RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,791
Posts: 5,217,782
Members: 24,221
Currently online: 689
Newest member: soccerjerseys29

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


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 25 2008, 03:47 AM   #256
Admiral Buzzkill
The Legend
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

ChuckPR said:
As far as Patrick Stewart is concerned,
let him spend a few years signing autographs at Car Shows
for a living the way Shatner had to for years...
Stewart doesn't have to do that because his show was a success the first time.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 03:58 AM   #257
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Starship Polaris said:
ChuckPR said:
As far as Patrick Stewart is concerned,
let him spend a few years signing autographs at Car Shows
for a living the way Shatner had to for years...
Stewart doesn't have to do that because his show was a success the first time.
It's harder doing something first.
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 03:59 AM   #258
ChuckPR
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Holytomato said:
"Should the women be in one piece micro minis?'

"I'd like to see more variations, but sure. After all, that was the style during that period of Star Trek."

Do women in the military, and NASA wear micro minis?

Rmember, The Cage, and Where No Man Has Gone Before had female Starfleet officers...wear...P A N T S tm!

So, in Star Trek XI female Starfleet Officers must wear...
P A N T S tm!

"Fans who grew up after the Cold War will never know the pleasure of school house drills where you ducked under your desk in a pretend nuclear attack drill.

We all knew that if the real thing ever came we might as well kiss our asses goodbye while we were ducking and putting our heads between our legs.

Well into the late '70's early '80's there was always that chance that someone would screw up and a small confrontation or accident lead to nuclear war."

Let's see 9/11, plastic wrapping, and duck taping will save us! tm.

Kids today have no idea tm.

:roll eyes:

"So great it was canceled with even worse ratings at the end than "Enterprise" and largely became a self-parody and embarrassment to the entire sci-fi genre? You mean that NuBSG?"

Let's see Razor, and a Season 4.

I don't see a Cancelled tm here.



Failure means its not camp. It's not made like it was in 1966.

Star Trek must appeal to the hardcore fans.

Remember how successful Nemesis and Enterprise were?

Oh, right....Enterprise was Cancelled tm.

Its 2008

Long live Star Trek!

:thumbsup:
I'm confused as to whose points you are discussing,

and your points aren't too clear there as well.


I didn't see too many people above holding up either Nemesis or Enterprise as good examples of Trek.

For good reason.

Ever since the about the fourth season of Voyager, as B & B began to demand that virtually everybody that wrote for them churn out more "Big Idea" Sci-Fi in which every episode across two and finally a third series became more and more grandiose, overly melodramatic and more and more devoid of character development then the previous episodes.

If anything, Deep Space Nine and Voyager de-evolved as a series after B & B converted all but a few writers and guest writers to their "Big Idea" style of Sci-Fi writing.

Nemesis' stated aim was to draw in new viewers, but it was little more then a TNG two episode show brought to the big screen with the commercials cut out.

Just as B & B claimed Enterprise was designed to introduce new viewers who had never seen Star Trek
to the Trek universe.

Without having ever seen a single episode of Trek,
Enterprise was allegedly designed by B & B as a series that a total non-fan could understand from the get go and fully appreciate.

I still have the TV guide interview somewhere where B&B actually states that total bunch of BS!

However, by the end of the pilot episode the "Temporal Cold War" crap created a THREE SEASON STORY ARCH that would have to be a seasoned fan to understand any part of the series past the first hour or so...

So for those reasons I don't see anyone holding up either Nemesis nor most of Enterprise(there were maybe a dozen good episodes, most of them in the last year)

as examples of either Traditional Trek or good Trek.


I have no doubt or argument that Trek needs a reset.

It needs to become a less politically correct, harder edged franchise that still mantains a positive view of the future without that future appearing to be filled with the increasingly pansie-assed boring bureaucratic federation dweebs of the future.

Earlier Trek was about Explorers and Pioneers.

Not Bureaucrats in comfortable unisex jumpsuits who did their exploring in the equivalent of Luxury liners(Enterprise D through ...) in enough safety and comfort to bring along and house entire families as shown in some episodes of TNG.

It's time Trek tackled the grit and danger involved instead of painting Federation service as some Disney adventure.
ChuckPR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 04:14 AM   #259
ChuckPR
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Starship Polaris said:
ChuckPR said:
As far as Patrick Stewart is concerned,
let him spend a few years signing autographs at Car Shows
for a living the way Shatner had to for years...
Stewart doesn't have to do that because his show was a success the first time.
My point is I think he believes he's endeared more
fan appreciation and loyalty then he ever will have.

