Shaken or Stirred?

[FabiusMaximus]

At this point I was wondering which scenario everyone preferred:

(A) Older Spock as time traveler in which new cast is part of alternate timeline to TOS

or (B) Older Spock as framing device (remains in 24th Century) and new cast representing historical perspective of TOS

or (C) another scenario perhaps?

I’m personally leaning toward (A) for two reasons: to explain any changes in the physical or personality makeup of the characters and for the sake of future films so that anything could happen to ship and crew and not be strictly tied to canon.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Fabius... you know, you can create POLLS in here to ask the sort of thing you just asked. Since you're new, I'll do it for you (THIS time! )

 

[Kegek]

Going for option one; leaves people more freedom both in the film and its sequels, plus makes a more effective dramatic use of Nimoy.

 

[nil_jones]

I'm choosing option Two because I'm too tired of time travel in Trek to even bother posting to Time-Travel-Sucks threads (Complaints in a nutshell: It always 'works out' too well and the complicated paradoxes magically don't happen; and it shows a lack of maturity to use time travel, period...ENT way burned me out on that one).

Option Two is the more 'grown up' film. Option One's for the kids.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Thanks, Cary L. Brown. I'd insert a smiley face (here) if I knew how. Ain't it pathetic?

And I'm sure you voted for older Spock as framing device, right?

 

[Plum]

Only ENT and Nemesis was an alternate timeline from the rest of Trek (yea, it was!). The new film is the same story, same characters, same universe, same timeline as TOS. Just new actors.

Having said that, I don't care. Though I see it as a useless plot device that ads nothing to a story(s) that is about the same things.

 

[Holytomato]

"Older Spock as time traveler in which new cast is part of alternate timeline to TOS "



No.

"The new film is the same story, same characters, same universe, same timeline as TOS. Just new actors."

:thumbsup:

 

[GreenBlood]

Hard to choose. I chose 'framing device', but 'time traveler' could be interesting too.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

FabiusMaximus said:
Thanks, Cary L. Brown. I'd insert a smiley face (here) if I knew how. Ain't it pathetic?

And I'm sure you voted for older Spock as framing device, right?

Well, here's the cliffs-notes-version... when you post a reply, or start a new thread (but not a "quick reply" which you do by typing in the "quick reply box" at the bottom of an existing thread) you merely have to read through the stuff on the post page you get taken to.

In order of how it appears:

1) You can change the subject.

2) You can put a "post Icon" at the beginning of your post (mainly smilies)

3) There's a window for the full body of your post. If you know UBB code (UBB is "universal bulletin board" and that's what the TrekBBS uses, at least for the moment... though I've heard that they may be changing that?)

4) A small selection of "smilies" you can click on called "instant Graemlins" (note that the code for them will always appear at the very end of the post, not where your cursor is, though!). You can also find out the code for each by hovering your mouse pointer over a particular "Smilie." Once you know them, you can just type them in directly. Note that there are many more than the ones listed here, however.

5) There's a scratchpad for creating "instant UBB code." This is basically a helper for putting in certain common UBB code entries, like creating links (with descriptive names) for URLs, creating email links, creating direct image links (you'll need 100+ posts before you can do that!), creating bulleted lists of various types, making your text bold, italic, underlined, etc... for making quotes, and for "spoilers" (which can't be read unless highlighted).

Then, you have four options... to add a poll (see, it's easy!), to "flag" the thread so it's easier for you to find from your home page, to add your signature, and to see a "preview" version of the post.

It's all VERY simple and self-explanatory. You've just gotta take the time to READ, and THINK, before you finish your post.

 

[Valin]

Plum said:

Having said that, I don't care. Though I see it as a useless plot device that ads nothing to a story(s) that is about the same things.

I'm going for option two, but I agree with the above that we really don't need "old" Spock in it.

 

[Holytomato]

I know! :thumbsup:

Good 'ol JJ should take a page from TAS's Yesteryear.

Kill off Spock in the past. Have OLLLLLLLD Spock find out he's dead. Have him go back to the past before he died.

Baccccccccccccccccck to the Trek! Starring Marty J. Fly. Also starring Jacques Costeau.

Damn, this is fanwank.

...




...



Star Trek Fan Rule #1- Calling something fanwank is fanwank.

 

[Kagan]

I prefer another option....no time travel, no flashbacks, no framestory. Just give me the story. If we're recasting, we don't need the old cast to help us accept it. Just recast it...and move on.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

Kagan said:
I prefer another option....no time travel, no flashbacks, no framestory. Just give me the story. If we're recasting, we don't need the old cast to help us accept it. Just recast it...and move on.

I agree.

But since Old Spock actually is in the film, I voted for the second option.