Hated it

[Nerys Myk]

It's a sequel, not a reboot. It just takes place in one of the alternate universes not unlike the MU.

It's a reboot. Reboots can take many forms, in this case its a "sidequel". It reboots the series by creating an alternate Universe where the characters can develop unhindered by decades of continuity. Call it the DC method. DC Comics has rebooted its continuity several time by creating alternate universes at start their characters anew.

And if there's one organization that's managed the challenge of keeping up decades of sometimes-sloppy, sometimes-overtight, sometimes-contradictory continuities in the face of vociferous fan bases attached to specific subsets of those universes, without producing confusing muddles of exposition in establishing the alternate universes and continuities and rules by which they can interact or be added to, it's DC Comics!

I didn't say they were good at it

 

[Greg Cox]

I do sometimes wonder if those of us who grew on DC Comics are perhaps somewhat less fazed by reboots and parallel continuities than folks who maybe aren't as used to the idea of "canon" being rather a fluid thing . . ..

(Says the guy who has novelized a DC "Crisis" or three.)

This may be new to Star Trek fans, but it's Standard Operating Procedure for lifelong comics readers.

 

[Mudd]

That's very true. There've been so many versions of Superman during my lifetime that it's hard to get too upset when they start a relatively young property like, oh, Star Trek over.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I do sometimes wonder if those of us who grew on DC Comics are perhaps somewhat less fazed by reboots and parallel continuities than folks who maybe aren't as used to the idea of "canon" being rather a fluid thing . . ..

(Says the guy who has novelized a DC "Crisis" or three.)

This may be new to Star Trek fans, but it's Standard Operating Procedure for lifelong comics readers.

Yep. I've been reading comics as long as I've watched Trek. Discovered both in 1966.

 

[fireproof78]

^
Why time travel should be permanently banned from science fiction.

Yes

Nah. Can't go there. Think of all the classic stuff we'd lose: The Time Machine, the entire Terminator franchise, much of Planet of the Apes, Twelve Monkeys, Time After Time, Somewhere in Time, Back to the Future, Groundhog Day. And, oh yeah, Doctor Who.

Heck, in Trek alone, we'd lose City on the Edge of Forever, Tomorrow is Yesterday, Assignment: Earth, All Our Yesterdays, The Voyage Home, Yesterday's Enterprise, Tapestry, Star Trek: First Contact, Trials and Tribble-lations, Little Green Men, Future's End . . ..

It may not always be consistent, but time-travel has given us plenty of great stories. And it's got a pretty good track record where Trek is concerned.

I'm not saying to eliminate such old stories. I'm saying that time travel should be retired from SF for a time period as it has become a tired trope, one that I personally would not miss.

I think it just needs a break.

Edit: I will amend this slightly. Edge of Tomorrow is an instance where it is something a little different in terms of the mechanism, and is creative enough to be enjoyable. So, maybe use it sparingly

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yes

Nah. Can't go there. Think of all the classic stuff we'd lose: The Time Machine, the entire Terminator franchise, much of Planet of the Apes, Twelve Monkeys, Time After Time, Somewhere in Time, Back to the Future, Groundhog Day. And, oh yeah, Doctor Who.

Heck, in Trek alone, we'd lose City on the Edge of Forever, Tomorrow is Yesterday, Assignment: Earth, All Our Yesterdays, The Voyage Home, Yesterday's Enterprise, Tapestry, Star Trek: First Contact, Trials and Tribble-lations, Little Green Men, Future's End . . ..

It may not always be consistent, but time-travel has given us plenty of great stories. And it's got a pretty good track record where Trek is concerned.

I'm not saying to eliminate such old stories. I'm saying that time travel should be retired from SF for a time period as it has become a tired trope, one that I personally would not miss.

I think it just needs a break.

Jut don't read/watch/whatever time travel stories till you feel the need again. Me, I'm always up for a good time travel story.

 

[fireproof78]

Nah. Can't go there. Think of all the classic stuff we'd lose: The Time Machine, the entire Terminator franchise, much of Planet of the Apes, Twelve Monkeys, Time After Time, Somewhere in Time, Back to the Future, Groundhog Day. And, oh yeah, Doctor Who.

Heck, in Trek alone, we'd lose City on the Edge of Forever, Tomorrow is Yesterday, Assignment: Earth, All Our Yesterdays, The Voyage Home, Yesterday's Enterprise, Tapestry, Star Trek: First Contact, Trials and Tribble-lations, Little Green Men, Future's End . . ..

