"Typical?" Damn, if this is the kind of straw man that some folks have to invent in order to feel okay - much less superior - that's pretty pathetic.
That's because lots of normal people will still watch "Star Wars."
What other things can we change for The Drooling Masses?
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
- Status
"Typical?" Damn, if this is the kind of straw man that some folks have to invent in order to feel okay - much less superior - that's pretty pathetic.
That's because lots of normal people will still watch "Star Wars."
If you ask most people on the street, I doubt they would consider it a radical re-design. Abrams brought a new aesthetic to the film, and it's one that you and I personally don't like. That's fine.
But you could just as easily ask, "Why would he keep the old design aesthetic? What's so inherently good about it? Why shouldn't he try something new?"
It's a completely arbitrary choice either way. It's solely based on personal preference. You and I obviously prefer one, and he prefers another. Neither one is logically any better than the other.
..... what's so "changed" about that? What's wrong with that? It's not like ground transportation is just going to disappear in two hundred years.
Maybe not. But if they're changing some stuff, why not everything? Why shouldn't a new creative team bring in a new aesthetic? You might as well ask why the Broadway revival of Cabaret had a completely different set design, costumes, and staging concept from the original, or why anyone would take Shakespeare and give it a modern setting instead of the original Elizabethan. The watch-word really is evolution. Trek is evolving. We may not always agree on the specific choices, but there's nothing wrong with the essential principle of just completely reinterpreting and changing everything.
I actually agree with you -- I don't agree with that specific choice. But I don't question the logic behind the idea of them feeling free to re-interpret everything, and I don't presume that the original is objectively superior.
There is absolutely no indication that the Enterprise was being built in an Iowa cornfield. Abrams has said that the Kirk-on-Earth parts of the trailer take place both in Iowa and in San Francisco, and even if he hadn't, there's no reason to think from the tailer that it was Iowa. It's not like ground transportation would only exist in Riverside.
How is that even a change? If anything, it's wholly consistent with what we know about Kirk's character and childhood -- he had a haunted childhood, he saw thousands of people murdered on Tarsus IV, he's obsessed and fixated on starship command and escaping the bounds of Earth, and he has a longstanding habit of defying authority when it suits him. That Kirk might have had a troubled adolescence is perfectly consistent with that.
I personally would have preferred to see the TOS version, too. But really, why, objectively-speaking, would that have been superior? Why would that have meant anything to anyone other than a hardcore TOS fan?
Keeping or not keeping the old design? It's an arbitrary choice either way. And besides, like I said, a hell of a lot of people who are not One Of Us would probably say that the design isn't even different enough for them to notice.
Evidently, William Shatner doesn't think it's particularly radical:
http://trekmovie.com/2008/11/22/sha...uss-enterprise-get-ready-for-shatcember-more/
Well, that says it all, doesn't it?
Captain Kirk himself -- THE Captain Kirk -- says that it's a great design and that the differences don't really matter.
Yep.
Of course, that would be more reassuring if he could remember the names of any of the TOS episodes, or place them by anything other than who the actress of the week was.
Fair enough.But, I mean, really, who besides one of us hardcore Trekkies -- and, yes, if you're posting on the Internet about Star Trek, that makes you a small fraction of what is already a small fandom -- would know to look to see if the Bussard collectors are rounded, or if the warp nacelles are the right shape, or if the nacelle pylons are straight or curvy, or if the dorsal pylon extends too far aft?
I mean, really, who besides one of us hardcore geeks would even KNOW what those parts of the ship are CALLED?
A normal person is going to look, see that the essential shapes -- saucer, dorsal pylon, cigar-shaped engineering hull, warp pylons going up and over the saucer, and then long, cigar-shaped nacelles -- are there, and they're gonna think, "Yeah, not too much of a re-design."
And I'll tell ya what.
I may not love this new design.
But I just went to see Quantum of Solace last night.
And I couldn't stop grinning, because it was my first time seeing the original Enterprise -- no bloody A, B, C, D, or E -- on the big screen. (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock having come out when I was negative one year old.)
Oh, absolutely agreed.
You know what? The more I look at the ship sets - especially the corridors, but including the bridge - the less impressed I am by them. But that's somehow not affecting my positive feelings about the movie at all.
You know what? The more I look at the ship sets - especially the corridors, but including the bridge - the less impressed I am by them. But that's somehow not affecting my positive feelings about the movie at all.
Agreed. The look of this film really wows me, as long as I don't stop and think about anything for a even a second.
I just can't help but notice how the corridor sets are lifted, almost without change, from "The Andromeda Strain."
I loved 'em in that early-1970s movie... they FIT there, because they were supposed to be drilled into bedrock. Here... not-so-much.
The Andromeda Strain version looked better, too.
I reckon I'm EVEN better, because I do go to movies because the FX look cool but I also go to movies that look interesting and get good reviews. Why not enjoy different films for different things? Its not like special effects that look cool don't have a huge amount of technical skill behind them that is to be admired. You know what I hate? The Sistine Chapel... I mean sure, it looks good, but how many times do we need to be told that story
I want a bit more from the new Star Trek film than cool special effects but I don't deny that for a big science fiction film they are a huge part of the movie, just as they were part of the original series. Otherwise we'd have discovered Star Trek through books or radio plays or something.
just think the drooling masses will be running their eyes all over your franchise - making her dance like a whore for them!
I think you should protest outside your local cinema - make sure to wear a trek uniform that two sizes too small and then people will know you are a true fan.
I think you should protest outside your local cinema - make sure to wear a trek uniform that two sizes too small and then people will know you are a true fan.
Dude, I enjoyed "Transformers" but I would hardly put myself in the "drooling masses" category. I can enjoy a good, well written drama as much as a film about 'splosions. Are the two mutually exclusive? Is it fair to judge an entire group as "drooling masses" because they enjoy something you don't? People are more complex than just "He's not too bright so he likes 'Transformers' but she's pretty smart so she enjoys highbrow movies and trips to the MET."
Did you miss the parts of the movie with large transforming robots smashing the heck out of each other? Did you miss the flashback on Cybertron? That IS what the movie was about.
Almost every Transformer series involves a "teenager character" (sometimes multiple ones) involved in the adventures of the Transformers. The military was heavily involved in the comic book series (including several cross overs with G.I. Joe) and the TV show showed the military many times. The "hacker" storyline was done less though such characters also existed in the original comic book and TV show.
If Trek entertains, makes $700 million and leads to tons of cool product selling well and encourages Paramount to make more movies, then I'll be happy for Trek as a franchise. Whether I like the new movie or not, the DVDs, books, toys etc. that I treasure won't suddenly disappear in a poof of space/time wackiness.
You'll have to ask Abrams and his team - it's their movie, and they can make it how they please.
I'm not sold on the interiors either, but that's not going to affect my enjoyment of the movie one bit.
Why not change it? Why does the decision to change it have to be justified, especially since, as I noted above, it's completely arbitrary either way and neither option is objectively superior?
Why can't you just have creativity for creativity's sake instead of justifying it like it's a goddamn senior thesis?
Bingo! This issue, was going to come up eventually when a 'new production team' came on the scene - they wouldn't be held to the standards of the prior team in any case on any newStar Trek production since they would desire to flex their creative muscle as they would see fit.
In fiction, 'because its cool' is a valid reason to do something.
Sharr
- Status
Similar threads
