Sigh. And so it begins.
I clearly stated that everyone has a right to an opinion, so I'm not denigrating, or trying to make anyone look bad--some of you do an excellent job of that for yourselves. Is it beyond your comprehension
that, in 1969, or 1979, something that looked "futuristic" and new and bold
would not be able to present itself in that same way to a paying, movie-going audience in 2009?. Does the new Batmobile look like a customised
car from the mid-sixties, with silly tail fins and as long as a city block?
No--a modern audience would quite properly snicker and say what a silly, outdated, throwback it was and it would jar and remove the viewer from his movie-going experience and be a distraction. Personally, I do not want
that to happen with an audience watching any future Trek--and, understandably, neither do the people who are financing the new movie. I love the old Enterprise, but I don't see the harm in making her look a little more sleek and believable for a modern, sophisticated audience. The new design is not a turd, or crap, or any of the ugly terms you used to inflict your irrational hatred--IN MY OPINION. You can and do have your own opinion. Where is the fault, the foul? That I simply disagree?
Except for that annoying problem that the 60s Batmobile was made for comedy, a campy, totally silly, and ridiculous design. It was ridiculous in 60s and they did so DELIBERATEDLY. The Enterprise in contrast, was a serious design, and it still is; especially considering that the design of Starfleet ships in between hasn't changed much if any. The same basic things that made the original Enterprise look amazing, futuristic, and almost alien (rightly so) in design, is what made all subsequent ships and Enterprise do exactly that.
You can see from the model's made by fans how a faithful update makes the Enterprise looks every bit as amazing now, as it did when it first appeared on tv screens back in the day.
Instead, we get this missmatched abortion of a ship. It looks like they had a saucer of one ship left over, the neck of another, the engineering hull of a third, and somewhat new nacelles and then cobbled the thing together best they could. There is nothing in that ship that looks even remotely like a functional single design, and even if it did, it is ugly as hell to boot. Tiny, crunched together, with a seemingly puked out deflector dish as an afterthought, there is not a single bit of it that even remotely looks majestic - and indeed sleek; this turd is not sleek, not even close - as the Enterprise should.
In fact, the only thing that would allow me to look at that ship as functional; is if the original Enterprise is restored as an altered timeline is restored, and they deliberately made this new ship ugly as hell to highlight just how amazing the original ship really is. That way it would have a function.
Oh, god no, not this again. You see, unlike you, I actually understand exactly what technological advances have and have not been made in the past 40 years. You see, those cell phones, are piles of primitive junk. They wouldn't even allow you to speak to someone on the other side of a small town if there weren't a shitload of relay booster antennas in between. The communicators of Star Trek however, are fully self-contained subspace FTL transmitters that allow one to talk to a ship in orbit of a planet and even a good bit away from that with absolutely nothing in between.
And if audiences are too stupid to realize this, it probably should have to point that out to them in the movie - which is embarrassing, really. Once again we see how bad education really is.
Not to mention; even more embarrassing that simple fantasy movies like Star Wars get away without having to give Jedi Knights cool Jedi cell phones but still "stay current", but Star Trek that had more advanced technology ten years in advance of Star Wars, must turn their communicators into "cool cell phones, for the hip crowd."
When an artist creates a new painting, he actually creates a NEW painting. He doesn't "reimagine", "reboot" or "remake" his own creations. Nor does any artist later have the audacity to remake another artist's creation, like say, the Mona Lisa, give her eye shadow, thick lipstick, Gillian Anderson's face and blond hair, and claim it needed to be done to keep it "current" with the audience.
Oh, I don't know, because I actually want to be able to enjoy new GOOD Star Trek, that looks GOOD, and not more crap that gets dumped upon the old shows, and have it tarnish the original and get the reputation of the new crap.
No, actually, it cannot do whatever the hell it wants. A WARP drive actually has to WARP space and time, or else it's not a WARP drive. This isn't rocket science folks, it's simple language. A WARP drive has to WARP. If it doesn't WARP it's not a WARP drive.
Ah, yes, I see. 40 years of television history, technical manuals, and 14 years of an actual scientific mathematical theory, that's constantly being worked on, refined and discussed, but a few "rebooters" know better, and turn the warp drive into an impulse drive.
Or in other words; meaningless fantasy junk.
I'm so
But not really.
I've talked about that one when it first came out as well:
ANOTHER time travel story?
Like we didn't have enough of those already; 2 friggin' movies, and episode after episode. Couldn't they have come up with something... oh, I don't know... DIFFERENT? Something NEW? Something with... CHANGE?
And that never would have looked convincing on the big screen.
That's because that's a toy, but eh.
Let me show you a redesign, that keeps the original ship basically intact, and suffers no such trouble (as it's not a toy):
[Hotlinked images removed]
