The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

[Arlo]

I know it's sitting in a box in the gift shop basement (seen it many times), but that still seems a rather presumptuous statement...

[Vance]

TV Guide made the statement, Starlog made the statement more than once. I mean, kick back, think about, 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.

But I think that it's telling that, at a time where Trek is seriously floundering and repeated 'reinvision' attempts have failed miserably, that some fans are still of the thought that ditching what started this 40 year old journey is a good idea.

[Cary L. Brown]

Look, it's a true statement that the Enterprise is a cultural icon. We all know that. Nobody's going to deny that unless they're being intentionally obtuse in order to pick a fight (which has been known to happen on here sometimes!)

But Arlo's comment is also true. You made a statement of fact but as far as I know, nobody's ever done a scientifically valid study of what sci-fi icon is the most well-recognized ever.

You overstated your case a bit, and he's nitpicking the overstatement. Am I wrong on either count?

Now, to MY point... I happen to agree with you, Vance, about how the Enterprise is the single most widely recognized vessel (not just SCIFI vessel, but ANY vessel) in all of fiction. I doubt that you could show a picture of the TOS Enterprise to people in any city in any nation on this planet and have them not recognize it. You might find a few villages in the Andes where nobody'd know it, but those would be few and far between!

BUT... I fail to see the logical connection between the point of "the ship isn't a 100% perfect recreation, just more polished" (which is what I want to see!) and "the movie will be a bomb."

THAT is the part that I'm challenging.

It may irritate the Trek fans a bit... though how much is dependent on how much it deviates and if there's a plausible explanation for how and why... but if it's "very close" (which it seems to be), most audience members won't care... so the success or failure of the movie will be based more upon the quality of the storytelling.

[Arlo]

Ok, fine. It just seems such an absolute statement, I wondered if there was actually research backing it up, not just anecdotal claims.

Globally speaking, I suspect the Death Star is a more recognized icon, but that's just me.

[Vance]

I'll put it bluntly. Why would people who gave the last four movies and last two television series a complete miss, suddenly come to this one? Would people accept a whole new cast, writing, sets, etc, that's 'original series' just because it says it's 'original series'?

If you're going to base your hopes on the success of this film as being 'the original is back', then it needs to be 'the original' as much as what's feasible. The more you vary (particularly in ways that you don't need to), the more it's going to be 'just another Trek flick from MilkingDeadCowFilms, Inc.'.

And how, exactly, is that going to bring in any butts on seats?

[MarianLH]

I don't think that many people will care about minor changes to the ship.

Of course, by "people" I mean the larger moviegoing public, not just us nerds. I'm sure the Trek XI forum is exploding right now.


Marian

[Arlo]

Though I am loathe to make this comparison...

If we're speaking of iconography, then consider the broad interpretations of icons in religion. No two paintings or frescos have ever portrayed characters and scenes from the bible identically. There are variations both subtle and broad, all based on archetypes. And yet, all are accepted as allegories. No one nitpicks that the virgin Mary's hair is 3 cm. too long.

To some on this board, the One True Enterprise™ is the model at the Smithsonian; any copy that deviates from microscopic laser measurements is a fraud. To most here, I suspect we apply a somewhat rational acceptance of the varied work by Jeffries, Joseph, Jein (what's with all the J's?), and everyone else who has interpreted the girl in various media.

To the "outside world", the iconography of the Enterprise is a dinner plate, a pickle and two sticks. So in short, I wouldn't worry myself that the ship looks "faithful", in terms of making a successful movie. I would be much more concerned about the writing, acting and direction.

[Cary L. Brown]

Vance said:I'll put it bluntly. Why would people who gave the last four movies and last two television series a complete miss, suddenly come to this one? Would people accept a whole new cast, writing, sets, etc, that's 'original series' just because it says it's 'original series'?

Simple. Because they see something that, on the basis of it being GOOD ENTERTAINMENT ALONE, is something that they want to see.

This trailer (which I'll be seeing in person in a few hours... I'm off to the flick tonight) is all about getting people excited FIRST. That's what the film has to do, too. Remind them that it's Star Trek later.

If you're going to base your hopes on the success of this film as being 'the original is back', then it needs to be 'the original' as much as what's feasible. The more you vary (particularly in ways that you don't need to), the more it's going to be 'just another Trek flick from MilkingDeadCowFilms, Inc.'.

Aha, but that's how it got sold TO THE STUDIO HEADS, not how it's being sold to the audiences. The general audience isn't all that much more likely to go watch an episode of TOS on the big screen than they are to go see Picard and "Picard light" have dinner, then fight to the death...

