Friday, May 8, 2009

VLOG 5-8-09: Star Trek

More or less: Good movie, bad Star Trek movie. ‎


Anonymous said...

Given that the good Star Trek movies weren't very good to begin with, if this is a good normal movie, it's probably leaps and bounds above. Of course, I doubt the hardcore fans will be satisfied with anything.

CantStrafeRight said...

I completely share your opinion about how they changed the timeline wiping out most of star trek which makes me sad.

My hope is their going to make a trilogy set in this timeline and at the end of it they will restore the original timeline.

Anonymous said...

You know what would have made that movie awesome? VENOM.

seaclaw said...

for me Star Trek really has been more about the interactions between the characters more than anything else and in that regard this movie was really enjoyable to watch. Some continuity issues but they don't really interfere that much

Lewis Lovhaug said...

"Some continuity issues but they don't really interfere that much"

Don't interfere much?! THEY BLEW UP VULCAN.

Jeremy said...

i have to start by saying im 16 and havent really seen anything else star trek, and i really really liked it i know a little, like i knew that dickhole red shirt was going to die skydiving, and a few other things. but they didn't blow up vulcan, they blew up romulus in the supernova. but they just moved vulcan. They proved that things surivive black holes with niro and spock, so thats how i think it'll happen. And my one other things was that spock taught scotty the thing he learned, I dont know how time paradoxes work here but that was a little f'd up. One more thing i thought it was funny how u mentioned back to the future, because i did the same thing in the theater. anyways what do u think of my theory on vulcan just time travling?

Jeremy said...

about my last comment my veiw may be skewed a little because the last movie i saw was wolverine which i did know where they fucked up.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

Considering we saw the planet breaking up and that the time travel was never adequately explained, plus the fact that black holes aren't really known as traveling tools, PLUS the fact that even if it was just moved a planet cannot simply be moved to a different location without adverse consequences on gravity, plants and water, and life itself, I sincerely doubt it was just "moved."

ezim93 said...

To be honest I thought it was the best movie I saw this summer.

Anonymous said...

Hey, it's okay if you're not in "official" reviewing garb. The MST3K sweatshirt is pretty cool.

The Trembler said...

Linkara, Hi. Long time viewer (well, about as long as possible) but first time poster. A few things I want to mention.

First off, sometime after the story was written, I think after it was filmed, the producers were convinced to do a TNG hand-off, and they did it in comic form. The comic tells the 24th century side of the story. And. . . Well, I hope it doesn’t sound too ominous to you, but they call it “Countdown” -- Star Trek: Countdown. It’s 4 issues and I think starts out very strong (except for the physics of the supernova, which is on the worse side of Trek physics.) The later part of the story becomes, IMO, uneven.

I recommend it, but because it bears on your commentary, I’ll tell you to things that are revealed.


!) Nero’s ship starts out as a normal mining ship. After Romulus is destroyed, he encounters a space station where the Romulan military is developing new weapons based on recovered Borg technology. Nero has them grafted to his own ship.

2) The story ends after the anomaly that Spock & Nero goes through is closed with two unaltered TNG characters talking about Spock’s “death” . It’s not on-screen, but, at least according to STC (and the MMO Star Trek Online, which will be using that timeline) there *is* a timeline split. And it’s not like Trek time travel follows consistent rules. (It’s enough to make two Miles O’Brians say at the same time, “I hate temporal mechanics.”) This is just another permutation. The original timeline is still my preferred one, though.

Also: Spock Prime kept hidden because he wanted Young Spock to be forced to become friendly with Kirk? Is it logical to make it less likely that Earth will be saved just to make a playdate for your younger self?

Finally, for Kirk becoming permanent captain, they could’ve done two things. Either have the final ceremony be the “Our Hero/You’re off Probation” ceremony then cut to “3 Years later” and have him become captain then, unusually early but after some experience. Or play up the destruction of the fleet at Vulcan and maybe have Nero destroy Starfleet Command too, meaning there’s a shortage of officers. Under the circumstances, they could make an exception. (I hope this wasn’t too long a post.)

Lewis Lovhaug said...

Yeah, I'd heard about the comic. Was kind of thinking of picking it up. And nah, post wasn't too long.

I did consider commenting on the "supernova that threatened the galaxy" line from the movie, but I figured, "whatever - Trek science."

The Precentor said...

It was certainly a very good movie, but the plot was basically one giant middle finger to the fan base. Simply put, the events of the movie mean that none of the previous ten star trek movies or even four of the five television series actually happened. The new movie has essentially declared that everything we know and love about Star Trek never actually existed. Basically, they're saying that all of Star Trek (barring Enterprise and the new movie) was one giant decade spanning dream sequence. This, combined with the thematic departures from previous Star Trek installments, gives the overwhelming impression that the writers were trying to put as much distance between themselves and the Star Trek universe as possible. This does make financial sense as the technobable, moral and philosophical questions, and theme of exploration, which dominated the previous incarnations of Star Trek, just doesn't generate the same box office numbers as random explosion and light hearted dialog. Considering how trekkies are responsible for star trek not just dying out entirely after the first cancellation and instead becoming a major science fiction franchise that has spanned 40 years, five television series 10 movies, and numerous novels, the sheer gall required to tell such a devoted fanbase they're no longer wanted because they don't generate the number of ticket sales that appealing to the lowest common denominator does is just staggering. It still was a fun movie I just seriously hope the plot gets retconned.

And to think that we used to fly into a nerd rage over Benny Russell......

Lewis Lovhaug said...

Well, SOME people do. "Far Beyond the Stars" was a beautiful episode, IMHO (plus, you know - vision by the Prophets and in his next appearance by the Pah-Wraiths).

But yeah, your statement sums it up well.

The Trembler said...

Also, they introduce what I can only assume to be the misnamed Star Trek II mind control slugs, only to have it not be relevant afterwards.

Tyrel and Chekhov almost killed Original Timeline Kirk. It would have been so much more interesting if New Kirk (with NutraSweet) had rescued Pike only to have Pike turn a phaser on him.

pablumatic said...

I completely agree about previous Star Trek material treating time travel as occurring within the same plane of reality and this movie trashing most of the rest of the franchise with its continuity changes. ...But it was a good popcorn flick if you can keep your inner fan rage in check while watching.

From a plot contrivance/macguffin with a poor name (Red Matter? Really? Whatever happened to Trek technobabble here?) to an absolutely ridiculous looking "mining" ship, this movie catered strictly to the movie going crowd and not to Trek fans.

The Precentor said...

