# The Enterprise...then and now?



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

It's a forgone conclusion with rather apparent visual evidence that the reimagining of the _U.S.S. Enterprise_ will depart in more than moderate extent from MJ's cherished design. In my view this is more than ample evidence that Trek XI is a restart or reimagining or whatever you may wish to call it. Simply there is no plausible way to retcon the new design into TOS' "reality."

But thats beside the point and really a whole different discussion.

The issue I raise is: does MJ's original design really need to be reworked to work today?

I would say "yes" if one is overly concerned with _contemporary_ aesthetic trends and feeling the need to emulate most everything in sf hardware in the past twenty plus years.

But...if one believes that the _Enterprise_ should evoke the kind of futuristic technology and society that TOS tried to convey then I would argue "no" and that the ship need not and should not be extensively reworked. In fairness it could require some minor tweaking with the interior sets and costumes in terms of detail to be consistent with current production standards, but the original overall look still works just fine to evoke an advanced and streamlined future.

And this is part of what bothers me with the present Trek XI teaser--it is dark and moody in atmosphere and harkens to the Trek of latter DS9, VOY, ENT and the TNG films rather than the bold adventurism and optimism of TOS. And the redesign (at least what we see of it) emphasizes that feeling.

The Trek XI redesign may be a very intriguing one in its own right, _but it is inconsistent with what the original TOS Enterprise embodied._ 

The _Enterprise_ is so recognizable and emblematic of what _Star Trek_ was that one tampers with it at their own risk.

If they can't get the _Enterprise_ right then I suspect they will overlook many other things that made _Star Trek_ work.

Unless, of course, the whole point is to totally refashion the subject matter while retaining a handful of familiar references and names.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

I think you're reading way too much into the trailer. I suspect it has a dark, moody look simply to hide the fact that it is a STAR TREK trailer until the big reveal.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> I think you're reading way too much into the trailer. I suspect it has a dark, moody look simply to hide the fact that it is a STAR TREK trailer until the big reveal.


Perhaps, but presently it is all we have to go by. And the teaser appears quite consistent with the kind of Trek we've been getting for at least a decade. And I fully expect the current project to reflect many current trends in order to cater to presumed tastes.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

You're also loading the poll in such as way as to presume a motive behind the answer one gives. You paint a "yes" answer as one motivated by being "_overly_ concerned with contemporary aesthetic trends." Someone might think it needs to be updated for other reasons, or one might believe it may not _need_ to be updated, but that such may nevertheless be done without harm. I'm not going to participate in a poll where my answer might indicate implicit agreement with such presuppositions of motive. I'm not angry about it, you understand -- I'm just sayin'.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

I think we all need to sit back, relax and wait for more pictures, previews or even wait till the movie to come out till we pass judgement on this. Even though I will hate to see the Enterprise grossly represented in this latest flick.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> And I fully expect the current project to reflect many current trends in order to cater to presumed tastes.


You mean like the television series did in the '60s? 

You mean like the movies did in the '80s?

You mean like every popular dramatic presentation has done since the time of Aristotle?


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

I'm still of the belief that, with that teaser being released 11 months (10 now) before the film premiers, the studio is basically toying with us.
Maybe to gauge reaction to a re-worked _E_, maybe not.

That's not to say that there aren't parts of the teaser ship that I don't like though. But I'll always be a fan of the TOS _E_ for the simple fact that it's a classic design.

Just remember those two words at the end of the teaser - *Under Construction*.

IMHO, all bets are off until closer to the film's release date.

YMMV


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

sbaxter said:


> You're also loading the poll in such as way as to presume a motive behind the answer one gives. You paint a "yes" answer as one motivated by being "_overly_ concerned with contemporary aesthetic trends." Someone might think it needs to be updated for other reasons, or one might believe it may not _need_ to be updated, but that such may nevertheless be done without harm. I'm not going to participate in a poll where my answer might indicate implicit agreement with such presuppositions of motive. I'm not angry about it, you understand -- I'm just sayin'.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


I'm putting forth my _opinion_ and I'm willing to hear a difference of viewpoint.

Yes, _Star Trek_ (and it's designs) was influenced by '60s sensibilities, but that did establish the identity of the show and its universe. And so if you change it dramatically you also change its identity.

So it comes down to:
- do you want it changed to reflect current sensibilities, or
- do you want to project the sensibilities that helped make it popular in the first place?

My position is that if you make the _Enterprise_ more industrial looking (for lack of a better term) then you are changing an integral aspect of what it was meant to convey. That's fine if that is indeed what you want to do, but IMO it's misguided if you still hope to evoke the original's appeal.

The _Enterprise_ was more than just a piece of sf hardware--it represented the acheivements and aspirations and even overall _character_ of a future society. It was _inspirational._ And that sensibility was further enhanced by _how_ the ship was depicted and photographed (something I feel was greatly lost in much of TOS-R, but thats another discussion).

Now it's a done deal that the reimagined _E_ will be different and more than just tweaking wise. And so to an extent this discussion is moot. But I think my initial question is still valid: does the original _E_ still work as a futuristic vehicle?


----------



## scotthm (Apr 6, 2007)

Warped9 said:


> So it comes down to:
> - do you want it changed to reflect current sensibilities, or
> - do you want to project the sensibilities that helped make it popular in the first place?


I'd prefer it to look, more or less, like it did in 1968.

But young people generally don't like things from their parents, or grandparents time, so I take it for granted that there will be changes. Who knows, in 100 years people may think the 1968 Enterprise looks more modern than the 2008 model does.

---------------


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

So young people today don't like the Millenium Falcon? I didn't know that.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

What is a 60s sensibility? The culture wasn't monolithic back then, nor any other period. The design of the Enterprise speaks to no cultural styling I can refer to. And there were plenty of futuristic designs from the beginning of the century.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Exactly... any more than current aircraft designs speak of the 200Xs (especially since many of them were designed in the 70s!)

To me the Enterprise design isand always will be _timeless_.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I am against the whole recast and remake of TOS.

I could have dealed with Captain April or Pike even if they had to recast only Spock I suppose.

This is just too much for me. My beloved TOS rehashed? and monkeying with the big E?

I'm sorry, but I'll pass on this one.

Waiting for Trek to return to TV with an original idea.


----------



## Nektu (Aug 15, 2001)

*redesign*

I work at a recording studio here in Chicago, and one of the new composers... who is twenty three years old, went to see "Cloverfield" last week. He asked me if I'd seen the movei yet, which I haven't, he loved it.... and then said, "oh, and there was a really cool trailer before it for a new Star Trek movie...it's the first time I ever thought that show looked cool, the ship was amazing." 
That, to me, in a nutshell is what Abrams is going for. It's a trailer for god's sake, and a big part of it's 'mission impossible' is to get guys like him into the theater in December. 
I know the Enterprise is a sacred cow to many, heck I'm one of those people, but I also want to see Star Trek live on with it's ideas and stories.
Wait for it, it may just be great.

KK


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

There is some evidence that we will be seeing more than one NCC 1701 in this film, including a war ship version of it.... so who knows what we're looking at in the trailer.
Could be an alternate time line Enterprise.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Nektu said:


> I work at a recording studio here in Chicago, and one of the new composers... who is twenty three years old, went to see "Cloverfield" last week. He asked me if I'd seen the movei yet, which I haven't, he loved it.... and then said, "oh, and there was a really cool trailer before it for a new Star Trek movie...it's the first time I ever thought that show looked cool, the ship was amazing."
> That, to me, in a nutshell is what Abrams is going for. It's a trailer for god's sake, and a big part of it's 'mission impossible' is to get guys like him into the theater in December.
> I know the Enterprise is a sacred cow to many, heck I'm one of those people, but I also want to see Star Trek live on with it's ideas and stories.
> Wait for it, it may just be great.
> ...


Well said, Ken!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

It'll come as no surprise to anyone that I don't want to see any changes to my beloved vessel, apart from a little extra closeup detail that fades into inconspicuity as the camera pulls back.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I have read many opinions that the Enterprise
needs more detail. That detail translates into
"greeblies".

Why should starships have greeblies all over them?

Do automobiles have equipment all over the outside?

When you install a better stereo system for your
Mustang, do you attach the gear on the doors?

When airplanes receive an upgrade, is the new
hardware placed all over the fuselage?

It makes more sense for a spaceship's equipment to be 
protected from the harshness of space, (radiation,
micro-meteoroids, enemy fire, bottles of champagne...).

I think the original design of the _U.S.S. Enterprise_ is
just fine. Why can't we give her a chance on the big screen
as is, and _then_ make changes if there is box office failure?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

In a way I accept the redesign being different (as well as other aspects of the film) because it firmly casts this project as something apart from TOS and its continuity. No more trying to force-fit a contemporary take on an idea into something forty years old.

That said I don't want to stray too much off topic in regards to the merits (or lack thereof) of the film project and the approaches being taken. So let me try to make my point another way.

_Star Trek,_ like any decent attempt at science fiction, involved _imagining_ a fictional future setting as opposed to trying to accurately predicting it. This approach allows a great deal of creative freedom particularly if you're envisioning a far future setting that allows enough plausible time to have passed since the present to allow for diverging paths in technology and culture. Consistent with that is that the _E_ didn't look remotely like anything we could even envision constructing in the forseeable future. It was meant to look convincingly advanced to the point that we mighn't even be able to conceive how such a construct could be built and operated.

Now couple that with the fact that generations of viewers have been watching TOS for four decades (and consequently garnering new fans with it's "outdated" '60s sensibilities). The effect is that we now have something that has become perhaps as iconic as Superman's or Batman's or Spider-Man's costumes.

However, since TOS there's often been a trend in sf to make hardware look rather industrialized partially as an attempt to make it look supposedly more credible and perhaps also to look like something within reach of forseeable technology. In my view thats akin to trying to rationalize TOS' Eugenics Wars of the 1990s into our actual history and reality. It just doesn't work and it's easier to just accept that TOS' "reality" is not and never has been ours.

The _Enterprise_ was meant as an _imagined_ take on the future and not a predictive one. With that firmly in mind I cannot say that MJ's design looks oudated. The _E_ still looks like nothing we could even consider constructing and operating today and as it should look incredibly advanced. I can allow that there are small details that could be tweaked (particularly with some of the interior sets) to be consistent with contemporary production stanards, but design wise and aesthetically MJ's concepts are still sound.

The only rational, in my view, to drastically alter the look of the ship is to cater to aesthetic whim and/or to deliberately convey an idea different from what the original was meant to convey.


----------



## Mariner Class (Aug 22, 2005)

X15-A2 said:


> So young people today don't like the Millenium Falcon? I didn't know that.


I, for one. 

Actually, I _like_ it, I just _prefer_ the "Silver" Falcon in McQuarrie's pre-production paintings.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

John P said:


> It'll come as no surprise to anyone that I don't want to see any changes to my beloved vessel, apart from a little extra closeup detail that fades into inconspicuity as the camera pulls back.


Well said; couldn't agree more. It's iconic and already well established within _Star Trek_'s continuity and history. The "powers that be" have already said the new film is not a re-imagining of the series, so the only reason to make changes is to pander to younger audiences who wouldn't know a decent film if it fell on their heads.

Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

There seems to be to be a prevailing sense of false hope for the old girl. Hollywood is not going to tease us with a design to get us all up in arms, and then give us what we've been hoping for all along. The Classic design we all know.

Face it, all Hollywood cares about is the almighty dollar, or Euro once the CA liberals abandon the dollar for a more 'worldly' currency. Face it, what you see is what you are going to get. They have raped the Enterprise and will continue to do so without any care or concern over the fans feelings.

I find it very foreboding that Koerner released his perverted 'vision' of a ship that "looks" like Enterprise, and in my opinion will NEVER be worthy of that name. He goes silent, denying his design is the basis for the new movie and then the first images we see of the thing looks almost exactly like the POS we've seen. Coincidence? Hardly...

