RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,361
Posts: 5,446,183
Members: 24,970
Currently online: 507
Newest member: LaciFalor

TrekToday headlines

Kruge Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Oct 30

Two Trek Actors In Green Room
By: T'Bonz on Oct 30

Trek UglyDolls First Look
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

New Star Trek Select Action Figure
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

Trek Actors In Elsa & Fred
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

The Red Shirt Diaries #9
By: T'Bonz on Oct 28

Greenwood Cast In Truth
By: T'Bonz on Oct 28

Cumberbatch In Talks For Strange
By: T'Bonz on Oct 28

Two New Trek Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Oct 27

Meaney On Playing Historical Figure Durant
By: T'Bonz on Oct 27


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old March 17 2010, 04:18 AM   #166
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

BillJ wrote: View Post
The entire argument boils down to Paramount, Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman trying to fix something that wasn't broken to begin with. Both with the way time travel stories are told within the Trek universe and the Trek franchise itself.
There's someone who posts on StarTrek.com who has a reliable source at Paramount (and has posted here before.) Since Star Trek is now owned (or managed) by two separate entities (CBS and Paramount,) I believe the agreement went something a long the lines that Paramount would be allowed to produce new films if it was within its own "timeline." Paramount now have a copyright on their own timeline, CBS/Paramount Television have theirs. This person could possibly elaborate if he posts though. In that case, Paramount did what was reasonable and did it successfully.

So I do congratulate 'The Powers That Be' for coming in and fixing exactly nothing except turning Trek into 'lowest common denominator' fair.
Not at all.
Devon is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 03:19 PM   #167
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

Devon wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
The entire argument boils down to Paramount, Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman trying to fix something that wasn't broken to begin with. Both with the way time travel stories are told within the Trek universe and the Trek franchise itself.
There's someone who posts on StarTrek.com who has a reliable source at Paramount (and has posted here before.) Since Star Trek is now owned (or managed) by two separate entities (CBS and Paramount,) I believe the agreement went something a long the lines that Paramount would be allowed to produce new films if it was within its own "timeline." Paramount now have a copyright on their own timeline, CBS/Paramount Television have theirs. This person could possibly elaborate if he posts though. In that case, Paramount did what was reasonable and did it successfully.

So I do congratulate 'The Powers That Be' for coming in and fixing exactly nothing except turning Trek into 'lowest common denominator' fair.
Not at all.
The language doesn't sound like it would have precluded a straight re-boot of the franchise.

Seeing Avatar last night really changed my feelings on the new Star Trek and definitely reinforces the fact that they went for the most general audience possible.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 03:49 PM   #168
lawman
Commander
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

Indeed. There were a couple of moments when Avatar descended to predictable "Hollywood" story beats, but on the whole Cameron created something original, imaginative, and thought-provoking. Oh, and internally consistent, too.

Lowest common denominator, it was not... but that certainly didn't stop it from being popular.

Worst thing about the movie was its marketing, IMHO... before seeing it, I expected it to be just another vapid hyperkinetic SFX extravaganza designed to sell Happy Meals. You know, like Star Trek.
__________________
Blogging on pop culture and politics at SmartRemarks
lawman is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 06:26 PM   #169
Gojira
Commodore
 
Gojira's Avatar
 
Location: Stompin' on Tokyo
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

I have read most of this thread and I see the debate over time lines is still going strong. I have watched the new movie too many times to mention and have played close attention to the scene on the bridge where they explain things.

My opinion is that there is one linear time line and that Nero's presence and actions have erased, written over, the previous Trek time line. Even Uhura's "alternate reality" phrase doesn't sound like it is synonymous with an "alternate universe."

Plus on an emotional level Spock Prime's presence in the new time line loses its emotional impact if he and Nero are just from a different parallel universe. Why should Spock Prime be upset over the destruction of Vulcan if he knows that his Vulcan still exists in another universe? So many things I have seen on screen tell me that the old history is being erased for the new reality. Personally, I am fine with it.
Gojira is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 06:30 PM   #170
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

As I said else-thread, no matter what approach the writers took to this conundrum, people were going to complain.

If it's an alternate timeline, the writers didn't have the balls to mess with canon.

If it's not an alternate timeline, the writers were jerks for messing with the canon.

If they destroy Vulcan, they're jerks for destroying Vulcan.

If they don't destroy Vulcan, they created a movie with a big reset button and don't have the balls to actually change anything in their brave new Trek.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 06:33 PM   #171
OneBuckFilms
Fleet Captain
 
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

Space Therapist wrote: View Post
I have read most of this thread and I see the debate over time lines is still going strong. I have watched the new movie too many times to mention and have played close attention to the scene on the bridge where they explain things.

