Star Trek Into Darkness - Page 5 - Blu-ray Forum

Anthony P · 05-12-2009, 01:55 AM

They kill/trap Nero, he never goes back in time and this movie does not happen and all is right with the world

Beast · 05-12-2009, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony P

They kill/trap Nero, he never goes back in time and this movie does not happen and all is right with the world

Won't work. They already created an alternate timeline.

Killing or trapping this reality's version of Nero in the future won't effect the timeline.

It was an alternate reality version of Nero who caused the changes in the first place.

GGX · 05-12-2009, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony P

They kill/trap Nero, he never goes back in time and this movie does not happen and all is right with the world

Haha its so pathetic to see someone bash this new movie. Considering how great it is.

iori · 05-12-2009, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGX

Haha its so pathetic to see someone bash this new movie. Considering how great it is.

+1

Anthony P · 05-12-2009, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Won't work. They already created an alternate timeline.

Killing or trapping this reality's version of Nero in the future won't effect the timeline.

It was an alternate reality version of Nero who caused the changes in the first place.

not at all, if he does not go back then the effects he caused would not have happened. That is the whole thing about alternate time lines and time line paradoxes. You can’t come from no where, you change the protagonist in his past (before the change) and the change will affect the past.

The usual example given is the father paradox, let’s say you go back in time and kill your father (by mistake) before you are conceived, now you are wiped out of the future of this time line and so you can’t go back and kill your dad, so now a new alternate time line is created where you don’t go back to the past (you never existed) and so in this new alternate time line your dad survives and you are conceived (and I guess go back in time)….

so time is never stable.

The only time it works is if the past is dependent on a future that happens in its time line.

i.e. as you are reading this future you pops up and tells you play X at the lottery, you do it the next day and become a millionaire, you use some of the $$ to finish building your time machine and go back to today where you tell your past self to play X at the lottery.

now you don't have a broken time line/paradox

LA GUY · 05-12-2009, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGX

Haha its so pathetic to see someone bash this new movie. Considering how great it is.

How great is it? Is it Casablanca great? The Seventh Seal great? Star Wars great? Blade Runner great? Or is it just a good summer action flick, above average great?

Why can't people bash this film? Can they not speak their mind?

Beast · 05-12-2009, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony P

not at all, if he does not go back then the effects he caused would not have happened. That is the whole thing about alternate time lines and time line paradoxes. You can’t come from no where, you change the protagonist in his past (before the change) and the change will affect the past.

The usual example given is the father paradox, let’s say you go back in time and kill your father (by mistake) before you are conceived, now you are wiped out of the future of this time line and so you can’t go back and kill your dad, so now a new alternate time line is created where you don’t go back to the past (you never existed) and so in this new alternate time line your dad survives and you are conceived (and I guess go back in time)….

so time is never stable.

The only time it works is if the past is dependent on a future that happens in its time line.

i.e. as you are reading this future you pops up and tells you play X at the lottery, you do it the next day and become a millionaire, you use some of the $$ to finish building your time machine and go back to today where you tell your past self to play X at the lottery.

now you don't have a broken time line/paradox

It doesn't matter in this case. It created a divergant reality. It's explained right in the movie.

The original Star Trek Universe still exists, this is just an alternate reality.

The future Nero of this reality has nothing to do with what occured. He doesn't have to do anything to cause these events to take place. The Universe A version of Nero already caused them. Universe B's could very well turn out to be a completely different character. If the Universe B Nero ends up following the same path, he'll create yet another divergant reality which will be Universe C. And so on, and so on.

GGX · 05-12-2009, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA GUY

Why can't people bash this film? Can they not speak their mind?

Well seeing as how its mostly people that haven't actually seen the movie that are bashing it...

Beast · 05-12-2009, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GGX

Well seeing as how its mostly people that haven't actually seen the movie that are bashing it...

Apperantly. Since the fact it's a divergant reality is explained right in the film.

koontz1973 · 05-12-2009, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kdn1221

As much as I like the Khan character and the Borg, neither of these would work for a sequel. Neither would the Dominion.

