The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by Professor Moriarty, Jan 17, 2008.

  1. ChuckPR

    ChuckPR Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    The lack of pressure suits tells us that at the least there is a force field and some sort of gravity.

    But the best evidence is that Trek lore has always been that the Enterprise was built in Starfleet's San Francisco Shipyards.

    I would consider that to be a reasonable bow to the fans of Canon Trek.

    While they would not have to follow the Treklore, I don't see it as a negative and would probably help endear them to the fans a bit, who might then look the other way a bit on things like an increase in the ship size.

    But again, this is all a guess based on canon lore, but I see no reason why they wouldn't bow to tradition on this point.
     
  2. ChuckPR

    ChuckPR Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    I agree 100%.

    B & B lied about creating Enterprise as a wholely new series
    that anyone could follow from the get-go.

    Their "Temporal Cold War" three year plot line arch was about
    as transparent as Britney Spears' panties!!!

    It was a plot-gimmick excuse that allowed them to revert back
    to using all the storyline and future-trek stylistic choices
    that they never had any intention of not recycling.

    Those two should have gotten the Nobel piece prize for
    MOST LIKELY TO USE EVERY POSSIBLE SCI-FI PLOT GIMMICK KNOWN TO MAN IN A SINGLE SEASON!!!

    They never hesitated to unravel entire episodes or previous plot lines via their obsession
    with time travel and other grandiose gimmicks. :vulcan:
     
  3. Wingsley

    Wingsley Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Location:
    Wingsley
    The only way I'd do it. :lol:
     
  4. Wingsley

    Wingsley Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Location:
    Wingsley
    I agree with Ptrope.

    There seems to be a line of thought in this thread that this is all about old-versus-new, conservative-versus-fresh start, continuity-versus-creativity. No, TOS gave us a show (and a fictional universe) based on ideas, on principles and on characters that stood for something. As with any TV show, it stumbled and had to cope with the limitations of its era. But TOS was special because its producers, writers and actors were hungry. They were taking a chance. The work they produced was so bold that all Paramount had to do was shoehorn in some CGI FX and now a 40-year-old TV show is wowing audiences again and selling new DVDs. How many TV shows of even half that age can manage such a feat?

    Mr. Berman & Co. inherited STAR TREK after the franchise had already made a splash in reruns and four movies. They fumbled with the continuity, politicized the writing staff, and alot of people left. Still, there were a couple of young (and hungry) writers on board (Melinda Snodgrass and Ronald D. Moore among them) who kept TNG going with fresh ideas ("The Measure of a Man", "The Defector") that kept the franchise going for years after even they left. But Berman & Co. kept beating a dead horse. TNG begat DS9. DS9 begat VOY. VOY begat ENT. The continuity wasn't great, but it was there.

    The point is, Rick Berman, Maurice Hurley and others were not hungry. They were not taking chances. They just hopped on the gravy train and rode it till it ran out of steam. (Or ideas.)

    Will this Abrams do a good job with the new movie? I have no idea, but Hollywood's track record isn't promising with this kind of venture. People want to hold up Ronald D. Moore's GALACTICA as an example, but when it comes to re-makes that show is the exception, not the rule. And despite GALACTICA's success (ENT made it through a fourth season, too), it hasn't been without controversy. When I watched the "Pegasus" two-parter, I was convinced at least part of the show's appeal on cable arose from its shock value as essentially R-rated TV. Moore and company constantly dance on the edge with characters that exhibit wild and edgy behavior. If someone is intent on doing that with STAR TREK, it will be like throwing out all the principles, the ideals and the characters that made the show distinctive in the first place.

    The image at the top of this thread does suggest something about this film. It will be different from all the other STAR TREK movies. I would (cautiously) welcome that. The image does leave a bad taste in my mouth, though. The saucer looks too much like TMP, "NCC" font and all. This is not 1979 anymore, and if this is supposed to be an ambitious effort, I would hope Abrams & Co. could do better than that.
     
  5. Captain Robert April

    Captain Robert April Vice Admiral Admiral

    Finally have a computer working at home. Should be able to conjure up a comparison pic soon.
     
  6. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    I'm not even interested in pronouncing the movie "dead or alive."

    I am, however, a great deal more excited by the opportunity to see a Trek movie made with the resources and imagination and dedication that Abrams and his team are clearly pouring into this than I am with the blessed "Star Trek Franchise" or the long-term commercial health thereof.

    That said, all signs so far point to this being a better movie than (at most) one or two of the pre-Abrams Trek films.
     
  7. Vance

    Vance Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    This is one of the most annoying and stupid, but also most common, fanboisms that I've ever seen. You're demanding that I see the movie before I judge whether or not I should see the movie?
     
  8. Nerroth

    Nerroth Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Maybe they are all officers aboard the Enterprise-J...



    As regards the ship model, it's interesting to note that looks like it has torp launchers on the dorsal primary hull.


    Overall, I'll have to wait and see how things go - the images and the context of such will be clearer then.
     
  9. ST-One

    ST-One Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
    If you don't see it you will not be in a position to criticise it.
     
