Why not just use the pilot design?

[Nerys Myk]

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...

And how'd that work out for them? Shows and films of diminishing returns and rating.

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..

Defacing. I gotta say hyperbole will never die as long as one disgruntled Trek fans still exists. Folks addicted to Trek are the last people Paramount and Abrams want to "exploit". They're hoping for a successful film and that group aint gonna cut it.

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.

I'll take a compelling story over a few "inconsistency" any day. Because in the end that's what will make it good or great film, not the ship design or where Kirk is born.

 

[Shaw]

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

Oh... maybe you're right. It sure looks like he's fighting her off. Oh, wait... he only starts fighting her away when she pulls a knife on him!

Face it, you don't know the show well enough to be judging if anyone else is fan enough to argue their points.

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.

Please watch some Star Trek before posting... Spock grins in WNMHGB, he grins (and shows other emotions throughout the series.

Spock is half human, and the internal conflict between his mixed heritage was a major part of Spock's character throughout and beyond TOS.

Want to try again?

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.

-and-​

And how'd that work out for them? Shows and films of diminishing returns and rating.

It wasn't the internal consistency that killed off the shows/films... it was bad writing with uninspiring characters.

If the show's consistency is the problem... then Forbidden Planet would be the solution!

 

[3D Master]

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.

No, it isn't.

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

Yes, actually, it IS.

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.

Oh, no, not this again. Is it really so hard to understand the following: It didn't do that for forty years, it only did that for 35. If ONLY it had done so for forty years, we wouldn't be in for this mess. For if they had KEPT the continuity, Enterprise would have broken with the formula of the 15 years before that RADICALLY, and we wouldn't be in this mess.

In short; you can break the having become stale formula, without changing the continuity. And continuing to claim it can't, or it's the same thing, shows how completely unwilling you are to grasp simple logic.

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

When that "new continuity" came about through lazy, uncreative, unwilling to challenge oneself writing; nothing but formulaic Hollywood movie totally empty of everything meaningful including science, then yes, it IS defacing it.

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."

Oh, and again...

It makes me sigh, to hear these contradictory terms used as if they mean the same thing.

No, "evolution" does not mean that Star Trek can't remain "pure", or rather keep the essence of what Star Trek is intact.

When "evolution" means a meaningless, Hollywood formulaic movie only interested in the next kewl thing, with the next kewl visual, without a care in the world of what Star Trek is, what good story telling is, what good science fiction is, that "evolution" turns it into a pile of crap.

Turning Star Trek into a pile of crap is not only not better than anything, it's horribly WORSE than just about anything else.

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.

No, actually, we don't. I refer you to the ridiculous Enterprise built on Earth scene. I refer you to all the other scenes talked about.

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.

Odd, isn't it? That the writers apparently didn't think so inconsistent that they couldn't use it. It's almost like they establish that... shock, Spock wasn't always so well in control of his emotions. What a horror! It's inconsistent! There was character development!

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

Oh... maybe you're right. It sure looks like he's fighting her off. Oh, wait... he only starts fighting her away when she pulls a knife on him!

Face it, you don't know the show well enough to be judging if anyone else is fan enough to argue their points.

First of all, whether he is fighting her off, doesn't even really matter. I didn't say anything about Kirk fighting her off, just that HE didn't kiss HER. Big difference with her forcing herself onto him - but...

In case you hadn't noticed, friend, he's backing away from her. The only reason he's not fighting her off in the beginning is because he's a gentlemen that doesn't hit women easily. But eh - I know, when a woman is backing away from an assailant and telling him "no", she isn't being raped, because she didn't fight him off!

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...

And how'd that work out for them? Shows and films of diminishing returns and rating.

Which we all know, is NOT because they kept to continuity - indeed with Enterprise they DID NOT even REMOTELY do so - but that they kept suck in TNG formula twice over with Voyager and Enterprise.

 

[Shaw]

First of all, whether he is fighting her off, doesn't even really matter. I didn't say anything about Kirk fighting her off, just that HE didn't kiss HER. Big difference with her forcing herself onto him - but...

In case you hadn't noticed, friend, he's backing away from her. The only reason he's not fighting her off in the beginning is because he's a gentlemen that doesn't hit women easily. But eh - I know, when a woman is backing away from an assailant and telling him "no", she isn't being raped, because she didn't fight him off!

Okay... maybe we need to let others in on this.

Everyone, please stop what you are doing (which is mainly fighting anyways) and watch this clip.

Is Kirk rejecting Yvonne Craig's character's advances before she pulls the knife? Let us know what you think.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't care about Shatner and Craig.

I would like to note that when critics of this trailer use loaded terms like "defaced" and "addicted" to describe creators and fans they'd do well to recall that before accusing those who like the new movie of being dismissive or unfair to defenders of the Trek Orthodoxy.

 

[Grup]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUoaFITdfQ4

Hopefully this hasn't been posted yet but I'm jumping into this thread 19 pages later.

