What Amazes Me

[Set Harth]

I can totally understand your reasoning to dismiss them entirely.

It's not my reasoning, it's apparently company policy, over which I have no control:

The general policy of Paramount Pictures is that anything outside live-action television episodes and movies is apocryphal, or non-canon.

Content from these sources is an acknowledged grey area of Memory Alpha's canon policy and is disregarded if deemed speculative or contradictory. Thus, in some ways they hold the same weight as novels and other publications do for Star Wars canon: a "second tier" of canonicity, which is subservient to primary (on-screen) sources.

It in no way implies that each film in the film series is meant to take place in a separate continuity, which is - again - a completely different issue tantamount to a refusal to accept the concept of sequels.

 

[Jeyl]

It's not my reasoning,

Not mine either. I was just commenting on your "Films are one thing; books, comics, and videogames are another" claim. They're not too different.

 

[EEE]

But, I seem to be in the minority in the opinion that the original TV Enterprise is the prettiest ship in the galaxy

Minority? Yes. Alone? HELL NO!!!!!!! The original Enterprise was as much a star of the show as "the big three" in my book! She was how I was hooked... no more flying saucers or kid's sparkler-powered Buck Rogers' rocketships for me since that fateful Sept '66!

 

[I-Am-Zim]

But, I seem to be in the minority in the opinion that the original TV Enterprise is the prettiest ship in the galaxy, so I can understand why they didn't go that route. It would've been nice for me, though.

Absolutely!!! The TOS Enterprise is by far the most beautiful starship ever designed! It was ahead of its time in the 1960's and it still is today. In my opinion, there was no reason to turn the Enterprise into a bloated, disproportionate caracature of it's former self just for this movie. The old girl still had life in her yet. Witness the amazing renderings from Deg3D and Vektor. Absolute proof that the original could and should have been used in this movie. Of course that is my opinion. And I may be biased, considering my love of all things TOS.

 

[Withers]

Even though I didn't especially like the way Enterprise looked in this movie I think the visuals were the one thing XI did unerringly. The movie, as a whole, looked "good." Maybe not "right" (Enterprise) and maybe not plausible or well thought out (Narada) but still "good."

They could have made Enterprise look more like the Kelvin but that's as far in that direction as they could have gone without creating an Enterprise that looked wildly out of place with the rest of the movie. That's not to say that what we got is all we could have gotten... something definitely didn't seem right about the new Enterprise to me; it looked like a state-of-the-art horseless carriage. Still, I don't think the movie would have been improved by adhering more closely to the original design of Enterprise.

-Withers-​

 

[Jeyl]

Maybe not "right" (Enterprise) and maybe not plausible or well thought out (Narada) but still "good."

I'm not going to lie. I love the design of the Narada. I think it could have had great potential to be this epic unique ship/something that we've never really seen in Star Trek before.

The problem with the Narada is that they made it a 'simple mining ship'. I can think of a couple, if not hundreds of other interesting concepts that ship could be. At first when I looked at it, I could have sworn a part of me yelled "Doomsday Machine Redux!". And when I saw it in it's full glory, this certainly would have made for one heck of a menacing Doomsday Machine. The size was right, the general shape was right, but they ended up having it be was far from right.

Maybe this could have been a borg ship who's regenerative capabilities ran amok and started building and building onto itself with no intent on making a concrete shape or purposeful structure. Almost like the ship is diseased or infected by some horrible growth.

Nero: this is just a simple mining ship.
Me: Ya, in HELL maybe.

 

[Jeyl]

something definitely didn't seem right about the new Enterprise to me; it looked like a state-of-the-art horseless carriage.

They turned the Enterprise into a 'hot rod' and were proud of it.
/headbonk

 

[RookieBatman]

But this wasn't a sequel

From Spock Prime's POV it is a sequel. ( And Nero's crew, but we didn't know about them before. )

But the movie wasn't from Spock Prime's POV.

Since there can be no definite onscreen indication, that leaves each viewer free to "place" it themselves.

Since there can be no definite onscreen indication, the intent of the creators is relevant. Otherwise the very concept of a sequel is essentially thrown out.

I never said intent wasn't relevant; in fact, I agreed it was. It's just not definitive, if the individual viewer wants to personally think of it a different way.

But, I seem to be in the minority in the opinion that the original TV Enterprise is the prettiest ship in the galaxy, so I can understand why they didn't go that route. It would've been nice for me, though.

Absolutely!!! The TOS Enterprise is by far the most beautiful starship ever designed! It was ahead of its time in the 1960's and it still is today. In my opinion, there was no reason to turn the Enterprise into a bloated, disproportionate caracature of it's former self just for this movie. The old girl still had life in her yet. Witness the amazing renderings from Deg3D and Vektor. Absolute proof that the original could and should have been used in this movie. Of course that is my opinion. And I may be biased, considering my love of all things TOS.

