SPY PHOTOS at AICN

[ancient]

Taking them down is so pointless. If something is on the internet for more than 2 seconds, it can never be killed. There are probably about 100 image accounts getting updated right now...

and I'm on dial-up

Okay. You don't know much about state-of-the-art tech, alright

Hardy fucking har Yah, these buttons just confound the hell out of me.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

The logic in this thread is getting so think that you can cut it with a lirpa.

 

[Vulcan Soul]

Keep in mind that we don't even know what kind of shuttle this is, whom it belongs to, or how old it is supposed to be relative to the setting in which it appears.

Like I said, I can't believe it is a Starfleet shuttle. It kinda reminds me of the shuttle in TNG's "Final Mission"

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

when technology reminds you of something in the past, it *ain't* a good example for convincing sci fi.

I dunno - I liked "Aliens" a lot, and evidently so did lots of people. Fewer folks liked "Firefly," but I sure did. And then there's the new "Battlestar Galactica..."

I liked it too. Doesn't mean you need to turn one into the other, does it.

That wasn't the point you were arguing - no bait-and-switch. Those futuristic examples all work just fine, despite their rather antique motifs.

 

[scotthm]

This looks like the 23rd century equivalent of a local bus that's been in service for decades. Good.

I don't mind the worn paint, scratches, and dirt on the shuttle (in fact, I think it adds character), but it somehow looks less advanced than the stuff in TOS because of all the nuts and bolts you can see holding everything together. I liked the look of TOS where they kept all that stuff hidden. It helped it to look a little less contemporary.

---------------

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They didn't always "keep it hidden" - for example, there are visible screws or bolts holding down all the acrylic "arc" control panels on the TOS bridge (just like the "bus" above). You couldn't see them years ago because of broadcast resolution, but one can often see them now in the DVDs and Remastered episodes.

The graphics on those screens are interesting - pretty much a complete departure in style from modern Trek.

 

[AudioBridge]

[/quote] TOS may be blamed for being "low-cost" and, as a result, "cardboard" - it still was visionary about future technology. If you don't buy it, take another look at your cell phone.[/quote]

An iphone is not necessarily the best way to control a starship. Touchscreens and whatnot work well for certain tasks, but buttons and controls you can feel are often more effective.

Just look at current BMWs. There isn't a single car magazine that hasn't derided their i-drive navigation/radio/everything system. It has made a simple function like changing a radio station a chore that takes away from the whole point of having a BMW - driving. I love my modern cellphone, but I'll take a radio with buttons over a touchscreen and a knob anyday.

If you have a dedicated function then a dedicated button or switch for it is perfect. Bear in mind that the interior of this ship looks pretty beat up. Perhaps it is very old and outdated, or purposely simplistic and/or rugged for Academy training purposes. It does not look as clean or bright as the brief glimpse we got of the Enterprise bridge controls at trekmovie.com a couple months ago.

 

[Vulcan Soul]

I dunno - I liked "Aliens" a lot, and evidently so did lots of people. Fewer folks liked "Firefly," but I sure did. And then there's the new "Battlestar Galactica..."

I liked it too. Doesn't mean you need to turn one into the other, does it.

That wasn't the point you were arguing - no bait-and-switch. Those futuristic examples all work just fine, despite their rather antique motifs.

They were never trying to convey a Utopian futuristic setting with advanced, visionary technology. That is the point. Alien is a scifi horror action flick, set in a dystopian future.

 

[Michael]

Keep in mind that we don't even know what kind of shuttle this is, whom it belongs to, or how old it is supposed to be relative to the setting in which it appears.

Like I said, I can't believe it is a Starfleet shuttle. It kinda reminds me of the shuttle in TNG's "Final Mission"

Which ironically was a Federation shuttle.

 

[Sharr Khan]

^^Gee, what an argument.

Isn't that the only important argument?

Pretty much, since this isn't about "reproducing a historical event" its about making an entertaining movie over all before any other consideration. We'll know how that worked out following the movies premier.

And ah... making "Star Trek functional" isn't turning it into Firefly, though it is grounding it a bit which is long over due. The side effect I think will be placing the focus back onto the humanity of it all.

They were never trying to convey a Utopian futuristic setting with advanced, visionary technology.

I'm not sure that Trek was ever setting out to any of those thing, but for after the fact. Please don't mention cell phones...

And when did utopian become a word for sterile? Can't you have a functional Utopian future? Though I wouldn't label ToS Utopian myself.

Sharr

 

[Vulcan Soul]

This looks like the 23rd century equivalent of a local bus that's been in service for decades. Good.

