# Trek Spoiler Spectacular! (Forked Thread: The new Star Trek movie is...)



## Umbran (May 10, 2009)

Forked from:  The new Star Trek movie is... 

Folks, this thread is going to be *absolutely filled with movie spoilers*. 

*DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SPOILED*

I am going to consider that all sufficient warning that spoiler blocks should not be required in this thread.  If you are still reading this, you only have yourself to blame if you learn things you didn't want to know, got it?  Any gripes about that will get no sympathy whatsoever.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> But, the intertia thing proved true the entire movie.  The coincidences were noted slighly by the old spock and during the conversation with the new spock.




In general, the rules of RPGs do not equate to the physics of the game world setting, right?  By the same logic, I would not take a dramatic necessity of the franchise to imply some sort of physical reality of the fictional universe.  They all have to end up on that ship as a business necessity for making the movie.  

Because, by your logic, there is no dramatic tension around the lives of Kirk and Spock.  The Universe cannot allow these men to die, because they are too important.  



> Also note the several people in the movie who told kirk how important he is (including nero, old spock and captain pike).  Kirk is a fixed intertia point, more important than romulus.  I say that because you see 6 billion people on one planet, i see trillions of people kirk saved across the universe including the entire federation ten to twenty times over.




I am sorry, but Kirk isn't that unique a human being - one of the major themes of the series is the strength and ability of Humanity, in general, as exemplified by all the Starfleet personnel we see.  If the Universe is so un-clever that it cannot find a way to get by without one, single man, and finds it must kill billions of others rather than lose him... Sorry, that stretches plausibility just a bit much.

Much like my biggest problem with the movie.  The absolutely most implausible thing, the one point I could not swallow....

You don't give a person fresh out of Academy (ranked Ensign or Lieutenant, at best) command of a starship, much less the biggest, baddest starship around.  A machine with enough power to lay waste to an entire planet?  The _Federation fleet flagship_!?! No.  Sorry.  I don't care how bloody heroic he was.  Give him a promotion to be first officer, and then have the next movie be a few years later (since it wouldn't come out for a few years out time anyway) when he's gotten Captain, sure.  But not outright command at the end of the movie.  That was just wrong.

Not enough to ruin the movie as a whole, but enough to make me gripe about it


----------



## Dire Bare (May 10, 2009)

Umbran said:


> You don't give a person fresh out of Academy (ranked Ensign or Lieutenant, at best) command of a starship, much less the biggest, baddest starship around.  A machine with enough power to lay waste to an entire planet?  The _Federation fleet flagship_!?! No.  Sorry.  I don't care how bloody heroic he was.  Give him a promotion to be first officer, and then have the next movie be a few years later (since it wouldn't come out for a few years out time anyway) when he's gotten Captain, sure.  But not outright command at the end of the movie.  That was just wrong.




Well, sure that isn't going to happen in the real world . . . but this is Star Trek, Kirk is the captain, and what else were they going to do?

Not promoting him permanently at the end of the movie would just mean wasting valuable storytelling time in New Star Trek 2!


----------



## Jack7 (May 10, 2009)

This summed up my impressions of the film.

*The Fleet Review of Star Trek*

It's got lots of spoilers too I reckon.


----------



## John Crichton (May 10, 2009)

Umbran said:


> You don't give a person fresh out of Academy (ranked Ensign or Lieutenant, at best) command of a starship, much less the biggest, baddest starship around.  A machine with enough power to lay waste to an entire planet?  The _Federation fleet flagship_!?! No.  Sorry.  I don't care how bloody heroic he was.  Give him a promotion to be first officer, and then have the next movie be a few years later (since it wouldn't come out for a few years out time anyway) when he's gotten Captain, sure.  But not outright command at the end of the movie.  That was just wrong.
> 
> Not enough to ruin the movie as a whole, but enough to make me gripe about it



No gripes here.  Nor was it wrong.  There is a long military tradition of honoring the recommendation of admirals and captains.  Pike wanted him to be captain.  Good enough for me and plenty good enough for Starfleet command.

He was already promoted to first officer, BTW.  It would have been a demotion after the fact.


----------



## Pbartender (May 10, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Because, by your logic, there is no dramatic tension around the lives of Kirk and Spock.  The Universe cannot allow these men to die, because they are too important.




Regarding the idea of "temporal inertia", since I brought it up...

No...  He's got the idea wrong, it that's what he thinks.

In the context of the movie, the planet Vulcan and its collective inhabitants have much more temporal inertia than the starship Enterprise and its collective crew.  However, noone was actively trying to change the history of the Enterprise.

