FYI: Paramount has uploaded these four latest movie posters as high-res wallpapers and avatars.
Look in the "Downloads" section of the Official Star Trek Movie website. (Set your browser to allow pop-ups for that site.)
--------
The Free & Open Productivity Software Suite
I am not happy about this at all. However, as another poster said, this thing gets Leonard Nimoy's stamp of approval so I will watch it.
It still looks stupid, though.
--------
The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's. -Mark Twain
-
Quote from rowboat:
It still looks stupid, though.
When you say little more than "It looks stupid", you invite presumptuous oafs to put words in your mouth.
In the new movie posters, photographic close-ups give curious fans a good look-see at familiar characters with fresh faces. There's nothing like the face and eyes to convey a sense of individual "interior life", so those visceral images suggest that this is significant in the movie.
--------
Heroes: Complete 2nd Season
-
Quote:
When you say little more than "It looks stupid", you invite presumptuous oafs to put words in your mouth.
Actually, I was taking a page from your book. Taking a blanketly empty statement such as "It looks stupid" and asking the person who said it to back it up and add some insight as to what THEY would have done to make it better. Don't be bitter because I beat you to the punch.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
-
Quote from cdydatzigs:
Taking a blanketly empty statement such as "It looks stupid" and asking the person who said it to back it up and add some insight as to what THEY would have done to make it better.
Once again, you're clueless about a common and basic fact of everyday adult life: As with personal choice in consumer products, anyone can dislike a work of art without having to "back it up" with objective insight, nor to ascribe something else as "better."
--------
Mission: Impossible - Season 5 with Leonard Nimoy
-
You're exactly right. However, when someone expresses an opinion in public, they shouldn't get ticked off if someone asks "why do you think that?" It's probably a good idea to at least have some reasonable response ready.
--------
Growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
And dying to me dont sound like all that much fun...
-John Mellencamp
Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Samuel T. Cogley, Attorney at Law
-
Quote from Sam Cogley:
It's probably a good idea to at least have some reasonable response ready.
Only when the subject material is served as a meal for reason, otherwise it caters to the visceral palate.
Thus a work of art can be liked or disliked without objective insight.
The feedback was posted where the material was presented.
--------
Star Trek: Manga GN Vol.3 Uchu by Wil Wheaton et al
-
All I said was that it's fair game to ask someone "why?" they hold an opinion. Quite frankly "I just like it," or "it doesn't work for me" are reasonable enough in that situation.
--------
Growing up leads to growing old and then to dying,
And dying to me dont sound like all that much fun...
-John Mellencamp
Political tags-such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth-are never basic criteria.
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.
-Robert A. Heinlein
Samuel T. Cogley, Attorney at Law
-
Quote from Sam Cogley:
Quite frankly "I just like it," or "it doesn't work for me" are reasonable enough in that situation
That much was given here, up front.
Your "It doesn't work for me" is colloquially equivalent to rowboat's "It looks stupid". As "work" can mean "effective", so "stupid" can mean "inane". It's all articulation of feeling. Within context, such a visceral response is reasonable for like or dislike.
--------
Futurama: Bender's Big Game (2008)
-
So I am guessing these teaser posters (none of which are the official poster which will be released soon) are stupid because they aren't the usual cookie cutter black variety with a star field, a streaking ship and a collage of actor's headshots, right? I am a graphic designer by day, so I would love for you to tell all of us... what would you have preferred they done?
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
-
Simple: not look stupid. I don't like the tinted photographs on a white background. And the closeups are retarded. If they are going to do that, they should have shown them in active poses- no, looking over your shoulder doesn't count. Have a picture of Spock looking into the famous viewer. Have the familiar light eminating from that viewer shining around his eyes. Have Kirk in an active pose, maybe in one of his famous "karate chop on the shoulders" moves. Have Scotty next to a ladder, looking up (Jeffries tube). Have Urhura looking thoughtful with a listening device in her ear.
That would illicit a bigger reaction. Whoah! that IS star trek! This doesn't do that. All these are are faces. Oh boy, a guy with pointy ears, guess that's supposed to be spock.
