• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Here it is - no bloody "A", "B" "C" or "D"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Better to let it lie fallow for a while than subsidize crap.

Bad Trek is not better than no Trek. Bad Trek brings down the whole brand (Voyager, Enterprise, and Nemsis, anyone?).

When are the pinheads at Paramount going to get it through their heads that it wasn't too much Star Trek that killed the franchise, it was too much BAD Star Trek!?!
 
Better to let it lie fallow for a while than subsidize crap.

Bad Trek is not better than no Trek. Bad Trek brings down the whole brand (Voyager, Enterprise, and Nemsis, anyone?).

When are the pinheads at Paramount going to get it through their heads that it wasn't too much Star Trek that killed the franchise, it was too much BAD Star Trek!?!
The problem, of course, being that YOUR definition of Bad Trek and OTHER fans definition of Bad Trek are not necessarily the same.
 
Okay, I would have weighed in on this sooner but I’ve been sick as a dog for the better part of a week and I wanted some time to digest the new Enterprise and decide what I actually thought of it without succumbing to knee-jerk reactions.

First impression: Someone made a Bugs Bunny Road Runner sketch of the TOS Enterprise, made a wax sculpture of it and then left it too close to the heater vent. The proportions are whacked, especially the angle of the nacelle struts and the way the deflector region juts so far out in front. Certain features actually do look slightly melted, like someone was going for an organic flow but got a little sloppy with the flow part. Some obvious nods to the TMP refit. I figured right away that the nacelle domes were glass (or transparent aluminum or whatever), not chrome, and that we were simply seeing them unlit. I couldn’t help feeling disappointed that they had decided to alter the original design so drastically.

Second impression: Looks like the ship shown in the teaser trailer was pretty accurate after all. We can’t see the top of the primary hull but the bottom looks just about identical. Ditto the warp nacelles, allowing for the addition of the clear domes. I also remember commenting about the oddly upright angle of what appeared to be a nacelle strut in the teaser trailer, the one with the welder perched atop a scaffolding tower with the saucer in the background. That, too, seems to match with this new image and the struts that form a much narrower ‘V’.

Third impression: After looking at it for a couple of days, I have to admit it’s growing on me. I still get a heavily stylized, almost cartoon-esque vibe from it, mostly from the exaggerated shapes and proportions. It reminds me of the portraits you can have drawn of yourself by street artists where your head is huge in proportion to your body and your most prominent features are exaggerated to comic degrees. And yet, the longer I stare at it, the less distorted it seems and the more intrigued I am by the thinking that must have gone into the design. Would I ever have done it this way myself? Probably not. Question is, who’s boundaries does that say more about, mine or theirs? Regardless of what I think of it as the TOS Enterprise, I have to admire the audacity of the design.

So what do I think of it as the TOS Enterprise? Short answer: I can live with it. I long ago accepted the fact that this movie was not going to look exactly like the TV show from the ‘60s, not that I ever really wanted it to. I was always in favor of a certain degree of updating, whether or not it was rationalized by alternate timelines and such. Beyond that, I’m simply not a hardcore purist. Sticking closer to the TOS aesthetic would have brought a certain… validation to some elements that I consider classic and timeless, but Star Trek was always about so much more than sets and costumes and ship designs.

I’m off to see Quantum of Solace in about an hour. Assuming my local theater is not so stupid as to forego the Trek trailer, I should have at least another glimpse or two of the new Enterprise from different angles and be able to form a better judgement.
 
Vector I agree with you with the fact that it does grow on you over time. Personally for me, I had to get over the shock of how much they changed it, and now everytime I look at it, I like it more and more.
 
Better to let it lie fallow for a while than subsidize crap.

Bad Trek is not better than no Trek. Bad Trek brings down the whole brand (Voyager, Enterprise, and Nemsis, anyone?).

When are the pinheads at Paramount going to get it through their heads that it wasn't too much Star Trek that killed the franchise, it was too much BAD Star Trek!?!
We don't know yet that this is bad Trek. Keep yer shirt on. ;)
 
That's not feasible.

Well then maybe they should just built it in space, the way you'd build a real interplanetary vessel that doesn't need to enter atmospheres.

Man, you're being dead serious aren't you? Y'know, the only reason the ship never landed in TOS was because it was too expenive to show. It ain't a big deal.

Of course I'm being dead serious, just as I have been in about 300 other threads in the last decade (this debate existed long before the movie started, it is just that there are infinitely more morons who buy the built-on-earth lunacy now that Abrams is doing it.)

In his original notes, it said rarely lands. That's probably in the same notes that describe spock as being 'probably half-martian.' By the time he was getting underway, he had Harvey Lynn doing tech stuff for him, along with Kellam Deforest, and he had a very good notion of how you don't build down in a gravity well for a ship that ain't going to enter one.

If you need any more, go back over the last year and put the words 'built on earth' into a search, and you'll get more information than I imagine you can possibly absorb.
 
