Why did Star Trek XI change the following?

[smosquito]

Just to say it up front I hate the movie personally. Really I hate it.

But I want to hear your opinion on the following things.

The Enterprise... I mean the model. Do you like it? Do you like it better than the original? Why did they feel it necessary to change it?

Do you think it was necessary to enter a new timeline? Do you think this destroys Star Trek canon? Is this important?

Discuss.

 

[pookha]

i like both enterprises.

i think the time line of tos is not destroyed. it is a parallel universe like mirror mirror was parallel.

canon had become so vast and contradictory i could see how it could be so intimidating.
add on from what orci said one of the main reasons was to bring an element of suspense to the fate of the main characters.
they may die.. they may live ..now you dont know.
add in also they have the freedom to bring whatever they want to from tos to use.

 

[Borgminister]

"I like this ship! It's exciting!"

 

[Amaris]

The Enterprise... I mean the model. Do you like it?

Yes.

Do you like it better than the original?

That would be telling.

Why did they feel it necessary to change it?

Just updated and modernized like most things, including the original Enterprise when The Motion Picture was released.

Do you think it was necessary to enter a new timeline?

Yes, and exactly because of your next question.

Do you think this destroys Star Trek canon?

No, it doesn't. Star Trek canon is exactly the same as before. We are seeing an alternate reality, one worth seeing, in my opinion.

Is this important?

No.
Good characterization, good story. That is important. While it's good to stick to generally established rules and timelines, too much and your story chokes.

J.

 

[Sci]

The Enterprise... I mean the model. Do you like it? Do you like it better than the original? Why did they feel it necessary to change it?

I liked parts of it. I like the blue deflector array, and I liked how solid it looked. Didn't like the curvy nacelle pylons or the curvy dorsal pylon. Liked the saucer and the engineering section. Hated the nacelles. Wanted red bussard collectors.

The original is still superior.

I don't know if it was necessary, but that doesn't make it an invalid choice to change the design a bit, either. It wasn't necessary to change the design for TMP, but they did it there, too. Necessity is irrelevant. I don't like everything about the result, but I don't think there's anything wrong with a new version of the Enterprise in principle.

Do you think it was necessary to enter a new timeline?

No, but it was a perfectly valid decision. Nothing wrong with multiple continuities!

Do you think this destroys Star Trek canon?

No. Your DVDs still exist, and so does the original timeline. It's just "running on another channel."

Is this important?

It's not important in evaluating the overall quality of the film. It IS important insofar as it opens up new avenues for storytelling.

 

[Silent_Bob]

I dont know why everyone gets so hung up about what is canon and what isnt anyway. If the Animated Series isnt canon, does that mean i shouldnt watch it?If the Destiny Novel Trilogy isnt canon, does that mean its not enjoyable at all and should be shredded?Does knowing that this particular fiction isnt as "real" as another part somehow make it less enjoyable?

Besides the new film doesnt abandon Canon at all, the previous stuff is still canon. What it abandons is the previous continuity, something i dont think was entirely necessary.

I didnt like the new film either, and i think the new Enterprise is the ugliest yet. The saucer was fine, given it was pretty much a cut and paste from the Refit, but the drive section was ugly as sin.

But the new film was better than Nemesis at least, so hopefully the sequel will improve on it.

 

[Kpnuts]

The new Enterprise is gorgeous IMO

 

[votd]

Discuss.

No

 

[Dale]

First the Enterprise. There were things about it I didn't care for. I don't like the swollen nacelles, and I wish the Bussard collectors had been red or orange. I don't like the fact that nacelles now seem to work like jets with exhaust rather than as field generators. I think it would have been quite possible to give the TOS Enterprise, with some much more minor variations, the gravitas and realism required for the movie. They souped her up and in the process spoiled the lines, IMHO, like they did to the Ford Mustang in the 1980s.

That said, it mattered not one whit to me. I recognized her as the hero ship when she came, guns blazing, out of warp near the end of the film and the film itself was so freaking enjoyable that I was willing to forgive the designers taking some liberty with the old girl. Did I get chills when I first saw her like I always had over the years? No... she wasn't the love of my life. She was a hot new chick with big hooters that I am just getting to know... so the emotional connection wasn't there yet. But I believe that given time I will come to appreciate her.

As for the new timeline: yes, I think it was absolutely necessary to enter a new timeline in order to free the writers from the ponderous canon that existed... and continues to exist for you to visit anytime you like. Storytelling is no fun for the creator or the viewer when you know how its going to end. That they chose to ackowledge the past at all by (rather heavy-handedly, admittedly) explaining to us that everyone's destiny had changed and their future was now unwritten is a gift to us old timers and a show of respect to the original timeline. They decided to step to one side and pursue a different track while leaving the old one intact rather than simply pretending it never happened. Quite ingenious, if you ask me, and rather polite of them.

 

[USS KG5]

Just to say it up front I hate the movie personally. Really I hate it.

