Star Trek

I just don't get change simply for the sake of change. You had the design aesthetic of the original, which all of the later series saw fit to maintain whenever they visited the original era; it's well-established and well-liked.

Some say you have to redesign everything to appeal to a new audience. Well, why? How is this going to appeal to an average movie-goer more than a faithful (not down to the micron, but faithful enough) depiction would?

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xi/screencaps/trailer/trailer048.jpg

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xi/screencaps/trailer/trailer065.jpg

http://movies.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/xi/screencaps/trailer/trailer069.jpg

How is that better? How is that going to draw in more of an audience? To me, it looks much cheesier, much more like "silly sci-fi." What the heck are all the big red buttons and hairdryers? I would think it would turn more "average" people off.

The best sci-fi is more conservative in its look, more relatable to what people know. All this stuff looks like greeblies just for the sake of greeblies, which is what a lot of bad sci-fi is. It looks like a "set" someone would build in their basement with whatever they had on hand.

And if general audiences "don't care," then why not make it right for the people who do care? It would cost no more and not affect the "story" at all.
 
My wife said something interesting after seeing the trailer before the QOS film. She said, "I don't know sh*t about Star Trek and always thought it was lame, but this film looks cool so be sure I see it with you".

That said a lot to me about the marketing of this film. It's going to crush trekkers world-wide, but this film is not for you, sorry. It's for a new audience and a new generation (pun intended). So relax and enjoy the new vision, or don't, the producers will make a killing either way, might as well give it shot.

This will be nothing like the Star Trek you know and have enjoyed, the director was very clear about that and up-front. I for one will be the first in line. I'm of open mind as a big Star Trek fan. Trekkers will ultimately hurt their chances of a good time by going into this angry and spoiling what could be a fun experience for them. I mean, how can you write a negative 5 page thesis of the film based on a trailer!?

You're setting yourself up for a heart-attack. ;)

*stepping off soap-box now*
 
But that's my point -- if your wife doesn't know anything about Star Trek, then she wouldn't know what's different. She was responding to the story elements, not the ships or the set design. How would her reaction have been any different if it looked "right" to fans?
 
To be honest David, I wasnt responding to you, I didn't even read your post (sorry). But to answer you, she's seen all the Star Trek films with me, granted she yawned through all of them but she knows what's up. She simply thought this one appealed to her demographic. That's all I was saying, this new interpretation is not for fans that can tell you the color of Spock's underwear in episode #21.
 
alveraz said:
I mean, how can you write a negative 5 page thesis of the film based on a trailer!?
Click to expand...

I don't think that was aimed at me, because mine was hardly five pages :D, but let me just say this anyway:

My analysis was not meant to cast aspersions on the film, because obviously I've seen only a tiny piece of it. What I was trying to do was analyze the mindset behind the film, and how it compares to what I consider to be the "canon" of the Trek universe. I mean, we've all been to films where every funny moment is in the trailer, so it's entirely possible that all the things that aren't "Trek" about this movie are in the trailer. :)

But, to follow up on David's line of reasoning, what about the car chase that opens the trailer is any "cooler" because it's a 60's Corvette? Isn't even somebody who's never seen Trek before going to say, "WTF--that's a 300-year-old car!" They designed the cool hoverbike for the cop--why not a hovercar or something else futuristic for Kirk? Ditto for his motorcycle later on, and ditto for the scene with the Enterprise under construction. That one in particular, actually--what about it being on the ground makes it "cooler" for the non-fan? What's to make them immune from asking, "WTF--why are they building a spaceship on the ground?" What's so "uncool" about a spacedock scene?
 
Who said they wanted to make everything "cooler"? I think the logic is backwards.

When I see a 60's corvette chased by a hover-bike I think of generational subtext, old verse new, the idea of antiquities in a new universe is intriguing for me, not something I scoff at. You don't think workable antiques or replicas for collectors and history buffs will exist in the future? um, look around you, people love history and the items from our history, we recreate them everyday in our society. Ripping it apart based on a trailer is silly, you have no idea why it's there, so give it a break and let's wait to find out.

The Enterprise is being built on land, so what? It was a creative choice that is most likely explained in the film. Again, I'm intrigued by this and like the dynamics and direction of the trailer and new star trek. But I understand where you guys are coming from and hope you'll give it an open chance instead of becoming so consumed by a trailer that you lose sight of the entertaining value this director is offering us here.
 
I don't care about the Vette. I like the Vette. Kirk would like the Vette. I love the Iowa license plate and dirt roads, actually. In fact, one of the things I didn't like about the various series was how they went out of their way to eschew present-day stuff and over-design something as simple as a tennis racquet.

I don't care about the ship being built on land so much (though it makes more sense to build it in space).

But imagine, in the trailer, he pulls up and sees them building a ship which looks like this:

wip_002.jpg


Instead of this:

enterprise579_l.jpg


Does the appeal or excitement of the shot change . . . at all? I don't think so.
 
Well if it doesnt matter what it looks like then why are you upset? I'm genuinely asking as I still don't see the point, but I'm curious why everyone is so pissed if it doesnt really matter. So they chose a more sleek ship, again, a creative new direction the director chose, to clearly appeal to a new generation. I don't have a problem with that and the director is making a point i think to insure you understand he's not making your dad's star trek here.
 
alveraz said:
My wife said something interesting after seeing the trailer before the QOS film. She said, "I don't know sh*t about Star Trek and always thought it was lame, but this film looks cool so be sure I see it with you".

That said a lot to me about the marketing of this film. It's going to crush trekkers world-wide, but this film is not for you, sorry. It's for a new audience and a new generation (pun intended). So relax and enjoy the new vision, or don't, the producers will make a killing either way, might as well give it shot.

This will be nothing like the Star Trek you know and have enjoyed, the director was very clear about that and up-front. I for one will be the first in line. I'm of open mind as a big Star Trek fan. Trekkers will ultimately hurt their chances of a good time by going into this angry and spoiling what could be a fun experience for them. I mean, how can you write a negative 5 page thesis of the film based on a trailer!?

You're setting yourself up for a heart-attack. ;)

*stepping off soap-box now*
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.

This reminds me of ROMERO FANBOYS decrying Dawn of the Dead 2004.

And I'm with your wife on this one.

-

Dave ? Is it really a big deal to have the ship look a little different ? It looks cooler IMO than th archaic version.
 
alveraz said:
Well if it doesnt matter what it looks like then why are you upset? I'm genuinely asking as I still don't see the point, but I'm curious why everyone is so pissed if it doesnt really matter. So they chose a more sleek ship, again, a creative new direction the director chose, to clearly appeal to a new generation. I don't have a problem with that and the director is making a point i think to insure you understand he's not making your dad's star trek here.
Click to expand...

I'm saying, it doesn't matter to the casual movie-going audience what it looks like -- they just want to see the story. So why make it so radically different when there's a large part of the audience who does care? You're saying it's to "appeal to a new generation" -- but they don't care. And there are people who do.

(On top of that, it all looks silly, like GalaxyQuest.)

So have the 'vette. Have Uhura ripping her shirt off. Have Kirk riding a motorcycle and gettin' jiggy. Have Uhura ripping her shirt off. Have Spock pimp-slamp Kirk a few times. Have Uhura ripping her shirt off. It's all good. That's what people are reacting to. But it can still look "right" while doing all those things.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
My thoughts exactly.

This reminds me of ROMERO FANBOYS decrying Dawn of the Dead 2004.

And I'm with your wife on this one.

-

Dave ? Is it really a big deal to have the ship look a little different ? It looks cooler IMO than th archaic version.
Click to expand...

Do you remember having big problems with the new Battlestar Galactica? It's like that.
 
Or better . . .

What's your view on Lucas these days, John? How about The Last Crusade?

To me, what they've done here is what they did to Marcus Brody.
 
David Jimerson said:
I You're saying it's to "appeal to a new generation" -- but they don't care.
Click to expand...

I think I finally see where you and I differ. See, I think the new generation of fans do care. I don't think my wife wants to see all the old crap she's used to seeing (crap being her adjective, not mine). She likes the new fresh look and I would suggest the new audience will too.

So the look does in fact matter. I think he's found balance, I mean he stayed with the original uniforms so he didn't completely marginalize the original flair. Either way, I'm open and real excited about this resurgence and new direction. I'm glad they started from the beginning and hopefully this launches into several more from this crew to come.
 
David Jimerson said:
Do you remember having big problems with the new Battlestar Galactica? It's like that.
Click to expand...

I think this is a great example actually. They found balance between the old and new while having something for an old fan like me and the younger generation with the "sexy cylons" (did I just say that?). They knocked this out of the park, and I expect the same from the new Star Trek.
 
alveraz said:
I think this is a great example actually. They found balance between the old and new while having something for an old fan like me and the younger generation with the "sexy cylons" (did I just say that?). They knocked this out of the park, and I expect the same from the new Star Trek.
Click to expand...

There was also 25 years of fallow time in between and only 30 hours of footage, counting Galactica 1980 (which nobody does), not to mention that those hours were nowhere near as good.
 
David Jimerson said:
There was also 25 years of fallow time in between and only 30 hours of footage, counting Galactica 1980 (which nobody does), not to mention that those hours were nowhere near as good.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the aesthetics, you've brought story into this now, which is impossible to deduce considering all we have is a trailer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top