Why is ST09's altered timeline a problem?

[Herbert1]

The problem that I have with the altered timeline is that it allows them to tell the origin story of Kirk and Spock and Kirk's taking command of the Enterprise in the same film. For everyone to be present on the Enterprise we have to swallow some amazing coincidences. We also have to accept that Starfleet is stupid enough to give command of a starship, and entrusted with the lives of over 300 shipmates, to a third-year midshipman who hasn't done squat. Starfleet as an organization loses all credibility to give the Enterprise to a snot nose kid. It's Kirk's rapid promotion that I cannot accept. It takes me out of my willing suspension of disbelief. There has never been any doubt that Kirk is talented, but he also needs experience and maturity to be a credible character. The story in the film has fundamental credibility problems that are explained away as an alternate timeline. I cannot think of another character in naval fiction who has been given command of a ship of the line after one mission and who is a third-year midshipman. I cannot think of any historical examples where a real person rised so quickly within the ranks, boy wonder or not. Obviously, Orci and Kurtzman have never heard of time at rank.

The alternate timeline magic wand is being waved to force us to accept poor creative decisions in the new Star Trek film. It's science fiction right, we can pretty much do anything we want however incredible it might be. If fans don't like it, well they just can't accept change.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The problem that I have with the altered timeline is that it allows them to tell the origin story of Kirk and Spock and Kirk's taking command of the Enterprise in the same film. For everyone to be present on the Enterprise we have to swallow some amazing coincidences.

They're only "coincidences" looking back from the POV of TOS. If one looks at this as the beginning, the collection of this particular bunch at one time and one place is merely a happenstance. There's nothing unique or significant about them, as a group - yet. They're just the folks who happen to be assigned to this ship on this day.

Oh, the Reliant thrown back in time at the beginning of the next film will have the registry NX-01864.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

The problem that I have with the altered timeline is that it allows them to tell the origin story of Kirk and Spock and Kirk's taking command of the Enterprise in the same film. For everyone to be present on the Enterprise we have to swallow some amazing coincidences. We also have to accept that Starfleet is stupid enough to give command of a starship, and entrusted with the lives of over 300 shipmates, to a third-year midshipman who hasn't done squat. Starfleet as an organization loses all credibility to give the Enterprise to a snot nose kid. It's Kirk's rapid promotion that I cannot accept. It takes me out of my willing suspension of disbelief. There has never been any doubt that Kirk is talented, but he also needs experience and maturity to be a credible character. The story in the film has fundamental credibility problems that are explained away as an alternate timeline. I cannot think of another character in naval fiction who has been given command of a ship of the line after one mission and who is a third-year midshipman. I cannot think of any historical examples where a real person rised so quickly within the ranks, boy wonder or not. Obviously, Orci and Kurtzman have never heard of time at rank.

The alternate timeline magic wand is being waved to force us to accept poor creative decisions in the new Star Trek film. It's science fiction right, we can pretty much do anything we want however incredible it might be. If fans don't like it, well they just can't accept change.

Agreed. And well stated indeed.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There's always got to be a first. Though IIRC, someone brought up a fictional or historical precedent for that. Kirk isn't a "third-year midshipman " he's the equivalent of a fourth year or possibly even a post grad. Remember he told Pike he'd get through the academy in three years. And he holds the rank of Lieutenant. I see his promotion as a PR move by Starfleet. They'll send the E on a goodwill tour of the UFP.

As for them getting together. That's what an origin story is. Getting the players in place. Kirk, McCoy and Uhura come from the academy. Spock,Chekov and Sulu are already assigned to the Enterprise. Scotty is picked up long the way. I find the idea that most of the crew are together at the starts of TMP and TWOK to be more unbelievable. And Spock (in TMP) and Kirk (in TWOK) just happen along.

 

[Sector 7]

Aw, hell. Now I'm going to be spending all night trying to "reimagine" Trek as a Silent Film era production. I'm not going to get any real work done at all. sigh.

Just wait...this is going to inspire a fan film.

I was all set to suggest a SteamPunk film, based on all those www.rabbittooth.com pics.

Done
~snip~

...then Dennis posted a whole 'nother type of SteamTrek. That was a funny film.

Now, just to get this thread back on track:
- if you hate this movie yo mama wears yo daddy's combat boots
- if you love this movie yo daddy wears yo mama's high heels

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Them's fight'n werds

 

[OneBuckFilms]

The problem that I have with the altered timeline is that it allows them to tell the origin story of Kirk and Spock and Kirk's taking command of the Enterprise in the same film.