"Far Beyond the Stars" certainly was an extremely well done episode, my Benny Russell comment was in reference to "Shadows and Symbols" in which his sole purpose is to present the theory that all of Star Trek exists solely in the mind of 1950s science fiction author experience a mental break down. While plot lines that involve questioning reality have been done well before, "Shadows and Symbols" left things a little too ambiguous and ventured too close to the ending of St. Elsewhere territory for my tastes.

Venturing back to the new movie, I found the scene in which 12 year old Kirk steals the car to be very unintentionally hilarious due to the inclusion of "Sabotage" by The Beastie Boys. As soon as the song kicked off, I started thinking "who the heck blasts classical music while driving at 80 mph with the roof down (or torn off)?" Futurama references ensued, which kept me mercifully preoccupied until that scene ended.

Reflecting more upon the inherent problems that come with significantly altering the time line, I came up with the following problems or, in order to sound cooler, temporal paradoxes. With the near complete annihilation of the Vulcans, the Federation has lost one of its cornerstone races and their designated science guys. This would no doubt hamper the development of Federation technology and significantly weaken the Federation. As such, would the Red Matter even be discovered/developed in time to be utilized to stop the supernova or would the Federation even be in a strong enough political and military position to want to save the Romulan home world? Future (old) Spock could certainly use his knowledge to ensure that Red Matter is developed and deployed according to the established time line, but why would he even want to preserve a time line in which his entire race is destroyed when said time line has already been modified, thus The Temporal Prime Directive doesn't apply? Would future Spock not using Red Matter at the designated point in the future cause the time line to revert to its original state or would it just result in causality to collapse in a speculative science nightmare? Also, why didn't the time travelers from Enterprise intervene? Only the Command and Conquer Red Alert time line is more convoluted at this point.

The Trembler said...

Oh, and I did VERY much think "Space Mutiny." To be more specific, I though"Space Mutiny", but with more color.

The Trembler said...

And when Spock Prime & New Kirk entered Scotty & "Mini Jem Hadar's" base, and I saw the green lights, I didn't think "Space Mutiny", I though, "The Matrix."

anthony said...

Great vid Lewis! I like your MST3k hoodie. I thought the plot was too simple for me and it's Star Trek, wasn't expecting much. One thing I didn't like about this film is when Kirk,Sulu, and Red Shirt dived down on Vulcan to disable the drilling laser, in their spacesuits. I thought that it could have been done better if they were dropped out of pods, the pods coming apart and then said spacemen drop. About prequuel stuff, I think it's being done too much, not with just Star Trek, but Metroid, Star Wars and some Giant robot anime I watch. Overall, it was a decent film and your vlogs are getting better.

Jordan said...

Okay, while I'm not a hardcore Trekkie, I was into it for a good couple of years (circa the Dominion War in DS9). So I'll debate a few of your points.

1) While it can be said that this movie isn't about exploration, the final frontier, etc., I wouldn't say that this movie just action scenes. This movie was about a group of younger people stepping up to the plate to take responsibility, live up to their potential, and become the great characters that we know they're destined to be.

2)About the Uhura/Spock relationship. I'm assuming they got the idea from the TOS episode "The Man Trap." There's a short scene where Uhura flirts with Spock.

Seeing as how Spock's character is all about balance logic and emotion, I liked that he had an emotional stake in the form of a love interest, and in turn Uhura has something at stake as well.

Could the same have been accomplished without them being together? Perhaps. But seeing as how both of them did a great job at portraying those characters that I bought into it.

Which brings me to..

3) What is so unacceptable about the Alternate Reality explanation? How can one say that TNG, DS9, and Voyager as we know it never happened, when whole point of creating the Abrahmverse(copyright) was to preserve that continuity?

Could it be said that this film is the continuity equivelant of setting an entire movie in the mirror universe?

If they had tried to hit the cosmic reset switch and make it tie back into the original continuity(which in itself isn't flawless) we'd only be nitpicking it even more.

By creating this new timeline, it gives the writers and director the freedom to explore new ideas and scenarios(like destroying Vulcan) where they can focus on making good movies and telling good stories without the burden of being dissected by continuity.

5)Which brings up the argument of whether or not we really needed to revisit the original crew. From a personal standpoint, Whenever I love a character, and I love being able join them on new adventures in any form I can, given that the characters are done right, which this succeded in spades.

The Trembler said...

BTW, who heard "Kirk, Sulu, and OLSEN," and thought, "Uh-oh"?

Lewis Lovhaug said...

Oh, I figured he was a dead man. but why the heck was he so into EXTREME! parachuting? XD

The Trembler said...


Da-da-da-da (EXTREME FLASHING!!) Da-Duh-Da-Duh-Da-Da (BUY REVOLUTION OF THE MASK!!) Da-Da-Du-Du-Duh-Duh Da-Dad_Du-Duh-Du (EXTREME FLASHING!!) Duh-Du-Duh-Da-Da-Da--Du-Du-Duh-Du (BUY REVOLUTION OF THE MASK!!) Etc.

Trevor P. said...

I just want to say something about Time Travel. not the Star Trek multiverse (as it must now be called) is either spacetime or 4th-dimensional Eucledian space. In spacetime, time and space are intermengled. In as a world, only single universes are possible because alternate realities cant be created. In 4d Eucledian space, time and space are seperate allowing both BTTF time travel and Multiverse time travel to exist (based on the form of Travel used). If that is true, Spock and Nero are not sent to the past, but they are pushed out of the current space and into an alternate space that is a temporal delay with Trek-World Prime.

BatOtaku13 said...

I didn't think they rewrote the entire star trek time line. nero changes events in the past which creates an alternate universe inside the star trek universe. so it exists in the old star trek era as its own separate entity.

Evan Annett said...

Great assessment, Lewis, but I really have to quibble with your argument that Star Trek has never allowed for alternate timelines. Case in point: the Sela/Tasha Yar arc from TNG. "Yesterday's Enterprise" sets up a separate timeline where the Klingons and the Federation are at war; it more or less reverts to the original timeline when alternate-universe Tasha Yar goes back in time with the Enterprise-C, but it's really a completely new timeline, because alternate Tasha survives in the past and has a child with a Romulan. So there we have one canonical example of a stable alternate timeline -- involving Romulans, no less.

It's almost unfair to criticize a Star Trek movie as being unfaithful because of bad time-travel logic because, honestly, it's been par for the course for every series. I was really anxious about this movie when I found out there was time travel involved, because for me, that's one of the things I hated most about Enterprise. (Temporal Cold War. Pfft.) I have to give J.J. Abrams credit for wanting to jettison a messy and convoluted canon timeline and just start over, but I agree with you, the writers went about it in a bad way by destroying Vulcan and not fixing it. That was just insulting.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

Except that you forget the one different factor about Yesterday's Enterprise - they hit the reset button at the end. Did the alternate universe affect the main one? Yes, but not to the extent we see here. An entire planet is GONE, six billion people dead, and nothing to restore it by the end. I wouldn't have minded a reset button with them remembering the experiences.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

Oh, wait, you do have that at the end. ^^; My bad.

