I think it's simple the era itself that is appealing. I like films set in the 20s - 50s. I don't like films done today that are set in the 70s or 80s (I love films that were made in the 70s and 80s). The digital video look didn't fit Public Enemies, but wasn't an issue in Collateral. Nerds do that a lot. Cowboy coats seem to be the thing as well.
And it probably wouldn't have made it past season 1 if it even lasted an entire season. And it would have flopped hard. Stuff that was liked by Trek's shrinking fanbase doesn't prove s@#t. Again Star Trek is not some 1920s sci-fi serial its ment to represent our future So that means if it has to change things, update stuff, and etc. to do it so be it.
Now you're just replacing one fanboy's idea of "what star trek is supposed to be like" with your own fanboy idea. In could very well be done retro style. A lot of science fiction is. The use of cars and IKEA lamps will make Abramstrek look pretty much like a period piece in ten years anyway.
There is sort of an collective consciousness in Hollywood creatives about how things are put together that kind of lurches in lock-step from decade to decade. Take any two shows on TV in the 60s, no matter what the genre, and you will be able to almost instantly identify it as "60s". And the same is true of the 70s and 80s. Six Million Dollar Man was so 70s. Wonder Woman was so 70s. Miami Vice and Dynasty and Remington Stelle were so 80s. It's hard to actually quantify what it is that make them feel that way, but when you experience it, you KNOW it. The music, the film stock, the lighting, everything. When I see TNG reruns now, I think of them as "so late 80s". A big part of this is the bright flat lighting and the cringeworthy Doogie Howser synthesizer soundtrack and the chyron titles. It's really risky to do things differently, and usually it takes one breakthrough movie to move things in a new direction, and then it becomes the playbook. 2001 did that for Science Fiction, followed by Star Wars. Probably the current look was established by The Matrix in 1999, which is why now you've got Kirk and Spock in long black leather trench-coats. The Matrix also popularized digital mixing (like desaturating colors) which was used in Gladiator and LOTR. It's purely a matter of the people in Hollywood following trends instead of being bold and setting new ones. Since nearly everything that can be done has been done, maybe the way to be bold is to skip around and try doing things an older way. And it really does take a lot of effort for people to not do it the way everyone else is doing it these days. Take Space Command: http://tinyurl.com/7dqmr4j This show is designed to be retro, but within the first few seconds you have CGI with sweeping dolly shots and camera-shake. It destroys the retro illusion instantly. You are hit over the head with "this is CG that was made recently" You don't need to have ships on strings and looking crappy. I'm not suggesting that. Something closer to the TOS remasters, a kind of "perfected" retro where it could have been theoretically possible to do it that way back in the day, just not economical.
As the show that probably would have put trek down for a decade at least. For you maybe, for me it would be cheesy as hell and Trek would still be dead and might not have come back for an even longer time than it did.
Let me ask you guys a question. Sorry to get heavy here... But how many of you really think, in your wildest dreams, we're gonna have warp drive and wear unisex tight-fitting clothing in the future? Look around you at the world today and where we're headed. Do you see Zefram Cochrane arriving on the scene anytime soon? Where's our 21st century flying cars?? Where's our Back To The Future hoverboards? I think the big difference with being a Trek fan today and a Trek fan in the 60-80s is Trek has gone from speculative fiction to fantasy. I know for myself, I no longer feel optimistic about the future. When I see Trek, I see the future as I'd like it to be, not how I think it can be. And it's sad, and it's depressing, but that's just how it is. Gene, if nothing else, was an optimist, and he would be running against the grain of the mood of society these days. Think of how many people on this planet today don't even have electricity and running water. People who went to see the 2009 film saw it as a fantasy. JJ obviously sees it as much of a fantasy as SW, which is why the franchise mutated into whiz-bang SW. If you look at it as a fantasy, then whether you make it look like the Apple store or a 60s GoGo disco, it doesn't really matter. People aren't really going to judge it based on how plausible it is. It's escapism. Now, would I like it to have an inner consistency? Yeah. Would I like it to have more serious drama? Yeah. Did I like the brewery engine room? No. But I don't particularly care whether it looks, on some superficial level, futuristic by 21st century standards, or retro, because it's all equally fantasy to me. Agree to disagree if you like.