It may not always be consistent, but time-travel has given us plenty of great stories. And it's got a pretty good track record where Trek is concerned.

I'm not saying to eliminate such old stories. I'm saying that time travel should be retired from SF for a time period as it has become a tired trope, one that I personally would not miss.

I think it just needs a break.

Jut don't read/watch/whatever time travel stories till you feel the need again. Me, I'm always up for a good time travel story.

Which is why I have not seen Edge of Tomorrow, even though I find the concept new enough to be unique.

I'll try to articulate this better. I don't mind time travel as a means to an end, i.e. Trek 09, Tapestry, and others. I think it wears thin depending on how it is handled. Voyage Home and Trials and Tribble-ations is having fun with itself, and tries to be as much a comedy as it is an adventure. But, some stories just try to hard with the "fish out of water" situation for the protagonists, as they are confused by whatever era they are in.

I don't know. It's a fine line for me if is used well or tired plot device. It is one that wears out its welcome quickly for me. YMMV

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I didn't notice Kirk giving Spock and/or Bones a questionable look....or even a close-up showing confusion on either officer's face.

Did you notice anything remotely like that in the scene in Space Seed when Khan first gives his name? Why should Kirk be "confused" just because he's encountered someone whose name doesn't mean anything to him?

Mixed in with the lack of explanation of who Khan is

The film explains who Khan is.

Nope. Nothing seen in 'Space Seed' like that. And, there wasn't a reason to. We would already get a buildup and backstory on Khan. Based on his dialogue and how he treated people - not too mention having an episode dedicated to the character - we really get a sense of who Khan is.

Not so in STID....

I didn't notice Kirk giving Spock and/or Bones a questionable look....or even a close-up showing confusion on either officer's face.

Did you notice anything remotely like that in the scene in Space Seed when Khan first gives his name? Why should Kirk be "confused" just because he's encountered someone whose name doesn't mean anything to him?

Mixed in with the lack of explanation of who Khan is

The film explains who Khan is.

The film even gives a couple of stories, with Khan softening his ideas, and then Marcus revealing who he really is (and Spock Prime, which nuSpock lays out against Khan. Khan makes no effort to deny it).

Both Kirk and Spock seem reluctant to believe what Khan is saying, but Kirk is willing to figure out a way to save his ship, and that means working with someone he doesn't know and can't trust.

Section 31-they are the secret branch of Starfleet. Admiral Marcus is the Chief of Starfleet Operations. Until someone tells me otherwise, I would imagine that he runs that branch as well.

I may be more willing to fill in the gaps that many I know, but I felt like the new film did just fine as to explaining things, and was enjoyable on many counts for me.

Also, in the discussion of Star Trek history, I would hope that David Gerrold gets some mention

The Spock Prime scene was iffy because - since this was an alternate universe, and that part came off shoehorned - Khan could be anything and anybody. For all we know, John Harrison could be using the name 'Khan' for someone else.

And, in regards to Section 31....we're just basing everything on conjecture based on a few lines. Again, we - as people who've watched DS9 - base our knowledge from those episodes on what Section 31 is....but, to a casual viewer and as one who is basing everything off of Abrams' 'clean slate' line, Section 31 is still a mystery to the viewers and apparently the writers.

Also, they never explained what Section 31 is in this alternate timeline. The name was just thrown in there while confusing exposition was given. For example, was Section 31 headed by Admiral Marcus? Is it Starfleet Intelligence? Is it an office in a 'section' of Starfleet that has secret files? (If so, what are sections 1 - 30?)

It's explained in the scene where Marcus gives Kirk his mission.

"London was not an archive. It was a top secret branch of Starfleet designated Section 31. The development of defence technology and training our officers to gather intelligence on the Klingons and any other potential enemy with means to do us harm."

I didn't notice Kirk giving Spock and/or Bones a questionable look....or even a close-up showing confusion on either officer's face.

Watch it again, because I'm guessing it's been awhile. Kirk and Spock have no idea who Khan is, and Bones isn't even there during that scene.

Did you notice anything remotely like that in the scene in Space Seed when Khan first gives his name? Why should Kirk be "confused" just because he's encountered someone whose name doesn't mean anything to him?