Regardless of my feelings, I will see this movie with the same feeling I have driving past a really bad car wreck... I don't want to look, I feel bad for whoever is involved and hope yare OK, but I just can't keep myself from looking at the carnage.

I think this is the final death knell for Star Trek. This reboot, re-imagining or whatever you wish to call it will fail miserably and give Paramount the justification to deep six Star Trek once and for all. It started with Voyager, Enterprise dug the grave and this movie will be the metaphorical lowering of the casket into the earth.

Berman and Braga killed Star Trek. Gene Rodenberry made his biggest mistake leaving them in charge, His vision has been perverted and is beyond hope of rescue.

I mourn for my Star Trek.................


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

We grieve with thee...


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Add details subtle enough so the ST XI’s 1701 form afar won’t look any different then what we love and know as the „Grey Lady“. Similar to the “Pearl Lady” who looks almost complete white from a distance and reveals these unbelievable details when close up. 

The ST XI will be a NX-01 rehash simply because that’s the last version the “newer audience” remembers and whatever follows has got to bear the looks of the Akiraprise.


----------



## TGel63 (Mar 26, 2004)

I too am afraid we are going to get Korener's ship, and that saddens me. While I respect his artwork, I totally dislike the ship design. I despised the NX-01, and this as stated, is a rehash. If we're surprised by something else and it is closer to the original, I'll eat my words, but I think what we see is what we are going to get.


----------



## Mariner Class (Aug 22, 2005)

I'd honestly _want_ a major change in the design, but for historical and continuity reasons, as well as for thematic reasons, not to "update" it for Generation-*P*retard.

(Let me preface this by stating that I _hate_ the whole of Trek Continuity after *TOS*, but this is what I'd rationally expect if this isn't a reboot-in-lamb's-wool.)


In the series bible, Gene intended the ship to 40 years old when _Kirk_ took command. *TMP* rebuilt the ship after about 10 years in Kirk's hands, and then preceded to give him and Spock another 10 years.


(This is assuming that *TMP* is set in 2279, which production notes indicate as the original intent, and it has the advantages of giving Kirk and Co. far more experience and emotional attachment to her than the "official" timeline states, which is based on dartboard games more than anything else. *VOY's* 5YM ending date of 2270 is inconsistent with the official timeline itself, so I'm free to disregard that.)


By that time (*TSFS* specifically), Cartwright and the top brass said the ship was ready for retirement. Assuming that he meant that the _current configuration_ was about 20 years old, this indicates that the ship has gone through it's last rebuild cycle. 

The "bible" notes indicate that the ship is about 40 when Kirk gets hold of her, and by this logic, in *TSFS*, the oldest parts of the ship (the main structural components in the saucer and stardrive hulls) are nearly _60 years old_ altogether. By this line of thought, I find it damn peculiar that the "Cage" configuration is it's _original_ design, which is why I would expect an "original configuration" to be only slightly less drastic a change as *TMP's*.


(Less drastic because Kirk is obviously going to be familiar with the old configuration in the movie, and it looked like Kirk's confusion in *TMP* was only based on the fact that they altered it _almost completley_ as opposed to just changing it.)


Real-life as many maritime examples, so this isn't a radical or invented concept. Also, this would serve well by actually treating the ship as a character, who ages and proceeds through it's life as the other characters do. This also sets the stage for the art department to truly establish the historical setting by studying the themes of before and after.

Other than "sloppy" and "rehashed," *ENT's* design philosophy also can be descried as vaguely _dieselpunk_, which actually fits amazingly well into a visual timeline where *TOS* fits as a demi-utopia/_atomicpunk_ style.

Seeing as the trailer depicts a world that leans toward the former, I'd guess that shooting for a 50's-influenced blend of these two genres would be perfect for what JJ wants to establish for his movie (i.e. something both "new" and "epic.")


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Ooh, yeah. I like the way you worded that! Very eloquent and pretty much how I feel they might well be doing this. 

You sure do talk purdy, *Mr. Mariner Class*. You use yer mouther purdier'n a two dollar whore!


----------



## Mariner Class (Aug 22, 2005)

Griffworks said:


> Ooh, yeah. I like the way you worded that! Very eloquent and pretty much how I feel they might well be doing this.
> 
> You sure do talk purdy, *Mr. Mariner Class*. You use yer mouther purdier'n a two dollar whore!


*Mariner*, please, and thanks for the comments.

Tips may be left at the foot of the bed. :thumbsup:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Mariner, I like your analysis! :thumbsup: You make very good points and osbservations about the upcoming movie and the franchise in general.

Ohio Southpaw, I've had your depressing commentary up on my screen for hours and I still cannot think of a way to respond to it properly, except that it's clear to me that:

You've already made up your mind about a movie that we know next to NOTHING about, and;

Your nilhistic comments tell me that the franchise is long dead in your mind.

True, you make some good points, especially about B&B, who truly did severe and possibly irreppearable harm to _Trek_; however, I see that going back to the TOS roots as being the ONLY way to reinvorgate _Trek_ and that is the one that has had true staying power and impact on modern pop culture for all these years.

Metaphorically speaking, I see your comments being akin to plunging the knife over and over again into the body of _Trek_ before it truly expired. 

Mourn all you want for "your" _Trek_, but just remember that "your" _Trek_ only existed in your mind, (like it does for all of us) and you've buried it in there. I am unable to and cannot "grieve" with you for something you've given up on before its time, because _Trek_ ISN'T dead, at least not in MY mind.

_"I find your lack of faith.... disturbing."_

Okay, wrong series, but it sums up my feelings. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but I myself will want to give the movie a chance, unlike yourself. I can't even tell you to go see the movie when it does come out, because you "already know" it sucks like a black hole. I feel sorry for you for what you've lost. How sad.


----------



## Mariner Class (Aug 22, 2005)

EDIT: I just realized that the 1701 should be _50_ years old altogether, not 60. Cart_writer's_ 20 year figure in *TSFS* makes no sense at all, because even in the official timeline the *TMP* hull type is only around 10 years at most. It may have been decommissioned in lieu of the Genesis incident, but not because of age.

My bad. I still like 20 year cycles though, gives enough time for three 5YMs and some downtime for those minor upgrades we might be seeing in the Pilots.


As for what I think we'll _get_ for the Grey Lady, I err on the side of crap (with regurgitation as the main course), but that's me naturally setting the bar extra low so that a real treat feels even better, and if it stinks, it won't stink _as badly_.

I've never really been impressed with JJ from what I've seen, and Roberto Orci scares the sh1t out of me.

There's crazy genius, eccentric, crazy stupid and just f*ckin' crazy. He's certainly not the first, and I highly doubt the second is true either.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Going by the generally-accepted Okuda timeline, she was built in 2245. The series took place from 2266-2269. So she was supposed to be TWENTY years old at the time of the series. Star Trek II thru IV were supposed to occur sequentially starting in 2282 (the year the movie played plus 300 years). So she was around 40 when kirk blew her up.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Nektu said:


> I work at a recording studio here in Chicago, and one of the new composers... who is twenty three years old, went to see "Cloverfield" last week. He asked me if I'd seen the movei yet, which I haven't, he loved it.... and then said, "oh, and there was a really cool trailer before it for a new Star Trek movie...it's the first time I ever thought that show looked cool, the ship was amazing."
> That, to me, in a nutshell is what Abrams is going for. It's a trailer for god's sake, and a big part of it's 'mission impossible' is to get guys like him into the theater in December.
> I know the Enterprise is a sacred cow to many, heck I'm one of those people, but I also want to see Star Trek live on with it's ideas and stories.
> Wait for it, it may just be great.
> ...



Well said


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Well I certainly can not agree with many of you regarding Gabe's Design. I happen to really like it, although I agree that it could contain less greeblies. Like this:

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f63/6242amu/1aK2.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f63/6242amu/1ak3.jpg


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

The new design may be likable to some, but there is nothing wrong with the original. Unfortunately, we've seen excursions of revisionist history in all Trek since the original, from storyline to props to ships. Some is welcomed, some is just O.K., some is stretching it, and some is over the top. If the ship we see in the snippets is what the ship is "redefined" to be, then that is yet another nail in the coffin of Trek credibility. Of course there are those who will like it because they think it looks "cool", and no doubt they'll like the movie, which may or may not violate other established precedence. It has gotten to the point where I wonder why the powers that be even attempt (albeit feebly) to corral continuity. IMHO, it pretty much has become a free for all. Yes, I know…it's just a show.

I think you know where my vote is going.

Mark


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Darth Humorous said:


> The new design may be likable to some, but there is nothing wrong with the original.


Absolutely agree, however the following is still just an opinion which too me is stretching...



> If the ship we see in the snippets is what the ship is "redefined" to be, then that is yet another nail in the coffin of Trek credibility.



Until I see the film, I'll reserve my judgment. Trailers are made so they can create buzz. You would have to admit that is was at least successful in doing that


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

*A heretic wades in among the true believers.*​
I think there should be a third choice in the poll:

-The creative people behind the movie should do whatever they think works best.

This is the crux of the problem and the Catch-22 of Trek. If it is to remain vital and alive, it needs the input of creative people. But no creative person with the least bit of integrity is going to work under the restrictions some fans would place on them.

A lot of people on this board say the movie should exactly followed already established continuity. 

Why?

Why should continuity and consistency take precendence over everything else? Why should it to matter to anyone except for detail-obsessed encyclopedia writers who treat every episode and movie as a source of new data?

I've seen some people suggest the ship should like the Enterprise from the pilots. Why do you think the ship looked different in the regularly produced series? Do you think the producers said, "Well the series is supposed to take place a few years later, so we have to change the look"? No. They realized that the ship had to stand up to scrutiny week after week, so they made it look as good as they could. They even modified it after they began production (for instance, flipping the numbers on the underside of the hull around) with no regards to what had already been "established." 

I say give the makers of the movie the same freedom the original producers had. If you require them to just blindly follow what has already been done, the movie will be a cinematic equivalent of an Elvis impersonator. A lifeless reproduction of something that was once original and vital.

We don't expect the D-Day scenes in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN to look like they did in THE LONGEST DAY. 

We don't expect the gunfight at the OK Corral in TOMBSTONE to look like it did in MY DARLING CLEMENTINE.

We shouldn't expect a movie made in the 2000's to look like a TV show made in the '60s, even if they are portraying the same subject.


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

Darth Humorous said:


> If the ship we see in the snippets is what the ship is "redefined" to be, then that is yet another nail in the coffin of Trek credibility.


Are we talking about "Star Trek XI" or "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" here?

I'll file this with "Why doesn't the Batmobile in Batman Begins look like the one in the 1939 comic?"

Jim


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Arronax said:


> I'll file this with "Why doesn't the Batmobile in Batman Begins look like the one in the 1939 comic?"
> 
> Jim


Hmm....Bingo


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

BEBruns said:


> We don't expect the D-Day scenes in SAVING PRIVATE RYAN to look like they did in THE LONGEST DAY.


I expect the overall historical events to be the same, since the films both portray the same events and the same locations on the same day. I expect the characters to be carrying 1944 M-1 Garands, not 2008 M-16s. I expect any aircraft overhead to be 1944 vintage, not 2008 F-16s, and in 1944 markings, not 2008 gunship gray. I expect them to be driving OD Willys Jeeps, not desert tan Humvees. I expect them to be wearing 1944 issue uniforms, not 2008 issue digital desert camo.

See where I'm goin'? TOS was a depiction of how things "looked" in 2266. Not how they looked in 1966, but how they looked in _22_66 when the series was set. The look of the equipment, uniforms, fashion & styles is established. I therefore expect any further depictions of that time period in the same universe to look the same. Otherwise it's as jarring as seeing a Warthog strafing the defenders Omaha Beach while our guys come ashore in hovercraft.


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

Raist3001 said:


> Absolutely agree, however the following is still just an opinion which too me is stretching...



Well, of course it is an opinion. MY opinion. As far as my opinion being a stretch is concerned, that is your opinion. I DID begin the sentence you quoted with the word “If”. Does that qualify to reduce it's stretchiness?



