Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Star Trek XI Plot Details Revealed

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the omg-spock-is-made-of-chocolate dept.

Movies 220

HotChk101 writes to tell us that the plot for Star Trek XI has been revealed over at IESB. This information has not yet been confirmed by the studio so take with the requisite grain of salt. Be warned link contains potential spoiler information.

cancel ×

220 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

huh? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21327547)

HotChk101 and Star Trek? Something here does not compute.

Re:huh? (5, Funny)

mh1997 (1065630) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327583)

"HotChk101 and Star Trek? Something here does not compute."

if we've learned anything from "To Catch a Predator," HotChk101 is a 63 year old man.

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21327731)

if we've learned anything from "To Catch a Predator," HotChk101 is a 63 year old man.


He has a mild fever, huge man-boobs and operates out of room #101.

Re:huh? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21328633)

if we've learned anything from "To Catch a Predator," HotChk101 is a 63 year old man.

He has a mild fever, huge man-boobs and operates out of room #101.

I think I saw that guy at a trek convention in Oakland in '75.

dumbledore is gay (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21327561)

spoiler ins subject! do not read! propz to the gnaa.

OMG! (1)

monkeyboythom (796957) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327575)

Spock dies?

Re:OMG! (5, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327625)

This makes his second death, right? At this rate, he'll soon catch up with Buffy!

Re:OMG! (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327793)

This makes his second death, right? At this rate, he'll soon catch up with Buffy!
But her boobs still look better.

Re:OMG! (4, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21329011)

A matter of opinion.

SMG on the rumor that she'd had a boob job: "Lemme tell ya, if I paid for these, I'd like 'em to look a lot better than this."

Re:OMG! (1)

ishpeck (160581) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327795)

Or his FIRST death -- depending on where this movie fits in the chronology.

Re:OMG! (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327821)

This makes his second death, right?
Third. You forget the Spocks's Brain episode. Oh wait! Sorry... it was Leonard Nimoy's acting that died in that one...

Re:OMG! (1)

Plaid Phantom (818438) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327907)

Still has nothing on Daniel Jackson, though.

Re:OMG! (1)

MikeDirnt69 (1105185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327999)

I just gave up looking at that site to avoid the spoilers... and what I found here, on the FIRST post? #!@%!!!

Re:OMG! (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21329085)

It was fun.

Spoilers (4, Insightful)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327581)

Who would have guessed an article that tells you the plot of a movie would contain spoilers? Luckily TFA has so many spoiler warnings that I gave up reading before I got to any mention of the plot.

Re:Spoilers (4, Funny)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327615)

I think the spoiler is that it's a Trek film with a plot.

Re:Spoilers (4, Funny)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327699)

I think the spoiler is that it's a Trek film with a plot.
What does God need with a Plot?

Re:Spoilers (2, Funny)

joeytmann (664434) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327883)

I need it. Bring it closer so I might join with it.

Re:Spoilers (4, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328233)

That movie never happened.

Re:Spoilers (1)

emarkp (67813) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328653)

Yes it did, and the RiffTrax of it [rifftrax.com] is awesome.

Re:Spoilers (1)

Altus (1034) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328759)


The title of the slashdot summary contains the phrase "plot details revealed" and you needed the linked articles spoiler warnings to stop you from reading further?

Hypocrisy! (5, Insightful)

Greatmoose (896405) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327609)

So the author starts off the article by lambasting those who don't know the original series, and then proceeds to spend the majority of the article rehashing the "City on the Edge of Forever" episode and the Kobyashi Maru scenario. Oh, and has a few sentences thrown in about the new movie. Man, that was bad.

More time travel? DO NOT WANT! (4, Insightful)

bckrispi (725257) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327737)

Out of the 10 current films, three of them involve time travel with the intent of changing the present. Are the writers so bereft of fresh ideas that they need to go back to this stale premise again??? Gahh! Jar Jar was annoying, but at least he was original.

Re:More time travel? DO NOT WANT! (1)

joeytmann (664434) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327975)

Well being that the TNG cast won't(well probably won't and I think the same can be said for DS9 and Voyager) do another flick it stands to reason the easiest way is to go back for more prequels. Even though its a rather convient plot device, time travel can add lots of story lines that are too difficult to work out with a very linear time frame.

