The Official STAR TREK Grading & Discussion Thread [SPOILERS]

[SharkD]

I saw the movie a few weeks ago. I would definitely rate the movie as "Above average" compared to other summer action movies. However, as a fan of the Trek universe I was a bit disappointed. I suppose if it had featured a cast from one of previous series I was more familiar with I would have rated it much higher (i.e. bias). For instance, I didn't like how Spock turned "rogue" and just rejected most of the values he was raised with. Spock as a kid was cool though. The canon issues aren't a big deal since the movie takes place in an alternate timeline. But I'd much rather have seen a movie that *could* be canon.

Still, I wouldn't call the casting "bad". Except for Scotty, the casting was "believable" in terms of everyone being younger versions of themselves. But maybe only for an episode. Putting them in a whole new movie without any prior exposure to them was a bit jarring for me. Even the "New Voyages" fan episodes didn't affect me to the same degree (though this could be because they retained the same basic formula and the same set as the original series).

I guess what everything comes down to is whether I would go see another movie featuring the same cast/director. I could only give you a "maybe", or a "likely" given that there's not much else out there I'd want to go and see.

My 2 cents.

 

[SharkD]

Kirk also goes to the Academy about eight years earlier in the original timeline and is an experience, seasoned officer by the time he's assigned command of the Enterprise, whereas in this case, we're talking the "Top Gun" school of "rising through the ranks on the merits of being a smokin' hot bad boy!"

...one who is eight years older than everyone else!

Ever been in a class where there was that one guy who was older than everyone?

Sorry couldn't resist.

 

[suarezguy]

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.

But they maintained the timeline and therefore indeed built on, at least somewhat, on past events. I think Trek is more than just characters or concepts but all of the events that occurred. Batman film or TV projects are adaptations, but the comic's still around and I don't think it should be abandoned just because it's been around for a long time, in fact I think that brings advantages.

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.

Isn't "dumbing down" just a blunter way of saying simplified and made more accessible (this film being praised for the latter)?

 

[SalvorHardin]

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.

Isn't "dumbing down" just a blunter way of saying simplified and made more accessible (this film being praised for the latter)?

Not really.
Around here those who use it usually mean "we are the smart ones, the movie is crap and was made for mindless idiots like you"

 

[trevanian]

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.

Wow, you're my hero. How'd you get this posted without a horde of vultures coming into the thread and plucking your eyeballs out?

Your last paragraph makes me think that what they have in this abrams movie might LOOK like primeSpock, but it can't really be him, because he wouldn't let these events stand.

Maybe he is really just Sub-Prime Spock, from a knockoff trek universe (like ALIAS SMITH & JONES was to BUTCH CASSIDY, or original BSG was to SW, or most other Glen Larson series were to earlier more successful creative endeavours by other people.)

 

[Anticitizen]

I keep a can of vulture repellent on my Bat-Belt.

 

[3D Master]

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.

Wow, you're my hero. How'd you get this posted without a horde of vultures coming into the thread and plucking your eyeballs out?

Your last paragraph makes me think that what they have in this abrams movie might LOOK like primeSpock, but it can't really be him, because he wouldn't let these events stand.

Maybe he is really just Sub-Prime Spock, from a knockoff trek universe (like ALIAS SMITH & JONES was to BUTCH CASSIDY, or original BSG was to SW, or most other Glen Larson series were to earlier more successful creative endeavours by other people.)

Which would explain why future Spock's reality uses the same Earthdate (2378) system for dates as the present reality, instead of the familiar stardate.

 

[Praetor]

You know, just because Leonard Nimoy is playing old Spock doesn't make him the same guy, IMO. I'm happier to assume XI is a clean reboot, that future Spock came from a future that might resemble the one we've been watching for years, but isn't really connected, and ignore the "different quantum reality" back-bending.

For my mileage, Nimoy and other homages to TOS and previous Trek are simply that - homages.

 

[trevanian]

You know, just because Leonard Nimoy is playing old Spock doesn't make him the same guy, IMO. I'm happier to assume XI is a clean reboot, that future Spock came from a future that might resemble the one we've been watching for years, but isn't really connected, and ignore the "different quantum reality" back-bending.

For my mileage, Nimoy and other homages to TOS and previous Trek are simply that - homages.

Interesting take ...

This all kind of reeks 'personal canon' or somesuch ... but I suppose it'll let me rent the movie on 2for1night down the line and see it with a semi-clean conscience.

