Garzo

But honestly, Star Trek has by and large, done a lousy job staying consistent with the rules of time travel both internally and with scientific theory. But then again, most television and movie are the same. So if Orci, and Kurtzman want to do it that way, I have no problem with it. I actually prefer the in-canon reboot to a Casino Royale/Battlestar Galactica/Batman Begins style reboot.

I totally agree with you there, the film is totally Star Trek and I can't wait to see it again. Obviously the Trek universe lends itself to exactly this kind of re-set. (Say what you will about Enterprise, but I loved the two-parter entirely set in the Mirror universe -- what a cool series that would be!)

As for Batman, since it's based on a comic property, I think it's great to have constant cinematic re-inventions. (Plus, I wasn't too thrilled with the the Burton and Schumacher films in the first place -- glad to see Chris Nolan found Batman's true potential).

And James Bond -- each new actor has practically been a reboot if you ask me. It's impossible to have a consistent movie series from the early 1960s through the late 1990s without having the main character age. Even Brosnan was much much younger in Golden Eye than Moore was in A View to a Kill, so they practically were completely different Bond universes.

But to get back to the topic, yes, we can definitely have diverse realities in the Trek universe and still remain in-canon -- that's the beauty of Trek.

Possibly, but the main difference it seems is that in the earlier films, they were able to freely travel back and forth, whether or not they were ending up in "new" realities, they at least felt like they had returned home, or "fixed" the timeline, as was the case in the TNG episode Yesterday's Enterprise, in which, similar to the new film, a temporally displaced ship creates a new timeline. Tasha Yar (who had died in the original timeline but was alive in the new parallel universe, ends up restoring the original time).

SPOILERS

So obviously, it must be possible for our new young crew to "fix" their timeline, as they are aware that it has been altered. At the very least, they can travel back in their own time to save a certain planet from destruction.

It just seems awkward that for so long we've seen these crews travel through time and space as if it were no big deal, using time as an instrument, manipulating it, and suddenly, they become helpless, victims of this temporal anomaly that has completely altered their universe (but one which would have been easily restored in any other Trek episode).

Still, great movie and I can't help but wonder if time travel, or dimension hopping a al Sliders, will continue to play a part in the new movie series.

Thanks, yes, I read somewhere about Orci's explanation and his adoption of the more modern theories of quantum physics, but since this film is based in the original Trek universe, we cannot dismiss past time travel experienced by the crew of this Enterprise (or by Picard and Janeway's crews as well).

If we accept that the film is actually set in a parallel universe, then the black hole that sucked up Spock and Nero actually ripped a hole into another dimension, more similar to the Mirror Mirror universe than to simply traveling to the past, which should still be possible in the Trek universe since this film is based in that universe.

Time has been portrayed as a stream on Trek, where individuals can travel up stream into the past and back downstream into the future, as was the case in Star Trek IV and The City on the Edge of Forever. Kirk did not travel to a parallel Earth to pick up the two whales, he went directly back into his own time, then back to his own present.

Apparently Spock cannot do this in the new film because this is not his past, but rather a completely different "universe," an Earth 2 if you will.

Thus, the plot of the new film is not about time travel at all, but rather about inter-dimensional travel, correct? (Quantumly speaking, that may be the same thing, but in Trek, old-school time travel must still exist in order to explain the whales in Voyage Home and the death of Edith Keeler while still making room for this other type of dimensional travel which, like I said, appears closer to moving into a parallel world like in Mirror Mirror than actually moving back in time to your own real past, as seen in countless episodes from nearly all the Trek series.

Having said all that, I'm sure Data and Geordi would have no problem finding their way back to their own dimension using some sort of tachyon field or something, but I digress . . .

I had the opportunity to see the film here in Germany and while I thoroughly loved it, I am puzzled about the time travel aspect of the story. Many have probably already heard or read about the film's plot, but before I go any further, let me warn you that my comments do contain SPOILERS.

SPOILERS AHEAD, CONTINUE READING AT OWN RISK

Obviously time travel is nothing new to the Star Trek universe, and that's the problem I have with the film. The entire Trek universe as we new it has been altered by Nero's voyage to the past. We have seen reality-altering time travel stories in Trek before, and they have always been resolved by fixing the space/time continuum. And I have to ask here, what is stopping the new young crew from fixing their time anomaly?

Especially with old Spock around, the Enterprise has a variety of means at its disposal to travel back and forth through time. They can hurl around the sun, they can jump through the Guardian of Forever portal, they can probably even create their own black hole with a drop of Red Matter. . .

Would it not be logical for elder Spock to try and repair the time line and return to his own reality?

Obviously the time travel angle was a plot device to reset the Trek universe for a fresh new film series. But the various Enterprise crews have overcome so many temporal challenges in the past, that one has to wonder why they just didn't fix this anomaly as well . . .

