ENTERPRISE design in the new film? (How many changes?)

[Franklin]

3D Master said:

Franklin said:

3D Master said:

Flake said:
They have re-designed it once, the refit. Why is this so different? Did you stop watching in 1978 or whenever you learned the Enterprise got re-designed?

The refit was a refit. It said that the show existed, and the ship looked exactly like it was shown in the show. This isn't a refit, this is retroactively saying: you know, that ship, bullshit, it never looked that way - also incidentally invalidating TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise all who have featured the original NCC-1701 exactly as shown in the show right along with it.

In short, it's crap.

Even though Roddenberry wanted there to be an onscreen reason for why the Enterprise looked different, as far as I remember, the real reason it was redesigned was a production decision to make the ship look better on the big screen. That is, "fit" the big screen.

TOS Enterprise is a fine ship. On TV. But its looks won't hold on a large cinema screen. It'll need some details, and other things to take up screen space and look "right."
As beautiful as the design is, its smoothness and lack of details will actually make it look less real. The bigger something is to appear, the more detail it needs to show.

I'd be very surprised if the first shot of the Enterprise in XI doesn't get the same gasps and wows that I remember the refit getting in the theater in STMP.

Again, that's not changing the Enterprise, that's enhancing it - adding layers. Changing the Enterprise is putting something along the lines of Gabe's reimagination posted above on the big screen as if that was what the Enterprise always looked like. The latter is a no-no, then I won't be watching. The earlier is the right way to go.

Well, everyone will look different. Kirk. Spock. Scotty. Everyone. And, no one will offer an explanation as to why they look different. It'll just be assumed that Spock and everyone else always looked that way.

Everything even the slightest bit different will be assumed to have always been that way. Will the Romulans look like TNG Romulans, for example?

But, I see your point on the Enterprise conception you're referring to. If the Enterprise ended up looking that radically altered, while it wouldn't keep me out of the theater, I'd be very disappointed.

 

[3D Master]

Franklin said:

3D Master said:
Again, that's not changing the Enterprise, that's enhancing it - adding layers. Changing the Enterprise is putting something along the lines of Gabe's reimagination posted above on the big screen as if that was what the Enterprise always looked like. The latter is a no-no, then I won't be watching. The earlier is the right way to go.

Well, everyone will look different. Kirk. Spock. Scotty. Everyone. And, no one will offer an explanation as to why they look different. It'll just be assumed that Spock and everyone else always looked that way.

Everything even the slightest bit different will be assumed to have always been that way. Will the Romulans look like TNG Romulans, for example?

No, it's just different actors and nobody will be assuming anything. Especially not that "they always looked that way".

In fact; different actors only makes it more important the ship stays the same. At least one thing that can be pointed at that it's the same history.

But, I see your point on the Enterprise conception you're referring to. If the Enterprise ended up looking that radically altered, while it wouldn't keep me out of the theater, I'd be very disappointed.

It would keep me out of the theater.

 

[number6]

I'm not worried about the design of the Enterprise. The people working on this have a solid resume and seem to "know" Star Trek.

I am curious to see what it is they deliver and what kind of film this will be.

I don't think that changing the design of the ship, the uniforms, the color of the phaser beams or any of that is going to keep me from going because of the above sentence. These minor artistic decisions are theirs to make. Who's to say that these guys aren't as interested to see the classic images recreated as we are??

Even with Nemesis, which wasn't a great film to say the least, there were sequences in that film that were impressive, even if the overall film was not. (I'll post example of this if you're really interested..)This new crew isn't burnt out on Trek the way the TNG/Modern Trek crew were.*

They haven't been doing the series for 18 years.

Most of the people who post around here (who I believe is a very vocal minority, but a good cross section of sci-fi fandom schools of thought) have wanted new blood and fresh ideas for the franchise. I think these people respect a lot of those schools of thought and I think that reflects well in the work that I've seen and what they have to say about it in general.

I think this is good for Star Trek and its future.

I am curious to see what they do.

Even if they pull a "Superman Returns" or a "Batman Begins", they will likely do what these franchises are planning to do: 1. Re-establish familiar characters. 2. Get the general public interested. 3. Throw the diehard fans a little something.

I don't have a problem with this, especially after now hearing what the SR/BB creative team wants to do and what directions they want to take it.

