The original Star Trek was made in the 1960’s. I find it laughable that much of the so-called “canon” in TOS has already been superceded by science fact. For instance, TOS referenced the Eugenics Wars as happening in the 1990’s (Space Seed) and sleeper ships being sent out in the 2010’s, some of this of which had to be glossed over or ignored for shows like Voyager and Enterprise (after all, both shows were made in the last 15 years, and the final Enterprise episode first aired in 2005, of course we’ve had no Eugenics Wars, our genetic engineering capabilities are far from the level where we could even create a super-cell, much less a super-human, and I doubt very much that NASA will ever commission a sleeper ship to explore any nearby systems – they’ll wait until we find a way to break the light barrier).

We have to face it. If anyone tries to stick with established canon so religiously the show will become something of a joke with younger people because there’s no way they can suspend disbelief for elements of a show that is so out of date (I mean, come on… that TOS Bridge design they recreated for “In A Mirror, Darkly” did not in any way, shape, or form, convince me that the Defiant was technologically advanced compared to the NX-01, and that’s only the look of the ship (I’m not even touching on some elements of Earth History as portrayed by Trek that are out of date by today’s standards).

The show HAS to change. I know there is a loyal fan base out there who will hand my ass back to me in a hat for what I’m saying, but I personally am all FOR change. If things stay the same or if they try to conform to a canon that was established before the world evolved the way it is today, then they run the very real risk of becoming stagnant very quickly. I personally would hate to see the gaudy coloured pipework and paint schemes used on the TOS Enterprise (It might have been appropriate for a 60’s audience… But not now) and we’re surrounded by technology that makes the TOS Enterprise look a little old hat (flat-panel displays are the norm for most PC’s these days, and OLED displays have already been developed allowing for flexible displays that you can bend and roll up etc – imagine an animated newspaper for instance – and this new technological level we’re at now needs to be superceded by a show that is set in the future even if *some* elements need to be retained in order to establish that this IS Trek).

There was also a lot of heated debate as to how the Enterprise should look in Star Trek XI. Change it, is my opinion. Matt Jefferies did a great job in the 60s with his version, and it had stood up well for many years, but this is 2007, and the “Enhanced” episodes of TOS look something of a joke to me because of how closely they are trying to keep the look of the original, dated effects and set designs. The re-design of the Enterprise for the Motion Picture in the 70s was a step in the right direction, and I imagine it wasn’t anywhere near as hotly denounced as any of today’s ideas are being (I mean, come on, there are people here saying that if the ship doesn’t look like the TOS era ship, then it’s WRONG? Like I said, if it DOES look like the TOS era ship, including wooden/plastic/matte surface properties etc, it will look really bad and unrealistic – spacecraft are usually constructed out of metal and ceramics today, and I imagine you’re very unlikely to have a spacecraft made from wood with a matte paint job in the 22nd or 23rd century). Keeping the shape of the original in terms of the design flow is advisable because it’s a signature of the show, but if people propose that the ship has more details, does something different to the Aztec Patterns on the hull, and adds stuff like Escape Pods and phaser strips to the outer hull a-la Enterprise-D, E and Voyager, then what’s the problem? The NX Class Enterprise looked more modern in my mind than the TOS Era Enterprise did, exterior and interior, which in a chronology where the events of TOS took place after ENT, seems a bit weird to me, and needs to be addressed in order to have that suspension of disbelief restored for me again.

Having said that, while I feel the show could use updated visuals and a re-think of the methodology used in the set and spacecraft designs, I feel this is less the case for the core story elements of the show (aside from superceded events like the Eugenics Wars and the departure of the Botany Bay in 2018). I still like the fact that the show broke ground in terms of attitudes toward women and people of differing ethnic origins (I remember Roddenberry’s choice of a female Executive Officer in the pilot for Star Trek, even though he had to change that later at the request of the studios, and I thought that given people’s attitudes at the time, this was a brave and new direction he was taking). Sure, there were a lot of 50’s and 60’s attitudes to how the show was presented, which in itself could use some updating (although this has been happening in any case with shows such as TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT), but the show had always been more about presenting a human perspective when dealing with extra-terrestrial issues than it was about coining jargon and technical terms.

Times change. Our entertainment needs to change with the times. If this requires a re-imagining of how the TOS universe looks, then so be it, even if it upsets a few die-hards who are living in the past.

Anthony@328: Good summation, indeed. Some of those (i.e. being a Starship-based adventure possibly putting an end to the Academy rumor) I hadn’t even thought of. I think I’ll use some of those in the Memory Alpha article. ;)

Anyways, again, sorry about the anger message. I just wish people would get some sense, though. :(

——

R.I.P.
Richard Jeni
1957-2007

#234: To be fair, there’s also no reason to believe they wouldn’t, at least in the case of Titan. same-ol’, same-ol’ TNG might not be so optimal a choice, but something new, something people couldn’t just watch for free on TV, that might have a much better chance.

#235: Agreed. If the characters are written consistently with how we’ve come to know them, new actors adding their own personal style to the portrayals should be no problem. And if the characters aren’t consistent, it won’t matter what the actors do, ’cause the project will have already gone well on the way to failure.

#253: Well, I won’t speak for anybody else, but I am very much looking forward to seeing a new Star Trek film. But my hope is for a *Star Trek* film, not a *Something else wearing a Star Trek mask* film.

#262: One of the things that makes keeping the proposed film–assuming that what we’re hearing about the premise is correct, of course–consistent with existing continuity is that there are so few actual datapoints about the time period (maybe 5 or 6 discreet facts at moost?) that it’s very, very easy to do a lot of original storytelling without contradicting anything. I could be wrong, but I think that’s what Abrams and Co. are figuring, MTV’’s “Interpretations” of the comments notwithstanding.