This is actually an ADVANTAGE. The film had to be an origin story in standalone form, and needed both of these events to occur at the same time to work well for a movie.

For everyone to be present on the Enterprise we have to swallow some amazing coincidences.

Or fate, or destiny, or the idea that it may have happened in a similar way in TOS, so may not have changed much.

We also have to accept that Starfleet is stupid enough to give command of a starship, and entrusted with the lives of over 300 shipmates, to a third-year midshipman who hasn't done squat.

By the time Kirk gets command, he's saved the Earth, and possibly prevented billions of lives lost.

Again, to work as a single movie, this actually HAD to be done. The story is not complete until Kirk takes command.

Starfleet as an organization loses all credibility to give the Enterprise to a snot nose kid.

You mean the young Lt. who managed to prevent a disaster?

It's Kirk's rapid promotion that I cannot accept.

I can understand that.

It takes me out of my willing suspension of disbelief.

The circumstances in the movie worked well enough dramatically. This aspect of the movie is necessary, for reasons I've already outlined.

There has never been any doubt that Kirk is talented, but he also needs experience and maturity to be a credible character.

Then no single movie can make Kirk becoming Captain dramatically satisfying. He is credible enough under the circumstances.

The story in the film has fundamental credibility problems that are explained away as an alternate timeline.

Kirk's rise in rank I assume? The Alternate Reality has nothing to do with that. The Alternate Reality is a gateway to allow for changes needed to update Trek and make an origin story work dramatically in one movie.

I cannot think of another character in naval fiction who has been given command of a ship of the line after one mission and who is a third-year midshipman.

Well, Starfleet isn't the Navy, although it closely resembles one.

I cannot think of any historical examples where a real person rised so quickly within the ranks, boy wonder or not.

Erm, this isn't reality. Dramatic necessity trumps realism. Always has.

Obviously, Orci and Kurtzman have never heard of time at rank.

Or simply chose the course necessary to make it work in a 2 hour movie.

The alternate timeline magic wand is being waved to force us to accept poor creative decisions in the new Star Trek film.

Remove the word poor, and this is correct. Just like the Refit in ST:TMP was necessary to accept a complete change of visual style.

It's science fiction right, we can pretty much do anything we want however incredible it might be. If fans don't like it, well they just can't accept change.

Your post here is pointing out 2 different issues:
- The Alternate Reality.
- Kirk's rapid rise in rank.

There is nothing about the Alternate Reality that necessitated the Rise in Ranks, but it is necessary to allow it to occur, since it is not what happened in established TOS Canon.

The actual REASON for the rapid rise in ranks is to solve the puzzle of how to get Kirk to be Captain by the end of the movie.

I see it as TECHNICALLY incorrect, but form a Dramatic an Emotional point, it's the best choice.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Granted, a few of the biggest "you're an idiot for liking this movie" haters no longer post in this forum

Ah, those were the days. They ended too soon. And don't forget the "slobbering". I really miss being a "slobbering idiot".

And don't forget the long posts on how people in the future are morons because they built the Enterprise on the ground. Fun times.

There's always got to be a first. Though IIRC, someone brought up a fictional or historical precedent for that. Kirk isn't a "third-year midshipman " he's the equivalent of a fourth year or possibly even a post grad. Remember he told Pike he'd get through the academy in three years. And he holds the rank of Lieutenant. I see his promotion as a PR move by Starfleet. They'll send the E on a goodwill tour of the UFP.

At least until Kirk does something to prove he is ready to be the captain in the next movie.

 

[Withers]

I see it as TECHNICALLY incorrect, but form a Dramatic an Emotional point, it's the best choice.

As this pertains to the insta-Captain element of Star Trek XI I have to cry foul. Just because that's what they did doesn't at all mean that it's the "best" that could have been done. 4 full years instead of 3, a mention of his training that included something aside skirt chasing and cheating, and maybe an addition of the caption "5 Years Later" before they have Admiral Pike handing over the keys to the Flagship to Kirk would have been better at least as far as making it make sense (to people who have any understanding of organizations where rank is at all a factor.)

Of course there are rationalizations for this. There always are. It's true of every incarnation of Trek. There are, however, better rationalizations than others and for the insta-Captain bit, the ones that exist... just aren't very good. I understand why they needed to get Kirk in command of Enterprise. I just don't agree that their execution was the best that could have been done... or that what they did was even really acceptable.

