Where did Spock go?

^ Also, Spock knows that Nero arrived some time ahead of him and has been doing God-knows-what with the timeline. He has no way of knowing how much of the history he remembers has been altered. Then, immediately after Vulcan goes kabloom, Kirk comes barreling into Spock's cave. Spock's initial assumption, that somehow Captain Kirk has come to rescue him ("How did you find me?"), is pretty reasonable under the circumstances.

 

Spock met Kirk when he (Kirk) assumed command of the Enterprise. Kirk was in his early thirties between 30-34 (another subject for another discussion). He would have had access to Kirk's record and Spock has excellent memory recall. He would know exactly what Kirk would look like. If kirk looked noticeably younger (to Spock's eyes) he would know he couldn't have been in command of the Enterprise.

And while this is out of universe photos of Shatner a mere five or so years before Star Trek show a noticeable difference even to human eyes.

 

Wasn't Shatner a heavy smoker during Star Trek? That doesn't exactly take off the years.

34 is pushing the date when Kirk and Spock met too far. He's 34 in the second season, which means, in the very least, he's 33 when they meet (and there's plenty of evidence indicating Kirk was even younger when he took command).

 

We don't know when Prime Kirk and Spock met. At all. Your assumptions say they didn't meet until TOS, nothing more.

Same for Kirk's age when he became captain of the Enterprise, or even achieved the rank of captain - he may even have commanded another ship prior to the E. He may also have commanded the E for a time before the 5YM began.

Up next: It's an alternate universe because Chis Pine's hair is real.

 

He knows what Kirk looked like when Kirk took command. That's all he needs to know.

 

1) Kirk is, at most, 5-8 years younger than when he took command of the Enterprise ... which occurred more than 120 years ago from Spock's perspective.

2) Spock knows the timeline has been altered.

Keep graspin' at those straws.

 

You're starting to get it.

 

Self-awareness. It's a beautiful thing.

I personally think of Trek '09 as a full-scale reboot and LN's presence--delightful as it was--as a mere fig leaf. In a way, it was a cameo not entirely dissimilar from the cameos of the surviving LiS TOS cast members in the horrible Lost in Space movie. But I really don't care if anybody else sees it my way or not nor do I care what the authorial intent may be since the true authors of Trek (as opposed to the legal authors) are looooong out of the picture.

 

KD:

Well, you just argued my point for me. If there was an original time line that had not been altered yet, chances are we were looking at it prior to First Contact. However, you feel that the Borg traveling back in Earth's history had already happened (as a traditional predestination paradox). Which would mean that the temporal incursion at First Contact had already happened before Picard went back in time. But how do you know that? We never saw any hint or clues to this effect. There was no evidence prior to First Contact that suggests that the event at First Contact was altered by time.

So you may say you never seen the Original Time Line prior to First Contact. But I say to you that we never seen the Pre-destination Paradox prior to First Contact (the film) either.

However, we do see that the events of First Contact have in fact effected the time stream afterwards, though. Which would suggest that we are now looking at the changed time line.

Now, lets say for the sake of argument that First Contact was pre-destination paradox prior to the film (as it is normally defined):

What about the technological advancements we see on Star Trek: Enterprise? The temporal cold war had not involved the humans in Broken Bow just yet. So their time line shouldn't have been altered by it yet. This leaves the explanation that Picard and crew had in fact influenced their own time line. Which in effect, caused man to advance more technologically quicker.

Why didn't Cochrane seem surprised or make a comment about Kirk being from a ship called the "Enterprise". I mean, it is a rather large coincidence. I don't think he would have not said anything or not have some type of reaction when they said the name Enterprise.

Enterprise was changed by the Temporal Cold War in the beginning of Broken Bow. The time line was altered by genetically enhanced soldiers (Suliban) taking orders from someone in the future.

Within the context of the universe: there are no continuity errors. There is a reasonable explanation for everything within Star Trek. The most ridiculous of scenes or moments can be explained as practical joke by a Q or some higher powered being. Other blunders can be explained that it was a change within the time line (that is if there was a recent temporal incursion). Why do I bother explaining the errors on the series when I know they are actually mistakes? Well, why bother to believe in warp drive when I know it isn't real? For the same reason I choose to suspend disbelief in a fictional universe in the first place. I want to enjoy the story and the richness of it's universe (without letting reality or continuity errors ruin my enjoyment of it).

