[VaBeachGuy]

I got back from seeing Star Trek XI about an hour ago and here's my thoughts...

I liked it, I liked it a lot. I also didn't like things about it, some things a lot lol. It (the movie) kind of brought out both like and dislike for me. Here's why:

Click for Spoiler:

Having Chekov on the bridge at age 17 with Cpt Pike was just incorrect. To me, sitting in the theater it said to me "that shows that someone looked at the surface of Star Trek history, pulled out names and threw them into the script without looking at time frames or whatnot".

Now I haven't checked to see the ages of the characters at the time frame of the movie so maybe it could all work out since it's an alternate time line but Checkov and Sulu on Pikes bridge was just wrong.

That said though, it was minor. Not at all something to be upset about or hate the movie over. As I was watching before I fully accepted the "alternate time line" aspect I was enjoying the movie but annoyed with the changes none the less. After I forced myself to recognize the alternate time line like we would with Yesterday's Enterprise I let go of those annoyances and just watched the movie.

The only annoyance that I left the theater with was the destruction of Vulcan, the death of Amanda and that they didn't "fix it all" in the end. If they don't "fix it" at some point then I don't see how this Star Trek can fit into the "Star Trek Universe". Destroying Vulcan and killing Amanda along with other changes totally destroys the history that is already on film. How can TNG happen if TOS didn't? How can DS9 and Voyager happen if TNG didn't?

I also didn't really care for the introduction of new aliens. Too much of a "Star Wars" feel with the big headed alien on the bridge of the Kelvin and I really didn't care for the big monsters trying to eat Kirk. Too much of a gimmick I felt. Also, what's up with the Romulans? Yes we as Trek fans accepted the change in makeup for the Klingons from TOS to TMP. We understood that it was needed for a better visual. It was ok. There weren't that many hours of Klingons on TOS at that point. But the Romulans are well established from TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. I didn't like the way they were made up at all.

Did they "hit the mark" or "miss the mark" with this movie? Well that's something each fan will have to answer for themselves. In some aspects I think they tried a little too hard but it wasn't too much like it was in the second Matrix movie.

I took my mother to see it, she was a big Star Trek fan going back into the 60's with TOS's first run. As we left the movie her first comment was that it was the best of any of the movies. Then little by little she began mentioning some of the things that she didn't care for, which for the most part were similar to mine. It was funny though, she did comment that some of the aliens belonged in a Star Wars movie but not a Star Trek movie lol.

I liked some of the references to Trek history though, especially when Scotty was talking about how he tried to transport Admiral Archers pet Beagle someplace but it hasn't yet re-materialized lol. Poor Porthos (I'm sure it would have had to be a great-great-grand puppy of the real Porthos though lol).

For anyone that reads this before seeing the movie, don't let it deter you from going. It was still a very good movie even if you choose to view it as a "stand alone" outside of the "Star Trek Universe".

I won't say that this is the "best" of the 12 movies but it's better than ST V and ST X for sure. For me nothing can top ST II though. All in all, it was a really good movie. Non-Trekkies will enjoy it, Trekkies will enjoy it but be slightly annoyed and die hard Trekkies while they enjoy it, I believe will be more than a little annoyed at some aspects.

[Jack_Bauer]

Click for Spoiler:

VaBeachGuy, on May 7 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

Having Chekov on the bridge at age 17 with Cpt Pike was just incorrect. To me, sitting in the theater it said to me "that shows that someone looked at the surface of Star Trek history, pulled out names and threw them into the script without looking at time frames or whatnot".

Now I haven't checked to see the ages of the characters at the time frame of the movie so maybe it could all work out since it's an alternate time line but Checkov and Sulu on Pikes bridge was just wrong.

It does sort of work. They did screw up a little on Chekov. The stardate given indicates the movies' main action was 2258. Chekov's birth year is 2245 according to established canon. Thus, the destruction of the Kelvin and all resulting impacts seem to have moved Chekov's birth ahead four years. Sulu is perfectly fine. His canon birth year is 2237, making him 21 in 2258. Other impacts make it possible for them to be on Pike's bridge. The Enterprise being built at a different place and time, so Pike's mission to Talos IV doesn't happen.

VaBeachGuy, on May 7 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

That said though, it was minor. Not at all something to be upset about or hate the movie over. As I was watching before I fully accepted the "alternate time line" aspect I was enjoying the movie but annoyed with the changes none the less. After I forced myself to recognize the alternate time line like we would with Yesterday's Enterprise I let go of those annoyances and just watched the movie.

The only annoyance that I left the theater with was the destruction of Vulcan, the death of Amanda and that they didn't "fix it all" in the end. If they don't "fix it" at some point then I don't see how this Star Trek can fit into the "Star Trek Universe". Destroying Vulcan and killing Amanda along with other changes totally destroys the history that is already on film. How can TNG happen if TOS didn't? How can DS9 and Voyager happen if TNG didn't?

