Star Trek

31st_Century_Temporal_Age nt GROUP: Members POSTS: 845	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 2:07 am And I am still of the mind that this is not an alternate universe but an alternate timeline either existing in the same universe or a new timeline from 2233 on. There is nothing in the mind meld in any way that indicated this was an alternate universe. Another tidbit Spock knew that he was in 2258. His mind meld starts off with 129 years from now a star will explode. He knew he came from 2387 obviously. But yet he commented you are not the captain. Unless this question were just a fishing attempt by the elder Spock to get some information out of Kirk, then this would be another goof. I am starting to wish they would have just used the holographic birthday card from Shatner instead LOL. I am aware of the concept of multiple timelines existing in one universe as being far fetched but since when do most of Trek's temporal mechanics make any real world sense. This actually kind of ties into my theory about Voyager's "Shattered" and Enterprise's trans-dimensional beings examining alternate timelines. But that is another topic for another day. Back to Top
31st_Century_Temporal_Age nt GROUP: Members POSTS: 845	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 2:20 am Quote (trekbuff @ Sep. 23 2009, 8:32 pm) Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:54 pm) I don't care about what Orci said since it wasn't part of the movie. It's what a lot of folks are using as Prozac. Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:54 pm) There IS ?an on screen explanation of the A.U. ?as being where the events of TREK XI ?had taken place. It was in the mind meld between nuKirk and Spock prime. It my not have been crystal clear as some would preffer yet it was there none the less. Other than something some of us have seen... I will be scrutinizing the movie and that particular scene for any verification of an A.U. after Nero's arrival rather than making a leap of interpretation from the mind meld. Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:54 pm) Why does it have to be either null and void OR changed the prime timeline? Because either ALL time travel creates bubble universes and Trek has been wrong for 43 years or STXI showed an alteraton of the prime time line. Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:54 pm) It only makes sense that the next movie will build upon the first movie. If JJ ?will take that rout is another matter. From what I saw in STXI and the virtually the same production crew for STXII, I ain't counting on anything in the next movie making sense. It will either contradict Trek canon of the way things work, common sense or will end up on the cutting room floor. Now, did you see my speculation of why the Klingons were cut? STXI was before 2266 - what did the Klingons look like? I don't really think that is the reason why the Klingons were cut but your theory seems plausible. The content of those deleted Klingon scenes should give us a better answer as to why they were deleted. The popular opinion was that they did not want to confuse newcomer Trek fans. So in this way I kind of buy into DJ's dumbed down Trek theory to a small extent. I can see where introducing Klingon's into this movie might confuse the hell out of new Trek fans. Well I can't wait for those deleted scenes. Those Klingon masks seem like copouts but hopefully we will see some mask less Klingons or something else. I am hoping the whole Klingon subplot lasts at least 15 minutes. But if I see a ridged Klingon in this movie that is one I will write letters on. I am not the type to fuss over mistakes or impracticalities but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I mean a fully ridged Klingon in 2258 might be along the lines of Chekov's conception date or TFF's 78 decks. I can imagine Chekov's parents in Trek 11. Oh honey there is some mad future Romulan out there now. We better get it on four years earlier than we should have to have our baby. LOL! I wonder what the Klingons look like under there? Back to Top
SaturnsRings GROUP: Members POSTS: 0	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 3:35 am Quote (31st_Century_Temporal_Agent @ Sep. 24 2009, 2:20 am) Quote (trekbuff @ Sep. 23 2009, 8:32 pm) Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:54 pm) I don't care about what Orci said since it wasn't part of the movie. It's what a lot of folks are using as Prozac. Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:54 pm) There IS ?an on screen explanation of the A.U. ?as being where the events of TREK XI ?had taken place. It was in the mind meld between nuKirk and Spock prime. It my not have been crystal clear as some would preffer yet it was there none the less. Other than something some of us have seen... I will be scrutinizing the movie and that particular scene for any verification of an A.U. after Nero's arrival rather than making a leap of interpretation from the mind meld. Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:54 pm) Why does it have to be either null and void OR changed the prime timeline? Because either ALL time travel creates bubble universes and Trek has been wrong for 43 years or STXI showed an alteraton of the prime time line. Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:54 pm) It only makes sense that the next movie will build upon the first movie. If JJ ?will take that rout is another matter. From what I saw in STXI and the virtually the same production crew for STXII, I ain't counting on anything in the next movie making sense. It will either contradict Trek canon of the way things work, common sense or will end up on the cutting room floor. Now, did you see my speculation of why the Klingons were cut? STXI was before 2266 - what did the Klingons look like? I don't really think that is the reason why the Klingons were cut but your theory seems plausible. The content of those deleted Klingon scenes should give us a better answer as to why they were deleted. The popular opinion was that they did not want to confuse newcomer Trek fans. So in this way I kind of buy into DJ's dumbed down Trek theory to a small extent. I can see where introducing Klingon's into this movie might confuse the hell out of new Trek fans. Well I can't wait for those deleted scenes. Those Klingon masks seem like copouts but hopefully we will see some mask less Klingons or something else. I am hoping the whole Klingon subplot lasts at least 15 minutes. But if I see a ridged Klingon in this movie that is one I will write letters on. I am not the type to fuss over mistakes or impracticalities but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I mean a fully ridged Klingon in 2258 might be along the lines of Chekov's conception date or TFF's 78 decks. I can imagine Chekov's parents in Trek 11. Oh honey there is some mad future Romulan out there now. We better get it on four years earlier than we should have to have our baby. LOL! I wonder what the Klingons look like under there? I'm the opposite. If I don't see bumpy headed Klingons in a TOS era movie I will write letters. I think the explanation in Enterprise was unnecessary, contrived and just plan silly. I don't always need an in-universe explanation for any discrepancy. The Klingons always had ridges, we know the original series couldn't budget the ridges in and I can accept that. So therefore that Klingon race always has had the ridges. So when I watch the old series it really doesn't matter and I hardly notice the difference. I can still suspend disbelief. Back to Top
ENT567 GROUP: Members POSTS: 5267	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 3:51 am "Ignorance is bliss!" (Sypher after he takes a bite of steak; The Matrix) Back to Top
ENT567 GROUP: Members POSTS: 5267	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 3:55 am Quote (SaturnsRings @ Posted: Sep. 24 2009, 3:35 am) I think the explanation in Enterprise was unnecessary, contrived and just plan silly. I don't always need an in-universe explanation for any discrepancy. The Klingons always had ridges, we know the original series couldn't budget the ridges in and I can accept that. So therefore that Klingon race always has had the ridges. So when I watch the old series it really doesn't matter and I hardly notice the difference. I can still suspend disbelief. I agree, except for I think ENT's Affliction/Divergence is a very good two-parter - I didn't even think it was made for the purpose of explaining why some Klingons (like in TOS) wouldn't have ridges, because I hadn't seen either TOS or the movies then. The eps' story was good and engrossing by itself. Back to Top
MrsStarbuck GROUP: Members POSTS: 4329	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 7:11 am Can I ask a general question please? As you all know by now, I'm the noob. I wasn't part of the Trek fandom when any of the previous movies were released. Now STXI certainly seems to be controversial, and there are a lot of passionate arguments flying back and forth. But what I'm wondering is, has it always been like this with the Trek films? Has every new film provoked such passionate debate? If there had been message boards back when TMP was released, for example, I can imagine it would have been just as hotly debated. Or is STXI by far the most controversial and debated film in the history of Trek? Back to Top
