The First Trailer

[JWPlatt]

And he saw the original Star Trek as being a western wannabe in space and I can see why. This is much the same to me.

Roddenberry sold it as Wagon Train to the Stars. What exactly would you expect?

Going by the personal history Overmind One has given about himself, it's easy to assume he already knows that about Roddenberry. What's impressive is that Overmind One's father probably didn't know that about Roddenberry but saw the metaphor anyway.

 

[dahj]

Pfft. Why would Kirk bring a complete motorcycle with him?

Because they don't have replicators yet.

 

[Overmind One]

And he saw the original Star Trek as being a western wannabe in space and I can see why. This is much the same to me.

Roddenberry sold it as Wagon Train to the Stars. What exactly would you expect?

Exactly true. And he (Roddenberry) told me that it was because the studios did not like his original vision. They fought with him on so many levels. They never allowed him to show the saucer section landing on a planet, even though the ship (TOS) clearly shows two of the landing struts on it's underside. But if it weren’t for that, we would never have had the transporter. At least we got saucer separation on TNG, but that saucer never landed on a planet.

 

[BillJ]

Pfft. Why would Kirk bring a complete motorcycle with him?

Because they don't have replicators yet.

What do replicators have to do with anything?

I can buy brand new kits to put together that resemble classic cars and motorcycles. I can build them myself or pay someone to do it.

 

[OpenMaw]

Well... It did land. Once.

 

[BillJ]

They never allowed him to show the saucer section landing on a planet, even though the ship (TOS) clearly shows two of the landing struts on it's underside. But if it weren’t for that, we would never have had the transporter. At least we got saucer separation on TNG, but that saucer never landed on a planet.

That's horseshit.

The reason for the transporters was because they couldn't pay for the effects needed to land the ship week after week. That nugget is from The Making of Star Trek.

 

[Overmind One]

And he saw the original Star Trek as being a western wannabe in space and I can see why. This is much the same to me.

Roddenberry sold it as Wagon Train to the Stars. What exactly would you expect?

Going by the personal history Overmind One has given about himself, it's easy to assume he already knows that about Roddenberry. What's impressive is that Overmind One's father probably didn't know that about Roddenberry but saw the metaphor anyway.

He was not a scifi fan at all (my dad). He thought my fascination with Star Trek was silly. He once said to me, "That thing does not even look like a proper space ship" with regard to the Enterprise.

 

[Belz...]

^^
Way to not be a dick, dude.

You need to buy a new humour detector.

I've always liked Urban's Bones.

That is disgusting!

Looks like there may be a new Enterprise A by the end of the movie.

With a new design?

I hope so. I love the 2009 design, but if you're going to bother blowing it up, come up with something new, not like we got with Voyage Home or with the Defiant.

To tone down Star Trek's literary ambitions, thematic ambitions, quality storytelling, everything that made it unique and LESS popular than other action franchises, until it exactly resembles all those other franchises, so that now EVERYONE can love it? Why? Why?

Because it's only one trailer, and you're exaggerating Trek's qualities.

 

[JWPlatt]

They never allowed him to show the saucer section landing on a planet, even though the ship (TOS) clearly shows two of the landing struts on it's underside. But if it weren’t for that, we would never have had the transporter. At least we got saucer separation on TNG, but that saucer never landed on a planet.

That's horseshit.

The reason for the transporters was because they couldn't pay for the effects needed to land the ship week after week. That nugget is from The Making of Star Trek.

I don't see the conflict here. You're both telling the same story.

 

[Trekkin]

And he saw the original Star Trek as being a western wannabe in space and I can see why. This is much the same to me.

Roddenberry sold it as Wagon Train to the Stars. What exactly would you expect?

Exactly true. And he (Roddenberry) told me that it was because the studios did not like his original vision. They fought with him on so many levels. They never allowed him to show the saucer section landing on a planet, even though the ship (TOS) clearly shows two of the landing struts on it's underside. But if it weren’t for that, we would never have had the transporter. At least we got saucer separation on TNG, but that saucer never landed on a planet.

Wouldn't let him cast his mistress as the second lead, wouldn't let him make a show that started with aliens breeding humans and lasers blowing up mountains, wouldn't let him continue derailing the films so that they were all over time and over budget...

It was tough being Roddenberry.

 

[Overmind One]

Where would the gas come from, and the tires and battery? We know it's gas powered because of the sound the engine makes.

Why would you assume those things aren't already on the motorcycle?

Oh, I do. But we are talking about 200 years here (23rd century). Tire rubber disintegrates, as do gaskets and other parts. If yoiu have ever owned a motorcycle, this question answers itself. Not to mention the gasoline issue. Why would it even be acceptable cargo on a starship?

 

[BillJ]

They never allowed him to show the saucer section landing on a planet, even though the ship (TOS) clearly shows two of the landing struts on it's underside. But if it weren’t for that, we would never have had the transporter. At least we got saucer separation on TNG, but that saucer never landed on a planet.

