What really worries me...
- Thread starter Praetor
- Start date
- Status
I'm still waiting for someone to point out the supposedly "dated" aspects of the original bridge design?
Are there any bean bag chairs? Lava lamps? Bead curtains? Black light posters? Flower pots that double as bongs? Window box with the suspicious looking plants?
Where are these alleged "1960's" design elements that doom the design?
Are there any bean bag chairs? Lava lamps? Bead curtains? Black light posters? Flower pots that double as bongs? Window box with the suspicious looking plants?
Where are these alleged "1960's" design elements that doom the design?
And I'm sure if there were any consistancy problems with TOS, Roddenberry would be the first one to want to go back and change them.
Because the Vulcans just had a spare Klingon bridge laying around?
How old is the Enterprise? 40 Years old?
I Understand that in order for a Star Trek movie to be successful on the level that Paramount wants it to be, it MUST appeal to more than Star Trek fans.
In order for the movie to bring in Iron Man numbers, or Dark Knight numbers, or even X-Men 2 numbers, they are going to have to rely on more than hard core Trek fans. Do you think the majority of the audience for Iron Man were hard core Iron Man fans? Of course not. Tracking suggested most people who saw it had never read an Iron Man comic in their life. So, not me, but Paramount is almost definitely more concerned with what non-Trek fans think. And I agree with them on that. The changes I have seen do not affect me in the slightest, because I expect the movie to be basically true to the characters and spirit of Star Trek. And I expect it to be damned entertaining.
Do you have stock in Paramount. Star Trek doesn't have to die with a TOS signifigantly updated TOS designs and production values. Art is a timeless thing.
Abrams' movie is the only thing preventing "Star Trek" from being dead as far as Paramount is concerned.
I dunno - I've seen too much of the stuff that the naysayers evidently would prefer to be at all impressed. Let Abrams and his people do their best to make "Star Trek" entertaining again, and if they can't then just let it lie thereafter.
In other words, you care more about what non-Trek fans think
There is not a single non-Trek moviegoer who would look at the old TOS bridge, however gussied up with new lights and shiny things, and go "wow, that is amazing!."
If the movie can't come up with some of that gosh-wow, it's doomed to fail. They're not going to evoke it by stroking the needs of some fans to see what's familiar to them - again.
There's no reason at all to care what the more obsessive and nitpicky Trek fans think or want. No reason at all - unless one is obsessive and nitpicky.
I wish I could remember who it was around here who said that "as long as either you or I are going to be disappointed I'd prefer that it be you."
If the movie can't come up with some of that gosh-wow, it's doomed to fail. They're not going to evoke it by stroking the needs of some fans to see what's familiar to them - again.
There's no reason at all to care what the more obsessive and nitpicky Trek fans think or want. No reason at all - unless one is obsessive and nitpicky.
I wish I could remember who it was around here who said that "as long as either you or I are going to be disappointed I'd prefer that it be you."
Why? It's not an issue that they probably care much about. Their goal is to make an entertaining and successful movie.
If the movie is a success, they'll follow their own tastes and intuitions on the second - which is what they should do, if they're successful. They'll keep doing what they're doing.
If the movie is not a success, bye-bye "Star Trek."
If the movie is not a success, bye-bye "Star Trek."
I think at this point it's quite important that someone points out for the record that the "Star Trek" universe is entirely fictional. It's not real. It didn't happen.
- Status
Similar threads
