 |
IDW Publishing Forums
A home for all IDW fans.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Duo Maxwell
Transforumer
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 1349
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:52 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Denyer wrote: | | Duo Maxwell wrote: | | It would be like saying "We can't take the Model T seriously, so here's how it really looked..." |
How so? The Model T was a piece of equipment, and Star Trek is a vision of the future -- in which it's dated rather badly. |
In the Star Trek world, the Enterprise is a piece of equipment, every bit as valid as the Model T in its own right. Unless the producers want to come clean and admit that it is a reboot and not just something which is supposedly supposed to plug into Star Trek history pre-"Where No Man Has Gone Before" then we already know what a Constitution class starship looks like. You can't just say "here's the beginning of the story, but it's dated so we're changing everything around."
The information currently available about the story already confirms that it is a reboot, so that's all the justification the producers need to explain the change in how the ship looks. So, instead of taking the best version of the NCC-1701, they make something completely different yet keep an updated version of the series-style TOS uniforms? Those are definitely not pre-"Where No Man Has Gone Before."
Of course, I can easily overlook that type of stuff if the story is good, but the current spoilers don't bode well for the movie unless they are an exception to the norm. A scene with Chekov being denied voice access by the ship's computer until he can pronounce his v's properly is just pure cheese and shouldn't be wasting time in a movie which is trying to revive interest in Star Trek.
When arguing the change from the series to the TMP version of the Enterprise, people like to bring up that it's not the same ship, which is really a "No shite, Sherlock!" moment as Decker practically says that in a line of dialogue: "This is almost an entirely new Enterprise!" and it was given a logical reason why it looked different from the show.
This, however, is changing things for the sake of changing things. Hell, they actually had to work at screwing it up. They could have easily taken the TMP movie Enterprise and worked backwards, instead of just taking the saucer, making a few minor changes and then creating a secondary hull which bears only vague references to either version of the original Enterprise. It's not even the same shape and the neck looks like it came from a Galaxy class ship minus the cobra-like appearance. Only the saucer bears any resemblance to the Enterprise while the rest looks like an entirely new class of ship.
As it is, it's not a bad Enterprise, it's just not the Enterprise they're supposed to be depicting in the movie.
_________________
The preceding post is OK to print. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Viceroy
Transforumer
Joined: 11 Jul 2008
Posts: 1289
Location: Manila, Republic Of the Philippines
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will admit, I expected the excellent remastered version of the USS Enterprise from the CBS/Paramount series currently seen here on cable (loved the reworked Doomsday Machine & Deadly Years revamped space battles!) .
What I did see was actually very good! A nice enhancement of the TV & STTMP version of the NCC 1701 & I rather like it. The best versions of the Enterprise to be so far are: The NX-01, the revised USS Enterprise from the remastered Trek TV series, the STTMP Enterprise & the NCC 1701 E. The D is the worst designed model I've seen.
The new Enterprise certainly stands out. Can't wait to see it on the big screen.
_________________
"Let us renew our faith and our hope. We have every right to dream heroic dreams!"
-President Ronald W. Reagan
"That's how an author should talk! How manly!"
-Michelle Cheung, R.O.D. The TV |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ro-Dan
Transforumer
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 2215
Location: Royal Oak, Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ummm...I don't know if anyone here has seen the STAR TREK trailer yet...but when you do, ALL of your negative feelings about the new Enterprise will be gone. Trust me, it looks beautiful in motion, and the head-on view of the ship is powerful and amazing.
Don't believe me? Here's the (partial) bootleg trailer: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfstreetlight/3030211291/
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Duo Maxwell
Transforumer
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 1349
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One thing I have heard suggested is the picture was the worst possible angle they could find for the ship. Why they would want to reveal it in such a manner is beyond me, though, but it does have me wanting to see some more angles.
We know from the teaser trailer that the only real difference when viewed from the upper half of the saucer are the, let's face it, massive nacelles. That's not too bad, really, since the series version of the NCC-1701 had bulkier nacelles than the refit version. I'm guessing that when viewed face on, the ship will (mostly) retain the basic appearance.