-Withers-​

 

[3D Master]

The problem that I have with the altered timeline is that it allows them to tell the origin story of Kirk and Spock and Kirk's taking command of the Enterprise in the same film.

This is actually an ADVANTAGE. The film had to be an origin story in standalone form, and needed both of these events to occur at the same time to work well for a movie.

Nooo, because there is NO origin for the Enterprise crew. They're a crew on a military/exploration fleet. They simply got assigned to a ship over the time. An origin exists only as the first creation of something, or a single person, or some mythological/fate created group. A crew that over time got assigned to one ship amongst many, and transferred off again, there is no origin.

The crew complements reason for being: they got assigned, others got transferred, or promoted off.

For everyone to be present on the Enterprise we have to swallow some amazing coincidences.

Or fate, or destiny, or the idea that it may have happened in a similar way in TOS, so may not have changed much.

No, you see, there is no fate, nor any destiny. We simply are here. This is the premise of secular humanism, which is the very foundation of Star Trek. It's us that did things, we, not some imaginary, invisible force or entity that came to save and steer humanity from on high.

The idea of fate and/or destiny is a betrayal of the very essence of Star Trek.

By the time Kirk gets command, he's saved the Earth, and possibly prevented billions of lives lost.

Uh, no, he didn't. He was a-hole bastard who mucked things up and got lucky, lucky those amongst his crew were far better than he was and brought up solutions when he got none... and oh, yeah, that both the villain and the rest of Starfleet are a bunch of complete morons.

The fact that he could be beamed off of the Narada proves the idiot Nero didn't bother raising his shields. And the fact that the first salvo of planetary defense batteries didn't blast - with its shields down - the Narada to smithereens is because apparently the people manning them were too stupid to fire back.

Moron1: "Duh, there's a big ship firing at Earth, rather close to Starfleet Headquarters, maybe we should fire back."

Moron2: "Duh, no order, no firing."

Moron1: "But the big ship may have destroyed command."

Moron2: "So?"

Moron1: "Duh... you're right, no order, no firing."

Gah, how I hate this movie.

If Starfleet wasn't staffed by morons the movie would have gone:

Kirk: "Where's the Narada?"

Spock: "No sign of it-wait... there's a debris field."

Chekov: "It's what's left of the Narada, sir."

Kirk: "What? Contact Starfleet."

Admiral: "Enterprise, where's Pike?"

Kirk: "He was on board the Narada, the attacking ship, what happened to it?"

Admiral: "Then Pike is lost, we blew it out of the sky." (At the crew's disbelieving face.) "It didn't raise its shields, apparently they assumed we were like the pacifist Vulcans and wouldn't fire back or something. For a ship not having raised its shields, it lasted pretty long against a full scale planetary defence grid bombardment - all .4 seconds."

Kirk: "So me being a shouting arrogant ass that performed insorbination was all for nothing then?"

Admiral (darkly): "If that's what you did, then yes."

Kirk: "Well, fu-"

Again, to work as a single movie, this actually HAD to be done. The story is not complete until Kirk takes command.

It shouldn't be a single movie, there shouldn't even be a movie. If you want the movie where Kirk proves he's captain material and gets command of the Enterprise because of it, the movie shouldn't be occurring while Kirk is still a cadet. And as far as I'm concerned, shouldn't even be occurring on the Enterprise.

You mean the young Lt. who managed to prevent a disaster?

A lieutenant is a. not a snot-nosed kid, and b. a man who has already had several years of experience in the fleet, and multiple command experiences, either of landing parties or command of the ship while the captain is indisposed.

Kirk is a cadet, only just out of the academy, not even given the official rank of Ensign yet. He may have been promoted straight to lieutenant for what he did, if you even count as him having done anything but being an a-hole, but not captain.

The circumstances in the movie worked well enough dramatically. This aspect of the movie is necessary, for reasons I've already outlined.

No, it didn't. And it is not necessary, the origin isn't something that should be told to begin with. The origin of a crew, is that 390 of the crew were already on the ship, ten got transferred off, and 10 new ones got transferred on. That's the origin of the latest 400 crew complement of a ship.

Then no single movie can make Kirk becoming Captain dramatically satisfying. He is credible enough under the circumstances.

Sure there's a movie that can make Kirk becoming captain dramatically satisfying. It just won't occur on the Enterprise and maybe one or two of the rest of TOS crew are present; especially if they Kirk work well together so he may have requested them as part of his crew once he gets assigned he captain of the Enterprise.

