Star Trek XI has failed... Trek Lit

[Christopher]

I prefer to think of the new movie as something that isnt Startrek, something that is something else pretending to be Startrek, like if some factory puts a fake brandname on its shoes or shirts, like if somebody should just go out and make a independent starwars-movie without the approval of George Lucas and Lucas-arts.

No, that's called fan fiction. This was made by Paramount Pictures, the studio that owns Star Trek and has the exclusive right to make more of it. This is more like George Lucas making the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Whether you personally like it or not, it's still the official, approved continuation.

Think about how extremly silly it was..... Kirk became the captain of the best ship in the federation at a age of 24, without finishing starfleet,

25, actually. And he was apparently near the end of his Academy tenure, since the Kobayashi Maru is evidently a test taken near graduation (since Saavik was in a red cadet's turtleneck when she took the test in TWOK but was in a white command turtleneck mere weeks later in TSFS).

the noble Spock stops being noble, and tosses Kirk out on a dangerous alien planet where he would have died had he been more unlucky - why?

The escape pod's computer specifically told Kirk that the local conditions were unsafe and he should stay in the pod until help arrived. It was Kirk's own fault that he foolishly ignored that advice. I mean, what was he planning to do? Just wander aimlessly until he froze to death? Leaving the pod as Kirk did is the most incredibly stupid thing you could possibly do in a situation like that. At least Spock's flawed judgment can be justified by the fact that he just witnessed the death of his own mother and his entire planet.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Update from my last post: Yes. If you didn't like the film, the Trek IX forum is definitely not for you. The atmosphere over there seems to be "either like the film or b***** off" not one of honest discussion and exchange of ideas, as characterises the other forums, including this one.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Update from my last post: Yes. If you didn't like the film, the Trek IX forum is definitely not for you. The atmosphere over there seems to be "either like the film or b***** off" not one of honest discussion and exchange of ideas, as characterises the other forums, including this one.

Actually the fans who act like Paramount should have made a movie that panders only to them and everyone who likes the new movie is a moron, the canon crazy fans, the one's that think their better than mainstream audiences, and the ones who think that the ghost of Gene Roddenberry appeared before them and declared them the one true experts of what is and isn't Trek are the one's that usually have their days crapped on in the Trek XI forum. Some posters do at least try to be respectful of people with valid complaints about the film it doesn't always look like that but they at least try.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Update from my last post: Yes. If you didn't like the film, the Trek IX forum is definitely not for you. The atmosphere over there seems to be "either like the film or b***** off" not one of honest discussion and exchange of ideas, as characterises the other forums, including this one.

Actually the fans who act like Paramount should have made a movie that panders only to them and everyone who likes the new movie is a moron, the canon crazy fans, the one's that think their better than mainstream audiences, and the ones who think that the ghost of Gene Roddenberry appeared before them and declared them the one true experts of what is and isn't Trek are the one's that usually have their days crapped on in the Trek XI forum. Some posters do at least try to be respectful of people with valid complaints about the film it doesn't always look like that but they at least try.

I meant no disrespect. I spend little time there, so my interpretation of the atmosphere is likely a little off. Still, I stand by the basic idea of what I said even I acknowledge I might have got the details wrong. The debates between pro-film and anti-film I've seen on this forum are mostly friendly, polite and productive. On the Trek IX forum, there are far too many insults and far too much snarkiness for my liking.

PS: Having looked again, yes, the extremism and "thou must agree with my viewpoint or thou art a moron" attitude does appear to be found in both camps to a disturbing degree. Anyway, that's enough moaning from me, I'm sure we agree. Back to my usual activities!

 

[Extrocomp]

Why is everyone here so sure that the original timeline still exists?

Because my Trek DVDs still play, and my Trek books still have words in them.

My pre-Crisis Superman comics still have words and pictures in them.

 

[Sci]

Why is everyone here so sure that the original timeline still exists?

Because my Trek DVDs still play, and my Trek books still have words in them.

My pre-Crisis Superman comics still have words and pictures in them.

But the Crisis on Infinite Earths explicitly described all the prior universes as being destroyed and replaced by a new universe.

No such reference is to be found in ST09. And ST09 contains a reference that establishes that the prime timeline continued to exist after the Narada entered 2233 (and contains no reference to any sort of temporal wake that would have protected Spock Prime from timeline changes a la First Contact). And, on top of that, the Word of God (i.e., the people in charge of Trek) says that the prime timeline still exists because they didn't want to erase the whole thing, because current understandings of physics say that it would still exist in the event of time travel, and because they didn't want to prevent someone from telling new stories in the prime timeline if they wanted to.

In other words.... Every piece of evidence we have indicates that the prime timeline still exists, and no evidence indicates that it does not.

 

[Deranged Nasat]

Because my Trek DVDs still play, and my Trek books still have words in them.

