There've been a number of amusing conceptual parallels between this movie and "Enterprise." There's no real resemblance between the two productions, though.
Trek Teaser: Original? Or prelude to past mistakes?
- Thread starter Patrickivan
- Start date
I love Enterprise, that show was excellent imo. Any similarities wouldn't bother me at all.
Thank the Gods.
I wouldn't say it's contradictory. Did the sets of TOS distract with gee-whiz futurism? I would be more distracted by golly-gee contemporism (is that a word?). How can I take a story supposedly set centuries in the future seriously if the technology surrounding them is purposely designed to connect with today? In Firefly, we understood that there was just enough technology to get them 'out there,' but once they got there, at least in the outer planets, they had to essentially reinvent the wheel in order to survive; it was easy to buy that their planetside technology was usually only 'good enough.' But Star Trek has always been about a prosperous and advanced humanity traveling the unimaginable distances between the stars, with safety so much a part of their technology that they rarely have to worry about anything, rarely have to want for anything, and they can concentrate on moving forward, not simply surviving. GR had it right when he felt that the technology, no matter how "gee whiz" it was, was secondary to the story and didn't need to be explained, didn't need to be placed in the forefront. That's how we live now, and how we'll probably live in Trek's future: the technology will not be "gee whiz" to the people who use it - it will be taken for granted; that's the way it should also be presented in the story: it fulfills its purpose, but its purpose should be only to move the people forward, not the story. The characters should resonate because, as in any good drama, they have obstacles that they need to overcome, and the technology shouldn't be so prevalent that it becomes the sole means by which they do that.
I want the technology to be 23rd century, and functionally invisible to the characters; I don't see the point in painting up the 21st century tech, like a Pomeranian with a horn, so we stop and wonder how the hell they ever got that far with such old junk
. If they don't make a point about the tech, there's no reason why we should notice it.
I want the technology to be 23rd century, and functionally invisible to the characters; I don't see the point in painting up the 21st century tech, like a Pomeranian with a horn, so we stop and wonder how the hell they ever got that far with such old junk
. If they don't make a point about the tech, there's no reason why we should notice it.Just another little nitpick. The ship is obviously still under construction, yet the name is already painted, or future super decalled, on it... I'm assuming that the ship is from a scene depicting it's contruction waaaaay before Kirk got his grubby paws on it.
The old Star Trek showed the people of the 60's future technology that most people couldn't even dream of. However today, we are bombarded with technology and the speed of change, that to present it as new would be superfluous. We know the tech of Star Trek, and I agree that the movie doesn't need to focus in any way on that.
The old Star Trek showed the people of the 60's future technology that most people couldn't even dream of. However today, we are bombarded with technology and the speed of change, that to present it as new would be superfluous. We know the tech of Star Trek, and I agree that the movie doesn't need to focus in any way on that.
Ptrope said:
I want the technology to be 23rd century, and functionally invisible to the characters; I don't see the point in painting up the 21st century tech, like a Pomeranian with a horn, so we stop and wonder how the hell they ever got that far with such old junk
I hear ya, Ptrope.
I think the film may suffer (or benefit from) this new prequel trend ("Batman Begins," "Casino Royale") in which intentional efforts were made to make audiences think: "Hey, this could really happen. I buy into this."
And a lot of my non-sci-fi-fan friends said just that about those films, and loved the movies for that reason. It may very well be that the way to lure in the non-sci-fi crowd is to connect the dots just enough to make the audience feel that they aren't watching a sci-fi/genre film anymore. It tricks them into letting their nerd-defenses down.
And since I loved both of those films, I know it can be done right. I suspect I'll enjoy the final product, no matter which direction they choose.
It can work either way. I'm fine with that approach done well but I don't think it's innately better (or worse) than the more fantastical approach.
But on the upside, I think Batman Begins and Casino Royale were the best films of their respective franchsies to date. If Abrams' Star Trek is even half as good as either that's enough for me.
Do I even want to?
"Oh, my, god!!!! The teaser is just like ENT's opening!!!!
EnterpriseStarTrekXI is the Anti Christ tm!!!!
"
EnterpriseStarTrekXI is the Anti Christ tm!!!!
"
Holytomato said:
"Oh, my, god!!!! The teaser is just like ENT's opening!!!!
EnterpriseStarTrekXI is the Anti Christ tm!!!!
Hey man, much as I disagree that this is going to be Enterprise Redux, it does bear discussing. And it can be done without a bunch of condescending emoticons and sarcastic Chicken Little declarations.
I thought that distinction should go to The Mothers in Law, or The Ugliest Girl in Town.
Similar threads
