Altered Timeline: Do you cringe when someone says in a post...

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Do you cringe when you read a post that says "The ship looks different because it's an altered timeline"?

I do realize that Orci said that this is an altered timeline, but I really hope that they are not using that "altered timeline" plot point to explain the differences in the look of the Enterprise. I think that will only serve to cheapen this film.

Personally, I would rather it NOT be an altered timeline. I don't need an altered timeline to justify to myself the changes in the look. I can simply justify the change in the ship's look by realizing that this is a 2009 movie based on the 1966 TV show and it is NOT a direct continuation of that show (and its films) -- so, of course the ship will look different.

And by me saying that it's "based on" the 1966 TV show and is not a direct continuation doesn't mean that I don't think it will respect the feel, characters & their relationships, and "in-universe history" of that TV show -- It can do all of those things and still have different set designs. Those are the important things. Set design doesn't matter that much to me. Set design is not what made 'Star Trek' Star Trek.

If this film simply tells me that this ship is the same one from the TV show, I have enough of an imagination for me to believe that to be true.

The ship looks different because this is a 2009 movie. Period.


EDIT TO ADD:
to clarify, I should say "I think the ship looks different because this is a 2009 movie. Period."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Do you cringe when you read a post that says "The ship looks different because it's an altered timeline"?

I would only cringe if I thought that was going to be a big deal in the movie. I really doubt that it is.

Let fans tell one another whatever technobabble nonsense (derived, of course, from "the most fantastically successful scientific theory in the history of spacetime") they need to give themselves permission to accept the movie if they like it. As far as I'm concerned, it's a reboot/prequel that may make new "Star Trek" worth watching again.

It's just fiction.

The NYT had an article Sunday on the new Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" movie starring Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law. It sounds really intriguing and could be a great movie - but people scouting about for deerstalker caps and pipes may be frustrated.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Personally, I would rather it NOT be an altered timeline. I don't need an altered timeline to justify to myself the changes in the look. I can simply justify the change in the ship's look by realizing that this is a 2009 movie based on the 1966 TV show and it is NOT a direct continuation of that show (and its films) -- so, of course the ship will look different.

And by me saying that it's "based on" the 1966 TV show and is not a direct continuation doesn't mean that I don't think it will respect the feel, characters & their relationships, and "in-universe history" of that TV show -- It can do all of those things and still have different set designs. Those are the important things. Set design doesn't matter that much to me. Set design is not what made 'Star Trek' Star Trek.

If this film simply tells me that this ship is the same one from the TV show, I have enough of an imagination for me to believe that to be true.

The ship looks different because this is a 2009 movie. Period.

Nothing more to add here really. I agree 100%

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Do you cringe when you read a post that says "The ship looks different because it's an altered timeline"?

I would only cringe if I thought that was going to be a big deal in the movie. I really doubt that it is.

I agree here. I don't mind if the Altered Timeline can be used as an "out" by hardcore fans if they really NEED that to explain the difference in the ship to themselves. However, I want this to be a de facto explanation only -- not one that is overtly used as a plot point.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

However, I want this to be a de facto explanation only -- not one that is overtly used as a plot point.

Even if it's overtly mentioned, I don't care as long as they don't spend real time on it. I've ignored worse in Trek before.

 

[ancient]

*Old Spock pulls out a chalkboard*

"This line is us. This line is Nero. When Nero went back in time like this, he caused space-time to split. This is because of Quantum Theory, which is the most awesome theory ever. Now, if anyone is unclear as to why this would lead to the nacelles looking like a 1950's Earth automobile, I will now spend 3 hours explaining the design logic in great detail. Or we could just blow shit up."

 

[Lord Garth]

The Alternate Timeline probably isn't just there for the look of the ship. What if, for instance, they want to re-use Khan? Or what if the movies continue long enough and they don't want Kirk to be promoted to Admiral?

At first it might look like a way to get around designs and how things were in the two pilots, the second one in particular, but it also gives unpredictability because New TOS won't repeat everything from Old TOS.

 

[FalTorPan]

I don't care whether the movie mentions an alternate timeline. Either the movie will be good, or it won't.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

The ship looks different because this is a 2009 movie. Period.

Well, obviously we won't be able to confirm any of this until after we see the movie. And possibly not even then. Period.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^True.

I should have added one more "I think" before that last sentence.

 

[Semah]

*Old Spock pulls out a chalkboard*

"This line is us. This line is Nero. When Nero went back in time like this, he caused space-time to split. This is because of Quantum Theory, which is the most awesome theory ever. Now, if anyone is unclear as to why this would lead to the nacelles looking like a 1950's Earth automobile, I will now spend 3 hours explaining the design logic in great detail. Or we could just blow shit up."

