Orci on Start Trek, timelines, canon and everything (SPOILERS)

[Jackson_Roykirk]

If they're gonna reference TOS like crazy in this film why was it too hard to keep the characters consistant.

Perhaps the characters will in fact act in a way consistent with TOS once each character has gone through their own personal journeys to reach the dramatic end of this film.

I can't tell if this will happen or not by watching a 2 minute long trailer.

 

[number6]

No, you write short guttoral responses as to why anyone criticizing the movie isn't really a Star Trek fan.

I would think that you as a "writer" would have better reading comprehension than that. My posts are about the constant haranguing of some people who go on about the same complaints and keep posting about how they "refuse" to see this film, which I find silly. So many "fans" who think Nimoy is only in this movie because he really needs the money and think that Abrams now sucks because he's "more of a Star Wars fan," and making grand proclaimations about the failure of a film they have not seen and have no intention of seeing.

You would rather make snarky little attacks about eating kittens to feel warm and fuzzy and call that an "opinion." Hey, that's your choice, but from where I sit, your kettle is also black.

 

[number6]

^
^^ maybe that's what got Scotty in trouble

He should have used a straw!!

 

[Captain X]

Whatever, enjoy your puppy, pot.

 

[xortex]

I'll have a tribble sandwich and a diet pepsi.

 

[number6]

Whatever, enjoy your puppy, pot.

Sometimes I use a pot, other times a chargrill. But boy is that puppy deee-lish!

 

[cooleddie74]

Whatever, enjoy your puppy, pot.

Sometimes I use a pot, other times a chargrill. But boy is that puppy deee-lish!

You'd make for a five-star chef in the ritziest hotel in Pyongyang.

 

[xortex]

And a side order of Enterfries.

 

[cooleddie74]

I'll have the Shatner and Ham on Rye...hold the Odo.

 

[xortex]

That sounds fattening.

 

[trekkerguy]

All opinion, no fact.

Nothing new here.

And the same can be said for any of you. If that doesn't just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, there's nothing that will, unless of course you eat a kitten.

I never said what I think was fact. I infact have said it is just that, my opinion. But 3D and others keep prancing around the threads making these blanket statements as if they are fact or account for every other Trek fans opinions.

 

[number6]

Nothing new here.

And the same can be said for any of you. If that doesn't just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, there's nothing that will, unless of course you eat a kitten.

I never said what I think was fact. I infact have said it is just that, my opinion. But 3D and others keep prancing around the threads making these blanket statements as if they are fact or account for every other Trek fans opinions.

That's pretty much my point as well. I usally put extra Odo on my Shatner and Ham. It hides the taste of stale toupee.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

These long posts are interesting from an esoteric-quantum-theory-causality paradox standpoint (seriously, I usually love this kind of stuff).

However, we are digging too deeply into the details of the on-screen scince fiction when it comes to this film. Yeah -- I know, the science fiction we see on screen should have some basis in fact -- and I agree with that -- SOME basis. I think what Orci has said so far does have SOME basis in known scientific theories.

But digging too deeply into the details of alternate realities to try and reconcile every detail of this plot point this with actual scientific theories will fail, just like trying to reconcile every detail of Star Trek's version of transporters and warp drive with science fact will also fail.

Agreed...

Look, Orci isn't a "temporal scientist," and the Trekkian time-travel concepts are utterly and completely speculative in nature.

I, personally, don't believe in this form of theory at all, because I tend to think of time as just another dimension, not really all that different from the three positional ones we normally think of. The whole fabric of reality already exists, but our consciousnesses are sliding down an incline on the "time" axis.

From that standpoint... well, essentially everything that ever has happened, everything that is happening now, and everything that ever will happen... have, in a very real sense "already happened." It's not "predestination, per-se, because our perception of time (and our free-will decision-making) is all part of that fabric.

If "time travel" is possible (and I tend to believe it's not... at least not in the form we've become accustomed to seeing it in cheesy sci-fi shows), then it would be more like a short-cut (kind of like a "wormhole" in Trekkian terms acts in space). In fact, that's exactly what it would be... a wormhole. A "trekkian" wormhole is an instantaneous "shortcut" from one set of three-dimensional coordinates to another, after all. But there's absolutely no reason to assume that this form of shortcut would land you at the same point in the fourth dimension - time - where you departed from, is there?

So, if my perspective is true, time travel would either be entirely impossible or would always... without exception... lead to the same timeline you know. You'd never be able to change your own past because it's all "settled" already... anything you do literally already happened in your own past.

Some of you will say "well, that's nonsense, because {fill in the blank}."

And you know what? You might be right. Because there's NO REAL SCIENCE WHATSOEVER behind "time travel." None. Everything else, without exception, falls into the realm of fantasy.

Doesn't mean that someday we might not learn something about it. But as of today, it's just fantasy, nothing more and nothing less.

That's what bugs me about this article (and several others printed which follow similar patterns).

It says "real science says this" while what the articles really should be saying is that "In this episode of Star Trek - The Next Generation, the fictional character of Data spouted some pseudo-scientific technobabble that convinced a lot of non-scientists that this was somehow 'real.' "

 

[xortex]

These long posts are interesting from an esoteric-quantum-theory-causality paradox standpoint (seriously, I usually love this kind of stuff).

However, we are digging too deeply into the details of the on-screen scince fiction when it comes to this film. Yeah -- I know, the science fiction we see on screen should have some basis in fact -- and I agree with that -- SOME basis. I think what Orci has said so far does have SOME basis in known scientific theories.

But digging too deeply into the details of alternate realities to try and reconcile every detail of this plot point this with actual scientific theories will fail, just like trying to reconcile every detail of Star Trek's version of transporters and warp drive with science fact will also fail.

Agreed...

Look, Orci isn't a "temporal scientist," and the Trekkian time-travel concepts are utterly and completely speculative in nature.

I, personally, don't believe in this form of theory at all, because I tend to think of time as just another dimension, not really all that different from the three positional ones we normally think of. The whole fabric of reality already exists, but our consciousnesses are sliding down an incline on the "time" axis.

From that standpoint... well, essentially everything that ever has happened, everything that is happening now, and everything that ever will happen... have, in a very real sense "already happened." It's not "predestination, per-se, because our perception of time (and our free-will decision-making) is all part of that fabric.

If "time travel" is possible (and I tend to believe it's not... at least not in the form we've become accustomed to seeing it in cheesy sci-fi shows), then it would be more like a short-cut (kind of like a "wormhole" in Trekkian terms acts in space). In fact, that's exactly what it would be... a wormhole. A "trekkian" wormhole is an instantaneous "shortcut" from one set of three-dimensional coordinates to another, after all. But there's absolutely no reason to assume that this form of shortcut would land you at the same point in the fourth dimension - time - where you departed from, is there?

So, if my perspective is true, time travel would either be entirely impossible or would always... without exception... lead to the same timeline you know. You'd never be able to change your own past because it's all "settled" already... anything you do literally already happened in your own past.

Some of you will say "well, that's nonsense, because {fill in the blank}."

And you know what? You might be right. Because there's NO REAL SCIENCE WHATSOEVER behind "time travel." None. Everything else, without exception, falls into the realm of fantasy.

Doesn't mean that someday we might not learn something about it. But as of today, it's just fantasy, nothing more and nothing less.

That's what bugs me about this article (and several others printed which follow similar patterns).

It says "real science says this" while what the articles really should be saying is that "In this episode of Star Trek - The Next Generation, the fictional character of Data spouted some pseudo-scientific technobabble that convinced a lot of non-scientists that this was somehow 'real.' "

Well just like Black holes are and are not there, I feel that the past is constantly changing like the future is.

 

[Captain X]

I never said what I think was fact. I infact have said it is just that, my opinion. But 3D and others keep prancing around the threads making these blanket statements as if they are fact or account for every other Trek fans opinions.

Kind of like a lot of people have done in defending this movie, which is to say they claim to represent the majority of fans, or say things like "most fans won't care about _____".

 

[number6]

I never said what I think was fact. I infact have said it is just that, my opinion. But 3D and others keep prancing around the threads making these blanket statements as if they are fact or account for every other Trek fans opinions.

Kind of like a lot of people have done in defending this movie, which is to say they claim to represent the majority of fans, or say things like "most fans won't care about _____".

I've never said anything of the kind. I have, however, made generalizations about "casual" fans..Based on reactions of friends of mine, some of which are hardcore sci-fi and comicbook fans..some of them even play D&D!! The only negativity I hear about this film is here. Everyone else I know is a psyched to see this film as I am.

 

[Qonos]

I never said what I think was fact. I infact have said it is just that, my opinion. But 3D and others keep prancing around the threads making these blanket statements as if they are fact or account for every other Trek fans opinions.

Kind of like a lot of people have done in defending this movie, which is to say they claim to represent the majority of fans, or say things like "most fans won't care about _____".

Oh wait you said fans not people. I say People, fans are different. We aren't people we are sub human nerds who live on the fringes of cociety and eat babies, kittens and puppies...... (It's a JOKE)

Here's another fact.... There are people out there who don't care that a Star Trek movie is even coming out next year... Think about that.

 

[number6]

I never said what I think was fact. I infact have said it is just that, my opinion. But 3D and others keep prancing around the threads making these blanket statements as if they are fact or account for every other Trek fans opinions.

Kind of like a lot of people have done in defending this movie, which is to say they claim to represent the majority of fans, or say things like "most fans won't care about _____".

But it's been proven time and again with other movies from other franchises.

MI Series, most people didn't care that it wasn't Jim Phelps as the main Protagainst.

Transformers, MOST people didn't care that Bumblebee wasn't a VW or Prime wasn't a cab-over Tractor truck.

With Spiderman MOST people didn't care that he had Organic Webshooters over ones he made himself.

Most of the things Fans find important in the trivial details the general audiance could care less about. It's not that they are uneducated slobs, but that they just aren't interested in all that little fluff and bother.

And that's not my opinion on it.

Here's another fact.... There are people out there who don't care that a Star Trek movie is even coming out next year... Think about that.

I was actually pretty put off by Phelps being the bad guy in MI. Cruise really did ruin that for me, but MI:3 was the closest they got to nailing the flavour of the show, which I watched regularly. I thought Transformers was ghey!

 

[Captain X]

I never said what I think was fact. I infact have said it is just that, my opinion. But 3D and others keep prancing around the threads making these blanket statements as if they are fact or account for every other Trek fans opinions.

Kind of like a lot of people have done in defending this movie, which is to say they claim to represent the majority of fans, or say things like "most fans won't care about _____".

I've never said anything of the kind. I have, however, made generalizations about "casual" fans..Based on reactions of friends of mine, some of which are hardcore sci-fi and comicbook fans..some of them even play D&D!! The only negativity I hear about this film is here. Everyone else I know is a psyched to see this film as I am.

You should totally check out SciFi-Meshes then.

 

[Captain X]

Here's another fact.... There are people out there who don't care that a Star Trek movie is even coming out next year... Think about that.

Yes, and these are apparently the people who are supposed to go see it.