# Original Star Wars actors to take center stage in new movie



## Kramodlog (Jan 12, 2014)

The original write left cause he wanted the kids to take center stage, but J.J. wants the old actor to appear in first movie before passing the torch.



> Arndt is said to have focused on the offspring of Luke Skywalker (*Mark Hamill*), Han Solo (*Harrison Ford*) and Princess Leia (*Carrie Fisher*), with the original trilogy's heroes taking on supporting roles. Abrams, however, wanted _Episode VII_ to focus on the classic trio of characters, so audiences could have one more chance to enjoy them before a fitting send-off. The new characters, the offspring, will now be in supporting roles, according to these sources, and take center stage in _Episode VIII_ and _IX._ Some characters have disappeared from the Arndt script and new ones are being added.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 12, 2014)

I think a "passing of the torch" kind of movie could work. Weaves in a little more continuity between trilogies.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 13, 2014)

I don't know... have you seen Carrie Fisher lately? Yikes!


----------



## delericho (Jan 13, 2014)

That sounds terrible. There are lessons to be learned from "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", and they're not just about letting CGI ruin your film.

And, unlike IJ, it's not necessary to bring back the previous cast here - whereas only Harrison Ford could play Indy, and you can't have an Indy movie without him, it's obviously not the case that you need the Big Three to have a Star Wars movie.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 13, 2014)

delericho said:


> That sounds terrible. There are lessons to be learned from "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", and they're not just about letting CGI ruin your film.
> .




Don't try to move into the next era of the source material? (  the first three indy movies were based on 30's pulp while the 4th was based on 50's pulp)


----------



## delericho (Jan 13, 2014)

trappedslider said:


> Don't try to move into the next era of the source material? (  the first three indy movies were based on 30's pulp while the 4th was based on 50's pulp)




I was thinking more, "don't try to do an action film when your leading actor is in his mid-sixties." (now seventies, of course)

I didn't particularly care for the aliens plot in KotKS, but I did understand why they went for it. And a good script, and less reliance on CGI, could fix up most of the rest of the problems with the film. But, unfortunately, HF's age is a problem that isn't so easily fixed.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 13, 2014)

goldomark said:


> .




Could you please stop using that blue text?  It's terrible to read with the Legacy scheme.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?348563-Dark-Text-on-a-Dark-Background-Tutorial


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 13, 2014)

Deset Gled said:


> Could you please stop using that blue text?  It's terrible to read with the Legacy scheme.
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?348563-Dark-Text-on-a-Dark-Background-Tutorial



I use it cause quotes are't readable in legacy. At least that is what I was told.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Jan 13, 2014)

goldomark said:


> The original write left cause he wanted the kids to take center stage, but J.J. wants the old actor to appear in first movie before passing the torch.



'Old actor' being the operative phrase here. All of the actors are now 35 years older than they were when the first film came out. I don't want to see Grandpa Luke and Grandma Leia anymore than I wanted to see Grandpa Indy...


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 13, 2014)

Come on. You'll have one last chance to see Carry Fisher in the legendary bikini.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 13, 2014)

The silly thing is, JJ's already done this right once, and in almost exactly the same circumstances. If the original actors appear in the new movie to exactly the same extent that Leonard Nimoy appears in the Star Trek reboot, that will be just fine. Any more would be foolish.


----------



## bone_naga (Jan 14, 2014)

I suppose it could work, but I'd like to see newer characters taking the stage. I think it's ridiculous how long the original characters have held the spotlight in the books, even ones that take place when Han and Leia are grandparents. Some of the book descriptions have them running and dodging and rolling just like the movies, but I personally picture it being more like Metal Gear Solid 4 where Snake keeps complaining about his back.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 14, 2014)

MarkB said:


> The silly thing is, JJ's already done this right once, and in almost exactly the same circumstances. If the original actors appear in the new movie to exactly the same extent that Leonard Nimoy appears in the Star Trek reboot, that will be just fine. Any more would be foolish.



Mr. Spock is going to be in the next Star Wars movie?!?!?!?


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 14, 2014)

TarionzCousin said:


> Mr. Spock is going to be in the next Star Wars movie?!?!?!?



The Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate will finally be settled. ST will win and J.J. Abram will be forgiven for ST: Into Darkness. 

All hail Spock!


----------



## delericho (Jan 14, 2014)

TarionzCousin said:


> Mr. Spock is going to be in the next Star Wars movie?!?!?!?




Maybe they can get William Shatner to make a cameo as the singer at Han & Leia's wedding.

In a flashback, obviously. Otherwise, it would be a terrible idea.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 14, 2014)

goldomark said:


> The Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate will finally be settled. ST will win and J.J. Abram will be forgiven for ST: Into Darkness.
> 
> All hail Spock!






delericho said:


> Maybe they can get William Shatner to make a cameo as the singer at Han & Leia's wedding.
> 
> In a flashback, obviously. Otherwise, it would be a terrible idea.



This movie just keeps getting better and better.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 14, 2014)

Starts at 35 seconds.

[video=youtube;MDUrw7j0UA4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUrw7j0UA4[/video]


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 14, 2014)

goldomark said:


> The Star Trek vs. Star Wars debate will finally be settled. ST will win and J.J. Abram will be forgiven for ST: Into Darkness.
> 
> All hail Spock!




Into Darkness wasn't terrible.  The lens flare, though, well ... it was terrible.  What the hell was he thinking?  He's the Michael Bay of lens flare.  Bro, you don't wanna be the Michael Bay of _anything_.  Bad move.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 14, 2014)

Lens flare are cheap esplosions.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 14, 2014)

The problems with into Dorkness.

[video=youtube;REOjxvQPQNQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REOjxvQPQNQ[/video]


----------



## delericho (Jan 14, 2014)

The one about Chekov not being able to beam them up because they're moving is particularly amusing, since in the first film he beams Kirk and Sulu up while they're falling towards Vulcan at terminal velocity.

