idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
I thought the new Star Trek was extremely well done, actually. I was dubious when going into it, but thoroughly enjoyed movie and am quite excited for the next one...
The biggest issue I have with the flick revolves around time-traveling Future Spock, which:
a) Allows them to ret-con out the entirety of the history of the franchise and the characters that came before the movie.
b) Doesn't make logical sense, since traveling backwards in time and changing the course of history would lead to an alternate future which would preclude the need to travel backwards in time, and therefore negate New Future Spock from ever doing it. Furthermore, by altering the past, Future Spock would cease to exist in the "past," which precludes the awkward meeting between Future Spock and New Spock.
Other than that, J.J. Abrams is less than stellar writer/director, similar in many ways to Michael Bay, and should probably stick to TV rather than movies.
First, the time travel part. There are no holes in it, where that is concerned. It's a standard example of branching time theory. They say it outright in the movie--this is a case of either branching time theory or standard parallel universe theory. They don't "change" time at all. Meaning that the universe that Spock and Nero were from is still continuing its course without them. Their act of time travel either:
1. Created a new time dimension causing the timeline to split where they arrived, so that they are completely separate from the original universe from then on. (branching time)
2. Traveled to a parallel universe that is such that it's timeline was the same until they arrived and altered it. (parallel universe theory).
As for the "retcons." For one, it can't be a retcon if they make it firmly clear that this is an alternate storyline. The "universe" that star trek took place in is not the same one as the movie (minus the few scenes that take place in the universe before time travel took place).
Also, I thought their nods to the original were both pretty good, actually. Old Spock's comments about his father, for instance. His lines from the original. The tribbles in the cage on the planet Kirk is stranded on. Etc.
And only one character was removed from the movie's history--George Kirk dies rather than lives. That's pretty much it. I'll grant that they shouldn't have made Kirk seem like an only child, but this is the only
character who is removed from the plot by the time travel.
Realistically, also, the movie would have been way worse if they were just doing a remake or something of one of the movies. For one, most of the movies sucked. Not all, but most.
More importantly, it cuts down the number of options for the writers a TON, because they need to be sure everything lines up properly for the extended history of the series.
Most importantly? This system let them construct a situation that allowed Kirk to (without reprimand) avoid all of the boring confab talk that the original had. No one wants to watch some old guys debate what to do about nero for half an hour. That was fine for the TV show, but not for an action movie. The only way to do that was to introduce a villain such that he was threatening enough that Kirk could avoid having to deal with the bureaucracy. And the only way to do THAT was to introduce a new timeline, because such an enemy wouldn't have fit into the existing one well. Edited, Sep 15th 2011 10:53am by idiggory