The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Canon war (Spoilers)
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12  
Old 05-08-2009, 09:01 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

And the biggest mantra in film is - keep it simple, don't lose your audience.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-08-2009, 09:07 AM
mdtrekker mdtrekker is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2
Default

I completely agree with the original post, this has been bugging me since I saw it last night. While the idea may be that this is an alternate timeline and the original one is still in place, what I really am not happy about is that the writers/producers took the easy way out. It would seem that the same basic story (putting aside for a moment other canon issues) could have been told, but resetting the timeline in the end.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-08-2009, 09:08 AM
Raul4510's Avatar
Raul4510 Raul4510 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 150
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
And the biggest mantra in film is - keep it simple, don't lose your audience.
That is what makes it so great. I mean my wife liked the movie more than I did and she (doesn't even like Star Trek). So JJ Abrams succeeded in hitting his non-Trek audience as far as I am concerned. What a brilliant film!
__________________
"The Protein Resequencer makes chicken sandwiches."

-Captain Jonathan Archer
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-08-2009, 09:08 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

But you would have been expecting that. It's not 'new' to reset the timelines and it would also have been the easy way to invalidate every 'big' change they made.

oops - that's to mdtrekker's post!!
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-08-2009, 09:13 AM
mdtrekker mdtrekker is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2
Default

point taken
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-08-2009, 09:18 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

It's about unpredictability and playing with the expectations of us fans. What is the purpose of a prequel if you know that everything and everyone is safe just because it or they exist in previous Trek incarnations?

That would be like Worf's holodeck program with holodeck securities on, without thrill and purposeless.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-08-2009, 09:19 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
It's about unpredictability and playing with the expectations of us fans. What is the purpose of a prequel if you know that everything and everyone is safe just because it or they exist in previous Trek incarnations?

It's like Worf's holodeck program. Without holodeck securities off, it would be without thrill and purposeless.
Neat analogy
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-08-2009, 09:20 AM
The Commodore The Commodore is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 45
Default

Well having read the interview, it's basically what I expected, and I'm not sure it's to be regarded as so satisfying to any possible problems that any opinion to the contrary ought to be responded to with an angry guffaw and a commentless link to it, as though it automatically solved the problem. I had already considered the possibility that the original timeline somehow continued after the change, and I addressed it in my first comment. Since I had already considered it, then I was already a step ahead of the interview's explanation. For the justification to be true, it would have to be accepted that the moment one goes back in time, one's already in another universe, not just when a change occurs; you don't hop universes every time you act. But rather than hopping universes, isn't one merely returning to a further-back point in the 4th dimension, as surely as stepping backward merely takes me back a few feet in the 2nd dimension? Is time not just another direction within our one universe? Thus, the time-travel is merely moving about in one's universe, just as surely as I'm about to move about in the street on my trek between houses. The original conundrum applies, and it is not so easily solved a problem that anyone who still has it is annoyingly misinformed. Alright?

That being said, it sounds like I should reiterate this point: I fully appreciate the OOC intentions of the writers: they created a brilliant story and used a genius tactic to free themselves and have outside-the-box ideas about what stories to develop.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-08-2009, 09:26 AM
Thascales Thascales is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 978
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Commodore View Post
Well having read the interview, it's basically what I expected, and I'm not sure it's to be regarded as so satisfying to any possible problems that any opinion to the contrary ought to be responded to with an angry guffaw and a commentless link to it, as though it automatically solved the problem. I had already considered the possibility that the original timeline somehow continued after the change, and I addressed it in my first comment. Since I had already considered it, then I was already a step ahead of the interview's explanation. For the justification to be true, it would have to be accepted that the moment one goes back in time, one's already in another universe, not just when a change occurs; you don't hop universes every time you act. But rather than hopping universes, isn't one merely returning to a further-back point in the 4th dimension, as surely as stepping backward merely takes me back a few feet in the 2nd dimension? Is time not just another direction within our one universe? Thus, the time-travel is merely moving about in one's universe, just as surely as I'm about to move about in the street on my trek between houses. The original conundrum applies, and it is not so easily solved a problem that anyone who still has it is annoyingly misinformed. Alright?

That being said, it sounds like I should reiterate this point: I fully appreciate the OOC intentions of the writers: they created a brilliant story and used a genius tactic to free themselves and have outside-the-box ideas about what stories to develop.
I stand by my post in this thread. If the timelines hadn't split, the Time Guys would've undone Trek XI.
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 01:58 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.