You kind of answer you're own question here. It's an alternate timeline. Events that we perceive as history, need not occur. Characters that we know to survive, can die. While certainly the rest of canon happens in one timeline, it need not happen in this one. But they are not overwritten or erased. The very existence of Spock Prime is an indication of that. The events just don't happen in this iteration of the timeline. It's like Year of Hell, or Yesterday's Enterprise, or The Visitor. They are all valid, possible timelines. We see momentarily glimpses of them before we reset. They just didn't reset this movie.

VaBeachGuy, on May 7 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

I also didn't really care for the introduction of new aliens. Too much of a "Star Wars" feel with the big headed alien on the bridge of the Kelvin and I really didn't care for the big monsters trying to eat Kirk. Too much of a gimmick I felt. Also, what's up with the Romulans? Yes we as Trek fans accepted the change in makeup for the Klingons from TOS to TMP. We understood that it was needed for a better visual. It was ok. There weren't that many hours of Klingons on TOS at that point. But the Romulans are well established from TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. I didn't like the way they were made up at all.

Yeah, I can see not liking some of the new aliens. I thought they looked good for the most part. But it was interesting to see more non-humanoid Star Trek aliens.

I would like to raise the point that those particular Romulans chose that look. They are tattooed and shaven. That's not their natural look. The prequel comic addresses this. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. It doesn't gel perfectly but it provides more backstory on Nero and Spock Prime's dealings with him.

[VaBeachGuy]

Jack_Bauer, on May 7 2009, 11:35 PM, said:

Click for Spoiler:

I would like to raise the point that those particular Romulans chose that look. They are tattooed and shaven. That's not their natural look. The prequel comic addresses this. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. It doesn't gel perfectly but it provides more backstory on Nero and Spock Prime's dealings with him.

Click for Spoiler:

Yes, but no forehead ridges? If a TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise Romulan shaved his or her head and tattooed him or herself they'd still look Romulan. These Romulans didn't really look Romulan. They looked more like head shaved Vulcans.

[Jack_Bauer]

VaBeachGuy, on May 7 2009, 11:42 PM, said:

Jack_Bauer, on May 7 2009, 11:35 PM, said:

Click for Spoiler:

I would like to raise the point that those particular Romulans chose that look. They are tattooed and shaven. That's not their natural look. The prequel comic addresses this. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. It doesn't gel perfectly but it provides more backstory on Nero and Spock Prime's dealings with him.

Click for Spoiler:

Yes, but no forehead ridges? If a TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise Romulan shaved his or her head and tattooed him or herself they'd still look Romulan. These Romulans didn't really look Romulan. They looked more like head shaved Vulcans.

Click for Spoiler:

I think the ridge is there, it's just not as pronounced. I do believe that Bana was wearing a forehead appliance. I think if you look at the poster with Nero (the Kirk, Uhura, Spock, Nero, delta design) you can see a ridge. I'm willing to accept the notion that certain Romulans have different degrees of ridges.

Of course, thinking back, I think Nero's wife had the tattoos, which doesn't mesh with the explanation in the comic. I'll have to double check that when I see the movie again tomorrow. Of course, that could just be a goof.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Click for Spoiler:

You have to remember that this was a *splinter* group of Romulans even before Romulus was destroyed. They weren't even the Romulan military, just a group of miners with ships.

[PhaseSniper]

VaBeachGuy, on May 7 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

I got back from seeing Star Trek XI about an hour ago and here's my thoughts...

I liked it, I liked it a lot. I also didn't like things about it, some things a lot lol. It (the movie) kind of brought out both like and dislike for me. Here's why:

Click for Spoiler:

Having Chekov on the bridge at age 17 with Cpt Pike was just incorrect. To me, sitting in the theater it said to me "that shows that someone looked at the surface of Star Trek history, pulled out names and threw them into the script without looking at time frames or whatnot".

Now I haven't checked to see the ages of the characters at the time frame of the movie so maybe it could all work out since it's an alternate time line but Checkov and Sulu on Pikes bridge was just wrong.

That said though, it was minor. Not at all something to be upset about or hate the movie over. As I was watching before I fully accepted the "alternate time line" aspect I was enjoying the movie but annoyed with the changes none the less. After I forced myself to recognize the alternate time line like we would with Yesterday's Enterprise I let go of those annoyances and just watched the movie.

The only annoyance that I left the theater with was the destruction of Vulcan, the death of Amanda and that they didn't "fix it all" in the end. If they don't "fix it" at some point then I don't see how this Star Trek can fit into the "Star Trek Universe". Destroying Vulcan and killing Amanda along with other changes totally destroys the history that is already on film. How can TNG happen if TOS didn't? How can DS9 and Voyager happen if TNG didn't?

I also didn't really care for the introduction of new aliens. Too much of a "Star Wars" feel with the big headed alien on the bridge of the Kelvin and I really didn't care for the big monsters trying to eat Kirk. Too much of a gimmick I felt. Also, what's up with the Romulans? Yes we as Trek fans accepted the change in makeup for the Klingons from TOS to TMP. We understood that it was needed for a better visual. It was ok. There weren't that many hours of Klingons on TOS at that point. But the Romulans are well established from TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. I didn't like the way they were made up at all.