Kirk, to use the most obvious example, was simply collateral damage as far as our temporal trainwreck is concerned.  His father died, instead of living.  That caused a major disruption in Kirk's life and a leeser one in Starfleet in general.  On the whole, however, it didn't appreciably effect history as a whole, just a few details.  Even then, within two decades, the inertia of history begins to sort things out, and while some things are still a little different (the _Enterprise_ is built in Iowa?) everything starts sorting itself out...  Kirk and Spock join Starfleet, the Enterprise gets built in time for Kirk to take command, etc.

Nero destroyed the planet Vulcan.  It took a huge amount of effort (25 years of planning and an artificial black hole). It will make a huge impact on the future history, and will take a very long time for history to sort itself out and get back to where it should be.

Kirk's life was easy to disrupt (it happened practically by accident), but sets itself to rights fairly quickly.

The changes in the lives of the crew are the eqivalent of a temporal trip on a sidewalk crack.  Destroying Vulcan was the equivalent of a temporal train wreck.


----------



## Umbran (May 10, 2009)

Dire Bare said:


> Well, sure that isn't going to happen in the real world . . . but this is Star Trek, Kirk is the captain, and what else were they going to do?




Make him First Officer, and allow a few years to pass in the timeline before the next movie.  Maybe with Pike giving him a "someday, this will all be yours" speech, or something.  Or even stick a transition shot of his series of promotions, or something.  



> Not promoting him permanently at the end of the movie would just mean wasting valuable storytelling time in New Star Trek 2!




Hardly.  Messaging "a couple years have passed, and Kirk got promoted" would probably take about 30 seconds.  They took longer with Scotty bumbling through tubes of water, and that wasn't "story" worth mentioning.


----------



## Fast Learner (May 10, 2009)

Except then the story couldn't have continued in the next film with the relationships we have now. Instead we'd have the "couple of years later" relationships, which I doubt is the goal.


----------



## Mallus (May 10, 2009)

James T. Kirk's in the captain's chair aboard the Enterprise and all's right with the world.

It could end no other way.


----------



## Pbartender (May 10, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Hardly.  Messaging "a couple years have passed, and Kirk got promoted" would probably take about 30 seconds.




Really.  All you'd have to do is start the movie with the ceremony at which Pike is already Admiral, and Kirk is getting promoted to Captain...  Cut to the reveal where Kirk getting is orders to take command of the Enterprise.  Done.


----------



## drothgery (May 10, 2009)

Fast Learner said:


> Except then the story couldn't have continued in the next film with the relationships we have now. Instead we'd have the "couple of years later" relationships, which I doubt is the goal.




Since, that's normally the case in movies, I kind of think otherwise.

Kirk was a cadet about to graduate -- i.e. a half-step away from an Ensign (unless Starfleet followed the convention of some navies and comissioned the top x% of the class from the Academy as junior Leiutenants). Best case, he should end up a rank higher than expected, and in a highly desireable spot for an officer of that rank.


----------



## Jack7 (May 10, 2009)

I don't know guys, I think there is something more to this whole Kirk got promoted too quickly thing than first meets the eye. Why I didn't even bother to mention it in my review.

First of all Spock did far more to save everybody than Kirk did. The old/future Spock conspired to take Spock out of the Command Chair, and Pike seemed to be pushing things behind the scenes from the get go too.

I wouldn't doubt other forces are at work in the background, stuff we haven't seen yet.
This is Abrams we're talking 'bout.

The apparent and the intentional are different things from the apparatus and the indeterminate.

I was shocked when Vulcan ate it. While watching the film I kept looking for the Deus Ex Machina.
But this ain't your grandpappa's Star Trek.

This is something other than what it just appears to be.

With Abrams people don't just make destiny, _*they become destiny*_.

That was apparent by watching all of the characters.

If Kirk took the chair too young then it wasn't by happenstance.
There's a ghost in that machine. A wolfcub in the bitch litter.
You just can't hear it howling yet cause of all the background noise.

And it'll hunt when it's time to hunt.
Til then it'll look just like any old coondog.

By the by, I'll bet ya dollars to doughnuts this Kirk ain't the Kirk of the original series. He'll share power. A lot of the time.

And he won't be near as confident.
What he will be will be an instrument of other things.


----------



## Umbran (May 10, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> This is Abrams we're talking 'bout.




Yes, JJ Abrams.  Creator of such deep and layered film gems as "Armageddon" and "Cloverfield".  

How many questions on "Lost" have gotten answers such that you felt the guy had a grand plan from the start?  This is a legit question - I've only seen the first two seasons, and people didn't know diddly-squat at that point, and it didn't look like he had any real intention of revealing anything any time soon.

So, I really don't expect any grand scheme that makes sense of the move.  They gave us a typical American "wrapped up with a bow" ending, because it is an action flick and you don't leave threads hanging on action flicks. 



> I was shocked when Vulcan ate it. While watching the film I kept looking for the Deus Ex Machina.
> But this ain't your grandpappa's Star Trek.




