# Potential Star trek models



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Hi,Alright,Now that there is going to indeed be another Star Trek movie,I know its a long shot,but do you think anyone will make or reissue models for it.This would be a good opportunity for RC2 to repop the Polar lights original USS Enterprise kit.I really think at best,its the most we can hope for.I remember a while ago,someone said RC2 still had the license for the Star Trek models.I suspect it could be,they held on to it for this new movie,just a guess.Guy S.


----------



## saiyagohan (Aug 4, 2006)

Guy Schlicter said:


> Hi,Alright,Now that there is going to indeed be another Star Trek movie,I know its a long shot,but do you think anyone will make or reissue models for it.This would be a good opportunity for RC2 to repop the Polar lights original USS Enterprise kit.I really think at best,its the most we can hope for.I remember a while ago,someone said RC2 still had the license for the Star Trek models.I suspect it could be,they held on to it for this new movie,just a guess.Guy S.


I heard they totally re-designed the TOS Enterprise and it is a totally different ship. I read somewhere about it.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

I think it's going to be evolutionary, not revolutionary. The filmmakers are keeping pretty quiet about the ship designs.


----------



## GT350R_Modeler (Sep 6, 2005)

Would be cool, yes. For the re-issue of the Origianl Enterprise I mean.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

I heard the outside of the ship would be "pretty much the same" but that the interiors would be something other than the plain gray walls we saw on TV.


----------



## newbie dooby (Nov 1, 2006)

Take it for what it is, but I know one of the lead designers at ILM. His best friend (another lead) is working on the trek movie as we speak.

Again take it or leave it....bigger ship....same shape.....but updated for the future as we see it in the 21st century.

Look for something along the lines of gabes ship...not exactly...but close...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX-k-Oj2tno

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9vnP_x63pY


----------



## DL Matthys (May 8, 2004)

Guy Schlicter said:


> This would be a good opportunity for RC2 to repop the Polar lights original USS Enterprise kit.



The only thing that RC2 (aka Learning Curve) could do is bust up into a billion pieces or shrunk to such a size to be drowned in a dish pan. RC2s way of bussiness is to buy up made in the USA toy and model companies only to be run into the dirt. But first they have their overseas made products get a good coat of lead based paint. Lead makes colors brighter!

My $.02 


DLM


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

John Eaves is redesigning the Enterprise. So it's gonna look something like the Enterprise-E or the NX-01.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Ok, if true they just lost me.

UGLY!


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Actually, according to Trekmovie.com, illustrator Ryan Church did most of the 'reimagining' of Enterprise...

http://trekmovie.com/2007/10/17/trekmoviecom-update-on-latest-shatner-enterprise-and-casting-rumors/

Sounds like Church has worked on a lot of interesting projects. Maybe he'll bring something interesting to the Trek world.

This link is in the above article, but I thought folks might want to see some of Church's design work...

http://www.ryanchurch.com/04PRO.htm


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Didn't RC2 drop the Trek liscence as soon as the last 4 re-pops that we got were done?!? If so, then no one (that we know of) actually has the liscence right now and there is very heavy circumstantial evidence that RC2 wouldn't even be interested let alone to even bother to repop ANY of the TOS Enterprise kits in support of the movie.

As for the redesign itself - we don't even know WHAT it's going to be!! There sure is a lot of negativity going on here!  

I'm going to wait and see what it's all about first and then make up my mind after I've seen it!


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

I had no idea,they were planning to change the original USS Enterprise for Star Trek 11.Its going to have a nice look to it,I'm sure.But as far as it remaining faithful to the T.V.Series,I guess they feel the original USS Enterprise won't hold up on the big screen,in its original form,and needs to be spruced up and its unfortunate.The original Starship Enterprise,was one of the best looking spaceships ever designed for Sci Fi.To this day,I sill think its design is unique.I will go see,this film,but as far as it remaining faithful to the original series,if they change the T.V.Series Enterprise,it won't be.But,I'll still check the new ship out.If I like it,I hope someone takes a chance,and makes a model kit of it.Had Polar Lights not been sold,they would have done a model kit of the New ship for the film,I'm almost sure of it,Guy S.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Ugh... every time I hear a piece of news about this movie, its worse and worse and worse.

