Why not just use the pilot design?

[Saul]

'Quite frankly, I don't give a damn' about your ill-conceived opinions.

Thinks anyone gives a shit about yours?
Everyone else here has written out long arguments for why or why not the old Enterprise design should be in the movie.

All your posts in this Topic so far have consisted of about one or two sentences usually saying "no, i'm right" or "I don't care what you think".

 

[ST-One]

'Quite frankly, I don't give a damn' about your ill-conceived opinions.

Thinks anyone gives a shit about yours?
Everyone else here has written out long arguments for why or why not the old Enterprise design should be in the movie.

All your posts in this Topic so far have consisted of about one or two sentences usually saying "no, i'm right" or "I don't care what you think".

Maybe you just haven't seen the posts, but I've more than once said that the old design (as much as I personally like it) wouldn't just not work in a 2009 movie because it is 40 years old.
No matter how good it looks, how well thought out it may be, how timeless it seems, how elegant it is... it's still old. And everyone knows it, just because it is around for 40 years.
A new movie also needs a new design. It's as simple as that.
It doesn't take away anything from the old design.

 

[blaXXer]

'Quite frankly, I don't give a damn' about your ill-conceived opinions.

Thinks anyone gives a shit about yours?
Everyone else here has written out long arguments for why or why not the old Enterprise design should be in the movie.

All your posts in this Topic so far have consisted of about one or two sentences usually saying "no, i'm right" or "I don't care what you think".

Maybe you just haven't seen the posts, but I've more than once said that the old design (as much as I personally like it) wouldn't just not work in a 2009 movie because it is 40 years old.
No matter how good it looks, how well thought out it may be, how timeless it seems, how elegant it is... it's still old. And everyone knows it, just because it is around for 40 years.
A new movie also needs a new design. It's as simple as that.
It doesn't take away anything from the old design.

This. A thousand times THIS.

/also, do not get your childhood raped on your way out, whiners.

 

[ATimson]

This film has already spent 250,000,000 pounds!

You needed to divide, not multiply; it's more like 90,000,000 pounds.

 

[Squiggy]

And the budget is only 150 mil. Nemesis...being the steaming turd it was pulled almost half of that and went up against Harry Potter.

 

[blaXXer]

oh, yes, I remember...the guy with that magic wang, right?

 

[Superman]

Uh, yeah, there's plenty of harm in jumping on the reboot bandwagon when it isn't in any way necessary to "reinvigorate" the franchise.

Have you seen the numbers for 'Nemesis'?

Well, here we are again. Another thread that is proof positive of the truly pathetic AbramsTrek apologist snobbery.

Trekker happens to have an opinion that is probably most popular there, though I think some people are silent on the issue: the original Enterprise (or the refit) looks vastly superior to the Church-"designed" abomination for Trek XI.

Yet the apologists, who are supported discreetly and sometimes not so discreetly by the mods and admins, can steamroll such opinions and threads because their opinions are those of the collective.

At any rate, Trekker, I'm with you. The new Enterprise is hideous. Seeing it on the big screen won't change that, and since I'm not seeing the movie anyway, it's not a valid argument for me.

This movie is a misstep for Trek, as many will see in a few short months.

\S/

'Quite frankly, I don't give a damn' about your ill-conceived opinions.

Nice attempt at being cute with the "frankly, I don't give a damn."

Here's my attempt at being direct: I don't give a flying fuck what you think of my opinion, nor did I ask you to tell me.

And Saul's right, you're comments here border on trolling. Of course, the mods here will turn a blind eye to them, as they are pro-Trek XI and clearly without any sense or intelligence.

And your comments make you come off as an arrogant prick. So I think you should reconsider your approach.

And I'm sure I come off that way as well...thing is, I don't deny it.

\S/

 

[Cyke101]

I recall how Phil Farrand pointed out in "The Nitpicker's Guide to TNG" that, because of the Enterprise-C travelling through the rift, that the Enterprise-D should've been radically changed as well (he did forgive the show because of production costs for one lone episode).

