The OFFICIAL new Enterprise - Let the critiques begin!

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Woulfe said:
Aren't Star Trek fans sick of the "Unwashed Masses" making fun of us after all these years ?

It doesn't really matter who they laugh at. It does matter whether they respond to a Trek movie as visually plausible and emotionally engaging. It matters whether they're intrigued enough to see it and pleased with the experience if they do.

This teaser certainly ought to accomplish the "visual plausibility" factor better than traditional Trek marketing has. Will it intrigue anyone other than the pre-sold? That remains to be seen.

According to the actor who played the welder seen in close-up, almost all of this is green screen (duh). How much of it is CG and how much is model work is undisclosed, but those welders look a lot more like they're walking around on a real big object than, say, Kirk and Decker and company did when they stepped onto the outer hull in ST:TMP - either original or "director's edition."

 

[Ptrope]

I guarantee that if this ship, shot properly, had been in the teaser, not one single chuckle would have been heard. In fact, I guarantee the theater would've been filled with the sound of startled wonder and not a few gasps of pleased astonishment. The "unwashed masses" wouldn't know the difference between Vektor's design and the teaser version, and the Trek fans would've shed a tear or two at how good she stands up on the grand scale with very little relative change.

 

[aridas sofia]

^ I absolutely agree. There is a visual "middle ground" that in capable hands can be struck and still achieve the ends both the studio and filmmakers apparently seek.

 

[Arlo]

Thirdinated.

 

[ancient]

Looks like this is more of a Batman-Begins style revision. They're keeping the core qualities but altering a lot of details.

Like making the ship twice as big. It might be just for the trailer, but if they wanted to do big interiors (like a hangar than fits in the hull without turning into a garage), it makes sense.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

ancient said:
Looks like this is more of a Batman-Begins style revision. They're keeping the core qualities but altering a lot of details.

Like making the ship twice as big. It might be just for the trailer, but if they wanted to do big interiors (like a hangar than fits in the hull without turning into a garage), it makes sense.

One of the set designers interviewed a few weeks ago remarked that the interiors would demonstrate that the Enterprise is a huge vessel in a way that they never did in the older versions - and also that "only the outside had to stay the same."

We're getting a clearer definition of "the same" now, and it may not include things like, oh, scale.

Not a window visible on the hull, of course. That would have helped with scale...which may be why there aren't any in the teaser.

 

[Captain Robert April]

There is one sliver of hope here.

Orci, over on trekmovie.com, let slip that there is a plot-related reason why we've had a bloated, misshapen characiture of the Enterprise foisted upon us and wouldn't discuss it at this time.

So, yeah, it's possible we might get the "real" Enterprise back by the end of the movie.

However, I want that tidbit confirmed before I plunk down any coin on this thing. Otherwise, they can kiss my canonista ass before I go see this thing.

 

[Wingsley]

Ptrope said:
I guarantee that if this ship, shot properly, had been in the teaser, not one single chuckle would have been heard. In fact, I guarantee the theater would've been filled with the sound of startled wonder and not a few gasps of pleased astonishment. The "unwashed masses" wouldn't know the difference between Vektor's design and the teaser version, and the Trek fans would've shed a tear or two at how good she stands up on the grand scale with very little relative change.

Oh, wow...

Someone want to start an online petition to tell Paramount we want to see this ship in the new movie?


:thumbsup:

 

[Data Holmes]

Captain Robert April said:
There is one sliver of hope here.

Orci, over on trekmovie.com, let slip that there is a plot-related reason why we've had a bloated, misshapen characiture of the Enterprise foisted upon us and wouldn't discuss it at this time.

So, yeah, it's possible we might get the "real" Enterprise back by the end of the movie.

However, I want that tidbit confirmed before I plunk down any coin on this thing. Otherwise, they can kiss my canonista ass before I go see this thing.

Please... you'll still go see it, you will just bolster about how you didn't and how it sucked.

 

[Vance]

You make too many assumptions, Hutt359. Quite a few Trek fans, such as myself, haven't bothered with a LOT of the most recent aspects of the Trek franchise (IE, not spent money on it).. and it's gotten a lot easier and easier to ignore and dismiss 'new' Trek material since it's been decidedly sub-par.

