Nowhere Man
Commodore
heres the conclusions mat on the floor and your jumping to it, besides he used the word essentally, which dosent mean exactly
Purist Sees The Light
- Thread starter VulcanJedi
- Start date
Clearheaded thinking, right here. I usually save judgment on things like "the hull font is not the original, what the hell?!?" till the 34th or 35th viewing, myself.
An excellent analogy. New tires, brake pads, add emission control devices . . . Upgrade. :thumbsup:decompiler said:
J.J. is bringing 1966 Star Trek into 2008 so that the next caretaker in his position can bring the series from 2008 into 2048.
Eventually you'll have no choice but to give the 'ole car a new set of tires.
Funny thing is that current industrially-grown fruits and vegetables actually DO taste different than those grown 40 years ago. It's not all that different, but there IS a difference. For one, they are harvested unripe in order to be more easily transported (less fragile) and then they are ripened during storage. Which is obviously different than the ripening process in the natural conditions (sun and such).
Of course, hardly anybody in big cities still remembers how a real apple or a real tomato should taste like. There is nothing like homegrown fruits and veggies, I say!
Heh, the point is you cant make two shows 40 years apart and expect them to be the same, theres going to be changes nomatter how hard you try.
Things from back then just dont work these days, just like things from today wont work back in those days. You can try to make it close enough to please as many people as possible but there is NO right answers. 40 years is a long time.
Things from back then just dont work these days, just like things from today wont work back in those days. You can try to make it close enough to please as many people as possible but there is NO right answers. 40 years is a long time.
Thank you Apogeal Alpha01!
Belar said:
No. You just have to flip in one of your TOS DVD's to enjoy some vintage Trek.
Yes, you're right. That too! We have 79 beautifully rendered technicolor episodes to enjoy. But, I think a "Beowolf" style animated series would be sweet and not unrealistic to expect.
Absolutely correct, it should NEVER be necessary for a casual viewer to know any of that stuff to be able to "get" what's going on. All the casual viewer really needs to know that this person with blue skin, feather-like hair and antennae is a PERSON and is playing a dramatic role in the story.
The only time this becomes an issue is if your wife remembers from one episode that the blue-skinned due with antennae was called an Andorian, but the next time she sees one of those guys he's called a "Fribbellion." If by some strange chance the casual viewer remembered that bit of otherwise unimportant trivia, and then is told something contradictory, that casual viewer will be turned off. Maybe not enough to stop watching... but if the show isn't good enough to totally captivate that audience member, it could be enough to cause that person to flip the channel or go see some other flick next time around. And in any case, that little bit of "cognitive dissonance" will result in a bad taste being left in the audience member's figurative mouth. Whether or not that's really significant will depend on just how OUTSTANDING everything else is, to compensate for that little negative.
That's really all "canon" is... not dragging up tons of trivia about what Janice Rand's cabin number is or what model of Samsonite luggage Kirk bought from the used 20th-century-luggage store in San Francisco.
It's about NOT CONTRADICTING STUFF THE AUDIENCE ALREADY KNOWS. Because EVERY SINGLE TIME you do that, you push the members of the audience that remember what you've just contradicted that much further away... and you have to work just that much harder to keep them as your audience.
It's not that we can't accept small changes, or NECESSARY and JUSTIFIABLE ones. I don't think anyone will have a kitten over bypassing the "wow, ion drive is sooo advanced" bit from "Spock's Brain." I don't have any problem with SMALL increases in the size of the Enterprise (so long as the general design isn't changed... say, 947' changing to 1080' just for example!). And obviously, short of full photorealistic CGI characters (which still can't be done) or cloning at levels far beyond anything we can envision doing, we simply can't have the characters look like they used to again, so recasting is a valid option there.
SOME changes are necessary. The trick is to keep them to a minimum, and avoid doing anything that will cause the audience to stop getting into the film and instead say "but that's not how I remember it."
ESPECIALLY with a recasting, the closer you can be to the original, the more likely the audience will be to accept the recast characters. If the actors look different, act different, and the SETTING is also dramatically different... the audience will be seeing something that will not even really REMIND them of the original... and so they'll be thinking "this isn't what I remember" instead of "this is a great story about characters and situations I already enjoy and appreciate."
Space... the altered frontier.
These are the voyages of the redesigned Enterprise.
Its five year mission... to not piss off its purist fans with its first film... to seek out new fans and new sequels.
To boldly change as much as we can get away with.
These are the voyages of the redesigned Enterprise.
Its five year mission... to not piss off its purist fans with its first film... to seek out new fans and new sequels.
To boldly change as much as we can get away with.
But let me ask you a question; What if she was watching, say, 'Master and Commander'
and instead of the British fighting the French, they're fighting the Japanese - and
the Japanese have aircraft carriers instead of sailing ships, and then instead of
cannons they have guided missiles, and when the battle's all done, instead of sitting
down to meal of hardtack and weevils, the cook brings in a bag of double Quarter
Pounders w/ cheese?
