J.J. Abrams' Star Trek

[Morris Schæffer]

Holy shit! Those Twattwitters sound really euphoric!!

:eek:

[Dead & Messed Up]

I love this line from Knowles's AICN review:


OK… So we’re 1800+ words in and I haven’t talked about JJ’s STAR TREK yet

If there were ever a sentence to summarize his ethos...

[Morris Schæffer]

The Empire Magazine UK review:

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=134061

Possibly small spoilers obviously.

4/5

[Ezee E]

Reviews from Austin claim that they're a tough crowd.

Four or five ovations throughout the movie, and a standing ovation at the end?

Methinks that the true Austin crowd didn't show up, and it was just a bunch of Star Trek nerds that were in shock.

[Sxottlan]

Methinks that the true Austin crowd didn't show up, and it was just a bunch of Star Trek nerds that were in shock.

Well yeah, they were there to see TWOK after all. So take it with a bit of a grain of salt.

[Sxottlan]

They're doing some really weird and artsy marketing for this. They sent out strange wallpapers to several media sites.

And on the film's main page, they're having different artists take a basic Enterprise model and give it their own twist. So they have a model from Jim Lee, an comicbook artist who has worked on Batman and X-Men and they have a model from filmmaker Robert Rodriguez.

You can see those models here (http://www.startrekmovie.com/modelgallery/).

[Thirdmango]

This is my number one for most excited film to see this year. My trekness is a bubbling.

[Qrazy]

They're doing some really weird and artsy marketing for this. They sent out strange wallpapers to several media sites.

And on the film's main page, they're having different artists take a basic Enterprise model and give it their own twist. So they have a model from Jim Lee, an comicbook artist who has worked on Batman and X-Men and they have a model from filmmaker Robert Rodriguez.

You can see those models here (http://www.startrekmovie.com/modelgallery/).

Pretty sweet.

[Qrazy]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

6 Reviews up on RT, all fresh. This bodes well.

[Bosco B Thug]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

6 Reviews up on RT, all fresh. This bodes well.
Wow, color me shocked, I was smelling an unmitigated disaster in this. I never said it, but you were right-on with your "sun spot" quip and I assumed right there this film would probably just irritate me. The trailer looked the absolute opposite of the often-alluded to, somewhat-grasped by myself "cerebral-ness" of Star Trek (watched the newer serieses off and on as a kid).

Still skeptical, will wait for the right reviews, but I'm looking forward to this now.

[Sxottlan]

ComingSoon is reporting the film will open now at 7pm on Thursday, May 7th.

I can see them trying to meet potential demand, but I'd actually rather they not do this so as to help boost the Friday numbers instead.

[Morris Schæffer]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_trek_11/

6 Reviews up on RT, all fresh. This bodes well.

All fresh, but also not devoid of genuine hyperbole. Please deliver!!

[Qrazy]

ComingSoon is reporting the film will open now at 7pm on Thursday, May 7th.

I can see them trying to meet potential demand, but I'd actually rather they not do this so as to help boost the Friday numbers instead.

The numbers will be fine I think. Good enough to get a sequel. Hopefully it deserves one.

[Qrazy]

Wow, color me shocked, I was smelling an unmitigated disaster in this. I never said it, but you were right-on with your "sun spot" quip and I assumed right there this film would probably just irritate me. The trailer looked the absolute opposite of the often-alluded to, somewhat-grasped by myself "cerebral-ness" of Star Trek (watched the newer serieses off and on as a kid).

Still skeptical, will wait for the right reviews, but I'm looking forward to this now.

Haha yeah a lens flare here and there can be nice but I mean come on Abrams.

[Bosco B Thug]

Haha yeah a lens flare here and there can be nice but I mean come on Abrams.
The movie looks over-processed worse than Speed Racer.

OK, why not, I'll say it now... the trailer was freaking terrible. The lens flares, Eric Bana's villain seeming to have all the presence of an office douchebag, set design out of a video game made for toddlers... I am pleasantly flabbergasted.

[Stay Puft]

Yeah, there's also a film clip on apple.com, and when I watched it, all I could think of was Qrazy's quip. I thought it could have just been some flashy shot selection for a trailer, but here's this scene of exposition, cutting back and forth as the characters are talking, and the lens flares are cranked to eleven.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeah, there's also a film clip on apple.com, and when I watched it, all I could think of was Qrazy's quip. I thought it could have just been some flashy shot selection for a trailer, but here's this scene of exposition, cutting back and forth as the characters are talking, and the lens flares are cranked to eleven.Jesus. I can imagine it now. The future = reflective surfaces and candy colors.

But apparently he makes it work. *shrug*

[number8]

I'm really annoyed by all the THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHER'S STAR TREK spots on my teevee.

[Sxottlan]

Yeah, the lens flares could be a cause for obnoxiousness.

They show up regularly in Fringe. There was even one episode where it was obviously inserted in post production and didn't look authentic at all.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, the lens flares could be a cause for obnoxiousness.

They show up regularly in Fringe. There was even one episode where it was obviously inserted in post production and didn't look authentic at all.

I want to see some lens flares in pitch black rooms or during fades to black. Perhaps Abrams could adapt The Bible. In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep... well darkness and a lens flare.

[[ETM]]

I'm really annoyed by all the THIS IS NOT YOUR FATHER'S STAR TREK spots on my teevee.

Yuck. It's like "Okay, we spent tons of money convincing the dads it's the same old Star Trek... let's work on them kids now".

I couldn't believe the first ad with that tagline.

[Ezee E]

I like the look of that skydiving action sequence.

[megladon8]

IGN gives it 3 1/2 out of 5. (http://movies.ign.com/articles/973/973956p1.html)

They say the action is lacking, but the casting of the Enterprise's crew is spot-on.

And this review raised a question that I was thinking about the other day...

What would a sequel be called? I don't think they could call it Star Trek 2. Would they resort to just Star Trek: ____________?

[number8]

I have a suggestion.


ENTERPRISE.

[Qrazy]

I have a suggestion.


ENTERPRISE.

En2rprise.

[Sxottlan]

Director of Photography Daniel Mindel on the lens flares:


Here on the Enterprise set, little pinpoints of light are facing the camera. Without them, contrast levels in this scene would be virtually flat. To liven things up, every time the camera moves around, the lights halate to give us this great halo effect. In fact, you can see the halation from the lamps here under Spock’s nose on the edge of the set. We felt that gave us a very realistic feel to an otherwise static scene. We have this motif working throughout the movie and if you’re looking for it, you’ll see it. It adds a lot to of kineticism.

[Barty]

I may see this Tuesday. If I do, I will post a review.

Yes, I will actually talk about movies for once. :pritch:

[M.R.Yogi]

Director of Photography Daniel Mindel on the lens flares:

This in conjunction with that "Answer Me" clip on apple trailers has me worried. There's so much lens flare just in that short little exchange you'd think they were spoofing a trend. I think the focus in these "static scenes" should be the actors and their dialogue, not some phantasmagoric light show happening in the periphery.

[number8]

You know, if it weren't for you guys, I don't think I would've thought twice about--or even noticed--the lens flares. It's not THAT intrusive.

[Qrazy]

You know, if it weren't for you guys, I don't think I would've thought twice about--or even noticed--the lens flares. It's not THAT intrusive.

There are roughly 80 shots in Trailer 3. About 30 of them have lens flare. Also all of the words spliced between shots have this blue stylistic lens flare about them as does the Star Trek logo itself (not in the trailer but on most posters). The lens flare is pretty much this film's central motif. Hopefully it uses it to make some sort of brilliant space/time/light speed-esque sweeping meta-textual thematic statement.

[[ETM]]

This is beginning to sound like that "forest and the trees" argument.

[Qrazy]

;153974']This is beginning to sound like that "forest and the trees" argument.

Alright let me help resolve the argument now then. There's a lot of lens flare. It's not debatable.

Is it a bad thing? Not necessarily... although 30/80 is a bit overkill I suppose I'll have to see the final film before drawing any conclusions. I don't mind lens flare at all when it's used to some purpose (Punch-Drunk Love, Dersu Uzala, etc). If it's just used constantly to make things more dynamic it might strike me as somewhat lazy.

[Sxottlan]

The first trade review by The Hollywood Reporter is up here (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/film-review-star-trek-1003964428.story) and it's quite positive.

However, it's not by the usual critic Kirk Honeycutt (if that matters to you).

[Sxottlan]

Variety's review is out and it's a rave (http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117940096.html?categoryid=3 1&cs=1).

[Wryan]

You're like a kid in a candy store, sxotty.

[Morris Schæffer]

You're like a kid in a candy store, sxotty.

And I'm going to rep him just for the heck of it! :)

[Morris Schæffer]

Emanuel Levy raves also!!!!!!!!!!!

http://emanuellevy.com/search/details.cfm?id=13282

Thank you Emanuel!!

:)

[Watashi]

The entire OST is floating around torrent sites.

It is glorious.

[Ezee E]

what is OST?

[BuffaloWilder]

what is OST?

Original Sound Track.

[Watashi]

what is OST?
You've got to be kidding me.

[number8]

You've got to be kidding me.

It's an outdated acronym. Nowadays they use OMPS.

[Morris Schæffer]

The entire OST is floating around torrent sites.

It is glorious.

I kinda expected that after the trailer music, which was indeed glorious, Giacchino's score would not measure up. Glad to hear that's not true.

[[ETM]]

I hate it when they use puns for track names. Zimmer does it too. Horrible puns.

And Giacchino is a good composer, but all of his stuff ends up sounding a lot like LOST. Star Trek does, too. It's different, it's good, but his incidental music is always the same.

[number8]

;157232']And Giacchino is a good composer, but all of his stuff ends up sounding a lot like LOST.

His Pixar stuff doesn't, but yeah, I can't watch Fringe without thinking they should be on an island.

[[ETM]]

His Pixar stuff doesn't.

Hmm, yeah, I remember The Incredibles sounding really great, and I need to see Ratatouille. Also, Speed Racer was good.

[number8]

I think the problem is more with Abrams. He just likes that ominous tone and sharp notes to emphasize his scenes.

[megladon8]

I thought the music in the trailer (which is apparently from the score) sounded a lot like Batman Begins.

I actually thought it was using that movie's score as trailer music, until someone here noted that it was original.

[[ETM]]

I thought the music in the trailer (which is apparently from the score) sounded a lot like Batman Begins.

It has similarities, but it's not from anything - it's an off the shelf piece of trailer music. I have an mp3, can easily share.

[Morris Schæffer]

I finally watched the original episode Space Seed which introduced Khan. Not sure why it took this long because I certainly feel that Star Trek 2 is pretty damn awesome. The episode was good, but I got all kinds of giddy hearing the names "Botany Bay" and "Tau Ceti" being thrown around. Khan didn't seem too pissed when, at the end, he was banished to the aforementioned planet. So that makes his bloodthirst in The Wrath of Khan a little odd. Oh well.

[[ETM]]

Khan didn't seem too pissed when, at the end, he was banished to the aforementioned planet. So that makes his bloodthirst in The Wrath of Khan a little odd.

Don't you remember, from the movie? The planet they were banished to was okay, until some sort of cosmic event pushed it out of orbit and it got farther away from the star which destroyed its weather and made it a generally crappy place. That's why Starfleet never expected to find him on that planet - it wasn't supposed to be there.

[Dukefrukem]

;157731']Don't you remember, from the movie? The planet they were banished to was okay, until some sort of cosmic event pushed it out of orbit and it got farther away from the star which destroyed its weather and made it a generally crappy place. That's why Starfleet never expected to find him on that planet - it wasn't supposed to be there.

It was desert-like too wasn't it? which doesn't make much sense since it was being pushed away from a star rather than towards it. The planet should have got colder. Not hotter.

*passes by whistling*

[Barty]

It was desert-like too wasn't it? which doesn't make much sense since it was being pushed away from a star rather than towards it. The planet should have got colder. Not hotter.

*passes by whistling*

It wasn't a desert, it was just a barren wasteland, with a lot of sandstorms now. Like Mars.

[Dukefrukem]

It wasn't a desert, it was just a barren wasteland, with a lot of sandstorms now. Like Mars.

I edited my post from "desolate wasteland" to "desert". fuck.

[Morris Schæffer]

;157731']Don't you remember, from the movie? The planet they were banished to was okay, until some sort of cosmic event pushed it out of orbit and it got farther away from the star which destroyed its weather and made it a generally crappy place. That's why Starfleet never expected to find him on that planet - it wasn't supposed to be there.

Okay, shards are re-entering my consciousness now.:)

[Sxottlan]

You're like a kid in a candy store, sxotty.

Heh. I'm just trying to stay positive at this point, but not get too overly-hyped.

[Ezee E]

Sxottlan is the new Barty.