I wish to god they would just leave it alone.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

RC2 annonced lat last year that at the end of this year they will no longer put out any model kits and all new kits that were in the works got canned.
At this time the only hope of RC2 doing anything at the top.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Where was that RC2 announcement? I don't think I ever saw it.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Yep, RC2's AMT division (which includes the Polar Lights line) will no longer be producing any styrene kits after 2007. I seem to recall a rumor about AMT being put on the market, with a high asking price and no takers.

Revell may become the only large styrene kit manufacturer in the U.S. but, as I understand it, they've made no major announcements about future production since being bought out by Hobbico. They have, however, acquired legal rights to sell the Revell Germany line of _Star Wars_ kits here in the U.S. and, rumor has it, depending upon sales of those kits and the retooled _Battlestar Galactica_ kits they may be open to the idea of producing new _Star Wars_ kits and _BSG_ kits from the new series.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

beautiful!!!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

spe130 said:


> Where was that RC2 announcement? I don't think I ever saw it.


Linda Smile on Starshipmodeler had recieved the word from the sales rep at RC2 some time last fall or early winter, and Linda had started a thread on the subject.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

John P said:


> John Eaves is redesigning the Enterprise. So it's gonna look something like the Enterprise-E or the NX-01.


It doesn't really matter WHO designs the new Enterprise. 

Who ever the artist is....(and both John and Ryan are fantastic artists) they follow the direction of (in this case) JJ Abhrams who mandates either to stay close to the original design, or to venture away from the original.

And of course, the E and NX-01 are personal opinions which everyone is entitled to.

Mine happens to be that I like the design of each of the afore mentioned ships and I also happen to like Gabe's Enterprise as well.

But I'd also be totally happy if they don't change a bolt of the exterior and give the insides a whole new make-over.


----------



## d_jedi1 (Jan 20, 2007)

Heck, I'd be happy if they don't touch (the design) of the insides at all.. well, maybe the color scheme.
I DO hope that the exterior remains unchanged, unless they are planning to show us definatively where the weapons are and how they deploy. 

Honestly, I wouldn't mind that at all.


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

It has already been confirmed that the Enterprise will be updated for a modern look. Just like the Transformers of the 80s had to be updated for a 2007 film, so will the Enterprise of the 60s have to be updated for a 2008 film.


----------



## DL Matthys (May 8, 2004)

Can't imagine the Enterprise looking any different than the one first seen in the first pilot...The Cage A closer look at the vessels surface finish and interior detail would be OK.

DLM


----------



## PixelMagic (Aug 25, 2004)

DL Matthys said:


> Can't imagine the Enterprise looking any different than the one first seen in the first pilot...The Cage A closer look at the vessels surface finish and interior detail would be OK.
> 
> DLM


In 1966 leaving everything the same would be ok. In 2008, it would be laughable. For all you guys hoping the Enterprise to remain unchanged, you will be sorely disappointed.

I do not mind a little reimagining, as long as they stay true to the "feel" of the ship.


----------



## drewid142 (Apr 23, 2004)

...can't resist chiming in on this one...

I think... for what it's worth... that they should essentially leave the original design alone... but work at a higher level of detail... with perhaps subtle changes... to accomodate good ideas... I'd like to see the ORIGINAL design, but with subtle details... little access panels, faint azteking, junk like that... let's see the original Enterprise... but up close and personal... jaws could still drop without attacking the genius of the original design.

There could be a whole new set of models... with fine details, but true to the original design... cool window frames with little metal doohickies for servicing, interesting seals in the inside of doors and the shuttle bay clam shell...

maybe there could be a dream come true 1/350 scale TOS-TMP E in it!

Quite frankly... when I look at the TOS-E... I live near the National Air and Space Museum... I'm disapointed... it's magnificent... but up close it fails to thrill me... I want the level of detail to come up without corrupting the overall aesthetic.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Given the previously hinted at possibility of overlapping, alternative time streams, I wouldn't be surprised to see more than one version of the _Enterprise_ pop up in the next _Trek_. And while I'm not crazy about time travel gimmicks in _Trek_ storylines, it could certainly help explain certain continuity inconsistencies.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I can see it now. Some lucky model company snatches up AMT for a song, along with the Star Trek model license, produces a new kit of the Enterprise, uber-detailed to match up with the new movie version....only to be followed by one of the guys here putting out a garage kit to convert it back to the original tv version...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

PixelMagic said:


> In 1966 leaving everything the same would be ok. In 2008, it would be laughable. For all you guys hoping the Enterprise to remain unchanged, you will be sorely disappointed..


