[MpbY5dkR]

Just got back from the 7:00pm showing. Glad I did. Not many people showed up early, so while the theater was still sold out, much easier on parking and getting in theater. For movie goers who are going soon, unless you WANT to watch the credits, there is no reason to stay. There aren't any easter eggs for those who stay and watch through. That said, spoilers are below.











































First thought: When they say its a reboot of Star Trek, they really mean it. The characters, and their personalities remain, but it really is an entirely different universe. There is definitely a good likeness between the new actors and the old, with the exception of McCoy, he's kind of out there. But i'm not arguing about that, the only way to get the real McCoy is to go with the original actor, who obviously can't play a young man anymore.

I'm definitely not sold on the new bridge. it seems cluttered, but not in a military way. Just poorly designed. More flash than substance.

O'hura and Spock, well I can say I didn't see that one coming.

The classic McCoy line is out of place in this movie. They put it in there, but it doesn't work. He's not Bones.

The space battles were weak, I've seen better in early TNG episodes. For a purported action movie, the pacing in the space battles is definitely off. Its too fast, too hectic for anyone to get any suspense story wise, or even for eye candy alone.

I'll give it time, but I don't think that this new Star Trek cast will be going for many movies. The sequel may have been green lit, but unless it drastically improves upon what has been laid in this movie, it will fail in the long term. I felt no emotional attachment, or really emotions of any kind with this movie. It'll be a hard draw for die hard trek fans I think.

[Svatudjw]

I agree with the point of having an entirely new universe. I'd say most of the original cast should have the same backgrounds minus Kirk and Spock.

As for Bones, I thought Karl Urban was absolutely brilliant and his performance was 100% faithful. In fact, I'd go so far to say that his performance was the best.

[MpbY5dkR]

I agree with the point of having an entirely new universe. I'd say most of the original cast should have the same backgrounds minus Kirk and Spock.

As for Bones, I thought Karl Urban was absolutely brilliant and his performance was 100% faithful. In fact, I'd go so far to say that his performance was the best.

He does a good job, He's just not bones. Nor should I expect him to be, but its hard to let go of the character. The classic "I'm a Doctor not a ......" line just doesn't sound right from him.

[Tibaveriafark]

I agree with the point of having an entirely new universe. I'd say most of the original cast should have the same backgrounds minus Kirk and Spock.

Yeah but this deeply bothers me. I'm a mortal being locked in a linear world on a single time line. I have trouble handling what appears to me due to the alternate time line that all those episodes of ST:TOS and the films didn't happen anymore. Damn I think I'm going to need therapy.

[Domovoy]

He does a good job, He's just not bones. Nor should I expect him to be, but its hard to let go of the character. The classic "I'm a Doctor not a ......" line just doesn't sound right from him.

I personally never liked Star Trek though I have never seen an episode or movie......It was the same with Star Wars..... That was until my BF got me to watch the newer movies like The Phantom Menace...And I loved it[thumbup].....So I am definitely going to stop judging a book (Movie) by its cover and go see this one......I think I just never got into it because there were so many Trekkies.... [rolleyes]

I Saw the trailer for the new Star Trek movie and it actually looked really good.....

But as for the characters, since I have never seen an episode or movie of the series my opinion of being able to see them as the proper characters will probably be far different then yours

[JorgiOLusinio]

Yeah but this deeply bothers me. I'm a mortal being locked in a linear world on a single time line. I have trouble handling what appears to me due to the alternate time line that all those episodes of ST:TOS and the films didn't happen anymore. Damn I think I'm going to need therapy.

They did happen; this Trek is an alternate timeline, they even had a scene where they stated that (two scenes, in fact).

[Tibaveriafark]

They did happen; this Trek is an alternate timeline, they even had a scene where they stated that (two scenes, in fact).

Yes I know but the point I was making was that the concept is too much for my limited brain to cope with. And don't even get me started on the possible paradoxes

[Bigroza]

**spoilers**

I recommend you all read Star Trek Countdown. You can find it at your local booksstore or various places on the web, but anyways it is the Official Star Trek movie prequel.

It literally ties in the Star Trek universe we've all grown up to with this new movie and how Star Trek (2009) takes place in an alternate reality past. I also love it how most of the TNG crew had something to do with the events leading up to Ambassador Spock entering the black hole anomaly.

Star Trek Online, coming perhaps later this year will continue forward with a Romulus that has been destroyed by the Hobus Star Supernova. It takes place in the year 2409, 30 years after the events of Star Trek: Nemesis, and 22 years after the Hobus star goes nova. It will continue the story of Star Trek we grew up with, in the 25th century.

Star Trek (2009) movie or television sequels will continue onwards in a universe where Vulcan has been destroyed, and Romulus remains alive and well.

[happyman]

I never liked TOS anyway, I guess it was always a different era and style to what I grew up with (TNG, DS9 and VOY). Still I loved this movie, it was fresh, fanntastic and threw some unexpected twists.

