World Premiere/Advance screening discussions [SPOILERS GUARANTEED]

[ClayHefner]

Tell me more pleeze
So he can't travel where he wants to?

 

[The Academic]

Tell me more pleeze
So he can't travel where he wants to?

As far as I know, Spock created a black hole to stop the supernova that threatened to destroy the entire galaxy, but was sucked into it - along with Nero and his Nerada...
Furthermore, it seems that Spock and Nero didn't end up in the same past, with Nero travelling much further back in time...

 

[otteaux]

We're already bored with this movie, so we're discussing more interesting things.

Like canon violations and the cancellation of Enterprise. That's where the breaking news is.

Regarding the "faulty science" of the movie, if I can accept faster-than-light travel, everything else is pretty easy to swallow.

 

[ClayHefner]

Tell me more pleeze
So he can't travel where he wants to?

As far as I know, Spock created a black hole to stop the supernova that threatened to destroy the entire galaxy, but was sucked into it - along with Nero and his Nerada...
Furthermore, it seems that Spock and Nero didn't end up in the same past, with Nero travelling much further back in time...

Cool. Thanks, must have missed that. Sounds good. Seems the only problem I have left is with the bridge design...
but does that mean Nero is wandering around in that timeline for 20 years?

 

[EJA]

I'm sure I've heard somewhere that Spock emerges from the singularity at the same time the Narada attacks the Kelvin? I think Nero and Spock do hop through time though, otherwise how do you explain the fact that neither of them appear to have aged by the time Kirk comes aboard the Enterprise? And what the heck is Nero up to in the decades between Kirk's birth and the launch of Enterprise?

 

[The Academic]

I'm sure I've heard somewhere that Spock emerges from the singularity at the same time the Narada attacks the Kelvin? I think Nero and Spock do hop through time though, otherwise how do you explain the fact that neither of them appear to have aged by the time Kirk comes aboard the Enterprise? And what the heck is Nero up to in the decades between Kirk's birth and the launch of Enterprise?

I... don't... know... because... I... was... neither... in... Austin... nor... in... Sydney... I... just... read... and... analyse... and... make... educated... guesses...

 

[BenRoethig]

Honestly, my impression from what I've read.

1) As a stand alone entity, this movie is going to kick serious ass.
2) J.J. is going to need WITSEC help from some long time fans after all the changes they made.

What I still don't get:
Why doesn't Nero do something "productive" instead if he has all that TT tech and a mighty ship? Like forcing the Senate to evacuate Romulus in the past or something.
And/or make a short stop in the time before the disaster to grab his wife and kids and rescue them? I mean revenge is cool and all...

Rage.

^ I always wondered why Vulcan children would do that. Surely it's not "logical" to tease...

You know I was thinking the exact same thing during that scene, the only theory I can come to is that Vulcan children don't yet have mastery over their emotions. I remember the VOY episode with young Tuvok who exhibited a lack of emotional control.

That and Vulcans have always shown a bit of arrogance towards other, less evolved species.

 

[BenRoethig]

Hell, DS9 lost the general or extended Trek audience all on its own, before Voyager or Enterprise ever showed up. OldTrek's been dying since the early 1990s.

That might be true, but DS9 and Voyager continued to be profitable for Paramount and are still earning a fair amount of money today. They might not have had TNG's popularity but that doesn't mean they weren't worth producing from an business point of view.

Both shows were losing viewers and had to be retooled to avoid being cancelled.

In DS9's case, they did something very right. Originally, it was rather bland but what we got after the Defiant showed up was my favorite trek. It brought trek back to reality.

 

[Neftoon]

Okay just have to jump in with my 2 cents, I went to the premiere last night in Sydney, took my dad who is 65 years old and watched TOS in it's first screenings in Australia. I would reaaally recommend people fight the urge to read spoilers, but pretty much everyone here has. These events should be seen in context within in the film, they work, all of the actors do a fine job of bringing back the characters I love from the original series, This film is about Kirk & Spock it is not about mindless action, it has emotional impact, simply this film works and it does it without dishonouring what came before. So hate it all you want without actually having seen the film but I strongly recommend you see it at least once, with an open mind.

