The Improving the JJprise thread

[YARN]

Nothing in my post implies that I believe the surface of a movie ship must be rough.

Ha! And did I say that you said that the surface of a ship must be rough?

Let's go line-by-line...

Legion: You can tell by looking at it - it's too simplistic a design.

Here we have a claim. The TOS Enterprise design would not work on the big screen, because it is too simple.

WWI Ace: You can add a lot of visual interest to it without making huge changes like the TMP redesign or the JJ-Trek ship. Deg and Vektor? have both done it very well on this board.

Here we have a rejoinder. WWI argues that the shape can remain substantively the same with some added detail work. Basically, we can have a simple shape with some nice detail added.

Legion: I like both of their variations. Neither is adequate for a big screen movie. You can add all the detail you want to the thing and the silhouette, the balance of the parts and the overall plainness of it remain.

Here we have the added claim that it is the basic shape that is the problem, not the detail work. If this is the case, then Star Trek and Star Wars should be comparable. SW has highly detailed surface features, but regardless of any such features, a simple overall shape is reason to reject (because detail cannot save you).

WWI Ace: Some of the most iconic scifi ships from the movies are plain shapes from afar. The ISD from Star Wars. The Discovery from 2001. The Death Star. How much more plain can you get than a giant ball?

If you are paying attention to the conversation, WWI Ace is meeting Legion's objection squarely. Legion has argued that surface detail does not matter if the shape is too simple. Ace brings up a very good point. Iconic Star Wars ships have very simple shapes.

It is here that you jumped into the fray.

Comet: The surface of each of these ships (ISD, Discovery, Death Star) is anything but smooth. Making the surface of the TOS Enterprise as jagged as these three ships implies a modification to the design of at least some sort. If you're not talking about making the surface of the TOS Enterprise rough, then a comparison to these three ships is pointless.
If the surface of the TOS Enterprise is rough, then to a purist that's not a "faithful" version of the ship.

What's notable here is that you've missed Legion's concession (and Ace is addressing Legion here) that surface detail doesn't matter, that it is the basic shape that is a deal breaker, regardless of texture. Ace's argument succeeds, because it is aimed at material in Legions commitment store of reasoning and claims.

You're also missing Ace's contention that updated TOS E's strike a nice balance - preserving the heart and soul of the design while making a few changes. He is, in essence, denying that there is any either/or dilemma.

You, however, insist on an either/or dilemma.

You contend that if the TOS shape isn't roughed up, that he cannot compare the two. But yes he can compare the two and he can do so properly. The relevant dimension which is at stake is NOT surface detail, but the simplicity of the shape (Legion has denied the relevance of surface detail in cases where the shape is simple). So let's lay it out again.

ACE: SW ships have a very simple shape.

Legion: Surface detail is not a relevant consideration in cases

Comet's Non-Sequitur: You can't compare the two. Surface detail is a relevant consideration!

I simply observed that a purist's TOS Enterprise has a smooth surface and the ISD et al. have rough surfaces. Therefore, comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. Period.

No, you're argument is apples and oranges. Legion is legislating on (apparently) aesthetic grounds. You, on the other hand, are attempting to legislate on empirical grounds (what a subgroup of fans will accept). Ace responds to Legion's apple and you complain that he is failing to deal with your orange.

Moreover, Ace has argued for a middle ground position between literally shooting the Smithsonian model against a green screen and making a Star Wars "Planet of the Titans" version of the Enterprise. His contention is that the shape can be substantively conserved and that surface detail is a relevant feature (you just don't have to go overboard with it).

As to whether fans would accept it:

*Fans liked seeing the TOS-R Enterprise on the big screen.

*Vektor and deg's designs have been well received by Trek faithful.

*A non-greebled redesign of the Enterprise has succeeded with the faithful on the big screen (TMP E) - a slightly detailed TOS design would be a less radical departure than even the TMP refit.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Nothing in my post implies that I believe the surface of a movie ship must be rough.

Ha! And did I say that you said that the surface of a ship must be rough?

I was addressing a post by WWI Flying Ace, not you.

Let's go line-by-line...

Do whatever you want.

 

[YARN]

I was addressing a post by WWI Flying Ace, not you.

