Star Trek: The Movie

[Nick Adams]

Yannow what, I saw the movie, and I liked how they delved in to all the repercussions of that seemingly small change to the time line (trying to keep spoiler free here), especially the technological update of the bridge of the Enterprise (touch-panels everywhere, and a larger bridge) and the modification to the warp nacelles. The character dynamics were great, although I think the best part was that they worked in comedy right there with the heart-pounding and heart-rending performances. Of course, some of the comedy referred to TOS (what's Star Trek without McCoy saying, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a (insert profession here)," at least once?), but most of the allusions were so culturally ubiquitous that non-Trek fans would recognize it.

Overall, thumbs up, but due to having to use what I call the "Year of Hell" Clause (though you could just choose any episode that undoes itself and call it the "Episode Name" Clause), not all the way up.

[stokeriño]

Overall, thumbs up, but due to having to use what I call the "Year of Hell" Clause (though you could just choose any episode that undoes itself and call it the "Episode Name" Clause), not all the way up.

Spoiler: Click here to view

The film didn't undo itself - Vulcan's gone and isn't coming back. The timeline that we've seen in all other forms of Star Trek (minus Enterprise...I guess) has been undone and replaced with a new one that they'll no doubt go on to explore in future films. That's why they're calling it a "reboot".

Naturally this has a created a paradox with the older Spock, but since it's almost impossible to create a time-travel plot without at least one major paradox, it's not really a problem.

Edited May 12, 2009 by stokeriño

[TGC]

Overall, thumbs up, but due to having to use what I call the "Year of Hell" Clause (though you could just choose any episode that undoes itself and call it the "Episode Name" Clause), not all the way up.

Spoiler: Click here to view

The film didn't undo itself - Vulcan's gone and isn't coming back. The timeline that we've seen in all other forms of Star Trek (minus Enterprise...I guess) has been undone and replaced with a new one that they'll no doubt go on to explore in future films. That's why they're calling it a "reboot".

Naturally this has a created a paradox with the older Spock, but since it's almost impossible to create a time-travel plot without at least one major paradox, it's not really a problem.

Spoiler: Click here to view

I'm curious where the paradox is.

[stokeriño]

Overall, thumbs up, but due to having to use what I call the "Year of Hell" Clause (though you could just choose any episode that undoes itself and call it the "Episode Name" Clause), not all the way up.

Spoiler: Click here to view

The film didn't undo itself - Vulcan's gone and isn't coming back. The timeline that we've seen in all other forms of Star Trek (minus Enterprise...I guess) has been undone and replaced with a new one that they'll no doubt go on to explore in future films. That's why they're calling it a "reboot".

Naturally this has a created a paradox with the older Spock, but since it's almost impossible to create a time-travel plot without at least one major paradox, it's not really a problem.

Spoiler: Click here to view

I'm curious where the paradox is.

Spoiler: Click here to view

The usual one where he retains memories of the timeline that never happened.

Like, if there was no paradox then he would have known that Vulcan was destroyed in his youth, even before he was taken back in time to see it - because he already saw it as the younger Spock. And would not have been surprised to hear that Kirk wasn't captain (at the time). And so on.

Time travel stories which don't include paradoxes are dull and suspense-less though, so I accept their need to retain a linear narrative.

[Dan McG]

My dad went to the World Premiere here in Sydney. He said that Dolby made a sound system to fit the Opera House perfectly, and then reworked the movie's sound to match the speaker system. He said the Audio couldn't be clearer, if a pin dropped on the floor of the bridge they would have heard it.

Oh Yeah, the whole room erupted at the sight of Leonard Nimoy-Spock

[Gongsun Zan]

Spoiler: Click here to view

It's not exactly a paradox if you go with the multiple timelines theory. When someone goes back in time it creates a completely different time line from the one that already existed. So a future Spock traveling back in time wouldn't suddenly have all his memories erased by altering his previous self's incarnation. So if you went back in the past and shot yourself, you wouldn't disappear.


...I think.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Zan and Max

[SeanDMan]

Spoiler: Click here to view

It is a paradox because if you go back in time and edit the timeline that created you than the you that was created would cease to exist. And by the same token, if actions you undertake lead to a different timeline than one in which you were created, you would be unable to go back in time to enact those changes. Thus, double paradox.