I mean, the way I see it, why spoil the fun?

Yeah, I imagine a lot folks just ignore them and view them as for what they are or what they should have been.

However, part of the fun for me is to explain away the stupidity and validate everything that is within the Trek-verse (even Paris and Janeway's intimate moment together as lizards) .

 

T-Girl:

Well, after Picard's little show and tell of the future to Lily: I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't slit Cochrane's throat open and drink from it in order to take all the glory.



The thing is that she might have played a minor role in the original time line. But now all that has changed seeing Picard buttered her up and turned her into some kind of larger than life person within history.

Picard should have shut his trap and stunned her as many times as needed.

Hello? Did we forget the Temporal Prime Directive?

Yes. Yes. This is the type of gold that I try to dig up and give to people. Definitely awesome little nuggets. For all who want to see it of course.

 

This thread is what happens when people take Star Trek as an act of religious devotion.

Been there, done that... moved on.

 

No religious devotion of Trek here. I realize and still think it is a work of fiction. Now, making that fiction make sense so I can enjoy it a little better is more a personal past time or hobby. Now, that's a different matter.

But I don't decorate my house in Trek, nor do I run to the super market in a uniform. Nor do I mention Star Trek at all to a girl until we have become a little more serious. Unless of course she is a nerd and or a Trekkie herself.

As for everyone else. I can't speak to that effect. I don't know everyone.

 

It seems like you're arguing that it couldn't have been the "real" Spock because the Spock from the TV show would have noticed that Kirk was being played by a different actor now.

 

I was speaking in a broad sense.
However I used to obsess over this stuff - to a point where I created useless stress upon myself, and got really offended when others did not take it as umm serious.

Sure I love thinking out some of the apparent contradictions and or try to reconcile odd (what I from a fan pov none needed) "changes" intended or by omission across the shows and episodes.

And then I began to look at it all from the show runner/writers shoes and it made me a much less obsessive person about the whole deal.

I don't think even GR took it all so super serious - well, not until he began to buy his own hype that is later in life.

 

Well, it cuts both ways.

Spock Prime did not come from the TOS universe; the movie is not connected to the TOS universe and is a "clean reboot." The assertions otherwise here are not based on "on-screen evidence" but on narrow, subjective interpretations of details in the movie being wedged to fit into a preconceived, preferred conclusion.

 

This is true.

I bought the LIS movie on DVD about two years ago as research and must say I quite like it - but then, although I enjoyed the LIS series as a kid I can't say that I've ever had much respect for it.

In fact, while trying to generally survey as much of Hollywood's space opera/sf adventure output as possible while working on my own project I've discovered a number of guilty pleasures - basically what might be described as kitschy "B-movie" flicks with extravagant premises and ambitious scenarios but unencumbered by sufficient budgets or on-screen talent. Among those would be Verhoeven's Starship Troopers and the Wing Commander movie.

I'll serve under Saffron Burrows any day.

 

Starship Troopers is my favorite movie as it always makes me cry. Diz was a citizen of the Federation. and Armeggedon is a great movie and I even liked Battlefield Earth. I mean what was wrong with it? I think Lis had a good story.

 

Actually, Starship Troopers is a pretty successful movie in most respects - it just wasn't the movie that Heinlein fans wanted. Some of the satire is wicked (and a lot of the parody is heavyhanded).

Verhoeven has always had a knack for wringing moments of both empathy and horror out of the most superficial action cliches (Murphy losing his hand in Robocop, for example). The sustained lack of feeling in Starship Troopers is neither an accident nor a misjudgment, IMAO.

 

Starship Troopers bombed at the box office because people didn't get it. I laughed through so much of it, but the general audience isn't looking for that kind of disguised humor. The conventions of the films they enjoyed were being skewered and, as with The Last Action Hero, they resisted. But LAH was indeed a crappy film. But I still laughed.

Personally, I always thought RoboCop succeeded, not because the audience was particularly insightful, but because they had no idea it was satirical. They just considered it a good movie ("those commercials were fun-nee!"). The sequels overplayed the "satire" and forgot the "good" part.