1: JJ Abrams was a Star Wars Fan Boy always. When he was approached to do Star Trek he blatantly changed Star Trek to his personal preference by introducing deep rooted Star Wars Elements in to it. The excuse he used was: "Trek needs an updated look." This was akin to him unzipping his jeans and urinating on the crowd of fans. When JJ went to do Star Wars did he change the look of the out dates 1970's Millennium Falcon? Did he make storm troopers sexier? Did he polish out the scuff marks on X-wings? Did he even switch all of the animatronics and puppets over to CGI? - NO. HE TREATED HIS FRANCHISE, STAR WARS LIKE A SACRED COW AND DARED NOT CHANGE A SINGLE THING ABOUT IT!!!!!
Now wait just a damned minute... you're going to point out the updated graphics and effects Abrams used in Star Wars- FAIR. It's mine along with all of the other Trek Fans (including Doug Drexler's) opinion that there is a WAY to honor the look of Original Trek but use some updated materials, some slight stylizing and lighting as well as effects to modernize it. JUST like Abrams PROVED by keeping Chewie's fur matted and the Falcon scuffed! BB8 is a totally more advanced robot than R2 D2 yet it follows some basic principles of the Star Wars era that makes it believable. And they didn't scrap R2 to bring in BB8!!!
Star Trek Fans aren't saying we don't want to see new things, just don't destroy basic design aesthetics that are principle to the era they are setting the show in. ( And to whom said this isn't a period piece because it's just fiction, and keeps arguing that since it's fiction NOTHING MATTERS, you're incorrect. When you call something Star Trek and say it takes place during the lifetimes of the original series crew, Kirk, Spock EVERYONE IS OUT THERE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME DISCOVERY IS FLYING THROUGH SPACE) then you have an obligation to respect the fans and franchise by adhering to design rules of the era... I'll get back to those rules a bit later (I think you'll like my points Darthmeow)
Few Aesthetic points:
- Ships in the 2250's had a bomber/submarine aesthetic mixed with a retro-futurism seen at the worlds fair. Thomas at Cryptic created never before seen, totally original 2250's ship designs following those aesthetic markers. He did an AMAZING job and any one of those ships would be absolutely television worthy- I'd even say feature film worthy. Imagine the old nacelles with antennae on them up close as the ship pans through a nebula and space lightning discharges against the antennae. Cut to the bridge and Engineering calls up about particle absorption - as they are using busard collectors to collect something from the nebula. Those huge dramatic old series nacelles would look AMAZING on camera in these kinds of situations, where as future trek everything is understated and subtle and streamlined in to the flesh of the hull so you just can't get that kind of drama.
- There is nothing wrong with using primary colors and sweater like uniforms as part of Starfleet Design. Given that Starfleet is an agency which travels the stars they probably would keep the way they represent themselves very basic and bright as to not give off the impression of intimidation. Also: Starfleet doesn't need Holograms because frankly a simple view screen or a ipad style screen is effective enough. As for the tiny CRT screen in the tricorders- who is to say that the reason that tricorder screen was convex wasn't because it was a 3D screen? Modern 3D televisions are curved!!! While I realize in the 1960's the tech was not imagined this way, this is what I mean when I refer to using tongue and cheek approach to design. Just have a sense of humor and find a new way to tie together the old tech, Doug Drexler points out how the TOS Enterprise looking white and smooth with very little external visible technology is a LOT like an apple product. As the new Iphone comes out we see smooth, white and silver and just one simple button to turn it on! Looking at the old Enterprise through this lens we can almost see how it's almost MORE futuristic than even next generation ships. The only fans who don't think it's futuristic are biased because they just never learned to appreciate retro-futurism.
- Imagine if Discovery was like Thomas' design for the Ranger class or something along those lines- we see it in dry dock being constructed and each hull panel is 3D printed from a crystal polymer carbon composite- and when attached the hull plates merge together- this is a way to take that 2250's look and explain it visually and technically to show fans how insanely futuristic it is!
Same with Cage era Laser Pistols. Maybe starfleet had a early Phaser but they called it a Laser- where it still fired particle beams but it was before the more advanced phaser came in to play. Another way to explain away the past but re-imagine it to be more advanced than it had been lead on to be in it's day. Those cage era laser pistols really do look cool! From what I saw of Discovery's phasers they are actually getting them right. I just HOPE they don't fire a pulse, as that's visually boring and inconsistent.
- One last point: The Cage era sweater like uniforms and the tos space suits are perfectly fine. I just recently saw a company that grows a nano-tube fabric which is as hard as steel. The fabric looks and feels EXACTLY LIKE THE TOS SPACE SUITS. yet it's more tough than any fabric anywhere- bullets can't penetrate it. So tell me why a futuristic space suit wont simply be a tin foil like nano-fiber onesie? It certainly would allow for free movement. And the sweater uniforms with excursion jackets looked practical and smart and showed that Starfleet at this time was not about war or destruction. Same with every other starfleet Uniform in TNG, to DS9 and Voyager, all of them have a "comfy pyjama" look to them even if they weren't technically comfy by actor standards- the idea is Starfleet wants to project an air of benevolence. They only fight out of self defense of defense of others.
Those uniforms looked great on Axanar and I still watch the Cage pilot and find the uniforms to be attractive and intelligent.
STO is the only place keeping Trek Alive.
Yep, I am of that idea that TOS always seemed to look more advanced, ship wise.
Some of my favorite artwork to make is TOS based, or TOS styled.
I always see the ships, and other stuff, being printed, as mentioned above, or even GROWN, or woven. I could see the ship being built with strand upon strand of a crystalline composite (I always felt duranium was a crystal base thing), like a spider's web, and those can be mega strong. And with the Tholians being as advanced as they are, could see THEM being where Federation learns this advanced technique.
When I see something, in films like Star Wars, or the Aliens films, with those ships that look like big ole' shoeboxes, covered in kibble and all gnarly looking, to me, it looks so primitive and unsophisticated, and I really feel sorry for the guys who gotta suit up and go outside the ships or station to do repairs on. Sorta like Lister with his paintbrush. Red Dwarf is an exception, because we all know that it IS a rust-bucket from the start.
As for uniforms, I like the TOS ones, either prime or kelvin, TMP, and TNG. Something that moves well and so on. I can't picture crew doing somersaults and or tumbling or rolling about, dodging stuff in the TWoK or those more military costumes other series have sometimes. Plus as mentioned, Starfleet would dress to NOT look intimidating or threatening. Same for ships. You show up on a world with a ship shaped like a dagger, and in black uniforms with armor....the locals will think a hostile takeover is happening.
In ships and tech I'm all about the TMP era, though I do appreciate the TOS style in a heavily nostalgic way. In many ways I feel TMP era was perfect, less stylized in that wonderfully kitchy 1960s way and more pure futuristic, along with vastly higher production values. I love the TOS uniforms though, especially the female minidress which is utterly timeless and sublimely beautiful IMO. You do beautiful CGI work and you recreate the TOS feel very well!
One nitpick I have, I don't like that TOS Miranda nor do I think such a ship should exist. I agree with Thomas the Cat in the fact that his smaller TOS ships feature bulges or fused in hull extensions and stuff because in that era there is only so much they can minimize the technology. So you get stuff like the Pioneer class where a large tubelike protrusion is worked into the saucer because there's just no other place to put the engineering rig.
Miranda, I believe, is a newer ship than the Constitution Refit based on the ability to shrink down equipment compared to the TOS era. Going by Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, the engineering section is so small compared to that in the original vessel that they're able to devote massive amounts of space to a huge shuttlebay and cargo storage area that didn't exist on the original vessel. Miranda is a result of designers realizing they could make a much smaller and more compact vessel designed for shorter mission runs nearer to Starbases and Federation worlds by cutting out a few things like that huge cargo hold, the large recreation deck, and a few labs and such and could do it with only a small hull extension replacing the entire secondary hull on her larger sister. I just don't think that would have been possible in the TOS era.
Darthmeow, I have admired you for a while. I want to tell you that I am from the exact era as you are! We should fly together
Lucas fully acknowledged that he tried to re-invent Star Wars with modern CGI to look like what he personally always envisioned it to. And when fans hated it, he learned a valuable lesson, which was that even though he himself wasn't overly thrilled with the limited effects of the 1970's, the fans came to adore what he and his team created. He ACKNOWLEDGED the fans dismay and returned to the original aesthetic. And it was all easily explained away by the fact that prior to the Empire's reign the Galaxy was more glitzy and prosperous.
Well, I didn't like the Prequel looks because they were still too obviously CGI to my taste. The original trilogy changes seemed fine, except when they affected the story or really looked bad. Greedo shooting first? Han Solo stepping on the tail of a way too small looking Jabba the Hutt?
As a long term Star Trek fan, I can however say that I definitely do not want to ever go the TOS aesthetics. Thye look horribly dated for me. I was okay with using the original bridge or the original film material in TNG and DS9 mostly because it was clear that these were also intended to tap into our nostalgia. (And DS9 had no problems updating the original TOS Klingons to the modern TNG era Klingon look when it used Kor, Koloth and Kang outside the nostalgia episode)
But I don't want a new Star Trek show to be about dwelling into my Trek nostalgia. I want a new Star Trek show to be a new Star Trek show that looks good and tells new, interesting and exciting stories with good characters.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
1: JJ Abrams was a Star Wars Fan Boy always. When he was approached to do Star Trek he blatantly changed Star Trek to his personal preference by introducing deep rooted Star Wars Elements in to it. The excuse he used was: "Trek needs an updated look." This was akin to him unzipping his jeans and urinating on the crowd of fans. When JJ went to do Star Wars did he change the look of the out dates 1970's Millennium Falcon? Did he make storm troopers sexier? Did he polish out the scuff marks on X-wings? Did he even switch all of the animatronics and puppets over to CGI? - NO. HE TREATED HIS FRANCHISE, STAR WARS LIKE A SACRED COW AND DARED NOT CHANGE A SINGLE THING ABOUT IT!!!!!
Now wait just a damned minute... you're going to point out the updated graphics and effects Abrams used in Star Wars- FAIR. It's mine along with all of the other Trek Fans (including Doug Drexler's) opinion that there is a WAY to honor the look of Original Trek but use some updated materials, some slight stylizing and lighting as well as effects to modernize it. JUST like Abrams PROVED by keeping Chewie's fur matted and the Falcon scuffed! BB8 is a totally more advanced robot than R2 D2 yet it follows some basic principles of the Star Wars era that makes it believable. And they didn't scrap R2 to bring in BB8!!!
Star Trek Fans aren't saying we don't want to see new things, just don't destroy basic design aesthetics that are principle to the era they are setting the show in. ( And to whom said this isn't a period piece because it's just fiction, and keeps arguing that since it's fiction NOTHING MATTERS, you're incorrect. When you call something Star Trek and say it takes place during the lifetimes of the original series crew, Kirk, Spock EVERYONE IS OUT THERE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME DISCOVERY IS FLYING THROUGH SPACE) then you have an obligation to respect the fans and franchise by adhering to design rules of the era... I'll get back to those rules a bit later (I think you'll like my points Darthmeow)
Few Aesthetic points:
- Ships in the 2250's had a bomber/submarine aesthetic mixed with a retro-futurism seen at the worlds fair. Thomas at Cryptic created never before seen, totally original 2250's ship designs following those aesthetic markers. He did an AMAZING job and any one of those ships would be absolutely television worthy- I'd even say feature film worthy. Imagine the old nacelles with antennae on them up close as the ship pans through a nebula and space lightning discharges against the antennae. Cut to the bridge and Engineering calls up about particle absorption - as they are using busard collectors to collect something from the nebula. Those huge dramatic old series nacelles would look AMAZING on camera in these kinds of situations, where as future trek everything is understated and subtle and streamlined in to the flesh of the hull so you just can't get that kind of drama.
- There is nothing wrong with using primary colors and sweater like uniforms as part of Starfleet Design. Given that Starfleet is an agency which travels the stars they probably would keep the way they represent themselves very basic and bright as to not give off the impression of intimidation. Also: Starfleet doesn't need Holograms because frankly a simple view screen or a ipad style screen is effective enough. As for the tiny CRT screen in the tricorders- who is to say that the reason that tricorder screen was convex wasn't because it was a 3D screen? Modern 3D televisions are curved!!! While I realize in the 1960's the tech was not imagined this way, this is what I mean when I refer to using tongue and cheek approach to design. Just have a sense of humor and find a new way to tie together the old tech, Doug Drexler points out how the TOS Enterprise looking white and smooth with very little external visible technology is a LOT like an apple product. As the new Iphone comes out we see smooth, white and silver and just one simple button to turn it on! Looking at the old Enterprise through this lens we can almost see how it's almost MORE futuristic than even next generation ships. The only fans who don't think it's futuristic are biased because they just never learned to appreciate retro-futurism.
- Imagine if Discovery was like Thomas' design for the Ranger class or something along those lines- we see it in dry dock being constructed and each hull panel is 3D printed from a crystal polymer carbon composite- and when attached the hull plates merge together- this is a way to take that 2250's look and explain it visually and technically to show fans how insanely futuristic it is!
Same with Cage era Laser Pistols. Maybe starfleet had a early Phaser but they called it a Laser- where it still fired particle beams but it was before the more advanced phaser came in to play. Another way to explain away the past but re-imagine it to be more advanced than it had been lead on to be in it's day. Those cage era laser pistols really do look cool! From what I saw of Discovery's phasers they are actually getting them right. I just HOPE they don't fire a pulse, as that's visually boring and inconsistent.
- One last point: The Cage era sweater like uniforms and the tos space suits are perfectly fine. I just recently saw a company that grows a nano-tube fabric which is as hard as steel. The fabric looks and feels EXACTLY LIKE THE TOS SPACE SUITS. yet it's more tough than any fabric anywhere- bullets can't penetrate it. So tell me why a futuristic space suit wont simply be a tin foil like nano-fiber onesie? It certainly would allow for free movement. And the sweater uniforms with excursion jackets looked practical and smart and showed that Starfleet at this time was not about war or destruction. Same with every other starfleet Uniform in TNG, to DS9 and Voyager, all of them have a "comfy pyjama" look to them even if they weren't technically comfy by actor standards- the idea is Starfleet wants to project an air of benevolence. They only fight out of self defense of defense of others.
Those uniforms looked great on Axanar and I still watch the Cage pilot and find the uniforms to be attractive and intelligent.
STO is the only place keeping Trek Alive.
Yep, I am of that idea that TOS always seemed to look more advanced, ship wise.
Some of my favorite artwork to make is TOS based, or TOS styled.
I always see the ships, and other stuff, being printed, as mentioned above, or even GROWN, or woven. I could see the ship being built with strand upon strand of a crystalline composite (I always felt duranium was a crystal base thing), like a spider's web, and those can be mega strong. And with the Tholians being as advanced as they are, could see THEM being where Federation learns this advanced technique.
When I see something, in films like Star Wars, or the Aliens films, with those ships that look like big ole' shoeboxes, covered in kibble and all gnarly looking, to me, it looks so primitive and unsophisticated, and I really feel sorry for the guys who gotta suit up and go outside the ships or station to do repairs on. Sorta like Lister with his paintbrush. Red Dwarf is an exception, because we all know that it IS a rust-bucket from the start.
As for uniforms, I like the TOS ones, either prime or kelvin, TMP, and TNG. Something that moves well and so on. I can't picture crew doing somersaults and or tumbling or rolling about, dodging stuff in the TWoK or those more military costumes other series have sometimes. Plus as mentioned, Starfleet would dress to NOT look intimidating or threatening. Same for ships. You show up on a world with a ship shaped like a dagger, and in black uniforms with armor....the locals will think a hostile takeover is happening.
In ships and tech I'm all about the TMP era, though I do appreciate the TOS style in a heavily nostalgic way. In many ways I feel TMP era was perfect, less stylized in that wonderfully kitchy 1960s way and more pure futuristic, along with vastly higher production values. I love the TOS uniforms though, especially the female minidress which is utterly timeless and sublimely beautiful IMO. You do beautiful CGI work and you recreate the TOS feel very well!
One nitpick I have, I don't like that TOS Miranda nor do I think such a ship should exist. I agree with Thomas the Cat in the fact that his smaller TOS ships feature bulges or fused in hull extensions and stuff because in that era there is only so much they can minimize the technology. So you get stuff like the Pioneer class where a large tubelike protrusion is worked into the saucer because there's just no other place to put the engineering rig.
Miranda, I believe, is a newer ship than the Constitution Refit based on the ability to shrink down equipment compared to the TOS era. Going by Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, the engineering section is so small compared to that in the original vessel that they're able to devote massive amounts of space to a huge shuttlebay and cargo storage area that didn't exist on the original vessel. Miranda is a result of designers realizing they could make a much smaller and more compact vessel designed for shorter mission runs nearer to Starbases and Federation worlds by cutting out a few things like that huge cargo hold, the large recreation deck, and a few labs and such and could do it with only a small hull extension replacing the entire secondary hull on her larger sister. I just don't think that would have been possible in the TOS era.
Don't like the TMP era engine pods, though......they are just static blocks, and those front ends look so lifeless. I'm sucker for those swirlies and glowies in the TOS era end caps.
I'd like to get to use the Pioneer skin for the light cruiser bundle that came out not long ago.
Lucas fully acknowledged that he tried to re-invent Star Wars with modern CGI to look like what he personally always envisioned it to. And when fans hated it, he learned a valuable lesson, which was that even though he himself wasn't overly thrilled with the limited effects of the 1970's, the fans came to adore what he and his team created. He ACKNOWLEDGED the fans dismay and returned to the original aesthetic. And it was all easily explained away by the fact that prior to the Empire's reign the Galaxy was more glitzy and prosperous.
Well, I didn't like the Prequel looks because they were still too obviously CGI to my taste. The original trilogy changes seemed fine, except when they affected the story or really looked bad. Greedo shooting first? Han Solo stepping on the tail of a way too small looking Jabba the Hutt?
As a long term Star Trek fan, I can however say that I definitely do not want to ever go the TOS aesthetics. Thye look horribly dated for me. I was okay with using the original bridge or the original film material in TNG and DS9 mostly because it was clear that these were also intended to tap into our nostalgia. (And DS9 had no problems updating the original TOS Klingons to the modern TNG era Klingon look when it used Kor, Koloth and Kang outside the nostalgia episode)
But I don't want a new Star Trek show to be about dwelling into my Trek nostalgia. I want a new Star Trek show to be a new Star Trek show that looks good and tells new, interesting and exciting stories with good characters.
To me, TOs can look great...look at a Mirror Darkly and the Phase 2 series. Smooth, sleek and slick always look advanced to me.....as for Star Wars, the only ships that I REALLY liked in that were the Naboo ships, those looked like something of a highly advanced, civilized society. For me, SAYING Discovery is gonna be Pike era, yet looking, at best, JJ Pike era....it a bit of bait and switch.....it's like taking an elephant, painting it white and black, and saying it's a zebra.
I'll need to somehow find a way to snap images of my own temporal connie at some point.
When loading, this computer advises that 'Windows key + G (I think) screenshots, or, typing /screenshot into the chat box and hitting enter (not good for specific timing) or, of course, the print screen button Would be awesome to see fhe temporal connie
(and on another note, your response to my post, proves that photos I post are actually visible to others, despite photobucket's attempt at extortion 'Pay for hot-linking priviliges' my aft-shuttle-bay... )
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Having basic standards for continuity, self-consistency, and adherence to established themes is not "being a fanatic", it's the bare minimum of what fans are owed. One has a right to expect decent writing and a commitment to quality from people who want us to be their customers. These people aren't volunteers, they're making damned good money to make a product we're expected to buy. We have a right to make sure we're getting our money's worth. We have a right to not pay for garbage. And lazy writing with no respect for the source material and just a name slapped onto it to sell is unacceptable.
When your "standards for continuity" are taken to the extreme to say there is "only one true Star Trek" is without question fanaticism.
There has not been a single episode aired yet. How do you know the writing/directing/acting is bad and the production is of poor quality?
Don't twist people's words to try and make it suit your meaning: It just shows you lack a cogent argument of your own to refute what they said in a straight-up comparison/debate of ideas.
As darthmeow said, basic standards for continuity, is a fundamental principle which a prequel/interquel/sequel needs to realistically function as part of an ongoing body of work (which is what Star Trek now is)
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Having basic standards for continuity, self-consistency, and adherence to established themes is not "being a fanatic", it's the bare minimum of what fans are owed. One has a right to expect decent writing and a commitment to quality from people who want us to be their customers. These people aren't volunteers, they're making damned good money to make a product we're expected to buy. We have a right to make sure we're getting our money's worth. We have a right to not pay for garbage. And lazy writing with no respect for the source material and just a name slapped onto it to sell is unacceptable.
Fans are owed nothing.
Fans have no rights to anything.
Fans can choose to buy or not buy, and thereby guide those who do have authority to make better choices in the product they offer.
Fans are certainly entitled to voice their opinions pro or con, but this does not then become a mandate by which the for-profit private company which offers a product must abide. The owners of Trek can do whatever they want with it, including ruining it.
silverlobes
silverlobes#2676
wrote: »
Don't twist people's words to try and make it suit your meaning: It just shows you lack a cogent argument of your own to refute what they said in a straight-up comparison/debate of ideas.
As darthmeow said, basic standards for continuity, is a fundamental principle which a prequel/interquel/sequel needs to realistically function as part of an ongoing body of work (which is what Star Trek now is)
I didn't twist anyone's words. If anything, adamant refusal to accept change of any kind is just proving the point of fanaticism.
You were trying to. That you deny it, doesn't mean that you weren't, it just means you're being intellectually dishonest,
And no, it is not a sign of fanatacism, but of internal consistency. A prequel/interquel/sequel needs to be consistent to the work it is supposed to be a part of.
No one is saying that they, as IP owners can't do things differently or make changes, but that given the task which they set themselves, then they really should no.
As smokebailey pointed out, paining an elephant with black and white stripes, does not make it a zebra. As captainperkins pointed out, take away the Delta badge(s) from the uniforms, and there is nothing about the uniform which makes it 'Starfleet' (certainly not Starfleet of the 23rd Century, for which those uniform appearances, have already been established)
I've already said why they are using 'Star Trek', so not repeating myself further.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Star Trek has never really been internally consistent about any number of things. Spot was once a female cat, then a male cat. Warp 10 was supposedly impossible... yet when the story called for it, the ships can go warp 13. The list goes on and on.
So yes, holding onto nostalgia with such zeal and adamantly refusing to accept change of any kind is fanaticism.
And as I've already said before: Being able to point out inconsistencies does not invalidate consistencies It does not invalidate the need for consistency in a prequel/interquel/sequel.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
But there is already going to be a certain level of consistency. We've already seen there will be Starfleet, the Federation, Klingons, starships, warp speed, Sarek ... any number of things that make up Star Trek.
Which could just as easily represent Star Trek of The Future, not what has already been established.
Captainperkins has already said all that needs to be said on the subject of why these changes have been made, who is responsible, and why, so there really is no need to keep ping-ponging back and forth like this. If you're willing to accept the inconistency, fine. Just don't try and pretend that the painted elephant is a zebra
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
We are owed a quality product if they want our money.
The pinnacle of fan entitlement is the belief that your unique sense of aesthetics is the only standard they should try to appease. Your core mistake is thinking "Our money" is something they even want.
Which could just as easily represent Star Trek of The Future, not what has already been established.
Captainperkins has already said all that needs to be said on the subject of why these changes have been made, who is responsible, and why, so there really is no need to keep ping-ponging back and forth like this. If you're willing to accept the inconistency, fine. Just don't try and pretend that the painted elephant is a zebra
30 years ago CBS painted another elephant black and white and called it "Star Trek: The Next Generation". This too was vehemently bemoaned by the zealous Trek fanatics as not being "Star Trek."
Here we are 30 years later....
It wasn't Star Trek then, and it's not now. It's TNG.
Comments
Darthmeow, I have admired you for a while. I want to tell you that I am from the exact era as you are! We should fly together
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
As a long term Star Trek fan, I can however say that I definitely do not want to ever go the TOS aesthetics. Thye look horribly dated for me. I was okay with using the original bridge or the original film material in TNG and DS9 mostly because it was clear that these were also intended to tap into our nostalgia. (And DS9 had no problems updating the original TOS Klingons to the modern TNG era Klingon look when it used Kor, Koloth and Kang outside the nostalgia episode)
But I don't want a new Star Trek show to be about dwelling into my Trek nostalgia. I want a new Star Trek show to be a new Star Trek show that looks good and tells new, interesting and exciting stories with good characters.
Don't like the TMP era engine pods, though......they are just static blocks, and those front ends look so lifeless. I'm sucker for those swirlies and glowies in the TOS era end caps.
I'd like to get to use the Pioneer skin for the light cruiser bundle that came out not long ago.
And thankies! ^_^V ~curtsy~
To me, TOs can look great...look at a Mirror Darkly and the Phase 2 series. Smooth, sleek and slick always look advanced to me.....as for Star Wars, the only ships that I REALLY liked in that were the Naboo ships, those looked like something of a highly advanced, civilized society. For me, SAYING Discovery is gonna be Pike era, yet looking, at best, JJ Pike era....it a bit of bait and switch.....it's like taking an elephant, painting it white and black, and saying it's a zebra.
I'll need to somehow find a way to snap images of my own temporal connie at some point.
They'd likely be screaming and freaking out all the time, but with the right voice actor, it could be quite relaxing.
(and on another note, your response to my post, proves that photos I post are actually visible to others, despite photobucket's attempt at extortion
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Don't twist people's words to try and make it suit your meaning: It just shows you lack a cogent argument of your own to refute what they said in a straight-up comparison/debate of ideas.
As darthmeow said, basic standards for continuity, is a fundamental principle which a prequel/interquel/sequel needs to realistically function as part of an ongoing body of work (which is what Star Trek now is)
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Fans are owed nothing.
Fans have no rights to anything.
Fans can choose to buy or not buy, and thereby guide those who do have authority to make better choices in the product they offer.
Fans are certainly entitled to voice their opinions pro or con, but this does not then become a mandate by which the for-profit private company which offers a product must abide. The owners of Trek can do whatever they want with it, including ruining it.
silverlobes#2676
wrote: »
Don't twist people's words to try and make it suit your meaning: It just shows you lack a cogent argument of your own to refute what they said in a straight-up comparison/debate of ideas.
As darthmeow said, basic standards for continuity, is a fundamental principle which a prequel/interquel/sequel needs to realistically function as part of an ongoing body of work (which is what Star Trek now is)
I didn't twist anyone's words. If anything, adamant refusal to accept change of any kind is just proving the point of fanaticism.
You were trying to. That you deny it, doesn't mean that you weren't, it just means you're being intellectually dishonest,
And no, it is not a sign of fanatacism, but of internal consistency. A prequel/interquel/sequel needs to be consistent to the work it is supposed to be a part of.
No one is saying that they, as IP owners can't do things differently or make changes, but that given the task which they set themselves, then they really should no.
As smokebailey pointed out, paining an elephant with black and white stripes, does not make it a zebra. As captainperkins pointed out, take away the Delta badge(s) from the uniforms, and there is nothing about the uniform which makes it 'Starfleet' (certainly not Starfleet of the 23rd Century, for which those uniform appearances, have already been established)
I've already said why they are using 'Star Trek', so not repeating myself further.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Captainperkins has already said all that needs to be said on the subject of why these changes have been made, who is responsible, and why, so there really is no need to keep ping-ponging back and forth like this. If you're willing to accept the inconistency, fine. Just don't try and pretend that the painted elephant is a zebra
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
The pinnacle of fan entitlement is the belief that your unique sense of aesthetics is the only standard they should try to appease. Your core mistake is thinking "Our money" is something they even want.
Transformers: $709,709,780
Transformers II: $836,303,693
Transformers III: $1,123,794,079
Transformers IV: $1,104,054,072
Transformers V: $495,793,338 (still in theaters)
Reality disagrees. Vehemently. By any rational standard, those movies have gotten steadily worse.
It wasn't Star Trek then, and it's not now. It's TNG.
The coherence of the name was always meaningless.