I took Shatner's Saturday Night live skit in stride,
(not that I had too much of a choice, it was dead on
accurate on a lot of levels) and didn't hold any
grudges against the guy because he has proven over the
years that he truly seems to like the fans.

Even if he doesn't like us as much as I give him credit for,
at least the guy has spent countless hours days and years
responding too and entertaining us.

Stewart has yet to attempt to do any of that.

Not to mention that Nemesis key premise could not
have been set up in a more stupid, inane and idiotic,
totally incompetent way in terms of filmaking.

The most dramatic part of the entire movie should have been the moment
when we saw Picard's clone.

Yet there was no setup.

No decent flashback that thoroughly showed us a younger Picard
so we would even know this guy was RELATED to Picard MUCHLESS A CLONE!

Jeez!

What should have been the most dramatic part of the movie just let people sitting there
through an explanation that occurred AFTERWARDS which instead should have occured BEFOREHAND.

Instead, due to the music, the timing, framing etc it was obvious
that this was a major turning point of the movie, yet we were just left sitting there thinking
"Who the hell is this guy?!?" as they went into the explanation as to why the moment THAT JUST PASSED,
should have been dramatic

- BUT WASN'T!!!

That plus the fact that most of the cast made the movie with all the enthusiasm of another episode of TNG,

and we were to be lectured by Stewart that Nemesis' failure was OUR FAULT?!?

I don't think so, Patrick Stewart!

Don't make an incompetently filmed, incompetently executed two part TNG episode,
claim it was REALLY the best Trek movie ever - we were just too dumb to see it -
and then blame us for your incompetence, Mr Stewart.
ChuckPR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 04:41 AM   #260
ChuckPR
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Starship Polaris said:
Vektor said:
Vance said:
Oddly, neither Enterprise nor Nemesis were made for 'hardcore fans'. In fact, the production teams for both of those projects went out of their way to say that it was to capture a 'new' audience , even if it meant alienating some of the 'old fan base'.
One thing the various Trek productions have proved over the years is that saying you’re going to make a Trek film or TV series in a particular sort of way or for a particular type of audience does not necessarily mean that you have the slightest clue how to actually do it.
This is true. It's also true that the fact that two very different productions - Abrams' film and "Enterprise" - have made similar choices in several regards is in large part because the alternatives are not reasonable.

To cater to the hard-core Trek fan base, small as it's become, is to guarantee commercial failure. And to do it to the tune of 130 million dollars would be criminal irresponsibility where the stockholders of CBS and Paramount are concerned.

One might as well spend over 100 million dollars making a "Stargate SG-1" film or a similarly-budgeted film based on Ron Moore's "Battlestar Galactica" - they're both popular with a certain number of people, are reasonably well-regarded by lots of folks and are successful within limits that satisfy their studios and producers and networks, but no one has any reason to believe that an audience of sufficient size exists to make such a huge investment reasonable. And so, these days, with "Star Trek."
So many people seem to know so much about the movie...

Yet far as I know, no one has seen it yet.

Do remember that stuff on the net, no matter where we THINK it might be coming from,

is still just stuff on the net.

I've heard gossip at work that after passing through just three people is almost unrecognizable from the first story I heard.

It's why no one should ever depend on it.

Multiply that line of gossip by thousands or more and you begin
to get an idea of how little we probably really do know about this movie.

Not to mention the fact that Trek's handlers have on countless occasions leaked nonesense, fake storylines,
yada yada yada to intentionally mislead people.

Even if that's not the case who really can say they know how the movie
is going to come out when the guys who are making it don't know?

They are constantly considering re-writes and have because of this
pointed to the writers' strike as a major reason the release date cannot be 100% guaranteed.

So how the heck do so many people claim that this is being done and that is being down when, even if accurate(unlikely),
what is being done could be changed and/or scrapped entirely by the time the final film is in the can?

Maybe good things are being done that will ensure Trek's future.

Maybe things will be done in this movie that will
help lead to the demise of Trek in film or TV for years to come.

