What other things can we change for The Drooling Masses?

[Captain X]

Har har. How have I been condescending to those who have legitimate criticisms about the show, things other then bitching about the new ship, the godforsaken canon, its being built on Earth, and other trivial things that have no bearing on whether this will be a good film or not? However, it seems that if we do not worship at the church of TOS, we are somehow stupid, and part of the "dumbed down masses."

You kind of answered your own question. It's a matter of perception, and just as you perceive Trekker to be talking down to you as part of the "drooling masses", so too have others perceived you and others to be talking down to them about the things they consider important. It's all the same, really.

 

[trekkerguy]

It seem that William THE Kirk Shatner is also part of those drooling masses:

http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/22/sha...uss-enterprise-get-ready-for-shatcember-more/

I think... Shatner... justgainedbackalltherespecthelostfromme.

 

[seigezunt]

yes...this kind of snobbery is just what the franchise needs. The drooling masses indeed. If this is "true" fandom, then bully to JJ for giving it the middle finger. He did the right thing.

 

[Blue_Ranger]

And why does mainstream want to be entertained people need flashy pretty effects and sleek retroish designs? Why can't the classic deisgn be used?

1965

2008

There you are

 

[Blue_Ranger]

You kind of answered your own question. It's a matter of perception, and just as you perceive Trekker to be talking down to you as part of the "drooling masses", so too have others perceived you and others to be talking down to them about the things they consider important. It's all the same, really.

Because the color of the nacelles, the registry number of a starship and adherences to lines written 40 years ago is what's important to the success of a film?

 

[Trekker4747]

And why does mainstream want to be entertained people need flashy pretty effects and sleek retroish designs? Why can't the classic deisgn be used?

1965

2008

There you are

I fail to see your point.

Because it's 2008 we can't use the TOS design? We have to make drastic changes to a classic, loved and timeless design?

I say again, look at the design itself. Not the way it was filmed and presented with 1960s special effects. Tear through TrekArt, do some Google image searches and look at the design itself. Tell me what about it is "1965."

I don't see any love flowers on it, no chrome, there aren't fuzzy dice hangining from it. I mean what about it is 1965?

Is there a "Make love not war" bumper-sticker on it with a peace sign on it?

How is the design 1965?

 

[Blue_Ranger]

How is the design 1965?

if it's so timeless, why didn't Gene use it in TMP?

 

[Trekker4747]

How is the design 1965?

if it's so timeless, why didn't Gene use it in TMP?

I know that they could not use the original model because of the state it was in and even if it was in good shape it wasn't suitable for theater-level filming, so that alone necessitated a new model.

As for why they didn't build the new model around the original design? I'm not sure. Maybe rights issues with Jefferies? No idea.

 

[Blue_Ranger]

How is the design 1965?

if it's so timeless, why didn't Gene use it in TMP?

I know that they could not use the original model because of the state it was in and even if it was in good shape it wasn't suitable for theater-level filming, so that alone necessitated a new model.

As for why they didn't build the new model around the original design? I'm not sure. Maybe rights issues with Jefferies? No idea.

Or maybe to....gasp! Oh horrors of horrors.....to update the look for the big screen?!

 

[Tom Servo]

And why does mainstream want to be entertained people need flashy pretty effects and sleek retroish designs? Why can't the classic deisgn be used?

1965

2008

There you are

I fail to see your point.

Because it's 2008 we can't use the TOS design? We have to make drastic changes to a classic, loved and timeless design?

I say again, look at the design itself. Not the way it was filmed and presented with 1960s special effects. Tear through TrekArt, do some Google image searches and look at the design itself. Tell me what about it is "1965."

I don't see any love flowers on it, no chrome, there aren't fuzzy dice hangining from it. I mean what about it is 1965?

Is there a "Make love not war" bumper-sticker on it with a peace sign on it?

How is the design 1965?

The design is 40 years old. The basis of it is sound, the saucer, engineering hull, and nacelles on pylons, but it was designed to be seen on a 20 inch TV screen in 1965, not a huge movie screen in 2008. Why do you think that they redesigned the ship for TMP? They wanted to bring the TV design up to movie standards. They were able to write it into the script, as the ship being refitted, but the design was changed because of the transition from TV, to movies.