I think it's obvious that the new film is clearly a "sequel" AND a "re-imagining" and a very clever move by J.J. Abrams to have it both ways. By using the time-travel element in the story and employing Leonard Nimoy to play the older Spock, he has given his film a "certificate of authenticity" that places the film in so-called canon. At the same time, that same deft move gives him all the freedom to do as he likes with the "new" Enterprise and its crew. We have already seen some radical changes -- Kirk serving as a cadet under Captain Pike and First Officer Spock, the "Iowa Shipyards," the design of the ship, etc.

It's not unlike what Bryan Singer did with "Superman Returns," linking it to the Christopher Reeve films of the 70s by making it a "vague" sequel.

Regardless of what kind of animal it is, I can't wait to see the film and the cast looks very cool, although from the initial shots, the Enterprise itself looks a little top heavy and not as elegant as it has in the past.

I'm withholding judgment until I see the film, but the new trailer does bring up a few questions: is that supposed to be the Enterprise under construction as young Kirk pulls up on his "motorcycle" (apparently not an anti-gravity speeder)? I always thought (and understood from Trek lore) that the Enterprise was an older ship that had been around for some 20 years before Kirk took command of it. According to "cannon," the Enterprise set sail in 2245 under the command of Captain Robert April. And, after being under the command of Captain Christopher Pike for 10 years, Captain James T. Kirk took command of the vessel in 2264.

So obviously, unless the filmmakers of the new film have completely reworked the established timeline, the ship under construction in the new move trailer as young Kirk drives up on his bike cannot be the Enterprise.

I think a strong young actor who could also play Kirk is Henry Cavill, currently seen in Showtime's The Tudors. He's got the talent and the good looks for a new Kirk.

I'm looking forward to the new film. Unlike all earlier movies, this one really is a revamp, a re-imaging of the original Star Trek series.

The earlier TOS movie series were great, but the last one was released in '89. I never really cared for the Next Generation films, although First Contact was pretty good.

The new Star Trek will be completely independent of both those movie series and thus a new start. Sure, it will be strange to see new actors in familiar roles, but if it's a top-notch cast, it will really be an homage to the old series.

For me, none of the other spin-off casts ever reached the coolness of Kirk, Spock and Bones. And I can understand why Paramount would agree to remaking the original rather than introducing yet another captain of yet another Enterprise.

Nevertheless, I have always thought the Star Trek universe is pretty endless and there are a million cool scenarios that could make for a great film.

The new Star Trek animated series sounds pretty cool and looks to be going in that direction.

Considering Affleck is probably as old now as Shatner was when he played Kirk in the 60s, it makes no sense to have an actor that age playing Kirk in Starfleet Academy. They'd have to go with someone in their very early 20s, or someone older who looks younger at least.

Also, since Spock is considerably older than Kirk and had already served on the Enterprise long before Kirk was captain, how can the two have been at the academy together?

In the end, the writers created a hackneyed solution to the death. While Spock's death was reversed by the whole Genesis device which was a major plot in the film, so too could Data's death have been reversed by the convenient inclusion of his prototype double, B4, who ended up with all of Data's memory, essentially making him a reincarnation of Data.

Nemesis was such a blatant take on TWOK -- Spock transfering his soul into McCoy/Data transfering his memory into B4. Both characters sacrificing themselves for their ships and crew, but both with the possibility of coming back from death.

Had the movie series continued, B4 could and probably would have quickly evolved into a new Data, but left wtih a few gaps in his memory, like Spock was in Star Trek IV.

All in all, Data's death was too contrived and only served to underscore his existence in New Generation as the "Spock" character for the new series -- including his eventual death. In the end, they could have done something more original instead of simply adhering to the Spock parallel all the way through to his death.

Wow, I'm still letting this sink in. J.J. Abrams, huh? I was a fan of "Alias" but have not followed "Lost" and have little interest in "Mission: Impossible 3" -- I just don't know if it's all worth it. The Star Trek universe is so vast, why focus on Kirk and Spock as young academy recruits? Why not explore other areas with an all new crew? How about the fall of the Federation? How about cool fun space pirates commandeer a Starfleet vessel and have their own wild adventures?

I guess the powers-that-be are going for the safest bet -- an all-new good-looking young cast playing established characters. I just can't see anyone else playing Kirk and Spock than William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy.

This doesn't mean it won't work. Hollywood excels at delivering what audiences want, and I'm sure Abrams is a talented and imaginative Star Trek fan. I will definitely go see it, although I was hoping that Bryan Singer would get a whack at the franchise.

from Variety:

Posted: Thurs., Apr. 20, 2006, 10:00pm PT

Trekkies have a new leader

'Star' treatment for J.J.

By DAVE MCNARY

J.J. Abrams is becoming the next Gene Roddenberry.