I have the Nokia ringtone young kirk had in his car! [thumbup]

[JorgiOLusinio]

Yes I know but the point I was making was that the concept is too much for my limited brain to cope with. And don't even get me started on the possible paradoxes

Alternate timelines mean there are no paradoxes. Paradoxes require a single, unbranching timeline.

[casefexas]

MORE SPOILER TALK!

Taking a moment to go all geeky, I don't see how this is an alternate time line rather than a complete destruction of the original one.

If it is not complete destruction of the original one, then why were Picard and Co, so desperate to "correct" what the Borg had done in First contact. If all they are doing is creating an alternate universe, then this would not affect Picards Federation at all.

Likewise in the Guardian of forever episode of TOS, McCoy's saving of Edith Keeler completely destroys Kirks original timeline and has to be corrected.

The times it has been shown that travelling to the past and altering it, directly affects the timeline of the time traveller in the Star Trek universe are numerous.

Which means that the original Enterprise, Ds9, Picard........ They are all Gone!

[expabsPapsgag]

MORE SPOILER TALK!

Taking a moment to go all geeky, I don't see how this is an alternate time line rather than a complete destruction of the original one.

If it is not complete destruction of the original one, then why were Picard and Co, so desperate to "correct" what the Borg had done in First contact. If all they are doing is creating an alternate universe, then this would not affect Picards Federation at all.

Likewise in the Guardian of forever episode of TOS, McCoy's saving of Edith Keeler completely destroys Kirks original timeline and has to be corrected.

The times it has been shown that travelling to the past and altering it, directly affects the timeline of the time traveller in the Star Trek universe are numerous.

Which means that the original Enterprise, Ds9, Picard........ They are all Gone!

According to Quantum Theory and the Multiverse Theorem, there are ALWAYS an infinite number of alternate universes at any given time. Each possible outcome of any given situation creates a new universe that branches off the old one.

So, an event could happen in one timeline to change the future/past (assuming that time travel, etc, could be possible), but it would only apply to that particular forward-moving multiverse. There would still be other parallel multiverses where that event didn't even happen.

[casefexas]

According to Quantum Theory and the Multiverse Theorem, there are ALWAYS an infinite number of alternate universes at any given time. Each possible outcome of any given situation creates a new universe that branches off the old one.

So, an event could happen in one timeline to change the future/past (assuming that time travel, etc, could be possible), but it would only apply to that particular forward-moving multiverse. There would still be other parallel multiverses where that event didn't even happen.

Granted that there may be infinite similar time lines to the one of TOS, if we assume that the old Spock is the one from the time line of which we are familiar, then that time line has been destroyed, nonwithstanding that there will be many similar ones remaining. [shocked]

[JorgiOLusinio]

MORE SPOILER TALK!

The spoiler warning is in the title of the thread, so I shan't be using white text.

You're right about Trek being inconsistent in those other cases with alternate timelines versus one. I chalk that up to different writers having different opinions regarding alternate timelines versus one. But if you wanted to get VERY technical, there wasn't evidence in First Contact that the Borg's tinkering with the timeline having an effect on the standard timeline - I remember that scene where the crew of the Enterprise watched Earth morph into a Borg planet, but then there was also that technobabble going on about them being caught in the "wake" of the time portal at that moment, so they could have been watching the present of the alternate reality fading into existence. You could even say that although the crew of the Enterprise weren't acknowledging it, they were actually fighting the Borg for the future of the alternate timeline versus the future of their own.

But the writers of this most recent movie have tossed their hat behind alternate timelines. Young Spock theorizes it on the bridge, and Uhura pipes up with the term "alternate timeline". Old Spock has distinct memories of the timeline he came from, and the Kirk of that timeline. Kirk asks him, "in your timeline did I know my father?" and Spock replies, "Yes, he lived to see you graduate Starfleet academy. You spoke of him often".

[casefexas]

The spoiler warning is in the title of the thread, so I shan't be using white text.

You're right about Trek being inconsistent in those other cases with alternate timelines versus one. I chalk that up to different writers having different opinions regarding alternate timelines versus one. But if you wanted to get VERY technical, there wasn't evidence in First Contact that the Borg's tinkering with the timeline having an effect on the standard timeline - I remember that scene where the crew of the Enterprise watched Earth morph into a Borg planet, but then there was also that technobabble going on about them being caught in the "wake" of the time portal at that moment, so they could have been watching the present of the alternate reality fading into existence. You could even say that although the crew of the Enterprise weren't acknowledging it, they were actually fighting the Borg for the future of the alternate timeline versus the future of their own.

But the writers of this most recent movie have tossed their hat behind alternate timelines. Young Spock theorizes it on the bridge, and Uhura pipes up with the term "alternate timeline". Old Spock has distinct memories of the timeline he came from, and the Kirk of that timeline. Kirk asks him, "in your timeline did I know my father?" and Spock replies, "Yes, he lived to see you graduate Starfleet academy. You spoke of him often".

