Discussion in 'Fan Art' started by Professor Moriarty, Jan 17, 2008.
Let's keep the conversation on the ship and not the fans. Thanks!
Star Trek has been "ruined" how many times now?
You've got to be fucking kidding me.
Are we looking at an Erector set, or did he shoot for Steampunk and miss the mark by about 5 miles?
From what I can see, this is going to be worse than the E-E.
I will give them credit for (unknowingly) using the FJ Microgramma font. I've always thought that was perfect for pre-TOS Starfleet.
Oh, three times at least.
Hopefully Abrams' movie will enable it to resurge to the point that we'll get the chance to see it ruined another dozen times. :thumbsup:
Not my job to do either one, the last time I checked.
I'm pretty sure he hit the mark right dead on... and ah that Erector set stuff looks to be scaffolding to me.
Oh my God! They raped my childhood!!
:turning tin foil mode off:
Vektor, Gabe, the person who did the April Fool's Day design, and the other person who did the recent fake trailer were correct.
Oh Good. My wife is home. Did I tell you my wife is a Trekker?
Does anyone else wonder why they're finishing the interiror when they've not yet completed the exterior and why they've already painted on the hull markings before they've even finished building the damn thing?
Sorry if this disappoints, but I the last TREK movie I saw in the theater (in fact, the last TREK movie I saw at all) was FIRST CONTACT. Haven't seen one since.
By the way, it's "hear" not "here".
The title of this thread is "The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!", so I don't see a problem with people posting a bona fide critique. (Surely you jest!)
Seriously, when I see this kind of image, I must admit one thought immediately pops into my head: STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE. Some people loved it, others hated it. I have mixed feelings about it. ENT gave us gems like "First Flight" and "Minefield", and despite some avoidable continuity goofs and controversy over the appearance of the title ship, I think the series went off the air with a great deal of unfulfilled potential, mostly due to poor-quality of stories and continuity goofs that offended the fans. Having said that, I can understand and respect when fans look at the NX-01 and dismiss the show as a Bermanian wannabe.
I did not know if the new movie is expected to be a canon prequel or an entire re-imagining. My reaction was a critique based on the expectation that the movie would be a canon prequel. In that context, I stand by what I said.
If the movie is a Ronald D. Moore-style re-imagining (a la GALACTICA) then that opens up a new can of worms. STAR TREK wasn't a half-baked 1970's space fantasy that got cancelled after a year, resurrected for a nausaeting kid's show and then cancelled again before someone came along 25 years later and completely re-imagined it. STAR TREK enjoyed three full years on NBC, got the boot, then lived on in reruns, grew a cult following in the '70's and became a a growing, multi-faceted motion picture and TV franchise. Despite some really silly goofs in continuity along the way, lots of viewers (myself included) only became vocal when the concept erosion became obvious. So, I don't see why the 40-year legacy has to be thrown away. Despite some goofs and flaws, TREK is a success. The franchise doesn't need a re-make. I'm not saying a re-make would be illegitimate. I just don't see why it's necessary.
Pursuing a re-make opens up a whole new can of worms folks don't seem to be considering. Who will these new characters really be? What do they stand for? Given Hollywood's penchant for cheapening re-makes, it isn't hard to imagine a re-made James T. Kirk looking like a gun-toting cross between Leonardo DiCaprio and George Michael. Of course, as of this moment, there is no hard evidence to expect this will happen. Still, Hollywood didn't earn my confidence when they re-made TORA! TORA! TORA! in the insidious form of PEARL HARBOR. (And no, I don't need to go see or rent the later when I know from the critics that the later was a phony, sappy love story that cannot stand in the shadow of the former.)
Even if one accepts the notion that TREK needs re-made, I do not see why it can't be based on TOS, instead of TMP or Bermanian TREK. After all, with the release of the new "remastered" DVDs, the jury is "in": 40-year-old TREK is generating more buzz (and probably making more money) right now than TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT combined.
Now, if TREK were "hitting the reset button", I would be curious to see if Hollywood could pull off a quality re-creation of TOS, the smooth-hulled, block-lettered Enterprise, a new Kennedyeque/Shatneresque Jim Kirk, old sound effects and all. Of course, I would like to see a tad more detailing on the hull and maybe some controls would have more interesting sound effects. There would be other changes, as well: the computers and viewscreens would look different. And female humanoid crewmembers would be clad in either utilitarian jumpsuits or a "skant" modification of the original sexist mini-skirts. It would be lots of fun to see a re-made TOS in HD as a new TV series. It really would. But if Hollywood's track record is anything to go by, the funky new Kirk will probably be less interested in doing his duty than posing in front of a mirror, wondering if his brazilian-waxed girlfriend will approve of him getting his nipples pierced.
