-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
Trek XI Set for Xmas 2008 release
- Thread starter GaribaldisHair
- Start date
colonyearth
Regular
Word is he does have a cameo and I wouldn't be surprised if it weren't much like you describe. But, then, I don't have a problem with that. Guess I'm still a bit sentimental and moments like that are still pretty cool to me.
According to Greg Grunberg, this film has "tons" of cameos all well placed and many you may not even recognize (wording gives them impression they'll be in make-up).
They've also just cast a 12 year old Kirk and a 15 year old George Kirk, Jr. This in addition to a young boy spock. This film is apparently going to span several decades and will be more sweeping in its scope. That's fine with me!
CE
hypatia
Regular
It almost sounds like propping up a dead horse, though.
Sorry I can't get beyond the beating a dead horse analogy. I'd love to see some well-written, good space-oriented sci-fi on the screen again. But it'll take more than bringing the original cast back via cameos for me to trust this genre. I'll wait to see what people who liked Trek but aren't tied to the hip of it have to say.
Sorry I can't get beyond the beating a dead horse analogy. I'd love to see some well-written, good space-oriented sci-fi on the screen again. But it'll take more than bringing the original cast back via cameos for me to trust this genre. I'll wait to see what people who liked Trek but aren't tied to the hip of it have to say.
GKarsEye
Regular
I know I've talked a lot of trash about post-TOS Trek, but it's mostly because deep-down I feel new Trek can actually be awesome, and I do so geekily love Trek, even just the idea if Trek.
The one big difference between myself and other Trekkies is that I don't really give a damn about cannon. Barring the major plot points, of course, it simply can't be too close to every single minute of every piece of crap filmed in the franchise. Good new Trek would have the following qualities:
- It's "real" sci-fi, which means it explores ideas we can relate too in a new and interested way using fantastic and futuristic scenarios.
- The characters are interesting, funny, diverse, and grand. The latter is, especially, missing these days.
- It exudes hope, triumph, spirit and the potential unity of humanity. It's inspirational. I know that's corny but that's at the essence of what makes Trek so special.
If new Trek has these things, I don't care if they set it in the "past" or future or in a parallel freakin' universe; if they use new characters or old ones or whatever. As long as they genuinely love Trek and wanna do right by it.
The one big difference between myself and other Trekkies is that I don't really give a damn about cannon. Barring the major plot points, of course, it simply can't be too close to every single minute of every piece of crap filmed in the franchise. Good new Trek would have the following qualities:
- It's "real" sci-fi, which means it explores ideas we can relate too in a new and interested way using fantastic and futuristic scenarios.
- The characters are interesting, funny, diverse, and grand. The latter is, especially, missing these days.
- It exudes hope, triumph, spirit and the potential unity of humanity. It's inspirational. I know that's corny but that's at the essence of what makes Trek so special.
If new Trek has these things, I don't care if they set it in the "past" or future or in a parallel freakin' universe; if they use new characters or old ones or whatever. As long as they genuinely love Trek and wanna do right by it.
hypatia
Regular
Well, I'm sure people will give their opinions when the time comes around.
As I said, I would like to see more space-oriented, well-written sci-fi. As far as Star Trek goes, I think anyone who really insists on "cannon" fled the series a long time ago.
Personally, I loved how they handled the "problem" of the Klingons suddenly changing in look so much.
Clever writing: just saying "that's something we don't talk about" and leaving it at that.
That's actually quite good, I thought.
I admit, though, the going-back-to-Kirk-and-the-gang makes me suspicious that THEY fear their movie ideas and movie making skills can't cut it on their own. But, unfortunately, that's a huge fault of the modern Hollywood industry these days.
I guess investors/producers feel a lot more safe investing in a "Kirk" story.
Maybe it'll lead to an eventual t.v. series with new characters. Didn't the original-cast Trek movies basically inspire the creation of "The Next Generation"?
As I said, I would like to see more space-oriented, well-written sci-fi. As far as Star Trek goes, I think anyone who really insists on "cannon" fled the series a long time ago.
Personally, I loved how they handled the "problem" of the Klingons suddenly changing in look so much.
Clever writing: just saying "that's something we don't talk about" and leaving it at that.
That's actually quite good, I thought.
I admit, though, the going-back-to-Kirk-and-the-gang makes me suspicious that THEY fear their movie ideas and movie making skills can't cut it on their own. But, unfortunately, that's a huge fault of the modern Hollywood industry these days.
I guess investors/producers feel a lot more safe investing in a "Kirk" story.