Did they "hit the mark" or "miss the mark" with this movie? Well that's something each fan will have to answer for themselves. In some aspects I think they tried a little too hard but it wasn't too much like it was in the second Matrix movie.

I took my mother to see it, she was a big Star Trek fan going back into the 60's with TOS's first run. As we left the movie her first comment was that it was the best of any of the movies. Then little by little she began mentioning some of the things that she didn't care for, which for the most part were similar to mine. It was funny though, she did comment that some of the aliens belonged in a Star Wars movie but not a Star Trek movie lol.

I liked some of the references to Trek history though, especially when Scotty was talking about how he tried to transport Admiral Archers pet Beagle someplace but it hasn't yet re-materialized lol. Poor Porthos (I'm sure it would have had to be a great-great-grand puppy of the real Porthos though lol).

For anyone that reads this before seeing the movie, don't let it deter you from going. It was still a very good movie even if you choose to view it as a "stand alone" outside of the "Star Trek Universe".

I won't say that this is the "best" of the 12 movies but it's better than ST V and ST X for sure. For me nothing can top ST II though. All in all, it was a really good movie. Non-Trekkies will enjoy it, Trekkies will enjoy it but be slightly annoyed and die hard Trekkies while they enjoy it, I believe will be more than a little annoyed at some aspects.

Well, I was going to write a review, but your review say just about everything I wanted to say...

A few thing I'd like to add:

1. The Enterprise was not built on the ground! It's to big, THAT is something that should not have been changed by the altered timeline.

2. Where was the Relativity (and other timeships) during all this? Isn't it their job to fix when people mess with the timeline?
I kept expecting it to fade to the Relativity at the end and show them resetting the timeline.


Overall I enjoyed it, but I would have liked it better if they fixed a few of the tech errors (i.e. Enterprise being built on the ground) and reset the timeline at the end.

[Jack_Bauer]

PhaseSniper, on May 9 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

Well, I was going to write a review, but your review say just about everything I wanted to say...

A few thing I'd like to add:

1. The Enterprise was not built on the ground! It's to big, THAT is something that should not have been changed by the altered timeline.

2. Where was the Relativity (and other timeships) during all this? Isn't it their job to fix when people mess with the timeline?
I kept expecting it to fade to the Relativity at the end and show them resetting the timeline.


Overall I enjoyed it, but I would have liked it better if they fixed a few of the tech errors (i.e. Enterprise being built on the ground) and reset the timeline at the end.

Actually, without replicator technology, it would make a lot more sense to build starships on the ground. In fact, Starfleet continues to do so into the 24th Century (there are screenshots of Utopia Plantia which show starships being built, at least in pieces, on the surface of Mars: http://memory-alpha....ia_Planitia.jpg).

As for the Relativity, they fail to show up a lot. Considering the number of temporal incidents seen on screen since the introduction of the Relativity in Voyager's fifth season. Also, them showing up would be counter productive. If they had reset at the end of this movie, you might as well bury the franchise. The whole point of this movie is to get the franchise to a point where it can tell new stories with its most popular characters without being constrained by existing canon. They have managed to do so without erasing existing canon.

[VaBeachGuy]

Jack_Bauer, on May 9 2009, 08:01 PM, said:

PhaseSniper, on May 9 2009, 05:47 PM, said:

Well, I was going to write a review, but your review say just about everything I wanted to say...

A few thing I'd like to add:

1. The Enterprise was not built on the ground! It's to big, THAT is something that should not have been changed by the altered timeline.

2. Where was the Relativity (and other timeships) during all this? Isn't it their job to fix when people mess with the timeline?
I kept expecting it to fade to the Relativity at the end and show them resetting the timeline.


Overall I enjoyed it, but I would have liked it better if they fixed a few of the tech errors (i.e. Enterprise being built on the ground) and reset the timeline at the end.

Actually, without replicator technology, it would make a lot more sense to build starships on the ground. In fact, Starfleet continues to do so into the 24th Century (there are screenshots of Utopia Plantia which show starships being built, at least in pieces, on the surface of Mars: http://memory-alpha....ia_Planitia.jpg).

As for the Relativity, they fail to show up a lot. Considering the number of temporal incidents seen on screen since the introduction of the Relativity in Voyager's fifth season. Also, them showing up would be counter productive. If they had reset at the end of this movie, you might as well bury the franchise. The whole point of this movie is to get the franchise to a point where it can tell new stories with its most popular characters without being constrained by existing canon. They have managed to do so without erasing existing canon.

Click for Spoiler:

Keep in mind that Memory Alpha is basically a fan site and not official. The image of Utopia Planitia doesn't actually show any construction that I can determine, it looks to me like support buildings and maybe launch facilities or something like that. Since the NCC-1701 in this movie isn't "our" Enterprise though I suppose it doesn't much matter where it was constructed. If a history were written right now, this NCC-1701 and this movie's mission would be a small paragraph or two detailing an alternate reality while the real Star Trek history would fill volumes.

They should have just come out and said that this would be an "alternate reality" or "alternate timeline" movie rather than make people think that this was actually "Star Trek".