Mixed in with the lack of explanation of who Khan is

The film explains who Khan is.

In fact it gives two versions of Khan's backstory, from the man himself and from Admiral Marcus later. I thought it was an excellent touch, leaving the viewer wondering exactly where the truth lies.

Hmmm, it probably did it by exposition....and telling rather than showing. Something 'Space Seed' didn't do.

 

[fireproof78]

I didn't notice Kirk giving Spock and/or Bones a questionable look....or even a close-up showing confusion on either officer's face.

Did you notice anything remotely like that in the scene in Space Seed when Khan first gives his name? Why should Kirk be "confused" just because he's encountered someone whose name doesn't mean anything to him?



The film explains who Khan is.

Nope. Nothing seen in 'Space Seed' like that. And, there wasn't a reason to. We would already get a buildup and backstory on Khan. Based on his dialogue and how he treated people - not too mention having an episode dedicated to the character - we really get a sense of who Khan is.

Not so in STID....



The Spock Prime scene was iffy because - since this was an alternate universe, and that part came off shoehorned - Khan could be anything and anybody. For all we know, John Harrison could be using the name 'Khan' for someone else.

And, in regards to Section 31....we're just basing everything on conjecture based on a few lines. Again, we - as people who've watched DS9 - base our knowledge from those episodes on what Section 31 is....but, to a casual viewer and as one who is basing everything off of Abrams' 'clean slate' line, Section 31 is still a mystery to the viewers and apparently the writers.

It's explained in the scene where Marcus gives Kirk his mission.

"London was not an archive. It was a top secret branch of Starfleet designated Section 31. The development of defence technology and training our officers to gather intelligence on the Klingons and any other potential enemy with means to do us harm."

Watch it again, because I'm guessing it's been awhile. Kirk and Spock have no idea who Khan is, and Bones isn't even there during that scene.

Did you notice anything remotely like that in the scene in Space Seed when Khan first gives his name? Why should Kirk be "confused" just because he's encountered someone whose name doesn't mean anything to him?



The film explains who Khan is.

In fact it gives two versions of Khan's backstory, from the man himself and from Admiral Marcus later. I thought it was an excellent touch, leaving the viewer wondering exactly where the truth lies.

Hmmm, it probably did it by exposition....and telling rather than showing. Something 'Space Seed' didn't do.

Well, I can only speak for me experience, but I took Section 31 as a top secret section of Starfleet under Marcus' control. That's it. Harrison was an alias for Khan, created to keep all of it a secret.

Heck, most secret organizations in film are bad, so we can run with Section 31 is bad. I don't think we need to make guesses about their intentions.

Beyond that, well, Khan was a genocidal murderer-he never denied that fact when nuSpock called him on it.

It may be minor details, or inferences on my part. Obviously, I cannot separate previous Trek knowledge. But, those are gaps that I don't mind filling in.

 

[M'Sharak]

Hmmm, it probably did it by exposition....and telling rather than showing. Something 'Space Seed' didn't do.

I may be misreading your statement, but it's my recollection that nearly all of Khan's back story in 'Space Seed' (what little there was of it) was delivered via exposition.

 

[Joel_Kirk]

I'm not saying to eliminate such old stories. I'm saying that time travel should be retired from SF for a time period as it has become a tired trope, one that I personally would not miss.

I think it just needs a break.

Edit: I will amend this slightly. Edge of Tomorrow is an instance where it is something a little different in terms of the mechanism, and is creative enough to be enjoyable. So, maybe use it sparingly

CinemaSins did a nice breakdown of "Edge of Tomorrow."

However, I do agree, it - time travel - needs to be used sparingly. Trek has used it for a few movies: TVH, Gen, FC, Trek 2009...just as much as the 'Khan' trope and 'Destroy the Earth Just Because' trope.

Well, I can only speak for me experience, but I took Section 31 as a top secret section of Starfleet under Marcus' control. That's it. Harrison was an alias for Khan, created to keep all of it a secret.

Heck, most secret organizations in film are bad, so we can run with Section 31 is bad. I don't think we need to make guesses about their intentions.

Beyond that, well, Khan was a genocidal murderer-he never denied that fact when nuSpock called him on it.

