Star Trek - where next?

[TheCracker]

The Abrams films in effect created an alternative time line. There's no need to follow or precede any of the previous series. They can just write over the top of what's gone before, taking elements of those series where they see fit. Just as they did with the films. It worked fine with the re-booted Battlestar Galactica.

 

[Robin]

The Abrams films in effect created an alternative time line. There's no need to follow or precede any of the previous series. They can just write over the top of what's gone before, taking elements of those series where they see fit. Just as they did with the films. It worked fine with the re-booted Battlestar Galactica.

Yes but if they go with the Alternate Timeline they will effectively alienate the majority of the Star Trek fans. Cannon is extremely important which is why they cleverly had to divide the new films from the rest of the franchise to make sure that everything that had gone before hadn't effectively been thrown in the bin.

The whole other timeline thing was purely to appease the fans, if they didn't care they could have just made it a full on reboot.... but it wasn't, it was another universe in the same cannon. There is no reason why that can't take elements of the films and put it in the Prime Timeline. For all we know the two timelines could converge again further down the line of history.

 

[Famine]

Oh hell no.

The films were dreadful - XI moreso than Into Darkness with its stupid Red Matter and black holes that will destroy you or suck you back in time depending on what the script calls for, and a snowy planet several minutes at warp away from Vulcan but close enough for Spock to see Vulcan being consumed by a black hole but not so close as to feel the gravitational effects and why did Spock have THAT much Red Matter anyway when he only needed a drop of it to deal with a supernova?

It wasn't just crap Trek but crap films.

 

[ECGadget]

Oh hell no.

The films were dreadful - XI moreso than Into Darkness with its stupid Red Matter and black holes that will destroy you or suck you back in time depending on what the script calls for, and a snowy planet several minutes at warp away from Vulcan but close enough for Spock to see Vulcan being consumed by a black hole but not so close as to feel the gravitational effects and why did Spock have THAT much Red Matter anyway when he only needed a drop of it to deal with a supernova?

It wasn't just crap Trek but crap films.

Judging by that it shows how little they interested me, because I thought they were okay films... I would watch them again to try and see them as just films and then judge... but I don't want to put myself through that.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Eh, I watch movies for entertainment and entertainment alone and they were entertaining to me so I enjoyed them. I'm not one of those "pick every second of the movie apart" kind of people. If I did that I wouldn't watch movies at all because I wouldn't enjoy any of them.

 

[Robin]

I feel that even if someone watched the movies paying attention to the Star Trek cannon they would also like them, I did! They even mentioned Captain Archer to tie it in to the timeline which still stood before the events of the first film which was a nice touch.

And remember the first one won an Oscar and both have grossed way more than the previous 10!

 

[JKgo]

...When talking about Abram's Trek films, people in my circle of life oft refer to them as "having a sense of fun".

Which I totally agree, for the first movie. Second film, not so much.

And about the complicated science stuff? Hell if I know whether they are correct or not. If I wanted a science lesson I shouldn't be watching a big budget Hollywood blockbuster in the first place anyway.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It wasn't just crap Trek but crap films.

You've been J.J-ed. Stick your name on whatever you think might be popular, pander to the lowest common denominator, then claim credit for what works (and discreetly forget whatever doesn't) and soak in the platitudes as Hollywood's most in-touch geek.

 

[Famine]

And remember the first one won an Oscar

For makeup.

and both have grossed way more than the previous 10!

As has Sex And The City...

And about the complicated science stuff? Hell if I know whether they are correct or not.

It's not about correctness - I'm not entirely sure how one gets a black hole correct anyway (though Stargate apparently did once) - but about internal consistency.

Spock's original timeline plan to save Romulus from its sun going nova is to get a really fast ship to fly to the sun, so they "outfit one of our fastest ships". That's swell, but ships travelling at Warp 1 can get from our planet to our Sun in about 8 minutes - which is less "complicated science stuff" and more "stuff literally even dogs know by now" - so outfitting a superfast ship seems a waste of time for an 8 minute journey.

