Set Designer Talks About New Enterprise January 8, 2008
by Charles Trotter , Filed under: Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback
Since production on the new Star Trek film began, there have been several reports as to what the interior and exterior of the newly-designed USS Enterprise will look like. Now, comes more clues from someone who actually worked on the sets. Dawn Brown, one of the film’s set designers, tells SyFy Portal that fans should come to the movie prepared for a new look and hopes they will have an open mind. More below (some minor spoilers)
Brown tells SyFy Portal:
I think a lot of hardcore fans are going to freak out. As far as I know, only the exterior of the Enterprise had to stay the same. I don’t know if that came from J.J. or Paramount. … If you see this movie with an open mind and take it at face value, you may have a great time.
Brown naturally could not go into great detail, but she did offer some insight
into the film’s use of green screens.
I’m not a fan of the digital and green screen or blue screen sets. I understand they have their place, but I think it usually looks better when things are physically built. It gives the actors something to react to. The design of the film belongs to the art department, not the visual effects department. I worked on a very large set on ‘Star Trek’ that would have been an absolutely fantastic physical build. But it became a visual effects shot instead. My involvement was reduced to marking out blue screens and platforms. We have so many talented carpenters and scenic artists and sculptors, and I have seen some truly amazing sets. It is a shame to trade their contributions for green screens.
For the full interview, in which Brown also discusses her work on Batman &
Robin and the upcoming adaptation of the DC Comics mini-series Watchmen, see SyFy Portal.
Redecorating the 1701
Although some fans may wish for the NCC-1701 in the new Star Trek to be an exact duplicate of the 1967 design, that isn’t realistic, nor is it consistent with Trek’s past. The ship interior, and especially the bridge has gone through multiple changes over the course of the TV series and the films. When one looks at the bridge from “The Cage” and compares it to the one in the regular series, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan it is apparent that Starfleet likes to redecorate every once in a while.
Bridges of the NCC-1701 Enterprise (Cage, TOS, TMP & TWOK)
About Brown
Brown has worked as an artist and designer on over 30 film and television projects over the last two decades including SeaQuest DSV, Lois & Clark, Charlie’s Angels, Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes. and Steven Soderbergh’s Ocean’s Eleven, Ocean’s Twelve and Solaris. Star Trek is not her first forray into the final frontier. Brown did design work for the 1998 museum exhibit Star Trek World Tour, working under veteran Trek production designer Herman Zimmerman. In addition, Star Trek marks the sixth collaboration between Brown and Keith Cunningham, the film’s supervising art director. They previously worked together on Batman & Robin, Ocean’s Eleven, Solaris, Zodiac and re-shoots for Mr. & Mrs. Smith.More on Dawn Brown at her official site, Memory Alpha,
and IMDb
VOTE ON SETS
Are you a purist or do you want radical change. VOTE in the latest poll for what kind of set design you want to see for the new movie.
Loading ...
Comments»
Sounds cool.
No!
How will this movie fit with canon then?
I don’t understand how they say this movie will RESPECT canon!
Canon has nothing to do with set design….
I hope the future does not look like the Enterprise of 1967
Why can’t they keep the Enterprise the same?
I mean, look at “In a mirror, darkly”. The Enterprise looked the same as the 1960’s version. Only the lighting and camera angles were modernized.
#4 Section 31 — In a Mirror, Darkly, was an episode of a TV show. Yes, it looked good there, but it just wouldn’t hold up on the big screen.
Well. This really is a reboot, then, whatever the screenwriters, actors, producers, etc. choose to call it. Personally, I’m okay with that, so long as it’s a good one (and, let’s face it, such was really inevitable)–but purists had best learn to deal with it now, or just stay away.
@Section 31-
What does a redesigned set have to do with Canon? I didn’t think set design had a lot to do with Canon, I am pretty sure it has a lot more to do with taking care not to contradict historical events. Whether something happened on a set designed ‘like this’ or ‘that’ makes little difference, that it DID happen at all, does.
Hate that
3) What do you mean set design doen’t have to do with canon?
In TNG’ Relics, the Enterprise NCC-1701 was not altered or redesigned. In DS9 Trials and Tribble… the Enterprise looked the same. The same goes for ENT’s “In a mirror, darkly”.
Says the opinion of Mister Trotter.
#4 You are right, they did keep the look and it looked bad im afraid to say. It would never hold up to a silver screen, high budget film. let them redesign the tech so that we don’t walk in and out of the theater on a phone that looks 40 + years ahead of the tech on the screen.
Canon has become impossibly restrictive for the future of Star Trek itself. This new film is a brave statement of protest. We must break free!
And with modern lighting, staging, and camera angles, the old 1960’s Enterprise looked darn good! No need to change it much, just more activity on the screens, and perhaps make them real touch screens.
If they are going to totally reboot the entire Star Trek franchise, why not start from scratch? I mean they did that for Godzilla, Batman, James Bond, etc.
The whole Old Spock from Star Trek (1966-2005) doesn’t need to belong with Star Trek XI.
It could. We’ve never been given the chance to see if it would.
I keep staring at the line about the exterior having to stay the same.
I keep staring at it and smiling :)
#10 steve623 — This movie is supposed to appeal to new audiences as well as older fans. Do you really think new audiences are going to be interested in a 23rd century ship that looks like it was made in the 1960s?
I think that it is great, same ship different inside, how many bridges did we see from the 1701-A, 4 or 5 I think, so this is a new bridge for a new movie. The Star Trek of old can not sustain another 40 years without small changes.
Cannot wait to see it.
13) Yes I agree! Why didn’t they go in that direction !
What I found significant was her comment, “As far as I know, only the exterior of the Enterprise had to stay the same.” I wonder how authoritative that statement is and how much subjectivity applies to her use of the phrase, “the same.”
Hmmm…
Did JJ Abrams and the rest of the crew watch ENT’s “In a mirror, darkly”?
Oh, good. This discussion again.
Sigh.
(The new info sounds good, BTW).
From her comments in the full interview, it seems like a lot of the sets are virtual – and my guess is that the really cool big set that she referred to was the new bridge, which I gather from previous comments is going to be a lot bigger than it was on TOS. My recollection of the current version of BSG is that the control center is also a fairly large space, maybe that’s the look they’re going for. I do feel the need to point out though that a big ship doesn’t necessarily mean a big bridge – the bridges (navigational and air control) on a Nimitz carrier are not big spaces, nor is the CIC on them. The really big space on an aircraft carrier – and hopefully on the Enterprise – would be the hangar deck.
Speaking of which…
Hey, Anthony, any word on that article you were going to run? Hmmm?
‘ a lot of hardcore fans will freak out’.
this comment concerns me. sounds like the bridge etc wil havve little resemblance to the original series. ummmmm interesting. im all for making it look fantastic and updating it for a new BIG movie but surely it has to look like the enterprise bridge to some degree. i do have an open mind tho so it might be great.
greg
UK
#14 Section 31 — Star Trek’s history is just too extensive and the fanbase too large to just start over. And by the way, please don’t confuse Godzilla as a “reboot” and especially don’t confuse it one that worked. ;)
SOOOooooooooo….
Star Trek from 1966 to 2005 will be called “Star Trek A”.
And Star Trek from 2008 to beyond will be called “Star Trek B”.
This certainly fits in with the recent “insider comment” about the new “sense of scale” for the interiors of that “massive starship”. Guess the sets will be HUGE and less “room-like” than ever before.
#3- ”Canon has nothing to do with set design….”
Set design is also part of the canon
I hope the new bridge will not look like the bridge from a Sovereign Class Starship.
Says the opinion of Mr. Trotter.
#29 I totally agree.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
YAAAARRRRRRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
WHY WHY WHY must nothing be respected? I don’t mind some physical changes… but the more you change, the more history/comtinutiy/fanbase gets thrown out the door. It doesn’t have to be exact… but at least let it be recognizable as the bridge… the sickbay… etc. The only good thing I read, and even that must be taken with salt, is that the exterior could not be changed. I’m sure it will be.
One of the things that sucked about Enterprise was the neglect to the “retro-future” feel of TOS. It looked more advanced than TOS. I’m aware that show is 40 years old… but it’s more than the character names that have become legend and pop culture. Furthermore, I think the look could well be adapted/updated to WORK on the silver screen!!!
Well, too late to complain now. But I will anyway….
In short, this movie will respect Star Trak canon HISTORY, but not SET DESIGN.
Heart attack…. :(
#31 steve623 — And the opinion of the majority of people who saw 1998’s Godzilla. Have you read the reviews from critics and everyday moviegoers?
I hope there will be a protest against this movie. It’s like casting a white guy to play Martin Luther King, Jr. in a movie.
16, I’m with you. That particular line caught my eye and has me smiling. :-) Insofar as the inside of the ship, it is unrealistic to expect the sets to look like the sets of the 1960’s. Modernization of the sets is to be expected, if only to make them motion-picture quality.
I wonder how we’re to square this with Mr. Orci telling us that the designs are often very faithful to the originals?
That said, I also could be okay with a greater departure from the original designs than “In a Mirror Darkly” took. Still, considering how remarkably, vastly easy it would be to keep the basics of Matt Jefferies’s original designs intact, yet bring the details up to be more “of the now”, as was once described, it’d be a real shame if they’ve chosen to throw that all out.
‘Course, since even small detail changes could result in a very different look, perhaps that’s where it’s going?
On the up-side is this quote: “As far as I know, only the exterior of the Enterprise had to stay the same.” Looks like we’re not going to see something totally different pretending to be our beloved Enterprise. ;) Now, if the current team has spent as much time as folks like Andy Probert and Herman Zimmerman did on making the interiors look like they fit inside the hull, we might just be in good shape.
#20: “how much subjectivity applies to her use of the phrase,’the same.’”
An enormous amount, I suspect.
We need to give up on the canon. It’s a new movie. It should start it’s own canon legacy. Stop comparing new Trek to stuff that’s 40 years old.
Sounds good to me. Could you imagine the new Battlestar with the old 70’s sets… SHUDDER…
Aaron R.
Why didn’t they just create a new TV series based on the 1960’s Enterprise. I mean, Star Trek was a TV franchise.
9. Section 31 – In TNG’ Relics, the Enterprise NCC-1701 was not altered or redesigned. In DS9 Trials and Tribble… the Enterprise looked the same. The same goes for ENT’s “In a mirror, darkly”.
Yes, because the production team ‘chose’ to keep the design for the nostalgia…and because it was cheaper to borrow a section of the original bridge set that someone had re-created. Trials and Tribblations used original footage, so they really did have to match the original style. In a Mirror Darkly was another nostalgia piece, a gift wrapped episode to try and win back old fans.
At any rate, this new movie intends to be just that…new. I’m sure it will try and respect the existing history, but the sets don’t have to be exact replicas to do that. Give them some creative freedom, for heavens sake.
#41, but STAR TREK is unique. Keeping the 1960’s set designs will show to the world that the future is going to be vastly different from what we perceive. Those strange buttons on the bridge reflect an alien world in which we do not understand.
#31 Steve623
get over it, it’s his opinion. You have one or are just here as the mockingbird?
I liked the bridge design for “the Cage”, had a more “naval” feel to it than the series run. And the TMP design harkened back to that color scheme.
But the control interfaces aren’t only dated looking but totally unrealistic for space vessel, in light of today’s technology. Building those today wouldn’t only be a step back but also step towards the impractical.
Also look for more realistic colors for a spaceship compared to what we’re used to seeing. The bright colors were a mandate from NBC, as the network wanted to be a showcase for color TV viewing and wanted a lot of bright primary colors. That’s why the set and uniforms look so different between the pilots and regular series.
The lighting on the first episodes of TOS was fairly colorful, too,especially compared to the last year
IMO, you will not see drastic change… stations will remain in the same positions and hopefully Stanky gets his red bridge rail.
Doesn’t sound promising… but I’ll take a wait-and-see attitude and hope I’ll end up liking it.
Okay, fine then. If they are going to totally redesign the set designs, why not do the same for Wizard of Oz or Star Wars.
By the way, the original 1977 design for the Star Destroyer made an appearance at the end of Revenge of the Sith. In short, George Lucas didn’t redesign the bridge of an icon starship.
Man, some of the people posting here are either annoying 12 year olds…or crusty 90 year old geezers. Heaven forbid that a set designer might actually be allowed to do their job and ‘design’.
#50 I strongly believe that Canon should include Set Design, not just history.
No bloody A, B C, D or blue screen.
I want practical sets!
49. Section 31 – January 8, 2008
By the way, the original 1977 design for the Star Destroyer made an appearance at the end of Revenge of the Sith. In short, George Lucas didn’t redesign the bridge of an icon starship.
Those Star Wars films were part of the same film series…this film is a re-imagining of Trek…with new actors in existing roles. It’s not the same thing at all. Frig.
#41-”Could you imagine the new Battlestar with the old 70’s sets”
Yes, i can
40- “We need to give up on the canon. It’s a new movie. It should start it’s own canon legacy. Stop comparing new Trek to stuff that’s 40 years old. ”
That would be fine by me… but then they shoudn’t have Nimoy as part of the cast and quit saying that Kirk died in Generations.
Can’t Paramount and CBS create two franchises for Star Trek fans?
I mean Paramount can continue their new rebooted franchise for new fans, but CBS can continue to create TV series based on Post-TNG.
A NEW BRIDGE, PLUS BLUE- AND GREEN-SCREEN???
I’m boycotting this movie.
51. Section 31 – January 8, 2008
#50 I strongly believe that Canon should include Set Design, not just history.
You’re hopeless.
Nimoy can still be part of the cast. He is a major Trek character. Also, who’s to say Kirk really died in Generations? Maybe an echo of Kirk is still in there?
50- “Man, some of the people posting here are either annoying 12 year olds…or crusty 90 year old geezers. Heaven forbid that a set designer might actually be allowed to do their job and ‘design’. ”
Do you also like your history revised?
I’m sure 40 years from now there will be an explanation as to why the set designs of Star Trek XI looked different. Just as how the Klingon’s forehead dilemma was resolved, perhaps a spatial mirror anomoly created an alternate universe in Star Trek XI? Who knows?
The more I read, the less I want to see this movie. The original pre-refit USS Enterprise 1701 (no bloody A, B, C, D, or E) is the heart & soul of Star Trek and cannot be rebooted, re-imagined or spiffed up!
41 – “Sounds good to me. Could you imagine the new Battlestar with the old 70’s sets… ”
Those set designs done with modern set and VFX tech?
Oh, my, I could sure imagine it. And it would have been superior in almost every way to what they’re actually using. The Galactica’s main bridge in the original series, done with modern tech, would just blow the current BSG bridge away.
And I think the same could be true with Trek.
The places on the Enterprise to really play with scale and scope, though, would be the shuttlebay and main engineering. :)
Thy should just call this movie Star Odyssey instead of Star Trek… :(
#46 – I didn’t know that the colors of the Enterprise bridge were connected to NBC programs being a showcase for color TVs. That’s interesting.
And, hey, at least she didn’t say the ship had wings. That should put some people at ease.
Jeez, she wasn’t kidding that the hardcore fans will “freak out”. That seems to be all they ever DO! lol
This is still meant to be the SAME ship, but just interpreted through a more modern, 21st century lense. I don’t really see why that’s such a hard concept to grasp.
lame. if you’re going to do TOS, do TOS, and if you want to do trek, do trek. if you want to update it because you want moviegoer bob’s dollar, just do something moviegoer bob wants to see, not a movie hamstrung by whatever pre-concieved notions about the trek brand that they have.
man, why am i even complaining? if it sucks, it’s not like i’m going to go pay to see it afterwards.
#66 – It’s like casting a white guy to play Martin Luther King, Jr. in a movie.
I hear the observation lounge is going to be the bar from Cheers. If you people don’t like the new design…watch the old stuff.
Actually the more I read and here about this the more excited I get. Out with the old and in with the new. Just like our country we need change in Star Trek too. You know sometimes when you get the same thing for so long it starts to get stale. If I had to eat pizza every day I would get sick of it. That is what has happened with Trek. The general public (NOT you hardcore Trekkies) have gotten a sour taste in the mouth. The general public has for the most part made up a big portion of the movie going Trek audience. That is why every Trek movie except for Nemesis was a #1 on the box office charts. If you don’t believe me look it up. You don’t get on the #1 spot without the support of the average movie-goer. The same exact meal everyday gets boring even if is your favorite thing in the world. Time to spice it up baby! Spice it up!!!
Aaron R.
If they are going to redesign the bridge, why not the tribbles too? I mean they could go the extra mile and make it look like FURBY!
This is a new movie…if people who complain have the story in there mind why see anything new…. Thats why we as fans have the reputation for craving the safety of our parents basement. Change is ok, and healthy. Gore ‘08
49 – Lucas was trying to make a film that served as a bridge to 1977 designs. That’s different.
God some of you people are whiney. Why not wait until you see it before making your opinion? These overblown reactions are why they’re being so secretive with everything… the less you show ahead of time, the less time there is for the bitching.
Let’s say the bridge is kept the way it is so that it conforms to canon. Also, let’s assume that most other phyical aspects have to be designed from scratch because they have no established canon.
Now, when the average moviegoer sees a 60’s version of the bridge versus everything else that’s been modernized (or futurized) they’re going to laugh or scoff. And that’s assuming they even see it in the first place.
For a good example of this see the Brady Bunch movie.
,,Although some fans may wish for the NCC-1701 in the new Star Trek to be an exact duplicate of the 1967 design, that isn’t realistic´´
I think she is absolutely right. TOS Enterprise needs a face-lift for today big screen. I suspect also that was the main reason why producers (Gene too) decided too the redesign TOS Enterprise for TMP way back in 79. We have to be realistic and keep a open mind. I am
Personally i want hybrid from Enterprise Refit & E. Smilier to this kit-bash design http://img84.imageshack.us/my.php?image=enerhy2.png
#74 Okay fine, redesign everything. Bring the Borg into the movie. And add a little holodeck as well. Why not throw in some Q?
60. CW – January 8, 2008
Did you read my previous posts at all? Did I even say that? I simply stated that set design, and Canon are two separate things and that the movie is said to respect Trek Canon(Trek History). As far as Trek History is concerned though, it’s not real…it’s a show. If they tossed it all out the window, it wouldn’t be the end of the world…but we’re told they’re not doing that…so I think folks should relax and trust these people to design something wonderful. If they don’t, it’s just a movie at the end of the day. It won’t ruin lives. I just think there are bigger issues in the world to get worked up over.
#76 I don’t mean to start anything, but you sound like a sarcastic teenager who isn’t getting his/her way.
The design had better not be too different from the old ship, I just got it tattoed on my arm dammit!
The truth of the matter is that the original, and all subsequent bridge designs were based on a basic concept; center seat, helm, navigation (sometimes) and other key positions on the periphery. It’s entirely realistic to expect a different looking bridge. However, the basic design elements should, and are expected to be, similar to the original bridge layout. When ST:TMP was being made there were similar discussions and concerns that they were radically changing the Enterprise. It worked out fine…
Anthony, could Section 31 be banned already? He or she is taking this to a whole new level of annoying.
#78 I’m a loyal ADULT trek fan. If you would respect Set Design as much as Canon History, then you would understand why I am so upset.
The difference between the bridge of the 1978 Battlestar Galactica and the Moore version is that the newer one looks like a work area.
The 1978 version looks like a cool movie set – and certainly would look cool, updated.
That said, it would look like a cool movie set and wouldn’t be nearly as persuasive as the CIC does.
I’ve never expected anything different from this film than a complete redesign of everything, so this is neither a surprise nor a disappointment to me. I’m looking forward to seeing something new.
#81 OKAY fine. I’ll shut up.
Goodbye
no one is being banned for having an opinion…however Section 31 does get a warning for spamming.
#69”If you people don’t like the new design…watch the old stuff.”
I will watch old stuff, but i think ( more, and more ) that i will not watch that new stuff.
Well, I for one do hope the future looks exactly like the orginal ’60’s Star Trek. I love the uniforms and the sets. They were all clean and sleek, unlike the movie bridge sets which were dark and cluttered. The devolution of the movie bridge sets has always been a pet peeve of mine. The Enterprise went from looking like a starship to looking like a submarine!
#53 “Those Star Wars films were part of the same film series…this film is a re-imagining of Trek…with new actors in existing roles.”
Did you miss the memo about Leonard NImoy being in this film..as Spock? You know, THE pointy eared Spock from 1966? And in it, he is reportedly going back to HIS past. So yeah, one kinda expects Spock’s already established past to look somewhat familiar.
Had this been a complete and total reboot, complete and total changes would be expected. (not really sure WHY anyone would want to remake something then change everything about it, but whatever).
But according to all involved… it’s not. Therefore the concern from TOS fans is well placed and totally understandable.
Once again, a lot of people are blowing this thing way out of proportion. Ms. Brown didn’t even say much, she just gave her opinion at how Trek fans *might* react. Holy Surak, people, did you honestly think the ship would look exactly the same as it did in the 1960s? This is a big-budget feature film for the year 2008 designed to bring in new and old audiences. Some things are *bound* to change and everyone will just have to accept that. It’s not the end of the world, nor is it the end of the franchise just because the consoles are sleeker or the rail is a darker shade of red. It’ll be okay, people. Really, it will. You will manage.
Okay, first impressions.
I’ve decided this time I will not have first impressions.
The team that is producing this move have (in my opinion at least) been spot on with the professionalism and respect they have shown for Star Trek so far.
I am a long time fan, going back to the early ’70s reruns and I also realize that, when it comes right down to it, the movie is going to be made without my 44 year old input.
Will I whine? Will I complain? No. I will buy popcorn and enjoy the ride that almost didn’t come at the end of the Berman era. Let’s fire the projector up and see us a show, howzabowtit?
Once again Star Trek was never a franchise for the masses. In their very obvious attempts to cater to the masses — Abrams and company will fail. Of COURSE it’s about continuity and canon — ESPECIALLY FOR THE SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD IN ST HISTORY!!!!! I do not want see the Enterprise or any starship from that period re-designed, I want to see the original(s). I’m sorry #72 — change for the sake of change is NOT okay!
#66 through a 21st Century lens we saw a beautiful looking Enterprise/Defiant in DS9 and Enterprise — in its original classic form the way IT SHOULD LOOK!!! Section 31 I could not agree with you in all of your statements. #43 I’m sorry this movie clearly DOES NOT respect history — how do you explain leaving out Gary Mitchell and Finnegan, ESPECIALLY Gary Mitchell, better yet HOW do you leave Charles Garrovick he was a huge influence on young Kirk!!!! I have a very bad feeling about this film — and have ZERO CONFIDENCE in Abrams and Crew. I wish Cawley and Crew had that budget to make the movie — THEY ARE TRUE to STTOS franchise!!!!
#68
It’s honestly nothing like that, and your use of that analogy is really offensive. Please stop. Incorrect portrayals of a Civil Rights humanitarian are not in the same category as production design for a fictional starship.
That aside, it always bewilders me why everyone goes gaga for ‘In A Mirror Darkly’. The overacting in that episode makes Ricardo Montalban look cautious and restrained. It’s as though someone told Scott Bakula that being ‘evil’ just involves lots of wheezing and making yourself hoarse.
I think fans went crazy for it because of the attention to 60’s detail, but come on! You REALLY expected them to do that for a movie they wish to be taken seriously, and that will hopefully restart this franchise?
You’d think all the purists would be thrilled that the outside of the ship has gone more or less ‘untouched’, but why should I expect that from the biggest group of glass half empties I’ve ever seen?
Here is where I roll out my old argument that this is a new movie. They are going to change things. I had my problems with changing things at first as well. But I got to thinking that it would only be fair if I kept my negativity in check until I actually saw for my own eyes what was changed and how much. Would I love it if the old cast and crew were doing the movie as a next step after VI? You bet. But that’s not going to happen. So what I’m going to do is decide to get on board with the new movie. That includes the new cast, director, story sets props,costumes,
and ships. My wish, personally, is that the Enterprise isn’t changed too much, but even there I do expect it change somewhat. Gene Rodenberry isn’t making this movie. Neither is Harve Bennett or Nick Meyer. For that matter, neither is Rick Berman. If the changes aren’t for you, maybe this won’t be your cup of tea. It’s perfectly fine to complain that it isn’t going to be something you will like if you know that any change will displease you. You have every right to join in the discussion. But I don’t think you will change much about the movie.
#91: “Once again Star Trek was never a franchise for the masses. In their very obvious attempts to cater to the masses — Abrams and company will fail.”
Then there is no reason for Paramount to ever make another Trek movie or series. The “loyal audience” for Trek has been aging and dwindling for many years. No matter how much fans tell one another that a “good movie/tv series” would bring millions back to the Franchise they can’t produce one shred of evidence or a good reason for believing that to be so.
Trek either changes and broadens its appeal again, or remains dead. I know that some folks would be just as happy without Trek TV or filmed Trek as long as the itty-bitty “Trek Universe” remained inviolate as a result, but that’s not an opinion that I share – so bring on nuTrek.
#91 Sam Belil — We don’t know if Mitchell and Finnegan are in the movie or not. If they’re not, then they weren’t needed for the story. Please don’t jump to conclusions.
Guys, the Enterprise bridge has been modified several times (almost in every movies). Even they’ve made radical changes for the Enterprise D-s bridge for Generations.
The Enterprise E once had a large viewscreen, after that nothing at all, just a projection, later it had a defiant style small screen. And all these changes were just fine.
Personally I think it would be te best to have a new set around, but in the end of the movie, they would show the Ent fly away with the 60’s interior design.
I don’t understand the insistence of some that the ship in this movie look exatly like the ship in TOS.
Look, the ship, especially the bridge, has looked different in just about every movie. So what?
The TOS bridge was plywood and paint. Duplicating it in a 2008 movies would be laughable, and people would indeed laugh.
If you think TOS embodied all you ever want to see in Trek, fine. You’ve got your DVD’s.
But no one is going to spend millions making a movie only to have it look like a 1960’s TV show.
Trek isn’t campy and it isn’t kitschy. It’s serious stuff and the set should reflect the serious nature of the work the characters are doing?
Does anyone think Starfleet would really build a starship with an interior that looks like the TOS Enterprise?
Nice credentials there, Dawn!
I happened to love the SeaQuest sets…very cool design there! It’ll be interesting to see the new look for the Enterprise!
#92:” It’s as though someone told Scott Bakula that being ‘evil’ just involves lots of wheezing and making yourself hoarse.”
Nah, I think he just watched a bunch of TOS episodes in preparation for working on those sets and picked up on the period style himself. :lol:
To hell with speculation and conjecture! Why can’t Paramount just release a damn photo of the “E” ???? It’s not going to give away the plot of the movie!
#91 could you be more self centered and unoptimistic? You want YOUR Star Trek the way YOU think it should be. I could personally care less how much they redesign the sets a lot or a alot alot… Who cares it is the story and characters that have always and will always make Trek what it is. If you think that Star Trek did not appeal to the common people “the masses” as you called them then you need to do some research. Star Trek 1 – 9 all topped the box office charts and that is only the result of a movie that “the masses” can get interested in. The #1 box office spot is and has always been reserved for films like Titanic, Lord of the Rings, The Grinch etc. etc… All movies that can and do draw in common people as well as a certain niche.
Thanks
Aaron R.
Since Robert Orci was reported that he and his staff read comments on trekmovie.com and have already made changes based on the fan’s responses, these messages do mean something and I will continue to exercise my first amendment right. The old bridge was the best, the only changes I will accept, since this sounds like a time travel movie, therefore, everything in the past is supposed to look exactly as depicted before (ie. In a Mirror Darkly). Therefore, only small changes such as knobs turned into digital dials, would I accept.
#100 – “To hell with speculation and conjecture! Why can’t Paramount just release a damn photo of the “E” ???? It’s not going to give away the plot of the movie!”
Yeah, seeing as how we’re only 10 days away from the teaser trailer, there’s not much time left for further… ahem, speculation.
I am not against the bridge set being bigger…or even the overall design being bigger…
However, I agree with Dawn in that I miss the old days of physical sets. Seems like at least part of the new bridge could be a physical set.
#70, agreed.
Abrams can’t just make a few subtle changes and modifications and leave it at that. Sure us hardcore fans would notice them, but to everyone ELSE out there, they’d still look like the same outdated 1960s sets. And I’m afraid not everyone is as into the “retro” thing as we are, or is dying to see a perfect recreation of TOS on the big screen.
In order to really grab people’s attention out there and shake them out of their Star Trek fatigue, he’s going to have to make much more RADICAL design changes, so they go “wow, this really does look new and different!”
#99
I don’t completely disagree with you there. Although I think I’d take nymphomaniac Mirror-Kira over any of those Enterprise kids. ;)
I can understand the perspective of how the Bridge of the Enterprise has changed and transitioned over time, and even in the TOS era as exhibited in the previous pic’s between The Cage and later times. I really sort of expected them to get much more detailed with the set design. The panels, the screens, the chairs, doors, railings and so on and so on. This had to be expected and I don’t see it breaking with canon of and by itself. Heck, as Battlestar was mentioned, I remember back in the 70’s reading an interview with John Dykstra who headed the effects team for Universal. His mantra was detail, detail, detail on everything and what he came up with at the time was a fantastic ship, great interiors and overall big screen treatment for a TV series. I only see the greater details and emphasis on the interiors highlighting whats proposed to be the character of the ship, pre-TOS. When I look at that bridge shot from the cage and look at it carefully, I see lots of blacks, grey’s and metal tones all highlighted by back-lights. Theres lots of room within all of that for detail to be brought out and have it look absolutely fantastic. That is as long as they don’t turn it into a Transformer Wanna-be.
I will agree with the view that if it turns out to be a whirling circus-show instead of something seriously approaching or retro-approaching what should be considered pre-TOS Trek of some kind, these guys making this film have another thing coming from a lot of Trek Fans I would think.
I’ll have to trust that Leonard Nimoy’s words about the sets hold true. According to what I believe I read, he very much liked the sets, and keeps calling this a gigantic film. As I cross my fingers, I keep telling myself to wait and see…
In my mind, its about some sense of “continuity”. I know I don’t have to say this because someone’s going to say “of course they are”, but, I pray that someone is getting paid to look into continuity!
Godzilla? The Grinch? What is it with all these random references to bad remakes? :P
#96-
”Guys, the Enterprise bridge has been modified several times (almost in every movies). Even they’ve made radical changes for the Enterprise D-s bridge for Generations.
The Enterprise E once had a large viewscreen, after that nothing at all, just a projection, later it had a defiant style small screen. And all these changes were just fine.”
Yes, but in different time periods in star trek time line.
I guess Brown was right — ‘hardcore fans are going to freak out.’ It’s happening here on this site, and even the movie *trailer* hasn’t been seen yet….
Folks, I’ve been an avid Trek fan from the beginning. I believe wholeheartedly that canon can and must be preserved. But even *I’m* not getting my knickers knotted over what the interior looks like.
Please, let’s save the ‘durm und strang’ for things that really matter….
#103 Are you sure they are going to show anything in the teaser?? They haven’t shown squat in “Cloverfield”
#102 John from Cincinnati
Orci & Kurtzman can only make changes to the writing; the set design is pretty much out of their hands. In fact, the writing is out of their hands, as well, as the moment with a writers’ strike in effect.
#100 Richard Daystrom
We should get our first glimpse of the “E” on January 18th when the trailer is released.
#70 “You know sometimes when you get the same thing for so long it starts to get stale. If I had to eat pizza every day I would get sick of it. That is what has happened with Trek. The general public (NOT you hardcore Trekkies) have gotten a sour taste in the mouth. ”
I agree, as the saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt. And I agree, the mainstream was VERY tired of the so-called “Star Trek’ being churned out by Berman’s Trek factory. From 1987 on, every year, every new series was just more of the same-o same-o. The formula was boring, un-engaging, un-imaginative and by 2003, it had become very very familiar and very very tired.
But don’t punish TOS for the sins of the 24th century. 24th century “Trek” got us in this mess, now, hopefully, 23rd century Trek will dig us out.
With all the changes being replorted, I just hope this “ressurection” of the franchise isn’t accomplished at the expense of TOS Trek’s unique identity and spirit. Kind of like Tim Burton’s abysmal update of the Planet of the Apes.
Like many are saying here…the same cries rang out back then…”modern audiences would laugh and walk out if those cornball apes made an appearence intodays cinema!!” Well folks, great classic iconic characters were dropped in favor of spectacular apes that we can all believe are real. Millions over millions were spent to make Burton’s apes come alive with realism that not even Rod Serling could imagine! The master director for modern audiences Tim Burton…the man who brought Batman to life…gave us his take on a classic. And look what it got us. Take a good hard look at what his re-imagining for the kiddies brought to light.
For that to happen to Star Trek would be very sad indeed.
#102: “The old bridge was the best, the only changes I will accept, since this sounds like a time travel movie, therefore, everything in the past is supposed to look exactly as depicted before (ie. In a Mirror Darkly). Therefore, only small changes such as knobs turned into digital dials, would I accept.”
Then this movie will be filled with things that you will not accept.
Do you think that they’re going to throw out all their designs, tear down the completed sets and reshoot because some people complained on an Internet site about some things that they haven’t *seen*?
What #16 said; agreed.
I keep staring at the line about the exterior not changing and I’m smiling too.
Big Dittos #87…. hey, I’m okay with some interior tweaks, but wish they’d leave the iconic exterior design alone….
“Although some fans may wish for the NCC-1701 in the new Star Trek to be an exact duplicate of the 1967 design, that isn’t realistic, nor is it consistent with Trek’s past. The ship interior, and especially the bridge has gone through multiple changes over the course of the TV series and the films. When one looks at the bridge from “The Cage” and compares it to the one in the regular series, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan it is apparent that Starfleet likes to redecorate every once in a while. ”
TYVM. As long as the bridge is still circular and there’s a command chair in the center for Kirk to plant his ass in, then have at it, gang. I always kinda dug the “Cage” bridge in a retro, ‘Forbidden Planet’ sort of way, but the movie-era bridges were the shizzle. And please, Gawd, don’t go with that TNG oak veneer and pastel carpet look. It reminded me of mezzanine seating at the local opera house.
At least she pretty much confirmed that it’ll look the same in space. Except for the flames on the side. LOL :-)
I can’t believe anyone would not go see this movie because of the set design. Honestly, I never cared much for the TNG or ENT versions of the Enterprise, but that didn’t stop me from watching them and evaluating them on the things that matter – story and character. And looking at the above photos only reminds me that the best looking bridge of the Enterprise was for The Cage – and it was only used once!
re: 67
“if you want to update it because you want moviegoer bob’s dollar, just do something moviegoer bob wants to see, not a movie hamstrung by whatever pre-concieved notions about the trek brand that they have.”
exactly
The exterior will be the same. Calm down. Interior designs can change with re-fits.
#12 Thank god someone else is open to the future. I am so frustrated all of these fans that just want to see EXACTLY what we have seen before. My god, you would think Star Trek of all people would remember the line….”To boldly go where no man has gone before!” When did all of you guys become so afraid of the future. This franchise is over 40 years old!
Did no of learn anything from BG, Batman, James Bond…….
Wake up and be happy that we are getting a chance to see a revitalization of our show! Please!
Look, people. The big concern was that Matt Jeffries main design be kept as canon. Apparently it is. They can get away with enlarging the Bridge and doing other stuff.
All the moaners will be the first in line come December 25th.
Very happy they are redesigning the interior! It’s really the only way to go.
I am very happy to see this news. New creativity, new artistic talent, new ideas.
A new look, a new feel. Something that a new, younger fan base can dig their teeth into. If you don’t believe the posts arguing that the TOS set looks dated, just grab a random person who is not a TOS Trek fan, and show this web page to them (the TOS bridge picture), and ask them if it looks cool, realistc, futuristic, whatever. I guarantee you the answer will be: no, no, and no. It looks like a cheap set from the 60s. With nutty bright colors painted over wood and cardboard.
I mean, can you IMAGINE the water-cooler derision we’d have to endure if a big-budget film had scenes on those crazy old sets? We’d all be mocked mercilessly!
Anyway, many have said it, but I’ll say it again too. The true spirit of trek has nothing to do with sets, costumes, or canon. The true spirit of trek is a philosophy and a vision: of optimism, tolerance, and exploration (of outer space and inner consciousness). And of a fabulous future that’s way better than today, one in which all of us would love to live.
And live to love. Peace, baby!
BRING THE CHANGE.
I’m a fan, having watched the original airings in the 1960s. The new movie will continue the spirit and tradition of Gene Roddenberry’s original series. To me, this is akin to having a new James Bond movie with Daniel Craig… and being expected to have him drive in an old car from Sean Connery’s era.
THINGS CHANGE.
The original TOS sets are classics. However, they do not hold up well either on the big screen, or in the modern day sense. TOS is about the future. The sets need to reflect this.
Personally, I hope we see a lot of changes, showing how the future will bring new wonders, new technologies, new possibilities as we “trek” into the stars.
Signed,
An open-minded TOS fan.
P.S. Roberto Orci: It’s obvious you and the rest of your team have crafted a labor of love. Ignore the pessimistic naysayers, the negative fans. You’ve proven yourself with your scriptwriting skills time and again. I’m looking forward to December 2008.
Ugh…….
Canon this, canon that.
How about we all worry about real problems, like the health of our families and friends and the state of the world.
IT’S JUST A MOVIE!
I just hope it’s a great EPIC story that makes every other form of Sci-Fi look like garbage.
Someone is finally coming along to make Star Trek an Epic and all 90% of the fans are doing is complaining how it won’t relate to scene 12, frame 4 of DS9 or ENT or whatever.
If it’s a lousy story with lousy character/actor interaction then people can complain. But if it’s a great story with great characters (Which, by the way, these are great characters) then it will be fine. Can we wait to see the film first before saying it sucks? Please?!
#88 jonbocYES!!!!!!!!! Also #109
This movie refers BACK to a time period anchored by a well-known character, played by the SAME well-known actor.
One cannot mess with that fact and what it implies and connects with fact-wise in that WELL ESTABLISHED universe and expect fans to respect what you are doing!!!!
I give up… this starting to sound like a total clustrfck.
And whenever I hear someone say, “keep an open mind,” I reach for my revolver.
Okay, after this large collection of posts regarding a different interior, I think it’s time I added my $0.02.
The idea of respecting Canon may have been compromised design-wise.
However, we are not privy to what actually has been done.
A similar departure of interior design was done for Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
Remember how different THAT set looked to the original?
From a purely design point of view, it was the correct thing to do.
They had to explain this in the script, however, with a refit.
I’m hoping that the design isn’t too much of a departure, so that it would fit with the design canon.
For instance; it may be possible that the Enterprise has had numerous interior refits, and the Movie could be before the interiors we know from the series were installed.
If the interior is TOO different, however, that argument could not be convincingly made, and the new interiors would be a serious mistake.
I, like most fans am nervous as to what will really be done:
Will it suck?
Will it hold true to established Trek canon?
Will it have the emotional resonance to fit in with Star Trek?
The only truely valid judgement to be made on the film must be based on what we know, not what wer are told.
I think Engineering would be a prime candidate for a large set, and possibly some area we’ve never seen before.
In TMP, we had the Rec Deck.
If it is correct that the Enterprise exterior is the same, then the interior can bend things a little and remain consistent with Canon.
I wish them good luck, and hope the film comes out great.
If not, we could always collectively reject the movie from being Canon ;-)
re: 97
“The TOS bridge was plywood and paint. Duplicating it in a 2008 movies would be laughable, and people would indeed laugh.”
I don’t think anyone is calling for plywood and paint. But to change the layout and general look of it beyond using better materials and giving more realism to the screens and panels is not needed.
That would be the same for the other interiors. Better materials and more detail.
That would be the same for the uniforms and props. Better materials and fitting.
That would be the same for the actors. Better…oops…can’t do that one.
The fact that Roddenberry approved two major departures from the original look of the bridge in TMP and TNG tells me design should move forward and be the best design that can be thought of at the time. We already have a recreation of the original on New Voyages. Let’s see what a rethink looks like.
Babboons
I have been whining for canon as much as anyone, but that does not mean the interiors have to be identical. I am hoping that they keep somewhat of a early 60s aesthetic to it. Styles come and go and come and go so it is certainly possible for the time period in question to have a early 60s-esque design.
I hope they treat it like an historical period piece. A movie or TV series made in the 1960s about the 18th century would look different than one made today, but the furniture, clothing, etc. would be very similar and recognizable.
I think that is a fair standard.
Except of course the Enterprise exterior has to be identical. >;>}
#127: “And whenever I hear someone say, “keep an open mind,” I reach for my revolver.”
With regard to such bombast, I’m bulletproof. :)
#102: “The old bridge was the best, the only changes I will accept, since this sounds like a time travel movie, therefore, everything in the past is supposed to look exactly as depicted before (ie. In a Mirror Darkly).”
I don’t think it’s really supposed to be a time travel movie, though it takes place in different time periods. Regardless, why would that mean that everything would have to look the same? It’s a new movie, they’re re imagining the sets. I really can’t get my head around all the obtuse statements about this. The original series sets were what was capable of being built at the time, on a 60’s tv budget. Take a huge budget and far improved materials and you’re going to get something very different. I think Abrams is not only looking to inspire a new generation, but he and his crew as well. Star Trek needs a good dose of creativity. I don’t think we would get that by mucking around in the same dried up pool everyone has been whizzing in for the last 40 years.
Trek doesn’t have a loyal audience any more. Now, it’s just old fans who just enjoy the different series. I say the movie should have it’s own unique look, but have some basic Trek ideas.
I really like what she says about using real sets and utilizing real artisans. That aspect was so obvious and so distracting about the last three Star Wars. I have faith in her just from the few sentences she spoke.
I’m interested in how they’ll change the interior, especially with the set designer’s work on seaQuest DSV (there was some good design on that how). That said, I’m kind of amused at how many people are getting worked up over Abrams team redesigning the ship’s interior. While I did like the interior seen in In a Mirror, Darkly, there is practically no way any new viewer would take the brightly colored interior seriously. Changing some aspects of Trek does not mean the movie will be a failure.