Philosophista said...

I'm not a trekkie, I always prefered Star Wars (I think is more easier to get, its just saw the first trilogy, and Star Trek there are tons of episodes, NG, DS9 and etc), but Star Trek is a mark in the history of Sci-Fi and all this sort o genre, that all the people should respect...

I didn't saw the movie yet, but watching the traillers I thought "Yeah... a Blockbuster Trek... I guess it'll not work so good..." And by watching your review Lewis, I had o say that the impression you left to me was that, this movie, is like a "What If Lost in Space (The movie, that one with Matt leBlacn), instead of a Family had an entire crew of Enterprise on it"...

Yeah, i'll wait and rent... who knows... I always liked Simon Pegg, especcially in movies himself directed, like Shaun of the dead and Hot Fuzz...

Chevalier said...

Just my two cents, I'm a hard-core trekkie and I loved this movie. I agree that I might not be a good Star Trek movie but it was a great tribute movie.
Some of the people I went to see it with weren't fans (one didn't even know scotty was a guy) and they all enjoyed it.

And actually due to the fact that there was so much time travel in ST:Ent, it also might have been changed...

dygenguard said...

never seen it and not gonna

Shawnacy said...

A fair review.
Though I think your unconditional love of Star Trek is keeping you from enjoying the film to it's fullest. In your review you kept bringing up the destruction of Vulcan as if it was the end of Star Trek and all that it ever was and will be again. As if every movie and series that came after "Enterprise" is no longer cannon.
It's just an alternate reality situation. It takes the series in a new direction without having to step on the shoes of the films and shows before it. Think of it as one of two things. Either "Official" Fan-Fiction, or Alternate History. It answers a "What If?" question. What If Kirk's father was killed before he was born and how would that change who he is? Would he be rebelious enough where he wouldn't take a simulation seriously if he knew he was already going to win? What if Vulcan was destroyed? How would that effect Spock and the Federation?
In your defense against time-travel based alternate universes you used Back to the Future in your defense. Wasn't the plot of "Back to the Future 2" based around an alternate 1985 caused by changing the past?
Same applies here.
Up until now the Star Trek Universe has been careful enough with Time-Travel that the things they have changed they have put right, at least enough, to set things somewhat in the right direction. But when you do something dramatic like.. go back and shoot your mom or... BLOW UP VULCAN... either one of two things will happen. Paradox and the end of all that is. Or *trumpets* Alternate Reality.

You know what? Go watch the movie again. I have a feeling you'll like it more the second time around.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

Exactly - direct repercussions caused by changing the past, Shawn. It wasn't an "alternate universe," it was changes in the timeline.

It has undone any and all stories that took place on Vulcan after the events of this movie.

Noha said...

Hey Lewis,

I am a big fan of your work, and while I don't agree with everything you said, I think there are some links you may be interested in reading to assuage some of your concerns.

First, as you can read in this interview, the creators of the movie were very clear that this movie sets up a new timeline which exists parallel to the old timeline. This sort of stuff does not even need to be justified by pseudo-Trek science, it can be justified with real world Quantum Science. I think that this sort of happened in the TNG Ep "Parallels" as well:

Also, keep in mind one of the script writers was a huge trekie, they just had to balance the need to create a story that can have popular appeal, while still being part of the Star Trek universe.

I think that even if we can deal with the science issue, we will have to agree to disagree on whether or not the timeline needed to be wiped clean so that the writers could make new movies that were not held back on cannon. I think the decision to destroy Vulcan was inspired because it meant that:

-We now can believe that in these movies, the consequences will matter.
-I agree that the series needs to "move forward", but that there was so much group think in the Star Trek writers that even if they kept setting their shows further into the future, that the show would still look and feel the same, and not have the burst of new energy, and lets be honest, youth, that the series was lacking.

I think that this movie had to introduce characters so that future movies could deal with moral dilemmas. But I agree that they did not necessarily have to leave that out in this movie.

I really like the Uhura-Spock relationship. I think it works, but it also is an homage to some really obscure Star Trek lore. In "Plato's Stepchildren", it was meant to Spock who was going to have the first inter-racial kiss on television, but Shatner told them to make it Kirk's instead. I find this to be

I think the fact that Star Trek Enterprise is still cannon, is very ironic, and very unfortunate, but I think at this point I just find that funny.

D. R. McLeod said...

Hah! Good show, man.

I haven't seen the movie itself, but I said all that stuff about the video months before it happened.

There's a link at the bottom to our discussion, if you want to read it. It starts there, and goes on for about four pages increasingly whiny and self-loathingy pages, including an interview with the writers. I'm Captain Sarcasm, BTW.

Anyway, we eventually came up with the idea that the whole thing was an alternate universe to begin with. If you remember "Parallels", Worf was able to travel through alternate dimensions via a negative space wedgie. The differences could be as small as a painting being on a different wall or as big as, say, a time-traveling Romulan having gone back and blown up the planet Vulcan. If there are already discrepancies with the established continuity, like the insignia thing you mentioned, this is a way to separate the continuities, allow the movie people to do what they do, and keep the Trek that we know and love the same.

This does mean that the Spock in this movie isn't "Our" Spock, but none of the other characters are really "Our" characters, so it's not that big of a deal.

Still, from what you say... well, for now I'll just say that I really hope I'm not as disappointed.

D. R. McLeod said...

Hah, well that's my sense of timing. I'm writing my comment about "Parallels" and an interview with the writers, and then Noha has a post about "Parallels" and that same interview with the writers. Oy...

To respond both to them and the writers, yes, you can explain it with real science, but the thing is that this is Star Trek. It doesn't work on real science. It works on its own science, and its own science says that time travel works in a certain way, and has always worked in a certain way.

You have things like the Mirror Universe and "Parallels" and such, but those had nothing to do with time travel, and are an entirely unrelated phenomenon.

Animikean said...

When you were talking about product placement i flashed back to Demolition Man with the "Now all restaurants are Taco Bell" ...unless it's the European version where they subbed in Pizza Hut
Fa ha ha ha, how do the crappiest things seem to make it into our Utopian futures?
Dystopian ones (like Blade Runner, pick a version) seem to get more of a pass.

Shawnacy said...

