RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,821
Posts: 5,326,622
Members: 24,550
Currently online: 760
Newest member: junkdata

TrekToday headlines

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


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 3 2008, 01:19 PM   #451
Arlo
Fleet Captain
 
Arlo's Avatar
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

aridas sofia said:
Arlo said:
^ "Just because he can" is a loaded phrase. It basically means, "with no thought".
Nope. It means what it means. And no more.
Since we're not going to agree on this point I see no sense continuing this line of discussion. Carry on.
__________________
"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 3 2008, 05:52 PM   #452
ancient
Vice Admiral
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Not using a design closer to the 60's version has nothing to do with the original looking outdated. I mean, the original ship had a series of smaller & smaller hull bumps to represent the upper saucer, the 'underbridge' and the bridge itself. In the new design they also have a series of hull-bump shapes...except they changed their size and shape.

I assure you, Abrams is not going: "Our hull bumps are way more '2008' than those outdated '1967' hull bumps! Bravo, design team!"
__________________
----------------------------
Time Travel was and will be confusing
ancient is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3 2008, 08:30 PM   #453
Brutal Strudel
Rear Admiral
 
Brutal Strudel's Avatar
 
Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Exactly.
__________________
Once every lifetime, we're swallowed by the whale.
Brutal Strudel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3 2008, 08:52 PM   #454
Holytomato
Fleet Captain
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

"I'd hazard to say most of the re-design cheerleaders are fans of several series, perhaps having come to Star Trek from the 24th century."

Holytomato,

Class of '72

Nice try. These Brats don't know anything tm.

"If it's not some reason like this, there's no reason for it that I can think of other than ego satisfaction."

So, TMP, TWOK, and TNG are Ego stroking tm?

From Violation of Canon tm to These Brats don't know anything tm to Ego Stroking tm.
Holytomato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3 2008, 09:17 PM   #455
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Rottentomato™ DumbPost™ score.... 8.8/10

aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3 2008, 09:34 PM   #456
Brutal Strudel
Rear Admiral
 
Brutal Strudel's Avatar
 
Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Holytomato said:
"I'd hazard to say most of the re-design cheerleaders are fans of several series, perhaps having come to Star Trek from the 24th century."

Holytomato,

Class of '72

Nice try. These Brats don't know anything tm.


Nice putting words in my mouth. Besides, I said "most." Some of you cheerleaders just lack taste.
__________________
Once every lifetime, we're swallowed by the whale.
Brutal Strudel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 3 2008, 10:49 PM   #457
Broker
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

I should probably clarify.
I don't think the demise of Enterprise is solely on the shoulders of fans. Of course it's not. the franchise in it's current incarnation had played out. There was and still is nothing more to do. But it seems to me, the constant campaigning against the show by some hardcore fans certainly didn't help. I watched every episode of it's run and yes, there were problems. The second season was pretty much horrible across the board. But I believe it was hitting it's stride by season 4. I do not think it should have continued tho. The current franchise needed to end. the universe had become so convoluted and there was so much established continuity that creating new adventures in that universe became problematic. It was then it became clear to me that a reboot of some kind was in order.
My hypothesis is that this movie will be a soft reboot, probably forming a divergent timeline, to explain the differences in the Big E and the universe itself. Everything we know will still have happened, but this frees up the universe to go in new directions with the same characters. It's risky for fans but could have mass appeal.
I have read that this "alternate timeline" Enterprise will be more of a warship. Perhaps Spock's trip back in time lands him in this alternate timeline and that's where the action takes place. We'll find out in December.
But as this topic is about the E, I should probably stop expressing my opinion about the "state of the franchise" and confine my thoughts to the new/old ship.
I was always partial to the more realistic refit E of the movies. Not that I hated the TOS E, I came up with that ship, but the movie E spoke to me more. So if this new ship looks more like that, I have no problem. If you've seen the corridors, that would have been harder to explain away, were it not for this divergent timeline theory. Yeha it looks like a Battlestar corridor, or as my friend said he expected Master Chief to walk around the corner. But that's not a bad thing.
Not all new Trek is good Trek, that much is certain. But if Abrams and co have accomplished nothing else, they have ignited the fire under the ass of the fanbase. That's never a bad thing.

