ST-One
Vice Admiral
Do I?
Some comments around here would suggest that a few would indeed want to use the same designs again - just with more details.
Have those who disliked the Abramsprise finally accepted design?
- Thread starter Chrisisall
- Start date
- Status
Do I?
Some comments around here would suggest that a few would indeed want to use the same designs again - just with more details.
Re: Have those who disliked the Abramsprise finally accepted the desig
The only thing I didn't like about Trek XI at first was the interior of the Enterprise, but I grew accustomed to it after I saw the ship had a lot of the original sound FX on it and the acting capabilities of the new crew. It made the movie really interesting.
Yes or no will do unless you feel the need to wax positive or negative.
The only thing I didn't like about Trek XI at first was the interior of the Enterprise, but I grew accustomed to it after I saw the ship had a lot of the original sound FX on it and the acting capabilities of the new crew. It made the movie really interesting.
When the first still was released, i didnt know what the frak had had slapped me in the face, but it had five fingers and was the size of a 5ft 2" bespecticaled mans hand.
Besides that, i had my likes and dislikes like the next person. The neck, the saucer sitting back that far on it. The Bull Dogs penis, the massively massive nacelles etc etc. I can go on and on.
Overall, i wasnt that impressed that all those millions of dollars had gone into creating the 'thing' that i saw. It was hideous, top heavy and just plain ugly. But, when it was onscreen and moving gracefully in its environment, it looked great. It was obviously designed to look great when moving and tuning and in certain camera angles, but as a stationary object, it sucks.
From a design point of view though, i can see lots of faults, especially if they wanted emulate the TOS Enterprise. It was kind of "Picasso'd" and in a way spoofed, there was no real effort to honour the source design from TOS. But why should they, its an alternate timeline, things have changed. and while at the same time as creating something 'new' for the 'Alternate Timeline' they also kept certain aspects intact, and it kinda worked and when the alternate timeline was used to explain the whole shebang of a movie, i accepted that it wasnt 'our' TOS Enterprise, but a new one for the new timeline. Big deal.
Yeah, it looks crappy and wasnt what i was expecting, but i cant do anything about it, its what we got and thats that.
And to answer the initial question, yeah, its grown on me, and will do even more in glorious BluRay on a 42 inch LCD screen on the.
Besides that, i had my likes and dislikes like the next person. The neck, the saucer sitting back that far on it. The Bull Dogs penis, the massively massive nacelles etc etc. I can go on and on.
Overall, i wasnt that impressed that all those millions of dollars had gone into creating the 'thing' that i saw. It was hideous, top heavy and just plain ugly. But, when it was onscreen and moving gracefully in its environment, it looked great. It was obviously designed to look great when moving and tuning and in certain camera angles, but as a stationary object, it sucks.
From a design point of view though, i can see lots of faults, especially if they wanted emulate the TOS Enterprise. It was kind of "Picasso'd" and in a way spoofed, there was no real effort to honour the source design from TOS. But why should they, its an alternate timeline, things have changed. and while at the same time as creating something 'new' for the 'Alternate Timeline' they also kept certain aspects intact, and it kinda worked and when the alternate timeline was used to explain the whole shebang of a movie, i accepted that it wasnt 'our' TOS Enterprise, but a new one for the new timeline. Big deal.
Yeah, it looks crappy and wasnt what i was expecting, but i cant do anything about it, its what we got and thats that.
And to answer the initial question, yeah, its grown on me, and will do even more in glorious BluRay on a 42 inch LCD screen on the.
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
why what is it about the Abramsprise that you really hate
That question has been answered, like, five billion times in this thread. And what is it about the Abramsprise that you have to question everybody, anyway?
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
Ok
Recognizability is just brand identification and/or nostalgia. There's nothing in Star Trek more recognizable than a rerun, but not alot of people are going to pay $8 to watch a digitally remastered version of "The Cage." Even when you rehash something familiar, people want to see something new. That's a huge reason why remakes exist.
Why climb a mountain that somebody else has already climbed?
Because it's fun!
Star Trek isn't the past. Star Trek is the future. The past they're revisiting is the past of its fans, and WE are the ones doing the exploring.
