This is an article I so agree with

[Set Harth]

Well, the writers claim that the branching off of a new universe is consistent with multivese theory...and it is....and multiverse theory also states there are already pre-existing universes independent of our own.

Therefore the line alternate reality from the movie can be interpreted 3 ways,

1. The time line of the prime universe has been altered.
2. Nero's actions have created an alternate universe.
3. The time line of an independent universe has been altered.

2. is the only one supported by writer statements. 1. has nothing to do with branching and thus shouldn't be in the list based on the writer statements about branching which you mentioned.

 

[UFO]

Apart from being "blinded" you mean?

I said all that, and you have to rib me on the verb I chose?

For what it's worth, I chose to say "blinded" because that word emphasizes that there were multiple instances of egregious lens flare. I still went on to say that it doesn't bother me.

And that's what made it funny (maybe just to me). Anywho, well done and thankyou.

2. is the only one supported by writer statements. 1. has nothing to do with branching and thus shouldn't be in the list based on the writer statements about branching which you mentioned.

Don't we have that whole "canon" thing to consider? Let me know 'cause I'm happy either way.

 

[Gojira]

Well, the writers claim that the branching off of a new universe is consistent with multivese theory...and it is....and multiverse theory also states there are already pre-existing universes independent of our own.

Therefore the line alternate reality from the movie can be interpreted 3 ways,

1. The time line of the prime universe has been altered.
2. Nero's actions have created an alternate universe.
3. The time line of an independent universe has been altered.

2. is the only one supported by writer statements. 1. has nothing to do with branching and thus shouldn't be in the list based on the writer statements about branching which you mentioned.

I agree that #2 is supported by the writers statements...but I really don't think #2 is supported by what we see in the movie. If the writers intent was clear in the movie as they say it was then there wouldn't be raging debates on these message boards.

So for those who do not think option # 2 is clearly depicted in the movie they have 2 other options to choose from.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me what option a person chooses to view the movie because I don't think any further movie will conflict with any of these options.

Depending on my mood I have agreed with each option at times!

 

[Set Harth]

I really don't think #2 is supported by what we see in the movie.

There is nothing in the film which contradicts it.

 

[Gojira]

I really don't think #2 is supported by what we see in the movie.

There is nothing in the film which contradicts it.

Yes, that is the way you see it. Are you alright with others seeing it differently?

 

[Cyke101]

Well if that's the case, then in the other forum there is a thread going on right now criticizing The Undiscovered Country, which was released TWENTY years ago. People are nitpicking things like digital clocks above the viewscreen (really??), whether or not Kirk's hatred of Klingon's even makes sense, and the unlikeliness of the Klingon's to know so much Shakespeare. Shoot, I'm frankly surprised no one has brought up the Viridium patch Kirk wears on his shoulder for half the movie.

And TUC is generally thought to be one of the better Trek films!

Do they complain about TUC every two weeks, though? Are there posters here where more than half of their post count is from complaining about TUC? Doubt it. And if there *is* a poster like that, then I feel sorry for them, I really do. That's twenty years gone to waste, watching and rewatching and dissecting and deconstructing a film they didn't like the first time around. Life is too short for two years of trying to convince people to hate a movie, never mind twenty.

 

[Set Harth]

I really don't think #2 is supported by what we see in the movie.

There is nothing in the film which contradicts it.

Yes, that is the way you see it. Are you alright with others seeing it differently?

It's not about how anyone sees it. If you can't provide an example of how the film supposedly contradicts that viewpoint, that's because it doesn't. Which is no accident given how the film was conceived.

 

[Gojira]

There is nothing in the film which contradicts it.

Yes, that is the way you see it. Are you alright with others seeing it differently?

It's not about how anyone sees it. If you can't provide an example of how the film supposedly contradicts that viewpoint, that's because it doesn't. Which is no accident given how the film was conceived.

The debate has been raging for two years. I have been involved in those debates and stated my point of view in those threads. I don't know if it is possible to still find them?

It sounds like you want to get into that old debate and resurrect it again? I have moved on from it and I am fine with whatever perspective people have.

