Starship Polaris said:
It's also true that the fact that two very different productions - Abrams' film and "Enterprise" - have made similar choices in several regards is in large part because the alternatives are not reasonable.
This isn't true at all. Just because they came to the same trendy conclusions doesn't mean they bothered to explore the alternatives. Let's face it, Hollywood is filled with ex-waiter/ex-ecutives who latch onto what has been successful for someone else, and then insist that everything else should follow that formula. What I really don't understand is these same people's tendencies to option a well-known property, presumably because that property is recognized as having proven successful elsewhere, and then proceed to strip out the very things that set it apart from the rest of the chaff. In this case, how does making Star Trek
resemble every other recent sci-fi production, including a number of Trek
movies that weren't exactly blockbusters, constitute 'visionary' or 'radical' thinking? Bigger and busier aren't, by definition, better. And again, we come down to this: the 'unwashed masses" wouldn't know the difference between a reimagined Enterprise
and a one like Vektor
's, which maintains both the form and spirit of the original in a package that would be both classic and acceptable to those same 'unwashed masses' used to the high-tech style of recent films, and at the same time, his design clearly strikes a chord with a good representative sample of hardcore fans. Both sides win!
I don't really see that this math is all that hard to follow.