My opinion is that there is one linear time line and that Nero's presence and actions have erased, written over, the previous Trek time line. Even Uhura's "alternate reality" phrase doesn't sound like it is synonymous with an "alternate universe."

Plus on an emotional level Spock Prime's presence in the new time line loses its emotional impact if he and Nero are just from a different parallel universe. Why should Spock Prime be upset over the destruction of Vulcan if he knows that his Vulcan still exists in another universe? So many things I have seen on screen tell me that the old history is being erased for the new reality. Personally, I am fine with it.
If Alternate Reality does not mean Ulternate Universe (as in Multiverse), then what does she actually mean?

For something to be an Alternate, it must be alternate to something. And what "thing" is the Reality? Reality cannot become fantasy.

The "overwritten" reality scenario violates cause and effect, and for that reason alone, should be rejected.
OneBuckFilms is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 06:36 PM   #172
OneBuckFilms
Fleet Captain
 
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

DonIago wrote: View Post
As I said else-thread, no matter what approach the writers took to this conundrum, people were going to complain.

If it's an alternate timeline, the writers didn't have the balls to mess with canon.

If it's not an alternate timeline, the writers were jerks for messing with the canon.

If they destroy Vulcan, they're jerks for destroying Vulcan.

If they don't destroy Vulcan, they created a movie with a big reset button and don't have the balls to actually change anything in their brave new Trek.
Damned if you do, damnded if you don't. So they went for it, but threw us a bone via the Alternate Reality.

It shows, to me, that they have respect for what came before, and the insight to realized that more of the same would likely produce the same results, ala Nemesis/Enterprise.
OneBuckFilms is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 06:36 PM   #173
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

DonIago wrote: View Post
As I said else-thread, no matter what approach the writers took to this conundrum, people were going to complain.

If it's an alternate timeline, the writers didn't have the balls to mess with canon.

If it's not an alternate timeline, the writers were jerks for messing with the canon.

If they destroy Vulcan, they're jerks for destroying Vulcan.

If they don't destroy Vulcan, they created a movie with a big reset button and don't have the balls to actually change anything in their brave new Trek.
What they did was actually worse. They didn't do anything anyone would care about. In the grandest tradition laid down by Rick Berman, they nipped at the edges.

I swear that if Rick Berman's name had been attached to this film everyone here would've been screaming about plot holes and the overuse of time travel.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 06:37 PM   #174
OneBuckFilms
Fleet Captain
 
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

Space Therapist wrote: View Post
I have read most of this thread and I see the debate over time lines is still going strong. I have watched the new movie too many times to mention and have played close attention to the scene on the bridge where they explain things.

My opinion is that there is one linear time line and that Nero's presence and actions have erased, written over, the previous Trek time line. Even Uhura's "alternate reality" phrase doesn't sound like it is synonymous with an "alternate universe."

Plus on an emotional level Spock Prime's presence in the new time line loses its emotional impact if he and Nero are just from a different parallel universe. Why should Spock Prime be upset over the destruction of Vulcan if he knows that his Vulcan still exists in another universe? So many things I have seen on screen tell me that the old history is being erased for the new reality. Personally, I am fine with it.
Up until Stardate 2233.04, it is actually the same universe.
OneBuckFilms is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 06:37 PM   #175
Gojira
Commodore
 
Gojira's Avatar
 
Location: Stompin' on Tokyo
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

DonIago wrote: View Post
As I said else-thread, no matter what approach the writers took to this conundrum, people were going to complain.

If it's an alternate timeline, the writers didn't have the balls to mess with canon.

If it's not an alternate timeline, the writers were jerks for messing with the canon.

If they destroy Vulcan, they're jerks for destroying Vulcan.

If they don't destroy Vulcan, they created a movie with a big reset button and don't have the balls to actually change anything in their brave new Trek.
I had wished the writers had said that this movie is a clear reboot of the franchise instead of trying to pander to some fans because now fandom is divided amongst itself wondering if it is a new time line or not.

But to me, what is clearly seen in the movie is an erasing of the old time line in favor of this new time line. But the writers in trying to appease long time fans (and I am one of them, a fan since 1973) have done nothing but muddied the waters.
Gojira is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 06:40 PM   #176
Gojira
Commodore
 
Gojira's Avatar
 
Location: Stompin' on Tokyo
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
Space Therapist wrote: View Post
I have read most of this thread and I see the debate over time lines is still going strong. I have watched the new movie too many times to mention and have played close attention to the scene on the bridge where they explain things.

