Why not just use the pilot design?

[Blue_Ranger]

Ah...so you've seen the movie then?

 

[Sci]

Maybe, maybe not. But either way, why not try something new? Because some whiney fanboys on the Internet feel that one fictional production somehow "invalidates" previous fictional productions? Not good enough.

Creativity is superior to stagnation. Doing something new is preferable to playing by the rules.

Actually, it is funny... you have worked so hard to talk about larger works that lack internal continuity, but I get the feeling that you have no idea what the benefits of that internal continuity actually brings with it.

Dude, I've been a Trekkie since I was 9. I've seen every episode of every series. I can identify a given episode of any of the series most of the time. I have a wall full of Trek novels, and not only can I tell you all about the internal continuity of the canon, I can talk to you about how, say, Articles of the Federation by Keith RA DeCandido links with dozens of other novels, from the Corps of Engineers series to the Titan series to the post-NEM TNG fiction to the VOY Relaunch to the DS9 Relaunch to the Vulcan's (Noun) series to Diane Duane's Rihannsu stuff from the 80s to John Ford's The Final Reflection to the Errand of Fury novels....

I get continuity. I like continuity. But I also recognize that sometimes, it's time to move on and try something new.

Maybe (and this is just a guess) you are being this dismissive because your only point is to defend what you've said and to keep the fight going...

No, I'm being dismissive because I'm finding the anti-Abrams film, anti-new Enterprise, anti-change, anti-new continuity arguments to be very closed-minded and uncreative. Rigid and controlling and unartistic.

First, look at your examples. They are all set in a fictional present day.

King Arthur is set in a fictional present day? The Wizard of Oz is set in a fiction present day? La Boheme is set in a fictional present day? Spring Awakening is set in a fictional present day? Watchmen is set in a fictional present day? Shakespeare is set in fictional present day?

So why is continuity great? I'm assuming by your dismissive nature of those of us who like continuity that you yourself have no idea,

You assume wrongly, sir. Or should I talk to you about how neat it was to see DS9 bring decade-old plot threads from TNG to a close, or about minor background characters from Season Four became major players in the final seasons, or about how neat it was to see ENT put together a cohesive continuity between itself and TOS in Season Four with regards to, for instance, the Vulcans? Should I regale you with theories as to why the Tellarites of TOS have three fingers yet the Tellarites of ENT have five? Maybe I should spend my time speculating on how the fact that ENT's "Home" established that the First Minister of Vulcan was dismissed after the P'Jem incident indicates that that's when V'Las took over the Vulcan government, thus indicating that the Romulans' plan to take over Vulcan got a jump-start thanks to Archer? Maybe I should talk about how there's no inconsistency between the Xindi attack in ENT Season Two and later Trek because DS9's "Homefront" implied that Earth had suffered a horrible alien attack prior to the founding of the Federation?

Liking something doesn't mean you don't recognize when it's got to be changed for the sake of keeping things fresh.

To you, based on your arguments, Star Trek is a disposable piece of pop culture.

Hardly. But it will become disposal if it cannot grow and change as time goes on.

Why do we need a new timeline for that? Why do we need an overly bright and cluttered bridge for that? Why do we need a funky stylized Enterprise for that?

Why do we need the old timeline for that? Why do we need the old bridge for that? Why do we need the old Enterprise for that?

It's not about need. I mean, if you wanna talk about need, you don't even need sets. You could just do it on an illuminated platform surrounded by darkness if you wanted.

But for whatever reason, the creators have decided that part of how they want to tell this story is to establish a new aesthetic. Just like Baz Luherman decided he wanted to tell the story of Romeo and Juliet with a completely different aesthetic than Shakespeare used at the Globe Theatre. No one sits around arguing that doing a Shakespearean play in a modern aesthetic is a threat to the original production or in any way undermines the integrity of the work itself, so why would you argue the same about Trek?

Logically speaking, doing something new like that ISN'T a threat to the old stuff, DOESN'T harm or undermine the classic stuff. So why not try something new?

 

[Tom Servo]

Are u insane? The aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor were REAL SHIPS, WITH REAL HISTORY! They actually happened. Thats why the ships they used in Pearl Harbor were wrong, especially since they were not flattop carriers like the Japanese used.

The Enterprise is a fictional ship. JJ can do whatever the fuck he wants with it, and it will not effect actual history in any way.

Tom (and everyone else who keeps tossing out this bogus argument)... please stop pretending that people who make this argument "don't know the difference between fantasy and reality."

