I mean, Jesus! It's just a movie!
Gee, really? I thought it was a historical record.
Considering what you and several other posters in here argue, it can be hard to tell.
Trek 11's ship IS the Enterprise
- Thread starter smegger56
- Start date
- Status
Considering what you and several other posters in here argue, it can be hard to tell.
I do like both designs (original TOS and the new Trek XI model); it did take me a little while to get used to both the Kelvin and this new Enterprise, but I like them both just fine.
I'm not some stereotyped nerd just because I have an opinion about the ship. To me the original is an icon, and one that took Jeffries many tries to get; just look at the sketches prior to the "a-ha" moment. The design gelled, and with some refinement became a work of high art. It spawned an entire universe of ship designs. As a designer, I know just how much work goes into making something look completely new, but in retrospect, completely obvious. The challenge is getting there, and it's not accomplished that frequently. I think that deserves some honor.
If the original ship, with a modern polish and detailing was used, would anyone here be objecting to it? As a counter question, do people who like it only do so because it's in the movie and it's been rendered nicely? Because I've seen "fanwank" that looks as good.
If the original ship, with a modern polish and detailing was used, would anyone here be objecting to it? As a counter question, do people who like it only do so because it's in the movie and it's been rendered nicely? Because I've seen "fanwank" that looks as good.
While I agree in principle to your point regarding realistic models, I don't believe that image is airbrushed or painted, I believe it's the TOS-R CGI build of the ship.
That is indeed what it is.
Probably not, because we're trekkies and we already like it. There's no particular reason to think that any of the original designs would especially impress viewers whose references for technology are more modern or current.
What is rarely pointed out is that almost none of the original Trek designs for anything have been resurrected for forty years, except as the occasional one-shot nostalgia exercise directed specifically at the appreciative trekkie audience. Roddenberry and company would not even use them in ST:TMP. The notion that any of them would be unearthed and reused for a brand-new version of Star Trek was never more than a fannish pipe dream.
I agree Roddenberry moved forward, but then, so did the story... This particular story is about the origins of TOS though...
Copyright that remark.
No, that's not why. What you're offering is simply a long-time fannish rationalization that Roddenberry encouraged (you can't apply it, for instance, to the appearence of the Klingons in ST:TMP). It's because none of the designs were deemed adequate in their original form after ten, fifteen or thirty years.
Frankly, I've read PKTrekGirl's posts in here before, and she's usually advocated the unbelievablly reprehensible stance of actually watching the movie before passing judgement. Is that biased in any way?
^ As far as I can tell, while there are a few gushers, I have yet to see someone who is a polar opposite of all the unconditional bashers who bitch and moan 24/7 on here. No one's proclaimed how great this movie is going to be because the Kelvin registry number starts with zero or because Kirk says "man." 
Yeah, PKTrekGirl and I are gonna run away together, our biases are so in sync.
Look, there's this very simple phenomenon: fan boards tend to be places where people who really like something gather to talk about it. You may have noticed a preponderance of people who love TOS down in the TOS forum. Voyager has a forum full of folks who seem to have an ungodly respect for Robert Beltran. Enterprise has a forum of beagle-lovers, and so on.
Funny thing - most of the folks in the Galactica forum who are provocative enough to be called "trolls" don't like Galactica. Why do you suppose that is?
It stands to reason that the majority of people who frequent a forum about the new Trek movie on a daily or near-daily basis are going to be positive about it. And no matter how even-handed moderators are they will sometimes seem to favor the majority opinion because except for a few malcontents like myself most of the pro-movie people are playing defense here a great deal of the time.
You been given an official warning for posting things critical of the movie? Threatened with banning? In what exact way is this moderator "bias" manifesting itself?
If you can't be specific ("oh, there's just a general feeling...") you really don't have much of a case.
Go find a forum full of Yankees fans and talk up the Mets. Let me know how it works out.
Or for us comic nerd's, A DC fan in a forum full of MARVEL fans.
You know that won't end well.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Or for us comic nerd's, A DC fan in a forum full of MARVEL fans.
Or Surak amongst the barbarians? That'd be a more apt simile.
The idea that you get a preponderance of pro-folk in a forum makes sense to a degree, but only a degree. I really like nuBSG, but I think I've been in maybe three threads the whole time it has been on, because there's very little I have to say about it. I watch it, I like it (mostly), and I think it has a look that will date it (which is about all I have to bitch about on the show.)
