What really worries me...

[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.

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.

We've seen very little of the TOS era, and even less so of the era a decade or more before it in which this movie takes place. Also, what we have seen was very low budget. If Roddenberry had had 150 million bucks and the foreknowledge of technology in 2008, what do you think he would have done?

 

[EnderAKH]

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.

I apologize, I used the term set when I shouldn't have. TNG was produced 18 years TOS. I thought that would be obvious through context, but I guess it wasn't. My apologies. TOS was last produced in 1969. TNG began airing in 1987. 18 years of production design theory between them. I'm not talking about in universe. I will NEVER refer to this in the context of in universe. I'm referring to the real world.

And as for me trying to justify what Abbrams is doing? Quite the opposite. If Roddenberry himself, Berman and Braga, JJ Abbrams, or Alfred Hitchcock were directing the movie and made the decision to use a reasonably faithful recreation of the TOS bridge in a movie made in 2008/2009, I would be talking about what an awful decision it was. I don't care so much about the way the bridge looks now (I like it, other than the hostess station,produc to be clear), but I think those who want a recreation of the TOS bridge, quite frankly, would be setting this movie up to fail.

 

[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.

We've seen very little of the TOS era, and even less so of the era a decade or more before it in which this movie takes place. Also, what we have seen was very low budget. If Roddenberry had had 150 million bucks and the foreknowledge of technology in 2008, what do you think he would have done?

He didn't have $150 million and this kind of technology at hand.
I expected them to be faithful to what he did have.
TNG did, DS9, and Enterprise did.

 

[JuanBolio]

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.

We've seen very little of the TOS era, and even less so of the era a decade or more before it in which this movie takes place. Also, what we have seen was very low budget. If Roddenberry had had 150 million bucks and the foreknowledge of technology in 2008, what do you think he would have done?

He didn't have $150 million and this kind of technology at hand.
I expected them to be faithful to what he did have.
TNG did, DS9, and Enterprise did.

Works for a TV show doing an homage. NOT for a $150 million blockbuster supposedly set in the future. Such a bridge on the big screen would've been laughable and corny. They took basic design elements from the bridge from The Cage. I'm content with that.

Anyway, the Enterprise has had several refits and between the originial and the Enterprise-A something like 6 different bridges. Lighten up.

 

[MattJC]

We've seen very little of the TOS era, and even less so of the era a decade or more before it in which this movie takes place. Also, what we have seen was very low budget. If Roddenberry had had 150 million bucks and the foreknowledge of technology in 2008, what do you think he would have done?

He didn't have $150 million and this kind of technology at hand.
I expected them to be faithful to what he did have.
TNG did, DS9, and Enterprise did.

Works for a TV show doing an homage. NOT for a $150 million blockbuster supposedly set in the future. Such a bridge on the big screen would've been laughable and corny. They took basic design elements from the bridge from The Cage. I'm content with that.

Anyway, the Enterprise has had several refits and between the originial and the Enterprise-A something like 6 different bridges. Lighten up.

Then they should have just done a straight remake if they didn't want to deal with continuity.
No, I will not lighten up.

 

[JuanBolio]

So far we've seen nothing that violates continuity at all.

 

[MattJC]

So far we've seen nothing that violates continuity at all.

The bridge.

 

[ancient]

No, I will not lighten up.

It's not real, it's just here to provide 2 hours of entertainment. If you don't like it, it's not the fucking end of the world. So lighten up. Abrams can change OR keep whatever he wants to make the movie as entertaining to the masses as possible. One of the elements he is keeping is the characters and history. One of the elements he is dropping is a bridge that looks like a disco art gallery to the general populace.

TOS looked like something from the 60's.

TMP looked like something from the 70's.

TNG looked like something from the 80's.

VGR/DS9 looked like something from the 90's.

ENT looked like something from 2000.

STXI will look like something from 2008.

It's the way the world works. It's called movement through time. It has nothing to do with the fake future time they are set in.

 

[MattJC]

TOS looked like something from the 60's.

If this movie is set before TOS then it should look closer to TOS, and not something out of the 2000s.

 

[JuanBolio]

So far we've seen nothing that violates continuity at all.

The bridge.

Tell me exactly why the bridge from the movie could not have pre-dated a more detailed version of the bridges from The Cage and TOS.

 

[Tom Servo]

So far we've seen nothing that violates continuity at all.

The bridge.

The bridge can be interchanged. Why you can accept other bridge changes but not this one I dont understand.

 

[ancient]

TOS looked like something from the 60's.

If this movie is set before TOS then it should look closer to TOS, and not something out of the 2000s.

...because...?

 

[MattJC]

So far we've seen nothing that violates continuity at all.

The bridge.

Tell me exactly why the bridge from the movie could not have pre-dated a more detailed version of the bridges from The Cage and TOS.

Explain to me how the bridge from the new movie is supposed to be an earlier version of the one we saw in TOS.
With this movie probably bound to spawn sequels, I doubt we will even see the bridge as we knew from TOS.
They'll just keep this new fancier bridge.

 

[MattJC]

TOS looked like something from the 60's.

If this movie is set before TOS then it should look closer to TOS, and not something out of the 2000s.

...because...?

Consistency?

 

[JuanBolio]

If this movie is set before TOS then it should look closer to TOS, and not something out of the 2000s.

...because...?

Consistency?

Like the Klingon bridge changing between ST3 and ST4?

 

[ancient]

If this movie is set before TOS then it should look closer to TOS, and not something out of the 2000s.

...because...?

Consistency?

Trek has never been consistant. It's not really that important, which is why, for example, TMP did not look like a logical extension of TOS, it looked like a different universe all together.

 

[xortex]

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.

It's not the fans way, it's Rodenberry's way and hed they had great stories and production values like TOS it would have been a hit., all casting aside.TOS lives, Star Trek is dead.

 

[EnderAKH]

If this movie is set before TOS then it should look closer to TOS, and not something out of the 2000s.

...because...?

Consistency?

Just so I understand...

The movie is going to be made in the TOS era. That is financially the most logical thing to do. Given that...

You would rather have a movie that would be laughed at, by movie goers and critics because of a horribly dated design but be true and consistent to TOS and thus most likely lose money, than update the production design to a more modern aesthetic and thus make the movie more attractive to modern audiences and have a better chance to be a success?

You would rather it look accurate but have a bigger chance to be a failure than update the look and give it a better chance to succeed?

 

[MattJC]

You seem more concerned with what non-Trek fans think.

 

[MattJC]

...because...?

Consistency?

Like the Klingon bridge changing between ST3 and ST4?

How long was the Klingon ship on Vulcan?
3 months?