And I agree with that approach.
What I mean is that TOS fans need to stop clingin to the old interpretation of Trek to the exclusion of all others. This seriously reminds me of the same complaints pre-TNG.
-Shawn
No, it isn't. You're missing the point. The point is Don't make stupid mistakes! I love creative change! I hate obviously stupid flaws which make ST painful to watch.
How is 40 years of post-TOS Trek relevant to a pre-TOS story? We already have a 24th century Spock, fresh from Vulcan/Romulus reunification efforts, going back in time to stop a renegade Romulan from undoing it all.I don't know what show you were watching, but TOS was anything but consistent and scientifically realistic. Star Trek doesn't make things up when it wants to tell a story? Do you remember A Piece of the Action, or Abraham Lincoln? For Christ's sake...
You are completely correct. I am not talking about the obviously bad decisions, mistakes and screw-ups along the way. TOS was made under tremendous time pressures, with low budgets, and all kinds of other constraints, just like all Star Trek often is, but that is one of the reasons for making a movie from a TV premise. Hopefully one has the time, money and resources to do things right, and eliminate stupid mistakes.
The point is, Star Trek TRIES to follow a construct. I am not saying that they always get or got it right. Goodness knows they didn't, and much of Star Trek is horrible, but when it is good, it can be really, really good. That is why bad ST frustrates fans - there is so much potential in the groundwork already laid - it disappoints so much when it misses the mark.
As far as TOS, it is very true that in the creation of the series, believability was a highly over-riding factor in making decisions. Much of this ground work got tossed aside as the pressure of making the show set in, and GR and other talented people left for hopefully greener pastures. Honestly, much of early ST is CRAP, I'm not blind to it.
The thing about stuff from TOS contradicting the concept I am putting forward is that anything from TOS was created awfully early in the creation of the construct. ST has now had 40 years of development, refinement and review. A dumb mistake now is much more glaring than something far more stupid done way back then. Does anyone seriously believe that the makers of TOS actually believed anyone would be discussing series continuity 40 years later? I doubt it.
Your response strikes me as arguing about the kind of details that I as a ST fan regard as unimportant. Focus on the global message, and please take it easy... Christ's sake is far more important than any of this friendly discussion.
This line really confuses me (maybe I'm too stupid to understand what you're saying). I didn't see a scene with Kirk on a "space motorcycle" flying anywhere.
Here's the thing: You wrote that essay and this one based on A FLIPPIN' TRAILER!I don't know what show you were watching, but TOS was anything but consistent and scientifically realistic. Star Trek doesn't make things up when it wants to tell a story? Do you remember A Piece of the Action, or Abraham Lincoln? For Christ's sake...
You are completely correct. I am not talking about the obviously bad decisions, mistakes and screw-ups along the way. TOS was made under tremendous time pressures, with low budgets, and all kinds of other constraints, just like all Star Trek often is, but that is one of the reasons for making a movie from a TV premise. Hopefully one has the time, money and resources to do things right, and eliminate stupid mistakes.
The point is, Star Trek TRIES to follow a construct. I am not saying that they always get or got it right. Goodness knows they didn't, and much of Star Trek is horrible, but when it is good, it can be really, really good. That is why bad ST frustrates fans - there is so much potential in the groundwork already laid - it disappoints so much when it misses the mark.
As far as TOS, it is very true that in the creation of the series, believability was a highly over-riding factor in making decisions. Much of this ground work got tossed aside as the pressure of making the show set in, and GR and other talented people left for hopefully greener pastures. Honestly, much of early ST is CRAP, I'm not blind to it.
The thing about stuff from TOS contradicting the concept I am putting forward is that anything from TOS was created awfully early in the creation of the construct. ST has now had 40 years of development, refinement and review. A dumb mistake now is much more glaring than something far more stupid done way back then. Does anyone seriously believe that the makers of TOS actually believed anyone would be discussing series continuity 40 years later? I doubt it.
Your response strikes me as arguing about the kind of details that I as a ST fan regard as unimportant. Focus on the global message, and please take it easy... Christ's sake is far more important than any of this friendly discussion.
Here's the thing: You wrote that essay and this one based on A FLIPPIN' TRAILER!I don't know what show you were watching, but TOS was anything but consistent and scientifically realistic. Star Trek doesn't make things up when it wants to tell a story? Do you remember A Piece of the Action, or Abraham Lincoln? For Christ's sake...
You are completely correct. I am not talking about the obviously bad decisions, mistakes and screw-ups along the way. TOS was made under tremendous time pressures, with low budgets, and all kinds of other constraints, just like all Star Trek often is, but that is one of the reasons for making a movie from a TV premise. Hopefully one has the time, money and resources to do things right, and eliminate stupid mistakes.
