Jack_Bauer

Or at least get spoiled on events occurring within it first.

 

Especially on Nero's backstory.

From what I hear, Nero doesn't get a lot of back story in the movie itself. He still works as a villain, but the Countdown prequel gives those who want it, more information on him that couldn't be worked into the film.

I own it and read it in less than a day. It's really good. Excellent backstory for the movie.

So I guess that every time they go back in time, a new reality is created so this current movie series will take place in an alternate reality.

Technically, yes. But one not all that different from the original Star Trek universe (which as we know it is probably a combination of several timelines, because every time travel incident in Star Trek history would technically result in a new timeline. It just all seems the same from our objective point of view)

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).

It did seem like they were able to travel freely back and forth, but it is an assumption that they weren't just skipping realities. For instance, with Yesterday's Enterprise, they are possibly three different timelines featured. The first is where we start, the second is when the Enterprise-C comes through the rift, and the third is when it is sent back with Yar. 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.

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.

I don't know, I think you can make the argument that every instance of Star Trek time travel does in fact follow this theory. It gets a little sketchy in places but it is possible. For example, Kirk and crew do make changes to the timeline in 1986 (most notable the removal of Gillian Taylor) but do nothing that would substantially alter the timeline and prevent their own traveling back. Therefore they travel back from 2286A to 1986B, make a few changes, grab the whales, and travel back to 2286B, where the 2286B versions of the crew have also traveled back. Therefore, while it not appear that they have crossed into an alternate timeline, they possibly could have.

However, since there has never really been a uniformly applied theory across all of Star Trek, I think these guys deserve the benefit of the doubt.

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 have not seen the film, but I feel I know enough to answer this question.

According to Roberto Orci, ‘Star Trek’ subscribes to the quantum theory of time travel. The idea behind this theory is that the very action of travelling through time creates an alternate timeline (which is different from the one which they left if only because they are not where they are supposed to be) where events need not necessarily follow the same course. To put it in simpler terms (and I know I have used this analogy previously), Marty McFly cannot prevent his own birth because the George McFly and Lorraine Baines he encounters are not really ‘his’ parents. They are the parents of the Marty McFly of the timeline he is now in. I believe that there are scientists who believe this is how time travel would function as it eliminates the possibility of paradoxes.

Therefore, when Nero and Spock Prime are accidentally thrown back in time, they are entering a new Star Trek timeline which is distinct from the one they left because they are not where they are supposed to be. However, this new timeline does not overwrite the original. It is more of an alternate quantum reality, similar to those encountered by Worf in Parallels (TNG).

Anyway, once one enters a new timeline, it is impossible to return to their original timeline. Attempting to travel back to the future would result in travelling to the future of the new timeline. Additionally, travelling back again to correct what was done would also be impossible. The Enterprise crew could not travel back to correct the change because then there would be two Enterprises. They also cannot correct their own past; they can only create a past for another version of the crew that is closer to the one Spock Prime originally experienced. Spock Prime theoretically travel back again and prevent the destruction of the Kelvin and possibility defeat Nero at that instance, this would minimize the amount of difference between that timeline and his original but it still wouldn’t be the original.

I hope that helps.

Perhaps, but Star Trek would not be effected any more so than any other movie being released this year. If there is a statistically significant decline in global box office numbers, that will definitely factor into how movies released this year are evaluated in terms of success.

If the fan took a picture using a flash during a stage performance he deserved it. Besides distracting the actor using a flash during a stage performance is rude to the rest of the audience. How about finding out if that is the case before calling Stewart names?

Yeah, apparently this guy took a picture with what is described as a big camera, during the performance. I think there may also be some exaggeration with the whole 'foul-mouthed tirade thing'.

This is the most I could find in terms of a direct quote was this "Are you the a**hole who was sitting at the front tonight? You know, what I really want to know is how you can sleep at night? I really hope you're pleased with yourself."

Really not that bad.

Very similar to the whole Christian Bale thing. It seems bad on the surface (and isn't exactly a good thing) but looking at the reality of the situation, it's understandable.

No, doesn't bother me. To me, the line "not your fathers Star Trek" means Alive Again.

 

Near it's end old Trek had bad baggage attached to it, it was considered too nerdy by mainstream and had become a rotting corpse of mediocrity. Only we hard core fans were following along anymore but we weren't enough to keep sustaining Trek in that form. ENT, INS & NEM were largely critical failures for the franchise, it couldn't continue in that state. Something had to change.