Why? It was already heavily armed, and there were changes made to make the ship geared more towards a military role, but none of that would've really required a total redesign of the ship itself.

An example he cited was the Defiant, in that it was padded with more armor and weaponry. A later example would be how heavily armed the Akira and the Sovereign look compared to the relatively-tame exploration-based Galaxy class, especially given how long the alt-Klingon/Federation War lasted, a war that would have encompassed the entire length of the design phase of the Galaxy. It was much easier to do that sort of revision of Voyager because of CGI, not models.

Because it wasn't that much of a change, and like I said, it added to the show without stomping all over the look of it. In fact they could've gone further by detailing the ship up as I've said several times before. It's definitely possible to update how something looks without making radical changes.

Not that much change? Entire ships changed, not just by addition, but even down to shapes as well. Rather than a flying triangle or a Tholian vessel with wings, you'd get an Eaves-esque freighter or such, completely drastic changes.

The stories are the same, the morals are the same, the lessons are the same, the acting is the same. Isn't the success of a show focused and based on the success of the actual people you see?

How, exactly?

-Friendship One: More buttons of a more contemporary design rather than jelly-bean candies (which are what some of the buttons really were made of on the TOS set), layered environmental suits that looked tough and durable as opposed to the shower-curtain environmental suits of TOS
-the Phoenix: touch-screen interface, moving graphics, (for that matter) visible graphics, CD rather than wooden insert disks, TNG-era warp stretch & flash complete with streaking stars, seat-belts

See, there's a conflict when there doesn't need to be: if it's a reboot, what does a "fictional" historical accuracy matter?

In that case it's just a matter of being against a reboot, and being irritated that the showrunners have misrepresented the movie.

And if it's not a reboot, wouldn't the effects of time travel do something there, especially given Trek's experience in such matters?

Nope. All of Trek's experience with time travel has pretty much involved either complete resets back to normal, or very small changes.

[/quote]

And would that really get rid of the Trek you've loved for so long? Does that invalidate all the hours of produced television and 10 films? I highly doubt that, especially since Trek also has parallel universe stories. That's the wonderful thing about Trek: You bring up one thing, and the franchise has probably brought up something before hand for just such an occasion.

I just find it very odd that a legend like King Arthur can and has been reshaped so many times but Trek isn't allowed to. The King Arthur legend, in all of its hundreds of incarnations, helped shape an entire nation, and later an entire Empire that had nearly conquered most of the known world, and yet Star Trek, which hasn't conquered a state let alone an empire, can't change the shape of one ship. King Arthur is very much a period piece, sometimes with dragons and sometimes without, sometimes with pieces of tech that are anachronistic and not, sometimes contemporized or not, often with tales of magic that don't fit the legends of the time period.

 

[Irishman]

Sitting here near my desk is a tiny figurine of the TOS Enterprise it's the Hallmark ornament that was released a couple years ago. It sits on a little stand and if you press a button it lights up (supposed to, but this one is broken) and plays the TOS theme.

I sit here looking at this thing looking at a beautiful, iconic, design that is recognisable to any Joe on the street and is loved by near every Trek fan.

I mean, look at it:

That's a beautiful ship!

Would it have been that bad to simply just use this design (The Cage version, of course) for this movie? Why make any drastic changes to it at all? Why not give fans the awe and wonder of seeing this timeless and classic ship on a 50-foot tall screen in all of its movie-level budget glory?

I don't want to hear "it looks too 60s/cheesy." Such comments are judging the ship on its 1960s level special effects. Anyone who's looked at the ship and seen the filming minature in all her glory in the Smithsonian can tell you this ship is a BEAUTY and would've looked glorious on screen.

Abrahms could've taken "some" liberty with her, sure. Maybe give the hull a bit more texture/"aztecking", made the interiror grills of the engines glow dimly blue, different effect inside the nacelles showing the "energies" inisde.