Well you'll just have to get past it then. You've got two seperate time-lines to deal with now. You've got classic Star Trek and Reboot Star Trek. You can sit around the table with fellow Trekkies and debate which one is more "cannon", or you can simply just accept it as a leap in a new direction. And if you can't deal with the direction of the leap, pick up any episode of Star Trek and enjoy. That's the nice thing about fiction. If you don't like Vulcan being destroyed you don't have to watch the next movie.
Personally though, I think you'll be missing out.

Anonymous said...

While I agree that the entire changing of the timeline was a smack to the head, that wasn't what bothered me most.

I was really annoyed with the Spock/Uhura relationship. This is a pretty casual Star Trek fan talking here, but I couldn't stand how tacked-on it was!

Her character was so flat, (like you said, no fault to the actress) it felt like that the only reason she was there was so that they could shove in a love interest sub plot. And, with Spock?

It came out of nowhere. So, Uhura suddenly has feelings for a guy she just met, and now because his planet was destroyed she's going to go make out with him in the elevator? Why?

I can understand that Spock would be more emotional because, well, the loss of your mother and your home planet will do that to you, but it was a little too over the top.

Well, to put this long post to an end, I'll just say this; They could have replaced Uhura's character with any generic acion movie's love interest and you would have gotten the same thing. She didn't really play Uhura, she played a love interest.

Jeremy said...

OOH I just got it! the next moives gonna be Star Trek 2: the search for Vulcan :-P

Cervus said...

I just knew that the hard core Trekkies were going to pick this movie apart so much and end up hating it.

The destruction of Vulcan is huge. I was really upset about it when I found out. But in order to have a series reboot where Anyone Can Die. In order to inject actual uncertainty into the storyline, doing something big was IMO necessary.

Parallel universes are already a part of Star Trek, the Mirror Universe the most obvious example. There was also the TNG episode "Parallels" where Worf becomes a Slider whenever Geordi came near, and we saw an entire sector being filled with Enterprises.

Finally, it's a reboot. And in that context it works for me. I view it in the same terms as the reboot of Battlestar Galactica, which was nothing like the original. What BSG didn't have was 40+ years of series and movie continuity to deal with, which understandably makes a reboot easier. What I would have liked was more backstory about Nero. Or even having the supernova thing at the start.

I'm a pretty hard core trekkie myself. And I enjoyed this film a lot.

The Trembler said...

I do want to point out that Star Trek truly hasn't been consistent in how it handles time travel.

USUALLY, it follows the "History is Replaced" model. But there are times when other rules applied. In Time's Arrow (the one where Data's head is found in a archaeological dig) they use the closed loop (or "Whatever Happened, Happened") theory. Even "before" the time travel occurs, the results of traveling into the past were already part of history.

In the DS9 episode "Visionary," O'Brian repeatedly jumps into the future close to his future self. In order to control the time jumps and discover the enemies' Nefarious Plot, Bashir irradiates O'Brian so that the time jumps are controlled. But the future O'Brian isn't affected (and doesn't even know about the irradiation) suggesting that the events of the past don;t fully seem to effect events of the future.

This leads to that line I quoted earlier "I hate temporal mechanics."

That occurs around minute 8 of:

So at least as far as Star Trek is concerned, inconsistent time travel rues are themselves a form of consistency.

There' a web site (mentioned on the Rifftrax blog) where a man has developed a way to make time travel fully logical consistent. He then analyses different movies based on those rule to see if they can worl. (Star Trek, Back to the Future, one Harry Potter film, and others) It is not the only logically consistent way to envision time travel working, and not my preferred way but it is fascinating. Check it out.

D. R. McLeod said...

I've read that time travel site, and I found it overly complicated. IMO, the only kind of time travel that makes sense is the Bill and Ted stable time loop thing because that way, nothing changes. Nothing at all. The universe can't be going around rewriting itself just because of some punk in a DeLorian. Anything you do in the past already happened, because it's in the past. What kind of mechanism is supposed to exist for making everything in the universe go all rippley and changing everything? You'd need more energy than it took to create the damn thing.

Anyway, the thing about Time's Arrow and Visionaries and this movie is that they're exceptions to the rule. We could sit around here coming up with a complex theory of how they fit in... I've done a lot of that myself... but really, it's just a TV show.

And anyway, like real science, things aren't going to fit together exactly. Until we come up with a theory of everything there's always going to be some phenomena that doesn't quite fit. But we study it and until we find a better theory, we just say that the universe works like this - mostly.

Anyway, I just had a thought about the movie. Maybe it wasn't the time travel that caused the parallel universe but the red matter.

Think about it - it can create a black hole. If it can rip one kind of hole in the universe and make a black hole, and another kind of hole to make a time-hole, who's to say it can't make a wormhole, or a hole into another dimension?

Lewis Lovhaug said...

That would've made sense, though that's not exactly clear in the film.

The Trembler said...

Oh, that site IS very complicated. Its not my preferred way for time travel to work. And it wouldn't work for this movie. But I find it fun to see the detailed thought experiments he goes through.

I think we're in agreement as to how Trek describes time travel. Usually the replacement model, but with different rules occasionally. And the reason is because it is a fictional show, though one with enough internal integrity to affirmatively acknowledge that there are seeming inconsistencies.

I don't actually think that the Bill & Ted style time loop is the mot logical because that requires an "activist universe" or divine action to prevent anything form being changed. If you're alone on a beach next to a sand castle, go three minutes back and see that castle is still standing (and you're still alone), if you try and destroy i. . . Sure, something could stop you, but it seems that in many circumstances the universe would have to go out of its way to stop you. Divine action would actually make sense in that circumstance, but not the rules of an impartial universe.

For me, what makes the most sense is the replacement model of time travel, but unlike in Back to the Future, to the fact that the traveler now comes from a changed future doesn't matter. Think of the future as being like the Titanic. Someone could stroll on its deck before it embarked and then leave (ie travel back in time). The fact hat the Titanic later sinks (the equivalent in this image of the future you used to exist in being changed) doesn't affect you anymore because you aren't on it anymore. You just can't go back to it.

Still, these are al thought experiments

Since the original Trek Timeline is the one I love, I'm hoping Spock, Abrams, ST Countdown, & Star Trek Online are right. And that the timeline split. For whatever reason. Fun discussion though.

D. R. McLeod said...

Well, see, I don't think it's any more activist than gravity. It's not something trying to get matter to attract other matter, it's just something that happens as a function of mass, distance and the constant of the universe.