Maybe it'll lead to an eventual t.v. series with new characters. Didn't the original-cast Trek movies basically inspire the creation of "The Next Generation"?
Galahad
Regular
In some ways I'm not worried about "physical" canon either.
What I mean by that is that I think the original Enterprise looked cheap and tacky... I didn't like the way the nacelles were laid out... and thought that the refit for the movies looked much sleeker whilst remaining faithful to the original. Granted it was the 60's and there were budgets and less obsession with design, but I just don't like it as much.
I wouldn't have objected to them updating the original effects footage to reflect the superior design of the Constitution refit.
I'm also in general agreement with GKE and Recoil about what qualities I'd like to see injected into the series... and not being bothered so much about when in the timeline it is set.
I know a lot of people don't like the idea of a "time travel series" but I think if it were handled well in the spirit of the original Trek with exploration being the driving force of the plot rather than "Oh no Captain! temporal paradoxes incursions and cold wars everywhere!" where the Enterprise NCC 1701 ZX (Spectrum) is learning about cultures histories and has the odd occasional panic when other ships/crews get stranded in the past... I think it could be very educational and entertaining.
I know that view won't be popular but hey.
What I mean by that is that I think the original Enterprise looked cheap and tacky... I didn't like the way the nacelles were laid out... and thought that the refit for the movies looked much sleeker whilst remaining faithful to the original. Granted it was the 60's and there were budgets and less obsession with design, but I just don't like it as much.
I wouldn't have objected to them updating the original effects footage to reflect the superior design of the Constitution refit.
I'm also in general agreement with GKE and Recoil about what qualities I'd like to see injected into the series... and not being bothered so much about when in the timeline it is set.
I know a lot of people don't like the idea of a "time travel series" but I think if it were handled well in the spirit of the original Trek with exploration being the driving force of the plot rather than "Oh no Captain! temporal paradoxes incursions and cold wars everywhere!" where the Enterprise NCC 1701 ZX (Spectrum) is learning about cultures histories and has the odd occasional panic when other ships/crews get stranded in the past... I think it could be very educational and entertaining.
I know that view won't be popular but hey.
GKarsEye
Regular
I think the reason time travel stories aren't popular anymore with established sci-fi shows are because they usually come off as cheap. They get caught up in their own "clever" constructs and ultimately result in nothing. And some science geeks get really pissed because time travel into the past is considered impossible, even theoretically.
Though I personally have no problem with the occassional time travel ep in a series, a movie should be a bigger deal and more "important."
Well no surprise that I'm in complete disagreement with that and consider TOS untouchable. The cheap look is absolutely part of its charm. And isn't it more impressive that Kirk did so much with such a crappy looking ship? It feels like they're in constant danger of disintegrating. Now that's space exploration.
They tried to get into that aspect of it in Enterprise and I liked that. Enterprise was actually a cool premise. And then they started writing and filming episodes and, er, .....blech.
Though I personally have no problem with the occassional time travel ep in a series, a movie should be a bigger deal and more "important."
Well no surprise that I'm in complete disagreement with that and consider TOS untouchable. The cheap look is absolutely part of its charm. And isn't it more impressive that Kirk did so much with such a crappy looking ship? It feels like they're in constant danger of disintegrating. Now that's space exploration.
They tried to get into that aspect of it in Enterprise and I liked that. Enterprise was actually a cool premise. And then they started writing and filming episodes and, er, .....blech.
Galahad
Regular
I liked some of the first few episodes of Enterprise but I started to get tired of the repetitive "oh look here come the fuddy duddy Vulcans let's throw our toys out of the pram and sulk like teenagers".
I, like you.. also didn't like the idea of the Temporal Cold War being feratured so frequently and so soon into the series. It's one thing to have a series based on a ship that travels through time... but it's completely annoying to have a story that is supposed to be set in one time and everything keeps coming back to interference from another.
I really didn't like the whole Azati Prime story arc... it was way too restrictive and actually looked like what it was namely "lets use a gimmick to try and write ourselves out of trouble".
Some of the latter episodes I did actually like. I liked the Vulcan trilogy because it resonated with me as a faith orentated person. It's very much the position I feel the Church finds itself in. Bound by a morass of red tape and legalism... while a few small groups within it are in touch with ideas the original Church practiced but find themselves ignored/suppressed/marginalized by a system that has largely forgotten those ideals.
