Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 30, 2009.
Wrong. It depends entirely on how the writers want the time travel mechanism to work.
Regarding the time travel/alternate timeline:
Absolutely nothing in the movie suggests that its events are in an 'alternate' timeline that's co-existing alongside the 'prime' timeline. And absolutely nothing suggests that it's the same timeline that's been altered. We're not given indications either way, Uhura's wild guess notwithstanding.
Therefore, we must turn to other Trek for our interpretation of the events - previous time travel stories. Traditionally, in Trek, if you go back in time and change something, you alter the existing timeline you came from - not branch off into another timeline.
See 'Return to Yesterday', 'Yesterday's Enterprise,' 'City on the Edge of Forever', 'First Contact, whatever episode in which Data's head - from the past - is found (which means they went back in time to their OWN timeline)... etc etc etc.
Therefore I tend to lean toward the interpretation that the original timeline has been destroyed and does not exist.
It means, of course, that Spock Prime should be doing his damndest to fix the timeline, as he's been known to do in the past when time travel screws it up, but I'm sure that won't happen.
Saw it for the third time in the theater last night. Just a couple new impressions to mention:
I LIKE this Kirk. I never liked Shatner's Kirk. This guy, I like. He makes me smile, whereas Shatner's Kirk just made me cringe.
I just caught the comment Scotty made about "Admiral Archer's prize beagle." That one kept me giggling off and on throughout the rest of the movie.
Nope, I actually very much thought of that, and I'm pretty sure I wrote it down once, if not exactly like that, at least with a slight modification of that.
Yes, and we would be talking about time travel works in this particular piece of fiction called STAR TREK. And I know how it works in Star Trek, because I've seen Star Trek, and watched all its time travel episodes and films.
No, it can't; there's precedent in earlier Star Trek shows and movies.
Except that those alternate realities shown have absolutely NOTHING to do with time travel.
I'm not. Previous Star Trek shows and episodes are.
Wrong, it is how previous Star Trek shows and movies have shown it to work.
The only thing you can say, is that the black hole didn't make them simply travel through time, but that they traveled into an alternate reality and then traveled back in time of that reality.
The fact that the past and the relations between the different empires are rather different (everyone seems to know what the Romulans look like, for example, and can identify their ships) would indicate that is what happened.
Well, actually, since both this past/present and the future that Spock/Nero come from use an entirely different stardate system as the Star Trek reality we've been following for the past 40 years, which is in fact an EARTHdate system, and not a stardate system, would indicate that even the future is an entirely different parallel universe.
Which of course, means we can toss the whole "travel into a different reality" out the window just as well. It's simply a time travel event within one reality that changed time, eradicating another time line, but occurring in a parallel universe to the one we've been following the past 40 years.
^^ Which is precisely why they decided to do it differently, using Quantum Theory in conjunction with time travel.. They are setting up an alternate reality in an earlier timeframe. It was stated in the film and was stated by the writers.
The writers also said they were inspired by the quantum mechanics of the TNG episode "Parallels."
They are doing it different from the previous Trek concepts of time travel.
The fact that they didn't reset everything the way previous Treks have done shows that, and opens up the possibilities for storytelling with these characters without necessarily re-telling stories we already know about these characters.
This creative team is in charge of Star Trek now. It's theirs to do what they want and as long as the films are successful and they are willing, they will continue to do so.
Except that they didn't use any Quantum Theory, time travel in Star Trek doesn't cause new realities to be created, and it was NOT stated in the film. Quite the contrary, Spock states the opposite, he talks about a changed timeline, Uhura then just pulls the term "another reality" out of her ass which has got nothing to do with what Spock just said.
Which has nothing to do with time travel at all.
Which is wrong.
There are plenty of storytelling possibilities with these characters without having to go into an alternate reality. Plenty of things left open in the original reality that were never told in episodes, movies, or books.
Then how come so many people on this board, who are so excited about "all the new possibilities" this alternate reality gives, are talking about redoing old stories?
it has everything to do with what Spock just said. Uhura makes a reasoned deduction based on Spock's postulated theory.
They used the principles of quantum mechanics established in that episode to suggest that this is, in fact, a different timeline. That is what Spock suggests on the bridge and that is what the writers explained.
No it isn't. It is totally their perogative to explore this in their own way and there is no reason at all to be restricted to how it was handled before.
I don't disagree with this at all, but I also don't see it as a bone of contention .
Wishful thinking. I hope they don't redo old stories. We've had enough of that with all Trek series and movies. That being said..If they do choose to redo something, this alternate timeline may allow them to take a familiar Trek concept and turn it on its head. While that's not on my personal list of things I'd like to see, it could be interesting.
No, she doesn't. She just pulls "alternate reality" out of her ass. All Spock does is not theorizing but stating the fact through Nero's actions time has changed. CHANGED. Not "split off into an other reality", he doesn't even come close to saying it.
First, you should notice the difference between a "different timeline" and a "different reality".
A "different reality" is a parallel universe.
A "different timeline" is simply a different chain of events.
