Sign in to follow this  
kenman

Beyond - Spoilers Allowed Discussion

Recommended Posts

Dilandu   

I couldn't resist...

Star_trek_groundhog.thumb.png.f77ddeb412

Star Trek: To boldly timeloope where no groundhog has timelooped before)

Edited by Dilandu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

I would agree that the very continued existence of Spock Prime and Nero and the Narada showcase that their universe was not "undone" completely, but that they merely in an altered timeline that, sure, didn't exist before they got there, but was no branched off from their original timeline.  The Prime must exist...or Old Spock would've faded out of existence. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dilandu   

I would agree that the very continued existence of Spock Prime and Nero and the Narada showcase that their universe was not "undone" completely, but that they merely in an altered timeline that, sure, didn't exist before they got there, but was no branched off from their original timeline.  The Prime must exist...or Old Spock would've faded out of existence. Right?

Basically yes. And everything became timelooped around "prime Spock did not existed - no one time travelled - timeline remain unaltered - prime Spock exist - time travel - timeline altered - prime Spock did not existed - no one time travelled - timeline remain unaltered", and so on)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They make it very clear, yes. Data explains the theory, being, essentially  that everything that can happen, does happen somewhere. That meshes with the notion of the creation of the Kelvin line. It even meshes with current understanding of temporal mechanics. You can't go back in time and save JFK...all you can do is go back in time and create a parallel line in which you did.

Which is fine, but not the same thing as time travel.  It's apples and oranges.  You don't CREATE other universes, they always existed--it's just that different things happen in different universes.  In Star Trek, you CAN go back in time and save JFK, or you can stop a woman from being hit by a truck, which enables the Nazis to win WWII.

Actually he does because Roddenberry is dead. Even for years before that he was not contributing in any real way to the films or television. Trek has been being guided by others now longer than it was guided by him.

Bryan Fuller gets to override Roddenberry, too. 

 

The rules established by GR are there.  He created the franchise, and those rules don't die with him.  Fuller and Abrams are still playing in his sandbox, and the rules of time travel were established. 

Ok, if the universe of Nero and Spock Prime are rewritten, so where they are from?

They would be a temporal paradox.  Star Trek has established that a time traveler may not be affected by changes in the timeline.  This has happened in several cases in Star Trek, notably FC.  And apparently, it happened to Spock and Nero.

It's technobabble, but if it didn't exist, then Picard and crew couldn't have stopped the Borg.

In the Abrams way, time travel has no consequence, which would negate all the time travel episodes in Star Trek. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't CREATE other universes,

Actually, that was my poor word choice. The theory actually goes that you push yourself into a universe where "X" happened rather than create "X" from whole cloth. It's essentially a theoretical safeguard against the multiverse imploding from billions of potential transgressors. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dilandu   

 

They would be a temporal paradox.  Star Trek has established that a time traveler may not be affected by changes in the timeline.  This has happened in several cases in Star Trek, notably FC.  And apparently, it happened to Spock and Nero.

It's technobabble, but if it didn't exist, then Picard and crew couldn't have stopped the Borg.

In the Abrams way, time travel has no consequence, which would negate all the time travel episodes in Star Trek. 

 

 

You seems to not notice the one important point. Yes. the time traveller aren't affected by the timeline change. But - are time traveller still in his own timeline? Or he is in a new timeline now?

The first solution is unworkable, because the cause&effect law would be contradicted, and we would have grandfather paradox.

So, the second solution. The time traveller is thrown in a timeline, that he created. His original timeline remain unaltered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seems to not notice the one important point. Yes. the time traveller aren't affected by the timeline change. But - are time traveller still in his own timeline? Or he is in a new timeline now?

The first solution is unworkable, because the cause&effect law would be contradicted, and we would have grandfather paradox.

So, the second solution. The time traveller is thrown in a timeline, that he created. His original timeline remain unaltered.

The second solution is not how it works in Star Trek.  The time traveler remains in his own universe, in an altered timeline.  That timeline can be restored if the time traveler undoes the damage.  Again, without that, then every single time travel episode of Star Trek had no consequence.  The grandfather paradox in some cases does not exist in Star Trek.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dilandu   

The second solution is not how it works in Star Trek.  The time traveler remains in his own universe, in an altered timeline.  That timeline can be restored if the time traveler undoes the damage.  Again, without that, then every single time travel episode of Star Trek had no consequence.  The grandfather paradox in some cases does not exist in Star Trek.

This make no sence. The existence of time traveller is caused by cause&effect links. If those links are destroyed, so he couldn't exist - because he never originated. And "repair the timeline" would not work either due to butterfly effect: the mere presence of time traveller would change things in long therms.

The more simple solution is that the tiome traveller became thrown into the timeline he created. In that case at least his personal cause&effect links still exist.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second solution is not how it works in Star Trek. 

But that's not how it has always worked.

This is a case of scientific understanding growing over 50 years and writing reflecting that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zef'No   

Meh.

The film did nothing for me I’m afraid. I found it bland and on the whole rather boring. It’s not that it did anything bad as such, it just failed to do anything good.

 

Like Into Darkness, a lot of effort obviously went into the design, makeup, costumes, CGI and whatnot, but the actual story seems to have been a last minute addition, inserted only as a necessary evil to connect the various action scenes (after about the fourth, all I could think was “here we go again”).

 

Why don’t film makers put effort into the story-telling anymore? - I’m afraid the whole genre is becoming something to which I can no longer relate. 

 

I honestly struggle to think of anything positive to say about it. The best bits were undoubtedly the Spock/McCoy scenes - I felt this relationship had been missing from the previous films so it was nice to see it finally get some attention. The best scene of the film had to be when Spock told McCoy that the Ambassador was dead. That’s probably the only bit that actually made me sit up and give the screen my undivided attention.

 

Otherwise it just plodded along… It kinda slipped into something, then slipped into something else… Like the previous film, it was a bit all-over-the-place with too many competing elements.

 

I thought destroying the Enterprise so early in the film was definitely a mistake. It was vaguely like killing off Kirk in the first act - where do you go from there? I didn’t even think it was done particularly well; crashing the Enterprise-D in Generations remains much more enjoyable for me.

 

For about the first half of the film, I could never quite shake the feeling that this was only the introduction and that the real story would start soon… Except it never did. After the first hour, I was bored. Yet another variation of the mad-man-with-a-WMD scenario that by now has been done to death.

 

I couldn’t care less about any of the aliens; by the time we found out who they were and what they were doing, I had lost interest anyway. Character moments were few and far between. Some of the lines were delivered painfully slowly, the main alien guy’s voice got very annoying, and the universal translator and subtitles were distracting. Chekov also had major issues with pacing due to his accent.

 

And seriously, how many uniforms does Kirk need to have?! - And where does he find time to change between them all so quickly? There’s a few other plot holes and convenient coincidences that seem part and parcel of the Abramsverse.

 

There’s a quite a few references to the Enterprise series which, I suppose if you like the series you’ll appreciate. Didn’t really do anything for me though.

 

As for the fuss about Sulu being gay? - Honestly?! - A very brief arm around the waste of another guy who could just as easily have been a good friend or family member… If anyone thinks this comes even remotely close to Star Trek finally accepting homosexuality, they are seriously mistaken.

 

Maybe it’s just my mood or other stuff going on in my life, but I’m tempted to rate this the worst out of all three reboot films. Nothing about it makes me want to see it again. I actually hope we have a break from the films for a while and let Trek shine on the small screen for which it it is much more suited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Sorry you didn't like it. I pretty much disagree with every word of that, but I'm sorry it didn't work at all for you.

Same. I enjoyed much of what Zef'No seemed to dislike. And I found it to be a far more engaging and fun movie than Into Darkness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry you didn't like it. I pretty much disagree with every word of that, but I'm sorry it didn't work at all for you.

