RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,505
Posts: 5,511,358
Members: 25,136
Currently online: 461
Newest member: aprizan

TrekToday headlines

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


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 Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 13 2008, 10:26 PM   #751
Qonos
Captain
 
Qonos's Avatar
 
Location: Long Pond Pa
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

Captain59 wrote: View Post
I just don't like it. I was expecting it to look very much like the TOS Enterprise, with perhaps a tweak here and there. This is more than just a combination of the TOS Enterprise and TMP-TUC Enterprise. This isn't the Enterprise at all. What I was really hoping for was the Enterprise from TOS that we've seen in the remastered episodes. This design is all wrong. I could go on and on about what's wrong with it, but it's pointless. This is Abrams' Star Trek, and his Enterprise. It simply isn't my Enterprise.
Um realistically none of the Enterprises have ever been YOUR Enterprise or MY Enterprise. They all belong to Gene, Rick, or Paramount. Realistically.
__________________
This post is brought to you by The Soylent Green Biscuit company. Soylent Green our people have GREAT Taste.
Qonos is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:27 PM   #752
Captain59
Fleet Captain
 
Captain59's Avatar
 
Location: CT
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

scotthm wrote: View Post
Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Who, other than the production staff, actually profits from making this sort of change? (And in their case, they "profit" only in the area of ego, not in terms of financial profit.)
As much as I hate the changes to the Enterprise, it's just barely possible that toy licencees wanted changes made to differentiate this Enterprise from those already sold, in order to increase future toy sales. After all, if you're just selling an Enterprise toy that looks exactly like the one you sold two years ago, your sales might not be so hot.

---------------
Good point, Scott. I don't know if anyone is familiar with Gatchaman, but the first series had a fine looking ship for the Phoenix...the same we see in Battle of the Planets. But after the success of the first Gatchaman series, two more were spawned. However, the production company demanded the Phoenix be redesigned to increase toy sales. So, they made is hideous-looking Phoenix that looked like a deranged rooster. It's not surprising that the more favored ship to this day is by far the original Phoenix.

Original:

Made for toy sales:


[hotlinked images converted to links... and then back to images. Whee! - M']


I assume the same will be with this Enterprise vs. the TOS Enterprise.
__________________
Mark

R.I.P. Kellie Waymire

Last edited by M'Sharak; November 14 2008 at 12:38 AM. Reason: hotlinked images
Captain59 is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:30 PM   #753
JWPlatt
Commander
 
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

Greetings,

It's been many years - at least five - since I've been here as some transitions of this BBS were kind of rough and my account was lost with its hundreds or couple of thousand posts. I wasn't inspired to rejoin until this discussion about the ship.

Please take a careful look because I think the designer put a heavy dose of sexuality into it. Maybe it actually shows that's how I think. But maybe it reveals a deeper intent of subliminal sexiness on their part. I think the slender design of the aft section is extremely feminine. Let me describe; it won't take long.

Both the struts and the nacelles taper off as you travel up or back. The secondary hull itself tapers to a slender waist between the struts. Now picture the upright ship as a woman lying on her back. The nacellle struts are her thighs. The nacelles themselves are everything below her knee. The strut angle is in a very suggestive orientation, at least from that point of view.

I think you get my drift without being too graphic. Do you suppose this is just in my mind, or theirs?

Well, they do refer to ships as "she." So let's see if you can deal with that image every time you see the new ship.
JWPlatt is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:30 PM   #754
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

Qonos wrote: View Post
Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
number6 wrote: View Post
Cary,I really think you're overstating and overthinking this. If this is THE ship, then, yes, I am disappointed that it looks less like the original than I had hoped. I showed this picture to a friend of mine who, while not a huge Trek fan, is a sci-fi fan and he said, " It looks the same." So I do believe that it is we, the select few, who are really obsessing about this. The casual fan and non fan are not going to see this and be as bummed out. They want to see a Star Trek movie and are less concerned with these trivial bits of minutae.

Frankly that's what I want to see, too.
Well, I'll certainly be going to see the film (once) anyway.

It may be a great film. Or not. And the "set-dressing" isn't gonna establish that either way.

I just think it's unfortunate that the people doing the flick seem to have chosen to make changes that don't really seem to add to the experience for anyone (fan or non-fan).

I actually think we largely agree here... and if I'm overstating it, it's because for 43 years now I've known that ship. From the time I was a lil' kid, I told everyone that when I grew up I "wanted to build the Enterprise." There's a degree of emotional attachment that I feel.

