Ryan Church

[Saul]

The art Ryan posted looks better that what we got. The movie version looks like the refit of this.

I too can easily see the 1960s ship on the big screen with a little more detail.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I've got a new wallpaper! I love it.

Though I know it's an artist's impression, I did take notice of some things. Things they could've used in the official new Enterprise, but didn't, though they would make sense. These things make it seem way more advanced.

For example, the windows look like they 'shine through' the amour. What if the armor is actually a transparent metal of some sort, where the hull and windows shine through? What if the windows are opaque untill something shines through? It might also be an explanation for the small amount of windows you see: what if most crew quarters are situated near the hull and those where the lights aren't on are invisible? Like the BMW prototype with the canvas where you see the lights shine through.

And the lack of the shield grid and assorted greebles on the saucer (and the rest of the ship) also suggest very advanced technology. What if the entire ship was molded (or grown) out of a single compound without seams? It doesn't look all that impressive to me on the TOS enterprise, but with a metal sheen like this one has, it does.

 

[ancient]

that ship is a beauty on screen and off. Thats all i can say. Can you imagine the 1960's version of the TOS Enterprise on screen?

Absolutely. Although, in fairness, after seeing the movie last night, I have to say that the overall design of the ship probably made little difference, because of the ADHD-inspired editing and camera work that never gave one the chance to really get a good look at the ship - or anything, really. And from that standpoint, the new design is probably a better choice, because while taken as a whole, it doesn't really come together very well (IMO and others), its individual, contextless elements work very well onscreen in extreme close-ups and rapidfire cuts. The grace and simplicity of the original design look great as a whole picture, but that simplicity becomes simplistic with the sort of cinematography and editing used in JJTrek. So, final opinion: the original is still the superior design, but the new one is the better choice for this movie.

I agree 100% on the rapid editing. We really only got glimpses of the Enterprise in the movie, so the design never really sinks in. The same is true of the bridge. Going off the film itself and not the stills taken from previews I would have no idea what the bridge looked like in terms of layout.

There didn't seem to be time for any good establishing shots in the movie. There is no 'moment' where Kirk sees the bridge for the first time, it's just another vague background for a frantic bunch of scenes. I didn't notice the barcode scanners at all. I bet they could've mounted a polar bear on the wall and I wouldn't have noticed.

So I wasn't really bothered by the designs in the movie, but I also didn't really get a good chance to look at them.

The art Ryan posted looks better that what we got. The movie version looks like the refit of this.

I too can easily see the 1960s ship on the big screen with a little more detail.

Yeah, this painting looks a lot better and more faithful to TOS than the final design was.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I got plenty of good looks at the ship - which is gorgeous - and had no trouble at all following the film visually. When did "ADHD" come to mean "willing to pay close attention throughout" as opposed to the original rather opposite meaning?

 

[ST-One]

that ship is a beauty on screen and off. Thats all i can say. Can you imagine the 1960's version of the TOS Enterprise on screen?

Absolutely. Although, in fairness, after seeing the movie last night, I have to say that the overall design of the ship probably made little difference, because of the ADHD-inspired editing and camera work that never gave one the chance to really get a good look at the ship - or anything, really. And from that standpoint, the new design is probably a better choice, because while taken as a whole, it doesn't really come together very well (IMO and others), its individual, contextless elements work very well onscreen in extreme close-ups and rapidfire cuts. The grace and simplicity of the original design look great as a whole picture, but that simplicity becomes simplistic with the sort of cinematography and editing used in JJTrek. So, final opinion: the original is still the superior design, but the new one is the better choice for this movie.

I agree 100% on the rapid editing. We really only got glimpses of the Enterprise in the movie, so the design never really sinks in. The same is true of the bridge. Going off the film itself and not the stills taken from previews I would have no idea what the bridge looked like in terms of layout.

There didn't seem to be time for any good establishing shots in the movie. There is no 'moment' where Kirk sees the bridge for the first time, it's just another vague background for a frantic bunch of scenes. I didn't notice the barcode scanners at all. I bet they could've mounted a polar bear on the wall and I wouldn't have noticed.

So I wasn't really bothered by the designs in the movie, but I also didn't really get a good chance to look at them.

Obviously the last 10 or 15 years of film-making went right past you.
The sets and ships and everything else are there to help tell the story of these characters. They are not supposed to draw attention to themselves (unless the story requires it).
And that is why the production and art design work perfectly in this movie - they don't once distract you from what any scene is actually about.

And, btw, this movie isn't really that fast-cut. It's the cinematography. Many shots are deliberately not framed perfectly to give a more energetic, more immediate feel.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Many shots are deliberately not framed perfectly to give a more energetic, more immediate feel.

I was noticing that yesterday, and recently noticed that Whedon did something similar in "Serenity," though I don't know that it was for that reason. Film technique and audience expectations continue to change and evolve; the fact that Star Trek didn't, in this regard, is among the reasons that oldTrek eventually failed to renew its audience as continued success required.

Some long-time Trek fans are too used to watching the action unfold within the relatively static frame as if through a window or on a stage.