Was there a TMP Enterprise outrage ?
- Thread starter Belz...
- Start date
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Was very disappointed with the lack of spinning ball nacelle caps (was expecting something like the nacelles we got on the PHOENIX 17 years later), but was more disappointed Scotty didn't have Doohan's beard, which made him look like Sean Connery's thicker brother.
Honestly, the lights installed in the ship and the hull sheen enhanced an already pretty darn good redesign (though I also was no fan of the 'strongback' linking dish and secondary hull - it seems boxy by comparison with everything else.)
Now the interiors ... I found THOSE a real mixed batch. Liked corridors and lots of engineering, hated just about everything else, in color scheme, design and execution.
Honestly, the lights installed in the ship and the hull sheen enhanced an already pretty darn good redesign (though I also was no fan of the 'strongback' linking dish and secondary hull - it seems boxy by comparison with everything else.)
Now the interiors ... I found THOSE a real mixed batch. Liked corridors and lots of engineering, hated just about everything else, in color scheme, design and execution.
Of course, but I recall worse rage over the Klingons' makeup, the Starfleet uniforms, Spock and McCoy "leaving Jim after the TV series", the new transporter FX, and McCoy's beard!
There was complaint about the interiors, but the exterior redesign was largely popular with Trek fans. Most loved that endless flyby while acknowledging that it was...well, too long for the movie's own good. 
Really ? I feel the TMP Transporter FX are the best of any of the series or movies.
Maybe except the new ones.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Different strokes ... until Abrams, the TMP transporter was the only transporter effect I did NOT like ... both seem very animated in the sense of not being about textures and real light sources, so they seem more applied than integrated.
If they'd actually shot the beam-ups in one of the ways they'd intended (as seen in the reflection of the glass in front of Rand), it would have worked better for me, since it would have been more oblique.
If they'd actually shot the beam-ups in one of the ways they'd intended (as seen in the reflection of the glass in front of Rand), it would have worked better for me, since it would have been more oblique.
The outside rocked. Yeah, I knew the movie was in trouble when the drydock flyby went on too long, although it really was great to look at. The ship was odd to look at, at first, but I was used to it by the time I saw the film, from all the magazines I read.
The inside had numerous problems, foremost was that the corridors were just bland. Generally, things were unrealistically spartan on the inside, and that was acutely true in Engineering. The intermix chamber was really cool, though.
The transporter beam was wrong, although Sonak's death scene is one of the most dramatic scenes in all of Trek.
Of course, then there are the uniforms...
The inside had numerous problems, foremost was that the corridors were just bland. Generally, things were unrealistically spartan on the inside, and that was acutely true in Engineering. The intermix chamber was really cool, though.
The transporter beam was wrong, although Sonak's death scene is one of the most dramatic scenes in all of Trek.
Of course, then there are the uniforms...
I'll say. My favourite warp core. I was glad they did something similar in Voyager.
I was 9 when the movie came out, and while it did take some getting used to the new nacelles, the sheer spectacle of the drydock, of how huge it looked up on the big screen, won me over.
The new Enterprise, as an object d'art, so to speak, is just plain ugly. I think most people would agree that it strikes them as ugly, even though it may be hard for them to explain exactly why. There are magical proportions and lines that the eye subliminally looks for, the golden mean and all that sort of stuff. The refit has it, and the 2009 Enterprise doesn't. It's like the difference between a Ferrari and an AMC Pacer.
The new Enterprise, as an object d'art, so to speak, is just plain ugly. I think most people would agree that it strikes them as ugly, even though it may be hard for them to explain exactly why. There are magical proportions and lines that the eye subliminally looks for, the golden mean and all that sort of stuff. The refit has it, and the 2009 Enterprise doesn't. It's like the difference between a Ferrari and an AMC Pacer.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Yeah, I think for me the swirling gases core thing always evoked what I imagined it would be like going in super-close to the TOS nacelles caps, that inside those spokes of light you'd probably see gases like that.
Plus the cores where it was just rings of like (DEFIANT, E-E, E-D) just made me think 'physical lighting effect' without evoking the idea of it being a spaceship (sort of like when you see chase lights on old TV.)
Really ? I disagree completely. I've seen a lot of fan designs for 1701, including my own, and people often cite Gabe Koerner's design, but most of them strike me as tricked-out racing models. The Enterprise was always like a liner, to me, and the 2009 version strikes exactly that chord with me. It's replaced the 1979 version as my favourite starship design specifically because it's so in line with the TOS and TMP versions: sleek, simple and luxurious.
No.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Only the dish reads remotely that way to me, with the rest just messing with proportions in a disturbing/distracting fashion. Kind of reminds me of a sports car from the late 70s ... don't recall its name, but the front and middle looked sharp and exciting like a traditional Corvette ... but then it just stopped, like somebody lopped off the back end of a vette. Just godawful looking, whatever the hell it was.
Aside from the new look of the Klingons and the new Starfleet uniforms, I think the biggest criticisms by fans were in regards to the movie itself being too slow, too long, and not having enough action. In comparison, the redesigned Enterprise was received favorably by all but the fiercest fans of the original design.
11-year-old me loved the design--in fact, it was the slow flyaround sequence that everybody hated that made me love the ship in the first place, as before that I'd been too young to really notice the Enterprise on TV reruns as anything but "the transportation."
(My discomfort with the 2009 ship arises from the front and back halves of the ship, IMO, looking like they were built by two entirely separate architectures and welded together. Each half is fine in itself, but they belong on different ships.)
(My discomfort with the 2009 ship arises from the front and back halves of the ship, IMO, looking like they were built by two entirely separate architectures and welded together. Each half is fine in itself, but they belong on different ships.)
Which is odd when the same fans claim that the new Star Trek movies have too much action and that old Trek was all intellectual and stuff.
Trekkies aged. Surprise!
