Star Trek (next) JJ.A signs on, plot?

[gmd3d]

Good points Apolloisall

[Senmut]

Originally Posted by Centurion Draco

LOL, clearly it's something that you quickly get defensive about. But that's OK

Possibly because people accuse me of getting defensive about it. I also tend to get a bit frayed about the edges at some of the replies hurled my way over this over the yahrens.

Originally Posted by Centurion Draco

Would you rather they'd only catered for a minority of total purist original series fans and it had been a commercial disaster and 'one off'?

I would have given the fans the benefit of the doubt, and not assumed I somehow know what "should be done"..

Originally Posted by Centurion Draco

The argument that the tech looks too advanced only holds so much water for me.

It's a space ship. It isn't supposed to hold water.

Originally Posted by Centurion Draco

The hard fact is that no 40+ year old vision of the future is still going to be completely relevant and believeable now.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE ALL LOVED IT 40 YEARS AGO!

For you, perhaps.
Does that rational also hold for the social vision encapsulated in the original? Or is it in need of an upgrade too?

Originally Posted by Centurion Draco

I grew up watching the original series and everything was redesigned for the 'motion picture' just over a decade later so where do you draw the line?

For me the re-evaluation of the technology for ST-TMP was perfect. The re-fit Enterprise was perfect. It was all 'goldilocks' to me.

What we saw in ST:TMP and later was SUPPOSED to be later. Re-fits made sense. This has zilch to do with what I was talking about.

Originally Posted by Centurion Draco

You have to be a realist about this. They clearly tried to please the old fans.
They could have just flipped us the finger and started again.... (well we all know how that can pan out don't we?)

I am. That's whay I and alot of others didn't like it.

Originally Posted by Centurion Draco

But they needed to make a movie that would be a commercial success.
So they needed a new audience as well.

I guess you'll be sticking to your guns (phasers) on this issue and you won't be watching the next movie?

They had no faith in the fan base. So, they had to fiddle with it, because we always need something "new". Or rather, they needed something new.
If I must, I'll borrow it from the libraray. Why pay?


Oh yes...I suppose you think that this vesion Spock banging Uhura was part of the needed update?

[martok2112]

And people wonder why I despise fandoms so much sometimes.

I agree with both of your statements, Draco and Senmut.

Draco's statement I agree with is that the vision of the future 40 some years ago is rather outdated. Besides, look at shows like Babylon 5, where the story takes place along the same century as Star Trek TOS....and its technology looks more in line with what we'd probably expect 23rd century tech to look like now. I'm sure in another 40 years, (assuming we're here) that movies and shows that are made to depict a possible 23rd century will depict a technology that looks more in line with what THEY expect far future tech to look like.

Senmut, I agree with your counter point about Trek's social message back then. This falls in line with the notion that the story is the star of the show, not the special effects and props. The messages told back then are just as relevant today as in yesteryear.

Enterprise did it right with their two part "Through a Mirror Darkly" episode. But that's still small screen. I just don't know how believable some of that stuff would look on the big screen....despite others' admonitions for me to watch classic Trek on a 40 inch tv. I happen to own a 47inch Hi-Def 1080p/120hz TV, and yes, it looked good. A movie theater screen is quite a different thing.

[martok2112]

And now for something completely different:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maA6SQ2EsCY

[gmd3d]

Just commenting on TV or Film/Movies.
(as I have nothing more to add to the present discussion)

I have always felt that Star Trek belonged on TV rather than Movies.

That´s it.

[martok2112]

I can agree with you some there, Ger.
While Star Trek (as a franchise) certainly lends itself to a visual epic scale, the stories that must be told for the big screen really must lend themselves to a general audience...not just the hardcore (or even causal) Trek fan. So there has to be a balance struck, and unfortunately, it's just not going to happen.

Also, in between Trek movies, the actors end up 2-5 years older depending on how much time there is between films.

With a TV series, much more detailed story arcs can be told on a weekly basis, and the visuals (especially with today's tech) certainly can give a good big screen film a run for its money. A limited budget, however, means that the epic scope of the story won't quite get the bang for the buck that a big screen tale would....but, it also allows for a more complete telling of such a story.

