Star Trek - Page 5

Alex · 05-10-2009, 09:54 AM

I'm not going to say there is a solid line. But Kirk's motiviations and Spock's motivations for how they proceed through life have been fundamentally changed. And whether that results in somewhat similar courses that is, in my opinion, a very important difference.

But the key thing is not just that they are different people than originally depicted but that with this film we are told that all that has come before is irrelevant (and I believe one of mousepod's points is that it is cheating to use the love of what has come before as the draw to get you into the theater only to reveal halfway in that it is all being discarded) to any future engagement with the franchise except insofar as it allows the writers a convenient shortcut. Yes, those events still happened in some other timeline (similar to "its just a dream events" really happened in the dream) but they are of no future use in experiencing future events (except where they provide easy one-liners to future writers).

I also don't understand at all the comparison to James Bond beyond the fact that they are really the only examples of such lengthy movie franchises. I'm sure you really do see a parallel of importance but I'm completely missing it since the internal structure of the two franchises has never been on similar terms.

Alex · 05-10-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

You mean they've mixed up time-travel-tropes and black hole theory? On Star Trek? Heavens to Betsy Ross!

No, I'm not accusing them of mixing up time-travel-tropes. I'm accusing you of mixing them up.

innerSpaceman · 05-10-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

This movie takes place 7 years before the events in the first season of TOS.

Sorry, but I missed this earlier.

Um, did I miss this? I've seen the movie twice now and I don't recall them mentioning that it was seven years ealier? Was there some StarDate announced that's seven years earlier than the first StarDate ever mentioned in the first season of the show?

That would be a stretch, but please don't tell me it's in the press materials or the novelization or some such completely non-canonical source. The MOVIE made it seem as if the time of the tv series is about 3 months later, though of course they didn't specify if it was that or 7 years or any such thing.

Unless I missed it.

Oh, and Alex ... touche.

Alex · 05-10-2009, 10:11 AM

I don't recall if there was anything in the movie that established it. However, assuming that the construction of the Enterprise itself was not significantly changed due to the loss of the Kelvin then its maiden voyage happened in this film (Pike says as much when they first leave Earth). And so this is the final year (one presumes) of Kirk's time at the academy.

In the original timeline when Kirk becomes captain the Enterprise had already been on one five year mission with Pike as the captain (and Spock as first officer). So that would seem to argue that the movie is happening at least 5-7 years before the beginning of TOS (that episode starts with the Kirk five-year mission already some amount of time under way).

And looking at the "canon" timeline I see that the events of "The Cage" happened in 2254 (this is the episode that used the original pilot with Pike as captain) while the first episode of TOS happened in 2265. So by that timeline, again assuming that the construction of the Enterprise was not moved, the events of the movie must be more like 10-13 years earlier than when Kirk became captain of the Enterprise in the originally presented timeline.

Stardates were mentioned frequently in the movie so it would be relatively easy to align with the events of the original timeline (unless destruction of the Kelvin triggered a change in what stardates mean).

innerSpaceman · 05-10-2009, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

I also don't understand at all the comparison to James Bond beyond the fact that they are really the only examples of such lengthy movie franchises. I'm sure you really do see a parallel of importance but I'm completely missing it since the internal structure of the two franchises has never been on similar terms.

True, but the kernel of analogy is there. A new Bond does not mean that all that stuff for the last 40 years never happened. Even Daniel Craig presented as the "start" of James Bond does erase the past. Though I suppose some upset purists could have ranted on about that.

It's left incredibly fuzzy in the Bond series. But for all we know, the internal structure is exactly the same as Star Trek. As far as the films present, Sean Lazenby Moore Dalton Bronson the Third are all the same, non-aging person ... and Daniel Craig is then the very first James Bond in an alternate universe where S.L.M.D.Bronson III never existed.

They just don't bother to make an explaination ... perhaps so people won't have silly discussions about it.