That's either an indication that you don't understand the argument being made, or (and this is much worse) it's a LIE... an attempt to mock an argument rather than addressing it.

In case it's the first option - here's the simple version: The issue is not about "accurate portrayal of real events." Nobody has ever claimed that. And every time someone pretends that people are claiming that, it's a distraction from the real point.

The issue is "willful suspension of disbelief." Ever heard the term?

This is why consistency is important. The audience, in order to be drawn into a dramatic story, needs to be able to forget, and not be constantly reminded, that "what you are watching is a bunch of SoCal kids playing make-believe on a stage someplace."

While you're watching the movie, or the tv show... you need to be able to believe, even if only for the two hours you're sitting there, that what you're seeing is important. You need to CARE.

We all know that Zach Quinto isn't really Spock... and that Leonard Nimoy isn't really Spock. But we care about what happens to the fictional character of Spock while we watch the TV show or the movie or whatever... don't we?

Here's the problem. And this is why people keep bringing this up. Every thing you see that's wrong... with "wrong" being defined as "in direct conflict with something you already are aware of"... you are reminded that "this movie is nothing but a bunch of Socal kids hanging out on plywood and plexiglass sets just outside of Los Angeles."

If you see a WWII movie... and let me say that again... "MOVIE"... aka "form of entertainment, not an actual historical documentary using real footage shot at the time"... where something isn't correct, you are drawn out of your ability to suspend your disbelief in THAT MOVIE. Doesn't mean you don't believe in WWII. But you don't believe in the movie anymore.

And here... if you see something that's "wrong"... that doesn't agree with the Star Trek you know... you're also, similarly, drawn out of your ability to suspend your disbelief in the movie. Doesn't mean that "Star Trek" would be somehow "real" if the movie doesn't do that, though, does it?

The "you guys are morons cuz you think Star Trek is real" argument is BULLSHIT. And everyone who's ever used it knows damned well that it's nothing other than bullshit.

So please... knock it off.

No, its not BULLSHIT, and I will defend a valid argument. When I watch a WWII movie that claims to be based on actual events the accuracy of the film is important to me. I love WWII history, and if the movie claims to be accurate, and it is not, THEN I am pulled out of the movie. "Pearl Harbor" is the perfect example. That movie has so many fucking errors in it, it's insane. Despite its "kewl" and flashy special effects, I thought the movie was crappy from a historical perspective. I'll go watch "Tora Tora Tora" if I want a movie about Pearl Harbor, even with its outdated effects, which at the time, were excellent.

Star Trek is a whole other animal. Yes there has been a continuity going on for years, but none of it is real, and things happen because writers want them to. I can't be pulled out of a Star Trek movie like you claim, because there is NO FACTUAL BASIS for the film to contradict unless you are a stickler for canon, which I am not, and I am sure most of this films audience will not be.

And besides, it has been proven in Star Trek that there have been timeline divergences and alternate universes before. They are a proven part of Star Trek, yet people seem to be ignoring this fact, and just complain about the changes. Fans just seem to accept one thing about Trek, and not the other to suit their argument. There are alternate realities and timelines, and this is what this film could represent without changing canon. It doesn't negate TOS, it will always be there, but I just accept this as an alternate timeline, and I it doesn't bother me in the slightest, as I am not a stickler for canon.

Also, the idea that one has to care about the character in a film is true. Yet for some reason people think that by changing the characters, and there is no indication that they have, people won't care for them. This movie has two hours to make people care for the characters, since thats the amount of time most films have, and if the film is successful at that, then it makes it a quality film by my standards, and that nothing to do with just Star Trek.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No, its not BULLSHIT, and I will defend a valid argument. When I watch a WWII movie that claims to be based on actual events the accuracy of the film is important to me. I love WWII history, and if the movie claims to be accurate, and it is not, THEN I am pulled out of the movie.

Absolutely Right(TM).

The argument that anything in "Star Trek" should be treated as if it represents an actual history is based on an invalid premise and is therefore doomed from the beginning.

No one remaking a forty-year-old television series needs apologize for changing parts of it, particularly visual aspects - and especially not if they're spending 150,000,000 dollars on it.

 

[3D Master]

This isn't continuity, this is idiocy, stupidity, and scientifically as inaccurate as you can get. It has no substance, it's just a a kewl scene of Kirk driving up to it with his motor cycle, envoking umpteenth other movies having done the same. The substance is gone, it's just style.