This is movie-franchise Star Trek, where they can make major changes without worrying about it, as there won't be enough screen-time to actually display much about the impact of those changes.  It is easy to blow up a planet if the only impact we'll see is on a single character who really doesn't show much emotion.  

And remember, this is coming from someone who *liked* the movie.  It was fun, but I see no coherent signs that it's a masterpiece of planned depth.


----------



## mrtauntaun (May 11, 2009)

I don't have a problem with Kirk being promoted to full Captain.  Starfleet lost a lot of ships in this movie, and a LOT of officers.  Good officers are likely hard to come by right now, and having someone who has proven his worth under fire is a valuable commodity.  He was given a field promotion to first officer, and then was acting Captain and saved a whole planet.  I thought it a fitting reward.  Now, if Starfleet wasn't in such dire straights, this may not have happened.  But given the state of the fleet, I can believe it.


----------



## Jack7 (May 11, 2009)

> How many questions on "Lost" have gotten answers such that you felt the guy had a grand plan from the start? This is a legit question - I've only seen the first two seasons, and people didn't know diddly-squat at that point, and it didn't look like he had any real intention of revealing anything any time soon.
> 
> So, I really don't expect any grand scheme that makes sense of the move. They gave us a typical American "wrapped up with a bow" ending, because it is an action flick and you don't leave threads hanging on action flicks.




Anything is possible, of course.

But if it turns out later that there is a plot reason that shows something odd about Kirk's career then will ya then say, "Well, why didn't they say that right up front?" or will ya say, "well they just made that up as they went along."

Cause either way you're gonna be right.

Except of course you do have a couple of loose threads don't ya?

You got Spock from the future now loose in the past (or the present future, depending on how you wanna look at it), you got Kirk in a chair too big for his current britches, you got Pike as an Admiral with real power (not retired to a fantasy thought planet), and you got a whole species of allies nearly wiped out and facing a very different future than the one they should know.

Well, if they're not loose threads, at least they're kinda frayed.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 11, 2009)

Umbran said:


> They took longer with Scotty bumbling through tubes of water, and that wasn't "story" worth mentioning.



Well, the scene's funnier when you realize that it was filmed on location at an Anheuser-Busch brewery.


----------



## Pbartender (May 11, 2009)

fanboy2000 said:


> Well, the scene's funnier when you realize that it was filmed on location at an Anheuser-Busch brewery.




I was right!  When we saw the movie on Saturday, and we first saw them running through the engine room catwalks with those big circular tanks on either side, I whispered to my wife, "Hey, look!  The Enterprise has a brewery on board!"


----------



## Mistwell (May 11, 2009)

As Lord Trillian wrote over at CM:



> Eh, he just saved the Earth, rescued a highly honored captain (now admiral), shown one of the most promising and intelligent people at the academy (Spock) how to save the world and has ample support from Pike AND future Spock (whose opinion has to count, considering how *much* he knows about the federation, Vulcan and so on).
> 
> And Starfleet just lost seven starships, probably with high-ranking captains like Pike. If you apply TOS scales, seven starships is a lot.
> 
> ...


----------



## Umbran (May 11, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> Except of course you do have a couple of loose threads don't ya?




Well, the way I see it, not really...



> You got Spock from the future now loose in the past (or the present future, depending on how you wanna look at it), you got Kirk in a chair too big for his current britches, you got Pike as an Admiral with real power (not retired to a fantasy thought planet), and you got a whole species of allies nearly wiped out and facing a very different future than the one they should know.




Old-Spock is completely ignorable.  He's off helping the remaining Vulcans with their new colony.

Kirk in a chair that's too big for him - there is exactly zero indication in the movie that anyone (including the writers and director) feels the chair is too big for him.  That's what I find irksome.  If anyone seriously felt that, they wouldn't have given him command of the _flagship_.

Pike, again, completely ignorable.  He's off flying a desk.  You see how deeply the character of specific Admirals impacted this movie?  Zero.  Expect more of same.

Vulcans weak - that's not a loose thread, in that it cannot be "tied up", it si not a plotline or  element that needs resolution within the scope of a movie.  Unless the Enterprise goes about doing more time-travel to reverse the events of this movie (and oh, gods, the headaches the temporal logic would cause!), this is simply now a setting characteristic, not a loose end.


----------



## EricNoah (May 11, 2009)

Just some thoughts I have about where a film 2 might go, theme-wise...

1) Kirk's gotta grow up a little bit.  We know he's brave and willing to die, but is he willing to lead, take advice, foster teamwork, etc?  I think his look-before-leaping zest for adventure (and disregard for his own life and safety) could land his crew and his ship in very hot water.  The first time someone dies under his command he's going to have to take a hard look at himself and at what being a captain means.  