That said, this is why I think Star Trek Generations, First Contact, and Insurrection would've worked better as television episodes than big screen attempts. For starters, they look like overblown episodes.

And the space battles, definitely television quality. Too much "they're firing on us" and not enough actually seeing it happen. With First Contact, it was like:

"Okay, we're listening to the battle."
"Okay, let's put the battle on screen."
"Okay, let's keep it short, because this is where our budget went."
"Okay, we've blown our budget, now let's get on to the rest of the episo---er, I mean movie."

Insurrection's space battles were done EXACTLY like a TV episode.
"They're firing on us"
ship shakes, and people are thrown about.

"They're firing on us again"
more of the same

"Return fire"
OMG, was that actually a visual effect?!

"Fire again"
Ummm...ok....we fired.

Nemesis, for all the flak it received, got it right. Now THAT was a space battle!

Back on your point though, Ger. Yes, I can agree that Star Trek better lends itself to television episodes....both singular and arc driven.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Senmut

They had no faith in the fan base. So, they had to fiddle with it, because we always need something "new". Or rather, they needed something new.

The fan base was fractured after Nemesis. Not much of a fan base left to have faith in. So indeed something new was going to have to be tried....and it paid off in spades.

New movie comes out, rocks just about everyone from old school Trek fans to newly reigned in fans. (I say "just about everyone" because obviously there are a few that didn't dig it. End result though: Fan base restored.

[gmd3d]

Originally Posted by martok2112

I can agree with you some there, Ger.
While Star Trek (as a franchise) certainly lends itself to a visual epic scale, the stories that must be told for the big screen really must lend themselves to a general audience...not just the hardcore (or even causal) Trek fan. So there has to be a balance struck, and unfortunately, it's just not going to happen.

Also, in between Trek movies, the actors end up 2-5 years older depending on how much time there is between films.

With a TV series, much more detailed story arcs can be told on a weekly basis, and the visuals (especially with today's tech) certainly can give a good big screen film a run for its money. A limited budget, however, means that the epic scope of the story won't quite get the bang for the buck that a big screen tale would....but, it also allows for a more complete telling of such a story.


Back on your point though, Ger. Yes, I can agree that Star Trek better lends itself to television episodes....both singular and arc driven.

Valid points Steve and its how I see it at the moment.

[BST]

Through my travels, I've seen source material butchered to hell and I've seen source material respected. In neither case, however, did I consider that source material "hallowed ground".

When I joined the online discussion groups nearly 10 years ago, I chose a handle which has since been shortened to "BST". The full handle was "BattleStarTrekker". It was chosen to epitomize my affection for both Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek, which goes back to the entire 1970's decade during which time I spent my teenage years.

I watched Trek when it wasn't cool to watch it and got "razzed" by my friends for watching it. Nonetheless, I kept watching it. I wound up having the "last laugh" of sorts a few years later when some of those same friends got hooked by the 'universe' and told me how good the show was.

I could sit here and probably talk chapter and verse about every episode of Star Trek TOS. I could probably recount the dialogue in a given scene and likely tell you of the significance of it, if it were in fact significant.

Yes, I have a great, great passion for Star Trek.

Yes, I enjoyed the new Star Trek movie.

Did the writers and producers lay a few eggs? Hell yes!!
Did the writers and producers brutally butcher the source material? Hell no!!

Quite frankly and quite simply, the Star Trek universe, begun by Gene Roddenberry in 1966, had run its course and was out of gas. The stories had been told. The well of imagination had run dry.

But, folks still wanted to see some sort of Star Trek show. So, the producers decided to get a fresh canvas and paint a new picture of the Trek universe.

Their new "picture" had a few runs in the paint, though, ... I don't like how they made Kirk out to be such a delinquent; I don't like how they completely jacked up the chain of command by promoting Kirk from Cadet to Captain.

That was ridiculous.

As an alternative, the movie could have easily shown Kirk boarding his first starship and then, cut to a "5 years later" frame or something of the sort and then show him as having been promoted to Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander which would have followed a more believable time frame. At any rate, it is what it is.

Believe it or not, I didn't mind that (Quinto) Spock exhibited some emotion. The fact that he did was acknowledgment that it was not completely impossible for Vulcans to exhibit emotions. He was simply choosing to not control his emotions. He was actually acting more in the character of the early Vulcans, from Surak's time, who broke with his teachings and left the planet, eventually colonizing Romulus and Remus. The Trek novels referred to them as Rihannsu.

By doing this, the producers opened the way for more character development for Spock, in my opinion.


Another point of contention, for some, is the design of the Enterprise. I'm on the fence with this. While I'm not absolutely thrilled with the new ship, either inside or out, I do NOT want it to look like the TOS Enterprise. That particular ship, NCC-1701, is very near and dear to my heart. I love that ship and want to see it where it originated, on the original Trek and nowhere else!

In the end, I would offer the opinion that the writers and producers kept very close to the spirit of the source material while, at the same time, breaking the mold and recasting a few elements.

I would, willingly, go to see the next movie.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by BST

Through my travels, I've seen source material butchered to hell and I've seen source material respected. In neither case, however, did I consider that source material "hallowed ground".

When I joined the online discussion groups nearly 10 years ago, I chose a handle which has since been shortened to "BST". The full handle was "BattleStarTrekker". It was chosen to epitomize my affection for both Battlestar Galactica and Star Trek, which goes back to the entire 1970's decade during which time I spent my teenage years.

I watched Trek when it wasn't cool to watch it and got "razzed" by my friends for watching it. Nonetheless, I kept watching it. I wound up having the "last laugh" of sorts a few years later when some of those same friends got hooked by the 'universe' and told me how good the show was.

I could sit here and probably talk chapter and verse about every episode of Star Trek TOS. I could probably recount the dialogue in a given scene and likely tell you of the significance of it, if it were in fact significant.

Yes, I have a great, great passion for Star Trek.

Yes, I enjoyed the new Star Trek movie.

Did the writers and producers lay a few eggs? Hell yes!!
Did the writers and producers brutally butcher the source material? Hell no!!

Quite frankly and quite simply, the Star Trek universe, begun by Gene Roddenberry in 1966, had run its course and was out of gas. The stories had been told. The well of imagination had run dry.

But, folks still wanted to see some sort of Star Trek show. So, the producers decided to get a fresh canvas and paint a new picture of the Trek universe.

Their new "picture" had a few runs in the paint, though, ... I don't like how they made Kirk out to be such a delinquent; I don't like how they completely jacked up the chain of command by promoting Kirk from Cadet to Captain.

That was ridiculous.

As an alternative, the movie could have easily shown Kirk boarding his first starship and then, cut to a "5 years later" frame or something of the sort and then show him as having been promoted to Lieutenant or Lieutenant Commander which would have followed a more believable time frame. At any rate, it is what it is.

Believe it or not, I didn't mind that (Quinto) Spock exhibited some emotion. The fact that he did was acknowledgment that it was not completely impossible for Vulcans to exhibit emotions. He was simply choosing to not control his emotions. He was actually acting more in the character of the early Vulcans, from Surak's time, who broke with his teachings and left the planet, eventually colonizing Romulus and Remus. The Trek novels referred to them as Rihannsu.

By doing this, the producers opened the way for more character development for Spock, in my opinion.


Another point of contention, for some, is the design of the Enterprise. I'm on the fence with this. While I'm not absolutely thrilled with the new ship, either inside or out, I do NOT want it to look like the TOS Enterprise. That particular ship, NCC-1701, is very near and dear to my heart. I love that ship and want to see it where it originated, on the original Trek and nowhere else!

In the end, I would offer the opinion that the writers and producers kept very close to the spirit of the source material while, at the same time, breaking the mold and recasting a few elements.

I would, willingly, go to see the next movie.

Great points, my friend.

One time, many moons ago, before fanfiction was ever made for online reading, I had done a fan fiction of Trek (based on FASA's Star Trek combat board game) where two cadets had so proven themselves on an excursion aboard a warp-shuttle, where the commanding officer was killed, and all that was left were cadets. These two cadets took charge, and conducted themselves and the other cadets in such a manner that it was thought that between their performances in the starship bridge simulators, and this actual (and quite unintended) excursion, they were both granted command of starships. So J.J. and co. weren't the only ones who had dreamed up the idea of the jump from cadet to captain.

Our thoughts regarding Quinto's take on Spock are pretty much on the same page. And they're validated by a line Troi had spoken in an episode of The Next Generation...which I do believe was "Sarek". She said: "Vulcans have emotions, they just choose not to exhibit them." (Or something like that. ) In this timeline, this is a younger Spock who had not undergone Kolinahr (and had made mention that the Kolinahr was a possible choice for himself in this movie) and who was also subject to bullying and torment by pure-blood Vulcans. Spock did show that it took a lot more to push him to the point of emotional outburst as a grown up, but that he was still capable of being pushed. (His mother is a touchy subject with him. ) But remember, even in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and especially in "The Cage" Spock was shown to be able to give in to emotion quite easily. Vulcans generally do not smile....and between both eps, he smiled a few times.

And think on this..... the original Spock had mentioned at times where he was pleased, or delighted, or other adjectives of emotion... so I think there is precedent that Spock is far more easily given to emotion, even if they are the more positive emotions. (And of course, let's not forget his nice little smacking aside of Valeris' phaser in Star Trek VI. )

As for Kirk being a delinquent in this new movie: well, I offer that consider in the original universe, Kirk had the benefit of growing up under the wing of a loving, well-disciplined father. In the new universe, he lacked that, instead being made to grow up under the scorn of a (likely) drunkard and real jackass of a stepfather. The stepfather must've been a real smooth talker to have managed to capture the attentions of James' mom, because this guy turned out to be a real jackhole. The influences Kirk grew up under were far different in this timeline, and a likely reason for his delinquency....however, that clearly did not affect his genius or his resourcefulness, as well as his toughness. That's how I view the validity of his delinquency anyway.

You're closing statement sums things up nicely.

And, Ger, I think you and I are both on the same page.

[Apolloisall]

Originally Posted by BST

While I'm not absolutely thrilled with the new ship, either inside or out, I do NOT want it to look like the TOS Enterprise. That particular ship, NCC-1701, is very near and dear to my heart. I love that ship and want to see it where it originated, on the original Trek and nowhere else!

Y'know, that's a really good point too.

[Darrell Lawrence]

Why do people need to quote LONG posts that were posted right before their post? Sheesh.

[Apolloisall]

Originally Posted by Warrior

Why do people need to quote LONG posts that were posted right before their post? Sheesh.

Compulsive Archival Syndrome.

[BST]

Originally Posted by Warrior

Why do people need to quote LONG posts that were posted right before their post? Sheesh.

So we can get you to post something, ya big lug!

[Senmut]

Originally Posted by BST

So we can get you to post something, ya big lug!

Oh No! The secret is out!!!

[Senmut]

Originally Posted by martok2112

Senmut, I agree with your counter point about Trek's social message back then. This falls in line with the notion that the story is the star of the show, not the special effects and props. The messages told back then are just as relevant today as in yesteryear.

Someone agreed with me????
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......thud!

Originally Posted by martok2112

Enterprise did it right with their two part "Through a Mirror Darkly" episode. But that's still small screen. I just don't know how believable some of that stuff would look on the big screen....despite others' admonitions for me to watch classic Trek on a 40 inch tv. I happen to own a 47inch Hi-Def 1080p/120hz TV, and yes, it looked good. A movie theater screen is quite a different thing.

Such things can be rectified by what the Director of Photography chooses to do. Type of film stock/Hi-Def tape and cameras, lenses, lighting, aspect ratio, amount of CGI tweaking vs. use of models, et al. It is fixable.

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Senmut

Someone agreed with me????
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......thud!

Alert Ted Koppel!

Originally Posted by Senmut

Such things can be rectified by what the Director of Photography chooses to do. Type of film stock/Hi-Def tape and cameras, lenses, lighting, aspect ratio, amount of CGI tweaking vs. use of models, et al. It is fixable.

Indeed. I do think some extra detail....subtle, not overwhelming, would need to be added to the original Big E, somewhat like what they did with the K't'inga battlecruisers for TMP. I think, the pseudo-Azteca hull plating, like what we see on the refit Enterprise, could be a good start. In fact, that's kinda what I did for my TOS Enterprise 3D model.



However, my model is FAR from big screen ready, but it is an example of something that could be done just to dress up the ol' girl just a bit.

[Senmut]

And it looks terrific. What I would have hoped to see in the last film.
Martok for DOP on the next film!

[martok2112]

Originally Posted by Senmut

And it looks terrific. What I would have hoped to see in the last film.
Martok for DOP on the next film!

Most kind, Senmut. Thank you.
As it turns out, although it is a fan project, I am pretty much the visual effects guy for a project for friend of mine.

I've constructed (rather kitbashed, based off of my TOS Enterprise) several TOS era starships, largely based on Franz Joseph's Technical Manual...the scout/destroyer, the dreadnought, and the heavy tug. Also did the TOS shuttlecraft (and even did a hangar bay set), and am now working on the Klingon Bird of Prey. Yeah, for this project, we're going to have Klingon Birds of Prey, as well as K't'ingas.

lemme 'splain...no...there is too much....lemme sum up...

This project, whilst taking place in the TOS era, is largely borrowing a couple of elements from DS9 and from a video game called Star Trek Legacy.

From DS9, the element I'm borrowing is that the Klingon Battlecruiser was given hull detailing rather like what we saw in The Motion Picture...so, we're just going to stick with my K't'inga for the Klingon battlecruisers.

As for the Klingon Bird of Prey being in the TOS era, that's what I borrowed from the game Star Trek Legacy. There is a scenario in the game where the TOS era Enterprise is sent out to capture a prototype Klingon scoutship, the Klingon Bird of Prey.

[Senmut]

Why not the earlier D-7 Klingon battlecruiser?

[martok2112]

Well, it's like I'd mentioned, the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribble-ations" showed a lot of extra hull detail on the D-7 (where the ship finally officially got called "D-7") to where it pretty much looked like a K't'inga...so, for simplicity's sake, for this fan-film, we (the film's creator and I) decided to stick with the K't'inga.

If you think on it, there is another basis in precdent for it. Remember when we saw at the beginning of Star Trek The Motion Picture, the Klingons already had the uprated K't'inga class...and have apparently had them well before the refit of Kirk's Enterprise. So, this story is likely going to take place some time just before Kirk brought the Enterprise back from her first five-year mission.

I'm sure I could do the original battlecruiser....I don't think I permanently attached the extra hull designs to the ship in project mode in Blender...so it would likely be a matter of just removing them from the main body. My friend rather likes the K't'inga's though, and so that's what we're running with.

[Senmut]

"spose. I just admit to a preference for minimalism.

[martok2112]

Nothing wrong with that either, Senmut. Believe me, in truth, I'm kinda sort of a minimalist myself, but only in that in the creative aspect of things, I lose patience...so, I try to go for as minimalist an approach as I can, but still retain something that resembles as close to the real thing as possible. That's probably one of the reasons why my ships have a sort of Animated Series look to them.

[Senmut]

Okay. ya gonna give your Enterprise pic another whirl?

[martok2112]

I'll probably try to see if I can up the photorealism a bit on her sometime in the future....but for now, I rather like her TAS appearance.

And when you throw specularity onto the ship, she really shines in motion.

[Darrell Lawrence]

You want quality TOS era stuff? Go to this site's momma site- www.3dgladiators.com

[martok2112]

Aye, that's cool, Darrell, and I know there's quality stuff there, but I kinda like the notion that I built these ships for this project, and for my own future projects.


I'm building my own little starfleet.