PDA

View Full Version : Problem with the new "Star Trek" movie SPOILER WARNING



bobbob1016
May 25th, 2009, 03:02 AM
If you haven't seen the movie yet, DO NOT READ FURTHER.
If you don't want to read a nerd's rant about said movie which goes on much longer than it should DO NOT READ FURTHER.



If you want to laugh, or *politely* point out an error I made (except for the shorthand I used to refer to time periods, which I know aren't exact), feel free to do so.























I want to start by saying, the movie was great, as it's own movie, not as Trek 11. I did after Duncan took Connor's head in Highlander Endgame, and this movie did the same thing. After the ending, I realized, there is no way that Nemoy could be "our" Spock. There are 4 time periods that this movie messed up. Kirk is 2260 (not exactly, roughly), Picard is 2360 (for simplicity's sake), Cochran is 2060 (again simplicity), and Archer is 2160 (same simplicity).

I also want to say, and you can only take me at my word for this, I realized this as I was leaving the theatre, and this is not something I have spent a lot of time thinking through, or searching for. I did not spend more time on this than it took me to type this. I noticed the "more temporal issues" as I was typing this.



Now, the movie altered everything from 2260 onward. Lets call this 2260'. If this is so, all the time travel in Sci-Fi states that everything would happen differently in 2360, making 2360'.

Now, lets say Picard (roughly the 2360' period) is still born, and still captain and everything. In "First Contact", the 8th movie, Picard goes back in time and changes 2060 a little, although it can be argued that this trip is along the lines of Back to the Future 2 when Doc Brown hands his past self the correct wrench. Meaning Picard's 2360->2060 trip didn't alter anything, because it has already happened. However, when Picard' changes 2060, he'd change it slightly differently this time around, causing 2060'. Which in turn causes 2160'.

2160' would directly change the one episode where Archer goes back to Earth to capture some of the borg left on earth from "First Contact".

There are two options, either "First Contact" borg are there or aren't. If they are, the episode continues as it did closer to 2160. If there aren't borg left, any number of things could happen, making the difference between 2160' and 2160 bigger. Either option would mean 2260' happens differently, causing 2260'', causing 2360'', causing 2060'', and so on.

Since this would be a never-ending timeloop, to anyone affected by Earth, or the Federation, in any remote way, it could be safely presumed that Nemoy in the new movie is playing a different Spock where there was no "First Contact" movie. Meaning time from 2060 onward is not the same Star Trek universe.

There are more temporal issues raised in this movie:
1) Archer's borg phone home and they say since it'll take 200 years to get to the rest of the borg, they just postponed the invasion.

2) During the Xindi arc, Archer goes back to more or less now, 2000's and does stuff. This means he has a loop to our time, which would make 2000'.

3) Where the hell were the "temporal police" that are throughout later Star Treks. As in the one at the end of the third season of Voyager that causes his own time paradox, and then comes and takes them back to their previous time and space to keep the timelines in sync.

4) Because of the Voyager loop above (#3), which causes the computer boom of the modern day as stated in the episode, 2360' would again cause 1960' (since that is when the guy got the future technology).


And there are two one line to fix issues too. Scotty (Simon Pegg) says he was put on that planet for beaming captain Archer's beagle. The one he had 100 years before presumably, unless they simply said "Well, his nth beagle". Also, Nemoy says he learned to cheat from Kirk. The implication is he learned to cheat after he saw that Kirk cheated on the battle simulation, although I could've gotten the wrong implication.


Sorry for the long nerdy post, just had to vent, and thought that if anyone would understand all of the things I saw wrong with the movie, it'd someone here.

Firestem4
May 25th, 2009, 03:16 AM
I thought he was talking about his teacher, not Cpt. Archer..maybe the names soudned familiar.

Other than that I do agree with you that the movie screwed over the Star Trek timeline, BIG TIME. It should not be considered Canon at this point.

My only major problem was that in the beginning of the film when Kirk rode up to the shuttle-takeoff area, the Starship in the background was in fact the Enterprise...But wasn't the Enterprise in Drydock? Which is Utopia Planitia...in space?

bobbob1016
May 25th, 2009, 03:22 AM
I thought he was talking about his teacher, not Cpt. Archer..maybe the names soudned familiar.

Other than that I do agree with you that the movie screwed over the Star Trek timeline, BIG TIME. It should not be considered Canon at this point.

