Topic: No word on Star Trek XI...

[knightstorm]

If you had bothered using that lump of matter between your ears I wouldn't have to repeat myself in saying that the uniform is not important as long as they don't make severe changes to cannon.

Oh, I see. We're going to be like that are we? Fair enough.

You're the one who called me melodramatic, and was overly sarcastic in your previous reply.

So, no mention of it not being important as long as severe changes to canon are not made. But what the hell, right? I mean, I ought to have been able to read your ******* mind....

No, I expected you to read the other post where I said that if the uniforms weren't on top of everything else, I wouldn't be concerned about them.

They're keeping a lid on the details. I see no reason to worry about their respect or (or lack of respect) for canon until we have rather more than tail fins on the nacelles and the style of the uniforms....

Look at it from my perspective.
1. I know what he wanted to do to superman, and am concerned he will give star trek the same treatment
2. The look they gave the enterprise leads me to believe they may be doing something more Flash Gordonesque
3. The decision to go with TOS type uniforms is an attempt to placate me, but the fact that they took so little care as to choose a style of uniform that is inappropriate for that era negates what they are saying.

[James Smith]

You're the one who called me melodramatic, and was overly sarcastic in your previous reply.

If I was "overly" sarcastic by saying that I thought you were being a tad melodramatic, then I apologise. Personally, I thought I was being rather restrained!

No, I expected you to read the other post where I said that if the uniforms weren't on top of everything else, I wouldn't be concerned about them.

What "everything else" though? Fins on the nacelles, the ship being built on the ground rather than in orbit.....and that's about it.

Look at it from my perspective.
1. I know what he wanted to do to superman, and am concerned he will give star trek the same treatment
2. The look they gave the enterprise leads me to believe they may be doing something more Flash Gordonesque
3. The decision to go with TOS type uniforms is an attempt to placate me, but the fact that they took so little care as to choose a style of uniform that is inappropriate for that era negates what they are saying.

I think you're reading way, way too much into the few pieces of info that we have right now. I think you're premature in saying that the movie will suck, even though I do grant you that the potential is certainly there.

[knightstorm]

No, I expected you to read the other post where I said that if the uniforms weren't on top of everything else, I wouldn't be concerned about them.

What "everything else" though? Fins on the nacelles, the ship being built on the ground rather than in orbit.....and that's about it.

That and the fact that I know what the producer/director wanted to do with superman.  And, I'm sorry if it bothers you but the shadow of that is going to hang over how I look at this film.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Bridge looks unbelievably bad. Kirk is the way he is because of an abusive drunk uncle and in interviews the writers take the pocket books as an acceptable source to build on. 

[Lieutenant_Q]

The uniforms looks like an interesting cross between the NX era uniforms and the TOS uniforms.  I just wish there were a few pockets.

As for everything else.  The only thing released thus far that has me screaming is the Bridge.  Also Building the ship on a planet surface seems stupid, since the reason that JJ states it should be done is to "Balance" the warp nacelles, despite the fact that to "Balance" them they would have to be built in the exact same place, as the minor variations in the gravitational field on the planet surface would "Unbalance" them.  Best to do it in space so that the gravitational forces can be better controlled.

[James Smith]

That and the fact that I know what the producer/director wanted to do with superman.  And, I'm sorry if it bothers you but the shadow of that is going to hang over how I look at this film.

Well, like I said - while there is the potential for this to be screwed up, it hasn't necessarily been screwed up yet.

Eh, whatever. Look on the bright side, this film can't possibly be as bad as Nemesis....

[Corbomite]

For some reason, my favorite Trek film is The Motion Picture. Each time I watch it or even think about it, the more I like it. The novelization by Roddenberry is supposed to be better than the film, so I will give that a try.

I'm kind of like that with The Phantom Menace. I still hate Jar Jar and the kid, but I like that movie more and more everytime I see it.

