perhaps most important of all, administrative competence. A ship’s captain has to be, first and foremost, an able manager of people. Knowledgeable and organized. All of this is developed with a rigorous regimen of education and experience. It takes years to groom a commanding officer. The Kirk we saw onscreen was nothing but a headstrong renegade with a bad attitude. He spent most of the movie pissing off people. In a real fleet he would not get very far, I’m afraid.

550. Yammer - May 14, 2010

549

I think Kirk would do well in a real fleet, were he also to have saved his shipmate at great personal risk, saved the flagship of the fleet, destroyed a ship that had already eliminated a squadron of capital ships using only raiding party of two with no casualties (retrieving his CO in the process), securing and destroying a planet-killing weapons system, preventing the imminent destruction of Earth, preventing the subsequent destruction of other inhabited planets.

But you didn’t see any of that, only a headstrong renegade with a bad attitude. Which, I believe, he never displayed to his commanding officer, except on the orders of the commanding officer’s elder self.

551. Yammer - May 14, 2010

I’m guessing you were a quartermaster.

552. Harry Ballz - May 14, 2010

Please, Yammer on as much as you’d like!

553. Rocket Scientist - May 14, 2010

550.

I absolutely saw those things. He would have gotten medals and high praise for those deeds. Perhaps even placed on the fast track for command.

But not the immediate command of a flagship. Not ever. He wasn’t ready and any senior officer worthy of the uniform would have seen it.

And you do know, I’m sure, that a quartermaster is an enlisted man who assists the ship’s navigator. I was a division officer on a warship. So your guess is wrong.

554. captain_neill - May 15, 2010

Kirk going from cadet to Captain is unbelievable because Starfleet has a Chain of Command. So it was a stretch to buy it.

But as Anthony says there is a lot of plot points in the movie that require you to have a suspension of disbelief to enjoy it.

Yes that sudden promotions for the crew are convenient as is the whole Delta Vega sequence of the movie. I find it hard to swallow that one but I still enjoy the film for what it is.

There are better Trek movies out there but this is still great fun.

555. captain_neill - May 15, 2010

It was established in TOS than Kirk was more serious when he was the Academy.

I think the new movie plays more to the mainstream thoughts of Kirk rather than the real character of Kirk.

556. dmduncan - May 15, 2010

EXT. – IOWA COUNTRY ROAD – DAY

Kirk is jogging shirtless at a brisk pace. A small dot in the distance behind him slowly grows into a police skycycle. It pulls alongside.

COP:
(sternly)
Citizen! Pull over.

Kirk looks over and trots to a halt, grinning. The cop pulls off his helmet to reveal a man at least 20 years older.

KIRK:
I thought you retired.

COP:
You’d think. Especially with you not around to keep me busy anymore.

KIRK:
What’s up?

COP:
Starfleet wants you back. Apparently you’re as hard to find as a corvette at the bottom of a canyon. What’d you do? Sever all comm?

KIRK:
I’m just laying low while I settle some things and they decide what to do with me.

COP:
Well, they’ve decided

Kirk nods. Something’s bothering him. The cop knows it.

COP:
You’re not having second thoughts are you?

KIRK:
What if they don’t take me back? What if they DO?

COP
Son, there’s a lot of people you surprised. And there’s a few you didn’t.

Kirk looks at him with deep appreciation.

KIRK:
Which one are you?

COP
One who doesn’t want to see you running toward your past. We can’t change how things turned out. None of us can. And with a future as wide open as yours, I don’t see any reason why you’d want to.

Kirk nods. The cop steps closer to Kirk and offers him a strong handshake.

COP:
Thank you. Thank you all for what you did out there.

He breaks off the handshake and climbs back on his cycle, puts the helmet on.

COP:
Well…it’s getting late…Message delivered. Time for a beer.

He takes off as Kirk watches him go.

557. dmduncan - May 15, 2010

Maybe we could’ve used a scene like that to show some passage of time between the destruction of the Narada and Kirk’s pinning ceremony.

558. Michael Hall - May 15, 2010

Hey, not bad, guy. I still don’t buy the logic of Kirk’s promotion for a moment, but a scene like that (or even the discarded “message from the future” from Shatner) might have taken some of the sting out of the absurdity of it. And I like the fact that we finally got to put a face to that cop and shed a little more light on Kirk’s background before joining Starfleet. Very cool!

For anyone who defends the promotion as simply meritocratic, please cite me one historical instance where such an event has taken place in any military organization (and no, civilian popularity contests like elections don’t count). A battlefield commission is one thing–after such a triumph I would expect that Kirk would be rewarded with a promotion to Lieutenant J.G. or the equivalent. I’d even be willing to accept his being awarded the captaincy of a frigate or other minor ship–but captain of the flagship? That just strains crediulity to the breaking point–note that in post #520 even Bob Orci cops to the fact that it isn’t a very logical devlopment, but basically says that in his professional judgement as screenwriter it was still a good call because it served the larger needs of the story he was telling. Well, on a certain level I guess I can’t argue with that (his story, his rules), but that doesn’t make it any more believable.

Believability–that was Gene Roddenberry’s watchword when putting the Star Trek concept forward from the start, and is a big part of what distinguished the original series from the other genre shows of the time. Saying something happened that way because “it’s just a movie” or “just science fiction” doesn’t cut it.

559. Devon - May 15, 2010

“Believability–that was Gene Roddenberry’s watchword when putting the Star Trek concept forward from the start, ”

No it isn’t. All you have to do is watch the series to know that.

560. Red Skirt - May 15, 2010

#552, This thread has given me a much greater appreciation for your Harry Ballz. ;-)

#558, Micahel, I have to admit you’ve been a little out of focus on this thread. Perhaps you are just tired, threatening to throw in the towel a bit earlier.

Your comment above solicits the Glen Beck phenomenon that seems to permeate the films proponents. The short answer I have seen routinely to counter such criticism, is that we have no idea what the Federation will be like 300 years from now, there’s simply no basis for relating it to today’s military, any more than trying to relate Kirk’s promotion to a presidential election (while also distorting the facts to re-inforce one’s defense), and so you play into their biased hands, risking a strawman being thrown on the pyre to further dilute your astute point.

What you have to do is put the plot decisions made in this film in the context of what has been the stated goal. Essentially Abrams wanted this film to be more “grounded” for a wider audience, as I believe you pointed out earlier. Believability, as you allude, is a component of that. So the question I ask, regardless of the dramatic impact, is whether this kind of atypical promotion in our society helps the audience connect with the story, or does it force them to accept that this indeed is something totally un-relateable and out of touch with their experiences?

Good arguments have been made that for the target demographic, this kind of slacker to leader story speaks volumes to todays entitled generation who have no concept of military service, or even service to one’s country or community. So perhaps we are the ones who are wrong to question the logic of it.

Then again, this is pattern of Abrams, most of his successful series began in an extremely grounded way, yet threw all reality out the window by the end. Alias and Lost are a perfect examples. Interestingly Orci contributed to the early grounded episodes of Alias, but had nothing officially to do with LOST as one of the know-it-all members asserted with authority somewhere above to make their point. Nevertheless, Alias ended in a total fantasy world to the great disappointment of the fans, and LOST appears to be following the same route. So it does not surprise me that Abrams gave up the concept halfway through Star Trek. But what else do we have to judge something by other than the stated intent?

You said, “Well, on a certain level I guess I can’t argue with that (his story, his rules), but that doesn’t make it any more believable.”

Exactly! When viewed in context of the stated intent. But my argument has been that there is seemingly no consistency within his rules. His story yes, but his rules seem to be non-existant, or at least inconsistent. The MWI argument highlights this. On the one hand he clings to the absolute science of the premise that underlies the story, yet throws science to the wind when it conflicts with the logic or dramatic requirements of the story, such as the Supernova. There are many other examples which I and others have discussed extensively over and over in many other threads on this site (more than I care to admit).

And if it makes you feel any better, I have spent many hours of my life (which I shall never get back) hangin out with Hollywood writer’s in trendy cafes in the hip Silverlake area of Los Angeles, discussing just such matters. Some of these guys are as successful as Bob. Some know him. Some defend the position he takes here, and most criticize him. The fact remains, as long Bob bring’s home the bacon, he’s right, no matter how incomprehensible it may be to some of us. If Star Trek had not been so financially successful, would there be so many supporters on this site? Bob is absolutely right when he says they have no idea what makes a success, and certainly no way to guarantee it. However, looking at last years box office champions, internal logic certainly does not seem be a major criteria, so why should Star Trek be any different? One thing on which my little coffee klatch is in 100% agreement, is that making a film intentionally ambiguous in an attempt to appeal to everyone on some level is a very risky thing to do.

Also, with regard to the hover-cycle cop, I believe I’ve read from Abrams and perhaps even Orci, that the cop was left intentionally ambiguous as to whether he was a cyber-cop, or a flesh and blood one. But I’m sure there are incontrovertible clues within the film that if one is smart enough and works hard enough, the correct inferences can be made to provide a satisfying answer to that question too. ;-)

561. P Technobabble - May 15, 2010

558. Michael

I don’t know if you recall Roddenberry’s “Writer’s Bible” for TOS. In it, he wrote about believability, with one particular example: (I’m paraphrasing) “The ship is in danger, and the Capt of the ship puts his arms around his lovely yeoman. This is unbelievable. The Capt wouldn’t do this in real life.” Yet, in one of the episodes (which I can’t remember off the top of my head, but I can substantiate it), THIS scenario actually happened, when it looked like the Enterprise was going to at least be severely damaged, and Kirk put his arm around Rand. I often wondered WHY this was precisely the kind of unbelievable thing Roddenberry wrote in the Writer’s Guide, yet it appeared on film. Nothing is perfect, after all.

562. Christine - May 15, 2010

#559 :: “..Believability–that was Gene Roddenberry’s watchword when putting the Star Trek concept forward from the start, and is a big part of what distinguished the original series from the other genre shows of the time..”

Since when? Okay, maybe in terms of Physics and that sort of thing, but in the case of every alien we saw… depending on what theory you roll with, no way. I understand budget restraints and the lack of — for example — CGI technology, but I doubt that many aliens could look that much like humans.

I totally get your point with the whole “Kirk jumping from Cadet to Captain is just plain ludicrous”, but maybe watch your wording. Just saying.

563. Harry Ballz - May 15, 2010

#560

Why, thank you, Red Skirt!

….and I wasn’t even TRYING to blow smoke up your……er, you know what!

564. StarFuryG7 - May 15, 2010

#540. dmduncan

“No, I get what you’re saying and I’m telling you it’s of no consequence because there’s nothing at stake in elder Spock meeting young Spock in the movie.” StarfuryG7

“I know for a fact that you don’t understand it, because your comment above proves it.” – dmduncan

What it proves is that we’re on two different wavelengths obviously, and that the only “fact” that applies here is that you’re mistaken. At what point have I conceded to you that what takes place in this movie is happening in an alternate universe as opposed to an alternate timeline that’s being rewritten? You’re insisting that since the Grandfather Paradox does not apply then it must be an alternate universe, and I’m saying that even if it’s the prime universe there’s no evidence that the paradox applies here. You have already acknowledged that what would apply in the prime universe does not apply in this film, but you keep talking about “the rules of this movie” even though “the rules of this movie” are not clear obviously–at least not in terms of what you insist has to be the case.

The reason Spock Prime meeting young Spock or young Spock knowing about him is of no consequence is because the original timeline has already been nuked to hell, and the same would apply if we were talking about the prime timeline for that matter if Spock Prime had no interest in correcting the changes that had occurred, which is how it looks in this last film, or he was only interested in observing strictly from a distance without taking any action. What I’m basically telling you is that a paradox is not at issue in either case unless certain specific actions were to take place and conditions are met.

“This is also why you persist in making the false argument that there is nothing in the film to support the MWI connection.”

Is the prospect of a paradox theoretically viable outside of MWI _theory_?

And you’re trying to fall back on a theory that is never even referenced or specifically alluded to in the film itself. At exactly what point does it occur to these characters that they’re all simply copies? And why does elder Spock greet them as though he knows them so very well based on his own firsthand experience if it’s a Many Worlds scenario?

By all means, cite the actual dialogue, as I have been asking you to do since the very beginning. You’re saying it needs to be extrapolated by ‘reading between the lines’ in effect supposedly, but the scenes in question that you’re pointing to don’t really convey the impression you’re insisting they provide.

“You think that the Grandfather Paradox only applies in particular situations and that if nothing is at stake by one Spock meeting the other, then there is no paradox.”

“In terms of this last film, clearly that was not an issue.

“While it is true that there is no paradox created by a meeting between an elder Spock and the younger Spock if the elder does not try to kill his younger self, it is a gross misunderstanding of how MWI proposes to resolve the Grandfather Paradox by suggesting that ‘there’s nothing at stake in Elder Spock meeting young Spock in the movie.’ “

The Grandfather Paradox is not even hinted at in the film, and MWI is never mentioned.

“Let’s take it from the top, shall we?”

Oh, by all means –but by the looks of where you’re headed, you’re looking to make your case and your argument outside of the film obviously. And let’s be clear first at the outset here: we’re talking about what this film conveys and/or is supposed to _clearly_ convey.

“MWI says that for any event that can happen there is a universe in which it DOES happen.”

Not actually proven by the way –far from it in fact, as it’s all conjecture. But that aside, can’t you point to anything definitively stated in the film that indicates we’re looking at a “Many Worlds” different universe scenario? And I don’t mean by having to infer it, because obviously not every moviegoer is going to be familiar with the Quantum Theory you’re alluding to –in fact, most of them wouldn’t be.

“If you meet yourself in the past, it is possible for you to kill yourself in the past, and if it is possible then there is a universe in which you do.”

Who says that it’s actually “possible” though? Where’s the evidence to support it? You’re reaching, as you’ve just resorted to the “anything that can happen does happen” Many Worlds pretext in order to accommodate and justify something that we don’t and can’t know with any degree of actual certainty could occur. It’s purely hypothetical with no proven science to actually back it up. In other words, it doesn’t fall into the “anything that can happen does happen” category actually.

“But if you kill yourself in the past you create the paradox.
Thus, if Spock Prime meets the younger Spock there is a universe where the elder kills the younger.
Paradox. WHETHER it happens in the movie or NOT.
But we can’t have that paradox. The MWI solution to it is that you can NEVER travel back in time to meet your real past self.”

That also happens to be Stephen Hawking’s position on the matter, but again, we’re talking about a movie here. And how many people out there in the real world do you think know and are aware of what Hawking thinks about the Grandfather Paradox?

“IF you meet a younger version of yourself, THEN you are meeting a copy in an alternate universe, because IF you meet yourself in one universe then there is a paradoxical murder of yourself in another according to MWI.”

Curved-spacetime could allow for meeting yourself in the past according to Einstein however, without the dire consequence of supposed “paradoxical murder.”

And again I’ll ask you where the evidence is in the film which points to that speculative premise? You’re focusing on one theory that the film doesn’t even make any attempt to try and clearly establish.

And how many people do you think are sophisticated enough to reach that conclusion? Furthermore, you have already acknowledged that Spock could meet a younger version of himself in the prime universe. You can say that old rule book goes out the window as of this last film, that’s fine, but it still stands as precedent regardless.

“So by the MWI solution you CAN’T ever meet your actual past self.”

Nowhere does the movie actually indicate that.

“It has nothing to do with whether young Spock is in any danger of being murdered by Elder Spock in the circumstances of ST.09.”

I never said that was at issue. What I said is that it’s obviously not a concern.

“So please don’t tell me you understand that and then immediately make a statement which says ‘there’s nothing at stake in elder Spock meeting young Spock in the movie.’ ”

There isn’t according to how the movie plays out and unfolds obviously. Spock tells what amounts to a relatively benign lie by telling young Kirk that young Spock can’t know about Prime’s presence; there’s nothing at stake by him knowing by virtue of the extent to which the timeline has been corrupted and totally changed. And at no point is the Grandfather Paradox referenced or even implied even for the sake of just making a point in passing that would have perhaps served as a heads up of sorts to viewers.

“Let’s say I travel back in time to meet my younger self, who doesn’t recognize me, who’s having a bad day, and we get into a fight and in defending myself I accidentally push my younger self over the railing of a bridge and he dies. Paradox.”

Hawking contends that it can’t happen. But then again, Hawking is inclined to believe that time travel into the past wouldn’t be possible under any circumstances either, so there goes “City on the Edge of Forever” or any other great (or lousy) “Star Trek” episode for that matter that happened to involve time travel into the past. Are we supposed to now throw out all previsouly existing Trek on the basis of what Hawking belives too?

And Hawking’s example, which he calls “the Mad Scientist Paradox,” which is very similar to the Grandfather Paradox, doesn’t posit the notion that if you’re looking at an earlier version of yourself that you must therefore be looking at a different version of you in an alternate universe by the way; it assumes the same universe.

Of course, it’s all fiction though, where the rules can be bent in the telling of a story obviously. And you’re basically writing your own story here in order to explain something that’s absent in the movie. Where is that contention even raised or at issue in the film? Where is it pointed to as being relevant or important?

“What do you think is going to happen? That a black hole will suddenly open up sucking my older self into some other dimension to prevent my older self from accidentally killing my younger self to avoid a paradox?”

The principle of cause and effect comes into play, and again, according to Hawking, it can’t happen. However, it’s all completely hypothetical of course, since no one knows for certain quite obviously. It’s a theoretical thought experiment that can be pondered but can’t actually be proven or disproved one way or the other because of the limits of present-day science. The universal principle of cause and effect appears to indicate that it wouldn’t be possible though, and if that’s indeed the case, there’s no point in even pondering it obviously.

“That’s not how the MWI solution is conceived. The way that MWI solves the paradox is by NEVER letting the two meet. IF they meet, they are not the same Spocks.”

You’re going on and on about MWI theory, and yet it’s never even mentioned or referenced in the movie.

And I go back to the following question besides: How many people do you think are knowledgeable enough to know this about MWI _theory_ to reach that conclusion?

Look, again, we’re talking about a movie here, where conventional rules, or even conventional _theories_ do not apply. What applies are the conditions of the story as stated or otherwise played out. A good example for the sake of making a point here would be “Timecop,” wherein there’s a clear indication as to what the implications are if someone travels from the future into the past and occupies the same space and time (clearly possible in this film) and encounters their younger self and the two somehow make physical contact. It’s fiction, it’s fantasy –but ST09 on the other hand spells out no such rules obviously for the viewer to go by. Again, I asked for something concrete and definitive, and preferably above all, straightforward. There’s absolutely nothing straightforward about what you’ve just described. It may be accurate according to MW theory, but you just twisted yourself into a pretzel in order to get there, and there’s nothing straightforward about it in the film itself obviously. A viewer should not have to twist himself into contortions in order to reach the kind of conclusion you’ve just jumped through all sorts of hoops to reach. It’s the obligation of the movie (via the writers of course) to be clear.

“It simply does not matter and it is not a test for paradoxes under MWI in the film to check whether Spock was in any danger by the other in the circumstances of the movie.”

We ended up there in the first place because the Grandfather Paradox, which you brought up, involves a person from the future eliminating an earlier/younger version of himself in the past. That’s the context of the thought experiment for cryin’ out loud.

You made it an issue.

“Your position is clear. It is also unsubstantiated by a single line of dialogue or image in the movie”

I marvel at the absolute gall that it takes for you to even dare to say that at this point. It’s almost funny, were not for the sheer arrogance and audacity involved.

In other words, that’s my way of pointedly telling you that you’re totally full of crap.

“and rather than telling me that the evidence that I did point out is wrong, you would have done better to point out some counter evidence from the film that better supports YOUR position rather than mine.”

I’ve given examples – do you want more? Because I can actually go on and on and on in doing so if you like.

Let’s take for instance when Nero tells Ayel that he’s not going to kill Spock Prime once he emerges from the singularity because he wants to make him watch. “Kill him? I’m not going to kill him. I’m going to make him watch” are his exact words in fact. What is it that he’s going to make him ‘watch’ exactly? The destruction of Vulcan obviously. Well, if it’s an alternate universe, then ergo, it’s also the wrong universe obviously, right? So if it’s the wrong universe, then what exactly does Nero believe he’s going to accomplish? And don’t try and tell me that I haven’t already given you this example more than once at this point because I have. How exactly can you get revenge if you’re in the wrong place? Just whom are you punishing? That’s basically like going to Afghanistan in the alternate universe on “Fringe” and making the Taliban pay with a surgical strike bombardment for knocking down the Twin Towers in our universe even though there they are still standing with no planes having flown into them over there. Does that make any sense whatsoever to you? And have you ever noticed how easy it is to actually follow episodes of “Fringe” no matter what mind-bending plots it may happen to involve? Why do you think that is? It’s because the writers are being very clear about what’s actually going on in the story, are they not?

Geez.

Here’s another example: I refer to the scene where elder Spock and young Kirk are having a conversation, and Kirk asks elder Spock if he knew his father: Note that I said _his father_. You’re asserting that it’s an alternate universe, therefore, Kirk can’t be referring to his actual father obviously, as he’s not someone elder Spock could truly know. If he’s a copy, then he’s not the genuine article obviously. Shall I go on?

When elder Spock first meets Kirk in the cave, what’s the first thing he says to him after calling him by name? “I have been and always shall be your friend.” That’s a direct reference to “Star Trek II”, but if he’s not the same Kirk, then why say that, and why greet him in that way?

The film is replete with examples like this, so don’t even try to tell me that I don’t know what I’m talking about or that I haven’t provided evidence because I damn well have, and plenty of it. And I know you’ll try to fall back on their being the product of a split universe, yet nowhere is that actually made clear in the film. In fact, nowhere is the term even used or alluded to.

“As he [Nero] was helpless to save his planet, I would be helpless to save _mine_.” –Spock, in reference to Nero making him watch the premeditated destruction of Vulcan

If it’s not really his world, why is Spock Prime so upset? And notice that when he refers to his world, he uses the word “mine,” as in “my world” –not someone else’s world, but his precisely.

“Jim, I just lost my planet. I can tell you, I am emotionally compromised. What you must do is get me (meaning his younger self) to show it.”

Again, he’s referring to _himself_, not a copy of himself.

“Coming back in time, changing history –that’s cheating.” –Kirk

“A trick I learned from an old friend.” –elder Spock in response

That’s a clear indication that the original timeline has been undone and is in the process of being completely rewritten. I dare you to insist otherwise. No, I DOUBLE and TRIPLE DARE you to try and o that.

“I am not our father.” –elder Spock to young Spock at the end of the movie.

Notice that Spock doesn’t say “I am not _your_ father.” He says “our”.
So what was it you were saying about there not being a scintilla of evidence that supports my interpretation and understanding of the film? Something tells me it just flew into another universe.

“There IS dialogue and action to support what I’ve said, dialogue and action which you clearly still do not understand, and while accusing ME of not providing any examples, you stubbornly adhere to a position without either providing or even HAVING any examples of your own to counter mine with. You haven’t a SINGLE example to back yourself up with or to argue that the TOS timeline was overwritten like it was in City on the Edge of Forever.”

I have been providing examples and evidence all along, so you’re being patently and utterly dishonest by making that accusation. You’re trying to rest your entire claim on a comment made by Spock, which in and of itself simply does not hold up to the totality of everything else that the movie stands to indicate.

“We saw George Kirk die and we know from Spock Prime that George Kirk did NOT die in the Prime universe.”

Duh. If the timeline was being overwritten the same would also apply obviously. And I have just cited a plethora of examples that indicate the timeline has been erased and is being rewritten as opposed to it being an alternate universe, or at the very least that that could just as easily be the case.

“We know that Kirk’s life unfolded differently in ST.09.”

Differently? You’re comparing it to the prime timeline obviously, and the reason his life unfolds differently is because of Nero’s actions and his incursion into the past. So what does this actually prove as a supposed example? It’s an example of nothing, just like his father dying is an example of nothing obviously. What it signifies is that this is a different timeline, but that doesn’t automatically mean that it’s a different universe also.

“We heard the dialogue on the bridge regarding alternate realities.”

Excuse me, but “alternate reality” is the term actually used in that scene, not “realities,” and I’d be more than happy to go over that scene with you too in detail if you’d like, because as I’ve already said, “alternate reality” doesn’t automatically or necessarily mean “alternate universe.”

“We heard Spock Prime tell Kirk that paradoxes would occur if the two Spocks met”

What he actually says is that his presence should be kept secret from young Spock.

“meaning that MWI was false”

I thought you were arguing that it’s true?

“(Spock Prime being the one in a position to know), and later we learned that the line about paradoxes ensuing was false”

Paradoxes wouldn’t ensue in the prime universe either if elder Spock was only interested in being there as a casual observer without trying to change past events that have already occurred.

And Spock Prime reveals the reason for his deception at the end of the movie: so as to not deprive young Spock and Kirk from getting to know each other. The fact that Kirk _infers_ “universe ending paradoxes” from elder Spock’s remark means that in Kirk’s mind he would have to reveal that secret to young Spock in order for a paradox to actually occur, but obviously he does not realize that Spock Prime can’t be there in the first place if he has indeed come from the same universe according to what you’re arguing, so are you saying that Kirk is actually stupid for not realizing the supposedly “obvious”? Does your argument really come down to this bright, intelligent young Captain that we all know and are familiar with, and who can shrewdly and calculatedly work his way out of any jam, is in reality just a dunce? Please tell me you’re not really saying that. And I guess Kirk doesn’t understand the implications of the Grandfather Paradox either for that matter, eh?

You’ve just made an argument that Kirk is dumber than a rock basically even though he’s made Captain of the Enterprise by the end of the movie for being so slick and keenly aware of what was actually going on that he has to inform Pike and young Spock because they’re completely in the dark about it all.

“And you dare to say my argument is wrong when you have even less of one to support your own position and NO dialogue or facts from the movie to back up what YOU say?”

“Dare say”? It’s taken you how many days and how many posts to finally introduce the kind of circular argument you just made? If this was all so easy and straightforward as you vehemently and vindictively now argue, why, you should have been able to do it in your very first post. So what took you so long?

Or is it that it’s not all so simple and straightforward as you now insist? And yet you have the audacity to declare that anyone with two eyes can see it supposedly, it’s all really that obvious. Well, sorry, but that just isn’t the case. There’s a reason Stephen Hawking has said that this is the kind of stuff that gives cosmologists nightmares.

565. Boborci - May 15, 2010

557

True. I was holding out hope that the Shatner cameo would give that impression. Once strike hit, no changes possible during shooting.

566. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

#562

Well said Christine!

There are people on this site who cannot grasp the notion that in order to make a story work, sometimes logic and believability must be bent a little to provide an entertaining movie or episode. Such as in this movie with Kirk’s rapid promotion. Is such a promotion unlikely to happen in real life? Sure it is. But “Star Trek” ain’t real life, its fantasy. And within that “fantasy”, Kirk’s rapid promotion DOES MAKE SENSE. As I said before, we saw Kirk mature as the film moved along. The Kirk that got into barfights early in the film became a better Kirk during the events of the movie. He saved Earth and destroyed Nero and the Narada with no loss of life. He was rewarded with the promotion to Captain. It all makes sense once you put things into context, which is: Bob felt the best way to make the movie work was to take a few liberties with logic and believability in order to tell a good story. Bob understood that the future of the Star Trek franchise rested squarely on this one movie. If he had done what a lot of critics on this site said he should have done, Kirk would have not been captain and Spock would have. That wouldn’t have worked. Or Pike would not have been able to get injured and would have stayed as ship’s captain. That wouldn’t have worked storywise either because it would mean another movie would be needed to explain how Kirk became captain. That would have been a big gamble, since the success of this movie hinged on the mainstream audience accepting it. And Bob new that having Kirk get command of the Enterprise in this movie was essential to bringing in the mainstream crowd. Some corners were cut; Bob acknowledged that; but he did what he felt was neccessary to cut to the chase.

567. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

#564

You’ve just set a new record for longest post on TrekMovie.Com. Congratulations! :-)

568. Boborci - May 15, 2010

564.

Here’s a clue. Does Spock Prime “remember” the events of the movie?

569. Harry Ballz - May 15, 2010

567

Yes, but who has the time to read it? :>)

570. Harry Ballz - May 15, 2010

568

If not we can always give him a DVD of it for Christmas! :>)

571. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

#568

If he doesn’t, he could always mind-meld with his younger self! ;-)

572. Red Skirt - May 15, 2010

#561 & 562,

I don’t think that was Michael’s point per say, but I will let him speak for himself. Addressing your specific comments.

First P Technobabble, you are taking that specific incident out of context. in 1966 it was very believable that the hero would protect the women in the midst of peril to mainstream society. Remember in the pilot Gary Lockwood grabs the Yeoman’s hand as the ship is buffeted when it enter’s the big pink cloud? It looks ridiculous to me, but not out of place in 1966. Just watch a few episodes of Mad Men, which is heralded as an accurate depiction of the mores of the time. Dramatic yes, but also realistic for the period. Today it’s just ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as Uhura leaving her post during a crisis after just being given specific orders to comfort her boyfriend, but damned if it isn’t dramatic. And the internal rules are bent again to serve the story. But then who knows how folks will behave in the 23rd century. ;-)

And Christine, the types of Aliens and planets they visit is the most subjective aspect of any sci-fi production. Even films with the capacity for greater CGI budgets and capabilities tend to depict aliens mostly humanoid. Many theories of extra-terrestrial life account for such a phenomenon. Where distance is no factor, the Enterprise choses to visit only planets of Earth-like conditions. Given that the planets evolved similarly to Earth, there is no reason to think life would evolve differently either, at least in some cases. Nevertheless, even if this is not true, how many different species are we seeing? Maybe a few dozen. In the vastness of space, is it truly unreasonable to imagine there are that many humanoid life forms? Beyond that there are the theories presented even in Star Trek that we are all the progeny of some dying alien genes in the first place, germinating the universe as they travel through it.

573. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

#570

Yeah, you could send him a dvd. But I gotta think that in the 23rd century, Spock Prime would have a “true” 3d based home entertainment system!

574. Harry Ballz - May 15, 2010

Ryan, I think Bob posted that comment at #568 just to spur the “core fans” here into action and push this thread to over 1000!

Like waving a red flag to a bull!

575. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

#574

I’m not sure we’re going to get to 1000 unfortunately.

576. Harry Ballz - May 15, 2010

Yes, it would seem this thread is destined to slide into the past and then oblivion.

Ah, well.

577. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

It was fun….oh my……

578. Red Skirt - May 15, 2010

#564, let me debunk your entire well proposed argument in one phrase:

“term of art”

You see, when the movie discuses the Supernova which threatens the “galaxy” it is really hyperbole, not a literal meaning since everyone knows a Supernova would not destroy a galaxy. You have to be smart enough to know when to infer these things and when not to.

Likewise, all of these explanations you reference that the characters are referring to themselves and not their copies, is a similar oversimplification. You simply have to be smart enough to know when the writers are being literal and when to infer the correct meaning. Not sure how you missed it, as all the clues are there.

Also, your argument for Kirk’s intellectual level is interesting, because you have to correctly infer that he is under so much stress that he cannot reason properly about a theory which in the 23rd century may still have not been proven, or where MWI is not even still a viable possibility in scientific circles. But you have to be smart enough to infer this.

And of course Nero was insane, incapable of knowing where he was or what he was doing, despite having 25 years to figure it out. That’s a no brainer. Nothing he says or does is to be taken literally.

But I will give you credit for pointing out old Spock specifically saying the reason he didn’t want Kirk to tell young Spock was so as to not deprive young Spock and Kirk from getting to know each other.

Unfortunately, you are not smart enough to realize that old Spock has come a long way since his “exaggerating” days in Star Trek II, and now flat out lies (ins’t that a common trait of Vulcans?). After all, even though he actually says that his presence should be kept secret from young Spock, Bob Orci has specifically said this was a “lie” to make Kirk think there could be a grandfather paradox, despite what he tells young Spock later. Of course Vulcans lying in this universe must be common practice as young Spock does not seem to question it. Again, the clues are there to infer this conclusion from, but I am not smart enough to point them out to you. I’m sure someone else here will though.

But don’t worry. I’m sure if you pry your eyes open with wires and watch the film over and over again (blasting Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony while you do this would help), I think you will eventually join the ranks of the intellectually elite and infer the correct and logical solution clearly and unequivocally presented in this film.

579. MJ - May 15, 2010

To the five of you who did not like the movie, and who keep posting here ad infinitum. No matter how many times you post here, and how lengthy your diatribes are, you are not making any progress whatsoever in turning the tides of the complete butt-kicking you embarrassing 3% minority took in the poll. It is not working folks…other than perhaps you all getting a charge out of thinking how clever you all must be. The over 95% of us who liked the movie are fully secure in our opinion, and have not been swayed one bit by these arguments, and we are also wise to the practice of some of you having multiple identities on these postings, thus artificially supporting yourselves here. On the contract, the 97% of us find you all amusing at best, and pathetic at worst.

“Like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target!”

580. Harry Ballz - May 15, 2010

You run a tight ship, Red Skirt!

581. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

#579

Agreed! The hater(s) have no leg to stand on, so they have to create an artificial one to stand on so they can try to convince the 97% of us who do enjoy the movie that we are “wrong”.

582. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

#580

Yes, especially considering that it is not her ship to run!

583. Harry Ballz - May 15, 2010

Yes, but I LIKE a woman who knows what she wants!

584. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

#583

Fair enough! :-)

585. Harry Ballz - May 15, 2010

#581

Also known as the “pegleg defense”, a weak campaign at best!

586. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

#585

They’re also the same folks who blame the invisble parrot when things don’t go their way!

587. Harry Ballz - May 15, 2010

586

LMFAO!

588. Red Skirt - May 15, 2010

When did Glen Beck join this list? ;-)

“haters”, “socialists” and “nazis” … to quote George Takei, “oh my”!

589. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

#588

“When did Glen Beck join this list? ;-)

Everytime you mentioned his name on this thread, perhaps?

Read my statements again. While I used the term “hater” (for good reason) never once did I mention “socialists” or “nazis”. You are only 1/3 correct!

590. fansince66 - May 15, 2010

#562 Christine
I remember exactly what kind of “believability” G.R. was aiming for. I read it in that old “Making of Star Trek” book from 40 years ago. He simply meant that, for example in a western, the cowboy doesn’t pull out his six-shooter to shoot the bad guy, BUT pauses to explain to the audience how the firing mechanism works, firing pin hits percussion cap exploding the powder charge in the brass casing thus rapidly expelling the lead shot down the barrel etc…NO, he just pulls & shoots.Likewise, Bones doesn’t stop to explain how his exotic surgeon’s instruments (which were mostly salt & pepper shakers) work. He stays within the framework of a doctor working on his patient with his familiar instruments. He’s not talking to himself, or anyone else, about how they function. Old sci-fi movies were bad about explaining how things worked. Star Trek changed all that. Does your car mechanic explain to you how his air wrench takes the lugnut off the stud? Doesn’t happen in real life. This may be an obvious trait in movie-making nowadays. Star Trek helped make it so.