My opinion is that there is one linear time line and that Nero's presence and actions have erased, written over, the previous Trek time line. Even Uhura's "alternate reality" phrase doesn't sound like it is synonymous with an "alternate universe."

Plus on an emotional level Spock Prime's presence in the new time line loses its emotional impact if he and Nero are just from a different parallel universe. Why should Spock Prime be upset over the destruction of Vulcan if he knows that his Vulcan still exists in another universe? So many things I have seen on screen tell me that the old history is being erased for the new reality. Personally, I am fine with it.
Up until Stardate 2233.04, it is actually the same universe.
But the movie itself doesn't ever state that after that stardate a new universe has been created. What we see and hear on screen, in my humble opinion, is that the old time line no longer exists. It's the same universe but now a different time line with the old time line now being recorded over.

I am willing to be converted, but the writer's explanation to it being a new universe is not what we see in the movie.
Gojira is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 06:51 PM   #177
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

Perhaps it should be left to each viewer to draw the conclusion that brings them the most happiness.

I feel it's an alternate timeline, not an overwrite. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll wait for TPTB to make that explicitly clear. And if you don't want to subscribe to my viewpoint, hey, good for you for having an alternate interpretation.

...see what I did there?
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 06:56 PM   #178
Gojira
Commodore
 
Gojira's Avatar
 
Location: Stompin' on Tokyo
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

DonIago wrote: View Post
Perhaps it should be left to each viewer to draw the conclusion that brings them the most happiness.

I feel it's an alternate timeline, not an overwrite. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll wait for TPTB to make that explicitly clear. And if you don't want to subscribe to my viewpoint, hey, good for you for having an alternate interpretation.

...see what I did there?
I agree with your attitude and hope that the next film can settle the dispute.
Gojira is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 07:19 PM   #179
I-Am-Zim
Captain
 
Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
Up until Stardate 2233.04, it is actually the same universe.
Unless it isn't.

There are those (like me) who subscribe to the theory that the whole Abramsverse is an alternate universe in and of itself. When Spock and Nero went through the black hole/wormhole/temporal whatever, they actually emerged into an alternate universe and changed the events of that timeline, not the original (problem is, OldSpock and Nero treat the Abramsverse as if it is their universe with altered events). There are even those who think that "Spock Prime" may not even be the Spock from the original universe. There is evidence to support both theories. Personally, that's what I go with. It helps to reconcile some of the differences between the Abramsverse and the original that can't be resolved any other way.

Either way, no matter what you think or believe, these are not the same people we have come to know over the last 40-odd years of Star Trek history. They are alternate universe/reality/timeline versions of those characters. The Kirk, Spock, etc. that we know are still trotting merrily along in the good ol' TOS universe that we loved. Unfortunately, we will never see them again. And that's too bad. Because I would really like to see how they all met and came to be aboard the Enterprise together. That would be a story worth seeing. I could care about that. I have no reason to care about NuTrek because, like the Mirror Universe, they are not the ones I know.
I-Am-Zim is offline  
Old March 17 2010, 08:57 PM   #180
OneBuckFilms
Fleet Captain
 
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
 
Re: Why doesn't Spock Prime go back in time to save Vulcan?

I-Am-Zim wrote: View Post
OneBuckFilms wrote: View Post
Up until Stardate 2233.04, it is actually the same universe.
Unless it isn't.

There are those (like me) who subscribe to the theory that the whole Abramsverse is an alternate universe in and of itself. When Spock and Nero went through the black hole/wormhole/temporal whatever, they actually emerged into an alternate universe and changed the events of that timeline, not the original (problem is, OldSpock and Nero treat the Abramsverse as if it is their universe with altered events). There are even those who think that "Spock Prime" may not even be the Spock from the original universe. There is evidence to support both theories. Personally, that's what I go with. It helps to reconcile some of the differences between the Abramsverse and the original that can't be resolved any other way.

Either way, no matter what you think or believe, these are not the same people we have come to know over the last 40-odd years of Star Trek history. They are alternate universe/reality/timeline versions of those characters. The Kirk, Spock, etc. that we know are still trotting merrily along in the good ol' TOS universe that we loved. Unfortunately, we will never see them again. And that's too bad. Because I would really like to see how they all met and came to be aboard the Enterprise together. That would be a story worth seeing. I could care about that. I have no reason to care about NuTrek because, like the Mirror Universe, they are not the ones I know.
I personally like this new cast, but I agree that due to the Alternate Reality changes, they changed along different lines.
OneBuckFilms is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.