My Conclusion: STXI = Reboot

[Cary L. Brown]

Therin of Andor said:

xortex said:
J.J. should really concentrate on other things than that which went right for TOS instead of substituting his own idea for what is more right than Roddenberries' TOS.

It's not that Abrams thinks he is "more right" than Roddenberry. TOS was made for the sensibilities of a TV audience of the 1960s that had not yet seen man conquer the moon. ST XI is being made for the cinema-going, tech-savvy general public of 2008.

My only major argument with what you just said is that, let's be honest here, people today are no more "tech savvy" than they were then.

Yes, the average man-on-the-street has an IPod and a cell phone. But he (or she) has NO IDEA ON EARTH HOW IT WORKS.

Yes, the average person knows how to click a mouse. But has no idea what actually happens inside of a computer.

Yes, the average person knows how to stick a key in the ignition and press down the pedals to make the car go, but has no idea what's actually happening inside of the various mechanisms under the hood.

Actually, from that standpoint, if anything, the "average person" today is a lot LESS "tech savvy" than they used to be. At least back then, most guys knew how to adjust the timing on their engine, properly gap their spark plugs, etc. Today, most men are incapable even of that sort of simple stuff.

Yes, the technology has moved ahead, but for MOST people, they're further-removed from understanding it, not closer to understanding it. It might as well be MAGIC for all the understanding that your "average person on the street" has of how these things work.

As is so well illustrated by the innane comments by Berman and Co, and by many on this board for that matter, that today's cell phones are "more advanced" than the classic TOS communicator.

Hell, most people here can't even apply basic reasoning, it seems... based upon the fact that so many people seem not to see why making everything "touch screens" isn't necessarily an improvement over having tactile controls.

I don't fundamentally disagree with your posted point... only with the proposition that "today's audiences are more tech savvy." In my experience, most people today are every bit as clueless, and IMHO are usually MORE clueless, about their "magical toys" than people were a few decades ago.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

It's also interesting to note that the elements of DS9's "Trials And Tribble-ations" which did not out of necessity have to match more or less exaclty with the pre-existing TOS footage were indeed subtly redesigned and updated. People with a careful eye would notice that Greg Jein's Enterprise had different proportions and details from the actual filming model used in TOS, and they even went so far as to add colors and textures to the Klingon battlecruiser that were more in line with TMP's updated version than the original. The same is true of ENT's "In A Mirror, Darkly" where both the interiors and exteriors of the Defiant were slightly modified from its TOS incarnation.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Cary L. Brown said:
But has no idea what actually happens inside of a computer.

Maybe not, but today's school students are taught how to do efficient searches on Google, and they know which piece of tech will help them achieve their goals. They are thus savvy about technology and what it can bring them. I never said that they knew how to build a computer from the ground up.

Today's kids scoff at the production values of TOS because it was made for the 60s. They are not going to pay to sit through a movie length version of a TOS TV episode on the big screen. They will be anticipating a TOS-era movie, with lots of nostalgia for their parents and grandparents, but made for 2008. And that's what JJ has promised.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

People are far more sophisticated about technology now, in the sense that they accept "magical" gadgetry as commonplace consumer goods.

Not only would flip-top communicators or handheld tricorders and somesuch not seem exotic or futuristic to an audience today, but there are no variations of such fantasy technology that filmmakers could come up with in practical terms that would really attract the attention or capture the imagination of most viewers today.

It'd all just be shrugged at as next year's or next decade's Apple-made toy.

So, they may as well just stick with the old-fashioned TOS communicators - people will see it as a variation of a plain old telephone, yeah, but there's nothing they can attach to it that would make it any more than that.

 

[ancient]

I agree that people today will be way way less impressed with the techy aspect of the film no matter what. Even things like the button-sized transporter in NEM barely raise an eyebrow today.

We're a long way from people wanting to know how they get the doors to open all by themselves.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

There's also one other point to remember.

