About references and “fanwank” (my all-time lest favourite internet word): STXI got it right – it used references to other Treks the way they should be, as window dressing for the pretend future. You didn’t need to know anything the film didn’t tell you (well…aside from why Nero twiddled his thumbs for 25 years). For example Spock’s line to his mother about Kolinahr. What’s that? We know it’s something to do with Spock’s alien half, something that equates to renouncing his human half – just from what he said. Want more? Watch TMP. More still? Spock’s World gives the history of the Vulcan people and The Lost Years tells what the Kolinahr masters are, and what they used to be. So depending on your knowledge of Trek, “Kolinahr” was either “something to do with Spock’s alien half” (for the newbie) or “that thing he later does in TMP” (for the casual fan) or everything us die-hards know about it. Everyone got something out of it without alienating anyone else.
Compare to…
A bunch of space cadets we’ve never met before are at Starfleet Academy in The Best and Brightest. A succession of known Trek characters (Guinan, Dax, Picard, Boothby) “drop by” (like in those cheesy sitcoms, you can almost hear the canned cheers) with explanations like “I’m just here for [flimsy excuse] while [between episodes x and y]”. It’s gratuitous, pointless (only Dax’s cameo and the trip to the Enterprise really add anything) and annoying because I can’t even remember some of the episodes being referenced.
Enterprise did it all the time too: Brent Spiner episodes: “Maybe…artificial life (hint hint). It may take a few…(knowing smile)…generations (canned cheers)”. Archer: “one day someone will come up with a set of rules for us…a… directive (pause for applause)” or “Here’s to…(wait for it)… The Next Generation (crazed American-style whooping)”. None of this means anything to people who haven’t seen Trek outside of Enterprise, yet it’s given OTT emphasis so that newbies know they’re missing out on something, thus alienating them. Fail.
For all my distaste with the film, I agree with you here, and I think this is a very good analysis, personally.
The only problem is that while you're quite right to point out that all we need to know about, for example, Kolinahr is "something to do with Vulcan-ness and so not Human-ness", the sad thing is there are plenty of people so used to- and needing- everything carefully explained, obvious and "dumbed down" that they'll be unlikely to even get that. They won't be able to make the connection. They'll say "eh? What's Kolinahr?" and be turned off. For example, when I watched "Avatar", well, you remember the scene where Neytiri sees the dandelion-seed thing floating around while watching Jake Sully and has a strong reaction to it? All we need to know is, as you say, the obvious- clearly this is something significant, spiritually or culturally important, a sign, something special. But many in the audience could be overheard (I overheard them) saying, essentially, "eh? What's that mean? I don't get it". So many people
want everything explained to them and don't want to take even the slightest leap of intellect for themselves, and so will not respond to something that should be obvious even without the details. Essentially, they'll be unable to make the connection that Kolinahr is "something to do with Vulcan-ness and not Human-ness", and they'll say "Eh? What the hell's kolinahr?" Of course, if you were to explain "Kolinahr is a Vulcan rite wherein a Vulcan trains under the tutorage-" they'd soon get bored or feel this fictional world was too impenetrable to them and be alienated. If "Avatar" had explained explicitly the dandelion-seed's significance, no-one would have liked it.
I think this is why people are so hard to please. They want everything explained but don't like lengthy explanations.
My sister and I and a third party were watching a DS9 episode once. The subject of Winn running for First minister position came up. Kira was against it. The third person asked "why?". I began to explain that Winn is selfish, blind to her own selfishness, a zealot, convinced of her own moral superiority and thus dangerous, petty-. My sister interrupted and said "because she's evil". The third person said "oh, okay" and continued watching.
As you say, what more do we need? It seems it explained it clearly in direct, simple terms, without taking more than a few seconds and yet managed to leave no room for "huh? what?" responses by actually leaving anything vague.
