Why not just use the pilot design?

[JuanBolio]

This movie is supposed to be something akin to doing a period piece, right? Would you make a movie about the Battle of Britain using modern aircraft instead of period aircraft?

Future history is a lot more malleable. This is no more a "period piece" than any other Trek has been.

 

[Captain X]

And we still have to see how that history plays out in this movie. After all, there's the possibility that the redesign of, well, anything, is a side-effect of Nero's involvement.

which probably won't go away when the timeline is "restored".

I recall how Phil Farrand pointed out in "The Nitpicker's Guide to TNG" that, because of the Enterprise-C travelling through the rift, that the Enterprise-D should've been radically changed as well (he did forgive the show because of production costs for one lone episode).

Why? It was already heavily armed, and there were changes made to make the ship geared more towards a military role, but none of that would've really required a total redesign of the ship itself.

How do we know that's not the case this time around? There's always the case of flexibility, especially when it comes to time an Wibbly-Wobbly, Timey-Wimey.

Because whereas everything more or less went back to normal with the exception of Sela being created in Yesterday's Enterprise, but in this movie I highly doubt everything will be similarly restored.

In the Remastered versions, there are several ships and probes and like that had been completely overhauled. A shuttle that was just a flying saucer is now intricate and detailed with lots of doodads as if it were from Voyager, for example. In insides of androids look more advanced than the inside of an iPhone, nevermind a completely different 1960s aesthetic. How is change on that magnitude justified for some parts of Trek and not for others?

Because it wasn't that much of a change, and like I said, it added to the show without stomping all over the look of it. In fact they could've gone further by detailing the ship up as I've said several times before. It's definitely possible to update how something looks without making radical changes.

And yet Friendship One in Voyager looked a heckuva lot more functional than the TOS Enterprise. So did the Phoenix, despite its near steam-punk appearance.

How, exactly?

See, there's a conflict when there doesn't need to be: if it's a reboot, what does a "fictional" historical accuracy matter?

In that case it's just a matter of being against a reboot, and being irritated that the showrunners have misrepresented the movie.

And if it's not a reboot, wouldn't the effects of time travel do something there, especially given Trek's experience in such matters?

Nope. All of Trek's experience with time travel has pretty much involved either complete resets back to normal, or very small changes.

 

[Captain X]

Future history is a lot more malleable. This is no more a "period piece" than any other Trek has been.

Trails and Tribble-ations was a period piece. So was In a Mirror, Darkly in so much as they made a point of keeping everything a lot more like was seen in Tholian Web than even I would've.

 

[JuanBolio]

Future history is a lot more malleable. This is no more a "period piece" than any other Trek has been.

Trails and Tribble-ations was a period piece. So was In a Mirror, Darkly in so much as they made a point of keeping everything a lot more like was seen in Tholian Web than even I would've.

Yes, they did. That's one way to do it. This is another.

 

[Devon]

Some of you who think the 60s version could work on the big screen today really need to find a clue. It absolutely won't work.

You might want to reconsider that "absolutely won't" phrase; anyone who believes that doesn't understand what a good model (real or CGI), good lighting and good cinematography can do. But to offer proof that it can work, Vektor's update of the iconic 1701:

Desktop01
Desktop02
"To Far Horizons"
Desktop04
Desktop05
WIP_004
WIP_008
WIP_009
WIP_010

You can't honestly claim this "absolutely won't work" on the big screen.

I will not hesitate to say that this is an absolutely beautiful rendering of the Enterprise, and some of those shots are so lifelike that they should make CBS Digital wish they had hired this guy to oversee the project... but I will hesitate to claim that this will work for the big screen. Especially in the world of today's asthetics that movie goers are used to. That isn't to say the current ship is "the greatest," but all things considered, I don't feel this would work on the big screen either.

 

[Captain X]

Not if they want to stay consistant with the rest of the franchise.

 

[JuanBolio]

Not if they want to stay consistant with the rest of the franchise.

Oh well. This is something new and different.

 

[Captain X]

Something can be new and different without rebooting the franchise.

 

[JuanBolio]

Something can be new and different without rebooting the franchise.

Maybe... but there's no harm in an experimental reboot. If it doesn't work, we have plenty to fall back on.

 

[Captain X]

Uh, yeah, there's plenty of harm in jumping on the reboot bandwagon when it isn't in any way necessary to "reinvigorate" the franchise. I'd sooner have no new Star Trek at all then to have someone fuck it up even more than VOY and ENT did.

 

[JuanBolio]

I don't need all my Trek to take place in the same continuity - the more the franchise has tried, the more it has failed. Canonites can't write and writers can't adhere to canon. If you need that consistency, than I'm sorry for your limitations. I hope you'll at least give this film a chance before you condemn it, though.

 

[Captain X]

I don't need all my Trek to take place in the same continuity

So? Some of us happen to like having continuity, unless it's something like Family Guy or South Park.