The New Timeline element of this Star Trek movie is simply a matter of literary convenient licensing. It's being blown out of proportion here. It does not mean that James T. Shatner and Leonard Spock never lived. If you like, their exploits continue unchanged in an alternate timeline of endless reruns. These are different actors stepping into their shoes with the explanation that they are essentially the same characters under more or less drastically changed circumstances. Perhaps the timeline change is also why Chris Pine looks only vaguely like Bill Shatner, and Zachery Quinto looks like Leonard Nimoy only in the right light. In other words, WTF?

innerSpaceman · 05-10-2009, 10:20 AM

I'm glad my memory is fuzzy, it makes the changes so much easier to accept.

But was Kirk on the Enterprise while Spock was first officer under Capt. Pike? I know he's not in "The Cage," but was it explained in "The Menagerie" that Kirk was some sort of junior officer on board at the time???

Ghoulish Delight · 05-10-2009, 10:21 AM

To me, yeah, they are now different characters...and that's kinda why I like it. As I sat and struggled with the surprising fact that I liked it in spite of my dislike (which does mirror mp's reasons) of the alternate timeline device, I tried to think of another way to accomplish the same effect of dropping the 40 years of baggage that I liked about it.

I came up with two alternates. One was in the model of Next Generation. Set it in the future, start over with new characters. But that's an obvious non starter at this point. It worked for Picard and crew, but the amount of "canon" is now so great that there's just no way to go far enough in the future to be entirely divorced of it. And while I would have been more impressed by them creating new, interesting, likeable characters than by cultivating impressions of the old characters, fans (myself included) at this point have massively high standards for what any cast of characters should be like that it's a tall order to meet those expectations with something new and original that doesn't feel derivative.

The 2nd thought was along mp's comic book reasoning. But unlike comic books, there has been a (sort of) unbroken timeline/body of canon for the last 40 years. I can't even count the number of versions of the Batman origin story I've seen, they reboot that series every 5 years in one media or another. For them to just create a parallel version out of thin air, entirely unrelated to the timeline that's been obsessively picked over, I don't think it would have been embraced.

So I understand how they came to the device they chose. It semi-plausibly DID put things in "the same universe" while explaining how things can be completely different and not just a rerun of what we already know. I just don't think Trekkers would have been accepting of the comic-book model of redoing origin stories. If there's no in-universe explanation for the differences, they'll just reject it.

That's why, for me, I'm okay with this, but not okay with Midichlorians. It claimed to be the same universe with no explanation for the massively stupid inconsistencies. Sure, in this they pulled it off a little clumsily, and yeah, I did think things like, "He's supposed to be just as good a captain having grown up without a father as he was having grown up with a father? Really?" But the relief I felt of not having to fit everything I was watching into what I knew and whether it made sense with later events outweighed all of that for me.

Alex · 05-10-2009, 10:29 AM

Yes, we're definitely not talking on the same wavelength because what you're saying doesn't make any more sense to me than what I'm saying apparently does to you.

One key difference with Bond is that, at least in the movies, there has never been any attempt to create a universal tapestry with strong interconnections between every part of the narrative. With some exceptions, James Bond movies are essentially one offs using the same character idea. Each movie, essentially, is a reboot, with vague hints at consistency and hardly any acknowledgment of what has come before.

Admittedly, if Star Trek had been left with just the original three seasons that would be true of it as well, but that has not been the form of things for nearly 30 years now. For me, part of the fun of being a Star Trek fan is in how it all tries (and frequently fails I'll make no claim that Star Trek has ever been great at internal consistency) to tell a bigger story of a proposed future than just the individual stories of a few characters.

It is fine that they've said "ok, that's played out and we just need to drop all that and start over with the same general core starting point but with the convenience of a 40-year-old short culturally embedded shorthand." It is fine that we have Riker and Troi in the form of Spock and Uhura. It is fine that the engine room looks like a power plant (because that is what is and actually that look, in my opinion, better matches the "actual" engineering described in various semi-canonical sources and even if givign Scotty the Agustus Gloop treatment was beyond idiotic). But being fine with it is not, for me the same as it not being an important development in how I've interacted with this universe for 30 years.

Alex · 05-10-2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

I'm glad my memory is fuzzy, it makes the changes so much easier to accept.

