Have those who disliked the Abramsprise finally accepted design?

[Amaris]

Were TMP and TVH good? Were they? Personally I only like 2 of those 4, and you can probably guess which ones. As for how that works, I didn't bring up critical acclaim to justify my opinion, you did, and in the process you suggested that somehow all of the previous 10 movies sucked.

No, actually I didn't suggest the previous 10 movies sucked, unless I said "Hey look, Star Trek XI was successful, which means the previous ten movies sucked". Pro Trek XI does not mean anti-everything else. This isn't a black and white, either/or situation. If you didn't enjoy the movie, hey, you didn't enjoy the movie. Doesn't mean the previous ten were great. If you did enjoy the movie, you enjoyed the movie. Doesn't mean the previous ten were terrible.

J.

 

[Disillusioned]

It's just that the question "what other Star Trek can say that?" comes off as saying they aren't worthy of critical acclaim. Apologies if I misinterpreted, but that's the way it came off.

 

[ST-One]

What many, many of us wanted was to see a "higher resolution, higher quality" presentation of the same design. And we still do.

Your presentation of this 1960s design is really very nice and works quite well in its original setting.

The Church (Ryan that is) version is much more fitting for the 2009 movie than the original could ever have been.

 

[Amaris]

It's just that the question "what other Star Trek can say that?" comes off as saying they aren't worthy of critical acclaim. Apologies if I misinterpreted, but that's the way it came off.

I didn't pose that question.


J.

 

[JarodRussell]

The Church (Ryan that is) version is much more fitting for the 2009 movie than the original could ever have been.

Which looked like this at one stage (probably well before the director's input, so this is probably the real Ryan Church version).

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5044/dsc02405o.jpg

And that's what it should have been. And it would have worked. And you know that.

 

[Shazam!]

Nah, that's still completely horrible. It's too... busy. What'd going on with those nacelles?

The whole thing is the design equivalent of go faster stripes.

 

[ST-One]

The Church (Ryan that is) version is much more fitting for the 2009 movie than the original could ever have been.

Which looked like this at one stage (probably well before the director's input, so this is probably the real Ryan Church version).

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5044/dsc02405o.jpg

And that's what it should have been. And it would have worked. And you know that.

And what we got is a blend of that first and that second concept sketch.
And it works. Pretty well.

 

[Tom Servo]

This argument I don't get. Yes, plenty of bad movies make lots of money, but this film, in addition to that, was one of, if not the best reviewed film of the year, but critics and movie going polls.

Considering how shallow a lot of critics are, that isn't saying a whole lot. How many critics started of with the qualifier that "I don't really watch sci-fi..." when reviewing BSG? So the argument that this movie was somehow good because the same kind of people who would go see pretty much any action movie whether it was sci-fi or not doesn't really mean a whole lot to me. I've also seen plenty of good movies that never made any money and were considered to be bombs. The same goes for TV series. Does Fox sabotaging "Firefly" so it got canceled after only a dozen episodes mean "Firefly" was bad? Of course not.

How many other Star Trek films can say that?

Rough guess, probably about 4 of them, which I would name as TMP, TWoK, TVH, and TUC.

Well the movie cannot win in your case then. You didn't like it, which was perfectly acceptable, thats your right. Every time someone brings up a criteria for which films are judged however, you dismiss it away with some an excuse about why they are wrong, and the film still sucks.

I mean some of the few ways to judge movies is the BO results, and the reaction of critics and the public. If most of the public and critics enjoyed and praised a film, it is generally considered at least a decent film. And while opinions change over the years, thats how a film is judged, in the public eye. Star Trek passed that test with flying colors.

My insinuation was not that the other films sucked at all, they didn't. But, this film was the one that the casual movie going public, and many Trek fans could enjoy, and that was the reason it worked.

 

[sandalwood]

The original Enterprise is weird. I mean the engine part of the ship is just boring straight lines from the little support beams that hold up the engines to the engines themselves. Compared to the rest of the ship with subtle curves it looks odd.

I think the engines on the new one are way more interesting. Adding curves to them (although I think it could have been done in a more subtle way) really made them fit in with the rest of the ship instead of stick out.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Actually, based on a few comments I have read around, this is exactly what some want.

Please provide references to some of those comments, then, because I have never seen anyone suggest that. I've seen it pulled out as a straw-man by people wanting to mock other people... pretending that someone said that when they never did... and in the very way I was discussing, where "design" and "presentation" are treated as the same thing by the arguer (even though that is an absolutely false argument).

Yes, perhaps if this was 1969 that would be okay.

The year is irrelevant. Per my earlier argument, the design of an aircraft carrier design which was in service in 1969 and is still in service today would not involve wholesale redesign of every element of the ship. Only certain minimal changes... replacement of weapons systems, target-acquisition systems, comms systems, etc. The hull shape would not be entirely revamped.