In any case, Archer's Enterprise could move at Warp 5 (200c) and do the same trip in 2.4 seconds. Voyager - actually one of the fastest ships in the original timeline, but still decade-old tech by the time Spock's mission happened - can shovel at warp 9.975 (3000c) and achieve it in 0.16 seconds. It could also manage brief periods in transwarp, but I think by now we've established that absolute speed isn't required as any old heap could make the trip faster than taking the spanners to "one of our fastest ships".*

When he gets there, he plans to inject a tiny amount of "Red Matter" into the star to create a black hole (because Red Matter does that... apparently). If such a tiny amount is needed why does he have a four foot wide ball of the stuff?

It's fair to say that the question of how suddenly plonking the most destructive force in the universe where a star once was is an improvement is "complicated science stuff".

It's also fair to say that examining the science of being close enough to a black hole to observe it swallowing a planet but not being affected by it is "complicated science stuff".

However we can refer back to speed again. Spock is close enough to Vulcan to see it swallowed by a black hole. Vulcan is about Earth-sized and in the destruction sequence it appears to be about the same size as Earth does from the Moon - so Spock is either on a moon of Vulcan or another planet in the Vulcan system about a quarter of a million miles away from Vulcan. If the Enterprise were merely dawdling away from a black hole at Warp 1, it would have passed this body in 1.2 seconds - barely enough time for Kirk to get back on board and have enough of a fight with Spock to get put off the ship.

Not that Spock would deliberately put someone 250,000 miles away from a black hole, because that would be awful and certainly fatal, very quickly:



But that's "complicated science stuff" again.

The question also remains why there's a Federation outpost manned by a human on the planet next to Vulcan.

Lastly, back to black holes. The first black hole Spock makes destroys a supernova. And then it sends the Narada (Nero) and the Jellyfish (Spock) back in time. Why does it not send the supernova back in time?

The first black hole Nero makes destroys Vulcan. Why does it not send Vulcan back in time?

The third black hole uses ALL the Red Matter at once and yet is still only the diameter of the Narada - which begs the question of how much Red Matter is needed to make how big a black hole given that a little bit can destroy a colossal exploding star but a four foot wide ball of it will only destroy a ship. It then destroys the Narada - with curiously very little relativistic time dilation or gravitational shear forces (see the video above), but doesn't send it back in time again. It then almost destroys the Enterprise, through gravitational shear forces - but then they're trying to get away from it rather than let it destroy them or send them back in time, or whatever it's doing this time.

The third black hole also poses a bit of a problem. It would be an appreciable proportion of the mass of the Sun (around 10-25% I think) and is introduced within our solar system - the Enterprise ambushes the Narada around Saturn and the Narada makes it to Earth to start drilling before the drill platform is damaged. That's not going to have a good effect on the solar system - but again, "complicated science stuff".


One of Trek's strengths was its internal consistency on matters scientific. The reboot is not Trek - it's just another sci-fi babblefest with Trek character's names.

* Though it's not established in the film, several "tie-in" works suggest that it's not the Romulan sun that goes nova, rather a star nearby called "Hobus". For the supernova blast wave to destroy Romulus as depicted, it would have to be sodding close - we'd die but we wouldn't be blown apart if Alpha Centauri went supernova (which it can't) and that's only 4 light years away, or 11 hours for Voyager - so again, outfitting a fast ship is unnecessary. This is complicated science stuff though.

 

[JKgo]

@Famine Holy cow, honestly didn't see you as a Trekkie!!! That's a shock.

Most of what you just described in above post, are all in service of the plot rather than for the sake of consistent science.

If the writers adhered to the consistent scientific explanations then there's a real possibility of them ending up with a five hours long film no one's likely to see. That'd bad for the studio and the investors.

Hollywood popcorn science is easy to digest, and because it's not bound by such pesky things like logic, a line or two of exposition is all that's needed. Or a shiny CGI scene, if the budget allows it. Proof? Bay's Transformers films... bad movies, bad sciency stuff, makes a killing at the box office. The end.

Again I say,

If I wanted a science lesson I shouldn't be watching a big budget Hollywood blockbuster in the first place anyway.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Lens flare and wobbly long shots > science when it comes to milking the box office teet.

 

[Famine]

If the writers adhered to the consistent scientific explanations then there's a real possibility of them ending up with a five hours long film no one's likely to see.

Or ten Star Trek films.

Again, it's not that the science needs to be sciencey. Or explained. It just needs to be consistent and that's what made Star Trek Star Trek. Without that consistency, it's just sci-fi. Sci-fi is fine too, of course.

