Thoughts on new Star Trek movie (*spoilers!*)

Shaggy

Vice Admiral
Ah, now see the movie doesn't deal with much of that and I haven't read the comic, yet.
As the movie stands, on its own, the three I listed are major continuity changes. So far as I remember the movie never made mention of any alternate universe elements, but then again I've only seen it once.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
As the movie stands, on its own, the three I listed are major continuity changes. So far as I remember the movie never made mention of any alternate universe elements, but then again I've only seen it once.

I think you're missing a big aspect of the movie. The idea is that Nero's attack on the Kelvin dramatically changed Kirk's life -- and thus created a completely different timeline from that point on. The movie is the TOS crew coming together in a different way from how they originally did (several years earlier, too).
 

Mancubus

Rear Admiral
I think you're missing a big aspect of the movie. The idea is that Nero's attack on the Kelvin dramatically changed Kirk's life -- and thus created a completely different timeline from that point on. The movie is the TOS crew coming together in a different way from how they originally did (several years earlier, too).

Yeah. And ind the movie Spock kind of says it. Kind of loud. Kind of on the bridge. Kind of hard to miss. And then older Spock tells Kirk that in his past, Kirk knew his father. Kind of easier to miss but still... not THAT hard
 

Shaggy

Vice Admiral
I think you're missing a big aspect of the movie. The idea is that Nero's attack on the Kelvin dramatically changed Kirk's life -- and thus created a completely different timeline from that point on. The movie is the TOS crew coming together in a different way from how they originally did (several years earlier, too).

This was exactly what I was talking about. But the question is: Is this an alternate reality, ala the dark mirror universe, or is it a fundemental change to the established timeline where Kirk knew his father, had a brother, and Spock's mother was alive to see him resurrected? If it's option A then it doesn't necessarily follow that this is indeed the same Kirk set forth by William Shatner. Also if that's the case then what Nero did was just stupid, because he didn't really go back in his time to punish Spock, he went back in someone else's time to punish a different Spock. To paraphrase a scene from the film Summer Rental, He didn't wet his bed, he wet their bed.:)

Now if it's option B, then it is a major change to the established timeline and does cancel some established events.
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
This was exactly what I was talking about. But the question is: Is this an alternate reality, ala the dark mirror universe, or is it a fundemental change to the established timeline where Kirk knew his father, had a brother, and Spock's mother was alive to see him resurrected? If it's option A then it doesn't necessarily follow that this is indeed the same Kirk set forth by William Shatner. Also if that's the case then what Nero did was just stupid, because he didn't really go back in his time to punish Spock, he went back in someone else's time to punish a different Spock. To paraphrase a scene from the film Summer Rental, He didn't wet his bed, he wet their bed.

Now if it's option B, then it is a major change to the established timeline and does cancel some established events.

It is neither of those things. What they've done with the new movie is split off (post-Kelvin) a completely new timeline which can serve as a launching point for original Star Trek stories using the TOS crew... but at the same time its a reality which owes its existence to the previous stories having happened. Nero and Spock Prime 'came from' the original TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY timeline and through their changes to the past split off this one, which is now separate (Enterprise enters service later, Kirk doesn't know his father and joins starfleet later, all end up on the Enterprise together sooner, etc.)

Nero's goal was to punish Spock Prime, not Spock in the new alternate timeline (though he probably doesn't realize the impact his destroying the Kelvin has had). I don't think there's any question that what he did was *stupid*, though... because really what he should have done was just sit around in the past and *save Romulus* with the red matter as soon as that was possible. The idea is that he's crippled with grief, though.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
RE: Continuity Changes.

The only continuity change isn't even a change but an "update": Romulus is gone and Spock has more or less "disappeared" from the original TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY timeline. I assume both of these were covered in the ST tie-in comics I've yet to get my hands on. (Please correct me if I'm wrong in this.)
 

Shaggy

Vice Admiral
Okay I guess that all makes sense, but I don't want to dig to deeply because the string theory is likely to make my head explode, as string theory is wont to do.:D
 

Tigerhawk

Captain
Okay I guess that all makes sense, but I don't want to dig to deeply because the string theory is likely to make my head explode, as string theory is wont to do.:D

For an easier explanation and in the interests of keeping heads from blasting like melons :D , check out the TNG episode "Parallels". This is the one where Worf keeps shifting between realities, and one of the Data's presents the idea of fragments of timelines based upon events taking place and choices being made. Is this instance following that presentation, an alternate timeline was created because the Kelvin was destroyed..."originally", that never took place. Thus, the branching of a new reality.

No flying brains, please! :p
 

Tigerhawk

Captain
RE: Continuity Changes.

The only continuity change isn't even a change but an "update": Romulus is gone and Spock has more or less "disappeared" from the original TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY timeline. I assume both of these were covered in the ST tie-in comics I've yet to get my hands on. (Please correct me if I'm wrong in this.)

I haven't seen the comics, but you're probably right on. It sounds like the most plausible thing that would have happened, and Spock was likely assumed killed by the Supernova.
 

