Does Star Trek need a reboot?

Post by **Mikey** » Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:05 pm

Nor did they take the pains necessary when shoe-horning a series into a prior timeframe.

Post by **Teaos** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:55 am

Just throwing away everything that has been built up all these years is an insult to everyone who worked on it and the fans who enjoy it.

Post by **Mikey** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:47 pm

That's my biggest problem with the inconsistencies in ENT - the fact that it really doesn't seem like they even tried to avoid them.

MetalHead · Post by **MetalHead** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 4:21 am

Id say yes, actually.

Think of it like this

Battlestar Galactica: Re-Imagined would be closer to what Star Trek needs to have done to it. Everything stayed the same really. The core designs, ideals, visions, and plotlines of the show. Enhanced visual effects, updated plot coherency, better continuity from episode to episode. It was a smash, or so I thought...

stitch626 · Post by **stitch626** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:51 pm

The problem with "re-imagining" Star Trek is that if there was a contradiction between the original concept and the re-imagined one, which would be taken as canon. An example; I have seen rumored images of the Enterprise for the new movie, but it looks very different from the original series Enterprise. If this is the case, which design do we accept as canon.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:55 pm

Welcome to the site.

Well, what we do is try to find a way for both contradictions to co-exist. In the case of the new Enterprise, we can rationalise that by saying there was a refit between the film and TOS.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 5:57 pm

stitch626 wrote:The problem with "re-imagining" Star Trek is that if there was a contradiction between the original concept and the re-imagined one, which would be taken as canon. An example; I have seen rumored images of the Enterprise for the new movie, but it looks very different from the original series Enterprise. If this is the case, which design do we accept as canon.

Treat it as a different show with it's own canon. Hence the "re-image/reboot" moniker. Does anyone try and reconcile BSG and Neo-BSG?

stitch626 · Post by **stitch626** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:26 pm

Maybe. I don't know. I guess if they did pay attention to their own continuity (one of the things that killed the most recent series) a re-imagined Star Trek might be alright. It still bothers me that they may have changed the design of the original Enterprise for the new movie. Has anyone else seen the pictures I'm refering to?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:30 pm

stitch626 wrote:Maybe. I don't know. I guess if they did pay attention to their own continuity (one of the things that killed the most recent series) a re-imagined Star Trek might be alright. It still bothers me that they may have changed the design of the original Enterprise for the new movie. Has anyone else seen the pictures I'm refering to?

The blurry hallway and the saucer shot from the teaser and viral site, the stuff that is unlikely to even be in the movie? If your referring to something else than I suggest you post pics.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:33 pm

Welcome to DITL stitch.

I've seen a few shots, but a head-on view over the upper saucer isn't the best angle to spot any major changes. The only thing that struck me wasthat the nacelles seemed a bit bigger, but that may be affected by perspective, or the fact that they used an unusual angle. If it's only minor tweaks I don't have a problem with it - they made changes to the E-nil for "Trials and Tribbleations", and to the E-E for "Nemesis" without changing the fundamental appearence of the ship.

stitch626 · Post by **stitch626** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:35 pm

What bothers me the most about the design is that it looks too advanced. For example; it has two torpedo launchers at the base of the neck, just like the refit constitution. On the original constitution class, the torpedo launcher(s) was situated in the lower saucer. Perhaps I am slightly biased because I liked the original designs of the constitution class, but it does not make sense to me to move the lauchers from one place and then move them back.

stitch626 · Post by **stitch626** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:39 pm

Thank you all for welcoming me. To point out all of the changes I've noticed: the hull is closer in metal color to the ENT Enterprise, the nacelles have a blue top covering (similar to soveriegn), the neck is curved, the nacelle struts are very different (curved), and the affore mentioned torpedo launchers.

Post by **Captain Seafort** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:41 pm

stitch626 wrote:What bothers me the most about the design is that it looks too advanced. For example; it has two torpedo launchers at the base of the neck, just like the refit constitution. On the original constitution class, the torpedo launcher(s) was situated in the lower saucer. Perhaps I am slightly biased because I liked the original designs of the constitution class, but it does not make sense to me to move the lauchers from one place and then move them back.

Have you got screenshots of this, because I've yet to see any images of the ship depicting anything but the forward-upper saucer and the nacelle caps.

stitch626 · Post by **stitch626** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:42 pm

I am really sorry, but this is my first forum account, and I do not know how to post images. If it requires a url, then no luck. I found the images using Google, and I do not remember the search key-words. I have saved them on my computer, and have 5 different angles, if that helps.

Sionnach Glic · Post by **Sionnach Glic** » Sat Mar 22, 2008 6:44 pm

the hull is closer in metal color to the ENT Enterprise,

Maybe the original Enterprise was painted?

the nacelles have a blue top covering (similar to soveriegn), the neck is curved, the nacelle struts are very different (curved), and the affore mentioned torpedo launchers.

I'll have to look into that.