![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#61 (permalink) | ||||
|
Tangible
Join Date: Jan 2003
Age: 26
Posts: 12,121
Rep Power: 9792396
|
Re: Star Trek: The New Movie
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not a Star Trek fan and I hate the time travel paradox but I was still entertained by this movie. You just have to accept that things like fate and destiny exist in this alternative universe. Because this universe that star trek exists in is not our universe. It's another universe that we're getting a window into. Quote:
__________________
![]() Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement | |||
|
|
#62 (permalink) | |||
|
Player
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 30
Posts: 689
Rep Power: 1125362
|
Re: Star Trek: The New Movie
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Yes, yes it would be.
__________________
![]() ![]() GO GATORS & FIGHT ON! |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#63 (permalink) | ||||
|
Tangible
Join Date: Jan 2003
Age: 26
Posts: 12,121
Rep Power: 9792396
|
Re: Star Trek: The New Movie
Quote:
They couldn't even effectively transport Sooloo or Kirk to save them minutes earlier so why is it hard to believe that they couldn't beam Spock's mother? Quote:
Quote:
__________________
![]() Quote:
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#64 (permalink) | |||||
|
Tangible
Join Date: Jan 2003
Age: 26
Posts: 12,121
Rep Power: 9792396
|
Re: Star Trek: The New Movie
Quote:
I hate time travel because of the time travel paradox but all this time travel and meeting in the cave can be explained by fate. Fate is the reason why Kirk became the man he should have become if Nero didn't go back in time. Fate led Kirk to Spock so that Spock could tell him the secrets that enable him to beat Nero. Yeah, it's not the strongest and most secular explanation but just accept it. Or don't, but it's not something that should piss you off. Especially with Terminator coming out next week and John Connor's whole existence being explained by fate and the story convoluted by the time travel paradox. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
![]() Quote:
Last edited by Adam; 05-14-2009 at 03:57 PM. |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
#65 (permalink) |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 73
Rep Power: 137038
|
Re: Star Trek: The New Movie
I've heard this from a couple of people, and I don't buy this excuse for a second. What, everything the "regular" Kirk did aboard the Enterprise was explored already in the original series? There's nothing more to talk about? Come on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#67 (permalink) |
|
VAUDEVILLE VILLAIN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: FL
Age: 23
Posts: 8,828
Rep Power: 12915621
|
Re: Star Trek: The New Movie
93 heat has been puttin in some work in here i see. lol for a second there reading through this thread i thought i was gonna have to sit here and explain all these obvious things that people paying attention during the movie would know..
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#68 (permalink) | ||
|
All-Star
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern Virginia
Age: 25
Posts: 9,975
Rep Power: 12205806
|
Re: Star Trek: The New Movie
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
On Social Justice and General Welfare |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#71 (permalink) |
|
Elite Member
![]() Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: LA
Posts: 15,161
Rep Power: 7311927
|
Re: Star Trek: The New Movie
I don't get why people are questioning little things like Kirk being dropped off on the same planet as old Spock (which could easily be explained by old Spock being from the future) when the show is literally making up spacetime physics on the fly. It's like the people that question Lost for being too "far out there" from Season 3 onward while ignoring the implausibility of Season 1 and 2 where 40+ people survived a massive plan wreck on two different parts of an island and fought black smoke. At a certain point you have to buy into it or you're just not going to like scripted fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#72 (permalink) |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 73
Rep Power: 137038
|
Re: Star Trek: The New Movie
If it was just an artistic choice to use an alternate timeline, OK fine, although I think it was a lousy one. But it wasn't necessary to do it that way in order to have things to talk about in sequels. They could have done it straight and still had plenty of plot material leftover, so adding an alternate timeline doesn't really get you anything there. That's all I was saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#73 (permalink) | |
|
Rookie
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 73
Rep Power: 137038
|
Re: Star Trek: The New Movie
Quote:
Because it would have been lame, that's why. The fact that we walk into a science fiction movie prepared to make a very specific set of concessions (spaceships exist, matter transport is possible, faster-than-light travel is possible, etc) doesn't mean we're prepared to concede anything. Last edited by Abernathy; 05-15-2009 at 08:42 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#74 (permalink) |
|
VAUDEVILLE VILLAIN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: FL
Age: 23
Posts: 8,828
Rep Power: 12915621
|
Re: Star Trek: The New Movie
i thought it made sense that he ended up on the same planet because it was closest to spocks planet. made sense for Nero to put him there for easy viewing of planet destruction. then later after the Enterprise is leaving Vulcan after it imploded Spock would most likely exile Kirk to the closest planet around. it actually makes perfect sense..
__________________
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 (permalink) | |||
|
Star
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 27
Posts: 3,464
Rep Power: 2283102
|
Re: Star Trek: The New Movie
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The point is to be able to free the series from the past story lines. This way they can work within the same story universe, without having to worry about conflicting too much with the established history. I don't think cramming more story in between the other stories from the series would have worked as well. |
|||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|