Dynaverse.net
Taldrenites => Starfleet Command Models => Topic started by: Norsehound on November 11, 2008, 06:04:04 pm
-
Looks like it's finally shown it's face...
(http://popwatch.ew.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/11/enterprise579_l.jpg)
:\
-
And if that is it...
Then its a pitty too. So many ships that I have seen on Sci-fi Meshes and elsewhere look so much better. That secondary hull is just wrong for a TOS or Pre-TOS era.
-
If this is legit, I'm hoping this is the result of some Romulan sneezing into the time portal and not meant to be "the" Enterprise, pre-pre-pre-refit. If that's the case, they could've just slapped a new coat of paint to the original and saved us all the effort of rolling our eyes.
The ship itself looks shiny and there are design elements I like but as the Big-E flying through space, pissing off the Klingons? No.
-
The source is here (http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/11/star-trek-first.html?xid=rss-popwatch-%27Star%20Trek%27:%20An%20exclusive%20first%20look%20at%20the%20Enterprise), for whatever it's worth.
Not too impressed with the design either. Looks like they're trying to convey 'Retro' across the board, from interior design to the final shape of the big E.
-
Oh brother. Why, oh, why do these non-Trek fans keep getting put in charge of Trek projects? It always leads directly to some idiot taking liberties that they shouldn't. This new ship (I refuse to call it Enterprise, because it doesn't deserve the name) is a joke. They clearly tried to meld TOS & TMP into one ship. The bridge set is pathetic, the uniforms are sad copies of the originals. The actors (with the exception of Urban, Pegg, and Bana) are simply too young, or young looking. It all looks like a cartoon. I don't know why I feel insulted by what I'm seeing, it's really not a big deal, yet I do. I suppose I need to chill out.
-
Works fer me 8)
-
Altho there are a few traits I like about this ship, the guy who did this design needs to be shot for being aesthetically deaf.
-
I think the biggest issue I take with the design is the secondary hull's position in relation to everything else.
The nacelle connections look like they happen right at the end of the Secondary Hull cylinder, letting the excess jut out ahead of the ship's neck. If they moved these back some, I don't think I'd feel as odd about the design as I do now.
Maybe they did it for shock value with the fans? Ah well.
-
Well, that's it. We Trek fans had a good run. I'm just so sad to see them murder Trek like this.
We can always revolt. Storm Paramount Pictures and take hostages or do something.
-
Maybe by saying this, i'll get classed as a "non-fan", but I really like this design.
Everything i've seen of this film gives me tingles of excitement, and seeing the new E, just ups that feeling even more.
I think she is a real beauty, and I look forward to seeing the new trailer this weekend. Sadly, because the UK has already had the release of the new Bond, I don't think i'll see this trailer on the big screen, Unless of course they put the trailer as a lead in to Zak and Miri make porno. ;D
I hope someone on these forums choose to make a model of this ship soon.
-
I like it :thumbsup: I see it being a good target for some Romulans and all that is left is the saucer for the Tos series refit. :D
-
Do the textures on the saucer section seem not to quite match those on the secondary hull, as if it was a kitbash of some sort, and they didn't adjust the textures? I have to say I'm not a fan of this look, and just when I was startin' to get a little excitement goin' for the series. oh, well.
-
All I know is that I will not eat anything before going into the theater, except maybe a bottle of Tums' anti-acid tablets. Because when this comes arcoss the big screen I am sure the other ppl in the audience will appericate it.
-
I like it :thumbsup: I see it being a good target for some Romulans and all that is left is the saucer for the Tos series refit. :D
You know what?? You're right.
-
Maybe by saying this, i'll get classed as a "non-fan", but I really like this design.
Everything i've seen of this film gives me tingles of excitement, and seeing the new E, just ups that feeling even more.
I think she is a real beauty, and I look forward to seeing the new trailer this weekend. Sadly, because the UK has already had the release of the new Bond, I don't think i'll see this trailer on the big screen, Unless of course they put the trailer as a lead in to Zak and Miri make porno. ;D
I hope someone on these forums choose to make a model of this ship soon.
I think you just lost your Star Trek Fan badge. :P
-
I can understand folks disliking the obvious continuity disconnect portrayed by the design, but I'm a little irked with folks who form the bad movie presumption daisy chain solely on aesthetics. Reeks too much of the folks who expected an epic fail from Daniel Craig as Bond on the basis of his hair color, I guess.
That said, I admit that the fan community (particularly Gabe Koerner) has produced visions that are not only more to my liking, but make better sense for the time period, reboot or not. Though I've taken the line that the TOS aesthetic ought to adopt a cruder, more industrial character to reflect the human race's relative newness to shipbuilding, I've also never bought the extent to which the TOS Enterprise transformed into her TMP dubs. I've always felt that there was a step or two missing, and some of the elements of this ship satisfy this opinion. Yet I'm little perturbed by the inexplicable lack of grace demonstrated by the whole collaboration. Romantically nor functionally beautiful, it's just there in this particular shot. And I don't want the Enterprise to evoke such an indifferent response from me.
-
Those nacelles look like they're off of a '57 Oldsmobile.
-
I can understand folks disliking the obvious continuity disconnect portrayed by the design, but I'm a little irked with folks who form the bad movie presumption daisy chain solely on aesthetics. Reeks too much of the folks who expected an epic fail from Daniel Craig as Bond on the basis of his hair color, I guess.
That said, I admit that the fan community (particularly Gabe Koerner) has produced visions that are not only more to my liking, but make better sense for the time period, reboot or not. Though I've taken the line that the TOS aesthetic ought to adopt a cruder, more industrial character to reflect the human race's relative newness to shipbuilding, I've also never bought the extent to which the TOS Enterprise transformed into her TMP dubs. I've always felt that there was a step or two missing, and some of the elements of this ship satisfy this opinion. Yet I'm little perturbed by the inexplicable lack of grace demonstrated by the whole collaboration. Romantically nor functionally beautiful, it's just there in this particular shot. And I don't want the Enterprise to evoke such an indifferent response from me.
The "upgrade" from the TOS Constitution class Enterprise wasn't just an upgrade... it was a complete overhaul. Big E had been in space some 20 years by that time (4 5 years, yes?), and the technical manuals specifically state that almost everything, besides the main load bearing members and hull frames were replaced and expanded.
The Constitution was the workhorse of a Federation just coming out of a war with the Romulans. The Enteprise class of TMP was the drafting of the latest and greatest onto a design frame 20 years + old.
While I am actually pretty okay with the casting and what-not, this design does irk me. It's just doesn't *look* right.
Regards,
-
:o wtf is that?
they call it enterprise or constitution class?
the one who made it and those who approve it should be send to the moon.
this scrap is not the original enterprise, the NX-01 was better looking that this ship, and they could have made it white instead of chrome.
-
Okay, I don't like it, but I'm going to try something new that maybe you other fans don't quite get...
I'M NOT GONNA JUDGE UNTIL I SEE THE MOVIE! -___-... everyone is so ready to crucify jj abrams because of 4 spoiler images... my god people, doesn't this SOUND insane?!?
First off, I think JJ Abrams is a brave man for even attempting it. Star Trek fans are so picky and particular. They are NEVER happy. No matter what you do, you will chased by a mob with torches. Second, Trek fans don't seem to understand ARTISTIC LICENSE It's a new director. radical, maybe, but still, let him at least try. When nick myers came on after TMP to do TWoK, look at how different it was, and it worked out well. Third, its been 40 years since someone has touched the TOS era, of COURSE they are going to update it. Fourth, stop preventing people from sacrificing consistancy and accuracy and continuity for a good story. Arthur Conan Doyle wrote all sorts of sherlock holmes stories and there were GLARING inconsistancies... WHO CARES... does this stop it from being a good story?
and those are my problems with the average trekkie... Trekkies/Trekkers make me embarrassed to be a Star Trek Fan....
-
Do the textures on the saucer section seem not to quite match those on the secondary hull, as if it was a kitbash of some sort, and they didn't adjust the textures? I have to say I'm not a fan of this look, and just when I was startin' to get a little excitement goin' for the series. oh, well.
It looks like a friggen kitbash of the 1701-A saucer. Someone needs to be hung for this...
-
Okay, I don't like it, but I'm going to try something new that maybe you other fans don't quite get...
I'M NOT GONNA JUDGE UNTIL I SEE THE MOVIE! -___-... everyone is so ready to crucify jj abrams because of 4 spoiler images... my god people, doesn't this SOUND insane?!?
First off, I think JJ Abrams is a brave man for even attempting it. Star Trek fans are so picky and particular. They are NEVER happy. No matter what you do, you will chased by a mob with torches. Second, Trek fans don't seem to understand ARTISTIC LICENSE It's a new director. radical, maybe, but still, let him at least try. When nick myers came on after TMP to do TWoK, look at how different it was, and it worked out well. Third, its been 40 years since someone has touched the TOS era, of COURSE they are going to update it. Fourth, stop preventing people from sacrificing consistancy and accuracy and continuity for a good story. Arthur Conan Doyle wrote all sorts of sherlock holmes stories and there were GLARING inconsistancies... WHO CARES... does this stop it from being a good story?
and those are my problems with the average trekkie... Trekkies/Trekkers make me embarrassed to be a Star Trek Fan....
[SNIP] Someone needs to be hung for this...
-sigh- my case and point made manifest.
-
I could deal with the new bridge sets. Did I like them, not really, but I could deal with them.
The uniforms, I liked them. They remind me of how Bryan Singer changed and revamped the Superman costume for Superman Returns, but not to the same degree. The uniforms for the new movie were more simple in change, tasteful. Noticeable, but tasteful.
Spock showing more primal emotion, as indicated in one of the stills from the movie, is actually pretty good. He's half human, and on top of that all of Trek lore establishes that Vulcans do have emotions but choose to suppress them. And there is also indication that Vulcans actually have more powerful emotions than humans. So having Spock show those emotions is somewhat a risque movie, but probably a wise one. In the original pilot, you see Spock acting more like his crewmates, as opposed to the opposite which became the standard of how he presented himself.
But the ship and how drastically they changed it, that's a pill that will prove nearly impossible, if not truly impossible, to swallow. More than likely, yes, it'll kill the film before it even opens.
Just certain things you don't change to a large degree, and the TOS Enterprise is one of them.
-
You know, three years ago, when they came out with the new BSG, I was livid. BSG might not have been a top-of the line program, but it had a large following, and many of the old fans felt screwed by what Ronald Moore did. I remember saying back then, if you let them do this to a second rate program, whats to stop them from doing it to Star Trek? The response I got from almost everyone, was, "They wouldn't dare do that to Star Trek."
Well, they did.
As badly as they butchered the original premise of BSG, I really hope they didn't go that far in ST:XI, but its not looking hopeful.
Unlike the new BSG, however, I am NOT giving this any more of a chance. Some of you may see that as narrow minded, but I refuse to pay to see this, I'm not letting them say, "yeah, it sucked, but look at how much money we made in the box office, just goes to show you that Trek fans will watch anything with the Trek name on it." As Picard said, "the line must be drawn..." I'm choosing to draw it here.
-
[SNIP] As Picard said, "the line must be drawn..." I'm choosing to draw it here.
Oh dear god. It's a movie, not king and country or a way of life.
