Circumstantial Evidence?/Why did spock end up in alt. universe?[Merge]

[I-Am-Zim]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Simply because there is absolutely no adherence to any of the established TOS continuity except for the names.

Still false. Constantly resorting to hyperbole removes your credibility. Absolutely is a word with an established meaning. The only absolute you've demonstrated is that you absolutely refuse to accept the film.

To me, the use of the alternate whatever was just lazy writing.

So what? "Lazy writing" does not equate to "not the same continuity". And if the use of alternate timelines constitutes "lazy writing", then the charge applies to TOS and TNG as well, making it a particularly toothless allegation against STXI as a valid continuation of Trek continuity.

It's a "Copy and Paste" comment that the critics are using because they someone else using it once and felt they could use it is a slam against the film. However, ask them what it means or how it equates to "lazy writing" and you won't get a straight answer because there seemingly is no straight answer. Simply put, it is a remark against the film that is flawed and never had much thought behind it to begin with.

See above.

 

[JarodRussell]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Lazy writing is - at least in my opinion - when a writer encounters a problem in his story (like "how the hell am I going to get these two characters meet"), and while you read or watch the story unfold you realize he went for the cheapest way possible, for instance by relying on a set of rather unbelievable coincidences or "stupid" decisions made by the characters to get from A to B. It's in every B class horror movie, when the character who needs to get killed by the monster of course makes this one absolute stupid decision that gets him killed. Intelligent, non-lazy writing would get him killed without being stupid.

And example in Star Trek is Young Spock throwing Kirk into an escape pod so he can just happen to meet Old Spock on that ice planet.

I explained it in another thread how this could have been solved surprisingly easy, without relying on coincidence, without making Old Spock look totally passive, and without throwing Kirk into an escape pod instead of putting him in a brig, which really falls in the stupid/unbelievable decision category.

When it comes to the continuity problems/reboot/prequel/canon/schmanon thing, this script is really a case of heavily lazy writing. Instead of coming up with creative and intelligent answers on how to solve this or that contuinity problem a prequel might cause, they went for the cheapest trick: time travel. But because time travel in Trek doesn't work that way, they brought this MWI thing into it and called it an alternate universe. And then they just stopped thinking about it: Is it connected to the original Trek, is it not connected, will Nero's time travel indeed explain ALL the changes of continuity, will some thing be just different without an explanation, why should we care at all, etc...

Does the Enterprise really look different because of Nero? Is it really built in Iowa because of George Kirk's death? Why is it then that an event that influenced the design and construction of an entire ship class is totally forgotten about by everyone else except Kirk? Is Nero the cause for Spock being the programmer of Kobayashi Maru? And more stuff.

Most of it really feels like the writers came up with rather half-assed "explanations" for all those things only when they went to Trekmovie.com and noticed that the fans noticed, but when they wrote the script, they didn't think about it much. That's how it feels to me. And that's what I call lazy writing.

 

[I am not Spock]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Simply because there is absolutely no adherence to any of the established TOS continuity except for the names.

Meh, the people who made TOS even did that. I should know I've been watching TOS seasons 1 and 2 on Blu Ray.

Too true. TOS wasn't consistent with TOS. So XI is merely following in a time-honoured Trek tradition, then! People need to loosen up.

 

[3D Master]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

If it's possible to instantly kill or explode a star, then it's possible that some event destabilized the star enough that everyone realized it was going to go supernova in the near future.

The Romulans use microscopic black holes to power their drives. Since we know nothing of how they are generated, captured or harnessed it's entirely possible that creating a large enough black hole to absorb the supernova was beyond their technology.

You did notice that the Red Matter needed to create the black holes is just a tiny little bauble, right? Notice that Spock also take equally small bauble for the super nova? And you notice that if you collapse that to the density required to form a black hole, you get a microscopic black hole?

 

[Devon]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Yes. It was lazy writing. Inventive and creative writing would have been writing a story that took place within the existing continuity and using a bit of creativity and imagination to come up with an exciting story. Lazy writing is using a BS alternative universe plot device so that they would not have to overexert their imaginations to come up with a good story set within the existing TOS universe.

You're making up your own "convenient" definition for the purpose of slamming the film.

Think about what you just said for a minute.

