World Premiere/Advance screening discussions [SPOILERS GUARANTEED]

[Cheebo]

You know I was wondering, I get that the Kelvin blowing to bits had a huge impact on Kirk's life and altered the timeline for him and thus his actions in starfleet and when he met his crew...etc.

But why would it effect when the Enterprise itself it built? Why would the Kelvin blowing to bits cause the Enterprise to not be built for at least 10-15 years later than it was intended since it was a brand new ship when Pike took it Vulcan apparently according to what Pike says and in the old timeline Pike was captain of it for I believe 11 years?

Thats the only thing I can't figure out.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Because the construction of that vessel was not delayed. There was a Constitution-class vessel, nearly identical to the TOS Enterprise, that was launched from orbital drydock at the time that the TOS Enterprise would have been.

In fact, that ship would have been the "Enterprise" except for the Kelvin disaster.

Instead, it was christened "U.S.S. Robau."

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I have a pet theory that I'd like to share with the group, based on the villain's name and based on the fact that this Project is to be a Trilogy

Where did you hear that there would be a trilogy? Apparently a sequel is being written, but that's all I'm aware of right now regarding any more films.

 

[Supervisor 194]

But that is the difference between a well written character and a pedestrian one. A well written character will have multiple layers, just as a real person does. The writer will take into account the experiences that made their character the way he is. Otherwise, all we have is a cookie cutter just going through the motions. It is for the writers to decide which approach to take, but to me, as a viewer and a fan, the prior is certainly the more satisfactory one.

Strawman argument. Just because Spock is going to have a different background doesn't preclude him being well-written or layered.

 

[ODO_FAN_1977]

Unfortunately it didn't reduce the erosion of viewership.

Which can be blamed on the implosion of the syndication market and the general splintering of the viewership base across the board brought on by the rise of the 2nd generation cable franchises but also satellite TV.

Honestly... this might get me into big trouble around here, but we'll see. I think that one of the problems Trek has had in the past decade and a half or so has been some of it's fans attitudes - not all of them, by any means. At some point, lots of folks decided Rick Berman was awful and just decided not to pay attention to anything he was involved in. That doesn't mean he didn't make poor Trek or hurt the franchise. It just means that at a certain point, folks stopped giving stuff he did a chance to see if it actually was any good.

So lots of folks just started not tuning in. In fact, this was most noticable with Enterprise. I've seen an awful lot of folks on boards talk about how they never watched it in the original run, or how they hated it, but now watching re-runs on Sci-Fi they realize that it was actually a pretty good show. Not everyone will share that opinion. The point is just that if you go around the net you'll find a significant number of people who'll right out and say that they were so angry at the time they wouldn't give it a chance, and now years later that they've "cooled off" they can see the show for what it really was and actually enjoy it.

With regards to the erosion of viewers from DS9, I do put part of the blame on the attitude of some fans. In particular, those fans who argued that the show was "boring" because it was set on a space station and didn't go anywhere. As someone who feels that DS9 really pushed the franchise forward, creatively speaking, these comments still upset me to this day. Not to mention, that these comments probably made Berman and company less likely to take risks, particularly when it came to VOY, In fact, I find a lot of the criticism of VOY particularly interesting since it many respects Berman and company gave some what they asked for (BTW, I like VOY, despite some of its shortcomings).

When it comes to Star Trek XI, I have very mixed feelings, in part because of the above. One of the things I have noticed in the reviews that have come out, is that they seem very dismissive of the material that preceded the film. The tag line "forget all you know" does not help much either.

Furthermore, while the reviewers seem to focus on how great the film looks (no surprise given the budget), the spoilers suggest that the film threads on very familiar ground (revenge plot, weapon of mass destruction), while not pushing the envelope in terms of story or sci-fi content. Also, based on the spoilers, I do not really see the need for creating an alternative timeline. IMO, they could have crafted a good origin story, while keeping the timeline more or less intact. Some inconsistencies and were bound to happen in any such story (even the most hardcore fan will admit to the inconsistencies present in the first season of TOS regarding the nature of Earth, Starfleet, and the Federation), but the destruction of Vulcan, death of Amanda, and the changes these events will undoable have on the character of Spock seem drastic and unnecessary. As some have already pointed out, this is bound to change the dynamic between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, the heart of TOS.

With that said, I am looking forward to the Kobayashi Maru scene, Kirk meeting McCoy, Kirk meeting Old Spock, and Greenwood's performance as Pike among others.