Mostly, though, that video seemed to be a whole lot of nitpicking. I suspect if I tried really hard I could find 61 complaints of the same level to level at "Wrath of Khan", starting with "if the crew of Reliant thought they were beaming down to Seti Alpha Five, how come they didn't notice that the system had one too few planets?"


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 14, 2014)

delericho said:


> The one about Chekov not being able to beam them up because they're moving is particularly amusing, since in the first film he beams Kirk and Sulu up while they're falling towards Vulcan at terminal velocity.
> 
> Mostly, though, that video seemed to be a whole lot of nitpicking. I suspect if I tried really hard I could find 61 complaints of the same level to level at "Wrath of Khan", starting with "if the crew of Reliant thought they were beaming down to Seti Alpha Five, how come they didn't notice that the system had one too few planets?"




Yeah, it seemed sort of nitpicky to me, too.  I liked it overall.  It wasn't as good as the first one but it was good for what it was supposed to be ... except for the flare.  My god, the flare!


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 14, 2014)

The Kirk death/tribble/magic blood/resurection was lame.

And you guys are suposed to be geeks. Nitpick series and films is our reason to live.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Jan 14, 2014)

I have not been impressed with J.J.'s new Star Trek films. They're fine action movies, but they're not Trek. I have some forebodings about having him take on Star Wars.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 14, 2014)

goldomark said:


> I use it cause quotes are't readable in legacy. At least that is what I was told.




Read the link.  You don't want to use *any* color.  When left properly unformatted, the board automatically sets the correct color.  There's a button in the editor specifically to remove the unwanted formatting.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 14, 2014)

goldomark said:


> The Kirk death/tribble/magic blood/resurection was lame.
> 
> And you guys are suposed to be geeks. Nitpick series and films is our reason to live.




Yeah, the tribble thing felt incredibly forced and the Spock death inversion was sort of cheap.  I'll give ya that.



Dungeoneer said:


> I have not been impressed with J.J.'s new Star Trek films. They're fine action movies, but they're not Trek. I have some forebodings about having him take on Star Wars.




I thought I'd hate it but they did such a damned good job casting that I liked it a lot more than I thought possible.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 14, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> I have not been impressed with J.J.'s new Star Trek films. They're fine action movies, but they're not Trek.



Thank goodness for that.  That was their main saving grace.


			
				Dungeoneer said:
			
		

> I have some forebodings about having him take on Star Wars.



My forebodings are largely based around this announcement in this thread.  Gah, what a terrible idea.  If modern day Carrie Fisher puts on the bikini, I'll skip the movie entirely.


----------



## delericho (Jan 14, 2014)

goldomark said:


> And you guys are suposed to be geeks. Nitpick series and films is our reason to live.




Yeah, but it sounds really lame when someone else does it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 14, 2014)

I'm a slacker. Seems ok to me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 14, 2014)

Hobo said:


> .  Gah, what a terrible idea.  If modern day Carrie Fisher puts on the bikini, I'll skip the movie entirely.




a good nod to that would be a now married with children and maybe grandchildren Han and Leia on Corrasant Han tells her he layed out her good dress for tonight... she walks into the bedroom and then just throws the top at Han's head "I threw that away years ago..." 
 and han just smiles...


----------



## bone_naga (Jan 14, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> I have not been impressed with J.J.'s new Star Trek films. They're fine action movies, but they're not Trek. I have some forebodings about having him take on Star Wars.



I content myself with the fact that it's almost a physical impossibility for him to do worse than Lucas did with the Special Edition or Episode I. If such a thing were to occur, I believe the universe would implode and I would no longer be concerned with it.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jan 14, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Come on. You'll have one last chance to see Carry Fisher in the legendary bikini.




Current Carrie Fisher + legendary bikini is not something I want to see ...

A cameo I can live with but they'd better not pull some Star Trek time travel weirdness.  Cross those streams and the universes explode.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jan 15, 2014)

> I suppose it could work, but I'd like to see newer characters taking the stage. I think it's ridiculous how long the original characters have held the spotlight in the books, even ones that take place when Han and Leia are grandparents. Some of the book descriptions have them running and dodging and rolling just like the movies, but I personally picture it being more like Metal Gear Solid 4 where Snake keeps complaining about his back.




ITA.
By bringing back the "Big 3" in more than a cameo role, they're innately inhibiting the audience latching on to the new characters.

Example?
Take the revamp of 90210 from a few years ago.  By trying to equally distribute time between the "Old" and "New" cast, they effectively alienated any shred of good will generated. (Though granted, that show suffered from MANY other flaws, as well, but I view it as a sory of "Cautionary Parable" about the new SW.)



> Current Carrie Fisher + legendary bikini is not something I want to see ...




Seconded.
Some things, once seen, cannot be unseen....


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 16, 2014)

MarkB said:


> The silly thing is, JJ's already done this right once,



No, he didn't.

In fact, I challenge anyone to point out something JJA has done that was actually good. Go ahead. Do research. I'll wait.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 16, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> No, he didn't.
> 
> In fact, I challenge anyone to point out something JJA has done that was actually good. Go ahead. Do research. I'll wait.




Lens flare aside, I enjoyed both the Star Trek reboot movies.


----------



## The_Silversword (Jan 16, 2014)

IM not sure what we're even talking about now, but let me just say. I personally would love to see the original Star Wars actors/actresses featured in the new movie, itd be like a childhood dream, Ive wanted this since 1983 damnit!

On the subject of the latest Trek flick, meh, I didnt like it, I mean it was ok I guess, its just that JJ was so adamant about its his own take on Star Trek, his vision of it or whatever, and instead of actually doing something original, he just rips off Star Trek II:The Best One There Ever Was, except he just switches Kirk and Spock's role.


----------



## Slabtown Jake (Jan 16, 2014)

Say what you will, but I'm cautiously optimistic about Episode VII.  I'm not going to say it's going to recapture all the magic of the original trilogy, but at this point, I'd be perfectly happy if it just got the taste of the prequels out of my mouth.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 16, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> No, he didn't.
> 
> In fact, I challenge anyone to point out something JJA has done that was actually good. Go ahead. Do research. I'll wait.



