First Clear Picture of the Narada *Spoilers?* [not final toy image]

[roguephoenix]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

so that's what happens to tribbles when you let them grow. kind of like a hairy version of moya. they become living ships!

 

[SalvorHardin]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Looks like we have not seen the first picture of the toy Narada yet...

http://trekmovie.com/2009/01/23/details-and-images-on-playmates-full-line-of-star-trek-movie-toys/

Wizard also had an image of the Narada (which is coming in Wave 2), but the image put out was just a concept and TrekMovie is told the toy has yet to be designed and finalized.

 

[Bill Morris]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Isn't that what a Malon export vessel looks like after dumping its load?

 

[Rii]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Loved the Narada from the brief glimpses in the trailer, I don't think a static toy/model can really do it justice.

 

[Corinthian7]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

What difference does it make if it does look like something out of Galaxy Quest? I always thought that film had good Trek style visuals anyway. Besides Abrams has gone on record to say he is NOT making Galaxy Quest and I believe him.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

That sounds like it harms the franchise. If any producers have gone to Paramount with an interest in making a new Trek series, a failed Trek XI will shut down any chance they have. That's harm to the franchise.

Pitches for a new ST film would be made to Paramount.

Pitches for a new ST series would be made to CBS TV.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Paramount was willing to risk a lot of money on this movie just because a big-name producer was willing to do it. If this movie flops, the chance of another Trek movie getting the go ahead in the next ten years drops dramatically. That sounds like it harms the franchise. If any producers have gone to Paramount with an interest in making a new Trek series, a failed Trek XI will shut down any chance they have. That's harm to the franchise.

You're assuming a lot that, given the current landscape, is so hypothetical as to be meaningless.

"The chance of another Trek movie..."
"If any producers have gone to Paramount..." (this one presumes willing, even eager folk at Paramount who'd give any Trek TV pitch the time of day)


Look, the Franchise is dead right now in terms of TV and film production. You're right that Paramount was "willing to risk a lot of money" on this film because they were able to get people who they think will make a successful and profitable film.

If those people can't make Trek profitable for the studio, it's a given that there won't be any more Trek production soon.

So, if this movie bombs "Star Trek" is exactly where it was before - dead in the water - and this movie becomes just the latest in a long trail of evidence that "Star Trek" is no longer worth investing money in for Paramount.

So no, this movie doesn't harm "Star Trek" no matter what - because no one was interested in making more "Star Trek" before (sorry, but the "Tiberius Chase" nonsense was just that - some producers who were on their way off the lot trying to interest the studio in something that no one at the studio was going to get interested in).

You can hypothesize all you want about how someone else might have created that perfect "Star Trek" movie that you both like and that makes the studio a pile of money, but it's just fantasizing.

Like Picard said to Data in "The Neutral Zone:" "They were already dead. What more could have happened to them?"

On TV and in the movies, "Star Trek" was dead before Abrams. If it's dead again afterward, no harm has been done. The risk here is a financial one, to Paramount and its partners, for possibly throwing good money after bad by trying to resurrect something that's passe. No risk to "Star Trek" at all.

 

[cooleddie74]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

I tend not to judge a film based on the toys I walk past at Target.

True. If I did that a few years ago, I would have thought BATTLEFIELD EARTH was going to be the coolest movie in years.

 

[cooleddie74]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

I won't say it doesn't look good because it doesn't reflect TOS because honestly, that DOESN'T bother me.

It does bother me because it looks goofy.

Well, maybe so...but remember it's not a warship or some other official ship-of-the-line in the Romulan civilian or military fleets. It's a massive temporal ship designed for intimidation, attack and travel through time. Which means it might be just one of a kind and thus its weird-ass aesthetics might be easy to ignore.

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

It's also not an image of the final version of the toy, as it turns out.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/01/23/details-and-images-on-playmates-full-line-of-star-trek-movie-toys/

Regarding those Wizard images
On Thursday Wizard Universe put up images and pre-order links for the Playmates Toy Line. Some images were the same as those seen here and in USA Today and some appeared different. Playmates tells TrekMovie that the images provided to us and USA Today are the latest and best and that many of the images at Wizard were earlier prototypes. Wizard has since removed all of their photos. So use the above pictures as your guide. Wizard also had an image of the Narada (which is coming in Wave 2), but the image put out was just a concept and TrekMovie is told the toy has yet to be designed and finalized.

 

[ancient]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

As is, that toy looks about as fun to play with as a pet porcupine.

I like the design and all but as a toy....POINTY!

 

[cooleddie74]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

I think the ship's massive dimensions will look really impressive on-screen, since it's supposed to dwarf the USS Kelvin and other 23rd century ships many, many times over. Even fugly/weird designs can look pretty badass when they're immense and made to appear more alien by their sheer size.

 

[Gepard]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Even fugly/weird designs can look pretty badass when they're immense and made to appear more alien by their sheer size.

Finally, an explanation for TMP's running time!

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Even fugly/weird designs can look pretty badass when they're immense and made to appear more alien by their sheer size.

Finally, an explanation for TMP's running time!

BONGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

OK...

This does not look like any sort of mechanism. However, it does look reasonably "visually cool" (which, unfortunately, seems to be the whole point of all of the art direction in this flick).

It, as has been pointed out, takes cues from the ENT Romulan drone ship design, rather than any TOS or TNG-era Romulan ideas.

I can live with it, for what it is... a mining ship. Presumably, these are various detachable/deployable elements? Maybe it's intended to "mine" gas giants?

I'm not "happy" with it but I can deal with it. Unlike the new Fed props and 1701.

I saw this at Wizard Universe
And THAT looks like something from Galaxy Quest

 

[M'Sharak]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

OK...

This does not look like any sort of mechanism. However, it does look reasonably "visually cool" (which, unfortunately, seems to be the whole point of all of the art direction in this flick).

It, as has been pointed out, takes cues from the ENT Romulan drone ship design, rather than any TOS or TNG-era Romulan ideas.

I can live with it, for what it is... a mining ship. Presumably, these are various detachable/deployable elements? Maybe it's intended to "mine" gas giants?

I'm not "happy" with it but I can deal with it. Unlike the new Fed props and 1701.

http://www.majhost.com/gallery/takanuvafan/Trek/narada.jpg


I saw this at Wizard Universe
And THAT looks like something from Galaxy Quest

Click.

 

[cooleddie74]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

Even fugly/weird designs can look pretty badass when they're immense and made to appear more alien by their sheer size.

Finally, an explanation for TMP's running time!

BONGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!

 

[Darth_Pinche]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

I saw this at Wizard Universe
And THAT looks like something from Galaxy Quest

I sure hope that this is a photo for the toy and not the actual ship. Otherwise we'll have a Spinal Tap Stonehenge moment...

Nero : Fuck the napkin!!! it is kallicams not inches!!!

 

[Psion]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

That sounds like it harms the franchise. If any producers have gone to Paramount with an interest in making a new Trek series, a failed Trek XI will shut down any chance they have. That's harm to the franchise.

Pitches for a new ST film would be made to Paramount.

Pitches for a new ST series would be made to CBS TV.

Thanks! I appreciate the clarification, but I don't see how it's relevant to my point.

You're assuming a lot that, given the current landscape, is so hypothetical as to be meaningless.

"The chance of another Trek movie..."
"If any producers have gone to Paramount..." (this one presumes willing, even eager folk at Paramount who'd give any Trek TV pitch the time of day)


Look, the Franchise is dead right now in terms of TV and film production. You're right that Paramount was "willing to risk a lot of money" on this film because they were able to get people who they think will make a successful and profitable film.

If those people can't make Trek profitable for the studio, it's a given that there won't be any more Trek production soon.

So, if this movie bombs "Star Trek" is exactly where it was before - dead in the water - and this movie becomes just the latest in a long trail of evidence that "Star Trek" is no longer worth investing money in for Paramount.

So no, this movie doesn't harm "Star Trek" no matter what - because no one was interested in making more "Star Trek" before (sorry, but the "Tiberius Chase" nonsense was just that - some producers who were on their way off the lot trying to interest the studio in something that no one at the studio was going to get interested in).

You can hypothesize all you want about how someone else might have created that perfect "Star Trek" movie that you both like and that makes the studio a pile of money, but it's just fantasizing.

Like Picard said to Data in "The Neutral Zone:" "They were already dead. What more could have happened to them?"

On TV and in the movies, "Star Trek" was dead before Abrams. If it's dead again afterward, no harm has been done. The risk here is a financial one, to Paramount and its partners, for possibly throwing good money after bad by trying to resurrect something that's passe. No risk to "Star Trek" at all.

Two years ago, Paramount thought it worth the risk to invest in a new Star Trek movie. Therefore Star Trek wasn't dead. Star Trek is only dead as long as its owners are afraid to contribute a dime to new films or shows. Abrams' production could very well reinvigorate the franchise, but if the rest of the movie is as crappy as its art direction, I suspect the effect will be quite the reverse. After a failed series and two failed movies in a row, there will be a generation of execs at Paramount studios who view the franchise as a third rail for their careers. Maybe it still won't be quite dead, but it'll be a helluva lot worse off than it is today.

I keep hoping it'll turn out not like "Galaxy Quest", but like "Fifth Element", a goofy, fun adventure that sucked as science fiction, but nevertheless worked as a movie and proved fairly successful. Fans can take it or leave it as a parallel reality, and future movies might go in any number of directions.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: First Clear Picture of the Narada *Warning: Spoilers*

On TV and in the movies, "Star Trek" was dead before Abrams.

Two years ago, Paramount thought it worth the risk to invest in a new Star Trek movie. Therefore Star Trek wasn't dead.

On TV and in the movies, "Star Trek" was dead before Abrams.

You didn't say anything different, you just rephrased it. Hair-splitting.

I honestly don't care whether Trek continues or not, unless they're going to make something entertaining and different - in fact if they're going to continually genuflect to what's come before and keep doing the same-old/same-old I'd sooner they retire it or sell it to another studio in exchange for some magic beans. If this movie tanks and Trek returns to the netherworld of dead properties to which Paramount had consigned it prior to this reboot, it's no big deal. Excited as I am by what Abrams is doing, though, I hope that this version will be a big success.