Have those who disliked the Abramsprise finally accepted design?

[Amaris]

Eh?

Yeah, I think that redoing the Mona Lisa, but with Pamela Anderson in a yellow polka-dot bikini in front of dogs playing poker would be cool. All painted on black velvet! And we can still put it up in a gallery, sell tickets, and tell people they're going to be seeing the Mona Lisa. Enough people enjoy seeing Pamela Anderson in minimal clothing that there'll certainly be some folks happy about it. After all, the original Mona Lisa isn't nearly as "hawt."

And if anyone DOES complain about this not being the original,and about it being a bait-and-switch, well... the original painting isn't "today" enough. Not "hip" enough, not "happening" enough. And if anyone keeps complaining just repeatedly ask "why do you hate women?"

But the Enterprise is NOT the Mona Lisa, nor will it ever be, and I don't understand how one could compare the two.

And the production crew never said this was intended to be a carbon copy of the original Star Trek, but rather an different take on it. Abrams said multiple times that this movie wasn't made for just Trek fans, but for movie fans as well.

Just my opinion, but I think he found a happy medium. For me, as a Trek fan, I love the clean lines of the original Enterprise. However, it is obvious the new ship has been contemporized and quite frankly I think it's sexy as hell. You could bounce a quarter off those nacelles.


J.

 

[M'Sharak]

Since you're German, does G[ö]tz von Berliching[en], Drittes Akt say anything to you?

Fixed that for you.

 

[Devon]

You're absolutely right, they should've made a new ship, with a new name and with a new crew.

Yeah, as going the way they did was obviously a disaster both financially and critically.

 

[StarTrek1701]

Wut no poll????

 

[Sci]

I didn't like the new Enterprise design at first, but I like it a lot more now. I still don't like the nacelles -- they should be smaller and the bussard collectors should be red, not blue. I still would have preferred the original Enterprise design from TOS, but I've grown to like the new one, too.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

You know they actually could have done worse for the desugn of the new Enterprise just look at the ugly piece of crap they okayed for Planet of the Titans: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:PhaseIIenterprise.jpg

which also goes to show you even the guys who made TOS had no problems ditching the TOS design of the Enterprise when they could upgrade it.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

You know they actually could have done worse for the desugn of the new Enterprise just look at the ugly piece of crap they okayed for Planet of the Titans: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:PhaseIIenterprise.jpg

which also goes to show you even the guys who made TOS had no problems ditching the TOS design of the Enterprise when they could upgrade it.

No, this merely shows that Roddenberry didn't want to acknowledge that the work of other people on the production staff could possibly have been more significant than his.

Remember... it was HIS idea to "update" the ship to look like an Imperial Star Destroyer. And it was a mistake, wasn't it?

MJ's original design is still the best. The MJ/Probert redesign for TMP is very nice, too... because (1) it keeps the same general proportions, and (2) it has a higher-quality presentation than the TOS ship. Still, I've never liked the TMP nacelles. I like them better than the Abrams nacelles, though... by orders of magnitude.

 

[Rii]

Yeah, I think that redoing the Mona Lisa, but with Pamela Anderson in a yellow polka-dot bikini in front of dogs playing poker would be cool. All painted on black velvet! And we can still put it up in a gallery, sell tickets, and tell people they're going to be seeing the Mona Lisa. Enough people enjoy seeing Pamela Anderson in minimal clothing that there'll certainly be some folks happy about it. After all, the original Mona Lisa isn't nearly as "hawt."

The Mona Lisa today isn't exactly as she was all those years ago either.

 

[JarodRussell]

You know they actually could have done worse for the desugn of the new Enterprise just look at the ugly piece of crap they okayed for Planet of the Titans: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:PhaseIIenterprise.jpg

which also goes to show you even the guys who made TOS had no problems ditching the TOS design of the Enterprise when they could upgrade it.

No, this merely shows that Roddenberry didn't want to acknowledge that the work of other people on the production staff could possibly have been more significant than his.

Remember... it was HIS idea to "update" the ship to look like an Imperial Star Destroyer. And it was a mistake, wasn't it?

MJ's original design is still the best. The MJ/Probert redesign for TMP is very nice, too... because (1) it keeps the same general proportions, and (2) it has a higher-quality presentation than the TOS ship. Still, I've never liked the TMP nacelles. I like them better than the Abrams nacelles, though... by orders of magnitude.

Roddenberry had nothing to do with it, as far as I know. It was one of many concept designs by Ralph McQuarrie, who also did the concept art for Star Wars.

 

[Disillusioned]

Two beautiful models by two very talented artists, but no, this 60s minimalistic design approach just doesn't fly anymore today.
It didn't work anymore when they redesigned the Enterprise for TMP and doesn't so even more today.

Actually both approaches would work fine, since the major complaint against the original Matt Jeffries design was that it wasn't detailed enough. Well, add some detail to make it look more like the big ship it's supposed to be, and there you go. There was no reason to make it into a '50s retro future parody of itself.

But lets be realistic, times change and so do aesthetic views and expectations.

Again, just detailing up the old design would have worked fine. You aren't going to argue that this has anything to do with modern tastes when the design they came up with looks like something from the '50s.