Same. I enjoyed much of what Zef'No seemed to dislike. And I found it to be a far more engaging and fun movie than Into Darkness. 

I did as well.

It's funny; I saw this movie in a somewhat shabby little theatre in San Diego; it was obviously built in the '80s.   The screen was about as big as a King sized sheet.   It was in 3D (which I'm generally not very fond of) and it was a non-stadium auditorium that smelled of 30 year old popcorn.   Under those circumstances I was prepared to be negative.   I had precisely the opposite reaction.   I think I could've watched this movie on my iPhone and I would've enjoyed it just as much... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

Sorry you didn't like it. I pretty much disagree with every word of that, but I'm sorry it didn't work at all for you.

Same. I enjoyed much of what Zef'No seemed to dislike. And I found it to be a far more engaging and fun movie than Into Darkness. 

I did as well.

It's funny; I saw this movie in a somewhat shabby little theatre in San Diego; it was obviously built in the '80s.   The screen was about as big as a King sized sheet.   It was in 3D (which I'm generally not very fond of) and it was a non-stadium auditorium that smelled of 30 year old popcorn.   Under those circumstances I was prepared to be negative.   I had precisely the opposite reaction.   I think I could've watched this movie on my iPhone and I would've enjoyed it just as much... 

I really think it has been the best of the Kelvin Timeline movies...I enjoyed 2009, but this one just felt like it had a better more put together story, which is ironic considering it was the most thrown together (in script terms) of the three. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry you didn't like it. I pretty much disagree with every word of that, but I'm sorry it didn't work at all for you.

Same. I enjoyed much of what Zef'No seemed to dislike. And I found it to be a far more engaging and fun movie than Into Darkness. 

I did as well.

It's funny; I saw this movie in a somewhat shabby little theatre in San Diego; it was obviously built in the '80s.   The screen was about as big as a King sized sheet.   It was in 3D (which I'm generally not very fond of) and it was a non-stadium auditorium that smelled of 30 year old popcorn.   Under those circumstances I was prepared to be negative.   I had precisely the opposite reaction.   I think I could've watched this movie on my iPhone and I would've enjoyed it just as much... 

I really think it has been the best of the Kelvin Timeline movies...I enjoyed 2009, but this one just felt like it had a better more put together story, which is ironic considering it was the most thrown together (in script terms) of the three. 

I want to see it once more before I say it's my favorite of the 3 BR Treks, but I really enjoyed it and I've thought about it ever since I saw it.   I don't have anywhere near that kind of nagging feeling that I had gnawing at me like I did when I saw STID.   The 2nd time (and final time) I saw STID in theatres cemented the movie's status to me as the worst of the two (at that time).    I really want to see STB one more time before I can definitively say its my favorite of the three.

At this point, I'd say it's neck and neck, or apples and oranges.  ST09 was giddily fun; STB was more like the TV show (saying it as a compliment).  

One more time and I'll be sure...;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you should hit it in Vegas, assuming that: A) There's no one you want to see for 2 hrs and B) it's actually playing at that theater on the strip. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that's not how it has always worked.

This is a case of scientific understanding growing over 50 years and writing reflecting that. 

First, as we have not conquered time travel, there is no right or wrong answer.  But Star Trek established the rules, and Abrams can't ignore them. 

 

This make no sence. The existence of time traveller is caused by cause&effect links. If those links are destroyed, so he couldn't exist - because he never originated. And "repair the timeline" would not work either due to butterfly effect: the mere presence of time traveller would change things in long therms.

The more simple solution is that the tiome traveller became thrown into the timeline he created. In that case at least his personal cause&effect links still exist.

That's just not how they did it, just like it's not how they did it in Back to the Future.

You can repair the timeline in Star Trek. 