[Corbomite]

As far as the "reboot" issue this quote is from page 2 of the linked article.


http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html?cnn=yes



"Transforming a defunct old property into a cool 21st-century event flick may seem like business as usual for Hollywood (e.g., Superman Returns, Batman Begins), but Trek presented Paramount and Abrams with a much heftier challenge: how to make this hunk of retro sci-fi cheese meaningful as mainstream entertainment, as relevant pop, as big business. ''Every studio in town is searching for these kinds of franchises, so it was important for us to reboot,'' says Brad Weston, Paramount's president of production. ''But we needed a clean, fresh take on this thing.''"

[knightstorm]

For some reason, my favorite Trek film is The Motion Picture. Each time I watch it or even think about it, the more I like it. The novelization by Roddenberry is supposed to be better than the film, so I will give that a try.

I'm kind of like that with The Phantom Menace. I still hate Jar Jar and the kid, but I like that movie more and more everytime I see it.

Didn't mind Jar Jar, after all Star Wars isn't meant to be taken as seriously, although I do think Lucas went a bit overboard with CGI characters.  I also think they killed off Darth Maul too early.  Besides, Jar Jar can't compare to the gay, purple, cross dressing hutt in The Clone Wars.

[knightstorm]

As far as the "reboot" issue this quote is from page 2 of the linked article.


http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502,00.html?cnn=yes



"Transforming a defunct old property into a cool 21st-century event flick may seem like business as usual for Hollywood (e.g., Superman Returns, Batman Begins), but Trek presented Paramount and Abrams with a much heftier challenge: how to make this hunk of retro sci-fi cheese meaningful as mainstream entertainment, as relevant pop, as big business. ''Every studio in town is searching for these kinds of franchises, so it was important for us to reboot,'' says Brad Weston, Paramount's president of production. ''But we needed a clean, fresh take on this thing.''"

as for it not being a reboot

http://trekmovie.com/2007/10/08/interview-orci-talks-casting-characters-canon-and-more/

TrekMovie.com: You guys have resisting labels for this film such as remake, reboot, etc….even prequel. Prequel has a pretty basic definition so what is wrong with calling it that?

Roberto Orci: But yet it is not entirely accurate. In some senses it is a prequel, but the word I would use, which is how Damon [Lindelof] describes it, is a re-invigoration or re-vitalization.

Then again, it could probably be that they are giving interviews aimed at different audiences and are slanting their statements to suit their targets.  After all, the writer of the article you posted doesn't seem to have a very high opinion of Star Trek.  I doubt he's ever seen one of the spinoffs.

[Vipre]

This thread sounds familiar...hasn't this all been gone over before?

The TOS Enterprise has always had "tail fins", just look at any model whatsoever. The only difference between the TOS "fins" and the XI "fins" is the new "fins" are sleeker.

[knightstorm]

This thread sounds familiar...hasn't this all been gone over before?

The TOS Enterprise has always had "tail fins", just look at any model whatsoever. The only difference between the TOS "fins" and the XI "fins" is the new "fins" are sleeker.

Yes.  We had this argument when the picture was first posted.  The TOS Enterprise did not have tail fins.  It had brackets which I assume were for EVA work.  The picture appears to have genuine tail fins.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

This thread sounds familiar...hasn't this all been gone over before?

The TOS Enterprise has always had "tail fins", just look at any model whatsoever. The only difference between the TOS "fins" and the XI "fins" is the new "fins" are sleeker.

No fins. Functional equipment. You are likely refering to the Intercoolers that stick out near the rear of the nacelles.

[Vipre]

TOS Enterprise did not have tail fins.  It had brackets which I assume were for EVA work.  The picture appears to have genuine tail fins.

I'd be interested to hear from where you get this impression. They are taller than the entire bridge module including the upper dome and while not "canon" listed in the FJ tech manual as "Final Stage Intercoolers". The new ones are also roughly the same size, shape and in the same location as the originals. While they appear to you as "fins" they are still part of the original design.

I wish they'd stop with the crappy photos and give a real look at the model though to settle all this stuff.

No fins. Functional equipment. You are likely referring to the Intercoolers that stick out near the rear of the nacelles.

Yes I was getting to the intercooler bit but it comes down to the old "you say tomato" thing. The new "fins" are an interpretation of the original "fins" and in fantasy land can be Intercoolers just as easily as those.

[knightstorm]

TOS Enterprise did not have tail fins.  It had brackets which I assume were for EVA work.  The picture appears to have genuine tail fins.