This is what the "new movie" crew, and the "forget TOS" people on here for that matter, seem to not realize. For those of us who've been there from the beginning, this ship is something we have an emotional attachment to.

So... let's give a parallel. It's a movie that's out right now called "Changeling." In this movie, a woman loses her son... and they bring back a kid who meets the description of that kid... but who isn't the kid she knows. It's not her son.

But c'mon, he's a boy, he's the same age, same height, etc, etc. The thing is, he's not the one who she's emotionally connected to. He's not her SON.

That's sort of how some of us feel right now. We're being told that this is "the Enterprise" but we know that it's not. It's not "the Enterprise with a little plastic surgery." It's just another ship... but we're supposed to accept it as such.

So, for those of us who are reacting, perhaps, a little bit emotionally here... that's it, really. For those of you who don't get it, maybe if you think about it that way, you'll start to.

I think I'm done with this topic now. But just FYI... thanks for the nice reply, Six. Your point is well-taken.
Alright your done you've equated a fictional ship with an emotional attachment to a person. Stop. Now, Please. I know you love the show I know you love the Enterprise but they are in no way the same thing. I won't you the normal snark that some would about a shrink, but I mean come on... It's a fictional ship and that's way too much of an emotional attachment for something not real.
One last reply, then...

No, it's not. I didn't say it's on the same LEVEL as a child. I gave an example that would help illustrate the response of those of us who dislike it as much as we do, and hopefully explain it, to those of you who don't understand it. I didn't say that "this ship" is the same as "a child."

As for emotional attachments, we get those to all sorts of things. To our first car. To our favorite sports team. To a particular piece of art. To a house we may have lived in at some point. None of those are as important as a child, either. But that doesn't mean that there's not an emotional attachment we form. It's not "sick," it's normal... it's HUMAN.
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:30 PM   #755
Inquisitive
Lieutenant
 
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

Captain59 wrote: View Post
scotthm wrote: View Post
Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Who, other than the production staff, actually profits from making this sort of change? (And in their case, they "profit" only in the area of ego, not in terms of financial profit.)
As much as I hate the changes to the Enterprise, it's just barely possible that toy licencees wanted changes made to differentiate this Enterprise from those already sold, in order to increase future toy sales. After all, if you're just selling an Enterprise toy that looks exactly like the one you sold two years ago, your sales might not be so hot.

---------------
Good point, Scott. I don't know if anyone is familiar with Gatchaman, but the first series had a fine looking ship for the Phoenix...the same we see in Battle of the Planets. But after the success of the first Gatchaman series, two more were spawned. However, the production company demanded the Phoenix be redesigned to increase toy sales. So, they made is hideous-looking Phoenix that looked like a deranged rooster. It's not surprising that the more favored ship to this day is by far the original Phoenix.

[hotlinked images removed]

I assume the same will be with this Enterprise vs. the TOS Enterprise.
The design change is not anywhere near as radical or stupid for that matter. I cannot believe how irrational some of the responses to this ship are.

Last edited by M'Sharak; November 13 2008 at 11:40 PM. Reason: hotlinked images
Inquisitive is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:36 PM   #756
starburst
Fleet Captain
 
starburst's Avatar
 
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

Just a thought, lets say in another 10 years they have had a number of successful sequals from next Mays release which has brought in thousands of new Star Trek fans making this whole thing profitable again for Paramount and co, mayb even a new TV show based on the films is on the air or in production.

Now if this happens, are any of you by any chance just a little but worried that this new breed of Trek fan (and the ones to follow) will be introduced to this new take on the universe (and in some cases grow up with it like we did with first runs or repeats of TOS or TNG) will recognise the JJ universe as Star Trek and the JJ version of the ship as THE Enterprise?
starburst is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:40 PM   #757
Qonos
Captain
 
Qonos's Avatar
 
Location: Long Pond Pa
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

Words have meanings or they don't I can only comprehend it the way you put it down, not the way you're trying to back pedal out of it...


So... let's give a parallel. It's a movie that's out right now called "Changeling." In this movie, a woman loses her son... and they bring back a kid who meets the description of that kid... but who isn't the kid she knows. It's not her son.

But c'mon, he's a boy, he's the same age, same height, etc, etc. The thing is, he's not the one who she's emotionally connected to. He's not her SON.

That's sort of how some of us feel right now. We're being told that this is "the Enterprise" but we know that it's not. It's not "the Enterprise with a little plastic surgery." It's just another ship... but we're supposed to accept it as such.