And, frankly, aping NuBSG to 'reboot Star Trek' seems to be an incredibly stupid thing to do.

 

[erifah]

Vance said:And, frankly, aping NuBSG to 'reboot Star Trek' seems to be an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Oh, I don't know about that. The old BSG was a really crappy show. The NEW BSG is the best thing on TV.

(And yes, more than once since BSG was relaunched, I've thought about how cool it would be to shoot the Enterprise spacecraft FX in the same 'handheld cameras' style .)

Star Trek will not be revitalized by simply upgrading the nose appliances & spot makup.

 

[Holytomato]

Will Spock be an emotionally red skinned martian, and Kirk have an R as his middle initial?

It's not a reboot.

The 1964 Cage pre production design was basically the TMP Refit with the TOS saucer thikness; and the nacelles, and pylons that were given to the Enterprise-E.

Star Trek XI: The way it was always meant to be.

The Five Stages of Grief:

1. Shock and denial
2. Volatile Reactions
3. Disorganization and despair
4. Reorganization

 

[Vance]

erifah said:

Oh, I don't know about that. The old BSG was a really crappy show. The NEW BSG is the best thing on TV.

So great it was canceled with even worse ratings at the end than "Enterprise" and largely became a self-parody and embarrassment to the entire sci-fi genre? You mean that NuBSG?

Oh, and there's something ELSE you may have noticed, "Star Trek" is not "Battlestar Galactica". They have completely different themes - for one, "Star Trek" was meant to be a forward and optimistic look at the future.

I know that's a concept lost on a 'generation' that define themselves wholly by angst, but, ya know, it's really the one thing that set "Star Trek" apart from most science-fiction.

 

[ChuckPR]

There are windows visible in the teardrop section on the primary hull. Since nothing scalable appears in the window, that really doesn't help. There is a welder on the primary hull topside that can be roughly outlined in photoshop if you do an HD trailer version screengrab, but his distance can't really be determined with any clarity.

It's clear that this ship is perhaps as much as twice as big as a 947 foot TOS E, at least a good 60% larger if the windows in question are no bigger then the "porthole" sized windows Kirk once opened in a TOS scene.

To me that's a fairly liberating thing.

As the scale of the Enterprise appeared nowhere but one momentarily glimpsed graphic on a display whose two different views even slightly disagreed with each other by a few feet as to the Enterprise's length,

I don't see the big deal in making her bigger.

Even in HD, with these intentionally darkened teasers we really have no way of saying that the ship is "bloated."

At least from the teaser video. Maybe others have inside info that they can confirm as accurate?

We really can't tell if all of the Primary hull's plating has been moved downward to a final position yet.

Until I see the final ship I'm willing to reserve judgement.

If they leave her major lines alone and do little more then giving her a more "Cage" like look I don't see any harm done.

Making her bigger would be a plus in my opinion, as long as they don't screw with her major contours, I'll be happy.

Your mileage may vary, however...

 

[ChuckPR]

Vance said:
You make too many assumptions, Hutt359. Quite a few Trek fans, such as myself, haven't bothered with a LOT of the most recent aspects of the Trek franchise (IE, not spent money on it).. and it's gotten a lot easier and easier to ignore and dismiss 'new' Trek material since it's been decidedly sub-par.

And, frankly, aping NuBSG to 'reboot Star Trek' seems to be an incredibly stupid thing to do.

That's a really hip and pithy thing to say, but any evidence that anything like that is being done?

Or could be done for that matter?

Star Trek is a fairly established universe.

It looks like Abrams is definitely creating a new feel here.


But how is that "aping" the NuBSG?

I see no evidence that JJ Abrams is going to start adding Battlestars and Moppetts to Starfleet.


The makers of the new BSGalactica have taken a basic storyline and turned it into an exciting series with exciting characters that act in realistic ways and that the fans care about.


They should hide their heads in shame!!!!


If Star Trek XI becomes as big a success and reset for the Trek franchise...

as the new BSG has been for Battlestar Galactica in particular and all SciFi in general...

that would be a failure ... how?



