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

[Admiral Buzzkill]

xortex said:
Still waiting for someone to do what Gene did again.

I'm not, because I've seen it done. There have been a number of better television series since TOS went off the air.

Oh, you mean specifically "invent 'Star Trek' again?" You're right - "Star Trek" has already been invented, by a great number of people working with and for Roddenberry, and it won't be invented again. It can't be; it's trademarked and owned by Paramount.

That said, a number of producers - including those working for GR on TOS - have done a better job of overseeing it than he did. Abrams probably will, as well.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Still waiting for someone to do what Gene did again. J.J.

In a paragraph or less innumerate for us what: "Gene Did".

From a certain point of view the argument could be made that GR was a "One hit wonder" and can name a few modern tv producers who have "done least as much - if not more, or at least more graciously what Gene Roddenberry did".

JJ Abrams himself has a few hits to his name outside of one universe - Roddenberry can't even claim that.

Sharr

 

[I Grok Spock]

What you all fail to recognize is that Gene Roddenberry was already dead by 1964. He was killed by an extended episode of boozing, pot smoking, and early LSD experimentation following the cancellation of "The Lieutenant." Roddenberry's body was preserved at the direction of Eileen Roddenberry by the efforts of Fred Phillips and fitted with rudimentary armatures for manipulation by the Howard Anderson Company. In this way she could still receive residuals from possible future airings of the "Lieutenant" and "Dragnet."

It didn't take long for Mrs. Roddenberry's ambitions to move beyond the occasional modest monthly cheque. Through an intricate and elaborate plot involving Lucille Ball (Eileen's long-time Canasta partner), Herb Solow, Bob Justman, writers, actors, film and television crews, convention organizers, and an assortment of simulated mistresses it was made to appear that Roddenberry was still "alive" and "created" and "produced" television "shows." Despite a number of incidents in which this scheme was nearly discovered (why else would Gary Lockwood be cast in the second Star Trek pilot, and what do you really think happened to Jeffrey Hunter?), the plan worked as intended until the cancellation of the original Star Trek series.

At this point, Eileen handed over day-to-day operation of Roddenberry to co-conspirator Majel Barret, who had discovered the true condition of the deceased producer when she attempted to sit in his lap during a casting session. In subsequent years, the Roddenbot was brought out of storage for convention appearances and the occasional "production meeting" for The Motion Picture. Cost overruns on the first Trek film gave Barret the ideal excuse for "retiring" the puppet producer, which was by this point becoming decidedly tatty and bloated.

Further near-discoveries notwithstanding (why do you really think Gates McFadden was brought back to The Next Generation) the operation continued beautifully for six films and a spin-off series with "Roddenberry" increasingly disappearing from day to day running of the franchise.

Finally, in 1991, the Gene-machine was refurbished for one last appearance to commemorate Star Trek's 25th anniversary. Immediately thereafter, with the future of the franchise apparently well-established without the need for his personal involvement, the long-ago passing of Roddenberry was made public.

Therefore, as you can see, nothing that we now know and/or love as "Star" and/or "Trek" had anything to do with Gene Roddenberry.

 

[Saul]

Starship Polaris said:

The God Thing said:

Matt Jefferies, OTOH, did a superb job on the original ship.

Certainly, but thanks in no small part to the guidance of The Great Bird.

Channeling Richard Arnold, huh?

I'm afraid that turning "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" on drawings that one doesn't even understand constitutes meaningful "guidance" only in an industry that rewards credit hogs at the top.

Jefferies was - like several of the major contributors to TOS - an artist, a designer and a diligent researcher. GR was not.

Sounds a lot like Rick Berman then.

Sharr Khan said:

Still waiting for someone to do what Gene did again. J.J.

In a paragraph or less innumerate for us what: "Gene Did".

Created one of the longest running shows and made a very large Science Fiction Franchise.

From a certain point of view the argument could be made that GR was a "One hit wonder" and can name a few modern tv producers who have "done least as much - if not more, or at least more graciously what Gene Roddenberry did".

They callled him a one hit wonder until he made TNG, people shut up then.

JJ Abrams himself has a few hits to his name outside of one universe - Roddenberry can't even claim that.
Sharr

JJ can't claim to have created one of the most successful franchises in History. In 40 years time Star Trek will still be around with the name of it's creator attached. JJ Abrams and his shows won't be.