Shaggy

Vice Admiral
A lot of what has been cited here as "why there aren't continuity changes changes" are more or less commercial reasons for changing things up. Storywise there are repercussions for all of these action. There's no guarrantee, or likelihood, that the Pine/Kirk will follow the same path as as the Shatner\Kirk, but then again I really don't care.
I liked the show alot and I'm really looking forward to a sequel, cause that's where the series will truly shine or suck. This one had the benefit of absence and name recognition to help boost it.
And I do kind of wish they had used the Pocket Books version of Kirk's Kobayashi Maru test, it's a much less blatant cheat and still fits his ego perfectly.
 

Tigerhawk

Captain
A lot of what has been cited here as "why there aren't continuity changes changes" are more or less commercial reasons for changing things up. Storywise there are repercussions for all of these action. There's no guarrantee, or likelihood, that the Pine/Kirk will follow the same path as as the Shatner\Kirk, but then again I really don't care.
I liked the show alot and I'm really looking forward to a sequel, cause that's where the series will truly shine or suck. This one had the benefit of absence and name recognition to help boost it.
And I do kind of wish they had used the Pocket Books version of Kirk's Kobayashi Maru test, it's a much less blatant cheat and still fits his ego perfectly.

About the Maru test...I think that was kind of the point. This incarnation of Kirk seems to give even less of a damn than Shatner/Kirk did.
 

WCblitz

Captain
so, as to the quality of the film, which do you think was best, regular 35mm , DLP, or Imax. (or is there another type I don't know about)

I was Lucky a month before ST came out my local theater converted one Screen to DLP and I must say it was Very Nice, Crisp and Clean almost a 3d like screen. None of those spots, hairs etc you can some times get on the lenses with old 35mm.

they also upgraded to the newest DTS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJYaT75falM )

I wanted to check out Imax I have yet to go to one, but the closest one was about 4 hours away and for 3 people the ticket price would have been about $50.

The DLP cost me $10 and 1 Senior $7 ticket for my Dad.(theses were night time prices)
 

AD

Finder of things, Doer of stuff
so, as to the quality of the film, which do you think was best, regular 35mm , DLP, or Imax. (or is there another type I don't know about)

I was Lucky a month before ST came out my local theater converted one Screen to DLP and I must say it was Very Nice, Crisp and Clean almost a 3d like screen. None of those spots, hairs etc you can some times get on the lenses with old 35mm.

they also upgraded to the newest DTS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJYaT75falM )

I wanted to check out Imax I have yet to go to one, but the closest one was about 4 hours away and for 3 people the ticket price would have been about $50.

The DLP cost me $10 and 1 Senior $7 ticket for my Dad.(theses were night time prices)

Imax is only worth it if it's a true 70mm projector. All these 'upgraded' multiplex screens they're calling IMAX these days are really just regular DLPs that are projecting on somewhat larger than normal screens (yet still only a fraction of actual IMAX size). The results are at most times less than spectacular especially if you end up sitting close to the screen.

It will be up to you if the extra cost of a multiplex "mini IMAX" screen is worth it to you, but I wouldn't hesitate to watch the film on a real 70mm projected IMAX on a 5 storey tall screen. It's true that most films will still be upscaled to make 70mm negatives from the 35mm stock the film was shot in but it will still be great compared to what you get at one of those "mini IMAX".
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
A lot of what has been cited here as "why there aren't continuity changes changes" are more or less commercial reasons for changing things up. Storywise there are repercussions for all of these action. There's no guarrantee, or likelihood, that the Pine/Kirk will follow the same path as as the Shatner\Kirk, but then again I really don't care.
I'm pretty amazed that so many people don't seem to understand how the timeline works. It's the very most basic element necessary for understanding the movie in the first place.
 

Farbourne

Rear Admiral
Finally saw the movie and read over these comments. Don't have time to post my full thoughts on it right now (maybe tomorrow) but a couple of quick hits:

0). Overally, enjoyed it a lot. I've been disappointed by every Star Trek product to come out since First Contact, but this one rose above all the other recent attempts.

1). McCoy = Awesome.

2). Agree that Nero was a little shallow, and that was a major knock against an otherwise mostly good movie.

3). Silly things I could have done without:
- The car chase
- Canyons in Iowa?
- Spock ejecting Kirk onto some random nearby planet with dangerous beasts, instead of throwing him in the brig. Contrived plot device, anyone?
- Nero about to kill Kirk, and then just leaving him lying there inexplicably.
- Scotty beaming into a pipe.

4). Some of the physics bothered me (a black hole that consumed Vulcan wouldn't have left a planet so close as to be able to see Vulcan like a moon in the sky intact, eradication of anti-matter produces most of its energy as gamma radiation, which wouldn't give much propelling power to throw them clear of a black hole, unless it ionized the Enterprise, which would kind of defeat the point), but that's kind of a trademark of Star Trek, too.

5). On the complaint that the Enterprise wasn't built in Iowa...do we know that the ship we saw in Iowa was actually the Enterprise? I looked and didn't see a name or serial number on that Iowan ship under construction. According to the official timeline, I believe, there were something like 12 or 13 Constitution class starships in service. That ship being built in Iowa could just as easily have been the Farragut (which is mentioned in the movie), or the Hood or the Defiant.