I'd be interested to hear from where you get this impression. They are taller than the entire bridge module including the upper dome and while not "canon" listed in the FJ tech manual as "Final Stage Intercoolers". The new ones are also roughly the same size, shape and in the same location as the originals. While they appear to you as "fins" they are still part of the original design.

I wish they'd stop with the crappy photos and give a real look at the model though to settle all this stuff.

No fins. Functional equipment. You are likely referring to the Intercoolers that stick out near the rear of the nacelles.

Yes I was getting to the intercooler bit but it comes down to the old "you say tomato" thing. The new "fins" are an interpretation of the original "fins" and in fantasy land can be Intercoolers just as easily as those.

I get the impression because they don't appear to particularly thick, they have a texture similar to a scaffolding, and there is a space between the inside of the bracket and the nacelle.  Yes they are high, but you could always place some sort of crane on it.

[Vipre]

I get the impression because they don't appear to particularly thick, they have a texture similar to a scaffolding, and there is a space between the inside of the bracket and the nacelle.  Yes they are high, but you could always place some sort of crane on it.

The intercooler thing is more "believeable".

[Commander La'ra]

Who gives a damn about fins on the [censored] nacelle?  Really, seriously, will your actual enjoyment of this movie, if it turns out to be good, be soured by some aesthetic choice by a set/prop designer?  Would a good script, acting, and respect for what Star Trek is supposed to be about (and maybe less attention given to fanboy technobabble and dry, hackneyed crap that's been passed off as Trek since third season TNG) really ruin the movie for anyone?

If it sucks, fine, it sucks, bash it all you want.  But no one has seen the movie yet:  you don't know how it'll be until you sit your butt down in a seat and watch it, fins or no fins.

[Czar Mohab]

This is exactly what they want, and y'all are playing into it. Personally, I enjoy listening to you all (reading all of the) rant(s) on why something is good or canon or why it will suck or isn't canon. I've had a really rough few weeks, and this brings me great humor. Just don't go getting yourselves banned. Most of you bring a lot to the forums, arguing aside, and I'd hate to see that go away over something as stupid as this.

But as to what they want:

They want you all to fight, and bicker, and speculate over the film. They want you to argue about trivial stuff like uniforms and tail fins and bridge designs. Why? So you'll go see the dammed movie and prove, either for yourself or everyone else, once and for all,that your point of view is the right one. And once they have your money, they don't care whether it was up to your standards or not. By golly, they hope like heck you'll see it again, and even buy the DVD/Blu-Ray when it comes out, so in that respect it will be good enough. But when it comes right down to it, you're playing into their hand.

I for one will go see this movie. Not because of any argument stated here. I don't care what it looks like, it is the story I'm after. If the story bombs, then I'll be disappointed; but at the end of the day, I'll still have been glad to have been able to see the wreck on the big screen. And on the other side of the coin, if it is the best thing in Trek ever, then I'll be super happy I spent the time and money to see it as it was supposed to be seen.

I'm glad that you all have your opinions of the movie. There's bound to be many that, once they see the movie, will be hurt in one way or another over something in the film. That's how things go with movies. Personally, I don't want anyone to be hurt or feel empty or neglected. I want everyone to be able to enjoy this film in their own way. If that means that you're enjoying the fact that you were right about the fins (either way), or the uniforms, or canon, or whatever else has been argued over, then they've done their jobs. And, I'll feel a little better once I see all the new discussions over who was right about those tiny little things.

Czar "Thanks for the laughs," Mohab

[Norsehound]

this hunk of retro sci-fi cheese

I don't get why everyone says this of old shows, using it to justify their actions of changing most of the story for the sake of presenting it anew. There's nothing wrong really with TOS, many of the episodes are memorable and fun. After all, it still has a hardcore fan following even after all these years. Same with Battlestar Galactica, 1978.

Yet when nBSG came around (and is it starting now with trek?) Everyone's quick to jump up, point at TOS, and call it "a hunk of retro sci-fi cheese", sneering at the show as if only productions with gratuitous amounts of CGI are worthy of being called 'good'.

