Spock-1 and Spock-2 are not the same person. They are not the same particles. They never were.
AdmiralGarak said:
Nice.
The Official: Niners What did You Think of the ST Movie Thread
- Thread starter Photon
- Start date
Nice.
How do you figure? To use another example, if young Spock were killed, wouldn't old Spock cease to exist? (I love nitpicking and debating about time travel
)
Nope. Everything that happened to Spock-1 still happened, but not in young Spock-2's universe. The collections of particles that make them up do not occupy the same world-lines. They are different people with similar patterns.
Now, whether you buy the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory or not, that's the word of God, or at least word of the writers, as far as the film's concerned, and temporal paradoxes simply don't exist in the many worlds framework.
Honestly, I'm glad they chose to do this, and appreciated Spock-1 lampshading it at the end.
Now, whether you buy the many worlds interpretation of quantum theory or not, that's the word of God, or at least word of the writers, as far as the film's concerned, and temporal paradoxes simply don't exist in the many worlds framework.
Honestly, I'm glad they chose to do this, and appreciated Spock-1 lampshading it at the end.
A
Amaris
Guest
Absolutely Fantastic. I loved it!
J.
J.
I was very pleased. It may not be perfect, but it gives them a very, very strong base on which to build. They have a stellar cast to work with, a universe that speaks to 21st century concerns, and they can pick and choose things from the original continuity and give them a new spin. Great opportunities there.
They just need to lose the Brewery (aka Engineering.)
They just need to lose the Brewery (aka Engineering.)
Aka the Southern Star.
I think I fall into the 'burned out' category on talking about it, heh... but outside of here I post on two other forums, one for British wrestling, the other... well I don't think it has a point aside from being 95% Glasweigan - but all the positive reviews (and coming from mostly quite intelligent people) have made me smile. Trek always seemed to be a 'geeks only' club in the past few years, so it's good to see us get out of that.
I'm happy saying I'm a DS9 fan more than any other Trek - and I think this is the most fun I've had watching ST since DS9 and (in my view) ten years after the last good series and thirteen years after the last good film - to see something like this was amazing.
More on the actual film are in the link in my sig - but outside of what was said there, this was a great reinvention to get away from the geek aura and a good creation story to serve as a launching pad for future endeavors.
I'm happy saying I'm a DS9 fan more than any other Trek - and I think this is the most fun I've had watching ST since DS9 and (in my view) ten years after the last good series and thirteen years after the last good film - to see something like this was amazing.
More on the actual film are in the link in my sig - but outside of what was said there, this was a great reinvention to get away from the geek aura and a good creation story to serve as a launching pad for future endeavors.
Guys,
One of the reason's I'm afraid to see it is that I hear that the timeline gets erased so DS9 and TNG never happened. Any truth to this?
One of the reason's I'm afraid to see it is that I hear that the timeline gets erased so DS9 and TNG never happened. Any truth to this?
I love it, but I thionk it looks hoorible. The camera is very twitchy, and the visual director has some sort of obsession with bright lights shining in the camera. Also, the new Enterprise is ugly as hell, IMHO. The Romulans are all bald (WTF). The story and stuff are very good, though.
BTW, it's nice that we finally learned Uhura's first name after 43 years!
BTW, it's nice that we finally learned Uhura's first name after 43 years!
No, there wasn't any need to explain it. It is what it is and it does what it does. Over-explaining and too much information kill excitement and distract from what matters- which was the whole creating singularities bit, not how the red matter works.
Over-explaining is awful, and I was pleasantly surprised that the writers gave the audience some credit, and not just regarding the red matter, but many other things as well. The red matter was a plot device. This isn't a science club, it's an action film.
And no, the timeline does not get erased at all.
I hate to be the one who breaks this to you, but everything you ever saw in a Star Trek show or movie – even the stuff in the new movie – did never actually happen. There is nothing that can be erased. It's all made up, so I wouldn't worry as long as it is entertaining.
That was the first complaint about the movie I heard from the people I went to see the movie with after the film (it wasn't the only issue) saying was the audience just meant to "buy it". I told them to not worry about such things or why Spock would need to bring 100 kilos of the stuff when all he needed was a drop.