You know I loved my first car, I wrecked my first car I got another car that looked just like my first car in a different color. I don't expect you to think this is TOS Enterprise. I've said that It looks like the enterprise. It looks pretty much how every Enterprise other than the NX-01 has looked. It looks like a Starfleet vessel and as I said as long as every other Constitution class vessel we see in the new movie looks like this then it believably is the Enterprise for this movie universe, even if it's not exactly what I wanted, but I'd be foolish to assume that Abrams would give me exactly what I wanted when I have no had in the creative process. This is Star Trek 09's Enterprise, like it or not, get used to it cause the film is done just waiting for may to get here.
__________________
This post is brought to you by The Soylent Green Biscuit company. Soylent Green our people have GREAT Taste.
Qonos is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:42 PM   #758
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

M'Sharak wrote: View Post
3D Master wrote: View Post
starburst wrote: View Post

Was this ever said on screen or was it background info like there only being 6 Galaxy class ships.
Captain Kirk: "There are twelve like it in the fleet."

I can't remember which episode it was in though, but it was on screen.
The episode was "Tomorrow is Yesterday" -- line spoken by Kirk to Captain Christopher.

You still owe me an answer about Vektor's images, btw.
What I like to know, how you can post an image without hotlinking them? Unless you can upload the pictures on this site first, EVERY picture is hotlinked.

And yes, I have his permission.
3D Master is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:43 PM   #759
Captain59
Fleet Captain
 
Captain59's Avatar
 
Location: CT
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

Qonos wrote: View Post
Captain59 wrote: View Post
I just don't like it. I was expecting it to look very much like the TOS Enterprise, with perhaps a tweak here and there. This is more than just a combination of the TOS Enterprise and TMP-TUC Enterprise. This isn't the Enterprise at all. What I was really hoping for was the Enterprise from TOS that we've seen in the remastered episodes. This design is all wrong. I could go on and on about what's wrong with it, but it's pointless. This is Abrams' Star Trek, and his Enterprise. It simply isn't my Enterprise.
Um realistically none of the Enterprises have ever been YOUR Enterprise or MY Enterprise. They all belong to Gene, Rick, or Paramount. Realistically.
Well, I assume you heard the term, "not your father's..." and whatever you want to insert. That's all I was saying.
__________________
Mark

R.I.P. Kellie Waymire
Captain59 is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:43 PM   #760
archeryguy1701
Rear Admiral
 
archeryguy1701's Avatar
 
Location: Cheyenne, WY
Send a message via Yahoo to archeryguy1701
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

^^You can put pictures on if you host them from either your own site or a place like photobucket.
__________________
"If it weren't for stupid, difficult races, there'd simply be no point to living."

Sometimes you just gotta roll the hard six- Bill Adama
archeryguy1701 is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:44 PM   #761
Captain59
Fleet Captain
 
Captain59's Avatar
 
Location: CT
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

Inquisitive wrote: View Post
Captain59 wrote: View Post
scotthm wrote: View Post
As much as I hate the changes to the Enterprise, it's just barely possible that toy licencees wanted changes made to differentiate this Enterprise from those already sold, in order to increase future toy sales. After all, if you're just selling an Enterprise toy that looks exactly like the one you sold two years ago, your sales might not be so hot.

---------------
Good point, Scott. I don't know if anyone is familiar with Gatchaman, but the first series had a fine looking ship for the Phoenix...the same we see in Battle of the Planets. But after the success of the first Gatchaman series, two more were spawned. However, the production company demanded the Phoenix be redesigned to increase toy sales. So, they made is hideous-looking Phoenix that looked like a deranged rooster. It's not surprising that the more favored ship to this day is by far the original Phoenix.

[hotlinked images removed]


I assume the same will be with this Enterprise vs. the TOS Enterprise.
The design change is not anywhere near as radical or stupid for that matter. I cannot believe how irrational some of the responses to this ship are.
I look for any excuse to post pictures of my favorite space ship of all time! Yes, it's actually not the Enterprise!
__________________
Mark

R.I.P. Kellie Waymire

Last edited by M'Sharak; November 13 2008 at 11:41 PM. Reason: hotlinked images]
Captain59 is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:44 PM   #762
Samurai8472
Vice Admiral
 
