The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > The year the film is set
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-02-2008, 10:05 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DNA-1842 View Post
That is what I meant by my analogy.


(And I used my own prescription!)
I may indeed need new glasses myself then!!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-02-2008, 10:06 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

I'm not going to laugh at that...(even though I want to).

But I really do want to here how and why and under what kind of reasoning can we justify looking at this film as the same thread that we began with 40 years ago?
I get it...it's a different person telling the story but Trek has had many many different people tell the stories but since it has been mostly visual does not the visual of this film confirm that there is a deviation?

Some like to bring up the Sherlock Holmes books as having details that don't quite sync with the others before. Apparently he was unconcerned with the consistency but this is different. This is eposodic story telling. If you say Spock wore blue and later a different author says he wore red. Does that not cause a bit of confusion. When the author says they drove boats and later they were driving on cars...

It just seems to break up the path the story is taking us one.
That's why I look at the significant changes of this movie and quickly realize that I don't need to get all huffy and puffy like a riled rooster about details that aren't exactly right...the ship, the bridge, they're background stories.....

Now I'd like to know why other are dead set to fit this movie into canon. I'm sure the events will be canon but not everything will fit with the continuity of what we know they did before...and we know, that they know, that they couldn't have done it like they could have but they didn't and now that we know that they didn't it seems to imply that the details weren't the important issue. The story and it's sucess seemed to be the target...

And I can only hope that's true.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-02-2008, 10:16 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

I think it is relevant to a lot of people, no matter whether they mind certain changes or not, whether this will be Trek 2.0 and plays more or less in an alternate universe or whether the changes are in the order of former Trek productions.
And it will create division, just like it was with the former prequel ENT which is considered by some to play in a different universe/timeline and be bad and by some to play in the normal Trekverse and be good.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-02-2008, 11:55 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Yes, and I just would like to wait to see if the changes are explained, that's all. I'm not in a rush to put the film in the position of resetting everything until I see it first.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-03-2008, 05:46 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I think it is relevant to a lot of people, no matter whether they mind certain changes or not, whether this will be Trek 2.0 and plays more or less in an alternate universe or whether the changes are in the order of former Trek productions.
And it will create division, just like it was with the former prequel ENT which is considered by some to play in a different universe/timeline and be bad and by some to play in the normal Trekverse and be good.
It's irrelevant to me because to make it relevant would also make it impossible to enjoy the movie. I've chosen to disregard the issue of canon on this movie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
Yes, and I just would like to wait to see if the changes are explained, that's all. I'm not in a rush to put the film in the position of resetting everything until I see it first.

Look at the list of changes we know already.
1. The ship
2. The ship is constructed on the Ground
3. Kirk knows how to drive a vehicle
4. The Birdge of the Enterprise is radically different
5. Romulan invovlement when we know there have been no encounters before Balance of Terror
6. A seeming contradiction is checkov part of the bridge crew (but it's not)
7. Spock's highly aggressive nature (seemingly)
8. Doctor McCoy has no Southern Accent (that's actually a big one)


With some of these...yes, it is too early to tell and we may never get an answer and that still does not make an actual contradiction. But we do know enough to understand that the movie will defy the 40 years of...somewhat consistent story telling...the question isn't, is it...it's how much more.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-03-2008, 05:59 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Look at the list of changes we know already.
1. The ship
2. The ship is constructed on the Ground
3. Kirk knows how to drive a vehicle
4. The Birdge of the Enterprise is radically different
5. Romulan invovlement when we know there have been no encounters before Balance of Terror
6. A seeming contradiction is checkov part of the bridge crew (but it's not)
7. Spock's highly aggressive nature (seemingly)
8. Doctor McCoy has no Southern Accent (that's actually a big one)


With some of these...yes, it is too early to tell and we may never get an answer and that still does not make an actual contradiction. But we do know enough to understand that the movie will defy the 40 years of...somewhat consistent story telling...the question isn't, is it...it's how much more.
Spock in the early days was still trying to balance his emotions out, this is evident in 'The Cage' and even 'Where no Man has gone before'.