Narada GROUP: Members POSTS: 4006	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 7:44 am Quote (MrsStarbuck @ Sep. 24 2009, 7:11 am) Can I ask a general question please? As you all know by now, I'm the noob. I wasn't part of the Trek fandom when any of the previous movies were released. Now STXI certainly seems to be controversial, and there are a lot of passionate arguments flying back and forth. But what I'm wondering is, has it always been like this with the Trek films? Has every new film provoked such passionate debate? If there had been message boards back when TMP was released, for example, I can imagine it would have been just as hotly debated. Or is STXI by far the most controversial and debated film in the history of Trek? Yes Mrs. Starbuck they are all very controversial and this movie especially. Very much like The Motion Picture this is the longest Star Trek ever has a new release. As you know it is a very good franchise with great characters and stories. Fans feel very strongly and this new movie also provokes new feelings. Everyone can describe this but you are touching upon the passionate feelings of Star Trek fans! Back to Top
MrsStarbuck GROUP: Members POSTS: 4329	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 8:00 am Quote (Narada @ Sep. 23 2009, 1:44 pm) Yes Mrs. Starbuck they are all very controversial and this movie especially. Very much like The Motion Picture this is the longest Star Trek ever has a new release. As you know it is a very good franchise with great characters and stories. Fans feel very strongly and this new movie also provokes new feelings. Everyone can describe this but you are touching upon the passionate feelings of Star Trek fans! Oh, I see nothing wrong with the debate at all. I've said several times that what I love about Star Trek fans is that they are so passionate about the franchise. I just wondered if this polarisation almost of fans was new to STXI or if it happens all the time. It seems to me like there are lovers and haters of ALL the Trek films. For instance, my fave Trek film so far is undoubtedly TMP, but a lot of people don't rate that one. My least favourite so far has been TSFS and for a lot of people that's one of their favourites. It's what's so great about the franchise is that there's room for so many different people who all like different things, to still be able to find something special to them here. But I'm not trying to say we shouldn't debate. I love reading debates on the movie. That's what message boards are for surely Back to Top
Admiral_BlackCat GROUP: Members POSTS: 1048	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 8:03 am Quote (Narada @ Sep. 24 2009, 4:44 am) Quote (MrsStarbuck @ Sep. 24 2009, 7:11 am) Can I ask a general question please? As you all know by now, I'm the noob. I wasn't part of the Trek fandom when any of the previous movies were released. Now STXI certainly seems to be controversial, and there are a lot of passionate arguments flying back and forth. But what I'm wondering is, has it always been like this with the Trek films? Has every new film provoked such passionate debate? If there had been message boards back when TMP was released, for example, I can imagine it would have been just as hotly debated. Or is STXI by far the most controversial and debated film in the history of Trek? Yes Mrs. Starbuck they are all very controversial and this movie especially. Very much like The Motion Picture this is the longest Star Trek ever has a new release. As you know it is a very good franchise with great characters and stories. Fans feel very strongly and this new movie also provokes new feelings. Everyone can describe this but you are touching upon the passionate feelings of Star Trek fans! Starbuck, the short answer is yes. Vger23 makes some good points on page 4 of the "Not following canon was successful" thread. A few examples: The death of Spock. The destruction of the Enterprise. Killing off Kirk. Killing off Data. Just to name a few of the more controversial moments. Alot of passion (and sometimes obsession) for Star Trek throughout its long history indeed. Back to Top
Narada GROUP: Members POSTS: 4006	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 8:10 am Both of you.       Back to Top
MrsStarbuck GROUP: Members POSTS: 4329	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 8:17 am Quote (Admiral_BlackCat @ Sep. 23 2009, 2:03 pm) Starbuck, the short answer is yes. Vger23 makes some good points on page 4 of the "Not following canon was successful" thread. A few examples: The death of Spock. The destruction of the Enterprise. Killing off Kirk. Killing off Data. Just to name a few of the more controversial moments. Alot of passion (and sometimes obsession) for Star Trek throughout its long history indeed. Yep, I've just spotted Vger's post. I loved it! I think the day that fans STOP being this passionate about Trek is the day we can truly say that it's died Back to Top
Vice_Adm_Baxter GROUP: Members POSTS: 0	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 9:12 am Quote (trekbuff @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:32 pm) Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:54 pm) I don't care about what Orci said since it wasn't part of the movie. It's what a lot of folks are using as Prozac.