Samurai8472's Avatar
 
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

starburst wrote: View Post
are any of you by any chance just a little but worried that this new breed of Trek fan (and the ones to follow) will be introduced to this new take on the universe (and in some cases grow up with it like we did with first runs or repeats of TOS or TNG) will recognise the JJ universe as Star Trek and the JJ version of the ship as THE Enterprise?
It reminds me of people who weren't old enough or don't remember the 1984 transformers

To some the 2007 version is the only version they know if. Also I hate how some older fans criticized newer ones because the newer fans didn't see the original series

"You can't call yourself a true fan till you've seen all of the G1 transformers"
Samurai8472 is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:47 PM   #763
Sheridan
Lieutenant
 
Sheridan's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to Sheridan
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
Sheridan wrote: View Post
Your argument assumes that the average person knows Star Trek enough to be concerned let alone aware of the design changes made and it also implies that if the person is aware of the changes that they'll actually care.
Actually, no it doesn't. But I'll expand on that in a moment.
To the average person(non trekkies. there's a lot of them btw) who's even just slightly aware of the existence of Star Trek they'll probably recognize the Enterprise as a saucer connected to a cylinder via a neck with 2 engines, which, guess what: The new Enterprise keeps all those basic characteristics. They're not going to be concerned about anything more detailed than that if they're even concerned at all in the first place.
Yes. That's true. Some people will see this and think "It's that Star Track ship, where Doctor Spock fought the Kling-peaches." And they won't care. Of course, they also wouldn't care if the ship looked exactly like the original version, even going so far as to pull the model out of the Smithsonian. And no matter what, they won't remember anything about the movie after a week's gone by... it'll be forgotten and washed away by the latest episode of "American Idol - Human Sacrifice Edition."

So who's the change supposed to be for? What POSITIVE will it accomplish?

People who pay enough attention to the movie to care... will notice.

Some of them post on this BBS and think that the original sucked and want to see the original "redone." They'll be happy-ish... but undoubtedly will think that they could have done it even better. They'll simply be happy that the "canonistas" (as they call them) have been disenfranchised.

Some of them post on this BBS and think that the original is the foundation upon which all the rest of the stuff has grown, and if you rip up those roots, the rest of the tree will inevitably be firewood. They'll notice, and will care, and won't like the changes.

There are some who are "casual fans" and know, very well, what the ship looks like... and they'll go in and notice "that's not right."

Who, other than the production staff, actually profits from making this sort of change? (And in their case, they "profit" only in the area of ego, not in terms of financial profit.)

If this is really what it implies... an attempt to "over-write" TOS, instead of to "extend and expand upon TOS"... then there's gonna be a permanent, irrevocable schism beyond anything that "fandom" has ever seen.

And that will mean that Trek is really dead. This movie will have just performed a final act of necrophilia.
Going back to your battleship analogy...you're applying today's limitations of battleship design to the fictional design of a starship that exists 300 years in the future. In the fictional Star Trek universe where ships can travel at warp 9 and humans can be converted into energy and back into matter and thousands of other technological advances have taken place is it such a far leap to consider that they can *practically* and *easily* produce(using advanced technology of the 23rd century) a stylish starship while they're at it especially since this is the flagship representing the whole federation in uncharted territories? And also, the purpose of the Enterprise is not for battle anyway. Its primary role is exploration. Furthermore, as you yourself have stated the new design does improve structural strength of the neck therefore I see advantages and no disadvantages to the new design.

Last edited by Sheridan; November 13 2008 at 10:50 PM. Reason: grammar fix
Sheridan is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:48 PM   #764
3D Master
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

But that's still a hotlink. Maybe a hotlink to a place designed for it where you put your pictures, but it's still a hotlink.

Sheridan wrote: View Post
Furthermore, as you yourself have stated the new design does improve structural strength of the neck therefore I see advantages and no disadvantages to the new design.
It's ugly. It looks like a from different eras cobbled together misshapen turd. There's your disadvantage.

It doesn't even remotely look like the orignal. There's another disadvantage.
3D Master is offline  
Old November 13 2008, 10:52 PM   #765
SantaEddie74
Fleet Admiral
 
SantaEddie74's Avatar
 
Location: The North Pole of the Warped Sector of the Demented Quadrant
View SantaEddie74's Twitter Profile
Re: Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

If it weren't for the big-ass deflector dish and lack of a huge "NCC-1701" emblazoned underneath the saucer section it would look nothing like the old TOS ship.
__________________
Remember what cooleddie74 says, kids:

"Don't forget to have a Patrick Swayze Christmas!"
SantaEddie74 is online now  
Closed Thread

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 08:04 AM.

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