-
You know, three years ago, when they came out with the new BSG, I was livid. BSG might not have been a top-of the line program, but it had a large following, and many of the old fans felt screwed by what Ronald Moore did. I remember saying back then, if you let them do this to a second rate program, whats to stop them from doing it to Star Trek? The response I got from almost everyone, was, "They wouldn't dare do that to Star Trek."
Well, they did.
As badly as they butchered the original premise of BSG, I really hope they didn't go that far in ST:XI, but its not looking hopeful.
Unlike the new BSG, however, I am NOT giving this any more of a chance. Some of you may see that as narrow minded, but I refuse to pay to see this, I'm not letting them say, "yeah, it sucked, but look at how much money we made in the box office, just goes to show you that Trek fans will watch anything with the Trek name on it." As Picard said, "the line must be drawn..." I'm choosing to draw it here.
I personally never saw the original or the reimagined BSG, so I cannot comment on it, and will take your word for it.
You know, I saw Of Gods And Men again a little over a month ago when it was shown in a theater over in Beverly Hills, and most of the cast and crew where there. Hell, I was sitting several chairs away from Nichelle Nichols, and Walter Koening was pacing back and forth behind me throughout the last half of the film.
The CGI effects weren't the best, but you can tell that all the minds behind the project spent a great deal of time to try and stay true to Trek, while still giving us a new story to enjoy.
-
Okay, I don't like it, but I'm going to try something new that maybe you other fans don't quite get...
I'M NOT GONNA JUDGE UNTIL I SEE THE MOVIE! -___-... everyone is so ready to crucify jj abrams because of 4 spoiler images... my god people, doesn't this SOUND insane?!?
First off, I think JJ Abrams is a brave man for even attempting it. Star Trek fans are so picky and particular. They are NEVER happy. No matter what you do, you will chased by a mob with torches. Second, Trek fans don't seem to understand ARTISTIC LICENSE It's a new director. radical, maybe, but still, let him at least try. When nick myers came on after TMP to do TWoK, look at how different it was, and it worked out well. Third, its been 40 years since someone has touched the TOS era, of COURSE they are going to update it. Fourth, stop preventing people from sacrificing consistancy and accuracy and continuity for a good story. Arthur Conan Doyle wrote all sorts of sherlock holmes stories and there were GLARING inconsistancies... WHO CARES... does this stop it from being a good story?
and those are my problems with the average trekkie... Trekkies/Trekkers make me embarrassed to be a Star Trek Fan....
The main issue with this statement is that there really was little difference between TMP and TWOK. There was supposed to be five years between the two movies, and really TWOK brought the main screen a little bit closer to SFB, which really wasn't a bad thing, since a lot of the Star Trek Following at the time were SFB fans.
It doesn't sound insane at all, its a logical and rational response to radical changes made to something that has dominated much of our lives. Even if you're the type of fan who has only seen every episode once, and every movie, once. You have spent a full month (comes out to about 31.4 days) of your life watching Star Trek, I really doubt that many of us here have seen each episode and movie only once. That's not even counting the time we have spent in Trek inspired games. I would say, conservatively, I have spent nearly two years of my life, watching, playing, writing, or even play acting, Star Trek. And I'm only 28, I wasn't old enough to see the originals in their heyday. I wasn't old enough to watch the originals on re-runs through the 70s. I really wasn't even old enough to watch the first couple of seasons of TNG when they first aired.
-
...really TWOK brought the main screen a little bit closer to SFB, which really wasn't a bad thing, since a lot of the Star Trek Following at the time were SFB fans.
I'd have to respectfully but vehemently disagree on THAT - SFB fans have always been sub-sub-section of Trekkies, and as a fan since '69 and a SFB player since '80, I've often been dismayed at the version of Trek that the people at ADB have (I won't give them another dime, and haven't since 2000 - that's why I play SFC). But back to this thread...
The image of the "Enterprise" above is just like everything else about Abrams Trek - things (and people) are pretty and shiny, some fo the fans like it, but it's alienating the other half of the core audience. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is saying "whatever". The pictures of the new Bridge, the descriptions of the trailer, the casting... and even if it is a "decent or better" film, it probably won't be able to compete for long next summer. Based on the divisiveness of the fans over this, they're going to have problems making some $$ over this.
-
I keep wanting to push that secondary hull back in relation to the rest of the ship. I don't like the underbite look of the deflector, and aft ventral portion of the secondary hull should have a sharp concave profile to it. The buzzards are sniffing the back of the saucer. The saucer is way too thick. The secondary hull is too small and the cut-aways around the deflector should be more pronounced. Overall, the design should be more utilitarian reflecting the technological limitations of the time period. If the design is to be streamlined, it should be so to conform to warp field geometry instead of the shape of a 1950's Buick. I was pretty content with the screen shots up to this point, but this might just ruin it for me. A sign of the times I suppose.
-
[SNIP] As Picard said, "the line must be drawn..." I'm choosing to draw it here.
Oh dear god. It's a movie, not king and country or a way of life.
Don't worry, FoS. We're just venting. I'll most likely go and see this movie, but my expectations are low. But you're right, it's hardly going to be the end of the world if it does suck. I guess I just would like to see the franchise lead by someone who is an actual fan, like all of us.
-
Unlike the new BSG, however, I am NOT giving this any more of a chance.
If you're willing to give Moore's butchered BSG a chance, then you should be able to take the worst of what Abrams gives out.
Aesthetics aside, if Abrams turns the action/adventure Trek into looping conspiracy theories and "Nitty Gritty Realism", complete with nauseating shakycam, then we'll know he went the same "successful route" that RDM went, and I'll consider it a failed film. Then again most nBSG fans would probably like it for those reasons above *Shrug*.
I just hope the era of 'the story must be a PC message' is over and instead we go back to the days of TOS: Weird encounters with things we can't understand, Godlike beings to which we are nothing but ants, and menacing empires poised to destroy the Federation.
-
That's an interesting point of view, FW. I hadn't thought of it that way. I don't think I fully agree, but you've given me something to think about.
-
If that is the new Enterprise it is fugly. They should have taken the model of the Defiant from ST:E...
-
Unlike the new BSG, however, I am NOT giving this any more of a chance.
If you're willing to give Moore's butchered BSG a chance, then you should be able to take the worst of what Abrams gives out.
The one difference between this and Moore's BSG, it didn't cost me a dime to watch the mini-series. I'm not shelling out 10 bucks to see this.
-
Unlike the new BSG, however, I am NOT giving this any more of a chance.
If you're willing to give Moore's butchered BSG a chance, then you should be able to take the worst of what Abrams gives out.
The one difference between this and Moore's BSG, it didn't cost me a dime to watch the mini-series. I'm not shelling out 10 bucks to see this.
Would you shell out 10 bucks to send a flaming paper bag onto JJ's door step? ;D
-
*prepares to duck*
I actually like this Enterprise... thinking in terms of a 'reboot', TOS was made when computers were large and slow, now technology has improved and I believe this Enterprise reflects that... given the design is very different from standard Federation ships, I still like it... It's very alien, especially the engineering section.
As for the buzzards sniffing the saucer, observe:
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/d/d3/Star_Trek_XI_Ent_composite.JPG)
They are as high as the original Enterprise's were, perhaps it's the angle of the shot that's throwing everyone off...
P.S. I think I read somewhere that this hating was the same reaction fans had to the Enterprise-D...
-
I'm doing to this movie the same thing that I did to the neo-bsg series. Seperate it. It has nothing to do with the old star trek except the general concept. Has nothing to do with the continuity of the current franchise out there.
-
Indeed, it's no different from the many different continuities of the transformers franchise. Though it's a first for one of the "Big" Sci-fi universes to do it in a Television format.
Though the question remains: Will it be good? I haven't seen Lost or Cloverfield, but from what I know of those premises I can't say I'm confident. I want more action and less head-crunching mystery.
-
I was reminded earlier that the only movie Abrams actually directed was M:I III. Everything else he did was produce and write. Now, I love "Lost," but he doesn't have enough on his resume to reassure me...
-
Silly people, I think they forgot to add in some details.
Here, I'll be nice and correct them for them. :)
-
The secondary hull fix is ok- but where's the shuttlebay?
I think the nacelles are cool on their own. Were I a kitbasher, I'd be experimenting with them as alternative Phase-II engines.
-
Tis ugly.
-
You know...
I think by now, you guys should know how I feel about Trek in all its incarnations, and how I feel about new ideas in general.
that being said... I have never felt, what I feel now, and that is disappointment and shame. I have never felt That being a Trek fan would lump me with a group of the most close-minded people in the world. I mean, Trek in any and all of its incarnations have always been about acceptence, and embracing of diverisity in all its forms. It was, in a lot of ways Anti-Canonization.
Yet all we do is bitch about BS. Its really all just silly.
How about, we not bash something until we have experienced it. Is it really that hard?
I mean just WTF does the IDIC stand for?
I dunno, and on top of that, I don't really want to know, if it means me becoming a closed-minded person to new possibilities.
Now, if some of you take offence at this then fine, I appologize , but I am offended to read all these negative comments and prejudices about something that isn't even out yet.
Think about that.
-
Silly people, I think they forgot to add in some details.
Here, I'll be nice and correct them for them. :)
what's the red dot beside the deflector dish?
and just over the dish on the neck its look like a torpedo tube no?
-
You know...
I think by now, you guys should know how I feel about Trek in all its incarnations, and how I feel about new ideas in general.
that being said... I have never felt, what I feel now, and that is disappointment and shame. I have never felt That being a Trek fan would lump me with a group of the most close-minded people in the world. I mean, Trek in any and all of its incarnations have always been about acceptence, and embracing of diverisity in all its forms. It was, in a lot of ways Anti-Canonization.
Yet all we do is bitch about BS. Its really all just silly.
How about, we not bash something until we have experienced it. Is it really that hard?
I mean just WTF does the IDIC stand for?
I dunno, and on top of that, I don't really want to know, if it means me becoming a closed-minded person to new possibilities.
Now, if some of you take offence at this then fine, I appologize , but I am offended to read all these negative comments and prejudices about something that isn't even out yet.
Think about that.
Open minded is liking Enterprise even with its faults. Accepting this new ship as Kirk's Enterprise, no way.
*shudders*
Also, remember, open minded is a matter of perspective.
Think about that.
-
Also, remember, open minded is a matter of perspective.
Think about that.
But... one would have to be open minded to begin with in order to try to think of open mindedness as being a matter of perspective...
I think I just blew a fuse... :drool:
-
Also, remember, open minded is a matter of perspective.
Think about that.
But... one would have to be open minded to begin with in order to try to think of open mindedness as being a matter of perspective...
I think I just blew a fuse... :drool:
And because I hate JJ's Bastard-prise makes me closed minded? *opens Greenvalv's head and looks for the burnt out fuse and then replaces it with a Die Hard fuse*
-
My previous post wasn't direct directly at you Greenvalv, so in case you felt that way, I apologize. :)
-
You know...
I think by now, you guys should know how I feel about Trek in all its incarnations, and how I feel about new ideas in general.
that being said... I have never felt, what I feel now, and that is disappointment and shame. I have never felt That being a Trek fan would lump me with a group of the most close-minded people in the world. I mean, Trek in any and all of its incarnations have always been about acceptence, and embracing of diverisity in all its forms. It was, in a lot of ways Anti-Canonization.
Yet all we do is bitch about BS. Its really all just silly.
How about, we not bash something until we have experienced it. Is it really that hard?
I mean just WTF does the IDIC stand for?
I dunno, and on top of that, I don't really want to know, if it means me becoming a closed-minded person to new possibilities.
