They're gonna make it look as big as the Red Dwarf, it seems.
The Enterprise...then and now?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
They're gonna make it look as big as the Red Dwarf, it seems.
Nothin wrong with that, I like Red Dwarf!
Spot on.
If TPTB are changing the ship and if in conjunction they are indeed trying to establish Pike is the ship's first Captain then thats concrete that this has nothing to do with TOS. It's a restart and thats fine.
But if there's an insistence (because of the inclusion of Nimoy) that this is the same continuity then it's just so much horse shit.
You can't have it both ways because in TOS' continuity we know what the ship looks like during Pike's tenure. And it wouldn't be radically different even with a bit a tweaking for the sake of current poduction standards.
But regardless of whether it's a restart or not I'm still disappointed that we don't get to see the ship as MJ envisioned it. That would have been so sweet as evidenced by how well some dedicated fans have rendered the ship in cgi. On the big screen it could be awesome.
IMHO, if the ship had competely different nacelles (or, say, four nacelles, or engines that look like pipes rather than cigars) at the time Pike got her, this wouldn't necessarily mean squat as regards continuity. Nacelle swapping, repositioning, re-pyloning and the like appear to be built-in possibilities in the original Jeffries design, and an engine swap could quite well take place between Pike getting the ship and Pike meeting the Talosians.
But it's rather unlikely that the mods for STXI will be limited to easily swappable components like the warp engines. A differently shaped secondary hull and neck could be deal-breakers in that respect. Or then not, as we know that entirely new necks and secondary hulls can be created in as little as eighteen months...
The major issue here, I fear, is that the movie will use the one configuration they came up with to portray decades upon decades of the ship's illustrious career. It is likely that Kirk will receive command of the vessel at some point of the movie, without there having been a "The Cage" configuration in evidence at any time. In that respect, it doesn't matter whether there's minor tweaking or major revamping: there will be obvious visual discontinuity vis-á-vis "The Cage", certainly enough to cause unrest among the natives.
As for the original question, no, I don't desire a revamping. Indeed, I thought the best thing about the Star Wars prequels was that Lucas dared to cling on to the mullet look and other uncool seventiness. Those movies weren't supposed to take place in the 2000s, any more than the original ones described the 1970s-80s - so anachronistic, unappealing visual elements are in fact a welcome thing, helping us see the alienness of the setting.
And "1960s in space" can look cool, too. Many a hit movie has made Teh CoolneZZ out of "1930s in wherever", after all.
Timo Saloniemi
But it's rather unlikely that the mods for STXI will be limited to easily swappable components like the warp engines. A differently shaped secondary hull and neck could be deal-breakers in that respect. Or then not, as we know that entirely new necks and secondary hulls can be created in as little as eighteen months...
The major issue here, I fear, is that the movie will use the one configuration they came up with to portray decades upon decades of the ship's illustrious career. It is likely that Kirk will receive command of the vessel at some point of the movie, without there having been a "The Cage" configuration in evidence at any time. In that respect, it doesn't matter whether there's minor tweaking or major revamping: there will be obvious visual discontinuity vis-á-vis "The Cage", certainly enough to cause unrest among the natives.
As for the original question, no, I don't desire a revamping. Indeed, I thought the best thing about the Star Wars prequels was that Lucas dared to cling on to the mullet look and other uncool seventiness. Those movies weren't supposed to take place in the 2000s, any more than the original ones described the 1970s-80s - so anachronistic, unappealing visual elements are in fact a welcome thing, helping us see the alienness of the setting.
And "1960s in space" can look cool, too. Many a hit movie has made Teh CoolneZZ out of "1930s in wherever", after all.
Timo Saloniemi
^^ I for one am fed up with all the contorting to rationalize something to fit where it doesn't belong. If they're making so many fundamental changes merely for the sake of whim then it means they're out to redefine the source material. And in that case the redesign is its own thing and has nothing to do with the original.
But come on - we need to contort and rationalize the different sets of the bridge between Where No Man Has Gone Before and The Corbomite Manuever to begin with.
In Where No Man Has Gone Before the 1701 is at the edge of the Galaxy; and for the Bridge changes to make sense, we are supposed to believe the 1701 returned top Earth; had a Bridge module refit; and then quicly got back out into space FARTHER than any other Earth vessel to begin a star mapping mission that lead to the encounter with teh Fersarius?