 You're forgetting what the producers are also probably forgetting - the audience for this film is not young kids, or supposed "new fans" to be dragged into the franchise. That may be the audience they WANT, but it ain't the one they'll get. The audience for this film is us old geezers who loved the original show, and loved the original ship. A lot of us don't want to see it screwed with.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Considering the "refit" the 1701 suffered from series to movie (which turned out to be way more than basically a warp nacelle set swap-out that Jeffries initially intended--though his saucer and hull contours didn't exactly match his original finalized plans which didn't really match the production models, etc.) I'd say we could be in for just about anything. 


 *What I wouldn't mind and fully expect for this "prefit" are: *

1. Muted interior color scheme which is, in fact, keeping with "The Cage" version of the ship.

2. Highly greeblied engine nacelles with lighted nacelle caps and spinning effect and blue-glowing engine grilles.

3. Visible phaser turrets (at least when firing).

4. Paneling effect of some kind.


 *What I would like to see (but probably won't):*

1. Suitably retro version of the engineering section. 

2. "The Cage" type uniforms or something very similar.

3. A really good story like the original series without the PC feel of a "Next Generation" episode.



 *What I don't want to see (but probably will):*

1. Grossly distorted hull contours. I'll cut a little slack in my judgement here since even Jeffries and the original model crew didn't stay consistent here though they were very close in the basic proportions.

2. Multiple greeblied areas on the hull (unless it's inside an access panel that is opened or revealed by battle damage).

3. Anything other than the basic light battleship gray look to the hull color. Too colorful of a hull or sharply contrasting colors in any paneling effect tend to take away the scale of the ship.

4. Changed pennants or lettering on the hull.

5. "Self-lighting" effect on the hull.


----------



## Arronax (Apr 6, 1999)

Let's see now . . . 

"Let's do a movie of "Star Trek" but we need to "upgrade" the Enterprise to look better on the big screen"

"But the loyal fans won't buy that in a minute!"

"Oh, don't worry, they'll make up some reason for it being totally different."

"Like calling it a refit?"

[overheard in 1979]

And, hey, the new movie is not aimed at the die-hard Trek fan, they want to create a whole new audience. So, before we dismiss it, let's wait until we see it up on the big screen. 

Jim
(who's pretty excited about having a new Star Trek movie)


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Burn me at the stake, if you must, but I have to agree...don't discount this new movie, or the ship(s) in it until you've seen it/them. I have been a fan of "Trek", in all its incarnations (yes, even "Enterprise") for over 20 years...since before TNG, i.e., back when TOS was still the ONLY "Trek" series. I was staunchly against TNG, and I was one of the many, many people who wrote angry letters to Roddenberry/Paramount decrying the show before I'd even seen it. But I watched it, and fell in love with it. I'll admit I never did, and still don't, care much for the Enterprise-D, design-wise, but I loved, and still love, the show. I don't like the NX-01 especially, either, but I still like the show, time-line-warts and all. And I'm not the only person who hated the idea of TNG initially, and came around. GIVE THE THING A CHANCE! No, they can't replace Bill, Leonard, De, at al; but just don't skewer these people before you see what they can do. I'm excited to see what new blood can bring to these iconic characters, and I'm also really excited to see what the Enterprise and associated ships will look like. Yes, I am hopeful that they are GENERALLY faithful to the original, but I won't hate it if they make some APPROPRIATE updates...i.e., things to make it more plausible (RCS thrusters, more distinct weapons bays, etc.) without ruining the basic design aesthetic. Personally, I've always thought that the TMP Enterprise was the best design...what TOS could have been had they the money and technical resources to do it.

Anyway...that's my two-cents worth.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

1701ALover said:


> . . . Personally, I've always thought that the TMP Enterprise was the best design . . .


Yeah, your screen name didn't give that away, did it?


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

John P said:


> You're forgetting what the producers are also probably forgetting - the audience for this film is not young kids, or supposed "new fans" to be dragged into the franchise.


With all due respect John, you're mistaken with regard to who the primary audience for this film is.