591. fansince66 - May 15, 2010

#574
I’m doing my part to push over 1000 . Here is # 591

592. Boborci - May 15, 2010

Red skirt

Seem hung up on supernovae. Let’s see if your strict interpretation would alter the film:

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/United_Federation_of_Planets

According to this trusted source, the federation spans 8000 light years.

593. Boborci - May 15, 2010

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/gammaray_bursts_010522-2.html

And according to this reputable source, a supernovae could threaten distancescof about 8000 light years. What a coincidence!

So you win. What we should’ve said was that the supernovae threatened the “known” universe. Or perhaps merely the entire Federation of Planets. Would this distinction alter the events and motivations of the movie? Hopefully, the obvious answer is “no.”

On the other hand, classical vs Quantum distinctions in relation to the time travel surely would affect events and motivations.

594. Hugh Hoyland - May 15, 2010

Good points Bob, but Im sure some of the more hyper crtitical posters will say something like “well the Romulan empire isnt IN the federation space!” . I think some folks take certain elements of a story to literal instead of conceptual.

595. MJ - May 15, 2010

581: “The hater(s) have no leg to stand on, so they have to create an artificial one to stand on so they can try to convince the 97% of us who do enjoy the movie that we are “wrong”.”

Right on brother! The postings on this board kind of remind me of the rantings of the prisoners on the Tantalus V Penal Colony…but unfortunately in this case there is no conveinant nueral neutralizer to use on the clowns posting continuously her…where is Van Gelder when we need him?

“I am laughing at the superior intellect”

596. Hugh Hoyland - May 15, 2010

Its kind of like when Obe-Won was discribing the Force to Luke Skywalker, he said it “penetrates and Binds the Galaxy” together or something to that effect. Now if you take that in a literal sense you could say “well why doesnt he just say it binds the whole universe as opposed to just the Galaxy. Its a concept IMO, you have to think outside the box with it.

597. Michael Hall - May 15, 2010

“But don’t worry. I’m sure if you pry your eyes open with wires and watch the film over and over again (blasting Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony while you do this would help), I think you will eventually join the ranks of the intellectually elite and infer the correct and logical solution clearly and unequivocally presented in this film.”

Ah, yes. Lovely, lovely Ludwig Van. I think of it as the soundtrack of trekweb.com, particularly when reading postings like 579 and 581.

I won’t go on at great length here as I’m getting old, tired, and unfocused, but the question of “believability” that Roddenberry raised in 1964 is, of course, like all such issues a relative one. Back then it was typical for producers of genre fare like Irwin Allen to throw in just about anything they could to keep their shows moving along and “exciting,” no matter how ludicrous. Rampaging monsters, space pirates and bikers and witches on broomsticks were all fair game so long as they got the audience to the next commercial. (Any decent actor–and there were more than a few–who had the job of selling this crap to the public must have often wondered at the end of a long shooting day just what it was that got them into the business in the first place.)

Rod Serings’s Twilight Zone and Joe Stefano’s Outer Limits had both done yeoman work in demonstrating what was possible when producers treated genre material with respect, but they were anthologies. Star Trek was the first science fiction show with continuing characters to even aspire to taking its invented universe seriously. Did it always succeed? Of course not, but for all the wonky science, tinfoil bikinis, and aliens who speak the Queen’s English the effort to keep things believable within that fantastical setting is clearly there, particularly during the show’s first season. Otherwise, I doubt very much that we would be having this conversation in 2010 about a 150 million dollar film adapted from a cheesy, failed space opera that couldn’t go head-to-head with Mr. Novak and often as not got pre-empted by Grand Ole Opry.

Of course, on many levels Trek was just Gunsmoke in space, but that was Roddenberry’s point: if a TV Western could operate within certain believable parameters that kept it real for audiences and allowed them to take the characters seriously and even care about them, then so could a space opera. It was an early attempt at treating the SF genre with respect, and as such very imperfect. Since then others producers have done it far better (e.g. Babylon Five, Battlestar Galactica), though none of their efforts have displaced Trek in my affections–because Trek, however imperfect and dated and ridiculous, is still Trek. And my problem with Kirk’s amazing promotion in this film is that it doesn’t pass the smell test of a show created back when one of TV’s biggest stars was a talking horse, let alone what we should expect of a big-budget studio film produced forty years later.

598. Michael Hall - May 15, 2010

“And according to this reputable source, a supernovae could threaten distancescof about 8000 light years. What a coincidence!”

Uh-huh. Would that threat be in real time, Mr. Orci? Or would that more likely be an issue for the remote descendants of those living in that 8000-light year radius to worry about?

(In Larry Niven’s classic Ringworld it is discovered that the stars at the core of the Milky Way have erupted in a chain of supernovae, sending a wave front of lethal gamma radiation towards Known Space with an ETA of approximately 10,000 years. None of the humans or other life forms who live there are particularly bent out of shape about it, except for the Puppeteers, who are famed for their cowardice. Go figure.)

599. Red Skirt - May 15, 2010

#592, “Red skirt Seem hung up on supernovae.”

If that’s what you infer. Perhaps I was too ambiguous in making my point. ;-)

600. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

I see the conversation has turned to supernovae.

600!

601. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

#594

What is evident on this thread are the people who apparently need every single detail explained in great detail on screen. Whether it be supernovas, time travel, Kirk’s promotion, it seems that these folks can’t fill in the blanks with their imagination. And it is mainly the people who hate “Star Trek” 09 who make up this group. The people (myself included) who enjoyed this movie immensely are the ones who were able to figure things out with what was provided in the movie. And as I said earlier, the people who hate the movie or criticize it to death don’t have a leg to stand on so they create a leg out of thin air. Its the “air pegleg defense” which is usually defeated by simple logic. And whenever the haters’ arguements are defeated, they blame the “invisible parrot” i.e the so-called “questionable science”.

602. dmduncan - May 15, 2010

564: “You’re insisting that since the Grandfather Paradox does not apply then it must be an alternate universe, and I’m saying that even if it’s the prime universe there’s no evidence that the paradox applies here.”

Correct, the GP (or any paradox, really) does NOT apply as per Spock’s own words. It CAN’T be the Prime universe given the truth of what Spock knows which is that paradoxes do not apply.

In short, my dear friend, the reason that “there’s no evidence that the paradox applies here” in the movie is because Spock is NOT in the prime universe and therefore there can be no evidence of paradox in the movie. The only evidence of paradox could come from Spock being in his OWN actual past in the prime universe which he is not. That is precisely the situation that the MWI solution seeks to prevent.

“You have already acknowledged that what would apply in the prime universe does not apply in this film,”

But not in the way that your canon-addicted mind seems to think. You misunderstand.

As I said before and have to say again, apparently, movies do not have the ontological depth of the real world. Thus, they are only as deep as their creators make them according to what ideas outside the movie the writers connect with while creating it.

There ARE NO REAL STAR TREK UNIVERSE(S), and unlike the real world the actions and depictions among various shows in Star Trek do not HAVE TO logically conform to each other; one version of Star Trek created by X does not HAVE TO conform to another version of Star Trek created by Z. Thus, if Bob and Alex, and JJ want to follow previous Trek here but not there, that is their option to do. And what they have opted to change in this film is how time travel obviously worked in TOS.

“but you keep talking about ‘the rules of this movie’ even though ‘the rules of this movie’ are not clear obviously–at least not in terms of what you insist has to be the case.”

It may not be obvious to YOU, but we aren’t all obliged to proceed according to your own thinking. You have a desire to make ST.09 consistent with previous TOS Trek, and in that desire you ignore what the facts of the film are, and to what ideas and theories they are reaching outside the film to connect with.

If you are playing a game of charades, the person whose turn it is to act out give you clues. The game is over when somebody gets the clues correct and the enactor points to that person and says that he got it right.

Bob has already done that. I didn’t get the clues by “accident” or “coincidence” or because Bob explained everything to me, but because I paid attention to the dialogue and the action and understood what various things meant together.

“The reason Spock Prime meeting young Spock or young Spock knowing about him is of no consequence is because the original timeline has already been nuked to hell,”

“What I’m basically telling you is that a paradox is not at issue in either case unless certain specific actions were to take place and conditions are met.”

And I’m telling you that you are incorrect. It has nothing to do with “specific actions” because we are NOT talking about how MWI “really works” with regard to time travel, we are talking about how MWI has been PROPOSED as a solution to the grandfather paradox, and in that proposal “specific actions” are irrelevant. The ONLY way for the MWI solution to work with regard to the GP is if one person can never meet his younger self.

“Is the prospect of a paradox theoretically viable outside of MWI _theory_?”

Actually, I believe that it is NOT. I do NOT believe we actually need to invoke MWI to solve the GP, but that is irrelevant with regard to this movie. We are simply trying to understand what is going on in THIS movie the way we would try to understand how time travel worked in Tomorrow is Yesterday. We’re not trying to compare and contrast all theories but merely trying to grasp what is being used in ST.09.

“At exactly what point does it occur to these characters that they’re all simply copies?”

I didn’t say it “occurred” to them. It doesn’t have to. In the same way that if MWI is true then each of has multiple copies and it doesn’t occur to us that we ever split off into other branched universes because the one we see is all that we know.

“And why does elder Spock greet them as though he knows them so very well based on his own firsthand experience if it’s a Many Worlds scenario?”

Because James Kirk is still James Kirk and Montgomery Scott is still Montgomery Scott. MWI doesn’t suggest that you HAVE TO BE unrecognizably different in an alternate timeline/universe.

“By all means, cite the actual dialogue, as I have been asking you to do since the very beginning. You’re saying it needs to be extrapolated by ‘reading between the lines’ in effect supposedly, but the scenes in question that you’re pointing to don’t really convey the impression you’re insisting they provide.”

You want me to go upstairs, throw on the movie, and sit there with a pad copying dialogue verbatim? Are you seriously telling me that my paraphrasing and pointing out the exact scenes for you to see for yourself isn’t enough?

“The Grandfather Paradox is not even hinted at in the film,

I never said the GP was mentioned, but MWI paradoxes ARE. I think you are unfortunately stuck on specific usages of specific words as if there’s only one way to refer to something. That is obstinate and unreasonable of you, and why your arguments are not improving. I mention the GP as an example of the paradoxes MWI seeks to avoid and which Spock referenced, and you say there’s no reference to GP in the movie. No sh*t Sherlock.

“and MWI is never mentioned.”

It doesn’t have to be. They didn’t mention any toilets either, but I’m pretty sure the writers wouldn’t have bridge officers wizzing in the hallway.

WHERE DO BRIDGE OFFICERS PEE, STARFURY??? Do they just HOLD it until they get to a starbase? ANY answer you give me I’m going to do an impression of you: “Nope! If it’s not in the movie we can’t assume Starships have bathrooms.”

“Not actually proven by the way –far from it in fact, as it’s all conjecture. But that aside, can’t you point to anything definitively stated in the film that indicates we’re looking at a ‘Many Worlds’ different universe scenario?”

MWI is controversial, yes, but again, an irrelevant observation. We are only trying to understand what theories the writers were informed by, whether those theories ultimately turn out to be true or false in the real ‘verse. And no, I cannot point out anything definitive IN THE WAY THAT YOU WANT. But it’s STILL there in ways that you reject. I can’t point out anything “definitive” in the film that proves Kirk uses the rest room either.

“And I don’t mean by having to infer it, because obviously not every moviegoer is going to be familiar with the Quantum Theory you’re alluding to –in fact, most of them wouldn’t be.”

True, but it’s also, I think, unassailable that most moviegoers enjoyed the HELL out of the movie anyway. Pete Travers admitted in his review that he didn’t know what all the time travel stuff was about, but he loved the movie anyway. So you don’t have to know all that to enjoy the movie.

“Who says that it’s actually “possible” though? Where’s the evidence to support it? You’re reaching, as you’ve just resorted to the ‘anything that can happen does happen’ Many Worlds pretext in order to accommodate and justify something that we don’t and can’t know with any degree of actual certainty could occur. It’s purely hypothetical with no proven science to actually back it up. In other words, it doesn’t fall into the “anything that can happen does happen” category actually.”

Again, when you are trying to grasp the ideas he creators tapped for their movie it is irrelevant whether meeting yourself the past is ever really possible.

The writers tapped the historical ideas surrounding these paradoxes to come up with their story, so those historical ideas are the ones we have to understand; it doesn’t matter if MWI is really true or not, or even whether we even have to use MWI to solve the GP.

“That also happens to be Stephen Hawking’s position on the matter, but again, we’re talking about a movie here. And how many people out there in the real world do you think know and are aware of what Hawking thinks about the Grandfather Paradox?”

Outside traditional Star Trek fans probably not many; I would hope more previous fans of Trek would have more interest. But in any case, they added these ideas in a way that was stealthy rather than didactic. They were there but without slowing the movie down.

“Curved-spacetime could allow for meeting yourself in the past according to Einstein however, without the dire consequence of supposed ‘paradoxical murder.’”

There are many theories as, for instance, the theory that says you would not be able to change anything at all if you went back, or the one that says you wouldn’t be able to go back any further than the invention of the time machine itself. But none of those theories are depicted by any action or dialogue. The MWI theory is.

“And again I’ll ask you where the evidence is in the film which points to that speculative premise? You’re focusing on one theory that the film doesn’t even make any attempt to try and clearly establish.”

Uhura clearly states it for Spock, who agrees with her, when she says “a parallel reality.” But you HAVE to take that along with all the other things I previously noted, and not by itself.

Now, there may be some temptation to say something like, “Well Uhura couldn’t possibly know that was true, or the young Spock either.”

But Uhura and Spock aren’t just characters, they are voices of the writers. Spock and Uhura don’t really exist. They don’t really know or fail to know anything. But the writers are speaking through them.

“Furthermore, you have already acknowledged that Spock could meet a younger version of himself in the prime universe. You can say that old rule book goes out the window as of this last film, that’s fine, but it still stands as precedent regardless.”

That’s how TOS treated time travel.

“Nowhere does the movie actually indicate that.”

The movie gives you action and dialogue that can only be resolved by MWI.

“Spock tells what amounts to a relatively benign lie by telling young Kirk that young Spock can’t know about Prime’s presence; there’s nothing at stake by him knowing by virtue of the extent to which the timeline has been corrupted and totally changed. And at no point is the Grandfather Paradox referenced or even implied even for the sake of just making a point in passing that would have perhaps served as a heads up of sorts to viewers.”

Forget the word “Grandfather.” That seems to be throwing you. That word doesn’t matter as I carefully explained before. Spock did mention paradoxes in the context of them being a lie. If it is true that those paradoxes are false, then we are back to an MWI universe. Indeed, Spock’s lie to Kirk actually consisted of deceiving Kirk into thinking that such paradoxes DO exist and that therefore the younger Spock was the actual past self of Spock Prime. But as Spock Prime later admitted, that was all untrue.

“There’s absolutely nothing straightforward about what you’ve just described. It may be accurate according to MW theory, but you just twisted yourself into a pretzel in order to get there, and there’s nothing straightforward about it in the film itself obviously. A viewer should not have to twist himself into contortions in order to reach the kind of conclusion you’ve just jumped through all sorts of hoops to reach. It’s the obligation of the movie (via the writers of course) to be clear.”

I’m sorry that you are having trouble with it, but I’m not, and I don’t feel in the least bit like a pretzel. I really don’t experience it as being too complicated.

“I’ve given examples – do you want more? Because I can actually go on and on and on in doing so if you like.”

“Let’s take for instance when Nero tells Ayel that he’s not going to kill Spock Prime once he emerges from the singularity because he wants to make him watch. “Kill him? I’m not going to kill him. I’m going to make him watch” are his exact words in fact. What is it that he’s going to make him ‘watch’ exactly? The destruction of Vulcan obviously. Well, if it’s an alternate universe, then ergo, it’s also the wrong universe obviously, right? So if it’s the wrong universe, then what exactly does Nero believe he’s going to accomplish? And don’t try and tell me that I haven’t already given you this example more than once at this point because I have.”

Look, if you call me a liar, there’s no more conversation. I don’t recall that example ever. Now my response to it.

Perhaps you noticed that the planet which was destroyed was still called “Vulcan.” And Kirk was called Kirk, young Spock was called Spock, Uhura was called Uhura…etc, etc, etc. Welcome to MWI.

Vulcan was still Spock’s home world, it just wasn’t the exact same one he left behind. Please don’t tell me that you think Spock was supposed to not care while he watched a planet full of alternate universe Vulcans destroyed in front of him?

“How exactly can you get revenge if you’re in the wrong place? Just whom are you punishing? That’s basically like going to Afghanistan in the alternate universe on “Fringe” and making the Taliban pay with a surgical strike bombardment for knocking down the Twin Towers in our universe even though there they are still standing with no planes having flown into them over there. Does that make any sense whatsoever to you?

Lordy. Does REVENGE on Nero’s scale make any sense to YOU? The planet Vulcan in the Prime universe didn’t destroy Romulus. Spock didn’t even destroy Romulus. A supernova did, which Spock failed to prevent in time, and because Spock failed, Nero blamed the entire Federation. Even if it WERE the Prime universe, Spock didn’t destroy Romulus, the Vulcans didn’t destroy Romulus, and the Federation didn’t destroy Romulus, but Nero held a vendetta against all those innocent people anyway, so what Nero was doing wouldn’t have many any MORE sense if it was the Prime universe, so it can’t possibly be an argument in your favor. The example you cited about the Taliban is exactly what Nero WAS doing regardless of what universe he was in: Holding innocent people as guilty. And the “twin towers” example is priceless given that in the universe he was punishing folks for the destruction of Romulus, Romulus still existed!

“Here’s another example: I refer to the scene where elder Spock and young Kirk are having a conversation, and Kirk asks elder Spock if he knew his father: Note that I said _his father_. You’re asserting that it’s an alternate universe, therefore, Kirk can’t be referring to his actual father obviously, as he’s not someone elder Spock could truly know. If he’s a copy, then he’s not the genuine article obviously. Shall I go on?”

“When elder Spock first meets Kirk in the cave, what’s the first thing he says to him after calling him by name? “I have been and always shall be your friend.” That’s a direct reference to “Star Trek II”, but if he’s not the same Kirk, then why say that, and why greet him in that way?”

To the question of whether you should “go on” I ask that you first please BEGIN.

Spock ALSO thinks Young Kirk is Captain of the Enterprise. Spock is surprised to learn otherwise. We don’t know exactly when it occurs to Spock that he is in an alternate universe instead of the past, but these moments are the most likely candidates because following these scenes we go to the Starfleet base where Spock sends Kirk back to the Enterprise, telling him a fib about paradoxes.

BUT — we don’t find out until the end that he fibbed about them. Kirk is operating under the assumption of TOS rules in the cave; it’s those very TOS rules that form the INCORRECT view that becomes Spock’s fib to Kirk about paradoxes, to which the CORRECT view is the truth that those rules are false which Spock, at some unclear point in the movie, realized.

More examples you give:

“As he [Nero] was helpless to save his planet, I would be helpless to save _mine_.” –Spock, in reference to Nero making him watch the premeditated destruction of Vulcan”

“If it’s not really his world, why is Spock Prime so upset?”

Are you a sociopath? Spock should not be upset because of your absurd notion of what constitutes personal identity???

“Jim, I just lost my planet. I can tell you, I am emotionally compromised. What you must do is get me (meaning his younger self) to show it.”

“Again, he’s referring to _himself_, not a copy of himself.”

“Coming back in time, changing history –that’s cheating.” –Kirk

“A trick I learned from an old friend.” –elder Spock in response

“I am not our father.” –elder Spock to young Spock at the end of the movie.”

“Notice that Spock doesn’t say ‘I am not _your_ father.’ He says ‘our’.”

“That’s a clear indication that the original timeline has been undone and is in the process of being completely rewritten. I dare you to insist otherwise. No, I DOUBLE and TRIPLE DARE you to try and o that.”

All of your mistakes in the preceding quotes you posted are the same. All of them center around your own idea of how personal identity in a movie about time travel where one person meets another version of himself should be expressed by Bob and Alex.

The false assumption in each of them is that if I travel back to the actual past and meet my actual self or my actual father, then I MUST speak of myself as myself and my father as my father, AND IF I MEET PARALLEL VERSIONS OF MYSELF THEN I MUST COME UP WITH SOME OTHER LANGUAGE TO DISTINGUISH THEM.

Wrong!

If MWI is true, then I, dmduncan, exist in MULTIPLE universes simultaneously. There isn’t ONE of me that I must linguistically refer to as “me,” and another one that I must refer to by some other name or pronoun such that if I do NOT, then it MUST mean we are from the same universe.

Wrong. If MWI is true, then we are all literally multifaceted; furthermore, the language we have, made as it is from our ordinary experience, will not account for how we should speak about all our other selves should MWI prove to be true, when they are not part of our experience, and are not specifically accounted for in our natural language. The existing nouns and pronouns we have, it seems, will suffice to account for them as well.

“So what was it you were saying about there not being a scintilla of evidence that supports my interpretation and understanding of the film? Something tells me it just flew into another universe.”

Since after all that what I said remains true, so I’m happy to repeat it:

There IS dialogue and action to support what I’ve said, dialogue and action which you clearly still do not understand, and while accusing ME of not providing any examples, you stubbornly adhere to a position without either providing or even HAVING any examples of your own to counter mine with. You haven’t a SINGLE example to back yourself up with or to argue that the TOS timeline was overwritten like it was in City on the Edge of Forever.

“I have been providing examples and evidence all along, so you’re being patently and utterly dishonest by making that accusation.”

Have you? All along? Perhaps I missed them. What post numbers did you write all this stuff at prior to my asking? I didn’t catch any of these (non) examples before or I would have disposed of them sooner, I assure you.

“You’re trying to rest your entire claim on a comment made by Spock, which in and of itself simply does not hold up to the totality of everything else that the movie stands to indicate.”

LOL. 1. Those mention of paradoxes was in the movie. What did it mean? Hmmm? I STILL have no coherent explanation from you on that. 2. There is NOTHING in the movie that contradicts the MWI explanation, least of all any of the things you think so highly of. Really, I’ve seen the movie like 15 times. Did you think those quotes were news to me? Puh lease. And you STILL can’t explain Spock’s meaning in relation to what he told Kirk on the ice planet.

“Differently? You’re comparing it to the prime timeline obviously, and the reason his life unfolds differently is because of Nero’s actions and his incursion into the past. So what does this actually prove as a supposed example? It’s an example of nothing, just like his father dying is an example of nothing obviously. What it signifies is that this is a different timeline, but that doesn’t automatically mean that it’s a different universe also.”

Explain to me how we can have different timelines without different universes. And would this be a philosophical argument or a Star Trek canon argument? You need to make that clear before you begin.

“Excuse me, but “alternate reality” is the term actually used in that scene, not “realities,”

My bad and so what? Your point?

“and I’d be more than happy to go over that scene with you too in detail if you’d like, because as I’ve already said, “alternate reality” doesn’t automatically or necessarily mean “alternate universe.””

LOL. Yes, I think it would be great fun for me to hear your exposition on how we can have an alternate ”reality” without also having an alternate “universe.” So I accept your challenge. I want you to go into it in as much detail as your brain can muster.

Let’s hear it buddy.

“What he actually says is that his presence should be kept secret from young Spock.”

1. It’s called paraphrasing. It’s not some sinister attempt to deceive you.

2. And what he says later to younger Spock is what? That he misled (ALERT! ALERT! I AM paraphrasing here so this is not to be misunderstood again as a direct verbatim quote) young Kirk into thinking that universe ending paradoxes would ensue if the two met.

…meaning that TOS RULES, the SAME rules by which he MISLED Kirk, were FALSE. Now if you consider that rather simple inference to be “pretzel” like logic, I must conclude it is because you are so rigid in your thinking that any flexion at all is too painful to withstand.

“Paradoxes wouldn’t ensue in the prime universe either if elder Spock was only interested in being there as a casual observer without trying to change past events that have already occurred.”

Paradoxes wouldn’t ensue in the Prime universe in TOS because they were never concerned with it. The solution to paradox as it is expressed in this movie is an MWI thing.

“And Spock Prime reveals the reason for his deception at the end of the movie: so as to not deprive young Spock and Kirk from getting to know each other.”

The reason WHY he fibs is irrelevant. The point is that he MISLEADS Kirk into thinking TOS rules apply when they do NOT. MWI rules apply.

“The fact that Kirk _infers_ “universe ending paradoxes” from elder Spock’s remark means that in Kirk’s mind he would have to reveal that secret to young Spock in order for a paradox to actually occur, but obviously he does not realize that Spock Prime can’t be there in the first place if he has indeed come from the same universe according to what you’re arguing, so are you saying that Kirk is actually stupid for not realizing the supposedly “obvious”? Does your argument really come down to this bright, intelligent young Captain that we all know and are familiar with, and who can shrewdly and calculatedly work his way out of any jam, is in reality just a dunce? Please tell me you’re not really saying that. And I guess Kirk doesn’t understand the implications of the Grandfather Paradox either for that matter, eh?”

Actually, I don’t know if I’m saying it or not because this passage is unintelligible to me. Rewrite it and try again please, and with unbridled energy I will respond.

“It’s taken you how many days and how many posts to finally introduce the kind of circular argument you just made?”

Please point out the circular argument. I know something about circular arguments and how they work, so when I miss having made one I am naturally eager to locate it. Please point it out.

“Or is it that it’s not all so simple and straightforward as you now insist? And yet you have the audacity to declare that anyone with two eyes can see it supposedly, it’s all really that obvious.”

Anyone with two eyes — and without preconceptions related to prior Trek with regard to how time travel works. Whether or not you “get” something depends on your own preconceptions and how willing you are to shed them to see what’s happening in the movie.

I don’t care about the internal consistency of Star Trek. That’s probably why I see it and you do not. It’s more important for you that TOS and ST.09 be consistent with each other than for you to understand what’s happening.

So if you are not willing or able to shed your preconceptions for this movie then seeing what the writers are up to in it will be enormously difficult for you, as it is.

603. dmduncan - May 15, 2010

Lol. Too long?

604. Harry Ballz - May 15, 2010

(in my best Woody Allen voice)

“No, you see, dmduncan, when we said we were going to hit 1000….that was in posts, not for the number of words needed IN each post. Sheesh!”

605. dmduncan - May 15, 2010

Michael Hall, You make good points, but until we are all dead and Star Trek is free and clear for reinvention without preconception, I’m afraid we have to take Star Trek the way it’s always been. There don’t seem to be a whole lot of hard SF fans among Star Trek fans as far as I can tell, and trying to make Star Trek more hard science fictionish would cause a great many of them to raise their bat’leth’s in anger for violation of canon.

Not to mention, hard SF doesn’t seem to be the rage with general audiences either. I’m STILL waiting for ANY big book by Niven to make it to the cineplex. How does Lucifer’s Hammer NOT become a major motion picture in 3D???

606. Michael Hall - May 15, 2010

You misunderstand me. I don’t insist that the science in Trek be hard, or soft, or anything in betwwen. More accurate would be nice. My point with the whole issue about the supernova is only that it’s a little hard for me to take research about multiple quantum realities seriously when the same writers apparently don’t know (or don’t care) that the effects of any nova or supernova propogate outward at the rate of one light-year-per-year, no more, giving the Romulan Homeworld years if not decades to plan an evacuation and the Federation hundreds if not thousands of years of warning. You know, grade-school stuff. But lest it seem that I’m unduly picking on Trek ’09, let me state freely that Star Trek’s record with respect to scientific accuracy (or even its approach to depicting how actual science works) has always been spotty at best. The mistake about light traveling faster than light was equally as dumb when Soran detonated the Veridian sun in “Generations,” and let’s not even mention McCoy’s white noise generator in “Court Martial” that can amplify sound, according to Kirk, on the order of “one to the fourth power.” Oops. But “Court Martial” still works despite the gaffe, because the plot is interesting and consequential to the characters, whom the story treats no differently than if they were involved in a contemporary drama. That’s what Star Trek needs, in addition to the energy and fun: credible characters and situations that will resonate with life as it is lived. Otherwise this “revival” will flame-out after another movie or two, and the franchise will exclusively become a fan preserve again until the next auteur decides to take a crack at it.

607. ryanhuyton - May 15, 2010

#603

“Lol. Too long?”

No not at all. By all means, use as many words, phrases, quotes and paragraphs as you deem neccessary to get your message across that “Star Trek” uses the quantum mechanics theory of time travel in the movie. You’ve explained this much better than Bob Orci has and he was the one who wrote the movie!

Why anyone would question Bob over this, or Kirk’s promotion is beyond me. Some people are just unable to fill in the blanks.

608. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

No wonder I drink!

609. Boborci - May 16, 2010

606

Not fair. You’ve obviously ignored my previous post. So I will ask you directly:

Could a a supernovae threaten Vulcan and Romulous at the same time?

610. Michael Hall - May 16, 2010

It could affect them at the same time if it were equidistant between the two, in which case it could affect neither of them for hundreds if not thousands of years. I’m sorry, Mr. Orci, but what’s your point?

611. ryanhuyton - May 16, 2010

Bob

#606 has no leg to stand on. You are right, he is wrong and we all know it!

612. ryanhuyton - May 16, 2010

#608

I hope you’re not drinking too much of that Saurian brandy! And I hope you stay away from that Romulan Ale as well!

613. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

I only drink enough until some of these people start to make sense! :>)

614. Boborci - May 16, 2010

610

Correction: could one supernovae threaten multiple planets?

615. Michael Hall - May 16, 2010

Well, there’s actually no such thing as one ‘supernovae’, since that’s the plural. :-) But yes, I suppose it could. So?

616. dmduncan - May 16, 2010

The star would have to be extremely close to a bunch of inhabited planets to pose any IMMEDIATE threat to all equally, or more or less equally rather, but yes, it is theoretically possible.

617. dmduncan - May 16, 2010

One of the things I loved about Firefly was that all of the worlds in that show existed in a single star system. They terraformed moons and planets to be populated, so they had lots of interesting places to go to without need of faster than light travel to get to them.

In a situation like that a supernova would whack them all quite easily.

618. dmduncan - May 16, 2010

Perhaps Vulcan and Romulus were parts of a trinary star system where one of the stars went nova?

Perhaps the star was closer to Romulus such that Romulus would be destroyed first and Nero blamed Spock for not taking as much concern that Vulcan was not in as much immediate danger?

619. Michael Hall - May 16, 2010

dmduncan,

Personally, I doubt that Joss Whedon, a very talented writer indeed, knows jack-all about the difference between a solar system and a galaxy and could care less. What he wants is to set up the characters and their situation, turn them loose, and have a barrel-full of subversive, genre-bending fun. And I think that’s great.

620. MJ - May 16, 2010

#602: “Look, if you call me a liar, there’s no more conversation”

Hey Liar.

Now please fulfill your promise and stop posting.

621. ryanhuyton - May 16, 2010

I thought Vulcan and Romulus were fairly far apart with considerable distance between their respective stars?

The Hobus star would have to be very massive to begin with. Probably at least 10x the size of our sun.

622. dmduncan - May 16, 2010

I don’t know for sure, but my guess is he didn’t want to have to deal with faster than light issues at all because that’s what everybody else does and he purposely avoided it. From my perspective it gave the show a kind of cozy feel that things were ONLY taking place within a star system instead of across the galaxy. It was so cool.

623. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

Cozy is good.

624. ryanhuyton - May 16, 2010

#623

It sure is. Nothing beats being snug like a bug in a rug!

625. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

624

Are you trying to insinuate that the Shat’s hair needs to be fumigated?

626. captain_neill - May 16, 2010

Perhaps if the Quantum Parallel Reality was explained better in the film perhaps the naysayers of the film would not be bitching about their hatred for the film.

I accept Bob Orci’s comment that the film is parallel to what came before.

When I say the film is not canon, I am not complaining, its just the film is separate from th rest of Trek so therefore its new canon.

As you all know I have gripes but unlike the naysayers I try to enjoy the film for what it is.

627. Devon - May 16, 2010

“Perhaps if the Quantum Parallel Reality was explained better in the film”

Then you’d have a bored audience. People knew things had changed.

“perhaps the naysayers of the film would not be bitching about their hatred for the film.”

No, they still would be. They were before one iota was released about the alternate timeline business.

628. philpot - May 16, 2010

565. BobOrci – Regarding the shatner scene

Im guessing wed see the passage of time over the shatner V/O

e.g. – the Ent being repaired in space dock, Kirk looking at a photo or hologram of his pops, NuSpock kicking back lying on his bed reading about the future on an ipad, the Narada debris emerging in the 24th century and destroying the Enterprise E

Basically gearing up for the end ‘Star Trek Begins’ scene…

BTW bob I read an article the other day about the film that I thought cleverly captured well what you did:

It said something like Kirk cheated many times – most of all in his KM where he faced the no win scenario – reprogramming the computer so it was possible to win and then it compared it to the writers who basically had the same problem – facing a no win scenario of making a big star trek film that fans wouldnt hate and scream canon violation and that would also appeal to the mainstream audience .. reprogramming (rebooting) TOS so it was possible to make a more mainstream star trek film that pleased the fan base and appealed to movie audiences

629. fansince66 - May 16, 2010

Well said #628
Ya can’t please everyone. JJ & crew obviously managed to please the greater portion of all concerned (the $ at box office prove it). They’ve earned the right to another Trek (which will be another winner). I hope the next movie will be 3 hours long (& not let science get in the way of a good story). Treat science like Spockprime eventually treats logic— hold it loosely,it’s just the beginning of wisdom. And the storyteller contributes more to wisdom than does a scientist (who, more often than not, is initially wrong & must modify his hypothesis).
We’ll get to 1000 yet.

630. P Technobabble - May 16, 2010

Despite a few snotty posts, this has been an enjoyable thread. As it fades off into the “older articles sunset,” I thought I would make a final comment… well, unless this thread does go on to 1000 :-).
When I was young I used to be a fan of Edmund Hamilton, a sci-fi writer who wrote a series of books about “Captain Future.” Looking back, these stories were incredibly simplistic, the science was ridiculous, there was coincidence after coincidence, and the characters and conversations were silly. But the memories I have mostly were how much I enjoyed those books. They were tremendous fun. They brought a lot of happiness, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. I couldn’t ask for more, simply because my enjoyment of those stories far outweighed any critical observations I might have.
I think a similar principle can apply to Star Trek, or any other work that is intended to entertain people. I have made the proposal that if critical thinking interferes with one’s ability to simply enjoy something, then that process of thinking deserves some inspection. Why shouldn’t it?
Star Trek has always been many things to many people, but most of all, I think, Star Trek has always been fun. I don’t think anyone ever watched Star Trek for a lesson in science, technology, or any other technical matter. Those things may become more interesting as one becomes more interested in the details of Star Trek. The recent movie, for example, and conversations here, got me reading more and more about quantum mechanics, a subject that has so many bizarre concepts it is difficult to put one’s mind around. But even reading about parallel worlds, alternate universes and time travel is an enjoyable and fun activity for me.
So, my take is that Star Trek should remain fun, at a very fundamental level. The details shouldn’t interfere with one’s ability to simply enjoy it. That’s my 2c.