Again, we all know the 'real world' explaination for all this; but to slam a film made in 2008 becaiuse it's (in all likelyhood) going to ignore a set redesign done for the TV series between the filming of the second pilot - please. If they were on a five year mission; there's 2 years right there' and if we're being 'logical' why would they give Kirk command, send him on a mission out beyond the Galaxy's edge; and then say "Hey, return to Spacedock for a major refit..."?
IF TOS itself was 100% solid with it's own continuity (both with the external effects and internal continuity; I might be more up in arms myself; but it wasn't; and imo to expect a film to have to deal with the minutae on that level seems a bit ridiiculous.
The ship seen in the trailer is not just the TOS ship with new detailing, as with Vektor's ship, the TATV ship, remastered ship, etc. It's a new ship with a clearly different hull shape and look. It's not TOS. It's totally distinct from the original version.
However, they are clearly basing it on the original version and TMP version.
This isn't the first time we've seen a new take on a classic universe. How many times have they reimagined Batman now? Yet, he's still the same character, the original work is not forgotten, and the crappy versions haven't rubbed off on the rest. The worst case scenario is that we get something we don't like. Then we're essentially back to where we were before.
However, they are clearly basing it on the original version and TMP version.
This isn't the first time we've seen a new take on a classic universe. How many times have they reimagined Batman now? Yet, he's still the same character, the original work is not forgotten, and the crappy versions haven't rubbed off on the rest. The worst case scenario is that we get something we don't like. Then we're essentially back to where we were before.
^^ Spot on. It would be nice, though, if they'd just be up front about it.
I feel, though, that this thread just keeps drifting into an area I had intended to avoid, but then I suppose it's just inevitable.
The two camps are essentially: "Yeah, the original design is too dated and needs to be revised to be accepted today" and "MJ's design could have worked just fine if they'd given it a fair try."
I feel, though, that this thread just keeps drifting into an area I had intended to avoid, but then I suppose it's just inevitable.
The two camps are essentially: "Yeah, the original design is too dated and needs to be revised to be accepted today" and "MJ's design could have worked just fine if they'd given it a fair try."
But honestly, when have JJ Abrams and crew not been upfront about it? No where have they ever said they would slavishly adhere to anything. The most they said is that it wouldn't be a reboot (and with 'old Spock' in the 24th century, it's not); and that they would be 'respectful' of Star Trek continuity. And I'm sorry, but even if one just goes by the trailer, the ship looks really close to the original; so I just don't get where all this is coming from.
Also of note is the fact that we HAVEN'T seen a shot of the ship as it actually appears in the film itself - just parts of it from a promotional trailer.
For God's sake..all I want is a good film..Canon be damned!!
I've had enough of suck-ass Trek films (and many of them violated canon)..I just want to go, pay my money and be ENTERTAINED..not put to sleep..
reboot...restart..alternate universe...it's all sematics to me..
just give me a great film..
I've had enough of suck-ass Trek films (and many of them violated canon)..I just want to go, pay my money and be ENTERTAINED..not put to sleep..
reboot...restart..alternate universe...it's all sematics to me..
just give me a great film..
Indeed.
We seem to be getting hung-up on details.
In just about every episode of TOS we see shots of the Enterprise model from WNMHGB as well as shots of the model as modified post WNMHGB. Often there are shots of the 3 foot model as well and very occaisionally shots of the model as filmed for The Cage.
We could "rationalise" that by assuming that the bridge module is constantly rising and falling. Also that the spheres at the back of the nacelles are constantly retracting and being covered by a grid and then re-emerging and that the deflector dish expands and contracts and the spikes at the front of the nacelles ..... etc. etc.
Or maybe we could just accept that the Enterprise is a saucer and three cigars with some struts holding them together and that the precise details depend on how the designers and producers felt at the time.
We seem to be getting hung-up on details.
In just about every episode of TOS we see shots of the Enterprise model from WNMHGB as well as shots of the model as modified post WNMHGB. Often there are shots of the 3 foot model as well and very occaisionally shots of the model as filmed for The Cage.
We could "rationalise" that by assuming that the bridge module is constantly rising and falling. Also that the spheres at the back of the nacelles are constantly retracting and being covered by a grid and then re-emerging and that the deflector dish expands and contracts and the spikes at the front of the nacelles ..... etc. etc.
Or maybe we could just accept that the Enterprise is a saucer and three cigars with some struts holding them together and that the precise details depend on how the designers and producers felt at the time.
Only if by "really close", you mean, "if you squint, cover one eye, look at it through a blanket, and don't know shit about Star Trek."
That monstrosity looks "really close" to the original design as much as a cocker spaniel looks "really close" to a chihuahua.