[[ETM]]

Burger... Klingons?
http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/bklingons-tt.jpg

[Morris Schæffer]

Gonna go see it this wednesday! Excitement is building up to a fever pitch!!

[megladon8]

The blurb from a review on RT...


The average Star Trek fan is fatter than a Mugatu. And I mean the kind of Mugatu that just ate a family of Mugatus. Hey, fella, is that your mouth or the Doomsday Machine?

I love quality journalism.

[Sycophant]

Any statistics on the average weight of a guy who makes extensive reference to Mugatu, something I had to look up?

[[ETM]]

"Mugatu" reminds me only of
http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/2001/zoolander2.jpg

[Sycophant]

That's the only thing I could figure it means after a little searching. What the hell with the Zoolander reference?

[number8]

Typo. This is the Mugato from Star Trek:

http://www.70disco.com/images/mugato4.jpg

Mugatu was an obvious reference, especially since Ferrell's hair was supposed to resemble it. Ben Stiller is a big Trekkie.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm reading all these RT review blurbs and feel as excited as I've ever been.


Star Trek is destined to be remembered as one of 2009's biggest and best surprises, a gamble that beat both the house and those holding the cards to turn everyone into a winner.


A sublime space adventure that flies as confidently and triumphantly as Trek ever has before. It's not only a victorious series highlight, but perhaps one of the best pictures of the year...120 minutes of unrelenting goose bumps.

24 reviews. None rotten.

:cool::lol::cool:

[Qrazy]

Nice, I'm in the mood for a good blockbuster. I'll probably see this friday.

[MadMan]

;158434']Burger... Klingons?
http://img.trekmovie.com/images/st09/bklingons-tt.jpgI loved the new commerical featuring those guys. I should get that image made into an avatar.

And I work this weekend, so I probably won't get to see it until next week. However, despite having to deal with Star Trek nerds this weekend, I'll get to see it for free, so its all good I suppose.

[Morris Schæffer]

Tomatometer: 34 reviews

34 fresh - 0 rotten

:cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

I'm seeing it tonight!!!!!

[Boner M]

Seeing it tomorrow morning, maybe (12 hours). Just to get in there early.

[Pop Trash]

Slant gave it 2.5 stars which for the extremely picky Slant is like a lukewarm recommendation. It wasn't Nick Schager though and I'm curious what he thinks about it (he gave The Dark Knight 3.5 stars) It basically said that it starts off weak but gets better, even if the original "Star Trek's" liberal utopian dream universe gets lost in the mix. Also, Kirk is apparently a Beastie Boys fan now?!?! Say whaaa???

[Raiders]

It wasn't Nick Schager though and I'm curious what he thinks about it

He really liked it. (http://www.nerve.com/CS/blogs/screengrab/archive/2009/05/06/screengrab-review-quot-star-trek-quot-nick-s-take.aspx)

[Henry Gale]

Guess who gave it its first negative review (http://www.nypress.com/article-19758-where-young-boys-have-gone-before.html) on the Tomatometer?

[Sycophant]

<3 Armond White.

May be seeing this this weekend because it's something to do.

[number8]

At the risk of sounding ignorant, what the fuck is "avant la lettre"?

[number8]

This comment is hilarious:


Finally, an honest and intelligent review, by an obviously intelligent critic. The sheer numbers of 'glowing' reviews of this piece of trash are also unbelievable in that they still criticize and find all these faults with the film in their reviews, yet they maintain that its an 'orgasm worth $8.00.' WTF? Even after they say 'its O.C. in space' or that 'it isn't Star Trek' they manage to churn out a glowing review, are they being paid off, or do they just want people to love them? I'm skipping Trek, Transformers, and GI Joe and all these idiotic rehash-fests that don't even measure up the original children's television series they come from, and I'm heading for TERMINATOR.

[MadMan]

This comment is hilarious:Isn't there a bit of irony in the last part of that comment? At the very least its quite amusing.

[Derek]

At the risk of sounding ignorant, what the fuck is "avant la lettre"?

Literally, it's "before the letter". Armond meant Star Trek was multi-culti before the term was coined. Not sure why he didn't just say it that way. :)

[Ezee E]

I'm all about Terminator as well.

[number8]

Not sure why he didn't just say it that way. :)

Oh, that I know why. I know why indeed.

I just wanted to know what it meant. Thanks.

[Qrazy]

Literally, it's "before the letter". Armond meant Star Trek was multi-culti before the term was coined. Not sure why he didn't just say it that way. :)

Because he's a sack of crap.

[DavidSeven]

Girlish Spock (Zachery Quinto) and pin-up Kirk (Chris Pine) embody new-style masculine-prettiness.

Hm. OK.

[Fezzik]

Guess who gave it its first negative review (http://www.nypress.com/article-19758-where-young-boys-have-gone-before.html) on the Tomatometer?

I'm now convinced this will be the best movie ever.


Ok, not the best ever, but I'm sure to like it. I can't think of an Armond review I've read that I've agreed with.

[Barty]

Watashi 2 minutes ago before checking any new review:

"Is Star Trek still at 100%? I bet Armond White gives it it's first negative review."

[Derek]

Oh, that I know why. I know why indeed.

I just wanted to know what it meant. Thanks.


Because he's a sack of crap.

:lol:

My "why" was more rhetorical than anything, but Qrazy pretty much nailed it.

[Sven]

Watashi 2 minutes ago before checking any new review:

"Is Star Trek still at 100%? I bet Armond White gives it it's first negative review."

Watashi is not a prophet, nor is he being, in this instance, particularly insightful. Merely logical, and an elementary model at that.

[Sven]

We are all guilty of circumventing simple language in order to ensure an element of intellect in our written voice. Even more annoying than when a writer does that is when people complain about an author assuming an intelligent reader (or in this instance, a reader familiar with French phrases not uncommon in critical language).

[Thirdmango]

I am so ready to see this. I may be a Marvel whore but I'm a Trek whore a billion times more.

[Sven]

I am so ready to see this. I may be a Marvel whore but I'm a Trek whore a billion times more.

Stop qualifying. You're just a whore, you whore.

[Barty]

Watashi is not a prophet, nor is he being, in this instance, particularly insightful. Merely logical, and an elementary model at that.

He's like Spock.

[Barty]

I will be seeing this tonight in IMAX.

[Sycophant]

Stop qualifying. You're just a whore, you whore.
A whore. AND A DICK.

[Pop Trash]

Ebert didn't like it that much.

[Derek]

Even more annoying than when a writer does that is when people complain about an author assuming an intelligent reader (or in this instance, a reader familiar with French phrases not uncommon in critical language).

Nah, I'd say that's less annoying.

[Sven]

Nah, I'd say that's less annoying.

What if he'd just said "before it was du jour" and then people complained that he was being esoteric? Is that not silly? Shouldn't people know what "du jour" means at this point? Get over yourselves and read a book or something.

[number8]

We are all guilty of circumventing simple language in order to ensure an element of intellect in our written voice. Even more annoying than when a writer does that is when people complain about an author assuming an intelligent reader (or in this instance, a reader familiar with French phrases not uncommon in critical language).

I'd buy that if it was a matter of vocabulary, but it's not. It's just a foreign language, which has little to do with conveying intelligence and/or knowledge. Why does it have to be French anyway, like that's supposed to be impressive given the number of people who choose it to learn it. If he had used a Tagalog, Acholi or whatever language they use in Estonia, I'd be more inclined to feign bedazzlement.

Also, saying "such is life" > saying "c'est la vie".

[Sven]

I'd buy that if it was a matter of vocabulary, but it's not. It's just a foreign language, which has little to do with conveying intelligence and/or knowledge. Why does it have to be French anyway, like that's supposed to be impressive given the number of people who choose it to learn it. If he had used a Tagalog, Acholi or whatever language they use in Estonia, I'd be more inclined to feign bedazzlement.

Also, saying "such is life" > saying "c'est la vie".

But the phrase HAS BECOME a part of English, just like c'est la vie, deja vu, du jour, bon voyage, a la mode, tete-a-tete, laissez faire, joie de vivre, etc, etc, etc, etc. The fault lies entirely in the reader that doesn't get it. Surely if White wanted everyone to know exactly what he thought of the film, he'd've just wrote "Didn't like it."

[D_Davis]

Because he's a sack of crap.

:lol:

I lol'ed my A O.

[Dead & Messed Up]

We are all guilty of circumventing simple language in order to ensure an element of intellect in our written voice. Even more annoying than when a writer does that is when people complain about an author assuming an intelligent reader (or in this instance, a reader familiar with French phrases not uncommon in critical language).

Besides, it's not like the readers aren't online and can't look it up. It's a couple seconds and you're smarter by one French phrase.

I find his inability to sufficiently explain the similarity to television (and his implicit judgment of all television) much more upsetting.

[Sven]

I find his inability to sufficiently explain the similarity to television (and his implicit judgment of all television) much more upsetting.

I don't think he's necessarily judging television negatively so much as he is bemoaning the evolution of cinema into television. The length he's working with wouldn't really allow such a thesis to be developed, but he's written about it before.

[megladon8]

I don't find it annoying when people use something simple like "du jour" because that's pretty commonly know, as Sven said.

But, for example, if someone insists on using a film's foreign title when that is not what it is commonly known by - say, if someone referred to The Wages of Fear as La salaire de la peur - I would want to punch them in the face.

It does not make you sound more cultured. It makes you sound like you think you're more cultured than me, when in fact you're just being a twat. Because the fact is, you're not more cultured than me. I understand French pretty fluently, so I know what you're referring to. You're just making a fool of yourself.

[Sycophant]

You may want to air your gripes where baby doll might actually bother to read them.

[megladon8]

You may want to air your gripes where baby doll might actually bother to read them.


:lol:

Yeah, I started off trying to comment on the discussion of Armond White's posturing, but then went on a bit of a tangent.

I think I may start referring to American Hollywood movies by their Hungarian titles. You know, just to sound better than you.

Did you see A sötét lovag yet? One of 2008's best for sure.

[Winston*]

Is it hypocritical to boast your fluency in French within a diatribe against people showing off by writing film titles in French?

[megladon8]

Is it hypocritical to boast your fluency in French within a diatribe against people showing off by writing film titles in French?


Nah. I wasn't boasting, I was simply saying that one's attempt to make me say "oh, I've never heard of that, what is that movie?" by saying its title in French is pretty stupid. I live in Ottawa. Most people here either are French, or speak it fluently.

I wouldn't go to The Bronx and try to stump people by speaking Spanish.

[megladon8]

Roger Ebert wasn't overly thrilled. (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090506/REVIEWS/905069997)

[Philosophe_rouge]

Saw it tonight by sheer luck, I was going to see Two Lovers (which I'll have to put off again) and met a friend with an extra ticket to the Montreal premiere, so I went. I'll also be seeing it tomorrow in Imax since I already have the ticket and it's pretty good. Brief thoughts, no spoilers;

It should have been called, Lens Flair: The Movie, but I still enjoyed it. It also feels far more like a Star Wars film than it does Star Trek, the energy and focus on action and sweeping emotions rather than ideology, and more philosophical/anthropological commentary is obvious. There is still enough in there to appeal to most fans of the series though (I think), also a lot of references/in-jokes that only fans will pick up on. The cast is great, as is the art direction and story. It's not without it's weaknesses, I can't for the life of me understand how they could justify the stylistic choice of having a blinding lens flair in nearly every shot, the romance is rather absurd, and feels tacked on to further appeal to a wider (i.e. feminine audience), and is never quite effective. It's a notch above being pure fluff, but it's one of the better Blockbuster films I've seen.

[Qrazy]

But the phrase HAS BECOME a part of English, just like c'est la vie, deja vu, du jour, bon voyage, a la mode, tete-a-tete, laissez faire, joie de vivre, etc, etc, etc, etc. The fault lies entirely in the reader that doesn't get it. Surely if White wanted everyone to know exactly what he thought of the film, he'd've just wrote "Didn't like it."

Well for me the problem with such phraseology has nothing to do with understanding it, I just find it to be an intensely obnoxious manner of expression.

[megladon8]

Saw it tonight by sheer luck, I was going to see Two Lovers (which I'll have to put off again) and met a friend with an extra ticket to the Montreal premiere, so I went. I'll also be seeing it tomorrow in Imax since I already have the ticket and it's pretty good. Brief thoughts, no spoilers;

It should have been called, Lens Flair: The Movie, but I still enjoyed it. It also feels far more like a Star Wars film than it does Star Trek, the energy and focus on action and sweeping emotions rather than ideology, and more philosophical/anthropological commentary is obvious. There is still enough in there to appeal to most fans of the series though (I think), also a lot of references/in-jokes that only fans will pick up on. The cast is great, as is the art direction and story. It's not without it's weaknesses, I can't for the life of me understand how they could justify the stylistic choice of having a blinding lens flair in nearly every shot, the romance is rather absurd, and feels tacked on to further appeal to a wider (i.e. feminine audience), and is never quite effective. It's a notch above being pure fluff, but it's one of the better Blockbuster films I've seen.