Kirk's rise in rank I assume? The Alternate Reality has nothing to do with that. The Alternate Reality is a gateway to allow for changes needed to update Trek and make an origin story work dramatically in one movie.

An origin story for the Enterprise crew did not work dramatically in one movie, that's because it CAN"T work dramatically in one movie, that's because there is NO origin for the Enterprise crew, apart from there was an opening and a new crew member got assigned to the crew.

This isn't the fellowship of the Ring, it's a crew a starship of military/exploration fleet.

Well, Starfleet isn't the Navy, although it closely resembles one.

Only in the strictest sense that they don't sail the seas.

Erm, this isn't reality. Dramatic necessity trumps realism. Always has.

Only in so far as there is enough realism left for your suspension of disbelief to remain over the drama. What happened in this movie, did not have realism left. (My god did ever not!)

Or simply chose the course necessary to make it work in a 2 hour movie.

It didn't work, and can't work.

The alternate timeline magic wand is being waved to force us to accept poor creative decisions in the new Star Trek film.

Remove the word poor, and this is correct. Just like the Refit in ST:TMP was necessary to accept a complete change of visual style.

Which is not a poor decision. The idiocy that is this story in every way shape and form, is.

The actual REASON for the rapid rise in ranks is to solve the puzzle of how to get Kirk to be Captain by the end of the movie.

Which if you start with Kirk as a cadet, and you have just one adventure, not multiple short adventures with years of time between them, can't be done believably, and thus can't be done with satisfying drama. And thus shouldn't be done. It is an idiocy, one, of so many.

I see it as TECHNICALLY incorrect, but form a Dramatic an Emotional point, it's the best choice.

No, it is not, for it is idiotic, there is just no drama or emotion, it's just laughable, throws you of the movie, and makes you say, this shit is bad.

 

[CaptainStoner]

I too feel the promotion from Cadet to Captain was just too stupid. I don't have a problem with the new films being an alternate universe. But even in alternate universes, there needs to be some internal consistency.
Some are saying it was necessary to the story: why?
It would have been better storytelling not to shoehorn Kirk into the Captain's chair, just to end with that shot of the bridge, and instead have him aspiring to it, because he hasn't earned it yet. That would have set the stage for XII in a more interesting way. You'd want to see the continuation of the story.
Furthermore, what is STXI about? What is it saying? Even a film that flopped like NEM had more interesting content: nature vs. nurture. STXI seems to be saying, if you're a predestined golden boy, you'll have it all handed to you. Where is the struggle and the journey to reach the goal? Isn't that where the story lies?
I suspect that putting Kirk in the Captain's chair was a studio directive, so I don't blame any writers, or JJ, or whomever. This is what happens when art is directed too much by business: you get bad art. You get McDonald's instead of a gourmet burger from you own backyard, and the justification is the "billions and billions sold".
Fortunately or unfortunately, it's done and over. I am looking forward to XII, which should be a much freer project. XI was tough to pull off. At least they did it in a fun way that was successful enough to bring another film which will hopefully have some more depth to it.

 

[Withers]

Even a film that flopped like NEM had more interesting content: nature vs. nurture.

You had me up to and after this. While I liked XI it was by no means smart and the cadet-on-suspension to Captain element is one of the key pieces of evidence one can source as proof. Still, Nothing could convince me that Nemesis was a better film than XI or that the content was more interesting by its nature or better executed. XI packaged and sold what it had to offer (whatever it was that you want to call it) well. Nemesis just hoped no one would notice it so they could send the TNG cast quietly into the night with as little fanfare as possible.

-Withers-​

 

[CaptainStoner]

Even a film that flopped like NEM had more interesting content: nature vs. nurture.

You had me up to and after this. While I liked XI it was by no means smart and the cadet-on-suspension to Captain element is one of the key pieces of evidence one can source as proof. Still, Nothing could convince me that Nemesis was a better film than XI or that the content was more interesting by its nature or better executed. XI packaged and sold what it had to offer (whatever it was that you want to call it) well. Nemesis just hoped no one would notice it so they could send the TNG cast quietly into the night with as little fanfare as possible.

-Withers-​

Well I knew I was stepping in something with that statement.
To clarify, I think NEM had more to work with in terms of its content. It had some real, classic ST elements by holding a question. I don't see what the question or theme of XI was.
This is not, however, saying NEM was a better film.

