Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
$$ Consequences of the movie on the original Trek universe [Spoilers]
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [qb] You sure? There are exceptions, but most of the Romulans in TOS had helmets which featured the same forehead design. And no such Romulans have been seen in the 24th Century.[/qb][/QUOTE]Mark Lenard's Commander and his Centurian, the female Commander, Caithlin Dar, Ambassador Nanclus, all of the Romulan delegation from TUC, etc, had no ridges. Either there are ridged and ridgeless Romulans who tend to flock together or they are all the same and we are supposed to ignore the apparent difference as aesthetic retconning. Have it whichever way you like, but you can't have it both ways. In any case, the discrepancy already existed before the new film was even conceived. [QUOTE][qb]Are you suggesting the unlikely scenario that this just so happens to be a ship totally staffed by a minority of smooth-headed Romulans? Do you have any evidence for this unlikely situation?[/qb][/QUOTE]It's certainly no more unlikely than that all of the Klingons encountered during TOS were of the smooth-headed variety. Besides, how many [i]Narada[/i] crewmembers did we actually see in the film? Less than ten, IIRC. If you really insisted on it, there could easily have been some ridged ones that we didn't see. But as I said, I'm sure we're not supposed to take it as anything but an artistic choice rather than an in-universe alteration. [QUOTE][b]We've only seen one change of stardate schemes in 200+ years of Federation history. The Earth Starfleet used Earth-normal dating conventions.[/b][/QUOTE]Yes, but going from Earth normal dating to the TOS stardate system is a change. So is going from the TOS system to the TNG system. We've seen the Warp Speed scale change back and forth as well. (Although, here again, it was never intended that we scrutinize it this closely.) [QUOTE][b]But again, your argument hinges on the argumentum ad ignorantium . . . specifically in this case, that no matter what changes are evident, they are based on a change that occurred between 2379 and 2387, no matter how unlikely.[/b][/QUOTE]What it hinges on is the clearly-stated intent of TPTB. Unlikeliness is subjectively judged. I don't see how your interpretation is any less convoluted or more likely, leaving aside that [i]you want it to be the case[/i]. [QUOTE][b]There's simply too much that is too different and would've been too easy to make [i]not[/i] different, and no reason to jump all 100 hoops to get to it.[/b][/QUOTE]Your timeline hypothesis strikes me as more hoop-jumping than mine, especially when the producers have essentially told us what their intention was and how it is represented in the film. [QUOTE][b]I do not remember that line. However, I would've thought that going into the black hole in SN 2387 and coming out in BH 2233 would be simultaneous. After all, minutes spent in time travel have no real meaning when you get down to it.[/b][/QUOTE]Spock Prime told Kirk his passage through the anomaly "was only minutes to me." [QUOTE][b]Our observations are not wrong. Our conclusions might be[/QUOTE][/b] That is the same principle I am working from. [QUOTE][b]the producers have ignored the Trek time travel principles standard to the productions for 40 years[/QUOTE][/b] There has been no standard set of time travel principles common to all the productions for 40 years! Writers just did whatever suited their particular plots, influenced by the popular science of the day. My personal rationalization is that the apparent incongruity of differing time travel models is analogous to that between Newtonian and Relativistic models. Initially perceived as contradictory, one is in fact a subset valid under a certain set of circumstances. [QUOTE][b]That simply means that, if we choose to care enough to try to make a cohesive whole out of it, we have to get more creative with our conclusions.[/b][/QUOTE]Again, I am working from the same principle. And forgive me, but I think you're getting a little [i]too[/i] creative for your own good, here. I think we're supposed to take what we see at face value, but with the caveat that retconning is a continual process carried out by whoever the current caretakers of the franchise happen to be, and ultimately we must defer to that until the next bunch come along. The whole point of including Nimoy in the film was to pass on the [i]Trek[/i] mantle, just as had been done with every preceeding iteration. If Spock Prime (and, indeed, the title itself is an indication of intent) is some further alternate as you suggest, that aspect is gutted. Therefore, your scenario is dramatically unworkable. Don't get me wrong, I have plenty of issues with the creative decisions behind the new film, and if I'd been in charge I would've done things differently. But, just as it was with ENT, I feel it's counterproductive to work toward the exclusion of what we don't like rather than its inclusion. -[b]MMoM[/b] :D [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3