Rip in the fabric of space/time fandom

[uniderth]

Odd, cause it looks more like...
Very retro ship designs with 2008 updates.
Very retro uniform designs with 2008 updates.

Exept that it is supposed to be the Enterprise in the year 2240-50ishs time period, not 2008. Same with the uniforms they are supposed to look like 2240-50ish uniforms not 2008 updated.

That is the time period this movie is supposed to be set in is it not. If so then the desigs should appear as they would in that time period not how 2008 would have them look.

The actors who look very much like younger versions of the crew.

The greeblized Kelvin? Where? Oh well, this is it's first appearence in Trek
so it can look however the creators like.

I'm disagreeing with the greeblies not the Kelvin iitself.

The fact that Kirk had only met Pike once when he took command is just
canon fodder.

Ummm actually it's, what "actually happened" in the Trek universe. So anything, "actually happening" in the Trek universe must agree with this.

The Academy uniforms that look very much like the established uniforms
only updated for 2008.

But the uniforms aren't supposed to look like 2008 updates they are supposed to look like what they are established as looking like. Right? This movie is set in the 2240-50ishs isn't it?

The Enterprise being built on Earth since it's never been shown that the Enterprise was originaly built in space.

The designers fo the Enterprise never intended it to be on a planet's surface. The most logical place to build a spacecraft of this design, based on established information, would be in space.

Pretty much a very faithful 2008 updating of a 1960's TV show.

Yes, but since this movie is supposed to be taking place in a certain time in a certain universe it should look like what we know that time and universe look like. Last I checked that time and place wasn't 2008.

 

[trekkerguy]

You're forgetting this little real world fact...

The movie was being made in 2008 as a reboot of a 1960's
TV show. The design aesthetics are very much like that
of TOS only made in 2008 so it's newer and fresher looking
with some updates to suit a modern audience.

The rest is, like I said, canon fodder as this film is an altered
timeline. And regardless of that fact, a reboot in almost all senses.
Much like TMP.

 

[xortex]

TMP wasn't a reboot because it took place 11 years after TOS. That had to be explained somehow. This is not even a legitimate prequil. I don't know what it is since many things have changed.

 

[DaveyNY]

I agree, I'd call TMP a RE-IMAGINING, Not a RE-BOOT.

It was a direct continuation of the Original Series story, albeit, a few years later, but with a new look, that had a fairly plausible in-story reason for the new look without having to fiddle around with altered timeline theories.

I think They (JJ & Co) obviously understand that driving away a large section of the folks who have kept the Trek Fires burning all these years (We aren't dying off as fast as some have claimed around here) by making so many changes, without some kind of in-universe explination could be counter productive.

(and I don't believe that there is going to be this Big Ground-swell of New Trek fans, because of this movie.)

I'm not saying that Trek XI is going to be bad, but They are kinda reaching for reasons to explain the drastic differences.
In my opinion They may have changed things way too much.

But... only time will tell...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

But the uniforms aren't supposed to look like 2008 updates they are supposed to look like what they are established as looking like. Right? This movie is set in the 2240-50ishs isn't it?

The 2240-50s won't happen for over two hundred years and we have no idea what that period will be like.

This is a movie being made forty years later than the original Star Trek, which happens to be set in a fictitious historical period that was designed one way then and another way now.

 

[Lord Garth]

"The key is to appreciate that there are purists and fans of "Star Trek" who are going to be very vocal if they see things that aren't what what they want...They're going to find something they hate no matter what I do."

Yes, but don't forget there are others who are excited about it as well.

I'm not sure if I'll like the movie or not, not until I actually see but, in case, I and some others don't: I hope that you'll be able to tell the difference between fans who simply don't like the movie and the MattJC types. I'm not entirely sure that you actually can see a difference, especially when you really get going.

 

[uniderth]

The 2240-50s won't happen for over two hundred years and we have no idea what that period will be like.

