What really worries me...

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

And then there were the "We Don't Need a New Crew!" t-shirts and campaigns at the cons in the 80s once TNG was announced, plus plenty of hysteria over having a bald captain, a woman doctor and a counselor as part of the regular crew.

I remember there also being fan shirts with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy that said: Classic Trek, We Needs Another Generation!

Of course, a parody of New Coke v. Classic Coke. The lettering was even done in the Coca-Cola font.

 

[EnderAKH]

...In the end, tell a great story. It's not about how many nacelles there are or what color Kirk's uniform is.

Or what Kirk's first name is.

Let's call him "Rob" in this one.

Or how many pointed ears Spock has.

Let's give him three. We're doing this one, so we can.




Don't you see?

If this is Star Trek, let it BE the Trek we've known.

If they HAVE TO change anything, let it be the way they changed the uniforms. NOT the way they changed the bridge.

If this is Kirk and Spock's Star Trek, then LET IT BE KIRK AND SPOCK'S STAR TREK! Don't change it. Give us more of what we had before.

Some say "The look of the bridge isn't important, it's the story-telling that counts."

Okay. Then DON'T CHANGE HOW THINGS LOOK IF IT'S SO UNIMPORTANT.

If you feel it has to be changed to "look good" then you don't want Kirk and Spock's era, you want something else.

People shouldn't contradict themselves in an attempt to defend the new version of something, especially when that new version tries to undermine the original by actually claiming to be the very same thing.

Because it IS important! The TOS bridge looks like a dated piece of 60's decore. You know why? It is! I thought it looked hokey and out dated when I started watching Trek in the late 70s and early 80s. It's OUT DATED! The characters aren't. The ideas aren't. But the look is! Jeemony Christmas the TOS look isn't timeless. It's hokey! I've seen New Voyages. And the KFC commercial. And Trials and Tribblations. And In A Mirror Darkly. Still hokey. Still out dated. And if I thought that in the early 80s, how are people going to feel NOW? That's why TNG looked very little like TOS. It was the late 80s and production design moved forward.

So The look IS important. It's important that the bridge NOT look like it did in the 60s, with giant building blocks for removeable media.

 

[MattJC]

That's why TNG looked very little like TOS. It was the late 80s and production design moved forward.
.

TNG was set 70-80 years after TOS also, genius.

 

[Bishbot]

That's why TNG looked very little like TOS. It was the late 80s and production design moved forward.
.

TNG was set 70-80 years after TOS also, genius.

That's irrelevant. Both series take place hundreds of years into the future. We've no way of knowing what the future will look like, except we know for a fact that it won't look outdated, hence the sets needing to be up to date with current thinking and production design. The TNG bridge looks dated now, as well, but it was cutting edge in the eighties, which the TOS bridge was not.

 

[MattJC]

Yes, it is relevant, because it's another reason why TNG didn't look like TOS.
New cast of characters. New era. New ship. New everything.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yes, it is relevant, because it's another reason why TNG didn't look like TOS.

No, it's not.

And xortex - all those fans "who were right" - them getting their way would simply have made entertainment a bit more boring in the 1980s. They'd have preserved nothing worthwhile. Case closed.

 

[MattJC]

Yes, it is relevant, because it's another reason why TNG didn't look like TOS.

No, it's not.

Yes. It is.
The people behind this movie expect Trek fans to believe that this Enterprise is the same one seen in the original series.
It is not.
It's high tech piece of crap with the Enterprise named slapped on it.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Then again... its by the writing team from Transformers. Try as I might, I cannot remember one intelligent exchange or line of dialog from that film.

Can you remember any intelligent dialogue from any film in the last decade or so? Why does a movie need snobbish intelligent dialogue to be enjoyable and fun? I enjoyed Transformers for what it is - big, giant, transforming robots beating the steel out of each other.

 

[EnderAKH]

That's why TNG looked very little like TOS. It was the late 80s and production design moved forward.
.

TNG was set 70-80 years after TOS also, genius.

Irrelevant. What is relevant? It was set 18 years after TOS. Star Trek is not a real universe where real technology changed in the intervening years between TOS and TNG. The production designers, Roddenberry, and other producers decided for a more modern look, rather than following a design lineage from TOS. And as we all know, the primary colors used in the bridge were because NBC wanted to push the fact Trek would be airing in all color, not because Starfleet engineers felt the colors would be better for StarFleet personnel. The suggestion that production design for a movie in 2009 should be guided by a decision made by NBC executives in the 60s to sell color TV sets is ludicrous. The idea that anyone, other than maybe 20% of the hardcore fanbase, including new people who have never watched Trek on a regular basis and most casual fans of Trek, would look at a bridge design based on TOS and do anything other than laugh it off the screen is equally ludicrous.

