|
Post by peanutfan on May 10, 2009 13:17:37 GMT -5
Spoiler alert! Do not read this post if you haven't seen the movie!
Considering that Star Trek establishes pretty clearly that the "many worlds" hypothesis of quantum physics is true, I'd say the canon still applies; the point where Nero and Spock come back just represents a splitting point. In one reality, the canon we're all familiar with happens; in the other, Kirk's father dies on the Kelvin, Vulcan is destroyed by the time-travelling Nero, and Kirk grows up delinquent until finally realizing his potential with the help of Spock Prime.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on May 11, 2009 7:19:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on May 11, 2009 7:29:58 GMT -5
Spoiler alert! Do not read this post if you haven't seen the movie! Considering that Star Trek establishes pretty clearly that the "many worlds" hypothesis of quantum physics is true, I'd say the canon still applies; the point where Nero and Spock come back just represents a splitting point. In one reality, the canon we're all familiar with happens; in the other, Kirk's father dies on the Kelvin, Vulcan is destroyed by the time-travelling Nero, and Kirk grows up delinquent until finally realizing his potential with the help of Spock Prime. I read a review in the Times the other day which said that the characters in the new movie were all "space cadets", despite the fact that the reviewer was clearly not a Trekkie and the actual terminology was probably less irksome, that one sentence made me 90% certain I wasn't going to watch it. The fact that you even had to say "Spock Prime" in describing the plot has added another 134% to that certainty.
|
|
|
Post by katsuro on May 11, 2009 8:10:51 GMT -5
Those are your reasons for not seeing the movie? 'Coz one guy used the word "space cadets" and someone here said "Spock Prime"? You serious?
Not because the vast majority of reviews were bad (although it actually has had mostly positive reviews, 96% last time I checked Rotton Tomatoes) or because everyone you know who saw it said it sucked balls? Or because the trailer made the movie look like the biggest pile of crap ever filmed (ala Epic Movie etc) Or even simply because you hate Star Trek and/or sci-fi? But instead because of two phrases that don't even appear in the film were uttered by some random people talking about the movie?
I'm disaapointed in you. I thought you were cool, rational and smart.
|
|
|
Post by Madame Scarlet on May 11, 2009 10:03:20 GMT -5
In order to fit into the Star Trek universe, the movie has to be an alternate timeline. Kirk's father died at his birth, which is where the timelines diverged. Then a lot of things happened that made pretty much everything that's happened in the Star Trek universe afterwards not possible. Since characters discussed history being changed and being in an alternate timeline, it's safe to assume this was the intent of the scriptwriters.
I was waiting for something to happen to change things back to how they were supposed to be, but nothing did. I think it's probably better for the movie that that was the case.
Personally, I loved the movie. There was a painful scene in the beginning (that stupid fucking joyride kid Kirk went on) and I was afraid I was going to despise it, but it only went uphill after that.
|
|
|
Post by captainhooker on May 11, 2009 11:33:56 GMT -5
I'm not a trekkie, and generally I'm not a fan of summer action flicks, but this movie was a lot of fun.
Funny, thoughtful, exciting - just plain entertaining - plot holes and all.
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on May 11, 2009 15:23:02 GMT -5
That joyride scene was just pointless.
|
|
|
Post by NoLeafClover on May 11, 2009 15:40:05 GMT -5
The joyride scene barred, I love the rest of the movie. It wrapped up all the plotholes nicely, and fulfilled all my Trekkie obligations. It was nice that there wasn't some Deus Ex Machina that set the timeline "right"--this means that we can have a new Star Trek universe, a new canon that can relaunch the franchise in the right way, rather than trying to pander to what it was and create a whole lot of unnecessary grumbling from former Star Trek fans.
There's tons of stuff they can do and places they can boldly go now.
Heh-heh. See what I did there? Boldy...go...nevermind.
|
|
|
Post by Madame Scarlet on May 12, 2009 9:31:03 GMT -5
That joyride scene was just pointless. Well, I think the point of the scene was to show that Kirk was a rebel and didn't like his stepdad. But there's no fucking way a 10 year old kid is going to drive a car off a cliff and jump out of the car and make it. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for impossible technology, but not children doing incredible stunts. They could've done that scene without the cliff, or just something else entirely, to establish what they wanted to with the scene.
|
|
|
Post by NoLeafClover on May 12, 2009 10:42:38 GMT -5
That joyride scene was just pointless. Well, I think the point of the scene was to show that Kirk was a rebel and didn't like his stepdad. But there's no fucking way a 10 year old kid is going to drive a car off a cliff and jump out of the car and make it. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief for impossible technology, but not children doing incredible stunts. They could've done that scene without the cliff, or just something else entirely, to establish what they wanted to with the scene. Thats what i like to call a "trailer scene". Looks pretty bad ass in a trailer, but feels totally out of place with the rest of the flick.
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on May 12, 2009 12:04:39 GMT -5
I spent the whole movie waiting for Shattner to make a cameo and it never happened. He can do world of warcraft and travelocity commercials but not a Star Trek movie?
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on May 12, 2009 12:50:19 GMT -5
They decided to leave him out because he'd be immediately recognized as Kirk, which would get the hardcore Trekkies upset if he wasn't actually playing Kirk, and would get anyone who cares the slightest bit about narrative consistency upset if he played Kirk without a DAMN good explanation for his resurrection. Hell, they had to devote an entire movie to Spock's.
|
|
|
Post by NoLeafClover on May 12, 2009 12:56:30 GMT -5
Kirk died at the end of Generations; there'd be no way of bringing him back without a shit ton of plotholes opening.
|
|
|
Post by Bezron on May 12, 2009 13:09:19 GMT -5
Kirk died at the end of Generations; there'd be no way of bringing him back without a shit ton of plotholes opening. Although, they could probably now bring him in in a future movie, due to the timeline....
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on May 12, 2009 13:09:28 GMT -5
Precisely.
|
|