"I'll say this for him...he's consistent"
Actually, I agree that the design of the Enterprise - especially the exterior is pretty timeless. I hope they don't change it, and I'm fairly certain they won't (much)...
Interior looks dated though.
Retro Look Good Enough for Another Sci Fi Remake
- Thread starter Basil
- Start date
"I'll say this for him...he's consistent"
Actually, I agree that the design of the Enterprise - especially the exterior is pretty timeless. I hope they don't change it, and I'm fairly certain they won't (much)...
Interior looks dated though.
It could have been better-executed, but in concept, it was pretty much the only possible ending. If you watch the lead-up already knowing where they're going with it, it's also very clear that it was the intended ending from the start....although they kept the setup perhaps too subtle, because everyone is always surprised their first time through.
Neither one was all that great, but Crusade at least seemed better than B5's first year. Given the sample set of B5 and Jeremiah, it seems clear that JMS likes using the first year to do standalone stuff to establish the story and characters, and then add the arcs in year 2, so I'm sure they could have improved given time. However, as things stand, they're definitely weak spots.
Quite possibly.
Of The Lord of the Rings and a few other things, yeah, a bit. Of Star Trek, not so much.
The budget was about half that of TNG at the time, and the results are quite evident in the sets. But like the pioneering (read: primitive) CGI work, it's all just part of the charm if you look at it the right way.
number6
Vice Admiral
I don't really think the bridge looks dated at all. It looked great when they recreated it for IAMD, and honestly the little fanboy in me would have loved to see a slightly updated version of the Cage Bridge in this new film. That is still my favourite. That being said, this new film is supposed to be some kind of origins story that happens outside of linear time, so who's to say that this "new" bridge is "the" bridge or not. Even if it is, it doesn't diminish my excitement for this film. If Abrahms hadn't expressed interest in doing a Star Trek film, it would have been a long time before we'd get a new film anyway. If it flops, I'm sure someone will try again sometime in the future and there will be the usual panty wadding by the purists anyway, no matter who's at the helm. It is what we have had to put up with every time someone has made a new Star Trek of any kind.
"I'll say this for him...he's consistent"
Actually, I agree that the design of the Enterprise - especially the exterior is pretty timeless. I hope they don't change it, and I'm fairly certain they won't (much)...
Interior looks dated though.
At least Paramount has had the good sense to keep JMS away from it. That is the last thing I would want to see.
Wasn't there something in his pitch about a "dark force" manipulating events from a distance?...*cough* shadows *cough*...
number6
Vice Admiral
You should do something about that cough. It might be reflux..you know...something pushing that bile to the back of your throat. I find that bile and JMS work better in the same sentence then JMS and ***shudder*** Forbidden Planet.
Wasn't there something in his pitch about a "dark force" manipulating events from a distance?...*cough* shadows *cough*...
Disagree.
I don't mind that it has been updated, but it didn't have to be.
And I'm not talking about plywood sets, but it is entirely possibly to create something very close to the original look while modernizing it just enough to hide the cheap-factor.
Not at all. I'm not against the changes.
I just refuse to believe that the movie couldn't have been made with a style more akin to the look and feel of the original series and still be successful.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
If they had used the 1960s design aesthetic and style this movie would be laughed off the screen.
It wouldn't work.
The creative team behind TMP thought so over 30 years ago, and they were as right as the new creative team behind Star Trek is today.
An opinion. Nothing more. Same as mine.
We won't see how "right" any of the new creative team's decisions are until after we see the movie, and when and if the profits roll in.
Well, Cogley, have to agree more with STOne's opinion on design aesthetic. I think history is more on his side than on yours. This movie is coming out in 2009, so to hope TPTB would mimic a design aethetic that's more than 40 years old -- and which wasn't that popular in its first run (TOS was canceled) -- is just wishful thinking.
Also, look at ole NCC-1701 in the TV show and compare it to how its exteriors and interiors look in TMP. Plenty of differences, and that was only a mere 12 years removed from its original source. So if the creative team on TMP saw fit to "fiddle" with the original, again, it makes no sense to think the current creative team should have some slavish devotion to the original.
The only design decision that wasn't so well-received from TMP were the bland and boring pastel space pajamas -- I mean, footies? C'mon! -- which were changed to the more brilliant uniforms used in TWOK to TUC.
Now, it's true that the design team has seen fit to try to emulate the TOS uniform feel, with some updating, and I'm fine with that.
I will agree that we won't know how well received the 2009 version of ST is till we see the box office and critical reception.
Red Ranger
I think you guys are missing my point.
I don't have a problem with the updates.
I have a problem with the people who insist that the only way to do it was to make all of these modern concessions.
Just as I have a problem with all of the people who insist that it must remain identical to the past version.
Talented film makers could easily work with either a modern or a retro theme. The more obvious -- and potentially more commercially viable -- way to go is to update everything.
Again, I'm not assigning value judgments to either choice.
I'm simply stating that it could have been done either way.
I'm not so stuck in the past that I can't handle the changes.
I'm also not so eager to applaud Abrams' version (before I've seen it, anyway) that I insist his creative choices were the only way to go.
