Previous Hater: I just drank the Kool-Aid!

[Maurice]

Seriously, you're a Star Trek fan and you can't get how a timeline can fracture off into a parallel one if someone goes back and futzes with the past?

Let's use a videogame analogy. I play to level 24, and save that game. Now, I reload the game back at level 23, play again but do things different. I save that game with another filename. Now I have two different versions of events stemming from the same point. That's the idea in the film. Game A (old Trek) is one game session, and Game B (new Trek) is a different save file.

Heck, Enterprise made a Game C (mirror universe) by Zephran Cochrane shooting the Vulcans at first contact, so this is old news.

 

[brigante133]

Seriously, you're a Star Trek fan and you can't get how a timeline can fracture off into a parallel one if someone goes back and futzes with the past?

Let's use a videogame analogy. I play to level 24, and save that game. Now, I reload the game back at level 23, play again but do things different. I save that game with another filename. Now I have two different versions of events stemming from the same point. That's the idea in the film. Game A (old Trek) is one game session, and Game B (new Trek) is a different save file.

Heck, Enterprise made a Game C (mirror universe) by Zephran Cochrane shooting the Vulcans at first contact, so this is old news.

Yeah, exactly. Not to mention, City on the Edge of Forever had an alternate timeline where Edith Keeler lives and the nazis win the war because of it... and it's one of the most popular Star Trek episodes of all time. They just corrected that time anomaly in the episode, this one not so much.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Or we could use the Back to The Future analogy. The TrekXI timeline is Alternate 1985, except it's not ruled by Biff and on fire.

 

[Tentacle]

Seriously, you're a Star Trek fan and you can't get how a timeline can fracture off into a parallel one if someone goes back and futzes with the past?

Let's use a videogame analogy. I play to level 24, and save that game. Now, I reload the game back at level 23, play again but do things different. I save that game with another filename. Now I have two different versions of events stemming from the same point. That's the idea in the film. Game A (old Trek) is one game session, and Game B (new Trek) is a different save file.

Heck, Enterprise made a Game C (mirror universe) by Zephran Cochrane shooting the Vulcans at first contact, so this is old news.

its not the muti verse theory that bugs me, its that now what we watch and consider to be the main timeline is now the bastardized version. The mirror verse was never the main verse as far as the viewers were concerned and its a fun diversion now and then. But if the mirror verse were the main verse I'm not sure how i would feel about it.

 

[ST-One]

Seriously, you're a Star Trek fan and you can't get how a timeline can fracture off into a parallel one if someone goes back and futzes with the past?

Let's use a videogame analogy. I play to level 24, and save that game. Now, I reload the game back at level 23, play again but do things different. I save that game with another filename. Now I have two different versions of events stemming from the same point. That's the idea in the film. Game A (old Trek) is one game session, and Game B (new Trek) is a different save file.

Heck, Enterprise made a Game C (mirror universe) by Zephran Cochrane shooting the Vulcans at first contact, so this is old news.

its not the muti verse theory that bugs me, its that now what we watch and consider to be the main timeline is now the bastardized version. The mirror verse was never the main verse as far as the viewers were concerned and its a fun diversion now and then. But if the mirror verse were the main verse I'm not sure how i would feel about it.

Honestly, what are you afraid of? The new? The unknown? The impossibility to predict were Star Trek might lead?

 

[Tentacle]

I wouldnt say afraid but concerned. If the new version would lead to better story telling, I'm open minded enough to get it a try. But I would of been happier if it had nothing to do with the old story at all. If it was a different crew i would of been happier. Why mess witht the classics.

Would you honestly like to have a series with this new spock showing alot more emotion and macking out with uhura on the side? And kirk as a hot headed rebel and just throw the primal directive out the window?

Maybe they should of remake star trek in the alternate universe where the federation is an intergalactic empire conquering new races, boldly go where no conquers have gone before. It would of made for interesting viewing, alot more wars to fight, and lot more space battles.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

This is something that really gets on my nerves. It's "would have", or even "would've", not "would of". How the hell is that preposition supposed to make sense next to a verb that's yelling for a finite verb? Subjunctive clause, people.

 

[ST-One]

Would you honestly like to have a series with this new spock showing alot more emotion and macking out with uhura on the side? And kirk as a hot headed rebel and just throw the primal directive out the window?.

About Spock I refer you to 'The Cage'.
About Kirk: He's always been more of 'go get them' kinda guy.

BTW: It's Prime Directive. And I couldn't care less about it.