The point is, Star Trek TRIES to follow a construct. I am not saying that they always get or got it right. Goodness knows they didn't, and much of Star Trek is horrible, but when it is good, it can be really, really good. That is why bad ST frustrates fans - there is so much potential in the groundwork already laid - it disappoints so much when it misses the mark.
As far as TOS, it is very true that in the creation of the series, believability was a highly over-riding factor in making decisions. Much of this ground work got tossed aside as the pressure of making the show set in, and GR and other talented people left for hopefully greener pastures. Honestly, much of early ST is CRAP, I'm not blind to it.
The thing about stuff from TOS contradicting the concept I am putting forward is that anything from TOS was created awfully early in the creation of the construct. ST has now had 40 years of development, refinement and review. A dumb mistake now is much more glaring than something far more stupid done way back then. Does anyone seriously believe that the makers of TOS actually believed anyone would be discussing series continuity 40 years later? I doubt it.
Your response strikes me as arguing about the kind of details that I as a ST fan regard as unimportant. Focus on the global message, and please take it easy... Christ's sake is far more important than any of this friendly discussion.
You nor any of us have absolutely no idea if or how much they've have strayed away from the 'construct.'
And if you take a look at any of the Trek film trailers they all look like a 'Jerry Bruckheimer film.' There hasn't been a Trek film that hasn't higlighted the action scenes. That's how they get people to go see it.
Save the manifesto for at least 7 months, could you?
-Shawn
This line really confuses me (maybe I'm too stupid to understand what you're saying). I didn't see a scene with Kirk on a "space motorcycle" flying anywhere.
I DID see a cop on a hover-craft cycle, and I saw Kirk on a traditional-style wheeled motorcycle, but I didn't see anything about Kirk flying up to a space dock.
Perhaps you were being sarcastic, and the sarcasm just flew over my head?
Why? Seriously, why is it more believable to build in space? I've seen several people say this, but I don't see the logic of it. The Enterprise is supposed to be an incredibly advanced machine with enormous capabilities. Why can't it just fly from the ground? Surely energy isn't a problem, I mean they do go really fast, which I'm sure requires a lot more energy.
Um... warp drives make sense? Dematerializing a person (read: killing them) and recreating them, memories and all makes sense? Sorry, those ideas are two that I've almost always had a hard time grasping my brain about. Its called suspension of disbelief and I'm okay with that.
Wow... so that whole rant was to complain about the ship being built on Earth.
You have not seen the entire film yet. You cannot ascertain what exactly is going to occur based upon two minutes of footage. You cannot be certain that the ship is brought up using rockets in full, in part or transported in part. Stop jumping to conclusions and attacking the film before you even see it! Plus, you don't know how they're going to do it. You talk about all these "rules" and "believability", ignoring the idea of suspension of disbelief. Has it occurred to you that perhaps in this future, there may be some sort of a technology that we haven't seen yet that applies to all of your "rules" that would make it "believable" for the Enterprise to actually be brought up into space in one piece? Its over 250 years in the future. Ya never know what's going to happen between now and then!I can't believe I feel the need to argue this point, but here we go: Star Trek, the series, was created in 1964. The designs of the ship will not hold up on the big screen for a modern audience 45 years later! I'm not overly fond of the bridge but its because its too busy in my opinion, but it works for trying to bring, Star Trek, the film, into the year 2009. I believe very much so that the creative team "gets it" much more than you seem to give them credit for. They are trying to bring in new fans into the fold.
Why don't you wait until the movie is released and you know what its really about before you attack the plot?
Who cares what the current Star Trek fans think? Honestly, that's the attitude of TPTB and if it isn't, it should be! I honestly don't care. If I love it, awesome! I have a new DVD to add to my collection! If I don't... well, I still have 700 hours of Star Trek, a lot of which I love, a lot of which I can't stand, that I can go back and watch.
:Looks at watch: Looks like he was about right on the money there.
Sounds to me like you've already made your decision.
Huh??? This film has been in production since 2006 and has $170 million invested in it. So your suggesting that the trailer is the sum total of the entire budget and time involved to produce this film?Here's the thing: You wrote that essay and this one based on A FLIPPIN' TRAILER!
You nor any of us have absolutely no idea if or how much they've have strayed away from the 'construct.'
And if you take a look at any of the Trek film trailers they all look like a 'Jerry Bruckheimer film.' There hasn't been a Trek film that hasn't higlighted the action scenes. That's how they get people to go see it.
Save the manifesto for at least 7 months, could you?
-Shawn
The Flippin Trailer took almost as long and as much money as the movie to make.