It's worse than that. He's dead, Jim. (4, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328027)

The PROBLEM is that time travel does NOT change the present. They heroes fix the problem in the past and the present is the present again.

There's nothing moving FORWARD. There is no development or change. The entire movie could just as well never have happened.

That's why it makes the ideal Trek movie plot (2, Insightful)

snowwrestler (896305) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328969)

Why would anyone want to move the plot forward, or the characters to develop further? People are already super-invested in things the way they "know" them to be. These time plots are the perfect device for Star Trek--the characters and situations are already well-known and familiar to the hardcore fans. It's like that kids show Blues Clues, which shows the same episode every day for a week because little kids crave the familiar.

Re:More time travel? DO NOT WANT! (2, Insightful)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328531)

Jar Jar was NOT original - 'he' was a parody of an African-American stereotype.

Re:More time travel? DO NOT WANT! (3, Insightful)

MontyApollo (849862) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328659)

And time travel is handled so poorly. In the TOS episode they had to go back and find out what happened, so it makes since for them to go back and figure it out.

In the movie plot however, Spocks knows what the Romulan's plan is, so he could just go back in time right before the Romulan tries to go back in time and kill him there couldn't he? He knows where and when he will be, but instead chases him some place where he has trouble finding him.

Same with the Generations movie plot. If Picard and Kirk could come out of the ribbon at whatever time they wanted, they could have chosen a better time and place.

In First Contact, the Borg could have time traveled in secret, not in the middle of a big battle where someone might figure out what they were doing. They could also keep trying until they got it right - they still had the knowledge of how to do it even if that one ship was destroyed.

I don't remember much about the save the whales movie.

Re:More time travel? DO NOT WANT! (1)

Kilraven (1101873) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328945)

I don't remember much about the save the whales movie.
IV was decent in regards to time travel and attracting a broader audience. No attempt to alter the past to save the future gimmicks (though they did alter the past, it was never made intentional or critical to the plot). Merely pick up unimportant object in past, bring to future, and pray for no butterfly effects.

Re:More time travel? DO NOT WANT! (2, Informative)

Applekid (993327) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328689)

There seems to be an almost religious fantatisism with keeping everything nicely contained within the same timeline of events at Paramount.

While not related, I had played through the Halflife 2 Epsiode 2 commentary and they mentioned something about the flashlight battery now being separate from the main HEV sprinting battery, and their argument was that they weren't going to make the game less fun just for the sake of a keeping bad game design decision true throughout the lifespan of the series.

That said, I've always felt this was the most compelling argument for allowing for new things to happen without always resorting to time travel: http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf [typepad.com]

Re:More time travel? DO NOT WANT! (1)

superstick58 (809423) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328879)

Yes! I've got a brand new idea. Why don't they kill off a main character! That is always exciting and rarely done with this type of franchise. That should provide some fresh experiences for trek fans out there...

Re:More time travel? DO NOT WANT! (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328947)

My three least favorite plot complications are time travel, amnesia, and anything having to do with a "prophecy."

Re:Hypocrisy! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21328305)

And almost every Star Trek film and episode has dealt with some form of space travel. PUH-LEASE! Space Travel has been done to death! Can we move on yet?!

I for one.... (2, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327619)

I'm getting pretty tired of prequels and time travel. This seems to have a lot of both. Don't get me wrong, I'll still pay to go see it and drag my wife along kicking and screaming to see it with me. I'll probably have to fork out for good dinner to get her to come along.

Who knows. It can still be good. Let's hope it doesn't suck or I'll get more resistance from the Mrs when trying to go to the next SciFi movie.

Re:I for one.... (2, Funny)

magarity (164372) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327697)

getting pretty tired of prequels and time travel
 
I was thinking the same thing and figure the final word in tired, cheap ST plot devices would be a prequel about travelling back in time to meet Q in a runaway holodeck program.

Re:I for one.... (2, Funny)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327767)

I was thinking the same thing and figure the final word in tired, cheap ST plot devices would be a prequel about travelling back in time to meet Q in a runaway holodeck program.