TOS tried, and usually succeeded, to make the technology seem like "tools" rather than as "cool technology." In other words, they didn't want to have to explain how a phaser works every time it gets used... only that if you point it and shoot someone, it stuns them or kills them or disintigrates them or whatever.

If you make the audience NOTICE the technology, rather than see it as a means to an end, you've lost sight of the reason it's there.

The tricorder is there to serve a story purpose. As is the phaser, the communicator, the bridge, etc.

If a change is to be made, it needs to (1) not serve to distract the audience from the storytelling, and (2) needs to be made to serve a particular purpose within that storytelling.

Otherwise, it's worse than wasted effort... it hurts the production.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Cary L. Brown said:
If you make the audience NOTICE the technology

I never said that JJ Abrams was trying to get people to notice technology. I think he's clever enough to follow Roddenberry's old example of a policeman or cowboy in a 50s TV show not explaining how his gun works before firing it.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Therin of Andor said:

Cary L. Brown said:
If you make the audience NOTICE the technology

I never said that JJ Abrams was trying to get people to notice technology. I think he's clever enough to follow Roddenberry's old example of a policeman or cowboy in a 50s TV show not explaining how his gun works before firing it.

Wasn't suggesting you were. My "beefs" with what you've said are quite minor. Mainly with what I suspect you think that "modern audiences" expect versus what they'd get if a reasonably faithful recreation of TOS were given to them. With the exception of the horrific overuse of lighting gels, the vaseline on the lens every time they did a female close-up, and a few very "period" aspects of female make-up and costuming, most of TOS is fairly "timeless." Very little of it, if given a "more dollars spent" polish, would really distract a "modern audience."

 

[Opus]

The Mighty Monkey of Mim said:
It's also interesting to note that the elements of DS9's "Trials And Tribble-ations" which did not out of necessity have to match more or less exaclty with the pre-existing TOS footage were indeed subtly redesigned and updated. People with a careful eye would notice that Greg Jein's Enterprise had different proportions and details from the actual filming model used in TOS, and they even went so far as to add colors and textures to the Klingon battlecruiser that were more in line with TMP's updated version than the original. The same is true of ENT's "In A Mirror, Darkly" where both the interiors and exteriors of the Defiant were slightly modified from its TOS incarnation.

But this is just picking at nits at this point. At first glance at both those episodes, did your mind say, "TOS!" or did it say, "That hue of orange is slightly different and the bridge is 4cm shorter by the turbolift doors." Of course it said the former. And this has nothing to do with the dramatic updates they are doing for STXI. No matter what tiny changes were made in those episodes, they were trying to recreate TOS. And every incarnation of Trek, from the TOS movies, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT have established and acknowledged the look and feel of TOS as canon.

STXI is changing TOS canon. It's now a re-image, re-boot, re-thought, re-invention, whatever.

But whatever you want to call it, it is the first time in Trek's long history that TOS itself is getting changed. I'm not saying it's good, bad, necessary, unnecessary, great, horrible, going to bring world peace or the Tribulation. I'm simply acknowledging that this is the very first time TOS is not going to be what it has always been known as in Trek lore.

 

[blaXXer]

How so? It's just another prequel...heck, we survived ENT and TAS, so whats gonna be different now? oh, yeah different actors and changed costumes.
Maybe I am not as zealous as you folks, but I simply fail to see the need to debate such stuff ad nausaeum since nothing concrete has been revealed as of yet. I can go either way.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

OphaClyde said:But this is just picking at nits at this point. At first glance at both those episodes, did your mind say, "TOS!" or did it say, "That hue of orange is slightly different and the bridge is 4cm shorter by the turbolift doors." Of course it said the former. And this has nothing to do with the dramatic updates they are doing for STXI.

And here's the crux of the argument.

You believe that they're doing "dramatic updates" for this film.

Do you KNOW that's the case? Other than having other actors in the roles of known characters, and that we've seen some costumes that don't look familar (but are not necessarily, as far as we know, intended to be IN PLACE OF stuff we already know), what do you actually KNOW so far?

