# A `Star Trek' is born: J.J. Abrams gives a glimpse



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081016/ap_en_mo/film_star_trek



Can't wait :wave:


----------



## TOS Maniac (Jun 26, 2006)

it's amazing how much both Quinto and Pine resemble the much younger Shatner and Nimoy. Interesting, likeable take on Bill Theiss's original costume design. Looks very promising.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Pity it's countered by the nonsensical production design.

We're screwed.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

I gotta say, that bridge kinda reminds me something we might have seen on Galaxy Quest, except worse. But... I'll wait until I see more to pass judgment...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Like I said in the other thread, the bridge looks like an 80s hair salon.


----------



## AJ-1701 (May 10, 2008)

John P said:


> Like I said in the other thread, the bridge looks like an 80s hair salon.


It does come across a tad bright...


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

John P said:


> Like I said in the other thread, the bridge looks like an 80s hair salon.


Captain Mullett to the bridge!!!:lol:

Huzz


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Said it elsewhere, it looks an awful lot like the J2 set from LiS (the movie).

Have to admit, I liked the set design in that movie. I'm not convinced its correct for Star Trek. The original looked PRACTICAL, this looks too flashy.

'80's hair salon... good one.


----------



## Mr. Canoehead (Jun 12, 2006)

I'm sorry please forgive my ignorance but were are you guys seeing set pictures? I only see the cover of the magazine from that link.


----------



## Bruce Bishop (Jan 17, 1999)

Yes, there are other links and pictures in this other thread : 
OT: Star Trek Trailer in front of 007: Quantum of Solace


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

Plus Here..........

http://www.ew.com/ew


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

The bridge does indeed suck...
Set blowdryers to.... well..... blow


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Star Trek 90210

Dope, sick!, Not your daddy's Trek dog! YO! 
Who let the Vulcans out!. WOoooF Wooof Woof woof!


I'll wait for the next train thanks. You folks enjoy this heresy.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

There's only one reason I'm waiting for a pic of the exterior now.

So I can do a photomanip of the original ship blowing the new one to hell and back.

Yeah, I've got a few issues...


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but see the saucer shaped reflection in the window ? The nacelle reflection as well. . .

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/RonH_photos/Star-Trek_l_2X.jpg


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I'm sure that from the perspective of guys in their 40's and 50's back in 1966, Shatner et al looked like a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears kids too. Let's see the movie first before we declare it be crap, shall we?

Huzz


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Wouldn't _that_ be nice...? 

Too much doom & gloom tho, Huzz! :thumbsup:


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

RonH said:


> Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but see the saucer shaped reflection in the window ? The nacelle reflection as well. . .












*" Wash those windows... they have filth and muck all over them. "*


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

Sorry guys I don't see a saucer. MIGHT be a warp engine though, but too distorted to really see much.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

I dunno. I looked REAL close and I see a takeover...


----------



## GT350R_Modeler (Sep 6, 2005)

So I am browsing one of the Mortal Kombat forums I go to and they had a Misc. thread about the new Trek movie. Someone took this 'sneak peek' picture, and because John Cho is Sulu, photoshopped it. It made me laugh pretty good so I thought I'd share it..


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

LOL! You guys are a riot! :thumbsup:


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

Here's the thing. When the show first aired in 1966, the bridge was the coolest, most modern thing we had ever seen. No one had done anything quite like it. But, jeez, that was 42 years ago and the world has changed a lot! And Star Trek bridges have been done to death. So, they had to update it -- we don't still live in the 60's -- and it doesn't look too unique because something can only be new once. In this case that happened in 1966.

So, we are left with something that has been done and done and done again. There can't be too much new here (bigger panels with more lights in them, video displays instead of those horrible matte shots of view screens, less Formica and Styrofoam) but still the same basic idea. 

I just hope to God that the script and the performances are good enough to breathe a little life into the thing.

It's sort of like the remake of Forbidden Planet that was planned 10 or 12 years ago with Liam Neeson and Brad Pitt. During preproduction someone finally realized that whatever they made would not be as good as the original. 

I would much rather see money spent on a new Star Trek idea -- new crew, new mission, set 20 years after Next Generation and Voyager -- that sort of thing. This movie seems a lot like the Star Fleet Academy movie Roddenberry planned in 1974 or 1975. Ho hum.

But, let's see how it turns out before we trash it!


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Nope it’s not a problem that the original bridge was designed in the mid 60s. 
The real problem is, that until recently, noone officially ever admitted that this was going to be a reboot! 

In the past ever since the teaser was released JJ and Co said things like: every change we do is a canon based change. We respect the original. This is not a reboot! This an origin story. We will follow Star Trek canon. We are not trying to overwrite the original show. Etc. 

With these statements and with regards to the bridge design they have put them selves in situation where the set designs MUST be based on the 60s show! 

It can be updates visually. Agreed. Like flat panels instead of rear projection and blinking lights. Touch screens. Touch buttons/panels. Modern materials etc. But it must bear a strong resemblance to the original. It must look like a logical transformation to todays standards but when looked at still trigger this “ahh so THAT’S what it was supposed to look like” reaction in the viewer. 

Looking at the Abramsverse bridge this is lost.

This bridge bears no resemblance to the TOS bridge. It’s a whole new design. And the fact that it still has a centre seat, NAV console in front of it and a forward view screen is just not enough to say “we respect the original”.

So the problem is: had JJ said from day one that this was indeed a reboot. He would not have this trouble as we see in fan message boards rise up since ppl would have known from start: Ok… it won’t be the same. It won’t look the same. It will be a whole new interpretation BASED on Star Trek But it’s NOT a continuation of what we know. 

It would be like the new BSG: a re imagination. This in turn would have meant that Nimoy could NOT participate! Guest star as some character: ok. But not reprise his role as Spock since Spock is being recast and his character and everything else is developed from zero! 

But in the past JJ, Oric and Co always proclaimed this was just an origin story and would explain how the Star Trek we know came to bee. He even specifically brought Nimoy in, to make an onscreen connection to the original show and with this to all the Star Trek shows that followed. 

So if Nimoy indeed is the future Spock as we know him. Then all we know (TOS + Movies + TNG) is still valid. Then the bridge we see him working on in TOS is THE bridge. This in turn means that the bridge we see in the new movie MUST look similar enough to accept: ok this is the ‘08 version of the 60s design but still LOOK like the original. . 

But. 
It. 
Does. 
NOT. 

It looks completely different. 

Again. 
Had JJ said: this is a reboot. 
That would be of no problem. 
But he did not. 

And that’s why this new bridge su*ks big time. 

And it also foreshadows that everything else will look different too. So don’t expect a grey lady but indeed some Gabe Groener design based NCC-1701 
(or maybe now it’s NCC – 01701)

As I see it the uniforms are the only thing they tried to keep. The bone for the fans, so JJ can say “See? We respect the original!” when everything else is different. 

My hopes for this movie have fallen considerable since the new photos showed up. 
Even if I like the story the tell, it will be hard to accept Pine and company as younger versions of Shatner and gang. And it will be evenly hard to accept anything else but this: 










to be the “N..C..C..-1..7..0..1…….. no blood A, B, C or D!”


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

> Here's the thing. When the show first aired in 1966, the bridge was the coolest, most modern thing we had ever seen. No one had done anything quite like it. But, jeez, that was 42 years ago and the world has changed a lot!


But the new movie is set in the same time period as that first episode was set - in this case a bit before the year 2266. _That's_ how the bridge looked around then.

A P-40 and its cockpit looked a certain way in 1941. If you were doing a remake of the Flying Tigers, would you say "That was 67 years ago, the world has changed! We have to update that so modern audiences don't think it looks silly. So put computer-driven MFDs in the P-40 cockpit, and redesign the airplane to be more streamlined and sleek, maybe give it a jet engine, so it's "more accessible to modern audiences?"


----------



## OneAM (Jul 9, 2008)

I believe a Japanese plane had a HUD in Pearl Harbor.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Don't forget the Sidewinder missiles...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, those P-40s in Pearl Harbor certainly had extra-special maneuvering ability!

And I checked with my father - handy-talkies and airplane radios were not on the same frequency.

Which reminds me of episodes of Baa Baa Blacksheep that showed them tuning their 1970s cockpit radios...


----------



## compucrap (Dec 16, 2000)

RonH said:


> Apologies if this has already been pointed out, but see the saucer shaped reflection in the window ? The nacelle reflection as well. . .
> 
> http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/RonH_photos/Star-Trek_l_2X.jpg


 
Good eye, but I think its actually the deflector dish in the reflection. Too difficult to tell but it looks like theres a dish in there.'

Josh


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

This is what I see. I didn't have time to match the angle and lighting, but you get the idea.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

I played with your picrture and the official shot.



















It could bet the saucer of the Enterprise BUT as you can see…. The saucer reflections should at least show up at the dark region between „McCoy“ and „Kirk“ in fact there should also be some reflection on „Kirks“ face.. but there is not. Granted the shuttle window obviously is slightly bend and the reflection is distorted. But you can see by the overlap that more of the saucer reflection should be visible.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

John P said:


> A P-40 and its cockpit looked a certain way in 1941. If you were doing a remake of the Flying Tigers, would you say "That was 67 years ago, the world has changed! We have to update that so modern audiences don't think it looks silly.


First of all we are talking about a fictional ship. TOS E does not have a real history.

Secondly, TOS E was built in the 60's with a futuristic look based on what we thought the future would bring, and or look like.

Jump ahead 40 years and what we thought the future would look like IMHO has now become very out dated.

The same thing will happen 40 years from the new film.

You are trying to place real world followings upon a fictional ship. Highly illogical IMHO.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Raist3001 said:


> First of all we are talking about a fictional ship. TOS E does not have a real history.


Within the context of Star Trek, oh, yes it does. And it's been pretty well documented. We have pictures and everything.










See?

And anyone who's working on a Star Trek project who doesn't realize that has no business working on Star Trek. Or any other series that has any kind of history built up.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Within the context of Star Trek, oh, yes it does. And it's been pretty well documented. We have pictures and everything.


That's called a Trek Lore. And in the context of which John put the TOS E, no, there is no real history for the TOS E. I believe you are mistaking lore for history.




