Will Trek XI repel old fans?

[Stag]

I've decided, I do not like the way Spock's eyebrows are pointed in the pictures we have seen - I am boycotting until someone puts a protractor against Quinto's and Nimoy's head to prove angle of the upsweep is the same as in TOS.

 

[trekkerguy]

EDIT: What the hell... I didn't know I was posting in this thread :S

 

[JuanBolio]

I'm amazed CRA is able to make such sweeping judgements about the quality and faithfulness of the movie from a few still images. He must have powers beyond imagination!

"...for he IS the Kwisatz Haderach!"

 

[GodThingFormerly]

I'm amazed CRA is able to make such sweeping judgements about the quality and faithfulness of the movie from a few still images. He must have powers beyond imagination!

Either that or he knows how to use IMDB.com.

TGT

 

[JuanBolio]

That still ain't much to go on. I shall collect him gypsy tears and be forever protect from AIDS.

 

[Aragorn]

So the likes of MattJC, Tyson and Captain Robert April are all up in arms and want nothing to do with this movie -- except of course to bitch 24/7 on her about how much they're bitching about it -- and they all seem like they're on the brink of a suicidal meltdown. What's the down side to that?

 

[Psion]

So the likes of MattJC, Tyson and Captain Robert April are all up in arms and want nothing to do with this movie -- except of course to bitch 24/7 on her about how much they're bitching about it -- and they all seem like they're on the brink of a suicidal meltdown. What's the down side to that?

Be fair ... they're passionate about the original series and don't want to see anything ruin their appreciation about that period in Trek. More than any other movie or series since the original, this film trods all over that period and they're reacting defensively. I'm a bit more forgiving of revisionism than they are, but I don't see any reason to mis-characterize their opinions just because I don't agree with them.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I'm amazed CRA is able to make such sweeping judgements about the quality and faithfulness of the movie from a few still images. He must have powers beyond imagination!

"...for he IS the Kwisatz Haderach!"

Hey, don't mess with Muaddib.

Anyway, it's getting the reaction it needs to get from the fanbase. Basicly, the more we shit ourselves over the discontinuities in NeoTrek, the more likely it is that outsiders will be willing to try it. Nobody wants Nerd Trek XI -- a movie that only nerdy trek fans would be caught dead seeing.

I don't personally like some things (do the uniforms remind anyone else of goalie jerseys?) but I'm comforted to know that fanboys are uncomfortable -- partaily because it's a good sign for the movie and partially because I'm an asshole.

 

[GodThingFormerly]

That still ain't much to go on.

It's enough. Speaking only for myself, there is nobody in the listed ST:XI production crew who impressed me in the slightest with an earlier project beyond the possible exception of Blade Runner co-costumer Michael Kaplan.

TGT

 

[JuanBolio]

For everything there is a first time.

 

[bintak]

No, they don't use rockets, but they use some kind of engines which we don't, so rockets will do as an analogue

No, they don't.

Why do I feel like I'm surrounded by a bunch of high-school dropouts, or less?

Do you know what a rocket is? A rocket is a tube, with a lot of explosive material, light the material, and hope for the best. There are no breaks, there are no second chances, there is no way to control thrust. It's simply lit, and it goes, and keeps going until the explosive material gone. THAT is a rocket.

We are ALREADY moving away from rockets. The next generation space vehicles are indeed no longer rockets. Rockets is the dark ages.

And whatever they'll be using in the 23rd century is nothing like it, not even close. To claim a rocket as an analogue for the 23rd century technology... it's like claiming a bicycle is an analogue for a jet-plane.

(since obviously they don't use warp or impulse to fly into and out of an atmosphere).

And why wouldn't they be using impulse to flying into and out of an atmosphere? There's really no reason why you wouldn't be able to use impulse. You'd have to set it to a really, really, really low setting, so you move slow enough to keep from crashing into things, but there's really no reason impulse engines can't be used.

:sighs: Did you see pieces to be assembled being worked on in the trailer, hmm? Nope, the Enterprise was intact.