I'll leave you with something my girlfriend, also a Trek fan like me said when I relayed to her this threads contents...
"for fans of something that is supposed to embody infinite diversity in infinite combinations, they sure are unwilling to accept anything new."

I thought it was profound and sorta true
Broker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2008, 03:10 AM   #458
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

the franchise in it's current incarnation had played out. There was and still is nothing more to do. But it seems to me, the constant campaigning against the show by some hardcore fans certainly didn't help. I watched every episode of it's run and yes, there were problems. The second season was pretty much horrible across the board. But I believe it was hitting it's stride by season 4. I do not think it should have continued tho. The current franchise needed to end. the universe had become so convoluted and there was so much established continuity that creating new adventures in that universe became problematic.
I hear this a lot... it's a fairly common refrain. I absolutely disagree with it, though. Since I don't recall ever saying this to YOU, I hope the rest of you will forgive me for repeating myself...

Consider films or TV shows which are, ostensibly, set in the "real world." The real world has FAR MORE "continuity" set up than the Star Trek universe has. Yet I've never heard anyone complaining that the real world is "used up" and you can't come up with any more stories in the real world (or, perhaps I should say, a reasonable facsimile intended to fool the audience into thinking that it's the same world they live in... just want to be clear).

Now, that's ONE PLANET (and for the most part, one COUNTRY, really)...

In the Federation, in TOS times, there are "a thousand worlds, and spreading out." Even ignoring shows taking place in space... that's easily 1000 times the PLANETBOUND STORYTELLING OPPORTUNITIES that we have with our own little planet.

Okay, so there are a dozen ships just like Enterprise in TOS times... that's not the same as saying "there are twelve starships, of any sort, in existence."

The problem isn't that there's "too much continuity" but that the writers grew too ATTACHED to the bits and piece of continuity that they created and became enamored of.

SO... for example... instead of dealing with NX-01 being hijacked by pirates of some other variety... they simply were TOO CLOSE TO THEIR OWN WORK to be able to think of any solution OTHER than "Ferengi."

That's not the fault of "too much continuity." In fact, it's really a violation of continuity (since nobody was supposed to know what Ferengi looked like...) Though it's possible to justify it with some fairly complicated mental gymnastics... the point is that it was a bad storytelling decision.

That's not the fault of "too much continuity." It's the fault of bad, lazy storytelling. Nothing more, nothing less.

Having continuity there doesn't mean you have to address it, often, or even address it at all. Just that you have to attempt to avoid CONTRADICTING IT.

Which, in a whole galaxy's worth of stories, shouldn't be difficult to do, should it be?
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2008, 03:23 AM   #459
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Broker said:
I don't think the demise of Enterprise is solely on the shoulders of fans. Of course it's not. the franchise in it's current incarnation had played out. There was and still is nothing more to do. But it seems to me, the constant campaigning against the show by some hardcore fans certainly didn't help.
I don't think the "constant complaining" of the fans made any more difference that similar "constant complaining" about any other aspect of the Franchise does. "Enterprise" held on to almost all of that little core of devoted trekkies - a few million, in the U.S. - throughout its run. At least nine out of ten of the folks who complained on Internet boards about the show watched it pretty faithfully. It was the show's inability to attract or hold anyone other than trekkies that doomed it.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2008, 03:27 AM   #460
Ptrope
Agitator
 
Ptrope's Avatar
 
Location: USA
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Exactly, Cary - I said this during the entire run of ENT. Given the chance, they remake the things that don't need to be remade or redefined, and insist upon using those things that they would do best to avoid. So many opportunities to do something new - and so much 'available space' in which to do it - and yet whenever someone wants to "create a new, fresh vision" of Star Trek, what's the first thing they do? Tell us more about the things we already know - and worse, they tell us we were wrong. And, I hate to say, even the new new vision from Abrams looks a lot like more of the same - "let's go back and retell the story of Kirk and Co., only tell it differently, because it's a 'new, fresh vision.'"

As someone has already posted, the only radical thing they could do at this point would be to stick with the original and tell a new story without changing the old ones. Oddly enough, not one 'visionary' has attempted this, except maybe James Cawley .
__________________
Star Trek: Reanimated - it's more than just a cartoon!
Ptrope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2008, 03:30 AM   #461
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!

