Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!
Ah yes but those Enterprise displays were never exactly complete to begin with. Sailing ships weren't included on TMP Rec Deck. The early ring-ship design wasn't to be found in the TNG's conference lounge or in Captain Archer's ready room. Although it could be seen hanging in the 602 Club, a drinking hole for Starfleet test pilots.
I suppose from 2009, blindingly obvious crossover inconsistencies will be put down to Nero. In much the same way Doctor Who jokingly attributes such things to the Time War.
Nero travels so far back in time that he totally derails history, old Spock has to go back and fix things, although for some odd reason, he has to nudge it back on track at various points in the past, rather than one big hefty shove, hence the apparent scattershot glimpses of Kirk's past. My guess is that everything that happens in the movie will be completely different from history as we 'know' it, until the final reel when the two time lines converge.
The two timelines will not converge: Nero and Spock's intervention in the past will have created a divergeant continuity from the one we know, which justifies the varied inconsistencies that we've already spotted. I can see the final scene playing itself out as a kind of 'hopeful' uncertainty, like:
Kirk: What happens now?
Old-Spock: I do not know. Events have already changed from the way history has recorded them, and will continue to diverge from here. The future will be... whatever you make of it.
So it's a reboot, but a backdoor reboot; a new continuity, but attached to the old one via the 24th century elements of Spock and Nero, and internally consistent with the mechanics of time travel in Star Trek, namelly that other versions of events exist in other realities. As for the book line, I too hope for a clear distinction between the original timeline and this new one ("Timeline Beta"?), prefererably indicated by what version of the characters and ship appear on the cover. No mixing and matching!
I have to say if the timeline is permanently changed by this movie to explain the differences I hope the novel series such as DS9 Relaunch, TNG Relaunch, ENT Relaunch, Titan, Vanguard, etc continue on without being drastically changed.
There's really only so far you CAN rationalize before you go, "WTF?!" Even in Trek. I'm trying to figure out how anyone can rationalize a starship captain (Pike), making a cadet (Kirk) into the first officer of their newest ship.
...I'm pretty sure that, if the movie has stuff like that, there's not gonna be any rationalization that can actually make it all make sense. I mean, no matter how you hash out timelines, time-travel, etc, basic common sense should still be a given.
And if anyone decides to make an Obama comparison, I'm gonna hit you with the fail-bat.
I'd say going from from the academy to being a captain in 9 years would be tough to rationalize except for some major war.
Ofttimes in the real military, one can go a long period of time before one reaches the higher ranks. One of my friends went from 2LT to LTC in 20 years, and he was actually on a fast track, always making the equivalency of below the zone promotions, and in comparison to Kirk's supposed rise of going one rank higher in 11 less years.
I'd say going from from the academy to being a captain in 9 years would be tough to rationalize except for some major war.
Ofttimes in the real military, one can go a long period of time before one reaches the higher ranks. One of my friends went from 2LT to LTC in 20 years, and he was actually on a fast track, always making the equivalency of below the zone promotions, and in comparison to Kirk's supposed rise of going one rank higher in 11 less years.
I can buy the wartime argument; there was supposedly one war in there, at least from semi-official sources. I can't buy a cadet being promoted to first officer. My brain HURTS.
As for the Obama comparison... he's 47. ;-) He's done a lot more than just graduate school. Kirk in this movie, on the other hand, has apparently driven cars off of cliffs.
I don't think I'd want him in charge of a starship.
There's really only so far you CAN rationalize before you go, "WTF?!" Even in Trek. I'm trying to figure out how anyone can rationalize a starship captain (Pike), making a cadet (Kirk) into the first officer of their newest ship.
First off, that's not exactly what's depicted in the scenes we're aware of.
Kirk isn't a cadet in the scenes in question, he's apparently a new graduate. And maybe there's a reason why only junior officers are available for command posts; the rest of the command crew other than Pike could've been killed.
Besides, we only have fragments of the story so far, and may be misinterpreting some of the scenes we've read about since they're out of context. It's too early to jump to any conclusions.
I mean, no matter how you hash out timelines, time-travel, etc, basic common sense should still be a given.
First off, that's not exactly what's depicted in the scenes we're aware of.