Well you have a right to your opinion of course...

Naah only kidding you are wrong and have no right to an opinion different to mine.

The Enterprise... I mean the model. Do you like it? Do you like it better than the original? Why did they feel it necessary to change it?

Respectively, yes I like it, I think it fits a 21st century film just as well as the original fitted a TV of the 1960s.

Why they felt it necessary to change it I'd think would be bluddy obvious, they are making a big-budget movie in the now, not a low budget TV show in the 1960s, simply making a CGI of the 60s Enterprise would be, well, rubbish.

Do you think it was necessary to enter a new timeline? Do you think this destroys Star Trek canon? Is this important?

Actually, I would have been just as happy if they changed "history" and never mentioned timelines personally, but I completely understand why they did.

As for Canon, I don't give two hoots. A simple tool to help keep internal continuity in the Trek shows has turned into a crazy religion for some people.

The new movie was completely right to say "new game, new rules" regaring "canon" but to keep the characters and spirit of the best Trek. I have never seen a better example of turning something around.

 

[Trajet]

There's a very simple answer as to why Star Trek XI changed everything it felt the need to change - to break Star Trek out of the geek niche it's been stuck in since the early 1990's. In order to do that, it was necessary to retool the movie to appeal to a general audience, and also to reboot the continuity so no prior knowledge is required of the average viewer. Branching off into an alternate reality is probably the best way they could've done it, as the franchise was practically groaning under the weight of pre-established canon, and almost choking on it.

I think it's been really quite successful at updating the core concept of the original series for a modern day audience, and it pays considerably more than lip service to its source material. I would argue that Star Trek XI is far closer to the spirit of adventure so evident in TOS than anything from the TNG, DS9 and Voyager era ever was.

You may "hate" the new movie, but it's quite patently obvious that the mainstream movie audience and the majority of Trek's fans don't hate it - the fact it's garnered extremely positive reviews from both scifi and mainstream critics, and is close to grossing $200 million at the US box office is proof of this.

Instead of griping about it, why can't you just be happy that Star Trek is the No.1 movie of the year so far? Would you be happier if Paramount had produced another tired, half hearted TNG flick that bombed at the box office?

 

[M'Sharak]

Just to say it up front I hate the movie personally. Really I hate it.

You've said that already. Several times. We get it.

But I want to hear your opinion on the following things.

The Enterprise... I mean the model. Do you like it?

Yes.

Do you like it better than the original?

I think it's different. I like it fine. I also like the original.

Why did they feel it necessary to change it?

Art and design decision. I'm fine with it.

Do you think it was necessary to enter a new timeline?

No, but neither is there anything wrong with the choice to do so.

Do you think this destroys Star Trek canon?

No.

Is this important?

Is what important? Canon? Canon is, by accepted definition, what's been shown on-screen and in dialogue. It simply is.

Discuss.

All of this has been discussed for more than two years in this forum alone; much of that is available to you via the board search function. You're not asking anything here which hasn't been asked many times before.

 

[Norrin Radd]

Why did they feel it necessary to change it?

If you like an actual "canon" reason it's because the Kelvin was able to scan the Narada and Starfleet then used the information to create new technology in the design of the Enterprise.

 

[The Doctor]

Just to say it up front I hate the movie personally. Really I hate it.

But I want to hear your opinion on the following things.

The Enterprise... I mean the model. Do you like it? Do you like it better than the original? Why did they feel it necessary to change it?

Do you think it was necessary to enter a new timeline? Do you think this destroys Star Trek canon? Is this important?

Discuss.

The new 'Big E' is now my favorite Enterprise design. It has a kinetic energy about it and looks the best out of the bunch when in motion. I really liked the small touches of animation when the ship goes to warp as well: the constricting deflector array and the elongation of the rear 'vents' in the nacelles give a bit of visual interest without going overboard.

The new timeline is a mixed bag. My own personal choice would have been to change what I wanted and give the hardcore fans the proverbial finger. It's changed, get over it.

Orci and Kurtzman are much nicer than I am and did their best to tie this movie into the past Trek productions. I think that the plot suffered because if it, but the sheer chemistry between the leads more than made up for a clunky story.

 

[Peter the Younger]

The Enterprise... I mean the model. Do you like it? Do you like it better than the original? Why did they feel it necessary to change it?

I didn't like it at first, but it has grown on me greatly. I agree with others that it looks more aggressive and kinetic than past incarnations. My only issues with it are its scaling (relative to the accepted size of the original) and the brewery.

As for why they changed it, I think it was partially to signal this was a new universe, partially a matter of creative control (i.e., wanting to put their personal stamp on it,) and partially because most of the casual audience expect to see something new. Also, since it had been established (in TNG, ENT and elsewhere) that the TOS model did in fact exist as it was pictured in the 1960s, they couldn't really use the TMP model, which is the only one that would have stood up to modern sensibilities.

