JJ ABRAMS Enterprise

[KnightAsylum]

...I think this post very accurately captures the sentiments of MANY trek fans, while at the same time revealing the limits of their vision. It clearly demonstrates how the hard core trek fan has romanticised the history of trek, turning it into something that it never truly was...My point is, we've translated our love for a television show into a claim that it is quality. We've confused emotional attachment for high quality drama. ..

QFT - I don't always agree with Matt (Thank goodness:rolleyes) but in this case, I do.:thumbsup

(plus I could cut and paste at least that last line in the quote into almost all the OT vs PT Star Wars discussions that happen here:rolleyes)

(Disclaimer - except the Fact that Voyager was the best Trek show. Situation, cast, ship - just perfect for my tastes with an overall series storyline that made it a much more compelling then the typical episode specific trek storylines that do not connect much.)

Jumps off soapbox and back On-Topic.

I really do like the new Enterprise more and more, and think the Kelvin looks great as well. I like the variety of the ship designs.:thumbsup

 

[Noeland]

There was a huge fan uproar when TNG started too. It's going to happen every time they do something new.

Also, lets not forget that some fans love the charm of the low production values of the TOS, and count that part and parcel among why it's a classic show. They made it work.

Not all the fans voicing displeasure are fooled by it either, it's not the carboard they miss, it's the overall design aethetic and the way the blinky lights and silver cardboard were utilized they'd like to see honored.

I think anyway.

Am I wrong?

For my money, I like the new stuff, love the new cast (except for Pine) and can't imagine them ever returning to the complete look and feel of the TOS.

I also think folks are forgetting this is a reboot, not a continuation or a true prequel to TOS. They didn't just recast the roles, they REWROTE the roles. Yes, Kirk is different. They are all different, but familiar.

That's the idea. Different but familiar.

I can't imagine anybody wants the EXACT set and style of the old series here.

 

[Solo4114]

I think that's so far the best read of the new film I've seen -- familiar but different. But like I said, a lot of what's been said (apparently -- I haven't followed it) and the presence of Leonard Nimoy may be misleading folks. I'm sure it'll be "faithful in spirit" insofar as JJ Abrams defines the spirit of Star Trek -- which may not be what a lot of fans see.

But regardless, it'll likely reference old Trek, but still be its own thing. Whether that new thign is something good remains to be seen.

I do, however, think it's safe to say that this is NOT going to be faithful to the original in the sense of a clone thereof. Nor do I think it will replicate it. It'll allude to it, give a general feel of it, but that's it. It's a reboot. The same way Casino Royale was for Bond. A LOT of "film Bond" was jettisoned for Casino Royale, but they kept enough so that fans of "film Bond" were happy. And they gave them a great story, great acting, and ENOUGH of the old "film Bond" to satisfy folks. Likewise, fans of "book Bond" were happier than they'd been in a long time because Bond had his edge and ruthlessness back, and relied FAR less on gadgets and far MORE on himself. Hopefully the new Trek will do the same kind of thing. Back to basics for some aspects, total rewrite for others.

 

[micdavis]

They can make new Star Trek shows until the cows come home. I'll watch every one.

But don't try to call it something it's not. This is not going to be a return to Trek.

More than likely it's raping, a la Galactica. Un-imaginative people who can't sell a concept of their own. So they steal the name of another property and call it a re-boot.

Pathetic.

But then Paramount seems to have made it their mission to do the most harm to their most valuable property at every turn.

 

[Carson Dyle]

…(the) hard core trek fan has romanticised the history of trek, turning it into something that it never truly was.

Spelling notwithstanding, I think you’re right.

At least, I agree there’s a tendency amongst old school Trek fans (like yours truly) to regard the original series a flawlessly pure work of preternaturally inspired genius. Roddenberry, Jefferies and Coon would have laughed their asses off at this overly reverential take on the material. On the other hand, I suspect they’d have stopped short of dismissing one of the most enduring pop cultural phenomena of the last half-century as a “hack” job (let alone a low budget one; at the time, Trek was the most expensive television series ever produced).

ST:IV... did the franchise a giant service.

Yes and no.

ST:IV illustrates the rewards and perils inherent in pandering to a mainstream cinema audience. On the one hand, critics and audiences embraced the film initially as a welcome respite from the heavy-handed self-seriousness of the first film and the FX-laded, space-opera spectacle of the first two sequels. On the other hand, TOS fans resented the extent to which the characters (Kirk, in particular) were reduced to grotesque caricatures of their former selves. In the short run, daring to pander was probably a smart move on Paramount’s part, at least from a financial standpoint. In the long run, it did nothing to elevate the franchise artistically, and therefore hurt it (for the record, I do believe Trek can appeal to a mainstream audience without sacrificing the dramatic integrity of the characters).

I believe it to be FACT that TOS was a low budget hack job that looks and feels terrible.

I believe it to be a FACT that I respectfully disagree with you. Then again, if all TOS amounts to is a low budget “hack job,” then we should all be such hacks.

The fact that it gained a cult following does not logically confirm that it is a quality show... merely that a bunch of people took a liking to it. TONS of people watch American Idol. Is that necessary and sufficient proof that it's a good show?

Ask me again forty years from now, when American Idol has the following Trek has today.

My point is, we've translated our love for a television show into a claim that it is quality.

Given your sentiments, I’d love to know what you love about TOS in the first place. Perhaps I’m wrong, but you’re giving the impression of being utterly clueless with regard to what made (makes) TOS one of the best TV series ever produced.

 

[mverta]

+1 on CD's entire reply; entire, well-written reply.

_Mike

 

[Carson Dyle]

^Thanx.

The Jim Kirk of TOS was a hardcore "Starfleet First" type of guy, not a convert
SNIP
The Kirk described in the scene descriptions is not that man.

No, he sure as hell isn’t.

For all the squabbling about the re-design, this is the thing most likely to rub TOS fans the wrong way when they see the film.

In an effort to make Kirk more appealing to a younger, more mainstream audience, the producers have fashioned the character as a brash, rule-breaking, skirt-chasing rebel with a distain for authority. Granted previous incarnations of the character incorporated the above traits to a certain extent, but XI pushes the bad boy thing to new, at times obnoxious, extremes. From a marketing standpoint it makes sense, but TOS fans (like me) are likely to miss having a grown-up calling the shots.

 

[Serafino]

That is sad, but in this time of ours it would have been a shocker had they done something more elevated. I'm getting the impression Spock's character hasn't been revamped with an eye on his core virtues of character either.

 

[nickytea]

This is a discussion I'll feel more comfortable joining in once we see the flick. I don't think we've seen NEARLY enough to make judgments about how they're handling the characters. The arch of these characters could prove very "elevated", mature, etc.

And come on ... TWOK ... Kirk cheated on an extremely important test. That sound straight laced to you? He gets things done, he takes things into his own hands, he breaks the prime directive, he reads the constitution to natives. :lol

 

[MooMooEgg]

In an effort to make Kirk more appealing to a younger, more mainstream audience, the producers have fashioned the character as a brash, rule-breaking, skirt-chasing rebel with a distain for authority. Granted previous incarnations of the character incorporated the above traits to a certain extent, but XI pushes the bad boy thing to new, at times obnoxious, extremes. From a marketing standpoint it makes sense, but TOS fans (like me) are likely to miss having a grown-up calling the shots.

I'm not a hardcore ST fan (though I do love it), and I don't know if it was elaborated on in any EU Trek novels, but are we positive that young Kirk wasn't a rule-breaking, skirt-chasing rebel with a disdain for authority? (Feel free to correct me if there's cannon on Kirk's Academy days.) I mean, even hardcore militarists were rowdy kids back in the day--perhaps this film is starting right before he starts to become a hardened captain, and we'll see a more familiar Kirk at the end of the movie. Plus, wasn't the description of the scene in the bar with Uhura while he was off duty? Off- and on-duty personalities can be drastically different..

I'm just trying to keep an open mind.

And speaking of keeping an open mind, I do kinda like the ship. I think the design matches the revamp of what they did with the bridge, but I'd like to see a few different angles and images that aren't "distorted."

 

[Carson Dyle]

This is a discussion I'll feel more comfortable joining in once we see the flick.

Fair enough, and I'm sorry if I jumped the gun. Fact is, JJ did a great job of casting these parts, and from what I can tell the actors are rising to the occasion.

I'll also semi-grudgingly point out that, as a genesis story, XI can perhaps be excused for focusing on the characters' youth and (relative) inexperience. There's a lot of stage-setting in the new film, and for better or worse that's by design. Abrams is betting the real fun of XI will be watching these iconic characters come together for the first time. Hopefully the audience will agree.

Speaking for myself, the main reason I want XI to hit is because I want to see XII. That's the movie that could really deliver on the promise of TOS.

 

[KnightAsylum]

...I'm just trying to keep an open mind....

I am sorry, that is not allowed in this thread- you will have to leave:ninja

 

[nickytea]

Speaking for myself, the main reason I want XI to hit is because I want to see XII. That's the movie that could really deliver on the promise of TOS.

If this can be the Batman Begins for Trek's Dark Knight ... whew... let them complain all they want! :lol I'll be in heaven.

 

[Tripper]

The uhura kirk bar scene takes place before Kirk goes into the academy

 

[MooMooEgg]

I am sorry, that is not allowed in this thread- you will have to leave:ninja

I'm sorry... *jumps out of a window and plunges to my doom*

:lol

 

[phase pistol]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

as to the relatively simple "stick and cyinder" construction of the TOS Enterprise, keep in mind that this was built in 1964 on a TV pilot budget. :lol

The cigar sections are wood turned on a lathe... the big saucer hull is vacuformed plastic sheeting.

Shapes like the Enterprise-E and Voyager probably never entered their minds. You can see some "fused" sections in the Jefferies sketches I posted, but they tend to be on the order of "one thing stuck onto another" and not elegant tapering or shapes melting into each other or such.

Heck even the Enterprise-D from TNG is incredibly sculptural, compared to the TOS ship. Just changing styles, budgets and technologies I guess..

Oh and I fixed the USS Kelvin.

Good points, K!

One of these days, I hope we see a modern scifi movie that does use saucer shaped vehicles. I hope they keep that intact at least when they do the Forbidden Planet remake.

The one thing about the classic Enterprise that always confused me though was why the saucer section has to be attached to the engineering section via a big column instead of just integrating the two sort of how it is with the Enterprise E or Voyager designs.

That always seemed to be a better look to me and still keeps the nacelles out away from the rest of the ship. I always thought it was also cool that Voyager COULD land when it needed to.

Rob

 

[nickytea]

Not only that Karl, but primitive shapes like that were a very popular design aesthetic at that time.

Look at a lot of the era's graphic design, you see it everywhere. I love it!

 

[nickytea]

Re: JJ AMBRANS Enterprise

Good points, K!

One of these days, I hope we see a modern scifi movie that does use saucer shaped vehicles.

You just wait for when I make The Invaders movie

 

[Reactor drone]

Just a thought.

 

[Rogue Studios]

Koerners model is spot on totally acceptable. People 'ask ok do it better then'..nuff said. Sorry for elcrapo picture