RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,234
Posts: 5,406,152
Members: 24,762
Currently online: 616
Newest member: PaulHicks

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Online Adds More Voyager Actors
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

The Wil Wheaton Project Axed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

Kurtzman’s Production Company Signs Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27


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 February 2 2008, 03:46 PM   #421
Arlo
Fleet Captain
 
Arlo's Avatar
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

^ Perhaps to fit within the visual and thematic aesthetic of the film?
__________________
"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 February 2 2008, 04:14 PM   #422
cbspock
Rear Admiral
 
cbspock's Avatar
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Sean_McCormick said:
Broker said:
[...]
Much like their hatred of Enterprise destroyed the franchise
[...]

What got Enterprise was not the hatred of some hardcore-Trekkers, but the fact, that too many shows (mainly in the first two seasons) were just mediocre "problem-of-the-week" episodes or even rehashes of stories done before in Trek (and not necessarily good ones).
When they finally came around and did the shows, that people wanted to see, too many people had already given up watching.


The most painful part of the whole run of Enterprise was listening to the lemmings say how great the show was when in reality the show had major problems.


-Chris
__________________
"It's important to give it all you have while you have the chance."-Shania
cbspock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2008, 04:20 PM   #423
Ptrope
Agitator
 
Ptrope's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Enough of the "lemmings" talk. Discuss the shows, the ships, the art - not the fans.
__________________
Star Trek: Reanimated - it's more than just a cartoon!
Ptrope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2008, 04:27 PM   #424
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Arlo said:
^ Perhaps to fit within the visual and thematic aesthetic of the film?
Did they change the look of the ship during the series, to fit the visual and thematic aesthetic of each individual episode?
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2008, 04:38 PM   #425
The Stig
Rear Admiral
 
The Stig's Avatar
 
Location: Dunsfold Aerodrome, Surrey
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

aridas sofia said:
Broker wrote:

What worked in 1966 doesn't work in 2008.
This is a truism that gets said and repeated without any substantiation or proof, and it is beginning to grate on me. Why? Why doesn't it work? Give a reason, and not just a pithy aphorism.
For the same reason that we no longer install shag carpet in our homes: the styles of the times have changed. Some things have endured, most have not. Conversely, the style of the Big E is very much a product of the 1960's and will not play as-is to a modern movie-going audience. This will fall upon deaf ears around here, because Trek fans have themselves convinced that just because they can accept dated 1960's designs that everyone else can.


The overall form of the starship is the same -- fine. It always is the same. 1701-D, Voyager, NX-01... saucer and nacelles. That much has endured. But why must one embrace the specific form of that thing that Matt Jefferies drew and that now sits in the Smithsonian? In part, because it now sits in the Smithsonian.
Well, to be fair, the Enterprise sits in the gift shop, and it isn't because of the design. The Big E is there because of the cultural impact of the original Star Trek series. The show, characters and the ship herself have passed into the common lexicon as the template for space-borne scifi (for better or for worse.)

If you asked the average Joe on the street to describe the Big E, he would most likely be familiar with the broad strokes but fair miserably on the details.

It is classic. It is the recognized form that more than anything else, means Star Trek.
To you. To many others, the classic Star Trek icon are Spock's ears, or Shatner's hammy delivery. It is foolish in the extreme to conflate the view of an uberfan with the general perceptions of the average movie-going public, who are going to have to see and enjoy this movie for it to succeed.

If you begin to depart from the specific form, the first question that must be asked is "why?" And if the answer is "a need for added detail" then this thread and the work of other artists -- including the TOS-R team -- is ample evidence that it can be done within the constraints of the original design.
The TOS-R team have done an impressive job within their narrow constraints of leaving the designs untouched. The Big E hersef still doesn't hold up well on the big screen, even in the low resolution in which they showed 'The Menagerie' in theaters a few months ago.

But if the answer is "because we can change things if we want to," then that motive, and not the design itself, should be held in scrutiny.
That is, of course, not the reason at all.

JJ Abrams and co. want to make Trek in their own image. They have their own ideas on how to do that. To expect them to slavishly adhere to designs and ideas from the original series is foolish in the extreme. Given that, I think that they've been more faithful than I would be in a similar position. The design of the Big E, for example, is very faithful and reminiscent of the Refit (at least in terms of what we've seen thus far.)

And that is where I am at the moment -- Why would anyone change it, except because they can?

Because it doesn't work stylistically anymore.

That you can't accept that doesn't make it any less so.
__________________
Some say that he was the first choice to play the new Doctor but turned it down when he couldn't put racing stripes on the TARDIS.