I, like you.. also didn't like the idea of the Temporal Cold War being feratured so frequently and so soon into the series. It's one thing to have a series based on a ship that travels through time... but it's completely annoying to have a story that is supposed to be set in one time and everything keeps coming back to interference from another.
I really didn't like the whole Azati Prime story arc... it was way too restrictive and actually looked like what it was namely "lets use a gimmick to try and write ourselves out of trouble".
Some of the latter episodes I did actually like. I liked the Vulcan trilogy because it resonated with me as a faith orentated person. It's very much the position I feel the Church finds itself in. Bound by a morass of red tape and legalism... while a few small groups within it are in touch with ideas the original Church practiced but find themselves ignored/suppressed/marginalized by a system that has largely forgotten those ideals.
Galahad
Regular
Well Doctor Who is a good example of something that bucks the trend. In fact people tended to get more pee'd off when everything comes back to the companions families in London all the time. It tended to get a bit "Eastenders does Sci-Fi".
My understanding is that it isn't considered theoretically impossible per se, it is just that according to current thinking... anything that occurs as a result of a succesful time travel journey would probably have no discernable effects. The reason for this is that there are two theories as to where you actually ended up if you did travel:
a) Our actual timeline. In this case, anything you travelled back in time to do would never actually change history... merely fulfil what had already happened - much like what happened with Sinclair in B5.
b) A parallel timeline. To avoid paradox or a change of events that would alter the timeline in such a way as to invalidate the history that led you to be able to travel back and change things, an alternate timeline would be created... entirely separate from your own. In this scenario I havce heard it said that the time traveller upon completing his mission would not arrive in the parallel future... but the one that he came from.
I read up on all this in a story by a professor on the subject. He also explained in interview how he felt for example Michael Crichton in his story "Timeline" gets the fundamental idea correct in the beginning of his book, but confuses theory in his narrative... asks the right questions but comes up with the wrong answers.
I do have an old school friend who is a professor in Quantum Physics at Manchester Uni. I could ask him for a more definitive explanation.
GKarsEye
Regular
My understanding to the objection traveling to the past is more physical than logical. That is- how would one actually do that? You could travel to the future by traveling past the speed of light (still ridiculous because mathematically the closer you get to c the closer your mass approaches infinity, but whatever). But how would past traveling actually work?
hypatia
Regular
By the way, I do enjoy time-travel series. Dr. Who is my favorite, I suppose. And I lived the Trek 4 movie (with the whales, I just saw that before I gave up HBO recently, and it realy is a delightful movie).
But to try to make it as if time travel is impossible for them, until the good old Trek crew comes along, pushes the willingness to suspend disbelief, for me. Is it known how to do this, yet no one ever does it except our Enterprise crew? Is the timeline so screwed up since the Trek universe found out how to do it, that it's on the verge of some kind of logical collapse? This I could enjoy. But either take time travel REALLY SERIOUSLY, like JMS did, or just go for the nostalgia/laughs and don't pretend you're making great art (like Deep Space Nine the Tribbles episode, that I really enjoyed a lot).
It's just that they seem to go one way in one episode, and another in the next.
I guess I'm saying let's worry less about "cannon" and more about consistency in a series itself. Well, that and good writing, whether you're going the serious or the comedic angle.
I rarely see movies in theaters these days. Even movies that have been raved about, I'll wait half a year or more to rent. But a good Trek film might make me go to the effort of seeing it in the theater. I remember how exciting the second Trek film was (with the BEST Trek villian EVER, of course) in the theater.
So, go see it, someone have the control to post a non-spoiler thread on it (unless I decide to try to find and read the entire script, but if I do that it means I've given up on seeing it in the theater), and I'll see what people thought of it in general terms.
If someone even wants a non-spoiler thread for it.
Oh, and by the way, I agree 100% that "Enterprise" had an amazing starting concept. Isn't it truly sickening how quickly and totally it was reduced to embarrassing trash?
But to try to make it as if time travel is impossible for them, until the good old Trek crew comes along, pushes the willingness to suspend disbelief, for me. Is it known how to do this, yet no one ever does it except our Enterprise crew? Is the timeline so screwed up since the Trek universe found out how to do it, that it's on the verge of some kind of logical collapse? This I could enjoy. But either take time travel REALLY SERIOUSLY, like JMS did, or just go for the nostalgia/laughs and don't pretend you're making great art (like Deep Space Nine the Tribbles episode, that I really enjoyed a lot
).It's just that they seem to go one way in one episode, and another in the next.
I guess I'm saying let's worry less about "cannon" and more about consistency in a series itself. Well, that and good writing, whether you're going the serious or the comedic angle.