The audience will come if it looks like an entertaining film, not if it looks like a Star Trek film. In the minds of many people, those two have long since ceased to be synonymous and have actually become antonyms. "Trek" is NOT "Entertaining" in the minds of the general audience anymore. This film has to change that.

I agree, wholeheartedly, that it's unnecessary and undesirable to make changes to the designs, the costume, etc. And that this will cause problems for the franchise long-term which aren't NECESSARY in order to create a successful film. I think you and I agree on that point.

My only argument with you is that you seem to think that this is going to result, IN AND OF ITSELF, in an unsuccessful film. I don't see the logic behind that argument. I may, PERSONALLY, not like to see certain changes... but that has nothing to do with whether or not the film will be a box-office success.

And how, exactly, is that going to bring in any butts on seats?

Leaving the ship identical to the original, or making changes to it, SHOULDN'T bring more butts in, or drive more butts away. The story is what ought to do that. If anyone chooses whether or not to go see a movie based upon the "set dressing," they're there for the wrong reason as far as I'm concerned.

Still... I'm not entirely happy with what I'm seeing (having seen the photoshop-enhanced, brightened image now). I see a lot of pointless, unnecessary changes that don't actually add anything to the design, but do create a contradictory issue with what we already know.

That said... none of that will result in a box-office bomb, will it?

[Vance]

Well, like I said, this particular movie is selling itself heavily on nostalgia, in much the way the BSG, Transformers, etc, did. This is always a tricky thing to do. BSG re-invisioned a weak (and also self-parodic) franchise, so there was little risk in alienating old fans. (Both of them protested, I heard.)

Transformers was a franchise that had ALREADY been re-invisioned multiple times, and was a 'kids line' now designed for an 'adult' audience. A lot more could be forgiven.

But Trek? This is new. Redoing something that ingrained inthe public psyche is an immense undertaking. Like I said, you can make changes, but the more you change, particularly doing so while insulting the source material (see the threads here on the old model), you're shooting yourself in the foot before you've even started the race.

[Arlo]

Vance said:
Well, like I said, this particular movie is selling itself heavily on nostalgia,

I'm not so sure about this. "Trials and Tribulations" was pure nostalgia, down to the boots and beehives. This movie uses beloved characters, sure, but the setting is wholly new, and thus far none of the promotion (which is nonexistent, really) has played up nostalgia. If anything, they are seem to be trying to make it known it is a modern, fresh approach to the material.

[Vance]

They're selling the movie as

"The Original Enterprise"
"Kirk, Spock, and McCoy"

Why the hell would you do that if you weren't selling nostalgia?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No matter the angles and perspective, those engines are much bigger in diameter relative to the saucer than those on the TOS ship.

It looks like the scale of the ship is close to that of the original, though, based on interior deck heights.

Many details on the saucer resemble the TMP ship - including what look like phaser emplacements on the very forward edge of the saucer top.

Details here may turn out to vary from what the final ship will look like - remember how much adjustment was made to Kong's face (in the Peter Jackson film) after the initial images were released? Details such as, for instance, the placement of the registry - that may have been done simply because they wanted it readable from the angle they're rendering here.

All in all, I like this a lot.

[doctorwho 03]

HOLY !!!! I like it. :thumbsup: Now I have to see that teaser. Hopefully after it premieres with Cloverfield, it'll be posted on Youtube.

[Praetor]

Meh. I'm underwhelmed. My main quibbles involve the engine size, detailing, and the A-B-C deck area... but if forced I could live with it and maybe with time and more views I could grow to... accept it.

I don't think that it's as nostalgic in appearance as it could have been, and it some ways they seemed to have dropped the ball by not reimagining the original design purely without throwing it some refit-y details... but time will tell.

So long as there aren't vectoring nacelles I won't be marching in the streets.

[Psion]

I was rather hoping for something a little closer to the original. It looks like Gabe was poking around here to refine the official ship after all. Still, I'm more concerned about the suggestion that the ship was built on the ground (I guess the fog is meant to evoke San Francisco?) rather than in orbit.

Is this really a construction shot, though? Consider: the actor playing Chris Pike is a bit older than Hunter during the first pilot. From this, I deduce that the movie takes place very roughly a decade after the Talosian incident. Also, the hull has its markings in place ... are any planes or ships made today painted before the skin is attached? This suggests we're looking at a refit or repair.