All we know is, he's called The Stig.
The Stig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2008, 04:59 PM   #426
Ptrope
Agitator
 
Ptrope's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

The Stig said:
aridas sofia said:
And that is where I am at the moment -- Why would anyone change it, except because they can?

Because it doesn't work stylistically anymore.

That you can't accept that doesn't make it any less so.
And the flag drops on that play. Just because you disagree doesn't make you right. No one needs to "accept" that it doesn't work - there's no proof that this is the case, and, IMO, plenty of proof that it does. Sure, it could use some detailing, but there's absolutely no truth to the rumor that the original design isn't good enough or strong enough or stylish enough to hold its own on the big screen in a modern film.

The interiors may be a different matter, but even those don't require wholesale replacement, IMO - I simply don't believe that an imaginative designer can't use them as a template for something move visually commanding. That I read so many posts that say it's "impossible" saddens me, to think that so many people have so little imagination, and such low expectations, and yet are still "science fiction fans."
__________________
Star Trek: Reanimated - it's more than just a cartoon!
Ptrope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2008, 05:12 PM   #427
Irishman
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Charlotte, NC
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

aridas sofia said:
Broker wrote:

What worked in 1966 doesn't work in 2008.
This is a truism that gets said and repeated without any substantiation or proof, and it is beginning to grate on me. Why? Why doesn't it work? Give a reason, and not just a pithy aphorism. There are plenty of things that are as old as 1966 -- or much older -- that still work fine. There are designs and ways of doing things that are considered classics and are a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years old, and are still accepted as legitimate expressions of what their creators were trying to express or achieve. Egyptians mummify in anticipation of an afterlife. Christians embalm in anticipation of resurrection. Egyptians build obelisks to memorialize great battles and fallen pharos. Americans build obelisks to memorialize great battles and fallen founders. Athenians create democracy, and Romans craft a republic, in response to failed tyranny. 2300 years later, Americans frame a democratic republic in response to failed imperialism.

The overall form of the starship is the same -- fine. It always is the same. 1701-D, Voyager, NX-01... saucer and nacelles. That much has endured. But why must one embrace the specific form of that thing that Matt Jefferies drew and that now sits in the Smithsonian? In part, because it now sits in the Smithsonian. It is classic. It is the recognized form that more than anything else, means Star Trek. If you begin to depart from the specific form, the first question that must be asked is "why?" And if the answer is "a need for added detail" then this thread and the work of other artists -- including the TOS-R team -- is ample evidence that it can be done within the constraints of the original design.

But if the answer is "because we can change things if we want to," then that motive, and not the design itself, should be held in scrutiny.

And that is where I am at the moment -- Why would anyone change it, except because they can?
Point eloquently made, as always. However, we're talking about a sci-fi television show from the 1960s, hardly the equivalent of the great world relgions, or the creations of the Athenians or Romans.

The reason I understand and agree with the idea that Trek needs to be recreated and re-futurized, is because as our knowledge of real-world space and science changes, the images and conventions of 1960's Star Trek are going to hold less and less attraction to people in general. Now, if you want to let Trek just be a fringe phenomenon, let it become the plaything of those who wish to keep it in the 1960s.

To challenge us in the future, Trek has to present a future worth chasing, ESPECIALLY in the artistic, social, and technological tone it takes.

Just my 2 cents.
Irishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2008, 06:21 PM   #428
USS Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
USS Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: Homestate of Matt Jefferies
View USS Mariner's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to USS Mariner Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to USS Mariner
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Here's an old post of mine, putting this matter into a different light:

USS Mariner said
Bond, James Bond said
USS Mariner said
Also, I really despise using people to weld the entire ship by hand. Why the fuck did we invent robots and industrial machines then if we're not going to use them 200 years from now? We use machines for efficiency and precision, not just in electrons, but even larger craft like airplanes and boats (Imagine what would happen if someone left a little gap in the weld in a destroyer hull or an airliner hull.)

That more than anything, is unrealistic.
It may be unrealistic, but it's consistent with Trek so far. Robots are a fairly rare occurrence in the Trek universe, with humans (or aliens) still representing by far the primary labor force. If robots are around in great numbers, then they do a damn good job of hiding themselves (the reference to the Enterprise-D being self-cleaning may be an example of this).


Think of the way Geordi reacted to a relatively simple concept even today of a telepresence guided remotely piloted vehicle in "Interface." Sure there was some advanced doohickeys on it, but the VR control suit that provides limited tactile feedback is possible today. Yet they acted like this was something revolutionary. Hell, when it aired in 1993 it wasn't even revolutionary, two years after RPVs played a large part in the Gulf War.


