RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,515
Posts: 5,511,847
Members: 25,137
Currently online: 578
Newest member: VonDingle

TrekToday headlines

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

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


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 27 2011, 08:48 AM   #196
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Broccoli wrote: View Post
I personally enjoy how the people who have hardcore hatred of the film and refused to pay money to see it somehow all managed to see it for free. I remain dubious of these claims.
I am a critic. I paid.

Broccoli wrote: View Post
Anyway, on topic: lets face it, the design of the ship had no impact on the movie's success. They could have been flying around on the original design, a different design, Picard's ship, or a giant orange and the movie would have still done as well as it did.
Which implies that popular opinion is no indicator of the quality of the design we have.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 08:51 AM   #197
MauriceNavidad
Vice Admiral
 
MauriceNavidad's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View MauriceNavidad's Twitter Profile
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

^^^As if the earlier Star Trek films were all so smart and wonderful. Rose colored glasses sure are nice.

The fact is, Star Trek was never made for "serious fans". Roddenberry himself said it was designed to be mass-market. It couldn't be and hasn't been as successful when it panders to the fanatics. What the vocal minority of self-proclaimed "serious fans" are in a huff about is that the filmmakers finally went, "oh, yeah...maybe we should make this appealing to more than those guys who discuss it endlessly on BBSes."
__________________
* * *
Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.
― Winston S. Churchill
MauriceNavidad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 09:27 AM   #198
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Maurice Navidad wrote: View Post
^^^As if the earlier Star Trek films were all so smart and wonderful. Rose colored glasses sure are nice.
So are reading glasses. I already said that the '09 film was better than most Trek films.

Maurice Navidad wrote: View Post
The fact is, Star Trek was never made for "serious fans".
I guess they should shut down this bulletin board then, seeing as how fans don't matter.

Then again, what it was intended to be is not the final word about the meaning or value of a work of art.

Maurice Navidad wrote: View Post
Roddenberry himself said it was designed to be mass-market.
So what? The TOS, TMP, and TNG designs have all proved to appeal to the mass-market.

Why not go with a better design - all things being equal? Why can't fans discuss what they like and don't like?

Maurice Navidad wrote: View Post
It couldn't be and hasn't been as successful when it panders to the fanatics.
The TMP films did quite well as I recall.

Maurice Navidad wrote: View Post
What the vocal minority of self-proclaimed "serious fans" are in a huff about is that the filmmakers finally went, "oh, yeah...maybe we should make this appealing to more than those guys who discuss it endlessly on BBSes."
Right, so it is much better to express outright contempt for the fans? You don't have to snub the fanbase to make a film that is marketable.

The either/or fallacy here is ridiculous.
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 09:37 AM   #199
baxart
Commander
 
baxart's Avatar
 
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Yikes, the conversation sure changed while I was at work/asleep. We went from talking about the ship, to debating the merits of the movie. Well let me try to steer things back on course.
Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
Does it really matter? shes the flagship of the fleet and the damn Enterprise, I don't care if she's 200 or 2000 meters.
largo wrote: View Post
who cares how big the ship is? it's not like she needs to fit in the same garage.
The size of the ship does matter in 2 important areas, "the willing suspension of disbelief" and "dramatic need". Simply put, how far can you push the armchair captains in the audience before they cry foul?
Bigger ship = more resources to throw at a problem.
Smaller ship = less resources, so the crew has to be more resourceful, thus higher drama (and unfortunately, more techno-babble).

So to start this conversation the first thing we have to do is set our ground rules (I like to call this, the "Sliding Scale of Cool"TM): we are talking about a scifi space opera, it's just a TV show, it's got a huge following, and those followers tend to be well versed in it's trivia.

The willing suspension of disbelief.
Situation: Landing party loses contact with the ship & are stranded for hours without rescue. Believable?

TOS - Crew of 450. Landing party consists of captain and department heads. Why? Well 450 divided into 3 duty shifts, means that you have approx 300 people awake aboard at any given time. Divide that by 3 divisions (gold, blue, red), then by departments, and you have very few people to throw at a problem.

ST09 - Crew of close to 1000. Divide that up and I hope you'll see what I'm saying. Why would the Captain beam down to a planet? Why would the XO? You guys in the Navy and Coast Guard could chime in and talk about how often your officers go into the field here.

This was also one of my biggest problems with TNG. If the crew has lost contact with the ship, we understand why they didn't throw more people at the problem in TOS, DS9, VOY, and ENT, they didn't have the crew to risk. But in TNG (and ST09), they have a crew of over 900, why don't they just beam down a second landing party, filled with "red" shirts, to find out what happened? They can mob the surface. They have shuttles to launch if transporters aren't working, and people to risk. And they had the good sense to keep the Captain on the ship most of the time.
baxart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 12:32 PM   #200
Starship
Commander
 
Starship's Avatar
 
Location: So Paulo, Brasil
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Friends, remember that movies are made just to make more money. So, what we think that is good or not, or what we think that would be made by another way, in the most of times wont be taken seriouslly by the producers.
Due to technollogy standards in these days, was logical to expect something VERY different from TOS. About the holes in the script, and something that could be wrote or occurred by other way, nothing can be done. Its out of our hands and its just past, unhappynness... It wont change, no matter how much alternative scripts we write.