Kirk isn't a cadet in the scenes in question, he's apparently a new graduate. And maybe there's a reason why only junior officers are available for command posts; the rest of the command crew other than Pike could've been killed.
Yes, because the difference between the day before graduation and the day after graduation is a whole lot of experience in a command situation (especially one involving death and destruction), years of working through the ranks and...
Oh. Wait.
Besides, we only have fragments of the story so far, and may be misinterpreting some of the scenes we've read about since they're out of context. It's too early to jump to any conclusions.
It's kinda like a book. It doesn't take me more than, say, ten pages to see fundamental issues in the writing of it. If the tone sucks, and the dialogue sucks, and the characterization is bad... exactly why would I want to buy the book, again?
Absolutely. And basic common sense says that you wait to see the actual movie, in its entirety, before you make assumptions about its storyline.
See, you're going and making assumptions that people can't possibly make judgment calls about whether they want to waste money on something based on the samplings offered.
Honestly, the trailer, the teasers, the spoilers? Should be designed to draw people in. It's not my job to give JJ a chance, dear. It's his job to make me want to see it, buy it, own it. See? That's how it works in the entertainment industry. To those he succeeded in winning over... good for them! But I'm not one of them.
Would you buy a book if the first chapter sucked? If it didn't intrigue you? Didn't ring true, or right, or interesting?
Grabbing my dog-eared copy of Spaceflight Chronology 1980-2188, it notes that the "ring ship" design is a Declaration-class spaceliner and suggests that it's a "Federation" (if not Starfleet) vessel.
See, you're going and making assumptions that people can't possible make judgment calls about whether they want to waste money on something based on the samplings offered.
I'd make that assumption about general cinema goers, but I'd usually assume most ST fans had an inbuilt curiosity about new ST product, and wouldn't see the cost of one movie ticket as wasted money, even it the film was terrible, 'cos then it would be fun to tear apart in ST discussions with other fans.
As for the book line, I too hope for a clear distinction between the original timeline and this new one ("Timeline Beta"?), prefererably indicated by what version of the characters and ship appear on the cover. No mixing and matching!
Given the vast sums Paramount is investing in this film, I find it highly unlikely that they would allow licensees to wall the film off in its own ghetto.
And why not? The goal of the film is to bring in new viewers, and according to my younger sister, being ghetto is really in vogue with the kids these days.
I'd make that assumption about general cinema goers, but I'd usually assume most ST fans had an inbuilt curiosity about new ST product, and wouldn't see the cost of one movie ticket as wasted money, even it the film was terrible, 'cos then it would be fun to tear apart in ST discussions with other fans.
Most, maybe, but not all. Nemesis was the first Trek film I hadn't seen in theaters since IV came out.
This, not so much at you, Therin, but in general:
It still doesn't change the idea that Christopher there was saying: IE, see it because you can't make a value judgment based on the offerings given whether you want to or not! If I went by his idea, then I would own every Star Trek book printed, every episode of every series... see the flaws in the logic yet?
Which means I'd own lots of kindling and lots of coasters.
First off, that's not exactly what's depicted in the scenes we're aware of.
Kirk isn't a cadet in the scenes in question, he's apparently a new graduate. And maybe there's a reason why only junior officers are available for command posts; the rest of the command crew other than Pike could've been killed.
Yes, because the difference between the day before graduation and the day after graduation is a whole lot of experience in a command situation (especially one involving death and destruction), years of working through the ranks and...
Oh. Wait.
Besides, we only have fragments of the story so far, and may be misinterpreting some of the scenes we've read about since they're out of context. It's too early to jump to any conclusions.
It's kinda like a book. It doesn't take me more than, say, ten pages to see fundamental issues in the writing of it. If the tone sucks, and the dialogue sucks, and the characterization is bad... exactly why would I want to buy the book, again?
Absolutely. And basic common sense says that you wait to see the actual movie, in its entirety, before you make assumptions about its storyline.
See, you're going and making assumptions that people can't possible make judgment calls about whether they want to waste money on something based on the samplings offered.
Honestly, the trailer, the teasers, the spoilers? Should be designed to draw people in. It's not my job to give JJ a chance, dear. It's his job to make me want to see it, buy it, own it. See? That's how it works in the entertainment industry. To those he succeeded in winning over... good for them! But I'm not one of them.
