Starship size does matter...

[Crazy Eddie]

Essentially he was bashing Star Trek for doing exactly the kinds of things he ended up doing in his movie.

Abrams' comments on Trek were completely different from YOUR complaints about Trek. His was a matter of stylistic choice, certain elements that seemed hokey by modern standards but would nonetheless have to be upgraded and alluded to in a new version. "Starships fighting at too close a range" isn't one of them, since Abrams is a filmmaker and not a science fiction magazine columnist. "Starships having windows where there shouldn't be any" also isn't one of his complaints.

But Given that JJ Abrams is the director of a multi-million dollar film production and you are just some guy spewing vitriol on a message board, I think it's a safe bet to trust his opinion more than yours.

Ah, yes, him having more money means my opinion doesn't count.

Not exactly. His having more of PARAMOUNT's money means your opinion doesn't count. When its your turn to sit in the director's seat, you can do it any way you want. Until then, the best you've got is fanon. So sit down somewhere, write your own story that corrects all of Abrams' mistakes, get Pocket books to PUBLISH that story (or at least write a halfway decent fanfic), and then you can come back here and say "Abrams did okay, but I did it better."

 

[Disillusioned]

Abrams' comments on Trek were completely different from YOUR complaints about Trek.

Actually the irony is that some of them were the same, but he then went on to do the exact same things anyway.

His was a matter of stylistic choice, certain elements that seemed hokey by modern standards but would nonetheless have to be upgraded and alluded to in a new version.

Using newer things that are still hokey and stupid. Awesome.

"Starships fighting at too close a range" isn't one of them, since Abrams is a filmmaker and not a science fiction magazine columnist. "Starships having windows where there shouldn't be any" also isn't one of his complaints.

So? Am I not allowed to have additional complaints just because Abrams didn't have them?

Not exactly. His having more of PARAMOUNT's money means your opinion doesn't count.

No it doesn't.

When its your turn to sit in the director's seat, you can do it any way you want. Until then, the best you've got is fanon. So sit down somewhere, write your own story that corrects all of Abrams' mistakes, get Pocket books to PUBLISH that story (or at least write a halfway decent fanfic), and then you can come back here and say "Abrams did okay, but I did it better."

That's one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen in defense of this movie.

 

[Immolatus]

it would have been so easy for spock to tell nu-spock "your enterprise is so much bigger than mine, XXX meters larger."

 

[Crazy Eddie]

WHARGARBL

There's a discussion about football and then there's armchair quarterbacking; complaining endlessly how much your own team sucks USUALLY counts as the latter.

You are certainly entitled to dislike Star Trek as much as the rest of the general population. It's just a little weird to act as if the reason you dislike it is because the creative team behind the show didn't accommodate your personal beliefs on how the show should be. If you think you can do better, then go and make your own Star Trek and come back and show us what an awesome writer/filmmaker you are.

 

[Disillusioned]

There's a discussion about football and then there's armchair quarterbacking; complaining endlessly how much your own team sucks USUALLY counts as the latter.

You are certainly entitled to dislike Star Trek as much as the rest of the general population. It's just a little weird to act as if the reason you dislike it is because the creative team behind the show didn't accommodate your personal beliefs on how the show should be. If you think you can do better, then go and make your own Star Trek and come back and show us what an awesome writer/filmmaker you are.

So failing an actual argument against anything I've said, you made one that doesn't make any sense at all and think you've somehow won the argument. Huh.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

There's a discussion about football and then there's armchair quarterbacking; complaining endlessly how much your own team sucks USUALLY counts as the latter.

You are certainly entitled to dislike Star Trek as much as the rest of the general population. It's just a little weird to act as if the reason you dislike it is because the creative team behind the show didn't accommodate your personal beliefs on how the show should be. If you think you can do better, then go and make your own Star Trek and come back and show us what an awesome writer/filmmaker you are.

So failing an actual argument against anything I've said

To be perfectly honest, I've completely lost interest in anything you have to say anymore, since you are far less interested in the actual movie than you are in your own sense of personal indignation that the movie wasn't what you wanted it to be. It's like arguing with a five year old over why he won't eat broccoli.

The only difference here is Star Trek is a form of art and entertainment. If you are so turned off by stylistic minutia like the ship being "too big" or a damn window on the bridge that you can no longer enjoy it for what it is, you should probably stop watching it. Otherwise, the design elements worked perfectly for the purpose they were intended to serve, and the objections you raised are objections of personal style and your own non-expert opinion on what is and isn't possible in the 23rd century. A thousand apologies if I am no longer prepared to take those objections seriously.