But to take this timeless and classic design, strip her down to the barest of components and to make a that mess that he made is just a smack in the face to all of us and, frankly, is pandering to the "base" by trying to just make a radical design that'll have people drooling over sleek lines and curves and Jetsonian modernish design rather than respecting a classic.

The talents of many of our 3D artists over in Trek Art time and time again have shown what this ship can look like with some "modern inspiration" and talent and hard work in a 3D program.

Hell, Gabe Koerner's Enterprise would've been a welcome version compared to what we're getting.

But, in the end, I think seeing the *real* Enterprise in all her glory from the Original Series would've been, well...

It would've brought a tear to me eye.

Humans adapt. You will too.

 

[Irishman]

This is the pilot Enterprise:

I like how it's shiny yet devoid of detail. That should translate well to the big screen.

You're judging it on 1960s model making a model filming techniques. Take the same basic design, run it past some talented CG artists with multi-million dollar budgets and the same design could've been awe inspring.

It could've had more details to it, more realistic lighting and texturing, etc, etc, etc.

Don't judge the design of the ship on 40+ year old filming techniques. Aside from the thing having chrome fenders on it I don't see how a design can look dated and looking dated (to us) or not it's the design established for the time period.

The Abrahmsprise doesn't fit the design lineage and it makes zero sense to me to change the design at all when this classic beauty could've been tweaked just a little bit and made gorgeous on the big screen. I mean, really, it could've been just tear to your eye wonderful.

Think of it just a moment, and I guess I'm talking mostly to people who're fans of TOS, how GREAT it would've been to a greatly rendered Classic Enterprise on the big screen.

Frankly I think this design lacks inspiration and creativity. Because TPTB looked at the Enterprise TOS and said, "Ugh. Looks too dated. We need something nifty and cool to sell the public!" and they came up with this. Rather than trying to think of ways to take the established design and make very minor changes to it and the texture to make it look great on the big screen.

This design is OK, I don't really hate it it just doesn't inspiring anything in me and doesn't make me feel like it is the Enterprise.

Design lineage??? What design lineage? Pilot vs series?

 

[Irishman]

Who's going to see a Star Trek film that Star Trek fans don't like?

Most Star Trek fans like this a lot so far.

"Most"?

I'm seeing enthusiasm starting to wane on this sucker, and a lot of us old codgers ready with the "I told you so"'s.

Count me among the "like it a alot" fans who also love TOS

 

[Irishman]

Ask some people on the street and I bet the majority will tell you that it is the Enterprise.

As piloted by Han Solo and Doctor Spock against the Cylons.

Honestly, am I supposed to be glad that this this movie is catering to people who, in all honesty, will forget it completely a day or two after seeing it once and likely won't come around a second time? And, even while watching it, will be wondering why Kirk doesn't just use the Force to kill Nero?

Dude, I've never seen you this worked up over a Trek film before. Not even "Enterprise" had you in such a twist.

What gives?

 

[Irishman]

Some of you who think the 60s version could work on the big screen today really need to find a clue. It absolutely won't work.

You might want to reconsider that "absolutely won't" phrase; anyone who believes that doesn't understand what a good model (real or CGI), good lighting and good cinematography can do. But to offer proof that it can work, Vektor's update of the iconic 1701:

Desktop01
Desktop02
"To Far Horizons"
Desktop04
Desktop05
WIP_004
WIP_008
WIP_009
WIP_010

You can't honestly claim this "absolutely won't work" on the big screen.

I think the original enterprise is iconic - and you know what's it's use here would have signalled?

same old shit kids, like your daddy watched.

As many people here who do like the new ship have claimed that, to the non-fans, it 'looks just like the iconic Enterprise,' then even the new ship signals that same message. That's why I fail to comprehend any defense of it - its differences are unrecognizable to non-fans, the target audience, so why even do it? Just polish up the original enough, as we see can be done quite well by someone with talent, skill and imagination, and then you satisfy a greater cross-section of your potential audience. Hard-core fans may be in the minority, but their money is every bit as good as that of non-fans - maybe better, because if people know enough about Star Trek to not like it, "reimagining" it isn't going to change their minds and drag them into the theaters. There's a gaping disconnect in Paramount's logic there.

