When Will the Penny Drop then...?

[starburst]

I will hazard a guess of why they changed the designs, because they can.

Yes the movie could still be good with extra detail to the 60's designs but why should anyone working within a creative field limit themselves when they have been given a green light by the people who actually own Trek to do whatever they want.

I really dont understand why some fans need to know exactly why something has changed, if the ship can be refited to match the series, changing the bridge to fit the series etc.

This point has been said a good couple of times by many people accross the Interwebz, this is why the normal people who are required to see a movie to make it a success laugh at Star Trek. They think its stupid and that it looks fake and (dare I say it) silly. ok so changing the designs probably wont change the opinion on some but it may go some way of helping to make it look different and worth a chance.

40 odd years of Star Trek and some still dont relise that for a good portion of that, especially in later years, how many people have laughed at it and even fans gone off it.

For me being a generation Y kid who grew up on repeats of TOS and early TNG (when BBC2 actually showed them) I thought it was the best thing on TV, these days I dont think I would spend money on buying any Star Trek series other than the odd novel...where as this new movie looks to be a fresh take which may shock some of us back into watching and bring in new people.

 

[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.

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?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Visually, this looks like a shot in the arm that Star Trek needed. We just don't know yet. It needed a kick up the arse and we've got it.

That said, there is nothing wrong with the old stuff.

I liked every Trek Series (in varying degrees), and I'd be shocked if I didn't like this one.

But.

We don't know yet. All these flashy visuals could end up being the sum total of the movie. A 2hr MTV music video is not what I want anyway.

 

[SalvorHardin]

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."

Yes, I was wondering that too.
Though I'd rather they didn't spend a second explaining this.

The fact it's a movie made in 2008 and the designs needed some updating is enough.

 

[Devon]

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?

Because they've wanted to tell a story (story being the keyword) about Kirk and Spock. Orci said something that I guess makes sense, that Star Trek has done "The Next Generation," and "The Next Next Generation" and "The Next Next Next Generation," so they wanted to go back to the source of Kirk and Spock this time, "the faces" of Star Trek. I'll have to find his exact quote though. But simply put, the story they wanted to tell involved Kirk and more importantly Spock.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

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

Yeh, the secrecy means were sort of running away with ourselves based on incomplete information, I don't remember because I was too young was it like this with the other movies?

"it will be crap"

"it will be great"

"it will kill the franchise"

"it will rescue the franchise"

I'm sure all this has been said before about every other movie, it's just more insane now because it's a prequel.

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?

Nobody, I said replies were dickish.

Intolerant and disrespectful is this type of thing:

A big budget Star Trek film, done by one of Hollywood's hottest talents, is coming through and you are about to blown into the weeds.

You have nothing to say that I care to hear anymore - you had your version of Trek now here comes one for the 21st century

That why you, and the likes of you, don't get it - it's the scale of the endeavour that counts and you are imposing your own lack of scale upon JJ's vision.

I so can't wait for you and your type to set up a breakaway board - we won't have to humour you anymore then.

I'm so sorry if I come across as a bit rude - but the light at the end of the tunnel is growing ever brighter and your lack of vision and imagination is growing ever more distant.

Burn the heretics - burn the heretics - you can hear it from all the usual suspects

Apologies if it comes across as otherwise - no ill meaning intended.

My points are serious and well intentioned.

However................
__________________

You say that a lot before you get insulting, it's very "no disprespect...but your mothers a whore..NO DISPRESCT NOW"

Your other interactions here often end like this don't they?

Nope.

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

I already said since we've seen so little I could be totally wrong and will thus watch it and give it a chance, and I already commented on the trailer on the thread about it on the first page of this forum, don't jump to conclusions, it's not all black and white "i totally hate the whole concept and will boycott/i love it and your all dinosaurs from the 20th century if you don't", there is a middle ground

I don't want to get into a back and forth argument with individual posters, so lets stop this, please..

Lets be nice, and talk about the movie, not each other.

 

[Jon1701]

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."

You know, that would seem quite likely.

Kind of fits in with the stuff abrams has been saying about using the Romulans before their original appearance. The rumours of an alternate timeline flew around a couple of years ago, and would be a way of keeping all the existing canon intact.

