RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,346
Posts: 5,502,448
Members: 25,119
Currently online: 673
Newest member: mahler

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

New Line of Anovos Enterprise Uniforms
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11

Frakes: Sign Me Up!
By: T'Bonz on Dec 11


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Fandom > Fan Art

Fan Art Post your Trek fan art here, including hobby models and collectibles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 14 2011, 11:01 PM   #91
The Castellan
Commodore
 
The Castellan's Avatar
 
Location: The Plains of Cydonia
Send a message via Yahoo to The Castellan
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
The Castellan wrote: View Post
Yet the 2005 Tardis interiors and the current ones look more plastic, more junky than the classic ones, yet people seem to be cool with that.
Yeah, right. Everything about oldWho is cheap and cheesy compared to nuWho.

Yet another example of the reason that guys like Abrams and Chambliss and Davies are placed in positions to make these decisions and fan critics are not.
More like they should have worked on Sanford and Son.

Plus I prefer a Who where not every woman's trying to bonk the Doctor.
The Castellan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14 2011, 11:04 PM   #92
Herkimer Jitty
Rear Admiral
 
Herkimer Jitty's Avatar
 
Location: Dayglow, New California Republic
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Herkimer Jitty
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

He can't help it.

It's the bowtie.

Bitches love the bowtie.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1965½, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 14 2011, 11:13 PM   #93
The Castellan
Commodore
 
The Castellan's Avatar
 
Location: The Plains of Cydonia
Send a message via Yahoo to The Castellan
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Yet another example of the reason that guys like Abrams and Chambliss and Davies are placed in positions to make these decisions and fan critics are not.
Considering he's the guy who made Lost, he does not have my confidence.

Well, if they ever go and reboot Sandford and Son, they'll have my up most confidence.
The Castellan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2011, 01:04 AM   #94
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

The Castellan wrote: View Post
I'd slim those engines. Also, I don't buy that 1,200 meter length. Hell, what would explain that huge of a size increase?

Also, lose the tail fins.
What do you mean "what would explain" it?

Why does it need an explanation? Different universe, different artistic expression, different ship sizes.

This ain't your daddy's Star Trek, son.
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2011, 01:08 AM   #95
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Nightowl1701 wrote: View Post
Seems to me they should have used the TOS Enterprise as their starting point, not the TMP one as they clearly did.

Assuming we're pretty much stuck with this ship hardware-wise, they could at least add the TOS-style pennant (seen on a couple of the JJshuttlecraft) to the nacelles and the two opposing "NCC-1701" to the saucer underside. Maybe even the triangles if you can work out a reason for them to be there (the saucer already has landing gear).
If I remember correctly, during development of the JJPrise, they had taken note of Roddenberry saying, during the pre-production of TMP that, the film Enterprise level of design was what they had always had in mind when they made the TOS design. And, had they had the budget, we'd have seen a more primitive version of the film design onscreen, if they'd had the money.

The JJPrise is said to be a backwards-in-time design using the TMP Enterprise as its follow-on, working backwards in ways that make the ship look more awkward.

And in that regard (the awkwardness), it certainly works.
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2011, 01:22 AM   #96
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Wingsley wrote: View Post
If I understand the basic notion of "re-imagining" correctly (both from the 2009 movie and Ronald D. Moore's BATTLESTAR GALACTICA remake), JJ Abrams set out to capture the essence of TOS without any attachments to the specifics of what TOS was about. So you see characters and situations that vaguely resemble the originals, as well as a "new" Starship Enterprise that vaguely (at least, from what it looks like to my eyes) resembles the TMP "refit" ship.

I would say that if JJ was going to the trouble of inventing that way-out bridge set (looks like a cosmetics counter in a high-end shopping mall; nod to the photoshopper who nailed it on this forum some time ago) then the rest of the ship should follow accordingly. The Nuprise should have tried using a (more) clean sheet of paper, breaking down the basic shapes and creating something much more different. (And I'm not talking about an imitation battlestar or star destroyer, either.)