The year isn't really relevant to the design, if you're talking about functional design. Unfortunately, some folks seem to think that everything is about "looking cool." These folks generally don't know anything about what's under the hood of their own car, much less anything more complicated than that, though so I tend to dismiss their attempts to comment on technology (even fictional technology).

They didn't even want the ship for "The Motion Picture" and rightfully so.

"They" didn't? Who is this vague "they" you keep referring to? Please name specific decision-makers.

As far as I'm aware, the decision to change the Enterprise design was one made by Roddenberry. He wanted something dramatically different, in fact... and he hired Ralph McQuarrie to do a new Enterprise design. The studio (the "money men") who are the ultimate decision-makers didn't care for that and pushed Roddenberry back towards the TOS design. He still didn't want to keep the TOS design (as much as anything, because of his personal power-struggles for "complete control and complete credit" with Matt Jefferies and, more significantly, with Franz Joseph). So he gave us an "almost entirely new Enterprise." But the script acknowledged that... time had passed and the ship had been rebuilt, so this was never supposed to be "the same ship." He placated the studio people who wanted the original ship, while still tossing out the folks who were heavily invested in the TOS stuff.

He tossed out McQuarrie's stuff and pulled Mike Minor in, who did what was being asked for. Minor's work then got revised, tweaked, and eventually got handed over to Andrew Probert.

Fortunately, he got a talented guy like Andrew to work on the ship and who was able to make it "work." The only problem I have with the TMP ship design is with the nacelles, which I've never liked... and those weren't Probert's work, after all.

What many, many of us wanted was to see a "higher resolution, higher quality" presentation of the same design. And we still do.

Many, many, many. How many exactly? I'm interested in this official number.

Nice try. I don't seem to recall ever stating that there was an "official number." You're making that up in an attempt to deceive anyone coming into the conversation late.

If I had intended to say "68.92348%" that's what I would have said, wouldn't I have? I didn't say that, however... all I said was "many, many." Which is true. I'm also sure it's true that there are "many, many" people like you who hate the original design and want to use smart-ass, snarky "argument" approaches to try to tweak anyone who likes it, because such people enjoy making others uncomfortable.

You might want to read the topic of this thread again. Then re-read the thread. In this thread alone, there are quite a few people who've stated exactly what I've said. Maybe you think that those who've posted that are the sum total of all people on the planet who feel that way, and that every single man, woman and child who didn't post that in this thread are "on your side." Somehow, though, I doubt it.

Right....

"Right" what? "Right, that's totally awesome, I love it" or "Right, that looks like elephant dung, I hate it?"

Despite your apparent belief that we should all be able to read your thoughts, and despite your illogical, hostile argumentation I've seen throughout this thread, I'm still not willing to "assume" what you really mean. You need to actually say what you mean. Of course, that means having to take a stand and not being able to hide behind "hey, that's not what I said" if called on it. Hopefully, that's not a problem, though...

 

[ST-One]

The year is irrelevant. Per my earlier argument, the design of an aircraft carrier design which was in service in 1969 and is still in service today would not involve wholesale redesign of every element of the ship. Only certain minimal changes... replacement of weapons systems, target-acquisition systems, comms systems, etc. The hull shape would not be entirely revamped.

No, the year of the design is not irrelevant at all.
While an aircraft carrier might still look roughly like they looked in the 60s, our views of how the future may look like have changed dramatically.
What looked new and futuristic 40 years ago just doesn't look so futuristic today anymore.
And that includes Matt Jefferies design for the original Enterprise.

 

[QuasarVM]

I didn't like the first still image they released, but yeah...I've come to like the ship. It looked great in the movie...

 

[Cary L. Brown]

While an aircraft carrier might still look roughly like they looked in the 60s, our views of how the future may look like have changed dramatically.

"Our Views?" Whose views are you referring to?

"Our Views" have most certainly not changed. This isn't a uniform "everyone agrees" issue. It is a matter of personal taste, and personal style. And let's be frank here, the ST-09 Enterprise is more consistent (in terms of sweeping curvy shapes and so forth) with Flash Gordon design than with ST-TOS design... which predates ST-TOS, of course.

Even Abrams' instruction to the art team was to make it look like a 1950s "hot rod" car.

You may feel that this is a better style, but it's by no means a "more modern" style.

What looked new and futuristic 40 years ago just doesn't look so futuristic today anymore.
And that includes Matt Jefferies design for the original Enterprise.

See, that's exactly the point. It "doesn't look so futuristic" to YOU. And clearly to some others as well. And that's perfectly fine - we're all permitted to have our own perspectives.