People are forgetting a few key points about them even though we are now in an alternate timeline. An alternate timeline doesn't mean that everything is thrown out the windows. Some events, specifically, minute details about the main characters lives could be different but the greater set of historical events would stay roughly the same.

Major milestones in history would not be drastically altered.

With this new Star Trek, the audience is now living in the early days of the Enterprise crew's career before TOS.

Khan was a product of 21st century bioengineering. He is presumably still in the Botany Bay in space somewhere. The events in "Space Seed" that TWOK followed up to have not happened yet. Kirk have not even met Khan at this point in time much less for Khan to have a grudge against him. To do Khan, this meeting must first take place. Until that happens under the new timeline, you can't have a Khan story.

The Borg first encounter humans in TNG. They are in the Delta Quadrant where Voyager was. The events in First Contact left some remnants of Borg on Earth that ran into Archer's ship in the 22nd century. When this happened they left. That's a 100 years before Kirk, Spock, and company. Assuming that those Borgs kept going, they would be too far away for the current crew to meet.

The Dominion, just like the Borg, is generally impossible to do in a movie. They exist in the Gamma Quadrant. The physical distance alone without the DS9 wormhole would make it impossible for any kind of interaction. The DS9 wormhole exist at the edge of the Federation in the 24th century which is way beyond the territories that's was covered in Kirk's time.

Klingons and Romulans or some other adversary (perhaps Orion slave traders) would be more reasonable for the sequel since they are the closest neighbors to the Federation during Kirk's time. Klingons would be an obvious choice since they were the main bad guys in TOS. It also wouldn't be a problem to run into Romulans since they're still around. However, having two back-to-back Romulan stories wouldn't be as interesting.

It would be nice to see Starfleet play a bigger role in the next movie and ship-to-ship space combat like the beginning of First Contact.

I agree with you up to a point.

The Dominion was in the alpha quadrent before the wormhole was discovered, Odo and a couple of other changelings as featured in DS9.

We have already had 2 back to back stories with the Romulins.

Klingons are great and could be used if there was a all out war with the federation. Ship to ship combat that you mentioned. But I am bored with Klingons now. To many films and shows were they are the bad guys.

It would be nice for someone to come up with a new idea.

As for Kahn, how about having the Enterprise blowing up the Botany Bay for target practice as they do not detect any life signs. That would play a nice nod to TOS without bringing him back and repeating a story told so well.

GreenScar · 05-12-2009, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA GUY

How great is it? Is it Casablanca great? The Seventh Seal great? Star Wars great? Blade Runner great? Or is it just a good summer action flick, above average great?

Why can't people bash this film? Can they not speak their mind?

Well, let's see here.

Star Wars 95%
Blade Runner 91%
Seventh Seal 95%
Casablanca 97%
Star Trek 95%

So yeah. In it's way, it's great like those movies. But it's perfectly okay if you just like it as a Summer popcorn flick.

LA GUY · 05-12-2009, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonbird

Well, let's see here.

Star Wars 95%
Blade Runner 91%
Seventh Seal 95%
Casablanca 97%
Star Trek 95%

So yeah. In it's way, it's great like those movies. But it's perfectly okay if you just like it as a Summer popcorn flick.

Rotten Tomatoes? Please.......come up with something better than that.

Star Trek is not even in a class with those...

GreenScar · 05-12-2009, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA GUY

Rotten Tomatoes? Please.......come up with something better than that.

Star Trek is not even in a class with those...

Who's opinion are you looking for then? I was just giving you people who are paid to opine on movies. I guess you can't agree with all of the people all of the time.

Anthony P · 05-12-2009, 11:38 PM

Quote:

It doesn't matter in this case. It created a divergant reality. It's explained right in the movie.

The original Star Trek Universe still exists, this is just an alternate reality.

The future Nero of this reality has nothing to do with what occurred. He doesn't have to do anything to cause these events to take place. The Universe A version of Nero already caused them. Universe B's could very well turn out to be a completely different character. If the Universe B Nero ends up following the same path, he'll create yet another divergent reality which will be Universe C. And so on, and so on.

