Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoilers)

[darkwing_duck1]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

Kegek said:
Why did James Cawley make his statement about not liking the design, having purportedly seen it - and he, being a purist, is the kind of person who would only like a faithful recreation?

Assuming he actually was there and saw anything. Don't get me wrong, I respect his accomplishments as Exec Producer and star of "New Voyages" immensely, BUT I don't see how any fan-film producer could rate that kind of access to the production. He ALSO stated, IIRC, that he was not impressed with the INTERIOR sets, and now we have Dawn Brown saying many of the interior sets are actually "virtual" sets, so he could not have seen THOSE in any event.

 

[number6]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

I would challenge anything written on SyFy Portal as a matter of course.
To be fair, though, Brown's statement is preceded by the caveat "as far as I know."

She may have no idea about the exterior design as that isn't her department.

The proof will be on the screen soon enough.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

darkwing_duck1 said:

number6 said:
Can you explain why a simple statement like "we'll soon see" would need some kind of credible source? This makes no sense at all.

The trailer comes out Friday and it is rumoured that we will see the ship in it.
Failing that the film comes out on 12/25. We will definitely see the design then. What is so hard to understand about that and why would someone need to be a "credible source" to make that kind of statement?

I'm not challenging "we'll soon see", I'm challenging Dennis' flat out denial of Dawn Brown's statement that the ship's EXTERIOR appearance WILL be "virtually unchanged" from the original at the order of the higher ups, but that the INTERIORS will NOT be.

Patience, grasshopper... there IS someone who posts on this board on occasion who is VERY familiar with the exterior design of the Enterprise and at least one other Federation ship which will be prominently seen in this film. (And no, I'm not talking about myself)

This individual isn't sharing due to nondisclosure requirements, though... and this board is a very public spot.

Based upon some one-on-one conversations I've had with this individual, I'm very comfortable that the ship we'll be seeing won't distract you with the differences.

And to be fair, all Dennis is REALLY saying is (1) we don't know anything for sure (which is true for ALL of us... at most, unless we're working on the film, we don't know ANYTHING, and those who might be working on the film know, at best, one tiny little fragment of the whole), and (2) he THINKS that the ship will be more different than some of the rest of us think it'll be.

Time will tell. Let it goooo...

 

[number6]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

darkwing_duck1 said:
now we have Dawn Brown saying many of the interior sets are actually "virtual" sets.

She didn't say that exactly, either.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

number6 said:

darkwing_duck1 said:
now we have Dawn Brown saying many of the interior sets are actually "virtual" sets.

She didn't say that exactly, either.

Yeah her words were more along the line of and this is a only my paraphrasing: "Hey I thought one set they are designing virtually would have made a beautiful physical set." I do not recall the word "many" coming up.

Sharr

 

[Kegek]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

Hm. darkwing_duck1, let me put it this way - and as someone, I might add, with no credentials whatsoever in this matter, nor private information, nor some secret identity of import.

There are, at present, two public statements about this ship. One, by James Cawley, states he does not like the design. The other, by Dawn Brown, states that the exterior is the same. On the surface, these statements do not appear to be in conflict; but they become so when one remembers that Cawley's criterion of 'like' or 'dislike' probably has to do with his purist viewpoint - which is to say, whatever is on offer is not the exact same design.

This now stated, we have a contradiction. One statement seems to imply the design is not the same, the other implies it is. I speculate that Brown, particularly as this was an off-hand manner, was speaking in general terms. She meant 'the same' in the sense that Greg Jein's model of the Enterprise, featured in DS9's 'Trials and Tribble-ations', is 'the same' as the Matt Jeffries model on the show; though any Star Trek tech nerd worth his salt could doubtless point out many subtle differences. It is, however, essentially the same design - not a complete overhaul. Even Gabriel Koerner's design, a rather more extensive reworking, could be classified 'the same' if one is speaking generally - it's just a modification to throw a lot of detail on a pre-existing design, it's not different as the Enterprise is distinct from the Enterprise-D... or the old interiors are compared to the new interiors, which was the context of Dawn's statement.

And somewhere within that ballpark I say, again, without any qualifications (well, does one in logic count?) that the design is not identical to the one from TOS.

 

[number6]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

Sharr Khan said:

number6 said:

darkwing_duck1 said:
now we have Dawn Brown saying many of the interior sets are actually "virtual" sets.