 

[starburst]

If thats the explanation its an easy one

The Constitution Class was the pinincle of Starfleet design at the time, if the attack on the Kelvin starts a war its possible they may have halted development so resources could build more smaller ships (like the Kelvin) as well as to develop new technology.

So seeming that technology advances at a quicker pace in times of war than when it is peacefull this easily explains why the ship looks different and more advanced.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

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?

I agree with most of your points, but I would like to say you're kind of making it sound like we have to be in one of two groups: the Abrams-lovers or the nay-sayers.

Okay some of us seem to think in those dimensions, granted, but the majority doesn't- why can't someone be a fan of Voyager, INS, canon and what have you, and yet still be excited about the new film? No need for us to jump on each other's throats here over such things.

I like VOY, INS and basically all Trek, even the horrible bits of it- I like the dated sets and the canon in-jokes, and if the new movie were like that, I would most probably watch it and try to find something enjoyable in it.

That doesn't mean I don't believe that this new stuff is needed to revive the franchise. I'm one of the whatever, go for it, as long as it's a good film I don't give a damn people.

But we shouldn't get lost in petty bickering, it's not worth it and a bloody waste of time.

Cheers.

 

[PhoenixIreland]

I will hazard a guess of why they changed the designs, because they can.

Yes the movie could still be good with extra detail to the 60's designs but why should anyone working within a creative field limit themselves when they have been given a green light by the people who actually own Trek to do whatever they want.

I really dont understand why some fans need to know exactly why something has changed, if the ship can be refited to match the series, changing the bridge to fit the series etc.

This point has been said a good couple of times by many people accross the Interwebz, this is why the normal people who are required to see a movie to make it a success laugh at Star Trek. They think its stupid and that it looks fake and (dare I say it) silly. ok so changing the designs probably wont change the opinion on some but it may go some way of helping to make it look different and worth a chance.

40 odd years of Star Trek and some still dont relise that for a good portion of that, especially in later years, how many people have laughed at it and even fans gone off it.

For me being a generation Y kid who grew up on repeats of TOS and early TNG (when BBC2 actually showed them) I thought it was the best thing on TV, these days I dont think I would spend money on buying any Star Trek series other than the odd novel...where as this new movie looks to be a fresh take which may shock some of us back into watching and bring in new people.

I get exactly what you mean, and like I said, I could take upgrades, im not that inflexable, but you say they need to make it not look silly and fake, but I think the new bridge looks more silly and fake than the old 60s one did.

You don't have to change stuff just "because you can" either.

We'll see how it looks, I'm not condeming it yet, I just think theres a huge chance its going to flop and look silly, I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Plumster]

I will hazard a guess of why they changed the designs, because they can.

Yes the movie could still be good with extra detail to the 60's designs but why should anyone working within a creative field limit themselves when they have been given a green light by the people who actually own Trek to do whatever they want.

I really dont understand why some fans need to know exactly why something has changed, if the ship can be refited to match the series, changing the bridge to fit the series etc.

This point has been said a good couple of times by many people accross the Interwebz, this is why the normal people who are required to see a movie to make it a success laugh at Star Trek. They think its stupid and that it looks fake and (dare I say it) silly. ok so changing the designs probably wont change the opinion on some but it may go some way of helping to make it look different and worth a chance.

40 odd years of Star Trek and some still dont relise that for a good portion of that, especially in later years, how many people have laughed at it and even fans gone off it.

For me being a generation Y kid who grew up on repeats of TOS and early TNG (when BBC2 actually showed them) I thought it was the best thing on TV, these days I dont think I would spend money on buying any Star Trek series other than the odd novel...where as this new movie looks to be a fresh take which may shock some of us back into watching and bring in new people.

I get exactly what you mean, and like I said, I could take upgrades, im not that inflexable, but you say they need to make it not look silly and fake, but I think the new bridge looks more silly and fake than the old 60s one did.

You don't have to change stuff just "because you can" either.

We'll see how it looks, I'm not condeming it yet, I just think theres a huge chance its going to flop and look silly, I hope I'm wrong.

FFS

What line of business are you in then? Are you a film producer? Are you Hollywood's hottest young talent? Do you control a budget of hundreds of millions?

Are you taking a chance and gambling your career away based upon nothing in particular? Did the studio do that too? Or was the decision to film this based on sound research and demographics?