Something might have happened in Earth's past that put the same fear of robots and androids into humanity as they have for genetic engineering. Not as bad as the Eugenics Wars maybe, but they still seem a little gun-shy about robots in general.

Of course in reality the lack of robots simply comes down to budget or dramatic concerns for the show/movie.


I know that. I'm just pointing out the irony that the "fresh take" of Trek seems to reuse many of the same dumb clichés that aren't relevant to the universe as a whole.

The three pillars of any story or drama are plot, characterization, and setting. One of those three pillars can be based in the absurd (as someone who's performed in several Gilbert & Sullivan operettas, I've seen this work first hand,) as is often the case in satires or comedies.


For example, Star Trek has probably one of the most absurd settings out of any fiction, with all aliens speaking English and streaking across the universe in "magical" spaceships and what not, but the plots and characterizations (for the most part) are pretty well-grounded. As Star Trek is a visual form of entertainment, the art direction is vital for it to "work" because it ties the absurd universe to the "realistic" characters and plots.


Being an adhesive between the two parts, the art direction must be both as absurd as necessary and as rational as possible, or you'll lose cohesion and end up with a very-expensive home movie about retards wearing spandex costumes and latex foreheads. It's not necessary (or desirable) to have "hard" extrapolations of science in the future, as that defies not only the point of entertainment, but also the viability of the work as a whole. The best old sci-fi serials fully understood that their "vision" was most likely shit-in-a-handbag, but because that vision wasn't the point, it didn't matter. The point was to build a stage for exciting entertainment and adventures, which they did with great success.


Some of you may criticize me as be a hypocrite, as "look" shouldn't matter in this case, right? The problem is that Gene intended Star Trek to be a dramatic look into our future (before he went senile during TNG, and even before we went "artsy-fartsy-utopia" with TMP,) and therefore too much absurdity would defeat the point.


We don't go around riding flying pink ponies, fighting green giants with glass swords, and casting spells to turn people into laughing trees (except when on drugs,) do we? We will also never see human-like aliens who speak perfect English and breed with us also, but at least we may travel in spaceships that have near-lightspeed engines. If we do venture into space, we will travel in ships with enclosed hulls, that run on electricity, and that are controlled mostly with computers.
__________________
Ignorance is forgivable,
Arrogance is reprehensible,
Narcissism is intolerable.

Subspace Commns Network ~ Visit Marinina!
USS Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2008, 06:41 PM   #429
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

The Stig said:
And that is where I am at the moment -- Why would anyone change it, except because they can?

Because it doesn't work stylistically anymore.

That you can't accept that doesn't make it any less so.
Okay, like Aridas and others, I find this sort of statement slightly irritating, but instead of saying "you can't say that," I'm going to ask you to explain WHY you say that.

You say that it "doesn't work." Okay, let's look at that.

Now, assume that you're talking to someone who's never HEARD of Star Trek before, and who furthermore is from a culture outside of our own, not knowing anything about the 1960s and not knowing anything about 2008, either. Maybe this is someone who grew up in an isolated village in the Andes. Maybe it's someone who has had a brain injury that caused loss of memory but not loss of cognitive function. Maybe it's a freakin' MARTIAN. Who it is, and why they're that way, is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that they have no prior knowledge of our current or past culture, and no prior knowledge of Star Trek at any level.

NOW... make your argument to that person. Explain what aspects of the classic 1701 design don't work, and WHY they don't work. How are you going to argue the point you're making to this "blank slate" person with no preconceptions?

If you can make a strong, reasoned argument on the matter, you may be able to convince those of us here who disagree with you that you have a valid point.

But if you just keep saying "well, this is how it is, and if you disagree, you're stupid and clueless," well... that's not demonstrating ANYTHING except that you have your own personal biases and associate those biases with "reality." Which, as I understand, is exactly what you're accusing OTHERS of, isn't it?
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2008, 06:52 PM   #430
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Sean_McCormick said:
Broker said:
[...]
Much like their hatred of Enterprise destroyed the franchise
[...]

What got Enterprise was not the hatred of some hardcore-Trekkers, but the fact, that too many shows (mainly in the first two seasons) were just mediocre "problem-of-the-week" episodes or even rehashes of stories done before in Trek (and not necessarily good ones).
When they finally came around and did the shows, that people wanted to see, too many people had already given up watching.
Very true.

I find the "trekkies killed a show" argument to be preposterous on every possible level.