There is nothing wrong with changing a great design.

Yes there is, because if it's a great design you shouldn't just abandon it on a whim.

If Star Trek survives we will see a new design approach eventually again.

If there's another new design approach it will be just as contrived and stupid.

A better question would be, why not?
Why should we not try to do something new?

Because it's a great design, that's why. If you want to do something new, then do like they did when they made a new spin-off by setting it on a different ship with a different crew.

 

[Shazam!]

Yeah, as going the way they did was obviously a disaster both financially and critically.

Was that due to the design of the ship?

 

[RandyS]

Meh. It is what it is.

I'm fine with it.

 

[TeutonicNights]

I watched it the second time today, after purchasing the DVD.

And... I kinda like it now...what's happened???!!!

It may have to do with the cinema I first watched . The picture was very dark and in most FX shots and the Nerada scenes I couldn't even see what's going on. Maybe I also was in the wrong mood or something.

But for some reason the lens flares bothered me alot more this time...and engineering alot less.
And I suspect the German dub I "enjoyed" in the cinema was pretty bad.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the plot was weak and it could have been MUCH better.
My main beef is still the designs. The Enterprise lookes okay in the shots used, but in a series, they'll better use a different class.
In general, more nods to the original designs would have been better. The turbolift seemed overdone, engineering had way too much anachronistic/cheap-looking crap and lacked a proper center... I didn't like the cadet uniforms and other stuff.
But most of that can be fixed in the next movie. Or not. But for me Star Trek doesn't live again until there is a new series that can't just rely on FX, action and fast-paced plots.

 

[Joker]

The neck is the dealbreaker for me.

Shift it forwards slightly, and it would improve the design considerably.

As it is now, it just looks deformed and unbalanced.

 

[The Castellan]

But for me Star Trek doesn't live again until there is a new series that can't just rely on FX, action and fast-paced plots.

Beat me to it.

And I disliked the engineering section as well.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes there is, because if it's a great design you shouldn't just abandon it on a whim.

A huge part of creative exercise is to try and surpass something that has come before. That the old Enterprise had a good design is universally recognized; the purpose of creating new Star Treks is to try and make an even BETTER design that will grab audiences as well if not more than the original.

Simply repeating what you did right the first time is neither creative, nor is it particularly interesting. If you're going to revisit the past, then do it in a novel and exciting way that challenges audiences to question what they think they know about the past, about themselves, about the future and (in the case of us fans) everything we pretend to know Star Trek.

 

[Devon]

Yeah, as going the way they did was obviously a disaster both financially and critically.

Was that due to the design of the ship?

Was it ever? Hardly.

 

[Disillusioned]

A huge part of creative exercise is to try and surpass something that has come before.

I thought the point of doing a TOS movie was to bank on the recognizability of the original, so what's the use of doing so much different unless you do another spin-off or actually do something new and original?

That the old Enterprise had a good design is universally recognized; the purpose of creating new Star Treks is to try and make an even BETTER design that will grab audiences as well if not more than the original.

Either they were banking on the recognition of the original or they weren't and should have just done something actually new.

Simply repeating what you did right the first time is neither creative, nor is it particularly interesting.

Then why do a TOS movie at all?

If you're going to revisit the past, then do it in a novel and exciting way that challenges audiences to question what they think they know about the past, about themselves, about the future and (in the case of us fans) everything we pretend to know Star Trek.

No, if you're going to explore the past, explore the past. If not, move on to something new. They tried to sell this as a TOS movie, but really it isn't, it's a parody of it.

 

[ST-One]

A huge part of creative exercise is to try and surpass something that has come before.

I thought the point of doing a TOS movie was to bank on the recognizability of the original, so what's the use of doing so much different unless you do another spin-off or actually do something new and original?

They DID bank on the recognizability of TOS, but in the sense of a general feel of action, fun and excitement (which TOS had plenty) and not visually.

That the old Enterprise had a good design is universally recognized; the purpose of creating new Star Treks is to try and make an even BETTER design that will grab audiences as well if not more than the original.

Either they were banking on the recognition of the original or they weren't and should have just done something actually new.

Simply repeating what you did right the first time is neither creative, nor is it particularly interesting.

Then why do a TOS movie at all?

If you're going to revisit the past, then do it in a novel and exciting way that challenges audiences to question what they think they know about the past, about themselves, about the future and (in the case of us fans) everything we pretend to know Star Trek.

No, if you're going to explore the past, explore the past. If not, move on to something new. They tried to sell this as a TOS movie, but really it isn't, it's a parody of it.

You know what would have been a parody?
Trying to sell this film to the audience using designs that are over 40 years old and which (in some cases) just look ridiculous by today's standards.
And that's not trying to bash what they have done in the 60s. It's just the simple recognition that tastes and aesthetics have changed dramatically since the mid 1960s. (Hell, there is next to no design element in TMP that looks like anything in TOS - not even the Enterprise herself -, and that movie was made only 10 years after TOS was cancelled.)

 

[TeutonicNights]

No one wants them to use the exact same designs from the 60's. And you know that.