Or are you just one of them 'old skool trekkers' to whom all this means nothing and is heresy?

 

[PhoenixIreland]

I will hazard a guess of why they changed the designs, because they can.

Yes the movie could still be good with extra detail to the 60's designs but why should anyone working within a creative field limit themselves when they have been given a green light by the people who actually own Trek to do whatever they want.

I really dont understand why some fans need to know exactly why something has changed, if the ship can be refited to match the series, changing the bridge to fit the series etc.

This point has been said a good couple of times by many people accross the Interwebz, this is why the normal people who are required to see a movie to make it a success laugh at Star Trek. They think its stupid and that it looks fake and (dare I say it) silly. ok so changing the designs probably wont change the opinion on some but it may go some way of helping to make it look different and worth a chance.

40 odd years of Star Trek and some still dont relise that for a good portion of that, especially in later years, how many people have laughed at it and even fans gone off it.

For me being a generation Y kid who grew up on repeats of TOS and early TNG (when BBC2 actually showed them) I thought it was the best thing on TV, these days I dont think I would spend money on buying any Star Trek series other than the odd novel...where as this new movie looks to be a fresh take which may shock some of us back into watching and bring in new people.

I get exactly what you mean, and like I said, I could take upgrades, im not that inflexable, but you say they need to make it not look silly and fake, but I think the new bridge looks more silly and fake than the old 60s one did.

You don't have to change stuff just "because you can" either.

We'll see how it looks, I'm not condeming it yet, I just think theres a huge chance its going to flop and look silly, I hope I'm wrong.

FFS

What line of business are you in then? Are you a film producer? Are you Hollywood's hottest young talent? Do you control a budget of hundreds of millions?

Or are you just one of them 'old skool trekkers'?

Can we talk about the movie, not me?

 

[starburst]

You don't have to change stuff just "because you can" either.

Never said they had to, just that they chose to

We will never know what an audience would think of the same movie filmed in the same way with the same level of SFX but with the original (tweaked) designs, mayb they would put people off or its possible alot of people may never notice the difference (like how many people confuse the Trek Captains!)

 

[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?

I agree with most of your points, but I would like to say you're kind of making it sound like we have to be in one of two groups: the Abrams-lovers or the nay-sayers.

Okay some of us seem to think in those dimensions, granted, but the majority doesn't- why can't someone be a fan of Voyager, INS, canon and what have you, and yet still be excited about the new film? No need for us to jump on each other's throats here over such things.

I like VOY, INS and basically all Trek, even the horrible bits of it- I like the dated sets and the canon in-jokes, and if the new movie were like that, I would most probably watch it and try to find something enjoyable in it.

That doesn't mean I don't believe that this new stuff is needed to revive the franchise. I'm one of the whatever, go for it, as long as it's a good film I don't give a damn people.

But we shouldn't get lost in petty bickering, it's not worth it and a bloody waste of time.

Cheers.

Agreed and we can be fans of everything - I love the TOS movies.

But I did not say 'why do we have to change anything' - I said 'why not change everything'.

I do not see Trek confined to some canon defined parameters - I want to see it grow and prosper. It died towards the end of it's last run.

 

[Plumster]

I get exactly what you mean, and like I said, I could take upgrades, im not that inflexable, but you say they need to make it not look silly and fake, but I think the new bridge looks more silly and fake than the old 60s one did.

You don't have to change stuff just "because you can" either.

We'll see how it looks, I'm not condeming it yet, I just think theres a huge chance its going to flop and look silly, I hope I'm wrong.

FFS

What line of business are you in then? Are you a film producer? Are you Hollywood's hottest young talent? Do you control a budget of hundreds of millions?

Or are you just one of them 'old skool trekkers'?

Can we talk about the movie, not me?

Definately - but the fan base is a massive part of the debate. Only this time - I don't think the fan base will make or break the film and there's a few of them that HATE that.

Fan power brought it back in 1979 - it did not bring it back this time.

They HATE that.

 

[starburst]

To quote someone who obviously some would rather see in this film

Your father called the future 'The Undiscovered Country'. People can be very frightened of change."

Sums it up for me

 

[PhoenixIreland]

You don't have to change stuff just "because you can" either.