- the more the franchise has tried, the more it has failed.

That's because the people in charge of it only tried to keep going back to the magical TNG formula, not because they tried to do anything that was really new or different.

Canonites can't write and writers can't adhere to canon.

I've managed to do both fairly well.

If you need that consistency, than I'm sorry for your limitations.

I'm not the one with limitations since I'm not the one throwing my arms up in the air and giving up on 40 years of Star Trek.

I hope you'll at least give this film a chance before you condemn it, though.

What difference would watching the movie make when I can already see actual images from it and know how things look, and have read descriptions of scenes from the movie?

 

[JuanBolio]

I'm not giving up on 40 years of Trek. I love most of it. Just because this new movie changes a few things to its own ends doesn't mean all previous Trek is invalid, nor that it cannot be continued. Being unable to accept something that throws a slightly different spin on TOS design and origins and being unable to enjoy any good things it might bring to the table IS limited.

Its a movie. Sit back and enjoy it for what it is.

 

[Captain X]

I'm not giving up on 40 years of Trek. I love most of it. Just because this new movie changes a few things to its own ends doesn't mean all previous Trek is invalid, nor that it cannot be continued.

The movie would somehow have to be invalidated to do that because it would be incompatible with the rest of the franchise.

Being unable to accept something that throws a slightly different spin on TOS design and origins and being unable to enjoy any good things it might bring to the table IS limited.

No, it's pragmatic. The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty, the glass is simply twice as large as it has to be.

Its a movie. Sit back and enjoy it for what it is.

If I want mindless entertainment, I can watch Starship Troopers, Fifth Element, Pitch Black, or any number of other movies.

 

[JuanBolio]

Simply because this movie puts a new spin on TOS canon and origins does not make it mindless.

If you find it incompatible, it can simple be ignored when watching any previous show or movie, or any subsequent one set in the "old timeline". Why not? Its what I do with most of ENT.

 

[Captain X]

Simply because this movie puts a new spin on TOS canon and origins does not make it mindless.

Didn't say that, I said that if I just wanted to sit back and enjoy a movie for what it is (as you put it), there are other alternatives for doing so when I'm in the mood that don't fuck up Star Trek.

If you find it incompatible, it can simple be ignored when watching any previous show or movie, or any subsequent one set in the "old timeline". Why not? Its what I do with most of ENT.

Good on you, but it's still canon, whether either of us likes it or not. I'm actually attempting to reboot ENT by itself because I liked the concept but hated the execution, but it's still not canon and ENT still is. Ignoring Abrams Trek will not make it go away.

 

[Trekker4747]

I do not mean to question anyone's aesthetic sense, but the crowd of today need some eye-candy, hence the scantly clad women and the visualgasms.

Today's crowd are bunch of drooling mouth-breathers who need dazzle and entertainment spoon fed to them with airplane noises.

Trek is better than that.

 

[Superman]

Well, here we are again. Another thread that is proof positive of the truly pathetic AbramsTrek apologist snobbery.

Trekker happens to have an opinion that is probably most popular there, though I think some people are silent on the issue: the original Enterprise (or the refit) looks vastly superior to the Church-"designed" abomination for Trek XI.

Yet the apologists, who are supported discreetly and sometimes not so discreetly by the mods and admins, can steamroll such opinions and threads because their opinions are those of the collective.

At any rate, Trekker, I'm with you. The new Enterprise is hideous. Seeing it on the big screen won't change that, and since I'm not seeing the movie anyway, it's not a valid argument for me.

This movie is a misstep for Trek, as many will see in a few short months.

\S/

 

[ST-One]

I do not mean to question anyone's aesthetic sense, but the crowd of today need some eye-candy, hence the scantly clad women and the visualgasms.

Today's crowd are bunch of drooling mouth-breathers who need dazzle and entertainment spoon fed to them with airplane noises.

Trek is better than that.

No, it's not.
You should get over this arrogant assumption.

 

[ST-One]

Uh, yeah, there's plenty of harm in jumping on the reboot bandwagon when it isn't in any way necessary to "reinvigorate" the franchise.

Have you seen the numbers for 'Nemesis'?

Well, here we are again. Another thread that is proof positive of the truly pathetic AbramsTrek apologist snobbery.

Trekker happens to have an opinion that is probably most popular there, though I think some people are silent on the issue: the original Enterprise (or the refit) looks vastly superior to the Church-"designed" abomination for Trek XI.

Yet the apologists, who are supported discreetly and sometimes not so discreetly by the mods and admins, can steamroll such opinions and threads because their opinions are those of the collective.

At any rate, Trekker, I'm with you. The new Enterprise is hideous. Seeing it on the big screen won't change that, and since I'm not seeing the movie anyway, it's not a valid argument for me.

This movie is a misstep for Trek, as many will see in a few short months.

\S/

'Quite frankly, I don't give a damn' about your ill-conceived opinions.