Comments on: For the Post-Christmas Awww Files

By: J-L

J-L — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:46:24 +0000

Sometimes I think that if I was born ten years earlier or ten years later, I’d probably be more of a “Star Wars” fan than “Star Trek.” But being born when I was, “Star Wars” fandom had mostly passed and “Star Trek: TNG” popularity was gaining during my teenage years.

And it cycled: “Star Wars” was popular again in 1999/early 00’s, while “Star Trek” is back on the radar now. When you were born can be a big influence on whether you are a bigger “Star Wars” or “Star Trek” fan.

I like this particular comic because it effectively shows that influence via a reversal of the typical generation gap. The father most likely grew up on the original series of “Star Trek,” and is acting like a kid so enamored with a movie that he watches it over and over again. His own kids, also enamored with sci-fi (but with a different franchise altogether) just don’t get their father’s obsession with what they think is a watered-down version of what they grew up with.

(I have to confess that I also like this comic because I identify with Larry concerning this “Star Trek” movie.)

By: Elyrest

Elyrest — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 16:59:51 +0000

mkilby (15) - That is an even better one. I read the Style Invitational regularly, but have never seen that page. I will check it out. Thank you.

By: mkilby

mkilby — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 11:55:06 +0000

@ Elyrest (8) - I’ve always liked the parody used on the Style Invitational’s official contestants’ page (www.gopherdrool.com): “Resistance is puerile”.

By: Heather D

Heather D — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 03:36:20 +0000

In response to Todd, I think there are lots of instances in Star Trek canon that show that alternate timelines DO exist. There is the matter of people being in the right timeline FOR THEM… and I do understand the issue with City on the Edge of Forever. Then there’s cute things like the DS9 tribble episode, showing that all time just IS.

Did I just argue against my own point? I dunno… perhaps it could be fanwanked that at the time of TOS, scientific thinking did not allow for alternate timelines, but by 80 years later (time of TNG), research and theory believed otherwise… and then there’s the whole thing with Voyager and the history-changing dude who was trying to ‘fix’ his home planet to save his wife, and the time-police from the 29th century trying to preserve the timeline…

Hm. Maybe Todd’s right lol… But there’s another issue, if history is changed by actions by people from the future, does it really mean that future never happened? If it never did, then those people would not exist, the events leading to those actions never happened, so history was never changed… it’s the classic paradox. The only option, to my mind, is that there is one timeline, but it has many branches (loops?) when things do get altered… so the entire history of Star Trek we know and love is real and true and happened (otherwise Spock would never have been able to speak to Spock), even if it didn’t go any further than the time all that stuff happened.

Which doesn’t fully explain it all either. But it’s time travel, it’s not supposed to make sense. And I agree with those who feel it’s a legitimate way to reset the series and do new stuff without worrying about breaking canon, exploring it in a new way. And I’m a LONG time very ‘traditional’ Trekker!

And… Star Trek DID have clones. Just not in that movie, I guess…

By: Keera

Keera — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 09:57:53 +0000

“-whatever for 2009″ it should read.

By: Keera

Keera — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 09:57:24 +0000

Morris, the only new Star Trek-whatever 2009 is the movie. Makes sense that that’s what he got for Christmas. I did.

By: Morris Keesan

Morris Keesan — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 02:23:27 +0000

Until I read the comments here, it didn’t even occur to me that this would be the new Star Trek film (which I still haven’t gotten around to seeing; I’ll probably get around to borrowing the DVD from the library when it gets a little less popular). I assumed that it was probably something like a complete set of the original series. There’s nothing in the strip to identify the gift as one particular movie (unless the line of dialogue emanating from the TV is a particularly notable line from this latest film).

By: Jeff S.

Jeff S. — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:21:40 +0000

I saw it in the theater and have it on DVD. I have one HUGE problem with one of the plot points (no spoilers here), but other than that, I REALLY enjoyed the movie. It’s a great action flick, and I see nothing wrong with Star Trek deviating from what it’s done in the past. The new timeline allows for more movies. Plus, the writers of Enterprise were already having problems keeping continuity with the existing ST universe. This way, it doesn’t really matter where they take it, as long as they keep continuity within THIS new universe.

By: Todd

Todd — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 20:03:12 +0000

I consider myself a true Star Trek fan (mostly Next Gen and DS9), and I won’t see the movie until it makes its way to advertising supported TV.

It completely wipes out everything that has come before, except for Enterprise. The PTB say it just creates an alternate time line, but Star Trek doesn’t work that way. The City on the Edge of Forever, TNG’s Yesterday’s Enterprise, and the TNG First Contact movie.

By: Elyrest

Elyrest — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:12:06 +0000

Mark in Boston - “Resistance is useless” was also used by the Daleks in Dr. Who. Sci-fi like many genres has pockets of fans that often know nothing about what the other pockets know.