What ever works for them let them be happy, I prefer in movie explanations when possible as you well know.

Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:54 pm)

There IS  an on screen explanation of the A.U.  as being where the events of TREK XI  had taken place. It was in the mind meld between nuKirk and Spock prime. It my not have been crystal clear as some would preffer yet it was there none the less.

Other than something some of us have seen... I will be scrutinizing the movie and that particular scene for any verification of an A.U. after Nero's arrival rather than making a leap of interpretation from the mind meld.

This will prove interesting.

Because either ALL time travel creates bubble universes and Trek has been wrong for 43 years or STXI showed an alteration of the prime time line.

Well the thing is for the past 43 years there has been no definitive definition of time travel.

Every time TREK has travel in to the past it has created an A.T./A.U. that by the end of the mission/adventure to have been resolved and thus forth "restore" the timeline. The ironic part is that there is no proof what so ever that the "prime" timeline is actually the "prime" TL is anything it is an A.U. due to the events seen in "Yesterdays Enterprise" being the most recent change/transfer.  The theories describing multiple universes use branches and membranes(bubbles) to represent the same thing.

Since both are created from the same source the only real difference would be if it is still attached to the "prime" universe in some way. That's the real question and it has NEVER been addressed in canon. Sure they briefly touch on string theory and a few others but never actually define it.

Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:54 pm)

Why does it have to be either null and void OR changed the prime timeline?

Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:54 pm)
It only makes sense that the next movie will build upon the first movie. If JJ  will take that rout is another matter.From what I saw in STXI and the virtually the same production crew for STXII, I ain't counting on anything in the next movie making sense. It will either contradict Trek canon of the way things work, common sense or will end up on the cutting room floor. Quite possibly, we don't know who the production crew is as of yet for TREK XII we just know they are adding a 3rd wheel to the writting team. LOL I just want the number for BettyCrocker's Ridged Cake helmet!!! Back to Top
MrsStarbuck GROUP: Members POSTS: 4329	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 10:13 am Quote (trekbuff @ Sep. 23 2009, 4:00 pm) Hi MrsStarbuck! You asked - here's my answer... Consider the chronology of Trek. ST(TOS) with ridgless Klingons, the NCC-1701 appearing as it did, we found out that Spock was bonded to T'Pring when he was 7 years old (2237) and there was Spock's review of the Romulan War in Balance of Terror. In Star Trek: The Motion Picture one of the first things said in the movie was that the ship was a refit of the NCC-1701. The one problem was Klingons with ridges. It was said that Klingons would have looked like this if ST(TOS) had a bigger budget. In the November 4, 1996 DS9 episode Trials and Tribble-ations we saw Worf in the K-7 bar with ST(TOS) era Klingons and the conversation verified/established there were both ridged and ridgless Klingons. The scene went like this: I did not learn about science from watching science fiction on TV, from movies, reading novels or comics. I was reading newspapers by the age of 5 and had read every book in the youth section of my local library by the age of 8. ST(TOS) began in 1966 when I was 11 years old. The science fiction of the series was based on and extrapolated from real science. The series was visionary and fascinating and the stories were fun and entertaining. Contrary to the opinions of some, Trek has had a chronology. The history of Trek has been sufficiently consistant that long time fans talk about the canon of the saga. Enter STXI, brazenly named, simply, Star Trek here in the U.S.. Time travel in Trek had never before created a parallel/bubble universe. Talent limited writers claim Trek canon is too restrictive and difficult to maintain - the same excuse given by Rick Berman and Branon Braga for their three seasons of Enterprise and too many folks on these boards. STXI respected canon by ignoring it and/or rewriting it. Enterprise may at least be reasoned to fit Trek canon. STXI, however, is a straight up reboot of Trek which may not have been so bad had we not so often been told it respected Trek canon. Did you read this thread? Please, notice what has been said. You're educated and intelligent (no smoke involved). It is fascinating the many ways folks rebut history and fact with opinion and even Hi Trekbuff Thanks for the response, it was interesting to read, and I love that you have an observatory in your house! But...I wasn't asking what was wrong with the new movie. I have read all of this thread (and most of the other STXI threads) and some points I agree with, some points I don't. What I was trying to say in my post (and maybe I didn't word it very well) was...well I guess I was just musing really as to whether ALL previous Trek films have stirred up similar controversy in the fandom, or if this is a new reaction to STXI in particular. The response I've gotten from others seems to indicate that there have ALWAYS been some Trek fans who didn't like a particular Trek film. This is not meant to belittle the criticisms of STXI in any way, I just wanted to know if the films always polarised fans in this way. Back to Top
whyaduck GROUP: Members POSTS: 3478	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 11:04 am Quote (trekbuff @ Sep. 24 2009, 10:52 am) Until STXI time travel has never created a parallel universe: I agree on this. Whenever ST went back in time, it was the same time line and their actions would affect the future of the time line. Truthfully, the first time I saw STXI, I was confused by just about everything time line wise. I hadn't read anything about the movie before seeing it and I missed Uhura's line about alternate time (or reality). I liked the movie (especially after seeing it again), though I would have liked it better if they'd come up with a good way to keep it in the same time line. Back to Top
Vice_Adm_Baxter GROUP: Members POSTS: 0	Report this Sep. 24 2009, 11:12 am Quote (trekbuff @ Sep. 24 2009, 7:52 am) Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 24 2009, 9:12 am) Quote (trekbuff @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:32 pm) Quote (Vice_Adm_Baxter @ Sep. 23 2009, 5:54 pm) Why does it have to be either null and void OR changed the prime timeline? Because either ALL time travel creates bubble universes and Trek has been wrong for 43 years or STXI showed an alteration of the prime time line. Well the thing is for the past 43 years there has been no definitive definition of time travel. Every time TREK has travel in to the past it has created an A.T./A.U. that by the end of the mission/adventure to have been resolved and thus forth "restore" the timeline. The ironic part is that there is no proof what so ever that the "prime" timeline is actually the "prime" TL is anything it is an A.U. due to the events seen in "Yesterdays Enterprise" being the most recent change/transfer. ?The theories describing multiple universes use branches and membranes(bubbles) to represent the same thing. Since both are created from the same source the only real difference would be if it is still attached to the "prime" universe in some way. That's the real question and it has NEVER been addressed in canon. Sure they briefly touch on string theory and a few others but never actually define it. This seems to be the point of confusion. I recently (June 14 2009) had a thread explaining this, but it, like most other threads, is gone. Until STXI time travel has never created a parallel universe: In The City on the Edge of Forever Bones did not create a parallel universe. The entire history of Earth in the prime timeline was altered from the time he appeared in the past. The NCC-1701 disappeared from orbit, etc... When they went back to get the whales in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home a parallel universe was not created. When the went back forward in time another parallel universe was not created. There would have been absolutely no justification for the entire story if this had created a bubble universe every time they traveled in time. When the Enterprise-C came through the rift in Yesterday's Enterprise the crew of the Enterprise-D immediately changed and they were at war with the Klingon Empire. When the C went back through the rift with Tasha Yar the timeline appeared to be repaired. Only later did we find out about Sela. All of this took place in the prime Trek timeline - the one, singular universe just as in all Trek time travel episodes and the two movies prior to Orci's poorly educated claims for STXI. No version of time travel in Trek had ever before created a parallel universe. The Mirror universe was not seen to be created by time travel. The many universes seen in Parallels were not created by time travel. You said, "Every time TREK has travel in to the past it has created an A.T./A.U. ..." I presume "A.T." means Alternate Timeline and "A.U." means Alternate Universe in your usage and you appear to be using them interchangeably. Alternate Timeline is not interchangable with Alternate Universe. An altered prime timeline is NOT an alternate universe, yet they are both alternate to the prime timeline - alternate timelines. I just wasn't sure how you were phasing it was all. So yes I do see your point. Although I am wondering IF TREK XI  is more of a Mirror type universe than time travel, since as you said in previous cases the effects were obvious and only affected the timeline. This is clearly something entirely different.   IF  it is rewritting the original timeline then Spock prime shouldn't even be involved in any way shape or form as the rewritting takes place because he would have to be erased as it was rewritten. Unless it's a change to the parallel timeline that was briefly visited  in FC, which is possible even though the events in FC "restored" the prime timeline. Of course its 100% speculation on my part, yet it would fit in rather nicely. Back to Top