The Star Wars reboot.


----------



## ShadowDenizen (Jan 16, 2014)

> In fact, I challenge anyone to point out something JJA has done that was actually good. Go ahead. Do research. I'll wait.




Putting aisde for a second the fact that opinions are ENTIRELY subjective...

I quite liked both "Felicity" and "Alias", at least in the early going. (And there must be something to it, since they lasted 4 and 5 seasons respectively.)

And he had a helping hand in both "Lost" and "Fringe", at least in the early going.

And I also quite liked the first movie in the ST reboot.

Besides, I'll take "Lens Flares" over the Prequels anyday.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 16, 2014)

MarkB said:


> Lens flare aside, I enjoyed both the Star Trek reboot movies.




+ 1


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 16, 2014)

ShadowDenizen said:


> Putting aisde for a second the fact that opinions are ENTIRELY subjective...
> 
> I quite liked both "Felicity" and "Alias", at least in the early going. (And there must be something to it, since they lasted 4 and 5 seasons respectively.)
> 
> ...




Still waiting for something good to be mentioned.
Why settle for either, when someone good could produce something, well, good?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 16, 2014)

Perfect != good.  A few niggles does not a disappointment make.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 17, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Still waiting for something good to be mentioned.



No one will be able to post anything that you consider good. Anyone knowing a couple of your older posts will be aware of that.


----------



## delericho (Jan 17, 2014)

Two things the new Star Trek movies did right:

- The casting is damn near perfect. Given that it is impossible to make new movies with the original cast, and given that the decision was taken that the new films would indeed feature Kirk et al (which I grant was itself controversial), then it's hard to see how the roles could have been cast better. In particular, the scene where Kirk first sits down as captain of the Enterprise, Chris Pine looks like he was _born_ to it; and Zachary Quinto is pretty much spot-on as Spock.

- They brought Star Trek back from the dead. After "Nemesis" and "Enterprise", it very much looked like Trek was done. Even if you hate absolutely everything else about the content of those two movies, at least now there is a chance someone can step in and produce something good. Five years ago, that looked far from certain.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 17, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> No, he didn't.
> 
> In fact, I challenge anyone to point out something JJA has done that was actually good. Go ahead. Do research. I'll wait.



He saved Star Trek from itself.  Prior to the JJ Abrams reboot, Star Trek had always been a preachy, plodding, boring, hokey, campy, hot mess.

He took the potential that had been squandered by idiots in the production chair for decades and made the first good content the franchise had ever seen.

Not saying JJ Abrams is the best thing ever, but he's pretty good.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 17, 2014)

delericho said:


> Two things the new Star Trek movies did right:
> 
> - The casting is damn near perfect. Given that it is impossible to make new movies with the original cast, and given that the decision was taken that the new films would indeed feature Kirk et al (which I grant was itself controversial), then it's hard to see how the roles could have been cast better. In particular, the scene where Kirk first sits down as captain of the Enterprise, Chris Pine looks like he was _born_ to it; and Zachary Quinto is pretty much spot-on as Spock.
> 
> - They brought Star Trek back from the dead. After "Nemesis" and "Enterprise", it very much looked like Trek was done. Even if you hate absolutely everything else about the content of those two movies, at least now there is a chance someone can step in and produce something good. Five years ago, that looked far from certain.




QFT.  I do, though, think that Bones was cast the best.  Still, the others are absolutely amazing as well.



Hobo said:


> He saved Star Trek from itself.  Prior to the JJ Abrams reboot, Star Trek had always been a preachy, plodding, boring, hokey, campy, hot mess.
> 
> He took the potential that had been squandered by idiots in the production chair for decades and made the first good content the franchise had ever seen.
> 
> Not saying JJ Abrams is the best thing ever, but he's pretty good.




Bro, DS9 kicked some serious posterior.  Er, after the first season or so anyway.  It followed a similar path to Next Gen in that the shows got better once Sisko grew a beard (NG became good only once Riker grew his).


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 17, 2014)

Heh.  That could be.  By the time DS9 was in its prime, I had pretty much abandoned the franchise.  I'd seen all the movies, and liked the even numbered ones well enough, I suppose.  The original series was too hokey and campy for me to ever take seriously, even when I was a kid and it was in heavy syndication on the three TV channels that we used to have prior to the prevalence of cable.  I gave Next Generation and Voyager a try, and while they did some things well, overall, the experience wasn't worth it.

I could always see the potential in the franchise, but I never really saw it reach that potential until the JJA movies.

But DS9, huh?  Maybe I'll check that out.  Any chance it's on Netflix...?  (Goes to check...)


----------



## billd91 (Jan 17, 2014)

Hobo said:


> But DS9, huh?  Maybe I'll check that out.  Any chance it's on Netflix...?  (Goes to check...)




All of the Trek shows are on Netflix streaming. Even the cartoon.
And I heartily endorse DS9. I found it very enjoyable.

Some elements of Trek's preachiness (as mentioned in your previous post), I actually find endearing, particularly for the original show. I think it's very fitting for the time and, looking back on it, I think its attitude and tone enhance its historical significance.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 17, 2014)

billd91 said:


> Some elements of Trek's preachiness (as mentioned in your previous post), I actually find endearing, particularly for the original show. I think it's very fitting for the time and, looking back on it, I think its attitude and tone enhance its historical significance.



Not unsuprising from a fan.  I never was one.

In general, I dislike preachiness in entertainment, even when I agree with the points that are being preachified.  It doesn't make for very entertaining entertainment, and significantly distracts from structure required to make it entertaining.  Plus, it's usually done very clumsily and ham-handedly.