In regards to the variations in the ship we saw throughout TOS, well we know what was going on and most fans have no problem getting their head around it.
Stock footage of the pilot versions of the ship were used throughout the series to save money. Otherwise we would have seen the series producttion version only during the series after WNMHGB.
Then we get the TMP refit where you pretty much have to squint (because of the change in production standards) and think, "Okay, it's a refit of the same ship if you say so. I'll accept it."
Now we get this thing that supposed to be set in the same Pike-Kirk era of TOS and it looks more TMP than TOS and it's sopposed to be the same thing? No fucking way.
Oh, and for those who aren't interested in this subject and are supposedly just concerned about getting a "good" movie, good luck to you and look for the subject somewhere else. Because HERE we are concerned with talking about the Enterprise which happens to be a very significant element of Star Trek. That might not be significant to some folks who've come to accept Trek ships as just more disposable sci-fi hardware.
Stock footage of the pilot versions of the ship were used throughout the series to save money. Otherwise we would have seen the series producttion version only during the series after WNMHGB.
Then we get the TMP refit where you pretty much have to squint (because of the change in production standards) and think, "Okay, it's a refit of the same ship if you say so. I'll accept it."
Now we get this thing that supposed to be set in the same Pike-Kirk era of TOS and it looks more TMP than TOS and it's sopposed to be the same thing? No fucking way.
Oh, and for those who aren't interested in this subject and are supposedly just concerned about getting a "good" movie, good luck to you and look for the subject somewhere else. Because HERE we are concerned with talking about the Enterprise which happens to be a very significant element of Star Trek. That might not be significant to some folks who've come to accept Trek ships as just more disposable sci-fi hardware.
"The two camps"? Don't you mean "the two possible votes in the original poll"?
That depends. If they say it's another major refit, then it's not different from TMP in any way. If they say it's the same thing and you just have to squint, then it's very different from TMP indeed.
Let's wait and hear what they have to say... In the movie, not in pre-premiere fluff.
Timo Saloniemi
Just because one isn't bothered by the possible redesigning of the 1701 doesn't mean that they see the ship as "disposable sci-fi hardware." I for one have always thought of the Enterprise as one of the main characters in Star Trek and yet the--again possible--redesign doesn't bother me all that much. Why? They've recast the original characters. We're supposed to buy that Chris Pine is a young Bill Shatner. So they're also recasting the 1701. I see no difference in accepting that the new ship is "really" the same as the old than in accepting that Pine and Shatner are the same person, or that Kirsty Alley and Robin Curtis are the same person.
I'm not willing to do that sort of mental contortion.Timo said:
"The two camps"? Don't you mean "the two possible votes in the original poll"?
That depends. If they say it's another major refit, then it's not different from TMP in any way. If they say it's the same thing and you just have to squint, then it's very different from TMP indeed.
Let's wait and hear what they have to say... In the movie, not in pre-premiere fluff.
Timo Saloniemi
You keep referring to "peril". What peril? You're sounding overly dramatic.
Secondly, you keep referring to what made the TOS E great in the past tense. You did it. Not I.
But you brought up a good point. There are two Trek guards about this. The old guard that thinks the E should always be viewed through 1960's eyes, and then there is the new guard that thinks that, in order to continually inspire new generations of viewers, Trek should present a view of the future that makes us want to reach it. That can mean updating the looks of the sets and vessels, in order to put her back "in the future", instead of having awkward analog dials and try to explain why (300 years from now) they'd still be using them. Or, more relevantly to the look of the E, why they'd stick with a vessel design that was obviously designed for low-quality broadcast television. (It doesn't have to be "to greeble or not to greeble", as some fear, I think).
^^ Who is to say that the original design constructed and photographed to contemporay productions standards wouldn't work today? We've never seen it done that way so it's really just an assumption.
I've seen a lot of sci-fi hardware come along over the past forty years and very little of it carries the same sense of ambitious futurism and dynamic as the original E.
The E looked sleek not because it had to, but because it was making a statement: we've mastered the science and technology to the point that we can bend it to our will. And that practice has been going on ever since humanity learned to fashion tools and developed sciences. It's not just a practice depicted on television.
I've seen a lot of sci-fi hardware come along over the past forty years and very little of it carries the same sense of ambitious futurism and dynamic as the original E.
The E looked sleek not because it had to, but because it was making a statement: we've mastered the science and technology to the point that we can bend it to our will. And that practice has been going on ever since humanity learned to fashion tools and developed sciences. It's not just a practice depicted on television.