Thank you for posting, Neftoon. Did your dad like it? I am taking my dad to see it in May. he's also a TOS-er... he's excited and a bit apprehensive at the same time.

My dad LOVED it he's still talking about it today which never happens with movies generally he falls a sleep, he said coming out there isn't a trek fan who wouldn't enjoy it. He has obviously has not been on the internet ever. But I share his sentiment seeing the film with the performances I am looking forward to the sequel and so is he, and as he said Sylar wasn't sylar he was spock.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

In DS9's case, they did something very right.

Unfortunately it didn't reduce the erosion of viewership.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Actually, come to think of it, we've been through this before - First Contact had the Borg disrupting the original events that led to Zefram Cochrane's warp flight, thus causing the Enterprise to go back to a different universe than the one it came from.

Enterprise returned to the same timeline it left. We've all seen it.

 

[perigee]

The point of my analogy was that all that exists of the old friend is memories. No new experiences can be had - just remembering the old ones. That's the sad thing.

Now THAT I can understand and sympathize with. But that was a foregone conclusion. No McCoy. No Scotty. It's like The Beatles without Harrison and Ringo. And, honestly, I'm not at all sure how long The Shat has left before a coronary takes him down.

At the same time, it helps to appreciate the immensity of the thing that Trek - And the fans - has created. I have called it "America's Illiad:" a true, lasting American Mythology.

American. Based on hope for the future, not wars of the past. Exploration rather than conquest. How's that for old-timey? ~grin~ Still - if you can wrap your head around that, Kirk and the crew are no longer just a character from a sixties TV show, but an mythic icons. It's a thin pantheon, especially if you remove comic book characters.

Better to think this:

Star Trek, Like Superman, has become something that so encapsulates what we think is best in our culture that we choose not to let it die. At this point, at least fifteen people have given life to Superman - but it is not the actors, but the character of Superman that our culture clings to. He is more than his visage, or the actors who have played him.

We can miss what we have lost - but we should not deny the future their own contribution to the mythos.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Basically, the characters in the series from now on are not the same characters as in the original series. Now I have no problem with new sets of characters. The problem is that they are alternate versions of the ones we know.

So you couldn't enjoy the first Batman movie because Michael Keaton wasn't the same Batman as Adam West? Because it ignored decades of comic book history and started over when it should have been forced to shoehorn itself into the comic book continuity?

Don't ever watch the James Bond movies. Your head will explode.

As I said in a previous post - or said in part (this will be more detailed) - Batman didn't bother me because it was a comic book, and comic books have long suffered the curse of shoddy continuity and multiple resets. It's one of the top reasons I don't read comic books. I like a whole, cohesive continuity.

That DOESN'T mean I am so obsessed with "canon" that I freak out over little things. When all is said and done, Batman is just a comic book (and movie and TV show), Star Trek is just a tv show, etc. They're not real, and mistakes will happen. That's fine. However, on a macro level, I want consistent continuity. I don't want to have Batman killed and then later on have them reboot the series and have Batman alive again. That's why I have only ever paid attention to Batman very tangentially, and in fact I approach Batman stories of whatever form with the "closed box" attitude. When I watch or read Batman, it's just for the current story and has no bearing on any past or future events.

To me, this causes Batman to have a lot less depth than it could. Batman, to me, is a guy in a Batsuit who fights villains. That's the ONLY thing that Batman is, for it's the only thing that remains constant over various incarnations. If Batman had a more cohesive continuity, I could get into it FAR more.

I don't want Star Trek to be a comic book. One of the things that's always been great about it has been it's continuity, and again, on a macro level. If there is some line in some episode that happens to contradict some minor point, like Picard's favorite candy or Kirk's place of birth, well you know what? I can live with that. Big difference, however, between that and big continuity problems, which Star Trek has never really had.

But with the Abramsverse, that's not even at issue because it's specifically built to maintain some connection of the continuity. Thus, the problem I have with it is not continuity, but that it's taking the characters I knew and making them facsimiles of themselves. Please don't respond to this last point in this post, for it's the most important thing and I'm getting into IT in better depth in response to other posts.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

To expect a young acting captain and thos einexperienced officers with him to save a planet from a far, far more advanced force is absolutly ridiculous. From a dramatic point of view (and this would be speculation) losing on such a massive scale would only a) make the force seem more threatening (whats dramatic about an easy win?) and b) give the crew a huge slap in the face, give the eager newbies a reality check and force them to move on boldy.

I'm not quite ready to give them that much leeway. The result is the same: Kirk and the crew failed. They had the resources of an entire starship, if not StarFLEET, at their disposal, and still they failed. That's the only thing that matters in the end.

I would expect Sarek and the rest of the survivors of Vulcan to hold Kirk in very low regard after this. Given that, in ST III Sarek can get quite obviously pissed at Kirk for failing to save *one person* (Spock) how will he react when Kirk allowed - however accidentally - the ENTIRE PLANET VULCAN to be destroyed?

To put it another way: Nero went batshit insane because of the destruction of Romulus, when no one was at fault - it was a purely natural force. Vulcan was *deliberately* destroyed. How would YOU expect the remaining Vulcan population to react? If Nero can fall off the deep end, so can they, right?

 

[Lazerlike42]

The point of my analogy was that all that exists of the old friend is memories. No new experiences can be had - just remembering the old ones. That's the sad thing.

Now THAT I can understand and sympathize with. But that was a foregone conclusion. No McCoy. No Scotty. It's like The Beatles without Harrison and Ringo. And, honestly, I'm not at all sure how long The Shat has left before a coronary takes him down.

At the same time, it helps to appreciate the immensity of the thing that Trek - And the fans - has created. I have called it "America's Illiad:" a true, lasting American Mythology.

American. Based on hope for the future, not wars of the past. Exploration rather than conquest. How's that for old-timey? ~grin~ Still - if you can wrap your head around that, Kirk and the crew are no longer just a character from a sixties TV show, but an mythic icons. It's a thin pantheon, especially if you remove comic book characters.

Better to think this:

Star Trek, Like Superman, has become something that so encapsulates what we think is best in our culture that we choose not to let it die. At this point, at least fifteen people have given life to Superman - but it is not the actors, but the character of Superman that our culture clings to. He is more than his visage, or the actors who have played him.

We can miss what we have lost - but we should not deny the future their own contribution to the mythos.

I understand your thoughts, but one important point: it's not the actors that I care about. Tell stories of Kirk with Pine, or whoever best fits the role. Urban gives such a perfect Mccoy it gives me shivers.

What I care about is the characters. These characters in the Abramsverse are not the same characters as the Prime universe characters. They are like clones who are the same in every way except for the experiences they have had. I've "been through" experiences with the Prime crew. I was there when Spock died, and when the crew sacrificed themselves to bring him back, and when Scotty started the bar fight on station K-7... When I see the Abrams Scotty, however much his personality matches, he isn't the guy who started that fight. He may be the same biologically, but those things which we "went through together" and which caused me to come to care about him (as much as one can and ought to care about a fictional character, of course) have never happened to him.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I did not cry when TNG came out. That I had no problem with, for it tried to build on TOS and tell some interesting stories in the same universe, with those same characters from TOS having been real, historical figures to the characters of TNG. McCoy, Spock, and Scotty even interacted with this new crew, as it was the same universe, just in the future. In this case, it's not trying to build on TOS, but to redo it in the way the creators want to now. It's technically keeping the original timeline, but for all of the characters moving forward, unlike in TNG, the characters from TOS will NOT be real historical figures to the crew, or anything similar. When I sit and watch this new crew, I know that to them, the characters I remember never existed.

