Me included, I'm a second generation trekkie who grew up on TNG and has seen every moment of all 6 series and 11 films, many novels and fan films and yet still love the new movie.
The Improving the JJprise thread
- Thread starter Lord Garth FOI
- Start date
Me included, I'm a second generation trekkie who grew up on TNG and has seen every moment of all 6 series and 11 films, many novels and fan films and yet still love the new movie.
Good for you. Do you want a cookie or something?
Okay. And...?
True. However, it also did not pander to the fanatics either.
Good thing they didn't do that.
Well everyone else is diving in and having a say, so here it goes!!
I didn't try to take the ST11 film too seriously and therefore I enjoyed it
. The only frustration I had with it was the messing around with scale whether that be with the Enterprise or the Mayflower saucer. That aside I think it managed to successfully combine a modern look with certain retro elements from the original series. It completely avoided feeling like dull, tame, safe TV movies that Generations and Insurrection were.
Now back to the Enterprise. There are things I don't like about it - primarily the nacelles and the secondary hull. It doesn't have the elegance of the TMP Enterprise and what I personally would have liked to have seen was a more elegantly styled TMP-based Enterprise with a few retro elements (not necessarily related to the TOS-Enterprise). Yet strangely enough I do like Ryan Churches concept drawings for the Enterprise (http://www.ryanchurch.com/startrek11), which have a more 50s retro look about them. Something got lost in translation.
Concerning the size - at its largest it feels too big and I think that messing around with the scale does impact the film. Why? Because to me the Enterprise is a character in the film like Kirk, Spock and Bones. Flesh and blood characters come with emotions, motivations, loves and hates. It gives them depth and we take an interest in them. The Enterprise being fictional nuts and bolts doesn't have that. Instead its depth or personality comes through its look, size, functionality, reliability, battle scars and the environments it's placed in.
With a major flesh and blood character, we shouldn't expect sudden changes in their personality purely for reasons of dramatic effect unless the story demands it (i.e. some traumatic event - tourture or a death). An actor lays down a personality for the character and will probably change it suddenly for the above reasons or gradually to convey the passing of time (i.e. maturity).
So with the Enterprise, you would expect the same approach. You give it a personality and then you stick with it. Some aspects of that personality will be flawed (i.e. design shortcomings, size), but you learn to exploit the flaw in the story or if a scene doesn't work you avoid or rewrite it.
When fans say they are comfortable with a ship of size xyz ft, it's because they are trying to base that opinion on a fictional advancement in technology in the 23rd century and what they want the ships personality to be. Some want a really big mean badass ship (Goliath) and others want a smaller, more believable fragile ship that succeeds in a fight against the odds (David). Personally I prefer the latter. Problem is that varying the scale during the course of a film could give the ship a split personality.
Well that's enough said. I would like to see more artwork posted here on what people feel would improve the JJprise (not just pics of the TOS-Enterprise
).
Cheers,
S.O.
I didn't try to take the ST11 film too seriously and therefore I enjoyed it
. The only frustration I had with it was the messing around with scale whether that be with the Enterprise or the Mayflower saucer. That aside I think it managed to successfully combine a modern look with certain retro elements from the original series. It completely avoided feeling like dull, tame, safe TV movies that Generations and Insurrection were.Now back to the Enterprise. There are things I don't like about it - primarily the nacelles and the secondary hull. It doesn't have the elegance of the TMP Enterprise and what I personally would have liked to have seen was a more elegantly styled TMP-based Enterprise with a few retro elements (not necessarily related to the TOS-Enterprise). Yet strangely enough I do like Ryan Churches concept drawings for the Enterprise (http://www.ryanchurch.com/startrek11), which have a more 50s retro look about them. Something got lost in translation.
Concerning the size - at its largest it feels too big and I think that messing around with the scale does impact the film. Why? Because to me the Enterprise is a character in the film like Kirk, Spock and Bones. Flesh and blood characters come with emotions, motivations, loves and hates. It gives them depth and we take an interest in them. The Enterprise being fictional nuts and bolts doesn't have that. Instead its depth or personality comes through its look, size, functionality, reliability, battle scars and the environments it's placed in.
With a major flesh and blood character, we shouldn't expect sudden changes in their personality purely for reasons of dramatic effect unless the story demands it (i.e. some traumatic event - tourture or a death). An actor lays down a personality for the character and will probably change it suddenly for the above reasons or gradually to convey the passing of time (i.e. maturity).
So with the Enterprise, you would expect the same approach. You give it a personality and then you stick with it. Some aspects of that personality will be flawed (i.e. design shortcomings, size), but you learn to exploit the flaw in the story or if a scene doesn't work you avoid or rewrite it.
When fans say they are comfortable with a ship of size xyz ft, it's because they are trying to base that opinion on a fictional advancement in technology in the 23rd century and what they want the ships personality to be. Some want a really big mean badass ship (Goliath) and others want a smaller, more believable fragile ship that succeeds in a fight against the odds (David). Personally I prefer the latter. Problem is that varying the scale during the course of a film could give the ship a split personality.