And no, it would NOT be easier, nor safer to work on the Earth. Which part of zero-g don't you get of working in space? There's no air, there's no friction, there's no gravity. It's piss easy, in comparison, especially when you get with big and high things, to move things about. You don't need massive, powerful transporting machines, like trucks and the like that can drive over people, that can break down, and I've barely scratched the surface. Building large objects is FAR easier and FAR safer in space, than on the ground.

Because it's a waste, and makes thinks more difficult than they have to be. The moment you have space stations you simply don't build ships planetside.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I don't understand why this minor detail (and yes, it's a detail at most in my book) would be a deal breaker for you. To use the example I used earlier, why is building ships planet-side so much more unacceptable than warp drive? And, how would this one minor detail reduce the whole movie to idiocy or more fantasy and less SF?

In your book, maybe, but not in mine. I'm willing to overlook flaws in science that are cutting edge. Writers and even science advisers can't know anything. But this isn't cutting edge. This is basic highschool physics and engineering 101, anyone with a little bit of a brain should be able to figure this out. Building in space has SO many advantages it's not even funny: it's easier, it's safer, it costs less energy, there's more space to build things in, then there is Earth to build things on, and so forth, and so on, and on, and on, and on.

If they can't even get this simplistic thing correct, they obviously don't give a hoot about anything but guns firing.

And Star Trek has always been something more, something deeper, with something to say about among other things science. They're reducing Star Trek to Stargate. No substance, just guns blazing, meaningless threats, where they're always beamed out in the last second, and Armageddon weapons get dropped in their laps just at the right moment from the gods on high. See if you can find anyone that says, "Stargate made me go into science/engineering/etc." Nope, it's Star Trek that's in that sentence.

____________________________________________________

I'll try to keep this brief.

1. I've followed the assembly of the International Space Station on Nasa TV since its inception. One thing I've learned is that inertia does not go away and assembling things in microgravity without some stabilizing tractor force to orient everything in one build direction is incredibly dangerous, especially when the tinkertoy starts becoming the size of a football field.

2. The time of Startrek has artificial gravity as a stable and safe technology base, as implicit-certainly as safe as the tower cranes we use today. I do not see the problem being serious with suggesting that you can build the structure in a dry-dock planet-side, and then using hover effect anti-gravity engines even if temporary ones to lift the contraption into orbit.

3. How could you build such engines? The same way you can warp space time to create a warp bubble, I suppose. The whole point of our current understanding of gravity is that it is a property of mass that curves space. If that is the case, then the boson that is the particle responsible for transmitting the tractor effect across the interval, the graviton, the builders of the Enterprise must have discovered how to modulate. In the words of the immortal boxer, Roberto Duran, "No mass=no inertia." How hard is it to lift a photon?

4. As long as I see a plausible SFX lift effect shot out of a surface construction dock, I'll suspend my disbelief and adopt a Zen attitude to the technology showed. Otherwise, what is the point of griping about where the Enterprise is built, when you have other gaffes upon which to hang your critics hat. How can that ridiculous shape take the inertia loads under thrust?

HMMMMMM?

No inertia=no mass=no problem.

 

[bismarck_1892]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Star Trek is Star Trek because of the history that it has developed over these long decades. Once one begins to mess with that history, the franchise unravels and looses its character. It will stop being Trek. And who really needs more cookie cutter sci fi? I sure don't.

 

[trekkerguy]

So the likes of MattJC, Tyson and Captain Robert April are all up in arms and want nothing to do with this movie -- except of course to bitch 24/7 on her about how much they're bitching about it -- and they all seem like they're on the brink of a suicidal meltdown. What's the down side to that?

Be fair ... they're passionate about the original series and don't want to see anything ruin their appreciation about that period in Trek. More than any other movie or series since the original, this film trods all over that period and they're reacting defensively. I'm a bit more forgiving of revisionism than they are, but I don't see any reason to mis-characterize their opinions just because I don't agree with them.

I still havn't heard or seen a single thing that "Trods all over" anything in
that period. It looks fresher due to being produced in this century and has
new people playing the characters but that's about all I've seen for differences.
It seems more like alot of the hardcore non-fans HOPE it does so they have
reason to justify the bitching.