You were responding to my post, so you must've been responding to me at some point...

Do whatever you want.

It's too bad. If you'd read that post you might see how your response to Ace was unjust.

Oh well.

I think the trickiest aspect of the TOS-E is the design of the nacelle struts. That stated, there have been respectful revisionings of the TOS-E which make them more graceful.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What I said is a non-sequitur only if you assume I was trying to speak for Legion. I wasn't. Although I often agree with Legion, I have my own views TYVM.

I believe that if you add the amount of surface detail exemplified by the ISD, Discovery, and DS to the silhouette of the TOS Ent, then you will probably get something which the majority of fans who want the silhouette preserved in the first place would reject. Adding that much detail would also probably inflict second order deviations to the silhouette that the purists would hate. Since a lot depends on the execution, a sweeping and certain proclamation can't be made; it's harder to prove a negative than a positive. But since I believe this is probably the case, I claim an apples to oranges comparison.

We all have opinions, YARN. This is mine. I see you have yours.

[Note: The Death Star gets away with being both a big ball and also interesting because it is huge. Planets and moons are very round, too. But on the scale of the Ent, the surface of the DS is very jagged.]

 

[The Castellan]

I'm rather fond of this one...

Posted that once myself before, good stuff that one is.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Let's go line-by-line...

Do whatever you want.

Really?

Yep, really. I've already said how much I like Deg's ship, so posting links to pictures of it is hardly relevant. It doesn't belong in a new big budget movie, and comparisons between TOS designs and the over-greeblied Star Wars universe ships are ridiculously unobservant.

Needless to say, incompetent wish fulfillment Photoshops of the TOS model shooting at the nuEnterprise add nothing to the discussion. I could do the opposite and do a better job of it, but it would be a waste of life just like the old usenet Kirk/Picard debates.

All of this is a moot point and a settled issue. Church/Chambliss's Enterprise is Kirk's ship now and going forward, until and unless the people who own Star Trek permit the next creative team to change the looks of things even more.

 

[Birdog]

Let's go line-by-line...

Do whatever you want.

Really?

Yep, really. I've already said how much I like Deg's ship, so posting links to pictures of it is hardly relevant. It doesn't belong in a new big budget movie, and comparisons between TOS designs and the over-greeblied Star Wars universe ships are ridiculously unobservant.

Your whole point was that the shape is too simple. I pointed out even simpler shapes from other big screen movies.

At the scale that you can see the whole ship(ISD or Death Star) you really can't see any greebles. They only become in your face when the ship fills the frame. Even then the Death Star is still just a giant ball with a dimple and ring. All you can see is the shape otherwise.

All of this is a moot point and a settled issue. Church/Chambliss's Enterprise is Kirk's ship now and going forward, until and unless the people who own Star Trek permit the next creative team to change the looks of things even more.

Unfortunately, this is true.

 

[YARN]

I thought I could do what I want?

It appears you wish to engage after all...

What I said is a non-sequitur only if you assume I was trying to speak for Legion. I wasn't. Although I often agree with Legion, I have my own views TYVM.

Ace's comments were specifically entwined with Legion's and directed as a response to Legion. He was using premises Legion deployed --- and this is, by necessity, how argument proceeds.

You say you are not speaking for Legion. OK, where do you stand? Would the TOS design, with minor modifications, stand up (i.e., look good) on the big screen or wouldn't it?

So far you've tried to answer the question on grounds of what purists would allegedly allow. This, however, is a purely practical objection that is more of a "dodge." On strictly practical grounds, a dialogue can be shut down before we even reach the relevant point of contention:

EXAMPLE: A public debate on the held on the campus of a university.

Advocate 1 proposes that we change laws in the status quo criminalizing marijuana.

Advocate 2 objects that since the gathered audience has no power to change marijuana laws, the discussion is pointless.

In our case, one might object that the Church design was already selected, so that's what we're going to get (so deal with it!. This is, for instance, most definitely Legion's position.

This stance anti-intellectual (keep your head down and only discuss those matters proper to your station/level of direct influence).

This stance misses the point of discussion boards (this is where we gather to discuss such matters regardless of "real world" change).