> And anyone who's working on a Star Trek project who doesn't realize that has no business working on Star Trek. Or any other series that has any kind of history built up.



Well I agree that we should have Trek movies made by Trek fans. And not simply another vision of Star Trek. With respect to Trek Lore, we can certainly get something new but very much familiar. As in the Refit


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Fictional or not, the ship, its sets, costumes, and props have 42 years of precendece. People either love it or hate it, but its _firmly_ established. Anything that tries to change it will fail. Its just too much history to overcome. I'm firmly in the camp that the designs are as much a part of character of Star Trek as its stories and characters. EVERYTHING that has come since has been a derivitive of the original... therefore anything that comes along will be seen that way because those original designs, no matter how dated some may argue they look, are THE designs that everything since has been drawn from.

They DEFINE what Star Trek is... the universe it exists in, its flavor. Few seem to truly understand that... and they are arrogant enough to convince themselves that they can "reboot", rewrite or update the thing and it will be better. They are wrong. it wont be better, *it will be something else.*

Even if the story is the best thing ever, even if the action is top shelf and the special effects are breathtaking, even if they use the same cliche's and accents and colors for the uniforms... it will never be Star Trek to me. Not without the _unchanged_ Enterprise with its dark gray, red-railed, crazy offset bridge... and transporter room, and engineering and sickbay and briefing room. The phasers and communicators should stay the same, the shuttles should stay the same, the soundfx should be damn close to the same... even the music should be similar (incidental, not the theme). If you want to tell a story in that time period, then you _must_ use those designs. 

THEN and only then, can I believe that I am in that that familiar universe and lose myself in the story, even though it has to be with new WB-ish actors.

Who cares if it doesn't look like _our_ future... its NOT our future, its Gene Roddenberry's world, and that is what we fell in love with. That is why it has prevailed and prospered for nearly 45 years!

But "They" don't get it. "They" have to change too much and only leave us the barest telltales that this is supposed to be Star Trek. To "Them" Star Trek is about money and profit and that's all. Its a commodity to sell. To the fans Star Trek is something indescribable... a world we can dream about being in. A better world, a more interesting world. Gene and Co. got it right the _first_ time, and that is whay has launched everything since. But no matter how much people argue about it, its has been lessened with every new series and movie that has come along. The more "They" try to improve it, update it, reboot it, the further the get from what Star Trek was, and still is to me.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Think you could repost that over on TrekBBS?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I hate that place... no way.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Truly said Nova! 

And that’s what Paramount and B&B as they did ENT as well as JJ with his reboot are NOT getting!

If you want to tell as story circa 2260 in the Star Trek universe the TOS design is what MUST be shown! And we are not talking about replacing the blinking lights and backlit graphics with Flat panels and touch screen. Nor do we talk about Jewel knops and flip switches being replaced by Okudagram pendants.

No we are talking about the basic designs that identify the TOS set belonging to the Star Trek Universe around 2260 the time of Kirks prime!!! Same with the grey Lady the design of the classic constitution class starships IS Star Trek! Its an icon identified by millions around the planet young and old alike! 

B&B did not understand this and that’s why we have the Akiraprise aka NX-01 being more modern then the Constitution class of Kirks time. Because of NOT following Star Trek’s OWN history and as such the technological advances (NO phasers in the 22nd century as stated by Worf in “A Matter of time!”) ENT failed a large amount of Star Trek fans! 

You can argue about the temporal cold war as much as you like being the source of its falling but what ENT really killed was: 

- Klingon first contact not resulting in to the known conflict.
- Romulan clocking device showing up 100 years before “Balance of Power” 
- Ferengi shown before “The Last Outpost” 
- Borg shown before “Q Who?” 
- Holodeck shown before TNG
- Phasers and Photon torpedoes shown well before their time 
- Klingon Home world just around the corner of sector 001 (Earth)
- Vulcans portrayed atypical to TOS vulcans 
- and on and on…..

ignorance or to be more price the attempt of rewriting known Star Trek history was what broke ENTs neck! And if JJ thinks he can stomp on known designs and history to force his own vision of what TOS is like and ppl IDENTIFY with Kirk, Spock and McCoy well then ST XI is headed to a similar disappointment that lead to ENTs failure.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

> If you want to tell a story in that time period, then you must use those designs.





> If you want to tell as story circa 2260 in the Star Trek universe the TOS design is what MUST be shown!


I could not disagree more. I love my TOS, and if I want to see TOS I will simply pop in a few DVD's and be taken back to TOS. I have no issues with Abrams wanting to give us a new look yet keep things familiar enough for die hard fans. It was done with the Refit and we all got over it.

The problem I see is that many folks are wanting the new film to be TOS. It never will. We will see a film based upon those characters, set in crica 2260 with a familiar (hopefully) update.



> No we are talking about the basic designs that identify the TOS set belonging to the Star Trek Universe around 2260 the time of Kirks prime!!!


And it is my opinion that those designs are completely outdated for film. They are in no way shape or form believable. In the 60's YES, but not now. And that is where my TOS Trek will always live. No one, no thing, no film can ever take that away from me. 

I simply have always looked at Enterprise as a reboot of the franchise. Which the new picture will seem to follow. And I have no issues at all with such a belief. 

And I totally disagree with what killed Enterprise. By the 4th season, viewership had improved enough to warrant a 5th season. B&B pulled the plug. Had Enterprise continued with the writing established in Season 4, there is no doubt in my mind that Enterprise would have had a long run.


In the end, this all means nothing. The film will sink or swim on it's own merit and not because it does not follow Trek lore.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Yeah but season 4 is what tried to fix all the grab B&B had produced in the preceding 3 seasons don’t forget that! Season 4 was the most TOS season ENT ever had and one of its highlight was… “in a mirror darkly” which featured?.... ORIGINAL pure TOS ship, bridge and uniform design and DID hit with the audience proofing that the old design can indeed be updated enough to shine in a 21st century TV show!! 

Unfortunately Many Coto did not get a chance to TOSify ENT even more in a following ENT season.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Raist I liken it to anachronisms in other films.... digital watches in 19th century England, people driving cars during the rennaisance, jets during WWI... Heck look at the recent _10,000 BC_! That movie was an _abomination_ in no small way due to the fact that anyone who knows the most basic history can figure out that human civilization just didn't exist in that fashion at that point! Not to mention the horrible anglo-saxon ingenue casting that was done.

Going back to the TOS era is the exactly same thing, so what if its fictional, so what if its not the past but the future (to us)! Its unequivocally *ESTABLISHED.* You can't just change it because you think the bridge would look cooler if it were an Apple Store and everyone had iPhones instead of communicators!

The new film _should_ be TOS because it _IS_ TOS. You can't go back to that time period with those characters and that ship and make it into whatever suits you and expect people to just accept it. Not after 42 years. Sorry.

Disagree all you like. You have plenty of company, it doesn't make you right.



> In the end, this all means nothing. The film will sink or swim on it's own merit and not because it does not follow Trek lore.


That's the key right there... it absolutely WILL fail because it doesn't follow what you call "Trek lore"! _Enterprise_ failed for that exact reason... because it refused to conform to the established universe, and in that case a universe established not only by TOS, but by Next Generation---Voyager. B&B thought they could write Trek history better and they utterly FAILED.

LOTR would've failed if Peter Jackson decided to rewrite the book, no one seems to disagree with that. why should TOS be any different?


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> You can't just change it because you think the bridge would look cooler if it were an Apple Store and everyone had iPhones instead of communicators!


Well this is where we will have to agree to disagree. I believe Trek Lore can certainly be updated to reflect future technology from today's stand point. 




> You can't go back to that time period with those characters and that ship and make it into whatever suits you and expect people to just accept it. Not after 42 years. Sorry.


See, I do not thing Abrams changed what ever suited him. Until I see the film, I wil lreserve my judgment. But from what I have seen so far, I am very excited.



> Disagree all you like. You have plenty of company, it doesn't make you right.


Nor does expressing your belief make you right.



> That's the key right there... it absolutely WILL fail because it doesn't follow what you call "Trek lore"!


I disagree. The new film is trying to reach a whole new audience. I stand by my statement. It will sink or swim on it's own merits.



> _Enterprise_ failed for that exact reason... because it refused to conform to the established universe, and in that case a universe established not only by TOS, but by Next Generation---Voyager. B&B thought they could write Trek history better and they utterly FAILED.


Again, I disagree.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> one of its highlight was… “in a mirror darkly” which featured?.... ORIGINAL pure TOS ship, bridge and uniform design and DID hit with the audience proofing that the old design can indeed be updated enough to shine in a 21st century TV show!!


I know I was not the only one cringing when seeing the Defiant in it's 60's glory. Coming from Enterprise to Defiant looked so backwards. For me it totally failed, and proved to me that an update is sorely needed for the screen.

Just as an update from the Phase II to the Refit was needed. And we all got over that.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I think you're just being stubborn... my arguments are eminently reasonble. 

I say we duel it out with lightsabres... oops wrong franchise!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Much as I love TOS, I’ve never really warmed to latter incarnations of Trek. And although I’ve been working on the ads for Trek XI, I have no personal stake in whether the film is good, bad, or indifferent. 

That said, I think it’s unfair to judge any unfinished film based on rumor, innuendo, and a handful of images that may have popped up online. Doing so says more about an individual’s personal biases than it does about the film.



Nova Designs said:


> Fictional or not, the ship, its sets, costumes, and props have 42 years of precendece..


Given the fact that the vast majority of the Trek XI audience will never have seen a single episode of TOS, this point is largely moot. Having grown up on TOS, I’m as big a fan of the original designs as anyone else. Even so, I reject the notion that the set design “defines” Trek. 

Themes define Trek. Relationships define Trek. Ideas define Trek. Slavish attention to forty year-old production design (however beloved) does not define Trek.




Nova Designs said:


> they are arrogant enough to convince themselves that they can "reboot", rewrite or update the thing and it will be better.


Show me a quote where someone associated with Trek XI suggested the film would be “better” than TOS. 



Nova Designs said:


> Even if the story is the best thing ever, even if the action is top shelf and the special effects are breathtaking, even if they use the same cliche's and accents and colors for the uniforms... it will never be Star Trek to me.


