RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,150
Posts: 5,343,707
Members: 24,595
Currently online: 514
Newest member: jagmegyan

TrekToday headlines

New Funko Trek Figure
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Saldana As A Role Model
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

San Diego Comic-Con Trek Fan Guide
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Cumberbatch As Turing
By: T'Bonz on Jul 21

Retro Review: In the Pale Moonlight
By: Michelle on Jul 19

Trek Beach Towel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 18

Two New Starships Collection Releases
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

Giacchino Tour Arrives In North America
By: T'Bonz on Jul 17

IDW Publishing October Star Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16

Cho As Romantic Lead
By: T'Bonz on Jul 16


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 January 20 2008, 02:04 AM   #136
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Addy said:
No, it's a fine analogy because the 23rd century is as much a real time period in Star Trek's universe as the 1970s are in our universe.
There is only one known Universe, one known physical reality.

It's the one we live in and are part of.

"Star Trek" takes place in a fictional continuity. For shorthand it's referred to as a "universe." The word usage does not signify that it exists on the same terms as or is equivalent in any way to what we call the Universe.

The phrase "a real time period in Star Trek's universe" is self-contradictory nonsense and drivel.

Any attempt to equate Trek's continuity with reality is logically absurd, untenable and unworthy of respect as a foundation for reasoning. And that is what "it's real in Trek's universe" does.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 02:18 AM   #137
Sean_McCormick
Captain
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

...but this film gets made in our universe and not in the Star Trek one so in the universe, in which the film gets made, the 2260ies aren't real.

Forbin, no 60 seconds was contemporary, what i wanted to show is, that this car is supposed to be a classic from 30 years ago in that film, yet they couldn't let it stand as it was but felt the need to "sex it up" for the 1998(?) audience, which is what seems to have happened to our favourite starship.

That most of us here would prefer to see the ship exactly as it appeared in "The Cage" does not change the fact, that the creatives behind that movies felt, that the "general audience" would not accept a 40 year old design in the film and that they had to ""improve"" it.
Sean_McCormick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 02:27 AM   #138
Addy
Cadet
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Starship Polaris said:The phrase "a real time period in Star Trek's universe" is self-contradictory nonsense and drivel.
I guess the phrase "suspension of disbelief" would be equally nonsensical to you, eh?

But at least you managed to be unjustifiably rude in the process. It's appreciated.
Addy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 02:33 AM   #139
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Wingsley said:
Starship Polaris said:
The difference being that there's no 23rd century for the movie to be set in, any more than there's an historical Krypton for Kal-El to fall from.

Ergo, there's no more or less restriction on redesigning the fictional 23rd century than there has been in redesigning Krypton every few years since the beginning of "Superman" in the comics - and the reason to do so in both cases is simply to update the property to suit evolving tastes and expectations (as well as to let creative comic book and film artists be artists and designers rather than human photocopiers).

Hmmm... "human photocopiers"...

So why don't these artists and writers simply start with a completely clean sheet of paper, instead of capitalizing on the STAR TREK name?

If you want to see the 2008 Camaro and you don't have time for a 1970 Camaro, then there's nothing wrong with making a NEW TREK with new characters, no Starship Enterprise with "NCC-1701" on the hood, no Jim Kirk, no Spock, etc.
That's the logical trap that's gonna get you labeled a "troublemaker" by the "kewl kids" in here, and get them hitting "report to mod" every time you make a post. Trust me, I know allll about that. There are a half-dozen or so folks in here who'll try ANYTHING to get ME kicked off the BBS. And at least one mod who'll gladly play along. (NOT PTrope, mind you!)

Your logic is inescapable. The argument is "we don't want to be tied down to what's been done before" but the other half of the argument is "we need it to be what came before to get people to come."

It's a classic "bait and switch" argument. The basis of this argument is "you get the people to start watching by fooling them into thinking they're going to see something that they know, then once they've paid to see it, you give them what YOU want to give them, not what they're expecting."

It's about ego ("we can do it better") but also about deceit ("they won't come to see it if I call it something new, so I'll trick them into coming by telling them it's something old. Once I've got their money, they'll have no choice but to sit through it. And since my idea is so much better than the original, they'll decide that my IMPROVEMENTS should replace that old, stale version that they remember.")

Most of what I've seen for this film... script, casting, etc... has been promising. But this uncalled-for ship redesign has put a bad taste into my mouth, and taken what's been a pretty positive perspective on the show overall and turned it into a more cautious one. I'm not sure about anything now.

I know that there are folks who'll argue that it's not important. The answer to them is "so why change it?" There will be other folks who hate the original and want it changed. The answer to them is "so why call it the Enterprise at all?"

Ultimately, this is going to result in the new movie being treated much like the "Lost in Space" movie... as a separate piece. Except in the case of Lost in Space, both the TV show and the movie were abortions. In this case, the TV show is a classic, and we don't know WHAT the movie will be like. But it will inevitably cause a split in the mythos... fans arguing forever after about "which continuity" we're talking about... people choosing sides and fighting. Flame wars, etc.