:wtf:... Please God, don't let this be the real thing, for the proportions of the thing are asthetically retarded and extremely offensive! Just for starters, the neck is as long as the ship's body! What the hell were they thinking?!! Talk about topping arse over head! I could go into justifying the terrible proportions and connecting points of the ship's main features, but really I cannot be bothered waisting my breath on the very rude and poor dynamics of the design!

...Please assure me that this is not the final thing!... If it is, I'm devastated - completely gutted! :(

Let's hope and pray that it at least looks better on the big screen! :confused:

If anyone is interested, my Enterprise designs are available at...
www.freeman33.com/art23.html
www.freeman33.com/art23b.html
www.freeman33.com/art24.html
www.freeman33.com/art25.html

Um ... I was about to shrug my shoulders and quip about how lucky you are that you're not the one getting all the attention for your designs like Church is, but then I noticed ... YOU DID THIS ON PAPER! I might disagree with some of your design choices, but that is gorgeous work, 101!
 
Better to let it lie fallow for a while than subsidize crap.

Bad Trek is not better than no Trek. Bad Trek brings down the whole brand (Voyager, Enterprise, and Nemsis, anyone?).

When are the pinheads at Paramount going to get it through their heads that it wasn't too much Star Trek that killed the franchise, it was too much BAD Star Trek!?!
The problem, of course, being that YOUR definition of Bad Trek and OTHER fans definition of Bad Trek are not necessarily the same.

AND he's jumping the gun since none of us have seen the movie yet.
 
Well then maybe they should just built it in space, the way you'd build a real interplanetary vessel that doesn't need to enter atmospheres.

Man, you're being dead serious aren't you? Y'know, the only reason the ship never landed in TOS was because it was too expenive to show. It ain't a big deal.

That's why the concept was dropped, probably before Jefferies had ever heard the name "Roddenberry."

Sorry, but JJ's geek cred is dropping fast.

And yours has risen beyond reason.
 
I showed these pictures to a Friend yesterday who is not a Star Trek fan and infact has never seen Star Trek


Me: Do you know this? (shows the picture)
Friend: No.
Me: these are...space ships.
Friend: I don't understand.
Me: Maybe it's best you don't. Anyway, which one do you like best?
Friend: (Thinks about it and then points to the TMP Enterprise)
Me: Nice choice. Why did you pick this one?
Friend: It looks like the newest one.
Me: I see, yes you're right.
Friend: (points to the JJprise) but I like this one second.
Me: why is that?
Friend: Cos it looks like an older version of this one (TMP Enterprise) it has bigger Engines.
Me: Hummm, How about this one? (points to the TOS Enterprise)
Friend: no, it looks too clean and it doesn't look like it could fly in space.

Granted my friend will likely never go to watch this movie but it is interesting to get an outside perspective. The design still hasn't grown on me yet. But I love the Kelvin picture I saw today. It really looks like a Prequel Starship.
 
Better to let it lie fallow for a while than subsidize crap.

Bad Trek is not better than no Trek. Bad Trek brings down the whole brand (Voyager, Enterprise, and Nemsis, anyone?).

When are the pinheads at Paramount going to get it through their heads that it wasn't too much Star Trek that killed the franchise, it was too much BAD Star Trek!?!
Once again so you've seen the fucking movie already? NO YOU HAVEN SO STFU about it being good or bad yet. Jesus.
 
I LOVE IT! I love the fact that it has a sleek design, yet it still pays homage to the TOS Enterprise. Can't wait to see her in motion!
 
...
I’m off to see Quantum of Solace in about an hour. Assuming my local theater is not so stupid as to forego the Trek trailer, I should have at least another glimpse or two of the new Enterprise from different angles and be able to form a better judgement.

Out of everyone on this board, I've been waiting to hear your opinion the most ... good luck seeing the trailer!
 
Better to let it lie fallow for a while than subsidize crap.

Bad Trek is not better than no Trek. Bad Trek brings down the whole brand (Voyager, Enterprise, and Nemsis, anyone?).

When are the pinheads at Paramount going to get it through their heads that it wasn't too much Star Trek that killed the franchise, it was too much BAD Star Trek!?!
Well, I had two responses for this, but since JuanBolio beat me to my first choice ("Good thing we don't know yet..."), I'll go with my second choice: Just out of morbid curiosity, what exactly makes this bad Trek? Of the little bit of stuff we've seen, what have you seen that is indicitive of another year of Bad Trek?
 
Vektor, thanks for checking in. I enjoyed reading your comments.

Better to let it lie fallow for a while than subsidize crap.

Bad Trek is not better than no Trek. Bad Trek brings down the whole brand (Voyager, Enterprise, and Nemsis, anyone?).

When are the pinheads at Paramount going to get it through their heads that it wasn't too much Star Trek that killed the franchise, it was too much BAD Star Trek!?!
Once again so you've seen the fucking movie already? NO YOU HAVEN SO STFU about it being good or bad yet. Jesus.
He can say what he thinks about it, whether it has any basis in fact or not. Responding to it each time only encourages him to keep right on repeating it. I think he's enjoying all the attention he's getting right now.
 
Ya know, It bears a striking resemblance to an Ambassador Class Enterprise C. The curves are almost identicle. Any feedbacK?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top