The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Your thoughts on prequel technology
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-31-2008, 09:54 AM
Starship Polaris Starship Polaris is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: http://www.starshippolaris.com
Posts: 33
Default

"Phaser" is trademarkable for merchandising. "Laser" is not.

Therefore, "phaser" it likely will be.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-31-2008, 10:20 AM
ThePhaige's Avatar
ThePhaige ThePhaige is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: florida
Posts: 618
Default

Man oh man is this a tough challenge. Isn't it true that no matter what it is in life...achieving a balance is always most difficult.

Personally I thought the ENT series ship should have been a bit less detailed, but even in First contact the pheonix was pretty detailed for that time frame and certainly more detailed than the OSeries Enterprise Model on the surface(exterior).

Technologies of the future are always based on current day trends, and back when I was a kid our phones were analog dials and twisty chords mounted to the wall. So when watching Trek as a kid those communicators seemed super advanced. However it is true that todays (not even 30 years into the future) communications devices are much more advanced than the communicators were in ST.

If I were to project what I think might be employed now in the future of Trek or the tech of that time frame, I would imagine something implanted directly into ones head and controlled with thought. To see a communicator being carried around would seem silly.

Yet I believe the communication devices in this movie will be hand held to stick with what is familiar to Trek. I cant verify that, its just a gut feeling. We will have to see.

The original Enterprise (TOS) was really done right. It could be said that the smoother minimalist appearance was a streamlining of the more detailed ships that came before.
However whats hard to explain is why they reverted back to the more hyper detailed designs we see on STTNG and in movies set ahead of the OSeries timeframe. Mainly I think cause they look cool on screen. These are movie makers not scientist lol. Sure they have technical advisors they employ and such but its still about what LOOKS COOL.When I was a kid that stuff was real to me ya know.

This is fantasy and as much as some (me included) at certain times want Star Trek to be a real living breathing glimpse into the future. :::::SPOILER::::: It is not.

So as another poster has said: The characters and the general canon is what we love and the Tech is the dressing that brings us in to the fold of this being in the future.

In 30 years from now I will assure you....Trek tech will seem silly in its perception as compared to the trends of that time.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-31-2008, 10:37 AM
dominion_ruler's Avatar
dominion_ruler dominion_ruler is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NC
Posts: 32
Default

I agree about it needing to be what we envision it based on today's standards.
__________________
"You don't want to know my specialty"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-31-2008, 10:49 AM
Reginald_Broccoli's Avatar
Reginald_Broccoli Reginald_Broccoli is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5
Default

I think the tech should be updated. It is what Gene would have done today. He was never against upgrading when the current technology allowed him to do more on screen(see klingons in TOS and Movies). I would say it was a sizeable jump from TOS to the movies, not because Starfleet researched new technology but because special effects tech improved.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-31-2008, 12:02 PM
Zetseui's Avatar
Zetseui Zetseui is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3
Default

I'm glad to hear that most fans wouldn't mind and almost would rather have upgraded visuals as long as the technology stays with the canon. I was afraid that a lot of fans would be turned off by something that is trying to appeal to the masses.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-31-2008, 12:03 PM
Peacekeeper's Avatar
Peacekeeper Peacekeeper is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bowling Green Ohio
Posts: 25
Default

The big kid that I am wants to see the Tricorders be the large black ones like in original series so when they make the toys for the movie I can have the Tricorder I have always wanted. I don't want to know story points I want them to leak photos of the landing party equipment. They need to keep the same style...not really the exact same look. Remember how lame the wrist communicators were in Star Trek the Motionless Picture. They need to keep the flip antenna hell, even our current cell phones have that.
__________________
http://www.fistfullofcomics.com
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-31-2008, 12:55 PM
sir num nums sir num nums is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sherwood, AR
Posts: 2,357
Default

Anyone remember the old show "Lost in Space"?

lol, that was a show set in the future of 2000 I think.

They based the look of the show on what they thought the year 2000 would like.

I think ST:11 will look very sharp
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-31-2008, 01:44 PM
ctiii ctiii is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 53
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zetseui View Post
I recently became interested in Star Trek (within the last 2 months) and I've been watching the shows and the movies, while also reading up on the series'. I noticed that a lot of people were turned off by the Enterprise series because of the technology was higher quality than that of TOS or the movies.

Not sure if this is taboo or not on a Star Trek forum but I am going to mention Star Wars as well...their technology in the newer prequels were in a lot of ways superior to the technology in the older movies.

As a huge Star Wars fan and newbie to the Star Trek universe and that of its fan base I would like to know from long time fans/trekkies/trekkers, whatever you consider yourself, what your thoughts on the subject are, because honestly I dont see any analog knobs or switches being in this movie.

While it would be nice for the technology of this movie to be no better or better looking than what we saw in TOS, I would settle for something of a cross between what we saw in ENT and what we saw in TOS.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-31-2008, 02:14 PM
Kleaver Kleaver is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4
Default

TOS is just a crappy show by today's standards. I mean, the 'In A Mirror, Darkly' episodes were more of a joke than a realistic bridging between timeframes. The Defiant looked so basic and corny that nobody actually believed it was this highly advanced future-ship.

I mean, the refit Enterprise looked nice, and I did like the movie versions, I hope Star Trek XI provides a good re-imagine, as it should be. I mean look at Battlestar Galactica. The old version looked crappy as well, and they completely redid everything in the new series. And isn't it a brilliant show?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-31-2008, 02:18 PM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,226
Default

Even Paris designed the Delta Flyer with hands-on controls so that he could still use them even when the ship is jumping around
Consider that...
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:17 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.