Likewise, the universe isn't stopping you. It's just that your attempts to destroy the sand castle are already part of the original timeline. If you build a sandcastle at 6:00 and decide that at 6:10, you'll go back in time to 6:05 and destroy the sandcastle, at 6:05, a future you will pop out of his time machine and destroy the sandcastle. If you see a sandcastle, go back in time and try to destroy it, you'll fail, not because of some active force, but because of simple cause and effect. From your own timeline, the effect (Sandcastle is there in the present) comes before the cause (I failed to destroy the sandcastle in the past), but from an objective viewer, the cause comes before the effect.

Granted, you could still see that as being activist, as there'd need to be a really contrived reason for you failing to destroy a sandcastle, but I think that's just going to come down to a difference of opinion.

The Trembler said...

>Granted, you could still see that as being activist, as >there'd need to be a really contrived reason for you >failing to destroy a sandcastle

That is indeed why I consider it activist, effectively requiring some sort of awareness of what the situation is supposed to end up being and the mans to prevent deviating. But whatever. You have your definition, and I have mine.

If anyone out there ever develops time travel (beyond 1 second per second into the future, and according to Einstein, that isn't fully right), be sure to tell us what the rules actually are.

D. R. McLeod said...

> That is indeed why I consider it
> activist, effectively requiring
> some sort of awareness of what the
> situation is supposed to end up
> being and the mans to prevent
> deviating.

No it doesn't. There's no need for awareness. Gravity isn't "aware" of the mass of two objects or the distance between them, it just draws them closer together at a constant rate.

In this case, the universe isn't "aware" of anything. It isn't even aware that you time traveled. All it knows is that some matter in the shape of you appeared at 6:00 and did something to some matter in the shape of a sand castle. If the sand castle is still around at 6:05, then if you go back in time to 6:00, you wouldn't destroy the sand castle. It's not that you are UNABLE to destroy the sand castle, it's just that you DON'T.

Let me put it another way.

In order for you to destroy the sand castle in the present, it must already have been destroyed. Because if you travel to the past and destroy the sand castle, the sand castle does not exist in the present, but if you travel to the past and do not destroy the sand castle, it does exist in the present. That would mean that the sand shaped itself into a castle between the time you arrive in the past and the time you leave from the present and that goes against nearly every law of physics.

That defines an activist universe, as the only way that could happen is if the universe intelligently decided to break its own laws for the purpose of your time travel experiment. On the other hand, there's nothing that breaks physics about destroying a sand castle and having it stay destroyed or not destroying a sand castle and having it stay not destroyed.

In short, there's no activism, only the natural processes of the universe.

Trembler, I think that we're operating on the same lines here. My time loop theory and your replacement theory both say that there's no Back to the Future "ripple effect," there's no kind of intelligent force that knows to spontaneously erase your kids if somebody travels back in time and kills you and that changes to the timeline aren't going to affect the travelers themselves. The only difference is that you're saying time can be changed and I'm saying it can't. I think we'll just have to wait and see on that.

Kamen Rider Gumo said...

Gotta say I disagree with your complaints about this movie. I can kinda see where you're coming from, but I just can't agree. I liked this movie; for me, it made up for Enterprise, First Contact and DS9. And as for the "dozens and dozens of missiles" Nero's ship had, it makes sense that a mining ship would have warheads that could pulverize asteroids to gather the minerals from them.

Eggman said...

Yeah, I assumed you'd have the same complaints I did. ^_^

I'm more pissed off about the inconsistency off the time travel's consequences than anything. If this somehow just created an "alternate timeline", why would Spock even bother coming back to do anything? Why not just "Hey, I'm set here in the normal universe, let Universe B deal with it. 8-)"

If I recall in First Contact, when the Borg went back in time, it had consequences in the existing timeline. So, I feel that you are correct. Vulcan being gone means all that stuff post-Enterprise didn't happen. It created an ALTERED timeline, not an ALTERNATE one.

Besides the reboot/franchise factor though, I thought they also did it so the audience actually had to care about the characters, because now you don't know who could die. With the Star Wars prequels, you knew who was going to be alive by the end of the 3rd one, so it was just a matter of "Ok, get burned and kill everyone but Obi-Wan and Yoda, c'mon". But now that there's no set future, they can kill off whoever they want. (I thought Spock was actually going to collide into Nero's ship.) It reminded me of how they killed of the clones of the Venture Brothers recently. Now you actually care when their lives are threatened.

Dave Reynolds said...

While I do disagree with you on the opinion of the movie, as I found it one of the better Treks and a breath of fresh air. (Not THE best. I reserve that for Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country.) But hey, we all have different opinions, and people above me already mentioned any point I was going to mention. (About parallel universes and stuff.) But you did mention about the odd ship designs, particularly Nero's ship.

There's an IDW Comic called Star Trek: Countdown that serves as a prequel to the movie. I know Roddenberry says nothing but the TV shows and films are canon, but considering the plot is by the writers of the movie, I would sort of consider it sort of canon. (And its not a bad story.)

Anyway, the story explains the situation of everything that happened in the 24th century that lead up to the time traveling to the past. I won't spoil the events of is, if you decide to want to read it, but it does state in there that the mining ship, the Narada, was outfitted with Borg technology, which not only explains the odd techno-feel to the ship, but also why it was so powerful.

Granted, it would have been nice to mention it in the movie, but I understand why they didn't. But your question does have an answer though. :)

Aishman said...

Man, the best watching this review is to watch it right next to Spoony's, and pausing each one at the right moment. It's almost like a conversation. "Everything after Enterprise didn't happen!" "It's called selective amnesia, it's one of the things we nerds/geeks have." Ahh, good stuff.

Yadesjours said...

A french webcomics/comment on the movie. Ask Benzaie to translate it :)

Basically, the author wonders why the bad guy should always have a scary name and tatoos (and a scary black ship).
In the real life, the bad guys are normal looking businessmen.

indyK1ng said...

TNG Season 7 "Parallels". Parellel timelines are shown to exist. This guy has it WRONG.

indyK1ng said...

Sorry if this is a double post, but you sir are wrong about how time travel works in Star Trek. I ask you once again to view the ST:TNG Season 7 episode "Parallels" where Worf jumps to parallel timelines. Also, the Mirror universe proves that parallel timelines exist in Star Trek. As for more background on Nero, I ask you to read "Star Trek: Countdown" which is the official comic prequel commisioned by Paramnount. It explains that Nero's ship was refitted with Borg technology after the Romulan home world gets destroyed.

D. R. McLeod said...

Parallel *universes* exist, but they are NOT caused by time travel. If time travel caused parallel universes, then the crew of the Enterprise-E couldn't see the earth changing in First Contact, because it would be happening in a different universe, nor would Kirk need to fix history in the City on the Edge of Forever, nor would there be any reason for the existence of Voyager's Temporal Integrity Commission.