I was just thinking about this movie's plot: super cadets go on a mission on a powerful starship, senior officers disposed of, cadets take over command of ship, cadets randomly pick up a Starfleet engineer who helps them fix up their ship for battle, cadets decide they can take on the most powerful ship in the quadrant on their own...sounds very familiar. Anyway, for no reason whatsoever I've unilaterally renamed this movie, Star Trek: Red Squad.
Last edited:
I'd rate it in the same league as FC and TUC.
Overall, I enjoyed it, and I think it succeeds in the same way the better Trek films always have. It has enough breezy action, poignant drama, and fun character moments to appeal to the casual movie watcher, but plenty of Trek name-drops and geeky winks to appeal to the franchise fans (I was surprised they managed to work in a '47'!). Yeah, it's got plot holes and blah blah blah so did TWOK -the reason this film works in spite of such nitpicks is it keeps the pace on high-gear, so you don't have time to over-think such details. Besides, once you're rooting for the characters, you usually don't care about plot-holes. It's rather like Back To The Future, even right down to the Plot Device Device That Needn't Be Explained (Flux Capacitor? Red Matter? Whatever, it does what it does).
Yeah, Nero was a weak heavy, but I didn't really get the impression he was the source of the conflict (even if he was a catalyst). Rather, the conflict was in how the crew of the Enterprise were going to succeed once it becomes apparent things in this timeline aren't the same as the one we're familiar with. How were they going to come together, and all that rot. I actually found this to be quite compelling.
However, one gripe: where was the Chekov Scream?
Overall, I enjoyed it, and I think it succeeds in the same way the better Trek films always have. It has enough breezy action, poignant drama, and fun character moments to appeal to the casual movie watcher, but plenty of Trek name-drops and geeky winks to appeal to the franchise fans (I was surprised they managed to work in a '47'!). Yeah, it's got plot holes and blah blah blah so did TWOK -the reason this film works in spite of such nitpicks is it keeps the pace on high-gear, so you don't have time to over-think such details. Besides, once you're rooting for the characters, you usually don't care about plot-holes. It's rather like Back To The Future, even right down to the Plot Device Device That Needn't Be Explained (Flux Capacitor? Red Matter? Whatever, it does what it does).
Yeah, Nero was a weak heavy, but I didn't really get the impression he was the source of the conflict (even if he was a catalyst). Rather, the conflict was in how the crew of the Enterprise were going to succeed once it becomes apparent things in this timeline aren't the same as the one we're familiar with. How were they going to come together, and all that rot. I actually found this to be quite compelling.
However, one gripe: where was the Chekov Scream?
Weeeeeell...
Spock Prime now knows about the star near Romulus going kaput, so he develops red matter and destroys the star a century before it can destroy Romulus. Nero never gets shot back in time and the timeline isn't altered.
And that's how Spock saved Deep Space Nine.
^Except antimatter's real and has demonstrable and predictable physical properties.
God knows what red matter is supposed to be or why it looks like a liquid mercury medicine ball.
God knows what red matter is supposed to be or why it looks like a liquid mercury medicine ball.
Re: The Official: Niners What did You Think of the Movie Thread
What a patronising and stupid thing to say, shame on you.
To anwser your question EnterpriseF, without giving spoilers, they invented a plot mechanic that entirely sepparates the new movie from the Trek universe we all know and love. Except for the whereabouts of old Spock nothing is changed. However, at this point it seems doubtful we will ever return to that universe on screen, so for all likely incarnations of Star Trek in the future its all been wiped blank.
Personally, I agree with GodBen and Too Much Fun, the plot was contrived and much of the writing was clunky and inept. However, the acting was a big surprise they all managed to pull of their roles very well, as far as the writing permitted this. The only one I did not like was Pegg as Scott, I found him to be too unrecognisable in his take on the character. What also bothered me was the lack of social progressiveness. Apart from Uhura there are no other noteworthy female roles that are comparable to the male crew members. Acutally, I think outside of her there are only three other women that get to speak in the whole movie! Also the miniskirts are just not acceptable anymore. Yeah, they are sexy and Uhura looks very nice in them, but either have the men wear shorts or cut this sexist crap.
I hate to be the one who breaks this to you, but everything you ever saw in a Star Trek show or movie – even the stuff in the new movie – did never actually happen. There is nothing that can be erased. It's all made up, so I wouldn't worry as long as it is entertaining.
What a patronising and stupid thing to say, shame on you.
