"Green Lantern" concept art...

[stonester1]

Eh? They didn't do it wrong, and I liked it fine.

Yes...but...

The TOS ship wouldn't have cut it, which is why it wasn't used.

This is double speculation with no basis in fact. You don't KNOW it wouldn't have cut it...and I've yet to see any quote on the part of the producers which says they felt that way about the original design.

Truthfully, I think a redesign there was driven mainly by merchandising considerations (of which also no one has come out and said, nor will they. But I'd bet money on it that conversations in board rooms took place to the effect).

And these folks will make the Green Lantern outfits look as cool as necessary, I'm sure.

I agree.

 

[Captaindemotion]

In other GL news, it seems that Tim Robbins has been added to the cast. He'll play the father of the Peter Sarsgard character.

http://www.moviehole.net/201023418-robbins-in-the-green

 

[Myasishchev]

The original ship would have been laughed off the screen, I'm sorry to say.

The original bridge design would have. I don't see why a highly-detailed CGI of the original NCC-1701 would, though. Both have the same basic plan, and both are based on the same fake science. The design of neither is intrinsically laughable.

 

[Checkmate]

You guys have some really weird idea of what words mean.

The original design is the original design. No ifs, ands or buts about it. The one you saw on the very first episode of the very season of Star Trek is the original design. And it is tacky and cheesy as Hell by today's standards. Especially in high definition and on the big screen.

Everything beyond that has been a redesign. The first movie was not the original design by any measure. Nor was the one in the most recent Star Trek. But all the basics are there. The fundamental hull design is the same. The location of the bridge is the same. The location of the deflector is the same. The purpose of the nacelles are the same. etc.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that redesign than there was with the first movies or any other variation of the actual original design. Anything you can possibly say about the most recent one applies to any and all of the other variants, none of them being more "based on the original design" than the other.

Jesus.

 

[RobertScorpio]

The original ship would have been laughed off the screen, I'm sorry to say.

The original bridge design would have. I don't see why a highly-detailed CGI of the original NCC-1701 would, though. Both have the same basic plan, and both are based on the same fake science. The design of neither is intrinsically laughable.

I agree. I love to watch TREK fans try to fit TREK into reality based science. It provides for much laughter..

Rob

 

[JacksonArcher]

In other GL news, it seems that Tim Robbins has been added to the cast. He'll play the father of the Peter Sarsgard character.

http://www.moviehole.net/201023418-robbins-in-the-green

How dare you talk about something Green Lantern-related in a GL thread! Don't you know we're talking about the Enterprise! Shesh, get with the program, dude.

Anyway, Tim Robbins is a great actor. Besides Blake Lively, the supporting cast is definitely shaping up.

 

[RobertScorpio]

In other GL news, it seems that Tim Robbins has been added to the cast. He'll play the father of the Peter Sarsgard character.

http://www.moviehole.net/201023418-robbins-in-the-green

How dare you talk about something Green Lantern-related in a GL thread! Don't you know we're talking about the Enterprise! Shesh, get with the program, dude.

Anyway, Tim Robbins is a great actor. Besides Blake Lively, the supporting cast is definitely shaping up.

Agreed...a great cast indeed.

Now, back on topic, how many nacells should a starship have? LOL...

I just hope GL has great writing. I have come to the conclusion that you have to have great writing first; actors, generally, are interchangable; IMO of course.

Rob

 

[Captaindemotion]

How dare you talk about something Green Lantern-related in a GL thread! Don't you know we're talking about the Enterprise! Shesh, get with the program, dude.

Imagine how much worse things would be if Chris Pine had been cast as GL ...

 

[Broccoli]

You guys have some really weird idea of what words mean.

The original design is the original design. No ifs, ands or buts about it. The one you saw on the very first episode of the very season of Star Trek is the original design. And it is tacky and cheesy as Hell by today's standards. Especially in high definition and on the big screen.

Everything beyond that has been a redesign. The first movie was not the original design by any measure. Nor was the one in the most recent Star Trek. But all the basics are there. The fundamental hull design is the same. The location of the bridge is the same. The location of the deflector is the same. The purpose of the nacelles are the same. etc.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that redesign than there was with the first movies or any other variation of the actual original design. Anything you can possibly say about the most recent one applies to any and all of the other variants, none of them being more "based on the original design" than the other.

Jesus.

Lets not overreact now on a case of simple semantics.

 

[paudemge]

You guys have some really weird idea of what words mean.

The original design is the original design. No ifs, ands or buts about it. The one you saw on the very first episode of the very season of Star Trek is the original design. And it is tacky and cheesy as Hell by today's standards. Especially in high definition and on the big screen.