How about we see the movie before pronouncing her dead or alive?
ChuckPR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 04:47 AM   #261
ChuckPR
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Wingsley said:
The real problem with Bermanian TREK, as it evolved since the late 1980's, was creative. They just didn't put out stories of a quality level that made the shows compelling enough to sustain them long-term. I'm surprised Berman & Co. lasted as long as they did. If ENTERPRISE had started out with "First Flight" as their pilot episode, (excellent story) and progressed from there with quality stories in the like vein, the show probably could've stayed on the air to this day.


On to a different sub-topic in this thread:

I do not believe the image depicts a ship being constructed "on the ground" as some have speculated. It looks to me to be in the shadows of an orbital drydock, with the Earth directly astern of the under-construction ship. The vapors look to be put in there for dramatic effect, to make it look like the Big E is emerging from the mists of time, or whatever.
The lack of pressure suits tells us that at the least there is a force field and some sort of gravity.

But the best evidence is that Trek lore has always been that the Enterprise was built in Starfleet's San Francisco Shipyards.

I would consider that to be a reasonable bow to the fans of Canon Trek.

While they would not have to follow the Treklore, I don't see it as a negative and would probably help endear them to the fans a bit, who might then look the other way a bit on things like an increase in the ship size.

But again, this is all a guess based on canon lore, but I see no reason why they wouldn't bow to tradition on this point.
ChuckPR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 04:56 AM   #262
ChuckPR
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Ptrope said:
Starship Polaris said:
It's also true that the fact that two very different productions - Abrams' film and "Enterprise" - have made similar choices in several regards is in large part because the alternatives are not reasonable.
This isn't true at all. Just because they came to the same trendy conclusions doesn't mean they bothered to explore the alternatives. Let's face it, Hollywood is filled with ex-waiter/ex-ecutives who latch onto what has been successful for someone else, and then insist that everything else should follow that formula. What I really don't understand is these same people's tendencies to option a well-known property, presumably because that property is recognized as having proven successful elsewhere, and then proceed to strip out the very things that set it apart from the rest of the chaff. In this case, how does making Star Trek resemble every other recent sci-fi production, including a number of Trek movies that weren't exactly blockbusters, constitute 'visionary' or 'radical' thinking? Bigger and busier aren't, by definition, better. And again, we come down to this: the 'unwashed masses" wouldn't know the difference between a reimagined Enterprise and a one like Vektor's, which maintains both the form and spirit of the original in a package that would be both classic and acceptable to those same 'unwashed masses' used to the high-tech style of recent films, and at the same time, his design clearly strikes a chord with a good representative sample of hardcore fans. Both sides win!

I don't really see that this math is all that hard to follow.
I agree 100%.

B & B lied about creating Enterprise as a wholely new series
that anyone could follow from the get-go.

Their "Temporal Cold War" three year plot line arch was about
as transparent as Britney Spears' panties!!!

It was a plot-gimmick excuse that allowed them to revert back
to using all the storyline and future-trek stylistic choices
that they never had any intention of not recycling.

Those two should have gotten the Nobel piece prize for
MOST LIKELY TO USE EVERY POSSIBLE SCI-FI PLOT GIMMICK KNOWN TO MAN IN A SINGLE SEASON!!!

They never hesitated to unravel entire episodes or previous plot lines via their obsession
with time travel and other grandiose gimmicks.
ChuckPR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 05:23 AM   #263
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Arlo said:
Or just get a Mac and type option-e-e.
The only way I'd do it.
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 06:05 AM   #264
Wingsley
Commodore
 
Wingsley's Avatar
 
Location: Wingsley
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

I agree with Ptrope.

There seems to be a line of thought in this thread that this is all about old-versus-new, conservative-versus-fresh start, continuity-versus-creativity. No, TOS gave us a show (and a fictional universe) based on ideas, on principles and on characters that stood for something. As with any TV show, it stumbled and had to cope with the limitations of its era. But TOS was special because its producers, writers and actors were hungry. They were taking a chance. The work they produced was so bold that all Paramount had to do was shoehorn in some CGI FX and now a 40-year-old TV show is wowing audiences again and selling new DVDs. How many TV shows of even half that age can manage such a feat?