My point is, just because its fiction doesn't mean that you can change anything
you want. Even unimportant details have to be consistent with the fictional
history that you've established or you will cause the viewers belief in the story
that you're telling to fizzle and die. And just because Star Trek is Science
Fiction and takes place in a time period that hasn't yet happened, doesn't make
it any different.
The Star Trek universe has a wealth of detail that has been created over the last
40 years by a whole bunch of really talented people. That detail can and should
be used to add depth to the story that will give the viewer the feeling that this
is a real world with a real history.
Also, just because viewers like your wife don't know all that history, doesn't mean
its disposable. OK, you don't march out every trivial detail with a 'nod-nod,
wink-wink, see what a Star Trek geek I am'. You do it in the same way that every
other movie set in any real historical time period uses real and accurate details
about the time they are set in.
Its just the way that good movie-making is done. Its just the way that good
storytelling is done.
MAC
Apples and oranges. The events in "Master and Commander" may be fictional, but the history is real. "Star Trek" is completely made up, and can be rethought and rebooted in whatever way the creative folks think is worthwhile without violating a single actual fact.
I have to totally disagree with you. Apples and apples. A fictional story
set in the past and a fictional story set in the future. There is an established
history for the past that 'M&C' was set in and its pretty accurate for what was
shown, but guess what? There was no real ship that sailed that course and fought
those battles. Didn't happen. Star Trek is fictional, too, and a great chunk
of the 'history' of the time its set in is just as established. In fact, there is
more written about Lucky Jim than there is about Lucky Jack...
If JJ doesn't want to live in the Star Trek universe, he shouldn't be making
a supposed Star Trek movie. Its as simple as that.
MAC
:cough cough:
Yoda
:cough cough:
Gollum
...
Say, What about Spock being an emotionally red skinned Martian?
James Kirk having an R for his middle initial?
Uhura wearing pants?
Those are canon.
...
Still waiting....
Apples and oranges. History and fantasy.
The past happened. Trek doesn't take place in the future, it takes place in a fantasy world that is represented as being in the future.
It takes place in a real time. The past isn't "an established history;" it is history.
It's all made up out of whole cloth. The century in which "Master And Commander" takes place is not made up.
"The" Star Trek universe is an infinitely malleable collection of manufactured details; no one can live in it and no one ever did. I don't think that someone who "wants to live in the Star Trek universe" would probably be anyone realistic enough to trust with a hundred million dollars.
I say that if Abrams can do something entertaining and imaginative with "Star Trek" he should be making a Star Trek movie. Your opinion and mine are of equal value in this regard, since neither of us has been asked for permission or for more than eight bucks worth of approval.
In eleven months, the "Star Trek Universe" of J.J. Abrams will exist on exactly the same basis as those of Roddenberry and Bennett and Berman: as commercial fiction. Some people will like it and some people won't. The folks who dislike it won't, however, be able to do so from a perch of greater authority than those who do.
It's that simple.
Anyone concidered maybe having a brand new seperate Canon, like they have done with the newer Batman movies. Same characters, similar stories, totally different laws and rules.
Why does this movie have to fit inside the stuff done previously, why cant it be the start of a brand new Storyline.
Why does this movie have to fit inside the stuff done previously, why cant it be the start of a brand new Storyline.
Those are very nice-looking non-human characters. But you're arguing against something much different than what I was saying.
Show me a fully CGI HUMAN CHARACTER that we, who are entirely used to looking at actual human beings every single day of our lives can't pick out as not being real.
Show me, for instance, a fully CGI John Wayne who could fool people who know every John Wayne film by heart that they're seeing the real person.
I'm sorry, but YODA may have looked like a "realistic" little green gnome-dude, but he certainly wasn't likely to be confused with an actual human being. And Gollum was even less so. Gollum was FANTASTIC, don't get me wrong... the combination of Andy Sirkis's performance and the exceptional (for TODAY) CGI capabilities found in MAYA (which is my CGI tool of choice, by the way, though I'm a pure amateur, not a professional SFX artist) combined to make a character who we could forget wasn't real.
But... could you really have done the entire movie without Ian McKellan as Galdalf, but just a purely CGI actor in every single scene and not have the audience screaming "IT'S A FAAAAAAAAKE?"
You're not arguing against the point I was making... you're arguing against a totally different point. And in the process, really proving the point I was making... which is that we have yet to create fully believable CGI human beings. We will... EVENTUALLY. But that's still a ways down the road, and it will always take a fantastic ARTIST (say, a Rick Baker) and not just require some nifty software tools.
You believe otherwise? Create a CGI Deforest Kelley, and render a scene that can convince us all that he's still alive, or that you found "lost footage" of him from the 1960s, or whatever.
Preproduction concepts, never seen on screen or mentioned in dialog, don't count, any more than it counts that Luke Skywalker was female because at one point George Lucas considered that as an option.
Are you trying to argue against my point? If so, I'd think you'd choose to argue AGAINST MY POINT, and not restate elements which were part of my argument. I mean, this affects NOTHING. If you really want to be a stickler on that point... I like the idea that it was representing a nickname Gary Mitchell had given Kirk... though I'm not sure it needs to be "raquetball" as one Trek novel stated.
