Abrams Trek review thread *HEAVY SPOILERS*

[Distracted]

Ummm...
STR (Star Trek Rebooted)?
TBG (The Buff Generation)?

How about ST-90210?

[Aquarius]

Bleck it may be JT....but that last 20 minutes I was just waiting for the other shoe to drop and some 'do-over' to kick in. I STILL can't believe Vulcan is just gone *weeps silently*.

The thing is, it could still get "fixed" in a sequel. Spock died in II, but it wasn't unitl IV that we saw that he was alive and well and mostly "our" Spock again after coming back to life. They've already committed to doing a sequel, so I wouldn't exactly lose hope and say everything is "ruined" for the canon and history we all grew up knowing.

[Alelou]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/195083

This article is about what makes Star Trek so enduring in all its various iterations, from one of the writers on TNG, and I found it interesting -- you might, too.

At the same Newsweek site, there's a story about how the new movie has no moral weight, which some of you will enjoy. And some other stuff, too.

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

Plus, I still want to know where this puts the "real" universe.

Nowhere! It's gone. Dead. Passed on! It is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker!

I disagree. They've well-established that this Trek is an alternate reality, and I believe it was done specifically for the purpose of preserving the canon we know and love. This was done to avoid overwriting anything. Nimoy's Spock make it clear that this past is not the same as the one he came from, so it still exists somewhere.

Like I said above, it doesn't matter what Old Spock said because that's not the way changes in the timeline has been treated in Trek previously.

But arguing this point is going in circles so I'll stop now. And for practical purposes I will consider this New Trek as an alternate universe, despite the impression I got from watching this movie.

Suffice to say is that - alternate reality or not, erased timeline or not - I'm not interested in this New Trek at all. All the best to you who are, but it's not for me. I'll stick with 43 years worth of Old Trek, or should I call it Real Trek!?

[JadziaKathryn]

At the same Newsweek site, there's a story about how the new movie has no moral weight, which some of you will enjoy.

Yes, this is what I was trying to say earlier!

[Alelou]

I don't see it that way. This Kirk has to turn away from self-indulgent self-destructiveness and embrace saving the world instead. There's a recurring motif in this film of Kirk hanging off the edges of vast abysses -- the first time because he's a freaking idiot, the second time because he's trying to save Vulcan (and even throws himself off the thing to save Sulu), and the third time because he's in a fight with a bad guy, and I think in that case Spock's the one who saves his butt. (I have to see this thing again.) Personally I think this is a more subtle and entertaining way of showing moral progress than having heavy-handed conversations about it. He's still a cocky guy who's not going to draw completely inside the lines, but he's doing it for the right reasons now, and some of that willingness to go outside the lines might just be what makes him particularly effective -- but only because he also has others with him. (Meanwhile, being able to draw outside the lines is exactly what Spock is learning to do in this movie.) The person who wrote that article thought that Kirk's offer of mercy to the bad guy was handled in a way that suggested it was just there for the sheer joy of then blowing him up, but it was still there, along with the reason for showing mercy.

[CX]

I think George Kirk's death did a couple things: established this was an AU and gave Kirk a reason for a troubled childhood, as well as giving Kirk a reason to recognize that Vulcan was under attack.

Thing is, there's plenty to establish this isn't the original timeline even before Narda attacks the Kelvin. The Kelvin herself fits in design-wise with the fugly Abramsprise a lot more than it did with anything established in TOS for that era. Then there's everything that happened with Spock's character, since Spock wouldn't have been affected by the destruction of Kelvin, and the same could probably be said of Scotty ending up marooned on an ice planet with an alien sidekick. And even with the Narda's incursion, I really see no reason why there would be such radical changes in things like design and technology level without interference from Old Spock, and from what I understand there is none in that way. So to be frank the AU explanation was a weak excuse at best to change how everything looked and the characters themselves. That's why I would have had more respect for a straight up reboot, even if I still hated that it was a reboot.

I'm honestly bemused and baffled by the common interpretation that the primary timeline was eradicated by the events in this movie. Even moreso by anyone who would claim that Star Trek has consistently used the single timeline expression. Between Mirror Universe episodes, Year of Hell, Twilight, Yesterday's Enterprise and myriad other episodes, it's readily apparent that Trek uses the temporal paradox expression.

While the mirror universe and different AUs were shown to exist independent of the main timeline we followed throughout the franchise, that's just the point, they exist independently from the main timeline, so this movie is without any real point then. All the other examples you gave were reset and put everything back to the way it presumably was supposed to have turned out, which is frankly why I never understood why people liked episodes like that. Yesterday's Enterprise illustrates what KTR and I are trying to say quite well though, in that when the E-C entered that temporal vortex and disappeared from its proper place and time, we saw the changes in the regular timeline take place simultaneously. The way it's shown and described as happening in Abrams Trek suggests that shouldn't have happened, because it would have been impossible for the E-C to enter the future of its own universe and no changes would have happened due to its absence from its own time, and we wouldn't have seen any change take place after the E-D detected its presence in the vortex.