I'm looking at facts. And we don't have enough facts about the new version yet to judge.
Until then, opinions on what would have worked and what would not have worked are simply that. Opinions.
I don't have a problem with the updates.
I have a problem with the people who insist that the only way to do it was to make all of these modern concessions.
Just as I have a problem with all of the people who insist that it must remain identical to the past version.
Talented film makers could easily work with either a modern or a retro theme. The more obvious -- and potentially more commercially viable -- way to go is to update everything.
Again, I'm not assigning value judgments to either choice.
I'm simply stating that it could have been done either way.
I'm not so stuck in the past that I can't handle the changes.
I'm also not so eager to applaud Abrams' version (before I've seen it, anyway) that I insist his creative choices were the only way to go.
I'm looking at facts. And we don't have enough facts about the new version yet to judge.
Until then, opinions on what would have worked and what would not have worked are simply that. Opinions.
The difference between TMP and this movie is the producers of TMP went out of their way to explain why the ship looked different in dialogue.
The producers of this film except fans to think this is the same ship.
Okay. Then why not wait until we've heard the dialog from the new movie and seen the actual result on-screen...
...before leaping to conclusions like this? They've said repeatedly that there are reasons for every change and every thing and every reference which will appear in the movie. Why not wait to find out what those are before crucifying them for doing it wrong? Is that really so much to ask?
To state the obvious - just to establish it as a premise for the following observation - Trek is a product which the studio is trying to sell.
It is part of a product line that they've been selling with varying degrees of success - but success of one kind or another - for four decades.
So bear in mind that change "for the sake of change" is a cornerstone of American consumer marketing. It is the very basis of fashion; it's the only reason that 2008 automobiles are styled in any way differently than 2005 automobiles.
Changing the way that products look in order to attract the attention of potential new customers and to draw previous customers back for another sale is not just a whim of a few lazy salespeople. It is central to the way consumable and luxury goods - which in essence are what mass entertainment is - are sold in this economy.
In that vein, there's every reason to change the way the Enterprise looks. The ship looks forty years old because people have been looking at it for forty years. That's the Catch-22 answer to "tell me specifically what is retro about the look of (fill-in-the-blank)." Robby the Robot looks like a 1950s robot because it's a robot that people have seen in 1950s movies, if for no other reason. The original "Star Trek" designs look like 1960s designs that we've seen thousands of times because they're designs that we've seen thousands of times starting in the 1960s.
The truth isn't more complicated than that, however annoying it may be.
It is part of a product line that they've been selling with varying degrees of success - but success of one kind or another - for four decades.
So bear in mind that change "for the sake of change" is a cornerstone of American consumer marketing. It is the very basis of fashion; it's the only reason that 2008 automobiles are styled in any way differently than 2005 automobiles.
Changing the way that products look in order to attract the attention of potential new customers and to draw previous customers back for another sale is not just a whim of a few lazy salespeople. It is central to the way consumable and luxury goods - which in essence are what mass entertainment is - are sold in this economy.
In that vein, there's every reason to change the way the Enterprise looks. The ship looks forty years old because people have been looking at it for forty years. That's the Catch-22 answer to "tell me specifically what is retro about the look of (fill-in-the-blank)." Robby the Robot looks like a 1950s robot because it's a robot that people have seen in 1950s movies, if for no other reason. The original "Star Trek" designs look like 1960s designs that we've seen thousands of times because they're designs that we've seen thousands of times starting in the 1960s.
The truth isn't more complicated than that, however annoying it may be.
Brilliantly said, and Absolutely Right (TM).
That said, they'd better not #%@#ing change the design of Robby.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
The creative team on TMP created something that looks as dated as TOS, but with tons less aesthetic appeal. So their call was infinitely worse than keeping it closer to the series look.
If that makes the new crew as RIGHT as those were on TMP, then you're proving the point for the opposition ... (I honestly think the new bridge pics have a 70s feel, like space 1999 done for umpty ump dollars, so that even more makes me think they've gone WAY off target, updating based on a totally wrong look in addition to ignoring the key visual basics of TOS.)
Change for change's sake is why Star Trek was cancelled. It is not a real thing like a car - it is a vision. It's not a sausage factory either. The reason why it has lasted for forty years is because certain things worked.I hope J.J.'s thing works but to me it is probably gonna be the same comparison between mission impossible and the movies which I hated but I loved the series. I'm not Against J.J.'s new designs just yet but I think he is falling into the same trap as TMP and getting too cluttered and complicated. That should be saved for the story yet told in a simple way. In a complex world, designs should be simple.
What? Creative stagnation, having the same showrunners for ~15 years and being on a shit network is what killed Star Trek. Tell me...when Enterprise began recycling plots from DS9, how was that "change for the sake of change?"
No, I'm talking about TOS, Which to me is the only real Star Trek thus far. Why do I say that ? For me it's simple, it just comes down to great production values - music, writing etc. aesthetics.. Star Trek never had the right guy in charge because of the nature of power politics and greed.
What? Creative stagnation, having the same showrunners for ~15 years and being on a shit network is what killed Star Trek. Tell me...when Enterprise began recycling plots from DS9, how was that "change for the sake of change?"