Raist3001 said:


> Until I see the film, I'll reserve my judgment.


And if I decide to see the movie, I will review my judgment. Indeed, you might be right. Maybe we'll get to see the ship the trailer shows rebuilt again to look like the first TV pilot ship. Or would that add a previously unaccounted for refit to the mix? I think that would be acceptable. Or perhaps what we see in the trailer gets completely redone for the actual movie, which I suppose is possible, but unlikely.



Raist3001 said:


> Trailers are made so they can create buzz. You would have to admit that is was at least successful in doing that


Quite right. Doin' my part. Just buzzin' away…

Mark


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

Arronax said:


> Are we talking about "Star Trek XI" or "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" here?


I was talking about the Enterprise as depicted in the trailer for the upcoming movie, which I believe ought to be in better keeping with what we see in the original series.



Arronax said:


> I'll file this with "Why doesn't the Batmobile in Batman Begins look like the one in the 1939 comic?"


By all means. However, the way I see it is, Batman as a comic has been long running and constantly updates itself to the current era, at least in terms of its look. Otherwise, the characters would be very old by now. But hey, they could have kept everything held to the era of it's creation, but by now, there would have been way more activity stuffed into the lives of the characters than there was actual time to do so. The TV show and the movies reinvent things with each incarnation. James Bond does this as well.

Trek, on the other hand (as I see it), set out to establish a continuity of timeline, stories, and events. How well they succeeded is a matter of unending discussion.

Mark


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

John P said:


> I expect the overall historical events to be the same, since the films both portray the same events and the same locations on the same day. I expect the characters to be carrying 1944 M-1 Garands, not 2008 M-16s. I expect any aircraft overhead to be 1944 vintage, not 2008 F-16s, and in 1944 markings, not 2008 gunship gray. I expect them to be driving OD Willys Jeeps, not desert tan Humvees. I expect them to be wearing 1944 issue uniforms, not 2008 issue digital desert camo.
> 
> See where I'm goin'? TOS was a depiction of how things "looked" in 2266. Not how they looked in 1966, but how they looked in _22_66 when the series was set. The look of the equipment, uniforms, fashion & styles is established. I therefore expect any further depictions of that time period in the same universe to look the same. Otherwise it's as jarring as seeing a Warthog strafing the defenders Omaha Beach while our guys come ashore in hovercraft.


If you are going to use the same metaphor, then the "look" is how it was portrayed in 1966, not how it actually will be. Look at any Western ever made. You can almost always tell when it was made just by looking at the haircuts of the lead characters. They will almost always have a contemporary hairstyle, or at least close as they can get away with. If you look at any historical movie, it's visualization of the past always reflect contemporary tastes and expectations. For instance, name one movie set in ancient Egypt that shows women with bare breasts. Using the PRIVATE RYAN/LONGEST DAY comparison, yes they both use the same historically correct costumes and equipment, but THE LONGEST DAY shot the scenes with a steady camera, making smooth classic moves. Bullets hits were barely visible. This was consistent with the cinematic language of the time. When PRIVATE RYAN was made, bullet hits were expected to be bloody. We've all seen shaky, hand-held combat footage, so to us that is what looks "real."

Or a little more on target, compare the sets of a typical Western from the '30s or '40s. Or even the TV series from the '60s. They all look too clean, too expansive, and overlit. If you tried to duplicate that look today it would just look silly and "fake." Of course, today's movies are going to look just as phony and stylized in 30 years, but you can only speak in the current cinematic vernacular. Trying to reproduce an out-dated style may be interesting, but is rarely successful. (Look at SKY CAPTAIN, THE GOOD GERMAN, the collected works of GUY MADDIN.)


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> ITrying to reproduce an out-dated style may be interesting, but is rarely successful.


DOWN WITH LOVE anyone?


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

BEBruns said:


> If you are going to use the same metaphor, then the "look" is how it was portrayed in 1966, not how it actually will be. Look at any Western ever made. You can almost always tell when it was made just by looking at the haircuts of the lead characters. They will almost always have a contemporary hairstyle, or at least close as they can get away with. If you look at any historical movie, it's visualization of the past always reflect contemporary tastes and expectations. For instance, name one movie set in ancient Egypt that shows women with bare breasts. Using the PRIVATE RYAN/LONGEST DAY comparison, yes they both use the same historically correct costumes and equipment, but THE LONGEST DAY shot the scenes with a steady camera, making smooth classic moves. Bullets hits were barely visible. This was consistent with the cinematic language of the time. When PRIVATE RYAN was made, bullet hits were expected to be bloody. We've all seen shaky, hand-held combat footage, so to us that is what looks "real."
> 
> Or a little more on target, compare the sets of a typical Western from the '30s or '40s. Or even the TV series from the '60s. They all look too clean, too expansive, and overlit. If you tried to duplicate that look today it would just look silly and "fake." Of course, today's movies are going to look just as phony and stylized in 30 years, but you can only speak in the current cinematic vernacular. Trying to reproduce an out-dated style may be interesting, but is rarely successful. (Look at SKY CAPTAIN, THE GOOD GERMAN, the collected works of GUY MADDIN.)


I agree completely. To have the sets and the Enterprise remain exactly as depicted in TOS would be absurd. The sets from the 60s look downright cheesy, and anyone who can't admit that is blinded by their fandom.

That being said, I love TOS, so I'm not hating on it, I'm just calling it like it is.


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

BEBruns said:


> BEBruns said:
> 
> 
> > This is the crux of the problem and the Catch-22 of Trek. If it is to remain vital and alive, it needs the input of creative people. But no creative person with the least bit of integrity is going to work under the restrictions some fans would place on them.
> ...


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Darth Humorous said:


> A lot of people say this because this is exactly what Trek set out to do. Those people on this board who say this see and understand it, and state it here for the benefit of those who are unaware, or as a reminder.
> 
> Mark


Exactly when did they set out to do this? Certainly not in the original series. In the first season, they couldn't even decide if the show took place in the late 22nd century ("Space Seed") or the early 28th ("The Squire of Gothos") or somewhere in between.

To those who insist on absolute fidelity to continuity, I ask you to take a step back. Why is this so important to you? Why would you decide (and it is a decision) to not like something simply because some incidental detail doesn't match what was shown once before?


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

Here's a litmus test in regards to continuity. Should the episode "Journey to Babel" never have been produced since it was clearly established (albeit indirectly) that Spock's parents were dead? Before that episode, he consistently referred to them in the past tense.


----------



## CaliOkie (Dec 31, 2007)

Star Trek, TOS was and remains a great mid to late 1960's show. I grew up on the original first run episodes and loved every one. I still love it. From a dramatic stand point it still is some of the best TV ever made. I was filled with awe and wonder each week when I tuned in to the Enterprise. But, it was visualized in a world of 40+ years ago. Things have changed. It is not at all surprising that they would rework the ship in some of its particulars. They seem to be projecting out using the design of NX-01 as the starting point.

Here's another point, let's say they keep the design exactly the same. Over time they make another 10 movies, lets say, over the next twenty years. In 20 years that '60's ship would really look dated. Someone most likely decided this was as good a time as any to build in any updating they felt would be necessary -- not just for this movie but for all the ones to follow (I'm sure they hope).

If the movie is good, this will become the new standard. If the movie works in a dramatic sense and contributes something worthwhile to the Star Trek universe then the design aspect will become more palatable. If the movie stinks, then chalk it up to another bad idea. 

Personally, I hope the movie is a fantastic mega hit and I hope it has a great story and really pulls the Star Trek elements together for something exciting and awe inspiring -- just like TOS did in 1966. But, it isn't 1966, Star Trek is not a new idea breaking onto the scene like it once was, and I'm not 10 years old any more. So, nothing's going to be like that. Even if it's good, it won't be like the first episode.

I'd be delighted with another Wrath of Khan level movie -- and that has some of the worst examples of set, miniature, prop, and termiology inconsistancies. Still a good bit of drama -- or perhaps I should say melodrama. In any case, it got the job done and I still view it fondly.


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

BEBruns said:


> Exactly when did they set out to do this? Certainly not in the original series. In the first season, they couldn't even decide if the show took place in the late 22nd century ("Space Seed") or the early 28th ("The Squire of Gothos") or somewhere in between.
> 
> To those who insist on absolute fidelity to continuity, I ask you to take a step back. Why is this so important to you? Why would you decide (and it is a decision) to not like something simply because some incidental detail doesn't match what was shown once before?


You are absolutely right. Not in the original series. But every Trek show incarnation since has striven to do this, for better or for worse. Yet still, the powers that be try. Case in point, the movie that is to be released is attempting to play right into that timeline. Apparently, it is important to them.

And yes, I am well aware of the sins of the original show, and the sins of the subsequent shows and movies. I understand such things happen. Like I said in my original post, some of them are welcome. I have turned the other cheek for a plethora of "incidentals" because they are trivial. Personally, I don't consider changing the appearance of the most iconic prop from the original show to be incidental.

If the powers that be wanted the show to be a Batman or a James Bond, then fine, but that is NOT what they signed themselves up for. And since so much precedence is being ignored with increasing impunity, maybe those powers that be should cry uncle and say it is going to be a show-by-show, movie-by-movie arrangement with no regard to anything that has gone before, so just sit back and enjoy the moment. However, that is not what they are saying, so they should try to do a better job of what they signed themselves up for.

Actually, I have taken a step back. When I began to watch "Enterprise", I was hopeful. Some of the shows were decent, but ultimately it turned in to an entirely different entity whose only connection with the Trek universe was in name only. I then tried to watch it in the vein of a different entity, but there were always distorted reminders of the connection to the Trek universe. After a while, I stopped watching it altogether. This gave me pause for this very consideration.

So why is it important? Because the amalgamation of shows and movies set it up that way, AND when you follow a storyline through all the show and movie incarnations from the beginning, then I think it is only natural to wince when you were told things, and then later are told something that flies in the face of the earlier revelations. Sort of like Kirk telling the android Norman that everything Harry Mudd says is a lie, and then Harry telling Norman "I'm lying". And so, I feel Trekdom's credibility is not only tarnished, but downright rusted.

Mark


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Jesus effin christ, can we please STOP using the word "cheesy"? It's downright moronic, and I'm sick of people insulting the original just to try (and fail) to make a point.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

BEBruns said:


> If you are going to use the same metaphor, then the "look" is how it was portrayed in 1966, not how it actually will be. Look at any Western ever made. You can almost always tell when it was made just by looking at the haircuts of the lead characters. They will almost always have a contemporary hairstyle, or at least close as they can get away with. If you look at any historical movie, it's visualization of the past always reflect contemporary tastes and expectations. For instance, name one movie set in ancient Egypt that shows women with bare breasts. Using the PRIVATE RYAN/LONGEST DAY comparison, yes they both use the same historically correct costumes and equipment, but THE LONGEST DAY shot the scenes with a steady camera, making smooth classic moves. Bullets hits were barely visible. This was consistent with the cinematic language of the time. When PRIVATE RYAN was made, bullet hits were expected to be bloody. We've all seen shaky, hand-held combat footage, so to us that is what looks "real."
> 
> Or a little more on target, compare the sets of a typical Western from the '30s or '40s. Or even the TV series from the '60s. They all look too clean, too expansive, and overlit. If you tried to duplicate that look today it would just look silly and "fake." Of course, today's movies are going to look just as phony and stylized in 30 years, but you can only speak in the current cinematic vernacular. Trying to reproduce an out-dated style may be interesting, but is rarely successful. (Look at SKY CAPTAIN, THE GOOD GERMAN, the collected works of GUY MADDIN.)


I'm not remotely talking about the way it's photographed, I'm talking about the way physical things look, like the ship model and the costumes and the props. feel free to underlight them and shakycam them, but they LOOK the way they look in 2266.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

John P said:


> Jesus effin christ, can we please STOP using the word "cheesy"? It's downright moronic, and I'm sick of people insulting the original just to try (and fail) to make a point.


