K
ktanner3
Guest
Let the complaining begin.
Let the complaining begin.
Well, at least George Lucas isn't at the helm of this movie.
Star Trek - really shouldn't stick up its nose at a "Star Wars sensibility", it could do alot worse of an attitude and could only dream to be as mainstream. So ah... bring it on!
Sometimes Trek fans treat Star Trek as if its "above all that fun stuff because its just so much intellectually superior..." - that over all has been its undoing.
Sharr
Sometimes Trek fans treat Star Trek as if its "above all that fun stuff because its just so much intellectually superior..." - that over all has been its undoing.
Sharr
I couldn't ask for any more than that. Now, all he's got to do is deliver it.
Good for JJA...now deliver, please and thank you.
Hell, just deliver a slightly longer teaser before the end of summer, I'll be happy!
Obviously, you're right. Though, I'd like to point out that when Star Wars tried to do something akin to Star Trek VI (unintentionally on Lucas' part, of course), we got a nonsensical backdrop for the prequels.
If he's keen on feeding us some half breed love child of Lost and PhantomMenace I think J.J. Abrams will have finally jumped the shark
Well you all know that Abrams had Speilberg to come onto the Bridge a few weeks ago before shooting wrapped and helped give Abrams advise on how to shoot a particular action scene. Also earlier in the fall of last year Abrams was spotted with Lucas over lunch and they were discussing trek. Lucas ILM will be doing the SFX so no wonder after all of this that this movie will be action like star wars and that he is a big fan compared to trek.
We've mostly seen this previously, of course...
What he's SAYING is that he's telling a different sort of story than Trek has had for a long time, but setting it in the same situation. That's something that the majority of us are comfy with, it seems.
Most of the quibbling so far has been around the indications that this won't be "quite" the same Trek Universe we know. The more it seems to deviate, the more people get annoyed.
Recasting was a necessity (If they'd just cloned Shatner and Nimoy and Kelley and so forth, ya know?). And "improving the production values" is important too... and I don't know of anyone who really... REALLY... objects to either.
It's stuff like "The bridge is a two-story room with catwalks" or "The primary hull is as big as a Galaxy-class saucer" or so forth that really puts people off. Those are "big changes" that don't seem to serve any real purpose other than demonstrating that "we can make changes."
Shuttles not being pristine... makes sense. Uniforms changing... that's easy to see (especially given how often they've changed 'em in the past!) and really doesn't cause a logical problem... just a "why are they unable to pick a damned uniform and stick with it???" problem.
A ship changing from being ~1000 feet long in TOS to being ~3000 feet long in the trailer... THAT is an issue. And it's really the only thing that's seriously bugging me.
Other people can think whatever they want, of course.
Seat a baseball fan from the 1930s in Yankee Stadium today and he's going to be discombobulated. There are a lot of unfamiliar things for him to grasp. But the fundamental things that make it baseball are still present. Those things that attracted him to the game in the 1930s are still there. If he chooses to see them.
Same thing with Star Trek.
It's about avoiding not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Same thing with Star Trek.
It's about avoiding not being able to see the forest for the trees.
Nice analogy.
I don't mind change in Star Trek. I've watched all the series and movies, countless times. Maybe I miss understood the passage -- I thought since Abrams was a fan of Star Wars, that he was going to make this film more like Star Wars which is what I don't want. But if all his intentions are to just make the film different from what we've seen, then fine, I'm for it. Just keep Star Wars out of Trek is all I ask
Was there ever any onscreen reference to the TOS Enterprise being around 1000 feet long? I remember some printed reference or another (probably the old blueprints or the tech manual) stating that the ship was 947 feet long, but as we all know that ain't (insert the evil "c" word here). I just can't recall anything explicit ever being stated onscreen in any of the TOS episodes or movies.
I'm sure this film will be a lot more like "Star Wars" than previous Trek films have been, simply because the recent "Star Wars" films are modern adventure films with huge budgets and extensive utilization of the best effects technology available.
I'm a great deal more interested in the story and the performers than in the size or appearence of the Enterprise.
I'm a great deal more interested in the story and the performers than in the size or appearence of the Enterprise.
No complaints here. Sounds good, if he can pull it off.
If it keeps Trek going, then the change will be good. But even when I went to see The Phantom Menace, and when they mentioned "The Federation" in the film, I was like, great, because I thought Star Wars using copying Star Trek now and using the name Federation for their own. I'm not a fan of Star Wars, so I'm not sure if "The Federation" was ever used in the first three films.
I just don't see the point on mixing the two, is all I am saying.
I just don't see the point on mixing the two, is all I am saying.
Offhand, I can't think of one. However, given that we've seen crewmembers standing next to shuttlecraft, and we've seen shuttlecraft entering / exiting the Enterprise, someone with more interest in these things than me could extrapolate the size of the ship reasonably closely based on the relative scales. I assume the figure is based on that.
As long as it looks reasonably the same size to the naked eye, I'm fine with it. And given how poor I judge those types of things, it could be twice as big as the original, scale-wise, and I'd never notice.
Similar threads
- Locked