You could also say that Lucas only created Star Wars and Indiana Jones and not much else. But I haven't seen any Billion dollar franchises coming from Abrams. Sure he will make many Tv shows and movies, but what will he be remembered for long term. So far, not much.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sharr Khan said:

JJ Abrams himself has a few hits to his name outside of one universe...

This is true.

 

[xortex]

I Grok Spock said:
What you all fail to recognize is that Gene Roddenberry was already dead by 1964. He was killed by an extended episode of boozing, pot smoking, and early LSD experimentation following the cancellation of "The Lieutenant." Roddenberry's body was preserved at the direction of Eileen Roddenberry by the efforts of Fred Phillips and fitted with rudimentary armatures for manipulation by the Howard Anderson Company. In this way she could still receive residuals from possible future airings of the "Lieutenant" and "Dragnet."

It didn't take long for Mrs. Roddenberry's ambitions to move beyond the occasional modest monthly cheque. Through an intricate and elaborate plot involving Lucille Ball (Eileen's long-time Canasta partner), Herb Solow, Bob Justman, writers, actors, film and television crews, convention organizers, and an assortment of simulated mistresses it was made to appear that Roddenberry was still "alive" and "created" and "produced" television "shows." Despite a number of incidents in which this scheme was nearly discovered (why else would Gary Lockwood be cast in the second Star Trek pilot, and what do you really think happened to Jeffrey Hunter?), the plan worked as intended until the cancellation of the original Star Trek series.

At this point, Eileen handed over day-to-day operation of Roddenberry to co-conspirator Majel Barret, who had discovered the true condition of the deceased producer when she attempted to sit in his lap during a casting session. In subsequent years, the Roddenbot was brought out of storage for convention appearances and the occasional "production meeting" for The Motion Picture. Cost overruns on the first Trek film gave Barret the ideal excuse for "retiring" the puppet producer, which was by this point becoming decidedly tatty and bloated.

Further near-discoveries notwithstanding (why do you really think Gates McFadden was brought back to The Next Generation) the operation continued beautifully for six films and a spin-off series with "Roddenberry" increasingly disappearing from day to day running of the franchise.

Finally, in 1991, the Gene-machine was refurbished for one last appearance to commemorate Star Trek's 25th anniversary. Immediately thereafter, with the future of the franchise apparently well-established without the need for his personal involvement, the long-ago passing of Roddenberry was made public.

Therefore, as you can see, nothing that we now know and/or love as "Star" and/or "Trek" had anything to do with Gene Roddenberry.

I almost died laughing. I heard the same thing about Serling - the Serling thing.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Something like this would explain Glen Larson...

 

[xortex]

It also explains the titles ' The Robot's Return ' and ' The God Thing '. But it doesn't explain Bad Robot.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

Um, not to be a prick but what does it matter who designed the original Enterprise? GR, MJ or an infinite number of monkeys at an infinite number of drawing boards for an infinite number of years, it still makes make precious little sense to make all but the most minor alterations to the design.

 

[Guartho]

Brutal Strudel said:
it still makes make precious little sense to make all but the most minor alterations to the design.

If this thread proves anything it's that different levels of alterations make different levels of sense to different people.

 

[The Doctor]

I'm continually amazed at the disconnect between the hardcore Trek fans and reality. We would notice if the Enterprise were changed for the movie. A marker light here, a slight change to the hull gradient there, we'd notice these things and spend countless hours obsessing over their meaning.

For the rest of the world, and indeed the very people that Abrams and Paramount are targeting with a Trek revival, the Enterprise could be dramatically different and they would neither notice nor care. As for the rest of us, we're going to see the movie anyhow, so why in God's name would Abrams really care what we think?

 

[pookha]

ancient said:
The original 1701 has never appeared on the big screen before, and I think it's time it did.

i honestly think most ordinary trek fans seeing the above would scrath their heads and go

to a lot of them it was the same ship.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

The Stig said:
I'm continually amazed at the disconnect between the hardcore Trek fans and reality. We would notice if the Enterprise were changed for the movie. A marker light here, a slight change to the hull gradient there, we'd notice these things and spend countless hours obsessing over their meaning.

