# New ENTERPRISE details confirmed.



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

Folks,

I just returned from the Star Trek event on the Paramount Lot. J.J. Abrams was there along with Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Bruce Greenwood and John Cho.

Before the four scenes they previewed, they had plasma screens in the lobby displaying production art, which was very, very interesting.

Some of the production art included a redesigned D7 Battlecruiser, which was the Klingon version of the new Enterprise. There was an Enterprise Medical Evacuation shuttle, another bridge very different from the one we've scene, manned by what looked like a Starfleet crew in all-blue versions of uniforms from the Pasteur from "All Good Things." But as everyone appeared bald, this may have been a Romulan ship.

Nero's massive starship looks very organic in nature, like a massive seedpod with huge tendrils extending to the back of the ship. It reminded me of a much larger version of a ship which escapes me now...

Now, on to what's really important...

The scope of the film is huge, far beyond any other Trek feature and Canon is out the window. 

The film is about the MAIDEN VOYAGE of the ENTERPRISE. Yes, the words MAIDEN VOYAGE were used in the material shown. The ENTIRE cast of original series characters is on the ship during this voyage, all under the command of Christopher Pike (ALL of the cast are very good, with Greenwood being a standout). Kirk is snuck on by McCoy.

The Enterprise was indeed built in Iowa.

The ship is far, far larger than the Enterprise we know and love. THOUSANDS of feet long. The hanger deck is HUGE, with what seemed to be around 20 shuttles ready for action. We saw one leave the hanger bay, which is almost the same configuration we know and love, except far, far larger.

The Engineering Section was, for me, the most disappointing. The set was built on an existing locale and looks like the interior of some industrial chemical manufacturing plant, complete with large containers and a latticework of steam pipes. The most un-Trek of everything we've seen.

Sickbay is again HUGE, with many, many diagnostic beds.

The bridge also seems far larger this time around, with many more personnel manning more consoles.

Judging by what we've seen, this is a new Trek universe, seemingly caused by Nero's incursion into the timeline, because everything seems very different.

That said, I did enjoy what I saw. But it's clearly influenced by everything from Aliens and Starship Troopers to Star Wars. It's a very, very different feeling for a Trek movie.


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

I knew I read somewhere that the new Enterprise was huge. I'm really looking forward to this movie.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

So much for a 1/350th kit! It does look a tad bigger in the construction scenes 'cause you can see someone walking on the scaffolding. You certainly wouldn't wanna fall off of it. You go breaky, breaky! But it can't be that much bigger. Or can it?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

The more I hear the less I like it...

Yep, it sure looks pretty. But its not Star Trek. Nothing could be more _UN_ Trek than what I've seen so far. 

I for one am really saddened that this is turning out exactly as I expected. We're not getting the brilliant return of the old series we love. 

We're witnessing the execution of it.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

"We're witnessing the execution of it"??

Nova, I have tremendous amount of respect for your work, but let's try to keep some perspective here. All we know about this movie really adds up to a few facts:

- Who is in the cast
- Who is in the production crew
- The trailer
- A few released stills from the movie
- A couple of people have seen four scenes from the movie and reported their content. We'll assume the they are trusted sources and treat their comments as facts, but strictly speaking what they are saying could be classified as rumor.

Why? Because until we see it with our own eyes we're relying on surrogates.

That's it. We have nothing else on the finished product to rely on.

Meanwhile, every opinion as to the _quality_ of the movie is based on speculation and rumor. We've read some movie guy's review, a couple of opinion pieces from some fanboys (like Kevin Smith) and a couple of conjectural drawings as to the size of the Enterprise and its views from other angles. The body of evidence to base the death and destruction of a beloved franchise is so thin no prosecutor would dare to take on the case. 

You're entitled to your opinion. But, wouldn't you want your opinion to be based on more concrete evidence?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Guys, the previously posted image should tell you *a lot* about the Enterprise's scale, which is essentially the same as the vessel depicted in ST:TMP.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

See, that's what I was going by, Rob. The windows and other details - such as those few views we get during her construction - look to be pretty much the same size as the TOS/TMP Enterprise - i.e. _roughly_ 1,000ft/300m long. Unless the windows, phaser emitters and the like are all two times what you'd expect, the ship should be about the same size. I guess the windows could be full floor to ceiling or something, but that doesn't really make sense to me....


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Nova Designs said:


> The more I hear the less I like it...
> 
> Yep, it sure looks pretty. But its not Star Trek. Nothing could be more _UN_ Trek than what I've seen so far.
> 
> ...


You saw the miserable abortion that was 'Nemesis' and can now complain about something you haven't even seen yet? Amazing.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Notice the lower windows on the secondary hull, how small they appear? It could be a tad bigger than the refit. In the trailer when she goes into warp, in a few frames where it's not blurry, the saucer does-at least to me-appear to be a bit wider than the refit's in relation to the rest of the ship.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

RMBurnett said:


> The Engineering Section was, for me, the most disappointing. The set was built on an existing locale and looks like the interior of some industrial chemical manufacturing plant, complete with large containers and a latticework of steam pipes. The most un-Trek of everything we've seen.


Forgive me Robert, but I believe you may be mistaking Engineering for another location, i.e. the Federation outpost where Kirk and Spock first meet... another member of the crew (the interiors of which were filmed at a brewery). 



RMBurnett said:


> Judging by what we've seen, this is a new Trek universe, seemingly caused by Nero's incursion into the timeline, because everything seems very different.


I agree it's different, but Nero does nothing to effect the technological timeline prior to the Enterprise's first voyage. In other words, design-related continuity issues between the TOS starship and the re-design can not be attributed to XI's time travel plot.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

So canon is out the door and this is what was rumored from the beginning....a 100% reboot of ST. 50% will hate it and 50% will love it. I'm afraid the purists will kill themselves though. The word abomination has already been tossed around. I shall *try* and keep an open mind.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

El Gato said:


> ...until we see it with our own eyes we're relying on surrogates.
> 
> That's it. We have nothing else on the finished product to rely on.
> 
> ...


Your comments reminded me of the outcry that was brought about when Martin Scorsese's _The Last Temptation of Christ_ hit theaters in 1988. Religious groups were protesting the film based on what they'd _heard_ rather than seeing the film and deciding for themselves.

On the night I saw that film I was accompanied by a friend who is a "born again" Christian. Though he was repeatedly advised not to see the film, his opinion was, "If I'm going to protest something, I want to know exactly what it is I'm protesting." When he expressed this opinion to the small band of protesters outside the theater, a few of them decided he was right and joined us. After the screening, they told their friends, "Don't protest the film because it's anti-religion; protest it because it's not a very good film." 

I've come to realize _Star Trek XI_ is _truly_ the Next Generation--a film for a generation of moviegoers that hadn't been born yet when the Star Trek we older fans know was becoming the phenomenon it has become. Whether we older fans will embrace or reject it remains to be seen, but it simply won't be "our" Star Trek.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Zombie_61 said:


> Your comments reminded me of the outcry that was brought about when Martin Scorsese's _The Last Temptation of Christ_ hit theaters in 1988. Religious groups were protesting the film based on what they'd _heard_ rather than seeing the film and deciding for themselves.


Yeah, the similarities are striking. Next thing you know some FANdamentalist zealot will hire a helicopter to buzz JJ's house.



Antimatter said:


> So canon is out the door...


From a stylistic standpoint "canon" was out the door beginning with ST:TMP. 

I'm sorry, but there's no way I buy the Enterprise seen in the first Trek movie as a "refit" of the vessel depicted in TOS. They're two different ships, a fact not lost on TOS fans back in `79. Most of us came to accept the refit over time, and a few have even developed a fondness for ST:TMP, despite the fact that it's a dull, ponderous, derivative, self-serious bore, made by people who apparently didn't have a clue how to translate the magic of TOS to the big screen (bag on JJ all you want, but when it comes to screwing up Gene Roddenberry's universe no one can hold a candle to Gene Roddenberry).

Funny thing is, as hard as I find it to buy the Refit as a latter incarnation of the same vessel seen in TOS, I have no trouble buying the Refit as a latter incarnation of the ship seen in Trek XI.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Funny thing is, as hard as I find it to buy the Refit as a latter incarnation of the same vessel seen in TOS, I have no trouble buying the Refit as a latter incarnation of the ship seen in Trek XI.


I'm guessing that's exactly what Abrams and Paramount were hoping for with the design of the Enterprise for _Star Trek XI_.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Zombie_61 said:


> I've come to realize _Star Trek XI_ is _truly_ the Next Generation--a film for a generation of moviegoers that hadn't been born yet when the Star Trek we older fans know was becoming the phenomenon it has become. Whether we older fans will embrace or reject it remains to be seen, but it simply won't be "our" Star Trek.


That's about it. This simply isn't "my" Star Trek. It's a new take on it. It really is a reboot. Some will like it, some won't. If I go into it (or rather, rent it) hoping for an updated version of old Trek, I guess I'll be disappointed. 

To be honest, what kind of depresses me about the whole thing is that enough time has passed for this to happen. Forty years! Sure, I came to like Trek in the seventies, but still! Like it or not, I, like the characters I came to enjoy so much, am getting older. The actors, the stories, the ship, are all being replaced with new actors, stories and a new ship. I suppose on some level, I know that I'm not that far behind them....


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Dr. Brad said:


> To be honest, what kind of depresses me about the whole thing is that enough time has passed for this to happen. Forty years! Sure, I came to like Trek in the seventies, but still! Like it or not, I, like the characters I came to enjoy so much, am getting older. The actors, the stories, the ship, are all being replaced with new actors, stories and a new ship. I suppose on some level, I know that I'm not that far behind them....


Ahh, awareness of one's mortality. I find it refreshing--it forces me to get up off my lazy backside and get things done while I still can.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Zombie_61 said:


> Ahh, awareness of one's mortality. I find it refreshing--it forces me to get up off my lazy backside and get things done while I still can.


That's why I'm selling off so many of my unbuilt kits. I know I'll never build them.  And that's why I've started taking a martial arts class. I want to do it while I still can...


----------



## dreamer 2.0 (May 11, 2007)

J.J. Abrams is no Rick Berman. That's all I gotta know. And I'm not even a huge fan of Abrams. I expect I'll enjoy it.


----------



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

*Brewery....*

Rob,

Unfortunately, the scenes shot in the Brewery ARE INDEED supposed to be the Engineering section...or some other section of ship. Complete with HUGE stainless steel containers and...steam coming out of the pipes. Yes, the guts of the ship are filled with steam emitting pipes (!). Pike, Kirk and Sulu pass through this section of the ship on their way to the shuttle bay before they leave to disable the Romulan drilling device above Vulcan. This was part of the last scene shown today. The scale of all of this is much, much larger than the refit shown in TMP. 

The ice planet scene may have been a redress...but part of the Enterprise's engineering section is very clearly...a brewery.

