No wonder Kirk has to keep going back!
Listen to the first words of this episode. Kirk makes time travel seem so easy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ZEB6r72X8
Star Trek Into Darkness
- Thread starter Jack Lynt
- Start date
No wonder Kirk has to keep going back!
Listen to the first words of this episode. Kirk makes time travel seem so easy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1ZEB6r72X8
Just watched it again tonight, and yes he did say that
saving the civilization was a violation of the Prime Directive.
I guess this oughta teach me to never doubt my position again.
I thought the Enterprise during Kirk's time couldn't enter the atmosphere, never mind submerge in the ocean.
Shields, baby! Here's a shot of the Enterprise in our atmosphere, in "Tomorrow is Yesterday."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL8O2Cfc2P4
You guys need to get away from that Next Generation stuff and watch the old Trek!
You guys need to get away from that Next Generation stuff and watch the old Trek!
nah...not as good.
EDIT: Nevermind. I was trying to be smart-ass, as usual, but my text was ambiguous. I have no honor!
Last edited:
I'm definitely not being argumentative about this, just posing my thoughts on it and enjoying the Trek discussion with my fellow Trekkies. =)
I'm actually quite skeptical that Star Trek 2009 created an alternate universe. I know, and it seems, that everyone believes that to be the case. But I've never felt that was right. I felt from the start that what the story was actually doing was altering the timeline of the actual Star Trek universe. I think that what they've actually been doing is rewriting the history of TOS. And when I first saw it, I was like, hey, so you're actually going to rewrite TOS? And I resented that approach. That's one of the reasons why I've felt a bit cool toward the first Abram Star Trek.
I don't think there's really any reason to believe, whatever Abram and his writers intended, actually, that Spock and Nero created an alternate universe. What indication is there that they did?
When Nero goes back in time to destroy Vulcan I'm pretty certain that he had no intention to go back in time in an alternate universe and destroy an alternate Vulcan. Of course not. He wanted to destroy the Vulcan of his universe, of Spock's. And I don't think there's any indication that he failed to do that.
I suppose I might be the only person who believes or wants to believe that. But as much as I first resented that they, as I believed, were rewriting TOS, I think I dislike the alternate universe version even more.
Another example. If it's all "just" an alternate, newly spawned universe, then why was it so important to Old Spock to get Young Kirk back in the game to "repair" the timeline as much as possible when it's not the same timeline or universe or dimension or whatever? I guess you could argue that Old Spock felt for some unexplained reason that this newly spawned timeline of an alternate universe -must- follow as closely as possible to the timeline and events of the universe he had come from. But I don't know. It just doesn't sit right with me. But to each his/her own, right.
I've actually warmed up to the Abram's Star Treks "destroying," or really, altering the old. Because, in fact, it's not like our TOS DVD or Blu-ray collections are going to disappear like Marty Mcfly because his parents failed to copulate or because the Abram's team got all Śiva on Star Trek. For me, it's kind of a story of how I learned to stop worrying and love the Abram's Star Trek Destroy(ish) and Reimagine Strategy.
I totally agree with you, Rik, that those terrible consequences would follow. But I suppose if they (the creators) followed that to the logical ends, it would spoil our Star Trek fun as everything just went to hell and to chaos. Not to let them off the hook. Maybe you're right, if that's what you mean, that they should just have avoided these time travel storylines. And again, not to let them off the hook, but to a limited extent they have given us storylines in which the badys get ahold of time travel too, and do bad, bad things with it. You're right, not nearly, nearly as devastatingly bad as we know they would do. But I'm thinking of Nero and of the Borg in Star Trek 8.
I'm actually quite skeptical that Star Trek 2009 created an alternate universe. I know, and it seems, that everyone believes that to be the case. But I've never felt that was right. I felt from the start that what the story was actually doing was altering the timeline of the actual Star Trek universe. I think that what they've actually been doing is rewriting the history of TOS. And when I first saw it, I was like, hey, so you're actually going to rewrite TOS? And I resented that approach. That's one of the reasons why I've felt a bit cool toward the first Abram Star Trek.
I don't think there's really any reason to believe, whatever Abram and his writers intended, actually, that Spock and Nero created an alternate universe. What indication is there that they did?
When Nero goes back in time to destroy Vulcan I'm pretty certain that he had no intention to go back in time in an alternate universe and destroy an alternate Vulcan. Of course not. He wanted to destroy the Vulcan of his universe, of Spock's. And I don't think there's any indication that he failed to do that.
I suppose I might be the only person who believes or wants to believe that. But as much as I first resented that they, as I believed, were rewriting TOS, I think I dislike the alternate universe version even more.
Another example. If it's all "just" an alternate, newly spawned universe, then why was it so important to Old Spock to get Young Kirk back in the game to "repair" the timeline as much as possible when it's not the same timeline or universe or dimension or whatever? I guess you could argue that Old Spock felt for some unexplained reason that this newly spawned timeline of an alternate universe -must- follow as closely as possible to the timeline and events of the universe he had come from. But I don't know. It just doesn't sit right with me. But to each his/her own, right.