I like the new design. I think that they probably had structural engineers tear apart the original design and realize things like the legs that the nacells are attached to just wouldn't hold up under stress and all kinds of other things we would not have noticed 40 years ago.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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...

And how'd that work out for them? Shows and films of diminishing returns and rating.

Which we all know, is NOT because they kept to continuity - indeed with Enterprise they DID NOT even REMOTELY do so - but that they kept suck in TNG formula twice over with Voyager and Enterprise.

Enterprise did no better or worse than the other four shows.

The real formula at play here is the usual reguritation of the same "complaints" about new takes on Trek that fans have had since TMP. No doubt if the internet had existed back in the 60s there would be threads upon threads about how "The Cage" and "WNMHGB" are the true vision of Star Trek and TOS screwed it up with it new uniforms, modified sets and dumbed-down writing. ( Though there probably is fan subset that believes this right now)

 

[3D Master]

I like the new design. I think that they probably had structural engineers tear apart the original design and realize things like the legs that the nacells are attached to just wouldn't hold up under stress and all kinds of other things we would not have noticed 40 years ago.

First, whether or not the nacelle struts can't handle any stress, depends entirely on the material. You have materials that are nothing but a thin line, that wouldn't break if you hung the actual Enterprise on it.

But second, the nacelle struts never get under stress, so there's need in making them withstand some kind of stress that they'll never get under.

Which we all know, is NOT because they kept to continuity - indeed with Enterprise they DID NOT even REMOTELY do so - but that they kept suck in TNG formula twice over with Voyager and Enterprise.

Enterprise did no better or worse than the other four shows.

The real formula at play here is the usual reguritation of the same "complaints" about new takes on Trek that fans have had since TMP. No doubt if the internet had existed back in the 60s there would be threads upon threads about how "The Cage" and "WNMHGB" are the true vision of Star Trek and TOS screwed it up with it new uniforms, modified sets and dumbed-down writing. ( Though there probably is fan subset that believes this right now)

It wasn't a new take! It was just TNG 3.0! That's one of the main ffing problems, and it wouldn't have been so, if they had kept to CONTINUITY.

A ship that does NOT maneuver and goes to warp faster than the fastest ships of the 24th century.

A ship that does NOT work exactly like it's 24th century counterparts, with ever single bit of technology there that is in the 24th century ships. (Which gets doubly horrible when you hear what Spock has to say about 22nd ships in Balance of Terror.)

A 22nd century time traveling thief in TNG that had never seen anything remotely like a phaser, yet they have 'em in Enterprise.

Etc. etc. etc. etc.

And why? Because they made TNG 3.0 with a few texture, model, and term changes, instead of made a show with a new take that actually played in the 22nd century previous Trek established. Hell, the characters are even the same perfect, sanctimonious, never made a mistake, hold the Prime Directive up like a religion (before there even was a Prime Directive), as the 24th century versions.

 

[Shaw]

I would like to note that when critics of this trailer use loaded terms like "defaced" and "addicted" to describe creators and fans they'd do well to recall that before accusing those who like the new movie of being dismissive or unfair to defenders of the Trek Orthodoxy.

The terms aren't loaded... their descriptive.

I'm sure that there will be people who genuinely like this movie and those who genuinely won't... both of which are fine (but those groups are yet to be determined as we still have no movie). Those who have irrational exuberance for something sight-unseen simply because it is Star Trek qualifies as having addictive behavior in my book. But maybe you'd rather we call them nondiscriminating?

The trailers are interesting, but they aren't TOS nor are they even an attempt at staying consistent with previous Trek.

Will it be a good movie? We'll have to wait and see. But it is pretty clearly not design to be consistent, and that is disappointing in and of itself.

This is all pretty straight forward... nothing to fight over really, what is done is done. I just wish Abrams would have done it to something else (like Forbidden Planet).

As for your concerns about loaded terms... hey, it's english, people can make any terms loaded if they want. I'm sure you'll find as many loaded terms in this post as you need if you want to have a reason to react... or not, we'll have to see how (or if) you reply.


All and all, people looking for a fight will always find one. Those who like the way the movie is looking have nothing to be upset with as they are getting their way, but they fight against those who are genuinely disappointed even though they really have no reason.



Amazing... isn't it?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Enterprise did no better or worse than the other four shows.

More precisely, the show's ratings declined along the exact curve that DS9 and "Voyager's" ratings did. Every new series introduced started at a later, lower point on that curve than the previous one, and the audiences for all of them declined in the same way.

In the main, television viewers never embraced any of the shows introduced to replace TNG. The final death of Trek on television was the end of a ten-year onward march of boredom with "Star Trek" in general.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I would like to note that when critics of this trailer use loaded terms like "defaced" and "addicted" to describe creators and fans they'd do well to recall that before accusing those who like the new movie of being dismissive or unfair to defenders of the Trek Orthodoxy.

The terms aren't loaded... their [sic] descriptive.

