Then a mere movie probably isn't going to help. It is a lovely day outside. Try tossing the frisbee around.
Poll: The new Starship Enterprise
- Thread starter Professor Moriarty
- Start date
Then a mere movie probably isn't going to help. It is a lovely day outside. Try tossing the frisbee around.
Are you ever?
I've seen him happy on many occasions. Unless he was faking it.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
I'm not sure what your definition is for "analogy," but it sure doesn't apply here, SP. One of the big problems with the majority of these arguments is one side tries to make a point about the time in which the films/series are made, confusing it with the timelines being portrayed in the film/series, which is exactly what you've done here.
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.
It doesn't matter whether the movie is made 40 years after the series - the timeline that is being promoted is one that occurs before TOS. You don't Photoshop a non-existent person into an old photo and say, "He's actually the father of the other guy in the photo, even though the son is wearing a striped longjohn swimsuit and the 'father' is wearing a Speedo, because, well, we were wearing Speedos when the Photoshop was done." Same logic.
I seem to recall you using this same 'logic' when ENT came out, that NX-01 looked more modern than NCC-1701 because the series was being made in the 21st century, rather than in 1950, 'just the same as the new Mustang looks newer than the original because it's being made today.' That's just dumb. No one is trying to say that the new Mustang is supposedly the predecessor, or in this case, the advent, of the original vehicle - it's designed within its timeline as the successor to the original, 40 years afterward and with a design history to draw upon. The 'new' NCC-1701, as with the NX-01, is being presented within its timeline as being designed before the one it supposedly preceeds or becomes. All these excuses about the future (and fictional future, at that) not being 'history' or the differences in when Paramount filmed the shows are pedantic and stupid - they're a lame attempt at supporting an argument that has no support. A fictional universe has its own 'history' - in order to maintain at least a semblance of plausibility, in order to further the suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer who is familiar to varying degrees with that history, requires a commitment by the creators to respect not only the property, but also their audience, upon whom they rely totally for the success of their creation; after all, if you don't satisfy your audience, your creation goes unseen and, more importantly, unpaid. And I still have a very hard time believing that "reimagining" Star Trek to appeal to a mythical mainstream audience who will support the film, despite the fact that TPTB already consider them as not liking the show, is an exercise in foolhardiness - as long as it is Star Trek, even if only in name, they're still going to avoid it in droves - the 'reimagining' is throwing good money after bad. If you change everything to get an audience, at least have the balls to give it a new name, as well - at least that baggage won't be hanging over your head.
I can assure you, J.J. Abrams isn't thinking about his audience noticing when his movie was made - if he is, then he's an idiot. The only people who want the audience to be aware of when they made something are precognitives, who want you to know they predicted something before it happened. No, J.J. Abrams expects, somehow, for at least a portion of his audience to accept that his movie represents an earlier time in the lives of Kirk, Spock and the rest of those familiar characters. And yet, if those characters are familiar, then their history and their surroundings are equally familiar - neither of which are apparent in either the events depicted in the trailer or in its visual aspects. We're being shown a 2008 Mustang and being told it's a 1963 Falcon and, at least in the words of our fellow 'fans,' to 'get over it.'
Frankly, I look forward to the day someone respects a franchise and its fans, and I can tell the people who just want quantity and not quality to "get over it." That would to be a very satisfying day (but it probably won't come, because the bottom line and lowest common denominator are, unfortunately, going to remain the deciding factors as far as mainstream Hollywood is concerned).
I'm not sure what your definition is for "analogy," but it sure doesn't apply here, SP. One of the big problems with the majority of these arguments is one side tries to make a point about the time in which the films/series are made, confusing it with the timelines being portrayed in the film/series, which is exactly what you've done here.
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.
It doesn't matter whether the movie is made 40 years after the series - the timeline that is being promoted is one that occurs before TOS. You don't Photoshop a non-existent person into an old photo and say, "He's actually the father of the other guy in the photo, even though the son is wearing a striped longjohn swimsuit and the 'father' is wearing a Speedo, because, well, we were wearing Speedos when the Photoshop was done." Same logic.
Nah, the analogy works fine.
The only way that there is a problem, here, is when people adopt the critical position that this is real - that it represents something like actual history, a past which is in some respects immutable. It's from this kind of erroneous premise that we get all kinds of silliness about jets in WW II movies, or other obvious historical distortions.