6). I believe that the confusion regarding the "Bird of Prey" issue stems from the following. The phrase "Bird of Prey" was initially intended to refer to a Romulan warship, as established by the TOS episode "Balance of Terror". Then the production crew fired their art guy who made the model, threw the model out, and then needed it again for "The Enterprise Incident". Since they'd just finished developing a Klingon battlecruiser model, they used it instead, and glibly explained it by giving Spock a line to the effect of "Intelligence indicates Romulans now using Klingon designs". This actually makes since, since originally, the Romulans didn't have warp drive, and the Klingons didn't have cloaking, so maybe they swapped technologies and both used similar ship classes for a while as a result? But then, once Romulans and Klingons were using the same clase of ship, I think it was natural that the "Bird of Prey" moniker should show up in STIII and STIV for the Klingon ship.

7). Since old Spock obviously has no compunction about messing with the timeline, shouldn't he now, um, warn Kirk and Starfleet about a few things? Things that are closing in on them regardless of whether or not Nero altered the timeline. Such as:
- The gigantic Doomsday Machine bearing down on them
- The gigantic Ameoba about to eat them
- The flying fried egg plague thingies that will wipe out a planet
- Nomad
- V'ger
- A big ass whale probe en route to Earth
- The imminent destruction of Braxis (sp?)
- The plague agent on the planet in the Omega star system
- The weird anomoly in Tholian space
- Apollo
- Redjak
- The crazy mind control people who like to make white men kiss black women
- The dangers of trying to leave the galaxy
- The friendly angel?

And every other monster of the week that plagued three seasons of TOS, three spinoff series, and ten full length motion pictures?

I mean, I know he's getting old, and the timeline has been altered, but all these things are presumably still out there, and a little foreknowledge could go a long way towards saving a planet or starship full of lives.
 

Farbourne

Rear Admiral
A supernova couldn't destroy the galaxy, but it could certainly do a lot towards making part of it uninhabitable. In "A Brief History of Everything" Bill Bryson talks about how bad it would be if a big supernova happened kind of "close" (in glactic terms) to us. Basically, all life in hundreds or thousands of star systems wiped out. Granted, that's only a little bit of the galaxy, but nowhere in Star Trek does it imply that the main characters occupy a significant portion of the galaxy. Actually, the fact the humans made contact with both Vulcans and Romulans shortly after they had invented warp drive (and before the Romulans had), implies that Vulcan, Romulas, and Earth are all rather close together, at least in galactic terms.
 

Kuhuna

Rear Admiral
In defense of the canyon, the sides of it are flat, as if it was dug out by a machine rather than naturally formed.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
7). Since old Spock obviously has no compunction about messing with the timeline, shouldn't he now, um, warn Kirk and Starfleet about a few things? Things that are closing in on them regardless of whether or not Nero altered the timeline.

1.) None of those things may exist now.

2.) Why would you clutter up a reboot movie by making an unnessessary shopping list of references about the "defunct" timeline?
 

Bandit LOAF

Long Live the Confederation!
). On the complaint that the Enterprise wasn't built in Iowa...do we know that the ship we saw in Iowa was actually the Enterprise? I looked and didn't see a name or serial number on that Iowan ship under construction. According to the official timeline, I believe, there were something like 12 or 13 Constitution class starships in service. That ship being built in Iowa could just as easily have been the Farragut (which is mentioned in the movie), or the Hood or the Defiant.

The screenwriters actually started suggesting that it wasn't *necessarily* the Enterprise in interviews, presumably after getting an earful about the ship being built in/above San Francisco. Unfortunately, they forgot that 'NCC-1701' is visible on the nacelle in the last shot (as the shuttle flies away).

The Hood is mentioned in the movie, too.

In defense of the canyon, the sides of it are flat, as if it was dug out by a machine rather than naturally formed.

I think Chris (or Frosty?) noted that there's a sign that says it's a quarry the second time we saw the movie. It sure *feels* like it's supposed to be the Grand Canyon, though... (and I, too, could have done without that scene. It's so over-the-top -- have him crash the car into a space bus or something. I need to be convinced that kid-Kirk is a delinquent, not that he's an awesome action hero with mad car jumping out of skills.)

1.) None of those things may exist now.

Some of them should; presumably some "force of nature" things like the Doomsday Machine, V'ger and the Whale Probe would still be following their same courses (since they're not influenced by the post-Kelvin 'known universe'). That said, who's to say Spock *isn't* going to warn Starfleet about these things -- as long as doing so jives with 24th century time travel ethics.

There's a lot of talk now about using Kahn or some other similar element in the sequel; I'd much rather see a completely original story (I'd love to see them 'burn off' a bunch of iconic TOS adventures in a quick montage at the start of the next movie... quick shots of the new Enterprise fighting the Doomsday Machine, Tribbles falling on Chris Pine's head, Pine and Quinto in the 1930s, etc.)
 
Top