Still not guaranteeing I'll make it all the way through (never have managed that on ATTACK OF THE CLONES either, and gave up trying the second time through, and I can only watch an hour of CASINO ROYALE at a time), but shoot, I've wanted to see the KELVIN part of the picture anyway ...

 

[archeryguy1701]

God, this thread is fun! TPTB did the whole alternate (insert your word of choice) thing so that they could do their own thing without getting lynched by the fans... and instead, they just got the fans wanting to lynch them because they didn't time travel correctly! We just need to face it, it is impossible for any of the people running the franchise to win!

For the alternate timeline/ reality thing... you could probably use the terms interchangably. 3D said that alternate reality means a "parellel universe" while an alternate timeline is "simply a different chain of events". What's the difference? If events start happening differently, then that would automatically indicate that the reality is different. If I were to go back in time and find a way to avert WWI, you can't tell me that what we perceive as reality right now would be the same reality as a world without WWI. If reality is dictated by the chain of events that came before it (and if it isn't, please explain how), then an alternate timeline, or an alternate chain of events, would end up being an alternate reality anyhow.

Spock and Nero ending up in the same alternate reality.... Star Trek hasn't exactly set much of a precedence as to how black hole time travel works, has it? Does it really make sense that a black hole would go back in time and create another black hole/ white hole/ whatever the hell you want to call it in every timeline? What if it just created exit points in one reality, or what if it was the exact same exit point both times? Besides, if the timeline in question erased the old timeline, then Spock should have never made it through in the first place. He should have been erased as soon as Nero entered the black hole.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is about following precedences that it was never very consistant on in the first place. The writers did what they probably felt that the needed to to get the story along, and I can live with that. Besides, Star Trek that came before has already set the precedence that you can travel back in time and make your own changes, only to go forward in time and find everything exactly how you left it. Anyone with common sense would know that this is bull-shit.

 

[Sakrysta]

I'm just glad none of it really bothers me. I can understand why some might find it frustrating, but I just don't.

 

[3D Master]

God, this thread is fun! TPTB did the whole alternate (insert your word of choice) thing so that they could do their own thing without getting lynched by the fans... and instead, they just got the fans wanting to lynch them because they didn't time travel correctly! We just need to face it, it is impossible for any of the people running the franchise to win!

In case you hadn't noticed, friend, but that's not the reason JJ gets lynched. He gets lynched for having created a horribly bad movie.

For the alternate timeline/ reality thing... you could probably use the terms interchangably. 3D said that alternate reality means a "parellel universe" while an alternate timeline is "simply a different chain of events". What's the difference? If events start happening differently, then that would automatically indicate that the reality is different. If I were to go back in time and find a way to avert WWI, you can't tell me that what we perceive as reality right now would be the same reality as a world without WWI. If reality is dictated by the chain of events that came before it (and if it isn't, please explain how), then an alternate timeline, or an alternate chain of events, would end up being an alternate reality anyhow.

The difference is that an alternate reality/parallel universe exists simultaneously parallel to other realities/universes. While an alternate timeline means the other timeline is gone, finito, destroyed, and we are still in the very same reality/universe as before, just containing a different set of events.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is about following precedences that it was never very consistant on in the first place.

Except that it was. Time travel equals a changed timeline, not splitting off a new reality. This has been true for every time travel event in Star Trek.

The writers did what they probably felt that the needed to to get the story along, and I can live with that.

Nope, they did it so they could patronize long-time fans; "See, we didn't really toss all the bad, talky stuff out, if you're a loser who likes intelligent, talky, boring stuff, it still exists in an alternate timeline. We cool people will from no one produce cool, pathetic, unintelligent 'splosions!"

Besides, Star Trek that came before has already set the precedence that you can travel back in time and make your own changes, only to go forward in time and find everything exactly how you left it. Anyone with common sense would know that this is bull-shit.

No, Star Trek has set the precedence that you can make changes that change the timeline, and then you can correct those changes by stopping those or that which made the changes.

 

[SalvorHardin]

God, this thread is fun! TPTB did the whole alternate (insert your word of choice) thing so that they could do their own thing without getting lynched by the fans... and instead, they just got the fans wanting to lynch them because they didn't time travel correctly! We just need to face it, it is impossible for any of the people running the franchise to win!

In case you hadn't noticed, friend, but that's not the reason JJ gets lynched. He gets lynched for having created a horribly bad movie.

