That's news to me. Is that why Sci-Fi just greenlit a spinoff? Because of the series' waning popularity?
I wouldn't worry about Trek getting all BSGed. (I'd actually welcome it.) If Abrams really wanted to do that, Scotty would be the African chick.
SPY PHOTOS at AICN
- Thread starter AudioBridge
- Start date
That's news to me. Is that why Sci-Fi just greenlit a spinoff? Because of the series' waning popularity?
I wouldn't worry about Trek getting all BSGed. (I'd actually welcome it.) If Abrams really wanted to do that, Scotty would be the African chick.
That's news to me. Is that why Sci-Fi just greenlit a spinoff? Because of the series' waning popularity?
I wouldn't worry about Trek getting all BSGed. (I'd actually welcome it.) If Abrams really wanted to do that, Scotty would be the African chick.
What he said!
Plus the only way to tell if "Star Trek" had gotten BSGed is to see the tone of the story. That's what counts. Something tells me this will contain a certain sense of ToS "whimsy" as compared to BSG brooding.
Sharr
I don't know guys. I love you all but i have to disagree with some of you. I think these pics are horseshit. I don't like them. Oh yeah as of right now 3:58 pm MST 03/27/08 they are still available at photobucket.
Before you mock a simple statement of fact like that, you ought to look up the ratings - see how many people actually watched it in its first year, its second, its third...
A rhetorical question that sounds good isn't really a substitute for information.
Why and how SCIFI is doing "Caprica" does not have any bearing on the fact that fewer people watch BSG as time goes by (and that the actual number watching is not large; a few million). Not that I don't think it's one of the most excellent things on TV - I do - but them's the facts.
Hah, I just noticed that one of the consol readouts is labelled in FEET. Take that, puny metric system!
I'm still not sure about what that big ole shuttle/cargo ship/runabout is. It has no obvious UFP or SF markings or name, and the number on it has no prefix. Those red symbols could be SF markings though.
I think the nacelles may be smaller/stubbier versions of what the ENT nacelles will look like.
I'm still not sure about what that big ole shuttle/cargo ship/runabout is. It has no obvious UFP or SF markings or name, and the number on it has no prefix. Those red symbols could be SF markings though.
I think the nacelles may be smaller/stubbier versions of what the ENT nacelles will look like.
I agree. It's got that same Koerner-esque "collar"-type layer over the top, and has a distinctly jet-engine vibe as well.
I suspect that the Enterprise will have nacelles somewhere between this and the TOS look -- basically resembling the originals, but having that "collar" up front and tapering toward the back.
I think the exterior of the shuttle looks great, and I liked grey uniform. Still not keen on the red color that's being used though. Hopefully it's just for cadets and will be phased out by the end of the movie for the more traditional uniforms.
I also think it's silly to complain about the scruffiness and dirt. We have no way of knowing how much of that is going to be cleaned up in post-production, or if those sets were even in use at the time. For all we know shooting could have been done and they were getting ready to tear the sets apart.
I also think it's silly to complain about the scruffiness and dirt. We have no way of knowing how much of that is going to be cleaned up in post-production, or if those sets were even in use at the time. For all we know shooting could have been done and they were getting ready to tear the sets apart.
My first post in this thread was right ten? 
People are starting to judge this movie based on just spy photos now? Seriously guys, take The Shat's advice and chill out. The 'look' of the movie is shaping up very nicely so far.
People are starting to judge this movie based on just spy photos now? Seriously guys, take The Shat's advice and chill out. The 'look' of the movie is shaping up very nicely so far.
I think the same thing can be said about "Star Trek" as a franchise. And so... ah where does that leave us?Originally Posted by Baldus885
...BSG became less popular over time...
Sharr
I think the same thing can be said about "Star Trek" as a franchise. And so... ah where does that leave us?Originally Posted by Baldus885
...BSG became less popular over time...
Sharr
Am I to think you are comparing BSG to Star Trek in terms of longevity?
I think the same thing can be said about "Star Trek" as a franchise. And so... ah where does that leave us?Originally Posted by Baldus885
...BSG became less popular over time...
Sharr
Am I to think you are comparing BSG to Star Trek in terms of longevity?
If in that long run it lost steam they're in the same state of affairs I don't see a practical difference. Simply being around for decades is not worth much in and of it self if along the way people went away from it.
At least with BSG at the moment it has a certain amount of "critical acclaim" which Trek can't latch onto at the moment since it hasn't done anything in current history to earn it.
No Trek on tv or in movies = Dead, therefor less popular. Its a truth many fans can't seem to cope with. But perhaps this new film will change that? We shall see.
Sharr
They're actually the closest thing to facts that can be introduced into this kind of discussion - no one ever has any better information than the ratings, just strong suspicions.
I respectfully disagree. Trek has latched onto the minds of people all over the world in more ways than BSG can ever dream of doing. Critical success is somewhat important but the overall satisfaction and curiosity of the "audience" is what matters the most.
BSG started out absolutely fantastic, just like Andromeda and Earth: Final Conflict before it. But lousy writers and too much demographic coddling killed it. I am sad to see BSG go after just 4 years. Smallville has no critical acclaim whatsoever, but it survived all throughout because it is a fun show and the audience returned. BSG during season 3, not so much.
Edit > As for Star Trek, its longevity and fan interest is unparalleled and unrivaled. nobody can deny that.
You talking of Trek or BSG?
You talking of Trek or BSG?
"Star Trek," of course.
And Abrams may change that.
Indeed. "Fan interest'' doesn't much matter if its not on the air.
Trek's longevity (not that being around forever tells us anything of any weight) doesn't amount to much if its ceases to be produced. Which outside this film it has stopped. "These are the Voyages..." was the last of aired Star Trek - for the moment. Were there no new film Trek would be far deader then BSG and it effectively still is.
At least BSG is going out on its own terms...
I don't buy into the "Star Trek changed the world" viewpoint so many Trekkies do. Its mostly hype perpetuated in no small amount by its creator when he was around to do so.
And that's a point: If its become boring and no one cares about it then what good does it do the franchise?
I'm not sad, because BSG SHOULD NOT last seven seasons, really no show should. It has the expectations of an ending built into it - better to get there at some point then drag it out. At the moment its already beat TOS BSG and TOS Star Trek (which was cut short) in that regard.
I also don't see this demographic coddling you speak of? BSG at its worst was always better written then much of modern Trek. That is none of what's considered BSG's worst bores me and or puts me off the way some of modern Star Trek has.
Sharr
Last edited:
Hmm... is Geoff Mandel working on the movie, perchance? He worked on Insurrection, Voyager and Enterprise, and also on Serenity. IMDb doesn't list this movie in his profile, but I noticed that he was a graphic designer on Mission: Impossible III... and Abrams does like to go back to people he's worked with before.
Has a real "Starship Troopers meets Aliens" vibe, doesn't it?
Similar threads
