The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Visual Timeline Transition
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01-28-2010, 09:10 PM
captneuman's Avatar
captneuman captneuman is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 10
Default

I also think it play out how Gene R. really wanted it to look and he didn't have that back in 66. So this give them a chance to have someone that got sent back in time to change history a bit. Now we won't see Spock coming back from Vulcan in the motion Picture.
__________________
"Take her out at 1/4 implus Mr. Sulu"
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-28-2010, 11:06 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,173
Default

Well I dragged my Dad to see the movie... he's most definitely NOT a fan, although he can still be entertained (he liked VI and First Contact okay; II and VI not so much). Leaving the theater he said there were a number of things he didn't get, however it seemed to me like he understood the story just fine. Then he asked if the movie lead into the TV series... and I had to open my fat mouth and say "actually... it really sort of doesn't, kind of... you see..."

Spent the next half hour explaining the whole alternate timeline thing.

Now he says "yeah, it was okay. The whole alternate reality premise was confusing and seemed unnecessary." Except... it really wasn't. He was just fine 'missing' that detail altogether (Not unlike saying "I did like that one... the one with the whales..." and not even realizing so much of that movie was devoted to wrapping up prior subplots). In the end it really doesn't matter. It's a reboot, with the participation of Leonard Nimoy employed to (successfully, I think ) give the film authenticity and credibility. That's all it is.

So I think its fine keeping explanations minimal and not visibly throwing alternate timelines into our faces. TV episodes demand a higher level of attention anyway. And I always felt it was 'dorky' how TNG-verse Trek always talked about 'timelines' as though they were physical, tangible objects ("The temporal wake must be shielding us from the changes in the timeline"... Excuse me, what?) I think if the movie pulled a 'Yesterday's Enterprise', people might say "Oh, you know... I think stuff like this is why I just never really get into this whole Star Track thing."
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-29-2010, 04:39 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Well, obviously it was done too subtle if you dad didn't get it.
Minimal explanations, low attention level, that's what I have been saying all the time. It is a movie made for the MTV generation short attention span crowd. Trek has really never been this complicated or uber-smart thing, so dumbing it down was quite unnecessary (or to be precise, it was necessary to attract the target audience).
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-29-2010, 06:15 AM
TriggerMan TriggerMan is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 498
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
so dumbing it down was quite unnecessary
And didn't happen (that you can prove at least.)
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-29-2010, 09:35 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
Well I dragged my Dad to see the movie... he's most definitely NOT a fan, although he can still be entertained (he liked VI and First Contact okay; II and VI not so much). Leaving the theater he said there were a number of things he didn't get, however it seemed to me like he understood the story just fine. Then he asked if the movie lead into the TV series... and I had to open my fat mouth and say "actually... it really sort of doesn't, kind of... you see..."

Spent the next half hour explaining the whole alternate timeline thing.

Now he says "yeah, it was okay. The whole alternate reality premise was confusing and seemed unnecessary." Except... it really wasn't. He was just fine 'missing' that detail altogether (Not unlike saying "I did like that one... the one with the whales..." and not even realizing so much of that movie was devoted to wrapping up prior subplots). In the end it really doesn't matter. It's a reboot, with the participation of Leonard Nimoy employed to (successfully, I think ) give the film authenticity and credibility. That's all it is.

So I think its fine keeping explanations minimal and not visibly throwing alternate timelines into our faces. TV episodes demand a higher level of attention anyway. And I always felt it was 'dorky' how TNG-verse Trek always talked about 'timelines' as though they were physical, tangible objects ("The temporal wake must be shielding us from the changes in the timeline"... Excuse me, what?) I think if the movie pulled a 'Yesterday's Enterprise', people might say "Oh, you know... I think stuff like this is why I just never really get into this whole Star Track thing."
I think this is the double effect of the creation of the alternate.

If you had never seen any Star Trek before you don't automatically need a long-winded explanation of 'this is an alternate because......' and you can treat the film as it's own entity.

The A.U explanation was there purely and simply for the established fanbase - it had nothing to do with the 'new' viewer coming in with little or no prior understanding - because they made the decision (rightly, wrongly, whatever) to use Nimoy to link the new one to the old.

In some segments of fandom that failed, in some it worked, some people just hear the words 'it's an alternate universe' and it's so blindingly simple it falls into place right from the get-go. Veteran Star Trek fans should get the concept immediately and not have to have a huge speech outlining in painstaking babble.