I'm sorry people saying the TOS is cheesy upsets you. But that doesn't change the fact that it's true. But I feel it's cheesiness lends a lovable quality to it. Look at the Wikipedia article on Camp (i.e. campy, i.e. cheesy) and scroll down the television section. It lists shows that are considered to be campy by today's standards. Star Trek TOS is listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_(style)

Whether or not you view it as campy is immaterial, since most of the general public does.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

John P said:


> I'm not remotely talking about the way it's photographed, I'm talking about the way physical things look, like the ship model and the costumes and the props. feel free to underlight them and shakycam them, but they LOOK the way they look in 2266.


Look at any story set in a historical period (preferrably before the memory of anyone living) and filmed multiple times over the years. For instance, THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME. Every version has a different approach to set, costume, and makeup design. Each looks fundamentally different because they reflect the aesthetics of the time and the then perception of the past. There is no reason the same principles shouldn't apply to stories set in the future.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PixelMagic said:


> I'm sorry people saying the TOS is cheesy upsets you. But that doesn't change the fact that it's true. But I feel it's cheesiness lends a lovable quality to it. Look at the Wikipedia article on Camp (i.e. campy, i.e. cheesy) and scroll down the television section. It lists shows that are considered to be campy by today's standards. Star Trek TOS is listed.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_(style)
> 
> Whether or not you view it as campy is immaterial, since most of the general public does.


This is funny because I often see a lot of contemporary stuff, particularly sci-fi, as cheesy and campy compared to what came before. For all the flaws of '50s to '70s sf I find a lot of today's work unimaginative, loaded with cheap think and generally unambitious.

The design of the original _E_ broke from convention in terms of overall conception, design and presentation. It was unlike anything seen before. But after TMP everything in Trek (and other sci-fi) looked like it was trying to emulate a _Star Wars_ aesthetic with industrial like aspects.

I would love to see the _E_ presented as MJ had envisioned it rather than how some half-assed cgi modeler thinks it should be to look more _kewl._


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

^ezzakly.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

The original series is beloved by many, myself included. With that said, yes the sets are cheesy. Would I have thought so then? Probably not. 

We are talking about using the same sets set in a time where TOS was the future, yet we have more futuristic looking items today then TOS did. 

For example, whenever there was a countdown, what do we see on the bridge terminals? A rolling count down timer. No digital? No LCD screens? No touch interfaces?

I understand that this was not a reality then so was not thought of, but by todays standards, the old TOS designs just would not look good. Things will have to change in order to be somewhat consistent with improving technology. I love TOS, yet understand the need for changes.

Some folks do not understand change, and do not like change. That's a shame.

And all this condemnation of a film that no one has even seen. I find this more ridiculous than the argument of change.

The best example I can give and compare the change to is KING KONG. How would Peter Jackson's Kong been had he used stop motion photography to bring Kong to life in 2006?!? Jackson already paid homage to the original film by keeping it in the same era, and giving us the same feel as the original. Although the film was way too long.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

What's wrong with cheezies? They're great with a Coke!

Huzz :lol:


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> I would love to see the _E_ presented as MJ had envisioned it rather than how some half-assed cgi modeler thinks it should be to look more _kewl._


Yes, because those are the only two possibilities: as orginally brought to the screen in the '60s, or the work of an idiot, because there are no good CG modelers concerned with anything other than making things look "kewl." And everyone knows that Jeffries didn't consider the coolness factor in his design, because he was obviously designing a real starship.

In fact, if an interplanetary starship is ever _really_ created, I hope you guys are around to ensure that it, too, looks exactly like the one from TOS -- maybe with a little added surface detail that is visible only from five feet away, _if_ you can all ever agree whether that is acceptable.

I mean, how insulting can you get? And even if they were going with the original design, most of you would be screaming about how the sets must not be changed. And if that were in place, you'd be screaming about the recasting of the parts (more loudly than you already are). And if _that_ weren't available as something to gripe about, you'd be wailing about how they should use physical models instead of CG.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

John,
I'll make you a deal.
I'll stop calling the effects and set design of TOS "cheesy" if you stop calling CGI "cartoony".

There was only one Enterprise that looked cartoony and it's this one


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I often find that many people confuse design and aesthetics with execution. No one who loves the original _E_ is advocating that a current big screen version should be photographed exactly as it was forty years ago. We're saying the _design_ as is is perfectly workable with perhaps a little tweaking and then photographing it in a contemporary manner (while still trying to evoke some of the iconic beauty shots of the ship).

My shot at cgi artists was a dig--I admit that. But I was making a point regarding someone changing something they don't understand or could equal by their own effort merely for the sake of whim.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Er...cheezie, anyone?

Huzz


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I don't think I've ever called CGI cartoony. Certainly not recently.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Let it go! Everybody is so worried about what the ship is going to look like-let's hope the MOVIE is good. Because if the movie sucks, who cares? It seems a lot of folks are so concerned about getting a cool new model kit that it makes no difference if the movie itself will be a waste of time. I, for one, want to see a good Trek film. One not just made only for fans that get references from episode 21 or whatever, but a good, enjoyable film.

All this constant wondering, presuming, hoping what the Enterprise will / should be is reaching a frantic peak. Sure the ship was a big part of Star Trek, but it wasn't the soul purpose of Star Trek. I say these things not to be disrespectful to anyone, but how long can this debate go on?


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

My apologies John,

I remembered some discussions when the remastered episodes started airing and I thought it was you who had said that the CGI of the Enterprise was too cartoony.

It must have been someone else.

BTW, I think that "the McQuarrie" would have been a fine name for your voyager bash.

Peace


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Personally I'm not too fussed by the possibility of a new Enterprise looking different in the next movie. I think that is because the ship changed from the TV series to the movies. And then changed again when The Next Generation aired.

But, let's say that Disney decided to remake 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and made major changes to the Nautilus and departed from the wonderful Harper Goff design. I'd be quite concerned! So, in view of that, I certainly respect the views of those folks who feel the same way about the original Enterprise design.

Huzz


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> But, let's say that Disney decided to remake 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and made major changes to the Nautilus and departed from the wonderful Harper Goff design. I'd be quite concerned! So, in view of that, I certainly respect the views of those folks who feel the same way about the original Enterprise design.


On the other hand, I'm open to new designs of the _Nautilus _BUT I definitely understand and respect the views of those who aren't.

Thanks for understanding, Dave!:thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> My apologies John,
> 
> I remembered some discussions when the remastered episodes started airing and I thought it was you who had said that the CGI of the Enterprise was too cartoony.
> 
> ...


Well, it could have been me among others because there were quite a few early shots of CBS' cgi _E_ that I thought were cartoony like.


----------



## Mariner Class (Aug 22, 2005)

John P said:


> Going by the generally-accepted Okuda timeline, she was built in 2245. The series took place from 2266-2269. So she was supposed to be TWENTY years old at the time of the series. Star Trek II thru IV were supposed to occur sequentially starting in 2282 (the year the movie played plus 300 years). So she was around 40 when kirk blew her up.


This movie will effectively revise the "official timeline," and it's a made-up date to begin with. It actually has no bearing on the movie, which is a huge hang up for some people who want to "preserve" the original.

This is the problem that *ENT* ran into for some folks, because they forgot that the "official" timeline wasn't actually a bible, but more of a compendium of the histories from all of Trek. There was nothing _technically_ wrong with portraying Klingons meeting Earth in 2151 (other than it was scripted as if they had the staff of *New Voyages* at hand,) because the 2218 date given has _no_ basis in Trek, ever. The (pre-*ENT*) Encyclopedia said it was based on "Day of the Dove," but there is absolutely nothing there that could possibly correspond to that date.

In fact, Picard's line in "First Contact" (episode) stated that it was "centuries ago," which makes a perfect case for 2151 in *ENT*.

The reason I bring this up is that the 2245 date isn't actually based on anything, _anywhere_. It _is_ a case of "dartboard chronology," because the only date or indication of a date for the 1701's commissioning is 40 years prior to the start of the series (with Kirk.) Although much of the information in the book was usurped by the series itself, information like the workings of the food dispensaries and the commissioning dates were never touched by the series. Furthermore, it's wrong for dartboard-chronology to usurp information that was obtained (with a possible margin of error) from a primary source (the production staff and writers themselves.)

You don't make-up dates for historical events because you can't determine whether something occurred in early fall or early spring, do you? And if you don't happen to "like" the information you have (as is often the case with official Trek publications,) you don't outright make sh1t up, do you?

Going with the *TMoST* info, rather than dartboard-chronology, would only help JJ, and I've explained this numerous times. Just because *ENT* began establishing things that made no sense doesn't mean that JJ is restricted from doing that if he wants to tell us a good story.

Besides, more iterations of the Grey Lady mean more model kits. Don't tell me you wouldn't jump at that.


----------



## Mariner Class (Aug 22, 2005)

JeffG said:


> Let it go! Everybody is so worried about what the ship is going to look like-let's hope the MOVIE is good. Because if the movie sucks, who cares? It seems a lot of folks are so concerned about getting a cool new model kit that it makes no difference if the movie itself will be a waste of time. I, for one, want to see a good Trek film. One not just made only for fans that get references from episode 21 or whatever, but a good, enjoyable film.
> 
> All this constant wondering, presuming, hoping what the Enterprise will / should be is reaching a frantic peak. Sure the ship was a big part of Star Trek, but it wasn't the soul purpose of Star Trek. I say these things not to be disrespectful to anyone, but how long can this debate go on?


The ship itself _is_ a character. It fulfills most of, if not all of the qualifications for one, and people are generally interested in the treatment of their favorite characters. Hell, the design is pretty _anthropomorphic_, so it's hard for people not to empathize with it as a person.

As for it's importance, it's was not only a major setting of the series, but was the key for the series format to work. The _Enterprise_ was were Kirk, Spock, and McCoy lived and worked, and the vehicle for both the crew and audience to travel to the strange new worlds where all kinds of stories were told each week, not limited by local culture, climate, or even time.

Going back to it's design for a moment, the fact that *Jefferies* and company spent so much damn time trying to balance look and function would indicate that the ship _is_ important. *DS9* wouldn't have been as popular if the station was just a spoked wheel or a Skylab/Mir/ISS copy.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I never said the ship was not important. I'm saying it's not the ONLY thing that's important about the show, any more than Star Wars was about the Millennium Falcon. Yes it was a key vehicle, but as soon as you give a vehicle top billing you get the same sort of cheesy shows that came out of the 70's and 80's like Knight Rider or Airwolf where you put up with the characters just to see a few glimpses of the vehicle. Is that what we want Trek to become?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I rather liked Airwolf.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Mariner Class said:


> This movie will effectively revise the "official timeline," and it's a made-up date to begin with. It actually has no bearing on the movie, which is a huge hang up for some people who want to "preserve" the original.
> 
> This is the problem that *ENT* ran into for some folks, because they forgot that the "official" timeline wasn't actually a bible, but more of a compendium of the histories from all of Trek. There was nothing _technically_ wrong with portraying Klingons meeting Earth in 2151 (other than it was scripted as if they had the staff of *New Voyages* at hand,) because the 2218 date given has _no_ basis in Trek, ever. The (pre-*ENT*) Encyclopedia said it was based on "Day of the Dove," but there is absolutely nothing there that could possibly correspond to that date.


There was a reference in an early draft script that was later cut.



> In fact, Picard's line in "First Contact" (episode) stated that it was "centuries ago," which makes a perfect case for 2151 in *ENT*.