For _Trek _to survive in any incarnation it will have to attract a new generation of fans. The great challenge is to do so in a way that is respectful to TOS without being creatively straight-jacketed by it. Clearly this is no easy task, but neither is it an impossible one. 

As for the Enterprise, I think it's safe to say the design WILL be upgraded but, as I mentioned upthread, I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of a "cameo" appearance by the original design.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I thought the goal here was to make as much money as possible. Therefore, broad appeal would be the way to go...?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Going after the 14 year old adolescent girl has proved to be about the best money-making method so far. 

If it's just money they want, they should make the movie like _Titanic_.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Of all the _Trek_ movies produced thus far, _The Voyage Home_ has proven to have the most cross-over appeal. How respectful it was of TOS is a matter of opinion, but the mainstream critical response was overwhelmingly positive.

For the record, I grew up with TOS, and it remains my all-time favorite TV show. That said, I've never been a huge fan of the _Trek_ films, and believe there is vast room for improvement in this department. I have no idea if J.J. Abrams will make a good movie or not, but IMO none of the preceeding _Treks_ managed to set the bar very high.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

John P said:


> John Eaves is redesigning the Enterprise. So it's gonna look something like the Enterprise-E or the NX-01.


I wasn't going to see this movie anyway and so this is just another nail in the coffin.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> I wasn't going to see this movie anyway and so this is just another nail in the coffin.


You might want to wait until you actually have a certified corpse to put in that coffin before you nail it shut.

Oh, wait -- I'm asking _Star Trek_ fans to be patient and evaluate a project on its own terms when doing so is actually possible. How silly of me.

Why don't we just go ahead and speculate on what will be wrong with all the movies released in the next twenty years and be done with it?

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

sbaxter said:


> Why don't we just go ahead and speculate on what will be wrong with all the movies released in the next twenty years and be done with it?


I don't know about the next twenty years, but given the looming writers' strike the amount of "Hollywood garbage" available for pre-release bashing will soon to be in short supply.

Whoopee.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Ya know..........

It always amazes me how narrow minded and in-flexible a lot of Trek fans can be about a show where the idea was to 'explore strange new worlds' which requires open-mindedness and ability to be felxible and adapt to new situations.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

At this stage of the franchise's history, doing a Star Trek project in any of the established eras is the equivelent of doing a period picture. We already know what's right and what's not gonna fit.

In "Where No Man Has Gone Before", Kirk and a lot of the crew had already been established on the ship, based upon the dialogue and how the characters interacted with each other.

So, with this story apparently set _before_ that episode, we already know what the uniforms look like, what the ship looks like, and that certain crewmembers that have been cast really shouldn't be there (Uhura, Chekov, McCoy) or in the positions listed (Sulu was the ship's physicist at this point, not the helmsman), and the ones that should be there (Gary Mitchell, Lee Kelso, Dr.Piper, Yeoman Smith, Communications Officer Alden) are glaringly absent.

Imagine a movie set in WWI, only the Doughboys are equipped with M-16's and the aerial dogfights are done with P-51's and Me-109's, and I think you should get the point.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Captain April,
Are you really comparing actual living history with the events depicted in a fictional TV show? Really?

the difference is that nobody (beyond a small core of aging fans and possibly Gary Lockwood's family and friends) is really gonna care if Gary Mitchell is "left out" of the new movie.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> At this stage of the franchise's history, doing a Star Trek project in any of the established eras is the equivelent of doing a period picture. We already know what's right and what's not gonna fit.
> 
> In "Where No Man Has Gone Before", Kirk and a lot of the crew had already been established on the ship, based upon the dialogue and how the characters interacted with each other . . .
> 
> Imagine a movie set in WWI, only the Doughboys are equipped with M-16's and the aerial dogfights are done with P-51's and Me-109's, and I think you should get the point.


I agree that there should be a reasonable effort at consistency as a sign of respect for the older fan base. 

However, given that _The Cage_ was the first pilot and established as part of Trek "history" I'd say you'd have to go a little further back than _WNMHGB_.

Story-wise, does it really matter that it's a phaser pistol or a laser pistol? Both are still viable for future use. Why change it if it is unnecessary to do so? If it doesn't make it harder to suspend disbelief, there's no need to change. (I know, I know: _Enterprise _did just that. I hope the movie ignores that series.)


