[captneuman]

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.

[samwiseb]

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."

[horatio]

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).

[TriggerMan]

Originally Posted by horatio

so dumbing it down was quite unnecessary

And didn't happen (that you can prove at least.)

[kevin]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

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.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by horatio

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'

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

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.

[jla1987]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

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.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

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.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by horatio

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.