90% of all time travel stories in Trek involve changing timelines. The stories that involve parallel universes show that they exist independently of each other and that time travel was not involved. Nothing 'created' the parallel worlds in Parallels, they existed already. You can go to a parallel world, but you can't create one.

Razorgeist said...

I disagree with you as I really enjoyed the movie and wasn't bothered by alternate reality/universe explanation. That said I understand your criticisms. The one thing that I thought was absolutley correct was that we were missing the "exploring strange new worlds" and the sense of wonder and explanation that you mentioned. I hope they bring it back for the sequel.

As for a future TV series 4 words my friends "Remember Azati prime" and "Enterprise-J".

Anonymous said...

I'm in the middle of listening to your review of the movie, but there are a couple of points I would like to make about Child Spock and the Bullies:

As to the use of the word "Whore": it could be said that they have been researching ways to get an emotional response out of the half-human spock, and found that that word was a harsh insult to humans (and thus, maybe to Spock).

Also, if I remember correctly, this scene is also an homage to, of all things, the Animated Series, since there was an episode in which Spock used the Guardian of Forever to journey to Vulcan during his childhood, where we see three vulcan children torment him (one of the better episodes in an otherwise silly saturday morning P.O.S.).

I enjoyed this movie, and will probably enjoy whatever comes after, although, like many others, I feel this isn't the 'true' Star Trek since it takes place in an alternate time line (kinda like how most of the "Ultimate Marvel" universe is good, but it won't ever be the 'real' marvel universe)

SuperSlappy said...

Not to hijack your review, but I made my own review at that pretty much tackles plot points from the Prequel Countdown comics as well as my personal feelings towards the film. While I find the story as a whole to be decent, at the same time I felt there was no story throughout the movie. It was kind of weird on that end. But I really wish they could have fleshed out Nero more like in the comic. I also had mixed feelings for the new crew.

Anonymous said...

My dad grew up with Star Trek and it was because of him that I also grew up with it (first being TNG with the occasional sprinkles of TOS whenever it came on TV). We had our conversation and we both agreed that we didn't even like Star Trek: Enterprise. And having said that we were very skeptical of this movie being a prequel to TOS. My dad personally felt that it would have been much more interesting to him if it was about Christopher Pike's exploits leading up to TOS which either way would explain about Spock's past anyway.

Anyhew, this movie makes me sad. Even if there was a hint that it was in an alternate universe, I didn't really get that vibe as much since the single phrase that Nero said could be debatable in that he meant what is suppose to happen will no longer happen due to wanting to seeking revenge via changing the past. Besides, in all the Star Trek tv series and movies, whenever they started to talk about the alternate universe, or Mirror Universe, in the end it goes back to the main continuity. Even when there were moments of going back in time they manage to make it back without changing the way things were or made sure that they made the precautions to make it seem like they were not involved. This movie.... it didn't end like that. It just ended. So what does it mean for the series other than "Hey, we're going to restart this series so none of the things after Enterprise matters"

I think I am going to take Spoony's advice in having selective amnesia with this movie. Yes, as a movie on its own it was wonderful. Without any bias or knowing anything about the series, it's just awsome. But being a person who grew up with Star Trek and just recently (about a year ago) started to get back into it by re-watching the series, the knowledge about it makes this movie hard to enjoy.

So with that being said, there were moments of awsomeness and there were moments where I just wanted to stop watching or even thinking about it because it is rather upsetting.

... And really, the relationship between Uhura and Spock was very left field. Couldn't they just continue (or start) with the one sided relationship between him and Christine Chapel? if they wanted Uhura in a relationship (as it being supposedly in an alternate universe) they could have gone with a Uhura and Sulu relationship (Mirror Mirror episode from TOS even though this movie is not the Mirror Universe with the Terran Empire). Hell they could have had a Uhura and Kirk relationship even though that was considered forced in Plato's Stepchildren. I think this was one of those "wtf?" moments that just disturbs me.

Truce Weston said...

Finally got my internet back! And saw the movie! I agree with pretty much all the points you made. I still liked the movie though, it was fun!

Anonymous said...

An awesome cast but a bad plot, sounds an awful lot like X-Men 3.

BTW beyond the stars is an awesome episode but I think Benny was symbolism for the profits as opposed to everything being his creation.

But anyway with this new reality what sort of twists will come our way.

here are my predictions:
Picard will not be bald, rather will have a large afro with accompanying pic.
Riker will be gay and dedicated to becoming a captain.
Bajorans will be religiously tolerant.
Janeway will be a competent captain who will actually get her crew home in the first week by doing the obvious thing.
Geordi and Harry Kim will both actually get laid.
Wesley will experiment with drugs, thus being laidback and not at all an annoying eager achiever.
Worf will have a long term happy relationship.
Kira/Ezri Dax- think the mirror episode
O'Brien will actually stand up for himself.
Garak and Gul Dukat get BFF bracelets.

BobbyC said...

Some Trek novels (like Best Destiny and Starfleet Enterprise: Collision Course) say that the chip on Kirk's shoulder is from surviving the purge on Tarsus IV (from TOS Conscience of the King). So Pine!Kirk having a similar chip on his shoulder makes sense, even if we don't know if he was on Tarsis IV in this timeline.

The next movie should cover exploration and the Prime Directive. When to interfere and when not to. Kirk should say "The Prime Directive is not a suicide pact."

Anonymous said...

i was under the impression that the new star trek movie didnt destroy the original timeline but just create a new one so the writers can have more freedom to write stuff

i dunno maybe i got the idea wrong

Anonymous said...

I would be monumentally pissed off about the whole oh-now-your-history-doesn't-exist thing, but I honestly do think that this is an alternate universe. In Star Trek, it is very easy to go to another universe (TOS episode "Mirror, Mirror" where they went through a transporter accident; DS9 episodes where it was a worm hole). We have no evidence that they went back in time except for what old Spock said, and Spock could easily be wrong. He appears to have no particular evidence either except for what the Romulan guy said. And he has no evidence except for the fact that the Kelvin's captain told him it was a different date. So, I prefer to say "AU," which both makes me not want to tear my hair out, and, frankly, makes an aweful lot of inconsistencies make more sense. Plus, I'm a huge fan of au's in general, so this movie, in that light, makes me happy, while the other one makes me rage inside.

Honeslty, Kirk's promotion and Uhura's out of character-ness (not to mention the superfluous romance with Spock) made me a lot more angry. Plus, what the hell is "red matter" and how would creating a black hole in the center of the Romulan solar system have save it anyway?

I'm sorry if this has already been addressed in the previous multitude of comments, all of which I have not yet read. Also, I'm writing this on ad breaks from LOST, so it may be a tad inconsistent.

