ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

ST: Abrams Continuity Glitches

GulMatan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1291

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 9:49 am

Hello all.


After watching the new installment (as well as the featurettes), I noticed some points where this film hits a snag in the Trek canon:


 


1:  Pavel Chekov appeared in TOS well AFTER Khan ('Space Seed') yet, Chekov is a member of the Abrams crew proir to Capt. Pike's incident in 'The Cage,'


2: Vulcan is destroyed AND Amanda (Sarek's wife, Spock's mother) dies here yet, Amanda appears in TOS 'Journey To Babel'


 


Please clarify why these plot holes are in this new movie.


 


Thanks

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 1:22 pm

Is this a serious post? I can't imagine any circumstance that would allow for this to actually be a serious post.


 


There are literally MINUTES of dialogue in the film establishing that this is an alternate reality, created by the timeline incursion by Nero. There's also about 384970907542789 posts on this and similar topics on this message board. There's also tons of articles and intervies with the production team that address this issue.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 2:40 pm

Quote: GulMatan @ Jan. 01 2012, 9:49 am

>Hello all.

>After watching the new installment (as well as the featurettes), I noticed some points where this film hits a snag in the Trek canon:

>1:  Pavel Chekov appeared in TOS well AFTER Khan ('Space Seed') yet, Chekov is a member of the Abrams crew proir to Capt. Pike's incident in 'The Cage,'


you are incorrect.


"the Cage" take place abound the year 2254


the 09 Checkov served on Pikes Enterprise in the year 2258 , which is 4 years after the Cage.


Also, althou we didnt see Checkov in TOS before Khan, The Wrath of Khan estasblishs thast he met Checkov.So Checkov must have been on the ship but wasnt a brige officor.


2: Vulcan is destroyed AND Amanda (Sarek's wife, Spock's mother) dies here yet, Amanda appears in TOS 'Journey To Babel'


Think of a road with a single lane, then imagin going to an early point on that road and and creating a 2nd lane that go's in a different direction.


Thats what they did with the new film, they went back in time and altered the road


Please clarify why these plot holes are in this new movie.


their not plot holes, your just a bit misinformed.


Photobucket

GulMatan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1291

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 4:45 pm

Hey folks, be a little forgiving here!  I am just asking for a clarification of this movie's perspective.  I'm just asking a simple question.  As Shatner tells Robert & Mark in 'Free Enterprise,' it's just a TV show."

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 4:54 pm

I don't think that JJ cared about continuity ... or about Star Trek.


Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 4:59 pm

Quote: GulMatan @ Jan. 01 2012, 4:45 pm

>

>Hey folks, be a little forgiving here!  I am just asking for a clarification of this movie's perspective.  I'm just asking a simple question.  As Shatner tells Robert & Mark in 'Free Enterprise,' it's just a TV show."

>


 


I guess it's hard not to be furstrated when it's nearly impossible to have viewed the movie and not understand the answers to the questions you've asked.


 


NuSpock explains it in fair detail on the bridge of the Enterprise when they are talking about how Nero would have developed the technology to destroy a planet. Prime Spock explains the whole thing in his mind meld, which lasts several minutes.


It's kind of like watching "Wrath of Khan" and asking "why is this Khan guy so pissed?"


 


That's all...


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

GulMatan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1291

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 6:24 pm

Hello folks.  Here's why I needed the clarification.  This story flows much too quickly for me for a few reasons.


First, this is more an action flick than I'm accustomed to.


Next, there are so many visual details as to what the devices/drill mechanism/black hole contraptions on the screen that it's hard to grasp what I'm supposed to be seeing.


Next, there's the speed and length of the dialogue spoken that I need to turn on the subtitling/captioning just to read and grasp what they're saying.


So, with that, I had to watch the film again.  This time, I was able to get the jist of the movie's plot and dialogue which, in turn, helped greatly.


Trekkie -- I am not a Trekker!

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 6:50 pm

People, they never explained it in the movie. NuSpock said that history had changed, not diverged. I had to go to Memory Alpha to figure out the truth. And from my experience, 99% of Trekkers don't know of MA's existance so most of them think that the JJverse erased the canon-verse. Hense most of the critisism against the movie.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 7:14 pm

Quote: Mitchz95 @ Jan. 01 2012, 6:50 pm

>

>People, they never explained it in the movie. NuSpock said that history had changed, not diverged.


Duder...I'm really sorry to say it this way because it sounds so rude......but they didnt really have to explain a divergence.


Any fan of the series would have understood that the changes made to history lead to different events.