Well, you may need the Borg in there somewhere and whatever the problem is, it must be fixed using some pseudo-science techno-solution that is redirected through the deflector dish.

Re:I for one.... (2, Informative)

magarity (164372) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328831)

I have to disagree; the Borg are a pretty good relentless antagonist and not a cheap plot device in themselves... although unfortunately cheap plot devices are too often used to get the Federation Friends out of their clutches.

That's the problem. (3, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327877)

Don't get me wrong, I'll still pay to go see it and drag my wife along kicking and screaming to see it with me.

SCORE!!!

No matter what crap they produce, just stamp "Star Trek" on it and they've sold tickets.

They won't stop producing crap until you stop paying them for the crap.

It's got time travel in it. It's 100% guaranteed to suck. That's why they had to include baby Spock ..... better include Big Spock just to make sure. Yeah, that will sell tickets. No matter how bad.

Re:That's the problem. (4, Funny)

Stamen (745223) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328537)

"Last nights episode sucked. Everything Star Trek has sucked since TOS. Another rehash, more talking heads, time travel, Picard's feelings, blah blah blah. I watched the episode twice and man did it suck. I've seen every episode, at least two times or more, and they all suck so bad. Do they have writers? How about real actors? I'd write more, but Enterpise is on, and I have to watch it again, just to make sure it still sucks, just as bad."

Re:I for one.... oh boy (1)

sjwest (948274) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328313)

Paramount welcomes its Quantum leap fanboys...

Re:I for one.... (1)

sd_diamond (839492) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328637)

I'm getting pretty tired of prequels and time travel. This seems to have a lot of both. Don't get me wrong, I'll still pay to go see it and drag my wife along kicking and screaming to see it with me. I'll probably have to fork out for good dinner to get her to come along.

Who knows. It can still be good. Let's hope it doesn't suck or I'll get more resistance from the Mrs when trying to go to the next SciFi movie.

I wasn't aware that conjoined twins could be legally married.

Re:I for one.... (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#21329167)

Maybe pre-quels are a throwback to the time we liked. The time when we thought of ourselves as the rebels and not the Empire, the time when our system of government made us identify with the Federation rather than a weird mix of Klingons and Ferengis. The time we are all nostalgic for even though we don't want to say so. Isn't that the best fantasy? The one based on nostalgia for what never was?

Harlan Ellison (5, Informative)

WombatControl (74685) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327641)

Harlan Ellison, who wrote the original TOS episode "The City on the Edge of Forever" was not at all happy about the rumors:

Would someone go to that site, and suggest to those people there, that "City" and all its elements EXCEPT specific Star Trek characters, belong to Harlan Ellison--author of that much-lauded episode--by terms of the Separation of Rights clause of the Writers Guild's Minimum Basic Agreement (MBA), and if Mr. Abrams--with whom I'm currently on strike--or anyone else, at Paramount or elsewhere, thinks they're going to use MY creations--whether the City, the Guardians, Sister Edith Keeler, or any other elements CREATED BY HARLAN ELLISON...they had damned well better lose the unilateral arrogance, get in touch with me, or my agent, Marty Shapiro, and be prepared to pay for the privilege of mining the lode I own.

Thank you, and thank Peter David, who just called to alert me, as have you, Mark, to yet another gimmegimme grab by Paramount and the Star trek francchise that makes billions, but withholds recognition or recompense to the artists who labored in that vein.

Yr. Pal, Harlan

So either Abrams didn't get clearance, or the rumors aren't true. From what we know of Leonard Nimoy's involvement, I'd guess that it's the former rather than the latter. So either Abrams will have to pay Ellison off, or production will have to shut down since the WGA strike precludes any changes to the script.

This could really throw a monkey wrench into everything...

Re:Harlan Ellison (4, Informative)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327757)

Hey, thanks; I was pretty much ready to fetch my torch and pitchfork over this fucking travesty, but now that I know that it's pissing off Harlan "Fuck off" Ellison [penny-arcade.com] , I may even pre-order a ticket.

Re:Harlan Ellison (1)

RevWaldo (1186281) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328331)

If this movie is released, we'll be eating our own babies for breakfast.

