Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach: The New Enterprise
- Thread starter Lowdarzz
- Start date
- Status
I could be convinced that this Enterprise is some sort of Abram's red herring that dos not last by the end of the movie.
I am uncertain 24th century Spock would interfer with the timeline in that sort of fashion. he would do it more stealthfully.
I am uncertain 24th century Spock would interfer with the timeline in that sort of fashion. he would do it more stealthfully.
Different quantum reality. Doesn't matter. The "Trek XI" reality is clearly seperate from the "Trek Prime" reality, as per the recent Orci interview. Thus, this doesn't replace the TOS Enterprise. The TOS Enterprise has looked the way it has all along, but so has the Trek XI Enterprise.
In other words, Nero failed to change his own history, Kirk still kicks the Romulans' asses, and Nero winds up getting lost in another timeline.
Well, the interview was a bit unclear as to how time travel works in Trek XI... Orci seemed to imply that the mechanics they were using basically meant that Nero's original timeline (Trek Prime) and the XI line are gonna stay seperate no matter what the change.
Which makes it odd that Nero would go back to make changes, unless he considered the Romulan Empire to be "beyond help" and decided that helping out in an alternate reality would be of benefit... OR he needed to retrieve something from the past.
At the very least, those living within, say, the same hemisphere as the shipyards might be more than a little concerned about the presence of large quantities of antimatter on the ground...
From the front, the nacelle pylons on the refit look similar to the original. From just about any other angle, they look far more different than the new. They're attached further forward than the TOS-E, so from a practicality standpoint, the new Enterpirse is closer to the original than the refit in that regard.
In fact, that change is quite possibly the most difficult change from original to refit to explain from a treknikal POV, considering all of the power connections and structural supports that one would have to relocate to make that work.
Also, I am not the biggest fan of the under-saucer indent, just because of all of the wasted volume, for no apparent decent reason. Good riddance. And 'squashed toad'?
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Except this was in response to comparing what was done in TMP to the ship with what has been done to it in this movie. You can't have it both ways.
Gotta say, the TMP Enterprise is my favorite of all Enterprises, with the E-D as a close second. I'm still okay with the idea that this might be a complete reboot (in which case Future Spock is really just Future STXI Spock) sort of like the Lost In Space movie or Batman Begins.
Star Trek is about the only scifi production that comes to mind (with the possible exception of Doctor Who) that ever had an issue with "canon consistency" if any kind. Sorry to say, the Trekiverse just doesn't have the dexterity to handle all the shit that different writers keep trying to cram into it without spawning different versions and sub-versions and installments and alternate universes; as it stands, the annals of trek lit have already developed their independent "Shatnerverse" section for this very reason. If Trek is going to survive into the future, us fans will either have to pull the canon sticks out of our asses and give it a pass to reinvent itself when it wants to, OR, Star Trek will just have to attract new fans.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
You've made the mistake a lot of people who support a remake make: you've blamed "continuity" instead of the unimaginative people producing the show for making Trek formulaic and cliched. The right people running it would have no problem at all making new Trek that would be interesting and cool all while keeping it consistent with established continuity. There is no inherent need for a reboot, except of course for those who lack the creativity and imagination to do something other than that.
But that's just it: even with the right people, it won't always be interesting and cool. Times change and people's tastes change with them, and this without even taking into account that even the collaboration of otherwise perfectly creative writers will--for whatever reason--result in a pile of theatrical crap that then becomes canonical and cannot be refuted. Imagine, if you will, the canon-nazis pitching a fit about a screenplay where a new engine comes out that allows a ship to travel past warp 10. You then hear the shrill cries of "What about 'Threshold?' Why aren't they hyper-evolving?" We can, of course, insist that a creative enough writer can simply dream up some kind of technobabble workaround for why this story will still work the way it does. On the one hand, that solution both needlessly complicates the episode with some technical jibberish that adds nothing to the story or character development and just as needlessly makes reference to an incredibly lame episode that didn't make any sense in the first place. On the other hand, why should the writers have to respect canon anyway, since nobody except the die-hard fans of the show (who will keep watching no matter what) will even notice the continuity violation?
This is why retcons happen. Over a long enough time, the amount of creative entropy in a system keeps building up until it has established so many conventions, so many backgrounds, so many constants and rules that anything new you can add to the story will be hopelessly constrained and less interesting than anything that came before it. So one of two things will have to happen: you either tell your writers to stop paying attention to the mistakes of past writers and do what they wish, or you perform a complete reboot and create a NEW continuity so the writers will have the gloves taken off.
There's no reason TO be constrained by continuity at all, because continuity is really just the work of past writers who are themselves fallible and didn't necessarily know what they were doing in the first place.
This is why retcons happen. Over a long enough time, the amount of creative entropy in a system keeps building up until it has established so many conventions, so many backgrounds, so many constants and rules that anything new you can add to the story will be hopelessly constrained and less interesting than anything that came before it. So one of two things will have to happen: you either tell your writers to stop paying attention to the mistakes of past writers and do what they wish, or you perform a complete reboot and create a NEW continuity so the writers will have the gloves taken off.
