Hacker News Reader

Comment by saurik | Hacker News Reader

If 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.

View on HN

(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.

They 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

TNG 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.

The 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.

New technology like transwarp beaming? :/

(I suggest you re-watch the 2009 movie.)

But 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.

Scotty & 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.

It'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. :)

I 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.)

As a bonus that episode features a Dyson sphere (no Tholians though).

It 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.

Ok 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com