Blood for the Baron!

MAJOR SPOILER RANT:

Nero's motivation. WTF?

He saw Romulus destroyed by a supernova, Spock tried to save the planet using Red Matter * but is too late. So Nero blames Spock? Whu?

He then gets into a battle with Spock which accidentally creates a rift and both are flung back in time. He waits for Spock in the past and steals the Red Matter.

He then decides to destroy Vulcan and the Earth using the Red Matter, effectively wiping out the Federation. How in the f*ck does this prevent Romulus from being destroyed by a supernova in the future?

Why not travel to Romulus and warn everyone about the supernova, with like, centuries to prepare for it, taking the stolen Red Matter with him, and become hailed as a prophet and the saviour of his race?

S'what I would've done.

* Red Matter. This is the stuff that can create quantum singularities. Where was the technobabble omega chroniton particle explanation? Star Trek has always been rooted in science, this sh*t might as well have been five magic beans.

Not sure where the whole 'this isn't Trek' comes from...

Star Trek was envisaged as an adventure series set in the stars. It proposed to set events in the future where man reached out to the stars and had moved on from prejudice.

The new movie is absolutely true to the spirit and style of the original. In fact I hold the opposite view - the film shows what Star Trek is really about - people from different backgrounds coming together to explore the stars, facing danger together, meeting adversity together. It shows us what an utter travesty Voyager and Enterprise were - thise shows lacked both character development and drama and killed the franchise. In many respects Insurrection was the ideal 24th Century Trek film - a story about an ethical dilemma. It just happened to be a lacklustre film. Trek should be about things like ethics, moral standards etc, but it should also be about adventure, humanity, friendship, relationships and science fiction. TOS, TNG, DS9 and the new movie all managed to acheive this, witht he other two series misfiring.

I haven`t seen it yet, you guys are really spoiling it for me
Or maybe I shouldn`t read the "spoiler" parts
So is E.T really in it??

The Baron wrote:MAJOR SPOILER RANT:

Nero's motivation. WTF?

He saw Romulus destroyed by a supernova, Spock tried to save the planet using Red Matter * but is too late. So Nero blames Spock? Whu?

He then gets into a battle with Spock which accidentally creates a rift and both are flung back in time. He waits for Spock in the past and steals the Red Matter.

He then decides to destroy Vulcan and the Earth using the Red Matter, effectively wiping out the Federation. How in the f*ck does this prevent Romulus from being destroyed by a supernova in the future?

Why not travel to Romulus and warn everyone about the supernova, with like, centuries to prepare for it, taking the stolen Red Matter with him, and become hailed as a prophet and the saviour of his race?

S'what I would've done.

* Red Matter. This is the stuff that can create quantum singularities. Where was the technobabble omega chroniton particle explanation? Star Trek has always been rooted in science, this sh*t might as well have been five magic beans.

He just wants to hurt people, especially Spock. He then extends his hurt to the Federation.

The other important note is that this differs from the likes of Yesterday's Enterprise and Star Trek IV in that it relies on the quantum theory of time travel, ie that when you change the past the original timeline remains (TOS to Nemesis) but a new one os created. So you can't repair the timeline, you create a new one. Of course that means that Spock is removed from our timeline into this new one (hence there are two).

I didn't say anything about repairing the timeline.

Chopper wrote:Homage. Yup, homage.

Homage? It's disgusting!

The Baron wrote:The wole point, Sundance?

Having had 24 hours to reflect, I have to say that while this is a great film, it isn't Star Trek. Bear in mind I am of the Next Gen / DS9 / Voyager era fandom, and to see that whole universe erased is a bitter pill to swallow. My mate had a problem with the entire bridge crew being aged 17. Yes, they were cadets rush-called to duty I know, but nonetheless it was breaking into 90210 territory. So, I would say this is a fantastic flick, and worth seeing on the big screen for the spectacugobular FX, but it firmly belongs on the same shelf as Galaxy Quest.

That is EXACTLY how I felt. A great flick but not a great Trek flick. I'll still buy the DVD but, yup, Cadets in command of a brand new Starship? Nero struck me as just dumb too, very unusual for a Trek villain. I'm with The Baron on the whole motivation thing as well, its just a quick idea for a average plot to meet an end.

History is the same up to the point when Kirk was born too Sundance, the whole Whale thing occurred this Century so the big cigar dudes will be on their way soon, if they haven't left already. Its going to get paradoxically worse.

I loved Voyager, it was a great series and well suited the exploration thing, more so than the original 5 year mission that always seemed to always wind up at a Starbase. But I agree Enterprise was weak. Shatner is still the Trek King tho.

On a lighter note, now this BS branching into a new universe has occurred we might see some decent original stories from this point on. So I don't think its wise to write it off just yet. After all it was a good film. Red matter or otherwise.

Homage, Homage, Homage, Homage, Homage, Homage, Homage. Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

And I like Galaxy Quest too, it was dumb in a funny way.

The Baron wrote: I am of the Next Gen / DS9 / Voyager era fandom, and to see that whole universe erased is a bitter pill to swallow.

I must admit I was a bit panicked on my first viewing of this new film, I didn't want to believe that all the Trek stories I loved had simply been erased, but having seen it a couple of times since, I've noticed that they used the word "alternate" enough times to suggest that this is a parallel timeline born during the attack on the Kelvin.

Effectively, they're living in the Hellish 1985 timeline as drawn on the blackboard by Doc Brown in Back To The Future, Part 2! Joke.

It's just my opinion, but I think that having wandered off in so many directions in recent years, Star Trek needed to be brought back to it's core (Kirk & Co.), but with a view to launching some new adventures. By that token, this film succeeds.

The Star Trek timeline I've always followed was the one established first; the timeline of the 1960s version, the 1970s cartoon, and the novels. I know that a lot of this was changed in the films and Next Generation, but the cool thing about Sci-Fi is that the "Fi" part means fiction... so you may as well pick your favourites and go with that!


SPACE COMMANDER
PS. Did you chaps notice the very Shatner-esque pose that Chris Pine struck whilst sitting in the Centre Seat in the film's closing scene?

It's just my opinion, but I think that having wandered off in so many directions in recent years, Star Trek needed to be brought back to it's core (Kirk & Co.), but with a view to launching some new adventures. By that token, this film succeeds.

i don't think Star Trek at it's core is dependent on one crew or one cast. TNG, DS9 and VGR proved that. and the novels certainly do, with the success of New Frontier, Corps of Engineers, Titan and even the IKS Gorkon/Klingon Empire series proves you can still have Trekian tales feature all-alien characters.

Sundance wrote:i don't think Star Trek at it's core is dependent on one crew or one cast. TNG, DS9 and VGR proved that.

As I mentioned, it's purely my opinion, but I do feel as though some of those series wandered too far away from the original Star Trek. I know it's just my perspective, but to me, they didn't feel like Star trek anymore. One of the alterations they made which Gene Rodenberry was so opposed to was changing Starfleet from a scientific Space Probe Agency to a military organisation. And although they did use a little bit of technobabble in the 1960, it got to the point in recent years were certain episodes, (not all! just some), would've been easier to understand if spoken entirely in Klingonese !

But as i said, this is simply my own personal opinion, and i don't expect everyone to drop their own point of view in favour of mine.

Live Long and Prosper!


SPACE COMMANDER
PS. Yo, Chopper, did you ever get to see Star Trek - Of Gods And Men? I think you said you'd downloaded it...? I'm guessing from your comments that you might enjoy that movie... although it is a timeline switcheroo, too! (Scroll down for details; viewtopic.php?f=19&t=3462)