Disillusioned
Commander
Then they're stupid because they were trying to have it both ways. You can make the "but it's popular" argument, but that doesn't change the fact it's stupid to do TOS, but not do TOS.
Yeah, this movie.
Yes, because everything must be exactly the same as it was in the 1960s, or completely redesigned. Except that what even started this was that I pointed out that some fans have managed to update the design without completely redesigning it.
So? It also takes place later in the timeline and not supposedly at the same time.
The ironic part is that this actually happened.
And most of that has to do with Hollywood being afraid to do anything actually new because of the risk involved. Which is also why a lot of people complain about remakes. Like I said, if you want to do something new, do something that's actually new. If you want to do TOS, actually do TOS, don't ruin it.
And the mountain is exactly the same each time. The mountain is not redesigned for new audiences in order to make it "new" and "exciting." It just is.
That doesn't make any sense given the context or our conversation. This is about the show, and how the movie doesn't have anything in common with it except names, and how completely pointless it is to claim to be doing a TOS movie and then not do a TOS movie.
If hollywood projects were conceived and driven by accountants, you would have a point. Film, however, is a director's medium; creativity trumps marketability more often than not, and alot of filmmakers have found that there is great potential in revisiting and polishing old stories with some previously unexplored aspects or implications. There are smart and stupid ways to do this, and a simple rehashing isn't usually very successful.
In the end, though, the main test of whether their creative choice was wise or not is whether the AUDIENCE approves of the end product. In the case of STXI, the numbers tell the whole story: whatever you think of TOS, moviegoing audiences LOVED the new film, and its impending DVD release will probably reveal this even more clearly.
Not if you take a different path than the last person who climbed it. Hell, not even if you take a different path from the last time YOU climbed it.
And the style. And the premise. And the characters. And the dynamics between those characters...
Other than that, what did any of the other 10 Star Trek movies have in common?
And that's about the right level of "revision" for the ship for a movie portrayal, too. Just "clean up the presentation" but not change the core artwork.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.
Nobody wants the same model, ripped out of the Smithsonian and shot on film stock.
LOTS of people want the same DESIGN. What's being discussed is problematic. Some folks will argue against the TOS ship by putting up a crappy AMT kit with primary-color paint and pretend that proves that the ship design doesn't work.
No such thing is the case, of course.
A proper presentation, on ANY design, can look like it's "real." Or like it's a cheap hack-job.
So, the argument has ZERO to do with "60s versus today" in terms of design style. It only has to do with "quality of presentation." THAT'S ALL.
I think that you could, very easily, put the TOS design... which, if slightly out-of-focus would be indistinguishable from what was seen on TV in the late 60s... onto a big screen and have it be utterly and completely convincing as a real vessel. You wouldn't do that with the model hanging in the Smithsonian, however... you'd do it with something new. Probably with a very-high definition CGI model, and there would be a level of detail present that would show up if you got very, very close, which was never visible (and could not have been seen) on a 1960s color TV.
That's what everyone is talking about, I think. The problem is that people keep getting confused in their language. "Design" and "Presentation" are NOT the same things.
I know this'll bring out the old straw-man trope of "dude, you @#$*ing moron, you don't know Star Trek isn't real." I don't care, I'll put it out anyway, because the only people who come back with that response are those who feel that their position is threatened by the strength of the point.
Consider a modern naval vessel. Something large. I don't care... but for the sake of argument, let's say that new cruise liner launched a few days ago. Now, suppose you don't have access to the real ship, but do have access to the design, and you want to do a film which involves that ship.
You could do a model of that ship, sufficient for 1960s color TV work. You could do a "hidef TV" version. Or a full movie-quality version. You could do whatever "polish level" you need to serve the needs of your medium, and whatever "polish level" your resources (tools, time, money) permit. But in NO CASE would it be exactly like the real ship. It would be an approximation, sufficiently close to "look right" in the medium. But there would be a real ship out there which would always be "more accurate."
Now... pretend that there's a real USS Enterprise. (I can already hear the smart-ass types trying, with limited success, to hold back their desire to latch onto that and start mocking, can't you?)