Now, if some of you take offence at this then fine, I appologize , but I am offended to read all these negative comments and prejudices about something that isn't even out yet.
Think about that.
I agree Atolm.
It's not wanting to have the stigma of being classed as that kind of fan, that I don't say I like Trek. I can proudly show my NuBSG tattoo off, and talk of my unhealthy enjoyment of that show, but Trek.......
The die-hards can have their 700 hours+, and I'll always share my appreciation of that time with them, but i'll also have any extra hours of Trek that comes from the result of this film too.
From what I can tell, this film is making an effort to follow the positive message of Trek. And in the world we have at the moment, and the dark cinema and TV we've had to live with the last few years, I am looking forward to a more positive experience. All of the Canon etc, I'm happy to see that discarded... The male characters are still male, and the women are still women, they still have the same names, and are generally the same racial/nationality ( Sulu not included I guess )... That's good enough for me at this point.
I equate this whole thing with the uproar people had about Daniel Craig and Casino Royale... people spat venom at him and the film. Then it turned out to be bloody good, and DC is now my favourite Bond. I think things will go the same with this.
As a side note.. George Takai is appearing on a reality show her in the UK starting next week called I'm a celebrity get me out of here.... and all of the media about the contestants starts talking of him and his Trek relations... and from those mentions, they then talk about JJ's Trek. So in the UK at least, it's getting some positive coverage across the board... It's even making BBC take notice.
-
You know...
I think by now, you guys should know how I feel about Trek in all its incarnations, and how I feel about new ideas in general.
that being said... I have never felt, what I feel now, and that is disappointment and shame. I have never felt That being a Trek fan would lump me with a group of the most close-minded people in the world. I mean, Trek in any and all of its incarnations have always been about acceptence, and embracing of diverisity in all its forms. It was, in a lot of ways Anti-Canonization.
Yet all we do is bitch about BS. Its really all just silly.
How about, we not bash something until we have experienced it. Is it really that hard?
I mean just WTF does the IDIC stand for?
I dunno, and on top of that, I don't really want to know, if it means me becoming a closed-minded person to new possibilities.
Now, if some of you take offence at this then fine, I appologize , but I am offended to read all these negative comments and prejudices about something that isn't even out yet.
Think about that.
LOL
Why would I take offense to someone who is expressing their opinion?
Either way it goes I don't care about the movie the script or anything like that, I just think it is a ugly looking ship. Thats it plain and simple does it effect anything else, nope, at least not to me. I just think they could have done better as we have all seen better looking ships out there on the net. The Enterprise version looked fine and they should have gone with something inbetween it and the TOS one. The one they have there doesn't really fit for the look it has, this one looks like the TMP and TNG Enterprises were humping and the gene pool was a little to close, probably closer than the banjo kid in Deliverance.
They should have broken away completely, or done a better job for the ship design.
-
I still say the fans are the reason trek has become how it is. ship has some nice touches but it doesn't stop the fact that all the moaning about canon caused this to happen
I have to disagree on this one. Trek is what it is not because of the fans, but because after 32 days of material, they really have run out of material to put forth. But there has been other things to explore, its just that those in charge aren't willing to explore it, but they are more than willing to rehash the old tired plots. Look at Nemesis, the idea was basically to steal items from the most popular trek movie out there, TWoK. But it wasn't done very well, and since there was no history between Picard and Shinzon, baring that they were really the same person, it seemed forced on the screen. Not like Kirk and Khan at all.
DS9 was so successful, in my mind, because it explored, in depth, another culture. Bajor, and its relations to the Cardassians. How many of us would love to see Star Trek: Klingon, or Star Trek: Romulan. A series that focused entirely on that culture in Star Trek. The Klingon would be easier to do, since a lot of the Klingon back story already exists, as it was covered extensively in TNG and DS9. But the Romulan would be a fresh new perspective. You could rehash some of the same old plot lines because the Romulans, or Klingons, would resolve the problem differently, sometimes the resolution is just as important as the problem. All it would take is a bit of creativity, and I think the show would be a success, certainly better than trying to "re-boot" the franchise.
-
You know...
I think by now, you guys should know how I feel about Trek in all its incarnations, and how I feel about new ideas in general.
that being said... I have never felt, what I feel now, and that is disappointment and shame. I have never felt That being a Trek fan would lump me with a group of the most close-minded people in the world. I mean, Trek in any and all of its incarnations have always been about acceptence, and embracing of diverisity in all its forms. It was, in a lot of ways Anti-Canonization.
Yet all we do is bitch about BS. Its really all just silly.
How about, we not bash something until we have experienced it. Is it really that hard?
I mean just WTF does the IDIC stand for?
I dunno, and on top of that, I don't really want to know, if it means me becoming a closed-minded person to new possibilities.
Now, if some of you take offence at this then fine, I appologize , but I am offended to read all these negative comments and prejudices about something that isn't even out yet.
Think about that.
Embracing diversity doesn't mean loving everything just because it exists. One has every right to say, "that isn't Trek." If you diverge too far from the established aesthetic, then it really isn't Star Trek anymore. It's a new thing that is at best inspired by Star Trek. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, but you should own up to what it is and isn't. It isn't closed minded to ask that the established look and themes of Star Trek be respected.
I think what most people are upset about isn't that the design itself is awful, but that it is supposed to be the Enterprise. Strangely Abrams himself summed it up well: "If you're going to do Star Trek there are many things you cannot change. The Enterprise is a visual touchstone for so many people. So if you’re going to do the Enterprise, it better look like the Enterprise, because otherwise, what are you doing?"
There's nothing wrong with creating new ships and new technologies. In fact it would be sad if science fiction in general were limited to the established canon of a few franchises. This might be a great sci- movie, with a fun story and beautiful ships, but so far it doesn't look like Star Trek. If Abrams wanted to create a really novel aesthetic and original characters, then he should have made a completely original story with no connection to Star Trek. I would welcome a new sci- universe to learn about. But Star Trek holds a special place in my heart. Changing key elements just to be new feels like a betrayal.
-
We all knew a "Re-Boot" was coming. They tried to reboot trek with Enterprise, and it failed. Not because of the "Akiraprise". I happen to like the design but it didnt fit the era. Not for the fact that established canon was dismissed. It was supposed to be a re-boot remember?. Enterprise died from Bad writing, inept story telling, and cardboard cutout acting. Something the other shows for the most part did not suffer from. Manny Coto made a very valiant effort trying to revive Enterprise, but it was already too late. I could have accepted Enterprise as a reboot if it was made known that it was in fact a reboot.
I happened to like the new BSG. It IMHO is the way a reboot should be done. Very imaginative. Excellent storytelling, Excellent acting, and a nice twist to what we already knew from the original show.
Trek XI should be viewed like the BSG of trek. Young minds new ideas. Who knows the movie itself might turn out to be good. I am going to give it a chance.....
However i do not agree with this new Enterprise design. It totally threw me in shock. It looks nothing like the old girl at all.
Probably as much as the new Galactica looked only somewhat like the old. Same with the new TOS 1701. This enterprise looks just like a "downgrade" of the TMP ship. Now i agree to avoid the "cigar" style nacelles, but this nacelle design is a little too drastic. The secondary hull looks almost like the phase 2 concept model. I was a big advocate of "improving" the old TOS ship, but this is NOT quite what i had in mind. Then again this movie IS a Re-boot. Despite what JJ is saying this movie is all about re-inventing trek. It is not a bad design. Just for those of us that are used to seeing the original jefferies design this "new" ship is just a little hard to swallow.
Maybe if i saw the ship from different angles I can come to agree with it more, and from what i read the perspective in this view is very bad. Still i dont know. Like i said i am going to give the movie a chance like i did BSG. Who knows.
-
I will say this if this is indeed the ship as it was revealed to me on STG by one of our staff.I hope it get destroyed.I made a thread about this in the Holodeck.
-
I'm just curious, does anyone know who did the model? It does look like another reboot of Gabe's, to me. What does anyone else think?
(http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=163383952.0;id=16837)
-
We all knew a "Re-Boot" was coming. They tried to reboot trek with Enterprise, and it failed. Not because of the "Akiraprise". I happen to like the design but it didnt fit the era. Not for the fact that established canon was dismissed. It was supposed to be a re-boot remember?. Enterprise died from Bad writing, inept story telling, and cardboard cutout acting. Something the other shows for the most part did not suffer from. Manny Coto made a very valiant effort trying to revive Enterprise, but it was already too late. I could have accepted Enterprise as a reboot if it was made known that it was in fact a reboot.
I happened to like the new BSG. It IMHO is the way a reboot should be done. Very imaginative. Excellent storytelling, Excellent acting, and a nice twist to what we already knew from the original show.
Trek XI should be viewed like the BSG of trek. Young minds new ideas. Who knows the movie itself might turn out to be good. I am going to give it a chance.....
However i do not agree with this new Enterprise design. It totally threw me in shock. It looks nothing like the old girl at all.
Probably as much as the new Galactica looked only somewhat like the old. Same with the new TOS 1701. This enterprise looks just like a "downgrade" of the TMP ship. Now i agree to avoid the "cigar" style nacelles, but this nacelle design is a little too drastic. The secondary hull looks almost like the phase 2 concept model. I was a big advocate of "improving" the old TOS ship, but this is NOT quite what i had in mind. Then again this movie IS a Re-boot. Despite what JJ is saying this movie is all about re-inventing trek. It is not a bad design. Just for those of us that are used to seeing the original jefferies design this "new" ship is just a little hard to swallow.
Maybe if i saw the ship from different angles I can come to agree with it more, and from what i read the perspective in this view is very bad. Still i dont know. Like i said i am going to give the movie a chance like i did BSG. Who knows.
Going by your anaolgy
Original Battlestar Galactica (1979)
(http://users.zipworld.com.au/~rmills/images/80s_Images/Battlestar_Galactica.jpg)
New Battlestar Galactica (2004)
(http://www.thespaceships.com/img/the-battlestar.jpg)
As you can see, they kept the design of the ship almost identical, with a few changes on the surface of the hull.. Plus they didn't try to bump this off as a Prequil.. it was supposedly " Everything that is happening now has happened before and will happen again", in orhtwords,, history repeating itself (reincarnation theory of the Cylons playing out.. they even had the Original Viper Fighter and Original Cylons in the show).
This new trek is just a bastardation re-write of established canon.. Ship and Crew first (since when did Kirk take the Enterprise out of space dock in his junior year when Captain Robert April is the one who was supposedly to launch the Enterprise?)
example..
TOS Enterprise
(http://nerdvana.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/09/enterprise_classic.jpg)
and it is supposedly to have been originally built as
(http://popwatch.ew.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/11/enterprise579_l.jpg)
That just doesn't add up.. How can a ship with TMP Navagational Deflector devolve into a TOS style ship with the gold Navagational Deflector?
I mean please.. this is a total re-write or the 40 year trek history that we have all come to love.
-
the saucer look like its from startrek the motion pictures.
the secondary hull look like a merge of the tmp enterprise plus a galaxy class.
maybe they are trying to make a pre startrek 1 after tos and screw up.
bad ship, paramount are trying to revive startrek after killing it with the last episode of enterprise.
-
here something funny i found http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8B1GNCSfX0
-
I'm just curious, does anyone know who did the model? It does look like another reboot of Gabe's, to me. What does anyone else think?