It's great to read your thoughts on this one, Philosophe.

The part I highlighted is something I've often had trouble with when it comes to the "sci-fi vs. fantasy" argument. I've always found that the philosophical, ideological and moral elements are what make science fiction. As much as these stories may take place in future societies or other worlds, they deal with and comment on very sensitive human issues. The "fiction" part isn't played so much for spectacle as it is a literary device to bring about the author's commentary.

Star Wars is fantasy. This does not decrease its worth, and I am not saying that one genre is better than the other. But the fact that the Star Wars saga takes place in space and has space ships and laser guns does not make it a science fiction series, in the same way that having a film take place in 19th century Texas does not automatically make it a western.

So it's disappointing to read from both your write-up and the review by Roger Ebert that this new film pretty much abandons the whole sci-fi element of the original Star Trek stuff and makes pure space opera out of it.

Again, not criticizing its worth, and I'm still eager-as-hell to see it. I just wish it had been a little bit more thought-provoking sci-fi, and less "cool shit happening in space" type thing.

[Philosophe_rouge]

It's great to read your thoughts on this one, Philosophe.

The part I highlighted is something I've often had trouble with when it comes to the "sci-fi vs. fantasy" argument. I've always found that the philosophical, ideological and moral elements are what make science fiction. As much as these stories may take place in future societies or other worlds, they deal with and comment on very sensitive human issues. The "fiction" part isn't played so much for spectacle as it is a literary device to bring about the author's commentary.

Star Wars is fantasy. This does not decrease its worth, and I am not saying that one genre is better than the other. But the fact that the Star Wars saga takes place in space and has space ships and laser guns does not make it a science fiction series, in the same way that having a film take place in 19th century Texas does not automatically make it a western.

So it's disappointing to read from both your write-up and the review by Roger Ebert that this new film pretty much abandons the whole sci-fi element of the original Star Trek stuff and makes pure space opera out of it.

Again, not criticizing its worth, and I'm still eager-as-hell to see it. I just wish it had been a little bit more thought-provoking sci-fi, and less "cool shit happening in space" type thing.
I agree with what you're saying, and it's obvious that this shift, as well as the added romance and a few other things were meant to widen it's audience, as science and moral questions aren't necessarily as appealing as cool things blowing up. As someone who is pretty ignorant of science, I can't personally judge how accurate the science that is presented in the film, and won't even attempt to. It's definetely more of a fantasy, like Star Wars, but there are at least some attempts to incorporate it's "real" beginnings. Even so, it's all glossed over and stripped down to something that is never very challenging, which is dissapointing, but otherwise I think the film is entertaining enough as a fantasy to be able to overlook that, at least if you can enjoy the film as a blockbuster. It succeeds as that, and very little else, but it's extremely competent and entertaining, which I have no doubt as Abrams' intention.

[megladon8]

Many of the positive reviews are praising the movie for having such great, strong characters.

Would you agree? Or are they basically the same characters we've known for 40 years, played by young people?

[Philosophe_rouge]

Many of the positive reviews are praising the movie for having such great, strong characters.

Would you agree? Or are they basically the same characters we've known for 40 years, played by young people?
The same? They're close enough. Spock is very on the money, as is McCoy and Sulu. It's difficult to say about Kirk, they really build up the film from the person he was, to the one he becomes, and the fans are familiar with, so it's possible that a fan might take issue with his depiction. The characters are strong, and a lot of that is due to fine casting and performances. I think a lot of the worries that the cast wouldn't work were unfounded, I can't pick out a bad performance from the lot. Also, it has Bruce Greenwood in a surprising role, which is just awesome.

[number8]

Well, this was fun, but nothing more.

Like Casino Royale, most of the fun is in watching new actors reinterpret known characters in familiar but modern light. The whole point of the movie is basically to make Captain Kirk an edgier badass. But the plot and the villain sucked. Bana barely registered at all. Might as well have cast some no name dude who looks imposing.

[number8]

Also, what's with the people saying this is in the spirit of Roddenberry? Not a single social commentary present, and it's in fact a bit backwards by making Uhura a sexy object for Spock and Kirk to be macho-frontin' over. She had almost no contribution whatsoever, while all the other male roles save the day more than once.

[Morris Schæffer]

A review (which I haven't done in a long time)

****************************** *************

I saw the movie yesterday and expectations were enormous, my anticipation for a crowdpleaser as big as it's ever been in the past couple of years. For the most part, expectations were met. There can be no arguing that Star Trek is back with a collossal vengeance and seeing the universe (finally!) expand into the realm of big budget blockbusterdom was an obvious highlight for me although that comes with a drawback. More on that in a sec. There is genuine energy, momentum & resonating power (not bucketloads, but it's there, especially in the opening and the way that Abrams stages Kirk's final charge) on offer to beam the franchise out of the moribund morass it's found itself in since after First Contact in 1996. Indeed, if anything, Trek is no longer campy, no longer cheap & no longer uncool (although there have been moments in Trek history that were undeniably cool). I for one am grateful for that. It may not be cerebral in the least - neither was The Wrath of Khan and that's heralded as the best of all Trek's - but Star Trek XI isn't dumb & disrespectful either. It's warm and affectionate, restoring (at least that's what I suspect) the faith of those who had lost it or seen it diminished and perhaps re-elevating this crew and celebrated starship to something approaching "iconic" and "mythical." Did I say that I felt all giddy and warm inside throughout most of the adventure? And if there are a few rough patches, count on the nostalgia factor to navigate you safely through it all. Like I said, Trek really is back and, like the absolutely imperfect Batman Begins, feels even better than it really is precisely because it had sunk so low in the intervening years.

The cast really does fit the bill rather wonderfully, but there's a few moments when you'll just have to go with it and accept that things are different. These principals look somewhat young to be traversing The Enterprise's hallowed corridors, but that is of course entirely the point of a prequel. So Chekhov (Yelchin) initially sounds a bit wobbly, but you'll soon warm to him (He has a funny little line when he's given temporary command of the ship) while Scotty (Pegg) has a bit too much of typical Pegg in him, but soon enough you'll realize that it isn't a big deal. Karl Urban was perhaps the biggest surprise. Yeah, he sounds uncannily like DeForest Kelley at times ("For God's sake, I'm a doctor" makes a glorious appearance!), but this is also the very first time that I've seen the man step out of what I would consider to be his comfort zone. How can the (hunky) man who blasted away at imps (in first-person no less!) in the terrible Doom movie be a doctor all of a sudden and not lead the charge against uberbaddy Nero? Like Gary Oldman's benign Gordon in the Batman renaissance, it's exactly what makes this bit of casting so damn wonderful while realizing you can't speak of a showstopper of a performance. Quinto (Spock) is definitely completely acceptable, but he didn't surprise me because he's the only one who really looks like his predecessor and because I can't imagine it being challenging playing an introverted, solemn character. Damn, I like Chris Pine as Captain Kirk. He still looks incredibly young to be assuming command of a starship, and he may not instantly remind one of the Shat , but I swear to God there were times when, for a few fleeting moments, I saw William Shatner. Especially towards the end when Pine becomes Captain, and sits down in the fabled chair like Shatner used to, crooked posture and crossed legs all thrown in for good measure. The kid's got enough charisma and gravel in his voice to speak the Trek lingo with confidence and authority. Uhura (Saldana) and Sulu (Cho) were okay, but the really cool thing is that, with the latter, we've got Harold (or is it Kumar?) being a part of Starfleet. I honestly don't know why that is supposed to be cool, but it feels that way and the kid acquits himself ably.

Alas, and this is also an expectation that was met, the antagonist Nero (Bana) along with all his cohorts including Clifton Collins Jr. as his henchman, is no Khan. Some might respond with a succinct "Who is?!", but that would be too easy. How hard can it be to write a truly despicable and genuinely bloodthirsty villain? Instead, Nero pops up at a few intervals and we get that he's not a happy fella, but there's no menace. Nor are there moments of reflection that makes us understand his pain, to make us understand why he would blast across the galaxy for twenty-five years in search of retribution. Oh, it's explained all right, but the moment isn't sold, you won't buy it. Perhaps that the origin story, and the obvious emphasis that must have placed on the Enterprise's crew cut into villain time, but it's regrettable all the same that a more satisfying balance wasn't attained. Khan's bloodthirst was of an incredibly personal nature and it really sold the conflict between Kirk and his nemesis. This time around proceedings feel more generic, more impersonal in a "I'm pissed and I wanna blow some shit up" kinda way. Finally, some of the writing won't blow your socks off. The bit from the trailer with the car chauffeured by young Kirk is meant to indicate - wait for it! - his rebellious nature, but it feels obligatory and uninspired in a "let's get this over with" sorta way. No biggie because throughout the course of the movie Kirk is sold by Pine's charismatic performance. The bottom line is that I would love to both see this crew again in an inevitable future installment and also see this entry a second time! Mission accomplished then.

Story-wise Star Trek feels cobbled together from previous offerings. Once more, there is time travel that felt far more convoluted than the last time it was introduced (that would be the marginally superior First Contact). I had the distinct impression the writers resorted to this stale mechanic not to craft an engaging tale about rectifying the past or altering the future, but to be able to offer a link to the old movies by introducing old Spock (once again Leonard Nimoy). It felt unimaginative, fan service pur sang and in hindsight, I really could have done without elderly Spock. The sequence on the ice planet is particularly poor even if the monster that attacks Kirk looks more convincing than any monster has ever looked in Star Trek. As an impetus for starting this eleventh Trek adventure, the story is arguably Trek's greatest failing. You've seen it before and you've seen it done better numerous times (First Contact and Yesterday's Enterprise spring to mind). Even The Voyage Home's time travel elements had a simplistic grace that is absent here. I thought it was a little tiresome and ramshackle.

But how's the action?! It kicks ass right?! Right?!! Kinda, but there's a caveat. Much has been made about this Trek resembling more Star Wars than actual Trek and although it looks as sparkly and as epic as never before, I found the space action dissapointingly chaotic. Lense flares, torpedoes, explosions, debris fields appear to be dazzling in their own right, but thow in some quick cutting and things quickly become a bit blurry. Perhaps Trek should never resemble Star Wars. Certainly, the space action is maddeningly inferior to the battle for Endor and the rescue mission seen in Episode III. Perhaps submarine warfare in outer space is what Trek is best restricted to and why the finale of The Wrath of Khan remains so genuinely exciting. It also doesn't help that Nero's vessel is so improbably gigantic that you couldn't craft a pulse-accelerating action sequence around it. It just sort of sits there, a lumbering behemoth waiting to be rammed by something else. Intimidating? Sure, somewhat, but limiting in the way that a thrilling climax can be fashioned around it. Thus, it all ends with something approaching a whimper - Nero's ship is boarded by an away team, but it never rises to the level that it did when Picard went back to rescue Data in 1996 - even if it never stops being shiny, sparkly and loud. Which is still fifty percent good...I think. You've seen some of the other bits in trailers including the fight on the drilling platform. Exciting, arguably more exciting than Trek has been in a long time, but the stakes never really felt high enough. Frankly, I wanted to return to the characters and see them interact some more, see them begin to inhabit the Enterprise bridge, seeing more and more confidence permeating their personas. Perhaps that is a glowing recommendation right there. That one should praise a giga blockbuster not for the action, but for having really amiable characters one wants to hang with.

Regardless, the franchise is back in full force and although there are shortcomings, they are compensated for by a sensationally strong feeling that a robust, new foundation has been erected and that Abrams' offering obliterates several Trek movies with ease and certainly the last, sleep-inducing, pair.

EDIT: Giacchino's score, contrary to what Wats posted earlier, is effective, but nothing else. I didn't hear greatness.

***

[Ezee E]

Pretty sure that Eric Bana is one of the most uninteresting actors around. He's been in good movies, but I can't say that he's ever been a highlight in any of them.

Curious to see how he handles comedy later this summer.

[Raiders]

Pretty sure that Eric Bana is one of the most uninteresting actors around. He's been in good movies, but I can't say that he's ever been a highlight in any of them.

Curious to see how he handles comedy later this summer.

Well, he comes from a strong comedy background which makes his milquetoastness(sic) in recent years somewhat strange. I believe he used to write and star in his own sketch comedy show as well as the Aussie sketch show "Full Frontal."

[Qrazy]

Sex scene aside, Bana was good in Munich.

[Dukefrukem]

80% of Fandangos sales this week were for Star Trek. :eek:

[Fezzik]

80% of Fandangos sales this week were for Star Trek. :eek:

I don't usually react to statistics but...holy crap!