Meeting the Klingons that early was more irksome than anything else. The main bones of contention were the ridged foreheads and that the Klingon homeworld was only four days away at less than Warp 5. :freak:



> The reason I bring this up is that the 2245 date isn't actually based on anything, _anywhere_. It _is_ a case of "dartboard chronology," because the only date or indication of a date for the 1701's commissioning is 40 years prior to the start of the series (with Kirk.) Although much of the information in the book was usurped by the series itself, information like the workings of the food dispensaries and the commissioning dates were never touched by the series. Furthermore, it's wrong for dartboard-chronology to usurp information that was obtained (with a possible margin of error) from a primary source (the production staff and writers themselves.)
> 
> You don't make-up dates for historical events because you can't determine whether something occurred in early fall or early spring, do you? And if you don't happen to "like" the information you have (as is often the case with official Trek publications,) you don't outright make sh1t up, do you?
> 
> Going with the *TMoST* info, rather than dartboard-chronology, would only help JJ, and I've explained this numerous times. Just because *ENT* began establishing things that made no sense doesn't mean that JJ is restricted from doing that if he wants to tell us a good story.


Keep in mind that *TMoST* notation was also "dartboard-chronology", and the exact reference was to ships of the Enterprise's class, not necessarily of the Enterprise herself.

I use that notation to justify the earlier registry and slight differences with the Constellation (older, but similar, class of starship).



> Besides, more iterations of the Grey Lady mean more model kits. Don't tell me you wouldn't jump at that.


No argument there.

Just don't wipe the original from the timeline in the process.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Captain April said:


> I rather liked Airwolf.


No offense!


----------



## Mariner Class (Aug 22, 2005)

Captain April said:


> There was a reference in an early draft script
> Keep in mind that *TMoST* notation was also "dartboard-chronology", and the exact reference was to ships of the Enterprise's class, not necessarily of the Enterprise herself.


The 1701 is most the second ship of the class, so it's safe to bet they considered it around 40 years old, if not exactly four decades, zero months, zero days and zero hour.

Also, even if it was a date taken out of the water, it was a date from the series creators, which is not the case for the 2245 date, made up by people who _did not_ work on that series, and who did not officially state so in later works. Thus, it's far more credible a figure than what we _do_ know as dartboard-chronology.



> Just don't wipe the original from the timeline in the process.


They extort too much our of her image to do _that_, at least now. They'd have to wait till I'm dead (and according to recent studies, I've got 72 more years. )


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The 2245 date was settled on while GR was still around and very much in the loop. It was at his insistence that Captain April is listed as the first captain of the Enterprise in the Chronology.

Also keep in mind that *TMoST* says that the main filming miniature is 14 feet long with a ten foot diameter saucer section.

Not a lot of in-depth fact checking on that one.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

JeffG said:


> I never said the ship was not important. I'm saying it's not the ONLY thing that's important about the show, any more than Star Wars was about the Millennium Falcon. Yes it was a key vehicle, but as soon as you give a vehicle top billing you get the same sort of cheesy shows that came out of the 70's and 80's like Knight Rider or Airwolf where you put up with the characters just to see a few glimpses of the vehicle. Is that what we want Trek to become?


At the beginning of the thread I made a point of _not_ getting into other aspects of the film. The whole point of this thread was to discuss the merits of MJ's design and whether it was still viable as is without major revisionism.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yes, it is.


----------



## Nighteagle2001 (Jan 11, 2001)

If you remember in ST:FC Zefram Cochrane got a good look at the E:E. There the timeline was polluted. So its doubtful that the ship would look the same as the TOS-E we all know and love. With that in mind I'll accept what ever they offer...Not saying I'll like it, but I'll accept it.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Point taken, Warped 9. But on that point, Adam West's Batmobile was by far my favorite, but it might not be best for a current adaptation. I feel the same about TOS Enterprise. It's my favorite of them all, but I'm prepared to accept changes in a current reboot version of the franchise. Times change. We all have our memories of TOS ship on TV in the living room while mom was making dinner and dad was in his comfy chair reading the paper while we were playing with our first badly built Enterprise model, but that shouldn't be reason enough for the for the filmmakers not to make what they feel are responsible changes. In fact, not having a degree in psychology, I'd say that's what most / some of us are really afraid of here; tarnishing the memory of what we grew up with. If they change the big E, so what. We still have models and memories of our favorite. We'll just have a new one now to get used to.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Nighteagle2001 said:


> If you remember in ST:FC Zefram Cochrane got a good look at the E:E. There the timeline was polluted. So its doubtful that the ship would look the same as the TOS-E we all know and love. With that in mind I'll accept what ever they offer...Not saying I'll like it, but I'll accept it.


Forgive me, but I consider ENT not of TOS' continuity so whatever was done in ENT doesn't mean squat to me.

Besides in the ENT series finale they show the original _E_ looking very much like the TOS version.


----------



## Nighteagle2001 (Jan 11, 2001)

Warped9 said:


> in the ENT series finale they show the original _E_ looking very much like the TOS version.


Good point. I only saw ENT finale once. And that was one time too many, 100 times worse than Spock's Brain. I like to pretend that that piece of garbage never happened


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> Besides in the ENT series finale they show the original _E_ looking very much like the TOS version.


Which doesn't mean squat to you.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Warped,
Didn't Zephram Cochrane see the E-E in "First Contact"?
that's got nuttin' to do with Enterprise.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

sbaxter said:


> Which doesn't mean squat to you.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


Exactly. The poster was saying that ENT showed the timeline screwed up. Then why show the TOS _E_ pretty much as it was in originally?

It merely nails down that ENT like Trek XI is a revisioning of TOS' continuity. I, for one, choose not to engage in mental contortions to rationalize something absurd with the original continuity where it doesn't belong.

The Trek XI _E_ is its own thing (and that's fine) and it has nothing to do with the TOS _E_ or else they'd have made a proper effort to adopt the ship's original appearance.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

JeffG said:


> Point taken, Warped 9. But on that point, Adam West's Batmobile was by far my favorite, but it might not be best for a current adaptation.


But if you did a Batman film set in 1966, then it would fit in just fine.

And if you did a Star Trek film set during Kirk's time....


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

John P said:


> But if you did a Batman film set in 1966, then it would fit in just fine.
> 
> And if you did a Star Trek film set during Kirk's time....


So if I were to do a film version of Shakespeare's MACBETH, I should hire a man to play Lady Macbeth, since that is how it was portrayed when the play was created, even though it was set in a different time period?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Women play "Peter Pan" today...


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Women play "Peter Pan" today...


Not in the movies, they don't. At least not since 1924.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> But if you did a Batman film set in 1966, then it would fit in just fine.
> 
> And if you did a Star Trek film set during Kirk's time....


PERFECT analogy, old friend! :thumbsup:


----------



## Mariner Class (Aug 22, 2005)

Captain April said:


> The 2245 date was settled on while GR was still around and very much in the loop. It was at his insistence that Captain April is listed as the first captain of the Enterprise in the Chronology.


Gene never _directly_ confirmed that date, so the only "certified" figure still comes from *TMoST*. Besides, that date _only_ exists in the the Chronology, so JJ is free to do whatever he wishes (though I would think it would aid his movie to use the original intention.)



> Also keep in mind that *TMoST* says that the main filming miniature is 14 feet long with a ten foot diameter saucer section.
> 
> Not a lot of in-depth fact checking on that one.


And the Chronology is better?


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

John P said:


> I don't think I've ever called CGI cartoony. Certainly not recently.





Lou Dalmaso said:


> My apologies John,
> 
> I remembered some discussions when the remastered episodes started airing and I thought it was you who had said that the CGI of the Enterprise was too cartoony.
> 
> It must have been someone else.


Probably me; I've often described CGI as being a cartoon (i.e., an animation created by someone) or (more accurately) looking like a video game, and I believe I used the video game reference in a discussion regarding the CGI effects of the remastered _Star Trek_ episodes.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

John P said:


> But if you did a Batman film set in 1966, then it would fit in just fine.
> 
> And if you did a Star Trek film set during Kirk's time....


Let me try to wrap my head around this. So lets say I made a remake of a slightly futuristic tale set in say 2010 which was originally made in '67. In the '67 version, their idea of futuristic cars had fins and looked like sharks and they had huge clunky wristwatch speaker phones. Now, is my updated version of this film going to use those same designs? Hmmmm. What should I do not to make it look like a parody of itself? Guess I'll have to change a few things.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

These shows you are wanting to remake...have they been around over 40 years? Are they considered iconic and setting the standard for an entire generation of fans of the genre it is set in? Can you name characters, places and a ship itself and have it immediately recognized worldwide? 

There is a definite difference remaking a show and bringing it up to date from the modern perspective and significantly changing a fundamental, iconic and legendary physical representation of the heart of the show, even though you are setting it in the same time frame already represented.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I give up.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

BEBruns said:


> So if I were to do a film version of Shakespeare's MACBETH, I should hire a man to play Lady Macbeth, since that is how it was portrayed when the play was created, even though it was set in a different time period?


How it was _performed _by _actors _in different times has nothing to do with it. It's the time period in which the _story _is set that's the point. You're really groping now.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

John P said:


> How it was _performed _by _actors _in different times has nothing to do with it. It's the time period in which the _story _is set that's the point. You're really groping now.


It all depends on what you think TOS was. Was it a Mockumentary about future events, or was it a dramatization of the future events. If the latter, then how it is executed will change from era to era. Do you complain when modern versions of Robin Hood don't look like the Errol Flynn version?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I complain if they're not as good as the Errol Flynn version.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Who here is offended by the MJ design? On the other hand, look at how many folks were offended by the NX-01.

WHY go to all the trouble of fundamentally changing it to look more like a ship that occurs later in the timeline? It makes no sense storywise and raises the threshold of willing suspension of disbelief.

Too many cooks spoil the broth. I think the original recipe by Matt Jefferies was perfect.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Who here is offended by the MJ design? On the other hand, look at how many folks were offended by the NX-01?
> 
> WHY go to all the trouble of fundamentally changing it to look more like a ship that occurs later in the timeline? It makes no sense storywise and raises the threshold of willing suspension of disbelief.
> 
> Too many cooks spoil the broth. I think the original recipe by Matt Jefferies was perfect.


Very nicely said, sir. :thumbsup:

In regards to the variations in the ship we saw throughout TOS, well we know what was going on and most fans have no problem getting their head around it.

Stock footage of the pilot versions of the ship were used throughout the series to save money. Otherwise we would have seen the series producttion version only during the series after WNMHGB.

Then we get the TMP refit where you pretty much have to squint (because of the change in production standards) and think, "Okay, it's a refit of the same ship if you say so. I'll accept it."

Now we get this thing that supposed to be set in the same Pike-Kirk era of TOS and it looks more TMP than TOS and it's sopposed to be the same thing? No deal. I'm not willing to do that sort of mental contortion.

Oh, and for those who aren't interested in this subject and are supposedly just concerned about getting a "good" movie, good luck to you and look for the subject somewhere else. Because HERE we are concerned with talking about the _Enterprise_ which happens to be a very significant element of _Star Trek._ That might not be significant to some folks who've come to accept Trek ships as just more disposable sci-fi hardware.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

My two cents:

In TOS, the Roddenberry & Co. did something with the ship that had not really been done before and that has only rarely been done since, they made the ship much more than simply a tool for transporting the characters, they made it a full-fedged "character" itself. This was very smart from a marketing POV because it made the "ship" as important to the storys, and thus as desireable to the fans, as the other "characters" in the show. The result was the creation of a strong demand for toys, models, plans and anything with an image of the ship on it. Of course this opportunity was very poorly handled by the folks at Paramount but that does not take away from its value in creating a market.

The exterior of the TOS Enterprise is indeed an "icon", worldwide. People claim that some sort of "updating" is necessary to appeal to todays audiences to which I say, based on what? Has the market for TOS Enterprise products dropped off? Do the other "characters" need this "updating" as well? Is Kirk now going to be a "party dude" who gets high on the weekends and street-dances to hip-hop? Perhaps Spock will now be a woman since, as we all have been taught by the last 20 years of TV, men are stupid and women have all the answers?

