Star Trek - Page 5

Alex · 05-10-2009, 09:00 AM

Presumably Spock will now warn the Federation about such oncoming threats as V'Ger (plenty of time to clone some whales rather than going back in time and thus delaying the invention of transparent aluminum), the Borg (so no reason to go back in time and jump start the invention of Cochrane's warp engines, drawing the attention of Vulcan, and triggering the founding of the Federation), and all the other various galaxy threatening events that will be happening in the next 150 years.

(And I just remembered the real reason why putting a black hold in the middle of a supernova won't help. Generally -- and definitely in one big enough to "threaten the galaxy" though no such supernova could really exist -- there is already a black hole at the middle of a supernova, the creation of which being what causes the explosion.)

Dammit, I can't stop! It was fun! But it was stupid! But it was fun! And since I probably won't see it again for years, if ever, eventually I'll just remember the stupid! and not the fun!

CoasterMatt · 05-10-2009, 09:14 AM

I kept waiting for somebody to say that Kirk's midichlorian count was off the scale...

Cadaverous Pallor · 05-10-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Dammit, I can't stop! It was fun! But it was stupid! But it was fun! And since I probably won't see it again for years, if ever, eventually I'll just remember the stupid! and not the fun!

This was exactly how I felt about Phantom Menace (except for the not seeing it for years - I saw it 6 times in theaters).

Regarding midichlorians - the reason it was such blasphemy to me was that it put a mystical concept and made it scientific. They took the magic out, which to me was denying a basic principle of the original trilogy. This is the major difference between Wars and Trek, as Trek was based in science and logic. The only analogy I can think of to Trek is if they claimed that the science of Trek was actually magic - warp drive created by God or something. Then you'd get a rant out of me.

As I said before I did feel like I was mourning the old Trek. But I don't feel that they were saying the old experiences didn't matter. I can accept that that universe remains intact, elsewhere. This is an alternate universe. The characters have slight differences, sure - you're going to have a scrappier Kirk due to daddy issues and a more live-for-today Spock, but hey, holy crap, they have something MORE to write about! A slight twist. Like iSm, I also caught the new Kirk acting Kirk-ish in those last moments of the movie. Yay.

I am seriously hoping that after LOST ends Abrams will bring this to TV. Please!!!

innerSpaceman · 05-10-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Yes, that is a time-travel staple...when things remain in a single timeline. It is definitely not a staple of multiple timeline science fiction however and that is what we are dealing with here.

You mean they've mixed up time-travel-tropes and black hole theory? On Star Trek? Heavens to Betsy Ross!

Alex · 05-10-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

You mean they've mixed up time-travel-tropes and black hole theory? On Star Trek? Heavens to Betsy Ross!

No, I'm not accusing them of mixing up time-travel-tropes. I'm accusing you of mixing them up.

Alex · 05-10-2009, 09:54 AM

I'm not going to say there is a solid line. But Kirk's motiviations and Spock's motivations for how they proceed through life have been fundamentally changed. And whether that results in somewhat similar courses that is, in my opinion, a very important difference.

But the key thing is not just that they are different people than originally depicted but that with this film we are told that all that has come before is irrelevant (and I believe one of mousepod's points is that it is cheating to use the love of what has come before as the draw to get you into the theater only to reveal halfway in that it is all being discarded) to any future engagement with the franchise except insofar as it allows the writers a convenient shortcut. Yes, those events still happened in some other timeline (similar to "its just a dream events" really happened in the dream) but they are of no future use in experiencing future events (except where they provide easy one-liners to future writers).

I also don't understand at all the comparison to James Bond beyond the fact that they are really the only examples of such lengthy movie franchises. I'm sure you really do see a parallel of importance but I'm completely missing it since the internal structure of the two franchises has never been on similar terms.

innerSpaceman · 05-10-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

I also don't understand at all the comparison to James Bond beyond the fact that they are really the only examples of such lengthy movie franchises. I'm sure you really do see a parallel of importance but I'm completely missing it since the internal structure of the two franchises has never been on similar terms.

True, but the kernel of analogy is there. A new Bond does not mean that all that stuff for the last 40 years never happened. Even Daniel Craig presented as the "start" of James Bond does erase the past. Though I suppose some upset purists could have ranted on about that.

It's left incredibly fuzzy in the Bond series. But for all we know, the internal structure is exactly the same as Star Trek. As far as the films present, Sean Lazenby Moore Dalton Bronson the Third are all the same, non-aging person ... and Daniel Craig is then the very first James Bond in an alternate universe where S.L.M.D.Bronson III never existed.

They just don't bother to make an explaination ... perhaps so people won't have silly discussions about it.

The New Timeline element of this Star Trek movie is simply a matter of literary convenient licensing. It's being blown out of proportion here. It does not mean that James T. Shatner and Leonard Spock never lived. If you like, their exploits continue unchanged in an alternate timeline of endless reruns. These are different actors stepping into their shoes with the explanation that they are essentially the same characters under more or less drastically changed circumstances. Perhaps the timeline change is also why Chris Pine looks only vaguely like Bill Shatner, and Zachery Quinto looks like Leonard Nimoy only in the right light. In other words, WTF?

Alex · 05-10-2009, 10:11 AM

I don't recall if there was anything in the movie that established it. However, assuming that the construction of the Enterprise itself was not significantly changed due to the loss of the Kelvin then its maiden voyage happened in this film (Pike says as much when they first leave Earth). And so this is the final year (one presumes) of Kirk's time at the academy.