 

[Shaw]

Windows were added over Jefferies objections in the second week of November 1964 (and Jefferies had to answer to at least three other people on production issues), the scale of the window in Pike's room is fine considering that it was closed

How does closing a window make it smaller? Or bigger? Or... what?

Anyway, I don't remember completely the original version except that the window was on a curved wall that was implied to be either the dome under the bridge (unlikely considering the hallway outside) or somewhere in the secondary hull (a bit more likely considering the hugeness of the room). Either position would still make the Cage Enterprise considerably smaller than the final version.

The windows in Kirk's room were a problem and were eventually covered over because of it.

I figured, since by then they had revised the scale of the ship to be larger than before and the windows didn't fit anymore. You'll notice they did the exact same thing in STXI, with those "communications stations" in the corridor parked in front of ovoid and circular features that were almost certainly meant to be saucer rim windows; they no longer fit the upscaled version, so star fields were omitted and they were left as featureless white lights.

Wow... in forty-five years no one before you has ever brought any of that up!

Amazing!!! Simply AMAZING!!!

Too bad there isn't someone with the actual set plans who has work with the actual measurements and has done detailed plans of both filming models. Such a person would sure be helpful at a time like this where you have brought this new insight to the subject.









Or you could review any number of discussions where all this has been covered before by people who care enough to know what they are talking about.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

<incoherent sarcasm>

Since it is entirely obvious you didn't read even half of my post, I will save myself the trouble of pretending you have a point to make.

 

[Disillusioned]

To be perfectly honest, I've completely lost interest in anything you have to say anymore, since you are far less interested in the actual movie than you are in your own sense of personal indignation that the movie wasn't what you wanted it to be.

You're right in that I'm not interested in the movie, but you're completely wrong in my motivations. Honestly if this movie had been awesome, I'd be all for it, but the movie I saw clearly sucked. I've even gone into my reasons for thinking that it sucks, but whatever.

It's like arguing with a five year old over why he won't eat broccoli.

Again, whatever. If you don't want to continue the debate, you're welcome not to, but that doesn't mean you need to be insulting about it.

The only difference here is Star Trek is a form of art and entertainment. If you are so turned off by stylistic minutia like the ship being "too big" or a damn window on the bridge that you can no longer enjoy it for what it is, you should probably stop watching it.

You're right in that I'm turned off bu the stylistic minutia, but you're wrong about that being the only reason this movie sucks. That just happens to be the nerdy thing I'm arguing about in this particular thread, and it's hardly a reason to stop watching Star Trek. That's a definite case of "does not follow," sorry.

Otherwise, the design elements worked perfectly for the purpose they were intended to serve, and the objections you raised are objections of personal style and your own non-expert opinion on what is and isn't possible in the 23rd century.

It's ironic you should mention that because it's really just your "non-expert" opinion that leads you to think this movie was good and that the design elements worked for it. Really everything argued here is going to be a matter of opinion for the most part because tastes vary from person to person.

A thousand apologies if I am no longer prepared to take those objections seriously.

Like I said, you're always welcome to not participate in discussion here. Apparently you're getting something out of it, though, because you keep posting here.

 

[Shaw]

... I will save myself the trouble of pretending you have a point to make.

Good choice!

 

[Disillusioned]

That post, combined with your avatar are perfect.

 

[Nightfall to-Ennien]

That post, combined with your avatar are perfect.

Quoted for truth and Great Justice! I was trying to read this over morning tea, and I've had to wipe down my keyboard.

 

[M'Sharak]

All this business about whether a window on the bridge is a good idea or not spun off of a post which talked about using the perceived size of the window (and a slice of the bridge area seen within) as a yardstick for determining the ship's size.

Isn't it kind of weird how conversations can shoot off on a tangent like that?

You know, sometimes the smartass comeback just isn't the right answer.

While I acknowledge that threads evolve, three or four posts each on a side topic before returning to the main one is shooting off on a tangent. Dragging a thread off-topic for close to a hundred posts is derailment (you're not supposed to do this, by the way) and since my all-but-ignored post, there hasn't even been much pretense of it being about the window -- the last twenty or so posts have been more back-and-forth sniping than anything else. I think we're done here.