 

[Sharr Khan]

How is the design 1965?

if it's so timeless, why didn't Gene use it in TMP?

I know that they could not use the original model because of the state it was in and even if it was in good shape it wasn't suitable for theater-level filming, so that alone necessitated a new model.

As for why they didn't build the new model around the original design? I'm not sure. Maybe rights issues with Jefferies? No idea.

The director Robert Wise specifically asked for it to be changed because it wasn't fit for a huge screen.

Sharr

 

[ST-One]

And why does mainstream want to be entertained people need flashy pretty effects and sleek retroish designs? Why can't the classic deisgn be used?

Yeah, why can't it?
Why did Beethoven write such (for his time) modern music?

 

[Captain X]

You mean that classic music that is still popular with a lot of people even to this day? Shocking...

 

[ST-One]

How is the design 1965?

if it's so timeless, why didn't Gene use it in TMP?

I know that they could not use the original model because of the state it was in and even if it was in good shape it wasn't suitable for theater-level filming, so that alone necessitated a new model.

As for why they didn't build the new model around the original design? I'm not sure. Maybe rights issues with Jefferies? No idea.

Are you kidding us?
Jefferies himself drew the first sketches for the refit upon which Probert and others expanded to create this new model.

The whole design wasn't modern anymore in the late 70's, and that is why they came up with the Refit.

 

[Trekker4747]

You mean that classic music that is still popular with a lot of people even to this day? Shocking...

I don't like listening to that music.

It's so 19th century. It needs to be updated.

Brought into the now. They need to add in an electric guitar, maybe some keyboard in it. Oh, and it needs to have music videoes with half-naked strippers in it.

Come on! Bring it to the 21st century! How are you going to get people interested in music by playing them something written in 1820?

 

[ST-One]

You mean that classic music that is still popular with a lot of people even to this day? Shocking...

And yet new and different music is written even though his music is still quite popular.

 

[Squiggy]

Transformers was extremely true to its source material.

It was? I admit, I'm not the biggest Transformers expert around, but I was always under the impression that it was originally about two robot factions, the Autobots and the Decepticons waging epic war against each other.

Last year's movie seemed to be about a loser teenager trying to score with the popular girl at school, with some sort of military subplot and a stupid-ass hacker story thrown in which contributed nothing. Yes, that's faithful to the source.

Sadly, the unwashed masses lapped this up as though they were stranded in the desert and it was the only water source. It saddens me this has happened to Transformers, and sickens me to think something similar is about to happen to Star Trek.

You've flipped the plots around. Sam's flirtations with the the hottest girl EVER was the subplot.

You can't just have robots shooting at each other for 2 hours and expect to have a sucessful movie.

You mean that classic music that is still popular with a lot of people even to this day? Shocking...

I don't like listening to that music.

It's so 19th century. It needs to be updated.

Brought into the now. They need to add in an electric guitar, maybe some keyboard in it. Oh, and it needs to have music videoes with half-naked strippers in it.

Come on! Bring it to the 21st century! How are you going to get people interested in music by playing them something written in 1820?

Again, your analogy is flawed because Star Trek isn't a historical drama or period peice. It's something about the future and there are certain aspects from the Roddenberrian 23rd century that are already surpased by modern technology so we have now have to "update" the 23rd Century and view it through the eyes of someone in 2008 and not 1968.

 

[ST-One]

You mean that classic music that is still popular with a lot of people even to this day? Shocking...

I don't like listening to that music.

It's so 19th century. It needs to be updated.

Brought into the now. They need to add in an electric guitar, maybe some keyboard in it. Oh, and it needs to have music videoes with half-naked strippers in it.

Come on! Bring it to the 21st century! How are you going to get people interested in music by playing them something written in 1820?

Okay:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V0mqrpY31s

 

[Sharr Khan]

You mean that classic music that is still popular with a lot of people even to this day? Shocking...

And yet new and different music is written even though his music is still quite popular.

And its not unheard of for innovations to be applied to 'classical music' and or operas presented in contemporary styles.

Sharr

 

[Blue_Ranger]

You mean that classic music that is still popular with a lot of people even to this day? Shocking...

And yet new and different music is written even though his music is still quite popular.

Zing!