My only major problem was that in the beginning of the film when Kirk rode up to the shuttle-takeoff area, the Starship in the background was in fact the Enterprise...But wasn't the Enterprise in Drydock? Which is Utopia Planitia...in space?

I'm not sure about the Drydock thing. But what I realized is that not only *should* the movie not be considered Canon, it actually can't be considered Canon.

Sublime Porte
May 25th, 2009, 03:26 AM
Whilst the movie was fairly well made, and entertaining, I really wouldn't consider it to be a serious Star Trek movie. It was designed to appeal to today's teenagers, so the sound track was probably far higher up on the list of priorities than maintaining timelines.

SLEEPER_V
May 25th, 2009, 03:30 AM
maybe i totally missed it, but technically, wouldnt changing the timeline only create a divergent timeline rather than affect the original one? In theory. We are assuming that there is only one solid timeline rather than the fluid outlook.

bobbob1016
May 25th, 2009, 03:32 AM
Whilst the movie was fairly well made, and entertaining, I really wouldn't consider it to be a serious Star Trek movie. It was designed to appeal to today's teenagers, so the sound track was probably far higher up on the list of priorities than maintaining timelines.

I know they weren't leaving the timeline for sake of today's teenagers. I was just giving us plausable denibility, and a way we can simply say, to quote the trailer, "It ISN'T our father's Star Trek".

I still think it was a great movie itself though, would've been better sans the Star Trek stuff, which could've been removed easily.

Sublime Porte
May 25th, 2009, 03:41 AM
maybe i totally missed it, but technically, wouldnt changing the timeline only create a divergent timeline rather than affect the original one? In theory. We are assuming that there is only one solid timeline rather than the fluid outlook.

Well that's a possibility, but the problem is that in so many other timeline-affecting episodes, it DID affect the "mainstream" timeline.

lisati
May 25th, 2009, 03:53 AM
Should Doc Brown go back and prevent Marty and his former self saving Clara from Clayton Ravine? (BTTF III)

Maybe all will be revealed in a future Star Trek movie, where something resembling the timeline we know and love will be reinstated....

(And no, I haven't seen the movie yet)

Keithhed
May 25th, 2009, 03:57 AM
Timelines a tangled mess...
I enjoy the movie as a one-off. Its good but I dont consider it Cannon to the Star Trek universe.

bobbob1016
May 25th, 2009, 04:17 AM
Should Doc Brown go back and prevent Marty and his former self saving Clara from Clayton Ravine? (BTTF III)

Maybe all will be revealed in a future Star Trek movie, where something resembling the timeline we know and love will be reinstated....

(And no, I haven't seen the movie yet)

The only way to fix it is to undo this, and any following movies. Or they could say it's a tangent universe, happening alongside our Trek.

WA_Garrett
May 25th, 2009, 04:35 AM
Maybe they will eventually restore the time line in the trilogy they will undoubtedly make.

growled
May 25th, 2009, 05:12 AM
It was good and entertaining and all but a lot of things didn't make sense. I enjoyed it for what it is. It is not Star Trek.

schauerlich
May 25th, 2009, 06:30 AM
Wait. So you're telling me that a science fiction movie was inconsistent in its treatment of time travel? Holy cow!

Corelogik
May 25th, 2009, 07:21 AM
Spock traveled back in time, Spock prime remembered the original time line. So the original timeline existed. The moment Nero came back in time and encountered the USS Kelvin, the original timeline ceased to exist.

Star Trek is canon. So say the creators. They have reset the timeline for themselves in order to open up a new, unrestricted playground for new movies and series'.

YMMV

don_quixote
May 25th, 2009, 08:57 AM
The movie has the most unbelievable plot line in the world (nobody predicts a supernova is about to happen, the planet is not evacuated just in case the plan doesn't work, a ludicrous villan with a highly unlikely motivation, ludicrously impractical Romulan spaceship, etc. etc.). The temporal inconsistencies are minor issues in comparison.

ken_do_san
May 25th, 2009, 11:06 AM
Being old enough to have seen Star Trek since the beginning, the movie I think the movie has provided what it was meant to do, entertain and make money!!!

koshatnik
May 25th, 2009, 11:26 AM
It's a piece of fiction, not a documentary.

sisco311
May 25th, 2009, 11:44 AM
the Vulcan Science Directorate has concluded that time travel is impossible.

