The way a thing looks is highly subjective, particularly with regard to true size in a non-orthographic two-dimensional image, so I'm not sure you can generalise your personal impression of the Enterprise's alleged hugeness to the assumed impression of the populace.
Perhaps. But subjectivity is overrated; the properties of an image (and elements in such an image) do more to indicate relative size then any subjective ideas do. This is true for all sorts of design decisions. Subjectivity is only a very small part of the eventual result.
Since I struggle to maintain my composure, and respect for the integrity of another person, when they consciously make a drive-by bash of TMP in my presence, you'll have to forgive any acerbity, but . . .
"drive-by bash of TMP"? That's a good joke.
You do realize I was simply using that movie as an example, with the logic that on a Star Trek forum such as this it is one movie of which I can be sure most of you have seen?
1) It's the Enterprise. Think about that for a second.
2) "Stretching a scene" / "rubber band" = FALLACIOUS STRAWMAN
3) Many action films (to say nothing of hard Science Fiction films) have had beauty shots and more tempered editing than STXI, unless J.J. Abrams' is now the standard by which all others are judged.
1) Yes. Your point being?
2) I have no idea what that means.
3) Star Trek has never been (or tried to be) hard science fiction, so that comparison is useless. Furthermore, the pacing of movies has been stepped up in the later years, as the pacing of movies and series have always been evolving over the years. Many people I know can't stand the favorites of our youth; the expectations in quality and pacing are now different. Not only that, but the pacing of the Star Trek movie is hardly all that fast, compared to competitors like the last Transformers or District 9.
I debated with myself as to whether to even write "on the ground" or not (since I knew someone would probably jump right on it, as you did). My more salient point was about the Enterprise being built in the grounds of something resembling a modern-day industrial complex, of which being built *on* the ground is a subset. This is what I meant by desecration. The presence of concrete chimney stacks, metal girders, transformer boxes, construction cranes and other conspicuous mid-late 20th Century, pre-futuristic details makes for a willfully anachronistic environment. Rather than a stirring vision of the future, which has been a key feature of ST since its inception, and, in many ways, is its defining attribute, Abrams has presented us with a moribund wasteland. It would almost be a chimerical re-imagining of ST were it not so vulgar in its lack of imagination and its horribly debasing effect upon, if not to say outright dismissal of, the spirit of ST itself.
"Desecration" is a word I'd use when the grave of a family member is destroyed or otherwise touched by someone of ill intent. Not when the choices someone made when directing a movie do not agree with my personal vision for how it should have been.
Not only that, but the "spirit of Star Trek" is
highly debatable.
I do agree in that some elements of the movie did not look as futuristic as I'd hoped. I like futuristic depictions, personally. But the more futuristic you make such things, the more "fake" they become. Our vision of the future is always both in the wrong direction and highly overblown compared to the actual future. This can be seen again and again if you look at people's ideas of the "future" in the past. In that spirit, using such "industrial" and "primitive" elements in the movie seems to make it more grounded and realistic, while retaining the futuristic element. It's supposed to depict the 24th century after all, not the 51st. At least, I think that was the intent.
Perhaps all the industrial/primitive elements can be seen as a reflection of how the future really is; an evolution, not a revolution. Personally, I love a wonderful future where any poverty, hunger, violence and crime has been abolished, where everyone is healthy and everyone can do exactly what they want to do in life. But then again, perhaps that's more "fantasy" then "scifi". It's also centuries away from us, the way the world is. Perhaps even impossible.
The problem, for me, is the tacit ease with which the shot was obviously accomplished. That's not to say it took no effort or no application of thought and skill, but simply to say that I see this dispassionate ease embodied by the shot itself, which carries over to the Enterprise, making it seem plain and ordinary and relatively hum-drum, since the Enterprise is both a product of this visual transcription of thought and will and exists within a shot composed of the same measure. This, for me, is symbolic of the whole.
I understand your viewpoint. And on the one hand, I agree. I'm not a Star Trek fan for nothing; I've always adored the white lady. However, on the other hand, to these people the Enterprise
is plain and ordinary. They've been making starships for a while now, and the Enterprise, while new, is no different. And to us, it shouldn't be either; we're used to spaceships by now, being Star Trek fans 'n all.
The plainer, the better -- for the Enterprise has never been a monumental accomplishment, I think. It's an ordinary starship, that goes on to do and explore extraordinary things.