Re:Harlan Ellison (5, Informative)

Grandiloquence (1180099) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327799)

Based on Penny Arcade's [penny-arcade.com] encounter with Mr. Ellison, I would say the man is unhappy quite often at just about everything.

Re:Harlan Ellison (3, Funny)

Quantum Jim (610382) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327853)

The thing is, the Guardian of Forever that appeared in Harlan Ellison's scripts was very, very different than what appeared in the episode. Ellison's Guardian was an old man or a group of old men, and the time portal was a pillar of light. The "donut-of-time" which appeared in the episode was probably a product of either Roddenberry, Fontana, or someone else on the writing staff. Ellison's contributions to the final Guardian seemed to be vague and mostly in setting and name. I am not saying which version is superior, just that Ellison's rants about the Guardian of Forever are really exaggerated.

Re:Harlan Ellison (4, Informative)

OECD (639690) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328709)

The thing is, the Guardian of Forever that appeared in Harlan Ellison's scripts was very, very different than what appeared in the episode.

And he HATED the version that was ultimately produced. But now it's all his.

See also this interesting account. [hubpages.com]

Re:Harlan Ellison (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327995)

I wonder of Harlan bothered to talk to his lawyer before making these claims? Probably not — he's a shoot from the lip kind of guy. Really, all he's been doing for the last few decades is making big pronouncements and whining about how people are ripping him off. The dude is the original drama queen.

In any case, there's no monkey wrench here. "The City on the Edge of Forever" (Harlan may be a bombastic hack writer, but he does dream up great titles) is just another Star Trek time travel gimmick — of which there are almost a dozen. I doubt that it's crucial to Abram's concept of the movie.

Re:Harlan Ellison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21328975)

Bombastic? Yes. Annoying, confrontational, prone to needless provocation. But a hack? Not exactly [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Harlan Ellison (3, Informative)

Chris Tucker (302549) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328299)

So, Harlan DIDN'T have a standard "Work for Hire" contract with paramount/DesiLu/Roddenberry/rest of world + dog?

And that he somehow OWNS all the non-Trek specific aspects?

Yeah, good luck, Harlan.

As an aside, WAY back when, when Budweiser introduced 8 oz cans of beer, we called them "Harlans".

They were, after all, bitter, impotent half pints.

Re:Harlan Ellison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21329055)

mining the lode I own....labored in that vein.

I'm betting his main's other profession is skinning.

Surprisingly not terrible (1)

mazerim (817650) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327657)

I was expecting to be disgusted and amused, but came away thinking that, for a big-studio picture at least, that could actually be a pretty decent plot with good writing and acting.

Re:Surprisingly not terrible (2, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327739)

...that could actually be a pretty decent plot with good writing and acting.
Winona Ryder has been cast as Spock's mother. So there goes some of the acting...

Re:Surprisingly not terrible (2, Funny)

veganboyjosh (896761) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327809)

Winona Ryder has been cast as Spock's mother. So there goes some of the acting...

I, for one, fully expect her to steal the show.

Throw in a shower scene ... (2, Funny)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328173)

Name her Sarra Konnar ...

Combine the Romulans with the Borg ...

Okay, new plot. A Borg'ified Romulan travels back through time to kill Kirk. Something about Spock's hot mother ... Spock gives a message to baby Spock ... baby Kirk has sex with Spock's hot mother producing some half-vulcan/half-human hybrid that may show up in later scripts ... the Romulan/Borg hybrid is defeated ... the Federation gets new Borg technology ...

That should be good for a few movies and maybe another TV series.

Fuck time travel movies.

Re:Surprisingly not terrible (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328581)

I, for one, fully expect her to steal the show.
Only if she bends over and spreads her naked butt cheeks wide open.

The plot (5, Funny)

moogied (1175879) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327679)

Title: The final answer.

Plot: Kirk, Picard, Janeway, Cisco, and that guy from enterprise that nobody liked all get merged together in a transporter accident, not only fusing body, mind, spirit, and time.. but also...

A CAT.

