Topic: Trek 11 Enterprise  (Read 19092 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MajorRacal

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 492
  • Gender: Male
    • MajorRacal's Micro Shipyards
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #80 on: November 16, 2008, 09:54:37 am »
I feel Trek is currently hampered by the expectations of overly proprietorial fans and their unreasonable clamour for adherence to what is (despite protestations to the contrary) a completely inconsistent 'canon' (and no matter how hard you try to deny it, even TOS plays fast and loose with established ideas)... The 'franchise' that it has become, is owned by a group desperate to appeal to as many demographic tickboxes as possible in an attempt to draw in a bigger audience, seemingly unaware that they are actually dealing with narrow niche source material.  We see the vicous cycle of a 'property' hamstrung and unable to stretch out in new directions, unable to challenge convention and ultimately unable to deliver anything particularly innovative, spiralling deeper into the mire of mediocrity.  Trek is languishing in a rut of fan disdain and general public indifference, and it's all very reminiscent of how Doctor Who fared in the late 1980s...  In the end, as some have said, it is preposterous to judge a film on the strength of a handful of still images - and although I may not see it in the cinema, I will do this film the courtesy of giving it the chance to prove itself to me before writing it off as all kinds of heresy.

What I find interesting is that in an attempt to update the 60s material, the makers of the new film appear to ignored that the preponderance of lurid neon blue lighting and transparent materials (amongst other things) will seal their vision in the trappings of today's waning technological aesthetic. in much the same way as the revolting pink and beige lock Ent-D in the 80s.  I'm also quite incredulous that there are people who are so intransigent, that they are unwilling to accept anything other than (what is now) 60's low budget retro kitsch.

The classic Connie is a design of the 60s and no matter how hard it is to accept, that design would be laughed off the screen if unveiled for the first time to audiences of today.  As for the model, if it is legitimate, I have seen far worse done in the name Enterprise, but all the key features are there: saucer, neck, secondary hull, pylons and two nacelles.  It won't rank up there as my favourite design by any means, but it is by no means devoid of interesting and pleasing features, and I'm interested enough to see her in action.

intermech

  • Guest
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #81 on: November 17, 2008, 09:30:45 am »
I think what we have here is the fact that Trek fans want the opportunity to share Star Trek with main stream. To do this, it needs to be appealing to everyone and appeal to a broader base. The problem with this version of the enterprise is not that it looks more main stream and more appealing, the problem is that it looks less appealing. It is a step backwards. As mentioned before in the thread, there are many other concepts out there that take the general design of the original Enterprise and make them more appealing to modern audiences. This version, takes the general design and not only steers it further away from the mainstream, but also offends the loyal fans. I think that most of those disappointed with the design are disappointed because it is now unlikely that this new movie will be an entry drug for getting newcomers into the rest of the Trek universe.

Offline Darkseid

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #82 on: November 17, 2008, 04:38:22 pm »
It's true the Enterprise could be WAY better but let's face it, she could be a lot worse too.  Here are some stills of the trailer taken from apple.com.  First set is of the Kelvan, Second set is the Enterprise and the third is a strange unknown vessel.  I believe it could be Old Spock's future ship from the 24th Century.  It's the only one scene in the trailer and makes no appearances during any of the fight scenes showing shuttlecraft.  It's also not Romulan in appearance.
"Humanity's homeworld had withstood centuries of attempts at self-destruction, but soon the aliens would amass a fleet and make all their struggles moot."

Offline Darkseid

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 272
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #83 on: November 17, 2008, 04:40:59 pm »
Sorry, couldn't attach them all in one post, here are the rest...
"Humanity's homeworld had withstood centuries of attempts at self-destruction, but soon the aliens would amass a fleet and make all their struggles moot."

Offline Norsehound

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 578
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #84 on: November 17, 2008, 07:21:53 pm »
Well, I have to say the Enterprise design looks a little better, given these shots. Not sure how I like the arrangement of the nacelles in relation to the rest of the ship (too high?)

The Kelvin looks awesome... but it doesn't look like it's borrowing any of the nacelles from the Ent. Maybe Enterprise is a lead cruiser of her class?

Which makes me wonder what kind of 'new canon' is going to pop out of the woodwork in relation to Trek11. I mean, look how the new Transformers movie already has a separate back story. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of Trek 11 after the movie's aired.

Offline Greenvalv

  • Trekkie at large.....
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 688
  • Sfc3files Dept Site Admin
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #85 on: November 17, 2008, 09:32:39 pm »

Offline Lieutenant_Q

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1668
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #86 on: November 17, 2008, 11:47:12 pm »
Well, I have to say the Enterprise design looks a little better, given these shots. Not sure how I like the arrangement of the nacelles in relation to the rest of the ship (too high?)

The Kelvin looks awesome... but it doesn't look like it's borrowing any of the nacelles from the Ent. Maybe Enterprise is a lead cruiser of her class?


I think you hit the nail on the head right there, Norsehound.  The Kelvin looks like it is a pre-tos/tos ship, yet the Enterprise doesn't even look like it is part of the same fleet.  Whenever a new Federation ship was always introduced in Star Trek, you could look at it and say...yeah, I see how it is a Federation ship.  The Reliant and the Excelsior LOOKED related to the Enterprise.  The Enterprise-D established a baseline for what TNG Federation Ships looked like, based on that, the Enterprise -C, Voyager, Defiant all LOOKED related to the Ent-D.

I just don't see the relation between the Kelvin and the Enterprise, and I think that more than anything else, is what concerns me with the design.  That and the fact that how the heck are we supposed to get from that, to the TMP Enterprise?
"Your mighty GDI forces have been emasculated, and you yourself are a killer of children.  Now of course it's not true.  But the world only believes what the media tells them to believe.  And I tell the media what to believe, its really quite simple." - Kane (Joe Kucan) Command & Conquer Tiberium Dawn (1995)

Offline Greenvalv

  • Trekkie at large.....
  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 688
  • Sfc3files Dept Site Admin
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #87 on: November 17, 2008, 11:51:05 pm »
I just don't see the relation between the Kelvin and the Enterprise, and I think that more than anything else, is what concerns me with the design.  That and the fact that how the heck are we supposed to get from that, to the TMP Enterprise?
Ya'll still won't even think of this being a reboot, aye?  TOS and TMP connies have nothing to do with this new movie...

Offline Rod ONeal

  • D.Net Beta Tester
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3592
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #88 on: November 18, 2008, 01:15:00 am »
I like the Kelvin as a earlier TOS design/ If they would have done the Enterprise with those components in a standard Connie layout (different dish) I would have liked it.
If Romulans aren't cowards, then why do they taste like chicken?

Offline Terradyhne

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 687
    • Terradyhne-yards
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #89 on: November 18, 2008, 02:21:24 am »
I just don't see the relation between the Kelvin and the Enterprise, and I think that more than anything else, is what concerns me with the design.  That and the fact that how the heck are we supposed to get from that, to the TMP Enterprise?
Ya'll still won't even think of this being a reboot, aye?  TOS and TMP connies have nothing to do with this new movie...

and why does it have the name Star Trek 11, it should be named Star Trek reboot than.
and this new movie has only the name Star Trek sticked on it and some ugly kitbash like stuff and some character names from Star Trek in it. to hell with this reboot sh*t, its not worth the name Star Trek because it has not more the visions of Star Trek in it, its a damn stupid action and erotic mix what without the name Star Trek on it no one would even have a look at.



"there will be no better worlds with human presence as mankind tends to ignorance, intolerance and selfishness, despite they tell you about themselves"

Offline MajorRacal

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 492
  • Gender: Male
    • MajorRacal's Micro Shipyards
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #90 on: November 18, 2008, 12:37:00 pm »
Personally, I feel the Kelvin looks more offensive to my eye.

I'd also suggest that the Enterprise/Reliant/Excelsior/Grissom comparison is as valid/invalid as the Kelvin/Enterprise one, particularly given how starship aesthetics vary quite wildly:  some comparisons to consider... the transition from Ent D to Ent E is quite significantly different and yet both styles inhabit overlapping timeframes.  Whilst you could argue that Fed ships tend to share a similar modular theme (saucer/hull/nacelles) even across the various eras, what about the extreme transition we see elsewhere, such as between the R-BoP and Warbird, or the D-7 and the K-BoP?

Offline Lieutenant_Q

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1668
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #91 on: November 18, 2008, 01:36:42 pm »
I don't like referring to this as a reboot because obviously some part of this has to take place in the TNG timeline, otherwise where are Nero and Older Spock going to come from?  Nemoy is reprising his role as Ambassador Spock, providing the link between the two.  If we do see this as a reboot, then what are we eliminating?  All of TOS?  All of TOS and TMP?  How far forward are we going?  I really don't want to see a complete re-telling of TOS, TMP, TNG, and DS9.
"Your mighty GDI forces have been emasculated, and you yourself are a killer of children.  Now of course it's not true.  But the world only believes what the media tells them to believe.  And I tell the media what to believe, its really quite simple." - Kane (Joe Kucan) Command & Conquer Tiberium Dawn (1995)

Offline Spartan159

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #92 on: November 18, 2008, 09:01:17 pm »
Without getting involved with the subject at hand, I just have to express my love for MadKoiFish's interpretation. I have *got* to have that for OP. And the next pic?

