Confirmed: STXI is alternate timeline

[Lazar]

If they want a brand-new design then why didn't they set the film after Nemesis? Centuries after if they so wished. Then they could have done wahtever they liked without the complaints about the design of the ship.

That's a legitimate point. But my view is, if they had done that, then they would have been saying, "Let's introduce a fifth brand new crew in our convoluted continuity!" It wouldn't have attracted people; they just would have dismissed it as another VOY or another ENT. They were trying to revive a dead franchise, and they used the part of it that had the greatest appeal and the greatest recognition: the biggest thing that this film has going for it is that everybody knows and loves the original crew! ST had already been driven into the ground with the piling on of new crews, and an ever bigger and more complex (and intimidating) continuity.

Or they took the matter seriously, and realised that if they wanted to depict the old Enterprise, there was no point in doing it unless they did it right.

You speak as if there are objective standards of canon and continuity, and there aren't. Personally, I would have loved some retcon to make the TOS era look more advanced. They chose to adhere strictly to TOS esthetics in these rare instances, and I think it was intended as a kind of tribute or homage.

In addition to this, while "Trials and Tribble-ations" could fall into the "campy tribute" category, that cannot be said of IAMD or TOS-R.

Well yeah, TOS-R was pretty much just a remastering.

Why? In many respect the NX-01's bridge is inferior to that of the E-nil. It's more cramped, the major console positions are less accessable, and it's got a briefing room tagged on at the back.

It's smaller, yes, but the materials, the consoles, the computer interfaces, the seats; everything looks more technologically advanced.

So? By and large, the simpler a design is, the better. The Connie is far from the best design in Trek (the Miranda, the Defiant and the Sabre are all better from an engineering point of view), but the arrangement of simple geometric shapes give her a clarity of form that even the refit can't beat. As for the hull, she's the best part of three hundred metres long. What sort of detail do you expect to see?

I wouldn't call it clarity, I would just call it simplistic (compared to the Con-refit for example). For example, the nacelles are basically plain-looking tubes with plain-looking rectangular pylons. The Con-refit nacelle structure looks much better because it's got more features, more intricate details, and fewer simple right angles. On the hull, just the level of detail that you would expect to see on any post-TOS ship: the hull is very smooth and plain; in most cases you can't even see panels or anything; you can't even see phaser turrets or RCS thrusters.

[Captain Seafort]

The only thing previously established about Trek is that the fans lost interest; the last movie bombed, and the last show was canceled. Therefore, who cares about previous Trek? They aren't putting up $150 million dollars to make some 25th century fanfic; they're making a movie with established characters that (with the considerable hype) should make them a lot of money in return.

In other words they're milking the cash-cow, as badly if not more so than Voyager and Enterprise. If they can't make a sucessful new Trek series or film without trying to completely overwrite the original then they shouldn't try - let it die, or at the very least rest for a decade or two.

[Tsukiyumi]

Well, I don't recall them asking for our opinion on it.

A lot of people who grew up on TOS are psyched about it, and a lot of non-fans are apparently interested. As long as it's a good movie in the spirit of Trek, I couldn't care less if they replace the "original" outdated E-nil model.

The ship isn't the important part; the characters and plot are.

[Lazar]

In other words they're milking the cash-cow, as badly if not more so than Voyager and Enterprise. If they can't make a sucessful new Trek series or film without trying to completely overwrite the original then they shouldn't try - let it die, or at the very least rest for a decade or two.

If a convoluted fanfic wouldn't work now (and it wouldn't!), I don't think it would do much better 20 years from now. Hell, maybe people would have just forgotten about ST by that point and it would stay dead. You call it milking the cash cow (as if ST hasn't been commercial from the start), I call it salvaging and reinvigorating. Is there any other franchise that's maintained the same tired old continuity for over 40 years, without a reboot or a reimagining?

[Captain Seafort]

You speak as if there are objective standards of canon and continuity, and there aren't.

Of course there are fixed standards - what has already been broadcast is established as part of Trek, and woe betide anyone who tries to pretend otherwise. That was half the reason Enterprise got such a poor reception.

Personally, I would have loved some retcon to make the TOS era look more advanced. They chose to adhere strictly to TOS esthetics in these rare instances, and I think it was intended as a kind of tribute or homage.

You can think that all you like. The fact that they didn't do so when they had a chance to completely rewrite the visual style of TOS with TOS-R says otherwise.

It's smaller, yes, but the materials, the consoles, the computer interfaces, the seats; everything looks more technologically advanced.

Bullshit. The NX-01's bridge is mostly bare metal, with a bit of padding for the seats, and the interfaces are push-button, like the E-nil's.

I wouldn't call it clarity, I would just call it simplistic (compared to the Con-refit for example). For example, the nacelles are basically plain-looking tubes with plain-looking rectangular pylons. The Con-refit nacelle structure looks much better because it's got more intricate details, more features, and fewer simple right angles.

The refit looks better overall, partially because it's under movie-quality lighting, partially because of the slight changes to the proportions of the design. The design would look just as good if you removed the panelling detail, most of the windows, and the thruster/phaser/PT launcher detailing.

On the hull, just the level of detail that you would expect to see on any post-TOS ship: the hull is very smooth and plain; in most cases you can't even see panels or anything; you can't even see phaser turrets or RCS thrusters.

Exactly - on a ship that size you shouldn't expect to see such detail from any distance.

[Captain Seafort]

If a convoluted fanfic wouldn't work now (and it wouldn't!), I don't think it would do much better 20 years from now.

Who said anything about a "convoluted fanfic"? What were Voyager and Enterprise if not convoluted fanfics? Setting the series well into the future, just as TNG was a century after TOS, would clear the air, get rid of the baggage of the incredibly crowded canon of the mid-late 24th century and allow new types of stories, perhaps by setting it aboard an interstellar ship, or one exploring Andromeda. It'd be better than tramping over the old ground of the 23rd century as if TOS had never happened.

Hell, maybe people would have just forgotten about ST by that point and it would stay dead.

Then let it stay dead.

You call it milking the cash cow (as if ST hasn't been commercial from the start), I call it salvaging and reinvigorating.

I'm not talking about it being produced by a commerical company for a profit, I'm talking about it being produced on the grounds that it's Star Trek and some people will always watch Star Trek regardless of whether it's worthy of the name.

Is there any other franchise that's maintained the same tired old continuity for over 40 years, without a reboot or a reimagining?

Doctor Who. The stories have changed, the actors have changed, and they've introduced completely new themes, but the Doctor is still the Doctor, and the Tardis is still the same battered old police box it always was.

[Lazar]

Of course there are fixed standards - what has already been broadcast is established as part of Trek, and woe betide anyone who tries to pretend otherwise. That was half the reason Enterprise got such a poor reception.

But even disregarding Enterprise, the makers of Trek have never shown a great regard for continuity - not consistently. The fans have always taken it more seriously than the makers have. And you have to realize, most people don't give a flip about continuity! This movie isn't intended as a devotional fanfic, it's intended to be a big mainstream movie. Just look at what William Shatner has to say about the new Enterprise. No disrespect, but William Shatner is far awesomer than you or me.

You can think that all you like. The fact that they didn't do so when they had a chance to completely rewrite the visual style of TOS with TOS-R says otherwise.

And the fact that they have rewritten the visual style in their newest project says otherotherwise.

Bullshit. The NX-01's bridge is mostly bare metal, with a bit of padding for the seats, and the interfaces are push-button, like the E-nil's.

Let's see... you're presented with the two bridges, having never seen ST before, and you're asked to pick which one was designed in the 1960s and which one was designed in the 2000s. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference? Kirk's chair is big, blocky and simplistic; Archer's chair looks futuristic. The NX-01 has modern-looking LCD screens and computer graphics; the TOS Enterprise has simplistic buttons and switches.

The refit looks better overall, partially because it's under movie-quality lighting, partially because of the slight changes to the proportions of the design. The design would look just as good if you removed the panelling detail, most of the windows, and the thruster/phaser/PT launcher detailing.