Yes, the exterior of the ship can be "updated" but the point really is, should it be? What is the over-arching reason indicating that it needs to be changed? So far, no one on this board has put forward a compelling reason to change it.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Yes, the exterior of the ship can be "updated" but the point really is, should it be? What is the over-arching reason indicating that it needs to be changed? So far, no one on this board has put forward a compelling reason to change it.


This is why I object to the choices in the poll. No, they don't "have to" change it. And they don't "have to" keep it the same. Those are two of many possible approaches to the design of the ship.

And frankly, all the "don't change a thing" arguments seem to come down to "I have a deep, personal connection to the original design and don't want anything changed." Well, that may mean something if you had a spare $150 million and were footing the entire budget. But as it is, do you know how much your point of view is worth? Take all you will be paying on movie tickets and DVDs for the new movie. Take out the theater's cut, the distributor's cut, marketing expenses, etc. The little that actually goes to paying for the movie would probably be less than the cost of a single lunch for a cast member.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

The boys were building Trek history "on the fly". Their apparent interest was that it seemed plausibe enough to not ruin the entertainment through outrageous inconsistencies.

I find it rather amusing that some folks cite this stuff as if they were quoting the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code or an ASHRAE ventilation standard. 

Huzz


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Actually, there is a plausibe reason to change the Enterprise for this film. Here it is.

If the movie sucks like a Hoover, then the image of the beloved original 1960's Enterprise will not be tarnished by being associated with the new film.

And if the new film does well, its Enterprise may become the beloved icon of a new generation. They'll fondly remember it while we boldly go where no front porch rocking chair has gone before.

Speaking of ventilation standards, what's wrong with a breath of freah air and new ideas? Nuttin!

Huzz


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Well Spoken Dave!

If I may, I think what's causing all of the hissy fits around here is the mistaken belief that Paramount's desire is to do to Star Trek what Lucas did to Star Wars. Namely to fully bury any incarnations that existed before the "Special Editions" were released. It's an extension of the "Greedo Shoots First" mentality.

The "pure Gospel Trek" still exists, you can wrap your self up in a warm comforter of nostalgia and watch those episodes and movies till the Andorian cows come home. Nobody is trying to say that those episodes don't "count". (in the way Lucas did.) 

Do you think they would spend so much time and money remastering the old episodes if that were the case?

but when it comes to "new Trek", this is what Paramount says they want their Star Trek to be. Yes, there are new actors "playing" the classic roles and you know what? there's a new design "playing" the enterprise. and just maybe the new versions of the classic characters will love and care for thier ship in a way that it too becomes a new character. 

I was watching the new Indiana Jones trailer today and was thinking that his "costume" (hat, whip, jacket) are as much a character as he is. and when the day comes that some future generation makes a new IJ film in 20 or 30 years, what will they do then? do they keep the exact same setup? or do they invoke the "tone" of his outfit using more modern clothing?

my two quatloos


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

BEBruns,

On this board MY opinion counts as much as yours, period. So don't run around here acting like YOU are somehow the final word on ANYTHING. I'm too polite to say what YOUR opinion is worth to me.

Have a nice day.

I apologize to those here who are simply trying to debate the issue, sometimes one must defend their right to have and express their opinion.


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

I was referring to the vaue of our opinions when it comes to the movie itself. My opinion is not worth any more than yours. My point is that I have ideas on what should be done with the movie, but I also realize that the powers that be have no obligation to please me. They do not have to justify their decisions to us fans. You think they shouldn't change anything. Apparently they think they should. Since they are making the movie, the burden of proof is on you. Why should absolute fidelity to the original designs be the default position?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

BEBruns said:


> the powers that be have no obligation to please me. They do not have to justify their decisions to us fans.


Believe it or not, the "powers that be" feel they do have an obligation to please _Trek_ fans. Whether they can pull off so Herculean a task remains to be seen (fat chance IMO), but certainly an effort is being made.


----------



## scifieric (May 9, 2005)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Yes, there are new actors "playing" the classic roles and you know what? there's a new design "playing" the enterprise


Hmmm. That's the first approach that might just make this palatable for me.

Thanks!


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

Keep in mind that this is NOT a NEW saga, NOR a new "version". It is yet another chapter in the same ongoing one; one that its “keepers” WANTed to align WITH the original. It is these Trek moguls that CHOSE to make the new stories a continuation of the original, NOT a reinvention thereof. So popular were the various “chapters" (well, most) that they wanted to create a prequel close in story time to the original (apparently THEY consider it the best), and ALSO aligned with that original. Unfortunately, like a poor marksman, they keep missing the target, as Kirk might say.

Mark


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Trek aside, I'm pretty damn sick of the whole prequel fad. I don't think any of them have been all that good.

I wish they'd stop. Maybe come up with NEW ideas.


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

Absolutely. There is soooo much they could do with just a decent story line. I don't even mind prequels, IF they are done right. But then I guess frogs also wish they had wings so they wouldn't bump their butts.

Mark


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Darth Humorous said:


> Keep in mind that this is NOT a NEW saga, NOR a new "version".
> 
> Mark


Sorry, but there you're wrong. This is indeed a new take on the original material and the movie will prove it with everything they change. The story elements we're hearing as well as thew few early visuals are well on their way to confirm it.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Sorry guys, I've said it before; I love the old Trek too, but I'm hoping they'll do for Star Trek what 'Casino Royale' did for Bond. And I'm a long time Bond fan.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I'm also a long time Bond fan and I think they did a superb job with _Casino Rpyale,_ but I have zero confidence in TPTB and who they do business with after YEARS of disappointment with what they've done to Trek.

The only trust I have in these clowns is that I thrust they'll screw the pooch royally.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Would you rather see B&B turn out another Star Trek abortion? Personally I'd much sooner put my faith in JJ Abrams. Actually, my first choice would be a whole new crew, ship and missions set in the Trek universe and geared specifically for the big screen AFTER all the events we've had so far. Trouble with that is there's no built in fan base. Having said that, the best we can do is cross our fingers and hope for the best when the new film comes out. The main thing I'm hoping for is that they can recapture the sense of adventure and 'discovery' that made the original series so popular, and that's been missing for a long time now.

One of my favorite episodes was "Where No Man Has Gone Before" In that episode you really got the sense that space was a vast place, mysterious and dangerous. I really liked Kirk's line when the warp drive was offline; "Starbases weeks away are now years in the distance." That line really nailed the whole exploration thing down for me. Later shows like Next Gen and Voyager became so populated with aliens and civilizations that spoke perfect Shakespearian english that exploration became no more adventurous than walking around the block. This, IMO is what they need to get away from. To me, it's not so much what the ship looks like, or the costumes or the equipment, sure those things are important, but not as important as the overall spirit.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Your own idea is more substantial and I agree. Start with a clean sheet.

No big fanbase? Who cares, and that really is irrelevant in the real world. Nothing has a built in fanbase until it's introduced and people get a look at it.

There was no built in fanbase for _Star Trek_ in '66 or any other fictional property until it was introduced and tapped into something folks with a given mindset liked.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

True, but you know how movie companies want to start out with an upper hand if they can.


----------



## Nighteagle2001 (Jan 11, 2001)

Warped9 said:


> I'm also a long time Bond fan and I think they did a superb job with _Casino Rpyale,_ but I have zero confidence in TPTB and who they do business with after YEARS of disappointment with what they've done to Trek.
> 
> The only trust I have in these clowns is that I thrust they'll screw the pooch royally.


Yeah, But TPTB that caused the dissapointment are now GONE  !!! Which is why I'm very opitimistic about the new Trek


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I've heard this "let's go farther into the future " wish before and I don't understand it from a strictly production standpoint. Stick with me, here...

in TOS you had a number of physical things you have to do. You had to push buttons, you had to go to actual places. You had to pull out your communicator to talk to someone.

in the nex gen universe (TNG, DS9,Voy) you had touch screens that you only had to tap, Badges to handle communication that most of the time seem to work on their own. Ships that you could communicate with by the dramatic move of tilting your head, Holodecks that took the place of needing to "go" anywhere...

If you extended technology another 50 years into the "future" I'm afraid you'd have a show where the main characters did nothing more than sat in a room and "thought" their adventures. 

Which is fine if you are making "Star Trek: the Talos IV adventure" starring the Keeper.

As much as the first 3 years of Enterprise were crappy, the last year got it right. Show the early years of the formation of the Federation, with relatable characters doing things that require heroic acts in understandable circumstances. There are plenty of untapped stories to be mined there


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I agree. Trek (particularly shows like Voyager and Next Gen) became nothing more than button pushing, holodeck adventure having, techno babble speaking boring shows. And don't even get me started on the whole holographic doctor thing-it was ridiculous! The tech was just getting too outrageous. They probably don't even take a crap anymore, they probably just beam it out! And maybe, just maybe that's what's behind this reboot. Having people actually get back to DOING things. You know, on that point it was actually refreshing to see them welding the damn ship together in the teaser rather than magically replicating panels out of thin air! Sometimes when things get too far off track, you just gotta hit the reset button.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

^The major problem with that approach, in my opinion, is that _all_ of the movies have used previously-established characters, and with good reason. This enables you to get more-or-less straight into the story. I think that if you want new characters in a movie, they need to be established in a series first, and right now, that's putting the cart before the horse. While I think many of us would be interested enough in the adventures of a new ship and crew (though we'd hear plenty of complaints, I suspect), I believe the general public would rather see characters they already know in a _Star Trek_ film. If that's the thinking at the studio, then you either have to gather the cast of one of the existing shows -- or recast. 

I think that, despite the concerns you indicate with the idea, you could certainly jump forward from the 24th century if you wanted without going too crazy with scientific advancements. Say the ships are faster (the _Enterprise_ has always been as fast or slow as the story required anyway) and the transporter has a little more range, and the shields are more powerful (as are the weapons, so it all evens out anyway). It could work, but I also have no problem with them going in the direction they've chosen.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ That really doesn't wash. How many movies can you recall where you knew next to nothing about it or the characters and then engoyed a truly engaging film.

It all comes down to skill in storytelling. Contemporary Trek became mind-numbing trash because they didn't know how to tell stories that were actually about something and genuinely interesting to watch. It all became rehash of overused cliches.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Well put!


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

I was watching "Requiem for Methusaleh"' (sp?) last night and something in that demonstrates why you need to "update" the designs. 

All film design, at least if it's any good, is about symbolic language. It is about communicating things simply and visually. For instance, on the Enterprise, everyone wears essentially the same clothes with minor variations. This tells us it is a military (or at least quasi-military) organization. On the bridge, one person sits on a throne-like chair in the center of the room. Obviously, he is in charge.

Now everyone has in their cabins these viewscreens. They have bulky backs like a standard CRT television. To the audience, they would be instantly recognized as mini-TVs. In "Methusaleh," Flint has a viewscreen that is simply a flat panel with no visible projection mechanism. This tells the audience that he is working with a higher level of technology. It also shows that the concept of a flat-panel screen wasn't beyond the imagination of the creators. Just that it wouldn't be as clear to the audience if they used them on the Enterprise.

Jump ahead 40 years and flat panel screens are commonplace. If you show a CRT based viewer it is going to look "dated" or "retro." Now, the symbology for advanced technology is images projected on a transparent screen (see MINORITY REPORT and CHILDREN OF MEN). And of course 30 years from now, when transparent screens are commonplace, we'll need to come up with another symbol.

As a friend of mine in college said, "The future has to be more up-to-date."


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> It all comes down to skill in storytelling.


My favourite TNG episode: _The Inner Light_.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

BEBruns,
Thew "viewscreen" on DS9 was the same. It was basically "not there" unless it was activated. 

I believe in Nemesis, they were trying to give the impression that the E's screen was 3-D and was a solid wall til it was in use.

but you make an excellent point. how do set designers and art directors show future tech in a way that is dramatically appealing?

making the ships go "faster" when the speeds have no relevance serves no point.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ That really doesn't wash. How many movies can you recall where you knew next to nothing about it or the characters and then engoyed a truly engaging film.