Just try it, seriously.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Yes. It was lazy writing. Inventive and creative writing would have been writing a story that took place within the existing continuity and using a bit of creativity and imagination to come up with an exciting story. Lazy writing is using a BS alternative universe plot device so that they would not have to overexert their imaginations to come up with a good story set within the existing TOS universe.

You're making up your own "convenient" definition for the purpose of slamming the film.

Think about what you just said for a minute.

Just try it, seriously.

Wrong. Try again.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Lazy writing is - at least in my opinion - when a writer encounters a problem in his story (like "how the hell am I going to get these two characters meet"), and while you read or watch the story unfold you realize he went for the cheapest way possible, for instance by relying on a set of rather unbelievable coincidences or "stupid" decisions made by the characters to get from A to B. It's in every B class horror movie, when the character who needs to get killed by the monster of course makes this one absolute stupid decision that gets him killed. Intelligent, non-lazy writing would get him killed without being stupid.

And example in Star Trek is Young Spock throwing Kirk into an escape pod so he can just happen to meet Old Spock on that ice planet.

I explained it in another thread how this could have been solved surprisingly easy, without relying on coincidence, without making Old Spock look totally passive, and without throwing Kirk into an escape pod instead of putting him in a brig, which really falls in the stupid/unbelievable decision category.

When it comes to the continuity problems/reboot/prequel/canon/schmanon thing, this script is really a case of heavily lazy writing. Instead of coming up with creative and intelligent answers on how to solve this or that contuinity problem a prequel might cause, they went for the cheapest trick: time travel. But because time travel in Trek doesn't work that way, they brought this MWI thing into it and called it an alternate universe. And then they just stopped thinking about it: Is it connected to the original Trek, is it not connected, will Nero's time travel indeed explain ALL the changes of continuity, will some thing be just different without an explanation, why should we care at all, etc...

Does the Enterprise really look different because of Nero? Is it really built in Iowa because of George Kirk's death? Why is it then that an event that influenced the design and construction of an entire ship class is totally forgotten about by everyone else except Kirk? Is Nero the cause for Spock being the programmer of Kobayashi Maru? And more stuff.

Most of it really feels like the writers came up with rather half-assed "explanations" for all those things only when they went to Trekmovie.com and noticed that the fans noticed, but when they wrote the script, they didn't think about it much. That's how it feels to me. And that's what I call lazy writing.

Well said sir! I agree completely. Couldn't have said it better mayself.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?

I find it strange that so many seem to want someone to hold your hands and explain every little change in ST.

Are you all so incapible of thinking for yourselves?

It's people with the mindset I've seen so much in this (and the clone) threads that were responsible for the Dark Ages.

Do grow up.


In other news: The haters have convinently forgotten that the quality of the Trek has nothing to do with, and no effect on, if it's an alternate universe or not.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?

I find it strange that so many seem to want someone to hold your hands and explain every little change in ST.

The strange thing is that some of these people say their TOS fans and TOS changed things with out explaination a lot of the time.

 

[3D Master]

Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?

I find it strange that so many seem to want someone to hold your hands and explain every little change in ST.

Are you all so incapible of thinking for yourselves?

It's people with the mindset I've seen so much in this (and the clone) threads that were responsible for the Dark Ages.

Do grow up.

Wrong. Nowhere did we request an explanation. Quite the contrary, we gave explanation on why the movies characters coming supposedly from the Prime Universe, aren't from the Prime universe.

Very big difference from demanding explanations - in fact it's the exact opposite.

In other news: The haters have convinently forgotten that the quality of the Trek has nothing to do with, and no effect on, if it's an alternate universe or not.

That's where you're wrong. If you claim one thing in a movie, but show something else entirely, it shows bad writing. Old Spock not being Prime Spock despite claims or implies to the contrary, is one more of the many, many flaws and bad writing in the horrifying pile of shit that is JJ's Trek Wars.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Should novels set in the JJVerse rectify the film's plot holes?

Let's brake this argument down.

"Evidence" that STXI is unrelated to TOS:

*Spock Prime acts "out of character"
Spock (in "The Cage" especially) and the entire TOS crew have acted out of character before.

*Technology and spaceships are different.
Nothing in the Star Trek canon (i.e. the tech manuals and writers' guides are worthless) says the TOS-1701 was the largest ship ever built. The Kelvin looks more hi-tech than TOS? So does the NX-01. Nerada's an octopus? We've never seen a non-military Romulan vessel before.
+Butterfly effect.