Would you buy a book if the first chapter sucked? If it didn't intrigue you? Didn't ring true, or right, or interesting?
Ok, you don't need to see the whole movie, but you should at least find out the context behind the events before you start to rip on them. We do not know yet what exactly was going on before that scene. For all we know there could be some very legitimate reason that Kirk, and only Kirk can be the first officer.
^^Well, let's keep in mind that this thread is for discussing how the books would be affected by the film, not debating whether the film's going to be any good. Which would be a pointless debate anyway, because there are always people who assume they're going to hate any new production based on the initial fragmentary information they get, and it's impossible to talk them out of their convictions -- but a lot of the time, once they see the finished product, they love it madly. And then the next new thing comes along and they're immediately condemning it as if they've totally forgotten the past. It's as inevitable as the life cycle of a butterfly, except a lot noisier.
First off, that's not exactly what's depicted in the scenes we're aware of.
Kirk isn't a cadet in the scenes in question, he's apparently a new graduate. And maybe there's a reason why only junior officers are available for command posts; the rest of the command crew other than Pike could've been killed.
Yes, because the difference between the day before graduation and the day after graduation is a whole lot of experience in a command situation (especially one involving death and destruction), years of working through the ranks and...
Oh. Wait.
It's kinda like a book. It doesn't take me more than, say, ten pages to see fundamental issues in the writing of it. If the tone sucks, and the dialogue sucks, and the characterization is bad... exactly why would I want to buy the book, again?
Absolutely. And basic common sense says that you wait to see the actual movie, in its entirety, before you make assumptions about its storyline.
See, you're going and making assumptions that people can't possible make judgment calls about whether they want to waste money on something based on the samplings offered.
Honestly, the trailer, the teasers, the spoilers? Should be designed to draw people in. It's not my job to give JJ a chance, dear. It's his job to make me want to see it, buy it, own it. See? That's how it works in the entertainment industry. To those he succeeded in winning over... good for them! But I'm not one of them.
Would you buy a book if the first chapter sucked? If it didn't intrigue you? Didn't ring true, or right, or interesting?
Ok, you don't need to see the whole movie, but you should at least find out the context behind the events before you start to rip on them. We do not know yet what exactly was going on before that scene. For all we know there could be some very legitimate reason that Kirk, and only Kirk can be the first officer.
^^Well, let's keep in mind that this thread is for discussing how the books would be affected by the film, not debating whether the film's going to be any good. Which would be a pointless debate anyway, because there are always people who assume they're going to hate any new production based on the initial fragmentary information they get, and it's impossible to talk them out of their convictions -- but a lot of the time, once they see the finished product, they love it madly. And then the next new thing comes along and they're immediately condemning it as if they've totally forgotten the past. It's as inevitable as the life cycle of a butterfly, except a lot noisier.
Uh huh. And next time, I'll just remind you to keep on topic.
But, since you wanted to fire a final volley after pulling the back-on-topic: There will always be people, too, who buy any crap with a particular brand on it, specifically because it has that brand. And it's impossible to talk them out of their convictions, because even though they might see the final product and realize that it's lacking, they have to pretend to love it madly in order to be 'true fans' or whatnot. And then, the next thing comes along and they buy that, and the next thing, and the next thing...
It's as inevitable as people on forums drifting off topic, and then calling for other people to get back on topic when someone disagrees with their slightly backhanded insults.
Just a quick FYI folks, since I know some of the posters in this forum stay almost exclusively in this forum and may not know.
It's not a problem, but I just want to preempt any accidents before they happen. Regarding this movie and trailers and pictures from it: Paramount is cracking down on sites about this so the rule here is simple. No pictures, avatars, or even links to external sites that contain this information. Also no round about way of telling people how to obtain them either even without a link.
Again, just an FYI so that you guys know too, so far no one here has done that and for that we thank you.
Given the vast sums Paramount is investing in this film, I find it highly unlikely that they would allow licensees to wall the film off in its own ghetto.
Uhm, by that logic, every single piece of derivative Batman fiction should be based on Christopher Nolan's films rather than the comic books that have been published since 1939. Needless to say, that ain't remotely so.