  10. Vance

    Vance Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Again, that is a stupid statement. I'm not allowed to say "I'm not interested in seeing X because of Y?" unless I actually see 'X' even because of 'Y'?

    Look, Trek has sucked in the last few years. This is also a re-imagining of a much beloved root of a much-beloved franchise. It's got a high bar to overcome. Neither the trailer nor the preview images have sold me on this movie.

    It's stupid to demand my 'loyalty' for a branded product. I don't owe the fandom or the franchise anything. That's not it works. It's a product that Paramount has to sell to me, and they ain't done that yet.
     
  11. ST-One

    ST-One Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
    Okay, you are not sold on (or at least gotten interested in) the new movie by the teaser.
    You don't want to see the film becaus of certain things you can fix on the information we have now.
    Good.
    This still will not put you in a position to criticise the film when it comes out.
     
  12. Vance

    Vance Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Again, your logic demands that I see the film, even if I don't believe I'll like it, just so I have the 'right' to criticize it.

    It doesn't work that way.

    It may not occur to you that a radical 'rewrite' of the Enterprise herself, a vessel that I've loved since I was a pre-schooler, is enough of a reason for me to not like the film, or at least enough to have me predisposed against the film.

    If I'm not sold on the film by the time it comes out, I'm not going to go see it. It would be pretty stupid of me to do otherwise, wouldn't it?
     
  13. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    This is, obviously, absolutely true. One can't meaningfully and honestly critique a movie, book or any other work if one hasn't seen or read it - or driven it, or whatever. Same principle applies, after all, to automobile road tests or consumer electronics evaluations or any other critique.

    No one would pay a reviewer to write critiques without seeing a movie, because such a review would be dishonest and without value. Doing the same thing for free, as an expression of personal opinion, eliminates the aspect of ripping off an employer but doesn't validate the opinion with respect to its honesty or other positive values.
     
  14. ancient

    ancient Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    I have to agree here. See the movie to judge the movie. Pretty simple.
     
  15. Vance

    Vance Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Right... because the world works that way.

    So, before you can decide if you might like something or not, you HAVE to try it first. You have to commit the time, energy, whatever needed, BEFORE judging whether or not you commit the time, energy, and whatever's needed.

    You don't live life this way, it's a completely stupid fanboi demand designed to do nothing at all except say 'well, you can't disagree with me'.

    If you lot really walked this walk, your signatures wouldn't be filled with expectant praise of the movie, either. Why? Because you can't be mindlessly positive about the film you haven't seen either.

    I've never said I'm not going to see this movie. I've said that at this point it hasn't sold me yet. Don't you guys bullshit me and everyone else with some 'great moral claim' about pre-judgment that you, yourselves, aren't even following.
     
  16. ST-One

    ST-One Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
    The only people here pre-judging are those that doom this film already and are saying that it won't be good because of the redesign of the Enterprise.
    The rest will reseve judgment until they have actually seen the film to know what it is actually about.
     
  17. Vance

    Vance Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    And you're lying, ST-One, particularly if you're including me on that list. And your 'reserve judgment' is also a lie, because you - personally - have shown how much you love this upcoming film.

    The fact is that this thread exists to critique the view of the Enterprise as shown in the teaser. The fact that you feel personally offended that some fans are concerned about the direction of the film as a whole based on the obvious 're-deux' of old girl speaks volumes.

    So quit the bullshit and the intellectual dishonesty. If people can blow sunshine around based on what little information is out there, people are just as valid in blowing stormclouds as well.
     
  18. largo

    largo Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2001
    of course you can't critique the film, it doesn't exist yet.

    but the intent of this thread is to critique the enterprise as shown in the teaser. everyone's seen that, and it ALONE is certainly a valid basis for interest for or against the rest of the movie. the enterprise is a major character, whether its your personal focus or not. i'm fairly certain that, had rudy giuliani been cast as a young captain kirk, the negative response would be universal, "haven't seen it yet" be damned.

    it's not "because of this ONE THING, everything else about the movie will suck", it is "because of this ONE THING, the rest of the movie doesn't matter and the experience as a whole will suck".

    for myself, looking at how incredibly wide this page has been pushed by a few images, this is familiar territory, even if i don't share the sentiment wrt the enterprise.
     
  19. Vektor

    Vektor Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2001
    Location:
    Spokane, WA, USA
    You know, this is a very important consideration because if the movie really does suck, everyone who watches it could suffer permanent blindness, chronic constipation, severe heartburn, irreversible mental implosion and spontaneous combustion. Shoot, the world as we know it might end! By all means, we absolutely must form a definitive opinion about the movie before seeing it because there is so much at stake!

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to decide whether or not I should read the rest of this thread or stop right here because the consequences… the consequences…
     
  20. ST-One

    ST-One Vice Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Location:
    Germany - with UHC since the early 1900s
    Not a lie - just an observation.

    Where would I have shown this 'love' for the film?
    How can I possibly love this film if it not even finished and next to nothing is known about the story?

    What I like is the redesign of the Enterprise - very modern and still very true to the original (at least judging from what was shown of her).

    You, on the other hand, judge the movie as a whole already just by on (albeit very important) design element, the Enterprise.