Fair enough. Change “Star Trek” to read “TOS” and the above sentiment is one I happen to share. Thing is, I know there’s no going back to TOS. Fortunately TOS isn’t going anywhere, so it’s not something I lose sleep over.



Nova Designs said:


> Who cares if it doesn't look like _our_ future... its NOT our future, its Gene Roddenberry's world, and that is what we fell in love with.


You and I may have fallen in love with the original designs, but there are plenty of people who didn’t by virtue of the fact that they were never exposed to them. Their emotional attachment to TOS set dressing is approximately zero. These folks constitute the bulk of the potential audience for Trek XI.



Nova Designs said:


> To "Them" Star Trek is about money and profit and that's all. Its a commodity to sell. To the fans Star Trek is something indescribable... .


Well, to some people it seems primarily to be about the production design, sound effects, costume design, and the like -- i.e. the form as opposed to the content. What nonsense.

Look, no one will begrudge you your right to worship Star Trek in your own way. 

By the same token, don’t tell me the new movie is going to fail, either commercially or artistically, based on your own decidedly narrow view of what constitutes Star Trek. Having spent a fair amount of time around the people responsible for T-XI it’s my impression they have a far greater understanding of what made the original special than some of the FANdamentalist naysayers who prematurely trash their efforts on sites like this.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Carson Dyle said:


> Much as I love TOS, I’ve never really warmed to latter incarnations of Trek. And although I’ve been working on the ads for Trek XI, I have no personal stake in whether the film is good, bad, or indifferent.
> 
> That said, I think it’s unfair to judge any unfinished film based on rumor, innuendo, and a handful of images that may have popped up online. Doing so says more about an individual’s personal biases than it does about the film.


I'm judging what I see, as I see it, What I read from reliable sources, and what my experience tells me. There is no rumor or innuendo, as you insist and its not unfair at all. Doing so says exactly what it says... what I think about the movie's potential. Its no more or less valuable than your opinion. _Of course_ I have personal biases, everyone does. Even you. So what? Its not a crime. I have expectations. I want to finally see a Star Trek movie that doesn't let me down. Especially when they are making one in the sub genere that I find most dear.



> Given the fact that the vast majority of the Trek XI audience will never have seen a single episode of TOS, this point is largely moot. Having grown up on TOS, I’m as big a fan of the original designs as anyone else. Even so, I reject the notion that the set design “defines” Trek.


Fact huh? You mean guess. See, I have a hard time with this one, mainly because you can't pull a "statistic" like that out of thin air before the movie even has a trailer. You have no idea what the audience will be like. TOS is one of the most well-known television shows on the planet. Its one of the precious few TV shows from that decade that is _still_ on the air, all over the world. Its a much better bet, especially since this is a TOS-themed movie, that movie goers will have seen some TOS rather than not.



> Themes define Trek. Relationships define Trek. Ideas define Trek. Slavish attention to forty year-old production design (however beloved) does not define Trek.


Hey I finally get to say it! I disagree! 




> Show me a quote where someone associated with Trek XI suggested the film would be “better” than TOS.


And that would prove what?



> You and I may have fallen in love with the original designs, but there are plenty of people who didn’t by virtue of the fact that they were never exposed to them. Their emotional attachment to TOS set dressing is approximately zero. These folks constitute the bulk of the potential audience for Trek XI.


Well this goes back to the supposition that no one in the audience will have ever seen TOS which I simply don't buy... so...




> Well, to some people it seems primarily to be about the production design, sound effects, costume design, and the like -- i.e. the form as opposed to the content. What nonsense.


That's a gross exaggeration, and irreleveant since we are discussing, in this context, the look and design elements of the movie, which to date is _all _we have seen. Well, most of us anyway.:wave: No one ever stated that it was the only or overriding concern. But since its the one tangible thing we have to give us a clue as to how this shindig is likely to go down, its the focus of this discussion.




> By the same token, don’t tell me the new movie is going to fail, either commercially or artistically, based on your own decidedly narrow view of what constitutes Star Trek. Having spent a fair amount of time around the people responsible for T-XI it’s my impression they have a far greater understanding of what made the original special than some of the FANdamentalist naysayers who prematurely trash their efforts on sites like this.


I'm not telling YOU anything. And your opinion of my point of view is really not important, if you must lower yourself to that kind of rudeness. Are you really hanging out with the directors and producers of this project? I'm doubtful of that. I think you are implying that I am insulting all of the hard working production artists (of which I happen to be a nearly 8 year veteran if the same industry) which is simply ridiculous. As you know full-well they have absolutely ZERO say in how all this goes down. They do they job they are paid to do, regardless of whether or not the think its the way it should be done. I do the same thing at my job as a visual effects artist. So lets not make this personal by going down that road.

Movies make money all the time witout being good so trying to predict commercial success is mainly a factor or marketing and a lucky release date with little to no competition. Probably why they moved the release date. Artistically... well thats subjective and what may be successful to you might not be to me. And that's OK. Unless you continue to insist that I'm a terrible person for not allowing myself to be spoonfed whatever TPTB decide Trek is this time.

I've said my piece and now people are getting pissed and posting veiled personal attacks. I think I'm done with this discussion. This is why I HATE trekBBs so much, its like this all the time there.

You guys enjoy Trek however you want and I'll do the same and never the 'twain shall meet!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The remastered TOS episodes seem to be doing pretty well in syndication, and CBS/Paramount has done a pretty fair job promoting these hi-def renditions, so I don't think it's all that accurate to say that the potential audience has _no_ exposure to those designs, especially when those same designs keep showing up in parody form from time to time, and at no time do those parodies feel the need to explain just what it is they're doing.

It's like when Jack Nicholson broke through that door in "The Shining" and cackled, "Heeeeeeeeeeeere's Johnny!" Nobody had to explain who the hell Johnny was; even those who never watched "The Tonight Show" knew the reference (might be a slightly different story now, seeing as Johnny Carson left the show so many years ago, but you get the point, I trust). Those that didn't know who Johnny Carson was probably weren't going to go see "The Shining" anyway.

By the same token, show a person on the street a picture of the bridge of the Enterprise, or the Enterprise herself, and even nonfans are more than likely to properly identify what they're looking at (even if they can't identify the vice president or their own congressman).

And likewise, those that have no clue what the Enterprise looks like are, sorry to say, _not_ gonna be caught dead going to see a Star Trek movie.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Nova Designs said:


> I've said my piece and now people are getting pissed and posting veiled personal attacks. I think I'm done with this discussion.


And some are sitting on the sidelines loving everything you've written so far...



Nova Designs said:


> Fact huh? You mean guess. See, I have a hard time with this one, mainly because you can't pull a "statistic" like that out of thin air before the movie even has a trailer. You have no idea what the audience will be like. TOS is one of the most well-known television shows on the planet. Its one of the precious few TV shows from that decade that is still on the air, all over the world. Its a much better bet, especially since this is a TOS-themed movie, that movie goers will have seen some TOS rather than not.


Carson, I think Nova is right on target here. I remember being floored by how many countries I visited where TOS was so popular. I'll bet it has a better 'built-in' audience compared to most any other franchise. 

I also maintain that changing things simply for 'update' reasons will date this movie; thereby making it less relevant, not more (i.e. STTMP). Personally, I'm trying to hang in there but have been less than impressed by the leaks so far. 

It's starting to remind me of the movie 'Charlie and the Chocolate factory'. Sure purist's say that Dahl didn't like the first movie and Burton's was closer; sure my young daughters liked seeing 'what happen to the characters in the end' - but that doesnt change that the original is still one of the most requested, beloved movies of all time. And it took away the moral and hidden message that Charlie was picked ahead of time and this was a test for him, no one else. Powerful stuff, on all levels. As a fan of the old movie, it irked me sitting there watching Burton blatantly copy (more like rip off) ALL the old elements (down to the very dialog) that were good then 're-imagine' the rest. I call Bullshit. Then again, the newer movie appeals to the younger crowd. 

So Carson, you may be correct. Any 10 year olds that don't like that 'metaphor' crap might be brought into this "rock'm sock'm Star Trek" universe. 

While we're at it, lets make Kirk and Spock lovers. Just a re-imagining, right. We're all adults and can handle it. Show the audience just how much they loved each other. New working title: 'Star Trek X - Kirk and Spock make a porno'. Opps, sorry Oliver Stone wasn't available. 

Here's to the new Star Trek/Wars/Coke ... whatever.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> I want to finally see a Star Trek movie that doesn't let me down.


You and me both. Difference is I tend to wait until I’ve actually seen a film before trashing it. 

Not that I begrudge you your right to trash a film you haven’t seen. That’s something no one can take away from you. It just strikes me as a bit, I dunno… hasty.



Nova Designs said:


> You have no idea what the audience will be like.


With all due respect, I work in movie marketing. It’s my job to know what the audience will be like. In the case of Trek XI the majority of them will be under thirty, and will have come of age in a country other than America. If you think the demographic I’ve just described has stashed a lot of TOS under its belt you’re in for a rude awakening. Brand awareness, yes. Hours studying lower sensor dome nubbins, no.



Nova Designs said:


> And that would prove what?


Well, for starters it would lend credence to your assertion that the contemptuous, disrespectful, money-grubbing makers of Trek XI think they can produce a “better” Trek than TOS. Believe it or not (and I know it’s the latter), these guys are fans of TOS, and are trying to do right by it. Whether they succeed or not remains to be seen, but they’re giving it their best shot. And in any case, getting back to your original comment, I’ve never once heard anyone associated with the new film suggest they could top TOS.



Nova Designs said:


> this goes back to the supposition that no one in the audience will have ever seen TOS which I simply don't buy... so...


Either you misread what I wrote, or you decided to put words in my mouth. 





Nova Designs said:


> we are discussing, in this context, the look and design elements of the movie, which to date is _all _we have seen. Well, most of us anyway.:wave: No one ever stated that it was the only or overriding concern. But since its the one tangible thing we have to give us a clue as to how this shindig is likely to go down, its the focus of this discussion.


I understand. And all I’m saying is that a few publicity shots is a somewhat limited criteria by which to (pre) judge a film that’s still being made. I’m not saying you don’t have the right to jump to a conclusion, but it strikes me as being an odd right to fight for.



