Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND
- Thread starter Khan 2.0
- Start date
Someone upthread suggested that -- given the 50th anniversary theme -- it could be a crashed TOS Constitution class. If we believe the edited out footage from STiD, such designs do exist in this timeline. Perhaps it's the original 1701 that was lost and replaced by the nuEnt.
on edit: I see I've been beaten to the punch by a few other posters.
on edit: I see I've been beaten to the punch by a few other posters.
I hope not. The original plan for these movies was to do one film as a hand-off from the old continuity to the new, and then take advantage of the cleared board that the altered timeline offered to tell new, forward-looking stories that were free of the continuity baggage of the original universe. But the second film was less than it could have been, primarily because of its elements which were too strongly rooted in continuity and nostalgia. I would really rather see Beyond live up to its title and move the new universe forward rather than continuing to look backward.
Yes, but plans change given public response. If the original continuity link was wildly successful, why go another way? Follow the $$ (or quatloos).
But even if this proposal were true, it would still be a new story free of continuity baggage. Remember, we don't know much about TOS canon before 2250ish (The Cage). And since Nero's incursion was 20 years prior, all that is gone anyway. It's conceivable that a TOS Connie USS Enterprise was commissioned in the 2240s -- perhaps commanded by Robert April -- and disappeared early in its mission.
Fast forward to STB: Kirk et al. stumble on the wreckage, find that its presence created a world divided, and the movie starts. Also, we get to see the leader of one faction (Elba) and the other (Boutella) taking Kirk to "The Divider": Robert April, aka William Shatner.
OK, I went off the rails at the end, but the point remains this can be a completely new advernture needing no callbacks, other than the TOS E as a 50th nod.
Last edited:
It's a 50th anniversary film and Pegg and Lin are both big fans. A huge nod to the history of the franchise is probably in this movie somewhere.
These movies are not about building a newer version or a replacement for the old "Trek universe." They're about trying to build Star Trek into a successful mega-movie franchise like Fast & Furious, Transformers or even Mission Impossible.
Of course, I never suggested otherwise. I'm not one of those who hates the new continuity. If you read my other posts on the subject, I'm saying that this can / will be a completely new adventure with only the ship as a nod.
If that comes at the expense of the creative side, then that's not desirable. Look at Heroes. The original plan was to make each season a new story with new characters. But because of the popularityof the original cast, the network demanded that the producers keep them, and that necessitated coming up with forced, awkward, repetitive storylines to justify keeping them around after the natural endpoints of their stories. And that turned out very badly. There's a difference between being responsive to your audience and mere pandering. The difference is whether the integrity of the story is maintained.
Think of it like courtship. To win someone's affections, you should listen to them and get to know what they like and be responsive to their interests and needs, but you still have to be true to yourself if you want to have a lasting, meaningful relationship with them. If you pretend to be something you're not just in order to score points with them, then you might score the points in the short term, but it's basically an act of desperation rather than sincerity, and that's not a foundation for a lasting or successful relationship.
I'm not talking about continuity nitpicks, I'm talking about the mentality and focus of the work. If the focus is on looking backward at TOS and recreating the Connie's look and evoking the past, that's still just an exercise in nostalgia. That was fun when it was done in "Relics" and "Trials and Tribble-ations" and "In a Mirror, Darkly," but enough is enough. We've already got a ton of fan films doing slavish recreations of the look and feel of a show from half a century ago. We don't need the professional, big-budget movies to be just one more exercise in dwelling on the past. That would be redundant, and it's not what Star Trek should be about. I don't want an "anniversary" story that's built around reminiscences about what Trek was like in the past. I want a story that redefines Trek for the future. I want a story whose focus is on the next 50 years.
Perhaps, but you can't ignore the fact that this movie is likely seen by many as a summer blockbuster popcorn flick. No matter how deep they may try to go in the story, at the end of the day it'll be 99% eye-candy. I mean, the Fast and Furious guy is directing.
The studios aren't looking for long term -- they're looking for short. Very short. Short enough to have someone empty their pockets.
Yes and no. The Battlestar Galactica remake did an excellent job in mixing old and new visuals, without any acknowledgment of the old universe (of course, because the old universe didn't exist in this version). But those callbacks made it incredibly fun to watch and connect the dots, not because it constrained the story, but rather because it allowed us (the viewers) to believe that what we're seeing was some form of an evolution of the previous.
I think that's worth an awful lot to the audience (in re: your point about establishing a meaningful relationship).
Last edited:
Exactly so.
Oddly enough, the model for this franchise might well become the Fast & Furious movies - if this one is very successful.
Exactly so.
What does that have to do with my point? I'm talking about wanting to see the franchise go forward rather than leaning too heavily on nostalgia. Again, the parts of STID that were most problematical and most complained about were the parts that were overly tied to past continuity -- having Harrison be Khan, having that totally contrived rehash/reversal of Spock's death scene, copying the "KHAAAN" yell. So it seems like a good idea not to repeat the same mistake.