*A few little details are wrong and premises changed.
James R. Kirk, the nature of antimatter, unsequential/overlapping stardates, World War III both did and didn't happen and countless more plagued TOS.

If fans can come up with fixes for TOS and pretend it's in continuity, the same goes for STXI.

Claims that XI is "dumb" apply more than equally to "Spock's Brain", "Way to Eden" and others - it doesn't affect continuity.

All you really have is "I don't like it"

 

[3D Master]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Please.

Plotholes after plotholes after plotholes after idiocies after contradictions, is the first problem, starting with the very first dialog, not a minute into the movie.

"It's like a lightning storm in space. You should see it!"

"We're not yet in visible range, captain."

Seriously, you can try to warp that as much as you want, but getting those two sentences to function in that order, will lead to failure. And there's more, so much more:

A complete asshole as the main character that doesn't do anything throughout the movie except running after the facts.

Major character development in major characters that aren't character development, it just happened by writer's fiat. I'm looking at you, Spock, who before only acted upon attraction to females that are perfectly legitimate mate-material when he got his brain addled either by the natural Ponn Far or space spores and drugs, is now in a relationship with one of his STUDENTS.

Supposedly logical and intelligent Vulcans sending "we have seismic problems" as opposed to "Help, we are under attack", when the attacking ship and the giant ass drill beam is seen by people with their own, naked, unhelped by instruments eyes.

Communications officers in an entire fleet that are apparently completely incompetent as none of them remarked to their captains that THERE WERE NO SIGNALS COMING FROM THE VULCAN SYSTEM AT ALL. To such a horrifying inept extent, that when one is asked to see if there are any signals with Romulan language coming it, he spends his time jabbering about being unable to differentiate Romulan from Vulcan instead of telling Pike THERE WERE NO SIGNALS AT ALL COMING FROM THE VULCAN SYSTEM.

The same scene is all about Kirk convincing Pike this is a trap with a level of illogic that is breathtaking to stop the Enterprise from dropping out of warp in the Vulcan system and avoid that trap, only for once he finally succeeds and they drop out of warp... them being in the Vulcan system and in the "trap". Making the entire scene POINTLESS.

Brick walls on starships.

Spock goes to beam down to save his parents! Kirk and Sulu are falling! Chekov has a solution! He runs not ten meters from the bridge into the transporter room! He saves Kirk and Sulu! ...Spock arrives in the transporter room that is ten meters from the bridge, despite him leaving the bridge before Kirk and Sulu are even falling.

Kirk doing more assholery making Spock shoot him out the ship down to a planet, presumably having to change course to get to that planet, while time is desperately of the essence, as opposed to simply throwing him in the brig; being every bit as much the idiot that made him arrive in the transporter room after Chekov gets there and saves Kirk and Sulu.

Kirk meeting old Spock and Scotty on the same planet, apparently because of destiny, and destiny wants Kirk as the captain of the Enterprise, apparently. Apparently it wants that only after Vulcan got blown up, and put Kirk in command of the enterprise years before he got there in the time line destiny wants to preserve. Which begs the question why this nebulous "destiny" didn't simply destroy the Narada before it could muck up "destiny", or do something else before Vulcan got destroyed, or better yet, made sure time travel is impossible to begin with!

But wait! We're not there yet! Because according to the movie, the writers, the director, this is an alternate reality, one that got split off once the Narada arrived in the passed and mucked things up. Thus, this alternate reality, and its destiny has absolutely nothing to do anymore with the prime universe. Result being, that whatever happens, if that is the destruction of Vulcan, Earth, Starfleet being annihilated, Kirk not only not getting command of the Enterprise, but not even graduating, so be it, and "destiny" couldn't care less, or in fact, be working to make that outcome come true. Which makes the whole "destiny" crap just plain idiotic.

But wait! The worst offense that "destiny" made is still yet to come. You see, Gene Roddenberry was a secular humanist, before the term even existed. His Star Trek and the subsequent series are infused with humanism throughout. There are no gods, no invisible flying spaghetti-monsters, destiny, or other nebulous invisible supernatural forces mucking with human decisions. No, WE humans and other sentients, did it all ourselves. It is the very heart and core of Star Trek that has been uphold throughout its existence, until JJ's Trek Wars.

