Cary L. Brown said:
VonHelton said:No doubt it *WILL* be redesigned,
No doubt huh? You get that directly from the production staff?
You may well think it's LIKELY, and you might even turn out to be RIGHT (though I doubt it). But there's A LOT OF DOUBT as to what you just said, whether you recognize it or not.
so might as well look forward to it, folks.
You've been very clear all along that you WANT it to be "redesigned" and have been equally clear that you think that the original show is "dated" and so forth. So you've been "looking forward" to this all along. No problem. But the majority of people, both on this board and, evidently, in the general population don't share your opinion.
The "majority opinion" I got when I put this to a vote on here was "like the original with a finer degree of polish" with "mostly like the original with some new details added" coming in second. The LOWEST rated item in the poll was "something totally new." I'm guessing that you could very well be the person who voted for that one, huh?
You're welcome to your opinion, but that's ALL it is.
If we built the Big E today, it would look nothing like it's 60's counterpart.
Um... first off, if we built it today, FOR REAL... we couldn't. So that item is totally off-the-table. I have to assume that, therefore, you meant to say "If we design a new model of the 'Big E' today, without 40 years of Trek history, without Matt Jeffries doing the design, without any of that... it would look nothing like the original design." Which is true, but totally irrelevant. We are not talking about creating a new show. We are talking about recreating elements of something that already exists in the minds of the overwhelming majority of the potential audience. We are talking about things that are so utterly ICONIC that they are immediately recognizable by the majority of people on the planet.
You want to do a totally new design? Do one. Make it the best you can. You want totally new characters? Create them. Make them the best that you can.
But don't attempt to fool the audience into thinking that they're the same people. You can talk about how "name recognition" is what will bring people to the theater... that's true, to an extent. But if you then pull the rug out from under them and show them something that directly contradicts stuff that's basically hard-wired into their brains, yet tell them that it's the "same thing"... they'll either see it as a farce, or they'll leave the theater pissed.
I know you hate the original show, think it's hokey, etc, etc. Fine... good for you. Go watch something else. Make your own show with your own ship and your own characters... but don't call it "Star Trek" and don't call the ship the Enterprise or the characters by the same names we know, unless you intend to make it "fit" with what we know.
You think you can come up with a better version of Star Trek than what was created 40+ years ago and which still has an audience? I'll watch to see how much staying power your desired "improvements" have... I'm betting that, like virtually all of the half-assed "new versions of old stuff" we've had over the past few years, it'll be forgotten as quickly as it shows up.
Things that are called "classic" are called that because they've EARNED it. You want to "reimagine" a classic... expect the audience to call you what you are... an idiot. The audiences have ignored every "reimagined" version of "A Miracle on 42nd Street" (or whatever street it was...). But the original remains a classic. Attempts to remake "The Maltese Falcon" have failed. Attempts to "add to" "Gone with the Wind" have failed. And I'd LOVE to see someone seriously attempt to do a remake of "The Andy Griffith Show" or "I Love Lucy." You just can't do it, and you'll alienate the audience in the process.
voted for either "like the original with a finer degree of polish" with "mostly like the original with some new details added" coming in second. this poll really cant show what general movie audience like too see. I will hope that there will be redesign Enterprise smillier to ENT E in XI.