"It also led to this chalkboard being here..."

 

[M'Sharak]

I've been known to cringe when someone earnestly offers it as the One and Only True Answer, yes.

The ship looks different because this is a 2009 movie. Period.

This works for me.

*Old Spock pulls out a chalkboard*

"This line is us. This line is Nero. When Nero went back in time like this, he caused space-time to split. This is because of Quantum Theory, which is the most awesome theory ever. Now, if anyone is unclear as to why this would lead to the nacelles looking like a 1950's Earth automobile, I will now spend 3 hours explaining the design logic in great detail. Or we could just blow shit up."

Will the explanations be corroborated by holographic representations of Harley Earl, Raymond Loewy, Virgil Exner and Alex Tremulis before stuff starts blowing up? Or maybe they could have design commentary tracks in the DVD extras instead.

Spock's chalkboard should be drawn out from hammerspace, too.

 

[Oso Blanco]

the ship looks different because this is a 2009 movie. Period."

No. The ship looks different because the producers didn't have the balls to make it look like the original ship. Period.

 

[SalvorHardin]

the ship looks different because this is a 2009 movie. Period."

No. The ship looks different because the producers didn't have the balls to make it look like the original ship. Period.

No. The ship looks different because this is a 2009 movie and the producers had the good sense not to make it look exactly like the original ship. Period.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No. The ship looks different because the producers didn't have the balls to make it look like the original ship. Period.

No. The ship looks different because the producers were too smart to make it look like the original ship. Period.

 

[mredom]

the ship looks different because this is a 2009 movie. Period."

No. The ship looks different because the producers didn't have the balls to make it look like the original ship. Period.

Sorry, If you're going to question the producer's, I wouldn't question their "balls" They had the "balls" to change up many things knowing full well they would piss off a good portion of the "fans", rolling the dice that it would make it appeal enough to a broader audience that it wouldn't matter that you didn't come. Honestly, those are pretty big stainless steel balls. Big risk, which I think will result in a huge payoff, and a continuation of the Trek universe into the future.

Just my thoughts, I'm pretty sure that some people will agree, and some not. You can question the decision, but no matter how you look at it, you can't question their "balls"

 

[Augustus]

I agree.

But regarding the OP's question, I will wait until the movie for any cringe inducing moments. I hope they don't make it a big deal. In fact I would love for it to be something that is not even talked about only implied.

From what I have seen I don't think I have much to worry about though.

 

[ST-One]

the ship looks different because this is a 2009 movie. Period."

No. The ship looks different because the producers didn't have the balls to make it look like the original ship. Period.

No, it looks different because this is a 2008/9 movie not a 1966 TV-show.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Sorry, If you're going to question the producer's, I wouldn't question their "balls" They had the "balls" to change up many things knowing full well they would piss off a good portion of the "fans", rolling the dice that it would make it appeal enough to a broader audience that it wouldn't matter that you didn't come. Honestly, those are pretty big stainless steel balls. Big risk, which I think will result in a huge payoff, and a continuation of the Trek universe into the future.

Just my thoughts, I'm pretty sure that some people will agree, and some not. You can question the decision, but no matter how you look at it, you can't question their "balls"

Agreed.

The safest and most benign thing Abrams could have done was made a nice little medium-budget TOS-looking film using replicas of the TOS sets with look-alike actors who imitated the originals -- basically a professionally-produced Hollywood version of a fan film. A film like that could have maybe made a few dollars and would have been wildly popular among a very small group of moviegoers -- i.e., hardcore Star Trek fans. I probably would have seen it, and I perhaps would have generally enjoyed it for what it was (but it probably would not "knock my socks off".)

But Paramount and Abrams wanted to make a lot of money and revive the franchise enough to eventually make even more money (that's the whole point of making movies, BTW) -- and to do that they would have to change some things, spend some money, and take BIG risks at the expense of potentially alienating the small fan base. By taking these risks, hopefully Abrams and crew created something that will indeed "knock my socks off". We'll find out in May.

oops...I just realized I'm hijacking my own thread. Oh well. Feel free to go back to responding to my original post and the OT posts that followed.



Back on topic:

...But regarding the OP's question, I will wait until the movie for any cringe inducing moments. I hope they don't make it a big deal. In fact I would love for it to be something that is not even talked about only implied...

This is my hope, also

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

No. The ship looks different because the producers didn't have the balls to make it look like the original ship. Period.

No. The ship looks different because this is a 2009 movie and the producers had the good sense not to make it look exactly like the original ship. Period.

No. The ship looks different because the producers were too smart to make it look like the original ship. Period.

No, it looks different because this is a 2008/9 movie not a 1966 TV-show.

No. None of us could possibly know what the correct answer is at this time. Period.