Wrong. Given 23rd century Trek technology, there's no reason whatsoever it could not be built, mostly, on the ground. Even Roddenberry theorized it was so. It DOES allow for a cool scene, but it is not scientifically inaccurate, any more than is building it in a vacuum from the keel up.

Whether it CAN be done, is a very different thing, from whether it WILL be done. And let me tell you, there are NO advantages for building on the ground such massive ships, only DISadvantages. Thus you will NOT be building them on the ground, you'll be building them IN SPACE and nowhere else, where any sane person will tell you they'll be built.

Another orbital drydock scene adds no "substance" to the drama either.

"Oh but we'll probably really build big spaceships that way! It makes more sense."

Maybe. Mainly what it does is make some folks watching the movie feel smart because they appreciate what they believe to be "scientific accuracy" in the movie, without adding a thing of value to the movie itself.

Scientific accuracy IS a value that is added to the movie. It is one of the most IMPORTANT values in fact added to the movie. We want to watch Science Fiction, not Star Wars.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The phrase, of course, was "what they believe to be scientific accuracy."

Once you swallow inertial and gravity control on the level that "Star Trek" uses it, fussing about where the ship is built is straining at gnats. But it helps people to feel like they're watching something "smart" without really requiring anything of them.

 

[Sci]

Scientific accuracy IS a value that is added to the movie. It is one of the most IMPORTANT values in fact added to the movie. We want to watch Science Fiction, not Star Wars.

No it's not. Thematic and character content is far more important than scientific accuracy. By your logic, we shouldn't have FTL drive on Star Trek since current scientific theory finds the concept impossible.

Personally, I think that the emotional content of seeing a young Kirk staring up at a starship being built and longing for a life among the stars more than justifies whatever scientific implausibility there is to them building a ship on Earth.

This is art, not an engineering manuel. The key word in "Science Fiction" is still fiction.

 

[3D Master]

The phrase, of course, was "what they believe to be scientific accuracy."

Once you swallow inertial and gravity control on the level that "Star Trek" uses it, fussing about where the ship is built is straining at gnats. But it helps people to feel like they're watching something "smart" without really requiring anything of them.

:sighs:

Nope.

You see, all those inertial and gravity control, COSTS ENERGY.

In space, you don't need it, so it does NOT cost energy. You thus, don't waste massive amounts of energy.

And that's not even all the transportation costs of the materials which you'll have to move from space down to the Earth and putting it together to build a ship.

On top of that, those inertial and gravity controls can FAIL. On Earth, that means ship comes crashing down at 9.81m/s^2 and will kill anyone and anything between it and the ground in but a moment.

In space, should controls fail: nothing happens, the ship will just hang there, until you repaired the controls.

Like I said, there are NO advantages for doing this on the ground, there are NOTHING BUT advantages doing it in space. Nobody in his right mind, will build a ship on the ground - quite frankly, not even in pieces.

Scientific accuracy IS a value that is added to the movie. It is one of the most IMPORTANT values in fact added to the movie. We want to watch Science Fiction, not Star Wars.

No it's not. Thematic and character content is far more important than scientific accuracy. By your logic, we shouldn't have FTL drive on Star Trek since current scientific theory finds the concept impossible.

No, current scientific theory finds that the warp drive a fully functional scientific theory.

And no, even if it weren't, it still would not be true. Because there's a difference between projecting into the future certain unknowable scientific breakthroughs, and outright breaking all laws of physics and logic.

Personally, I think that the emotional content of seeing a young Kirk staring up at a starship being built and longing for a life among the stars more than justifies whatever scientific implausibility there is to them building a ship on Earth.

I don't, not even ffing close. Indeed, the sight just makes me laugh my ass off at the sheer stupidity of the visual.

This is art, not an engineering manuel. The key word in "Science Fiction" is still fiction.

No, the key words are "science" and "fiction", fiction using a future science.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

:sighs:

People who can propel starships at FTL speeds across interstellar space using matter/antimatter annihilation don't have to worry about having enough energy to do anything they please.

Instances in "Star Trek" where they run short on energy are simply examples of Trek's failure to be internally consistent.

 

[stj]

Skipping over practically all of this thread, I should remind you all that the thing about the original Enterprise design was that it avoided phallic imagery and sleek aerodynamics, offered something unexpected with the nacelles and something familiar with the saucer. There is not one scintilla of evidence yet that the art design in the new movie will be anything but a minor variation on the past. Maybe Abrams and company are plotting true originality but they aren't freaking people out by hinting at it. I don't see getting excited by looking forward to trivial changes, or upset.

