I do think it's weird that the Vulcans didn't respond, but just to point out that the jamming was a side effect of the drill, not done on purpose.

You know, I just got to wondering about the rationale for creating a new timeline that has been given. We've been given two reasons:

1) "40+ years of continuity is stifling." To which I have to ask, "Stifling how?" It's a fictitious, science-fiction universe! Are there no writers capable of just adding on to something? I know, their answer is, they wanted to tell a story set in the original series era, where anything could happen and they could do whatever they wanted to with the characters. Which brings me to reason 2:

2) "By not knowing what happens to these characters, we're free to do whatever we want with them." Let's take the last spin-off, Enterprise. Now, this series was set prior to everything else in the franchise, so we knew they couldn't do things as drastic as, say, destroying Vulcan, but they were using characters never named in any of the other series. At any point, anything could have happened to those characters because they were freshly minted.

Nothing did happen (except for the series finale) not because of the burden of continuity...but because it's an episodic TV series! Audiences are not so stupid as to really think that Captain Archer might not survive an episode, because there is no way in today's world that Scott Bakula could have left the series without everyone knowing long before his final appearance aired. Given that this new movie is supposed to be the building block for a new phase of the franchise, are we supposed to believe that in this brand-new, un-burdened timeline that all of a sudden Captain Kirk could, in fact, die? Nonsense! Even if Chris Pine were to bail on the series, it's nigh-impossible to imagine CBS-Paramount authorizing the offing of any of the main characters at this point.

So, have I missed something, or have the creative powers simply been too timid to say, "We just felt like it?"

I think many reasons have been given in this very thread why they did what they did.

Star Trek has been collapsing under it's own weight for years. From the parodies of Shatner to the limping performance of Nemesis to the hardcore nerd set that won't let a turbolift exit on the wrong deck, the whole thing just needed a redo.

I was the world's biggest TNG fan back in the day and it took me almost two years to get around to seeing Nemesis. I've never been a huge fan of TOS, and only really enjoyed The Undiscovered Country...even Khan feels a bit dated and slow to me.

The writers wanted to tell a story that didn't mean they had to look through Trek encylopedias to find out if Scotty or Data ever said a line that would completely contradict that story. And just to have some creative freedom with well-known characters.

Plus, alternate universe episodes of Trek are consistently the most popular, because they are the only episodes that allow the writers to make big changes and take risks with the characters. This new timeline does the same thing and I cannot wait to see the next adventure.

Entirely as an "aside," I find it refreshing to hear someone else agree with me about The Undiscovered Country's greatness, especially in relation to The Wrath of Khan.

But that's just it. So long as they tell a story that isn't just about Star Trek, I see no reason why this is an issue. I just remain entirely unconvinced that a truly original story would be hampered by anything said in a previous story. Now, if the story hinges on revisiting species or characters already addressed ad nauseum in previous stories, then not only is that likelier to invite continuity issues...it's far less likely to actually be original or interesting.

I hope they don't do movies where they re-tread previous adversaries like The Doomsday Machine and V'Ger. Personally, I can just assume those threats were dealt with off-screen in a manner similar to how they were depicted in the "prime" universe.

I think Undiscovered Country is about equal with Khan in terms of greatness.

I always thought The Undiscovered Country was always viewed equal to The Wrath of Khan. I'm surprised to see it so underrated here.

Me three.

I heard this movie is amazing in IMAX! I am going to be checking it out this weekend for sure!

I think the reasons for creating a new timeline is that the original Trek had a Utopian World where people all got along. I have heard countless writers and actors say they could never have anyone fighting on TNG for this reason. Maybe that's why DS9 was so good. In order to have Drama you have conflict. The new movie has Conflict!

As far as IMAX goes, I thought Trek was playing in IMAX for only two weeks?

The thing about Star Trek was that it was always predicated on the idea that, in the future, we (as a species) do get along. Even then, though, there was plenty of room for sparring and disagreements. My statement to writers who found there to be no room for storytelling because of this aspect would be to either try harder or don't try to tell a story set in this franchise. Sherlock Holmes is keenly observant; if you want to tell a story about a detective who is clueless, then write a Pink Panther story.

And, yes, the IMAX run has finished. I'm especially disappointed because we only have two such screens in Louisville; the one at the science museum only screens "regular" IMAX flicks and the other screen was still showing Monsters vs. Aliens during those two weeks.

I've always thought the what made Kirk...well..."Kirk"...in his time of imagined "utopia" and "peace" was his willingness to crack an Alien skull or too to get the job done when everyone else wanted to just negotiate.

I mean for all the "We can get along so join us" of The Federation...they sure had big guns on those huge starships.

I've always thought what made Kirk was his uncanny ability to beam down to a planet full of happy people feeding a paper-mache Dragon that gave them peace and happiness and blowing it up and then shouting "You're welcome!" and going on his way...

