Star Trek (2009)

Dave said:
All true! My point was that should I go back in time to 1400 and alter the timeline, Columbus might never set sail and discover America. However, that wouldn't stop America being there, and someone would discover it at some point, and people would cross the Atlantic and settle there. I can still tell people that without knowing precisely when, but they may not believe me. Man would still walk on the Moon one day, but they probably wouldn't believe that either.
Click to expand...


I do understand what you're getting at Dave. I was just taking the premise a little further, in that with the changing of the timeline we shouldn't just look at how we could affect it.

For instance, I agree the land mass we now know as America has been in existence since the beginning of the Earth (albeit constantly changing). However if you stopped Columbus discovering this land mass, then yes somebody else may discover it. The likelyhood then is that it may not be called America!
Also that countries development may go in a different direction and the moon may not be in the sights of anyone to 'conquer' for centuries. However, a lot can happen in centuries. A stray comet may hit the Earth and we all die; so no one walks on the moon.

To take it further, and keeping with the Star Trek Universe, what if another more developed race/planet, altered something that caused the above mentioned comet to hit the Earth sometime before man even roamed the Earth. Then everything you stated would be incorrect as it wouldn't happen.

However, I am aware that the points I have made also mean that everything I have said is subject to 'change' and the same Temporal Paradox :p. Maybe the comet didn't hit Earth, and whoever discovered America could have called it such, and that the countries main drive could have been to land on the Moon.

Temporal Mechanics, you've gotta love it! :D
 
To avoid cross-posting, I'll just quote myself from another thread:

Finally saw the new Star Trek. I have to say that I went in with no real expectations. But the overwhelming reaction from this jaded curmudgeon, who has seen the "ongoing mission" from it's inception in the 60s, was one of nostalgia. The film-makers proved to be respectful of the traditions, notwithstanding the liberties afforded by the temporal space concatenations. The characters were fun (Simon Pegg was a hoot) and all the little dialogue zingers were great. Lots of action and plenty of room to continue with another film (would you expect anything else?).
 
worldmaker said:
Only if you consider it "Wise" not to intervene and avert disasters to come, would you really stand-by if you had the opportunity to prevent a prospective 9/11, or warn people of tsunami due to hit the coast in a few years?

Non-intervention in only an applicable philosophy if: a) you want to preserve the status quo of an uninterrupted timeline, and b) you are a non-dynamic personality who prefers to remain aloof. I suspect Spock could be drawn either way depending only on the whims of the scriptwriters now that "history" has been so disasterously dislocated.

Personally I'd opt for direct intervention if I knew what was to come.

:cool:
Click to expand...

Ah, you forget your Star Trek canon. How did the Earth become united as a single people in time for the first contact with the Vulcans. It was a terrible war that made the survivors learn. Spock (ver 0.0) would have a very hard time convincing the right people to prevent the right disasters, especially since history has already been changed. Nothing necessarily will happen the same way. Will it?
 
steve12553 said:
Ah, you forget your Star Trek canon. How did the Earth become united as a single people in time for the first contact with the Vulcans. It was a terrible war that made the survivors learn. Spock (ver 0.0) would have a very hard time convincing the right people to prevent the right disasters, especially since history has already been changed. Nothing necessarily will happen the same way. Will it?
Click to expand...


True events will not unfold in the same way or at the same rate. This is where Spock1 can have a substantial effect on events - he knows about the Borg, he knowns about the technological developments of the next century, he knows enough to warn and avert situations, or make the Federation ready to confront issues that are inevitable, like meeting the Borg, and being ready for them, like the forthcoming meeting with Vega (Star Trek 1) or the reawakening of the Khan, or .......... blah, blah. all these are opportunities to explore ways to resolve situations better, quicker leaner, meaner.

BUT, Spock1 might want to restrain himself a little to guarantee Spock2's growth in his relationship with Kirk, McCoy, Scott, et al.

So now, what? What of a discreet "overlook" agency (Hollywood so does love a secret agency) to understand and embrace Spock1's warnings without too much effect on events that Spcok2 needs to mature? An agency headed up by Spock1?