It may be minor details, or inferences on my part. Obviously, I cannot separate previous Trek knowledge. But, those are gaps that I don't mind filling in.

lol....I'm the same way; for us that have the Trek knowledge, we try to piece it together via fanon. However, from those who have limited Trek knowledge, or those casual moviegoers who may or may not be Trek fans, or those who look at writing and direction, or even those hark back to the aforementioned 'clean slate' line that Abrams continually said before the reboot, there are gaping holes.

Hmmm, it probably did it by exposition....and telling rather than showing. Something 'Space Seed' didn't do.

I may be misreading your statement, but it's my recollection that nearly all of Khan's back story in 'Space Seed' (what little there was of it) was delivered via exposition.

I disagree. It wasn't exposition (aka info dumping).

With STID, we aren't even told how Botany Bay, or his - Khan's - travel from the 20th(?) century, or his supposed reign during the 20th century, tied into the story. We, the audience, are just basically just told 'this is Khan, he's the villian, deal with it.'

STID had 2.5 hours to get us to 'care' about Khan, but the plot could have worked without him since Admiral Marcus could have been the culprit; removing Khan wouldn't have really changed anything.

On the other hand, the information we get about Khan in 'Space Seed' is worked into the plot. Kirk and crew are fascinated about the man; while they learn about their visitor, we - the audience - learn as well. Through Ricardo Montalban's delivery and how the character treats the crew, we also see that Khan feels that he's entitled. By the time he takes over the ship, we know that this character is a threat.

By the time we get to TWOK, we know Khan is crazy.


Disclaimer: Some grammar and in this post may be a bit off since it's 2:40am and Mr. Kirk is about to go to bed, to eventually get up about 5:50am for work.

 

[Belz...]

Which is why I have not seen Edge of Tomorrow, even though I find the concept new enough to be unique.

Not really unique anyway. Star Trek and X-Files and others have done the time loop thing. And Groundhog Day.

 

[F. King Daniel]

With STID, we aren't even told how Botany Bay, or his - Khan's - travel from the 20th(?) century, or his supposed reign during the 20th century, tied into the story. We, the audience, are just basically just told 'this is Khan, he's the villian, deal with it.'

His reign in the 20th century is exactly why Marcus wanted him, as detailed during Khan's reveal ("They wanted to exploit my savagery!")

Khan isn't a black-and-white villain in the movie. Unlike "Space Seed" or WoK, we're sympathetic to Khan's motives - even if he goes about trying to fix or avenge things in a psychotic fashion. Far from "he's the villain, deal with it."

 

[BigJake]

I may be misreading your statement, but it's my recollection that nearly all of Khan's back story in 'Space Seed' (what little there was of it) was delivered via exposition.

Does the verbal duel with Kirk and Spock count as exposition? "We offered the world order!"

Khan isn't a black-and-white villain in the movie.

Sure he is. He's teased as having sympathetic motives but in the end reverts to a classic moustache-twirler (sans moustache) who double-crosses and tries to kill the heroes for no good reason at all... other than that He's Eeeevil. Spock-on-Skype said so.

His motives in WoK (and even Space Seed) frankly made more sense and fit together better as a whole character.

 

[fireproof78]

With STID, we aren't even told how Botany Bay, or his - Khan's - travel from the 20th(?) century, or his supposed reign during the 20th century, tied into the story. We, the audience, are just basically just told 'this is Khan, he's the villian, deal with it.'

His reign in the 20th century is exactly why Marcus wanted him, as detailed during Khan's reveal ("They wanted to exploit my savagery!")

Khan isn't a black-and-white villain in the movie. Unlike "Space Seed" or WoK, we're sympathetic to Khan's motives - even if he goes about trying to fix or avenge things in a psychotic fashion. Far from "he's the villain, deal with it."

I agree with this sentiment, and it is better put than I could have said.

I know that others will disagree, but I took Khan to be far more sympathetic, far more wounded than prime Khan had ever been. He was an interesting character because he was someone that Kirk disagreed with, and yet he ended up being allied with out of desperation.

As Kirk said, "I think we are helping him." Khan's plans may not be clear cut as in TWOK, but I still see a plan and motivation, to gain access to Section 31's resources and being his conquest of superiority again. I don't think it needed to be explicitly stated in dialogue what Khan was going to do.