This is a movie being made forty years later than the original Star Trek, which happens to be set in a fictitious historical period that was designed one way then and another way now.

I'm not talking about the 2240-50s in our universe. I'm talking about it in the Star Trek universe. We have a general idea what it is like because we've seen elements from it.

So any story taking place in te Star Trek universe in that time period would obviously have to match what we've already seen. Why? Becasue we've already seen it. We know what it looks like.

It would be like somebody printinga history book for schools that says they ahd machine guns and jet fighters back in the civil war. We know they didn't have those things because we've seen what they did have.

 

[DonIago]

^You mean like the way Enterprise matched what we'd been led to believe that time period might look like?

 

[uniderth]

Yeeeeaah. Except not really.

Unless you're being sarcastic then I would agree.

 

[Stewey]

uniderth, most of the things to have said in this thread I agree with completely.

However, I slightly disagree with what you said here:

The designers fo the Enterprise never intended it to be on a planet's surface. The most logical place to build a spacecraft of this design, based on established information, would be in space.

The original Enterprise plaque:

Basically there are two ways of interpreting the depiction of the ships construction, the first would be on the surface of Earth in San Fransisco California or in orbit above San Farancisco.

Personally I would have preferred them to have built the ship in space but I can find it in me to give them some slack on this one.

 

[Q2UnME]

The original Enterprise plaque:

*image snip*

Basically there are two ways of interpreting the depiction of the ships construction, the first would be on the surface of Earth in San Fransisco California or in orbit above San Farancisco.

Personally I would have preferred them to have built the ship in space but I can find it in me to give them some slack on this one.

emphasis mine*



OK, who are you and what did you do with our Stewey?!?

Q2UnME

 

[Stewey]

* sorry about the hotlinked image not working, but the plaque is on that site anyway*

 

[M'Sharak]

Heya, Stewey.

* sorry about the hotlinked image not working, but the plaque is on that site anyway*

The people at ex-astris-scientia prefer that you link to the page containing the image, rather than to the image itself. (I believe the plaque in question can be seen here. Click on the image for a larger view.)

 

[trekkerguy]

So any story taking place in te Star Trek universe in that time period would obviously have to match what we've already seen. Why?

It doesn't, because it's all makebelieve and the people in charge simply
have to change it and that's "How it is".

Not to mention you're completely ignoring the setting of the movie.
Not only did we never see the time period being shown in the movie
this is an altered timeline.

And... its a 2008 version of a 1960's TV show.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...So any story taking place in te Star Trek universe in that time period would obviously have to match what we've already seen. Why? Becasue we've already seen it. We know what it looks like....

It would be like somebody printinga history book for schools that says they ahd machine guns and jet fighters back in the civil war. We know they didn't have those things because we've seen what they did have.

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree.

This film doesn't have to look like it should "fit in nicely" with the look of TOS. This film is not a 'continuation' of Star Trek, it's a film 'based on' Star Trek. This is not 'Star Trek XI', but Star Trek. It's a re-imagining (although NOT a re-boot) of the TOS universe.

There is no need to make the look of the technology be the same, although the technological ideas should be the same. If this film tells me that that bridge set we saw is a pre-TOS bridge, then I have enough of an imagination to allow myself to believe that is the pre-TOS bridge.

...As for the "civil war jet fighter" arguement, the difference is that those are historical facts, not fictional "facts". I realize that some people will say that what was shown in 1960s TOS should be treated like historical facts when it comes to making Star Trek films, but at the end of the day, it's only fiction -- and a fiction that should be open to re-interpretation.

 

[trekkerguy]

... at the end of the day, it's only fiction -- and a fiction that should be open to re-interpretation.

Well said.

 

[Stewey]

This film doesn't have to look like it should "fit in nicely" with the look of TOS. This film is not a 'continuation' of Star Trek, it's a film 'based on' Star Trek. This is not 'Star Trek XI', but Star Trek. It's a re-imagining (although NOT a re-boot) of the TOS universe.

