New Star Trek

Senator Jack · May 15, 2009

Miss Neecerie said:
These fine folks: http://www.timetravelfund.com/

would disagree with this...and would like you to join them. Contribute today and you could -gone- tomorrow.

lol

I just joined too, and I

Macheath · May 16, 2009

Matt Deckard said:
Spock is stranded in the new timeline since the line has changed. If he goes back to the future he'll simply go to a future where Vulcan has been destroyed. You will never see another Next gen movie because that stuff never happened. It was all explained clearly in the new movie.

Same universe. Timeline has been altered.

But the altered timeline IS the "new universe". Everything in Trek's prime universe remains intact.

Otherwise, you would have a paradox. The nullification of the original timeline would preclude Spock prime's travel to the past, and none of the changes would have happened to begin with.

Matt Deckard · May 16, 2009

No, Spock and Nero are isolated by being outside of their time when the change was made. Like when time was changed by Bones jumping through the guardian. My logic is flawless. Star Trek clearly showed that time had changed and there was no mention of another dimension. If they had decided to go that route, which they did not, then there would be no point in following the characters... they'd be completely different. As said in the movie, it's time that has been altered. And like in Quantum Leap, Spock like Sam changed time to the point where there was no future that resembled their own to go back to. This means no DS-9 and Voyager as well. It's all there on the screen. Spock says it himself and the crew agrees... Time has been changed and the future from this point on is altered.

It's one timeline, and that one line of what happens has been changed. There is no parallel version mentioned in this movie. To say otherwise is just making stuff up.

Goodbye Next Generation

jake431 · May 16, 2009

I'll have to watch it again. Nothing you have described was clear to me. In fact I thought it was clear this was a new, parallel universe. I thought the writers set it up that way so as not to invalidate the large body of work already created.

Matt Deckard said:
No, Spock and Nero are isolated by being outside of their time when the change was made. Like when time was changed by Bones jumping through the guardian. My logic is flawless. Star Trek clearly showed that time had changed and there was no mention of another dimension. If they had decided to go that route, which they did not, then there would be no point in following the characters... they'd be completely different. As said in the movie, it's time that has been altered. And like in Quantum Leap, Spock like Sam changed time to the point where there was no future that resembled their own to go back to. This means no DS-9 and Voyager as well. It's all there on the screen. Spock says it himself and the crew agrees... Time has been changed and the future from this point on is altered.

MrBern · May 16, 2009

the term used in the movie was: An Alternate Reality

MrBern · May 16, 2009

Macheath said:
But the altered timeline IS the "new universe". Everything in Trek's prime universe remains intact.

Otherwise, you would have a paradox. The nullification of the original timeline would preclude Spock prime's travel to the past, and none of the changes would have happened to begin with.

Well there is a paradox in play when you have two Spocks on screen.

MrBern · May 16, 2009

Countdown

OK, I was just told that the prequel comic has answers on why a mining ship is so powerful & why Nero had a spear in hand while interrogating the Kelvin's Captain.

Im off to look for some logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_trek_countdown

MrBern · May 16, 2009

timelines explanation by screenwriter

From the site used as reference by the writers:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_(film)

Even though this film takes place in an alternate timeline, Orci has stated that any canon changes made in this timeline will not affect the former timeline, arguing that the scientific theory of quantum mechanics permits the existence of parallel timelines and universes. He also believes that this theory allows for the continuance of a timeline even after a change is affected and an alternate timeline is created. In addition, he argues that, although the timeline has changed, the true nature of the characters does not change and that Kirk and company are the same people they are in the original timeline. [28]

Matt Deckard · May 16, 2009

"When Spock successfully destroys the supernova, the Narada appears to attack when the black hole flings it and the Jellyfish back in time, leaving Picard and the crew of the Enterprise as witnesses to Spock's sacrifice."

BACK IN TIME (not into alternate dimension)

So I'm right... Hmmm And the movie is right as well. Bye bye Next Gen

MrBern · May 16, 2009

Yes, back in time, where Nero's attacks change the timeline & create AN ALTERNATE REALITY.

JennyLou · May 16, 2009

Yup, an alternate reality.