Bravo.

And all of that is just the beginning, the horrifying "science", the idiocy of a captain having a code that shuts down an entire solar systems defensive systems, a cadet being promoted to captain, and on, and on, and on. I've barely begun to name all the problems with this movie.

They aren't simple "I didn't like it", they're flaws, plot holes, bad writing, idiocies, and what not.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Plot holes, idiocy and bad writing are things Star Trek has had for over forty years.

You say there are no godlike beings guiding events in Star Trek? Watch "Q Who".

There's no mention of gods in STXI. Star Trek has shown alternate universes (which is what STXI becomes only after 2233) where massively diverging circumstances and events have resulted in incredibly similar situations down the line - watch "In a Mirror, Darkly" and then "Mirror, Mirror" and explain how, despite the history depicted in the IaMD intro and the episode, the events of MM are so similar in both universes. Doesn't make sense, but it's happened before in Star Trek.

Again, it comes down to you not liking the film. It's okay not to like it. It's okay to ignore it and say "I disregard it/I pretend it didn't happen/I don't think it's real Star Trek" or whatever - but the fact that you're not willing to suspend your disbelief over the nonsense this time has no bearing on what universe Old Spock came from.

At all.

 

[Devon]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Yes. It was lazy writing. Inventive and creative writing would have been writing a story that took place within the existing continuity and using a bit of creativity and imagination to come up with an exciting story. Lazy writing is using a BS alternative universe plot device so that they would not have to overexert their imaginations to come up with a good story set within the existing TOS universe.

You're making up your own "convenient" definition for the purpose of slamming the film.

Think about what you just said for a minute.

Just try it, seriously.

Wrong. Try again.

I don't have anything to "try again" in this case kid.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

You're making up your own "convenient" definition for the purpose of slamming the film.

Think about what you just said for a minute.

Just try it, seriously.

Wrong. Try again.

I don't have anything to "try again" in this case kid.

You got plenty, junior. My response was perfectly logical, by your standards anyway.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Please.

Plotholes after plotholes after plotholes after idiocies after contradictions, is the first problem, starting with the very first dialog, not a minute into the movie.

"It's like a lightning storm in space. You should see it!"

"We're not yet in visible range, captain."

Seriously, you can try to warp that as much as you want, but getting those two sentences to function in that order, will lead to failure. And there's more, so much more:

A complete asshole as the main character that doesn't do anything throughout the movie except running after the facts.

Major character development in major characters that aren't character development, it just happened by writer's fiat. I'm looking at you, Spock, who before only acted upon attraction to females that are perfectly legitimate mate-material when he got his brain addled either by the natural Ponn Far or space spores and drugs, is now in a relationship with one of his STUDENTS.

Supposedly logical and intelligent Vulcans sending "we have seismic problems" as opposed to "Help, we are under attack", when the attacking ship and the giant ass drill beam is seen by people with their own, naked, unhelped by instruments eyes.

Communications officers in an entire fleet that are apparently completely incompetent as none of them remarked to their captains that THERE WERE NO SIGNALS AT ALL COMING FROM THE VULCAN SYSTEM AT ALL. To such a horrifying inept extent, that when one is asked to see if there are any signals with Romulan language coming it, he spends his time jabbering about being unable to differentiate Romulan from Vulcan instead of telling Pike THERE WERE NO SIGNALS AT ALL COMING FROM THE VULCAN SYSTEM.

The same scene is all about Kirk convincing Pike this is a trap with a level of illogic that is breathtaking to stop the Enterprise from dropping out of warp in the Vulcan system and avoid that trap, only for once he finally succeeds and they drop out of warp... them being in the Vulcan system and in the "trap". Making the entire scene POINTLESS.

Brick walls on starships.

Spock goes to beam down to save his parents! Kirk and Sulu are falling! Chekov has a solution! He runs not ten meters from the bridge into the transporter room! He saves Kirk and Sulu! ...Spock arrives in the transporter room that is ten meters from the bridge, despite him leaving the bridge before Kirk and Sulu are even falling.

Kirk doing more assholery making Spock shoot him out the ship down to a planet, presumably having to change course to get to that planet, while time is desperately of the essence, as opposed to simply throwing him in the brig; being every bit as much the idiot that made him arrive in the transporter room after Chekov gets there and saves Kirk and Sulu.

Kirk meeting old Spock and Scotty on the same planet, apparently because of destiny, and destiny wants Kirk as the captain of the Enterprise, apparently. Apparently it wants that only after Vulcan got blown up, and put Kirk in command of the enterprise years before he got there in the time line destiny wants to preserve. Which begs the question why this nebulous "destiny" didn't simply destroy the Narada before it could muck up "destiny", or do something else before Vulcan got destroyed, or better yet, made sure time travel travel is impossible to begin with!

But wait! We're not there yet! Because according to the movie, the writers, the director, this is an alternate reality, one that got split off once the Narada arrived in the passed and mucked things up. Thus, this alternate reality, and its destiny has absolutely nothing to do anymore with the prime universe. Result being, that whatever happens, if that is the destruction of Vulcan, Earth, Starfleet being annihilated, Kirk not only not getting command of the Enterprise, but not even graduating, so be it, and "destiny" couldn't care less, or in fact, be working to make that outcome come true. Which makes the whole "destiny" crap just plain idiotic.

But wait! The worst offense that "destiny" made is still yet to come. You see, Gene Roddenberry was a secular humanist, before the term even existed. His Star Trek and the subsequent series are infused with humanism throughout. There are no gods, no invisible flying spaghetti-monsters, destiny, or other nebulous invisible supernatural forces mucking with human decisions. No, WE humans and other sentients, did it all ourselves. It is the very heart and core of Star Trek that has been uphold throughout its existence, until JJ's Trek Wars.

Bravo.

And all of that is just the beginning, the horrifying "science", the idiocy of a captain having a code that shuts down an entire solar systems defensive systems, a cadet being promoted to captain, and on, and on, and on. I've barely begin to name all the problems with this movie.

They aren't simple "I didn't like it", they're flaws, plot holes, bad writing, idiocies, and what not.

AMEN BROTHER!!!!

 

[3D Master]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Plot holes, idiocy and bad writing are things Star Trek has had for over forty years.

Not really. The few there have been, are far between, and even then small ones to get a plot going. This movie has more plotholes than all previous Star Trek movies combined; and Nemesis is plot-hole ridden pile of shit.

You say there are no godlike beings guiding events in Star Trek? Watch "Q Who".

1. Q isn't guiding a damn thing.

2. God-like beings that you can see with your very own eyes, and can be recorded by instruments, are not supernatural forces.

There's no mention of gods in STXI. Star Trek has shown alternate universes (which is what STXI becomes only after 2233) where massively diverging circumstances and events have resulted in incredibly similar situations down the line - watch "In a Mirror, Darkly" and then "Mirror, Mirror" and explain how, despite the history depicted in the IaMD intro and the episode, the events of MM are so similar in both universes. Doesn't make sense, but it's happened before in Star Trek.

There is an explicit mention in a deleted scene and heavily implied mention of "destiny" in STXI, which is the one that I deliberately mentioned.

And seriously, Enterprise? Enterprise is the start of the massive troubles, along with Nemesis, culminating in the ultimate horror that is JJ's Trek Wars.

"In a Mirror, Darkly" doesn't need to be explained when it comes to "Mirror, Mirror" as I've already said, it's just another of the massive continuity errors and problems in Enterprise - yes, S4 is NOT an improvement. It's one of the many reasons Enterprise is a pile of shit, and should have been stricken from the record ages ago.

Again, it comes down to you not liking the film. It's okay not to like it. It's okay to ignore it and say "I disregard it/I pretend it didn't happen/I don't think it's real Star Trek" or whatever - but the fact that you're not willing to suspend your disbelief over the nonsense this time has no bearing on what universe Old Spock came from.

At all.

You're wrong, it is however the other way around. What universe Old Spock came from, has a bearing on whether I like it or not, because it's one of the many, many, many reasons why this movie is a pile of shit.

I don't like it, because it is a pile of shit. And there is no other reason why don't like it.

 

[Devon]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Plot holes, idiocy and bad writing are things Star Trek has had for over forty years.

Not really. The few there have been, are far between, and even then small ones to get a plot going. This movie has more plotholes than all previous Star Trek movies combined; and Nemesis is plot-hole ridden pile of shit.

You say there are no godlike beings guiding events in Star Trek? Watch "Q Who".