Trek has walked all over it's own continuity so much I don't see how this
movie could do anything that possibly hurts it except add to Treks history
of ignoring Trek history.

And if it ruins their appreciation for that period that is their own demon.
You don't have to see it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Star Trek is Star Trek because of the history that it has developed over these long decades. Once one begins to mess with that history, the franchise unravels and looses its character. It will stop being Trek.

I dunno; maybe that's the advantage to having watched "Star Trek" from its inception on NBC: I remember that it in many ways was at its greatest before it was dragging decades of history behind it, when every week was a fresh story containing unexpected elements and really new information about the characters and their histories (and - only parenthetically and in passing - the history and nature of the civilization from which they supposedly sprang).

"Star Trek" was cool before there was such a thing as "Starfleet" or "The Federation," and for many years before there was a name - "trekkie" - for the folks who liked it.

If to get just a little of that back it's necessary for "Star Trek" to "stop being Trek," then as far as I'm concerned it's way past time to get on with that.

 

[trekkerguy]

^ Well said.

 

[bismarck_1892]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Star Trek is Star Trek because of the history that it has developed over these long decades. Once one begins to mess with that history, the franchise unravels and looses its character. It will stop being Trek.

I dunno; maybe that's the advantage to having watched "Star Trek" from its inception on NBC: I remember that it in many ways was at its greatest before it was dragging decades of history behind it, when every week was a fresh story containing unexpected elements and really new information about the characters and their histories (and - only parenthetically and in passing - the history and nature of the civilization from which they supposedly sprang).

"Star Trek" was cool before there was such a thing as "Starfleet" or "The Federation," and for many years before there was a name - "trekkie" - for the folks who liked it.

If to get just a little of that back it's necessary for "Star Trek" to "stop being Trek," then as far as I'm concerned it's way past time to get on with that.

I understand what you're saying. However, one cannot escapeTrek history now. Too many fans are too invested in it at this point. Change the show dramatically and you may loose a good portion of those fans.

And whatever JJ and the suits at Paramount like to think, they can't get enough new fans to keep the show going. So, keep it or loose it. You can build on the fanchise, but you simply can't rebuild it.

Trek has become a pop culture institution. You move a few bricks and the building will stand, but if you start messing with its foundation, well then, the whole thing will come tumbling down. Continuity can be adjusted, but we will see how dramatically. I don't think fans will go see a second movie if those changes hit at the core of Trek lore.

At least that's my opinion.

 

[trekkerguy]

Problem is you are speaking for all Trek fans. I think it's time for this kind of thing and
even if it is a drastic change I'll go see the next as long as it is a good movie with good
acting and has the principles of Trek at it's core because that matters far more to me
over a history that has repeatedly folded on itself anyways.

As for the look of the bridge, they have not done anything to trample on
the "Canon" design, it simply looks new and like TOS probably would have
looked like if it wasn't made 40 years ago. The Phasers look very much like
the Phasers of the TOS movie era but possibly look more mechanical.

People are fretting over the littlest things.

And don't act like the people complaining are the only ones who care
about this franchise. I too have grown up my entire life watching this
Universe unfold.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Trek has become a pop culture institution. You move a few bricks and the building will stand, but if you start messing with its foundation, well then, the whole thing will come tumbling down. Continuity can be adjusted, but we will see how dramatically. I don't think fans will go see a second movie if those changes hit at the core of Trek lore.

In my opinion, the building has crumbled so far beyond recognition that only the front facade can be saved. There are a couple of fans still living under the rubble, but they're not essential to the rebuilding.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I understand what you're saying. However, one cannot escapeTrek history now. Too many fans are too invested in it at this point. Change the show dramatically and you may loose a good portion of those fans.

That's a reasonable risk for the studio to take, since they have no evidence that established trek fandom still represents a source of profit to them as far as films and television are concerned.

 

[ancient]

they have no evidence that established trek fandom still represents a source of profit to them as far as films and television are concerned.

You don't consider my 5 bucks important?! Weeell excuse me, Mr. Bigshot.

But this movie is doomed if I don't give it my personal official internet seal of approval, seven months in advance. What are they thinking?! Don't they know what I want?

...ooo, cookies.