To anwser your question EnterpriseF, without giving spoilers, they invented a plot mechanic that entirely sepparates the new movie from the Trek universe we all know and love. Except for the whereabouts of old Spock nothing is changed. However, at this point it seems doubtful we will ever return to that universe on screen, so for all likely incarnations of Star Trek in the future its all been wiped blank.
Personally, I agree with GodBen and Too Much Fun, the plot was contrived and much of the writing was clunky and inept. However, the acting was a big surprise they all managed to pull of their roles very well, as far as the writing permitted this. The only one I did not like was Pegg as Scott, I found him to be too unrecognisable in his take on the character. What also bothered me was the lack of social progressiveness. Apart from Uhura there are no other noteworthy female roles that are comparable to the male crew members. Acutally, I think outside of her there are only three other women that get to speak in the whole movie! Also the miniskirts are just not acceptable anymore. Yeah, they are sexy and Uhura looks very nice in them, but either have the men wear shorts or cut this sexist crap.
Same here. Didn't think much to it at all. In fact I found most it simply boring.
I saw it four days ago now and I can barely remember what happened at the end. Did they just blow up Nero or something? Typical uninspired Hollywood gash
The barfly there was also very Mornish.
Re: The Official: Niners What did You Think of the Movie Thread
Other than pulling in Ilia or Commander Majel Barrett, or beefing up Rand (why bother?) or Chapel's roles beyond recognition, I don't know where one expects them to have gotten all these female characters one would like to see. I don't think it's fair to blame the movie for Gene Roddenberry and NBC's choices in filling out the roster in 1966.
Now I'm not saying Ilia or Number One would've been bad ideas per se--if Captain Pike deserved a rebirth, maybe his nameless XO did too. And Ilia would've been a delight and hopefully will show up in a future film. But a LCDR Spock would have to be written around in order to bring us the Kirk-Spock beatdown, and while dialogue and characterization is a strength, and a great strength, of this writing team, they've shown themselves as far less able to write around logical obstacles that keep them from getting their plot where they want it to go. And is that what we really want to see? An ancillary female character in there just because, only to wind up incapcitated, dead or crippled in order to cede the spotlight to the actual main characters?
As for the miniskirts, I don't really see the problem. They're not the ridiculously short lengths of TOS', which leads to rather different criticisms--tackiness and exploitativeness. I don't see either in the film's costuming.
A sexually dimorphic species is bound to show a little variation in its accoutrements, I suppose. Complaining about miniskirts is tantamount to complaining about hair length, hair removal from different places, or makeup.
Then again, I guess if women all wear pants, they don't need to bother shaving their legs, and that's two birds with one stone.
I'm not even saying that's not an argument worth making, but that's the logical extension of the complaint, particularly when we know nothing about the fashions and mores, about what is considered professional attire, of a time far removed from our own.
Other than pulling in Ilia or Commander Majel Barrett, or beefing up Rand (why bother?) or Chapel's roles beyond recognition, I don't know where one expects them to have gotten all these female characters one would like to see. I don't think it's fair to blame the movie for Gene Roddenberry and NBC's choices in filling out the roster in 1966.
Now I'm not saying Ilia or Number One would've been bad ideas per se--if Captain Pike deserved a rebirth, maybe his nameless XO did too. And Ilia would've been a delight and hopefully will show up in a future film. But a LCDR Spock would have to be written around in order to bring us the Kirk-Spock beatdown, and while dialogue and characterization is a strength, and a great strength, of this writing team, they've shown themselves as far less able to write around logical obstacles that keep them from getting their plot where they want it to go. And is that what we really want to see? An ancillary female character in there just because, only to wind up incapcitated, dead or crippled in order to cede the spotlight to the actual main characters?
As for the miniskirts, I don't really see the problem. They're not the ridiculously short lengths of TOS', which leads to rather different criticisms--tackiness and exploitativeness. I don't see either in the film's costuming.
A sexually dimorphic species is bound to show a little variation in its accoutrements, I suppose. Complaining about miniskirts is tantamount to complaining about hair length, hair removal from different places, or makeup.
Then again, I guess if women all wear pants, they don't need to bother shaving their legs, and that's two birds with one stone.
I'm not even saying that's not an argument worth making, but that's the logical extension of the complaint, particularly when we know nothing about the fashions and mores, about what is considered professional attire, of a time far removed from our own.
Similar threads
