• 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.
Quote" 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?"

What makes it bad is that it is being changed to be generic to fit a base that people who don't like Star Trek would spend money to see. It is becoming something for them to tax in difficult times.

To add creative elements is one thing, but to completely ignore the trek cannon is another. Thats what has been done here. Abrams even was quoted saying that it didn't matter to him to appeal to the Trek Fan base, but to encourage different viewers.
 
^Well, unless we are counting modernized redesigns as canon violations, I'm not seeing how canon is being ignored all that much. And, like I said in another thread, between Nemesis (a movie written by a guy who said he was a huge Trek fan) and Enterprise (a show that brings Trek back to its roots), Star Trek fans have proven that they can't be counted on when something is made for them. So, when the fans can't be relied on to show up, why bother directing it at them when it is just as easy (and probably more effective, interesting, and entertaining) to make new fans?
 
Brannigan said:
Seeing the three versions of the enterprise like that Trekkerguy, I see the resemblence of Abrahms 1701 more. However, I still feel the nacelles are too large. I wish they'd streamline them down a bit.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the TV model represents a first "refit" with the streamlining? There, just found a "fanon" solution.
 
Ovation said:
Brannigan said:
Seeing the three versions of the enterprise like that Trekkerguy, I see the resemblence of Abrahms 1701 more. However, I still feel the nacelles are too large. I wish they'd streamline them down a bit.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the TV model represents a first "refit" with the streamlining? There, just found a "fanon" solution.
Click to expand...

If it were the way the 1701 looked between the final live-action TOS episode(2269)and TMP(2273)that'd be swell and logical.
 
archeryguy1701 said:
^Well, unless we are counting modernized redesigns as canon violations, I'm not seeing how canon is being ignored all that much. And, like I said in another thread, between Nemesis (a movie written by a guy who said he was a huge Trek fan) and Enterprise (a show that brings Trek back to its roots), Star Trek fans have proven that they can't be counted on when something is made for them. So, when the fans can't be relied on to show up, why bother directing it at them when it is just as easy (and probably more effective, interesting, and entertaining) to make new fans?
Click to expand...

Actually if you read you would see that according to the storyline it is also being developed at Area 51. Definitely not with Canon...You say fans don't care to show up? If thats the case then you definitely were not at the closing of Star Trek the Experience in Las Vegas. They cared, they were there. I was there. :) Nemesis also would not have been terrible if these "progressive" trek people didn't edit all the character sequences out of the film. If that were any other movie, other than a Trek film, it wouldn't have done as well as it did. I suppose this could be debated forever. Upgrading the ship without changing it drastically, would have had no effect on the story, or other progressive elements of the film.
 
byrdman_316 said:
archeryguy1701 said:
^Well, unless we are counting modernized redesigns as canon violations, I'm not seeing how canon is being ignored all that much. And, like I said in another thread, between Nemesis (a movie written by a guy who said he was a huge Trek fan) and Enterprise (a show that brings Trek back to its roots), Star Trek fans have proven that they can't be counted on when something is made for them. So, when the fans can't be relied on to show up, why bother directing it at them when it is just as easy (and probably more effective, interesting, and entertaining) to make new fans?
Click to expand...

Actually if you read you would see that according to the storyline it is also being developed at Area 51. Definitely not with Canon...
Click to expand...

The only Area 51 references in modern TREK come from Greg Cox's Eugenics Wars and Khan novels, where it is revealed(non-canonically, of course)that the DY-100 series sleeper ships were a top secret U.S. military and NASA project put together in the Nevada desert.
 
Ovation said:
Brannigan said:
Seeing the three versions of the enterprise like that Trekkerguy, I see the resemblence of Abrahms 1701 more. However, I still feel the nacelles are too large. I wish they'd streamline them down a bit.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the TV model represents a first "refit" with the streamlining? There, just found a "fanon" solution.
Click to expand...

