When Will the Penny Drop then...?

[Devon]

of course you'd recognise it, but its not the same ship...I'm really wondering what their motivation for changing the design was?

It looks like they just changed aspects of the design rather than the design itself. I'm thinking if it was a design change, we'd have things like a nacelle sticking out of the front of the ship with the saucer dish where the impulse engines are, etc.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

of course you'd recognise it, but its not the same ship...I'm really wondering what their motivation for changing the design was?

It looks like they just changed aspects of the design rather than the design itself. I'm thinking if it was a design change, we'd have things like a nacelle sticking out of the front of the ship with the saucer dish where the impulse engines are, etc.

again were back to why?

 

[Plumster]

of course you'd recognise it, but its not the same ship...I'm really wondering what their motivation for changing the design was?

It looks like they just changed aspects of the design rather than the design itself. I'm thinking if it was a design change, we'd have things like a nacelle sticking out of the front of the ship with the saucer dish where the impulse engines are, etc.

again were back to why?

Actually - WHY NOT?

 

[PhoenixIreland]

It looks like they just changed aspects of the design rather than the design itself. I'm thinking if it was a design change, we'd have things like a nacelle sticking out of the front of the ship with the saucer dish where the impulse engines are, etc.

again were back to why?

Actually - WHY NOT?

No explanation has yet been given then, I take it.

 

[Plumster]

again were back to why?

Actually - WHY NOT?

No explanation has yet been given then, I take it.

Scale and endeavour - scale and endeavour.

 

[Jon1701]

Plumster you make some valid points... and then take all the "oomph" out of them by being a complete tool.

What he said.

I agree with you, Plumster. To a point.

The real campaign should be to 'out' the fuckers who foisted all this canon shite upon us and ran us all down everytime something was slightly out of their imposed kilter - the ones who took something without limits and imposed limits upon it because 'they knew better'.

There's no need to "out" anyone. Can't we like both?

Two hours of this movie based upon that trailer or two hours of Voyager etc?

I'd take the movie, but i'd still watch voyager afterwards

The rest of the fanwank scum out there - I suggest you rent your own cinema and watch Insurrection a few times and don't bother us ever again.

I quite like Insurrection.

There are a few people out there sticking to their guns, and you know what - so be it. If they don't want to like the movie, then fair play to them. IDIC and all that. Not everyone can like everything. Personally, I like all Star Trek - even the bad episodes.

Your points are valid, there's no need to dance around wagging your finger in people's faces. I know you are probably excited having seen the trailer (I know I am - even though its the shakycam version), but dude...

Chill.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

Actually - WHY NOT?

No explanation has yet been given then, I take it.

Scale and endeavour - scale and endeavour.

Well ....thats....vague.....

 

[Plumster]

No explanation has yet been given then, I take it.

Scale and endeavour - scale and endeavour.

Well ....thats....vague.....

It's not vague - it's vague because it suits the ruinous argument you are constructing - all those who witter on about the 'rape of their childhood' revert to type.

It is what it is - a bigger, more expensive and ambitious film that we've yet to see other than TMP.

Look what that started.

This will be the same - you just have to move on.

The argument that 'if it ain't broke - don't fix it' is spurious. It so obviously was broke and so obviously needed fixing.

If B&B & Berman went to the studio after the crap they put out and asked for another $200,000,000 what do you think the answer would be then?

Deal with it - change is inevitable - change is good.

Out with the old and in with the new.

Would there be such an outcry if they called Spock Spink and Kirk Burke thus protecting the characters?

Yes - because no-one knows Trek like a few thousand Star Trek fans.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

Scale and endeavour - scale and endeavour.

Well ....thats....vague.....

It's not vague - it's vague because it suits the ruinous argument you are constructing - all those who witter on about the 'rape of their childhood' revert to type.

It is what it is - a bigger, more expensive and ambitious film that we've yet to see other than TMP.

Look what that started.

This will be the same - you just have to move on.

I didn't say anything about the rape of childhood.

