I'm deeply honored.
What really worries me...
- Thread starter Praetor
- Start date
- Status
And TOS won't be dead just because you are dreading the new movie.
Isn't MattJC basically calling everyone who doesn't agree with him a non-Trek fan?
Just the ones who are just suddenly trashing the look of TOS.
Give the show a break, it was a product of the 60's.
Of course it was, but if we are going to get to see all-new TOS era adventures over the next few years, I don't see why the production team must suddenly pretend it's the 60s again.
I've seen Shakespearean plays that use modern dress and sets, but they are still Shakespearean plays.
I like the look of TOS tech - The Pike-era bridge is my favorite Star Trek bridge ever, and the original Enterprise remains my favorite ship. The look of the main run TOS bridge would not have worked for a modern big-budget movie, however. It would not be taken seriously, even by me. An updated Pike-era bridge could work, and while I would have made things more similar personally, this is what we got.
Instead of trying to reconcile it with the look of TOS, we should try to accept it for what it is, and delight in the design homages where you find them. Trek is already so internally inconsistant and we've seen so many refits and bridges on the Enterprise that I don't think one need balk at the new design. It looks like a high-tech starship command center, which is all the bridge of the Enterprise is supposed to be in context. What it really is, of course, is a stage on which a story is told. That it looks different from the old stage is no reason to freak out and condemn the movie and its makers.
No one is trashing TOS, it was a great show. A great show whose 60's visual design would be totally inapropriate for a big budget film in 1978 let alone 2008.
Abrams is hoping to preserve the great aspects of the show, and rework some of the low-budget 60's details that worked just fine for the show, but will not work for a wide modern audience. I don't agree with everything he's changed, but then again, I'm not making this thing so that's inevitable.
Again: Just because they change something it doesn't mean they didn't like the original. It doesn't mean they're being disrespectful.
I get why some of you don't like the new bridge, that's subjective and there isn't a "right" or "wrong" opinion, because personal taste is just that.
What I don't get is why some people actually get angry- I mean come on, this reboot or revamp or whatever the heck it is won't make older Trek disappear, so if you're willing to give new and re-imagined stuff a shot, good for you... if you're unwilling to do so, leave it alone. No-one is forcing you to acknowledge Abrams-Trek, let alone question whatever has been established before.
In the end, it's only a film, and I for one hope it's cool and entertaining. As for the changes, I'm ready for that suspention of disbelieve spiel.
And in all honesty, I don't care that it looks different. The 60's version was good for that time, but it wouldn't work now and I want Trek to become cool again to the general audiences, because that would mean more Trek for us.
Good stories, good characters, nice visuals. That's what matters.
What I don't get is why some people actually get angry- I mean come on, this reboot or revamp or whatever the heck it is won't make older Trek disappear, so if you're willing to give new and re-imagined stuff a shot, good for you... if you're unwilling to do so, leave it alone. No-one is forcing you to acknowledge Abrams-Trek, let alone question whatever has been established before.
In the end, it's only a film, and I for one hope it's cool and entertaining. As for the changes, I'm ready for that suspention of disbelieve spiel.
And in all honesty, I don't care that it looks different. The 60's version was good for that time, but it wouldn't work now and I want Trek to become cool again to the general audiences, because that would mean more Trek for us.
Good stories, good characters, nice visuals. That's what matters.
Every incarnation except a prequil.
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!
Exactamundo!
I still have some hope.
Newsflash--the "60s" are long gone. They are, in fact, so far gone that I will be teaching a HISTORY class on "The Sixties"--not a "current affairs" class--next semester.
Again--Don't. Watch. The. Movie. It clearly won't be changed to accommodate your "personal vision", so the best option is to ignore it. To quote Captain Kirk--It's better for you, it's better for us, it's better for them. (taken, of course, from a movie where the bridge of the stolen Klingon Bird of Prey has a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT bridge (one MORE, not less, suited to Klingons in terms of lighting and ergonomics (including display languages) than the original--so the absurd "explanation" that it was "modified" by the Vulcans (who, inexplicably, made it more KLINGON-like) that is being peddled in this thread is utterly asinine).
Does Shakespeare's Julius Caesar lose its effectiveness for NOT being staged in togas and sandals? Well, then, I guess Shakespeare was a fool (for his plays were staged in CONTEMPORARY garb, not "period costume", in the vast majority of cases, if not all). And Shakespeare had REAL history to contend with--not some fictional "continuity" replete with contradictions and changes.
So, criticize the movie for bad storytelling. Criticize it for making the characters' behaviour unrecognizable from the originals. Criticize it for being thematically disconnected from Star Trek in its broad sense. Criticize it for bad individual and/or collective acting performances. Criticize it for poor directorial choices and bad filmmaking techniques. But wait to see the damn thing before you do any of that. Or, do yourself a HUGE favour--ignore the movie altogether (which, "logically", includes discussions of it) and watch your DVDs. And the best part is you don't even have to wait until May 2009--you can start right away.
If so, it is astonishingly well camouflaged.
Hey! This is science fiction! No imagination allowed! As fans we are not to ever employ our imagination when passively ingesting Star Trek. What is on the screen is all there is, and therefore it must not deviate from canon or anyone looking upon it will be excommunicated! Because to be a true Star Trek fan is to be as rule-bound as the Medieval Catholic Church. We will not have any of this free-thinking or using your own creativity. We're barely interested in anyone enjoying this film. Enjoy it too much and it's a sin! Because it's not an original broadcast on a 13 inch 1967 Panavision! This big screen viewing is on the edge of being lewd!
Go say three Hail Spocks and a half dozen My Kirks at once.
Wear some sackcloth while you're at it.
Lapis, go look outside, it's 1966 !! Imagination is going to have to be applied to the story.
Just because they are gone doesn't mean you should start trashing TOS.
The producers of that show did the best job they could do with what they had.
Ok, wiseguy. You come up with a better explanation for why the Klingon bridge looks different.
No one has said they didn't do the best job they could. Everyone agrees that they did.
No one is trashing TOS.
Not even J.J. Abrams.
Matt, be careful with the personal stuff. (That goes equally for everyone else, btw.)
As far as the explanation goes: there may be several ways to explain it, but none of them are really all that important. It's a fun thing to try, taken as a thought exercise, but it doesn't really hurt anything if they don't match up perfectly.
In fact, there are a lot of things in TOS, as in the rest of Trek, which don't match up very well at all. But so what? That doesn't really hurt the stories being told, does it?
Does it?
And nothing anyone does can hurt the TOS stories already told. Nothing.
So why get excited about it?
- Status
Similar threads