After several days of bickering about which part of there personality was most dominant Tuvok and Spock have to do a threesome mind meld in order to seperate the individual personalities. After several intense shots of tuvok and spock both appearently giving birth(facial expressions only) they both suddenly stop and lock at eachother. Appearently in shock.. they announce to the world that the winner of this battle of personalities was no one but:

Malcolm "Mal" Reynolds.

Shortly after this serenity was seen flying off.

You may think this to be satire.. but with the cluster fuck that this new movie promises to be, I might actually wish they made mine instead of theres..

©Daniel M. 2007.

^ Just incase.

Another one? (0, Troll)

ReTay (164994) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327721)

LET. IT. DIE. BONES.

But it is an "Odd Number"... so it will "suck"... (2, Insightful)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327811)

Come on. We all know the curse of the odd number Trek movie. It has happened every time. While the Trek content out there has toned down a bit (there isn't a single active series out there), I still think the movie will suffer the curse of the odd number. I hope that it won't, but I just have this feeling that both the trekies and non-trekies will hate this movie. The trekies will hate it for changing the "universe" for some reason or another, because it is going to be a prequel, and doing that just begs to mess with the cosmic timestream, especially in a sci-fi universe with so much literature, movies, and TV series as Star Trek (this is one of the reasons why trekies didn't like "Enterprise" due to it screwing with the "verse"). The non-trekies will hate it because to them it is just another trekie film...

Re:But it is an "Odd Number"... so it will "suck". (3, Funny)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327889)

We all know the curse of the odd number Trek movie.
Solution. Change Star Trek XI into CSI: Star Trek.

With JJ Abrams at the "helm" it won't be light years away from that anyway.

Re:But it is an "Odd Number"... so it will "suck". (2, Funny)

toQDuj (806112) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328011)

Hey, what was wrong with Star Trek I: The Motion Picture? I really liked that one, ya kno.

B.

Re:But it is an "Odd Number"... so it will "suck". (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328143)

On the other hand, Nemesis sucked and it was an even-numbered Trek movie. So maybe XI will make up for that by not sucking.

On the gripping hand, it may not be possible to produce a non-sucking Trek movie any longer.

Re:But it is an "Odd Number"... so it will "suck". (1)

TobiasTheCommie (768719) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328667)

That is the first time i have EVER seen anyone say "on the gripping hand"..

Kudos. :)

Re:But it is an "Odd Number"... so it will "suck". (1)

techstar25 (556988) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328287)

But being a prequel, isn't this technically Star Trek Zero, zero being an even number.

Re:But it is an "Odd Number"... so it will "suck". (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328893)

If time travel stories count as prequels and prequels count backwards, then "First Contact" was 0 and this one is -1.

Re:But it is an "Odd Number"... so it will "suck". (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328869)

Actually, the rule is "odd or even". At least in my experience.

Card (1)

Astr4y (962460) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327849)

Is it just me, or does the whole test taking process Kirk has to go through sound like a ripoff of Ender's Game?

Re:Card (2, Informative)

Spuds (8660) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328447)

Yeah, except Ender's Game came out in 1985 and Star Trek II, where this was introduced, came out in 1982. So not really.

Re:Card (1)

johndiii (229824) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328679)

The original Ender's Game [wikipedia.org] was a novella in Analog magazine, published in 1977.

Re:Card (1)

rmav (1149097) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328559)

Is it just me, or does the whole test taking process Kirk has to go through sound like a ripoff of Ender's Game?


Double ripoff! This year they are also doing Bender's Game!

First Contact Version 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21327861)

Um...I think someone needs to remind Abrams that we already did an "aliens go back in time to destroy the entire federation by attacking one key point in history" plot.

Lame (1)

Squarewav (241189) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327869)

Star trek time travel plots have always been inconsistent and many times lame but this just takes the cake. Ohh-noes someones going back in time to kill the hero when he was a kid we better go save him.

It might also go hand in hand about the rumored series reboot with a new show (the idea of a new star trek show ware none of the events of the previous shows happened so they didn't have to worry about breaking the time line or plots of tos/tng like voyager and enterprise did)

With all trek rumors this smells more of fan fiction then real

Re:Lame (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328121)

Star trek time travel plots have always been inconsistent and many times lame
To be fair to Star Trek, this isn't just a Star Trek problem. I think it is probably pretty hard to write a non-clichéd time travel script. Changing the timeline, paradox, woo, etc... if you are a hack writer there's nothing much else to say in a time travel story. You take your character(s) back to your chosen time period to create conflict -- maybe also as a social commentary blunt instrument -- and then waffle on for pages about paradoxes -- again!