If you don't know why they changed the design then quit posting replies to my questions about it.

 

[Baldus885]

How does changing the ship and bridge design attract millions more people or keeping those designs turn them away copping out to a small minority?

The sets and designs of TOS are dated - they're 40 years old and they're stale. TNG is already looking old and dated too, IMO. That doesn't detract from their appeal, but this movie is targeted at a wider audience than just Trek fans, and that wider audience has been laughing at us for years - "hey, why does Picard walk around in his pyjamas? " Making Trek that just caters to existing fans brings us drek like INS, NEM and ENT - and we already know they aren't going to do that any more so the only answer is update it. Or throw it away and forget it, but I'd rather they did the former than the latter.

The sets and ship designs have been modernised, just like they were for TMP. And don't start on about "refits" and "swappable bridges," because both of those are simply "canon" explanations for what they did - modernise the sets and the ship designs for a new audience. I can accept that some changes are probably more than what was required - particularly the bridge - but it's their movie, and I can live with their decisions.

I'm genuinely sad that some people feel so affronted by what we're getting, but the bottom line is that it's happened - we have a new ship, new sets, new actors.

Now, I'm going to go and watch a TOS DVD.

 

[Saul]

Well ....thats....vague.....

It's not vague - it's vague because it suits the ruinous argument you are constructing - all those who witter on about the 'rape of their childhood' revert to type.

It is what it is - a bigger, more expensive and ambitious film that we've yet to see other than TMP.

Look what that started.

This will be the same - you just have to move on.

I didn't say anything about the rape of childhood.

If you don't know why they changed the design then quit posting replies to my questions about it.

I suggest we don't waste time on this person. They clearly aren't interested in any kind of intelligent discussion.

 

[Plumster]

Well ....thats....vague.....

It's not vague - it's vague because it suits the ruinous argument you are constructing - all those who witter on about the 'rape of their childhood' revert to type.

It is what it is - a bigger, more expensive and ambitious film that we've yet to see other than TMP.

Look what that started.

This will be the same - you just have to move on.

I didn't say anything about the rape of childhood.

If you don't know why they changed the design then quit posting replies to my questions about it.

I answered the question - you chose to ignore the answer.

SCALE AND ENDEAVOUR.

A few flashing lights and a shakey set don't cut it anymore. It's why you need to remove yourself from the debate because the debate has moved on......................as has Trek.

 

[Plumster]

It's not vague - it's vague because it suits the ruinous argument you are constructing - all those who witter on about the 'rape of their childhood' revert to type.

It is what it is - a bigger, more expensive and ambitious film that we've yet to see other than TMP.

Look what that started.

This will be the same - you just have to move on.

I didn't say anything about the rape of childhood.

If you don't know why they changed the design then quit posting replies to my questions about it.

I suggest we don't waste time on this person. They clearly aren't interested in any kind of intelligent discussion.

As you wish - a debate means that sometimes I don't agree with you and we agree to disagree. It does not mean we ignore people because they don't agree with us.

Luddite.

You are no fan of Trek - it's obvious. You mould it in an image that suits you and a few others.

You disgust me with your inhibited and 2 dimensional thinking. (Just kidding - that's for effect).

You'll be calling me a troll next.

 

[Dale]

It is what it is - a bigger, more expensive and ambitious film that we've yet to see other than TMP.

Look what that started.

You mean the very decades long, complicated mess of continuity and canon against which you rail?

"I'm laughing at the superior intellect..."
James T. Kirk

 

[PhoenixIreland]

How does changing the ship and bridge design attract millions more people or keeping those designs turn them away copping out to a small minority?

The sets and designs of TOS are dated - they're 40 years old and they're stale. TNG is already looking old and dated too, IMO. That doesn't detract from their appeal, but this movie is targeted at a wider audience than just Trek fans, and that wider audience has been laughing at us for years - "hey, why does Picard walk around in his pyjamas? " Making Trek that just caters to existing fans brings us drek like INS, NEM and ENT - and we already know they aren't going to do that any more so the only answer is update it. Or throw it away and forget it, but I'd rather they did the former than the latter.

