Why not just use the pilot design?

[3D Master]

Why is writing down a sigh, especially when that's exactly what I did after reading the posts I answer to, something that needs to stop?

It's completely ridiculous.

Next thing you know, you can't even write the word "it" anymore.

Especially considering the pro-new-Enterprise crowd have been throwing insulting comments left and write, and they get nothing?

It kind of makes me wanna, well I don't know, sigh with disgust.

 

[Michael]

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.

I could not have said it better. Thanks for writing it up for me, Tom.

 

[ST-One]

None of them do. They'll just keep making excuses to support their viewpoint, and it won't matter how many times you shoot those excuses down, or how well you do it, it will always come down to, "It's old! LOL!"

Yeah, it is old.
But that doesn't take on bit away from its beauty.

 

[Tom Servo]

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.

:sighs: Nope, Kirk never made out with a single green woman, let alone multiple ones. Which pretty much tells your so-called being a fan of the show.

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.

And apparently you can't read either, because no, NONE of us ever demanded it look like a 60's tv show. But keep on lying about what we wrote, maybe one day you believe it yourself.

Please, don't sit there and question my fandom of the show, I know exactly what I am talking about. While yes, he never made out with a green woman, that statement is certainly based in truth, since in many episodes he did end up kissing an attractive woman for whatever reason, it doesn't matter if she is green or not. But to the general public, and that is what this movie is aimed at, Kirk always got the girl at the end of the episode.

And I can read just fine thank you very much. And all I see is people bitching about why they couldn't use the TOS ship, or the bridge, even though when someone thought about it logically, there was no way that the original designs were going to be used in the films. Hell go back and look at my posts when the bridge and ship were revealed. I was shocked at what they looked like, since I thought they would try to keep it closer to the original, but I accepted it, since it was logical to assume that they would change the designs and the look, and I am fine with it.

 

[3D Master]

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.

:sighs: Nope, Kirk never made out with a single green woman, let alone multiple ones. Which pretty much tells your so-called being a fan of the show.

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.

And apparently you can't read either, because no, NONE of us ever demanded it look like a 60's tv show. But keep on lying about what we wrote, maybe one day you believe it yourself.

Please, don't sit there and question my fandom of the show, I know exactly what I am talking about. While yes, he never made out with a green woman, that statement is certainly based in truth, since in many episodes he did end up kissing an attractive woman for whatever reason, it doesn't matter if she is green or not. But to the general public, and that is what this movie is aimed at, Kirk always got the girl at the end of the episode.

And I can read just fine thank you very much. And all I see is people bitching about why they couldn't use the TOS ship, or the bridge, even though when someone thought about it logically, there was no way that the original designs were going to be used in the films. Hell go back and look at my posts when the bridge and ship were revealed. I was shocked at what they looked like, since I thought they would try to keep it closer to the original, but I accepted it, since it was logical to assume that they would change the designs and the look, and I am fine with it.

When we say we wanted an updated, big screen version of the original Enterprise, it does NOT mean it looks like 60's Star Trek. That's just your derogatory, deminishing statement.

And no, logically, they WOULD have used the original outer design. It is ILLOGICALLY following all other remake trends without any clear reason whatsoever, that caused a redesign. Most certainly a redesign as completely unfaithful to the original ship as this misshapen turd.

 

[Tom Servo]

Just because I said that it's a product of the 60s, doesn't make it an insult. It is what it is.

And really, the new design is completely unfaithful? Really? Cause I am still seeing the classic saucer, secondary hull. and nacelles design of the TOS ship in this design. I'm sorry that you guys are getting the TOS ship on the big screen, but personally I was impressed with them keeping the design as faithful as it is, and to those who don't know stuff like it is Constitution Class ship, she is practically the same.

And really, mishapen turd? It was designed by a professional designer, and I would like to assume you would give him atleast some sort of professional respect. Im sure he didn't design it that way just to piss you off.

 

[3D Master]

Just because I said that it's a product of the 60s, doesn't make it an insult. It is what it is.

Only in the most literal sense. As something that is inherently part of the 60's design: no, it is not.

