Poll: The new Starship Enterprise

[Ptrope]

I think that describes the new movie pretty well too. This is clearly supposed to be a new version of the old ship, no doubt.

Pretty obviously, and in that context, understandable, but ...

On the other hand, I'm sure there are hardcore Mustang classic fans whining about the new Mustang, insisting that the car company not call it a Mustang, insisting that it is overshadowing the old Mustang, complaining that the car company is just slapping the name on a new car because they want to make money and are out of ideas, yack yack yack.

The analogy falls apart, however, because Ford aren't trying to tell us that, despite being sold today, the car is actually a 1960 Mustang and that in only a few short years would look like the 1964 1/2 original. This analogy only works with the difference between 1701 and 1701-D, when TNG arrived on the scene.

If Paramount want to reboot Trek and say, "Everything is new, this is not a sequel nor a prequel - we are making a new Trek starting from scratch, using 2008 as a starting point for our designs and technology," that would be fine with me. Where they screw things up, IMO, is in expecting people who are fans and knowledgeable of so much of the existing body of work to accept that so much is different or just plain wrong, while at the same time acknowledging that their real target audience don't even like the show! Well, duh! They either flat out don't like it, in which case why bother, or they don't know anything about it, in which case TPTB are wasting their time in trying to make it different - these people aren't going to know nor care about these things!. The new ship is so much like the original that non-fans don't know the difference - a wasted effort - and it's not enough like the original for fans to fully accept it - another wasted effort.

Truly, Hollywood is run by waiters and MBAs ...

 

[ancient]

I don't really see a problem. Since trek history is all made-up, Hollywood can make different versions of the same thing. Yes, the same thing...but different.

It has already happened to about 1000 shows and movies - sometimes several times. It's nothing new or unusual. Now Trek has largely avoided reinvention until now despite being in production for so long. That makes it more of an exception to the way things are normally done - until now.

Yes, the 60's Batman and the Nolan Batman are the same character. The two versions are as different as night and day, but they are still the same character, occupying two versions of the same universe. It's one of the hallmarks of fiction - the ability to completely change it without destroying the original version.

The classic look of the ship - that's the Enterprise. This new ship they just made, this is the same Enterprise...version 2.0. Or actually 4.0, if you count the Pike and TMP versions.

Now, as to the look of this new version of the Enterprise, that's a matter of opinion. I think it's more streamlined, but less graceful. It's a bit too stylized, but I think it's probably fine for this movie.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The analogy falls apart, however, because Ford aren't trying to tell us that, despite being sold today, the car is actually a 1960 Mustang and that in only a few short years would look like the 1964 1/2 original.

Neither is J.J. Abrams. It's pretty clear that he expects everyone to notice that this movie is being made in the twenty-first century and that nothing in it looks like it did in 1966. There's no problem or contraction there. The analogy works just fine.

 

[Tallguy]

The analogy falls apart, however, because Ford aren't trying to tell us that, despite being sold today, the car is actually a 1960 Mustang and that in only a few short years would look like the 1964 1/2 original.

Neither is J.J. Abrams. It's pretty clear that he expects everyone to notice that this movie is being made in the twenty-first century and that nothing in it looks like it did in 1966. There's no problem or contraction there. The analogy works just fine.

Wellllll, up until a few weeks ago we were hearing about how close this would be to the original and that everything is still 'canon'. I'll be first in line for the new movie and I'm firmly in the camp that thinks it looks terrific. But I can't help being a little resentful of the slight bait and switch.

OTOH, it might be that the people who said the new stuff looks "just like the old stuff only more detailed" really think that it does. Most of the casual fans I've shown the new ship to think it looks terrific and looks "just like" the Enterprise (only more modern - whatever that means).

 

[JJohnson]

The nacelles have a funny droop, the torpedo launchers should be in the saucer, the deflector should be extended and not glowing, and the engineering section wasn't this thin. I must would've preferred something like the Trek Remastered Folks did on the old bird - cleaned it up and detailed it. The only additions I would've made to the Enterprise would be to add more phasers like FJ did, and the aft torpedo launcher. Inside, perhaps take away the technicolor and make the halls more functional for a spaceship and not so 60's-gogo, and I'd be great. As this stands, the halls look more Star-Wars-y than Trek-y.

Trek Remastered did the ship justice. This didn't in my opinion. That said, I will still be first in line to see a new Trek picture, on hopes they will correct the mistake if this does well.

James

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

OTOH, it might be that the people who said the new stuff looks "just like the old stuff only more detailed" really think that it does. Most of the casual fans I've shown the new ship to think it looks terrific and looks "just like" the Enterprise (only more modern - whatever that means).