631. captain_neill - May 16, 2010

I am not a naysayer so don’t mistake my next comment as an attempt me of being so.

I don’t agree with the naysayers but I do understand where they are coming from. JJ Abrams and Orci are asking a lot of fans, who have joined in the adventus of 5 crews and adding to the legacy of this wonder universe, to accept a lot of differences from the way they like Trek.

If I where doing the new Trek movies of course I would be doing things differently.

The way I view the new movie is new canon which is unrelated to past Trek. That’s fine and I can still enjoy the film. As someone who likes the canon this reasoning can allow people to enjoy it better.

But the thing is it succeeded where it mattered and that is the mainstream audience. To appease the mainstream it is only logical to piss off the fans.

It happens all the time with comic book movies.

I like Star Trek XI but at the same time I still love all the stuff that came before. And I don’t think it’s a crime to prefer a lot of stuff that came before.

632. philpot - May 16, 2010

630 – agreed – ive been trying to write a SF timetravel themed story for a while now and i have the idea there pretty much done but the writing of it is hard going and Im getting bogged down in all the science – trying to make it sound plausable etc…

im contantly having to remind myself just to concentrate on whats fun and reads well and is hopefully exciting and entertaining and strange and is innovative and original to some degree as opposed to getting into technobabble and having to heavily research real science theories and stuff…a little bit is fine but its finding that balence so you dont have characters reeming off sentence after sentence of made up exposition and technobabble

633. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

#630

“if critical thinking interferes with one’s ability to simply enjoy something”

It’s critical that one not let “critical thinking” make one critical of having a good time!

634. Boborci - May 16, 2010

So my point on supernovae is simply that, since no distances were specified, there is no logical or scientific inconsistanct within the movie. Romulus was destroyed first because it was closest. No other planet was destroyed by it, thereforentheir distance is irrelevant.

635. Boborci - May 16, 2010

Correction: inconsistencies

(just trying to stack the numbers with needless posts!)

636. Boborci - May 16, 2010

628

Ha. Have always thought of it that way. I notice that’s why none of detractors have accused us of what would be an obvious criticism. No one has said we cheated;)

637. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

I could pull a cheesy joke here, Bob, and say “you cheated”, but that would be wrong on so many *levels! ;)

*(or is that alternate realities?)

638. P Technobabble - May 16, 2010

633. Harry

Is that like the little man on tv, who’s watching himself on tv, who’s watching himself on tv, who’s watching himself on tv, ad infinitum :-)

I just hope simply being able to enjoy oneself hasn’t gone out of style…

639. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

PT

I’m enjoying myself right now!

p.s. don’t take that the wrong way! :>)

640. dmduncan - May 16, 2010

639: “p.s. don’t take that the wrong way! :>)”

We probably wouldn’t have taken it the wrong way if you didn’t add the p.s.

What ARE you doing, Harry? No wait…don’t want to know.

641. dmduncan - May 16, 2010

631: “I like Star Trek XI but at the same time I still love all the stuff that came before. And I don’t think it’s a crime to prefer a lot of stuff that came before.”

You are obviously unaware of H.R. 3412500.

642. Hugh Hoyland - May 16, 2010

Well as we get near the 700 mark I’ll throw my 2 cents worth (actual worth now 1.25 cents with the economy). In my mind motion pictures are an art form like any other, painting, literature, sculpting so on. When I look at art I really try not to over analyze it much, my main thing is do I think its beautiful so to speak, or not so much, In other words does it have some sort of positive effect or it doesnt. I dont look at a painting and break it down into little pieces to critic. Does the overall piece have an effect on me that I find is desirable, do I see it as beautiful, is it interesting or does it make me think, does it induce a sense of wonder or awe, those are the things that matter to me. And in my mind its a VERY subjective process, what I think is great art someone else may think is boring, or uninteresting ect.

But IMO to take little pieces of the painting, or book or even a movie, and then analyze them over and over you might wind up losing the whole scene or concept. Thats not saying its bad to think about the different aspects of the work and talk about them though. As far as Star Trek 09, I really enjoyed the work, to be honest, from start to finish. It grabbed my attention and rekindled my love of the franchise. Im glad these gentlemen where able to pull it off and I thank them for what I feel was a really good job on the movie. If other people didnt like it, thats fine by me, but I think their waisting a lot of time being hyper-critical over concepts or details they feel didnt work for them personally.

643. Colonel Kernel - May 16, 2010

Okay, forgive me for not reading all 641 comments, but I gotta say say the 40% who rate ST 09 at 10 and 10+ are fools.

ST 09 has some serious flaws that only the blindest of fanboys can ignore. After a movie contains such serious flaws, it can no longer achieve a perfect score of 10. If you want to split hairs and say the good parts make up for the bad parts, fine, but 10, or perfection, is still out. No matter how good the good parts are, once the bad parts are established, 9.99… is the highest it can ever get.

The good parts of ST09 are so good that while your watching them the bad parts don’t matter. However, the movie eventually ends and the bad parts have to be factored in. The single most egregious sequence is the Spock flash-back exposition sequence. After that, the pointless bug-that-makes-you-tell-the-truth scene stolen from TWOK and the general weakness of Nero loses it more points.

Not one drop of ink from the comic book is to be considered when comparing ST 09’s quality. Aside from the general retardness of the comic book’s story, it also contradicts the movie making it impossible to link the two.

The rest of my issues with the movie I will concede may not necessarily be shared by others. The other issues are why I rate it down to a 8 or 7.8 out of 10. If others either disagree with me about those points or don’t matter to them I can easily see how they might rate the film either a 9 or a 9.99 out of 10, but at 10 out of 10 is just as impossible as Warp 10 is.

644. Colonel Kernel - May 16, 2010

BTW, @British Naval Dude, you have no clue how to use apostrophes. It’s really annoying.

645. ryanhuyton - May 16, 2010

I think the problem the haters have is the inability to have a good time and to not overanalyze things. They also focus on things that don’t really have any bearing on the big picture. Not to say “Star Trek” is perfect; it isn’t, but the thing that must be considered is whether the movie is fun and that it makes a reasonable amount of sense. It does on both levels. My complaints stem from some things I can get past, such as the brewery, the expanding hands and the relatively weak villain. But those things are easily offset by performances of the cast, especially Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Leonard Nimoy and Bruce Greenwood.
The action was awesome and the cgi was great as well.

646. ryanhuyton - May 16, 2010

3639

“I’m enjoying myself right now!”

“p.s don’t take that the wrong way! :>)”

When you’re name is “Harry Ballz” , people are bound to come to certain conclusions whether one wants to or not!

647. ryanhuyton - May 16, 2010

That was directed at #639

648. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

640+846

Gentlemen, it took a while to get back to you as it takes much longer when you type with only one hand! :>)

649. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

I meant 646!

650. ryanhuyton - May 16, 2010

#649

Yeah, especially when your keyboard gets sticky!

651. Michael Hall - May 16, 2010

“So my point on supernovae is simply that, since no distances were specified, there is no logical or scientific inconsistanct within the movie. Romulus was destroyed first because it was closest. No other planet was destroyed by it, thereforentheir distance is irrelevant.”

Well, just how close was the supernova supposed to be to the Romulan system anyway? Because even very “close” by astronomical standards should have given them plenty of warning (not to mention more than enough time for Nero to evacuate his family). On ther other hand, if the nova took place within the Romulan system, it would all be over in a matter of minutes, and Spock Prime’s attempts at containment wouldn’t make any sense. In any event, stating that a single supernova could pose a threat “to the entire galaxy”–which a general audience, unaware of the vast distances involved, would understand as an immediate threat–is just the sort of scienific illiteracy I would expect from mindless-but-fun tripe like Armageddon or Fantastic Four 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer. In the case of Trek, I at least hope for better.

652. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

Let’s see….if the movie was dead accurate with scientific fact AND had a great story……..10.

If the movie played fast and loose with scientific fact AND had a great story………9.4.

I think Star Trek was such a FUN ROMP to watch, that it certainly offsets the .6 factor everyone keeps griping about and makes it a winner (10) in MY books!

653. captain_neill - May 16, 2010

643 Thats why I rated Star Trek XI as an 8 out of 10 as it was a good film but it did have flaws

First Contact is one I rate as a full 10, as well as Khan and Undiscovered Country

654. dmduncan - May 16, 2010

Speaking of Khan, Mark Strong is popping up everywhere, from the villain in Sherlock Holmes to Sir Godfrey in Robin Hood. He would make a great Khan. Just saying.

655. Boborci - May 16, 2010

651

I see, so in your mind, there is no distance from Romulus that makes our plot possible? I have to spoon feed you everything?

Already addressed issue of Supernova exaggeration, which again, u confuse with illiteracy. Once again, your specific issue was evaluated and overruled before it even occurred to you, a year after seeing the movie.

656. Trek Lady - May 16, 2010

646,648,650….

Men.

Or perhaps that should be “Boys.”

657. Trek Lady - May 16, 2010

The post left out my disgusted eyeroll…

*sigh*

And to think, I come here hoping for intellectual commentary.

658. Red Skirt - May 16, 2010

#657, LOL

It really does seem to be about the length of their … posts. ;-)

659. Red Skirt - May 16, 2010

#657, LOL

It really does seem to be about the length of their … posts. ;-)

660. dmduncan - May 16, 2010

@657: lol.

661. P Technobabble - May 16, 2010

I had written more in order to help keep this thread running… I’ve no idea what happened to that post.
However, I mentioned there was little else to be added, at this point. And the continuing criticism is really moot, at this point.
And I wasn’t going to comment on Harry Ballz #639
And I agreed completely with Hugh and ryan… let’s see…
658 and 659… LOL! So, this is what it’s come to…..

662. P Technobabble - May 16, 2010

um I meant #657 Trek Lady and 658 Red Skirt… sorry I’m laughing so far after the fact…

663. StarFuryG7 - May 16, 2010

602. dmduncan

“I’ve seen the movie like 15 times.”

That’s twelve more time than I’ve seen it. Do I need to see it another twelve times in order to get where you are?

“and I’d be more than happy to go over that scene with you too in detail if you’d like, because as I’ve already said, “alternate reality” doesn’t automatically or necessarily mean “alternate universe.”” –StarFuryG7

“LOL. Yes, I think it would be great fun for me to hear your exposition on how we can have an alternate ”reality” without also having an alternate “universe.” So I accept your challenge. I want you to go into it in as much detail as your brain can muster.”

That was a serious offer, but since you’re more interested in mockery and behaving like a contemptible jackass, that offer is withdrawn. You’ve just done a fine job of getting me to regret any time I’ve wasted in dealing with you up to this point, the film itself notwithstanding, so I just won’t waste anymore. Go chat up the movie with someone else.

664. StarFuryG7 - May 16, 2010

568. Boborci – May 15, 2010
“564.
Here’s a clue. Does Spock Prime “remember” the events of the movie?”

That’s a good point, but the Away Team in “City on the Edge of Forever” don’t lose their memories (or vanish) after the Enterprise disappears and history changes.

Of course, that’s a whole other discussion, and at the moment I find I’m really not in the mood. (Nothing personal, and nothing to do with you, Bob.).

665. StarFuryG7 - May 16, 2010

578. Red Skirt
“#564, let me debunk your entire well proposed argument in one phrase:
“term of art”
You see, when the movie discuses the Supernova which threatens the “galaxy” it is really hyperbole, not a literal meaning since everyone knows a Supernova would not destroy a galaxy. You have to be smart enough to know when to infer these things and when not to.
Likewise, all of these explanations you reference that the characters are referring to themselves and not their copies, is a similar oversimplification. You simply have to be smart enough to know when the writers are being literal and when to infer the correct meaning. Not sure how you missed it, as all the clues are there.”

Yep, obviously.

“Also, your argument for Kirk’s intellectual level is interesting, because you have to correctly infer that he is under so much stress that he cannot reason properly about a theory which in the 23rd century may still have not been proven, or where MWI is not even still a viable possibility in scientific circles. But you have to be smart enough to infer this.”

Yes, again, clearly. There’s every reason to believe that something that’s never even mentioned in the film has everything to do with it after all. I concede your point –you’re absolutely correct.

“And of course Nero was insane, incapable of knowing where he was or what he was doing, despite having 25 years to figure it out. That’s a no brainer. Nothing he says or does is to be taken literally.”

Again, you’re absolutely right –I’m finding it difficult to argue with you, given that your logic is obviously flawless.

“But I will give you credit for pointing out old Spock specifically saying the reason he didn’t want Kirk to tell young Spock was so as to not deprive young Spock and Kirk from getting to know each other.
Unfortunately, you are not smart enough to realize that old Spock has come a long way since his “exaggerating” days in Star Trek II, and now flat out lies (ins’t that a common trait of Vulcans?).”

Again, nothing to take issue with here evidently.

“But don’t worry. I’m sure if you pry your eyes open with wires and watch the film over and over again (blasting Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony while you do this would help), I think you will eventually join the ranks of the intellectually elite and infer the correct and logical solution clearly and unequivocally presented in this film.”

Right–and apparently it takes having to watch it fifteen times in order to get there. At least I now have a _definitive_ number to go by that gives me some clear indication in order for the final revelation to grab hold of me so that I will finally see the light!

And thanks for the laughs too –seriously.

666. dmduncan - May 16, 2010

663: “That’s twelve more time than I’ve seen it. Do I need to see it another twelve times in order to get where you are?”

It took me three times to get it. The rest was just for fun. In fact I think I’ll watch it again tonight.

“That was a serious offer, but since you’re more interested in mockery and behaving like a contemptible jackass, that offer is withdrawn. You’ve just done a fine job of getting me to regret any time I’ve wasted in dealing with you up to this point, the film itself notwithstanding, so I just won’t waste anymore.”

Excuse me? What did you call me before? Patently dishonest? And when I was being no such thing. You got the polite version of what I wanted to say to you after that. So right back atcha, sore loser.

667. moauvian waoul - May 16, 2010

Great thread. Thought I’d jump in here gentlemen …and ladies. Trying to keep the drive alive. Bob, thanks. You got alot right and it couldn’t have been easy. I’m sure there had to be compromises, some of which we are still debating. If I may suggest that more care might be taken with terminology. It doesn’t affect what you are trying to accomplish storywise and it would help with the long term fans. And some time between events. As you were gentlemen …and ladies.

668. dmduncan - May 16, 2010

Bob, I’d like to know how you guys approach consulting scientific advisers. Do you give someone the script to read and then consider whether to implement their advice? How does it work?

669. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

#656-9

Hey, everyone here was being so ANAL, I saw nothing wrong with a little toilet humour to lighten the mood!

670. Devon - May 16, 2010

#643 – What people rate a movie doesn’t make them fools simply because it isn’t the same as what you rate it. That’s ridiculous

671. StarFuryG7 - May 16, 2010

666. dmduncan
“It took me three times to get it. The rest was just for fun.”

Then it’s not so obvious to “get” apparently.

“Excuse me? What did you call me before? Patently dishonest?”

You were being patently dishonest –you just couldn’t stand being called on it.

But I guess could have done a lot worse and accused you of being a sociopath instead.

“You got the polite version of what I wanted to say to you after that.”

There’s nothing “polite” about you –you’re a Jerk obviously…a smug, sarcastic, pompous jerk.

And you can pat yourself on the back all you like for all I care, but you haven’t made a convert out of me no matter what you think.

672. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

Ah, I see……once rational argument has been exhausted, the next stage is name calling! Brilliant!

673. ryanhuyton - May 16, 2010

This is like watching a Klingon and a Romulan insult each other. They both just won’t let it go!

674. StarFuryG7 - May 16, 2010

672. Harry Ballz
It’s called calling a Spade a Spade. I put up with more than enough of his crap as it was prior to that point –that was simply the last straw.

We’re here to have fun –or to at least try to. When it becomes an argument and reaches that point, there’s no point in even bothering to continue.

675. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

StarFuryG7

I’m sorry to see that you’ve become upset over all of this. I agree with you that we are here to have fun, some spirited debate and a few laughs. Please don’t leave over something like this.

676. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

Q: what did the buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?

A: “make me one with everything”

677. ryanhuyton - May 16, 2010

Its easy to get heated on this site. I’ve been in a few heated debates myself. You think you can control yourself, but someone says something you feel is outrageous and you feel inclined to respond in kind. Of course, there’s always going to be a few idiots around, but there are idiots all over.
And even smart people can say stupid or outrageous things. The hard part is not making things personal. We are all fans of Star Trek and we have our favorites and nonfavorites. We also have different opinions and tastes. Sometimes they clash. And we all have different perspectives which also clash. But I think we can all agree that this site has given us a place to express our passion about all things Star Trek.

678. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

Here, here!

679. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

And now for the smart version…….Hear, hear!

680. Red Skirt - May 16, 2010

#679. Harry, the trick is to write it once, but make it ambiguous enough that those who do not know any better don’t care, and the intellectuals have enough fuel to polarize their viewpoints and eventually come to blows over whether it actually conveys the meaning intended by the writer.

681. dmduncan - May 16, 2010

671: “You were being patently dishonest –you just couldn’t stand being called on it.”

As if your pallid arguments require dishonesty to eliminate. Don’t flatter yourself. Just like most of your other claims, your BS about my honesty, about which you know even less than ST.09, is a farce.

“But I guess could have done a lot worse and accused you of being a sociopath instead.”

You could — except that I’m not the one who suggested that Spock should NOT be upset about a planet of dying Vulcans because they weren’t the same Vulcans he knew.

Here’s that totally creepy question you asked again, for all those who missed it the first time around:

“As he [Nero] was helpless to save his planet, I would be helpless to save _mine_.” –Spock, in reference to Nero making him watch the premeditated destruction of Vulcan”

“If it’s not really his world, why is Spock Prime so upset?”

Seriously dude? What kind of question is that anyway? Sociopathic sounds like a valid word choice to me. Not even once did that ever occur to me as a legitimate question to ask. I was shocked that YOU did. I don’t know you but by what you post in here, so I can’t call YOU a sociopath, but that question is NUTS.

“There’s nothing ‘polite’ about you –you’re a Jerk obviously…a smug, sarcastic, pompous jerk.”

Sore losing jerks like you who push, deserve to be pushed back. And even if what you say about me were true, which coming from you is about as accurate as so many other things you say, which is to say NOT accurate at all, but EVEN IF it were…I would STILL feel thankful that I was only THAT bad, and not so troubled that I would think Spock shouldn’t care about a billion Vulcans all dying unless he identified them as his own.

“And you can pat yourself on the back all you like for all I care, but you haven’t made a convert out of me no matter what you think.”

I’m not patting myself on the back and it’s not my interest to persuade hardheads like you. The most I can do is not let your crap stand unchallenged, which is what I’m going to do until you either vanish, like the other ones who sounded exactly like you do, until you post under a different name, or until you just give up debating me under the one you have.

I like the mental exercise, so feel free to go on as long as you like. It feels good and I enjoy getting it.

And hey there sore loser, I know it’s easier to attack a straw man than one who can fight back, but please make an effort at some honesty and quote me in context:

“I’ve seen the movie like 15 times. Did you think those quotes were news to me?”

See, I mention the number of times I’ve seen the movie to explain my familiarity with the so called “evidence” you cited, and NOT, as you are mis-characterizing in your mock-fest with Red Skirt, as the number of times it took me to UNDERSTAND the movie.

THREE. That’s the number of times it took me to get it. NOT 15, but 3.

As a totally brand new NEW Star Trek movie, there was so much going on visually that it was simply too much for me to take in all at once. Only after I started paying more attention to the conceptual elements, by my 3rd viewing, did I understand what the writers were doing.

There’s my clarification, yours for the distorting.

682. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

“As a totally brand new NEW Star Trek movie, there was so much going on visually that it was simply too much for me to take in all at once”

dmduncan, I absolutely agree with you on this point. Being a student of film, I usually can dissect a movie on it’s first viewing. But, being a Trek fan, this movie was different. There WAS so much going on visually, it took several viewings on my part to correlate what was going on with the storyline.

You are “dead on the money” with that remark!

683. Julie - May 16, 2010

I know in the next movie Spock Prime will wake up and realize it was all a dream. And it will turn into a TNG movie!

684. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

683

What’s the color of the sky in YOUR world?

685. ryanhuyton - May 16, 2010

#683

Once you wake up from your hallucinations, you will realize that’s a “pipe” dream!

686. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

Yes, “pipe”, as in what the hell have you been smokin’??

687. ryanhuyton - May 16, 2010

#686

Yes exactly! It was meant to be a pun! And this is my 40th post on this thread! Yipee!

688. Harry Ballz - May 16, 2010

Happy 40th!!!

689. StarFuryG7 - May 16, 2010

681. dmduncan
“Just like most of your other claims, your BS about my honesty, about which you know even less than ST.09, is a farce.”

Oh, it’s easy to prove you a liar –forget about where I called you ‘patently dishonest’ with respect to acknowledging points I raised as having any validity, you droned on about how easy this movie was to understand supposedly, and what do you say at the end after a few days of talking as though it’s all so simple a child could understand it? That it took you seeing it three times to finally understand it. So you ARE _patently dishonest_, sir.

“Here’s that totally creepy question you asked again, for all those who missed it the first time around:”

And yet you go on as though I would have any interest in carrying on a dialogue with you about the movie still. You’re an idiot. It’s fiction. You do understand the concept of “fiction”? You see, Vulcans aren’t _real_. They don’t actually exist. I was just trying to make a point.

“Seriously dude? What kind of question is that anyway? Sociopathic sounds like a valid word choice to me.”

And apparently you have a serious inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, so “schizophrenic” sounds like a valid word choice to me.

“Not even once did that ever occur to me as a legitimate question to ask. I was shocked that YOU did.”

LMAO! Yeah, because six billion Vulcans REALLY DIED.

Keep it up and I’ll probably suggest that you seek professional help.

“And even if what you say about me were true”

It is –it was easy to prove that you’re a liar just now obviously.

“I’m not patting myself on the back”

Of course you were –you’ve been strutting around like a peacock whose only regret is that he doesn’t have more feathers for the show.

“The most I can do is not let your crap stand unchallenged, which is what I’m going to do until you either vanish, like the other ones who sounded exactly like you do, until you post under a different name, or until you just give up debating me under the one you have.”

People like you are why message boards go dead, because you’re such A-holes that eventually you make everyone so miserable that no one wants to be bothered anymore. That’s why people go away. They don’t need the unnecessary hassle of people like you who thrive on polluting the environment for everyone you perceive as getting in your way, while simultaneously trying to blame it on them as though they’re the cause.

Try looking at yourself for once.

“And hey there sore loser”

Hey man, you obviously don’t get it. Despite all the gray matter that you think you have up there, somehow simple, basic common sense eludes you. Look at where we are for cryin’ out loud, and look at who is here participating. We have one of the key writers of the movie posting feedback and interacting with the posters, and he asserts that the movie takes place in an alternate universe. I’m someone who feels that wasn’t adequately conveyed. Now no matter what, the odds aren’t on my side obviously, so being in the wrong is not the tragedy you make it out to be. I came here saying _convince me_, but clearly you’re more interested in being a schmuck, and priding yourself on it to boot.

The bottom line is that maybe I’m wrong –could very well be, and probably am — However, you’re the one who’s Ugly.

It’s just a shame that I let myself get pulled into your swamp.

‘My bad.

“THREE. That’s the number of times it took me to get it. NOT 15, but 3.”

So you can be as nasty as you desire, to your heart’s content, but if I pose a sarcastic question in response to any of it asking if I need to see the movie another twelve times in order to reach your understanding of it, suddenly it’s just too much for you to handle and you’re crying like a baby?

Forgive me if I don’t feel the least bit sorry for you.

Do the world a favor and GET OVER YOURSELF.

690. Harry Ballz - May 17, 2010

StarFuryG7

I understand your anger, but must point out that feeling that way is hard on your system.

Please, let’s try for calmness and serenity wherever we can find it.

I’m not joking, this is big stuff…….our blood pressure should only go up during truly dire circumstances, not for this crap.

691. P Technobabble - May 17, 2010

I think it’s unfortunate when debates reach the level where terms like “jerk,” and “jackass,” etc. are put into use. After all, we are having a discussion about a movie. And in this forum, such discussions sometimes turn into nothing more than verbal ping pong, filled with circular arguments that simply go nowhere. To what end? Our subjective points of view are what drives the conversation, but when those subjective points of view become righteous — leading to mere name-calling — then the subject matter — Star Trek — becomes secondary. I don’t see any problem with anyone having a strong opinion. But in the end, that’s all it is — an opinion. We have the advantage of hearing directly from the author of the film regarding matters of story and plotting, and still the arguments ensue. It’s a wonder he even bothers anymore… Shrug… IMO, it’s time to let these matters go, in spite of the fact that we all want to be right.

“It’s a wonder these people ever got out of the 20th century,” said Dr. Leonard McCoy

692. Harry Ballz - May 17, 2010

Okay, everybody….BEDTIME.

Tomorrow is another day.

693. Michael Hall - May 17, 2010

“I see, so in your mind, there is no distance from Romulus that makes our plot possible? I have to spoon feed you everything?”

You say ‘spoon feed’ like it’s a bad thing.

And no, I honestly don’t see any distance that would make the plot point as written very plausible. That’s just my assertion, not incontestable fact. You’re welcome to show me where I’ve gone wrong if you care to. Or not.

“Already addressed issue of Supernova exaggeration, which again, u confuse with illiteracy. “

All right, accepted that ‘galaxy’ in this case was used in a colloquial way to refer to an event that was actually much more local. (The original series often did the same thing itself, to no great ill effect.) My point was not that it’s a big deal–but in a time when your target audience should be much more sophisticated about such things, why not take the time to get it right?

“Once again, your specific issue was evaluated and overruled before it even occurred to you, a year after seeing the movie.”

And once again, I fully acknowledge that you anticipated these objections in advance. What I don’t get is why you seem to believe that this, in and of itself, puts the creative decisions you made beyond criticism.

The issue raised about how accurate the science in science fiction needs to be reminds me of an anecdote (most likely apocryphal) related by Arthur C. Clarke, about what’s come to be known in the SF writers’ trade as “Bradbury’s Defense”:

“One day a dreadful young man walked up to me and asked me if I was Ray Bradbury. After telling him yes, he said, ‘You know that scene of yours in The Martian Chronicles, where you have the twin Martian moons rising in the east?’

‘Yah,’ I said.

‘Nah,’ he said.

So I hit him.”

No doubts about which role Mr. Orci has cast me for in that little drama!

694. captain_neill - May 17, 2010

Bob

Please make it a remit not to redo Khan. You created a prallel universe to avoid canon, not to play what ifs to the best Treks.

695. fansince66 - May 17, 2010

#694
Yes. Me too. No kahn please.In fact, have the Klingons use the old, derelict Botany bay for target practice( SOP for Klingon fleet to vaporize large space debris?).
I’m #695? Not bad.
This kinda touches on the subject of “territorial space”. Can we change it to resemble what would prevail in a group of theoretical island nations? Territoroal waters around the islands only; perhaps dedicated “shipping lanes” connecting said islands. Space-between-solar systems is “free space”. Therefore Klingons can be close to Federation planets,but in free space (to stumble across botany bay). They would routinely hand in a report to UFP on destroyed space debris. Just gets a mention on-screen.

696. P Technobabble - May 17, 2010

693. Michael

With all due respect, are you going to belabor this matter until Bob Orci cries, “Uncle!” or what? What is your real motive, at this point in time (pardon the pun)? Mr. Orci has attempted to address all of your queries, and I don’t see that he has implied that anything he and Alex Kurtzman decided upon was beyond criticism. Criticize all you want, it seems at this point you are beating a dead horse. Whatever the movie is, it is what it is. What is the point in harping on the accuracy of the film when it is now “past history?” If you’re trying to let Orci know you don’t agree with his scientific proposals, or if there is some intention to let him know that you’d like the next film to contain more elaborate explanations, I’m betting that he gets the picture.
IMO, those people who are “stuck” on specific matters of the film can be likened to someone on vacation, driving to a specific destination. But they never reach that destination because of something they saw along the way that they are obsessing about, and they’ve stopped moving. So much for the vacation!
Now, I’m not trying to pick an argument with you, nor am I trying to speak for, or defend, Bob Orci. It’s just that as a fellow Trekkie, I think we have to come to accept that nothing about Star Trek (in general) has ever been perfect, will ever be perfect, or will ever please every single fan, then leave it at that, and move on. Let’s get that vacation in! Just my 2c, of course.

697. Blake Powers - May 17, 2010

My eyes are bleeding at reading the length of these posts. I’m gonna go ahead and give Bob Orci the Supernova Award for reading these things. I feel pretty committed to all things trek but jeez, he read a lot.

Bob, in the future could you reply to shorter posts? It would really be beneficial to my eye health and job performance.

P.S. You should come kick it at the Vegas Khan

698. OneBuckFilms - May 17, 2010

@BobOrci – This is quite the little argument you’re getting into here :)

I’ve read a lot of arguments about whether the movie explicityl tells us it’s an Alternate Reality, and that scene between the two spocks is somehow never mentioned. I might have to refer to that when I talk about this online :)

Thaks you, Kurtzman and Abrams for the Star Trek movie. Loved it !!!

699. Yammer - May 17, 2010

694

On this we totally agree. WoK is a classic, and also was key in keeping Trek alive in the 80s and indeed bringing it back in a major way (if TMP was basically New Voyages, WoK saw a major redesign of the series in production and in energy level).

WoK is too rife with baggage.

I would like to see some TOS shoutouts though. Diane Duane found an amazing use for T’Pring in “Spock’s World.” It would also be hard to top her “Wounded Sky” for an example of the exploration theme (as opposed to Kirk vs. Villain model).

700. Harry Ballz - May 17, 2010

700 posts? This is obviously a thread of some interest!

701. Michael Hall - May 17, 2010

” It would also be hard to top her “Wounded Sky” for an example of the exploration theme (as opposed to Kirk vs. Villain model).”

Agreed. I don’t pick up Trek novels anymore–life is too short–but I’m glad I didn’t stop before checking out The Wounded Sky, which was a fine SF novel and good read by any measure.

P. Technobabble: if I thought that Bob Orci had addressed my concerns to my satisfaction I wouldn’t bother to keep rasing them. Would it make you happier if I just gave him the last last word, then? Done.

702. Boborci - May 17, 2010

693′

I love it! One of the most frightening and destructive objects in the universe, one that some of our very own earth bound scientist say could be a threat today, according to you, can never be a threat in a sci-fi movie!

703. Red Skirt - May 17, 2010

#693, “All right, accepted that ‘galaxy’ in this case was used in a colloquial way to refer to an event that was actually much more local.”

And that’s the rub isn’t it? It’s not a matter of being “spoon fed” anything, but rather knowing when something is to be taken literally, when it is to be taken colloquially, and when one is supposed to infer a deeper level of sophistication than it otherwise appears.

Consider: a friend gives you a road map that has 4 roads represented by 4 colors showing you how to get to his house. On the map, at one point, the roads inexplicably switch colors. But, the page with the explanation key is missing. Now there is no doubt you will be able to get from point a to point b by staying on any of the connecting roads. However, all four roads obviously provide completely different experiences, yet all four get you to your destination. After taking the single “green/yellow” road which starts closest to your house, you arrive at your destination, and the guy that drew the map tells you that you should have taken the “blue” road, then switched to the “red” road, because it is the route he takes and it is the “best” one.

However, by just looking at the map alone, there is no way to know which route your friend takes, much less the “best”. So you drive home following his directions, and discover, that his convoluted route is no better then the the road you took, and did not require a lot of switching roads mid-trip.

Now, had the map been clearly marked along the way, you would have taken your friend’s route, and likewise arrived at his house with no problems, and not be wondering what he was on after your return trip home.

704. Boborci - May 17, 2010

703. Well that clears it all up, thanks.

705. Harry Ballz - May 17, 2010

Bob

I don’t think it would reveal any secrets if you were to tell us how far along you guys are on the next script. Half-way?

706. Red Skirt - May 17, 2010

#704, then I wasn’t ambiguous enough. ;-)

707. Harry Ballz - May 17, 2010

Bob

not that I want Shatner in the next film, but how about this:

With young Kirk having mind-melded with Spock Prime in the last movie, how about, during a quiet moment in the next film, you have Kirk mention that fact to young Spock. Kirk tells Spock that was how he learned they are to have a life-long friendship. Spock asks if they can mind-meld so he can see for himself. Kirk agrees. During the mind-meld JJ can do his editing magic, showing a collage/blur of images including a heartfelt 2 minute scene of Shatner and Nimoy together, pre-Generations (X-Men type CGI can handle that). There wouldn’t be a dry eye in the theatre from old fans and even the new audience would benefit by illustrating to them why the K/S relationship is so important.

The question is…..would Shatner accept $3 million for a 2 minute cameo in 1 movie?

708. Boborci - May 17, 2010

706. U got me thinking that perhaps ambiguous is the wrong word. To be more specific, the movie is meant to be able to be seen in exactly two ways across the major issues. Prequel or sequel. Nature or nurture. Destiny or quantum probability, erasing the past or forging a parallel one, etc.

709. Boborci - May 17, 2010

707.

It occurred to us during the shooting of the movie that Spock would only meld with young Kirk with a Need to know basis in mind. What you saw is all Kirk saw.

710. ryanhuyton - May 17, 2010

Harry, congratulations on being #700!

Bob, I know you’re a busy guy and all, but I wonder if you’ve been reading any Trek novels and or any Trek episodes/movies lately? And if so, which ones?

711. Harry Ballz - May 17, 2010

709

Thanks, Bob, for sharing that information. Your explanation also precludes that, in future adventures that veer near canon, Kirk would have no knowledge/advantage of having seen what the alternate universe crew did in a similar situation. Clever!

712. Yammer - May 17, 2010

In sum, what was Trek09 about? It was about identity, right? Defining what Star Trek is to the mostly indifferent mainstream, defining Paramount’s commitment to the series, redefining the brand back to Roddenberry’s original crew and ship. Plotwise it was about Kirk and Spock, independently learning that they could be a fantastic leader (Kirk) and an emotional guy (Kirk), and together realizing, or starting to realize, that they were “Kirk and Spock,” the dynamic duo.