2) The side of the main "character triangle" that didn't get much attention was the Spock-McCoy side - I would like to see that heat up a bit and get Kirk in the middle of it.  

3) Spock and Uhura ... I think it's pretty clear they can't stay together.  Workplace dating never ends well, plus we all know Spock has "issues" with intimacy and emotions and all that - it very well could be leaving Uhura starved.  And in here somewhere I think we need to see Kirk and Uhura figure out their relationship - he can't allow any jealousy/rivalry to show or interfere with the operation of his crew and so he might armor himself in professionalism and kind of push her away as a potential friend.  I dunno, I'm probably putting too much thought into that angle. 

4) The rest of the crew ... the fact that we're dealing with a handful of 2-hour movies over the course of the next few years, plus a fairly lare ensemble means some characters will continually going to get shorted their time to develop, as opposed to what could be done with hours and hours of TV.  I think Sulu, Chekhov and Scotty could make a nice secondary character triangle - these are the guys who are most hands-on with the Enterprise and so could be kindred spirits in that regard.  I think finding interesting stuff for them to do will be a big challenge.  

5) The Enterprise as a character - some reviewers noted that the ship itself is (or was in the TV shows and other films) a character unto itself but didn't really seem that way in the new film.  In a film 2 hopefully we can start to see the crew and Kirk feeling more attached to her as a refuge and a home.  On the other hand ... if something is going to get shorted, this is the least important thing to deal with in my opinion.


----------



## coyote6 (May 12, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Kirk in a chair that's too big for him - there is exactly zero indication in the movie that anyone (including the writers and director) feels the chair is too big for him.  That's what I find irksome.  If anyone seriously felt that, they wouldn't have given him command of the _flagship_.




Did they say Enterprise was the Starfleet flagship? IIRC, in the original series/timeline, it wasn't the flagship until after Kirk & co. covered it (and themselves) in glory a few times. 

Actually, I thought it wasn't a flagship until Admiral Kirk was in command (because, hey, then there's an admiral on board, and they're the ones with the flags). Then in TNG, it was the plum command of Starfleet because of the Enterprise name's storied history.

I don't think the TOS Enterprise was supposed to be that special; it wasn't even the first ship of its class (it was a Constitution-class starship, meaning the USS Constitution was the first of its kind).


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 12, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> Did they say Enterprise was the Starfleet flagship? IIRC, in the original series/timeline, it wasn't the flagship until after Kirk & co. covered it (and themselves) in glory a few times.




Well, that and the fact that in o/canon (that is "original canon," as opposed to n/canon, or "new canon"), it was the _only one_ of the original 13 Constitution-class cruisers to survive up into the movie timeline. 

Yes, Pike referred to it in the movie as the "new flagship." But whether he meant it was the new flagship of the entire fleet, or just of the cadet-driven "mini-fleet" that was dispatched to Vulcan is, I suppose, arguable.


----------



## GSHamster (May 12, 2009)

The Trouble with Quibbles

Pretty interesting read, in light of the discussion here.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 12, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Well, that and the fact that in o/canon (that is "original canon," as opposed to n/canon, or "new canon"), it was the _only one_ of the original 13 Constitution-class cruisers to survive up into the movie timeline.
> 
> Yes, Pike referred to it in the movie as the "new flagship." But whether he meant it was the new flagship of the entire fleet, or just of the cadet-driven "mini-fleet" that was dispatched to Vulcan is, I suppose, arguable.




Perhaps it was because it was the newest and prettiest ship?

BTW, did anyone else geek out over the various ship types?  I notice that the Kelvin really rather strongly resembled one of the old FASA destroyers.

Brad


----------



## Eosin the Red (May 12, 2009)

I didn't so much have a problem with the promotion but there were some "issues" that made me wonder. Before I get to those - I loved the movie.

1. Red Matter - it creates singularities so why drill to the core of a planet first?
2. Red Matter - how was that "one ring" stabilized?
3. Nero - really, he waited 25 years. Unseen. Really?
4. U.S.S. Kelvin ramming the Cthulu ship... 1 minute to impact and Nero can't order the launch/firing of any weapon?
5. Enterprise was about 30 seconds behind the other 7 starfleet ships which are all wreckage but somehow survives the full attention of the squid ship until Nero notices the ID.

Those are my quibbles. Still loved the heck out of it.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 12, 2009)

Eosin the Red said:


> 3. Nero - really, he waited 25 years. Unseen. Really?




Nero was a prisoner of the Klingons.

Yeah, I know, you can't get that from the movie, unless you read between the lines when they're describing the _Narada_ attacking a Klingon prison planet. My understanding is that those scenes _were_ there, but were cut.

