World Premiere/Advance screening discussions [SPOILERS GUARANTEED]

Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by M'Sharak, Apr 5, 2009.

  1. gh4chiefs

    gh4chiefs Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Location:
    Jefferson City, MO
    Thanks for that update, I guess I'm not really surprised.
     
  2. seekertwo

    seekertwo Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Good question....could Vulcan disappear and reappear like that planet on DS9.....or could it randomly bounce around the universe like a planet I read about in a Star Wars book?....
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2009
  3. trekfan

    trekfan Cadet Newbie

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    Just saw the move in Seattle at a pre-screen. Wow, a very awesome movie. Good action, nicely paced and funny. I give it an A-.
     
  4. Dac

    Dac Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Location:
    The Essex wastes...
    Vulcan is blown to smithereens. Unless someone has mega industrial strength super glue and alot of spare time (not to mention knowing where and when it got sucked to) it aient coming back save for more time travel.

    The opening scene takes place in 2233 - This is where Kirk is born. When we see him as an adult he is 25, making it 2258, and he then spends 3 years at the Academy before boarding the Enterprise, meaning the film should take place around 2260 (Give or take a few months).
     
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Location:
    Behind the mask of Donald Draper
    What is the likelihood that they are going to show the Botany Bay on the big screen looking exactly like it did in "Space Seed"? Or that Khan's backstory will be tied to 1990's Eugenics Wars?

    The temptation, and probable need, to contemporize those details is going to mess with a single point of diverence theory.
     
  6. Spinstorm

    Spinstorm Ensign Newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2009
    lol if Khan ever turned up in a sequel - I would not want him to be from 1996!

    Even in Star Trek II that sounds beyond stupid.

    I like Star Trek because its realistic and a possibilty of what the future may be like and setting anything in OUR past which is blatently not true destroys that.

    Forget cannon - I don't care - I wan't something realistic - which is another good reason why Shatner would have made this film look stupid if he was in it...

    No thank you!
     
  7. SiddFinch1

    SiddFinch1 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    State of Mind
    If the main part of the movie is 2260, why would Spock-prime be confused that Kirk is not the Capt of the E yet? I thought Kirk Prime didnt take over until around 2265 or 2266- so now Nu-Kirk takes over 5 years earlier than Kirk-prime did?
     
  8. Ríu ríu chíu

    Ríu ríu chíu Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
    ^ Actually we have no idea when Kirk first took command of the Enterprise in the original timeline.
     
  9. SiddFinch1

    SiddFinch1 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2005
    Location:
    State of Mind
    I thought that once they used the 2283 date on the romulan ale in ST2 that it more or less set his first 5 year mission as 2265-69 as Khan was marooned 15 years earlier
     
  10. Kruge

    Kruge Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Okay sorry to get off the topic of the new Trek and spoilers, but this comment just reminded me of a point of contention I have with the whole "official" Star Trek Chronology...

    There were never any dates given in TOS..Roddenberry supposedly left this up in the air at first, stating that the show could be anywhere from 300 to 800 years in the future...in fact, when Kirk and Co. travel back to the 1960s, and Kirk is threatened with being locked up for "200 years", he muses "Yeah, that's about right", which would place the show in the 2160s...

    That aside, the show's chronology was eventually retconned to have occured from 2266 onwards, TNG taking place in the 24th century, and so forth...now here's my beef:

    People often say that The Motion Picture must've taken place in the early 2270s, because of Deckers comment that Kirk hadn't logged a single star hour(whatever that is) in such and such number of years..therefore, if the Enterprise's 5 year mission began in 2266 and ended in 2271, TMP must take place in the early 2270s, say 2271 or 72 or 73....

    My problem is that this lacks imagination...if Trek debuted in 1966 and took place in 2266, then why can't TMP take place in 2279, and the missing years in between are simply that...missing! They weren't depicted on screen, but Kirk had further adventures, got promoted to Admiral, got bored pushing papers, and then V'Ger comes along in '79...

    To me at least, it would make more sense, because it would explain why the uniforms look so different, why the characters have obviously aged more than a few years, etc, etc.

    That's my two cents...I know what Okuda's Chronology says, but I strongly disagree...
     
  11. KirkusOveractus

    KirkusOveractus Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Ambler, PA
    ^ I do understand what you've written, but I think they covered the age issue with the implication of the timeframe of TWOK. TMP was supposed to be 2 1/2 years after TOS (or thereabouts), and TWOK was supposed to be 10 years after that, which brings everything up to the right timeframe.

    However, TWOK never mentions on screen the time between, so we'll never really know.

    Wasn't the final year of the Enterprise's five-year mission mentioned in an episode of ENT?
     