Since we have “what we are” out of the way, I would like to see the next adventure address the theme of “what we do.”

What IS a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada? What sorts of situations can they get into? What are the limits of human thinking on the problems of the galaxy?

Lots to go on there for the new Trek team, it’s actually a more key question than us Trekkie obsessions, like, uh, whether or not the nacelles should have been orange.

Although they should have been orange!

713. ryanhuyton - May 17, 2010

And another thing Bob: Nero wasn’t as interesting villain as Khan was in “The Wrath Of Khan” or the Borg Collective/Queen were in “First Contact”. Part of the reason for that was that Kirk and Nero had no prior history or relationship before the film. Granted, there was no way to do that because of the neccessities of this film, so my criticism of Nero is more about providing an interesting and 3d foil for Kirk in the sequel. A great villain makes our heroes better and can also bring out the flaws in a character as well. Khan created a little bit of self-doubt in Kirk during TWOK and the Borg brought out both the worst and best in Picard during “First Contact”. And another example would be “The Dark Knight”. In that movie, Heath Ledger’s Joker was an anarchist who cared nothing about money or power. His only interest was upsetting the status quo of Gotham City; ie the role of Batman as a vigilante who operates in the shadows and outside of the normal social structure and the politicians who gave him that power. The Joker made Batman resort to tactics that many in Gotham ended up hating him for because they percieved Batman to be using his power to take away rights and freedoms as well as putting citizens in harms way as a result of his heavy handed tactics. Even though Batman was doing things for the good of Gotham, the Joker was able to paint a different picture of him by allying himself with different gangs. Batman nearly went over the edge. I’m not saying that the next villain should be like the Joker, or that Captain Kirk should be pushed to the brink, its just that having a villain that forces the hero to make hard (and potentially controversial) choices in order to defeat him makes a better villain than one who is simply out for revenge.
And the best villains also have elements of good in them. Villains don’t have to be pure mad men or absolutely evil. They just have to be relateble since most villains at one time were good, regular people who took the wrong turns in life.

714. dmduncan - May 17, 2010

689: “Oh, it’s easy to prove you a liar –forget about where I called you ‘patently dishonest’ with respect to acknowledging points I raised as having any validity,”

Yes, we have to forget that part because it doesn’t support your angry and vacuous assertion to mention it. If you actually quote me I’ll actually respond directly to it.

“you droned on about how easy this movie was to understand supposedly, and what do you say at the end after a few days of talking as though it’s all so simple a child could understand it? That it took you seeing it three times to finally understand it. So you ARE _patently dishonest_, sir.”

I quote your words when I make a point about some thing you say, but all you can do is paraphrase what you THINK I meant to spin another lie, which is typical of what you do. You don’t produce quotes to back your nonsense up, and instead fashion your insults out of factless personal impressions.

My words are right up there somewhere, why not just QUOTE them back to me instead of giving your manic impressions of what I said? Because clarity weakens your case every where you use it, that’s why.

“You’re an idiot. It’s fiction. You do understand the concept of ‘fiction’? You see, Vulcans aren’t _real_. They don’t actually exist. I was just trying to make a point.”

Oh. So that’s why I kept bumping my head on the TV screen every time I tried to climb on to the bridge. Damn!

I don’t have any problems distinguishing fiction from reality; that’s also why I was able to let go of my preconceptions about time travel in previous Trek to understand ST.09, and why you still aren’t getting it: Because YOU want to make ST.09 consistent with things like City on the Edge of Forever, which is the sort of thing that I cared about when I was 12, and wished the world of Star Trek was real. That is your primary goal, and your confirmation bias rejects whatever doesn’t agree with it, and then you are so self absorbed to think that if YOU don’t see it, it’s not in the film.

Yeah buddy, the world only contains the things you know about. Nothing else exists. And you tell me to get over MY self? And you want to know if I have problems perceiving the fictional?

But here’s a more direct response: YOU made the argument that Spock wouldn’t have been upset about the destruction of a planet of Vulcans unless that planet was his own in the prime timeline.

So YOU asked a HYPOTHETICAL question pertaining to the most likely hypothetical answer regarding how Spock would behave assuming Spock was watching the planet Vulcan being destroyed.

YOU asked the question “Why was he upset?” And in the for-the-sake-of-the-argument context in which you asked that question, I pointed out how bizarre a question it was to ask. EVEN as a hypothetical question it was loony.

So I’d say YOU have issues far more than I do

“And apparently you have a serious inability to distinguish fantasy from reality, so ‘schizophrenic’ sounds like a valid word choice to me.”

I got broad shoulders, amigo. Call me anything you want. : )

“LMAO! Yeah, because six billion Vulcans REALLY DIED.”

This typically spurious caricature of yours is not related to any thought in my head. This is just another one of those bizarre distortions where rather than admit your shortcomings you project your flaws on to me.

“It is –it was easy to prove that you’re a liar just now obviously.”

Oh yeah, you gave lots of proof.

“Of course you were –you’ve been strutting around like a peacock whose only regret is that he doesn’t have more feathers for the show.”

Far be it from me to dispute the opinion of an expert on myself such as you are. We could only hope for you to become as aware of your own considerable personality flaws as all the many ones you attribute to me.

“People like you are why message boards go dead, because you’re such A-holes that eventually you make everyone so miserable that no one wants to be bothered anymore.”

Let’s be honest. I make YOU miserable because you take this stuff SO seriously that to be effectively challenged on any of what you believe causes you to issue hateful pejoratives.

“I’m someone who feels that wasn’t adequately conveyed. Now no matter what, the odds aren’t on my side obviously, so being in the wrong is not the tragedy you make it out to be”

DON’T impart to me opinions which are not my own. Being wrong is not a tragedy AT ALL, and I don’t portray it as one. How are people ever supposed to learn anything if they don’t acknowledge that they don’t understand something? It’s impossible. Everyone would walk around thinking they already know every thing there is to know. So that’s not my position; never was, never will be.

But you are a hard head. A poser. You pretend to know something when you don’t, and what’s more, because YOU are afraid of saying you made a mistake or didn’t understand something you continue to pretend that you did.

“I came here saying _convince me_, but clearly you’re more interested in being a schmuck, and priding yourself on it to boot.”

Who cares to convince you? Certainly not me. We started a debate and when you ran out of reasonable things to say you started calling me hateful names.

“The bottom line is that maybe I’m wrong –could very well be, and probably am — However, you’re the one who’s Ugly.”

“So you can be as nasty as you desire, to your heart’s content, but if I pose a sarcastic question in response to any of it asking if I need to see the movie another twelve times in order to reach your understanding of it, suddenly it’s just too much for you to handle and you’re crying like a baby?”

Take a good hard look at yourself, mate. Don’t worry about me or the work I have to do.

You probably won’t see this, but everything you accuse other people of, you are guilty of doing.

You call me an a-hole while behaving like an a-hole. You call me dishonest while refusing to concede that you didn’t understand something I said when you didn’t. You call me nasty while abandoning all reason and hurling pejoratives and rage without even the shadow of a reasonable argument. You accuse me of mockery and then immediately join Red Skirt in a mock-fest distorting something I did say into something I did not say.

You accuse ME of polluting the board and chasing people away while volcanically erupting in rage and pejoratives, and after all this you say that I am the one who is “ugly” and that I should look at myself.

And that is how you think to claim the high ground, a ground which you’ve failed to claim by reasonable argument, and now somehow hope to think can be made yours by irrational epithet.

All you have left then is this concatenation of contradictions, this litany of deranged accusations.

From here on you have my sympathy but not my company, either in your rage or your myopic use of language.

715. ryanhuyton - May 17, 2010

Dead silence as my eyes glaze. A tumbleweed rolls by…….

716. Christine - May 17, 2010

Just a little opinion note I’d like to throw out here about TWOK:
While “Wrath of Khan” was my favourite Star Trek movie, and remains in that position today, I do not think it outdid ST09 (and other ‘Trek films) in all categories.

One thing I thought ST09 did beautifully was keep the story rolling. If the next movie can keep that pace and pretty much all of the action, but slow down just enough to have the feeling that TWOK, FC, and some of those other top movies had (as in, emotional appeal), that would be great. Know that first scene that blew everyone away? That. That kind of feeling needs to be kept for all 120-odd minutes, or however long STXII wil be. That was beautiful.

I think even ST09 was more than just a popcorn movie (let’s delegate that to Transformers and maybe even Avatar), but it can do better. Mr. Orci and other execs, if you’re reading this, I know what ya’ll can do. I’ve seen Fringe. Take that — apply it to ‘Trek. We love that perfect blend of emotion, action, and great writing.

Maybe critiquing the movie that came out is nice, but focusing on the future is the most beneficial. Like someone said earlier: “I dare you to do better.”

717. dmduncan - May 17, 2010

715: lol. U funny.

718. ryanhuyton - May 17, 2010

Another thing I’d like to see for the next movie is a sountrack album that includes or is devoted to, songs either by a variety of artists or something like what “Iron Man 2″ did with AC/DC. Although Star Trek is a tough one to right songs for, since there isn’t one single ideal that it stands for, plus it takes place in the future. Plus I don’t know if there are many bands who’d take a chance on writing songs for the sequel. I don’t know which bands or artists would be appropriate either, but its an idea. Doubt it will happen though.

719. StarFuryG7 - May 17, 2010

714. dmduncan
“Yes, we have to forget that part because it doesn’t support your angry and vacuous assertion to mention it.”

You and me are done A-hole. I’m not the least bit interested in anything more you might have to say.

720. StarFuryG7 - May 17, 2010

708. Boborci
“706. U got me thinking that perhaps ambiguous is the wrong word. To be more specific, the movie is meant to be able to be seen in exactly two ways across the major issues. Prequel or sequel. Nature or nurture. Destiny or quantum probability, erasing the past or forging a parallel one, etc.”

Hence, arguments as a result of the two varying points of view.

721. dmduncan - May 17, 2010

@719: Spoken like a true champion, mate.

722. dmduncan - May 17, 2010

Some of the evidence APPEARS to support TOS rules, until Spock says what he does in the end and turns it all upside down, converting it into the opposite of what we thought it was — making TOS assumptions false, MWI assumptions true, and changing what we thought was evidence for TOS rules into MWI rules, and which the discussion on the bridge lays the conceptual groundwork for.

370. Boborci – May 12, 2010

“As far as alternate universes go, I will admit that we made it purposely ambiguous on a surface level, but as I said before, events and reactions in the movie cannot be reconciled with any logic other than MWI.”

Yes, and it does show.

723. Michael Hall - May 17, 2010

“I love it! One of the most frightening and destructive objects in the universe, one that some of our very own earth bound scientist say could be a threat today, according to you, can never be a threat in a sci-fi movie!”

Ah-ah-ah! Spoon-feeding is one thing, mon ami, putting words in my mouth another. Never said that a supernova “can never be a threat in a sci-fi movie” (or out of one, for that matter); my contention was that as depicted in your film the nature of the threat doesn’t make much sense. Since you don’t seem to be much interested in explaining just why it does make sense, we should probably, per P. Technobabble, just let the matter drop at this point.

“It occurred to us during the shooting of the movie that Spock would only meld with young Kirk with a Need to know basis in mind.”

That would actually be a “Nero-to-know” basis.

724. dmduncan - May 17, 2010

723: Michael, wouldn’t you agree that ST.09 is in the tradition of Trouble With Tribbles or Shore Leave, both of which were exciting and humorous, but without the morality play aspects of episodes like Let That be Your Last Battlefield?

Science aside, I felt like I had been reintroduced to the same characters I always loved, and because they were younger they were also different in ways that seemed, at least to me, to be credible.

725. Michael Hall - May 17, 2010

“Michael, wouldn’t you agree that ST.09 is in the tradition of Trouble With Tribbles or Shore Leave, both of which were exciting and humorous, but without the morality play aspects of episodes like Let That be Your Last Battlefield?”

LOL! You may be stacking the deck a little with that comparison, dude. :-) Since there was never an episode in the entire Trek canon that so notoriously hammered the audience over the head with its ‘message’ as did “Battlefield,” rest assured I’m delighted that the producers of Trek ’09 didn’t look to it as their template when putting the film together. I’m just sorry that, for me, the film didn’t succeed on its own terms as well as “Shore Leave” and “Tribbles” did on theirs. Fair enough?

726. Anthony Pascale - May 17, 2010

StarFury

warning for flaming. You need to seriously tone it down.

and dmcduncan, you dont have to follow him down that path either.

Again, I don’t care what people’s opinions are, i only care about people being civil. And this is descending into personal attacks and is not what TM is all about. We are all Star Trek fans, we have more in common than we differ…or so I hope

727. dmduncan - May 17, 2010

@726: Your house, your rules. I shall do my best, sir.

725: “LOL! You may be stacking the deck a little with that comparison, dude. :-)”

May be? I definitely am. It was all I could think of at the moment.

Leaving the science disputes aside I thought ST.09 was a brilliantly told origin story that was equal in attitude, enjoyability, and amusement to TWT and SL, given the parameters they had to work with, so it didn’t strike me as being un-Star Trek like.

As a fan of TOS I could envision a 3 part origin story (not that I have one available, but I’m just saying), and I wish that Star Trek was as big as Star Wars just so that the franchise could tolerate a series of big budget movies, like ST.09 was, to do that sort of thing without tanking at the box office.

728. dmduncan - May 17, 2010

Maybe the key difference regarding that sort of treatment is that Star Wars is owned by George Lucas, and Star Trek is owned by Paramount. If only Star Trek had its own Lucasian benefactor.

729. ryanhuyton - May 17, 2010

#728

Keep in mind that while George Lucas gave us the classic trilogy featuring cool characters, groundbreaking visual effects and awesome storylines, he also gave us the prequel trilogy featuring stupid characters such as Jar Jar Binks, mindless politicking and subpar scripts. The overall quality of the “Star Wars” franchise is mixed. And I do think it would have been bettter for him to give the reins to another qualified director and producer.

730. ryanhuyton - May 17, 2010

Well, it looks like this thread is almost done and gone!

crickets chirping; toads croaking; another tumbleweed rolls by…..

731. Harry Ballz - May 17, 2010

Nah, we can get to 1000, can’t we?

732. ryanhuyton - May 17, 2010

Hey Harry, where have you been?

733. Harry Ballz - May 17, 2010

Ryan,

I’ve been to see the Wizard!

Actually, I thought I’d wait until people’s tempers cooled down a bit! People were even attacking us for our “toilet” humour!! Imagine!

734. StarFuryG7 - May 17, 2010

726. Anthony Pascale
“StarFury
warning for flaming. You need to seriously tone it down.”

I think I endured more than my fair share of having been “flamed” prior to that point, Anthony. Too bad you weren’t around to notice any of that though apparently.

735. ryanhuyton - May 17, 2010

#733

The Wizard? The wonderful Wizard of Oz? ;-)

736. boborci - May 17, 2010

723.

Okay, okay… instead of trying to put words in your mouth, let me try paraphrasing:

Our movie doesn’t take the time to, specifically, explain how a nuclear bomb is a threat. Not just a nuclear bomb, but a space nuclear bomb that would incinerate up to 150 solar systems. according to current speculations.

737. ryanhuyton - May 17, 2010

#736

That’s right, Bob, we go to the movies to be entertained, not lectured!

On the other hand, in regards to what scientists say about that “space nuclear bomb” we have to remember that it is mostly unproven theory and we have to take it with a fairly large grain of salt, about the same size as the Hobus supernova!

738. StarFuryG7 - May 17, 2010

737. ryanhuyton
“On the other hand, in regards to what scientists say about that “space nuclear bomb” we have to remember that it is mostly unproven theory and we have to take it with a fairly large grain of salt, about the same size as the Hobus supernova!”

Or ‘red matter’ that can create a black hole from a destroyed planet?

739. moauvian waoul - May 17, 2010

Ah yes Shore Leave, the moral: be careful what you wish for.
Trouble With Tribbles: beware of fur traders bearing gifts.
A Piece Of The Action: don’t leave your toys lying around.

740. Harry Ballz - May 17, 2010

735

Ah, so you know the place?

741. ryanhuyton - May 17, 2010

#738

Yup. But all incarnations of Trek used science that was highly theoretical that still hasn’t been proven. Though Vulcan being destroyed by a tiny amount of red matter and turning into a black hole was really stretching things. But it didn’t stop me from enjoying the movie.

742. ryanhuyton - May 17, 2010

#740

I followed the Yellow Brick Road! And I listened to “Goodbye Yellow Brick Road” on my iPod on the return trip!

743. Harry Ballz - May 17, 2010

People complaining here have the luxury of hindsight.

Think back to before the movie opened……..you go to the theatre, the lights dim, the movie starts…..does everyone here recognize, if the movie had been assigned to a different production team, how BAD the relaunch of this franchise COULD have been?

Give your heads a shake! JJ, Orci and crew did a GREAT job!

744. ryanhuyton - May 17, 2010

#743

Well said! Some people don’t know how good we’ve got it with talented dudes like J.J Abrams and Bob Orci at the helm!

The haters have no leg to stand on!

745. Harry Ballz - May 17, 2010

Thanks, Ryan.

I may joke around a lot here, but when it comes right down to it, seriously, I really enjoyed the movie!

Who knows, maybe the sequel might even be better!

746. The Disinvited - May 18, 2010

#728.

CBS “owns” STAR TREK. nuParamount only licenses it. It doesn’t “own” STAR TREK any more than Sony “owns” SPIDERMAN.

747. P Technobabble - May 18, 2010

701. Michael

“…Would it make you happier if I just gave him the last last word, then? Done.”

It’s not about making ME happy… I’m already happy! And it’s not about giving Bob the last word (although IMO, as he is the writer, he should get the last word).
I was simply asking you why you kept after him about this. He didn’t answer to your satisfaction? It appears to me that there is no answer in the universe that is going to satisfy you. I’m guessing Mr. Orci knew exactly what he was doing, and exactly why he was doing it when he wrote the story, but I, personally, don’t need him to reveal it all to me.
I certainly wasn’t telling you, or anyone else, what to do regarding this debate. I even said, “Criticize all you want.” I just don’t see the point of it any longer…

748. Michael Hall - May 18, 2010

“Our movie doesn’t take the time to, specifically, explain how a nuclear bomb is a threat. Not just a nuclear bomb, but a space nuclear bomb that would incinerate up to 150 solar systems. according to current speculations.”

The difference being that this “space nuclear bomb” would take thousands of years to destroy all of those solar systems. Not exactly the immediate threat of galactic proportions implied by your script, is it? More problematic for your plot, though, is the fact that if the supernova took place outside the Romulan system (let’s place it at the distance from Sol to Alpha Centauri–about 4.5 light years, practically next door by astronomical standards), the Romulan government should have had a minimum of years’ worth of warning, since light and radiation can’t travel faster than light, but starships and subspace communications presumably can. Certainly, that would be more than enough time for Nero to haul ass for home and evacuate his family. But that would have rendered the whole ‘villain out for revenge’ plot unnecessary, now wouldn’t it?

Again–I don’t think any of this is that big a deal, certainly no worse than much of the wonky science that has plagued many Trek productions in the past. I would just note it seems to me that with a little effort this problem would have been easily fixable, and since it wasn’t, you obviously didn’t know or didn’t care to fix it. Either way, wherever your research on multiple quantum realities may have led you, it hardly speaks of a new, more rigorous approach to scientific accuracy or respect for audience intelligence in Star Trek. And that’s rather a shame.

“It’s not about making ME happy… I’m already happy! And it’s not about giving Bob the last word (although IMO, as he is the writer, he should get the last word).”

Well, as the screenwriter Mr. Orci certainly did get the last word in the venue where it most counted: the theatre. Not sure why that privilege would necessarily extend to the discussion forums of a fan website, but that’s just me.

“I was simply asking you why you kept after him about this. He didn’t answer to your satisfaction? It appears to me that there is no answer in the universe that is going to satisfy you.”

Really? It’s a big universe, P. Technobabble. :-)

749. dmduncan - May 18, 2010

@739: And all great episodes anyway! A lot of old TOS is just plain FUN.

750. Red Skirt - May 18, 2010

#607, “Why anyone would question Bob over this, or Kirk’s promotion is beyond me.”

Not sure how they do things in Canada, but in the United States it is a good thing to question authority, a notion established by one of our greatest founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin. In fact, that seems to be a common theme in many episodes of Star Trek. Kirk questions authority all the time when something did not make sense to him, and I believe in most every case, his instinct was depicted as being correct.

Simply because the author, and self anointed member of the “Supreme Court” shares his views as to what he hoped to convey and indeed what his intentions were, do not make him or his opinions beyond reproach. Nor does questioning them mean the inquirer hates the overall subject matter.

751. StarFuryG7 - May 18, 2010

750. Red Skirt
“Simply because the author, and self anointed member of the “Supreme Court” shares his views as to what he hoped to convey and indeed what his intentions were, do not make him or his opinions beyond reproach. Nor does questioning them mean the inquirer hates the overall subject matter.”

Right –this is a knee-jerk reaction that apologists of the Berman and Braga MT era especially were often guilty of the moment something about one of their episodes or movies was questioned, and it stifled a lot of debate eventually, and only served to further facilitate the impending demise of the franchise.

752. dmduncan - May 18, 2010

748: “it hardly speaks of a new, more rigorous approach to scientific accuracy or respect for audience intelligence in Star Trek.”

Well, I don’t think that’s fair. I mean, it’s probably on par with general audience intelligence. Among SOME Star Trek or SF fans scientific gaffs will be more noticeable; and that faction of fans that treats Star Trek as a quasi-religious phenomenon don’t care much about science, just so long as there’s consistency with prior Trek, so there’ll be a host of different reactions to this issue. I think for general audiences it wasn’t an issue or an insult.

I thought the scene where the woman got pulled outside of the Kelvin into cold dead silence was that much more awesome BECAUSE it was accurate, and I do wonder how science can be incorporated into filmed science fiction without loss of accuracy, at least as far as contemporary understanding of the ideas involved is, and without loss of DRAMA.

I think it’s possible to do as that scene demonstrates, but I also think it does constitute a puzzle for the writers about how to create a scene or structure a plot dramatically while being scientifically faithful.

I don’t think they have to be mutually exclusive objectives, but I do think it takes a lot more time and effort which, if I remember correctly, they did not have for the first movie.

753. Michael Hall - May 18, 2010

” I mean, it’s probably on par with general audience intelligence.”

Oh, I agree. But given that general audiences are, on the whole, undeniably more sophisticated about such things than they were in 1968, why not make the effort to take their understanding to the next level, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the drama?

“I thought the scene where the woman got pulled outside of the Kelvin into cold dead silence was that much more awesome BECAUSE it was accurate.”

Exactly.

754. Red Skirt - May 18, 2010

#753, Generally speaking, there was a time when filmmakers sought to elevate the content of their films and raise the bar for the audiences. Today they mostly pander to them.

755. Yammer - May 18, 2010

754

Explain this mythical time to me, Red Skirt, when movies did not mostly pander to the audience!

756. Harry Ballz - May 18, 2010

I think Red Skirt might be alluding to the “Mean Streets/ The French Connection” kind of films from the 1970’s. Pretty groundbreaking stuff for audiences back then.

757. StarFuryG7 - May 18, 2010

756. Harry Ballz –
“I think Red Skirt might be alluding to the “Mean Streets/ The French Connection” kind of films from the 1970’s. Pretty groundbreaking stuff for audiences back then.”

“Alien” (1979); “The Terminator” (1984) — These were innovative, even groundbreaking pictures. Unfortunately with the advancement of CGI, special effects and ‘kewl ‘splosions’ provide great potential for filmmaking, and in some cases they really are used to deliver a phenomenal picture, but at the same time, they’re too easy to fall back on by a lot of today’s filmmakers. They deliver an eye-popping wallop, but often with cheesy writing and a ridiculous plot. We’ve gone from a period in which filmmakers made the best use of what they had available to them to work with from a technical standpoint, and amped it up with solid writing and a good script, to special effects and spectacle over substance all too often.

758. Harry Ballz - May 18, 2010

Yes, icing, but no cake!

759. ryanhuyton - May 18, 2010

#750

I never said the writers of were above criticism. I said I couldn’t understand why people continue to question Kirk’s rapid promotion and the method of time travel used in the movie. My point is some of you don’t seem to grasp that “Star Trek” is a fantasy, not a reality. And while it is essential to have believability and a sense of reality in “Star Trek”, sometimes writers have to sacrifice some of that to tell a good, entertaining story. Sure, Kirk’s promotion was a bit quick. But there were valid reasons for that in the movie. Such as the fact he displayed command ability when he saved Earth. True, when he assumed command before that, it was stretching things a bit. But as Pike said earlier in the film, Starfleet needed people who “leap before looking”. And besides, if we were to witness the promotion of Kirk as how promotions are done in current militaries now, Kirk wouldn’t be commanding the Enterprise possibly until the third movie. It would have taken two movies at least to get Kirk in the captain’s chair. And that wouldn’t have worked since everyone wanted to see Kirk in the captain’s seat in this movie. The general audience associates the original Enterprise with Kirk, not Pike.

As for the time travel aspect, why would it need to be explained in full exposition in the movie? Why is it some people need something explained for them when they could just as easily fill in the blanks themselves? Too much exposition is partly responsible for the near death of Star Trek in the early 00’s. The method of time travel featured in this movie(quantum mechanics) was deemed neccessary to preserve the old timeline while creating a fresh timeline from which to create new adventures and stories.
Did we really need to hear that explanation on screen? Why can’t we all just take Bob at his word? I realize the need and freedom to question and criticize, but this is just getting silly. Again, the need to explain everything to the audience became a big problem during the late 90’s and early 00’s.
Maybe everyone is just addicted to the notion of “if its not mentioned on screen, then it isn’t canon” concept.

I, for one don’t need everything explained to me during the course of the movie. Some things like what is going on in terms of plot and character, sure. But time travel isn’t one of them.

760. ryanhuyton - May 18, 2010

#754

All movies pander to the audience in some form or another. That is the idea behind movies. Now, different movies pander to dffierent crowds.
“Star Trek” 09 pandered not just to Trekkies, but also to fans of sci-fi and action. “The Godfather” pandered to those who appreciate fine cinema and gangster flicks. “Transformers” pandered to those who left their brains at home. “Moon” and “2001” pandered to people who bring their brains to the theatre.

761. Christine - May 18, 2010

Wow.

You know, if we took out all the “Star Trek”s and references to the aforementioned franchise/specifics to the movie, any internet passerby would probably think a lot of us were slamming Transformers.

762. dmduncan - May 18, 2010

@754: Yes, but Stanley Kubrick is dead. : )

763. Boborci - May 18, 2010

748

Except only one planet is destroyed. And since we don’t specify the distance or name of the supernova, then your speculation has nothing left to stand on.

764. Christine - May 18, 2010

#763 :: We know Romulus was destroyed, but was Remus a goner, too? I mean, that would make sense, thus making two planets that had been destroyed…

And there were, of course, the two other planets in the system, but I’m pretty sure they weren’t Minshara-class.

But I think I see your point, Mr. Orci.

765. dmduncan - May 18, 2010

@763: It’s an interesting problem that suggests implications about Vulcan and Romulan history.

If Romulus orbits a double star (in a trinary system where Vulcan orbits the third nearby star) one of which is a red giant, it suggests that Romulus (and Remus) are terraformed worlds.

Vulcans and Romulus share common ancestry. So perhaps Vulcan was the home world and Vulcans had space travel thousands of years ago. Vulcans, perhaps while still “savage,” terraformed and migrated to Romulus, while the other Vulcans take a huge technological backslide after nearly destroying themselves, and turn to logic for salvation on Vulcan.

This would also put Vulcan and Romulus right on the line of where the Federation and the Romulan Empire begins, splitting the star system right down the middle like the Berlin Wall.

Canon schmanon, my friends. Make it INTERESTING, not CANON.

766. fansince66 - May 18, 2010

Mr. Orci
Have y’all decided what the next movie will be about, yet? I’m not asking what the story is, just if you have all decided on a story. I’m also just trying to push the conversation to the 1000 comment mark.

767. Christine - May 18, 2010

#765 :: That’s exactly what happened. Romulans developed a primitive space travel, just enough to get them to a new home (Romulus) while the Vulcans turned to the logic of Surak in the face of Nuclear/whatever-weapon-that-was disaster, which ultimately saved them.

The trilogy-episodes of “Enterprise” that take place in the 4th season on Vulcan are a really good reference. I think they’re “Awakening”, “Kir’Shara”, and one more I can’t remember the name of…

Not to mention they were stellar.

LIRPAS!

768. dmduncan - May 18, 2010

@767: I stopped watching Enterprise, but that’s cool. It already fits then. Art least partly. I don’t suppose though that Romulus was depicted as very close by, or that it had to be terraformed, or that Vulcan and Romulus were both planets orbiting different stars in a trinary system, and thereby making that system a border between Federation and Romulan space?

769. dmduncan - May 18, 2010

Art = at

770. moauvian waoul - May 18, 2010

@749 dmduncan

exactly. I agree with most of your points on Trek (not politics :) ) Many of the more memorable episodes of TOS were character-centered. Others indeed had serious messages and that’s fine. I enjoy those as well. But it wasn’t necessary and I think some now recall this fact inaccurately. Trek should be intelligent and handled intelligently and there are critisims I do agree with but some of this talk makes me wonder which series they were watching. Me thinks they prefer a TNG movie.

771. moauvian waoul - May 18, 2010

Audiences were more sophisticated when 2001 and French Connection were in theaters.

772. StarFuryG7 - May 18, 2010

Hey Bob, your stepsister was on “NCIS” tonight before “Lost”.

She was something else in “Dexter”.

773. Colonel Kernel - May 18, 2010

Why was my post deleted?

774. ryanhuyton - May 18, 2010

#767

I believe that there is some distance between Romulus and Vulcan. Vulcan was established to be fairly close to Earth as well as Andoria and Tellar. Vulcan and Romulus were not part of the same system.

Romulans are descendants of Vulcans who fled their planet after rejecting Surak’s philosophy. This happened after a nuclear war nearly destroyed Vulcan. The interesting thing is, is while Romulans rejected logic as a “religion”, they adopted it for military use and subterfuge.
Vulcans and Romulans both embrace logic, but for different reasons.

Which brings me to this about the Mintakans: It was established that they are a proto-Vulcan race. Did they descend directly from the Vulcans? Or were they born from a group of Romulans who wanted to get back to the very basics?

775. Colonel Kernel - May 18, 2010

As I said above, I rate ST 09 as an 8 out of 10 and have no problems accepting ST 09 as “Star Trek,” but there are some definite issues which interfere with my enjoyment of the film. The Spock Prime/Kirk mind meld/flash back/exposition scene and its contents are my single biggest issue.

Debating the Hobus Supernova’s destruction of Romulus as depicted in Spock’s mind meld with Kirk is like debating the quality of a turd within a giant load of crap. The supernova description was but one problem within the indefensibly horrible flash back/exposition scene.

The best explanation of the Hobus Star is that it was a runaway, like Barnard’s Star is to our solar system; forming elsewhere in the galaxy and moving against the flow of stars. Casting it as such would allow it to intrude on the Romulan system and explain why they might be less familiar with it. The Romulans thought it didn’t pose a threat and therefore didn’t plan, so when Spock was proved correct they were caught unprepared. As for how close the star actually gets, it’s hard to say. Assuming our neighborhood within the galaxy to be “normal” I’d say between one and two light years.

I have no idea how long it takes to evacuate an entire planet, but I suspect it to be lengthy. If the threat comes from a Gamma Ray Burst traveling at the speed of light, as @BobOrci suggests by linking to a Space.com article in comment #593, they would still have more than a year to evacuate, certainly enough time to get at least a significant proportion to safety.

However, the film depicts Romulus being destroyed, not by a jet of gamma rays, but by a shockwave, which travels at a “paltry” 1/10th the speed of light. This means that the planet could be evacuated in a leisurely ten plus years and no one dies.

To flip the problem on its head, if we accept what was shown on screen, the problem becomes the language used to describe it. We don’t need to know what phenomena the Hobus event really was — what was ST: Generation’s Nexus, after all — but it certainly wasn’t a supernova of any kind. Under these conditions: my guess is the Hobus event was an exploding White Hole, but even then, it’s a lot to accept it moving at superluminal speeds.

776. StarFuryG7 - May 18, 2010

771. moauvian waoul
“Audiences were more sophisticated when 2001 and French Connection were in theaters.”

People were perplexed by “2001” back in 1968 and didn’t know what to make of it back then. To quote a certain network’s reaction to a certain television pilot, it was just “too cerebral” for them to deal with …but it found a niche audience with the Acid crowd, which went to theaters just to ‘space out’ watching it after dropping a tab or two.

And “The French Connection” is a whole other class of movie.

777. StarFuryG7 - May 18, 2010

775. Colonel Kernel

Now there’s a guy who’s put a whole hell of a lot of thought into a particular aspect of the movie. :)

And I thought I was bad being hung up on the whole ‘alternate universe’ versus the original timeline being overwritten ambiguity.

LMAO.

778. moauvian waoul - May 18, 2010

People were perplexed by “2001″ back in 1968 and didn’t know what to make of it back then.

No doubt, but today the movie would never be made. As for acid… The audience was also less conventional.

779. dmduncan - May 18, 2010

770: “exactly. I agree with most of your points on Trek (not politics :) )”

I don’t discuss my politics in here. But that’s interesting. I wonder what you think my views are.

780. Harry Ballz - May 18, 2010

Everybody bookmark this thread under “favorites” and let’s push this sucker well past 1000 posts!!

Excelsior!!

781. moauvian waoul - May 18, 2010

Dmduncan
Perhaps I read too much into some of your comments but I do think you have let some clues behind on some of your previous posts. Not on this thread. Then again this thread has been going on so long I’m not even sure anymore.

782. Harry Ballz - May 18, 2010

“I’m not even sure anymore”

Sounds like something someone would say after waking up in an Alternate Reality……………….BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

783. ryanhuyton - May 18, 2010

#776

“People were perplexed by “2001” back in 1968 and didn’t know what to make of it back then.”

People still don’t know what to make of it. But maybe that was the idea; to get people asking questions and come to their own conclusion. Probably part of the reason its considered a classic.

#778

“No doubt, but today the movie would never be made.”

Yes it would. But it would most likely be dumbed down and filled with cgi.
Its a good bet we will see a prequel, sequel or total remake if the current trend in movie making continues.

784. moauvian waoul - May 18, 2010

You got it Harry. I was just having a conversation with my younger self. We’re nothing alike…

785. ryanhuyton - May 18, 2010

#782

Gettin’ bored over there, Harry?