I'm hoping for a seriously expanded director's cut on DVD, myself.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 12, 2009)

Eosin the Red said:


> 5. Enterprise was about 30 seconds behind the other 7 starfleet ships which are all wreckage but somehow survives the full attention of the squid ship until Nero notices the ID.



Actually, it made sense - Pike ordered raising shields as he realised it wasn't a rescue mission. 

This implies that the other ships haven't raised their shields... and without shields Star Trek ships were always pretty fragile - and the ships probably all blew up after single hits.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Pbartender (May 12, 2009)

Eosin the Red said:


> 3. Nero - really, he waited 25 years. Unseen. Really?




Space is big...  Really big.  It wouldn't be as difficult as you think.


----------



## Rykion (May 12, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Well, that and the fact that in o/canon (that is "original canon," as opposed to n/canon, or "new canon"), it was the _only one_ of the original 13 Constitution-class cruisers to survive up into the movie timeline.



If I remember correctly in the o/canon it was explained that the Enterprise became the Starfleet flagship after being the only Constitution class vessel to complete its 5 year mission.  Starfleet also made the Enterprise arrowhead with star symbol the official insignia of the entire organization at that time.  In TOS each ship and starbase used a different insignia design on its uniform.


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2009)

Eosin the Red said:


> 1. Red Matter - it creates singularities so why drill to the core of a planet first?
> 2. Red Matter - how was that "one ring" stabilized?




Red Matter - this stuff can collapse planets and whole stars, destroying whole solar systems and cultures.  And just a litle dollop will do it.  So, we'll carry around a metric buttload of the stuff on a tiny little ship that's barely armed!

Yeah, them Vulcans, they're *smart!*


----------



## Arnwyn (May 12, 2009)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> BTW, did anyone else geek out over the various ship types? I notice that the Kelvin really rather strongly resembled one of the old FASA destroyers.



No, because all I saw _were_ the Kelvin and Enterprise. Everything else flashed by far too quickly for me to notice.


----------



## Rykion (May 12, 2009)

Eosin the Red said:


> 1. Red Matter - it creates singularities so why drill to the core of a planet first?



Maybe it needed to be exposed to a major power source for the reaction needed to create a singularity.  Something like the molten core of a planet, a star, or the explosion of a warp capable spacecraft.


----------



## coyote6 (May 12, 2009)

They did talk about "igniting" the red mercury matter -- Nero's goons didn't want to shoot at the Vulcan ship.

The Red Matter was pure MacGuffin, even more so than the Genesis device.

Now I'm hoping that a sequel borrows from the Assignment: Earth plot, but updated to the then-current day, and with Gary Seven replaced or augmented with Sydney Bristow.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 12, 2009)

EricNoah said:


> 4) The rest of the crew ... the fact that we're dealing with a handful of 2-hour movies over the course of the next few years, plus a fairly lare ensemble means some characters will continually going to get shorted their time to develop, as opposed to what could be done with hours and hours of TV. I think Sulu, Chekhov and Scotty could make a nice secondary character triangle - these are the guys who are most hands-on with the Enterprise and so could be kindred spirits in that regard. I think finding interesting stuff for them to do will be a big challenge.



Not challenge - opportunity.  These characters don't now, and never have had any interaction with each other.  Sulu and Chekov sat next to each other for years of TOS and several movies and have never actually interacted except for exchanging a glance or two.  I doubt they've even SPOKEN to each other - only to Kirk and Spock, and FAR less with McCoy, Scott, Uhura.  And even then their interactions were overwhelmingly, yessir, nossir, and oh-my-god-what-is-that-thing or I-don't-understand-can-a-major-character-explain-it-for-the-audience-instead.

It can be excused during TOS because, that's just how TV worked (& often still works).  The movies did little more for them than the series did, if anything.  But clearly the original characters and setting have MUCH more to offer that has gone unexplored onscreen.  Uhura has a relationship with Spock?  Okay, so it's not the relationship with Kirk that everyone was expecting but at least UHURA now has an actual relationship - yes?

THAT'S the sort of thing that comes of a reboot and I want more of it.  Temporal mechanics and logical command hierarchy be damned.  Full warp speed ahead I say.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (May 12, 2009)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> BTW, did anyone else geek out over the various ship types? I notice that the Kelvin really rather strongly resembled one of the old FASA destroyers.



Actually, I sorta did a little.  One of Star Treks unwritten rules has always been that warp engines _have_ to come in pairs.  The idea of having just one warp nacelle was, to my understanding, first speculated by Franz Joseph Designs which created the first Enterprise blueprints and Technical Manual.  FASA just picked it up from there.  But canon has always been that they have to be paired which, frankly, unnecessarily limits ship design possibilities.

I always LIKED the look of the single-nacelle destroyer and was sorta frustrated that it was not accepted as canon.  So, yeah, I geeked a bit.