I think the biggest reason why the refit looks better is the nacelles - they look much cooler and less simplistic. Not even in terms of the details, but just in terms of the shape and the pylon angles.

Exactly - on a ship that size you shouldn't expect to see such detail from any distance.

Huh? You can see panels and phaser turrets and RCS thrusters on the Con-refit and the Excelsior.

[Tsukiyumi]

Hell, maybe people would have just forgotten about ST by that point and it would stay dead.

Then let it stay dead.

Not our call.

You call it milking the cash cow (as if ST hasn't been commercial from the start), I call it salvaging and reinvigorating.

I'm not talking about it being produced by a commerical company for a profit, I'm talking about it being produced on the grounds that it's Star Trek and some people will always watch Star Trek regardless of whether it's worthy of the name.

So, you've traveled to the future and decided the movie isn't worthy of the name. Interesting. Can you give me next month's lottery numbers while you're at it?

Is there any other franchise that's maintained the same tired old continuity for over 40 years, without a reboot or a reimagining?

Doctor Who. The stories have changed, the actors have changed, and they've introduced completely new themes, but the Doctor is still the Doctor, and the Tardis is still the same battered old police box it always was.

BS. The TARDIS has changed several times. Of course, they wrote in an easy IU explanation for that. This conversation wouldn't be happening if those short-sighted Trek writers had just made the E-nil a shape-shifting uber-ship.

[USSEnterprise]

Personally, I think its a bad idea to go back in time AND into an alternate time line. I mean for one, it will just be wrong in my opinion, I just don't see how you could recast the entire crew, I just think it will look wrong. I think they will make the same mistake with Enterprise, the ship looks to advanced for its time, TOS was a LONG time ago, if anything I think they should have gone forward a century of so.

[Captain Seafort]

But even disregarding Enterprise, the makers of Trek have never shown a great regard for continuity - not consistently.

Examples?

The fans have always taken it more seriously than the makers have. And you have to realize, most people don't give a flip about continuity! This movie isn't intended as a devotional fanfic, it's intended to be a big mainstream movie.

I'm not looking for a "devotional fanfic". I'm looking for a ship that looks at least somewhat like the original Enterpise, just as was achieved with TOS-R et al.

Just look at what William Shatner has to say about the new Enterprise. No disrespect, but William Shatner is far awesomer than you or me.

Fine. If Shatner likes it, that's his perogative. If he wants to look at it in terms of the general shape of saucer/engineering hull/nacelles, fair enough. If you look at it though, the differences are far more profound than a window or two being in the wrong place.

And the fact that they have rewritten the visual style in their newest project says otherotherwise.

You were arguing that the almost identical appearence of the E-nil in TOS and TOS-R was a "tribute or homage". The appearence of the ship in ST XI is utterly irrelevent to this point.

Let's see... you're presented with the two bridges, having never seen ST before, and you're asked to pick which one was designed in the 1960s and which one was designed in the 2000s. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference?

You didn't ask which looked like it was designed in the 60's vis a vis the 2000s - that's an aesthetic difference. You asked which looked more advanced. Bare metal looks a sight less advanced than all the padding and covered circuits of the E-nil.

Huh? You can see panels and phaser turrets and RCS thrusters on the Con-refit and the Excelsior.

Yes. So what?

[Tsukiyumi]

...if anything I think they should have gone forward a century of so.

Like i said in my last few posts, they're trying to make this a movie, not a TV series. Non-fans aren't going to pay $10 to go see some group of unknown characters just because they slap Star Trek on as the title. People are trying to say that's what they're doing here, but I just don't see how that's the case; it's a re-imagining of Star Trek that brings it into the 21st century. That's why they put the scene with the car in the trailer - they're trying to get people to connect with the characters. The farther in the future it's set, the less believable any connections become.

And, honestly, the other arguments are tired. "The ship doesn't look the same". "The bridge is too shiny". "Spock's hair is parted on the wrong side". etc. Lame. And, the precise reason they aren't obsessing over details like that - you just can't please fanatics.

[Captain Seafort]

Not our call.

No, it isn't - it's my opinion that I'd rather see Trek die than it continuously fouled up with the likes of VOY/ENT, or have it's past ignored by the likes of XI.

So, you've traveled to the future and decided the movie isn't worthy of the name. Interesting. Can you give me next month's lottery numbers while you're at it?

No, I've been around in the past and seen Voyager and Enterprise. They ignored past Trek with the latter, and it looks very much like they're doing the same here. If I'm wrong, all well and good - however going by the evidence available this film is showing the same disdain for what's gone before as Enterprise, and look how that turned out.

BS. The TARDIS has changed several times. Of course, they wrote in an easy IU explanation for that.

They changed the console room plenty of times, but you'd have to analyse the footage in great detail to find any differences between the police boxes. Believe me, if the BBC decided to radically change the appearance of the Tardis on a permanent basis there would be uproar over here.

This conversation wouldn't be happening if those short-sighted Trek writers had just made the E-nil a shape-shifting uber-ship.

True, however it isn't, so Abrams are stuck with Jefferies' original.

[Tsukiyumi]

...it's my opinion...

Which sums up the entire issue. I'd go see a Trek movie that you wrote, but I doubt millions of other people would.

[USSEnterprise]

...if anything I think they should have gone forward a century of so.

Like i said in my last few posts, they're trying to make this a movie, not a TV series. Non-fans aren't going to pay $10 to go see some group of unknown characters just because they slap Star Trek on as the title. People are trying to say that's what they're doing here, but I just don't see how that's the case; it's a re-imagining of Star Trek that brings it into the 21st century. That's why they put the scene with the car in the trailer - they're trying to get people to connect with the characters. The farther in the future it's set, the less believable any connections become.

And, honestly, the other arguments are tired. "The ship doesn't look the same". "The bridge is too shiny". "Spock's hair is parted on the wrong side". etc. Lame. And, the precise reason they aren't obsessing over details like that - you just can't please fanatics.

Good point, I guess I just find it hard to imagine it without the original cast, even if TOS was about three decades before I was born. I just have a problem with them going back in time, maybe it would have been best to call it quits after the last disaster.

[Lazar]

Examples?

You could start here. Why did the Romulans magically grow cranial ridges and turn green around 2300? Why did the Talarians turn into a completely different species? How did the NX-01 get to Rigel and Kronos so fast? How come the Eugenics Wars weren't happening when Voyager went back to the 1990s? Where did Voyager get all those damn shuttles?

I'm not looking for a "devotional fanfic". I'm looking for a ship that looks at least somewhat like the original Enterpise, just as was achieved with TOS-R et al.

Like it or not, they weren't aiming for that level of canon-adherence. I think their reimagining looks great.

Fine. If Shatner likes it, that's his perogative. If he wants to look at it in terms of the general shape of saucer/engineering hull/nacelles, fair enough. If you look at it though, the differences are far more profound than a window or two being in the wrong place.

People don't care. Only a small core of Trek fans care.

You were arguing that the almost identical appearence of the E-nil in TOS and TOS-R was a "tribute or homage". The appearence of the ship in ST XI is utterly irrelevent to this point.

There were a few rare one-off episodes where they visualized the TOS Enterprise very strictly, but when it came time to do a big project, they reimagined it considerably. Which seems to indicate that TOS esthetics are good for the occasional quirky episode, but not for a blockbuster film.

You didn't ask which looked like it was designed in the 60's vis a vis the 2000s - that's an aesthetic difference.

If the one that's supposed to be in the 2260s looks like it was designed in the 1960s, and the one that's supposed to be in the 2150s looks like it was designed in the 2000s, then they're doing something wrong.

You asked which looked more advanced. Bare metal looks a sight less advanced than all the padding and covered circuits of the E-nil.

I can't believe that you actually think the E-nil bridge looks more advanced! Padding is irrelevant - padding doesn't make things look more or less futuristic. Everything on the TOS bridge is blocky and simplistic by our standards; the NX-01 bridge has much more intricate detail on the walls, doors and consoles; and crucially, you're asking us to believe that modern computer screens and graphics just disappear between 2150 and 2260.

Yes. So what?

So, the E-nil obviously needs to be updated.