As a Star Trek fan since 1987, when I first saw TVH on video, followed by TNG shortly thereafter, I want Star Trek XI to be succeed. However, I am bothered by this tendency of bashing the previous incarnations of Star Trek as way to promote or elevate this film's worth.

Each Star Trek, whether it was Rodenberry's, Meyer's, Berman's, Behr's and Abrams' has had its strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Neopeius]

When Kirk & McCoy first meet aboard the shuttle, McCoy has a long ass monologue about all the dangers of space & how easy it is to die in it. Kirk makes the comment that Starfleet operates in outer space. McCoy says that his ex-wife got the whole damned planet in the divorce, and all he, McCoy, has left is his bones.

And, thus, the nickname is born.

This is a joke, right? That has to be the most retarded, least necessary explanation for his name *ever*.

Everyone probably won't agree. The business about the wife getting the whole planet is pretty damned funny, and fannish assumptions about the derivation of his nickname have never been very imaginative.

Yes, "bones" being derived from "sawbones" because McCoy was a doctor was too abstruse for the average moviegoer to get.

Enjoy your mediocrity, Dennis.

 

[Kaych]

I'll just say this, I'm in my senior year of high school, representing the target audience for this movie, and I've never heard of the term "sawbones" until now. Considering I don't know what it is, I can pretty much tell you no one else under 25 will either.

 

[section9]

I have a pet theory that I'd like to share with the group, based on the villain's name and based on the fact that this Project is to be a Trilogy

Where did you hear that there would be a trilogy? Apparently a sequel is being written, but that's all I'm aware of right now regarding any more films.

The cast are optioned for three films. Dead giveaway. JJ has LOTR ambitions, methinks.

 

[Lazerlike42]

But that is the difference between a well written character and a pedestrian one. A well written character will have multiple layers, just as a real person does. The writer will take into account the experiences that made their character the way he is. Otherwise, all we have is a cookie cutter just going through the motions. It is for the writers to decide which approach to take, but to me, as a viewer and a fan, the prior is certainly the more satisfactory one.

Strawman argument. Just because Spock is going to have a different background doesn't preclude him being well-written or layered.

While I am not particularly concerned with the particular point that you and FarDreaming are discussing, I must point out that you are arguing in circles now.

Originally, FarDreaming said that they will need to seriously change the character of Spock from TOS because of the destruction of Vulcan. To this, you said:

"If Spock were a real person, you'd be absolutely correct. However, as a fictional character Spock is literally whatever the writers say he is. I suspect the Kirk/Spock/McCoy we see coming out of the film will be close to the general confines of the characters established by TOS. Does that work if you compare them to the events of TOS? Probably not, but that's just the way ongoing fiction works."

To this, FarDreaming replied that this sort of thing is the difference between a well-written character and a poorly written one. A poorly written character simply has the personality that the writers want him to, even if it does not make sense given his experiences. A well-written character, on the other hand, has a personality which flows from and is connected to the experiences he's had.

Your response is now that just because Spock has a different background from Spock Prime, it doesn't prevent him from being well-written. This is certainly true.

However, the original point that FarDreaming made was that if this new Spock is to be well-written, he will not be able to be the same as Spock Prime because of the dramatic differences in their life experiences. The destrcution of Vulcan will have to lead him to be a very different character. If the creators simply ignore this tremendous event in his life and write him to be very similar to Spock Prime because "that's what they want him to be," then he will be poorly written. If they take into account that he has lost his entire planet and write him accordingly differently, he can be well-written.

The point is that he can not be both well-written and very similar to Spock Prime, because Spock Prime never experienced this event that must surely shape the "new" Spock's personality in a profound way.

 

[Supervisor 194]

But that is the difference between a well written character and a pedestrian one. A well written character will have multiple layers, just as a real person does. The writer will take into account the experiences that made their character the way he is. Otherwise, all we have is a cookie cutter just going through the motions. It is for the writers to decide which approach to take, but to me, as a viewer and a fan, the prior is certainly the more satisfactory one.

Strawman argument. Just because Spock is going to have a different background doesn't preclude him being well-written or layered.

While I am not particularly concerned with the particular point that you and FarDreaming are discussing, I must point out that you are arguing in circles now.

Originally, FarDreaming said that they will need to seriously change the character of Spock from TOS because of the destruction of Vulcan. To this, you said:

"If Spock were a real person, you'd be absolutely correct. However, as a fictional character Spock is literally whatever the writers say he is. I suspect the Kirk/Spock/McCoy we see coming out of the film will be close to the general confines of the characters established by TOS. Does that work if you compare them to the events of TOS? Probably not, but that's just the way ongoing fiction works."