Yes, but we're talking about a _Star Trek_ film. Presuming we're talking about the same basic structure (a crew on a ship exploring the galaxy), it might seem strange to see things so familiar yet so different. I'm not saying it wouldn't work, nor even that it wouldn't be successful, just that I could understand how the studio might be reluctant to go that route.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

Warped9 said:


> Sorry, but there you're wrong. This is indeed a new take on the original material and the movie will prove it with everything they change. The story elements we're hearing as well as thew few early visuals are well on their way to confirm it.


I'm wrong? Apparently you haven't read my posts very well. Of course the movie will “prove it”. The Trek keepers absolutely HAVE included this movie as part and parcel of the original saga by their very actions, whether you agree or not, and as such they should strive to do a better job of integrating the movie to the original show. Now, we both know they won't do that, but then they have always demonstrated their slack in storytelling continuity because they are unwilling to go the extra mile.

Mark


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Sorry, but this film cannot be part-and-parcel of the original no matter what TPTB may claim. By diverging as they are in continuity and distinctly different visual presentation they are creating something different that cannot be reasonably reconciled.


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Sorry, but this film cannot be part-and-parcel of the original no matter what TPTB may claim. By diverging as they are in continuity and distinctly different visual presentation they are creating something different that cannot be reasonably reconciled.


Be sorry all you want, but it IS the Trek Moguls intent for their shows and movies to be included as part of a "continuing" story line, and NOT just because I say so. That very divergence is the reason for Trek's crumbling credibility. AND it is that divergence that makes ME sorry. It is why I stopped watching “Enterprise”, and most likely won't watch the forthcoming movie either.

I suspect we are saying the same thing, but we don't agree in our points of view of how we got there.

Mark


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Love those semantic arguments, doncha? Where you find out that you're both arguing the same point?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Wow! Have we forgotten that we're talking about people that ain't real on a ship that don't fly going to places that don't exist? Boy is this thing tumbling outta control now or what.


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

JeffG said:


> Wow! Have we forgotten that we're talking about people that ain't real on a ship that don't fly going to places that don't exist? Boy is this thing tumbling outta control now or what.


Nah. I haven't forgotten. I believe I even brought that up in my first post. Butcha know? this is a board where such things are discussed. No control lost. Just an example of the way banter can go when when different parties proceed from different set of rules, understandings, viewpoints, or semantics, as is often the case. At least that is what I see it as, unless there is a missing piece of info to make it a genuine argument that I am unaware of. But then I can only speak for me.

Mark


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

You are right, but in this 'what have you done for me lately' society that we live in now no movie has a life after it's release of seemingly more than a few weeks. No mattter how good this Trek film may be, two weeks down the road you won't hear any more about it till the DVD comes out. It just makes me wonder if the whole thing is worth getting THIS torqued up over. I guess the only rationale is that the average movie goer is only entertained for the length of a movie, while we sci-fi fans tend to go a bit deeper into all aspects of a movie.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

scotthm said:


> I'd prefer it to look, more or less, like it did in 1968.
> 
> But young people generally don't like things from their parents, or grandparents time, so I take it for granted that there will be changes. Who knows, in 100 years people may think the 1968 Enterprise looks more modern than the 2008 model does.
> 
> ---------------



Young people love the classic rock music of their parents and grandparents - Beatles, Stones, Floyd etc - and their parents' sci-fi ships remain perennial favourites too. There's no reason why a full-on CG TOS Enterprise should not get everyone's juices flowing. Personally, I'd find that a very interesting spectacle. It would make an arresting change from yet another predictable re-fit. I think it would have an amazing dream-like quality if they put the original design onscreen using some truly inspred CG. Lucas did it with his X-wings 20 years down the line, so why not here? And I'd agree that in 100 years the 1968 ship may well look more futuristic than later ST ships.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

PixelMagic said:


> I'm sorry people saying the TOS is cheesy upsets you. But that doesn't change the fact that it's true. But I feel it's cheesiness lends a lovable quality to it. Look at the Wikipedia article on Camp (i.e. campy, i.e. cheesy) and scroll down the television section. It lists shows that are considered to be campy by today's standards. Star Trek TOS is listed.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_(style)
> 
> Whether or not you view it as campy is immaterial, since most of the general public does.


Forget Wikipedia (a dubious source) and look in a dictionary. For something to be camp it must be _deliberately_ affected, vulgar, cheesy etc. Something that TOS was not. To some tastes, it may appear cheesy but camp it ain't. That Wiki-list of camp tv shows was a bit of unverified 'research'. The tone of ST was never that of the tv 'Batman' - the ultimate camp masterpiece.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Cheese is subjective. Opinion, not _"fact_."


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

Someone said above somewhere that it'd be absurd to do a Trek film now with the same so-called cheesy or outmoded sets, costumes etc. as the old show. Well, a lot of the 'cheese' arose from budgetary limitations. I think it could actually be a stimulating challenge to a contemporary production designer to somehow recreate the primary colour brightness of the old interior sets and costumes, yet do it so convincingly as to lose all sense of any 60s 'cheese'. Colour carries a massive emotional impact; if just the colours were put back, some vague sense of the original utopian vision may just struggle back to life.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Nah, nobody's interested in a challenge any more. They just wanna crank out another film that looks the same as the rest of the recent crop so moviegoers don't get frightened.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Bums in seats. And DVD sales. That's what it's all about.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Bums in seats . . .


Yeah, and I hate it when the go into the libraries, too. They stink and cuss and look at porn on the internet in front of adults and kids alike. If it's cold outside, I think they ought to look at finding a REAL shelter or quit the booze and drugs and meet their responsibilities like I have to. A lot of them probably need to be institutionalized, anyway.

I suppose bums crowd the theaters up there because it gets so cold, eh? Does one of them buy a ticket and sneak the other ones in? I can't imagine that they'd each pay for a ticket when they could use the same money to buy booze.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

I believe he was using the term "bums" as meaning backsides, derrieres, keisters, rumps, arses, and/or butts, not "bums" as in tramps, hobos, derelicts, or otherwise unkempt people. I suppose either definition could apply; I'm sure Paramount doesn't care who's in the seat as long as they're getting their cut of the ticket purchase.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Zombie_61 said:


> I believe he was using the term "bums" as meaning backsides, derrieres, keisters, rumps, arses, and/or butts, not "bums" as in tramps, hobos, derelicts, or otherwise unkempt people.




Sorry, couldn't resist. 



Zombie_61 said:


> I suppose either definition could apply; I'm sure Paramount doesn't care who's in the seat as long as they're getting their cut of the ticket purchase.


:lol:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

From the 1930s-'60s we basically had V2 like rocketships and saucers for space travel. Then we got the break out designs of _Star Trek_ even though Hollywood basically started giving us stuff that looked like expansions on what NASA was contemplating or at least speculating on. That went on until _Star Wars_ and its induastrial look mixed with unusual shapes.

And the SW's industrial look has been perpetuated ever since and even adopted by the Trek designs (to a degree.) Sometimes that look is appropriate as with the hardware in the _Alien_ films or the Earth Force ships of _Babylon 5._ But it's now become tiresome that every sf and sci-fi project is essentially a variation on the same theme.

I look back and long to see something that still looks distinctive and dares to break convention. Perhaps thats one of the reasons I still love the TOS _E._ Because it defied convention in its day and continues to do so. I can quibble about details of its interior sets, but I still think the exterior design looks fantastically futuristic.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I agree with you there
I've had it up to here (points to a very high point) with greeblies for the sake of greeblies (a la Aliens , Blade Runner, Star Wars etc...)

Take B5...While I never fell in love with the non-human ships' wild paint schemes, I did rather like the fact that the ships themselves had interesting shapes to them.

I prefer the look of our space shuttles... smooth from afar, but up close the details of the tiles become apparent.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> From the 1930s-'60s we basically had V2 like rocketships and saucers for space travel. Then we got the break out designs of _Star Trek_ even though Hollywood basically started giving us stuff that looked like expansions on what NASA was contemplating or at least speculating on. That went on until _Star Wars_ and its industrial look mixed with unusual shapes.
> 
> And the SW's industrial look has been perpetuated ever since and even adopted by the Trek designs (to a degree.) Sometimes that look is appropriate as with the hardware in the _Alien_ films or the Earth Force ships of _Babylon 5._ But it's now become tiresome that every sf and sci-fi project is essentially a variation on the same theme.
> 
> I look back and long to see something that still looks distinctive and dares to break convention. Perhaps thats one of the reasons I still love the TOS _E._ Because it defied convention in its day and continues to do so. I can quibble about details of its interior sets, but I still think the exterior design looks fantastically futuristic.


Well said, sir! :thumbsup:

Of course I say that because it reflects my thoughts exactly


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Well said, sir! :thumbsup:
> 
> Of course I say that because it reflects my thoughts exactly


Agreed. Well said !


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

"Alternate Timeline Enterprise"....come on man....

They are changing it. Its going to look the same to the non-fans who dont really pay attention and totally different to guys and gals like us.

Just accept it.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

They're supposed to be attracting long time fans, right?

So they have no excuse for radically changing the design.

After all, the ever-elusive "casual moviegoer" won't know the difference, so why make a point of pissing off the segment of the audience that *does* know the difference?


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

What gets me is they're changing the look, setting
it during the original series and telling us this is what
we have been looking at all along.


Does that make any sense? It is late at night, y'know...


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

The average movie goer will look at the TOS Design and think how boring it is. 

It's just the truth....it screams 1960's future tech.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

To you, perhaps. Not to me.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

When they rebooted Bond they made changes that had nothing to do with what came before it. "M" began as a woman, no "Q", no Moneypenny and it turned out fine. Why is it so blasted hard to accept any changes they'll do to a Trek reimagining? For those that can't accept it I'd just say pop in the years old, comfortable TOS DVD's and call it a day.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Captain April said:


> So they have no excuse for radically changing the design.


And they aren't, based on what we've seen. I mean, come on, folks; you may not _like_ that it has been changed, but it _has not_ been "radically" changed. I think anyone with at least a passing familiarity with the TOS design will instantly recognize the new ship as being the _Enterprise_, whether they notice it has been changed or not. That makes it patently not a radical redesign.

I still say that if you're going to recast all the roles, it makes sense to "recast" the ship (which many think of as a character as well). To me, I think seeing all the actors be different _except_ for the ship would be a little jarring. Based on what I've seen so far (granted, not all that much), I'd say this ship looks about as much like the TOS ship as Zachary Quinto looks like Leonard Nimoy.

What I _really_ cannot understand is why I'm wasting my metaphorical breath trying to sway the opinions of those who are bound and determined _not_ to be swayed, regardless of the reasoning. 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

newbie dooby said:


> Just accept it.


Is that an order?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

In essence they've dressed the_ Enterprise_ up like the greeblied special effects equivalent of a street walker: showing too much of those parts that shouldn't be seen and overly emphasizing those parts that were once elegant in their understatement and utilitarian smoothness. 

You may find her sexy and worthy of a one night stand in the theater but would you want your daughter to dress that way?

The _Enterprise_ has been whored out to the lowest common denominator. We've gone from Ingrid Bergman to Britney Spears. This is the trash version of a beloved icon inviting herself to be raped.


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

sbaxter said:


> What I _really_ cannot understand is why I'm wasting my metaphorical breath trying to sway the opinions of those who are bound and determined _not_ to be swayed, regardless of the reasoning.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


But that's what posting on these threads is all _about_!


----------



## gourounaki (Sep 30, 2007)

JeffG said:


> Why is it so blasted hard to accept any changes they'll do to a Trek reimagining?


Because along with nacelle fiddling the changes usually include increased boredom, increased tedium, increased mediocrity.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Regardless of how anyone's daughter dresses, I think you'll find that most fathers of those daughters would like to correct anyone's view that they are inviting unwanted overtures.....

Surely, no one here really believes that?

And I think that is a highly inappropriate analogy for this discussion.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

gourounaki said:


> Because along with nacelle fiddling the changes usually include increased boredom, increased tedium, increased mediocrity.


