On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 11:54:53 -0500, "Steven L."
earthlink.net> wrote:
>"I think a lot of hardcore fans are going to freak out," Brown told SyFy
>Portal's Will N. Stape. "As far as I know, only the exterior of the
>Enterprise had to stay the same. I don't know if that came from J.J. or
>Paramount."
>
>Some of that was to be expected, however, as only so much 1960s
>nostalgia would work in today's cinema. But stubbornness should really
>be checked at the door Christmas Day when the new Star Trek movie premieres.
>
>"I can't discuss any details, all I can offer is that you lose all your
>expectations of what Star Trek should be," Brown said. "If you see this
>movie with an open mind and take it at face value, you may have a great
>time."
>
>
http://www.syfyportal.com/news424604.html
Well, this is peculiar. I think it would be a little difficult to be
recognizably Star Trek with a, say, radically different bridge. What
would be the point of having Sulu, Chekov and Uhura in the movie if
the bridge is so small that you can't see them, or conversely, if the
bridge is so large they get lost in a crowd or can't be filmed in the
same scene (like those ridiculously large sets on ships in the Star
Wars movies)?
I'm not particularly surprised or horrified to hear they're changing
the Enterprise's innards around... the movies already did that to give
us a much more visually interesting starship. But I think the basic
set designs were very well made for TV/Movie filming... curved
corridors meant smaller sets could be made and still imply a ship much
larger than what you see onscreen at any given moment. The bridge
allowed pie sections to be removed at random so filming could take
place from any angle. I have trouble seeing how Abrams & Co. could
come up with better ideas, or why they'd want to. What, did he say
"Let's not do it Roddenberry's way... I want this movie to cost a lot
more money!"?
I have a feeling these "freak out" changes are being exaggerated quite
a bit.
Surprise, surprise.
Brian