Nova Designs said:


> your opinion of my point of view is really not important, if you must lower yourself to that kind of rudeness.


Well, none of this is “important.” We’re just having a spirited discussion about Star Trek, and if I was rude I apologize. As fate would have it a number of your comments have struck me the same way, but I don’t take it personally. Life’s too short to get in a snit over yet another geeky difference of opinion re: ST.



Nova Designs said:


> Are you really hanging out with the directors and producers of this project? I'm doubtful of that.


I’m guessing you’re a doubtful fellow in general.

“Hanging out” is not exactly how I’d put it, but the people you’ve described are the ones I have to present to, and take direction from (among countless others). Your assumption that I was taking you to task for being mean to “hard working artists” is false, and I’m sorry if I gave you (or any of them) that impression.



Nova Designs said:


> you continue to insist that I'm a terrible person for not allowing myself to be spoonfed whatever TPTB decide Trek is this time.


Good lord, where are you getting this? Not only did I make no such claim, I went out of my way to state that you were free to like (or dislike) Trek as you see fit. I may not always agree with your judgement, but it would be foolish to deny your right to make one (premature though I may find it to be).



Nova Designs said:


> I've said my piece and now people are getting pissed and posting veiled personal attacks. I think I'm done with this discussion. This is why I HATE trekBBs so much, its like this all the time there.


I'm truly sorry you feel that way, but I can't help but feel you’re being a bit defensive. 

Sometimes in the course of advancing an argument or defending a position the lines get blurred, or crossed, and feelings get hurt. I for one never meant to attack you personally, and if my comments came off that way I offer my SINCERE apologies.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Glad I've lost track of this conversation. :freak:


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

> You have no idea what the audience will be like.


Well if that is true, then you have no idea, other than your 'guess' weather or not this film will fail as you have stated.



> _it absolutely WILL fail because it doesn't follow what you call "Trek lore"!_





> I've said my piece and now people are getting pissed and posting veiled personal attacks.


I am not sure if you are including me in this statement, but I have not hurled any veiled attacks against you. Nor have I seen any from Carson. I have shared my opinion with you for which I might say that I felt a bit on the defense from you. 

Some of you guys take Trek way to seriously.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> Some of you guys take Trek way to seriously.


Ain't it the truth.

Funny thing is, I actually agree with Nova (and others) in the sense that I wish the filmmakers had just boldly _gone for it_ and committed to re-introducing big screen incarnations of the TOS designs. As I've said before, I reject the idea that contemporary audiences would have spurned the film due to an allegedly retro production design -- any more than they'll spurn it based on the updated designs. And while I don't happen to have the demographic power point in front of me at the moment, it's my strong hunch that the majority of the Trek audience will take a good story where they can find one, irrespective of the production design.

Anyway, I'm sorry if feathers got ruffled (my own included), and can only restate that NONE of my comments were made with the intention of being insulting or personally hurtful. Trek is something many of us have grown up with, and if you're within eye-shot of this post it's probably something you have strong opinions about. I for one respect those opinions, even if I don't always agree with them.

The irony of all this is that, whether we know it or not, the guys who post here have a lot more in common than not.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Well, I went and had another look at the bridge set, and, my feelings about reboots aside, I just don't think I'd like that set design for any "space movie" as a friend of mind might put it. However, as I said earlier, I'll just have to wait and see...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

How many other TV shows invoke such passion from its audience? None that I can think of reach anywhere near this level.

What does this "passion" mean?

A marketing dream come true!!

Make a movie that is nothing more than a recreated copy of TOS and watch the $ roll in!! Okay, maybe update it a bit in minor ways (detail must be increased for the big screen) but generally keep the look and feel of the original show.

The search for a "new" audience for this show is the dumbest idea that has come along in a long time. The TOS audience is the biggest one that this franchise will EVER have so stop F'n around and get down to the business of exploiting them!

Still the folks at Paramount cannot see this simple fact.

Look it up in the dictionary, under the definition of "stupid" they show a "Paramount" logo.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> The search for a "new" audience for this show is the dumbest idea that has come along in a long time.


Man am I going to laugh if this film hits it big


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Lol, my friend Phil and I usually agree on this stuff, but I admit I'm a little baffled by the assertion that Paramount is behaving foolishly by trying to broaden, expand, and perpetuate the Trek audience.

Help me out here, Phil (cuz I'm probably just being dense), but what's so stupid about attracting a new generation of (non-TOS-weened) fans?


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I think a lot of fears will be quieted when people see this stuff in motion and get a look at the scale and level of action of this film. There are some who will never get over the look of certain things but I seriously doubt the number of people who won't see the movie because of the way the bridge or the Enterprise looks is going to have any effect on the bottom line of this movie. 

To put it simply, the cost of this movie means it HAS to reach a broader audience than a typical Trek film. That is what Star Trek IV did, it's what First Contact did to a certain extent, but most of the other movies topped out at 70 or 80 million. This movie cost north of $100 million and it needs to make twice that to break even.

Yes, most people are familiar with Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise--that's a big part of the reason for going back to this part of the saga because it does give the audience a point of reference. BUT just because people know Kirk and Spock doesn't mean they're going to line up to see any movie made about them at this point. This movie has to offer a "cool factor" that will get the people who went to Iron Man and The Dark Knight into theaters. Frankly I'm amazed and thrilled with the amount of design references to the original series that WILL make it into this film and I think it's going to be a blast watching these things be integrated into a universe that's more on the scale of Star Wars.


----------



## mistrrhappy (Jun 6, 2005)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned any of the U.S.S. Kelvin images. Where are you guys?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Raist3001 said:


> Man am I going to laugh if this film hits it big


We all will!


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

I don't understand people wanting this film to fail. ESPECIALLY Star Trek fans. If you don't think this movie will be any good, then don't watch it.

However, don't wish for the movie to fail so that you can preserve your precious ideology of what Trek should be.

I'm only 25 years old, so I grew up on TNG. For years I wouldn't even bother watching the original series, because it looked too silly and cheesy. Finally, in 2006, my wife bought the seasons on DVD, and so I decided to give TOS a chance.

Now, I LOVE the original series. Fantastic story lines, great characters. Star Trek fans should be open minded, and ready to accept change. That's what Star Trek is all about. If you don't want to see this movie, then don't. However, don't take pleasure in a failure of a movie. You've got hundreds of people, including Carson, putting lots of hard work into this movie.

I love TOS, but I can accept this new movie as well. I like to think of it as another addition to a beloved franchise, not taking away from the originals. And who knows, after some new fans are made with this new movie, they might go back and check out the original series as well, and fall in love with that too. I think that would be a great thing.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I figure if Nimoy was willing to come out of retirement and portray Spock one more time due to the quality of the screenplay and production, I will set aside any revisionist concerns I may have and give the movie a chance to impress me (or not).

I do sincerely want the movie to be a success. I have my misgivings, too. But, I'm certainly willing to give it the benefit of the doubt and withhold any judgment until after I've seen the film.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> I love TOS, but I can accept this new movie as well.


Exactly. And for me, this is the bottom line and directly the point. I can accept this film as well. No one can take away my TOS. If this film bombs, I still have my TOS to watch. If this film succeeds, I still have my TOS. We all still have our beloved TOS! 

I loved Enterprise and had no problem with the revisions taken with canon. I always looked upon Enterprise as a beginning to a new approach to Trek if Trek had been created today. I refused to compare it to TOS because it was NOT TOS.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Ditto, Raist. I agree 100%!


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

I note that the opposition to the new Trek film is based on comments very similar to those raised in advance of the the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. Y'know, "the ship is different, the crew is different, yadda yadda".

And we all know how well those guys foresaw the future!:lol:

Huzz


----------



## mistrrhappy (Jun 6, 2005)

*Images/Design of U.S.S. Kelvin*

What do you folks think about the design and images of the U.S.S. Kelvin so far?
Multiple turret mounted phasers, Secondary hull positioned (apparently) above the Primary, etc. ?


----------



## mistrrhappy (Jun 6, 2005)

*U.S.S. Kelvin*

Here's the close-up:


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

Well thats the most awful looking Star Trek ship since Voyager moving nacelles idiocies.

By they way i also hate the new bridge. No one could work there. All those baby spots shining directly into your eyes would make work inpossible. Not to mention it looks nothing like something the original TOS bridge could have evolved from.

My two cents,
Mark


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

JeffG said:


> Ditto, Raist. I agree 100%!


Jeff, we talked about the dangers of playing with the G.O.S.T.F.'s anymore.

Do we need to have an intervention?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

But...but I...maybe.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

I read somewhere that the Kelvin sequence takes place many years before the Enterprise is built and launched, very early in the new film. Guessing here, but maybe the Kelvin appears during that time period that TOS refers to as the Romulan Wars, thus the tie-in to Nero and the overall story arc.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Which makes the Kelvin an even bigger anachronism, with all of its post TMP touches.

Fans or not, I'm coming more and more to the opinion that these kids don't know how to steer.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> How many other TV shows invoke such passion from its audience? None that I can think of reach anywhere near this level.
> 
> What does this "passion" mean?
> 
> ...


AMEN, BROTHER! I couldn't agree more!:thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Trek Ace said:


> I figure if Nimoy was willing to come out of retirement and portray Spock one more time due to the quality of the screenplay and production being given flipping great wodges of money, I will set aside any revisionist concerns I may have and give the movie a chance to impress me (or not).


Fixed.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

John P said:


> Fixed.


Thanks, John. I was LOL, thinking the same thing, when I first read it.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

I've read enough about this. Here's my two cents:

This new movie is NOT "Star Trek". It does not embrace Gene's original philosophy for the series. It is NOT "Wagon Train to the Stars". TOS showed us the early movement outward of the Federation as it expanded and met new societies. There were skirmishes, to be sure, but they were mostly solved by logic and negociation in the end. TNG brought us 100 years or so inot that future, and early on, continued the exploration of the galaxy. It' fell under whathisnames' control after Gene got too sick to continue, but ended well. DS9 started out okay, but got absorbed into the stupidity of the boob that took over from Gene. Voyager was more "Star Trek" than most believed. Enterprise, despite failing to uphold canon as defined by Paramount, started out great and devolved with the war. (Did Archer EVER comb his hair again after the war?) 