I rarely see movies in theaters these days. Even movies that have been raved about, I'll wait half a year or more to rent. But a good Trek film might make me go to the effort of seeing it in the theater. I remember how exciting the second Trek film was (with the BEST Trek villian EVER, of course) in the theater.
So, go see it, someone have the control to post a non-spoiler thread on it (unless I decide to try to find and read the entire script, but if I do that it means I've given up on seeing it in the theater), and I'll see what people thought of it in general terms.
If someone even wants a non-spoiler thread for it.
Oh, and by the way, I agree 100% that "Enterprise" had an amazing starting concept. Isn't it truly sickening how quickly and totally it was reduced to embarrassing trash?
Galahad
Regular
I believe I'm correct in saying that current theory suggests the use of artificially created portals or wormholes rather than vehicles... so Trek was pretty on the mark with modern theory with the episode CotEoF.
hypatia
Regular
Sorry, I missed a few posts there when I last responded.
I don't worry too much about how time travel could be possible: it's a bit too much lik "faith/science" where faith tries to pass itself off as a science. When that happens, or when science starts to take on aspects of religion, you are going to contaminate both.
In science you don't say "I really want this to happen, so I'll ignore all evidence and just assume it's possible, then explain how that might be so". I mean, that's great for speculation, but hearing people talk about it seriously always makes me think that I HOPE that's done just for fun, and no one really thinks that's the way science is supposed to approach things. Science is supposed to actually adjust its theories, conclusions and even goals depending on what the actual data shows them. And faith is supposed to be known in a way that cannot be proven, it is just understood personally on a deep, intuitive level (or understood via personal experience), right? Both are fine, but it makes me wonder why some people try so hard to combine the two. Contact sports are contact sports, and opera is opera. I'd hate to see someone try to combine those. Well, o.k.,maybe in a great comedy short skit it would be fun.
My reasoning on time travel is probably naively simple: if it were possible we put so much effort into finding a way to do it, we'd likely be successful. If we could travel back in time, knowing humans, we'd have irreparably screwed everything up long, long ago (or far, far into the future, depending on how you want to look at it )
Since our universe hasn't collapsed in a hopeless jumble of paradoxes, I'd say that we never discover time travel. Nor will any other intelligent race do so, and still be in our universe.
A paradox would either destroy a universe, or find a way to "edit out" the paradox-maker(s), wouldn't it?
Hmmm, this is fun. I guess I see now why people speculate on it after all.
Interesting thoughts, everyone. Thanks for sharing them. And old Mighty asked a whopper of a great question. Makes me wish I was still in college, and could actually present his question to a quantum mechanics expert. Because if there could be a way around the one-way-only direction of time, it couldn't be found in Einstein's theories, could it?
What does old nutty prof. Chilli think?
I don't worry too much about how time travel could be possible: it's a bit too much lik "faith/science" where faith tries to pass itself off as a science. When that happens, or when science starts to take on aspects of religion, you are going to contaminate both.
In science you don't say "I really want this to happen, so I'll ignore all evidence and just assume it's possible, then explain how that might be so". I mean, that's great for speculation, but hearing people talk about it seriously always makes me think that I HOPE that's done just for fun, and no one really thinks that's the way science is supposed to approach things. Science is supposed to actually adjust its theories, conclusions and even goals depending on what the actual data shows them. And faith is supposed to be known in a way that cannot be proven, it is just understood personally on a deep, intuitive level (or understood via personal experience), right? Both are fine, but it makes me wonder why some people try so hard to combine the two. Contact sports are contact sports, and opera is opera. I'd hate to see someone try to combine those. Well, o.k.,maybe in a great comedy short skit it would be fun.
My reasoning on time travel is probably naively simple: if it were possible we put so much effort into finding a way to do it, we'd likely be successful. If we could travel back in time, knowing humans, we'd have irreparably screwed everything up long, long ago (or far, far into the future, depending on how you want to look at it
)Since our universe hasn't collapsed in a hopeless jumble of paradoxes, I'd say that we never discover time travel. Nor will any other intelligent race do so, and still be in our universe.
A paradox would either destroy a universe, or find a way to "edit out" the paradox-maker(s), wouldn't it?
Hmmm, this is fun. I guess I see now why people speculate on it after all.
Interesting thoughts, everyone. Thanks for sharing them. And old Mighty asked a whopper of a great question. Makes me wish I was still in college, and could actually present his question to a quantum mechanics expert. Because if there could be a way around the one-way-only direction of time, it couldn't be found in Einstein's theories, could it?