In the original timeline when Kirk becomes captain the Enterprise had already been on one five year mission with Pike as the captain (and Spock as first officer). So that would seem to argue that the movie is happening at least 5-7 years before the beginning of TOS (that episode starts with the Kirk five-year mission already some amount of time under way).

And looking at the "canon" timeline I see that the events of "The Cage" happened in 2254 (this is the episode that used the original pilot with Pike as captain) while the first episode of TOS happened in 2265. So by that timeline, again assuming that the construction of the Enterprise was not moved, the events of the movie must be more like 10-13 years earlier than when Kirk became captain of the Enterprise in the originally presented timeline.

Stardates were mentioned frequently in the movie so it would be relatively easy to align with the events of the original timeline (unless destruction of the Kelvin triggered a change in what stardates mean).

innerSpaceman · 05-10-2009, 10:20 AM

I'm glad my memory is fuzzy, it makes the changes so much easier to accept.

But was Kirk on the Enterprise while Spock was first officer under Capt. Pike? I know he's not in "The Cage," but was it explained in "The Menagerie" that Kirk was some sort of junior officer on board at the time???

Alex · 05-10-2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'm glad my memory is fuzzy, it makes the changes so much easier to accept.

According to generally accepted canon (stuff said or hinted at in TV shows and movies), after graduation from Starfleet Kirk served on various ships (starting with the USS Farragut) for almost a decade before getting command of the Enterprise (and no, he hadn't been on it under Pike).

ETA: Oh, and something that occurs to me, just to add to things that break canon even in the new timeline. In TOS, there was an episode in which the Federation first made visual contact with the Romulans and it was a surprise to everybody (including Spock) that they were related to Vulcans. Just a minor thing, but the kind of thing that has been trickling into my head all morning. Having all episodes on Hulu is really going to make nitpicing easier (as now I'm tempted to rewatch the episode to see exactly what was said).

05-10-2009, 09:00 AM	#1
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Presumably Spock will now warn the Federation about such oncoming threats as V'Ger (plenty of time to clone some whales rather than going back in time and thus delaying the invention of transparent aluminum), the Borg (so no reason to go back in time and jump start the invention of Cochrane's warp engines, drawing the attention of Vulcan, and triggering the founding of the Federation), and all the other various galaxy threatening events that will be happening in the next 150 years. (And I just remembered the real reason why putting a black hold in the middle of a supernova won't help. Generally -- and definitely in one big enough to "threaten the galaxy" though no such supernova could really exist -- there is already a black hole at the middle of a supernova, the creation of which being what causes the explosion.) Dammit, I can't stop! It was fun! But it was stupid! But it was fun! And since I probably won't see it again for years, if ever, eventually I'll just remember the stupid! and not the fun!
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2009, 09:14 AM	#2
CoasterMatt BRAAAAAAAINS! Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: One Step Beyond... Posts: 8,802	I kept waiting for somebody to say that Kirk's midichlorian count was off the scale... __________________ Do you like my photography? Visit photosbymatt.tumblr.com to purchase prints!
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2009, 09:54 AM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'm not going to say there is a solid line. But Kirk's motiviations and Spock's motivations for how they proceed through life have been fundamentally changed. And whether that results in somewhat similar courses that is, in my opinion, a very important difference. But the key thing is not just that they are different people than originally depicted but that with this film we are told that all that has come before is irrelevant (and I believe one of mousepod's points is that it is cheating to use the love of what has come before as the draw to get you into the theater only to reveal halfway in that it is all being discarded) to any future engagement with the franchise except insofar as it allows the writers a convenient shortcut. Yes, those events still happened in some other timeline (similar to "its just a dream events" really happened in the dream) but they are of no future use in experiencing future events (except where they provide easy one-liners to future writers). I also don't understand at all the comparison to James Bond beyond the fact that they are really the only examples of such lengthy movie franchises. I'm sure you really do see a parallel of importance but I'm completely missing it since the internal structure of the two franchises has never been on similar terms.
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2009, 10:11 AM	#8
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I don't recall if there was anything in the movie that established it. However, assuming that the construction of the Enterprise itself was not significantly changed due to the loss of the Kelvin then its maiden voyage happened in this film (Pike says as much when they first leave Earth). And so this is the final year (one presumes) of Kirk's time at the academy. In the original timeline when Kirk becomes captain the Enterprise had already been on one five year mission with Pike as the captain (and Spock as first officer). So that would seem to argue that the movie is happening at least 5-7 years before the beginning of TOS (that episode starts with the Kirk five-year mission already some amount of time under way). And looking at the "canon" timeline I see that the events of "The Cage" happened in 2254 (this is the episode that used the original pilot with Pike as captain) while the first episode of TOS happened in 2265. So by that timeline, again assuming that the construction of the Enterprise was not moved, the events of the movie must be more like 10-13 years earlier than when Kirk became captain of the Enterprise in the originally presented timeline. Stardates were mentioned frequently in the movie so it would be relatively easy to align with the events of the original timeline (unless destruction of the Kelvin triggered a change in what stardates mean).
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2009, 10:20 AM	#9
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I'm glad my memory is fuzzy, it makes the changes so much easier to accept. But was Kirk on the Enterprise while Spock was first officer under Capt. Pike? I know he's not in "The Cage," but was it explained in "The Menagerie" that Kirk was some sort of junior officer on board at the time???
	Submit to Quotes