786. Harry Ballz - May 18, 2010

784+785

I leave on Thursday for Spain. A week in Madrid, a week in Barcelona. I will be out of the loop with you guys for two whole weeks!

How will I survive??

787. moauvian waoul - May 18, 2010

ryanhuyton

right you are, but if you dumb 2001 down, well it wouldn’t be 2001. I guess it would be 2010. I mean the movie. …or do I?

788. ryanhuyton - May 18, 2010

#786

Two week vacation?

“How will I survive??”

No, how will the rest of us survive?

789. ryanhuyton - May 18, 2010

#787

Maybe it could be “2012”? Oh wait…..

Actually, in some ways movies like “Sunshine” and “Moon” are “cousins” to “2001”.

790. moauvian waoul - May 18, 2010

In Barcelona? I’m sure you’ll manage Harry.

791. Harry Ballz - May 18, 2010

Aw, that’s nice to hear, but I’m sure when I return I will see this thread up around 1200 or so.

Funny, I usually read every comment as it comes in…..it’ll be a change to read a few hundred posts in one sitting.

Ryan, I’m confident you can run the show while I’m gone!

792. ryanhuyton - May 18, 2010

Harry,

You’ve contributed about a hundred posts to this thread. I’m not sure anyone can fill the vacuum you are about to leave!

793. Harry Ballz - May 18, 2010

You’ve reminded me that outer space is a vacuum, and like they say in sex therapy, in space no one can hear you cream!

Oh, we’re going to get complaints about that one!

794. Colonel Kernel - May 18, 2010

777. StarFuryG7

Oh, I got issues with the timeline, too, but as the supernova seemed to be the biggest issue being discussed at length then that was the bandwagon I jumped on.

As for the amount of thought I’ve put into this, I’m a fan of space science and astronomy, so the issues I mentioned were obvious to me. I only had to look up the specifics.

I also very much want to thank @BobOrci for engaging the community. He certainly doesn’t have to and it’s appreciated.

795. fansince66 - May 19, 2010

#774
” Proto-Vulcan ” would suggest that the Mintakans PRECEDED Romulans & Vulcans. This suggests some earlier advanced interstellar society “seeded the stars” with pre-vulcanoid races in some distant, prehistoric time.this suggests the writer sides with “the Interventionists” as defined by Lloyd Pye ( & distinguished from, the Darwinists, the Creationists, & the Intelligent Designists).
We’ll get to 1000 yet.
Maybe future NuTrek can use Mintakans in place of Vulcans & Romulans.

796. P Technobabble - May 19, 2010

The more I have read here regarding explanations about the supernova, the timeline, Kirk’s promotion, and so forth, I am convinced this is PRECISELY the reason why none of these matters were discussed in detail in the film. It would have been a 4-hour movie…
Again, I must go back to my contention that when you have only 2-hours to tell a story (and an intricate one, at that), there is no way in hell you can avoid taking certain liberties. Which liberties you take depends entirely on what kind of story you are trying to tell. Since Star Trek’s story was fundamentally centered around the characters — especially Kirk and Spock –, and time was of the essence (pardon the pun) to put all the characters in place by the end of the film, it seems pretty obvious why the writers would choose to focus less on detail and more on character. Even in Roddenberry’s original Writer’s Guide, he said something to the effect: “When telling your story, don’t waste time with explanation. When Marshall Dillon takes out his gun, he doesn’t stop to explain how it works.” I’d have to search for my worn out copy to give you the exact quote, but this was the gist of his instructions to writers.
Rather than pausing the film for a more detailed description of how and why and where this supernova did it’s thing, isn’t it just easier (and quicker) to say, “The supernova destroyed Romulus?” Rather than spend an hour showing the various obstacles and formalities Kirk had to go through to become Captain, isn’t it easier (and quicker) to simply put him in the Captain’s chair? And don’t people realize there are things that can happen in a film that take place off-screen in those “transitory spaces” — remember the ape throwing the bone in the air, which then turned into a spaceship in “2001?” What do you think happened in between that wasn’t shown or explained? From the final moment of the Enterprise’s battle with the Narada to Pike congratulating Kirk at the ceremony, who can say what ACTUALLY took place, or how much time (relative to the story) ACTUALLY went by? Perhaps there was some high level meeting which took place where Pike really went to bat for Kirk and pulled every string in the book, and called in every favor ever owed to him because he knew, more than anyone else (including some of the fans, apparently), that Kirk deserved to be in the Captain’s chair. Of course, I am speculating, but there is so much speculating going on here, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. And, as always, it’s just my 2c.

797. tesseraktik - May 19, 2010

I agree with the fans in that “The Onion” clip: A “scene set at a long table in which interstellar diplomacy is debated in endless detail” would have been a nice change of pace in a movie that desperately needed one. I feel that a good film should have some intense scenes to get your heart pumping, and some calmer ones when you have time to reflect over what’s happening. This film was very lacking in the second department.

I really wanted to enjoy this movie. I had been told beforehand that, much as I had been suspecting, this would be a good movie but a bad Trek movie, so that’s what I was expecting when I went into the theater, and I was fine with that. However, I thought I got pretty much the opposite: It was very “Trek”, at least in some senses, but not a very good film over-all; in fact, it felt like an uncreative, poorly balanced high-budget action film. In short, I expect I wouldn’t have liked it at all if I weren’t a Trekkie.

Tempted to vote 6, but I voted 7, because I think that while the first film wasn’t very good, the reboot series has some potential, in particular now that the characters and the setting have been introduced to the public and they can start putting them in interesting situations.
Kind of like “The Fellowship of the Ring” and “Harry Potter and the Sorceror’s/Philosopher’s Stone”: Decent stories that introduced us to amazing series.

798. Red Skirt - May 19, 2010

#769, there is a big difference between explaining something in explicit detail so as to allegedly bloat the film, and incorrectly applying science. Much has been made of the point that if a theoretical quantum physicist saw the movie in a vacuum, that he would walk arguably away with the inescapable conclusion that what happened the film was solely based on MWI (i.e. everything to logically draw that as the only conclusion is allegedly in the film). From that assumption, should an astrophysicist see the movie under the same conditions, I believe enough experts have weighed in against the depiction of the Supernova threat that they would have rejected that as a premise (as reported on this very site http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/09/bad-astronomys-review-of-the-science-star-trek/ ).

However, the film did not actually show that sequence in “real” time. It was all part of Old Spock’s flashback, much of which has sparked controversy with science. And it can all be easily explained away as figurative, metaphorical, artistic license … i.e. it was not a literal interpretation, but more like a dream state (I mean who among us can say for sure how a Vulcan/Human mind-meld manifests itself?). The bottom line is, the filmmakers wanted to show Romulus blown away, leaving no question as to what motivated Nero, so they skimmed over the science for the dramatic. This is more forgivable than some other things, but most definitely the choice is not above criticism. In fact, could they have come up with a more scientifically plausible explanation that was just as satisfying? Probably, but they wanted to blow something up.

I also take exception to the implication by you and others, that to better explain something complex requires such extensive discourse as to expand the movie by hours, or otherwise cripple its exciting pace (and this from some of the very same people who think a long drawn out emotional Shatner scene would have been a better way to end the film – yeah, stop the momentum altogether). I was just watching an episode of Family Guy which parodied Back To The Future, and as in that film, the explanation of an alternate timeline took less than 10 seconds. But again, we already know why the filmmakers chose not to explicitly state what was going on in the film, and it had nothing to do with spoon-feeding anyone, but everything to do with being able to interpret the film in two different ways.

And finally the Kirk promotion was the weakest and most unsatisfying (except perhaps for the entitled teenagers and twenty-somethings). As many ex-military have attested, this is the most unbelievable aspect of the film for which they otherwise unanimously support. Yet their concerns are rationalized and dismissed on these forums by people who have never even been in the Boy Scouts. Could that too have been easily explained in under 10 seconds? Yeah probably. One caption: “4 years later”, among many other plausible ways I could imagine to make that transition. And that still gives him his own ship in less than 8 years. Of all the criticisms raised by this film, this choice is the one I still don’t fully understand, when it could so easily have been mitigated.

But the thing that really gets my panties in a wad, is that for anyone who raises legitimate criticisms, aside from being labeled with the cliched term “hater”, they are accused of not being able to enjoy the film because they are getting “hung up” on the minutiae. Really!? It’s impossible to enjoy something and still find flaws? Those things can’t be mutually exclusive? Or the even more ridiculous notion that somehow, these “haters” are on a mission to spoil the film for others by discussing its perceived faults. To which all I can say, if you aren’t certain enough that you really enjoyed the movie, then you should probably find a forum that does not allow critical discussion of the film.

799. Red Skirt - May 19, 2010

Correction #798 was in reply to #796 P Technobabble

800. moauvian waoul - May 19, 2010

Hey everybody, Sex in the City 2 is opening! Woops wrong thread.

801. Michael Hall - May 19, 2010

775 and 798, thanks for giving me something to stand on. I understand Mr. Orci’s plate is very full (his latest apparent coup being an opportunity to show the world just what it was he loved so much about Hawaii Five-O–congrats!), but I would suggest, with all respect and sincerity, that it would save everyone time if he would address the issue directly (i.e. briefly describing a scenario where the supernova threat makes sense, or just copping to dramatic license) rather than dancing around it. Or not; I’m cool either way.

It just so happened that I was in Border’s yesterday, where in full geek mode I checked out the latest issue of the Star Trek magazine, which featured some surprisingly good analysis and reflections on all of the franchise features films, including Trek ’09. While writer Christopher Bennett readily acknowledges the film’s plot issues and some other shortcomings, he actually makes a pretty good case for its virtues as well, and given my own reactions I was pretty surprised to find myself agreeing with much of his praise regarding the film’s emotional beats as well as its production values. So while I don’t expect to ever be a convert, I am tempted at this point to give the movie another look.

802. P Technobabble - May 19, 2010

798. Red

“…if you aren’t certain enough that you really enjoyed the movie, then you should probably find a forum that does not allow critical discussion of the film…”

I have never ever said anything to suggest critical discussion of the film should not be allowed. Nor do I, personally, have a problem with it. There isn’t any negative criticism yet that has spoiled my ability to watch it and enjoy it. I simply find some of the objections questionable, and it is simply for discussion’s sake that I speak my own observations — just as every other person who posts here. I think some people dwell on matters that, in the grand scheme of things, don’t make much difference (and lose their sense of humor, too), but that’s just me. And, as I have said many, many times, it’s just my 2c, it’s just my opinion. I take full responsibility for what I think, and readily admit it’s just what I think. I don’t really mind what anyone thinks. I’m having a good time. Having my mind challenged keeps me from going senile. So, if we disagree, then so be it, it’s no big deal, really .
So, let the games continue! We’ve only 200-ish posts to go to get to 1000, and these endless arguments should certainly get us there!

803. Red Skirt - May 19, 2010

Oh, and while I’m at it, this is pretty ridiculous too!

#414, Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how many of the posters taking down Trek 11 are the same person posting as different people here? I bet 2-3 people here are responding as multiple personalities — i.e. reinforcing their own arguments in the guise of a supposed independent posting from someone else. Given 97% of the people liked the movie, this explanation is LOGICAL.”

MJ, I think the word you are looking for here is “PARANOID”.

Have you also noticed that it is the same 3-5 people that routinely defend the film reinforcing the same arguments? Perhaps 2-3 of them are responding as multiple personalities. And perhaps it is only a handful of supporters who voted dozens of times, skewing the numbers of the poll.

And isn’t it odd that if 97% of all of this sites users loved the movie, that less than one-third of 1% of them participate in actively defending it?

I find it curious that it is the most vocal defenders who proposed this idea first. Me thinks thou protests too much. Do you also think there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll?

Honestly, do you think this website does not have safeguards in place to prevent such fraud?

804. StarFuryG7 - May 19, 2010

794. Colonel Kernel
“Oh, I got issues with the timeline, too, but as the supernova seemed to be the biggest issue being discussed at length then that was the bandwagon I jumped on.
As for the amount of thought I’ve put into this, I’m a fan of space science and astronomy, so the issues I mentioned were obvious to me. I only had to look up the specifics.”

“Star Trek” fans are prone to engaging in such contemplation by virtue of the fact that they’re “Star Trek” fans. For us, stuff like that is just “fun” and par for the course – doesn’t everyone do it after all?

We’re a very imaginative group of people generally speaking.

I just found it amusing because I do it too, and with all the fireworks here lately concerning the timeline issues and its potential implications in the film, your post struck me as rather timely and funny.

805. ryanhuyton - May 19, 2010

#798

Star Trek always had instances where science was applied incorrectly. Remember “The Wrath Of Khan”? A Genesis Device that can somehow transform a barren world into a habitable one in mere minutes? Or how about in “Generations”, the Nexus? A rift that had no defineable properties? And it can conjure up anything one imagines? There were also no rules apparently. Or how about episodes like “Spock’s Brain”, “Threshold” and “Genesis”? Episodes like those clearly threw good science out the window.

And the writers for those shows and episodes had science advisors working with them. And those writers did care about scientific accuracy and strived for it whenever they could. But they also knew that rules had to be bent or broken in order to tell a good story. Bob Orci is no different. He wrote the movie in the best possible way as to tell a good, entertaining story. I’m sure he strived for as much scientific accuracy as he could. But at the end of the day, entertainment is job one.

As for Kirk’s promotion, was it quick? Sure. Is it extremely unlikely that such a promotion would occur in real life? Sure. But in the movie, there were still valid reasons for it. Plus, if the writers were to follow conventional storytelling procedures, or even real life logic, we wouldn’t have seen Kirk as captain until at least the second movie. And since this movie was an unknown quantity in regards to how it would be recieved, the writers had to have Kirk as captain at some point in the movie. The movie was a gamble in many ways, so they needed to hedge their bets. Which was the general audience is more familiar with Kirk as captain than with Pike.

806. ChristopherPike - May 19, 2010

I didn’t have much fun watching the last film at all. It only had a passing resemblence to the Star Trek Universe I know and love. While the new casting (with the exception of Simon Pegg) had the right look, I hated how the writers completely failed to stay true to and honour the Original Series’ history. Perhaps feeling it only needed Leonard Nimoy’s presence to placate fans like me and justify the plot. Nero was any number of villains I’d seen before, as was his plan… which in the past, would at least have been thwarted and all of the damage he inflicted reset back to normal. As an original fan myself, Kirk’s revised rebellious and unlikable persona, going straight from cadet to Captain virtually overnight was particularly awful. The film was littered with Star Wars-like moments such as ceremony at the end, when he’s given command of the Enterprise, without really earning it in the way we imagine Shatner’s Kirk had to. That scene only needed a couple of droids and a growling wookie in the background to complete the effect. Even after only one viewing, the film lodged itself in my memory because of all the wholesale changes it made and I really wish I had never, ever seen it. It’s sad, particularly given that it represents the future direction of Star Trek now… but that’s honestly how I feel about it. Leaving the cinema, my reaction was more W-T-F than “that was fun”.

807. Michael Hall - May 19, 2010

” He wrote the movie in the best possible way as to tell a good, entertaining story.”

The “best possible way,” really? You feel you can be absolutely certain of that, given all of the infinite (that is to say, quantum multi universe) possibilities?

808. Colonel Kernel - May 19, 2010

796. P Technobabble

Red Skirt said it best, so I will say it brief.

Your point would be valid if explanations actually required endless, nitpicky discussion to get the point across, but it wouldn’t. In most cases an extra line or two or an insert shot of a graphic tells the audience, knowledgeable or not, what they need to know and then we move on.

In the end, regarding the destruction of Romulus and also Remus at least, a supernova was a poor choice. It just can’t do the kind of damage the filmmakers wanted, but they did it anyway, distorting it out of all probability.

809. ryanhuyton - May 19, 2010

#807

I meant to say Bob wrote the movie in what he thought was the best possible way to tell a good, entertaining story.

As for your theory of infinite posibilities, in some universes, William Shatner was in the movie either because his character wasn’t killed off or he and J.J Abrams agreed to do the cameo. In other universes, Leonard Nimoy died before filming and the movie got remade into something totally different, or was scrapped altogether.In yet another reality, the “Countdown” comic prequel was actually an animated dvd featuring the voices of Brent Spiner, Patrick Stewart, and Leonard Nimoy and was officially part of canon. Other realities had Steven Spielberg direct and George Lucas write the movie. And there could be universes where the Star Trek franchise doesn’t exist at all. ;-)

The point being, IMHO Bob wrote the best movie he could in this situation with what he had to work with.

810. Christine - May 19, 2010

#774 :: Yeah, I’m pretty sure they’re far apart. I’m not sure of the capabilities of the primitive Vulcan/Romulan ships that took the ones who left Vulcan, but I think it took years (or at least months!) to find the Romulan Star System.. It’s quite a ways from Vulcan, Andoria, etc…

There’s probably a map for that on Memory Alpha.

Or even an app.

-shot’d-

811. Red Skirt - May 19, 2010

#805, Star Trek was also full of paper mache rocks and plywood sets. I don’t see modern audiences accepting that however.

Anything in any movie can be justified, especially if it’s ambiguous enough. And if it’s not on screen the fans will fill in the blanks for the writers, as they always have done. That doesn’t make it good.

I’m sure we would all like to believe Bob Orci wrote the best film he could. However, that does not make it above reproach. The President presumably does the best possible job he can given the situation on any given day, but that does not mean he will always make the best decision for everyone, or excuse him from criticism.

As for your failure to grasp that movies do not have to be turned into multi part epics to address some of the criticisms raised on these forums, I direct you to #808, Colonel Kernel’s post. Or simply re-read mine. Oh heck, it takes so little time I’ll repeat a possible solution to the one about Kirk, “SUPER: 4 Years Later”.

812. StarFuryG7 - May 19, 2010

#810. Christine
“Yeah, I’m pretty sure they’re far apart. I’m not sure of the capabilities of the primitive Vulcan/Romulan ships that took the ones who left Vulcan, but I think it took years (or at least months!) to find the Romulan Star System.”

It would have had to take years, if not a decade or more, perhaps even more than one decade, assuming that the ships the Vulcans that split off and became Romulans had was reasonably propulsioned, but of course not at all as sophisticated as what the Vulcans would be using for space travel thousands of years later. In fact, for the Romulans to have undergone physical changes in their characteristics should have only occurred after millions of years rather than thousands, unless there was something in the environment on the planet they migrated to that caused a much quicker change to their physiology. But I digress with this last point –what I’m more interested in making a point of here is that it was plainly obvious in “Balance of Terror” that Spock didn’t even know what a Romulan would like until he saw one on the main viewscreen on the bridge of the Enterprise, which means that even as a space-faring race, the Vulcans and the Romulans hadn’t encountered each other previously for a very, very long time; ergo, Romulus is not close to Vulcan at all. In fact, since there was an earlier war between humanity and the Romulans, Romulus would probably be closer to Earth than to Vulcan.

813. Yammer - May 19, 2010

@757

I am a movie reviewer so, trust me, I know there is a lot of pap out there. But as something of a film buff, I am not inclined to pine for a golden time when “the movies were better.” While many have criticized the emergence of the tentpole/blockbuster starting with Jaws, IMO the good movies are always anomalies, islands in a sea of triteness and conformity. But we forget that because we remember the good ones and forget the ones that were, well, forgettable.

Without myself going into time travel/alternate universe mode, I think it is safe to speculate that future snobs will decry the medicrity of their time compared to the wonders of the early 2000s which enjoyed the cinematic risk-taking of Soderbergh, the Coens, Aronofsky, Haneke, Van Trier, etc., not to mention our unprecedented access to non-English language films.

As for CGI, much of it is awful. Sure. So were a lot of the musical numbers in features of the 60s and 70s, which incidentally give nothing away to today’s trash in terms of violence and misogyny.

814. The Disinvited - May 19, 2010

798. Red Skirt once observed “(I mean who among us can say for sure how a Vulcan/Human mind-meld manifests itself?)”

I believe a certain space probe in ToS that was concerned about things being well-ordered didn’t complain about the experience being too artsy-fartsy. So one can make a reasonable assumption that Spock Prime’s not losing NOMAD’s seal of approval immediately after, must mean that the Vulcan exposition part of a mind-meld must be well-ordered and do we have to say it? Logical – or at least that it is meant to come off seeming that way on the big screen.

815. Christine - May 19, 2010

#812 :: This would usually cue the point where I cry, “IT WAS A CONSPIRACY!” and launch into a Star Trek-related ramble about the complexities of Romulan and Vulcan corrupt governments as seen in Enterprise which would in about three paragraphs lead into something X-Files-related and end with a hypothesis involving the Cigarette Smoking Man and First Contact. And that illogical V’Las guy from “Kir’Shara” (ENT 4×09).

Then again, wasn’t there mention somewhere that there was a Vulcan-Romulan war? Or something? I seem to recall that…

And in the TNG episode “Gambit, Part I” Picard recalls that the soon-to-be-Romulan people departed Vulcan in the 4th century (in Earth years, I assume). As for their physical change… Like you suggested, it could have been something to do with the planet, because evolution as we know it would suggest such a quick change would be highly unlikely.

816. ryanhuyton - May 19, 2010

#811

You do make some good points about criticism. But I still disagree with you regarding the ambiguity of the movie. I just think it happens to be the style favored by Bob. Like letting viewers fill in the blanks. I don’t have a problem with that. But it clearly is something you disagree with. Most of the problems I have with the movie involves the brewery, the silliness of the expanding hands scene and the relatively stereotypical bad guy.

And finally, I shouldn’t have called you a hater. That was totally uncalled for. You are totally entitled to your opinions, even if I strongly disagree with them. I just want to say I’m sorry.

817. moauvian waoul - May 19, 2010

803 There was a only one gunman on the grassy knoll?

Colonel Kernel, I enjoyed your comments concerning the supernova. Interesting.

Yammer, you’re right that there have always been good movies and bad ones but there are trends. And audience expectations change as well affecting what studios will green light. Though these are indeed good times for indie films, other genres aren’t fairing as well

818. ryanhuyton - May 19, 2010

#815

I seem to recall reading an excerpt of the “Enterprise” novel “The Good That Men Do”. In it, it was suggested that some Vulcans had the forehead ridges that Romulans do. Perhaps the early Romulans comprised of mainly bumpy-foreheaded Vulcans along with a few smooth headed ones? Afterall, we’ve seen both smooth and ridged Romulans during the course of Star Trek. Of course, it was mainly the ridged Romulans we saw during the TNG era. And since Spock lived on Romulus without “adopting” the forehead look, and that Nero and his crew had smooth foreheads suggests to me that not all Romulans have bumpy foreheads. During TOS it was the smooth foreheaded Romulans we saw.
I would guess that just like humans don’t have just one skin color, Romulans and posssibly Vulcans have both smooth and ridged foreheads.

819. Harry Ballz - May 19, 2010

803+817

There were at least 3 shooters in Dealey Plaza that fateful day.

820. ryanhuyton - May 19, 2010

#819

What’s Dealey Plaza?

821. Harry Ballz - May 19, 2010

On November 22, 1963 President John F. Kennedy was gunned down in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas.

People assume Oswald acted alone. He didn’t.

822. ryanhuyton - May 19, 2010

ah

823. Colonel Kernel - May 19, 2010

I know people have gone back and forth with their statements regarding the supernova threatening the galaxy part, as was described in the Spock Prime/Kirk mind meld, but now it’s my turn.

Everyone is in agreement that the supernova is scientifically incapable of threatening the entire galaxy. What I reject is the claim that Spock would ever use hyperbole or over exaggeration to drive home a point. Spock had fully merged his Human and Vulcan selves and would fudge numbers as required, true, but given the number of times during TOS that he gave exacting odds of anything being likely, I have to think that he would think hyperbole not only illogical, but stupid.

We must also remember that this is a visual interpretation of a mind meld, which I don’t think we’ve seen even once before. All we know is that a mind meld is what the story resorts to when the truth is needed. Not even Kim Cattrall’s Valeris could hide information she was actively trying to conceal.

So, if we accept what is on screen and that Spock actually thinks that the supernova threatened the galaxy, then we have to conclude that he was not of sound mind.

What I think is more likely is that the writers messed up, not understanding how a Gamma Ray Burst relates to a Supernova. A supernova works much as you’d expect: A big boom with stuff exploding outwards. The Gamma Ray Burst shoots out two enormously powerful gamma ray jets from the top and bottom. If a planet is either too close to the event or in the path of those gamma ray jets, only then are they toast. Be far enough away and not in the line of fire and you’re perfectly fine.

As for references to this, @BobOrci already linked to two of them in posts #592 and #593. Another good source is @PhilPlait’s article right here on TrekMovie.com reviewing the science of the movie (linked to in comment #798 by Red Skirt), where he says this scene “physically pained” him. He, too, thinks it possible that the writers “just screwed up….”

824. ryanhuyton - May 19, 2010

Yeah we’ll never really know all the details.

Like Captain Kirk said in “Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country”

“First rule of assassinations: Kill the assassin.”

And by the way, are you all packed and ready for your trip to Spain?

825. ryanhuyton - May 19, 2010

That last question was directed at Harry

826. Harry Ballz - May 19, 2010

Ryan

not yet. The limo picks me up tomorrow afternoon at 2:30. I fly out at 5:00. I figure I’ll pack in the morning. I’m really looking forward to seeing Spain. Never been there before. If I get any chance to check in with you guys here, I will. Until then……you have the bridge, Mr. Huyton!

827. moauvian waoul - May 19, 2010

823. From what I know your points are valid. At least that is how I understand it.

828. fansince66 - May 20, 2010

#817
ooh goody. Conspiracies. It was a team of professional assassins. Same team that tried to take out degaulle. their paymasters were also responsible for removing adenaur i think (not sure about that one.)
Who were they? Glad you asked.” The Black Nobilty” and their even more powerful “servants”, the int’l financier/cartel syndicate. This is the face of modern EMPIRE. These 3 leaders would have steered the world towards FDR’s vision of developed ,sovereign, nation/states that would form an effective UN of democratic republics, and put EMPIRE out of business completely. This is a CENTURIES OLD WAR between the forces of “we the people” everywhere, and “we the unlawful owner/rulers of the world”.
Hmm #828. Not bad. Maybe we’l make a thousand yet. don’t know if all this is true, but it’s a helluva good story.

829. captain_neill - May 20, 2010

818

Read a theory on a site that the Romulans developed the forehead ridges due to the telpathic that Vulcans have being rejected and not used by Romulans caused it.

Now I don’t recall where I read this.

This might sound odd given my gripes but I do have the urge to watch Star Trek XI again.

830. moauvian waoul - May 20, 2010

828 indeed

831. P Technobabble - May 20, 2010

808. Colonel

“… Your point would be valid if explanations actually required endless, nitpicky discussion to get the point across, but it wouldn’t. In most cases an extra line or two or an insert shot of a graphic tells the audience, knowledgeable or not, what they need to know and then we move on…”

My question here would be, “And who, precisely, needed to be told this? Who was it that needed that extra line or two, or insert, in order to know something?” When we say things like “this would have told the audience…” which audience is being referred to? It seems to me that most people knew what was going on, pretty much.
As to whether or not the science portrayed in the film was inaccurate, or not, it could be argued that we don’t know or understand everything. If we did, we wouldn’t need to do science.

832. StarFuryG7 - May 20, 2010

829. captain_neill
“Read a theory on a site that the Romulans developed the forehead ridges due to the telpathic [abilities] that Vulcans have being rejected and not used by Romulans caused it.”

It’s interesting that Romulans don’t have the forehead ridges until TNG, and they’re not even present on the Romulan Ambassador in “ST VI: TUC”; it really was as though the people who produced that movie either didn’t know about the ridges, or knew about them and didn’t care and chose to reject using them altogether on the Romulan seen in the film, perhaps because they knew they didn’t have them in TOS. In my opinion it was an example of pure laziness though most probably and their not knowing facts about what was going on in the franchise on the television shows still in production at that point.

And we know from “The Enterprise Incident” that the physiological difference between Vulcans and Romulans is barely detectable. TNG appears to contradict that though given the way the Romulans look alone, since there is a noticeable physical difference between the two races.

833. StarFuryG7 - May 20, 2010

798. Red Skirt
“But again, we already know why the filmmakers chose not to explicitly state what was going on in the film, and it had nothing to do with spoon-feeding anyone, but everything to do with being able to interpret the film in two different ways.”

And there are fans that view that is duplicitous, devious and sneaky, since they could have been more direct about it and what was really supposed to be going on in the film obviously rather than trying to play both ends against the middle like that.

I’m reminded of a moment from back when I was a kid and my class was about to take a test, and the teacher drew a figure on the chalkboard that was a clear combination of both the letters “T” and “F” combined as a single character and warned, “And if any of you give me a symbol like this on the True and False section of the test, don’t think you’re going to get away with it, because that’s like telling me, ‘Yeah, okay–whatever you want it to be!’ and it will be marked WRONG!”

Swear to God, that really happened, and it’s kind of ironic that I find myself thinking about that particular incident when thinking about how the timeline/alt. universe aspect of the story was deliberately skirted in the film.

That sounds hard on them as writers, I know, but a year later, there is still controversy in certain corners of the fandom about what really was or wasn’t going on in the film, and that could have all been avoided obviously.

834. Red Skirt - May 20, 2010

#831. “My question here would be, “And who, precisely, needed to be told this? Who was it that needed that extra line or two, or insert, in order to know something?” When we say things like “this would have told the audience…” which audience is being referred to? It seems to me that most people knew what was going on, pretty much.”

P Technobabble, when you can prove that any random person who walks out of the theatre, having never read a single thing about Star Trek, can tell you without hesitation that the the movie took place in an alternate parallel universe that co-exists in the same space time as out own thus eliminating the grandfather paradox, then your assumptions will have some merit. Otherwise, the intent the writers have been smashing us over the head with on these forums, is not clear in the movie (as was their stated intention).

Case in point, As I left the theater after my first screening of Star Trek, I hear not one, but at least a dozen comments about how Kirk was unrealistically promoted to Captain from the exiting crowd. Many of these comments were from the same people who were talking about how much they liked the movie and weren’t expecting to like Star Trek so much. And surprise, surprise I come to this forum and find many who loved the film otherwise complaining about that little detail.

It seems to me, the only “audience” who do not have a problem with many of these things, are the hard core fans who were “spoon-fed” some of the answers by the writers here on these very forums, some 6 months before the film premiered, and have continued with the rest of the answers since.

“As to whether or not the science portrayed in the film was inaccurate, or not, it could be argued that we don’t know or understand everything. If we did, we wouldn’t need to do science.”

Anything can be argued in a film, particularly one of fantasy or sci-fi. However, in a franchise which has been cited as responsible for the inspiration of many of our scientists, and development of our current technologies, do we really want to play fast and loose with our basic understanding of science? Do we really want kids to walk away with a fundamental mis-understanding of known science? When Kirk fell off the side of Yosemite’s Half Dome in Star Trek V and Spock had not been there to catch, him, would you have thought it believable had he survived the fall? Yes I know stranger things have happened, but without an explanation or comment, wouldn’t it violate all the laws of physics you know and strike you as ood? In the case of the Supernova, which few average movie goers are going to know anything about, they’ve now actually taught incorrect science to the uninformed.

Actually, I wouldn’t have a problem with how ambiguous the film is, or the perceived science faux pas (as many films open themselves up for intentional interpretation to spur audience dialogue), if it weren’t for one thing:

Bob Orci has been here since before the film opened trying to force the correct interpretation. If he meant it to be intentionally ambiguous, then why come here and try to force a “correct” perspective?

I’m reminded of the controversy over the ending of the Sopranos. There are those who think the ending was metaphorical and Tony Soprano is alive and well. There are those who think Tony got whacked. There is no concrete proof anywhere in the series to prove it one way or the other and David Chase, being the class act that he is, makes no apologies for it, refuses to explain it further, validates that audiences can view it anyway they like as there are no right or wrong answers. That does not stop the fans from fighting over it with the same level of vitriol that goes on around here. However, the writers have had the decency to stay out of it.

Orci has tainted his purposeful duality by insisting there is only one correct interpretation, which carries an inference that if the audience doesn’t glean it, they are lazy or less intelligent. And some “superiors” here on this forum unabashedly drive home that aspect. But, as many have pointed out, there are no unambiguous clues. The Sopranos controversy demonstrates exactly the same arguments, depending on which answer you side with, there is ample evidence within the series to infer it as correct, but all of it requires some “reaching” and inferences of it’s own. Unlike Chase, Orci’s actions seem to be hinting that he never agreed agreed to the dual perceptions imbued within as he goes out of his way to tell us exactly what “his” film was about.

And that brings me to my final conclusion. A film either has a point or it doesn’t. If the filmmakers had taken a firm stand and wanted to show an alternate parallel universe, or Kirk being realistically promoted, they could have done so very easily without extending the film another hour as many have suggested, or even slowed it down appreciably. In fact, I think audiences would have found the explanation of an alternate universe interesting and exciting, so who knows exactly why they decided not to explicitly present it. But it appears as though the point of view the movie chose was the same as the Sopranos, to be intentionally ambiguous, to present at least two major ways of viewing the film. However, unlike the Sopranos, Bob seems to have broken ranks to tell us, while officially that’s what they did, it isn’t the story he wrote. At the end of the day in his story, “Tony Soprano got shot”. So unless you agree with the intentionally vague symbols he’s penciled in on his roadmap, then what other conclusion can one have but that you’re not as smart as the writers? So far, no one has presented concrete proof of the inferences from anything in the film that point exclusively to Orci’s conclusion, no matter how blustering anyone’s filibuster in favor of it. When the Pope tells you what the cryptic references in the bible mean, who can argue with him, unless of course you’re not Catholic (or at least not a good one).

And here’s the real rub, for all of you who think debating these details is blasphemous: I liked the film for what it was. It was fun, it was entertaining and killed the better part of two hours in a good way. And guess what, I HATED the way the Sopranos ended, but I also loved the series and still do. And I respect the hell out of David Chase for not giving in to peer pressure and admitting which interpretation he intended, if indeed he had one.

But wow, according to some of you, I must really be screwed up if I can both like and criticize something at the same time. Because people like that evidently don’t exist in reality.

835. The Disinvited - May 20, 2010

#811. Red Skirt on May 19, 2010 observed ” #805, Star Trek was also full of paper mache rocks and plywood sets. I don’t see modern audiences accepting that however.”

They do in other venues such as stage shows – as I am sure you are well aware. Heck, for all the yazz pizzaz in films and other media for relating narratives, none of them are able to offer anything tangible to their audiences (Except possibly stage shows that spill off the stage and into the audience but even at that, the vast majority of the audience fail to get a chance to experience that tangibility.) – which is what the character Picard was reflecting about in FIRST CONTACT on what humans need for something to actually seem “real”.

