Why does Abrams keep playing it safe?

[F. King Daniel]

I think your perception of the film is colouring your opinion of the design of the ship.

I would say the same thing about you. I'm talking about aesthetics and to me it's a joke to compare Abramprise to the refit-Ent. Refit-Ent is still one of the best looking Enterprise. It's a perfect merger of Jeffries principle of function determining form with the principles of art-deco design that dominated in the 50's. People have often claim that Abramprise follows the design aesthetics at Apple but I've never seen Apple make a product that looks so disorganized. What look like what happened is the designer merged several silhouets of various Enterprises especially the D and the E to form Abramprise. That's why I call it a kitbash because that what it is.

A kitbash is taking various models and recombining them to make a new one. The Stargazer was made of two Enterprise-A models. Then Centaur from out-of-scale Reliant and Excelsior parts. The Nebula from cutting up an Enterprise-D.

Whatever you think of it, the new Enterprise is an orginal take on Jefferies' and Probert's Enterprises, not a kitbash.

And the Refit Enterprise has paper thin nacelle struts. It looks fragile. The STXI version does not.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's a balancing act. Regurgitate the past too much and people will think that they've already seen this show before. But try some completely new and people will complain "That's not STAR TREK!"

This wouldn't be an issue if you know they created something NEW but it's all about the brand. That's all Star Trek is these days a brand and some tropes you can string to together to form a spectacle you can charge $12 for .

But Star Trek was always a brand. It started out as a weekly series on NBC that promised the same characters having adventures in space week after week. And people tuned in because they wanted to see Kirk and Spock, etc.

Even back then, the trick was to find ways to mix things up without going so far that it felt like you were watching a different show every week.

There was an admirable variety in stories, from courtroom dramas to murder mysteries to action-adventure to morality plays and topical allegories, but, chances were, no matter what else was going on, Uhura would be opening hailing frequencies, Scotty would be having trouble with the engines, Spock was being his highly logical self (much to McCoy's annoyance) and Kirk was squabbling with an annoying Federation bureaucrat or romancing some lovely guest-star in a skimpy outfit . . . .

Again, I'm not sure anybody goes to STAR TREK #12 expecting something completely NEW. They go because they want to see a STAR TREK movie.

 

[Yminale]

A kitbash is taking various models

It's not a literal kitbash but it's obvious that the designer took several elements from previous enterprises to make Abramprise.

Whatever you think of it, the new Enterprise is an orginal take on Jefferies' and Probert's Enterprises, not a kitbash.

Your kidding right. The saucer is almost the exact copy of the refit. The secondary hull is from the Ambassador class and the nacelles are from the original JUST IN REVERSE.

And the Refit Enterprise has paper thin nacelle struts. It looks fragile. The STXI version does not.

Uhm no but thanks for trying.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Anyone who thinks the refit Enterprise doesn't hold up visually needs to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvPrYMczF3k&list=UUFBHD7heQwwAI-IuA2LzAdA&index=2&feature=plcp

Fan-pro, yes, but some of the best work I've ever seen, and a fresh pass at an iconic Trek moment.

 

[M'Sharak]

I understand why Trek fans feel the need to elevate a stupid character from a trashy sci-fi show but pretending that he is the equivalent of Macbeth is quite pathetic.

What is pathetic are a certain group of Trek fans who don't seem to understand a basic theme of Trek in that antagonists are generally not "evil" for the sake of being evil.

Then they compound the error by sneering down their noses at the rest of us.

Knock it off, both of you. It's entirely possible to express opinions and argue the relative merits of this or that thing without taking thinly-veiled personal jabs at each other.

 

[Dukhat]

The saucer is almost the exact copy of the refit. The secondary hull is from the Ambassador class and the nacelles are from the original JUST IN REVERSE.

While I agree with you about the saucer, I'm not seeing the Ambassador class secondary hull, or the TOS nacelles in reverse, at all.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Anyone who thinks the refit Enterprise doesn't hold up visually needs to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvPrYMczF3k&list=UUFBHD7heQwwAI-IuA2LzAdA&index=2&feature=plcp

Fan-pro, yes, but some of the best work I've ever seen, and a fresh pass at an iconic Trek moment.

This is beautiful.

 

[zephramc]

Anyone who thinks the refit Enterprise doesn't hold up visually needs to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvPrYMczF3k&list=UUFBHD7heQwwAI-IuA2LzAdA&index=2&feature=plcp

Fan-pro, yes, but some of the best work I've ever seen, and a fresh pass at an iconic Trek moment.

I still haven't warmed up to Abram's take on the Enterprise. Almost everything about it just looks "off". In fact the only thing that I do like is the saucer section. Maybe the proportions don't seem right, maybe it's the nacelles or the engineering section... I don't know. I really enjoyed the movie, but the ship...

Many members on this board have made far, far nicer looking starships than the new Enterprise.

 

[BillJ]

Who said anything about canon?

I'm just saying the nuEnterprise is representing the TOS Enterprise in the movie, not the refit Enterprise.

Abramprise is Abramprise. It does not replace or represent anything.

I think your perception of the film is colouring your opinion of the design of the ship.

I thought the movie was hit and miss, but the design of the Enterprise looked really out of proportion. It seems like they tried to overlay elements of the 1701-D onto the refit.

It just seemed really off.

 

[Set Harth]

My gut also tells me that novelizations of movies are a lesser art form than filmed versions of novels...

Except a number of novelizations are actually BETTER than the movies they're based on.

Especially any adaptation done by Alan Dean Foster.

Except for the one...

 

[Yminale]

Here's something that Abramprise apologist don't want you to know. Abramprise doesn't even fit in it's own movie. Look at some of the other designs like the Kelvin.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm

It's obvious what happened. The original Abramprise probably was suppose to look more like the original but someone (probably Abrams) finally noticed the design and demanded a change because it was too familar. ILM rushed a redesign using some of their old meshes they did for past series.