I accept it for what it is, I enjoyed it but it left me feeling a little disappointed that they didn't think that they could actually make a Star Trek movie. That they felt that they needed to "re-invent" Star Trek.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

PhaseSniper, on May 9 2009, 04:47 PM, said:

2. Where was the Relativity (and other timeships) during all this? Isn't it their job to fix when people mess with the timeline?
I kept expecting it to fade to the Relativity at the end and show them resetting the timeline.

Perhaps the technology that allowed ships like the Relativity to go back in the same timeline (without branching off into a different one) would have been invented by the Vulcans that were not born because of the planet's implosion. Or maybe the timeships can only detect and respond to changes in their timeline, not alternates. (Or maybe since their timeline wasn't changed they didn't bother fixing other timelines.) Or maybe the altered history never led to the Enterprise-B rescuing Guinan from the Nexus. (I suspect that Guinan's ability to detect changes in the timeline came from her experience in the Nexus rather than being inherent to the El Aurian species.) There are all kinds of possible in-canon explanations.

Of course there isn't an in-canon explanation as to why the Enterprise successfully used light-speed breakaway to get to 1960s Earth in Assignment: Earth and yet the technology was still theoretical in The Voyage Home. However, since the technology worked twice, it would seem an actual timeship is unnecessary anyway.

To be fair, both Spocks did acknologe they were in an altered timeline. However, the dialog was rather fast for non-Trekkies to understand. Even I barely caught it when it was mentioned. Maybe the actors should have slowed this down a bit or diagramed it the way Doc Brown did in the Back to the Future series.

Of course my theory is the so-called Mirror Universe is the way things are supposed to play out and we only have the series / 1-10 movie timeline because of the Enterprise-E's interference with First Contact.

[PhaseSniper]

Lt. Van Roy, on May 9 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

PhaseSniper, on May 9 2009, 04:47 PM, said:

2. Where was the Relativity (and other timeships) during all this? Isn't it their job to fix when people mess with the timeline?
I kept expecting it to fade to the Relativity at the end and show them resetting the timeline.

Perhaps the technology that allowed ships like the Relativity to go back in the same timeline (without branching off into a different one) would have been invented by the Vulcans that were not born because of the planet's implosion. Or maybe the timeships can only detect and respond to changes in their timeline, not alternates. (Or maybe since their timeline wasn't changed they didn't bother fixing other timelines.) Or maybe the altered history never led to the Enterprise-B rescuing Guinan from the Nexus. (I suspect that Guinan's ability to detect changes in the timeline came from her experience in the Nexus rather than being inherent to the El Aurian species.) There are all kinds of possible in-canon explanations.

Of course there isn't an in-canon explanation as to why the Enterprise successfully used light-speed breakaway to get to 1960s Earth in Assignment: Earth and yet the technology was still theoretical in The Voyage Home. However, since the technology worked twice, it would seem an actual timeship is unnecessary anyway.

To be fair, both Spocks did acknologe they were in an altered timeline. However, the dialog was rather fast for non-Trekkies to understand. Even I barely caught it when it was mentioned. Maybe the actors should have slowed this down a bit or diagramed it the way Doc Brown did in the Back to the Future series.

I thought of that after I posted. You're probably right.

I did catch that it was an "altered timeline" but for some reason, I still kept thinking the timeline would be reset in the end.

[Jack_Bauer]

Lt. Van Roy, on May 9 2009, 09:15 PM, said:

Of course my theory is the so-called Mirror Universe is the way things are supposed to play out and we only have the series / 1-10 movie timeline because of the Enterprise-E's interference with First Contact.

Possible, but unlikely. Reading up on the subject, it seems to be suggested that the Terran Empire predates 2063.
http://memory-alpha....i/Terran_Empire

The Shakespeare line definitely supports the pre-2063 conclusion.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

I disagree. Shakespeare might essentially be the same person in both universes, but so what? He might also be Klingon. If anything, this would indicate that the timeline split occurred after Shakespeare's life.

Remember, Mirror Kirk and Mirror Spock were also essentially the same people (especially Spock). They simply worked within a different structure with different incentives. That's what made Mirror, Mirror so interesting to analyse.

The "In A Mirror Darkly" producers have said that they used the Enterprise-era EVA suites on the moon landing not to imply that the Terran Empire existed in 1969 but simply because it was a futuristic-looking icon to use. For all we know that particular astronaut might have been sent there to take the US flag down after the Empire was founded. I could very well see the Terran Empire doing that.

We also might be taking Archer's "This empire has existed for centuries" speech too literally. He was probably embellishing to make a dramatic point.

[Jack_Bauer]

Lt. Van Roy, on May 9 2009, 10:52 PM, said:

I disagree. Shakespeare might essentially be the same person in both universes, but so what? He might also be Klingon. If anything, this would indicate that the timeline split occurred after Shakespeare's life.

Remember, Mirror Kirk and Mirror Spock were also essentially the same people (especially Spock). They simply worked within a different structure with different incentives. That's what made Mirror, Mirror so interesting to analyse.

