Rip in the fabric of space/time fandom

[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.
.

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.

I find a whole lot of baseless supposition on a technical note that was not
part of my post. Design aesthetics had nothing to with the ship being built
on the ground and was about the uniforms, the actual ship design itself
and other visual aspects.

As for your comment on the ship being built on the ground it's almost as silly
as the argument that they're all fearful uneducated xenophobes because
they may have the ability to build a ship like this on the surface in the future.

 

[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.

I find a whole lot of baseless supposition on a technical note that was not
part of my post. Design aesthetics had nothing to with the ship being built
on the ground and was about the uniforms, the actual ship design itself
and other visual aspects.

As for your comment on the ship being built on the ground it's almost as silly
as the argument that they're all fearful uneducated xenophobes because
they may have the ability to build a ship like this on the surface in the future.

You were attacking a poster who was addressing that very issue, so it is clear you opposed it (which you clarified in your second par.)

If anybody was stupid enough to build something like this on the ground, regardless of their tech level, they are squandering resources in a way that makes US seem like we are environmentally conscious; furthermore, they deserve the big hole in the ground that will likely result, and it will ALMOST match in size with the hole in their head that led to such a ludicrous notion as building a starship on the ground.

Months ago folks like you were saying 'built on earth' was a metaphor for 'under construction' but now it is, well of course it is possible.

It is also quite possible that it is among the stupidest postulations in the history of STAR TREK (at least the stuff I've seen, it could be that VOYAGER and LIL ENTERPRISE actually did stuff just as stupid that I never bothered to see with my own eyes.)

 

[DonIago]

(spooky voice) I AM THE GHOST OF THREADS PAST!!!!!!! (/spooky voice)

Can we all move on now, or must we rehash this?

 

[trekkerguy]

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.

I find a whole lot of baseless supposition on a technical note that was not
part of my post. Design aesthetics had nothing to with the ship being built
on the ground and was about the uniforms, the actual ship design itself
and other visual aspects.

As for your comment on the ship being built on the ground it's almost as silly
as the argument that they're all fearful uneducated xenophobes because
they may have the ability to build a ship like this on the surface in the future.

You were attacking a poster who was addressing that very issue, so it is clear you opposed it (which you clarified in your second par.)

If anybody was stupid enough to build something like this on the ground, regardless of their tech level, they are squandering resources in a way that makes US seem like we are environmentally conscious; furthermore, they deserve the big hole in the ground that will likely result, and it will ALMOST match in size with the hole in their head that led to such a ludicrous notion as building a starship on the ground.

Months ago folks like you were saying 'built on earth' was a metaphor for 'under construction' but now it is, well of course it is possible.

It is also quite possible that it is among the stupidest postulations in the history of STAR TREK (at least the stuff I've seen, it could be that VOYAGER and LIL ENTERPRISE actually did stuff just as stupid that I never bothered to see with my own eyes.)

Then you quoted the wrong part of my post to make your case in your
original reply.

And I was never attacking any poster, just the ideas they put forth.
That's called debate.

And again the argument about it being built on the ground being a waste
of resources holds no water as over the next couple hundred years it could
be just as easy to build on the surface as it is in space. And I never once
took part in any discussion over it being a metaphor.

Whatever the case, it's an argument had and gone.

 

[lawman]

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.

So, IOW, the only justifications you can offer are metatextual.

Within the fictional reality established by the text, however, we do indeed know the design aesthetic of the period. (It was seen in "The Cage," if nothing else... and needs to be able to lead plausibly into what we saw in TOS.) I think that's the point that uniderth is making, and that a lot of people are ignoring for some reason.

If the only way one can go in and watch this movie is to remind oneself "it's all fiction, they wanted to redesign things," then that kind of kills suspension of disbelief, doesn't it?

Granted, where exactly that happens is a fuzzy line, drawn differently by different people. I think it's perfectly legitimate, though, for a lot of fans to say that line's been crossed.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

....Within the fictional reality established by the text, however, we do indeed know the design aesthetic of the period. (It was seen in "The Cage," if nothing else... and needs to be able to lead plausibly into what we saw in TOS.)...

I can't speak for others, but in my case I don't care what we saw in The Cage. This is a brand-new version of Star Trek. The design aesthetic of The Cage -- and TOS in general -- is mostly irrelevant to me.