The screenshot is absolutely believable to me in terms of construction.
Ever seen a tall building go up? They build the raw columns and floor decking first, then start installing the outer skin before any major work is done to the interior. A building might be completely covered in its outer wall and windows before the first drywall is delivered.
Further, the line at the construction elevator is left without skin so large material can continue to be moved inside the building. They don't button up those last bits of outer wall until all the big stuff is in.
This is exactly what's going on in the screenshot.
Dunno. It looks to me like the interior is somewhat there despite the outter-shell still being underconstruction.
And I still take issue with the registration "decal" being placed before the outerhull is finished but, I guess, it could not be painted on/a decal put actual part of the material itself.
As for moving bulky stuff into the hull (hence the open hull plates) irrelevant and uneeded in an age of transporters and anti-gravity units.
And don't get me started on constructing it in an atmosphere/surface-side.
^ The point is, the visuals in the teaser are metaphorical (ya know "under construction"), and as such they're using modern imagery. Within that context, it is done appropriately.
In terms of things like the name/registry already being painted on the hull, and the ship being built on the ground... well, I kind of wonder if it's occurred to anyone else that this teaser may not be 'canon'. Which is to say, that it might not actually depict anything which will appear in the finished film (apart from, presumably, the design of the ship itself). I seem to recall plenty of early teaser trailers for films that featured nothing from the finished product. They're just teasers, just a nifty few seconds of stuff designed to attract attention and generate buzz. Maybe what we're seeing here is more of a 'symbolic' trailer. That being the case, details like ground-based construction and registry numbers are not as worrisome; they're just kind of metaphorical visual imagery meant to invoke the idea of the film being 'under construction'.
I mean, remember the first teaser for TUC? Did anyone think that the final film would feature the Enterprise flying through space with scenes from old episodes being projected on the hull?
I'm not too worried about this teaser. To my mind, the only thing of consequence here is the appearance of the ship itself... and we all knew it wasn't going to look exactly like the old 11-foot model, anyway, didn't we? It's just a matter of how it differs. And this looks recognizably like a riff on the classic design to me. So I'm not too worked up about it.
EDIT: Heh heh... great minds think alike, eh, Arlo?
What does hearing, have to do with being *here in this place* we frequent known as Trek BBS that I was referring fans would gather to bash/or cheer this movie?
Yeah it lasted three... still got the axe all the same. By todays standards many Trek fans should think of that as a flop.
"Bermanian Trek", its entire model was virtually and literally handed down from GR himself. I wish people would remember that when they start bashing TNG and the model of Star Trek it gave us - That was truly GR's baby, he openly loved it more then TOS. GR disowned TOS long before Berman got involved.
And my statement applies, the majority of those screaming are going to be there in the movie so they can later show up and bash it - they might even go a couple of times...
The ship looks fine.
I love the aeroplane type engines.
Looking forward to seeing more views.
i believe he was referring to your second use. "I can here it already." just to clarify the nit picking before it gets well out of hand.
okay, regarding the bloody ship. just my 2cp, but i think it looks great. its not exactly like the 1701 of TOS, but nobody's likely to miss it in a line-up at the police station after its mugged them down a dark quadrant, either. its been re-interpreted by new minds and new thinking, as all mythologies must be if they are to survive and their fundamental truths continue to be made relevant. there are so many places where they could really screw up this movie and kill star trek for a generation, and whether or not they've used the right font or put the phasers in the right place is light years away from being the most significant of those. it looks good, it looks compelling, if that's what it takes to continue GR's vision of a fundamentally peaceful humanity spreading through the stars, so be it.
One of the greatest failings of post-Roddenberry Trek was simply that the producers were too conservative and respectful of the style and limitations of previous Trek.
I guess you didn't know that Vektor did the "April Fools" design as well?
It's ALL metaphor there... hell, they have "Under Construction" in TEXT, ON-SCREEN, describing the film.
So they show the ship under construction too.
I agree that the markings would go on last... but that would sort of lose the whole point of trying to convince the audience that this is the ENTERPRISE.
(Now, if they'd actually given us THE ENTERPRISE, instead of a new design loosely based upon the Enterprise, maybe they could have gotten away without TELLING US that it's supposed to be the Enterprise... whataya think?)
Separate names with a comma.