As for the fuss about Sulu being gay? - Honestly?! - A very brief arm around the waste of another guy who could just as easily have been a good friend or family member… If anyone thinks this comes even remotely close to Star Trek finally accepting homosexuality, they are seriously mistaken.

 

Actually, I feel that if you are going to have a gay character in Trek, that's how to do it.  My issue was making it Sulu--especially against Takei's wishes.

They should have waited for the new series and done it there, with a new character.

I'm not sure where I would rank this movie among the Abrams ones.  I liked STID more than most of you did.  I actually may rank this one first of the Abrams movies, with STID second and ST09 third.  Too many rookie mistakes in the first one, that were addressed in subsequent movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, as we have not conquered time travel, there is no right or wrong answer.  

Math is math. 

^
Time travel is pretty much impossible, but quantum realities are not a scifi thing.   They're currently being explored in theoretical physics.  Time travel really isn't.

But Star Trek established the rules, and Abrams can't ignore them. 

ST didn't establish 'the rules' of time travel; HG Wells did.   ;)

And parallel universes (which are alternate realities by any other name) are not new to pre-Abrams Star Trek.  They've been a part of Star Trek as far back as TOS.  "The Alternative Factor" (alternate anti-matter dimension), "Mirror Mirror" (an alternate reality), TNG's "Parallels" (many alternate realities).   This is because Star Trek doesn't (and never really did) follow its own rules.   When linear time travel serves a story?  They use it.  But when it doesn't?  They (IMO wisely) ignore it.  

But the Abrams team didn't 'invent' this; this is ST's own precedent (Orci said in interviews he was inspired by TNG's "Parallels").   That's NOT a reinvention; that's a continuation of an idea already done on the show. 

It's a thing now. 

 

And frankly, it's always been.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it today. The good;

Yorktown station is very cool. The thing with Sulu being gay is handled well. The wrecking of the ship is done well (except for one thing which I'll talk about in a bit), I like the nods to Enterprise (mentions of the Xindi and the MAACO's). I hope we get to see Jayla again.

The bad: 

When the saucer is going down, why didn't they try to land it? I would assume this Enterprise has landing legs like the TOS and Enterprise-A have. 

While Yorktown is great, I have a hard time believing it exists in this time frame. Why would Starfleet build the moon-looking spacedocks if they can build something like this?

As with Into Darkness, they get the whole science of artificial gravity wrong. If it goes off, everything should float and not be turning whatever ways so you're walking on the walls.

Where the heck do they have room for 430 (or whatever crew compliment is on this version) escape pods? Even if you cut that down 1/3 (4 people to a pod) that's still over 100. 

So how did the Franklin manage a soft enough landing that it didn't totally wreck the ship.

Despite these bad things, I enjoyed it. I'll give it a 8/10.

Oh, I wonder what Spock thought of seeing the photo? I wonder if he thought there's no way that can be the same Uhura?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw it today. The good;

Yorktown station is very cool. The thing with Sulu being gay is handled well. The wrecking of the ship is done well (except for one thing which I'll talk about in a bit), I like the nods to Enterprise (mentions of the Xindi and the MAACO's). I hope we get to see Jayla again.

The bad: 

When the saucer is going down, why didn't they try to land it? I would assume this Enterprise has landing legs like the TOS and Enterprise-A have. 

While Yorktown is great, I have a hard time believing it exists in this time frame. Why would Starfleet build the moon-looking spacedocks if they can build something like this?

As with Into Darkness, they get the whole science of artificial gravity wrong. If it goes off, everything should float and not be turning whatever ways so you're walking on the walls.

Where the heck do they have room for 430 (or whatever crew compliment is on this version) escape pods? Even if you cut that down 1/3 (4 people to a pod) that's still over 100. 

So how did the Franklin manage a soft enough landing that it didn't totally wreck the ship.

Despite these bad things, I enjoyed it. I'll give it a 8/10.

Oh, I wonder what Spock thought of seeing the photo? I wonder if he thought there's no way that can be the same Uhura?

