New Star Trek Movie

[Edric O]

Edric, you're forgetting about chaos theory!  Just because the federation were the only ones directly affected doesn't mean they're the only ones to be affected...;p  Butterfly flapping its wings and all that jazz.

Well maybe, but an event can only possibly affect other events within its light cone (i.e. Alpha Centauri is 4 light-years from Earth, so anything happening on Earth today cannot have any effect on Alpha Centauri in less than 4 years). The only exception to this rule in the Trek Universe is, of course, Warp travel. A timeline-changing event within the Federation cannot spread its timeline-changing influence faster than the speed of light, unless that influence is carried by Federation starships at Warp speed (or by faster-than-light communications). But Federation starships do not go far outside the Federation, and there is no communication between the Federation and the as-yet-undiscovered alien species. Therefore the as-yet-undiscovered alien species (Borg, Dominion, Ferengi, Breen, etc) cannot possibly have diverged from their canon history yet.

The "butterfly flapping its wings" scenario relies on the existence of an atmosphere to carry unpredictable effects from point A to point B. But the only thing capable of carrying effects like that in space is electromagnetic radiation (which travels at the speed of light - pretty damn slow by astronomical standards).

Of course, I don't expect the script writers for the next movie to actually know any of this. Star Trek was never exactly big on respecting the laws of physics. Sigh.

I expect there will be the occasional nod to the old continuity (like there was in this movie) but I sincerely doubt they'll pay much attention to it.  The whole point of the reboot was to jettison all that baggage and start anew.

You know, it's never ceased to amaze me how a show that originally wasn't supposed to have any canon (a twilight zone series with the same cast week in week out) developed into such a slave to continuity. I think the first mistake was in the movies when they actually said what year it was, instead of just listing stardates....

But for me, the existence of a complex canon is precisely what makes stories interesting. The more background information, the better. I enjoy "baggage," and every time I watch a show without it I hope it will accumulate baggage in time. Now, I'm not a big continuity freak, and I won't complain about a plothole here or a retcon there. I'm not particularly bothered when the reset button gets pressed after an episode. But to press the reset button after five four series and 40 years... that's going too far.

I suppose it's just a matter of different tastes. Star Trek used to be a franchise that fit my personal taste for sci-fi (especially thanks to the more political-intrigue-oriented episodes in the later seasons of TNG, and of course the wonderful Dominion War). It was never exactly what I like, but it was close enough. Now it seems to be headed in another direction. If you like this new direction, that's good news for you. But I'm disappointed.

[Wolf]

Now, I started watching Star Trek because of catching a Dominion War episode of DS9 on the air one day. Got me totally hooked. I have to agree with you Edric, the continuity was what made the series interesting for me, and to tell you the truth, I think what J.J. & co. describe as "nods" to the "fans" come off as quite condescending in the context the film they've created. This new Star Trek is to the old Star Trek what the new Star Wars were to the old Star Wars--I hate to use the parallel, but Abrams himself admitted to the fact that he wanted to make the show "Star Warsier." That's fantastically offensive in and of itself. I watched Star Trek because of intricate--actually-so, not seemingly-so--plots, serious political and social commentary, and the stately, comfortable pacing that you often found in the Golden Age of cinema. That it was backed up by an extremely well-defined and -developed background universe--worked on, I might add, by literally thousands of people who never got their due credit (think Mike Okuda)--was just the icing on the cake. I havn't seen the film yet (I'm not the kind of person who cares about spoilers), but what I've read so far doesn't lead me to believe that there's anything here for me.

[Dragoon Knight]

I was discussing the movie with a co-worker today, who is as much of a Trekkie as I am.  His views echoed the fears of most of the people in this thread; the departure from established canon, the simplification of the plot, etc.  He also said that the movie was very good on its own merits, though, mirroring the dichotomy of feelings being experienced by most fans.

I forwarded a couple of theories about how they could "make things right", so to speak.

[hide]- Consider the possibility that this could be used to draw non-Trekkies into the series as a whole.  Say that they make another couple of movies in the Alternate Universe, with the culmination being returning Spock Prime to the Original Universe?  After that, the focus could return to the Original Universe, and maybe we'd finally see a new, post-Voyager series.

- Remember that there has always been an alternate universe alongside the Original Universe, in the form of the mirror reality visited most often in DS9.  There is every chance that this movie (and a couple of sequels) could be linked to the Original Universe, without destroying established canon - it might be difficult, but it's a possibility.[/hide]

I find it ironic that the worst-received series of all (i.e. Enterprise) is the only one that is seemingly immune to this ret-conning. :P

EDIT: Oh, and Wolf, I would still recommend seeing this movie.  I don't think there's any doubt as to whether it's good or not; it's either good, great or excellent, depending on who you speak to (very few bad reviews).  Best to see it now, because I have a feeling it will be ages before it's available for rental / purchase on DVD.

[Wolf]

Haha, absolutely, Dragoon. There are multiple friends & family in my life who have threatened me with bodily harm if I don't go... so... but, yeah, regarding your theories, I think any of them can happen, and probably more. Note that all of those things have to happen in sequels. I dislike what J.J. has done, but you have to admit that, in this instance, he's a sick kind of twisted genius.