The sets and ship designs have been modernised, just like they were for TMP. And don't start on about "refits" and "swappable bridges," because both of those are simply "canon" explanations for what they did - modernise the sets and the ship designs for a new audience. I can accept that some changes are probably more than what was required - particularly the bridge - but it's their movie, and I can live with their decisions.

I'm genuinely sad that some people feel so affronted by what we're getting, but the bottom line is that it's happened - we have a new ship, new sets, new actors.

Now, I'm going to go and watch a TOS DVD.

Finally, a non dickish explanation.

Three points.

1. I get where your coming from to an extent, but why do a prequel if your gonna change everything that was at the heart of what that time looked like? Why not do a post-Nemeis movie with a new crew? or with the TNG crew?

2. Are you telling me there was no feasable way of keeping the same basic designs but adapting them so they'd look better on a big screen?

3. I could live with a new bridge design, and invent some bs explanation later involving changing bridge modules (I dont' know where they're coming from with the ship, that still makes no sense to me) if it looked like a bridge, but it looks like a sci fi parody (from what we've seen so far) not what we've come to think of as a starship bridge.

 

[Plumster]

How does changing the ship and bridge design attract millions more people or keeping those designs turn them away copping out to a small minority?

The sets and designs of TOS are dated - they're 40 years old and they're stale. TNG is already looking old and dated too, IMO. That doesn't detract from their appeal, but this movie is targeted at a wider audience than just Trek fans, and that wider audience has been laughing at us for years - "hey, why does Picard walk around in his pyjamas? " Making Trek that just caters to existing fans brings us drek like INS, NEM and ENT - and we already know they aren't going to do that any more so the only answer is update it. Or throw it away and forget it, but I'd rather they did the former than the latter.

The sets and ship designs have been modernised, just like they were for TMP. And don't start on about "refits" and "swappable bridges," because both of those are simply "canon" explanations for what they did - modernise the sets and the ship designs for a new audience. I can accept that some changes are probably more than what was required - particularly the bridge - but it's their movie, and I can live with their decisions.

I'm genuinely sad that some people feel so affronted by what we're getting, but the bottom line is that it's happened - we have a new ship, new sets, new actors.

Now, I'm going to go and watch a TOS DVD.

Finally, a non dickish explanation.

Three points.

1. I get where your coming from to an extent, but why do a prequel if your gonna change everything that was at the heart of what that time looked like? Why not do a post-Nemeis movie with a new crew? or with the TNG crew?

2. Are you telling me there was no feasable way of keeping the same basic designs but adapting them so they'd look better on a big screen?

3. I could live with a new bridge design, and invent some bs explanation later involving changing bridge modules (I dont' know where they're coming from with the ship, that still makes no sense to me) if it looked like a bridge, but it looks like a sci fi parody (from what we've seen so far) not what we've come to think of as a starship bridge.

Who are you calling a Dick? You chose to ignore the answer given and thne you call me names yet fail to reasonably deal with a single point I made. A picture emerges of an intolerant and disrespectful individual - I made my points in humour but at least I made some points. Your other interactions here often end like this don't they?

FFS.

I take it you won't be watching it then? I take it you not looked on the You Tube for a trailer?

 

[Jon1701]

Problem is, this entire argument is based on a trailer.

The film may end up being shit.

Style and substance alone does not a good movie make. SFX make a movie but do not break it.

If there is no heart to this movie, it won't matter. Wobbly sets the 60's TV show may have had, but it had great stories and believable characters.

The trailer is very, very promising. But at this point it could still go either way.

 

[SalvorHardin]

How does changing the ship and bridge design attract millions more people or keeping those designs turn them away copping out to a small minority?