#266: I think that’s very likely what’s going to happen. It’ll look and likely feel a lot more like a TOS episode than any of the featuyre films have, but bigger, vastly more epic, and of course redesigned a bit to reflect a sensibility of 40 years later…thiugh they do seem to be making an effort not to abandon the original design ideas.

#275: I would have LOVED to have seen “ST: Excelsior”. “Enterprise” wasn’t a bad choice, but there were a lot of ways to have made “Excelsior” work, and possibly work better than ENT, as a reflection of our modern world. (And, sorry, Dennis, I really can’t agree that the show would have tanked that fast, assuming it was done well. That qualifier, of course, is key. ;) )

#283: I think things will look different, but not unrecognizably or over-radically so. Ironically, Dennis, I look at a number of your own projects as possible hints to how the iconic elements like the ship and some sets could be portrayed for a feature without disrespecting the original designs, which–especially for the Enterprise herself–both “In a Mirror, Darkly” and Trek Remastered have shown is every bit as beautiful with modern effects as she was in the 1960s. That design still holds up magnificently. Detail her up a bit more for the 60-foot screen, and…oh, my… :D

#312: Yup, there is a level of obsessiveness that can become counterproductive. I like to describe it as the fans who will be upset if the buttons on the helm console aren’t exactly the same as in TOS. ;) Now, that level of continuity isn’t going to be there, and probably shouldn’t. Not to mention all the folks who will whine because new material in the next film contradicts–not what’s previously established on film, ’cause we’ve already established there isn’t much!–but their own personal ideas of what *should be* happening. Most of the anti-”Enterprise” whining, when it came to continuity allegations, fell into that category. That’s the sort of overdoing it that should be taken with a grain of salt.

#328: Good summation, Anthony! I asked this over on the Sy Boards earlier, and I suppose I can ask it here, too: Is there any statement, interview, offhand comment, or anything else directly from someone involved in the production that supports the claim that the next film will not stick with at least the broad continuity of the Trekverse, as repeated interviews and statements have asserted? I’ve seen nothing, and I still suspect that MTV deliberately used words like “reimagined” to either grind their own axe or just see if they can set folks off. (If the latter, it seems to have worked. ;) )

Best,
Alex

#324 Craig.
First, please try spell check to help communicate better.
Second. Why be closed-minded? All I see is assumuptions that this movie will change Trek beyond recognition. “Your” universe will still exist after this movie is made. And face it. “your” Trek universe says there are always possibilities…I agree with that. Perhaps it’s possible for you to try a taste of this new/old Trek. You might like it. If not, you and Doug Stone and Bob can get together in the basement for a film festival sometime.

You owe Anthony an apology… grow a pair and do it now. I am very glad we won’t be seeing you at the theater. Will you be the one carrying the protest sign?

Your complete post as below…

X

xai, please realize that this movie is the death of trek. and theres a thread on st.com that says the same thing I am saying. why censor people and make false hype for a movie we dont care about.

1. Trek XI will have a significantly larger budget than Nemesis, likely the biggest Trek budget ever
2. Trek XI target audience and ‘economic model’ is aimed at non Trek fans and Trek fans, breaking tradition of recent films
3. Writers prefer simple ’star trek’ as name (although it is not yet approved)
4. Cinematographer will be MI3’s Daniel Mindel
5. Prod. Designer will be Scott Chambliss (reported before but not confirmed)
6. The film will be a ’starship adventure’ (presumably putting to rest a film primarily set at an academy location)
7. Film will have a focus on action
8. Trek technology terminology (technobabble) will still be used
9. Writers are fans of Matt Damon and happy to see him as Kirk
10. The film will try and recapture the TOS spirit of being about ‘the human soul’ and relationships

some regular readers here know this site has spam software running on it and it does most of the policing because I dont have time.

when someone posts over and over it sometimes flags them as a spammer.

I do however ‘flag’ some people as spammers or trolls manually when I see them use multiple names or hate speech. But really I dont have time to bother reading every post, and ususally only take action when some one notifies me of a problem.

by the way I cant believe this thing has gone over 300…that might be some kind of record and the amazing thing is that people are focusing on one word ‘reimagining’ which wasnt even said by the actual writers.

by the way Chuck Amuck,
you do know that one of my pet peeves is people claiming that some fans arent fans. All Trek fans are fans, some may be wrong, but they are all fans. No one can claim to the ‘real fans’ yes there are many trek fans who are having trouble saying goodbye to TNG or too concerned over canon, but they are still fans. I hope over time they will come around and learn to embrace change, if not they have more hours of material than any other franchise and should be thankful.

Oh, and I’ve seen some of the so-called “fan” opinions at the StarTrek.com message boards. A lot of those aren’t fans, they’re close-minded fools who claim to be Star Trek fans yet, like some folks on here, act against Gene Roddenberry’s vision as actually presented in Star Trek. Those are called pseudo-fans; they don’t post opinions, they post nonsense. All they have to do is say “I’m not too crazy about this film’s concept” and maybe list reasons why in a rational, mature manner; instead, they rant and rave, proclaiming the movie will suck, stating their one opinion as everybody’s opinion, curse out Paramount and the producers and demand their deaths, threaten to hurt them should they cross paths, etc. Those are not opinions, it’s just stupidity.

I found this one regarding censorship at TrekMovie.com particularly entertaining.
They apparently don’t bother reading the blogs, just posting to ‘em and wondering where their comments went. Apparently the guy kept sending irritating posts so Anthony set it up to where following posts were deleted. Maybe if he hadn’t been irritating people, he wouldn’t have been blocked. In any case, I can see little difference between the blogs here and the message boards there, except that there are apparently more people complaining over nothing over there.

Oh, and to Montreal Paul@323: Amen, brother. Amen.