Every set on the ship is at least TWICE as large as anything we've seen before. Nothing in terms of production design seems remotely "real." It's all very "sci fi." The buildings in the distance seen when Kirk is riding his motorcycle would have to be MILES high, with TENS OF THOUSANDS of people in them. Why such structures even exist in Iowa makes no sense at all considering there's so much open space around them. It would make sense in a metropolis, when you can only build up, but with such open space it makes very little sense. Sure, it's cool, and harks back to what we'd expect to see in Blade Runner...or Akira...but for the Trek universe...it has no bearing on a realistic future.

Something else I really had a problem with...Abrams made it a point at the screening today to mention a "red shirt" meets a very unpleasant demise in this scene. Unfortunately, the red shirt in question is actually one of the chief Engineers on the ship, NOT a security officer. I had a real problem with this, because as every fan knows, the red shirts in question are security officers usually protecting the senior staff, not actually the senior staff themselves. To me, this was extremely telling of the whole approach to the film. It would be like killing Scotty because he, too, wears the red of Support Services.

"Red Shirts" really means "Security." However, in this new version of Trek, ANYONE wearing red can die. To me, this illustrates a real disconnect in terms of understanding where these things originally came from.

Another such problem comes with Chekov's accent. There's a joke made in the film about his inability to pronounce his "Vs," as if the CHARACTER of Chekov must always have the ridiculous accent Koenig had instead of simply being a Russian. It's like the filmmakers felt the need to acknowledge a bad accent as being part of the character, which also makes little sense, considering they actually cast a REAL RUSSIAN to play the new version of the character.

Finally, something I really, really, REALLY hated was this...Pike puts Spock in temporary command of the ship when he leaves to destoy the Romulan drilling platform. However, as soon as the Romulans are successful in what they are doing, Spock LEAVES the bridge to go rescue the Vulcan High Council...and his parents...WHILE STILL IN COMMAND. Spock would NEVER, EVER do this. He'd NEVER have such an emotional and personal reaction when the safety of the Enterprise was at stake. It was absurd.

The twenty minutes of footage was filled with stuff like this, which really grates. It's much more like Starship Troopers or Aliens than Star Trek.

However, the film's scope is so much larger than anything seen previously before in Trek it's very intoxicating while watching it. The visual effects, especially in the orbital free fall sequence, are absolutely jaw-dropping. I daresay some of the best vfx ever completed for a science fiction film and certainly the best in any Trek film. 

Only afterwards will we all shake our heads because of just how out of character everything is. But, I whole-heartedly think everyone who reads this board should go see the film. It will be a massive sci-fi epic, and I'm sure hugely entertaining. But make no mistake, it IS a reboot, masquarading as a prequel.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> The more I hear the less I like it...
> 
> Yep, it sure looks pretty. But its not Star Trek. Nothing could be more _UN_ Trek than what I've seen so far.
> 
> ...


I agree with pretty much everything you've said.

But the "execution" of it? No. TOS still exists, not only in the DVD sets but in the hearts of all those who love it as is.

This film is just an interpretation. Unless we're grossly mistaken it will be something of a misguided bastardization of TOS just as the Paul Verhoven version of _Starship Troopers_ was a bastardization of the wonderful Heinlien novel.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Carson Dyle said:


> Guys, the previously posted image should tell you *a lot* about the Enterprise's scale, which is essentially the same as the vessel depicted in ST:TMP.


Hi Carson,

Then you'd say the saucer is the same diameter as in TMP 1701-A ship?


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

RMBurnett

As someone who’s was allowed to be at the screening: Did JJ allow any criticism? 
Where you allowed to tell him things like you said about the RedShirt or Spock ?

I mean JJ is roaming countries to show his 20 minutes but so far I have NEVER read that some kind of dialogue went on AFTER the screening. All I read is that JJ left pretty fast when he was done. 

Also none of the new material was ever shown at a convention. Like Spielberg did with Indiana Jones 4 at ComicCon. To me this looks like he is AVOIDING the Fans to not get criticism for all the things they changed with this movie.

Don’t get me wrong. I support this movie since I have accepted that it’s kind of a parallel universe where things developed similar yet not identical. But open criticism should also be acknowledged by the ppl who are responsible for this new version. Stomping over everyone’s body to get their own vision through can be damaging for the project in the long run! Once mouth to mouth word starts from the Fans and has a bad taste to it … it will be too late.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

*Well said.*



Warped9 said:


> I agree with pretty much everything you've said.
> 
> But the "execution" of it? No. TOS still exists, not only in the DVD sets but in the hearts of all those who love it as is.
> 
> This film is just an interpretation. Unless we're grossly mistaken it will be something of a misguided bastardization of TOS just as the Paul Verhoven version of _Starship Troopers_ was a bastardization of the wonderful Heinlien novel.


Good points.

As a huge fan of Heinlein's book Starship Troopers, the original BSG and Star Trek, the only consolation is that I'm out of things I like to be re-imagined!

Maybe Chevrolet will re-imagine the Corvette as an econo-box.

Edge


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

The new Mustang, Charger, Challenger, and Camaro are nice re-imagined versions. Only the Charger doesn't look much like the original version.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

But if somone used the new Mustang, Charger, Challenger, and Camaro in a movie set in 1968, everybody would think it was a stupid idea.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> The more I hear the less I like it...


We get it.



> We're not getting the brilliant return of the old series we love.


And no one ever said we were. Just like we never got the return of TOS in TMP!! 



> We're witnessing the execution of it.


Or very possibly the re-birth of Trek.

For crying out loud, no one can take our beloved TOS away from us.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

John P said:


> But if somone used the new Mustang, Charger, Challenger, and Camaro in a movie set in 1968, everybody would think it was a stupid idea.


You keep pushing this theory. It does not work! Trek is not REAL history.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

*


Raist3001 said:



Trek is not REAL history.

Click to expand...

Bwaaaah!* 

You unfeeling curr! How dare you! Next you'll say there's no Santa.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

John P said:


> But if somone used the new Mustang, Charger, Challenger, and Camaro in a movie set in 1968, everybody would think it was a stupid idea.


Just for clarity *I* wasn't referring to the Corvette in the movie. I was only talking about re-imagining the classic car (as it is one of the few things I like that hasn't been re-imagined).

Come to think of it, I'm also a victim of New Coke! <sigh>. Maybe we'll have to start referring to TOS as Star Trek Classic.

Edge


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> *
> Bwaaaah!*
> 
> You unfeeling curr! How dare you! Next you'll say there's no Santa.


LOL....

Trek is fiction....Santa is REAL


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Alright, before this gets back towards the near-flaming that we've seen in some other threads related to this subject, let's all please take a deep breath and say "It's only a fictional show", regardless it's origins. I understand the passion behind the posts on both sides of the argument - really I do! - but let's use that passion in more constructive fashion. 

Thank you kindly.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

John P said:


> But if somone used the new Mustang, Charger, Challenger, and Camaro in a movie set in 1968, everybody would think it was a stupid idea.


My producer and I had this exact conversation only yesterday concerning the new film.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

RMBurnett said:


> Finally, something I really, really, REALLY hated was this...Pike puts Spock in temporary command of the ship when he leaves to destoy the Romulan drilling platform. However, as soon as the Romulans are successful in what they are doing, Spock LEAVES the bridge to go rescue the Vulcan High Council...and his parents...WHILE STILL IN COMMAND. Spock would NEVER, EVER do this.


C 'mon Robert, you've seen The Menagerie. Properly motivated (as he most certainly is in this instance), Spock is perfectly capable of violating orders, acting on his emotions, and placing the Enterprise in harm's way. Especially a younger Spock, one still very much wrestling with his human side.

As for the scale issues, this appears to be one of those Rashomon situations in which two different people witness the same events from a different perspective, drawing differing conclusions in the process. Granted the sets have been designed with the intention of pushing big screen scope to the max, but based on the footage and photography _I've_ seen it has not been my impression that the re-design is a vastly larger starship than the vessel depicted in TMP. Of course, I've been wrong before, and based on your report I'll see if I can't dig up more conclusive proof one way or the other.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

From what I've seen, the ship doesn't look that much bigger than the refit on the outside and I highly doubt that J.J. Abrams and his designers are graduates from the Irwin Allen Academy Of Unrealistically Huge Interiors. I guess we'll have to wait and see though.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> From a stylistic standpoint "canon" was out the door beginning with ST:TMP.
> 
> I'm sorry, but there's no way I buy the Enterprise seen in the first Trek movie as a "refit" of the vessel depicted in TOS. They're two different ships, a fact not lost on TOS fans back in `79. Most of us came to accept the refit over time, and a few have even developed a fondness for ST:TMP, despite the fact that it's a dull, ponderous, derivative, self-serious bore, made by people who apparently didn't have a clue how to translate the magic of TOS to the big screen (bag on JJ all you want, but when it comes to screwing up Gene Roddenberry's universe no one can hold a candle to Gene Roddenberry).
> 
> Funny thing is, as hard as I find it to buy the Refit as a latter incarnation of the same vessel seen in TOS, I have no trouble buying the Refit as a latter incarnation of the ship seen in Trek XI.


I agree completely, it's really interesting to me how some Trek fans have completely reinterpreted history about St:TMP. Most of the same _exact_ complaints being leveled at JJ Abrams Trek were also thrown at ST:TMP before it came out, based on rumors, a trailer, and some publicity photos.

Much the same way that a lot of the most rabid members of what I semi-affectionately refer to as of Right Wing Star Trek Sewing Circle seem to forget Gene Roddenberry was a left-leaning dope-smoking hippie who believed in things like peace, free love, and gay marriage.


----------



## Antimatter (Feb 16, 2008)

Carson Dyle said:


> C 'mon Robert, you've seen The Menagerie. Properly motivated (as Spock most certainly is in this instance), he is perfectly capable of acting on his emotions and placing the Enterprise in harm's way. Especially a younger Spock, one still very much wrestling with his human side.
> 
> As for the scale issues, this appears to be one of those Rashomon situations in which two different people witness the same events from a different perspective, drawing differing conclusions in the process. Granted the sets have been designed with the intention of pushing big screen scope to the max, but based on the footage and photography _I've_ seen it has not been my impression that the re-design is a vastly larger starship than the vessel depicted in TMP. Of course, I've been wrong before, and based on your report I'll see if I can't dig up more conclusive proof one way or the other.


Stop making sense, Carson. You're spoiling my bad mood for this movie.


----------



## Bradleyfett (Jan 22, 2003)

So lemmee guess- by the end of the film, the Enterprise for some story-driven reason ends up looking much closer to the ship from TOS. Maybe the TOS Enterprise is lurking inside those fancy swooping body-panels. Try (mentally) removing the cowling around the deflector dish of the XI E and image that what is left is the TOS-style 'radar dish' structure and you'll get an idea of what I mean. Perhaps the Romulans have a way to hack/damage all that uber-futuristic Federation technology and everyone has to return to old-fashioned hard-wired transtator hardware. Segway to the TOS tech...

Just a thought...

Mark


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

We all know how tight the TOS Enterprise is when it comes to fitting everything inside. Take the shuttlebay for example. Also, we have to "sink" the bridge down so that we can justify the offset turbolift! 
I would think they would take this as a grand opportunity to get the size of the ship right. Wouldn't you?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Bradleyfett said:


> So lemmee guess- by the end of the film, the Enterprise for some story-driven reason ends up looking much closer to the ship from TOS. Maybe the TOS Enterprise is lurking inside those fancy swooping body-panels. Try (mentally) removing the cowling around the deflector dish of the XI E and image that what is left is the TOS-style 'radar dish' structure and you'll get an idea of what I mean. Perhaps the Romulans have a way to hack/damage all that uber-futuristic Federation technology and everyone has to return to old-fashioned hard-wired transtator hardware. Segway to the TOS tech...
> 
> Just a thought...
> 
> Mark


Careful now. You're gonna look outside at night and see a mob of angry, torch carrying folks coming up to your house!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I finally saw the trailer on YouTube last night, and it sucks worst now to me. Star Trek is now really dead. 
When I went to see The Lord of the Rings-The Fellowship of the Ring, three time I got so angry over the changes during the movie, I almost left the theater. I will save myself the pain, and just not go.
If the movie was like STNG, new crew, and new ship, no problem. But this is a Rick Berman clone of Enterprise, trying to force feed us their idea of what ST should have/will be. In the process, they cause us die-hard fans to choke to death.
At least I have the TOS DVDs.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I still say the Corvette is a metaphor for the old vs new TOS Star Trek.

Also, I agree with Carson about TMP ship cannot be believed to be refitted from the TOS ship. The proportions just don't match up. I remember everyone was angry at the time that it wasn't the 11 footer from TOS. That's one of the reasons I didn't like that ship interpretation when TMP came out, even though Matt Jefferies was involved in the production with Phase II, etc. But now I do like TMP ship. I feel the same thing is happening again with this new movie. Its like Deja Vu. Any ship redo is going to be hard to digest at first, but we will end up swallowing it hook, line, and sinker later on. I didn't like the new "TOS" ship at first glance either, but now I do and I'm looking forward to seeing more of her when the movie hits the big screen.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> IMost of the same _exact_ complaints being leveled at JJ Abrams Trek were also thrown at ST:TMP before it came out, based on rumors, a trailer, and some publicity photos.


That is absolutely 100% true. As evidenced in the pages of Starlog and various Trek fanzines of the (pre-internet) day, fans of the TV series were livid over the TMP design, which many regarded as appearing more "busy" and therefore more technologically primitive than its TOS forerunner -- a contention I happen to concur with (Mike Minor's dreadful pre-production renderings didn't help). I know several who are _still_ livid over the changes made to the original design, lol.


----------



## Eric K (Jul 15, 2001)

Wow...Statler and Waldorf live!!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Raist3001 said:


> You keep pushing this theory. It does not work! Trek is not REAL history.


You just don't get it, and I guess I just can't explain it well enough.

Yes, it DOES, within its own context, have a "real history," just like any fictional universe with a large number of stories that fit within a continuity.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

RMBurnett said:


> The buildings in the distance seen when Kirk is riding his motorcycle would have to be MILES high, with TENS OF THOUSANDS of people in them. Why such structures even exist in Iowa makes no sense at all considering there's so much open space around them. /QUOTE]
> 
> Speaking for myself, I would hope future urban planners will consider "so much open space" a geographical feature worth preserving.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Carson Dyle said:


> Yeah, the similarities are striking. Next thing you know some FANdamentalist zealot will hire a helicopter to buzz JJ's house.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Okay, BUT, at least in TMP they explained that the Enterprise looked different because it was a _major _refit of the old one, with little or nothing of the old one left unmodified.

But they want us to believe that the ship in this film is supposed to be the _exact same ship _we saw in 79 episodes of the TV series. It ain't. And it not just ain't, it's waaaay uglier.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

John P said:


> Okay, BUT, at least in TMP they explained that the Enterprise looked different because it was a _major _refit of the old one, with little or nothing of the old one left unmodified. But they want us to believe that the ship in this film is supposed to be the _exact same ship _we saw in 79 episodes of the TV series. It ain't. And it not just ain't, it's waaaay uglier.


In TMP they can say what they want to explain why it looked so different. You can't take the 11 footer TOS ship and make any modifications to have it turn into TMP ship with the same proportions. With this new movie's so-called TOS ship, those 79 episodes didn't happen and/or may not happen anyway with the historical timeline supposedly being changed.

But it was no more an actual refit than what they used to do in the old sailing ship days by tearing apart the hull using very little from the original ship to rebuild a brand new one with a whole new design!

Look at the U.S.S. Constellation in Baltimore where I live. Todays "reconstruction" looks nothing like the original famous ship. Originally it was a Frigate class ship and now its a Corvette class, interestingly enough!


----------



## norge71 (Apr 13, 2004)

Personally this reminds me of the anime series Macross. After a 36 episode run they made a movie BASED on the events. Same people made both and yet although the main story is there in its basic form it's almost completely different (in particular the timeline of events). Even the main ship Macross gets a facelift. But you know what? I love them both. I love the series more, but the movie had a higher quality level and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I'm confident with the level of Abrams' previous work to wait and give his version of Trek a chance. He hasn't disappointed me yet.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

John P said:


> Yes, it DOES, within its own context, have a "real history," just like any fictional universe with a large number of stories that fit within a continuity.


Continuity for its own sake is overrated. Then again, so is change. 

I'm still on a fence over this movie, which at this point in time happens to be a very comfortable spot. I've learned the hard way to never judge the overall artistic worth of a film until I've seen the finished version, preferably while seated in a public theater.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Pretend the 79 episodes we grew up with never happened. There you go. Problem solved. Re-boot. Okay everybody say it with me now...RE BOOT!:thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Reboot!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

/\/\That is because it most likely is not the same ship. They have not been able to prove that the "Constellation" we see today is not a ship that the Navy acquired during the mid 1800s after the original was sold, renamed or otherwise removed from service.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Lets see them "pretend" that the new movie generates the kind of fan base of TOS that they are so determined to throw away now.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

John P said:


> You just don't get it, and I guess I just can't explain it well enough.
> 
> Yes, it DOES, within its own context, have a "real history," just like any fictional universe with a large number of stories that fit within a continuity.



You have explained yourself quite clearly. 

Star Trek has a 'history' within a fictional universe. A history of TV shows and feature films. This does not constitute reality!! This is why your theory of a redesigned mustang in 1968 does not work NOR does it apply. The Enterprise is NOT real. Thus can not translate into real history or reality.

All we as fans have is an established LORE. A familiarity with a particular design that we have NOT seen on screen since TOS was canceled.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Oh, and RMBurnett, you should realize by now that the interior of the ship is not intended to fit into the exterior. It is huge inside because they want it to be. Making it "fit" is just another in a long line of details that Abrams & Co. "don't care about". Get with the program, "don't care" is the primary MO at Paramount and has been for a very long time.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

JeffG said:


> Pretend the 79 episodes we grew up with never happened. There you go. Problem solved. Re-boot. Okay everybody say it with me now...RE BOOT!:thumbsup::thumbsup:


RE Frackin' BOOT!!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

John P said:


> Okay, BUT, at least in TMP they explained that the Enterprise looked different because it was a _major _refit of the old one, with little or nothing of the old one left unmodified.


Make that nothing. It's a different ship, with nary a trace of the original.



John P said:


> But they want us to believe that the ship in this film is supposed to be the _exact same ship _we saw in 79 episodes of the TV series.


No one is trying to brainwash you, John.  Each of us decides how much artistic license we're willing to allow. The same part of my brain that's (potentially) capable of accepting different actors in established roles can also look past the Enterprise design inconsistency if the film delivers the goods dramatically. Whether or not that will be the case remains to be seen.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I don't think that is their intention X15-A2, even if it does end up resulting in alienating old school fans. I have a couple friends my age that were around during the TOS days and I told them that the new Enterprise doesn't look like our old beloved one. The interiors are also different than I expected. I was surprised to hear them say they were glad that the new movie modernized to change from the old look. It actually shocked me at first but then I started thinking about it from another point of view to be fair about it. I have high hopes for this movie reboot of the original Star Trek days, so it better not disappoint me is all I can think about it right now.

Now the new futuristic look of this Star Trek movie is growing on me day by day and I'm more accepting of the new ship designs. It would be wise of them to keep releasing new images as part of the "conditioning process" for us old school fans. But I'd like to see a better high rez version of that first new Enterprise shot and new angles. I really love the under construction shot from the new preview. The ship looks so awesome there. I really hope someone has the courage to model a diorama of that scene.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> I don't think that is their intention X15-A2, even if it results in alienating old school fans.


Some old school fans. 

Despite what naysayers will tell you, not all of us TOS stalwarts have made up our minds to despise XI before having seen it.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Edge said:


> Maybe we'll have to start referring to TOS as Star Trek Classic.
> 
> Edge


For years friends and I have referred to it as ClassicTrek rather than TOS.



X15-A2 said:


> Lets see them "pretend" that the new movie generates the kind of fan base of TOS that they are so determined to throw away now.


Now THAT will be a feat!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I really don't think they're taking anything away or disrespecting the classic Trek. Times and design ideas change. What was the future in '67 really isn't so futuristic looking now. And as far as die hards, I grew up watching the old stuff, still love it for what it was but I gotta tell ya, I'm 47 now and I'm really excited about seeing the changes that they're doing to get some fresh blood interested in Trek. And they might just take a few of us geezers along for the ride too.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

At least I'm restricting my opinions to the MOVIE. Kindly get off my back just because you don't like my opinion.



Jodet said:


> You saw the miserable abortion that was 'Nemesis' and can now complain about something you haven't even seen yet? Amazing.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Lets see them "pretend" that the new movie generates the kind of fan base of TOS that they are so determined to throw away now.


C'mon, Phil... I'm as loyal and devoted a member of the aforementioned fan base as anyone here, and I'm keeping an open mind, as are a lot of fans in my position. Clearly your mind is made up, but I'll decide for myself if and when I've been "thrown away." 

As for generating a new, younger, _international_ fan base for Trek, time will tell if Paramount can pull it off. I'd like to think they can do so without alienating the _majority_ of us old farts, but it's simply too early to know.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> At least I'm restricting my opinions to the MOVIE. Kindly get off my back just because you don't like my opinion.


ALL OPINIONS RE: TREK WILL BE TOLERATED HERE.

What WILL NOT be tolerated are PERSONAL ATTACKS.

If you want this thread to remain open KINDLY REMEMBER YOUR MANNERS, BITE YOUR TONGUE, AND STAY ON POINT.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

John P said:


> But they want us to believe that the ship in this film is supposed to be the _exact same ship _we saw in 79 episodes of the TV series.


Not sure where that was quoted as truth.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

X15-A2 said:


> Lets see them "pretend" that the new movie generates the kind of fan base of TOS that they are so determined to throw away now.


If fans didn't "throw away' the TOS after the double whammy of Wesley Crusher and Uhura's fan dance, _nothing_ JJ Abrams is gonna do is going to effect the franchise,imho.

Quite the opposite probably.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Speaking as just one of the TOS generation here, all I want is a successful Star trek themed movie with a good science fiction story and great visuals to back it up. I hope this spawns a whole new set of followup movies and/or related TV series. I also want new spaceship models to work on! No need for anyone to get upset as if we'd be any better off by letting Star Trek fade away like the old black and white sci-fi serials or a dusty novel. Nothing changes what has already been as long as you don't forget your favorite Star Trek memories. No one can take that away. Plus there are still fans who make their own movie episodes with the original TOS look down to the last detail, and post them on the Internet for us to enjoy. I get a nostagic kick out of watching them!


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> If fans didn't "throw away' the TOS after the double whammy of Wesley Crusher and Uhura's fan dance, _nothing_ JJ Abrams is gonna do is going to effect the franchise,imho.


Or Data singing at the wedding which made me wanna shrink and run out of the theater like Fred Flintstone!


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

JeffG said:


> Or Data singing at the wedding which made me wanna shrink and run out of the theater like Fred Flintstone!


I liked when Data had to perform for Lt. Yar as her own animated functioning blow up doll! I really felt for him


----------



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

*Thing is...*

Folks,

I have to agree the ship in TMP SEEMED LIKE it could've been a refit of the original...sleeker, bigger yes, but somewhere inside it remained SOME of the original superstructure of the original connie. The whole point of showing it inside a drydock was to create an instantly believable reason for the redesign.

The question of why the ship looked different was instantly answered visually before an audience could even ask itself why. 

"Admiral, we've just finished 18 months of redesigning the Enterprise..."

Or how about...

"This is an almost totally new Enterprise! You don't know her a 10th as well as I do..."

So...done.

There's NOTHING in this new film which compares to internal history of the original series. Aside from the character names and the vague lines of the ship, EVERYTHING is new. So when Nimoy shows up, looks at Simon Pegg and says, "You're Montgomery Scott!" I just couldn't buy it wholeheartedly.

I'd be all for a reboot, but the filmmakers are trying to have it both ways. Why include Nimoy at all?

However, if you're looking for a military epic sci-fi adventure, with simplified character templates taken from everything from Officer and a Gentleman to Top Gun, which I don't think is a bad thing (I love Aliens and Starship Troopers) then you'll really dig this.

Trust me...this scope of this film is HUGE, which is what I loved most about it. But as STAR TREK, it will take a lot of getting used to.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

RMBurnett said:


> I'd be all for a reboot, but the filmmakers are trying to have it both ways. Why include Nimoy at all?


I dunno... dramatic impact maybe?... a way to pass the baton to a new (old) Enterprise crew?... or perhaps because a few Trek fans would _enjoy_ seeing Nimoy in a Trek film in spite of how this might screw up preconceptions of what constitutes a prequel vs. a reboot? (God forbid Abrams violate proper labeling protocol)!

Honestly, the whole reboot vs. prequel debate is so tedious. Who cares what labels one applies to the film as long as it works?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

So Say We All!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Sure thing, the TMP Refit was _clearly_ an all-new ship, but the ship alone is not the problem fans have with this new movie.

Consider:
TMP's time period was several years after the Original Series.
It was explained, however poorly some may argue, that this was "...an almost totally new Enterprise" 
Its GORGEOUS! Come on... we can all agree on that!
We still had the same cast and universe and their behaviors were consistent with what we saw in TOS, if not a bit more sedate.
Canon was not violated in any important way.
TMP was the best example of what can be done in an updated and continued Original Series timeline.

Everything from that point on went for a much more visceral pop-corn big box office story. Some of them were, in fact, very good. But many were just mediocre and some were outright dogs.

The ship doesn't make sense from current Trek design standpoint--besides having the basic shapes... to me it looks far more fanciful and futuristic than anything in ANY Trek series. It looks more like a sculpture than a starship. I look at this ship and I can't find a place for it before TMP or before Nemesis, or First Contact, or even Enterprise... it all looks out of context. It doesn't look like they wanted it to fit in anywhere.

The USS Kelvin looks like it squarely belongs in the TMP timeline... even somewhat later than TMP.

The ship design is just a symptom of a larger mentality behind this movie.

Limiting the arguments about this movie to the ship design is missing the point. Abrams isn't just re-imagining TOS, I believe he's tring to re-imagine _all_ of Star Trek. It looks like they wanted to throw _everything_ away and take new ownership of the whole franchise, keeping only enough for people to make the connection to the name.

As for Nimoy, he's just a gag to draw the fans to the movie and then whip them into submission. He supposedly gives Abrams "credibilty." Think about it, who more likely to convice die-hard TOS fans to give something like this a try, than Spock himself.









I'm Leonard Nimoy, and I approve of the obliteration of everything you know from the timeline!


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Problem I see is that many fans are comparing the new designs to established designs. If this is a re-boot and we accept it as such, that means the TMP history has not happened yet. And if the film succeeds, we would probably see new designs for a refit version.



> Honestly, the whole reboot vs. prequel debate is so tedious. Who cares what labels one applies to the film as long as it works?


Well said.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Nah...never mind.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> TMP was the best example of what can be done in an updated and continued Original Series timeline...


...that makes you want to GOUGE YOUR EYES OUT it's so relentlessly dull."

Really, if TMP represents a timeline triumph, give me messy, disrespectful discontinuity any day of the week. 



Nova Designs said:


> As for Nimoy, he's just a gag to draw the fans to the movie and then whip them into submission.


I think you need to give the fans more credit. Some of us may not be as stupid as you seem to think. :hat:


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> I think you need to give the fans more credit. Some of us may not be as stupid as you seem to think. :hat:


I'm glad someone said it


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> Sure thing, the TMP Refit was _clearly_ an all-new ship, but the ship alone is not the problem fans have with this new movie.
> 
> TMP was the best example of what can be done in an updated and continued Original Series timeline.



Well, except for the movie sucking part.

Now Wrath of Khan on the other hand, let's see, they brought in a director with no Trek experience who rebooted and totally invigorated the franchise..... made a ton of money, and was responsible for bringing in a lot of new Trek fans. And WOK is a lot truer to the TOS series imho than _anything_ Gene Roddenberry ever did later, especially ST:TMP.

I seriously think the fact we still enjoy new Star Treks till this day has a lot more to do with WOK than ST:TMP.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I did not say anyone was stupid. if you dont agree so be it, but please stop rewording my comments.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> As for generating a new, younger, _international_ fan base for Trek, time will tell if Paramount can pull it off.


Of course you do realize that Star Trek as whole already has a VERY VAST international fan base!




PhilipMarlowe said:


> Well, except for the movie sucking part.
> 
> Now Wrath of Khan on the other hand, let's see, they brought in a director with no Trek experience who rebooted and totally invigorated the franchise..... made a ton of money, and was responsible for bringing in a lot of new Trek fans.


Minus that he did NOT redesigned the Enterprise and did NOT alter the characters!


Oh and…

Reboot.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> I did not say anyone was stupid. if you dont agree so be it, but please stop rewording my comments.


Relax, my response was based on on the substance of your comment, which asserts fans can be "whipped into submission" by a blatant marketing ploy. To me that makes us fans sound rather soft-headed.

My impression of the TOS fan base (and certainly audiences in general) is that they're too smart to fall for such an obvious Jedi mind trick.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> Of course you do realize that Star Trek as whole already has a VERY VAST international fan base!


Forgive me, but I work in marketing (well, movie advertising, but close enough), and the numbers simply do not bare out your assertion of VASTNESS. 

Fact is, the Trek films have never managed to capture a large overseas audience. Given modern economic realities, for the motion picture franchise to continue, it will have to generate big numbers internationally. This means expanding its fan base in a big way. I believe Trek can do so without significantly alienating the domestic fan base, but time will tell.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

*" There will BE no refit... "*










*" Jim... the fans are 20 years too old. We feel their day is over. "*


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Garbaron said:


> Minus that he did NOT redesigned the Enterprise and did NOT alter the characters!
> 
> 
> Oh and…
> ...


Oh, but he did. He killed off a major character, wisely ditched the PJ uniforms from the "best example of what can be done in an updated and continued Original Series timeline.", gave Kirk a son, and most importantly, brought back the TOS spirit of fun and adventure that was so lacking in the yawnfest that was ST:TMP. Not to mention revamping the major sets.

I'm sure Nicholas Meyer would have loved a new _Enterprise _for his film, however since ST:TMP was such a flop he had neither time nor budget to even consider it. Yet despite having by far the lowest budget of any Trek film, and probably the shortest shooting schedule, he brought out a film considered by most to be the best of the series.

That's why I think a good director is more important than the starship design. Especially one none of us have even seen clearly or in context.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Raist3001 said:


> You have explained yourself quite clearly.
> 
> Star Trek has a 'history' within a fictional universe. A history of TV shows and feature films. This does not constitute reality!! This is why your theory of a redesigned mustang in 1968 does not work NOR does it apply. The Enterprise is NOT real. Thus can not translate into real history or reality.
> 
> All we as fans have is an established LORE. *A familiarity with a particular design that we have NOT seen on screen since TOS was canceled.*


TNG, "Relics"

DS9, "Trials and Tribble-ations"

ENT, "In A Mirror Darkly, pts I & II"

TOS Remastered, all 79 episodes.

The established internal history (or lore, if you prefer) has been reaffirmed repeatedly since TOS was cancelled.

Try again.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Nova Designs said:


> I did not say anyone was stupid. if you dont agree so be it, but please stop rewording my comments.


Actually, nobody "reworded" your comment. You stated it yourself, tho not quite as directly....



Nova Designs said:


> As for Nimoy, he's just a gag to draw the fans to the movie


Because we're such stupid cattle that we'll all automatically flock because Leonard Nimoy is in it! :freak: 


> and then whip them into submission.


Because we'll buy in to it because Leonard Nimoy is in it, we're soooo stupid we can't think for ourselves.... :freak:

That's the implication of your blanket statement, whether you see it or not. I find it a general insult to fandom as a whole and myself in particular because if I think that it might be alright w/Nimoy in the movie, I must be some sort of Soft-Brained Fan Boy. 

Just sayin'.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

In defense of Nova, what he said wasn't saying that the _fans_ were stupid enough to fall for such a stunt, it's that *the studio and Abrams* think the fans are stupid enough to fall for such a stunt.


----------



## mikephys (Mar 16, 2005)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> If fans didn't "throw away' the TOS after the double whammy of Wesley Crusher and Uhura's fan dance, _nothing_ JJ Abrams is gonna do is going to effect the franchise,imho.
> 
> Quite the opposite probably.


Whoa! He shoots, he scores! :thumbsup:


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April said:


> In defense of Nova, what he said wasn't saying that the _fans_ were stupid enough to fall for such a stunt, it's that *the studio and Abrams* think the fans are stupid enough to fall for such a stunt.


Not how I read it, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. In any case, Abrams has more respect for TOS and its fans than any Trek producer to date (Roddenberry being the obvious exception).



Captain April said:


> The established internal history (or lore, if you prefer) has been reaffirmed repeatedly since TOS was cancelled.


Given the general lameness of post-TOS Trek, philipmarlowe can be pardoned for not paying closer attention.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

> The ship doesn't make sense from current Trek design standpoint--besides having the basic shapes... to me it looks far more fanciful and futuristic than anything in ANY Trek series. It looks more like a sculpture than a starship. I look at this ship and I can't find a place for it before TMP or before Nemesis, or First Contact, or even Enterprise... it all looks out of context. It doesn't look like they wanted it to fit in anywhere.


Perhaps if you stopped trying to fit this design in somewhere and look at it as a fresh start ripe with potential? This Trek's future has not been written yet and does not belong in established Trek time lines.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Hand Solo said:


> *" Jim... the fans are 20 years too old. We feel their day is over. "*


LOL! Good one, Bob!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> In any case, Abrams has more respect for TOS and its fans than any Trek producer to date (Roddenberry being the obvious exception).


Well, he's got one frelled up way of showing it.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

He hasn't had a CHANCE to show it.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Well, he's got one frelled up way of showing it.


Why would the only way of showing ones respect for Star Trek be in the way of keeping every design over 50 years old?!?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Captain April said:


> Well, he's got one frelled up way of showing it.


I think we should all hold off in pre-judging this movie and getting all riled up before we've seen more than a few preview scenes and pictures, even those who've seen 20 minutes or so of various clips and scenes. The problem with doing that is nothing we know so far is in context with the actual film as it is meant to be viewed in its entirety. Afterwards if it is either a great film or a piece of crap - then we can either praise or unload. I'm not happy with everything I've seen yet I'm impressed with other things so I hold out hope. I just can't fairly reconcile the two with any legitimacy until I've seen the whole movie is all I'm saying. Let's have an open mind until then.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Excuse me but...how is J.J. Abrams all of a sudden the bad guy here? He's trying to bring back this washed up franchise. And make no mistake, before production on this film started Trek was washed up and hung out to dry. Nobody that I know of gave a rat's you know what about seeing another installment based on previous efforts like Nemesis and Insurrection. Not the general moviegoer, and not even many die hard fans. So now this has come along and all some folks can do is throw stones and curse the man's name.

I've talked to friends lately that could care less about Star Trek before that are now really excited about wanting to see this new film. Speaking for myself I've thought for some time that Trek has needed a facelift. It couldn't be the old designs and sets. Nobody would buy that. It couldn't be a continuation of Next Gen because everybody still has such a bad taste in their mouths from the last several films. A new crew and ship? Maybe, but risky...maybe too risky for the money that would have to go into it.

Abrams and company are faced with a near impossible task; trying to please EVERYBODY in a show where one size does not fit all. I sincerely hope he proves the naysayers wrong, but even if the film is a success, I wouldn't be surprised if he never wants to go near another Trek production due to 'fan' reactions.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

> Originally Posted by Nova Designs
> As for Nimoy, he's just a gag to draw the fans to the movie and then whip them into submission.


'Scuse me... I have to go sniff some of my Yominium-sulfide now!


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Forgive me, but I work in marketing (well, movie advertising, but close enough), and the numbers simply do not bare out your assertion of VASTNESS.



Am so happy that the US are all that matters... really.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> I think we should all hold off in pre-judging this movie and getting all riled up before we've seen more than a few preview scenes and pictures, even those who've seen 20 minutes or so of various clips and scenes.
> SNIP
> I'm not happy with everything I've seen yet I'm impressed with other things so I hold out hope. I just can't fairly reconcile the two with any legitimacy until I've seen the whole movie is all I'm saying. Let's have an open mind until then.


Oh, please. What kind of rational, restrained, clear-headed dreamworld do you live in? 



Garbaron said:


> Am so happy that the US are all that matters... really.


Huh?

To reiterate what I stated earlier...



Carson Dyle said:


> Given modern economic realities, for the motion picture franchise to continue, it will have to generate big numbers internationally.


Far from dismissing the importance of attracting an international audience, I was making the case for appealing to one.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

These sort of tidbits are supposed to make you want to see the movie _more._ These are making me want to either run for the hills and wait for the whole thing to blow over or lead a commando raid on the Paramount lot and do whatever it takes to make sure this attrocity never sees the light of day.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The new design is merely but one example of a different take on TOS. I don't for one instant accept it as part of the same continuity or that "this was how it was all along."

I could be intrigued by a new TOS based project, but sadly for my tastes this isn't it. I'm discouraged not only by the look of the ship (which, in itself, wouldn't keep me from seeing the film) but from what I've heard in regards to the story and how they appear to be re-interpreting the characters.

I'll go out on a limb here by saying that if I got more positive impressions in terms of story, concepts and characterizations I could be intrigued by far more drastic changes than what Abrahms is doing.

But everything I'm seeing and hearing is that this will be a gussied up version of contemporary Trek cliches but played out in the TOS era. I strongly fear they're going to play to all manner of tired cliches.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Capt.April, you are so right and the raid should take place anyway!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think we have the plot for "Fanboys 2"....


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I'm confused Carson. I thought I was agreeing with most of your points about not pre-judging this film until we've seen it. I think you are just joking about it anyway. 

I do try to stay clear headed about things though... Why let emotions get in the way when discussing things like a work of fiction based on a 1960's TV show? Luckily the new bridge does not appear to be on an angle based on the window looking directly forward! I think they were ahead of themselves thinking of this forum when they decided to have an actual window instead of a viewscreen pointing who knows where!


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

*I am such a geek*

Frankly, this is tedious.

And I can't believe I'm actually going to engage in this argument:



RMBurnett said:


> I have to agree the ship in TMP SEEMED LIKE it could've been a refit of the original...sleeker, bigger yes, but somewhere inside it remained SOME of the original superstructure of the original connie. The whole point of showing it inside a drydock was to create an instantly believable reason for the redesign.
> 
> The question of why the ship looked different was instantly answered visually before an audience could even ask itself why.
> 
> ...


Er, not quite. The dialog also said that the events in TMP were occurring only a few years after Kirk's five year mission as seen in TOS, but all actors looked much older (specifically, about 10 years older) than the dialogue implies.

Besides, other than having a saucer and two nacelles attached to a cylinder via two pylons, the refit looks nothing like the TOS Enterprise. No line of dialogue is going to convince me otherwise:

- The exteriors are different (flat gray versus the different shades of white in an aztec pattern)

- The interiors are different

- The shapes of the nacelles, pylons, engineering section and dorsal neck are very different. The saucer domes are larger

- The dimensions of each component are different

- Have you noticed that when old buildings are being refurbished they gut everything except for the elevator shafts and stairwells? That's because they're a big pain to modify. Now, the refit has two turbolifts in the bridge. Not only did they add a new one, but they _moved the existing TL tube a few feet.*_ Talk to a structural engineer about the feasibility of moving an elevator shafts across 20 stories and time how fast he/she laughs at you.

- Moving the pylon/engineering connection from just behind the shuttlebay to just behind the dorsal neck is easy on a filming model, but it would have *huge* structural repercussions on an actual ship. Because of that you cannot argue that they slapped new exteriors on a Connie skeleton.

If you're not paying attention, yeah, as you do a quick glance the TOS E and the refit look similar, but make no mistake. The refit is not the original Connie, inside or outside.



RMBurnett said:


> I'd be all for a reboot, but the filmmakers are trying to have it both ways. Why include Nimoy at all?


I agree wholeheartedly with you on that. But, I'll wait to see the final movie to cast judgment. Maybe it works within the story.

* They moved the TLs in every movie, which prove all of the points everyone is making about how TMP was accepted as cannonically correct but the JJ movie is heretical. If we're going to be critical and nitpick a movie _most of us have not seen_, then we might as well argue that all movies featuring the TOS cast were crap.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> I think you are just joking about it anyway.


I was. For the record, I agree with your comments 100%.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

^^ That's cool Carson, at first glance you almost got me until I noticed your "wink" emoticon and re-edited my post! This whole thread is messing with my head at this point and need to reboot (my brain) too.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

These arguments always break down into two camps: those who have seen enough to decide they don't really like what they are seeing, and those who cannot stand anyone who feels that way. We criticize the movie and they criticize us for not liking it. This argument is nothing new.

'Round and 'round we go. I've lost a lot of respect for some of the people on this forum. Not, of course, for liking the movie, but for attacking those that don't with sarcasm and condescension.

Makes me sadder than the movie does.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I’ll try and explain why I feel the way I do. Please take no offense, none is meant.

First off I’m 49, I saw a couple of 3rd season episodes first run, but my real exposure to
Star Trek was in reruns in the late ‘60s on chl 56 in Boston. I was around 10 years old at the time and could not be bothered to read a book, and did not care much about school. Star Trek became a turning point in my life.

The late ‘60s was a time when we had nuclear air raid drills in school, The Vietnam war, political assassinations, home grown terrorists, protests/riots and civil unrest. On the positive we had the Apollo space flights. Star Trek was about the only positive, uplifting TV show around. I know it’s been said before but here was a show that said we could not only survive, but thrive. A crew of very different people were working together for a common good. Along with that the people on the show all had integrity. At that time in history, that was a powerful message. 

The first thing that attracted me were the stories. They were good. They were well written. They stand the test of time. Yes they could be preachy, but they were not overbearing, not insulting. Gene Roddenberry really thought about quality and consistency. There were some changes/inconsistency in the first shows, but once he had sorted that out everything stayed Constant.

After I watched the show for a while, many of the small details started to become apparent. The Enterprise LOOKED like a real space ship. Not the rockets, or saucers we had seen up to now. It also made sense. You knew were things were. The warp engines were big and dangerous, so they were on pylons separated from the rest of the ship. The bridge was on top, you could see it, I know the turbo shaft is misplaced, but that was done for an artistic reason. The bridge also worked. The Captain in the center, with all the main stations around him. You could see the impulse engines. It was obvious that Mr. Jefferies put a lot of thought into how things fit. We did not get the Jupiter 2 that was 3 times larger on the inside than the outside. 

I saw props/ uniforms that looked real and for the most part were consistent.

I know some will disagree, but I saw quality acting. Actors that were committed to the characters.

Overall I saw a quality, intelligent, positive show that really made me think. I started reading books. Clarke, Heinlein, Asimov, Herbert, Niven. I started to think about my future, what I wanted to do and what I needed to do to make that happen. I started take school seriously. I studied engineering in college, got my pilots license, joined the Air Force. I am now an airline pilot. Star Trek was a large influence in why I am where I am.

I know I’m not alone. My friend growing up is a TV director, he was inspired by Star Trek just in a different way. I also have a few Air Force friends that have a similar history. There are many others.

This is why I feel why I do about Star Trek, Why some of us get upset at the change that is happening. It’s not just the Enterprise, It’s the back story that is being changed. I have heard people say it’s just fiction get over it, but the way I feel is if you want to do Star Trek you need to do it in the Star Trek universe. If you don’t want to use the established history, fine, just don’t call it Star Trek. This was the mistake made with Enterprise. I know the Enterprise was built out of San Francisco, not Iowa. I know Kirk can’t drive a standard transmission, we saw it in “A Piece of the Action”, I know we have not seen the Romulans between the Romulan war and “Balance of Terror”. I know Spock was the only one from Kirks Enterprise to serve on Pikes Enterprise. These things are part of Star Trek. To change them for the sake of a story you want to tell just strikes me as lazy, and kind of arrogant. 

Paramount owns Star Trek and can do what ever they want with it. They don’t need my approval. I hope the new movie can attract a new fan base, because at least in my case they are doing their best to drive the TOS fan away.

Sorry for the long rant.

Mark


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Boy, you kids sure like to bicker! 

There are at least a half-dozen threads throughout these forums all arguing the same thing.

Myself, I really don't care very much for the "reimagined" movie ship, but I am looking forward to the film, nonetheless. I really do hope that it is a good story and that it does well at the boxoffice, and that perhaps there are some plot points that are still secret and contain the explanations as to why things are presented as they are.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

Nova Designs said:


> These arguments always break down into two camps: those who have seen enough to decide they don't really like what they are seeing, and those who cannot stand anyone who feels that way. We criticize the movie and they criticize us for not liking it. This argument is nothing new.
> 
> 'Round and 'round we go. I've lost a lot of respect for some of the people on this forum. Not, of course, for liking the movie, but for attacking those that don't with sarcasm and condescension.
> 
> Makes me sadder than the movie does.


I would argue that the two camps are:

1) Those who have seen enough to decide they don't really like what they are seeing

2) Those who are waiting to see the movie before casting an opinion.

Clearly, I'm in the second camp. There are things I like and things that I'm not sure about. But the stuff in the latter category I don't immediately dismiss because I'm seeing it out of context. As I stated in another post on another thread, we only know these facts:

- The cast
- The production crew
- The trailer
- A few still shots
- The testimony of some who have seen 20 minutes of footage

Personally, I need more info before I trash a movie. YMMV


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> Huh?
> 
> To reiterate what I stated earlier...
> 
> ...


You where saying Star Trek needed to attract a large international audience as if this wasn’t the case already. Upon I replied that there already IS a large international Star Trek fan base, upon which you replied: 



Carson Dyle said:


> Forgive me, but I work in marketing (well, movie advertising, but close enough), and *the numbers simply do not bare out your assertion of VASTNESS*.


Which clearly says that you, by the numbers, can’t see a large internationally Star Trek fan base today, hence according to you Star Trek did NOT attract a lot of fans out side the US. And don’t start splitting hairs because I used the word vast instead of large!

Try to understand that it’s not just the US that supported Star Trek for the past 40 years and be more careful with what you say on an international message board where some of the not so vast international Star Trek fans happen to read and post replies too! 

Regards


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

*" The Inquisition (Let's begin)
The Inquisition (Look out sin)
We have a mission to convert the Trekkies (Trek, Trek, Trek, Trek, Trek, Trek)
We're gonna teach them wrong from right.
We're gonna help them see the light
and make an offer that they can't refuse. (That those Trekkies just can't refuse) "*


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Garbaron said:


> You where saying Star Trek needed to attract a large international audience as if this wasn’t the case already.


I think I'll let my original comments speak for themselves.



Garbaron said:


> ...be more careful with what you say on an international message board where some of the not so vast international Star Trek fans happen to read and post replies too!


Thanks, I'll be sure to watch my step (I've got kids, and can't afford to get "raided").

My attitude re: XI is to take a wait and see attitude. Those unwilling to do so are nevertheless free and welcome to express their opinions -- a point I've made repeatedly on this forum. All I ask, as always, is that remarks of a personal nature be avoided.

I find I've allowed myself to get repeatedly sucked into these debates because, surprise, like most of you, I enjoy shooting the breeze about Trek. Thing is, there is so much _anger_ swirling around this particular film that it takes all the fun out of discussing it. I'm truly sorry that has to be the case, but from now on I'll do my best to stick to moderating sans editorial comment. No hard feelings to anyone here, Live Long and Prosper, etc, etc.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

As far as determining a sense of scale for the ship...

Does anyone else see what may be two docking ports, a la the Refit?


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

^^ You mean on the secondary hull?

As far as scale, I get the impression the primary saucer hull is the same size as the 1701-A refit's is?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

> Thing is, there is so much anger swirling around this particular film that it takes all the fun out of discussing it.


Y'see, that's probably the most aggravating aspect of this whole thing: *Anybody with even a passing knowledge of the Star Trek fanbase could tell this is exactly the kind of response they were gonna get with this kind of "reimagining."* And many of us have been predicting this blowback for about a year now.

So, the question must be raised yet again: If the general audience doesn't know the difference and doesn't care, and changing stuff is guaranteed to torque off a sizeable portion of the only guaranteed audience this thing has, thus cutting into the probable opening weekend box office take, _*then who in their right mind would change a bloody thing, let alone upset the whole apple cart and come up with THIS crap!?!*_


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> I think I'll let my original comments speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hope not, Rob, some of us enjoy you shooting the breeze about Trek. One of the reasons I'm hopeful about this film is that the only two guys I know of in the world that have actually seen the movie(even though it's a rough cut), you & Kevin Smith, say it's worth seeing. The fact that I usually agree with both your opinions about movies gives that some clout with me. 

Not to mention JJ Abrams track record, which isn't too shabby either.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Y'see, that's probably the most aggravating aspect of this whole thing: *Anybody with even a passing knowledge of the Star Trek fanbase could tell this is exactly the kind of response they were gonna get with this kind of "reimagining."* And many of us have been predicting this blowback for about a year now.


You mean the same blowback that happened when St:TMP and St:TNG debutted? Following that pattern, in about ten years the fanboys will all be saying how great the Abram's movie was and how everyone loved _that_ Enterprise, and what an abomination the Enterprise in the upcoming Trek movie is



Captain April said:


> So, the question must be raised yet again: If the general audience doesn't know the difference and doesn't care, and changing stuff is guaranteed to torque off a sizeable portion of the only guaranteed audience this thing has, thus cutting into the probable opening weekend box office take, _*then who in their right mind would change a bloody thing, let alone upset the whole apple cart and come up with THIS crap!?!*_


Maybe the army of _Lost_, _Alias_,_Fringe_ and _Cloverfeld_ fans out there? And Abrams woulda saved the _Mission Impossible_ franchise if Tom Cruise hadn't lost his mind on live national TV.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Rob,

"_Relax, my response was based on on the substance of your comment, which asserts fans can be "whipped into submission" by a blatant marketing ploy. To me that makes *us fans* sound rather soft-headed.

My impression of the *TOS fan base* (and certainly audiences in general) is that they're too smart to fall for such an obvious Jedi mind trick_."

This is not the audience that they are aiming at, as you have noted repeatedly. The "audiences in general" would not care one way or the other, ONLY fans of "TOS" would care (but they aren't the audience that Paramount wants to attract, correct?). Either the folks at Paramount think that the inclusion of Mr. Nimoy is something that kids who never watched the show (and thus constitute this elusive "new audience") are going to be turned on by OR they really do think that you, and the rest of us "fans of TOS", are exactly that "soft-headed". I really don't think that it can be read any other way.

"_Forgive me, but I work in marketing (well, movie advertising, but close enough), and the numbers simply do not bare out your assertion of VASTNESS.

Fact is, the *Trek films* have never managed to capture a large overseas audience. Given modern economic realities, for the motion picture franchise to continue, it will have to generate big numbers internationally. This means expanding its fan base in a big way. I believe Trek can do so without significantly alienating the domestic fan base, but time will tell_."

I won't speak for the others here but for me, the above comments miss one vital point. Yes, the MOVIES did not capture the "international" audience. Why should they? They've stunk. Not to mention, every single one of them was a "reboot", just like this new film (by "reboot", I don't mean the design of the sets costumes or props, I mean that the characters were vastly changed). When I refer to the "international fan base" of this show, I refer to that of the TV series only. It was done right and is what should be built upon, not changed (in my opinion). 

For others here who do not grasp the importance of the ship and its appearance in TOS, let me explain. The "Enterprise" was not just a locale in the original series, it was a CHARACTER. Not just a "character", it was a vital one. The producers made it that way, on purpose. In every other outing since, the ships have had little importance and because of that, no one argues that they should remain "the same". Who cares? But when it comes to discussions about changes to TOS "characters", the "Enterprise" itself is high on that list and therefore deserves serious consideration. As we clearly see here, people have responded strongly to this "character" and care a great deal about it, just as its creators intended. This cannot be said about what has come later.

So to the others here please, stop saying that it doesn't matter, unless you also feel that changes to the other "characters" don't matter as well (many obviously do feel that way).


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

What I don't like:

Changes to the concepts & characters in TOS. In "Trek Classic" (I like that term), the show was about exploration (not every episode, of course). The characters were literally "on their own" and usually way beyond the reach of backup or help of any kind. They operated as did the ships of the Dutch East India Company, making contact, trading and exploring with a "license to make war", if necessary. Starfleet had only 12 of these "Starships" and they were the biggest, most powerful ships in the fleet. Starfleet never needed bigger ships because it was made quite clear that these ships were so well designed and built that they could take virtually anything that the universe could throw at them. Because of the limited number of ships and therefore the equally limited number of available crew postings, Starfleet was able to demand and get the very best personnel. This high standard was also important because these people were to be the standard bearers for the entire Federation when it came time to meet new peoples and civilizations. Therefore the characters were sober and dedicated. It was not "just a job" and they earned a high level of respect from the other members of the Federation (not all, of course). They had their flaws, to be sure, but when it came to doing their jobs, they were willing to die for the Federation they served and the moral laws it was designed to uphold.

"Star Trek" was a show with a huge budget for its day but that budget was still not enough for the kind of stories that they were trying to tell. There is indeed room for improvement in many areas but characters and situation are not part of those areas. The originals were fine then and are equally fine today.

Yet this is not what we see today, is it? There are many reasons why this is so but it amounts to the same thing, by changing the characters and universe that they live in, you no longer are talking about "Star Trek". Now the exploration is gone, the look at science fiction concepts is gone and instead we have an endless series of films (talking here about TOS crew films only) about "saving the universe". It works a few times but as a constant diet? No thanks.

BTW, don't fool yourselves for one moment that the characters have not been changed and those are changes that are important.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

For any one who believes that the characters must be changed to appeal to a younger audiences "sensibilities", stop and think about what that really means. If true, what does it say about the people who make up this younger audience?

That they cannot believe in people who are sober and dedicated? These are the very folks who will be selecting and operating the homes that TOS fans (obsolete audience) are headed into. Think about that.

This film won't change things one way or the other but modern mass marketing is a perfectly valid indicator of the character of the target group and its values.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Raist3001 said:


> Why would the only way of showing ones respect for Star Trek be in the way of keeping every design *over 50 years old*?!?


Check your math, will ya please?

2008 minus 1964 equals... ?

And to answer the question with a question - why would it be considered showing respect to throw away perfectly good _groundbreaking _44-year-old designs that a whole lot of people think still look fine?

Sounds like _dis_respect to me!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I'm trying to avoid this thread, _really_ I am, but in the interests of setting the record straight...



X15-A2 said:


> This is not the audience that they are aiming at, as you have noted repeatedly…
> SNIP
> ONLY fans of "TOS" would care (but they aren't the audience that Paramount wants to attract, correct?).


I never meant to imply the Trek XI filmmakers were adopting a dismissive attitude with regard to the loyal TOS fan base. As you well know, I happen to be a devoted and longstanding member of that particular fan base, and it’s my firm belief that the Trek XI brain trust cares more about doing right by Roddenberry’s vision than anyone else in their position has, going all the way back to the first feature. You’ve known me almost thirty years Phil, and you know I wouldn’t say any of the above if I didn’t have reason to believe it. Does this mean all TOS fans will be happy with the results? Of course not, but that’s a hurdle no film is likely to clear any time soon.

What I _have_ “noted repeatedly” is that, given the current economic realities of the marketplace, the Trek *film franchise* needs to broaden and expand its fan base beyond that which currently exists. I believe, foolishly perhaps, that it’s possible to do so. Whether XI manages to make this leap remains to be seen, but based on what I’ve seen I intend to give Abrams and Co. the benefit of the doubt. Believe me, if the finished movie sucks it will have no harsher critic than yours truly.



X15-A2 said:


> I won't speak for the others here but for me, the above comments miss one vital point. Yes, the MOVIES did not capture the "international" audience. Why should they? They've stunk.


Not only was this point not lost on me, it’s one I’ve made myself on dozens of occasions. 

You and I may differ over the specifics of what would constitute the proverbial “good” Star Trek movie, but at least we can agree that, to date, most Star Trek movies have missed the mark entirely. Perhaps the Abrams film will suffer a similar fate, but I maintain it's too early to make that call. Others are free to do so of course, but *in my opinion* they're jumping the gun.



X15-A2 said:


> For any one who believes that the characters must be changed to appeal to a younger audiences "sensibilities", stop and think about what that really means. If true, what does it say about the people who make up this younger audience? That they cannot believe in people who are sober and dedicated?


I too will be disappointed if the characters’ personalities and motivations differ significantly from those established on TOS. On the other hand, I have no problem if the actors are allowed to play the characters younger, in accordance with their age. Indeed, from a dramatic standpoint, I welcome a Trek film that dares to explore and exploit some of the more youthful and impetuous aspects of these characters. Let them mature into "sober and dedicated" adults in the next film. Point being that young "sensibilities" need not be something to fear -- certainly not in limited doses.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

X15-A2 said:


> For any one who believes that the characters must be changed to appeal to a younger audiences "sensibilities", stop and think about what that really means. If true, what does it say about the people who make up this younger audience?
> 
> That they cannot believe in people who are sober and dedicated?


There is one factor you may not have considered. The original Star Trek series was very much a product of it's time--in this case, the late 60s (specifically the late 60s in the United States). Many of the sensibilites of a young late 60s audience would seem out-of-place to today's young audiences (the audiences most of today's films are made for and marketed towards). Updating the characters' sensibilites is the only way this film could be released today and still be taken seriously.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Carson Dyle firmly believes:


> ...and it’s my firm belief that the Trek XI brain trust cares more about doing right by Roddenberry’s vision than anyone else in their position has, going all the way back to the first feature.


We know from other discussions that Roddenberry's vision was never fully realized until the first season of "STAR TREK The Next Generation".

So JJ is attempting to make a movie honoring _that_ vision?
All right!!
Bring on Wesley Crusher! :thumbsup:



:drunk:


:jest::tongue::lol:


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Carson Dyle said:


> I think I'll let my original comments speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you did not get what I was saying or meant to say. Perhaps my english is not good enough after all. But let my try to explain anyway. 

I felt offended by your comment! I felt offended because your initial comment to my “vast fan base” suggested that by your “numbers” and knowledge because your are working in marketing the international Star Trek fan base was tiny and insignificant compared to the US fans base and as such did not really matter in the past and that Paramount with Trek XI had to make sure to attract a international fan base this time around.

There already IS an international fans base! A very large one! 
Or do you really think Kate Mulgrew, Johnatan Frakes, George Takei etc. only attend at US conventions? That only the US knows about Star Trek and in the rest of the world only a few nerdy dudes know about it? 

To me that portrays that same attitude Hollywood has when it comes to a very odd portrayal of Germans and resulting wired perception of a lot of Americans that we REALLY are like that. Want to see what I mean? 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Oktoberfest-Kutscher.jpg

That’s how it’s seen through a lot of Hollywood movies eyes. Old fashioned clothing and the one thing most know is the Oktoberfest where you can drink more beer than your belly can take and you get there via the Autobahn, the road with no speed limit and neither of it is true. Yet it’s a perception often found in the US and it originates from the same alluded view at the world that makes you think only the US Star Trek fan base mattered in the past. And in this I take offence. 

And at NO point in this debate did I ever talk badly about Trek XI …I was talking fan base.. NO the fracking new movie. So I don’t get why you start talking about how you get dragged back in to defending the movie.

But don’t worry… not gonna bother you any more with this and leave you to the knowledge that all the world and universes needs turn around the united states only. 

Regarding this topic 

I bit my farewell 

See you all around discussion models but nothing else anymore.




Edit: 

Just read this: 




X15-A2 said:


> I won't speak for the others here but for me, the above comments miss one vital point. Yes, the MOVIES did not capture the "international" audience. Why should they? They've stunk.


Did you dudes know that Star Trek is hardly ever advertised in Germany? One could be happy if you saw a FC advertisement along the streets back then. And this only is the tip of the iceberg. I don’t know how Star Trek movies are advertised in the US, but I guess it’s a large PR program. Yet here in Germany… you don’t hear about it! You think there is fuzz about JJ Trek going on here? Like cover prints of Pine and Quinto? Nope… sorry to disappoint you. Paramount Europe just doesn’t seem to care to promote this movie or any of its predecessors before. So a reason why the Movies did not hit in over seas is because there was no PR going on to start some buzz to get ppl interested watching it. Those who knew about it where the fans. 

Contrary to “Quantum of Solace”.. you can hardly escape Mr Bond nowadays.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

*X15-A2* sums it all up very well. :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, tell ya what. I'm not gonna spend theater bucks on this thing, but I'm sure I'll rent it when it hits DVD. If the story is good and the characters aren't TOO butchered, I'll go easier on it. 

But still, my biggest criticisms of what I've seen and heard so far are mostly based on the interests of my particluar kind of Trekkie species - I'm a Trek Modeler, and a Trekkie Techie. In other words, while I love the show, the characters and the stories, I'm also greatly interested, as a modeler, in the ship, it's tech, its appearance, and getting that all accurate. I've spent 40 years doing that. Don't expect me to like the studio suddenly deciding to throw it all away on me and try to tell me "No, the ship really looked like _this _now."

Same with the show's elaborate backstories and history. Plenty of it was fleshed out in the series and movies. There's plenty of it we know. Don't expect those of us who've loved and learned Trek history for 40 years to like suddenly being told "No, that's not the way it happened, this story supercedes everything you know."

I can't help but find that, well, insulting.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

John P said:


> Check your math, will ya please?
> 
> 2008 minus 1964 equals... ?


Whoops, I guess I was a bit disrespectful of Trek's 'history'. My apologies.



> why would it be considered showing respect to throw away perfectly good _groundbreaking _44-year-old designs that a whole lot of people think still look fine?


Because this is NOT 1964. And to show respect to TOS, one need not use the same designs. Did you feel the same way when you watched TMP? Pity we never got to see the Phase II E on the silver screen. How disrespectful the producers and designers were  



> Sounds like _dis_respect to me!


I guess it is if you choose to view it that way and refuse to give a film you have not even seen yet a chance.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> We criticize the movie and they criticize us for not liking it


I don't think so. Your _opinions_ have been criticized for continually raining on the parade. Besides, your opinions as well have been over critical of the fans who are seemingly _'whipped into submission'._

Check that mirror


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

X15-A2 said:


> For any one who believes that the characters must be changed to appeal to a younger audiences "sensibilities", stop and think about what that really means. If true, what does it say about the people who make up this younger audience?


This is a very good point, but I think I can answer it to an extent...

Here's an example. (your milage may vary) TOS Kirk is "telling" other people that they should be noble, do the right thing, be brave etc...leading by example. that's a given.

TOS Kirk was written (like all characters were on TV at the time in the 60's) as pretty much a finished product who arrived on the scene full blown with no backstory to speak of. Very little motivations given as to what made him the man he was. - yes those details slowly emerged as the series went on- but at the start, not so much. He simply WAS. thats just the way it was done then. Matt Dillon, Archie Bunker, Ted Baxter - all examples of this.

Today's "sencibilities" as far as TV go (especially in serialized drama) positively DWELL on characters and why they are the way they are (think "LOST") 

For today's Kirk example to be valid to today's audience, they now need to _see what he's overcome _to be the man he is and why would should follow him.

A character who has to "straighten up and fly right" is more interesting in a "Johnny Squarejaw" who is flawless from the cradle. and would be more identifiable to an audience who is more like the former than the latter.

and that's what Christmas is all about Charlie Brown...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Candidly I don't see the need for an origin story.

And, hey, we already accepted characters already fleshed out: Batman is a good example.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

New article with details at http://trekmovie.com "Anthony’s Thoughts On The L.A. Star Trek Movie Presentation"

Warning - story spoilers galore!

Today's my 21st wedding anniversay so my wife and I are heading out to see the new Bond flick. I hope the new Star Trek preview is showing so I can see what it looks like on the big screen!


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

*Leornard Nimoy said, 'Trek has run its course'*

In other words...IT'S OVER. 

It needs to be REINVENTED or it will stay dead. Me, I'm thrilled to have more Trek. And what looks like great Trek as well. Trek that will MAKE MONEY, so we will have more movies, more books, more models (YEAH!!!!). 

Here's a very good article about the new movie: 

http://http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/20/anthonys-thoughts-on-the-la-star-trek-movie-presentation/


"I have no doubt that many Trek fans are having trouble embracing the amount of change this film represents for the franchise. But I would argue that Star Trek has no choice but to change. For the last decade, the franchise has been in decline. Creatively it has been running out of steam (with some notable bright spots along the way), and the popularity has been in decline. It is surprising that just a few years after the financial failures of Nemesis and Enterprise, Paramount took the risk of making a big Trek film, and even more surprising that it didn’t go down the full reboot road like the Batman and Bond franchises. Abrams and his team are trying to thread the needle of creating a film that works for the Trek fans and works for a general audience. From what I have seen, it appears that they may have pulled it off."


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

There is no escaping this is an origin movie so we will see the characters develop into the ones we know. I think this will definitely spawn more movie sequels and/or a TV series. Most likely it will be a Star Trek soap opera popular trend nowadays like Babylon 5 and the new Battlestar Galactica were the big story develops episode by episode through many back story plots.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Warped,
I can't think of a worse example then Batman.

Every frikking film /Animated series in the last tweny years has beat us over the head with the Batman Origin Story. If I see on more sobbing kid in an alley, I'm likely to to turn to crime, too :freak:

I'm trying to think of a recent film that wasn't based on a comic book or children's novel that wasn't an origin story. 

3:10 to Yuma. not a great film, but they didn't go out of their way trying to explain everybody's motivations


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> A character who has to "straighten up and fly right" is more interesting in a "Johnny Squarejaw" who is flawless from the cradle. and would be more identifiable to an audience who is more like the former than the latter.
> 
> and that's what Christmas is all about Charlie Brown...


WOW!!! Well put. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> I don't think so. Your _opinions_ have been criticized for continually raining on the parade. Besides, your opinions as well have been over critical of the fans who are seemingly _'whipped into submission'._
> 
> Check that mirror


I'll do more than "rain on the parade." 

But seriously, criticism of *what we've see so far* is all that's being submitted. "Raining on the parade" is admittedly what we're doing but the weather--the departure from what we loved and still love--is more than obvious. We can see it. We don't like it. That's all there is to it.

I'll smear my bad attitude all over the walls here. Why not and so what? I don't have to keep it all to myself. After all, that's not healthy for the psyche

It's just my opinion. If you're sorely disappointed after seeing the movie, you may be doing the same thing a few months from now. That's fine. 

Or, you may instead be rejoicing in the "second coming" of Trek. That's fine, too.

So what if we discourage some folks from seeing it? Word of mouth is the life's blood of movie makers and advertisers. They're obviously garnering some high negatives and the word of mouth is spreading but that's just the risk they take which may turn off a lot more folks from going in to see the movie. 

So what? I have no responsibility in that regard. I'll criticize it from now to the day it premieres and probably afterwards. So what? Paramount and Abrams are big boys and if they can't take it (and I'm sure they can), they need to find a new line of work.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Well, tell ya what. I'm not gonna spend theater bucks on this thing, but I'm sure I'll rent it when it hits DVD. If the story is good and the characters aren't TOO butchered, I'll go easier on it.
> 
> But still, my biggest criticisms of what I've seen and heard so far are mostly based on the interests of my particluar kind of Trekkie species - I'm a Trek Modeler, and a Trekkie Techie. In other words, while I love the show, the characters and the stories, I'm also greatly interested, as a modeler, in the ship, it's tech, its appearance, and getting that all accurate. I've spent 40 years doing that. Don't expect me to like the studio suddenly deciding to throw it all away on me and try to tell me "No, the ship really looked like _this _now."
> 
> ...


Well put, sir!:thumbsup:


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I'll smear my bad attitude all over the walls here.





> Don't expect me to like the studio suddenly deciding to throw it all away on me and try to tell me "No, the ship really looked like this now."
> 
> Same with the show's elaborate backstories and history. Plenty of it was fleshed out in the series and movies. There's plenty of it we know. Don't expect those of us who've loved and learned Trek history for 40 years to like suddenly being told "No, that's not the way it happened, this story supercedes everything you know."
> 
> I can't help but find that, well, insulting.


"Get a life people, for crying out loud it's a TV show!!"

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/get-a-life-full-version-william-shatner/2504246532


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

*I Know How They Will End It!*

At the very end of the movie Kirk will wake-up tell the woman he is sleeping with that he had the strangest dream, then Suzanne Pleshette will come out from underneath the covers. Then fade to black.


----------



## PhilipMarlowe (Jan 23, 2004)

Edge said:


> At the very end of the movie Kirk will wake-up tell the woman he is sleeping with that he had the strangest dream, then Suzanne Pleshette will come out from underneath the covers. Then fade to black.



I think we can rule that one out, since she died back in January.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

PhilipMarlowe said:


> I think we can rule that one out, since she died back in January.


Come on we live in the digital age! Death of an actor won't stop them now.

They have to explain all the breaks in canon some how?!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I’m not sure how this will fly, but in the interests of maintaining the peace I’ve stuck two new Trek XI-related threads: One for the decidedly pessimistic, and the other for the cautiously optimistic. The idea is to provide a “safe zone” in which like-minded Trek fans may air their views about the forthcoming film without having to justify those views to those in the opposite camp. 

Decidedly Skeptical parties are invited to go here…

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=235813

Cautiously Optimistic parties are invited to go here...

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=235812


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

I guess I'm going to be brave about this...

As someone said earlier on in this thread, getting articles, pictures and snippets via the media are usually meant to stir up and build interest regarding a film or series, but the more I see about this film, the more I wonder what I'll like or dislike about it.

Sure, we're all looking at the pics and the divergence in opinions are about as polarized as the recent presidential election. Some are looking at the pics of sets, costumes, etc. and saying "no way" while others are looking at the same pics and practically falling in love with the production design of the next Trek film. The only bit that scares me is that we've still got 6 more months until Trek XI comes out and how much people will be exposed to by then.

Just to let you know where I stand on this, I'm not falling in love with what I'm seeing and reading, but I know that I'll still go see it. Who knows? I might find myself surprised and be bowled over by it. It makes me think back to 1978-79 before TMP was due to premiere. Back then, the only exposure that Trek fans had to what the film was going to look like was almost entirely via print media. Even though the Enterprise was very nearly completely redesigned, the costumes were completely different, etc., I still anticipated seeing that film. Now, I was 19 back then and a hopelessly Trek starved geek subsisting on reruns for nearly a decade and I couldn't wait.

What's interesting was after watching TMP that evening back in December of 1979, my initial reaction internally was "we waited 10 years for THAT?" While I loved all the hardware, the costumes (yes, I actually liked them), the music, what I didn't like was the story. I know that it's a SciFi story theme, one that had been explored before, but the film felt overly long and some of the characters initially felt like strangers as they'd gone their separate ways as part of the story. Even though I didn't like the story, I went back a couple of times to see it. It's funny when you think about it because a lot of people don't like the pacing of TMP, so I know that I'm not alone there. Looking backwards, TMP is actually my favorite Trek film of all. Mostly due to the look of the film as well as the scale of the film, but it was also the film that put Trek back on the "map" so to speak. The rest is history.

Now, looking at Trek XI, I'm not falling all over myself about what I'm seeing, but I'm also not 19, I'm 48 and I've got a different perspective. I'll go see Trek XI and I may not think that I'll like it, but I might be surprised by it and enjoy it. It might actually be what rekindles the Trek franchise again for all I know, but then again, it might be the final bolt in the torpedo tube and this is the last Trek we'll ever see as new.

I guess that we'll just have to see what happens in May.

Bryan


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Raist3001 said:


> "Get a life people, for crying out loud it's a TV show!!"


It takes two to tango, pard, and you've been dancing, too!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

With regard to how much of an international presence Star Trek has, did someone not see Trekkies 2? Or not hear of FedCon?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Oh for the love of God, my point wasn't that Trek doesn't have an overseas fan following. Clearly it does, and a lovely bunch they are. My point, for anyone who cares, is that the Trek FILMS have never been able to capture the sort of international audience required to build and sustain a big budget, A-list, Event Movie franchise. The numbers have simply not been there, and not by a long shot. Why? Well, as Phil pointed out earlier, it probably has something to do with the fact that the Trek movies generally SUCK.

From today's Hollywood Reporter:

_The foreign take on any one of the previous 10 "Trek" films never amounted to more than 37% of the worldwide total. The top-grossing entry, 1996's "Star Trek: First Contact," beamed up only $146 million in total, with $54 million coming from foreign markets._

For the record, $54 million is peanuts. And that's the _best_ Trek has managed to pull in overseas.

Paramount is banking on the next film to do HUGE business overseas, and it will need to in order to justify the massive expense of producing a sequel.

Additional info re: the Trek XI marketing and publicity strategy can be found here...

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3i3727898fb2739b04b2de6351ac990e26

So much for the studio being "afraid" of giving fans a taste of what's in store.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

You know it doesn't seem enough that people can just disagree. And I find it hilarious that some of those who do like what they see and hear so far are criticizing the dissenters _because_ they are critical of what they've seen and heard so far.

It's not "raining on the parade" if one is critical of work available to be seen in the public domain. It's their subjective opinion that they are rightly entitled to have. It can only be considered "raining" if the overall mindset of those in favour only tolerate positive responses--and I haven't seen that rule written anywhere around here.

Even if we understand that this film is unquestionably a reboot and will not adhere to what has been previously established in TOS we can still be critical of it. _Batman Begins_ and _Casino Royale_ were reboots of their respective franchises and in those cases many of us were favourable to what was done there.

But so far some of us are not won over by what we've seen of Abrahms' film so far. And our dissent doesn't make us any less _Star Trek_ fans just as others' approval doesn't make them any more.

Hey, I still think George Reeves is the best Superman/Clark Kent in terms of live action. And that doesn't make me any more or any less a fan of Superman because I don't prefer Christopher Reeve and cannot stand Brandon Routh.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Dang, Warped! The more I read of what you say, the more I agree with you! :thumbsup:

Now, any chance of closing this thread on a high note, Carson?


----------



## RMBurnett (Jan 12, 2005)

*This sums up my feelings pretty well...*

Folks,

Having seen the twenty minutes of footage, I think this is so far the best article I've come across regarding the footage shown:

http://chud.com/articles/articles/17106/1/STAR-TREK-FOOTAGE-THE-WRATH-OF-CHUD/Page1.html

Anyone who's at all interested, I suggest you check it out.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Now, any chance of closing this thread on a high note, Carson?


Fine by me.

The new Pro & Con stickies seem to have found an audience anyway, so we can continue the discussion over there. Hopefully the separate threads will help minimize the sort of bitter, defensive, and acrimonious feather ruffling that's taken place here.


----------