It's pointless, counterproductive, and ultimately destructive. It may not mean that the film will be a success or a failure, but it will very likely put the final nails into the coffin of classic Trek fandom.

There are those who post here who'll take HUGE pleasure in that, too... and we know who they are.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 02:38 AM   #140
Lord_Schtupp
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

My prediction is that they will show a highly detailed but otherwise exact version of our beloved classic 1701 at the very end of the movie, probably rebuilt after the epic battle with the bad guys (whoever they will be). So really the only "canon" that gets violated will be the first pilot episode with Pike.
__________________

Lord_Schtupp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 02:40 AM   #141
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Starship Polaris said:
Addy said:
No, it's a fine analogy because the 23rd century is as much a real time period in Star Trek's universe as the 1970s are in our universe.
There is only one known Universe, one known physical reality.

It's the one we live in and are part of.

"Star Trek" takes place in a fictional continuity. For shorthand it's referred to as a "universe." The word usage does not signify that it exists on the same terms as or is equivalent in any way to what we call the Universe.

The phrase "a real time period in Star Trek's universe" is self-contradictory nonsense and drivel.

Any attempt to equate Trek's continuity with reality is logically absurd, untenable and unworthy of respect as a foundation for reasoning. And that is what "it's real in Trek's universe" does.
Must you ALWAYS INSULT OTHER PEOPLE, "Oh Great and Mighty Dennis?"

Seriously... you just insulted him. BADLY. You may think it's "kewl" for you to attack others...and we all know that there are people here, because you had a hand in one of the most God-awful episodes of TNG ("Tin Man") would gladly lick the soles of your feet... but you have NO RIGHT to attack people the way that you do.

I know that this will get me a dozen or so "report to mod" clicks from your "fan club" on here... I don't really care. Because you need to get called on the carpet for it. Your arrogant, insulting response to that post was totally unacceptable, and only a total prick would have done that. You owe an apology. I'm sure that you won't GIVE one... but you still owe it.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 02:47 AM   #142
foravalon
Fleet Captain
 
foravalon's Avatar
 
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Cary L. Brown said:
Vance said:
It's kind of funny. On its own merits, it's not bad (though the perspective seems off, too scrunched from front to back) and might look good on the big screen. It does look like it'll be a 'new' TOS enterprise, stuck between ENT and TMP rather than on its own, but that's to be expecting.

What's amusing though, is that on the other hand, this shot probably guarantees that the movie will bomb, for precisely the same reason.
HuH? Please expand on that...
Well, it is an odd-numbered[/i] Star Trek....


Vance said:
...how many OTHER science fiction icons are there that are so definitive? Not that many.. the Death Star, the Falcon.. and.. that's about the list.

I'd have to say the X-wing, and the TARDIS figure pretty prominently in there, if not here in the States then certainly in the UK.





Unfortunately, upon re-looking at Gabe's Enterprise and the view we have here of the new ship, the nacelles look precisely like Gabe's, but hopefully I'm wrong. No offense to Gabe intended, I think the work he's done is beautiful, but I'm also a purist Canon Trek Junkie and I don't feel very comfortable with this decision if it has been made. But hey, if the movie turns out to be Really good, well, forgiveness is easier to get from me than permission.
__________________
Homer: "I'm really glad you corrected me Lisa. People are always reeaally glad when they're corrected."
------------------
Knocking Threads Off Topic since 2004
.
foravalon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 02:55 AM   #143
Sean_McCormick
Captain
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Lord_Schtupp said:
My prediction is that they will show a highly detailed but otherwise exact version of our beloved classic 1701 at the very end of the movie, probably rebuilt after the epic battle with the bad guys (whoever they will be). So really the only "canon" that gets violated will be the first pilot episode with Pike.

I really, really hope so...
Sean_McCormick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 03:20 AM   #144
Eternality
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: California
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

It makes me wonder if the marketing team is out working with focus groups to see if the general public can even tell the difference between the 1960s Enterprise, and the 2008 Enterprise, as well as seeing which one they like better...

In anycase, I don't really think we should put too much stock into this, we don't even know if the finished product showing at the end of the year will look like this at all...

The detailing going into this does give off a sense of production quality that we are used to from 2000s sci fi. I like what I'm seeing, but I don't think the sorts of cues we're seeing here (i.e. building on the ground) are going to be what we see in the final product. Nor do I think in the end that most rank-and-file Trek fans will even be terribly miffed by most of the changes: It might register, but it's not going to be a deal breaker.
__________________
I dare you.
Eternality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 03:40 AM   #145
Arlo
Fleet Captain
 
Arlo's Avatar
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

foravalon said:

Unfortunately, upon re-looking at Gabe's Enterprise and the view we have here of the new ship, the nacelles look precisely like Gabe's, but hopefully I'm wrong.
You think those look PRECISELY like Gabe's? Really? They're both roughly tube shaped, I'll give you that, but that's where the similarities break down.
__________________
"Even with all its blemishes, Trek XI still teabags the bloated corpses that were Insurrection and Nemesis and managed to make Trek fun again." - Sheep
Arlo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 04:15 AM   #146
foravalon
Fleet Captain
 
foravalon's Avatar
 
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

I should have revised my wording, it's not precise, but "They're both roughly tube shaped, ...that's where the similarities break down." is way off too.

