Honestly, it wasn't till I played around in tech fandom (a offshot of RPGing) that I even knew about these issues. I honestly never noticed, I was just having fun having some diagrams to look at ~shrug~
Haynes Enterprise Manual?
- Thread starter Mysterion
- Start date
- Status
Honestly, it wasn't till I played around in tech fandom (a offshot of RPGing) that I even knew about these issues. I honestly never noticed, I was just having fun having some diagrams to look at ~shrug~
This is what I've often tried to emphasize in such discussions, There's a lot to like about Trek and different people like different aspects of it, some like Trek tech, some like characters, others like plots, some like chronologies, etc. etc. and of course, many like all kinds of combinations of these and much more, so if one's interest doesn't extend to Trek tech, it's not surprising they would not notice,or care, about such discrepancies. And that's okay.
As far as the Haynes Manual goes, I'd rather have one detailing the original ship, as long as they use Shaw as a consultant.
^Agreed on that last point.
That's what they're for. The whole subject area attracts some obsessive time-wasters though.
The turbolift mismatch was a discrepancy I noticed when I was a kid, yes, at a glance. It's not exactly subtle, especially with that bridge push-in shot from "The Cage" used in "Menagerie" that puts the misalignment front-and-center.
Honestly, if you can claim with a straight face that the scaling mismatches in Trek XI are more obvious than that, I can only throw up my hands and conclude you watched some other series that also happened to be called Star Trek.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I never even realized the elevator element was visible from the outside of the saucer, mainly because it never occurred to me that it would be the case (unless they wanted to use the lift as a futuristic 'passenger ejector seat' to quote Q from GOLDFINGER.)
Why would I? That push-in shot you mention has always just screamed "don't look at me" with its comping issues, so that is distracting enough -- trying to figure if some part of the live-action matches the outside would have been about the tenth thing to look at.
Unlike any number of later shots in the series (the good ones, not the usual 'trot out something from TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY ones), I've never even stopped and freezeframed on that open -- why study a bad shot when it is so bad you don't even want to look at it? What I'd learn from it would be, don't try to do this ... something I knew already as a teenager with a super8 camera.
I came to the movie with a foreknowledge of the scaling as an issue, but it was just so in-your-face even my wife noticed it -- something like, 'so now the hangar bay is bigger than the VAB in Florida?'
So I guess my family must have been watching some other series, you must be right.
Criticisms of Abrams's movie for things which are equally true of earlier versions of Star Trek - and yet accepted or excused in the earlier versions - are based in hostility to the movie and nothing else. Such "criticism" is intellectually dishonest.
Do you enjoy responding to opinions that don't exist?
Look, I don't give a flying crap that the original turbolift doesn't match up or that the original bridge couldn't fit in the bridge dome at it's stated scale, or that the new Enterprise is one size on one shot and another size in another shot. Because it's fake. Those of us in the "it's happened before" camp are arguing that it doesn't matter that that new ship has technical flaws – and it's not some indictment of the filmmakers that it does, either – because we've never cared about these things back when Berman, Roddenberry, Probert or Jefferies did it. If you feel that the old designs are being criticized in defense of the new, it's because we end up spending more time responding to the agenda set by posters like you than we do expressing philosophies we actually hold.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Why are you doing so?
Years back, I realized I was spending too much time just trying to anti-spin some people here, mainly because they were being patently untruthful as well as being assholes. So I limited that to issues of gross distortion, but like a poster who stopped coming here awhile back named Carey, I found that even on issues where I was 100% dead-on, the moderators in some forums would interfere in an unbalanced fashion.
Now the nuts are out in other forums pissing on them too.
You're pretty reasonable even when you're angry; REALLY look at the boards here and tell me if you SEE differently (no, don't; it'd break my heart if you do.)
I'm curious because I don't recall seeing on and I've seen the film about six times now but does the new Enterprise have a dedication plaque anywhere on the bridge? Does anyone remember catching one? I don't even remember being able to spot one on the 360 thing from the official site. There most likely is one, I just don't remember seeing it.
I'd be very interested in hearing any sort of update on the project daevyNY.
I'd be very interested in hearing any sort of update on the project daevyNY.
Crap. The Enterprise probably takes a whole different set of wrenches from what I already have.
God damn Vulcan metric system. $8 for a 13.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999 mm socket!! F'em, I'll just pry out that the faulty antimatter injector with a pry of lock-pliers and a tire-iron.
Just don't make a spark.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Let's see, I'm participating in a thread that is NOT in the abrams subforum, therefore I can expect that a non-gush remark should possibly be accepted HERE without a warning or ban, which means this is the only kind of place I CAN comment on the Abrams thing, that's one aspect ...
I'm commenting on the subject of a tech book, the kind that would make sense to do on a well-thought-out clearly-detailed project, but which seems crazed to do on a show where such details seem rather slapdash and/or backdated.
I know a bit about the subject of trek NF as well, so that would be another reason to be monitoring this thread (though to be honest, I hadn't even picked up the new abrams art book to flip through till this afternoon ... and despite the fact Vaz is very good at putting these things together, it still didn't have the kind of info I'd expect, esp. with respect to the bridge evolution, the only pages I took time to look at before reshelving it.)
I'm sure if you want me to give you a fuller litany of reasons, I can, but I doubt it'll make any substantial difference in your view of me or the content of my posts. But if you look through the gusherforum, you'll see an awful lot of dismissive gushes that throw around ad hominem and reductionist arguments as a way of trying to chase off dissent, and they don't ever provide REAL justification for their views, which manifest most often as REAL though unwarned trolling.
I think we're done here. trevanian, there's a difference between criticizing the movie and using related topics to troll people because you happen to dislike the film. And frankly that's what I'm seeing every time you post. I made it clear in the older thread that I would warn for this crap, and now you have an infraction for trolling. I've really tried to be lenient, with everyone, but I'm sick of the sniping that's been going on about the film. Comments to PM and thread closed.
- Status