In case you hadn't noticed, friend, JJ does not get lynched.
The vast majority of Trek, non-Trek fans and critics enjoyed and praised his movie.

Reality check...

 

[Ovation]

Except that it was. Time travel equals a changed timeline, not splitting off a new reality. This has been true for every time travel event in Star Trek.

No. It hasn't.

God, this thread is fun! TPTB did the whole alternate (insert your word of choice) thing so that they could do their own thing without getting lynched by the fans... and instead, they just got the fans wanting to lynch them because they didn't time travel correctly! We just need to face it, it is impossible for any of the people running the franchise to win!

In case you hadn't noticed, friend, but that's not the reason JJ gets lynched. He gets lynched for having created a horribly bad movie.

In case you hadn't noticed, friend, JJ does not get lynched.
The vast majority of Trek, non-Trek fans and critics enjoyed and praised his movie.

Reality check...

Quite so.

 

[3D Master]

Except that it was. Time travel equals a changed timeline, not splitting off a new reality. This has been true for every time travel event in Star Trek.

No. It hasn't.

Yes, it has.

In case you hadn't noticed, friend, but that's not the reason JJ gets lynched. He gets lynched for having created a horribly bad movie.

In case you hadn't noticed, friend, JJ does not get lynched.
The vast majority of Trek, non-Trek fans and critics enjoyed and praised his movie.

Reality check...

Quite so.

 

[SalvorHardin]

In case you hadn't noticed, friend, JJ does not get lynched.
The vast majority of Trek, non-Trek fans and critics enjoyed and praised his movie.

Reality check...

Quite so.

 

[Ovation]

Except that it was. Time travel equals a changed timeline, not splitting off a new reality. This has been true for every time travel event in Star Trek.

No. It hasn't.

Yes, it has.

Nope.

In case you hadn't noticed, friend, JJ does not get lynched.
The vast majority of Trek, non-Trek fans and critics enjoyed and praised his movie.

Reality check...

Quite so.

Which part of "The vast majority of Trek, non-Trek fans and critics enjoyed and praised his movie" do you consider incorrect? Whichever one you chose, you'll be wrong, so don't bother.

 

[3D Master]

No. It hasn't.

Yes, it has.

Nope.

Wrong.

Quite so.

Which part of "The vast majority of Trek, non-Trek fans and critics enjoyed and praised his movie" do you consider incorrect? Whichever one you chose, you'll be wrong, so don't bother.

In case you hadn't noticed, I answered someone who was claiming that the creators couldn't win because people were lynching them on the time travel method used. I pointed out that that's not the reason people were lynching JJ and his movie.

To anyone with a brain and not a troll, that means he and my answer were talking about those who find severe fault with a movie; unless he himself is already wrong in assuming everyone finds fault with the movie. In the latter case, that's not my mistake, in the first; you're either an idiot for not realizing we are talking about the subset of people who find this movie abysmal, or you're a troll for attempting to make it look like those who find this movie abysmal are disconnected with reality.

So what are you? An idiot or a troll?

 

[Ovation]

Yes, it has.

Nope.

Wrong.

Yes. Yes you are.

Which part of "The vast majority of Trek, non-Trek fans and critics enjoyed and praised his movie" do you consider incorrect? Whichever one you chose, you'll be wrong, so don't bother.

In case you hadn't noticed, I answered someone who was claiming that the creators couldn't win because people were lynching them on the time travel method used. I pointed out that that's not the reason people were lynching JJ and his movie.

To anyone with a brain and not a troll, that means he and my answer were talking about those who find severe fault with a movie; unless he himself is already wrong in assuming everyone finds fault with the movie. In the latter case, that's not my mistake, in the first; you're either an idiot for not realizing we are talking about the subset of people who find this movie abysmal, or you're a troll for attempting to make it look like those who find this movie abysmal are disconnected with reality.

So what are you? An idiot or a troll?

You really shouldn't go around calling people "idiot" or "troll" in this forum. It's grounds for a warning. TNZ is the place to cut loose like that.

 

[Borgminister]

So what are you? An idiot or a troll?

Pot, or kettle?

You really shouldn't go around calling people "idiot" or "troll" in this forum. It's grounds for a warning. TNZ is the place to cut loose like that.

Nooooooo, really?

I've always looked at TNZ as the place for gentile and civilized discourse.