 

Abrams has taken the nerds-only factor out of it, made it accessible to more people and (hopefully) breathed new life in to it.

Voted the same way for pretty much the same reasons.

On the one hand I think those 390000 people are probably being smart alecs but

 

I find it terribly alarming that you are required to state your religion for your job - maybe that was those officers' means of objecting to the question

I don't think they were required. The article refers to them as "voluntary diversity forms".

i just kinda think it's almost ridiculously funny that in the last few years he's managed to achieve, his own tv show, voice acting in a cartoon or two, become president of the united states in a comic book....then fighting obama in a iron man comic...then this. i mean is he really trying to become a notable person in history?

He was voice acting before he got The Colbert Report (and he is really good at it, great voice) and he didn't become President in Marvel Comics (where his real life 'campaign' continued after he dropped out in real life). He won the popular vote but still lost the electoral vote to Obama. I am also not familiar with him fighting Obama in Iron Man. I know he fought "The Bear" in a team-up with Spider-Man.

The thing is, I don't know how much of this was ever really him trying to do this. Or really, how seriously he was trying. The whole Presidential thing was just a joke (only running in the South Carolina primary as both a Democrat and a Republican) based on how people always mention him and Stewart as potential candidates and Marvel just sort of kept running with it as an Easter Egg.

Also keep in mind that a lot of this is keeping with the "Stephen Colbert" character who believes that he deserves these honours.

remember that the Cage was originally called "too cerebral" and so they made a second pilot and it turned out great. This isn't the first non-cerebral Trek by any means

Quoted for truth.

 

And if you ever want to see any official form of cerebral Star Trek again, this movie has to do well. Of course, at this point, it is hard to tell how cerebral or non-cerebral this movie will be. Trailers always deliberately focus on the action and these trailers have to look different from the rest of Star Trek in order to alter the general public's perception of Star Trek so they will go and see the movie.

Trailers also tend to have some scenes and dialog that aren't exactly the same as in the movie. First Contact even had a shot of the Enterprse-D at warp even though it was destroyed in Generations.

Very true, hell Voyager is in the initial First Contact trailer.

Just thought I would merge these as they are covering the same material. Hope no one minds.

remember that the Cage was originally called "too cerebral" and so they made a second pilot and it turned out great. This isn't the first non-cerebral Trek by any means

Quoted for truth.

And if you ever want to see any official form of cerebral Star Trek again, this movie has to do well. Of course, at this point, it is hard to tell how cerebral or non-cerebral this movie will be. Trailers always deliberately focus on the action and these trailers have to look different from the rest of Star Trek in order to alter the general public's perception of Star Trek so they will go and see the movie.

With all respect to Colbert, come on...this is our space station we are talking about-our mark on the heavens...our next steps into space..and someone wants to even consider naming some important part of it after a comedian? Not a scientist, an engineer, a great author like the legendary Isaac Asimov? There are plenty of options. Please! That sort of thing is better fit for something in the man's home town or something....not this grand a venture. Political satirist is still a satirist. As for a toliet...is that really necessary?

Obviously, Colbert is not the most appropriate name for a node of the I.S.S. I won't dispute that. I don't think even Colbert would dispute that (the real Colbert, not the character he plays on his show). However, NASA was stupid enough to make it possible for someone to hijack this contest by not having a write in component that occurred before the actual voting, or for that matter for even having a write-in component. At least they covered their butts with the rule stating that they didn't need to respect the results.

It is good, however, that they gave Colbert something (especially something better than the toilet, which is just disrespectful to someone who has done nothing to garner such disrespect) as he created free publicity for NASA by launching this effort. This story got way more interest than it would have had Colbert not attempted to get the node named after him. Actually, in hindsight, I hope this is what NASA was actually trying to achieve.

Well, unfortunately Colbert did not get the node (but neither did Serenity) as NASA went with Tranquility, which wasn't even one of the original options and finished eighth in the voting.

Anyway, Colbert still got something pretty cool. The:

Combined

Operational

Load

Bearing

External

Resistance

Treadmill

Much better than the toilet.

Well, if they're going on the show, I sure hope they have decided to name it after Colbert. I realize it doesn't fit with the other names but NASA should have realized that this was possible when they opened it up to a vote. Besides, it's not as if Colbert is the only one who "hijacked" the process. Serenity only finished second because of those damn Browncoats.

Tonight I saw the ad for the upcoming episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and it features a murder at a science fiction convention. The costumes for the show the con is about looks very very much like a Star Trek con ala Galaxy Quest. The episode's title? A Space Oddity

Do you think this could have anything to do with CBS buying some of the rights to Star Trek from Paramount and the new movie opening in a few weeks.