And really, the new design is completely unfaithful? Really? Cause I am still seeing the classic saucer, secondary hull. and nacelles design of the TOS ship in this design.

So does the Enterprise-B, Enterprise-C, Enterprise-D, and Enterprise-E, but doesn't make them a faithful design of the Enterprise - no bloody A, B, C, D, or E.

I'm sorry that you guys are getting the TOS ship on the big screen, but personally I was impressed with them keeping the design as faithful as it is, and to those who don't know stuff like it is Constitution Class ship, she is practically the same.

No, she's not. What it is, is a massive saucer of one class put too far back, the undercarriage of another class, one that is too small for the ship, and some kind of psychedelic, fore-skin having nacelles of another, all cobbled and crunched together, and seemingly as an afterthought the deflector dish and assembly making as if it was vomited up out of the secondary hull or the saucer, to look like something without grace, a misshapen product of haste fitting existing parts together somewhere in the very late 23rd, or early 24th century when for some reason they needed ships fast, to hell with building them properly from scratch.

Quite frankly, I find it a miracle anyone can't see the difference between this ship and the original Enterprise.

And really, mishapen turd? It was designed by a professional designer, and I would like to assume you would give him atleast some sort of professional respect. Im sure he didn't design it that way just to piss you off.

I don't care if the guy is Picasso: a misshapen turd is a misshapen turd, and I'm calling it as such. (lWith the way Picasso painted in his later years, that isn't such a leap with this misshapen, crunched together heap of junk. Now if it were a lovely painting, but sadly the Enterprise isn't supposed to look like Picasso painting of itself on screen.)

 

[Dorothy_Zbornak]

I love TOS--I grew up with it. I shunned TNG out of spite for a long time. Well, one year, but when you're 9 that's an eternity.

Anyways, I love TOS but I loathe the original Enterprise design. I think it's boring and awkward looking. I much preferred the refit design.

As such, I welcome the change, and even though it may not be entirely sensical, I am very comfortable with explaining it away by saying that in between 2245 and 2250, the NCC-1701 received yet another total refit.

 

[Sci]

There is an entire franchise being invalidated here you know.

Does The Mists of Avalon invalidate The Once and Future King? Does either one invalidate Le Morte d'Arthur?

Does Rent invalidate La Boheme? Does Cabaret invalidate I Am A Camera? Does Spring Awakening invalidate Frühlings Erwachen? Does Wicked invalidate The Wizard of Oz?

Does Batman Begins invalidate Tim Burton's Batman? Does The Batman invalidate Batman: The Animated Series? Do any of them invalidate Adam West's Batman?

We haven't even seen the film yet, so we don't yet know what the relationship between Abrams's film and the shared continuity of previous installments in the canon is. Let's not get carried away and presume knowledge we do not have, to start with.

Secondly, even if it IS a reboot -- so what? It's not like any of it was ever real to begin with. It's all equally fictional, and if the whole thing really bothers you, you can just say that Abrams's Star Trek takes place in one of those alternate quantum timelines Worf visited in "Parallels" and keep the old timeline around in your own head. Easy.

 

[Shaw]

...and Capt. Kirk making out with green women.

:sighs: Nope, Kirk never made out with a single green woman, let alone multiple ones. Which pretty much tells your so-called being a fan of the show.

Please, don't sit there and question my fandom of the show, I know exactly what I am talking about. While yes, he never made out with a green woman, that statement is certainly based in truth, since in many episodes he did end up kissing an attractive woman for whatever reason, it doesn't matter if she is green or not.

So what type of fan are you if Kirk did kiss a green alien woman on the show but you are questioning the type of fan who said it without actually knowing one way or the other?

Frankly, maybe you guys should just drop the whole "I'm a bigger fan" thing while you're both behind.

 

[Sci]

Whilst we're kibitzing about the relative quality of this film, by the way, something I'd like to bring up for everyone's consideration:

For the first time EVER that I can recall, non-Trekkies, non-fans, are coming up to me and saying, "Hey, have you seen the trailer for that new Star Trek movie? It looks pretty cool!"