Redlance
May 25th, 2009, 12:47 PM
Actually what we are learning about space/time this entire debate is beginning to look really moot.
Time/space appears to be not static nor linear. its really a cloud of probability in both directions. For instance you could go back in time 100 years and find a more advanced civilization than the one you left! Why? well space/time is really damn odd as it really doesn't behave like we think it really does. in fact our view of the universe is skewed. If you take time look up holographic universe and read the the research papers behind the articles. basicly our space/time is a projection off of a 7+ dimensional object in which we perceive as 4 logical dimensions! So traveling in time wether forward/backward or sideways(parallel) or any combination thereof you will only arrive in a probablistical reality (which has the bad side effect of being YOUR new reality) Which means you would have a hard time finding your 'Old' timeline ever. (infinity-1 :1 odds):popcorn:

tsali
May 25th, 2009, 01:58 PM
I thought it was written to appeal to teenage movie-goers.

The plot-line was thin and story poor...invented devices to "introduce" teens to the new "Kirk and crew". What's next, "The Real World: Star Fleet Academy"? Uniforms by Aeropostale?

The effects were quite nice. The fight scene on the drill was very good.

In contrast, I thought "Nemesis" was well written and engrossing.

The thing that set the original 'Star Trek' apart was good story telling. Some great sci-fi authors wrote some Star Trek episodes.
( http://www.rimworlds.com/thecrotchetyoldfan/?p=4256 )

For some reason, storytelling became a lost art as the 'Star Trek' spiralled down through DS9, Voyager, and the abysmal Enterprise. Each episode had become fashioned like "soap operas"...a literal continuation of the previous episode. The original series could tell a complete story in one hour. The intro splash is all you needed to get the back story.

I'm old school. I don't like soaps. I hate having to "follow" a series to have any clue about what's going on in an episode. Shows like "Lost" do exactly that...they lose me!

Magnes
May 25th, 2009, 02:15 PM
Yeah. It was quite a stupid movie. The "old timeline" though is intact, the new one is now an alternative world like the one we know from other episodes of Star Trek but different.

I don't like the new Star Trek. New version of Doctor Who has been done much much better (sorry for my English, I feel that this sentence is wrong, but don't know how to improve it).

bobbob1016
May 25th, 2009, 02:19 PM
Spock traveled back in time, Spock prime remembered the original time line. So the original timeline existed. The moment Nero came back in time and encountered the USS Kelvin, the original timeline ceased to exist.

Star Trek is canon. So say the creators. They have reset the timeline for themselves in order to open up a new, unrestricted playground for new movies and series'.

YMMV

No, Spock' causes Picard' causes Cochran' causes Archer' causes Spock'' causes Picard'' causes Cochran'' causes Archer'' causes Spock''' and so on. I didn't know the creator, Eugene Wesley "Gene" Roddenberry (August 19, 1921 – October 24, 1991), died in 1991 according to wikipedia, said or could say anything on the matter.

Or do you mean the ones who created this movie for $$$ and destroyed everything the actual creator did?




Wait. So you're telling me that a science fiction movie was inconsistent in its treatment of time travel? Holy cow!

And a lot of movies are temporally accurate. The Back to the Future Trilogy is, except when Doc Brown sends him back to 1885, he should have known he would wind up in 1885 throughout the second and any part of the first movie after 1955. That means his line in 1885 "Who dressed you like that?" he should remember the 1955 him dressed Marty like that. That is the only issue.





Yeah. It was quite a stupid movie. The "old timeline" though is intact, the new one is now an alternative world like the one we know from other episodes of Star Trek but different.

I don't like the new Star Trek. New version of Doctor Who has been done much much better (sorry for my English, I feel that this sentence is wrong, but don't know how to improve it).

Yes, the only fix they can do is in the next movie they can say "The red matter must have split us into an entirely different tangent dimension, running alongside what actually would have happened."

And your English in that line is fine, the only thing you missed was it should be "The new version..." not just "New version..." but that doesn't matter. When speaking I've used similar to "New version..." but usually when typing I do say "The new version..."

subdivision
May 25th, 2009, 02:33 PM
I've always hated Star Trek for it's silly time travel plots and I was slightly dissapointed in this movie for using one. I understand WHY they did it, but it doesn't make it any less of a silly time travel plot.

Also, am I the only one wondering why a mining ship where people did "honest labor" needed so many weapons? I'm NOT a Star Trek fan so maybe I missed something, but Romulan war ships had to be damn near unstoppable if their mining ships are so powerful.

stimpack
May 25th, 2009, 02:42 PM
Star Trek has always been dumb, see B5 or something for a bit more substance. But what Star Trek has always been is fun, this movie was fun too.