I agree with some of your science nits, but being a space science geek I've learned (long ago) to turn off that part of my brain when I watch Star Trek; otherwise I begin to puff curls of smoke out of my ears... :P

I love ST and I appreciate how it inspires many to get into space sciences/medicine/engineering, etc., but its actual science track record is spotty at best.  I class it as science fantasy and leave it at that.  It's somewhere halfway between "Interstellar" and "Star Wars." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenman   

 

The bad: 

When the saucer is going down, why didn't they try to land it? I would assume this Enterprise has landing legs like the TOS and Enterprise-A have. 

Well...there was no one left on it, and it was out of control and out of power.  So I assume that is why. 

 

While Yorktown is great, I have a hard time believing it exists in this time frame. Why would Starfleet build the moon-looking spacedocks if they can build something like this?

I'm not sure what you mean by "moon-looking" space docks, but I will say that it seemed clear that this was a faily new and impressive thing to the Enterprise crew. 

 

Oh, I wonder what Spock thought of seeing the photo? I wonder if he thought there's no way that can be the same Uhura?

At least he didn't see the video of her fan-dance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw it. It is by far the best of the Bad Robot Treks, and the most unqualified Trekkie fun Ive had at a Star Trek movie since First Contact. 

I love how the visual, visceral feel of the Kelvin Timeline was massively expanded in this movie. As fan's, thats part of the fun of Trek: wanting to visit these settings in our imagination. Starbase Yorktown was a great and necessary update on the old star fleet bases, and an important reason why this movie had to get away from Earth for a change. But the small details, the new tech and hologram displays, even Kirk's coffee mug also created a sense that this is a contained universe with a unique aesthetic. Maybe I don't want the kelvin Timeline to be cast on the dust bin of canon history after all. 

I loved that most of the main characters had an emotional arc. I loved Kirk's second-guessing himself in the start of the movie. Makes me wonder if that is what Prime Kirk was feeling at the end of the five year mission before letting himself be prompted to Admiral. 

Still need to think about the villain. But I think he is more narratively acceptable than Nero or John Harrison. 

On last point: some of us are complaining about plot holes. Guys... and this pains me to say, as someone who has vociferously advocated that we not let Hollywood imperatives lower our standards... but we might need to let the let most of these plot holes slide. We know that any movie like this one released mid summer necessarily must have set piece after set piece of action, daring escapes, sudden surprises and derring do. And that these sequences follow on one another rather swiftly without a lot of time to explain or foreshadow what is happening or why. The best we can hope for, (unless you are at a Chris Nolan movie) is that most of these sequences make enough sense, that they are springing from clear motivations, that the action has a purpose for the story. With STB I think this is the case, especially when compared to the slapdash mess that was STID (remember those torpedoes?). Nitpicking every detail--which you are free to do--is probably self defeating when your talking about these types of movies.        

Y'know, Justin, I'm really glad to read this. I was wondering what you'd think, and it's really nice to find that you enjoyed it. 

I kind of held off writing anything to give my memories of the movie a day or so to settle and otherwise have had a busy weekend. But the fact that I'm still thinking about it, and there isn't a pissy hangover feeling of "wanting to like it but not really liking it" is great. I'll come back later and write some more considered thoughts. But y'know what? When Spock pulled out that photo of the original crew out of his forebear's box of belongings, I'm not ashamed to say that the lump in my throat exploded into a big fat tear that welled up out of my eye and rolled down my cheek. Similarly, the dedications to Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin kept that feeling going - of sadness, gratitude and joie de vivre. To absent friends, indeed. 

Star Trek, I love you. Happy 50th anniversary. You've meant so much to me in my life, and I know you'll continue to.  

 

 

Thanks for gently acknowledging that Im such cranky critic of modern Trek, and being happy for me that Im, well, happy for once. And I remember how quick the STID hang over set in. Nothing to hate about STB.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this