Star Trek

[innerSpaceman]

Nope, not buying it. Before I was with Isaac, I was repressing my homosexuality. Not anymore. Am I a "different" person after such a major lifestyle change?

No.

I am me under radically different circumstances.



And since it's just a silly plot point to explain why they won't be slavishly copying the original series, this entire line of argument just strikes me as beyond silly.


Oh, and Midochloreans are not what made The Phantom Menace a bad film.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex

I am surprised to see that so many of the people ... don't seem to care at all that Abrams just pulled the science fiction version of "and then he woke up to find it was all a dream."

I suppose it comes down to an analog of the Roger Rabbit dictum, "As long as it was funny."

In other words, if the last season of Roseanne had been as good as the first 5 seasons instead of being craptacular, it wouldn't have mattered to me that the entire season was just a dream.


So slightly tortured exposition to explain why they won't be copying your father's Star Trek to a T. for Tiberius, building starships on gravity-bound planetary surfaces, engineering sections that look like 20th-Century power plants, and radically stupid alterations of basic scientific and plausible concepts don't matter ... since the movie was enjoyably fantastic.


Again, in my humble opinion (and that of 91% of critics and 97% of filmgoers)

[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.

[mousepod]

iSm ... you're arguing against a position that I didn't take.

I'm wondering if you don't understand what my real beef is.

And perhaps that's why you loved the movie. So rather than reiterate, I will just accept that you have gotten hours of entertainment for your money, and be happy for you.

[Alex]

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]

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

[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.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

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]

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!