 

Here is a link to the Episode preview

Click Here

They didn't buy the rights. Both CBS and Paramount were owned by Viacom and when Viacom split up, the TV rights stayed with CBS (who also owned UPN) and the movie rights stayed with Paramount.

But in relation to the original question, this is doubtlessly related to the new movie. Of course, I'm not entirely sure why they have to cover it up with "Astral Quest" when they own the TV rights to Star Trek.

Another Star Trek TV series?

By: Larraine Stacey

 

With the new J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek movie to hit theaters in May, the timing is perfect for another Star Trek series. That's what screenwriter Bryan Fuller, of Pushing Daisies, thinks. Hollywood.com quotes Fuller:

 

More >> http://www.examiner.com/x-5903-Orlando-Sci...-Trek-TV-series

Just so everyone knows, nothing is imminent on the series front for Star Trek. Fuller did that interview a while ago (March 2nd, 2009) and it seems like somebody picks it up every few weeks or so. And, it is just speculative on Fuller's part. Most likely Trek will stay off of TV until some point after 2013 (presuming that ST09 is successful enough to garner the sequels the cast are signed for and that there are two year breaks between each movie). That would be Paramount's ideal I would think, they don't want to risk diluting Star Trek again. However, this is somewhat complicated based on the fact that the rights to the franchise were split and CBS owns the TV rights. I really don't know how it would work.

That being said, Fuller would be near the top of my list for potential show runner on a future Star Trek series (behind Abrams, and Damon Lindelof). What I've seen of his work is fantastic.

Eventually someone is going to call 911...to report that they got in trouble for frivolously calling 911.

This is a pretty big deal. William Bell is very important character in the Fringe story (Walter Bishop's former lab partner, founder of Massive Dynamic). This will most likely be just a recurring role, I doubt it will get to regular status (or course who knows, Blair Brown and Mark Valley didn't need to be regulars but still are/were, Valley's off the series now and married in Anna Torv bizarrely enough) but still, I was psyched when I heard this.

Actually, I think it does hold up. Homo-sapiens, Cro-Magnons, and Neanderthals probably do have a common ancestor if you go back far enough. While they were 3 separate species, which can be analogus to 3 separate timelines if you will, they were probably recogniseable to each other as "kinda like us in some ways but with some obvious differences". I'm sure that the introduction of Nero and old Spock in the movie timeline will spring off into a new timeline, much the same as enough mutation and genetic drift can create a new species from an existing one, but at some point the two timelines were one.

Okay, I can accept that. The whole point is that yes there is a common ancestry of these timelines (i.e. namely everything before the breaking off point of Nero and Spock Prime going back in time) and so they are related. However, the breaking off point can't occur until another timeline reaches a certain point (i.e the point from which Nero and Spock Prime travel back). It would be as if homo sapiens have to evolve to a certain point, travel back in time to the point of common ancestry and thereby cause one of the other species to evolve (i.e. Cro Magnons can't exist until Homo Sapiens reach a point where they can travel back and cause whatever needs to occur for Cro Magnons to exist).

That's what I feel your analogy lacks. The recognition that this timeline doesn't exist until Nero and Spock Prime travel back in time. I think that clears it up, but if it doesn't, my bad.

Oh, in case anyone is wondering, I'm using "Spock Prime" because that is how Leonard Nimoy is credited in the movie.

Awesome what they did in Austin.

Is it okay to post on this thread or do you want to keep it just for news, AE? You can delete this post if you want to, no worries.

Think of it as the difference between homo sapiens and neanderthals or cro-magnons. There is a common ancestry if you go back far enough, and there might have even been a limited amount of interbreeding, but it doesn't follow that one evolved from the other.

I honestly don't think that this is an apt analogy. At the very least the inclusion of Leonard Nimoy as Old Spock indicates that this movie is undeniably linked and related to the rest of the Star Trek universe.

I am basing this on what I have learned of Star Trek Countdown, the official movie prequel comic. I have not read it first hand (waiting on the trade paperback), but I have a fairly good understanding of what takes place. While the canonicity of this comic is debatable, I generally accept that since it involved the writers of this movie that it does in fact reflect in some way their intended back story for the movie (one that need not necessarily be known to understand the movie) and that this will be addressed in some form in the movie.

So in essence Nero is just trying to create his own personal timeline?

Pretty much.