As for handwelding Enterprise on land? Well, it's not as stupid as pretending that space travel might discover that, mirabile dictu, the Sun does revolve around the Earth or the the Second Law of Thermodynamics is really just a suggestion. You guys are welcome to a future where they haul antimatter around large cities on the home world.

 

[Sci]

The phrase, of course, was "what they believe to be scientific accuracy."

Once you swallow inertial and gravity control on the level that "Star Trek" uses it, fussing about where the ship is built is straining at gnats. But it helps people to feel like they're watching something "smart" without really requiring anything of them.

:sighs:

Nope.

You see, all those inertial and gravity control, COSTS ENERGY.

1) Yes, relativity theory tells us that as we approach c, the energy requirements increase exponentially, and it requires more energy than exists in all the universe to reach c itself. Ergo, it requires far less energy to do something like lift a starship off from the ground than it does to travel faster than the speed of light.

2) No, it doesn't actually cost energy because it's NOT REAL. It's ALL PRETEND. So there's no reason not to pretend that the ship was built on Earth, too!

 

[Sci]

No it's not. Thematic and character content is far more important than scientific accuracy. By your logic, we shouldn't have FTL drive on Star Trek since current scientific theory finds the concept impossible.

No, current scientific theory finds that the warp drive a fully functional scientific theory.

And no, even if it weren't, it still would not be true. Because there's a difference between projecting into the future certain unknowable scientific breakthroughs, and outright breaking all laws of physics and logic.

Not really. Pretend is pretend.

Personally, I think that the emotional content of seeing a young Kirk staring up at a starship being built and longing for a life among the stars more than justifies whatever scientific implausibility there is to them building a ship on Earth.

I don't, not even ffing close. Indeed, the sight just makes me laugh my ass off at the sheer stupidity of the visual.

Then don't watch the movie and go and watch something more scientifically plausible. Like that episode of TOS where the Enterprise encounters a giant space amoeba. Or the Greek god Apollo. Or where the aliens steal Spock's brain.

This is art, not an engineering manuel. The key word in "Science Fiction" is still fiction.

No, the key words are "science" and "fiction", fiction using a future science.

No. The key word is "fiction." That's the noun. The "Science" in "Science Fiction" is an adjective modifying the noun. It's right there in the rules of grammar.

 

[stj]

Well, that tells us, doesn't it? Since the setting is all pretend, and the characters are all pretend, and the themes are all pretend (pretentious?)---why, you've convinced me. I'm passing on the movie. I'll wait til it shows up on the library shelf, and watch it for free.

 

[Sci]

Well, that tells us, doesn't it? Since the setting is all pretend, and the characters are all pretend, and the themes are all pretend (pretentious?)---why, you've convinced me. I'm passing on the movie. I'll wait til it shows up on the library shelf, and watch it for free.

Fine by me. I just get pissed at people trying to spread their closed-mindedness to everyone else.

 

[3D Master]

:sighs:

People who can propel starships at FTL speeds across interstellar space using matter/antimatter annihilation don't have to worry about having enough energy to do anything they please.

Actually they do, because everything that costs energy, costs energy. And if the energy fails, for whatever reason the stuff working on it fails. In space, you don't have to worry about this; power fails, stuff just hangs there, it isn't going to come crashing down.

Also, there won't BE any matter/anti-matter annihilation on the Earth going on. One little flicker of a mistake using matter/anti-matter reactions... and well, there goes the continent.

They'd be using fusion or some other much less potent energy source planet-side... and that's exactly where that ship gets built.

Instances in "Star Trek" where they run short on energy are simply examples of Trek's failure to be internally consistent.

No, they show the scientific accuracy of Star Trek, because newsflash, when it comes energy production methods, matter/anti-matter isn't actually all that much. Sounds odd, but it's the truth. You would need to annihilate an entire planet worth of matter and anti-matter to produce the energy needed to warp space and time. In short, matter / anti-matter will run out INCREDIBLY quickly. The real power comes from subspace reaction in the warp coils - hence why you can also power warp coils with fusion reactor, even though you won't be going so fast.

The phrase, of course, was "what they believe to be scientific accuracy."

