Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Thanks for the rundown Kevin. :thumbsup
In regard to them redesigning the ship, phasers, communicators, etc. I wouldn't be too surprised considering the toy line didn't sell all that well. I'm sure the studio would love to have a toy line that's even a fraction as successful as the Star Wars toys have been but their not going to get it with butt ugly designs that don't appeal to the long term or new fans.
I think profits are all they're concerned with so I can see the Enterprise zipping out of dry dock with a spiffy new design that's more fan friendly. Kirk merely mentions all the damage the ship suffered in the Zorakian conflict or some such nonsense. Add a quick line about the new more powerful hand phasers blah blah blah and the new toy line is ready to go!
Of which reminds me of the Star Trek First Contact Phaser Rifle:Yes please. Story-wise, just blow the engines off in a fight. Put 'new improved' ones on it, ones that look less like a kitsch sex toy.
I have faith in this one. I know who one of the writers is...
Are you saying what I think you're saying?
If he is, then that means...
- less lensflare
- size reality
- no beer brewing main engineering like a hall bigger than the E
- another Pike story would be nice, or being Kirk's mentor in need
- new comms, new tricorder, new phaser closer to the original - they should ask St.Louise Kid
- better villain, someone with a deeper background
- ehhh, where is the superior message behind the trek movies, missing that one
- bridge redesign, a bit less iStore, more Trek
- more traditional species from Trek like Andorians etc., less SW
- Phaser rays, not pulses
- more Trek fanfare
I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but there's something I dont get.
Those who didn't like the movie say that it's lacking the deeper more important factors that that define Star Trek.
But whenever they point out the specific things wrong with the film, or things that need to be fixed in the new film, 90% of the stuff mentioned is trivial cosmetic details.
Lens flare
Continuity with the props and costumes
The design of the bridge.
The design of the ship.
The brewery for the engine room
The types of aliens
It's starting to sound as though the only things that define Trek is the production designs.
I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but there's something I dont get.
Those who didn't like the movie say that it's lacking the deeper more important factors that that define Star Trek.
But whenever they point out the specific things wrong with the film, or things that need to be fixed in the new film, 90% of the stuff mentioned is trivial cosmetic details.
Lens flare
Continuity with the props and costumes
The design of the bridge.
The design of the ship.
The brewery for the engine room
The types of aliens
It's starting to sound as though the only things that define Trek is the production designs.