There's no reason TO be constrained by continuity at all, because continuity is really just the work of past writers who are themselves fallible and didn't necessarily know what they were doing in the first place.
That approach to writing only works with Bugs Bunny cartoons.
Also, I am not the biggest fan of the under-saucer indent, just because of all of the wasted volume, for no apparent decent reason. Good riddance. And 'squashed toad'?
Well yes, since its rather flat and wide, I think "roaddkill flat" would be spot on to describe it.
oh and again its just my opinion.
It worked for Batman (twice)
It worked for Battlestar Galatica
It worked for The Incredible Hulk
It worked for Spider Man
It worked for Nick Fury
It worked for X-men
It worked for Lost in Space
It worked for The Bionic Woman
It worked for Terminator
It worked for Superman
It worked for 2001: A Space Odyssey
It worked for the Jack Ryan movies
It worked for James Bond (repeatedly)
It worked for War of the Worlds
It worked (basically) for Mission Impossible
It worked for The Day the Earth Stood Still
There are creative reasons why writers choose to do remakes/reboots, just like they choose to do sequels, prequels and side-stories. Sometimes if you want to breathe new life into a franchise you have to clean out the fridge and start over. Now tell me what Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" would have been if he'd tried to keep the continuity with the 1953 film and the 1988 TV series based on it? What would the Bond movies look like if the writers kept in mind the fact that--given the continuity of the series--agent 007 should be in his mid 80s by now?
The obsession with continuity is something fairly unique to trek fans which, unfortunately, is something trek writers (and to a greater extent, trek producers) have pandered to just a little too long and too clumsily to keep the show alive.
Batman, Superman, Doctor Who, War of the Worlds, X-men, James Bond, Superman and The Day the Earth Stood Still are all much older than Star Trek, and some have much more complete and elaborate continuities. Do you suppose the original fans of X-men comics were terribly upset that Cyclops' uniform wasn't sky blue and bright yellow like it was supposed to be?
More to the point: is there any particular reason--other than this silly obsession by a handful of trek fans--NOT to ignore the continuity of a television franchise? Any reason at all?
More to the point: is there any particular reason--other than this silly obsession by a handful of trek fans--NOT to ignore the continuity of a television franchise? Any reason at all?
Captain X
Rear Admiral
They're older, but they don't have as long a stretch of consistant (or even an attempt to be constant) continuity.
As to your second question, one word: quality.
So is there any reason to do a reboot that doesn't involve eleborate excuses or unthinking gushers whining about how "uncool" Star Trek is?
As to your second question, one word: quality.
So is there any reason to do a reboot that doesn't involve eleborate excuses or unthinking gushers whining about how "uncool" Star Trek is?
Puh-lease! Batman's had more reboots than you've had women. The character underwent a major redo before World War II, fer chrissakes.
They jettisoned one mediocre season and a POS sequel. No big loss.
See the notation about Batman.
A flop of a movie is evidence that it "worked"?
Yeah, it worked so well, it was canceled after thirteen episodes.
A reboot they've pretty much ignored with "The Sarah Connor Chronicles". And God only knows where they're going with the new movie, but note that as a result of so many reboots in series with so few installments, the Terminator franchise has no real integrity whatsoever.
See Batman.
When was 2001 rebooted?
Yeah, that's a movie franchise that's just chugging along. How long ago was "The Sum of All Fears"? When's the next one due out? IS there a next one?
The Bond films never really had a lot of continuity from one film to the other; they were almost always stand alone films. In fact, "Quantum of Solace" is the only true sequel in the entire run.
That's debatable. Besides, the original story never has been done on screen.
Another case of trying to undo the previous version and get back to basics. Not exactly a reboot.
That's still up to debate, and from what I'm hearing, no, it didn't work at all.
What he could've done that would've been interesting is to have done a period piece based upon the original H.G. Wells story.
Again, they never really kept continuity from movie to movie all that much, any more than Fleming did in the novels. And they could've kept on going the way they were for quite a while (Pierce Brosnan was willing to do another one; it was the first mission/reboot aspect that resulted in Brosnan being shown the door). It just would've been another Bond film, instead of the major event that Casino Royale became.
That's a problem of lazy and unimaginative writers, not a problem with continuity.
Look, "contunity" is just a four dollar word for "don't contradict what was done before". It's really only a restriction for those who have no respect for the series and have problems with coloring inside the lines.
And the attempt to be consistent changes what, exactly?
Right, because the last couple of Trek productions have all been Emmy-winning, blockbuster material thanks to their thorough adherence to canon.
It's not about uncoolness. It's about creative freedom. Writers find it easier to come up with cool ideas if they don't have to spend two hundred hours back-checking fifty years of canon to make sure they're not offending the fanboys. They can pick and chose which parts of the canon they like and which parts to discard; they can revise, reemphasize, reshape and resize. And you know what? Fifty years ago if somebody wants to make a Voyager movie, nobody's going to care whether or not Seven of Nine joins the crew in the Delta Quadrant or if she comes aboard the ship in the beginning of the film as an ex-Borg technical consultant. Like everyone else who went to see the Dark Knight in theatres, I care alot more about the movie not-sucking than I do about it being consistent with such-and-such a character's origin story.
- Status