Picking out trivia... which I specifically stated wouldn't bug me if it were "sidestepped," provided that they don't MAKE AN EFFORT TO INTENTIONALLY CONTRADICT EITHER (say, by making Kirk's middle name "Frank")... is a fairly week argument style.
I'm sure Uhura also wore spacesuits, swimwear, and sexy lingerie, too... hell, she might have worn BONDAGE GEAR for all we know... but we'd never really know because all we know is what she wore during the TOS series (one gold skirt, a lot of red skirts, and one nightgown). I'd hazard a guess that during her life, and even her Starfleet career, she may have worn LOTS of different articles of clothing. Ya think?
"Still waiting?" What kind of a comment is that? I mean, it's not like I've been "ignoring" your posts for years... weeks... hours, even. So... why take such a confrontational tone? The answer is fairly evident, I think.Those are canon.
...
Still waiting....
You're trying to pick a fight with me. Why, exactly? Hmmm... I wonder if, if I were to let you bait me into anger, you and a few close buds would hit "report to mod?" Hmmm?
Well, for the CGI characters, they could almost pull something off like Beowulf. Most of the women looked very obviously like CGI, but many of the men looked very real in most cases. With a little tweaking, it's possible.
"James Kirk having an R for his middle initial?"
"Are you trying to argue against my point? If so, I'd think you'd choose to argue AGAINST MY POINT, and not restate elements which were part of my argument. I mean, this affects NOTHING. If you really want to be a stickler on that point... I like the idea that it was representing a nickname Gary Mitchell had given Kirk... though I'm not sure it needs to be "raquetball" as one Trek novel stated.
Picking out trivia... which I specifically stated wouldn't bug me if it were "sidestepped," provided that they don't MAKE AN EFFORT TO INTENTIONALLY CONTRADICT EITHER (say, by making Kirk's middle name "Frank")... is a fairly week argument style."
So, you would have no problem with an R? Cool! :grin:
"Uhura wearing pants"
"I'm sure Uhura also wore spacesuits, swimwear, and sexy lingerie, too... hell, she might have worn BONDAGE GEAR for all we know... but we'd never really know because all we know is what she wore during the TOS series (one gold skirt, a lot of red skirts, and one nightgown). I'd hazard a guess that during her life, and even her Starfleet career, she may have worn LOTS of different articles of clothing. Ya think?"
So, you have no problem with Uhura wearing pants in Star Trek XI? Cool! :grin:
"You're trying to pick a fight with me. Why, exactly? Hmmm... I wonder if, if I were to let you bait me into anger, you and a few close buds would hit "report to mod?" Hmmm?"
Nope.
I'm just interested in canon.
Oh, ya, what about Hikaru Sulu being the astrophysicist?
Dr. Piper being the CMO instead of Dr. Boyce?
Number One being the First Officer instead of Spock?
Allen being the communications officer instead of Uhura?
Tyler at the Helm instead of Chekov?
Oh heck, Christopher Pike as Captain of the Enterprise instead of James R. Kirk?
"Are you trying to argue against my point? If so, I'd think you'd choose to argue AGAINST MY POINT, and not restate elements which were part of my argument. I mean, this affects NOTHING. If you really want to be a stickler on that point... I like the idea that it was representing a nickname Gary Mitchell had given Kirk... though I'm not sure it needs to be "raquetball" as one Trek novel stated.
Picking out trivia... which I specifically stated wouldn't bug me if it were "sidestepped," provided that they don't MAKE AN EFFORT TO INTENTIONALLY CONTRADICT EITHER (say, by making Kirk's middle name "Frank")... is a fairly week argument style."
So, you would have no problem with an R? Cool! :grin:
"Uhura wearing pants"
"I'm sure Uhura also wore spacesuits, swimwear, and sexy lingerie, too... hell, she might have worn BONDAGE GEAR for all we know... but we'd never really know because all we know is what she wore during the TOS series (one gold skirt, a lot of red skirts, and one nightgown). I'd hazard a guess that during her life, and even her Starfleet career, she may have worn LOTS of different articles of clothing. Ya think?"
So, you have no problem with Uhura wearing pants in Star Trek XI? Cool! :grin:
"You're trying to pick a fight with me. Why, exactly? Hmmm... I wonder if, if I were to let you bait me into anger, you and a few close buds would hit "report to mod?" Hmmm?"
Nope.
I'm just interested in canon.Oh, ya, what about Hikaru Sulu being the astrophysicist?
Dr. Piper being the CMO instead of Dr. Boyce?
Number One being the First Officer instead of Spock?
Allen being the communications officer instead of Uhura?
Tyler at the Helm instead of Chekov?
Oh heck, Christopher Pike as Captain of the Enterprise instead of James R. Kirk?
Tomato, I never thought I would say this, but I think you should probably avoid quote-coding and just stick with using "".
<EDIT> And as soon as I make a commentary, you have to go and fix it, so no one will know what the hell I going off about
<EDIT> And as soon as I make a commentary, you have to go and fix it, so no one will know what the hell I going off about
