Star Trek XI Question

Myrddin

Having just watched Star Trek XI, just one question remains which needs answering

The Ambassador Spock and Romulan ship that were sent back in time....were they from the established (Roddenberry) timeline/universe, and not only travelled back in time but came to a different universe? Or were they simply the future people of the characters in this NEW timeline/universe?

The question itself is confusing, hopefully someone here will give me their take on it

robby^5

They're from the original Star Trek universe that we know from TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager

they create a new timeline (or universe) when Kirks father is killed on the kelvin so everything from that point on has the ability to be drastically different to history of star trek that we know

Myrddin

So from the perspective of someone in the established ENT/TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY universe -

Romulus gets destroyed, and Ambassador Spock is marooned in an alternate timeline, over a century back in time, and founds a Vulcan colony to begin rebuilding their civilisation?

Blazer

EnterNow wrote: »

So from the perspective of someone in the established ENT/TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY universe -

Romulus gets destroyed, and Ambassador Spock is marooned in an alternate timeline, over a century back in time, and founds a Vulcan colony to begin rebuilding their civilisation?

You know what that means..don't you? No more T'Pol :eek:

Kiith

Berkut wrote: »

You know what that means..don't you? No more T'Pol :eek:

No, you know what it really means? No more Fairhaven or Flauter! (god willing)

Myrddin

Feck off lads, it just means no T'pol in that universe

Im happy enough my question's been answered, its a different timeline completely, with the exception of

Spocks crossover and marooning. Thats the only loss to the established universe. Still cant believe they destroyed Romulus in cannon terms :eek:

Facts aside, I thought the movie was absoloutely brilliant. That chap who played Bones had him down to a bloody tea. Looking foreward to sequel city

Kiith

EnterNow wrote: »

Still cant believe they destroyed Romulus in cannon terms :eek:

Speaking of that spoiler, Star Trek: Online is set 30 years after this happens.

_Kaiser_

Well T'Pol would have been around anyway as the alternate timeline isn't created until the TOS era which is about a century after the events of Enterprise.

Ya never know, she may have been one of the survivors.

Cookie_Monster

EnterNow wrote: »

Facts aside, I thought the movie was absoloutely brilliant. That chap who played Bones had him down to a bloody tea.

All he did was rehash every line Bones ever came out with

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Well T'Pol would have been around anyway as the alternate timeline isn't created until the TOS era which is about a century after the events of Enterprise.

Ya never know, she may have been one of the survivors.

Probably, given long life and commitment to Starfleet she was probably zippin around space somewhere, unless:

on of of the 7(?) ships destroyed in the film

Also whats the story with the reference to Archers dog? surely the time frames involved make this impossible? No spoiler as only a minor point that has nothing to do with the film

DublinWriter

The acting was spot on, and was more imitation than impression - we'll probably see more from the ancillary crew characters now that they've got competent actors playing them.

However, the plot was the same old crazy-evil-dude-seeks-revenge rehash, see also ST:II, ST:Generations, ST:Nemesis.

Myrddin

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

All he did was rehash every line Bones ever came out with

Well he IS Bones, kinda makes sense. To put my original comment a different way, I though he was very true to character.

Simon Pegg on the other hand, Im sure Jimmie Doohan is rolling in his grave. I like Simon Pegg, but he was about as far from Scottie as you can get.

Regards the big baddie plot, unfortunately unless you wanna watch films where the crew carry out spectral anaylis of various nebulae, big baddie plots are likely to continue as its the only way to generate big impact with fresh viewers.

Johnny Storm

DublinWriter wrote: »

The acting was spot on, and was more imitation than impression - we'll probably see more from the ancillary crew characters now that they've got competent actors playing them.

+1
Personally, the two performances I enjoyed the most were Kirk and McCoy and, perhaps coincidentally, those were the two actors who came closest to doing imitation/impressions (and I mean that in a good way).
Uhura also good. Checkov - OK.
I was less impressed with Sulu, Scotty and I'm sorry to say, Spock-lar. But I'm willing to give them a second chance

To get back on-topic, I thought the alternative time-line plot device was a smart way of keeping old-time fans happy while also giving the whole thing a good freshening up.

The next film will be the real test. Will they make a dumbed-down actioner or something with a bit of depth to it?

Cookie_Monster

Johnny Storm wrote: »

The next film will be the real test. Will they make a dumbed-down actioner or something with a bit of depth to it?

they can't really dumb it down any more than this one way now can they?

scanlas

The next star trek will go down similarly to Quantum of Solace. People will realise that there's wasn't really any substance to the first one. Simon Pegg's performance was atrocious, he was a complete clown.

robby^5

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Also whats the story with the reference to Archers dog? surely the time frames involved make this impossible? No spoiler as only a minor point that has nothing to do with the film

Scotty says "Admiral Archers prize beagle" so that doesnt mean it's Porthos, it could be a new beagle or a descendant of Porthos. It also doesnt mean Archer is alive, though we know it's possible since Bones too was alive in TNG, could be that he is dead but his dog isnt.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

they can't really dumb it down any more than this one way now can they?

Well they could try and emulate the previous 10 films and get even dumber, because people tend to forget how ridiculously bad some of the science and techno babble from Star Trek was. This film is one of the more sensible star trek films because it avoided some of that dribble.

Like in first contact when the borg are on the deflector dish, Picard says not to shoot at it because there would be a chain reaction that would destroy the enterprise *techno babble*... then a few minutes later they start shooting at it, making what he just said nonsense.