For the rest of the world, and indeed the very people that Abrams and Paramount are targeting with a Trek revival, the Enterprise could be dramatically different and they would neither notice nor care. As for the rest of us, we're going to see the movie anyhow, so why in God's name would Abrams really care what we think?

So far everything about this revival screams nostalgia project: from the retro posters to the involvemnet of Nimoy.

You may say that nostalgia won't sell enough tickets and you'd probably be right. Esquire magazine recently listed a bunch of signs that the 20th century was finally--mercifully*--coming to an end. Trek XI was the lone hold-out on the list. If anybody really thinks this movie will pull in a sizeable audience from those indifferent and hostile to Trek, God bless 'em.

And even if it does: those people won't care what the ship looks like so long as it looks sufficiently convincing. The Trekkies who stayed away from the last two TNG movies, VOY, DS9 and ENT, however, will, and they--and their repeat business--will easily make up a third of the film's gross. A great many of them are bored with the endless variations we've gotten on Jefferies original to the point that a return to the original is the only fresh option left.

If this project is supposed to a return to the basics, to the beginning (and the rumors about time-travelling Romulans makes me think that battle is already lost), then a return to the Enterprise as we knew her only makes sense. But Hollywood seldom makes sense (the Transformers screenwriters? Really? Why not just get Akiva Golman and Joe Esterhaus?) so we'll probably see a stupidly "souped up" ship and a stupidly "souped up" plot. And you know what? So what? Star Trek's been dead a long time now. Maybe, if this movie flops, Paramount will finally have the decency to remove the feeding tube.

*Of course, all indicators are that the 21st will be much, much worse...

 

[The Doctor]

But how many Trek fans really care about the design of the Enterprise remaining faithful to the original? Even if we grant that all TOS fans care enough about the Enterprise redesign to boycott the film, it's a huge stretch to claim that fans of TNG/DS9, etc will feel the same way. Much like anything Trek related, there's hardly a consensus amongst the exceedingly small number of fans who care enough to post about such things on the internet.

As such, we can be safely ignored.

All the film has to do is invoke enough of that TOS feel that seems to have endured over the years and it will be a success amongst the majority of fans. Sure, there will be a vocal contingent on the Internet that will object to the color of Kirk's eyes, or the shape of Spock's ears, but as they will have to see the film in order to complain about it fully, it hardly matters what their opinions are.

 

[Warped9]

Cary L. Brown said:
It's really simple... if the 1701 is in this film, it should have detailing appropriate to the timeframe (TOS? WNMHGB? Cage? Earlier?) and should otherwise look like this in terms of quality, geometry, and rendering:

THAT is freakin' nice! :thumbsup:

 

[Brutal Strudel]

The Stig said:
But how many Trek fans really care about the design of the Enterprise remaining faithful to the original? Even if we grant that all TOS fans care enough about the Enterprise redesign to boycott the film, it's a huge stretch to claim that fans of TNG/DS9, etc will feel the same way. Much like anything Trek related, there's hardly a consensus amongst the exceedingly small number of fans who care enough to post about such things on the internet.

As such, we can be safely ignored.

All the film has to do is invoke enough of that TOS feel that seems to have endured over the years and it will be a success amongst the majority of fans. Sure, there will be a vocal contingent on the Internet that will object to the color of Kirk's eyes, or the shape of Spock's ears, but as they will have to see the film in order to complain about it fully, it hardly matters what their opinions are.

I don't think a significant number of fans will boycott the film on any basis other than it looking like it sucks. I know that's the only reason I'll not see it and I'll rely on advance word, reviews and previews to guage that. However, gratuitous fucking around with the Enterprise will be one such indicator that the project is wrong-headed--one among many (the time travelling Romulans and illustrious writing team are two others).

 

[xortex]

It is gonna be talky with dull music. The movie,that is.

 

[The Doctor]

I'm far more wary of the time-travel and the Romulans than I ever will be about the designs or the look of the film, but I see where you're coming from.

 

[StarMan]

The Stig said:
But how many Trek fans really care about the design of the Enterprise remaining faithful to the original?

Certainly not me. The original ship only looks aesthetically pleasing from a couple of angles, IMO.

 

[dolim]

i beg to differ, but star trek is "a freakin' cult", for me and for many others out there. the next movie enterprise ship should stay true to the original as possible. the only change they should make is to reflect the fact that the story takes place before TOS shows.