The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

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

  1. erifah

    erifah Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    The ship looks good. I'm not concerned that it isn't a reproduction of the original "Big E" as seen in TOS, detailed for the big screen.

    "A fresh start" worked for Battlestar Galactica. The concept of that old show was fundamentally sound, but looking back on the DVD, I see that the execution was pretty lame. But re-imagined, distilled down to its essence & rebuilt from there, it became the best show on TV.

    Star Trek as we know it has been run into the ground - maybe it's time to see some Trek as we've never seen it before. I'm open-minded!

    (BTW, as to the hull aztecking being too prominent; I like to think that the Enterprise refit seen in TMP was left unpainted, so the hull materials are exposed, like an American Airlines jet. Maybe this version of the Enterprise is before the brief time period when Starfleet decided to paint the ships.)
     
  2. Trekker4747

    Trekker4747 Boldly going... Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2001
    Location:
    Kansas City
    So here's a question.

    Why did the ship (production wise) need to be "redesigned" at all?

    It's a classic, timeless, design that should not have been in changed in anyway.
     
  3. Harry

    Harry Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2000
    Amen. Except for the initial set-up of the 24th century (TNG), the darker setting of DS9 and outraguous fun of ENT Season 4, the format has barely changed. IMO, especially VOY and ENT had no real distinct 'spirit', and you can easily swap storylines between any of those seasons and no-one would notice. Not to mention that the Delta Quadrant and the Delphic Expanse had absolutely zero to do with the Star Trek universe we know.

    And that's why I'm looking forward to this movie. I'm totally ready for some new approaches. I mean.. the original series is still there to enjoy, and so is all the rest. So just give this movie some room for change. I'm completely open-minded at this point, since they seem to be going for an actual new setting and style, as opposed to just some new visuals (as ENT did).

    But anyway.. on to the ship ;). Firstly, I must say they have never filmed any Star Trek ship so dramatically as this. It's huge, it's real, it's made out of steel and sweat! I think that, artistically, that is on a completely different level than wether or not is has aztec panels. At this point in time, I can't say I can be bothered by any of the details. But I think they've hit the right spirit, and I'm eagerly awaiting more.
     
  4. ThomastheCat

    ThomastheCat Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Location:
    Campbell, CA
    For anyone curious, there's an interview with one of the screenwriters about the trailer:

    Click to read.
     
  5. Savage Dragon

    Savage Dragon TheSeeker Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2001
    Location:
    New York, NY
    I think the basic design is timeless but that doesn't mean it couldn't do with a little updating. I sure as hell want to see more than mechanical switches and static view screens when we see the bridge so why should it be any different with the exterior?
     
  6. Forbin

    Forbin Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Location:
    I said out, dammit!
    As opposed to producers who think the way to move forward is to make a prequel and completely revise a beloved icon?
     
  7. Brutal Strudel

    Brutal Strudel Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    And using sound bites from the 1960s before a verrrrry old man recites oratory over 40 years old?

    Esquire magazine recently ran a little piece called something along the lines of "7 Signs the 20th Century is Finally Over." The one stubborn 20th Century hold-out? This new Trek movie.
     
  8. Savage Dragon

    Savage Dragon TheSeeker Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2001
    Location:
    New York, NY
    I just think some people are afraid of change and therefore see it as a bad thing. Our beloved icon still exists in its original format and nothing that is done now or in the future will change that.

    All the new creative team is trying to do is to draw in a new and bigger audience by using established characters which the general movie going public are already aware of. If they tell a good story then I see nothing wrong with that. So what if some of the details change? If it's a compelling story then I want to see it!
     
  9. ancient

    ancient Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    I am disappointed that we won't see the Original ship on the big screen...ever, it looks like.

    I'm curious to see the rest of this new ship. It's hard to guess exactly what they've done down under: The neck, the dish, the hangar doors, etc.

    Until I see those I can't really give the new ship a thumbs up/down.
     
  10. USS Mariner

    USS Mariner Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Location:
    Homestate of Matt Jefferies
    Let me set my feelings on this straight:

    I would never accept a carbon copy of the 1701 from the original show for this movie, at least not as the ship that Kirk first encounters. It as if the new 2008 Camaro was just a rebadged 1969 Camaro RS (which I personally would have prefered, but even I would call that lazy.)

    However, metaphorically or not, the ship depicted in this trailer (which, in terms of general atmosphere and impression, is brilliant) is generally awful.