Let's just call a shoe a shoe now. Star Trek needs a makeover. The majority of the films were not good, and the few that were, still were not groundbreaking cinematic experiences that will go down in history as great films next to such titles as 'The Godfather' or even to some degree "Star Wars", so let's just be honest about it. They were awesome TO FANS. We should be willing to accept any reasonable changes to the SERIES that will make better films. And that goes way beyond what a bussard collector or a deflector dish looks like. This makes about as much sense as complaining how a redesigned thruster on the back of a Star Destroyer will ruin Star Wars.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Fan-boys will always find something to complain about, even in Star Wars. Did you know that among the 501st (a Star Wars costuming group that appears at charitable events to help raise funds) there is a significant group who feel the same way about the Revenge of the Sith Darth Vader costume?

There's justy no pleasing some people.

Huzz


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

JeffG said:


> Let's just call a shoe a shoe now. Star Trek needs a makeover. The majority of the films were not good, and the few that were, still were not groundbreaking cinematic experiences that will go down in history as great films next to such titles as 'The Godfather' or even to some degree "Star Wars", so let's just be honest about it. They were awesome TO FANS. We should be willing to accept any reasonable changes to the SERIES that will make better films. And that goes way beyond what a bussard collector or a deflector dish looks like. This makes about as much sense as complaining how a redesigned thruster on the back of a Star Destroyer will ruin Star Wars.


Blasphemer!!!!!! 


:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> Regardless of how anyone's daughter dresses, I think you'll find that most fathers of those daughters would like to correct anyone's view that they are inviting unwanted overtures.....
> 
> Surely, no one here really believes that?
> 
> And I think that is a highly inappropriate analogy for this discussion.


Don't assume I think that.

I left the concrete level of thinking when I was just a few years old and was (I thought obviously) engaging in hyperbole to describe my thoughts and feelings on the matter.

It was just for fun.  In fact, I was really intending to be a little bit ridiculous in my comparison--that's my style, after all. The benefit of a doubt would be highly  appropriate on your part.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Don't assume I think that.
> 
> I left the concrete level of thinking when I was just a few years old and was (I thought obviously) engaging in hyperbole to describe my thoughts and feelings on the matter.
> 
> It was just for fun.  In fact, I was really intending to be a little bit ridiculous in my comparison--that's my style, after all. The benefit of a doubt would be highly appropriate on your part.


Fair enough. We engineers tend to think in concrete terms, at least the civil engineers do anyway. Do me a favor though - when folks are talking face to face, its a lot easier to convey the tone of a comment with a facial expression; but that's lost in a post. Toss in the odd smiley every now and then to make it clear that you are being , , or .

Besides, I had a flash back to John P in that orion slave girl outfit and I guess I freaked!! :jest:

Huzz:wave:


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Huzz,
what was that old joke about "civil Engineers" ?
somebody asks "whats a Civil Engineer?" and the reply is
"that just means that if there's another war between the states, they get to drive the trains"



sorry,
Lou


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

sbaxter said:


> I still say that if you're going to recast all the roles, it makes sense to "recast" the ship (which many think of as a character as well). To me, I think seeing all the actors be different _except_ for the ship would be a little jarring.


Horse hockey.

When they did the Dukes of Hazzard movie, did they trot out a brand new Dodge? No, they put 'em in a 1969 Dodge Charger, with the exact same markings the General Lee had on the tv show.

Shouldn't be any different with the Enterprise.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Yeah, let's set the bar real high by making THAT comparison.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dave Hussey said:


> Fair enough. We engineers tend to think in concrete terms, at least the civil engineers do anyway. Do me a favor though - when folks are talking face to face, its a lot easier to convey the tone of a comment with a facial expression; but that's lost in a post. Toss in the odd smiley every now and then to make it clear that you are being , , or .
> 
> Besides, I had a flash back to John P in that orion slave girl outfit and I guess I freaked!! :jest:
> 
> Huzz:wave:


That's cool! I usually put in some smilies but was having so much fun crafting my words that I forgot.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> That's cool! I usually put in some smilies but was having so much fun crafting my words that I forgot.


Let's blow this soda pop stand. I've got a few of the guys invited over to my town for fish and chips, over on the Modeling Board. Why not come along too? My treat!

(One of these days one of you guys will show up in town and I'll have to pony-up for lunch! :hat

Cheers bud!

Huzz


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The only civil engineer is a dead engineer!


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Horse hockey.


To you perhaps. For me, it's my honest reaction.


Captain April said:


> When they did the Dukes of Hazzard movie, did they trot out a brand new Dodge? No, they put 'em in a 1969 Dodge Charger, with the exact same markings the General Lee had on the tv show.


Well, first, I don't think any healthy person takes _The Dukes of Hazzard_ that seriously. Second, if that show had _any_ star, it was arguably the car over the human actors. Third, if we're going to allow that argument, then the earlier argument about the Batmobile _not_ being the same as in the '60s TV show must also be allowed.

Seriously, don't use _The Dukes of Hazzard_ in this argument. I can't take it seriously.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

We accepted the new Enterprise in TMP, though the story behind the change was clear enough. But it was NOT THE ORIGINAL. It has become a fan favorite in the nearly 30 years since. There were plenty of people who were willing to be unhappy about it back then. This is no different. DON'T CHANGE MY CHILDHOOD, DON'T MESS WITH MY MEMORIES.

Captain Kirk said, "People can be very afraid of change."

IF there is a good explanation of why it must look different, an explanation that allows for it to grow into the shape that we all fondly remember, why not?

For a show that has always been about looking with hope to the future, letting go our preconceptions and prejudices of the present, this movie is stirring up a whole lot of negative resistance from those who don't want our Star Trek to be messed with in any way.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Roguepink said:


> We accepted the new Enterprise in TMP, though the story behind the change was clear enough. But it was NOT THE ORIGINAL. It has become a fan favorite in the nearly 30 years since. There were plenty of people who were willing to be unhappy about it back then. This is no different.


Actually, it _is_ different. _ST: TMP_ was set in an era after that of the original series, and era we had not seen before. This film is set in an era _before_ the original series, an era that already has an established look associated with it (seen in _The Cage_/_The Menagerie_).



Roguepink said:


> IF there is a good explanation of why it must look different, an explanation that allows for it to grow into the shape that we all fondly remember, why not?


If there is an explanation, that's one thing. But the changes being made appear to be purely for the sake of drawing in new (i.e., younger) fans. Let's face it, the only people who are really interested in _Star Trek_ these days are those of us who are already fans, and Paramount and those associated with the production of this film run the risk of alienating (no pun intended) their already fractured fanbase by making too many changes; change for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

This debate keeps getting reset! Please try to understand what they are doing; they are NOT trying to make Star Trek exactly as we knew it. If they wanted to, they certainly could, but from a production design standpoint they would have an instant comedy classic. No current audience would find most of the old designs believable and with the exception of a few die hard fans, would probably fall into the aisles laughing. This is a modern retelling or re-envisioning of the television series. It is not their intention to have the same look as the 1960's version. Not the same hallways, not the same uniforms, not the same controls but trust me-the shape of the ship will be instantly recognizable although with some changes. This is not a home made fan film where they refuse to let go and insist on having everything the way it was, this is a new version of Star Trek BASED on established characters and settings. I really don't know how much clearer I can make this.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

John P said:


> The only civil engineer is a dead engineer!


No fish and chips for you! 

Huzz


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Zombie_61 said:


> If there is an explanation, that's one thing. But the changes being made appear to be purely for the sake of drawing in new (i.e., younger) fans.


And as you have not seen the script, nor anything more than a mostly shadowed teaser containing no story elements or plot suggestions, I think your argument is based on an emotional first sight reaction rather than any reference to factual history or other presentable / defensible evidence.

HOWEVER, it is worth noting that, as a movie "teaser" is intended to generate an emotional reaction without giving anything relevant away, your reaction is one which needs to be seriously addressed by Paramount. HAD they shown us the classic Constitution class starship as we all know it, the fan reaction would be significantly more positive than such as this current lengthy debate.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Thats funny! The TOS designs would get a laugh, not like the "serious" designs we see today! Oh that's good!

LOLOLOL!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Truth hurts don't it.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

SPOILER ALERT (NOT!!)

I've heard through a very unreliable source, that the Enterprise will crash on an asteroid in the first ten minutes of the show. In classic _Flight of the Pheonix_ style, it will be re-built using bits of the saucer section and emerge as the movie Jupiter II.

Everybody happy now? 

Huzz


----------



## 1711rob (Mar 15, 2006)

Can we reserve space on this forum NOW for when the movie IS released for 2 topics... #1 "I saw the move and LOVED IT and here's why" and # 2 "I saw the movie and HATED IT and here's why" After we see the movie lets compare notes and see whose ideas came close to matching what we saw on film. :jest:


----------



## Roguepink (Sep 18, 2003)

Any ideas what THIS is???


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Thats funny! The TOS designs would get a laugh, not like the "serious" designs we see today! Oh that's good!
> 
> LOLOLOL!


I agree that such a perspective is a narrow view. Many things that predate "contemporary" times can still inspire and be respected.

There is a quite understandable tendency for many people to view the future almost solely through their own contemporary perspective. And it can be quite challenging to step out of your perspective and conventions and see something in a different way.

That is what made MJ's original design so compelling, because at Roddenberry's direction MJ set out to design something that broke then contemporary conceptions of what the future could look like. No, it wasn't perfect and elements of '60s perspective still manifested themselves, partly unconciously and partly out of budgetary and resources constrainsts. But MJ applied elements of aerodynamic sleekness to the exotic shapes of a futuristic starship to convey the idea of truly advanced science and technology that could (to some extent) meld function with desired form. This flew in the face of what was already understood that an interstellar spacecraft has no need whatsoever of streamlining (unless it is travelling at 90% of light or better, but thats another subject). MJ certainly never intended the ship to look the least bit industrial to the point that he even balked at having gridlines penciled onto the filming model.

The current approach to Trek ship design has long been to emulate the _Star Wars_ practice of making the ships definitively more mechanical looking rather than exotically advanced. Current Trek hardware designers are applying something of the idea of naval ships (from the hull upwards) and perhaps the tileing on the space shuttle and the utilitarian look of the international space station to the shape of a starship. They want the designs to look more like military hardware rather than truly advanced technology. From my perspective this makes the ships look _less_ advanced rather than more.

I think if MJ were designing the _E_ today with the same mindset he had originally he'd be more inspired by the shapes of current fighter aircraft and the forthcoming airbus and dreamliner jetliners than the ISS.

The TMP refit added a thin veneer of the industrial to the original concepts without losing the exotic aspects of MJ concept. Sadly from TWoK onward they began to turn their back on the original concepts.There was something of a resurgence with the design of the TNG _E,_ but they then reversed approach again during the series and perpetuated the industrial look throughout DS9, VOY and ENT.

It looks as if the Trek XI ship (and pretty much everything else) is deliberately meant to be more visually consistent with the established look of contemprary Trek rather than an homage to the original idea. And to be fair they pretty much might have had to do that to be consistent with the look of the rest of the production.

The more I think about it the more I'm convinced that the original design approach wouldn't work _if_ the rest of the film were inconsistent with what made TOS so special.

The TOS _E_ became more than just a peice of sci-fi hardware. It became almost a character unto itself and was a dynamic visual representation of the series as a whole. If this film comes out as hackneyed as I suspect (IMO) then it would be a disservice to have included the original design--it would have been woefully out of place (and ironically the best part of the film).

Trek XI is a contemporary reimagining of TOS, but right off I see signs that it doesn't have anywhere near the ambition and creative vision of TOS.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Roguepink said:


> Any ideas what THIS is???


Looks like a TOS Conny with pre-Refit elements here and there to me.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Warped9, that is a very considered opinion on what the "new-but-old" TOS E for the new movie could be... also very good observations about designs of SF craft since TOS Trek.


----------

