For those who complain about lens flare.

[Ian Keldon]

In going back 25 years, Spock Prime would essentially be killing the James Kirk born at the start of the movie, and everyone else born into a life somehow altered after Nero's incursion. In exactly the same way that Janeway killed the Miral Paris born and raised in the Delta Quadrant in "Endgame".

That is an open issue in all time travel. The standard response is that the history as known is the "way things are supposed to go", and any alternation of known history is unacceptable and must be repared.

In short, Miral Paris was never "meant to be", and Kirk Prime was the way Kirk was "meant to be", and Spock Prime had/has a duty to maintain and restore (if necessary) history to the pre-incursion version as best possible.

How exactly does Spock have the right to do that? A Starfleet regulation which Janeway heard in "Future's End" from a 29th century time cop (who caused the very disaster he saught to avoid, btw) and then adopted herself?

The TPD is a Federation/Starfleet regulation. It is binding on all Federation citizens and Starfleet officers. Neither may attempt to alter the timeline as it exists pre-incursion, and must attempt to restore said timeline against any incursions that alter it.

When that Spock is a result of countless similar temporal incursions himself (one of which, in "Yesteryear", he did himself!)?

"Yesteryear" was an example of a "pre-destination paradox", in which the time-travel and subsequent effects were always "meant to happen". You will note that Spock Prime initially ceased to exist because he was not available to go back and save himself initially when the historians were viewing Vulcan history.

I guess you're right about Scotty - but I'm sure he thought it'd work.

Doesn't matter...such experimentation is a violation of ethical standards one would expect of a Federation citizen or Starfleet officer.

 

[Ian Keldon]

We never knew Mr. Scott at that age. Maybe he was more cocky when he was younger. After all, sooner or later, something alive would have to go through the transporter. The Admiral's dog may have been a rash choice, but there you go.

I don't have to "know him at that age", as it's not the sort of thing that ANY citizen of the Federation would do, let alone a Starfleet officer. That sort of horrific abuse of a life form, sentient or otherwise, would be unthinkable, and if for some reason a person DID do such a thing Starfleet would have kicked his butt right out of the service

When NASA sent dogs and monkeys into space for what they were almost certain would be a one-way trip, was that showing disregard for life?

Yes it was, and it is the sort of thing that wouldn't be condoned today. Certainly the Federation, which is suppsoed to be better than we are today would never condone it.

As far as repairing the timeline goes, as has been said and said, there is nothing to repair. This is a new timeline. The prime timeline was unaffected. Spock Prime is in another universe, not an altered version of his.

1) that is a cop out, created by the writers to try to piggy back JJTrek on Trek Prime's popularity

2) EVERY temporal incident creates a "new timeline" in it's own universe, as eps like Parallels shows us.

Is that different than how Trek handled time travel and timelines before? Mostly, yes. Is it legitimate? Why not? This is science fiction, and what happened is certainly plausible.

Not given previously established continuity and the "rules" of the Trek universe.

Again, the "new reality" was just a fig leaf to try to keep a tie to Trek Prime w/o having to acknowledge or honor the rules, conventions and continuity of that universe.

As I said earlier, JJ should have just flat rebooted the universe and never bothered invoking Trek Prime. But he did invoke it, and therefore he can't just walk away from it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

In going back 25 years, Spock Prime would essentially be killing the James Kirk born at the start of the movie, and everyone else born into a life somehow altered after Nero's incursion. In exactly the same way that Janeway killed the Miral Paris born and raised in the Delta Quadrant in "Endgame".

That is an open issue in all time travel. The standard response is that the history as known is the "way things are supposed to go", and any alternation of known history is unacceptable and must be repared.

In short, Miral Paris was never "meant to be", and Kirk Prime was the way Kirk was "meant to be", and Spock Prime had/has a duty to maintain and restore (if necessary) history to the pre-incursion version as best possible.

Miral was never meant to be? The ONLY reason she ceased to be was because Admiral Janeway chose to go back and alter history. The purely selfish act of a bitter old woman. At least Nero and Spock were in the past by accident - and in Spock's case, a quarter-century had passed by the time he emerged.

How exactly does Spock have the right to do that? A Starfleet regulation which Janeway heard in "Future's End" from a 29th century time cop (who caused the very disaster he saught to avoid, btw) and then adopted herself?

The TPD is a Federation/Starfleet regulation. It is binding on all Federation citizens and Starfleet officers. Neither may attempt to alter the timeline as it exists pre-incursion, and must attempt to restore said timeline against any incursions that alter it.

I think TPD was something Janeway adopted after she heard Captain Braxton say it at the end of "Future's End". Kirk, Picard, Sisko.... never mention it.

When that Spock is a result of countless similar temporal incursions himself (one of which, in "Yesteryear", he did himself!)?

"Yesteryear" was an example of a "pre-destination paradox", in which the time-travel and subsequent effects were always "meant to happen". You will note that Spock Prime initially ceased to exist because he was not available to go back and save himself initially when the historians were viewing Vulcan history.

Yet Spock wishes Thelin peace and long life in his timeline before stepping through the guardian. A statement supporting multiple concurrent timelines, far more complex than a simple time loop. If it were a simple loop, there would have been no discernable change in the timeline at all. We saw two versions of history, and heard of Spock's original history, where I-Chiya lived.

I guess you're right about Scotty - but I'm sure he thought it'd work.

Doesn't matter...such experimentation is a violation of ethical standards one would expect of a Federation citizen or Starfleet officer.

The circumstances are never explained. He may have successfully tested it on a hundred grapefruits. And, he may even have had Archer's permission for the test before being shipped off after it's failure. As I pointed out earlier, Scotty Prime did similar - but, with all the details it seems less like a "violation of ethical standards"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Scotty in TOS nearly enabled the conquest of the galaxy by the Kelvans by getting so dead-ass drunk on duty that he couldn't make it as far as the door of his quarters.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Starfleet officers have a duty to attempt to repair altered timelines when they encounter them. That is both implied and stated by the Temporal Prime Directive.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Temporal_Prime_Directive

Spock Prime isn't a Starfleet officer anymore. He's no more obligated to follow Starfleet rules than I am to follow the rules, regulations, and procedures of the US Navy (I'm not in the Navy).

 

[Ian Keldon]

Miral was never meant to be? The ONLY reason she ceased to be was because Admiral Janeway chose to go back and alter history. The purely selfish act of a bitter old woman. At least Nero and Spock were in the past by accident - and in Spock's case, a quarter-century had passed by the time he emerged.

You are correct. It's been awhile and I had to look up Endgame and review the circumstances.

Yes, in Endgame, both Janeways are deliberately in violation of the TPD, and should be held accountable.

I think TPD was something Janeway adopted after she heard Captain Braxton say it at the end of "Future's End". Kirk, Picard, Sisko.... never mention it.

Go back to the MA link. The concepts behind it are there all the way back to TOS (COTEOF, Tomorrow is Yesterday, et al).

Bashir mentions temporal policies, as does Sisko in "Past Tense".

Oh, and I'm sure I don't have to remind you that there is such as thing as retroactivity in canon.

Yet Spock wishes Thelin peace and long life in his timeline before stepping through the guardian. A statement supporting multiple concurrent timelines, far more complex than a simple time loop.

That still doesn't mean he's not going to act to change said timeline back to the proper course.

If it were a simple loop, there would have been no discernable change in the timeline at all. We saw two versions of history, and heard of Spock's original history, where I-Chiya lived.

None of which means that Spock Prime did not have the duty to restore the timeline. He doesn't get to just say "alternate universe" and forget about it. That would be inconsistent with canon all the way back to "City..."

Scotty in TOS nearly enabled the conquest of the galaxy by the Kelvans by getting so dead-ass drunk on duty that he couldn't make it as far as the door of his quarters.

Only after he did his part in getting his target out of commission.

Starfleet officers have a duty to attempt to repair altered timelines when they encounter them. That is both implied and stated by the Temporal Prime Directive.

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Temporal_Prime_Directive

Spock Prime isn't a Starfleet officer anymore. He's no more obligated to follow Starfleet rules than I am to follow the rules, regulations, and procedures of the US Navy (I'm not in the Navy).

Wrong on two fronts:

1) as a former officer, he is still bound to follow certain regulations (such as uniform regs when he wears his uniform, respecting senior officers, etc)

2) he still has to obey the law of the land. In the Federation, the TPD applies to civilians as well as Starfleet officers, just like the original PD does.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

"In the 24th century, the status of the Prime Directive concerning Federation citizens is in flux. Under the rules as defined in the Directive, a Starfleet crew is forbidden from removing citizens who have interfered with the culture of a world."

This is a tired old chestnut. Spock doesn't have to do anything. He doesn't want to do anything. He won't do anything except help this version of the Vulcan race rebuild.

 

[Franklin]

"In the 24th century, the status of the Prime Directive concerning Federation citizens is in flux. Under the rules as defined in the Directive, a Starfleet crew is forbidden from removing citizens who have interfered with the culture of a world."

This is a tired old chestnut. Spock doesn't have to do anything. He doesn't want to do anything. He won't do anything except help this version of the Vulcan race rebuild.