My problem with this treatment of Star Trek is that it's attempting to rewrite all that TOS established. Kirk and Spock may have been at the Academy together, but not as students. Spock was a bridge officer on Enterprise long before Kirk's run as her Captain. While Kirk may not have been an ideal cadette, he most certainly adhered to the Academy's precepts of ethical behavior more than is portrayed in this "movie". We've already seen Enterprises' bridge pre-Kirk, and it ain't nuthin' like the shots beng shown now. To those that these changes appeal to, you're welcome to them. As for me, Star Trek is dead, and I will treasure the memories and emotions that it's given me. God Bless Gene Roddenberry!

I have the same problems with what is popularly referred to as "Battlestar Galactica" on SciFi. It's NOT BSG. It is perhaps a story from a parallel universe, but it's not the hope-inspiring journey of the Colonies last survivors as they seek what they hope will be an Earth that can protect them from a race of robots created by another race that was destroyed by their creations. Instead of nobility, we're shown depravity. Instead of courage and spirituality, we're given hatred. This world is gritty enough, thank you, I don't need my favorite shows to be "re-imagined" to show it there, too. Once again, if this appeals to you, be my guest. I have watched only a very few episodes of the current series, and was disgusted with each one.

Now, as I decend from the soapbox, I'd like to cede the floor to anyone else who would like to speak. Thank you for your indulgence.

Larry


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Here goes.

I very rarely post here, but I do follow many of the threads. 

First: We know what the Enterprise looks like. Same with the bridge/sets. Update/tweak fine, major redress not so good.

Second: we know much of the back story. Kirk and Spock were not at the academy together as cadets. Spock was most likely at least a Lt. (his rank, I believe in "the cage" 13 years before "The Menagerie"). Lt. Kirk we know had one tour as an instructor at the academy. Probably a Lt.jg ( "Where Know Man Has Gone Before") And 11 years before "Obsession" Kirk was a Lt. On the USS Farragut. These dates could be massaged to work, but it would, in my opinion be very contrived. Chekov's first assignment out of the Academy was to Kirks Enterprise. Unless the Academy is REALLY long he could not have been there at Kirks time. 

Third: In "Balance of Terror" it is stated that there has been no contact between earth and the Romulans in 100 years, How can the movies villain be Romulan. Unless Kirk and crew never know Nero is Romulan.

So far what I have seen of the casting has been good. But I only have stills to go by. What I have seen of the sets has been VERY bad, but again I only have stills to go by. I have not seen enough of the big E to have an opinion. I will keep an open mind, but I DO have an opinion on what I have seen so far.

One problem with Star Trek is we have had SO MUCH bad Trek. "Insurrection", "Nemesis", Season 1-3 of "Enterprise", "Voyager". 
I am glad that B&B are no longer a driving force in Trek. I hope this crew can do better. I don't think they can do worse. 

I know I will go see the film when it comes out, but will I see it more than once? No matter what Paramount wants the reality is Star Trek fans will make or break this film. 

Just my 2 cents

Mark


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

As to using new/old Galactica as an example - well, there's a huge difference isn't there? Old galactica was one season of (IMHO) almost worthless eye candy 30 years ago designed to cash in on Star Wars. It fell off the TV screen for decades, unheeded by the average human, remembered with childlike fondness only by people like us, who were at the right age to enjoy it when it aired. Unlike Trek, the average Joe and Jane on the street wouldn't have know what in the world you were talking about if you mentioned it to them. A reboot of such a "failed experiment" if you will is not exactly sacrilege.

On the other hand, you have our beloved TOS. Everybody who's had a TV turned on in the last 40 years knows what it is and what it looks like. We've had 40 years of building on the story, both officially and fannishly. We've had 40 years of model kits and blueprints. It's been on TV continually. It has a huge worldwide community of fans.

A reboot, and a redesign is a VERY big deal, IMHO.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

See John, the thing is these young TV turned cinema hotshot producers _just don't get it._ They really don't. They want _ownership_ of Star Trek. Its a lure, its a crown and they want their name blazoned across it.

The irony is, all but a few, very special names associated with Star Trek are widely reviled! No one has been able to do with the later incarnations of Star Trek what Roddenberry did with TOS. No one.

I don't expect that to ever change. If it does I will be flat out shocked and will probably have to be committed. 

And you're right no comparison can be made between Star Trek and BSG. Its absolutely apples to moon rocks, and an absurd argument.


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

LGFugate said:


> I've read enough about this. Here's my two cents:
> 
> This new movie is NOT "Star Trek". It does not embrace Gene's original philosophy for the series. It is NOT "Wagon Train to the Stars". TOS showed us the early movement outward of the Federation as it expanded and met new societies. There were skirmishes, to be sure, but they were mostly solved by logic and negociation in the end. TNG brought us 100 years or so inot that future, and early on, continued the exploration of the galaxy. It' fell under whathisnames' control after Gene got too sick to continue, but ended well. DS9 started out okay, but got absorbed into the stupidity of the boob that took over from Gene. Voyager was more "Star Trek" than most believed. Enterprise, despite failing to uphold canon as defined by Paramount, started out great and devolved with the war. (Did Archer EVER comb his hair again after the war?)
> 
> ...


Larry -

Thanks for that and I agree with you whole-heartedly. Some of the words you posted were exactly what I would have posted had I beat you to it.

When I think about a new Trek film coming out and the idea that they are going back to the "beginning" for Kirk & Co., it just seems like so much of what Trek fans know of Kirk's history, the Enterprise, etc. is being re-written. They might have well changed all of the characters names for as little is left from the original concept. Oh, sure...the Enterprise has a passing resemblance of the original and some of the costumes look the same, but there's where the similarities end.

When Paramount made Trek their "cash cow" with a slew of movies and television series, Trek was in danger of being overexposed and overexploited as a franchise. The movies were made until they weren't palatable anymore, even by long time Trek fans. The television series, in succession, drove more and more Trek fans away from the franchise over the years. I can't tell you how many people I know that refused to watch Voyager or Enterprise very much past their first seasons. In the end, even the TV part of the franchise was driven into the ground where it was considered unviable as a money generating operation.

When I heard that a new Trek film was coming out, I felt a bit apprehensive. I saw someone that had a few hits under their belt, but nothing even close to the likes of Trek. I know that there's a certain segment of the viewing audience that is going to give JJ Abrams a pass based on the fact that they like what he's done so far and expect more of the same.

I just don't know... I've seen pictures, but very little to really get me excited about this film Oh, I know I'll see it and in some way I hope it does well. If it does do well it will have succeeded in drawing in a new audience because I don't think that the original Trek audience will enjoy it unless they are just that starved for more Trek.

It's interesting that you should bring up Battlestar Galactica. I'm a big fan of the original and I hung in with the new series despite it's serious departure from the original. I never felt the same attachment to the new series - as you said "another universe, etc" is the best I can do there.

I know someone else mentioned earlier that it appears that Trek fans hope that this movie will fail. I don't think that's really true - I think that you're just reading their apparent disappointment in what they are seeing. The one thing that does bother me is that if this movie does fail on a commercial level, it's probably Paramount's last stab at making money from it.

Bryan


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

John P said:


> As to using new/old Galactica as an example - well, there's a huge difference isn't there? Old galactica was one season of (IMHO) almost worthless eye candy 30 years ago designed to cash in on Star Wars. It fell off the TV screen for decades, unheeded by the average human, remembered with childlike fondness only by people like us, who were at the right age to enjoy it when it aired. Unlike Trek, the average Joe and Jane on the street wouldn't have know what in the world you were talking about if you mentioned it to them. A reboot of such a "failed experiment" if you will is not exactly sacrilege.
> 
> On the other hand, you have our beloved TOS. Everybody who's had a TV turned on in the last 40 years knows what it is and what it looks like. We've had 40 years of building on the story, both officially and fannishly. We've had 40 years of model kits and blueprints. It's been on TV continually. It has a huge worldwide community of fans.
> 
> A reboot, and a redesign is a VERY big deal, IMHO.


An extremely good point and very well made. With apologies to my TOS Galactica fan friends, rebooting Star Trek is an entirely different undertaking. Now whether or not it really is a "reboot" may depend on your definition, but IMHO for Star Trek, it's a bad idea.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

John P said:


> As to using new/old Galactica as an example - well, there's a huge difference isn't there? Old galactica was one season of (IMHO) almost worthless eye candy 30 years ago designed to cash in on Star Wars. It fell off the TV screen for decades, unheeded by the average human, remembered with childlike fondness only by people like us, who were at the right age to enjoy it when it aired. Unlike Trek, the average Joe and Jane on the street wouldn't have know what in the world you were talking about if you mentioned it to them. A reboot of such a "failed experiment" if you will is not exactly sacrilege.
> 
> On the other hand, you have our beloved TOS. Everybody who's had a TV turned on in the last 40 years knows what it is and what it looks like. We've had 40 years of building on the story, both officially and fannishly. We've had 40 years of model kits and blueprints. It's been on TV continually. It has a huge worldwide community of fans.
> 
> A reboot, and a redesign is a VERY big deal, IMHO.


Interesting points!:thumbsup:

But consider for a moment the new Doctor Who series. Its early incarnations date back to the 1960's and are a British version of TOS Star Trek inasmuch as it was a long-lived and very popular show. Folks in the UK and around the world have been fans of the Doctor for years and can spout trivia about Daleks and sonic screwdrivers ad-infinitum.

Yet the re-imagined Doctor Who with a semi "90210" style cast in the young David Tennant, Billie Piper and Freema Agyeman is wildly successful.

Who knows how fans may react to a similar new Trek? Foretelling the fuure is all "wibbley-wobbley timey-wimey" as the Doctor would say but it just might work. 

Huzz


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

before John P shows up, I have to say the one thing that was mostly unchanged in the new Who was the look of the outside of the TARDIS
(much like not changing the look of the Enterprise). 

they did update the inside (to the "Coral" desktop) which would be like updating the bridge (to the Apple store desktop)


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

True. :thumbsup:

I was mostly commenting vis a vis the younger cast in the new Trek and the new Doctor Who!