A different reality as a timeline that is different than the timelines of realities next to it; however a different timeline does not automatically equal a different reality. Case in point, if time travel creates a new timeline by erasing an old one, we have a different timeline, but are still in the same reality.
Spock, indeed, is constantly talking about a CHANGE in time. Not a new reality split off from the original, but a timeline that is CHANGED, and as a result the old timeline is gone, otherwise there would be no change.
And once again, in that episode, the only thing that was established is that there are many parallel realities - none of this has got anything to do with time travel. Therefor, nothing in that episode was established that has any bearing on time travel. Time travel episodes have a bearing on time travel.
Yes, there is a reason to be restricted on how it was handled before; it's called building a coherent whole, and working with what came before. Some writer hired to write Batman doesn't suddenly get to turn him into a stone cold murderer, nor does he get to say that his parents are still around and never got killed, etc. etc.
Then why did you say it "opened up possibilities" when according you those possibilities are already open?
Now you're just splitting hairs. You don't like the film and you went into it intending to not like it, therefore your judgement is already completely colored.
Uhura didn't pull anything out of her ass. She made a reasoned conclusion.
Altered timeline/Altered reality.. In the context of this film there is no difference. The fact that your're making such a distinction where one isn't necessary is proof positive your intent is just to argue without any real facts, other than your own biased predisposition..
You bring up Batman as an example, but it only PROVES my point about the creative team.
The Batman comic book is as different from the 60s TV show is as different from the Burton films, the Schumaker films, the animated series, and the current franchise. The origins of the characters common to all have been changed and rewritten to suit the intent of their respective writing teams. Same could be said for Bond, Lord of the Rings, Superman, Spiderman, Battlestar Galactica and I could go on and on and on. The POINT is that this creative team is within its right to make creative decisions as they see fit. You may not like them (it's pretty obvious that you don't..just an educated guess), but it doesn't make them wrong for doing so. It's their franchise now. You can enjoy the ride or stay home.
yeah, he's kind of adorable, is he not?
I also liked that line. although poor Porthos and poor Archer. *sniff*
I especially liked Scotty's muttered "I'll let you know when he re-appears" line when asked where the beagle was now.
oh, another thing! it looks like this Jim Kirk knows that beagle!! or maybe he knows about it? if so, how?! something to think about there
Pine really nails Kirk without being Shatner. His mannerisms and facial expressions are spot on. You really get the sense that this is Kirk.
I think they made a good call with Pine. I like his Kirk better than Quinto's Spock. Ironic because Quinto being cast as young Spock drew me into wanting to see the film in the first place.
^that's exactly how I feel.
I'm the Shinzon to your Picard!
If it was coherently and properly written I would make nothing of it, just like I make nothing of the four scenes that don't have problems up the wazoo, but it isn't.
Yes, she did.
No, she didn't.
If there was no difference, than Uhura wouldn't need to drop the term "alternate reality" after Spock goes on about it being in a CHANGED timeline. The simple fact is that the writers had Uhura pull the term out of her ass so they could say: "See, we didn't REALLY wipe out all your loved stuff, even in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter because you'll never see it on the screen ever again; you're stuck with this empty junk from now on."
Nope, quite the OPPOSITE. Batman is a comic book, it got changed up the wazoo whenver a writer felt like it. And it's one of the reasons why it's considered weak, juvenile, and kids stuff. But even THAT which changes all the time, has things a writer doesn't get to change.
Star Trek was something bigger and grander; 40 years of something that was nearly perfect. Shows and movies that built upon what came before, instead of being just juvenile kids stuff that's just laser blasters and gets to be changed entirely whenever a writer or director feels like it.
No more; it's reduced juvenile kids stuff and just laser blasters that can be changed whenver a writer or director feels like it. And that is why they are wrong for doing so.
but I'm not bald!!
Um 3D Master you do know that back in the 1930s Bob Kane (Batman's creator) had Batman offing crooks left and right and he was toned down I think about the time Robin showed up right?
I wouldn't exactly call the Burton films or The Dark Night "kid's stuff."
That's not the point of my reply. The point is that each creative team changed what they felt they needed to to tell their story. That is their right. Trek did that with each and every incarnation as well.
Except they aren't wrong. The fact that it is a big hit with old fans as well as new proves just how very wrong you are.
And, by the way, Star Trek isn't "nearly perfect." Some fans may have elevated the original show to unrealistic proportions, but it was far from perfect. I am saying that as a lifelong fan. It has its flaws..some endearing and some not.
I enjoyed this film as a full grown adult. I never thought of Trek as "kids stuff," nor do I think this film has dumbed it down. We're not going to agree on this, so you may as well drop it.
If all you have is "Yes it is/No it isn't" for an argument, then you're wasting my time. You made your case over and over and over again. I disagree and made my reasons for doing so. Your continued beating of the same worn, tired drum doesn't change the fact that you're wrong...about a great many things.
And each creative team that took on Batman made him relevant to the perspective of the era in which each film/series was made.
Today's Batman is very different from Kane's Batman, as are the villians and, in a few cases, their character's origins.
Batman has evolved with the attitudes of the day, as Star Trek has over its several incarnations.
Separate names with a comma.