Problem is, we've heard all of this a hundred times. Time travel seems to be the refuge of every word-blocked hack Sci-Fi writer.

Time travel stories should be shunned and banned until someone can come up with a story that doesn't involve the words "timeline" or "paradox".

Hmmm, though you have a point, the Temporal Prime Directive is probably a low as you can possibly go in terms of hack Sci-Fi writing. Someone could really invent a time machine, go back in time and substitute all the Star Trek time travel scripts with decent ones.

Re:Lame (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328399)

Some writers have gotten rid of the paradox with a rather simple key element: everything that the characters do in the past causes the events in the present. When characters travel back in time, they do exactly what they did. The line I always think of is "It all happened just the way I remember it."

Re:Lame (1)

wgaryhas (872268) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328337)

Reminds me of the terminator one and two plots.

Ever watch "Star Drek"? (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328361)

There was a play out years ago in the Seattle area called "Star Drek" (or such).

It had the BEST time travel plot. It is TNG time and TNG crew is celebrating "Cpt Kirk Day". Picard is not happy. So Q changes Picard to an ensign and drags Kirk forward in time and drops him in as the captain of TNG Enterprise. It was very funny.

Move from the PAST to the FUTURE is a safe use of time travel.

Spoiled! (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327873)

Find out when we first meet Kirk in Abram's Trek plus alternate timelines and time travel explained! If you want to stay as spoiler free as possible this article is NOT FOR YOU!
On the other hand, if you know you're likely to be disappointed by yet another lame attempt to keep the Trek franchise alive, but have been a Trekkie since TOS first touched down on the planet of the salt monster, you pretty much have to read all the spoilers you can find so you won't be tempted to waste your time and money actually going to the movie.

Case in point: they're doing the Time Travel plot again. The only thing different about this one is that they're going through the time portal at the City on the Edge of Forever, instead of colliding with a "black star", doing a tight orbit around the sun, or imploding the warp engines.

Whoops! I just gave away the "spoiler"! Except that I didn't mention that Spock is traveling through time to save Cadet Kirk from assassination. Which isn't a "spoiler". It's just a plot summary like you'd see in any movie review.

Trekkies are so lame. Myself included!

Re:Spoiled! (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327971)

Trekkies are so lame. Myself included!
I thought we where called "trekers"

Re:Spoiled! (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328073)

My one claim to not being a total trekkie-lamer is that I don't go around insisting that people say "treker" not "trekkie". That and the fact that I've never owned a Star Fleet uniform.

This is awfully similar... (1)

Manny_Bones (1120445) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327881)

...to the plot of one of the "new" orginal episodes made by that elvis impersonator in his garage, newvoyages.com I think the site is. You can bet THEY didn't get Harlan Ellison's permission.

Yawn. (0)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327943)

I'll wait for it to come out on DVD and rent it.

The Star Trek franchise has lost all of its appeal to me. Actually, it did a while back. I haven't seen a ST in the theater since the IV one - Voyage Home.

Re:Yawn. (1)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328333)

I'll wait for it to come out on DVD and bittorrent it.

Fixed that for ya...

SERGEANT!!! (3, Interesting)

newgalactic (840363) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327951)

I've often pondered the idea of a series following a Star Trek group of sergeants. Like an away team, following orders. Not the sanctimonious, self serving upper chain of command. I'd much rather follow the adventures of some more regular joe's. One's who don't have the luxury of allowing hollowed ideals to get in the way of "results". Leave the captain where he belongs, on the bridge or in his stateroom.

Re:SERGEANT!!! (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328731)

Now that would be great. "Lethal Weapon" or "Platoon" in space.