Mr. Berman & Co. inherited STAR TREK after the franchise had already made a splash in reruns and four movies. They fumbled with the continuity, politicized the writing staff, and alot of people left. Still, there were a couple of young (and hungry) writers on board (Melinda Snodgrass and Ronald D. Moore among them) who kept TNG going with fresh ideas ("The Measure of a Man", "The Defector") that kept the franchise going for years after even they left. But Berman & Co. kept beating a dead horse. TNG begat DS9. DS9 begat VOY. VOY begat ENT. The continuity wasn't great, but it was there.

The point is, Rick Berman, Maurice Hurley and others were not hungry. They were not taking chances. They just hopped on the gravy train and rode it till it ran out of steam. (Or ideas.)

Will this Abrams do a good job with the new movie? I have no idea, but Hollywood's track record isn't promising with this kind of venture. People want to hold up Ronald D. Moore's GALACTICA as an example, but when it comes to re-makes that show is the exception, not the rule. And despite GALACTICA's success (ENT made it through a fourth season, too), it hasn't been without controversy. When I watched the "Pegasus" two-parter, I was convinced at least part of the show's appeal on cable arose from its shock value as essentially R-rated TV. Moore and company constantly dance on the edge with characters that exhibit wild and edgy behavior. If someone is intent on doing that with STAR TREK, it will be like throwing out all the principles, the ideals and the characters that made the show distinctive in the first place.

The image at the top of this thread does suggest something about this film. It will be different from all the other STAR TREK movies. I would (cautiously) welcome that. The image does leave a bad taste in my mouth, though. The saucer looks too much like TMP, "NCC" font and all. This is not 1979 anymore, and if this is supposed to be an ambitious effort, I would hope Abrams & Co. could do better than that.
__________________
"The way that you wander is the way that you choose. / The day that you tarry is the day that you lose. / Sunshine or thunder, a man will always wonder / Where the fair wind blows ..."
-- Lyrics, Jeremiah Johnson's theme.
Wingsley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 07:34 AM   #265
Captain Robert April
Vice Admiral
 
Location: In selfless service to fandom, on the road to becoming a Star Trek trivia god...
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Finally have a computer working at home. Should be able to conjure up a comparison pic soon.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 03:45 PM   #266
Admiral Buzzkill
The Legend
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

ChuckPR said:
How about we see the movie before pronouncing her dead or alive?
I'm not even interested in pronouncing the movie "dead or alive."

I am, however, a great deal more excited by the opportunity to see a Trek movie made with the resources and imagination and dedication that Abrams and his team are clearly pouring into this than I am with the blessed "Star Trek Franchise" or the long-term commercial health thereof.

That said, all signs so far point to this being a better movie than (at most) one or two of the pre-Abrams Trek films.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 04:33 PM   #267
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

ChuckPR said:
How about we see the movie before pronouncing her dead or alive?
This is one of the most annoying and stupid, but also most common, fanboisms that I've ever seen. You're demanding that I see the movie before I judge whether or not I should see the movie?
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 04:34 PM   #268
Nerroth
Fleet Captain
 
Nerroth's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Arlo said:
Jeffries, Joseph, Jein (what's with all the J's?)
Maybe they are all officers aboard the Enterprise-J...



As regards the ship model, it's interesting to note that looks like it has torp launchers on the dorsal primary hull.


Overall, I'll have to wait and see how things go - the images and the context of such will be clearer then.
__________________
You think you know a story, but you only know how it ends.
To get to the heart of the story, you have to go back to the beginning.

----------------------
The Star Fleet Universe: ST: TOS' other legacy.
Nerroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 04:39 PM   #269
ST-One
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Vance said:
ChuckPR said:
How about we see the movie before pronouncing her dead or alive?
This is one of the most annoying and stupid, but also most common, fanboisms that I've ever seen. You're demanding that I see the movie before I judge whether or not I should see the movie?
If you don't see it you will not be in a position to criticise it.
ST-One is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 25 2008, 04:44 PM   #270
Vance
Vice Admiral
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Again, that is a stupid statement. I'm not allowed to say "I'm not interested in seeing X because of Y?" unless I actually see 'X' even because of 'Y'?

Look, Trek has sucked in the last few years. This is also a re-imagining of a much beloved root of a much-beloved franchise. It's got a high bar to overcome. Neither the trailer nor the preview images have sold me on this movie.

It's stupid to demand my 'loyalty' for a branded product. I don't owe the fandom or the franchise anything. That's not it works. It's a product that Paramount has to sell to me, and they ain't done that yet.
Vance 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 08:33 AM.

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