([url]http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=163383952.0;id=16837[/url])
I think that you're linked to my "correction". ;)
You're pointing to this one..
(http://popwatch.ew.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/11/11/enterprise579_l.jpg)
I don't know, I think that Gabe's looks better (personally).. this one looks more like what happens when you have some people in a room trying to design an update, and then pass it by for review past someone who never saw TOS, only TMP.
("What's with that gold satellite dish on the front? The front should be all blue-glowy! Do it again!")
I have two major problems with this design.. the front deflector assembly and the blue lit strips on the nacelles. If they'd cut that front solid section in half, and then bring everything abck, that'd help that out.. but those blue lit strips in a swoosh on the nacelle make no sense. Are they supposed to serve a purpose, or are they just bling lighting? "TOS Enterprise, lets pimp yer riiide!" :p
-
The main reason for the comments were simple:
The lack of respect towards the work involved in designing the ship. Now I didn't say love anything...I said that things should be tollerated as for what they are.
And using a bridge pic, or a ship pic to discredit a whole film project is silly. That has been the trend as of late. Regardless if this is infact a reboot or not, it IS STAR TREK. nothing you or I or anyone can say will change that. Oh sure, as I have said many times before, people make trek to what THEY WANT IT TO BE, not what it is. There is nothing wrong with that. But I am ashamed at the venomous statements that have been made involving not just this film, but the franchise as a whole. I really hated voyager, But it still is STAR TREK. And I respect the time and effort that it took to do what they did. I Strongly dislike the Sovie, but I'll never say it "sucks" and be serious about it. That's what I am talking about.
If you don't like the ship, fine, that's your perogative, but the lack off respect ("Bastard-prise" comes readily to mind). I mean for Pete's sake, Trek fans fight over BS like it was a religion trying to discredit another one.
It's easy to say, "screw it, its going to suck", without even giving it a chance.
There can be a lot of good from this endeavor, but we'll never know if we don't see it for ourselves. That's what I am talking about.
Take the time, have the patience, don't take someone elses word (mine most of all...lol), wait and see for yourself.
BSG, Bond, I mean cripes, is it really that important, as to just hate something, be cause of how it looks?
BSG change stuff way more than the original, but it still is a great show. To me it will not be the original, but that was never the point of it. Capt_Pestalence_XC posted a comparason shot of the TOS Galactica and the New one, and that only prooves to support how different, yet superficially similar they actually are. The New Enterprise draws an even closer comparason to the TOS one than the two Gals of BSG, how funny is that.
With this new Trek movie, it is supposed to be a fresh new take on an old Ideal. It is bound to piss all of us off to some degree or another, but you know what, I'll wait to be pissed off, when the flic comes out.
You will always have TOS, its not going anywhere... But make room for the new TOS-Era Flic, that is based on technology, and style that is very much today, the 21st Century.
I personally love the ship design (mainly-as I joked with WZ about- because it doesn't look like it ripped-off any of my design details... ::) ), There are some rough pointsa to the design, in my oppinion, due to my specific tastes in aestics, but other than that she's a connie... Just not your daddy's Connie. The fusion of a retro-esque styling with how we would go about designing ta future ship, lends itself well as a sleek, very clean and smooth shape, with just enouth details in the areas, that would(and I agree with the designer's choices here) need them, with out over doing it.
-
Atolm has a point.
He is right MUCH more about Galactica was changed than just the ship. The same is going to be true with this "new" Trek. It is an" Everything" change not just the looks. Like a total conversion mod of the Trek universe. Like it or not it is going to happen. If the writing, acting, and storytelling is good like in Galactica then we may have a winner. If not then i dont know, but i will wait and see the movie before i make any decision. My life doesnt revolve around trek, and if the movie turns out to suck then we always have DVD.
I personally dont agree with this new design, but that is just my opinion. Nothing more. Nothing less. I never said it was a "bad" design. There are things i dont agree with about it is all. Like the nacelles. The "Devolved" TMP look i can see, and that would be a logical step in building a "modern" TOS ship. There are curves in places where IMO they shouldnt be (behind the bussards). The "bling" lighting. which "should" be on the inboard sides on the nacelles. Many of the ships issues IMO have to do with the nacelles. They look good however are overkill if they were trying to avoid the "cigar" style. They didnt have to overdo all of these curves. Like i said before i need to see this ship from other angles before i can truly judge it.
It is a culture shock is what it is. Those who grew up used to seeing the old ship when they saw this new ship was almost like a slap in the face. Again i am NOT saying this is a bad design. It is very Different, and that is the main issue is it not? The old school trekkies dont want change. They want their 1960's style glowwy button old cardboard walled bridge. They want the Jefferies design intact, and untouched. With klingons without ridges. Time to move on and accept the inevitable people. I have.
-
SP, you are probably 100% correct on your assesment of this being a "culture shock"-type of thing.
And you are 100% right on needing more before a definative "Here's The NEW Enterprise".
I'm so willing to wait and see.
-
Thanks, Alec, for pointing that out. Actually, after looking at it more, I'm now of the opinion that,
A; If it is something Gabe designed, as you say someone with no clue (not your exact words) had final say and screwed it around.
B; Someone else, who might be the clueless one, designed it and either that person or, the above mentioned clueless person, took many design cues from Gabe's work.
In the same way they upgraded all of the individual elements for the TOS design to make the TMP ship, they should have prefitted the TOS design. It looks more like a TMP prefit instead, that precludes the TOS Enterprise.
-
Well, my two cents.
For the ships exterior. I don't like it, but then I have always liked the simple TOS/SFB look of ships. But I can live with it, it will look wrong just like BSG looked wrong (but it looked alot closer then this). The bridge could be toned down alittle, but it is better to have something that looks like a starships computer equipment instead of the toggle switches, konbs, and such that TOS had (but they were based on modern 1960-70 computers) and switches were what people expected from comtrols (not always computer stuff).
Next will have to see if they have the rapid fire phasers and multi-photons that the movies ships had over TOS weapons.
I will see it, not sure if in the theatre or at home rental. And who knows, if it is half good, maybe a TV series will follow it (then if you watch anough you will start to like it, just like BSG).
-
There can be a lot of good from this endeavor, but we'll never know if we don't see it for ourselves. That's what I am talking about.
Take the time, have the patience, don't take someone elses word (mine most of all...lol), wait and see for yourself.
BSG, Bond, I mean cripes, is it really that important, as to just hate something, be cause of how it looks?
That's the pill I hope more people plop. Because while we're obvious fascinated by the vehicles of sci-fi, just as many, if not more are in it for the story. Hell, isn't the lack of a compelling story our greatest grievance against Berman-era Trek?
-
The main reason for the comments were simple:
The lack of respect towards the work involved in designing the ship. Now I didn't say love anything...I said that things should be tollerated as for what they are.
And using a bridge pic, or a ship pic to discredit a whole film project is silly. That has been the trend as of late. Regardless if this is infact a reboot or not, it IS STAR TREK. nothing you or I or anyone can say will change that. Oh sure, as I have said many times before, people make trek to what THEY WANT IT TO BE, not what it is. There is nothing wrong with that. But I am ashamed at the venomous statements that have been made involving not just this film, but the franchise as a whole. I really hated voyager, But it still is STAR TREK. And I respect the time and effort that it took to do what they did. I Strongly dislike the Sovie, but I'll never say it "sucks" and be serious about it. That's what I am talking about.
If you don't like the ship, fine, that's your perogative, but the lack off respect ("Bastard-prise" comes readily to mind). I mean for Pete's sake, Trek fans fight over BS like it was a religion trying to discredit another one.
It's easy to say, "screw it, its going to suck", without even giving it a chance.
There can be a lot of good from this endeavor, but we'll never know if we don't see it for ourselves. That's what I am talking about.
Take the time, have the patience, don't take someone elses word (mine most of all...lol), wait and see for yourself.
BSG, Bond, I mean cripes, is it really that important, as to just hate something, be cause of how it looks?
BSG change stuff way more than the original, but it still is a great show. To me it will not be the original, but that was never the point of it. Capt_Pestalence_XC posted a comparason shot of the TOS Galactica and the New one, and that only prooves to support how different, yet superficially similar they actually are. The New Enterprise draws an even closer comparason to the TOS one than the two Gals of BSG, how funny is that.
With this new Trek movie, it is supposed to be a fresh new take on an old Ideal. It is bound to piss all of us off to some degree or another, but you know what, I'll wait to be pissed off, when the flic comes out.
You will always have TOS, its not going anywhere... But make room for the new TOS-Era Flic, that is based on technology, and style that is very much today, the 21st Century.
I personally love the ship design (mainly-as I joked with WZ about- because it doesn't look like it ripped-off any of my design details... ::) ), There are some rough pointsa to the design, in my oppinion, due to my specific tastes in aestics, but other than that she's a connie... Just not your daddy's Connie. The fusion of a retro-esque styling with how we would go about designing ta future ship, lends itself well as a sleek, very clean and smooth shape, with just enouth details in the areas, that would(and I agree with the designer's choices here) need them, with out over doing it.
I for one never said that the movie will suck, I'm open to that, I just don't like the ship because it's aesthetically unbalanced. But I do reserve my final judgment when I see the thing onscreen in motion. On the other hand, there's this small idiotic historic issue tho. It was kept with BSG (you can see the new one kept true to the proportions and balance of the original). I don't see it with this. That's my main issue with it.
-
wow i think i am going to save this picture of the "new" "reboot" enterprise, just in case i need to induce vomiting at some point...
-
wow i think i am going to save this picture of the "new" "reboot" enterprise, just in case i need to induce vomiting at some point...
You know something? You've probably just come up with the best use for this "starship" than anyone else has.
-
Well, here's a captured still from Stony's thread.
-
The main reason for the comments were simple:
The lack of respect towards the work involved in designing the ship. Now I didn't say love anything...I said that things should be tollerated as for what they are.
And using a bridge pic, or a ship pic to discredit a whole film project is silly. That has been the trend as of late. Regardless if this is infact a reboot or not, it IS STAR TREK. nothing you or I or anyone can say will change that. Oh sure, as I have said many times before, people make trek to what THEY WANT IT TO BE, not what it is. There is nothing wrong with that. But I am ashamed at the venomous statements that have been made involving not just this film, but the franchise as a whole. I really hated voyager, But it still is STAR TREK. And I respect the time and effort that it took to do what they did. I Strongly dislike the Sovie, but I'll never say it "sucks" and be serious about it. That's what I am talking about.
If you don't like the ship, fine, that's your perogative, but the lack off respect ("Bastard-prise" comes readily to mind). I mean for Pete's sake, Trek fans fight over BS like it was a religion trying to discredit another one.
It's easy to say, "screw it, its going to suck", without even giving it a chance.
There can be a lot of good from this endeavor, but we'll never know if we don't see it for ourselves. That's what I am talking about.
Take the time, have the patience, don't take someone elses word (mine most of all...lol), wait and see for yourself.
BSG, Bond, I mean cripes, is it really that important, as to just hate something, be cause of how it looks?
BSG change stuff way more than the original, but it still is a great show. To me it will not be the original, but that was never the point of it. Capt_Pestalence_XC posted a comparason shot of the TOS Galactica and the New one, and that only prooves to support how different, yet superficially similar they actually are. The New Enterprise draws an even closer comparason to the TOS one than the two Gals of BSG, how funny is that.