----------



## Grog (May 12, 2009)

Rykion said:


> Maybe it needed to be exposed to a major power source for the reaction needed to create a singularity.  Something like the molten core of a planet, a star, or the explosion of a warp capable spacecraft.




If so, this is something they should have mentioned. This was my biggest problem with the movie, too - why were they bothering to drill to the core of the planets before using the red matter? A black hole on one side of a planet will destroy that planet just as effectively as a black hole in the center of it.

Sure, you can invent explanations to make it make sense after the fact, but as it stands in the movie, this is a plot hole.

However, that said, I loved the movie. I wonder if anyone has told George Lucas yet that this movie blew away all three of his Star Wars prequels....


----------



## Eosin the Red (May 12, 2009)

Rykion said:


> Maybe it needed to be exposed to a major power source for the reaction needed to create a singularity.  Something like the molten core of a planet, a star, or the explosion of a warp capable spacecraft.




Humm, my thoughts are dramatic tension, cool space jump, and melee combat on a small object hanging miles above the planet. Oh yeah, and a wicked fall with difficulty getting transporter lock.  

I am sure it can be explained but it wasn't in the movie. I've come to a conclusion similar to your own to satisfy my sense of "rightness."


*Mouse...* wow. Just wow. Nero being captured for 25 years is sort of a whole new story. And weird. That will have to be one large expansion on the DVD (or some odd exposition in a movie without much exposition). Still, good to know. Thanks.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 12, 2009)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Not challenge - opportunity.  These characters don't now, and never have had any interaction with each other.  Sulu and Chekov sat next to each other for years of TOS and several movies and have never actually interacted except for exchanging a glance or two.  I doubt they've even SPOKEN to each other - only to Kirk and Spock, and FAR less with McCoy, Scott, Uhura.  And even then their interactions were overwhelmingly, yessir, nossir, and oh-my-god-what-is-that-thing or I-don't-understand-can-a-major-character-explain-it-for-the-audience-instead.
> 
> It can be excused during TOS because, that's just how TV worked (& often still works).  The movies did little more for them than the series did, if anything.  But clearly the original characters and setting have MUCH more to offer that has gone unexplored onscreen.  Uhura has a relationship with Spock?  Okay, so it's not the relationship with Kirk that everyone was expecting but at least UHURA now has an actual relationship - yes?
> 
> THAT'S the sort of thing that comes of a reboot and I want more of it.  Temporal mechanics and logical command hierarchy be damned.  Full warp speed ahead I say.



Yes, I think that's actually what I, as a (dare I say that) Trekkie would want to have in a reboot.

All those missed opportunnites can now finally be explored - and they can be fresh, interesting and exciting to the "die hard fans" as well as to a new one.


----------



## Mallus (May 12, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Yeah, I know, you can't get that from the movie, unless you read between the lines when they're describing the _Narada_ attacking a Klingon prison planet. My understanding is that those scenes _were_ there, but were cut.



They definitely were. A friend of my wife worked on the film (He does special special fabric treatments for costumes and set decorations. In fact, he's in our town to work on Avatar: the Last Airbender). At dinner last week I had to explain to him those scenes, which were the only ones he contributed to, weren't in the final cut.


----------



## drothgery (May 13, 2009)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> I always LIKED the look of the single-nacelle destroyer and was sorta frustrated that it was not accepted as canon.  So, yeah, I geeked a bit.




Didn't the Kelvin have two nacelles? Just 'above' and 'below' instead of left and right?

Also, the 'future Entrerprise' from the TNG finale had three nacelles.


----------



## Mouseferatu (May 13, 2009)

drothgery said:


> Didn't the Kelvin have two nacelles? Just 'above' and 'below' instead of left and right?




Nope, only one was a nacelle. The other was the "cylindrical" section of the ship, like the section of the _Enterprise_ that connects the warp nacelles with the saucer section's "neck."


----------



## Pbartender (May 13, 2009)

[digresson]Alright...  Maybe one of you guys can help me out.

What I'm looking for is an image of Simon Pegg as Scotty.  Specifically, an image of him during the scene in which he's talking about "Admiral Archer's prized beagle", while slugging down out of a big mug.  If anyone has the net-fu to find it, I'd really appreciate it.

All I can seem to find is the "It's exciting!" picture of him on the bridge soaking wet...  Not exactly what I'm looking for.[/digression]


----------



## Umbran (May 13, 2009)

Grog said:


> Sure, you can invent explanations to make it make sense after the fact, but as it stands in the movie, this is a plot hole.




In the name of improving our abilities to critique - no, this is not a plot hole.

A plot hole is not something that happens for reasons that are unstated, so that we don't understand why.  A plot hole is a gap or inconsistency that _specifically goes against_ the established logic, facts, or plot.  

That they have to drill into the planet does not conflict with anything we know - it is specifically the established way the Red Matter works.  So it isn't a plot hole.  

