NO! SAY IT AIN"T SO!!
Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach Communicator/Tricorder Props
- Thread starter JoeRalat
- Start date
- Status
The props look great - except maybe for that earpiece. After all this time you'd think they could come up with something at least as impressive as a cheap bluetooth earset, but they choose to imitate TOS in a meaningless way.
The "tricorder" is mislabeled, according to trekmovie.com, and is actually just the scanner component.
The "tricorder" is mislabeled, according to trekmovie.com, and is actually just the scanner component.
The earpiece is an example of meaningless "homages" being made while everything around it is a complete reboot. Like putting the crew in uniforms fairly reminiscent of the originals, while sticking them in that iStore bridge set; the juxtaposition can't help but be jarring.
number6
Vice Admiral
Just like how they changed everything but Uhura's earpiece in TMP.
number6
Vice Admiral
You know fully well that's not what I mean.
number6
Vice Admiral
Except I have explained my rationale for my opinion.
And here, just for you, I will explain it once again.
They changed everything in TMP because the producers, including Gene Roddenberry-you know the guy who CREATED Star Trek, felt that recreating the cardboard sets and even the ship itself would look cheesy on the big screen. They wanted to have ship and crew and all of the sets look as real as possible. That is where the similarities between TMP and the new film end for me.
Fans accepted the changes made in TMP with open arms. I don't remember anyone complaining about anything except the uniforms and the pace of the film--and that the plot itself was a complete retread and a boring one at that.. But every Trek fan I knew was psyched about the sets, the ship, and the look of the film.
Every film and series have reflected the artistic liberties that the producers have taken in telling their particular Trek story.
I don't have a problem with Abrams and co. designing the Trek universe to suit their needs as long as it suits the story that they want to tell. That's what every Trek writer has been allowed to do since 1966. As far as the look of the film.. You think I want to see the 1966 Enterprise on the big screen?? You bet I would. But would the non-fan buy into that??
If Abrams and Co. tell a great story, people will spend the money to see it. If they just make something to please Star Trek fans, the film will fail. It will fail because no two Star Trek fans can even agree on what makes Star Trek great.
I would rather wait and see the film and see how it all fits together before getting bent out of shape that the visual design has been changed.
I don't really care who has a problem with that. They can all just stay the fuck home if they don't like it.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
The changes in TMP were also much more appropriate, because as I pointed out, it was set after TOS, and they even made a big deal out of the ship basically being completely rebuilt. ST11, on the other hand, has no such excuses. All they have is a flimsy technobabble explanation in a vain attempt to reboot the franchise without actually coming right out and saying it. So basically this movie is pretending to be TOS and doesn't fit the way TMP does.
I also like how it's all or nothing with people who are definding the direction Abrams has taken - either it looks like 1966 or it has to look completely different, there is no such thing as adding detail and rationalizing the original designs in order to update them.
As for the rest of it, it's really quite hypocritical for you to state your opinion and then basically say that anyone who disagrees shouldn't be able to say what they think. Like it or not, there is already plenty of information about the movie available which people can base their opinions on, and I, for one, will continue to state my opinions whether you like it or not.
I also like how it's all or nothing with people who are definding the direction Abrams has taken - either it looks like 1966 or it has to look completely different, there is no such thing as adding detail and rationalizing the original designs in order to update them.
As for the rest of it, it's really quite hypocritical for you to state your opinion and then basically say that anyone who disagrees shouldn't be able to say what they think. Like it or not, there is already plenty of information about the movie available which people can base their opinions on, and I, for one, will continue to state my opinions whether you like it or not.
number6
Vice Admiral
You really like discussing the color of everyone else's kettle, don't you.The changes in TMP were also much more appropriate, because as I pointed out, it was set after TOS, and they even made a big deal out of the ship basically being completely rebuilt. ST11, on the other hand, has no such excuses. All they have is a flimsy technobabble explanation in a vain attempt to reboot the franchise without actually coming right out and saying it. So basically this movie is pretending to be TOS and doesn't fit the way TMP does.
I also like how it's all or nothing with people who are definding the direction Abrams has taken - either it looks like 1966 or it has to look completely different, there is no such thing as adding detail and rationalizing the original designs in order to update them.
As for the rest of it, it's really quite hypocritical for you to state your opinion and then basically say that anyone who disagrees shouldn't be able to say what they think. Like it or not, there is already plenty of information about the movie available which people can base their opinions on, and I, for one, will continue to state my opinions whether you like it or not.
Of course, once again you have completely dismissed the point of my post and insinuated something completely insulting to me and to everyone else who disagrees with you as usual.
I'm not really sure why I bother, except that you're bullshit is soooooooo entertaining.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
You really like discussing the color of everyone else's kettle, don't you.The changes in TMP were also much more appropriate, because as I pointed out, it was set after TOS, and they even made a big deal out of the ship basically being completely rebuilt. ST11, on the other hand, has no such excuses. All they have is a flimsy technobabble explanation in a vain attempt to reboot the franchise without actually coming right out and saying it. So basically this movie is pretending to be TOS and doesn't fit the way TMP does.
I also like how it's all or nothing with people who are definding the direction Abrams has taken - either it looks like 1966 or it has to look completely different, there is no such thing as adding detail and rationalizing the original designs in order to update them.
As for the rest of it, it's really quite hypocritical for you to state your opinion and then basically say that anyone who disagrees shouldn't be able to say what they think. Like it or not, there is already plenty of information about the movie available which people can base their opinions on, and I, for one, will continue to state my opinions whether you like it or not.
Of course, once again you have completely dismissed the point of my post and insinuated something completely insulting to me and to everyone else who disagrees with you as usual.
I'm not really sure why I bother, except that you're bullshit is soooooooo entertaining.
You clearly don't know the dif between bullshit and content. The poster's points are valid, and you keep saying the art direction is irrelevant to your enjoyment of the film, so why do you keep going on in threads about it, defending a film you haven't seen on the basis of stuff that points up bad thinking?
Not quite true.
For instance, upon seeing publicity images of the refit Enterprise before the film was released, some fans were screaming bloody murder that their beloved starship was now sporting rectangular "Klingon" nacelles rather than the "proper" cylindrical nacelles.
Sound familiar?
- Status
Similar threads
