That's cause he probably is smug.
The Improving the JJprise thread
- Thread starter Lord Garth FOI
- Start date
That's cause he probably is smug.
P
pengbuzz
Guest
Still thinking about the dynamite...
You can draw that conclusion from what I said, but I wouldn't go that far. My original point was really a very narrow one, which was: The level of greebling of the ISD etc. cannot be applied to the TOS Ent without making its surface so rough that the actual silhouette would be altered. Period.
The reason this is a significant point in this context is because the purists who would want the silhouette of the TOS Ent to prevail wouldn't want that outline besmirched (in their eyes) in any way, not to mention by what must occur if you were to apply ISD-type greebles to it. You just can't apply that much of it without altering the shape more than would be tolerated by them. That's why I said it was apples and oranges. If you did it, yes, it would still preserve the overall trends of the outline, but there would also be bumps and indentations everywhere, which would be a no-no to the purists.
[Note - If you consider the situation uncritically, the Death Star could appear to be an exception, because you can zoom in quite a bit and and it still appears to be round. But it's not exception, because its scale is on a completely different order from all of the other examples. It's huge. Appearing to retain a smooth silhouette as one zooms in is part of the optical illusion that makes it appear the size of a small moon. Being spherical, like a moon, also supports that illusion. Once you compare it on the scale of the Ent, the surface of the DS is incredibly rough.]
I've indicated the following already, but I'll spell it out: IMO simple rules about you should or shouldn't do in general are very hard to come by. A lot depends on execution, a lot depends on what the audience is looking for, and a lot depends on the overall art design of the film. Also, the appropriateness of elements is a function of how that art design meshes with the themes in the film. There are so many particulars at play.
IIRC someone upthread made an observation that the Millennium Falcon cockpit was adapted from WWII bombers, holding that up as an example that retro works. It does work in that particular case. However, that example did not exist in isolation, as there were many elements of WWII design in Star Wars (1977). The sidearms, the Imperial officer uniforms, and the dogfighting style are just a few other obvious and prominent examples. These elements drawn from the same historical era (which was still active in the consciousness of the viewers) helped to evoke a consistent atmosphere. The film also resonated with this real-life era on purpose to support its theme of epic war on an industrial scale. To say, "Oh, it's just retro," completely overlooks these subtleties, which are particulars contributing to success in the case of SW retro elements, which if not appreciated might contribute to failure in a different film.
So, getting back to your interpretation of what I said, Irishman, I'd phrase it like this: Overall silhouette and greebles are two of the factors at play that make a good design. I believe you can indeed get mileage by trading silhouette complexity for greebling, and vice versa. But how far that goes depends upon other factors that define the context. In the case of the Ent, it's probably true, as far as it goes, that you need one or the other. It's harder to prove a negative than a positive, so I won't say that there isn't an appropriate design with a simple silhouette and limited surface detail, but I doubt there is.
ETA: Another relevant aspect of the Star Wars retro elements is that SW is supposed to resonate as a myth or fairy tale that occurred in the past. Using retro elements helps accomplish this end, which is another reason why the context of SW is one in which retro elements are appropriate.
On the other hand, Star Trek is supposed to happen in the future. It is admittedly a future conceived from a perspective that is inherently retro to us today, but that is part of its charm. Nevertheless, the indiscriminate use of retro elements could potentially undermine the film; undermining (in the opinion of the filmmakers) the ability of the audience to stay engaged with the film would be one criterion the filmmakers might use to reject a retro element. On the other hand, dispensing with retro elements altogether could make a less entertaining film, for example by taking the source material "too seriously", or by acting in a way that the audience might perceive as being embarrassed with its roots.
There's quite a circle to square here. This is one reason why I personally don't begrudge the filmmakers elements that in particular I don't care for. Reject JJTrek, demand Paramount get someone else to do it, and odds really are that you will get something that is on balance at least noticeably worse, and probably substantially so.
In fact, I've said this before and I'll say it again. I was astonished with how faithful they were to the original series. Even on their first try, they got something I enjoyed more than the majority of other Trek films (and the majority of other TOS Trek films, if you restrict it to films I through VI).
Last edited:
You do realize that it's Gene Roddenberry's sandbox we're all playing in?
A little respect is appropriate.
What "propoganda" are you going on about?
There comes a point in any growing continuity when you must step past the original creator. Sometimes delicately. In the case of Star Wars ignore him completely past a certain point.
Does not mean the successor will be any better, either. As I said, JJ's so-called "Trek" is Trek in title only, to me. All I saw there was another cookie cutter, popcorn summer flick, I'm glad I did not pay to see it.