 

[Ubik]

There have been a lot of great points here. I'm honestly not even sure myself, anymore, whether the existence of literary source material has anything to do with the advisability of recasting or remaking certain filmed characters or plots. I still feel that reusing Khan, if they were to do it, is just plain stupid, but probably I feel that way because Khan just isn't that inherently interesting as a character. On the other hand, I also wouldn't want them bringing in Q, or the Borg, both of whom are indeed inherently interesting. Why is that, then? Why am I against all rebootings at this point (aside from the initial reboot they needed just to kickstart the franchise again...)

Because, given Star Trek's relative irrelevance on the pop culture landscape over the last decade and a bit, I can't help but feel that Trek, now that it's popular again, if it chooses to bring back ready-made plots and characters, is making a public admission that its only possible goal now is to recapture a past glory. Not create a new one, not be original or daring or surprising, but simply "as good as it used to be." What an absolutely embarrassing public admission that is.

Now, I also agree with Temis, that do be that daring and creative, to change the very philosophy of storytelling, is extremely unlikely in a film franchise. If it ever happens, it will have to be on television, but given the ambition-level of the last two Star Trek series, I'm not holding my breath on that one.

 

[Ian Keldon]

Anyone who thinks the refit Enterprise doesn't hold up visually needs to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvPrYMczF3k&list=UUFBHD7heQwwAI-IuA2LzAdA&index=2&feature=plcp

Fan-pro, yes, but some of the best work I've ever seen, and a fresh pass at an iconic Trek moment.

I still haven't warmed up to Abram's take on the Enterprise. Almost everything about it just looks "off". In fact the only thing that I do like is the saucer section. Maybe the proportions don't seem right, maybe it's the nacelles or the engineering section... I don't know. I really enjoyed the movie, but the ship...

Many members on this board have made far, far nicer looking starships than the new Enterprise.

I'm particularly fond of MadKoiFish's version.

 

[Yminale]

I still feel that reusing Khan, if they were to do it, is just plain stupid, but probably I feel that way because Khan just isn't that inherently interesting as a character.

That's probably because Khan is supposed to be Kirk's foil and if you don't buy into nuKirk (who is not a character but a list of traits people think Kirk had), you're not going to buy into nuKhan. That's probably why the story is being change. Chris Pine can't hold the movie together like William Shatner could in STII. Honestly I'm not that impressed with Cumberbatch. As much as I loved Sherlock, Cumberbatch can only play one role, irate uptight British person.

 

[Greg Cox]

There have been a lot of great points here. I'm honestly not even sure myself, anymore, whether the existence of literary source material has anything to do with the advisability of recasting or remaking certain filmed characters or plots. .

My work here is done!

For what's worth, I wasn't trying to gang up on you personally. That whole "literary adaptation" argument tends to pop up whenever the subject of remakes and recastings comes up, so I was just trying to drive a stake through it one more time.

As for Khan . . . I honestly think that's just a fannish rumor so it's probably academic anyway.

But . . . Khan's not interesting? Then why did I write a trilogy about him?

 

[Set Harth]

Cumberbatch can only play one role, irate uptight British person.

Or irate dragon, or irate Ainu.

 

[Franklin]

Abramprise is Abramprise. It does not replace or represent anything.

I think your perception of the film is colouring your opinion of the design of the ship.

I thought the movie was hit and miss, but the design of the Enterprise looked really out of proportion. It seems like they tried to overlay elements of the 1701-D onto the refit.

It just seemed really off.

Back when we got our first looks at the ST09 Enterprise, the most apt comparison between it and TMP Enterprise I recall on these boards was the TMP Enterprise was a sleek sports car that looked fast, while the ST09 Enterprise is a muscle car that looks powerful. Personally, I think both versions are aesthetically pleasing.

 

[M'Sharak]

Here's something that Abramprise apologist don't want you to know. Abramprise doesn't even fit in it's own movie. Look at some of the other designs like the Kelvin.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/stxi_ships.htm

Not sure what you feel is "something that Abramprise apologist don't want you to know," but there's absolutely nothing to be found at that link which hasn't already been wrangled back and forth in numerous threads here.

This, though, I don't think I've seen before:

It's obvious what happened. The original Abramprise probably was suppose to look more like the original but someone (probably Abrams) finally noticed the design and demanded a change because it was too familar. ILM rushed a redesign using some of their old meshes they did for past series.

Have you a link or source?

 

[Dukhat]

This, though, I don't think I've seen before:

It's obvious what happened. The original Abramprise probably was suppose to look more like the original but someone (probably Abrams) finally noticed the design and demanded a change because it was too familar. ILM rushed a redesign using some of their old meshes they did for past series.

Have you a link or source?

Yeah, whatever "source" he comes up with is obviously wrong, because the design of the nuEnterprise was nothing of the sort. Ryan Church came up with the design, not ILM. ILM just made the CGI model based on what Church came up with. To my knowledge, Ryan Church was not "rushed" at all when he designed it, and there was never a time when his design looked more like the original ship.

Now Church DID have a more TOS aesthetic when he originally designed the Kelvin, when it was originally going to be named the Iowa. That ship did get changed to what we eventually saw in the film (and the final product was a much better and more realistic design, IMHO).

If you don't like Abrams or his film, fine. But don't make silly shit up just to justify your ill feelings toward him.

 

[horatio83]

The new ship looks, as Bill has pointed out, out of proportion. But in dynamic shots like when she rolled around her axis in the debris field she looks great. So perhaps one should view this ship which is hard to watch in static shots as an impatient adolescent who does not like to stand still?