When I disagree with the points that are being preachified, it's complete death.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 17, 2014)

Hobo said:


> Heh.  That could be.  By the time DS9 was in its prime, I had pretty much abandoned the franchise.  I'd seen all the movies, and liked the even numbered ones well enough, I suppose.  The original series was too hokey and campy for me to ever take seriously, even when I was a kid and it was in heavy syndication on the three TV channels that we used to have prior to the prevalence of cable.  I gave Next Generation and Voyager a try, and while they did some things well, overall, the experience wasn't worth it.
> 
> I could always see the potential in the franchise, but I never really saw it reach that potential until the JJA movies.
> 
> But DS9, huh?  Maybe I'll check that out.  Any chance it's on Netflix...?  (Goes to check...)




Next Gen and DS9 are pretty good.  Voyager and Enterprise are kinda like the second and third Matrix movies.  'But there are no second and third Matrix movies', you say?  Exactly.

I always liked the original series because of its campiness.  My mom used to have me sit with her and watch 'em so I suppose that has a lot to do with why I still like those shows, too.  

DS9 is sort of a rogue series.  On the outskirts of the quadrant you can't always play by Starfleet's rules.  And so they don't.  My favorite episode sees the Starfleet captain in charge of the region start a war between the Dominion and the Romulans so that the Federation isn't wiped out.  It's done as a Captain's Log entry that he deletes.  It's a confession but in it he admits that he doesn't really care that what he did was wrong.  Sort of the anti-Picard in that respect.  Anyhoo, it's by far my favorite and I'm a fan of every Star Trek series made - Original Series, NG and DS9.


----------



## trappedslider (Jan 17, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> DS9 is sort of a rogue series.  On the outskirts of the quadrant you can't always play by Starfleet's rules.  And so they don't.  My favorite episode sees the Starfleet captain in charge of the region start a war between the Dominion and the Romulans so that the Federation isn't wiped out.  It's done as a Captain's Log entry that he deletes.  It's a confession but in it he admits that he doesn't really care that what he did was wrong.  Sort of the anti-Picard in that respect.  Anyhoo, it's by far my favorite and I'm a fan of every Star Trek series made - Original Series, NG and DS9.




And Sisko punched Q!


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 17, 2014)

I started watching TOS again for the first time after 20 years, and was surprisingly entertained (The "complete" versions of the episodes plus the clean-up and CGI added in make them seem brand new). In fact, I enjoyed TOS more than I did any of the 90s shows. The last good Trek movie was 6, which was an OK send-off/capstone). For all it's flaws, Wrath of Kahn still holds up amazingly well.
Did JJA bring trek back? Well, yes. Did he do it well? Meh. Number One mistake: Kurtzman and Orci writing team.
As for casting, Bones was the only character that they got right. Not only that, they had a decent explanation and update for the nick-name. Everything else--wrong. From start to finish, wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. The only way it can be enjoyable is if you are able to completely turn off your brain and not think about the movie at all. The second you start to think, JJA Trek falls apart.

Next Gen: OK, but lacked any sense of exploring. There was no frontier: it was Trek the Minivan Generation
DS9: everyone kept telling me it was as good as Babylon5. After 3 seasons, I gave up. Most of it was just awful
Voyager: well, they were exploring all new territory, but no one in that quadrant can figure out how to harvest comets for water? And a ship full of explorers whining that they want to go home? Several horrible characters given way too much time.
Enterprise: The good episodes were good. The bad episodes were painful. Way too hit-or-miss with script quality. Season 3 was horrid. Changed theme song was even worse.


----------



## delericho (Jan 17, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Voyager: ... And a ship full of explorers whining that they want to go home?




Most of Voyager is awful, but this is actually quite realistic. It's one thing to go exploring when you're expecting it and when you can (at least in theory) turn around and go home at any time. The moment you get wrenched away from the expected and find you _cannot_ go home, that's another thing.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 17, 2014)

delericho said:


> Most of Voyager is awful, but this is actually quite realistic. It's one thing to go exploring when you're expecting it and when you can (at least in theory) turn around and go home at any time. The moment you get wrenched away from the expected and find you _cannot_ go home, that's another thing.




ST Voyager and SG Universe both had this in spades.

I hate that people who are on a space ship/alien planet think they are not supposed to be the ones out there. If you really think about it they are the teams best trained for these missions.

Then again Voyager also had a problem with consistant writing... day 1 follow prime directive means can't go home... so they do day 2 follow prime directive means they would get home if they follow it... so throw it out and break the rules to screw yourself...


----------



## delericho (Jan 17, 2014)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I hate that people who are on a space ship/alien planet think they are not supposed to be the ones out there. If you really think about it they are the teams best trained for these missions.




Sure, but in both series the crews were cast adrift without proper preparation and with parts of their team missing - in ST:V they'd lost their doctor and chief engineer, while in SG:U IIRC it was the other guy who was supposed to be leading the mission and they had a whole bunch of unexpected civilians with them.

I agree the whining can certainly get annoying, but I don't think it can be criticised for not being realistic.



> Then again Voyager also had a problem with consistant writing... day 1 follow prime directive means can't go home... so they do day 2 follow prime directive means they would get home if they follow it... so throw it out and break the rules to screw yourself...




Indeed. ST:V had a whole lot of potential, but they blew it in so many ways. Sad, really.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 17, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> I started watching TOS again for the first time after 20 years, and was surprisingly entertained (The "complete" versions of the episodes plus the clean-up and CGI added in make them seem brand new). In fact, I enjoyed TOS more than I did any of the 90s shows.[...]





> The second you start to think, JJA Trek falls apart.



You honestly can't expect anyone to take you seriously after that.  You realize that, right?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 17, 2014)

let me do this in reverse


> Indeed. ST:V had a whole lot of potential, but they blew it in so many ways. Sad, really



yes I was a kid and looking forward to the show, I used to look forward every week to see it... and even when I found faults I keep saying it would get better...




delericho said:


> Sure, but in both series the crews were cast adrift without proper preparation and with parts of their team missing - in ST:V they'd lost their doctor and chief engineer, while in SG:U IIRC it was the other guy who was supposed to be leading the mission and they had a whole bunch of unexpected civilians with them.
> 
> I agree the whining can certainly get annoying, but I don't think it can be criticised for not being realistic.



either way it isn't my idea of well working stories...


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 18, 2014)

Hobo said:


> You honestly can't expect anyone to take you seriously after that.  You realize that, right?



Does anyone take what anyone else says seriously? Especially when they're discussing Star Trek on a board?


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 18, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Does anyone take what anyone else says seriously? Especially when they're discussing Star Trek on a board?



Shhh!  You're not supposed to discuss the charade of how silly all this is!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jan 18, 2014)

Personally, i greet this as good news. They certainly could take it in a bad direction, but I like the idea of following the original characters since I think one of the reasons the first trilogy was so succesful was the chemistry they shared. I just hope we are dealing with older, wiser characters with pacing suited to that, rather than attempting to force too many jumps and cartwheels.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 19, 2014)

Hobo said:


> You honestly can't expect anyone to take you seriously after that.  You realize that, right?




Why?  He's right.  The new Star Trek is as horrid as the Star wars prequels.


----------



## Starman (Jan 19, 2014)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Why?  He's right.  The new Star Trek is as horrid as the Star wars prequels.




Despite some quibbles, I mostly enjoyed the first Trek film. I thought it laid the groundwork for an interesting new spin on things and as others have mentioned, the casting was phenomenal. The whole thing went badly off the rails, though, with Into Darkness. It was just...bad. As an enormous fan of TOS, I can't even begin to convey my epic disappointment.

As for the new Star Wars films, I don't want to see the original characters. They had their moment in the spotlight. It's time for new characters and new stories. If it were up to me, Episode VII would take place a couple of generations after RotJ.


----------



## Tonguez (Jan 21, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> I don't know... have you seen Carrie Fisher lately? Yikes!




Carrie Fisher? you should see Mark Hamil these days - Yikes!! -

I'd still doik Carrie Fisher now - then feel dirty afterwards


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 21, 2014)

It depends a lot on how they do this. if it's an action-packed movie, the old actors can't really be center stage. But if it's not action-packed, how well would it work as Star Wars movie?


Not everyone can age as gracefully as Mary McDonnell or Sally Field, but some of the photos people might have seen of Carrie Fisher probably make her look way worse then she would with proper makeup and lighting. We might not want to see her in a slave outfit, but in the robes of a Chancellor or Senator? 
 Man, this picture is a bit big.
[sblock]


 And I don't even want to open the can of worms of sexism inherent in question the viability of an actress because of her age or looks.
[/sblock]




GMforPowergamers said:


> ST Voyager and SG Universe both had this in spades.
> 
> I hate that people who are on a space ship/alien planet think they are not supposed to be the ones out there. If you really think about it they are the teams best trained for these missions.
> 
> Then again Voyager also had a problem with consistant writing... day 1 follow prime directive means can't go home... so they do day 2 follow prime directive means they would get home if they follow it... so throw it out and break the rules to screw yourself...



Voyager was theoretically a mix of a Maquis crew and only a part of the original Voyager crew (which was sent on a mission to hunt the Maquis crew, not perform deep space exploration). Of course, that many of them were Maquis was forgotten most of the time. Voyagers lack of consistent writing was and has always been terrible. 
But even if they were explorers - not being able to send their gained knowledge home would weaken the value of their exploration. 

Stargate Universe crew had a similar problem - lots of the people aboard where not even meant for the mission they found themselves on, and they lost people that would have been needed.


But from the too, I definitely prefer SGU. the interesting part was - they might have wanted to get home, but they knew they had no chance of going back with the ship, and they were trying to figure out that mission. Too bad it was cancelled...


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 21, 2014)

I know, man.  I never understood the hate for SG:U.  I get that it wasn't all jokes and silliness like SG:1 and Atlantis but it was supposed to be a different take on the franchise.  I liked it and I thought it had a lot of potential.  When they cancelled it I basically stopped watching Siffy programming.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 21, 2014)

I never got the interest in SG: SG1 at all. That thing was bad and cheap.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 21, 2014)

JRRNeiklot said:


> Why?  He's right.  The new Star Trek is as horrid as the Star wars prequels.



No they're not.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 21, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I know, man.  I never understood the hate for SG:U.  I get that it wasn't all jokes and silliness like SG:1 and Atlantis but it was supposed to be a different take on the franchise.  I liked it and I thought it had a lot of potential.  When they cancelled it I basically stopped watching Siffy programming.



I think it can be understood - Many fans wanted more SG:1 and Atlantis, they didn't really want a different take.
And the people that might have liked a different take - probably expected more along the lines of SG:1 and SGA and didn't try it out in the first place.

And then there is the subset of the people that simply didn't like it because it was too dark, the characters weren't sympathetic enough. That was a problem that BSG also had, but it was much more obvious this would be different (because no one makes shows like in the 80s more  ).

One aspect that I loved about SGU was that it brought back a sense of wonder to Science Fiction. Communicating with aliens (while ultimately still too easy to be "realistic"), wasn't as easy, and they really didn't know the answers or had all the tools to get them. Things remained mysterious for a long time. When they revealed the mission of the Destiny, there was yet another fascinating mystery. 

Of course, some might have wanted to see more of this exploration and wonder aspect then of the "soapy" stuff. It's not easy to get the mixture right for a sufficiently large audience, and I suppose, ultimately SGU failed. But it had appeal to you or me (and many others), and it is sad that we'll never have a resolution.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 21, 2014)

SG:U was BSG reboot angst and moping with Lost-style all sphincter characters wrapped in Star Gate clothing.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 21, 2014)

goldomark said:


> I never got the interest in SG: SG1 at all. That thing was bad and cheap.




The first couple of seasons are ... abominable.  After that, though, it gets better.  I had the same thoughts on it until I saw some episodes from later seasons.  I absolutely hate the first few.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think it can be understood - Many fans wanted more SG:1 and Atlantis, they didn't really want a different take.
> And the people that might have liked a different take - probably expected more along the lines of SG:1 and SGA and didn't try it out in the first place.
> 
> And then there is the subset of the people that simply didn't like it because it was too dark, the characters weren't sympathetic enough. That was a problem that BSG also had, but it was much more obvious this would be different (because no one makes shows like in the 80s more  ).
> ...




