Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the same...

[Ovation]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

Personally, I just don't buy that this is the exact same universe. I do believe that it was an alternate universe from the very beginning, but at an earlier point in time. It's a similar enough universe where Spock Prime can recognize younger versions of his former shipmates, though...

It boggles my mind that people still dispute this point. The filmmakers have explicitly stated, on more than one occasion, that up to the Narada's arrival in 2233, it IS "the exact same universe".

And this changes my opinion...how? I could care less about what the filmmakers have explicitly stated if I don't agree with them.

If I wrote a story about Joe and Frank accidentally traveling back to 1963 and, somehow, prevented the assassination of JFK, it got made into a movie (with scenes that clearly show the pre-assassination timeline still exists because Joe and Frank traveled separately) where events proceed from 1963 in a different fashion because Kennedy lived to run for re-election AND, when directly questioned about it, I explicitly state that in MY story, the mechanism of time travel is DELIBERATELY DESIGNED to have someone arrive, do something to alter the pivotal moment (the details are unimportant), thus creating an alternate timeline--you would still say "I don't buy it"? Really?

Yes, really. If you do a poor job of convincing me, then I won't buy your story either.

No one is obligated to agree with what the author of any work says if they feel differently about it.

No one is obligated to agree with reality either. It does not make them any less wrong.

One can argue the authors did not do a good job of clearly illustrating their intent--one cannot correctly argue that they did not intend to do what they say they intended without some evidence they were lying.

In situations where authors do not spell out their intentions (which are numerous), then certainly there is room for debate about those intentions. But simply refusing to take their word with no evidence to the contrary is asinine.

 

[Silent_Bob]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

But even if it is the same universe I still thinkg they could be different people. There is NO explicit proof that they are the same Scotty, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov and Pike. NONE.

Yes, there is. Old Spock recognizing both Kirk and Scotty.

Which is why I didn't include KIRK on that list. As for Scotty, I'm not sure he recognized him. He said "fascinating, you are Monty Scotty..." but it could have been meant as a question and Nimoy delivered the line wrong due to his dentures. Maybe the movie Scotty just let Spock think it was the same Scotty. Original Scotty NEVER mentioned being sent to an ice planet for killing Porthos and that seems quite out of character for him to do so anyway.

The biggest thing in favour of your argument is the fact that nuScotty is an absolute tit, real Scotty was not.

For the record, the first thing Old Spock says when meeting titScotty is
"Fascinating" followed by "You are Montgomery Scott", "You are in fact the Mr. Scott who postulated the theory of transwarp beaming". So no question. Which is a shame.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

It boggles my mind that people still dispute this point. The filmmakers have explicitly stated, on more than one occasion, that up to the Narada's arrival in 2233, it IS "the exact same universe".

And this changes my opinion...how? I could care less about what the filmmakers have explicitly stated if I don't agree with them.

If I wrote a story about Joe and Frank accidentally traveling back to 1963 and, somehow, prevented the assassination of JFK, it got made into a movie (with scenes that clearly show the pre-assassination timeline still exists because Joe and Frank traveled separately) where events proceed from 1963 in a different fashion because Kennedy lived to run for re-election AND, when directly questioned about it, I explicitly state that in MY story, the mechanism of time travel is DELIBERATELY DESIGNED to have someone arrive, do something to alter the pivotal moment (the details are unimportant), thus creating an alternate timeline--you would still say "I don't buy it"? Really?

Yes, really. If you do a poor job of convincing me, then I won't buy your story either.

No one is obligated to agree with what the author of any work says if they feel differently about it.

No one is obligated to agree with reality either. It does not make them any less wrong.

One can argue the authors did not do a good job of clearly illustrating their intent--one cannot correctly argue that they did not intend to do what they say they intended without some evidence they were lying.

In situations where authors do not spell out their intentions (which are numerous), then certainly there is room for debate about those intentions. But simply refusing to take their word with no evidence to the contrary is asinine.

No, it's called not swallowing the bullshit people feed you. People can say anything to sell their product. Saw the movie twice. Loved it. But nothing I saw has changed my mind.

 

[Ovation]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

And this changes my opinion...how? I could care less about what the filmmakers have explicitly stated if I don't agree with them.

Yes, really. If you do a poor job of convincing me, then I won't buy your story either.

No one is obligated to agree with what the author of any work says if they feel differently about it.

No one is obligated to agree with reality either. It does not make them any less wrong.