But you don't understand temporal mechanics. Let me put it this way, to use what you said, if from reality B (or someone from reality A) stops Nero from A before he goes back in time and changes history (and creates B), what would happen?

GreenScar · 05-13-2009, 01:17 AM

The writers spoke to MTV about writing the sequel:

Quote:

When J.J. Abrams and his team first signed on to resurrect "Star Trek," Hollywood insiders questioned whether sci-fi fans still cared about the franchise. After a $76.5 million opening this past weekend the previous franchise record-holder was "First Contact" with a mere $30 million — you can consider "Trek" successfully rebooted. And as you read this, a whole new series of sequels are being planned for this new alternate reality.

"One of the obstacles that we found ourselves butting up against [when we took on the job] was this idea that we already knew the fate of the characters," writer/producer Alex Kurtzman told us of the newly established parallel "Trek" dimension, forever altered by the reckless actions of time-travelling villain Nero (Eric Bana). "If you're going to bring a whole new iteration of 'Trek' to life, you could never put them in any real danger — because you already know how they either died or lived. So, we felt like, all right, we have to find a way to make the future unpredictable, so whenever they're in these difficult, treacherous situations there truly is the risk of death."

Word already leaked more than a month ago that at least one "Trek" sequel is in the works, and the series' gatekeepers confirmed to us that such memorable characters as Khan Noonien Singh and Dr. Tolian Soran are among the many characters whose life courses may have been altered by the events of the new film.

"All the characters who existed in the universe or canon we grew up with are essentially still around in some capacity," Kurtzman explained. "But their lives have been altered, so they may again intersect with our crew."

"There's a deal in place with the writers and the actors," Abrams said recently of "Trek" sequel plans, explaining that all the key actors are under contract to return. "If people like this movie, and there's a demand for another one, we would be happy to work on it."

Well, they certainly did — and Kurtzman and his writing partner Roberto Orci (who also collaborated on the upcoming "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen") told us that their minds are already swimming with sequel possibilities.

"I don't think we ever need to talk about time travel again," Orci explained, saying that Leonard Nimoy and other "original universe" cast members will likely be unnecessary from here on out. "In fact, in the end of the movie, the device that allows time travel is destroyed. So we're stuck with this universe we're in now."

"Now we're in this new world," Kurtzman agreed. "And we're just gonna have to live through the unpredictable future."

As for ideas in that universe, Orci explained: "We've had a couple of really preliminary conversations, but we really didn't want to [get ahead of ourselves], because this isn't something we invented. We wanted to see what fans think of the first one; let's see what works, and what people think is the best in what we've done. And then we can take that into account when we think about the next movie."

Asked how soon they'd start writing the "Trek" sequel if the first one is announced as a hit the Monday after opening weekend, Orci said: "That day."

"I'm already going back and reading some of the books I've missed," he said of "Trek" tales and fan-fiction that have been written in past years, which could be reinterpreted for their new universe. "I'm trying to read every 'Star Trek' book I can get my hands on. We did that a lot for the first movie. ... I'm starting to re-immerse myself again in what's come before."

Gamma_Winstead · 05-13-2009, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA GUY

Rotten Tomatoes? Please.......come up with something better than that.

Star Trek is not even in a class with those...

I just have to ask...

Has anyone watched Star Wars recently?

GreenScar · 06-21-2009, 03:46 AM

They can't make this one soon enough. Looks like the goal is to have the story ready by Christmas.

Quote:

Screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman haven’t yet started writing a Star Trek sequel, but last week we published some quotes from the duo talking about the debate of revisiting an old story/villain, or exploring new territory (something we’ve discussed about in a past video blog) This weekend at the Transformers 2 junket, my good friend Steve from Collider was able to probe them for more speculative details.

