Why did he need to do it?

Someone on here a while back complained about the casting of Quinto, and how Paramount failed to find someone on the entire planet who looked like Nimoy. Because you know, looking exactly like the previous actor is just as important as aping the that actor's acting to the letter when it comes to creating a performance.

It's like the people who insisted that only Ray Liotta could play Pike but couldn't give any explanation regarding his ACTING.

 

Quinto was brilliant as Spock, so was Pine why do so many people hate the actors and the movie just wondering.

 

They killed Randi! Bastards!

 

IDIC, baby.

 

Hate is much easier. How many of Howard Stern or Rush Limbaugh's listening base actually hate every word that comes out their mouths yet keep listening?

It's also a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you bitch and moan about how awful something will be long before hand, you can watch the movie with the intent to hate very second of it so that you can come back and proclaim how right you are... and then proceed to make that proclamation over and over and over again.

Talk about a waste of time.

 

I don't think I'll ever understand this sort of complaint. The difference is negligible to my eyes. It's just a bit shinier and sleeker.

 

And this is relevant why? We're posting on these boards, so we're obviously Trek fans. The difference is visible to us, and matters to quite a lot of us. The question of whether casual non-fans noticed, or how many of them came to watch the movie, should matter to no one except Paramount accountants. We're talking about aesthetics, not profitability.

And on those terms, the NuEnterprise doesn't work. (IMHO, of course.) I was never inextricable opposed to the idea of a redesigned ship (although I was and still am skeptical of the rhetoric about a "need" for same), but this particular redesign just isn't attractive. It looks kludgy and overdesigned, not elegant and graceful like the original. And that's just the exteriors; the insides are even worse. (The engine room/brewery? Seriously?)

They obviously didn't put half as much thought into the overall logic of the vessel as Matt Jefferies and company did back in the day. Just scan a few threads around here and it'll be obvious they never even settled on the size of the ship; different numbers have been quoted, and if you try to estimate it based on the bridge you'll get a wildly different scale than if you do so based on the hangar deck.

Yep. Sad but self-evidently true.

 

Bridge = round room with control panels all around and a screen at the front. Slightly different artistic approach, bigger due to bigger budget, but the same thing.

The Kelvin bridge looked like I'd imagine a modernized version of the TOS one to look like.

 

Out of all the incarnations, this latest is the one I like the least. In some angles it looks beautiful, in others it looks awkward. Mostly it has to do with how far the secondary hull protrudes forward - just seems to break up the flow.

The *BOOM* it makes going to warp though? Awesome!

RT.

 

Yes, and Trekkies are discussing it : /

 

Because the OP asked why the very simple question of the Enterprise had to be changed. Whether it's aesthetics or whether it's for profit, it still boils down to appeal, and clearly that appeal worked. There are a few people who hated the TMP refit, a few people who hated the E-D, a few people who hated the E-E. There are us Trekkies who hated it at first then liked it, liked it at first then hated it, people who are indifferent, people who always liked, people who always hated, but the fact of the matter is, we all still came and watched it. Really, it's the same circle of events as always, just a different ship each and every time.

 

Cyke I like your avatar pic it's awesome

 

1.) They didn't exactly think it all the way through either "back in the day."

2.) Seeing as the new Ent is based on the old design, the groundwork was laid out, they just changed some shapes is all.

That's nothing new for the franchise, and honestly only matters to a small group of people.

 

The alternative that would have pleased the people who are especially displeased with the new Enterprise would involve resurrecting corpses and putting the same model they used in 1960 back on wires and making a movie of it. There was simply, based on the impossibility of doing that, no chance that a small faction of the fandom was ever going to be pleased regardless of what Enterprise ultimately looked like.

Statements like that are made through nostalgia goggles and are hardly objective. They had to do something to "beef up" Enterprise because they wanted this move to appeal to more than just the people who love Star Trek enough to sign up on a forum about it. If they put the "elegant, classy" Enterprise back on the screen... well, they might just as well have called it Star Trek Nemesis II because it would've been a failure.


-Withers-​

 

General audiences are not blind. They see the ship is different than previous versions of it, but there are so many different Enterprises in Trek (3 of the 1701 alone - "The Cage," TOS, TMP) that they're willing to just accept a different one for this movie.

Plus, it's just the movies for you that they update stuff for every new one...James Bond's tux and Superman's cape are different every time you see them.

The only problem IMHO is that this Enterprise isn't nearly as beautiful as previous versions. The Refit doesn't get nearly as much negativity from fans of TOS because it was a more successful update - and I mean that taking into account the fanatics who are unhappy with anything different.

 

Look back and you'll see that I was asking why it's relevant that casual ticket-buyers allegedly "don't care," since they're not the people participating in this discussion.

(Although FWIW, I've found myself discussing the redesign with more than one of them, and generally encountered something less than enthusiasm, even among folks who liked the movie).

For those of us who do notice and care about the details, the fact that it made money is utterly irrelevant. We're talking about the art side of things, not the commerce side.

Same puzzlement again, since we are that small group of people. How is it relevant to a discussion of any controversy to say "hey, those folks over there don't seem to be bothered by it"? If the concerns and standards of casual moviegoers were the standard for discussion, 99.5% of what's discussed on these forums should be tossed right out.

[LEFT]I've seen this argued before, but no one ever advances any actual evidence. The counter-evidence, OTOH, is widely available. There are numerous sophisticated, detailed, and "elegant and classy" computer redesigns of the Enterprise that have been shared on these very boards, many (indeed most) of which honor and respect the design aesthetic of the original far more than what we saw in this film.


Hell, the design of Robau's U.S.S. Kelvin in this movie fits the design aesthetic of the original (single nacelle notwithstanding) far more than the NuEnterprise, and no one has said it looked out of place on screen.

[/LEFT]
​

Bingo. As I've already said, the concept of a design update wasn't necessarily a bad idea in the abstract. This particular design update, however, left a great deal to be desired.

 

Define "we?"

 

Because when you are rebooting a 40+ year old TV series with a $150 million movie you bring things up to date.

 

That really is the answer to the question in a nutshell, period.

What I want to know is, (sadly the SF of the film were lacking here) what were the designers thinking when they crafted this monstrosity - did they have input from actual engineers to say how a ship of this shape would have to be designed to do what it does or was the redesign all purely artistic license?

The answer to that could help me better appreciate it - I could forgive fugliness if it was necessary for function.

 

Since the original Enterprise wasn't exactly an engineer's dream, what does it matter? Is there a current school of thought on the shape of ships designed to travel at warp speeds through subspace and at impulse in normal space?