We Trek fans probably won't be so lucky, I'll admit.

But I refuse to pronounce her dead ahead of time.



Is J.J. Abrams going to approach the new movie differently then all the newer series and movies have approached doing Trek?

I sure as hell hope so, unless you are looking forward to seeing the equivalent of another two-hour episode of Enterprise or TNG just retouched for the big screen.

Any one of us who would like to see trek succeed should by hoping he's going in a new direction.

And it makes us look kind of silly to diss a great series like the new BSGalactica.

It was/is a brilliant revision, giving us real characters acting like real people under stressfull emotional, dire circumstances.

Star Trek could use a return to it's own grittier roots.

For once I'd like to see a return to Captains who were more like Kirk, the Jim Rockford of Starfleet Captains...

... and less like the boring, unbelievably detached, unrealistically plastic lead characters Trek has been dishing out for most everything after TOS and the first couple of seasons of TNG.

Certainly since the fourth season of Voyager,

with the exception of the too little, too late last season of Enterprise, most of the time since that fourth Voyager season the Trek universe has been painted by a couple of monkees with brushes...

The few shining moments have been few and far between for years.

So how about we give these guys a chance to try something a LITTLE new before shooting them down?



How about we see the movie before hating it?



I think it's a nice touch that they've gone along with the Trek purists to the point of having the Enterprise built in San Francisco.

No need to have parts "rocketed" into space if "The Voyage Home" had any validity.

Just start up the impulse engines and takeoff, impulse was the way they did all the in-atmosphere manuevering in TVHome, impulse power certainly didn't seem dependent on airodynamic flight considerations.

 

[Sean_McCormick]

Vance said:

erifah said:
Oh, I don't know about that. The old BSG was a really crappy show. The NEW BSG is the best thing on TV.

So great it was canceled with even worse ratings at the end than "Enterprise" and largely became a self-parody and embarrassment to the entire sci-fi genre? You mean that NuBSG?

Oh, and there's something ELSE you may have noticed, "Star Trek" is not "Battlestar Galactica". They have completely different themes - for one, "Star Trek" was meant to be a forward and optimistic look at the future.

I know that's a concept lost on a 'generation' that define themselves wholly by angst, but, ya know, it's really the one thing that set "Star Trek" apart from most science-fiction.

[ot]
AFAIK New BSG got renewed for a full 4th season, so it is not cancelled. It will tell it's story to an end, and that feels right with the flow of the first three seasons.
And i don't really see the show becoming a "self-parody" at all.

As far as the theme of the show goes, yep, it it dark, twisted and gritty - it is a brainchild of the post-911 era after all; but i see some themes similar to Trek in there - that hope for humanity lies in the overcoming of their flaws for example.

[/ot]

But just because om me not seeing New BSG as a bad show and a failure does not mean, that i don't agree with you that "rebooting" Trek IS a bad idea.

 

[ChuckPR]

Woulfe said:
My take on all this stuff....

Had a 100% copy of the TOS ship been in the Teaser....
The "Unwashed Masses" would of LAUGHED at the Teaser....
Aren't Star Trek fans sick of the "Unwashed Masses" makeing fun of us after all these years ?
Why give them even more fuel to fire at us ?
I love the old ship as much as the next person, but lets face it, the "Unwashed Masses" see it as a joke still.
You know it's true, don't fool yourself.
When I saw this teaser at the local theater, not one person laughed, zero, nada, in fact I hear whispers that seem to indicate that these people were curious as to what they just saw, so the teaser did do it's job, yes ?
We need to relize this film isn't being made for us, it's being made for the "Unwashed Masses" so everything isn't going to look like 1966 no matter what.
We can't go home again, ever, for better or worse.
The "Star Wars Fans" would so egg on us if the 1966 version showed up on the big screen in a Star Trek movie made for 2008 and you know they wouldn't let up, ever.
So we're stuck with this from this point forward.
Part of this is Star Trek's fault, had "Enterprise" not looked MORE advanced then the old ship we wouldn't even BE in this situation in the first place, and try as we might we can't decanonize that show, well, except maybe TATV

- W -
* Sorry, someone had to say it, folks *

For me the Trailer emphasized the reason that TOSeries meant so much more to those of us who grew up during the cold war.

