J.J. Abrams' Star Trek


Recommended Posts

I don't see how he needs to justify it anymore than those posters coming in here saying it's a good film. Can't really have double standards :p

I've not seen it yet.

Well, those posters are just acknowledging the truth. Your dont justify that earth is round, do you? :D

kk, just joking :)

I was surprised at the showing I saw yesterday to see the theatre only about 1/3rd full. No sell outs and my local AMC even canceled a couple of showings. How were the crowds at other showings?

To my surprise I'm pleased to report that my local Cineworld was full!

Er that was the whole point of a reboot so the story isnt constrained by startrek canon timeline, now they have free reign to do whatever stories they want.

Exactly. It means they don't have to disregard good plots in order to adhere to Star Trek canon. Where would be the suspense if we knew in advance the crew survive?

i got a question , if this is a prequel , and Vulcan went Kaput if we then go to Start Trek I - The Motion Picture ( isnt Spock on Vulcan planet ? ) or the next movie is going to put them back to the "correct timeline"

Switching back to the original timeline would be too confusing for the new audience, although it would be necessary for a TNG/Voyager era sequel.

I saw it yesterday and I was pretty disappointed, it wasn't awful, it just lacked originality. I wish they didn't go for the "whole universe at stake" scale of story again and again. The beginnings of James T Kirk and the Enterprise would have been interesting enough for me without resorting to end of all life as we know it. The whole time travel thing has been done so many times before it makes watching star trek a ground hog day experience for me.

i got a question , if this is a prequel , and Vulcan went Kaput if we then go to Start Trek I - The Motion Picture ( isnt Spock on Vulcan planet ? ) or the next movie is going to put them back to the "correct timeline"

I did enjoyed the movie except for the guy they put as the russian one :p ( come on at accent sucked )

its a new timeline and a newstart; so the other movies really dont matter anymore. I'd imagine the whole point of a reboot is to keep this timeline going back to the other one would be a horrible mistake and waste of what this movie did.

Seen it, absolute rubbish I'm afraid. Star trek is now officially an american teen, action soap, directed by morons who I doubt have ever watched an episode.

LOL what the hell have they done to the romulans? Vin diesel tattoos?

Black hole bombs? Shoot first and be damned attitude?

Sorry, that was not Star Trek, that was dumbed down over glossed CGI tosh to rake in the cash. In other words, exactly what I was expecting....

FINALLY! I'm glad someone else gets it. This was a poor use of the franchise. If it had been called "Space Trek" then I would be fine with it. Nothing about this movie felt like Star Trek in any way. I even went to see it again after everyone and their mother told me how wrong I was. Still frustrated me to no end the second time through.

Do I need to have any beforehand knowledge before I can go into the theatre? Like how what races are there in the Star Trek universe? Or what the Enterprise is? Or why the heck pointy eared Sylar is with the normal eared people?

No it's not Star Trek other than by name so just go for it, or better still buy yourself a 6 pack and enjoy the evening instead :D

FINALLY! I'm glad someone else gets it. This was a poor use of the franchise. If it had been called "Space Trek" then I would be fine with it. Nothing about this movie felt like Star Trek in any way. I even went to see it again after everyone and their mother told me how wrong I was. Still frustrated me to no end the second time through.

Precisely! Great specialFX/CGI and some nice space battles with loads of other action, but it wasn't Star Trek other than the fact they called it that and used the familiar names and terminology ;)

Ok, so I just got back from seeing the movie. So stuff like what happened to planet Vulcan and Spocks mom, that doesn't happen in the original timeline right? So the movie basically branches off into its own alternate timeline?

Based on the stardate of Spocks ship where exactly in the future trek timeline would that have put him? After Nemesis or before?

Ok, so I just got back from seeing the movie. So stuff like what happened to planet Vulcan and Spocks mom, that doesn't happen in the original timeline right? So the movie basically branches off into its own alternate timeline?

Based on the stardate of Spocks ship where exactly in the future trek timeline would that have put him? After Nemesis or before?

After Nemesis, they have prequel comics that explain some of the plot points to tie this movie with the original series and TNG. Things like how did Nero know about Kirk and what not is given in the comics, too.

FINALLY! I'm glad someone else gets it. This was a poor use of the franchise. If it had been called "Space Trek" then I would be fine with it. Nothing about this movie felt like Star Trek in any way. I even went to see it again after everyone and their mother told me how wrong I was. Still frustrated me to no end the second time through.
Precisely! Great specialFX/CGI and some nice space battles with loads of other action, but it wasn't Star Trek other than the fact they called it that and used the familiar names and terminology ;)

Why dont you people get it, this is EXACTLY what JJ and Paramount were going for, this is a complete reboot and wasnt for the fans of Star Trek, it was to use the name to get people who previously thought Trek was far too nerdy/geeky for them to go and watch it.