I want this film to be a practically new design aesthetic that only "takes a few cues" from The Cage and TOS, and have it resemble those TV shows in the broadest sense only.

If the only way one can go in and watch this movie is to remind oneself "it's all fiction, they wanted to redesign things," then that kind of kills suspension of disbelief, doesn't it?

Isn't that the definition of "suspension of disbelief"? I mean, I'm not going to need to keep reminding myself "it's only a movie". I hope to simply go into the film believing it is taking place pre-TOS, and then not think too much about that again.

 

[xortex]

This movie is definitely for people who don't think too much.

 

[number6]

This movie is definitely for people who don't think too much.

For a movie that requires so little thought, some people seem to be spending quite a lot of time over-analyzing it.

 

[xortex]

This is the only chance we have of thinking what could possibly go wrong with this movie. Once the movie comes out, nobody is gonna care anymore, esp Abrahms.

 

[number6]

What if nothing goes wrong?


Will you just find some random thing, blow it all out of proportion and call it a victory??

Or will you look at the millions the movie will make and declare it a failure because it didn't make as much as some had predicted?

Will people hate the movie because the Phasers go "pew, pew, pew??"

 

[USS Triumphant]

I think the correct answer to the assertion made in the OP is:

Although each change and iteration in Star Trek has brought forward different factions in fandom - TOS fans, TNG fans, Niners, Voyager fans, Klingons, Vulcans, and so on, and the upcoming movie will surely be no exception, that is the view from inside. From the outside, we're all Star Trek fans, and that's all the rest of the world needs to know.

To loosely paraphase Voltaire, I really regard Voyager as the series that ruined Trek (at least for a while) ... and I would fight for your right to be a fan of it.

 

[SalvorHardin]

This movie is definitely for people who don't think too much.

If that's actually the case, you should definitely go see it... I'm convinced you'll love it.

 

[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.

So, IOW, the only justifications you can offer are metatextual.

Within the fictional reality established by the text, however, we do indeed know the design aesthetic of the period. (It was seen in "The Cage," if nothing else... and needs to be able to lead plausibly into what we saw in TOS.) I think that's the point that uniderth is making, and that a lot of people are ignoring for some reason.

Because it really doesn't matter. The fact is it looks like it does and that's
now canon. And like I said it's an update to an old TV show, so it DOES look
like that fictional Universe, just as it would be portrayed with designs that
more fit todays and new technology to create that vision.

If the only way one can go in and watch this movie is to remind oneself "it's all fiction, they wanted to redesign things," then that kind of kills suspension of disbelief, doesn't it?

I have no intention of watching it to suspend disbelief of anything, just
to see a good Star Trek movie.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

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.

I find a whole lot of baseless supposition on a technical note that was not
part of my post. Design aesthetics had nothing to with the ship being built
on the ground and was about the uniforms, the actual ship design itself
and other visual aspects.

As for your comment on the ship being built on the ground it's almost as silly
as the argument that they're all fearful uneducated xenophobes because
they may have the ability to build a ship like this on the surface in the future.

You were attacking a poster who was addressing that very issue, so it is clear you opposed it (which you clarified in your second par.)

If anybody was stupid enough to build something like this on the ground, regardless of their tech level, they are squandering resources in a way that makes US seem like we are environmentally conscious; furthermore, they deserve the big hole in the ground that will likely result, and it will ALMOST match in size with the hole in their head that led to such a ludicrous notion as building a starship on the ground.

Months ago folks like you were saying 'built on earth' was a metaphor for 'under construction' but now it is, well of course it is possible.

It is also quite possible that it is among the stupidest postulations in the history of STAR TREK (at least the stuff I've seen, it could be that VOYAGER and LIL ENTERPRISE actually did stuff just as stupid that I never bothered to see with my own eyes.)

So your an expert on people who haven't been born yet from a time period 200 years from now I take it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There's no one here who knows enough about either space technology or Trek stuff to justify the assertion that it makes more sense for them to build this ship either in orbit or on Earth.

After all, these people demonstrably have complete engineering-level control of gravity and inertia. Otherwise these ships could not do what they do.

"Star Trek" always featured sound in space, so "Star Wars" in no way contributed to "dumbing down" that aspect of things.