Once you swallow inertial and gravity control on the level that "Star Trek" uses it, fussing about where the ship is built is straining at gnats. But it helps people to feel like they're watching something "smart" without really requiring anything of them.

:sighs:

Nope.

You see, all those inertial and gravity control, COSTS ENERGY.

1) Yes, relativity theory tells us that as we approach c, the energy requirements increase exponentially, and it requires more energy than exists in all the universe to reach c itself. Ergo, it requires far less energy to do something like lift a starship off from the ground than it does to travel faster than the speed of light.

No, because we get ourselves a WARP drive. The WARP drive, works by WARPING space and time in such a matter that it will move past the ship, while the ship stands still. You do NOT thus just keep pushing at the ship to reach c and beyond. The warping does NOT cost as much energy as trying to just push a ship to c and beyond.

But hey, it's the way Star Trek described it's warp drive for 40 years, and it's been a genuine scientific theory - based upon other things general releativity by the way - for 14 years, but let's just forget about all that. and willfully ignore thus insultingly attempt to degrade my accurate argument.

2) No, it doesn't actually cost energy because it's NOT REAL. It's ALL PRETEND. So there's no reason not to pretend that the ship was built on Earth, too!

Wrong, it DOES cost energy, this is where scientific accuracy comes in. Now you want to say, Harry Potter waved a wand and the Enterprise floats for our convenience?

It's idiocy, ridiculous, it is stupid, it looks stupid, and I have no interest in it.

 

[Captain X]

Fine by me. I just get pissed at people trying to spread their closed-mindedness to everyone else.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

:sighs:

People who can propel starships at FTL speeds across interstellar space using matter/antimatter annihilation don't have to worry about having enough energy to do anything they please.

Actually they do, because everything that costs energy, costs energy.

No, because such technology guarantees that they can always have as much energy available as they wish.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

I just wish BSG gives us a good ending.

Don't hold your breath. According to EJO, it's gonna be a downer. I really hope he's kidding.

And how is the ending being a "downer" and being "good" mutually exclusive?

 

[Sci]

Fine by me. I just get pissed at people trying to spread their closed-mindedness to everyone else.

Neither I nor the others here have started threads saying that anyone who creates a work of art has to make it adhere to our particular vision.

Hell, I've said numerous times that I don't even LIKE the new Enterprise or the new aesthetic. But I am indeed intolerant of intolerance. Abrams and Co. deserve a fair chance, and folks aren't giving them one, and it is unfair and unreasonable for people to say that a work of art should adhere to THEIR specific ideas about it.

 

[3D Master]

No it's not. Thematic and character content is far more important than scientific accuracy. By your logic, we shouldn't have FTL drive on Star Trek since current scientific theory finds the concept impossible.

No, current scientific theory finds that the warp drive a fully functional scientific theory.

And no, even if it weren't, it still would not be true. Because there's a difference between projecting into the future certain unknowable scientific breakthroughs, and outright breaking all laws of physics and logic.

Not really. Pretend is pretend.

If you want to pretend so much, go watch Star Wars, and leave us Star Trek.

Then don't watch the movie and go and watch something more scientifically plausible. Like that episode of TOS where the Enterprise encounters a giant space amoeba. Or the Greek god Apollo. Or where the aliens steal Spock's brain.

This is art, not an engineering manuel. The key word in "Science Fiction" is still fiction.

No, the key words are "science" and "fiction", fiction using a future science.

No. The key word is "fiction." That's the noun. The "Science" in "Science Fiction" is an adjective modifying the noun. It's right there in the rules of grammar.

No, the key words, would be "science fiction". You see, the adjective MODIFIES the noun, to be given added properties, and demands. It's modifier.

A little tower is a tower that is little. Just any tower doesn't fulfill the terms, especially considering most towers are usually tall and big. Only a little tower satisfies the criteria of a little tower.

People who can propel starships at FTL speeds across interstellar space using matter/antimatter annihilation don't have to worry about having enough energy to do anything they please.

Actually they do, because everything that costs energy, costs energy.

No, because such technology guarantees that they can always have as much energy available as they wish.

If the anti-matter containment breaches, it goes BOOM. And then they do NOT have it available even though they wish.

That's really quite simple and logical, you know, in fact, we've seen it happen on starships in Star Trek a couple of times. But you know, we should just forget 40 years of history I hear. This days, not only do they build ships on the ground, when anti-matter is no longer contained, it doesn't react with matter anymore to explode! Nope, it just floats there doing nothing.