So, what do you have? A saucer, nacelles and a secondary hull. There are indications that the Nuprise could be much larger than the TOSprise. The bridge looks very advanced, so should the rest of the ship follow suit? I say y-e-s. Why make nacelles that look like marital aids? Why borrow the illuminated dish from FIRST CONTACT? And why make the hull texture and shape of the saucer look like warmed-over TMPprise? Beats me. Sounds like JJ's crew took one step forward, two steps back.

I like some of the things that were done with the Kelvin. If it were me, I would've scaled up and extrapolated on the Nuprise evolving along the Kelvin's design concepts. (The Kelvin's exterior really impressed me, and I'm not even a fan of single-nacelle starships anymore.)

If the Nuprise must be large as a battlestar, fine. Start with the saucer. Give it some serious diameter, and at least 3 or 4 decks thick at the outer rim, possibly more, depending on how big you want to go. That outer rim should be housing hangar bays a la DS9, as well as cargo bays and labs and other facilities. Crew habitat would be in the saucer hub. The saucer might look a little like the early concepts developed for the McQuarieprise. (spelling?) I would envision a ship like this having a crew of at least a thousand, if not thousands, and being sized to match. The saucer would reflect that, of course, and would also be equipped to operate as a limited-capability starship in its own right. As long as we're re-inventing everything, maybe saucer modules would be multi-purpose space vessels in their own right, able to carry out various preset missions once jettisoned from the stardrive section; lifeboat, space station, temporary command base, cargo hauling platform, weapons platform, listening post, you name it.

Maybe the stardrive section would not be elaborate. maybe just a simple, spartan secondary hull and simpler nacelles attached by nondescript pylons. Maybe the saucer should look disproportionately large in comparison because that's where the bulk of the crew and facilities would be.

And to further distinguish JJ's TREK from TOS/TMP/ etc., maybe there wouldn't be a plethora of starship classes. Maybe there's just one "Star Ship Class", ever evolving in technology and size. The idea of simpler, interchangeable modules and the bulk of the facilities residing in the saucer would mean the nature of starships, how they would operate and how they would be maintained/repaired/replaced/refit would be quite different than what we saw in TOS, TMPs and TNG/DS9.

Maybe to further offset the re-thought JJprise from the 2009 JJprise or the previous Enterprises, the nacelles would be long, somewhat thin, simple tubes. There might not be any domes at the front or back. Maybe both ends would vaguely resemble the bows of jet engines. Maybe they glow faintly when at idle, but maybe the whole housing glows (and the length of the tubes glows right through its own hull) when fully revved for flight.

I hated the uniforms used in the 2009 movie. My feeling was that if you're going to re-invent, then by all means, re-invent. Bring back the turtlenecks of "The Cage", but maybe incorporate them into an ENT-style jumpsuit. And when it comes to the ship's external markings, be a bit more flamboyant like the "small corvette" thread found elsewhere in this forum.

One thing I would bring back from TOS is the proud, utilitarian naval block lettering used in the original Enterprise's hull nomenclature. Everything else used since looked embarrassingly cheesy by comparison.

I might also be interested to experiment with different hull colors and textures.
Respectfully, I disliked pretty much every suggestion you just laid out.

You're doing what so many have accused Church and Abrams of doing - being different just for the sake of being different.
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2011, 01:31 AM   #97
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

YARN wrote: View Post
Comet and Cupid wrote: View Post
I was addressing a post by WWI Flying Ace, not you.
You were responding to my post, so you must've been responding to me at some point...

Comet and Cupid wrote: View Post
Do whatever you want.
It's too bad. If you'd read that post you might see how your response to Ace was unjust.

Oh well.

I think the trickiest aspect of the TOS-E is the design of the nacelle struts. That stated, there have been respectful revisionings of the TOS-E which make them more graceful.
I think what I gathered from Comet's comments about ISDs, etc, was that - if you have a simple silhouette, you need surface details to create visual interest, or vice-versa, thus any redesigned Enterprise, using that observation, would need one or the other to be effective.