[Raiders]

Update this morning from Boxoffice.com:


THURSDAY MORNING UPDATE: As of 6 a.m. PT, Star Trek is responsible for 91% of Fandango.com's sales.

That's absurd.

[Ezee E]

How much is a typical #1 movie per week?

[number8]

Say, did Nimoy say "no man" or "no one"? I can't remember.

[Grouchy]

Say, did Nimoy say "no man" or "no one"? I can't remember.
"No man". Right?

[Mara]

So. I've never seen a full episode of any kind of Star Trek. Nothing against it, just nothing I've ever been exposed to.

The high percentage of positive reviews convinced me to watch one of the original episodes, and I have to tell you-- without nostalgia or irony-- that's it's pretty awesome stuff.

[Barty]

Also, what's with the people saying this is in the spirit of Roddenberry? Not a single social commentary present, and it's in fact a bit backwards by making Uhura a sexy object for Spock and Kirk to be macho-frontin' over. She had almost no contribution whatsoever, while all the other male roles save the day more than once.

HUGE SPOILER:

Destruction of Vulcan seems to be some sort of parallel between the Roman Destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and the Holocaust. The Vulcans now become a race without a home and must travel the galaxy trying to continue their culture and find a home.

[Winston*]

Pretty sure that Eric Bana is one of the most uninteresting actors around. He's been in good movies, but I can't say that he's ever been a highlight in any of them.

Chopper, man. Chopper.

[Grouchy]

So. I've never seen a full episode of any kind of Star Trek. Nothing against it, just nothing I've ever been exposed to.

The high percentage of positive reviews convinced me to watch one of the original episodes, and I have to tell you-- without nostalgia or irony-- that's it's pretty awesome stuff.
I'm just like you, never seen any Star Trek except for a New Generation movie once on TV, and all the hype on this makes me interested on checking out the classic episodes.

[Mara]

I'm just like you, never seen any Star Trek except for a New Generation movie once on TV, and all the hype on this makes me interested on checking out the classic episodes.

They're obviously dated. Most of the women on the ship appear to be waitresses.

But the storytelling elements seem to be strong, and the characterizations (from the one I saw) are very promising. There's a sense of fun and good humor that I didn't expect, given how seriously everyone treats the show.

[number8]

HUGE SPOILER:

Destruction of Vulcan seems to be some sort of parallel between the Roman Destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD and the Holocaust. The Vulcans now become a race without a home and must travel the galaxy trying to continue their culture and find a home.

That's rather stretching it, though, and it's pretty much a really typical sci-fi device. Plus, the Vulcans didn't become a race without a home. Nimoy-Spock said at the end that they found a suitable planet already.

[eternity]

Did you see A sötét lovag yet? One of 2008's best for sure.
I'm sorry, but I have to refer to that movie as this for now on. I just can't help myself.

[Mara]

They're obviously dated. Most of the women on the ship appear to be waitresses.

But the storytelling elements seem to be strong, and the characterizations (from the one I saw) are very promising. There's a sense of fun and good humor that I didn't expect, given how seriously everyone treats the show.

Also, apparently at one time in the distant past, William Shatner was kinda... um... hot.

[Ezee E]

Chopper, man. Chopper.
Ah right. I totally forgot that one. He played overtop, which is a huge favor for him, because otherwise he's akin to Matthew Fox.

[Qrazy]

I'm just like you, never seen any Star Trek except for a New Generation movie once on TV, and all the hype on this makes me interested on checking out the classic episodes.

Check out Star Trek II, VI and Final Contact. Those are the best films.

[Sycophant]

Nimoy-Spock said at the end that they found a suitable planet already.

IN 1948?!

[Scar]

Check out Star Trek II, VI and First Contact. Those are the best films.


Fixed.

[[ETM]]

Ah right. I totally forgot that one. He played overtop, which is a huge favor for him, because otherwise he's akin to Matthew Fox.

Matthew Fox went all out in Speed Racer. Highlight of the film for me.

[megladon8]

HA! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM)

[number8]

My review:

http://www.justpressplay.net/movie-reviews/40-reviews/5278-star-trek.html

[Henry Gale]

I kinda loved it. Abrams is very good at giving locations real sense geography and atmosphere, and in a movie like this that really helps us feel connected to every new world and ship we are brought to. The first sequence completely sucked me in from the first second after maybe not seeing a good Star Trek movie since First Contact when I was a kid and didn't let me down from then on.

Everyone was very natural in their roles, the action was exciting and fresh without feeling out of place, the humour worked (which is something I was afraid of when reading certain descriptions), and visuals are just breathtaking. Lindelof wasn't lying when he said the delay of the movie helped them perfectly render the effects. And for once I wasn't overly aware of Giacchino's score playing to big scenes, for better or for worse.

I went with a completely non-Trekker group of friends and everyone seemed to really be taken by it. The movie will probably be huge, and as fulfilling as it was, I hope any sequels are just as good and come soon, because unlike most franchises I'd love to see them makes tons more of these as long as they realize what they have done so very right here.


***1/2 / ****

[Ezee E]

HA! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=02LgdXVkXgM)
Funniest part is at the end with the black woman that tears up whenever Obama does anything.

Is this on tv or just internet? Because it should go on TV.

[Watashi]

It's really fun.

Giacchino's score is grand. I love his Vulcan theme.

Bana is terrible though... I mean really bad.

[Sxottlan]

I'm annoyed I have to wait until late Friday afternoon to see it, but me pappy wants to see it too and he was the one to get me hooked on Trek oh so many years ago.

So really it's all his fault.

[megladon8]

You know what? I really like J.J. Abrams.

He's got to be one of the best idea men working in Hollywood right now. Even when his ideas don't pan out perfectly, he always injects incredible energy into his projects.

It's like he approaches every project by saying "so this is how most would do it...but I want to do it in this crazy, insane way, and still get the same positive effect but give people something they've never seen before".

[Qrazy]

It's really fun.

Giacchino's score is grand. I love his Vulcan theme.

Bana is terrible though... I mean really bad.

But that was another life!

[Morris Schæffer]

Reflecting upon it a little bit more, the finale was terribly poor. There's a phaser firefight, but it redefines pitiful, redefines unexciting.

[Fezzik]

It's really fun.

Giacchino's score is grand. I love his Vulcan theme.

Bana is terrible though... I mean really bad.

I agree on one of these points, respectfully disagree on the other.

I didn't like Bana either. I think part of it is that the character is underwritten (though apparently expanded upon in the companion prequel graphic novel), but Nero is a one note character and really doesn't have much to do. Bana overplays him.

The score, though...well...I like Giacchino. A lot. But for the first time, I found one of his scores a bit overbearing. I was disappointed.

[number8]

96% on RT. Better than The Dark Knight.

[[ETM]]

96% on RT. Better than The Dark Knight.

Heh, it's fun when Ebert is 1/8 of the 4%.

[megladon8]

*Apparently* Abrams is interested in re-telling the story of Khan, and he wants Javier Bardem to play him.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Fun flick.

The only times the movie really worked was towards the end with the whole crew together. It's a tremendous cast, and even when they're not that great (Yelchin, Saldana), there'a a genuine energy bubbling. Abrams manages to capture some of those images with Howard Hawks-ian flair. The rest is good, with special credit to Leonard Nimoy, who legitimizes this absurdity in the same way Guinness did to Star Wars, but the flick mostly feels like a ramp-up for the next movie, where the entire crew can have an entire story proper, and not just a series of introductions hung together on a clothesline of a revenge tale.

Some random points:

1) Is this Spock's story or Kirk's? The introduction solidifies it as Kirk's, but, by the end, it's Quinto who leaves the larger impression, and Quinto's arc that feels more cathartic and involving.

2) Villains need to stop building lairs in which catwalks hang above enormous pits. There aren't even railings. Who the hell builds starships like this? On day one, someone should've slipped and said, "Jeez, this fall could kill somebody."

3) Whatever that thing was that chased Kirk, I swear it kept catching up to him, then inexplicably falling further behind. With editors like this, the poor thing's gonna starve someday.

4) It's a good thing Uhura's there to wear short skirts and kiss the real heroes. Maybe she could make some coffee for them when they're done dive-bombing space drills.

5) Sucks to be a Vulcan.

6) Clever how quickly and easily Abrams solves any time-travel paradoxes. "Alternate universe." Done. Moving on.

7) Abrams needs to trust his images more. There are some fantastic moments, as good as any outer space moment from 2001 or Sunshine (especially in the finale), but the bastard keeps cutting away to lens flares. Gah!

8) Yeah, it is Spock's story. Which is weird, because the finale duplicates the opening action in no uncertain terms. Maybe they wanted it to be both of their stories, the story of their friendship, etc., but it's totally Spock who wins.

[Sxottlan]

I quite enjoyed it. More later, but I'm definitely seeing it again.

I am simply stunned at the critical reaction. Never thought I'd see the day.

My screening was pretty full and there was a line waiting for the next one. As I'm passing them, I turn to my dad and say loudly, "I can't believe Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father!"

[Morris Schæffer]

*Apparently* Abrams is interested in re-telling the story of Khan, and he wants Javier Bardem to play him.

That sounds as awesome as it does troubling. We've had the reboot and already we're talking about pilfering the past for ideas?!

Why not sit around a table and think up a new, and completely awesome villain?

I'm thinking the next villain(s) should be standard humans rather than of the Romulan/klingon/Borg variety.

[[ETM]]

That sounds as awesome as it does troubling. We've had the reboot and already we're talking about pilfering the past for ideas?!

You know, Moore completely retooled Battlestar Galactica, but in the end a whole lot of the ideas from the original show made it in. However, the way they were handled and executed in the new show was COMPLETELY different.

I wouldn't mind a new Khan that wouldn't be a remake, but simply used the basic premise and went from there. I can definitely see room for a telling of the story that is more relevant in today's world.

[Mysterious Dude]

I enjoyed it.

The TV show was better.

[Thirdmango]

I've seen it twice now and really liked it both times. Quinto really does a good job in this movie. I've been impressed at how many people are there at each screening I've been to. This movie is going to be the biggest of the summer me thinks.

[Raiders]

Certainly among the more enjoyable theater experiences I have had recently. I can't find much to nitpick except the two useless instances of slapstick that seemed very strange and somewhat out-of-place. I have to disagree with the "Bana was awful" sentiment. Comparatively (to his other recent performances) I found him much more expressive. I think the problems lie with his character, one which could have been a very interesting villain, but who is written too much in the peripheral and given too little substance to work from. I thought in general the filmmakers did an excellent job avoiding too much reverence for the canon they are working from and kept everything fast and light, avoiding the stuffiness you can get from trying to recreate an entire universe. They picked the essentials and smartly ran with them. I do also though agree with the earlier sentiment that they rushed through some great images, the editing sometimes too frenetic and seemed to diminish some of the great lens work on display.

Overall, Abrams and company seem very comfortable with the cast and universe they have created and I anxiously await the sure-to-be-coming next entry where we can hopefully really delve into a dynamic story instead of the superficial genesis storyline we had here.

Really though, it seems like so many summer blockbusters these days are "heavy" and clunky. This film was, at the very least, a very refreshing change of pace.

P.S.: As to who's story this really is, it is easily both Kirk's and Spock's and how they, together, represent the socially inclusive key to what Roddenberry created years ago and hopefully this new series will follow. The beginning is Kirk and then end is Spock. Their stories really cannot be separated as they form the nexus of the Star Trek canon.

[Mysterious Dude]

Didn't we learn anything from First Contact? If someone goes back in time and changes history, you go back and you FIX IT.

http://yikes101.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/snl-fix-it.jpg

[Sxottlan]

Comparatively (to his other recent performances) I found him much more expressive. I think the problems lie with his character, one which could have been a very interesting villain, but who is written too much in the peripheral and given too little substance to work from.

I'm getting the impression that there was a lot of Nero left on the cutting room floor. Some of his most memorable lines and shots from the trailers are no where to be found in the film. The attack on Rura Penthe mentioned by Uhura looks to have been at least somewhat filmed (the shot of Nero taking out two guards).

I picked up that Countdown graphic novel prequel after seeing the movie, but I do think it a bit silly that some character background needs to go into a separate work.

I really hope a future director's cut will restore more Nero to the film. I liked what I saw of him. I especially liked his completely inappropriate addressing of Captain Pike. ("Hello Christopher.")

[BuffaloWilder]

I really enjoyed this. It's more a character piece than most of the others, aside from maybe Undiscovered Country.

Expect a review, shortly.