I don't see Kirk's driving as the most significant inconsistency, there are plenty of bigger ones already in pre-Abrams Trek. How about the 25 years it took to explain Klingon Ridges?

The Romulans and the Earth fought an entire war prior to 'Balance of Terror' so there was in fact contact between the powers, the Humans just didn't know what the enemy looked like.

I couldn't really pick up from the trailer that McCoy didn't have an accent, as it's a very quick line of dialogue so I'll wait until I hear more before deciding on that one, and since another poster in another thread has quoted an interview with them has pointed out that the writers have explained in the film any significant deviations from apparent history, is it not reasonable to hold off to see what those explanations are? This could apply to the design of the ship, the bridge and the construction on the ground.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but my point is that neither does anyone else really until the film comes out, or pre-release material gives more information. It's all assumptions based on personal interpretation of what's been shown so far.

Last edited by kevin : 12-03-2008 at 06:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-03-2008, 06:19 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

I agree with you Kevin. Vulcans have strong emotions, so Spock has a hard time with his Vulcan half. As Orci&Kurtzman mentioned that Balance of Terror was the single most important episode of TOS for this movie, they will give an explanation for why humans and Romulans see each other face to face (prior to he trailer one could assume that they just had no viewscreen on during communications, most interestingly Kirk and Khan never faced each other directly in TWOK). You suggested youself Saq that they could pretend to be Vulcans, which seems the most likely explanation as no other besides a time-travel reboot story which would contradict the basic outline of the plot, the coming together of a crew.
For Chekov, pretending that he was on board the E during TOS's first season amends this problem and that in TWOK most easily.

Remains only the lack of McCoy's southern accent, which cannot be explained at all, and I understand that this point is something that annoys you; if there were a German character in Trek I would not wanna see him changed to an Austrian But perhaps Urban's performance is so fine that it outweighs the lack of an accent (I guess it is hard for a someone from New Zealnd to emulate a Southern accent). In fact, my guess is that he will play very well, I have more doubts about Quinto.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-03-2008, 10:13 PM
DolFan2020's Avatar
DolFan2020 DolFan2020 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Florida.. hence Dolphins FAN!
Posts: 290
Default

Well who knows years with TREK? In SPACE SEED Kirk told Khan he has been "asleep" for just over 200 years... Which means that the year was roughly 2196, since Khan and the "Botany Bay" left Earth in 1996! Even though now the "official" chronology has the year for that episode being around 2266 or 2267... So apparently by the 23rd Century people can do celestial mechanics and spacial coordinates, but they can't do simple MATH?

So hey, there you go... Another nugget of STAR TREK NON-CANON you can stuff in your CANONITE PIPE and SMOKE IT!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-03-2008, 10:37 PM
Admiral Archer's Avatar
Admiral Archer Admiral Archer is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Foothill Ranch, CA
Posts: 746
Default

Another question - what year in the 'modern trek' period is old Spock traveling back in time from? Is it still sometime in the 24th century, or is it in the early 25th Century? And what year specifically? Would anyone happen to know?
__________________
"To boldly go where no man has gone before"

--ADMIRAL JONATHAN ARCHER--

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-03-2008, 11:24 PM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral Archer View Post
Another question - what year in the 'modern trek' period is old Spock traveling back in time from? Is it still sometime in the 24th century, or is it in the early 25th Century? And what year specifically? Would anyone happen to know?
Spock will be coming back from the 24th-Century, but the specific year could be anywhere around 2379 (the timeframe of Nemesis). If we go by the IDW prequel comic, it's definitely during the current time of Captain Picard and the Enterprise-E.

And if Trek was still doing a 24th-Century series today, it would currently be 2385...

As far as what year I think the movie mainly takes place in--my wager would be anywhere from 2264-2266 myself...
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:27 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.