Matt Deckard · May 16, 2009

Yes an alternate reality, erasing the original. That's what they said alright. New timeline same dimension.

MrBern · May 16, 2009

Matt Deckard said:
Yes an alternate reality, erasing the original. That's what they said alright. New timeline same dimension.

once again, from the scriptwriter's intensions:

Even though this film takes place in an alternate timeline, Orci has stated that any canon changes made in this timeline will not affect the former timeline, arguing that the scientific theory of quantum mechanics permits the existence of parallel timelines and universes. He also believes that this theory allows for the continuance of a timeline even after a change is affected and an alternate timeline is created. In addition, he argues that, although the timeline has changed, the true nature of the characters does not change and that Kirk and company are the same people they are in the original timeline. [28]

Young Spock says: Our Destinies have changed.

Matt Deckard · May 16, 2009

So going by what is Canon... What has been on screen, the future has changed and Next gen is gone.

Brad Bowers · May 16, 2009

Matt Deckard said:
So going by what is Canon... What has been on screen, the future has changed and Next gen is gone.

And that's a bad thing????lol

Sorry, I never really dug Next Gen or DS9.

Brad

MrBern · May 16, 2009

this movie sure is getting great buzz...

Dr Doran · May 16, 2009

I just saw it last night, immediately after reading Anthony Lane's review in the current New Yorker. I liked the film.

I didn't care about the plot as much as I was impressed with the characters.

I grew up on the 1960s Star Trek (I was born in 1970, so watched reruns of it, along with MASH and Kung Fu, during my entire youth) and I think this film is completely essential for those of us who grew up on the original show. [In contrast, I hated all the other Star Trek TV shows, couldn't stand the lame repetitious sub-plotline of "alien/robot trying to understand emotions and human culture" such as "Data," Neelix the Ferengi or whatever the _____ his name was, and Seven of Nine, even though she was smokin' hot. -- it worked with Spock but I didn't want to see the theme clumsily repeated.]

The actor playing McCoy was DEAD ON. The one playing Kirk was pretty close and had the right energy. The one playing Spock (the favorite of Anthony Lane of the New Yorker) had a confusion that I found endearing. The guy who played Scotty (wasn't he the really stupid guy in Trainspotting? Ewan MacGregor's best friend in the film?) was superb. Chekov looked nothing like Chekov but his acting was endearing. The Sulu actor channelled the original Sulu nicely. Uhura's ______ scenes with Spock were good. The Green Gal was enjoyable EXACTLY because she was a "Cali" Valley girl-type. Nimoy was marveous.

The plot? Ehhh.

As for whether it fits into the established timeline or not .... personally I don't care much (with all respect to Anon'/Justin for the interesting chronology notes). They'll explain more in the next one if this one makes it big. If not, there is no problem thinking of all this as simply a different version of the events we "know" about. Standard practice in drama. Euripides made Iphigeneia NOT get sacrificed by her father Agamemnon at Aulis but live on as a priestess of Artemis at Tauris, having been replaced by a deer; clearly Homer and Aeschylus before him didn't utilize that variation, because if they did, then Clytemnestra wouldn't really have had a justification to kill Agamemnon, would she have? People have been offering alternate versions of things forever. New twists on established material. I have no problem at all with the new Star Trek doing that.

All in all, I was entertained and I enjoyed it. I'd rather see a TV show with this cast than a lot of things, and I'd certainly go see another movie with this cast.

Matt Deckard · May 16, 2009

If they would only do a TV show with the original era in mind.

Macheath · May 16, 2009

Matt Deckard said:
If they would only do a TV show with the original era in mind.

I'm not sure about that idea. Somehow, I feel it wouldn't be the same without the big 60's hair and the unintelligible blinking lights.

Matt Deckard · May 16, 2009

New Star Trek

Vendor

One of the Regulars

Man of Action

Practically Family

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

Man of Action

I'll Lock Up

Practically Family

Man of Action

I'll Lock Up

Man of Action

I'll Lock Up

I'll Lock Up

My Mail is Forwarded Here

Man of Action

One of the Regulars

Man of Action

Log in

Forum statistics