Cary L. Brown said:
Wingsley said:
Starship Polaris said:
The difference being that there's no 23rd century for the movie to be set in, any more than there's an historical Krypton for Kal-El to fall from.
Ergo, there's no more or less restriction on redesigning the fictional 23rd century than there has been in redesigning Krypton every few years since the beginning of "Superman" in the comics - and the reason to do so in both cases is simply to update the property to suit evolving tastes and expectations (as well as to let creative comic book and film artists be artists and designers rather than human photocopiers).
Hmmm... "human photocopiers"...
So why don't these artists and writers simply start with a completely clean sheet of paper, instead of capitalizing on the STAR TREK name?
If you want to see the 2008 Camaro and you don't have time for a 1970 Camaro, then there's nothing wrong with making a NEW TREK with new characters, no Starship Enterprise with "NCC-1701" on the hood, no Jim Kirk, no Spock, etc.
That's the logical trap that's gonna get you labeled a "troublemaker" by the "kewl kids" in here, and get them hitting "report to mod" every time you make a post. Trust me, I know allll about that. There are a half-dozen or so folks in here who'll try ANYTHING to get ME kicked off the BBS. And at least one mod who'll gladly play along. (NOT PTrope, mind you!)
Your logic is inescapable. The argument is "we don't want to be tied down to what's been done before" but the other half of the argument is "we need it to be what came before to get people to come."
It's a classic "bait and switch" argument. The basis of this argument is "you get the people to start watching by fooling them into thinking they're going to see something that they know, then once they've paid to see it, you give them what YOU want to give them, not what they're expecting."
It's about ego ("we can do it better") but also about deceit ("they won't come to see it if I call it something new, so I'll trick them into coming by telling them it's something old. Once I've got their money, they'll have no choice but to sit through it. And since my idea is so much better than the original, they'll decide that my IMPROVEMENTS should replace that old, stale version that they remember.")
Most of what I've seen for this film... script, casting, etc... has been promising. But this uncalled-for ship redesign has put a bad taste into my mouth, and taken what's been a pretty positive perspective on the show overall and turned it into a more cautious one. I'm not sure about anything now.
I know that there are folks who'll argue that it's not important. The answer to them is "so why change it?" There will be other folks who hate the original and want it changed. The answer to them is "so why call it the Enterprise at all?"
Ultimately, this is going to result in the new movie being treated much like the "Lost in Space" movie... as a separate piece. Except in the case of Lost in Space, both the TV show and the movie were abortions. In this case, the TV show is a classic, and we don't know WHAT the movie will be like. But it will inevitably cause a split in the mythos... fans arguing forever after about "which continuity" we're talking about... people choosing sides and fighting. Flame wars, etc.
It's pointless, counterproductive, and ultimately destructive. It may not mean that the film will be a success or a failure, but it will very likely put the final nails into the coffin of classic Trek fandom.
There are those who post here who'll take HUGE pleasure in that, too... and we know who they are.
Lost in Space was a great movie! 