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Captain April,
> Are you really comparing actual living history with the events depicted in a fictional TV show? Really?


 Yes, because it's a valid comparison _when talking about making a movie_ about it.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Carson Dyle said:


> With all due respect John, you're mistaken with regard to who the primary audience for this film is.
> 
> For _Trek _to survive in any incarnation it will have to attract a new generation of fans....


 Oh, I'm sure the studio THINKS that. But I somehow doubt it will be the reality of who _wants _to see the film.

We _fans _want to see the film. The current crop of tweenies and teenies probably couldn't care less about Star Trek ("isn't that some old goofy sci fi show from grandpa's childhood?") while Saw III, IV, V and VI are in the theaters.

I think it's like Brent Gair used to say about Polar Lights putting out kid-oriented snap-kits of 40-year-old TV properties - who the hell do they think their customers are? It's us middle-aged men who want nostalgic stuff from our youth, not the conjectural 12-year-old who won't put his game controller down.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Sorry John,
but you're wrong. It's not the same. 

There is a difference. Historic real events deserve more attention than remakes of television shows. I can't imagine that the makers of the brady bunch movies thought they were making something as important as Shindler's List. I know that Michel Bay took some heat for things he did with Pearl Harbor

Now, is it in the best interest of the filmakers to not change the property so much that it alienates their audience? Yes, but only to the extent that the filmakers don't feel hamstrung by expectations.

It's numbers. If Paramount/CBS/viacom, whoever... feels that they can pick up 100 fans by losing 20 then thats a net gain of 80 fans.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The only thing that matters ultimately is whether this movie is GOOD. I'm with Carson--almost all of the prior Trek movies have been clunky, shallow and formulaic compared to the TV series. They've had their moments and The Wrath of Khan is beloved for good reason, but they still tend to be juvenile and cheap-looking with plots cobbled together from old story elements from the TV shows AND the previous movies.

I am very eager to see a new approach--it may stink but it won't be because they didn't duplicate a 1966 TV show down to every bolt and seam. I understand the appeal of that idea and I watch Star Trek Remastered for that very reason but we can't delude ourselves that that is what a 2007 movie audience wants to see.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Give me a good story with good characters ... it doesn't have to be a cheesefest.

After all, _Casino Royale_ (the _new_ one) wasn't cheesy, though previous Bonds most definitely were. Did it reboot that franchise? I hope so.


----------



## bragstone (Apr 14, 2007)

Guy Schlicter said:


> Hi,Alright,Now that there is going to indeed be another Star Trek movie,I know its a long shot,but do you think anyone will make or reissue models for it.This would be a good opportunity for RC2 to repop the Polar lights original USS Enterprise kit.I really think at best,its the most we can hope for.I remember a while ago,someone said RC2 still had the license for the Star Trek models.I suspect it could be,they held on to it for this new movie,just a guess.Guy S.


Here is my take on it, maybe that the Japanese model manufacturer Platz may come up with a few movie kits. I have been thinking a lot about what the possible plot of Star Trek XI, It may well be about Lt. Kirk of the USS Farragut, I've copy and pasted this time line from the Starship Farragut site:

2254 - James Kirk graduates from Starfleet Academy and is promoted to the rank of Lieutenant. His first assignment is aboard the Farragut, under the command of Captain Garrovick. Kirk commands his first planetary survey mission to Tyree's Planet. He befriends Tyree, leader of the hill people; a primitive tribe of hunter-gatherers living in huts and caves. The two are ceremonially made brothers.


2257 - The Farragut encounters a dangerous Dikironium cloud creature, or "Vampire Cloud", near the planet Tycho IV. The Vampire Cloud kills 200 members of the Farragut's crew, including Captain Garrovick. Lieutenant Kirk, due to his own hesitation, blames himself for the deaths . The Farragut returns home for refit and the Executive Officer, Commander Emilio Alvarez, is promoted to Captain, and is given command of the ship.

2263 - Kirk is promoted to the rank of Captain and assumes command of the U.S.S. Enterprise (NCC-1701) from Captain Christopher Pike. Pike is then promoted to Fleet Captain.