But the Tardis(*) is supposed to look like a beat-up police box from London, England, Earth. Those are real things in our world. If they still can be found looking like that in the UK, then I guess it wouldn't have to change appearance in the new shows.

Huzz
* Aren't the Tardis 4 port USB hubs neat?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

It was also established back in Tom Baker's day that the TARDIS has more than one control room, and has a massive interior.

It wouldn't violate a thing if the current Doctor opens up a door he hasn't been through in decades and finds himself in the control room we haven't seen since Patrick Troughton's day.

Or one that looks like the bridge of your favorite Enterprise.

(Well, it might violate a copyright law or two, but that's another matter....)


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Ah but Dave,
there are folks who maintain that the Enterprise herself is as much a character as any of the rest of the crew. so a face lift for her is the same as a younger actor playing kirk or spock.

I, for one, am eager to see who they got to play her in the new movie


back in the dark corner of my heart, I still hope that they had Majel record the lines for the computer. If nothing else, that would show a respect for the original show


----------



## OneAM (Jul 9, 2008)

Not really, seeing as the voice wasn't hers until the computer was updated in the middle of TOS (as I recall--could be wrong). I suppose then it would show respect for tradition, though not for (an admittedly minor point of) continuity.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Hi Lou,

I absolutely agree that the Enterprise is a character of Trek. Thus far, she's the one character for whom we haven't yet seen the new portrayal. In that light, I understand the worry of folks that this Enterprise may disappoint. 

But at the same time, the folks making this movie are apparently fans who want to do right by the fans and the legacy of the original series. In that respect, I'm cautiously optimistic that when we finally see the film, it will be a great one.

But only time will tell!

Cheers!
Dave


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

^^ there was a great bit in one of the early ST novels that fixed that bit of continuity in that the story had Number One (also Majel) be the model for the Enterprise's "voice".

I often wonder why Scotty, when he showed up on TNG, didn't have a bigger reaction to hearing her voice on the 1701-D? something along the lines of 

"Ahhh, there you are, lassie.."

do you suppose her voice was a fleet standard?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The computer used during Kirk's courtmartial on Starbase 11 had the same voice.

Incidentally, we first heard the computer voice in "Mudd's Women", one of the first episodes filmed.

And Majel, more or less, spoke normally, albeit a bit stilted, when doing the TNG computer voice, whereas with TOS, she did the typical BLAND FLAT ROBOTIC VOICE TYPICAL OF THE TIME PERIOD. Add a touch of paranoid screech to the mix and she could do a great Dalek.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

^^Except...

"Record ship arrival,...dear..."

it also had an unfortunate tendency to giggle..


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Actually JJ Abrams has already said in more than one interview that he was NOT a fan. He said he came to love the characters more and more as he worked on this film. Problem to me is, what characters? His characters or the original ones... from everything I'm seeing, they are changd enough that they will be barely passing ghosts of the characters we know.


And once again... the comparisons trying to be drawn to Dr Who are also apples to moonrocks. That character has changed many many MANY time thoughout its run. Its part of who that character is, and is a natural part of that story. TOS has been virtually unchanged for more than 40 years and its far far more widely known that Dr Who.

You just cannot compare TOS with anything else. Its unique in every way.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Sure you can compare the two - I just did!

You just disagree with my conclusion, that's all!  Which is fine!

Even though TOS hasn't changed in 40 years because it only ran for three years or so, Trek in general went through many changes. The ships of the films are different: refit, A, D and E. Plus the captains and crew went from Kirk et al to Picard et al to Janeway et al, Sisko and Archer. So, Trek has changed a lot.

In any case, why don't we all wait for at least reviews of critics or folks who have seen the movie before we declare it to be crap? If folks don't like it then, well there's no arguing that. But now I feel like I do when my son inists that he does not like what I've put on his supper plate and I know darn well he has never tried it before! 

Cheers!

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

LGFugate said:


> TOS showed us the early movement outward of the Federation as it expanded and met new societies.


I particularly enjoyed the new society which greeted the Federation in "Spock's Brain."


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

:lol::lol::lol: :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Huzz


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> And once again... the comparisons trying to be drawn to Dr Who are also apples to moonrocks. That character has changed many many MANY time thoughout its run. Its part of who that character is, and is a natural part of that story. TOS has been virtually unchanged for more than 40 years and its far far more widely known that Dr Who.


Doctor Who is the dominant cultural icon of England, not Star Trek. Look at British sitcoms, you will see random Daleks and oblique Doctor Who references a-plenty. Star Trek is dominant in AMERICA.

So let's compare meteors to moon rocks; STAR TREK as an encompassing entity (all the variants) compared to Doctor Who. In that regard, Star Trek has changed dramatically over 40 years. Each new show is an (almost) entirely new crew and mission. In that context, Doctor Who has changed VERY LITTLE IF AT ALL. Its the same TARDIS, the same Doctor, the same history (and the same Elizabeth Sladen, thankyooverrymush). The only significant change in the new Who is episode format.

What Doctor Who established is that new actors could portray the same HISTORY, a single character known as The Doctor. But each actor brought a unique PERFORMANCE to the show, reinventing the character, allowing each one to stand apart from all who came before.

Star Trek is attempting to recast original characters and ask us to accept them as THE SAME CHARACTERS as we have memorized over the past 40 years. In that regard, the look of the show / ship / sets MUST be different enough to encapsulate new interpretations of the characters and not look like poor imitations of established performances (see "New Voyages").

CAN this new Star Trek convince us to accept a reinterpretation of these characters? WILL they be different enough to stand alone as good dramatic performances? Will the fans be open to this process? And, most of all, WILL THE STORY BE WORTH IT?

I'm not hopeful on the last. Time travel. Meddling in the past. Quantum theory. LEAVE TIME TRAVEL TO THE EXPERTS!!!



The Doctor had, at one point, repaired the TARDIS's Chameleon circuit. It appeared as a wardrobe, an organ, and some weird piece of iron gatework. It then resumed its familiar shape of a police box, receiving a reassuring pat from The Doctor. It has never changed since. Since the interior of the TARDIS is dimensionally isolated from the exterior, either can be reconfigured without regard to the other. It is suggested that the interior is a generated matrix that can be reconfigured at will via the main computer's "internal geometry" settings.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> I particularly enjoyed the new society which greeted the Federation in "Spock's Brain."


Yet, even that episode had moments of brilliance, especially when McCoy exclaimed that even a child could re-connect the brain (under the influence of the teacher), Kirk's determination in traveling so far on a whim to try and save his friend, etc.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

If one were to carry to their logical conclusion some of the arguments that I see on this thread, then once an actor becomes "identified" in a given role, as have the TOS Trek actors, then no other actor could portray it acceptably.

I recall in the mid-1980's discovering the fabulous Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes stories. Wonderful interpretations of the character that are quite authentic and accurate looking, to my eye anyway. 

A few years back, a member here mentioned the much earlier version of Holmes as portrayed by Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Watson. I was unaware of them, but the member here was so enthusiastic that I found some and watched them. While perhaps not as accurate as the Brett versions, they were every bit as entertaining anda lot of fun to watch; I quite enjoyed them. I even spent money to buy an expensive DVD set. 

At the same time, I can enjoy both the Brett and Rathbone versions of Holmes. They are both different takes on the same thing. While different they have some things in common: they are wonderfully entertaining and they bring to life much-loved characters that are cultural icons. From this point in time, who is to say the new Trek film won't do the same?

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

hubert said:


> Yet, even that episode had moments of brilliance


What makes you think I was being sarcastic?

Enough jumping to hasty conclusions already!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Nah, sorry, the Dr Who comparison doesn't work for me, either. There have been 10 or 11 actors playing the part (including Peter Cushing in theatrical films), with an almost infinite number of companions, and an actual plot device to explain the changes.

Same with Holmes, a hundred-year-old character that has been played by innumerable actors on stage and screen over that century (Brett being the best of course ).

There really is no one single face of Dr. Who or Sherlock Holmes.

Kirk, Spock, et al, have each only one visage for 40 years.
Hard to deal with trying to change that.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Dave Hussey said:


> A few years back, a member here mentioned the much earlier version of Holmes as portrayed by Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Watson. I was unaware of them...



 For shame!!


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

John P said:


> For shame!!


Indutably


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

Dave Hussey said:


> In any case, why don't we all wait for at least reviews of critics or folks who have seen the movie before we declare it to be crap? If folks don't like it then, well there's no arguing that. But now I feel like I do when my son inists that he does not like what I've put on his supper plate and I know darn well he has never tried it before!
> Huzz


A very apt analogy! :thumbsup:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I said _TOS,_ not Star Trek. There's a very big difference. Especially because its more more accurate to call TNG, DS9 Voyager and Enterprise, spin-offs rather than "changes." Besides, TNG in particular was much more true to canon than not, even if it was a new ship and crew. DS9 and Voyager not so much... Enterprise? Blah. Who knows what the point of that was.

You just can't compare it to Dr Who at all.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Dave Hussey said:


> In any case, why don't we all wait for at least reviews of critics or folks who have seen the movie before we declare it to be crap? If folks don't like it then, well there's no arguing that. But now I feel like I do when my son inists that he does not like what I've put on his supper plate and I know darn well he has never tried it before!



Thing is, we _have_ tried it before. Repeatedly. And I have yet to be surprised or have my doubts invalidated. There're more than enough telltales here for me to feel that this going to be pretty much business as usual. I'm not insisting that anyone agree with me, although I know _plenty_ of people do. I'll go see the film, out of sheer curiosity. But my expectations for a satisfying TOS experience are extremely low.

FWIW, critics have no more qualifications to review movies than you or I. Their opinions, no matter how professionally presented, are still only their opinions and about as worthwhile to me as anyone else's.

I'm not saying the movie will be CRAP. What I'm saying is it won't be TOS.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

John P said:


> For shame!!


For sure!! But many thanks to the fellow () who told me about those shows!

Huzz


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Nova, sure it may never be TOS, but it may just be a worthy successor. I believe that if folks see the movie and expect it to be sub-par before they go in, then they will tend to focus on any perceived negative things. They won't enjoy the film as much as they otherwise would and the prophecy will be self fulfilling.