Miss Kitty Fantastico said...

I'm honestly not that much of a Star Trek fan, but I actually enjoyed the film. But I think my friend was partially right when he said it was Star Trek film for Star Wars fans.

Still, I rather enjoy this explanation of the timeline issues of XI:

Celinra said...

Hello! I've been watching your videos for a while now, but this is ST, so the nerd in me must comment.

I hadn't even thought about the fact that time-travel is typically within a single timeline in ST. Dang. You make a good point, though... after all, if parallel worlds were created, they wouldn't have had to worry about putting things back the way they were in the various episodes and such. It puts the movie into a whole different perspective.

I did like that the changes actually made you concerned about what was going to happen. I remember thinking, "Spock's mom isn't going to die, she shows up later in the series and stuff, so she must live... wait, she just died...." So I did like that aspect of it. The implications of the whole thing, though... blah.

I agree that the movie was very action-heavy. When talking about the movie after I saw it, I realized I didn't have much beyond "The acting was amazing!" Now, I like action as much as the next person, but it'd be nice to have a little more to it, as well, especially in a ST movie.

I also agree that a little more explanation about Kirk's attitude to the Kobayashi Maru would have been nice. In the novel that talks about him taking the test, we actually see him discussing that he doesn't think there's any situation that's impossible to win somehow, whereas the test didn't present a realistic situation (for example, there were always more Klingon reinforcements, even though there were never more than four unreported Klingon cruisers in the Neutral Zone). After "winning" the test, Kirk says, "Consider me a conscientious objector. I don't think of it as cheating when the rules of the game are unfair." I would have liked it if more of that could have made it into the movie, instead of him just insisting that he didn't believe in the no-win scenario without giving any explanation.

The Spock/Uhura thing was weird... not that I object to it at all, necessarily, but just the fact that it was just... there. They didn't really do anything with it, they just tacked on a couple things to show it was there.

To give a little background about where I'm coming from, I've been a Trek fan for as long as I can remember. Starting with the fifth movie (I was 5 when it came out), my parents would actually write me notes so I could get out of school early so we could go see the movies opening day, so that gives you an idea about the kind of household I grew up in. I haven't watched much of the series beyond TOS and some TNG, though. So... yeah.

...sorry this ended up so long.

TTL said...

Okay, I'm curious about something.

My "complaints" about this movie were, mostly, pretty small. I disliked the focus on constant motion, the weak antagonism and explanation of aforementioned antagonism, and a host of much smaller issues. Why Sulu pull out a collapsible sword? Seriously? Is that starfleet issue for parachuteies?

Still, I had one issue that I really felt transcended that "nitpicking" everyone just assumes of Trek fans going into this movie.

Spock and Kirk firing on Nero.

What the hell? He's stuck in a black hole. You know, that thing that he used to destroy VULCAN, an entire planet. He's dead, what's the point of sadistically firing on him? It's incredibly insulting not only to the characters, but to the entire mindset of a starfleet officer, as well as protagonists. They're supposed to be the good guys. The SMART good guys. They should realize he's as good as dead, why put your ship and crew in mortal danger just to play off some petty revenge kick? Sure, Spock should be feeling this, but to have the gall to give him lines stating, point blank, that he doesn't want to save Nero but in facts wants him DEAD is insane! Why in recent years have Vulcans gone from subtle emotion to nearly blunt malice? Enterprise had this same annoying tendency to just portray them as sarcastic, higher than thou jerks. Now they appeal to murder. Ok. Yes, Nero destroyed Vulcan, but if that's going to undermine that aspect of starfleet and, in turn, Star Trek, what's the point? It's bad enough that two pivotal figures like Kirk and Spock now think that sort of action if fine. It's another to see their crew and the viewing audience appear to take it as acceptable as well.

It's one thing to show prejudice and anger (via Kirk and the Klingons) where those emotions and actions made sense, but in this case it's just wrong.

That was my big issue. I didn't care for the spirit of Trek being trounced upon.

Issues about how time travel work never really bothered me. The "science" of Trek was always just a background, to place them in a futuristic world. It's not to say it's unimportant but to merely express that it doesn't take much to make something believable and I have no trouble seeing this timeline as an alternate tangent.

Hell, Nintendo sold me on that with Zelda, why not Star Trek? :P

Animikean said...

It wasn't just Back to the Future and Star Wars that felt borrowed.

That ship! I know we were cheated out of calamari in Watchmen, but they didn't have to make it up to us with a Big Metal Death Squid Ship of Doom, even it's door opened like a beak.
I mean seriously it was such a cartoonish design I expected Zim to be manning it.

And what can I say about the tube scene, I'll take that as a homage to Futurama.

Kevin "Jester" McGill said...

I prefer Undiscovered Country....:P
Khan and IV are my 2 favorites, then 1st Contact, but that's not important.
I looked at this as an alternate dimension, yes it's contrary to ST's past time travel, but it seemed like it was a cop out they were trying for, "We didn't erase the other series, this is an alternate time line....yeah that's it." I mean if Spock's reality was changed completely, wouldn't he cease to exist?

Wei-Hwa Huang said...

So, have you had a chance to read "Countdown" yet? I know, it's a comic book and those may not really be what you're into. ;-)

The comic book does give better characterization into Nero's backstory, appearance, and strangely-powerful mining ship. It covers more of the diplomatic struggles between Romulus, Vulcan, and the Federation. It resolves the dangling plot thread left at the end of "Star Trek: Nemesis" (namely, is Data really gone?)

I definitely felt like the comic book was much more in style, theme, and plot like what the Star Trek movies that came before it were, and reading it made me feel much better about the plot of the actual big-screen movie.

PenguinFactory said...


You know, I'm not a big trek fan so the continuity stuff didn't bother me at all (loved the movie BTW. If I was though, I think I'd just regard this movie as being totally seperate from the series. So the timeline snafu only "cancelled" everything that happened in the TV show in the movie continuity, which is seperate.

It's similar to the upcoming Silent Hill game- a lot of fans are up in arms about "changes" to the game's story, but my attitude is to treat this as seperate from the previous six games.

Anomynous said...

'Everything already happened' is just bullshit without an activist universe because it does not address the problem of people going back in time and changing the past at all!

For instance say I go back in time with a tank and start blowing shit up. That clearly never happened in the past so something must prevent its occurrence according to the 'everything already happened' model. Ergo, activist universe.

Or how about going back to the prehistoric era and bring a dinosaur to 1985. So I have to be eaten by the dinosaur you say?

Or what if a bunch of people go back in time at once like ten or twenty? That will not change any forensic data at all?

Its bullshit!!!