Amen, brother. One thing I've never understood is the idea that the Ent needed to be updated, because the design of the original was a product of the limitations of a 60's TV budget, that they couldn't make it as detailed as they would've liked had they more money or effects ability. I'm no expert on VFX or model-work, but thing was like 11 feet long, I don't see any reason they couldn't have put in plenty more detail if they had wanted to. They way I've always understood it is that they design of the ship was supposed to be very simple (and elegant) to represent the fact that technology's advanced so far by that time that it would no longer be an impractical thing to have a very aesthetically smooth outer layer for their gray ladies. It makes good sense to me.

Even though I didn't especially like the way Enterprise looked in this movie I think the visuals were the one thing XI did unerringly. The movie, as a whole, looked "good."

Yeah, I won't argue the point that the visuals were very strong in the movie. I didn't love the new look of the ship, but I didn't hate it either, so it was still pretty cool to see something that even looked a little like the Enterprise fully realized on the big screen.

They could have made Enterprise look more like the Kelvin but that's as far in that direction as they could have gone without creating an Enterprise that looked wildly out of place with the rest of the movie. That's not to say that what we got is all we could have gotten... something definitely didn't seem right about the new Enterprise to me; it looked like a state-of-the-art horseless carriage.

Yeah, it was kinda steampunk, wasn't it?

Still, I don't think the movie would have been improved by adhering more closely to the original design of Enterprise.

No, I agree. I certainly think it would be petty of anyone if they hated the movie solely on the basis that the ship didn't look like the original. It was good enough, just not as good as it could've been, IMHO.

 

[Set Harth]

But the movie wasn't from Spock Prime's POV.

He's still in it, though, and his actions in the Prime timeline give rise to everything else that happens in the story; it's just that these actions aren't revealed until midway through the film. If we look at it as "the further adventures of Spock after Unification", it's a sequel.

It's just not definitive, if the individual viewer wants to personally think of it a different way.

By the same token, The Empire Strikes Back isn't necessarily in the same continuity as Star Wars, and The Two Towers isn't necessarily in the same continuity as The Fellowship of the Ring. The medium does not permit the writer(s) to break through the fourth wall, teleport into the story, and say "In case you were wondering, yes, this film is in the same continuity as the previous one". Thus, all sequels are equally definitive in this sense. A hypothetical disgruntled viewer would be better off just saying "I didn't like it" instead of arbitrarily trying to make the case that it need not be granted the legitimacy of other sequels.

 

[RookieBatman]

But the movie wasn't from Spock Prime's POV.

He's still in it, though, and his actions in the Prime timeline give rise to everything else that happens in the story; it's just that these actions aren't revealed until midway through the film. If we look at it as "the further adventures of Spock after Unification", it's a sequel.

Well, let's forget the rhetoric and just frame it this way: Do you look at it as "the further adventures of Spock after Unification?"

It's just not definitive, if the individual viewer wants to personally think of it a different way.

By the same token, The Empire Strikes Back isn't necessarily in the same continuity as Star Wars, and The Two Towers isn't necessarily in the same continuity as The Fellowship of the Ring.

But neither of those movies had a completely different cast (save one), a different look, a different feel, a different creative team, etc.

A hypothetical disgruntled viewer would be better off just saying "I didn't like it" instead of arbitrarily trying to make the case that it need not be granted the legitimacy of other sequels.

You know, one relevant fact you may be missing is that I'm not suggesting that this being in a separate timeline should make it less valid artistically. I agree that that would be very pointless. And I really don't think that whether a scene takes place in the same timeline as any other movie has anything to do with legitimacy. It's all fiction, so why should it matter if they're disparate works of fiction?

 

[Set Harth]

Do you look at it as "the further adventures of Spock after Unification?"

That's exactly what it is.

a different creative team, etc.

Really? As if the franchise has always had the same creative team?

You know, one relevant fact you may be missing is that I'm not suggesting that this being in a separate timeline should make it less valid artistically.

I’m not concerned with the artistic merit of a disconnected continuity. I’m saying that there is no more basis to throw this film out from Prime continuity than there would be in the case of any other sequel. There is only personal distaste, which is subjective, and by that standard all sequels can be thrown out. The same would apply to the television series in its various incarnations. Since it is the stated intent of the creators that Spock originated in the preexisting Trek continuity, and since the creators cannot make this any more explicit within the story, this intent should be seen as legitimate with regard to interpretation of the film.

 

[RookieBatman]

Do you look at it as "the further adventures of Spock after Unification?"

That's exactly what it is.

Then you are now the one who is fundamentally denying the creative team's intent, because it's clear they had no intention of this being about Spock (especially not Old Spock).

a different creative team, etc.

Really? As if the franchise has always had the same creative team?

The ones in those other examples you quoted do, yeah.

