3 ms·
You saw the same movie, but you missed his point: this is the same future that folks in the 70's were predicting, and not one as his own generation sees it.
by jherdman 13y ago
You saw the same movie, but you missed his point: this is the same future that folks in the 70's were predicting, and not one as his own generation sees it.
- saurik 13y agoIf it wasn't the same future as predicted in the 70's, it wouldn't have been Star Trek: they may have thrown away all of the later canon, but they couldn't just start over... it wouldn't be the same universe.
- peterhajas 13y ago(Hi, saurik!) Even TNG reimagined the technology of the future through the lens of the 80's and 90's, though. Holodecks, the Borg, Geordi's visor, Data. I think this movie could have been more forward-thinking.
- froo 13y agoThey couldn't create tech that was TOO forward thinking, IE creating tech that might be seen around the time of TNG - given that as a franchise they could still mine a reboot of TNG if the well for Kirk-era Star Trek runs dry. I wasn't disappointed by the tech. To be frank, I think that they're simply giving themselves room to continue making money with rebooting other Star Trek franchises in the future
- gnaritas 13y agoTNG had to, they're the future; the current movie is the time-line of the original Trek; they can't do that, it wouldn't make sense.
- Steko 13y agoThe new movies were backward thinking by design. Into Darkness takes place 5 years before TOS and 100 years before TNG. Any radically new federation technology inserted there but not shown in TOS/TNG would just look out of place and be held against it.
- randallsquared 13y agoNew technology like transwarp beaming? :/
- saurik 13y ago(I suggest you re-watch the 2009 movie.)
- jonny_eh 13y agoBut why is that in this new timeline? Was there a line in there about Eric Bana bringing it back from the future? I thought Scottie just invented it.
- Steko 13y agoScotty & Spock figured it out near the post-TNG timeframe and future Spock gives reboot Scott the solution. Just as an aside there's a hilarious Cracked post about how transwarp beaming obsoletes the Enterprise.
- randallsquared 13y agoIt's the major technology that wasn't in TNG, DS9, or Voyager, or the TNG movies... Unless you're arguing that the 2009 movie shouldn't be considered to have any continuity with those, in spite of authorial attempts to ensure that it does? But that doesn't seem to have been your argument. :)
- saurik 13y agoI was trying not to ruin the 2009 movie for people who haven't seen it, but read Steko's response to johnny_eh. This is not some weird timeline inconsistency by the mistake of the writers... this is actually a weird timeline inconsistency by design of the in-universe plot. (If Steko's description then itself seems impossible, re-watch the TNG episode Relics.)
- mhurron 13y agoIt wouldn't be Star Trek (TOS), not that it really was. TNG took place over 80 years after the events of TOS, of course it looked more advanced. This is Kirk, Spock and McCoy, their place and point in time in Star Trek history is basically set in stone now. To change it would mean you are not making Star Trek any more.
- olivier1664 13y agoOk for Star Trek, keep the universe. But the point is still valid: movies (and science fiction) do not propose up to date prediction of the futures.