The "In A Mirror Darkly" producers have said that they used the Enterprise-era EVA suites on the moon landing not to imply that the Terran Empire existed in 1969 but simply because it was a futuristic-looking icon to use. For all we know that particular astronaut might have been sent there to take the US flag down after the Empire was founded. I could very well see the Terran Empire doing that.

We also might be taking Archer's "This empire has existed for centuries" speech too literally. He was probably embellishing to make a dramatic point.

Phlox (mirror) compares a series of historical authors and notes that Shakespeare is the only one who is the same in both. However, based on the fact that he compared several historical authors and that they are different we can infer the mirror universe can be traced further back than 2063. It would just be more helpful if he had mentioned names.

Also, if we are going to discuss the opening credits, it should be noted that the Terran Empire emblem is seen well in advance of Zefram Cochrane's warp flight. Granted that again could be to the producers discretion.

Overall, I think there is evidence to support either conclusion but no where near enough to make a definitive claim as to where the mirror universe branches off, if indeed the mirror universe does branch off.

I think we should probably let this rest and get back to the topic at hand.

[prometheus]

Click for Spoiler:

Maybe the reason why Sulu and Chekov were on PIKE's bridge and not Kirk's was this: Nero came through the rift and destroyed the Farragut; when Pike (who was on that ship) survived that incident, his life maybe took a different course and he didn't end up going to that Planet that left him all disfigured and disabled etc in the original timeline, causing him to give up the Enterprise. Therefore Pike continued Captaining the Enterprise much longer than he did in the original timeline and therefore looks older in the movie than when he was captain of the ship in the original timeline. Maybe the events lead to the Enterprise being completed later than in the original timeline? Similarly, Kirk joined StarFleet at a young age (say 17) in the original timeline because he wanted to be like his father 9remember what old Spock says in the movie?); however, in the movie timeline, Nero killed George as Kirk was born and therefore, Jim didn't go into StarFleet until he was, say, 25 or so, as in the movie - therefore, he isn't a StarFleet Captain at this point. Regardless of Nero's actions, Sulu and Chekov may have just joined StarFleet and qualified, in the movie, as they did in the original timeline (as may Uhuru and Spock etc) only instead of joining the Enterprise under the command of Captain Kirk, they join it under Captain Pike.

Just my thoughs...

This post has been edited by Alterego: 10 May 2009 - 03:05 PM
Reason for edit: add spoiler tags

[Æ]

I know spoiler tags are a pain in the ass, especially when people who haven't seen it could just not look at threads that will contain them but I must insist, please use them.

[Theunicornhunter]

I agree

Click for Spoiler:

VaBeachGuy, on May 7 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

Having Chekov on the bridge at age 17 with Cpt Pike was just incorrect. To me, sitting in the theater it said to me "that shows that someone looked at the surface of Star Trek history, pulled out names and threw them into the script without looking at time frames or whatnot".

......

That said though, it was minor. Not at all something to be upset about or hate the movie over. As I was watching before I fully accepted the "alternate time line" aspect I was enjoying the movie but annoyed with the changes none the less. After I forced myself to recognize the alternate time line like we would with Yesterday's Enterprise I let go of those annoyances and just watched the movie.

The only annoyance that I left the theater with was the destruction of Vulcan, the death of Amanda and that they didn't "fix it all" in the end. If they don't "fix it" at some point then I don't see how this Star Trek can fit into the "Star Trek Universe". Destroying Vulcan and killing Amanda along with other changes totally destroys the history that is already on film. How can TNG happen if TOS didn't? How can DS9 and Voyager happen if TNG didn't?

......
I also didn't really care for the introduction of new aliens. Too much of a "Star Wars" feel with the big headed alien on the bridge of the Kelvin and

I agree about Chekov - I understand they bascially used the "atlernate timeline" to covera a multitude of sins so to speak; but after thinking about it, I think putting all of those characters together on the bridge right out of the academy - was just wrong. Alternate timeline or not shouldn't they graduate from the academy first and you don't just promote someone from cadet to captain or even commander but that's Hollywood.

I sort of thought the same Star Wars thought about the alien on the bridge lol

As for the timeline - I hate these quandaries but now that they "know" what will happen - can't they simply rescue Romulus earlier and more or less prevent the entire thing from happening or now that they have changed the timeline maybe the future won't happen at all - such as what if Spock doesn't live to be the old Spock.

[Jack_Bauer]

Theunicornhunter, on May 17 2009, 06:54 AM, said:

Click for Spoiler:

As for the timeline - I hate these quandaries but now that they "know" what will happen - can't they simply rescue Romulus earlier and more or less prevent the entire thing from happening or now that they have changed the timeline maybe the future won't happen at all - such as what if Spock doesn't live to be the old Spock.

Click for Spoiler:

They could prevent the destruction of Romulus in the alternate timeline, but it can not be prevented in the prime timeline.

Also, with the Spocks, the young Spock could be killed but the old Spock wouldn't die since they aren't really the same person.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

Alterego, on May 10 2009, 04:04 PM, said:

a pain in the ass

We are sorry to hear about your donkey's health problems.