Personally, I hold no personal issue with Abrams and Co's choice to use Khan again, because that is the story that has been hyped up as the ultimate Trek film, and Trek films have attempted to utilize it to one degree or another. I think they could have passed on using Khan, but that does not negate my enjoyment of the film. Any gaps, I will happily fill in myself

 

[M'Sharak]

I may be misreading your statement, but it's my recollection that nearly all of Khan's back story in 'Space Seed' (what little there was of it) was delivered via exposition.

Does the verbal duel with Kirk and Spock count as exposition? "We offered the world order!"

While it's not the "info dump" method to which Joel Kirk refers, background information introduced in dialogue is still, by definition, exposition. Nearly everything we came to know in 'Space Seed' about Khan's background was told, not shown.

 

[UFO]

Every time travel instance in Trek could be (note, "could be", not "definitely is"--I cannot claim to legitimately supersede authorial intent) explained as an act of "branching/creating a new universe".

It is posited, in the "branching theory", that any incidence of time travel actually creates a new branch (thus obviating the grandfather paradox, among other things). Trek's own continuity, in Parallels, shows us a vast number of parallel universes that are extremely similar to each other. So, what if every instance of time travel, in all of Trek, resulted in a return to a nearly exact, but not totally precise, version of where they'd left from? ...

I'm afraid I can't agree. I don't think every instance of time travel in Trek could be of the ST09 branching variety. The problem being that while you start off with branching, you slip in some "universe jumping" on the return trip, which is left unexplained and seems a bit inconsistent. Now while I accept that there is at least one example of combined "time travel/universe jumping" happening in Trek, that isn't implied by a straight branching model. With branching the new universe is created by the nature of reality after the time travel takes place. It should be remembered that these branches are supposed to be happening all the time, not just in response to time travel, I believe.

More awkward though is how this unguided jumping just happens to always choose a target universe that is not the closest to the one being jumped from, but instead is nearly identical to the universe the time travelers "expect" to end up in. Usually the one that would result if the "problem" hadn't occurred, or their "solution" had worked. This seems unlikely to happen even once by chance, let-alone for every instance of time travel in Trek. What possible mechanism could "select" the "correct" universe if its not done deliberately? Fate? Mythical Deities?

Anyway, I don't see this as a reason to give up time travel. Its always been useful for putting characters in interesting "what if" scenarios. I love that sort of thing.

 

[Ovation]

I don't want an end to time travel stories. I've simply stopped expecting the time travel mechanism in any one story to be consistent with that in any other. I accept the "rules" of the singular story at face value, sit back and relax. Gone are the days where I spend time looking for logical flaws (every time travel story has them anyway) or lengthy explanations of the mechanics of time travel (in fact, I prefer the stories that avoid such explanations altogether--just a quick note about the basic premise is enough. Edge of Tomorrow did it right, as far as I'm concerned--quick bit about some alien tech/ability without any detailed examination of the mechanism by a bunch of people sitting around a conference table for 30 mins). Is the story entertaining and/or thought-provoking (about the themes time travel allows the story to explore, not about the mechanisms of time travel itself)? Yes? Great. No? Then no amount of "time travel mechanics" will save the film/story.

 

[UFO]

I don't want an end to time travel stories. I've simply stopped expecting the time travel mechanism in any one story to be consistent with that in any other. I accept the "rules" of the singular story at face value, sit back and relax. Gone are the days where I spend time looking for logical flaws (every time travel story has them anyway) or lengthy explanations of the mechanics of time travel (in fact, I prefer the stories that avoid such explanations altogether--just a quick note about the basic premise is enough. Edge of Tomorrow did it right, as far as I'm concerned--quick bit about some alien tech/ability without any detailed examination of the mechanism by a bunch of people sitting around a conference table for 30 mins). Is the story entertaining and/or thought-provoking (about the themes time travel allows the story to explore, not about the mechanisms of time travel itself)? Yes? Great. No? Then no amount of "time travel mechanics" will save the film/story.

Generally speaking, in these sort of movies I would agree, but as per my post, I was concerned that (A) your time travel mechanism appeared to change horses in midstream and (B) the jumping bit was implausible. Both of which I personally would need some explanation for.

BTW, as per A) above, I meant inconsistent within the time travel device that you were suggesting, not between stories. I.e. Time travel with branching became time travel with universe jumping. Or so it seemed.

 

[BillJ]

I don't want an end to time travel stories. I've simply stopped expecting the time travel mechanism in any one story to be consistent with that in any other. I accept the "rules" of the singular story at face value, sit back and relax.

This.