After reading through the "Probert/Sternbach" critique...
- Thread starter judexavier
- Start date
Apparently the "Probert redo sketch" passed right over my head. Would you care to provide a link, please?
My mother was recently hospitalized so I have been a bit out of touch lately.
Which is the point.Fraunkensteen ≠ FrankensteinWhat movie's that supposed to be?
Young Frankenstein, I suspect.
Seriously, go find this movie and check it out. It's a classic.
I didn't say that. Of course they're qualified to comment. Uniquely even.
But it comes across as them being upset a different designer is trying something just a little different in their sandbox, and they don't seem to understand why a new team would want to leave their mark on Trek design or try something slightly different than the status quo.
The problem is that the changes appear to be ONLY about "leaving their mark" and are, in the eyes of many (including these guys) otherwise pretty much totally ill-conceived.
I didn't say that. Of course they're qualified to comment. Uniquely even.
But it comes across as them being upset a different designer is trying something just a little different in their sandbox, and they don't seem to understand why a new team would want to leave their mark on Trek design or try something slightly different than the status quo.
"Leaving your mark" can mean "defacing" just as easily as it can mean "improving."
The ship sucks in and out!
An informed, expert opinion ought to be the beginning of a conversation about art, not just an attempt to win it. 
This discussion reminds me, a little bit, about the small debate comparing Probert's Enterprise "C" with Sternbach's "C".
I, myself, used to think of the Sternbach "C" as graceless and clunky, compared to the version Probert designed. I had no appeciation for the constraints of budget and model construction time that he was under.
I had occasion to build a model of the Sternbach "C" a few years ago, with a kit that was missing the warp nacelles. I grafted the nacelles from an Enterprise "E" to it, and discovered that, properly balanced that way, the hull and saucer do have some graceful and pleasing lines to them.
I see this new Star Trek XI Enterprise as something that could grow on a guy the same way. I wanna give it some time. Let's see what she's got!
("Let's see what she's got" said the captain. And then we found out, didn't we? - Scotty from ST V)
I, myself, used to think of the Sternbach "C" as graceless and clunky, compared to the version Probert designed. I had no appeciation for the constraints of budget and model construction time that he was under.
I had occasion to build a model of the Sternbach "C" a few years ago, with a kit that was missing the warp nacelles. I grafted the nacelles from an Enterprise "E" to it, and discovered that, properly balanced that way, the hull and saucer do have some graceful and pleasing lines to them.
I see this new Star Trek XI Enterprise as something that could grow on a guy the same way. I wanna give it some time. Let's see what she's got!
("Let's see what she's got" said the captain. And then we found out, didn't we? - Scotty from ST V)
Hey, look! The bridge changed! And the uniforms!
http://tng.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/s3/3x15/yent040.jpg
What pointless changes that we're done as part of the story!
Oh, wait, the changes were part of the story...
Well, William Shatner apparently has an opinion as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUoaFITdfQ4
I really didn't see that coming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUoaFITdfQ4
I really didn't see that coming.
Bill's being diplomatic. Besides, half the time he only remembers TOS episodes by who the female guest star was ("What did you think of 'Wink of an Eye'? "Which one was --?" "Kathie Brown" "OH! That one...").
Also, it's not his job to obsess over these details. It's ours.
Also, it's not his job to obsess over these details. It's ours.
And this is just the kind of fiddling around that I've been encouraging the faithful to do for a long time. Same with the folks doing CG models. Play with the designs, understand form and function and balance and detail.
Regarding the new Enterprise, everyone's entitled to their opinion, though some opinions will be be backed up by a knowledge of design and some won't. Shouldn't stop folks from discussing the whats and whys of particular shapes and how they relate to Starfleet lineage or alien vessels or props, etc. I've welcomed discussion about the stuff I've done, admit where I might have missed a step, like with certain aspects of the Ent-C. We all do that on occasion. Critiques come fast and furious in the art world and in architecture, and you'll never find complete and total agreement there, either, but the discussions can be quite eye-opening.
Rick
www.spacemodelsystems.com
Look... if the movie "hits the reset button" at the end, and we have the classic ship, the classic sets, the classic situations, etc, etc, at the end (like we did with "Yesterday's Enterprise" then your argument holds. And honestly, I'd be pleased if that's what happens here.
But I can't imagine that it's what's really going to happen. Pulling that sort of stunt on the audience... on anyone who's NOT familiar with TOS and is seeing this for the first time... would be disastrous for the movie.
If "Yesterday's Enterprise" was a stand-alone show, it would have been a massive failure. It only worked because we, the viewing audience, knew and cared about the "real" situation. There was never any question about those changes being temporary, was there?
As a fan of TOS, I'd be happy to see the "reset button" hit. But for those who aren't... and even some of those who claim that they are... that would piss them off. So either way... some members of the audience are gonna be unhappy, aren't they?
If the ship, sets, history, etc, were more like "what we know"... you could still tell the same basic story, but nobody would be put-off by the changes... not the (hopefully created new batch of) new fans, and not the long-time fans.
On the other hand, that's exactly the sort of thing that I've seen coming from the guy for years, so I'm not surprised in the least.
To Shatner, Trek was never anything but a job. A GOOD job, but a job. It's made him reasonably successful, provided a roof over his head and so forth... but unlike most of us, he couldn't care less what Janice Rand's cabin number was.
Shatner's always been pretty classy like this. It's only the folks who really hate the guy who expect anything different.
I thought Picard was wearing a seat belt for a second.
That is interesting, Shat's window comment is something is probably good advice.
I know i'm quoting myself, sorry, but I intend to have an actual image to post very shortly, hopefully more than a boring side wiew
(God, my first post sure did come off snide..."mattel bigwheel"...? I didn't mean to sound so harsh
Sorry to hear that. Hope all is well.
Here's the post:
http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=2306844&postcount=88
Almost has an arrowhead look to it...
Thank you! Yes, things are improving.
Andy's modification does add more of a balanced flow to the overall design so much so that the new "E" now appears to have had its original primary hull replaced by an older model, imho. While I do like the ship I can now understand and appreciate some of the criticisms concerning the "kitbash look."
FYI... he prefers to be called Andrew, not Andy. Just sayin...