• 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!

After reading through the "Probert/Sternbach" critique...

judexavier

judexavier

Commander
Red Shirt
There seems to be one growing opinion that the saucer of the newest 1701 just doesn't match the rest of the ship, with it's sweeping organic curves and shark-gill features.

(It does rather look like somebody glued a TMP saucer onto a Matell bigwheel, and then bolted on a couple of "jet" propane forced air heaters...or something?....which, is kinda cool, but......?)

(Personally, I am impressed as hell with Ryan Church's work...great art, amazing conceptual ideas; this work just SCREAMS comittee design....IMO)

All other trecknology aside (as well as the theories about Abrahms' goal to appease two different fan bases), how would you reconcile this issue, in the form of trek art?

(The Probert redo sketch REALLY intrigued me).

Also, if it HAD to be a reboot, from the studio bosses. Full out, keep the basic cool stuff, reinvent everything else.
 
In action, in the trailer, it looks completely fine. I have no clue why people are still upset about this.
 
I still think that it's design, on its own merits, is ugly and Fraunkensteen in its approach. I do find it telling that most of the 'support' this ship design has always (or nearly always) comes in terms of how terrible the original Enterprise is.

So my question, if you lot hate the original Star Trek, Enterprise, et al, so very much, why the hell do you want to have this movie?
 
The ship looks just fine in action. I like it.

The weak link in the production so far, IMAO, is the set design. Most of it is extravagant mediocrity.

That's not unprecedented in "Star Trek," and these sets will do (that dull, ugly TMP bridge served for four films, after all). When fans see Engineering, though, they'll blow their collective gaskets.
 
Starship Polaris said:
The ship looks just fine in action. I like it.

The weak link in the production so far, IMAO, is the set design. Most of it is extravagant mediocrity.

That's not unprecedented in "Star Trek," and these sets will do (that dull, ugly TMP bridge served for four films, after all). When fans see Engineering, though, they'll blow their collective gaskets.
Click to expand...
Have you seen it already? All we know is that it was shot on a redressed industrial set. It's possible that this was just because they had a large enough space, and it's not going to look like one of those bad 1970s "sci-fi" flicks or current Scifi-channel shows that are shot in abandoned factories. Maybe it was just the only available space?

Or maybe there'll be rows of identifiable industrial machines, already twenty years out of date, that we'll be expected to accept as being "future-y" somehow?
 
Cary L. Brown said:
Have you seen it already? All we know is that it was shot on a redressed industrial set. It's possible that this was just because they had a large enough space, and it's not going to look like one of those bad 1970s "sci-fi" flicks or current Scifi-channel shows that are shot in abandoned factories. Maybe it was just the only available space?

Or maybe there'll be rows of identifiable industrial machines, already twenty years out of date, that we'll be expected to accept as being "future-y" somehow?
Click to expand...
I'm imagining Space Mutiny, where the 'bowels' of the ship (which was actually the Battlestar Galactica from BSG:TOS :eek: ) were clearly an old brick factory, complete with windows to the outside. This one was a classic MST3K, at least :bolian:.
 
Ptrope said:
Cary L. Brown said:
Have you seen it already? All we know is that it was shot on a redressed industrial set. It's possible that this was just because they had a large enough space, and it's not going to look like one of those bad 1970s "sci-fi" flicks or current Scifi-channel shows that are shot in abandoned factories. Maybe it was just the only available space?

Or maybe there'll be rows of identifiable industrial machines, already twenty years out of date, that we'll be expected to accept as being "future-y" somehow?
Click to expand...
I'm imagining Space Mutiny, where the 'bowels' of the ship (which was actually the Battlestar Galactica from BSG:TOS :eek: ) were clearly an old brick factory, complete with windows to the outside. This one was a classic MST3K, at least :bolian:.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I was thinking of (I have the box set with that MST3K in it... picked it up about four months ago, too, so I saw it fairly recently!)
 
Starship Polaris said:
The ship looks just fine in action. I like it.

The weak link in the production so far, IMAO, is the set design. Most of it is extravagant mediocrity.

That's not unprecedented in "Star Trek," and these sets will do (that dull, ugly TMP bridge served for four films, after all). When fans see Engineering, though, they'll blow their collective gaskets.
Click to expand...

While I like the general layout of the bridge, seen thus far, and the increase bustle of a command center (the added stations along the pit area), there are a few details that trouble me. It seems that things have been planted on the set to have it look "busier" and uber-futuristic, such things like the barcode scanners and the work lamps. The latter seems redundant since the bridge is so brightly lit. Perhaps the lighting decreases during alert status like in TMP.

Personally, from a visual standpoint, I'd have gone with a more subdue lighting scheme so that the glow from the consoles illuminated the actors. This might've given a more dramatic look. Of course, this also works from a naturalistic viewpoint since real CIC's and submarine control rooms have subdue lighting to make the readouts pop out.

A bright bridge isn't a bad thing, but it highlights some of the more extraneous bits planted on the set.

Although, I am looking forward to seeing that the ship is a little less uniform the "deeper" down you go. It makes the ship have a visual variation and make it seem as if the engineering sections are all purpose driven and not aesthetic driven like in previous Treks.
 
SonicRanger said:
NCC-1701 said:
SonicRanger said:
Young Frankenstein, I suspect.
Click to expand...
Fraunkensteen ≠ Frankenstein
Click to expand...

Gene Wilder's character, a descendant of Dr. Frankenstein, does not want to be associated with his ancestor and insists that his last name be pronounced as "Fraunkensteen" at the start of the film.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk-qcZ7c9Kk
Click to expand...
:lol: That was brilliant! Thank you. Yeah, I actually haven't seen that film. Sorry, Vance. :shifty:
 
As I said, you need to see more movies. :)

And, yes, Young Frankenstein is pretty much in the top 20 of movies that 'must be seen'. It's easily Mel Brook's best work, and one of the best comedies ever made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top