• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

It's about parallel worlds, not ripping off (spoilers)

I kind of like the idea that no matter what universe you are in, some things are destined to happen, some things are predetermined to play out similarly. Obviously Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof find this parallel universe idea interesting too. A similar thing happened in Lost, and Fringe as well
 
I am a huge fan of Fringe, which is similar in many ways to STID, and is a show created and created by the same creative minds (Abrams, Orci, and Kurzman).

My favorite Trek is DS9, but I am very much enjoying the latest film franchise.

Following are some thoughts that contain spoilers for both Fringe and STID.

Fringe is a show about (among other things) two alternate Earths coming into contact.

The Earths are subtly different, and the show LOVES to show scenes from subtly different angles.

For example, in one episode, a father on Earth One is shown teaching a coin trick to his son, who is terminally ill.

On Earth Two, we see the same boy, still terminally ill, who is being taught the same coin trick but by his mother.

We also see that in Earth One, the twin towers were destroyed on 9/11 while on Earth Two, the twin towers were saved, but the Pentagon and White House were destroyed.

Even seemingly insignificant details are shown to be different, such as Back to the Future starring Eric Stoltz, rather than Michael J. Fox.

So for those who think a lot of the subtle differences in, for example, the Engine Room scene of STID are just tugging on nostalgia (or- more unkindly, laziness or a lack of creativity), I would strongly disagree.

The subtle differences of a parallel reality are clearly an idea that interested the creative team in 2009. To my mind, it's a great idea and one of my favorite things about this new incarnation of our favorite franchise.

I agree with you, and think they were definitely going for a hybrid tribute/Fringe-style alternate reality variation of the scene (while at the same time being very moving in it's own right). It's also a continuation of the strange (when viewed with TOS in mind) coincidences of the last movie.
 
I kind of like the idea that no matter what universe you are in, some things are destined to happen, some things are predetermined to play out similarly. Obviously Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof find this parallel universe idea interesting too. A similar thing happened in Lost, and Fringe as well

I think of it as waves. No matter if the waves are small or large, fast or slow- they all crash onto the same beach. In the first movie, when Kirk and Spock finally gave each other a chance, they realized how much they respected each other. Kirk was destined to be the Captain and Spock is first officer. It just works out better that way because Kirk is more flexible than Spock and can take advice that he thinks is better than his own. So I liked it, too.
 
The whole point of an alternate timeline as the basis for storytelling is to see the differences in the timelines. To ignore one of them defeats that purpose. The nuTimeline must be seen in comparison to the Prime one, so there must be some overlap. Here, we have overlap of characters and general story (Kirk et al, Star Fleet, etc)--but the changed details are parts of the point of the story having alternate timelines!

I don't mind Khan being in this film, and using many of the same alien species as before, because the timeline only changed 25 (well, now what? 27?) years ago. Most of human history is the same.

It seems foolish to throw out all that is known about the ST universe just for the last 27 years. We've already had big changes due to Nero's incursion: millions have died (the Kelvin, nearly everyone on Vulcan, and some on Earth); Star Fleet, and likely others in the Alpha Quadrant, and become more militaristic; technology advanced faster than before; etc.

For all we know, Vulcans could be having a cultural schism between those determined to maintain traditional Vulcan culture and those willing to accommodate changes due to being such a minority and seeing what how their lengthy debate contributed to Nero. And you have Spock Prime surely having some input, likely more "carefully steering conversations and general opinion" than outright comments. And nuSpock being a more shining example of somewhat-more-emotional-Vulcans than he was even as Spock Prime.


As for Edith Keeler, but for Kirk's presence, she WAS going to die. It was him saving her that changed history. We saw that she died crossing a street to get to him. While some may argue that it was his presence that caused her death, the fact that she died before they ever got to the Guardian shows that she was going to die but for Kirk's presence. The details might shift a bit, but she was gonna die.
 
<snippity-snip>

JJ Abrams has admitted that he found Star Trek to be too philosophical for him. Wheaton remarked,

Sigh. The whole point of Star Trek is that it’s philosophical. If you don’t want philosophical Science Fiction, there’s plenty of that for you to enjoy, but Star Trek is philosophical. Philosophy is part of Star Trek’s DNA, and if you’re given the captain’s chair, you’d better damn well respect that.
http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/50514989060/jenniferdeguzman-he-said-star-trek-is-too
And then, one day later, Wheaton went on to say:

A lot of people have pointed out to me that, if you watch the entire JJ Abrams interview with Jon Stewart, he goes on to talk about how much he came to love Star Trek as an adult, and that the viewer is left with the impression that he truly gets what Star Trek is about.

I didn’t watch the whole interview, but just saw the gifset that I reblogged. I stand by what I said: the whole point of Star Trek is that it’s about more than aliens and robots and cool space battles. Star Trek is unique in science fiction — certainly science fiction on television in the 1960s — in that it was always about something more than phasers and transporters and Captain Kirk using his fists and his wits to defeat hostile aliens before he nailed the green alien lady of the week.

