Enterprise Pic

[trevanian]

RAMA said:

trevanian said:

ST-One said:

trevanian said:
The Enterprise in this pic looks like concept art, or a frame from an animatic. l honest to Christ can't figure out why concept art-level work has got so many people excited. If this is actually a final, then it says something about how little visual credibility means to filmgoers. (Unless maybe it looks better in motion? Guess I'll look for the trailer in a couple days and see what the high rez version plays like. Expectation is now low enough that I probably won't spit at the monitor.)

Now, after seeing the HD-teaser, do you still say this looks like an animatic?

I thought the still looked like concept art and wondered if in motion it would look like an animatic; in motion, this looks like a mediocre fx shot more than it looks like an animatic. I guess that is an improvement, but not much IMO.

As usual, I got no clue what you folks are happy about visually. But hey, this is like the Daniel Craig/Casino Royale thing; folks can lap that up all they want, while I will be happy with FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE and LICENCE TO KILL. I'll be content with pre-tampered-with TOS eps and TMP and TWOK and TFF.

It look like this teaser had footage filmed JUST for the teaser....but its movie quality FX nevertheless.

"Tampered" with?? How ridiculous...that would assume that TOS, and the original movies had been edited, which they have not. Think with your head....its been 40 years, and we just won't get the same actors in the roles or the same designs. There are few alternatives...if fans want the franchise alive, we'll get a remake, reboot, whatever you want to call it!

And Casino Royale was the best Bond movie in many years!

RAMA

Perhaps I should have specified ... when I said "tampered with" I was referring to the TOS-R stuff. If you don't consider that to be tampering, that's certainly your right, but don't expect me to follow your line of reasoning, such as it is.

I don't need this 'franchise alive' thing either. As much as I wish there were more FIREFLY or CARNIVALE, I'm happy with what I got, and I treasure that.

Regarding CR ... If killing spies for their cell phones is the height of plotting, it makes you wonder how things were done back in the day when you MEMORIZED important phone numbers ... gee, y'know, they probably still do that rather than put the vital info in the celphone!

 

[trevanian]

ST-One said:

trevanian said:
If you hold to those as high standards, then this stuff isn't even comparable.

Then, please, explain why 'this stuff' isn't comparable.

Clarity, definition, full tonal range ... there's pretty much no basis on which to compare this murky trailer image with most ship shots in EVENT HORIZON.

In fact, if you try comparing it to something else done in a murky environment, say BLADE RUNNER ... I think you'll find this entirely lacking.

I don't know how else to explain it to you ... it'd be like showing somebody a scene from one of these overly monochromatic horror movies that look like they were shot through a pair of sunglasses (y'know, that CHAINSAW remake look) and hearing from them that it was a lot more beautiful than any shot in BUTCH CASSIDY. I don't know the kind of thought that goes into a perception like that, and I doubt I can explain anything to a person with those perceptions.

 

[ST-One]

trevanian said:

ST-One said:

trevanian said:
If you hold to those as high standards, then this stuff isn't even comparable.

Then, please, explain why 'this stuff' isn't comparable.

Clarity, definition, full tonal range ... there's pretty much no basis on which to compare this murky trailer image with most ship shots in EVENT HORIZON.

In fact, if you try comparing it to something else done in a murky environment, say BLADE RUNNER ... I think you'll find this entirely lacking.

I know both these films (I own them on DVD) but cannot agree with you.

 

[trevanian]

That's okay, clearly we're looking at things differently.

 

[Holytomato]

"Kirk : Scotty, Let's see if this baby will go warp 12 !

~ Go Greased Lighting, Go Grease Lightning ~"

The saran wrap in the movie was a condom joke in the stageplay.

"Kirk: "Say, Scotty, how about...:waggle eyebrows:"

Scott: " No."

Hey bunny, who tampered with my tricks?

Hi. I'm Old Holytomato from p. 123. Geez...

 

[ST-One]

trevanian said:
That's okay, clearly we're looking at things differently.

Yes. One of us is (trying to be) objective...
You are not...

 

[JBElliott]

EliyahuQeoni said:
I'm still bit baffled that people are getting so hung up on welders in the trailer. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees...

It's not the welding per se, it's what the welding represents. That is welding represents a 20th and 21rst century level of technology while the movie is set in the 23rd century where things like welding would be antique at best. Welding shows a lack of imagination and a reliance on what's been done so many times before. The same goes for the "aztecking" or panelled look. It's old had and makes the ships look more like something our of the present and less like something out of the future.

