SPY PHOTOS at AICN

[ancient]

I'm not seeing anything that looks remotely like nuBSG here, so why the hell are we still talking about it? Damn!

[continues talking about it:] Look, I really, really dislike the nuBSG. I don't go into the nuBSG forum so as to avoid causing flame wars. I think it's boring and lame. And yes, it has a niche audience or whatnot. If this movie looked anything like nuBSG I'd be the first to bitch about it.

But since I also haven't somehow convinced myself that Abrams is determined to copy a niche show in order to make a blockbuster for a wide audience, (And really, that makes no sense to begin with) I'm pretty excited about these new pics.

Lookin' good. Looking like TOS with a budget.

 

[Akiraprise]

Edit: You know something, this might be an okay movie. It might. But these ass-hole fanbois who, from all appearances, utterly hate Star Trek and want NuBSG Trek, are not only making me not want to see the film, but hope it utterly fails.

Warning for flaming. Going into a forum and calling everyone who likes the design decisions an ass-hole. Really nice. Discuss topics, not posters.

Thing is is that every single person who's commented as to not liking the style that Abrams is going with has been ridiculed and personally attacked by a large group of people here, who seems, don't actually like Star Trek but want more NuBSG.

And it's perfectly okay for that group to insult and harass anyone who disagrees with them, right? After all, they're the 'kewl' fans with their 'kewl' show, and all those Trek fans should be ignored - or, better yet, just finally die of old age now that so many of them are past puberty.

So why should I be exacted about a Star Trek movie where the primary prerequisites for liking it seem to be (a) not liking Star Trek at all, and (b) being an absolute dick about (a)?

I haven't seen this, and I read this forum everyday. What I have seen is a lot of discussion by people both for and against the film on the various topics in this forum. Most of it is civil. Some is dumb, but that's what this forum is here for. People can debate without resorting to petty name calling.

Tralah and Tom Servo you both need to settle down a bit too. If somebody seems like their behavior is questionable, and need to be looked at by the mods, use the notify button on the post in question. It's the triangle shaped button.

Now if everyone would get back to discussing the topic of the leaked photos and whether they suck or not it'd be appreciated.

 

[Tom Servo]

Just cause we disagree with you.

I take it that you don't often read your own posts?

Also, do you even know what 'Q.E.D.' means?

Yes, its short hand for a latin term which means, in a way, that I demonstrated the point you were trying to make.

And while I disagree with your view, I pointed out in my post that you have the right to your opinion, which is great. However, I have not used a tone that you did, talking down to us with the "kewl" jargon and the like, just cause we like this particular style. If you wanna watch TOS, go watch it. It's great. However, this film is TOS made almost 40 years later, with a much larger budget, so its insane, I think, to think or expect a film that looks exactly like TOS.

And Colgey...it is a NERD FIGHT!

Edit: Just saw the post above....back to the discussion of the film.

 

[M'Sharak]

Yepper.

 

[Vance]

Well, since a moderator has come down, deliberately misrepresented what I actually said, and warned me based on that, while not even slapping those who agree with him for similar (or worse) behavior... screw it. Is it any wonder that the moderation of this board is a running joke all over the internet?

Anyway, here it is, I don't like what I see in the pictures. For being a prequel it winds up looking, in a lot of ways, worse than the 1960s version. It's like, as I said, someone dragging out the Space 1999 props, throwing dust on them, and calling it 'good'.

Does it mean the film's 'ruined'? No. It just means that I don't like the visual cues, and that I have concern that the 'darker grittier' direction is going to abandon what I like about Trek in the first place.

 

[USS Mariner]

This is some of the blandest design work I've seen for any movie. I can hear the artists busily working on this in my head:

Angles!

Boxes!

More Boxes!

MORE ANGLES, MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!

More commentary later.

 

[Classic Fan]

Coool.

Ive had to google 'em as Harry has been told to remove them.


But.....




Hell Yeah!!!!


So what if its different from whats gone before, weve had too much 23rd Century clean edges Trek (Excluding DS9).

Its fresh blood, and fresh blood we have indeed.


It is, well, kinda like NuBSG and TOS's Love child, with a little DNA added from Firefly.



Im a possitive fan, if its new and good then to hell with the look of it, its new for God's sake, its gonna be. If the story is good, and the acting is decent and the sets/costumes/music is top notch then this may be the first Trek movie i see more than once in the theatre.

If this is just the shuttle, and its stated the movie will harken back to TOS days in terms of looks and design then, hell, hes doing the job very well IMO.


If its shit, then its shit. Forget about it.

Beam yourself and your boring beige ass out of the theatre and go next door and see a Jerry Bruckheimer 'Blow-em-up'.

 

[ancient]

Yeah, where the hell are the rotating wings? WTF?

 

[EyalM]

Anyway, here it is, I don't like what I see in the pictures. For being a prequel it winds up looking, in a lot of ways, worse than the 1960s version.

When Enterprise came out, everybody and their sisters were complaining (some to this day) on how the sets looked too advanced to be a prequel for TOS. Now that we have a prequel set that actually looks like a precursor to the TOS design, people are still complaining. What's up with that?!

 

[M'Sharak]

It's what the internet is for.

 

[Vance]

When Enterprise came out, everybody and their sisters were complaining (some to this day) on how the sets looked too advanced to be a prequel for TOS. Now that we have a prequel set that actually looks like a precursor to the TOS design, people are still complaining. What's up with that?!