What does old nutty prof. Chilli think?
Capt. Neville
Regular
Unless, of course, the parallel/fractal timeline theory actually turns out to be true, in which case we can't create paradoxes because we just end up affecting other timelines other than our own.
This, to me, is actually probably the strongest argument that the universe actually does have multiple timelines: by having a single timeline, and the inevitable conclusion that someone would develop time travel, it opens the possibility of paradoxes, and the universe is just too smart for that. So just plop all time travelers into a parallel timeline where they can go nuke or sleep with whoever they want and there's no chance of paradoxes forming. (Of course, at that point, the next milestone would change from backwards-time-travel-is-impossible to backwards-time-travel-to-the-same-timeline-is-impossible
And since I haven't seen it mentioned yet: 12 Monkeys. Most accurate representation of a single-timeline theory I've ever seen (and can recall).
--mcn
hypatia
Regular
Multiverses, though, sound like great sci-fi but lousy science. How would you ever "discover" one to experiment on? If you even could do that, how could you report your results to anyone?
It seems like just a complicated way of saying "wouldn't it be great", but in all honesty I can't see how it could ever be a science. One-verse or multi-verse, it sounds like the "verse" is getting more and more complicated and impossible to organize.
Again, fun to play with in sci-fi, and it was well used in "The Next Generation" and in "Babylon 5" and a few, select others.
But it just doesn't "ring true" fo rme, when the universe seems too complex to hold its own order, even in one simple little universe. If the "verse" can't even stop a thing like irreversable entropy, how could it "handle" far, far more complicated (in fact infinite) set of "verses"?
Obviously, that's what science says whenever a new theory comes about. But when you hit the "how on earth could you even meaningfully test this theory?" stage, I just don't see how a science can ever be made of it.
Just my two cents.
It seems like just a complicated way of saying "wouldn't it be great", but in all honesty I can't see how it could ever be a science. One-verse or multi-verse, it sounds like the "verse" is getting more and more complicated and impossible to organize.
Again, fun to play with in sci-fi, and it was well used in "The Next Generation" and in "Babylon 5" and a few, select others.
But it just doesn't "ring true" fo rme, when the universe seems too complex to hold its own order, even in one simple little universe. If the "verse" can't even stop a thing like irreversable entropy, how could it "handle" far, far more complicated (in fact infinite) set of "verses"?
Obviously, that's what science says whenever a new theory comes about. But when you hit the "how on earth could you even meaningfully test this theory?" stage, I just don't see how a science can ever be made of it.
Just my two cents.
Capt. Neville
Regular
That would be what I was mentioning 12 Monkeys for. Any, *any* story that portrays the ability to actually perceive changes to the timeline seem to just miss how fundamental of a concept time *is*. The problem isn't that you can't change the timeline, it's that you would have no way of knowing that it was changed, because changing it would also change your perception, such that you thought the new way was the way it always was.
(Oddly enough, the one ST:V episode The Year of Hell got this pretty much right: the only people that were aware of the fact that anything in the timeline actually *changed* were aware because they were specially protected against the effects; to everyone else, it was always status quo. I say oddly because there were plenty of ST episodes, including Voyager, that also got it wrong. Guess you can't win 'em all...)
The one good way, of course, to tell is to determine whether a causal paradox exists. Since there is no starting event (hence the paradox), there is no logical way for the timeline events to have come about. The resolution is that the timeline originally contained a different set of events, and through time travel, events were changed that resulted in the causal loop, simultaneously wiping out evidence of the original, true starting events.
12 Monkeys has a good example of this. Cole was sent back in time to investigate the Order of the 12 Monkeys and their role in the holocaust, but Jeffrey got the idea for the Order, or at the very least the name, from Cole himself. Causal paradox: how would Cole have been sent back to look for the Order if it wasn't created until he interfered? The answer is that originally, Jeffrey got the idea from another source than Cole, created the Order on his own accord, which led to Cole traveling back in time and altering events to become the new source of the idea. The singular timeline was altered, but from the perspective of the causal loop, the events simply are.
And just how many parts of the universe that we now know as fact were so fanciful at one point in the past that nobody could conceive of how to test it? Just seems like that's not a very good reason to discount the possibility.
I, personally prefer the multiverse theory because it seems to track with how the universe has unfolded for us so far: our perception starts with the simple view (a single timeline) but only much later do we discover the extra dimension (pun intended) that we didn't see before.
--mcn