Stupid.
--------
The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's. -Mark Twain
-
Quote from rowboat:
Have a picture of Spock looking into the famous viewer.
Keep in mind that such "context" shots would reveal spoilers in the background, e.g. Spock's station on the new bridge.
At this point, even the updated uniforms are officially hush-hush.
--------
Mightysoft Windoos TP
For all the times you've wished you could just wipe your butt with your PC operating system.
Quote:
The right way to look at the whole relaunch is this: it's a brand new universe!
I don't think we have to go that far neccessarily. I just consider this new film to be a visual reboot only. The costumes, sets, ships and hairstyles are all updated so as to make them more realistically 18 months before The Motion Picture -- especially the ship which needs to look like the movie-refit version in only 18 months time!
I do think however, that every other aspect of the film will be canon. The relationships, the history and events will all fit into what has occured on TOS et al, only visually more believable.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
-
Here's a visual thing that's been around for longer than 18 months:
Reply
It allows users here to post replies to others without annoying everyone who is making use of threaded or nested board views by devoting top-level threads to one's replies.
You recently chastised another user by saying something along the lines of "Try not clicking 'Post Now' more than once". In the same spirit:
Please try using the reply button for what it was designed for.
There's another frequent user here who routinely abuses top-level thread posting for his replies (top-level thread whoring), and the association is neither a flattering one nor one that you likely want to cultivate.
I enjoy reading your posts and appreciate the frequent contribution you make to the news threads. Please don't consider the above to be anything other than some friendly advice.
-The Doctor
--------
"That green-blooded Son of a Bitch... It's his revenge for all those arguments he lost to me!"
- Bones
-
With all do respect.. I only "top thread" when it is an important argument that I don't want buried amongst the "nest". If I didn't do that sometimes, people would continue on their incorrect points and that would defeat the purpose of a response. Secondly, having two identical posts right on top of each other, with neither of them replaced with a "." and both of them top threaded? That to me is far worse. I am not a troller and I feel I have valid, well-thought out and educated reponses to bring to the table. As long as other people top thread to make their more valid points heard, then so will I. Thank you for the concern.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
-
With all due respect, I’m not sure that the proprietors of this site intentionally adopted a board format that features the “reply” option simply to give users a dumping ground for replies that users don't think are all that important. Likewise, I'm not sure why the proprietors of this board intended the "post new" option for users to "bump" their own "important" replies, affecting everyone viewing the board and rendering the various board view options useless. I think the ability to reply to specific posts and the ability to offer readers viewing formats that organize responses and new threads for better reading/tracking was likely one of the appeals behind adopting the software that powers this board. It certainly has potential for abuse, and it's unfortunate that some exploit that.
Every circumvention is essentially a one-finger-salute to both the makers of the board (who intentionally chose the format and the options it provides to readers), but also every single user here who makes use of the features the board provides.
You needn’t worry about replies being “lost in the nest” when properly using the reply function. “New” tags are generated for everyone who has viewed or is tracking the thread, giving your replies their own special tags/link for those who find the discussion you're contributing to interesting.
Yes, duplicate posts may be more annoying than intentionally misplaced ones, but that doesn’t address the point that both are annoying and disrepectful.
My reply wasn’t calling into question the value of your responses here (if you review my response, you'll see that I acknowledged as much), it was merely pointing out the effect that abusing the “post new” option has on other users and the layout of the board it imposes on others. You’re right that other users here (one in particular) abuse that board features. I don’t see how that makes continued abuse by others either appealing or justified. How adopting those posting habits as some sort of role model is wise or justified escapes me. I'd humbly suggest that putting distance between yourself and them is both becoming and desirable.
IMHO,
-The Doctor
--------
"That green-blooded Son of a Bitch... It's his revenge for all those arguments he lost to me!"