This stance is also fatalistic in assuming that discourse cannot change what will be (and yet there have been successful fan-based campaigns).

Finally, your practical objection is not a slam dunk. Purists, for example, were miffed at the refit design initially and now it is one of the most beloved of the Enterprise designs. More importantly, these objections did not stop the design from being used in six films.

I believe that if you add the amount of surface detail exemplified by the ISD, Discovery, and DS to the silhouette of the TOS Ent, then you will probably get something which the majority of fans who want the silhouette preserved in the first place would reject.

The Vektor and deg designs are NOT greebled and I stand by Ace in stating that a slightly modified design like these would work fine on the big screen. Moreover, I think purists, given that they (or enough of them) accepted the TMP design, would also accept the level of Vektor's or deg's modest modifications.

Recall what you said:

Nothing in my post implies that I believe the surface of a movie ship must be rough.

If so, then Ace does not need to claim that a simple shape must be highly greebled. That is, he does not have to imagine the Enterprise (a simple shape) as highly detailed as an ISD from SW.

Adding that much detail would also probably inflict second order deviations to the silhouette that the purists would hate. Since a lot depends on the execution, a sweeping and certain proclamation can't be made; it's harder to prove a negative than a positive. But since I believe this is probably the case, I claim an apples to oranges comparison.

And again, Ace has not advocated for this degree of modification (his dimension of comparison with SW is simplicity). You have explicitly denied claiming that this level of modification is needed for a successful movie ship. Legion has argued that detail doesn't matters since it is simplicity which is the deal-breaker. You're talking about phantom oranges when everyone else is talking about apples.

Indeed, the only way your comments would make sense, the only way in which your comments would be relevant to the discussion would be if you did, in fact, argue that the simple shape of the TOS Enterprise would have to be highly greebled
to look realistic, but that this necessity would draw the eternal ire of purists. This is how you would be leveraging a dilemma for Ace. Otherwise, Ace can shrug at your Orange and keep talking Apples.

We all have opinions, YARN. This is mine. I see you have yours.

Backpedaling again?

If this board is populate with nothing but mere opinions of equal merit/non-merit, then there is no point in reasoned discussion. What matters here is not whether you have an opinion, but how far you can justify a position with reasoned analysis.

[Note: The Death Star gets away with being both a big ball and also interesting because it is huge. Planets and moons are very round, too. But on the scale of the Ent, the surface of the DS is very jagged.]

Wow, let's consider the exceptions to this idea in the very same movies where the DS appears

*The Millennium Falcon (inspired by a hamburger and an olive).

*The Imperial Star Destroyer (wedges in space!)

*Tie Fighter (a golf ball connected to two poker cards captures the essence of this design).

 

[Wingsley]

The 2009 JJprise looks like a distorted TMP-refit Enterprise to me. Just replace the TMP nacelles with marital aids, and you're pretty close.

The various ships and space stations of the TMP era struck me as being manifestations of Star Destroyer envy. That influence seems to reach forward all the way to the 2009 movie. Amazing how STAR WARS wound up having such a profound influence on TREK.

The whole atmosphere of the 2009 reboot struck me as Paramount's bow to Ronald D. Moore's GALACTICA reboot.

Is that the bottom line? Isn't the old saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of television"? I realize that we're talking about movies here, but the ultimate destination of any modern movie is DVD/Blu-ray home theater anyway. Is that what Hollywood is all about now? "Cool Movie XVI: The Return of Badass"? If that's TREK's essence from 2009 forward, it's pretty sad.

I prefer not to think that is the case, despite strong suggestions to the contrary.

The notion that this thread is somehow illegitimate, because anything said here will have no effect on what comes out of the studio anyway, is pretty laughable. What if the next JJ movie features a new Enterprise that looks significantly different than the 2009 JJprise? Are we expected to all genuflect and say "The King is dead. Long live the King!" three times while bowing to Hollywood or something?

The one thing that's wrong with this discussion is that it seems to be deteriorating into a TOS vs. JJprise argument. As I pointed out upthread, there are other possibilities. If the whole point of JJ rebooting the franchise was to start over with an (almost) clean sheet of paper, then maybe the Churchprise should have been a more original design instead of just distorting the old TMPprise.