[VaBeachGuy]

Jack_Bauer, on May 17 2009, 12:34 PM, said:

Theunicornhunter, on May 17 2009, 06:54 AM, said:

Click for Spoiler:

As for the timeline - I hate these quandaries but now that they "know" what will happen - can't they simply rescue Romulus earlier and more or less prevent the entire thing from happening or now that they have changed the timeline maybe the future won't happen at all - such as what if Spock doesn't live to be the old Spock.

Click for Spoiler:

They could prevent the destruction of Romulus in the alternate timeline, but it can not be prevented in the prime timeline.

Also, with the Spocks, the young Spock could be killed but the old Spock wouldn't die since they aren't really the same person.

I myself don't accept "alternate timelines" as reality, I know it's a theory and there are smart people that study and contemplate all those things but I don't accept it. There was once a lot of 'smart' people that had a theory that the Earth was flat and was the center of the universe where the sun and stars orbited the Earth. Didn't make it true though simply because "educated people" had the theory.

If they (the people in 'charge' of the franchise) make another movie and if they want to 'honor' Star Trek history then they'll fall back on that history and will take the actions that have always been taken in Star Trek history.

Since I don't believe that they will want to 'honor" that history I don't think that they'll do what has always been done in Trek history.

[Theunicornhunter]

Regarding "alternate timeline":

Click for Spoiler:

There is only one timeline - if it is changed by a person from the future traveling back to the past - then yes, it is a different or "alternate" timeline from what orginally happened. But it isn't like an alternate universe that you can switch between the two timelines - they don't co-exist. The new timeline is "the" timeline. That's why the temporal prime directive is so important - of course now there is no guarantee Star Fleet will ever have a temporal prime directive.

I understand it was a necessary plot device to give the writers the freedom to do whatever they wanted with future scripts. But the more it sinks in - the more disappointing it is.


Nor do I think most of have a firm enough grasp of temporal mechanics to say - can this be fixed by preventing Nero from ever going back in time. I mean wouldn't that rewrite every thing that happened in this movie?

[VaBeachGuy]

Theunicornhunter, on May 17 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

Regarding "alternate timeline":

Click for Spoiler:

There is only one timeline - if it is changed by a person from the future traveling back to the past - then yes, it is a different or "alternate" timeline from what orginally happened. But it isn't like an alternate universe that you can switch between the two timelines - they don't co-exist. The new timeline is "the" timeline. That's why the temporal prime directive is so important - of course now there is no guarantee Star Fleet will ever have a temporal prime directive.

I understand it was a necessary plot device to give the writers the freedom to do whatever they wanted with future scripts. But the more it sinks in - the more disappointing it is.


Nor do I think most of have a firm enough grasp of temporal mechanics to say - can this be fixed by preventing Nero from ever going back in time. I mean wouldn't that rewrite every thing that happened in this movie?

Click for Spoiler:

I completely agree, there's only 1 timeline. If Nero goes back and kills Kirks father then Our Kirks father is dead. That's exactly why there's a temporal prime directive. I agree 100%.

That said, the premise of this movie and those that are 100% on board with everything it in is that when Nero traveled back in time it created a parallel timeline. "Our" timeline continues as is and unchanged, Kirk's father is never killed Chekov is 13 in 2258 as opposed to 17 in the "alternate timeline" and so on. So there's 2 timelines running together side by side now. That's not how I see it mind you, that's what's being put forth by the writers, director and people that 100% are on board with that theory.

[mj]

Click for Spoiler:

I do not see this reality being 'fixed', and like many fans of TOS, it leaves me with a sense of loss. But it still felt like Star Trek to me, not Star Wars or anything else.

What causes me to feel hopeful and excited is the bit of Star Trek that I think survived. I think 'friendship' is what survived the alternate timeline.

I think Spock prime (the TOS Spock)in some sense 'fixed' what he could by intervening and re-estabishing the friendship that defined his life, by working first with Kirk, who he knew exactly how to get to do what he should, and later with 'himself'.

The most compelling part of the movie for me was Spock rescuing the exiled Kirk right after watching the destruction of Vulcan. In a way it was like the 'best of times, worst of times' experiences Jim Kirk had on Star Trek II, losing Spock.

How could Nero possibly know that when he stranded Spock on that planet to helplessly watch the destruction of Vulcan, to break his Vulcan heart, that also a restoring event would occur? Of all the people in the universe to see on that desolate hopeless world was his long dead dear friend Jim Kirk, alive again and in the strength of his youth! Vulcan destroyed, but then here was the friend of his life, Jim Kirk. It was a powerful moment, as Spock began restoring the role Jim was to fulfill as captain of the Enterprise, and fix the relationship between him and Spock. That whole scene was very 'Star Trek' to me, in spite of everything in the film that made me uncomfortable.
( And yes...the stuff with making cadets Star Fleet officers was ridiculous ... couldn't they have thought that through? Couldn't they have gone to just on Star Trek fan site and talked it out?)