I home the same happens for Trek. It could be good or it could suck balls, but I at least want to see it before I can really judge.

They haven't really said anything that worries me. It's all about context. We have no real perception of what they're planning.

*edited to add.. though they certainly were around that time, I do think the creative team was starting to come back from their slump if the last two seasons of ENT were any indication.

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Number6 said:
Even if they pull a "Superman Returns" or a "Batman Begins", they will likely do what these franchises are planning to do: 1. Re-establish familiar characters. 2. Get the general public interested. 3. Throw the diehard fans a little something.

Well said. I wonder how many Batmaniacs boycotted Batman Begins because the Batmobile didn't look like a Lincoln Futura.

 

[xortex]

Doesn't classic means it doesn't change and shouldn't ? What part of that don't you understand. Less is more. Stop messin' with a work of art else we'd all be changing Beethoven symphonies into Salieri concertos.

 

[number6]

Which part of

These minor artistic decisions are theirs to make.

do you need explained?

 

[Professor Moriarty]

xortex said:
Doesn't classic means it doesn't change and shouldn't ?

No, and what a patently ridiculous notion.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

xortex said:
Doesn't classic means it doesn't change and shouldn't ? What part of that don't you understand.

Why you - or anyone else - think that labeling something "classic" will automatically trump good sense, taste, creativity or commercial considerations.

 

[number6]

Professor Moriarty said:

xortex said:
Doesn't classic means it doesn't change and shouldn't ?

No, and what a patently ridiculous notion.

True..But that is his opinion and the opinion of a few others here.

I am sure that the success or failure of this will not hinge heavily on TPTB willingness to strictly follow the "Xortex Grand Vision of Trek."

 

[Professor Moriarty]

Number6 said:

Professor Moriarty said:

xortex said:
Doesn't classic means it doesn't change and shouldn't ?

No, and what a patently ridiculous notion.

True..But that is his opinion and the opinion of a few others here.

I am sure that the success or failure of this will not hinge heavily on TPTB willingness to strictly follow the "Xortex Grand Vision of Trek."

Please note that I was not dismissing his opinion of whether or not the design of the Enterprise should be changed for Star Trek.

What I was dismissing was his absurd and completely incorrect definition of the word classic.

Thanks.

 

[number6]

My reply is to that point as well. The two concepts are definitely intertwined in the same debate.

 

[TeutonicNights]

Why don't you Reboot fans just watch Star Wars and pretend it was a bold reimagining of Star Trek?

seriously, Orci said:

The reason we aren’t starting over is because the people involved, both fans and behind the scenes, have worked so hard to specify what is canon - then to simply ignore it would be unnecessary. There is so much about The Original Series that is worth continuing. It is not like Batman where you can ignore everything. That being said there are some things that have never been specified fully in canon that we take liberties with.
...
Part of the reason we are purposely not saying if it is a reboot or not is that the solution we have for maintaining canon while liberating us is inherently part of what the story is and something we are reluctant to give away.

now why would they need to develop such a gray zone "solution" when they were planning a reboot from the beginning of the movie, anyway?

I'm sure people like Orci are aware that the canon friends will not swallow a ship redesign or completely different uniforms. They would have lost those people whatever bone they may be willing to throw them.
So why would they care?

Unless they are just trying to calm down the fans and are hoping for a "Casino Royale" effect.

Somehow I think the reboot-advocating guys may be the ones that need to take some Valium into the theater. But who knows...

 

[Cary L. Brown]

3D Master said:

Cary L. Brown said:
Darren Docherman's version, which I pasted in higher up in this thread, is CERTAINLY not the ship as it was originally seen in the original series... but the differences are only in terms of additional "layers of polish" in the presentation.

(By the way, that's a size-reduced image... the original is far more impressive... but would never show up on a BBS page. Go to the address mentioned in Darren's header on the image and you can see it in all its uber-high-res glory.)

Link? I've gone to his site via the url in the picture, and followed several options, looked through sites, but gave up cause I didn't find it.

Sorry, he seems to have reorganized the page and I can't find the original there anymore, either.

I have a copy of the full-sized thing at home... way too big for imageshack, so if you'd like to see it, Private-message me with your personal email and I'll send it to ya... (Only for people I've "talked" with and reasonably trust... don't want my private email getting out to folks who might decide to be childish about things! )

 

[number6]

"Casino Royale" is even more silly.. How many people have played Bond?? Wasn't all that about the fact that a blond actor would play Bond???