With this new Trek movie, it is supposed to be a fresh new take on an old Ideal. It is bound to piss all of us off to some degree or another, but you know what, I'll wait to be pissed off, when the flic comes out.
You will always have TOS, its not going anywhere... But make room for the new TOS-Era Flic, that is based on technology, and style that is very much today, the 21st Century.
I personally love the ship design (mainly-as I joked with WZ about- because it doesn't look like it ripped-off any of my design details... ::) ), There are some rough pointsa to the design, in my oppinion, due to my specific tastes in aestics, but other than that she's a connie... Just not your daddy's Connie. The fusion of a retro-esque styling with how we would go about designing ta future ship, lends itself well as a sleek, very clean and smooth shape, with just enouth details in the areas, that would(and I agree with the designer's choices here) need them, with out over doing it.
The problem is that this isn't just another ship of the week, or even a "recurring guest" like the Excelsior or Miranda. This is supposed to be the Enterprise. Not an Enterprise, but Kirk's Enterprise. As such it is absolutely appropriate to judge it not simply as a new ship but as a redesign of a particular ship. It fails because it is taking a classic and beloved design and turning it into something unrecognizable with a very different aesthetic.
Furthermore, while I understand as a designer of unconventional ships you might take a lot of undeserved heat just for being unconventional, but frankly I don't think I should respect something just because someone put a lot of work into it, regardless of the quality of the result. If this were a fan design made by an amateur as a new ship I would probably say it was O.K. and move along. But this was done by professionals, and it just doesn't match the quality of the previous incarnations. Jeffries and Probert designed beautiful, elegant ships. I didn't really like the Galaxy's aesthetic, but I am forced to admit that it had a certain grace and elegance, regardless of whether I personally liked the overall ship. In other words, I respected it as a well designed piece of art even though it didn't suit my tastes. This new ship, though, isn't graceful or elegant, at least not in the one angle we've seen. The nacelles are clumsy and over engineered, and the engineering hull protrudes too far beyond the neck and is proportionally too small compared to the saucer. It looks awkward in addition to being ugly. It might look marginally better from different angles, but unless the angle shown is really, really bad, it just isn't well designed. It's too bad if someone spent a lot of time designing it. That person just did not do a good job. I'm not going to "respect" it just because someone worked hard on it. The fact that is a total redress of a beautiful, cherished, iconic design just makes it even worse.
-
Those nacelles look like they're off of a '57 Oldsmobile.
The first thing to pop into my mind when I looked at the nacelles was J57.
-
JohanobesusII , your statement right there mate, is the reason for my post.
You don't have to like it, as I have said. Hell, you don't have to like the Roman Collosseum either, but the amount of time and effort it took to do such an endeavor is respectible. Its the exact same thing.
Kirk, Spock, Phasers, Klingons, the Enterprise are all ficticious characters/technology/things based on a ficticious universe for a real world franchise. Now, if that said franchise decides to do something totally hypocritical or just go back and change something, it is more than within it's right to do so. If you created a universe, characters etc. and you passed it on to others to take care of, do you think that it would be the same as when you originally concieved of it? Or even better, if you created it, and years later you chose to go back to it and tweak things... See what I'm getting at here. I am a designer, and so are lots of other people here, and I am sure that they(including me) have gone back later and rethought, and ultimately re-executed an idea. What emerges from such endeavors is natural, its call change. Change is an enevitablility of life. So deal with it. But how you deal with it, is the point I am trying to make. The bitching, that is the point that I am making. All Trek fans seem to do at this point is just that, BITCH. When TNG came out, they bitched, when TNG had the ep Relics made, they bitched. When DS9 came out, they bitched, then they did Trials and Tribble-ations, they bitched. When VOY came out, and later did Flashback, They bitched. When Enterprise came out man did we bitch, and when Mani Coto came in to help and did In A Mirror Darkly, they bitched and continued till the show ended, Trek REMASTERED, they Bitched(I am exluding far more numerous bitching that occured throughout each series for the sake of me just typing bitch, bitch, bitch, etc.). NOTHING WILL BRING BACK TOS. NOTHING WILL REPLACE IT EITHER. So in reality, who cares, if they do a new take on trek? You'll always have the old ones.
So, at what point do we as fans stop BITCHING? All of us, including myself has done it. But if the points are valid then sure, we can have a discussion, but lately, it has not been. Its been let's bitch for the sake of bitching. This is not about making you guys like a design or not( for some reason, some of you seem to feel that this is the case, its not.), its about saying, okay this is the "new" Enterprise, don't like it/I like it/dunno about it yet...but I'll wait and see, or at least give a real critic of the ship (some of you have, but others, just replied like an infant). All of us would agree that there is a lot of work in doing something like this. Think about it from that perpective. Put yourself into that situation. Put all that Bitching energy into one big core, and freaking do something great. Because at this point you'll never be satisfied with anything, and if that is going to be the case, then why even bother? Because you care? If you did, then you'd understand just wtf I have and many others, even more qualified than me have been saying for years...not just here and now.
Bill Shatner said it best, "Get A Life!" .
-
MadKoiFish over at SciFi Meshes made a beautiful version that coulds have easily been used, and I know of at least 4 other version that also could have worked as a bridge for the ships. The plain truth is they went with none of them and I think they came up with a bad design. The seconadary hull looks bad the Deflector worse, and the engines look to thick for the rest of the ship. The Saucer looks more TMP than TOS. All that asside and the perspective of the pic that doesn't help the ship did not meet that awe
factor the other ships Star Trek Produced did.
The First ship in TOS was ground breaking you saw it and wondered about it, and it became the reference for all future ships, concepts and ideas. It was orginal, simple in details and made you think about the scale of it and about the future.
The TMP one had the awe about it, it was one of the most beautiful Scifi ships to ever hit the screen.
The TNG one had Families in it and the windows all made sense for that reason. While not ugly it took some time to get use to but it had all the basics and porportions we were use to.
DS9 had the little war ship that changed sizes with the episodes, something the orginal never did and was thought only the timelords could do. Other than the fact that its size changed quite abit it was still a good looking ship.
Voyger kind of followed what they were doing with the Sov. but not quite as good looking. It to had size issues as it could hold more shuttles than a starbase and also used TL tech, but went wrong with landing on planets. It shows just how bad the series writters had gotten. I still say Voyger was Phallic shaped, which seemed to make sense with a woman captaining it. Still was one of my least favorite ships until I saw this one.
SOVEREIGN class was once again a beautiful design and fit with the more war era that the TNG universe had gotten to.
Enterprise the seris ship was a good looking ship and seemed to fit the setting they had it in.
This is MadKoiFishs' version and it is where I think they should have headed wit hte New TOS design:
-
I have never seen a picture quite so beautiful as that last one.
-
It warms my heart to see that picture.
-
I have to wonder what the designers of this Enterprise are feeling now that the design was leaked, and raging fanboys are crapping on their work. True, you can't please everyone, but is it fair to say that almost nobody likes the new ship?
It isn't the prettiest design, but it could be worse- they could have updated the NX-01 as the "New Enterprise" and given that to us instead. As hesitant as I am with this new design, I think I would have been a lot angrier if we were given a revamped Akiraprise as the 'new face of Trek'.
Let's see her in action before getting out the pitchforks and torches, mm? I wasn't onboard with the Sovergin in stills, but seeing her in the battle in FC changed my mind.
-
I agree completely with Azel and Norsehound. Let's keep an open mind and reserve judgements until we see her in flight.
-
If the writing, acting, and storytelling is good like in Galactica then we may have a winner.
I feel like I should point out that Moore's BSG offended more of the original fanbase than got any of them onboard.
Frankly I don't see it as a compliment when suggesting nBSG as evidence that a remake "would work". Thematically, the two battlestars are in completely opposite directions. The only thing shared between them, at this point, are names. The most important element, the tone, was tossed away in favor of one completely opposite in Moore's Remake (Optimism in the face of certain defeat for TOS, Extreme pessimism of everything in TNS). I'm not sure I'd like a Trek series that went completely opposite in theme to the original.
To say Trek 11 would be successful if it emulated BSG would mean we get worse than a crappy Starship Enterprise redesign. An an example, some of the TOS cast would have gender changes and there would be a love triangle between Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and say Scotty that sucked up most of the screen time with wooden acting. Aside from the dramatic eye-candy of space battles (with no Phasers, Photon Torpedoes, or Shields), there would also be a running conspiracy to see if Romulans do exist, since they may or may not have cloaking devices in their bodies. Oh, and McCoy is sleeping with their leader, since s/he is actually be a Borg clone sent to spy on the Alpha Quadrant.
My point is, saying "If Trek is like nBSG, then we'll be good" would do all of Trek a disservice by creating something so different from what made Trek good that we'd be wondering why it was called Trek. I feel ENT came close to this, which is why it only made 3 seasons (4 for the sake of being syndicated, and even then it was by different writers).
TOS had wit, good pacing, and never tried to deliberately loose the audience. The characters were likeable, not perfect, but at least you never hoped the bad guys zapped any of them. Best of all it was fun to watch, despite the cheap special effects and sets. So long as Trek 11 maintains the same balance the original TV series had in the 60s, perhaps we'll be fine... maybe even capturing the magic that made TOS so memorable for everyone.
-
JohanobesusII , your statement right there mate, is the reason for my post.
You don't have to like it, as I have said. Hell, you don't have to like the Roman Collosseum either, but the amount of time and effort it took to do such an endeavor is respectible. Its the exact same thing. ...
Bill Shatner said it best, "Get A Life!" .
Yes, Paramount has the legal right to do whatever they want with the franchise. If they want to do a new version with Kirk and Spock in a gay love affair, that would perfectly legal if not wise or respectful. And I have the right to feel that they are making a huge mistake and doing it wrong. I didn't expect them to use the original Enterprise. I didn't expect it to look like it came fresh out of Desilu's studio in 1966. I did hope that they would respect the franchise and history enough to make something that honored the original instead of pissing all over it. It's funny that you talk about respect when they aren't showing any respect for Jefferies and everyone else that worked so hard to create a ship and sets that were both believable and aesthetically pleasing. They aren't showing respect for the fans who have a strong emotional investment in TOS. They aren't just private individuals holding onto personal property. Star Trek is part of our culture. Even non-fans know the names Kirk and Spock and recognize the Enterprise. It seems to me that they have a moral responsibility to treat this franchise with respect, because in a way it belongs to all of us. They can't please everyone all the time, but they can treat the established products with reverence and respect. That's what they did with the TOSR. I may not agree with every single choice they made, but they clearly approached the project with a great deal of respect for the original product. The same just isn't true with this new movie. It might be a great film, but visually it isn't a real prequel to TOS. As someone on another board said, they ought to just own up to this being a reboot along the lines of NBSG and not make any pretense of this being the same universe as TOS.
I don't think that my posts are nothing but bitching. But I'm not going to shed any tears over the poor professionals who worked so hard on an ill conceived and poorly executed model. They are paid to do a job, and if they don't do it well, I have no qualms about saying so. I don't believe in grading people purely on effort. Quality and intent matter. The intent was for this to be Kirk's Enterprise, and in that it has failed badly. The quality doesn't look very good, at least from that angle. Like I said, I am capable of respecting a piece of art that I don't like very much. It is possible for something to be of high technical quality and still ugly (like the Galaxy). This new ship just doesn't cut it. The fact that somebody put a lot of effort into it doesn't matter. By that logic, literature and art teachers should only grade students on how hard they worked on assignments, not whether the assignments are of decent quality. I guess I should go back to my high school band director and fuss at him for not moving me up to first chair. I sure put a lot of hours into practicing, so the fact that I couldn't quite reach the high notes shouldn't matter.