[VaBeachGuy]

mj, on May 22 2009, 09:54 PM, said:

Click for Spoiler:

I do not see this reality being 'fixed', and like many fans of TOS, it leaves me with a sense of loss. But it still felt like Star Trek to me, not Star Wars or anything else.

What causes me to feel hopeful and excited is the bit of Star Trek that I think survived. I think 'friendship' is what survived the alternate timeline.

I think Spock prime (the TOS Spock)in some sense 'fixed' what he could by intervening and re-estabishing the friendship that defined his life, by working first with Kirk, who he knew exactly how to get to do what he should, and later with 'himself'.

The most compelling part of the movie for me was Spock rescuing the exiled Kirk right after watching the destruction of Vulcan. In a way it was like the 'best of times, worst of times' experiences Jim Kirk had on Star Trek II, losing Spock.

How could Nero possibly know that when he stranded Spock on that planet to helplessly watch the destruction of Vulcan, to break his Vulcan heart, that also a restoring event would occur? Of all the people in the universe to see on that desolate hopeless world was his long dead dear friend Jim Kirk, alive again and in the strength of his youth! Vulcan destroyed, but then here was the friend of his life, Jim Kirk. It was a powerful moment, as Spock began restoring the role Jim was to fulfill as captain of the Enterprise, and fix the relationship between him and Spock. That whole scene was very 'Star Trek' to me, in spite of everything in the film that made me uncomfortable.
( And yes...the stuff with making cadets Star Fleet officers was ridiculous ... couldn't they have thought that through? Couldn't they have gone to just on Star Trek fan site and talked it out?)

Click for Spoiler:

Well, I know that a lot of people don't want it "fixed" but I do. At least to the point where Vulcan doesn't get destroyed, Amanda survives and personalities/relationships are what they're supposed to be.

Spock doesn't go around having flings with lower ranking officers, he has his betrothed still on Vulcan and it's Nurse Chapel that's hot for him.

I was watching it again the other night and something that just didn't seem right finally came to me. When little Spock gets into the fight and Sarek has to come talk to him, he mentions that being the 'Ambassador to Earth' made it logical to marry Amanda. Sarek wasn't the 'Ambassador to Earth' though, he was the Vulcan Ambassador to the United Federation of Planets.

I know, it's a minor detail but to me it just shows a lack of caring about the subject matter that they get those little things wrong.

[Mike]

The new Star Trek is a big success..and all your nitpicking isn't going to change what has happenend in this movie..I just hope JJ and the writers don't listen to all this criticism..What they did to the Star Trek universe was necessary..Look at the last 2 movies..Star Trek was dead ..They opened it up to so many possibilities..It'll be interesting to see what they do with it from here on in..And going back and doing what you call 'fixing' Star Trek isn't going to happen..Or if it does, it will be a big mistake, they would be going backwards..Look at it this way, it's far more important to put people in the seats of the movie theatre than pay strict attention to canon..

[VaBeachGuy]

Mike, on May 25 2009, 08:25 AM, said:

The new Star Trek is a big success..and all your nitpicking isn't going to change what has happenend in this movie..

Yes, I know that. But the good thing about the internet in general and writing a personal review specifically is that you can nitpick and voice displeasure at tiny details that bug you. Or, you can write a personal review that raves 100% about every single aspect of the movie right down to the brand of cameras that they used to film it.

This particular review being my personal review, I chose to nitpick at some of the errors and tiny details. Keep in mind that I have said numerous times that I like the movie and want it to be successful, I just wish that they (the writers and director) had had enough imagination and faith in the franchise to do the movie 'right'.

This movie could have been made with the exact style that it has and stayed within at least SOME sense of canon, and for them to say that it "HAD" to be done this way to attract new viewers... I say "BS". For all of the "new viewers" that are there now that never or rarely ever watched any Star Trek they have NO idea that there was anything 'altered'. They'd have gone to watch it regardless and if Chekov wasn't there because he was only 13 in the year that the movie takes place, those "new viewers" would never have known the difference and if as it has been speculated this movie is part of a 2 or 3 part series that will see the timeline set right in the end then how will that be a 'bad thing'?

I just really wish they had come up with a better way of telling this story then to come in and 100% alter the way time travel is and has been viewed and dealt with in the Star Trek universe.

Yes, I know that my opinion on this doesn't mean squat but it's my opinion and I won't pretend that I'm 100% "in love" with the way they did it.

[Theunicornhunter]

The movie was a success - ie ticket sales - partly because many old time fans went to see it out of curiosity even though the producers have shown little more than disdain for those people. I don't know if would have been so successful with only new viewers. And if the old time fans don't come back for the second - the numbers won't be as high.

While ST XI was a good acton adventure movie - it really had very little to do with Star Trek = other than borrowing names from the series. IMO it needed a little bit more than just the same names to make it Star Trek.

I have to agree with VGB - they could have done a better job of keeping some of the essence of Trek in it.

[mj]

VaBeachGuy, on May 25 2009, 01:59 AM, said:

mj, on May 22 2009, 09:54 PM, said:

Click for Spoiler:

I do not see this reality being 'fixed', and like many fans of TOS, it leaves me with a sense of loss. But it still felt like Star Trek to me, not Star Wars or anything else.