[KK2.0]

I have a few nitpicks with Simon Pegg´s Scott and the script, spoilers ahead: the deus ex machina of Kirk bumping with old Spock on that icy planet was soooo contrived it made my eyes roll, and why old spock didn't went to the Federation outpost and got the hell out of that place before? About the Pegg, love the guy like everybody else but... only i found that most of his attempts at being funny fell flat? And that alien midget? WTF

Aside from that i truly loved it, fast, fun and spectacular, Abrams "starwarsized" the trek universe and for that i say hallelujah! A trek movie with great visual effects and action is awesome, i've always liked the characters of the classic series and watching them get back with a vengeance was a blast. It was like watching a new Star Wars movie but one that does not suck! \0/

The old-school sound effects rocked btw ZAP! BLIP! PING! :P

[Morris Schæffer]

;160758']You know, Moore completely retooled Battlestar Galactica, but in the end a whole lot of the ideas from the original show made it in. However, the way they were handled and executed in the new show was COMPLETELY different.

I wouldn't mind a new Khan that wouldn't be a remake, but simply used the basic premise and went from there. I can definitely see room for a telling of the story that is more relevant in today's world.

Hm, but you'd have yet another revenge story. At least potentially so. And the old Battlestar Galactica wasn't exactly the greatest thing since sliced bananas, so the new show was allowed to really soar to heights hitherto unreached, but The Wrath of Khan sure is a great Trek movie.

[Dukefrukem]

$76 mil...includes Thursday

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/weekend-prediction-star-trek-65m/


Star Trek passed Fast & Furious as the 2nd biggest opening of 2009

and 2nd since the Dark Knight

[megladon8]

#62 on the IMDb top 250.

[Raiders]

#62 on the IMDb top 250.

Typical. More acceptable than The Dark Knight at #1 after its opening weekend, though.

[megladon8]

Typical. More acceptable than The Dark Knight at #1 after its opening weekend, though.


Indeed.

A friend of mine saw this on Friday. He never likes anything, but he said it was "awesome".

I don't know if this makes me more excited, or worried.

[The Mike]

This was gonna be my punching bag for the summer....but then I ended up liking it. A lot. Thank God Wolverine sucked.

Most importantly, this better get a Buck Rogers reboot moving. :pritch:

[EvilShoe]

Hm, didn't care too much for this one.
There was nothing I found offensively bad (although Bana tried his best), but also nothing great.

Pine was pretty good, though. Scotty and his midget alien were my fav characters.

[EvilShoe]

Also: Roflcopter @ Winona Ryder's career.

[Mysterious Dude]

I think I might have liked this movie better without Leonard Nimoy. I don't mind that they're retooling the franchise, but I wish they wouldn't explain away the differences by setting it in an alternate universe. They didn't need to do that for Battlestar Galactica ("It's an alternate universe where Starbuck has a vagina instead of a penis!")

[Raiders]

I think I might have liked this movie better without Leonard Nimoy. I don't mind that they're retooling the franchise, but I wish they wouldn't explain away the differences by setting it in an alternate universe. They didn't need to do that for Battlestar Galactica ("It's an alternate universe where Starbuck has a vagina instead of a penis!")

But, they're not comparable. BSG is just a retelling of the same story. It doesn't inhabit the same universe. This film is for all intents and purposes, Star Trek XI. It's just that the plot device Nero employs essentially makes this a retooling of the franchise.

I think it was probably necessary as a whole. I doubt it seems necessary to us since by and large we are not Trekkies, nor do we likely require the level of continuity required by the majority of the public. But, I think if they had simply retooled the genesis story of this team and basically ignored the existence of the previous incarnation of Star Trek canon, it would have bombed, or at best been particularly unsuccessful among its built-in audience. I think Abams and company felt a need to link it to the old series as well as give some reason for why everything from here on out will likely play out differently than it did in the original series.

[Mysterious Dude]

But, they're not comparable. BSG is just a retelling of the same story. It doesn't inhabit the same universe. This film is for all intents and purposes, Star Trek XI. It's just that the plot device Nero employs essentially makes this a retooling of the franchise.

I think it was probably necessary as a whole. I doubt it seems necessary to us since by and large we are not Trekkies, nor do we likely require the level of continuity required by the majority of the public. But, I think if they had simply retooled the genesis story of this team and basically ignored the existence of the previous incarnation of Star Trek canon, it would have bombed, or at best been particularly unsuccessful among its built-in audience. I think Abams and company felt a need to link it to the old series as well as give some reason for why everything from here on out will likely play out differently than it did in the original series.

As a Star Trek fan, I dislike the way he linked this film to the original series.

In The City on the Edge of Forever, Dr. McCoy goes back in time and inadvertently delays U.S. entry into World War II, which changes all of history. So, Kirk and company have to follow him back in time and prevent him from changing the past.

This movie employs time travel in a similar way. Someone goes back in time and changes the past. Except in the end, they just accept it and say, "Oh, well, I guess that's the way it's gotta be," and basically, none of the original series ever happened. And that annoys me.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This movie employs time travel in a similar way. Someone goes back in time and changes the past. Except in the end, they just accept it and say, "Oh, well, I guess that's the way it's gotta be," and basically, none of the original series ever happened. And that annoys me.

Huh. I took that "alternate history" thing to mean that this was an alternate world. One of those alternate worlds that close enough to the previous one that there would seemingly be continuity. But that could be me creating a more logical, workable scenario.

[Raiders]

EDIT: Just forget it. I realized I do not care enough to argue over this. From my understanding, the possibility is one of two things, 1) the past has changed forever or 2) this is an alternate reality running parallel to the original story.

In either case, I'm fine with it.

[Ivan Drago]

As someone who has never seen a single Star Trek movie or episode of Deep Space Nine, Next Generation or the original TV show, should I still see this?

Because I've been told that seeing this before any of the movies is like seeing the Star Wars movies for the first time by starting with episode I.

[Mysterious Dude]

But they don't know how to travel back in time, do they?

EDIT: Better yet, this is the only world they know. What are they going to "fix" about it?
My problems isn't that the characters don't go back and fix it, although I realize I did imply that (more than once). My problem is the complete erasure of the original series via time-traveling Romulans. That's why I'd prefer there be no such link to the original series.

[Dead & Messed Up]

As someone who has never seen a single Star Trek movie or episode of Deep Space Nine, Next Generation or the original TV show, should I still see this?

Because I've been told that seeing this before any of the movies is like seeing the Star Wars movies for the first time by starting with episode I.

I've only seen Star Trek Generations, but I found this film enjoyable. The film locates a good middle ground for fans and non-fans.

[number8]

Because I've been told that seeing this before any of the movies is like seeing the Star Wars movies for the first time by starting with episode I.

That's disingenuous. I'd say it's more akin to... Watching Casino Royale without having seen the Connery Bonds.

[Raiders]

http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2009/05/all-about-kirk-space-opera-as-fan.html

For MZS's lengthy thoughts, read the comments section.

[KK2.0]

Because I've been told that seeing this before any of the movies is like seeing the Star Wars movies for the first time by starting with episode I.

This film was made for a new audience, there's a fair share of fan-service but you can enjoy it as a completely new franchise.

And of course, it doesn't stink like Episode 1.

I'm laughing as i write this because i used to be such a Star Wars fanboy when i was a kid.

[lovejuice]

I'm laughing as i write this because i used to be such a Star Wars fanboy when i was a kid.
me too. sad, isn't it. :sad:
and i refuse to watch indy IV.

[KK2.0]

me too. sad, isn't it. :sad:
and i refuse to watch indy IV.

coincidence or not, finally bought me the Indiana Jones DVD box. There was a choice of the first trilogy plus crystal skull and without it, picked up the stand alone trilogy without a doubt.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm laughing as i write this because i used to be such a Star Wars fanboy when i was a kid.

I finally "completed" my trilogy this weekend with the Jedi DVD that has both the special edition and the original. I may buy Revenge of the Sith at some point.

Maybe.

[KK2.0]

this talk reminded me: I only have Wrath of Khan on DVD, as i left the theater and all the trek talk started, my desire to get Voyage Home and First Contact and rewatch them peaked.

[Pop Trash]

Fun. I think I liked Bones the best. I was laughing at his remarks the most, despite the rest of the audience liking Scotty's more obvious comic relief character. Quinto also did a great job with Spock. They did a great job playing up the mind vs. flesh or logic vs. instinct banter between Kirk and Spock. The plot seemed like your standard issue Star Trek plot, but it didn't bother me that much. Plus some of it was just like WTF? but maybe that's just my tenuous grasp of quantum physics.

I don't think this is in the same ballpark as say, The Dark Knight, as far as recent well received blockbusters go. More in line with Iron Man in the sense that most people will like it and be entertained, but not sure if it will rank that high in end of the year polls six months from now.

[number8]

Shatner:


Orci: We wrote it, it was in the script.

Kurtzman: The very last scene when Spock and Spock meet each other, finally. And elder Spock is convincing young Spock that he couldn't interfere, because it would have diverted [Kirk and Spock] away from their friendship. And that their friendship is the key to the whole sort of shebang.

Orci: He gave him a recorded message from Kirk.

Kurtzman: He [elder Spock] said, "Don't take my word for it." And he handed him [younger Spock] a little holographic device and it projected Shatner. It was basically a Happy Birthday wish knowing that Spock was going to go off to Romulus, and Kirk would probably be dead by the time...

Orci: It turned into a voiceover, at the end of the movie.

Kurtzman: So It was a nod too, but it ultimately felt like a cameo, in a way that wasn't.

Orci: I still liked it [Laughs].

[EyesWideOpen]

As someone who has never seen a single Star Trek movie or episode of Deep Space Nine, Next Generation or the original TV show, should I still see this?

Because I've been told that seeing this before any of the movies is like seeing the Star Wars movies for the first time by starting with episode I.

That's kind of the point of why they made this film. A gateway drug into the Star Trek universe for people who had no interest in it before.

[Skitch]

That's kind of the point of why they made this film. A gateway drug into the Star Trek universe for people who had no interest in it before.


Thats a good way of putting it.

I dug the flick, though whoever called it Lens Flare The Movie was dead on.

[Thirdmango]

As for the time travel this movie follows that of the episode from TNG where Worf goes to different timelines. Yes in the original series episode they had to go back and fix Bones mistake but that doesn't mean that by doing the mistake that the original time line ceases to exist, because if that were the case so then would Bones cease to exist and then so then would the choice. The only way to explain time travel is the same way Lost is doing it now or how Back to the Future did. What happened in Old Spock's past did happen. The original series did happen, TNG did happen, all of it did happen. By changing the past it doesn't negate the series, it still happened and if it somehow didn't that now there isn't an original series then it goes back into the paradox of the time shift not occurring in the first place.

[Fezzik]

As for the time travel this movie follows that of the episode from TNG where Worf goes to different timelines. Yes in the original series episode they had to go back and fix Bones mistake but that doesn't mean that by doing the mistake that the original time line ceases to exist, because if that were the case so then would Bones cease to exist and then so then would the choice. The only way to explain time travel is the same way Lost is doing it now or how Back to the Future did. What happened in Old Spock's past did happen. The original series did happen, TNG did happen, all of it did happen. By changing the past it doesn't negate the series, it still happened and if it somehow didn't that now there isn't an original series then it goes back into the paradox of the time shift not occurring in the first place.

Parallels....love that freaking episode.

"Captain, we're receiving 850,000 hails" :)

[KK2.0]

reading angry trekker opinions on IMDB, some of them actually have pretty good points, but most cry over the most ludicrous details.

[[ETM]]

I dug the flick, though whoever called it Lens Flare The Movie was dead on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaX8Aq6smQ

[Qrazy]

As for the time travel this movie follows that of the episode from TNG where Worf goes to different timelines. Yes in the original series episode they had to go back and fix Bones mistake but that doesn't mean that by doing the mistake that the original time line ceases to exist, because if that were the case so then would Bones cease to exist and then so then would the choice. The only way to explain time travel is the same way Lost is doing it now or how Back to the Future did. What happened in Old Spock's past did happen. The original series did happen, TNG did happen, all of it did happen. By changing the past it doesn't negate the series, it still happened and if it somehow didn't that now there isn't an original series then it goes back into the paradox of the time shift not occurring in the first place.

Hrm... Back to the Future does sort of go the disappearing character route. Star Trek goes for a string theory, completely parallel universe here.

[KK2.0]

;162354']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAaX8Aq6smQ

:lol: perfect

[number8]

Huh.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blSIyMmU4Tg)

[Thirdmango]

Hrm... Back to the Future does sort of go the disappearing character route. Star Trek goes for a string theory, completely parallel universe here.

No you're right, I forgot about the fact that Marty starts to disappear when things are going wrong.

[Dead & Messed Up]

No you're right, I forgot about the fact that Marty starts to disappear when things are going wrong.

That entire idea is silly, though, because he should've disappeared completely and been replaced in the future with a different Marty, if indeed they ever knocked boots in those same precise circumstances. Which would have resulted in a 1985 where McFly never existed.

Thus ensuring a paradox that would destroy the entire universe.

