Sean and Michael saw Star Trek the day it came out and since then it’s been a hot topic of conversation: it’s the best prequel they’ve seen, the special effects are so amazing, they love Kirk driving the Corvette, and on and on and on. I’ve managed to block out most of their jabbering because a Trekkie, is, well, not who I saw myself married to. And even though I know Sean loves all things Star Trek, the topic simply didn’t come up too often. Until now.I love going to the movies. Comedies, dramas, chick flicks, suspense, I love them. Sci-fi: not so much. But Sean kept saying I needed to see the movie. He loved it so much that I couldn’t say no, so Saturday night found us at a local multiplex sitting dead center, three rows from the back, popcorn in hand, ready to boldly go somewhere I wasn't sure I wanted to go.
Both of my boys failed to explain to me that I would be nervous for a goodly portion of the movie. It was grip the arm rest, gasp out loud, chew your lip suspenseful. They also failed to tell me there’s a gigantic red beast that comes from nowhere to gobble up Kirk. I was audibly disturbed when that thing came on the screen.
(Also, I thought of the Bad Astronomer – he would have liked one of the first scenes in the movie where a hole opens up in a spaceship, someone’s screaming but once he gets sucked out into space all the noises cease. See, Mr. Bad Astronomer, I was listening!)
Yes, it was a good movie. Yes, I actually enjoyed it. Yes, I realized, it’s pretty cool.
However (and this is a huge however), the whole time travel thing where Old Spock talks to Young Spock is absolutely beyond me. Sean attempted to explain it this way: “If you travel ten years ahead the 39 year old Christy will get to meet the 49 year old Christy.”
Yeah, I don’t get that. "If I go ten years into the future doesn’t that mean I won’t have had the opportunity to age so I’ll just be the same as I am now?" Why were we even having this conversation?
“NO!” said Sean. “There’s a 49 year old you in the future! And if you go ahead ten years you’ll meet her.”
Geek status setting back in.
“See,” he continued, “if you travel through time you’re creating an alternate reality that functions along with the reality you left.”
“So using your logic,” I queried, “since we’re heading back home to have dinner, I could sit here and say, ‘Well, in the future you’ve already had dinner,’ so we don't need to have dinner now. Because there’s an ‘us’ in the alternate reality and perhaps we’ve already had dinner there so you don’t really need it at all.”
He decided to end the conversation there because he really wanted dinner.*
I am glad I saw it; it was exceedingly well done. It went a long way to dispel my preconceived notions about Mr. Spock and Captain Kirk. And sometimes it’s fun to watch a movie you know could never, ever be real. Despite what your husband says.
________________________________________________
*Insert “sex” for “dinner” and you have our actual conversation.
Your homework assignment is to watch "Back to the Future." Doc has it all figured out. Also, thanks for reminding me to call Molly and find out what time we're having "dinner."
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I remember from "Back to the Future" is the Huey Lewis song and Michael J. Fox... beyond that I'm drawing a blank. We'll have to watch it before our next dinner date.
ReplyDeleteDinner date? An interesting word choice based on the context of this post.
ReplyDeleteOh. My. Word. I meant my next dinner date with Sean!
ReplyDeleteMy wife just finished reading Twilight; and to celebrate I told her I was going to bite her and turn her into someone like me: we live only on Coke and we can't engage others in debate because our logic might kill them. Also, we think too much about the inner consistency of sci-fi movies:
ReplyDeleteYeah, I don’t get that. "If I go ten years into the future doesn’t that mean I won’t have had the opportunity to age so I’ll just be the same as I am now?" Why were we even having this conversation?
I think the problem here is more that you wouldn't be there at all. If the past you went into the future, there would be no future you because in the past you left (this is all assuming that time operates in a straight line).
“NO!” said Sean. “There’s a 49 year old you in the future! And if you go ahead ten years you’ll meet her." Geek status setting back in.
Everyone else's idiosyncratic obsessions always seem so geeky to us. I wonder if Sean ever gets similar emotional responses when you talk about Christian music, ER or fashion. Just an observation.
“See,” he continued, “if you travel through time you’re creating an alternate reality that functions along with the reality you left.”
So, Sean (and Star Trek) are assuming here that time functions in a straight line and that there are any number of straight lines running alongside each other so that you can jump between them. Or, perhaps more precisely, that there is one straight line and every possible point in that straight line splits into an infinite number of other straight lines. There is also the assumption that if you could go back along your particular line and change some event, you would create a new line that spurs off the old one, or that your change erases everything further down that line. If so, your future self could come and visit your past self, but not vice versa, unless someone in one of those other strands counts as "you". Is the Spock from two strands over really Spock? We talked about this very situation in one of my upper level logic courses at MSU. That's money I'll never get back.
“So using your logic,” I queried, “since we’re heading back home to have dinner, I could sit here and say, ‘Well, in the future you’ve already had dinner,’ so we don't need to have dinner now. Because there’s an ‘us’ in the alternate reality and perhaps we’ve already had dinner there so you don’t really need it at all.” He decided to end the conversation there because he really wanted dinner.*
Your logic is totally and completely insane here, but I like how it didn't really matter because you won this argument by using Sean's desire not to lose out on any "dinner". This is how women rule the world.
I thought your logic was impeccable!
ReplyDeleteOk - I can't stop laughing long enough to type...my co-workers in open cubicles next to me are asking me what I am laughing about...what can I say.
ReplyDeleteCatherine - thanks for the support!
ReplyDeleteMary - I guess what you say depends on if the people around you know Sean!!
Dave - you put a lot of thought into your reply... Thanks for that. I hardly know where to start to reply. I'm not sure I like your assesment of my logic, however. Perhaps you should read Catherine's take on it. I think she gets it.
ReplyDelete