I think you're trying a little too hard to combat an idea that you feel is based on a dislike of the movie, but it's really not. If I said that I consider TMP to be in a different timeline from TOS, would you automatically assume that I dislike TMP? Or couldn't I enjoy both of them and still consider them parts of separate timelines because of the disparate costumes, ship designs, tone, etc.?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

I think you're trying a little too hard to combat an idea that you feel is based on a dislike of the movie, but it's really not. If I said that I consider TMP to be in a different timeline from TOS, would you automatically assume that I dislike TMP? Or couldn't I enjoy both of them and still consider them parts of separate timelines because of the disparate costumes, ship designs, tone, etc.?

I realize where we are and what we're talking about here, but for me, people who have strong opinions on which films belong to which timelines are crossing the thin dorky line.

 

[Set Harth]

The ones in those other examples you quoted do, yeah.

I'm talking about the Star Trek franchise. It's changed creative teams before, without the concomitant assertion that the new material and the old material were not in the same continuity.

Then you are now the one who is fundamentally denying the creative team's intent

Not at all; reality doesn't tend to invert itself in such a fashion. It is the intent of the creators that Spock Prime is indeed from the preexisting continuity ( hence the name ). This is well-documented, and everything in the film takes place as a result of his actions in that continuity. Declaring an "About" variable - while implying that your desired value for About(STXI) somehow negates the sequence of events as depicted in the film - is a pointless tactic, because that's not what I'm discussing.

 

[RookieBatman]

The ones in those other examples you quoted do, yeah.

I'm talking about the Star Trek franchise. It's changed creative teams before, without the concomitant assertion that the new material and the old material were not in the same continuity.

Okay... great, but that really has absolutely nothing to do with the post that I was replying to, so if you ever want to respond to that, then we can go from there.

Then you are now the one who is fundamentally denying the creative team's intent

Not at all; reality doesn't tend to invert itself in such a fashion. It is the intent of the creators that Spock Prime is indeed from the preexisting continuity ( hence the name ). This is well-documented, and everything in the film takes place as a result of his actions in that continuity. Declaring an "About" variable - while implying that your desired value for About(STXI) somehow negates the sequence of events as depicted in the film - is a pointless tactic, because that's not what I'm discussing.

Yeah, I don't have a "desired value" for what the film is about. And again, this inexplicable mass of doubletalk has no essential connection to the discussion we were having, so if you say "that's not what I'm discussing," it's probably because I wasn't either.

 

[Set Harth]

Yeah, I don't have a "desired value" for what the film is about.

Unless it's "anything but Spock". But it's still irrelevant.

We looked at the movie as a sequel to the surviving member of the Starship Enterprise, who was Spock Prime, as we called him in the script. That story can be seen from Leonard Nimoy’s point of view and as a sequel to the last member of the Enterprise.[...]Those things are prologues to this movie.

 

[ST-One]

Amen, brother. One thing I've never understood is the idea that the Ent needed to be updated,

Really?
Details aside, the original design represents very much the 1960s design aesthetic. That isn't meant as a negative, since there is something really pleasing about this simpler (less is more) design approach.
But the fact of the matter is, that the Enterprise from TOS no longer looks all that futuristic anymore. She simply doesn't.
That's why she needed to be updated, to be brought from the 60s into 2009.
Will the design stand the test of time?
Perhaps not. Rarely any futuristic designs do.
Even the TMP refit is begining to look odd with its very thin pylons.

So, an update was necessary.
It was necessary in 1979.
And it will be necessary in a few years again (assuming Trek continues beyond the next movie as a film series).

 

[I-Am-Zim]

That's your opinion. Some of us differ. The original Matt Jeffries design is just as futuristic now as it was in 1966. All she needed was a fresh coat of paint. The design is perfectly sound. Technically, there is absolutely nothing on that design that specifically says it's from the 1960's. The only reason you, and others, say that is because you know it was designed in the 60's. In fact, the simple, elegant original design is actually more "realistic" as far as it actually looks like something that a future space agency from Earth such as NASA or some other organization might actually build if it were in the real world. And that was Mr. Jeffries' approach. He wanted it to look that way. That's why I prefer the TOS Enterprise over the Abramsprise (Fuglyprise is what I like to call it). The new one just looks too outrageous and overdone. Compared to the original, the Abramsprise is way too gaudy and overwrought. But this is my opinion. Criticisms of design are always subjective. One man's fugly is another's lovely. That's life.

 

[RookieBatman]

Yeah, I don't have a "desired value" for what the film is about.

Unless it's "anything but Spock". But it's still irrelevant.

You're making assumptions about my opinions that simply aren't true.

We looked at the movie as a sequel to the surviving member of the Starship Enterprise, who was Spock Prime, as we called him in the script. That story can be seen from Leonard Nimoy’s point of view and as a sequel to the last member of the Enterprise.[...]Those things are prologues to this movie.

Can you post a look to the original source? I'm not saying you're lying, I'd just like to see the quote in its full context.

 

[Set Harth]

You're making assumptions about my opinions that simply aren't true.

it's clear they had no intention of this being about Spock (especially not Old Spock).