I think that somewhere between stardate 2257 to 2263 is where this movie will take place, and between 2261 to 2263 the Enterprise will be refit for Kirk, That's 2 kits right there first Enterprise (pilot version) and the first refit (before TMP refit).


----------



## BEBruns (Apr 30, 2003)

I've long maintained that the biggest danger to STAR TREK is its fans. Or at least a certain type of fan. The ones who treat it as a giant database and are only concerned about how well each new film or show fits in with what has already been established. Ones who don't seem to care about (or at times even understand) things such as story, characterization, drama, etc.

When it comes to continuity, I think the film makers should treat it just like they did in the original series. If it helps the story use it. If it hurts it, ignore it.

For instance: In the episode "What are Girls Made Of?" it is established that Kirk has two nephews. However, in "Operation: Annihilate!" he only has one. I think it is clear why they made the change. In the latter episode, much of the drama comes from the fact that Kirk may have to sacrifice his last living relative to stop the alien parasites. If there were two survivors it would dilute the drama. But couldn't they kill off the second nephew? They already introduce one character after he is already dead (Kirk's brother) and another who dies shortly after being introduced (his sister in law). To insert a third character in there would just be dramatically redundant.

So they are left with two choices: Weaken the drama to be consistent with a single line of dialogue from a previous episode that was nothing more than a plot device, or ignore what was previously established and write a stronger story. 

I think they made the correct decision.

And for those who think they should slavishly follow the look of the pilots, does that include the earphones with the cord connecting them to the consoles? Apparently, in the STAR TREK universe, Bluetooth technology wasn't invented until the 23rd century.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

John P said:


> The current crop of tweenies and teenies probably couldn't care less about Star Trek


Given what's passed for _Star Trek_ the last decade or so I really can't blame them. On the other hand, if J.J. Abrams pulls off a good picture it stands the chance of finding a broad audience amongst old and young (new) fans alike.

And that's my opinion, not the studio's.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

The funny thing is that there was a recent poll on scifi.com or someplace reprinted here and Star Trek was the most highly anticipated genre movie of anything listed, beating even Indiana Jones AND The Dark Knight by a considerable margin. No idea how scientific that was but I do think Abrams has raised anticipation beyond anything another moribund Rick Berman production would have...


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Imagine a movie set in WWI, only the Doughboys are equipped with M-16's and the aerial dogfights are done with P-51's and Me-109's, and I think you should get the point.


yeah, ditto on the 'dude, are you serious'!?!?

Again, thats real history, not a made up story. If one can't keep those two seperate then perhaps ones in too deep.

In a made up story, if you want to 'reboot' it, you can change whatever you want.

Everyone B'chd and moaned about before Galactica was redone and look how good that turned out.

A friend just reminded me about how everyone complained about the new Bond and Casino Royale and look how good THAT turned out.

If anyone wants a Trek film that fits your vision of what Trek is 'supposed to be', then they should go out and make it themselves. Because its IMPOSSIBLE to make a new Trek film that will satisfy everyones needs.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I think the point is that if a writer can create a story that fits into REAL history without altering the facts and details (and lots of authors do), then they should have no problem whatsoever writing a story that's set in a fictional universe without altering established facts and details (and lots of authors do).


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

ClubTepes said:


> In a made up story, if you want to 'reboot' it, you can change whatever you want.


Fine.

Just don't call it "Star Trek", don't set it on the starship Enterprise, and don't have characters named James Kirk, Spock, Dr. McCoy, etc.

When you play in someone else's sandbox with someone else's toys, it behooves you to not break them.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

tell that to Ronald Moore

count your blessings that JJ isn't changing the genders of any of the characters.

let's face it. these aren't "someone else's" toys...this is Paramount (aka *the owners*) making (or at least authorizing) these changes.

you may not like it...guess what? they don't care. If you throw your hands up in disgust and walk away, they are banking on the hope that there are two new fans out there to replace you.

I was thinking about this issue back a few weeks ago when Rowling "outed" Dumbledore. and I thought she's the creator, it's within her rights to do with her characters whatever she wants. Now what if Walden Media were to come out and say that it wasn't true? Obviously, since Rowling is still very much alive, she could take her case to the public, and that would be that.

the problem with Trek is that it's ownership has become so muddled down to the point that it is little more than a corporate asset and there is nobody (except Majel or Rod Jr.) who is going to raise a stir if there is something that is "wrong" in the new movie. 

