Yeah, just like that. These "complaints" - on both sides of the aisle - need to be taken with a grain of salt.

In point of fact, I don't disagree. And I would choose an F-150 over a Tundra as well.

But I'm not convinced that the Tundra is inferior to the F-150. Nor am I convinced it's superior, either. I just believe in presenting both sides of the argument. No manufacturer builds a perfect vehicle. That said, North American automakers are in the mess they're in today in large part because they put themselves there. I'm not sure it's accurate or helpful to blame Toyota - or any other Japanese automaker - for that.

 

I believe there are certain aspects of the Tundra that don't quite stack up (for instance, the frame).

While true, it isn't very relevant to this specific topic. We can discuss why the Tundra isn't "the truck that's changing it all" without saying it's to blame for Detroit's problems.

 

Yeah, but let's be honest: the whole pretext for trying to take Toyota down a peg is because they're so successful in the marketplace right now, while companies like Ford are languishing.

Otherwise, we wouldn't care. Right...?

 

Tire complaints are all BS, otherwise I found the cab shake thing interesting

 

Oh I don't know. Even if Ford wasn't languishing I'd be willing to take Toyota down a peg or two. In my mind, the two issues aren't related.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that if Toyota weren't number one (and admittedly flaunting it - which is where the ire comes from, I suspect), we wouldn't be scrutinizing them so much.

No one's bothering to criticize the Nissan Titan, I notice. Or the Chevy Silverado.

Personally, I don't find a single vehicle in the Toyota line-up appealing right now, with the exception of the FJ Cruiser (and even that is with caveats). All their vehicles are nothing more than appliances (though I hear they may be working to change this). But they got to be number one because throughout the '80s and most of the '90s their vehicles were mostly unassailable as far as quality and reliability are concerned. I owned an '86 Toyota way back, and that thing was largely bullit proof. Their "quality" may indeed be partially perception now, but that perception was derived from reputation, and the reputation was derived from building superior products during the same period that American automakers stopped giving a sh*t and basically churned out mostly junk.

Nowadays, most vehicles from any of the major manufacturers are pretty good overall.

 

I've ragged on both of those in past as well (and the Ridgeline as well). Since the Tundra is the newest, it's getting the attention now.

 

Well, fortunately, pickups are the one place where the Japanese aren't making a lot of headway anyway. I'd be smart for Ford to do whatever it takes to hold onto its lead here.

Hopefully Ford launches a major new marketing campaign with the new F-150 that silences those "...truck that's changing everything" ads once and for all. Something to the effect of: "Other manufacturers needed to change everything. Some of us got it right the first time."

 

Agreed and I just wanted to add that you're right: Toyota is at the top right now and that makes them the most obvious target.

BTW, what's with the Capt. Kirk avatar? I snicker every time I see it.

 

Which is precisely why I'm using it.



I will be changing my avatar again once the latest round of mods are completed on my Stang and I can get out and snap some pics of her.

Either that or I will replace it with whomever JJ Abrams casts as Kirk for his new Trek film.

On second thought, scratch that idea. The whole idea of recasting Kirk is stupid anyway.

 

I gained a lot of respect for Shatner when I saw the History Channel special "How Captain Kirk Changed The World". Anyone that will so thoroughly lampoon themselves like he did gets a big thumbs up from me.

 

Almost as stupid as a JJ Abrams directed prequel.

 

Yeah, he's made a quite a career out of lampooning himself recently. And I agree, to make fun of himself after playing such a serious, heroic icon of pop culture takes stones.

He's great on Boston Legal, too.

 

Yeah, I'm skeptical on this, too.

Now, I have nothing but the greatest respect for J.J. Abrams...I really do. But recasting Kirk and Co. is a little like slapping a Dom Perignon label on a bottle of Baby Duck and trying to pass it off as the real McCoy (pun intended).

 

You said it all brother!!!!!

 

At the risk of a thread hijack beyond all reason, I just don't like the idea of another "name brand writer/director" Trek film. There was lots of hoopla over Nemesis having Baird and Logan, and it sucked out loud. They need a guy like Ron Moore (though he won't come back), or Rockne S. O'Bannon (farscape).

 

At the risk of perpetuating the thread hijack...



...I agree. I actually know Ron Moore, and he's pretty much moved on from Trek. In fact, believe it or not, he's pretty much divested himself of Galactica, too, and is ready to tackle new things. NBC/Universal is anxious to hold on to him, though, and he just turned in his script for the remake / "companion piece" for John Carpenter's The Thing.

It's not that I don't think J.J. can do Trek, I'm just not sure recasting legends like the original crew is a smart move. And how do you make the 1960s television production design and costumes look contemporary to a modern movie audience?

 

Since I'm the originator of this thread, I can perpetuate the thread hijack it if I want to!

I'm willing to give JJ a chance. Recasting legends can be tough but it can be done. Having Nimoy involved gives me a bit more confidence.

As to the production design, you don't make it look like the '60s TV show. Remember how they handled the original Klingons vs the macro-head Klingons in the rehash of the tribble episode on DS9? As Worf said when asked about it "We do not discuss it with outsiders..."

 

Yeah, that was a clever work-around for "Trials and Tribbleations", though it still didn't explain why Kor (the late John Colicos) looked different in DS9 episodes than he did in the TOS episode, "Errand of Mercy". The problem was that there was over 30 years' of canon at that point, and it was near impossible to keep track of it all without writing themselves into a corner.

But Enterprise herself is an entirely different issue. This film is supposed to chronicle one of Kirk and Co's earliest missions on the Enterprise. You have to make the iconic NCC-1701 look like the original ship or the entire continuity/canon doesn't work...and the hard core fans will NEVER accept it. Trust me on this. I think JJ is smart enough to fully comprehend his responsibilities in this regard...and I doubt Paramount will let him stray too far from the classic hallmarks of the original series.

My guess - and after a long and intimate familiarity with this franchise - is that they will use the same production design as the original, but alter a few key aspects; modify others to "show" us things that they hadn't thought of during the original series; and make the surface details for control switches, interfaces and visual monitors much more detailed and animated...so that from a distance, the Bridge, for example, will give the overall impression of being essentially the same, but when you get up close to stuff, it will look better and more sophisticated.

 

Me likey the highjack.