You might be somewhat surprised that to some extent I share some of the concerns here. But rather than expecting the film to be bad, I'm going to watch the movie with the hope that when I see it in its entirety, it will be a good one. Perhaps that's rather naive of me, but that's me.

Huzz


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

John P said:


> Same with Holmes, a hundred-year-old character that has been played by innumerable actors on stage and screen over that century (Brett being the best of course ).


Maybe to someone who never saw Christopher Plummer in _Murder by Decree_. I liked Rathbone and Brett, but still think Plummer did the definative job in Bob Clark's seventies film. (And yes, that's the Bob Clark that did _A Christmas Story_). James Mason was no slouch as Watson either.

As for Star Trek, Kevin Smith, whose actually seen it, says it rocks. That's good enough for me till we have something to judge the film on besides a few publicity shots.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> Nova, sure it may never be TOS, but it may just be a worthy successor.


Agreed. And I go into this film expecting as much. Expecting anything else is simply setting yourself up for a disappointment.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> In any case, why don't we all wait for at least reviews of critics or folks who have seen the movie before we declare it to be crap?


I'm an American and I've read the script in National Enquirer already. 

Therefore I am hereby invoking my unalienable right to declare this new_ Star Trek_ movie CRAP!:thumbsup:


:jest:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> A few years back, a member here mentioned the much earlier version of Holmes as portrayed by Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Watson. I was unaware of them, but the member here was so enthusiastic that I found some and watched them. While perhaps not as accurate as the Brett versions, they were every bit as entertaining anda lot of fun to watch; I quite enjoyed them. I even spent money to buy an expensive DVD set.


Even as a child, I found the Nigel Bruce version of Dr. Watson to be semi-retarded and the Basil Rathbone version of Holmes unsatisfying. He _acted _smart without really _being_ smart. 

I finally read the books when in college after discovering just how good they really were and read ever story plus some of the apocrypha. 

Then came Jeremy Brett and I was finally thrilled with an accurate portrayal of the man along with an accurate depiction of his late Victorian environment. (Does any other production company beat the BBC when it comes to accuracy?)

In any case, it seems that when there's a bad precedent set with a franchise, the re-imagining can often be fantastic as in the case of _BG_. When the original was thrilling and set the standard, remakes are often very disappointing. 

I just wish Abrams had been humble enough to respect the original and the fans enough to keep the set design and look from the series consistent in the movie.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I'm an American and I've read the script in National Enquirer already.
> 
> Therefore I am hereby invoking my unalienable right to declare this new_ Star Trek_ movie CRAP!:thumbsup:
> 
> ...


I'm a Canadian and I wouldn't be caught dead with the National Enquirer anywhere near me! :lol: The only crap I can think of is that stuff you guys call beer. If I ever were found dead, that would likely be the cause! :tongue::jest::lol:

Huzz:wave:


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Even as a child, I found the Nigel Bruce version of Dr. Watson to be semi-retarded and the Basil Rathbone version of Holmes unsatisfying. He _acted _smart without really _being_ smart.
> quote]
> 
> That style is typical of many films of that era. For me, its part of the undeniable charm of those shows.
> ...


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I just wish Abrams had been humble enough to respect the original and the fans.....<Snip>


How do we know he didn't?

From what I have been reading, he has.

I'll reserve a statement like this until I actually see the film and have had time to digest it.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

New pic of the Enterprise bridge (viewscreen) and Spock just surfaced...

http://www.empireonline.com/gallery/image.asp?id=30307&caption=&gallery=2115

Pretty cool, imho...


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Wow! Pretty frickin high tech. Looks pretty cool to me (IMHO).


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Oh Gawd!!!! Why must they rape the classic TOS viewscreen?!!!

Is nothing sacred?


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Oh Gawd!!!! Why must they rape the classic TOS viewscreen?!!!
> 
> Is nothing sacred?


Umm, because this is 2008 and not 1966?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

High tech? *IT'S A FRELLING WINDSHIELD!!*


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

John P said:


> Nah, sorry, the Dr Who comparison doesn't work for me, either. There have been 10 or 11 actors playing the part (including Peter Cushing in theatrical films), with an almost infinite number of companions, and an actual plot device to explain the changes.
> 
> Same with Holmes, a hundred-year-old character that has been played by innumerable actors on stage and screen over that century (Brett being the best of course ).
> 
> ...


Holmes, Batman, James Bond, all of those and other such characters originated in print, long before any live action version was attempted. The audience already had some expectations of the characters before roles were even cast. When Sean Connery was cast as Bond, there were outraged Bond fans who couldn't believe they didn't cast David Niven.

Different case with Star Trek, where the actors actually played a large part of forming the characters, even if only indirectly, via the writers tailoring the script to the actors.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)




----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Captain April said:


> High tech? *IT'S A FRELLING WINDSHIELD!!*


While it's difficult to tell whether it's a 'viewport' or a 'viewscreen' or some cool combination of both....

...there would be some precedent for it, no?

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/ent42.jpg


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Krako said:


> While its difficult to tell whether its a 'viewport' or a 'viewscreen' or some cool combination of both....
> 
> ...there would be some precedent for it, no?
> 
> http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/ent42.jpg


Good point Krako


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Oh my God...Uhuru doesn't have that silver bee hive hanging out of her ear. This can't be tolerated!!


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

JeffG said:


> Oh my God...Uhuru doesn't have that silver bee hive hanging out of her ear. This can't be tolerated!!


LOL


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Krako said:


> While it's difficult to tell whether it's a 'viewport' or a 'viewscreen' or some cool combination of both....
> 
> ...there would be some precedent for it, no?
> 
> http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/ent42.jpg


No, because 1) it was never established that the main viewscreen is a window (the fact that Kirk had to order Kelso to turn the "viewer on," shows that pretty clearly), and 2) if there was a notion to have the main viewscreen as just a big picture window, it was abandoned pretty damn fast.

Why?

Because it's rather stupid.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Captain April said:


> No, because 1) it was never established that the main viewscreen is a window (the fact that Kirk had to order Kelso to turn the "viewer on," shows that pretty clearly), and 2) if there was a notion to have the main viewscreen as just a big picture window, it was abandoned pretty damn fast.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because it's rather stupid.


He said precedent, not establishment


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

My that standard, there's a precedent for Spock being the red skinned Martian science officer of the SS Yorktown who takes in sustinence through a metal plate on his abs.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

PixelMagic said:


> Umm, because this is 2008 and not 1966?


what, What, WHAT!

That's the most iconic viewscreen in pop culture history, look at all the people these days that still love the TOS viewscreen more than the TNG viewscreen, the Ds-9 viewscreen, and that excrecible _Enterprise_ viewscreen. They had a built-in market for the TOS viewscreeen. But nooooooooo-smarty pants JJ Abrams thinks just because he has a few movies and TV shows that have made gazillions of dollars he can go changing things envisioned forty years ago.

No way I'm going to go see a movie with such a revisionist rectangular-ish screen instead of the beautiful elegant squarish one _real_ TOS fans have cherished for decades.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Captain April said:


> My that standard, there's a precedent for Spock being the red skinned Martian science officer of the SS Yorktown who takes in sustinence through a metal plate on his abs.


Somebody's sure a crabby crabster.  

Roddenberry also considered casting a dwarf as Spock. Big whoop. I proclaim us both uber-geeks for knowing this stuff. Congratulations! :hat:

My point was that the original filming model did, at one early point, have something suspiciously akin to a 'picture window' built into it. Here it is all lit up and pretty...

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/ent24.jpg

That, to me, would indicate a precedent, design-wise, for a concept like what appears in today's newly-released nugget of motion picture goodness. Somebody actually cut out that little rectangle. And then filmed it. It's a little different from the conceptual Spock stuff you mentioned.

Frankly, none of this really matters. If you don't like their pretty pictures, stay home. I'll be there on May 8.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> what, What, WHAT!
> 
> .


Only 3 watts? I see the Monty Python fans are not too fast here today!!!:lol::jest::wave::tongue:

Huzz


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

That viewscreen looks like a giant PSP.


----------



## The Trekmodeler (Jul 21, 2005)

Forgive me if this has already been pointed but from the new Pic of Spock in front of the new viewer, it looks as if we also get a glimpse of the forward saucer section of the new Enterprise. The "NCC" registration can be seen through the screen if you look closely. Pic attached. Actually being able to see the saucer through the main viewscreen is a first!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Or might it be a viewscreen/viewport with holographic HUD?


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

I also noticed that the hull lettering seems to be different from the hull lettering in the teaser trailer. The lettering in today's pic looks like the lettering on the USS Kelvin.

I wonder if there are other differences between what was presented in the trailer and what turns out to be the final version of the Enterprise...


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> That's the most iconic viewscreen in pop culture history, look at all the people these days that still love the TOS viewscreen more than the TNG viewscreen, the Ds-9 viewscreen, and that excrecible _Enterprise_ viewscreen. They had a built-in market for the TOS viewscreeen. But nooooooooo-smarty pants JJ Abrams thinks just because he has a few movies and TV shows that have made gazillions of dollars he can go changing things envisioned forty years ago.


It definitely looks very hi-tech. It would have been cool to see The Cage (Pike's era) or Pilot Episode style viewscreen with rounded corners too.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

Krako said:


> I also noticed that the hull lettering seems to be different from the hull lettering in the teaser trailer. The lettering in today's pic looks like the lettering on the USS Kelvin.
> 
> I wonder if there are other differences between what was presented in the trailer and what turns out to be the final version of the Enterprise...


The only difference is the lettering has a black outline. The font is not changed.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> Maybe to someone who never saw Christopher Plummer in _Murder by Decree_. I liked Rathbone and Brett, but still think Plummer did the definative job in Bob Clark's seventies film. (And yes, that's the Bob Clark that did _A Christmas Story_). James Mason was no slouch as Watson either.


I'll give ya that one. I don't know how I forgot about Murder by decree. Brilliant film, brilliant portrayals.

"...You've squashed my pea..."


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

Captain April said:


> High tech? *IT'S A FRELLING WINDSHIELD!!*


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)




----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Mr. Solo,

You are now my favorite person on this planet.

