A Theory About Trek XI

[875020709]

Hi, folks! My first post here. Hope it starts a good conversation.

Here's my theory about the new movie. We know it takes place in the NG era, after Nemesis. Spock is on Romulus working toward reunification of the Vulcan and Romulan peoples. Nero, for whatever reason is adamantly opposed to this and obtains technology for time travel (I really wish it had been a Romulan assault on the Guardian of Forever and not a time ship, but what's a body to do). Spock tries to contact Vulcan.....but there is no Vulcan. Everyhting has changed. Somehow Spock has been protected from teh chnage in the timeline (perhaps by his former travel thru the Guardian?) and attempts to correct the timeline. He manages to locate and steal a smaller time ship that is locked on to the temporal coordinates of Nero's ship and heads back intime to correct the timeline.

Remember, everyhting that takes place in the movie is in an altered timeline. I the end, Vulcan is saved. The timeline is "corrected"... and at the end of the movie we see the Enterprise like we know her (not the version released so far)...but there are small differences. By and large the timeline is restored to "normal" but differences remain. These differences are what allow TOS to be reinvented and updated with 21st century grphics and sets and sotries, etc.

Let the madcap discussion begin.

 

[JoeZhang]

Remember, everyhting that takes place in the movie is in an altered timeline. I the end, Vulcan is saved. The timeline is "corrected"... and at the end of the movie we see the Enterprise like we know her (not the version released so far)

Absolutely no chance - remember this is not a film for fans, it's for a mainstream audience - it makes no sense for them to follow the adventures of a ship called enterprise for two hours and then to have it morph into a different ship in the last 30 seconds of the film.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

Remember, everyhting that takes place in the movie is in an altered timeline. I the end, Vulcan is saved. The timeline is "corrected"... and at the end of the movie we see the Enterprise like we know her (not the version released so far)

Absolutely no chance - remember this is not a film for fans, it's for a mainstream audience - it makes no sense for them to follow the adventures of a ship called enterprise for two hours and then to have it morph into a different ship in the last 30 seconds of the film.

Agreed. Better to just accept it now I think.

 

[875020709]

Why, he asks with eyebrow raised. It's a good way to please the old fans and introduce trek to the new fans, leaving in the hands of the new fans but still pleasing us old f**ts.

 

[JoeZhang]

Why, he asks with eyebrow raised. It's a good way to please the old fans and introduce trek to the new fans, leaving in the hands of the new fans but still pleasing us old f**ts.

But trek is being introduced to the new fans - that's the whole point of the film, it's not meant to pander to the existing "community".

The other problem is - what do you do in the sequel ? have it morph back into the Ship that the audience saw for the majority of the first one?

The other point is that the design changes were to signal that this was a new start for trek - regardless of if that aim was achieved, that was the aim - no way they are going to undercut their own film by morphing back into the 1960s...

 

[seigezunt]

Why, he asks with eyebrow raised. It's a good way to please the old fans and introduce trek to the new fans, leaving in the hands of the new fans but still pleasing us old f**ts.

as a fellow old fart, I'm not buying it. You have to do more to prove this theory.

Why do this, to please what may be a tiny segment of the audience? And a fickle one at that?

Young minds, new ideas, we must be tolerant.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Why, he asks with eyebrow raised. It's a good way to please the old fans and introduce trek to the new fans, leaving in the hands of the new fans but still pleasing us old f**ts.

You assume that all old fans want to see the Enterprise, the bridge etc like we know them from TOS.

Nope, sorry.
I still love watching TOS but the time for change has been delayed long enough.

The updated look is fine for the most part and no complete resets at the end are necessary or desirable.
As a matter of fact, for me, such a reset at the end would most likely classify the film as a major fail.

Welcome to the BBS by the way. Or as the song accurately says...welcome to the jungle

 

[JoeZhang]

Then there are the economics of all this - the film's budget will be partly based on a gamble that many of the sets, costumes etc can be re-used in a sequel - which doesn't happen if you toss most of them at the end of the first film...

 

[DRMidnite]

Then there are the economics of all this - the film's budget will be partly based on a gamble that many of the sets, costumes etc can be re-used in a sequel - which doesn't happen if you toss most of them at the end of the first film...

Gotta agree with ya, Joe!

 

[875020709]

I never said it would go back to the 1960's set. I think it will maintain a large portion of the new set, and the new overall Enterprise, but we'll see updated versions of the bridge (like getting rid of the frikin' red pez dispensers on the helm console!) and different engine nacelles on the big E.

Similar to what we've seen so far in the trailer, but different, updating the old to herald in the new.

Anywho, we'll all find out in May!

 

[SalvorHardin]

I never said it would go back to the 1960's set. I think it will maintain a large portion of the new set, and the new overall Enterprise, but we'll see updated versions of the bridge (like getting rid of the frikin' red pez dispensers on the helm console!) and different engine nacelles on the big E.

Similar to what we've seen so far in the trailer, but different, updating the old to herald in the new.

Anywho, we'll all find out in May!

We will indeed see in May, but in any case i do think we will see some kind of external change... in the nacelles at least.

There's a quote somewhere in this forum by Ryan Church (new E designer) that seems to suggest so,if I remember correctly.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

I never said it would go back to the 1960's set. I think it will maintain a large portion of the new set, and the new overall Enterprise, but we'll see updated versions of the bridge (like getting rid of the frikin' red pez dispensers on the helm console!) and different engine nacelles on the big E.

Similar to what we've seen so far in the trailer, but different, updating the old to herald in the new.

Anywho, we'll all find out in May!

We will indeed see in May, but in any case i do think we will see some kind of external change... in the nacelles at least.

There's a quote somewhere in this forum by Ryan Church (new E designer) that seems to suggest so,if I remember correctly.

It would be nice to get all these mystery quotes together in one place. I haven't come across any of them.

 

[SalvorHardin]

I never said it would go back to the 1960's set. I think it will maintain a large portion of the new set, and the new overall Enterprise, but we'll see updated versions of the bridge (like getting rid of the frikin' red pez dispensers on the helm console!) and different engine nacelles on the big E.

Similar to what we've seen so far in the trailer, but different, updating the old to herald in the new.

Anywho, we'll all find out in May!

We will indeed see in May, but in any case i do think we will see some kind of external change... in the nacelles at least.

There's a quote somewhere in this forum by Ryan Church (new E designer) that seems to suggest so,if I remember correctly.

It would be nice to get all these mystery quotes together in one place. I haven't come across any of them.

I found the quote from Church (it is from back when that first picture of the new E was revealed, before the trailer):

"I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship.
To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do.
We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary.
Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed.
The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say."

 

[ROBE]

While I accept that the timeline will be put back on track so that the future is safe certain changes will remain, such as the look of the ship.

 

[datas_cat_spot]

We will indeed see in May, but in any case i do think we will see some kind of external change... in the nacelles at least.

There's a quote somewhere in this forum by Ryan Church (new E designer) that seems to suggest so,if I remember correctly.

It would be nice to get all these mystery quotes together in one place. I haven't come across any of them.

I found the quote from Church (it is from back when that first picture of the new E was revealed, before the trailer):

"I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship.
To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do.
We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary.
Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed.
The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say."

I did see that one. I was referring to any quotes that intimate the movie ending with a more TOS-like Enterprise.

 

[SalvorHardin]

It would be nice to get all these mystery quotes together in one place. I haven't come across any of them.

I found the quote from Church (it is from back when that first picture of the new E was revealed, before the trailer):

"I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship.
To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do.
We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary.
Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed.
The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say."

I did see that one. I was referring to any quotes that intimate the movie ending with a more TOS-like Enterprise.

Oh...I don't think there have been any other quotes that would indicate that.