 

[Tentacle]

sorry i'm too tired to prove read my posts and not ran a spell checker or grammar checker over it.
so just dismiss my opinions because i did not follow proper essay format.

maybe i should of written this in klingon, but that would be too elitist wouldnt it?

 

[Captain Pike]

Primal Directive?

 

[ST-One]

sorry i'm too tired to prove read my posts and not ran a spell checker or grammar checker over it.
so just dismiss my opinions because i did not follow proper essay format.

maybe i should of written this in klingon, but that would be too elitist wouldnt it?

Damn it, man!

should have. Should Have. SHOULD HAVE. SHOULD HAVE! SHOULD HAVE!!

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Again, apologies if you felt like I personally offended you. Many people make that grammar mistake and my linguist nature got the better of me. Sorry. No need for cynicism.

Also, I didn't say you're an elitist person, but if you think that a film that is liked by the masses is dumb, then that is an elitist opinion. There's a semantic and pragmatic difference that matters.


ST-ONE: hehehe

 

[gastrof]

You are more necro-telepathic than I, because I have no idea what Roddenberry dreamed or what his purpose in creating Star Trek was...

LOL!

You just made me think of something Majel once said-
'Sweetie...it was meant to sell toothpaste."

Still, I know Gene put more into it than just that.

 

[Australis]

I've posted it elsewhere, but it may neeed to go here as well (found it today):

 

[ST-One]

I've posted it elsewhere, but it may neeed to go here as well (found it today):

 

[FordSVT]

It just seems to me that for the people that drank the kool aid.

They like it because it draws in new fans, and gives star trek new life.
well that's all good and dandy, but that doesnt make the film stand on its own.

If you want to be objective about it, the new fans that gets draw in by the FX, the space battles the explosions, the shaky camera tricks that made the movie an eye candy rather than what start trek is.

Now a days it just seems like movies need to be flashy and shinny, with none of the heart and soul behind it. For the entire time i was watching the movie it feel like i was playing on my xbox and keep wanting to hit that reset button when vulcan blow up.

For those that like the kool aid know what you are drinking.

And for those that cant stomach this juice know what you are hating.

You make this film sound like it's The Phantom Menace. Yes, the film is loaded with CGI and special effects, but there's more to it than that. The storyline, the characters, the emotions, almost everything that needed to be in a great film was there.

My initial objection to the film was the fact that Vulcan was destroyed and disrupted the flow of the Trek 'timeline'. But the haters need to know that it doesn't compromise any of the series or films.

Maybe you are referring to the pace of the film? If there was anything that I would suggest to Abrams it would be to slow the pace of the film. I think it was a little bit too fast with how everything unfolded...207 minutes felt like an hour. But I'm sure that Abrams will consider that IF he directs the next film.

My best friend and his wife went Saturday night. She hates trek and doesn't even like Star Wars or any sci-fi.

She liked the movie. She thought it was "genuinely funny and not funny to laugh at".

From her this is very high praise!

 

[Overgeeked]

This is something that really gets on my nerves. It's "would have", or even "would've", not "would of". How the hell is that preposition supposed to make sense next to a verb that's yelling for a finite verb? Subjunctive clause, people.

You can correct someone without putting them down and sounding like an ass. That's what PMs are for. But somehow I think you prefer public ridicule.

 

[Shatmandu]

Last Thursday, my mind was so wrapped around the idea of time continuity that I failed to capture the moral of this story. Abrams wanted to illustrate the power of friendship: how two people that can’t be any more different and don't get along at first, can become best friends.

Good man. Spread the word.

Joe, reaching

 

[superdeluxe]

...and man, was that ever refreshing! Ok, here's what went down:

Last Thursday, I left the theater disappointed as some of us die-hards are. I was pissed about the whole idea that they were screwing with the Star Trek timeline. Then I hear about “alternate reality” – I was like, “That’s just an excuse!” I went online and checked all of the Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams interviews: and I was wrong. They repeatedly state about how they intended it to be an “alternate reality”. I went back to watching the film yesterday to actually hear Spock and Uhura mentioning it.

Abrams & Co. did mean it when they wanted to protect the legacy of TOS, and by creating the alternate reality, nothing that we know will change. Then I thought, “Whoa…what they did might actually work!” It would be cool to have a parallel universe to see what the Federation might look like under different circumstances?

.

Bingo. They mentioned several times that it was a alternate universe, That was for the Star Trek Fans that held the old timeline in dear regard. It was not for the sake of new fans.

 

[Aragorn]

Star Trek uses parallel universes and alternate timelines ALL THE TIME. It's just this time we're going along for the ride with the "other" characters that are usually forgotten by the end of the episode and never mentioned again. What's the big deal?