Why? Because the whole point of the show is to be entertainment. And if the show is entertaining, it will draw and keep an audience. And if it draws and keeps an audience, it will be successful. (And I'd argue, if it's entertaining, it's "quality" ... since "entertaining" is the single most important characteristic required by something which is considerred ENTERTAINMENT, isn't it?)

The problem is that Enterprise failed to draw and keep an audience sufficient to justify it's continued existence. You can argue that it was great initially and then changed, and the changes killed it (I don't agree, but oh well). You can argue that it was bad originally, and got better, but the improvements weren't able to undo the earlier damage in time (which is my position). You can argue that it was ALWAYS WEAK, and thus was never able to draw and keep an audience. Or you can try to make the argument that it was a really, really awesome show but that the audiences are too stupid to realize that the show was what they SHOULD have wanted.

Only that last argument is demonstrably bogus. Audiences know EXACTLY what they want... and when they get it, they're happy. When they don't get it, they're not happy. Sometimes what they THINK they want isn't what they really want (remember how many folks were in an uproar over ST2, yet it's widely accepted as the best ST flick and one of the best ST stories ever... and the "unacceptable to fans" death of Spock was central to that).

"Enterprise" failed, not because of the fans, but because it wasn't sufficiently high quality (in that most important area, being ENTERTAINING) to draw in and keep the audience. And that's ALL there is to say about it, when you really get down to what matters, isn't it?
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2008, 07:09 PM   #431
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Mariner Class said:
Irishman said:
Captain Robert April said:
I Grok Spock said:As long as the design has a saucer, two rocket engines in the back, and is sporting the name "Enterprise" that will be more than sufficient for most non-fans to identify it as the new Star Wars ship.
And this is supposed to encourage long time fans to see this thing....why?
Man, you're just dripping cynicism.

I'll laugh my ass off if the Enterprise isn't even IN the final movie. All this obsession will have been for naught.
I'll laugh my ass off at JJ for having his CGI team waste upwards of $250,000 for this if the damn thing isn't going to appear at all.
Where'd that $250,000 number come from? The entire TRAILER may have cost that much, sure... though even that number seems high for such a quick-and-dirty (and fairly SHORT) bit. The complete advertising bill for this. I mean, really...

The model itself looks fairly nice... but it's not the model which would be used in a film to represent an operational Starship, is it? Think about it for a moment... all the "guts" bits that were modeled, all the absent paneling...

If you're going to show the complete starship flying through space, this CGI model is NOT the one that will be used. The extra detail present in this model (to reflect "guts") would need to be removed, just for one thing! This isn't like building a physical model, after all. You use CGI models with just the level of detail you'll actually be able to SEE (ie, you don't model stuff on the inside unless it's clearly visible through windows... and you often have a "distant" version that omits that as well!)

So the chances that this model, as we see it, is the "Enterprise" as it will be shown as an operating space vessel are ZERO. The only thing that would accomplish would be to boost render times to many time more than is acceptable... isn't that right?

So, can we all accept that this model, as seen here, is NOT the same CGI model that will be seen in any "spaceflight" shots we may see in the film?

So, given that... the real question is, will the CGI model(s) used to represent the Enterprise (or her sister ships) in the film be based on the ARTISTIC INTENT of what we've seen here?

That's more open to discussion. I'd say that it's correct to say that the model seen in this teaser is intended to represent the current artistic direction of the "official" ship. It may even be a modified version of the current CGI ship and thus may reflect the "real" design fairly closely.

I still fail to see how you argue that the CGI model seen in the trailer is a quarter-million-dollar investment that would be "thrown out" if not used exactly as seen. That argument simply doesn't stand up as far as I can see.

The ship CONCEPT is one thing. The CGI model (or models) used in the film to represent the ship in operational status (plus any "local close-up areas" which are typically not done as complete ship models, but may have a lot more detail than the full model does) are something else. The CGI model used to represent the ship "under construction" is yet ANOTHER thing.

The only way that this is "wasted" is if the "ship under construction" sequence is to be seen in the film, and needs to be recreated using a different model.

Otherwise, the ship design can continue to be tweaked and NOTHING is lost. Is it?
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2008, 07:57 PM   #432
USS Mariner
Rear Admiral
 
USS Mariner's Avatar
 
Location: Homestate of Matt Jefferies
View USS Mariner's Twitter Profile Send a message via AIM to USS Mariner Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to USS Mariner
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Cary L. Brown said:
Mariner Class said:
Irishman said:
Captain Robert April said:
I Grok Spock said:As long as the design has a saucer, two rocket engines in the back, and is sporting the name "Enterprise" that will be more than sufficient for most non-fans to identify it as the new Star Wars ship.
And this is supposed to encourage long time fans to see this thing....why?
Man, you're just dripping cynicism.