The model used in the 1960s TV show would be one level of presentation, but not necessarily a perfect presentation thereof... which only the "real" ship would truly be.
What many, many of us wanted was to see a "higher resolution, higher quality" presentation of the same design. And we still do.
But I don't think its fair to judge this design based off of what you wanted. Its not the TOS Enterprise, it is a different design for a different movie. And yes, I know you can say, well they are trying to sell it as the TOS Enterprise...but they aren't. This is a new take on Trek, so I look at it without connection to the old. If you want to critique the design on its own merits, fine, but I don't think its fair to the design, or the people who worked on it, to attack it JUST because its not the original ship, or different from the original ship.
Luckily they ruined absolutely nothing and in fact brought the franchise back from the dead and in a bigger way than every before!
So by this "logic," is "Mirror, Mirror" only half a TOS episode? Or is "Yesterday's Enterprise" not a TNG episode? Odd.
Actually, based on a few comments I have read around, this is exactly what some want.
Yes, perhaps if this was 1969 that would be okay. They didn't even want the ship for "The Motion Picture" and rightfully so.
Many, many, many. How many exactly? I'm interested in this official number.
Right....
Disillusioned
Commander
Wrong. Movies don't get made unless a person or a company puts up the money for it to get done. There have been a lot of creative visions ruined thanks to executive meddling from the people responsible for funding movies. Production and distribution companies tend to fear anything new because that entails more risk on their part to not make their money back plus whatever profit they're hoping to make. As a result, we get remakes, and what movies are "new" are often pitched as, "it's like X, but Y." So you're entirely right, I do have a point.
The way they did it was a stupid way to do it then. You can argue against a supposed rehash of something that hasn't actually been seen before yet (as in an actual origin story for the crew), but considering the audience, that wouldn't have been a bad idea. Half of them would love nothing else than to see TOS on the big screen. The other half wouldn't know any better and would just be looking for a good movie. There's no reason keeping this an actual TOS movie couldn't have fit the bill for both halves.Financial success does not signify quality. Plenty of bad movies have done well financially and plenty of good movies did horribly in the box office.
And yet it's still the same mountain. This movie is more analogous to going to a different mountain altogether.
All those things are different from the originals in this movie.
A hell of a lot more than this movie had with any of them. Even in "The Final Frontier" at least the character dynamic is largely the same. And before you say it, this shallow as hell parody of TOS might be better than STV, but that isn't saying much because the plots of both movies don't make all that much sense.
Except they did.
The franchise was never really dead until this movie came along. Even now it still survives in its fans. And we've gone all of 4 years since the last time there was Star Trek on the air. TOS fans had to wait pretty much a decade until TMP came along.
No, not really. TMP was plenty big when it came out. It was plenty popular too for a while until the novelty wore out. And this movie is a lot more shallow and contrived.and in a bigger way than every before!
No, it followed the characters from the "prime" universe and was entirely about their return back to their proper universe.
Ironic that you should bring this up since this is an example of how the entire point of episodes like this were to get everything back to the way they were supposed to be. This movie does the opposite of that.
I have yet to see any.
Not really. They could have simply done a more detailed version of the Jeffries design back then, or even just had the Probert design already as the 1701-A, but they didn't and it's bothered people like me ever since. Of course that means your point is entirely moot.
If you want to be that way then you should hold yourself to the same standard. Who are these people who want everything to look exactly the same as it did in the '60s? Not that I actually expect you to know since I know it's just your perception of who you think are critics of this movie and entirely your opinion, but if you want to be that way then it's a two-way street.
A
Amaris
Guest
It's a no win situation.
If it's popular and makes a lot of money, then it's just shallow and people saw it for the whiz bang factor. It's not real Star Trek. People only saw it because it was "cool" and people only rave about it because it's popular. You've got no way around that kind of "reasoning".
J.
Disillusioned
Commander
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.
Rough guess, probably about 4 of them, which I would name as TMP, TWoK, TVH, and TUC.
A
Amaris
Guest
So they're good films, but somehow Star Trek XI is not, even in such auspicious company?
How does that one work?
J.
Disillusioned
Commander
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.
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.- Status
Similar threads