It's amazing (in that it's not amazing) that so many people want the same damned thing over and over again.  I thought SG:U had some real potential because it _was _different but familiar.  Meh, whatchagonnado?



sabrinathecat said:


> SG:U was BSG reboot angst and moping with Lost-style all sphincter characters wrapped in Star Gate clothing.




No, it wasn't.


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 22, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I think it can be understood - Many fans wanted more SG:1 and Atlantis, they didn't really want a different take.
> And the people that might have liked a different take - probably expected more along the lines of SG:1 and SGA and didn't try it out in the first place.
> 
> And then there is the subset of the people that simply didn't like it because it was too dark, the characters weren't sympathetic enough. That was a problem that BSG also had, but it was much more obvious this would be different (because no one makes shows like in the 80s more  ).
> ...




My problem with SGU was really none of that.

My problem...for me...it was flat out boring.  There were some episodes they could have covered everything they did in 15 minutes...rather than an hour (or 45 minutes depending on how you look at it).  It literally couldn't keep my attention, intellectually, or entertainment wise.

I did get the seasons on DVD...that way I could speed through the episodes without having to wonder if I was going to fall asleep while they did nothing for 30 minutes.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 22, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> No, it wasn't.




Maybe we didn't see the same show


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 22, 2014)

Well, imho, Stargate is bad, period. I cannot stand to watch an entire episode, no matter from which incarnation of the show.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 22, 2014)

So to recap:

Star Trek: Kitschy Classic
Star Trek: the Next Generation: Awesome
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: Refreshing
Star Trek: Voyager: /facepalm
Star Trek: Entreprise: Meh

Star Wars: Episode 4-6: Classic, cause Lucas didn't make 2 out of 3 of them
Star Wars: Episode 1-3: Kill it with fire

Battlestar Galactica (reimagined) : Decent
Battlestar Galactica: (original series): ?

Star Gate: Cheap

Farscape: Silly


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 22, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Maybe we didn't see the same show




It's certainly possible.



Jhaelen said:


> Well, imho, Stargate is bad, period. I cannot stand to watch an entire episode, no matter from which incarnation of the show.




Here's where things get fun: Much like ST:tNG and ST: DS9 Stargate:SG1 and Stargate:Atlantis take a while to get up to speed.  The first couple seasons of both are really pretty terrible.  Basically, if you saw early shows only I can totally understand your opinion ... and why you wouldn't bother watching long enough to get to the good stuff.  I _hated _early SG1 and Atlantis.  My friends kept trying to get me to watch the show and I absolutely refused.  One day, though, there was nothing on so I gave SG:1 another shot.  It was a later season and I was very surprised at the difference in overall quality.  Since then I've been a fan.  But yeah, the early stuff is really pretty bad.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 22, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Battlestar Galactica: (original series): ?




Kitschy classic, but not the same kind of kitschy as Star Trek.  Aimed at a younger crowd; less preachy but somewhat sillier.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 22, 2014)

Deset Gled said:


> Kitschy classic, but not the same kind of kitschy as Star Trek.  Aimed at a younger crowd; less preachy but somewhat sillier.




first 3 episodes/movie was/were great, in a 1970s nostalgia view. Not quite what you'd call classic (quality isn't fully there), but close. Unfortunately, this was a triumph of marketing (again). There was no plan, and no substance. Actors were getting scripts for scenes in the afternoon that had been filmed in the morning. Then you had silly stuff like the Western gunslinger cylon and the dirty dozen kids vs cylons. Then the studio said "no more cylons--they're too expensive to film. And wait, if the fleet represents the last of the human race outside of Earth, how come they keep running into humans every couple months?

And the less said about Galactica 1980 then better.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 23, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> And the less said about Galactica 1980 then better.



There was a Galactica 1980?


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 23, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There was a Galactica 1980?



Yup. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactica_1980


----------



## billd91 (Jan 23, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There was a Galactica 1980?




Clearly you must have suppressed that memory. If only we all could be so fortunate...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 24, 2014)

billd91 said:


> Clearly you must have suppressed that memory. If only we all could be so fortunate...



What were we talking about again? I seem to have forgotten already, and when I scroll up, I see nothing.
Invisible Flying Motorbikes, superpowered kids, what's there to remember anyway?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jan 25, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What were we talking about again? I seem to have forgotten already, and when I scroll up, I see nothing.
> Invisible Flying Motorbikes, superpowered kids, what's there to remember anyway?




Time Traveling rouge agents traveling to Nazi Germany...


----------



## billd91 (Jan 25, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Time Traveling rouge agents traveling to Nazi Germany...




Hey, even Nazi wives needed makeup.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 26, 2014)

I like the idea of a send off for the older characters. Now that I am in my mid 50s I get tired of every movie and every show being dominated by twenty somethings. A perfect movie would be the older actors in positions of authority with the younger cast being the action heroes. 

As for JJ Trek they are not Trek plain and simple they are generic scifi action popcorn flicks. Hobo's opinion aside the majority of Trek fans like the preachy message of Trek. I grew up om scifi that had a message. Looking back on the SF from the 60s and 70s many writers were using it to address the issues facing society of that day. They were morality plays and that was how Roddenberry envisioned Trek. Yes it was supposed to be exciting and full of adventure but it was supposed to have a message of hope that no we were not going to blow ourselves up. That there would be race and sexual equality all three of those were big topic issues back in the 60s. 

Personally DS9 is my favorite Trek I think it has the best writing and the most character development. Voyager had so much potential but the writers could not find a voice for the show they kept chickening out with stories. For example thew Maquis and the Starfleet crew were not supposed to get along as soon as they did.  Enterprise had issues but fourth season was really good under Manny Coto it was a shame they never gave it a chance.

