The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Eric Bana Future Guy from Enterprise?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02-05-2008, 07:20 AM
ChristopherPike's Avatar
ChristopherPike ChristopherPike is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 49
Default

Future Guy was by far the easy part of the TCW to understand. If the new film's plot features such a shadowy character altering the past to eliminate the Federation, a passing reference to him being unsuccessful 100 years earlier need go into no more detail than that.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-05-2008, 09:10 AM
Enterprise Captain's Avatar
Enterprise Captain Enterprise Captain is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, ON Canada
Posts: 1,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristopherPike View Post
Future Guy was by far the easy part of the TCW to understand. If the new film's plot features such a shadowy character altering the past to eliminate the Federation, a passing reference to him being unsuccessful 100 years earlier need go into no more detail than that.
I agree they could do it that way and it would work but people are going to ask “what was that all about?” That’s when they will have to either ask an Enterprise fan or do some research and I don’t think they want people to have to do that.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-05-2008, 10:00 AM
HRH The KING's Avatar
HRH The KING HRH The KING is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Royal Estates
Posts: 733
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Pike View Post
Well Orci said Enterprise and TNG would be used as bookends to the movie and we would see references to both in the film. He stated that in a October article. Bana's role in a limited manner could be explained as Future Guy and all he would have to do is give a mission statement using the temporal transporter to talk to his bad guys in different times. Makes sense.
I would be very disappointed if any of this happened in the movie.


I want XI to break entirely with Berman's era.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-05-2008, 12:22 PM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Default

Someone on the Movies board over at st.com put forth the idea, what if the movie opens in the dark, less happy 23rd century we seem to see the "new" 1701 being built in...a 23rd century that may be the "alternate universe" hinted at...and Spock's coming back in time to correct things creates the "real" TOS timeline we all know and love...

Link to thread
__________________
Never keep a Vulcan waiting...
Admin, sb63's Star Trek Logs, member of the Trek Webmaster Program
STL is now also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekLogs
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-05-2008, 12:54 PM
tejdog1 tejdog1 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 335
Default

You mean the effects of the TCW DID affect the timeline, and Spock is trying to correct it? If that's the case, why not go back to 2151 and reset things from that point? I mean, who knows, the "real" timeline could've had entirely different circumstances surrounding the Warp program, etc...which is why (in universe) we've never heard of Archer, NX-01, etc...

The question then would be, why would Spock "allow" the NX-01 we saw to remain, when he has to know that wasn't part of the "real" timeline?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-06-2008, 05:42 AM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Default

It may be necessary to let Archer survive in his part of the timeline...to a point...maybe to facilitate the formation of the Federation?
__________________
Never keep a Vulcan waiting...
Admin, sb63's Star Trek Logs, member of the Trek Webmaster Program
STL is now also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekLogs
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-06-2008, 07:11 AM
fidelio1985's Avatar
fidelio1985 fidelio1985 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Bigglesworth View Post
If any parts of that idiotic Temporal Cold War show up in this film, I'll be very disappointed. The less ENT (particularly bad ENT) in this film, the better.
Same goes for me!!!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-06-2008, 07:13 AM
fidelio1985's Avatar
fidelio1985 fidelio1985 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 42
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRH The KING View Post
I would be very disappointed if any of this happened in the movie.


I want XI to break entirely with Berman's era.
Me too!!!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-06-2008, 07:14 AM
Shadowmaster22503 Shadowmaster22503 is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 10
Default

As far as I am aware from what ST.com has posted, the movie will have Nimoy in there as an older Spock reflecting on How he and Kirk came to be posted on the Enterprise and their first mission together. This was posted some time ago way before even this forum was created and several months before the rest of the cast was set in stone.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-06-2008, 07:27 AM
section9's Avatar
section9 section9 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tejdog1 View Post
You mean the effects of the TCW DID affect the timeline, and Spock is trying to correct it? If that's the case, why not go back to 2151 and reset things from that point? I mean, who knows, the "real" timeline could've had entirely different circumstances surrounding the Warp program, etc...which is why (in universe) we've never heard of Archer, NX-01, etc...

The question then would be, why would Spock "allow" the NX-01 we saw to remain, when he has to know that wasn't part of the "real" timeline?
This starts to get into Grandfather Paradox stuff, which is the whole trouble with Time Travel Stories. Unless they're written properly, the need to explain backstory can clutter up a good script and have audiences' eyes' glazing over.

Point is: DON'T CLUTTER UP A SCRIPT WITH CANON BACKSTORY!!!

JJ, hopefully, is trying to pull in the new fans with a bangup story. A sentence or two reference to Archer and the NX-01 is about all we can afford before we swing into the plot. In a two-hour movie, you can't waste time explaining the TCW or how Kirk's relationship with Carol couldn't have occured without the presence of Gary Mitchell.

Personally, I like the idea of Star Trek Featurettes: instead of including the launching of 1701 in the film, put it in three minute previews over the Summer. Have Jolene Blalock and Scott Bakula appear at the launching of 1701 as their characters just before Bakula's character punches his ticket.

What I'm trying to get across is that ENT may have been a flawed series, but it's last two seasons were well written enough to establish it as the canonical historical foundation for the entire franchise. Nobody ever understood how we got past Colonel Green's war, Zephram Cochran, and the establishment of the Federation. Further, they did a bang-up job in pointing out how the Mirror Universe was established and how the Sato Dynasty took power with the presence of the U.S.S. Defiant in that reality. B&B did a lot to bury the franchise with Voyager, but they managed to write themselves out of a box with the last two seasons of ENT, imho.

A way should be found to tip the hat to ENT to take the ball from ENT to "Star Trek: Part Deux".
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 11:38 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.