The Enterprise...then and now?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
I think that's the way many people that like the original design would do it. If you'd asked me a year or two ago, that's probably the way I'd have done it. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the fine detailing on the TMP ship is too contemporary (i.e. why have RCS thrusters on a ship with such fine control of gravity?) and that instead, cheery picking details from TMP and expanding and fleshing out possibilities afforded by the original model and its interior layout, and the magical tech they hint at, is the way to go.
That's right. April is not yet part of the official onscreen continuity. This film could either establish that or explicitly eliminate him, and neither would constitute a "restart."
TAS affirms GR's original idea that Robert April was the first Captain. And TAS is far more canon in my book then any Trek from the '80s onward. Also TPTB "official" chronology and encyclopedia--much of it compiled by the Okudas--affirms it also. And so if JJA is asserting otherwise then he's going against something thats been accepted for the longest time.
Even so that hasn't anything to do with the thread's initial issue: why can't the E's original look (with minor and very selective tweaking) work today? I argue it can, but then I can easily envision something done that so many can't seem to envision without actually seeing it themselves first.
*
^^ See my post above yours. Know of what you speak.
Actually I see JJA doing the same thing to Trek that Tom Cruise did to Mission: Impossible and Bryan Singer did to Superman Returns. the latter two claimed to be huge fans of the original subject matter then showed they understood next to zilch about the original source material. And if they did understand any of it then they showed they weren't able to translate that to the screen.
Actually I see JJA doing the same thing to Trek that Tom Cruise did to Mission: Impossible and Bryan Singer did to Superman Returns. the latter two claimed to be huge fans of the original subject matter then showed they understood next to zilch about the original source material. And if they did understand any of it then they showed they weren't able to translate that to the screen.
And TAS was shown on TV and therefore is "canon"
Irrelevant, since you don't get to vote on what's part of the official continuity or "canon."
Any line of reasoning that declares TAS "more canon" than the majority of filmed "Star Trek" material that actually is canon is meaningless nonsense - it's shadow boxing with oneself, nothing more.
Actually, in the introductions to several of those books the authors explicitly note that GR didn't consider TAS to be part of the "canon" and that they therefore did not treat material from it in the same way.
So by referencing those books as authorities you undercut your own intrinsically flawed argument.
Game, set and match.
In fairness, we keep hearing that "Roddenberry" said TAS was not canon. I have never seen anything with his signature upon it that confirms this, or a video of him saying it. I have read that his attorney Maizlish and his appointed übermensch Arnold were involved, and that Roddenberry himself was quite infirm by the time this supposed statement was made. I frankly don't know whether it was ever made by him, or was made in his name, or was made by him at the heights of his disagreements with the people responsible for helping him make TAS, or at the depths of his decrepitude.
In any event, the lack of clear provenance renders citing him as authority for the claim that the televised TAS, produced by some of the original people involved in TOS including Roddenberry himself, involving the original actors, and most of all, using many of the scripts intended for the unfilmed fourth season, is as worthy of the contempt leveled by any of the many fans that bandy about that term canon as if they'd found diamonds in a dung pile, to be similarly dung filled.
feh.. TAS was an officially produced and broadcast Star Trek television program. It is listed and treated the same as any other "canon" series on the official Star Trek website. Sounds pretty canonical to me.
Oh right, "Gene said.." Gene said a lot of things: Star Fleet isn't a military organization... TAS isn't "canon"... Star Trek V and VI are apocryphal.. Harlan Ellison had Scotty dealing drugs... and he apparently thought that the first two seasons of TNG represented good television. Forgive me for not giving a rat's ass what he said.
Oh right, "Gene said.." Gene said a lot of things: Star Fleet isn't a military organization... TAS isn't "canon"... Star Trek V and VI are apocryphal.. Harlan Ellison had Scotty dealing drugs... and he apparently thought that the first two seasons of TNG represented good television. Forgive me for not giving a rat's ass what he said.
You're forgiven - I feel the same way about TOS-Onlies and most of GR's detractors on the Internet.
Well, if you din't 'give a rats ass' regarding what the creator of the Star Trek TV series said over the years, why should JJ Abrams? I love the circular logic here where the new production team is being ripped to shreds because they are not slavishly adhering to canon - yet the fans crucifying them (before they've seen a SINGLE frame of the finished product) 'don't care what Gene Roddenberry said...'
You can't have it both ways - and I state again, we have YET to see how the 1701 ACTUALLY appears in the film.
That too.
We could start a list of contributors to TOS that we don't "give a rat's ass" about because of one perceived shortcoming or another, and in no time at all we'll have freed ourselves and Abrams of any need to adhere to anything at all about the past.
I freely admit that I haven't analyzed the teaser for the design of the XI Enterprise. In fact, I've only seen the thing once.
Does it still have a saucer, two nacelles, and connectors in the familiar places? Does it look like it could be made in the 23rd century? How does it look traveling through space? Is it beautiful and inspiring? Is it treated with respect in the movie itself?
When I know the answers to these questions, then I will have a real opinion about the matter. For now, it's just so much useless rumbling.
Does it still have a saucer, two nacelles, and connectors in the familiar places? Does it look like it could be made in the 23rd century? How does it look traveling through space? Is it beautiful and inspiring? Is it treated with respect in the movie itself?
When I know the answers to these questions, then I will have a real opinion about the matter. For now, it's just so much useless rumbling.
Maybe this is why Trek XI has been pushed back to sometime in 2009. JJA has caught wind of this bitching and decided he'd better redo the ship.
Seriously, though, the issue keeps being dragged into what is or isn't going to be done in the film and whether it's right or not. That is basically irrelevant to my initial issue at the beginning of the thread.
If by some chance I'd been in charge of this project and setting aside the storyline and all that, here's what I would have done with the Enterprise:
- exact same configuration and proportions as in TOS, however...
- instead of concrete like gray with a hint of green to the hull I'd have made it more silvery grey with a hint of green. Retain other original colours yet perhaps tweaked to a lighter or darker hue.
- no aztecing, but add some texture to the hull to suggest exotic alloys.
- no kewl lighting f/x a la TNG and later.
- dramatic lighting and motion to show off the size and majesty of the vessel. And include some iconic beauty shots to evoke the right feeling. The music is important too.
- Retain original interior architecture and design yet tweak the finishing details such as set decor and instrumentation. Retain many of the original sound f/x.
- avoid anything that looks remotely ENT derived.
Seriously, though, the issue keeps being dragged into what is or isn't going to be done in the film and whether it's right or not. That is basically irrelevant to my initial issue at the beginning of the thread.
If by some chance I'd been in charge of this project and setting aside the storyline and all that, here's what I would have done with the Enterprise:
- exact same configuration and proportions as in TOS, however...
- instead of concrete like gray with a hint of green to the hull I'd have made it more silvery grey with a hint of green. Retain other original colours yet perhaps tweaked to a lighter or darker hue.
- no aztecing, but add some texture to the hull to suggest exotic alloys.
- no kewl lighting f/x a la TNG and later.
- dramatic lighting and motion to show off the size and majesty of the vessel. And include some iconic beauty shots to evoke the right feeling. The music is important too.
- Retain original interior architecture and design yet tweak the finishing details such as set decor and instrumentation. Retain many of the original sound f/x.
- avoid anything that looks remotely ENT derived.