 

[MattJC]

That's why TNG looked very little like TOS. It was the late 80s and production design moved forward.
.

TNG was set 70-80 years after TOS also, genius.

Irrelevant. What is relevant? It was set 18 years after TOS. Star Trek is not a real universe where real technology changed in the intervening years between TOS and TNG. The production designers, Roddenberry, and other producers decided for a more modern look, rather than following a design lineage from TOS. And as we all know, the primary colors used in the bridge were because NBC wanted to push the fact Trek would be airing in all color, not because Starfleet engineers felt the colors would be better for StarFleet personnel. The suggestion that production design for a movie in 2009 should be guided by a decision made by NBC executives in the 60s to sell color TV sets is ludicrous. The idea that anyone, other than maybe 20% of the hardcore fanbase, including new people who have never watched Trek on a regular basis and most casual fans of Trek, would look at a bridge design based on TOS and do anything other than laugh it off the screen is equally ludicrous.

Whatever you say.

 

[StarTrek1701]

You wanna play games?

Fine.

Let's play.

Mind if I cut in?

You want to know what I want?

Not really, nobody cares what you want, just like nobody cares what I want. But we are getting it, and accepting it more than you are. Ultimately though, it is futile, we all know IT is coming.

What do YOU want, and how is changing the look of the bridge (possibly for good) and maybe the Enterprise essential for the "good stories" that you say is all YOU want?

Go ahead...

The look of the bridge from the old episodes no matter how much it is ingrained in our hearts and minds, is very, very dated. The 'concept' of the future has changed drastically from the late 60's to 2009. The aesthetic values and imagery from those times cannot be accepted by the majority of the movie viewing audience. And face it, for Star Trek to rise from the ashes and be a thrusting player in today's entertainment, the look HAS TO BE modernized.

Also, while you're at it, explain to us how something that changes the look of the ship so much fits in innocently as part of the existing timeline, and "changes nothing", being an innocent "untold story"?

Go ahead.

Talk.

Star Trek will be interpreted in various different ways by various different people. What matters is it becomes big and influential again like it was in the 70's and 80's.

Explain to us why Trek has to be changed visually, and also how a visual change doesn't overwrite what came before (especially when we were told that's not what this film is all about)?

Go ahead...

The floor is yours.

You wanna talk?

TALK.

Your anger won't change what is about to arrive - an updated, visually pleasing new form of Star Trek, complete with a modern outlook on its message and be entertaining in the same form.

And it will blow people's minds away. Just like Star Trek did back in the 60's.

Deal with it.

 

[JuanBolio]

Then again... its by the writing team from Transformers. Try as I might, I cannot remember one intelligent exchange or line of dialog from that film.

Can you remember any intelligent dialogue from any film in the last decade or so? Why does a movie need snobbish intelligent dialogue to be enjoyable and fun? I enjoyed Transformers for what it is - big, giant, transforming robots beating the steel out of each other.

Yeah, I can, just not so much in most sci-fi movies, which is sad. I liked Transformers, too, but it had its problems. Trek needs to be more cerebral.

 

[Tom Servo]

TNG was set 70-80 years after TOS also, genius.

Irrelevant. What is relevant? It was set 18 years after TOS. Star Trek is not a real universe where real technology changed in the intervening years between TOS and TNG. The production designers, Roddenberry, and other producers decided for a more modern look, rather than following a design lineage from TOS. And as we all know, the primary colors used in the bridge were because NBC wanted to push the fact Trek would be airing in all color, not because Starfleet engineers felt the colors would be better for StarFleet personnel. The suggestion that production design for a movie in 2009 should be guided by a decision made by NBC executives in the 60s to sell color TV sets is ludicrous. The idea that anyone, other than maybe 20% of the hardcore fanbase, including new people who have never watched Trek on a regular basis and most casual fans of Trek, would look at a bridge design based on TOS and do anything other than laugh it off the screen is equally ludicrous.

Whatever you say.

For once someone makes a quote with some factual basis, and you blow it off, while still spreading your mindless drivel over and over and over. Why am I not surprised.

TOS Purists: This movie is NOT MADE FOR YOU. If it was...it would make no money, and it would fail. This film was made to make Trek a profitable franchise, which in its current state its not. I love how people somehow try to make the redesigns within the show work "in Universe" to prove a point. TNG was redesigned compared to TOS, not because the designers sat and thought of the progression of TOS technology over 100 years, and thats why they designed things they way they did. They designed it within the design aesthetic of the 80's when it was made. If they made TNG with the TOS sets, it would have been laughed off the screen. Thats why TOS looks like it was made in the 60's and TNG was made in the 80's. They are products of the decades they were designed in. Im sure in thirty years, this new film will look like it was made in 2008. Anyone who is trying to justify that things were redesigned so they made sense "In Universe" is laughable.