Bottom line... if it turns out that you're right about the dramatic updates being IN PLACE OF classic TOS designs, I'll probably end up agreeing with you.

But we do not know that's the case right now. Really, seriously, we DON'T. We don't know JACK about the CONTEXT of those tiny details we've seen so far. Do we?

Doesn't mean that this flick will treat TOS respectfully. Or that the movie won't be a total travesty in all areas, for that matter. As far as we know, it could.

We really... honestly... DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH TO COMMENT at this point.

Unless someone here is on the production team, AND is breaking non-disclosure agreements he or she signed up to, there's NO ONE here who's talking about what's really happening on this movie.

Relax. Don't go jumping to conclusions without sufficient facts to prove the conclusions you're reaching are actually TRUE.

No matter what tiny changes were made in those episodes, they were trying to recreate TOS. And every incarnation of Trek, from the TOS movies, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT have established and acknowledged the look and feel of TOS as canon.

STXI is changing TOS canon. It's now a re-image, re-boot, re-thought, re-invention, whatever.

But whatever you want to call it, it is the first time in Trek's long history that TOS itself is getting changed.

Again, other than the known (and unavoidable) fact that the original actors aren't available or the correct age to play the roles in the timeframe being presented, we do not know that ANYTHING is getting changed.

We've seen a few costumes, in blurry shots. They might be intended as "replacements for the originals." Or they could represent some entirely different uniform, which may have "always been there" but we've just never seen before. Can you say for certain that this is not true?

Don't put TOO much stock into the internet-rumor-site stories about the plot of the film. If I were JJ Abrams or one of his team (or even just a personal friend of his), I might take it upon myself to spread a few false rumors... get interest stirred up and have enough different stories floating out there that nobody will guess the REAL storyline (or, if bits of that real storyline are leaked, they'll be treated as no more reliable than all the other contradictory rumors).

This movie could be horrific. It could be great. It might totally redefine everything we "know" about TOS. It might redefine NOTHING about TOS.

We simply don't know. Don't jump to conclusions in the absence of data. That's all I'm saying.

If it really does redefine everything, throw away the TOS we know... I'll be right there with you guys with my pitchfork and torch.

I'm not saying it's good, bad, necessary, unnecessary, great, horrible, going to bring world peace or the Tribulation. I'm simply acknowledging that this is the very first time TOS is not going to be what it has always been known as in Trek lore.

And you're saying it before you could possibly KNOW it. We'll know for sure, soon enough.

 

[Holytomato]

"Not only would flip-top communicators or handheld tricorders and somesuch not seem exotic or futuristic to an audience today, but there are no variations of such fantasy technology that filmmakers could come up with in practical terms that would really attract the attention or capture the imagination of most viewers today."

the Val Kilmer movie "Red Planet", and an episode of the cgi Spiderman animated series have an epaper tricorder.

roll up tricorders! :thumbsup:

Instead of flatscreen LCD monitors as seen in ENT show plastic windows that create the image.

Instead of the TOS communicators, show the cellphone headsets. Kirk & Co. can still lose them in the TOS Tradition TM.

"I'm simply acknowledging that this is the very first time TOS is not going to be what it has always been known as in Trek lore."

See my post above. Remember Spock from "The Cage"? "The WOMEN!?" He originally was a Martian, (Red skin) and emotional then for WNMHGB his character was combined with Number One's. His skin changed to green and he became logical. It's 1964. "The Cage". Remember? Should Spock become red skinned, emotional, and a Martian again?

Lastly, TAS isn't a prequel its a sequel to TOS. :thumbsup:

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

OphaClyde said:

The Mighty Monkey of Mim said:
It's also interesting to note that the elements of DS9's "Trials And Tribble-ations" which did not out of necessity have to match more or less exaclty with the pre-existing TOS footage were indeed subtly redesigned and updated. People with a careful eye would notice that Greg Jein's Enterprise had different proportions and details from the actual filming model used in TOS, and they even went so far as to add colors and textures to the Klingon battlecruiser that were more in line with TMP's updated version than the original. The same is true of ENT's "In A Mirror, Darkly" where both the interiors and exteriors of the Defiant were slightly modified from its TOS incarnation.

But this is just picking at nits at this point. At first glance at both those episodes, did your mind say, "TOS!" or did it say, "That hue of orange is slightly different and the bridge is 4cm shorter by the turbolift doors." Of course it said the former. And this has nothing to do with the dramatic updates they are doing for STXI. No matter what tiny changes were made in those episodes, they were trying to recreate TOS. And every incarnation of Trek, from the TOS movies, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT have established and acknowledged the look and feel of TOS as canon.

STXI is changing TOS canon. It's now a re-image, re-boot, re-thought, re-invention, whatever.

But whatever you want to call it, it is the first time in Trek's long history that TOS itself is getting changed. I'm not saying it's good, bad, necessary, unnecessary, great, horrible, going to bring world peace or the Tribulation. I'm simply acknowledging that this is the very first time TOS is not going to be what it has always been known as in Trek lore.

See, it's all relative, though. They may have changed only a little, but they did change stuff in DS9. ENT changed a little bit more. TOSR is changing even more. We don't know how much this film is going to change, but so far I haven't heard anything that makes me think it's going to be so drastic as to invalidate whatever we've seen previously. Someone said the Enterprise was redesigned, but no one said it was going to look completely different. So far, everyone is pretty much saying that they're staying respectful of the canon.

Also don't forget that it seems fairly clear that at least parts of this movie do NOT take place during TOS, but during earlier and later eras. The precedents that have already been set regarding how drastically things can change both stylistically and structurally in a short span of time in Trek indicate that there will probably be plenty of wiggle room to maintain a reasonable sense of continuity.

Your reaction seems arbitrary. You're trying to draw some kind of line in the sand between the the level of retconning that's occurred in the past and what's going to occur in the film, but you don't even know what that's going to be.

-MMoM

 

[Theodore Jay Miller]

Cary L. Brown said:
The best way to look at all this is to pretend that there's a "REAL" version of Star Trek that actually happened (or "will happen") and back in the 1960s, they did their best to replicate that "real" Star Trek, and did so as successfully as they could within the limitations of 1960s technology and a TV show budget.

The 1960s TV show was a pretty close approximation, but it was rough around the edges in some areas, in other words.

If they do a new version, what they need to keep in mind is not "how can we redesign all of this" but rather "how can we better approximate what the 'real' versions of these, which were the targets of the 1960s show's design work as well, would be like?"

We still don't have real 23rd-century technology, so whatever they do will still be an approximation of this mythical "real version." But they can make it "match up" a little bit better in some ways.

The trick is to keep in mind that there's a common "real" version, never actually seen by any of us, that both are striving to approximate.

This mindset allows you to EXPAND, and to IMPROVE, but not to overtly CONTRADICT.

Your shuttle interior comments, for instance, are perfect.

I'd want to see a fold-out visual scanner device, ideally with a roughly spherical body shape. But it need not be an EXACT match for what was done, on a shoestring budget, back in 1966.

You could then say that we're just seeing something closer to what it "always really looked like."

THAT is the way to "update" things. Not to redesign just for the hell of it, to give some "arteeest" an ego boost, or whatever.

I'd agree with that. Don't think of TOS as a window looking into the Trek universe; think of it as a dramatic representation of that universe.

For example, if you can see in a TOS scene that it's a stunt double for Kirk rather than William Shatner, that's not a reason to say that Kirk's face changes during a fight; it's just a flaw in the representation. Or if two unrelated characters look identical, that doesn't mean they're mysterious duplicates; it means that the same actor was used to represent similar-but-non-identical characters.

With STXI, even though some artistic details will vary, that's just part of the representation; it's still a dramatic representation of the same underlying Trek universe.