836. StarFuryG7 - May 20, 2010

#835
Yeah, but the reality is that in today’s society, with a generation that has been brought up seeing ever-improving quality special effects that have become more and more realistic looking with the passage of time, TOS was clearly outdated, and that’s why it both needed and got a facelift finally. I’ve literally run into younger people who have told me that they like the later Trek shows like “Voyager” more than TOS because they can’t deal with the outdated special effects and sets in TOS, yet “Voyager” was a horrible show, and clearly the stories and writing in TOS was much better. So there’s a group of people out there whose visual focus distracts them from the writing quality because they literally can’t look passed what’s in front of their eyes. It’s a shame, but it’s also the world we live in now unfortunately.

837. Trek Lady - May 20, 2010

836
“So there’s a group of people out there whose visual focus distracts them from the writing quality because they literally can’t look passed what’s in front of their eyes. ”

On the other hand, there are also a lot of young people who saw Trek 2009, loved it and have gone on to fall in love with TOS. Perhaps they are better able to see beyond the visuals to what actually matters – good story telling.

838. The Disinvited - May 20, 2010

#836.

I know to what you refer but I have also met other young ones who dug it as it was and suspect that those you mention have the breadth of their entertainment experience limited to television and/or the computer monitor.

On the other hand the self-same people that you refer tend to slam TMP without ever seen it in its 70mm practically visually wrap around 6-track Dolby form so there has to be more to their discontent than just SFX?

Maybe my perspective is influenced by the fact that I have actually hand developed 35mm film and prints, but a large part of what I see on disc is unrecognizable as such. 2009’s ST was constructed on 35mm film on purpose. Grain is not some flaw that needs to be washed out – its part of the texture of that which is film. DNR produces an image far too sterile for my tastes with regards to translating a literal “film” to disc or to even a theater’s digital projector. And yet those same people to which you refer will moan that the xfer is “inferior” if they sense grain in spite of the fact that removing it is actually lowering the resolution, i.e. lessening the high in high definition.

I suppose, as in all art, there’s no accounting for tastes?

839. Yammer - May 20, 2010

834

You saw the film right?

On the bridge, Uhura says… “an alternate universe…”

Spock confirms this and adds something to the effect that whatever we would have been has been altered by the Narada’s trip through the black hole.

What else could one possibly need to have further explained?

The line’s in there SPECIFICALLY FOR US.

840. Christine - May 20, 2010

#837 :: THANK YOU! Finally! Someone who can get the point across when I can’t because I possess an inadequate vocabulary!

Wonderfully stated.

841. Colonel Kernel - May 20, 2010

831. P Technobabble

What a silly statement. The audience is anyone and everyone who will ever watch the film, including both you and I.

Your contention in #796 was that it would take too long to explain things “properly” and I will again tell you that you are wrong. Most of the audience never knew that anything was wrong and no one expected them to. My issue is that those who did know that something was very wrong were ripped out of the story for no good reason. A couple extra lines and EVERYONE is happy.

The most educated amongst us will gleefully admit that we “don’t know or understand everything” but we do know the basics about supernovae and ST 09 got it completely wrong. Similarly, you no longer see Venus depicted as a tropical paradise populated with Amazon women and dinosaurs because we know the truth.

842. StarFuryG7 - May 20, 2010

839. Yammer – May 20, 2010
“On the bridge, Uhura says… ‘an alternate universe…’ ”

Uhura said “alternate reality,” and a reality can be changed in a given universe so that virtually everything in it is different even though it’s the same universe, albeit altered. That’s why having to correct time changes in TOS and the accompanying prime universe (that later followed in MT) always had to be corrected in order for history to resume its original intended shape and context.

I hate to have to refer back to “City on the Edge” as an example yet again after all the fireworks here earlier in the week, but in it history was significantly altered by McCoy going back in time even though the change in the timeline occurred in the same (prime) universe, which is why the timeline needed to be corrected by Kirk and Spock.

843. Red Skirt - May 20, 2010

#839, sigh, you’ve been reading the debate here right?

Actually Yammer, Uhura says “alternate REALITY”, and the line is in there specifically for the characters who don’t know what the hell is going on.

But the debate is over what the definition of that line is. Are they talking about overwriting a timeline where young and old Spock are the same person, or an alternate universe where young Spock is merely a copy of old Spock?

No where in the film is it clarified. Only more inferences from more intentionally ambiguous lines which are there mainly for the characters to better understand their situations, whether the audience goes along for the ride or not.

I have no interest in debating this particular argument. Others have hammered it into the ground, if you’ve been following. I am satisfied there is no correct answer. Either way, it does not change a single point I made above.

844. StarFuryG7 - May 20, 2010

806. ChristopherPike
“I didn’t have much fun watching the last film at all. It only had a passing resemblence to the Star Trek Universe I know and love. While the new casting (with the exception of Simon Pegg) had the right look, I hated how the writers completely failed to stay true to and honour the Original Series’ history.”

You are not alone even though you may well have felt that way over the course of the last year since the movie first came out in theaters, but there are other TOS loyalists out there who had a very similar reaction, myself included to a degree, but I was also very cognizant of what they were trying to do, so to have seen a prequel produced today as opposed to how it would have looked when Roddenberry was still alive, say, thirty-five years or so ago, just wasn’t going to happen in 2007 and 2008 when the movie was being produced. It was put together by a different generation of writers and filmmakers, who are younger and wanted to give it a different spin –that’s also what the Studio wanted, and so it was what they were commissioned to do.

I guess that’s why it’s not such a tragedy to look at the events in ST09 as taking place in a different, alternative universe, but one shouldn’t have to read between the lines in order to make it fit that way IMO.

845. Red Skirt - May 20, 2010

#841, But Colonel Kernel, the moon is still made of green cheese! Since we never went to the moon in the first place, it’s all part of a huge government coverup to prevent a bailout of the cheese industry.

846. P Technobabble - May 20, 2010

834. Red
I understand where you’re coming from, but, honestly, I think you (and some others) are making way too much of this.

“…when you can prove that any random person who walks out of the theatre, having never read a single thing about Star Trek, can tell you without hesitation that the the movie took place in an alternate parallel universe that co-exists in the same space time as our own thus eliminating the grandfather paradox, then your assumptions will have some merit…”

Well, this is a tough one to prove, isn’t it? I’ll take your word about the dozen or so people you mentioned, but, take my word, there are people I know (my non-Trekkie/non-sci-fi girlfriend, for one) who tell me they understood what was taking place in the film just fine, without getting into all that “grandfather stuff.” I can’t prove that, of course, but I swear it’s true.

“…the intent the writers have been smashing us over the head with on these forums, is not clear in the movie (as was their stated intention)…”

Does the audience even need to know what the writer’s intention was? Every author is attempting to manipulate the audience, otherwise he/she may as well simply write non-fiction. If I’m writing something, it is my prerogative to intend whatever I want, say whatever I want, to tell whatever kind of story I want. If someone doesn’t get it, they are free to get — or not get — whatever they want. Stanley Kubrick was also deliberately ambiguous with 2001, fully expecting it to be interpreted differently from viewer to viewer, but he and Arthur Clarke knew exactly what they were writing about. Ambiguity is a tool of many writers and film-makers, in fact. If Orci deliberately wanted to be ambiguous, I see that as his prerogative. I do not see it to mean he was being ignorant of the audience, nor antagonistic toward us. And for him to join these forums to tell us things from his point of view does not, IMO, undermine the results we see in the film.

“…Do we really want kids to walk away with a fundamental misunderstanding of known science?”

Heavy responsibility for a sci-fi film, isn’t it? Fiction is, inherently, non-fiction, and sci-fi writers, in particular, have always taken liberties with the science anyway. In Back To The Future, using an often mentioned film here, 1.21 giga-watts of power channeled into the “flux capacitor” powering a modified Delorean as a time machine has no more basis in scientific fact than transwarp beaming, or any number of other Trek-ian scientific speculations. Sci-fi is for entertainment, more than anything else. I never tuned in to Star Trek (or any other sci-fi show) for a lesson in astronomy, physics, exobiology, or anything else, and I honestly don’t think too many people ever did (though I can’t prove that either).

“…Bob Orci has been here since before the film opened trying to force the correct interpretation. If he meant it to be intentionally ambiguous, then why come here and try to force a “correct” perspective?”

I don’t see it this way, at all. I think all Mr. Orci has ever done is explain what — and to some degree, why — they wrote what they wrote, or wrote something the way they did, based on their information, knowledge and experience as writers. I would never presume to speak for the man, but it seems to me everything he said was based on his own personal, subjective point of view. I don’t think he’s ever tried to “force” anyone to think anything… that’s a rather strong word. Again, as the author, he is entitled to perceive and write from whatever perspective he adopts while creating his work, just as every author, artist, musician, film-maker, etc. does. In addition, the movie was a collaborative effort, and Bob seems to be the one who’s head is on the chopping block. I don’t assume to know that Alex Kurtzman or Damon Lindelof would say exactly the same things as Bob, and it would be interesting to hear their take on all of this. I have no idea if they’ve been here or not.

I can’t say too much about The Sopranos. I’ve never watched the show, but I’ve heard of it, and heard about the controversial ending.

“…So unless you agree with the intentionally vague symbols he’s penciled in on his roadmap, then what other conclusion can one have but that you’re not as smart as the writers? ”

We’ve had this discussion before, when I proposed some of the critics here could be accused of implying those of us who liked the movie weren’t smart enough to dislike it (or be critical of it). And you suggested the very opposite was true. And I agreed with you. It’s one thing for the audience to be debating about the rights and wrongs of a film, yet the author is apart from us, not part of us. We are not collaborators. If Bob Orci offers to tell us what he thinks, what his point of view is AS THE AUTHOR, I think he is entitled to tell us whatever he wants — maybe there’s stuff he doesn’t want to tell us. And if anyone here wants to keep after him over a particular issue, I’d say it’s only out of respect for Trekkies that Bob even bothers to answer. He doesn’t have to tell us squat, he doesn’t owe us anything. Perhaps some people wish he had never said anything…

“…But wow, according to some of you, I must really be screwed up if I can both like and criticize something at the same time. Because people like that evidently don’t exist in reality.”

I’d say the percentage of people here who would say you are screwed up because you like and criticize the film at the same time is even less than the 3% who criticize the film, in general. I think it is completely possible and acceptable to like something and still be critical of it. TSFS is one of my favorite Trek films, but there are lots of things I had to say about that film. Again, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a matter of whether or not those “flaws” OUTWEIGH THE ABILITY to enjoy the film. One doesn’t HAVE to be critical, anyway, right? In the end, I like TSFS and don’t care about the stuff that didn’t wash. For some here, the things they feel didn’t wash in Trek09 makes them say, “The film was a disappointment,” and other such things. Que sera…
Red, it’s okay with me if you (or any others) find things to criticize. We could, no doubt, go through all of this kind of back and forth with any film, really (and might be here in 2012 doing the same thing). Star Trek tends to bring out an obsessive aspect of our character. Trekkies, as a whole, have always been both loving and critical of Star Trek. That’s what makes us Trekkies, eh?

847. Red Skirt - May 20, 2010

#837, Trek Lady, I agree with Christine. Well said.

But StarFuryG7 is not wrong. There’s something to be said for Kitsch with today’s youth and the original series is loaded with it by today’s standards. It’s loveably retro. However, what I think it takes to get people to pay attention to something that old is for it to become popular. That’s what a state of the art sci-fi action film did for Star Trek, it made it cool and dare I say, sexy.

Take the vocoder for instance … pop music lis laced with it now, all the major dance and r&b artists use it. But I remember growing up listening to my dad’s records from the 70s and wondering, WTF? In the last 5 years, some cool rapper discovered it and now it’s mainstream again, regardless of how cheesy and dated it is.

The original Star Trek is much more sophisticated than some musical gimmick, but I wouldn’t immediately jump to the conclusion that these kids are responding to the brilliant writing. I mean if that’s the criteria and they started with Spock’s Brain, then all bets are off. More likely they are responding to the dynamic personalties that Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley brought to the screen and the imaginative plots that the series crafted, some of which still push the bounds of one’s imagination. But mostly I think it’s the kitsch-cool appeal that keeps their attention and the fact it’s the original of what has turned out to be a very cool Summer movie. Someone really should do a study though. I would love to know.

848. P Technobabble - May 20, 2010

841. Colonel

I saw the movie and never felt I needed any extra lines of explanation, so I wondered who all this need for explanation applies to? I think it is simply a presumption to think “the audience” needs more than what’s there, but that’s just me. (In fact, I only see certain people here making the same criticisms again and again). I’m already happy with the film, and I’m not really concerned if “everyone is happy” (why would I be?). If you disagree (which you obviously do), that is fine. I came out of the movie feeling satisfied, and I wasn’t complaining about the science, the promotion of Kirk, or any other issue. Again, that’s just me, in my own little world. Period. I’m not saying that others have no right to complain… I just don’t see the point of it, really, especially when it’s taken rather seriously. It’s certainly not going to change the film, it just gives people another way to play tennis. I admit, I’m not a very good tennis player, but I do enjoy the game.

849. Red Skirt - May 20, 2010

#846, perhaps “force” is too strong a word. That’s more the strong-armed tactics of his disciples. The self-appointed inquisitors who seem bent on torturing the heretics into line. As for your 3% reference, I don’t even think it’s that as I alluded to in my post at #803.

But he has certainly been emphatic about his intent: Boborci #370 “events and reactions in the movie cannot be reconciled with any logic other than MWI.” And that’s one of the mildest statements he’s made about it.

I don’t know what Kubrick and Clarke said about 2001. I had read the book before I saw it and so had a better grasp of what was on-screen. And with regard to science, we’re really not talking about Back To The Future, or previous Star Treks, but rather this movie which is being written by smart guys, claiming to be writing it smartly. Orci’s comments on Fringe about having a whole staff of consultants and advisors would appear to be demonstrative of the care they take with science … indeed his professed research into MWI underlies that intention. But it is Bob’s professed fan status which has the most profound impact for me.

As a fan, Bob knows the inherent flaws of Star Trek, and was in a position to fix them. Indeed from his comments back in December, he sounded like they were all going to give it exactly that kind of attention to detail considering the emphasis he was giving the science of MWI on which the film was to be based. Ultimately I don’t think we got it. Can’t necessarily say whose fault it was. I don’t entirely blame the writer as Bob was but a voice in the triumvirate. If Abrams decided he wanted an explosion after the fact, then they had to figure out how to make it work within the context of what had been shot. I get all that.

What I don’t get is the “have your cake and eat it too” position where the film is intentionally ambiguous to please everyone, but there is still only one correct way to understand it, when the “clues” alluded to are ambiguous at best.

But none of this gave me pause for one minute while I was enjoying the ride, no more than I think about what color the seat cushions are I’m sitting on when I’m doing a 360 degree loop on a roller coaster. And I don’t regret spending the money. Look how much entertainment I have gotten from that experience just by posting on this forum. ;-)

850. dmduncan - May 20, 2010

If you look at scenes a, b, c, the movie reads one way.

But if you look at scenes a, b, c, d, then it reads a totally different (opposite even!) way due to the inclusion of scene d which alters the meaning of the previous scenes.

You can read something any way you want depending on what you actually look at. You can ignore certain words in a written paragraph also, and completely change it’s meaning, and then argue that THAT is what it means, or that the paragraph was ambiguous to you, when the truth is it reads the way you interpret because you are selective about what you remember and understand.

In acrimonious political discourse this passes for normal activity.

So when people start talking about the “correct” way to look at ST.09, also notice that “correct” is THEIR straw man word. If you cared about presenting others views accurately, you would say that explanation A is a comprehensive explanation that covers the entire plot, and explanation B is NOT a comprehensive explanation that actually requires you to IGNORE (confirmation bias anyone?) certain elements for that explanation to make sense.

But it’s a lot easier to dumb down the argument by portraying the options as either “correct” or “incorrect,” and then to beat the hell out of that Straw Man instead.

And some of us will complain in one breath about movies that pander, and in another breath that something wasn’t spelled out enough. Ha!

You think MWI wasn’t in ST.09 because it wasn’t mentioned by name? Where was “prime timeline” mentioned by name? Where was “overwriting the past” mentioned by name? Nowhere, that’s where. And yet the absence of those keywords hasn’t stopped some people from assuming that’s what was happening.

No, the explicit “evidence” has to be there in the form of words directly naming the theory ONLY when the theory is NOT the one they think it is. They have no problem making assumptions and filling in the blanks when the blanks are filled in with what they want to see; no, they only have disputes and problems when the evidence suggests something else.

But now WHY would anyone think that what we saw in ST.09 was traditional TOS time travel at all?

That’s not hard to figure: Because it’s what we are used to.

But simply because that’s how it was done before isn’t enough to assume that’s how it was also done in ST.09. ST.09, after all, was made by an entirely new group of people, except for Leonard Nimoy.

But more importantly, the assumption that it was kin to previous Trek time travel means that you are bringing your previous knowledge of Trek with you to the theater to understand what you think is going on in THIS movie.

But wait a minute, that’s EXACTLY what I’M doing too with regard to MWI and ST.09’s mention of “paradoxes.”

Is the argument now going to be that ST.09 can only reference previous Trek, thereby forbidding the inclusion of any new scientific knowledge or plot devices into new Star Trek?

And if you make that argument are you also going to make it worse by suggesting that any resemblance between ideas in new Star Trek to scientific theories or ideas never before depicted in Trek should be IGNORED as mere coincidences?

851. StarFuryG7 - May 20, 2010

846. P Technobabble
“Well, this is a tough one to prove, isn’t it? I’ll take your word about the dozen or so people you mentioned, but, take my word, there are people I know (my non-Trekkie/non-sci-fi girlfriend, for one) who tell me they understood what was taking place in the film just fine, without getting into all that ‘grandfather stuff.’ I can’t prove that, of course, but I swear it’s true.”

I don’t know about Red, but I’ll take your word for it — I think it’s also safe to assume however that your “non-Trek/non-sci-fi girlfriend” doesn’t have the investment in “Star Trek” that you and other fans of the franchise have though obviously. So it’s really easy for her to say, “Yeah, I got it,” without knowing anything else really about anything that had gone on in Trek previously. To her, whether it’s rewriting the old timeline, or establishing a completely new one in an alternate universe is basically irrelevant, as she couldn’t care less really one way or the other.

“Does the audience even need to know what the writer’s intention was?”

Are you a fan of “Twin Peaks”? I’m not. Have you ever looked at a foreign film and then asked yourself, “What the heck was that all even about, and why did I waste my time on it?”

That’s the reason why an audience knowing what a writer’s intent was is relevant obviously.

“Every author is attempting to manipulate the audience”

True, but the vast majority of the time you walk away with a clear understanding of what happened in the film or episode you just watched.

“If I’m writing something, it is my prerogative to intend whatever I want, say whatever I want, to tell whatever kind of story I want. If someone doesn’t get it, they are free to get — or not get — whatever they want.”

In that case, you’ve asked for the criticism you get then if your intent was to be ambiguous and less than clear. No one is saying you can’t, or that writers shouldn’t experiment — that’s part of what keeps film as a medium interesting obviously. But when it comes to a long established franchise that has otherwise for the most part had a history of clarity and conciseness, being less than clear in a reboot of that franchise, especially the Trek franchise, probably wasn’t the best of choices. At least not from where I’m sitting anyway. Bob has discussed the MWI aspect of the movie in interviews going back to before the film was even released. Well, I know and have talked to people who don’t really care what it is that he’s said outside of the film –their focus is on what actually happens and is said IN the film, and they choose to ignore his interview comments in various publications as having little to no relevance, because in their view it’s not canon. What happens in the film itself on the other hand is canon obviously.

“Stanley Kubrick was also deliberately ambiguous with 2001, fully expecting it to be interpreted differently from viewer to viewer, but he and Arthur Clarke knew exactly what they were writing about. Ambiguity is a tool of many writers and film-makers, in fact.”

That’s true, but in this day and age, most people that have followed the genesis of “2001” through the last four decades now understand what the intent was. The sequel “2010” also helped somewhat in their being able to interpret the first film. Also, I’ve actually read the novel, and so I understand it better than the average person who just watches it cold. And the novel with respect to intent paints a much clearer picture as to what was supposed to be going on in the first film. I have no idea what the novel of ST09 conveys, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t as good the novel for “2001” and isn’t as clear by comparison.

“If Orci deliberately wanted to be ambiguous, I see that as his prerogative.”

Dude, that’s fine, especially if you don’t have a problem with it. Cool. That’s of no consequence and therefore not an issue to you then obviously. I get it. Other people on the other hand feel differently however. And I fail to understand why people who are content with the film and what Orci has said outside of it don’t get why other people who looked at it would be annoyed and find themselves thinking and saying “Well, if MWI is really an issue for the film and what’s supposed to be taking place in it, why wasn’t it at least mentioned in the movie?”

“I do not see it to mean he was being ignorant of the audience, nor antagonistic toward us.”

On the contrary –I think it’s what I alluded to earlier on Thursday …that he and his co-writer CHOSE _to play both ends against the middle_. They actually wanted it to be two things at once: set in the prime universe without being set in the prime universe basically, hence the controversy, and why some people are miffed about it, because it’s as plain as day what was going on with respect to the dual theme approach that was used for the film.

“And for him to join these forums to tell us things from his point of view does not, IMO, undermine the results we see in the film.”

The results are open to question though, and that’s the issue. I commend him for taking his time to mingle with we great unwashed, so to speak, but I also suspect that it points to being a lot like the rest of us here who enjoy digging in and talking about this kind of stuff.

“In addition, the movie was a collaborative effort, and Bob seems to be the one who’s head is on the chopping block.”

LOL — I’ve seen Abrams take an awful lot of heat for the film by fans who weren’t thrilled by the results or how the film was constructed. But Bob is also the one who has been willing to put himself out there for interviews and in places like this, so naturally it may strike you that he’s getting more heat than the others. He’s a big boy though –successful and very rich from his work. He doesn’t need you feeling sorry for him on that point, trust me.

“I can’t say too much about The Sopranos. I’ve never watched the show, but I’ve heard of it, and heard about the controversial ending.”

In some way I liked Red using it as an example, but in another sense I didn’t feel it applied totally, because the ending she was alluding to previously was just that –the way the series ended. There was a big firestorm over it to, with one guy having been cited specifically as having called HBO up to complain by saying that he pays every month as a subscriber to the station, and that in doing so he wants THE WHOLE STORY and not a story without an ending. What was done in ST09 was an aspect of the plot however and wasn’t so much about how it ended in contrast.

“If Bob Orci offers to tell us what he thinks, what his point of view is AS THE AUTHOR, I think he is entitled to tell us whatever he wants — maybe there’s stuff he doesn’t want to tell us. And if anyone here wants to keep after him over a particular issue, I’d say it’s only out of respect for Trekkies that Bob even bothers to answer. He doesn’t have to tell us squat, he doesn’t owe us anything. Perhaps some people wish he had never said anything…”

On the contrary, as the film itself is what leads to the question as to whether it’s the original timeline being rewritten or actually something else that was happening in it. But as I said, I commend him for making the effort to interact with us fans, which he doesn’t have to do obviously. However, in a sense, he does owe us something as fans, since we’re the ones buying the tickets, and when an audience becomes less than thrilled with a particular property, they make that displeasure known by voting with their wallets and purses. That’s why “Nemesis” turned out to be such a colossal bomb: it was the fan base registering a ‘no confidence’ vote to the powers that be over there at Paramount Studios.

“I’d say the percentage of people here who would say you are screwed up because you like and criticize the film at the same time is even less than the 3% who criticize the film, in general.”

Does that somehow invalidate her opinion and render it irrelevant supposedly? Is she not supposed to say what’s on her mind and what she thinks?

It is rather interesting that you’re making the case that Bob can say whatever he wants, but she as a fan who bought a ticket to see the film and may well have purchased it on DVD or Blu-ray should be the one to keep her trap shut supposedly.

“I think it is completely possible and acceptable to like something and still be critical of it.”

So does she apparently.

“Star Trek tends to bring out an obsessive aspect of our character. Trekkies, as a whole, have always been both loving and critical of Star Trek. That’s what makes us Trekkies, eh?”

Precisely, but it seems as though you wish she would just be quiet.

852. StarFuryG7 - May 20, 2010

848. P Technobabble
“I saw the movie and never felt I needed any extra lines of explanation, so I wondered who all this need for explanation applies to?”

Devoted fans of the franchise who don’t like the idea of all that was established previously being simply overwritten by one movie as though none of it really matters.

Doesn’t the prospect of your having been a fan of the original series and movies that followed for all these years bother you if the last movie renders it all moot and as having never happened in essence?

I never watched “Dallas”, but I know that people were annoyed when a full season of the show was rendered moot by the end by having it all turn out to be a dream. The audience felt underappreciated and as though they had been taken for a ride by the writers of that series.

To an extent, the same thing applies here, because the lack of clarity has obvious implications, or at the very least, very real potential implications for TOS and the TOS-related movies that followed.

“I’m not saying that others have no right to complain… I just don’t see the point of it, really, especially when it’s taken rather seriously. It’s certainly not going to change the film”

No, that’s true –it won’t. But a clear indication can be given in the sequel that would put the matter to rest once and for all. In fact, even if they wanted to skirt it again by not giving a totally clear answer, but enough of one that would satisfy people like me who are annoyed by this aspect of the movie–that can also indeed be provided in the sequel very easily. I can suggest such a scenario, but I’m not sure if I should frankly. I don’t know if it would be considered appropriate or not, so I’m reluctant to do so.

853. Zane - May 20, 2010

Overall I thought it was a pretty good movie, it’s definitely not my favorite Trek movie, but it is up there.

First Contact and Wrath of Khan still hold top spots for me with Insurrection just barely beating out this one just because I like the Next Gen crew more than the original series one.

Still there were a few things about the movie that I had issues with such as the fact that by stating that only a few Vulcans were left (the destruction of Vulcan was something it took me a while to accept) it implies that there were no Vulcan colonies other than Vulcan which seems bizarre considering the Vulcans had warp drive for hundreds of years before humans.

The Red Matter wasn’t explained at all, and seems to be very illogical (something that a drop of which causes a black hole, but can still be safely contained in massive quantities).

Also the premise of a supernova in a completely different star system destroying Romulus stretched my suspension of disbelief a bit too far. (And I did read the Countdown comic series and their explanation of why it happened still is too far outside of anything that could actually happen in reality.)

854. StarFuryG7 - May 20, 2010

849. Red Skirt
“But he has certainly been emphatic about his intent: Boborci #370 “events and reactions in the movie cannot be reconciled with any logic other than MWI.” And that’s one of the mildest statements he’s made about it.”

I think it’s also worth pointing out that Bob used the word “reconciled” there, not “interpreted.” The former means to seek agreement and harmony, but it doesn’t automatically equate to initially interpreting something along harmonious lines with something else.

“I don’t know what Kubrick and Clarke said about 2001. I had read the book before I saw it and so had a better grasp of what was on-screen.”

Wow –that’s wild …although I read the novel after seeing the film, looking for the intended meaning and seeing how much of it I had interpreted accurately.

“What I don’t get is the “have your cake and eat it too” position where the film is intentionally ambiguous to please everyone, but there is still only one correct way to understand it, when the “clues” alluded to are ambiguous at best.”

Exactly –in other words, not one clear way of interpreting it therefore obviously.

Look, I’m not out to pour gasoline on a fire that’s almost gone out, but that’s really the bottom line. I had asked for clear, definitive proof, and ultimately, it couldn’t be provided. It comes down to that.

855. Red Skirt - May 20, 2010

#848, “I’m not saying that others have no right to complain… I just don’t see the point of it, really, especially when it’s taken rather seriously. It’s certainly not going to change the film, it just gives people another way to play tennis.”

P Technobabble, criticizing something is not always a futile or frivolous endeavor. Sometimes, it helps improve the product, even if the product was already arguably good.

Somebody bought a car once without a cup holder and they complained it should have had one. The next thing you know, the new car they liked had a cup holder. Now a cup holder is not a very serious thing is it? You can certainly do everything you need a car to do without one. But by golly, somebody complained and they got a cup holder. Maybe you don’t use cup holders, but nevertheless it improved the experience for somebody, without causing you and distress.

If some fans would like a smarter movie, how else do you think they are going to make their desires known? Whether or not they get one is really unimportant. What’s more important to me is whether it would bother you if the movie was a little smarter, and if so why?

“In fact, I only see certain people here making the same criticisms again and again). I’m already happy with the film, and I’m not really concerned if “everyone is happy””

And I only see certain people attacking those certain people. Again and again. But honestly, that’s a generalization. I see new input from both sides all the time. I think I even pointed out earlier in my brief time here, I had never seen StarFuryG7 post once before this thread.

But ultimately it is your last sentence which gives me pause, where you say, (paraphrasing) I’m already happy with the film, why would I be concerned if everyone is happy?

Seems to me that’s the message of Star Trek, to find a way for everyone to live in harmony. It’s pretty selfish to simply not care as long as it doesn’t affect you. Yet here you are telling us we shouldn’t care either.

856. P Technobabble - May 21, 2010

StarFury and Red:
I sincerely appreciate all the time you take responding to my comments, whether we agree or not. As I said before, I enjoy my mind being challenged — it helps ward off senility.
I don’t want to be long-winded (I’ve done enough of that already), so I’m not going to get into a point-for-point address. There are a few things I’d like to respond to:
Star, when I said to Red: “I’d say the percentage of people here who would say you are screwed up because you like and criticize the film at the same time is even less than the 3% who criticize the film, in general” I did not mean at all that she should be quiet. I was, in essence, saying “I don’t think too many people really think you’re screwed up.” I should have just said it that way, and I’m sorry if it came across wrongly. I certainly know how opinionated Red is, and I admire her for it. I would never tell her to be quiet.
Red, when I said “I’m already happy with the film, and I’m not really concerned if “everyone is happy” I was simply taking responsibility for myself and my own feelings, and I’m not concerned about anything I have no control over — meaning the happiness of others. In fact, I do care but it still doesn’t affect me. But I’m not telling anyone else not to care, nor am I telling anyone what to do, or to shut up about it, or trying to brainwash anyone into thinking as I think. I’m just expressing what I think, and I’ll say it again: this is my opinion, my 2c. So, no, I am not telling you you shouldn’t care.
As each of us puts our 2c out here, it is clear that there are many, many points of view. For all the thousands and thousands of people who saw the film, every one will have an individual point of view. We bring our points of view to the table, and we make conversation. I think this, you think that, he thinks something, she thinks something else. The way of the world, hm? And I’m not feeling sorry for Orci, or trying to defend him — he can take care of himself, certainly. As a songwriter and, more recently, a novelist, my creations are my babies, they come from the deepest parts of my soul… and this is how I relate to Orci, or any other artist. I’ve been praised and criticized, and, obviously, I prefer the praise. All artists expect to take some hits, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t sting sometimes. But more than anything, it’s the joy of creating that makes it all worthwhile — to start with a blank page, or a blank canvas, or a blank whatever, pour your heart and soul onto it, and fill it so there is no longer a void… and then hope others discover something worth their attention.

857. dmduncan - May 21, 2010

846: “Well, this is a tough one to prove, isn’t it? I’ll take your word about the dozen or so people you mentioned, but, take my word, there are people I know (my non-Trekkie/non-sci-fi girlfriend, for one) who tell me they understood what was taking place in the film just fine, without getting into all that ‘grandfather stuff.’ I can’t prove that, of course, but I swear it’s true.”

I don’t find anything particularly difficult to believe about that at all, P. In fact, the less familiar with Trek one is I think the less difficulty one may have understanding ST.09. I misunderstood the movie at first exactly because I thought I was watching what I had seen in Trek before.

Prejudices make obvious things invisible.

My initial difficulties were not due to the movie or what Bob didn’t include in it, but my own assumptions about how things work in Star Trek, which Bob and Alex were departing from.

858. P Technobabble - May 21, 2010

857. dm

I certainly agree. I think (and I could be wrong) that it is the bias of familiarity with Star Trek that gets many people wrangling over what is right, wrong, or should have been, relative to Trek09. I think Bob and Alex were charged with a difficult task: “remake” Star Trek without “rebooting” it — or “reboot” it without “remaking” it, depending on your choice of vocabulary. The new film had to have its roots in the Star Trek we all know and love. Yet, it had to be broken out of the shackles that had strangled it. It could be argued there were an unlimited number of ways this could have been done. But as Bob and Alex were commissioned to write the thing, I don’t think it’s fair to try to second guess them.

859. Red Skirt - May 21, 2010

858., P Technobabble, you say the darnedest things: “But as Bob and Alex were commissioned to write the thing, I don’t think it’s fair to try to second guess them.”

So when the president of a country is elected to run the country, it’s not fair to second guess his work? Guess I know which party you voted for. ;-)

860. StarFuryG7 - May 21, 2010

How can you not second guess their work when they went out of their way to be less than clear about exactly what was supposed to be going on?

861. ryanhuyton - May 21, 2010

#859

“So when the president of a country is elected to run the country, it’s not fair to second guess his work?”

Criticizing an elected president is different from criticizing the writers of a movie. For one thing, the president is making choices that directly and indirectly affect the citizens of his country. A writer is tasked only with coming up with a story that ENTERTAINS. What a writer does has no affect whatsoever on people’s daily lives. Its a take it or leave it situation.
No one is forcing you to buy their product. Its good to criticize movies; but it also isn’t the end of the world if you don’t get what you feel should be an explanation for something you don’t understand. Unlike a president’s decision on policy, what a writer chooses to write is his prerogative and not ours. There were things I didn’t like about “Star Trek 09″ but I have learned to live with them because I put it all in perspective. Which is Bob and Alex decided to do things a bit differently than what their predecessors did. They decided that leaving some things somewhat ambigous was the best way to appeal to the mainstream audience who don’t want to be beat over the head and confused with scientific mumbo jumbo and technobabble.

#860

“How can you not second guess their work when they went out of their way to be less than clear about what was going on?”

I understood what went on in the movie. There was enough in the movie to give me an idea of what happened. “Alternate reality” was all we really needed. It means that we are now witnessing events in a new timeline/universe. It doesn’t matter which, since it’s already alternate to the previous Trek we enjoyed. It also means the old timeline/universe exists. Hence “alternate reality”. Arguing whether the movie takes place in an alternate timeline or an alternate universe is splitting hairs since one can argue that an alternate timeline is indeed an alternate universe. Timelines can diverge just like universes can.

862. StarFuryG7 - May 21, 2010

861. ryanhuyton
“There were things I didn’t like about “Star Trek 09″ but I have learned to live with them because I put it all in perspective. Which is Bob and Alex decided to do things a bit differently than what their predecessors did. They decided that leaving some things somewhat ambigous was the best way to appeal to the mainstream audience who don’t want to be beat over the head and confused with scientific mumbo jumbo and technobabble.”