What we can't see from the angle we've been given is just where the nacelle pylons are positioned on the engineering hull. They look like they're very close to the back of the hull, while the pylons themselves would look much better if they were inverted (tapering so the widest edge connects to the nacelles, not the hull) and connected further back on the nacelles themselves. In the series version of the ship, they connected roughly a quarter from the bussard collectors, while the refit version had the connection at the midpoint of the nacelles.
The part of the ship which I dislike the most is the shape of the engineering hull, especially that exaggerated arcing section. It's what, combined with the placement of the neck, gives the engineering hull a somewhat ungainly appearance. As I've said before, the sloping bit for the neck is also more appropriate for the Galaxy class.
I must say, though, that it's embarrassing to read comments posted on Trekweb as people there tend to sling insults at people for either liking or disliking the look of the ship. They like to sling around phrases like "get a life" or "Stay open minded or be quiet" and expect people to take them seriously or even be receptive to the further insults contained within their posts.
_________________
The preceding post is OK to print. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oracle1984
Transforumer
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Posts: 3518
Location: Washington, D.C.
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Looks sweet!
_________________
September 17, 1984. MTME Part I. The world changed forever.
---------------------------
"Nobody ever died for a typewriter." Road-Block, G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero (Marvel) #69 (p.4)
---------------------------
(Okay to print) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DanielW
Transforumer
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 9619
Location: The Village
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Duo Maxwell wrote: | | A scene with Chekov being denied voice access by the ship's computer until he can pronounce his v's properly is just pure cheese |
HOW embracing of other cultures.
"Speak like us, or else the computer won't listen".
Gene would be turning in his grave, if he had one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ro-Dan
Transforumer
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 2215
Location: Royal Oak, Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Or it could just be a flaw in the computer's programming. Really, everyone, is it necessary to nit-pick and bash this thing without even seeing it?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Duo Maxwell
Transforumer
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 1349
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who's really doing any bashing?
Criticizing the look of the ship? People are free to like or dislike the aesthetics the film has chosen. Instead of leaving it at "oh my, that ship is ugly" I have given examples on why the look isn't as good as it could be. Considering we have now seen what the Enterprise looks like in the movie, there's nothing wrong with voicing opinions.
As for scenes, such as the Chekov scene, this is a movie which Abrams has said he is targeting towards non-Star Trek fans. Making an issue out of Chekov's accent is just cheesing up what should be a good movie. It's about as bad as Jazz's "What's crackin', little bitches?" line from the Transformers movie, but considering both Transformers and Star Trek XI were written by the same writers, shouldn't be surprising.
It also reminds me of the Bones season premiere with Booth and Bones in London, England. I didn't like the "Ugly American" theme they had going with Booth in that story any more than I like it with the computer in the Chekov scene.
Seriously, it seems to me that unless people slather heaps of praise and rave reviews like mindless sheep they get accused of "bashing." Isn't that the point of reviews and trailers? To give people an idea of what to expect in a movie so they can decide whether to spend nearly $25 per head (ticket and concession prices) in a theatre to see it? Since I am going to see it (as I have made it quite clear that I will) I have every right to voice my opinions, whether it criticizes or praises the final product.
_________________
The preceding post is OK to print. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ro-Dan
Transforumer
Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 2215
Location: Royal Oak, Michigan
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excellent points, Duo. I actually agree with much of what you said. I don't mind someone not liking what they've seen as long as their criticism is constructive and support for reasons as to why they feel that way.
Judging the Enterprise from that one promo pic is a little premature, in my view. From what I've seen of the ship from the trailer it looks phenomenal. My view is this: Let's what until we've seen the finished product before being too judgmental regarding plot points and aesthetics.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Novastorm
Transforumer
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 3031
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ro-Dan wrote: | | Judging the Enterprise from that one promo pic is a little premature...Let's what until we've seen the finished product before being too judgmental regarding plot points and aesthetics. |
Waiting for the final product is 6 months off. This is just comments and critiques on the tid-bits as they become available. I have to admit the idea of a young Kirk and Spock crew initially turned me off, but I was keeping my fingers crossed that Mr. Abrams knew what he was doing.
Now that I have seen the trailer, I am very excited. Even if the story itself turns out to be a bomb, the effects look great. I am hoping it all comes together as a cohesive whole and we see the re-launch of a fun franchise.