 

[MattJC]

Irrelevant. What is relevant? It was set 18 years after TOS. Star Trek is not a real universe where real technology changed in the intervening years between TOS and TNG. The production designers, Roddenberry, and other producers decided for a more modern look, rather than following a design lineage from TOS. And as we all know, the primary colors used in the bridge were because NBC wanted to push the fact Trek would be airing in all color, not because Starfleet engineers felt the colors would be better for StarFleet personnel. The suggestion that production design for a movie in 2009 should be guided by a decision made by NBC executives in the 60s to sell color TV sets is ludicrous. The idea that anyone, other than maybe 20% of the hardcore fanbase, including new people who have never watched Trek on a regular basis and most casual fans of Trek, would look at a bridge design based on TOS and do anything other than laugh it off the screen is equally ludicrous.

Whatever you say.

For once someone makes a quote with some factual basis, and you blow it off, while still spreading your mindless drivel over and over and over. Why am I not surprised.

He's trying to justify accepting Abrams' BS changes.
TNG was set on a DIFFERENT ship and a DIFFERENT era. It was set 70-80 years after TOS, not 18.
OF course, it would look different then TOS.

 

[M'Sharak]

That's why TNG looked very little like TOS. It was the late 80s and production design moved forward.

Set.

This about the production design.

TNG was set 70-80 years after TOS also...

Setting.

This is about the time period in which the story is supposed to take place.

Set. Setting. Not the same thing.

Also:

That's why TNG looked very little like TOS. It was the late 80s and production design moved forward.
.

TNG was set 70-80 years after TOS also...

Post.

This is fine (if a bit apples-and-oranges.)

...genius.

Poster.

This is not fine.

Topic: fine. Personal jab: not fine. Please remember.

That also applies to one or two others in this thread: post, not poster.


Thank you, and we now return you to our regularly-scheduled discussion of what really worries me. (Or you, as the case may be.)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

For once someone makes a quote with some factual basis, and you blow it off, while still spreading your mindless drivel over and over and over. Why am I not surprised.

You've been paying attention?

He's trying to justify accepting Abrams' BS changes.

You'd better get this:

No one has to "justify" accepting anything. People will like what they will like, without answering to any obsessive insistence on anything from trekkies.

And the folks who don't like what Abrams are doing are always welcome to ignore it, the way some folks get ignored at places like donmurphy.net.

 

[Gojira]

Whatever you say.

For once someone makes a quote with some factual basis, and you blow it off, while still spreading your mindless drivel over and over and over. Why am I not surprised.

He's trying to justify accepting Abrams' BS changes.
TNG was set on a DIFFERENT ship and a DIFFERENT era. It was set 70-80 years after TOS, not 18.
OF course, it would look different then TOS.

Some of us are actually looking forward to this movie Matt and you wouldn't have been happy unless they were doing a TNG movie.

You just didn't want this movie made and nothing, no mental stick of dynamite will change your mind, so when people argue with you about this movie they're just chasing their tail because when it comes down to it, it's not about this movie that you're upset. For you it's just a scape goat to toss your anger at because you didn't get another TNG movie!

 

[MattJC]

For once someone makes a quote with some factual basis, and you blow it off, while still spreading your mindless drivel over and over and over. Why am I not surprised.

He's trying to justify accepting Abrams' BS changes.
TNG was set on a DIFFERENT ship and a DIFFERENT era. It was set 70-80 years after TOS, not 18.
OF course, it would look different then TOS.

Some of us are actually looking forward to this movie Matt and you wouldn't have been happy unless they were doing a TNG movie.

You just didn't want this movie made and nothing, no mental stick of dynamite will change your mind, so when people argue with you about this movie they're just chasing their tail because when it comes down to it, it's not about this movie that you're upset. For you it's just a scape goat to toss your anger at because you didn't get another TNG movie!

Uh, no. I never said I wanted another TNG movie.

 

[JuanBolio]

So what's wrong with an updated look for the TOS era? Its not like they're burning the old show so no one can ever watch it again. I personally would've gone in a slightly different direction with the bridge and the uniforms, but that doesn't mean they don't work, nor that later on they don't come to look more like they did in TOS.

 

[MattJC]

So what's wrong with an updated look for the TOS era? Its not like they're burning the old show so no one can ever watch it again. I personally would've gone in a slightly different direction with the bridge and the uniforms, but that doesn't mean they don't work, nor that later on they don't come to look more like they did in TOS.

If they're going to do a TOS era movie, I expect it to look like the TOS era. If they're going to do a reboot, then they can go nuts and change whatever they want.
But don't give me this crap about this new movie being in the same eras TOS.