If someone remembers otherwise,please correct me.

 

[Butters]

We will indeed see in May, but in any case i do think we will see some kind of external change... in the nacelles at least.

There's a quote somewhere in this forum by Ryan Church (new E designer) that seems to suggest so,if I remember correctly.

It would be nice to get all these mystery quotes together in one place. I haven't come across any of them.

I found the quote from Church (it is from back when that first picture of the new E was revealed, before the trailer):

"I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship.
To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do.
We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary.
Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed.
The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say."

To say that the true profile of the nacelles is not revealed is not the same as saying that there will be changes to what they have already shown> They simply mean that what we've seen isn't really representative. Its a bad angle from which to draw conclusions, thats all.

 

[SalvorHardin]

It would be nice to get all these mystery quotes together in one place. I haven't come across any of them.

I found the quote from Church (it is from back when that first picture of the new E was revealed, before the trailer):

"I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship.
To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do.
We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary.
Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed.
The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say."

To say that the true profile of the nacelles is not revealed is not the same as saying that there will be changes to what they have already shown> They simply mean that what we've seen isn't really representative. Its a bad angle from which to draw conclusions, thats all.

No it's not the same. All I say it's that it is just an indication that something may change.
Of course it may be something as simple as what you say but that last " The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say" is vague and cryptic enough to make me think that it may be something more.

It's no big deal eitherway...

 

[Ovation]

Why, he asks with eyebrow raised. It's a good way to please the old fans and introduce trek to the new fans, leaving in the hands of the new fans but still pleasing us old f**ts.

as a fellow old fart, I'm not buying it. You have to do more to prove this theory.

Why do this, to please what may be a tiny segment of the audience? And a fickle one at that?

Young minds, new ideas, we must be tolerant.

Another "old fart" here. I agree--"why do this?"

I may have some reservations about the look of the ship (based on my sense of aesthetics, not out of some fanatical devotion to the original), but I do NOT want some half-assed "reset" of the look just to please a tiny vocal minority (who won't be pleased anyway).

Just as I didn't care the bridge on the Bird of Prey was DRAMATICALLY different from Trek III to IV (I noticed it, but it did not affect my opinion of the newer film in any way, except to note the IV bridge seemed more "Klingon" than the III bridge--didn't affect the stories though), I don't care about the fact the Enterprise looks different in this new movie. I will be irritated if they choose to spend valuable screen time on exposition to "explain" the difference or do a "reset". Any "explanation" needs to be a natural part of the story, if it is to be there at all, if it is to avoid being a distraction.

 

[JoeZhang]

I found the quote from Church (it is from back when that first picture of the new E was revealed, before the trailer):

"I’m not going to get involved in the mud slinging, here, but needed to assure you guys and gals: we’ve built you a fine ship.
To clarify: there’s a slight optical illusion occurring here, consequence of the “camera” angle. For Rick and others who worry the nacelles don’t have a clear line of sight over the disc — they, in fact, do.
We were hardly working in a vacuum. I raided ILM reference photos like a madman. We were deferential to “inviolates” of Star Trek design vocabulary.
Additionally, the profile here isn’t 100% representative, because, as you’ve noticed, the Bussards are dimmed.
The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say."

To say that the true profile of the nacelles is not revealed is not the same as saying that there will be changes to what they have already shown> They simply mean that what we've seen isn't really representative. Its a bad angle from which to draw conclusions, thats all.

No it's not the same. All I say it's that it is just an indication that something may change.
Of course it may be something as simple as what you say but that last " The true profile of the nacelles may or may not be revealed here, and that’s all I’ll say" is vague and cryptic enough to make me think that it may be something more.

It's no big deal eitherway...

I just thought he meant they glowed red when the engines were running - which I *think* you can just about make out in one of the trailer shots...

As for the changing ship design - this seems to related to a "quote" from one of the producers that gets cited a lot but nobody seems able to produce...