This is a new version of a piece of fiction. There are no established facts about history or the appearence of anything that must be adhered to in order to be "accurate" or to "avoid mistakes."
Abrams isn't "telling us that this Enterprise looks like the 1966 Enterprise or in only a few short years it will look like the 1966 Enterprise." This version of "Star Trek" will never look like the forty year old version, and no one imagines that anyone will mistake one for the other.
It happens that the 2009 "Star Trek universe" doesn't look like the 1966 "Star Trek universe" - but there is no actual 23rd century history against which one can be judged to be accurate and the other not - all that can be established is which came first.
Wow, SP! I've never heard that argument before! (Oh, wait, I think I did say that that argument's already been made and that it didn't work then - but, hey, maybe repeating it will.)
I know you have fun with these, but at least make a new argument when the old one fails. We have rules, you know ... good try, though
I know you have fun with these, but at least make a new argument when the old one fails. We have rules, you know ... good try, though
You know, you used to be fun.
The argument works fine. It's no fault of Dennis's that other people don't get it.
You know, you used to be fun.
The argument works fine. It's no fault of Dennis's that other people don't get it.
It's simply the truth; someone's dislike of what's clearly so doesn't mean it "doesn't work." Frustrated mockery is a response to not being able to budge a stubborn fact.
Abrams' "Star Trek" doesn't look like TOS. That's not an accident or oversight or the result of confusion, it's a choice - a series of choices, obviously. People can like it or not like it, but they must accept that it's been done because they can't cause it to have not been done.
You know, you used to be fun.
The argument works fine. It's no fault of Dennis's that other people don't get it.
It's simply the truth; someone's dislike of what's clearly so doesn't mean it "doesn't work." Frustrated mockery is a response to not being able to budge a stubborn fact.
Abrams' "Star Trek" doesn't look like TOS. That's not an accident or oversight or the result of confusion, it's a choice - a series of choices, obviously. People can like it or not like it, but they must accept that it's been done because they can't cause it to have not been done.
Except for that one niggling little element of the "1966" Spock being present in the movie and what he probably represents - an attempt to "correct" something that was "done wrong". So, if 1966 Spock indeed comes from the [traditional] 1966 "timeline" and he's undertaken the significant task of going back in time to try and "fix" something . . . one wonders if the script will require him to be "unsuccessful" since [in the "real" world and in movie marketing terms] it seems to be a totally foolish proposition to have a "reset" button at the end of this movie to bring it all back in line with what we [previously] "knew" everything to look like.
Wow, I think I just confused myself.
How specifically are you expecting Old Spock to comment upon the differences in set and model design?
Most likely the production acknowledges the differences between this and the "original timeline" and the need to "correct" them - if at all - in terms of events, such as (SPOILER)....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Kirk's father dying on the day of his birth, or the Romulans appearing and destroying Federation ships twenty years before their supposed emergence in TOS.
I was never fun. And the 'argument' has been repeated so often that it borders on comedy - I just found it ironic that it was used to argue against the point that it didn't work in the first place. It's kind of the "yeah-huh!" response. I'd really like to see the level of discourse on this board, at least on this topic (Star Trek XI, in any forum) raised above, "I know you are but what am I," because that's about what it's become. Tastes are personal - I get that. Arguing them as facts is pointless. By the same token, arguing facts as pointless is nothing but silly, and making analogies that aren't in any way analogous is a waste of time. If you like the new design, great! You'll be in line to watch the movie. If you don't like the new design, you may still be in line to watch the movie, or not. But don't make up facts about it just to argue, or to get other people riled up; this place has more than enough of that.
You know, you used to be fun.
The argument works fine. It's no fault of Dennis's that other people don't get it.
No, no, all I'm observing is that there's probably [though not necessarily - I realize this is Hollywood and some decisions just don't make sense] a "legitimate" reason for 1966-timeline Spock to be in the plot. If so, one would think that he represents the 1966 [original] timeline in EVERY sense of the word - design and "look" included.
So if that's the case, and yet he ends up NOT being present in the plot to "correct" the 1966 timeline and "bring everything back together" the way it "was" or "should be" and instead he's there to do something else, then you're correct - it wouldn't matter if, when the movie ends, this "new" Trek proceeds forward looking very different [i.e. like the trailer]. But if 1966 Spock IS in the story to "correct" something gone wrong in a big way [and which includes the "look" of the timeline being "changed"] then it would tend to make one think there's some sort of "reset" coming at the end of the film.