I have never seen a picture quite so beautiful as that last one.

Amen!

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2091
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #93 on: November 18, 2008, 09:19:04 pm »
the transition from Ent D to Ent E is quite significantly different and yet both styles inhabit overlapping timeframes.

Not really.  For one thing, it is stated that in light of the borg and Dominion threats, the Federation drastically altered its design philosophy so that instead of being ridiculously bloated with non combat related systems like Galaxy class (seriously, the evacuation of the Enterprise D in Generations reminded me of the evacuation scene in spaceballs), the ships were more combat oriented.  Also, the Sovereign Class Enterprise E incorporates many design characteristics which are also included in the contemporary Intrepid Class Voyager.

Offline dragoon

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 759
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #94 on: November 18, 2008, 10:53:27 pm »
I just don't see the relation between the Kelvin and the Enterprise, and I think that more than anything else, is what concerns me with the design.  That and the fact that how the heck are we supposed to get from that, to the TMP Enterprise?
Ya'll still won't even think of this being a reboot, aye?  TOS and TMP connies have nothing to do with this new movie...

and why does it have the name Star Trek 11, it should be named Star Trek reboot than.
and this new movie has only the name Star Trek sticked on it and some ugly kitbash like stuff and some character names from Star Trek in it. to hell with this reboot sh*t, its not worth the name Star Trek because it has not more the visions of Star Trek in it, its a damn stupid action and erotic mix what without the name Star Trek on it no one would even have a look at.

They could call it what they want, but based on the shots and the trailer, I would still watch it. And judging by the views of non-trek savvy people who've seen the trailer, it looks like it interests them too.

Either way, the debate over this film will continue for years. I'm one of those people that will see it, and judge it on it's own merits, and pay no attention to what went before. It doesn't mean I don't like or don't cherish the original.

It's like reading Lord of the Rings, and then going to see the films. They are the same, but there are also real differences that would annoy if you allowed yourself to be caught up in it.
Another example is the BBC show Merlin.... completely inacurate, but then to me, so are all of the stories based off Le Morte De Arthur ( which is most of them ), which was written to give the Norman/English an apparent legitimate reason for their invasion of the British isles and subjugation of the people here. While I don't like English laying claim to Arthur and Merlin, it in no way stops me enjoying films like Excalibur or the BBC's Merlin ( which isn't too bad as it happens ).

I guess if you can't disconnect from the preceding Treks, then there really will be no point in you watching it... but I hope you don't mind if those of us that do plan to see it ignore you?  ;D ;D ;)
God said to the Welsh: 'I am going to give you this glorious land of lakes and mountains.' So where's the catch, asked the Welsh? 'Wait until you see the neighbours,' replied God.

Offline Norsehound

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 578
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #95 on: November 18, 2008, 11:14:50 pm »
Quote
If we do see this as a reboot, then what are we eliminating?

We are eliminating all the nonsensical PC crap that came with TNG, and returning to the awesome that was TOS.

In theory anyway.

Sure it has one sex scene and a questionable design for the Enterprise, but the only thing I'm holding the directors for at this point is delivering the same magic that made TOS awesome. If they fail in this, I'll consider the reboot to have failed (Just as everything since TNG has failed my expectations).

Offline MajorRacal

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 492
  • Gender: Male
    • MajorRacal's Micro Shipyards
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #96 on: November 19, 2008, 01:53:23 am »
For one thing, it is stated that in light of the borg and Dominion threats, the Federation drastically altered its design philosophy so that instead of being ridiculously bloated with non combat related systems like Galaxy class

And proof, that with one sentence you can accept a complete philosophical revision... yet without seeing the new film, there is enough ammunition to dismiss it - strangely hypocritical.

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2091
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #97 on: November 19, 2008, 04:58:52 am »
For one thing, it is stated that in light of the borg and Dominion threats, the Federation drastically altered its design philosophy so that instead of being ridiculously bloated with non combat related systems like Galaxy class

And proof, that with one sentence you can accept a complete philosophical revision... yet without seeing the new film, there is enough ammunition to dismiss it - strangely hypocritical.