My pre-Crisis Superman comics still have words and pictures in them.

But the Crisis on Infinite Earths explicitly described all the prior universes as being destroyed and replaced by a new universe.

No such reference is to be found in ST09. And ST09 contains a reference that establishes that the prime timeline continued to exist after the Narada entered 2233 (and contains no reference to any sort of temporal wake that would have protected Spock Prime from timeline changes a la First Contact). And, on top of that, the Word of God (i.e., the people in charge of Trek) says that the prime timeline still exists because they didn't want to erase the whole thing, because current understandings of physics say that it would still exist in the event of time travel, and because they didn't want to prevent someone from telling new stories in the prime timeline if they wanted to.

Plus they wanted to appeal to current fans as well as the mainstream audience. Why would they risk alienating current fans by destroying previous continuity?

 

[Trent Roman]

And ST09 contains a reference that establishes that the prime timeline continued to exist after the Narada entered 2233

Refresh my memory--what was it?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Sci]

And ST09 contains a reference that establishes that the prime timeline continued to exist after the Narada entered 2233

Refresh my memory--what was it?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

The one I was talking about earlier -- Spock continuing to exist after Nero went through the black hole. And, no, there's no information establishing that there was any special technobabble to protect him from timeline changes, either.

 

[seigezunt]

Update from my last post: Yes. If you didn't like the film, the Trek IX forum is definitely not for you. The atmosphere over there seems to be "either like the film or b***** off" not one of honest discussion and exchange of ideas, as characterises the other forums, including this one.

Actually the fans who act like Paramount should have made a movie that panders only to them and everyone who likes the new movie is a moron, the canon crazy fans, the one's that think their better than mainstream audiences, and the ones who think that the ghost of Gene Roddenberry appeared before them and declared them the one true experts of what is and isn't Trek are the one's that usually have their days crapped on in the Trek XI forum. Some posters do at least try to be respectful of people with valid complaints about the film it doesn't always look like that but they at least try.

not to divereg even more, but I agree. It's much more open than DN suggests. Yes, they will jump on you for a 'ST suck donkey balls' post, but articulate critiques are debated in a better way.

And TNZ has a discussion going that's even tamer.

 

[Trent Roman]

The one I was talking about earlier -- Spock continuing to exist after Nero went through the black hole. And, no, there's no information establishing that there was any special technobabble to protect him from timeline changes, either.

As far as I'm concerned, I've debunked that already. And where the movie offers no information on what happens to the previous future one way or another, you're just choosing the interpretation that fits your preference.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Sci]

The one I was talking about earlier -- Spock continuing to exist after Nero went through the black hole. And, no, there's no information establishing that there was any special technobabble to protect him from timeline changes, either.

As far as I'm concerned, I've debunked that already.

Yes, but you're wrong. There is no indication one way or the other that the Jellyfish was past the event horizon. You are literally having to introduce new information in order to make your pet theory work, which is far more akin to the definition of choosing an interpretation that fits your preference than simply noting that the evidence available implies the continuation of the prime timeline.

ETA:

BTW, I think we're all overlooking a very compelling reason for the existence of two Trek timelines:

Star Trek is now essentially owned by two different corporations. Having two Trek timelines, one for the movies and one for TV, allows both Paramount and CBS to go about making Trek productions without stepping on one-another's toes.

 

[Christopher]

I think some people are forgetting that the overriding rule of all fictional temporal physics is, "Time travel works in whatever way the story requires." Past franchises with time travel, including Trek, have often made contradictory (or even self-contradictory) assertions about temporal mechanics. For instance, why didn't the removal of Gillian Taylor from history cause any timeline changes? How did Sisko and Kira actually remember history being changed in "Accession?" And don't even get me started on "Year of Hell," "Relativity," and "Storm Front." Berman/Braga temporal theory is pretty much gibberish. So to complain about an alleged inconsistency of temporal physics now, as if it were somehow a novelty, is rather disingenuous. Especially since the new movie's grasp of temporal physics is considerably better than most of what's preceded it.

 

[Trent Roman]

Yes, but you're wrong. There is no indication one way or the other that the Jellyfish was past the event horizon. You are literally having to introduce new information in order to make your pet theory work,

I don't consider it new information--I consider it the likeliest scenario given what was seen onscreen, and as per my understanding of the physics involved (if someone wants to take issue with that, I more than welcome any corrections--I'm no physicist). For the two ships to have passed through within so brief a time from one another, they both had to be within the singularity. If Spock was outside the event horizon when the Nero entered, the time dilation would have made it seem as though Nero's ship was falling into the black hole for... well, a heck of a lot of time. For the two vessels to have been so synchronized, they must have been as close to equally distant to the black hole as possible (and even then there should have been time dilation, because if they had been equidistant they should have gone through at more or less the same time).

which is far more akin to the definition of choosing an interpretation that fits your preference than simply noting that the evidence available implies the continuation of the prime timeline.