Do you think it was necessary to enter a new timeline? Do you think this destroys Star Trek canon? Is this important?

Discuss.

Absolutely. Star Trek, to paraphrase Ronald D. Moore, was choking on its own canon, it had become a straightjacket instead of a framework. To be honest, I lost my faith in "canon" some time ago. As others have pointed out, Star Trek's canon is a self-contradictory and problem-ridden patchwork, a mix of anachronistic visions of the future from the mid-20th cnetury, short-term writing decisions ignored or redefinted, and convoluted explanations that try mightily to string it all together. It needed to go, no writer or director worth their paycheck would ever want to step into a situation where every shot or line of dialogue could be vetoed by canon.

Creative people need freedom to make the movie they want to make, and franchises need to evolve to remain relevant. Having said all that, I can understand that these changes might not be to everyone's taste. But arguing against change, period, is a losing proposition.

 

[Cyke101]

As far as reboots go, the story would be pretty boring if we knew Chekov and others would have to live in order for certain TOS stories to happen; likewise, it would be boring if we knew exactly when Kirk and Spock would die. The death of Amanda Grayson was extremely surprising and very touching for that reason, and there would be absolutely no fan discussion had any other planet besides Vulcan been destroyed (Hey, Qonos was nearly destroyed in VI and no one batted an eye!).

The Enterprise itself, I have some problems with, but that's true with every ship called Enterprise. She looks tougher and stronger than her TOS counterpart, but slightly clunkier too. However, those are minor concerns, and if I could change some things on the ship I would, yet she still moves as gracefully as any Enterprise, and in some respects more gracefully than others.

 

[archeryguy1701]

I like the new Enterprise. Was it necessary? Maybe not, but I don't think the old '60s design wouldn't have translated all that well to the big screen. But, I did like it. Besides, we never had a shot of the original E rising up out of the atmosphere of Titan, so I know that it will never be as sexy as the new E.

As for canon, I do think it was important that the writers did whatever they wanted too. 43 years of history and timelines and "rules" is a lot of stuff that can really weigh a series down. Star Trek was being crushed under itself, and had literally become an exclusive club of sorts where if you weren't really familiar with Trek, then you couldn't jump on board. The writers did what I feel is important for the survivability of Trek: They said, "Screw canon, screw what is 'supposed to happen', and let's do this in order to make a great movie. "

And at the end of the day, that's all that matters. Not how well it fit into the established universe, but how good of a movie it was.

 

[VulcanJedi]

Just to say it up front I hate the movie personally. Really I hate it.

But I want to hear your opinion on the following things.

The Enterprise... I mean the model. Do you like it? Do you like it better than the original? Why did they feel it necessary to change it?

Do you think it was necessary to enter a new timeline? Do you think this destroys Star Trek canon? Is this important?

Discuss.

My only issues with it are its scaling (relative to the accepted size of the original) and the brewery.

Was it really a brewery? See I like that---beer is exciting! If so--that's great. Wouldn't that feel more folksy and comfy--to have draft beer on tap aboard the Enterprise? "Yes, I'll have a Pale Ale with that tribble-burger, thanks."

As much as design is cool and interesting; it don't really matter. It really makes no difference. Design has NEVER been the problem with Star Trek. The writing, direction, storyline, editing, all that has been the problem. The design of the ship is really utterly meaningless--within reason. It's a "nice" looking model--as nice as any of the previous versions. I do like the big blueberry nacelles. They're a little campy which I like--just hint of wackiness.

By changing it--they simply said---this is a new version of Trek. The big blue nacelles will signal that from here on out.

No one cares about the old timeline or cannon because people were dropping off in viewership. Actually, it's worse- some people loathed the old timeline--and many found it so dull--dull enough to write off Trek completely.

Instead of griping about it, why can't you just be happy that Star Trek is the No.1 movie of the year so far? Would you be happier if Paramount had produced another tired, half hearted TNG flick that bombed at the box office?

It seems that way. I get it; some people really like DS9 and TNG. Some people seem to prefer the 90's Trek. I think a lot of us watched it--especially TNG because we like TOS. But, it sort of seemed like a "bait and switch" the more we watched----thru the years---Voyager--to ENT---the more we watched, the more they changed it until it really became almost unrecognizable from the original. It got to the point where they didn't even put Star Trek in the title. You had people producing shows who seemed proud to distance themselves from the old show. It was ridiculous. You have to admit--there has been this shame driven tendency to remove the franchise from the original show ever since TMP.

 

[Trilliam]

At the end of the day, the ship, (bridge, engineering etc) are JUST the stage upon which the actors show us the story.

Grow up and get over that. People who grew up watching the original Dr Who and Play School, grew up with cardboard and aluminium foil sets, and learned to look past the sets, to the players.

Hmm, I really should NOT post after a couple of glasses of shiraz.

 

[Australis]

Just to say it up front I hate the movie personally. Really I hate it.

And we care... why?

Discuss.