number6
Vice Admiral
So have I earned the Royal Crown or is number7 Up?
Do you like the *NEW* NCC-1701? Simple Yes or No.
- Thread starter StarTrek1701
- Start date
So have I earned the Royal Crown or is number7 Up?
What a fizzy fellow
I guess I didn't "grow up" with Trek, since it didn't premiere on NBC until I was 12. That said, I've been keeping a pretty steady watch on it for forty-three years, give or take, and so far this movie looks like "Star Trek." No problem.
I just don't get why the critics always have to try to speak for whole classes of people instead of just themselves.
I guess I didn't "grow up" with Trek, since it didn't premiere on NBC until I was 12. That said, I've been keeping a pretty steady watch on it for forty-three years, give or take, and so far this movie looks like "Star Trek." No problem.
I just don't get why the critics always have to try to speak for whole classes of people instead of just themselves.
Well, I'm 20. My entire life since birth has been super-saturated with all Treks and this looks more like Star Trek than most of what we've had for while now. Much the way Galaxy Quest captured the essence of Trek better than almost all Trek for the last decade has.
number6
Vice Admiral
Do you know of any critic who actually speak for themselves??
I guess I didn't "grow up" with Trek, since it didn't premiere on NBC until I was 12. That said, I've been keeping a pretty steady watch on it for forty-three years, give or take, and so far this movie looks like "Star Trek." No problem.
I just don't get why the critics always have to try to speak for whole classes of people instead of just themselves.
I did grow up on Star Trek and have enjoyed a lifetime of Trek. I have no problem with what they seem to be doing with this new film. I think there are pieces of this puzzle we haven't seen and it seems hasty to be mourning the demise of the franchise based solely on a controversial design ethic, even if that ethic is only controversial to a select (and vocal) few.
Well, most good critics who actually get paid for it do, yeah.
But then, having people pay you for your opinion tends to reinforce your own confidence in it.
number6
Vice Admiral
No....
My views on the matter I think have been expressed virtually to a "T" by Captain Robert April. I've noticed on a variety of subjects on this board he almost appears to be reading my mind and speaking for my thoughts and concerns, which more often than nought spares me the effort to feel the need to say anything. IF we are going back to TOS..then it had better look like TOS or you destroy the familliar link / look that people would be expecting who are wanting to see more. Why make the film to begin with if you have no intention to? If it doesn't then you run the risk of making people feel like their chain is being yanked. I know mine has for a VERY long time. I see no reason to go into length beyond the simply stated yes or no that the thread asks for or to be disrespecting to those I differ. And I see no need to be insulting each other here for voicing their personal opinions, no matter how contrary. And I wish others would do that as well.
If you like ...go see it.
If not...then don't.
But I will say this much since some of the discussion has ran the gamut coming close to my thoughts on this....
I am all for everyone voting with their wallet.
If you like it...go pay to go see it. I am all for artists being paid and profiting for their "intellectual" property and efforts.
If you don't like it.....then let them know you don't by refusing to willingly let go of the ticket price, the merchandise, the DVDs, books, and etc...
However after nearly 40 years of wanting them to pick up the TOS environment and do more of that beloved "same old look", this new release feels like a sick game of "keep away."
From one TOS fan who will not be spending the money on anything even related to this film, who has spent money on the TOS VHS tapes, multiple purchases of each of the models, the DVDs individually and the DVD boxed sets....movies 1 - 6 and taped a buttload of TNG.
I would like to have seen a iconic legacy TOS Enteprise and sets like seen in "Tribbles and Tribulations" and "Relics." The TOS ship and sets seen that late in Trek production chronology do I think cement their legitimacy in the Trek universe, and I think are a very deliberate effort to honor the origional...no matter how many choose to view them as "dated." If they hadn't...then I think there would be more breathing room for the purists like me to reluctantly accept the new Ryan Church version of the ship. I personally don't fault him for the new design since someone had to sign off and approve what he did. I choose to view it simply that he only did what he was directed to do by those powers that be. I don't like it...but I don't blame him for it either. The responsability lies with those who are making the decisions for this film. I don't "hate" anyone who has done this film. But I would expect them to be alot more consistent with their comments and less derisive of those who were "hoping" and elated at some prospect of seeing the design again after what appears to be a lifetime, and be a little more merciful in knowing their hopes were dashed. If it had been done "true" to TOS...it would have been a welcome breath of fresh air for a change to contrast everything else that has been the "industrial grunge" and fancying up like in TMP and following that set the trend / standard in Star Wars footsteps. ( I like SW by the way.....)