There is no need to make the look of the technology be the same, although the technological ideas should be the same. If this film tells me that that bridge set we saw is a pre-TOS bridge, then I have enough of an imagination to allow myself to believe that is the pre-TOS bridge.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you here.

According to the trek movie website:

Will it fit with Star Trek History (canon)?
Yes.
The writer/producers (Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman) as well as star Leonard Nimoy have repeatedly said they will respect Trek history and canon.

A reimagining and a reboot is pretty much the same thing really, but I am only judging JJ abrams on what he has said specifically about his movie. He says it will respect canon and Trek history and I don't believe based so far on what I have seen that it is true.

...As for the "civil war jet fighter" arguement, the difference is that those are historical facts, not fictional "facts". I realize that some people will say that what was shown in 1960s TOS should be treated like historical facts when it comes to making Star Trek films, but at the end of the day, it's only fiction -- and a fiction that should be open to re-interpretation.

Even a fictional universe should follow rules, thats why pretty much every series on television has a "bible", the only difference is that Trek has 40 years worth of info in its "bible". It doesn't make it any less valid in my view. It is true that it makes it harder, but when someone says they will respect a pre-existing fictional history, then surely it is logical to make sure it fits both in terms of writing for characters, fictional events and visuals?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

^
^^Well, I suppose the definition of re-boot is the question here.

I define "re-boot" as what Ronald D. Moore did with BSG. The new BSG has very little to do with the old BSG: The characters have totally different personalities (and even different genders), the relationships among the characters is very different, the cylons are very different, the cylons ACT very differently, the background history is somewhat different. The new BSG is like old BSG in name only and in the most basic of premises.

From what I gather, Star Trek is only a re-imagining -- a re-imagining that is keeping the same characters with the same personality traits as the original and with the same personal relationships as the originals. To me, this is important because those characters and their relationships is what makes Star Trek Star Trek. According to Abrams, the basic canonical history will also be respected. Using my idea of what "re-imagining" means, Abrams can re-imagine things and still honor the events that had already occured, or that will occur.

I think Abrams is re-imagining "Fanon", or the subjective ideas of what became before TOS. Even though there seems to be some "conventional wisdom" as to the past of our TOS heroes, in reality their histories could be interpreted in many ways. I think Abrams' film will overturn what we think we know about Kirk, Spock, et al and show us a whole new -- but perfectly valid -- history of TOS.

I suppose what I'm describing is more of a visual re-imagining; the characters will be the same and what happens in this film will (mostly) be consistent with what we already know about TOS, but the universe will look very different (and I don't consider "the look" to be canon anyway).

For the record, I'm not convinced that the "alternate timeline" will really end up to be that inconsistent with TOS. Orci himself even said that the things that seem very different to us right now will be seen by the end of the film to be not very much removed from TOS.

This film will look different, and this film will "feel" different than the past 6 ST films, but I think it will definitely be recognizable as Star Trek in the deepest sense and will respect canon much more than not.

 

[xortex]

I always love saying this but of course we know what the far future is going to be like because we're so much more closer to it than those well meaning guys from TOS.

 

[trevanian]

You're forgetting this little real world fact...

The movie was being made in 2008 as a reboot of a 1960's
TV show. The design aesthetics are very much like that
of TOS only made in 2008 so it's newer and fresher looking
with some updates to suit a modern audience.
.

I take it you mean that the ship is built on the ground because people are so much more stupid about spaceflight now (thanks STAR WARS, all that noise in the vacuum of space seems to have dumbed down audiences even more than we who knew better thought possible back in the 70s), that is your update to suit a modern audience.

At that rate of audience retardation, STAR TREK of 2050 will doubtless take place on an Earth that is flat, not round. That Enterprise will have to hang glide off the edge of the earth, 'warping' its way out of the 2d mindset of those with their heads buried in the dirt planetside.