If fact, the notion that Nimoy is happy with the story holds a lot more weight with the fan community than a 100 or a 1000 fans whining about perceived changes.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> If fact, the notion that Nimoy is happy with the story holds a lot more weight with the fan community than a 100 or a 1000 fans whining about perceived changes.


I'd take Nimoy's opinions on what Trek is or isn't to the bank any ol' day...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Case in point regarding Nimoy: He completely underestimated the fan reaction to the destruction of the Enterprise in ST III. He was livid that the promotions department blew the big dramatic event of the whole freakin' film by showing the ship going kablooey in the trailer, but even to Nimoy, the Enterprise was just a ship, not a main character.

So even Nimoy's opinion isn't infallible.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

So even Leonard Nimoy doesn't get it.Back at that time,my best friend said,they played God with Star Trek.He loves Star Trek and was very pissed off about things that they were doing.Spocks death and namely,the destruction of the Enterprise.Even ILM model makers,had mixed feelings about destroying the Enterprise,because it was such a cultrial icon!In making the stories of Star Trek II and III.they sacrificed things that were near and dear to people,including me.The al mighty buck rules,originally Harve Bennett,wanted to replace the Enterprise with the Excelsior.The fan reaction to the destruction of the Enterprise,got many people very upset.In making Star Trek IV Harve Bennett,took a quiet oath from what I've read,that he would restore the Enterprise in Star Trek IV,thats why we have an Enterprise A,Leonard Nimoy has been there from the beginning of Star trek,but to him,I guess Star Trek wasn't ain't thing special,You would think,after all the conventions hes done,and people Nimoy has met.It would dawn on him,that people do in fact value the Enterprise,and the characters,Hes only an actor though,Guy S.


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

hmmm. well, not to get too off track here, and with total respect for the opinions experessed above regarding the destruction of Enterprise...

For me, the destruction of Enterprise remains the most honest and sincere death of a Star Trek character in the history of any of the shows. I thought it was handled beautifully. It had weight, substance and drama. To me, the scene of the crew looking up at her crossing the horizon is one of the most iconic and touching moments in Star Trek. 

Nimoy handled Enterprise like a main character, not a vehicle. To me, that speaks volumes about his perception of what's important in Trek.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Here, here!

well said Krako!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Krako said:


> To me, the scene of the crew looking up at her crossing the horizon is one of the most iconic and touching moments in Star Trek.


I thought that was the best part of the sequence, but at the time, I wanted more. I think I would have liked one moment, where Kirk pauses at the elevator, maybe at the dedication plaque, and has one last look, realizing he'll never see the bridge again. Because "this time it's for real".


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Krako said:


> I'd take Nimoy's opinions on what Trek is or isn't to the bank any ol' day...


I'll second that!!


Krako said:


> hmmm. well, not to get too off track here, and with total respect for the opinions experessed above regarding the destruction of Enterprise...
> 
> For me, the destruction of Enterprise remains the most honest and sincere death of a Star Trek character in the history of any of the shows. I thought it was handled beautifully. It had weight, substance and drama. To me, the scene of the crew looking up at her crossing the horizon is one of the most iconic and touching moments in Star Trek.
> 
> Nimoy handled Enterprise like a main character, not a vehicle. To me, that speaks volumes about his perception of what's important in Trek.


And that!!


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

John P said:


> You're forgetting what the producers are also probably forgetting - the audience for this film is not young kids, or supposed "new fans" to be dragged into the franchise. That may be the audience they WANT, but it ain't the one they'll get. The audience for this film is us old geezers who loved the original show, and loved the original ship. A lot of us don't want to see it screwed with.


I think Star Trek is unique in that it owes it's very existance to the grass roots fans who by letter campaign saved the orginal series. I've alway felt that without those fans any Star Trek will be a flop. They knew this when they made TNG and gaged the fans reaction to see how they were doing. It will be nice to have this movie create new fans but if it disregards that which has come before, we'll have another flop like Enterprise.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

^ *BRA-FREAKIN'-VO!*


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

No one is arguing that J.J. Abrams should alienate his fan base. Indeed, in what few public comments he's made re: _Trek_ he's gone out of his way to voice his respect and fondness for TOS. 