 

[The Castellan]

Is that the bottom line? Isn't the old saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of television"? I realize that we're talking about movies here, but the ultimate destination of any modern movie is DVD/Blu-ray home theater anyway. Is that what Hollywood is all about now? "Cool Movie XVI: The Return of Badass"? If that's TREK's essence from 2009 forward, it's pretty sad.

I've been saying that for the past 2 and a half years, now.

If this is what Star Trek is going to all be about now, then I'm turning in my proverbial com badge and calling it quits on any future Star Trek made by Paramount.

And your mention of Star Wars is pretty apt, since JJ himself said he's more into Star Wars than Star Trek, and said in an interview, "When making this movie, what can we do that we learned from Star Wars?" And when my friends, all of which are hard core Star Wars buffs, said they disliked anything Trek, apart from the JJ film, I know something's not right. And to me, all JJ was interested in was simply make a 'summer blockbuster popcorn flick', which pretty much often has little to no substance, like with 95% of Michael Bay's films I've seen....and only film of his I liked was "The Rock", and that was mainly for the underlying messages it had.

Personally, if I were in charge of Paramount, I'd find a person who could make a Star Trek film that both devoted Star Trek fans and Joe Sixpack can enjoy. It can be done, it just takes a little something called 'hard work', which probably why all Hollywood these days have to offer are reboots, super heros, awful Jennifer Anniston chick flicks, and cheesy comedies. Just look at the past weekend, the film industry had its worse box office weekend in years. I feel it's because their cookie cutters are finally biting them in the butt.

 

[pengbuzz]

Is that the bottom line? Isn't the old saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of television"? I realize that we're talking about movies here, but the ultimate destination of any modern movie is DVD/Blu-ray home theater anyway. Is that what Hollywood is all about now? "Cool Movie XVI: The Return of Badass"? If that's TREK's essence from 2009 forward, it's pretty sad.

I've been saying that for the past 2 and a half years, now.

If this is what Star Trek is going to all be about now, then I'm turning in my proverbial com badge and calling it quits on any future Star Trek made by Paramount.

And your mention of Star Wars is pretty apt, since JJ himself said he's more into Star Wars than Star Trek, and said in an interview, "When making this movie, what can we do that we learned from Star Wars?" And when my friends, all of which are hard core Star Wars buffs, said they disliked anything Trek, apart from the JJ film, I know something's not right. And to me, all JJ was interested in was simply make a 'summer blockbuster popcorn flick', which pretty much often has little to no substance, like with 95% of Michael Bay's films I've seen....and only film of his I liked was "The Rock", and that was mainly for the underlying messages it had.

Personally, if I were in charge of Paramount, I'd find a person who could make a Star Trek film that both devoted Star Trek fans and Joe Sixpack can enjoy. It can be done, it just takes a little something called 'hard work', which probably why all Hollywood these days have to offer are reboots, super heros, awful Jennifer Anniston chick flicks, and cheesy comedies. Just look at the past weekend, the film industry had its worse box office weekend in years. I feel it's because their cookie cutters are finally biting them in the butt.

AKA: the Death of Innovation.


Wait.... that may not be the right term. Perhaps "The Death of Taking A Chance on Something Original That Makes Sense" is more in order here.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Backpedaling again?

If this board is populate with nothing but mere opinions of equal merit/non-merit, then there is no point in reasoned discussion. What matters here is not whether you have an opinion, but how far you can justify a position with reasoned analysis.

Not true. Not only have I presented my opinion, but in the spirit of participating in edifying discussion, I've also presented some of my reasons for it. However, I certainly don't have to engage you in a way that you find satisfactory.

From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/backpedal:

(idiomatic) To distance oneself from an earlier claim or statement; back off from an idea.

Since I haven't retracted my opinion, accusing me of backpedaling is a non sequitur.

 

[YARN]

Backpedaling again?

If this board is populate with nothing but mere opinions of equal merit/non-merit, then there is no point in reasoned discussion. What matters here is not whether you have an opinion, but how far you can justify a position with reasoned analysis.

Not true. Not only have I presented my opinion, but in the spirit of participating in edifying discussion, I've also presented some of my reasons for it. However, I certainly don't have to engage you in a way that you find satisfactory.

