So they are hacks because they didn't make the film as you and other TOS purists want it? How dare they. Its not the 1960's anymore, and the design is old. Its still a freaking awesome design, legendary, but it is dated. Even the old watch knew that when they made TMP. Why redesign the ship then? Because the original did not have the detail and/or screen presence for the big screen. And yes while they did put the redesign in the film under the guise of a refit for the Enterprise, the whole basis for the redesign was to make the ship big screen ready. All things indicate that yes the ship had been redesigned for the big screen, but is still very similar to the original, maybe even more so then the refit is to the TOS Enterprise. So I don't understand the concept of JJ and company being hacks, that they are disrespecting the original(even though they constantly say that they understand they are redoing a classic and need to respect the source material), or fans of the new film are sucking up to the company line just because they like it, and you and other TOS purists don't.
Theres respecting the fact they are redoing a classic and just making a straight copy of it, why redo it with the same sets, props, costumes ect. Ok so the purists will go for it but it may never get anyone new in with the popcorn. Spirit of the story is the important thing
The real point of my post is that while some may not like hearing a dissenting view repeated others can get just as tired of hearing what they perceive to be mediocrity being praised.
I can agree with that. But there are some here, and I am not saying that you fall into that category, you don't, who feel the need to come into every TrekXI thread, and bash the film(which we know almost nothing about) to no end, and that can get tiresome. If someone doesn't like it, just leave it alone. And if someone is gonna bash something, at least write why.
Dude, you'd vomit over that? I don't like it either, but hey, it's their turn to play in the sandbox, isn't it? Further, do you know who the post-prod staff are so that you can state confidently that they're "hacks"? I wasn't aware that the team's names had been announced.
Wow. And I thought the TOS/NuBSG cannibalism was bad. Thank God the web wasn't around when ST:TNG came out!
Firstly, that is some DAMN good work there. I love the nacelle & hull detailing. However.... Wooo, I really hope those proportions are wrong. I can understand modifying the design for the big screen and all, and those details are awesome. But the proportions make it look way smaller than the original version - mainly the huge nacelles and bridge area, combined with the squatty, fatter saucer. The only things I would really like to loose from the actual design are those hump-back nacelles. They look a bit painful.
The hull and nacelle detailing, i.e. the obvious plating and "aztecking", makes the ship look far less advanced than the smooth hull of TOS Enterprise. Pretty much every version of the Enterprise after TOS production version has suffered from that problem. It makes sense on the NX-01, but not on the other versions and not in the version in the movie. Unless it's all explained away via the time traveling angles.
Really? No taste or respect? The (very) little we have seen so far suggests otherwise. I have an idea: DON'T GO AND WATCH THAT NEW MOVIE! Maybe that way we will no longer have to listen to your constant 'They raped my childhood' bitchings.
Okay, but if the Enterprise in the teaser and how it's being built, as well as all the photos "leaked" so far, dispict some Bizzaro alternate timeline that Spock goes back to correct, then we've really seen nothing to complain about, have we?
I still think the nacelles are proportionately too big in that artwork. Everyone's perception seems to be off because of the angles the trailer was shot from. At least that's my impression. What I found funny was Capt Robert April's posting of an original pic of the enterprise design next to the new one--with a comment its a monstosity--and for all intents and purposes they basically look alike!! And of course, the ugliest starship ever made in history (the Serenity) is also in the same pic. RAME
Get your eyes checked. Immediately. [/quote] And of course, the ugliest starship ever made in history (the Serenity) is also in the same pic.[/quote] The difference being that Serenity is supposed to be a "so ugly it's cute" design. A question I have for those who are willing to believe that the emporer is actually wearing the finest robes in the land and is not, in fact, waltzing through town starkers, is this: If the proverbial general audience member, who previously hasn't given two figs about Star Trek, wouldn't know the difference if they changed the design or dragged the original model out of the NASM's gift shop and filmed that, and the only ones who would know the difference are the very ones who'd get cheesed off and refuse to show up, thus reducing the box office take, THEN WHY IN THE FLYING FUCK CHANGE THE DESIGN!?! To appeal to a segment of the audience that doesn't give a crap either way? When in the hell has that ever made any sense?
Until someone pulls that nugget out for all of us to examine, my stance remains, they've butchered the Enterprise for no good reason.
In your opionion. (and that opinion is based upon the very few glimpses we get in the teaser... and those are not even very reliable because the images are 'falsified' or distorted by the use of some extreme zooms...)
Again, these pics are nothing but pure conjecture. That said, however, you can be 100% sure that the Enterprise in this film may not be the very same design you grew up with. Why? Because this isn't the 60's anymore - The original design won't work on the big screen. That's why they changed it for TMP in the 70's. And now they (most likely) do it again - Get over it already.