[MadMan]

Time travel bullshit/resetting events aside the prequel was pretty damn good. I had a few problems with certain elements, but overall I really enjoyed it and thought it was a great reboot of the series. Much of the new cast were well suited to play roles already well established, and even though his character was poorly written Eric Bana was still awesome as the main baddie.

The fact that he was named Nero, and that at the end he dies in a lame literal reference to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" was obvious. But I was so busy enjoying the movie, and noting all of the references to the past movies, to really notice until later in the movie.

Hopefully this leads to a new series of movies that respect the past films while also forging something altogether new. Or at least giving us a string of films that retain a solid level of quality. So far its more along the lines of say, The Undiscovered Country and The Search for Spock, and less like The Wrath of Khan. But then WOK is on whole other level anyways.

[Thirdmango]

That entire idea is silly, though, because he should've disappeared completely and been replaced in the future with a different Marty, if indeed they ever knocked boots in those same precise circumstances. Which would have resulted in a 1985 where McFly never existed.

Thus ensuring a paradox that would destroy the entire universe.

Oh I agree, which is why I was forgetting that this was the case in that particular movie because i had figured the other way to be the way to go.

[Boner M]

Highly enjoyable. Eerily over-acclaimed.

[Qrazy]

Highly enjoyable. Eerily over-acclaimed.

Indeed. There was a lot wrong with this film.

Problems:

1. Prologue doesn't really work. Naming your new born child while hurtling towards your death. Ehh. Kirk's parents really didn't sell the scene either.
2. Stealing a car from presumably your foster father who is heard from briefly and then never again. Who was that kid on the side of the road Kirk passes anyway? This scene sucked. From the antique car to the Beastie Boys it was an incredibly trite way to introduce the character and set up his rebellious ways. Slo-mo shot of him leaping out of the car at the last second. Stupid.
3. Product placement at the bar.
4. Lens flares up the fucking ass. Trust your compositional skills a bit more DP. Use a lens flare to punctuate a scene not as an easy way to make an image more dynamic.
5. People could not stand up in this movie. I swear to god people were falling off and dangling from ledges for about half of the film.
6. Set pieces often didn't feel well incorporated into the narrative. Scotty going through (the warp drive?) to the turbines/emergency hatch... lame. Two creatures on ice planet chasing Kirk, etc. They felt precisely like what they were, set pieces.
7. Plot holes/Bad Science. I can suspend disbelief somewhat but if Red Matter only creates black holes how does it also create time warps. Just throw in a line about how it also creates wormholes or something. I mean it forms a god damn singularity. All ships sucked in would be crushed to a point. We saw Vulcan get crushed to a point... It turns out to be easy to destroy the drill and yet a planet of 6 Billion people don't have the resources to send a couple missiles to do so.

The Good:

1. Energetic.
2. Funny.
3. Compelling imagery.
4. Well Paced... although the rapid clip combined with all of the lens flares seems to be blinding people to the film's flaws.
5. Well acted, good characterizations.

[Qrazy]

Fixed.

Woops, thanks.

[Qrazy]

The fact that he was named Nero, and that at the end he dies in a lame literal reference to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" was obvious. But I was so busy enjoying the movie, and noting all of the references to the past movies, to really notice until later in the movie.


They left the possibility of both Nero and Spock's mom surviving. We never technically see Nero die and Spock's mom is lost mid-transport so she could effectively become the ghost in the machine.

[Morris Schæffer]

[SPOILER]The fact that he was named Nero, and that at the end he dies in a lame literal reference to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" was obvious. But I was so busy enjoying the movie, and noting all of the references to the past movies, to really notice until later in the movie.

Huh? I didn't pick up on this at all MadMan. You know the Jules Verne captain is Nemo right?

[Fezzik]

Huh? I didn't pick up on this at all MadMan. You know the Jules Verne captain is Nemo right?

This...

and Nero was the Roman emperor who played the fiddle while Rome burned.

[number8]

and Nero was the Roman emperor who played the fiddle while Rome burned.

What a dastardly Romulan.

[Duncan]

Did anyone else feel like no one really gave a fuck about Vulcan being destroyed? I mean the Vulcans themselves just sort of take it in stride (except for Spock's outburst on the bridge), and Chekov is practically cracking jokes. Least emotional destruction of a planet ever.

But it was pretty good overall. I agree with a lot of Qrazy's complaints, especially about the set pieces feeling like set pieces. Although I liked the prologue.

[Mysterious Dude]

Did anyone else feel like no one really gave a fuck about Vulcan being destroyed? I mean the Vulcans themselves just sort of take it in stride (except for Spock's outburst on the bridge), and Chekov is practically cracking jokes. Least emotional destruction of a planet ever.

But it was pretty good overall. I agree with a lot of Qrazy's complaints, especially about the set pieces feeling like set pieces. Although I liked the prologue.

I definitely had a sense that it didn't really matter. They were all smiles by the end of the film.

That video from the Onion mocked a scene from Star Trek VI where they were discussing the ramifications of the destruction of the Klingon moon Praxis and a possible peace treaty between the Klingon Empire and the Federation. As boring as they consider such scenes to be, I find it much more interesting than the mindless and random action scenes of Abrams' film.

[Qrazy]

Did anyone else feel like no one really gave a fuck about Vulcan being destroyed? I mean the Vulcans themselves just sort of take it in stride (except for Spock's outburst on the bridge), and Chekov is practically cracking jokes. Least emotional destruction of a planet ever.

But it was pretty good overall. I agree with a lot of Qrazy's complaints, especially about the set pieces feeling like set pieces. Although I liked the prologue.

Really though, wayyyy too many literal cliffhangers.

[number8]

I'm gonna say the prologue was the best scene of the movie.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm gonna say the prologue was the best scene of the movie.

I'd agree with this.

[MadMan]

Huh? I didn't pick up on this at all MadMan. You know the Jules Verne captain is Nemo right?Hmm, I seemed to have gotten my N named people mixed up. Oh well.


They left the possibility of both Nero and Spock's mom surviving. We never technically see Nero die and Spock's mom is lost mid-transport so she could effectively become the ghost in the machine.Ah. Good point. Also I agree with you about the black holes, and the fact that anything sucked into a black hole gets destroyed. Well, at least by what current science says anyways.

[The Mike]

I'd agree with this.

Thirded.

The more I think about this movie, the more I hate their Spock. Other than that, I still dig it.

[Qrazy]

Hmm, I seemed to have gotten my N named people mixed up. Oh well.

Ah. Good point. Also I agree with you about the black holes, and the fact that anything sucked into a black hole gets destroyed. Well, at least by what current science says anyways.

Yeah... but just to be nitpicky... this isn't one of those 'we don't really know issues'. I mean we don't really know what happens to things post the event horizon and we don't really know what happens post the singularity. However we do really know that all matter is crushed to the point of the singularity and there are also naked singularity's without event horizons... I think... I mean there definitely are naked singularity's on a theoretical level and I'm fairly certain they've also been witnessed.

[number8]

"We can name him after your father."
"Tiberius? No, no! That's a horrible name. No, name him after your father."
"James..."

Touching, I thought.

[MadMan]

Thirded.

The more I think about this movie, the more I hate their Spock. Other than that, I still dig it.Why? I thought that the dude from Heroes did a solid job. But hey that's just me, I guess.


Yeah... but just to be nitpicky... this isn't one of those 'we don't really know issues'. I mean we don't really know what happens to things post the event horizon and we don't really know what happens post the singularity. However we do really know that all matter is crushed to the point of the singularity and there are also naked singularity's without event horizons... I think... I mean there definitely are naked singularity's on a theoretical level and I'm fairly certain they've also been witnessed.Eh yeah, that is also true. I can't remember what Hawking things about black holes for one thing, and that what you post says here does seemingly ring true. Which is why I'm still bummed that the black hole creating device wasn't fully fired up. I wanted to know what the hell would happen in terms of it discovering the true nature of black holes. And hey maybe the world would come to an end, too :lol:

And I'll admit I'm not 100% clear on the science of it all when it comes to black holes. Maybe I should finally read some of the many books on the subject. Which would probably lead to me being even more unsure and confused.

Oh and Chris Pine made for a surprisingly good Kirk. I hope he stays around for the next movie (I'm sure they'll throw enough money at him that he will). And Karl Urban was dead on as Bones McCoy.

[The Mike]

Why? I thought that the dude from Heroes did a solid job. But hey that's just me, I guess.

I didn't think the performance was what was bad, just the way the character was presented. Emotional, immature at times, dating Uhura....not Spock.

[MadMan]

I didn't think the performance was what was bad, just the way the character was presented. Emotional, immature at times, dating Uhura....not Spock.Point taken. However I feel that the current young Spock is what Spock perhaps was before he learned to finally control his anger and his emotions. That's how I took the whole presentation of the character, and his actions as well.

[Melville]

Yeah... but just to be nitpicky... this isn't one of those 'we don't really know issues'. I mean we don't really know what happens to things post the event horizon and we don't really know what happens post the singularity. However we do really know that all matter is crushed to the point of the singularity and there are also naked singularity's without event horizons... I think... I mean there definitely are naked singularity's on a theoretical level and I'm fairly certain they've also been witnessed.
The spacetime of a generic isolated black hole contains an infinite number of worlds connected by wormholes. The "throats" of the wormholes are unstable under perturbations, so you wouldn't expect to see them in reality... but if you're going to make up a bunch of random stuff, why not include wormholes inside your black holes? And no, no naked singularities have been witnessed, and most physicists assume that one can never be witnessed due to cosmic censorship. Even the observational evidence for plain old black holes (and certainly for their mode of formation) isn't completely conclusive at this point.

(I haven't seen the movie.)

[Dukefrukem]

Wow. Saw this tonight.. more later

[Dead & Messed Up]

Thirded.

The more I think about this movie, the more I hate their Spock. Other than that, I still dig it.

Heh. The more I think about it, the more I think Spock is the only interesting character of the bunch. The rest range from fun (Scotty) to regrettable (Uhura).

[Fezzik]

I didn't think the performance was what was bad, just the way the character was presented. Emotional, immature at times, dating Uhura....not Spock.


Well, I think losing his planet is an understandable reason for him to maybe not be as logical as Spock Prime in the future. Hell, Spock Prime TELLS him that sometimes, its better to forgo logic and to do what just feels right. Its like Spock is trying to make sure that young Spock doesn't repeat what he feels are his mistakes.

[Qrazy]

The spacetime of a generic isolated black hole contains an infinite number of worlds connected by wormholes. The "throats" of the wormholes are unstable under perturbations, so you wouldn't expect to see them in reality... but if you're going to make up a bunch of random stuff, why not include wormholes inside your black holes? And no, no naked singularities have been witnessed, and most physicists assume that one can never be witnessed due to cosmic censorship. Even the observational evidence for plain old black holes (and certainly for their mode of formation) isn't completely conclusive at this point.

(I haven't seen the movie.)

I was under the impression (could be wrong) that string theory (i.e. infinite number of worlds... I assume there's a correlation here) was fairly unsubstantiated in physics these days. I've heard that it's an interesting top down theory but that it hasn't been fleshed out particularly successfully mathematically.

What's cosmic censorship?

[Sxottlan]

Seven years ago I wouldn't have thought this was possible. It was late 2002. The most recent Star Trek film Nemesis had opened and promptly bombed. On top of that, ratings that had been building for Star Trek: Enterprise in the early part of the second season bottomed out after a fatal string of bad episodes. It was pretty much the darkest moment for the franchise.

Thankfully, a change at the top of Paramount finally got rid of Sheryl Lansing and gave the studio the gusto to finally start taking risks and the box office returns the last three years have returned the studio to prominence. As bad as things were for Trek, this new culture at the studio meant it was only a matter of time before Paramount would return to its cash cow.

Enter one of the current flavors of the decade, J.J. Abrams; also flavor of the week given the finales of both Fringe and Lost, with themes from both turning up in the film. Luckily, we see some growth from Abrams with his sophomore effort Star Trek (the only real memorable moment from M:I-3 being the attack on the bridge). This film is not perfect, but darn good.

The film is just plain fun and until about halfway through, it's pacing makes it near perfect. It is very much a meta-film. There's open discussion of how the characters realize they are an alternate time line to where the villain came from, partially because of Nero's interference. The clash of these two time lines is never more in evidence than when Leonard Nimoy's Spock refers to Chris Pine's Kirk as "Jim." It's jarring, but shakes the complacency out of this decades-old institution.

A theme throughout Abrams' work has been family dysfunction and it crops up a bit here as both Kirk and Spock try to grapple with how their parents have shaped their lives. Kirk, who is reminded by the Riverside Shipyards every day of the father who denied himself to his son in an effort to save him. Spock, who is seemingly both proud and ashamed by his mother's heritage.

