[chator]

Originally Posted by TriggerMan

Which former Trek stars in specific have said they didn't know it was a new chain of events? There's a whole conversation in the film discussing how Nero coming back in time created the new chain of events/alternate reality, etc. For someone to miss that means they probably weren't paying attention and warrants a re-watch.

I believe certain statements by Nichelle Nichols, Kate Mulgrew, and, shockingly, Leonard Nimoy seem to indicate they consider the film a prequel, not a separate timeline.

[Livingston]

Originally Posted by horatio

What if they had shown the actual change of timelines, à la "Yesterday's Enterprise", i.e. we shortly see a TOS-style Kelvin which changes after the Narada comes out of the singularity.
Would it have helped to emphasize the alternate reality aspect or would it only have confused the audience (and let some Trekkers hope in vain that the timeline changes back to TOS-style at the end)?

That would be cool, but I don't think there would be any change until the Narada appeared. That's the moment the divergence began. It's true the Kelvin did not look very TOS and much more TMP refit, but any changes would occur after the Narada came out of the disturbance so it would only be evident to people in the future, not the crew of the Kelvin. Or the Kelvin itself. Changes a la "yesterday's Enterprise" that is.

What I'm saying is that, I read the whole Kelvin incident as in the prime universe. That was the divergent point so the changes would unravel from that point on. From the instant the Narada appeared. If you were going to do a 'Yesterday's Enterprise' sort of transition it'd have to be some point in the future to allow a new history to unfold. This new history begins with the appearance of the Narada.

[TriggerMan]

Originally Posted by chator

Leonard Nimoy seem to indicate they consider the film a prequel, not a separate timeline.

To the contrary, from May 4th of last year.

http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=49ff93a748760

"Nimoy: Well the alternative timeline gives them license to escape from canon concerns. I can't see people saying ‘they shouldn't do that because...' or ‘that doesn't tie in to such and such' because it is a different time and place. Am I right about that?"

[jla1987]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

The movie establishes it's story well, that Nero has changed the destinies of Kirk and co. The opening scene was perfect the way it was.

Agreed

[chator]

Originally Posted by TriggerMan

To the contrary, from May 4th of last year.

http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=49ff93a748760

"Nimoy: Well the alternative timeline gives them license to escape from canon concerns. I can't see people saying ‘they shouldn't do that because...' or ‘that doesn't tie in to such and such' because it is a different time and place. Am I right about that?"

Here are quotes from an interview Sci-Fi Now had with Nimoy in the May 2009 issue,

"In this movie we see the seeds of those characters being planted; where they came from before the Enterprise, where they came from before they met each other, how they met each other, and what the circumstances were and how they became the crew we eventually played."

And a little later in that same interview, he says,

"You'll see when you see the movie that one would not think that these two guys, Kirk and Spock, could ever work together. They come from such diverse sources in their lives, but by the end of the movie, you get it. You understand how they became the characters that you eventually saw in 'The Original Series'."

From these comments its apparent that Nimoy considers the movie a prequel.

[Kaboom]

The circumstances are a little skewed, and the ship they're on looks a little different... but all in all I'd say everyone ended up where they needed to be. Not just meaning, "spot on the bridge," but as characters.

[kevin]

Nimoy's quotes sound like someone who understands the idea that this film represents 'same ship, different day' philosphy.

He understands that there's an alternate universe now at play (because he's called it that in interviews, so clearly understands that part of it) but that the core identities of the crew have not been majorly altered and although this friendship will play out in the alternate they will have the same kind of relationship they did in the Prime (which is what I take from his remarks).

At the end of the day - it's a combination of prequel/reboot.

I guess if some want to have a continous issue with that, up to them, but it's really never been that complicated. Not even for Nimoy by the sounds of things.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by chator

It's funny how people who have seen the film, even former Trek stars, don't really get that the events in this film have created a new timeline. It was done so subtle that the audience doesn't largely get that the events in this film don't lead to the events in Trek Prime.

One the one hand one could argue that the changed timeline aspect wasn't emphasized enough, on the other hand this aspect isn't too relevant as the movie is not a pure reboot.
I think that playing it safe (with the popular original crew) and keeping all options (using elements from past Trek in a semi-reboot) open has its advantages, but in general I prefer a more clear-cut approach. Don't worry about the fans and Trek continuity, just tell your story.

[chator]

Originally Posted by kevin

Nimoy's quotes sound like someone who understands the idea that this film represents 'same ship, different day' philosphy.

He understands that there's an alternate universe now at play (because he's called it that in interviews, so clearly understands that part of it) but that the core identities of the crew have not been majorly altered and although this friendship will play out in the alternate they will have the same kind of relationship they did in the Prime (which is what I take from his remarks).

At the end of the day - it's a combination of prequel/reboot.

I guess if some want to have a continous issue with that, up to them, but it's really never been that complicated. Not even for Nimoy by the sounds of things.

I haven't read all the interviews Nimoy has given since doing the movie. I think he understands that the timeline was altered, but maybe not the implications this would have on the characters' development. The whole movie's point was that inspite of the changes effected by Nero, destiny, or kismet still brings the crew members together onto the Enterprise.

[TriggerMan]

Originally Posted by chator

Here are quotes from an interview Sci-Fi Now had with Nimoy in the May 2009 issue,

"In this movie we see the seeds of those characters being planted; where they came from before the Enterprise, where they came from before they met each other, how they met each other, and what the circumstances were and how they became the crew we eventually played."

And a little later in that same interview, he says,

"You'll see when you see the movie that one would not think that these two guys, Kirk and Spock, could ever work together. They come from such diverse sources in their lives, but by the end of the movie, you get it. You understand how they became the characters that you eventually saw in 'The Original Series'."

From these comments its apparent that Nimoy considers the movie a prequel.

And yet understands its an alternate timeline as per his other quote.