About the new Enterprise, I would change just 03 thingies (but its also out of our hands):
1- decrease the naceles size a bit and move it a bit forward, making it to connect to the pylon near of the center.
2- Make the sec hull cutout appears more like in the TMP and give the hull a better sense of scale.
3- Take off those stupid Budwiser components from the scenarios.

For the last... Dont take scifi so seriouslly. its just money for the producers and companies, while is fun for us, but it isnt a real thing. At least, not for while.
Starship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 02:23 PM   #201
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Tom Servo wrote: View Post
But there are lots of other SERIOUS Trek fans, myself included, who thought it was perfectly in line with what we have seen before, and even shockingly, improved upon some aspects.
Me included, I'm a second generation trekkie who grew up on TNG and has seen every moment of all 6 series and 11 films, many novels and fan films and yet still love the new movie.
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 06:40 PM   #202
Broccoli
Vice Admiral
 
Broccoli's Avatar
 
Location: Broccoli
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

YARN wrote: View Post
Broccoli wrote: View Post
I personally enjoy how the people who have hardcore hatred of the film and refused to pay money to see it somehow all managed to see it for free. I remain dubious of these claims.
I am a critic. I paid.
Good for you. Do you want a cookie or something?

Broccoli wrote: View Post
Anyway, on topic: lets face it, the design of the ship had no impact on the movie's success. They could have been flying around on the original design, a different design, Picard's ship, or a giant orange and the movie would have still done as well as it did.
Which implies that popular opinion is no indicator of the quality of the design we have.
Okay. And...?

YARN wrote: View Post
Maurice Navidad wrote: View Post
It couldn't be and hasn't been as successful when it panders to the fanatics.
The TMP films did quite well as I recall.
True. However, it also did not pander to the fanatics either.

You don't have to snub the fanbase to make a film that is marketable.
Good thing they didn't do that.
__________________
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens
Broccoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2011, 09:04 PM   #203
Science Officer
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: United Kingdom
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Well everyone else is diving in and having a say, so here it goes!!

I didn't try to take the ST11 film too seriously and therefore I enjoyed it . The only frustration I had with it was the messing around with scale whether that be with the Enterprise or the Mayflower saucer. That aside I think it managed to successfully combine a modern look with certain retro elements from the original series. It completely avoided feeling like dull, tame, safe TV movies that Generations and Insurrection were.

Now back to the Enterprise. There are things I don't like about it - primarily the nacelles and the secondary hull. It doesn't have the elegance of the TMP Enterprise and what I personally would have liked to have seen was a more elegantly styled TMP-based Enterprise with a few retro elements (not necessarily related to the TOS-Enterprise). Yet strangely enough I do like Ryan Churches concept drawings for the Enterprise (http://www.ryanchurch.com/startrek11), which have a more 50s retro look about them. Something got lost in translation.

Concerning the size - at its largest it feels too big and I think that messing around with the scale does impact the film. Why? Because to me the Enterprise is a character in the film like Kirk, Spock and Bones. Flesh and blood characters come with emotions, motivations, loves and hates. It gives them depth and we take an interest in them. The Enterprise being fictional nuts and bolts doesn't have that. Instead its depth or personality comes through its look, size, functionality, reliability, battle scars and the environments it's placed in.

With a major flesh and blood character, we shouldn't expect sudden changes in their personality purely for reasons of dramatic effect unless the story demands it (i.e. some traumatic event - tourture or a death). An actor lays down a personality for the character and will probably change it suddenly for the above reasons or gradually to convey the passing of time (i.e. maturity).

So with the Enterprise, you would expect the same approach. You give it a personality and then you stick with it. Some aspects of that personality will be flawed (i.e. design shortcomings, size), but you learn to exploit the flaw in the story or if a scene doesn't work you avoid or rewrite it.

When fans say they are comfortable with a ship of size xyz ft, it's because they are trying to base that opinion on a fictional advancement in technology in the 23rd century and what they want the ships personality to be. Some want a really big mean badass ship (Goliath) and others want a smaller, more believable fragile ship that succeeds in a fight against the odds (David). Personally I prefer the latter. Problem is that varying the scale during the course of a film could give the ship a split personality.

Well that's enough said. I would like to see more artwork posted here on what people feel would improve the JJprise (not just pics of the TOS-Enterprise ).

