Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by HaplessCrewman, Oct 28, 2008.
Bits and pieces glued to a filming-miniature to give a sense of scale, detail and functionality?
Why can't they be both?
What I meant was that you can tell that the new Enterprise has things in those positions that now have different functions? We can barely tell how big anything is or any details, so I'd hold off on assuming that those are no longer heat pipe radiators.
Oh. I suppose I let myself be swayed by PixelMagic's interpretation/extrapolation of the teaser design he posted in his thread.
Does anyone else get a bad feeling about any of this?
I mean, OK, it's got that nice 'n' shiny, slick, touchy-feely, see-your-stubble, expensive feel about it ....... and then what?
Even that nice 'n' shiny, slick, touchy-feely, see-your-stubble, expensive feel is inherently troubling. By overextending with extraneous details, they have not merely gummed up the magical Trek mythos, but actually regressed it:
1) A curved window with internal reflections is a poor "improvement" on a flat, unreflecting viewscreen. I'm sure that that's going to be a big help in tricky, think-fast situations. "Wait, what is that Bird of Prey doing? Oh, it's .... AARGH! Sulu, turn your f*cking console off. I just got blinded, again!"
2) Deep-hued, lycra-based uniforms give the illusion of progress, but they are also a step backwards from the pastel-coloured cottons of the original uniforms. The new uniforms are harsh and cold, while the odd are warm and inviting. Because he's employed newer fibres, I'm sure Abrams thinks that he's "updated" Trek, but he clearly isn't aware of artistic concepts like subtlety and understatement. The old uniforms implied higher technology that was mimicking older, more familiar fabric for psychosomatic comfort, while secretly possessing new, vastly beneficial properties (such as improved heat insulation, greater tensile, non-ripping strength, biometric field generation etc.).
Just two examples of how bone-headed this jazzed-up version is. The bridge itself is also a major eyesore: gaudy, unrelenting, in-yer-face. British posters will know what I mean when I say it reminds me of walking round the high street chemist "Boots".
Then there is everything else, which may be uniquely summed up by the new "Empire" promotional shot (hence my posting in here). Not only is the lighting in the 40+ year old photo of Shatner and Nimoy ten times better, not only do Shatner and Nimoy have more defined faces with vastly better skin tone, not only was the photo taken from a more compelling angle with Shatner and Nimoy looking up, but the older actors themselves simply convey their personalities, and, hence, their characters, and the series they represent, better. Who was it, pray, who told Christopher Pine (haha!) and Zachary Quinto to lean against each other like lovers, rather than commander and confidante? So, so, so stupid.
And that's this Trek endeavour in a nutshell, I feel. 'Course, I could be unkind and rip on 101 other things -- like the casting, like the use of CG, like the villain (Nero? F*cking NERO???) -- but maybe I shouldn't. Then again, maybe these people shouldn't be meddling so egotistically, needlessly and pathetically with something beyond their combined powers of conception. The villain is a brilliant example. He just seems like exactly the sort of 2-bit antagonist, serving the purposes of exactly the sort of 2-bit action-adventure format, that Trek has been heinously dumbed-down, and more or less killed-off, by. Gee, this is gonna be a swell motion picture.
Nope, it all looks great.
As absolutely gorgeous as his model is, there are actually some noticable differences between the official picture and his model.
For instance, look at the placement of the registry numbers in comparison to hull plates on both.
Also, the section of the upper hull underneath the bridge dome above the highest part of the hull curve proper has a different shape. The section I'm talking about is clearly marked with a red line on his model while it looks like it could be the division between plates on the official pic.
Also, the taper of the top of the bridge dome appears to be different in both.
And finally, what appear to be "air intake openings" on the front part of the thing located where the heat pipe radiators are/were appears to be a MUCH LARGER opening on his picture compared to the official.
Here's the official pic.
Yeah, I know what you mean. That first scene with Nero was terrible! I just couldn't believe the writing and characterization in that scene! It just rips the heart out of Trek! Erica Bana is no Ricardo Montalban! Bring back Klaa! And that name for a Romulan! Didn't they watch TOS? Decius isn't a Roman name! They just screwed up like VOY did and called Romans names like R'Mor and Rekar. And CG? WTF? They didn't have CG in the 1960s! Fuckers.
On a miserable day thanks for giving me a laugh.
It's Star Trek we're talking about here. People in silly costumes shooting (and shagging) people in sillier costumes and makeup.
Never mind the fact that each console, work station whatever has its own displays, monitors, readouts... Rembember that cool little targeting scanner-thing Sulu had at his station?
The bridge could do very well without that viewscreen. It is (and always was) just eye-candy for us viewers (the audience). In actuality such a big screen serves no practical purpose (other than maybe for the weekly screening of 'Orion Slaves go DIRTY')
There's no real functionality to that great big main viewer on Federation ships anyway. It's a storytelling device for the benefit of the audience.
I wonder if Shatner had ever gotten green makeup on him from snogging with an Orion.
Well just bought my copy of Empire and just saw a picture of Quinto in his Spock garb flicking through a copy of a magazine...
Yeah, "Viewer on, Mr. Kelso," sure implies it's a window...
It can't be anyway, since the bridge is offset by an angle of 36°
I'll let that go for now....
He did have little green pawprints on him from Yvonne Craig that one time...
Cool Hand Luke.
The Towering Inferno.
What, we're not playing "Paul Newman Free Association"?
Separate names with a comma.