Just because it's new doesn't make it better than its forebears. Star Wars is a great example of this- as I gather everyone loves the original trilogy over the 'new' 3. Just as I, personally, find TOS more enjoyable than anything that's come after it in trek.

That all aside, the bridge set turned me off to what this Trek could be like. While I reserve a small bit of optimism, so I can be proven wrong if it IS good, the bridge set conveyed to me a sense that the director wasn't taking this seriously. The set looked like it belonged to a Parody of the original series, rather than a reboot.

[dragoon]

I'm not nitpicking.  If you had bothered to read my previous posts fully, I gave reasons why I feel these things are important.  The look they give the Enterprise represents the overall tone of the  film.  The fact that they gave it tail fins means they're probably going to stick it in some sort of Flash Gordonesque adventure. 

And as I said, if you yourself had bothered to read my post, i was using those comments as simply an example, and not a critique on your views.
However, I in no way see anything that implies some sort of jazzing up of things. I just think that we still don't know enough of the film to judge.
The first idea we will get is on Oct 31 ( in the UK ) at the Quantam of Solace Bond fiml, where the trailer will be attatched.... though it's said to be going out on the American release, which is November ?

Poeple bitched and moaned about the new Bond before Casino Royale was released, quite possibly more than some Trek fans are. And apart from some die hards, everyone as far as i'm aware loved it. People loathed it, until they saw the film, and I think that Trek is going to be the same.

[Dash Jones]

Abrahms came out in an interview yesterday and stated it IS a reboot.  They tried to stay true to the spirit according to him, but they just tossed what they didn't think was relavant...inclusive of a portion where they wanted Shatner to come into the movie...but then tossed it because "it just seemed contrived" to them.

I think they may make the same mistake some people have been making with trek for the past several years with the past several movies.  They want to attract a new "hip" crowd and ignore canon...when in fact...they don't give the public enough credit.  I think the public is far more aware of what is Star Trek...then Hollywood gives them...and what they WANT from Star Trek.  That's one of the reasons I think Enterprise didn't do so hot either (that and some of the episodes in the first two seasons which didn't do it any favors).

On the other hand, maybe they keep the spirit of star trek with a nice reboot, and it turns into a mega hit.

Regardless, I'll probably at least see it once.

[Corbomite]

Well it will be what it will be. I'll wait for a good trailer before I make any judgements about it. What I don't understand is, if they want a fresh start, why are they always trying to rehash old characters and plotlines (time travel... again! ) instead of coming up with something actually fresh? If they wanted a really good old plotline to resurrect they should have taken a cue from TWOK and finished the story started in the first season TNG episode "Conspiracy". You know, the one with the little scorpion looking bugs that take over Starfleet Command with that gross mother creature that took over Lt. Cmdr. Remmick. At the end Data confirmed a homing signal sent to an unexplored part of the galaxy... and they left it at that. I can think of at least three good ways to cover that arc in a movie and they'd have all the CGI aliens and goop they could handle. You wouldn't even need the original crew, except maybe Data for some nostalgic continuity.

[Norsehound]

I think they should have a series (or another movie, with another cast?) set during the movie era (II-VI). Best ship design, best costume design, and Klingon-Federation tensions to explore.

...But I guess that goes against the care bear optimism of TNG, so it'll never happen. 

[Czar Mohab]

If they wanted a really good old plotline to resurrect they should have taken a cue from TWOK and finished the story started in the first season TNG episode "Conspiracy". You know, the one with the little scorpion looking bugs that take over Starfleet Command with that gross mother creature that took over Lt. Cmdr. Remmick. At the end Data confirmed a homing signal sent to an unexplored part of the galaxy... and they left it at that. I can think of at least three good ways to cover that arc in a movie and they'd have all the CGI aliens and goop they could handle. You wouldn't even need the original crew, except maybe Data for some nostalgic continuity.

Personally, my vote would be for this version:

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,67.0.html

Czar "Thanks for the great read, Lt. Q," Mohab[/color]

[Lieutenant_Q]

  Wow, you found that?  Where was it, page six?  That's been...two years?  three years since I finished it?

I'd say your welcome, but I think its I who should be thanking you for reading it.