Oh. My point was that there's too much of something, and some authority figure somewhere decided that was bad. Somehow.
Why not just use the pilot design?
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
- Status
Oh. My point was that there's too much of something, and some authority figure somewhere decided that was bad. Somehow.
You mean....you're not really the Starship Polaris!?! 
Do you know that there are three pages of folks in the TrekBBS members list who've appointed themselves as captains?
Dusty Ayres
Commodore
And some other company would have dealt differently with it, how? All of them might have just as shortsighted as Paramount would have been. It might have been good under Lucasfilm if Lucas decided to buy Star Trek, but he didn't so we've got top put up with what we've got.
Do you know that there are three pages of folks in the TrekBBS members list who've appointed themselves as captains?
I can't say I've ever considered it worth checking.
...Nope. Still too much trouble.
Yes I have every frelling clue what I'm talking about.
April was suggesting that the new ship is the size of a Galaxy-class starship. My photo proved him wrong. I win. I get to absorb his power.
April was suggesting that the new ship is the size of a Galaxy-class starship. My photo proved him wrong. I win. I get to absorb his power.
Okay, cool. Does this involve brain-eating? Did you bring a snack for later?
Captain X
Rear Admiral
When I say that, I'm referencing the fact that a design is fashion over function. That's what "kewl" means.
I never said or implied that. I'm a very straightforward person, so I'm being entirely honest that it's a matter of only being concerned with how things look while ignoring everything else.
Says the guy who constantly talks down to fans of the old design. Cry me a fuckin' river, but I have zero sympathy at this point when all you or about a dozen other regulars can say is to bash the old series and its fans by calling them "TOS Fundamentalists" as if you are somehow better than them. I've got news for you then, because according to the "mainstream", you are just as big a nerd as anyone else here for watching Star Trek at all. The sooner you and the others realize that, the better.
Nah, its more like the quickening from Highlander.
Well, let's get a little "inside baseball" for a bit.
Desilu, whatever its other faults, was run by actors and writers, and as such, Star Trek was given a lot more leeway than other studios might have allowed, so long as the budget was there.
When Gulf+Western, a sugar company, bought up Paramount and Desilu in 1968 and shmushed them together into Paramount Studios, the bean counters took over and the long death spiral began. The motion picture side of the house had more experience with dealing with moron accountants, and they could always point to the box office as their final defense of how they did things, but on the television side, returns weren't quite as immediate, and thus a little more difficult to explain to some bean counting pinhead who couldn't figure out why it takes so many takes to get a scene done and why it takes more than a hour to make a one hour show.
Other studios, that still had actual creative people in charge, probably would've treated Star Trek better (Warner Brothers still has a pretty good reputation in that regard), instead of the sugar executives who fancied themselves to be filmmakers simply because they managed to buy a couple of studios and figured cranking out tv shows was no different than cranking out sausages.
Apparently you don't actually know anything about Desilu.
At the time that "Star Trek" was greenlighted, Lucille Ball was the nominal head of the studio but her actual participation in decision making was pretty limited - as she would freely acknowledge, it wasn't her thing (her husband Gary Morton seemed to covet influence well beyond what a lot of folks thought was his ability). Most of the old guard studio people who ran the place - no actors or writers to speak of - were a continual frustration to folks like Herb Solow who were actually trying to produce TV shows there.
At the time that "Star Trek" was greenlighted, Lucille Ball was the nominal head of the studio but her actual participation in decision making was pretty limited - as she would freely acknowledge, it wasn't her thing (her husband Gary Morton seemed to covet influence well beyond what a lot of folks thought was his ability). Most of the old guard studio people who ran the place - no actors or writers to speak of - were a continual frustration to folks like Herb Solow who were actually trying to produce TV shows there.
Never once have I bashed the old series with the distain that people here are bashing the new film. I love TOS for what it was, a product of the 60s. A fun TV show that spawned a franchise, and a show that used itself to sometimes send a message about real world events. However, for every one of these so called "message" episodes, was an episode based around monsters, explosions and Capt. Kirk making out with green women. And yes I completely disagree with TOS Fundamentalists, and thats what they are, because they expected something that looked like a 60's TV show in a 2008 movie interpretation of said show. I don't understand how anyone expected that. However, if someone has criticisms based on the movie itself...the movie as it's own thing, thats fine. But the people bashing it, using TOS as the basis I think are totally off base. They have kept the basic designs of everything in the original show, the circular bridge with the center seat, the shape of the Enterprise, the uniforms, and so far it seems, the characters, and given them there own twist, and I see nothing wrong with that.
As for the TOS design, she is a beauty, a classic design. However, I accepted long ago she was going to be redesigned for this film, and I like what we got.
And guess what, I AM A NERD. WE ALL ARE. Hell we post on a fucking Star Trek message board, we are the nerdiest of the nerds. However, this is one nerd who is not so caught up in the show, that I can't see the real life reasons the filmmakers decided to change things. And hell, this is before the movie even comes out. It could suck, it could be great and from many of the footage reports, minus a few, the reaction has been very very positive.
Last edited:
No, I don't think you do.
Does that look like a dinky little model hanging from a string, you ignorant little snot!?!
Geez...No, I don't think you do.
Does that look like a dinky little model hanging from a string, you ignorant little snot!?!
Pretty obvious warning for flaming. Comments to PM, of course.
I wish everybody would settle down a bit.
No, I don't think you do.
Does that look like a dinky little model hanging from a string, you ignorant little snot!?!
Looks like a drawing. No fair changing the picture!!!!!
Last edited:
That's because "people in the 70s" were human beings, just like "people today" are human beings.
Artists always want to play with things... to try something new. It's terribly LIMITING to an artist to be asked to replicate something and not get to use their "gift of creativity," I guess.
So, in the 1970s, people wanted to do something new... not because it needed to happen but because they wanted to do so. In the later Trek movies this wasn't done, not because nobody WANTED to, but rather because the flicks didn't have enough of a budget to justify a new model. If that hadn't been a restriction, and if the folks producing the films hadn't had any sense of self-restraint... we've have had a different ship every single time out, I'm sure. Would've been stupid, nonsensical, etc, etc... but hey, just imagine, selling new toys every movie! KEWL!
- Status
Similar threads