Cheers,
S.O.
Science Officer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28 2011, 05:58 PM   #204
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

The Castellan wrote: View Post
Tom Servo wrote: View Post
The Castellan wrote: View Post
I'm getting tired of this "flagship" nonsense. Plus does want want a "flagship" to be run by JJ Kirk?

Personally, JJ just said it was so big because he wanted it to sound cool...., excuse me, ...."kewl". That, or to make up for some sort of shortcoming.

But, here's something I posted in my art thread, and I think it's an excellent way to improve the JJPrise.
I really don't understand the personal attacks on JJ Abrams, just because he didn't make a Trek film the way YOU would have.

It's cause of that reaction that I LOVE the fact that the film was a commercial, and critical success, and was well received by the public, moreso then any other Trek film. And they they are making another.
Seeing as how this one got dumbed down to appeal to the Joe sixpack crowds, by making Trek into a mindless popcorn action flick, I would not call it a success. To me, success is more of attitude rather than aptitude. Like if a guy sells out in order to make it big, I'd not call him a winner, I'd call him a loser. And with Trek being dumbed down to appeal to the mass mainstream folks who watch Jersey Shore, Dancing with the Stars, TMZ and other rubbish, I don't exactly call that a success....just sanitized, sterilized, pasturized and homogenized to make ole' Joe Sixpack and Plain Jane happy.
You know, you might have a point if all of Trek up until this point had lived up to Roddenberry's original vision of a near-utopian future where people didn't argue, had regular wife-swaps, etc.

But it didn't. In fact, it strayed from those ideals in the original series, FROM SEASON ONE onward! And why? Because people didn't want to watch it. It didn't make good television drama. Can you imagine the Redjack episode without a serial killer? Yes, they tweaked it so that the future men weren't the actual killers (a red noncorporeal mist did it), but the point is, they THOUGHT it was something Scotty might have been capable of doing. This is certainly not in keeping with Roddenberry's original vision. It also happens to be one of my favorites.

Can you imagine the Doomsday Machine without crazy Commodore Decker of the Constellation? No. But without him, you have little drama. The Enterprise comes along the wreckage, takes scans, finds no lifesigns, and gets caught and destroyed by the planet killer. End of story.

And there are many more examples of this, from the get go, that, if we were to dig deeper, we'd find inconsistencies with Trek that were made in the interest of dramatic license.

Writers know that telling a good story is the first responsibility.

That means telling a story that resonates with your audience. So, maybe you can fault Abrams for selecting the "wrong" audience, and there may be some truth to that, but it was just continuing a long, successful Trek tradition.
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2011, 01:01 AM   #205
YARN
Fleet Captain
 
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

Starship wrote: View Post
Friends, remember that movies are made just to make more money.
This has to be about the dumbest thing people say around here. Shakespeare was trying to make money too; this mere fact has not prevented literary criticism of Shakespeare for hundreds of years.

What something was originally intended "to do" or "to be" is not the final word on what it "is" or "does." Penecillium fungi are not designed by nature to serve as antibiotics for humans, but this has not prevented us from making penecillin.

If we limited ourselves in our discussions of Trek to this singular criterion, our discussions would be ridiculously impoverished. "This film was 'made just to make money.' This film made money. Therefore, this film (and all the aspects that comprise it) is a success! Not a word can be uttered against it!"
YARN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2011, 03:56 AM   #206
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

Star Trek has always been brilliant and artistic, and never slightly dumb, or hamfisted.

Didn't you all get the memo?
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1965, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?
Herkimer Jitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2011, 04:11 AM   #207
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

The Castellan wrote: View Post
I'm getting tired of this "flagship" nonsense. Plus does want want a "flagship" to be run by JJ Kirk?

Personally, JJ just said it was so big because he wanted it to sound cool...., excuse me, ...."kewl". That, or to make up for some sort of shortcoming.

But, here's something I posted in my art thread, and I think it's an excellent way to improve the JJPrise.
This piece of art is even more poorly done and unclever than the dreadful Photoshop job by CRA that you're imitating.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2011, 05:50 AM   #208
Broccoli
Vice Admiral
 
Broccoli's Avatar
 
Location: Broccoli
Re: The Improving the JJprise thread

I don't get it. Is the TOS Enterprise a drink dispenser at Taco Bell?
__________________
"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens
Broccoli is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 29 2011, 06:13 AM   #209
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

Broccoli wrote: View Post
I don't get it. Is the TOS Enterprise a drink dispenser at Taco Bell?
seems to me its urinating on the newer Enterprise :T
__________________
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 29 2011, 06:32 AM   #210
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

Yes, but why is it urinating out of the phaser bank?

Anthropomorphically speaking, that's like peeing out your nostrils.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1965, 1966-1969, Jan. 21-23 1972, 1979-2001, 2003-2005, 2009-?

Last edited by Herkimer Jitty; December 29 2011 at 09:45 AM.
Herkimer Jitty 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 10:38 PM.

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