Captain Kirk is an interesting character, because he can do such seemingly paradoxical things while staying true to himself. A great practitioner of "cowboy diplomacy," I think Kirk was what our society expected of, and looked for in, a leader--especially during the Viet Nam conflict, when bureaucrats kept interfering with military operations. Kirk was the ideal of a man of action, willing to fight for his cause.

General Zod has referenced one of my favorite episodes, "The Apple," and one of the reasons I love it so much is that both Mr. Spock and Dr. McCoy make strong arguments about the worshipers of Vaal. (For those unfamiliar with the episode, a computerized "god" has taken care of every detail of a primitive society to the point that they don't even think for themselves anymore.) Kirk recognizes the truth in Spock's argument that these people are happy with their society the way it is, but his core beliefs hold that people should always be independent. That's why it made perfect sense for his intervention of their society.

And yet, amidst this interesting storytelling, there were debates amongst the main characters--most notably between Spock and McCoy--while still preserving the spirit of cooperation and optimism upon which the series was founded. This is why I continue to balk at the notion that the writers have to be free to literally have these characters at one another's throats all the time in order to tell an interesting story. Perhaps this is more a reflection of an escalation in aggression among our society than it is a comment on the demands of storytelling.

I don't think the writers were looking for the freedom to have all the characters at each other's throats. This is a raw movie. Kirk is dealing with the loss of his parents and trying to find his place in the world. Spock is dealing with the prejudices of his homeworld, and then losing his homeworld and mother. They're young, relatively inexperienced, and don't have the rapport that Kirk, Spock, and McCoy have when TOS starts. I fully expect future movies will show them working together more often than working at odds with each other.

You make a good point, vis a vis this film. I was speaking more generally to the notion that various Star Trek writers over the last several years have complained about how restrictive the Utopian parts of the franchise have been for them.

Well, in general utopia denotes a lack of conflict. Lack of conflict means lack of drama. Lack of drama means lack of interest.

In the context of Star Trek, it was always my understanding that Gene Roddenberry intended to convey a future in which humanity had risen above its conflict with itself, but that there would obviously be tensions of varying degrees between our species and the fictitious species of the series. A true Utopia would see universal harmony, but that was never the goal of the series (to my understanding).

Credit where credit is due to Roddenberry. He did create the series, after all. But some of his ideas for Star Trek are seriously bland. He reportedly didn't like any of the Star Trek movies after TMP because they became more grounded and, dare I say it, closer to human nature. As I said, utopias have a lack of conflict, and I don't think the human race will ever be so single minded as to have no intra-species conflict whatsoever.

I am willing to give the film makers some slack, for now. If the conflicts of this film are used as a springboard to show character and relationship growth in future entries, then it will have been worth the investment. If not, then you can expect many of us old school Trek fans to lose interest.

By way of example, there were some elements in Casino Royale that rubbed me the wrong way when I first saw that film. It felt to me as if the film makers were thumbing their collective nose, not only at the previous entries in the series, but at the fans who had helped to make the films the incredible success they were. But, after seeing some of the character development in Quantum of Solace, it became evident that the "new Bond" is growing into the character we knew and loved, at least in the ways that matter.

The reason that alternative universe episodes are popular with writers is entirely different from the reason they are popular with fans. Writers may enjoy taking risks, but for fans, the reason for their popularity is the fact that we get a chance to see the characters behaving in an out-of-character way, but we know that a) it isn't permanent, and b) it isn't the "real" character, just an alternative version. I can say with some confidence that I would not have wanted to see Trek become the "Mirror, Mirror" version on a permanent basis, and if it had, I would have permanently tuned out.

Who ever said there was no conflict among the characters, even in TOS? There was plenty, especially between the "Big Three". Yet we knew that, beneath the conflict, there was a genuine concern and affection shared by all of them, even Spock (remember the classic "Jim!" line from Spock in Amok Time*?).

What many writers fail to grasp is that characters can be developed to have complex interpersonal relationships, where the DO care about each other, but STILL have serious conflicts, such as the scene from the episode Obsession that led to this exchange:
* Of course I realize mentioning Amok Time may be sensitive for some, since we don't yet know whether such a story line is possible in the new Trekverse.

I'm not saying that there is no conflict in TOS. I'm just saying that the level of conflict on display for this movie made sense for this movie.

Don't forget the way he bitch slapped some guy just watching them through the bushes. I know I hit you for no apparent reason but don't worry, I won't do it again until your paper mache' dragon lightnings one of my red shirt guys then we'll ruin your whole happy world.

OK, that makes some sense. And, as I said earlier, if the conflict shown in this movie is used in future movies to show character development and grows into the camaraderie we expect from the characters, then it will be much easier to accept, from a Trek perspective (which is, of course, a much higher standard than run-of-the-mill film making ).