I will have to wait to have a real opinion on this. But from the past there are many times new designs or re designs have been disappointments to me. I sometimes think less is more many times with design for some film_tv shows. I do know the series and sequels of the other TREK shows/films would keep changing the designs of the bridge, etc. Some elements were interesting and others not so. Funny I keep going back to elements of THE CAGE bridge I would love a cross between that and elements from the first 3 Trek films. I also just don’t like when the bridge is so huge like TNG or the bridge of some of the other newer star ships. For some reason I like a smaller bridge setting. Just my 2 cents.
It is interesting how designer/art directors working on films in the last 10 -15 years have to over design/detail everything. This in not in every case, but I tend to notice it many times. Yes seeing things on the big screen can at times be more interesting with more details, certain colors, etc. But it seems like they think audiences need everything in visual props/vehicles/costumes to be busy in look and form. I think designers of super hero films are the worst with this idea. The BATMAN films to me got worse and worse with costume/vehicle design etc. Over detailed, clumsly in form, color, etc. I hope in this case they take the original elements of Trek update them, but don’t kill them. I really think some elements have stood the test of time! Also who is to say some design visiuals of the past don’t make comebacks. Heck 20 years from now 1930s looks in clothes, etc could be big. Who knows in the 23rd century we could have a Victorian age look. So things do cycle through the years. You can take items from the original show keep some of the in the same form, use better material, add logical detail to fit the form. Take what we have learned from our technology of the last 40 years and make it work with in what they had. They seem to want to fit it in canon, so there you have it. Maybe communicators where the circle swirl design was would be a moniter where you would see someone or whatever object a camera on the device would point at. Now you don’t have to be a slave to continuity, but have respect. There is always this “we have to make this appeal to all of the audience.” Well if the story is strong the audience may dig some of the design elements from the original look. I have an open mind to changes with properties, I just in the past have been dissappointed much of the time and I look at what I am seeing thinking they really did not get it. ;) Part of me still wishes this were a full on reboot with a new beginning with the best elements taken from the original show, which to my mind has gotten stronger over the last few years. But I will have to see with the rest off you how this all plays out in the next few months with pics and the trailer. Here is hoping for some nice design work.;)
Gee I typed more than I was going to on this topic. But I do some elements of this type of work myself and have a passion about this topic! Also I have to close in stating that there are times that art directors/designers may have had better designs, visual looks, etc. It is just the director/producer went with the weaker ones for the final vision. So in many cases it is out of their hands. I do recall seeing a way better Green Goblin design than what ended up on the big screen. So before I get down on the visual artists/designers for stuff that seems weak/lame clumsy, etc. I have to know the whole behind the scenes story or see the designs that got rejected or changed if you will. Okay now I have typed enough on this.;)
Take it easy, guys!
You ought to set aside your opinion until you watch the new ST movie.
How can you make an opinion or comment on the new set design WITHOUT watching the movie?
Your comments and opinions does not hold water to me.
Never expected them to copy paste the same interior design sets in the 2008 movie. I like TOS, I’d rather watch it than Enterprise or Voyager, but I do think the change is necessary.
Although, I don’t think I’ll be so open minded if they do major changes on the ‘E’. But since there probably won’t be, I’m okay with it.
But I’d rather comment it when we finally get to see her
#129: Why?
One last comment. I have seen Dawn Brown’s work and really like what I see! So I am looking forward to what might be on the big screen. As for my other passion comics, she actually does some nice looking work from what I have seen. Beaming up! ;)
Bring it on. I am ready for the ride. Dear 135 speak for yourself. At least I am a loyal fan, and you’re right I am old , since 1966 from eighth grade in school.
If I can’t see through the Enterprise in the FX shots I will not be happy. And if they show the left side of her, I just might scream. And if the planets don’t look like overgrown super-balls, I’ll raise a fuss. And if unidentified enemy ships aren’t spinning points of light, I’ll hold my breath til I pass out.
Not EVERYTHING about TOS was super-awesome. There is a change a coming. It will be alright. The Original Series will not cease to be. I heard Nancy Wilson cover some Led Zep song on the radio the other day. It was damn good. Went back and checked my CD collection and sure as shootin’, my original Led Zep CD was still there.
The Bridge will be at least twice the size of the original with the actors sitting further apart, I once saw some early bridge sketches for the first ALIEN movie that would have been an interesting choice for the Enterprise, can’t find the link, hopefully someone out there has it…?
Practical sets do have their place. I have seen a lot of CG’d backgrounds, great outdoor stuff, and some exteriors, but interiors still have a lot to be desired, still looks fake or to be exact- computer generated. Hope to some decent look on the “Cloverfield” teaser.
My message to all of those out there who refuse to have an open mind about this movie: PLEASE STAY HOME!
I would hate to have all of you on a jury, you’d probably let the person go without even hearing the evidence.
What we’re all failing to notice….we’re getting a new Star Trek movie, stop being brats about details, regardless of how big it is. Or would we rather Paramount pull the plug on Star Trek entirely? If that’s your answer, think about how selfish you’re being to the fans that ARE excited for this film and potential new Trek fans. If you really are that appalled by the new set design, there are 79 episodes of Star Trek available on DVD and season 1 available on HD-DVD. Enjoy. I’m optimistic. Even if it looks different, we’re getting a new Star Trek movie with people that seem to really want to make a successful film. They are putting more time, money, and effort into this movie than almost ever before in Star Trek. We should all be glad for that. If it’s terrible, it’s terrible. At least on Christmas Day, I’ll be in line for a new Star Trek movie with a positive attitude.
I had already long since come to terms with the idea that the sets will look different in this movie than the TV show, I thought that would probably be the case. My only disappointment is the decision to move away from practical sets. I can’t help but think that might be a secrecy issue, a means of preventing pictures of the sets from being leaked.
Man, forgot how cool the bridge from “The Cage” looked.
The gooseneck viewers were kind of “Buck Roger-ish”, but the bridge looked pretty awesome overall. That wouldn’t be a bad route to take style-wise.
Ah….give us something new. Make the ship the size of New York for all I care. Just give me a better movie than I’ve seen in a long time!
OH, DEAR…
The STAR TREK O.C.D. Canon-ites are out in full force tonight, I fear.
Did any of you honestly believe that the bridge WASN’T going to be redsigned in some way? And do you lose sleep over this at night?
I guess I am moving toward the mind-set of why go back in time and re-imagine Kirk-era Trek if evrythimg is going to be “modernized”? Why not make a movie post TNG era with new characters and a new ship?
#144 AMEN BROTHER!
I just heard that, like the original Chekov being modeled after Davey Jones to attract younger viewers, the new Chekov will also have a hairdo to bring in the youngsters: Sanjaya.
No word yet on which hairdo it will be, but sources say it will be “Mr T-like” in nature.
OK, now that would be a reason to panic. Otherwise, I’ll sit back and get ready for (hopefully) a good story.
There can be some modernizing and updating but the bridge of the Enterprise MUST have the same general feel of other Star Trek bridges. THe close-knit feel of the bridge was always important to the drama of the plot. I want to see a Captain’s chair in the center and i want to see the bridge crew in roughly their normal places. It’s been that way in any redesign of the bridge and no matter what series we’re talking about, Starfleet bridges have the same “feel”
I can accept some changes, but I will be pretty outraged if the bridge of the Enterprise feels more like the Galactica, or if it’s overly sprawling like the Star Wars bridges.
Wasn’t there some notion that when the Romulans went back in time that they did manage to alter some of the timeline?????
If they did, that would be a good explanation for the new look. I could accept that as an explanation, but if it was different for the sake of being different with no LOGICAL explanation I’ll be PISSED.
The Enterprise did NOT look good in Mirror Darkly. It looked good for the 1960s. It was clean and beautiful and cool looking, but Archer’s Enterprise looks much more advanced than in TOS.
I can’t wait for a new design. I always like what they do with the Enterprise in the shows and the movies. The Enterprise A from Wrath of Khan is still my favorite, but I like them all.
As for canon, ST has always, I repeat, always, played hard and loose with canon. We shouldn’t even be using the term, because there really is no canon in the Trek universe.
But hey, if you can’t deal with it, make your own movie.
Guys, we must consider that the Enterprise of this new movie is pre-”The Cage”, so it’s theoretically understandable that the bridge could be something never seen on screen. I have faith in the designers: in my opinion the Enterprise will keep the old style spirit with more futuristic details, and that’s fine for me.
And for those who cannot understand our distress about changes, must not be as big as fans as we are. I’m fine with a few tweaks, but if the Enterprise bridge looks like the bridge of Battlestar Galactica (i love galatica) I’m gonna be angry. I’m sure it won’t be that drastic, but I’m trying to convey an example.
Well personally I’m hoping for the same layout and basic feel but with updated materials and a little updating to the technology. Something that looks real and futuristic but retaining the asthetics and dimensions.
The old sets obviously look like plastic, wood and yes cardboard.
Not a complete overhaul like the TMP bridge. Or anything completely different.
Her comments make it seem like they’ve gone completely somewhere out in left field. I shall however take them with a grain of salt.
Minor differences to change with the times I can handle. Other things have changed in Trek to both fit with the times and stand up better on the big screen. Many of which did not have explinations like a refit.
The differences in the two models used in TOS (often in the same episode) are glaringly obvious.
Engineering went from one deck to two.
As already discussed in a previous thread, rooms aboard the Enterprise seemed to move to fit the plot… or b/c someone simply forgot.
Data’s eyes changed color, and his cat changed sex.
Romulans got bumps on their forheads (the reason for this one still escapes me).
The Borg look very different than they did in “Q Who.”
Worf’s forehead prosthetic changed after season 1.
Klingons now have pointy teeth.
The characters aren’t even going to look the same in this movie. Close, but definately not the same.
So if it still looks like the bridge, only updated a bit for 21st century and a bigger budget, I’m okay with that. If not, I can take my money and go drinking with it. Yeah, I’m one of the people think a movie is about story, sound and visuals. If all I want is a good plot, I’ll read a book.
I’ll just have to wait and see what they’ve come up with.
Do the people who are demanding that the E exterior and interior REALLY understand what it ould mean if the visual design of this 2008 big budget movie were to stick to the 1967 look (regardless of better lighting and more activity)?
Do you want The Brady Bunch Movie in space? Do you want something that is seen as a joke? Do you want big clunky (albiet beautiful) communicators that are four times the thickness of the cell phones they inspired? Do we want mechanical readouts, colored ice cube buttons and free-standing chairs without restraints and that aren’t bolted down to the deck? Whatever. Rhetorical I knwo, because there are people who do.
If that is your sensibility, all the more reason to thank god for New Voyages and the like — certainly an unbelievable accomplishment — but at heart really just a backyard fanboy fantasy taken to an extreme (spoken by a fan boy, mind you). I know there are people who will think I am bashing those productions — I am not — I love them and I’m happy to have them — but even those involved in them must realize they are living some fantastic dream by being able to recreate every nuance of a long gone era. The fact is, were it not for the relatively low cost of distribution via the Internet, these would never find a profit-making audience.
Just as we respect the fan productions for the lengths they have gone to in order to provide us with an almost seamless timewarp down memory lane (their purpose), we need to respect the 2008 filmakers for their efforts to provide ST mainstream financial viability and distribution (their purpose — never to be confused with what the fan productions are trying to do).
I don’t know if I will love or hate the final result, but I can’t wait to find out. If they fail, they haven’t killed ST — because there is nothing left to kill except for memories. If they succeed, they will have succeeded in ressurecting and ADVANCING ST for a new generation.
Eh, I don’t care at all if it looks different than what we’ve seen before. I am saddened that it sounds like from the interview that a lot of blue screens were used though. Blue screens have their place, but I think physical sets are preferable when possible.
I wish Roberto Orci would chime in! Bob? Helloooooohhhh? Even if you won’t show us the ship, or a shot of the crew in full costume, how about some kind of timeline as to WHEN we might see those things. Surely, that doesn’t spoil anything….
What about viral internet marketing, like Cloverfield and The Dark Knight. Any of that out there yet?
#94 — Not all ST fans are exactly long in the tooth. I am a “young” Baby Boomer — and there are many of us out there who grew up with STOS and passed that passion (in my case to my 14 year old son) onto (pardon the pun) — younger Generations, who is to say the new generation wants to see a “new version that will please them”?
#95-Hey Charles, the thing is (especially with Gary Mitchell -while one episode only), he was Kirk’e best friend, they were in the academy together, Kirk chose him as his first in-command. Therefore how do Orci and company explain this oversight.
#101-I’m not self-centered, I happen to be very passionate about this franchise — yes we can agree to disagree. If you read many of the blogs you will see that yes many many fans care about the designs, sets, uniforms, etc. It’s all about continuity — yes while Star Wars 1-3 were made with better technology, the kept the look, feel and spirit the same.
Now if this a complete re-boot……
As has been shown by the editor of this site, the enterprise’s look has EVOLVED SEVERAL TIMES throughout its lifespan SIGNIFICANTLY to reflect current trends in design or the atmosphere of the film. Why should this be any different, and WHAT does that have to do with canon? Seriously, get a grip people!
Noleuser
You can’t be serious in saying that I’m not as big a fan as you are because I’m not all upset about a redesign. That’s just insulting.
Just for that, I hope they give the Enterprise a mohawk and tattoos, and big ol’ fat tailpipe and some chrome naked-girl mudflaps.
Yeah!
#132 Styles come and go and come and go so it is certainly possible for the time period in question to have a early 60s-esque design.
I geeked out on that very subject back over in the Long Beach city council chambers thread a while back. They very well could keep the 60s vibe by using the Mid-Century Mod stuff they used during the original series. Most of it’s all still in production. That is if they’re building real sets.
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
When I think of TOS as originally aired in the 1960’s, it wasn’t so much the sets and special effects that kept me watching, it was Kirk, Spock, and McCoy that kept me watching.
Yes, I love the cool shots of the Enterprise and the space battles, but it was the characters that made Trek what it is for me.
It took Star Trek 3 for me to realize that Star Trek is more than a ship, it’s the crew and how they interact with each other. I enjoyed watching Kirk and crew on the Bird of Prey in Trek 4 almost as much as on the Enterprise.
The Enterprise is one of the characters of TOS, but it is a supporting character. It would get very boring watching a ship flying around in space for a hour and a half to two hours for the movie. Give me a good movie with a mix of a good story, character development and action and I’m there. In my opinion.
i have added a set design poll.
Man! It’s hard to get anywhere near the top of these posts when the tempers are high.
I’m all for a mind-blowing new bridge.
Make it big. Make the E really, really big. Hell, give her a crew of 1,500. Why not?!? (More disposable red shirts, more skirts for Kirk to chase.)
This is not 1967 revisited with a bigger budget.
It’s Trek, but it’s a NEW Final Frontier.
I would like the E’s exterior to remain largely the same. Saucer, nacelles and all. But, she can be much grander.
#158
I don’t think it’s up to you to decide who is a bigger fan. I happen to be a massive Star Trek fan, but am totally fine with changes. It’s necessary if I want to keep seeing new adventures with my favorite characters instead of watching 79 episodes over and over and over. It’s not that I don’t enjoy that to some degree, but I’d like something I’ve never seen. Don’t most?
Zennier, the movie is supposed to take place early on. The look has aready been established. If the Enterprise had not been destroyed, and they wanted to continue with a new look, something that has not been established I’m all for a new refit design.
I’m fine with small changes, but nothing drastic.
#148- “Or would we rather Paramount pull the plug on Star Trek entirely?”
If they churn out something called Star Trek that doesn’t resemble Star Trek, sure, pull the plug. I mean, whats the point? If they change the wheel so much that it isn’t round anymore just to attract young kids to a product that resembles nothing of the show I’m a fan of, what do I care if it continues or not?
I’m not saying that is going to be the case here, but if it was, sure, I wouldn’t lose a wink if something called Star Trek never graced the screen again.
Look sean I’m not trying to insult anyone but if you’re looking to make drastic changes (small ones are fine) like the one CmdrR #169 is asking for then it’s not the Star Trek we know.
If they were doing a total reboot that would be one thing, but we’re staying with the universe we know. As it should, because there’s nothing (let’s not get into a Berman debate) wrong with trek. Batman did need need a reboot because it had become awful.
People, wait and see what they have come up with before you tear it apart.
172 jonboc Thank you
174 Voodoo it’s just fun to debate the possibilities
Keeping the exterior of the Enterprise relatively unchanged and upgrading the interior sets seems like more than a fair trade. It would respect the history of the series and create interiors possible with today’s technology and in line with current projections of future technology.
I expect big changes in the interior especially in terms of control for navigation and helm ie 3D astrogator – probably holographic. Maybe even direct neural connections etc.
As to the use of green/blue screens. I expect their use to be employed for the large sets like engineering, cargo bay, and recreations facilities.
I’m keeping an open mind. Give us a great story that showcases the original characters and emotionally engages the audience, with little to no Trekbabble, and I’ll be a happy camper.
I don’t mind the Enterprise design changing. It just needs to keep the Star Trek essentials. I don’t want to see an X-Wing. Seriously.
So first, just make sure Enterprise has a saucer and nacels. And inside, go ahead and change those lame screens from the 60s, but keep the Captain in a seat centered towards the back, with the helmsmen up front. Plus, there needs to be a viewscreen at the front.
But other than that, seriously, the new designers can really have their way with the ship and I wouldn’t care. I just hope they know enough to pick up on the essentals.
#172: “If they churn out something called Star Trek that doesn’t resemble Star Trek, sure, pull the plug. I mean, whats the point?”
For others of us to enjoy. :)
#155 – Agreed. Given the various timeframes we are obviously going to see, the *reason* we may see them is that the bad-guy Romulans have travelled back to them. If so, then it would be safe to assume that the reason for any design changes (costumes, sets, technology) would be because of changes in the timeline due to the interference. Sort of an “Edith Keeler” effect where small changes have large consequences. If so, then from a canon standpoint it’ll work. in that there will be a consistent explanation. The only question then is whether the designs are any good in and of themselves! We’ll see soon enough . . . .
#173
And Star Trek didn’t need one? The formula was getting stale, particularly with Voyager 2 aka Enterprise. The only reason they aren’t going for a total reboot is Star Trek is part of the popular conciousness, and why throw the baby out with the bathwater? People know Spock is a logical Vulcan that died. They know Scotty is always complaining about engines flying apart. They know Kirk doesn’t like Klingons. They’re keeping the primary elements without feeling restricted to exacting duplication of every detail. It’s a big picture kind of thing.
Did The Motion Picture try to replicate the look of the original series? No, because it would have been absurd. 70’s audiences would have laughed it out of the theatre. I’m sure there were Trek fans at the time that probably objected to it, but thank god no one listened. I mean, how do you explain the drastic change? Yeah yeah, we all excuse it by saying it was a later timeframe and the ship had been refitted, blah blah blah. But the reality was, the producers & directors realized they couldn’t simply dress up the show’s sets & costumes for the big screen. They needed something new and visually impressive. That’s all the new crew is trying to do – being creative while still operating within the larger Star Trek framework.
A small comic book analogy – I’ve seen artists slave to make faithful but lifeless copies of some classic artist’s style, without having the heart or talent to make it good. I’ve also seen artists perfectly capture the heart and soul of earlier work without tracing it. While new isn’t necessarily better, sometimes an uninspired slavish copy of an original isn’t good either. Of course, I’ve also seen egotistic no-talents throw out everything good just to do something they suits them. All this teeth-gnashing here is really irelevant until we see what the new movie designers have done. All I want for them to capture is COLOR – bright light and color – none of this grey, underlit, depressing, modern stuff. Do it new, but with the same spirit of dynamic excitement and the fans will like it.
Those of us who do not want to see beehive hairdo’s, go-go boots, shag carpet, rubber monsters, gorilla suits, cheap lighting, dimly lit slideshow monitors, greasepaint, and/or anything that could be described as boss, groovy, hip,hep, or happening are (hopefully) gonna love the new look. I would bet the farm that we are in the majority. The VAST majority. The story is what is so-called cannon, not the technical compromises and budget limits of a low-budget TV show. If you can’t handle it then thank your lucky stars you have dvd’s to keep you company in your twilight years. Do we have to travel back in time to the globe theater in order to watch “cannon” Shakespeare? No, because the story is what’s cannon. That being said, if the story stinks, or isn’t in line with Trek history it won’t be the fault of the new sets or hairstyles. The old lady is getting a facelift like it or not lets just enjoy the ride, and hope she doesn’t end up looking like Joan Rivers. If we think Trek fans are tough, can y’all imagine what’s gonna happen in 25 years when someone remakes another favorite space movie who’s name I dare not mention.
Well it seems obviouse, while this film seeks out that “new young” fanbase their spliting the old one right down the middle.
^
To not have seen this comming is a huge mistake for CBS.
^
Instead of frustrating the fans with cannon violations they really should have moved forward with a whole new crew in TNG timeline.
^
I really don’t think this film is going to do the biz that Ironman and even Batman will next year…
^
I just don’t see this film succeeding the way they think it will.
Ah, the old “I love Star Trek so it’s ok if I change Star Trek” approach. I’m willing to wait and see…but I sure don’t like the whole attitude of “oh, hardcore fans are going to freak out”…If you know that going into it…um, hardcore fans are the ones you want to dig it, right? Or why do it? I mean….stop force feeding trek to people who don’t want it….star trek is capable of getting new audiences as is…I think the fan films indicate that quite well.
If Abrams can do for Trek what Moore did for BSG I will be happy.
I only have small greivances with Voyager, but sean #181 that is a fundamental difference in opinion.
And if they had 7 seats in the center and five levels for a bridge, GO FOR IT. But there should not be any MAJOR changes with the look for the timeframe that has been established.
I can get pass it if there were actual changes in the timeline, by the Romulans for instance.
DELETED by Admin
#185: “star trek is capable of getting new audiences as is…”
No, it’s not.
Fan films prove nothing. When one gives something away for free, one can give away a great deal more of it than when charging eight to ten bucks a pop for it – and if Paramount sold a ticket to everyone who’s downloaded a fan film they’d lose their shirts on a Trek movie.
I grew up with TOS so maybe I am a bit biased, but, here are some random thoughts;
-What would “The Great Bird of The Galaxy” (Roddenberry) want to do with a revisit to TOS? Yes, he approved new ship designs for new series, but this goes back to his beginning.
- Did you notice that each new ST Movie kept bringing back TOS equipement (ie Phasers, Communicators, etc)? Why? To pull in original TOS fans!
- New fans probably won’t care how true the ship stays to the orginal design; but to me, if you are going back to TOS, these items were just as important as the orginal stars (The opening credits could have read : Starring “William Shatner”, “Leonard Nimoy”, “Deforest Kelly”, “The Enterprise”, “It’s Bridge”, “A Phaser” , “The Communicator”, “The Transporter” etc). Just kidding, but boy were they iconic.
- I love the 1967 sets (my favorite), but if they were REALLY going to be true to history, they would base there designs around “The Cage” sets. The 1967 version sets were not even on the timeline.
- I believe an earlier post was correct about past characters; (We don’t know this yet, but) I grew up thinking LT. Kirk’s best friend was Gary Mitchell. He was SO important, how can you leave him out? Capt Garrovick? And so on.
Now , if this is a reboot, then none of this applies (Would Roddenberry approve?) But as said earlier, the sticker is Nimoy. His association as Spock to the Cage (which was stated in “The Menagerie” as ” the images you are seeing takes place 15 years ago…” Isn’t this when Kirk graduates from the Academy?
Any who, I hope they keep as many of these orginal designs that the orginal Mr. Spock is associated with (but updated for the Big-Screen). I for one, would be let down if the TOS elements: Original Ship design, equipment and so on, don’t make to the screen. To me, it would not feel like TOS.
I’m happy as long as the captain’s chair is in the middle! I’d be cross if they moved it to another corner of the bridge!!!
Cannon Cannon Cannon!
OMG what does cannon have to do with set design-
Cannon is events and characters- my god they flip flopped on the communicators from The Original Series-The Motion Picture- The Wrath Of Khan did it destroy cannon? no!
The Next Generation changed from buttons and dials to backlit panels- Star Trek V, VI did this and the space time continum was not destroyed! So long as the basics are the same- round bridge- each station seperately manned by a crewmember- captains chair in the centre- viewscreen of some discription at the front what does it matter what the specifics of the controls and displays?
when i first heard of the film i was excited about the prospect of seeing the old enterprise on the big screen- i then realised at the very least the details of the ships surface and the sets/bridge would be done and the most we could expect was a basic adhering to the design principals/signature design elements.
Then i saw The Managerie on the big screen and that was enough for the old fan in me and then i moved on and am excited by the prospects of a new design of the trechnology-
Star Trek/Starfleet has always had a basic style that is all that needs to be reflected in the new design.
i look forward to a more realistic representation of 23rd century technology- as long as it is still relatable.
and lets be realistic its only been 8 years since they retro designed Enterprise and the film is only costing$150 million or so- how radically different can they go? im sure they will not be spending all their money on the bridge and corridors when they have new alien races and space battles to depict.
surely it wont be just be thoes all important non/new fans who enjoy the realistic non-camp future archetecture/technology
Hey, go-go boots, beehives, short skirts, will have come and gone a few dozen times between now and 2260. They’ should be back-in for the movie, like they were back-in for TOS…
Based on the poll, it would seem the hardcore oldschoolers are way behind. The loudest mouth isn’t always the voice of the majority.
Of course, results are early and the race still can’t be called…
How can all this worship of canon still be out there when the canon itself thru all the series is quite often contradictory?
As a wise man once said, “it’s just a TV show, dammit! Its just a TV show!”
Haven’t read each individual post yet, but here are my two cents. The movie clearly takes place before Kirk is in command of Enterprise, so I’m ok with a new interior design that’s representative or a cross between Pike’s big E and Kirk’s. That they were directed to keep the exterior the same is reassuring.
Maybe the reason they are CG’ing the interiors is so that when all the hard-core fans in the test audience express their boisterous dissatisfaction with the redesigned bridge and other Enterprise sets, the filmmakers can simply re-CG the interiors to the fans’ liking.
Sure beats the hell out of constructing sets only to tear them down and rebuild them from scratch after a disastrous test screening.
Selfish hard-core fans would ruin this movie for the majority of people just to please themselves. They would actually kill the franchise.
I’ve seen NCC 1701, Mr. Abrams, and that’s not NCC 1701
Now hear this. Now hear this.
The Enterprise is going to be different. The old bridge set was destroyed. They are building a new one.
Also, this just in.
I am as much a Star Trek fan as anyone on this site. Stop saying you are more of a fan than someone else. That’s just idiotic.
#197:”Maybe the reason they are CG’ing the interiors is so that when all the hard-core fans in the test audience express their boisterous dissatisfaction with the redesigned bridge and other Enterprise sets, the filmmakers can simply re-CG the interiors to the fans’ liking.”
Nope.
I just hope we get another 24th century tv series out of this and a re-invigorated franchise. It would be nice to have a real gritty Trek like BSG, heck it would b e nice to have Ron D. Moore invloved in any future series, with Manny Coto! Now there’s a good team!
As long as it doesn’t look like a battleship, I’ll like it. I hated the battleship look of Enterprise. Trek is a more streamlined show.
Just a couple of thoughts, in no particular order.
1: If JJ et al were to present audiences with a rebuild of the 1960’s sets, I think there would more than a few bean counters at Paramount who would want to know exactly what they did with the rest of the budget.
2: For those of you who are meticulously cannon obsessed; like it or not, Enterprise is cannon, with much newer looking sets. so obviously per timeline, Starfleet decided to go “back” the the TOS design. who’s to say the TOS bridge didn’t start out looking more like the NX?
3: Other than that, I’m with many others. If it’s round, with a Command chair in the middle with stations around and a screen up front, I’ll accept it, so long as it’s a good story. Write a bad story and I’ll be right up there tearing every aspect apart.
“Did you miss the memo about Leonard NImoy being in this film..as Spock? You know, THE pointy eared Spock from 1966? And in it, he is reportedly going back to HIS past. So yeah, one kinda expects Spock’s already established past to look somewhat familiar. …Had this been a complete and total reboot, complete and total changes would be expected. (not really sure WHY anyone would want to remake something then change everything about it, but whatever). …But according to all involved… it’s not. Therefore the concern from TOS fans is well placed and totally understandable. ”
Exactly jonboc!!!
As a long-time fan, I have huge doubts about this film much like I did when TNG was announced. And at first, TNG confirmed my worst fears — it was awful — but mercifully it got so much better. And I went on to really enjoy DS9 and Voyager. Sadly, Enterprise was the first Trek incarnation I actually STOPPED watching due to its complete and utter disregard of canon — IMO only.
I’ll be honest — I was absolutely horrified when I heard about a reboot. Then I got kinda excited as it seemed they really cared about it. Mixed emotions about Nimoy — thrilled on one hand as Spock is my favorite character, but then somewhat cynical as to their motive — i.e, just a way to placate or draw in us older diehards?
Sorry but for good or ill, I’ve got a lot invested in Trek — 31 years of love and devotion to a TV show — so please stop bitching about us who express these concerns as being “close-minded” blah, blah blah. Would there be Trek some FORTY+ YEARS later without us long time die hards?
#200 “Also, this just in.
I am as much a Star Trek fan as anyone on this site. Stop saying you are more of a fan than someone else. That’s just idiotic.”
*****************************************************************
Word!
“You really should learn to control your emotions…they will get the best of you.” Words to live by, y’all.
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Star Trek was always best when it was about the characters. We didn’t even have an Enterprise for most of STIV and yet it is often named as the favorite of the ST films. I personally hated the look of the Enterprise E when it was introduced but that did not stop from loving First Contact.
That said, When they completely changed the Jupiter 2 in Lost in Space it irritated me quite a bit. Far as I am concerned they have some dramatic license but not so much that the Enterprise no longer feels like the Enterprise. I had no qualms about the changes from Cage to 1701-E. I hope JJ and team keep the spirit.
“I’ve seen NCC 1701, Mr. Abrams, and that’s not NCC 1701″
So you’ve seen the Enterprise for this film have you? That’s what statements such as these imply – understand to normal people they read as rather arrogant. Worse still it comes as clear that you are making a critique of something none of us have laid our eyes on yet.
Sharr
well 2/3s in the poll so far are voting for “New design, but similiar shape with TOS-style touches”
From what I have heard that is exactly what we are going to get
#163 Sam Belil
I know very well who Gary Mitchell is. But A.) we don’t know whether or not he will be in the movie, and B.) we don’t know exactly which points in Kirk’s life we will see in the movie. If he does not make it into the movie (and again, we do not know whether or not he will), then it’s because he did not offer anything to the story. Again, you shouldn’t jump to conclusions as to what and who will be in the movie.
here’s a reason why I can’t stand to hear people say “if it’s not the trek I know and love, let it die.”… Trek has the power to change people and the way they look at the world and fellow man. It is a mythos that needs to be told and retold for every generation. That has nothing to do with production design. It has everything to do with its degree of relevance to the audience of the day.
If you want to remember and love a tv series from the 60s, great. A lot of us do. We can buy DVDs and watch fan-produced webisodes for that nostalgic fix. We can build models to exacting detail and buy posters with twinkling lights printed on black velvet paper.
If we want to watch trek change attitudes, cultures, beliefs and make the world a little better, then let it live — however it can.
Oh please.
This is a new film series…
Yes, it gets the tag Star Trek XI, but that’s because Paramount controls it.
Even the name of the movie is telling – Star Trek.
I fully support any and all changes that are made. Star Trek died when Enterprise went off the air. Now J.J. Abrams is resuscitating it. And you know what, I have no problem with a different interior…especially since all signs point to this universe being a parallel universe to the rest of the cannon. And in a parallel universe, there can be minor differences but the same history.
People are rejecting this film before ever seeing it. It’s not a surprise, but it’s depressing. The idea of Star Trek is 40 plus years old. And everyone would love to see the TOS bridge on a movie screen. Then why didn’t the people behind the first three Trek movies aim to do that? Aside from the original set being completely dismantled for years and parts stolen, thrown away, etcetera, because that bridge and set wasn’t meant for a movie. So, to those who can’t seem to get over the changes in this new series of Star Trek films, get over it – change happens.
#208: Lighten up. That statement is in reference to Lloyd Benson’s remark about “knowing John F. Kennedy, and you’re no John F. Kennedy…” My intention was to show how ridiculous some of the quibbling is getting. If my remark was taken as anything but, I apologize.
Sounds exciting! Never expected them to stay in the 60’s version of the future, anyways. This will be 23rd Century technology as “envisioned” in 2008.
This won’t just be a nostalgic view of the “old” enterprise (although that view of “the past” has been used to great effect in the newer shows).
I’m kind of hoping that we don’t get to see the 24th Century in this movie *at all*, that way older Spock will fit into the new movie’s story without “carrying any baggage” per se.
On first reading the quotes from designer Dawn Brown about the use of green screens, and the sad lack of practical sets, I was disappointed — after all, hadn’t JJ Abrams said he preferred existing locations to soundstage sets? And with $150 million to play with, couldn’t some sets be banged together, if only for the benefit of the actors, and the Christie’s auctions of the future?
But then I realized, HEY! If the action is shot against green screens, then that means one day that footage can be re-composited with the proper (computer-generated replica) 1960s sets plopped in behind the actors! EXCELLENT!
I kid… but only a little.
I know they have to update the Enterprise’s interiors for the new flick. I know that. But the trick will be knowing just what to update… too little, and it’s (sigh) cheesy. Too much, and it’ll never feel like Trek. To me, anyway.
BTW, to the folks who roll their eyes at crotchety old fans of my ilk, I have to say: what did you expect from us? This is Star Trek, for Petey’s sake! The phenomenon with the most minutiae-obsessed fan-base on the planet! It’s silly for people to expect anything less than an obsessive dissection of every utterance about a movie that dares to do what it’s daring to do — reinvent Star Trek. To tell us to calm down, get a life, stop obsessing or to get with the times…it’s folly! This is who we are! We love being this way!
Just look at the length of this thread. Look at the fact that this website even exists at all! Kinda nutty, ain’t it? What the heck are we all doing here?
In case anyone is wondering, I’m smiling benignly as I type all this.
Peace to all,
Scott B. out.
#133 Dennis-
Sorry. I meant to say:
Whenever I hear someone say, “keep an open mind,” I roll my eyes, puke, shake my head, and reach for my tactical baton.
This movie is going to end up resembling TOS as much as the LIS movie resembled the original.
I guarantee it.
Re: Chain of Command’s comment “It’s just a movie!”
I completely agree with you man, but the problem is that apparently some of the people posting stuff on this site think they literally live IN the Star Trek universe.
Section 31 for instance – isn’t he the one who designed the original Enterprise ship? May be that’s why he’s so bent out of shape.
Someone else – Richard Daystrom I believe, asked “are they going to show anything” referring to the trailer? That’s why they call it a teaser trailer. They are designed to tease the audience and build up anticipation for the film, which they’ve done a magnificent job of doing with Cloverfield.
Dawn Brown’s comments regarding how some people wouldn’t react very well to the plans for the new design, and the subsequent reactions on this site, remind me of the Twilight Zone episode “Monsters on Maple Street” or some episode with that title, whereby these aliens plant some seeds of paranoia in a suburban neighborhood and watch as the place goes crazy, tearing each other apart.
A healthy debate is great and I won’t consider it tearing each other apart. However, the paranoia part from several of you is definitely there.
What you guys need is some Vulcan mind-melding prior to seeing the movie in December 2008. That will definitely get you through it.
I understand Section 31 and I felt his rage way back months ago when I first heard the news this was yet another prequel concept similar to Enterprise. I was not happy…:(
But for some reason a lot of fans cling to what they remember best about Trek and accept this Kirk and Spock do-over.. Because they like the characters soo much. These people make up for about 69% of the fanbase overall IMO) were simply outnumbered Section 31.
So I’ve mellowed a bit …
^
I don’t believe what I read here sometimes.
I read posts that say,”Trek needs a update and a fresh look” and in the next sentance there talking about Kirk and Spock. How is Kirk and Spock fresh and new?
A fresh ship and a new captian is how you would do that.
^
I really think Paramount fell for JJ’s concept and there going to really regret it. This film will cost over 200 mil when all is said and done. With the Strike shutting down production and low revenue from films a Star Trek bomb could not only damage the Franchise it could also permanatly damage the studio itself. CBS might even cut ties or sell it off.
This will be interesting to behold.
#94 – Sorry, Dennis, I still don’t buy that it’s an either-or proposition, though I agree that some level of change is reasonable to assume. But there ain’t a thing about the “TrekUniverse”, in general, that’s intrinsically antithetical to gaining new audience. Not a single blessed thing.
‘Course, that said, I really don’t have a problem with seeing the original designs undergo some judicious “updating” to reflect more modern tastes…the operative word being “judicious”. ;)
#99 – Nah, I think they deliberately went over the top, especially Bakula. But for a Mirror Universe story, it fit quite well.
#121 – “Did no of learn anything from BG, Batman, James Bond…….”
Yup, from BSG I learned that reboots really aren’t all they’re cracked up to be, and that doing the same thing to Trek would be a disaster. Thank goodness that’s not what this production is doing!
#179 – Admitting my biases, I don’t see the enjoyment, but whatever… TEHO…
Hey, can’t we get Jar Jar on loan from Lucasfilm so we can get him made into a Redshirt and eaten by rock monster or something. I think there is a general consensus in the SF community that the head of Jar Jar Binks must go.
I think it is funny and ironic that when Voyager and Enterprise were on the air all every one did was complain that these were the same old stories and that nothing was new and now that there is actually something new and interesting going on those same people are complaining and wanting to go back to the old
“This movie is going to end up resembling TOS as much as the LIS movie resembled the original.
I guarantee it.”
I wouldn’t stake the farm on that…
“#208: Lighten up. That statement is in reference to Lloyd Benson’s remark about “knowing John F. Kennedy, and you’re no John F. Kennedy…” My intention was to show how ridiculous some of the quibbling is getting. If my remark was taken as anything but, I apologize.”
My fault, with all the nailbiting anger jokes often get lost in the all the venom.
Sharr
I haven’t read every post…but my initial reaction is very negative. I’m really starting to wish this project never took place. Why couldn’t we just move forward in the timeline.
Here’s the thing- Since TOS went off the air, every movie, and every new series was just that- new. New designs, later eras (or much earlier in the case of NX) so everything was up for grabs. It was about making an enjoyable, modern event that pulled in lots of viewers- old and new.
But a funny thing happened with Star Trek, the Motion Picture- alot of people did’nt like it. Now there are lots of reasons for this, but if you noticed, the movies that followed kind of crept back to the series. Not completely, because the characters were older and it would not have made sense (but after the first Movie there was A LOT of discussion at Paramount about pulling as many orginal TOS concepts as possible (Hello Khan).
Even the TOS sound effects crept back in. Anything to tie TOS old and new fans together.
Now , this movie does not move foward on the time-line and it does not move generations back either, So for hard-core fans (and there are quite a few I understand) this is uncharted territory, and in Star Trek-land this is quite unprecedented.
I think that is why it is sparking so much attention. Add an original Mr. Spock to the mix and it get eevn more daring. Again, no previous Movie or series after TOS has attempted to pull so close in time.
So unless you re-boot I can’t see how they can stray from the orginal TOS (ships, equipment etc) we have grown to love without being true to the orginal.
This thread has restored my faith in Humanity. LOL Basement dwellers unite!
Section 31 want some cheese to go with your whine?
Twice you mentioned getting a white actor to play MLK. TWICE!
As if a spaceship on a fictional show is the same as actual historical figure.
Get over yourself.
-cs™
You people throw the word “canon” around like a pack of archbishops. It. Is(actually “was”). A. TV. Show. Sure, it was our favorite TV show, but we aren’t curing cancer, or splitting the atom.
It just sounds a little…I don’t know…geeky. We really should find a better synonym.
#218, Steve: “How is Kirk and Spock fresh and new?”
Easy-peasy AFA this fan is concerned. After the Berman/Braga Trekverse, a return to the roots under a new regime is potentially a refreshing change. From what I’ve read on these blogs, I’m not the only one who thinks so. After all, it’s been, what, 20 years, give or take, since we’ve seen those characters together onscreen.
There are lots and lots of stories to be told about those two. Noncanon novels have tried, with good results and some whose stench could be smelled clear across the galaxy, despite what Spock would say about olfactory senses and the vacuum of space. And God bless Cawley et al for those who want their Orthodox Trek.
We’re finally getting an canonized version, if you will, of the early years of Kirk and Spock. As I said earlier somewhere, it’s a story that’s needed telling for a long time, one that I’ve always wondered about.
I’m completely jazzed that Nimoy has *enthusiastically* signed onto this project. And unless senility is settling into his very busy brain these days, which I *seriously* doubt, that was the clincher for me.
Just one fan’s 2 credits, navy beans, quatloos, whatev’. :)
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Cryminee, it’s a movie being made in 2008. A 40-year-old-design for the sake of “canon” isn’t realistic for a $100 million major movie production. Heck, they redid the ship to make it look more modern for the first movie only 10 years later.
It’s all about the story. Reboot, reimagined, canon-strict — it doesn’t matter if the story sucks. Just make a good movie that millions of people will go see, and I’ll be happy.
If they can make it retro without being cheesy, that’s fine. But vowing to not go see the movie because they aren’t using 1960’s cardboard sets is laughable.
I love it when the studio screws the IRS!!!
Green screen!!!! HA HA HA HAHAHAHAH AHA HAA HAAAA!!!
How much is that going to cost? HAHAHAHAH HAAAA!!!
Everyone knows that it costs so much less when you are rendering in CGI.
What is the expense? Rendering time? A blank room with a green sheet, A designer, a PC, and a plug? That’s why dot coms so cheap? Because they’re is no REAL infrastructure. BECAUSE THERE IS NO BRICK AND MORTAR!
To bad that we are not going to see the great sets that we are used too.
That has ALWAYS been the hallmark of any of the Star Treks series.
And now that is gone. Gone, gone, gone.
What is the budget again??? 150 mil? WHERE’S THE BEEF???
Maybey they can mix in the extra Soylent Green (that was the carpenters) into the popcorn we’ll be eating at the theatres. HA!!! Then perhaps we will have something REAL to chew on.
If anyone wants to go back into the archives, I did predict this “green screen” months ago. That’s why we have not seen any of the sets (duh?)
And don’t bet on the Enterprise being the same on the exterior. This is just the first shoe to drop. Break it to them gently. Turn the heat up slowly and the “frog” (us trekies) will not jump out of the frying pan.
Green screens. Sheesh. This “frog” is growing very suspicious.
Conversely, this does give them the oportunity to do something really way out visually. But like all new styles, some of it wil be innapporiate and very stale withing a year or two. And, I still hold out one last hope that this will all work. Wait… I’ll say it again…
I still hold out one last hope that this will all work.
But, I will make a promise to you all right now. If the visuals don’t COMPLETELY overwelm me, then I am outta here, permanently. And I will cancel my plans to buy the TOS DVDs too (for which I have been saving a few bucks a week for for the past few months). Or, perhaps, I’ll wait for a cheap sale on eBay and give some poor unfortunate sole some hard earned cash for the discs. At least I will then know where my cash went.
Star Trek was great on the TV, as a 1 hour show. To design this movie as a gigantic “tent pole” or “epic” was never in the cards for the format.
Boy oh boy, they’re taking a big risk with this one, huh Anthony?
I am sure you gotta be concerned too. Right? And PLEASE be honest and candid with your thoughts.
I gotta go now. This all has me thirsty for a Classic Coke.
here’s a reason why I can’t stand to hear people say “if it’s not the trek I know and love, let it die.”…
I agree that sentiment is very selfish. They don’t have to pay attention to this “new” version and should probably take the advice EJO gave to BSG-ToS fans and simply not watch it.
As someone up thread said: “change happens”, also to borrow from Kirk: “People can be very frightened of change.” he was right. It would be very un-Trek like to get bent out of shape over changes to franchise it is also very selfish to say: “Well I don’t think they should touch this sacred cow, its better to let it die”
News flash: others embrace change and new ideas and new interpretations of things. I’m genuinely interested in what these people have to offer – it feels fresh unlike much of Trek that has been heading “forward in the timeline” chronological placement doesn”t equal original thinking.
Sharr
Oh dear… Lets see if we can get this one up over 500 posts!
#219: ” But there ain’t a thing about the “TrekUniverse”, in general, that’s intrinsically antithetical to gaining new audience. Not a single blessed thing.”
Except, of course, that it’s utterly failed to do anything other than lose audience for nearly fifteen years.
It’s one thing to assert that there’s nothing “intrinsically antithetical” as an ideal statement, and another to point to any evidence to substantiate that. There is none; it’s faith unfounded in fact.
If the intent is to “reboot” (gawd I hate that word) Star Trek and make it Star Trek 90210, with a new cast and a new look and words with smaller syllables to attract the great unwashed, then I wish they would just call it Star Trek 90210 or something else and get it over with so we know what to expect. Leave Mr. Nimoy out of it, and by Crom, forget about trying to link Star Trek with Star Trek 90210. Be honest with the fans and call it what it is. I’m all for change and might even go see a movie with characters, space ships, locals and events based on Mr. Roddenberry’s universe, but above all do not whiz on my shoes and tell me it’s raining.
The updated BSG works because the premise is not that it is an extension of the ’70’s show but a complete reimagining of the 70’s show. Now, when the filmakers proclaimed ” Leonard Nimoy’s Spock will ‘pass the baton’ to Zach Quinto’s Spock”, they in essence made a committment to fans that there is continuity between Star Trek XI and what has gone before. And it’s substantial continuity, because the guy passing the baton is not some red shirt who was detailed to guard the officer’s head, but one of the characters who has been in synonymous with Star Trek from the very beginning. As a result, there needs to be one of the following:
- reasonable continuity between what is shown to have existed in “The Cage” and TOS and what appears in STXI, or;
- a damn good explanation offerred as to why the “look and feel”, the aesthetics and characters are different.
What the “bring on the new” clan seems to miss is that in order for many of us to willingly suspend disbelief (a prerequisite to enjoying a work of fiction), there must be some logical, rational or reasoned progression of what has been shown to exist in Spock’s TOS life to Spock’s 90210 life or it just pulls us out of the movie, ruins the experience and makes us a whole lot less willing to part with $9 per screening and $30 for the DVD (not to mention the additional ducats we might cough up for the novelization, tshirt and festivus pole ornament).
216. Dr. Image
“This movie is going to end up resembling TOS as much as the LIS movie resembled the original. I guarantee it.”
EXACTLY!
I’ve been saying that for months too. Lets just hope that they have the right designers. It all hinges on the look. That is all Paramont is concerned with the LOOK. And that does not bode well for all you fans that appreciate the character portrayals.
Grim, very grim.
But, I still hold out one last hope that this will all work.
#22, Marine Gene: “Geeky.” Such a loaded word.
Not a strict Orthodox Canonites myself, but at the ripe young age of 49, I have finally come to terms with and embraced my inner geek, and I’ve discovered she’s actually quite lovely.
And “canon” is a word in Trekdom that I don’t think will ever, ever go away. That word is such a fit for the unbending ideology of the Ultraconservative Orthodox Trekkie out there.
I do wish they would learn to spell it properly, though. :)
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Sorry, Marine Gene should have been #227. I’ve been up far too long for the amount of sleep I got last night. Insomnia is an evil bitch. }:-(
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
Here’s all I’m hoping for:
1. A generally Enterprise-shaped starship.
2. A circular bridge with a captain’s chair at the center.
3. A good movie that is both entertaining and feels like “Star Trek”.
Here’s what would make the uber-nerd in me happy:
1. An explanation as to why things look so different than before. (Doubtful, but I can dream.)
2. Some respect for the characters as they were portrayed before.
3. Some respect for the design genius of Matt Jefferies.
Here’s hoping.
I don’t want to see an exact copy of the 1967 model… it looks cheap, and it still looks cheap even when it’s CG.
Sorry to disappoint, but I’d rather see something more along the lines of TMP design than anything else
#238 Avindair
I think that’s what all of us are hoping for! }:-)
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
223. The TOS characters are easily the best known characters in the Trek universe, there is a large period of time in that era to still be explored. Every subsequent Trek series after TOS has slowly moved away from of Trek’s core of human growth and exploration and become boring. If Trek ever stands a chance of reinvigoration, it must get back to the basics.
#238
Why do you need an explanation of why things look different? Make one up yourself. In this particular Trek universe, the look of the original series never existed.
The more this film panders to the the fundamentalists, the worse it will be.
For those who didn’t agree with my jab at beehive hairdo’s, I notice noone had anything to say about the gorilla suit! That’s right. Who’s gonna step up and defend the gorilla suit? Yeah, I’m pokin fun at the albino gorilla. I said it before…You’ll always have your dvd’s to get you through the night. The idea, the main idea of Trek is “THE FUTURE”. Slideshow projector viewscreens and crt sets were used right up until Star Trek 5 or 6 or whatever ‘cuz plasma screens didn’t exist. They were too futuristic. Well, guess what. Flat screens came out and trek had to upgrade too. How the heck was Gene s’posed to know we’d have tiny flip-up cell phones as early as the 1990’s? If he had, the communicators woulda looked a little different, no? It’s all been changing since the beginning. Trek does it’s best to predict the future, while at the same time keep up with the times. Always has. Always will. That’s part of the fun. If your willing to have fun with it. C’mon old scoolers, it ain’t a religion after all. This is fast ships and hot chicks! Yeeeeeeehaaaaaaw! I can’t wait.
Nothing is seen yet and everybody freaks. Yeah….
Let’s try this and see what happens..
“The sky is falling, the sky is falling…!!!”
That will calm them down.
There is NO evidence this is Transformers2, Star Trek: Section 31, or 90210. Nor is it Star Trek: The Search for Shatner’s Ego.
I am FLIPPING tired of things being blown out of proportion. Opinions are fine, but gross assumptions based on little fact makes you “Chicken Little” IMHO.
Kicking the soap box to the corner, spraying it with expensive gasoline and hitting it with a type 2 phaser blast.
did anyone ever consider that the first mission of this crew may have taken place, first on an NX class starship, may the NX-07 Enterprise (NCC-1701 had how many reincarnations?) and that this NX class might be a gazillion times bigger than NX-01…. AND gets scrap-piled at the end of the first mission (in which they save humanity- for the first time)….. and the movie ENDS with the crew (as a reward) shuttling off to the newly built NCC-1701 (yes the grand ole dame from the 60’s) for her maiden voyage – and we only get to see the exterior as an end to the movie? c’mon guys think out of the box… infinite possibilities here, etc..
Personally, I’ve always been glad that there was a reverence for what went on before, i.e., canon. It went hand-in-hand with the attention to detail that made Trek above-average.
Oh sure, things have to evolve simply because of bigger budgets and better technology. The klingons are a fine example. More money, better make-up; simple and totally understandable. However, as many others have stated above, if you are going to do a re-boot, then there has to be some logic to changes or why bother RE booting something in the first place? Just do something entirely new.
Scott B — Amen. It’s pure folly.
And the bigger folly? Claiming some semblance of superiority by naming others as geeks or implying they are more obsessed, etc. Face it, we are all here busy posting about a movie, that’s still filming, not due until almost a year from now, based on a tv show done in the 60s….need I go on? Quite a few folks in the so-called real world (you know, those who paint themselves the colors of their sports teams!) would tell us we need to get a life for being trek fans in the first place!
242. I agree with you, in least in the part about pandering to the fundamentalists, so to speak. I personally would rather see a design theme that expands upon the TOS aesthetic than an exact duplication of a TOS Enterprise. No matter how good the sets TOS-style sets looked on ENT or DS9, the movie camera is more scrutinizing than the TV camera. We should be looking at this as an opportunity to see what the Enterprise could have looked like if they had the time, resources, and money & materials in the 60’s that they have now.
-245. Joey C – January 8, 2008
Except if they’re honoring the previous Trek history…as they said they were, then that can not be the case…as the enterprise was already around 20 years old when Kirk got her. They have Pike in the movie, and he had The Enterprise before Kirk did.
Holly shit, it is a reboot. Well, OK. Temporal universe time thing isn’t anything new. Dammit Jim, but oh well how many TOI, TNG, DS9, and ENT DVDs are there? A lot so if they blow this, there is plenty to back up up on. I’ll say what has been said, I don’t want Trek to be BSG and I fracking love new BSG but that is different.
Jim, first off nobody is wizzing on anything. We’re just having a good time. Second, you seem a little preoccupied with 90210. There are dvd’s of that fine classic to keep you going. Thirdly, Nimoy wasn’t dragged into this. He appears to be having a grand time and seems genuinly excited about the concept. And lastly, the so-called “new clan” hasn’t missed anything. We just don’t think as you do. Nothin’ wrong with that. It’s Trek, Baby. Gimme a “Yeeeeeeeehaaaaaaaaw” you’ll feel better. Now let’s go find Kirk and those green chicks and have some fun. I hope there’s Guinness in the future.
#243: “I notice noone had anything to say about the gorilla suit! That’s right. Who’s gonna step up and defend the gorilla suit? Yeah, I’m pokin fun at the albino gorilla.”
***********************************************
**GASP**!! He’s poking fun at Mugatu!!!
You INFIDEL!!!!!!!!
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
249. John Pemble – January 8, 2008
Holly shit, it is a reboot.
Everyone is freaking out and calling this a reboot. It’s not a reboot, it’s a re-imagining. Re-boots throw Canon out the window, they’re not doing that. So, everyone repeat after me, this is not a reboot…it’s a re-imagining!
The thing that is bothering me the most about this movie is that it is severely splitting the fan base. And this wouldn’t be happening if this movie wasn’t going back to the TOS era. It’s re-writing TOS history and the “hard-core fans” are getting upset. If it was set post TOS, nobody would really care. Before it’s over with, it will be the “open-minded fans” versus the “old hardcore fans”. It has already been suggested in some of the posts that the “old hardcore fans” stay home and not see the movie. In some other theads, it’s even been stated that the “old hardcore fans” preare responsible for helping to kill the franchise over the years. Interesting… if I may be so bold to say this… it has been us, the “old hardcore fans” than kept Star Trek alive during it’s bleak period between TOS and the first movie. Without us, there probably wouldn’t have been a first movie, or a second series, or a new grand movie adventure coming out at the end of this year. We have supported this franchise for 40+ years with our time and money (LOTS OF MONEY), only to be told to stay home if we don’t like the changes being made. SLAP, SLAP, SLAP. And I can almost guarantee, that if we do stay home, and the movie bombs at the box office, WE will be the ones blamed for it’s bombing because WE didn’t support it. We’re going to be the scapegoats for this movie no matter what. Well, for what it’s worth… I won’t be seeing it at the box office. I will wait until the DVD of it is in the rack at Dollar General… sitting next to the LIS Movie DVD. Maybe I am too set in my ways, but I prefer my history, even my TV history, to maintain a sense of continuity. And I don’t need to wait for opening day to see that this in not going to be the case here. This movie is definately going to make or break the fans, and the people involved in the making of it. If this movie is a hit, then HURRAY! Hats off to everyone. But if it bombs… well… I know I wouldn’t want to be the one that is pegged with the title of “killing Star Trek.” Might be hard to find a job in the same career field afterwards. So long everyone. It’s been interesting.
This is not a reboot…it’s a re-imagining.
And on a totally unrelated note, there’s water falling from the sky in Atlanta. What does it mean?
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
#213 Kirk Thatcher
Are you the Punk Rocker guy that gets neck pinched by Spock in TVH?? :-)
233. Dennis Bailey
“Except, of course, that it’s utterly failed to do anything other than lose audience for nearly fifteen years.”
That’s one example of your love for Trek Dennis. Whey do you post here so much? I read all the posts here and your’s (for some reason) tend to be mostly negative concerning past Treks.
I have plenty of times on this board. Trek made ME wonder, about our possibilities as a human species. And they did it best in TOS. Sue it was a TV show, but if you look at the number of concepts the Gene and co. predicted, or inspired, it is just amazing and wonderous. I had no problem with most of the original set designs and concepts. And the FX they depicted were very well done and appropriate for the stories. For the most part my imagination took over at that point, or I could always offer a good explaination for why it looked as it did.
Perhaps you would like to explain what you most enjoy about Star Trek.
Are you a fan? What would you do to enhance this apparent “reboot.”
A fully immersive CG environment does not seem to be the approriate answer.
Oh yeah. One more thing. Trek really suffered for the last 15 years because of the writing and characterizations. At least the new movie is going to “try ” and mine the old TOS gold. Let’s hope they are successful with the writing.
I just had a very sobering thought. What if this is a terrific film, but at the same time not really what we fans would consider Trek?
Well, first of all in DS9, the Enterprise we saw was the appearance in “The Trouble with tribbles” they could hardly change the design/look of the sets and have the same effect they were going for.
In a Mirror Darkly, the ship was named Defiant, not Enterprise and once again a change of the design or look could hardly be done due to the nature of the storyline.
As for this movie? Why not? As long as things look like they influence a future design we see in TOS and the movies, it should all be fine.
253. Windsor Bear
“Interesting… if I may be so bold to say this… it has been us, the “old hardcore fans” than kept Star Trek alive during it’s bleak period between TOS and the first movie. Without us, there probably wouldn’t have been a first movie, or a second series, or a new grand movie adventure coming out at the end of this year. ”
PERFECT. JUST PERFECT!
We (Trek fans) shoud all read that post again.
Found this image of the new Enterprise being constructed.
And it’s not in space ….
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l205/Goldencrest/entership.jpg
260. Don’t worry, it looks Photoshopped. Besides, I don’t think the San Francisco Fleet Yards would be in Newport News, VA.
257. Sidd Finch
“I just had a very sobering thought. What if this is a terrific film, but at the same time not really what we fans would consider Trek?”
That’s easy to answer.
Just send the “New Voyages” or “Exter” teams ten bucks.
That way we can finally get the real “Treks” we deserve.
260. Lostrod
If only that was real, that would make my day!
253 lets not get into calls for more splits….we are all trek fans
I consider myself a ‘hardcore fan’.. I also consider myself an ‘open minded fan’ I am not the only one
No use crying about it; Trek the movie is going to differ from the ’60s show. It’s inevitable. You cannot use set design for a 40 yr old TV show as your standard for set design in a modern film. I just hope the “virtual set” referred to was not the bridge itself. Maybe it was the engineering set (more likely as that needed forced perspective paintings to extend it in first 2 feature films). But, personally, I don’t care how “different” it is. Will it capture the essence of Star Trek? Will it have the essentials; a captain’s chair, the navigation/helm console, etc.? That’s all that’s needed. But modern 21st century tech exceeds what they could visualize in 1966. No more clumsy jeweled buttons, or tabulating computers. You can’t turn back the clock. New Voyages can get away with it, because they are NOT making a major feature film for a wide audience. The NV series are fan films (and good ones at that). The new film doesn’t have the luxury of a fan-only audience guarantee. Despite the necessary upgrades, however, you CAN give the ’60s design a well-deserved nod. Here’s hoping it’ll be both modern and forward-thinking, but with a bit of retro thrown in! I’m going to try to reserve judgment. If it sucks, oh well….it’s just a movie! Not the next election!
I for one look forward to an expansive look to the Enterprise, just like what was done for TMP. This will be great!
You trekkies are crazy!!!!!!!!!!!! Change everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Trek is about advancing not staying the same or with Canon. Canon sucks and so did the 60’s. Make this a 2008 film and reboot the whole thing! Please for the love of Christ!!!!!!
Bring It!
There’s plenty of wiggle room… we only saw a few rooms of the NCC-1701…
The bridge is just the central part of Deck 1. There’s a corridor around it to access the back side of stations, and another exit we never saw. A creative set design would give us a “bigger view”. The bridge could be undergoing revisions so the “TOS skins” as I’d call them might not be installed. The big E has had the “Cage skins” stripped away… and perhaps a couple stations “missing”… So without the cosmetic retro-1960’s look, it may look surprisingly… like a midpoint between NX-01 and NCC-1701D. After all, 1701-D had a lot of “mess” behind all its pretty wood and plastic and carpeted panels.
Or, the Enterprise might be testing *a completely different ‘bridge module’* during this era. We’ve got a lot of tech-spec material suggesting the bridges are “pluggable”.
There are large sections of the Enterprise we never saw. Also, in Trials and Tribulations, a few “new walls” were made, and additionally for IaMD.
I’m sure roberto Orci managed to write everything in such a way that it makes sense to *him*. And if it makes sense to him, I’ll accept it. And although I know his “writer side” is on strike, he and the others at Bad Robot still carry various producer titles… they can still “produce” and I’m sure did right up until the strike.
As others have said, the key is the circular idea of the bridge. As long as it doesn’t look like a linear submarine control center, or an aircraft carrier, or the USS Caine bridge… all will be well. After all, the circular bridge idea inspired some *real world* designs… that’s why it’s so iconic.
Plus it works….
Change the sets, change the actors, change the uniforms, change the concept, change canon, change anything you like. You’ve already decided to ruin the entire the entire franchise, so who cares what we think?
Enjoy this LAST movie, friends. Once no one goes to this baby, maybe the powers that be will finally leave well enough alone.
So basically what the person in the interview is saying is that this movie is already total bullsh*t. Hmm, that’s a minor disappointment.
Digital sets?? Come on, that NEVER looks right. Ugh…
267- “You trekkies are crazy!!!!!!!!!!!! Change everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Trek is about advancing not staying the same or with Canon. Canon sucks and so did the 60’s. Make this a 2008 film and reboot the whole thing! Please for the love of Christ!!!!!!”
Personally, I look forward to some modernization of the old… but in light of your statement… if they change so damn much, why not change the name while they are at it?
267. Nobody
Care to explain why we have not been back to the Moon since the ‘60 and 70s (based on mostly 50s and 60 technology)?
I think we were in the golden age then. Today, we are again left wanting for the good ‘ol days.
Once again, there is always an explanation for why things appeared the way they did in TOS. A favorite of mine is that the people in ST TOS had bio mechanical implants that provided all the extra visuals or link to the ships systems that were needed for each individual when accessing the basic controls on the Enterprise. That way the basic controls could always be there as a backup if a brain chip failed. I always thought of this when Spock was computing an unexplainable computation.
For example reference:
“The Paradise Syndrome”: Remember Bones asking “Why are’nt you doing anything about it?” to Spock about computing the asteroids path while apparently just sitting there. Spock said “I am”
Or…
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home – Spock computes the Klingons ships light speed trajectory while apparently in mid conversation with Bones and Kirk.
Pretty hard to do and be sure to being EXACT, even for a Vulcan.
There are plenty of other examples. It just takes a little imagination.
And its not too far fetched as implants and transponders were first imagined and depicted in the original series.
Don’t knock the original. It was PURE GOLD.
For years, I’ve eaten, breathed, and slept Star Trek: TOS. It comes in spurts, but it never fully leaves me.
I also lived, ate, and breathed Spider-Man for nearly 30 years before they made the feature film. When they announced a major change like the organic webshooters, I, along with many hardcore, longtime fans revolted. There was much screaming and gnashing of teeth.
When I finally saw the film, I realized that Raimi had the essence of Spider-Man down pat. It wasn’t the costume, the webshooters–or any of the things I THOUGHT were important–that made me love Spidey all those years…It was the spirit of the thing, its message, that stuck with me throughout my life, and fanned the intense passion I held for it. To make it even better, Raimi never rubbed our noses in it–he showed the organics ONCE, and never mentioned them again.
Part of me rails at the potential changes discussed to my beloved TOS. But, ultimately, I loved Trek, and TOS, specifically, because of its spirit, its message, its innate story-telling structure based on the human triad that drew me to it, and keeps me close. None of the shows it spawned shared that same magic…but times change, and sometimes lightning DOESN’T strike twice.
I don’t care about the webshooters, anymore, and I’m eagerly awaiting a chance to see if JJ’s gotten Star Trek as well as Raimi had gotten Spider-Man. If he doesn’t get the heart of it, the soul of it, THEN you’ll hear me rail…but for now, I’m holding my breath.
And let’s face it, if he blows out a donkey, we’ll always have our HD DVDs!
That’s all that matters in the end…
#233 – I can do the same thing, Dennis. Can you demonstrate that the alleged audience losses are directly related to the idea that Star Trek is playing in the same fictional universe over time, as opposed to any of the other myriad theories regarding why that audience loss occurred?
The argument that Trek should throw out its world isn’t any stronger, when one comes right down to it, than the one that says it shouldn’t. And, frankly, leaving aside the relatively minor (from the general audience’s point of view) variations from one Trek series to the next, the idea that after 25 seasons in a row, a few years off might do it some good is a far more reasonable conclusion, based on the available evidence, than to say, “Oh, the fictional universe is itself fundamentally flawed and therefore must be thrown away.” Well, I call shenanigans; I ain’t buyin’ it.
269 – Yup, exactly. Frankly, a lot of folks have been fixating on the bridge, but who’s to say the bridge isn’t quite familiar looking, but they’re going to do stuff like show us other sections of the ship which we never saw in TOS and which might be quite different than we imagine. For that matter, as the images up above show, some relatively minor changes can create quite a different “look” (cf the “Cage” bridge vs. the regular TOS bridge, or TWOK vs. TMP). I think there’s plenty of room for visualizing the classic Trek designs through a 21st Century lens that could do them honor, and I’m sure that once we finally see them, we’ll be debating a-plenty whether or not they achieved that end, but until we do, I’m at least willing to give them some benefit of the doubt.
(And just to be mildly twisted, I wonder if Ms. Brown might not in fact be suggesting that the hardcore fans would freak out at how much the classic designs could be made to look so different, yet be true to the originals? (Okay, maybe not, but still… ;) ) )
Best,
Alex
Well that sucks.
IT’S A TV SHOW… FROM THE LATE 60′S! It will not… and should not… look like A TV SHOW FROM THE LATE 60′S!
Please try to remember… IT’S A TV SHOW… FROM THE LATE 60′S!
We all accepted the transition from yellow, green, red and blue gum drops to the fantastic redesign for ST: TMP to flat-panel touch screens in ST: TNG.
Has anyone ever looked at Sulu’s helm station from ST: TOS? Ever watched Data race his fingers across a bunch of buttons with no labels on them? They are props with no meaningful layout or real-world use.
IT’S A TV SHOW… FROM THE LATE 60′S!
277. Johnny K
You can try and supe it up to make it all believable to the eyes, but when you consider TMP vs TOS there really is no improvement in the design that would make any of the controls more believable.
Please see my post #273 and let your imagination take over.
#273:For example reference:
“The Paradise Syndrome”: Remember Bones asking “Why are’nt you doing anything about it?” to Spock about computing the asteroids path while apparently just sitting there. Spock said “I am”
Or…
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home – Spock computes the Klingons ships light speed trajectory while apparently in mid conversation with Bones and Kirk.
Pretty hard to do and be sure to being EXACT, even for a Vulcan.
**********************************
Nah. Spock was simply *that* good. :)
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
‘257. Sidd Finch – January 8, 2008
I just had a very sobering thought. What if this is a terrific film, but at the same time not really what we fans would consider Trek?’
Then I hope they keep making more, of equal or greater quality. A good movie is a good movie is a good movie, after all. They seem to be getting rarer and rarer too.
I may not consider it “real” Trek, either, should this be the case, but if it’s actually a compelling viewing experience, they could call it _Fred_ for all I care and I’d support it simply as a solid film, instead. It’s not like the existing Trek we know we like is going to disappear forever next Christmas. There’d therefore be room for both on my shelf. And if they fit together hand in glove, then all the better.
On the other hand, if it turns out to be an outright stinkburger, I will petition Mike Nelson relentlessly so that I can be a part of that Rifftrax session.
OK, I’m leaving this discussion. The poll indicates that the Trek progressives have won this argument.
#264 Anthony, “I consider myself a ‘hardcore fan’.. I also consider myself an ‘open minded fan’ I am not the only one”
You are correct in stating that you are “not the only one” as I am there with you. I am a hardcore fan that is willing to accept change. I don’t care if the Enterprise looks like a box with nacelles, I just want a good thought provoking story. I want to be both entertained and enlightened – that’s the Trek way.
After TNG I didn’t give Trek much of my time, so this might be an unfair criticism, however…Perhaps the audience loss is due to the loss of two things. Melodrama and humor. These things are rarely done well in scifi, but when it works…Shazaam! Kirk is melodrama incarnate and the series always had an undercurrent of wry wit and sexual innuendo that made it sparkle. Remember those lighthearted musical interludes after someone made a funny? That was great stuff. Also, Trek has had little in the way of pomposity and sarcasm; qualities that have weighed down lesser series, such as the BSG and the Matrix trilogy. That dark, smarmy crap has no place in Gene’s universe. Humor and that certain type of theatrical drama are hard to pull off, but if it’s there we may just have a winner. As far as the designs go, we all argued this stuff 2 months ago, y’know about the set and the exterior details. The one idea that keeps coming up is to have the “reimagined” technology pay a nod to the old school. I’m all for it if it appears to be ligical. A little compromise might go a long way with a good percentage of this rowdy crowd. Sorry I dissed the Mugatu. Holy crap, I gotta get some sleep. The basement calls.
Oh, come on folks. Be happy that we’re getting a whole new movie instead of having Trek fade into obscurity.
#75. I couldnt agree more. As much as i want a fan movie (as a fan, of course), I want a great and likable move in general even more. The more new fans that are attracted by JJ, the more movies will be made, and the more fan moments can be put on the big screen in the long run.
All sounds good. If in ‘88 they’d made batman with the same costume and car from the ’60s series, it would have been rediculous. same goes with the new trek. gotta keep it seeming modern for the time. I’ll look beyond the superficial as long as it looks good and the story itself respects story canon.
No sweat! For all we know, we’ll be shown Pike’s Enterprise. We can assume that the bridge and other areas look somewhat different from the TOS interior. When Kirk took over, he may have rearranged a thing or two.
“A room should reflect its occupant.” :)
The poll needs a “whatever, as long as it’s good” option :)
#238 Avindair
I agree with everything you said except needing a reason for the change in look. I hope they update it and don’t insult us by trying to explain it in some stupid technobabble way. Some unconvincing line of dialogue about “refits” or “parallel universe” or “time travel” would just kill the mood. Jackanape has the right of it. Update it, and then move on.
However, what’s with the “Bryan Singer Method”? Mine a good movie in the franchise’s past, hope nobody notices? Superman Returns was just a remake of the first Superman. Luthor wants land, Luthor creates new land, people are hurt, Supes saves the day. Now we need a remake of First Contact? Bad guys don’t like present time, bad guys will change past to fix present, good guys must stop them. Time travel is a horrible plot device, well, for me anyway. I can’t get past the paradox.
And last, am I the only one that despises New Voyages? Cawley is either the worst Kirk impersonator, or the best Elvis impersonator, I can’t decide which. Every other actor seems to do a passable job, but he just grates on my nerves every second he is on screen.
Dont you guys remember how lame those orange jump suits look on pine? Lets update a bit.
In my opinion Star Trek is about people, feelings, human relations and mistery. Canon and starship bridges are just details that can be reasonably changed as long as the plot of the movie is good.
#289 Time travel is a horrible plot device, well, for me anyway. I can’t get past the paradox.
I agree. It has been overdone. But I don’t think that time travel will be involved in the new movie. Just because we have two Spocks in the same movie, that doesn’t mean so much.
My take is this,If it takes place in an era we have never seen before. Then I hope the bridge we have will seem like it can evolve into the TOS bridge. I am very curious to see how this turns out.
I will only be upset if the shape and basic placement of stations is consistent. I also don’t want it to look like 24th century trek. I hope it looks like a cross between the cage and the TOS movies.
#292
Meanwhile, it’s three Spocks, and I think it does mean so much. IMO, three Spocks either suggest flashbacks or different timelines/time travel.
Flashbacks are for tear jerkers – different timelines and time travel are for scifi.
This topic took forever to read!
I can’t wait until Anthony gets an actual production pic and then we’ll have 1,000 comments in the topic instead of the mere 300 comments we have here! :)
I need a nap…
#253 if it bombs… well… I know I wouldn’t want to be the one that is pegged with the title of “killing Star Trek.” Might be hard to find a job in the same career field afterwards. So long everyone. It’s been interesting.
Generations, Insurrection and Nemesis are (in my opinion) nearly unwatchable movies. Did they kill Star Trek? No, they were just bad movies :-)
#294 three Spocks either suggest flashbacks or different timelines/time travel.
Or a narrative structure that involves a plot spanning in different eras. It could be quite original, in my opinion.
The original series is beloved and has held up for 40+ years in part due to the consistent, clean, unified design of the Enterprise exterior/interior, props and uniforms. With the distance of time it’s clearer how great the look really is — it blows away any other TV SF of the era. Parts of the design are so ergonomically spot-on, like the bridge layout, it would be disappointing to see those elements get thrown away.
But “Star Trek” is after all supposed to be a semi-realistic extrapolation of what a better humanity may be like as it reaches for the stars 250 years from now. It’s only fair that a fresh look applies a 2008 eye to what tech may be and how we have tamed it to use to expand our knowledge and boldly go where no man has gone before.
For me, what’s most important is adhering to the optimistic Trek ideals of future humanity, one that embraces differences, one that seeks to add to its collective wisdom by seeking out new life and new civilizations. Some of that is reflected in design cues. For instance, uniforms that are not overly militaristic. Ideally, a rather clean look overall.
If the new Trek retains this positive spirit, I can live with tweaks in the design that don’t stray too far from that.
The question ALL fans need to ask themselves is this. Do you want a Trek that has the same feel as TOS? Or would you rather a movie with sets from the 60’s in it?
Yes yes yes, the sets looked fine in DS9 and ENT but that was on the small screen! Those colours would not translate well onto the big sceen. And most likely would make people laugh at the movie.
Unfortunately Trek has become a members only club, where if any body dare changes ANYTHING or even thinks it he or she is hounded and rideculed, Trek has a message of understanding and acceptence, yet on this site so many people are threatening to boycot the film if the hand rail is not red? That is in contradiction of what Trek turly is. Trek is about a message of hope for the human race, not about colour schemes! There are even those that would rather see it end for good than change? That is selfish! What gives ANY of us the right to deny future generations having the chance to write, direct, produce and star in Trek?
So please stop making demands on the Producers to make sure this screen blink 2 times per second and that the hand rail on the bridge is off red. In the end it is the story that makes Trek, and hopefuly many generations to come will leave their own mark on Gene Rodenberry’s universe.
oh and 299th, that is so pointless!
#297
Good point, I agree. I just think that actual interaction between the Spocks would add mystery and suspense to the story and bode well.
For my part, I’m simply interested in whether or not they overcomplicate the set with a lot of extraneous “futuristic tech” nonsense. One of the reasons the TNG set worked for me as a futuristic extrapolation of the original set is that it was much sleeker and streamlined; and I’ve never agreed with the assertion that the NX-01 bridge set looked “more futuristic” or “more advanced” than the set of the NCC-1701.
I mean, look at audio technology. In the past century, we’ve gone from massive tape recorders and record players to sleek little no-button iPod Touches.
So I’ve never had a problem with the idea that Sulu can steer a starship with just a few pushes or turns of a bright green gumdrop. That seems pretty damned advanced to me compared to all the buttons and levers and switches they had on the NX-01.
If anything, I want the new designs to look sleeker and more streamlined than the originals — none of this “Millennium Falcon” extraneous “let’s throw some high tech gadgets over here because that will make it look futuristic” nonsense.
Look guys, the fact is that they are going to change the design of the bridge… GET OVER IT!! there are many good reasons for this:
a) The film is being made in 2008 not 1966
b) The bridge in ‘the cage’ looks completely different to the TOS bridge so naturally if this film is before the cage, which it is, then naturally its going to look completely different to the cage’s bridge, and im all for that, it makes it more realistic IMO
c) This is just someones opinion, for all we know this bridge could be ace and really do the film justice… besides, she says that the outside of the ship has stayed exactly the same… they were MADE to keep it the same.
so… in conclusion… seriously guys, stop worrying
thankgod i have the movies from the original crew plus tos.as for the ship ….iam really furius,are they nuts?comeon the movie will be a failure for the true fans.the people from paramaount know that and are making political statements for the funs so not to loose them!!!!
296, you can discount TNG movies easily, but its harder to do that with TOS, since it is considered sacred in these here parts.
When they created the original, they tried to go as far beyond the current thinking as they could. For JJ and company to recreate a forty-year old ship and sets would be silly. Anyone remember that one of the reports in The Cage was delivered via paper printout?
It’s supposed to be several hundred years in the future. It is being reimagined from this point in the timeline and hoping to reach a non-Trekkie audience. That will never happen if they stay faithful to the original.
Only 26% of the people here are voting in the pokk for no changes and I suspect it’s a small number of those who will sit at home and sulk and never watch the film. It will be their loss and I, for one, choose not to let those mired in the sixties spoil my party.
I wonder how they want to make 150 million $ when they kick out half of the fans.
And virtual sets?? NOO!
Virtual Ships yes, veverything virtual, but not the sets.
1. They don’t look as realistic as real sets, just watch SWII + III
2. I think actors play better when they aren’t just only standing between green-screen, but can interact with real objects and see what this all is about.
The discussion of the re-designed bridge sets from TOS to Nemesis is correct. They did change and modernize. BUT here is the RUB…..this movie is in the Pre-TOS era (Pike and company, i.e. The Cage to Where No Man Has Gone Before. Therefore, what Star Trek:Enterprise FAILED to capture was a retro feel – a back engineering of sorts. That is how I see it. Heck the Cage set was far better than the series production sets with all the bright colors. Yea yea yea I know it was done to tout NBC full color network…but could you stay in a room very long with all those bright colors, blinking lights, beeps and blooops all around you. Simple, streamlined and monotone colors is more relaxing. My vote is the bridge to resemble The Cage set. AND there IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ENTERPRISE EXTERIOR FROM 1966-69!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
when they wanna change everything, why they don’t go in the 25th century. There they are allowed to do.
I just hope if there is are sequels, they stay with the same bridge set. It drives me crazy to see remodeled bridges every few movies. Can’t Starfleet make up its mind?
Well, as long the bridge is round, the captain sit’s in the center, there’s a big screen and the bridge has the right size, then I could live with it.
But I’m very concerend about the green- and blue screens. In the most times, filmmakers use that, to enhance sets and makes it bigger than a real set could be. I hope, they don’t use that for the bridge.
I don’t care if the bridge mirrors a 60’s, 70’s or 90’s design. Different looks could be explained, but a HUGE bridge, bigger than 10 meters in diameter would be a problem. It would need a bigger ship, bigger than 289 meters.
I may sound a bit technical, but that’s how I see it.
I think we need some teaser images at least, I for one want the Enterprise to look slightly different to the 60’s series otherwise I’ll feel short changed. However it needs to keep the spirit of the whole Trek saga.
Its time to keep am open mind until we get a look at what they have come up with.
Plus the casting is pretty inspired so if they taken as much effort on set design and effects we’re all be laughing!
“Visual canon” will be violated anyway, simply because there are new actors playing the roles. Moreover, given the frequency of bridge refits during Star Treks I to VI, it should be no stretch to suppose that the bridge looked radically different during the period of exposition of the forthcoming film. I hope that it incorporates elements of the classic TOS design, but I agree that a complete recreation of the Sxities sets would look ridiculous when juxtaposed with state of the art opticals.
Well, reading all the comments on this board I am glad to see that there are a lot of open minded hard core fans. This is really good, ’cause optimism and positive thinking is a great part in Star Trek philosophy.
it’s sad…nothing I’ve heard about this movie so far makes me want to see it in the slightest…this set information just compounds that feeling.
I can understand making some things on the ship look a little more modernized to appeal to today’s audience…but why not keep the overall set design and look of the interior the same?
if they’re planning on rebooting the whole thing and making more films and/or a new tv series, why not build physical sets instead of green/blue screens so that within this new continuity the sets look the same? are they so non-confident in this (farce of a) movie that they dont wanna risk having more memorabilia to auction off at Christies in a few years?
#289
Nope, you’re not alone. But Cawley forks out much of the doe, so we have to settle for it. Kinda sad really.
As far as I’m concerned I am happy enough for the bridge to look different from the 1960’s. It was almost 42 years ago so they need to be given a little latitiude here!
After all it wasn’t so long ago that everybody was worried about the TOS characters being played by new actors!
Let’s not start this Star Trek (1966-2005) and (2008-) Stuff.
There is one Star Trek and one Star Trek only! (1966-)
Hey Charles #210 — We already know that this movie starts out with Kirk at the academy. Please watch the episode “Where No Man Has Gone Before” — when Sally Kellerman’s character (Dr. Denhner) talks to Kirk “You were friends at the academy and requested him for your first command…..”. So again, Gary Mitchell (a key player in Kirk’s life) is not in this movie — and that my friend is a huge oversight!!!!!! And (if by some chance) he is in the movie — why have we not been made aware of it?????
State-of the-art starships probably need regular upgrades! The theory has always been that the bridge modules are a separate, removable part of the ship. Let’s face it, with the bridge plonked on top of the saucer in plain view, it’d be the first place an aggressor would fire a shot at, so they’d probably need regular replacement!!! ;)
As for the new look of the ship for TOS, I’m perfectly happy with this. I consider movies as a separate from TV shows. I mean, the look of the Big E in the original movies is decades removed from the look of the TOS ship.
The design of TOS is how we see that period via the medium of 1960s TV. The design of Star Trek (2008) is how we see the same thing via the medium of 2008 cinema!
It’s really no different from one stage director setting Othello in Denmark in the middle ages, another director setting it in Victorian London and another setting it in modern-day Brooklyn!
The fact that the design ***is*** different is yet another fresh, exciting element of this new movie!
#242:
Normally I’d be right there with you. Too many movies pander to the lowest common denominator for my liking. Challenging the viewers to read between the lines is a good thing.
Unfortunately, they brought Nimoy on board to create that bridge to the original cast. That reason alone raises questions that in some way should be answered.
Also, note that I put that under my “uber-nerd” responses, not what I “expect”. That means I sincerely doubt it will be addressed.
People need to start thing about who is main ‘actor’ playing these characters in this new film. Zachary Quinto is Spock now.
Casting Leonard Nimoy (one of my all-time heroes) in the film is a wonderful kiss to the past, in the tradition of featuring former TV castmembers in a modern remake of an old show. But, in this film and any sequels, Mr Quinto = Mr Spock.
#260 – I don’t know where that picture came from, but I remember seeing it several years ago. Nothing to do with this movie.
It seems that telling some “hardcore” Star Trek fans to be open minded is like telling a tribble to grow a backbone. And I don’t care if you read some Star Trek zoolocgal manual that shows that they “actually” have a backbone. It’s a joke.
Some familiarity in the design, characters and original concept of a brighter future is all I ask. I want action and humour. Canon be damned!!
Let’s face it, the iPhone is more sophisticated than the 60’s set of the Enterprise. I think anyone who seriously looks at what the producer and director are up against would realize the need to bring young Kirk and Spock out of the 1960’s.
Hey guys…remember a few months ago..when we were shown the picture of the lunch/dinner meeting between george lucas and JJ?
The photo was accompanied by a caption contest.
But i guess we now know what they were talking about…it seems that JJ was getting advice on how to make a large portion of the films’s sets and environments CG. JJ needed help on figuring out how to make everything look technically good…but still just a little off and fake looking!
“george, how can you get those sets so close, yet still be so far away?”
CGI sets aren’t that different from matte paintings. It’s how well or badly they’re used that’s the issue!
the industrial design stylings of 23rd century aesthetics should be preserved, it was a groovy, futuristic look
the ‘more sophisticated’ iphones of today are not able to control an ftl spacecraft, like the 1701
people say the same about todays cel phones compared to the starfleet issue communicators of the era
and the same argument was attempted claiming that the nx-01 was more advanced then the 1701
rubbish, of course
the author also compares the bridge of the 1701 to the 1701a? two entirely different ships, almost nothing of the original spaceframe was preserved in the refit
This is not Austin Powers. I don’t want a retro 60’s look to the bridge. They need to stay true to Star Trek by making a ‘modern interpretation’ of the future. That’s canon!