While there was a part of me that wished the melancholy and haunting feelings from Lost would crop up here, I can understand why it isn't. This is a film trying to introduce itself to an audience that wasn't even alive when The Next Generation debuted 22 years ago. To that end, the film is very successful in its roller coaster aspects. I predicted there'd probably be at least one action scene where we really didn't know what was happening, which happened in M:I-3 and the Lost pilot, and we pretty much get that here in the film's thrilling opening sequence. There are plenty of strong visuals (including a new fleet!) and it's immensely satisfying to finally see the money spent to make Trek feel as big, real and lived-in as any other film universe. It's the little details, from Kelvin-shaped salt shakers to photo-realistic Vulcan (both on the ground and from the air) and the random insertion of towers seen on the Iowa horizon to create an incredible sense of scale.

Inversely, I understand why they probably didn't spend the money for an engineering set only seen a handful of times, but still, what they went with didn't work either.

Even with almost perfunctory Academy sequence, the film still does not let up and it isn't until past the halfway mark that the movie pulls back a bit. There are a few too many conveniences piled up on each other at this part that it did start to pull me out of the experience. Namely, the Delta Vega sequence. There was also a frustrating lack of just actual screen time for Nero. It's bizarre that I had to pick up a graphic novel explaining with better detail what happened with Nero when it apparently couldn't make it into the film. I hope a future director's cut will expand both of these to not make either feel somewhat artificial.

Strangely, what works quite well and what has garnered a lot of critical attention is a cast that I initially wasn't sold on. However, everyone does an admirable job in a film that has to re-introduce everyone and then get them all working together as a cohesive crew at the same time. Karl Urban is probably the most astonishing revelation as Bones and it's aggravating that he isn't more involved here. Hopefully, the well known triumvirate will appear in the next film. Chris Pine is very good as Kirk, wisely avoiding imitation of Shatner's already parodied persona, but occasionally letting a few nods through (calling out "Bones!" in the final scene sounding exactly like Shatner). I liked the casual malice of Nero as well, trying to make sure everyone feel what he feels after the destruction of Romulus.

So much of the film was really a testbed to see if Trek can fly again and after the opening weekend, it looks like it can. Now that the world-(re)building has been established, as Q said, "The hall is rented. The orchestra engaged. Now let's see if you can dance." I've seen the film twice already and I can't wait for the next one.

[Morris Schæffer]

A nice review, but whenever someone starts talking about "meta" they usually lose me. Nonetheless, I've a vague idea what it's about in movies such as The Life Aquatic, but it sounds like a pretentious descriptor for Star Trek XI.

They will need one helluva story for the next one because, with Star Trek XI, so much enjoyment for me is derived from hooking up with old family members after too long a hiatus and crappy movies. And I will readily admit that, although Trek XI wasn't genuinely great, the nostalgia factor played a role in me forgiving it some of its considerable shortcomings.

Now that the initial excitment has dissipated at seeing this crew again, and although there is room for developing these characters even more, I certainly feel that this wonderful new cast deserves a wonderful new adventure, preferably without time travel and revenge premises.

[Melville]

I was under the impression (could be wrong) that string theory (i.e. infinite number of worlds... I assume there's a correlation here) was fairly unsubstantiated in physics these days. I've heard that it's an interesting top down theory but that it hasn't been fleshed out particularly successfully mathematically.

What's cosmic censorship?
String theory is not just fairly unsubstantiated, but completely unsubstantiated. There is absolutely no empirical evidence for it. People just like the cut of its jib. I'm not sure what relationship you're talking about between an infinite number of worlds and string theory. There are many different universes in string theory, but they are really different universes, with different physical laws (they form a "landscape" of possible universes). Finding the universe that corresponds to our actual universe is, to the best of my knowledge, the major problem in string theory right now. Anyway, that doesn't have anything to do with wormholes or time travel. The many different worlds connected to one another via black holes or wormholes are completely unrelated to string theory; they are purely classical spacetimes in General Relativity (e.g., look up the Einstein-Rosen bridge or the maximal extension of the Kerr spacetime). Also, although I said the passage through a black hole collapses in any realistic situation, a wormhole can be held open by "exotic" matter, such as, presumably, red matter.

Cosmic censorship is just a cute name that's given to the hypothesis that no naked singularity can ever be observed. Physics would be all out of whack at the singularity, and the cosmos just wouldn't allow such a thing to be seen.

[Dukefrukem]

As I mentioned last night, I saw this last night and it really blew me away. Of course I heard from the grape vine that it was great, but I wasn't expecting the best Star Trek in the series. Does everything Abrams touch turn to gold? The casting is perfect. Having just rewatched all of the previous Star Trek films and the first season of the TV show in late 08 and early 09, It's remarkable how likable Chris Pine is as Kirk. He has the same arrogance that Shatner had ESP. in the Simulation scene and at the very end when he hits McCoy on the arm and tells him to "buckle up". Perfect!

I loved the humor, Kirk with Green Women, the bar fight, and the introduction of Scotty. What I didn't like was Uhura and Spock's love for each other. Where did this come from? It almost seemed like Abrams was trying to inject more humor into a movie that didn't really need it. The only scene that actually worked between Spock and Uhura was when Spock and Kirk were standing on the teleporters and Kirk looked over. It was effective at getting Kirk jealous but that's about all. Did anyone else feel like it didn't fit?

As mentioned above, the pacing of the film is near perfect from start to finish. From Kirk and Spock's upbrining, to the simulation room, to the skydiving scene, etc etc. It was great. I wasn't expecting Spock or Leonard Nimoy to have a significant impact on the story. It worked well.

So are we done with time travel now? It feels like such an easy plot base. Open a worm hole, fly through, time changes, rinse repeat... can we avoid this from now on please?

This is the best movie I've seen this year.

[Qrazy]

String theory is not just fairly unsubstantiated, but completely unsubstantiated. There is absolutely no empirical evidence for it. People just like the cut of its jib. I'm not sure what relationship you're talking about between an infinite number of worlds and string theory. There are many different universes in string theory, but they are really different universes, with different physical laws (they form a "landscape" of possible universes). Finding the universe that corresponds to our actual universe is, to the best of my knowledge, the major problem in string theory right now. Anyway, that doesn't have anything to do with wormholes or time travel. The many different worlds connected to one another via black holes or wormholes are completely unrelated to string theory; they are purely classical spacetimes in General Relativity (e.g., look up the Einstein-Rosen bridge or the maximal extension of the Kerr spacetime). Also, although I said the passage through a black hole collapses in any realistic situation, a wormhole can be held open by "exotic" matter, such as, presumably, red matter.

Cosmic censorship is just a cute name that's given to the hypothesis that no naked singularity can ever be observed. Physics would be all out of whack at the singularity, and the cosmos just wouldn't allow such a thing to be seen.

Ahh sorry when you said different worlds I misinterpreted that as different universes. So the wormholes that can be held open will open up where in theory? Inside the event horizon at the singularity or elsewhere? And could they somehow balance the force of gravity such that a ship would theoretically not be destroyed? In terms of current understanding it is believed that all outside matter flows to the point of the singularity (unless it flows to a circular line if the black hole rotates) such that that something like a ship reaching the singularity would not remain in one piece correct?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Ahh sorry when you said different worlds I misinterpreted that as different universes. So the wormholes that can be held open will open up where in theory? Inside the event horizon at the singularity or elsewhere? And could they somehow balance the force of gravity such that a ship would theoretically not be destroyed? In terms of current understanding it is believed that all outside matter flows to the point of the singularity (unless it flows to a circular line if the black hole rotates) such that that something like a ship reaching the singularity would not remain in one piece correct?

As I understand it, a ship would have one of three options when sucked into a black hole. Option 1: it would tear apart from the force well before reaching the singularity. Option 2: it would get stuck in rotation for millions of years. Option 3: it would reach the singularity and "spaghettify" (stretch impossibly thin). None of these options would be pleasurable for inhabitants.

What interests me about them is how, despite the fact that nothing can escape their gravity, black holes emit "gas jets" and bursts of gamma and X-ray energy. Huh? Follow your own rules, black hole!

[Melville]

Ahh sorry when you said different worlds I misinterpreted that as different universes. So the wormholes that can be held open will open up where in theory? Inside the event horizon at the singularity or elsewhere? And could they somehow balance the force of gravity such that a ship would theoretically not be destroyed? In terms of current understanding it is believed that all outside matter flows to the point of the singularity (unless it flows to a circular line if the black hole rotates) such that that something like a ship reaching the singularity would not remain in one piece correct?
The wormholes would be inside the event horizon, but not at the singularity. First off, the singularity is not a point: for an uncharged, non-spinning black hole, it is a spatial surface that forms a boundary for spacetime. In other words, it's more like a time than a place. In that case, any object that passes through the event horizon will eventually hit the singularity and get crushed to a point (but the singularity is not itself a point--you can get crushed to a point at different ''positions'' on the singularity). Though anything approaching a singularity would get ripped apart before actually reaching the singularity, because the tidal fields would be so strong (i.e. the force acting at one end of the object would be much stronger than the force at the other end).

In an isolated Kerr black hole (a rotating black hole), the singularity is temporal (actually, there are two separate singularities, each one of which is temporal). In other words, for a Kerr black hole, the singularity is at a place rather than a time. This means that you can simply pass by it. Whether or not you would get ripped apart by gravity, or pulled into the singularity, would depend on the parameters of the black hole (i.e. how much room you have to manoeuvre in between the singularities) and on your initial conditions (and your rocket boosters, or whatever). If you passed by the singularity, you'd come out in one of two different worlds on the ''other side'' of the black hole. (By "another world" I mean another very large region of spacetime that becomes geometrically flat if you get far enough away from the black hole.) On that other side, there is generally another black hole, which you could either fall into or not. Also, for an isolated Kerr black hole, each of the singularities is shaped like a ring. So rather than passing it by, you could pass through the ring, and come out into yet another world.

In order to have time travel, you have to start bending spacetime such that two of these various worlds join together.


As I understand it, a ship would have one of three options when sucked into a black hole. Option 1: it would tear apart from the force well before reaching the singularity. Option 2: it would get stuck in rotation for millions of years. Option 3: it would reach the singularity and "spaghettify" (stretch impossibly thin). None of these options would be pleasurable for inhabitants.
From the perspective of a stationary observer relatively far from the black hole, option 2 (or something similar to it) always occurs. If you see someone fall toward a black hole, you see him falling ever slower, until eventually he appears to be essentially motionless at the event horizon (he would appear to become "pancaked" rather than "spaghettified"). But as far as that guy is concerned, he doesn't even notice the event horizon. He just passes through it. If the black hole is large enough, he won't even be bothered by the force of gravity until quite a while after passing through the horizon. (Though, yes, he would eventually get killed when close enough to the singularity.)


What interests me about them is how, despite the fact that nothing can escape their gravity, black holes emit "gas jets" and bursts of gamma and X-ray energy. Huh? Follow your own rules, black hole!
Lots of stuff can escape as long as it hasn't passed through the black hole's event horizon. (And if you take into account quantum mechanical effects, a particle can escape even if it has passed through the horizon.)

[Dukefrukem]

What interests me about them is how, despite the fact that nothing can escape their gravity, black holes emit "gas jets" and bursts of gamma and X-ray energy. Huh? Follow your own rules, black hole!

Great points D&MU. That's why they call it a black hole. They don't call it, "sometimes-we-let-things-escape-hole".

[Qrazy]

The wormholes would be inside the event horizon, but not at the singularity. First off, the singularity is not a point: for an uncharged, non-spinning black hole, it is a spatial surface that forms a boundary for spacetime. In other words, it's more like a time than a place. In that case, any object that passes through the event horizon will eventually hit the singularity and get crushed to a point (but the singularity is not itself a point--you can get crushed to a point at different ''positions'' on the singularity). Though anything approaching a singularity would get ripped apart before actually reaching the singularity, because the tidal fields would be so strong (i.e. the force acting at one end of the object would be much stronger than the force at the other end).

In an isolated Kerr black hole (a rotating black hole), the singularity is temporal (actually, there are two separate singularities, each one of which is temporal). In other words, for a Kerr black hole, the singularity is at a place rather than a time. This means that you can simply pass by it. Whether or not you would get ripped apart by gravity, or pulled into the singularity, would depend on the parameters of the black hole (i.e. how much room you have to manoeuvre in between the singularities) and on your initial conditions (and your rocket boosters, or whatever). If you passed by the singularity, you'd come out in one of two different worlds on the ''other side'' of the black hole. (By "another world" I mean another very large region of spacetime that becomes geometrically flat if you get far enough away from the black hole.) On that other side, there is generally another black hole, which you could either fall into or not. Also, for an isolated Kerr black hole, each of the singularities is shaped like a ring. So rather than passing it by, you could pass through the ring, and come out into yet another world.

In order to have time travel, you have to start bending spacetime such that two of these various worlds join together.