Some people might need a bit more explaining, if they ask the question, but then once done - it's not rocket science.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-29-2010, 09:36 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Well, obviously it was done too subtle if you dad didn't get it.
Minimal explanations, low attention level, that's what I have been saying all the time. It is a movie made for the MTV generation short attention span crowd. Trek has really never been this complicated or uber-smart thing, so dumbing it down was quite unnecessary (or to be precise, it was necessary to attract the target audience).
Well, true - they could have said 'woo-hoo, we flew around a star and the clock's went backwards'
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-29-2010, 11:43 AM
Captain Tom Coughlin's Avatar
Captain Tom Coughlin Captain Tom Coughlin is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USS Meadowlands
Posts: 10,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
Well I dragged my Dad to see the movie... he's most definitely NOT a fan, although he can still be entertained (he liked VI and First Contact okay; II and VI not so much). Leaving the theater he said there were a number of things he didn't get, however it seemed to me like he understood the story just fine. Then he asked if the movie lead into the TV series... and I had to open my fat mouth and say "actually... it really sort of doesn't, kind of... you see..."

Spent the next half hour explaining the whole alternate timeline thing.

Now he says "yeah, it was okay. The whole alternate reality premise was confusing and seemed unnecessary." Except... it really wasn't. He was just fine 'missing' that detail altogether (Not unlike saying "I did like that one... the one with the whales..." and not even realizing so much of that movie was devoted to wrapping up prior subplots). In the end it really doesn't matter. It's a reboot, with the participation of Leonard Nimoy employed to (successfully, I think ) give the film authenticity and credibility. That's all it is.

So I think its fine keeping explanations minimal and not visibly throwing alternate timelines into our faces. TV episodes demand a higher level of attention anyway. And I always felt it was 'dorky' how TNG-verse Trek always talked about 'timelines' as though they were physical, tangible objects ("The temporal wake must be shielding us from the changes in the timeline"... Excuse me, what?) I think if the movie pulled a 'Yesterday's Enterprise', people might say "Oh, you know... I think stuff like this is why I just never really get into this whole Star Track thing."
Was he confused by the movie, or by your half hour explanation? Because for all intents and purposes the explanation is as simple as it gets. Nero changed history.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-29-2010, 12:07 PM
jla1987's Avatar
jla1987 jla1987 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin View Post
Was he confused by the movie, or by your half hour explanation? Because for all intents and purposes the explanation is as simple as it gets. Nero changed history.
That is simply the way it is!

For once we see an alternate timeline that is not reset, as has so often been done on TNG and VOY....heck even ENT.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-29-2010, 07:18 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin View Post
Was he confused by the movie, or by your half hour explanation? Because for all intents and purposes the explanation is as simple as it gets. Nero changed history.
Who knows. We actually went to see Easy Virtue (hilarious movie btw) and then stuck around for Star Trek. It was a much older theater; sound sytem (probably) wasn't geared for Spock Prime's 'mind meld' expository dialogue alternating between channels 3 and 6, and Dad's hearing is not the greatest anyway.

After Captain What's-His-Name leaves George Kirk in charge of the Kelven, Dad asked "Is this the movie now?" He thought he was watching a trailer for something called "Bad Robot." Don't ask me why. It's not the first ST I've dragged him to; he would recognize those 'silly-looking' saucer-shaped ships instantly in any movie (who wouldn't?). Maybe he just wasn't into it. I didn't just start babbling uninterupted for half an hour or anything. He'll often assume he's missed things, start asking way too many questions, and then he really will miss stuff. When did we see 10,000 Vulcan survivors escaping the planet or being beamed off? We didn't. We don't need to see that.

All I know is, he was just fine assuming the movie was a direct prequel to the series. There was no need for me to tell him otherwise. It's not important to him. Hindsight is such a wonderful thing.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-29-2010, 07:37 PM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,173
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Well, obviously it was done too subtle if you dad didn't get it.
Minimal explanations, low attention level, that's what I have been saying all the time. It is a movie made for the MTV generation short attention span crowd. Trek has really never been this complicated or uber-smart thing, so dumbing it down was quite unnecessary (or to be precise, it was necessary to attract the target audience).
I guess I would argue STIV was dumbed down too in that case. Because for all fans like to say that you 'have to' see III first in order to 'get' the movie, it hasn't stopped non-fans who otherwise couldn't give a darn about Trek from commenting that they really liked "that one with the whales". Does all the carefully-inserted "previously on Star Trek" stuff just fly right over their heads? Apparently, that's exactly what it does. I love it in Meyer's new STII commentary when he says people never remember the 1st five minutes of a movie.

Anyway, subtlety is something that's traditionally been in short supply on Star Trek.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:40 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.