Section 31 needs a girlfriend.
If this is a reboot of the series, then why go to all the trouble of making the characters look exactly the same as the original series? Isn’t the ship just as important as the characters? It certainly is to me! Get it right people! The USS Enterprise IS a character in this series……it is just as important to get it looking correct (TOS) as it is to getting Spock looking right. For the guy that says that the bridge changes all the time……the bridge first changed from TOS to the first movie (10 Years) , the next MAJOR change was not until TNG.
The bridge set was overhauled for each film in the TOS movies. The bridge in TFF is clearly different from that at the end of TVH. Then the TUC bridge was a significant redress. STII and III used the TMP set, but not without changes in details, lighting and so on.
IIRC Herman Zimmerman referred to the upgrades to the Enterprise-D in Generations as being retroactive: had every TNG episode been on a movie screen, the set and ship would have looked like they did in Generations!
The new actors have a look that is reminiscent of their predecessors, but they aren’t doubles. The same approach should be taken with the design aspects of the film!
on the surface I really do not care, and to be honest , would appreciate a change in the set design if it were done logically.
(i loved that in TMP, and they explained most of it away flawlessly and with little effort.)
but that being said, my thoughts are this:
if this were a total reboot, ignoring all that came before or after it, then full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes ( anyone ever see ralph mcquarries vision of TMP- impressive).
BUT , you better make everyone aware THAT THIS IS NOT YOUR DADDY’s STAR TREK ANYMORE.
now if this is some sort of part 11 that is suppose to fit in the basic structure of ENT,TOS,TNG, DS9,VGR and the MOVIES with an eventual small tweak to the timeline that ultimatly CREATES a new direction for the TOS era, then i want some type of explaination as to why the technology is different ( say like the interference of the borg in ST -FC created a techno ” jump” – this could explain the tehcno advances in series Enterprise over TOS- or that the Romulan’ made a previous incursion into the past and left a tricorder or something- ala terminator- that caused a shift. all this could be explained from one Spock to another, and hence create the justification AND still keep canon and possibly explain why Spock wants to make sure kirk still becomes Kirk…. and it could be the backdoor way into Shatner appearing at the end when Spock returns to the 24th century. the small alterations to the timeline will make it so he never died in Generations).
this is not small potatoes guys, Star Trek, for good or bad, is not Mission impossible, Get Smart, or BattleStar Galactica.
you will have to explain why things are not the way the stamps, the postcards, the pictures, the buttons, the t shirts, the model kits, the posters, the christmas ornaments, and the reruns show them.
not for the die hard guys… but for the casual viewer that only knows the phrase ” beam me up scotty” and the univesal picture of Kirk and company smiling on the brdige.
forget the hard core guys, heck it is the casual movie goer that will look and say ” didn’t kirk wear gold PJ’s and have pointy side burns?”
the BIG E is in the smithsonian for gosh sakes!
they might be able to make Mr Phelps a bad guy, or turn the shoe phone into a cell phone, or turn a Cylon into CGI …but this universe can’t do it without an explaination.
not for the hard core fan, but for Joe 6 pack.
( that may be why the Movies box office take never lived up to the …79,000,000 people agree tag that TMP had in it’s print ads. those uniforms and the ship interiors just did not jive with the evryman’s notion of Star Trek… funny that the highest grossing Trek film was the one with no uniforms or Enterprise thu almost the whole movie)
rcase in point: Superman’s cape suit will always start out as blue, the Planet of the apes will always be Earth, and Alvin the chipmunk will always wear a red sweater and cap.
….and J.T. kirk will always be wearing those gold pajama’s .
( that’s right…we are going to have a uniform issue to look forward to also, you know that.)
so with all the regardless all the past rumblings and grumblings about Kirk did this, and the Enterprise was built here. Pike was this and Spock did that….the backbone of this movie will be made or broken on convincing the everyday viewer that this is indeed the Star Trek that they remember or that it is been rebuilt. stronger. faster. better than before.
and mr Orci( if that is indded you out there)
that was up to you… because the hard core fans would pay to see 2 hours of crap just because it was Star Trek.
remember what someone on sompost around here once said about the common veiwer:
… “Star Trek…is that still around, not that NEW generation stuff, I mean DR Spock and all that “
If the bridge set is round with a main viewscreen, I’m probably cool with it. If it’s some other configuration, that will be a lot more to process.
How can anyone want this movie to look the same as the 60’s show? How unbelievably boring would that be? Not to mention a box office disaster.
Hard core trek fans need to wake up and realize that they are not the only people that matter in this. Paramount has been making Star Trek films aimed at that hard core fan segment for the last 6 or 7 movies, and the result has been some gawd awful movies with dwindeling budgets and revenues.
Star Trek was dead and burried before Abrams came along to make this movie. No one was going to put the buget and time into another Star Trek film that he has brought – if there even would have been another film.
Instead of crying about every little thing like “oh no, the bridge won’t look eactly the same” – give me a break – you should be thankful there is even another Star Trek movie being made and be happy the franchise will continue.
If there is any hope of sequals from this film, it has to appeal to a LARGE audience – which means not just Trekkies. That means it has to have a “cool” and a “wow” factor that gets people saying they want to see the film, even if they’ve never liked Star Trek.
To think you can do that with stuff that looks like the 60’s TV show is simply crazy and beyond rediculous.
Also, canon has nothing to do with how things look – uniforms, consoles, weapons, or sets on the ship. The look of the interior of the enterprise was different in every single movie. People didn’t really notice because it was still basically the same shape and size (the bridge was round with a captian’s chair and a big screen – you can change everything else about it and people will still recognize it as the bridge).
In closing, Trekkies are really starting to annoy me. I love Star Trek, but i can also recognize that things need to be changed and the franchise needs a fresh start if it is going to continue to exist at all. So, i’m open to whatever they do and excited to see what cool things should be in this film.
Well John from Cincinnati you are not the Chaiman or President of Paramount so what you accept really doesn’t matter to anyone, at all, ever. It’s interesting that you think that Paramount needs your permission to make this movie.
I agree with Aaron R. The more I read about this movie the more excited I get. People need to stop being cranky old punks and accept the fact that your time has come to an end. The 60’s are long gone and I think as a filmmaker JJ is entitled to make whatever the hell kind of movie he wants and if you don’t want to see it then don’t go but do shut the hell up!
#331 – ” then i want some type of explaination as to why the technology is different ( say like the interference of the borg in ST -FC created a techno ” jump” – this could explain the tehcno advances in series Enterprise over TOS- or that the Romulan’ made a previous incursion into the past and left a tricorder or something- ala terminator- that caused a shift. ”
You know I’ve always wondered what happened to the Klingon hand phaser that Chekov threw to the navy guy in ST IV.
#331… .i beg to differ with you on the casual fan… i know lots of them. it’s the hard core fans that will complain about the uniform not being the same color, or the sideburns not being pointed…. the casual fan could not care less
the casual fan just wants to see a cool sci fi movie in the star trek universe… something really entertaining and with some eye poping special effects.. and hopefully a good story and good acting.
They don’t care if the ship or the bridge or the uniforms look anything like they did in the tv show.
Again I would like to say that this smells of conceit and/or schizophrenia. TOS is so great that it needs to be changed? With what these fools are doing I have absolutely no confidence in this no matter their claims. It’s like watching Special Olympics ping-pong finals with them and these statements.
What is boils down to and I can’t imagine a serious fan countering this… and that is it’s the fans that made what Star Trek is today. There is certain element that is owned (figuratively) by Roddenberry in what he did. This whole thing is a spit in his face NO MATTER the claims of intent in so called “honoring” the spirit. John Edwards claims to talk for the dead too, and he’s a shyster.
Yeah they own the rights to it, but they only cared when WE made it into what it is now… WE own it. So I for one aint bending over and taking it from them when I can at least voice my resentment of it.
And for that THANK YOU Tony. :)
#329
Funny… I seem to recall some complaints here about the fact that Chris Pine didn’t have “hazel” eyes, that Urban was too ’stocky’ in build to be a replacement for DeForrest K., and that Simon was no visual match for Jimmy Doohan — as Paul McGillion (or, better yet, Chris Doohan) might have been.
#306 “Anyone remember that one of the reports in The Cage was delivered via paper printout?
It’s supposed to be several hundred years in the future. ”
it’s also supposed to be Leonard Nimoy Spock’s past. Would you have a 74 year old Andy Griffith’s Andy Taylor slip back in time and change the look of the late 50’s cars to 2001 because YOU don’t like the way old cars look?
Should Speilberg come in and make a new a new Star Wars movie, based on George Lucas’ universe, where a 55 year old Luke Skywalker ..portrayed by Mark Hamill..has a flashback to his early years and C3po is now a floating black ball and X -wings are devoid of surface detail and smooth as a babys bottom? Just because he thought all the old Star Wars ships looked too much like “models” and didn’t look “REAL” enough?
Should a new director change an established fictional history just because he can?
Again, if this WERE a total reboot, that’s one thing. But we’ve been told again and again that it isn’t.
We are in a fictional universe with a clearly defined past. Putting Nimoy in this AS 1966 Spock dictates what his “fictional “past SHOULD look like.
Make the sets with plexiglass and aluminum if you want. Add rivets and detail. But if you turn the established bridge of Nimoy Spock’s past into some vast 2 story bridge the size of a gymnasium your story better be real REAL damn good.
The reason the technology is different in the new film is because Star Trek isn’t real: it’s make-believe! What more explanation do you want?
The sets have been designed and built by different people, four decades after the original, for a 2.35:1 movie theater screen, not a small 4:3 NTSC TV set!
Just deal with it and move on!
Ryan, Greg Cox details the fate of the Klingon phaser in the excellent “Euegenics Wars” Book 1. As I read some responses the line Kirk utters at the end of ST VI rings in my mind, “people can be very frightened of change…”
1) yes, physical sets are better
2) Enterprise should be clean, simple and professional (like TMP Enterprise—not NX01) Less = more. This is the future. Modern toasters have less external details than older toasters.
3) Updated uniforms of ‘The Cage’ would be fine
4) The bridge should be the same layout and size
If they change all of the above, why even call it Star Trek?
It just cracks me up that people who flock to a site called TrekMovie.com are saying they want a boycott of the movie or will refuse to go see it if it doesn’t remain absolutely unchanged. It’s a joke right? You’re telling me if there’s an upate in production design you won’t go?! RRrriiiiiiiiiiiight. Well then, I hope you enjoy those 3 new episodes of New Voyages each year. (I gotta admit, I get a kick out of them too.)
C’mon! Trek is back. People are talking about it again. There’s something about it in almost every issue of Entertainment Weekly. Our beloved characters are going to shine like never before.
And by the way, if this movie only brings in the Trek fan base, don’t hold your breath waiting for a sequel. It will fail miserably. It has to appeal to a broader, 21st Century audinece. Remember, this team took a shlocky cartoon and toy line from the 80’s and turned it into over $700mm in world wide box office. (Yeah, even despite some flame trim.) That’s more than all of the Star Trek Movies combined! Imagine what the they can do with one of science fiction’s truly iconic franchises.
IDIC people!
Here’s to the undiscovered country! Bring it on!
From where I sit, things like whether the buttons on the consoles look exactly the same are pretty minor. For all the good and creative rationalizations of why and how the buttons as we saw them represented a hyper-sophisticated technology (and don’t get me wrong, some really good thinking went into those rationalizations!), the broad audience will need something that it will recognize as advanced tech, based on today’s perceptions, and I have no problem with that.
As some other folks have said, I’d hope the basic design wouild be retained, and in many ways I hope the designers of the new film took some leads from “The Cage”. Leaving aside some obviously dated stuff like the printer output at the sciences station and the very ’60s-esque gooseneck viewers (I’d not mind at all if both of them vanished ;) ), that bridge looks in many ways more futuristic than the TOS bridge! I mean, you want a small change that’d look hugely different? Imagine those black parts above the stations being all dynamic, multi-windowed viewer screens, with different information flashing and changing all the time, with specific displays coming up as needed for the story. How cool would that be! And very much in line with what viewers of today would expect. Just an example of how good set design could very much be different and “of the now”, while still respecting the original concepts.
And if I could think of that, who’s to say that a professional Hollywood set designer couldn’t? :)
I am finding myself very concerned for the future of this great franchise. I believe that the producers owe the truly dedicated fans much more than the so called new “crop” of fans they are trying to bring in. Quite frankly, I would rather have NO new movie than a complete overhaul….which is the way it is sounding more and more. I forewarn, if the interior of the ship is altered in any significant way I will NOT see this film. Furthermore, I will petiton that all TRUE Star Trek fans will abandon this film all together in the hopes that it fails and a new movie will never be produced. I am quite content with the 10 films and fiver series I can have access to at any time. I knew this was a horrible idea from the start. How could you possibly hope to recapture the essence of TOS with all new actors etc??? I can not imagine them recasting TNG cast, can you??? This is going to be a disaster for true Star Trek fans. It may appeal to a new generation, but it will no longer be Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek.
I’m a great admirer of the original bridge design for the original Trek television series, but it’s possible to overstate its practicality.
For example, the suggestion that it’s wonderfully “ergonomically designed” isn’t so. It’s very well designed as a *set* intended to suggest a work-functional design – but it was designed in 1964/65 and the ergonomics are suspect.
One specific example pertaining to the perimeter stations (like Uhura and Spock’s):
The control surfaces are angled up at about 25 degrees from horizontal and feature fixed controls within a four-foot radius. They extend up to two feet forward and a foot upward from the operatior. Now, look at the desk you’re working at right now. Look at actual control panel designs as laid out in most air traffic control rooms or ship’s bridges, etc. You’ll notice that most button panels/keyboards are laid out within a two-by one/one-and-one-half foot area right in front of the operator – usually flat horizontally, sometimes with a five degree incline. More drastically inclined surfaces are generally reserved for displays (like radar/sonar or video) and gauges, and are placed a foot or more from the edge of the station (and generally are sloped upward at 45 degrees or more).
Such layouts don’t look as good as expansive panels where the buttons and lights are visually spaced and angled to look good for a camera and to fill the frame in attractive ways, rather than for purposes of operation.
Similar concerns pertain to the overhead displays at each of the Bridge perimeter stations – they *look* good and suggest practicality, but the specifics of the designs are cheated for the camera. There’s nothing at all wrong with that – for a tv series or movie it’s the right approach. But in *ergonomic* terms it’s dated at the very least.
#345: “I am finding myself very concerned for the future of this great franchise. I believe that the producers owe the truly dedicated fans much more than the so called new “crop” of fans they are trying to bring in.”
The current version of this “great franchise” ceased to *have* a future years ago. Abrams is the future of the Franchise.
The studio “owes the truly dedicated fans” nothing; Paramount would be completely justified in never greenlighting another Trek project if they did not have strong reason to believe that they can turn a big profit from it – and once again, Abrams is the reason.
The only concern that I have for the new STXI is that they keep to the vision that made TOS great. If the ship looks the same from the out side great, but I am not worried about gadgetry of the bridge, as long as the captain is in the centre seat. In 1960 the vision of the future was 1999. Know we are in 2008, lets see if we can have a bridge that looks like it really is in the 23 Century.
The Command centre in the Star Wars did not change as it was created in the late 70s, and really was a bunch of command stations on the floor with windows and a walk way, you do not need to change that, it is basic.
I have high hopes for this movie to reinvigorate the franchise, and vision and ideals of Star Trek to live for another 40 years
#339… are you kidding me? The Andy Griffith show was set in the 50’s, not he 22nd century.
of course you aren’t going to change the cars if your show is set in the 50’s.
This movie is set 200 years in our future…. obviously what people imagine to be 200 years in the future now is vastly different than what people in the 1960’s imagined… most of what we have today wasn’t even imagined in the 1960’s, much less 200 years from now.
Seriously, the number of people that will want to see something that looks just like or alot like the 1960’s show is tiny compared to the number of people Paramount needs to come see this movie for it to be a success.. they will give you lip service to try to placate you, but they seriously are not concerned with you not liking it.
#343 Uhhhh what cracks me up more is someone assuming this site is THIStrekmovie.com. There have been others you know? Not to mention MOVIES not of Star Trek but ABOUT Star Trek. ;)
#343 – exactly!!!
Again, the number that will hate this film because it doesn’t look like it was made in the 1960’s is very tiny… even if nation wide that number is in the tens of thousands – which i doubt seriously – it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the numbers that Paramount and Abrams need to go see this movie.
Even on this board, pretty much the only one devoted to this film, the number is less than 100.
Either the Excelsior, The Undiscovered Country, or The Final Frontier bridges were the best TOS designs, and I hope, it resembles them, with perhaps a few physical controls added to please the old 1960’s fans
^^^Wow…consider people’s opinions invalid because they are a minority amongst potential opinion holders?
Let’s be clear here…the average “Joe Q. Moviegoer’s” opinion certainly won’t be nearly as well-informed or as intelligently put forth as that of Trek fans.
Of course, the reality is that this new Trek is targeting that bigger demographic.
Nevertheless, shame on you Jay for criticizing people’s opinions because they aren’t those of the majority of people.
\S/
#345 Changing the sets in no way effects the “true Star Trek of Gene Rodenberry”…. do you think that Gene created Star Trek based on the ship and how it and the bridge looked? Please. The design of the ship was the last thing.
Changing how it looks or how the interiors looks has nothing to do with Star Trek. Star Trek was a story about human beings and their adventure to find new life and in the process discover alot of things about themselves. It’s not a story about the bridge of the ship looking exactly a certain way… The sets changed over the course of the original show itself. If Gene was so concerned about how the bridge looked, why would he change it himself?
Did he ever complain about the changes in the first movies? Of course not, he was there approving everything.
I seriously can not believe that grown adults are going to complain so much about something so unimportant like the bridge getting updated.
They don’t have to explain anything. As someone else said, it’s fiction. Unlike some of the Trekkies on this board, the general movie audience will realize that this isn’t real and accept that it isn’t suppose to look like the 1960’s tv show.
I hope all you purists who will boycott the film will stay away. Then I can lie out flat on your empty seats at the theater and enjoy the movie LOL
336:
336:
i agree with you if they realize from the get go this is a whole new set of chess pieces.
but if they are led to believe that this is what was and just pretend what you once knew is not how you knew it,then i beleive they will walk out of the theater feeling cheated and not come back for round 2.
this movie needs a round 2 attendance to succeed.
(just like the casual movie goer still went looking for Darth vader, Luke ,and Leia in episdoe 1,2,3.)
case in point:
go to any anonymous person on the street and show them3 action figures in a row all being Kirk :1 from TOS, 1 from TMP and 1 from TWOK .
ask them which one is Kirk.
that’s the guy we need to see this movie.
guarantee he has been INDOCTRINATED to pick up the TOS version.
again. ..the hardcore fan would go see a Lego Movie about Star Trek..
they might bitch that Kirks hands had no fingers, but they’d still go see it.
.
heck they paid to see the Menagerie in TV scope at the theaters.
#352… i agree those were cool designs for the bridge, and at the same time they were all different from each other and VASTLY different from the 1960’s show, so as such i’m sure that the Trekkies on this board HATED them.
I’m “open minded” to GOOD WRITING, a thing Trek desperately needs!!!
#353 I’m not criticizing people’s opinions because they are the minority… i’m just trying to inject some realistic expectations.
To cry and moan over the fact that they aren’t going to use the 1960’s sets and props in this movie is rediculous. Period. It’s not realistic or practical to think they would even try, or even try to make them new sets look anything like those.
The opinion that this movie has to look just like the 1960’s tv show is the opinion that i’m criticizing because it is so extreme. To say you will boycott this film because of that is laughable and i guarantee won’t have the slightest effect on the box office.
If they made a film like these people are wanting – that looks just like the 1960’s show, then they would be the only ones that would go see it and as a result it would be a monumental failure at the box office.
Bottom line… Star Trek was dead as a franchise. The last several movies were box office and critical disasters. The chances anyone would invest the money and time that Abrams has gotten Paramount to do in this film, for another Star Trek film were remote at best.
So, instead of crying about rediculous things like the doors won’t be red, or the bridge will have futuristic tech on it instead of the 1960’s knobs and buttons, Trekkies should instead be happy that there is a Star Trek film at all, and open there minds to what could be possible with a new vision of the classic story that Gene created.
Chronologically, if everything up to Star Trek: Nemesis is meant to be retroactive, then that explains why Romulans in ST: Enterprise are wearing the same uniforms from Nemesis. I kept wondering whether they change fashions or what. It seems all their outfits are just timeless.
#356… i think the trailers will play a big role in setting expectations, and if done properly, people will not be surprised when they go see the film when it doesn’t look like the 1960’s show.
And little things like the pointed sideburns… .most casual fans don’t even realize they were pointed.
Again, i think the hard core fans are the ones that are going to have a far harder time adapting to this version of trek than the casual fans will.
# 333:
You should take a look to the poll. Only a few number want’s the 60’s bridge or set design. The greater number wants a new bridge, but respectivly recognizable as a Star Trek-bridge. That means 8 or 10 meters in diameter, captain’s chair in the center, screen in the front. They may give them a contemporary look, but it must be a Star Trek look. I fear they’ll adapted the metal/iron-look of the NX-01, as Orci suggested in one the last articles (I think it was back in October).
# 336:
If you don’t care for the design, the technological canon or the looks of ships, sets or props, I have to doubt, that you are a Star Trek fan (Trekkie or Trekker). It seems to me, that you are more a common scfi fan, who likes Star Trek, but not more. No offense. (You may call me an idiot in return, if you wish)
# 339:
Agreed
Star Trek is about the human adventure, not set design! Can’t believe the fuss people are kicking up over a modern movie!!!
Remember how in the movie “Lost in Space” they showed the original design of the Jupiter II high up on the launch tower? Then everything sheared away as they left Earth’s atmosphere and, ta-DAAH!, the movie version of the Jupiter II was revealed. The movie makers gave homage to LIS canon, then updated the look.
I only hope that the new Enterprise set will show at least a bit of that respect to what was.
What everyone seems to forget is that each series was a reflection of it’s time. Yeah, they were supposedly set in different timeframes, yadda yadda…but here in the real world – where the shows were actually created and broadcast – they were simply storytelling vehicles that cast a mirror on modern society.
TOS was clearly a reflection of the changes that were taking place in the 60’s – civil rights, the threat of nuclear war, etc. The production design (while looking ‘futuristic’ at the time) was very much influenced by the styles of the day. TNG was a very 80’s show, Everything was bigger, sleeker. The Enterprise-D was like a luxxury liner. Everyone was wearing spandex. It focused on diplomacy and government bureaucracy. DS9 was a reflection of the 90’s – it was about sticking around, and the aftereffects of war and occupation. Everything looked just a bit darker, dirtier, and less perfect. The shine of the 80’s had tarnished.
I can’t really say what Voyager or Enterprise were a reflection of, because it was hard to sit through either show.
My point? The new movie should reflect the times, both visually and in terms of storytelling. That’s not a new precedent for Star Trek. Everyone is getting their knickers twisted because this particular movie takes place in the past. Well…get over it. They never promised you a retro-60’s movie. They said they’d try to stay true to ‘canon’, but I strongly believe they meant that remark to apply to the story, and the characters established traits, not set design. It seemed – to me – to be a rather broad remark.
Let’s face it, we can excuse away all the inconsistencies with as many daft and corny explanations as we like, but the fact remains that the changes on the Klingon bridge from Trek III to Trek IV don’t make any sense. The doors aren’t even the same. Are you telling me the Vulcans decided to alter them for aesthetic purposes? Come on. The set changed because the fourth movie had different design folks than the third. Period. Hell, the entire Bird of Prey seemed to change sizes from III to IV!
I, for one, am glad that Abrams & crew recognize that Star Trek needs to be a reflection of what is, and what could be, rather than a reflection of what was.
#339… are you kidding me? The Andy Griffith show was set in the 50’s, not he 22nd century.
of course you aren’t going to change the cars if your show is set in the 50’s.
hardly surprising, but you you missed the point entirely…
Trek’s future is NOT our future. There were no Eugenics Wars in the 1990’s…no world war 3…no moon shot that Gary Seven jacked around with. It is a fictional universe with a fictional timeline. Spock’s history is in that fictional timeline/universe and it’s well established. Going back to the designs and “look” of Nimoy/Spock’s established history (since it IS Nimoy’s Spock who will be going back) created with new materials and modern constuction techniques is certainly expected IF it’s not a reboot.
But you seem to have a problem grasping the Mayberry comparrison. Try my “Speilberg/Star Wars” scenario, it’s just as applicable and maybe you can wrap your mind around that a bit easier.
Just because you or anyone else don’t like the look of sixties beehives or mini-skirts doesn’t erase them from the 60’s. If you were to time travel back to the 60’s they are still going to be there. You don’t HAVE to like bell bottoms and platform shoes from the 70’s…but ones dislike of the “look” doesn’t make it disapear.
It’s a matter of fact, that in Star Trek’s fictional universe, beehives and mini-skirts ARE the style of the 23rd century. You don’t have to like it, but that’s just the way it is.
BY THE BY –
Look how many entries are in this string. I’d say there’s as much passion about the look of the E as there is over whether a certain actor returns to a certain roll.
In any case, I continue to be psyched about this movie. Can’t wait to see the trailer in Cloverfield.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
# 363
Agreed, to one point. But for the exploration of the “human adventure” you don’t need exactly Star Trek. You could create the same themes in a series named “Starship Discovery” perhaps, with no relations to Star Trek. But Star Trek takes place in the Star Trek universe and that universe is the same since 1966. It not compares to our real universe, because we haven’t any euginc wars or Gary Sevens around. You would not use a today cruiser for WW-2 movie, or (actually Michael Bay did, but he did many wrong things in his movies) ?
And that’s why fans goinig angry about things like violating canon, changing set or ship designs. It seems, that this new things will not compare to the universe they know and admire (actually no one has seen anything, so no one could realy judge anything. That’s perhaps part of the problem).
Making a Star Trek movie, a good story is not enough.
According to traditional canon (live-action Paramount material) we only know what the 1701 bridge looked like for three years – and that’s if you accept that the three seasons of TOS represent as many as three years of the five-year mission. The ‘Star Trek Chronology’ asserts that TOS represented only two of those years.
Even before the advent of the 1701-A, the bridge changed several times (’The Cage’; TOS; TMP; STII + STIII). There are also the “missing” years that canon tells us nothing about. There is no canonical reason why the bridge in the new movie should not look different.
The story’s the thing, and we fans are past masters at retconning explanations for apparent inconistencies. Perhaps the forthcoming STXI bridge was an experimental configuration that was later abandoned..
I consider the look and feel of TOS-era trek as simply a fashion of the late 2260s. If that mirrors the fashions and trends of the 20th century, the early years of Kirk’s command could have happened during an era when the aesthetic was as different as the 1950s were to the 1960s. And as technology will be incredibly advanced, I say big changes are perfectly explainable.
i hope you’re right.
myself, i was just hoping for an updating of sets keeping the same basic shape, colr scheme, and feel but not so “cardboardy” in texture.
not as Draconian as the show ‘Enterprise” but not as sterile as TMP.
something in between that accents the COLORS and diamaters of the bridge, transporter room, sickbay, and monitors.
change the hallways and add more scope to parts of the ship we never saw.
and exterior has to be VERY similiar to the TOS ship. that is a definite..keep the design, but integrate a more modern detailing .
but i think the uniforms MUST be somewhat similar, at least colorwise and the enterprise insignia.
heck explain it all away with Spock uttering a throw away lineto himself about “borg technology descovered in the artic circle from the 22nd century”
oh… and i am not part of the writers guild, so the powers that be can use that line..
feel free to insert if needed.
LOL!!!
:)
What I’m really interested to see is the reaction on January 1, 2009… after this movie has been out for a week. If the reaction to this movie is along the lines of:
“Awsome movie… the actors and script really captured the hopefullness of the Trek universe. ETC…”
Will those that are “boycotting” the movie then decide to see it, even though the sets and ships may not be carbon-copy clones of the 1960’s originals?
Let’s be real here… we all know that if this movie is awsome, even the biggest canon-nazi’s here will go to see it. Because, with Trek, it is the stories and characters that draw you in. If Trek was popular because of the tech and sets, it would have faded into obscurity two decades ago when REAL technology began to surplant Trek’s vision of the future. What kept Trek so near and dear to us was the stories, the interactions of people with people; not people with machines.
So lets wait and see if the STORY delivers. If this movie gives us a great Trek story that captures the warmth and feel of classic Trek, then they can have Kirk, Spock, and McCoy on the bridge of the Nostromo for all I care. It is the story that I will carry with me, and not the eye candy.
After all… let’s not forget that in the “classic” vision of Trek, in Star Trek TWOK, we saw a high-tech, futuristic terminal in Kirk’s apartment that was CLEARLY a Commodore PET. The way some of you talk on here, you wouldn’t be happy unless we walk into Academy-era Kirk’s dorm room to find that he did all his assignments on a TRS-80…
#370
Honestly, I’d just as soon they not mention it, in any way. All that does is focus attention on it, and make the whole thing a bit silly. DS9 did a great job with the Klingon appearance with one classic line – ‘We do not speak about it’. Then Enterprise had to go overboard and come up with some kind of goofy explanation that seemed a wild waste of time.
But again, those were TV shows, and I think the movie should probably avoid the pitfall of calling visual incosistencies into question. Most casual moviegoers/fans will not really pay that much attention to the different looks, and it would only serve to magnify the changes. Believe me, fans will come up with ridiculous excuses for the changes either way :)
and my response in 370 were in response to jay in 361
sorry i opmited that
thanks
Canon schmanon! Star Trek is about the human adventure, not canon!
Even Roddenberry stated that, when making TNG, if it contradicted TOS, then so be it: every new generation should apply something different to the concept! No producer in his or her right mind would let 40 years of contradictory TV shows, movies, cartoons, comics and books strangle telling a good story!
And, as I said before, Leonard Nimoy is an extra-special guest actor appearing in a movie which stars Zachary Quinto as Spock. Old Spock comes from the Star Trek (2008) continuity, which respects what has come before, but is also doing its own thing!
373:
I think everyone would buy that if the changes were not to “klingon” in nature.
same round bridge.
same position ofcaptains chair and nav console in middle
same positioning of the workstations and viewcscreens around perimiter
just more savy in design an execution.
flowing viewscreens, not static pictures. cool big plush captains chair, not a boxy refigerator box.
more modern work consoles and stuff.
and change all the plastic waiting room chairs.
but keep the colors ( blacks, reds,and all). they would transfer well in HD.
373:
I think everyone would buy that if the changes were not to “klingon” in nature.
same round bridge.
same position ofcaptains chair and nav console in middle
same positioning of the workstations and viewcscreens around perimiter
just more savy in design an execution.
flowing viewscreens, not static pictures. cool big plush captains chair, not a boxy refigerator box.
more modern work consoles and stuff.
and change all the plastic waiting room chairs.
but keep the colors ( blacks, reds,and all). they would transfer well in HD.
It will be an altered timeline! The alterations begin during Kirk’s childhood and will lead to a slightly different Enterprise. Everybody able to read between the lines knows that. The only thing left from the clasic timeline Nimoy-Spock….so much for that…this is a fresh start…embrace it or leave it alone…it’s time for a reboot…Trek for a new generation.
ENT promised that it wasn’t our fathers’ Star Trek. This movie will finally deliver the goods! Nuff said…
378.
Yep! In a sense, this is a genuine example of a Star Trek: The Next Generation!! ;)
# 375
Again you’re wrong.
Roddenberry sets TNG 100 years after TOS, so he avoided to violating canon. Als long as his leadership lasted, TNG never violating anything, that happens in TOS. That was really clever. And Roddenberry was already a canon freak. He was becoming very angry, when they blow up the Big E in ST-III and made clear, that the Enterprise simply could have separated the saucer to defeat the Klingons. Perhaps that’s the reason why he show us the saucer separtion in TNG.
The fact we getting to see a young Spock, brings up the problem with the fitting of design in the era young Spock lived.
Finally you’re right with one thing. Telling the human adventure does not need Star Trek canon. But then, it’s not longer Star Trek, isn’t it?
This just makes me sick to read. Absolutely Sick. I know people have stated that the A went through various set changes, and tha’ts fine, just DON’T change it too much and make it not recognizable.
The whole this is suppossed to respect canan crap was just obviously to pull us old fans in and punch us in the face.
This is a reboot, if it wasn’t then low and behold…the Enterprise actually LOSES technology from Trek XI’s time period to the Original Series, so what…the Federation just decided ‘we have too much technology’, let’s go back 50 years to send the Enterprise out on it’s 5 year mission.
And if Kirk’s the captain right out of the academy, what about PIKE?
In DS9’s trials and tribbilations episode…Dax explained how she loved the old sleek nostalgic feel of that time period…
guess that’ll be gone soon.
If it’s a reboot, nut up and say…
This is A FREAKING REBOOT
There was something magical and unique about the original Star Trek. Something that none of the movies or spin-offs ever quite captured for me. Even TWOK, as much as I like that movie, has things about it that pull me out of the Trek experience. That’s not to say I’m a basher of any of the latter-day Trek. It was just…different.
I think many of us who set the three original seasons of Star Trek — good and bad episodes alike — on a special pedestal want to recapture whatever it was that made it so special to us. Among the continuity police and trivia hoarders like me, I think there’s a need to protect the gestalt; a fear that when you chip away at a piece here or a piece there, you’re going to wind up with something that isn’t Trek, or is less than the Trek we know can exist. While it may be good on its own terms (like the better episodes of TNG, for example), it won’t be that entity that somehow engaged our minds and fired our passions like those 79 hours of television we’ve enshrined.
I’m still hoping (hope being a desire that has a chance of actually happening) that given the mandate and talent that this project has, it will embrace the necessary ingredients to capture what was special about the original Star Trek.
Scott B. out.
Surely the redesign of the bridge means absolutely nothing, canon wise. This isn’t a story set DURING the Original Series; it’s a story set BEFORE it. By the looks of things several years before it.
Just sit in the theatre and think to yourself “Of course, we know that at some point they refit the bridge to what we saw in the old series…”
It’s exactly the same deal as with the uniforms. If the uniforms are different in the new movie all it means is that at some later point the uniforms were changed for the ones we remember.
This is absolutely not a big deal…
Vulcanista, thanks for the response. Always enjoy your posts. You have a sense of humor! Not all do.
Can we get this thread to 400 before it is closed? C’mon!
How nice would it be to have 1hr 50min of the alternate timeline/universe/reality with all the “wrong” “non-canon(that word!)” “green screen” sets and then have Spock fix everything, and end the film on the old colorful 1967 plywood bridge? Nice right?
189.
Dennis, I disagree..you’ve just essentially indicated that network television shows could never go to film and make money because they give them away for “free”. I think that’s exactly how Star Trek ended up on the big screen isn’t it? In fact, didn’t they “lose their shirts” on the initial run of the show?
My point was that the fan films on the internet have gained popularity and have a large audience. I don’t think the fact that it’s “free” means the product has no value. It also seems like a very good way to bring a new audience to the franchise…they have only their time invested. It isn’t 10 – 15 bucks plus their time.
I think the reason that episodes from the various trek shows that have flashbacks to the TOS era do so well in ratings is a desire to see more of that period.
I still have an open mind about how it’ll turn out, I just wonder if change for change sake is enough of a reason to do it.
People. People. Hear me, people. Let us not spaz.
Did anyone ACTUALLY expect a complete regurgitation of the entire 1966 bridge set?
I’m starting to wonder whether an entire cadre of fans watches Trek for reasons entirely different from mine. While I’ve been watching Star Trek for its intelligent writing, speculative dreaming and archetypal, warm, flawed, sexy, cranky, smart, yearning, courageous human characters, someone else has been watching it for the. . . props?
Trek is more than its stupid winking bridge lights. It’s more than Shatner and Nimoy. It’s the characters and the principles that motivate them.
Can we not agree on this? Or am I in the minority?
380. CaptainRickover
I’ll assume your lack of manners is an oversight on account of English obviously not being your first language! ;)
Roddenberry ***did*** apply a revisionist view to TNG, just as he did in TMP. Let’s face it: does anyone really believe technology changed ***that*** much between TOS and TMP?
Whatever is currently being made is canon. The rest is backstory for reference. If you get precious about the backstory and what shade the bridge rail is painted, you strangle any kind of innovation!
The way you’re approaching this, Shakespeare should only be performed in a Tudor-period theatre with duplicate sets and actors who are made up to look exactly like the originals. Frankly, that’s a bit creepy!
Equally disturbing is the fanaticism people are demonstrating towards piffling small details.
The Enterprise, in TOS, is the most advanced ship in Starfleet. By that rationale, for a new movie, it needs to look more advanced than any of the ships seen before in past Treks. The new film is current Trek. TNG, DS9 and their pals are the past. If Star Trek is to be renewed, it has to be based on the real world in the present day.
This is a film about the future, not the past!
# 383
You’re right. And I really hope, that you’re right. Different costumes and different bridge or corridor design could be explained easy. But what with a bridge, so huge, that it never would have fitted in the TOS-Enterprise bridge dome? Or an Enterprise, big as a Galaxy-class Starship, that should later become the smaller Big E of TOS?
That’s the things, I’m concerend and I hope, they’ll make it right. But I’m pessimistic.
#378 “It will be an altered timeline! The alterations begin during Kirk’s childhood and will lead to a slightly different Enterprise. Everybody able to read between the lines knows that. The only thing left from the clasic timeline Nimoy-Spock….so much for that…this is a fresh start…”
Now that is something I can get behind…an altered timeline where TNG and all the other spin-offs never happen! I’ll trade some 60’s aesthetics for that! lol
When you think about how much technology has advanced in the last 40 years (since SOT went off the air) it simply boggles the mind. I don’t think anyone can even imagine what will take place in the next 300 years. In reality, space exploration probably won’t require a ship, they’ll just beam people to where they’re going. Or perhaps, all anyone might have to do is “think it.”
386. Trek Nerd Central
Well put.
Ditto!
It’s a pity the ST books didn’t exist in the first place.
A reboot would be much easier to understand.
Some of the references about ST episodes are not relevant as they compare like for like.
In the end it will be a success or failure. Planet of the Apes or Casino Royale.
is shatner in the film? i thought maybe shatner would be in the film. does anyone have an opinion on whether or not shatner should be in the film?
#385: ” I don’t think the fact that it’s “free” means the product has no value. ”
I didn’t say “no value.” Simply put, the audiences who are watching fan films for free are not as huge as people like to imagine, and that if we were actually charging for the product the numbers would *inevitably* be considerably reduced. The audience would become considerably more demanding, as well.
The popularity of free fan films does not demonstrate a commercial market for a theatrical version of “Star Trek” that is faithful in all visual and story respects to TOS (or TNG, or DS9 etc) sufficient to make it worth Paramount’s while to invest big money in reviving Trek.
#386
You are not in the minority. That was well said, and I hope that is what is kept for the new movie.
..pushing 400 posts on speculation.
Just wait till the teaser hits.
10 days and counting… Anthony, better ramp up the servers!
What about the curtins?
As long as the Enterprise looks like the Enterprise (on the outside), i’ll be happy with any bridge as long as it’s at least remotely similar in it’s layout (captain’s chair, helmsman in front of the captain (as every enterprise has had the helmsman in front of the captain) Anyway, like I’ve read in here somewhere, it’s earlier in the timeline, it could fit canon with maybe they changed the bridge after Pike left, Kirk didn’t like it, so after a while they changed it back to the old design with the some updates…who knows? maybe the bridge gets destroyed and has to be rebuilt, whatever, just do a good job on the new bridge and keep the characters close to the originals…
# 387
In your first point, you’re right. :)
And I appolgize for my lack of manners. I had no intention to insult anyone.
In the second ponit, you’re right too. Roddenberry bring up advancements for TMP and later for TNG, because it take’s place AFTER TOS. Look to our world, how fast technology changes. I would have no problem with new designs, bridges, ships or phasers, when the new movie will take place 10 or 20 years after NEM. Actually, I would prefer such a movie and I would love to see something from the 25th century.
And you’re right, if you mean with your last words, that the new Star Trek is named Star Trek, but the story takes not place in the current Star Trek universe. If it’s a new Star Trek universe (perhaps Universe II or B, as some other posters mentioned), than JJ could do what he wants. No problem with that.
But that will not the Star Trek universe I admire. I stay to the existing one, even if it’s doomed.
#388: One thing to consider is that the set designer said that, as far as he knew, the Enterprise exterior was “the same”. Now, one person’s “same” isn’t going to be the next person’s – but I’d be very surprised if it doesn’t mean that the bridge dome will be intact – meaning the new bridge will need to fit into the same space as the old one, more or less.
Hmmm . . . 400 post which are basically spilt between those of us who are positive and want to be surprised and the other lot who are warming up their Inquisition pokers for the new films perceived ‘heresies!’
Bill Shatner said it best: ‘Get a life!’
Did anyone mention that it would actually VIOLATE your bloody canon if they used the sets we saw every week on TOS? The sets changed drastically between ‘The Cage’ and ‘WNMHGB’ and finally towards what we saw from 1967 and on. No bright colors, no red rails, no useless screens. IMO, they can use whatever they want.
400 comments OH MY GOD.
As long as it has the captain’s chair, the helm and navigation and also the communication and science station and the exterior looks like the ENTERPRISE then they can do what they want.
In a nut shell… the passions expressed here is EXACTLY why there is even a discussion in the first place. If not for those of us “to get a life” then there would be no need for any to say it would there?
Those making this moving simply do not “get it” either.
To 345 and other like-minded folk; you will NOT see the film if they change the interior design? Wow, uhm, so you don’t think ST-TMP should’ve refit the original 1701, then, I take it? And just curious, WHO is MAKING you see this movie, anyway? Hey, I love classic Trek as well. No one is obliterating it. This is a new interpretation for a new (and hopefully some of the old) audience. Think of it as a cover version of a favorite song; many are terrible, but some surprise you. Approach it with an open mind. If it takes a few (or even many) liberties with the ship’s “sacred” blueprints….who gives a damn (besides you)? My concern is, will it capture the important themes of Star Trek? A united earth, overcoming primitive impulses for a better future, etc. THAT’s the Trek I want to see, and in these troubled times, a shot of optimism will do nicely. Who truly cares if the producers put a blinking widget in the wrong place? Grow the hell up, as Shatner in SNL might say.
#397.
You mean Jane? She’s not in the cast. No coneheads in sight.
I didn’t read this whole discussion, but I just have to say this:
I welcome changes to the sets, ship and…dare I say it…canon. After so many years and so many mediocre episodes (Berman / Braga) of Star Trek, the franchise needs a reboot.
I’m excited about what JJ / Orci / Kurtzman, etc. are doing and I’m confident that this new Trek will rock. Old Trek does, and will always, have a fond place in my heart, but it’s time to move forward or let the franchise die. I don’t want that to happen.
Beehives, miniskirts and jackboots. Let’s all hope that Amy WInehouse can clean up long enough for a small role!
It’s partly our own fault that Trek is in the shape it’s in these days. The fan base has had too much to say in this modern age of ‘everyone with a computer knows best’. The original series was great because they were left to chart their own course, Next Generation was much the same. This self entitlement that the fan base feels is ridiculous. I was guilty of it at one time myself, but I’ve let it go. I want to see what will come of ‘young minds, fresh ideas’.
#381-your comments are an ABSOLUTE GRAND SLAM!!!! Right on target
!
I want it to have a pool with a jacuzzi and a steamroom.Wait ,isn’t this Priceline.com?
let’s all take a step back and gain some perspective. No where in the article does the set designer mention ANY drastic changes.
We should take her comments with a grain of salt. She may (as many do) have a very stereotyped view of what a “hardcore” fan is and what they (we) might expect. Therefore, when she says hardcore fans may be freaked out…she just maybe refering to a few misplace buttons, viewers, and instruments. Maybe they’re not even misplaced. maybe theyre in the same place and perform similar functions to what we’re used to…but they just look different. (refelctive of 2008 and the big budget) We think she talking about a crazy new look…she may simply being saying that nit-pickers will be very busy! i for one dont think a missing knob or miscolored blinker is grounds for not seeing this film.
So maybe thats the kind of stuff that our now famous set designer is talking about. She doesnt say ANYTHING about a major overhaul!
consider that.
#380 – Actually… TNG had multiple contradictions with TOS under Roddenberry’s leadership. By the late ’80s, Roddenberry’s unfamiliarity with Trek trivia was well-known, and early TNG certainly exemplified that.
#381 -
“This is a reboot, if it wasn’t then low and behold…the Enterprise actually LOSES technology from Trek XI’s time period to the Original Series, so what…the Federation just decided ‘we have too much technology’, let’s go back 50 years to send the Enterprise out on it’s 5 year mission.”
I don’t think it’s a question of having or losing technology. It’s merely a matter of how the technology is portrayed. The 1701 is clearly a vastly more advanced vessel than the NX-01, for example, but people sometimes think that the NX-01 “looks more advanced”, though I think it has more to do with the audience expectations than anything they actually said on-screen.
“And if Kirk’s the captain right out of the academy, what about PIKE?”
Supposedly we see Pike in command of the Enterprise during part of the film. I might be off-base, but I got the sense that Kirk and Co. on the Enterprise as we saw in TOS is the conclusion of this film. Spock, OTOH, will be on Enterprise with Pike, and of course there’s the as-yet-unidentified “Federation captain” somewhere in all this, too (maybe Garrovick?).
“In DS9’s trials and tribbilations episode…Dax explained how she loved the old sleek nostalgic feel of that time period…”
Yeah, that was a neat tip-o’-the-hat. But it was easier in that ep and “In a Mirror darkly” to do very close representations of the original sets, since it was being played for nostalgia to an audience that by then consisted of what was assumed to be very hardcore Trek fans.
Still and all, I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that we’re talking about anything other than a revisualization of Trek, not a reboot in the sense of throwing out events, characterizations, etc.
#386 – “Did anyone ACTUALLY expect a complete regurgitation of the entire 1966 bridge set?”
I’d have to imagine not, but I think we hope that it will at least look a bit like it, with some modern flash to acknowledge the audience’s tastes of today. (See my comments up-thread on some suggestions.)
#402 – “The sets changed drastically between ‘The Cage’ and ‘WNMHGB’ and finally towards what we saw from 1967 and on. No bright colors, no red rails, no useless screens.”
Leaving aside the pejorative “useless” ;) , my reaction to the rest is “just so”. There’s quite a bit of room for flexibility.
For all we know… if bridge modules can be replaced… there could even have been a fully transparent bridge module with an entirely different configuration at some point during Pike’s command. Those nacelle tips coud have been there for a couple of weeks as part of some experiment. Not having it there in a prequel to the cage doesn’t violate canon. Things can be installed, removed, then reinstalled.
I figure that’s what they mean about having an open mind.
If they want to use modern materials that look better on the big screen that is fine with me. If they want to update the screens to look digital, becasue they will obviously have digital screens in the future that they didn’t have in the 1960’s, that’s fine with me too. What I will not accept is a radical design change for a bridge that what already established “in the past”, meticulously recreated in the episode “Relics”, in the episode “In a Mirror Darkly” and in the DS9 episode that went back to the Tribbles. All of a sudden, all those people’s memories in those shows were wrong? Everything that we have seen for the last 40 years….a hallucination? I will repeat..if they want to update a bridge for the NCC-1701 -F, be my guest. But this movie has to be treated like a documentary. I would love to see new filming techniques, like those used in the new Battlestar Galactica. Give the show more excitement and more of an ‘edge’. I will ‘not go see the movie’ if they do this or do that, I’m a die-hard Trekker. I am also hoping beyond hope they don’t screw this up and I’m keeping an open mind until I see it. I love the fact they got Nimoy in this movie. Bruce Greenwood is also a fantastic actor and a great choice for Pike.
I think the best thing to do is for Trek 11 to establish a “new” Trek universe by showing that the “original” is the wrong one. Follow me here: Trek started in the 1960s, so they used the 1990s as “the future” since they didn’t expect the show to still matter by the 1990s. So, the Trek universe we all love–the “original” timeline–exists in a universe where the late 20th century saw the Eugenics Wars and interstellar spacecraft (Botany Bay, lost in space since 1996); clearly, this is not OUR universe, since those things didn’t happen.
Thus, Trek’s “original” timeline is no longer our possible future.
Thus, it’s wrong…because Trek was intended to be a fictional extrapolation of how our future in space might develop.
So, Abrams and crew can have Old Spock and Young Spock work together to reset the timeline to “reality”–that is, bring Trek back to being based on our timeline, not the 40-year-old Trek reality. And in this new, corrected timeline, technology will have developed differently, and thus, will look different than classic Trek. In the new timeline, there were no Eugenics Wars or interstellar craft in the 1990s, so human technological development is on a different path.
That would explain the “reboot but stay the same” idea, the new look that is fundamentally different but still considered the same canon, and the angle that would give Trek a fresh start–a true re-envisioning of Trek with 2008 as the springboard instead of 1964.
(At any rate, I’m helping this thread climb to 500 posts…)
The exterior has to be the same or very close. The inside of the ship is another story. I wouldn’t mind an updated take on the bridge etc…
At least make it so the technology of “Star Trek” isn’t more low tech than that of the past “Enterprise”. No paper cut outs for small computer view screens. They should be able to do a lot of justice to the bridge etc with todays technology.
The set has never really changed though, all those pictures at the top are clearly the Enterprise bridge, the Motion Picture bridge always seeming the less obvious one because they lit it so darkly.
I think they can change a whole bunch of things and still keep it looking like the most copied room in all of IT Operations. There is almost no problem with canon as all this happens at a time which we’ve not seen, and Kirk may well have got the decorators in just before weighing anchor for the 5 Year Mission.
(”Hey Spock, who ordered the orange bridge rail ferrkrissakes?”)
Doesn’t bother me in the slightest.
The is ONE THING that they MUST NOT DO!
NO SEATBELTS!!!!! YOU HEAR ME???? THAT will be a step tooooo far.
(Am also giddy as a schoolgirl that they’re keeping the exterior ‘the same’ more or less).
Just. Can’t. Wait.
Some things are just sacred and need to be honored. Just to change things on a whim to appease the masses sacrifices the integrity of what made it great to begin with. I am not against the premise of this movie, I LOVE the fact Abrams is going back to the TOS era, it is my favorite of all of them. I think the new actors are going to be great and I don’t think the “chanegs” they are going to make are going to be that drastic. What I am against is, for example, making Sulu a hip hop artist in his spare time to “gather” more young people to become Star Trek fans.
Kidding aside.Mr Brown made a very intelligent point about how set builders/designers/ decorators craft is being lost to the CGI trend.There’s alot to be said there based on that observation.For one…Just think of all the talented people who have done set work in the past and how now gradious trek-like pictures are reliant on a limited number of people who can do CGI sets with a greater and lesser degree of talent.To find people who have a combination of that talent and knowledge must be a challenge.Sounds like a new field developing.New academy award category anyone?
I can’t decide who is worse:
those who don’t even want that button on the far right of the console changed or they will boycott the movie,
or the “accept drastic change or die!!!” Nazis.
The TOS bridge was a 23rd century starship bridge as intrpreted through Matt Jeffrie’s artistic sensiblities and a 1960’s television budget. The TMP bridge was reinterpeted through Robert Wise’s artistic sensibilities (the color scheme should be more neutral), and reinterpreted again for WOK by Nicholas Meyer’s sensibilities (everything should look more military). It shouldn’t be a surprise or disappointment that it won’t be reinterpreted again by JJ’s sensibilities.
Still, to those who say not to give an opinion without looking at the final product, hey, isn’t that what part of the fun of going to a website like this is all about. Personally, I liked the black console and colored 3-dimensional buttons of the TOS bridge, as well as the musical sound effects — but I prefer the look of the mnitor screens from TNG. We all have different likes and dislikes about the various bridge interpretations.
Oh, and to those who ask why Paramount isn’t showing us bridge designs yet — lots of “news” like that is saved to be given to particular magazines or websites in exchange for feature coverage, and released according to a planned schedule to build interest towards the movie release. It isn’t just distributed willy-nilly as soon as it becomes available.
Wait for the teaser trailer, That will be our first glimpse at all this speculation. Start your judgement calls once you have seen the trailer.
Not much to talk about here folks.. duh they’re going to give’er an overhaul and more power to em!!! Maybe this will be the one Enterprise to rule them all!! This is my fav all time sci-fi ship and I can’t waith to see her in action again.. The interior? Bah.. as long as those nacelles are where they are supposed to be..
CW .Very funny.Where were all these people (Trekofacists?)when Pararmount was doing all those watered down original Trek spin-offs?
Yup. Really would be fine with updated bridge as long as it has the same layout.
Would really be fine with Enterprise exterior if it had no changes at all or only minor changes. If they use the Enterprise from TMP I’m OK with that too. It still looks like the future to me.
But if they have “major” changes…why bother calling it Star Trek? Wouldn’t it just be like Galaxy Quest if they change everything? Maybe call it Galaxy Quest 2 if they think they need that many changes.
It’s a design issue.
Yes we have to wait a see…and we will all go see it. But it’s easy enough to get it right the first time. It’s just a simple fact that even if you are trying to draw in those people that are new to Trek, you can that without “major” changes to the equipment.
This reminds me so much of the Disneyland issue I often face with myself. When I took my kids for the first time in the late 90’s, I was content to show them all the things I grew up with—I totally didn’t need any new changes to the park—and neither did the kids. The Swiss Family Tree House would be just fine for them…they didn’t need it re-branded as a Tarzan tree.
From an art direction POV, if all they did was update the uniforms from ‘The Cage’, update the panels on the ship (but keep the same bridge layout) and then gently simplify the Enterprise exterior, “newbies” really wouldn’t care. They’re there for the story and coolness factor. The largest percentage of the viewers are existing Star Trek fans…isn’t it best to just error on the fan side?
Here’s to hoping for the best!
-D
#386 – Well said. You took the words right out of my mouth. Rodenberry’s vision was about the characters and the human adventure. The physical aspects of ST are merely there to help tell the story of this adventure. GR maybe had a simple vision of what things should look like so the story could be told, but the specifics were left to the designers. For example, the basic design of the E is a saucer, secondary hull, and two nacelles. What each of these ultimately looks like is up to the artists pending approval for aesthetics. Bottom line, the story is what is important here, and not so much the physical things. Basic designs should be cannon and specifics should not.
Also, IMHO, actors are not 100% cannon either.
#256:
“233. Dennis Bailey
‘Except, of course, that it’s utterly failed to do anything other than lose audience for nearly fifteen years.’
That’s one example of your love for Trek Dennis…”
It’s nice to have a love for facts, don’t you think? We were specifically discussing the commercial potential of traditional “Star Trek,” and you can’t dispute that what I said is true.
Fandom that insists upon turning a blind eye to the truth is a *bad* thing.
#407. I’m with you. The last thing I want is to watch the franchise moulder.
I’d rather see it reinvigorated — keeping the important elements intact (characters, for instance).
I also wanted to add that I liked Dom’s earlier analogy to Shakespeare. Good literature in any genre not only survives interpretation — it thrives as a result.
And yeah, good TV can be literature. It’s theater, sure, but it’s also epic storytelling in the oral tradition. And in that tradition, each new teller brings something to the tale.
#410: Thank you sir.
the ship needs to be bigger.Like Excelsior size.If each (400)crewmemeber has a stateroom.By the way,do I get to bring my ‘Hello Kitty’ bedsheets if become a crew member?
#415:”Everything that we have seen for the last 40 years….a hallucination?”
Nope. Bunch of tv shows and movies.
#33 I AGREE! Enterprise SHOULD have been set 10 to 15 years AFTER TOS. I too want The Big E to look the same inside and out. I’m all for the movie, but I want to see sets and plot points that have the sense and feel of MY STAR TREK–TOS ! Is that to much to ask? The only problem with Star Trek Movies has been the lack of an interesting story. EXCLUDING 1st Contact,— Generations, No Erection, Nemesis all very sad attempts. They should have made an original cast movie after ST VI. Truly a lost opportunity. SAD.
I’m reading way too many imperatives here!
The filmmakers MUST do something! They CAN NOT change anything.
Well tough! The filmmakers can do what ever they want! That’s why they’re the filmmakers and we’re on a discussion forum!
Roberto Orci is kind enough to chat to us here, but, at the end of the day, the studio has trusted these guys to make a big movie that will massively increase the fanbase, which will make the studio lots of money!
Knowing the work of this team from other shows and films, I’m completely enthused. I want to see something new done with Star Trek, its concept and characters. Star Trek isn’t a religious text: it’s a modern franchise.
If it helps for people to think of this as an alternate universe or some such, then do so. The filmmakers will presume you have enough imagination to work your own way around any inconsistencies. Why does everything have to be spelt out in yawnsome detail on the big screen: have fun discussing why such and such happens!!!
I wonder what will happen when Trek novels start coming out with Pine, Quinto and Urban on the cover? Screams of heresy over which cast should appear on them?!!!
Interesting.
There was talk way back (in the mid 70s) when there was to be a “Star Trek: Phase II” of using miniature sets utilizing the then new and innovative “Magicam.” 35 years later, technology has leaped bounds beyond that. I don’t expect the new sets to be exact duplicates of the 1960s sets, that would be insulting. Visually the big screen’s dimension demand differences compared to that little square box sitting in our living rooms (at least the ones that we had when “Star Trek” first aired).
Aside from the humanity and diversity that TREK has always embraced, it always has exemplified the best of technology (treknology?) as well. And why shouldn’t it? If a spaceship like the Enterprise is ever to exist, it must have the best, the most reliable technology available–it’s not like the crew could ever turn to the local hardware store if something ever breaks. The new sets will surely recognize the best of our current thinking–just like it did in the 1960s.
I’m excited by all of these devleopments as long as they get the plot, philosophy and characterization right!
We are such “Trek dweebs” –and I mean that in the most affectionate of terms. I mean, 350+ posts discussing what the sets will/should/could/ should not look like.
And yet, 99% of you will see it.
And if I hear one groan about ANYTHING during the movie, you will wear my Coke and popcorn.
You may fill in your clipboarded checklists of canon and non-canon infractions after the closing credits and place them in the large circular file holder on your way out of the theater.
#436 – Comic Book Guy – “Worst movie EVER!” :)
I just hope they have more imagination than to make it look like the CIC of an aircraft carrier. Also, there’s no point in redesigning a fork, either.
Boy, this must be the most intense subject yet! I have not had time to read over 400 posts, so I may be repeating others – but I for one would be excited to see some up-dates to the Enterprise as long as the overall design was consistent.
I have been more infactuated with the ships of Star Trek then the characters because of the technology and they offer their best prediction for the future of things they could in the 60’s. We have exceeded a lot of that technology now in terms of view screens, personal communications, input devices, even computers for that matter. I think it would be appropriate to make the Enterprise consistent with what the actual technology might be. They can still have a main view screen, captain’s chair, stations surrounding the bridge and navigation and helm control in front of the captain. If it was built today, I would think it would be a lot sleeker looking.
Interesting that she says the exterior will stay the same. If so, did Cawley see an aborted design or did he perhaps see interior designs? In any case, if it’s true, it’s a major victory – even if they did renovate the interior. One Aint it Cool reviewer mentioned how you see a lot of expansive areas the ships interior. I wonder if these are the virtual sets she’s talking about.
The best news is that I’ve got advance tickets to see Cloverfield on Tuesday, so hopefully I’ll be among the first mere mortals to see the return of Big E.
#440
I don’t believe James Cawley ever saw any design associated with this movie. Primarily for the same reason no one at AICN saw the design – this is one the most tightly-sealed productions I’ve ever seen. Why, exactly, would anyone associated with this production slip some dude that makes fan films one of the most closely guarded secrets associated with the movie?
Like I said, minor logical changes accepted, anything beyond that and then call it what it is, a Reboot, and not honoring canon. If they make drastic changes (which I don’t think they will) then they will have to explain it in the storyline or else it is a Reboot.
Oh, the idea of an alterinate timeline and starting over is the lamest idea I ever heard. Let’s throw away 40 years of 5 tv series and 10 movies and spit in the faces of all the artists that worked on them. It would make them meaningless.
Yes, James Cawley saw an Enterprise design from this movie.
He’s not the only one who has, and one can compare descriptions to determine that people have seen the same thing.
“The exterior will remain the same” doesn’t necessarily mean what some people think it means – any more than “respect for canon” ever meant the literal recreation of TOS that some people seemed to think.
Poll shows fans want updates, but nothing drastic (84%). As for canon, I still think the film makers are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. Change the Enterprise around, fine, but won’t go out on a limb to bring old Kirk back?
Nothing they’ve said thus far seems contradictory or confused.
#443
Not that I’m saying you’re wrong, Dennis. But how can you explain the fact that the descriptions vary greatly? I haven’t heard anyone describe the same thing twice.
Again, I don’t think they are really going to make drastic changes. She said the exterior is remaining the same, as it should. Perhaps Cawley saw the precursor to the Constitution class or perhaps a later version, we won’t know til the movie hits the screens. Also, just look at the teaser poster, a gold and blue uniform material with the original insignia. I think that tells us a lot right there. When she said the ‘hardcore Trekkers will freak out’. I don’t know what that means. If she’s implying that hardcore Trekkers will be looking at every minute detail down to every button, then yes they would freak out. But I am a hardcore Trekker and I am open minded to minor “updates” to the original’s interior, such as newer materials, button changes, digital plasma screens. Such changes would be “logical”, considering it’s a future ship and therefore should be outfitted with future technology. I am hoping against hope they don’t make it look like a cluttered, darkly lit submarine as seen in the movies. One exception was from the final shot in ST: IV, they showed the crew on the bridge of the NCC-1701-A and it looked beautiful, well lit, clean and sleak, not cluttered. Too bad they departed from that image in the next movies. Even the Enterprise D was well-lit and sleek, not cluttered.
Changing the classic 1701 bridge, one that has been established for over 40 years is taking all canon and spitting upon it!
To change the original design is to say TOS is invalid & all 79 episodes are to be wiped clean from Trek history. What’s next? Brainwashing us into forgetting the original cast?
#448
Yeah, they’re actually going to pull us into ‘re-education camps’ where our memories will be wiped clean of all previous Trek incarnations. Word on the street is, they may deliberately give us a touch of ‘the gay’ while they’re at it!
Apparently, Paramount is saving a buck on the CGI Enterprise exterior.
http://thumbs2.modthesims2.com/images7/MTS2_259529_Duds_NCC-1701-A_Enterprise.jpg
I do like that The Guardian of Forever is now conveniently located by the side of I-85.
On reflection and glancing over the latest posts here one thing struck me personally…
All of us mostly know ST from the beginning. TOS is cherished and because of that reverence by the old farts like me it was our fandom that allowed you young’ins to even be having this discussion. So on my reflection and perhaps for others what hits a raw nerve on this whole production is this…
We’ve seen TOS. We’ve seen them all. I WANT SOMETHING FRESH, NOT SOMETHING REVISITED. I know who Kirk is, I know Spock. I know it was what these characters did that gave the name Enterprise it’s lore… not just the bloody name of the ship that is held in esteem.
I feel cheated, and personally I was hoping we would get something new. :(
I’ve said it before, there is no point in them trying to tell us the film does not contradict canon in its plot or characters and then also deciding canon does not have to be adhered to in sets and designs. The ship is iconic for heaven’s sake…
Either reboot it *completely* or do something that can fit in the established canon that stretches from TOS to VGR. Don’t fudge it and mess us around by nitpicking character bios but having Kirk wear a red jumpsuit, sit in an egg chair and have a bridge that’s the size of football field. That’s just insulting.
I am more and more thinking the only way I am gonna get through watching the finished movie is to, from the outset, tell myself – “it’s not canon, so just treat it like a really high-budget fan film and try to enjoy it like that”.
these are nifty times, methinks.
we have all the trek that’s come before to love or hate, we have exeter and new voyages for pure retro fandom, we have a fresh start on the new film, we have the internet to expose our neurotic personality disorders, we have orci as a window into our aspirations and fears and we have anthony to keep us honest.
personally i dig the idea of updates and design creativity, and i think most of the canonazi don’t-touch-my-enterprise freaks are the type who would rent a holodeck and program it so they could be angry and alone in the basement anyway.
BTW, one appreciates dennis bailey’s clear eye and measured point of view. couldn’t agree with him more on all points.
Wow over 400 posts. This is a good talk back. Are you guys on the New Star Trek movie reading these? Is everything going to be CG? I was hoping for a combo. You know half models and half CG. The problem is the weight issue. The CG models in the lastest Star Wars movies looked flat and looked like inflated balloons to me. The director Jan Farveau of Zathura used a combo method with models and CGI.
It worked well with the weight look of the spaceships in this movie. I hope JJ Abrams uses something like this. If you do use CG, I guess you could make two versions of the movie. One with your new super improved Enterprise and one with the classic design.
Some want to see the original bridge
Others want Klingons without the ridge
For some fans this is all moot
Whether it’s a remake or reboot
I want Spock’s ears pointier, just a smidge!
If the internet had been available to us– and blogs like this one, in 1978, we would have been having these same discussions about the upcoming (then) “Star Trek-The Motion Picture!”
I am sure there were fans that were saying they’d have boycotted the first film because it had leap-frogged past the original series. And yet all that film’s shortcomings aside (actually, ST:TMP is still amongst my favorites of the films), that movie helped re-establish a future for “Star Trek.”
Here we are another 30 years (eek!) later and it’s time for the series to take another bold jump if the franchise is to flourish. And it will! Not to discount other series, but do we have such discussions about “Lost in Space, Logan’s Run” or “Babylon 5?” Hardly. I am not sure why , but TREK has come to hold a place in our culture unlike any other sci-fi series (that would be a worthy topic for another blog entirely).
I, for one, cannot wait to see what the future holds for “Star Trek!” Live long and prosper!
#453: Thanks, man. :)
You know, I wish that Shatner had some remark to make about this. A combination of a Shat video and “rebooted starship design” would be enough to push this topic over 1000 posts for sure!
#453 “fresh start” How do you figure? It’s the Enterprise, Kirk and the gang… what’s fresh in that? It was done before and done well enough to endure and spawn all that has transpired… to date. There is nothing fresh or original in what is being done. An original thought would burst capillaries in these people. It’s all spin on what has come before.
There is simply no rational argument that can counter this fact on this project. It’s Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise… how can anyone deny it? Not one truly creative thing about it. It’s parasitic.
“I feel cheated, and personally I was hoping we would get something new.’
You are getting something “fresh and new” there’s no sell by date on characters and always room to learn more about them – otherwise Pocket Books wouldn’t be churning out Trek books.
“Moving ahead in the timeline” doesn’t equal original thinking either, simply throwing a “new crew” together sometime after the Dominion War is actually less creative then this effort in my opinion.
I can only speak for myself, but as a Trekker for 36 years, I have supported this wonderful adventure created by Gene Roddenberry with my Nielsen ratings watching all the shows, my money going to movies, buying merchandise, attending conventions, etc. If I don’t make my feelings known then I am only cheating myself and if you don’t like what I have to say then you are not a true fan. Casual fans can check out by clicking on “Exit”.
I don’t think anyone ever said they HAVE to change NOTHING or they MUST change EVERYTHING. I think Abrams opened up this can of worms when he decided to do a Trek movie in the TOS era and said he was “honoring canon”, and I applaud him for it. He recognizes the TOS characters are the best.
Also, don’t think there will be drastic changes based on what Bruce Greenwood was quoted on seeing the new costumes. He said they had a very ’60’s look to them. Also, knowing the exterior of the E isn’t being changed. Logically, everything else then in the movie will have a retro ’60’s feel to it or else it will look out of place. I am not worried. I have faith in Abrams and can’t wait to see the new movie.
So according to you cannon freaks, was everything after “The Cage” a violation of cannon b/c the sets were changed? The sets changed from one movie to the next, this is not a big deal.
#416 – “Thus, Trek’s “original” timeline is no longer our possible future.
Thus, it’s wrong…because Trek was intended to be a fictional extrapolation of how our future in space might develop.”
Actually, that’s incorrect. Star Trek was never intended to be a realistic extrapolation of our future. It was a take of essentially modern day people against the backdrop of a future world that could be used as a storytelling construct to comment on modern society and issues.
Over time, it’s built up to be a generally-consistent fictional universe that might be looked at as an idealized future for us, but isn’t necessarily a projection of our own future. So, no, doing some [ptui!] reboot to change that for the sake of changing it isn’t the way to go.
#446 – Actually, I gotta agree with Dennis on this one. I think what we’re seeing is a phenomenon akin to the blind men and the elephant. We’re trying to extrapolate from bits and pieces, but none of the bits and pieces have really contradicted each other. Based on the various accounts so far, I’m expecting a ship of essentially the same overall configuration, though with (obviously) a lot more surface detail and a metallic, engineered outer hull reminiscent of the NX-01.
Am I right? Who knows? But I guess we may see soon. ;)
[“fresh start” How do you figure? It’s the Enterprise, Kirk and the gang… what’s fresh in that? ]
Well we’ll find out won’t we – Paramount certainly saw something there. Characters good characters can always be given a fresh look and exploration.
[There is simply no rational argument that can counter this fact on this project. It’s Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise… how can anyone deny it? Not one truly creative thing about it. It’s parasitic.]
Ah the old Abrams didn’t create them bit – sorry doesn’t fly.
The rational argument is simple there director and writers here think they have an interesting story to tell – Nimoy sure thinks it was interesting since it got him acting again. Creativity is in the execution.
455. Harry Ballz – January 9, 2008
Some want to see the original bridge
Others want Klingons without the ridge
For some fans this is all moot
Whether it’s a remake or reboot
I want Spock’s ears pointier, just a smidge!
Yeah we needed a little levity.
#416 – “Thus, Trek’s “original” timeline is no longer our possible future.
ACKKKKKKKKKKKKK!
Trek isn’t a glimpse into our future, its a work of fiction can we move past this childish notion please. GR didn’t have a divine vision bestowing him a prophecy of the future – he wanted to sell tv shows hopefully become famous and make alot of money doing so…
Face it, folks; this is not Rodenberry’s Trek. It’s not Berman’s Trek, or even Cawley’s Trek. This is Abram’s Trek.
If Nimoy wasn’t behind it I’d be worried. He is, so I’m not.
From what we’ve heard so far, I think it’s easy to reach the following conclusions:
1. “Respect for Canon” = Trek Canon being used as a springboard for ideas, not a straightjacket which is slapped around the writers.
2. The Enterprise will resemble the original design superficially enough to be recognized, but will be different enough to surprising and compelling to new audiences.
3. The interior set designs will bear no real resemblance to what came before.
4. Expect a busy script.
5. Call it re-imagining if you want, but it looks to be a re-boot.
And I’m okay with that.
If I want to watch classic Trek, I’ll watch my DVDs.
If I want to see the classic Enterprise, I’ll look at any of my 3D renders or models.
This movie isn’t taking anything away from those things. This is just someone else taking a stab at a universe that Gene Coon, Matt Jefferies, and Gene Rodenberry created for TV over forty years ago.
That’s not a horrible thing.
All I ask for in December of this year is to be entertained by a compelling and clever movie. If that movie comes with a greeble-heavy Enterprise and a universe that feels familiar rather than “homey”, so be it.
Just my take.
For the first time in forever….. I really do not have an opinion either way. Am i the first Star Trek fan to ever say that lol
#460: ” If I don’t make my feelings known then I am only cheating myself and if you don’t like what I have to say then you are not a true fan.”
So, folks who disagree with you aren’t “true fans?”
That might bother me more if it weren’t just one person’s *opinion* that I can dismiss without consequence.
“Casual fans can check out by clicking on “Exit”.”
Well, those of us who are looking forward to this movie won’t be the ones hitting the exits here. :)
You guys with the acronyms are killing me. I’m assuming that LIS stands for the Lost In Space movie with William Hurt? If that’s the case, how in the world can you compare the effort or lack of effort in that movie to the new Star Trek film being done as we speak?
Keep in mind that Lost In Space, as iconic a show as it is, never had the following that Star Trek has had, and that remake film probably did not have the level of fan input that the new Trek film apparently has.
“krikzil – January 8, 2008 – Quite a few folks in the so-called real world (you know, those who paint themselves the colors of their sports teams!) would tell us we need to get a life for being trek fans in the first place! ”
Hey, what’s wrong with painting yourself the color of your sports team, LOL?
“Aaron R. (Sisko would not agree with the closing of StarTrek.com) – January 8, 2008
Oh dear… Lets see if we can get this one up over 500 posts! ”
Just out of curiousity, what is the record for most posts for one topic on this site? Can anyone in charge of the site answer that? It would be fun to be a part of internet history.
Regarding Windsor Bear’s comments – “In some other theads, it’s even been stated that the “old hardcore fans” preare responsible for helping to kill the franchise over the years.”
I can remember when Deep Space Nine came on the air and throughout its run, old hardcore fans complaining that the show did not consist of a starship exploring new worlds. Then Voyager came along, followed by Enterprise, with the ship in space exploring new worlds, and guess what happened: ratings went down, Enterprise became the first Trek show since the original to be cancelled; the stories, particularly in the first two seasons were bland, the last Trek movie, again with a ship in space, was blasted by critics for not being original, and guess what, it failed at the box office.
That is why you so called “old hardcore” Trek fans are blamed for the near demise of the franchise: you keep insisting on what’s been done already over and over again instead of accepting something new and exciting. I thought it was pathetic Windsor Bear, that you’re actually planning to stay home and not watch the movie when it comes out in December. That’s petty and pathetic. It goes against everything that Star Trek stands for.
As for those of you who feel that this movie will bomb at the box office, I doubt it. The movie is coming out on Christmas Day where it will probably have the field to itself at the box office. If these guys, Abrams, Orci, et al do their job and offer a fresh perspective, this film will do very well. Then we’ll be talking abou sequels and possibly a new television show. We’ll be hoping for Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and the rest of the cast to sign on for the sequels. That is the optimistic way of looking at things.
One last thing regarding the “canon” nonsense: I can understand if they decide to make Spock a Romulan villain, or Kirk an out-of-control character responsible for the near demise of existence; that would be something to crow about. But a set design??? A set design???
It’s not like the sets will be painted over with graffiti. Please.
haha you’re all freaking out. It’s a MOVIE. GET A LIFE, will you people? I mean, for crying out loud, it’s just a movie I mean, look at you, look at the way you’re dressed! You’ve turned an enjoyable little job, that I did as a lark for a few years, into a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME! You’re, you’re what, 30? Tell me, have you ever kissed a girl? I thought not!
[All I ask for in December of this year is to be entertained by a compelling and clever movie. If that movie comes with a greeble-heavy Enterprise and a universe that feels familiar rather than “homey”, so be it.]
Hey I’m with you there. If it does something that Trek hasn’t for me in a long long time: Entertain ME! That’ll make happy.
#460: ” If I don’t make my feelings known then I am only cheating myself and if you don’t like what I have to say then you are not a true fan.
No “fan” has the right to call another fan who holds a different opinion then themselves “not a true fan” its the height of arrogance.
Sharr
We all live in a throw-away, instant gratification, attention deficit society now. It doesn’t surprise me the younger Trek fans and casual fans want to see drastic changes. Like I said before, if it were up to all of them, we’ll be seeing Sulu rapping to Jay Z in his quarters. Angels and Ministers of grace defend us.
Who cares what the bridge looks like as long as the actors + writers can pull off the characters.
Actually as a harcore Trek fan, I rejected DS9 because it departed from Robddenberry’s original vision. A thought George Takei has echoed. It is because Trek got off the beaten path, it has failed. It is because the original is the best, is why the talented Abrams has decided to go back to that era to reinvigorate the franchise.
#462
Flames on the sides… Don’t forget the flames (at least, those not posted here — where they are front and center) on the sides
Wow!! This is quite a thread.
There is no doubt that the Enterprise is THE most popular character in Star Trek. Don’t screw it up Abrams!!!
“Either reboot it *completely* or do something that can fit in the established canon that stretches from TOS to VGR. Don’t fudge it and mess us around by nitpicking character bios but having Kirk wear a red jumpsuit, sit in an egg chair and have a bridge that’s the size of football field. That’s just insulting.”
That’s pretty much my feeling. I have no problem with a reboot. Just have the guts to say its a reboot. Stop beating around the bush and trying to have it both ways.
“We all live in a throw-away, instant gratification, attention deficit society now. It doesn’t surprise me the younger Trek fans and casual fans want to see drastic changes.”
Ah the old line: Blame it on the young. Its not a matter of wanting to see drastic changes, but ironically enough Trek hasn’t changed much and its whole presentation has become dated.
There should be no “right way” of making Star Trek, but to make something entertaining first and foremost. There should be no checklist of do’s and don’t s in what Star Trek should look like or what kinds of stories it should tell – its only concern should that its successful and entertaining.
#463
“[There is simply no rational argument that can counter this fact on this project. It’s Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise… how can anyone deny it? Not one truly creative thing about it. It’s parasitic.]
Ah the old Abrams didn’t create them bit – sorry doesn’t fly.
The rational argument is simple there director and writers here think they have an interesting story to tell – Nimoy sure thinks it was interesting since it got him acting again. Creativity is in the execution. ”
The old Nimoy is on board argument – think you need a good headwind yourself.
Creativity is having an original thought. Altering an original idea or bastardising is hardly creative. That’s pladgiarizing.
425- “CW .Very funny.Where were all these people (Trekofacists?)when Pararmount was doing all those watered down original Trek spin-offs?”
Walking away, which is why the ratings were falling… which ultimately led to ST:E to only have 4 seasons instead of the normal 7.
[Creativity is having an original thought. Altering an original idea or bastardising is hardly creative. That’s pladgiarizing.]
First no plagiarizing here since in order for it to do then a good chunk of Star Trek is the product of plagiarizing. I won’t even get into Roddenberry here…
No creativity isn’t having an “original thought” its a whole lot more dynamic then that not so binary as you’re viewing it. More specifically an original thought can be applied to an old idea – happens all the time. This is an original thought being applied to an old dry franchise long over do at that.
Yes that fact Nimoy is on board and speaks highly of what he’s read tells me we’re in good hands – sorry that unsettles some. But I trust his judgment of any Star Trek “fan”.
#476
- First off the Enterprise is not a character.
- Second, it is nowhere near as popular as Kirk (Shatner) or Spock (Nimoy)
“Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else’s written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one’s own without adequate acknowledgment.”
That is what it means to plagiarize and this film doesn’t fit that. As far as I’m aware Abrams & Co haven’t claimed credit for creating “Star Trek” the franchise – I’m sure the Based on credit for GR will be there just as it always has been. Though of course they do get credit like Berman and Braga or Nimoy and Mayer and Bennett in their times for creating off shoot works – to make the silly assertion this is plagiarizing is just that a silly statement by a fan worried his childhood will be damaged by someone daring to touch his sacred cow.
#474 “Actually as a harcore Trek fan, I rejected DS9 because it departed from Robddenberry’s original vision. ”
I guess this shows how diverse we TREK fans are, I loved DS9! I thought it had the best of the ensemble casts of all of the incarnations of TREK.
I don’t care if the film is completely canon as long as it doesn’t suck. I miss the days when Star Trek fired my imagination and made me look forward to tuning in. If they can do that again, I don’t care if they paint the bulkheads pink.
# 482
If you think that, you don’t know, how wrong you are. I know many people who knows the ship, but can’t tell you, who’s commanding it. I heard some people speaking, that this was the ship, Darth Vader commanded in Star Wars (they’ve of course never seen any of the frachchises). Together with Spock and Kirk the Enterprise is the most iconical thing in Star Trek or even the entire global scifi genre. Nearly everyone knows Star Trek and the Enterprise, even people who never have seen it. Or why do you think, nearly every starfleet ship reflects the look of the Big E?
Again, let me speak slowly so you understand. There have been so many ncarnations of Trek, change, for the sake of change and it became an unrecognizable piece of garbage. That is why it has failed, it stopped being Trek. If you want a dark, cynical future, go watch Battestar Galactica or Bladerunner, fine works in their own rite but they are not Trek. Trek means a hopeful, optimistic future with great characters and adventures and social commentary. That is Trek. I am optimistic this new movie will honor those traits and still have a retro look, as it should, since it is taking place in the PAST of Star Trek. Looking retro doesn’t necessarly mean flimsy sets and antiquated special effects, which is what I think most of the “change” people are worried about.
480. CW
I believe it was Berman, Brannon & Braga that killed the franchise (IMHO).
Plus, the internet was not around in full capacity for us all to air our comments and objections. An excuse that will NOT be available to the producers this time.
Also,
233. Dennis Bailey
“Except, of course, that it’s utterly failed to do anything other than lose audience for nearly fifteen years.”
About my previous question. from me, (#256. TrekMadeMeWonder)
“That’s one example of your love for Trek Dennis. Why do you post here so much? I read all the posts here and your’s (for some reason) tend to be mostly negative concerning past Treks.”
I am still waiting for an answer to my question, Dennis. Remember, Its just a question. I would love to hear your candid thoughts on past Treks. Which series or episodes were YOUR favorites?
As for me? Easy. Trek made me wonder about the possiblilities of a happy and prosperous future. And it delivered.
# 485
Yes, I miss that times too. That’s the problem with Star Trek since the last ten years. They don’t come up with new adventures, exiting stories, interesting characters or new technologies, just some non-spectacular advancements of the existings techs. VOY and ENT was nearly the same as TNG and the stories was most times predictible. That’s why I turned away and watch my old TOS, TNG and DS9 videos.
Don’t understand me wrong: I hope the movie rocks and reanimate the franchise, but I would feel more comfortable if JJ & Co consider the existing universe and don’t change everything.
#477 – “I have no problem with a reboot. Just have the guts to say its a reboot. Stop beating around the bush and trying to have it both ways. ”
I really don’t care whether they say front-and-center that it’s a reboot or they try to “backdoor” it by creating alternate timelines or whatever. I hve no use for a reboot. None. Zero. Nada. It’s the *only* thing I’m not willing to be open minded about.
If they can’t play in the established Trekverse, give the $130+ million back and close the doors.
But I’m not going to be so closed-off that I interpret that to mean that a new movie made in 2007/2008 has to look identical in every detail to a TV show made in 1967.
Looking identical in every way and having a retro look are two different things entirely. It still should look like it “fits” in with the old series. I believe Abrams already has said so much, how to update it while still making sure it looks like it fits in that time, a tricky thing. His words.
Who said this was going to be “dark and cynical”? certainly no one involved in the production. That only seems to be from people worried about the future and change…
Actually Abrams made a statement way back when this movie was first being talked about honoring GR’s optimistic future.
Things don’t remain the same, they never have and never will. GR himself “reconfigured” Star Trek with TNG and made remarks about disowning Kirk for not being enough like Picard – the least favorite of the series to me was the 24th Century – but not cause of how it looks (though I find the Hilton in space rather tired) but the fact all the characters were so flat and predicable and pompous.
#470 LOL… I see your posting here yourself. ;)
Well, I’m pretty much spent on this dead horse. The movie is getting made, the designs done, and unfortunately the already admitted need of re-writes can’t be done.
For me and many others it’s obvious the studio and those concerned (or lack of concern to the old fans that built this franchise in the first place… “your welcome”) will do what they want. These studio execs, the likes that green light Hanna/Barbara lame cartoons like Underdog: The Movie, think this is a great thing to do. Need I elaborate on what that implies?
We will always have OUR Star Trek. This will be called Star Trek, but it walks and quacks all wrong. A goose maybe? Yeah, a goose I think or like something slipping clean through it anyway.
492. Sharr Khan
Yeah, The Riker character was supposed to be the “New” Kirk.
But that ended for me when he made it with the He/She and the husk.
UGH.
“the already admitted need of re-writes can’t be done.”
That’s not what was said, think you’re making an inference with a heavy bias: The remark was made that the writers like to take a final look before a scene is shot, in no way implies “rewrites are needed” only that the writers enjoy going one step further along with the production.
The only other bit said about writing was the strike was preventing the director from changing the script since a better thing occurred to him – the strike still might end before the final product gets done so anything is possible. Agian that’s not about “rewrites being needed” as if the final draft wasn’t up to snuff – just a spur of the moment idea sidlined by the strike.
What if Ms. Brown means that hard-core fans will freak out *in a good way*? Hmmm?
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
I am a hardcore fan, yet I find myself suddenly embracing new designs in the old times… this movie MUST be a great hit, it MUST attract new people who have never been fans… therefore it must use fresh designs and ideas.
I also would prefer 100% accurate designs in the entire movie (outside, inside, uniforms, equipment,…) but if they do that, I fear that it will be the last trek we’ll see. Because the general audience would not be attracted by that.
It’s not about taste. It’s not even about canon! It’s about the survival of our beloved Star Trek!
Reaching 500 comments, by the way…
#495
Pardon, but in a past article JJ was quoted with frustration in wanting changes made during filming but couldn’t. Pay attention.
Tony hasn’t shut this down yet? New servers must be working. ;)
The BIG 500!!! (?)
Gotta be a record.
For the record I’d like to list some of my predictions for Trek XI (Is that really the name?).
1. The Enterprise will not look like the old “E” in TOS. The ship will be 3 to 4 times the size we know. It will not appear (in full) in the trailer. Expect to see a much larger bulky hull that can take alot of damage. The other show is going to drop everyone. Sorry. Think Star Wars (Darth’s Star Destroyer) and VR sets. But it will be shiny. Sheesh??!!.
2. The bridge will be 3 times the size of the original. Yep, the execs are getting itchy with the fans duplicating thier prior efforts (on the web for free) and this will put a stop to it (for a while). Although basically the same, expect to see another ring around the main bridge where you can see other departments and extras supporting the bridge personell. Completely gone will be old style buttons and controls. Expect to see holographic controls over every consol. Similar to the Matrix “Zion” main control room. Only without the white background.
3. The real excitement will be in the musical score. This will probably be the closest tie to the original. This will be the “big” surprise.
4. A lame time travel story. A no brainer.
5. A roughshot Kirk who is first hinted at and who will not be understood for the Icon we know at first, until he saves everyone (and possible all time and creation) by the end of the movie.
“Pardon, but in a past article JJ was quoted with frustration in wanting changes made during filming but couldn’t. Pay attention.”
That’s not the same thing as being in need of “rewrites”. The word rewrite is usually tossed about to mean the script is half finished or badly done – What Abrams said was he wanted to alter something because he had a new idea – not the same thing as a script calling to be rewritten because its lacking or not well done.
#497 “It’s not about taste. It’s not even about canon! It’s about the survival of our beloved Star Trek!”
But if it’s drastically altered, not saying it will be, but IF it is, well, it’s not quite our “beloved Star Trek” anymore, is it? Or are 8 letters of the alphabet all it takes for some people?
“as a harcore Trek fan, I rejected DS9 because it departed from Robddenberry’s original vision. A thought George Takei has echoed. It is because Trek got off the beaten path, it has failed. It is because the original is the best, is why the talented Abrams has decided to go back to that era to reinvigorate the franchise.”
I understand this sentiment, but some devout TOS fans view it through rose-tinted spectacles sometimes. Yes, it was the basis for all the incarnations that followed. Yes, it was often farsighted and intelligent and even inspiring. But it was far from perfect. Trek “got off the beaten path” even during its original three-season run! There were some truly awful episodes – not just ‘Spock’s Brain’, but the terrible Halloween special ‘Catspaw’, the achingly boring ‘The Alternative Factor’ and, worst of all, the outrageously sexist ‘Turnabout Intruder’.
Anyway, for me, the set design very much takes a poor priority over the story – and the message. In particular, I hope to God we finally see a gay character – not “in your face” or tokenistic, but just an acknowledgment that homosexuality hasn’t been “cured” or “eliminated” in the Trek future. I will never understand why in 28 seasons of TV and 10 movies it was not possible to do this. It seems to be the one prejudice of today that was not shown to be gone in the future.
#496 At first I thought the same, that I was mistaking it as a negative. But “I think a lot of hardcore fans are going to freak out. As far as I know, only the exterior of the Enterprise had to stay the same.” really implies a radical departure from the norm to those “hardcore” fans in comparison to “the Enterprise had to stay the same” don’t you think?
.
“But if it’s drastically altered, not saying it will be, but IF it is, well, it’s not quite our “beloved Star Trek” anymore, is it? Or are 8 letters of the alphabet all it takes for some people?”
Plain and simply the hard truth is:”Star Trek” is whatever Paramount chooses to put that lable on. Its their right do so.
There really shouldn’t be a checklist of things that make “Star Trek” Star Trek – it like everything else should be allowed to explore itself and do new things and change itself depending upon those involved in making wish do.
Trek’s biggest problem is that its a myopic vision of what it can and should be so its fallen back on the “formula” of what makes Star Trek and almost every series but DS9 has clung to that formula.
Basically those screaming agianst changes are calling for Star Trek to settle into the Star Trek Formula of how it presents itself.
If the “formula” is all that it means to be Star Trek it does deserve to die, if it can grow beyond its expectations and that of what its fans claim they want for it then it deserves to thrive.
Let me make this clear: If this film is a by the numbers Trek piece rather then something that goes agianst expectations and dares to upset how either Trek films or tv shows are put together I personally don’t want anything to do with it. – Now I am pretty sure it will be different and stand out from other Trek productions unlike any other Trek movie or episode which encourages me.
#501
i was not talking about me… even if I don’t like it – many new peole would like it! the hardcore fans might just have to be offended for new people to join the club. if that’s what it takes to make star trek the greatest and largest francise for all times – so be it.
#499:
What the h3ll was that? Are you serious? This is the worst thing I’ve heard yet…better not be true.
See post # 381 for my feelings on this…
This better not be true…F#$# Paramount and F#$#$ JJ Abrams if this is true!
#480 “I believe it was Berman, Brannon & Braga [sic] that killed the franchise (IMHO). Plus, the internet was not around in full capacity for us all to air our comments and objections. An excuse that will NOT be available to the producers this time.”
um, I believe Brannon & Braga are one person… i.e., Brannon Braga.
I disagree with you to some extent. Both gentlemen did some damn fine work on TREK, however, I will agree that the franchise was in dire need of new administrative and creative blood towards the end. Season four of “Star Trek Enterprise” was finally heading in a fantastic direction (with the hiring of Manny Coto and the Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens) when UPN stupidly pulled the plug.
Your contention that the movie producers MUST listen to us fans smacks a little bit of too much self-importance. Exactly which fans should they listen to? Reading these postings one can clearly see we don’t all agree on any issue. If an author, a production team or artist listened to every point we fans made, we would have art by committee, and that usually means trash!
There is no such thing as a perfect artform. We can second guess every decision–nitpick all we want before the movie is even out, but why not just wait and see?
Back in 1979, the first movie had its flaws (as has every episode and movie since), and then the producers moved to rectify that and moved on. I assume the same will happen this time around.
redact my last post. Just read #499 again, this is just his “predictions”…whew…guess he’s taking the worst case scenario approach.
Now that we’ve reached 500, let’s shoot for 1000.
I will say this about the ships in the Trek universe: I think they play a far bigger role than the ships in the Star Wars universe. I mean, you have the various versions of the Enterprise; the impressive Klingon ships and the Romulan warbirds; the Defiant; etc.
I love some of the ships in Star Wars, such as the Millenium Falcon, the TIE-Fighters, and the X-Wing fighters, but I don’t think that that universe is as tied in to the ships as Trek.
The only way you’ll see flames on the side of the new Enterprise is if it is set in a mirror universe where the characters are dark and/or evil. I don’t think their going that route with this movie.
Don’t be surprised if they make Pike a villain. Just had to throw that in there.
See now, here is the thing. After some 500 posts, I went back and looked at the quotes in question. I got absolutely no indication from this that the bridge was changing. What I read was a chunk of frustration and bitterness over the use of modern technology to essentially take away a job. Sure, huge, single-use sets are wonderful to play on, but they are ultimately wasteful. I worked on “Looney Tunes: Back in Action” a few years back. They built a giant set at Warner Bros. representing the “Monkey Island” or whatever it was for the last act of the film. It was a beautiful piece with all sorts of faux rock idols, trees, and pathways. It was a couple of stories tall with magnificent detail wherever you looked..and after a couple of weeks of shooting, it was in a dumpster.
I am sure some pieces were kept in storage. However, most of it was trashed. This is just how it is done. So, I don’t have a problem with the use of green screen to artificially widen the scope of certain sets. I am sure in this case, it will be locations like the shuttlecraft/cargo bay or engineering. In the case of engineering, they could be taking the James Cameron/Titanic approach and using a lot of CG set dressing to really impart a sense of power in these engines. While I loved previous incarnations of the engineering sets, they always felt a little small. I never quite bought the forced perspective miniature engine components and the painted backdrops used to extend the engineering sets in the first couple of movies.
It seems me they have a number of talented individuals working on this project. I look forward to seeing how they put their creative stamp on the Enterprise.
I haven’t read everyone’s post yet, so if this has already been addressed then I apologize. Section 31, the design of the Enterprise is important, but understand, that just because the ship is going to look different in this movie, does not at all mean that it violates the canon of pre-established Trek. Why? Well first of all, we don’t even know what time period the bulk of this movie will take place in. If it takes place in 2267 (which I don’t see how it could) then they should use the design from the original series. But if it’s in 2254, then obviously it should be “The Cage” design. But if it’s before that, who knows what it will look like? The ship has gone through several refits over the years. So if the ship looks different, it will not violate canon. And I’m completely fine with that. You have to understand that no one knows what Enterprise looked like prior to 2254, because it’s never been established yet. Who knows what it might have looked like when it was first built.
Someone mentioned that the design used in the episode “In A Mirror, Darkly” worked well for TV, but it wouldn’t work for a movie. I disagree, if the film would take place in the 2260s, then that would be the design needed for the film. You can’t screw with something like that!
This film however, obviously doesn’t take place in the 2260s so the design used for the film is not an issue.
#488: “I am still waiting for an answer to my question, Dennis.”
You can wait for another performing seal to come along, then. I have around a dozen TOS reviews on this site and hundreds of posts here discussing what I like and don’t about various incarnations of Trek and about Trek “fandom.”
You’ve been posting here for months – and you’ve either been paying attention or you haven’t. Next.
#2, #10, and anyone else with the sour puss on–
It was obvious back in the late 70’s that the old Enterprise set type would not work well on the big screen. The only difference then, was that it could be explained away as a “refit”. Well, we no longer have that luxury going back in time to that glorious era of TOS. However, have we, as original series fans, really lost our imaginations? Is a better-looking, more big-screen friendly set really going to ruin your experience? This isn’t about the old farts (like us), out there buying TOS dvd’s. This is about attracting a new generation of fans and bringing back fans who strayed away in order to carry this great franchise for the NEXT 40 years. “Been there, done that,” just will not get the job done.
I own a profitable company, and have for quite some time. If I had ever failed to change with the times, at any point, my kids might not have the quality of life that my flexibility has helped to provide to them. If Abrams and co. fail to change in spite of the old-timers…well, Star Trek may die.
…Logic suggests that we should just let it go…Star Trek is an idea, a vision…not an old and dated actor, and certainly not a cheap set of props!
#504 I agree in part. The standard formula as it evolved failed to inspire great stories with the constraints of the formula. My biggest gripe is it didn’t need to go and reinvent TOS to fix it.
A hundred years from the last used time line could have sufficed had they the creative juices to go for it. The technology was pretty much at an epoch… almost God-like if you try to fathom in real terms how they could possibly function (one credit to GR was using such real world consultants to project believability).
But the studio is simply using Kirk, and Spock as a marketing ploy to bolster the cash cow franchising. They need some kind of lure if anything, out of general curiosity for that smash and grab weekend total.
What I would have loved to see was a really great sci fi story completely out of left field… something epic. Some sort of title (not Trek), and some sort of premise that slowly divulges certain particulars towards the climax of the film. Then BOOM the other shoe is dropped and there is that last great reveal in the epilog that all along it has been Star Trek. Not that you were duped, but that this great flick you enjoyed the hell out of was all along something the average movie goer might have avoided as “oh, one of those nerdy Star Trek movies”. ;)
#500 Gratz on being 500. :) But doesn’t that also imply that something that can’t be changed is better than something being filmed?
I think the “change” people are misguided. I think they assume if the new movie even remotely looks like the old series, it will fail and audiences won’t accept it. I ask where do you draw this assumtpion from? There is no eveidence audiences won’t accept it. In fact, if you take the best qualities of the old series, Kirk, Spock, classic adventures, optimistic future and remove the “bad qualities” of the show, the campy aspect, bad special effects, etc. one would be left with one heck of a great movie. That’s what I think Abrams and team are trying to do. The “change’ people are saying to us hardcores, don’t dismiss it just because it won’t be exactly the same as the old series and to them I say “don’t dismiss it simply because it takes place in the TOS era with the original characters and look retro.”
[But the studio is simply using Kirk, and Spock as a marketing ploy to bolster the cash cow franchising. They need some kind of lure if anything, out of general curiosity for that smash and grab weekend total.]
Or just maybe and I’m taking the less cynical optimistic view here – these are the director and writers favorites and want to work with them. Good enough for me.
Lets make it clear from the moment “The Cage” was made Star Trek was about making money, Desilu didn’t think “The Cage” would make them money so GR had to try again – he was lucky in that regard.
[What I would have loved to see was a really great sci fi story completely out of left field… something epic. Some sort of title (not Trek), and some sort of premise that slowly divulges certain particulars towards the climax of the film. Then BOOM the other shoe is dropped and there is that last great reveal in the epilogue that all along it has been Star Trek.]
I get what your saying but hmmm there needed to be a hook something at least familiar to fans and none fans alike. This tact would have ultimately bombed I think since its more suited for a novel. I can’t see how the lid would have been kept on the secret. At some point early on even in the movie it would have become obvious it was some kind of Trek film.
Leonard Nimoy said it is a great story and that is good enough for me. In Leonard and J.J. Abrams said it was such a good story that he just had to direct this movie. I think all Trek fans should take heart in that.
512. Dennis Bailey
“You can wait for another performing seal to come along, then. I have around a dozen TOS reviews on this site and hundreds of posts here discussing what I like and don’t about various incarnations of Trek and about Trek “fandom.”
Bitter. Very bitter.
I would not have expected YOU to reply with a review of every show or for your view on each series. I was just wondering which you like best.
Simple.
Live long and happy, Dennis!
It will keep you young.
#517 LOL Well perhaps more a novel as I tell it, but my point is it doesn’t have to be some obvious reinvention of TOS. There are so many other ways to bring Trek back to life with the right creative people.
I just read a test screener,s account of Cloverfield, and I must say if this approach it taken towards Star Trek this will be a disaster. They actually enjoyed it, but really I can’t even give the end away because… there isn’t one. I mean so far with the similar look casting, then some aren’t, then statements towards canon, then not canon… my vote of confidence is nonexistent. This project seems to be all over the place, and appears to really have no focus or objective (and if the direction of Cloverfield is any indication… EESH).
I like the 60’s bridge a lot, along with original sound effects, so did some fans that worked on TNG, relics for example.
The exterior is a 40 year old design too but they are keeping that, I don’t buy people saying it wont hold up on the screen, I think the fans and others would love it! Ya the old plywood sets maybe but not a better built set that resembles the original would be totally awesome in my opinion.
Changing the Enterprise has made me realize the last 42 years have been for nothing.
This is why prequels are illogical, Abrams wants to cut NEW ground yet wants to take us where we have already been before–and to do both he is telling us to erase our minds & hearts for the starship we have loved since 1966.
The Enterprise isn’t just a ship, it’s our 2nd home!
523. Son of V’ger
“The Enterprise isn’t just a ship, it’s our 2nd home!”
PERFECT!
If my afterlife fantasy comes true, then I will be on that bridge someday!
I don’t really have anything new to add. Just wanted to see comment count go up some more.
This just in . . . .
Spy reports have confirmed the following about the new movie:
The Enterprise bridge is shaped like a triangle. It doesn’t have a viewscreen, but there is a hot tub in the center of the bridge where Kirk can “negotiate” with the hot-looking aliens.
The exterior of the ship is shaped like that sculpture the grandma did on Everyone Love’s Raymond. (If you didn’t see that episode, use your imagination).
Near the end of the movie, the camera pans down the body of Kirk and we discover that he’s not a he.
The plot of the movie involved Kirk and Sulu getting the munchies and going on a galactic trek to the White Castle franchise on the planet Vulcan. But instead, while walking on the beach, they discover the broken top half of a Big Boy statue sticking out of the sand. Kirk falls to the ground and cries: “Damn those Vulcans all to Hell!”
Somehow, this went into the wrong comments section. Sorry about that!
472 – John from Cincinnati
“We all live in a throw-away, instant gratification, attention deficit society now. It doesn’t surprise me the younger Trek fans and casual fans want to see drastic changes.”
In my experience, young people can still appreciate works that require close attention and prolonged scrutiny. We do, contrary to an “instant gratification” society, enjoy films that require us to think — and think deeply — even long movies.
“Like I said before, if it were up to all of them, we’ll be seeing Sulu rapping to Jay Z in his quarters.”
Believe it or not, we appreciate fully-drawn characters. We do not expect them to be just like ourselves, nor that they should like “in” things. Neither do our sympathies for them fail simply because they are made of a cloth foreign to us.
“Angels and Ministers of grace defend us.”
I know that, as a whole, we might not always stand up to scrutiny but I don’t think we’re quite that bad! :)
However, as a twenty year old guy, I do hope for change. But not because I require it in order to enjoy this movie. But to my generation, TOS is something that came and went before us, seeping into popular culture before we were old enough to appreciate it.
As a result, what we know of it is mainly the nostalgia — bright, colorful images of the Enterprise and Spock, Kirk and Shatner, “Beam me up, Scotty!” and “He’s dead, Jim!” That’s one reason why the look of the thing needs to be updated. Our parents ( at least among those I know) often mention how silly and cheesy 60’s shows were — why would we expect that TOS, based on its very 60’s aesthetic, should be any different? But if this film can visually catch our collective eye, show us that there is more to it than popular culture suggests, we’ll probably give it a chance — and discover the characters and the stories beneath the nostalgia.
“my vote of confidence is nonexistent. This project seems to be all over the place, and appears to really have no focus or objective (and if the direction of Cloverfield is any indication… EESH).”
Ah I’ve seen reviews of Cloverfield, destined to become a classic at least a cult classic in its own right – its skewing the genre well make it interesting. There are even totally none related political groups miss reading subtext this this film. Just cause NY is the focus it doesn’t follow “Cloverfield” is about 9/11…
There is totally no indication that this project (Star Trek) is “all over the place” now you’re being dramatic without cause. If anything things are way more put together then they were on Star Trek: TMP – oh that’s right they were writing the script as that movie was being made.
This is one of the more together productions of Star Trek I’ve witnessed from all I have read unless you can provide a specific example. And I’m not talking about the Director getting ideas on the set but not able to write them cause of the WGA’s strike. Concrete examples please.
I think it all comes down to how everyone on here making posts defines the word “change” and to what degree that word means. If you read my previous posts, I think changing things for the better (ie, removing the cheese factor) will do wonders for this franchise and this movie. The gap lies in the where and how much. In my opinion, subtle changes in aesthetics (uniforms, the ship, etc.) and drastic changes in the artistry of direction and cinematography will turn a good old franchise of good character, good stories into a great reborn one.
OMG 500+ Posts. This has to be a record?
Wouldn’t be illogical spending $140 million on this movie and keep the 40 year old TOS Enterprise intact.
Have little faith in the people working on this film will do Enterprise justice.. I am., big question is will i like it after i have seen it hmmm.
I let you know after i see the trailer.
p.s has it been confirmed that the new Enterprise will be unveiled in the trailer?
TOS created a new paradigm in the look of American televised Science Fiction, and one can argue that Trek in itself has almost become a “sub-genre” within science fiction; however, that paradigm has become cliche and overused in not only Trek but other shows like Stargate. nuBSG broke away from that design paradigm of a circular bridge with a centralized captain’s chair and big viewer.
I love the look of TOS and whenever I think of the Enterprise, it’s the original I imagine. It was the ship of my childhood in the 80s and the ship that launched my imagination. It is as if those who are overacting are looking at everything with a similar “childhood” lens and allowing that to color their ability to accept anything different.
I am all for a new and dynamic look, even though I long to see the old (but hey that’s what NV and Exeter are for). Trek can still be vibrant, relevant and cutting edge in its style just as TOS was in the 60s. There’s no reason that Trek should still cater to that old design paradigm. It doesn’t invalidate the work of Matt Jefferies, William Weiss Theiss, Palo Gutzman and Gene Roddenberry. Moving forward will only celebrate them.
My feeling is that the movie will be not unlike Superman Returns (yes, I know that not everyone liked it and that some did, I am one of those who did) where it looks different but still contains the echos of what has come before. Same music but with a new arrangement.
# 530
It was said, that we will see a little glimpse of the New E in the teaser, but not the entire ship or much details of it.
I have to say, I start to hate JJ, not for possible violating the Trek universe, but for he’s damn secrecy about that entire production. There is nothing to see, nothing to hear, only empty words with a few suggestions, that will be relativated with the next comment.
Why they don’t handle the things like George Lucas did with Episode 1 to 3? For JJ, Orci or anyone else related to this movie: Make webdocumentries! Show us at last one conceptional design of the Big E (it have not to be the final design), just a VISIBLE glimpse in what direction Star Trek will go would be enough!
Or is it possible they don’t dare, because it would make the fans run away?
*looks up*
“performing seal”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!! Good one, Dennis! :-)
reading through this post one might imagine people are not agreeing but looking at the poll I see more consensus. I think the problem with all the articles about the look of the ship inside or out is that we have yet to actually see anything. it is hard to react to anything beyond the fact that it is ‘different’.
I admit I havent seen the stuff either but both interiors and exteriors have been described to me by a number of people. I also find that the reports vary…and it tends to be mostly an issue of ‘eye of the beholder’.
I think we will not have to wait too long to see things and then people will be able to judge for themselves. But for all things related to the film I always beleive that if you view this film (be it the plot, or the bridge set) solely from the perspective of ‘how different is it’…you may miss out on the big picture.
I know that when I sit down to watch this film I will be going to see if it is a good fun movie that feels like trek first. Then I will analyze it to see if and how it ‘fits’ with all the other Trek I have seen in the past
…but that is just me
# 532
AAARGH! Tipping errors without end and my english goes worse than ever. It seems, that the hour is late (hell! It’s already the next day here in Germany!)
Good night, everyone.
Let’s hope for more spoilers and some production infos within the next days.
No point bitching about the production design now…filming has been underway! Either you’ll like it or you won’t. Just go see the movie and write your critique afterward.
Too late to change anything and even if we were a year out from shooting they wouldn’t change it.
They aren’t about to let fans dictate creativity to them.
Face it. You’ll all be a LOT happier.
534. Anthony Pascale
[I admit I havent seen the stuff either but both interiors and exteriors have been described to me by a number of people. I also find that the reports vary…and it tends to be mostly an issue of ‘eye of the beholder’.]
So… they said they saw what parts of the ship? If any.
Certainly big news. Did I miss a post on this topic?
and #533. Redjac
That’s not much of a post, is it?
# 534 – Anthony, I hope there is A LOT of capacity for this web site because in terms of replies it is only going to get more numerous.
# 536 – The inability to change something has never hindered Star Trek fans from voicing their opinions; I don’t expect it to now. >;>}
And I don’t see anything wrong with people voicing their opinions, as long they are not berating others who are voicing theirs.
What are these Comments sections for anyway? >;>}
Hmm. I guess it’s a small issue, but it’s also really sad that the community of Trek fans cannot see the solutions the art department comes up with prior to the release. It really hurts the brain :o)
Yeah, how many of us would chok up $10 bucks a month for pre-release pass. Alot. But then it would all hit the web anyhow.
Well, here’s what we know:
-Leonard Nimoy will reprise his role as Spock
-The exterior of the Enterprise is remaining the same (counteracting the expansive dialog of Jim Cowley’s version)
- The uniforms will have a destinctive ’60’s feel. As reported by Bruce Greenwood. (Also, look at the teaser poster, blue and gold with original insignia)
-The Enterprise will be seen in the upcoming trailer but “under construction” and not up close. (This tells me at least part of the story is before Kirk and Pike are Captains. Perhaps the “Federation Captain” role is that of Robert April, the first captain of NCC-1701
541. John from Cincinnati
Seeing is believing.
[-The exterior of the Enterprise is remaining the same (counteracting the expansive dialog of Jim Cawley’s version)]
Hope so.
[- The uniforms will have a destinctive ’60’s feel. As reported by Bruce Greenwood. (Also, look at the teaser poster, blue and gold with original insignia)]
It did not look that way in the leaked photos from a few weeks back.
[-The Enterprise will be seen in the upcoming trailer but “under construction” and not up close.]
Again, seeing is believing.
TO SECTION 31 AND ANY OTHER TREKKIE WHINING ABOUT INTERIOR DESIGNS BEING DIFFERENT THAN THE TOS SERIES:
It’s a foregone conclusion just by looking at “The Cage” and “Where No Man Has Gone Before” that the SET DESIGNS HAVE CHANGED HERE AND THERE! Hell, anyone who is a true advocate of the TOS designs also takes note that the EXTERIOR of the Enterprise changed as well. The designs were different in both pilots. The basic structure was there, but there were cosmetic changes and size/scale changes.
ALSO: “In A Mirror Darkly” showcased a ship that disappeared in a dimensional rift in the TOS episode “THE THOLIAN WEB” which means that THE DEFIANT from the ORIGINAL SERIES disappeared in a dimensional rift and wound up in the mirror universe where MIRROR ARCHER and crew find it. THAT EXPLAINS WHY THE MIRROR UNIVERSE HAS SLIGHTLY MORE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY!
-shakes head in pity-
#542 TrekMadeMeWonder
I wouldn’t read too much into that comment about the exterior of the ship staying the same. Her exact line was “As far as I know, only the exterior of the Enterprise had to stay the same.” She does not know for sure. That said, I wouldn’t expect the ship’s exterior to look exactly the same as on TOS, DS9 or ENT.
Sorry if I burst anyone’s bubble about that…
#543- “It’s a foregone conclusion just by looking at “The Cage” and “Where No Man Has Gone Before” that the SET DESIGNS HAVE CHANGED HERE AND THERE! ”
Yes, and they are easily explained. SPock served with PIke YEARS before Kirk took the helm, hence the “older” different uniforms and different look of the bridge. Where No Man Has Gone Before also, clearly took place early on in the 5 year mission, different uniforms, different doctor, etc. The bridge and uniofrms not looking quite as different, but still different from the bulk of the series.
That’s the beauty of how it all ties together. Kirk takes over from Pike, there is then a refit that puts everything up to speed for what we saw during the bulk of the series. FIne, everything’s kosher.
But for anyone to equate those easily eplainable changes to (and I’m exaggerating here…but you get the point) Leonard NImoy, as a 75 year old, TOS Spock, going back in time and wintessing Pike’s ship again…only this time the bridge, that we’ve already seen him serve on, is now two stories tall, rocking chairs at every station with a periscope in the middle, is ludicrous.
Of course I don’t think it’s going ot be anywhere near that severe a change. The scary thing is , even if the changes WERE trhat absurd, a good many of you wouldn’t care….and scarier still….you don’t realize why you should.
It’s like a Geek Jihad around here.
Can some of you at least go see the movie first, or at the very least, get out of your parents basements?
Ugh, some of you are what make normal people afraid to admit they even like Star Trek. Grow up!
Every Star Trek Fan Within The Sound of This Message,
All of you complained when Enterprise went off (some cheered!) but, you did not support it. All of you complained about Nemesis and did not go and see it multiple times like you did other Trek movies and did not tell your friends to go see it (though it was higher quality than the other Trek Movies), and you did not watch Enterprise and support the franchise which, by series end only had 2.3 million viewers, and Nemesis had about 4.5 million see it (not counting people going multile times, which I did!) come on! there are more fans than that! . You complained about Berman, Piller, and Braga (who continued the franchise with 4 features, and 4 spinoffs) and every little element of the episodes and Nemesis and nitpicked Nemesis to death. Yet when the winds of cancellation came to Enterprise and when Nemesis flopped some supported Enterprise and some did’nt, but, it was too late. Then when the announcement of a new Trek movie you guys cheered, now because this thing is not right or that thing or some rumor comes out that does’nt match what you want, you guys are complaining and you have not even seen it yet!. If this Trek movie does not make it, consider it the end of the Franchise for the next 20 years!(or more!) Due to the fact that they have given J.J Abrams so much money to do it, and all the hype (I am surprised they are making it after Nemesis and Enterprise and they did not wait 3 or 4 more years). So, get beyond the nitpicking stupidity of how the measurement of the enterprise’s warp engine does not match up to the original tech manual or how many decks the ship has or the amount of makeup on Nimoy’s ears and how it does’nt match the Unification Pt. 2! I think that the big problem is that the fanbase has become spoiled by the amount of Trek, imagine if this was 1978/1979 we would be desprite to see STTMP no matter if it was the worst thing we had ever seen (I think it is great, some don’t) just because it was Trek! So, If the story is good and the acting is good and it does’nt go to the point of changing Kirk into a woman (like Turnabout Intruder) or taking out Spock’s Brain! Then we will be just fine, go see the movie when it comes out ! and reserve criticisms of the movie until you have seen it and don’t be so critical, because Star Trek needs to draw in a larger fanbase, some of you are the same people who complained about a bald unknown Bristish actor in 1987 playing a certain starfleet officer and look how that turned out! So,stop complaining about minutia! We, as a fan base MUST make sure that this movie is successful, if we want the franchise to continue for another 40 years, for our children and grandchildren!
Sincerly Your Omnicient, Omnipotent, time travelling Entity,
Q
#526. Jupiter1701 – very funny. I’m not going to read all of these posts (there are too many from boring whiney nitpicking party poopers), but I will look for yours and a few others for their entertainment value.
I’m one of those who voted with the majority “New design, but similiar shape with TOS-style touches.” I am also an easy going person who enjoys life – is their a relationship? Possibly. Stubborn nitpickers can take the fun out of anything.
543. Deebo Shanks
[I wouldn’t read too much into that comment about the exterior of the ship staying the same.]
I know what they’re up too. I know the type very well.
Please see my post #499 for my view on what’s going to happen.
Long live TOS!!!!
#547- “We, as a fan base MUST make sure that this movie is successful, if we want the franchise to continue for another 40 years, for our children and grandchildren!”
Nah. If this Trek doesn’t encompass those elements that pulled me into Star Trek to begin with, that made me a fan…what do I care if there is new Trek out there or not?
TNG forward was so radically different I didn’t like it and I wouldn’t have cared if TNG never made it to season 2. If there is new re-imagined version of Trek that I don’t like out there or no Trek at all, it’s all the same to me.
#546
Just thought I would mention that I don’t think people who post here go complain to everyone else. They come here and let off a little steam and find people who share their interests… if not their opinions.
This is gonna prompt the Star Trek Wars and all of the original series will be sent to Omega 3. We’ll all be thrown into volcanoes!
#551
“This is gonna prompt the Star Trek Wars and all of the original series will be sent to Omega 3. We’ll all be thrown into volcanoes! ”
Nice! LOL
I’ve been reading all of the posts concerning the look and feel Trek 11 and in particular the Enterprise and feel the need to comment. I keep reading about people wanting it to look like the original and it fitting the existing trek canon and I say it’s not possible. Whether people like it or not ST: Enterprise is considered canon and it looked far more advanced then the 1701 of TOS. Logic then dictates that if the new enterprise was identical to the orginal 1701 there would be a need to explain what the technology appears to have went downhill dramatically since the nx01.
just a thought
To those of you who continue to throw your virtual weight around. This is supposed to be fun, remember, fun? Star Trek is not the sixties. Star Trek is not the 2000’s. Star Trek is Star Trek. An imaginary world, in an imaginary future. Fiction. It don’t matter one lick when the show was filmed because it is NOT real. I realize after reading the last 400 posts that there are a couple of you who think Trek is in fact real. Seek help, please. This is making you entirely too angry. It’s not our fault you spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of thousands of hours on something that will be, in your own words, “useless”. Sheesh. That sucks for you. BIG time. I mean, I feel for my wife. I feel for my daughter. I don’t feeeeel for Trek. I enjoy Trek. When I don’t enjoy it anymore I’ll go do something else knowing that in 20 years it’s all going to be re-made again, and again, and again. Sometimes well, sometimes not so well. So, for the rest of us who see Trek as a fun escape from our daily grind (with a moral or two thrown in), and a healthy hobby to enjoy with the kids I say again, YEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAW! Lets ride this wave and have a good time. Star trek is totally awesome…and totally, utterly, and absolutely FAKE! That’s why I love it. Post your guts out my friends, but pleeeeeease remember Trek should be a fun escape for the whole family. It ain’t astrophysics. As for all you self professed “true” and “hard-core” fans who keep slamming other people for having their own thoughts…Trek don’t need you, baby. It never did.
553. Anthony C
[Whether people like it or not ST: Enterprise is considered canon and it looked far more advanced then the 1701 of TOS.]
I disagree. The TOS “E” had a far more advanced look.
No hull lines for one. I always considered that to be superior engineering.
Like they used the transporters to manufacture the seemless hull.
For me, the TOS “E” had an almost magical quality.
I think that a big issue with changing the designs is that they are changing the designs of an already established era of the Trek universe. It is like making a new First World War film and giving the soldiers all 21st century khaki combat gear just because the producer thinks it looks better.
“But it’s just a fictional universe! It’s not the same as real history!” No, it’s not. You can indeed make changes. But in that case, just come out and admit to the film not being set in the original universe. Then everyone will be happy, and will know whether or not they want to go see the film.
Then we’ll have Original Star Trek (1966-2005) and Imitation Star Trek (2008 + ) :)
When it comes to the look of the Enterprise just remember, “anxiety is the interest paid on trouble before it’s due!”
Learn it, know it, live it! :)
553 – That logic would require one to accept the premise that the NX-01 looked more advanced than the 1701. I don’t.
Actually, seeing a Constitution-class vessel flying side-by-side with an NX-class vessel in “In a Mirror Darkly”, the Constitution looked vastly more advanced to me! And I had no trouble believing that the interiors depicted a more advanced ship, as well.
Just MHO…
“This is gonna prompt the Star Trek Wars and all of the original series will be sent to Omega 3. We’ll all be thrown into volcanoes!”
ROLFLMFAO!!!! Nice reference!
Seriously, I hope you’re not operating under the assumption that we’re all virgins here. ;)
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
hey every one
my two cents for what ever its worth:
I would love to see the original star trek bridge set on the big screen,but unfortuntatly thats just not going to happen. After rewatching the cage and were not man has gone before, those sets, particularely the bridge looks less out of date than the biridge in the rest of the series.
they should ideally keep the basic look of the bridge, and other sets. but they could update them, instead of an orange strip how about a dark red one on the raiiings, instead of the random blinking lights put on modern touch screens. different lighting, and other changes i could live with, as the bridge has changed alot from the pilots to the cage anyway. but a huge change would be disappointing.
but even if they do ruin the sets, i am still open to seeing this movie. it sounds like the enterprise exterior will be basically the same, and seeing nimoy and the new actors will be fun. star trek is a joy to watch,i try not to pick it apart to much.
“And they probably redesigned the whole sickbay too. I know these engineers, they love to change things!”
Had to say, just had to.
I don’t think JJ and Co., who say they are fans, are going to dramatically alter that which they say they love.
I am going to reserve my opinions until I see something worth talking about.
If the interiors are updated but stay relatively fateful to the original series, that is cool! Especially as long as the exterior design stay fateful to the orignal… original as in the form of the remastered look currently available on DVD and on TV! The old sets were cheesy… hey, it was the mid-60s and it is time for an updated version of the interior sets of the USS Enterprise… NCC-1701!
Whenever we have seen classic Constitution-class bridges in later editions of ST–from “Relics” to “Trials and Tribulations” to “In a Mirror, Darkly”–the respective producers remained faithful to the TOS design. In fact, they made a point of showing the functionality of the bridge terminals, kind of “filling in the holes” of what was impossible to show in the 1960s.
Each of these “throwback” episodes garnered great ratings and were very well recieved by most reviewers. I don’t recall anyone clamoring for any updated sets or “reboots” as is being labelled here.
One of the things that makes Star Trek so interesting is the continuity provides a “sense of history yet to happen.” Yes, there are hickups along the way–the ridges on the Klingons’ foreheads (a change directed by none other than Gene Roddenberry), for example. But these changes were done with great care.
I won’t condemn the changes discussed in this thread, but the producers of this movie should understand that if they are not careful, they will kill this franchise once and for all… at least on the big and small screen (Thanks to Mr. Cawley and others, it will never die on the net).
So what?
People take Canon too seriously anyway.
Like the ancient Christians.
If we have LCD screens and touch pads now, they’ll have it or better in the TOS era. A fair amount of our technology (cell phones etc.) have roots in Trek themes. So any going back to floppy disc like memory “tapes” and viewgraph like projections can quietly be replaced with technology that looks like it should exist in the era.
I kinda like the primary colors though – a BSG like dark metal look would be a bit too much IMHO.
glad to her they change it a bit, the old enterprise is really some sort of ugly…
Maybe they will redo all the backgrounds and props on TOS after the new film comes out to better match it?
567 posts argueing over a bit of interior design? you lot are pathetic.
567. trektacular – January 10, 2008
“Maybe they will redo all the backgrounds and props on TOS after the new film comes out to better match it?”
They wouldn’t, simply because it would be too expensive and anger far too many people. Give the new audience what they want, but let the old audience still have their classic TOS. Then everyone is happy :)
For God’s sake. It’s a movie! This movie is as much Star Trek as any of the other movies or TV shows. All of them were made in different eras. All of them arguably revised their look and background. There was enough abuse of the timeline in modern Treks that they rewrote a lot of the continuity anyway.
The very fact that different Trek movies and shows are made when they are affects how they are made. Without 9/11, there wouldn’t have been a Xindi arc. Without the end of the Cold War, there would have been no STVI:TUC. Each one of them, to some extent, rewrites their own continuity.
We’ve seen overhauled continuity in comicbooks many times over the years – Miller’s Batman, Byrne’s Superman, Straczynski’s Spiderman – all overhauls that rebuild, yet remain respectful of, their canon.
People need to take a chill pill. We’re talking about a new movie based on an old TV show, made by self-confessed fans who happen to be substantial players in the business, that’s striving to stay reasonably faithful on a character and story level to what went before.
In the end, this film is a quasi-remake-sequel-prequel and continuity plugin rolled into one bundle. If it’s going to reach a big audience, it can’t afford to be retro. Kirk, Spock and McCoy have to be thoroughly modern interpretations of the characters and the Enterprise has to look like it’s the most advanced ship in Starfleet!!
I’m saddened to see the twisted, vile remarks made about a film people haven’t even seen on this thread. Even worse, I suspect we’ll see the equally twisted, vile, freaky, disturbed abuse on IMDb that the modern Galactica gets by the bunch of weirdoes who can’t get over a 2000s cable network show making its own version of a failed 1970s network TV series.
Some ‘fans’ have let their ‘enjoyment’ of Trek get way out of hand. Just look at the obsessional comments on this thread. Bitter, twisted ‘Me! Me! Me!’ remarks. Trek’s got a rep for being overrun with overly anal nerds with no life beyond their pathetic, borderline religious-fanatic obsession.
Well, this thread has shown it’s often well-deserved. My hope is that, when the new Trek is a huge success, the size of of the fan population will swell to the extend that these worms will become a tiny minority buried deep in the ground, so the rest of us can enjoy Star Trek for the fun speculative fiction adventure franchise it really is!
Gene Roddenberry wanted to make Trek a positive series about reaching out to the future and embracing the unknown. If he could sit here and read the remarks of fans who sound like they’ll practically suicide-bomb screenings of the film over set design – damn the story! – I think he’d weep!
#570. Dom – January 10, 2008
I think you’re largely missing the point. A lot of the beef seems to be that some of the filmmakers are claiming the film is not a reboot, yet others are saying that it is. So which is it? Why can’t we just have a straight answer? Then, those of us who are not interested in a new Trek universe can ignore the film and spend our cash elsewhere.
You can’t have it both ways. The film cannot be canon and a reboot at the same time. If its canon, and set between ‘The Cage’ (2250’s) and TOS Season 1 (2260s), then the sets need to fit between what we already know. If we’re going to be seeing radical changes, a bigger bridge, new exteriors etc, then it cannot be set within the existing Trek universe. Imagine had director Irvin Kerchner radically altered the Millennium Falcon design for ‘The Empire Strikes Back’, then claimed it is still canon, only for Lucas to use the old one in ‘Return of the Jedi’. The films are set only a short time period apart. Would you still say that they could be connected? Or is it more likely that ‘Empire’ is a re-imagining of the franchise? Fine, if that’s what Abrams wants to do here. But he should stop trying to pull along classic fans for the ride. Just appeal to his target audience: the modern moviegoer.
He doesn’t need us ‘old guard’ anyway, as we are a small percentage of the potential box office sales figures. But because it appears that some elements of the film are trying to be faithful, but not others, it doesn’t really satisfy the classic fans anyway. You can’t make it canonical unless you make it all canonical, so why doesn’t Abrams just go ahead and do a proper, totally new Star Trek?
#570- “Gene Roddenberry wanted to make Trek a positive series about reaching out to the future and embracing the unknown. If he could sit here and read the remarks of fans who sound like they’ll practically suicide-bomb screenings of the film over set design – damn the story! – I think he’d weep! ”
..kinda makes you also wonder what the great Bird would think of those who would willingly accept a female Spock on a heavily armed battlecruiser named Enterprise, who is married to her hip-hop android yeoman Kirk…all because it will attract a new audience and has the letters S*T*A*R*T*R*E*K in the title.
There are extremists on both sides of the fence.
#571- well said.
#564: you can go to hell…wait a minute…sounds like you’re on your way there already! HA!
And people who are posting on here and saying that 500+ posts are pathetic blah blah blah….
Just go away. You’re just as bad. It’s the pot calling the kettle black.
This just shoes how passionate us Star Trek fans are…ohh but wait a minute, Star Trek fans are dead right? The franchise is dead right?
PLEASE!
Just make us a good movie and we’ll go see it. Piss us off and screw up our old Trek and we won’t.
End of story.
#571 – I think the answer is that even of the folks wanting the new film to stay in the established Trekverse (and I suspect that’s still a significant number of very vocal people who can either boost or drag the project overall), a substantial majority are willing to accept some level of visual difference as an acknowledgement of the passage of time in reality and the different medium in which the new production will be seen.
Assuming that to be so, why alienate them when it’s not necessary?
#575 Alex Rosenzweig – January 10, 2008
Clearly, this being 2008 (the age of hi-def!), a carbon-copy of TOS isn’t going to cut it by any means. Things need to change. But its the degree of change that has to be given thought. If this new film is set within the existing Trek universe (a fictional timeline spanning some 300 years), it still needs to look like it fits into the year that it’s set in. As I’ve said somewhere before, doing otherwise would be like having a First World War movie with the soldiers wearing modern combat gear and driving M1-Abrams (pun intended) battle tanks just because the producer doesn’t think that tin helmets and bolt-action rifles are good enough for a 2008 film audience. Like it or not, the mid-23rd century in the existing timeline is what we would term ‘retro’.
ENT wasn’t a problem. It could look different to TOS because it was set 100 years before, leaving plenty enough time for technology and fashions to change. But if Abrams’ film is to be set around or between ‘The Cage’ and TOS Season 1, it’s going to be nearly impossible to explain away all the radical visual changes they appear to be making (going by what little we know). Saying that ‘The Cage’ looked like it did, then everything changed to Abrams’ version, then changed back to retro again isn’t going to work. Even “oh, the Enterprise was refitted” won’t cut it if there is no clear design lineage.
They should just advertise it as a reboot, like ‘Casino Royale’ or ‘Batman Begins’. It would likely even help the movie gain attention, as people who don’t like Trek might be more inclined to give a more ‘2008′ approach a go.
The person who wrote the article must be under the impression that the new Trek film takes place after the TV series, as he writes that it’s consistent in Trek history for the 1701 interiors to be changed. And this is correct. But this film is supposed to take place at a specific time during the Enterprise’s history — and the look has been established.
The problem is Abrams and the writers continue to insist that this film is part of the canon, and that is a huge mistake. I would much prefer them to call this a fresh start and a new take on Roddenberry’s creation — much like Casino Royale restarted Bond with a new look — than try to ask fans who have had 40+ years of canon and “fanon” to work with, to accept that what we saw on TV back in 1966-69 is no longer “canon” in terms of what the Enterprise interior looks like.
To the canonistas: There is no such thing as ‘canon’ in Star Trek! Like any long-running book, comic and TV series, it’s always revised itself! It’s only spods who are more interested in writing lists than what Trek is about who care about anal details. Most of us are happy to have something in the general ballpark! ;)
572. star trackie said: ‘..kinda makes you also wonder what the great Bird would think of those who would willingly accept a female Spock on a heavily armed battlecruiser named Enterprise, who is married to her hip-hop android yeoman Kirk…all because it will attract a new audience and has the letters S*T*A*R*T*R*E*K in the title.’
Battlestar Galactica is about a battlestar leading a ragtag fleet to the 13th colony: Earth. New Galactica also makes a point about time existing in cycles with the same souls reincarnating each time. A cylon mentions to Starbuck early on that, in a different cycle of time, their positions might be reversed. That way, it allows Richard Hatch to be Tom Zarek, since he either was or will be Apollo in a different cycle of time. Thus New Galactica is either a sequel or prequel to the original!
If a Star Trek reboot had a female Spock, I wouldn’t mind (as long as she was a hottie!) As it stands, the new Trek can be both a remake and a follow-up/prequel.
As long as the new Trek is about James Kirk and his intrepid crew having exciting adventures in space, while discussing nature, love, war, God and sex – all those things that make up the excitement of the human condition – it’s Star Trek to me and to most of the audience.
#366 – simply rediculous… the fact that beehives and miniskirts were in the 60’s show in no way dictates they should be in this movie at all
use some common sense
578 “If a Star Trek reboot had a female Spock, I wouldn’t mind (as long as she was a hottie!) As it stands, the new Trek can be both a remake and a follow-up/prequel.
As long as the new Trek is about James Kirk and his intrepid crew having exciting adventures in space, while discussing nature, love, war, God and sex – all those things that make up the excitement of the human condition – it’s Star Trek to me and to most of the audience. ”
See, your just looking for spacey fun and adventure. The name brand, the signature “look” and feel of the show, what made it unique and stand out against the Lost in Spaces and Battlestar Galacticas and Star Wars of the world means nothing to you. You just want ships flying through space, someone named Kirk and good stories. And that’s ok, you don’t particularly like TOS and you’re wanting something that will satisfy your movie going needs. And nothing wrong with that, you may or may not get that come Dec. 25.
But to many StarTrek is much more than that. Classic TOS has an identity that sets it apart from the rest. And the thought of gaining new wider audiences at the expense of that identity doesn’t set well with many. Many don’t want Trek that looks and sounds like everything else. Many don’t want TOS to dress and talk like the popular kids just so star wars fans will write in it’s yearbook. They want it to retain the uniqueness that made it special. Nothing wrong with that either.
#577. Alex – January 10, 2008
Yes! Exactly. 100% spot-on.
#579. Jay – January 10, 2008
And why can’t we see ‘beehive’ haircuts and miniskirt uniforms in this film? It’s fun! It would certainly be a change to all the drab, bland, boring-looking science fiction films that have been released so far this decade, with every uniform looking the same.
It’s very simple… canon is just a general guideline to the history of the Star Trek universe and the characters.
Of course you would still have a male Spock, because his character is male. Saying that Spock being a woman is the same as updating the technology of the sets is just being extreme.
Star Trek violated canon numerous times throughout it’s history, even in the original shows. I”m sure Gene, if he were still alive, would laugh his ass off that anyone would get so bent out of shape about ditching the 60’s look of the original show for this movie.
I’m reminded of Shatner’s appearance on Saturday Night Live – “IT’S JUST A TV SHOW!!!”
This is a new vision of Star Trek – meaning a new vision of the original story with the oringal characters. It doesn’ have to be a complete reboot to update the look of the ship, change the uniforms, or any other trivial stuff like that.
That stuff isn’t Star Trek… the story is.
I’ve been saying from the begining that people need to forget about seeing anything that resembles the 1960’s show, especially in terms of the set designs or costumes. There is nothing that would compel the makers of this film to do that and there is nothing in canon that would require it that is any more important than the 100’s of other things in canon that have been violated over time.
Like someone said before, the movies and shows are a reflection of the time they are made in.
I love Star Trek, but i’m not a hard core trekkie because i can understand that it’s a show and that things change.
The general movie audience and casual Star Trek fans, unllike some on these boards, will expect an updated look to this franchise comming from a new movie and from Abrams. They will not be the least bit concerned that things are updated even though it’s set in the same time period that the original 60’s show was set.
The show was MADE in the 60’s, NOT SET in the 60’s. Just because 60’s style influenced the set designs doesn’t mean you have to keep those designs. That is the most simple minded idea i’ve seen on these boards in a long time.
#580… you are right, and the identity of Star Trek and what made Star Trek what it was in the original show was the story and the characters, NOT the set design. That isn’t Star Trek.
If that is all you think is Star Trek, or if that is what you think is most important about Star Trek, then you missed the whole point of the story.
#581 – Why can’t we see beehives? Well, simply put, because it would look stupid.
It’s obvious to me there is going to be a small percentage of Star Trek fans that think anything set in the time period of early career of Kirk has to look just like the 60’s show. All i can say to you guys is that it’s not going to. So, if you can’t accept that, then don’t go see it.
The fact that it won’t look like the 60’s show won’t in anyway dimish that it is still Star Trek.
If you are going to make a movie set 200 years in the future, you have to make it look like it’s 200 years in the future. People go to sci fi movies in part to see cool things that they haven’t imagined yet, as well as a good story. THe look of the 60’s show simply doesn’t look like the future, and would be a huge failure.
Why can’t we see that in this film? Because Abrams and Paramount would like to stop the string of disasters that have been Star Trek movies and actually make a decent profit, and possibly more films. IF they did what you want, none of that would happen.
579- ” simply rediculous… the fact that beehives and miniskirts were in the 60’s show in no way dictates they should be in this movie at all
use some common sense ”
You just don’t get it. Nimoy was in TOS Star Trek. Nimoy is in the new movie. The common denominator between the movie and 1966 is Nimoy playing the SAME character in the SAME fictional universe. With me so far Jay? Nimoy-Spock’s past has alrady been established on screen. If this new movie is to use Nimoy as Spock and is not a reboot, then..using common sense…IF we see elements of Nimoy/Spock’s past…it should remain the same as what has already been established.
Like I said, you don’t have to like it, but like it or not…miniskirts and beehives and a boxy captain’s chair IS Spock’s past.
If Sean Connery was cast as a time traveling James Bond, and he went back in time to the era of Goldfinger, shouldn’t he still be driving the same Aston Martin? If Harrison Ford shows up in Lucas’ new Star Wars TV show as Han Solo and magically time travels back to where he shoots Greedo…should the Millineum Falcon change into a red, smooth skinned, cigar shaped ship…just because the TV show’s director thinks his CGI looks better and that corny model is laughable?
Spock’s past is established folks. It is what it is, leave it be.
One last point…. The last several Star Trek films, because of the low budgets, were nothing more in terms of production value, special effects and set design, than the TV shows.
In other words, there was nothing in them that couldn’t have been done in a episode of TNG. People don’t want to pay $8 to see something they could see on TV, especially sci fi fans. They want to see things that they can’t see on TV. Special effects and set designs that blow them away.
Like the first time The Matrix came out. People were talking about that constantly and going to see it multiple times because it was so ground breaking.
That’s what i would like to see in Star Trek. I love the original characters and story, but i also love good sci fi and i want to see some cool stuff. And i bet most people that would see this movie will say the same.
We don’t want to pay $8 for a 2 hour TV episode of Star Trek.
#585 – “You just don’t get it. Nimoy was in TOS Star Trek. Nimoy is in the new movie. The common denominator between the movie and 1966 is Nimoy playing the SAME character in the SAME fictional universe. With me so far Jay? Nimoy-Spock’s past has alrady been established on screen. If this new movie is to use Nimoy as Spock and is not a reboot, then..using common sense…IF we see elements of Nimoy/Spock’s past…it should remain the same as what has already been established. ”
I can follow you quite easily. The problem is your logic is simplistic and flawed. Nothing you said dictates that they have to use anything that looks like the original show. Nothing. It’s a NEW movie. Made in 2008. NOT in 1965. Why can’t you get that through your head?
Yes that stuff is Star Trek’s past. Doesn’t mean it has to be in the movie. Doesn’t make it “canon”. Doesn’t mean that it is a factual part of the Star Trek fictional universe.
Again, just because this movie is set in the same time period as the original show, and just because Nimoy is in it, has absolutely zero to do with set design of the movie. To make that leap is crazy.
Following your failed logic, you would never be able to make a new Star Trek set in that time period that didn’t look exactly like the original show and use the same dumb sets and props and horrible special effects. In that case, you simply could never make another Star Trek in that time period because no one but you would want to see it.
i could just imagine the faces of the Paramount execs if Abrams came to them and said he wanted to make this movie, but he was going to make it look and feel just like the 60’s show – complete with beehives, miniskirts, wood props, knobs and buttons, red doors, etc.
They would laugh his ass out of the office and his career would be just about done.
580. star trackie: ‘See, your just looking for spacey fun and adventure. The name brand, the signature “look” and feel of the show, what made it unique and stand out against the Lost in Spaces and Battlestar Galacticas and Star Wars of the world means nothing to you. You just want ships flying through space, someone named Kirk and good stories. And that’s ok, you don’t particularly like TOS and you’re wanting something that will satisfy your movie going needs. And nothing wrong with that, you may or may not get that come Dec. 25.’
ROTFLMAO!!! TOS is my favourite Star Trek and one of my all time and one of my top ten shows of all time! You do realise that I was quoting Gene Roddenberry when I talked about ‘having exciting adventures in space, while discussing nature, love, war, God and sex – all those things that make up the excitement of the human condition!’?
That’s what Star Trek was to him: it was about the philosophy, not the sets! Why do you think he had no qualms about radically changing the look of the ship, costumes and sets for TMP. This was Star Trek on a big budget, reinterpreted for the cinema! Why do you think he changed the look of the Klingons? As far as he was concerned, they always looked like that! The only ‘explanation’ came in Enterprrise, which most people never watched. The ‘explanation’ was also completely unnecessary! Gene considered it obvious enough to crack jikes about northern and southern Klingons!
‘But to many StarTrek is much more than that. Classic TOS has an identity that sets it apart from the rest. And the thought of gaining new wider audiences at the expense of that identity doesn’t set well with many. Many don’t want Trek that looks and sounds like everything else. Many don’t want TOS to dress and talk like the popular kids just so star wars fans will write in it’s yearbook. They want it to retain the uniqueness that made it special. Nothing wrong with that either.’
But you see, you’re thinking again more in terms of the technical details – the ephemera – than what Trek’s about. Star Trek’s brand is as a philosophical, science fiction adventure series. As the movies have already proven, it transcends sets, models and – hopefully- actors!
I love Trek and its message about the future, and I am glad to see live on. I don’t care about what the sets will look like; in fact I am glad they will not look like those cheesy, low budget sets from the 60’s. That was then, this is now. Don’t get me wrong, I loved those sets and the look of the original. They are like comfort food, I know it can be bad, but it makes me feel so good!
Think of it this way, the 1989 Batman movie would have been a big joke it they used the cheesy sets and costumes from the 60’s show. Also that movie was Tim Burton’s take on Batman. This new project is J.J. Abrams’ take on the Trek universe and I am more willing to give it a chance. I just hope that he does move away from the main message of Trek, “the human adventure is just beginning”. If he get’s that right, I will be pleased.
#582
“It doesn’ have to be a complete reboot to update the look of the ship, change the uniforms, or any other trivial stuff like that”
There are only two factors, like ‘Yes’ and ‘No’: there is ‘Canon’ and ‘Non-Canon’. It is either a reboot or it isn’t, and Abrams really needs to choose. You can’t have it both ways.
#587
You seem to be taking it to the extreme. Of course there has to be changes: the sets need to look solid, expansive and…well, not as if they were made for a TV show. But, if the film is canon, it still has to look like it is set in the period it is set in. And that means miniskirts, bubble chairs, assignment patches etc. If Abrams doesn’t want that, then he’s doing a reboot. So he should say so.
If Arbams wanted to do a canon movie but completely use his own ‘imaginative’ version of the Trek universe, then he would have to choose a new time period to play in, one that hasn’t already been established. You can’t take an existing time period, radically alter what it looks like, then say that TOS, TAS, and episodes of TNG, DS9 and ENT are ‘wrong’. If you do that, it’s called a reboot.
The point is that if he wants to change things, he should just say its a reboot. Then people who share your opinion will be happy, and classic fans can choose to leave the film well alone. But the fact that they are claiming its canon, yet indicating that what we know will be changed, is the problem.
#590
“Think of it this way, the 1989 Batman movie would have been a big joke it they used the cheesy sets and costumes from the 60’s show. Also that movie was Tim Burton’s take on Batman. This new project is J.J. Abrams’ take on the Trek universe and I am more willing to give it a chance.”
Yes, but Burton never intended for the film to have anything to do with the 1960’s series. With NuTrek, the writers are saying that it will be in the same timeline as the 1960’s Trek series but everyone else is saying that it won’t.
#576 -
Clearly, this being 2008 (the age of hi-def!), a carbon-copy of TOS isn’t going to cut it by any means. Things need to change. But its the degree of change that has to be given thought. If this new film is set within the existing Trek universe (a fictional timeline spanning some 300 years), it still needs to look like it fits into the year that it’s set in.”
Sure. But we can all agree that that’s possible to do with a reasonable amount of modernization. I think the neat thing about Jefferies’ basic designs is that they are strong enough to support quite a bit of “updating” without having to look like the updates couldn’t fit.
I’ll agree that a certain level of open-mindedness on our parts may be necessary, as will a certain level of faithfulness on the part of the production designers. But until we see what they’ve done, it’ll be hard to know whether the two aspects will mesh.
[snip]
“Saying that ‘The Cage’ looked like it did, then everything changed to Abrams’ version, then changed back to retro again isn’t going to work. Even “oh, the Enterprise was refitted” won’t cut it if there is no clear design lineage.”
Sure, but until we know for sure that there isn’t such a lineage, I’m not gonna get my knickers in a twist over it. After all, we’ve also been told by Mr. Orci that a lot of work has gone into making the production design faithful to TOS.
“They should just advertise it as a reboot, like ‘Casino Royale’ or ‘Batman Begins’.”
Nope, can’t agree with that. I think that keeping it in the existing fictional ‘verse, even if the look is somewhat updated, is the right thing to do. A complete reboot, with a whole separate continuity…nope, bad move, IMHO.
But, then, I don’t think there’s any real problem with keeping the basics of the style while simultaneously bringing the set design details and tech up to 2008 specs. I’m not suggesting plywood sets and such; I’m saying that if done in metals and fiberglass, with touch-screen displays instead of winkie-blinkies and push-buttons, the original sets could look very different even if the physical size and dimensions didn’t change, and those differences would be a very, very minor issue.
Best,
Alex
#591 – I have to agree with Jay on this one. I don’t think it’s as much of a binary function as all that. I think it’s possible to tell a story today that’s set in the TOS era, while still acknowledging that the design of it wouldn’t be a carbon-copy of a TV show made 40 years ago.
I’m admittedly somewhat of a purist, but were I the production designer of this movie, I’d even make changes, if for no other reason than that I’d have the ability to show stuff that the TOS designers would have loved to, but didn’t have the money or the technology to portray.
Simple way to look at it is this:
If Star Trek (2008) had been made in 1965, it would have looked like the 1965 shows.
If TOS were to be made in 2008, it would look like the new movie.
If you can get over having new actors, you can get over fab modern sets! Best of all, if you have such big issues with the film, don’t see it! Buy the novelisation and imagine William Shatner and co with the original designs.
The rest of us will go and be amazed at how fab the new look film has made Roddenberry’s wonderful ideas look!!
#594
“I think it’s possible to tell a story today that’s set in the TOS era, while still acknowledging that the design of it wouldn’t be a carbon-copy of a TV show made 40 years ago”
Not really. Casino Royale acknowledges the older Bond films in its designs. Batman Begins acknowledges the films and comics of old through its designs. The new Battlestar Galactica acknowledges the designs of the classic series, but they are all reboots.
If this is to be set in the original canon, paying homage to the old designs won’t do. Maybe if the film was set much further away from any existing time frame, but not when it is so close to an already established time period. It has to look like it is part of the universe we already know, being part of a proper design lineage between the different versions of the Enterprise/Starfleet uniforms etc.
Films are a visual form of literature. If you cannot work within the confines of your own universe, then its called a reboot.
“if for no other reason than that I’d have the ability to show stuff that the TOS designers would have loved to, but didn’t have the money or the technology to portray”
There is a huge difference between showing what they didn’t have the money to do and just changing the designs ‘because’, which is the vibe I’m getting from the film at the moment. It is, of course, too early to tell. The teaser trailer coming soon will hopefully be Stage One of finding out whether this is a reboot or a canon film.
While we’re here, could someone actually define what ‘canon’ is? Is ‘canon’ the stories, the special and audio FX, the music, the sets, the costumes? Is Remastered canon with the new FX? I reckon we’d get countless different responses. Which basically means that there is no such thing as ‘canon’ except in the minds of the deluded.
I love all TOS and the cartoons. I’d also happily chuck in one or two of the novels. For me, it’s the wonderful ideas, stories and characters that make Trek what it is.
I’m so sorry for people who are really getting so het up about such trivial things as the size of a phaser!!
#596 – “If this is to be set in the original canon, paying homage to the old designs won’t do. Maybe if the film was set much further away from any existing time frame, but not when it is so close to an already established time period. It has to look like it is part of the universe we already know, being part of a proper design lineage between the different versions of the Enterprise/Starfleet uniforms etc.”
To a point, I’ll agree. But at what point does it get too far from the original, taking as a given that they’re not going to be using 1960s sets, built and operated as if it was a ’60s TV show? Obviously I’m willing to reserve judgment until I actually see something, and can decide whether they’ve strayed too far from the mark for me to be comfortable with, but given that they’ve said some real effort has been made to be true to those original designs, even while giving it an “updating” to reach modern audiences, I’m not going to dismiss it out of hand until I get a chance to look.
And since I would make some level of change, too, even while scrupulously keeping any film I was involved with within the established Trekverse, how can I condemn others who might do similarly? :)
I guess I’m just willing to allow the “canon” envelope to stretch a bit more than you (or am willing to define “visual canon” and “factual canon” as different things?), and that’s cool. Different strokes and all that.
Best,
Alex
596 mada ‘Films are a visual form of literature. If you cannot work within the confines of your own universe, then its called a reboot.’
TOS was a TV show. Star Trek (2008) is a movie. Different media, different requirements. Live with it!
I’m outta here! This garbage about canon is just so much balls!! ;)
Can’t
wait for
Star Trek XI
I read this:
“How will this movie fit with canon then?
I don’t understand how they say this movie will RESPECT canon!”
The thing is, there is no canon to cover the time period the movie will cover. As long as it looks consistent with established canon, I’m not going to worry about it.
#597
Canon is the literary universe as depicted in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the ten movies. They ‘grey area’ is TAS, which was canon, then wasn’t, but now apparently is again. It does not include the novels, the comics, board games, computer games, or any of that.
Pretty easy to define.
#599
Pointing out the difference between film and television is like telling us that novels and novellas are different mediums.
#587- “Following your failed logic, you would never be able to make a new Star Trek set in that time period that didn’t look exactly like the original show and use the same dumb sets and props and horrible special effects. ”
…noooow. I get it. You’re not a fan of TOS anyway. Next.
#589- “That’s what Star Trek was to him: it was about the philosophy..”
Oh man, we really don’t want to get into what Gene’s real “philosophy” was do we? I mean, I appreciate the pie in the sky ideals, but Roddenberry was a producer. A businessman. He did good things. Let’s leave it at that.
If they want to visit a period of Star Trek history that looks a certain way,
it should look the way it always looked. Star Trek may be fiction but it has a long history that should be respected.
Personally I think they made a big mistake. If they had set this movie after the Enterprise -E they could have done WHATEVER they wanted and if they screwed up it would solely on whether the movie was good or not.
If they HAD to go with the Kirk-Spock era they could have put it right after Star Trek the Motion Picture and again do almost anything they wanted.
If they recon this too much, that reduces Star Trek to the artistic level of a comic book. Maybe that’s all it is to a lot of people, but it means a lot more to a lot of old AND new fans.
Just remember when Abe Lincoln pulls up in his trans am in some movie that history is important.
Captain David Lynn Reedy of the u.s.s. galactic voyager class ’statcraft’: to whom it may concern; its of all the whole idea of a reboot is great, we as trekkies can hope this attempt will turn out more like ‘Batman Begins’ and nothing like Pirates of the Caribbean.or other such duds. So let it be written, so let it be done.
#599 Dom “This garbage about canon is just so much balls!!”
You rang?? And I was having such a nice sleep….
Don’t call me unless you need me! :)
In the 60s our country desisigned an interplanetary spaceship and delivered men to THE MOON! Now 40 years later we are “redesigning” everything that was proven to work and there is no launch in sight.
Not even a test to see if what is planned will work (like ST XI). I have heard that the new moon spaceship will be bigger and better. I doubt very highly that we will be successful with the new moon shot, with a bigger and better design, the first time out.
I would have liked to see us go back to the moon years ago, with established tech and designs (easily at half the price of the new spaceship’s “estimated” cost) with slight upgrades, and produce many, many, many more moon shots
Simalarly, .I would have gone with established Star Trek TOS ‘look; and designs (easily at half the price of the new production) with slight upgrades (LCDs on the bridge and a better fabrication of the set), and produced many, many, many more adventures.
I think it’s a valid point and hard for any American/Trekie to disagree with. Unless of course you think that visiting other worlds more often (new ST series) is a collosal waste of time.
C’mon Paramont, show us us something that you have planned!
I am still waiting to be WOW’ed.
You too NASA! ; )
Canon is the glue that holds all of Star Trek together. Gene Roddenberry held canon very dear to his heart.
The old fans are being evicted from USS Enterprise, just as Shatner has been evicted by the casting snub.
Roddenberry & Gene Coon had it right over 40 years ago, the crew is our extended family! The bridge is where we have been paying our visits for the past four decades. If Abrams seeks to make us strangers in our own home, then he truly doesn’t understand Star Trek—-or us!
#561… Bobby, yours was the funniest, classiest and most sensical response to the upcoming changes anyone has made. AND it was canonical too (all the better). Thanks for making my day!
As to being upset about upcoming changes, I doubt I would be too upset over this. Look at this way, if J.J. Abrahms has the budget to make the Enterprise a kick-ass starship–the likes we have never seen before, why not do it? Every production wants to leave their mark on canon, this movie crew, no less.
The original series had a budget of less than $200,000 per episode… the technology was nothing compared to today. Roddenberry and Matt Jeffries did the best they could with what they had in with their 1960s budget. I want this movie to knock my socks off!
Look, the fact that the old Spock and the young Spock are going to be in the same movie means that most likely some sort of time travel is going to be involved. I would bet that the Romulans try to go back in time and change the past so humans are no longer a threat. They target the crew of the orignal Eterprise.Old Spock tries to stop them and is successful somewhat. However, major changes to the timeline take place. Explaining the reboot.
What’s important???
I liked the set design of TOS so much that I re-decorated my office cubicle to match it.
I was fired two days later.
Speaking of continuity- how could you faithfully re-create the old Star Trek design and technology in a day and age where my cell phone does a thousand more things than Kirk’s ever did? All he could do was call on Scotty. I can take videos, answer email, probably even shave with it (it is called a RAZR, after.) And that tape recorder Spock used must have had tubes in it.
I would be more concernend about re-capturing established characters and about a clever storyline. People reinvent Hamet every few years (look, Hamlet as a mechanic in Jersey whose mob boss uncle whacks his dad) – and Dracula went through how many re-imaginings?
The real spirit of Star Trek that should never change was its quality of writing and positive spin on the future. In short- its IDEAS of people working together to explore and become better as a whole.
Despite crappy cardboard sets and cheap bright colored shirts that would probably evaporate in modern dryers, Star Trek made an impact by appealing to our imagintaion and to our values.
If maintaining the rubber lizard or the spartan, red, yellow, blue sets are the things important to fans, then perhaps you have missed the point.
Call out JJ if he doesn’t keep the faith by maintaining creative clever writing filled with moralilty plays and imagination. And for goodness sakes- surprise us with something we never saw coming!
re 612 Doug…
You can’t leave your mark on canon by ignoring canon. I’m certainly open to change, but I’m expecting we’re not making change for change sake alone.
There is a huge discussion on comic threads that has fans up in arms regarding Spiderman right now that has some interesting parallels regarding continuity being thrown out the window.
There is lots of room to make change creatively that doesn’t fly in the face of all that has gone before, and we as fans also need to be accepting to a certain degree that certain things do actually need to be changed.
Obviously you can’t please all the people all the time, but the hope is that good storytellers vs lazy storytellers will handle that change in a smart and creative fashion.
Doug L.
Me personally I’m all for a ‘re-imagined’ star trek based on TOS design. And when I go and see this film I will use suspension of disbelief and will probably enjoy the film for what it ultimately is, a piece of high quality entertainment. Just wish some people could be a little open minded and actually wait and see what is proposed instead of jumping to conclusions. You might actually like what has been done
Everyones talking about set redesign but what about props and sound effects?
Are we going to hear TOS bridge noise sound loop? or the transporter sound and visual effect? Are the phasors and photon torpedo’s going to look and sound exactly like TOS? where doyou draw the line at what is sacred and what is not?
#611: “Canon is the glue that holds all of Star Trek together. Gene Roddenberry held canon very dear to his heart.”
Only to the extent that it enabled him to rule other peoples’ contributions to Trek in or out of “canon” and thus control it. It’s not like GR remembered or even knew all of the details of “Star Trek” – he didn’t invent most of them, and other folks had to keep track of them for him.
It sounds as if the design style of this film will be more similar to the “Star Wars” prequels – expansive, CG-enhanced sets utilizing a variety of historical influences and styles – than to TOS (which drew largely from utilitarian and mid-century influences with a smattering of old sf pulp visualization thrown in).
Most of the canon was decided on the fly by writers or dictated by budget. These choices were practical, not ideal. Canon also changes movie to movie.
Screw canon. Bury the trans warp shuttle craft that turned people into fish… It’s an engineering disaster.
Besides, nobody minds reinterpreting SOME canon, as long as they’re the ones doing it.
#591 “Of course there has to be changes: the sets need to look solid, expansive and…well, not as if they were made for a TV show. But, if the film is canon, it still has to look like it is set in the period it is set in. And that means miniskirts, bubble chairs, assignment patches etc. If Abrams doesn’t want that, then he’s doing a reboot. So he should say so.
If Arbams wanted to do a canon movie but completely use his own ‘imaginative’ version of the Trek universe, then he would have to choose a new time period to play in, one that hasn’t already been established. You can’t take an existing time period, radically alter what it looks like, then say that TOS, TAS, and episodes of TNG, DS9 and ENT are ‘wrong’. If you do that, it’s called a reboot.
The point is that if he wants to change things, he should just say its a reboot. Then people who share your opinion will be happy, and classic fans can choose to leave the film well alone. But the fact that they are claiming its canon, yet indicating that what we know will be changed, is the problem. ”
Yep.
When talking about continuity and canon, let’s remember that Trek 11 isn’t the first time outsiders have dabbled in Trek canon. After the lackluster ST:TMP (my personal fave), Star Trek was handed to Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer, outsiders who revamped Trek.
Think about how many points of canon were ESTABLISHED by those two outsiders. Carol Marcus. The Kobayashi Maru and Kirk’s solution.
In fact, think about all the things they did to our beloved Trek: In STII, they killed a major character, gave another one a son, created Carol and the Kobayashi Maru test, etc. And we LOVED it!!! We didn’t complain that Kirk had a son; it made sense from what we’d seen of him. The Kobayashi and Kirk’s answer to it? Pure Trek!
With the exception of Nemesis, the best/most popular Trek movies were the ones with the most influence from non-Trek people. The ones that were most closely tied to/controlled by the TV show cast/crew were the films that sucked.
So, I’m open to new designs on the Enterprise. Heck, we already saw the grand old E get turned into a tan-and-pastel suburban corporate office in TNG (sorry, but the 1701-D looked like a flying office building, inside and out). I hope to see a really new, radical, exciting set of designs in this film.
I’d love to see our dear old ship untouched, unchanged, but that’s not going to happen–so I say, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead, change it all!!!
Maybe the reason the new enterprise is so much bigger in the 2008 film is because the crew has been transformed into midgets..hahhahahha. I’m not a troll but there is no way I can read all these posts!
I bet we’ll all be surprised when the movie comes out and it looks EXACTLY like the original show, just…new. More detail, maybe subtler colors for the uniforms, but I think it’ll be a very retro-style movie. After all, retro is cool, and Trek has built-in retro appeal. Ray guns and pointy-eared, green aliens? Check!
Just like the TOS-remastered idea was to use new CGI to create model-like shots that mesh into the 60s SFX, I think this movie will just say, “What would Star Trek have looked like with $200 million and state-of-2008-effects?” The same Enterprise, but larger, more spacious, more EPIC.
And on December 26 of this year, we’ll all be screaming, “MORE, J.J.! This is the Trek we’ve all dreamed about!!!”
And think about this, people: most TV shows-turned-movies get the full reboot/revamp from the start. Except for the Gilligan’s Island tv-movies, Star Trek is just about the only TV show to maintain the cast and style from the show into feature films and new shows. (After all, in 1979, nobody went looking for Buster Crabbe when they were remaking Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon.)
So we’ve been lucky–we got the real deal for all these extra years. But now, Trek is finally going where it’s never gone before…completely into new hands…and I think we’ll be pleasantly thrilled.
I hope…(gulp)…
#616
“Everyones talking about set redesign but what about props and sound effects?”
Because this is a news thread about set redesigns.
#620
“In fact, think about all the things they did to our beloved Trek: In STII, they killed a major character, gave another one a son, created Carol and the Kobayashi Maru test, etc. And we LOVED it!!! We didn’t complain that Kirk had a son; it made sense from what we’d seen of him. The Kobayashi and Kirk’s answer to it? Pure Trek!”
Yes. But this all happened later in the timeline. There was nothing beyond that for us to say “well, that doesn’t fit in because…”. Abrams’ film (we can’t really call it Trek 11 until we know if its really the eleventh Star Trek movie, or the first of New Star Trek) is set between existing time periods. That’s the issue. Unless, of course, he is doing a reboot – then it’s not an issue, but he should just say so instead of pretending otherwise.
#622
“And on December 26 of this year, we’ll all be screaming, “MORE, J.J.! This is the Trek we’ve all dreamed about!!!””
We might indeed, if you don’t think that existing Trek has been ‘Trek’ enough ;) The only real difference this film is going to have over the quality of TOS is in its SFX, which have always been secondary to the story. Space battles are nice, but that’s not what Trek is about. Let’s hope that O&K can deliver a Trek script, not a Star Wars script with ‘Galactic Empire’ changed to ‘Starfleet’ and ‘Jedi’ changed to ‘Spock’.
I didn’t bother to wade through all six hundred twenty odd posts so forgive a little if I echo another posting.
I see a lot of opinions… and a some inflamatory exaggerations. A good opinion is an informed opinion and I see little solid information for any poster to make the broad assumptions I see in here.
Has anyone here theorized that some of the stuff being said, such as “not your daddy’s Trek..” could well be JUST a flippant remark? Or maybe a comment designed to stir the fandom up a little?
And please don’t respond with threats of boycotts or “if JJ does ____, I won’t go”.
You know darn well you’re going.
#318 Sam Belil
Yes, we know there will be scenes set at the academy, but as I already said, we don’t know exactly which parts of Kirk’s academy life we will see in the movie. Also, consider this: Kirk was an instructor at the Academy, yes? There are several years between Kirk’s time on the Farragut and his taking command of Enterprise. Suppose it was during those years that Kirk taught at the academy and became friends at the academy? I know Kirk said in WNMHGB that he had *known* Mitchell for 15 years (which means he first met Mitchell around 2250), but there’s no evidence to suggest that Mitchell was in the academy at that time or that Kirk and Mitchell became friends at that time. All we know is that A.) Kirk and Mitchell met in 2250 and B.) have been friends since Mitchell entered the Academy.
I have watched “Where No Man…” many times. If Mitchell is not in the movie, it will not go against anything that has been canonically established. It just means you have to interpret things differently.
#623 I understand that. If you read my whole post I’m hoping you would have understood that my point was, at what point does all the things that are considered canon and cannot be changed, stop?
All this speculation seems a little pointless until we see a trailer or official pictures at least.
#625
“You know darn well you’re going.”
Really? I’ve been a Trek fan for years, but the only film I have seen in the cinema is ‘Generations’. So if I didn’t bother to go watch films I did like set in the original canon, why would I pay to go see a film that (possibly) won’t be?
#627
It starts and stops with the ‘feel’ and visual look of the time period. If the props, costumes or whatever don’t look like they fit with what we know of that era, then they should not have been changed (assuming its a canon production, and not a reboot).
#628
It’s already been confirmed the film will be set in established canon and is not a reboot. And design changes to the props and costumes will not change that, they are just necessities for this type of film (a science fiction film made in 2008).
The uniforms and instruments used by Kirk and his crew changed at least three times in a twenty-year period. Since this film will likely take place before the original series (and at least part of it even before “The Cage”), changes in designs won’t hurt anything. Even if it was set during the actual series, it wouldn’t hurt anything. A tricorder would still be a tricorder; a communicator would still be a communicator; a uniform will still be a uniform. I wouldn’t fret too much about it, though; just because designs will be updated doesn’t mean they won’t have the look of the original props/costumes/etc. In fact, they most likely will.
canon has nothing to do with set design… why do people keep refering to the 60’s set designs as canon? it’s not
628. mada101 – January 10, 2008
#625
“You know darn well you’re going.”
And if you weren’t thinking about it, you’d not be in here talking about it.
“You seem to be taking it to the extreme. Of course there has to be changes: the sets need to look solid, expansive and…well, not as if they were made for a TV show. But, if the film is canon, it still has to look like it is set in the period it is set in. And that means miniskirts, bubble chairs, assignment patches etc. If Abrams doesn’t want that, then he’s doing a reboot. So he should say so.”
This comment makes me laugh out loud. This is so far from reality it’s not even funny.
THe movie is set in that time period… that time period is 200 years in the future, not 1965. Some of you don’t seem to be able to distinguish the two.
The original series’ sets were what they thought in 1965 that the 23rd century would look like, given their limited budget.
We as a people and these film makers have a completely different view of what the 23rd century looks like.
Again, the only thing that is canon is that the story takes place in the 23rd century – our future. There is nothing in canon that says there have to be beehives or miniskirts.
Seriously, it seems like i’m talking to an 8 year old sometimes. If you truely believe that canon means that anything set in the early years of Kirk has to look like the 1960’s tv show, you are waaaayyyy too deep into trek and i suggest you need to get a life.
The vast majority of peole that will want to go see this movie, Star Trek fans, and general sci fi fans alike, will recognize, just like Gene Roddenberry, that this is a fictional movie and that as such, and as a new vision of Star Trek, it will not look like it was made in the 1960’s for tv.
Don’t you think if Gene had the budget and technology of today he would have made the orignal series completely differently? Of course he would. Just like he said himself when TMP came out. Updating the look of Star Trek is not only necessary buisness wise, but expected by most fans that go to the movie. Most fans want to see what new things they have added… how is the bridge changed…. how are phasers and beeming effects changed…. what cool special effects will there be….. no one but the very tiny few hard core trekkies will want to see a movie that looks like it was made in the 1960’s.
Wow… Does anyone really think anyone is going to read their post on this site if it is up over 600 posts?
634th! Wooooo… woo. wo.
Geek Jihad. That is the best description of these discussions I have ever heard. Bravo!
mada101…. it doesn’t matter if they call it a reboot or not…. just because it’s set in the time period of kirk’s early career and just because nimoy is in the movie does not mean it has to look like the 1960’s show. just because they say they are going to respect canon doesn’t mean it has to look like the 1960’s show…
you can have it both ways… you can say it’s not a reboot and still update the set designs and costumes…. where do you get that they can’t do that?
again, the sets of the original series have nothing to do with canon and are not themselves Star Trek… Star Trek, as many have said, quoting Gene even, is a story about human relationships set in a fictional future….. you can change everything about the sets, models, cosumes, props, etc. and as long as you follow the story created by Gene, then it’s still star trek. And based on his comments, i’d bet Gene would agree with that.
604 mada… you do realize there are literally hundreds of contradictions in those so called “canon” shows you listed right? even within one series, such as TOS, there are contradictions.
You seriously need to get over your canon trip. When the producers of this movie said they were going to respect canon, they mean the general history of the story and the characters. I seriously doubt they meant every little detail in set design or cosume design, etc.
Your comments lead me to believe that you think Star Trek is real.
And for whoever said i don’t like TOS…. well, you’re wrong. I can like a show and still criticize it’s short commings. I grew up watching TOS and i love it. But, i’m a far more sophisticated visual media customer today than i was when i was 10, and i can watch the shows and enjoy them still today, but i laugh at times at the bad acting, or super cheesy sets or special affects. To say you aren’t a true fan if you laugh at those things is really going off the deep end.
Unlike some of you, i realize it was a tv show made up by people trying to make a buck through entertainment, and it was a low budget tv show at that. Still, i like the story behind it and i can see how cool it could be if given the budget in a modern movie and the right vision by writers, diretors and producers….. and i sure hope it’s alot better than what we saw in TOS
Some of you seem to think what happend in TOS ACTUALLY happened… lol… it’s just hilarious reading some of these posts talking about TOS as though it’s actual history and therefor “CAN’t” be changed… . sure it can… easy… just watch
Simalarly, .I would have gone with established Star Trek TOS ‘look; and designs (easily at half the price of the new production) with slight upgrades (LCDs on the bridge and a better fabrication of the set), and produced many, many, many more adventures.
dude you wouldn’t have produced anything doing that, unless you are wealthy and used your own money, because no studio would do that
why? because it would be a box office disaster and wouldn’t make a dime
632- “THe movie is set in that time period… that time period is 200 years in the future, not 1965. Some of you don’t seem to be able to distinguish the two.”
And you clearly can’t differentiate between a story told in a fictional universe/timeline and TV production. See, just because Russel Crowes 3:10 to Yuma was filmed in 2006 doesn’t mean the story takes place in 2006. It takes place in the late 1800s. Star Trek is no different, you’re just going a different direction in time.
Stanly Kubrick’s masterpiece 2001 looks NOTHNG like the real world 7 years ago….and…newsflash..it too was filmed around 1966. I guess, by your thinking, that story couldn’t possibly be set in 2001 since it was a 1960’s movie. I don’t get that mindset at all.
#637 ” grew up watching TOS and i love it…”
Oh yeah, that’s REAL apparent. lol
#637
“Your comments lead me to believe that you think Star Trek is real.”
Clearly, you haven’t really understood at all what I was saying. First off, Star Trek is by no means my favourite TV show/film franchise. The only reason I consider myself a Trekkie is because the individual shows that make up that franchise have interested me enough to watch them (mostly…kinda gave up on Voyager). Because of that, I’ve respected the connections between the different series (it’s cool to get a nod to one in another), and therefore, the solid literary universe that has been created by about a hundred writers over the years. Quite an achievement.
I don’t care for a reboot. I have utterly no issue against it in principle (get new fans, make lots of money for the people involved, etc), but I don’t have the interest in paying hard-earned cash to go see a movie like that. Many of you do, and that’s great. You’re going to be getting something that you guys want to see – fantastic!
I only want to know if this film will be a reboot or not. It’s that simple, and it’s just annoying to get contradicting evidence from the production staff. That’s the only ‘issue’ I have here.
636-637- Well, I agreed before, but I do have to take issue with one thing you’re saying, jay… I think that at least the general designs and overall “look’ should be preserved, because it is an aspect of that fictional world, the same way one wouldn’t put cities in the Old West with bubble domes, just because we could with today’s VFX.
I agree that on the detail level and the ersatz-tech level, there’s a lot of valid room for change, because even what they *said* the Enterprise could do at times, they couldn’t afford to show. And, sure, stuff like the exact style of control interface, for example, if that changes, so be it. It’s not that huge a deal.
That’s why I drew a distinction between “factual canon” (dates, events, characters, etc.) as something that should be left completely alone, and “visual canon” (set designs, props, costumes, etc.), for which there ought to be flexibility. A good production designer, too, ought to be able to make the new production “feel” like the old, even if the look isn’t a 100% match.
A couple of years back, over on TrekBBS, some folks were photoshopping various scenes from TOS and adding in some more modern stuff. It was quite remarkable how modern they could make the old settings look, with really quite minor changes. I doubt the film will be quite that minor, but if the production team have made the effort to be faithful that some folks have claimed, I bet they can have done some pretty cool things.
As always, though, the proof will be in what we see when they finally start releasing pictures.
638. Jay
[dude you wouldn’t have produced anything doing that, unless you are wealthy and used your own money, because no studio would do that
why? because it would be a box office disaster and wouldn’t make
a dime ]
IF I WERE in the position to make the decisions. I would keep Trek on t.v. Trek offered more to us as a TV show. And, in my opinion, worked best on t.v.. Now I understand they are (apparently) pumping in big cash for this movie. But why gamble so much on one movie? Trek has not done well rercently at the box office lately and I believe this is due primarily to poor writing and big investment of the the Corporate extensions of the t.v. productions into film. Perhaps that’s why there has not been a DS9 or Voyager movie. Corporate got a bloody nose at the box office supporting the thin characterizations of Next Generation. Obviously the Star Trek TOS characters faired best at the box office, but that’s because they were more dimensional and intriguing characters.
I know this may offend many fans here, but I think the more recent series (Next Gen, Voyager, or even Enterprise, ) would have really benefited by killing off poorly written (or received) characters or by hiring writers with an understanding of what is good science fiction and what makes good Star Trek.
For example, Voyager could really have had a turnover in cast members and benefited greatly. Personally I would have REALLY liked to see Neelix or Chikote or mayby even Janeway killed off (ouch, I know) throughout the run of the series. That was a ship of 250+ and we really never had the opportunity to meet more than 10 of the crewmembers. I think it was obvious that Voyager would have benefited most from this approach. C’mon the ship was on the other side of the galaxy! The stakes were very high and realistically the ship and crew could have shown more wear and tear throughout the journey home.
It’s all in the writing. Star Trek TOS had the best characters. This is probably why they are rebooting the old characters. Not because the new FX will wow the audience, but because the characters will provide the real framework for a successful project.
I just think we would obviously get much more TREK, on t.v., using the original great characters, and accepted design (but slightly upgraded), than sinking so much effort, and big coin, into a 1 1/2 hour movie that may disappoint us, mostly, by changes to nosensical details like gigantic scope or unfamiliar set designs.
IMHO Trek worked best on t.v.
Can anyone actually look at the original star trek series and definitly know that it was made in the 60’s? besides the mini-skirts (Drool) and beehives (which I didnt see much of) It was ahead of it’s time. As far as “Enterprise” it probably was a compromise between TOS and what we think that technology would be like..still it collided head on with the original series..SCREEEEEEEECCHH>>>CRashhhh!!! :(
Starfleet changes Uniforms once every five years it would seem, or at least everytime there is a new series or movie. They also change schip design and bridge design at regular intervals, I mean the Enterprise was refitted beyond recognition in less then 3 years between the original series and the first movie.
So I suppose eve within the cannon context they’re pretty free to go anywhere from Enterprise to The cage. It would be nice of they hinted at some of the designs to come, especially the ones in The Cage, but As thisb takes place with Kirk still at the acamdey, he has to go through qite a few promotions before he becomes captain of the Enterprise. Given the aforementioned tendency Starfleet has, changing fashions every few years, they are free to do as they please.
Besides “Enterprise” already established that some of the things we saw in TOS can be updated, even “The Motion Picture” dis that with the Klingons!
It’s just a movie people, yes I would love for all of Star Trek to be consistent, but it simply is not.
Certain people on this thread need to get over themselves big time! How dare any one accuse anyone else of being not a fan or a lesser fan because they have a differing viewpoint!
It’s getting to the point now where all this is getting silly.
It boils down to there being two different groups on here. One lot is looking forward to seeing the new Trek with its funky new designs. The other lot is going ape that the new film won’t be an exact replica of a TV show made over 40 years ago!
The ‘argument’ is becoming cyclical now. I think people need to agree to disagree and move the heck on!
Anthony, if you’re reading this, my feeling is that thris thread is getting unhealthy for the site as a whole and should probably be locked at this point!
Still, there are some very funny posts on here!!! ;)
Over 600 COMMENTS!!!!!!
646. Dom
Relax. Its good to hear all the viewpoints. At ;east the ones that have not been deleted. How ’bout that Anthony? Could you comment on how many you have been “forced” to delete. I know you have standards here.
My preference would be something new set after TNG… going back to the original just seems unimiginative. But- what’s done is done. I certainly look forwad to the new film.
And it will work- we are familiar with the characters and are intrigued by how they will be different and how thye will be the same; attracting die-hards, casual fans and the non-fans but curious alike.
Almost 650 posts can attest to the marketing draw of going back to what is familiar rather than dazzling us with some fresh, clever, brand new Star Trek incarnation:
Star Trek – The Undiscovered Canon
wherin Captain Ka-Blarrrg (a three legged, sulfur breathing packmule) and his valient crew of the Enterprise Z (EnterpriZe?) must battle the natural forces of the universe to prevent the big bang from running out of intertia and reversing thus wiping out everything… oh and dramatic tension ensues as crewmembers use the transporter to expel bodily waste (that’s why they never use the potty)
And Carrot Top is in there somewhere… maybe a pivotal scene where he points at a Native American little person and yells “A red dwarf!”
I, personally, think Carrot Top would be ideally suited to play a humanized version of Mugatu! :)
649. Turgenev
[My preference would be something new set after TNG… going back to the original just seems unimiginative. But- what’s done is done. I certainly look forwad to the new film.]
[Almost 650 posts can attest to the marketing draw of going back to what is familiar rather than dazzling us with some fresh, clever, brand new Star Trek incarnation:]
If anything was unimaginative it was the Nex Generation. Snoooreee…
If you look at the attention that all the series and movies garnered, hour by hour, then the original series is sadly lacking in screen time. TOS was only on for three seasons, with only 79 episodes airing (not counting the animated series which also ran only in 1/2 hour eps.)
Next GEN had 7 season + a few movies
Voyager had 7 seasons
DS9 had seven seasons
Even the lakluster Enterprise had 4 seasons before petering out.
TOS deserves its REAL day in the sun. And look at the excitement connected with this Trek XI. WOW!!! PLEASE BE GOOD TREK XI!!!!!
Also, can we make an UNOFFICIAL RULE that if posts go over 500 that any new post MUST reference another’s in the post history before commenting?
Thx!
In reference to 651
I agree. After 650+ posts, please only post to reply to a previously posted post. Like this post, as I reply to your post about posting only in reply to previous posters’ postings so as to not impolitely perpetuate postings purposelessly.
And enough with Carrot Top… he could pulp us with his preposterously pumped-up pistons.
652. Turgenev
[I agree. After 650+ posts, please only post to reply to a previously posted post. Like this post, as I reply to your post about posting only in reply to previous posters’ postings so as to not impolitely perpetuate postings purposelessly.]
EXACTLY!
LOL!! HA!
#650 Harry: Wouldn’t we have to bleach him even whiter than he already is?
Or are you [*gasp*] suggesting a RED Mugatu? Blasphemy, you infidel!! Do you really want me to report you to the inquisitors of the Ultraconservative Orthodox Canonite Church of Trek, North America? ;)
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista }:-|
God! People are totally missing everything here! The movie WILL BE CANON! 100%! I seriously doubt that anything will in the movie will contradict pre-established Trek canon. Don’t you get it? Are you misunderstanding something? There are people who are saying that since the Enterprise is gonna look different, then the blasted film isn’t gonna be canon! It is too! Someone said that J.J and friends was “redesigning an era…” HE IS NOT! This is an era of Star Trek that has never ever been explored before in the history of Star Trek! If the ships look different, then for GOD’S SAKE! It makes no difference! The movie will still be canon! Do you people know what Enterprise looked like when it was first built? No! You don’t! This isn’t the TOS era, this is when Kirk is younger. Obviously things are gonna be different! GEES!
Whew, Marc, that’s a lot of !!!’s. Nobody is reading any of this, anyway. At this point, it’s all about gettin’ the last word in.
Vulcanista and Harry:
Have you seen any recent pictures of Carrot Hair? The guy looks like he and Barry Bonds are taking turns juicing each other. His actual physical resemblance to Mugato is beginning to take on an eerie quality. I have yet to understand what a bad prop comic needs with guns like Superman and a bad case of bacne. But I suppose anyone who has had to sit through one of his performances is familiar with the concept of endurance.
when behind-the-scenes neophytes start talking about “open minds” being an audience requirement, i think it’s time to start getting worried.
note to production staff: if you’re not playing to the hardcore fans, exactly whom ARE you playing to?
657. rob
[note to production staff: if you’re not playing to the hardcore fans, exactly whom ARE you playing to?]
The “next generation,” of course.
17. Charles Trotter – January 8, 2008
#10 steve623 — This movie is supposed to appeal to new audiences as well as older fans. Do you really think new audiences are going to be interested in a 23rd century ship that looks like it was made in the 1960s?
How is a redesigned bridge going to attract new audiences? Do you mean to say that an updated bridge is going to convince the locak footable hero with Cheerleader Girlfriend to skip some othermovie to see STAR TREK.
One day producers and directors will learn that remakes that stray away too far from the source material are doomed to failure.
#659. In High School, I was a local football hero and my girlfriend happened to be a cheerleader. I forced her to see ST: Generations with me. Remember, IDIC. :)
And what did your girlfriend, the cheerleader, think of ST: Generations? :)
613. Brandon
I think you may be on the right track.
661. Harry Ballz
[And what did your girlfriend, the cheerleader, think of ST: Generations?]
If she was intelligent, probably, very, If she was stupid, probably very little.
That movie took a dive once Mr. Shatner left for the “Nexus.”
As far as I am concerned the Shat could step out of the “Nexus” and back into the new pic at any time, and I would be pleased.
661. Harry Ballz
[And what did your girlfriend, the cheerleader, think of ST: Generations?]
If she was intelligent, probably, very LITTLE, If she was stupid, probably very, very little.
That movie took a dive once Mr. Shatner left for the “Nexus.”
As far as I am concerned the Shat could step out of the “Nexus” and back into the new pic at any time, and I would be pleased.
I find myself less and less interested in getting worked up about this… What’s the point? Besides coming from a somewhat newer talent pool and a generational gap in play, will this Star Trek succeed on it’s own merit is what I ask myself. Will I leave the theater thrilled and inspired? If it comes down to comparing set designs and canon quibbles as the primary entertainment value of this venture, then surely it will fail.
J.J. just deliver a good movie, please.
#664 TrekMadeMeWonder “Generations…took a dive once Mr. Shatner left for the Nexus”
I agree completely! As soon as Shatner disappeared into the Nexus, Generations made Plan Nine From Outer Space look like Citizen friggin’ Kane!!! :)
By posting #666, does that qualify as a DEVILISH remark???
Bwahahahaha…………………. :)
I don’t mind change. But I also like honesty.
Why doesn’t J.J. or Paramount just come out and say this is a remake? There is nothing wrong with that. I’ve wanted a remake for a while. But they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too. Why? Batman Begins and Casino Royal had the balls to do this. To start over and admit that they were. That everything before, while great, didn’t count anymore and could be changed or slightly altered. Why not Star Trek? Why design new sets, title the film simply “Star Trek”, and then pander to the old fans at the same time with promises that this still part of the old canon? The old canon is a wondeful universe that has a long rich history. But it’s also dead weight that restricts creative freedom. I say start over new and not be ashamed of it by claiming otherwise, which is exactly what it sounds likes they’re doing.
668. Adam Castle
[I say start over new and not be ashamed of it by claiming otherwise, which is exactly what it sounds likes they’re doing.]
As long as the writing is as good as the standout episodes offered in the original series. Trek has a long history of productions (four series plus the spinoff movies) that did not match that creative excellence. Also, Hollowood seems to have the same problem recently too. for example, look at War of the Worlds, or Superman Returns, or Charley and the Chocolate Factory, or Planet of the Apes, or The Pink Panther, or The Omen, or Psycho, or The Avengers, etc., etc.
But there have been real successes too. King Kong, or Mission Impossible, or… wait. I can’t think of too many more.
Double check your works guys! But then why can Tome Cruise, Leno, or Dave get past the Writer’s strike, but Paramont’s BIG TENTPOLE is going to suffer because of it???!!!!! The industry needs you guys to play well together!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay people, this is looking a bit ridiculous. First off, she said freak out. That can mean either “HOLY **** what have they done to my ship?!” OR it could mean “HOLY **** this looks freakin awesome!” Secondly, she mentioned a big set. For one thing, when she was talking about it, she was expressing her distaste for blue/green screens, something I agree with. What she did NOT say is that the set would be the bridge of the Enterprise, or engineering, or even if the set was aboard the Enterprise at all. After seeing all of this bashing because of something theoretical, I’m honestly ashamed to call myself a Trek fan. As of now, I hope that most of you are NOT in the same theater as me when I go to see this movie, because if I hear one complaint while I’m trying to take in what could be a great sci-fi movie, there will be hell to pay. Oh, and I hope there’s flames on the Enterprise’s saucer section. Big ones. The kind that can’t be ignored.
#659 — I could not have agreed with you more and that is what I have been saying the longest time. Re-makes that do stray far from the original are doomed to fail!!!! Taking that one step further, again if this is going to be a period piece (Captain Pike Era), then things SHOULD LOOK (as much as possible) the way they did in the Cage. Of course due to new technology, etc, etc, I would expect some differences. But we’re talking about a time period piece. If someone is making a movie that takes place in the 1920s/1930s –they are going to use the look for that period(s). Yes ST is fiction but through movies, books, tv shows. tech manuals the “fiction time period” is very well-estabslished!!!! So if it ain’t broke, don’t break it” — especially for the so-called “newer audiences”. Yes this is a critical time for this great franchise, most of all this has to be a caliber of story telling that matches Season #1 and TWOK — if not, NO AMOUNT of New Designs, Bells & Whistles, New Style Uniforms will save the franchise!
On a side-bar, yours trully had the once in a lifetime privilage to be asked to be an extra on the set of the new Clive Owens movie “The International”. A friend of mine owns the restaurant and asked me to be an extra — I’m actually get 30 seconds of screen time as one of the workers in her restaurant. My son and I also had the privilage of meeting Clive Owens, I wish more celebrities could be like him — what an unbelieveable classy gentleman!!! He took a photo with us and spoke with my 14 year old son for a few minutes. An experience I will always cherish!!!
670. USS Anduril’s Captain
[That can mean either “HOLY **** what have they done to my ship?!” OR it could mean “HOLY **** this looks freakin awesome!” ...
...Oh, and I hope there’s flames on the Enterprise’s saucer section. Big ones. The kind that can’t be ignored.]
Contain your anger Captain. I almost ruined a pretty good post.
Personally, after read this post and the new ones with Urban talking about the design, I think JJ & Co will do changes like Berman & Co did in First Contact in comparsion to TNG:
Most things will look new (Uniforms, phasers…), but other things will nearly look like the Trek we all know.
Now I’m not so feared about the coming designs, as I was before. But I still pray, they stay to the Trek-design-line (what means not the TOS-design-line)
BTW, on a fan side I have read a very good comment about the new movie:
Let’s see the movie first,
canon will come later.
To JJ and Company,
Take a good long look at what furor has been caused just by the mere hint that the interior of the ship is going to differ from what’s already been established, including the notation that the hardcore fans are going to go ballistic.
Sure you want to cheese off a vital element of your core audience?
My two cents of advice: Toe the line on the design side and get Shatner in this flick. Or risk an even worse opening box office take than Nemesis.
674. Captain Robert April
[My two cents of advice: Toe the line on the design side and get Shatner in this flick. Or risk an even worse opening box office take than Nemesis.]
Wait to ‘dis the effort until you have seen the results. Even I, a hardcore fan, am willing to wait until I see something credible to comment on definitively. Something. ANYTHING!!! SHOW MY THE SET PICS OR CGI RENDERINGS – PLEASE !!!!
But I can say one thing for for sure about the production team. Thier security is EXCELLENT. Security is defineatly NOT wearing red shirts.
I admit, I have a dark and greedy part of my soul that would like to see a completely upgraded look. Just keep the basic shapes together – ship and bridge. But, I still have MUCH MORE faith in the original TOS designs than I do in seeing what will PROBABLY be new hotshot, cool looking but illogical designs.
Notice that this thread shoots up to pushing 700 posts, while the other ones linger under 200?
You’d almost think the fans are concerned about what the Enterprise will look like! :)
676th!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Opps!!! 678th!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Notice that this thread shoots up to pushing 700 posts, while the other ones linger under 200?
You’d almost think the fans are concerned about what the Enterprise will look like!”
I would say that is a logical assertion Harry…
Why, thank you, Captain! :)
Now, comes more clues from someone who actually worked on the sets. Dawn Brown.
[I think a lot of hardcore fans are going to freak out. As far as I know, only the exterior of the Enterprise had to stay the same.]
Two strikes against this being good news. One: It came from a girl who has probably not seen the ship design. And Two: She works on the sets and they appear (to her) to be drastically different. Plus what Cawley said.
The new movie will have a completely new look. A true departure from Star Trek TOS (period).
#676
Really? Ya think? ;P
Peace. Live long and prosper.
The Vulcanista |:-|
Oooh, Vulcanista…..I love it when your sarcasm pours all over me…Growrr!
A long, brutal thread that has quite depressed me. The kneejerk reactions of certain people here are really staggering.
Why are the makers of Star Trek (2008) keeping a lid on things? Well, given people’s reaction to one interview, I dread to think what will happen when certain blinkered characters here see actual set photos!
As someone who watched TOS from childhood (I’m 33 now!) and for whom TOS was the first show I absolutely fell in love with, this thread has really disappointed me in the fan scene. People who love TOS and are looking forward to the new film are accused of hating TOS. Other people are accusing each other of being lesser fans. I mean really!!
It’s shameful and a letdown!
Who cares what the inside of the ship looks like? As long as Nimoy + hopefully Shatner are there everything will be fine.
Just because this long thread deserves a little more…
SPOLIER ALERT!!!!
From the above article Nimoy said:
I don’t want to waste any time.
Even if I’m not doing anything I want to enjoy that time.
If I’m conscious of the time, then I don’t waste it.
I’m conscious of the time I’m spending with you.
I’m giving you time that is part of my life.
I’m okay about it because it is not wasted.
It’s a useful conversation.
What? Again…
I don’t want to waste any time.
I am conscious of the time.
I don’t waste it.
I am giving you time that is part of my life.
I am okay about it because it is not wasted.
—–
It’s a Useful conversation.
—–
I may be reading too much into it here, but is this a MAJOR plot spoiler?
Is Nimoy saying that his “clock” (time travel device) is set to 12-24-08?
I am giving you time that is part of my life.
His own words to his younger self?
A mind meld to himself at his own untimely death?
Now: About that something a little ‘bird’ told me:
(It’s still missing many specific subplot details that I do not have time to type – but you’ll get the point of it all.)
For all those who can’t wait…
STAR TREK!
Created by (you know who)
Credits roll. (just credits and stars, yawn.)
The movie opens with Spock STILL on Romulus struggling to oversee the final reunification negotiations and diplomatic unions with Romulus and Vulcan.
The now, very much older Spock, is in the agony of losing his mind due to advanced age. Spocks half vulcan/human/romulan family is there trying to assist the now half crazed Spock through his final days. Spock’s son, ‘Christopher,’ tells Spock of a plot of those opposed to reunification (Nero) intend to go back and destroy Kirk on an early academy training mission. That this would put Romulus in the dissident’s hands again.
Spock, now fully distraught and agonized, uses his remaining strength and mental abilities to transport himself through time (a function of Spock’s own MASTERY of Vulcan power and will.)
Present Day…
Kirk is in command of the Enterprise! He is young (a little too young) and in the command chair flirting with a very attractive female cadet. A klaxon is heard and Kirk spins the chair to see a FLEET of romulan ships appearing out of nowhere. Great FX roll on the screen as the Enterprise battles the attacking ships. An emergency hail is heard over the communication channel. It’s the Kobyasimaru. A thrilling sequence wich involve a slick manuever with Kirk ordering the big “E” between the ships of the opposing fleet causing some of them to destroy themselves. The Enterprise escapes with the distressed Kobyasimaru crew, straight off and out into light speed. A hero is made!
But it’s just a test. The lights come on to reveal a young Spock who is ordering the holodeck simulator switched off. With no emotion Spock orders everyone, but Kirk, out of the simulator. A brief discusion with Kirk ensues. Kirk admits to changing the simluator – with the assistance of the attractive younger cadet who is watching from the outside of the simulator. But Kirk, triumpantly, and boldly, takes the full blame. Kirk exits the simulator smiling and takes the hand of his cadet assistant (Carol Marcus).
The younger Spock, hearing his name called, turns only to find his own well worn/time traveled older self deposited before him on the bridge deck, gasping and reaching up to say something important. But he can’t. The young Spock accomplishes a mind meld that is very powerful and perplexing. The mind meld is partially succesful and leaves the stunned younger Spock a glimpse into his (future) friend’s??? (Kirk’s) untimely death. A series of images that are not very clear. The Older Spock then disappears. The explaination is of course that, the future has been changed and older Spock could not have possibly ever done this. The future is new again! Or, is it?
A now much confused Spock must admit to his superior, Captain Pike, that his trainees have messed with the simulator. A scene that is very somber and ends with Spock under much scrutiny. The Academy Panel is attended by Christopher Pike, who is very agressive in his questioning of the test. Spock tells Pike that Kirk is not suited for the Enterprise and should be assigned to a ship of lessor importance. But Pike orders Spock to prepare Kirk on his first assignment on the “Enterprise” as his own 1st officer.
Later in his quarters Spock has a flashback.
A conversation with Spock’s mother (Amanda) happens and she tells a much, much younger Spock of his true half Vulcan heritage. More is shown of the younger Spock having all the troubles meshing with true Vulcan culture. A depiction of truely LOGICAL Vulcan culture is depicted for us on screen, An AMAZING culture HEAVILY vested in logic. So much so that it reinforces the paradox for Spock who is still so unsure of the apparant “friendship” with a roughshot, womanizing, trainnee named Kirk.
Spock, assisting in simulator design at Star Fleet Academy, considers the recent events, his trainees, the test, and of course the mindmeld. Spock continues to watch over Kirk and company Kirk, in particular, excells through his remaining classes at the Academy. Later Spock appears before Pike, and through a good bit of logic, directs Pike to admit Kirk should not be on the Enterprise and that he will assume the first officer assignment himself (in order to ‘protect’ the excelling, but still unfamiliar Kirk, and also possibly stop the time travel plot). Spock suggests to Captain Pike, and the Cadet Review Panel, that Kirk should be assigned, as an Ensign, to a much less pretigous and much older Starship, the Farragut (and old NX class).
When Kirk receives his final scores which are higher than ANY other student on record at Star Fleet Academy he believes he is sure to get his choice spot as first officer on the (Spock perceived – doomed) starship Enterprise. But Spock confronts Kirk and and reveals he has cancelled Kirk’s plum position on the ‘New’ Starship Enterprise.
Kirk receives his orders for his new assignment on the Farragut, which will take him away from a now pregnant Carol Marcus. A deeply sad momment for Kirk is depicted as he tells her he must save his career and head out on assignment. To follow his orders and persue to the responsibility that he is assigned. We’ll see each other again.
Pike and Spock, now on the Enterprise, leave spacedock with the other Star Fleet cadets and crew that we all know. Most are featured. Scotty, Urhura, Sulu, and McCoy, but no Kirk. The new crew head out on thier first adventure. A journey to a planet known as Rigel. The Assignment: The Starship Lexington is missing and the Enterprse crew are to attempt a search and rescue. The Rigel colony is a currently a non-member of the federation but is also close to Romulan territory. Rigel is not much of a threat to most starships in Starfleet. But, Rigel is known to be involved in the Orions’ trading of illegal green slave women. Some of which are also offered to nearby systems and rouge worlds.
The mission begins very poorly.
The Enterprise enters Rigel’s orbit and hails for the missing Starship Lexington. No reply. Sensors indicate that there are known ‘Orion’ starships on the planet. The captain and crew beam down. Once on the planet they are immediately fired upon and captured in an intense phaser battle. It goes poorly for the crew as they lose a young yeoman, right before the eyes of Pike and Spock. Spock is injured in the blast and Pike and the rest of the landing party are captured. The Enterprise is also met with a fire. From the Starship Lexington, now in orbit around Rigel, and also from another mysterious spaceship. Scotty orders the Enterprise to retreat out of the system and without the landing party. Captured on the planet Pike must negotiate with a now treasonous captain of the Starship Lexington. His old friend, Captain Garrison.
Captain Garrison was an excellent officer, but now he apparently delights in many treasures on the planet Rigel (ahh… the green sex slaves.) Captain Garrison tries to conviince Pike of the unlimited power that they could assume with the power of two Starships. But Captain Pike does not buy into Garrisons’ plan. Later Nero makes an appearance in Garrisons quarters and is shown to be locked in a mind meld controlling Garrison’s mind. Later, Pike confronts Garrison, who in his drunken state, tells of the Romulan meld. The mysterious Nero appears again and shoots at Pike with a laser blaster. The fight escallates and Pike is able to steal Garrison’s Phaser. He shoots at Nero but Garrison gets in the way and dies. Nero escapes. Pike then manages to get his crew together and sends a message back to the Enterprise. The rescue is planned well and after another big space battle the Enterprise makes it back to Star Fleet HQ with the recaptured Starship Lexington. Command codes are featured as the primary resolution to the battle. The Romulan ship (with a pheonix brilliantly displayed on the underside) is seen briefly by Pike as it escapes.
In Sickbay, unconscious, Spock begins having more images surface from the mind meld. One image is of a Romulan Warbird firing its torpedos. The next is Pike near death and burning and Kirk in control. But Spock still is unsure of what is all means. It’s not Logical!
Now in sickbay, McCoy is agry over having to pull the sheet over the young Yoeman. Spock wakes from his injuries. Spock and McCoy have thier first real meeting. Spock immediately asks Dr. McCoy when the other crewmembers will be ready for duty. Always the antagonist, McCoy asks the unemotional Spock about Vulcans and thier apparant lack of emotion in the face of death. Spock is on a mission of his own now. With the mindmeld flashes more present in his mind he wants to have everyone back in position and ready for an apparant Romulan sneak attack. But he can’t tell McCoy. Its still too illogical.
Spock meets with Captain Pike later in his quarters. Pike is taking the loss of the young yoeman, and his close friend, very hard. Pike is now talking retirement. Spock who is now suspecting that he also may be to blame suggests to the Captain the the error was all his. Additional information comes in from the remaining crewmembers of the Lexington. It appears that there was an initial attack by an “invisible” Romulan ship that suprised the Lexington and lead to thier initial demise. The coordinates to the initial attack is in the same sector where Kirk is venturing out on his first mission on the Farragut.
Spock, still fearing for Kirk and Pike’s safety, decides to speak with his Captain and tell him of his own mind meld and of the danger that they are apparently in. Pike orders the Enterprise and Lexington to divert back to Star Fleet for needed repairs. Once back at Starfleet, Pike orders to fill the open positions on the Enterprise. Checkov is assigned at this point on the bridge. Additional crew were lost in the last battle and some of Pike’s crew are to be reassigned to the Lexington to support repair. Another mission is planned by Pike to go back to Rigel and the nearby colonies.
On the Romulan Ship a discusion is taking place between Nero and his second. Nero asks why they did not suceeded in killing Kirk? Rigel was a perfect trap. All is uncertain now! We must get this new cloaking technology back to Romulos to stregthen out legions.
Back on the Farragut, Kirk is busy with duties as a weapons officer. In a briefing room the Commander tells his crew (and Kirk) that there is a threat to the Federation near the Nuetral Zone. The smaller Farragut must investigate on thier own, as there is a gap in the Federations defenses. The crew is ordered alert and they warp out. Once the Farragut comes out of warp the crew begins scanning the nuetral zone for activity on the border. Kirk begins scanning all frequencies and spots a much larger ship heading for the neutral zone. Kirk alerts his Captain who decides not to lead the attack before they have the proper support from Starfleet. Kirk begins scanning again and alerts the captain that the strange advanced looking starship is energizing fields around thier ship. Kirk powers up the ships weapons and defenses. Kirk again alerts his captain to regulations, but the captain orders him to stand down the ship’s weapons. The Romulan continues slowly toward the nuetral zone. Kirk performs some additonal scans and watches all his readings carefully. He then quotes another regulation again and reminds the Captain the thier ship will be hard to spot if Enterprsie should arrive. The captain agrees that a secure channel beacon should be established.
Kirk alerts his captain again and quotes regulations. We must persue that ship before if gets out of sensor range! The captain waits and then orders an open hailing frequency to the strange ship. Once the main viewer comes on the Romulan Captain Nero sees Kirk onscreen. A polite diplomatic exchange is offered, the Romulan captain mentions they are on a standard mapping mission and the transmission is lost. The ship continues slowly on towards the zone. Suddenly, the ship spins and a weapon is launched from the Romulan. The bridge erupts in fire as a plasma blast tears into the Farragut.
On board the Enterprise Spock is at his sensor station sees the warning beacon and realizes what is transpiring. Spock alerts Pike who doubles the Enterprises speed. At the higher warp we see Scotty in engineering demanding that Pike reduce the ship’s speed (Canna’ do it any longa’ Captain, She’ll blow apart!)
Back on the Faragut Kirk executes some amazing fire on the Romulan Ship through flames and debris. He one of two left alive on the bridge and is working many controls and stations. Kirk, and a helmsman, manage to steer thier ship into the thick clouds of a giant gaseous planet, therebye obscuring thier location. The Enterprise drops out of warp and begins scanning for federation ships. The Enterprise is unable to find the enemy Romulan ship, but is seeing the federation secure code beacon but is still unable to communicate with the Farragut.
Pike orders a landing party. Pike, Spock and McCoy beam down to the engineering department to find a wrecked ship and few survivors. They beam over the few left alive and after scanning for more they find life on the bridge and make there way there. Once at the bridge emergency bulkhead, Spock scans to find a rapidly diminishing life support environment. Pike orders Spock to stay with McCoy and ready the Transporters for beamout. Pike enters to save any he can and comes out with the helsman but returns for Kirk. He returns just as the Romulan ship appears on the main screen and fires. Flames and Plasma erupt again thoughout the bridge and Pike is caught inside as the bulkhead slams shut from the distruction. Kirk, Spock and McCoy beam out.
Once on the Enterprise Kirk is revived and Spock tasks to re-energize and save Pike. But alas, he is not soon enough and a badly, badly burned Pike is beamed aboard.
The Enterprise, now vulnerable without their shields up takes massive hits from the Romulan Ship. Kirk joins Spock on the Bridge and takes position at the weapons consol. He offers a polite excuse to the ensign to move asside as spock looks on with a nod.
The ship is rocked by another massive hit and Kirk “orders” the bridge crew to dive into the gas giant as it would be a good place for cover as the Enterprise cannot raise shields fast enough. The Enterprise dives into the atmosphere just behind the smoldering Faragut.
The Warbird withdrawls into space back to Romulus.
Kirk and Spock have a discusion on board the Enterpise about what to do about the Romulans. It’s you he wants Jim. I know Spock, some how I always knew. I saw the look in his eyes. We have to stop him now.
After some time passes and through another one of Scotty’s miracles the Enterprises’ engines are reenergized. Kirk ‘recommends,’ to Captain Spock, that they launch sensor probes out of the atmosphere gas giant to get the enemy positions. The sensors return visuals of a massive Romulan fleet comming into position to surround the Gas Giant planet.
Kirk comes up with a plan and it is executed. They would use the Faragut
After many scenes of positioning Romulan ships sliding into place the finale erupts!.
A final scene of the battle is a phaser blasting Enterprise warping around the gas giant depositing antimatter warheads and then exiting the Gas Giant just as the whole thing goes up in a HUGE matter/antimatter explosion. Destroying the whole of the Romulan fleet.
Later…
Medals are given to the crew. A conversation is had between Kirk Spock and McCoy. The whimiscal nature of it makes sense to Kirk and McCoy, but for unemotional Spock he has trouble even understanding why Kirk and McCoy are so happy with what happened. It was all because of you Spock. Cheers!
We then see Kirk, as captain of the Enterprise, on the bridge with the cast all around, with the crew we all love, going away into deep space on a brand new adventure.
The End. – The adventure continues.
And… at the very end of the movie
There is a fade and a reveal to show Kirk pulling a much older Spock by the hand, up out of bed and back to full conciousness in a hospital on Romulus with his family all around. Present living cast included.
RE: 686
Aren’t writers supposed to be on strike???
Anyway– probably exactly what JJ is doing and much better treatment than my script idea involving Captain Ka-Blarrrg of the Enterprise Z (EnterpriZe) trying unsuccessfully to stop the big bang reversing and thus smooshing him into all other ships ever named Enterprise. Makes no sense, but much of ST has lapses in logic- part of the fun. I posted it on the movie trailer bit.
Uhhh… I did stop reading once I realized I knew how everything would turn out due to 40 years of productions.
[Uhhh… I did stop reading once I realized I knew how everything would turn out due to 40 years of productions. ]
Well, that what were in for. Creativity seems to be a a real hard commoditiy to come by these days.
#644: “Can anyone actually look at the original star trek series and definitly know that it was made in the 60’s? besides the mini-skirts (Drool) and beehives (which I didnt see much of) It was ahead of it’s time.”
Yes. It looks like it was made in the 1960s, and at no other time.
Yep, while the Summer of Love was happenin’ for real on the outside, inside Desilu Studios Shatner and crew were laboring over this legacy we all enjoy!! Who’da thunk it??
I think there’s a charm in the bulky technology of the original show. I hope the art directors were instructed to make the Enterprise equipment look somewhat 60’s retro. I think it would be a fun look.
I thought ‘Enterprise’ totally missed the boat as far as production design was concerned. It made the technology of the future look bleak instead of bold.
‘Next Generation’ made everything beige and ergonomic. It was a good look for that particular show, but I don’t think that it necessarily made kids want to go out and buy a phaser, etc.
there is some hope however , if you think for a minute, technology progresses, the best of both worlds would be to design a set that would resemble the original set but ad more detail if well what would be useful.
Do you remember the for example the small photo’s that used to ring around the upper level of the bridge, over the bridge stations?
Originaly Gene wanted them to be small viewscreans with updated imformation every few seconds. but ultimatley they ended up the way they did because that would have required several projectionist behind the sets and beyond the budget of the original series.
Now of course it might be possible to use actual computer generated systems!
I would hope that Abrams won’t make the same mistakes that Berman made. The reason Star Trek has lasted so long is the loyalty of it’s fans and staying true (for the most part) to Gene Roddenberry’s concept. Changing the ENTERPRISE for TMP was a an upgrade not a re-imagining, We are talking about the Grand Old Lady Now, Don’t F&*K with the Original Enterprise. Doing so is like Ignoring the Prime Directive. I understand today’s audiences want more realism, and such. well show the Old Girl the way Roddenberry wanted. Show her the way she looks in the Smithsonian. The lighting in the 60’s washed out all her texturing etc. With CGI, they can make her look the way she was supposed to. Accent details, don’t Change her design. as for Interior Sets……….the changing sets on TOS were over time, as well as the Motion Picture Sets. if this is supposed to be Kirk’s 1st or earlier missions fine, subtle accentuation on set design will work, but you can’t make supposed older designs to look better than the ones that came later. Alot of you say, who cares about Canon, or Canon has nothing to do with set design. You are either just plain Nuts, or not the devoted fans you think you are. There is such a thing as consistency. Are you and the movie makers willing to piss off and alienate the loyal fans of decades just to bring in some new viewers? Star Trek is Star Trek, I sincerely doubt that many non-fans will flood into theaters to see it. Unfortunately Non-Fans have a preconceived notion that it is silly and campy. some may come out of curiosity, but that is all. And furthermore, if they are new viewers to the franchise, they won’t know that things were changed anyway. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!! Berman needed to go, he ruined ENTERPRISE, with all that Xindi bullshit, when he should have filled all the gaps and answered the questions brought up in the original series, as attempted in the 4th season, but it was too late to save the show from cancellation then.Good Riddens. Let’s hope Abrams doesn’t make the same Mistakes.
I think a fantastic openning scene would be Jonathon Archer witnessing the Launch of 1701. They could even show her in the Pilot version, with the Larger Deflector Dish, and Taller Bridge Dome, and nacelle spikes. Then when Kirk & Spock appear show her as she is in the Smithsonian, accentuating her Texture, and Detail. Archer’s Bio says he lived to see the construction and launch of the ENTERPRISE – 1701, and died of natural causes shortly after. I think that would make a great scene. then fade out and bring it up to the time of Kirk. similar things have been done before, and worked well.
In Closing, Star Trek Canon exists for a reason. DON’T F&*K WITH IT!!!!!!!!!! The Loyal Fans of TOS should be the 1st demographic Abrams should wish to please. 40 years folks, It has worked for 40 years, don’t fix it if it isn’t broken.
It’s totally ridiculous to expect a model from 1967 to be the template for a model in 2008. Nobody will buy it. We’ve all seen Star Trek evolve since its inception to incorporate new and better props, sets and special effects. It’s time to re-imagine Star Trek for a new generation of fans. If it is done right, it can be wildly successful and satisfying. Remember all the furor over Ron Moore’s vision of Battlestar Galactica? Now that show stands as high bar that everyone else must reach. I would be very happy to have the Enterprise reworked so that her basic style is the same (as with the 1701-A, C, D and E), but with elements that make her look real and detailed and exciting. I am hoping that the interiors will mirror those created for Star Trek: Enterprise. While not the best of the Star Trek series, the look and feel was very easy to buy into and quite functional. I expect something along those lines will be used for the new movie. I am very excited to see JJ Abrams do something that will ignite the franchise again and bring in a whole new generation of fans who will embrace the original characters and the stories as we all did. Live long and prosper!
“Do you think that they’re going to throw out all their designs, tear down the completed sets and reshoot because some people complained on an Internet site about some things that they haven’t *seen*?”
They would if this were an episode of “The Simpsons”…
One of my friends came up with an interesting way of looking at it: we don’t see Star Trek as it will be, we see an interpreted version dimly through the eyes of our current technology. As time goes on, our technology improves and our interpreted version becomes more detailed, more focussed, and more accurate.
Being a TOS Fan since a kid… at first I was hesitant. However, this may be what the Trek Franchise needs to kick start the series for a 21st Century crowd. I loved “Enterprise” and all the old technology that forced them to get creative… use their heads… improvise… and be human enough to make mistakes… get thrown around some… take their licks… and then hand it back out… creatively. That’s where ST Next Generation failed miserably… the people, battles and technology were just “too perfect”… too civilized… and too intellectual… translation: Sterile. DS9 went too far the other way at times being a bit too dark, depressing and gritty. To each their own I suppose. TOS, Enterprise & Voyager were a good balance of personalities, trials, hopeful, creative, intellectual, culturally reflective mixed with good story telling… for the most part.
Each generation has a certain level of technology to “Tell a Story…” with.
The 60’s had rough models, animation & blue screen. 70’s had models, blue screen, animation and crude computer graphics. 80’s had somewhat better graphics. The 90’s had blue & green screen technologies emerging with high resolution computer graphics. Now, computer graphics have replaced models, stages, animation… and sometime people or characters.
We wouldn’t expect this Star Trek (TOS Remake) to look like a 1960’s version, would we? Nope, as long as they make the NCC-1701 somewhat more advanced as the NX-01 and less advanced looking than the NCC-1701a & b… as technology progression occurs…cool. As long as they hold true to each Character’s personality…cool. As for the uniforms… nothing wrong with modifying them too… but not too much… just enough to keep up with the other changes made. Why?
The new movie has to tie in the old with the new. If not, it will utterly fail if it destroys all things “familiar” to TOS fans. If it makes strong characters too dark and/or wimpy, immoral, violent, unstable or blurs the line between good & evil, good guys and bad guys too much… or if internal changes like the bridge are “remade” into a “Square” or “Triangular” configuration versus the familiar “Circle”… and the crew wears black uniforms (male & female)… and none of the mini-skirts… or skimps them completely down to a unrealistic, distasteful uniforms… that won’t play well.
Finally, if the new Star Trek fails to instill the comraderie, humor, hope and bright outlook for the future like most other modern sci-fi shows fail to do anymore… it will die quickly. The story is about adventure, drama, fun, exploring, action, friendship and loyalty… all positive traits that made the original quirky version so beloved by fans… and fighting for a come back… after 40 years. Don’t mess with the basics… :o )