I've actually warmed up to the Abram's Star Treks "destroying," or really, altering the old. Because, in fact, it's not like our TOS DVD or Blu-ray collections are going to disappear like Marty Mcfly because his parents failed to copulate or because the Abram's team got all Śiva on Star Trek. For me, it's kind of a story of how I learned to stop worrying and love the Abram's Star Trek Destroy(ish) and Reimagine Strategy.
I totally agree with you, Rik, that those terrible consequences would follow. But I suppose if they (the creators) followed that to the logical ends, it would spoil our Star Trek fun as everything just went to hell and to chaos. Not to let them off the hook. Maybe you're right, if that's what you mean, that they should just have avoided these time travel storylines. And again, not to let them off the hook, but to a limited extent they have given us storylines in which the badys get ahold of time travel too, and do bad, bad things with it. You're right, not nearly, nearly as devastatingly bad as we know they would do. But I'm thinking of Nero and of the Borg in Star Trek 8.
What he did fail to do was go back in time and figure out a way to help Spock Prime to save his planet.
All he really had to do was find him and say "Hey, Spock. You're gonna be a few hours or days late. What can I do to help you move your @ss a little faster a few decades from now? Here's the cr@p you need. Go get 'er done."
But, no.
Instead he goes on a vengequest.
Stupid miner.
Don't over think these stories. Just go with 'em. Or else the unobtanium
will just rot your mind.
Last edited:
Didn't the characters in the 2009 movie say that they were now in an alternate timeline? That settles the debate, doesn't it?
Gotta love Trekkies arguing...
sorry discussing...
Some Into Darkness B Roll footage if anyone is interested...
http://youtu.be/EQutDk1yecI
sorry discussing...Some Into Darkness B Roll footage if anyone is interested...
http://youtu.be/EQutDk1yecI
What he did fail to do was go back in time and figure out a way to help Spock Prime to save his planet.
All he really had to do was find him and say "Hey, Spock. You're gonna be a few hours or days late. What can I do to help you move your @ss a little faster a few decades from now? Here's the cr@p you need. Go get 'er done."
But, no.
Instead he goes on a vengequest.
Stupid miner.
Don't over think these stories. Just go with 'em. Or else the unobtanium
I thought they had no control over going back in time. I thought they got sucked in by the black hole (though i could be wrong)
He did. But he also understood soon enough what happened (when taking the Captain captive) and didn't take a hint from it, keeping his vengeance scheme instead.
I just think it creates too many paradoxes if they didn't. If this is all a single timeline then new Spock can avoid destroying Romulus in the future, and Nero will have no reason to go back and destroy Vulcan, so then Spock won't go back in time either, and so none of what is taking place now would have any reason to happen. The fact that things are continuing in a different manner than before, and appear to be diverging further as time progresses, to me makes it seem impossible that this is the same timeline because it's highly unlikely to arrive at the same place in the distant future necessary to spawn itself.
What he wants doesn't matter. He went back in time, and destroyed Vulcan, and made Spock feel what he felt - that was his goal. Whether or not he spawned a new timeline in the process doesn't matter to him - he wasn't trying to prevent Romulus from being destroyed so he could return to his time and have everything be fine. And ultimately, what's the difference if it's a parallel timeline or not? From the observer's perspective it's still the same universe, just with a slightly different trajectory of cause & effect.
Speaking of underwear & prometheous - what's with them wearing ace bandages instead of underwear? I actually found that pretty distracting, especially during the sequence in which Shaw is trying to get the alien out.
I think it puts us in "it's just a dream" territory, which really turns me off.
Good point. You know, if I ever were in charge of creating and filming one of these Sci-Fi universes, people would wear comfortable and practical clothing to work, just like we largely do in real life...for the most part. The caveat is, maybe I'd break that principle if the uncomfortable or the impractical looked hot, attractive, or beautiful...
The thing is in the "it's just a dream" scenario the protagonist wakes up and returns to their original reality, negating everything that came before it as none of it really happened.
In the multiple timelines situation though the protagonist leaves their original timeline behind and forever inhabits the new one - so the new one becomes their reality. It's like it's just a dream that you will never wake up from, so there's no point at which what's happening becomes invalidated as fake or a waste of time for the audience.
All this talk of time travel has been great though, last night I finally came up with the ending for a time travel short I'm working on. Realizing that it was a single-timeline story was the catalyst for figuring out where it needs to go.
Lol, I'd think that's the kindda of thing you need to figure out before even starting typing the script.
Single-timeline stories are hard to pull off. If you want someone to read it, I'd be up for it !
That's awesome. I better admit that I'm not quite sure what you mean, I'm not the sharpest tool, but I think I get it. Anyway, I hope I get to read and/or see it!
I catapulted clockwise around the sun and went into the future, read it, catapulted again and saw it.
It's great!
Just wait. You'll see.
Congrats, IDOM!
("Yes!" I did catapult back counter-clockwise!)
http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3686&p=.htm
"Trek's demographics tell an interesting story that contributes to that theory: the audience skewed heavily male (64 percent) and older (73 percent over the age of 25). In comparison, the first movie did a better job reaching women (only 60 percent male) and younger audiences (only 65 percent over 25). "