When I worked on JJ’s first Trek movie, I got the impression that he genuinely loved Star Trek, and really got what it was all about. I should have watched the entire interview before I pulled out my Jump To Conclusions mat, and I regret that I didn’t. I hope anyone who was upset at me or drew the same erroneous conclusion I did understands that I care deeply about Star Trek, and sometimes my heart gets ahead of my brain where it’s concerned.
 
<snippity-snip>

JJ Abrams has admitted that he found Star Trek to be too philosophical for him. Wheaton remarked,

Sigh. The whole point of Star Trek is that it’s philosophical. If you don’t want philosophical Science Fiction, there’s plenty of that for you to enjoy, but Star Trek is philosophical. Philosophy is part of Star Trek’s DNA, and if you’re given the captain’s chair, you’d better damn well respect that.
http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/50514989060/jenniferdeguzman-he-said-star-trek-is-too
And then, one day later, Wheaton went on to say:
A lot of people have pointed out to me that, if you watch the entire JJ Abrams interview with Jon Stewart, he goes on to talk about how much he came to love Star Trek as an adult, and that the viewer is left with the impression that he truly gets what Star Trek is about.

I didn’t watch the whole interview, but just saw the gifset that I reblogged. I stand by what I said: the whole point of Star Trek is that it’s about more than aliens and robots and cool space battles. Star Trek is unique in science fiction — certainly science fiction on television in the 1960s — in that it was always about something more than phasers and transporters and Captain Kirk using his fists and his wits to defeat hostile aliens before he nailed the green alien lady of the week.

When I worked on JJ’s first Trek movie, I got the impression that he genuinely loved Star Trek, and really got what it was all about. I should have watched the entire interview before I pulled out my Jump To Conclusions mat, and I regret that I didn’t. I hope anyone who was upset at me or drew the same erroneous conclusion I did understands that I care deeply about Star Trek, and sometimes my heart gets ahead of my brain where it’s concerned.

Yes, I'm sure he came to love it once he rewrote in his own vision...
 
<snippity-snip>

JJ Abrams has admitted that he found Star Trek to be too philosophical for him. Wheaton remarked,

http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/50514989060/jenniferdeguzman-he-said-star-trek-is-too
And then, one day later, Wheaton went on to say:
A lot of people have pointed out to me that, if you watch the entire JJ Abrams interview with Jon Stewart, he goes on to talk about how much he came to love Star Trek as an adult, and that the viewer is left with the impression that he truly gets what Star Trek is about.

I didn’t watch the whole interview, but just saw the gifset that I reblogged. I stand by what I said: the whole point of Star Trek is that it’s about more than aliens and robots and cool space battles. Star Trek is unique in science fiction — certainly science fiction on television in the 1960s — in that it was always about something more than phasers and transporters and Captain Kirk using his fists and his wits to defeat hostile aliens before he nailed the green alien lady of the week.

When I worked on JJ’s first Trek movie, I got the impression that he genuinely loved Star Trek, and really got what it was all about. I should have watched the entire interview before I pulled out my Jump To Conclusions mat, and I regret that I didn’t. I hope anyone who was upset at me or drew the same erroneous conclusion I did understands that I care deeply about Star Trek, and sometimes my heart gets ahead of my brain where it’s concerned.

Yes, I'm sure he came to love it once he rewrote in his own vision...

Who doesn't? Is there anyone out there who seriously hasn't thought "I wish there was this in it" or has come up with ideas for their own storylines (not necessarily fanfiction, just something you'd think would make a great story). And not just with Star Trek, but with everything? I love taking inspiration from movies, books and shows to create my own stories- they spark imagination. Why do kids go out and pretend to be heroes? Did they rigidly stick to the script? No, they make it what they want it to be- and the best writers out there do the same with their own stories. No one grows up wanting to be something without inspiration from another source.
 
I kind of like the idea that no matter what universe you are in, some things are destined to happen, some things are predetermined to play out similarly. Obviously Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof find this parallel universe idea interesting too. A similar thing happened in Lost, and Fringe as well

I think of it as waves. No matter if the waves are small or large, fast or slow- they all crash onto the same beach. In the first movie, when Kirk and Spock finally gave each other a chance, they realized how much they respected each other. Kirk was destined to be the Captain and Spock is first officer. It just works out better that way because Kirk is more flexible than Spock and can take advice that he thinks is better than his own. So I liked it, too.


This. I don't get why people think the engine room scene was meaningless. It had a huge sense of purpose to me. It wasn't just a rehash for nostalgia, it had a huge role in character development. I also don't understand how people didn't realize the similarities between Kirk's standoff with the Vengeance and Kirk's dad's standoff with the Narada. Kirk was willing to sacrifice his life to save his crew and with that he finally lived up to pikes dare and finally earned the title of captain.That was the meaning of the sound byte from Pike as kirk woke up. Also, kirk and spock finally realized their friendship's potential and how much they had to learn from each other.

This all came from Kirk sacrificing his life. It was an essential part of the plot of the movie. Now, the whole reenactment scene with Spock yelling "KHANN!"? I think that role reversal was built in to show the differences between parallel realities even in huge events that cannot be avoided, as what sj4iy said.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top