 JJ version missed so much. With the exception of Karl Urban and John Cho most of the characters were caricatures of the original characters. Simon Pegg was way over the top they did tone him down in the second movie. Chekov did not look like a 17 year old and the whole gag with his security code having two Vs in it was ham handed. Not to mention the horrible plot of instead of warning my planet we are going to hang around 25 years and destroy the federation and punish Spock because somehow it was the Federation's fault that a supernova a natural phenomena destroyed their home planet.  I can go and on and on but I won't.

Not every SF story needs to be a morality tale but Trek should have it. 

The BSG reboot was some excellent drama wrapped in a scifi coating. As a long time fan I did understand why so many old time fans were upset. We wanted a continuation not a reboot. The original show viewed now is cheesy it is very much a product of its time. But when it came on it blew me away it had theatrical special effects. It had some lame episodes but at the time they didn't seem that lame. Originally it was supposed to be a series of movies. But the ratings were so good the network made the decision to go to a series format which was a mistake.  It was to expensive to do the special effects hence the reuse of effects from the pilot. 

I like SG1 and Atlantis. I wanted to like SGU but for the most part I found it boring. I do know that they alienated a lot of Atlantis fan who felt that the show was pushed aside for SGU.


I like a lot of JJ shows I liked Fringe, Lost, Alias. When I saw his version of Trek I nicknamed them Trek Wars because I felt like I was watching a Trek movie that was made as a Star Wars film. I said at the time that he would make a good Star Wars film.  I hope that it turns out that I was right.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 26, 2014)

Elf Witch said:


> I like the idea of a send off for the older characters. Now that I am in my mid 50s I get tired of every movie and every show being dominated by twenty somethings. A perfect movie would be the older actors in positions of authority with the younger cast being the action heroes.
> 
> As for JJ Trek they are not Trek plain and simple they are generic scifi action popcorn flicks. Hobo's opinion aside the majority of Trek fans like the preachy message of Trek. I grew up om scifi that had a message. Looking back on the SF from the 60s and 70s many writers were using it to address the issues facing society of that day. They were morality plays and that was how Roddenberry envisioned Trek. Yes it was supposed to be exciting and full of adventure but it was supposed to have a message of hope that no we were not going to blow ourselves up. That there would be race and sexual equality all three of those were big topic issues back in the 60s.



Abrahms and Trek Spoilers ahead: 
I am not so sure about the first movie, but the second had a message - Kirk was basically willing to give up Starfleet principles for a moment, and then did not, instead of assassinating someone without a trial, he brought him back the Federation and trying to figure out what was really going on. Th
We've seen Kirk doing something similar before, too, in the original timeline - Startrek VI. He hated the Klingons for killing his son, and wanted them to die - but he did in the end fight for the peace treaty and stop the conspiracy to halt the peace treaty. 
And in both cases we had members of Starfleet that have sworn to protect the ideals of the Federation betraying them, believing that was the only way to protect it.

So there are two "moral lessons" here, that both seem relevant in our time:
-We cannot allow ourselves to be blinded by a thirst for revenge and let us forget our principles.
-We must be careful that we do not to sacrifice the ideals our society is build on in our attempts to protect that very society.

Interestingly, the second lesson particularly is also something touched in DS9, my favorite show of all Trek series, and the favorite episode of many DS9 fans - "In Pale Moonlight", in which the conclusion is different. Sisko was able to accept having lied and aided murdering someone against any Starfleet ideals, if it meant saving the Alpha Quadrant and the Federation. (But make no mistake, DS9 also made the opposite point, particularly in regards to Section 31).


----------



## Elf Witch (Jan 26, 2014)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Abrahms and Trek Spoilers ahead:
> I am not so sure about the first movie, but the second had a message - Kirk was basically willing to give up Starfleet principles for a moment, and then did not, instead of assassinating someone without a trial, he brought him back the Federation and trying to figure out what was really going on. Th
> We've seen Kirk doing something similar before, too, in the original timeline - Startrek VI. He hated the Klingons for killing his son, and wanted them to die - but he did in the end fight for the peace treaty and stop the conspiracy to halt the peace treaty.
> And in both cases we had members of Starfleet that have sworn to protect the ideals of the Federation betraying them, believing that was the only way to protect it.
> ...




The second Trek movie had the whole Kirk grows as a person lesson. And the message does resonate today with what is going on with drone strikes. Which is all I am going to say about that because of the no political talk rule. They also reigned in Simon Pegg performance of Scotty which made him much more believable. Though I still don't know why he needs his Star Wars side kick. 

I am a huge Benedict Cumberbatch fan and he was terrific as a bad guy but he was not Khan he lacked the fire and passion of Khan. 

Plus the sheer stupidity of Starfleet officers they clearly show the one character giving his daughter the cure then he goes into his office and instead of warning anyone he blows up the building. Bad writing.  If he was under any other threat they should have showed it. Also the entire lets park the ship underwater, why they have shuttles they could have easily accomplished the mission from space and still have had Kirk tale the ship in to rescue Spock. Yes I know it was to cause conflict between Spock and Kirk and for Kirk to lose command of the ship but it was heavy handed. 

One of my biggest complaints is just how heavy handed so much of the writing is in both movies.


----------



## The_Silversword (Jan 26, 2014)

The problem I had with the new Trek is they just changed up too much stuff, I mean I realize its a reboot and stuff is going to change, but comeon, killing off Spock's mom? Destroying Vulcan? Was any of that really necessary? I think I would have liked it more if they made it more like a prequel instead of working so hard to make sure you understood that this isnt the same Trek, I mean yeah, we get that. Another thing I hate about reboots in general is that theyre basically saying, hey remember all those great episodes/movies/comics/whatever that you loved as a kid? Well forget it cause now none of that ever happened. Ive had some people argue with me about the new Trek about how the original Timeline exists, that the new movies are just an alternate timeline or whatever, but anyone whos watched Trek should know, thats not how time travel works in the Trek Multiverse. When Mcoy went back and saved whats her name from dying did it just create an alternate timeline? No, it changed the actual time line that they was in so they had to go back and make sure she died. So, someone needs to go back in time and stop Spock from going back in time, cause its messed the whole timeline up. And Spocks the one who was always going on about how they cant do anything that might change the natural course of history, but now hes all cool about it? Like screw it, if the timeline is all screwed up anyways I may as well go all out and hang out with my younger self and give him key details to help him out in any sort of crisis that they may find themselves in, Oh crap its a giant space amoeba, better call old spock to see how we handle this one cause we're incapable  of thinking for ourselves.