Which is actually another thing I didn't like! He had all these press releases about "respecting canon" to get our nerd-asses to go see his movie. I'd hate for him to do the same thing next time around, trying to convince all the disaffected nerds that New Star Trek II will correct everything we didn't like... only to do it to us again!

[Dragoon Knight]

Another point - the upcoming Star Trek Online MMO seems to be following the original canon, yet it is set after Voyager, i.e.

[hide]Vulcan has not imploded; it is very much in-tact.  As are Romulus and Remus.  Not sure if they're going to change it... I hope not, anyway.[/hide]I'm pretty sure this bodes well for what may or may not be in sequels.  It seems like, whatever this new director has planned, some of the writers still like the TNG-era. :P

[Wolf]

[hide]Just saw it. I have to re-affirm my agreement with Edric. "Canonicide" is by far the best word, because it evokes the notion of genocide that I now heartily ascribe to J.J. Abrams--like most people who realize they have nothing original or good to contribute, he decided to make his mark on history by destroying what was already there. This makes the destruction of Vulcan absolutely appropriate given the context of a medicore director attempting to construct the facade of originality, whilst simultaneously claiming to "respect" the series. I have no problem comparing him to an artistic Adolf Hitler, Internet traditions be damned. The fans, who through decades of involvement, dollars and dedication, are punished the most. "Everyone else," who never really thought about Star Tre before, are rewarded with what is essentially just another action flick. In space.

However, I like how they describe it as "an alternate universe." That's good. We've seen those before--the Mirror Universe, as has been pointed out, the multiple dimensions in TNG where thousands of Enterprises from thousands of realities appeared at the same point (Riker: "You don't know what it's like here, the Borg have assimilated Earth!") Acting was good. Effects were good, but everyone's effects are so good these days that that's not a distinction in the least. It was an 8 film which, when the background of the series was applied, was reduced to a 5 or 6 for me. Funny, I was told that it would do the exact opposite. Oh well. Hey, I can still wait for an Original Continuity production, but I stopped holding my breath after Enterprise.[/hide]

I also just realized that this was all hide text. Sorry, this isn't for you, then.

[Dunenewt]

Enterprise was actually my favourite Star Trek series.

[Dante]

Well you're a goddamned freak then, aren't you? :P

[Wolf]

In hindsight, Enterprise was underrated.

[Duke Davis II]

I liked the new Star Trek movie. I am a fan of the original and I think that it is not as good as any of the original series episodes, but as a movie, it is better than the last two.

Also, of the four new series, I think that Star Trek:Enterprise is the best. It was the closes to the original in story and action.

[D2k Sardaukar]

I'm no star trek fan, but I enjoyed watching it a lot. There were some non-logical things happening, but nothing big (can hardly remember what they were). I liked the visuals, the story and the sound!

In the end it's all about just having some fun and I did. :D

[zammid]

Hi guys

i seen it and got a copy offf rapidshare. ITs a f***ing awesome movie.

[Dunenewt]

I've read somewhere that the sequel could involve Khan:

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1611523/story.jhtml

[Khan]

I'm doing some slight script work but I wouldn't really say I'm involved.

[Dunenewt]

So you're not playing yourself on screen?

[Khan]

They couldn't afford me I'm afraid. :/

[Dunenewt]

Anyone cheaper in mind, who could play you?

[Khan]

I've been that Gyllenhall chap is a perfect match.

[Dunenewt]

If so, you've changed since we met... and when are we meeting again? ha

[Kiyouta]

Yeah but he only dresses like that for the cameras these days :(

On Shatner and his minor role as a sci-fi actor:

Can we please have a musical starring him? He could sin... err speak about a Fiddler On The Roof or some such hilarity. Or a really camp Henry The Fifth. I would be paid to see that!

[SandChigger]

Ah ... I assume you have "Rocket Man" in mind?

LOVE it. :)

[Dunenewt]

I had a response in mind, then I realised I was thinking about The Rocketeer, not Rocket Man.  Did anyone ever see The Rocketeer film?

Anyway, for a sequel to Star Trek, do you think they will stick to this parallel universe, or will they try to merge this with the original?

[SandChigger]

I think I read something somewhere (wasn't here, was it?) about a possible merger sometime in the future (not necessarily the next movie), but frankly, I'm beyond caring. I only watched this first one because I'd just finished watching <i>Terminator 4</i> (yawn) and some comedy I've already forgotten and the inflight movies were limited and I wasn't yet slaphappy shellshocked enough yet to even contemplate <i>Mama Mia</i>. (Yes, I broke eventually, and it was everything I'd feared it would be, and worse ... the most ghastly aspect being HOW EXQUISITELY CONTRIVED the segues were, start to finish. The horror! The horror!)

So I may not watch the second even when it comes on my movie channels. It's Abrams schlock, not Trek.

[Dunenewt]

You could watch it on mute, and enjoy the FX? 

[SandChigger]

You didn't consider the possibility that I read lips?