Here is a nice excerpt from the interview:

Quote:

We have had discussions about the debate of the exploration sci-fi plot where the unknown and nature itself is somehow an adversary or the villain model. That’s an active discussion we’re having right now. In terms of thinking about more than one movie, we want the movie to be self-contained in a way, but we’re discussing the idea of having a couple of threads where if the second movie works, you could pick up into a cohesive whole. No thread more exciting and shocking for me when in Star Trek III you realize that Spock grabbed Bones and downloaded his Katra into him. When I saw Star Trek II I was like, ‘What’s going on here?’ and two years later, you’re watching it and you’re like ‘They’re geniuses! They’re geniuses!’ So we’re trying to think is there a version of that but again, Star Trek II does not rely on that thread, even though it turns out to be a thread. So we’re thinking in those terms.

I think most people will agree that the villain Nero was the weakest element of JJ Abrams’ Star Trek, and it would be nice to see a sequel which completely foregoes the traditional villain and is more about the concept of exploring new worlds which may offer its own mysterious antagonist element.

I’m also happy to hear that they’re also thinking ahead to a third film, because it would be stupid not to. Star Trek is not a self contained story, its a series. Unless the sequel bombs horribly (which would be completely unexpected) we can expect at least a couple more. So why not tie the stories together, even if just a subplot. Many sci-fi geeks have acclaimed Empire Strikes Back for the cliffhanger ending. And I feel that films in recent years like Pirates 2 have handled this aspect so horribly that the concept now has a bad stigma attached.

You can watch the whole interview on Collider.

CYMBOL · 06-21-2009, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GreenScar

They can't make this one soon enough. Looks like the goal is to have the story ready by Christmas.

Fascinating!

Not sure I agree with this statement:

Quote:

I think most people will agree that the villain Nero was the weakest element of JJ Abrams’ Star Trek, and it would be nice to see a sequel which completely foregoes the traditional villain and is more about the concept of exploring new worlds which may offer its own mysterious antagonist element.

I personally like a villian - everytime Star Trek tries to tackle lofty sci-fi ideas as a movie, it often turns into a long TV episode.

Diesel · 07-02-2009, 05:26 AM

Was this posted already?

Simon Pegg thinks the film could be out in around a year and a half

Quote:

BRITISH actor Simon Pegg, who plays engineer Montgomery 'Scotty' Scott in the new Star Trek movie, says the sequel will be out in 18 months.

Speaking to Zoo magazine, he said: "I know the writers are busy thinking about it. I don't really know anything about the story, or if I'm in a bigger role, but I'd imagine we'll be back this time next year.

"That's not official, but I reckon it's probably about 18 months away from being in the cinema."

The 39-year-old actor said that although he found Hollywood a friendly place, he wouldn't live there.

He said: "It's very easy to knock Los Angeles because it is very image-driven, but it is also a very friendly place in most areas. If I was in LA right now, I'd be down at the King's Head in Santa Monica, sipping a few beers.

"There is a cool British community, but I wouldn't want to go and live over there - my family and friends are all still in North London."

Star Trek writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman spoke earlier about their thoughts on the next film and director J.J. Abrams recently said the possibilities were wide open.

cflames89 · 07-02-2009, 07:47 AM

Really, 18 months?

They are shooting for next December?

View Poll Results: Rate the movie (after you have seen it)
One Star	8	1.36%
Two Stars	12	2.04%
Three Stars	73	12.41%
Four Stars	242	41.16%
Five Stars	253	43.03%
Voters: 588. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
Star Trek 2009 surpasses all previous Star Trek in adjusted gross $	Movies	Havenbull	15	09-20-2011 07:06 AM
Which one has better Special Effect (Star Wars: Episode III or Star Trek)?	Movie Polls	mugupo	34	06-04-2010 10:09 PM
iPhone/App Store Megathread (Part 2)	General Chat	Aaron	50	04-29-2009 10:21 PM
Unofficially Official 2008 NFL Megathread	General Chat	Marquoz	217	12-22-2008 07:44 PM

05-12-2009, 01:55 AM	#81
Anthony P Blu-ray Count Member since:Jul 2007 Location:Montreal, Canada	They kill/trap Nero, he never goes back in time and this movie does not happen and all is right with the world

07-02-2009, 07:47 AM	#100
cflames89 Expert Member Member since:Nov 2008 Location:Just north of the Blu aisle Blu-ray collection:718	Really, 18 months? They are shooting for next December?

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals