[horatio]

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

I think it would have worked just fine. If they had a good story that is. And a good villain. As for the "brick for brick" part, I have never said I wanted that. A 100% faithful replication of the sets and ships from TOS would have looked silly on the big screen in a 21st century movie. What I have always maintained is that the Enterprise would have looked fantastic on the big screen if it were given more detail and realistic features. Such as those rendered by Deg3d and Vektor. The TOS bridge could easily have been updated with more modern materials, controls, and displays and looked just fine on the big screen. There was no need, in my opinion, for such a radical and sweeping redesign of the entire TOS universe as we knew it. There was also no need to resort to the time travel crutch. A straight origin story would have worked just fine. They could easily have remained true to the established continuity of the existing Star Trek universe without resorting to all the rediculous contrivances in the new movie. Unfortunately, I'm not a writer, nor am I creative enough to come up with a good enough story, or I'd write one. But there are writers in Hollywood who could have. I was very disapointed with the story direction. But that's just me. Anyway, I do believe a straight origin story would have worked just fine with the right writers/director at the helm.

Well said, I'd also have liked to see something which follows the "keep the design, change the paint" doctrine. One could claim that the TOS movies did precisely this: the Enterprise has matured and gained a bit of weight around the hip (i.e. the secondary hull) and the bridges looked quite different on the surface but if you scratch away the paint it looks fairly similar to the original (I think the TUC bridge is the best example).

About a straightforward reboot, might have been a bit a more straightforward than the mess with the two universes and also a bit more courageous. ST09 feels a bit like "we wanna do our thing but let's not piss off the old schoolers on a 150 million budget, so let's put Nimoy and thousands of references to OldTrek into it". Nah.
On the other hand, the passing of the torch is a Trek tradition (McCoy in TNG, Picard in DS9, Quark in VOY, Cochrane in ENT, Kirk in GEN).

[kevin]

Originally Posted by NCC-73515

If they had made a real prequel that is set in the Prime timeline, it would be rather boring, because everyone knows that the bridge crew will survive all following movies simply because they are still there in TUC.
The writers' approach with a new timeline which is completely unpredictable makes STXI better than the SW prequels or ENT, where we already knew the end before we even saw the beginning. We knew the Xindi wouldn't destroy Earth - but now Vulcan has been destroyed, so everything can change! The future is new again and can be explored because it's really the new undiscovered country. Once more unto the breach, dear friends.

That's kind of the view I take about it. New possibilities.

Originally Posted by horatio

About a straightforward reboot, might have been a bit a more straightforward than the mess with the two universes and also a bit more courageous. ST09 feels a bit like "we wanna do our thing but let's not piss off the old schoolers on a 150 million budget, so let's put Nimoy and thousands of references to OldTrek into it". Nah.

Which comes with the usual caveat that the pure reboot would not have pleased everyone (not referring to myself though) and plenty would have gone 'nah' as well.

As ever in Trek, no approach pleases everybody.

Not that I have an overt preference either way for pure reboot, original universe or multiple universes. It opens up a significant number of new options should they choose to avail themselves of it. The writers made their choice and that was part of the gig. Consensus on method behind it should probably be a secondary issue when pleasing everyone is an impossibility.

I just haven't a problem with the use of a basic concept that's been around in Star Trek since TOS itself.

On the other hand, the passing of the torch is a Trek tradition (McCoy in TNG, Picard in DS9, Quark in VOY, Cochrane in ENT, Kirk in GEN).

And arguably isn't always strictly required.........but nonetheless usually works for more than it doesn't!

[Macon ACE]

IMO: it would not have worked financially. I would have gone to see it - most other die hard fans would have too. But that wouldn't have been enough. WE wouldn't care that we knew how it turns out. Casual fans and "non fans" would have "stayed home in droves." Again, IMO: it would have killed the franchise for the foreseeable future.

One of the coolest things about this movie to me was how it drew so many people in. My oldest son and I watched it again over the weekend. He went to all the other Trek movies that have come out in his lifetime because it was something we did as a family. But he wasn't really a fan. Now he is. And he told me that his girlfriend has seen it 4 times. She (and many, many more like her) were never interested in a Star Trek movie before. I'm very glad to be able to share it with them.

[starwarsrcks]

I'm a big NuTrek fan isn't that not good Nu Trek attracted new fans.

[DNA-1842]

Originally Posted by samwiseb

The cool thing about the 'time travel' reboot, is that it was uniquely Star Trek. I can't think of any other sci-fi franchise in which you could pull that one off (Doctor Who, which I've never gotten into, already has its own reboot mechanism). If there is any reason why ST09 was the 'right' direction, it is that.

Doctor Who has never rebooted. All the different iterations mesh as well as can be expected with uncountable numbers of writers, directors and producers over its 46 year history.

[Macon ACE]

Originally Posted by DNA-1842

Doctor Who has never rebooted. All the different iterations mesh as well as can be expected with uncountable numbers of writers, directors and producers over its 46 year history.

I'm certainly not a DW expert, but to a casual fan like me: all that regeneration stuff FEELS like a re-boot. With each new Doctor, you don't just get a new actor, you get a whole new character.

[DNA-1842]

Originally Posted by Macon ACE

I'm certainly not a DW expert, but to a casual fan like me: all that regeneration stuff FEELS like a re-boot. With each new Doctor, you don't just get a new actor, you get a whole new character.

Well, I can see where you are coming from.. But you did say (and you are absolutely correct) that you get an entirely new character. Regeneration started out as a device that allowed the show to continue on from exactly the same place that the previous actor left off. Whereas, reboots tend to involve new actors playing the same character, but start completely from scratch, as opposed to regeneration where the only new thing is the character himself. So in fact, regeneration is the polar opposite to a reboot!

You have a point, however, that both devices are used to add more material to their respective subjects. I'm just being really pedantic!

[Dominus of Megadeus]

Originally Posted by kevin

Exactly - look at things like Spock's and the TOS data cards (i.e floppy discs). In todays tech they have long been consigned to the dustbin and having them in the new film in any way would be an anachronism.

They had to try and make it look like somthing that's futuristic from today's perspective, not the 1965 perspective and yet also make certain elements (tricorders, phasers) resemble their predecessors enough to be recognised for what they are.

As a contemporary take on a command centre the new Bridge works just fine, using the basic layout of the traditional bridge to build from.

And as we all know it's a common problem of trying to predict what things will look like in the future anyway. Real world tech moves far faster than set designers and production designers can depict, especially the farther ahead you want to set your TV show/film.

Some get it a bit closer than others but at some point it all gets overtaken by the real world.

Excellent post! I agree totally. The producers of the film did not make changes to the appearance of the ship just to make changes. The changes to the ship--even to it's exterior--was done to capture the attention of a newer audience. There's no arguing the asthetics of the classic Enterprise. For it's day, it was pretty advanced. However, even when I view the Reimaged version, to my eyes, it's really like putting new wine in old wineskins.

I remember as a kid debating which ship was cooler: The Enterprise or the Jupiter II. Some loved the Jupiter II, but I defended the Big E. She was big, sleek, and one bad mama-jamma compared to the "Lost Saucer" predecessor! But when "Space 1999" came on, we kids were smitten by the "Eagels". They looked "real" to us...more futuristic than the shuttlecraft aboard the Enterprise...more cool than the Jupiter II.

There's still a soft spot in my heart for the TOS Enterprise, but to project A FUTURE VISION OF FUTURE TECH, the new rendering of the Enterprise rings my bell. It sets the stage for future adventures where the imagination can soar.

[I-Am-Zim]

Originally Posted by kevin

Exactly - look at things like Spock's and the TOS data cards (i.e floppy discs). In todays tech they have long been consigned to the dustbin and having them in the new film in any way would be an anachronism.

Not necessarily. I equate them with SD cards or compact flash cards. They did an interesting job with them on ENT, making them look like printed circuit boards. If they had them in NuTrek, making them look like isolinear chips from TNG, only slightly larger, would have worked just fine, in my opinion of course.

Originally Posted by kevin

They had to try and make it look like somthing that's futuristic from today's perspective, not the 1965 perspective and yet also make certain elements (tricorders, phasers) resemble their predecessors enough to be recognised for what they are.

Unfortunately, in doing so, they completely redesigned the entire Star Trek universe in the process. The NuTrek universe only bears a passing resemblance to the original TOS upon which it was based.

Originally Posted by kevin

As a contemporary take on a command centre the new Bridge works just fine, using the basic layout of the traditional bridge to build from.

In your opinion. In my opinion, the iBridge looks nothing like the original upon which it is based. It's not round, its more of a ovoid shape. It has no color. It is too bright and has too many glaring spotlights everywhere. It has waaay too many stations as compared to the TOS bridge. The captain's chair looks like the one from Galaxy Quest. I don't even think it works as a contemporary take. It's just too gaudy and excessive. The simplicity and functionality of the TOS bridge was what made it so futuristic and special. So much so, that the US military actually studied the TOS bridge's layout to make its subs and ships more efficient. I seriously doubt any military organization will ever study the iBridge.

Originally Posted by kevin

And as we all know it's a common problem of trying to predict what things will look like in the future anyway. Real world tech moves far faster than set designers and production designers can depict, especially the farther ahead you want to set your TV show/film.

So? That makes no difference. They were making a movie based upon Star Trek TOS. A known commodity. It wouldn't have taken much imagination or creativity to make all the original TOS sets and props look just as futuristic as necessary. That argument has never made much sense to me.

Originally Posted by kevin

Some get it a bit closer than others but at some point it all gets overtaken by the real world.

True. However, it still makes absolutely no difference. Because we are not talking about the real world. We're talking about Star Trek.

[Commodore]

Perhaps it's just me, but I never looked at TOS (or any Trek series for that matter) as being a realistic depiction of the future. I always looked at it as it's own universe with it's own history that is similar to ours to a point, but then goes off to do its own thing past a certain point. As a result, I never looked at TOS as being "too '60s" or TNG as being "too '80s." IMO, any attempt to realistically depict the future is doomed to being outdated fairly quickly because the future is hard to predict.

But then, I'm also of the opinion that Starfleet tech may not actually represent the cutting-edge of technological style as much as does technological function. The data cards (or tapes) that were used in TOS may have been chosen because they were rugged, utilitarian, and could contain a lot of data--whereas in the civilian sector (or home electronics market) you probably wouldn't find them at all because the Joneses weren't using any kind of physical media at all...