• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Star Trek Into Darkness

Started by Black Lantern,

383 posts in this topic

Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted

• Q: Why do some things appear different in the new Star Trek movie?

• A: There is an alternative timeline created by Nero traveling back in time.

 

• Q: Is everything different in the alternative timeline?

• A: No, some things remain the same.

 

• Q: Does this alternative timeline wipe out the original timeline (from TOS – Nemesis)?

• A: No, quantum theory says they both co-exist.

 

• Q: Does the original timeline continue?

• A: Yes, again as explained by quantum theory.

 

• Q: Does this quantum theory approach conform to ‘Trek science?’

• A: Depends on the episode, but it is explicitly cited by Data in the episode “Parallels.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
I guess Abrams can also reference the franchise changes he made by the events of the first film. Kirk's father dying, Spock's planet being destroyed, etc.

 

So anything could really change going forward.

 

New Star Trek Movie Takes Place In Alternate Timeline

 

That alone wouldn't give him a blank check to change anything yet still have it originally tied to the existing Star Trek universe because this particular villain was born in the 20th century long before that alternate timeline began. You've got to assume an entirely different universe with no connection at all to the old one, which I'm totally fine with. It's not continuity I'm hung on, it's a white guy playing a guy with distinctly non-white characteristics. It's sounding like they addressed it by not addressing it at all, i.e. never giving much back story on the character and no hint at nationality other than the name. (shrug) Maybe there are some other subtle hints to the change, guess I'll see this weekend. I'm not expecting to find any but will be interested if there are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bane

bane

Posted
Posted

To be honest, going into the film knowing what are in those spoiler tags doesn't really spoil anything.

 

I have my nitpicks with the movie... now if I said those, THEY would be spoilers. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
I guess Abrams can also reference the franchise changes he made by the events of the first film. Kirk's father dying, Spock's planet being destroyed, etc.

 

So anything could really change going forward.

 

New Star Trek Movie Takes Place In Alternate Timeline

 

That alone wouldn't give him a blank check to change anything yet still have it originally tied to the existing Star Trek universe because this particular villain was born in the 20th century long before that alternate timeline began. You've got to assume an entirely different universe with no connection at all to the old one, which I'm totally fine with. It's not continuity I'm hung on, it's a white guy playing a guy with distinctly non-white characteristics. It's sounding like they addressed it by not addressing it at all, i.e. never giving much back story on the character and no hint at nationality other than the name. (shrug)

 

Good point!

 

The alternate universe would start at when Kirk was born/Nero appearing. I actually liked the surprise of finding out who this was. Fun tricky rather than "Mandarin was an actor the entire time" tricky. Though I haven't had a chance to see IM3 yet. So I may like that as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
r100comics

r100comics

Posted
Posted

Really enjoyed this movie, way better than IM 3. Great story, pacing and direction.

 

I was initially put off by a skinny white guy playing Khan, as Montalban is a massive presence to live up to, but Cumberbatch had sold it to me by the end with his performance.

 

So many nice references in this movie, from the homage to Wrath Of Khan with Kirk and Spock switching roles and Spock now uttering the classic "Khaaaaan" line, to using a tribble, to the unmarked cargo ship they use to go down to Kronos being taken from Mudd the week before. (a reference to the space-pirate Harry Mudd who brought the tribbles onto the Enterprise in the original series).

 

Also has the best CGI and special effects I've ever seen.

 

Solid 8/10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
Is it possible for people to simply enjoy a movie nowadays ?

 

Who's expressed a dislike for the film so far? (shrug) Something doesn't have to be perfect to enjoy it. :angel:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
Is it possible for people to simply enjoy a movie nowadays ?

 

Who's expressed a dislike for the film so far? (shrug) Something doesn't have to be perfect to enjoy it. :angel:

 

I think he is referencing the earlier information about the uproar outside of this forum.

 

WHAT?! There is something outside this forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Niro

Niro

Posted
Posted

Khan could have been given any other name and come from any other country and it would not change a thing about the story or his involvement, so it does not matter what race/ethnicity portrays the character. Thats my opinion.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bosco685

Bosco685

Posted
Posted
Khan could have been given any other name and come from any other country and it would not change a thing about the story or his involvement, so it does not matter what race/ethnicity portrays the character. Thats my opinion.

 

 

NEROOOOOOOOOO!

 

Oh, wait. Wrong Nero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
Khan could have been given any other name and come from any other country and it would not change a thing about the story or his involvement, so it does not matter what race/ethnicity portrays the character. Thats my opinion.

 

Agreed. So why didn't they just change all of that? The likely answer is that it's because Abrams wanted to leverage one of Star Trek's most-liked villains. If a white guy with a British accent named "Khan Singh" or "T'Challa" moved into the cube next to me at work, first thing I'd be wondering is where that name came from. :popcorn: I can brainstorm multiple explanations for it, particularly if it were the 24th century. But what I'm hearing is that there's no explanation at all, he just changed it and left it open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
r100comics

r100comics

Posted
Posted

 

Putting the race debate to one side, am I the only one who was surprised when Cumberbatch was revealed to be Khan ?

 

Every one assumed he was Khan months ago, but the studio did a great job of redirection saying the character was John Harrison and all the Khan speculation died down. I hadn't heard a single whisper to the contrary prior to seeing the film last night.

 

The second movie in the original franchise featured Khan, so it's only natural they should have the same villain in movie two this time around.

 

Loved the Spock v Khan finale and how the Vulcan grip hurt him but failed to put him down.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted

Wait, people are upset because the movie isn't faithful to the source material?

 

A known character is cast as a person of a different race than the character and people are upset?

 

hm

 

...

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fantastic_four

fantastic_four

Posted
Posted
So do I need to watch Star Trek 2 before I go see it?

 

I'm planning on watching the "Space Seed" episode from the original series that introduced Khan, Star Trek 2, and the Abrams Star Trek film over the next few days before seeing it on Sunday. :popcorn: Doubt you "need" to watch any of them though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing