What other things can we change for The Drooling Masses?

[Bishbot]

Transformers was extremely true to its source material.

It was? I admit, I'm not the biggest Transformers expert around, but I was always under the impression that it was originally about two robot factions, the Autobots and the Decepticons waging epic war against each other.

Last year's movie seemed to be about a loser teenager trying to score with the popular girl at school, with some sort of military subplot and a stupid-ass hacker story thrown in which contributed nothing. Yes, that's faithful to the source.

Sadly, the unwashed masses lapped this up as though they were stranded in the desert and it was the only water source. It saddens me this has happened to Transformers, and sickens me to think something similar is about to happen to Star Trek.

You've flipped the plots around. Sam's flirtations with the the hottest girl EVER was the subplot.

You can't just have robots shooting at each other for 2 hours and expect to have a sucessful movie.

I can try, damnit!

But seriously, people need to get over bringing up Transformers all the damn time. It was a good movie, as a huge Transformers fan I enjoyed it, but its fairly lightweight and disposable. Its not the Transformers movie I would have written, and it does change quite a lot of the source material, but I had a good time and I have it on DVD.

The thing is, while there was some bitching, (of course), Transformers fans are used to different material being in its own continuity, so it would have been seen as more of a missed opportunity than a rewrite of what has gone before. I really wish Trek could take that approach. We're intelligent people, we can keep track of a few different (but similar) continuities.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Let me preface this by saying I've not made any "final judgement" on the movie.

Nah, you're just making a judgment on the folks who might go to see it.

"Drooling masses?" Dude, you've been posting here for years and have never demonstrated in any way that you're any better than any other average person. Where do you get off with that kind of attempted snobbery?

 

[Squiggy]

But seriously, people need to get over bringing up Transformers all the damn time. It was a good movie, as a huge Transformers fan I enjoyed it, but its fairly lightweight and disposable. Its not the Transformers movie I would have written, and it does change quite a lot of the source material, but I had a good time and I have it on DVD.

Same here. I had all the toys growing up and hearing Peter Cullen say "Roll out" on the big screen...I'm not gonna lie...I got a little hard.

 

[Trekker4747]

Let me preface this by saying I've not made any "final judgement" on the movie.

Nah, you're just making a judgment on the folks who might go to see it.

"Drooling masses?" Dude, you've been posting here for years and have never demonstrated in any way that you're any better than any other average person. Where do you get off with that kind of attempted snobbery?

I'm better in-that I don't go see movies just because the FX look cool.

 

[Tom Servo]

Let me preface this by saying I've not made any "final judgement" on the movie.

Nah, you're just making a judgment on the folks who might go to see it.

"Drooling masses?" Dude, you've been posting here for years and have never demonstrated in any way that you're any better than any other average person. Where do you get off with that kind of attempted snobbery?

I better in-that I don't go see movies just because the FX look cool.

So, that doesn't make you a better person? WTF? It just means you do go to movies because the FX look cool. Movies are as much a visual medium as anything. Because someone goes to see a film because of some pretty VFX doesn't make them somehow less worthy.

Hell there is nothing about this film released yet that even states that its an all FX no plot movie. That has nothing to do with redesigning the Enterprise.

 

[ST-One]

You mean that classic music that is still popular with a lot of people even to this day? Shocking...

I don't like listening to that music.

It's so 19th century. It needs to be updated.

Brought into the now. They need to add in an electric guitar, maybe some keyboard in it. Oh, and it needs to have music videoes with half-naked strippers in it.

Come on! Bring it to the 21st century! How are you going to get people interested in music by playing them something written in 1820?

How about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FmEhbiaUOI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGdasYDnyp8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdr193k-kRQ&feature=related

 

[Sci]

Let me preface this by saying I've not made any "final judgement" on the movie. I'm slightly excited by it because it looks interesting but I'm having a hard time wedging it into my "feel for the franchise." It looks interesting and some promises, there's just stuff changed in it that doesn't work for me.

At this point I neither like or hate this movie.

I, and others, have been grumbling about some of the changes of this movie is making presumably in the name of making it suitable for wider audiances.

The general public won't like the dated/60s look of The Original Series ship design so they'd reject the movie. Solution? Redesign the ship to make it sleeker, kewler and niftier so that more people will like looking at it.

The look and design of the interior of the The Cage sets were too sixties. Solution? White, white, white and super-slick floors!

We need to make people feel "at home" with this series and universe so we need to see cornfields and cars racing away from the police!
The changes list goes on.

So what else can we change so that more people will like it, understand it and accept it?

The 23rd Century is too far away, people have no concept of "200 years from now." The movie should take place in the late 21st century. Say 2090 or something.