We're waaaaay off topic, here, and maybe I've got my head around this wrong, but something new was created, something existing was not altered or destroyed when the Narada attacked the Kelvin. Everything in the TOS timeline still happened. Picard's 24th century is intact in that timeline. So, what's to correct?
It's just the future won't unfold the same way in this timeline. If Spock went back to prevent the Narada from appearing, he would be actually changing what is really the the natural course of events in this universe. Right?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Fuck the "temporal prime directive" - it was nothing but a plot device, and a good example of the kind of nonsensical, tiresome ballast that Star Trek needs to discard if it's going to be worth watching.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Even if there was a single timestream in Trek, and it was overwritten by STXI, Spock really really doesn't have the right to erase 25 years of everyone's lives, or the future of that timeline. As Picard said in "Yesterday's Enterprise", "Who is to say that this history is any less proper than the other?"

If it were a couple of days, fine. But a quarter-century?

 

[Set Harth]

He's no more obligated to follow Starfleet rules than I am to follow the rules, regulations, and procedures of the US Navy (I'm not in the Navy).

So, no swabbing the poop-deck?

 

[Devon]

None of which means that Spock Prime did not have the duty to restore the timeline. He doesn't get to just say "alternate universe" and forget about it. That would be inconsistent with canon all the way back to "City..."

Why does it need to be restored when it's running parallel to the timeline he came from? And why would it be inconsistent? In the episode "Parallels" we clearly saw that Captain Riker or Picard weren't working to "restore" any of the hundreds or thousands of timelines in which one involved the quadrant being taken over by the borg, etc. Parallel Riker and Prime Picard's make concern was getting the correct Worfs to their proper timelines, not correcting any timelines themselves.

 

[Franklin]

None of which means that Spock Prime did not have the duty to restore the timeline. He doesn't get to just say "alternate universe" and forget about it. That would be inconsistent with canon all the way back to "City..."

Why does it need to be restored when it's running parallel to the timeline he came from? And why would it be inconsistent? In the episode "Parallels" we clearly saw that Captain Riker or Picard weren't working to "restore" any of the hundreds or thousands of timelines in which one involved the quadrant being taken over by the borg, etc. Parallel Riker and Prime Picard's make concern was getting the correct Worfs to their proper timelines, not correcting any timelines themselves.

Exactly. To that end, if Spock Prime had wanted to attempt to return to his timeline and century, that would be his choice (it would be like "correcting" the Worfs).
But, he has no business messing with the timeline itself. It's not a perversion of the other. It didn't end the other or change it in any way. It's as real and legitimate as the other is.
Frankly, from a creative stand point, I found it a clever solution to rebooting the franchise without doing away with all that came before. And what happened might be closer to what's theoretically credible in real science than what happened in "City" or "Yesterday's Enterprise". A lot of physicists believe that one can't go back in time and change history (their best case in point is the common sense observation that if it's possible, no one from the future has seemed to have done it, yet).

 

[Psion]

So which of you haters wants to step forward and own up to the above examples? Dukhat's got a point that the only people who complain about this stuff are on this board, so it's gotta be one of you.

Thanks for those links, Psion. Maybe I should revise my statement to read: "I'd bet only people who complain about lens flares in Star Trek '09 are people who frequent this board, and other Star Trek-related websites where the opinions of those internet geeks really don't mean shit in the bigger picture." Is that better?

No, not really, because those sites I listed weren't Trek-related. One was a general sci-fi/technology site, the second was a general satire and sarcastic social commentary site, next was a movie buff site, the fourth was a photographer's site, and the last was a news aggregator. And remember, the fellow who made the movie was one of the people quoted.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

And the folks who manage the Uncyclopedia obviously hang out here, too ... because they're using Trek 2009 as an example of bad lens flares. "Note how the individual flares distract from each other." And did you read the bit about washing out Quinto's performance with lens flares? Sheez! I wonder which of us posted that!

I liked this other figure from the Uncyclopedia entry (used to illustrate the section on the origin of the concept of lens flare use in photography.)

 

[Psion]

...

And the folks who manage the Uncyclopedia obviously hang out here, too ... because they're using Trek 2009 as an example of bad lens flares. "Note how the individual flares distract from each other." And did you read the bit about washing out Quinto's performance with lens flares? Sheez! I wonder which of us posted that!

I liked this other figure from the Uncyclopedia entry (used to illustrate the section on the origin of the concept of lens flare use in photography.)

It's The Onion of wiki encyclopedias!

 

[Dukhat]

So which of you haters wants to step forward and own up to the above examples? Dukhat's got a point that the only people who complain about this stuff are on this board, so it's gotta be one of you.

Thanks for those links, Psion. Maybe I should revise my statement to read: "I'd bet only people who complain about lens flares in Star Trek '09 are people who frequent this board, and other Star Trek-related websites where the opinions of those internet geeks really don't mean shit in the bigger picture." Is that better?

No, not really, because those sites I listed weren't Trek-related. One was a general sci-fi/technology site, the second was a general satire and sarcastic social commentary site, next was a movie buff site, the fourth was a photographer's site, and the last was a news aggregator. And remember, the fellow who made the movie was one of the people quoted.

I was actually trying to be funny and not serious. Obviously you don't appreciate my sense of humor.

 

[Sindatur]

So which of you haters wants to step forward and own up to the above examples? Dukhat's got a point that the only people who complain about this stuff are on this board, so it's gotta be one of you.

Thanks for those links, Psion. Maybe I should revise my statement to read: "I'd bet only people who complain about lens flares in Star Trek '09 are people who frequent this board, and other Star Trek-related websites where the opinions of those internet geeks really don't mean shit in the bigger picture." Is that better?

No, not really, because those sites I listed weren't Trek-related. One was a general sci-fi/technology site, the second was a general satire and sarcastic social commentary site, next was a movie buff site, the fourth was a photographer's site, and the last was a news aggregator. And remember, the fellow who made the movie was one of the people quoted.

My personal problem with the Lens flare (And it really only bothered me on the bridge) is it made it impossible for me to focus my eyes on the bridge scenes, it was all a blur and gave me white stars in my eeyes, and I love the movie, I just wish I could see what was going on, on the bridge. It ahs absolutely nothing to do with Anti-JJTrek, or bashing or anything like that, it was simply hard on the eyes, and made it difficult to appreciate the bridge. I actually, rarely grumble about any SciFi, either I like it, or I say it didn't appeal to me, I'm not one to make "Wall of text" posts against a certain show or movie.

 

[Psion]

Thanks for those links, Psion. Maybe I should revise my statement to read: "I'd bet only people who complain about lens flares in Star Trek '09 are people who frequent this board, and other Star Trek-related websites where the opinions of those internet geeks really don't mean shit in the bigger picture." Is that better?

No, not really, because those sites I listed weren't Trek-related. One was a general sci-fi/technology site, the second was a general satire and sarcastic social commentary site, next was a movie buff site, the fourth was a photographer's site, and the last was a news aggregator. And remember, the fellow who made the movie was one of the people quoted.

I was actually trying to be funny and not serious. Obviously you don't appreciate my sense of humor.

Oh.




Well ... carry on, then.

Thanks for those links, Psion. Maybe I should revise my statement to read: "I'd bet only people who complain about lens flares in Star Trek '09 are people who frequent this board, and other Star Trek-related websites where the opinions of those internet geeks really don't mean shit in the bigger picture." Is that better?

No, not really, because those sites I listed weren't Trek-related. One was a general sci-fi/technology site, the second was a general satire and sarcastic social commentary site, next was a movie buff site, the fourth was a photographer's site, and the last was a news aggregator. And remember, the fellow who made the movie was one of the people quoted.

My personal problem with the Lens flare (And it really only bothered me on the bridge) is it made it impossible for me to focus my eyes on the bridge scenes, it was all a blur and gave me white stars in my eeyes, and I love the movie, I just wish I could see what was going on, on the bridge. It ahs absolutely nothing to do with Anti-JJTrek, or bashing or anything like that, it was simply hard on the eyes, and made it difficult to appreciate the bridge. I actually, rarely grumble about any SciFi, either I like it, or I say it didn't appeal to me, I'm not one to make "Wall of text" posts against a certain show or movie.

[Nods] I can understand that, although I actually didn't experience discomfort on that level. I only found it distracting. But the idea of a bridge built purposely to help create lens flares made the whole space look nauseatingly uncomfortable. There was one rendering or photograph that came out around the time the movie was released that showed the bridge with all the excess lighting off, and it suddenly looked sleek and cool and futuristic. And very much like the kind of place I'd like to work when I'm distracted by action-adventure daydreams.

Hopefully it'll get toned down a lot for the next movie. He's clearly looking for a certain style in his movies -- and I think that's terrific. But he still needs to work out the bugs in that style. He needs to find the right balance between artistic embellishment and way too many plastic flamingos in the front yard.

 

[7thsealord]

He needs to find the right balance between artistic embellishment and way too many plastic flamingos in the front yard.

As good a way of putting it as any, IMO.