According to generally accepted canon (stuff said or hinted at in TV shows and movies), after graduation from Starfleet Kirk served on various ships (starting with the USS Farragut) for almost a decade before getting command of the Enterprise (and no, he hadn't been on it under Pike).

ETA: Oh, and something that occurs to me, just to add to things that break canon even in the new timeline. In TOS, there was an episode in which the Federation first made visual contact with the Romulans and it was a surprise to everybody (including Spock) that they were related to Vulcans. Just a minor thing, but the kind of thing that has been trickling into my head all morning. Having all episodes on Hulu is really going to make nitpicing easier (as now I'm tempted to rewatch the episode to see exactly what was said).

innerSpaceman · 05-10-2009, 11:56 AM

Hmmm, yes, in that sense of going over details, it breaks with canon even more than I thought, and yep - even in the new timeline.

Which is kinda what I like about it. It's just an obvious literary device, not even interally consistent on its own terms. It's a reboot, with a line or two thrown in for how it could possibly be slightly more like Superman Returns and slightly less like Batman Begins.

I've been with Star Trek for my entire life, for all intents and purposes, and I'm an old man. So I'm going to assume that most people are very far removed from the original series, and all that matters was a way to get new versions of Spock, Kirk, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Chekov and Sulu aboard The Enterprise. They did this in a way that cheats absolutely everything ... but avoids the blunderbuss "more realistic" re-introductions of, say, ST:The Motion Picture, and breezes through it in a more lightweight Star Treky style in a far more entertaining and enjoyable "first" film.

Cheaters, yes. But as long as it was funny, says Roger Rabbit ... and as long as it was great, says I.