This kind of statement is simply nonsense. They didn't "change the Enterprise to match 70's sensibilities." There's nothing inherently "70s" about the TMP design any more than there is something inherently "60s" about the TOS design, and there's nothing inherently "Aughts" about the nuBSG ship design, for that matter. This sort of statement, made without any support or backing-up, only makes sense under the premise that "everything is different today" which is the sort of statement that kids make about anything that they never experienced, I've noticed. For cryin' out loud, how many people born in the 70s or after actually think that LIFE was in black-and-white during the 40s and 50s??? How many people born in the late 70s or early 80s think that every woman in the 60s had a huge "beehive" hairdo and wore psychodelic-colored clothing everyplace? How many people born in the 80s or 90s think that everyone in the 70s wore nothing but super-flaired bell bottoms, big 'fro perms, and constantly discoed? Here's the truth, though... except in the "high-fashion" situations, in any one of those time periods if you came across normal people in their normal day-to-day lives, you'd barely be able to tell that they weren't from today. PEOPLE DO NOT CHANGE MUCH, and by and large TASTES do not change much. The main thing that changes is the list of dumb-ass trendy things... those shift very regularly. But MOST people's lives aren't defined by whatever the current dumb-ass trends are. Now... regarding the 1701 being "dated," I've heard that dozens upon dozens of times (usually from the same people, repeated). And I've heard the counterargument... that it's NOT "dated," also repeated over and over, and by the same people as well. What I've never seen or heard is anyone who claims that it's "dated" who can actually support their claim with anything but the bogus "well, it's from the 60s so it MUST be dated" argument. SO... convince me. Give me arguments as to why it's dated. These must fall into one of three categories, and must be sound and logical. The categories are: 1) TECHNICAL: IE, we know more about science and engineering today, and so the original design would not work based upon that understanding (this needs to be specific) 2) AESTHETIC: IE, human tastes... likes and dislikes... have actually changed, and as a result audiences cannot accept this aspect or that aspect of the design (this also needs to be specific). 3) FILMMAKING-ORIENTED: IE, filmmaking tools have changed to such an extent that it is impractical to use the original design, because it is impossible to make a convincing model, set, or prop that conforms to that original design and have it be convincing and believable. This, like the others, needs to be based upon specifics... (Note that #3 does not mean "sets must not be made of cardboard." First off... the TOS sets were not made of cardboard, any more than the TOS models were paper-mache pinatas hanging off of strings. But... that's not the issue. It's widely and almost universally accepted that improved construction techniques and (in the case of models and many sets) CGI will be used extensively. But since both models and sets can, if desired, be based upon the same DESIGNS, regardless of how they're actually made... that's outside of the argument.) I would posit that there's NOTHING dated about the original ship design, or about the original set designs, in concept. I'd further argue that the ship design needs NO alteration to be "up-to-date" but that sets stand for some improvements, not to alter their design but to improve their quality and make them more believable representations of some "real" ship facilities that both groups of sets are intended to approximate as well as possible within the bounds of current technology. Instead of just saying "Well, I say there is, so there... nyah-nyah"... how about trying to convince me, and others, that you have a point?
Since when (ever) did SF-films constrain themselves to what is probable or possible or ... This actually cannot be specified, but it is indeed the case that the asthetics of what we consider SF have changed considerably since the 1960s. Probably because of the technological advances made in the real world. Have a look at a car from the 1960s (and the Enterprise - as beautiful as she is - is a product of that decade) and compare it to one from today: They still have four wheels, two to four passenger doors, a hood and a trunk lid but they look quite different today. This is not answerable just because it is bullshit. Of course the original design could be transplanted to the big screen. But it would still look anacronistic (being an icon of the 1960s).
Exploring the probability of the improbable (not impossible) has been the cornerstone of Sci-fi by its definition. Star Trek however used Sci-fi as the backdrop for stories about the human condition, and society as a whole. [Your analogy using cars is hardly a good argument considering the huge trend for automakers to use inspirations from the past. While the technology has changed, it has made cars more reliable and cleaner looking. However, in the Trek universe, people argue that all the greeblies and added detail on ships, only serve to make them more "realistic"... The original Enterprise has been the most original design yet- simply because all the future ships have been based on her design! I agree that the original E could easily be put on the big screen. Zoom in on her, and we can see all the details that couldn't be put on a 1960's model. But to say the ship is an icon of the 60's only applies to Trekkies. Because no one I know who has no, or minimal knowledge of Star Trek, couldn't tell one ship in a series from another- especially in the remastered TOS. And from an architectural or technological point of view, the ship is beyond any design element associated with the 60's, aside from the fact that it was made in the 60's. It just needs detail to be put on the big screen- detail that back then would have been superfluous due to resolution and filming restrictions. In fact, the NX Enterprise was more 60's looking, with its sole saucer section.
A typical 60's spaceship design was the Jupiter II. The Enterprise is downright utilitarian, both inside and out, and as such, isn't the least bit dated.