With all due respect, I’m not buying that, because their being clearer about their intent would have required no more than a line or two when you get right down to it. And since the intent was to appeal to a more mainstream audience, the non devotees who decided to go and see the movie wouldn’t have cared one way or the other ultimately if there was just a bit more specificity. As I pointed out to Technobabble yesterday, his girlfriend couldn’t have cared less whether what happens in the movie was an alternate universe or the original timeline being overwritten –it was absolutely no consequence to her whatsoever.

“I understood what went on in the movie. There was enough in the movie to give me an idea of what happened. “Alternate reality” was all we really needed. It means that we are now witnessing events in a new timeline/universe. It doesn’t matter which, since it’s already alternate to the previous Trek we enjoyed.”

But if the implication is that the original timeline was being completely overwritten, it’s dismissive of all that previous work by Roddenberry and other writers and is in essence taking it all for granted.

“It also means the old timeline/universe exists.”

No, not necessarily obviously, as that’s the whole point that’s been being argued.

“Hence ‘alternate reality’. Arguing whether the movie takes place in an alternate timeline or an alternate universe is splitting hairs since one can argue that an alternate timeline is indeed an alternate universe.”

It’s not “splitting hairs,” just asking for clarity and specificity. And sure, you can say that an alternate timeline is an alternate universe in a sense, but since there was always a clear effort being made to correct a timeline where things have gone wrong, that means it’s the same universe where the stream of events need to be corrected and put back in their natural order.

“Timelines can diverge just like universes can.”

For Kirk, Spock and company, or even the characters that came later with MT, such as Picard, Data and company, a corrupted timeline always had consequences and needed to be fixed, otherwise there would never have been any point in their going through the bother to do so.

And to attribute the movie to MWI theory when it was never mentioned or in any way pointed to is a cheat if you ask me.

863. P Technobabble - May 21, 2010

859. Red

Show me one candidate worth voting for and I will. I haven’t voted in over 20 years…
Bob and Alex aren’t running the country either….

864. P Technobabble - May 22, 2010

The matter of a linear timeline that, if altered, can be set right again, is only one point of view, not THE point of view. Other theories propose other points of view — that if a timeline is altered, whatever direction it spins off in is the only existing timeline. Or the altering of a timeline is, in fact, the passing into an alternate universe. And so on.
It seems to me, the path Orci & Kurtzman took is a completely legitimate one, and can, at least theoretically, be explained.
To say that past Star Trek’s point of view regarding time travel, altered timelines, etc. demands that the new Trek movie should have remained with the former point of view, is, IMO, narrow-minded… since our own understanding and theorizing of quantum mechanics has changed quite a bit since the 60’s. And it will continue to change.
I still maintain the film was perfectly understandable, explained or not. I do not believe any explanation would have contributed to the actual storytelling, and the story was the most important part of the film — not the science. Of course this will be debated throughout numerous timelines and universes…

865. StarFuryG7 - May 22, 2010

863. P Technobabble
“It seems to me, the path Orci & Kurtzman took is a completely legitimate one, and can, at least theoretically, be explained.”

Except that it wasn’t explained or even briefly alluded to in the movie itself. And even when considering the movie in an MWI context, it’s not the only possible interpretation of what happens in the film obviously.

“To say that past Star Trek’s point of view regarding time travel, altered timelines, etc. demands that the new Trek movie should have remained with the former point of view, is, IMO, narrow-minded… since our own understanding and theorizing of quantum mechanics has changed ”

:::Sigh::: That’s not what people are saying however, and it’s not what I’m saying. What I’ve been arguing is that the true context of the movie is unclear obviously if MWI was the intent, not that they shouldn’t have been allowed to take an MWI approach if that’s what they wanted to do. When you look at TNG’s “Parallels” which was written by a hack writer for instance, there’s no question by the end as to exactly what was going on. In ST09, however, there looms a very big question as to what was really going on in the movie.

“I still maintain the film was perfectly understandable, explained or not.”

With two possible, varying interpretations –that’s the headache …that’s what’s bothersome to some, but not to others like yourself.

“I do not believe any explanation would have contributed to the actual storytelling”

You really believe that a brief clarification of some kind that touched on MWI multiverse theory would have hurt the movie somehow? Because I disagree –Trek fans probably would have dug it if anything, and the people that aren’t followers of the franchise wouldn’t have much cared, but at least it would have served as a point of clarification for them as well.

“Of course this will be debated throughout numerous timelines and universes…”

Not necessarily — I have a serious problem with MWI theory and believe that if anything it’s probably just a bunch of bunk. But that’s me.

And I’d say that it’s time we all move on to something else at this point, because the differing points of view on this matter have already been stated, argued, and put out there.

866. Red Skirt - May 22, 2010

#861, on one point we will have to disagree. Simply because something isn’t critical to a person’s daily life does not make it beyond criticism.

In fact Star Trek fans are owed considerably more than the patrons of some new “original” movie (an accomplishment in itself) that no one has ever seen before. It is the Star Trek fans who have supported the franchise through near death by buying Videos, DVDs, games, books, comics, toys, costumes, watching the television series and reruns, etc.

To simply deny their comments or criticisms because there’s a new sheriff in town is to slap those devoted fans in the face.

You will find all over the world people who are committed to things that at the end of the day do not matter to life and liberty. You will find them making passionate stands for them. Because there is more to life than death and taxes. And Star Trek benefits from a strong fan base which is invested in the franchise, a goal of every single producer and studio in Hollywood. Yet you would suggest that if a fan is dissatisfied with the franchise they should just walk away? I remember as a kid when Coke changed their formula to New Coke. Now nothing could be more inconsequential to life than carbonated sugar water. Yet the consumers didn’t just walk away from it, they petitioned the company to bring it back. There were a lot of people who loved New Coke by the way, so much so that Coke sold them side by side when they finally brought “Classic” Coke back. But it was those fans of Coke who got it back. Just like those fans who lobbied to keep Star Trek on the air 40 years ago. Yet you would have those of us unhappy with choices in a franchise we love just learn to live with it, or go find some new franchise? Then why get involved in the first place?

And again, I find it is all or nothing with you. There is a mid-ground between not being clear in your intentions and beating the audience over the head with with scientific mumbo jumbo and technobabble. That is the straw man argument that gets drug out and beaten within an inch of its stuffing every time. Anybody who disagrees with that view wants a 4 hour movie, full of complicated boring physics lessons and detailed analysis of the science used in the movie. Please. Nobody wants that, not even one tenth of a percent of the 3% who hated the movie in the Trekmovie poll. Yet, out it comes every time.

And yes, we all understood the movie, it couldn’t be more obvious what is happening. Problem is, Orci says some of us don’t understand it “correctly”, his word, not mine. We didn’t make it the issue. He did. You say the difference between an alternate timeline and and alternate universe is splitting hairs, when in fact they are two different hairs. No splitting required. Yes in the grand scheme of things it is inconsequential. In the context of this franchise, it changes everything Star Trek fans have known and what they can expect in the future. That is NOT to say that there can’t be change, or that the writers have to blindly adhere to the way Star Trek did things in the past. But to deny or ignore what was done in the past sort of defeats the point of franchise, does it not? I mean if you reboot Superman and decide he no longer has x-ray vision, well that’s fine as long as you acknowledge it. Not everybody will be happy with the decision, but at least the filmmaker was respectful about it. But even worse would be to make it ambiguous whether Superman has X-ray vision, then tell the fans that the only way to reconcile the movie logically is that he does not.

But this casual dismissal tactic of yours is another straw man you drag out to down play how relevant the discussion is, when in fact you have been posting just as many responses to it as those you would imply have no perspective. Indeed Bob Orci’s writing may not have life-or-death consequences which affect real people in the real world, but within context it is no different. I am continually floored by this particular argument by those who don’t seem to be able to stop posting about it with equal fervor as those who see it alternatively. I wonder what you would be discussing on the forum or doing with your time if you weren’t mounting defenses for Bob Orci. Why defend him if it doesn’t matter? Its only “entertainment” after all.

Enjoy the movie all you want on your “level” (again Orci’s word). But why deny those who prefer something better? How dies it hurt you? Why debate them?Again to cite your own words: “Take it or leave it.”

867. P Technobabble - May 22, 2010

I’d like to discuss storage jars…

868. dmduncan - May 22, 2010

Does the movie provide one with enough to make the MWI inference? Except for two people on this thread, it doesn’t seem to be an issue worth arguing that it does not.

Did Martin Scorcese give audiences enough in one brief sentence at the end of Shutter Island to suggest an idea both profoundly disturbing and yet not explicitly stated?

THAT was it’s power. It’s indirectness was it’s strength, because in thinking about what it meant you came to the same shocking realization that
the Dr. had, and his surprise on screen became your own surprise in the audience, which would have been overdone had the Dr.’s last name been Picard, because then he would have explained it so well that thinking about what he meant would have been unnecessary, and you would have been deprived of the satisfaction of realizing it for yourself.

Sometimes there IS something wrong with the movie. When they first released Blade Runner it did not have the deleted unicorn dream scene in it. Ridley Scott always thought of Deckard as a replicant, but without that dream scene, which ties to the origami unicorn at the end, there is nothing to suggest that Deckard is actually a replicant; so with regard to his vision of the movie there was something wrong with it. But WITH that dream scene, how do you explain Gaf’s intimate knowledge of Deckard’s dreams unless Gaf had inside knowledge of what dreams were implanted in Deckard? So that TINY scene totally changes the character of Deckard, and with it’s restoration Ridley Scott no longer thinks he was robbed.

But in the case of ST.09 there is no such problem. And in all three movies, Shutter island, Star Trek, and Blade Runner, big ideas that change the meaning of what’s going on are communicated briefly.

Don’t pander to us, Bob Orci. The sweetest moments in the movies are the ones you have to work a little to get.

869. StarFuryG7 - May 22, 2010

#867

LMAO.

870. dmduncan - May 22, 2010

And I do mean “pander” literally, as in catering to bad habits which, in this case, would be the habit of wanting things to be SO clear that our brains are not asked to participate.

871. Red Skirt - May 22, 2010

#854, “that’s really the bottom line. I had asked for clear, definitive proof, and ultimately, it couldn’t be provided. It comes down to that.”

Yup.

This brings me back to my comments about the Sopranos. My only point with that example was that the producers chose to be purposefully ambiguous (which is their right), and regardless of how much criticism they took, they never went back on that decision by confirming one view or the other.

And if that is the choice, then the entire movie must be able to be seen as one or the other, not some part one way and some later part contradicting it, because then the producers failed in their intent.

But why is it important that MWI is the only way to logically reconcile the movie? Because otherwise, the original universe is gone. And why is that important? Money. While I’m sure the latest movie brought new “hard-core” fans to the franchise, the vast majority of the merchandising from the franchise comes from the original fans. While the popularity of the film is secure now, it was far from assured two years ago, and the risk of alienating the core fan-base by wiping out their universe was not worth it.

Bob’s solution is actually brilliant. I personally have no hangups with the past canon of Star Trek, and love this concept of looking at all these characters from a different perspective (whether I like the choices or not). Including what would happen if Spock has a love interest.

So MWI, solves the fan’s problems, but is it too risky to present to a general audience? Maybe. So why challenge an audience with something that could be overly complicated? If Fringe and Lost are any proof, introducing an alternate universe precipitated a drop in the ratings. The answer is then, they don’t. They make it ambiguous.

So now I guess I get it. And why there has to be only one logical reconciliation, at least as far as the Star Trek fans are concerned, and perhaps Bob’s ego. ;-)

Nevertheless, Bob succeeded in his goal of allowing the movie to be interpreted in two different ways. In fact it was so successful that there is nothing concrete enough to determine either interpretation beyond the shadow of a doubt, because doing so requires inferences from the dialogue, which are subjective depending on which experience bias one brings to the film. Moreover, if any dialogue were to be clear enough as to actually confirm MWI, then it might cause confusion for the audience for whom such considerations should not matter. So logically, there can be no indisputable dialogue, or events, without opening up a can of worms for the audience, no matter how far one reaches to divine one.

Regardless, there’s no need for any character to utter the explicit words Quantum Mechanics, or Grandfather Paradox, or Many Worlds. But what is required is a little more than we got, to prove either case for that matter. And I’m perfectly happy to view this brave new universe Bob’s way, if for no other reason than it’s pretty cool, but I would never insist that’s the incontrovertible reality within the story. In fact I’m just as happy to have the timeline overwritten, because that’s pretty cool too.

And for all those reasons, I would doubt there will ever be further clarification in the future.

So that settles that. Now if only we could explain why it was necessary to be ambiguous about the science and Kirk’s promotion. ;-)

872. dmduncan - May 22, 2010

871: “#854, “that’s really the bottom line. I had asked for clear, definitive proof, and ultimately, it couldn’t be provided. It comes down to that.””

LOL. Where’s the “clear, definitive proof that the timeline has been “overwritten” and that yes, this IS your father’s time travel?

Where is that proof?

Nowhere. Anything you think makes your case for that gets turned upside down by what Spock says in the end.

So the bottom line is that the two people who ignore the MWI theme INSIST there must be clear verbal explanation of it in the movie, while they themselves have no clear verbal explanation in the move for the view that they prefer to kling-on to.

Double standards. That is the bottom line. One set of rules that they follow, and another set of rules for everyone else who disagrees with them. You need evidence while their views require none at all.

873. Red Skirt - May 22, 2010

#864., “It seems to me, the path Orci & Kurtzman took is a completely legitimate one, and can, at least theoretically, be explained.”

Absolutely, I have no argument with that. There is ample evidence for MWI and ample evidence for one timeline being overwritten.

“To say that past Star Trek’s point of view regarding time travel, altered timelines, etc. demands that the new Trek movie should have remained with the former point of view, is, IMO, narrow-minded… ”

I don’t know who is saying this. Perhaps some are, but I am in complete agreement with you. There is no reason to adhere to what a 40+ year franchise did in the past. However, I don’t think you can simply ignore it, at least for the fans. With your girlfriend and others checking out the franchise for the first time, there was no need to understand the nature of what happened at all. All they needed to know is that Nero went back in time and changed the way things had happened from the perspective of someone from the future. Nothing transpired in the film that forced them to worry about the grandfather paradox or why it might not be applicable. However, this brand new film made by brand new people is not mutually exclusive from the original series made by an entirely different group of people, from a different generation. It’s all part of the same big happy franchise. You can’t just expect the fans to forget everything they know, unless you tell them to, either overtly or subtly, and this film did neither definitively.

“I do not believe any explanation would have contributed to the actual storytelling, and the story was the most important part of the film — not the science.”

No doubt the story was the most important aspect of the film. I don’t think anyone is asking the filmmakers to sacrifice the story for science. But here’s a perfect example of what I’m talking about from the very same writer on his series Fringe:

WARNIG SPOILERS AHEAD –

In the finale, Olivia crosses over to the alternate universe. There she finds a dark-haired version of herself, so she dies her hair to match so as to blend in. At the end of the movie, Olivia returns to her own universe, and proceeds to a secret terminal where those from the alternate universe can communicate with their home universe. Back in the alternate universe, another Olivia is being held captive in a sadistic cell. Now, either revelation alone implies without a shadow of a doubt that the Olivias have switched places. However both are ambiguous enough to infer they have not switched and something else is up. In fact what a great cliff-hanger for fans to debate about all Summer! But Bob Orci had other plans. Bob wanted to communicate without a shadow of a doubt that the Olivia’s have switched places. How? Because the alternate Olivia has a unique tattoo at the base of her neck, which was revealed briefly as she sat down. So you see, not only was that tattoo unnecessary to explain what was happening, but it did not detract from the storytelling in any way shape or form at all, yet subtly conveyed a concrete answer. A completely different approach than he took in Star Trek.

Now science, is science. And I think every audience has the right to expect that movies which deal with science do so in the most realistic way possible. That is of course not a requirement by any stretch of the imagination. But honestly, if you can show correct science without it affecting your story, why wouldn’t you?

874. ryanhuyton - May 22, 2010

#866

“Simply because something isn’t critical to a person’s daily life doesn’t make it beyond criticism”.

I never said that it does. I was just putting things into context.

“In fact Star Trek fans are owed considerably more than the patrons of some new “original” movie (an accomplishment in itself) that no one has ever seen before. It is the Star Trek fans who have supported the franchise through near death by buying videos, DVD’s, games, books, comics, toys, costumes, watching the television series and reruns, etc.”

The first part of your statement makes no sense. As for the second part, I partly agree and partly disagree. I agree that it was the Star Trek fans who supported the franchise during the lean years. But it is also the Star Trek fans (as well as the casual fans) who walked away from the franchise. Thus J.J Abrams was brought in to make a film that appeals not just to the fans, but to the mainstream. Paramount felt the best way to do this was to bring in an “outsider”.

“To simply deny their comments or criticisms because there’s a new sheriff in town is to slap those devoted fans in the face.”

I never “denied” your comments or criticisms. I just happen to think that you are wrong. And if you hadn’t noticed, I happen to be one of those devoted fans. All I was saying was that J.J and Bob are doing things a bit differently from their predecessors.

“Yet you would suggest that if a fan is dissatisfied with the franchise they should just walk away?”

Well, dissatisfied fans did walk away from the franchise around the beginning of the 21st century. “Nemesis” tanked at the box office and “Enterprise” was cancelled after only four seasons. A lot of fans left because they became bored as well as “dissatisfied”. You do remember that “fan dissatisfication” was partly the reason for the “reboot”?

Just like with New Coke, you are free to vote with your wallet. You seem to need someone to spoonfeed you very specific information because you cannot fill in the blanks yourself. And because of that, whenever someone criticizes you, you become defensive. I only defend Bob because a) I like the movie. b) He had an immensely difficult challenge in re-booting a franchise by creating a new playground without destroying the old one.c) Its the first movie. Its not going to be perfect.

Again, I point you to the fact that “alternate reality” was mentioned. That means this reality is alternate to at least another. That means that the old timeline still exists. The only thing different about this new movie is that there was no reset button. Once the Narada went back in the past and destroyed the Kelvin, things were changed drastically and permanently.
Simple logic would suggest that this “alternate reality” is “alternate” to one that didn’t feature the distruction of Vulcan or the destruction of the Kelvin. Hence the word “alternate”.

You want further proof the old timeline exists? Its all on dvds!

875. Yammer - May 22, 2010

873

They didn’t ignore or overwrite the old timeline. They put it in a box of technobabble somewhere else.

I can’t understand why this is not fair. Trek is not scientifically accurate. There is no basis in science for faster than light travel, to begin with.

Their ships have transporters, tractor beams, FTL, and artificial gravity.

All of these nonsensical devices are present because they facilitate storytelling.

This movie HAD to end up with Kirk in a gold command shirt with captain’s braids.

The smart thing about the movie is not what it did but that it took pains — not enough for you, but there nonetheless — to not reboot the show and thus invalidate all of the hard ‘work’ people have done to memorize the canon.

876. ryanhuyton - May 22, 2010

#875

Well said. There are a lot of people who understand this, yet for some reason, there are a couple of people who have chosen not to accept it.

The term “alternate reality” is clear enough for me, yet for some reason Bob is being taken to task for not explaining fully in the movie how time travel works. Or that he should have written “timeline” instead of “reality”.
Or that the characters should have acknowledged the original timeline.

877. P Technobabble - May 22, 2010

876. ryan

“…Or that the characters should have acknowledged the original timeline…”

And I’m sure you would agree that Spock Prime’s presence in the film should have been enough to acknowledge the original timeline…

878. StarFuryG7 - May 22, 2010

877. P Technobabble
“And I’m sure you would agree that Spock Prime’s presence in the film should have been enough to acknowledge the original timeline…”

It acknowledges it, but that doesn’t mean we’re not witnessing the events in the film wiping it out.

879. StarFuryG7 - May 22, 2010

875. Yammer
“They didn’t ignore or overwrite the old timeline. They put it in a box of technobabble somewhere else.”

Such as where –under Kirk’s bunk in a box?

“I can’t understand why this is not fair.”

Expecting specificity and clarity is asking too much?

I frequent a board where this discussion has been going on periodically over the course of the last year. Every few weeks or months it manages to get brought up again, and one of the participants there just alluded yesterday to “First Contact” and the “temporal wake” line used by Data when the Enterprise is following the Borg ship back in time; that’s how we know that the changes that affect Earth history brought about by the Borg don’t affect the Enterprise crew obviously. Now I’m sure if they had passed into a universe other than their own (which was albeit changed in FC) that the writers would have gone through the trouble to mention that too. So why is it too much to expect that the writers of ST09 provide such clarity also?

“The smart thing about the movie is not what it did but that it took pains — not enough for you, but there nonetheless — to not reboot the show and thus invalidate all of the hard ‘work’ people have done to memorize the canon.”

What I find rather extraordinary is the lengths some people will go to in order to try and excuse the obvious double entendre aspect of the movie, which is undeniable, and which one of the two key writers has made abundantly clear does in fact exist in it. That was the approach they chose. I take issue with it because I don’t believe it was the right choice. But of course, as a viewer, that’s my prerogative obviously.

880. ryanhuyton - May 22, 2010

#877

I agree.

#878

I’ll say this again: The new movie takes place in an “alternate reality”. Meaning there is more than one “reality”. Which further means that the old “reality” or “timeline” to be more specific, still exists. It really is that simple. You can’t have an alternate reality or timeline by itself. Because if the alternate reality was the only reality, then the original would be gone and the alternate reality couldn’t be alternate to anything. So when Spock said they may be in an alternate reality, it means the original still has to exist.

881. StarFuryG7 - May 23, 2010

880. ryanhuyton
“I’ll say this again: The new movie takes place in an “alternate reality”. Meaning there is more than one “reality”. Which further means that the old “reality” or “timeline” to be more specific, still exists. It really is that simple. You can’t have an alternate reality or timeline by itself.”

All it means is that they know there was an original timeline in which Nero hadn’t appeared to change the events of their lives, and thus that the history he knows no longer applies therefore.

An “alternate reality” was in play more than once in Trek canon, and that’s why changing things back to their original intended order was always necessary to correct the timeline, or it would remain ‘broken’ permanently.

“You can’t have an alternate reality or timeline by itself. Because if the alternate reality was the only reality, then the original would be gone and the alternate reality couldn’t be alternate to anything.”

:::Sigh::: Then there was never any point to the characters going out of their way to correct a corrupted timeline that they know to be broken. In TNG’s “Yesterday’s Enterprise” Guinan instinctively knows this, which is why she compels Picard to act according to what she knows to be true.

We know the original timeline existed; the character or characters know the original timeline existed, and in ST09 Spock Prime is the evidence of it. That doesn’t mean it can’t be changed and replaced by someone like Nero.

“So when Spock said they may be in an alternate reality, it means the original still has to exist.”

Not for them obviously, as their fates are no longer what they were originally, which proves that time and the history of events has been changed.

882. ryanhuyton - May 23, 2010

#881

“An “alternate” reality was in play more than once in Trek canon, and that’s why changing things back to their original intended order was always neccessary to correct the timeline, or it would remain ‘broken’ permanently.”

Sure it was. But here’s the difference with this movie: Nero went back in time first with the intention of changing the timeline, which he did. Therefore, the only one who had a shot at correcting the timeline was Spock, but he arrived 25 years after Nero changed things, thus a new timeline was created, from which there was no going back.

“:::Sigh::: Then there was never any point to the characters going out of their way to correct a corrupted timeline that they know to be broken. In TNG’s “Yesterday’s Enterprise” Guinan instinctively knows this, which is why she compels Picard to act according to what she knows to be true”.

Yes there was. Picard understood that the Federation was going to lose a war with the Klingons which has killed billions. There was a way to correct a timeline. Sending the Enterprise-C back into its own past. It was the only way to save billions. He did the only sensible thing after Guinan persuaded him to do so. Spock Prime had no such luxury. Once Nero went back in time, it was too late.

“We know the original timeline existed; the character or characters know the original timeline existed, and in ST09 Spock Prime is the evidence of it. That doesn’t mean it can’t be changed and replaced by Nero.”

True. But the original timeline still has to exist to allow for Nero and Spock Prime to travel back in time. Because if the original timeline is destroyed, how would Spock be able to reveal to Kirk their friendship? Wouldn’t Spock Prime’s memories be erased? Wouldn’t Nero have “forgotten” why he travelled back in time? The original events would still have to happen in the original timeline for the events in this movie to occur. That would mean the original timeline exists parallel to the new one.

“Not for them obviously, as their fates are no longer what they were originally, which proves that time and the history of events has been changed.”

I agree that the characters in the new movie will no longer experience the same fates they did in the original timeline. But again, the original timeline still has to exist for the charcters in this timeline to take different paths.Young Spock Prime is still going to be in his own timeline when Alt Spock is still young. Spock Prime is going to exist as an old man in the new timeline.Young Spock Prime will still be experiencing what we saw him experience in the original timeline while old Spock Prime and alt Spock have new experiences. So what happend in the original timeline is still happening. It has to for this timeline to exist.

883. P Technobabble - May 23, 2010

My feeling, based upon what I have read (and I don’t confess to be any sort of expert), is that when it comes to timelines, alternate universes, etc. pretty much ANYTHING is possible. As one scientist (don’t remember who) put it, “In some universe, a dinosaur could be waltzing through someone’s living room right now.” Another scientist said, “In another universe, the elephants could be pink with purple polka-dots.” These sorts of suggestions sound ludicrous, but I think it points to the fact that whatever we can imagine is possible, and whatever is possible is beyond what we can imagine. Perhaps, in Star Trek, the alternate timeline went off in another direction (due to Nero’s interference), and the Prime universe may have come to an end, or it may continue, or it may, itself, transform into something unrecognizable, or EVERY one of these possiblities happens simultaneously. This is, what I believe is both ambiguous, yet, the only way to reconcile the matter. I don’t think we can say, “If this happened, then this had to happen,” or anything which tries to pin it down. Everything we could imagine MIGHT be possible… or is not only possible, but probable… or maybe not at all… It’s all a crap shoot to some extent. Everyone of us could be right, but everyone of us could be totally wrong. Since I don’t believe we’ll ever really know (in this lifetime), I’m content to go along with Bob and Alex simply to enjoy the ride…

884. StarFuryG7 - May 23, 2010

882. ryanhuyton
“Sure it was. But here’s the difference with this movie: Nero went back in time first with the intention of changing the timeline, which he did. Therefore, the only one who had a shot at correcting the timeline was Spock, but he arrived 25 years after Nero changed things, thus a new timeline was created, from which there was no going back.”

Nero doesn’t destroy Vulcan until 25 years after elder Spock arrives, which is when the most significant change is made compared to what occurs in the original timeline. But to say that correcting what Nero does is not possible is simply not true, because Spock Prime could have travelled back in time to a period before Nero arrives so as to be prepared for what he intends to do.

“Yes there was. Picard understood that the Federation was going to lose a war with the Klingons which has killed billions. There was a way to correct a timeline. Sending the Enterprise-C back into its own past. It was the only way to save billions. He did the only sensible thing after Guinan persuaded him to do so. Spock Prime had no such luxury. Once Nero went back in time, it was too late.”

The Enterprise-C goes back in time to the critical moment where the time change actually took place, which kind of makes my point if anything. And we know that Spock knows how to calculate time travel using the slingshot effect, so he does have a means available to him in order to correct what Nero does.

“True. But the original timeline still has to exist to allow for Nero and Spock Prime to travel back in time.”

No –Spock and Nero are the evidence it existed, but that doesn’t mean that past can’t be changed obviously.

“Because if the original timeline is destroyed, how would Spock be able to reveal to Kirk their friendship? Wouldn’t Spock Prime’s memories be erased? Wouldn’t Nero have “forgotten” why he travelled back in time?”

No, because that’s not the way time travel his worked in ‘Star Trek’ for the time traveler. Again, the Away Team in “City on the Edge” do not lose their memories after the Enterprise disappears above them while orbiting the planet. Picard, Data and the rest of the crew don’t lose their memories in “First Contact” because when travelling back in time they are caught in the temporal wake of the Borg ship that is travelling back in time to change Earth history. In ST09 Nero and Spock Prime travel back in time through a Black Hole, where the laws of physics are warped, so their memories are therefore preserved and protected as well.

“So what happend in the original timeline is still happening. It has to for this timeline to exist.”

Untrue, and never indicated in the movie.

If the writers wanted to play by different rules for this film, that’s fine –I have no problem with that as I’ve said more than once previously. However, in doing so, it was incumbent upon them to make their intentions clear to their audience. However, they chose not to do so in the last film, and that’s the reason for these disagreements now obviously.

885. Red Skirt - May 23, 2010

#874, ryanhuton, we’ll have to agree to disagree. You’ve missed my point entirely. Yes, I can vote with my wallet but i can also vote with my opinions, which people do all the time. Guess what, when fans walked away from the badly made movies at the box office they were still buying novels, comics, toys, DVDs, and other merchandise. The fans never stopped loving Star Trek, but then again, I don’t recall any of them asking for, Nemesis or Enterprise either. In fact, had the producers cared to listen they might have gotten a good idea or two.

You seem to need to put people into little boxes to understand them. No where did I ask to be spoon-fed. That is a strawman you have trotted out to whip. In fact I believe I have been advocating the opposite. But feel free to fill in the blanks anyway you like. Nor did I say, or anyone else here for that matter, we did not understand it. That’s not even one bit what this debate is about. It’s the strawman you want to make it about for some reason.

As for the the actual debate, once again, I point out that “alternate reality” does not “mean” the old timeline exists. In fact you should look the word up. The very definition means “to take the place of”. And nowhere in the movie is that term defined, leading to Bob’s intentional ambiguity. More importantly, after reading your explanation in #882 of what you think time travel is I can tell you, it has never been presented that way in any fiction I have ever seen, especially Star Trek. If the original timeline still existed, then nobody would ever have any reason to “fix” the altered timeline, which is where the drama comes from – they would just need to get back to their original timeline. And the proof of your explanation of time travel is definitely nowhere to be found int he movie. Just because you think it does, and that makes you happy, does not make me and others who perceive it differently, wrong. Your antagonistic patronizing of the issue without actually trying to understand what people here are saying is tiresome. Your last strawman argument about the DVDs, is the most contemptuous, as it implies that we are all debating pointlessly, disconnected from reality. Yet here you are posting right along with us. Its an internet forum where people can exchange ideas, in your words, it’s “entertainment”, so it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, right? So why care about anything that’s said by anyone? It’s certainly not going to affect Bob Orci’s career in any way whatsoever. Isn’t that the way you see things? Or at least that’s the straw man you set on fire when you debate those who disagree with you.

And constantly repeating the same well known and publicized history of what and why the film makers did what they did, and the obstacles they faced in doing os, in no way contributes to this discussion, its not even a strawman, it just seems pathological.

Honestly, if you don’t deny our right to criticize, why continue voicing the same objection with the same argument? Why make your comments personal if they don’t matter in the real world?

886. StarFuryG7 - May 23, 2010

883. P Technobabble
“My feeling, based upon what I have read (and I don’t confess to be any sort of expert), is that when it comes to timelines, alternate universes, etc. pretty much ANYTHING is possible.”

MWI theory proposes that–but the last movie in no way indicates it either directly or indirectly. It’s never even mentioned or alluded to in the movie.

“Perhaps, in Star Trek, the alternate timeline went off in another direction (due to Nero’s interference), and the Prime universe may have come to an end, or it may continue, or it may, itself, transform into something unrecognizable, or EVERY one of these possiblities happens simultaneously.”

This is what the movie is not clear about though, hence the problem.

“This is, what I believe is both ambiguous, yet, the only way to reconcile the matter.”

What was wrong with a clear, more direct approach about something so important?

887. Red Skirt - May 23, 2010

#875, Yammer, Superman is full of unexplained science too. But we accept those conventions because that’s how they were presented as part of the mythology. We don’t need to know exactly the physics of why he can fly, we just accept it, even with the weak attempt to explain it based on the poorly researched science of the 1930s. But Superman takes place in the real world. If the bad guy lights a single stick of dynamite in New York and it blows up everything from there to Chicago, then somebody needs to explain it, because it goes against known science.

Nobody says Star Trek has to explain how a Warp Drive works, yet you trot that straw man out because you have nothing else to defend the bad science. Indeed audiences accept that convention without explanation, because of the very experiences they have been condition to expect from the 4 decades of science fiction which uses that concept. No where in the film is it even remotely explained. So obviously the producers expect the audience to bring in one set of pre-conceptions, but check others at the door even though the film itself offers no other explanation for the revised intentions as stated here by the writers?

Others here have said treating known science and facts accurately is not necessary in fiction, that it’s too much to ask of the producers, that it could cause the drama to get sucked out of the show, slow down the pace, and ultimately causes no harm.

One of my favorite shows is Boston Legal. There’s a character on the show who has Asperger syndrome. Not knowing anyone with Asperger’s, when I first saw the character, I thought, this is ridiculous, this can’t be Asperger’s, so I did some research into it. And you know what? It turns out the character IS considered a stereotype, who served a primarily comic and dramatic role. But how many folks at home gave it a second thought? No for them the character is the only knowledge they will ever get about Aspergers, and he was one of the favorites because of his lovable buffoonery. No big deal you say? Well they had the character at one point threaten his friends and co-workers with a knife and was painted as unstable as a result of his condition and they sent him for counseling, as if his condition could be cured. Following that episode, some polls were conducted in which it was discovered a large percentage of people felt that people with Aspergers were dangerous and unreliable. Despite Autism groups’ outrage, the producers were full of excuses and defenses for why they thought it was no big deal.

Now this is an extreme example of how known science and facts can be badly presented and have an undesirable outcome. Certainly Star Trek’s erroneous depiction of the Supernova is not likely to cause such a detrimental social problem, but it doesn’t forgive it either.

Nor does it forgive putting Kirk in the captain’s chair without even a hint of realism a modern military officer could relate to, when it could have easily been mitigated. In fact, this concept panders to the damaging social idea that a kid can be a complete slacker and arrogant bully all his life, and still become something great, with the lose-cannon, bone-headed ease presented in a Hollywood action movie. Not that it matters particularly, but this kind of depiction would have never happened in the original Star Trek with Gene Roddenberry and other war veterans at the helm. So I have to wonder, why would the film makers state their intention to make this new Trek more grounded to be more relatable with broader audiences, then throw that carefully established reality out the door, when it could have so easily been avoided without noticeably affecting the film at all?

So I ask again, what is the problem with wanting to make the film smarter if it doesn’t affect anything else about the film?

888. P Technobabble - May 23, 2010

“… Good evening and welcome to another edition of ‘Storage Jars’. On tonight’s programme Mikos Antoniarkis, the Greek rebel leader who seized power in Athens this morning, tells us what he keeps in storage jars…”

889. StarFuryG7 - May 23, 2010

LMAO –at this point, talking about storage jars might well make for a more interesting change of pace.

