[omegaman]

http://trekmovie.com/2012/01/12/star...uction-update/


Possible spoilers…

[omegaman]

Engineering gets an update…

[Captain Tom Coughlin]

I just hope it's not something radically different. I'd like to feel like I'm watching the same ship. The "refit" is a cliche best left in Trek past IMO

[omegaman]

Originally Posted by Captain Tom Coughlin

I just hope it's not something radically different. I'd like to feel like I'm watching the same ship. The "refit" is a cliche best left in Trek past IMO

I agree. It would best if it was tweaked only moderately rather then a radically different look.

[kevin]

And the production ride begins again!

In the absence yet of any story specifics, visually I do not wish a dramatic change from any of the interiors established before and look forward to seeing more parts of the ship. As long as Engineering doesn't look vastly different than before (or alternatively we just 'see' additional parts of it not seen already) then minor tweaks are probably expected.

Just nothing wholesale. I agree with Tom in the refit cliche department.

[samwiseb]

I don't expect there's any reason why JJ 'would' drastically alter the production design in any way -having already approved it for the prior film- save for circumstances like not being able to use prior locations such as Budweiser or wherever. It will probably be more like just adding to what's already established. Or maybe dimming the lighting because your sequel is supposed to be a more serious film. (In short, I agree with y'all)

It's usually when there's a new director, that he feels the need to leave his own fingerprints all over everything (which is something I generally approve of)... and I think that's more the case of what happened with the earlier films (save for TVH, in which they built new BoP interiors because the recycled bridge they used previously looked more like 'Balance of Terror' and wasn't really suited to serve as a major set for a feature film anyway). Such changes are typically regarded as retroactive, or being the director's individual interpretation of what things look like. Harry Potter 3 is my personal favorite example of this, even though that was more of a location type of thing.

The TMP refit, I believe, was just Roddenberry's personal valentine to longtime fans... as well as a potential excuse for the production design 'possibly' needing to cut corners prior to filming. And I think it's proved more of a disservice than anything else, as fans are so literal-minded on believing any explanation that's thrown out there if it allows for a supposed consistency that the director and producers have already intentionally ignored.

The 'new timeline' thing is no less silly than an Enterprise reboot, really. We all know the only 'real' reason for Kirk and Spock to act like d*ckheads who need each other's help to mellow out a little, is simply because that's the story that they felt inspired to tell. It would be the same story even if they had not rebooted the timeline, contradictory details from episodes like 'Conscience of the King', 'WnMHGB', 'Shore Leave' and 'A Piece of the Action' be damned. (Although for all the "Meh... they should've just made it an 'honest' reboot" talk, I have yet to hear anybody complain about Nimoy's involvement in the film).

[kevin]

I've always figured that if folks accept the whole refit Enterprise (aka refit Star Trek) - usually with the idea that it's merely in 'the same timeline' behind it to justify it and little else - from TMP there should be no real issue with alternate timelines, but of course there is. That's a whole separate issue but then the alternate timeline idea never bothered me at all from the moment I found out about it.

But I do tend to be a stickler for production design. Couldn't truly tell you why apart from the fact it's one of those things that can (but not always) take me out the film a little bit because at times in Trek it's been so obviously different from film to film.

Don't suppose there's much logic to that, but we all gotta have our little 'issues' around Trek in some way!

Funny thing is, is that consistency never was much of a watchword when it came to TOS anyway. And it never seemed to bother anyone too much then. I think that became a thing later but I think it stems both from behind the scenes and also audiences expecting it. There's almost no episode to episode TOS need for references to past episodes or continuation. The whole show is sooooooo completely stand alone you could virtually play them in any order across any season and generally not be very lost. Except around 'WNMHGB' when it pops up. Which just isn't how TV was by the time TNG came around and especially the 1990s shows and films.

[horatio]

Engineering was crap, the movie producers have been told it is crap and now they change it.
Although the last movie has merely been a half-as*ed semi-reboot its purpose was nonetheless to break out of the shackles of continuity. This includes visual continuity.

[samwiseb]

Where did they say they were going to change it? All we have is a vague comment about improvements; nothing that implies a full-scale revamp.

If it already counts against them that 'Budgineering' was crap, and they decide to change it because they were told it was crap, does that decision also count against them? I don't get it.

[samwiseb]

Originally Posted by kevin

But I do tend to be a stickler for production design. Couldn't truly tell you why apart from the fact it's one of those things that can (but not always) take me out the film a little bit because at times in Trek it's been so obviously different from film to film. Don't suppose there's much logic to that, but we all gotta have our little 'issues' around Trek in some way!

It's not unreasonable. The only real violator, one could argue, was Shatner. TUC sort of had that "ah, f- it, nobody liked the last movie anyway" attitude to it. But since we know it's JJ directing again, there's no real reason for him to make alterations of the sort that literally jump off the screen.