Larry

:thumbsup:


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

I just had an idea. We could avoid all of the arguing and disappointment if JJ would just change a few things in the movie. Instead of being a TOS "Reboot", why not set the story in a far-off part of the galaxy. Instead of JAMES Kirk, it's now his nephew, Peter. Instead of SPOCK, it's another Vulcan who admires Spock. ("Speck"?) Etc., etc. Slap an "F" on the CGI Enterprise, and you've got Star Trek, the New Movie. Problem solved!

Larry


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

John P said:


> I'll give ya that one. I don't know how I forgot about Murder by decree. Brilliant film, brilliant portrayals.
> 
> "...You've squashed my pea..."


Yep, one of my favorites too. And a surprisingly unknown film, even among Sherlock Holmes fans. Too bad Plummer never got to reprise the role.

BTW, my favorite Watson was Ben Kingsley as John Watson:"THE CRIME DOCTOR!" in _Without a Clue_.

Interesting to note both of these films were "reboots", and I enjoyed them immensely.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> The only crap I can think of is that stuff you guys call beer. If I ever were found dead, that would likely be the cause!


Ain't it the truth?

Except for Yeungling (sp???) and some micro-brewery dark beers, I rarely drink American "beer." I usually just drink Guinness.

I think the most accurate comment I've very seen on a bathroom wall was above a urinal: "FLUSH HARD! IT'S GOT TO MAKE IT ALL THE WAY TO THE MILLER BREWING COMPANY!":drunk:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> How do we know he didn't?
> 
> From what I have been reading, he has.
> 
> I'll reserve a statement like this until I actually see the film and have had time to digest it.


Well, unless it's all taking place in a parallel universe or the pictures are deliberately misleading, it's too late--they've screwed up the look of it.


----------



## lunadude (Oct 21, 2006)

Hand Solo said:


>


*"There's.....Something on the wing. Some...... Thing!."*


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

What are those objects on the glass? Reflections of the bridge consoles and lighting?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Reflections from the stores out in the mall.


----------



## Matt houston (Mar 31, 2005)

Steve Mavronis said:


> What are those objects on the glass? Reflections of the bridge consoles and lighting?


I was wondering the same thing. It looks like other starships...


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

lunadude said:


> *"There's.....Something on the wing. Some...... Thing!."*


LOL!! That's good!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I thought it was room lights and the reflection of controls and such, but then it seems that for only those hotspots to reflect like that, the room itself would have to be awfully dark...and from the other photos, the bridge is not dark at all. So it beats the hell outta me what those reflections are.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

JeffG said:


> I thought it was room lights and the reflection of controls and such, but then it seems that for only those hotspots to reflect like that, the room itself would have to be awfully dark...and from the other photos, the bridge is not dark at all. So it beats the hell outta me what those reflections are.


It is reflections of the consoles.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Yeah, I kinda second guessed myself after I posted that cause if you look closely you can see that the continuous light surrounding the viewer is reflected, but you can just barely see the reflection of the wall it's a part of. So it seems it may be either a physical window in the bridge AND a viewscreen that can show various displays OR simply a huge display panel with a shiny surface like some HD sets.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I think its a window and HUD at the same time.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


>


*
I SEE FIVE LIGHTS!!!*


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

You know, 

That screen looks like an iMac, no bloody a,b,c,or d, The first bondi blue one.

Mark


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Looks like it could be on a high tech ship say...200 years from now capable of traveling faster than light. It looks, oh-I dunno...believable!:thumbsup:


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Has anyone else noticed that if this were to be the viewscreen it would have to be located on the lower saucer (or even the lower hull) 
rather than the top ? Notice the angle of the window/screen,
it is geometrically incorrect for it to be the main viewscreen if located on the top saucer.
Or am I seeing things...


----------



## NJFNick (May 22, 2004)

Is it possible that this is actually the TOS crew on a later Enterprise? We know that Spock from TNG era is part of the story and that time travel has been mooted . It would explain why the bridge more closely resembles later times rather than the original. Didnt someone in the know say that the TOS bridge will be like the original but "in higher resolution"?
Probably talking BS but wondering just the same....


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I'm thinking this Is THE bridge for the feature. Keep in mind in TOS they did the best they could with budget and they're vision of the future. Same comparison could be made for why the look of the Klingons changed in TMP; more money, more resources and no matter how they tried to (or didn't try to) explain it later, it simply looked cooler than the dark skin and goatee of the '60's version.:thumbsup:


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Spock would have to be standing on the outside of the hull for the perspective on the viewscreen to be correct.
Look at the angle of the border of the screen. It would be a reverse ... concave rather than convex. It wouldn't fit the established profile of the bridge dome (then or now)


----------



## Joel (Jul 27, 1999)

To me, the viewscreen just looks flat - with curved bottom, angled sides, and level top (too much conflicting geometry in one image). it also looks like you see the top of the saucer and the "N" and "C" of the registry numbers (with outlines, like the refit version) outside at the bottom right of the screen.

Maybe this "window" is an actual viewport that could be closed (shieded) and double as a viewscreen as well. I mean, you already have transparent graphics in the corner and at the middle bottom.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

The screen could simply be curved downward at the bottom though. It could also be flat all the way across. Don't forget, unlike an Irwin Allen set with a paper thin hull, you have an inner and an outer hull with some degree of thickness here. That area of the bridge does not necessarily need to have the curve. Plus, towards the bottom edge you can see the edge of the hull in the distance. Keep in mind too that they're not going with what's been firmly established. If that were the case, the bridge would also have to be off angle to the center of the ship. So far at least, there's no evidence of that. Still too early to tell from what we've seen.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

But does it have wipers? Intermittent... with variable speed? And does Scotty go out and fill up the washer fluid bottle when a little console on the Bridge plays " How Dry I Am " ?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Not only that, but the wipers have heated washer fluid because as you know..."It's very cold...in space."


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

JeffG said:


> Not only that, but the wipers have heated washer fluid because as you know..."It's very cold...in space."


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

hand solo, LOVE Your avatar!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It's only a picture of Popeye...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> It's only a picture of Popeye...


I was thinking the same thing:freak:


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

Arrrrr..

I yam what I yam.


----------



## Jafo (Apr 22, 2005)

Sorry i was refering to the Shat/stewie mini movie at the bottom


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Jafo said:


> Sorry i was refering to the Shat/stewie mini movie at the bottom


Don't apologize, man! We were just engaged in our usual irrelevant bantering. :thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> There's only one reason I'm waiting for a pic of the exterior now.
> 
> So I can do a photomanip of the original ship blowing the new one to hell and back.


:thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Stewie? Where's Stewie?


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

PixelMagic said:


>


*"Would you like to pick up some of our Almay line for your wives, gentlemen?"* :drunk:

One of the other websites noted that the guy playing McCoy (Urban) in the shots is wearing a pinky ring...like De Kelley did...

I DO think the bridge is a touch bright, but I'll wait & see...

I also like the updated, darkened uniforms.

Now, I'm just curious to see what they did to the 'Grey Lady'...I've heard that she looks like a merging of elements from the OS ship & the Refit...:freak:

"Let's see what she's GOT..."
James T. Kirk, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

Captain America said:


> *I DO think the bridge is a touch bright, but I'll wait & see...*


*
About on par with the bridge at the end of TVH, only with a lot more screens and graphiics 




Now, I'm just curious to see what they did to the 'Grey Lady'...I've heard that she looks like a merging of elements from the OS ship & the Refit...:freak:

Click to expand...

Well if the Kelvin is indeed a "future ship" then I'd wager they've done away with the TNG style of ship design - pretty much throws the door wide open, but I for one certainly hope they don't stray too far from the look of the original Enterprise.*


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

I also hope, that if this movie does WELL, that they'll start developing Uhura, Scotty, Chekov, Sulu, Chapel, along with the occasional doomed redshirt. One of the few things I didn't like about the OS was that Kirk/Spock/McCoy sucked up most of the character development time...The movies helped the others a bit, buuut...

The Enterprise is an old friend, and I'm wary about the changes, but I'm more worried if they don't get Kirk & co's personalities RIGHT.

If they can remember/use the original costumes...and McCoy's pinkie ring...I'll hold out hope that when we see the New Old Gray Lady, we'll still feel that sense of awe that we felt when we saw the Refit in TMP... and be blown away by her Matt Jeffries-created beauty...(I just hope they'll have a stirring instrumental for the flyaround...)

Be Well.

Greg


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


>


The more I see of this the more I cringe.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

nm.....


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

You're_ cringing_ at the sight of Zoe Saldana?

Man, you are "Warped"!!!!!!!:lol::jest::tongue:

Huzz:wave:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Forgive me if I think she looks like an adolescent child.


----------



## RonH (Apr 10, 2001)

Warped9 said:


> The more I see of this the more I cringe.


Rabbit !!! (and if you don't get that, go watch Blazing Saddles. . .)


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Forgive me if I think she looks like an adolescent child.


She's about three years younger than Nichelle Nichols was when TOS began. Close enough.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Maybe so, but she looks ten years younger.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Forgive me for being unobservant, but De Kelley wore a pinky ring?


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

A cut and paste from : http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/features/specials/article/30875.html?page=5

He wore his mother's ring on his pinky finger, I think, because his mom — whose name was Clora (not Clara as often reported) — truly understood his passion for his craft and supported him as he pursued it. While the elder Kelley was dismayed that his second son chose the road he did, De's mother knew he was essentially and fundamentally a good man and that whatever he chose to do in life would be a ministry of sorts and that he would not dishonor the Kelley name. She let him go on to become what he became, with her blessing. She did give him "The Actor's Prayer” by Frank Crane, though, which he kept in his wallet his entire life. It was there when he died, and had been opened and closed and tucked away so many times that the creases were coming apart in spots.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Forgive me for being unobservant, but De Kelley wore a pinky ring?


.... only all thru the series and movies....


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Hm! I never noticed that either!

But I _am _noticing that Zoe Saldana does _not _look like a child to _me_!


----------



## Joel (Jul 27, 1999)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Maybe so, but she looks ten years younger.


Even though she's 30?

She's got some ship-bound movie experience. Zoe was Anamaria in "Pirates of the Caribbean"


----------