Everything beyond that has been a redesign. The first movie was not the original design by any measure. Nor was the one in the most recent Star Trek. But all the basics are there. The fundamental hull design is the same. The location of the bridge is the same. The location of the deflector is the same. The purpose of the nacelles are the same. etc.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that redesign than there was with the first movies or any other variation of the actual original design. Anything you can possibly say about the most recent one applies to any and all of the other variants, none of them being more "based on the original design" than the other.

Jesus.

Lets not overreact now on a case of simple semantics.

I think most non-fans who have seen at least seen some TOS would say the Enterprise IS the same. They will probably say the same thing about the GL costumes.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ Agreed.

 

[RobertScorpio]

^ Agreed.

Double agreed. The Enterprise/DS9/Defiant/Voyager were just platforms. I hope that most fans understand that TREK isn't about, nor did GR intend it to be about, the tech; its about the human condition.

Rob

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Double agreed. The Enterprise/DS9/Defiant/Voyager were just platforms. I hope that most fans understand that TREK isn't about, nor did GR intend it to be about, the tech; its about the human condition.

Cool spaceships don't hurt, though.

 

[Broccoli]

Double agreed. The Enterprise/DS9/Defiant/Voyager were just platforms. I hope that most fans understand that TREK isn't about, nor did GR intend it to be about, the tech; its about the human condition.

Cool spaceships don't hurt, though.

And s'plosions!

 

[stonester1]

^ Agreed.

Double agreed. The Enterprise/DS9/Defiant/Voyager were just platforms. I hope that most fans understand that TREK isn't about, nor did GR intend it to be about, the tech; its about the human condition.

Rob

It may be about the human condition, but the design of the show is central to the "feel" it has. Trek has a very specific "feel". Each series does as well.

Again, they did well in recapturing TOS with this new film, as well as staking out ground all it's own, BUT had they gone with the TOS design, just using their special effects capabilities to render it, I think that would have been great.

And anyone who thinks that pigeonholes me as someone who is pining for grainy footage and visible strings isn't listening to me...or is just a douchebag.

 

[RobertScorpio]

^ Agreed.

Double agreed. The Enterprise/DS9/Defiant/Voyager were just platforms. I hope that most fans understand that TREK isn't about, nor did GR intend it to be about, the tech; its about the human condition.

Rob

It may be about the human condition, but the design of the show is central to the "feel" it has. Trek has a very specific "feel". Each series does as well.

Again, they did well in recapturing TOS with this new film, as well as staking out ground all it's own, BUT had they gone with the TOS design, just using their special effects capabilities to render it, I think that would have been great.

And anyone who thinks that pigeonholes me as someone who is pining for grainy footage and visible strings isn't listening to me...or is just a douchebag.

I guess I am a douchebag. I thought the last thing they should have done was gone with the original design of TOS. Be it FX, uniforms or music. They needed to make this movie fresh, and exciting and...most important...something that came from this generation.

They exceeded far beyond speculation and made people like my 15 year old daughter fans. That was the purpose of this movie; and it worked.

Rob

 

[stonester1]

Double agreed. The Enterprise/DS9/Defiant/Voyager were just platforms. I hope that most fans understand that TREK isn't about, nor did GR intend it to be about, the tech; its about the human condition.

Rob

It may be about the human condition, but the design of the show is central to the "feel" it has. Trek has a very specific "feel". Each series does as well.

Again, they did well in recapturing TOS with this new film, as well as staking out ground all it's own, BUT had they gone with the TOS design, just using their special effects capabilities to render it, I think that would have been great.

And anyone who thinks that pigeonholes me as someone who is pining for grainy footage and visible strings isn't listening to me...or is just a douchebag.

I guess I am a douchebag. I thought the last thing they should have done was gone with the original design of TOS. Be it FX, uniforms or music. They needed to make this movie fresh, and exciting and...most important...something that came from this generation.

They exceeded far beyond speculation and made people like my 15 year old daughter fans. That was the purpose of this movie; and it worked.

Rob

One of the reasons the movie succeeded is that they DID maintain ties with TOS in many ways including visually, they didn't just discard it. If they had, that would have been a bad move. It would have been worthless making this from "this generation" if it hadn't been honest about originating elsewhere.

BTW, I only said you were a "douchebag" if you interpreted my saying "the original Enterprise is a classic and would have been good enough to use" as saying "you want grainy footage and visible wires".

Please read carefully.

 

[Bad Bishop]

Let that be the last word about TOS or Star Trek in this thread.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

TOS or Star Trek?

 

[Bad Bishop]

TOS or Star Trek?

Yep. The latter refers to Trek in general (films and TV series).