Re:SERGEANT!!! (1)

newgalactic (840363) | more than 6 years ago | (#21329039)

Ok, ok. So it's nothing but a rehash of the "already done", and probably deviates from the ST spirit in the worst way. But the time travel thing in ST is just as rehashed. I'm just tired of ST where the entire dilemma of the episode could have been avoided if the captain sent a proper away team to investigate, instead of his whole upper chain of command. That's micro-management at its most short sighted. ...and Lethal Weapon make a crap load of money, Platoon's a classic.

Q would not let this happen... (1)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327955)

so, the plot is unfortunetly.....lame.

Once the continuem got word that some alien was try to destroy their favorite playtoys- um, species, they would simply wipe the dude out.

What would the Q do without the painfully bowed legs of Beverly Crusher?

You just KNOW they sold tickets to watch all those Borg-Federation space-fights from a distance, like off-track betting.

wow (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 6 years ago | (#21327987)

Truly, they're boldly going where no Trek film has gone before - a *plot*?! Abrams sure has guts. I dunno is the hardcore trekkers are gonna go for that plot stuff. Maybe if he puts in enough phasers and green dancing alien girls, they won't notice the plot.

Trek needs a clean break (3, Interesting)

SlappyBastard (961143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328009)

Not a BSG type clean break, but I'd like to see them find a spot into the future. Y'know, where some new writing could occur. Enough with the time travel and the continuity issues.

Gak!!! More fscking time travel .... (2, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328019)

Why can't anyone write a friggin' Trek script without pulling out the old Time Travel saw?

I'd love to see a well written script that didn't devolve into time travel or strange-particle-du-jour emissions.

Why does it always have to be time travel? Have we exhausted all that can be done in a sci-fi script??

*sigh* I don't even know if this is an odd or even Trek any more. I think I've given up on Trek.

Cheers

Re:Gak!!! More fscking time travel .... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328055)

*sigh* I don't even know if this is an odd or even Trek any more. I think I've given up on Trek.

Of course, if I'd dug out my handy roman numeral calculator, I might have spotted that it's an odd numbered film.

It's doomed. :-P

Cheers

In a thousand years, I'll get right on it (2, Insightful)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328023)

The biggest reason that Enterprise sucked total ass was because of time travel, the "temporal cold war", and alien space Nazis.

Paramount takes a few years off to let the franchise breathe again, and they come back revitalized with... more time travel crap?!

When will they ever learn?

Or how about Sulu being a girl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21328077)

Plots schmots... if Sulu is really played by a girl [pttbt.ca] , I'm swearing off Trek forever!
 
Mostly.

Re:Or how about Sulu being a girl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21328147)

It's more logical that it be a girl if she is going to mess with the captain's log, like the TOS sulu.

well onto the last seconds of production... (1)

What the Frag (951841) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328125)

... the plot will be changed in:
1) Romulan war ships travel in time from the 24th to the 23th century to destroy humans
2) Federation invents a time travel scanning and anti-paradox device
3) The Federation sends it's fleet to the 23th century to stop the Romulans.
4) 15 minutes fight with tons of special effects
5) Biggest Federation warship runs out of ammo after 10 torpedos
6) Another 15 minutes of fight with tons of special effects
7) Romulans hits Federation anti-paradox device, creating a paradox
8) Everything back to normal.
9) Spock dies.
10) ???
11) Profit!

Seriously, they should let it die and make something new. There have been enough movies and series and so many (limited) plots. What should come next? Picards time travelling adventures? There have been enough and enough good time travelling episodes, that plot is over. If it's used more and more it will get boring.

XXX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21328213)

The entire movie is turned into a XXX feature where T'Pol vulcanizes Archer...

Re:XXX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21328609)

Err.. If you watched Enterprise, you should know that it's Tucker who gets vulcanised by T'Pol. And yes, it's almost an XXX-episode. You get to see T'Pol's naked back.. (Zomg omg oh my!!)

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21328349)

Star Trek 6 ?

Academy Classes (4, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 6 years ago | (#21328631)

So long as they do not have them all in the same year at the Academy or even all at the Academy at the same time. If they have Kirk and Chekov or even Sulu in the Academy at the same time I am waking out of the theater.

Nothing to see here, people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21328769)

However if it had been another Next Generation movie, well, then there would be something to see indeed ;-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?