Edited May 13, 2009 by SeanDMan

[stokeriño]

Man these spoiler tags are getting annoying.

Spoiler: Click here to view

"It's not exactly a paradox. When someone goes back in time it creates a completely different time line from the one that already existed."

...But that timeline never did exist. What occured in this film would have reciprocated forwards in time so that his past always was the one that these events created. Time isn't linear. :/

Edit: Or just what SDM said...without the spoiler tags.

Edited May 13, 2009 by stokeriño

[stokeriño]

Oh and:

So if you went back in the past and shot yourself, you wouldn't disappear.

...I think.

If you went back in time and shot yourself, you:

a) Couldn't kill yourself. Or injure yourself in any extra way (e.g. lose a lung) than you already had been.

b) Would remember being shot before you went and shot yourself in the first place.

Edited May 13, 2009 by stokeriño

[SeanDMan]

Don't try and think of the logistics of time travel. They don't work.

[stokeriño]

Well, quite.

Which is actually why Nick's citing of the "Year of Hell" clause - as though it were a cop-out - amuses me. It's one of the few time-travel stories that actually makes sense.

[SeanDMan]

Year of Hell makes sense because everything that is done is undone and no one remembers anything. That's how time travel should work; ie, it shouldn't.

[Dan McG]

With the whole 'Double Paradox' thing, can we just say they cancel each other out and be done with it? Or just follow the Doctor Who explanation...whatever that actually is.

[Timmoru Suzuki]

What actually happened in Year of Hell? I never saw those episodes.

Spoiler: Click here to view

Isn't this a new universe though, so that everything else like TNG/DS9 etc are still cannon because the film was in a new universe? So Spock would retain memories of his old life beacuse it was in a different universe. But I suppose if that were true then why did it create a new universe when in other Trek timetravel hasn't had the same effect? Gah, I dunno.....

[SeanDMan]

Basically, an evil alien race invented a ship that existed outside of time, in it's own bubble of time and continuity. They then used that ship to alter history, by destroying planets, they'd remove entire empires, and alter all of space and time as a result. But then Voyager came upon them and they started getting shitkicked all to hell. But in the end, they destroyed the ship, and since it had it's own space time, destroying it now destroyed it and wiped it from history, so it never existed, thus, all of the effects it had on time were undone and the universe was restored to it's original state.

[Gongsun Zan]

Oh and:

So if you went back in the past and shot yourself, you wouldn't disappear.

...I think.

If you went back in time and shot yourself, you:

a) Couldn't kill yourself. Or injure yourself in any extra way (e.g. lose a lung) than you already had been.

b) Would remember being shot before you went and shot yourself in the first place.

The problem with that a) that you're assuming there's some kind of external force preventing you from shooting yourself, like a magic watcher-being that prevents paradoxes from establishing themselves.

[stokeriño]

Edit: Too slow...

The problem with that a) that you're assuming there's some kind of external force preventing you from shooting yourself, like a magic watcher-being that prevents paradoxes from establishing themselves.

A time paradox is a human invention - an application of linear reasoning to something which isn't linear. The idea that FIRST you're in the present and THEN you go back and change something in the past which AFTERWARDS changes history is inherently nonsensical, yet it is the basis of all paradoxes.

IF time travel occured (and let us be sure to note that it's likely to be impossible), any 'changes' people could make in the past would be ones that caused what they already knew as history to begin with. You know, like those stories where people go back in time to stop Bad Thing #36 and in the process end up causing it.

Edited May 13, 2009 by stokeriño

[Timmoru Suzuki]

Ok, cheers.

See, that makes sense.

[SeanDMan]

Stokerino is so slow. I bet time travel would really come in handy right now, eh?

Also, saying all of this, I haven't seen the film, I just like arguing about metaphysics and theoretical sciences.

[stokeriño]

You know the one thing that didn't work in the Year of Hell? That little epilogue bit where the time ship's creator was seen back at home with his wife, working on a design for the ship (in a "But it could happen again DUN DUN DUN" moment). If he were on the ship that was erased from history, shouldn't he have been erased from history too?