Some new opinions/information from folks who've seen the film....

[Gepard]

As some here may know, I spend a lot of time hanging around at the Replica Prop Forums. One nice feature of this is that a lot of industry professionals hang out there too, including a couple of posters who've had involvement with the new film in one way or another. (One poster works for the prop house that supplied the props for Trek XI, for example.)

There's been a running discussion in the locked Off Topic forum about the movie, and there have been a few interesting posts by insiders; for anyone here who has an RPF account, this is the thread. But I thought I'd grab some of the comments that seemed interesting and present them here for us to freak out o...discuss.

I posted a few links to artwork on this board for people to see, and that sparked the following discussion:

So the general consensus is that this is pretty accurate?



[Reducing image size to prevent page-stretching. Click through to see the original large image. - M']

I honestly don't have a problem with re-tooling the design (though I know an update to the TOS version would have worked); my issue is with the proportions themselves, no matter who, how, or why they came into being. In talking to people working on the film, I've heard that if anything, it was over-designed and over-thought. And true to form, it seems to have come out as well as anything designed by committee.

The core aesthetic is elusive; always is. But there are some people who just "get it." Casino Royale's director "got it." I think Nolan, largely, "gets it," with Batman. For all the re-envisioning, re-designing, etc., the core is intact. There are other examples of successfully remaining true to a core aesthetic, and way more examples of failing. Like the prequels: 900 flavors of doesn't have a clue. This Enterprise, and virtually all of the design I've seen falls squarely in the "doesn't get it," category, I feel.

But then again, I bet most of us can agree the costumes are fine. The costume designer seemed more or less to "get it."


_Mike

Much has been made of JJ’s “we’re making this movie for non-fans” comment, but you have to bear in mind who the studio marketeers are trying to appeal to at this juncture. As far as Paramount is concerned Trek fans will go see Trek XI no matter what. The last thing the movie needs, from a marketing standpoint, is for Abrams to admit the truth, i.e. that he and his geeky friends have made a big geeky movie for their fellow Trek geeks. Sure the fans might dig it, but Trek has a terrible reputation to overcome with mainstream film audiences, and a considerable effort is being made to distance the filmmakers from anything that smacks of old school sci-fi fan nerdery.


You may be surprised by how popular this movie turns out to be with general audiences. I recently saw a (nearly) finished cut, and it’s a real crowd-pleaser. Needless to say it’s not going to please all Trek fans all the time (if you think the bridge has problems wait `till you get a load of the engineering decks), but for a contemporary sci-fi adventure it delivers the goods on an epic scale.

(Re the ship)
The engines should be bigger, but even so it comes closer to the mark than any of the other fan-generated renderings I’ve seen.

Mind you, there is no true profile shot in the film, and I’m basing my comments in part on production renderings of the final design.

Engines even bigger?? - Yikes! The proportions are so.....weird.

Yup.

I know some of the Trek BBS guys are having a hard time accepting this particular fact, but they need to get over it. Them engines is big, baby.

(About Kirk) As any TOS fan can tell you, there’s a huge difference between the strong but cerebral, vaguely taciturn, occasionally self-doubting straight-arrow of that series and the wise-cracking, rule-breaking, authority-eschewing cowboy found in TWOK. For better or worse, Meyer played Kirk as a larger than life, Legend in his Own Time type, and the image stuck. Not surprisingly, the version of Kirk found in Trek XI builds upon Meyer’s incarnation of the character.

Carson
Im well aware of the monstrosity that is the lower decks. Thats what my earlier comment about the bridge being the where the rich folks live and the lower decks being the ghetto. Others havent seen it yet so some of the things Im upset about they dont get because they havent seen it yet. Thats why teh whole 'we have to update the look' argument doesnt fly with me because the lower decks are the exact opposite. Waiting for Scotty to have to shuttle coal in to the furnace to keep her running...."Cap'n we're almost outta Coal....er....Dioithium Crystals!"

It doesn't fly with me either.

The aforementioned design inconsistency -- half Apple Store, half Schlitz brewery -- is downright bizarre. It's as if there were some sort of temporal displacement in effect; a time warp within the ship itself.

Ah, well... it's a testament to how well the rest of the film works that it doesn't bother me more than it does.