Or how the windows of the enterprise smash in generations, yet they can withstand the vaccum of space and are supposed to be a transparent metal. I've found it hard to notice any such discrepencies in the new trek, since most of the plot devices are fictional such as the red matter. It's not hard scifi and its not meant to be, I've never considered it to be hard scifi... Trek has always been an optimistic look ahead at what we could accomplish, not a science lecture.

I like techno-babble but in my experience of trek films just spout pure nonsese to sound technical to trekkies.

/lol rant.

helimachoptor

robby^5 wrote: »

Like in first contact when the borg are on the deflector dish, Picard says not to shoot at it because there would be a chain reaction that would destroy the enterprise *techno babble*... then a few minutes later they start shooting at it, making what he just said nonsense.

Regarding FC i think he means while its in proximity to the ship if it explodes its gonna take half the ship with it.

Johnny Storm

In general, I liked FC but FWIW the scene where Picard "leaps" across the deflector dish is one of the lamest special effects/stunts ever committed to film.

Denerick

I'm sick to the teeth of hearing people compliment this film. Yes, it was exciting in the meaningless, flashy, hollywood, 'day after tomorrow' special effects fest, but it completely lacked in any substance. There were too many weird lights, flash and general nonsense.

Star Trek is meant to be geeky. its meant to be otherwise normal people's secret hideaway passion (When they think no-one else knows) Its meant to talk about the 'ruptures in the time space continuum which cause strictures in the manifestation of the orabula system' etc. Its meant to be trek talk!

Now its all about flash and sex and no substance! What has happened to Star Trek?

I hope to God they don't make a new film under this 're-invented genre'. Its fair enough wanting to meet a mainstream audience but its another thing entirely to completely piss over the grave of authentic star trek. Where was the philosophy, the stoic quip from someone like Picard? Where was the geeky introspection from the likes of Will Wheaton? Eh? Eh?

Myrddin

Denerick wrote: »

Star Trek is meant to be geeky. its meant to be otherwise normal people's secret hideaway passion (When they think no-one else knows) Its meant to talk about the 'ruptures in the time space continuum which cause strictures in the manifestation of the orabula system' etc. Its meant to be trek talk!

Thats worked very well for fourty years, but ultimately is what killed the franchise. Personally I could watch vintage trek (tos, tng, ds9, voy) ALL day long and not tire of it, because I fully agree with what you said.

Unfortunately, there are people out there who DONT agree. People seemed to tire of the show, ENT got cancelled because of whinging from fans. Nobody was prepared to give the show a chance, was TNG better than ENT up to season 4? Was DS9? Was VOY? No, all these shows matured in their later seasons. Thanks to those fans who whinged & pissed & moaned, we now have a new roll of the dice - Star Trek XI, where cadets become captains overnight. Imagine wesley crusher being promoted to Captain the Enterprise, and Riker having to be his first officer :rolleyes:

THIS, is what the moaners wanted isnt it? This new incarnation of Roddenberrys vision, is what's gonna be fed to us for at least another two movies.

I personally thought the film was very enjoyable - which for me is what trek is about. For me it doesn't have to be filled with technological wizardy to be fun to watch. However I enjoy a good technical episode as much as any action based episode. Once its enjoyable to watch, its good for me. I thought the movie could have been a LOT worse.

azezil

That movie was a load of ****!

Engineering looked like a water works, they don't have shields apparently... Why the hell did the Romulan bridge look like a construction site? he needed a tiny drop of red matter, why the hell would he have so damn much on board!?

Hate hate HATE that movie, its an insult to the franchise ¬_¬

Johnny Storm

azezil wrote: »

Engineering looked like a water works, _¬

It was actually filmed in a brewery :mad: and looks crap IMHO

Lets be honest, most of the Star Trek films had big problems. Very few of them stand up to repeated viewing. IMHO this most recent one is one of the better Trek films. That's not to say its perfect .....

...ENT got cancelled because of whinging from fans...

Ent got cancelled because it was utter, complete, total sh1te from start to finish and nobody, fan or otherwise, wanted to watch it.
JIMHO

Myrddin

Johnny Storm wrote: »

It was actually filmed in a brewery :mad: and looks crap IMHO

Lets be honest, most of the Star Trek films had big problems. Very few of them stand up to repeated viewing. IMHO this most recent one is one of the better Trek films. That's not to say its perfect .....



Ent got cancelled because it was utter, complete, total sh1te from start to finish and nobody, fan or otherwise, wanted to watch it.
JIMHO

I liked it. I thought for such a young series it had some far superiour episodes to the heavyweights TNG/DS9 in their respective seasons.

So you HATE the new film, you HATE enterprise, should they just finish Trek up for good and stop trying? Or should you cut them a little slack and acknowledge that while its far from vintage, its still Trek, evolving and trying?

Johnny Storm

EnterNow wrote: »

I liked it. I thought for such a young series it had some far superiour episodes to the heavyweights TNG/DS9 in their respective seasons.

So you HATE the new film, you HATE enterprise, should they just finish Trek up for good and stop trying? Or should you cut them a little slack and acknowledge that while its far from vintage, its still Trek, evolving and trying?

Sorry, I wasn't clear; I like the new film, I personally had a big problem with Enterprise. The point I was making a few posts back is that the next Trek film will need to be more than just a repeat of the most recent film, entertaining as that was. IMHO the next film will need to be more adult/darker and have more substance (ie not just be an actioner.)