What of building advanced warp or hyper drive ships using Borg technology?

Can we see Kirk now confronting the Borg far, far out away from the Federation, to deflect them while the Federation grows stronger in readiness for future battle?

So many ideas, so many opportunities.


:cool:
 
I saw it last weekend and was very pleasantly surprised, especially by the casting (with one exception).

Kirk was never my favourite character and the new actor conveyed to me exactly the same "act first, think later" flavour that the young Shatner did in the original series. But I did think the all the in-jokes and references were fun.

My one objection was to Winona Ryder as Alternative Amanda. It might be a different timeline but she is still only 6 years older than the actor playing Spock! Even though the new Sarek looked about a hundred. Do we have to have trophy wives even in our SF movies?

Anyway, though I understand the objections of purists, I found the 2 hours passed quickly and the big carton of popcorn miraculously emptied itself so all in all I was happy.
 
I wonder how many people initial went to slate this and came out pleasantly surprised?
 
Same here, Ian. I can see why people have found it entertaining, but I just thought it was nonsense.
 
In my opinion? Better just to give it a miss. But I realise I'm in the minority on this one...;)
 
Ah, but that rule was broken by Nemesis - which really was utter tripe.

Don't get me wrong: I've seen worse films in my life than the new Trek - but I've seen many better. At least five of the earlier Trek films, for a start.:D
 
I thought it was even stupider than the old Trek films. The science was complete nonsense - and I'm not including the time travel via black hole or "red matter" plot maguffins. For instance, a supernova which "threatens the galaxy"... what, all 200 billion suns in the galaxy? The characters were all allegedly geniuses but failed to behave as if they were. And at the end Starfleet give command of their flagship to a cadet they'd nearly booted out of the academy for cheating? Pfft.
 
Can't argue with any of that, Ian - and I could add several more, the fact that a mining ship is so heavily armed that it can take out dozens of starships and Klingon ships, for one.

It was hopelessly contrived, too. I mean, I know there have to be contrivances to get the main characters together, but some were utterly ludicrous. Kirk being tossed off the Enterprise and just happening to end up not only on the same planet as Spock and Scotty but within five minutes' run of one and a shortish walk from the other? Puh-lease. And why was he chucked off the Enterprise in the first place? Didn't they have a brig?:rolleyes:
 
Don't forget that Spock saw the destruction of Vulcan from that world. So not only can he see worlds that are light years away, but he can see them in real time and not years later when the light actually reaches him.
 
iansales said:
Not me. I thought it was astonishingly stupid.
Click to expand...
Ian, when you described it in another thread as a car crash, I didn't really know what you meant. However, I cannot fault anything that you and Tillane just posted. For me though, I did go into it not expecting to like it at all, and came away thinking it wasn't that bad. I was completely thrown by the alternative reality that didn't get a reset button at the end.

I would say that the supernova threat to the galaxy would be because of the loss of Vulcan, a planet with a pivotal role in the future, but then I cannot defend the other indefensible things such as Spock watching it, or the thing neither of you mentioned, which was how they caught up with the Enterprise again.
 
I saw this movie and have strong opinions about it. First off, I liked it, 7 out of 10, lots of action, goood characters, just enough humor. The problem: for any sci-fi story/movie you have to have a certain suspension of belief. This one strained my credibility to the breaking point. Especially a young, unauthorized cadet being made second in command?! Checkov was cute, but he sure changed a lot when he got older?! Time travel is a problem for me. I think it's more impossible than most impossible things in Star Trek. Will said it best, "what's done is done and cannot be undone." I actuallly don't think time exists at all, it's just the way we measure process. So the only way to time travel is to re-process the whole universe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M. Robert Gibson Star Trek: The Original Lyrics Star Trek Discussions 2
REBerg Star Trek: Discovery - 5.01. Red Directive Star Trek: Discovery (DIS) 0
KGeo777 Star Trek Power Record "Passage to Moauv" The Original Series (TOS) 1
S Star Trek does well at Scream 2009 Star Trek (films) 0
S Star Trek tops nominations at Scream 2009 Star Trek (films) 0

Similar threads


Back
Top