The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > The TOS futures....future?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-30-2008, 08:44 PM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leathart View Post
Actually, yes. That was my point. Perhaps I didn't word it correctly (I just woke up at the time, sorry). Although I'm not sure it takes place after Nemesis....You can boil it down to this: what will the future look like to (already established) old Spock now that young Spocks time period has been redesigned?
It would have to look the same as he remembered it or it wouldn't be the same Spock from that timeline.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-30-2008, 10:04 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leathart View Post
I'm not sure if this has been asked before (I guess I could have done a search but I'm too lazy I guess) but if they are redesigning the look for the 60's Star Trek, doesn't that mean that the time period Spock is coming back from(after ST VI) will have to be rethought as well? I mean, the tech will be updated so as to be believable, but that would mean the look they had established later would now look outdated. Am I the only one who thinks this way? And more importantly, how will it look? They do need to create a world where tech is considerably more advanced than the earlier time they are doing the story in, right?
That's one of the biggest problems with this idiotic urge to play around in the past and "update" it: What came later no longer looks as if it came later. That's why they should have just left it alone -- What comes "after" this new Star Trek will now have a more primitive look than what we're going to be shown in May 09. My anthem on this will forever be that if they didn't want to recreate the original look, they should have left the original setting the hell alone and created something of their own.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-02-2008, 02:37 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
That's one of the biggest problems with this idiotic urge to play around in the past and "update" it: What came later no longer looks as if it came later. That's why they should have just left it alone -- What comes "after" this new Star Trek will now have a more primitive look than what we're going to be shown in May 09. My anthem on this will forever be that if they didn't want to recreate the original look, they should have left the original setting the hell alone and created something of their own.
I can definately see what your saying. But I am holdoing off that call until I see the film.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-02-2008, 04:08 PM
trekfan68's Avatar
trekfan68 trekfan68 is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 17
Post Money

TV = less budget Movies = more budget
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-02-2008, 05:20 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

In other words, if we're updating TOS to a 2008 'look', shouldn't TNG be 'rebooted' to have computers with no physical interfaces at all? That seems to be the rationale behind 'updating TOS's look', doesn't it? I've tried to employ the 'form vs. function' argument in defense of the TOS designs myself -- for example, how DO we know that the control panels don't employ multi-touch or augmented-reality, technologies established and emerging today that would very easily explain what are on the surface very simplistic designs.

One of my favorite explanations for the 'un-detailed' look of the original 1701 and the "chunky" look of her interiors was that 1701 was a more combat-focused design than the NX-01. Starfleet, having learned the lessons of Archer's era, "ruggedized" its starships inside and out. That meant very few and very small windows, no visible seams in the hull plating, no visible -- i.e. targetable -- hatches. The Matt Jeffries design was, in essence, the best possible compromise between a multimission cruiser and being the Defiant-class warship of its day.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-02-2008, 05:34 PM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
In other words, if we're updating TOS to a 2008 'look', shouldn't TNG be 'rebooted' to have computers with no physical interfaces at all? That seems to be the rationale behind 'updating TOS's look', doesn't it? I've tried to employ the 'form vs. function' argument in defense of the TOS designs myself -- for example, how DO we know that the control panels don't employ multi-touch or augmented-reality, technologies established and emerging today that would very easily explain what are on the surface very simplistic designs.

One of my favorite explanations for the 'un-detailed' look of the original 1701 and the "chunky" look of her interiors was that 1701 was a more combat-focused design than the NX-01. Starfleet, having learned the lessons of Archer's era, "ruggedized" its starships inside and out. That meant very few and very small windows, no visible seams in the hull plating, no visible -- i.e. targetable -- hatches. The Matt Jeffries design was, in essence, the best possible compromise between a multimission cruiser and being the Defiant-class warship of its day.
Combat-focused design
To explore strange new world, to seek out new lives and new civilisations ... perhaps you mistake Star Trek for Star Wars ...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-03-2008, 02:23 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
In other words, if we're updating TOS to a 2008 'look', shouldn't TNG be 'rebooted' to have computers with no physical interfaces at all? That seems to be the rationale behind 'updating TOS's look', doesn't it? I've tried to employ the 'form vs. function' argument in defense of the TOS designs myself -- for example, how DO we know that the control panels don't employ multi-touch or augmented-reality, technologies established and emerging today that would very easily explain what are on the surface very simplistic designs.

One of my favorite explanations for the 'un-detailed' look of the original 1701 and the "chunky" look of her interiors was that 1701 was a more combat-focused design than the NX-01. Starfleet, having learned the lessons of Archer's era, "ruggedized" its starships inside and out. That meant very few and very small windows, no visible seams in the hull plating, no visible -- i.e. targetable -- hatches. The Matt Jeffries design was, in essence, the best possible compromise between a multimission cruiser and being the Defiant-class warship of its day.
Well TNG won't be getting anything...but see your point.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-03-2008, 04:11 AM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Combat-focused design
To explore strange new world, to seek out new lives and new civilisations ... perhaps you mistake Star Trek for Star Wars ...
...to not get ourselves blown the hell up while boldly going where no man has gone before. Sounds okay to me.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-03-2008, 04:19 AM
Zardoz's Avatar
Zardoz Zardoz is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere In The Future
Posts: 31,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
...to not get ourselves blown the hell up while boldly going where no man has gone before. Sounds okay to me.
But until recent Trek films/shows weapons were allways for defnse only, and used as a last resort.
__________________
"High Priestesses Of Zardoz" By Eliza's Starbase Of Avatars Copyright 2009."
"Zardoz Speaks To You, His Choosen Trek Fans."
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-03-2008, 04:32 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zardoz View Post
But until recent Trek films/shows weapons were allways for defnse only, and used as a last resort.
That is essential ST, not to walk around with the drawn colt, yet of course neither walk around with no colt at all. The first is provocative and leads inevitably to aggression and the latter is just naive when some bad thugs are roaming the galaxy.
That's the way of the UFP and since sci-fi is always about us, this is also the way to create something like a United Earth or at least less wars and moee worldwide cooperation.

And for our cannonite Saint, the NCC-1701 is no war ship like the Defiant. This is real not superficial stuff like, how will the interior design look like, but essential for the story.
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 02:55 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.