This did not happen with Star Trek: Nemesis. This did not happen with Star Trek: Insurrection. This did not happen with Star Trek: First Contact. This did not happen with the launch of Enterprise. I have literally never seen a non-fan interested in a new Star Trek production before, but now I've seen it multiple times since this trailer came out.

Just something to think about.

 

[Shaw]

Does Batman Begins invalidate Tim Burton's Batman? Does The Batman invalidate Batman: The Animated Series? Do any of them invalidate Adam West's Batman?

We've seen this argument over and over again... Batman hasn't been internally consistent between movies, series or comic books, so who cares at this point. Superman hasn't been internally consistent between movies, series or comic books, so who cares at this point. Spider-man hasn't been internally consistent between movies, series or comic books, so who cares at this point. James Bond hasn't been internally consistent between movies and books, so who cares at this point.

But for more than 40 years Star Trek has made a good faith effort (even if mistakes were made) to stay internally consistent and true to itself.

This isn't BSG which was hardly a show in the late 70's and was all but forgotten until nuBSG popped up, Star Trek is massive (bigger than Star Wars, which has also attempted to stay internally consistent).

I've said it before and it is worth saying again... if J.J. Abrams wanted to do something Star Trek-like (but not consistent with Star Trek), he could have rebooted Forbidden Planet. Most everything he really wanted from Star Trek already existed within Forbidden Planet without all the baggage of 40 years of history. I would have been very happy to see his take on Commander J.J. Adams and company because that has never been fully fleshed out before.

If Star Trek was dying, let it die. But the idea of defacing Star Trek so that Abrams could do what he could have done with something else while exploiting fans addicted to Trek is pretty sad.

He had the opportunity to stay pretty faithful and didn't (and we don't need to see the film to see that), so now he had better have an overwhelmingly compelling story to make up for the first majorly internally inconsistent Trek production.

 

[seigezunt]

If Star Trek was dying, let it die.

[Scotty]It was dead already.[/Scotty]

 

[sebialex]

Oh God, I can't take this anymore. I thought I can enjoy reading a Trek forum, but it's fraking impossible. Close-mindedness is king among these lands, not to mention lack of artistic senses. Can't you get it through your head, TOS Enterprise design is ugly. A big plate with a couple of sticks attached to it, that's what it looks like. Thank god for TNG. The new design is better, but it's still based on an ugly design. Get your heads out of your asses.

Now, maybe I could have endured the art stuff, but when most of you rambble about cannon as if it was the bible or something, I can't stop laughing at how pathetic you are.

 

[God Magnus]

I got about 7 pages into this thread and jumped to the end.

I actually believe that a version of the Enterprise from the original 60's model would have worked very well on screen. The various fan renderings show ways this could have been done and still looked elegant on the big screen.

That said, I also like JJ's new take on the ship, and he clearly said that he wanted to combine elements of both the original Enterprise and the on screen version - and that is what we see.

As to why the pilot design wasn't used? Quite simply: JJ wanted to reimagine the look of certain aspects of Star Trek for his interpretation of the franchise. How good this turns out will of course remain to be seen.

 

[Trekker4747]

Whilst we're kibitzing about the relative quality of this film, by the way, something I'd like to bring up for everyone's consideration:

For the first time EVER that I can recall, non-Trekkies, non-fans, are coming up to me and saying, "Hey, have you seen the trailer for that new Star Trek movie? It looks pretty cool!"

This did not happen with Star Trek: Nemesis. This did not happen with Star Trek: Insurrection. This did not happen with Star Trek: First Contact. This did not happen with the launch of Enterprise. I have literally never seen a non-fan interested in a new Star Trek production before, but now I've seen it multiple times since this trailer came out.

Just something to think about.

And, yet, somehow I doubt they say it "looks pretty cool" because the movie makers decided not to use the original ship design. I suspect that if everything in the trailer (and the movie) was the same except the ship design was the original TOS/pilot version that people would still think the trailer looked pretty cool.

 

[3D Master]

:sighs: Nope, Kirk never made out with a single green woman, let alone multiple ones. Which pretty much tells your so-called being a fan of the show.

Please, don't sit there and question my fandom of the show, I know exactly what I am talking about. While yes, he never made out with a green woman, that statement is certainly based in truth, since in many episodes he did end up kissing an attractive woman for whatever reason, it doesn't matter if she is green or not.