05-10-2009, 09:54 AM	#41
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'm not going to say there is a solid line. But Kirk's motiviations and Spock's motivations for how they proceed through life have been fundamentally changed. And whether that results in somewhat similar courses that is, in my opinion, a very important difference. But the key thing is not just that they are different people than originally depicted but that with this film we are told that all that has come before is irrelevant (and I believe one of mousepod's points is that it is cheating to use the love of what has come before as the draw to get you into the theater only to reveal halfway in that it is all being discarded) to any future engagement with the franchise except insofar as it allows the writers a convenient shortcut. Yes, those events still happened in some other timeline (similar to "its just a dream events" really happened in the dream) but they are of no future use in experiencing future events (except where they provide easy one-liners to future writers). I also don't understand at all the comparison to James Bond beyond the fact that they are really the only examples of such lengthy movie franchises. I'm sure you really do see a parallel of importance but I'm completely missing it since the internal structure of the two franchises has never been on similar terms.
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2009, 10:11 AM	#44
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I don't recall if there was anything in the movie that established it. However, assuming that the construction of the Enterprise itself was not significantly changed due to the loss of the Kelvin then its maiden voyage happened in this film (Pike says as much when they first leave Earth). And so this is the final year (one presumes) of Kirk's time at the academy. In the original timeline when Kirk becomes captain the Enterprise had already been on one five year mission with Pike as the captain (and Spock as first officer). So that would seem to argue that the movie is happening at least 5-7 years before the beginning of TOS (that episode starts with the Kirk five-year mission already some amount of time under way). And looking at the "canon" timeline I see that the events of "The Cage" happened in 2254 (this is the episode that used the original pilot with Pike as captain) while the first episode of TOS happened in 2265. So by that timeline, again assuming that the construction of the Enterprise was not moved, the events of the movie must be more like 10-13 years earlier than when Kirk became captain of the Enterprise in the originally presented timeline. Stardates were mentioned frequently in the movie so it would be relatively easy to align with the events of the original timeline (unless destruction of the Kelvin triggered a change in what stardates mean).
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2009, 10:20 AM	#46
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	I'm glad my memory is fuzzy, it makes the changes so much easier to accept. But was Kirk on the Enterprise while Spock was first officer under Capt. Pike? I know he's not in "The Cage," but was it explained in "The Menagerie" that Kirk was some sort of junior officer on board at the time???
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2009, 10:21 AM	#47
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	To me, yeah, they are now different characters...and that's kinda why I like it. As I sat and struggled with the surprising fact that I liked it in spite of my dislike (which does mirror mp's reasons) of the alternate timeline device, I tried to think of another way to accomplish the same effect of dropping the 40 years of baggage that I liked about it. I came up with two alternates. One was in the model of Next Generation. Set it in the future, start over with new characters. But that's an obvious non starter at this point. It worked for Picard and crew, but the amount of "canon" is now so great that there's just no way to go far enough in the future to be entirely divorced of it. And while I would have been more impressed by them creating new, interesting, likeable characters than by cultivating impressions of the old characters, fans (myself included) at this point have massively high standards for what any cast of characters should be like that it's a tall order to meet those expectations with something new and original that doesn't feel derivative. The 2nd thought was along mp's comic book reasoning. But unlike comic books, there has been a (sort of) unbroken timeline/body of canon for the last 40 years. I can't even count the number of versions of the Batman origin story I've seen, they reboot that series every 5 years in one media or another. For them to just create a parallel version out of thin air, entirely unrelated to the timeline that's been obsessively picked over, I don't think it would have been embraced. So I understand how they came to the device they chose. It semi-plausibly DID put things in "the same universe" while explaining how things can be completely different and not just a rerun of what we already know. I just don't think Trekkers would have been accepting of the comic-book model of redoing origin stories. If there's no in-universe explanation for the differences, they'll just reject it. That's why, for me, I'm okay with this, but not okay with Midichlorians. It claimed to be the same universe with no explanation for the massively stupid inconsistencies. Sure, in this they pulled it off a little clumsily, and yeah, I did think things like, "He's supposed to be just as good a captain having grown up without a father as he was having grown up with a father? Really?" But the relief I felt of not having to fit everything I was watching into what I knew and whether it made sense with later events outweighed all of that for me. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2009, 10:29 AM	#48
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yes, we're definitely not talking on the same wavelength because what you're saying doesn't make any more sense to me than what I'm saying apparently does to you. One key difference with Bond is that, at least in the movies, there has never been any attempt to create a universal tapestry with strong interconnections between every part of the narrative. With some exceptions, James Bond movies are essentially one offs using the same character idea. Each movie, essentially, is a reboot, with vague hints at consistency and hardly any acknowledgment of what has come before. Admittedly, if Star Trek had been left with just the original three seasons that would be true of it as well, but that has not been the form of things for nearly 30 years now. For me, part of the fun of being a Star Trek fan is in how it all tries (and frequently fails I'll make no claim that Star Trek has ever been great at internal consistency) to tell a bigger story of a proposed future than just the individual stories of a few characters. It is fine that they've said "ok, that's played out and we just need to drop all that and start over with the same general core starting point but with the convenience of a 40-year-old short culturally embedded shorthand." It is fine that we have Riker and Troi in the form of Spock and Uhura. It is fine that the engine room looks like a power plant (because that is what is and actually that look, in my opinion, better matches the "actual" engineering described in various semi-canonical sources and even if givign Scotty the Agustus Gloop treatment was beyond idiotic). But being fine with it is not, for me the same as it not being an important development in how I've interacted with this universe for 30 years. Last edited by Alex : 05-10-2009 at 10:43 AM.
	Submit to Quotes

05-10-2009, 11:56 AM	#50
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Hmmm, yes, in that sense of going over details, it breaks with canon even more than I thought, and yep - even in the new timeline. Which is kinda what I like about it. It's just an obvious literary device, not even interally consistent on its own terms. It's a reboot, with a line or two thrown in for how it could possibly be slightly more like Superman Returns and slightly less like Batman Begins. I've been with Star Trek for my entire life, for all intents and purposes, and I'm an old man. So I'm going to assume that most people are very far removed from the original series, and all that matters was a way to get new versions of Spock, Kirk, McCoy, Scotty, Uhura, Chekov and Sulu aboard The Enterprise. They did this in a way that cheats absolutely everything ... but avoids the blunderbuss "more realistic" re-introductions of, say, ST:The Motion Picture, and breezes through it in a more lightweight Star Treky style in a far more entertaining and enjoyable "first" film. Cheaters, yes. But as long as it was funny, says Roger Rabbit ... and as long as it was great, says I.
	Submit to Quotes