I might be reading meaning into it, but that's what his comment meant to me.
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2011, 05:44 AM   #98
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Irishman wrote: View Post
If I remember correctly, during development of the JJPrise, they had taken note of Roddenberry saying, during the pre-production of TMP that, the film Enterprise level of design was what they had always had in mind when they made the TOS design. And, had they had the budget, we'd have seen a more primitive version of the film design onscreen, if they'd had the money.
Then JJ is an even bigger idiot than I thought, if he took GR's pre TMP propaganda seriously.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2011, 06:09 AM   #99
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Then JJ is an even bigger idiot than I thought, if he took GR's pre TMP propaganda seriously.
You think JJ Abrams is an idiot? Wow, I never would have guessed.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2011, 06:10 AM   #100
Kaiser
Rear Admiral
 
Kaiser's Avatar
 
Location: Boyertown, PA as of July 2011
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Kaiser Send a message via Yahoo to Kaiser
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Irishman wrote: View Post
If I remember correctly, during development of the JJPrise, they had taken note of Roddenberry saying, during the pre-production of TMP that, the film Enterprise level of design was what they had always had in mind when they made the TOS design. And, had they had the budget, we'd have seen a more primitive version of the film design onscreen, if they'd had the money.
Then JJ is an even bigger idiot than I thought, if he took GR's pre TMP propaganda seriously.
i agree when when i saw that Trek nation special with his son talking to JJ i think JJ had a smug look on his face the whole time when they were talking togethor =/
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/112860258811333/ For all your Sci-fi ship model and mini goodness 3DS Friend code: 0731-4800-6817
Kaiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2011, 06:47 AM   #101
The Castellan
Commodore
 
The Castellan's Avatar
 
Location: The Plains of Cydonia
Send a message via Yahoo to The Castellan
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Kaiser wrote: View Post
Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Irishman wrote: View Post
If I remember correctly, during development of the JJPrise, they had taken note of Roddenberry saying, during the pre-production of TMP that, the film Enterprise level of design was what they had always had in mind when they made the TOS design. And, had they had the budget, we'd have seen a more primitive version of the film design onscreen, if they'd had the money.
Then JJ is an even bigger idiot than I thought, if he took GR's pre TMP propaganda seriously.
i agree when when i saw that Trek nation special with his son talking to JJ i think JJ had a smug look on his face the whole time when they were talking togethor =/
That's cause he probably is smug.
The Castellan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2011, 07:52 AM   #102
Kaiser
Rear Admiral
 
Kaiser's Avatar
 
Location: Boyertown, PA as of July 2011
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Kaiser Send a message via Yahoo to Kaiser
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Im to agree cus he even a little bit of smugness in his voice during the interview =/
__________________
https://www.facebook.com/groups/112860258811333/ For all your Sci-fi ship model and mini goodness 3DS Friend code: 0731-4800-6817
Kaiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2011, 08:10 AM   #103
pengbuzz
Guest
 
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Still thinking about the dynamite...
  Reply With Quote
Old December 15 2011, 09:07 AM   #104
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Irishman wrote: View Post
YARN wrote: View Post
Comet and Cupid wrote: View Post
I was addressing a post by WWI Flying Ace, not you.
You were responding to my post, so you must've been responding to me at some point...

Comet and Cupid wrote: View Post
Do whatever you want.
It's too bad. If you'd read that post you might see how your response to Ace was unjust.

Oh well.

I think the trickiest aspect of the TOS-E is the design of the nacelle struts. That stated, there have been respectful revisionings of the TOS-E which make them more graceful.
I think what I gathered from Comet's comments about ISDs, etc, was that - if you have a simple silhouette, you need surface details to create visual interest, or vice-versa, thus any redesigned Enterprise, using that observation, would need one or the other to be effective.

I might be reading meaning into it, but that's what his comment meant to me.
You can draw that conclusion from what I said, but I wouldn't go that far. My original point was really a very narrow one, which was: The level of greebling of the ISD etc. cannot be applied to the TOS Ent without making its surface so rough that the actual silhouette would be altered. Period.

The reason this is a significant point in this context is because the purists who would want the silhouette of the TOS Ent to prevail wouldn't want that outline besmirched (in their eyes) in any way, not to mention by what must occur if you were to apply ISD-type greebles to it. You just can't apply that much of it without altering the shape more than would be tolerated by them. That's why I said it was apples and oranges. If you did it, yes, it would still preserve the overall trends of the outline, but there would also be bumps and indentations everywhere, which would be a no-no to the purists.