From http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/backpedal:

(idiomatic) To distance oneself from an earlier claim or statement; back off from an idea.

Since I haven't retracted my opinion, accusing me of backpedaling is a non sequitur.

We're getting OT here, so I'll leave off.

 

[Donny]

I got to see her on the big screen a few years ago when they released the Remastered Menagerie in the theater for a week. Was glorious.

I'll bet it was. I'm jealous.

Out of curiosity... ...what do you make of the complaints that the old E simply wouldn't look good on a big screen?

I think that the TOS-E looked great on the big screen. But much of this has to do with my emotional fascination with the ship I grew up watching. And the same could probably ring true to the thousands of other "purists" out there, but from a newcomer standpoint, I understand why the design was revamped for the reboot.

When I originally heard Trek was getting a reboot and that it would go back to the days of Kirk and Co, I was more excited than I can remember. However, when movie stills were slowly released, and I realized that everything I loved about the look of classic Trek was getting thrown out (except for the uniforms, of course), I got a tad depressed. I wanted to see a big screen adventure with the same ship and the same sets with added details, much like Deg's version of the E.

However, years after watching the movie and being "okay" with it as a film, but not as Star Trek, I've come to terms with my disappointment. I realize that the producers of 2009 Trek just did what anyone in their position would do: Make the movie they think others would want to watch by adding their own artistic flair. Did they succeed? Yes. Did they fail? Yes. It all depends on who's watching. The purists versus the masses. And from a financial standpoint, they definitely succeeded.

I don't like the new style and new look, but that's just me. The JJPrise did look impressive on the big screen, but it wasn't the ship that I wanted to see. So I revved up my TOS DVDs when I got home and was satisfied.

Do I think the TOS Connie would look great on the big screen? You bet. But I can understand why others may think differently.

Just my two cents.

 

[Wingsley]

I agree that the "TOS revisited" work that Vektor and deg3D did would not be enough for a modern movie. But let's not forget: ENT was on TV as recently as several years ago. The NX-01 sustained lots of continuity-based criticisms, but it was still basically a de-evolution of the TOS Jefferies design. They didn't need marital aids for nacelles or anything like that. It worked. Despite faults found with ENT, it had its moments and it made it to the end of its fourth year, all in this new millennium. That's still pretty respectable.

I'd say this argument that "you can't just throw a 1960's TV prop onto the Big Screen and expect the audience to buy it" is valid, but oversold. If you wanted to use the same basic design as TOS but make it "work" for the cinema screen, you would need to do more than Vektor or deg3D, but you don't have to seriously alter the design. I think you would have to do something a little different with the front-end nacelle caps. The whirring lights and the cap arrangement itself might need some work, but not a significantly different shape. Vektor had some good ideas with subtle changes to the nacelle lines, but I would try out some different FX for the lighting inside the cap. deg3D was really onto something with the aft nacelle cap. It makes the nacelles look hollow, almost like you can envision high-energy machinery inside with the light peeking out those openings in the rear cowl. Vektor did a great job updating the saucer; I'd say the lower vortex and the upper structures would need a little more detail and work. The rest looks fine. Maybe just a little more hull detail. So maybe if you took some of the things Vektor did and combined them with some of the things deg3d did, and developed it a little further, you'd be in the neighborhood. YMMV.

That's if the script were to call for essentially the same kind of ship seen in TOS.

The bridge in the 2009 movie, combined with other concerns about the ship's size and the nature of that movie, seemed to suggest something different would be in order. As I stated upthread, a distorted TMPprise concept would automatically be a target for derision, and for good reason. If you're going to reboot, then reboot. Show us something even more different from the TOSprise than the TNGprise was. Show us something new.

It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish with the immediate story and the creative direction of the franchise (assuming there is one).

 

[YARN]

The Enterprise is a fantasy shape with fantasy technology, so it is not like the real world is dictating what it should look like. Arguments about updating the design are a bit silly. Update a fantasy shape from a fantasy world? There is no external criterion by which we could "update" it.

EX: The Millennium Falcon is designed with a cockpit lifted from WWII bombers; it was retro even back in '77, but I've never heard anyone complain that you couldn't put the Falcon on the screen again.