Especially the "Space Race" voice overs.

The hidden subtext for me was that the space race came at a time when it was really a foil for beating the Russians in a bid for superiority in Nuclear missile technology.

Space, the final frontier, was the tag line...

It was the selling point...

But it was really a front for making better weapons of annihilation.

Fans who grew up after the Cold War will never know the pleasure of school house drills where you ducked under your desk in a pretend nuclear attack drill.

We all knew that if the real thing ever came we might as well kiss our asses goodbye while we were ducking and putting our heads between our legs.

Well into the late '70's early '80's there was always that chance that someone would screw up and a small confrontation or accident lead to nuclear war.

Before Trek even began we came damn close to it during the Cuban missile crisis.

Why did Star Trek mean so much to a lot of smart, caring snot nosed kids like me while we were growing up?

It meant a lot because in an atmoshphere where the nuclear sword hung over our heads every day

here instead was someone giving us a vision of the future in which we HADN'T blown ourselves to hell.

a future where we used technology to solve more problems then it created.

a future in which mankind evolved into something worthy of surviving.

a future in which we didn't destroy the planet because we were too stupid to stop ourselves.

Star Trek gave a couple of decades worth of cold war kids that happened to be smart enough to see further then the end of their noses... hope for the future.

We're we made fun of? Yep. But for the most part only by those too stupid to understand, or care about, what was going on around them.

The Unwashed Masses.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Captain Robert April said:
Orci, over on trekmovie.com, let slip that there is a plot-related reason why we've had a bloated, misshapen characiture [sic] of the Enterprise foisted upon us and wouldn't discuss it at this time.

So, yeah, it's possible we might get the "real" Enterprise back by the end of the movie.

No, it's not.

This is it.

 

[Data Holmes]

Vance said:
You make too many assumptions, Hutt359. Quite a few Trek fans, such as myself, haven't bothered with a LOT of the most recent aspects of the Trek franchise (IE, not spent money on it).. and it's gotten a lot easier and easier to ignore and dismiss 'new' Trek material since it's been decidedly sub-par.

And, frankly, aping NuBSG to 'reboot Star Trek' seems to be an incredibly stupid thing to do.

Vance said: "Star Trek" was meant to be a forward and optimistic look at the future.

I know that's a concept lost on a 'generation' that define themselves wholly by angst, but, ya know, it's really the one thing that set "Star Trek" apart from most science-fiction.

Funny, because you and the rest of the complainers, seem to be looking backward with a pessimistic view. You are living in the past, and you are attacking Forward looking optimistic viewpoints.

You attack a film you know nothing about. You are angry and spiteful for no reason, other than it's what seems to be fashionable for trek fans to hate anything which wasn't done in the first three seasons.

Tell me, should the uniforms be valor pullovers? Should the women be in one piece micro minis? Should the sets still be made of cardboard? Should all the planet shots be done on a sound stage with paper mashay rocks and rubber vomit bat creatures???

Look to the future, stop living in the past.

 

[erifah]

Vance said:

erifah said:

Oh, I don't know about that. The old BSG was a really crappy show. The NEW BSG is the best thing on TV.

So great it was canceled with even worse ratings at the end than "Enterprise" and largely became a self-parody and embarrassment to the entire sci-fi genre? You mean that NuBSG?

Oh, and there's something ELSE you may have noticed, "Star Trek" is not "Battlestar Galactica". They have completely different themes - for one, "Star Trek" was meant to be a forward and optimistic look at the future.

I know that's a concept lost on a 'generation' that define themselves wholly by angst, but, ya know, it's really the one thing that set "Star Trek" apart from most science-fiction.

Canceled? I don't think so. It's still in production, with the entire 4th season yet to air.

So, YOU must be talking about a different BSG.

The one I'm talking about is also the one that recently bagged 4 Emmy nominations: for Outstanding Directing For A Drama Series; Outstanding Sound Editing For A Series; Outstanding Special Visual Effects For A Series; and Outstanding Writing For A Drama Series.