Q&A: The most recent Star Trek movie, did the twist help, or did it ruin the whole history of a great story?
Question by yamnnjr: The most recent Star Trek movie, did the twist help, or did it ruin the whole history of a great story?
After I finished watching the movie, I felt sort of irked. It seemed that a great and most epic of stories had unfolded right before our eyes over the last 5 decades. Then in one fell swoop, in only about 2 hours the entire history of Star Trek was ripped out from under us by morons who may have a knack for entertainment, but severely lacked any concept of reality, military, chain of command, and the solid real-to-life structure that really made Star Trek so believable, and thus so engrossing, inspiring, and finally, ultimately so enjoyable.
Before any of you artistically challenged, narrow-minded sarcastic dingos start poking fun of my “real-to-life” claim, Obviously by “real-to-life” I mean that it was believably true in a non-hollywood drama sort of way. In other words, it was feasible to imagine that in the future, such a thing would be possible as a federation of planets, giant city-sized starships designed for both battle and exploration of the universe, and a military structure very similar to our modern day navy. Even today’s aircraft carriers are so large and populated that they are called floating cities. Obviously some of the stories and the luck experienced by the crew of the Enterprise was unrealistic as it would have to be if one did not want to constantly hire new actors every few episodes or so.
Anyhow, my question is as is stated in the subject line. To you, did the end of the latest Star Trek movie with Sylar playing as Spock (Which was rather peculiar at first, but he did as good a job under the circumstances of having to abide by the will of the moronic writing/producing staff, to me.) properly the serve the Star Trek epic, or did it uproot the very foundations of all we’ve come to know and love about the history of the epic saga that we all call Star Trek?
I think you can tell what my opinion is, but what is your’s?
And in case, you still can’t see what I’m getting at:
***SPOILER COMING UP NEXT***
The whole time shift thing. They left it all undone. Kirk’s father is dead, Kirk grew up differently, therefore has different attitudes and will make different decisions, and ultimately it means that Kirk never did anything that happened in the original Star Trek exactly as he did it originally. Kirk was promoted to Cpt straight out of the Academy, Spock was a higher rank than Kirk by about 5 or so officer ranks right before Kirk shot straight up from an Ensign to a Captain, from an 0-1 to an 0-6, which is utterly absurd. Not even medal of honor recipients would ever get that kind of lasting battlefield promotion. One rank as an enlisted is feasible, two is ridiculous, but as an officer, no, it just wouldn’t happen, and even if an ensign were lucky enough to get the Captain’s chair, which would be an insult to every other officer there that has had to bust their butts to get where they are, it would only be a temporary position until the need was lifted or a hire ranking officer could prudently take command.
I understand the reasoning, so that they could possibly make another movie or, if popularity provided, even a whole new show off of that new time line. But, come on, change a whole epic history in the making since the 50’s?
Anyhow, I re-digress. What do you think?
At The Good:
What do you mean? From what I remember, the Enterprise crew never corrected the time line, which, unless I’m missing something, means that they stayed in the parallel time line. So I don’t understand what you mean when you say that in the next movie they’re going back to the parallel time line. Aren’t they already in the parallel time line?
Unless you mean parallel universe as in an actual parallel universe that has nothing to do with the alternate time line. In which case I don’t remember, was J.J.Abrams movie based in parallel universe? Because I thought it was just an alternate time line created when that enemy travelled back in time and ended up killing Kirk’s father.
If I’m mistaken and we’re not talking an alternate time line, but an actual parallel universe, I have nothing against that because then it has no bearing whatsoever on our future, traditional Star Trek, being an alternate universe and all.
Best answer:
Answer by The Good
Quite frankly, I prefer the so-called “Prime” universe of Star Trek, to the parallel one created by J.J. Abrams in Star Trek XI. I won’t go into too much detail, as I am running low on time here, but I believe that some things are best left alone. Now the next Star Trek film is presumably going back into the parallel universe, rather than focusing on continuing the adventures of the primary. It’s not a terrible thing per se, but I feel as if it takes away from the focus of the “real” Star Trek universe, if you can understand what I mean…
Add your own answer in the comments!