From the perspective of a stationary observer relatively far from the black hole, option 2 (or something similar to it) always occurs. If you see someone fall toward a black hole, you see him falling ever slower, until eventually him appear to be essentially motionless at the event horizon (he would appear to become "pancaked" rather than "spaghettified"). But as far as that guy is concerned, he doesn't even notice the event horizon. He just passes through it. If the black hole is large enough, he won't even be bothered by the force of gravity until quite a while after passing through the horizon. (Though, yes, he would eventually get killed when close enough to the singularity.)


If theoretically he was not crushed after passing through the event horizon how could he ever get out again? Doesn't the event horizon entail that even light can not escape?

[Melville]

If theoretically he was not crushed after passing through the event horizon how could he ever get out again? Doesn't the event horizon entail that even light can not escape?
You can't escape back to the world you started in, but you can escape to another world. (As I said, in order to have time travel, you'd have to bend the two worlds around to join them up such that escaping to another world would get you back into your original world.) At the "other side" of the black hole, if you pass by the singularities, the black hole is a white hole, meaning that everything escapes.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Lots of stuff can escape as long as it hasn't passed through the black hole's event horizon. (And if you take into account quantum mechanical effects, a particle can escape even if it has passed through the horizon.)

But the event horizon completely surrounds a black hole, yes? If that is the case, then how can a black hole not only (a) let things escape, but (b) actually emit gamma rays? How can something radiate from a source that traps all matter and energy?

[Qrazy]

You can't escape back to the world you started in, but you can escape to another world. (As I said, in order to have time travel, you'd have to bend the two worlds around to join them up such that escaping to another world would get you back into your original world.) At the "other side" of the black hole, if you pass by the singularities, the black hole is a white hole, meaning that everything escapes.

Are things such as white holes pure speculation or are they demonstrated mathematically somehow?

[Melville]

But the event horizon completely surrounds a black hole, yes? If that is the case, then how can a black hole not only (a) let things escape, but (b) actually emit gamma rays? How can something radiate from a source that traps all matter and energy?
I'm not sure what kind of systems you're thinking of. Black hole's can shoot off particles in two ways that I know of. First, there's Hawking radiation. This occurs when a fluctuation of the quantum fields near the event horizon create a particle and an antiparticle pair. These pairs get created all the time all around us, but normally they disappear extremely quickly. However, if they get created right at the event horizon, then one of the particles can escape while the other gets trapped behind the horizon. Because of this process, a black hole actually has a temperature and constantly seems to ''emit'' radiation. But the particles are not actually coming from inside the event horizon, nor are they being "created" or "emitted" from the black hole in any usual sense. (Well, actually they might come from behind the horizon, since, because of quantum mechanics, the particle that escapes might have tunneled past the horizon.) As far as I know, nothing like this has ever been observed in reality, since to measure it, you'd have be much closer to a black hole than we are.

The other way that black holes shoot off particles is in the form of "jets". These jets are very focused beams of radiation that are observed all the time by astronomers. There's no definite evidence that they come from black holes, but that's the most popular theory. The idea is that a black hole will generally be surrounded by a rotating disk of matter (outside the event horizon). The black hole has a complicated magnetic field around it that slowly sucks matter out of the disk and shoots it off in a direction perpendicular to the disk. The matter gets accelerated to very high speeds, very close to the speed of light. This makes it really hot, so it emits gamma rays. But again, the emitted particles are not coming from inside the event horizon.

[Melville]

Are things such as white holes pure speculation or are they demonstrated mathematically somehow?
It's easy to demonstrate their existence mathematically. In fact, each black hole is generically accompanied by a white hole (even a nonrotating, uncharged black hole has a corresponding white hole, but you can't pass through one to get to the other; instead, there's a singularity, basically at the "beginning" of time, inside the white hole, and another singularity, basically at the ''end" of time, inside the black hole).

But they are pure speculation. There's no reason to believe that they might exist in reality. A physically realistic black hole is formed from collapsing matter, rather than existing forever in isolation, and in that case there is no corresponding white hole. (Unless you start making up exotic matter with negative energy density. Though even then, you'd usually assume that the exotic matter is the only matter in the universe. Solving Einstein's equation exactly is basically impossible without making a lot of unrealistic assumptions.)

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'm not sure what kind of systems you're thinking of. Black hole's can shoot off particles in two ways that I know of. First, there's Hawking radiation. This occurs when a fluctuation of the quantum fields near the event horizon create a particle and an antiparticle pair. These pairs get created all the time all around us, but normally they disappear extremely quickly. However, if they get created right at the event horizon, then one of the particles can escape while the other gets trapped behind the horizon. Because of this process, a black hole actually has a temperature and constantly seems to ''emit'' radiation. But the particles are not actually coming from inside the event horizon, nor are they being "created" or "emitted" from the black hole in any usual sense. (Well, actually they might come from behind the horizon, since, because of quantum mechanics, the particle that escapes might have tunneled past the horizon.) As far as I know, nothing like this has ever been observed in reality, since to measure it, you'd have be much closer to a black hole than we are.

The other way that black holes shoot off particles is in the form of "jets". These jets are very focused beams of radiation that are observed all the time by astronomers. There's no definite evidence that they come from black holes, but that's the most popular theory. The idea is that a black hole will generally be surrounded by a rotating disk of matter (outside the event horizon). The black hole has a complicated magnetic field around it that slowly sucks matter out of the disk and shoots it off in a direction perpendicular to the disk. The matter gets accelerated to very high speeds, very close to the speed of light. This makes it really hot, so it emits gamma rays. But again, the emitted particles are not coming from inside the event horizon.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression that the gamma rays and X-rays were emanating from the black hole itself, and not occurring at the "edge" of the event horizon. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.

Thanks!

[Melville]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I was under the impression that the gamma rays and X-rays were emanating from the black hole itself, and not occurring at the "edge" of the event horizon. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.

Thanks!
No problem. Finally, my eight years of university education are paying off!

[Qrazy]

Instead, there's a singularity, basically at the "beginning" of time, inside the white hole, and another singularity, basically at the ''end" of time, inside the black hole.

Can you elaborate on this?

[Melville]

Can you elaborate on this?
Probably not very clearly. Here's a diagram showing the maximal extension of the spacetime of an isolated Schwarzschild black hole (a non-rotating, uncharged black hole):

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/hamilton1/oh/penrose_Schwpar.gif

Imagine the time coordinate running upward in this picture, such that the end of time is at the top and the beginning of time is at the bottom. Light travels at 45 degrees on this diagram, such that if you shoot a beam of light directly outward just as you pass through the event horizon, that beam of light will stay on the horizon forever. Something moving slower than light moves upward on the diagram, with an angle less than 45 degrees from the vertical. (The blue curve with the arrows represents a possible path for an object moving slower than light.) The two jagged lines represent the singularities. Anything starting from within the white hole will always end up leaving it. Anything that passes through the event horizon of the black hole will eventually hit the singularity. Nothing that starts in our universe, on the right, say, can ever get to the parallel universe, on the left. An object can avoid the black hole entirely by heading for the point where the jagged line on the top intersects the "r=infinity" line on the upper right; this point is called future infinity, and it's where you'll end up if you don't fall in a black hole. (Obviously, it's not actually a point. It just looks like one on the diagram.) Similarly, an object might not have originated inside the white hole, but could have started at "past infinity", indicated on the diagram by the point where the singularity in the white hole intersects the "r=infinity" line on the lower right.

So inside the white hole, the singularity is the earliest time an object can start from, while inside the black hole, the singularity is the latest time an object can get to. An object that is never inside either of the holes can start at a time in the infinite past and end at a time in the infinite future.

Now here's the analogous diagram for a Kerr black hole:
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/bhtalk_07/penrose_rn.gif
In this case, an object that passes through the event horizon can get to any number of universes on the "other side" (i.e. further up on the diagram).


EDIT: Note that what I was calling a "world" is called a "universe" here. "Universe" is the standard term, but I was trying to separate if from the string-theory "landscape" picture of different universes with different laws.

[Duncan]

The wormholes would be inside the event horizon, but not at the singularity. First off, the singularity is not a point: for an uncharged, non-spinning black hole, it is a spatial surface that forms a boundary for spacetime. In other words, it's more like a time than a place. In that case, any object that passes through the event horizon will eventually hit the singularity and get crushed to a point (but the singularity is not itself a point--you can get crushed to a point at different ''positions'' on the singularity). Though anything approaching a singularity would get ripped apart before actually reaching the singularity, because the tidal fields would be so strong (i.e. the force acting at one end of the object would be much stronger than the force at the other end).

In an isolated Kerr black hole (a rotating black hole), the singularity is temporal (actually, there are two separate singularities, each one of which is temporal). In other words, for a Kerr black hole, the singularity is at a place rather than a time. This means that you can simply pass by it. Whether or not you would get ripped apart by gravity, or pulled into the singularity, would depend on the parameters of the black hole (i.e. how much room you have to manoeuvre in between the singularities) and on your initial conditions (and your rocket boosters, or whatever). If you passed by the singularity, you'd come out in one of two different worlds on the ''other side'' of the black hole. (By "another world" I mean another very large region of spacetime that becomes geometrically flat if you get far enough away from the black hole.) On that other side, there is generally another black hole, which you could either fall into or not. Also, for an isolated Kerr black hole, each of the singularities is shaped like a ring. So rather than passing it by, you could pass through the ring, and come out into yet another world.

In order to have time travel, you have to start bending spacetime such that two of these various worlds join together.
Hey Melville, sorry keep asking you questions, but could you speak a little more on the bolded parts? In the first one, do you mean that within this boundary (which I assume is spherical?) it is one, uniform, unchanging time? And what exactly is it that distinguishes this time from the time immediately outside of the singularity? Or, I guess, if it's a boundary in spacetime, what distinguishes the bounded volume from the volume outside the singularity but within the event horizon?

In the second bolded section, do you mean literally geometrically flat? Or is this a mathematical property of spacetime? What happened to the third dimension?

[Watashi]

*mind explodes*

[Duncan]

What is r?

[Qrazy]

That clears things up somewhat but I'm still not sure what this means.. "So inside the white hole, the singularity is the earliest time an object can start from, while inside the black hole, the singularity is the latest time an object can get to." How does this relate to our understanding of the history of the universe? When you say the earliest time an object can start from my mind goes to the big bang and when you say the latest time to the big freeze/rip/crunch... but I'm guessing this is a misinterpretation.

[Melville]

Hey Melville, sorry keep asking you questions, but could you speak a little more on the bolded parts? In the first one, do you mean that within this boundary (which I assume is spherical?) it is one, uniform, unchanging time? And what exactly is it that distinguishes this time from the time immediately outside of the singularity? Or, I guess, if it's a boundary in spacetime, what distinguishes the bounded volume from the volume outside the singularity but within the event horizon?
The diagrams above might help you understand what I mean. There is nothing "within" the singularity; it doesn't separate one region of spacetime from another. Spacetime ends at it.


In the second bolded section, do you mean literally geometrically flat? Or is this a mathematical property of spacetime? What happened to the third dimension?
I do mean literally geometrically flat, but we might not be talking about the same idea of geometrical flatness. Consider a two-dimensional surface. If it forms a plane, then it's flat; if it forms the surface of a sphere, for example, then it's curved. If you have a three-dimensional surface (or "hypersurface"), it can similarly be flat or curved. If you have a four-dimension surface (e.g. spacetime), again, it can be flat or curved. If we consider the spacetime in which we live, on large scales at any given "time" (note that you can't define a unique "time" coordinate in general, but just pick the nicest one), the space of our universe is basically flat. So when I say that a "world" is a large region of spacetime that is flat far from the black hole, I basically mean a large (potentially infinite) region that looks a lot like where we live. (Though if you consider spacetime as a whole, not at any given time, it is curved on large scales. Also, nearby any given object, the object's mass and energy warps space)

[number8]

...

I liked when Kirk ate the apple. It was funny.

[Qrazy]

The diagrams above might help you understand what I mean. There is nothing "within" the singularity; it doesn't separate one region of spacetime from another. Spacetime ends at it.


What does it mean to be at the end of spacetime? On a tangent do you know much about theories of 'empty space'? What is this nothingness that matter is drifting around in?

[Raiders]

What is r?

That stands for "red matter," duh.

[Melville]

What is r?
A radial coordinate. Basically, it tells you how far away from the singularity you are.


How does this relate to our understanding of the history of the universe?
It doesn't. It's all made up. As I said, these pictures are for isolated black holes. That is, this is what the universe would look like if there was nothing in it except a black hole (and a white hole...and those other black holes and white holes). To get a realistic picture, you'd have to cut out chunks of these diagrams and stitch them into other diagrams. Our current model for the universe (with the big bang at the beginning) is based on the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime. I can't seem to find a useful diagram for that one.

[BuffaloWilder]

STOP SCIENCING UP MY STAR TREK