Altered Timeline: Do you cringe when someone says in a post...

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^ You are right in a literal sense, but [in my opinion] Abrams WANTED to change the design of the ship. He didn't want to use the TOS design.

If he actually offers an in-universe explanation for the change, then fine (although I think it's unnecessary). If he doesn't, then all the better. However, in my opinion the "real-world" fact still remains that the ship looks different simply because Abrams wanted it to look different.

It's a chicken-and-egg thing. The possible in-universe explanation exists to justify the change. I don't think the design change happened because that's the natural direction the story took them.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

You are right in a literal sense, but the fact still remains that Abrams WANTED to change the design of the ship. He didn't want to use the TOS design.

Has he stated that anywhere?

Maybe he has, and I missed it.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

You are right in a literal sense, but the fact still remains that Abrams WANTED to change the design of the ship. He didn't want to use the TOS design.

Has he stated that anywhere?

Maybe he has, and I missed it.

You caught me again. I was editing it to read "In my opinion". Mea culpa.

I still don't think Abrams and crew started off thinking the ship would look practically identical to the TOS ship, but then the story took them in a direction that FORCED them to change it. I just can't see it happening that way.

 

[Jon1701]

I think most people would have changed it. I would have changed it.

I'd have changed the inside quite a bit - the exterior, not so much.

 

[Franklin]

All that's needed is for old Spock to walk onto the bridge of the Enterprise for the first time, take a few steps, pause, look around for a couple of seconds, set his head, raise an eyebrow, and get on with his business.

Fans can then spend the next few months debating whether he raised an eyebrow because he was noticing the bridge was different, or if he was merely taking in the moment, and fascinated by revisiting his past and seeing his old familiar ship.

Or, as I said months ago, old Spock could board the Enterprise for the first time, look around, and say, "Fascinating. Nothing is as I remember it." Again, let the fans decide what that means.

 

[SalvorHardin]

No. The ship looks different because the producers didn't have the balls to make it look like the original ship. Period.

No. The ship looks different because this is a 2009 movie and the producers had the good sense not to make it look exactly like the original ship. Period.

No. The ship looks different because the producers were too smart to make it look like the original ship. Period.

No, it looks different because this is a 2008/9 movie not a 1966 TV-show.

No. None of us could possibly know what the correct answer is at this time. Period.

First of all as far as the onscreen explanation goes I quote Bob Orci :

Anthony: Does the time travel explain why the Enterprise looks different and why it is being built in Riverside Iowa?
Bob: Yes, and yes.

source and more http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob...-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/

As for the "real world" explanation, I can not track a quote down right now, but i think it is fairly obvious why they chose to update 40 year old designs for a 2009 movie, especially one which wants to draw in new fans and not just the old ones (many of which still wanted updates)

 

[FabiusMaximus]

No. The ship looks different because the producers didn't have the balls to make it look like the original ship. Period.

No. The ship looks different because this is a 2009 movie and the producers had the good sense not to make it look exactly like the original ship. Period.

No. The ship looks different because the producers were too smart to make it look like the original ship. Period.

No, it looks different because this is a 2008/9 movie not a 1966 TV-show.

No. None of us could possibly know what the correct answer is at this time. Period.

So many bloody periods....

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

No. The ship looks different because the producers didn't have the balls to make it look like the original ship. Period.

No, it looks different because this is a 2008/9 movie not a 1966 TV-show.

No. None of us could possibly know what the correct answer is at this time. Period.

So many bloody periods....

So many inappropriate responses to that come to mind...

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

The guys at Temporal Investigations are gonna be ticked.

 

[-Brett-]

No. The ship looks different because the producers didn't have the balls to make it look like the original ship. Period.

Yeah. Roddenberry was a coward, wasn't he? How dare he modernize the ship! It looks nothing like the original.

Wait, wrong movie.

 

[I am not Spock]

In many ways, having an outsider direct a Trek film (as in, not a TV director, or a star of the show) is one of the best things to happen to the franchise in a long while. It means that, although he is familiar with Trek, he isn't slavishly devoted to trivia. It means he might actually bring some new ideas to the table. Everyone likes variety, right? I don't want to see Trek carrying along, playing it safe, catering to the fans, (failing every time at the box office).

In J.J's defence, he seems to know what he's doing a lot more than the last time they brought in a franchise outsider (Stuart Baird). Baird didn't bother even familiarising himself with the source material. Even though he used the same sets, the same ships, the same CAST as the earlier TNG films, Nemesis didn't feel like Trek. Abrams could well make a film which feels more Trek than Nemesis, even though the '09 film has new set design, new cast, etc!

 

[I am not Spock]

No. The ship looks different because the producers didn't have the balls to make it look like the original ship. Period.

No. None of us could possibly know what the correct answer is at this time. Period.

First of all as far as the onscreen explanation goes I quote Bob Orci :

Anthony: Does the time travel explain why the Enterprise looks different and why it is being built in Riverside Iowa?
Bob: Yes, and yes.

source and more http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob...-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/

As for the "real world" explanation, I can not track a quote down right now, but i think it is fairly obvious why they chose to update 40 year old designs for a 2009 movie, especially one which wants to draw in new fans and not just the old ones (many of which still wanted updates)

Indeed. I've been a fan for many years, and I can't wait to see something new in Trek. As Kirk told Scotty in TSFS: 'Fresh minds, new ideas'.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

First of all as far as the onscreen explanation goes I quote Bob Orci :

Anthony: Does the time travel explain why the Enterprise looks different and why it is being built in Riverside Iowa?
Bob: Yes, and yes.

source and more http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob...-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/

As for the "real world" explanation, I can not track a quote down right now, but i think it is fairly obvious why they chose to update 40 year old designs for a 2009 movie, especially one which wants to draw in new fans and not just the old ones (many of which still wanted updates)

Yeah -- but I'm still not convinced the "altered" universe in Abrams' Star Trek will be that much different than TOS.

Her's an excerpt from that same trekmovie.com interview with Bob Orci that you referenced:

Anthony [trekmovie.com]: ...So the big question is: Is the destruction of the Kelvin, the canon reason why everything is different?

Bob [Orci]: It is the reason why some things are different, but not everything is different. Not everything is inconsistent with what might have actually happened, in canon. Some of the things that seem that they are totally different, I will argue, once the film comes out, fall well within what could have been the non-time travel version of this move.

(emphasis mine)
​

I'm not convinced this film is changing much of anything we know about the future of the familiar characters. It may change what we thought we knew about their origins (and what we know is mostly only 'fanon' that can be interpreted in many different -- but valid -- ways), but i believe those changes will end up being (mostly) consistent with what we saw on-screen in TOS and TOS films.

 

[Oso Blanco]

Indeed. I've been a fan for many years, and I can't wait to see something new in Trek. As Kirk told Scotty in TSFS: 'Fresh minds, new ideas'.

If they had wanted to do something new in Trek, they shouldn't have done a prequel!

 

[ChristopherPike]

Oh nevermind real science and quantum theory... an altered timeline just goes against the established rules of Star Trek. The future is destined to affect the past, but only within the same timeline. Creating splinter universes is all very well, but the fun part of being a fan of this franchise was fitting everything together in a unified chronology. Carving this film out from everything that has gone before (or is that after?), is divisive and amounts to segregation.

I've been a fan for many years, and I can't wait to see something new in Trek. As Kirk told Scotty in TSFS: 'Fresh minds, new ideas'.

Ah, yes but as Scotty points out, "The more you overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."

I can't help but feel you may have missed the point of that film. The Excelsior turns out to be a spectacular failure!