Star Trek XI: The "New" Enterprise

[captainj2410]

Okay, this is mainly just for any fellow Star Trek fans who have an opinion on this subject, but anyone is allowed to comment.

The teaser trailer for J. J. Abrams' Star Trek XI came out today. All it showed was the Enterprise under construction at the San Francisco Fleet Yards. I love the fact that they're showing it being built, but I have one problem.

It's not the same as it was in The Original Series.

Here's what I'm talking about

http://www.aolcdn.com/aolmovies/star-trek-uss-enterprise-full

First of all, you'll note the massive warp nacelles. On the original Enterprise, they were large, but these are oversized. They're also more streamlined and appear to have more in common with a modern day turbofan engine than a warp engine. I like the idea in concept, but historically, it's going to cause problems.

Secondly, you'll see the Aztec texturing pattern first seen in The Motion Picture. The original Enterprise had almost no surface features, and the entire hull had the same specularity. How is this change explained.

Third, The upper saucer section and bridge have been completely redesigned. There was a slight redesign between the original pilot "The Cage" and the second pilot "Where No Man Has Gone Before." It wasn't this drastic, though.

Finally...the lettering is different. Can't anything be maintained in a consistent fashion?

I will admit, I do like the design, but its implications frighten me. With this being what the Enterprise will look like in the movie, what effect will that have on the rest of the franchise? If I'm correct in assuming that this does take place after "The Cage", then that means that the Enterprise would have been redesigned, then resimplified. This doesn't make any sense. In effect, everything that has ever been produced since the original pilot would be made invalid. That prospect scares me. I've grown up with Star Trek, it's a part of - and the motivating factor for - my entire life. If this movie tells me that everything I've known and cherished for the past 17 years has been a lie, I'll be incredibly upset.

Sorry about wasting your time there. I'm very emotional when it comes to Star Trek.

[lisa]

Oooh, complex question... I'm refraining from the poll until I see more footage.

I agree. I really, really, really hate it when they change stuff. I feel that if you are a writer or an artist working on a series, it's absolutely *imperative* to stick to cannon. I know a lot of people don't feel the same way, but I think continuity is a *very* important part of telling a story--having predictability in the characters and the environment allows the viewer to form a mental picture and understand *why* the characters are doing what they are doing and predict what they'll do next. This leads to more complex and engaging stories that aren't possible to tell when you keep changing the rules.

The only reason I'm willing to give them *a little* bit of leeway on this one is the issue of integration. If the new art\film style has a particular look, an exact replica of the old enterprise may look quirky and out of place. I actually went and saw the real model in the Smithsonian. As you might guess, it's not terribly detailed. It was very appropriate for the time period in which it was made--after all, it was designed to look good on a tiny television screen decades ago--but viewer expectations and the size of televisions have changed since them. :)

Personally, the material changes don't bother me--I can excuse that as "detail I wasn't shown before"--but I'd leave the shape alone. The shape of the nacelles and the saucer really define "this is a Star Trek" ship the same way as a kidney grill tells you a car is a BMW without even seeing the rest of the vehicle.

The text I'm really surprised at. I'd have kept that for sure. Font work is always a good way to carry a theme, even when everything else changes. Sigh.

I wouldn't freak out yet, but yes, I agree, I'm curious where they are going with this.

[captainj2410]

I understand exactly what you're saying about the materials. Personally, if that had been all they changed, I would have been absolutely fine with all of this. That wouldn't have been too difficult to go back into the remastered episodes and change. It's the design changes that upset me. And you're absolutely right about the font. They kept the placement and orientation the same, but they decided to go back and, as with the materials, bring it up to Refit Constitution standards. To be honest, that's not even the only problem. The teaser shows the Enterprise under construction. If the movie takes place immediately after construction is completed, that would make Christopher Pike the first captain of the Enterprise. This conflicts with TAS: The Counter-Clock Incident, which specified the her first captain was Robert April. And yes, that does count now, they finally decided to make TAS canon.

[lisa]

I hear ya'.

The problem is the original series was pretty strong on the point that Pike was the first captain. This complicates things, because how many people even know there was an animated series? I sheepishly admit that even with the amount of Trek I've watched, while I'm aware of TAS, I've only seen a few episodes of it myself. Heck, how many people will remember who *Pike* is? Ask random joes on the street who the first captain of the enterprise was, and I'd bet 9 out of 10 of them answer "Kirk".

Again, I wholeheartedly agree with you... I just haven't a clue what the right answers are! I'm just keeping my fingers crossed they are true to the spirit, if not the details.

[captainj2410]

Yeah, actually, ask any random Joe on the street who the first captain of the Enterprise was and the most prevalent response (that at least I get) is "You Nerd."
Anyways, we'll just have to wait and see.

Also, update:
http://www.ncc-1701.com/
Watch the offline camera long enough, and a short preview of what the corridors look like aboard the new Enterprise. Looks like, as someone has said on the Star Trek Gamers website, a cross between Battlestar Galactica and Alien. Also, you don't have to keep watching it like a hawk, it makes a noise when the camera becomes active.
A clear picture can be found here:
http://www.startrek-gamers.com/

[lisa]

Yeah, actually, ask any random Joe on the street who the first captain of the Enterprise was and the most prevalent response (that at least I get) is "You Nerd."[/url]

ROFL!


Watch the offline camera long enough, and a short preview of what the corridors look like aboard the new Enterprise.

Unbelievable!

I tracked down the original article: http://www.syfyportal.com/pagetogether.php?id=4604&page=1

"I can't discuss any details, all I can offer is that you lose all your expectations of what Star Trek should be," Brown said. "If you see this movie with an open mind and take it at face value, you may have a great time." [...] While her credits are extensive, Brown is surprising on what has been her most rewarding experience in terms of set design: the George Clooney feature "Batman & Robin."

And therein, I believe, lies the problem... Batman and Robin was perhaps the most nipple-tastic movie I've ever seen. Don't know if you ever saw it--if not, best to keep avoiding it--but every single costume had plastic nipples the size of my thumb. The art direction was absolutely terrible. ::brrrr shiver::

[captainj2410]

That was with Arnie as Mr. Freeze, right? If so, I liked the movie for what it was. I'm not saying it was the Batman people would expect, and I was kinda weirded out by the prominent papilla on all the outfits (praise be they didn't continue the trend with Batgirl) but I've never been as much of a stickler about Batman as about Star Trek. I did like that the city was elevated off the ground, but that's about where my fondness for the set designs stops.

[lisa]

Different strokes. :)

I think you hit the nail on the head and that's what you really need to do with most licensed movies--enjoy them for what they are.

[captainj2410]

That's what I usually do for most movies. Movies except for anything historical (which is why I love Gettysburg - the fact that it focuses on Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain is just an added bonus ^___^) and Star Trek. I'm unfortunately one of those nutso fans that bases reality on Star Trek. I've practically convinced myself that it is exactly what the future will be. I'm not alone in that belief, though, and I'm certain that there will be people somewhere who protest against this movie for all the changes it makes. Oh well, I don't know what the plot is about, and that's usually the more important part. At least they picked a villain who seems appropriate for the fact that it's featuring the TOS crew. "Nero" sounds like the kind of name that they'd have chosen for a villain in the '60s. Not to mention it's got the good historical background to it.

[lisa]

My daughter just mentioned wanting to see Gettysburg... I assume from your comment it's pretty good?

[captainj2410]

Oh my goodness, it is absolutely AMAZING! The score is remarkably moving, and the battle scenes are so realistic. The scenes where they sweep across the field just watching Picket's soldiers marching up Seminary Ridge gave such a sense of scope to the battle. The performances were immaculate (even if the beards were really fake looking) and the characters were portrayed in such a way that there were no bad guys. Even the Confederates were honorable men, and you just had to respect them, especially General Armistead. I almost cried when he was dying, it was so sad. And now comes the best part: Jeff Daniels played Colonel Chamberlain, and played him perfectly. After watching that movie, Chamberlain became one of my personal heroes (technically my only one, since Jonathan Archer hasn't even been born yet). He was just such an inspiring figure, and so incredibly courageous. His charge down Little Round Top had to be one of the most daring moves of the conflict. My uncle is a Civil War buff and knows everything there is to know about it. Gettysburg is actually one of his favorite movies, and he even has posters of Chamberlain in his basement. I visited him once and went to his basement, and the moment I saw those posters, I just stopped and my jaw dropped practically to the floor. But I digress haha!

Anyways, Gettysburg is absolutely amazing. I'd recommend it to anyone. Also, your daughter might want to consider reading "The Killer Angels", the Michael Shaara novel the movie is based off of (I still need to read it myself).

[lisa]

Wow. I'll definitely have to check it out!

[tbd]

Hmm. Interesting. Two nerds talking....... hehe. Just kidding. I havent seen that much Star Trek here in Norway to know what you are talking about. And especially not the original with Captain Kirk. I think my life would have been much better if only it had aired here as well :D

[captainj2410]

It's a shame they didn't air it there. It's hard to find any place on Earth where it isn't on at some point. To say the least, it was groundbreaking. It's probably most famous around the world for it's social commentary aspect. Having been born in 1990, I pretty much grew up with Star Trek. From the time I was born up until three years ago, there was always a new episode coming out. I was really broken hearted when Enterprise was cancelled. The last episode (which was a lousy way to end the series) aired four days after my birthday...

[lisa]

Ouch. Now I feel both nerdy AND old... I graduated in 1991. :)

I guess it just goes to show ST is one of those very rare shows that really does span generations... my dad enjoys Trek too, and he started watching it when it first aired in the 60s.