OK, I trudged through the entire post and thread somehow. Let's see what we can do here...
1)You keep telling the same bland stories over and over again. Not because they're out of ideas. But because they're out of ideas that fit into that "construct"
2)You put the franchise down and say, "It's had a good run."
3) Yuo cast off all these rules, and that dreaded canon. Try to stay consistant in some areas, try to make sure it stays recognizable as being Star Trek, don't throw all the history away, but start fresh. Throw away what you have to in order to turn out a good product. Once that limitation of, "It's not canon!!!" is gone, the possibility for story telling goes up. I can't speak for anyone else, but this is my favorite option.
Also, it is silly to expect a show or movie made 40 years after the original to adhere to the same design fundamentals of 40 years ago. If TPTB think they can make the same ship look better, then there is no reason why they shouldn't simply because that's not how it was back then.
)
I know I had other point fro the rest of the thread that I wanted to go after, but this will suffice for now. I'm sure I will come back across them later.
Emphasis mine. That is exactly why JJ needs to take the reigns of this franchise and do what he has to do. Star Trek has 40+ years of "rules", canon, and continuity to work around. At what point do you decide that the construct is bloated, over-filled, and too limiting to do any real story telling? And, when that point is reached, you only have three options, with only two of them being any good.
1)You keep telling the same bland stories over and over again. Not because they're out of ideas. But because they're out of ideas that fit into that "construct"
2)You put the franchise down and say, "It's had a good run."
3) Yuo cast off all these rules, and that dreaded canon. Try to stay consistant in some areas, try to make sure it stays recognizable as being Star Trek, don't throw all the history away, but start fresh. Throw away what you have to in order to turn out a good product. Once that limitation of, "It's not canon!!!" is gone, the possibility for story telling goes up. I can't speak for anyone else, but this is my favorite option.
Also, it is silly to expect a show or movie made 40 years after the original to adhere to the same design fundamentals of 40 years ago. If TPTB think they can make the same ship look better, then there is no reason why they shouldn't simply because that's not how it was back then.
The only difference between this and what you decribed for Star Wars is that in Star Wars, if they need something, they just do it. In Star Trek, if they need something, they just do it, but with extreneous exposition explaining why it's doing what they want. Doesn't have to make any sense or be real, but the fact that it's explained is the only difference between Trek tech ans Wars tech.
Again, very minor difference. Star Trek inspires people to go into certain careers. But Star Wars can inspire in different ways. It can show folks the type of person they want to be (and mainly, I'm looking at the original trilogy). We have Luke, the nobody who steps up for a cause and does great things. There's Han, the criminal who's brave in the face of danger, dashing, and drops his comforable smuggling life in order to help a good cause. Star Trek inspires careers because it dwells on the science. Star Wars inspires people because it dwells (dwelled?) on the characters and who they are.
Have you seen Deep Space Nine? You want to talk about making bad decisions or doing the wrong thing, these guys got PHd's in it. And you know what? They were interesting and they were believable, to use your own word. If you want to talk about unbelievable, it's people who always make the right decision every time. And making them have something that conflicts them doesn't add any believability. They really need to be realistic characters for the believability you want, not the Universal Doers of Good that Trek characters tend to be painted as.
I have to agree with many of the posters above me... why doesn't it make sense? They can use thrusters to lift off into space. It can be tractored into space. They can use anti-grav lifts to get into space. It can be assembled on the ground, tested, broken into smaller chunks, and then put back together. Aerodynamics? No problem. They have sheilds. They can take on decents into the atmosphere, going into the upper parts of a star, and battles. I think they can with stand a little bit of ascent.
Ummm... Trekkies already hate Star Trek. Trekkies have been turning on Trek pretty bad in recent years, and as I've said in other threads, we have proven that we can't be relied on when products are churned out and directed at the fans. It is only logical to not try and make what the fans would call "Good Trek", but rather make what people will consider a good movie. If they make a good movie, then it won't matter what us fans will think (we'll probably be bitter about the product, no matter how you add it up). And, I seriously doubt that regular people are going to look to Trek fans for advice because we are the laughing stock of the fan world, mainly do to our fighting and bickering over such things as canon.
Contradicting yourself a wee bit. Those other two franchises set rules as well, so why are they open to reinterpretation? Also, Star Trek breaks its own rules all the time. The only difference between that and the new Trek is that Abrams is breaking a lot of rules at once and he is being ballsy about it. He's not tap dancing around it or sneaking it in in the form of a minor reference. I don't know about anyone else, but I like respecting someone who knows what he needs to do, and is willing to cheat to get it done (and you know who elses did that? Kirk. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
) I don't know. I recognise it so far.
I know I had other point fro the rest of the thread that I wanted to go after, but this will suffice for now. I'm sure I will come back across them later.