I can accept a realistic philosophical revision within the existing cannon.  I can accept that after almost having its entire civilization annihilated by a single cube,  and with even more threats on the horizon, the federation would realistically give combat a higher priority in its starship designs than it previously had.  I dismiss the new film because I have been lied to.  Abrams and co. had previously stated that this was not a reboot, and they were going to be respectful of cannon, this was a lie.  Abrams is someone who smashes icons.  In the past he tried to submit an insane sci-fi martial arts script for the Superman film.  Abrams is not someone who likes Star Trek.  He has described himself as more of a Star Wars child.  His initial teaser was alarming, and the shot of the new uniforms seemed like a poorly researched half-@$$ed attempt to placate me which further insulted me.  I also think the concept of McCoy smuggling a civilian on to the Enterprise's maiden voyage seems kind of stupid. 

Offline MajorRacal

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 492
  • Gender: Male
    • MajorRacal's Micro Shipyards
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #98 on: November 19, 2008, 03:06:35 pm »
If you consider that the Borg have been repeatedly defeated by the crew of a single starship, it undermines the notion that they are such an insurmountable threat that fleets and civilisations should simply fall before them - so I have enough onscreen evidence to question the merit of such a philisophical deviation (which ultimately contradicts Roddenberry's desire to pull away from the militarism of the TMP movies and the FASA material those movies inspired.)  As for other conflicts - it is inferred there have been quite a few within Federation history, yet the Federation ethos doesn't appear to alter drastically to compensate as a result of those.

I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware, Abrahms hasn't claimed or denied that STXI is a reboot - that term seems to have come from elsewhere, probably a fan site - what he did say was that this was an attempt to bring the character of the original series to the current generation with an eye to make it feel more real.  As for Abrahms, as a writer, he is perfectly entitled to interpret what has been before to help deliver his story and his vision.  That is a fundament of the right to freedom of expression and artistic licence (a notion that should be more readily appreciated within a modelling board/modding community than it currently appears to be).  Star Trek may be something we all enjoy (and likely for many divergent reasons), but in the end, it is a platform for someone to tell us a story that will hopefully entertain us.  No platform for telling fiction is immutable - indeed, the entertainment industry takes grotesque liberties when dealling with real life events, usually without so much as a whisper of complaint.  As a media consumer, you are entitled not to appreciate his vision, but you can't legitimately dismiss it without taking the time to examine it for yourself thereby making a fully informed judgement.

As for his take on Superman, I have never seen anything relating to it, so cannot pass comment, and truth be told, Superman doesn't hold much fascination for me anyway (I quite like Smallville, but I've never been a fan of the comics, and I haven't enjoyed any of the films after Superman II).

Incidentally, I'd describe myself as more of a "Star Wars Child" - as a child of the time, it was far more engaging to me than stories like "Who Mourns for Adonais", "And the Children Shall Lead" or the omelette terror "Operation: Annihilate", that doesn't mean I don't like or can never trully appreciate Trek (or Doctor Who, or Farscape, or Blake's 7, or Space 1999... or any of the other sci-fi and telefantasy shows that fill my very extensive and ever expanding DVD collection and wish list).

Going back to the model of the Enterprise - it is recognisably a Federation hull - it has all the same basic components as the other Enterprises, so the community abreaction feels completely disprportionate to me.  She may not win many beauty contests, but depending on your aestheic preferences, the same can be said for all the other versions out there and even those fanships people have suggested as preferable alternatives.  In case anyone's actually interested, the TMP version is still my favourite.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 03:27:15 pm by MajorRacal »

Offline OlBuzzard

  • renegade
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1759
  • Gender: Male
Re: Trek 11 Enterprise
« Reply #99 on: November 19, 2008, 04:20:21 pm »
It warms my heart to see that picture. 

I couldn't agree more. 

i have supported ideas (such as the NX-01) that was developed because it did at least favor a precursor to the NCC-1701 TOS.  Unless they find a way to redo this monstrosity to resemble some thing like the ship on the right  (IMHO is 10 times a better concept than the trash on the right) ...   Paramount is about to distance themselves from a LOT of folks.

Kinda sad really.  To have waited so long .. only to see this.

BTW...  I totally understand their "rights" to make things change as they so desire .. it is after all the ownership and "rights" as such to do so.  I had hoped for a little more respect for the Roddenberrys work.
If you aim at nothing:  you WILL hit it every time !