1. Q isn't guiding a damn thing.

2. God-like beings that you can see with your very own eyes, and can be recorded by instruments, are not supernatural forces.

There's no mention of gods in STXI. Star Trek has shown alternate universes (which is what STXI becomes only after 2233) where massively diverging circumstances and events have resulted in incredibly similar situations down the line - watch "In a Mirror, Darkly" and then "Mirror, Mirror" and explain how, despite the history depicted in the IaMD intro and the episode, the events of MM are so similar in both universes. Doesn't make sense, but it's happened before in Star Trek.

There is an explicit mention in a deleted scene and heavily implied mention of "destiny" in STXI, which is the one that I deliberately mentioned.

And seriously, Enterprise? Enterprise is the start of the massive troubles, along with Nemesis, culminating in the ultimate horror that is JJ's Trek Wars.

"In a Mirror, Darkly" doesn't need to be explained when it comes to "Mirror, Mirror" as I've already said, it's just another of the massive continuity errors and problems in Enterprise - yes, S4 is NOT an improvement. It's one of the many reasons Enterprise is a pile of shit, and should have been stricken from the record ages ago.

Again, it comes down to you not liking the film. It's okay not to like it. It's okay to ignore it and say "I disregard it/I pretend it didn't happen/I don't think it's real Star Trek" or whatever - but the fact that you're not willing to suspend your disbelief over the nonsense this time has no bearing on what universe Old Spock came from.

At all.

You're wrong, it is however the other way around. What universe Old Spock came from, has a bearing on whether I like it or not, because it's one of the many, many, many reasons why this movie is a pile of shit.

I don't like it, because it is a pile of shit. And there is no other reason why don't like it.

Hey what's the sound I hear?

Oh yes... the sound of you being powerless to change the film and its huge success with the fanbase and the general public.

 

[3D Master]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

Plot holes, idiocy and bad writing are things Star Trek has had for over forty years.

Not really. The few there have been, are far between, and even then small ones to get a plot going. This movie has more plotholes than all previous Star Trek movies combined; and Nemesis is plot-hole ridden pile of shit.

No. Now you're resorting to exaggerations. This doesn't offer you much credibility, except to the other 4 people here who might be desperate to agree with you.

Oh, god, I wish it were. Seriously, I wish I was exaggerating. God, do I wish I was exaggerating. Because if I were, although this movie would still have been bad, at least I would still be able to say that my favorite franchise didn't produce a movie this mind-bogglingly awful, that I have to give it the moniker, Unholy Abomination of Unprecedented Proportions.

This movie has one 4 minute scene with so many plot-holes and idiocies in them, a mind-boggling 13 at least, that is about the same and more likely more, than the first 9 movies combined. And worse off, any plotholes in the first 9 movies, are small ones that get the story going, while these 13, like the communications officer not saying there are no signals coming from Vulcan; they're the result of Beavis and Butthead writing a movie.

Go look up my review of the movie, and go through that, I've named all the ones I noticed at that time. There are just a mind-shattering three scenes that aren't filled with plot-holes, idiocies, and just plain bullshit; and I've since, through discussions with other people, and as a result reviewing the movie in my head, found those aren't even all of them. This movie is like anti-good movie. Where a good movie you peel back layers through discussion or repeat viewings and you find more good stuff, or funny stuff you hadn't noticed the first viewing; with Star Trek every layer you peel away reveals more bad stuff the more surface bad stuff was obscuring.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Circumstantial Evidence?

3DMaster:
Q didn't guide a thing? He warned them about the Borg. Quinn admits to much more in Voyager (like shaking the tree Newton sat under. Dumb again?)

Or how about "All Good Things", where Q guides Picard though three time periods to defeat a sinister white cloud that travelled backwards in time (another thing that makes no sense!)

You say Q's not a supernatural force? The crew see and "record" (as you put it) him only when he wants them to. He supposedly has the power to do anything. It's all in presentation.

I've seen the STXI deleted scenes - no mention of devine forces repairing the timeline. Early scripts? Don't mean shit with regards to the final film. You're not trying to use "writer's intent", that thing you've been touting as worthless, to back up your arguments?

You don't like the film because it's "a pile of shit". I'm afraid this has no bearing whatsoever on Spock Prime being the guy from TOS or not.