 

[JBElliott]

BenRoethig said:
Techniques have changed, but the one thread that remains is that it is built where access is easy for the workers. You don't see too many ships built in the middle of the ocean. Likewise, doing a scratch build from in zero G vacuum environment would be very difficult and probably take considerably more time and effort than one that has its hull sections built on earth and then is assembled in space. A space build would require a lot of EVAs and while times may change, human endurance doesn't.

Access for workers would be trivial for a civilization with transporters.

The same goes for a "scratch build from in zero G vacuum environment." Using the energy (E) from the same power source that makes warp drive possible, the transporter could beam into existence all the mass (m) needed for the entire ship in a single pass (E=mc^2) making sure that every detail of the ship was perfect, or at least was exactly how it was designed down to the quantum level (a la Heisenberg compencators).

With the above method no EVAs by humans would be required.

 

[trevanian]

ST-One said:

trevanian said:
That's okay, clearly we're looking at things differently.

Yes. One of us is (trying to be) objective...
You are not...

So much for a conciliatory gesture ... well, that's used up all my goodwill for the year.

 

[Woulfe]

Holytomato said:
"Kirk : Scotty, Let's see if this baby will go warp 12 !

~ Go Greased Lighting, Go Grease Lightning ~"

The saran wrap in the movie was a condom joke in the stageplay.

"Kirk: "Say, Scotty, how about...:waggle eyebrows:"

Scott: " No."

Hey bunny, who tampered with my tricks?

Hi. I'm Old Holytomato from p. 123. Geez...

Condom joke ?

I'll never view that film in the same light ever again !

- W -
* Shakes his head sadly *

 

[FlyingTigress]

the_wildcard said:

jon1701 said:
Bigger Version

[image]http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h314/mancjonno/star-trek-uss-enterprise-full.jpg[/image]

I like the look of the engines.

I second that!

Well, most of your ordinary engines only go up to [Warp] 10. But ours go up to "11"

/The Spinal Tap Corps of Engineers

 

[ST-One]

JBElliott said:

EliyahuQeoni said:
I'm still bit baffled that people are getting so hung up on welders in the trailer. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees...

It's not the welding per se, it's what the welding represents. That is welding represents a 20th and 21rst century level of technology while the movie is set in the 23rd century where things like welding would be antique at best. Welding shows a lack of imagination and a reliance on what's been done so many times before. The same goes for the "aztecking" or panelled look. It's old had and makes the ships look more like something our of the present and less like something out of the future.

How was the 23rd century?

 

[evilalienbraga]

Cary L. Brown said:

InstantKarma said:

Arlo said:
From the few visual cues I can see, I have a feeling this design will *really* piss off the purists.

Good riddance.

Um, guys... is it REALLY NECESSARY to start getting nasty here?

This is ENTERTAINMENT, not "Holy Scripture." You're allowed to disagree, or to pick and choose what you like and don't like. And it's INSANE to rip into people over it.

Yet I'm seeing people here going into full-bore "nasty attacks" mode... WITHOUT ANYONE HAVING EVEN SAID ANYTHING TO ATTACK IN THE FIRST PLACE.

"Pre-emptive strikes," is that the idea?

-Gold medal with extra gold to you, Cary. I've always been struck here by the amount of posters who seem, not to want to share their opinion about Trek, or state positives in response to those who moan, but rather are looking for *any* excuse to lay into those they feel are (presumably) obsessives, geeks/nerds etc.

I appreciate these posters (not being specific about anyone here) want to prove 'yes I like Star Trek but I'm also a cool guy with a hot girlfriend, a nice job and an ace car - not like those NERDS who normally like Trek' - but there's better ways of going about it than looking to instantly attack those who may express criticisms, or anally retentive symptoms.

For what it's worth - I got into Star Trek because I did like the continuity of the series, 'canon' has some appeal for me. Still, as long as the new film sticks to the progressive ideals of Trek, and doesn't get too dark, then it should be good.

To me the ship looks like the Ent-A - which is fine by me as I like the design of that ship. It seems like this may make it a reboot though - oh well. The fact it seems to be being built on a planet seems slightly baffling to me. Surely it's easier to build it in space? And wouldn't it look more cinematic being built in space? I realise it's been done before so many times and maybe it being built planet-side is an attempt to make it stand out from other previous 'construction' sequences - but it's just a bit of a rubbish idea. Shouldn't they be using some sort of super-space laser tool rather than sparky welders like my old granddad used) to make a starship as well? ;-)

 

[JBElliott]

Cary L. Brown said:

Why then would one expect the means of construction not also to be completely different?