I'll laugh my ass off if the Enterprise isn't even IN the final movie. All this obsession will have been for naught.
I'll laugh my ass off at JJ for having his CGI team waste upwards of $250,000 for this if the damn thing isn't going to appear at all.
Where'd that $250,000 number come from? The entire TRAILER may have cost that much, sure... though even that number seems high for such a quick-and-dirty (and fairly SHORT) bit. The complete advertising bill for this. I mean, really...

The model itself looks fairly nice... but it's not the model which would be used in a film to represent an operational Starship, is it? Think about it for a moment... all the "guts" bits that were modeled, all the absent paneling...

If you're going to show the complete starship flying through space, this CGI model is NOT the one that will be used. The extra detail present in this model (to reflect "guts") would need to be removed, just for one thing! This isn't like building a physical model, after all. You use CGI models with just the level of detail you'll actually be able to SEE (ie, you don't model stuff on the inside unless it's clearly visible through windows... and you often have a "distant" version that omits that as well!)

So the chances that this model, as we see it, is the "Enterprise" as it will be shown as an operating space vessel are ZERO. The only thing that would accomplish would be to boost render times to many time more than is acceptable... isn't that right?

So, can we all accept that this model, as seen here, is NOT the same CGI model that will be seen in any "spaceflight" shots we may see in the film?

So, given that... the real question is, will the CGI model(s) used to represent the Enterprise (or her sister ships) in the film be based on the ARTISTIC INTENT of what we've seen here?

That's more open to discussion. I'd say that it's correct to say that the model seen in this teaser is intended to represent the current artistic direction of the "official" ship. It may even be a modified version of the current CGI ship and thus may reflect the "real" design fairly closely.

I still fail to see how you argue that the CGI model seen in the trailer is a quarter-million-dollar investment that would be "thrown out" if not used exactly as seen. That argument simply doesn't stand up as far as I can see.

The ship CONCEPT is one thing. The CGI model (or models) used in the film to represent the ship in operational status (plus any "local close-up areas" which are typically not done as complete ship models, but may have a lot more detail than the full model does) are something else. The CGI model used to represent the ship "under construction" is yet ANOTHER thing.

The only way that this is "wasted" is if the "ship under construction" sequence is to be seen in the film, and needs to be recreated using a different model.

Otherwise, the ship design can continue to be tweaked and NOTHING is lost. Is it?
I was referring to the whole trailer with that figure (which isn't an exact figure, but probably safe, what with all the hiring-actual-welders-for-green-screening tomfoolery.
__________________
Ignorance is forgivable,
Arrogance is reprehensible,
Narcissism is intolerable.

Subspace Commns Network ~ Visit Marinina!
USS Mariner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2008, 08:02 PM   #433
Manticore
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Manticore
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

I think that it's quite possible to see this model in action, if they do decide to do so. It'd be pretty easy to just superimpose the paneling and detail on top of the 'pristine' model. All that they had to do was make a production model, and then put all of the paneling and stuff on top, and slap a 'matte' material that roughly conforms to the shape of the area that you're working in to block off bits that would be blocked off.
__________________
Lord Vorkosigan does not always get what he wants.
WWJAD
Manticore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 2 2008, 08:28 PM   #434
Arlo
Fleet Captain
 
Arlo's Avatar
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Forbin said:
Arlo said:
^ Perhaps to fit within the visual and thematic aesthetic of the film?
Did they change the look of the ship during the series, to fit the visual and thematic aesthetic of each individual episode?
Meaningless strawman.

JJ is redesigning the Enterprise to fit with his vision. Accusing him of doing it "just because he can" is rather puerile.
__________________
"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 February 2 2008, 09:10 PM   #435
Holytomato
Fleet Captain
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

This confuses me.

JJ Abrams has updated the TOS Charlie X design further than ENT's In A Mirror Darkly, Vektor, etc. That's bad.

BUT...

ENT's In A Mirror Darkly, Vektor, etc. have updated the TOS Charlie X design less than JJ Abrams. That's good.

Because...the TOS Charlie X design can stand on its own.

Then...

Why update the TOS Charlie X design at all?

Why don't I see the TOS Charlie X design un-updated?

Remember, DS9's Trials and Tribblations?
Holytomato 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 10:29 PM.

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