I have learned I don't have to accept every argument I get invited to.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's not about how anyone sees it.

Yes, it is about that and only about that.

If you can't provide an example of how the film supposedly contradicts that viewpoint, that's because it doesn't.

It's not worth the effort to argue points with would-be critics who are demonstrably not persuadable, no matter how open-minded they pretend to be.

If Abrams and company weren't giving me what I want, I might care more. They are, so I'm completely happy with the current status quo and don't need to persuade anyone of anything.

 

[Set Harth]

It's not worth the effort to argue points with would-be critics who are demonstrably not persuadable, no matter how open-minded they pretend to be.

I would tend to agree. However, as they say, hope springs eternal. If someone tells me they thought something in STXI contradicted the writers' stance on the branching timeline, I would ask for specifics because I'd be at least considering the possibility that there might really be something there. If, on the other hand, there are no specifics which clearly contradict the idea, and it's really a case of "what the writers say is not what I wanted, so that means the film doesn't support the writers' theory", then that is also something which it would be useful to know. Ultimately I'm not really trying to persuade anyone per se.

 

[Gojira]

It's not worth the effort to argue points with would-be critics who are demonstrably not persuadable, no matter how open-minded they pretend to be.

I would tend to agree. However, as they say, hope springs eternal. If someone tells me they thought something in STXI contradicted the writers' stance on the branching timeline, I would ask for specifics because I'd be at least considering the possibility that there might really be something there. If, on the other hand, there are no specifics which clearly contradict the idea, and it's really a case of "what the writers say is not what I wanted, so that means the film doesn't support the writers' theory", then that is also something which it would be useful to know. Ultimately I'm not really trying to persuade anyone per se.

Alright I will bite.

I think this movie plays out like a very typical time travel story except that there is no restoring of the time line at the end.

Why do I think that way?


There are many lines of dialog from the primary characters (nuKirk, NuSpock et al.) that treat both Nero and Old Spock as if they are from their very own future. "NuSpock says (paraphrasing) that Nero's actions have altered their histories and their lives are unfolding differently as they would have.

To me that sounds like Nero has altered their time line...but it doesn't ever indicate that this new time line is now co-existing with the old.

The very phrase "alternate reality" uttered by Uhura is vague at best and has been interpreted by some to mean thier current reality has been altered.

I think the writers were ambiguous about the whole thing in the movie leaving it up to different interpretations.

The very fact that people are interpreting it differently and debate is raging even after more than 2 years speaks to how unclear the movie actually was in regards to the writers intent.

I love the movie by the way...I am no hater.

 

[Set Harth]

NuSpock says (paraphrasing) that Nero's actions have altered their histories and their lives are unfolding differently as they would have.

To me that sounds like Nero has altered their time line

It is entirely consistent with the branching timeline scenario ( as was apparently intended by the writers ).

How their lives would have unfolded if Nero had not changed things ---> Prime timeline.

How their lives are unfolding ---> Abrams timeline.

...but it doesn't ever indicate that this new time line is now co-existing with the old.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It also does not say that the new timeline is not coexisting with the old.

I think the writers were ambiguous about the whole thing in the movie leaving it up to different interpretations.

That's all well and good, but that differs from your earlier claim, which wasn't about ambiguity and seemed to insist that the writers' position didn't work.

 

[Gojira]

NuSpock says (paraphrasing) that Nero's actions have altered their histories and their lives are unfolding differently as they would have.

To me that sounds like Nero has altered their time line

It is entirely consistent with the branching timeline scenario ( as was apparently intended by the writers ).

How their lives would have unfolded if Nero had not changed things ---> Prime timeline.

How their lives are unfolding ---> Abrams timeline.

...but it doesn't ever indicate that this new time line is now co-existing with the old.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It also does not say that the new timeline is not coexisting with the old.

I think the writers were ambiguous about the whole thing in the movie leaving it up to different interpretations.

That's all well and good, but that differs from your earlier claim, which wasn't about ambiguity and seemed to insist that the writers' position didn't work.

I like your understanding of what Spock meant about how their lives would have unfolded verses how they now are unfolding.

I agree with it.