Paramount is breathing life into its "Star Trek" franchise by setting "Mission: Impossible III" helmer J.J. Abrams to produce and direct the 11th "Trek" feature, aiming for a 2008 release.

Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, Abrams' producing team from "Lost," also will produce the yet-to-be-titled feature.

Project, to be penned by Abrams and "MI3" scribes Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, will center on the early days of seminal "Trek" characters James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and first outer space mission.

Deal reflects Paramount's bullishness on "MI3," which launches worldwide next weekend, and underlines the goal of Paramount chief Brad Grey and prexy Gail BermanGail Berman to re-energize the pipeline via high-profile tentpoles while revitalizing the Paramount brand with top-tier talent such as Abrams.

"MI3" is the first pic to be released that's been greenlit by Grey.

"Star Trek" has been Hollywood's most durable performer other than James Bond, spawning 10 features that have grossed more than $1 billion and 726 TV episodes from six series.

Decision to relaunch "Star Trek" comes less than a year after UPN pulled the plug on "Star Trek: Enterprise" amid dismal ratings following a four-season run and four years after "Star Trek: Nemesis" turned in the worst performance of the 10 films with $43 million domestic.

Original series created by Roddenberry launched in 1966 on NBC and ended in 1969.

During the following decade, the original 78 episodes of "Trek" became staples in syndication and helped mobilize the fan base along with conventions, books and merchandise. Paramount released "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" in 1979 and saw domestic grosses hit $82 million. The next three films grossed a combined $263 million domestically, so Paramount started the second TV series, "The Next Generation," in 1987, with Rick Berman and Roddenberry co-exec producing.

Under Sherry Lansing, Rick Berman had been teamed several years ago with Jordan Kerner and Kerry McCluggage to develop an 11th feature set in the early days of Starfleet Academy.

Date in print: Fri., Apr. 21, 2006, Los Angeles

The interest in "Star Trek" is strong.

 

However the interest in "ENT" is not.

345358[/snapback]

Not even with the apparently vast improvement in Season 4?

No way not a chance.

345353[/snapback]

Is there really such little demand? I live in Germany, but just seeing how many Trek-related websites there are in the U.S. and the interest is so global. Obviously there's a huge audience for Enterprise, but UPN wasn't finding it. I imagine syndication will allow the show to get a much broader audience, and who knows? Who would have thought that ST TOS would have resulted in all this?

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that these people have no clue what is really going on. If Spock is a must then I doubt there will be no movie. Leonard Nimoy made it quite clear a few years ago that he has retired from acting.

344539[/snapback]

Well, although it would be strange to see, there has been talk in the past of having young actors playing Spock and Kirk and the rest of the crew in a Starfleet Academy film, so it it wouldn't be unlikely to find a young actor playing a young Spock.

For that matter, they could bring back Tom Hardy of Nemesis to play Picard as a young cadet.

Whether that's a good idea or not is another story. The Trek universe is big enough to have new characters.

I haven't seen the season finale yet but I was just wondering if it's possible to get an Enterprise TV movie at some point down the road that might tie up some loose ends and also give the show the send off it deserves. Has there been any talk about this from TPTB?

It's happened with other shows that were killed off early. Even Serenity is coming to the big screen.

The point of my topic, folks, is not whether Kirk SHOULD be brought back, but rather HOW.

Personally, I don't think it's necessary to bring him back at all nor do I think it's a good idea for him to appear on Enterprise as himself or his great grandfather (aside from the ratings boost it would surely bring).

As I said in my previous post, this is something people have been discussing on other boards and it simply made me think, in theoritical terms, how one could bring Kirk back.

I know he was brought back to life by Shatner himelf in some ghost-written Trek novel of his, but the way in which he supposedly came back sounded even more corny than my own idea for his resurrection (although I haven't read that book).

It's nothing more than a little theoretical exercise really, geek mental masturbation, if you will.

Aside from Shatner playing a Kirk ancestor, I think there is a way to negate the events of Generations while not ignoring the events of that film. An easy and "logical" way to explain Shatner's continued existance would be by way of Nexus. We never actually found out what Nexus was exactly. We know it was somekind of interdimensional plain whose properties remain a mystery. Who's to say that once inside the Nexus, a person cannot end up living in multiplie parallel realities within this zone? What if the Kirk that helped Picard was but one Kirk that left the Nexus, while the Nexus itself, like somekind of cosmic computer virus, simply multiplied or copied its content, making it possible for many different Kirks to continue living on parallel strands within the Nexus on various dimensional plains? They are all the same Kirk and so it would be theoritcally possible to bring him back this way.

Kirk (or a Kirk copy, but Kirk nontheless) could have continued to live hundreds or thousands of years in the Nexus without growing old, and could have at some point in the future been rescued, grown older in the future. He could even have gone back to work for a future Federation and as an older representative of a future Federation, could return to the past along with Daniels or something to meet Archer and the rest of the Enterprise crew. Hell, he could also turn out to be the Future Guy!