Lens Flares suck however, I am no longer watching in person, instead I am now aware of watching via a camera, immersion somewhat destroyed.

etnlIcarus
May 25th, 2009, 04:43 PM
I got 1/2 way through the opening post before giving up.



Look, the new Trek film deals only with the thinnest of pretences. It breaks canon at every turn and the only answer to this is a hint at an, "alternate reality", being created by the whole time-travel-dealy. Equally, it drops the traditional Star Trek pretence of having even the smallest shred of intellectual merit (not that it wasn't a pretty strained shred to begin with).

Frankly, I don't care and neither should you. Star Trek canon, while used creatively in Enterprise, is ultimately an unwieldy beast which needs to be put to rest in order to make the Star Trek IP commercially viable again.


If you're going to dwell on and criticise this film, do so on the grounds that it's just a terrible film. It's script is a convoluted and holey mess. Chris Pine and Simon Pegg represent the only decent performances in the entire cast. It's shallow, aesthetically generic, optimised for the mentally retarded who demand nothing of their viewing but shiny effects and it adds absolutely nothing to the science fiction genre. Also, it tried to make Star Trek cool, which, as this film demonstrated in no uncertain terms, is like trying to fix a hole in the wall with a hammer. You just end up with a bigger hole than when you started.

0per4t0r
May 25th, 2009, 04:50 PM
I'll probably rent it once it comes out on DVD. And, thanks for the spoiler warning.

http://sg.88db.com/sg/HTML/en-us/indexmkt/Lifestyle/images/car_spoiler.gif


The thing might've took my head off. :)

pbpersson
May 25th, 2009, 05:08 PM
Regarding the "temporal prime directive" and the "Starship Relativity" in the 29th century attempting to prevent temporal incursions and trying to preserve the timeline.....

They warned Janeway not to mess with the timeline and to refrain from time travel.

If you are wondering why they were asleep at the switch in the new Star Trek movie, I want to know where they were in the last episode of Voyager called "EndGame" :o:o:o:o:o :confused:

davisouzarj
May 25th, 2009, 06:46 PM
Guys, the great trick that the producers & writers brought to this movie was found a way to "re-tell" everything from the beginning in the Kirk/Spock/McCoy saga, and to fulfill this objective, they thought, "no problem if we fully mess with the canon timeline".

In fact, I have read something about J.J. Abrams saying "it does NOT follow original Star Trek canon, it is MY Star Trek, so do not bore me with this kind of stuff".

Anyway, I believe that is good to the franchise to catch new audience, and yes, the movie itself is pretty good - when it ends, it leaves a wish "to see more".

The only major fault of the movie for me was also the construction of the enterprise on earth... well, it is difficult even to imagine how it reached the open space...

[]'s

bobbob1016
May 26th, 2009, 12:25 AM
Star Trek has always been dumb, see B5 or something for a bit more substance. But what Star Trek has always been is fun, this movie was fun too.

Lens Flares suck however, I am no longer watching in person, instead I am now aware of watching via a camera, immersion somewhat destroyed.

Babylon 5 is on my list next. I've seen bits and pieces since my dad is a fan of both B5 and Star Trek. I don't remember much, but they have time travel as well iirc. Don't tell me since I want to watch it and find out why there is time travel.

hanzomon4
May 26th, 2009, 04:57 AM
I thought it was written to appeal to teenage movie-goers.

The plot-line was thin and story poor...invented devices to "introduce" teens to the new "Kirk and crew". What's next, "The Real World: Star Fleet Academy"? Uniforms by Aeropostale?

The effects were quite nice. The fight scene on the drill was very good.

In contrast, I thought "Nemesis" was well written and engrossing.

The thing that set the original 'Star Trek' apart was good story telling. Some great sci-fi authors wrote some Star Trek episodes.
( http://www.rimworlds.com/thecrotchetyoldfan/?p=4256 )

For some reason, storytelling became a lost art as the 'Star Trek' spiralled down through DS9, Voyager, and the abysmal Enterprise. Each episode had become fashioned like "soap operas"...a literal continuation of the previous episode. The original series could tell a complete story in one hour. The intro splash is all you needed to get the back story.

I'm old school. I don't like soaps. I hate having to "follow" a series to have any clue about what's going on in an episode. Shows like "Lost" do exactly that...they lose me!


DS9 was the best 2nd only to the original and face to face with tng.... Don't hate