All three of the Star series had the internal consistency. Stargate - even though three things were changed from the film to the TV series - was amazingly consistent, across 17 seasons of TV shows. Star Wars too, and fans of that baulked at the retconning of The Force as something tangible, created by micro-organisms - so at least Jar-Jar Abrams comes to the film series having already had its consistency broken.

Most of what you just described in above post, are all in service of the plot

And to misquote Yoda, that is why it fails to be Star Trek.

The central plot device of Spock getting a fast ship to make a black hole with a blob of "red matter" to prevent a supernova destroying a planet doesn't work on any level when you consider the scales for even a moment. A star could not be close enough to a planet to destroy it in that manner unless it was so close that any ship from in the Star Trek universe - like the one Spock went to Romulus with in the first place - could make it there in less than 12 hours.

Sci-fi? Sure. Not Trek.

 

[JKgo]

Sci-fi? Sure. Not Trek.

"I was trying to make a movie, not trying to make a Trek movie." - JJ Abrams.

This here's an interview Abrams did waaaay back in '09.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/may/07/jj-abrams-interview-star-trek

...It seems he wanted to make an accessible sci-fi flim that had the Star Trek name on the cover, but not on the heart.

And judging by the talk coming from Paramount camp, of "new" Trek 3quel, it's going further away from the trad Trekkie things...

 

[Famine]

"I was trying to make a movie, not trying to make a Trek movie." - JJ Abrams.

And he made crap ones of both:

It wasn't just crap Trek but crap films.

Effectively what he made was a made-for-TV film like Supernova or Category 6 only with Star Trek characters in it. They don't stand up to internal scrutiny either.

 

[ECGadget]

And that interview is exactly why I dislike JJ. If he wants to make a film, he can shove off and make his own franchise, and not ruin it for those of us who dare I say it actually care about Star Trek. Star Trek dealt with real problems, real issues and showed people a future that was better in so many ways. It was that Trek that inspired scientists, engineers, astronauts etc. JJTrek does nothing of the sort. It is just an action film that stamps all over Star Trek with its money filled muddy boots. Yes, it is Sci Fi. But anyone can write SciFi. He needed a name to make his film stand out, that is what it boils down to.

And it may seem stupid, but in the Sci Fi world, there are very few if any names that surpass Star Trek, Star Wars and Stargate. So you'll have to excuse those of us who grew up with these names for being stubborn gits.

I watched a comicon or something once, and a soldier came up from the crowd talking about how Star Trek had helped him recover after his experience because of the way it was written and the issues it covered. It was totally believable. I don't see JJTrek doing anything of the sort. I actually wish Star Trek was still given the banner of being a "nerd show" or whatever, just to keep JJ away from it.

 

[Sir Tuddle]

...I'm with @R1600Turbo on this one. Never cared for Star Trek, not even one iota . But the first Abrams Trek film was quite good, so much so I ended up owning a copy.

"I was trying to make a movie, not trying to make a Trek movie." - JJ Abrams.

...It seems he wanted to make an accessible sci-fi film that had the Star Trek name on the cover, but not on the heart.

So you're saying you like the new Star Trek movies because they aren't Star Trek? Abrams admitted himself that he was never really into the series, so why did he feel the need to call it Star Trek if he wasn't actually making a Star Trek movie?

That's like handing the Fast and Furious series over to the guys who did Twilight, it makes no sense.

 

[JKgo]

So you're saying you like the new Star Trek movies because they aren't Star Trek?

...You just hit the nail in the head there, bud.

That's like handing the Fast and Furious series over to the guys who did Twilight, it makes no sense.

Well apparently it did to Paramount execs. Hence Abrams ending up making the two soft reboot films.

Effectively what he made was a made-for-TV film like Supernova or Category 6 only with Star Trek characters in it.

...Don't forget the budget.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796366/?ref_=rvi_tt

They don't stand up to internal scrutiny either.

It's a Hollywood blockbuster. Logic doesn't apply.

 

[Famine]

It's a Hollywood blockbuster. Logic doesn't apply.

That's a complete cop-out - plenty of the top-rated and top-grossing films are at least internally consistent, and many manage to be externally consistent too.

 

[JKgo]

That's a complete cop-out - plenty of the top-rated and top-grossing films are at least internally consistent, and many manage to be externally consistent too.

...How's that a copout, when the films you're (probably) thinking of are the so-called "exceptions to the rule"?