That Spock is left on the ice planet around a different star to witness the destruction of Vulcan *is* a plot hole, as they've established that interstellar distances are large without warp drive.  You cannot see planets at interstellar distances with the naked eye, and it would take years for the vision of the destruction to travel between the stars in any event.

My No-Prize solution is that he doesn't actually physically witness, but does so psionically.  The rules of psi in Trek are not well established, and it is perhaps not so bad for us to think that he could somehow "feel" the death of billions of other psionically endowed individuals a few light years away.  The image they show in the movie is poetic license, not the actual thing he sees with his eyes.


----------



## Pbartender (May 13, 2009)

Umbran said:


> My No-Prize solution is that he doesn't actually physically witness, but does so psionically.  The rules of psi in Trek are not well established, and it is perhaps not so bad for us to think that he could somehow "feel" the death of billions of other psionically endowed individuals a few light years away.  The image they show in the movie is poetic license, not the actual thing he sees with his eyes.




My No-Prize solution is that there is more than one planet in the galaxy named "Delta Vega", much as there is more than one city named "Rochester" in the world.  This jibes with the fact that the "new" Delta Vega doesn't look anything like the "classic" Delta Vega.  Spock's Delta Vega just happens to be in a very, very close orbit with Vulcan, and Nero timed its destruction just right for the benefit of Spock.


----------



## Rykion (May 13, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> [digresson]Alright...  Maybe one of you guys can help me out.
> 
> What I'm looking for is an image of Simon Pegg as Scotty.  Specifically, an image of him during the scene in which he's talking about "Admiral Archer's prized beagle", while slugging down out of a big mug.  If anyone has the net-fu to find it, I'd really appreciate it.
> 
> All I can seem to find is the "It's exciting!" picture of him on the bridge soaking wet...  Not exactly what I'm looking for.[/digression]



Here's a link to a pic with scruffy looking Scotty at his desk.
IGN: Star Trek Publicity Stills 2819795
I'll see if I can find more.

Edit
Here is a close-up of Scotty in his non-regualtion outfit.
Star Trek Wallpaper Pictures: Official Movie Site


----------



## Umbran (May 13, 2009)

Pbartender said:


> Spock's Delta Vega just happens to be in a very, very close orbit with Vulcan, and Nero timed its destruction just right for the benefit of Spock.




The name of the thing doesn't bother me one whit.  It's the distance.  

In order to get a view like that Delta Vega would have to be a moon of Vulcan (or vice-versa).  Then the name does become a problem, as it would not have some generic like "Delta Vega".  Plus, a Federation outpost that close to Vulcan would not have resupply issues.  Scotty could have just radioed over to Vulcan for some nice plomeek soup, or Dominos pizza, or something.

That's why I moved to the psionic explanation.


----------



## Rykion (May 13, 2009)

Umbran said:


> That's why I moved to the psionic explanation.



Nero just set up a holographic projector to let Spock watch the implosion. 

The other thing that bothers me is the 10,000 Vulcans thing.  I would consider 50,000 Vulcans being off planet a low number.  Just Vulcan embassies, Starfleet members, Vulcan spacecraft, and the odd Vulcan living on another world would probably top that easy.  Then the idea that a logical spacefaring race hasn't colonized a few worlds to prevent a single disaster wiping them out is mind boggling.


----------



## mrtauntaun (May 13, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Pike, again, completely ignorable.  He's off flying a desk.  You see how deeply the character of specific Admirals impacted this movie?  Zero.  Expect more of same..




No, Pike is not ignorable.  Not only does he recommend and praise Kirk as an Admiral (which carries a lot of weight on it's own), he does so as Kirk's former commanding officer.  That's saying a lot at a time when Starfleet is still small by comparison (even more so since it just lost so many ships).


----------



## Ed_Laprade (May 13, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Nope, only one was a nacelle. The other was the "cylindrical" section of the ship, like the section of the _Enterprise_ that connects the warp nacelles with the saucer section's "neck."



I definitely saw one of the 'rescue fleet' light off three nacelles before going into warp. Unfortunately I didn't get a good look at any of the ships, as I was trying to look closely at all of them, and they didn't stick around long enough for that.


----------



## fireinthedust (May 13, 2009)

I was going to start a new thread, but I'll post here:


WHY VULCAN HAD TO DIE:

It's all about the symbolism for what's going on with the franchise, while not alienating die hard continuity fans by demanding that they forget that everything happened.

Vulcan is symbolic for Logic, the logic of the franchise that came before.  Spock is symbolic for that franchise, which was a mix of human emotion and Trek-Logic.

The film is a revamping of the franchise, but the idea of Star Trek is such that one cannot simply do a non-canon movie for the fans WHILE AT THE SAME TIME as a writer it is near-impossible to do a good film with bundles of old plots and logic(s) hanging around clogging things up.