I will dispense with the white writing too, then, but if somebody complains their eyes were burned out by a spoiler, I am gonna point at you. [rofl]

I agree that the writers had the new movie talking about alternate time lines, and I believe that they are correct. This movie does occur in an alternate time line, but that does not preclude Spock remembering the line where he originated from, even if that line no longer exists, having been replaced by the new one.

We have seen that happen in Star Trek many times as well.

[Tibaveriafark]

Alternate timelines mean there are no paradoxes. Paradoxes require a single, unbranching timeline.

Call it a paradox or call it what it is cheap story telling but taking into account the effect of Kirk's fathers death would have on Star Fleet assignments and rosters and the effect it would have personally on Kirk what are the odds the exact same crew would end up on the deck of the exact same star ship? There's you basic definition of a paradox, a situation which defies intuition. As BatesD pointed out you have to resolve a disruption of the time line due to the devastating effects it has but in this time line it made everything work out perfectly? No paradox. Give me a break.

There is a complete back story to everyone of the characters in ST:TOS but they couldn't deal with any of that so they had to throw them all onto the frickin Enterprise straight out of the academy and put them all into there exact same positions before they day was out. The characters are the franchise (otherwise it would be simple enough to put another crew on another ship and tell there story) and in this generation of instant gratification you better do it now or the audience ain't gonna be happy. It's the equivalent of Lucas saying, "Actually let's make it that Anakin isn't really Luke's father...oh yeah... and the Clone Wars never happened."

[johnteriz]

the movie fails... big time. it feel like a cheap episode, the ship look like an oil refinery that make 'enterprise' series looks good. *facepalm*

[Noxassope]

I personally hate the multiverse theory. Having infinite universes makes it harder for me to care about what is going on.

I much prefer other 2 time travel methods:
1) You can't change anything, you were meant to go back in time.
2) Any changes you have to the timeline affect your universe.

So as far as I am concerned, when Spock went back in time he destroyed the old timeline. TNG, DS9 and Voyager are still to come in the future, but there will be a lot of differences (like no Tuvok).

While the writers did hint at using the multiverse time travel method, I bet this is for all the Star Trek fans out there that hate the idea of the star trek they grew up with being erased from history. This way they can say the Star Trek they knew is still alive and well in another universe somewhere.

[casefexas]

Face it, the old Star Trek has been murdered. I read a story once where a visitor to the past steps on a single butterfly by accident and returns to find that his entire world has changed.

Now imagine the effect that erasing an entire crucially important world and its 6 billion people would have on the Star Trek storyline.

No Vulcan diplomacy. No Vulcan science academy and all of its discovery's. No calming hand on the shoulder of the impetuous humans. None of the interactions that those 6 billion people and their children would have had on the universe.

Now imagine Spock with an encyclopedic knowledge of the science of 130 years in the future. The federation is about to have a gigantic leap forwards in technology. No other race, Romulans, Klingons etc will be able to say "Boo" to them.

Spock will make sure the ocean is full of whales by the time The voyage home happens. Vger will be met at the outer perimeter with the correct codes. The Borg will be laughed at by a super-scientific federation that knows all about them.

The founders will find the other side of the wormhole is armed to the teeth by a race that can blow thier ships out of the sky, and knows the exact location of the founders homeworld. Voyager will never be lost, if it ever exists at all......

Again, face it, the old Star Trek(s) have been erased from history.

[JorgiOLusinio]

There's you basic definition of a paradox, a situation which defies intuition. As BatesD pointed out you have to resolve a disruption of the time line due to the devastating effects it has but in this time line it made everything work out perfectly? No paradox. Give me a break.

Well see, then we're arguing semantics, but most times a paradox is mentioned with respect to a time-travel story, it refers to an unresolved "loop" in a single timeline created by history being changed. It's a paradox if the Terminator succeeds in killing Sarah Connor and preventing the birth of her son this way, because then there would be no John Connor and so no need for future Skynet to send a Terminator back in time to kill him.

What you're referring to is simply an improbability, but also not a well-defined one. What are the chances that the destruction of the Kelvin and the death of Kirk's father would result in that crew not coming together again in exactly that way? There's no way of knowing - and it's also not particularly interesting to explore that. It's also not an impossibility (so not a paradox). It's more interesting, from a storyline perspective, to ask 'what if that same crew came together under different circumstances?' and that's what the central theme of the movie is. It's also more marketable to Star Trek fans. Whether you find that idea interesting or not is beside the point, but there's no paradox in that.

Again, face it, the old Star Trek(s) have been erased from history.

All of that stuff would be true except for the alternate timeline. The events you mentioned occurred in the standard Trek timeline, not the one in the Abrams film. From the perspective of a reboot, it was a smart thing to do, because now the writers don't have to stick to canon. They could kill off a major character in the very next film and it wouldn't matter. Hence Spock's line about their destinies being irreversibly altered.