What really worries me...

[xortex]

If the movie is a success, they'll follow their own tastes and intuitions on the second - which is what they should do, if they're successful. They'll keep doing what they're doing.

If the movie is not a success, bye-bye "Star Trek."

It'll probably be at least a marginal success. Then after that we get force fed.

 

[Gepard]

There'd have to be a pretty damn good reason for the bridge from Abrams-Trek to "evolve" into the bridge we see in the Cage and TOS.

I think at this point it's quite important that someone points out for the record that the "Star Trek" universe is entirely fictional. It's not real. It didn't happen.

And this, is my new sig.

 

[Garibaldi O'brien]

Wow. I have been reading this and the whole bent of the conversation is just depressing. Have we lost all imagination as fans, and are beholden to budgets and limitations of technology from 40+ years ago?

I can easily posit that this bridge is a precursor to Kirk's bridge, as I have never thought that's how Kirk's bridge really looked. The bridge set is like an impressionistic painting, that you can fill in with your own imagination to update it to current technology. The production designs serve the purpose of the story, and if they tell a good Star Trek story, and bring back Kirk and Spock for my grandkids, then I'll happily accept a new bridge design to fire my imagination. Cause no matter what in 20 years people are going to be talking about how primitive this new bridge looks compared to whatever the real world has to offer.

I'll likely still be around, and rolling my chair in front of the SHxHD-TV, giving one-solid beep of approval to another generation's attempt to tell some great stories in the Trek universe.

 

[xortex]

There'd have to be a pretty damn good reason for the bridge from Abrams-Trek to "evolve" into the bridge we see in the Cage and TOS.

I think at this point it's quite important that someone points out for the record that the "Star Trek" universe is entirely fictional. It's not real. It didn't happen.

Yea but they're claiming it did but in a different way. The historical documents, that it.

 

[Gepard]

Yea but they're claiming it did but in a different way. The historical documents, that it.

Yeah, but the point is, since it's not real and didn't happen, why should we care? It's not like JJ's rewriting real history or anything.

 

[xortex]

Wow. I have been reading this and the whole bent of the conversation is just depressing. Have we lost all imagination as fans, and are beholden to budgets and limitations of technology from 40+ years ago?

I can easily posit that this bridge is a precursor to Kirk's bridge, as I have never thought that's how Kirk's bridge really looked. The bridge set is like an impressionistic painting, that you can fill in with your own imagination to update it to current technology. The production designs serve the purpose of the story, and if they tell a good Star Trek story, and bring back Kirk and Spock for my grandkids, then I'll happily accept a new bridge design to fire my imagination. Cause no matter what in 20 years people are going to be talking about how primitive this new bridge looks compared to whatever the real world has to offer.

I'll likely still be around, and rolling my chair in front of the SHxHD-TV, giving one-solid beep of approval to another generation's attempt to tell some great stories in the Trek universe.

Just how do production designs serve the purpose of the story ? I don't mean to be stubborn cause I like the new Star Trek Somewhat but again only time will prove whose vision will ultimately prevail, I'm afraid. I hope it is J.J.s but there is no need for him to decieve us about it.

 

[xortex]

Wow. I have been reading this and the whole bent of the conversation is just depressing. Have we lost all imagination as fans, and are beholden to budgets and limitations of technology from 40+ years ago?

I can easily posit that this bridge is a precursor to Kirk's bridge, as I have never thought that's how Kirk's bridge really looked. The bridge set is like an impressionistic painting, that you can fill in with your own imagination to update it to current technology. The production designs serve the purpose of the story, and if they tell a good Star Trek story, and bring back Kirk and Spock for my grandkids, then I'll happily accept a new bridge design to fire my imagination. Cause no matter what in 20 years people are going to be talking about how primitive this new bridge looks compared to whatever the real world has to offer.

I'll likely still be around, and rolling my chair in front of the SHxHD-TV, giving one-solid beep of approval to another generation's attempt to tell some great stories in the Trek universe.

Just how do production designs serve the purpose of the story ? I don't mean to be stubborn cause I like the new Star Trek Somewhat but again only time will prove whose vision will ultimately prevail, I'm afraid. I hope it is J.J.s but there is no need for him to decieve us about it.

Can they exist side by side ? I hope so. Certainly TOS is in no danger.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Yea but they're claiming it did but in a different way. The historical documents, that it.

Yeah, but the point is, since it's not real and didn't happen, why should we care? It's not like JJ's rewriting real history or anything.

I'd be interested in an answer to this as well. So far no one has really explained why a break with continuity does any harm to the stories of Star Trek other than basically to say that they just don't like the whole idea.

 

[EnderAKH]

I'm still waiting for someone to point out the supposedly "dated" aspects of the original bridge design?

Are there any bean bag chairs? Lava lamps? Bead curtains? Black light posters? Flower pots that double as bongs? Window box with the suspicious looking plants?

Where are these alleged "1960's" design elements that doom the design?

Primary colors that I have never seen in use in any cruise ship, military vessel, exploration vessel, that I have ever seen?
The essentially nonfunctional/impractical look of the controls? (Giant, unlabeled lighted buttons, unmoving screens, etc).
The whole thing looks made of balsa wood?
Giant wooden blocks as removeable media?

You seem more concerned with what non-Trek fans think.

I Understand that in order for a Star Trek movie to be successful on the level that Paramount wants it to be, it MUST appeal to more than Star Trek fans.