The villain (aka: that which moves the plot forward) goes back in time to before everything started and screws with time.  More specifically, explodes the logic-planet IN, I suppose, a bid to get back at Spock (who was just trying to save their world).   Spock survives, along with only 10 000 vulcans, rescuing as many of the culture-people as he can, and is going to try to save his people.  

Our view:  the movie: JJ Abrams takes the old franchise and blows it up, but goes back in time to do this.  What does he use?  The Logic, the Star Trek stuff that really matters, and gets rid of the rest; from 6 billion worries to 10000, from a story-teller's POV.

      Spock symbolizes also the old franchise.  He is all the stored memories of the old timelines, technologies, mathematics, whatever.  He's an ARC, in a way.  He's also the production's way of saying "we're keeping the past, and using it as a guide as we move forward".  It's... well, it's a pledge during this revamp, that retconning will (hopefully) not be disrespectful.

I liked the movie, and this idea.  What weirds me out is that none of the episodes I remember actually happened now.  No trouble with Tribbles, no Amok time, no Picard, no Data... well, not yet.  Eventually yes, but we'll see changes.

We might also see T'Pol make an appearance in the next film, or Tuvok, or some other interesting stuff.  Heh, in this continuity have Klingons transformed into big-forehead guys like Worf?!   heheheheh.


----------



## Rykion (May 14, 2009)

fireinthedust said:


> Heh, in this continuity have Klingons transformed into big-forehead guys like Worf?!



They should have both versions of Klingons as explained in Enterprise.  Evidently they have head ridges on their helmets at least, oh and they wear trench coats.  As seen in pics and discussion here: JJ Abrams Talks Deleted Scenes - Find Out What Didn’t Make Final Cut of ‘Star Trek’ | TrekMovie.com


----------



## Umbran (May 14, 2009)

mrtauntaun said:


> No, Pike is not ignorable.  Not only does he recommend and praise Kirk as an Admiral (which carries a lot of weight on it's own), he does so as Kirk's former commanding officer.  That's saying a lot at a time when Starfleet is still small by comparison (even more so since it just lost so many ships).




So what?  That does not mean he _must_ play a role in the next movie.  Starfleet Command itself may only appear by reference, if the action doesn't take place on or near Earth.

They could include Pike, sure.  But they can just as easily not mention him again.


----------



## Pbartender (May 14, 2009)

Umbran said:


> The name of the thing doesn't bother me one whit.  It's the distance.




Ah, yes...  I can hardly argue with that.  It struck me as a little bit odd, myself, but hey...  It's Star Trek.  God lives at the center of the galaxy and needs a spaceship get around, remember?  

Maybe it was some sort of inverse tachyon field, or a sub-space anomoly that gave him such a good view...


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (May 14, 2009)

Ed_Laprade said:


> I definitely saw one of the 'rescue fleet' light off three nacelles before going into warp. Unfortunately I didn't get a good look at any of the ships, as I was trying to look closely at all of them, and they didn't stick around long enough for that.




I saw that, that was cool.  No idea what it was, but it looked cool.

Brad


----------



## Wolf72 (May 14, 2009)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> Perhaps it was because it was the newest and prettiest ship?
> 
> BTW, did anyone else geek out over the various ship types?  I notice that the Kelvin really rather strongly resembled one of the old FASA destroyers.
> 
> Brad




I did! ... I only wish I'd seen it with my brother ... he'd be able to point out which type of destroyer it was.

We were just talking about how we liked (well I ALWAYS lost) SFB


----------



## wingsandsword (May 16, 2009)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Actually, I sorta did a little.  One of Star Treks unwritten rules has always been that warp engines _have_ to come in pairs.  The idea of having just one warp nacelle was, to my understanding, first speculated by Franz Joseph Designs which created the first Enterprise blueprints and Technical Manual.  FASA just picked it up from there.  But canon has always been that they have to be paired which, frankly, unnecessarily limits ship design possibilities.
> 
> I always LIKED the look of the single-nacelle destroyer and was sorta frustrated that it was not accepted as canon.  So, yeah, I geeked a bit.




As a fan of the old Franz Joseph manual, I really geeked out on it.  It looked like JJ Abrams really, really did his research when making this movie (and yes, in some places he selectively disregarded it, but it was an informed decision instead of one made out of ignorance).

The Starbase in orbit of Earth?  That was the starbase/Starfleet Headquarters design from the old 1970's Star Fleet Technical Manual (also reused as the Starbase design in Star Fleet Battles which used that manual heavily).  I was pretty dang sure I saw a Ptolemy-Class Tug from that book in the rescue fleet as well (or at least something that was as close to that design as this movie's Enterprise was to the original Enterprise).


----------