I know, it's a corny topic, but it's being widely discussed in the Enterprise forum in connection to a possible appearance by William Shatner in Enterprise.

If it does happen, Shatner could end up playing a Kirk ancestor, or the writers could find a way to negate the events of Generations.

Ignoring Shatner's own resurrection in his Star Trek novel, I think an easy and "logical" way to explain Shatner's continued existance would be by way of Nexus. We never actually found out what Nexus was exactly. We know it was somekind of interdimensional plain whose properties remain a mystery. Who's to say that once inside the Nexus, a person cannot end up living in multiplie parallel realities within this zone? What if the Kirk that helped Picard was but one Kirk that left the Nexus, while the Nexus itself, like somekind of cosmic computer virus, simply multiplied or copied its content, making it possible for many different Kirks to continue living on parallel strands within the Nexus on various dimensional plains? They are all the same Kirk, however, so it would theoritcally possible to bring him back this way, but whether it's a good idea, especially for Enterprise, is a whole other topic.

I haven't been following the arguments for or against nudity on the show on this thread but I just wanted to add my to cents: if we look at how much our views on nudity have changed in the past 150 years, then you can imagine how Victorian we may appear to our descendants 150 years from now. Today in Europe, sport studios offer mixed saunas where men and women sit nude together with absolutely no problems. Nudity in swimming pools, lakes, beaches and parks is something natural, practiced by senior citizens, families with children and young people. A moral hang up with nudity is really only seen in very conservative places like the Middle East, South America and the U.S.

A lot of classic Science Fiction has offered views of a future where nudity among men and women is nothing unusual, whether it's practiced in communal sports, a culturally acceptable practice (like the Betazoids in ST:NG) or as a normal leisure activity. We have to accept that women will be even more empowered in the future than they are now, and that sexual differences between men and women will continue to diminish. A hundred years ago, who would have expected women to serve in the military?

The only problem I have with Enterprise is that the women even bother to cover their themselves when in the decon chamber or in front of their fellow crewmembers. I don't expect that in 150 years from now, women serving on ships in close quarters with male crewmembers will really care if they are seen nude or not. Nudity is the most normal state to be in. I'm surprised this is causing such an uproar among folk here. :lol:

Does anyone have a pic of a MACO trooper? I still haven't seen any of Season 3 here.

B)

Click for Spoiler:

Or did they decide to transport back to lend a hand in repairing their ship?

Also, the Borg infiltrators seem to have adapted much faster to the phase pistols than the Borg on the Borg ship, but that may have been the result of the editing process?

Here's a fascinating news wire story I came across. Any Klingon experts in Portland, Ore., looking for some extra work?

Klingon Interpreter Sought for Patients

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) - Position Available: Interpreter, must be fluent in Klingon.

The language created for the ``Star Trek'' TV series and movies is one of about 55 needed by the office that treats mental health patients in metropolitan Multnomah County.

``We have to provide information in all the languages our clients speak,'' said Jerry Jelusich, a procurement specialist for the county Department of Human Services, which serves about 60,000 mental health clients.

Although created for works of fiction, Klingon was designed to have a consistent grammar, syntax and vocabulary.

And now Multnomah County research has found that many people - and not just fans - consider it a complete language.

``There are some cases where we've had mental health patients where this was all they would speak,'' said the county's purchasing administrator, Franna Hathaway.

County officials said that obligates them to respond with a Klingon-English interpreter, putting the language of starship Enterprise officer Worf and other Klingon characters on a par with common languages such as Russian and Vietnamese, and less common tongues including Dari and Tongan.

On the Net:

Klingon Language Institute: http://www.kli.org/

County Human Services: http://www.co.multnomah.or.us/dchs/dv/

05/11/03 12:40

Besides, I think the color uniforms were nicer than the new yet more dull black and gray

Well, if there are any enlisted people out there, please correct me if I'm wrong -- but from the news coverage I've seen of the U.S military for example, army and marine personnel have a wide selection of kits to choose from, some wearing green fatigues, other desert, some mix them. Some soldiers wear the floppy Australian type hats while others sport military-style baseball caps or beanie caps. In Germany, the federal police also have various uniforms -- the black leather jacket and beige pants, the military green pants and military style sweater as well as a plain military-style duds for crowd control. Even back in Kirk's day, he sometimes wore his Green wrap-around shirt, while other Starfleet personnel had very different uniforms. Picard early on sometimes wore a (very cool) jacket.

My point being, I don't think Starfleet would be so uniform as to have one set of uniforms across the board for everyone at the same time. And even it did, it has been shown that personnel, or at least officers, have some leeway for variation. For example, Miles always had his sleeves rolled up, Deana often chose not to wear a uniform at all, etc.