My views on the matter I think have been expressed virtually to a "T" by Captain Robert April. I've noticed on a variety of subjects on this board he almost appears to be reading my mind and speaking for my thoughts and concerns, which more often than nought spares me the effort to feel the need to say anything. IF we are going back to TOS..then it had better look like TOS or you destroy the familliar link / look that people would be expecting who are wanting to see more. Why make the film to begin with if you have no intention to? If it doesn't then you run the risk of making people feel like their chain is being yanked. I know mine has for a VERY long time. I see no reason to go into length beyond the simply stated yes or no that the thread asks for or to be disrespecting to those I differ. And I see no need to be insulting each other here for voicing their personal opinions, no matter how contrary. And I wish others would do that as well.
If you like ...go see it.
If not...then don't.
But I will say this much since some of the discussion has ran the gamut coming close to my thoughts on this....
I am all for everyone voting with their wallet.
If you like it...go pay to go see it. I am all for artists being paid and profiting for their "intellectual" property and efforts.
If you don't like it.....then let them know you don't by refusing to willingly let go of the ticket price, the merchandise, the DVDs, books, and etc...
However after nearly 40 years of wanting them to pick up the TOS environment and do more of that beloved "same old look", this new release feels like a sick game of "keep away."
From one TOS fan who will not be spending the money on anything even related to this film, who has spent money on the TOS VHS tapes, multiple purchases of each of the models, the DVDs individually and the DVD boxed sets....movies 1 - 6 and taped a buttload of TNG.
I would like to have seen a iconic legacy TOS Enteprise and sets like seen in "Tribbles and Tribulations" and "Relics." The TOS ship and sets seen that late in Trek production chronology do I think cement their legitimacy in the Trek universe, and I think are a very deliberate effort to honor the origional...no matter how many choose to view them as "dated." If they hadn't...then I think there would be more breathing room for the purists like me to reluctantly accept the new Ryan Church version of the ship. I personally don't fault him for the new design since someone had to sign off and approve what he did. I choose to view it simply that he only did what he was directed to do by those powers that be. I don't like it...but I don't blame him for it either. The responsability lies with those who are making the decisions for this film. I don't "hate" anyone who has done this film. But I would expect them to be alot more consistent with their comments and less derisive of those who were "hoping" and elated at some prospect of seeing the design again after what appears to be a lifetime, and be a little more merciful in knowing their hopes were dashed. If it had been done "true" to TOS...it would have been a welcome breath of fresh air for a change to contrast everything else that has been the "industrial grunge" and fancying up like in TMP and following that set the trend / standard in Star Wars footsteps. ( I like SW by the way.....)
Last edited:
So have I earned the Royal Crown or is number7 Up?
Shouldn't it be...
Seven, Up Yours??
==========================================
Hey Bud, I heard that the A&W Lawyer's are Brewing up a Case based on the spectacular Fizziness of your rather Polar post and you should expect Mr. Miller of the Utica Club, to be adding the Yeast amount of effort also.
If I were you I'd watch out for that Arrogant Bastard cause in the Pabst he's been known to throw Redrock's at people he doesn't like or even get out his Colt 45.
On the other hand, Killian his girlfriend, has a tendency to be quite friendly toward Folks he doesn't like, almost to the point of Anheusering her Busch to a Genesee, Frothy Fermentation which usually leads to a lot of Sweetwater.
Of Coors, just remember to keep that Lionshead of your Falstaff and those Rolling Rock's away from her Clix's Malt just to be a Schaefer fellow.
Who knows, maybe if ya Chill and keep it Lite you'll get a quick Lucky, Midas Touch on those Twin Lakes of hers.
Now wouldn't that just Shock your Top and Stampede your Red Dog, Land Shark all the way to Old Milwaukee?