That happens before they found a fatal flaw int he ship's engines and have to upgrade them to more simpler looking engines.
 
cooleddie74 said:
The only Area 51 references in modern TREK come from Greg Cox's Eugenics Wars and Khan novels, where it is revealed(non-canonically, of course)that the DY-100 series sleeper ships were a top secret U.S. military and NASA project put together in the Nevada desert.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it mentioned in the DS9 episode "Little Green Men" as well?
 
Kryton said:
cooleddie74 said:
The only Area 51 references in modern TREK come from Greg Cox's Eugenics Wars and Khan novels, where it is revealed(non-canonically, of course)that the DY-100 series sleeper ships were a top secret U.S. military and NASA project put together in the Nevada desert.
Click to expand...
Wasn't it mentioned in the DS9 episode "Little Green Men" as well?
Click to expand...

No that's Hangar 18. Where the Ferengi shuttle was briefly kept and studied.
 
Vektor said:
Emphasis mine
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.
Click to expand...

True dat. True dat.
 
middyseafort said:
Vektor said:
Emphasis mine
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.
Click to expand...

True dat. True dat.
Click to expand...

And I agree. But if you're going to completely overhaul the aesthetic apple cart, try to confine it to OTHER ships and OTHER uniforms that aren't part of more than forty years of beloved pop culture that even tribes in the Congolese rainforest would recognize. It's not about whether Abrams' TREK looks more expensive and sophisticated than the old 1960s sets and costumes. We knew this would happen. Heck, when ENT recreated TOS-era sets and uniforms for its Mirror Universe episodes they were still more expensive and solid-looking even though they looked 99.8% the same as the old, cheesier stuff. Its about thinking that "Sexing Up TREK" for an iPod and iPhone audience is an intellectually valid idea and pretending the old stuff no longer exists.
 
Psion said:
Vektor said:
...
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.
Click to expand...

Out of everyone on this board, I've been waiting to hear your opinion the most ... good luck seeing the trailer!
Click to expand...


Second that. Wait, no: I first it - because I meant to say it days ago and never got round to it. :p
 
Ghostface1701 said:
shipfisher said:
Just read parts of a review of the German media event for the film. There's reference to the large "industrial" location used for engineering and a huge shuttlebay full of shuttles. Looking at how narrow the part of the ship traditionally housing the shuttlebay looks in the new 1701 pic, this thing must be huge compared to the scale assumed for the original
Click to expand...

OK, that's another thing that bothers me. Apparently, they filmed at a brewery for the engineering scenes, which would explain why it just looked like a bunch of pipes and boilers rather than an advanced 23rd century engine room. It really looked out of place, and I hope there's more to it than that, because the ship deserves a cool engineering set.

As for the shuttlebay, the art I saw reminded me very much of the TMP version. Maybe a little wider, longer, and with a second floor...I think. Damn, I wish I had a photographic memory:vulcan:
Click to expand...

I wonder if that apparently clunky looking engineering section may be dispatched, along with the engines that it feeds, in some incident that is followed with a more "fanon" friendly refit (including a "cool" engineering set).
 
The film ends with Kirk taking command, the warp core breaching, and the crew escaping the stardive's destruction via an emergency saucer sep. Epilogue: the salvaged saucer is in drydock, being mated to a much more familiar stardrive section. The human adventure is just beginning...
 
Larva said:
The film ends with Kirk taking command, the warp core breaching, and the crew escaping the stardive's destruction via an emergency saucer sep. Epilogue: the salvaged saucer is in drydock, being mated to a much more familiar stardrive section. The human adventure is just beginning...
Click to expand...

Sounds like wishful thinking. This is a visual reboot and it makes no sense for Starfleet to completely change their ship design aesthetics at the end of the movie. The Abrams Enterprise is here to stay I believe.
 
As much as I don't like the new Enterprise, at least from the angle seen in that notorious still, I'd rather not see the ship get a new secondary hull at the end. It's supposed to be a Constitution-class heavy cruiser. To me, that means there are about twelve like her in the fleet ... all very similarly designed and built. The secondary hull isn't a shoe to be slipped on and off to change styles, it's an integral part of the design. You don't change a Huey into a Chinook by snapping off the tail rotor and welding on a new arse.

No, if this is the new look for the big E then have the conviction to stick with it.
 
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