- Bones
-
Steve, in regard to the 18-month figure, it's actually closer to 7 years. This movie takes place BEFORE the five-year mission, and TMP is 18 months AFTER the 5-year mission. Hence, this film takes place 6 1/2 years before TMP.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
Quote:
...in regard to the 18-month figure, this movie takes place BEFORE the five-year mission and TMP is 18 months AFTER the 5-year mission. Hence, this film takes place 6 1/2 years before TMP.
Oh I know the new film takes place about 7 years before The Motion Picture. I was making a reference to the look of the Enterprise, the crew's uniforms and the new corridor designs. Looking at the saucer of the updated Enterprise in the teaser trailer, it is clear that the ship looks more like the refit than the one from the series. It is also safe to assume that in 5 years, when their mission ends, that all of these elements will still look the same.
If the ship is built in 2244 (when the teaser takes place) looking more like the refit to begin with, then Scotty and his boys wouldn't have had to do as much of a drastic upgrade to get us to the Motion Picture "look". This, in turn, makes that 18-month timefeame they did it in (2269-71), more believable as a result.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
-
Quote:
I do think however, that every other aspect of the film will be canon. The relationships, the history and events will all fit into what has occurred on TOS et al, only visually more believable.
Really? I agree that, as a reboot, they will take the iconic elements, those things that make Trek recognizable today (the Enterprise, the characters and their personalities, the relationships, the transporter, the Federation, Spock's background) and project from there. But as for events in TOS having to "fit in," I just don't see it. Much of TOS "future history" is simply wrong and should be ignored, otherwise the new effort becomes kitsch.
The right way to look at the whole relaunch is this: it's a brand new universe!
TOS was a projection of the future from 1964. In that universe, Kahn was a ruler of millions, a product of eugenics, and escaped earth on the Botany Bay, an "90's" spaceship design. None of this, of course happened. Thus none of the events in any of the TOS movies happened, either (there were no additional Voyager probes in the 90's, so V'ger won't exist).
This relaunch, in all likelihood, will feature a projection of the future from 2008. A whole new universe. There is no way this or any future movie will make any references to Kahn or any other part of the future that TOS got wrong. There's no way Captain Pike will end up in a wheelchair with less technology than Stephen Hawking has had for decades. It's a whole new world out there, Hobbes!
-
Quote from Gothampunk:
None of this, of course happened. Thus none of the events in any of the TOS movies happened, either
That reasoning expects fiction to be validated by (or as) immediate reality, which is akin to an observer who has trouble relating to something whose outward appearance is unfamiliar or otherwise "unrealistic."
This isn't a requirement for good storytelling.
The longest-running North American sci-fi series on television -- Stargate SG-1 -- asks its audience to believe that wormhole-like transportation technology was unearthed near Giza (Egypt) in 1928, and that present-day human characters are traveling to distant worlds.
--------
Mission: Impossible - Season 5 with Leonard Nimoy
-
You are accurate as far as you go in describing the conceits of SG-1. And that's fine. But science fiction, unless you are telling an alternate universe story, projects a an imagined future from the present-day. This future might not be what the writer expects to happen, and he may well describe past events that only may have happened. But if it's a future looking forward from an invented past, then it's fantasy. And my guess is that Abrams and company have no reason to go there. They'll go for a plausible future, and give no truck to those things from the world of TOS that no longer hold up. That's just my prediction.
-
Quote from Gothampunk:
But if it's a future looking forward from an invented past, then it's fantasy.
That criterion for proper "science-fiction" crumples as soon as you accept time-travel. Any story can then use a time-paradox to change "wrong" fictional history in a way that reconciles with present-day hindsight. Conversely, the Eugenics Wars (circa 1995) might have been our "correct" history, but it was changed in some (untold) post-TOS time-travel adventure.
In other words, any (seemingly) invented past could be party to a future intervention.
--------
Star Trek: Corps Of Engineers - Wounds
-
Quote:
They'll go for a plausible future, and give no truck to those things from the world of TOS that no longer hold up.