One can argue the authors did not do a good job of clearly illustrating their intent--one cannot correctly argue that they did not intend to do what they say they intended without some evidence they were lying.

In situations where authors do not spell out their intentions (which are numerous), then certainly there is room for debate about those intentions. But simply refusing to take their word with no evidence to the contrary is asinine.

No, it's called not swallowing the bullshit people feed you. People can say anything to sell their product. Saw the movie twice. Loved it. But nothing I saw has changed my mind.

Must be a pleasant world you live in where you simply assume people are lying about their intentions rather than granting them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Sci]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

Do you also think that the Saavik in ST3 and ST4 was a different person from the Saavik in ST2?

 

[Islander]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

Do you also think that the Saavik in ST3 and ST4 was a different person from the Saavik in ST2?

I can already imagine the response: "Yes, it was her sister. Saavik is their last name."

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

Do you also think that the Saavik in ST3 and ST4 was a different person from the Saavik in ST2?

I can already imagine the response: "Yes, it was her sister. Saavik is their last name."

In ST2, it was Diane Saavik.

In ST3 and 4, it was Towanda Saavik.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

No one is obligated to agree with reality either. It does not make them any less wrong.

One can argue the authors did not do a good job of clearly illustrating their intent--one cannot correctly argue that they did not intend to do what they say they intended without some evidence they were lying.

In situations where authors do not spell out their intentions (which are numerous), then certainly there is room for debate about those intentions. But simply refusing to take their word with no evidence to the contrary is asinine.

No, it's called not swallowing the bullshit people feed you. People can say anything to sell their product. Saw the movie twice. Loved it. But nothing I saw has changed my mind.

Must be a pleasant world you live in where you simply assume people are lying about their intentions rather than granting them the benefit of the doubt.

You can believe whatever you want.


I've seen every Trek film, and this one I've enjoyed the most--but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with every aspect of it.

 

[Cyke101]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

No, it's called not swallowing the bullshit people feed you. People can say anything to sell their product. Saw the movie twice. Loved it. But nothing I saw has changed my mind.

Must be a pleasant world you live in where you simply assume people are lying about their intentions rather than granting them the benefit of the doubt.

You can believe whatever you want.


I've seen every Trek film, and this one I've enjoyed the most--but that doesn't mean that I have to agree with every aspect of it.

So I AM free to believe the Diane/Towanda Saavik theory! Woo hoo!

 

[archeryguy1701]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

Did you really get Thames to stop the van long enough for you to post these two latest threads of yours?!? He should have kept driving...

Yes, what are the odds that there are multiple Hikaru Sulu's who fence and fly starships? What are the chances that there are multiple Montgomery Scott's who are both Scotsmen, work in engineering, and came up with the concept of transwarp beaming? What are the chances of there being multiple Pikes who.... well, I would like to hope you get my point. The odds of there being people so similar that they share the same name, occupation, and hobbies is slim. The odds of one replacing the other by chance are even more slim.

They are the same characters, and there really is no reasonable way that you can explain that away.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

No one is obligated to agree with reality either. It does not make them any less wrong.

One can argue the authors did not do a good job of clearly illustrating their intent--one cannot correctly argue that they did not intend to do what they say they intended without some evidence they were lying.

In situations where authors do not spell out their intentions (which are numerous), then certainly there is room for debate about those intentions. But simply refusing to take their word with no evidence to the contrary is asinine.

No, it's called not swallowing the bullshit people feed you. People can say anything to sell their product. Saw the movie twice. Loved it. But nothing I saw has changed my mind.

Must be a pleasant world you live in where you simply assume people are lying about their intentions rather than granting them the benefit of the doubt.

WHat's that line from Mel Brooks the Producers? "I'm the writer! I OUTRANK YOU!"

Seriously, Why would the writers need to feed anyone "bullshit" on this particular matter?

 

[C.E. Evans]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

So I AM free to believe the Diane/Towanda Saavik theory! Woo hoo!

If it makes ya happy, go for it.

Umm...Diana/Towanawho?


On second thought, never mind. I might be happier not knowing...

 

[Cyke101]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

So I AM free to believe the Diane/Towanda Saavik theory! Woo hoo!

If it makes ya happy, go for it.

Umm...Diana/Towanawho?


On second thought, never mind. I might be happier not knowing...

Oh, it was commentary on two conversations within the same thread. Yours with Ovation and this one:

Do you also think that the Saavik in ST3 and ST4 was a different person from the Saavik in ST2?