Personally, I think the TOS design is the least dated of the whole lot.
Captain Robert April is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2008, 03:45 AM   #462
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Amazingly, I find myself in total agreement with Cary, Ptrope, Dennis and last but not least, CRA. I think within the last few posts is a real wealth of astute commentary on the past and future potential of the Trek "concept". If only it could break free of the need to appeal to a bigger and bigger audience with a bigger and bigger risk involved and a smaller and smaller window of creativity available due to "expected returns"... and instead be satisfied appealing to multiple smaller audiences. There is something about the "smallness" of the original Trek, and the risk taking that its small appeal demanded of those that needed to make a splash to survive, that is essential to its original charm.

I'm afraid getting back to anything like that is never, ever going to happen. At least not with a "Trek" label on it.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2008, 05:47 AM   #463
Data Holmes
Admiral
 
Data Holmes's Avatar
 
Location: In Exile
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

aridas sofia said:
Amazingly, I find myself in total agreement with Cary, Ptrope, Dennis and last but not least, CRA. I think within the last few posts is a real wealth of astute commentary on the past and future potential of the Trek "concept". If only it could break free of the need to appeal to a bigger and bigger audience with a bigger and bigger risk involved and a smaller and smaller window of creativity available due to "expected returns"... and instead be satisfied appealing to multiple smaller audiences. There is something about the "smallness" of the original Trek, and the risk taking that its small appeal demanded of those that needed to make a splash to survive, that is essential to its original charm.

I'm afraid getting back to anything like that is never, ever going to happen. At least not with a "Trek" label on it.
Not so long as it has the paramount label on it. No corporate suit would ever green light such a project. Something like that is almost the exclusive preview of the fans, like yourself and Mr Cawley, who are willing to continue that form of trek and have the skill to do it.
__________________
It may very well be that the new system will be a better system, but it's not one that should be mandatory and imposed by the courts.
Data Holmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2008, 02:03 PM   #464
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

hutt359 said:
aridas sofia said:
Amazingly, I find myself in total agreement with Cary, Ptrope, Dennis and last but not least, CRA. I think within the last few posts is a real wealth of astute commentary on the past and future potential of the Trek "concept". If only it could break free of the need to appeal to a bigger and bigger audience with a bigger and bigger risk involved and a smaller and smaller window of creativity available due to "expected returns"... and instead be satisfied appealing to multiple smaller audiences. There is something about the "smallness" of the original Trek, and the risk taking that its small appeal demanded of those that needed to make a splash to survive, that is essential to its original charm.

I'm afraid getting back to anything like that is never, ever going to happen. At least not with a "Trek" label on it.
Not so long as it has the paramount label on it. No corporate suit would ever green light such a project. Something like that is almost the exclusive preview of the fans, like yourself and Mr Cawley, who are willing to continue that form of trek and have the skill to do it.
That's not really true. The reason that PPC chose to go ahead with this was that Abrams (who they wanted to sign for multiple pictures) wanted one of his pictures to be a Star Trek story he'd wanted to tell since he was a youth.

The thing that sold them to go ahead and sign off on that wasn't that it was going to be a "fresh take on Star Trek" so much as that it was going to be a return to "what worked in the past." Go back and pull up the board meeting minutes from that timeframe (they're available to stockholders) and you can confirm what I'm telling you.

The entire point of greenlighting this was due to the fact that it was abandoning the more recent (less popular) stuff and getting back to the way that Trek was when it was really popular, with TOS and the first several TOS-era movies.
Cary L. Brown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4 2008, 02:21 PM   #465
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Well said Cary. My example has always been historical novels. I've read many a novel set in, for example, WWII, where fictional characters are set in real events. It's no trouble at all for these authors to write within the confines of established events that actually happened without altering the event in the least, and fit their own characters and adventures within that framework.

Nobody has ever inserted Me-262 jets into the Battle of Britain because "modern audiences might think Bf-109Es look too old fashioned, and no one ever specifically stated they DIDn't exist then!"

A good writer can use an existing history as a viable framework without needing to alter it or ignore it. Heck, in "The Buried Age," Christopher used almost everything ever mentioned on screen and didn't contradict a single thing! Hell of a feat!

Lazy writers ignore or rewrite history because it's too much mental work for them to bother or care. (and I DON'T mean the Turtledove method, which requirea an intimate knowledge of history in order to experimantally rewrite it).
Forbin 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 10:40 PM.

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