So what type of fan are you if Kirk did kiss a green alien woman on the show but you are questioning the type of fan who said it without actually knowing one way or the other?

Frankly, maybe you guys should just drop the whole "I'm a bigger fan" thing while you're both behind.

Sorry, but Kirk didn't kiss her, she kissed him.

 

[yotsuya]

This Enterprise redesign was done with the same level of care that Bruckheimer used when creating the wide angle shots of the American aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor. Meaning not much. This design looks like a bad mix between 1701-A and 1701-D, meaning it doesn't look like it came between 1701-A and NX-01 at all. It doesn't have a 50's feel to it, it has a 2008 feel to it. If Abrams was being faithful to Trek, he wouldn't have changed the design. He's playing the Hollywood game and changing things because he can. Then he minces words and says he's not doing a reboot, while completely ignoring the classic visual design in every way. Had he just admitted he wanted to completely change the look and gone full bore with a reboot then we would not be having this conversation. I still wouldn't like the new design, but I'd say it's his vision so he can do what he wants. If he's not doing a reboot, then it isn't his vision, it's Roddenberry and Jeffries visions and Abrams would just be adding to it. It's like Bruckheimer putting a modern wide deck aircraft carrier in a movie set 10 years before then were even invented, it shows a careless lack of concern for one part of your audience. Anyone getting involved with Trek should know that the fans take such departures very personally. I for one am just going to write this off as a reboot unless I see Jeffries design on the screen.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Whilst we're kibitzing about the relative quality of this film, by the way, something I'd like to bring up for everyone's consideration:

For the first time EVER that I can recall, non-Trekkies, non-fans, are coming up to me and saying, "Hey, have you seen the trailer for that new Star Trek movie? It looks pretty cool!"

This did not happen with Star Trek: Nemesis. This did not happen with Star Trek: Insurrection. This did not happen with Star Trek: First Contact. This did not happen with the launch of Enterprise. I have literally never seen a non-fan interested in a new Star Trek production before, but now I've seen it multiple times since this trailer came out.

Just something to think about.

True, I had a conversation with someone yesterday who was very excited by the trailer and commented that the movie "looked good".

 

[Sci]

Does Batman Begins invalidate Tim Burton's Batman? Does The Batman invalidate Batman: The Animated Series? Do any of them invalidate Adam West's Batman?

We've seen this argument over and over again... Batman hasn't been internally consistent between movies, series or comic books, so who cares at this point. Superman hasn't been internally consistent between movies, series or comic books, so who cares at this point. Spider-man hasn't been internally consistent between movies, series or comic books, so who cares at this point. James Bond hasn't been internally consistent between movies and books, so who cares at this point.

Right. And what I'm suggesting is, if Star Trek evolves to allow multiple interpretations instead of only one continuity, maybe that's a GOOD thing.

But for more than 40 years Star Trek has made a good faith effort (even if mistakes were made) to stay internally consistent and true to itself.

Having different versions of the story is not the same thing as "not making an effort to be true to yourself."

And, yes, Trek did that for forty years. And then it died. Obviously, sticking to the old formula wasn't working too well. Time to try something new.

If Star Trek was dying, let it die. But the idea of defacing Star Trek so that Abrams could do what he could have done with something else while exploiting fans addicted to Trek is pretty sad.

1. I don't accept the idea that having a new continuity is "defacing" it. It's just another way of doing the legend.

2. "If Star Trek was dying, let it die." Well, that says it all, doesn't it? Purity or death. I don't want Star Trek to die, and I think that evolution is superior to "purity."

He had the opportunity to stay pretty faithful and didn't (and we don't need to see the film to see that),

Um, yeah, actually we do.

so now he had better have an overwhelmingly compelling story to make up for the first majorly internally inconsistent Trek production.

It's not the first internally inconsistent Trek production. The first internally inconsistent Trek production was "Where No Man Has Gone Before," where suddenly Spock goes from a grinning, yelling, emotional guy in "The Cage" to a stoic Vulcan who suppresses his emotions.