My only visual complaint with Enterprise was the ship itself. I actually think that the overall look of the interiors, etc, was about what they needed to do. So you won't really find me on that score.

And I'm not really looking for the 1960s look of TOS. I wouldn't expect that. I would expect what's doable now while keeping some overall themes in the general aesthetic. "Clean militaristic" is what defined TOS, which is what I would have expected overall. Tossed-around dirt and grime all over 1970s consoles isn't exactly what I had in mind.

 

[Classic Fan]

Anyway, here it is, I don't like what I see in the pictures. For being a prequel it winds up looking, in a lot of ways, worse than the 1960s version.

When Enterprise came out, everybody and their sisters were complaining (some to this day) on how the sets looked too advanced to be a prequel for TOS. Now that we have a prequel set that actually looks like a precursor to the TOS design, people are still complaining. What's up with that?!

Nuff said.


I gave Ent a chance, it did nothing for me in the slightest. It was just Voyager all over again.

Back on track:

The look of the show was to be taken from our current perspective of the future, much like TOS was the then current perspective of their future, albeit couldve been better had the original set designs been used, but hey.

I took that explanation, accepted it to a degree (Even though retro sets couldve been used. But Herman Zimmerman ran out of creative juice long before Ent premiered), and tried watching it, but the show itself just didnt do anything for me.

These designs however, although not the best in the world, seen better in Trek Art, they are still good, and once lit under studio lights and panel lights etc, may just be the ticket.

 

[EyalM]

When Enterprise came out, everybody and their sisters were complaining (some to this day) on how the sets looked too advanced to be a prequel for TOS. Now that we have a prequel set that actually looks like a precursor to the TOS design, people are still complaining. What's up with that?!

My only visual complaint with Enterprise was the ship itself. I actually think that the overall look of the interiors, etc, was about what they needed to do. So you won't really find me on that score.

And I'm not really looking for the 1960s look of TOS. I wouldn't expect that. I would expect what's doable now while keeping some overall themes in the general aesthetic. "Clean militaristic" is what defined TOS, which is what I would have expected overall. Tossed-around dirt and grime all over 1970s consoles isn't exactly what I had in mind.

It defiantly has a militaristic look. As for clean, maybe it's supposed to look like an old craft? like an old model shuttling those workers we saw in the other pics to that refinery.

 

[Classic Fan]

When Enterprise came out, everybody and their sisters were complaining (some to this day) on how the sets looked too advanced to be a prequel for TOS. Now that we have a prequel set that actually looks like a precursor to the TOS design, people are still complaining. What's up with that?!

My only visual complaint with Enterprise was the ship itself. I actually think that the overall look of the interiors, etc, was about what they needed to do. So you won't really find me on that score.

And I'm not really looking for the 1960s look of TOS. I wouldn't expect that. I would expect what's doable now while keeping some overall themes in the general aesthetic. "Clean militaristic" is what defined TOS, which is what I would have expected overall. Tossed-around dirt and grime all over 1970s consoles isn't exactly what I had in mind.

It defiantly has a militaristic look. As for clean, maybe it's supposed to look like an old craft? like an old model shuttling those workers we saw in the other pics to that refinery.

Good point.


10 points for thinking out side the box.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah, where the hell are the rotating wings? WTF?

Yeah, shouldn't this thing have vectoring nacelles?

Jeez, not only do they violate canon but then they go ahead and violate their violations. This film is an infinitely recursive canonical catastrophe.

Looks cool, though.

 

[Jon1701]

It just means that I don't like the visual cues, and that I have concern that the 'darker grittier' direction is going to abandon what I like about Trek in the first place.

I just don't see anything dark and gritty here.

Used, maybe. A bit dirty. Its just too early to make any kind of informed judgement based on a couple of shots that are not under filmed conditions.

The Enterprise herself won't look anything like this. I am 100 percent certain of that. Wherever this is (and I don't think its on earth), this is a dirty, dusty planet. Looks like a mine. Its going to be dirty. Its going to be a bit worn. Frankly, I'd be more concerned if it wasn't a bit dirty.

Has 23rd century man eradicated both hunger, greed and dust?

The uniform shot is so tight that could have been taken anywhere. Nothing says that it was taken onset.

I accept that you don't like the overall look of these pictures, but I still think its too early to tell.

 

[Rat Boy]

Were they supposed to be wearing helmets in the shoot or were they wearing them between takes for safety?

 

[Tralah]

Has 23rd century man eradicated both hunger, greed and dust?

As someone with a very irksome dust allergy, I'd rank dust eradication right up there with hunger and greed. Alas, we'll probably be rid of hunger and greed before we eliminate dust.

 

[Trekker4747]

Interesting photos. Looks like a nice marriage between Enterprise and The Cage.

 

[Saul]

I believe the completely appropriate retort to such a well thought out, articulate statement such as this would be:

"Yeah, your mom told me."

The better response would have been:

"Actually, yes. I do have experience with sex. It's wonderful. I hope you get a chance to try it sometime. With someone else. And for free."

That would be better, but you're also assuming that actual thought and consideration was needed in responding. The "yo momma" reply was all this guy deserved.

Well I don't usually put my consideration into comments for the narrow minded. Anything more would be too complicated for them and they'd have to stay up half the night thinking how to give a good come back.