Guess you aren't that familiar with the history of TNG's production. Gene Roddenberry originally wanted no references to the original series -- no mentions of previous Enterprises, characters, no appearances by Vulcans, Klingons or Romulans, no apparent connection with TOS -- ever. Roddenberry even originally thought about just calling the show "Star Trek." It was people like Justman, Gerald, and Fontana who convinced Roddenberry there had to be some familiar elements and fought for their inclusion. Roddenberry didn't give two f*cks about it. He wanted it to be a completely new show breaking away from the past completely.

I'm not one of those fans who thinks Gene Roddenberry's vision is what mattered most. I like a lot of his vision, and I dislike some of it as well. I like Star Trek for what it WAS, not what Roddenberry wanted it to be (though I like some of what he wanted it to be). In other words, I watched Star Trek and liked it, whatever was going on behind the scenes.

 

[perigee]

Laserlike42: Give the new crew forty years, and there would be the same feeling by people who are now in grade school. They deserve that chance. We can't - and shouldn't - try to recapture the past. You and I had one hell of a good run. Let the kids have theirs.

 

[RJDiogenes]

"Heroes Reborn."

Disappointing.

 

[Captain59]

I know this has been explained before, but to save the trouble of digging for it, what exact event caused the creation of the Alt universe? Thanks.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Let me explain it this way: in the analogy, the old friend is Star Trek. The time spent with him are the new episodes and films - the new experiences. The memories are the DVDs and the re-runs... they are going back over previous experiences.

I get what you're saying, I just think it's nonsense. What is Star Trek? To me it's Kirk, Spock, the Enterprise, SF elements and a certain optimistic tone. By my definition, Voyager and Enterprise ain't Star Trek. Never were. Not that I can't enjoy the odd episode of one of Rick Berman's spinoff franchise(TM) shows, but it isn't Star Trek to me, any more than a Sherlock Holmes spinoff featuring Holmes' great grandson Elmer Josephat solving modern day crimes is actually a Sherlock Holmes story. If this movie, featuring Kirk and Spock, captures the tone and spirit of Star Trek, then as far as I'm concerned this is closer to actually being real Star Trek than was Voyager, Enterprise, or any other Trek "spinoff." The geeky crap everyone keeps bringing up about differences between the real fake universe vs. the fake fake universe has no bearing to me on whether or not I judge this movie to be Star Trek.

You misunderstand me. Yes, I do like the spinoff shows, but that's unimportant because we can get at what I feel if we discuss only my love of TOS.

I agree 1000% with the statement "What is Star Trek? To me it's Kirk, Spock, the Enterprise, SF elements and a certain optimistic tone," especially the first part. The characters are deeply associated with Star Trek being Star Trek to me, and the thing is that the characters in this film are NOT Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. In fact we can clearly see it by the fact that there are two Spocks - the Spock who I know and came to love as a character over 79 episodes and 6 feature films, and the other Spock, who hasn't been through any of that and is for all intents and purposes nothing more than a clone. I don't care about these new characters the way I do the old, because I haven't "sat down with them" for the past few decades
to watch their adventures.

Perhaps there is a deep philisophical divide here. Is a person a person because of their genes, or because of their experiences? To me, it is both. Kirk prime is a completely different ontological reality from the Abrams Kirk because, while he shares the chromosomes, he does not share the experiences. So to me, this is not Trek because it does not have Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, but facsimilies.

I don't know if you have seen much Voyager, but there was an episode where strange things begin happening to the crew and it turns out at the end that this was a crew made up of some sort of aliens which had absorbed the crew's DNA and now thought they were the crew. If you didn't see it, the analogy doesn't help. But if you have, then let me say that watching this Abrams crew is, for me, what it would be like if that alien crew became the main crew of Voyager and we didn't see the original crew any more. I just wouldn't care about the show anymore.