To this, FarDreaming replied that this sort of thing is the difference between a well-written character and a poorly written one. A poorly written character simply has the personality that the writers want him to, even if it does not make sense given his experiences. A well-written character, on the other hand, has a personality which flows from and is connected to the experiences he's had.

Your response is now that just because Spock has a different background from Spock Prime, it doesn't prevent him from being well-written. This is certainly true.

However, the original point that FarDreaming made was that if this new Spock is to be well-written, he will not be able to be the same as Spock Prime because of the dramatic differences in their life experiences. The destrcution of Vulcan will have to lead him to be a very different character. If the creators simply ignore this tremendous event in his life and write him to be very similar to Spock Prime because "that's what they want him to be," then he will be poorly written. If they take into account that he has lost his entire planet and write him accordingly differently, he can be well-written.

The point is that he can not be both well-written and very similar to Spock Prime, because Spock Prime never experienced this event that must surely shape the "new" Spock's personality in a profound way.

In a sequel: it is possible Spock can be well-written, and follow up on the events of the first movie OR Spock could be well-written and the events of the first film not be mentioned at all. Or he could be poorly written. In any event, the events of the film do not "lock" Spock into anything other than what the writers choose for him. It is entirely possible to get a Spock/McCoy/Kirk dynamic that is similar to TOS by way of the events of the first film, if that's what the film makers choose to do.

 

[Captain X]

I'll just say this, I'm in my senior year of high school, representing the target audience for this movie, and I've never heard of the term "sawbones" until now. Considering I don't know what it is, I can pretty much tell you no one else under 25 will either.

And stupidity like that is why Hollywood dumbs down pretty much everything that it puts out, because the assumption is that its audience is too stupid to be inspired to look something up if they don't understand it, and don't possibly want to learn anything from a movie or TV show.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ True. Shows like Star Trek and Outer Limits sent me off to the library many times when I was in grade school.

It occurs to me that an even better comparison for this movie than "Heroes Reborn" would be the "Second Foundation Trilogy," the attempt by the Killer Bs to "modernize" Asimov. The three books were written by three very talented SF writers and contained many good ideas-- but those ideas were either contrary to what Asimov had established or completely inappropriate for the Foundation series (in fact, their explanation for the Human-only Galaxy is even more colossally inappropriate than the destruction of Vulcan is). So, instead of being an epic, it became an epic fail.

 

[Cky]

Is there an after-credit scene?

 

[EJA]

ONLY 10,000 VULCANS LEFT??? Sorry, but I just cannot believe that. I mean they've been travelling through space for millennia, they must have plenty of colony worlds out there full of their own kind, i.e. the aforementioned Vulcanis Lunar Colony. I'd say there has to be considerably more than a mere ten thousand.

I still hate that they've destroyed Vulcan. I'd love for Spock Prime to travel a little way back in time and stop Nero from blowing it away, but I don't suppose we'll be getting that

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I have a pet theory that I'd like to share with the group, based on the villain's name and based on the fact that this Project is to be a Trilogy

Where did you hear that there would be a trilogy? Apparently a sequel is being written, but that's all I'm aware of right now regarding any more films.

The cast are optioned for three films.

But does that necessarily mean that three films will be *made*?

 

[EJA]

A thought that's just occurred to me: We know that a clone of Earth exists in the episode Miri. Well if there can be another Earth, why not another Vulcan? Maybe in the new timeline, such a duplicate world could become the new home of the refugees from the prime Vulcan? They'd have no trouble interbreeding with the planet's indigenous Vulcans, thus ensuring their race's continued survival in the Trek universe.

 

[iguana_tonante]

I have a pet theory that I'd like to share with the group, based on the villain's name and based on the fact that this Project is to be a Trilogy, imho. It somewhat follows of the early TOS Trek parallels of Romulan society with that of the Roman Empire.

[...] I believe that the Vulcans are being used as a parallel for the Jewish experience after A.D. 71. A highly educated people are suddenly few and made relatively powerless, and forced to migrated to a new home, or to many homes.

While I'm not sure that the creators are putting all that thought into it, the idea of Vulcan Diaspora surfaced of me, too. Maybe it's just because Nimoy infused his acting with some Jewish culture and symbolism, but the resonance is there.

Well, we will see.

 

[ralph]

Please tell me.

will we see the crew together in the final scene?
Will we see Kirk in capitain chair?​

 

[Stag]

I'll just say this, I'm in my senior year of high school, representing the target audience for this movie, and I've never heard of the term "sawbones" until now. Considering I don't know what it is, I can pretty much tell you no one else under 25 will either.

