Star Trek

[Alex]

Of course that's not what made Phantom Menace a bad film. But it is a "violation" of the pre-known story that pissed a lot of people off.

And your example of coming out of the closet isn't even close to the same thing as what we're talking about so I think we really are talking past each other. If the future you cam back and changed something from before your birth so that every single life experience you had was fundamentally different than what had already experienced then yes, I'd pretty strongly argue that you are a significantly different person. And that is what happened to Kirk (and now to significant degrees, if not before, for every other character).

A night's sleep hasn't helped my regard for the movie. As I think about it the near total stupidity of plot and science is coming more to the fore so it is probably best for me to stop thinking about it at all if I don't want to ruin what was a pretty good in-the-moment experience.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex

If the future you cam back and changed something from before your birth so that every single life experience you had was fundamentally different than what had already experienced then yes, I'd pretty strongly argue that you are a significantly different person. And that is what happened to Kirk (and now to significant degrees, if not before, for every other character).

Ok, I'm not suggesting the following is due to any philosophical purpose of the screenwriters, but what happens is that there is "fate" to certain elements of one's life. Captain Pike is crippled from the waist down instead of face down. Checkov ends up at the helm 8 years earlier. Kirk becomes Captain of the Enterprise. On and on. The premise, which I happen to like and which is time-travel fiction standard, is that certain things will happen no matter what, and other things will change.

And, um, since it's all a matter of accepting Daniel Brosnon Moore as James Bond, I hardly think it matters anyway.

But, for curiosity's sake, when is the tipping point of total character-difference for you, Alex? Does it have to be a time anomaly before one's birth, or will the change occurring at age 7 do just as nicely? Is Spock a different person if, as in much fan fic, he's a big Vulan 'mo and Kirk's lover? Or is he only a different person if his planet is destroyed?


* * * * *


mousepod, I'm sorry I've seemed to miss your point. I love your opinions on film, even when I don't agree with them ... so I'll have to go re-read your posts with an eye on better comprehension ... but not just so's I can disagree with you properly.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

The premise, which I happen to like and which is time-travel fiction standard, is that certain things will happen no matter what, and other things will change.

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.

But then I also simply don't have any personal or philosophical affinity for ideas such as "fate" so I'm sure that doesn't help.