However, on the subject of trek movies, I have lots of opinions. I don't have to like what I've seen to have an opinion about it, but I am informed about this stuff to a degree, which makes this a likely place to express those ops.
I have a feeling this guy you're all tearing into is probably in the same boat, something the mods at least ought to take into account, especially given that this has come up time and again and the mods consistently DO side with the gushers, to use the phrase that is so popular. CARY BROWN made a really accurate observation about all this in a thread recently, and I think he must have made his point, because activity in that thread died down afterward, like folks were embarassed to follow his statement. But if he did that in every thread, he'd be trolling, right? Even if he was right, right?
Polaris, it was an opportunity to update the designs but they had to do it to explain that ten years went by. I would have preferred TOS designs even back then better. Wouldn't you have? I personally like this ship better and think that the white designs are not that different than the next phase designs which I liked alot. As for the bar code thingies, the joy stick and the hostess tables and the glossy floors, I'm hoping they can all go away thanks to the TT element, the next movie. I thought the ridges on the klingon heads were a mistake then and now. I just hope the new bridge is not too big and his chair can be tweaked to make it more symmetrical. I've said this before, but the TOS bridge looked like a third grade classroom with pictures of galaxies on the wall to make it look sci-fiy. It was ridiculous, but some things were right, like the dimensions - the feel, the stark futurism of it all. the sense of being where no man has gone before.
Otherwise, quit taking this all so seriously. I mean, Jesus! It's just a movie!
See, this is why the Star Trek XI Forum shouldn't be allowed to have threads about anything other than sombreros, shouting Spock, and Captain Robau. It's all peace, love, and laughter in those threads.
The rest? People can't handle the rest.
Star Trek fans can't handle talking about Star Trek unless it really has nothing to do with Star Trek.
number6
Vice Admiral
I think we found our Official Trek BBS Motto ™
I truly believe that if Matt Jefferies' set designs were reused, if they were built using interesting materials that read as distintly futuristic on camera, if attention -- lots of attention -- were put into the interfaces/control surfaces and the seating, to make them appear very futuristic (those Burke chairs could really morph to conform to the body and float off their pedestals, antgravity-style, and the control surfaces include holographic and variable interfaces and virtual sound domes that provide each workstation with audio isolation...) In other words, take what was there and make it magic, and nobody would give a damn whether it looked old and reused or not. It would look suitably futuristic, and thus fulfill its needed role in the story -- to be a believable setting for 23rd century space travelers to work in.
Sometimes -- in Trek's case, every time -- moviemakers tweak and twist the look of an established entertainment franchise just in order to give it their own stamp. I guess that's fine. But the fact that we are so used to it that we think it needs to be done to sell these movies is wrong -- a set is a set, and just needs to fulfill its purpose in a stylish and interesting way. Is the Matt Jefferies set stylish? Of course. Is it interesting? Probably not to a modern audience -- and that's why it would have to be rethought. But rethink its functional aspects and it would come off as being far more futuristic than something merely spiffed up to look more shiny and curved.
Sometimes -- in Trek's case, every time -- moviemakers tweak and twist the look of an established entertainment franchise just in order to give it their own stamp. I guess that's fine. But the fact that we are so used to it that we think it needs to be done to sell these movies is wrong -- a set is a set, and just needs to fulfill its purpose in a stylish and interesting way. Is the Matt Jefferies set stylish? Of course. Is it interesting? Probably not to a modern audience -- and that's why it would have to be rethought. But rethink its functional aspects and it would come off as being far more futuristic than something merely spiffed up to look more shiny and curved.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Oh, look! A stylized TOS nacelle.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I'm one that thinks they also obviously went with a 50s design aesthetic...and I don't mean that to sound bad.
I think it was done to subconciously say to the fans "This is before the stuff you know," and since Trek was on TV in the 60s it makes some sense. you don't have to make the whole thing look like Tom Corbett: Space Cadet, but doing little things with the ship helps.
I think it was done to subconciously say to the fans "This is before the stuff you know," and since Trek was on TV in the 60s it makes some sense. you don't have to make the whole thing look like Tom Corbett: Space Cadet, but doing little things with the ship helps.
- Status
Similar threads