Take it from a former nay-sayer, once fans see the new Enterprise in action they'll be decidedly less inclined to knock the design (at least on the outside). Granted she ain't the Jefferies original, and that's a shame, but she still rocks.

I find interesting the comment that the engines are even bigger than any of the art here has shown. But as seems to be the pattern, reactions to the film as a whole are positive. I figure if it can win over a skeptic...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Carson Dyle's comments are particularly observant - what he says about the difference between TOS's and Meyer's versions of Kirk is clearly so, and his logic about the rest of it is hard to fault.

And of course Engineering looks like a brewery - that's where those scenes were shot:

http://www.filminamerica.com/Movies/V/v62.jpg
http://www.filminamerica.com/Movies/V/v14.jpg

Yeah, parts of "V" were shot there as well, many years ago.

BTW, do you get any sense from the discussion over there whether the engines are both longer and of greater diameter, or just one or the other?

 

[Mordock]

Good hunting, Malakai.

"The last thing the movie needs, from a marketing standpoint, is for Abrams to admit the truth, i.e. that he and his geeky friends have made a big geeky movie for their fellow Trek geeks."

Very interesting.

 

[M'Sharak]

[...]

I find interesting the comment that the engines are even bigger than any of the art here has shown. But as seems to be the pattern, reactions to the film as a whole are positive. I figure if it can win over a skeptic...

I found all of the comments interesting, though I'm not sure how much weight to give to those of Onigiri -- they seem a bit hasty and excited. (BTW, are these quoted here by permission?)

There's been a running discussion in the locked Off Topic forum about the movie, and there have been a few interesting posts by insiders; for anyone here who has an RPF account, this is the thread.

Aw, crap -- you're going to make me register for another forum, aren't you?

 

[scotthm]

There's been a running discussion in the locked Off Topic forum about the movie, and there have been a few interesting posts by insiders...

I know people who've seen the movie keep saying it's great, but the more I hear the more I don't like. Your post was very interesting, but very disappointing.

---------------

 

[Gepard]

Aw, crap -- you're going to make me register for another forum, aren't you?

Well, the registry is only open until Staurday, so....

(BTW, are these quoted here by permission?)

...

You know, that's an interesting point of nettiquette that I probably should have considered.

So let's say I didn't ask. Hypothetically. What should I do?

(EDIT Okay, I posted a general thread over there asking in broad terms about reposting etiquette. We'll see where that goes...)

 

[Mordock]

Aw, crap -- you're going to make me register for another forum, aren't you?

Well, the registry is only open until Staurday, so....

(BTW, are these quoted here by permission?)

...

You know, that's an interesting point of nettiquette that I probably should have considered.

So let's say I didn't ask. Hypothetically. What should I do?

Edit the post to remove the names of the posters? If Paramount is at all sensitive about who has and hasn't seen Star Trek at this point, those folks may have a certain level of exposure. If one is sufficiently diligent, a casually protected handle is almost as easy to put a person to as an actual name...

 

[M'Sharak]

Aw, crap -- you're going to make me register for another forum, aren't you?

Well, the registry is only open until Staurday, so....

Eh, I'll probably do it if I remember. Why only until Saturday?

(BTW, are these quoted here by permission?)

...

You know, that's an interesting point of nettiquette that I probably should have considered.

So let's say I didn't ask. Hypothetically. What should I do?

I'd say just check with the parties concerned and see if they mind being quoted here. If they're cool with it, then so are we.

 

[Gepard]

Eh, I'll probably do it if I remember. Why only until Saturday?

The RPF has limited time "registration periods" of about a week or so every year. IIRC, it has something to do with controlling studio shills, who tended to pop up and try to get bootleggers in trouble. Or something like that. All I know for sure is they try to control who does and doesn't have access to stuff, which includes locking the OT forum. (Why I don't know; nothing that special happens there.)

I'd say just check with the parties concerned and see if they mind being quoted here. If they're cool with it, then so are we.

I sent out a batch of PMs. We'll see what they have to say...

 

[M'Sharak]

Eh, I'll probably do it if I remember. Why only until Saturday?