Except that I don't actually have a preference that I'm aware of. I couldn't care less about this film and what it has to say; so long as the product line doesn't suddenly discount the reality of the original timeline, I'm happy.

To extend the question further, however: if, as you suggest, Nero had gone through and the timeline had the opporunity to be overriden but didn't, thus indicating it's permanence and the film's continuity as a parallel reality... then why did Spock, falling into the black hole after this new reality had split off, go to the past of that seperate track instead of the past of his own (still extent) continuity? At that point, the black hole would need to be a wormhole through dimensions, to another reality, as well as time and space in the more conventional sense.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Christopher]

^See what I said in the last post. Time travel works however the story requires. I have never in my life seen a time-travel story that didn't have some flaws of logic or science in it. Realistically, time travel could almost certainly never happen at all, so any time travel story is ultimately a fantasy. Nitpicking the technical details is a waste of time. It works that way because the story says so.

 

[Trent Roman]

Except, as was my original contention, the story doesn't say so. I would readily agree that the film takes large liberties with science; what I took issue with was the idea that the film asserts the survival of the original timeline, where I contend it makes no pronouncements one way or the other. As far as I can tell, there are basically three possibilities to resolving my last point, in order of least to most preferred (to me):

1) Nero and Spock were both sent back in time in the original timeline, which means previous events were suppressed, no matter what the hacks behind the movie say elsewhere;

2) The black hole was a gateway to a proximate parallel reality rather than the past of our own continuity, and so there's no overwriting of history because the universe Nero emerged in was always already a different one;

3) Combination of (1) and (2): everything in the film takes place in an alternate reality, including the only sketchily described 24th-century portions; so while Spock and Nero do overwrite history, it was never 'our' Spock, 'our' Nero, nor 'our' history.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Extrocomp]

The one I was talking about earlier -- Spock continuing to exist after Nero went through the black hole. And, no, there's no information establishing that there was any special technobabble to protect him from timeline changes, either.

I'd like to remind you that 'The City on the Edge of Forever' had no "special technobabble" to explain why the Enterprise landing party still existed. No one even asked that question. Fans just accepted that being near a time portal is what protected them. Therefore it can also be accepted that Spock wasn't erased because he was close to the black hole (which, in this movie, is a time portal).

The only real evidence I've heard about is Picard and Data commenting on Spock's disappearance in the Countdown comic and even that was pretty flimsy because it was brief. Something that's brief is very easy to retcon later.

 

[Christopher]

^But why would anyone want to do a retcon claiming that the original timeline has ceased to exist? What would be the point? As a fictional creation, it will continue to exist as long as anyone is willing to write stories about it. I can't imagine why anyone would want to believe that Star Trek as we've known it for 40 years has just vanished, but even if someone did make that claim, it wouldn't mean anything, because that wouldn't preclude others from continuing to tell stories set in the old timeline. As long as there's audience interest in ST Prime, then ST Prime will continue to exist -- if not on film or TV, then in books, comics, and computer games.

 

[Extrocomp]

Past franchises with time travel, including Trek, have often made contradictory (or even self-contradictory) assertions about temporal mechanics. For instance, why didn't the removal of Gillian Taylor from history cause any timeline changes?

There have been some contradictions but there are a few elements that stay the same. One of those is that changes in the past ALWAYS affect the future of the current timeline. Another is that time travellers in the past always retain their memories of previous timelines and are not erased when the future they came from becomes no longer possible. One exception is the duplicate Picard disappearing along with his shuttle in the shuttle bay, but that could have something to do with the weird vortex they were in, perhaps the entity in the vortex finally got him. Gillian Taylor's disappearance didn't affect the future because she was a nobody. Just like the bum who phasered himself.

2) The black hole was a gateway to a proximate parallel reality rather than the past of our own continuity, and so there's no overwriting of history because the universe Nero emerged in was always already a different one;

This is my favorite explanation. It explains why the Enterprise is completely different, which I don't think is adequately explained by some survey ship being destroyed 25 years ago.

3) Combination of (1) and (2): everything in the film takes place in an alternate reality, including the only sketchily described 24th-century portions; so while Spock and Nero do overwrite history, it was never 'our' Spock, 'our' Nero, nor 'our' history.

This explanation I hadn't thought of. But the future that Spock and Nero came from also includes Picard and Data at least. So how can you prove or disprove that it's a different reality?

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

It's probably been mentioned, but I don't think most readers will care one way or the other. So a few details are different; so what. It's still Kirk, Spock and McCoy, just like the 'oldTrek' novels. They probably don't even notice much differences between the 'oldTrek' novels and the 'ShatTrek' novels, and those have been selling for a while.