If you were to say, every time you make that point, that you don't feel that it's futuristic, and that the new one is, we'd be talking about the real issue - personal, subjective taste. The problem arises when some folks (and yes, on both sides) attempt to portray their SUBJECTIVE OPINION on the design as somehow being an OBJECTIVE MEASURE of the design.

As critical as I've been of the design of the ST'09 ship, I've always made it clear that I'm discussing my SUBJECTIVE OPINION. The only place that I've raised an OBJECTIVE issue with the design was with the curved engine pylons (which every mechanical engineer knows is perhaps the worst possible structure for mechanical strength).

I have, and will continue, to argue that these supposedly "factual" statements that the TOS design is somehow outdated are in no way "factual, objective measures" at all. They are subjective opinions, with no data or fact of any kind to back them up. It's OK to hold those opinions... and to disagree about them. Let's just keep it in perspective.

When you say "It would not hold up" or "audiences would not accept it" you are portraying your opinion as though it's fact. It is not. Only hard, measured data supporting that would make such a statement remotely valid.

You believe that the original design "would not hold up" and that "audiences would not accept it" because it's "outdated." I don't believe that. NEITHER OF US HAS DATA TO SUPPORT OUR POSITION, except for personal anecdotal evidence.

But as a general rule, an "authoritative statement" which is made (in this case, "the old design would not work") is the one which is subject to demands of proof. You can't simply make an authoritative statement and then demand that anyone who disagrees with your statement needs to provide hard proof of the opposing point of view, or must concede that the "authoritative statement" must be accepted.

 

[Gepard]

[While an aircraft carrier might still look roughly like they looked in the 60s, our views of how the future may look like have changed dramatically.
What looked new and futuristic 40 years ago just doesn't look so futuristic today anymore.
And that includes Matt Jefferies design for the original Enterprise.

This.

Why is it that the most anti-reboot folks are the ones who seem to forget that Trek is a hypothetical future and thus subject to the fashions of the decade that produces it?* Despite what others have said elsewhere, it's not equivalent to redesigning a WWII airplane so modern audiences will accept it. It's all fake. It never happened. There's a good reason that the visual design of classic Trek (along with every other sci-fi production from the '60s and '70s, with the possible exception of 2001) is considered zeerust.

*I think that just answered my own question.

 

[ST-One]

While an aircraft carrier might still look roughly like they looked in the 60s, our views of how the future may look like have changed dramatically.

"Our Views?" Whose views are you referring to?

Those of society, mainstream if you will.

"Our Views" have most certainly not changed.

Yes, they have.
Or why is it they don't built, say, cars they way they did 30 years ago?
Or why our ideal of beauty isn't the same as Rubens' anymore?

This isn't a uniform "everyone agrees" issue. It is a matter of personal taste, and personal style.

True.
Individual tastes do vary.
Still, I maintain that our views, tastes, preferences have generally changed since the mid 1960s.

And let's be frank here, the ST-09 Enterprise is more consistent (in terms of sweeping curvy shapes and so forth) with Flash Gordon design than with ST-TOS design... which predates ST-TOS, of course.

Still, it looks more modern than the TOS Enterprise.

Even Abrams' instruction to the art team was to make it look like a 1950s "hot rod" car.
You may feel that this is a better style, but it's by no means a "more modern" style.

Well, those style elements as a whole combined into the new Enterprise certainly do look more modern. You cannot argue that away.

See, that's exactly the point. It "doesn't look so futuristic" to YOU. And clearly to some others as well.

Yes, because it practically screams 1960s.

The only place that I've raised an OBJECTIVE issue with the design was with the curved engine pylons (which every mechanical engineer knows is perhaps the worst possible structure for mechanical strength).

Yes, because all those mechanical engineer have designed and built a 700 metres long, FTL starship in reality.

I have, and will continue, to argue that these supposedly "factual" statements that the TOS design is somehow outdated are in no way "factual, objective measures" at all.

Yes, they are.

When you say "It would not hold up" or "audiences would not accept it" you are portraying your opinion as though it's fact. It is not. Only hard, measured data supporting that would make such a statement remotely valid.

You believe that the original design "would not hold up" and that "audiences would not accept it" because it's "outdated." I don't believe that. NEITHER OF US HAS DATA TO SUPPORT OUR POSITION, except for personal anecdotal evidence.

It's outdated simply by the fact that it's been around for over 40 years.
People want something new, something fresh, something that reflects the visions of the future we have now and the ones we had 40 years ago. (Where is my flying car, by the way?)

But as a general rule, an "authoritative statement" which is made (in this case, "the old design would not work") is the one which is subject to demands of proof. You can't simply make an authoritative statement and then demand that anyone who disagrees with your statement needs to provide hard proof of the opposing point of view, or must concede that the "authoritative statement" must be accepted.