I'm trying to figure out which is worst: Fundamentalist Christians who won't accept change or fundamentalist Trekkies who won't accept change.

 

[Tom Servo]

I don't like listening to that music.

It's so 19th century. It needs to be updated.

Brought into the now. They need to add in an electric guitar, maybe some keyboard in it. Oh, and it needs to have music videoes with half-naked strippers in it.

Come on! Bring it to the 21st century! How are you going to get people interested in music by playing them something written in 1820?

Fine, don't listen to the new stuff. Listen to the old. No one is making you listen to it.

 

[Sci]

I don't like listening to that music.

It's so 19th century. It needs to be updated.

Brought into the now. They need to add in an electric guitar, maybe some keyboard in it. Oh, and it needs to have music videoes with half-naked strippers in it.

Come on! Bring it to the 21st century! How are you going to get people interested in music by playing them something written in 1820?

Fine, don't listen to the new stuff. Listen to the old. No one is making you listen to it.

Actually, Trekker4747's post there is the perfect example of his silliness.

Hate to tell ya this, but a great many artists ARE taking classical music and adapting it into modern forms. And they're achieving great success -- creating wonderful new works, and attracting new audiences to the original classics. And their work doesn't threaten the integrity of the originals, it just complements it.

Do I like the new ship design? No. But that doesn't mean that this is going to be a bad movie or that I have to feel threatened by it. It just means that it has a different aesthetic than I do. There's no reason I can't enjoy Star Trek XI on its own terms, and no reason for the rest of the franchise's integrity to feel threatened.

 

[ST-One]

I don't like listening to that music.

It's so 19th century. It needs to be updated.

Brought into the now. They need to add in an electric guitar, maybe some keyboard in it. Oh, and it needs to have music videoes with half-naked strippers in it.

Come on! Bring it to the 21st century! How are you going to get people interested in music by playing them something written in 1820?

Fine, don't listen to the new stuff. Listen to the old. No one is making you listen to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xkw5726qh8I&feature=related

I have to listen to his CDs more often again.

 

[Trekker4747]

Do I like the new ship design? No. But that doesn't mean that this is going to be a bad movie or that I have to feel threatened by it. It just means that it has a different aesthetic than I do. There's no reason I can't enjoy Star Trek XI on its own terms, and no reason for the rest of the franchise's integrity to feel threatened.

And I agree.

I'm just arguing why the ship was changed just for the sake of changing it to appeal to more people (which assumes that people will only go see movies because of the flash)? Why couldn't the original design just be brushed up a little bit and brought to the big screen? Why did it need to be radically redesigned?

I'm no where near ready to say this movie is going to be terrible, or that it's going to suck. It looks interesting. I've no where near enough information to make any judgements on this movie.

I'm just trying to get my head around the silly notion that things needed to be changed just to "appeal" to people (motorcycle/car driving Kirk in the Iowa prairie, redesigned ship.)

I mean, yeah the same-old, same-old with Trek hasn't been working on TV or film lately but that had nothing to do with ship design.

And, yeah, much of the stuff (ok a LOT of the stuff) with TOS wouldn't translate at all to the big screen. But they kept the general look of the unifroms, the miniskirts, Chekov's "W's" in his speech, but the ship design would've just been too much?

I'm excited for this movie. I think it's going to be a lot of fun, I think it's going to be surprising to many and I think it's going to spark a new trilogy of films and pump some much needed life into the franchise.

I can accept some changes, I can.... :hard swallow: "buy" the Enterprise (or a starship) being built in an Iowa cornfield. I can buy a young Kirk James Deaning around on a motorcycle or an even younger Kirk fleeing from the police in a Corvette. I can buy the set radical set changes, I can "accept" a "window" on the Bridge with what appears to be an HUD-like overlay.

I can accept many of the changes that seem to be presented.

And even, yes, I can accept this new design of ship. It's not completely hideous, though it has some design elements on it I don't like.

I just really, really, wish they used the original series' design. I mean, it would've just brought tears to my eyes to see that thing beautifuly, artfuly, detailed-ily rendered in all her glory for the big screen. I mean it could've just been... awesome. I don't see or understand why they took a classic, loved, design and decided to mix it up so drasticly.

I can take it, I can deal with it. I'm not that staunch.

I just. Wish.

 

[Squiggy]

Why couldn't the original design just be brushed up a little bit and brought to the big screen? Why did it need to be radically redesigned?

The same reason why E-nil was refit and E-D was destroyed. Things designed for TV don't translate to movies. They're different mediums.

Show me one thing from television that has successfully been used on the big screen.

 

[Trekker4747]

Why couldn't the original design just be brushed up a little bit and brought to the big screen? Why did it need to be radically redesigned?

The same reason why E-nil was refit and E-D was destroyed. Things designed for TV don't translate to movies. They're different mediums.

