Chris Pine Speaks *Interesting Plot Spoiler?*
- Thread starter Devon
- Start date
Maybe they use that Future Guy shower stall-looking thing from Enterprise.
Kegek said:
It appears that everyone agrees that Chris Pine said something pretty revealing in that interview, but nobody can agree on what it is.
He should enter the Presidential primaries.
"Well, according to Jane Wyatt, it was "Harold Spock....""
Nope. It's Old Bold Stone Cold Spock.
:gratious Black Hole reference:
Nope. It's Old Bold Stone Cold Spock.
:gratious Black Hole reference:
What of the possibility that Pine sees Old Spock in the 24th Century? ie, the Enterprise travels forward in time.
Now I don't want a return of William Shatner as Captain Kirk, (Fleet Admiral maybe as a stretch, a dignitary with no action scenes) but there is a remote possibility that Spock could impart some advice on Young Kirk regarding the Nexus, and then it opens the possibility of a cameo in the future. Id rather it not happen though, and he be remembered as dieing saving the Enterprise B on her maiden voyage.
Peeps,
Well, the link is no longer working, so I'm left to speculate, based on the answers I've read.
I want to offer this thought for those of you rolling your eyes about yet another ST movie involving time travel. Two of the most successful ST movies used time travel as an integral part of the plot: TVH and FC. Given that track record, it makes sense the new folks would use it as an important function of the plot. So I myself have no problem with it.
And don't forget that in TOS, there were four eps involving time travel, three of them to Earth's past, and one to another planet's past: "Tomorrow is Yesterday," "City on the Edge of Forever," "Assignment Earth," and "All Our Yesterdays."
I'm certain that "old Spock," or whatever name he goes by, if he meets young Kirk as indicated by Pine's comments, won't be having long conversations with young Kirk about avoiding Veridian III or some such other stuff -- after all, he'd be committed to not polluting the timeline.
Red Ranger
Well, the link is no longer working, so I'm left to speculate, based on the answers I've read.
I want to offer this thought for those of you rolling your eyes about yet another ST movie involving time travel. Two of the most successful ST movies used time travel as an integral part of the plot: TVH and FC. Given that track record, it makes sense the new folks would use it as an important function of the plot. So I myself have no problem with it.
And don't forget that in TOS, there were four eps involving time travel, three of them to Earth's past, and one to another planet's past: "Tomorrow is Yesterday," "City on the Edge of Forever," "Assignment Earth," and "All Our Yesterdays."
I'm certain that "old Spock," or whatever name he goes by, if he meets young Kirk as indicated by Pine's comments, won't be having long conversations with young Kirk about avoiding Veridian III or some such other stuff -- after all, he'd be committed to not polluting the timeline.
Red Ranger
My problem is that it would be the forth Star Trek film to rely on time travel, and the second done specifically to 'link' casts together. Don't you think that they could come up with something else?
Bringing this up, it's obvious that you're not sold on the premise. Even then, we're talking four out of seventy-nine stories, none of which done to 'link crews' (since there weren't any), and all of which being done to discuss the DANGERS of time travel.
Well in at least one of them StarFleet sent Enterprise back in time to "study the past", and ah I myself never got the vibe GR and co were trying in any way to warn the viewers about messing with the timeline... so to say it was talking about the dangers of it is reading more there then there is. I think their grander concern was when having time travel was to *introduce drama* into the mix nothing more or less.
If the story is compelling and the plot device used to archive it is interesting or at least not jarring the general viewer (the one's that count) will move on and enjoy themselves. Maybe a few will after the film stumble here later and be shocked how bent out of shape time travel makes some of us.
Sharr
Could anyone please define this? Proponents of time travel always use the "done properly" argument, but often never give any clarity on how it could be "done properly". Anyone can see how Trek has done it improperly. In fact, it seems like it isn't textbook Trek time travel if it's not done improperly.
So can anyone give me an exmaple of how time travel can be done properly in Trek XI?
Similar threads
- Poll