 

[Withers]

I'll give on that. Nemesis bashed people over the head with its theme of "mirror images." Unless one was blind it would have been hard to miss. It was very Trek in that it had a finite message, did not deviate from it, and made absolutely certain that people were aware of it from start to finish. The TNG movies never met an unsubtle element they didn't like.

XI, on the other hand, had a much looser grip on what it was trying to convey (because what that was, unlike Nemesis and other Trek films, is very much open to debate.) For some it might be the tag lines like "Choose your own destiny" and for other people it might be living up to expectations or overcoming difficulties. Whatever it was it wasn't firmly set in stone. They would have needed to put a lot more effort into the scripting of the film for that to have been the case. In this particular sense (and god help me I can't believe I'm about to write this) it was less Trek and more action movie. Action movies don't have to define a message clearly as a requirement.

So yeah, I think we agree on that too. I just felt like I had to go on the record about the Nemesis deal. I just can't say enough bad things about that movie really but I do take the chance to try whenever one arises

-Withers-​

 

[OneBuckFilms]

ST XI did not have a message, it had a tale to tell. It was about these characters coming together. That's all it is meant to be.

It has elements of friendship, interpersonal conflict, and perhaps the sense of a shared destiny, but that's about it.

Why does there have to be a "message"?

 

[3D Master]

In comparison to XI, Nemesis was a well-written, well-structured movie. Of course, Nemesis is a plot-hole ridden pile of shit. Which should tell you just how bad I consider XI. I've never seen a movie this bad, ever.

 

[Set Harth]

And the fact that the first salvo of planetary defense batteries didn't blast - with its shields down - the Narada to smithereens is because apparently the people manning them were too stupid to fire back.

Or were themselves blasted to smithereens.

I've never seen a movie this bad, ever.

Then there are some movies you need to see...

It gets a lot worse than this.

 

[DonIago]

Shall we spring for the Uwe Boll collection?

 

[Devon]

In comparison to XI, Nemesis was a well-written, well-structured movie. Of course, Nemesis is a plot-hole ridden pile of shit. Which should tell you just how bad I consider XI. I've never seen a movie this bad, ever.

Weren't you saying the same exact thing before the film even came out?

 

[OneBuckFilms]

I too feel the promotion from Cadet to Captain was just too stupid. I don't have a problem with the new films being an alternate universe. But even in alternate universes, there needs to be some internal consistency.
Some are saying it was necessary to the story: why?

The reasons are many:
- It had to work as a standalone adventure, meaning a fresh start.
- It had to be faster paced, which means the story strictly known to Canon would not have worked.
- It had to to start with Kirk's youth, and end with him as Captain, again not possible with the linear story within Canon.

It would have been better storytelling not to shoehorn Kirk into the Captain's chair, just to end with that shot of the bridge, and instead have him aspiring to it, because he hasn't earned it yet. That would have set the stage for XII in a more interesting way. You'd want to see the continuation of the story.
Furthermore, what is STXI about? What is it saying? Even a film that flopped like NEM had more interesting content: nature vs. nurture. STXI seems to be saying, if you're a predestined golden boy, you'll have it all handed to you. Where is the struggle and the journey to reach the goal? Isn't that where the story lies?

It wasn't actually handed to him. He had to fight through this movie to earn his place:
- He had to convinve Captain Pike about the nature of the Romulan attack.
- He had to get Spock to reveal he was emotionally compromise.
- He had to work with a crew who had no reason to respect him in order to defeat Nero, and save Earth and the Federation.

That's a hell of a lot to overcome.

I suspect that putting Kirk in the Captain's chair was a studio directive, so I don't blame any writers, or JJ, or whomever.

I suspect this may be partly true. The movie could not guarantee sequels, and yet had to be set up so that sequels could be made.

The film also had the requirement to show the basic construct of Star Trek. That means, by definition, Kirk as the Captain by the end of the movie.

This is what happens when art is directed too much by business: you get bad art. You get McDonald's instead of a gourmet burger from you own backyard, and the justification is the "billions and billions sold".

From the Studio, the return on investment was the primary focus.

From the filmmakers, making a good movie that achieved this goal was.

The "Bad Art" argument is not that applicable to those who do not believe this movie was "Bad Art".

It was not a Picasso Painting from a Shakespear play.

Fortunately or unfortunately, it's done and over. I am looking forward to XII, which should be a much freer project. XI was tough to pull off. At least they did it in a fun way that was successful enough to bring another film which will hopefully have some more depth to it.

I share this sentiment. XI had some things done out of necessity, even if that necessity is not always seen.

XII now, thanks to XI, has an effectively clean slate.