And please, this is an internet forum. One of its raisons d'être is for people with too much time on their hands to bitch.
-
LOL... agian, thank you, for proving my point.
I'm done with this thread. Let's see what FoaS has going on in the next one.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sorry, couldn't attach them all in one post, here are the rest...
-
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.
-
*cough*
http://starfleetcommand3.filefront.com/potd/110355
-
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?
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Some more notions to consider... TOS is not entirely Roddenberry's own work... it was the contribution of other artists that made it work when it worked. The movies are a form of "reboot" and steer quite far from Roddenberry's expressed view of what the Trek universe should be. Roddenberry's vision is inconsistent, and he essentially used TNG as a platform to "reboot" the entire franchise, and even with that, TNG really only grabbed mainstream success after others gained control. He may be the Great Bird of the Galaxy, but Roddenberry himself, has also been the focus of fan displeasure and vitriol for his treatment of the original material, but if he could move on and disregard the past of his own creation, why can't everyone else?
-
Some more notions to consider... TOS is not entirely Roddenberry's own work... it was the contribution of other artists that made it work when it worked. The movies are a form of "reboot" and steer quite far from Roddenberry's expressed view of what the Trek universe should be. Roddenberry's vision is inconsistent, and he essentially used TNG as a platform to "reboot" the entire franchise, and even with that, TNG really only grabbed mainstream success after others gained control. He may be the Great Bird of the Galaxy, but Roddenberry himself, has also been the focus of fan displeasure and vitriol for his treatment of the original material, but if he could move on and disregard the past of his own creation, why can't everyone else?
I understand that completely. I really am not trying to be belligerent or so closed minded that I can not agree with change. However, the man who did developer the first Enterprise model did so with the the expressed approval of Gene Roddenberry. That said, my entire point is simply this: Don't throw away the baby in the bath water. Yes, Trek can use a fresh approach and better stories. Yes, Paramount has the right to do so as they wish. Perhaps the one word I'm looking for here is "respect". Respect for the original series, the cast, the temperaments of the crew (ie: the Spock / McCoy or other similar charactor relationships) .. that always made the series what it was. IMHO you would not have Spock acting like a Vulcan with a misguided since of who he was with sporadic emotional outbursts ... (due to human/Vulcan conflict). That would be totally out of charactor. Within that same context IMHO it is somewhat "out of charactor" for this ship to look as it does. The poorly developed secondary hull with the pylons shifted to the back as an after thought as to where they should be simply looks out of place.
The other model shown here (though still quite different from TOS) is at least a viable alternative and would show attention and respect to the original design.
But ... in the end this is only my opinion .. and I'm quite sure it will be only slightly better than worthless to most in the long run.
-
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.)
The Enterprise beating the Borg in Best of Both Worlds was a fluke if you consider that after the failure with the deflector dish, everything that could go right for them did. From the rescue of Picard, to them finding a crippling subroutine that the borg hadn't bothered to restrict. Personally I think it was a rather sloppy ending to the story, but I guess it was the only way for the writers to get out of the corner they had written themselves into. As for the Borg being an insurmountable threat, it is stated on screen that the battle of Wolf 359 cost the federation 39 starships, and 11,000 lives. According to Sisko, the Defiant was developed in the immediate aftermath of the battle. Then the Dominion show up, and the Federation gets the fire under its feet again. Federation ships start packing more fire power, and newer starship classes look alot more badd@$$, with alot less bloat.
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.
Writer Robert Orci saying it was not a reboot
http://trekmovie.com/2007/10/08/interview-orci-talks-casting-characters-canon-and-more/
Where paramount's president describes it as a reboot
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20233502_2,00.html
And yes, TROST does have the freedom to corrupt and pervert Star Trek in anyway he sees fit, but I also have the freedom to not spend $15 to see it in the theaters. I also have the freedom to look at everything he has released and remark about how it seems to confirm my worst fears, and until he releases something which indicates otherwise, I will not stop criticizing him.
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.
I would agree with you that The TMP Enterprise was my favorite, although I do think they eventually managed to find a worthy successor with the E. I don't know if I speak for everyone else, but the shape of the warp nacelles on the new Enterprise are what worry me the most. They look like jet engines, and in the teaser, they appeared to have tail fins. Since the look of the Enterprise kind of sets the whole tone for the story, I'm worried that this means its going to go back towards the overly cheesy flash gordonesque type of sci-fi that Star Trek excplicitly rejected from the beginning.
-
From the Orci interview:
TrekMovie.com: You guys have resisting labels for this film such as remake, reboot, etc….even prequel. Prequel has a pretty basic definition so what is wrong with calling it that?
Roberto Orci: But yet it is not entirely accurate. In some senses it is a prequel, but the word I would use, which is how Damon [Lindelof] describes it, is a re-invigoration or re-vitalization.
(emphasis mine)
The interviewer suggested that the movie is a prequel, but Orci says this isn't an accurate description of what they're doing. They want to keep the iconic 'bones' of the series and not tamper with them too much, which is where the 'prequel' notion comes from. You have the characters more or less the same, but telling a new story with them.
Contrasted to nBSG, which alters the 'bones' of the original series to make a completely different animal that tries to pass under the same name.
-
Nor am I Dan, although I'm sure my tone may seem otherwise here, (it's been a while since I last saw you around and it's good to know you're still kicking about)... I just get a tad frustrated when I see people jumping to conclusions and working themselves up into a twister based on rumour, speculation, misunderstanding and presumption. Interestingly, the last two posts reinforce my point that the reboot "lie" hasn't come from Abrahms - so perhaps it'll open the door for others to actually take the time to consider the facts and not simply jump on the bandwagon of percieved wisdom. But, given the weight of evidence of Human behaviour, I don't think I'll hold my breath for that one. Besides, I have other things to concentrate on, so perhaps I should bow out and focus on them instead of investing so much time on a single thread.
-
Nor am I Dan, although I'm sure my tone may seem otherwise here, (it's been a while since I last saw you around and it's good to know you're still kicking about)... I just get a tad frustrated when I see people jumping to conclusions and working themselves up into a twister based on rumour, speculation, misunderstanding and presumption. Interestingly, the last two posts reinforce my point that the reboot "lie" hasn't come from Abrahms - so perhaps it'll open the door for others to actually take the time to consider the facts and not simply jump on the bandwagon of perceived wisdom. But, given the weight of evidence of Human behaviour, I don't think I'll hold my breath for that one. Besides, I have other things to concentrate on, so perhaps I should bow out and focus on them instead of investing so much time on a single thread.
Nah .. dont bow out. We all have our opinions on the matter. In the end only that of Paramount will matter any ways. I had hopped that in the end a little bit more respect had been used in the development of the new Enterprise. IMHO if someone who was not connected directly with Paramount can developer a respectable model .. so can Paramount.
As for the movie itself I plan on seeing it.
Just one other thought and I'll be done .. We need to keep in mind that this is still PRE TOS and not the "final" TOS ship we are looking at. It is still within the realm of possibility to get that happy median for a reboot (IF they are really looking at it) .. that would be to everyones satisfaction. I say that tung and cheek since the simple fact is that some will gripe regardless. ME PERSONALLY .... if Paramount used something similar to the other ship that was illustrated in this thread .. that would be really cool.
-
Nor am I Dan, although I'm sure my tone may seem otherwise here, (it's been a while since I last saw you around and it's good to know you're still kicking about)... I just get a tad frustrated when I see people jumping to conclusions and working themselves up into a twister based on rumour, speculation, misunderstanding and presumption. Interestingly, the last two posts reinforce my point that the reboot "lie" hasn't come from Abrahms - so perhaps it'll open the door for others to actually take the time to consider the facts and not simply jump on the bandwagon of percieved wisdom. But, given the weight of evidence of Human behaviour, I don't think I'll hold my breath for that one. Besides, I have other things to concentrate on, so perhaps I should bow out and focus on them instead of investing so much time on a single thread.
Abrams is the producer and director of the film. Don't you think Orci would have consulted him before the interview to determine what aspects of the film he wanted released to the public. Also understand something, it could be possible that outside of what I've complained about, the film is a good one that's true to the name Star Trek, however, in the court of my opinion, Abrams is guilty until proven innocent, and until he releases something which alleviates my concerns, I will not quietly sit back and smile.
-
one of the things I like about series (be it Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings or whatever) is the continuity. Any universe that is well done and "consistant" with other works done in said universe appeals to me. In this particular situation, the various ships of TOS, TMP, TNG etc etc looked to me like "Yeah, I can see that evolution..." Minor cosmetic changes are no big deal to me. Pike's TOS Enterprise interiors to Kirk's TOS Enterprise to TMP Enterprise to TNG Enterprises... evolved but in a way that made sense to me.
Personally I preferred the TMP look. C and D enterprise.. bleh... E and Voyager I could work with. With this ST-XI they took the TMP saucer and mated it with a secondary hull that makes NO sense to me other than to evoke some 50's fin car look and warp drives that look like hood ornaments. How is this supposed to evolve over time to the ship Pike and Kirk commanded in TOS? They did not use shuttles or something? My point being that they did not even attempt to fit into the continuity, canon. And that is why it upsets me. Want more action, gratuitous more modern details etc? Fine, but the basic hull shape was fine, the corridors were fine, the bridge layout was fine. Sure, add buttons, panels, compartments, screens whatever. But why totally redesign it?
-
It seems this Movie isn't a "Reboot". It's true that they might mess with bits of Canon, but TNG, DS9, VOY and I'll assume ENT, will not be affected by this new movie. In fact Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci are coming out with a Comic in Janurary that will bridge the time travel gap between this film and Nemesis.
Basically it's a post Nemesis comic explaining what's happening with Old Spock, and explains the origin of Nero. Picard and the crew of the Enterprise-E are involved naturally. I know in a traditional sense, comics aren't part Trek Canon, but since it is supposed to be a prequel to the new film, I'm going to assume Paramount considers this Canon.
Read about it here: http://www.iesb.net/index.php?option=com_ezine&task=read&page=1&category=4&article=5822
I also have two theories about Nero's Ship. It clearly doesn't look Romulan so it could be either a Reman mining ship, or a Klingon mining ship. The ship is made to drill so it has got to be a mining ship, but whether or not it's a Reman or Klingon design is based on Nero's origin. I'm not sure what that origin is yet, but if he is a Post Nemesis Villain he could have stolen it from the Reman's because it could have been used to Mine Dilitium on Remus. But I also heard a rumor that he escapes Klingon imprisonment which could mean he stole it from the mines of Rura Penthe. You never know though, it could be something different entirely.
-
I read through the first page and couldn't go any further. So for that I will start off by apologizing to everyone being sensible. That said, this is childish. A few pictures of the new design and there are some who won't even give it a chance. I hope then that this goes the way of transformers and drives all the unforgiving fans who just want to live in a bubble of the past away and attracts a new generation who might appreciate it. Lets face facts, this is it. The last two movies barely turned a profit. The fandom was/is dying. The general fans just don't care anymore and only the hardcore fans are left. They had to take a chance if they were going to make people interested again. If you can't appreciate their attempt to save your fandom, then you don't deserve it.
I only logged to see what the community had to offer about the new movie, I'm sad to see this was it. I'm out.
