[captain spock]

Have you ever watched "Parallels" episode from the seventh season of STNG? All time lines exist at all times. Sorry but if your going to be purist regarding this movie don't say that "Paramount" needs to make a new movie, Paramount doesn't exist in 23rd century. I for one believe this movie could have been fine without the time line issue, however the "enterprise" series created a major bluff. If this is a historical view of the future could not the remaining Vulcans (i think there was 10,000 or so, actually rebuild a planet, call it Vulcan and have the same timeline?,) Has anyone postulized on how to bridge the two together. Maybe Q will come to the rescue? Maybe Nero was Q? Just kiddin.

[MissFerran]

Apparently this board keeps signing me out before I can type an entire post...it's very irritating.

[Sesshu]

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

If anything this movie should have just called the "blackhole" created by redmatter a "interspacial rift" or some other scientific sounding thing. I think that would have made a little more "sense", even for sci-fi.

Bingo! And Spock Prime launches the red matter at the star but just as he does, the star goes supernova, destroying Romulus. Nero and Spock get caught in the "interspatial rift" and I can "imagine" that Nero creating an "interspatial rift" near a planet would not be good for that planet.

We avoid a very absurd use of a black hole and don't even consider a "galaxy-threatening" supernova.

Two huge bones of contention resolved for me. Now just have Vulcans put up some reasonable resistance before their planet gets sucked into/destroyed by the rift, and the only problem I have left is the Spock/Uhura "transporter" room scene. The turbolift scene is okay, if we "must" have a reboot and they want some "spice" in it.

Do you want to make a Star Trek movie? Two major bones solved by 2 fans on the forums. This is why I term the writing/production "less than diligent".

The fans on this forum would write a pretty good script.

**EDIT And have Uhura omit the second kiss on the turbolift. Instead, have them look at each other in a "conflicted", "knowing" way. And at the transporter, again some conflicted looks between the two or somesuch (you don't have to have them blatantly "make out"). Now you have some mystery/explanation to look forward to in the sequel.

[Sesshu]

Originally Posted by MissFerran

Apparently this board keeps signing me out before I can type an entire post...it's very irritating.

Write the response in notepad, then copy and paste. That should do it. I've had that problem on other forums.

[R23]

I would just like to ask if anyone felt a chill just for a second or so when those crackling 1960's style radio transmissions / communications were coming through with the mutterings of the words 'enterprise' when Kirk and Sulu got into the transport to prepare to skydive down to the drilling platform.

Its something that Abrams used alot in this film as also in the original teaser trailer, this harking back to the space race and capturing the essence of it... Even in the opening pan shot of the Kelvin you hear crackling radio chatter in space and it sets you up for a big scene.

Im sure by then they would have perfected digital audio communication but they just wanted that earthy effect... I dont really know how to discribe it.

Anyone else get that feeling?

[Sesshu]

Originally Posted by Sohna

In a recent interview the writers said they used it [alternate timeline] because if they had stuck with the original, they would never have been able to generate any real suspense, because the audience would always know the characters were safe because they were alive and well at a later date.

When I was 12, 13 and 14 watching TOS I never had any doubt that the main characters would always survive. Or pretty much any other series. The point of interest (suspense) was in "how" they would get out of it. I always knew that they would. So did everyone else.

I did not for one moment think that young Spock, Kirk, or any of the original crew that they brought back were going to die in this movie. And going forward, what are they going to do? Kill young Spock "again" like they did in ST2? How many times can you kill Spock and bring him back? Surely they won't kill Kirk. How can you kill Scotty? Will they kill Uhura in the sequel? Bones? Sulu? There wasn't enough Sulu in this one to kill. I can see killing off the new manic Checkov .

After 3 or 4 movies they might decide to do that. Who will they choose, though? I highly doubt Kirk. Spock? Again? Uhura? Maybe. They would have to develop her character for it to mean anything. Scotty? Why Scotty? That would be like blowing up the ship and never bringing it back. Bones? Not without bringing him back, and if you bring him back, as we know they will, then he's safe anyway.

I'll say that I was very upset when Spock bit it in ST2. I didn't know if they would bring him back. I figured Nimoy wanted out. But they brought him back because it wouldn't be Star Trek without him (and they would make more money with him than without him). From that example, the fans know that it's going to be hard for Paramount to agree to permanently dust any major character if Paramount is making big money with those characters.

I'm not entirely sure why the writers said that. Probably because they liked their script and wanted to do what they actually did. Or perhaps they were being modest. It took a lot of guts to boldly go their own way as they did. They were under a lot of pressure. This was a big deal in the industry. This is how writing careers are made and broken. They had to develop a lot of "stuff". I don't like some of it, but I'll admit they had a lot of bases to cover. A few minor changes and I would have been completely happy (well, almost; you can't please everyone). I'm sure they learned a lot from this. I'm just commenting on what they said. I wonder if it was said before, or after the movie. "Before" would make a lot of sense. If "after" then I may be misinterpreting why they said it. It could still be modesty. The movie's a big success.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Saquist

It was a blast.
Can you imagine my inner schism!
Part of me enjoying this film
The other part perturbed.

I'm only just now enjoying other aspects such as fun and thriller in the active format. That's why it's hard to go against the film. But I do have my standards. This film falls short of many of them and yet raises the standard on others.

Indeed, the film has an amazing ability (for me at least, but it seems you as well and others) to make us forget it's total lack of any sense (Enterprise size the sole exception - sorry, not letting that one go!) and just be something that can be hugely enjoyable and fun!

[Sparky]

Originally Posted by Sesshu

I did not for one moment think that young Spock, Kirk, or any of the original crew that they brought back were going to die in this movie. And going forward, what are they going to do? Kill young Spock "again" like they did in ST2? How many times can you kill Spock and bring him back? Surely they won't kill Kirk. How can you kill Scotty? Will they kill Uhura in the sequel? Bones? Sulu?

That's the old B movie quality of TOS.
It's kind of predictable in most cases, as red shirts are killed.
But you don't want the main characters killed off anyway.

Keeping those characters alive is just a given and most fans like it that way.

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

The honest to god truth is, I wouldn't put it past them to kill off one of the major characters like an Uhura or a Chekov. They destroyed Vulcan and if they were to kill off one of those characters you would certainly know that all bets are off. I really would not put it past them at all.

[Gatt9]

Originally Posted by Sesshu

Do not "ever" show me a ship going in and out of a black hole again Would you have a ship go through a star? Well, a black hole is much, much worse.

Hire a consultant that would know a supernova could not threaten the galaxy. That's like setting off a firecracker and having it blow up Earth and the solar system.

Conclusion:

I have way too much time on my hands! And J.J. Abrams needs a science consultant

If you got this far, all I have to say is, goodness, why?

I think the largest problem is that you're in need of a science consultant.

1. When an object approaches a black hole there's a finite point where it's drives and the gravity pull are perfectly balanced so the object becomes stationary, there's also a point where it's moving backwards 1" per year, etc. When the object hits the Black Hole's even horizion, to an observer, it appears permanently "stuck".

In short, what you saw was the very accurate point where the ship's drives were strong enough to keep it from hitting the horizion, but not strong enough to pull out. It would've stayed right about there until it's fuel was depleted.

2. There is significant evidence that a supernova of sufficient proximity would wipe out earth. It's not implausible that a supernova of a star of incredible size could wipe out the better part of a galaxy.

Wikipedia is your friend, referencing it can prevent horrible internet embarrasments.