_________________
I dont know you and yet I feel a kinship...kinship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skwege
Transforumer
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 971
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Duo Maxwell wrote: |
As for scenes, such as the Chekov scene, this is a movie which Abrams has said he is targeting towards non-Star Trek fans. Making an issue out of Chekov's accent is just cheesing up what should be a good movie. It's about as bad as Jazz's "What's crackin', little bitches?" line from the Transformers movie, but considering both Transformers and Star Trek XI were written by the same writers, shouldn't be surprising.
|
Did you skip The Voyage Home?
"Where can we find the nuclear wessels?"
Chekov's accent has always been somewhat of a gag. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skwege
Transforumer
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 971
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Looks like The Enterprise to me. Best looking ship since the Constitution Refit.
Seriously though, do people genuinely think a movie going for the exact aesthetic of of an old low budget 1960s television show would sell any tickets? It would be laughed out of the theatre.
Star Trek is about the future. It should look like the 23rd Century as we would envision it in 2008, not 1968. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Duo Maxwell
Transforumer
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 1349
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Skwege wrote: | Did you skip The Voyage Home?
"Where can we find the nuclear wessels?"
Chekov's accent has always been somewhat of a gag. |
No, I have not skipped The Voyage Home. In fact, I have seen all of the original series-related material. Yes, Chekov's accent was used as a gag but think of it in the context of the movie: here's a Russian, during the Cold War, publicly asking for the location of American nuclear vessels in full view of a police officer.
So, yeah, the accent was spotlighted but there was much more to the gag than "Silly Chekov! Learn to pronounce your V's!" from the ship's computer, no less.
| Quote: | | Seriously though, do people genuinely think a movie going for the exact aesthetic of of an old low budget 1960s television show would sell any tickets? |
Nobody, that I am aware of, is asking the movie to ape the look of the original Star Trek show. But if they really want us to believe the movie takes place in the same continuity and same sequence of events, then it is not too much to ask that the Enterprise look like the Enterprise we have known for all these years.
Despite what people may think, the "reimagined" Enterprise is not a more plausible predecessor to the TMP-era refit. In fact, the only part of the ship which is similar at all is the saucer. Neither the engineering hull nor the connecting neck have anything in common with the refit Constitution, while the 60s Enterprise has much more similarities in shape. While it is a stretch to say that the ship from the show was redesigned into the ship from the movies, it is an even bigger stretch to think that the "reimagined" Enterprise is any more plausible.
However, since it is a reboot (Abrams may still be deluding himself that it's not a reboot, but it is), I don't really have any problems with the new Enterprise any longer. It's not the Enterprise as depicted from the series and the first three movies, but it will suffice for the purposes of the new movie continuity.
| Quote: | | Star Trek is about the future. It should look like the 23rd Century as we would envision it in 2008, not 1968. |
True enough. It is clearly a new Star Trek and can look however it pleases, but that does not invalidate the look of the 1966 Star Trek, nor the movies based off of that property. Utilizing Leonard Nimoy to link the two incarnations of Star Trek is all well and good, but what will ultimately be depicted in the movie will be an entirely different incarnation than what Gene Roddenberry created 42 years ago. That doesn't invalidate Trek XI, either, it just means they are separate and distinct with common origins.
_________________
The preceding post is OK to print. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skwege
Transforumer
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
Posts: 971
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Duo Maxwell wrote: |
Nobody, that I am aware of, is asking the movie to ape the look of the original Star Trek show. But if they really want us to believe the movie takes place in the same continuity and same sequence of events, then it is not too much to ask that the Enterprise look like the Enterprise we have known for all these years.
Despite what people may think, the "reimagined" Enterprise is not a more plausible predecessor to the TMP-era refit. In fact, the only part of the ship which is similar at all is the saucer. Neither the engineering hull nor the connecting neck have anything in common with the refit Constitution, while the 60s Enterprise has much more similarities in shape. While it is a stretch to say that the ship from the show was redesigned into the ship from the movies, it is an even bigger stretch to think that the "reimagined" Enterprise is any more plausible.