Or better still? They won't harp on or touch those things period. Better to let them be and let nerds like us debate eugenics wars and nomad probes that never happened. They will probably come up with unique untold stories of the early years of the 5-year mission -- and avoid that minefield altogether.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
That sort of annoyed frown Urban seems to be wearing just makes me smile.
--------
Dig deep piles of rubble and ruins
Towering overhead both far and wide
There's unknown tools for World War III
Einstein said 'We'll use rocks on the other side'
No survivors!
Quote:
Neither one of you addressed my point. As far as Chekov is concerned, you have to skirt around continuity ... Why can't you make a similar excuse for an older Kirk? What's the problem here?
We saw older Kirk die and heard Khan say that he saw Chekov before he was stationed on the bridge. Pretty darn simple if you ask me.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
Very cool! Pegg looks great as Scotty! Urban's McCoy looks like he could participate in fisticuffs with no problemo!
Uh, but like the previous four promos these look to be made to fit into the Trek diamond icon/logo. Where's the other two? Don't leave us hanging!
Hell, I still need the Kirk poster to complete the first four!
--C. Hussein Harlot
--------
The autumn days swung soft around me, like cotton on
my skin. But as the embers of the summer lost their
breath and disappeared, my heart went cold, and
only hollow rhythms resounded from within.
Loved the image of Urban as Bones (he looks badass, dont know if this is a good thing, but I loved it).
Pegg looks very Scotty-ish and Cho and Yelchin look good (Cho a bit dark and menacing as Sulu ?)
Anyway, loved the new posters. Keep me enthusiasm for the movie high. Very exciting stuff.
Gustavo
--------
TrekWeb.com Supervising Editor
gl2000@uol.com.br
Okay, I will admit I have no idea what role Chekov plays in the movie. He might be a cadet or something a few "grade levels" below the rest of the gang.
But facts are facts. Chekov joined the Enterprise later. And Abrams either overlooked this fact or simply ignored it.
And yet, bringing Bill Shatner into the fold is somehow impossible. Why? How is his death different than any other piece of canon that he conveniently overlooks? Oh I know the responses I will get already- "Chekov joining later is a very minor point, only the diehards will nitpick. This movie is for a broader audience".
Okay smartypants, how about this: do you REALLY think that the general public knows that Jim Kirk died? Do you really? I bet I could ask 15 people I know who aren't star trek fans (who this movie is geared towards), and they would have no idea what happened to him.
So yeah, I kind of hate Abrams for that. The excuses he gives are stupid and he's just copping out. If he doesn't want Bill in the movie, come out and say it.
--------
The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's. -Mark Twain
-
I forget where I read this explanation for Khan remembering Chekov, but it's my personal favorite:
Khan is roaming around the ship during "Space Seed," and he has to use the facilities. He goes into the bathroom and sees Chekov coming out of the stall. He then goes into the stall and sees that Chekov didn't flush. He stalks over to the sink where Chekov is washing his hands, grabs his shoulders, spins him around, gets right in his face and says, "YOU... DIDN'T FLUSH!! I will have my revenge. What is your name!"
"Chekov, sir."
"I never forget a face, Mr.... Chekov!"
I swear, I can't watch their scene in Star Trek II without thinking of this explanation. I chuckle every time I watch it.
-
Quote from rowboat:
And yet, bringing Bill Shatner into the fold is somehow impossible. Why?
The business side of moviemaking. Contracts. Money.
Statements from The Shat himself support Abrams' claim of "He said to me, he doesn't want to do a cameo". Comments from both sides make it look like Shatner requires a larger salary than Paramount wants to pay for a cameo appearance.
Just within the last couple of weeks, Abrams said he'll find a way to include his buddy Greg Grunberg, who wasn't available during principal photography. This lends credibility to Orci saying that the door is still open for Shatner, as far as the script and production options are concerned.
Anton Yelchin has said his Chekov is a young engineer aboard NCC-1701. There's nothing in TOS to conflict with that, and Khan could've seen Chekov down in Scotty's engineering department.
--------
Futurama: Bender's Big Game (2008)
-
Oh who the heck cares. Wrath of Khan established Chekov was there. And Shatner's Kirk DIED. And it would take way too much screentime to bring him back when the movie isn't about his time at all!
If you want Shatner in this movie, you want it to fail. This is about a new trek universe, try to keep up.
-
Oh who the heck cares. Wrath of Khan established Chekov was there. And Shatner's Kirk DIED. And it would take way too much screentime to bring him back when the movie isn't about his time at all!
If you want Shatner in this movie, you want it to fail. This is about a new trek universe, try to keep up.
-
"But facts are facts. Chekov joined the Enterprise later. And Abrams either overlooked this fact or simply ignored it."
Actually, the facts, as you put it, are that the original series never specified when Chekov joined the show--there was no mention of him not having been on the ship before that. And the more important fact is that Star Trek II retroactively established Chekov to have been on the ship during season 1...unless Kahn somehow memorized the personnel records for ALL of Starfleet.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
Yes in the series Chekov did not appear til Season 2. But then again according to Khan in STII, Chekov was there, somewhere, for their Season 1 encounter in Space Seed. So im perfectly good with him being aboard.
-
Where does it say that Chekov wasn't a crewmember before we saw him?
There were 430 aboard ship. Name them all, please. I'll wait.
Crew member before "bridge officer" is no stretch whatsoever.
--------
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
"If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty Humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." ---Gene Roddenberry
-
I couldn't agree with you more! I mean, I remember the first episode with Checkov, and the fact that they made a big deal out of him joining the ship, insisted that he hadn't been there until that episode, had that big party for him and started making him the focus of every episode, then mentioning again and again how great it was that he joined the ship and his previous adventures that took place before that episode.
And you're right, he should stop lying. I'm willing to bet though he's got a surprise for us. James Doohan's ashes missing? Nope. They're on the set, starring as Scotty! I bet he's digging up DeForest Kelley's body now and getting ready to put him in, Weekend at Bernie's style.
You're the same person who'd be whining if they didn't include Chekov, and then would whine that Kirk is dead, and it's a DIRECT VIOLATION OF CONTINUITY if he showed up.
We get it. You'll only see the movie two times on opening day. I see. Regardless, how's about you shut up, stop hating a man based on a movie that you've never seen, and just go away. If you're that easily swayed based on a few interviews, then I'd like to sell you my house. Trust me that it's really neato.
--------
I've written a musical about monkeys. It shall be in the key of delicious.
-
Neither one of you addressed my point. As far as Chekov is concerned, you have to skirt around continuity by saying "oh well chekov was just a crewmember before, among the 430".
Why can't you make a similar excuse for an older Kirk? What's the problem here? As I said, this movie is not for die hard star trek fans, so why is this guy holding so tightly to the continuity that came from one of the lesser movies in the series? Come on. You and I both know that for whatever reason, Abrams doesn't want Bill in it. All i'm saying is that I would like him to come out and say it. As Lucious Fox said, "don't think of me as an idiot".
--------
The dog is a gentleman; I hope to go to his heaven, not man's. -Mark Twain
-
so I don't know when it happened. Neither do you.
I watched Kirk die. Anyone that wants to can Youtube it probably.
I simply don't need/want Abrams spending one minute of precious (especially given what this film means to the franchise)explaining it away.
Kirks death sucked. But Shat took the check and did the deed. The end. That was his ending.
This is Nimoy's. This is the last time we'll ever see him as Spock. After all he's given to the franchise, he deserves the ending HE wants. Let him have it, quit'cher bitchin' and grow up.
--------
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
"If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty Humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." ---Gene Roddenberry
-
[q]Neither one of you addressed my point. As far as Chekov is concerned, you have to skirt around continuity by saying "oh well chekov was just a crewmember before, among the 430".
Why can't you make a similar excuse for an older Kirk?[/quote]
Not sure if you're aware of this, but it's a lot harder to explain someone from the dead than to explain why we may not have seen someone before. I will refer you to the "Khan references." We have an absolute for why Kirk isn't it, we don't have any absolute for how or when Chekov joined the ship. The unabsolute leaves doors open and doesn't really make it too hard to explain why he's there.