    When I said "Erector set," I was talking about the ship. The nacelle caps and the registry font are about the only things I really enjoy from that. Even though this isn't a fair example to judge the design with, my first impressions of something are usually right.

    That, and building the thing on the fucking ground screams lame at the top of its whiny lungs.
     
  11. Admiral Buzzkill

    Admiral Buzzkill Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2001
    Damn, it needs to register and post on some Internet boards then.
     
  12. Ptrope

    Ptrope Agitator Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Location:
    USA
    Actually, we did, with the theatrical presentation of "The Menagerie" a couple months ago. And despite what we've been told, I think it held up pretty well on the big screen. Not to say it couldn't have been improved with a bit of TLC, but it certainly didn't need wholesale remodeling in order to make the grade.
    I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this - and I'm famous for my automotive analogies ;). Why couldn't Kirk first encounter a carbon copy - or at least a ship that is clearly the original ship and not simply based upon its silhouette? When we talk about automotive analogies, I'd go with the new Dodge Challenger more than the Camaro - the 2008 has nearly every line of the 1970 original in evidence, and yet not one single line is common between the two cars; they've managed to make a clean, modern car without abandoning what made the original a classic, retaining the details in spirit even though they don't actually match the original blueprints. This is what I love about Vektor's latest model of Enterprise: it's clearly the original ship, not the motion picture version, not a BSG version, nor anything else, even though it probably doesn't share a single line or contour with the TV model.

    The new 2008 Camaro is a TMP Enterprise, and from what I see in this one shot of the 2008 Enterprise, it is, too. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - the TMP ENT was my favorite version of the Gray Lady until last week. But I disagree with any assertion that the real, original design of the ship is somehow implausible in this day and age and on the big screen; it just needs a little tweaking, not reimagining.
     
  13. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Hard not to agree... but this is oversimplified.

    The problem, IMHO, is that there was a totally NEW tone set in the early stages of TNG... that essentially divorced the new shows from the original show. It was "updated" but the "updates" weren't necessarily IMPROVEMENTS (TOS still feels far more "real" to me than TNG ever did).

    Everything that followed on used TNG as a pattern, and (with the exception of one episode of DS9 and one two-parter in ENT) largely disregarded TOS.

    So we've had three seasons of TOS, a few cartoons, and some books. And everything else has been, effectively, unrelated to TOS except in name.

    To go back to the TOS-era (and I'm including the period before the series in that), you had two choices.

    (1) Try to update what we've seen there to make it better... but keep everything that can be kept,

    or

    (2) toss out a lot of things that weren't flawed OR overused, and toss out other things that were flawed but with minor tweaking could have been made to work, and make something that's unrelated to ANY of what's come before (but still pretends to be "the same thing")

    We don't know how much of which approach has been used, and where each may have been applied. But in the case of the ship, that's really the choice, and if this is the ship as it's going to be seen in the movie (most likely the case)... then they've chosen option #2.

    Which, IMHO, is a serious mistake.

    Why, you ask? Is it because I think that vast crowds will storm angrily out of the theater over this? OF COURSE NOT. DO I think that "Trekkies" will storm out of the theater over this? OF COURSE NOT.

    But it will create dissonance with the audience, who already KNOW what the Mona Lisa looks like, and don't buy for an instance that this new painting, however nicely done it may be, is the same painting.

    It WILL harm the movie. And it will cause UNNECESSARY strife among "fandom" as you have the two extremist groups:

    (1) The "TOS is holy religion" group, who believe that the only possible approach that would be acceptable would have been to pull the original miniature from the Smithsonian... and to have cloned Shatner, Nimoy, and the gang.

    and

    (2) The smug, self-righteous "all you other fans are stooopid, I'm better than you" brigade who'll take HUGE pleasure in belittling anyone not so "kewl" as they are. They may or may not REALLY like the revised design... but they'll just SWIM in the sheer joy of watching other people NOT liking it and will do everything in their power to make those other folks as unhappy as humanly possible.

    If we got a ship that was like the original... not an all-new design that has a few things in common with the original... that particular little within-fandom conflict would be entirely moot. The audiences wouldn't either love it or just not care... NOBODY except for a few really extreme members of group #2 would have been unhappy about it...

    But now we're facing another Jihad within fandom. Totally unnecessary... but pretty much inevitable if things go this way.
    I don't think ANYONE except for a few of the most extreme members of group #1 would disagree with that. In MY case, I just wanted to see a high-resolution version of the original ship, on a big screen, as part of that.