Brian Shanahan said...

Sorry for being so late, here but I'm just running through the backlog of the site since finding it earlier this week. Personally I saw the film the Sunday after release (i.e. th 10th) here in Ireland. In the theatre the audience (including me) really liked it, but about a week later when I started thinking about the plot I was going "what the fuck", it was just that messy, and then I realised that all the in-jokes carried the plot with the audience. The acting was good, the jokes were good but it was not a Trek plot in my opinion.
By the way about Nokia, if we accept the Eugenics wars happened from 1992 that would have been before the telecommunications revolution, and as far as I can remember Nokia were still making loo roll back then (as well as very early mobiles) so maybe a better product placement would have been the ould four pack (as no evil dictator would be petty enough to blow up a bog roll factory).

The Vigilante said...

Just watched this for the first time. I have to agree with you 100% about the unneeded prequel stuff. I'm still waiting for the DS9 movie where Sisko FINALLY returns from being a god in the wormhole. I know that probably won't ever happen, but hey, I can dream.

Inanna said...

Found your blog via your crossovers with Spoony, been going up through the archives, and haven't felt the need to comment until now. But I have much nerd rage about the new Star Trek movie, so I need to drop in my two cents.

For the record, I am a very big fan of TOS, although many aspects of TNG annoyed me and I haven't seen any of the other series. However, the alternate-timeline issue didn't bother me at all. Maybe it's not normal for the Trek-verse, but infinite parallel AUs is just sort of how I roll, so I have no problem accepting that a new one has been started.

I disliked the movie for a number of reasons: the many plotholes, the misunderstanding of 'logic' (since when is childhood bullying logical to begin with?), the Star Wars imagery, the idiotic storytelling. But I expect some stupidity from a TOS plot, and in fact revel in complaining about it when watching the old episodes. I really hoped for better given that we've had 50 years to learn how, but hey.

But these aren't the characters I knew and loved. Nothing to do with the acting -- like you said, that was great -- but what really made me hate this movie was the characterization. My four favorite characters are Spock, Sulu, Scotty, and McCoy, in no particular order, and other than McCoy, they pretty much botched all of them.

Sulu became Generic Asian Man, complete with katana.

Scotty was funny, but he was also badly rewritten. I'm sorry, I can understand him being a bit dumb in his youth, but he was always sweet and good-hearted in the end. Animal cruelty in order to make a point to his superior? No way. Okay, to be fair, I can see him beaming the poodle. I can't see him doing so unless he knew damn well that it was going to reappear a moment later, none the worse for wear. Also, minor issue, but he never once mentions drinking. My Scotty appreciated a good drink.

And Spock. Oh dear lords, do not get me started on Spock. Let me just sum it up like this: The original Spock joined StarFleet so that he could be "THE Vulcan", not just "the half-breed" like he would forever be on Vulcan. He was proud of being a Vulcan. He was an alien who, every so often, would reveal that maybe he wasn't quite so alien after all.
This Spock? This Spock is presented as an emotionally crippled human, and the moral of his story is that with a little TLC he might learn to get in touch with his emotions and be okay. Frankly, I find it insulting.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget that this entire disaster happened because Old Spock somehow misjudged how long it would take to deal with a supernova. I love how they try to gloss over it, too. "I set out, but then, then unthinkable happened -- Romulus was destroyed!" Conveniently forgetting the fact that supernovas don't exactly sneak up on you and that they already KNEW it was happening.

I can totally see Spock/Uhura. ...In the privacy of their bedroom. Making out on the transporter pad? No.

I'd totally forgotten about the sequence in the Kobayashi Maru simulation -- Kirk was never a high point for me except to make fun of his ripped shirts and eyeliner -- but you're right, that smug laid-back thing was just way out of character.

The one continuity point that bugs me enough to bring up after all this is the fact that they know that these are 'Romulans'. At this point in TOS continuity, Starfleet's only contact with them would have been that one attack with a pimped-out future mining ship. How the heck do they know to call them 'Romulans'?

Anyway, this comment is getting entirely too long and you or others have covered pretty much everything else, so I'll shut up and stop nitpicking now.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

To be fair there was that whole "earth-romulan war" thing, though that should mean they'd be MORE surprised by the idea that it was Romulans.

1701EarlGrey said...

I just recently discovered that you posted Vlog about $tar Trek 2009 - I usually watch you video on TGWTG. Regarding moivie: brainless action flick that trying to cash in on Star Trek legend. Plot made no sense, full of plot holes and clichés, characters acting like immature assholes - and they NEVER changed, learn and evolve -, vulgar humor and needless violence. Nothing that made Star Trek great. :(

De-Ji said...

Oh Gosh... I have such mixed feelings about this movie. Though I did enjoy watching it, those things you mentioned bugged me but it was easy for me to forgive them because the rest of it was very enjoyable. I remember driving home with my siblings (we had all gone to go see it together because we grew up watching my dad's tapes and dvd's of the original series) So we were driving home quoting our favorite parts, one of which you didn't mention that I thought was hilarious. The part where Sulu said that he had training in fencing lol. It was great watching it in theaters because you could tell who were the TOS fans just from the laughter in the theater. But anyway, I had gone home thinking it was a great movie, despite the bad parts, only to find out that my grandfather had died while we were watching it. I felt so guilty being so happy as my grandfather was dying. It completely changed my whole opinion of the movie, but I have such great memories watching it with my siblings, I'm just confused on whether I liked the movie as a while or not. But I do agree that it's a bad Star Trek movie, and at the same time a good movie. I just cry whenever I watch it now.

Lewis Lovhaug said...

I'd like to think that your grandfather would have wanted you to be happy and enjoy yourself.

De-Ji said...

Thank you very much. That means a lot. I've thought the same thing, so I try my best to live life in a positive way. I'd hug you, but I'm not sure if you'd be comfortable with it, so I'll just send you my gratitude and a teary smile.

Mateja Kovač said...

Back to the Future had alternate timelines, Doc explained it to Marty in Part II. Two of the three theories of time travel have been used in BttF movies.

I've seen the second movie a few days ago and they seem to keep up with the alternate timelines theory, as what happened in the second movie suports it.

Also, I'm not sure, but I thik that in all the years Star Trek had all three of the timeline theories, so it ain't a big deal, it's Star trek! :D

And since it's a reboot, not a remake - they can do whatever the hell they want, breaking continuity is totaly allowed. For example, Doom 3 is a re-imagined remake of the original Doom as it's a reboot of the series and a lot of things are changed that - like change the central element of the story. Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, although not a reboot since there's no re-imagined SH2, is a fine example of that.

But all in all, a great video, as always :)