Show me one thing from television that has successfully been used on the big screen.

IIRC, the Ent-D translated pretty well to the big screen. At least it looked fine to me.

It was destroyed because TPTB just wanted a new ship and ILM/SFX guys felt that the -D's design itself was too limiting on how it could be filmed.

 

[BillJ]

Why couldn't the original design just be brushed up a little bit and brought to the big screen? Why did it need to be radically redesigned?

The same reason why E-nil was refit and E-D was destroyed. Things designed for TV don't translate to movies. They're different mediums.

Show me one thing from television that has successfully been used on the big screen.

I thought the Enterprise-D looked pretty fucking sweet on the big screen and I bet Matt Jefferies Enterprise would've looked sweet as well.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Why couldn't the original design just be brushed up a little bit and brought to the big screen? Why did it need to be radically redesigned?

The same reason why E-nil was refit and E-D was destroyed. Things designed for TV don't translate to movies. They're different mediums.

Show me one thing from television that has successfully been used on the big screen.

I thought the Enterprise-D looked pretty fucking sweet on the big screen and I bet Matt Jefferies Enterprise would've looked sweet as well.

Very true. It's the PRESENTATION, not the design, that could have been "updated" and everyone would've been happy.

As it is, we know how what we've got. And it's a no-win situation. We have only three options...

(1) The new movie "changes" are permanent. "New fans" (if there are new fans who come out of this flick in significant numbers... something which is by no means "guaranteed" of course) will be happy, but old fans will not be. There will be a permanent schism which will make the one between "Old BSG" and "New BSG" fans look tame by comparison.

(2) The new movie "changes" end up being "reset" at the end of the flick. Old-school fans are happy (or at least happier) but anyone unfamiliar with the classic stuff will feel cheated and will dislike the movie as a result.

(3) This movie gets treated like Ang Lee's "Hulk." The next movie comes along and huge portions of this movie are totally ignored... and we might then have the potential for a more faithful treatment of the history, designs, etc. Sort of like the more recent "Incredible Hulk" movie ignored the Ang Lee version, mostly focused on the comics, but paid significant homages to the old TV series (especially with the opening sequence).

I can't see any of those being GOOD situations, but out of the three, the only one I can see as being remotely "acceptable" is #3.

Nobody's gonna be "happy" though. This movie, by tossing out elements of canon unnecessarily (ie, for reasons that aren't required for storytelling purposes, or which actually appear, as far as we can see so far, to HARM the storytelling - Kirk copping a feel on Uhura?!?!?!) has created the situation where, inevitably, people will be left unhappy.

The thing is... it would have been EASY to make a movie that would have made EVERYBODY happy. Tell the story you want to tell, but don't change the stuff that people need to see in order to believe it's the same world they've known for 40+ years.

 

[StarTrek1701]

And why does mainstream want to be entertained people need flashy pretty effects and sleek retroish designs? Why can't the classic deisgn be used?

Are you truly serious in your question or just trying to irritate people?

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I, and others, have been grumbling about some of the changes of this movie is making presumably in the name of making it suitable for wider audiances.

The general public won't like the dated/60s look of The Original Series ship design so they'd reject the movie. Solution? Redesign the ship to make it sleeker, kewler and niftier so that more people will like looking at it.

They have certainly made drastic changes to the look and feel of all that we know of Trek, but then again I believe that to be the significant plot point of the entire film. If it turns out to be an alternative timeline or universe, would you not be more readily accepting of the changed look of the ship or the look of its crew or even their behavior? I think that acceptance of this point would go along way to healing the "pain" many feel about the changes. As an old time fan, I'm excited about all of the changes including the look of the ship (in fact, I think the whole concept is brilliant). Let me put it this way: if old "prime" Spock looks at the Enterprise and claims "it's close, but not quite the ship I remember" then maybe that is the point the filmmakers are trying to get across. Trekker 4747, you think that the changes are being made just to entice the new, younger crowd (and yes, in a way they are) but the changes might just be for us long time fans as well -- those of us who fondly remember that beautiful original design. Ultimately, we're not losing forty years of entertainment(trek history, canon, etc.), think of it as a new chapter to an old story.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I'm better in-that I don't go see movies just because the FX look cool.

No, you're not. You just don't like that kind of movie. That doesn't make you one whit better than someone who does.

 

[Captain Robert April]

It makes him more discerning than the typical mouth breather who thinks Star Trek is the one with Darth Vader.

 

[Blue_Ranger]

It makes him more discerning than the typical mouth breather who thinks Star Trek is the one with Darth Vader.

Um...any idiot knows Star Wars is the one with Darth Vader. Everyone thinks Star Trek is the one with Dr. Spock.