Yeah, you just hurt your case.

Consider where we're all watching these still pictures - on computer screens that range in size from 13" up to at most 24" (unless someone has theirs output to the mighty plasma).

Miniscule compared to the "big Screen".

We cannot look at something that looks all kinds of great on a PC monitor and proclaim in a wide, stentorian voice "This I decree would kick major ass on the movie screen!"

Two different - massively different - scales.

 

[Irishman]

This movie is supposed to be something akin to doing a period piece, right? Would you make a movie about the Battle of Britain using modern aircraft instead of period aircraft?

The "period" in question is not the 1960's. It's the 23rd century.

And giving us that it looks they've done well.

We'll have to wait to see the whole thing before we judge it though.

 

[Irishman]

If we get a bad story, the movie will flop, period.

Not necessarily. Some on here think Transformers is a bad movie and look where that went.

I'm going to bite my tongue about how successful Generations was, despite its story

I'll counter your Generations with a Nemesis

 

[Ptrope]

Especially in the world of today's asthetics that movie goers are used to.

Someone's going to have to explain to me just exactly what "aesthetics" today's moviegoers are 'used to' that would make Vektor's update either unacceptable or implausible. First we have the argument that the original ship looks like a model, that it's too sleek and detail free. Then we hear that it isn't sleek enough to be acceptable. Let's really look at what 'today's aesthetics' are, at what's acceptable:

Star Wars? Are we talking about the Naboo ships or Millennium Falcon? The former are inspired by designs from the '30s (real-world transportation, heady designs of 'the future,' and a plethora of sci-fi serials), the latter inspired by 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film which came out 40 years ago - and which continues to be the chief source of design inspiration in the majority of space adventure today - even nuBSG can trace its design lineage directly to 1969.

I don't have a problem with people liking one design over the other, on a personal level. But there's no plausible argument that the original is something that current audiences couldn't wrap their aesthetic sense around, that it isn't 'modern' enough compared to a design aesthetic that is fast approaching the half-century mark. Not everything has to look like an iPod to be a great design.

Besides, isn't Abrams's excuse for the Corvette scene that he wants to "ground" the picture, to give people a 'connection' to something familiar so the movie isn't all future-fantasy to them? (Another excuse I heard on ENT, by the way ...) Then IMO the original design, with big-screen detailing, is a lot closer to how we see spacecraft in the real world than something all swoopy and 'sleek.'

There are, quite simply, no rational arguments against the original design. I wish people would just admit it: this is nothing more than a matter of personal taste, not a cultural paradigm.

 

[Praetor]

I agree with the OP - increased detail on the original designs would have served production quality well while appeasing us purists too. I realize that the timeline shown in the film is likely completely altered from what was original but I feel that this is a mere justification for wanting to make alterations to TOS, as was done on 'Enterprise' with the Temporal Cold War.

I am willing to give the movie a chance due to that IMHO unnecessary concession.

HOWEVER, as others have pointed out, the public is likely to think a frisbee with two paper towel tubes strapped to it is the Enterprise, but WE know different. Completely redesigning everything to prove to people that it's not 1966 is ludicrious - simply improving the production VALUE rather than tinkering with the design would have served the 'updating' purpose better and this ultimately feels like a big 'frak you' to us.

I offer another piece of evidence for the discussion, from Photoshop Trek thread found here:

How about replacing the new shocking white bridge with the classic TOS one?

You mean something like this?

I think that says it all. I wasn't following the original thread closely but it looks to be photoshopped into the recreated bridge built for 'In a Mirror Darkly' on 'Enterprise' with its improved lighting and modern construction. Now give that a bigger budget to match the costumes - curve the wall sections instead of angles for all I care. Even change the color schemes to a more monochromatic style a la 'The Cage' which seems to be more in keeping with J.J.'s production vision anyway.