The logic has to to with proportions and aesthetics. Where Andy Probert played with the proportions for 1701-D with a similarly oversized saucer, he made the engineering hull appropriately larger. This design comes out much more unbalanced that previous Trek starships.
In all the other designs, the logic behind the design has been that the underslung engineering hull is where the fuel is stored and mixed in addition to housing the shuttle bay and deflector dish. It does not make sense for a supposedly more primitive ship to need less space. Logically the engineering hull should be larger than in later designs and be more cramped and full of hardware.
There are some very logical arguments why this design is inappropriate. But I believe it will be a moot point because from the plot leaks, it sounds as if the events of the movie take place in an alternate timeline where the Enterprise built in San Francisco (I won't even get into the ground vs. orbital construction) in 2245 in the TOS timeline was never built. This Enterprise seems to be built about 10 to 15 years later in the altered timeline. That fits with the design as I see it. The TOS Enterprise has a very post war feel and this design has a very late 50's early 60's feel (like cadillacs with fins). I just don't like the tiny engineering hull and the short and overly tapered nacelles (they are too close together, too). The the detailing and finish should be uniform over the whole ship. There is a strong inconsistency between the saucer and the rest of the ship.
As an alternate timeline ship, it isn't too bad, it just doesn't look quite right. Those of us who appreciate the design aesthetic of Trek for the past 40 some years seem to be the ones who dislike this design the most. And it isn't surprising when two of the biggest projects the designer of this Enterprise has on his resume are Star Wars II and Star Wars III. He is versed in a different design aesthetic. And if my assumption is right and Abrams is playing in an alternate timeline, that is a very good thing to set it apart and make the Trek world seem familiar yet alien to Trek fans. We'll see when the movie comes out. If that is that case I will certainly pay to see it. If the little plot leak turns out to be incorrect and Abrams has rewritten the timeline, then I won't be paying to see it. I'll wait for it to be on cable.
The Kelvin on the other hand, has the gritty detailing that provides a direct design lineage connection between NX-01 and TOS. Quite different from this Enterprise.
I doubt it, and if there are they'll be the usual amateurish stuff - believe me, people can not do on their desktops work that even approaches the quality of what's being done for this movie (or for that matter, just about any movie with a decent CG budget).
Someone with a great talent, working diligently for a long, long time can improve the effects in a TOS episode on their own, as Professor Moriarity has. Replace the effects in a movie like Trek XI? No effing way.
Building a mesh of a spaceship is one thing, credibly putting it into an environment and animating it to match what ILM can do - and doing that for the amount of time and with the complexity of shots involved in this movie - is beyond impossible.
So far, there hasn't been a fan-designed mesh that I'd rather see in this movie than the design they're using. Of the ones I've seen, Vektor's and MadKoifish's are the best by many miles. I don't like Gabe's version at all. He's a fine artist, but there's just nothing appealing to me about this particular model.
I thought the first still image of the new NCC-1701 looked a little dodgy. That said, there's not a moment in the trailer where it doesn't look just right - better than right, really, as the design of the shots themselves are dynamic and enormous improvements over the space effects of previous Trek movies. And ultimately these things aren't designed for us to admire in blueprints or photos or to build models of; they've designed to look the best they possibly can in the context of the movie they're designed for. The "Abramsprise" accomplishes that just fine.
It seems you are sadly mis-informed about the level of CG animation that can be achieved with a pc. While a great many fans do not have the time to achieve professional level results, it is not from a lack of software, computer power, or talent. Their are forums out there devoted to animation. The detail they can achieve is astounding. Koerner himself has created animated clips of his rendition of the Enterprise that are higher quality than most Trek has ever seen. I would predict that someone will replace the effects shots in this movie with ones of a more TOS design and it will look like ILM did it. I've seen what can be done and it is impressive. It is not beyond impossible. It is completely achievable.
Last edited:
There are a lot of things that you can say about Dennis ("Polaris" here), both positive and negative, but one thing's for certain... he's undeniably a considerably-better-than-average CGI guy...
It's certainly possible to achieve the sort of results you're talking about, but it's impractically time-consuming, both from the standpoint of the person doing the work (or rather, in terms of man-hours of work... a place like ILM with hundreds of artists will always trump a single operator, not matter how skilled, for that reason alone), and from the rendering-resources standpoint (very few individuals, at home, have render-farms running hundreds of independent rendering nodes).