Exactly why it makes sense not to do the same thing that audiences complained about the most in the previous movie.
There are plenty of callbacks already. It's easy to slip those in as background details, like having a member of Kirk's review board in the first movie be Captain Chandra from "Court-martial" or having a bunch of old ship models on Admiral Marcus's desk. Easter eggs are not a problem. Building a significant portion of the story around a recreation of the TOS-look Enterprise, actually making it a plot point like STID did with Khan and the radiation-death scene, would be another matter altogether. We've already had enough projects like that.
Some fans just didn't like them reusing Khan, and have bitched so much about it people have the false impression that it mattered to most people who bought tickets (it didn't). That doesn't mean that much of anyone objects to reusing bits and pieces of stuff from oldTrek.
That's pretty definitely an old-old (as in, the original TV series rather than the oldTrek movies) Constitution-style starship saucer. Check out the window on the leading wall.
That's pretty definitely an old-old (as in, the original TV series rather than the oldTrek movies) Constitution-style starship saucer. Check out the window on the leading wall.
So... we might be looking at two crashed Federation ships? One in a forest and the other in a city? Or maybe they'll crash the Enterprise twice?? Or maybe Dubai will stand in for future-San Francisco (just CG the Golden Gate bridge into the background) and the new one is the wreck of the Vengeance???
All possibilities. It's possible that this is the Vengeance in SF, and the filming of the saucer in Vancouver was just to get some sky shots - but it seems like a huge amount of trouble just to visit a site from the previous movie, plus all the talk about the crew now being well into their mission makes it unlikely.
Possibly the two saucer builds are the same ship from different angles, i.e. the forest is right next to the city. (Or maybe they make the forest ship flightworthy just long enough to crash it into the city).
What I think is most likely at the moment is that there are multiple ships crashed on this planet. It's a ships' graveyard, or the ships crashed due to spatial anomaly or treachery (thinking of the old wreckers who lured seaships onto the rocks). Possibly the planet's inhabitants have built up their civilisation by salvaging and reverse engineering all the wreckage.
I think it very unlikely that more than one Starfleet ship would have crashed on the planet; The saucer edge in Dubai might be part of a quite different-looking ship. No way is it from the Prime universe. That ship has sailed.
Exactly.
So appealing to fandom with some unnecessary continuity porn isn't going to do anything for this movie. We're most likely going to see a totally new ship we've never seen before, with some totally new characters and locations we've never heard of before, and we're going to see some stuff happen that we have never seen happen before, will never EXPECT could have happened before. And Star Trek will never be quite the same again.
Which means the film will be aimed at a wide cross section of American moviegoers. The majority of which, FYI, do not regularly watch TOS and wouldn't be enticed into theaters by a continuity nod even if it was brightly advertised in the previews.
Except BSG took the original concepts -- the most iconic forms of them to be sure -- and FUCKING RAN WITH THEM to create something totally insane. That's not much of a continuity nod; it's like casting Richard Hatch as Tom Zerick and having him (very subtly) drop a couple of his more memorable "Apollo" lines as the villainous dog he is.
If they ARE going to slip the TOS version of the ship into the film, expect it to be HEAVILY redressed, jazzed up, shot down and flown through at fifty miles per hour. It'll be a set piece at best, but the fact that it's the old TOS design won't be its main selling point.
The NX-01 Enterprise has virtually the same saucer rim as the USS Excelsior, from over a century later.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
What do you think about it?
Is Enterprise being repared on ground? Or a spaceship in an extremely deteriorated state?
And the blue discoloration over the right side of the set?
source: http://trekcore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/dubai-saucer.jpg
Is Enterprise being repared on ground? Or a spaceship in an extremely deteriorated state?
And the blue discoloration over the right side of the set?
source: http://trekcore.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/dubai-saucer.jpg
Last edited:
^ With that new dressing it's looking less like a Starfleet vessel.
The blue tint is reminiscent of the colour they painted the quarry rocks. Is the blue some sort of spreading organism (or I suppose it could be dust from the crash)? Or have the blue rocks been refined to make replacement panels for the old ship?
The blue tint is reminiscent of the colour they painted the quarry rocks. Is the blue some sort of spreading organism (or I suppose it could be dust from the crash)? Or have the blue rocks been refined to make replacement panels for the old ship?
Looks like some form of (sci-fi) corrosion.
That's because they're far away. Distant objects always appear blue-tinged because of the way the atmosphere scatters light -- the same reason the sky is blue in the first place. But the set piece is much closer, too close for that atmospheric effect.
Although I think ralph is right -- it's just a shadow. It's really just darker, but the context around it makes it look bluer. Remember that Internet-wide "controversy" over the color of that striped dress a few months ago? Our color perception is often unreliable.
On second thought, maybe it is Rayleigh scattering that's making the shadows look blue in both photos. Presumably these are spy photos from a fair distance away, through enough of the atmosphere that there'd be a small amount of scattering. The light from a bright object would overwhelm that faint blue tinge, but it would be noticeable against a dark background.
Similar threads