JJ said from the start this wasnt a film for Trekkies.

Seen it, absolute rubbish I'm afraid. Star trek is now officially an american teen, action soap, directed by morons who I doubt have ever watched an episode.

LOL what the hell have they done to the romulans? Vin diesel tattoos?

Black hole bombs? Shoot first and be damned attitude?

Sorry, that was not Star Trek, that was dumbed down over glossed CGI tosh to rake in the cash. In other words, exactly what I was expecting....

i think you're describing star wars there actually.

i thought it was a pretty good effort overall. not as good as the motion picture or first contact but a good bit better than the past couple. i'd call myself a fairly casual ST fan. i like TNG and voyager and watch the movies. i liked it.

my dad is a star trek buff and always has been. he loved the film. he pointed out some of the story and wording contained a lot of in-jokes and stuff you'd need to have watched TOS to understand. i haven't really so i missed that. perhaps you did too...doesn't mean its dumbed down because you don't fully get every last bit of it.

as for the effects...its a star trek movie...what do you expect? the way they did the effects like going to warp was modern but also had some retro feel to it. the same with the ship itself and engineering for example.

the characters seemed well selected too and in keeping with their originals.

and what have they done to the romulans? were you really expecting the square shoulder pads and helmet hair styles? if so, then it would appear you've not actually watched the original series (which is where this is set). in that the romulans look essentially the same as spock. considering star trek needs to actually reach out to new audiences you probably wouldn't get too far if the "baddies" looked the same as one of the main "goodies".

Why dont you people get it, this is EXACTLY what JJ and Paramount were going for, this is a complete reboot and wasnt for the fans of Star Trek, it was to use the name to get people who previously thought Trek was far too nerdy/geeky for them to go and watch it.

JJ said from the start this wasnt a film for Trekkies.

Wow, this is becoming painful! You can't be this stupid??

I have already said that the film was exactly what I expected ( we all knew what was coming ), my point is that I don't like it and it failed dismally, it IS NOT Star Trek, how hard is it to understand that?

It is not Star Trek so why call it that? Call it Space Wars or Star Fail, anything but Star Trek!

One more time, this is not Star Trek remade for the masses, it is something else entirely.

/me walks of shaking his head

Thank god, it wasn't what you wanted in a Star Trek movie.

The past couple of Trek movies played out using the same old formula for a Trek movie and utterly failed. Diplomacy...yea right.

This was needed for the franchise, whether you like it or not. If you wanted Star Trek to continue in any other manner and make it relevant, it had to be accessible to the public, not just the trek fans.

Wow, this is becoming painful! You can't be this stupid??

I have already said that the film was exactly what I expected ( we all knew what was coming ), my point is that I don't like it and it failed dismally, it IS NOT Star Trek, how hard is it to understand that?

It is not Star Trek so why call it that? Call it Space Wars or Star Fail, anything but Star Trek!

One more time, this is not Star Trek remade for the masses, it is something else entirely.

/me walks of shaking his head

You post like you are posting on behalf of the masses, you are in the minority in this thread of people who dont like it, there are many self confessed Trekkies/Trekkers who have posted in here saying the film is great, there are many people who arent Trekkies/Trekkers who have posted saying it was a great film, just because you dont like it doesnt mean everyone else doesnt like it.

I dont appreciate the insinuation that im stupid just because i dont appreciate the crap you are spewing.

The film IS Star Trek it says so in the titles no amount of verbal diahorrea by yourself is going to change the name of the film, it has stars, it has a trek, it has kirk, it has spock, it has the enterprise, it has the federation, it is Star Trek.

Wow, this is becoming painful! You can't be this stupid??

I have already said that the film was exactly what I expected ( we all knew what was coming ), my point is that I don't like it and it failed dismally, it IS NOT Star Trek, how hard is it to understand that?

It is not Star Trek so why call it that? Call it Space Wars or Star Fail, anything but Star Trek!

One more time, this is not Star Trek remade for the masses, it is something else entirely.

/me walks of shaking his head

you clearly have a well formed idea about what this film should have been to be "worthy" of the star trek name.

so please enlighten us about what you'd have done?

Wow, this is becoming painful! You can't be this stupid??

I have already said that the film was exactly what I expected ( we all knew what was coming ), my point is that I don't like it and it failed dismally, it IS NOT Star Trek, how hard is it to understand that?

It is not Star Trek so why call it that? Call it Space Wars or Star Fail, anything but Star Trek!

One more time, this is not Star Trek remade for the masses, it is something else entirely.

/me walks of shaking his head

hmm nahh... its star trek. Great movie! :)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!