Yesterday's Enterprise is a perfect example of the Grandfather Paradox as Sela would not exist if her mother hadn't arrived from an alternate timeline generated between 2344 and 2364.

Thing is, Sela's existence was shown as a lasting effect of Picard allowing Yar to go back with the E-C. Guinin even chewed his ass out because their problem with the Klingon Civil War would not have gone down the way it did had Picard not allowed Yar to go back with the E-C. instead, the E-C's crew probably would have been killed entirely, and either another Romulan would have done the things Sela did, or they would not have happened at all.

The temporal paradox you describe would be more akin to the E-D's repeated destruction in Cause and Effect.

That's all this movie is. A really big temporal paradox loop existing between the destruction of the Kelvin and the supernova. The regular reality is carrying on just fine. If I had to make an educated doctor who fan guess, when Spock!2 becomes an old man, he will find some way, as heavily foreshadowed by Spock!1, to be in two places at the same time. Spock!1 will be delayed by the Vulcan council as before, in their passive but deliberate decision to allow the Romulan sun to go supernova and destroy their enemies. Spock!2 from this alternate reality will use an _insert plot device here_ to stop the supernova. While Vulcan remains destroyed within the paradox loop, both planets survive in the regular timeline.

Except there's no way to do that without coming up with yet another contrived time travel plot designed to hit the reset button, making the entire movie pointless to begin with.

So I didn't have any problem enjoying this bombastic, melodramatic submarine in space blast that is actually making me like the TOS characters. At least, one version of them.

I, for one, didn't need any of the changes Abrams made to make me like the TOS characters.

They are pointless (even if you were obviously over-simplifying the temporal mechanics involved using any given theory of time)... to anyone outside of that given timeline.

Then why do episodes or movies about it at all? Why should I or anyone else care about the characters in this AU?

[CX]

The thing is, it could still get "fixed" in a sequel. Spock died in II, but it wasn't unitl IV that we saw that he was alive and well and mostly "our" Spock again after coming back to life. They've already committed to doing a sequel, so I wouldn't exactly lose hope and say everything is "ruined" for the canon and history we all grew up knowing.

Right, they're totally going to undo everything they think has made this movie a financial success.

[Aikiweezie]

A writer in the Chicago Tribune wrote of the new movie that to many fans, "any Star Trek is better than no Star Trek." And considering that just a few years ago Paramount declared the franchise dead (I just watched the special about the auction of all the props - in which they reiterated that "fact") I have to agree.

No, it's not EXACTLY what I wanted to see, I found the pace a little frenetic. It was a bit too "Speed Racer," for me- not that bad, thank God, that movie was unwatchable but I would have like to have it slowed down a bit.

I have a continuity question. Has it EVER been mentioned before that Vulcan was blown to smithereens? Or did I somehow miss that?

[justTripn]

I am reading and very much enjoying this heavy discussion. KKGlinka's discussion of the timeline. Alelou's reading of the "hanging off a cliff" motiff. (I missed that--would never have caught it). I also loved that moment when Kirk offers mercy and says, "It's logical. I thought that'd make you happy." And Spock's, "No, not really. Not this time." With that little "huh" look. It was wonderful. Which brings me to my wholehearted agreement with Aikweezie's point: The choice is between this and NO Trek. The franchise must stay fresh or die. And because of moments like the above, which the movie was full of, we've got MORE TREK.

AND I got on just to report my son C.'s review of the movie. He's 18 and was a huge Trekkie in preschool. Not so much since. LOL . . . He's a waiter at the restaurant attached to the movie theater so he gets to see movies nonstop as an employee. His review:

It was SO hard! *High five*

(On and he says the Trekkies are terrible tippers )

Oh well . . .

So I think Star Trek is set to boldly go for another 10 years at least, maybe 40. Maybe forever.

[CX]

A writer in the Chicago Tribune wrote of the new movie that to many fans, "any Star Trek is better than no Star Trek." And considering that just a few years ago Paramount declared the franchise dead (I just watched the special about the auction of all the props - in which they reiterated that "fact") I have to agree.

I have to disagree. I'd rather the field lay fallow for a while than to get a bad product. Or as they say in Pet Semitary, "Sometimes dead is better." More bluntly, I'd rather Trek be dead than get ruined by some Star Wars fanboy.

[Alelou]

Have you actually seen it, CX?

[Asso]

I think this one might be"useful".
http://triptpolers.houseoftucker.com/fiction/author_favors_when_the_enterprises_collide.shtml

[evcake]

Plus, I still want to know where this puts the "real" universe.

Nowhere! It's gone. Dead. Passed on! It is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker!

Nonsense. It's quite safe down the other leg of the Trousers of Time.

[CX]

Have you actually seen it, CX?

I know the plot of the movie. Just as with TGTMD and *the_abomination* before it, it's not going to matter if I actually see it for myself at this point, and to be frank I am not going to spend any of my money or allow anyone else to spend their money on this movie for me to see it. If I'm up for some self-torture I'll watch it when someone makes a DVDrip of it.

And to be really blunt, I don't particularly care for that question given the mentality of the people who have been asking it to me since information about this movie started coming out, so I'd appreciate it if you refrain from going there.