Heresy??? [SPOILERS]

[elric428]

Entertainment weekly contained the following quote...

Spoiler: spoilers

"The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ''Heresy!'' But revisionism anxiety is the point. ''The movie,'' Lindelof says, ''is about the act of changing what you know.''

How many of you would consider it to be

Spoiler: spoiler

"Heresy"

if canon is changed permanently, but with a logical explanation (eg. time travel). I for one would find it perfectly acceptable since it would not negate what came before. What do the rest of you think?

 

[JoeZhang]

Re: Heresy???

As long as it was a good story and was internally consistent, I wouldn't give a damn.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Heresy???

It wouldn't bother me a bit.

That said, based on what we've heard and on Lindelof's remark I expect that the point of this

Spoiler: spoilers

"wrenching opening sequence" with its "heretical mythic climax"

is that it's the thing which must be restored to its original form so that "Star Trek" can be intact at the end of the movie - rather than a divergence that will be carried forward from now on.

 

[davejames]

Re: Heresy???

I'm perfectly fine with starting the TOS years fresh, and not being beholden to all the continuity of the past 40 years. I loved all that stuff at the time, but I don't think I could stand to explore any more of it.

And who knows, maybe the second time around Kirk will actually get a GOOD death scene.

 

[Rat Boy]

Re: Heresy???

How is blowing up the Kelvin heretical? Wait, unless...

Spoiler: Wild Speculation

George Samuel Kirk, Sr. isn't really James T. Kirk's father.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Heresy???

BURN THEM!!!!!

 

[elric428]

Re: Heresy???

I have a theory that the divergence will continue at the end of the story except that it won't be quite as wrenching as the first divergence we see. By doing that it would explain Treks new modernized look etc. which I think would be much more acceptable to the fans.

 

[RAMA]

Re: Heresy???

Entertainment weekly contained the following quote...

Spoiler: spoilers

"The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ''Heresy!'' But revisionism anxiety is the point. ''The movie,'' Lindelof says, ''is about the act of changing what you know.''

How many of you would consider it to be

Spoiler: spoilers

"Heresy"

if canon is changed permanently, but with a logical explanation (eg. time travel). I for one would find it perfectly acceptable since it would not negate what came before. What do the rest of you think?

I would like words like

Spoiler: spoilers

"heresy"

and the like to be stricken from the trekker vocabulary.

 

[shapeshifter]

Re: Heresy???

No matter what happens the timeline as we know will always come before these changes. It cannot erase the past, it can only lay in a course for a new future.

 

[cultcross]

Re: Heresy???

I took the use of the word 'passage' to suggest that we're gonna here a version of the Space... speech which is somehow radically altered at the end.

Too literal?

 

[Aragorn]

Re: Heresy???

When the scene ends, a song begins: "It's been a long road, getting from there to here..."

 

[msbae]

Re: Heresy???

I learned a long tome ago to never trust a thing the news media says, especially entertainment rags like EW. After all, this is the same media that told us the finale of The Sopranos was going to be epic... instead, we got a 'fade-to-black' and an epic FAIL.

Besides, Lindelof may have been giving out misinformation to throw us off.
It's a conspiracy, I say!!! TRUST NO ONE!!!

 

[cultcross]

Re: Heresy???

When the scene ends, a song begins: "It's been a long road, getting from there to here..."

I'd walk out. And for once, I'm not even kidding.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Re: Heresy???

I learned a long tome ago to never trust a thing the news media says, especially entertainment rags like EW. After all, this is the same media that told us the finale of The Sopranos was going to be epic... instead, we got a 'fade-to-black' and an epic FAIL.

Besides, Lindelof may have been giving out misinformation to throw us off.
It's a conspiracy, I say!!! TRUST NO ONE!!!

 

[Nardpuncher]

Re: Heresy???

No matter what happens the timeline as we know will always come before these changes. It cannot erase the past, it can only lay in a course for a new future.

Your signature is great. I agree. I have a few of the common problems with the look of the bridge (if that's even the final one, and the one we'll se in the sequel to this one) but I say "It's just a TV show...go nuts,have fun, and tell a good story!"

 

[Kelso]

Re: Heresy???

emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax

This is obviously referring to K/S slash.

 

[Qonos]

Re: Heresy???

No matter what happens the timeline as we know will always come before these changes. It cannot erase the past, it can only lay in a course for a new future.

Especially in a fiction where we know they found "alternate realites" (Eg Mirror Universe)

 

[trevanian]

Re: Heresy???

Entertainment weekly contained the following quote...

Spoiler: spoilers

"The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ''Heresy!'' But revisionism anxiety is the point. ''The movie,'' Lindelof says, ''is about the act of changing what you know.''

How many of you would consider it to be

Spoiler: spoilers

"Heresy"

if canon is changed permanently, but with a logical explanation (eg. time travel). I for one would find it perfectly acceptable since it would not negate what came before. What do the rest of you think?

I would like words like "heresy" and the like to be stricken from the trekker vocabulary.

Perhaps you can go back in time and disinvent it, so you won't have to make this post in the new timeline.

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: Heresy???

Entertainment weekly contained the following quote...

Spoiler: spoilers

"The opening sequence, for example, is an emotionally wrenching passage that culminates with a mythic climax sure to leave zealots howling ''Heresy!'' But revisionism anxiety is the point. ''The movie,'' Lindelof says, ''is about the act of changing what you know.''

How many of you would consider it to be

Spoiler: spoiler

"Heresy"

if canon is changed permanently, but with a logical explanation (eg. time travel). I for one would find it perfectly acceptable since it would not negate what came before. What do the rest of you think?

I think you failed to note that -- at the beginning of the passage from which you quoted -- there is a note which reads, in bold text:

(SPOILER ALERT! If you want to know nothing, avoid the next paragraph; go back to the top of the page and click Next.)

Which means that it contains material which people may not want to know before watching the movie.

If you are going to post material which might in any way constitute spoilers, and especially material already labeled as such, it is strongly urged that you indicate such by

A) placing a note to that effect in the thread title (if you are the originator)
B) using the spoiler tags which are a feature of the board software, by:

1) using the

button, or by
2) using manually written tags thus:
[ spoiler] >spoiler material here< [ /spoiler]​

I have already gone through and added tags on this same passage in another thread, and I have now done so again here.

Please be more cautious in the future.

 

[God Magnus]

Whatever the situation is...it should involve Tribbles.