890. Red Skirt - May 23, 2010

#889, no kidding, I had this page bookmarked, and I just realized this thread has moved to the bottom of page 3! LOL we must be the only people left on this sinking ship of fools.

891. Trek Lady - May 23, 2010

I own a matching set of storage jars. :)

892. StarFuryG7 - May 23, 2010

#890
Page 3? Where do you see that?

I just come back to the article Page, which has everything posted on the one Page.

893. ryanhuyton - May 23, 2010

Red Skirt

I’ve been heavy handed in regards to your criticisms with the movie,
and perhaps I was wrong to suggest that it was “black and white” when it comes to interpreting things that may not make sense (to you at least) in the movie. It bothered you that there wasn’t an explanation in the movie about how the new timeline affects the old. It didn’t bother me. It seems though, that I have been a hypocrite when I told others to not take this seriously yet I was over the top in making my own arguements. I believe that you are correct on a lot of levels, though I tend to give Bob some benefit of the doubt. Its a philisophical difference that we have and I made it personal. No question about it. I was wrong. I should definitely take my own advice that it is “only entertainment”.

I hope I addressed at least some of the problems I have caused. I am not the best when it comes to articulating my thoughts and opinions on the internet. What I’m trying to say is my behaviour was inexcusable and uncalled for. I should not attack you or anyone else for your opposing points of view. I have no choice but to say I am sorry.

You win. :-)

894. P Technobabble - May 24, 2010

891. Trek Lady

More importantly, what do you keep in them? Any chance there are some alternate timelines, or alternate universes in there?

895. Trek Lady - May 24, 2010

894

No…just pasta and beans, I’m afraid… Although I did have Spock’s brain in one for a while…but it went bad, so I threw it out.

896. The Disinivited - May 24, 2010

#895.

Speaking of spare brains, I’ve been given to ponder that if the man with two brains went to graduate school and got his Phd – would that make him Dr. Two Brains?

897. moauvian waoul - May 24, 2010

Hello
is anyone there?
No? Well I guess I’ll turn out the lights.
…Though I do have a question. Being one of those who did not like Kirk’s rapid promotion while skipping his years as helmsman- I do believe this was explained as the universe correcting itself. Or is this incorrect. Just wondering… And trying to kick-start this thing yet again.

898. Yammer - May 25, 2010

897

There is nothing in the movie to suggest that the insta-Captain promotion was not exceedingly controversial.

I like to think that the appointment was largely political, in that the people of Terra were pretty stunned to have been so close to getting Vulcanned and then word got out that Kirk was largely responsible for saving them.

However, within the Service the promotion could be seen as highly risky if not absurd.

The film indicates that Kirk has rubbed people the wrong way his entire life and that he is perversely proud of being such an irascible non-conformist. He took joy in incensing and bafflingly the Kobayashi Maru supervision team. I have no doubt that he will continue to annoy and vex a great deal of Starfleet. It might even form some of the background to the next movie.

In the Gold Key comics of the 1960s (you see, I am in fact a well informed Trek fan), we see young Kirk being appointed to the captaincy and having his youth mocked by his underlings, including Scotty.

Kirk always was young to be a captain, that is part of his character’s attributes. It indicates his hard-charging ambition and also makes him different, maybe less part of the old-boys-network in that all of the other captains are relatively grizzled, like Ron Tracey.

899. moauvian waoul - May 25, 2010

Surely your observations are well founded. Even in the DS 9 episode “Trials And Tribbulations” your point that Kirk may not be as popular in Starfleet as he was on tv, is alluded to. I’m sure the promtion could not have gone over well with many of his peers however the string of coincidences in the movie is attributed to the new timeline or reality or whatever was decided on this thread, trying to correct itself. If this is true it could explain why such an absurd promotion might have taken place.

900. ryanhuyton - May 25, 2010

1000!

901. ryanhuyton - May 25, 2010

oops, 900! heh!

902. moauvian waoul - May 26, 2010

Hey Ryan, Harry left you in charge. You got 99 to go…

903. ryanhuyton - May 27, 2010

All I’m hearing now are the sounds of crickets chirping, a wolf howling, toads croaking. And another tumbleweed bounces along the dusty road…

904. Yammer - May 27, 2010

97 more of these, are not going to be worth reading.

905. ryanhuyton - May 27, 2010

“Star Trek” ’09 is a classic.

906. captain_neill - May 30, 2010

Red Skirt

Although it was not made clear in the film I do take Bob’s intention as fact and treat the new movie as a parallel universe.

I do this because I refuse to accept that the overrated JJ Abrams would actually erase everthing as that would just piss off the fans.

Ilove the new film but its not my fav. To me its a good fun film which stands alone from the rest of Trek to me.

907. Hermioni - May 31, 2010

Well… I suppose, in the spirit of better (really, really) late than never, I would like to offer the following musings:

My personal encounter with the nascent New Star Trek film and comic book universe has proven to be an entertaining, yet curiously fragmented viewing/reading experience, interesting and quite engaging on the one hand, yet jolting and even irritating on the other. As I see it, the movie´s narrative reflects Abrams et al.s´ approach to combine a number of somewhat disparate objectives and story-telling strategies, which, for me as a viewer, leads to an overall impression of narrational breadth rather than depth.

In that sense, personally, I would characterize the new film’s narrative as follows:

Objectives:

A) to construct the foundation for a reinvigorating, new narrative space where the Star Trek Universe can exist in an even larger, yet still (semi-)coherent form, which also offers potentially effective gateways into other, preexisting parts of the larger Star Trek story-world and explicitly encourages a compare-and-contrast mode of audience engagement (not only on an extra=textual level, but also on a textual/inter-textual one)

B) to transform various preexisting genre expectations regarding Star Trek films in such a manner as to enable future productions to fit, audio/visually and narrationally, more closely within the parameters of contemporary event movies, (which in the case of STO9 results in the completion of an ongoing sub-genre shift from Sci-Fi adventure to Sci-Fi Action, and in the removal of nearly all of the TV/movie franchise´s theatrical elements of presentation and their partial replacement by operatic* ones
*primarily noticeable in the course of the Kelvin- and the Narada-destruction sequences

Story-Telling Strategies:

A) to devise a narrational strategy (based on one of the basic concepts of Transmedia Storytelling Theory) that transports substantial, often closely related, but not directly inter-dependent portions of the story over a variety of different media formats (in this particular case in the form of various comic books [Countdown, Nero, Spock], that carry supplemental story-lines for the movie´s main narrative, and through a very interesting, multiple purpose short-form comic book vignette [When Worlds Collide].)

B) to build the film´s narrative around the central, plot-carrying story motive of the formation of a (workplace-) family, supported by an additional narrational building block that chronicles the developing relationship between the two main protagonists (implemented here through the widely used combination of two tropes known as “hostile to each other” followed by “fire forged friends” )

C) to create somewhat parallel (but possibly time-shifted?) character arcs for both of the main protagonists based on the narrational strategies of the Bildungsroman (more so than on those of the Origin Story frequently used in comic book narratives) depicted through a series of short vignettes

D) to emphasize (pop-cultural) discourses on domestic topics over those on social/political/philosophical themes, in contrast to what was practiced in a number (but not all) of the previously created Star Trek narratives

E) to rely on a variety of well established and frequently used narrational tropes, which are, a few notable exceptions notwithstanding* in most cases directly invoked (and often in their purest, most undiluted form) rather than to be tweaked, in-/subverted or redefined
*i. ex. the introduction and handling of MULTIPLE mentor figures

908. Harry Ballz - June 3, 2010

Ryan, I leave you in charge and all we get are 907 posts??

Tsk, tsk…….:>)

909. red dead ryan huyton - June 3, 2010

Harry, how was your trip?

910. Harry Ballz - June 4, 2010

It was great! A week in Madrid, a week in Barcelona. Perfect weather, day trips to other towns, shopping, sailing from the Port of Barcelona, lots of wine every night, interesting culture and history everywhere you looked. Have you ever been to Spain, Ryan?

911. red dead ryan - June 4, 2010

No I haven’t. But I had been to France and England. And to Alberta as well as the B.C interior and Vancouver.

912. Harry Ballz - June 5, 2010

I’ve been to Vancouver a number of times….nice city.

I’m sorry, I’m having a brain fart, maybe you’ve already told me, but I can’t remember…..you live in Canada, right? I live in Toronto.

913. moauvian waoul - June 5, 2010

I told you Ryan. I told you.

914. Harry Ballz - June 5, 2010

Don’t just scold, try to be bold, the truth be told, damn that’s cold!

1000 posts? SOLD!

915. red dead ryan - June 5, 2010

I live in Victoria. So yeah, I technically live in Canada, though you wouldn’t know it by our balmy winters. :-)

916. red dead ryan - June 5, 2010

And if you’ve noticed, I’m going by “red dead ryan” now because of the new video game I have been playing recently, “Red Dead Redemption”.
Instant classic from the people who brought us the “Grand Theft Auto” series.

917. Harry Ballz - June 5, 2010

I’ve been to Victoria a couple of times…..it reminded me of a time warp 1960’s England. I liked it.

Except for the beggars.

918. red dead ryan - June 5, 2010

Today was a good day for me. I picked up some old Playmates Star Trek figures (Gul Dukat, Sela, Borg Drone) and a limited-to-500 Mirror Universe Uhura action figure which was signed by Nichelle Nichols. There were two at my local comic shop and I bought one!

919. Harry Ballz - June 5, 2010

Attaboy!!

920. red dead ryan - June 5, 2010

Thanx!

921. moauvian waoul - June 6, 2010

914. Ah yes, I only jest. Though might I suggest, that while you were gone it was a long and fitfull rest.

922. Harry Ballz - June 6, 2010

921

What the hell does that mean? :>)

923. moauvian waoul - June 6, 2010

Not sure

924. Harry Ballz - June 6, 2010

A “fitful rest” would usually mean that it was irregular with stops and starts, not really restfull at all………….oh, I get it…..you were trying to tell us that I was so missed during my absence that you couldn’t get to sleep at night.

Aw, how sweet!

925. moauvian waoul - June 6, 2010

You got Harry. I knew you would.

926. moauvian waoul - June 6, 2010

Or it was the conversation that lacked momentum.

927. Harry Ballz - June 6, 2010

You ol’ honeydripper, you!

Well, back to Trek, let’s keep this thread going to past 1000 posts!

928. moauvian waoul - June 7, 2010

Right on. Well much has already been said but… Liked the movie, great depictions of the characters, mostly, liked Uhura, (always enjoyed seeing more of other four on TOS), enjoyed the romp, ST fun again, very important ingrident, and best beginning since TMP. Even liked the score.
However I didn’t care for the new design ( best exterior TMP, best interior XI), lighting and color of bridge made it difficult to reference position, didn’t like the whole Red Matter thing, obvious plot device introduced only for this movie, Nero was eh, and yes Kirk’s premotion bugged me, oh, and Delta Vega and a galatic supernova. The last two could have easily been avoided. Some others with little effort, however there was so much done well, with some great moments mixed in. Overall it was a good movie, maybe very good, and better than many of the previous movies. I’m looking forward to the next installment.

929. Harry Ballz - June 7, 2010

I agree with everything you just said! I also thought Pine and Quinto gave us some great performances in the movie! Pine was especially good.

930. Disinvited - June 7, 2010

You want this puppy’s odometer to do the big one O O O? Well, let’s try this:

http://discovermagazine.com/2010/apr/01-back-from-the-future

Not that a scorecard would be particularly indicative of anything — except that quite possibly there are more things in heaven and time travel than are dreamed of in some people’s unduly restrictive and exclusionary takes:

Experimental evidence
that time behaves as Experimental evidence
depicted in Trek prior that time behaves as
to 2009: as voiced by Bob Orci:

1 0

931. Disinvited - June 7, 2010

#930.

Hmmm…some sort of space (PI) filtering?

Experimental evidence
that time behaves as
depicted in Trek prior
to 2009:

1

Experimental evidence
that time behaves as
as voiced by Bob Orci:

0

932. red dead ryan - June 7, 2010

I can see that I’m not the only one without a life! ;-)

#928, 929

Don’t forget about Karl Urban’s performance as Dr. McCoy. He really hit the nail on the head. Leonard Nimoy and Bruce Greenwood were also excellent.

933. moauvian waoul - June 7, 2010

Yep. Kirk Spock and McCoy were better than I had hoped. There the movie truly succeeded.

All I can say about that article was wow. Just when I thought everything had been said about the nature of time, here comes an idea that seems totally new and with great potential. And you are right that it does seem to justify Orci’s take on the science, or at least interpreted in that light, something that he continues to defend on this very site.

934. Harry Ballz - June 8, 2010

Let’s see more of Urban in the next movie!

935. moauvian waoul - June 8, 2010

Greenwood was excellent. He seemed more “real” to me; his performance, his character. But there was something… I don’t know, missing. Perhaps different is a better word. I guess I had my own impression of what Pike would be like. Maybe more TOS. Still, that’s my problem. Greenwood was great as “this” Pike. I hope we get to see more Pike as well.

936. red dead ryan - June 8, 2010

\\//_
II

937. Disinvited - June 9, 2010

#933.

I’m assuming a typo as there’s a “not” missing somewhere?

But I want to be clear I don’t view this as an either or situation – just that there’s more evidence for the old view than his solely MWI one.

Personally, I think Trek tales constructed where both are possible can lead to more interesting permutations than simply prematurely dismissing one or the other out of hand.

One thing is for sure: if one wants to rely on the evidence collected so far, there’s no scientific reason to dismiss the possibility of a time traveling Kirk Prime rescue of Spock Prime – or vice versa for that matter.

It would be delicious if this whole “retirement” thing was a plot surprise misdirection.

938. moauvian waoul - June 9, 2010

“not”? Hmm. I don’t so.

939. moauvian waoul - June 9, 2010

I don’t think so is what mean to say.

940. Disinvited - June 9, 2010

#939.

Then I’m confused because Bob’s been pretty clear that he believes in a strict application of MWI to get around causality “problems”, i.e. the future doesn’t directly affect the present or past because an alternate universe is created and thus a reverse causality check valve exists if you will and it prevents time from behaving as Trek had it in pre2009 stories. But experimental evidence in the Discover article confirms that time can flow from the future into the present of the same universe or from now into the past.

Maybe the confusion is because the movie itself is rather ambiguous about what time travel theory is being employed but Orci, himself, has been rather vocal that time travel from now on in Trek will only be supported under MWI and so there’s no going back for Spock Prime?

941. Harry Ballz - June 9, 2010

937

I don’t think Paramount is going to spend many millions of dollars to make a movie with two 80 year old actors as the leads!

942. moauvian waoul - June 9, 2010

I wasn’t really considering that point, rather I was addressing the issue of the universe attempting to correct itself, the string of coincidences that take place in the movie. Prime Spock eluded to this in the cave if memory serves me right. I should have been more specific. It seems to me the idea that destiny may be more prevelent in the universe speaks to this aspect of Orci’s plot.

943. Harry Ballz - June 10, 2010

Destiny don’t pay the bills!

I like the way you think, but……………..uh, no.

944. moauvian waoul - June 10, 2010

I hear ya Harry. Just an observation.

945. moauvian waoul - June 10, 2010

I’ve always seen destiny as kind of a cop out, as opposed to free will. (you play the ball or the ball will play you). Still I find the possibility of a scientific theory that attempts explore the notion, the idea the future can affect the past, well, …facinating.

946. Disinvited - June 10, 2010

#941.

Hmmm…. I’m supposed to be impressed that Paramount’s execs are so uninspired that they passed on THE SUNSHINE BOYS, OH GOD and UP?

But this is a digression into your strawman response as I never suggested any such thing. Perhaps this is because you aren’t thinking 4th dimensionally? For a time traveling Kirk Prime to rescue Spock Prime would mean that the time jaunt would have to take place some time before Kirk’s death – which, if I’m not mistaken, took place quite some time before his 80th birthday.

#942.

The universe attempting to correct itself comes from old Trek. I doubt Bob would take credit for it other than as an included homage. I’d even speculate that it’s more like Kurtzman’s style than Orci’s.

947. Disinvited - June 10, 2010

It is interesting that the one person to which Paramount doesn’t mind handing most of its millions, Sumner Redstone, IS over 80yo.

948. moauvian waoul - June 10, 2010

946 The universe attempting to correct itself comes from old Trek.

Example?

949. Harry Ballz - June 10, 2010

Gawd, let’s hope they get the next one half as right as the last one!

950. red dead ryan - June 10, 2010

Or twice as good!

951. red dead ryan - June 10, 2010

By the way, I’ve been listening to a couple of Queen tunes, “Princes Of The Universe” and “Who Wants To Live Forever”. Classic songs.
Something like those would help market the sequel I think.

952. red dead ryan - June 10, 2010

Not neccessarily those songs obviously, but get some big name rock bands to write some songs for a soundtrack album.

953. Disinvited - June 11, 2010

#948.

TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY, the second occurrence of time travel in Trek when the universe “corrected itself” by affording Kirk the opportunity to “correct” all the “damage” he did fumbling around in the Earth’s past almost as if it never occurred in the first place. The whole idea in CITY ON THE EDGE OF FOREVER that as big as the Earth is that Kirk, Spock and McCoy could all been drawn by “eddies” in time to the same location and moment.

For some odd reason, I think people tend to forget that human beings aren’t apart from the universe but actually a part of it. So every time Federation personnel purposefully went back in time to undo something some other time traveler changed would qualify as well. Quinan’s “this is not the way it’s supposed to be.” is definitely a sign of a universe trying to heal itself as well as predestination and retrocausality.

954. Disinvited - June 11, 2010

#952.

I’m glad you cleared that up because both of those songs were prominent in HIGHLANDER which featured many characters very much beyond their 80 year expiry date. But then maybe Harry’s objection isn’t so much that a movie has 80yo characters in it as much as it is that they might actually look 80yo which offends his sensibilities so?

One does have to wonder if nuParamount would actually object to having 80yo+ characters in one of their properties given the skunking those 108yo+ vampires gave ‘em on their own award show?

955. moauvian waoul - June 11, 2010

Seems like a slippery slope to me. The universe personified in Kirk and co. Maybe. It’s as good a point as any. Sounds a little close to “destiny.”

956. moauvian waoul - June 11, 2010

With the exception of “the Guardian of Forever” stating at the end of that episode that “all is as it should be”, that position has never been clearly stated; and only because McCoy had f—– it up. And it was Spock’s tricorder that they used to find him, not coincidence.

957. Disinvited - June 11, 2010

#956.

Your thoughts are uncoordinated. You seem to be implying that the timeline in the 2009 movie wasn’t f—- up by Nero, who, unlike McCoy’s singular act, did it time and time again?

Also, Spock didn’t look in his tricorder and say “There he is!” with regards to McCoy. Watch the episode again and pay attention to the dialogue between Kirk and Spock in the past. Kirk was constantly lamenting that they didn’t have the foggiest notion after landing in Earth’s past how close they were to McCoy in time or geographic location. And the tricorder never pinpointed McCoy for them. What it did was give Spock enough information to propose to Kirk that the theory of time “eddies” might be correct in which case all three might be being drawn to common reference point, i.e. Keeler. And even then, their meeting up with McCoy was still a total surprise that was in no way assisted by that burned-out device. True, once they met up, the tricorder was responsible for having given Kirk the answer to the way back for all three, but it in no way did it play a direct role in connecting all three up at that location and exact moment in time where they met.

958. red dead ryan - June 11, 2010

#954

I wasn’t referring to any of Harry’s comments when I wrote the last two posts. I just happened to be listening to those songs on iTunes when I posted that maybe next time Paramount should hire a band or bands to write songs for a “music from and inspired by” soundtrack. U2, Nickelback, Beastie Boys, groups like that. It would be something different for a Trek film.

959. Harry Ballz - June 11, 2010

I have nothing against 80 year old people, I just don’t think the “suits” at Paramount would want to base one of their “tentpole” productions on people of that demographic. Only the hardcore Trekkies would show up and that’s nowhere near what they are looking for in ticket sales.

C’est la vie!

960. moauvian waoul - June 11, 2010

Hmmm. Maybe so. I guess I would respond that Nero isn’t TOS. That Spock did what he’s done countless times before and worked out the numbers. Just because they weren’t exactly sure doesn’t mean they were assisted by the universe. That it would have been easier to prevent McCoy from altering the timeline than repairing it if the universe cared to help. That is what I might say. Then again, maybe I wouldn’t. Perhaps the guardian knows…

961. Disinvited - June 11, 2010

#959.

No, they rather base it on catering to a “new” demographic that doesn’t,

1. show up to give 2009 a win for the Golden Tomato.

2. show up in Pocket Book sales forecasts necessitating canceling announced 2009 based books.

3. show up in Playmates Christmas season sales projections necessitating cancellation of their 2009 based lines for that Christmas shopping season.

4. show up for the win at the PEOPLE’S CHOICE awards.

5. show up for the win at Viacom’s own MTV 2010 awards show.

I’m not sure what nuParamount execs are thinking but it has to be something along the lines “These nuTrekkers’ blood doesn’t boil quite as hot for our nuTrek as it did in the ones’ of yore at the beginning of the franchise.”

You can say what you want about us old fogeys being passe but whenever any corporation talked about canceling something to do with our Trek we got organized, we got heard, and we turned it around. We didn’t just go “Ho-Hum, oh well that’s the way it has to be.”

962. moauvian waoul - June 11, 2010

As for the other episodes… conjecture. Nothing definitive on the matter so nothing to base it on
I’ll just have to ask the guardian next time I run into ‘im. He likes to hang downtown, after hours. Ya know.

963. moauvian waoul - June 11, 2010

Yeah Ryan, I always thought Trek should rock out.

964. Harry Ballz - June 11, 2010

Remember to slip on a “guardian” every time you’re with a new lady!

965. red dead ryan - June 11, 2010

Hate to say it Harry, but that was kinda lame dude!

I wonder if Anthony realizes this thread is still going? :-)

966. Harry Ballz - June 12, 2010

Hey, after 6 glasses of wine, you’re lucky I can type!

967. moauvian waoul - June 12, 2010

The other threads don’t really have much to say. The topics are mainly eh.

968. Disinvited - June 12, 2010

#962.

Well, we weren’t looking for a canon argument. Were we? Just establishing the notion that the concept of the nature of altered time being responsible for amazing coincidences wasn’t original to the 2009 movie.

The Guardian is majorly important Trek thing to hang that hat on in that regard.

And as Spock Prime is the character that voiced both I still see the concepts of time eddies and time healing as not being mutually exclusive but rather connected.

And Quinan in both TV and the movies clearly gave voice to the concept that there was a “correct” way that time was supposed to be and that things needed to be fixed when it wasn’t.

969. moauvian waoul - June 12, 2010

Still not buying it. Not the Guardian thing anyway. Didn’t see evidence of the universe correcting itself by itself as seen in 2009, nor in any other episode. Kirk and Spock defied the odds on their own, or so we were led to believe. As for Guinan, I’ll take your word for it. Never been much of a TNG fan and I took ” old Trek” to mean TOS.

970. Disinvited - June 13, 2010

#969.

Wait a minute, you are leaping from Spock Prime’s suggestion that that may be going on, to it as a definitive explanation. It was a suggestion in a scene were he later admits at the end of the movie, to his younger self,, that he was misleading Kirk so no one knows, yet whether that is THE explanation. And even if we take your leap, this proposed isolated self-healing mechanism isn’t as efficient or quick as Kirk. Spock Prime only suggested that the universe may be attempting to heal itself. He never suggested that it was succeeding or that it was particularly efficient and rapid about it left to its own devices. Let’s put it another way: he never said to Kirk “Time is healing itself. Let’s sit back and watch the show.” No, instead he said “We have to get you on the Enterprise.”

As for you not buying that healing is just as a riff on eddies and not a whole new concept: that’s because you are clinging to the notion that somehow Kirk and Spock are apart from the universe/spacetime and not a part of it where they serve as agents of this healing mechanism.

Probably the one episode that hits us over the head with that concept is THE IMMUNITY SYNDROME.

971. moauvian waoul - June 13, 2010

Um maybe. Spock alluded to this point in 2009. I think it was for a reason, an explanation for the audience and not a through away line. The other examples that you site on TOS were less obvious. Because of that I don’t believe it is the case. Now I read here some time ago that the correction thing was intentional in the movie. I believe it was Orci who stated this. It was a year or so ago so I can no longer be sure. I think it is a fair assertion considering the scene.
The part about Kirk and Spock being part of the universe I believe is a Philosophical question that is legitimate but like other similar questions, can not be definitively answered. Since events are always subject to our interpretation, even historical ones, we can never be certain. Still I stand by mine. Though I must confess i am not sure to what scene you refer in The Immunity Syndrome.

972. Disinvited - June 14, 2010

#971.

In TIS Kirk posits to Spock that his ship and its entire crew had to serve as their universe’s antibody against the invading infection which would soon overwhelm it if they didn’t succeed. The entire script literally explores that metaphor.

I hope you aren’t taking the position that the concept of universe healing can only take place in one dimension?

973. Disinvited - June 14, 2010

#971.

“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.” – Bob Orci

974. StarFuryG7 - June 14, 2010

Wow –you guys are closing in on 1,000 posts after all.

975. red dead ryan - June 14, 2010

One post at a time!

976. Harry Ballz - June 14, 2010

Tom Hanks is such a big Trekkie, he should have a part in the next movie!

977. moauvian waoul - June 15, 2010

972. Interpreting the point as you suggest would imply the universe is taking sides. I don’t think I agree with this, and I’m not sure why it would. ( not trying to put words in your mouth, that’s what it sounds like where I’m sittin’). I see a natural law, if one existed, with siding with self preservation and against an unnatural intrusion like time alteration, if that is indeed “unnatural”. So I don’t believe the concept applies here.

973. I am not attempting to disagree with Orci’s comments, merely to apply them.

974. What happened to you guys? Haven’t been sneaking off to some lesser threads, I hope?

978. moauvian waoul - June 15, 2010

976. Harry! You’re back! Yep, I’ve thought the same thing. His talent and reputation would certainly be a plus

979. moauvian waoul - June 15, 2010

Don’t leave me alone here. I don’t know what I’m doin. Just ask Disinvited. :)

980. Disinvited - June 15, 2010

#980.

You may recall that Orci, himself, quoted Commander Data’s soliloquy on quantum signatures to explain how the universe could have characteristics that some would label “destiny” but that Data says is just statistical probability that some events are more likely to occur in some universes than others?

I will say that I’ve had a tremendous trouble reconciling the notion of the Abramverse’s timeline “healing” given the whole reason for its existence is to be separate from the Prime universe and to afford the writers the freedom to take the stories in any direction they feel it must go. It’s supposed to be something “new”. If it is healing, to what end? Is there some chronomatic “dark” energy equivalent drawing this universe’s time in a particular direction? Even though it does appear to dovetail nicely with CotEoF’s time eddies – this notion sure doesn’t seem to be giving them quite the freedom Abrams et al claimed they had?

But then Orci claims Spock Prime doesn’t try to “fix” the timeline and yet he takes action to return Kirk to Enterprise which definitely seems to be an attempt to “fix” something.

I think Orci tends to lose track of the exact nature of what he has wrought. He is adhering to a mechanism to prevent Spock Prime from traveling back in time in this new universe, but he loses track of the fact that he’s moving forward in a time and universe that is not his own and nevertheless “fixing” things. Orci also loses track that at the end of the movie Nero going through another black hole by this same mechanism poses no further threat to this Kirk or his universe, i.e. Orci has made it impossible for Nero to return to this universe through red-matter-black-hole-alternate-universe-creating time travel.

981. Disinvited - June 15, 2010

#977.

Whoops 980 was meant to address you. Nineteen more to go.

982. red dead ryan - June 15, 2010

Harry,

As others have said on other (lesser? heh!) threads, Tom Hanks would be great as Matt Decker. Although I’m a bit conflicted about having a big-name actor in the sequel. I don’t want to see Chris Pine overshadowed.
But a guy like Tom Hanks would help market the sequel.

983. Harry Ballz - June 16, 2010

Ryan

I’m confident that Mr.Pine can hold his own with even a formidable actor such as Tom Hanks.

984. moauvian waoul - June 16, 2010

981. I think that’s because they are trying to please everyone and getting pulled in multiple directions. They may also be getting trapped in their own reasoning or not explaining it clearly or remaining vague intentionally. Probably a little of all of it. It’s a fine line and the fans are watching closely. Because of this I give them some space, though some things I don’t agree with, things that could have been made clearer or easily avoided.

985. Harry Ballz - June 17, 2010

C’mon, we’ll never get to 1000 posts this way………MOVE IT!!!

986. red dead ryan - June 17, 2010

Who put you in charge? I don’t recognize your authority! :-)

987. Harry Ballz - June 18, 2010

“now we’ve got no captain…….and no first officer”

“yeah……………………we do!”

(sits down in chair) :>)

988. red dead ryan - June 18, 2010

“I hope you know what you’re doing!”

989. Harry Ballz - June 18, 2010

“So do I!”

ROTFLMFAO!!

990. red dead ryan - June 18, 2010

990! Only ten more to go!

Let’s “Make it so!”

“Engage!”

991. Harry Ballz - June 19, 2010

Old joke:

Q: what does a man with a ten inch schlong have for breakfast?

A: well, let’s see, this morning I had bacon, eggs, coffee…….:>)

992. red dead ryan - June 19, 2010

I would have been laughing if I got the joke.

993. moauvian waoul - June 19, 2010

Aw,come on you two. You’re sooooo close.

994. red dead ryan - June 19, 2010

Yes we are! Only six more to go!

And Harry, stop scratching your “Ballz” and get to it work! :-)

And by the way, I picked up a “Retro Cloth” Spock action figure this lovely afternoon!

995. red dead ryan - June 19, 2010

errr, I meant “get to work!”

Stupid dumb typos!

996. Harry Ballz - June 19, 2010

I could cheat and just type out 5 stupid posts, but unlike some people, I don’t take short-cuts to reach my goal!

ZING!

997. red dead ryan - June 19, 2010

You’re an honest guy, Harry. I respect that!

On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with taking a few “shortcuts” even if it means posting stupid comments! I read stupid comments all the time on this site, including my own!

3 more to go!

998. Harry Ballz - June 20, 2010

Well, lets start off by asking what you mean by that?

999. Harry Ballz - June 20, 2010

……and then I could point out that I had a good day today!

1000. Harry Ballz - June 20, 2010

Yahooooo…..1000 posts!

1001. Harry Ballz - June 20, 2010

………..but I digress.

1002. moauvian waoul - June 20, 2010

Congrats gentlemen

1003. StarFuryG7 - June 20, 2010

Ta Da.

1004. red dead ryan - June 20, 2010

“I could cheat and just type out five stupid posts, but unlike some people, I don’t take short-cuts to reach my goal!”

No it only took you four “stupid posts” to reach your goal! The irony could not be any more obvious!

Congratulations, Harry! You deserve it!

1005. Harry Ballz - June 20, 2010

What can I say, I changed the conditions of the test!

Okay, where’s my starship???

1006. moauvian waoul - June 21, 2010

Cheating is underrated

1007. Harry Ballz - June 22, 2010

So, by that logic, honesty is over-rated?

1008. moauvian waoul - June 23, 2010

Hmmm. Now Harry I didn’t say that…really. Doing the right thing is always…well, right. But sometimes rules get in the way. Just ask our favorite captain. I learned a lot from him.

1009. Harry Ballz - June 23, 2010

I know, I’m just “bustin’ your chops”. :>)

I, too, learned a lot from the original Kirk!

1010. moauvian waoul - June 23, 2010

For instance, I learned how to hotwire a starship

1011. Harry Ballz - June 24, 2010

I learned how to beat the crap out of a Gorn!

(this hasn’t come in handy yet, but one of these days……)

1012. Disinvited - June 24, 2010

I learned that when you bend the rules, always have an apple that you’ve bitten in your hand to remind you that, like Adam, there’s no going back.

1013. moauvian waoul - June 24, 2010

How ’bout the shoulder roll? Learned that one too. The double-fisted beat-down and the flying kick. Didn’t work out too well though.

1014. Harry Ballz - June 24, 2010

Q: what’s the similarity between getting oral sex from a really ugly person and mountain climbing?

A: in either situation, don’t look down!

1015. moauvian waoul - June 25, 2010

Ouch

1016. Harry Ballz - June 25, 2010

What, did somebody bite?

1017. moauvian waoul - June 25, 2010

Wait, I don’t get it.

1018. Harry Ballz - June 25, 2010

If someone giving oral sex happens to get overexcited and bites a little too hard, it’s not uncommon for the recipient to exclaim, “ouch!”

You got the meaning, you little devil! You just wanted to see how Harry was going to explain it, now didn’t you? :>)

1019. moauvian waoul - June 25, 2010

Busted!

1020. Harry Ballz - June 26, 2010

Don’t try to argue with me about oral sex! You’ll get licked every time!

(eee-yewwww!)

1021. moauvian waoul - June 26, 2010

Uggg

1022. Harry Ballz - June 26, 2010

Hey, come over to live chat! It’s a fun group over there!

1023. moauvian waoul - June 26, 2010

Not sure how. I’m a Luddite you see. I barely got this figured out. Seriously.

1024. Harry Ballz - June 26, 2010

At the top of the page, on the right, there’s a tab that says “live chat”. Simply click on that tab and then scroll down. Read some of the posts, they are hilarious! Especially from a guy named British Naval Dude. He’s friggin’ warped!!

1025. moauvian waoul - June 26, 2010

All right, and thanks

1026. moauvian waoul - June 26, 2010

Hmmm. Now I know where the adults hang out… with personality disorders; a place I clearly belong. Trouble is I use my phone to sign on (and piss people off).

1027. Harry Ballz - June 26, 2010

So what??

C’mon over, the water’s fine!

1028. moauvian waoul - June 28, 2010

I sure will. Scrolling down on this thread is tough on the thumbs. I nearly got blisters on that one. Guess it started on the first of the year. I was trying to keep up. And BND, well he ain’t right.

1029. Harry Ballz - June 28, 2010

Oh, come on over to chat, you’ll enjoy yourself! See you there!

1030. Disinvited - July 6, 2010

#1028.

Hold the Ctrl key down then type the “End” key. Then release both keys and it will zip to the bottom.

1031. Harry Ballz - July 7, 2010

Hey, Disinvited, come on over to the live chat thread! It’s fun!

1032. Lynwood Schiro - June 13, 2011

Out of my investigation, shopping for electronic devices online may be easily expensive, nevertheless there are some tricks and tips that you can use to obtain the best things. There are usually ways to find discount deals that could make one to hold the best technology products at the cheapest prices. Interesting blog post.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.