The Enterprise, like the Faclon, is iconic. It is a classic shape that even casual sci-fi fans admire and recognize.

What matters is that when you see the thing on screen it looks like a genuinely massive object that exists in space. The lights should not look like disguised Christmas tree lights. The ship should not look like a plastic model or a CGI-cartoon. Could a modified TOS E be rendered to fit the bill? Yes, I think so.

 

[The Castellan]

Of course, and Star Wars fans WANTED to see the Falcon on in the prequels, with all their CGI goodness. I think the original Enterprise can be done the same way.

 

[The Castellan]

I agree that the "TOS revisited" work that Vektor and deg3D did would not be enough for a modern movie. But let's not forget: ENT was on TV as recently as several years ago. The NX-01 sustained lots of continuity-based criticisms, but it was still basically a de-evolution of the TOS Jefferies design. They didn't need marital aids for nacelles or anything like that. It worked. Despite faults found with ENT, it had its moments and it made it to the end of its fourth year, all in this new millennium. That's still pretty respectable.

I'd say this argument that "you can't just throw a 1960's TV prop onto the Big Screen and expect the audience to buy it" is valid, but oversold. If you wanted to use the same basic design as TOS but make it "work" for the cinema screen, you would need to do more than Vektor or deg3D, but you don't have to seriously alter the design. I think you would have to do something a little different with the front-end nacelle caps. The whirring lights and the cap arrangement itself might need some work, but not a significantly different shape. Vektor had some good ideas with subtle changes to the nacelle lines, but I would try out some different FX for the lighting inside the cap. deg3D was really onto something with the aft nacelle cap. It makes the nacelles look hollow, almost like you can envision high-energy machinery inside with the light peeking out those openings in the rear cowl. Vektor did a great job updating the saucer; I'd say the lower vortex and the upper structures would need a little more detail and work. The rest looks fine. Maybe just a little more hull detail. So maybe if you took some of the things Vektor did and combined them with some of the things deg3d did, and developed it a little further, you'd be in the neighborhood. YMMV.

That's if the script were to call for essentially the same kind of ship seen in TOS.

The bridge in the 2009 movie, combined with other concerns about the ship's size and the nature of that movie, seemed to suggest something different would be in order. As I stated upthread, a distorted TMPprise concept would automatically be a target for derision, and for good reason. If you're going to reboot, then reboot. Show us something even more different from the TOSprise than the TNGprise was. Show us something new.

It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish with the immediate story and the creative direction of the franchise (assuming there is one).

Yep. Plus look at a Mirror Darkly, how many of us were wowed when we saw the Defiant in that one. I was impressed, and the bridge set was excellent, as was the other parts of it. And look at Doctor Who today, they are STILL using the police box design, despite there has been no police boxes commonly seen for like 30 years, yet it still works. Yet the 2005 Tardis interiors and the current ones look more plastic, more junky than the classic ones, yet people seem to be cool with that.

However, years after watching the movie and being "okay" with it as a film, but not as Star Trek, I've come to terms with my disappointment. I realize that the producers of 2009 Trek just did what anyone in their position would do: Make the movie they think others would want to watch by adding their own artistic flair. Did they succeed? Yes. Did they fail? Yes. It all depends on who's watching. The purists versus the masses. And from a financial standpoint, they definitely succeeded.

I don't like the new style and new look, but that's just me. The JJPrise did look impressive on the big screen, but it wasn't the ship that I wanted to see. So I revved up my TOS DVDs when I got home and was satisfied.

Do I think the TOS Connie would look great on the big screen? You bet. But I can understand why others may think differently.

Just my two cents.

To me, JJ Trek was Star Trek in name only, and it pretty much was made just to appeal to Joe Sixpack, which is pretty much "do anything that you'd see in a summer action flick". And I myself think the original Enterprise could and would look great on a theater screen.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

Yet the 2005 Tardis interiors and the current ones look more plastic, more junky than the classic ones, yet people seem to be cool with that.

Get a new optometrist. Rose-tinted eyewear doesn't do wonders for one's vision.

 

[Redfern]

For some reason I read that as "Rose Tyler eyewear"!

Sincerely,

Bill