-
I read through the first page and couldn't go any further. So for that I will start off by apologizing to everyone being sensible. That said, this is childish. A few pictures of the new design and there are some who won't even give it a chance. I hope then that this goes the way of transformers and drives all the unforgiving fans who just want to live in a bubble of the past away and attracts a new generation who might appreciate it. Lets face facts, this is it. The last two movies barely turned a profit. The fandom was/is dying. The general fans just don't care anymore and only the hardcore fans are left. They had to take a chance if they were going to make people interested again. If you can't appreciate their attempt to save your fandom, then you don't deserve it.
I only logged to see what the community had to offer about the new movie, I'm sad to see this was it. I'm out.
Just because quite a few of us hate the new ship, doesn't mean we didn't have open minds about the movie. When they announced the movie would deal with time travel, alot of us kept open minds. When images of the new interiors came out, most of us still kept an open mind.
Your post is nothing more than an attempt to start another flame war yet again. For you to say the rest of us don't deserve Trek, and hope we're driven away, you just prove you're just as undeserving as those you accuse.
This thread should just be closed to prevent more people from doing this.
-
I read through the first page and couldn't go any further. So for that I will start off by apologizing to everyone being sensible. That said, this is childish. A few pictures of the new design and there are some who won't even give it a chance. I hope then that this goes the way of transformers and drives all the unforgiving fans who just want to live in a bubble of the past away and attracts a new generation who might appreciate it. Lets face facts, this is it. The last two movies barely turned a profit. The fandom was/is dying. The general fans just don't care anymore and only the hardcore fans are left. They had to take a chance if they were going to make people interested again. If you can't appreciate their attempt to save your fandom, then you don't deserve it.
I only logged to see what the community had to offer about the new movie, I'm sad to see this was it. I'm out.
I'm sorry you had to be an Abrams whore. The last few films did poorly because they strayed from what made Star Trek great. This is not an attempt to save Star Trek. Its an attempt to turn it into something its not, and if I have a choice of seeing it die, and seeing it raped by Abrams I will choose the former. I am praying that this film will be a flop so Viacom will drop this idiocy.
-
I think that most of us are ready for a new and fresh version of TOS. I understand the movie to be an attempt to sum the spirit of STAR TREK into one, action-packed event. I am looking forward to it. I think that what Cromwell is missing is that most of us do not think that this new version of the ship fits the spirit of Trek.
Who are we to comment? hmm. . .
We are the core of the starship design and modeling community, while not always in the spotlight, we have been here since the first SFC making new ships, adhering to, and respecting the canon of the Star Trek Universe. Several of us have gone on to professionally program and model for the franchise in some way, shape, or form. All of us have put in lots of time and effort into our work, mostly non-pay, which has served to forward the popularity of Star Trek even during gaps when there has been no movies or shows. We have helped to extend the playability of games that no one would have looked at twice if it was not for the Star Trek name on them. We know what makes a ship look good, we know what makes one look not so good, and a huge part of our evaluation of designs has to do with design flow in light of what we have seen on the TV and silver screens. Some people around here spend years on a masterpiece, gathering input from fellow fans and with every move of the mouse considering the fine details which make a good design.
After all of this, we waited with bated breath to see a redesign which would attribute as much respect to established canon as we have, only to find that some "professional" designer, fan or not, whipped up this monstrosity in maybe a few weeks or months, when there are DOZENS of potential designs made by fans that would have far better served the purpose, and appealed to all fans, both lay and diehard. If you read this thread, you will see we are commenting on some of the most obvious problems with proportion and alignment. We don't want something that is going to "change what we know" we want something that is going to add to what we know.
If there is one place to discuss the design of a new Star Trek ship, to critique the details, to make recommendations, and say what we would like to see, IT IS HERE at the Dynaverse modeling forum. You will never find another community like it. Look at any other design on this forum, they are treated the same way.
PS, I appriciate all of you guys (and gals) and what you have contributed to my imagination! Merry Christmas.
-
Well said IM.
-
I cannot beleive this is still on pg1...lol
The point that all of you guys who don't like the design(and you have a right to do so) seem to miss, is that its all relative.
One person's garbage, is another's masterpiece.
You don't have to like it; But to call it a monstrosity, bastardprise, etc... is pointless, not to mention tactless.
So just as you guys would be offended if it was your hardwork that went into something that everyone pissed on, keep in mind the silent person who designed this ship. So yeah hate it...But don't say it looks like crap just because it doesn't agree with your vision of what the ship and show is supposed to be.
Klingon Kristmas to all you, and to all Qa'Pla!
-
I cannot beleive this is still on pg1...lol
The point that all of you guys who don't like the design(and you have a right to do so) seem to miss, is that its all relative.
One person's garbage, is another's masterpiece.
You don't have to like it; But to call it a monstrosity, bastardprise, etc... is pointless, not to mention tactless.
So just as you guys would be offended if it was your hardwork that went into something that everyone pissed on, keep in mind the silent person who designed this ship. So yeah hate it...But don't say it looks like crap just because it doesn't agree with your vision of what the ship and show is supposed to be.
Klingon Kristmas to all you, and to all Qa'Pla!
well, I don't think you get the depth of what is said. I have said it about people designs before, I don't like it, but I usually say it like this.
Awesome looking ship. Doesn't fit the design style I like, but a great ship none the less.
That is my feelings about the new Ent. The model work is awesome, visually a great ship. The design I don't like. The travel thing and the minor messing with the timeline wouldn't have made the ship turn out so different from the historical design. A ship of this magnitude would have been on the drawing board for a long time (heck even our wet navy ships takes 20 years or more to go from blueprints to water).
That said, I am giving the movie a chance (might be a rental when I watch it, but I will give it a chance). As for the next generation coming up who this show is suppose to be targeted towards (a person like my son, 16 years old) he has told me a negative on the ship so far. But that can change when you see it If the show is done well (something ST movies haven't done as of late) I can look past the cosmetics. How many times has Batman got a new car in each remake. Fans are a bit more entrenched on ST I guess, but time will tell.
-
I cannot beleive this is still on pg1...lol
The point that all of you guys who don't like the design(and you have a right to do so) seem to miss, is that its all relative.
One person's garbage, is another's masterpiece.
You don't have to like it; But to call it a monstrosity, bastardprise, etc... is pointless, not to mention tactless.
So just as you guys would be offended if it was your hardwork that went into something that everyone pissed on, keep in mind the silent person who designed this ship. So yeah hate it...But don't say it looks like crap just because it doesn't agree with your vision of what the ship and show is supposed to be.
Klingon Kristmas to all you, and to all Qa'Pla!
It's not really tactless. None of us are trying to exert our opinions as fact. And it's no less different than people calling the NX the Akiraprise, or is it the Akira being called the Akiraprise. I can't remember.
Alot of people hate the designs just because they don't like it.
Alot of us hate the new Enterprise, and I personally feel it is a bastardprise, because I feel it doesn't begin to live up to what Trek has been. It's a major let down to a great many of us. To comment that our opinions are tactless and assume that we pay no respect to the work put into the model is incorrect, and you're wrong for assuming so, unless you know for a fact otherwise, which you don't.
-
I cannot beleive this is still on pg1...lol
The point that all of you guys who don't like the design(and you have a right to do so) seem to miss, is that its all relative.
One person's garbage, is another's masterpiece.
You don't have to like it; But to call it a monstrosity, bastardprise, etc... is pointless, not to mention tactless.
So just as you guys would be offended if it was your hardwork that went into something that everyone pissed on, keep in mind the silent person who designed this ship. So yeah hate it...But don't say it looks like crap just because it doesn't agree with your vision of what the ship and show is supposed to be.
Klingon Kristmas to all you, and to all Qa'Pla!
It's not really tactless. None of us are trying to exert our opinions as fact. And it's no less different than people calling the NX the Akiraprise, or is it the Akira being called the Akiraprise. I can't remember.
Alot of people hate the designs just because they don't like it.
Alot of us hate the new Enterprise, and I personally feel it is a bastardprise, because I feel it doesn't begin to live up to what Trek has been. It's a major let down to a great many of us. To comment that our opinions are tactless and assume that we pay no respect to the work put into the model is incorrect, and you're wrong for assuming so, unless you know for a fact otherwise, which you don't.
I agree Centurus .. While I personally believe that the NX-1 is a good idea and treated fairly the original series (by that I mean it complimented it as opposd to take away from TOS designs) .. this new "movie" version is more like a 57 Buick meets Buck Rogers ( the 1930's version at that ) with a Star Trek application. Centurus is also correct that this seems to be more of a let down ... It is also true that it appears to be a hodge-podge of ideas thrown togeather.
I.M. has offered one of the better assessments so far. Many good statements have been made .. but his is perhaps one of the better ones.
IF we were all dead set against ANY redesign of the Enterprise then none of us would have approved of this:
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=163383952.0;id=16872;image
just to make sure that no one misunderstands ... I will prefface my remaining remarks with "IMHO" this "remake" or "redesign" of the Enterprise is much better in that it at least shows some tactful respect to the original designs and those who started the series.
Anyone here remember the episode " A Piece of the Action"? What was the one thing that Kirk was not capable of? (just thought I'd throw that out for free)
Do I expect another exact reproduction of Trek as it was in the old days? NO! I would think by now technology would have advanced enough to allow better story telling and a more exciting way to convey that story. BUT by that some token there is something to be said about showing respect to the auto of a design, or a book or as in this case an entire series.
Here (once again ) is an attempt by someone to redesign with an attitude of fair treatement to TOS ...
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=163383952.0;id=16872;image
The new movie version is seriously lacking when compared to this model.
-
I cannot beleive this is still on pg1...lol
The point that all of you guys who don't like the design(and you have a right to do so) seem to miss, is that its all relative.
One person's garbage, is another's masterpiece.
You don't have to like it; But to call it a monstrosity, bastardprise, etc... is pointless, not to mention tactless.
So just as you guys would be offended if it was your hardwork that went into something that everyone pissed on, keep in mind the silent person who designed this ship. So yeah hate it...But don't say it looks like crap just because it doesn't agree with your vision of what the ship and show is supposed to be.
Klingon Kristmas to all you, and to all Qa'Pla!
It's not really tactless. None of us are trying to exert our opinions as fact. And it's no less different than people calling the NX the Akiraprise, or is it the Akira being called the Akiraprise. I can't remember.
Alot of people hate the designs just because they don't like it.
Alot of us hate the new Enterprise, and I personally feel it is a bastardprise, because I feel it doesn't begin to live up to what Trek has been. It's a major let down to a great many of us. To comment that our opinions are tactless and assume that we pay no respect to the work put into the model is incorrect, and you're wrong for assuming so, unless you know for a fact otherwise, which you don't.
Uh it was stated many a times in the thread... please reread many of the comments previously.
My statements all stem from the Facts of this thread.
but the main thing remains... the lack of respect. That is my gripe throughout this thread. and "Akiraprise" and "bastardprise" all prove the tactlessness theme of this thread.
So If you guys mean something other than what you write, you should write that.
-
In my opinion, the 'Akiraprise' is justified of the name because it was pretty clear NX-01 was a modification of the Akira model (Which was the most popular of the First Contact 'new' ships). This is a highlight of a trend in TNG to re-use models without consideration for continuity. That 'Romulan Drone Ship' from Enterprise wasn't only a re-use of the 'Flea ship' from Voyager, but also didn't follow on traditional Romulan hallmarks- other than the color. Nacelles from the "Romulan BOPs" from ENT appear to have originated from Dominion vessels.