I hope it doesn't get into Casino Royale territory.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

TeutonicNights said:[/i]...
"Part of the reason we are purposely not saying if it is a reboot or not is that the solution we have for maintaining canon while liberating us is inherently part of what the story is and something we are reluctant to give away."

All of which is entirely unnecessary, of course, if they're not going to change anything substantially.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Professor Moriarty said:

Number6 said:
Even if they pull a "Superman Returns" or a "Batman Begins", they will likely do what these franchises are planning to do: 1. Re-establish familiar characters. 2. Get the general public interested. 3. Throw the diehard fans a little something.

Well said. I wonder how many Batmaniacs boycotted Batman Begins because the Batmobile didn't look like a Lincoln Futura.

Not a goddamned one, because any fan of Batman knows that the guy goes through cars on a near-weekly basis, and that there are multiple batmobiles.

Furthermore, the 60s TV show is NOT the "origin" in any way, shape or form. It was a "fun take-off" on the character. It was never intended to be taken seriously. Bob Kane's original character WAS intended to be taken seriously.

The new movie was actually far more faithful to the original than the 1960s TV show ever was. It was also more faithful to the current interpretation (which WAS relaunched back in the early 1970s, largely in response to the 1960s TV show, in an attempt to give the character the ability to be taken seriously again).

Constant references to the 1960s TV show as "the original" is like referring to the Woody Allen version of "Casino Royal" as being the source material for James Bond. You think that Connery's Bond is the "original" or you may, like me, tend to think of Flemming's PROSE Bond as the original, but there's no way you can rationally think of Allen's as the original. It was a SPOOF... as was the 1960s Batman people keep referring to.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The 1960s "Batman" television series is, of course, the version of Batman that more people are familiar with than any other...which can hardly be said of the first "Casino Royale" movie.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Cary L. Brown said:

Starship Polaris said:

If what you're saying is that "nobody has made an argument that the DESIGN of the ship shouldn't be altered"...This board has been filled with people making that argument...

Yes.

...and making it quite soundly.

No.

Okay, then...

Please point out how it's "unsound" to state that for those who don't care about such things, which is the majority of the audience, making changes to the ship design won't have any effect, positive or negative. Do you disagree with that?

Please point out how it's "unsound" to state that for those who DO care about such things, with is a minority of the audience but a majority of FANS, most want the ship to be the ship that they know and are familiar with. Do you disagree with that?

Those two points have been made repeatedly. You don't think that they're "sound arguments?" Please point out, in whatever level of detail you think is appropriate, how they fail.

However, the argument that "if the ship isn't 'updated' it won't sell for modern audiences" isn't acceptable... it isn't an argument, it's merely an assertion, and carries no logical weight whatsoever. If you choose to make a point like that, you need to support it with a reason WHY you think that's the case. Fair enough?

I can't help but notice that this has gone unanswered. Sorta makes ya go "hmmmmmm." I'd have to conclude that there IS no answer... but instead of just assuming that, I'll re-raise the point.

 

[Kokomo]

This is how I see it, and I know that many of you will not agree, but that's cool: To many people, Star Trek is a little campy. To me, it is everything. I love this show so much and will absolutely love it until the day that I die. Many people hate the fact that the crew is aiming to make this movie appealing to non-trek fans, but I think that it is absolutely necessary for the franchise to continue. The crew is looking to make this movie into something that people take seriously. They have put a ton of thought into the casting and they are gonna do the same thing with the Enterprise. The way that I see it, they are saying, "Okay, now is our chance to show people what Star Trek really is. Not just some 60's sci-fi show with some dude with pointy ears. It is our chance to show people how great it is!" They are gonna change to ship to how they see fit for the movie. I highly doubt that they will change it just for the hell of it. Abrams isn't making "Batman and Robin" and putting extra lights and doo-dads on the Enterprise to sell toys; he is doing what he is doing because the film calls for it. I say... the cast looks a little different from the original cast... why can't the Enterprise? After all, I speculate it will be generally the same design (saucer section, nacelles, hull, etc.) but modified for the movie. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Just want to clarify something: a re-design of the Enterprise is not, in itself, a deal-breaker for me. It is, however, a very bad omen, a gasping canary in the coal mine of expectations.