That's horseshit.

The reason for the transporters was because they couldn't pay for the effects needed to land the ship week after week. That nugget is from The Making of Star Trek.

I don't see the conflict here. You're both telling the same story.

Nobody stopped him from showing the saucer landing. Why would they? The claim makes zero sense.

 

[Squiggy]

As in, broadcast on Desilu (NBC for me) on TV each week.

It was broadcast on NBC for everyone else too. Don't try to sounds smarter than you actually are.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I like the idea of Kirk being a petrol head who rides motorcycles. It's obvious KirkPrime was a thrill seeker. He free-climbed rocks, vigorously road horses, practiced martial arts, and (as implied by original GEN cut) liked to sky dive from low orbit. I imagine George Sr. was probably some kind of outdoors person. (I like to think that the cabin in GEN was originally his and Winona's retirement place.)

It was clearly implied nuKirk's step-dad was a petrol head himself. Working on cars was probably the one good thing they shared. I know from my own father's experience, he pretty much hated his step-dad, but the one thing they bonded over was working on cars--which, of course, was something my dad and I shared, in-turn.

It's only natural that nuKirk, refocus that hobby into working on classic bikes instead.

 

[stardream]

Who knew a motorcycle would be so controversial.

Shit, in the grand scheme of things, this is nothing. Remember when Ron Moore's Battlestar Galactica raped the childhoods of an entire generation of fans? Remember Languatron and his high-literature published on Amazon speaking of a Grand Conspiracy between Universal and RDM to shut out Glen Larson? The screaming, histrionics and gnashing of teeth was a thing to behold - went full-on up to "eleven". We're only at a low-"five" boil right now.

The passion just isn't there any more.

My brother still refuses to watch the re-imagined BSG.

 

[dahj]

Nobody stopped him from showing the saucer landing. Why would they? The claim makes zero sense.

Money did.

You're both telling the same story with slightly different word placement, how is this even an argument?

 

[Overmind One]

That's horseshit.

The reason for the transporters was because they couldn't pay for the effects needed to land the ship week after week. That nugget is from The Making of Star Trek.

I don't see the conflict here. You're both telling the same story.

Nobody stopped him from showing the saucer landing. Why would they? The claim makes zero sense.

Its a fact. In order for them to show the saucer landing, they would have had to build more models and use more expensive effects. And yes, this is in The Making of Star Trek. The NCC1701 ship shows the landing struts on the underside, with the third strut under the connecting pylon.

 

[BillJ]

I like the idea of Kirk being a petrol head who rides motorcycles. It's obvious KirkPrime was a thrill seeker. He free-climbed rocks, vigorously road horses, practiced martial arts, and (as implied by original GEN cut) liked to sky dive from low orbit. I imagine George Sr. was probably some kind of outdoors person. (I like to think that the cabin in GEN was originally his and Winona's retirement place.)

It was clearly implied nuKirk's step-dad was a petrol head himself. Working on cars was probably the one good thing they shared. I know from my own father's experience, he pretty much hated his step-dad, but the one thing they bonded over was working on cars--which, of course, was something my dad and I shared, in-turn.

It's only natural that nuKirk, refocus that hobby into working on classic bikes instead.

+1

 

[M'Sharak]

It doesn't matter if you're a blue blob of goo from Jupiter. You're using obtuse rhetoric to make passive-aggressive barbs. You're essentially saying, "If you like nuTrek, you're not a real Star Trek fan." Attacking is exactly what you're doing.

Oh please...I am not saying any such thing, YOU ARE. I have made myself clear on how I feel about NuTrek and NuTrek fans, without attacking anyone. You are attacking ME.

Here's an idea: don't express opinions about any fans. Just leave that be; it's not what we're here to talk about.

Don't try to impress with the credential of how long you've been a fan, because many of the other people participating in the discussion have been watching for just as long; the notion of "Old Fans like this; nuFans like that" has been repeatedly debunked anyway - it holds no water. Don't make pronouncements concerning what is or is not Real Star Trek; it's all Real Star Trek, whether you happen to like it or not.

If you don't like a thing, fine. Talk about that. Discuss why you don't like it. But knock off the whole air of "My opinion is superior because age / I met Gene Roddenberry / da-da-da-da-da." That kind of business adds nothing useful to the discussion. None of it really matters.

Talk about the movies, and about the shows from which the movies proceeded.

There's plenty of material for discussion in that, without the need for any posturing at all.

 

[BillJ]

Its a fact. In order for them to show the saucer landing, they would have had to build more models and use more expensive effects. And yes, this is in The Making of Star Trek. The NCC1701 ship shows the landing struts on the underside, with the third strut under the connecting pylon.

So the budget stopped him, not the studio.

They never allowed him to show the saucer section landing on a planet, even though the ship (TOS) clearly shows two of the landing struts on it's underside. But if it weren’t for that, we would never have had the transporter. At least we got saucer separation on TNG, but that saucer never landed on a planet.