Star Trek has always been optimistic. There was some definite cynicism in the '60s as many people wondered if the superpowers were going to blow the world up. General cynicism and optimism comes and goes. If you were living in the dark ages you wouldn't have been alone in believing nothing would ever get better and most everyone was destined to a life of hardship and misery including your children and grandchildren. And your own church leaders and community and nation leaders could choose to make your life even more miserable. We're not talking about what's likely to work, but what you feel works better. And no one can definitively say what will and will not work. Too much crap has succeeded and too many good ideas have been passed by. Hollywood certainly has little recipe for success as they usually play it safe and drop one piece of shit after another on television viewers and film goers. Usually successes are unexpected ones or at least surprising to the suits.
It's sad that people these days find Trek's idealism to be their biggest barrier to entry, the disbelief they can't suspend. I didn't live in the 60's but I imagine even then things weren't all rainbows and daffodils but now it seems like even hopes and aspirations are cheesy.
Then change the dates. It only becomes a problem if you're a slave to continuity. He'll it was so easy even Roddenberry did it.
Considering how successful the most recent movie was it look's more like the TNG unrealistic perfect human future is the barrier, TOS's humans who are at least somewhat better optimism on the other hand still works. And don't give me that but Vulcan was destroyed crap, the only difference from TOS was that this time the planet of poor bastards that gets destroyed by the big scary thingy was one fans actually cared about.
The new movie just ignored all that stuff completely. I wouldn't really say it was embracing TOS or any other Trek idealism.
Not Science Fiction or Fantasy, but I would love to see the Bond movies rebooted in the original post WWII period.
hang in there, friend. Things seemed incredibly dire and cynical in the 70s too, but in '79 that all changed for a good long while.
^^ It did? I never said that it would be successful or it wouldn't. In fact, I've lamented the contemporary audience's inability to embrace a variety of styles. However, I do think a Star Trek movie done in the original style would have been successful. Yes, I completely agree. While I hate that they screwed with TOS, the work they did was amazing and I'd love to see something like that in a new show or movie. "Perfected retro" says it perfectly. It didn't come back. Pretty much anything written for adults these days is considered "cheesy." Ya gotta be "dark" and "edgy."
The wayward subjects of the Light of the Aryans aren't white? Surely, they'd be no worse than off-white, no? A period James Bond is a terrible idea. The muderous rampage of the anticommunist crusade was a decades long atrocity justified by a shameless host of liars. A period Bond is retroactively repeating black propaganda that has been decisively refuted in hindsight, the clearest vision of all. It would be like a modern Western that disappeared the African Americans and Chinese and the real connections with the East and massacres of Indians in favor of gunslingers, moral anarchy quelled by strong men and Indians that were either faceless threats or unthreatening victims of irresistible progress. The relative progressivism of Star Trek was a pale reflection of the times. The times now are reactionary, so recapturing the optimism of Star Trek would require a conscious artistry that practically no one in the film or television industry would have the courage to attempt. Variety in visual styles is good, but retro is rarely a good idea, I think.
Uh, yeah. I've heard all of this before, numerous times, from an acquaintance of several years. He was so leftist he thought communists in North America were too far right. He was actually an intelligent and knowledgeable fellow, but was so out to lunch with his ideals. And it's all he ever talked about that it was insufferable. And for him the Soviets (like Stalin) were a bunch of misunderstood and persecuted sweethearts. There's no question of western propaganda during the Cold War, but don't try to sell communism as a misunderstood and never-given-fair-chance idea. Communism ignores human nature to impose its own agenda and only works large scale through intimidation. This isn't an advocation of unbridled capitalism (which has its own drawbacks), but rather a realty check from someone living in the real world. And as the OP the subject of this thread was entertainment fiction and not political diatribe.