Just to jump in the fray here and add my thoughts for what they are worth - I indeed believe it was the writer's intent to have the 'Bones' nickname for McCoy be short for 'Sawbones' the Civil War era term for a doctor. (Because of the perception that all they ever did to treat bullet wounds to limbs was saw the limb off).

I believe this to be so because of two reasons. One, television at the time leading up to the premiere of the TOS was littered with cowboy and western shows, many times in these shows a doctor was referred to as a 'Sawbones' so it would be a term that was familiar to the general TV watching public.
Secondly, Rodenberry pitched his show as 'Wagon Train to the stars!" to the TV execs. Wagon Train being a popular western TV show at the time. I think when the McCoy character was added it was done so to create a familiar atmosphere for the casual viewer while still having a sci-fi show.

Remember the only other space faring Doctor on TV at the time was Dr. Smith of Lost in Space, and well, we did not want that perception of McCoy did we?

 

[Naldo]

With only 10,000 Vulcans left in the entire universe, I'd say the odds are very slim that any Vulcans from future series would be born, as both parents would need to have survived and be in a position to get together!

Only 10'000 vulcans? Where did you get that number from?

I can't believe that this will be the end for the Vulcan. I must believe that they will survive even if they are less now.

Everyone will go like "Vulcans? Who are they?" or "Oh, they are the ones that lost their planet?"

I wonder what kind of impact the vulcan's had on the future to come and I guess that could be explored in future? Perhaps we will have a world more like Star Wars.. ! Oh well!

How did the old Spock react when Vulcan was destroyed? Did he reveal his true identity to the younger Spock and explained what has happened and what kind of impact it will have?

I have a pet theory that I'd like to share with the group, based on the villain's name and based on the fact that this Project is to be a Trilogy, imho. It somewhat follows of the early TOS Trek parallels of Romulan society with that of the Roman Empire.

The villain, Nero, is actually named after the Emperor Nero who sent General (later Emperor) Vespasian into Judea with to suppress the Jewish Revolt in A.D. 66. With Vespasian went two veteran Legions, X Fretensis and V Macedonia. These veteran legionaries, 60,000 strong, ruthlessly supressed resistance in Northern Judea. By the end of A.D. 68, resistance in Galilee and the rest of the North had been crushed.

While the Romans bided their time, two things occurred. Civil war broke out amongst the Jews, leading to great bloodletting and a purge of those Jewish leaders who advocated negotiation with Vespasian. Negotiations were made moot, however, when Emperor Nero was murdered and Vespasian himself called back by the Army and crowned Emperor. Vespasian appointed his own son, Flavius Titus, to be Commander of the Roman Expeditinary Army.

The Jewish Resistance, led primarily by the Zealots, fell back on Jerusalem and (later) the fortress of Masada, one of King Herod's old castles. Titus besieged Jerusalem and breached its walls in the Summer of A.D. 70. It was at the conclusion of this siege that the City was sacked and the Second Temple put to the torch. The Zealots then fell back upon Masada. Flavius Titus had to leave for Rome, and his legate, Brassus, died in Campaign. This left command to the very capable Flavius Silva. By now, A.D. 71, Julius Caesar's own Legio X had landed and was ordered to lay siege to the impenetrable fortress. The results of the siege are known to history.

The results of the Jewish Revolt are known as well: the Jews were scattered or enslaved in Diaspora for two thousand years. Emperor Nero was the individual who first incited their diaspora by suppressing the Jewish Revolt in 66. I believe that the Vulcans are being used as a parallel for the Jewish experience after A.D. 71. A highly educated people are suddenly few and made relatively powerless, and forced to migrated to a new home, or to many homes.

There is, imho, much more to JJ's new Star Trek trilogy than action and adventure. The destruction of Vulcan is not just for shock value, but is pregnant with meaning and will speak volumes about just how far the Federation has advanced as a culture. The reaction of humans and others to the destruction of Vulcan, and to Vulcans themselves, will say more about us than it will about them.

If JJ, Orci, and Kurtzman are doing what I think they are doing, they are following in the finest traditions of Trek storywriting.

If...IF this is correct, then not only are they following in the finest traditions of Trek storytelling but they have transcended it.

It is a fairly well known fact that Leonard Nimoy is very active within the Jewish community/causes and this could very well explain his enthusiasm for Abrams' project.

You have reined in my trepidation and I am now drooling again to see this film. Thank you!