The new nacelles have those cowls, a feature not seen on any previous designs of the Enterprise except for Gabe's .

The mechanisms inside the Nacelle caps also appear to each have at least two different spinning apparatus, which if that is the case, likely means that they will spin in opposing directions, (why would you have one pinwheel on top of another one if they're just going to spin in the same direction?). The dual pinwheels spinning in opposite directions is also a feature unique to Gabe's design if you've seen his animations.

Obviously it's hard to tell from this one static image but denying at least those design aspects is just silly.

It might be something new, in fact I'm hoping that it is, but it's certainly not something old that we've seen before, and the design elements which can be seen in the shot certainly have been seen before in Gabe's work.
__________________
Homer: "I'm really glad you corrected me Lisa. People are always reeaally glad when they're corrected."
------------------
Knocking Threads Off Topic since 2004
.
foravalon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 04:20 AM   #147
Ptrope
Agitator
 
Ptrope's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Cary L. Brown said:
Starship Polaris said:
Addy said:
No, it's a fine analogy because the 23rd century is as much a real time period in Star Trek's universe as the 1970s are in our universe.
There is only one known Universe, one known physical reality.

It's the one we live in and are part of.

"Star Trek" takes place in a fictional continuity. For shorthand it's referred to as a "universe." The word usage does not signify that it exists on the same terms as or is equivalent in any way to what we call the Universe.

The phrase "a real time period in Star Trek's universe" is self-contradictory nonsense and drivel.

Any attempt to equate Trek's continuity with reality is logically absurd, untenable and unworthy of respect as a foundation for reasoning. And that is what "it's real in Trek's universe" does.
Must you ALWAYS INSULT OTHER PEOPLE, "Oh Great and Mighty Dennis?"

Seriously... you just insulted him. BADLY. You may think it's "kewl" for you to attack others...and we all know that there are people here, because you had a hand in one of the most God-awful episodes of TNG ("Tin Man") would gladly lick the soles of your feet... but you have NO RIGHT to attack people the way that you do.

I know that this will get me a dozen or so "report to mod" clicks from your "fan club" on here... I don't really care. Because you need to get called on the carpet for it. Your arrogant, insulting response to that post was totally unacceptable, and only a total prick would have done that. You owe an apology. I'm sure that you won't GIVE one... but you still owe it.
Well, Cary, you were right - it does get you a warning for flaming.

OTOH, Starship Polaris, if you can't be respectful of others - and let's face it, you do do this stuff all the time, across the entire BBS - then don't bother posting in these threads. It's possible to disrupt the discussion without breaking the rules, and you've refined it to an art. It's not necessary, though, and it's definitely not welcome. Keep the snide subtexts to yourself.
__________________
Star Trek: Reanimated - it's more than just a cartoon!
Ptrope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 04:40 AM   #148
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Addy said:
I guess the phrase "suspension of disbelief" would be equally nonsensical to you
Not at all - but that idea has no reasonable association with the proposition that the fictional Trek continuity should be privileged as if it's equal to reality in some way. What you posted was simply logically unsupportable as an argument.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 04:47 AM   #149
Ptrope
Agitator
 
Ptrope's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Okay, guys, take the hint: get back on topic and give the semantic arguments a rest, or the spamming warnings begin.
__________________
Star Trek: Reanimated - it's more than just a cartoon!
Ptrope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 20 2008, 05:17 AM   #150
Arlo
Fleet Captain
 
Arlo's Avatar
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

foravalon said:
I should have revised my wording, it's not precise, but "They're both roughly tube shaped, ...that's where the similarities break down." is way off too.

The new nacelles have those cowls, a feature not seen on any previous designs of the Enterprise except for Gabe's .

The mechanisms inside the Nacelle caps also appear to each have at least two different spinning apparatus, which if that is the case, likely means that they will spin in opposing directions, (why would you have one pinwheel on top of another one if they're just going to spin in the same direction?). The dual pinwheels spinning in opposite directions is also a feature unique to Gabe's design if you've seen his animations.

Obviously it's hard to tell from this one static image but denying at least those design aspects is just silly.

It might be something new, in fact I'm hoping that it is, but it's certainly not something old that we've seen before, and the design elements which can be seen in the shot certainly have been seen before in Gabe's work.
Aside from the cowl (which I'm not even that sure of is actually a cowl; foreshortening of the movie still suggests it could be near the length of the whole nacelle, not just the front), I see no similarity, sorry. And the Bussard mechanisms? There have been so many variants of that thing, it's something of an inside joke at this board. The "dual pinwheel" effect, I'm rather certain, has been done before.

Anyway, this is nitpicking. I'll happily eat my words in one year, but I really don't get a vibe that this thing is cribbed from Gabe.
__________________
"Even with all its blemishes, Trek XI still teabags the bloated corpses that were Insurrection and Nemesis and managed to make Trek fun again." - Sheep
Arlo 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 01:22 PM.

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