It's a made-up spaceship, those nacelles don't have any function, they never did! Yes the designer might have had intent in the design - but so what?
Why not just use the pilot design?
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
- Status
It's a made-up spaceship, those nacelles don't have any function, they never did! Yes the designer might have had intent in the design - but so what?
ST-One
Vice Admiral
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Unless the 23rd century actually looks like it was portrayed in TOS, your 'example' is total bullshit.
Blue_Ranger
Lieutenant
I swear to God, they seem to think TOS is somekind of real documentary on the 23rd Century....
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Yeah, it's... odd (to put it mildly).
Blue_Ranger
Lieutenant
Seriously...comparing Star Trek to World War II?!
No.
But by trying to make fun (and ignoring the point in the process) you think your point is better made? Nope.
Are you really stupid enough not to grasp what was being said? I used the term right there in the example.
FAMILIARITY.
Try to wrap your brain around that one for a moment, willya?
If the audience doesn't know it's "wrong" they won't care. It won't matter either way.
If the audience does know something is wrong... if they're familiar with seeing it one way, and they see something that doesn't match... then it DOES MATTER.
If you're stupid enough to be confused by this... if you seriously thought I was saying "Trek really happened, just like WWII happened" then there's no point in continuing the conversation. But if you're not that stupid... if you're able to grasp the (pretty simple) idea that we're talking not about HISTORICAL FACT but rather about AUDIENCE FAMILIARITY here... and if you're simply PRETENDING not to "get it"... well, that tells me all I need to know about you as well, doesn't it?
Blue_Ranger
Lieutenant
I am not pretending not to get. Star Trek is not World War II!
Did the change of the look of the Enterprise prevent people from seeing TMP?
Did the change of the look of the Enterprise prevent people from seeing TMP?
I put bleach in my eyes when I saw TMP - where was the TV dish on the front? what happened to the red caps!
And, your reading-comprehension issues aside, nobody said it was.
Did TMP claim that was the way the ship always had looked?
Blue_Ranger
Lieutenant
And, your reading-comprehension issues aside, nobody said it was.Did TMP claim that was the way the ship always had looked?
One word : Klingons.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
So, Burton's Batman should have looked like the Batman TV-show from the 60s too?
Blue_Ranger
Lieutenant
Yes it should have!!!
And Batman Begins should have used the same characters from Batman and Robin!!!!
This is a new take on Star Trek. The idea is to take a franchise that has been exhausted and sterile for many many years, and to retool it for a mainstream audience. In order to make the plan work, the idea you gotta sell to the general audience is that "this is not your father's Star Trek". It's not the same old thing. It's something new.
Since we're talking about a story that takes place on a starship, it is vitally important that said starship, while still recognizable as the Enterprise, is distinct from the original model. Otherwise, what you're telling the audience is "this is not your father's Star Trek, but for some inscrutable reason, it takes place on your father's Enterprise". That wouldn't work. Simple common sense.
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.
It's amazing reading the "arguments" from the JJprise proponents here just to put this down.
The audience doesn't know a nacelle from a deflector dish, yet they'll be put off by a design faithful to the original?
If the JJprise had appeared on any random blog it would have been laughed off as "fanwank", and wouldn't have had the chance to "grow on you". But it's in the movie (along with uhura's bra), so it r00ls.
The original is accused of looking "dated", when in fact it's timeless in its simplicity and utility. Look at sattelites, probes, etc. NASA put out in the last 40 years (excepting things designed for atmosphere) and you'll be hard-pressed to declare one design more "dated" looking than another. The JJprise will become dated more quickly. Sure, it looks new now but it won't hold up over time. It's too showy and stylized. That said, I don't think it looks bad, but I wonder...why?
The "ass-kicking" JJprise seen in the teaser negates the "frontier" aspect of ST, at least as to what the original show's atmosphere was. Then, the ship was vulnerable but taken care of by the crew, and often required negotiation or strategy rather than brute-force to resolve conflicts. I don't think we'll be seeing that. We've gotta be number one. The ST fans that don't actually get ST would demand we be.
It being built on the ground is a complete stretch. Just because this is the future doesn't mean basic principals of structure vanish. If it's so hard to construct a spaceship in orbit, how did they build that huge space station? I sure hope no one is proposing THAT was built on some plain either...
And I thought Transformers fans where picky.
We've worked harder at it, for a lot longer, in far greater numbers than Transformers fans have. What they know about nitpicking was perfected by us before most of them were born.
So what? It's pop culture - what does it matter if it looks dated in ten years as long as it look good now?
Did TMP claim that was the way the ship always had looked?
No. TMP claimed that the ship underwent an extensive refit, such to the point that its technology level jumped from something from a low-budget 60s sci-fi show to a high-budget late 70s sci-fi film.
The ship underwent just as radical a redesign between TOS and TMP, and no one cared.
There is no indication whatsoever that this new film will claim that the new design is how the Enterprise had always looked, and there is no reason to think that the ship couldn't have undergone an extensive refit some time prior to TOS to bring it in line with the original depiction of the ship.
As I said in another thread:
Why not change it? Why does the decision to change it have to be justified, especially since, as I noted above, it's completely arbitrary either way and neither option is objectively superior?
Why can't you just have creativity for creativity's sake instead of justifying it like it's a goddamn senior thesis?
- Status
Similar threads
