www.ditl.org

Or, we can grab our pitchforks and torches and make like an angry mob showing up at the door of everyone who is responsible for this retarded attempt at an idea...

KuvahMagh wrote:Or, we can grab our pitchforks and torches and make like an angry mob showing up at the door of everyone who is responsible for this retarded attempt at an idea...

Or call Levar Burton and tell him he needs to honour his promise...

Well I'll start off by bringing out the technicality... TOS S3, Sandra Smith played Kirk in Turnabout Intruder...

Which really adds nothing to the debate/argument whatsoever. If you want to get even more technical there was the voice actor(s) who played young Kirk in The Counter Clock Incident.

Why does the franchise need a reboot? To get more fans is the commonly quoted factor but when we have to change 40 years of history is it worth it? I don't think so. I'd hate to see Trek die but I'd take that over this, which is not aimed at new fans its aimed at their wallets.

That last sentence sounds a little naive. Of course targeting fans' wallets is the purpose. You think Rodenberry's motive when he created Star Trek in the first place was soley aimed at artistic expression? Why were eleven ST films made, why an animated series, why hundreds of novels? Profit has been a motivation by movie execs, publishers and producers for years. Why were Berman and Braga involved for so long, because ST was their meal ticket far more than a desire to produce a quality product.

And if not a reboot, what is your solution? A series taking place after Voyager? That universe had been explored so thoroughly fans were always pointing out how similar episodes of later series were to earlier series. And the technology would be even more magically impossible (i.e. Voyager's last ep.).

I don't need to see Shatner and the original cast running around, I hate prequels in something as complicated as Trek. It simply can't be done well, especially since this isn't just a prequil its trying to replace a piece of Trek history, fire the lot before they make the mistake of releasing this thing.

I don't believe in selling out prequels and/or reboots, not after the last Bond film, Casino Royale. And I love TOS, it does not mean I treat it like a sacred cow. And a new series of movies is not going to diminish my love of it.

So you vote for the complete sign of disrespect...

Casino Royale did not need Connery. And there is no point in what will amount to an overglorified cameo.

t is a big deal, the Enterprise was TOS, at least in TMP and such they had a reason to refit it, she was 26 years old when they did that... so now we have a ship launched in 2245, by 2254 in 'The Cage" it has changed to the standard look which is more primitive in appearance... yep that works doesn't it...

You are missing the point. The TOS ship looks dated, old. It will not translate well onto the big screen. And again, if you look at sci-fi since TOS' time the look must be contemporary/futuristic to attract new fans rather than adhering to a diminishing (i.e. dying) fanbase unwilling to give any opportunity to appreciate the economic realities of creating a new series of films.

My objection to the Akiraprise on Enterprise was the complete lack of creativity involved and the fact that it looked so much more more futuristic than Enterprise. A rougher, less symmetrical design would have been the way to go. People can dig that; the Millenium Falcon is still an awesome design, for example.

I agree completely, which is why we shouldn't make the movie...

Which is unrealistic. I understand economic reality, Paramount cannot afford to let the franchise die. So they have opted to go with a sharp new producer.

What was the last delight... for me it was DS9 and the Dominion War, up until that point I found the show unwatchable... TNG did not crap all over what those actors did... this thing (for lack of a better word) does.

If they made Kirk a flaming homosexual, or Spock a buffoon, or the like, then I would say yes, they are pissing on the franchise. But you have not seen the movie yet. All you have seen is a trailer and a bunch of posters. So I fail to see how you can dismiss the movie when you have seen less than thirty seconds of footage.

To be honest, I really don't have a problem with some changes in what amount to cosmetic points: slightly different unis, a bit of a different look to the ol' Connie, and suchlike which are easily explainable by a decade gap until TOS. What I am fearful of is true ENT-like discontinuity, like using TNG tech before TOS or the like. If we can avoid things like that, I have no problem doing a little mental retconning to try and explain a more big-screen-friendly ship model. Hell, that was the only reason that TMP got a new model.

Mikey wrote:To be honest, I really don't have a problem with some changes in what amount to cosmetic points: slightly different unis, a bit of a different look to the ol' Connie, and suchlike which are easily explainable by a decade gap until TOS. What I am fearful of is true ENT-like discontinuity, like using TNG tech before TOS or the like. If we can avoid things like that, I have no problem doing a little mental retconning to try and explain a more big-screen-friendly ship model. Hell, that was the only reason that TMP got a new model.

I do not agree in regards to the reasons behind the ship model. Yes, they needed a new one for the big screen. But they also needed a sharper design. Star Wars raised the bar, and the costumes, sets and ship design had to look incredibly sharp. People complain about TMP uniforms and that is fine, it is a creative disagreement. But there is no doubt their overall quality is far superior to what was used on television.

And that is what we are seeing with the new movie. How could anyone honestly take that sixty year old design seriously after Star Wars, numerous Star Trek movies, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, etc? It looks old, outdated.

Good example; when Flash Gordon was made into a movie, there was an homage to the ship designs of the old serials. But this did not stop the designers from updating the looks. The textures of the ships were vastly improved, color-something the original series lacked-was now used to good effect. So you had the feel of the old serials but at the same time the ships looked far sharper.

I had a look at the new E-nil. and I have to say, i love it. It integrates modern features and SFX lighting, all the rest of it, but still keeps MOSTLY with the original design. The phaser shots looked and sounded Amazing. i loved it. If the consoles are slightly changed, a bit more sleek and modern but still keeps to the tradition, i see no issue.

4) The Enterprise looks different. Big deal. I do not need it to be absolutely faithful to the series to enjoy it. Do we need the costumes to look the same? Look at how cheap those costumes looked, on the big screen the flaws become more obvious. This is part of the reason Geordi lost the visor. Some things that work on the small screen do not on the big.

The problem with changing the Enterprise is that we then have a contradiction. Which Enterprise is cannon? And remember, the original Enterprise was seen in ENT as a CGI model, and it looked fine, and plenty realistic. It looked fine on my HDTV, why wouldn't it look good on a movie screen?

We can easily rationalise any inconsistancy in the design with the fact that the film takes place several years before the series.

Indeed. Canonically, if the original series Enterprise can be refitted to look like the refit Connie, then I see no reason why this version couldn't have been refitted to have become like the original series ship.

As for the styling of things, I always took it from Trials and Tribbleations that the TOS style was just that; a style. Chunky buttons and flip switches just happened to be in that decade, touch screens a decade or two later. There's nothing to say that the style wouldn't be different again before TOS.

Especially as often as Starfleet likes to change bridge moduals.

And remember big doesnt mean primative, it might just mean robust, they built they to take a beating.

Rochey wrote:We can easily rationalise any inconsistancy in the design with the fact that the film takes place several years before the series.

Exactly my point. They did it with TMP; complaining about it in this case is just looking for something to bash.

Agreed. I fully expect this film to have several errors that can be pointed out by its detractors, but the appearance of the ship is certainly not one.

Rochey wrote:Agreed. I fully expect this film to have several errors that can be pointed out by its detractors, but the appearance of the ship is certainly not one.

Before Enterprise premiered, a friend of mine started complaining about FX inconsistancies, so I said: " What are they supposed to do, hang the ship from strings, and make it from toilet paper rolls?"

Granted, we ended up with an atrocity for a ship, but the idea of having the SFX somehow be more primitive themselves was idiotic.

From the trailer, the nacelles look a lot larger than the TOS Enterprise, and a bit more primitive. Regardless, the "reboot" idea is growing more palatable to me by the day, the more we discuss how idiotic a lot of 'Trek was to begin with.

I agree. While ENT screwed up the design of the ship, I couldn't imagine complaining about better SFX than those from 1967.