Well that's enough said. I would like to see more artwork posted here on what people feel would improve the JJprise (not just pics of the TOS-Enterprise
).Cheers,
S.O.
I'm getting tired of this "flagship" nonsense. Plus does want want a "flagship" to be run by JJ Kirk?
Personally, JJ just said it was so big because he wanted it to sound cool...., excuse me, ...."kewl". That, or to make up for some sort of shortcoming.
But, here's something I posted in my art thread, and I think it's an excellent way to improve the JJPrise.
I really don't understand the personal attacks on JJ Abrams, just because he didn't make a Trek film the way YOU would have.
It's cause of that reaction that I LOVE the fact that the film was a commercial, and critical success, and was well received by the public, moreso then any other Trek film. And they they are making another.
Seeing as how this one got dumbed down to appeal to the Joe sixpack crowds, by making Trek into a mindless popcorn action flick, I would not call it a success. To me, success is more of attitude rather than aptitude. Like if a guy sells out in order to make it big, I'd not call him a winner, I'd call him a loser. And with Trek being dumbed down to appeal to the mass mainstream folks who watch Jersey Shore, Dancing with the Stars, TMZ and other rubbish, I don't exactly call that a success....just sanitized, sterilized, pasturized and homogenized to make ole' Joe Sixpack and Plain Jane happy.
You know, you might have a point if all of Trek up until this point had lived up to Roddenberry's original vision of a near-utopian future where people didn't argue, had regular wife-swaps, etc.
But it didn't. In fact, it strayed from those ideals in the original series, FROM SEASON ONE onward! And why? Because people didn't want to watch it. It didn't make good television drama. Can you imagine the Redjack episode without a serial killer? Yes, they tweaked it so that the future men weren't the actual killers (a red noncorporeal mist did it), but the point is, they THOUGHT it was something Scotty might have been capable of doing. This is certainly not in keeping with Roddenberry's original vision. It also happens to be one of my favorites.
Can you imagine the Doomsday Machine without crazy Commodore Decker of the Constellation? No. But without him, you have little drama. The Enterprise comes along the wreckage, takes scans, finds no lifesigns, and gets caught and destroyed by the planet killer. End of story.
And there are many more examples of this, from the get go, that, if we were to dig deeper, we'd find inconsistencies with Trek that were made in the interest of dramatic license.
Writers know that telling a good story is the first responsibility.
That means telling a story that resonates with your audience. So, maybe you can fault Abrams for selecting the "wrong" audience, and there may be some truth to that, but it was just continuing a long, successful Trek tradition.
YARN
Fleet Captain
This has to be about the dumbest thing people say around here. Shakespeare was trying to make money too; this mere fact has not prevented literary criticism of Shakespeare for hundreds of years.
What something was originally intended "to do" or "to be" is not the final word on what it "is" or "does." Penecillium fungi are not designed by nature to serve as antibiotics for humans, but this has not prevented us from making penecillin.
If we limited ourselves in our discussions of Trek to this singular criterion, our discussions would be ridiculously impoverished. "This film was 'made just to make money.' This film made money. Therefore, this film (and all the aspects that comprise it) is a success! Not a word can be uttered against it!"
Star Trek has always been brilliant and artistic, and never slightly dumb, or hamfisted.
Didn't you all get the memo?
Didn't you all get the memo?
I'm getting tired of this "flagship" nonsense. Plus does want want a "flagship" to be run by JJ Kirk?
Personally, JJ just said it was so big because he wanted it to sound cool...., excuse me, ...."kewl". That, or to make up for some sort of shortcoming.
But, here's something I posted in my art thread, and I think it's an excellent way to improve the JJPrise.
This piece of art is even more poorly done and unclever than the dreadful Photoshop job by CRA that you're imitating.
seems to me its urinating on the newer Enterprise :T
Yes, but why is it urinating out of the phaser bank?
Anthropomorphically speaking, that's like peeing out your nostrils.
Anthropomorphically speaking, that's like peeing out your nostrils.
Last edited:
Because it's bad art.
I don´t said I´m cool with make more money, I don´t said that I like how the movie was made or that no word can be said against the success in making money versus script holes. I just said that´s the way how the thingies are made.
Your annalogy about Penecillium fungi to be usefull for a thing other than it was originally planned, is... weird. It can´t be compared with I would like the movie (or the ship) done by this (or that way). So, this has to be about the dumbest thing people say around here.
Criticism is the right (and choice, of course) of us all, but with respect and intelligence. First, understand the words and, later, apply criticism.
Last edited:
People who want to assert control over that which doesn't belong to them are quick to assert stuff like "moral duties" and responsibilities.
Italic font is a better choice?
My intention is just to make clear the point I´m arguing about.
Italic font is a better choice?
My intention is just to make clear the point I´m arguing about.
So you're point is to emphasize contractions.
Similar threads