And another thing, Spock had the means and know how to travel back to the future and make sure everything was ok, so why didnt he? Any other time hed be like ok we need to go back and fix this, but for whatever reason in the new movie hes like my moms dead, vulcan is destroyed, guess Ill just hang out here with my younger self and its all good. What the hell Spock? So now when younger Spock and the rest of the crew find that time portal and Mccoy goes back in time and saves whats her name from dying and totally changes everything, young spock will just be like ah well Timelines change all the time, nothing we can do about it.


----------



## MarkB (Jan 28, 2014)

The_Silversword said:


> And another thing, Spock had the means and know how to travel back to the future and make sure everything was ok, so why didnt he? Any other time hed be like ok we need to go back and fix this, but for whatever reason in the new movie hes like my moms dead, vulcan is destroyed, guess Ill just hang out here with my younger self and its all good. What the hell Spock? So now when younger Spock and the rest of the crew find that time portal and Mccoy goes back in time and saves whats her name from dying and totally changes everything, young spock will just be like ah well Timelines change all the time, nothing we can do about it.




The timeline change in the movie is a little trickier to unwind than the average such event. Spock can't simply go to the future and re-do things because that future doesn't exist in the present timeline. He'd need to find some way of preventing Nero's ship from being flung back into the past in the first place, and that's not easy to accomplish given that it was flung from an alternate, inaccessible timeline.


----------



## The_Silversword (Jan 28, 2014)

I dunno, this is Spock were talking about here, he woulda found a way, for instance he coulda slingshoted around a star or something, entered time warp, come out at a point just before the Romulan star went supernova and stopped it from happening like he attempted to do in the first place, that way Nero woulda never even went on his quest for revenge in the first place. At the very least he coulda gone to the future and gotten a cooler ship. But for Spock to basically give up and just to decide to hang out with his younger self just seemed out of character to me, and highly illogical.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 28, 2014)

The_Silversword said:


> I dunno, this is Spock were talking about here, he woulda found a way, for instance he coulda slingshoted around a star or something, entered time warp, come out at a point just before the Romulan star went supernova and stopped it from happening like he attempted to do in the first place, that way Nero woulda never even went on his quest for revenge in the first place. At the very least he coulda gone to the future and gotten a cooler ship. But for Spock to basically give up and just to decide to hang out with his younger self just seemed out of character to me, and highly illogical.




Whoa, bro.  His ship was plenty cool.


----------



## The_Silversword (Jan 28, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Whoa, bro.  His ship was plenty cool.




What!? Have you been huffing 'red matter' or something?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 29, 2014)

The_Silversword said:


> What!? Have you been huffing 'red matter' or something?




dood, it was super fast, super jukey, had cool moving parts and pew-pew lasers!


----------



## The_Silversword (Jan 29, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> dood, it was super fast, super jukey, had cool moving parts and pew-pew lasers!




Well I cant argue with that, but I dunno, it seemed kinda small, if I was going to load up on red matter to stop some star from going supernova, Id want a bigger ship, yaknow?


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 29, 2014)

I thought size didn't matter.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Jan 29, 2014)

The_Silversword said:


> Well I cant argue with that, but I dunno, it seemed kinda small, if I was going to load up on red matter to stop some star from going supernova, Id want a bigger ship, yaknow?




Why would you want a bigger ship?  Star goes nova, turns into a black hole and starts suckin'.  You wanna give it more mass to suck?  Not a good idea, braj.  Spock is a lot smarter than you.



goldomark said:


> I thought size didn't matter.




Did your mom tell you that?  Cuz it's what she told me.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 30, 2014)

My sister told me that.


----------



## The_Silversword (Jan 30, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Why would you want a bigger ship?  Star goes nova, turns into a black hole and starts suckin'.  You wanna give it more mass to suck?  Not a good idea, braj.  Spock is a lot smarter than you.




Yes, Spock is super smart, thats part of my problem with him just going, oh well. 

And I dont think the plan was to turn the star into a back hole, I think he was just going to add enough red matter or whatever to stop the star from xploding, but not actually turn it into a black hole, I mean how would turning it into a black hole helped? Then it woulda just sucked in Romulus and Remus, which wouldnt have solved anything. I dunno though, I guess there are some advantages to having a smaller ship, I just thought it looked goofy, but then I always though Vulcan ships looked goofy, you know who had some cool ships? The Klingons! They could make a ship that fired while cloaked, thats impressive!


----------



## The_Silversword (Jan 30, 2014)

goldomark said:


> I thought size didn't matter.




I think we all know thats a lie.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jan 30, 2014)

The_Silversword said:


> I think we all know thats a lie.



Like fries.


----------



## delericho (Jan 30, 2014)

MarkB said:


> The timeline change in the movie is a little trickier to unwind than the average such event. Spock can't simply go to the future and re-do things because that future doesn't exist in the present timeline. He'd need to find some way of preventing Nero's ship from being flung back into the past in the first place, and that's not easy to accomplish given that it was flung from an alternate, inaccessible timeline.




Yep. What he'd actually need to do is travel _back_ to just before Nero's ship arrived, make sure the Kelvin wasn't there to be destroyed, and then deal with the ship himself.

Everything else should be fine from there, though - the Trek timeline seems to be quite resilient to 'casual' tampering (see "City at the Edge of Forever", "Star Trek IV", etc), so no need to worry about a perfect clean-up - just make sure the tech and personnel don't get out.

Of course, the real reason for the alternate timeline, and the reason old Spock is cool with it, is that Paramount needed to square the circle - reboot the universe without totally wiping everything (and invoking even more nerdrage than they did). Not sure how old Spock could resolve that one any better, really.


----------