This is an argument that, you may notice, all the guys who have backgrounds in science and technology are rejecting... but those who are mainly in it for the "entertainment" but don't really get into the science seem to like.

Really? Well, I don't know about the other guys, but my background is that I got my Ph.D. in physics in 1995 and have been gainfully employed in research in basic physics since then. So the statement that "guys who have backgrounds in science and technology are rejecting . . ." is flat out wrong.

As for the rest, this post captures the points I was trying to make.

The difference in appearance, construction materials, construction methods and so on between the most advanced things we have now and Kirk's Enterprise should be many times greater than the differences in all those things between the airplanes of the Wright brothers (debut in the early 1900s) and the stealth fighter (debut in the late 1990s). Surely a 240 year difference should show greater advances than a 90 to 100 year difference.

Technological progress has been exponential during the 20th century and if things like warp drive and transporters are to come into existence (as they have in Star Trek) that exponential rate of change must continue. Thus, the welding in the teaser is woefully antiquated.

 

[JBElliott]

ST-One said:

JBElliott said:

EliyahuQeoni said:
I'm still bit baffled that people are getting so hung up on welders in the trailer. Talk about not being able to see the forest for the trees...

It's not the welding per se, it's what the welding represents. That is welding represents a 20th and 21rst century level of technology while the movie is set in the 23rd century where things like welding would be antique at best. Welding shows a lack of imagination and a reliance on what's been done so many times before. The same goes for the "aztecking" or panelled look. It's old had and makes the ships look more like something our of the present and less like something out of the future.

How was the 23rd century?

It was great. There was this great joke about how many TrekBBS posters it takes to weld in a light bulb. But I guess you had to be there.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

FlyingTigress said:

Well, most of your ordinary engines only go up to [Warp] 10. But ours go up to "11"

/The Spinal Tap Corps of Engineers

In fact, here's a picture of Ship's Engineer Lt. Cmdr. Nigel Tufnel pointing out the warp speed controls for those big engines on ST:XI's Enterprise:

 

[Sharr Khan]

It's old had and makes the ships look more like something our of the present and less like something out of the future.

I love statements like this, since they presume to know the shape of the future. Regretfully the best most reliably gauge for that is taking a glance at the past since the future is always rooted in it.

If scifi is supposed to be extrapolating (if? I'm not sure it does that very well...) then it should be taking its cues from the NOW.

Sharr

 

[ancient]

Are we still going on about the g**damn welders?! Allow me to explain this from the non-fan, non-way-too-much-thought POV:

The ship is under construction: what is the most recognizable way to depict that? Welders. Joe Schmo, the potential consumer, will recognise what is going on with no explanation. They're welding a hull = big ship being built.

The alternative is to use some more advanced, 'realistic' depiction, such as growing the ship with crystals or using some nano-bot thing, which would require ten minutes of geeky documentary exposition for Joe Schmo to understand, at which point he'll have decided three things:

1. Not seeing that bullshit.
2. Must get another chilli-dog.
3. Fondle girlfriend.

Welders are definitly the way to go.

 

[aridas sofia]

Sharr Khan said:

It's old had and makes the ships look more like something our of the present and less like something out of the future.

I love statements like this, since they presume to know the shape of the future. Regretfully the best most reliably gauge for that is taking a glance at the past since the future is always rooted in it.

If scifi is supposed to be extrapolating (if? I'm not sure it does that very well...) then it should be taking its cues from the NOW.

Sharr

Science fiction relies on extrapolation, the process of imagining relatively probable worlds of the future by utilizing logical extensions of scientific and cultural curves and trends.

The fact that you question the role of extrapolation in SF explains why you constantly berate any and every post that asks the film to, you know... look futuristic. To many moviegoers, "looks futuristic" will mean some effort put into logical extrapolation. Will it be "taking its cues from the NOW"? Sure. Just like the airplane took cues from birds.

It's funny how today we laugh at past depictions of the flying future that depicted men flapping wings, isn't it?

 

[Sharr Khan]

It's funny how today we laugh at past depictions of the flying future that depicted men flapping wings, isn't it?

And the "extrapolation" is more often then not off the mark. Since we don't have any flying cars, tubes that we use to teleport with ect. Way back in the 50's futurists were thinking we'd have fully automatic kitchens - I have yet to see that come to be.

What I'm saying is, if our past and present is any indication our future will likely look and feel more like Babylon 5 then Star Trek. There will be familiar methods of doing things.

And I do not "berate any and every post that asks the film to, you know... look futuristic." I do however expect a more grounded functional depiction of the future here. One that joe whomever will think ok that makes sense. Not something Jetsons like with technology overriding the human elements.

Sharr