Now with that in mind, really, what the fuck is better about the iBridge and the corridors of the Tantive IV seen in the trailer?

Guess I'm just not an Apple person.

 

[Irishman]

Simply because this movie puts a new spin on TOS canon and origins does not make it mindless.

If you find it incompatible, it can simple be ignored when watching any previous show or movie, or any subsequent one set in the "old timeline". Why not? Its what I do with most of ENT.

And what I do with DS9 and Voyager

 

[Vonstadt]

Personally I actually dislike the idea just because its a new movie the ship needs to be changed. I find such logic in Hollywood rarely works out well. I still like the look of Klatau's sleek ship from the 50's Day the Earth stood still and it will still remain Iconic and remembered more than anything old Keanu's remake will be.

I still think that the old girl still had plenty of style still even in this day and age. Of all of the folks I've talked to (fans and non fans) see the change as mostly "meh its just for the new movie'.

Now don't get me wrong, I actually don't mind the new look at all. I sorta call this my Batmobile thing. I liked the look of the Campy 60's batmobile, and LOVED how burton changed it for the first two batman movies (Loved the jet turbo fan in the front!) I even liked it in the animated series which was a nod to the Burton one.

Then Batman Begins shows us the new Bat mobile....this amardilo looking armored plated humvee wanna be! All of my friends went nuts! Hate poured all over the place...I looked at it and was like hmmm neat...a new take and functional...it took about 5 seconds in the police chase for most of my friends to go "Wow cool I love the new batmobile!"

Different isn't bad, I think the new design pays a nice homage to the Old Girl, however what I don't agree with is just saying the old one wouldn't have worked on a big screen remake.

Poppy Cock, she would've done just fine and didn't need to be changed at all.

However, since they did, this new look will do just fine for me thank you!

I honestly can't wait to see the new girl in action! Also a good rule of thumb...she is gonna make a very nice Hallmark ornament to boot


Vons.

 

[Irishman]

Especially in the world of today's asthetics that movie goers are used to.

Someone's going to have to explain to me just exactly what "aesthetics" today's moviegoers are 'used to' that would make Vektor's update either unacceptable or implausible. First we have the argument that the original ship looks like a model, that it's too sleek and detail free. Then we hear that it isn't sleek enough to be acceptable. Let's really look at what 'today's aesthetics' are, at what's acceptable:

Star Wars? Are we talking about the Naboo ships or Millennium Falcon? The former are inspired by designs from the '30s (real-world transportation, heady designs of 'the future,' and a plethora of sci-fi serials), the latter inspired by 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film which came out 40 years ago - and which continues to be the chief source of design inspiration in the majority of space adventure today - even nuBSG can trace its design lineage directly to 1969.

I don't have a problem with people liking one design over the other, on a personal level. But there's no plausible argument that the original is something that current audiences couldn't wrap their aesthetic sense around, that it isn't 'modern' enough compared to a design aesthetic that is fast approaching the half-century mark. Not everything has to look like an iPod to be a great design.

Besides, isn't Abrams's excuse for the Corvette scene that he wants to "ground" the picture, to give people a 'connection' to something familiar so the movie isn't all future-fantasy to them? (Another excuse I heard on ENT, by the way ...) Then IMO the original design, with big-screen detailing, is a lot closer to how we see spacecraft in the real world than something all swoopy and 'sleek.'

There are, quite simply, no rational arguments against the original design. I wish people would just admit it: this is nothing more than a matter of personal taste, not a cultural paradigm.

It's one thing for current designers to crib heavily from classic looks and asthetics. Noone would, however, confuse the Discovery from 2001 with the NuBSG Galactica. It's not as though the designers of NuBSG felt beholden to that arrangement of parts and colors and dimensions. They took the theme and took it places it hadn't been before. And it works.

The same with what Church has done with the new Enterprise. He wasn't beholden to the jot and tittle of the original, but he kept the important and most classic parts, and simply took it places it hadn't been before.

And IT works....for many of us.