The RPF has limited time "registration periods" of about a week or so every year. IIRC, it has something to do with controlling studio shills, who tended to pop up and try to get bootleggers in trouble. Or something like that. All I know for sure is they try to control who does and doesn't have access to stuff, which includes locking the OT forum. (Why I don't know; nothing that special happens there.)

Okay, I've done the deed. Now waiting for the email saying the administrator thinks I'm cool enough.

I'd say just check with the parties concerned and see if they mind being quoted here. If they're cool with it, then so are we.

I sent out a batch of PMs. We'll see what they have to say...

 

[Gepard]

Got a couple of responses already in the general purpose "what's board policy on reposting?" thread I put up; the consensus so far seems to be that the stuff there is out in public, so no worries.

Okay, I've done the deed. Now waiting for the email saying the administrator thinks I'm cool enough.

Excellent. Be sure to say hi to Rabbitooth.

BTW, do you get any sense from the discussion over there whether the engines are both longer and of greater diameter, or just one or the other?

Nobody's been that specific. Carson did say at one point that it's hard to get exact measurement from the film because there's never a really good side view, though, but his impression is that they're just bigger.

 

[Tom Servo]

One thing I love is despite reservations people have about the set design and the ship exterior, almost everyone says the rest of the film is so good, it does not matter.

 

[M'Sharak]

Got a couple of responses already in the general purpose "what's board policy on reposting?" thread I put up; the consensus so far seems to be that the stuff there is out in public, so no worries.

Saw that. I only brought it up because of our own board policy, which says, in part:

You also cannot post material such as chat logs, emails, private messages or messages from other message boards - without the consent of all involved parties.

It may not be a big deal to them, but we prefer to err on the side of caution, where privacy is concerned.

Okay, I've done the deed. Now waiting for the email saying the administrator thinks I'm cool enough.

Excellent. Be sure to say hi to Rabbitooth.

Will I need to wear a white carnation on my lapel so he knows it's me?

 

[ST-One]

There's been a running discussion in the locked Off Topic forum about the movie, and there have been a few interesting posts by insiders...

I know people who've seen the movie keep saying it's great, but the more I hear the more I don't like. Your post was very interesting, but very disappointing.

Is it because of the fact that the film might appeal to a broad audience?

 

[Jon1701]

Movie sounds great. Set and Art design sounds a little haphazard.

No worries, they can tweak that stuff in the next movie

 

[scotthm]

There's been a running discussion in the locked Off Topic forum about the movie, and there have been a few interesting posts by insiders...

I know people who've seen the movie keep saying it's great, but the more I hear the more I don't like. Your post was very interesting, but very disappointing.

Is it because of the fact that the film might appeal to a broad audience?

No. Why would I want the appeal of Star Trek to be restricted?

One of the things I don't like is that I absolutely hate the way the Enterprise looks in this film, particularly the exterior. The bridge may be tolerable, but the posts above are making me uneasy about other design aspects. And before you tell me that the look won't matter if the story and characters are good, then just remember that this is a motion picture, and not a book.

---------------

 

[Bill Morris]

That's inexcusable. They're not really going use this design in the movie, are they?

 

[datas_cat_spot]

Definitely some interesting comments. I don't know who any of these people are, so it doesn't really mean anything lol... We can already tell how massive the engines are from the trailer. It doesn't particularly bother me there. I wouldn't be surprised about the engine room, that area is so open to interpretation from TOS it was likely to become something very new.

 

[Franklin]

That's inexcusable. They're not really going use this design in the movie, are they?

And the sad thing is, they're so damn close. Move the neck forward a bit, REDUCE the engine size, and I think they'd have met with nearly universal approval of the design. As is, it'll have to grow on us. Not butt ugly bad, but still a draft away from very very good. Oh, what could've been!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There are several shots of the ship in action (as well as being constructed - on Earth) in the trailer, and not a one that it doesn't look excellent in. So the exterior is good.

The sets, I'm not as impressed with - but then, the bridge set for ST:TMP was one of the worst ever and they were able to "tweak" it through three more films with the general approval of Trek fandom.

As far as this being a "motion picture" rather than a book - well, in the trailer alone it's clear that this is more of a motion picture than any of the previous versions of Trek.