She didn't say that exactly, either.

Yeah her words were more along the line of and this is a only my paraphrasing: "Hey I thought one set they are designing virtually would have made a beautiful physical set." I do not recall the word "many" coming up.

Sharr

The words "a lot" were used by the writer of the article. Brown was referring to the use of CG enhancements on sets as a more general statement and thought that one set she was working on would have been better as a completed set.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

Cary L. Brown said:

*snip a bunch of stuff for space*

Time will tell. Let it goooo...

This would all be settled if the production were more like the Trek productions of the past where the fans were WELCOME...instead of all this cloaking device and dagger crap.

C'mon Paramount...if you're so confident we'll like it...SHOW US! Starlog, Cinefantastique, and the major Trek news sites should have had production notes and info MONTHS ago!

 

[ancient]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

They're going to show us...Friday...4 days.

For the record, I didn't notice any real changes in Vektor's design, aside from the glaringly yellow paint on the rcs thrusters, which I think is unnecessary. The original E was barely ever in sharp focus anyway, so whatever details he added probably would've been lost OS back in the day. So I would call his design 'almost the same'.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

number6 said:

darkwing_duck1 said:
now we have Dawn Brown saying many of the interior sets are actually "virtual" sets.

She didn't say that exactly, either.

Oh yes she did, and I QUOTED her saying it above...

People, I'm not stupid, nor am I crazy. Stop telling me that people aren't saying exactly and explicitly what they ARE saying. Either she said it, or the magazine is lying...there are no other options.

 

[number6]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

darkwing_duck1 said:

number6 said:

darkwing_duck1 said:
now we have Dawn Brown saying many of the interior sets are actually "virtual" sets.

She didn't say that exactly, either.

Oh yes she did, and I QUOTED her saying it above...

I scrolled back and read what you quoted and double checked the SyFy Portal piece. The statement that many of the interior sets are actually virtual sets was not spoken by Brown. It was a hasty conclusion made by the writer of the piece. Read it yourself. She was making a general statement about set designs incorporating CG elements.

People, I'm not stupid, nor am I crazy. Stop telling me that people aren't saying exactly and explicitly what they ARE saying. Either she said it, or the magazine is lying...there are no other options.

The other option is that you are misinterpreting what you are reading and that you are misrepresenting that misinterpretation as something that was actually said.

You're not crazy or stupid, but you are mistaken about the conclusions you've drawn.

 

[The Doctor]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

ancient said:
They're going to show us...Friday...4 days.

For the record, I didn't notice any real changes in Vektor's design, aside from the glaringly yellow paint on the rcs thrusters, which I think is unnecessary. The original E was barely ever in sharp focus anyway, so whatever details he added probably would've been lost OS back in the day. So I would call his design 'almost the same'.

I agree entirely. To most people, Vector's 'April Fools' version of the Big E is identical to the orginal Starship Enterprise. Only to those of us who are obessesive enough to care do the added details and cutouts in the primary hull stand out.

The same could be said for Gabe Koerner's take, which shares a similar silhouette but drastically different detailing.

 

[AC84]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

Well shit....if Cawley doesn't like it, I'm probably not going to like it. DAMN IT!

That's okay, I tricked myself into liking the Akiraprise NX-01, I can do it again with this new ship. I'll just imagine that it will be something wildly different and completely unfaithful to the original NCC-1701. I'll go in with low expectations.....whew! That was close!

 

[Sharr Khan]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

This would all be settled if the production were more like the Trek productions of the past where the fans were WELCOME...instead of all this cloaking device and dagger crap.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read. No GOOD producer lets yo in on the whole production a freaking year before the movie is supposed to come out. Movies all of them should be made this way. Only an arrogant fan would find this as an offense.

C'mon Paramount...if you're so confident we'll like it...SHOW US! Starlog, Cinefantastique, and the major Trek news sites should have had production notes and info MONTHS ago!

Yeah months before the movie is going to the public. Not well its filming... its not our RIGHT to have that info now and this has not a jot to do with Paramount or Abrams confidence in the project. There holding back will actually make it all the more worthwhile.

Sharr

 

[Holytomato]

Re: Anyone else GAGGING over the AICN-based article? (spoil

The bashers want more info, so they can have more stuff to bash.

"It was gory. I did get bashed about. Gory. Bashed. Hence, Gorbash."

-Flight of Dragons