I don't mind the worn paint, scratches, and dirt on the shuttle (in fact, I think it adds character), but it somehow looks less advanced than the stuff in TOS because of all the nuts and bolts you can see holding everything together. I liked the look of TOS where they kept all that stuff hidden. It helped it to look a little less contemporary.

---------------

You got it. Roddenberry even had the option to have an "industrial" garbage scow as the Enteprise - they chose clean, organic, untarnished surfaces for a reason. This nuts and bolts stuff is so firmly rooted in the present, if not past, that it hardly represents a Utopian vision of centuries of human advancement. Even now we have gadgets with sleek organic surfaces and hardly any protusions or visible "chunks" (think Macbook Air, I-Phone) Now imagine a self-cleaning, dirt-resistant nano surface (scientists are already working on it) - that is futuristic!

 

[Vance]

Looks too 'NuBSG' to me, very Radio Shack in a lot of ways. It's not bad for a science-fiction piece, really, and would fit with Firefly, BSG, and the last wave of sci-fi we've had, but it's not Star Trek.

 

[Vulcan Soul]

Keep in mind that we don't even know what kind of shuttle this is, whom it belongs to, or how old it is supposed to be relative to the setting in which it appears.

Like I said, I can't believe it is a Starfleet shuttle. It kinda reminds me of the shuttle in TNG's "Final Mission"

Which ironically was a Federation shuttle.

AFAIK it wasn't. I'm talking about this one:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Nenebek_shuttlebay.jpg

 

[Sharr Khan]

really, and would fit with Firefly, BSG, and the last wave of sci-fi we've had, but it's not Star Trek.

It is Star Trek now.
See this is part of the franchises trouble its so stuck in a rut of what it should be no one can ever dare to change it which has made it dull in later years.

Sharr

 

[Vance]

It is Star Trek now. See this is part of the franchises trouble its so stuck in a rut of what it should be no one can ever dare to change it which has made it dull in later years.

Then why not ditch the baggage outright and make a new show? If you want to 'ignore all things Trek' to make a new Trek.. why make it Trek at all?

 

[Vulcan Soul]

^^Gee, what an argument.

And ah... making "Star Trek functional" isn't turning it into Firefly, though it is grounding it a bit which is long over due. The side effect I think will be placing the focus back onto the humanity of it all.

I don't even see what is so "functional" and "realistic" about this sort of design, let alone "futuristic". Making things look like dirty, low-tech crap makes it look like a believable advanced piece of technology? It rather strikes me as a poor man's vision, equating "rugged" with "realistic" and "convoluted" with "sophisticated". Seeing our own technological advancements over the past few decades, I'd argue that it is indeed simple, ergonomic and "covering" design that guides the way to the future; technology that does not look like technology anymore.

 

[Michael]

Like I said, I can't believe it is a Starfleet shuttle. It kinda reminds me of the shuttle in TNG's "Final Mission"

Which ironically was a Federation shuttle.

AFAIK it wasn't. I'm talking about this one:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Nenebek_shuttlebay.jpg

It had a Federation registry (NAR-2066).

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Then why not ditch the baggage outright and make a new show? If you want to 'ignore all things Trek' to make a new Trek.. why make it Trek at all?

Because they own "Star Trek."

It's like asking "why publish a novel with Stephen King's name on it when you could ask him to use a pseudonym?"

What "Star Trek" looked like in 1984 wasn't much what it looked like in 1964, and not much like it would look in 1998. This is a bigger departure in some ways - less evolutionary than the "modern Trek" era, and more of a rethinking - but that's what these people are being paid to do: reinvent it.

And yeah, that piece of junk in the TNG episode was a Federation registered shuttle. Just wasn't current Starfleet.

 

[Vulcan Soul]

Which ironically was a Federation shuttle.

AFAIK it wasn't. I'm talking about this one:

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Nenebek_shuttlebay.jpg

It had a Federation registry (NAR-2066).

It still was mining shuttle from some distant borderlands. Which I suspect (hope) is this PoS, too.

Besides, it shows the attempts to "roughen up" Trek and turn it into something else have been going on for a long time; nothing I approve of.

 

[ancient]

OMG, SMURFS DON'T LAY EGGS! I'M TELLING YOU, PAPA SMURF HAS A F***ING BEARD! THEY ARE SO OBVIOUSLY MAMMALS!

Really, I think that there's nothing wrong with there being screws in the control panel. It has the crazy-shaped flatscreen readouts. It's a lot more faithful to the trek style than I thought it would be. Screws = not the end of trek as we know it.