    I CANNOT force myself to suspend my disbelief that, for instance, Gabe's design is "the same ship." And Gabe's design seems to be closer to the original than what we're seeing so far.

    (My tone has changed a bit since I saw the trailer on-screen. I LOVE the trailer... except for the fact that it's a totally different ship that's impersonating the Enterprise I've known so well for 40+ years. I LIKE the new ship... and if it weren't pretending to be the Enterprise, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. But it's NOT the Enterprise. The shapes are too different throughout... that's my Engineer's mind at work there.)
    All the things you mention, above, I agree with very much. It does look REAL. Now, you could have taken this new ship design and made it look as cheesy, as "plastic" as anything we've ever seen on-screen in any show (trek or not).

    OR...

    You could have taken the original design and given it this same treatment... you could accomplish the same "weight" and the same "reality" without replacing key components.

    Visualize, if you will... the exact same scene, with the "bussard guts" and the cranes and so forth.. the same welding stuff, the same metallic feel to the hull,the same hints of interiors... but with the SHAPE being the same shape as the original.

    Would it have lost any of the impact? Or might it actually have GAINED some?
     
  14. Ptrope

    Ptrope Agitator Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2001
    Location:
    USA
    Amen!
     
  15. ancient

    ancient Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    United States
    I know it would've made more of an impression on me if they'd used the original ship. I can't deny that. The original ship is the best looking. (This from a guy who got into Trek in the mid-90's) Sure, the hull should be metallic and way more detailed, in a way the original could only hint at. But I fail to see the logic of changing the shape. It's not like they did anything radical, but...why make such meaningless changes to the upper levels?

    Like Cary, I like the new ship (so far) just fine. It just seems that the changes they made to the sub-bridge area were...pointless. It clearly isn't in canon. Sorry, but there is no way I can believe that a ship would start out looking like the TMP version, then look like Pike's ship, then Kirk's, then end up looking...like TMP again. So this is pretty clearly a different universe where the technology is significantly different.

    Here's hoping the movie is good enough that I don't feel the need to nit-pick...
     
  16. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    Nah, that's what it would need to do if it felt some tremendous need to justify its own overinflated and unjustifiable ego by attempting to "smack down" all the other trailers who aren't as "kewl" as it is.

    :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
     
  17. Brutal Strudel

    Brutal Strudel Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    In that interview, Orci seems to take it pretty literally.
     
  18. Sean_McCormick

    Sean_McCormick Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Another thought on the different look of the ship, who can say for sure, that the ship didn't got a refit between Pike's two missions as extensive as the one between Kirk's two.
     
  19. Brutal Strudel

    Brutal Strudel Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    I'm dancing up and down the aisles and speaking in ubgabagagablalalalala tongues!
     
  20. Cary L. Brown

    Cary L. Brown Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    WELL... yes and no. He tap-danced around certain key points.

    There was only ONE thing he said that grated on my nerves... the damned "my cell phone is more advanced that Kirk's communicator" which is just an indication that he, like the majority of people out there, have no idea how their neat new toys actually WORK.

    The one major thing that's missing from the mix in this movie... or in their "supreme court"... is anyone who actually understands science and technology. They need a Jesco Von Puttkamer type as science advisor. That's one thing that Roddenberry did for TMP that was INCREDIBLY SMART. He got a guy who was not part of the film industry at all... who cared ONLY about getting the science right. That guy was one of Roddenberry's advisors. And because of him... we got a TMP that was, on the scientific/technical side, extremely believable (though the amount of thought that A. Probert and others put into the design of the newly built ship didn't hurt!) Whatever flaws you may see in TMP, they're not scientific/technical ones.

    Orci may think that... but if he had someone, well, like ME in that "supreme court," he'd have already known better and would never have said such an ignorant thing. ("ignorant" means "not having all the facts"... it's not the same as "stupid" which means "unable to understand")

    Other than that, I liked the interview (the typos weren't HIS problem... he was speaking, the interviewer is the one who typoed!).

    He definitely avoided mentioning where this was happening... and he did HINT that it was the COMPONENTS, not the total ship, that were being constructed.

    I have no problem with his "require gravity to balance" bit... I can actually imagine how that might be useful... hard to ensure balanced forces if you have no forces to balance against, after all... MANY processes are better done in zero gravity (growing silicon crystals, for instance, or clarifying liquids) but others require gravity to work properly (metal refinement comes to mind... if done in space, you'd need a massive centrifuge to do what you get for FREE in on a planetary surface!).
     

Share This Page