False dichotomy. They're loaded, descriptive terms. Calling people "addicted" to something is a negative value judgment with some very specific connotations; there's no accuracy to it as a simply descriptive term but if one's intent is to both dismiss and annoy people it has few equals.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Enterprise did no better or worse than the other four shows.

More precisely, the show's ratings declined along the exact curve that DS9 and "Voyager's" ratings did. Every new series introduced started at a later, lower point on that curve than the previous one, and the audiences for all of them declined in the same way.

In the main, television viewers never embraced any of the shows introduced to replace TNG. The final death of Trek on television was the end of a ten-year onward march of boredom with "Star Trek" in general.

I was talking about continuity, but that works too.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Enterprise did no better or worse than the other four shows.

More precisely, the show's ratings declined along the exact curve that DS9 and "Voyager's" ratings did. Every new series introduced started at a later, lower point on that curve than the previous one, and the audiences for all of them declined in the same way.

In the main, television viewers never embraced any of the shows introduced to replace TNG. The final death of Trek on television was the end of a ten-year onward march of boredom with "Star Trek" in general.

I was talking about continuity, but that works too.

Ah. Well, "Enterprise" did a little better with continuity than TOS did.

 

[gh4chiefs]

Get your heads out of your asses..

Is that really necessary? Just because some of us, granted perhaps a small minority, think the original design was beautiful mean we all have our head up our asses?

 

[Shaw]

False dichotomy. They're loaded, descriptive terms. Calling people "addicted" to something is a negative value judgment with some very specific connotations; there's no accuracy to it as a simply descriptive term but if one's intent is to both dismiss and annoy people it has few equals.

See, I knew you would find something.

Well, windmills await.

 

[gh4chiefs]

All and all, people looking for a fight will always find one. Those who like the way the movie is looking have nothing to be upset with as they are getting their way, but they fight against those who are genuinely disappointed even though they really have no reason.

Hadn't thought of it that way, but it's an interesting point. Sometimes it does seem as if those fans who are saying they like this new direction are about as angry about things as those of us who are less than thrilled with the new Trek.

Interesting.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sometimes it does seem as if those fans who are saying they like this new direction are about as angry about things...

I generally find whining tedious. There are solutions to it.

Generally, I'm delighted with the overwhelmingly positive reaction to the Trek trailer - and to some extent and counterintuitively, I suppose I'm even happy to see some of the complaining in this case; it's karmic. Enjoyable enough, anyway, to spend time in some pretty whiney forums that I otherwise don't bother with.

 

[gh4chiefs]

Enjoyable enough, anyway, to spend time in some pretty whiney forums that I otherwise don't bother with.

You must have more patience than me. I don't find it fun at all. If it weren't for the tidbits of news about the movie that filters out in some of these threads, I wouldn't be here, that's for sure.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You must have more patience than me.

Well, I've been watching this crap since at least as early as 1986; no one ever invents a new complaint. So the main strain on my patience is the repetition.

And this is not the really whiney place. This forum is actually not too bad.

 

[Captain X]

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?

Don't care.

Does Batman Begins invalidate Tim Burton's Batman?

Yes, even if it is better.

Does The Batman invalidate Batman: The Animated Series?

I haven't seen the former, so I wouldn't know. Is the latter even still being made? Was it still being made after "The Batman" came out? If so, no, if not, yes.

Do any of them invalidate Adam West's Batman?

Yup.

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.

He's already said that it will start in the post-NEM era and that the movie is supposed to take place within the regular continuity of the franchise, so yeah, we have a pretty good idea.

Secondly, even if it IS a reboot -- so what?

Star Trek should not be rebooted.

It's not like any of it was ever real to begin with.

Really? I'm so glad I have people like you to tell me these things, otherwise I'd think they were just historical documents.

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.

Ah yes, I reject your reality and substitute it with my own... I may hate TATV, think ENT's execution sucked, think that VOY's execution sucked too, think that TOS was too corny, and that TNG was too preachy, but they are still canon, and this movie will be too. So excuse me while I bitch about it like every other brain fart I've seen in a franchise I otherwise like and care about.

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.

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.

Right, because everyone loves the Moore version of Bond...
No, it'll pretty much just suck. This movie will be at the back of the short bus just like Threshold, TATV, ST5, INS, and NEM.

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.

Which doesn't require a reboot.

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

No, it's someone's way of parodying "the legend" by making their own version of it.

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."

No, it's a matter of not wanting to see something we care about fucked up even more than it already is.

Um, yeah, actually we do.

No, not really. I have eyes, I can see screencaps, trailers, and descriptions for myself, thank you.

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.

You mean in that first pilot that is such a bitch to get a hold of? That one NBC didn't really like because Spock looked like a demon and it had a *gasp* woman as the ship's first officer, who wore pants and was intelligent? You know, the first officer who was very cold and relatively unemotional? And since NBC said he had to get rid of either the alien or the woman first officer, GR decided to combine the Spock character with the Number One character to make him more alien? Imagine that.