What causes me to feel hopeful and excited is the bit of Star Trek that I think survived. I think 'friendship' is what survived the alternate timeline.

I think Spock prime (the TOS Spock)in some sense 'fixed' what he could by intervening and re-estabishing the friendship that defined his life, by working first with Kirk, who he knew exactly how to get to do what he should, and later with 'himself'.

The most compelling part of the movie for me was Spock rescuing the exiled Kirk right after watching the destruction of Vulcan. In a way it was like the 'best of times, worst of times' experiences Jim Kirk had on Star Trek II, losing Spock.

How could Nero possibly know that when he stranded Spock on that planet to helplessly watch the destruction of Vulcan, to break his Vulcan heart, that also a restoring event would occur? Of all the people in the universe to see on that desolate hopeless world was his long dead dear friend Jim Kirk, alive again and in the strength of his youth! Vulcan destroyed, but then here was the friend of his life, Jim Kirk. It was a powerful moment, as Spock began restoring the role Jim was to fulfill as captain of the Enterprise, and fix the relationship between him and Spock. That whole scene was very 'Star Trek' to me, in spite of everything in the film that made me uncomfortable.
( And yes...the stuff with making cadets Star Fleet officers was ridiculous ... couldn't they have thought that through? Couldn't they have gone to just on Star Trek fan site and talked it out?)

Click for Spoiler:

Well, I know that a lot of people don't want it "fixed" but I do. At least to the point where Vulcan doesn't get destroyed, Amanda survives and personalities/relationships are what they're supposed to be.

Spock doesn't go around having flings with lower ranking officers, he has his betrothed still on Vulcan and it's Nurse Chapel that's hot for him.

I was watching it again the other night and something that just didn't seem right finally came to me. When little Spock gets into the fight and Sarek has to come talk to him, he mentions that being the 'Ambassador to Earth' made it logical to marry Amanda. Sarek wasn't the 'Ambassador to Earth' though, he was the Vulcan Ambassador to the United Federation of Planets.

I know, it's a minor detail but to me it just shows a lack of caring about the subject matter that they get those little things wrong.

Click for Spoiler:

I agree that the Vulcans were not done correctly, and that the fraternizing among bridge officers (who should be more disciplined and professional), the emotions that are out in the open, are not Vulcan. In short, the Vulcans are too human.

I agree with the fact that I would rather see the TOS canon re-established...I just do not think they will do it.

But I did enjoy the film, especially the relationship between Kirk and Spock being restored.

As much as I liked Uhura in TOS,
Kirk was my hero, and the friendship between Kirk and Spock and McCoy the most central aspect.

I can live with Star Trek XI if they don't change it as an 'alternative universe' Star Trek.

But TOS, which is the only complete set of Star Trek DVDs I own, is the Real Star Trek.

[VaBeachGuy]

mj, on May 27 2009, 11:35 PM, said:

Click for Spoiler:

I agree that the Vulcans were not done correctly, and that the fraternizing among bridge officers (who should be more disciplined and professional), the emotions that are out in the open, are not Vulcan. In short, the Vulcans are too human.

I agree with the fact that I would rather see the TOS canon re-established...I just do not think they will do it.

But I did enjoy the film, especially the relationship between Kirk and Spock being restored.

As much as I liked Uhura in TOS,
Kirk was my hero, and the friendship between Kirk and Spock and McCoy the most central aspect.

I can live with Star Trek XI if they don't change it as an 'alternative universe' Star Trek.

But TOS, which is the only complete set of Star Trek DVDs I own, is the Real Star Trek.

I agree completely with everything you said, I know that I've had my 'nitpicking' complaints and there are some aspects of the movie that I didn't like... some of which aren't even on the screen (the writers and director that was chosen) but all in all, as a 'stand alone' movie I was very entertained and enjoyed it. As it stands right now though, I do consider it a "Stand Alone" and not in the same "collection" as the other 10 movies.

[VaBeachGuy]

Something I was thinking about earlier, Chekov is 17 in the movie and he's a bridge officer (Ensign) under Capt. Pike. So how old was Chekov when he went to the Academy, 13?

(Yes, I know it's a fantasy movie and maybe I'm 'over thinking' it. But there were also those out there that were highly annoyed that Anakin was given a padawan named Ahsoka Tano in "The Clone Wars" I won't name names on that though... )

[He Who Shall Not Be Named]

I'm still pissed that Obi Wan was given a Padiwan before becoming a Master, and a Padiwan who the Jedi Council knew would be controversial at best. So Obi Wan defeated Darth Maul, so what? That means he is a good fighter, not a good instructor. Given that Anakin became a Padiwan through unusual means I would think the Jedi Council would have assigned an ultra-orthadox mentor.

Chekov might have completed his Academy studies in less than 4 years. That would fit with the way they portrayed him as a whiz kid. However, anyone who knows anything about service academies knows the training is highly regimented, with little room for deviations from the set training schedule.

This post has been edited by Lt. Van Roy: 11 June 2009 - 03:34 AM