View Single Post
Old March 13 2011, 10:39 PM   #1122
Shaw
Commodore
 
Shaw's Avatar
 
Location: Twin Cities
Re: Whatever happened to Starship Exeter?

USS Intrepid wrote: View Post
Then we'll have to agree to disagree, because while I agree that story is king, I doubt most members of the movie-going public would pay to see a *serious* multi-million dollar movie using those sets. What fans will pay for, and what fans want to see, is not the same as what the general public is willing to pay for. And it's the general public who will make or break any movie, not a subset of hard core fans.

Wrath of Khan was a compelling story, but do you *really* believe it would have broken even if it had used exactly the same sets as the original series? And that was almost 30 years ago. Today's audience is vastly more demanding.
Demanding of what?

They don't know what the future is like, and most aspects of the tech should be kept vague.

Are you arguing that because people saw it 45 years ago that it won't work today? Or are you saying that people who would go see a space movie today are really looking for something more like a video game?

I ask the question earlier... you could answer it now... what is wrong with the curves drawn by Jefferies?

As for what people are willing to watch... 99% of movies don't work from that formula. Are you saying that Pearl Harbor would have been a better movie with nuclear carriers and stealth fighters? Where is all the shiny stuff in the Harry Potter movies? Why didn't they set Sherlock Holmes in a contemporary environment?

These are multi-million dollar movies... and they work.

I've never argued that the original sets (as built for the series) should be used... but there is nothing wrong with the original designs. And a multi-million dollar budget could do those designs the justice they deserve.

And no, I didn't find Wrath of Khan that compelling a story. To date, no Star Trek film has had a truly compelling story. A compelling Trek story, should be compelling even if it wasn't a Trek story. If the story can't stand on it's own without Trek attached, it isn't truly compelling.

But yeah, I think it would have done just as well had the original set designs been rebuilt using the technologies of the 1980s. I'm not suggesting keeping the limitations of the 1960's (or a television show)... I'm suggesting using the designer's vision of the future with what we have available today. That might not work for some "purists", but there is nothing that would hurt it with an audience.

There is nothing wrong with the cross sectional curve shown in that Jefferies drawing... there is nothing that dates or compromises it. And it is functional. Should it be implemented the exact same way today as they did in 1966... of course not. Fan films do because they are catering to the fans... but then again, most fan films are as limited budget wise as TOS originally was.

So, I'll ask again... looking at the Jefferies drawing (and nothing else from TOS, just the drawing by itself), what is wrong with it that audiences wouldn't accept today?
Shaw is offline   Reply With Quote