So, even if they felt that JJTrek erased the canon-history of what was before, they would know it wasnt a plot hole..


Photobucket

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 7:24 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Jan. 01 2012, 7:14 pm

>

>Duder...I'm really sorry to say it this way because it sounds so rude......but they didnt really have to explain a divergence.

>Any fan of the series would have understood that the changes made to history lead to different events.

>So, even if they felt that JJTrek erased the canon-history of what was before, they would know it wasnt a plot hole..

>


What I meant is, everybody thinks that the new timeline created in the Abrams movie overwrite the rest of the franchise, whereas in reality the new timeline is a parallel universe that runs alongside the canon-universe. Going back to your new-road analogy, the old road doesn't get replaced by the new one. They just run side-by-side.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 7:33 pm

Quote: Mitchz95 @ Jan. 01 2012, 7:24 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Jan. 01 2012, 7:14 pm

>

>

>Duder...I'm really sorry to say it this way because it sounds so rude......but they didnt really have to explain a divergence.

>Any fan of the series would have understood that the changes made to history lead to different events.

>So, even if they felt that JJTrek erased the canon-history of what was before, they would know it wasnt a plot hole..

>

What I meant is, everybody thinks that the new timeline created in the Abrams movie overwrite the rest of the franchise, whereas in reality the new timeline is a parallel universe that runs alongside the canon-universe. Going back to your new-road analogy, the old road doesn't get replaced by the new one. They just run side-by-side.


"in reality"??????????odd thing to say about a sci-fi fantazy series.


And just to be precise, the idea that the timeline "branched" off and runs along side the old one is not a defintie fact.That "story" only came out after the film was released to a select group and the fans complained that "their" trek history was wipped out.


The writers never had the "branching" theroy as their intent from the start.So, the way I see it, either theroy is valid.So we cant say for sure that the old timeline survives or was wipped out.


 


Photobucket

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 7:43 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Jan. 01 2012, 7:33 pm

>

>"in reality"??????????odd thing to say about a sci-fi fantazy series.

>And just to be precise, the idea that the timeline "branched" off and runs along side the old one is not a defintie fact.That "story" only came out after the film was released to a select group and the fans complained that "their" trek history was wipped out.

>The writers never had the "branching" theroy as their intent from the start.So, the way I see it, either theroy is valid.So we cant say for sure that the old timeline survives or was wipped out.

>


According to the Memory Alpha article on the "alternate reality", the branching theory was actually there from the start. The scriptwriters confirmed it in an interview before it was released. (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Alternate_reality#Background_information).


Still, you're right about either theory being valid. I guess what's canon and what's not is mostly open to the viewer.


And yes, I know that "in reality" is weird. But you know what I meant.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 8:52 pm

Quote: Mitchz95 @ Jan. 01 2012, 7:43 pm

>According to the Memory Alpha article on the "alternate reality", the branching theory was actually there from the start. The scriptwriters confirmed it in an interview before it was released. (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Alternate_reality#Background_information).

>Still, you're right about either theory being valid. I guess what's canon and what's not is mostly open to the viewer.

>And yes, I know that "in reality" is weird. But you know what I meant.

>


To beging with, that interview came out AFTER the finished film was screaned to a select audience.and you should Read that entire articale.......it refrances a tng episode named "paqrallels, it doesnt speak about a branching effect.


that episode of tng featured a plot that suggested that everything that can happen, does happen in equal and parallel universes..........which pre-exsist.It doesnt even touch on how time travel can lead the the creation of a new branched universe.


 


Photobucket

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Jan. 01 2012, 10:18 pm

Kidding, surely? The concept of an Alternate Universe (AU) is hardly a new one to Star Trek and certainly does not negate the Prime Universe.


If this interview was in response to fan's protests, then surely it's only because the complaining fans were being dumb.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Jan. 02 2012, 12:03 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Jan. 01 2012, 10:18 pm

>

>Kidding, surely? The concept of an Alternate Universe (AU) is hardly a new one to Star Trek and certainly does not negate the Prime Universe.

>If this interview was in response to fan's protests, then surely it's only because the complaining fans were being dumb.

>


dumb or not,the concept of an Alternate Universe isint really the issue in ther 09 film.


Its true that time travrel events havent always been depicted consistly, but more often then not, when a time traveler effects a change in history, the timeline is overwritten/wipped out.


This film introduced a new concept when they went in a different direction in saying that the time traveler "CREATED" a new branch timeline by altering history in the past.


And as I mentioned, they only made that claim after the "dumb" fans started complaining.


 


 


Photobucket

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum