# New Enterprise???



## Trekie2 (Jun 7, 2008)

Don't know if this has already been posted, but take a look-

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/11/star-trek-first.html

Looks....well....weird to me......


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Trekie2 said:


> Looks....well....weird to me......


Agreed. I wonder if Gene is turning over in his grave!:freak:


----------



## abu625 (Jul 4, 2002)

The nacelles are the odd part. Everything else looks pretty familiar.

Of course, I thought the ST:TMP Enterprise looked "odd" after growing up on TOS.

And the Enterprise-D definitely took some getting used to.

Maybe, in time, we'll embrace this incarnation as well.


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

At the risk of sounding like the stereotyped Trekkie...

Oh.

My.

God.

...And I thought the Enterprise-B was slapped with the ugly stick!

This one hit EVERY branch on the way down!
Then got catapulted up to the top to REPEAT the fall...

I withdraw my request for a model of this thing...

This HAS to be a prank by Paramount...It HAS to be...:freak::freak:

Ugh.

Jeez, J.J....Nothing like staying REASONABLY true to the source design, hey? 
Greg


----------



## Styrofoam_Guy (May 4, 2004)

The movie better have a very good story


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

The saucer: I could deal with.

The Pylons: I could live with.

The Nav Def: Make it a reddish/orangish/copperish type color and I'd go with it.

But, WHAT'S the deal with those over-swooped engines? :freak:

And WHERE'S the rest of the Engineering Hull?! 

And WHY does the dorsal connect in practically the MIDDLE of the secondary hull, throwing the balance off? 

Where's the hull registry on the saucer underside?

They REALLY need to put this one BACK in the oven...it's only HALF-baked...

Again, UGH. :freak:  

Greg


----------



## Trekie2 (Jun 7, 2008)

As a die hard fan, and not to repeat what has been said a million times before, but why not just give us the original E with a great story....that is that will keep in in tune with the series...

This "new" ship is a rehash on the old series and therefore different.....do I like different, YES but don't go back and encapsulate it on the back of an iconic show....start something new....but have great stories, good writing....etc.... 

Anyone get what I'm saying...or am I NUTS!!!!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ick!!!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

What the freaking hell is abrams thinking? Pardon my French but that 'Enterprise' is just plain WRONG!!
And yes I do believe Gene Rodenberry is turning over in his grave.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Everyone..Attention please...

I know how hard it is to walk away from a good cliche, but for the love of God, it's rather a famous fact that Roddenberry was cremated.

Henceforth please refrain from claiming he would roll over in his grave. 

The most he could do would be to kick up a little dust in his urn. ( at least the portion that wasn't shot into space)

that is all. please go back to your regularly scheduled whining:wave:


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

:freak: Wow ......that's..... just wrong!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Thanks Lou! That was so...educational.

I like the look of the ship, and would like a model of it, but it ain't the Enterprise.

I can't wait to see what John Payne, will do with the model. 

Oh, I didn't mention it, but I WON'T see the movie. I will take TOS, no bloody NG,DS9,Voyager, Enterprise, or JJ's child!


----------



## Krel (Jun 7, 2000)

Looks like they took the E from the first movie, and melted it. 

From the few photos I've seen, it looks like the bridge, and ship exterior was patterned after ST:TMP. Everything, I see and hear about the film, just does not resonate with me, and leaves me underwhelmed. I guess I'll wait for the network premier to watch it, or not.

David.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

I'm thinking we will all get used to it... maybe even grow fond of it... but... if a good injection kits gets made... can you say kit bash! Great material to work with, I'd say!

I'm going to the midnight showing of Bond tomorrow night just in hopes of seeing it in motion!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

This is just like putting fins on the real of a VW beetle, and calling it the Batmobile.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I can't wait to see what John Payne, will do with the model.


Not buy it!


----------



## bigdaddydaveh (Jul 20, 2007)

The photos of the new bridge set look like a cell phone store. The ship design is different that's for sure. Then again, so was TNG Enterprise D. That took some getting used to. I'm a big fan of Lost and was looking forward to seeing what he's do with Trek. I'm just hoping it has a good script. I keep telling myself this could be the next Batman re-boot and it could turn out to be great. I think we all have to admit the franchise needs some new life poured into it.


----------



## spocks beard (Mar 21, 2007)

Sorry, I know i'm gonna get a lot of flack for this,But this enterprise in a word....SUCKS. It's not that i can't accept change, But they wen't out of the way to redisine something that was perfect as it was. It looks more updated than the motion picture Enterprise:freak:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> This is just like putting fins on the real of a VW beetle, and calling it the Batmobile.


I did that--but I only refer to it as the Bat Bug or Bat Beetle.

This ship sucks--a lot! This is the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" make over of our beloved 1701.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

This is the Enterprise that would have been if the Romulans nefarious scheme to screw up the timelime worked. When Kirk & Spock get everything fixed by the end of the movie we'll see the real Enterprise. 

I hope.


----------



## Steve244 (Jul 22, 2001)

Can I play too?

This reminds me of High School Musical, but not in a good way.

I kinda like the ship though.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> This is the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" make over of our beloved 1701.


LMFAO ! :jest::jest:

That's classic ! And too true from that pic !


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

It does look a bit weird but maybe it'll look better on film.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Abrams has tweeked it wayyy too much. Now if he had just done a wee bit.....


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee, has a way with words! But, it is SO true.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

If they just absolutely couldn't leave an excellent original design alone, why didn't they *completely* redesign her?

All they did was tinker around with the details while keeping the overall form. To appease the Trek fans? Doesn't work for *this* one.

The original design served a purpose. This looks like the WWE version of the Enterprise...jacked up on steroids without too much brain power behind it.

*YUCK!!!!!!!!:drunk:*


----------



## GUS (Jun 29, 2006)

man, like i said before in another thread,
When I saw this the first thing that popped in my head was
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/1251/4405/1600/homer_dreamcar.gif

so when it shoots photon torpedoes does it sound like
" la cucaracha, la cucaracha ...:

2cents:freak:


----------



## bigdaddydaveh (Jul 20, 2007)

vs.










Now to me, that makes sense. So does a new Enterprise design if you are starting from scratch with the Star Trek franchise. It does not mean I don't love and respect the original. Like Batman, this is a total re-boot of the story. Can't we all just let the move live or die on it's own merits without ripping it to pieces without even seeing it just because it _looks different_? Let's face the facts It's going to look totally different. The actors are not going to sound the same or look the same and the story is going to vary. It's supposed to look new and different. They have said from day one that this was a total rethinking of the franchise. Cannon is out the window and irrelevant with this film and we just need to accept that.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

GUS said:


> man, like i said before in another thread,
> When I saw this the first thing that popped in my head was
> http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/1251/4405/1600/homer_dreamcar.gif
> 
> ...


^^Hilarious! :roll:

To quote Dr. Evil on the matter:

"That ship is only semi-1701. It's quasi-1701. It's the margarine of 1701. It's the Diet Coke of 1701. Just one calorie, not 1701 enough."


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Have you guys seen the picture that Steve Mavronis posted at post #237 of this thread:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=234890&page=16

If that is in fact the new Enterprise, well I think its very nice indeed. Perhaps the first picture we saw was a poor choice and distorted the proportions of the ship.

IMHO, this new Enterprise, based on the picture I've referenced above, honors the original design and updates it every bit as capably and with as much elegance as the now much beloved Refit.

Huzz


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

bigdaddydaveh said:


> Can't we all just let the move live or die on it's own merits without ripping it to pieces without even seeing it just because it _looks different_? Let's face the facts It's going to look totally different . . . Canon is out the window and irrelevant with this film and we just need to accept that.


*The Five Stages of Grief at the arbitrary changes made to the 1701:*

*1-Denial*-"this can't be happening to the 1701", looking for the former ship in familiar places or acting as if the ship is still the same. No crying. Not accepting nor even acknowledging the loss.

*2-Anger*-"why change the 1701?", feelings of wanting to fight back or get even with Paramount and the designers responsible for the effeminizing of the 1701.
*
3-Bargaining*-Attempting to make deals with Paramount, sending emails, making posts on forums, raising an alarm and threatening boycott of the new movie. Begging, wishing, praying for the original ship to come back.

*4-Depression*-overwhelming feelings of hopelessness, frustration, bitterness, self pity, mourning loss of the original 1701 as well as the hopes, dreams and plans for the future. Feeling lack of control, feeling numb. Perhaps feeling suicidal.

*5-Acceptance*-Realization that the original 1701 is gone and that it is Paramount's fault. Finding comfort and healing in watching the original series on DVD. Stay with fond memories of the original 1701.

My point here is that people HAVE to ventilate (not necessarily here and not necessarily in a vulgar way) their emotional and logical reactions to this atrocity. They may never change their minds about the new design but if there's ever to be any level of acceptance regarding, ventilating sure helps them to cope. 

Of course, none of this _sturm und angst_ is as important as performing some of the most mundane of daily tasks in our lives but _Star Trek_ is a source of enjoyment and entertainment and should be respected as such.


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

What's wrong with the ship I referenced in my last post?

Huzz


----------



## ShadOAB (Apr 29, 2007)

bigdaddydaveh said:


> vs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good point!

...and yet...the uniforms look to be the same as TOS.


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

As far as the uniforms, please forgive Mr. Abrams for not changing everything and giving us yet another issue to vent about. Here's the thing. Again. It's a reboot. Same as Batman Begins. Same as Casino Royale. Same as Galactica. Some things will be the same or similar, other things will be totally different but in any case there will be obvious similarities. It's not necessarily meant to follow canon (arrgh! there's that word again) because like those other films, it's like it's starting all over.

Where I think people have a problem is that they are taking a wedge and a hammer and a crowbar and trying to force this thing into what they grew up with and how it meshes with what we know or what's been established and you can't. You simply can't because that's not how this is meant to work and if you go into this thing with that mentality you're not ever going to understand, accept or appreciate it on it's own merits. By the way, if that is indeed the profile of the new ship, it is rather nice looking.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Comparing Star Trek to Bond or Batman is irrelevant. Batman changed on a regular basis since he was first shown. We're USED to him changing. We EXPECT him to change. No one version of Batman has endured for over 40 years. Same for the Bond franchise. STTOS has been exactly the same since it first premiered. Even when they made the Animated Series, it was the same. Even when parts of it were used in other Star Trek series, it was the same. Other writers and PRODUCERS respected the fan base and kept the faith.

Now, some Hollywood hot-dog comes along, gleefully stating that he was never a fan, expecting us to let 40+ years just evaporate and accept his new "vision" of this old standard. Like me, many of you say "NO!" and will not only not see the movie, but will also avoid all of the associated merchandise, including plastic model kits. Some of you, particularly younger (non Boomer) folks, will give it a try. Fine, no problem. But, we demand the right to express our opinions, and to vote with our wallets. We respect your right to so the same. (Even if we don't sound like we do...) 

So, let's go ahead and air our differences, but let's all agree to disagree. Personally, I'm sick of the whole thing. I hope PL/R2 gets that 1/350th TOS Enterprise out to us in 2010 like they say, and if they want to make a 1/350th version of the "new" ship, fine. (I won't get one.)

Larry


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Geez, take it easy. You're gonna pop an artery or something. Maybe it was in the hands of 'fans' that made the last film outings so terrible. Maybe they only knew what made good 'Trek' porn and not a good movie. If they make the original Enterprise and the new one in 1/350th I'll get them. No law that say's you can't like both. It ain't a marriage.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Maybe the producers thought that the concept, stories and character relationships made the original series popular. Maybe they thought the hardware design didn't matter. 

Boy, were they wrong.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

I think this would be a GREAT Star Trek movie "IF" they didn't use Kirk and Spock. 

Change the time-line to be somewhere between TOS and TMP. Keep this ship but re-name it Lexington and re-name Kirk and Spock as Duke and Sorjin. Then you could re-boot Star Trek, play around with "Artistic Expression" and not piss off the original fan base. 

Now that'd be "Good Trek"!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Everyone..Attention please...
> 
> I know how hard it is to walk away from a good cliche, but for the love of God, it's rather a famous fact that Roddenberry was cremated.
> 
> ...


Just a figure of speech.:wave:


----------



## phantom11 (Jul 12, 2007)

Just in terms of pure design, removed from the referencing to the original E, I don't think this new one is very good. The thing just feels imbalanced, particularly in the rear. The support pylons for the engines seem out of scale, and the secondary hull to which they attach seems incapable of supporting such "heavy" looking structures. Like they'd just tear off if the ship underwent extreme evasive maneuvers. 
As far as getting used to this design like getting used to TNG's E, it's not the same thing; THAT ship wasn't supposed to be Kirk's ship, and the implication here is that they are wiping out all the continuity that was so well adhered to in evey ST incarnation since TOS. I didn't have that much of a problem with a "re-imagining" as long as what looked right the first time around (and what was used as a foundation for building everything that has come since) wasn't altered too much. Heck, I'd have been perfectly fine with Koerner's version of the "re-imagined" E; at least it still maintained the familiar balance and character of the ship. And let's face it: the ship IS a character, and one of the only ones we don't need a new actor to play each time out.
Well, from what I hear, the new trailer ROCKS, even if the E's design doesn't. I'll go see the film, because I'm curious, and hoping for a great story and great protrayals of characters I enjoy watching. Maybe the new E will catch on, too, but right now, on a gut level? 

BLEAGH.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Jeff,

No arteries or veins are popping here. I'm just upset over this continual "need" on the parts of people we trust to hold our memories dear to try and change them to make more money. Battlestar Galactica is one example. Star Trek is another. So are Thunderbirds, and DC and Marvels' continual "reimagining" of their characters. Why must these be sacrificed so easily? It's soooo much easier for all concerned to just make the story a little different, change the title, or some such and have a whole new story to tell. Star Trek itself has example of different, parallel universes that look like the oringinal one, but differ in subtle ways. Heck, I don't mind that the original series cast isn't involved in this new movie. I DO mind that "JJ" felt he had to change the characters' backgrounds, and also change the one character that never changes (at least so much), the Starship Enterprise. Built on Earth? NO. (parts of it, yes, but in it's entirety? NO) Kirk as bad boy? (NOT LIKE HE"S DEPICTED IN THE MOVIE.) A much better story would be to take the "Enterprise" novel, cast new, younger people to star in it, and use CGI of the TOS Enterprise to tell the story. No Shatner, no Nimoy, just a new cast with a new, but built on the original, story and top of the line special effects. How would you fel about that as the new Trek movie? I'd go to see it, and would probably soak up every piece of merchandise they could throw at me.

Once again, I'm not angry...I'm terribly, terribly disappointed and sad that this has happened.

Larry


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

BTW, the Star Trek series and movies, made after Gene's death, were the fault of another "non-fan". Berman lost his job and the trust of Paramount after the string of stinkers he made.

Larry


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Lord willing, in May I'll be there. Popcorn in one hand, drink in the other.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

I sincerely hope it's all you want it to be. No jokes, sarcasm or whatever. However, I pass.

Larry


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Thanks. Well, the trailer looks bigger and better than any Trek I've ever seen-and I am a fan. I hope it's as good as it appears to be. I just want to see a good Trek film and I hope this is it.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

[IMG-LEFT]http://blogs.cisco.com/gov_img/john%20wayne.jpg[/IMG-LEFT]



MadCap Romanian said:


> . . . Change the time-line to be somewhere between TOS and TMP. Keep this ship but re-name it Lexington and re-name Kirk and Spock as Duke and Sorjin.


Captain _*Duke*_??


----------



## otto (Jan 1, 1970)

I like the new ship..Hopefully the movie will be good!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

JeffG said:


> Lord willing, in May I'll be there. Popcorn in one hand, drink in the other.


Would that be a soft drink or something harder?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

MadCap Romanian said:


> I think this would be a GREAT Star Trek movie "IF" they didn't use Kirk and Spock.
> 
> Change the time-line to be somewhere between TOS and TMP. Keep this ship but re-name it Lexington and re-name Kirk and Spock as Duke and Sorjin. Then you could re-boot Star Trek, play around with "Artistic Expression" and not piss off the original fan base.
> 
> Now that'd be "Good Trek"!


I've been thinking the exact same thing in general for the series for years now. Such a movie could be the "Clone Wars" (though live-action) of Star Trek covering some gaps in the future not paid attention to by other incarnations of Trek.



LGFugate said:


> . .. .STTOS has been exactly the same since it first premiered. Even when they made the Animated Series, it was the same. Even when parts of it were used in other Star Trek series, it was the same. Other writers and PRODUCERS respected the fan base and kept the faith.
> 
> Now, some Hollywood hot-dog comes along, gleefully stating that he was never a fan, expecting us to let 40+ years just evaporate and accept his new "vision" of this old standard. Like me, many of you say "NO!" and will not only not see the movie, but will also avoid all of the associated merchandise, including plastic model kits. Some of you, particularly younger (non Boomer) folks, will give it a try. Fine, no problem. But, we demand the right to express our opinions, and to vote with our wallets. We respect your right to so the same. (Even if we don't sound like we do...)
> 
> Larry


A voice of logic and reason! :thumbsup:


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

irishtrek said:


> Would that be a soft drink or something harder?


It would definitely be a stiffer drink if they accidentally showed either Star Trek 1,3,4,5, parts of 7, parts of 8,9 or 10. Funny, J.J Abrams didn't have anything to do with them yet _he's_ gonna ruin the series.


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

...and that new-fangled tellyvision is gonna RUIN, I say, RUIN, Amos and Andy and Fibber Magee and Molly!


----------



## deadmanincfan (Mar 11, 2008)

Tellyvision? Who ever heered of sech a thing? Ye're funnin' us, Chris!


----------



## Scott Hasty (Jul 10, 2003)

So how did all you guys get to see this movie already? With all the conclusions I've read, you must've seen it!

Unless you're conclusions are based on 12 or 13 pictures and a single angle of the new ship which would be absurd.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

And the trailer. Don't forget the trailer.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

And the descriptions of several parts of the movie that were shown to the press...

Larry


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Not to mention the descriptions provided by Mr. Abrams himself.

Larry


----------



## Scott Hasty (Jul 10, 2003)

John P said:


> And the trailer. Don't forget the trailer.


Which was quite awesome...


----------



## Scott Hasty (Jul 10, 2003)

LGFugate said:


> And the descriptions of several parts of the movie that were shown to the press...
> 
> Larry


Which everyone shown went gaga over...


----------



## Scott Hasty (Jul 10, 2003)

LGFugate said:


> Not to mention the descriptions provided by Mr. Abrams himself.
> 
> Larry


Which sound intriguing at worst...

Keep in mind everyone, films are made for the general public. If a film were made specific to a general base, it would never make money; YES even as popular as Trek is...


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I love that argument: "Star Trek has been the SAME for 40 years!! Everyone who worked on it made it the SAME! Now someone dares to not make it the SAME!" 

What a badge of honor! We've managed to prevent Star Trek from growing, changing or evolving for four decades and we're damned if we're going to let some snot-nosed kid change it now!!

I was just rereading David Gerrold's The World of Star Trek. There's a great interview with Leonard Nimoy about how he once started to refuse to work on a story suggestion by D.C. Fontana about Spock in love. "Wait a minute, Spock is a cold, rational character, we can't do this, this is not the character we've worked out," etc. etc. Then he read the script and it turned out to be great. He said that after that he vowed to never reject an idea out of hand based on his own preconceptions of what Spock and Star Trek was again, and he argues very strongly against the kind of mind set that thinks like that.

Well, that's what a lot of "trekkers" have become: fossilized with their own notions of exactly what Star Trek's "formula" should be--which is a very good reason why a lot of Trek in recent years has sucked. Now I have no idea whether the entire JJ Abrams Trek movie will be great or terrible (although I have liked the lions share of what I've seen so far), but I'm not going to stamp my little foot and decide that it HAS to suck because it doesn't obey my "rules" of what Star Trek is or isn't. But for everyone who's made that decision already, enjoy your DVD collections...


----------



## Scott Hasty (Jul 10, 2003)

jbond said:


> I love that argument: "Star Trek has been the SAME for 40 years!! Everyone who worked on it made it the SAME! Now someone dares to not make it the SAME!"


WELL PUT!!


----------



## falcon49xxxx (Aug 4, 2008)

"I concur Mr Bond"


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

> I love that argument: "Star Trek has been the SAME for 40 years!! Everyone who worked on it made it the SAME! Now someone dares to not make it the SAME!"
> 
> What a badge of honor! We've managed to prevent Star Trek from growing, changing or evolving for four decades and we're damned if we're going to let some snot-nosed kid change it now!!


Well, no, that's not what we're saying at all. We're saying it ain't broke (TOS, at least), and it don't need fixin' or "reimagining." We sure don't need the primary icon of the series, the ship herself, redesigned as if it needed improvement. Which, btw, the "new" design kinda proved to many of us - it sure isn't an improvement! More of a classic example of how to take something that works and screw it up.

Like most remakes lately.


----------



## Scott Hasty (Jul 10, 2003)

John P said:


> Well, no, that's not what we're saying at all. We're saying it ain't broke (TOS, at least), and it don't need fixin' or "reimagining." We sure don't need the primary icon of the series, the ship herself, redesigned as if it needed improvement. Which, btw, the "new" design kinda proved to many of us - it sure isn't an improvement! More of a classic example of how to take something that works and screw it up.
> 
> Like most remakes lately.


Oh like:

*Batman*: the masses SCREAMED about the Tumbler and Joker's make-up until the film(s) were released.
*Battlestar Galactica*: all the howling over Starbuck, the new Viper and “human” Cylons was quickly quashed after the pilot.
*Ironman*: Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, HERESY!

Let's not forget:

*Star Trek: The Next Generation*: I cannot begin to list the things the rabid TOS fans said yet their screaming was quickly silenced.

For anyone to make a judgement call after a couple of short screenings (which most of that footage will be scrapped more than likely), 13 pictures and a single angle of the new E is again stupidly absurd.

To ramble on how they are changing TOS is equally absurd. I'm sure the timeline will be well preserved. Considering how much they butchered the timeline with First Contact (Cochran as an Earthling?)

I find it a good thing we won't be seeing the TOS enterprise as on a big screen it would be utterly boring stylistically, the sets would look ridiculous in their post 50's brightly colored, future look and frankly the film would fail to get a general audience.

Lastly, what makes you think this is the ship made for TOS. They may have to separate the secondary due to some catastrophe and have another, better designed one built.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

I must take issue (off-topic) about Robert Downey Junior as Iron Man/Tony Stark. The man has practically lived the role. (Not the Iron Man part, but Tony Stark) I hadn't heard of any outcry over him, and I've tried to follow the press for that movie for a while.

It all boils down to this: Why change what works? Why is it necessary? If a film is wanted for the "new" generation, why not give them a story of their own? Why do we have to "reimagine"? What's wrong with REALLY using one's imagination and creating a piece of Star Trek (or BSG for that matter) that is truly unique and appealing to those folks who want that? This could have been a truly new start for Star Trek. But, because someone lacked that vision, we have this movie that is coming in 2009. One that I, and many others, will not see. As has been said before, if you want to see it, please do so. As I said to Jeff, I truly and honestly hope it's all you want it to be. In the meantime, disparaging those of us who don't like the whole idea of reimagining Star Trek will get you nowhere. (Most of us are pretty set in our ways.)

Enjoy your movie!

Larry


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The Tumbler still sucks.
I had no issue with the Joker makeup.
Galactica took some getting used to, but I had no investment in the original, which was a crappy 1-season cash-in on Star Wars that has nowhere NEAR the presence or impact of Trek.
I thought Downy was _perfect _casting!
And I loved TNG.
But it's nice to see you're being reasonable. :freak:



> Lastly, what makes you think this is the ship made for TOS. They may have to separate the secondary due to some catastrophe and have another, better designed one built.


You have some inside information that no one else has to that effect? 'Cause otherwise that's one wild guess there.


----------



## Scott Hasty (Jul 10, 2003)

John P said:


> You have some inside information that no one else has to that effect? 'Cause otherwise that's one wild guess there.


.

Nope, just some serious SWAG against the Jon Lovitz portrayal on SNL…


----------



## ShadOAB (Apr 29, 2007)

Scott Hasty said:


> I find it a good thing we won't be seeing the TOS enterprise as on a big screen it would be utterly boring stylistically, the sets would look ridiculous in their post 50's brightly colored, future look and frankly the film would fail to get a general audience.
> 
> .


I've always wondered what the TOS Enterprise would look like at feature film quality. In other words...the detail, the fine scale detail that would make it credable and huge. I think the realistic approach with nuts & bolts...panels, etc...as if there were such a monster built...would be interesting.

But...I guess we won't see that.


----------



## Scott Hasty (Jul 10, 2003)

LGFugate said:


> I must take issue (off-topic) about Robert Downey Junior as Iron Man/Tony Stark. The man has practically lived the role. (Not the Iron Man part, but Tony Stark) I hadn't heard of any outcry over him, and I've tried to follow the press for that movie for a while.


Go back several years and read the childish outcry of his drugged-addicted self. Many were steadfastly against him as Stark.



LGFugate said:


> It all boils down to this: Why change what works? Why is it necessary?


.

Because ST of the sixties looks dated and humorous; it would never get the attention of the widespread populace.




LGFugate said:


> If a film is wanted for the "new" generation, why not give them a story of their own? Why do we have to "reimagine"? What's wrong with REALLY using one's imagination and creating a piece of Star Trek (or BSG for that matter) that is truly unique and appealing to those folks who want that?


Do you have information as to the storyline of this new film, please tell, because no one else does. Why do you assume that this will be terrible because of the limited reporting surrounding it? I have a feeling the nay-sayers will crawl back to their holes after this is premeired and glorify it after it's commercial success.



LGFugate said:


> This could have been a truly new start for Star Trek. But, because someone lacked that vision, we have this movie that is coming in 2009.


Actually, I lack your vision. You have not seen any of the footage or the final cut. What gives you the right to be the master critic? As an IDF, I find most film critics are failed filmmakers or screenwriters. Considering your criticism, I suggest a job in the food service industry.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

> Because ST of the sixties looks dated and humorous; it would never get the attention of the widespread populace.


Baloney.

This hunk of poo they're giving us now is the silliest looking hero starship I've ever seen in a professional Trek production.

And the original has _already _gotten the attention of a widespread populace.


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

Batman was rebooted because the movies they were making were crap and had nothing to do with the character in the comic books. As for the Batmobile it has constantly changed throughout the comic books run. Battlestar Galactica changed because it was just a bad show. The new show is more realistic to me and better written. As for The Next Generation I have never thought it was as good a show as the Original series. I hated all the other shows after it. I grew up with the old Enterprise, I had hoped to see it on the big screen. To me she is perfect and still modern enough to be on screen even now. I think this new ship looks terrible. It looks like the Enterprise D and the Refit had some incestuous affair and it is the inbred mutated offspring. I really hope that this movie turns out good, I want Star Trek to succeed. The last few years they have offered us crap named Star Trek and when we didn't like it they blamed us the fans and then told us Star Trek is dead.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> The Tumbler still sucks.
> I had no issue with the Joker makeup.
> Galactica took some getting used to, but I had no investment in the original, which was a crappy 1-season cash-in on Star Wars that has nowhere NEAR the presence or impact of Trek.
> I thought Downy was _perfect _casting!
> And I loved TNG.


Same here and I'm more of a crotchety ol' stick-in-the-mud than JohnP ever dreamed of being!
_
ST:TNG_ was a major change from what we'd seen before but it was the "future of the future" so it made sense. They never went back and rewrote what happened during _TOS_. They were respectful.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

LGFugate said:


> As has been said before, if you want to see it, please do so. As I said to Jeff, I truly and honestly hope it's all you want it to be. In the meantime, disparaging those of us who don't like the whole idea of reimagining Star Trek will get you nowhere. (Most of us are pretty set in our ways.)
> 
> Enjoy your movie!


How convenient that you didn't quote the last part of that message. I'll just point out that I have as much right to criticize this movie based on the information that has been released as you have to criticize me and the others who don't want this movie. I'm NOT out to crush your hopes. I'm TRYING to point out that not all of us will be seeing this and why. You can make up your own minds based on your own predijuces and the available information. I respectfully suggest you try opening your mind to the fact that there are people who don't like their icons changed.

Larry

P.S. The movie is already made. There is no changing that fact. There is almost no chance at all that Paramount will change their minds on the storyline or the look of the Enterprise, especially since they're releasing the new trailer, photos and descriptions of scenes in the movie.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I never saw Batman, because of the Tumbler.

I hated the changes to BSG. so never watched the series, just the preview show. I still like TOS BSG!

Ironman, just didn't interest me.

STNG, I looked forward to the series in 1987. A new crew, new ship, new stories, and it was in the ST future, not a redone show. I did have one problem with the series, I didn't like Jerry Goldsmith's STMP theme, used in the main theme, but got over it, or did I?

The use of new actors, playing Kirk and crew, is old. Check out ST New Voyages. At least they kept TOS Enterprise. 

You would think that Paramount would have learned from the series Enterprise.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Lloyd, I LOVE New Voyages! It's sooo cool to see how professional a bunch of fans can be. Have you seen Starship Exeter? While it's a different ship, it's still in the TOS timeframe, and great!

Also, New Voyages has Paramounts' blessings, so they can get some of the original TOS stars to be in their stories. The one about Checkov brought a tear to my eye.

Larry


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Now that I've seen the trailer....I like the new Enterprise. A lot. I think it will 'work' in this vision of Trek better than the original. And if you watched the trailer, maybe you noticed....they spent a BOATLOAD OF CASH on this movie. None of this, 'well, we've got a script, and the old cast is available, let's see if we can get some more money out of the fan's nonsense. This is a BIG MOVIE. Paramount is finally doing the right thing with Trek - trying to make it successfull. I hope they succeed. Because the last five movies and three series were all pretty damn bad. And I'm sick to death of 'warmed-over, we don't really know what to do' Trek.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

I saw the trailer last night just before the start of "Fringe". It looks spectacular I must say. Lots more action than I'm used to seeing from the most recent movies. The Enterprise actually looks pretty cool from what I can see of it. I just hope the best parts weren't shown in the trailer.


----------



## Quantum (Mar 17, 2006)

Reading this thread brought back great memories of my days posting at Starship Modeler; and by "great", I mean just the opposite. 

One would think that those interested in the future (and future modelling) would be more open-minded to change. Change, is after all, the nature of the universe, and one of its few constants. 

If you meet a girl named Sue with blond hair, do you tell her you can't date her because you once dated a blond Sue and you're now "ruined" for all blonds named Sue? She'll think you're nuts, and may very well be correct. No, Sue #1 is different from Sue #2, even though they have some things in common. There's no reason you can't enjoy both the similarities AND differences.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Why do you have to call it_ Trek_, then? Let's see some original new movies and projects going out there. There's plenty of great sci-fi that hasn't made it to the screen yet. I'm so open-minded that I'd rather see more original stuff.

However, if you're going to do _Trek_, why not stay consistent with what we've seen before in the universe? And why revisit the same old characters over and over again? Let's see some new starships and new characters. _Trek_ is a big enough universe. Why does it always have to be about Kirk and Spock, anyway?:freak:


----------



## Dave Hussey (Nov 20, 1998)

Quantum said:


> One would think that those interested in the future (and future modelling) would be more open-minded to change. Change, is after all, the nature of the universe, and one of its few constants.
> 
> quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> And why revisit the same old characters over and over again? Let's see some new starships and new characters. _Trek_ is a big enough universe. Why does it always have to be about Kirk and Spock, anyway?:freak:


They've already done that--_Next Generation_, _Deep Space Nine_, _Voyager_, _Enterprise_--all of which met with varying degrees of success, none of which were as popular as the original series (with the possible exception of _Next Generation_).

Make no mistake about it--Paramount is in it for the money, pure and simple, and they're going to keep going back to the _Star Trek_ well until it's bone dry. I'm sure they're hoping the new film will reinvigorate the franchise by attracting younger viewers, which is where the money is. In order to do that, they have to use younger actors and give younger audiences plenty of "eye candy". Those of us who watched the original series when it first aired are 40 years older now and, let's face it, we no longer fit the demographic most films are marketed towards these days.

To paraphrase Captain Spock, "Is it possible that we have grown so old and so inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness?" As far as Paramount is concerned, we have.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Zombie_61 said:


> To paraphrase Captain Spock, "Is it possible that we have grown so old and so inflexible that we have outlived our usefulness?" As far as Paramount is concerned, we have.


 You may well be right, sir! The proof is in the pudding, however. I suspect that it will barely make money and have a good opening weekend based on the franchise name alone but I think it will drop off after the first week or so to the point that it does not perform spectacularly.

I'm disappointed in the direction it's taking but it isn't the end of the world by any means. I've still got the original show on DVD and, honestly, that's good enough for me. It's all fantasy-fodder anyway. New shows are not even necessary for us old fans. I think the ones of us who enjoy it the most build upon what we've already seen within the shows and take it from there.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ya know what's interesting, here and on other bboards I visit? The people who dislike the idea and appearance of the new film criticize the film itself, the producer and the studio. 

People who _like _the idea and appearance of the new film _insult _the people who don't, tell them to get over it, call them old and inflexible, insult the old show itself...



Maybe "interesting" isn't the word I'm looking for, but this is a family bboard.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

With respect, John, there are a number of folks who are opposed to the new movie who make vague insults towards those who are openminded about their expectations. Heck, there have even been a few direct insults towards those folks who are hopeful about the new movie - sorta like what you're talking about.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

I think the Perfesser hit the nail on the head...calling it Trek raises a certain expectation.

That being said, I admit to liking NextGen & Voyager (never could get behind DS9 or Enterprise though). Yeah, they were still part of the Trek franchise, but they had all new characters and were set in different eras so their success had it's own merits.

Sending out a starship named Enterprise with a crew of Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, etc. has a specific connotation to our generation (behavior, interplay between characters, appearance...). What it means to a younger generation I can only guess, but my 14 year old and his friends don't want to hear about anything with the word Trek attached to it (in their minds, it's old, cliched and became a cariciture of itself years ago...BTW: their assessment, not mine). If this is the target audience, then they've shot themselves in the foot. 

If *our* generation is the targeted demographic, then I'd like to remind the studio of other "reimaginings" or "reboots." The LIS movie may have knocked Titanic out of the number 1 spot opening weekend, but it tanked immediately thereafter. In fairness, it was an okay movie, but it was NOT LIS.

Or POTA. Fantastic makeup FX, but otherwise, I thought it fair at best and in no way comparable to the original.

Coke or "New" Coke?

From the studio's vantage point, it seems less about continuity or pleasing the die-hards than it is about the bottom line. From that perspective, I imagine the film will do alright, but if it succeeds, only time will tell if it loses its core audience.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Griffworks said:


> With respect, John, there are a number of folks who are opposed to the new movie who make vague insults towards those who are openminded about their expectations. Heck, there have even been a few direct insults towards those folks who are hopeful about the new movie - sorta like what you're talking about.


I must be missing them.


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

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


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Let's re-evaluate Star Trek.

First off, Gene Roddenbury and Gene L **** are dead. These are the 2 people that made TOS what it was as far as story direction, vision, imagination, etc. Without them, there would be no Star Trek.

Matt Jefferies will always be credited as THE designer of the Enterprise, whether it is the TOS Enterprise or the subsequent incarnations(A,B,C,D,E and Enterprise). As long as the ship has a saucer section, a primary and secondary hull and 2 warp engines, it's always Jefferies idea because the TOS Enterprise is inspiring some new artist to "copy" the original ship in some way or form.

Now...as far as "Could the TOS Enterprise and sets work on film?", the answer is "Yes". Why? SIMPLE!!!

Look at the Phenox in First Contact. It was a cramped little missle with a small cabin for 3 people. Didn't you jump up and shout when the ship blasted out of the ground and then opened up to reveal two TOS looking warp engines with lighting effects? I did! And I was part of that "Modern Target Audience" of that time!

Also, look at Enterprise. That ship was a re-dressed Nebula star ship with TOS looking engines and it worked. 

As for TOS Enterprise itself, she made an appearance on DS9 in the one where they go back to "the Trouble With Tribbles". (I forget the episode name.) And the Bridge was in TNG - Relics. It worked in the 1960's and still does today!

So that being said, why can't TOS Enterprise make it to the big screen? All it needs is the right lighting effects and possibly some "panel work" to give us detail. The lighing effect is good on TOS. It has the orange twirling lights in the forward naceles and solid blue in the back. To update this a touch, add a back light behind the navigational deflector and light the inner intercoolers on the warp engines. add some lighting TMP style to the saucer and secondary hull and there you have it!

As for the sets, even if they used the original sets for the movie, I could see it working as well. Just take a shopping trip to your local Ikea. All those styles are coming back in our day. Lava lamps, Tiki mugs, art deco furniture.....retro is "in". 

SF could also give us some "Modern Touch" highlights, like better read-outs on the instrument panels or something, but keep it light. An enhancement instead of an overhaul.

Heck! Even George Lucas made SW 1-3 connect stylewise with SW 4-6!

And as far as improving old tech with modern SF, they did a fine job on the collector's edition of ST:TMP and the ST:ENHANCED TV series.

Getting back to Roddenbury, his idea of ST was to get away from the "other" sci-fi which was basically "Here's the evil alien....let's kill it!" and bring us "What can the alien TEACH us about ourselves?". 

The more "Modern" ST gets in the hands of her new owners, the more it becomes like Star Wars - meet the alien and kill it. Just what Roddenbury was trying to avoid!

The "Hang-up" most people have with TOS is in the special effects. They forget that ST was suppose to be about STORY. SF can and will allways improve, but without story, you can't watch the show. (Think Shrek 2-200) THIS is what Paramount forgets and why Enterprise was a bomb. They confuse ST with SW.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

Besides, the ST demograph was allways targeted at the 35+ crowd. You know, the working man with the $$$.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> I must be missing them.


I'm missing them, too. 

But it seems that every time I mention that I don't like something I've seen so far, I'm jumped on as if my not gushing over it is wrong and that I should speak only enthusiastically about it until I've seen it in the theater. Sorry, I'm not cooperating.

So far, the ads and pre-publicity that have accompanied the advertising campaign make me want to puke. That is my emotional reaction so far. For advertising folks who supposedly want me to see the film, they're not doing anything to excite me. It looks like the pretty-boy, stylistic dreck that is all over television nowadays which I can't stomach and do not watch.

But then, I don't have much money so they don't care about reaching me, I'm sure. That's okay. I don't have some Italian's name on the seat of my jeans, either. I'll survive just fine without this new mutation of _Trek_.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Me too. Each time I've expressed my opinion, I've been careful to try and NOT insult anyone of the opposite opinion. BUT, each time, I get flamed for being "whiney" and "a baby", of crushing others' enthusiasm for the new venture. So, if you don't LOVE it, you're wrong. That's the message I'm getting here. So what? I've never been a crowd follower anyway. I loved Star Trek when it wasn't cool to do so. 

Point - agree to disagree. I'm not wrong and neither is anyone else with an opinion. Period. I saw the trailer online again the other day. It's NOT growing on me. If it were called "Space Adventure" or "Star Rangers", I'd like it. But it's not. It's called 'Star Trek". It's MEANT to be a "reboot" of my favorite series of all time. I accept that. I don't like it, but there are a couple of hundred million dollars that have already been spent that make it so. I'll let Paramount and Mr. Abrams know what I think in the forums where it's being discussed, and also by keeping my wallet in my pocket. If anyone else, on the other hand, think this is going to be a good (or even great) movie, please be my guest and go see it in May, 2009.

BTW, I'm tired of these endless discussions of the movie. There are 6 months to go until it arrives in theaters. So, I'm going back to my Moebius Seaview and PL Lost In Space kits (the one with the Chariot and the Cyclops) and tuning this out for now.

Larry

P.S. - The Moebius Invisible Man kit is da bomb! What a GREAT piece of engineering!!)


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

John P said:


> Ya know what's interesting, here and on other bboards I visit? The people who dislike the idea and appearance of the new film criticize the film itself, the producer and the studio.
> 
> People who _like _the idea and appearance of the new film _insult _the people who don't, tell them to get over it, call them old and inflexible, insult the old show itself...
> 
> ...


For the sake of clarity, when I referenced the "old and inflexible" quote in my post I was attempting to make a statement about the opinions of moviemakers these days with regards to anyone who does not fit their "18- to 25-year-old" demographic. I never meant to imply this was my own opinion, and I apologize if anyone interpreted my post as insulting in any way (except, perhaps, to the mentality of filmmakers who discount older audience members).


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Zombie_61 said:


> For the sake of clarity, when I referenced the "old and inflexible" quote in my post I was attempting to make a statement about the opinions of moviemakers these days with regards to anyone who does not fit their "18- to 25-year-old" demographic. I never meant to imply this was my own opinion, and I apologize if anyone interpreted my post as insulting in any way (except, perhaps, to the mentality of filmmakers who discount older audience members).


IIRC, you've been cool about everything, Zombie. I took your quote in the spirit you meant it. No misunderstanding here.


----------



## Quantum (Mar 17, 2006)

LGFugate said:


> I saw the trailer online again the other day. It's NOT growing on me. If it were called "Space Adventure" or "Star Rangers", I'd like it. But it's not. It's called 'Star Trek".


I'd really like to understand this: You're saying that if it were named differently, you'd like it, but since its called "Star Trek" you don't? Like its somehow defiled your memories or ideas of what Trek should be?


----------



## Bruce Bishop (Jan 17, 1999)

*"Like its somehow defiled your memories or ideas of what Trek should be?"*

My own personal answer to this question is yes. Not what 'Trek should be' but what it is to me. 

It's not exactly defiling my memories, but just saying to me that my perceptions of and love for the subject are bad and wrong because the new version is so great and the changes made are so much superior to the thing I love, because those making the changes are so much better than I and I should just crawl away and die and leave the godlike new creators alone with their glorious selves and those who worship them. This type of thing always leaves the equivalent of a very nasty taste in my mouth. 

Comments from the 'creators' at DC comics practically used those words when replying to criticism that turning the Hal Jordan Green Lantern into an insane mass-murderer who killed or tried to kill all his friends and fellow Lanterns was not a nice thing to do to a character that was loved and revered by long-time fans of the comics. 

I'm sure that the others who are bothered to any degree right now by the 'new' Star Trek are bothered at least in part for this same reason, *although I could be wrong. *

Anyone who does not realize that people can and do feel this way about things they love deeply, for whatever reason, is not very perceptive or else they don't care enough to really pay attention and consideration to other's feelings on the subject.

Here in Utah the majority group have a saying "If you don't like it here why don't you just leave?" Which is a very obnoxious and not-thought-out response to others with different opinions, thoughts and feelings. This is the group *for* the status quo rather than changes *to* the status quo, but the point is the same whichever side is saying this.

Will the new movie be worth watching for me? I think so. Will it be something I will even remember 5 years from now? Probably not, based on the modern style of all-action-no-thought movies, I have found this to be the case with basically all movies in the genres I like to watch. One of which is action movies themselves. 

I'm sure TOS Star Trek's longstanding fan base and recognition was the reason this movie is being based on the characters, etc., of TOS, rather than Next Gen, Voyager, DS9, Enterprise, or a new Trek altogether. I just wish that, this being the case, the makers of this new version had stayed closer to what it is trying to emulate.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

When Leonard Nimoy says, 'Trek has run it's course'....I believe him. Don't you? Didn't 'Insurrection' make you realize that? How about 'Enterprise'? How about 'Nemesis'? 

Trek didn't change for 15 years and it died. As a commericially viable franchise IT DIED. 

Now they are trying to re-start it and all this nonsense about 'raping my childhood' and 'the uniforms are the wrong color' and 'the new nacelles are to short'...it's just nuts. N-U-T-S, NUTS. 

Go re-watch the Shatner 'Get a life' routine from SNL. THERE IS NO COMBINATION TO THE SAFE. Ok? It's a movie. A BIG-BUDGET, EXPENSIVE, MOVIE WITH AN AWESOME CAST and spectacular special effects. 

All this pissing and moaning about 'it's not my Trek' is just too weird. 'My Trek' is OVER. I'm 54 years old. I saw the first Trek episode ever aired, I've been a Trek fan since I was 12. I WANT NEW TREK AND THIS LOOKS AWESOME!!!!!!

A helluva lot better than 'Nemesis', that's for sure. RE-MAKING OLD TREK IS A RECIPE FOR FINANCIAL DISASTER. 'Nemesis' proved that once and for all. 

When I think of all the nitwits who could be making this movie I thank God for J.J. Abrams. By all indications he is making a good, financially successful, entertaining Trek movie and will go down in science fiction history as the man who gave 'Star Trek' a fighting chance to entertain people for another 40 years.


----------



## Bruce Bishop (Jan 17, 1999)

*Since it has been mentioned repeatedly, I don't believe that Nemesis was a remaking of the original 1960's Star Trek series. Of course I could be wrong on that. *

*The only remaking at all in an official television/movie environment of the original 1960's Star Trek series was the revisit to the Tribbles episode in DS9 or whatever non-1960's Star Trek it was in.* 

If there actually has been a remaking of the original 1960's Star Trek before this new movie comes out next year, I would be interested to know this.

I watched the first broadcast of the original Star Trek series, and most of the movies/TV spinoff series episodes. None were as enjoyable to me as was the original series. I'm not a fanatic by any means. I just have fond memories of the original, and it is the *only* version of Star Trek I have purchased on DVD.

I personally am interested in having new Star Trek 1960's original series movies/episodes/whatever myself. *Since the new movie is directly based on this specific series out of the several other Treks that have been*, I hope it's a good enough story to carry the huge expense of all the special effects involved in it's making. 

I believe I understand both main points of view regarding the new movie, and I do look forward to seeing the movie next year. I am interested and hopeful about it being a good movie myself. 

However, those who are totally for the movie do appear to not understand, and have no empathy or sympathy with, the points of view of those who don't feel the same way. 

This group certainly gives no indication of being gracious winners, which they obviously should be, since the new movie and it's changes from the original Star Trek series is making them so deliriously happy.

Since the side which seems to think that any version of Star Trek *is* Star Trek, regardless of a specific series or spinoff starting with the original, is getting it's way, why is it necessary to put down the opinions of others who disagree?


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Hear Hear! Thanks, Bruce. :thumbsup:

Larry


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Indeed.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Eloquent and logical, Bruce! You'd make the (real) Spock proud!


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Eloquent and logical, Bruce! You'd make the (real) Spock proud!


There is no 'real Spock'. He's an imaginary character. The actor who played him said, and I repeat because people seem to be missing it, 'Trek had run it's course'. 

He means it was over. Done. Finished. Needed a new beginning. William Shatner has just put up a video saying that he thinks the new Enterprise looks great and people should stop fussing about it. 

So. The actors who played both Kirk AND Spock are onboard with this new version of Trek. This should be telling people something....


----------



## Hand Solo (Aug 1, 2007)

There's. No. Real... SPOCK?

Oh no...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Jodet said:


> There is no 'real Spock'. He's an imaginary character.


You know what I meant  

I was engaging in _hyperbole_. We're not children here. We've left the concrete stage of thinking (in Piaget's developmental stages).

Let's please calm down and take it easy. There's no need to be so mean-spirited about it all.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Just an observation, but after reading posts on this subject on 3 different HobbyTalk boards, it seems to me that some of those supporting the new movie are "threatened" by those who do not support it. Since the film has been shot, the effects are in the can (or almost so by now), and the studio is showing the longer trailer, putting out the actors and director for interviews, and releasing stills and partial storylines (which is normal for any upcoming film release), why is that? What can the naysayers do to this film? Several large truckloads of money have been spent. I honestly can't see any way that they won't release it, or make significant changes to it. The vehement responses defending the film tell me that there is a fear factor rising here, at least in some people. I'd appreciate it if someone could calmly explain or deny this for me.

Larry


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Indeed.

Griff thinks I'm hallucinating, but apparently there are other witnesses.

People who don't like what they see of the film criticize the film. People who like what they see of the film criticize people who don't like the film. Or outright insult them.

Maybe not a 100% hard and fast rule, but definitely a trend.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Hand Solo said:


> There's. No. Real... SPOCK?
> 
> Oh no...


Not yet of course, wait another few hundred years. 

Oh, and Sherlock and Dr. Watson lived at 221b Baker street for 20 years before retiring to raise bees. 

There, I'm glad we got that settled.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

You're right, I have seen those kinds of posts. However, as John points out, none of that is threatening on a personal basis. I do not believe that a few people, however, giving their opinions, are going to sway a great many others from seeing the movie if they truly want to. Also, those posts are in places the general public does not go. The only information they are getting is what's in the media and on popular web sites. I stay away from preditor-filled pits like Facebook and MySpace, so I have no idea how the movie is being treated there. That could be important, as a lot of the movie's intended audience would hang out there.

Larry


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Yes, _but _none of those phrases personally insult another poster or their opinion.


I haven't seen those exact phrases on this board and I think most folks are just disappointed and upset at the direction the reincarnation has taken. 

I also agree with John P that, as "mean" as some of the phrases may be, they *are* directed at the movie and the movie makers, while a lot of the the reaction to the criticism gets needlessly personal and intimidating to the posters, themselves.

There's no need to feel threatened. What we say here on this board doesn't amount to a hill of beans in the real world. Our "wishing" for its failure won't make it happen. I don't think it will "fail" per se. I just don't think it will be a spectacular hit.


----------



## ShadOAB (Apr 29, 2007)

Bottom line:

"The *King is dead. Long live the *King!"

(*ST-TOS)


----------



## Promatchracer (Sep 28, 2001)

I think a few PPL need to reread the TOS rules about language 
Anymore post like the ones that where deleted will result in suspension of your Hobbytalk account 
Also remember if you quote a post that violates the TOS you are also violating the TOS


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

John P said:


> Griff thinks I'm hallucinating, but apparently there are other witnesses.


That's a fallacy, John. I never said you were hallucinating, thank you very much.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

John P said:


> Yes, _but _none of those phrases personally insult another poster or their opinion.


But those phrases aren't acceptable here at Hobby Talk, which is why they've been edited. Do ya'll _really_ want Hank to step in here and see those sorts of phrases? I can't reverse his BAN's, just so's ya know....

I'd also like to think that a lot of the posters here are much more eloquent in their ability to express themselves than to use words such as those. Or at least mature enough. 'Pears I'm wrong w/regards to a few of the folks..... 

And no, that last isn't directed at anyone in particular....


----------



## Promatchracer (Sep 28, 2001)

Griffworks said:


> But those phrases aren't acceptable here at Hobby Talk, which is why they've been edited. Do ya'll _really_ want Hank to step in here and see those sorts of phrases? I can't reverse his BAN's, just so's ya know....
> 
> I'd also like to think that a lot of the posters here are much more eloquent in their ability to express themselves than to use words such as those. Or at least mature enough. 'Pears I'm wrong w/regards to a few of the folks.....
> 
> And no, that last isn't directed at anyone in particular....


Hank doesn't need to I have already stepped in. 
I have posted a warning which I could have just banned atleast 2 ppl for a few days. I hope Everybody will me nice and follow the TOS because we have a great place here at HT to freely discuss a wide range of topics as long as everybody follows the rules.

BTW Griff I have almost all the power of Hank but he is still the Big Dog Top Dog and the Best for starting HobbyTalk


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Promatchracer said:


> Hank doesn't need to I have already stepped in.
> I have posted a warning which I could have just banned atleast 2 ppl for a few days. I hope Everybody will me nice and follow the TOS because we have a great place here at HT to freely discuss a wide range of topics as long as everybody follows the rules.
> 
> BTW Griff I have almost all the power of Hank but he is still the Big Dog Top Dog and the Best for starting HobbyTalk


Right, same here w/regards to what I can and can't do as a Super Moderator here at HT - my name's in *red*, too. My point was that if someone else complains and hits that Report Post button, if Hank steps in himself before one of us SuperMod's catch it and take action there are some folks' who might not be posting here any longer. 

Now, let's get this thread back on the topic of the New Enterprise, please....


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

I'm not a Star Trek fan in any way, shape, or form, but I personally think maybe we should wait 'till the movie hits the public before we make criticisms. We're talking about entertainment here- not world changing issues.....

Chris.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Auroranut said:


> I'm not a Star Trek fan in any way, shape, or form, but I personally think maybe we should wait 'till the movie hits the public before we make criticisms. We're talking about entertainment here- not world changing issues.....
> 
> Chris.


But we *are* talking about *universe *changing issues here!


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Fair enough Perfessor. I'd kill to defend my Auroras, so you do have a point....

Chris.


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Sorry Perfessor- I missed your reasoning for a minute.
Please ignore my last post.....

Chris.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

It's the passion that counts. But even then, it'll only get you so far. :thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I have the NX-01 models, but never accepted them as the Enterprise.

I will buy the new Enterprise, because I like the updated design. Might name 1701F or G, or a new name, but never the pre-1701 as in the movie.


----------



## Jodet (May 25, 2008)

Auroranut said:


> I'm not a Star Trek fan in any way, shape, or form, but I personally think maybe we should wait 'till the movie hits the public before we make criticisms. We're talking about entertainment here- not world changing issues.....
> 
> Chris.


I know that sound! It's the voice of sanity! What are you doing in here??
:hat:


----------



## Bruce Bishop (Jan 17, 1999)

I like it enough to buy a model of it, but I too don't really accept it as the prequel Enterprise. I don't accept the NX-01 as a prequel Enterprise either, although it at least looked like a standard Starfleet ship, which the strangely-deformed newest version does not, at least to me.

Even if I thoroughly enjoy the new movie, I really don't think it will have a lasting impact good or bad in my memories. If it does, I hope it's a pleasant memory.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I will say that the Enterprise looks fantastic on the big screen--I saw the 20 minutes of footage JJ Abrams presented at Paramount last week and the visual effects, framing and lighting really show off the new design beautifully. I think people will be arguing more about the Enterprise INterior than exterior after the movie is released.


----------



## Auroranut (Jan 12, 2008)

Jodet said:


> I know that sound! It's the voice of sanity! What are you doing in here??
> :hat:


No Jodet it's not the voice of sanity- it's li'l ol' me........


----------

