Bass, can I please just say that is absolutely brilliant, and I am reeling over how I never even considered something even close to it.
Why the hell aren't you an author or a sceenwriter by now?
That's kind of you, thank you.
If I came across as unduly argumentative I apologize. I am merely trying to discuss the movie. Debate is only natural in a forum like this.
You weren't being unduly argumentative at all.
Just to clarify, do they know where they are going to go when they go through the black holes? And for that matter do they always end up in the same place? I was under the impression (maybe this is just me thinking something that was in no way presented in the movie) that when they go through the black holes they go to some random time and place. Therefore, even if they went through that black hole there wouldn't be any way of guaranteeing that they ended up in the past, thus allowing them to save Vulcan.
Well, in Trek 4, Spock is able to calculate the way in which the Enterprise could slingshot around the sun to end up in a specific point in space-time.
I think here, Spock would do the same. I mean, if it's more exciting he only knows
when and not
where, that's fine. But I think he knows both.
But I actually felt, when thinking the idea, that he might be
lying to himself and just grabbing onto hope. I mentioned that Spock hit an emotional peak - Spock at this moment is almost incoherent with hysteria trying to explain this to Kirk. Bones thinks Spock is
completely insane to suggest it. Kirk is a daredevil and is
willing to try it anyway. My thinking would be that after Nero messes them up, Spock would continue to promote the idea that it could still work and Kirk finally learns some element of mature responsibility and what it is to face a no-win situation and mounts an escape attempt from the black hole.
So, Spock either knows both, doesn't know both, knows one or the other. Whatever makes it more exciting.
I will admit that there are some other interesting ways that they could have gone (and that I thought they might have gone), but didn't. I don't think these "what ifs?" should be held against the film though. It was solid for what it was, which was a solid reboot. I think alot of the themes that long time fans thought were missing may appear in sequels.
This is a valid point - you can't criticize a film for what you wished it was as opposed to what it is. There were a number of things I wished it was, and it wasn't, but I don't hold it against it. I'm not digging the conceptual decisions of the film, but I tried to enjoy it for what it was and when I criticize it, I criticize what was there.
For example, I don't think needed a retcon at all. I think a total reboot, a new Trek, works fine. Yet they did a retcon anyway. And I think the film suffers for it. Not because the retcon is a bad idea or that I hate it or anything, but because the expositional complexity to do the retcon is detrimental to the film's structure and cohesiveness.
By the same token, I'm not changing the plot with my suggestions for the alternate ending, but rather altering plot points in the ending to point out that they didn't use the storytelling resources that they themselves put into the script, and thereby making a point about how the film is poorly designed.
I know it may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but there is a big difference between saying "The black hole scene could work like this" without adding any new elements to the film and saying something like, "This film would've been better if they had remade the Best of Both Worlds". Does that make sense?
Bass, for the first time in history, I want to kiss you, hug you and dance around a field with you, merrily.
Thanks.
MY GOD, YESSS!!!
This is my main problem with the 'active reboot onscreen' thing that I actually did think was pretty clever. The fact is, it still isn't the 'standard' Trek universe beforehand, though, because everyone on the USS Kelvin are wearing the Enterprise insignia (which didn't become the standard Starfleet Insignia until well after TOS).
Well, ENTERPRISE looks different even though it's a prequel. Same for Phantom Menace. Set design can alter and still be 'in continuity'. It's a given by the audience; "It's 2009, it's okay if you don't make it look like everything's made out of polyester and cardboard."
I assumed, at first, it wasn't a retcon because Romulus never exploded. Someone pointed out that 130 years into the future is actually AFTER the last episode of Voyager and Nemesis and it IS a retcon and I just shook my head and wondered "why?"
I definitely did like it and I can tell you now that if I had never seen a film called Star Trek: First Contact when I was fourteen, I would definitely be spouting out the same "this movie is the best sci-fi I've ever seen!!!" and "Star Trek was lame before this" crap that everyone on the Internet is saying, now.
I'm just happy that it seems to be introducing people to the franchise. I was worried that people would now only be bothered with Abrams 'Power Rangers in Space' version, but they seem to actually have time for the original.
I don't think that will be a problem. I got into Trek with GENERATIONS and just a couple of years back discovered the original series which blew me away with the sheer craftsmanship it had. Even the stupidest episodes were classics. I'm sure that'll be the same for others.