I see people claiming the Trek 11 Enterprise is just "The TMP saucer" with new parts, but I think the only things the new saucer shares with the TMP one are the gridwork and the phaser points. The bridge seems to have more in common with the original than the TMP bridge, and there's no underside curve to the primary hull. Abrams clearly wants the 'bare metal, white' look from the -A, but it seems he's infusing a 'Retro 60s' and 'iPod' look in with the design.
-
I WILL NOT see the movie i HATE this new enterprise
it is the worse thing to happen to star trek
this movie should be a post-nemesis not a pre quel
-
Atolm, of all people, I don't want you to be insulted by my opinion of the ship design. The parts I like the most remind me of your models. I also don't want the use of the term "bastardized" to be misunderstood. Though I haven't used it in this thread, and usually don't outside of industry because of its origin/connotation, it is probably fitting in this case. The term usually refers to a piece of equipment that has been repaired or rebuild with parts from other equipment of a different model or manufacturer, or a piece of equipment modified to fit between two previously unrelated parts. Using that definition describes my opinion of this design to a tee. It would be as if someone kit bashed my angular saucer and pylons with an unaligned half-sized Atolm secondary hull and double sized Atolm nacelles without altering the Aztecing to match. I know you are defending out-of-the-box designs, something with which I could stand in harmony. However, out-of-the-box needs to achieve a goal, or else it is just a crazy idea. Lets face it, the goal in a movie has to be aesthetic over all, a goal which this design, in my opinion does not achieve. If this ship was made by a newbie, or someone new to Trek or SFC, we might all be applauding the design, but this is created by some one paid to do a good job, not to mention the movie has been pushed back six months and this is the best they can do?
Don't misunderstand, I watch the trailer for this movie just about every night at least three times almost to the neglect of my child and spouse. I am looking forward to it. However, this is the first solid indication of what to expect and the concern is that the whole thing is heading down the wrong path. Hopefully not, but regardless, I will be sitting through it.
Admins, please note that this is not a flame war but rather a healthy discussion on star ship design.
-
I WILL NOT see the movie i HATE this new enterprise
it is the worse thing to happen to star trek
this movie should be a post-nemesis not a pre quel
Oh, you've seen it have you? you know what its going to be like without seeing it? Damn, i wanna have your powers of preconcep...i mean Foresight.
Apologies for degrading that into a shouting match, but I am really very tired of people forming opinions before seeing the movie. Go see it, if you hate it after that? have fun, thats your prerogative... but to hate it after seeing 2 trailers and 3 leaked images? thats not flying with me...
-
Atolm, of all people, I don't want you to be insulted by my opinion of the ship design. The parts I like the most remind me of your models. I also don't want the use of the term "bastardized" to be misunderstood. Though I haven't used it in this thread, and usually don't outside of industry because of its origin/connotation, it is probably fitting in this case. The term usually refers to a piece of equipment that has been repaired or rebuild with parts from other equipment of a different model or manufacturer, or a piece of equipment modified to fit between two previously unrelated parts. Using that definition describes my opinion of this design to a tee. It would be as if someone kit bashed my angular saucer and pylons with an unaligned half-sized Atolm secondary hull and double sized Atolm nacelles without altering the Aztecing to match. I know you are defending out-of-the-box designs, something with which I could stand in harmony. However, out-of-the-box needs to achieve a goal, or else it is just a crazy idea. Lets face it, the goal in a movie has to be aesthetic over all, a goal which this design, in my opinion does not achieve. If this ship was made by a newbie, or someone new to Trek or SFC, we might all be applauding the design, but this is created by some one paid to do a good job, not to mention the movie has been pushed back six months and this is the best they can do?
Don't misunderstand, I watch the trailer for this movie just about every night at least three times almost to the neglect of my child and spouse. I am looking forward to it. However, this is the first solid indication of what to expect and the concern is that the whole thing is heading down the wrong path. Hopefully not, but regardless, I will be sitting through it.
Admins, please note that this is not a flame war but rather a healthy discussion on star ship design.
Bear in mind im coming in mid-discussion, so I don't know the history of whats going on, but I feel the need to chime in.
You say that the ship doesn't adhere to the aesthetic of the movie... Again, we don't know what the specific aesthetic is, yet. I mean, sure, we know its Neo-60s chrome ish, but even in that there is a LOT of leway. I think we'll find that the ship DOES in fact fit into the design, and that our assumptions for the specific aesthetic have been wrong. Again, I remind folks that all we've seen is 2 trailers and a handful of leaked photos.
-
IMHO this is a bit extreme:
I WILL NOT see the movie i HATE this new enterprise
it is the worse thing to happen to star trek
this movie should be a post-nemesis not a pre quel
Also : Akiraprise is some what unjustified. The NX-01 really is not a direct derivitive of the Akira.. The Akira IS however little more than an inverted starship. (Just my opinion)
Ironically it seems that the only opinion that seems to be favored is one that supports the new one ? How odd.
BTW... I also believe that if the new version of the Enterprise looked like the one that some of us like (as posted in my previous response) ... some folks would still gripe !
Funny how some folks in many of the Trek communities can do so well in designing ships that really are so well done.. It's too bad that Paramount can't look at some of the work that's done out there and perhaps .. just perhaps ... see some really good stuff that has been done over the years.
-
Funny how some folks in many of the Trek communities can do so well in designing ships that really are so well done.. It's too bad that Paramount can't look at some of the work that's done out there and perhaps .. just perhaps ... see some really good stuff that has been done over the years.
Good point!
-
I WILL NOT see the movie i HATE this new enterprise
it is the worse thing to happen to star trek
this movie should be a post-nemesis not a pre quel
Oh, you've seen it have you? you know what its going to be like without seeing it? Damn, i wanna have your powers of preconcep...i mean Foresight.
Apologies for degrading that into a shouting match, but I am really very tired of people forming opinions before seeing the movie. Go see it, if you hate it after that? have fun, thats your prerogative... but to hate it after seeing 2 trailers and 3 leaked images? thats not flying with me...
You don't need precognition to point out that all of the footage that TROST has released so far seems to show that he is horribly perverting Star Trek. All Abrams has to do is release something that would show he is NOT raping Star Trek. He hasn't done that yet. Therefore it can be surmised that that footage doesn't exist. Stop telling people to give this abomination a chance. Unless TROST gives us something to alleviate our concerns it is alright for people to hold this opinion.
-
My view is this.. this movie *seems* to be going down exactly the same road as "Lost in Space" did.. you know, that other show out around the time of TOS. And that remake movie really didn't have any of the cheesy charm that the original did.
Testosterone laden and creepy is how that remake went.. but I'm wanting to see this movie for two reasons. I want to see the new actor playing McCoy, and Zachary Quintos as Spock. Simon Pegg as Scotty may be entertaining. Neutral on John Cho. I may stick my fingers in my ears and hum when the new guy playing Kirk is on.. and can't say as I'm impressed with the actress playing Uhura. It takes more for that part than someone with a nice bod, believe it or not.. but I guess we'll see.
But the trailers actually do more to turn me off the movie than to try and sell me on it, to be honest, and I suspect that a lot of old Trekkies will be the same. This *may* be a "wait for video" thing for me.. haven't decided. But then again, I still haven't watched Nemesis yet either..
-
Also : Akiraprise is some what unjustified. The NX-01 really is not a direct derivitive of the Akira..
The NX-01 is based directly off the Akira, sure it was "TOS-ified" for the part but sying it's "not a direct derivitive" of the Akira would be like making a Pre-TOS version of the Defiant then claiming it's not based on the Defiant. The Akira was popular, the creators played on that and intentionally built the NX to resemble an upside-down Akira.
-
You know...
I think by now, you guys should know how I feel about Trek in all its incarnations, and how I feel about new ideas in general.
that being said... I have never felt, what I feel now, and that is disappointment and shame. I have never felt That being a Trek fan would lump me with a group of the most close-minded people in the world. I mean, Trek in any and all of its incarnations have always been about acceptence, and embracing of diverisity in all its forms. It was, in a lot of ways Anti-Canonization.
Yet all we do is bitch about BS. Its really all just silly.
How about, we not bash something until we have experienced it. Is it really that hard?
I mean just WTF does the IDIC stand for?
I dunno, and on top of that, I don't really want to know, if it means me becoming a closed-minded person to new possibilities.
Now, if some of you take offence at this then fine, I appologize , but I am offended to read all these negative comments and prejudices about something that isn't even out yet.
Think about that.
LOL
Why would I take offense to someone who is expressing their opinion?
Either way it goes I don't care about the movie the script or anything like that, I just think it is a ugly looking ship. Thats it plain and simple does it effect anything else, nope, at least not to me. I just think they could have done better as we have all seen better looking ships out there on the net. The Enterprise version looked fine and they should have gone with something inbetween it and the TOS one. The one they have there doesn't really fit for the look it has, this one looks like the TMP and TNG Enterprises were humping and the gene pool was a little to close, probably closer than the banjo kid in Deliverance.
They should have broken away completely, or done a better job for the ship design.
I still by what I have said:
I don't like the Design of this ship, It looks out of porporsion and to much like like a bunch of Eras merged together. Soes it mean I will not see the movie no, does it mean the script is bad, no, it just means I don't like this design. Was it out of the box thinking thta made this, I don't think so; knowing how Studios work it was more than likily a compromise between executives to get the budget approved. Art in the movies is gone it is about how they can sqeeze a profit that matters now, and we the viewers or fans will suffer for it.
So now I still state they should have gone completely away and with a new design, or something more fitting with a TOS look to it. The current version if that is it just hit to many wrong buttons in my mind, and really made me wonder if another Studio besides Paramount should get Trek as I think they lost it.
-
I still by what I have said:
I don't like the Design of this ship, It looks out of porporsion and to much like like a bunch of Eras merged together. Soes it mean I will not see the movie no, does it mean the script is bad, no, it just means I don't like this design. Was it out of the box thinking thta made this, I don't think so; knowing how Studios work it was more than likily a compromise between executives to get the budget approved. Art in the movies is gone it is about how they can sqeeze a profit that matters now, and we the viewers or fans will suffer for it.
I agree . I especially agree concerning the model. It's simply a bad design PARTICULARLY when compared with TOS, even if they are attempting to do a reboot of sorts in order to revive the Trek Saga. Just the same they should try to make their new model with good taste and show some respect to the original. Perhaps the biggest objection I have is that the model honestly looks thrown togeather ... Frankly it looks like some of my early work when I was in High School. I can honestly say that now that I have completed my OWN models of the Titan and Bass Master (refits of a sort) ... while still trying to remain faithful to the original ideas.
OK .. maybe that was a BAD example .. BUT just the same. GaFY has said is essentially correct.
BTW .. please note: This does not mean I intend to boycot the movie. It DOES mean that given the chance to voice a sound opinion on the model I will consistently say that there are better ideas out there that would have still given Paramount the change they were looking for with much better class. One of those options has been posted in this thread.
To express that concern and to point out such an obvious better alternative is NOT being disrespectful, tactless or inflammatory. It is IMHO simply that .. an opinion. It so happens that many also agree with that opinion. There are one or two that I ALSO believe may be going to an extreme. That is their right to do so. I also, respectfully disagree with those extremes that suggest boycot and hate for the overall movie.
Until I see the movie for my self I will hold my opinion on its production.