-
When Nick Meyer and Harve Bennet and the writers of Star Trek 2 included the line about Chekov, it was an error. They let it slide. In 1982 the fans weren't nearly as picky and forgave it because it was a great film anyway. Even Walter Keonig joked about the mistake at conventions and said he was there somewhere, probably in sick bay with a bad case of space runs. It wasn't so. Chekov appeared for the first time in the second season. Meyer even commented on the mistake on commentary for the film, and he let it slide because he wanted to have Chekov as the commander who recognizes Khan's ship. In an earlier draft, it was Sulu who was the commander and he had to sport the line, which makes more sense, but Takei was denied that rank until later films. That is what happened. So now that it's canon, they went with it, and thus he was there.
-
I couldn't agree with you more! I mean, I remember the first episode with Checkov, and the fact that they made a big deal out of him joining the ship, insisted that he hadn't been there until that episode, had that big party for him and started making him the focus of every episode, then mentioning again and again how great it was that he joined the ship and his previous adventures that took place before that episode.
And you're right, he should stop lying. I'm willing to bet though he's got a surprise for us. James Doohan's ashes missing? Nope. They're on the set, starring as Scotty! I bet he's digging up DeForest Kelley's body now and getting ready to put him in, Weekend at Bernie's style.
You're the same person who'd be whining if they didn't include Chekov, and then would whine that Kirk is dead, and it's a DIRECT VIOLATION OF CONTINUITY if he showed up.
We get it. You'll only see the movie two times on opening day. I see. Regardless, how's about you shut up, stop hating a man based on a movie that you've never seen, and just go away. If you're that easily swayed based on a few interviews, then I'd like to sell you my house. Trust me that it's really neato.
--------
I've written a musical about monkeys. It shall be in the key of delicious.
I must say I am definately getting more excited now. Sure, there will be the blind die-hards that will ramble about Yelchin not looking like Koenig, Urban not looking like Kelly or Cho's hair being too long, etc. But if this is what we can look forward to in a few months, I honestly feel the franchise is in good hands. Finally, it looks like the TOS-era matches up visually with The Motion Picture, which occured only 18 months after it.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
-
Quote:
I must say I am definately getting more excited now. Sure, there will be the blind die-hards that will ramble about Yelchin not looking like Koenig, Urban not looking like Kelly or Cho's hair being too long, etc. But if this is what we can look forward to in a few months, I honestly feel the franchise is in good hands. Finally, it looks like the TOS-era matches up visually with The Motion Picture, which occured only 18 months after it.
Read some of the reactions on the TrekMovie site and you'll see your predictions coming true in terms of fan reaction. You're a bit off on your TMP comparison, though, as it took place 2 1/2 years (not 18 months) after the end of the 5 year mission which, ergo, takes place 5 years after this movie. Anyone who remembers TNG will recall how fundamentally different things such as uniforms looked in episode 1 of TNG compared with the final episode of season 7 -- roughly the same interval as we're talking about here between Trek 11 and TMP.
Al
-
Quote:
You're a bit off on your TMP comparison, though, as it took place 2 1/2 years (not 18 months) after the end of the 5 year mission which, ergo, takes place 5 years after this movie.
Actually, I know i'm right. Both the Star Trek: Encyclopedia and Star Trek Chronology give the 5-year mission as ending in 2269 and The Motion Picture taking place in 2271. These are both backed up by Scotty's line in the film where he tells Kirk, "I just spent 18 months refitting the Enterprise. How in the name of hell do they expect me to have her ready in 12 hours?"
Quote:
Anyone who remembers TNG will recall how fundamentally different things such as uniforms looked in episode 1 of TNG compared with the final episode of season 7
There wasn't that big a difference. The main crew members wore updated uniforms by series' end, but lesser crew members wore the same jumpsuit variety that everyone wore in season one. The sets were unchanged, as were the looks of the ships. So to be honest, I am not sure what you are talking about.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
(1)
| 