Show me a new design from this decade that depicts a futuristic vehicle (ship, car, train, starship, air plane) that looks or incorporates the original Enterprise's design guidelines and I concede the point.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Summing all of the below up, in one sentence: "What I believe, what my personal tastes are, is how the universe is defined. My personal opinion defines reality for everyone else."

You are equating your personal taste to "mainstream," or "society as a whole." To which the only valid response it "justify that with data, or admit that this is an unsupportable claim."

While an aircraft carrier might still look roughly like they looked in the 60s, our views of how the future may look like have changed dramatically.

"Our Views?" Whose views are you referring to?

Those of society, mainstream if you will.



Yes, they have.
Or why is it they don't built, say, cars they way they did 30 years ago?
Or why our ideal of beauty isn't the same as Rubens' anymore?



True.
Individual tastes do vary.
Still, I maintain that our views, tastes, preferences have generally changed since the mid 1960s.



Still, it looks more modern than the TOS Enterprise.



Well, those style elements as a whole combined into the new Enterprise certainly do look more modern. You cannot argue that away.



Yes, because it practically screams 1960s.



Yes, because all those mechanical engineer have designed and built a 700 metres long, FTL starship in reality.



Yes, they are.

When you say "It would not hold up" or "audiences would not accept it" you are portraying your opinion as though it's fact. It is not. Only hard, measured data supporting that would make such a statement remotely valid.

You believe that the original design "would not hold up" and that "audiences would not accept it" because it's "outdated." I don't believe that. NEITHER OF US HAS DATA TO SUPPORT OUR POSITION, except for personal anecdotal evidence.

It's outdated simply by the fact that it's been around for over 40 years.
People want something new, something fresh, something that reflects the visions of the future we have now and the ones we had 40 years ago. (Where is my flying car, by the way?)

But as a general rule, an "authoritative statement" which is made (in this case, "the old design would not work") is the one which is subject to demands of proof. You can't simply make an authoritative statement and then demand that anyone who disagrees with your statement needs to provide hard proof of the opposing point of view, or must concede that the "authoritative statement" must be accepted.

Show me a new design from this decade that depicts a futuristic vehicle (ship, car, train, starship, air plane) that looks or incorporates the original Enterprise's design guidelines and I concede the point.

 

[ST-One]

So, no modern futuristic design that proves your point that a 1960s futuristic design can still called 'futuristic' without looking dated?

 

[THE CHEBB]

Yes, I like it - except for the brewery engine room....

 

[Cary L. Brown]

So, no modern futuristic design that proves your point that a 1960s futuristic design can still called 'futuristic' without looking dated?

You're trying to change the conversation to one of "My fact versus your fact" while my claim is that NEITHER IS FACT. BOTH ARE OPINION.

You can try to "pull" me onto a field that I disagree with, but you can't actually DO that. I don't have to prove a point which I'm not even making in order for your point not to be treated as anything other than unassailable fact.

That IS a rather slick debating "trick," but it's not a "good" one. To me, winning an argument means addressing the point made by the other side, not trying to "confuse the issue."

You like the newer version. TO YOU, the newer version is "more modern." To ME, the newer version is just "different" and no more "modern" than the original design. We have different opinions.

That you want to argue as though your opinion is "fact" is where we differ here. Your opinion is your opinion, and while you are entitled to have and hold any opinion you choose, that's not the same as allowing you to pretend that your personal opinion somehow constitutes "fact."

 

[Disillusioned]

Which looked like this at one stage (probably well before the director's input, so this is probably the real Ryan Church version).

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5044/dsc02405o.jpg

And that's what it should have been. And it would have worked. And you know that.

No, it's still just an ugly parody.

Well the movie cannot win in your case then.

Not as it is, no.

You didn't like it, which was perfectly acceptable, thats your right. Every time someone brings up a criteria for which films are judged however, you dismiss it away with some an excuse about why they are wrong, and the film still sucks.

That's because so far the only arguments have been appeals to how popular the movie is supposed to be, which isn't a sign of quality at all. After all TMP was pretty popular too when it came out, but when the novelty wore out most people realized it was kind of boring.

My insinuation was not that the other films sucked at all, they didn't. But, this film was the one that the casual movie going public, and many Trek fans could enjoy, and that was the reason it worked.

And movies like TWoK managed to do that without changing everything but the names.

[While an aircraft carrier might still look roughly like they looked in the 60s, our views of how the future may look like have changed dramatically.
What looked new and futuristic 40 years ago just doesn't look so futuristic today anymore.
And that includes Matt Jefferies design for the original Enterprise.

What, so making it look '50s retro-futuristic is somehow an improvement on that then? Come on, that argument about the ship's design has never made sense given what it actually looks like.