Which films are you talking about, anyway?

 

[Famine]

...How's that a copout, when the films you're (probably) thinking of are the so-called "exceptions to the rule"?

Which films are you talking about, anyway?

Top-rated - I had to get down into the 40s before a single film that wasn't both internally and externally consistent. And that was a comedy.

Top-grossing - Avatar at #1 doesn't stand up to much scrutiny from the outside, but I don't think it actively contradicts itself. Phantom Menace - at #6 - of course does, or at least does to the Star Wars universe. You're into the 20s before you get Bayfests and the 30s before you reach F&F.


Seem to be very many exceptions to whatever that rule is - though I'll grant you that it's a bit odd that Buzz Lightyear doesn't seem to think he's a toy, yet freezes around humans...

 

[JKgo]

I had to get down into the 40s before a single film that wasn't both internally and externally consistent. And that was a comedy.

...Surely, you can't be serious about this - I was asking for your personal picks and I'm getting a pair of lists.


If we're to nitpick "inconsistencies" even the best of the best take certain leap in logic in order to serve the narrative.

And the second list of "top grossing" films pretty much validates my point doesn't it? I see a list full of films that take tonnes of liberty to continuity, laws of physics, morals/value system, even Irish accents in there.

Only ones in the top 25 I can't speak for are the pair of Hunger Games films since I haven't seen them. Further down the list I see such pearls as Indy 4 and Transformers. Tis' a great list, no doubt.

 

[Robin]

@Famine I don’t understand why you detest the new Star Trek films so much. I can understand if your main annoyance was with the fact it wasn’t set in the main timeline and I can see that you are very much a fan but if you’re annoyed with it being scientifically inaccurate I can’t quite see your reasoning as that’s Hollywood for you. Would making it accurate make them that much better, or rather more financially successful?

As @JKgo touched upon look at the highest grossing Sci-Fi films of all time, they are mostly filled with nonsense which defies the laws of physics and common sense but they were well received by both critics and fans because people like a bit of fantasy. Lets be honest here, it was hardly the case that old Star Trek was so perfectly grounded in reality either. I give it to them that they even bothered to consult with Nasa for the film.

I’m a fan of old Trek just as much as the next person but I don’t totally wright off the new films as trash because without them the franchise would probably be dead for good. They were enjoyable and yes there was some silliness but it was decent effort and was set in another universe to keep everyone happy. I don’t see what more they could have done to appease people other than making a very traditional Star Trek film which likely would have flopped hard in this day and age.

As for Abrams, if he is so unbelievably incompetent with the genre why did Disney entrust him with the biggest Sci-fi franchise of all time? Seriously asking, who do you think would do a better job with Star Trek? Maybe Nolan? He likes his stuff more scientifically accurate.

For makeup.

An Oscar is an Oscar...and the first sex in the city movie was good

 

[Famine]

I don’t understand why you detest the new Star Trek films so much.

As I detailed at length, it is because they are no longer Star Trek films, rather scifi action films with the Trek characters in them.

I can understand if your main annoyance was with the fact it wasn’t set in the main timeline

Why? Star Trek has a long history of Mirror Universe episodes - by definition alternate timelines.

if you’re annoyed with it being scientifically inaccurate I can’t quite see your reasoning

As I also detailed at length, that's not the problem. The problem is that they are internally inconsistent.

Everything used to advance the plot - rates of speed, distances, the McGuffin, black holes - behaves differently throughout the film in accordance to what the plot needs to advance.

as that’s Hollywood for you.

As detailed in my previous post, that's a cop-out and just not true.

Sure, it might be the case for summer blockbusters, heavy on explosions, car chases or robots, but that's not all that "Hollywood" is.

Nor is it what Star Trek is.

Surely, you can't be serious about this - I was asking for your personal picks

Where?

You told me that logic doesn't apply to Hollywood films. You told me it was a rule and that any film I was thinking of would be an exception to it.

I said that plenty of top-rated and top-grossing films don't fit your rule and have now provided you with a list of both - and even mentioned some of the films on the lists that meet your rule. They are, notably, the exceptions in each case.

 

[JKgo]

Where?

...How's that a copout, when the films you're (probably) thinking of are the so-called "exceptions to the rule"?

Which films are you talking about, anyway?