I personally thought that JJ's decisions on how to deviate from Star Trek were for the right reasons, but he ended up doing the wrong changes. Now, I love The Original Series, but it's still a product of it's time that just doesn't fit with me today. I don't enjoy the over dominance of male crew members and havenig the female crew members wearing eye-candy "uniforms" and doing jobs that are just glorified receptionists. I like my Trek with a lot more diversity in all departments out side of human/earth nationality.
As for the Enterprise herself? Oh, you better believe I would redisign her in a heart beat if I had control. It just doesn't look as practical or solid as the original Enterprise, both original and refit. There is a mechanical simplicity to both of those designs that also benefits the interior design. The JJprise is a typical case of style over substance. Our VFX guy who worked on the film will clarify that point.
VFX Guy: JJ wanted us to turn into Enterprise into a hot rod. And that's what we're most proud of is turning the Enterprise into a hot rod thing.
And taking the non-practical step in another dirction, JJ decided to shoot a bunch of scenes on the Enterprise on earth bound locations rather than built sets. I know some will say this adds a sense of realism, but I digress. I've never been in a spaceship before, and from what I've seen in all my years of meusems, documentaries and movies involving real spaceships, you'd be lucky if you can stand up straight, let alone run dozens of yeards on steel gratings.
The lack of real sets also takes a toll on bridging the exeterior ship effect with the rest of the sets. Take the engineering room from TMP/TWOK. Just looking at how the warp core is structured, you can get a very good idea on where this part of the ship is from the outside. It comes straight down many deck so it passes through the neck portion. It than stretches out down a long shaft for many sections so we're in the stardrive section. At the end of the shaft the core splits into two little core tubes that go up in a diaganal fashion. That's where the warp pylons start. Perfect example on how the sets and visual effect compliment each other. With JJprise, all you get is the window on the bridge to tell you where you are. That's it. Thanks to shooting engineering in a non-set piece that's bigger than any engineering set Star Trek has ever had, not only do we not know where we are in the ship, it's borderline impractical on how a starship can have so much open space for essentially nothing.
Oh, and the Torpedo Tubes? The chambers are on the side of the walls that are about... no more than five/six feer from each other. I've looked at the design of the JJprise and I cannot find a section anywhere that has torpedo launchers on the side of the ship, let alone an area small enough to have the tubes facing in the opposite direction of each other. Remember the Torpedo Bay in TWOK? That made a lot of sense structural wise. Heck, they even got the travel pod door location right!
Also, I don't think we can fit a whole body into one of those torpedo tubes. Sorry NuSpock. You're going out ALIEN style.
Just because he didn't pay to see it doesn't mean he hasn't seen it.
For the same reason I haven't paid to see it, but I did see it.
For the same reason I haven't paid to see it, but I did see it.
I remember when the same was said of The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise.
Many Trekkies insisted that it could 'never be star trek unless Kirk and Spock were at the helm.'
That included much of the original cast.
Well, in the end they got their wish - better, really, since now Kirk and Spock are young and interesting again.
What he said.
Well, I am not like most Trekkies, I liked all of those series you mentioned, including Enterprise. Same with Transformers, I'm not one of the "G1 Only!" snobs, though I hate Mr. Bay's take on them.
In fact, I spent a week getting ready when TNG was about to first air, when I was an 8 year old in 1987, akin to what hardcore Star Wars fans do when they were waiting for the new films to come out, I made the whole week prior to it like an event.
Just don't like JJ's take on Trek is all. And did not pay for a ticket, let's just say I have a friend in the film and DVD industry, and he let have have a private viewing, a week before the film came out.
Cool way to see a movie 
reminds me how me and my dad saw Star Trek First contact for free he had a buddy who had a wife that worked at the movie theater in Silverdale, Washington and weird thing is on the ride home in the distance we saw what looked like a bright flash of green lightning that lit up a few clouds o_0.
reminds me how me and my dad saw Star Trek First contact for free he had a buddy who had a wife that worked at the movie theater in Silverdale, Washington and weird thing is on the ride home in the distance we saw what looked like a bright flash of green lightning that lit up a few clouds o_0.
Cool way to see a movie
reminds me how me and my dad saw Star Trek First contact for free he had a buddy who had a wife that worked at the movie theater in Silverdale, Washington and weird thing is on the ride home in the distance we saw what looked like a bright flash of green lightning that lit up a few clouds o_0.
You outta see what's over here where I live, and it's miles of forest all around me, so no city lights can obscure it.
Anyhow, the guy had a pre production DVD he showed me, it was missing the extra stuff, it had the options to highlight, but would do nothing. All it had was the film to see.
Younger and more interesting, Shatner and Nimoy were hardly all that youthful when it started out.
Age does not mean a thing, really. And those 'old guys' were pretty interesting to me.
Similar threads