In terms of pleasing the _Trek_ fans, the real trick is finding two can agree.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

If it were simply a case of the "almighty buck" ruling the day, then the folks running the studio would have paid more attention to detail and quality. Instead, "expediency" has ruled the day and as a result, they have not made *one tenth* of the money that they might have. If in fact they had stuck to the original premise and details of the show, they would have had a huge and very excited core audience (already existing!) who would then have gone on to draw in all the "new" fans who would be wanting to find out what all the excitement was about. Instead, the studio cranks out schlock and must make excuses for each "Trek" movie it has made.

Quality rules. In ANY business.

Just ask the people at Toyota.


----------



## BigH827 (Mar 17, 2007)

When seen at a distance the Enterprise would need to look like the 1966 tv one, at middle distance like the one built for DS9, and up close you should be able to see the haches, landing leg doors, the sauser had them, light leaking thruogh the grills on the sides on the engines, and yes we need to see where the wepons fire from. Doing this they should make most of us happy. The in side could use some color and the displays could use an upgrade, say the ship had been upgraded to Constition mk C or M like modern fighters or tanks, name stays the same but on paper work every thing followed by a letter, the M1 became M1A1 in less than ten years, and I worked on Hueys UH-1s when I was in the US Army and they were called UH-1H and the Navy uses UH-1Ns.
Up grade and things still mostly the same unless seen side by side many times who could tell..


----------



## Xenon (Nov 2, 2007)

Krako said:


> hmmm. well, not to get too off track here, and with total respect for the opinions experessed above regarding the destruction of Enterprise...
> 
> For me, the destruction of Enterprise remains the most honest and sincere death of a Star Trek character in the history of any of the shows. I thought it was handled beautifully. It had weight, substance and drama. To me, the scene of the crew looking up at her crossing the horizon is one of the most iconic and touching moments in Star Trek.
> 
> Nimoy handled Enterprise like a main character, not a vehicle. To me, that speaks volumes about his perception of what's important in Trek.


Quoted for truth. I remember both me and one of my best mates sitting there in the cinema (we were barely into our teens) on STIII's first run, and when Enterprise was being destroyed, we both turned white as sheets, and I think I heard him sniffling. At one point I nearly turned away because I couldn't bear to watch.

Okay, enough of that. No need to drag out painful memories. Conversely, when Ent-D was buying the farm in Generations, I was thinking to myself, 'Christ, would you just get it over with, please?' I never had any sort of attachment to E-D at all.

But back on topic ...

I just finished reading this article, and I'm not too happy with the implications:

http://trekmovie.com/2007/11/13/james-cawley-on-the-new-enterprise/

If Abrams takes his cue on how to handle the Star Trek franchise from Berman and Braga – and that includes one of the most iconic ships in science fiction and pop culture – then I simply won't go see the film. Period. I've had it with people messing with a nice thing.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Oh man... this just keeps getting worse and worse.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

The rule about real Star Trek is that which is seen on screen is circling the bowl. We might have to mint a new term like, "neo-canon".


----------



## Xenon (Nov 2, 2007)

Stimpson J. Cat said:


> The rule about real Star Trek is that which is seen on screen is circling the bowl. We might have to mint a new term like, "neo-canon".


I'd rather not have to; honestly, if people feel the need to mess with Trek to the degree Berman/Braga did and, seemingly, Abrams is about to do, it means that all of those involved have seriously run out of ideas on how to help the franchise keep on with Roddenberry's vision. And if that's the case, then I'd much rather see Trek get shelved permanently, than have it further dicked around with.

Can you imagine a BSG-style 're-imagined' TOS/TMP/TWOK/TSFS/et cetera? Uuuuuugh ...


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Xenon posted:


> ...honestly, if people feel the need to mess with Trek to the degree Berman/Braga did and, seemingly, Abrams is about to do, it means that all of those involved have seriously run out of ideas on how to help the franchise keep on with Roddenberry's vision.


Yes. They have run out of ideas. 
This "Starfleet Academy/Kirk and Spock's first meeting" concept
has been around for years. I think it was proposed for the fourth
series (which became Voyager instead).

Someone brings it up everytime a new TREK is considered.
Now, it's finally happening. 

I'm hoping the film will be good. I don't want to see another failure.


----------