[Note - If you consider the situation uncritically, the Death Star could appear to be an exception, because you can zoom in quite a bit and and it still appears to be round. But it's not exception, because its scale is on a completely different order from all of the other examples. It's huge. Appearing to retain a smooth silhouette as one zooms in is part of the optical illusion that makes it appear the size of a small moon. Being spherical, like a moon, also supports that illusion. Once you compare it on the scale of the Ent, the surface of the DS is incredibly rough.]

I've indicated the following already, but I'll spell it out: IMO simple rules about you should or shouldn't do in general are very hard to come by. A lot depends on execution, a lot depends on what the audience is looking for, and a lot depends on the overall art design of the film. Also, the appropriateness of elements is a function of how that art design meshes with the themes in the film. There are so many particulars at play.

IIRC someone upthread made an observation that the Millennium Falcon cockpit was adapted from WWII bombers, holding that up as an example that retro works. It does work in that particular case. However, that example did not exist in isolation, as there were many elements of WWII design in Star Wars (1977). The sidearms, the Imperial officer uniforms, and the dogfighting style are just a few other obvious and prominent examples. These elements drawn from the same historical era (which was still active in the consciousness of the viewers) helped to evoke a consistent atmosphere. The film also resonated with this real-life era on purpose to support its theme of epic war on an industrial scale. To say, "Oh, it's just retro," completely overlooks these subtleties, which are particulars contributing to success in the case of SW retro elements, which if not appreciated might contribute to failure in a different film.

So, getting back to your interpretation of what I said, Irishman, I'd phrase it like this: Overall silhouette and greebles are two of the factors at play that make a good design. I believe you can indeed get mileage by trading silhouette complexity for greebling, and vice versa. But how far that goes depends upon other factors that define the context. In the case of the Ent, it's probably true, as far as it goes, that you need one or the other. It's harder to prove a negative than a positive, so I won't say that there isn't an appropriate design with a simple silhouette and limited surface detail, but I doubt there is.


ETA: Another relevant aspect of the Star Wars retro elements is that SW is supposed to resonate as a myth or fairy tale that occurred in the past. Using retro elements helps accomplish this end, which is another reason why the context of SW is one in which retro elements are appropriate.

On the other hand, Star Trek is supposed to happen in the future. It is admittedly a future conceived from a perspective that is inherently retro to us today, but that is part of its charm. Nevertheless, the indiscriminate use of retro elements could potentially undermine the film; undermining (in the opinion of the filmmakers) the ability of the audience to stay engaged with the film would be one criterion the filmmakers might use to reject a retro element. On the other hand, dispensing with retro elements altogether could make a less entertaining film, for example by taking the source material "too seriously", or by acting in a way that the audience might perceive as being embarrassed with its roots.

There's quite a circle to square here. This is one reason why I personally don't begrudge the filmmakers elements that in particular I don't care for. Reject JJTrek, demand Paramount get someone else to do it, and odds really are that you will get something that is on balance at least noticeably worse, and probably substantially so.

In fact, I've said this before and I'll say it again. I was astonished with how faithful they were to the original series. Even on their first try, they got something I enjoyed more than the majority of other Trek films (and the majority of other TOS Trek films, if you restrict it to films I through VI).
__________________
CorporalCaptain

Last edited by Cookies and Cake; December 15 2011 at 02:20 PM.
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 16 2011, 02:36 AM   #105
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Captain Robert April wrote: View Post
Irishman wrote: View Post
If I remember correctly, during development of the JJPrise, they had taken note of Roddenberry saying, during the pre-production of TMP that, the film Enterprise level of design was what they had always had in mind when they made the TOS design. And, had they had the budget, we'd have seen a more primitive version of the film design onscreen, if they'd had the money.
Then JJ is an even bigger idiot than I thought, if he took GR's pre TMP propaganda seriously.
You do realize that it's Gene Roddenberry's sandbox we're all playing in?

A little respect is appropriate.

What "propoganda" are you going on about?
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.