If you choose to do a few such things on your own home hardware, it's a massive undertaking. But technically, you're correct, it's POSSIBLE. Just like it's possible to belly-crawl over a 10-mile long field of broken glass. All things being equal, I'd prefer to avoid either of the two.
I refused to vote until I understood why this ship was so radically different from what I know the 1701 is supposed to look like. I could not accept it as that ship because it wasn't that ship and I now know, based on recent interviews, it isn't supposed to be that ship.
Its role is not to try and convince me it is the Classic 1701 simply spruced up to reflect modern times. It is a totally different ship and as such I can now view and judge it on its OWN merits without memories of how the Classic Ship should look intruding on my thoughts.
So without further ado, yes I do like it. (vote #299 for YES) I welcome it into my home and heart to sit among a whole row of other ships of the same registry proudly present there.
Its role is not to try and convince me it is the Classic 1701 simply spruced up to reflect modern times. It is a totally different ship and as such I can now view and judge it on its OWN merits without memories of how the Classic Ship should look intruding on my thoughts.
So without further ado, yes I do like it. (vote #299 for YES) I welcome it into my home and heart to sit among a whole row of other ships of the same registry proudly present there.
Doesn't look radicaly different in anyway to me. Aren't all those Enterprises supposed to have a frisbee with tubes on it? 
I doubt it, and if there are they'll be the usual amateurish stuff - believe me, people can not do on their desktops work that even approaches the quality of what's being done for this movie (or for that matter, just about any movie with a decent CG budget).
Someone with a great talent, working diligently for a long, long time can improve the effects in a TOS episode on their own, as Professor Moriarity has. Replace the effects in a movie like Trek XI? No effing way.
Building a mesh of a spaceship is one thing, credibly putting it into an environment and animating it to match what ILM can do - and doing that for the amount of time and with the complexity of shots involved in this movie - is beyond impossible.
So far, there hasn't been a fan-designed mesh that I'd rather see in this movie than the design they're using. Of the ones I've seen, Vektor's and MadKoifish's are the best by many miles. I don't like Gabe's version at all. He's a fine artist, but there's just nothing appealing to me about this particular model.
I thought the first still image of the new NCC-1701 looked a little dodgy. That said, there's not a moment in the trailer where it doesn't look just right - better than right, really, as the design of the shots themselves are dynamic and enormous improvements over the space effects of previous Trek movies. And ultimately these things aren't designed for us to admire in blueprints or photos or to build models of; they've designed to look the best they possibly can in the context of the movie they're designed for. The "Abramsprise" accomplishes that just fine.
It seems you are sadly mis-informed about the level of CG animation that can be achieved with a pc. While a great many fans do not have the time to achieve professional level results, it is not from a lack of software, computer power, or talent. Their are forums out there devoted to animation. The detail they can achieve is astounding. Koerner himself has created animated clips of his rendition of the Enterprise that are higher quality than most Trek has ever seen. I would predict that someone will replace the effects shots in this movie with ones of a more TOS design and it will look like ILM did it. I've seen what can be done and it is impressive. It is not beyond impossible. It is completely achievable.
True!
Look at Vektor's work creating CGI Enterprises from scratch with little more than a basic desktop PC or Mac. Ships that are better in many cases than some the professional digital f/x firms put in some TREK series episodes.
No, it's not. Not even in the ball park.
Building a good mesh, even animating it well is very very far from being able to duplicate the range or volume of work necessary to deliver effects on a par with a commercial film like "Star Trek" or even "Transformers."
Do you imagine that the studios would pay what they do for this work if they could hire talented individuals to do it on PCs at home (it's not like there's any effective unionization of CG animators)?
I would say no until i see more of the ship.
Looks good to me.
And if JJ changed nothing, he be castigated as cowardly and unoriginal.
Not true. Not at all.
Star Trek fans have only ever made up about a steady ten percent of any ST movie's audience. Admittedly, that figure can be obscured by the fans who return for multiple viewings, but DVD has lessened the need for multiple viewings.
Collectors of tie-in literature only make up about one percent of the audience. Diehard completist collectors are a percentage of that one percent.
Similar threads