...You say plenty of top rated films and top grossing films don't fit "my rule", I'd say the lists (especially the 2nd one) actually are a good demonstrator of my points.

Almost all the films that dominate the top rankings (ones adored by the critics and the audiences alike) put a priority on telling a compelling narrative even at the expense of certain leap in logic.

Somehow, I feel that we're going astray from the Abram's Star Trek movies and its positive/negative points. Of course I respect your reasoning of why Abrams can go take a dive in a lake; I'm saying you're looking too hard for a diamond in this particular rough, because of the owner's name on the playground.

Oh and, can you say with a straight face, that you are unhappy his films, flawed as they may be, brought in new generations of fans (or wallets) that can keep the franchise trucking into the future?

 

[Sanji Himura]

Love to see your reason as to why that is accurate considering the fact that it doesn't take the films that take place in the original timeline into account.

 

[CodeRedR51]

@Famine I don’t understand why you detest the new Star Trek films so much.

1) He doesn't like JJ Abrams
2) He doesn't like what he did to the Trek Universe
3) He doesn't like that films he detests were so successful

Pick one. Or two, or all three.

 

[Robin]

Love to see your reason as to why that is accurate considering the fact that it doesn't take the films that take place in the original timeline into account.

Huh? The TOS films take place in the TOS era highlighted as do the TNG films. And the only time travel event which happened in the first batch of films is labelled... First Contact.

That picture is not an exhaustive list of everything that has ever happened in the main timeline, I didn't make it and I never claimed it was accurate! That graphic was merely to show where the alternate timeline branches off in relation to the era's shown in the main timeline.

 

[Tornado]

And the second list of "top grossing" films pretty much validates my point doesn't it? I see a list full of films that take tonnes of liberty to continuity, laws of physics, morals/value system, even Irish accents in there.

Examples? Famine already spotted you Episode One (and that one was badly written enough that it's sometimes hard to tell if it is internally inconsistent with the original films), and you should probably be spotted Jurassic World since that was a trainwreck as well.

Lets be honest here, it was hardly the case that old Star Trek was so perfectly grounded in reality either. I give it to them that they even bothered to consult with Nasa for the film.

The only Star Trek film that was anywhere near "hard" sci fi was the first one. Famine isn't arguing that point. That doesn't mean that the basic ground rules for how the franchise operated was thrown out with Wrath of Khan and every subsequent sequel film and series. For sure they were bent occasionally, but never deliberately ignored; which is what Famine is saying.

As for Abrams, if he is so unbelievably incompetent with the genre why did Disney entrust him with the biggest Sci-fi franchise of all time?

Star Wars isn't a science fiction series like Star Trek is/was even though Abrams directed his Trek films like they were. Even when Lucas tried to add limp-wristed scientific elements into the series with the Prequels, it was still a series where people jump 30 feet in the air, choke people with their hands over a video screen and shoot lightning from their fingers.

 

[Sanji Himura]

That picture is not an exhaustive list of everything that has ever happened in the main timeline, I didn't make it and I never claimed it was accurate! That graphic was merely to show where the alternate timeline branches off in relation to the era's shown in the main timeline.

Didn't say you did. All I was wondering was why you posted that knowing for certain that it didn't take the films (with the exception of the J.J. Star Trek) into account. Star Trek TOS, for example, was supposed to be a five year mission (even though three seasons made it to air), it also certainly didn't account for the fact that Kirk was promoted to Admiral AFTER the five year mission and made the Enterprise (both the original and the Enterprise-A) his personal flagship like Commander Riker did for the Enterprise-D (I really should say Enterprise-E for the sake of continuity) when he was promoted to the same rank.

 

[Robin]

Didn't say you did. All I was wondering was why you posted that knowing for certain that it didn't take the films (with the exception of the J.J. Star Trek) into account. Star Trek TOS, for example, was supposed to be a five year mission (even though three seasons made it to air), it also certainly didn't account for the fact that Kirk was promoted to Admiral AFTER the five year mission and made the Enterprise (both the original and the Enterprise-A) his personal flagship like Commander Riker did for the Enterprise-D (I really should say Enterprise-E for the sake of continuity) when he was promoted to the same rank.

I just posted it to point out where the alternate universe fits in THATS ALL. That picture is obviously simplified for the main timeline and it helps those not as familiar with the series understand what happened with the franchise.