In order for the movie to bring in Iron Man numbers, or Dark Knight numbers, or even X-Men 2 numbers, they are going to have to rely on more than hard core Trek fans. Do you think the majority of the audience for Iron Man were hard core Iron Man fans? Of course not. Tracking suggested most people who saw it had never read an Iron Man comic in their life. So, not me, but Paramount is almost definitely more concerned with what non-Trek fans think. And I agree with them on that. The changes I have seen do not affect me in the slightest, because I expect the movie to be basically true to the characters and spirit of Star Trek. And I expect it to be damned entertaining.

In other words, you care more about what non-Trek fans think

Ok, yes. And?

Fans aren't making Trek. Fans have NEVER made Trek. Paramount does. I like what they did with it in the past. I like what they're doing with it now.

Paramount and Abrams have a reasonably interesting production happening. If your segment of fans were in charge, I'd have a faithful reproduction of the 60s bridge on screen that would cause me, and most other theater goers, to groan and wonder what the execs were smoking to green light this. So... why SHOULD I care what "fans" (and by that I mean the 20% who will accept nothing less than a 100% faithful reproduction of Star Trek '69, not the 80% who are open to some form of change) think?

 

[xortex]

I'm still waiting for someone to point out the supposedly "dated" aspects of the original bridge design?

Are there any bean bag chairs? Lava lamps? Bead curtains? Black light posters? Flower pots that double as bongs? Window box with the suspicious looking plants?

Where are these alleged "1960's" design elements that doom the design?

Primary colors that I have never seen in use in any cruise ship, military vessel, exploration vessel, that I have ever seen?
The essentially nonfunctional/impractical look of the controls? (Giant, unlabeled lighted buttons, unmoving screens, etc).
The whole thing looks made of balsa wood?
Giant wooden blocks as removeable media?

Primary colors are futuristic according to Roddenberry's vision. The rest could have been updated via part of that 100 million.

 

[xortex]

Yea but they're claiming it did but in a different way. The historical documents, that it.

Yeah, but the point is, since it's not real and didn't happen, why should we care? It's not like JJ's rewriting real history or anything.

In a sense Star Trek really happened in history. He's gonna have to change the name to Galaxy Quest.

 

[EnderAKH]

I'm still waiting for someone to point out the supposedly "dated" aspects of the original bridge design?

Are there any bean bag chairs? Lava lamps? Bead curtains? Black light posters? Flower pots that double as bongs? Window box with the suspicious looking plants?

Where are these alleged "1960's" design elements that doom the design?

Primary colors that I have never seen in use in any cruise ship, military vessel, exploration vessel, that I have ever seen?
The essentially nonfunctional/impractical look of the controls? (Giant, unlabeled lighted buttons, unmoving screens, etc).
The whole thing looks made of balsa wood?
Giant wooden blocks as removeable media?

Primary colors are futuristic according to Roddenberry's vision. The rest could have been updated via part of that 100 million.

In the 60s. In the 80s it was tans and pastels. It was whatever was in vogue in sci-fi production at the time.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

Primary colors are futuristic according to Roddenberry's vision.

The Cage was quite monochromatic, actually. It was NBC who demanded the bright colors to impress viewers who had just purchased those new-fangled color televisions.

TGT

 

[ancient]

Primary colors are futuristic according to Roddenberry's vision. The rest could have been updated via part of that 100 million.

Actually, the bridge was mostly grey and black until the studio told them to make it colorful. There was no thought put into it beyond making it as garish as possible so people buying the newfangled color TVs would feel they had gotten their money's worth.

When TMP rolled around they decided the future was pastel, and that the ENT should only have a passing similarity to the ENT from the TV show.

Abrams's bridge isn't as close to the original as I, a fan, would've liked. But I'll live.

He doesn't need to sell me on he concept of ST. He needs to sell the movie as something new, based on a classic, not as a carbon copy of a 60's show.

 

[ancient]

You seem more concerned with what non-Trek fans think.

Well, we can either...

1: ...try to please fans who already automatically hate it to begin with and agonize over the same silly bullshit again and again like a broken record,

2: ...or not.

I can't think of any particular reason to go with option one.

 

[Gepard]

In a sense Star Trek really happened in history.

So you concede the point about every incarnation of Trek being a product of its time?

And at any rate, since these in-history prior versions of Trek will always be around, I'm still not seeing the problem with a 2008 Trek film looking like it was designed and filmed in...2008

Bring on the 2008 JJ Trek!

 

[Therin of Andor]

And they were right too.

One would think that if you feel so strongly that TMP, ST II, ST III, TNG and DS9 were all such missteps you would have given up on ST a long time ago. And yet, you're still here, to rain on everyone else's parades.

 

[Therin of Andor]

It's not the fans way, it's Rodenberry's way and hed they had great stories and production values like TOS it would have been a hit., all casting aside.

TNG was a massive hit in first-run syndication. But its numbers didn't start to climb past syndicated repeat TOS numbers until Season Three, and the arrival of Michael Pillar, and Gene Roddenberry was no longer attending his office at Paramount daily.

It'll probably be at least a marginal success. Then after that we get force fed.

Then run away now, before you get tainted!

 

[Gepard]

One would think that if you feel so strongly that TMP, ST II, ST III, TNG and DS9 were all such missteps you would have given up on ST a long time ago. And yet, you're still here, to rain on everyone else's parades.

Hasn't stopped any of the other members of the Sourpuss Brigade (TM Samuel T. Cogley. All rights reserved. Used under license.)

 

[CommanderTrip]

I am a man of few words.

Hmm.. I would say it's not that big of a deal.