  12. Kruge

    Kruge Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    WOw this is like the only time I've actually learned something USEFUL from Voyager!! Imagine that!

    Remember the episode (or maybe you don't because you never watched Voyager, you lucky person you!) when Voyager's crew travels back to 1996, meets Sarah Silverman, and we see no evidence of the Eugenics Wars having taken place?

    Apparently, according to the book I have here by Greg Cox, called Star Trek: The Eugenics Wars, that's because the Eugenics Wars were more of a behind-the-scenes, secret agent, shadow government type conflict that the public was largely unaware of...various real-life events are tied in to Khan's meddling in world affairs, with the general population largely oblivious to the truth behind the conspiracy!

    And that's how they managed to turn one of Roddenberry's boners (ha ha I said it) into something WAAAAY more convoluted but nevertheless somewhat more believable...I think....

    That all being said, I truly hope that they don't revist Khan and his supermen...it was boring in Space Seed, it worked surpisingly well in TWOK, and it was really stupid on Enterprise...Call me hypocritical, but while it was necessary to recruit younger actors to play the leads, it would be definitley a stretch to re-cast Khan...

    Plus, if Spock Prime is still puttering around the nuTrek universe at the conclusion of Star Trek, then he could easily tell young Spock and Kirk the best way to defeat Khan....DONT FREAKING WAKE HIM UP IF YOU FIND HIM!!!:)
     
  13. Kruge

    Kruge Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Yes it was....

    You know, the funny thing is that before TNG and the subsequent Trek movies, there never was an established chronology for Trek...fans speculated that the series occured in the very early 23rd century, and their estimates were proven right when, in the opening scene of TWOK, we are told for the first time what century Trek takes place in....I am not 100 percent sure about this, but I remember reading that firm dates did not come about until much later...in fact, it may have been with TNG explicity stating the year as 2364 in one episode that people started working backwards and figuring out when the shows and movies took place


    It doesnt really matter, it's just one of those thigns that bothers me...personally, I doubt we'll be even close to that advanced by the 23rd century...at the present pace, we'll probably barely have sent manned missions to the farthest reaches of the Solar System, and I think based on what I've read that any kind of feasible means of traveling interstellar distances is many centuries away...not impossible, just improbable...
     
  14. Kruge

    Kruge Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    And btw, not trying to be a Bob Bummer here, I love the future that Trek envisions (except for the whole idea of this vast, moneyless federation nannystate controlling everything, I prefer individual liberty thank you), I just think that humans have a tendency to wait until the last minute to come up with things like interstellar travel...probably not until the earth is rendered uninhabitable, THEN suddenly the funding for traveling to another planet will make itself available...but space travel for simple exploration?? Not in my life time...:(
     
  15. Peacemaker

    Peacemaker Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Location:
    Time Vortex
    That would have to mean that this new universe can't be too different than the other...for if that's so, then Enterprise happened, and if Enterprise happened, then the Borg in FC happened too, which means that the 24th century events that led to the events in FC happened, and so on.
     
  16. FlyingLemons

    FlyingLemons Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Edinburgh/London
    I've thought about this quite a lot too within Star Trek canon logic, and I assume that the Abramsverse routes around this so there's a version of FC taking place in its 24th Century, or something like that anyway.

    I agree with Janeway when she said temporal mechanics made her head hurt.
     
  17. RJDonner&Blitzen

    RJDonner&Blitzen Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    RJDiogenes of Boston
    Presumably spaceship duty, as opposed to a desk job.

    I forget what the Chronology says, but I always figured that TMP took place about three years after the 5-year mission-- the figure Decker quotes is 2 1/2 years-- which puts it five years after the end of the series. Then Kirk commands another 5-year mission (per "Thataway"), which would end about two or three years before TWOK and during which he once again steps down from command and becomes a teacher at the Academy.
     
  18. arch101

    arch101 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    May 3, 1999
    Location:
    10 miles west of the Universal Hub
    Anyone know of any advance screenings in the Boston area? I've dug deep and found exactly 0 info.
     
  19. Ríu ríu chíu

    Ríu ríu chíu Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
    No. All that scene showed was Kirk looking at the bottle, reading the date (2283), and McCoy replying that it takes the stuff awhile to ferment. That's *it*. It doesn't say anything about Kirk or his career or when he took command. Only concerned itself with an ale bottle.

    It did certainly imply that a fair amount of time had gone by since that bottle was made, but as we would later learn, it's only two years anyway (TWOK takes place in 2285).
     
  20. number6

    number6 Vice Admiral

    Nothing I know about, but I've already got tickets to two of the IMAX showings in Reading on Thursday!!