I can already imagine the response: "Yes, it was her sister. Saavik is their last name."

In ST2, it was Diane Saavik.

In ST3 and 4, it was Towanda Saavik.

The writers asked me to swallow that Saavik was one and the same in all three movies. I'll go with Kirkus' theory that they were just sisters is all

 

[Catalyst]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

Can we not just accept that this is a different universe altogether than the one we've been watching over the last 40 years?

See, this is why I always felt a straight-up, no excuses needed reboot would have been the better way to go rather than trying to appease the hardcore fans with a time travel story that tries (and ultimately fails) to explain why things are different here.

Now, I liked the movie, but it would have been better had they just done a reboot, called it an alternate universe, and went about their business. The hardcores would have their explanation and the casual viewers wouldn't care to begin with. But oh well.

Personally, I choose to believe that when Spock Prime travelled through the black hole, he went to another 'verse where things were slightly different than the prime 'verse, and was changed even more by the incursions of Nero, taking it even farther out of line with the prime 'verse.

The result being that some of the characters had different backgrounds, were younger/older, and various other things such as the Romulan/Vulcan connection being known, and the different look of the technology. Most of these things would have happened regardless of Nero (it's just the difference between the two universes) but Kirk's changes were obviously a direct result of the death of his father on the Kelvin.

 

[Amaris]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

We've got a discussion like this going in The Neutral Zone. It's very interesting and there are many, many cogent and salient points. It is truly, truly fascinating if you're willing to take a look. Why, you may ask, am I mentioning this? Well, because TNZ is a place for rational, thoughtful individuals to discuss the finer points of Star Trek canon. Even the name indicates it's balanced discussion.

J.

 

[Gepard]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

We've got a discussion like this going in The Neutral Zone. It's very interesting and there are many, many cogent and salient points. It is truly, truly fascinating if you're willing to take a look. Why, you may ask, am I mentioning this? Well, because TNZ is a place for rational, thoughtful individuals to discuss the finer points of Star Trek canon. Even the name indicates it's balanced discussion.

J.

I was wondering when the trail of Smarties would show up.

 

[Silent_Bob]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

Can we not just accept that this is a different universe altogether than the one we've been watching over the last 40 years?

See, this is why I always felt a straight-up, no excuses needed reboot would have been the better way to go rather than trying to appease the hardcore fans with a time travel story that tries (and ultimately fails) to explain why things are different here.

Now, I liked the movie, but it would have been better had they just done a reboot, called it an alternate universe, and went about their business. The hardcores would have their explanation and the casual viewers wouldn't care to begin with. But oh well.

Personally, I choose to believe that when Spock Prime travelled through the black hole, he went to another 'verse where things were slightly different than the prime 'verse, and was changed even more by the incursions of Nero, taking it even farther out of line with the prime 'verse.

The result being that some of the characters had different backgrounds, were younger/older, and various other things such as the Romulan/Vulcan connection being known, and the different look of the technology. Most of these things would have happened regardless of Nero (it's just the difference between the two universes) but Kirk's changes were obviously a direct result of the death of his father on the Kelvin.

I agree with you. The film would have been better served if they had just admitted it was a reboot- no need to waste time explaining the theory of alternate timelines. They could have used the time they have wasted reassuring fans writing a more coherent script.

Plus the whole alternate timeline thing smacks of what you tell your kids when their favourite pet has died- they havent died, they have just gone to an alternate timeline, that you can never visit and they can never come back from, so dont feel bad.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

TO WHIT...

Sorry, that's where I tuned out. If you're going to use fancypants phrases like to wit, learn what they mean and how to spell 'em first.

 

[Squiggy]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

TO WHIT...

Sorry, that's where I tuned out. If you're going to use fancypants phrases like to wit, learn what they mean and how to spell 'em first.

I think you're going to be horrible disappointed in the grammar department.

 

[Pindar]

Re: Just because they have the same names doesn't mean they're the sam

I don't think people are getting what I'm saying, I'm not talking about the characters changing because of the events of the movie, I'm saying they might not even BE the same Uhura, Scotty and Sulu who went onto serve on the Enteprirse. It's possible that more than one person on Earth could be named Niorah Uhura, Monty Scott and Hikaru Sulu and that it's these SECOND people who ended up on the Enterprise!!

I reach brother, don't let the Herbert's put you down.

Just one thing though I thought his name was Haiku not Hikaru.