Never said they had to, just that they chose to

We will never know what an audience would think of the same movie filmed in the same way with the same level of SFX but with the original (tweaked) designs, mayb they would put people off or its possible alot of people may never notice the difference (like how many people confuse the Trek Captains!)

I wonder, would they test that kind of stuff? Film test scenes on a TOS bridge set to see how it played on a big screen? and concluded by looking at it with their own eyes it didnt work? or did they just presume?

 

[Plumster]

To quote someone who obviously some would rather see in this film

Your father called the future 'The Undiscovered Country'. People can be very frightened of change."

Sums it up for me

And we all sat there in 1991 and agreed did we not?

Yet the very same people then write this off before they've even seen it. The stupidity is breathtaking.

 

[Baldus885]

Finally, a non dickish explanation.

Thank you. I agree with Plumster to a point, but his/her methods are a bit to confrontational for me (no offence, Plumster).

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?

To answer your second quesion first, I think because, as someone's sig used to say around here, contemporary Trek has failed. Trying to introduce a new ship and crew from the post-NEM era isn't going to capture any imaginations, IMO, in the same way as telling new stories of Kirk et al. We've heard some reactions to the trailer in cinemas - people pricking up their ears at the name James Kirk. I can't see that kind of reaction from a trailer introducing the amazing new Adventues of Captain Brad Newcaptain and his bold crew of the USS... whatever. Trek fans might prick up their ears, but the target audience Abrams is looking for will yawn long and loud.

As for your first question, I'll answer that below...

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?

Yes, there almost certainly is. And it sure as hell needed it - to me, TOS absolutely screams "1960's." It was a 1960's view of the future which would not look good now without updating it's big, clunky switches and clattering computer. So what's left is how much it should be updated. The new bridge - or at least the minimal view we've seen of it - frankly does look too different, IMO, but I can live with it. It's down to personal taste, and they were never going to produce someting that everyone liked. For all we know they might have spent months trying to redesign the original bridge, then said "ahh screw it, make a new one."

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.

This I agree with. The bridge is the weakest thing I've seen so far, and does look like an Apple Store (no bad thing, I'm typing this on a Mac, but it does look odd). But the ship looks great from what I've seen of it - bear in mind the picture we've been shown has pretty bad perspective on it. I think it'll look a lot better than that.

 

[Baldus885]

To quote someone who obviously some would rather see in this film

Your father called the future 'The Undiscovered Country'. People can be very frightened of change."

Sums it up for me

And we all sat there in 1991 and agreed did we not?

Yet the very same people then write this off before they've even seen it. The stupidity is breathtaking.

Dude, you need to stop calling people names.

 

[Plumster]

Finally, a non dickish explanation.

Thank you. I agree with Plumster to a point, but his/her methods are a bit to confrontational for me (no offence, Plumster).

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?

To answer your second quesion first, I think because, as someone's sig used to say around here, contemporary Trek has failed. Trying to introduce a new ship and crew from the post-NEM era isn't going to capture any imaginations, IMO, in the same way as telling new stories of Kirk et al. We've heard some reactions to the trailer in cinemas - people pricking up their ears at the name James Kirk. I can't see that kind of reaction from a trailer introducing the amazing new Adventues of Captain Brad Newcaptain and his bold crew of the USS... whatever. Trek fans might prick up their ears, but the target audience Abrams is looking for will yawn long and loud.

As for your first question, I'll answer that below...

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?

Yes, there almost certainly is. And it sure as hell needed it - to me, TOS absolutely screams "1960's." It was a 1960's view of the future which would not look good now without updating it's big, clunky switches and clattering computer. So what's left is how much it should be updated. The new bridge - or at least the minimal view we've seen of it - frankly does look too different, IMO, but I can live with it. It's down to personal taste, and they were never going to produce someting that everyone liked. For all we know they might have spent months trying to redesign the original bridge, then said "ahh screw it, make a new one."

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.

This I agree with. The bridge is the weakest thing I've seen so far, and does look like an Apple Store (no bad thing, I'm typing this on a Mac, but it does look odd). But the ship looks great from what I've seen of it - bear in mind the picture we've been shown has pretty bad perspective on it. I think it'll look a lot better than that.

Ohhh errr - I work in law enforcement - that might explain the confrontational thing.

Sorry all.