Exactly. Trek fans are really literal-minded about these things, and over-interpret what people working on the shows say. The reverse is true - the folks at the studio are often surprised at how worked up fans get about offhanded remarks, because P.R. is so rarely about the specific. We're like a bunch of unemployed kremlinologists.

These people, for the most part, believe that they're delivering on what they promised.

Captain's got a big chair in the middle of the room.

 

[Captain Robert April]

And if they're truly that clueless, then they shouldn't be let near this franchise.

 

[Tom Servo]

And if they're truly that clueless, then they shouldn't be let near this franchise.

Or they are exactly what this franchise needs....

 

[Cary L. Brown]

And if they're truly that clueless, then they shouldn't be let near this franchise.

Or they are exactly what this franchise needs....

In which case, technically, they'll be starting a new franchise that just happens to have the same name as the old one.

Nobody in their right mind would consider the original BSG and the new BSG the "same franchise," really...

 

[Tom Servo]

And if they're truly that clueless, then they shouldn't be let near this franchise.

Or they are exactly what this franchise needs....

In which case, technically, they'll be starting a new franchise that just happens to have the same name as the old one.

Nobody in their right mind would consider the original BSG and the new BSG the "same franchise," really...

But you cannot compare what is being done to BSG, and I love the new one, with what is being done with Trek. The changes are not NEARLY as drastic in any way.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Only in the sense that the characters haven't changed genders.

Yet.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And if they're truly that clueless, then they shouldn't be let near this franchise.

You're drearily persistent at calling these people names, but never demonstrate any knowledge or acumen regarding how "Star Trek" might successfully be produced as a film - just wishful thinking based on a refusal to examine facts.

Anyway, your uninformed assertion is moot - regardless of what you think "should" happen, these people now run this franchise - and whoever, if anyone, succeeds them won't deliver what you want either. The kind of "Star Trek" show you're bent on demanding is done and gone and won't be back.

 

[Forbin]

The kind of "Star Trek" show you're bent on demanding is done and gone and won't be back.

I don't find that a cause for celebration.

 

[Warped9]

The kind of "Star Trek" show you're bent on demanding is done and gone and won't be back.

This is nonsense. The type of storytelling TOS had is perfectly workable today. In example I offer Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World and the A&E Hornblower TV movies. Just do that approach as science fiction space adventure. Stargate: SG-1 was also often like TOS in its approach to storytelling and characterization and handling ideas.

I am skeptical that any new Trek based film or TV series will ever be that way again, but I do hold the faint hope that someday an original space adventure film or TV project will come along to fill that void.

 

[Neopeius]

The ship looks fine. It will be the least of the movie's problems.

 

[ST-One]

The ship looks fine. It will be the least of the movie's problems.

'It will be'?
The utmost certainty with which you state this is... interesting.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

The kind of "Star Trek" show you're bent on demanding is done and gone and won't be back.

This is nonsense. The type of storytelling TOS had is perfectly workable today. In example I offer Master And Commander: The Far Side Of The World and the A&E Hornblower TV movies. Just do that approach as science fiction space adventure. Stargate: SG-1 was also often like TOS in its approach to storytelling and characterization and handling ideas.

I am skeptical that any new Trek based film or TV series will ever be that way again, but I do hold the faint hope that someday an original space adventure film or TV project will come along to fill that void.

Agreed.

Storytelling hasn't changed in any meaningful and significant fashion since... well, since humans have been telling stories.

Has it?

It's nothing less than arrogance and irrationality to assume that somehow, in the past couple of decades, human psychology has somehow "evolved to a new state." Nothing of the sort has occurred. And so the basic precepts of good storytelling haven't changed, either.

Those who claim that things have changed in significant ways are, I've observed, often the same people who think that their generation discovered sex (and everyone else, throughout history, thought it was "yucky" and only did it missionary-style, just to make babies), or that their generation discovered drugs, or sarcasm, or anything else that every single generation since time immemorial has "discovered."

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The kind of "Star Trek" show you're bent on demanding is done and gone and won't be back.

I don't find that a cause for celebration.

It's a "cause" for whatever an individual wants it to be a "cause" for. People will be of different opinions.

I'd rather see another episode of TOS produced - preferably somewhere near the end of Season One or early Season Two, before the series degenerated too far into formula. That's not going to happen. I got over feeling bad about it many years ago.

 

[Neopeius]

The ship looks fine. It will be the least of the movie's problems.

'It will be'?
The utmost certainty with which you state this is... interesting.

"It will likely be the least of the movie's problems."

Happy?

 

[ST-One]

The ship looks fine. It will be the least of the movie's problems.

'It will be'?
The utmost certainty with which you state this is... interesting.

"It will likely be the least of the movie's problems."

Happy?

Not really.