The sets and designs of TOS are dated - they're 40 years old and they're stale. TNG is already looking old and dated too, IMO. That doesn't detract from their appeal, but this movie is targeted at a wider audience than just Trek fans, and that wider audience has been laughing at us for years - "hey, why does Picard walk around in his pyjamas? " Making Trek that just caters to existing fans brings us drek like INS, NEM and ENT - and we already know they aren't going to do that any more so the only answer is update it. Or throw it away and forget it, but I'd rather they did the former than the latter.

The sets and ship designs have been modernised, just like they were for TMP. And don't start on about "refits" and "swappable bridges," because both of those are simply "canon" explanations for what they did - modernise the sets and the ship designs for a new audience. I can accept that some changes are probably more than what was required - particularly the bridge - but it's their movie, and I can live with their decisions.

I'm genuinely sad that some people feel so affronted by what we're getting, but the bottom line is that it's happened - we have a new ship, new sets, new actors.

Now, I'm going to go and watch a TOS DVD.

Finally, a non dickish explanation.

Three points.

1. I get where your coming from to an extent, but why do a prequel if your gonna change everything that was at the heart of what that time looked like? Why not do a post-Nemeis movie with a new crew? or with the TNG crew?

2. Are you telling me there was no feasable way of keeping the same basic designs but adapting them so they'd look better on a big screen?

3. I could live with a new bridge design, and invent some bs explanation later involving changing bridge modules (I dont' know where they're coming from with the ship, that still makes no sense to me) if it looked like a bridge, but it looks like a sci fi parody (from what we've seen so far) not what we've come to think of as a starship bridge.

Just to add one piece of info...For what it's worth Orci has said that there will be on screen explanations given for the different looks on the E, the bridge etc etc

 

[Plumster]

Problem is, this entire argument is based on a trailer.

The film may end up being shit.

Style and substance alone does not a good movie make. SFX make a movie but do not break it.

If there is no heart to this movie, it won't matter.

Exactly - I made the point that the debate is about scale and endeavour. The evidence of this is overwhelming.

Or we could watch another Kes and Neelix love-in.

Is that Trek? Is that what an overwhelming number of the public want?

 

[Saul]

The sets and designs of TOS are dated - they're 40 years old and they're stale. TNG is already looking old and dated too, IMO. That doesn't detract from their appeal, but this movie is targeted at a wider audience than just Trek fans, and that wider audience has been laughing at us for years - "hey, why does Picard walk around in his pyjamas? " Making Trek that just caters to existing fans brings us drek like INS, NEM and ENT - and we already know they aren't going to do that any more so the only answer is update it. Or throw it away and forget it, but I'd rather they did the former than the latter.

The sets and ship designs have been modernised, just like they were for TMP. And don't start on about "refits" and "swappable bridges," because both of those are simply "canon" explanations for what they did - modernise the sets and the ship designs for a new audience. I can accept that some changes are probably more than what was required - particularly the bridge - but it's their movie, and I can live with their decisions.

I'm genuinely sad that some people feel so affronted by what we're getting, but the bottom line is that it's happened - we have a new ship, new sets, new actors.

Now, I'm going to go and watch a TOS DVD.

Finally, a non dickish explanation.

Three points.

1. I get where your coming from to an extent, but why do a prequel if your gonna change everything that was at the heart of what that time looked like? Why not do a post-Nemeis movie with a new crew? or with the TNG crew?

2. Are you telling me there was no feasable way of keeping the same basic designs but adapting them so they'd look better on a big screen?

3. I could live with a new bridge design, and invent some bs explanation later involving changing bridge modules (I dont' know where they're coming from with the ship, that still makes no sense to me) if it looked like a bridge, but it looks like a sci fi parody (from what we've seen so far) not what we've come to think of as a starship bridge.

Just to add one piece of info...For what it's worth Orci has said that there will be on screen explanations given for the different looks on the E, the bridge etc etc

I was wondering how detailed that might be. It might be a very simple explaination such as "we were going to launch her 5 years ago but we took longer upgrading her to defend against attacks from Romulan weapons that attacked the Kelvin years ago."