However, since it is a reboot (Abrams may still be deluding himself that it's not a reboot, but it is), I don't really have any problems with the new Enterprise any longer. It's not the Enterprise as depicted from the series and the first three movies, but it will suffice for the purposes of the new movie continuity.
|
I swear, it is amazing how people will jump to conclusions about a film they haven't seen anything of and wont until May.
Star Trek contradicts itself all of the time, hell TOS repeatedly contradicted itself.
The 1960s TV show is famous because of how well several episodes were written. It was about the characters, not the shitty set production or cheap Special FX. Just because there is a different aesthetic doesn't mean it's a reboot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Duo Maxwell
Transforumer
Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 1349
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know what? People just can't win, can they?
First you throw an example of a previous gag involving Chekov's accent to justify the one being used in the new movie, but when I show I actually got the joke in The Voyage Home, it's back to the "how can you judge something you haven't even seen?" argument all over again.
| Quote: | | I swear, it is amazing how people will jump to conclusions about a film they haven't seen anything of and wont until May. |
We've seen a trailer, numerous set pictures and a shot of the Enterprise. We've also seen detailed descriptions of scenes some which, granted, seem to be written by people who don't understand the product and make some things out to be worse than they are.
I have even gone so far as saying, numerous times, it will not stop me from going to see the movie. I'm not a sheep nor am I a basher, but if I don't like something I have just as much right as those who like what I happen to dislike to voice my own opinion without getting a smartass remark in return.
| Quote: | | Star Trek contradicts itself all of the time, hell TOS repeatedly contradicted itself. |
Star Trek contradicts itself, TNG contradicts itself, DS9 contradicts itself, Voyager contradicts itself and even Enterprise contradicts itself. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that any long running show will contradict itself. It's so cliché now that it's become an excuse to throw out when there are no better arguments to use.
| Quote: | | It was about the characters, not the shitty set production or cheap Special FX. |
Okay, now it's time for me to respond with a smartass remark. Did you even read my post? Never once did I say I ever expected the new movie to ape the style of the 60s show. Never once did I say it had to be exactly the same.
What I did say was that it wasn't too much to ask for the Enterprise to at least look like the Enterprise. The re-imagined Enterprise is only vaguely similar to what we have seen in past movies. It's obvious to anybody with a shred of intelligence that the 60's television version of the Enterprise wouldn't translate well to the big screen, which is why they worked up the Constitution refit which we saw during the first six movies.
It would have been exceedingly simple to take that ship and work backwards to give it an older feel. Change the shape of the nacelles, simplify the detail to the hull and add an external defector dish. You would have a motion picture worthy and instantly recognizable Enterprise which people would believe could be refitted to look like the Motion Picture Enterprise.
Simply put, the Trek XI ship is no more a Constitution class ship than a Miranda class ship is a Nebula class ship.
| Quote: | | Just because there is a different aesthetic doesn't mean it's a reboot. |
There is quite a bit about the movie which means it is a reboot, though I know that anything I say will just be met with an even more clichéd "just because we didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen" reply, so I will just counter it with "just because we didn't see it doesn't me it did happen, either."
I could spout off stuff from Star Trek, like Kirk being posted to the Farragut after graduating the Academy, his first meeting with Pike when the latter became Fleet Captain and McCoy not being posted to the Enterprise until the five-year mission began and not being a "Commander" until after the five-year mission.
But Star Trek was inconsistent, wasn't it? It doesn't deserve to have any facts taken at face value because other facts were contradicted, does it?
If it looks like a reboot and it sounds like a reboot. Chances are it's a reboot.
If the Abrams is to be believed, the Enterprise we see in the upcoming movie is supposed to be the exact same Enterprise we see in Star Trek as well as The Motion Picture through The Search For Spock. There's no way to reconcile the extreme differences between the two (or three, however you want to see it) versions.
Check out these graphics:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/constitution.jpg
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/constitution-refit.jpg
and finally:
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/constitution-reimagined.jpg
As you will see, the saucer is the only thing on the re-imagined Enterprise which bears similarity to the refit, while everything else is essentially a kitbash of ideas from other ships. While it's a stretch to think the original Constitution class could have been easily refit into the movie version without some serious alterations to the spaceframe, the re-imagined Enterprise would have to jettison everything except for the saucer.
_________________
The preceding post is OK to print. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