Which I was just saying would seem to be a very cop-out type of thing to do with this movie. I think it was Probert who said, if you're going to change it, change it all the way. But then again I guess it wouldn't surprise me for some studio executive to want to have his cake and eat it too.
Well, that might be an inference that the viewer could make or not make, but not something that would necessarily be confirmed onscreen in such a way to make it an issue.
I think, in fact, that it probably won't. We'll see.
I never did.
I guess I confused your hatred of Enterprise for fun, then.
I never did.
I hated Enterprise, so I was a lot less bothered by his stubborn streak then than I am now.
I wouldn't say I hated ENT; I was just aghast at how bad it was. I have to say that ENT was one of the best learning experiences in my life - it was a living, breathing example to anyone who seriously wants to write fiction - not just science fiction - on everything not to do when creating characters and developing stories. That's literally an education you can't buy - being told in books or by professors that you shouldn't do certain things is nothing compared to the hour-long examples that were on for 4 years.
In many ways, to me, what I see of Abramstrek is very much like ENT. It may have a coherent story, but as far as reimagining the franchise for a new audience, we already saw that same thing in ENT, and it failed - it didn't appeal to the non-fan and bring in new viewers. That's my main argument - it was never about canon with ENT, and it's not about canon with STXI; my main concerns are the schizophrenic attitudes that they can bring in non-fans with "newshiny" versions of stuff they recognize only as "oldgoofy," and also keep existing fans because the stuff is "kindaclose" but nowhere near close enough. To me, it's an incredibly bad plan, worse for that it's already been tried once to no avail.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Well, since we haven't seen the movie yet, final judgment will have to wait until May.
But I don't think your comparison with ENT works. This show still had the same creative team behind the cameras that has run the franchise for over 20 years.
I liked ENT, but it was indeed just another version of TNG and VOY.
The creative approach was the same as it was in TNG and VOY (DS9 is somewhat different) - there was no change at all.
We cannot judge from the trailer if and how this approach has changed - but the very fact that a whole new team created Star Trek promisses that much-needed change.
And going by the cinematography alone, Trek finally has arrived in the 21st century movie-making business.
Well, it seems like all the studio can give us any more is crap.
Some might think the same of your kit-bashes.
Some of them are really good.
But some are ugly as hell.
Why the fuck are you getting personal? Do you work for the studio and somehow took my remark personally?
And when the fuck was any of my kitbashes used in an official paramount motion picture and written into cannon? My models are for my own fun, I'm not foisting them on anyone as an official production.
...and I rather LOVE your ugly-as-hell Cour de Leon Class battlewagon, Mister Forbin sir!
I'm sorry...I just love ugly ships...
See, this is interesting to me. Because I have two different attitudes concerning JJTrek and ENT. It might clear up why the changes in ENT annoyed me and why I don't think JJT will.
Something about ENT always bugged me. Not much about JJTrek has so far. I think it might go something like this: JJT will be set in the same time period as TOS. And I guess it depends on what that means to you. To me it means that we have BIG STARSHIPS, there are Klingons in a cold-ish war with the Federation, and people are Boldly Going. So if the new movie feels like that, I'm good. Balance of Terror, Trouble with Tribble, TMP, TWOK, all of these felt like Star Trek, even with wildly different stories and attitudes.
Now ENT promised to go back 100 years. The only reason to do that would be to do something really different. And to me it always felt like TNG with less carpet and more "You poor primitive humans, you aren't as cool as Capt. Picard." (I always laughed that back in 1987 Roddenberry went out of his way to never reference anything from TOS if he could help it for the first season or so. ENT had every reason in the world to steer clear of TOS and TNG and it wouldn't.) Sorry, enough ENT bashing.
I guess what I'm going after is what does it mean that the JJT tech looks "more advanced" than TOS? The dipiction on screen will be more contemporary, sure. But the way that it feels and what the tech does (not what it looks like) should be in line with old-school 23rd century TOS. Warp capable starships, transporters, boldly going.
Thanks, Ptrope for focusing my thoughts a little. (Yeah, this is focused for me.)