 

[lawman]

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.

So, IOW, the only justifications you can offer are metatextual.

Within the fictional reality established by the text, however, we do indeed know the design aesthetic of the period. (It was seen in "The Cage," if nothing else... and needs to be able to lead plausibly into what we saw in TOS.) I think that's the point that uniderth is making, and that a lot of people are ignoring for some reason.

Because it really doesn't matter. The fact is it looks like it does and that's now canon. And like I said it's an update to an old TV show, so it DOES look like that fictional Universe, just as it would be portrayed with designs that more fit todays and new technology to create that vision.

And we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Seriously—either you're deliberately missing the point here, or you just don't get it. Your response basically boils down to to telling those with concerns, "Hey, I don't care." Which is fine for you, I suppose, but if you begin with the premise that other fans' opinions matter as well as your own, it really doesn't contribute a thing to address those concerns.

If the only way one can go in and watch this movie is to remind oneself "it's all fiction, they wanted to redesign things," then that kind of kills suspension of disbelief, doesn't it?

I have no intention of watching it to suspend disbelief of anything, just to see a good Star Trek movie.

Again, you seem to miss the point. Surely you've encountered the concept before? Willing suspension of disbelief is a fundamental aspect of enjoying almost any fiction, and is particularly important for fantasy/SF. To quote Wikipedia:

"Willing suspension of disbelief" is an aesthetic theory intended to characterize people's relationships to art. It was coined by the poet and aesthetic philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1817. It refers to the willingness of a person to accept as true the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are fantastic or impossible. It also refers to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises. According to the theory, suspension of disbelief is a quid pro quo: the audience tacitly agrees to provisionally suspend their judgment in exchange for the promise of entertainment. ...

Suspension of disbelief can also become problematic for long-running series and franchises with a well-known fictional world, wherein the geography, chronology and dramatis personae (and even natural laws) are established and remain internally consistent across multiple episodes, and even multiple programs (for instance, in spinoffs). This is really another sense of Suspension of Disbelief, particularly common in Science Fiction and Gaming, where dedicated fans of the franchise immerse themselves in the fictional world to an exceptional degree. The definitive example of this is Star Trek. ...

Inconsistencies or plot holes that violate the premises, plot-lines or chronology of the established canon can be viewed as breaking the tacit Suspension of Disbelief agreement. For particularly loyal fans, these lapses can be deeply resented.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

For particularly loyal fans, these lapses can be deeply resented.

That's what it all boils down to, which isn't much.

 

[lawman]

For particularly loyal fans, these lapses can be deeply resented.

That's what it all boils down to, which isn't much.

Isn't much? If something interferes with suspension of disbelief, that's everything: it yanks a viewer/reader out of the world of the story, and thus prevents further enjoyment of it.

The discussion here could be about when and how and why that sort of thing happens; for instance, which aspects of it are clearly subjective, and which are more objective.

Instead, you seem to think it all just doesn't matter. The movie will make money anyway, right?

But hey, thanks for directing some dismissive cheap laughter at your fellow fans. That's really helpful.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

For particularly loyal fans, these lapses can be deeply resented.

That's what it all boils down to, which isn't much.

Isn't much? If something interferes with suspension of disbelief...

Managing to make "loyal fans" resentful isn't much. It's not even an effort; the most intense fans behave as if they're continually looking to be cheated.

In fact, until we get any indication in the form of a poll or survey or any pattern of posting that suggests that less than ninety percent of "fandom" is willing to accept what Abrams is doing and go to see the film then all these concerns about how he's screwing up don't amount to a hill of beans.

 

[uniderth]

So what I'm hearing here is that the new Star Trek is re-making TOS. In that way there are no contradictions with TOS becasue it's not supposed to be part of TOS.

If that is the case then I assume they won't put this new show in with any references to TOS. Meaning, that if they made a new Star Trek Encyclopedia they would make one version that would be for the Star Trek timeline and a completely different one for the "New" Sta Trek timeline. And neither would include references to the other. They wouldn't mention each other on any DVD releases. the "new" Star Trek won't have any reference to TOS TNG DS9 or VOY because they all take place in the Star Trek timeline and would thus be a contradiction to the "new" Star Trek timeline.